Pizhuhish nāmah-i intiqādī-i mutūn va barnāmah hā-yi ̒ulūm-i insāni (Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences)

Sociological Methodology, Historical Research, and Challenges Thereof: A Critical Review on the Book “The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia” (History of Religious Changes in Iran during 10th-12th AH)

Document Type : Research

Author

Koosha Vatankhah

PhD in Social Knowledge of Muslim Thinkers, University of Tehran, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30465/crtls.2026.52091.2936
Abstract
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.

Keywords

Akhbārī
Astarabadi
ijtihad
Shia Jurisprudence
Sociology of Shiism
Usūlī
Subjects
 
-           Abdi, Z. (2017), Shia Ulama and the Political Thought in the late 12th AH: Yousif Bahrānī and Vahīd Bīhbīhānī, A Quarterly for Shi’a Studies, No. 59, Autumn, pp. 3-78 (in Persian)
-               Abisa’ab, R. J (2015), ‘’Shi’i Jurisprudence, Sunnism and the Traditionist Thought (akhbari) of Muhammad Amin Astarabadi’’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 5–23
-               Abisa’ab, R. J. (2022), Prologue to Dāneshnāmeyi Shāhī, Tehran: Institute of Islamic Studies McGill University (in Persian)
-               Abisaab, R. J. (2017), Converting Persian: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire. Translated by M. Sifatgol. 2ed Edition. Tehran: Publications of Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought (in Persian)
-               Al-e-Ghafour, S. M. (2005), Ulama and their Political Positions in Akhbari/Usuli Schools, Qom: Bustan Ketab Publications (in Persian)
-               Astarabādī, M. A. (2005). al-Fawā’id al-Madaniyya. with Nūr al-Dīn al-Mūsawī al-‘Āmilī’s al-Shawāhid al-Makkiyya in the footnotes, Qom: Nashr-e- Islāmī Institution (in Arabic) 
-               Eslami, Rouhollah (2010), Rise and Decline of Akhbari School in the 18th/12th Century: A Sociological Study, MA Thesis, Allameh Tabataba'i University (in Persian)
-               Ezadi, K. & Gerami, S.M.H (2010), Conceptual History of ‘Akhbārī’, Hadith Studies, No. 3, pp. 147-166 (in Persian) 
-               Fayez, Q. & Sharifi, M. (2014), ‘’Rise, Evolution, and Continuity of Akhbārīsm’’, Journal of Ketab-e-Qayyem, No. 11, pp. 213-250 (in Persian)
-               Gleave, R (2007), Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbari Shi’i School, Leiden
-               Gleave, R. (1996), Akhbari Shi’i Jurisprudence in the Writings of Yusuf b. Ahmad al-Bahrani (d. 1186/1772), PhD Dissertation, University of Manchester
-               Hasanpoor, M.H. & Zolfaghari, M. (2022), The Position of Shiite Jurisprudents in the Religious and Social Relations of Iran in Safavid Era, History of Islam, Vol. 22, Issue 87, No. 87, pp. 219-248 (in Persian)
-               Hoseinzadeh Yazdi, M. & Vatankhah K. (2022), Sociological Insights into Secularist Reading of Akhbarism: A Critical Consideration. Quarterly of Social Studies Research in Iran, Vol. 10, No. 4: 1237-1260 (in Persian)
-               Hoseinzadeh Yazdi, M. & Vatankhah K. (2022), Akhbārīsm and Anti-rational Theme: Re-Considering a Misconception, Quarterly Journal of History of Islam and Iran, Vol.32, No.53, pp. 79-100 (in Persian)
-               Keyvani, M. (2003), ‘’The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia’’, Jahan-e-ketab, No. 179-180, pp. 38-39 (in Persian)
-               Mobin, A. (20023), An Introduction to ‘The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia’, Ketab-e-Mah, No. 68-69 (in Persian)
-               Modarresi, H. (1989), An Introduction to Shi'i Law, Translated by M.A. Fikrat, 1st Edition, Mashhad: Astān-e- Quds Radavi Publications (in Persian)
-               Newman, A. (1992), The Nature of the Akhbārī/Uṣūlī Dispute in Late Ṣafawid Iran, Part 1: Abdallāh al-Samāhiji’s Munyat al-Mumārisīn, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 22-51
-               Newman, A. (1992), The Nature of the Akhbāī/Uṣūlī Dispute in Late Ṣafawid Iran, Part 2: The Conflict Reassessed, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 250-261
-               Qayemi Nik, M.R.(2016), Social Thought of Imami Jurisprudents: Shaykh Mufid and Sayyid Murtada, PhD Dissertation, University of Tehran (in Persian)
-               Rajabi M. H. (2005): Akhbari Uprising under Safavids: Causes and Background, PhD Dissertation in History and Civilisation of Islamic Nations, University of Tehran
-               Saboorian, M. (2019), Shia Emulation Administration, Tehran: Research Centre for Culture, Art, and Communication, Second Edition (in Persian)
-               Sifatgol, M. (2003): Safavid Administration of Avqaf: Structure, Changes, and Functions (1077-1135/ 1666-1722) in: A. J. Newman (ed.): Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, Leiden: Brill
-               Sifatgol, M. (2002), The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia: A History of Religious Changes in Iran (10th -12th AH Centuries), Tehran: Rasā Institute of Cultural Services (in Persian)
-               Tāremī, H., ‘’Mīrzā Mahdī Gharavī Isfahānī and Akhbārīsm: A Comparative Study of Approach and Agenda’’-Part I, Safineh Journal, No. 34, pp. 145-169, 2012 (in Persian)
-               Vatankhah, K. (2021), Muslim Scholars and the Problematic of Reason: Al-Astarabadi, al-Allama al-Hilli, and al-Shaykh al-Ansārī; Reconstructing a Trialogue, PhD Dissertation, University of Tehran (in Persian)
-               Weber, Max (1949): The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Translated & Edited by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch 
-               Yahyayi, A. (2016), ‘’The Structure of Religious Thought and Institution in Safavid Persia’’: A Critical Study, Journal of Historical Research, No. 52, pp. 179-195 (in Persian)
-               Yousefi, S.M. (2010), Foucauldian Theory of History: Necessary Adjustments to be Applied in Iran, MA Thesis, Allammeh Tabatabayi University (in Persian)
-               Zarghi, M. et al. (2016), Who is Akhbārī?, Journal of Islamic Studies: Fiqh & Usul, No. 104, pp. 25-63 (in Persian)
 
 
 

  • Receive Date 14 October 2025
  • Revise Date 26 November 2025
  • Accept Date 12 February 2026

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us