Shia Islam

Ainsarii 
The Ainsarii were a sect of the Ismaili Assassins who survived the destruction of the stronghold of Alamut.

Akhbari

The Akhbārīs (Arabic: اخباري) "Traditionalists" are Twelver Shī‘a Muslims who reject the use of ijtihad or reasoning in the creation of new laws, and believe only the Qur'an and aḥadīth (prophetic sayings and recorded opinions of the Imāms) should be used as sources of law. They form a minority within Shī‘a Islam, with Usūlīs making up the majority. Unlike Usūlīs, Akhbārīs do not follow marja‘s who practice ijtihad.
The Akhbārī movement was dominant in Twelver Shi'i Islam from the middle of the Safavid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Baqir Behbahani (d.1792) who along with other Usuli mujtahids crushed the Akhbari movement. Today it is found primarily in the island nation of Bahrain, with reportedly "only a handful of Shi'i ulema" remaining Akhbari "to the present day.

Background

In addition to fatāwa based on ijtihad, Akhbārīs also reject the permissibility of writing exegesis of the holy Qur'an without quoting the narrations of the infallible Ahlu l-Bayt. They quote the Hadith ath-Thaqalayn and several authentic traditions of the Twelve Imāms to prohibit the practice of exegesis. In short, the gist of Akhbārī ideology is that nothing but the aḥadīth of the Infallibles can serve as authoritative evidence in Islam. Akhbārīs also differ from Usūlīs in their rejection of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists, arguing that preachers of religion have no role in politics, as is evidenced by the lives of the Imāms and their followers.
Usūlism evolved on the basis of hypothetical concepts and perceptions of some scholars, centuries after the major occultation. Among the earliest Shī‘a ulamā' such as Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni and Ibn Babawaiyya, the most important activity was transmission of aḥadīth.^[4]
At this time, the Shī‘a distinguished themselves from the Sunni in the category of law, which employed such methods as qiyas "analogical reasoning" and exegesis". However, the Shī‘a developed law directly from the traditions of the Imāms.^[4]
Initially during the Buyid period, the Twelver ulamā' considered that since the Imām had gone into Occultation and his Nā'ib al-Khass was no longer present, all the functions invested in the Imām had lapsed. The principal functions of the Imām had been:

1. Leading the Holy War (jihad)
2. Division of the booty (qismat al-fay)
3. Leading the Friday Prayer (salat al-juma)
4. Putting judicial decisions into effect (tanfidh al-ahkam)
5. Imposing legal penalties (iqamat al-hudud)
6. Receiving the religious taxes of zakāt and khums.^[5]

However, it soon became apparent that the situation caused by lapse of functions of the Hidden Imām was extremely impractical and left the Twelver Shī‘a community at a great disadvantage, with no leadership, no organization and no financial structure.^[5]

 History

 The first transgression

As early as the 5th century A.H. / 11th century CE, more than 150 years after the Occultation of the 12th Imām, Shaykhu t-Ta'ifa reinterpreted the doctrine to allow delegation of the Imām's judicial authority to those who had studied fiqh. Although he implies in his writings that this function should only be undertaken by the ulama if there is no one else to do it.
Shaykhu t-Taifa considered the ulamā' the best agents of the donor to distribute religious taxes since they knew to whom it should be distributed. Nevertheless, individuals were free to do this themselves if they wished. He allowed fuqahā' to organize Friday prayers in absence of the Imām or his special representative.
The prominent Shī‘a scholars who rejected this thesis were:

1. `Alam al-Huda
2. Ibn Idris
3. Allamah al-Hilli^[5]

It is to be noted that `Alam al-Huda was from among the Shaykhu t-Taifa's group.

The second transgression

By the 13th century, Muhaqqiq al-Hilli was able to advance these concepts very considerably. He extended the judicial role of the ulama to iqamat al-hudud the imposition of penalties by ulama themselves. In his writings it is possible to see the evolution in his thinking whereby the fuqahā' develop from the deputies of the donor for the distribution of religious taxes in his early writings to being the deputies of the Hidden Imām for collection and distribution of the taxes in his later works.^[6] In effect, transgressing the limits set by Shaykhu t-Taifa (two centuries earlier) in his first transgression.

The third transgression

Muhaqqiq al-Karkhi (About 300 years after the second transgression) was the first to suggest, arguing from the hadith of ‘Umar ibn Hanzala, that the ulama were the Nā'ib al-'Amm (general representative) of the Hidden Imām. But he restricted his application of this argument to the assumption of the duty of leading Friday prayers.^[6]

The fourth transgression

It was Shahīd ath-Thānī who took the concept of Nā'ib al-'Amm to its logical conclusion in the religious sphere and applied it to all of the religious functions and prerogatives of the Hidden Imām. Thus the judicial authority of the ulamā' now became a direct reflection of the authority of the Imām himself. It was now obligatory to pay the religious taxes directly to the ulamā' as the trustees of the Imām for distribution and the donor who distributed these himself was considered to obtain no reward. This is in direct contradiction to limits set by prior transgressions.
Furthermore, Shahīd ath-Thānī extended the range of those eligible to receive money from zakāt to include religious students and the ulamā' themselves, who thus became the recipients of the money as trustees of students. Even in the field of defensive jihād, Shahīd ath-Thānī identified a role for the ulamā'. Only in the field of offensive jihād did he allow that the role of Hidden Imām had lapsed pending his return.^[6]
Although the aforementioned scholars were not mujtahids in their full capacity, they introduced innovative concepts into Shī‘a theology which later formed the basis of the exegetical school. Their innovations were sharply criticized by prominent Shī‘a scholars of their time and thus, remained mostly theoretical.
The ulama of this period were overshadowed by the towering figure of Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1616-1698),^[3] whose rejection of the emerging doctrine of exegesis overwhelmed the attempts of the group of ulamā' with Usuli tendencies (who were then in minority). However, after the death of Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, the influence of Usuli way of thinking was increasing due to its promising nature towards the unconditional supremacy of ulamā' and the deal of freedom of practice it had to offer.
The traditional Shī‘a doctrine was, by its nature, fatal to leadership of any regime except that of Imām al-Mahdi since they believed that an Islamic state can be established only under the leadership of an infallible Imām. Thus, the Shī‘a had little role to play in supporting the decisions of the state, in contrast with the Sunni tendency of offering their full support to the Ottoman Empire.
This caused a great deal of paranoia to the states where the Shī‘a were in majority. By the end of Safavid era the situation had become intense due to the rise of imperialism on a global scale. It was necessary to develop an alternate ideology for the survival of Iranian state. This is when a group of ulamā' were encouraged to squeeze out the possibility of extending the state's control over the shia majority; by whatever means necessary.
The revival of Akhbārism, or "neo-Akhbārism" as it became known, was under the dean of Karbala scholarship, Yusuf Al Bahrani (1695-1772), who led an intellectual assault on Usuli thought in the mid-eighteenth century. An Akhbārī critique of Usulism had emerged in Bahrain at the beginning of the eighteenth century, partly spurred by the weaknesses of the Usuli sponsoring Safavid empire^[7]. By succeeding to the role of dean of Karbala as one of the pre-eminent scholars of the age, al-Bahrani's extended this Bahrain-based debate to the rest of the Shī‘a world.

Al-Bahrani's neo-Akhbarism accepted only two sources for Imami jurisprudence, the Qur'an and the oral reports from the Imams. He did not, however, go so far as to say that no verse in the Qur'an could be understood without the interpretation of the Imams, a position held by the Safavid-era Akhbari revivalist Astarabadi which Shaykh Yusuf denounced as extremist. He rejected the Usuli principles of consensus (ijma`) and independent reasoning (`aql, ijtihad). Indeed, he questioned rationalist approaches to religion in general, quoting with approval a condemnation of reading philosophy and theosophy. But Shaykh Yusuf accepted the validity of Friday prayers in the Occultation and did not completely reject Usuli positions on other issues. His Bahrani neo-Akhbarism sought to be an intermediate path between extremist Usulism and extremist Akhbarism.[8].

Bihbahani

Under al-Bahrani, Usuli scholarship was considered impure and it was not until the 1760s that an Usuli cell was founded in Karbala. It was founded by Muhammad Baqir ibn Muhammad Akmal al-Wahid Bihbahani who challenged and eventually succeeded al-Bahraini as the most influential cleric in Karbala in 1772^[9]. He led a campaign for propagation of Usuli tendencies and worked extensively to crystallize Usulism into a full fledged school to offer an alternative state-friendly version of Shī‘a fiqh and earned the titles Mu'assis "founder of the Usuli school", Murawwij "propagator" and Mujaddid.
The Qajar rulers perceived this innovation as the only hope for gaining full control over the Shī‘a majority in the country and offered their full support to al-Wahid Bihbahani's group.^{[citation needed]}
Bihbahani surrounded himself with a corps of mirghadabs, servants who would carry out either corporal or capital punishment, and had his judgments carried out immediately and usually in his presence, in effect gathering for his school a paramilitary force.^[10]
However, Bihbahani's theology was not welcomed by the ulamā' who stood fast with older Shī‘a doctrines; this group came to be known as the Akhbārī. Although this controversy had begun as a minor disagreement on a few points, it eventually grew into a bitter, vituperative dispute culminating in Bihbahani's declaration that the Akhbārīs were infidels(Kuffar).^[3] Subsequently, ulamā' who did not accept Bihbahani's authority were executed for their infidelity.
At first the Akhbārī predominated at the shrine cities of Iraq but it was Bihbahani who, at the end of 18th century, reversed this and completely routed the Akhbārīs at Karbala and Najaf. South Iraq, Bahrain and a few cities in Iran such as Kirman remained Akhbārī strongholds for a few more decades but eventually the Usuli triumph was complete and only a handful of Shī‘a ulamā' remained Akhbārī to the present day.^[3]
After the theological coup brought about by al-Wahid Bihbahani by military methods, the Usuli school became instrumental to the Iranian regime.

The fifth transgression

During the first Russo-Persian War (1804-1813), Fath Ali Shah's son and heir, Abbas Mirza, who was conducting the campaign, turned to the new ulama and obtained from Shaykh Ja'far Kashiful Ghita and other eminent clerics in Najaf and Isfahan a declaration of jihad against the Russians, thus implicitly recognizing their authority to issue such a declaration – one of the functions of the Hidden Imām. Kashifu l-Ghita used the opportunity to extract from the state acknowledgment of the ulama's right to collect the religious taxes of Khums. ."^[11]
This followed the pattern of other transgressions by overthrowing the limits of its prior (fourth) transgression.

Iranian Revolution

Following the Iranian Revolution, the Usūlī school has gained popularity among previously Akhbārī communities.^[1]

Rejection of the Mujtahids

Akhbārīs reject and even curse mujtahids. They practice this based on the last letter Imām Mahdi wrote to ‘Alī ibn Muhammad, fourth deputy of the Lesser Occultation. In the letter, Imām Zaman said:

If someone claims himself as deputy of Imam during occultation is a liar, ousted from Allah’s religion, calumniating Allah, he himself has gone astray and is leading others into error too. He will always be in loss. Be Curse unto him of mine, of Allah, of Allah’s Rasool (SW) and of his Progeny (AS) for every moment, and in all circumstances.^[12]

Akhbārīs claim that the Imāms are the āyatu l-Lāhs based on the Hadith-e Tariq. They say that no one else can ascribe themselves to this divine title. When you look at history, it wasn't until the early 1800s that the mujtahids started to call themselves āyatu l-Lāhs. The Hadith-e Tariq says,

O Tariq, Imam (as) is the Kalamatu l-Lāh [Word of God], Wahju l-Lah [Face of God], Hijabu l-Lah [Veil of God], Nūru l-Lah [Light of God], Āyatu l-Lah [Sign of God]

 The arguments

 Pro-Akhbārī arguments

1. It can be noticed that the Usuli ulama have usurped one by one all the functions of the Hidden Imām, virtually ascribing themselves with his Imāmate.
2. Since Bahbahani's coup, the Usuli ulama have made countless transgressions from Wilayat al-Faqih to Ittihad Bayn al-Muslimeen (at the cost of Shia beliefs). The convergence of these trends can be seen heading towards the caliphate of mujahideen, although with a different naming scheme.
3. The Usuli allegation that Akhbārism is a movement that started four centuries ago and was intellectually defeated is false.
4. It is established that generalization that causes a fallible man's decision to gain the status of divine law is against the gist of Shia Islam. The Usuli appeal to "reason" ('Aql) is similar to the Sunni qiyas, though all early Shī‘a authorities are unanimous in rejecting qiyas.

 Anti-Akhbārī arguments

Akhbārīs claim to follow Hadith directly, without the need for generalisation, or of finding the reason for the decision. This, according to Usulis, is a logical impossibility. Hadith takes the form of case law, that is to say the narration of decisions taken in a concrete situation. To "follow" such a decision one must know which features of the situation are or are not relevant to the decision, as the exact same set of facts will never occur twice. Therefore some degree of generalisation is unavoidable, even on the most literal view: the choice is simply between mechanical generalisation and intelligent generalisation.
An example often cited in argument by Usulis concerns the practice of Ja'far al-Sadiq, who buried his son Isma'il ibn Jafar in a winding-sheet containing the inscription "Ismail testifies that there is no God but God". Ever since, Akhbārīs have traditionally buried their dead with that inscription with the name "Ismail" regardless of the name of the deceased. Usulis point out that Ismail was actually the name of the son who was buried: their winding sheets therefore substitute the proper name of the deceased.^[13]
Regarding Islamic laws, there are various issues faced by Muslims in their daily lives. e.g. doubts in namāz and their corrections, conditions which invalidate a fast and the relevant compensations, rulings vis à vis correctness or incorrectness of various social and business practices e.g. Investing in Mutual Funds, Use of alcohol based perfumes and medicines, etc.
Akhbārīs have no basis on which to interpret hadith on these issues since a lot of them would not have been mentioned in any hadith. And secondly, it would require deep knowledge of the life histories of narrators of these hadith to separate strong hadiths from weak hadiths.