Rise of Akhbārī school of jurisprudence in Eleventh/Seventeenth century under Safavids led Imami religious establishment into a determining process. Akhbārī invitation caused dramatic changes to the extent that contemporary Safavid Scholars were made to pay special attention to this case. Taking a sociological approach, Mansur Sifatgol is a prominent historiographer who has made a significant effort to study Imami religious establishment under Safavids. In his book “The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia”, he has put a special stress on religious institutional changes during Eleventh/Seventeenth century and in doing so, he makes a comparison between political and religious structural changes which is a considerable achievement in historical studies. However, his analysis has been established based on a particular notion of Akhbārī theory which is to a great extent influenced by anti-rational reading of Akhbārīsm. Confessing to the importance and significance of the accomplishments of the book, this paper, from a critical perspective, concentrates on how Sifatgol perceives Akhbārī jurisprudential approach.
Introduction
This study presents a critical evaluation of Mansur Sifatgol’s “The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia”, a seminal work distinguished by its application of a Weberian sociological framework to the religious transformations of Safavid Iran. While acknowledging the book’s methodological significance and its focused attention on religious relations as drivers of historical change, this paper identifies a fundamental flaw in its foundational premise. The central argument posits that Sifatgol’s entire analysis of the Akhbārī-Uṣūlī dispute is heavily influenced by an “anti-rational reading” of the Akhbārī school. Consequently, his characterisation of Akhbārīsm through concepts like “intellectual stagnation,” a “return to Salafi thought,” and “traditionism” is a distortion. This paper seeks to challenge this narrative by proposing an alternative, “immanent” understanding of the Akhbārī movement, not as intellectual rigidity, but as a profound methodological transformation aimed at restoring certainty in legal derivation.

Materials & Methods
The research employs a critical-comparative methodology to analyse the work of Mansur Sifatgol. The primary material is Sifatgol’s book itself, with its key arguments and analytical frameworks being systematically deconstructed. The critique is structured around five central axes of Sifatgol’s project: (1) the correspondence between political decline and Akhbārī intellectual stagnation, (2) the equation of Akhbārīsm with a Salafi return to traditionism, (3) the portrayal of Akhbārīsm as a socio-political reaction against the state, and (4) its presumed inherent conflict with philosophy and mysticism. The method involves contrasting Sifatgol’s interpretations with a direct re-reading of primary Akhbārī texts, such as those by Muḥammad Amīn Astarābādī, and the conceptual framework provided by contemporary scholars like al-Samāhījī’s category of the “mujtahid-muḥaddith.” This internal textual evidence is used to test the validity of Sifatgol’s external sociological attributions against the school’s own epistemological logic.

Discussion & Results
The analysis reveals significant discrepancies between Sifatgol’s narrative and the internal dynamics of the Akhbārī school. The discussion of results is organised into four key findings:
1. On Intellectual Stagnation:
Sifatgol’s correlation of Akhbārī dominance with the Safavid state’s “period of consolidation and decline” is identified as an ex post facto explanation. The study finds that Akhbārīs, characterized as “mujtahid-muḥaddiths,” were products of rational education who critically attacked the principle of “consensus” (ijmāʿ) precisely to create more freedom in jurisprudence, thus displaying the very “ijtihādī dynamism” Sifatgol denies them.
2. On Salafism and Traditionism:
The finding challenges the notion of a “return.” Astarābādī’s call for scriptural primacy is reinterpreted not as a regressive imitation of early scholars but as a new methodological demand for a certainty-oriented approach against the conjecture-based ijtihād of the Ḥilla school.
3. On Political Reaction:
The analysis finds that Sifatgol’s model overlooks the diversity amongst jurists. Astarābādī’s critique was directed at a specific theory of ijtihād, not the institution of ijtihād or clerical authority itself, negating the idea of a fundamental political revolt.
4. On Conflict with Philosophy:
Sifatgol’s claim of Astarābādī’s anti-philosophical stance is refuted through textual evidence. It is shown that Sifatgol misidentifies the targets of Astarābādī’s critiques and overlooks Astarābādī’s own deep concern for a rigorous education in the rational sciences, thus invalidating the myth of Akhbārī irrationalism.

Conclusion
The paper concludes that the failure of Sifatgol’s influential project lies not in its attempt to link jurisprudential theories with social conditions, but in its uncritical adoption of a late, stereotypical, and anti-rationalist reading of Akhbārīsm. By imposing a political model of “decline” onto a complex theological movement, Sifatgol’s analysis fundamentally misrepresents the internal epistemological vitality of the Akhbārī school. This case study demonstrates a critical pitfall in historical sociology: the imposition of external social categories can distort the object of study if its immanent intellectual logic is not first thoroughly understood. The study underscores the necessity for a fundamental revision in the historiography of the Akhbārī-Uṣūlī dispute.