The 'Misguided' Sheikhs: From Denunciation to Excommunication

They made a legend of us for our roguery / The ignorant elders, the misguided sheikhs

Hafez

1. Modes of Jurisprudential Exclusion

Historically, two mechanisms for excluding dissidents have taken shape in the history of Shi‘i jurisprudence. One of these two mechanisms, however, is better known than the other. “Takfir” (declaring someone an unbeliever) has been the most famous mechanism employed by exclusionary jurists to sideline dissidents, primarily those outside the seminary. Yet exclusionary jurists—who, historically, do not encompass all jurists—have, alongside takfir and in some cases in its stead, also used “taḍlīl” (declaring someone misguided) to exclude dissidents. Declaring someone misguided, however, has been used more for the exclusion of dissidents primarily within the seminary.

This piece is an invitation to research into an important but less-studied corner of the history of Shi‘i jurisprudence. One of the findings derived from this piece is this: a comprehensive history of the takfirs (carried out by Shi‘i jurists) has yet to be written. But even if such a comprehensive history were written, the history of taḍlīl would still remain to be written—a phenomenon similar to takfir but somewhat distinct and perhaps far more frequently employed.

This piece is an invitation to the historiography of taḍlīl alongside the historiography of takfir, on the occasion of one of the most recent instances of declaring someone misguided.

2. A Glimpse into the History of Declaring Someone Misguided

In the mechanism of jurisprudential exclusion, the “innovator” (that is, someone who has added something to the religion that is not in it) or the “deviant” individual is someone whose “misguidance” has not reached the threshold of “exiting” Islam. But the “apostate unbeliever” is someone who was previously a Muslim but whose “misguidance” has reached the point of “exiting” Islam. This, however, is an abstract definition, and in reality, the distinction between declaring someone misguided and declaring someone an unbeliever sometimes appears difficult.

As I mentioned, the history of intra-seminary declarations of misguidance has yet to be written. In what follows, by way of opening the discussion, I will briefly refer to four examples from the history of this phenomenon.

2.1. Declaring Misguided: The Case of Mirza Mohammad Akhbari

Although Shi‘i Usuli jurists generally wish to trace the lineage of their jurisprudence back to the era of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq, historically, the institution of Usuli jurisprudence in Shi‘ism is not very old (I will explain the meaning of “Usuli” a little further below). The first buds of the institution of Usuli jurisprudence bore fruit in the Qajar era, although its seeds had been sown in the Safavid era and even before. In early Shi‘ism (that is, the early centuries after the Major Occultation), the traditionists (collectors and specialists of hadith) were the representatives of Shi‘ism, not the jurists in the technical sense of the word.

The first major campaign of declaring someone misguided among Shi‘i clerics took shape in the Qajar era, in the conflict between the two groups known as the “Akhbaris” and the “Usulis.” The Akhbaris were a group of Shi‘i clerics who harbored an impossible ambition. In opposition to the later ascendancy of jurists to authority in the course of Shi‘ism’s development, they sought to revive the authority of the early Shi‘i traditionists. The Akhbaris opposed the prerogatives that Usuli jurists claimed for themselves during the Occultation of the Imam of the Age. Perhaps most importantly, the Akhbaris opposed the Usuli jurists’ claim that a non-jurist must emulate a jurist in religious rulings.

From the Akhbari perspective, emulating a jurist was forbidden, and everyone had to discover their religious duty directly by referring to the authentic hadiths of the Shi‘i Imams. From the Usuli perspective, however, non-jurists were obligated to emulate jurists in religious rulings, rather than referring directly to the hadiths themselves (for a brief and illuminating account of the theological difference between the Akhbaris and Usulis, see the treatise “Munyat al-Mumārisīn” by the Akhbari scholar Abdullah Samahiji, edited and introduced by Andrew Newman, BSOAS Bulletin, 1992). The Akhbari-Usuli dispute had begun in the late Safavid era. But with the gradual formation of the institution of “Marja‘iyya of Emulation” from the Qajar era onward, this conflict found its sharp edges and approached its final battle. This battle ended with the victory of the Usulis.

But in this battle, reasoned argument was not the only weapon that brought victory to the Usulis over the Akhbaris. The final blow in eliminating the Akhbaris was dealt by the factor of violence — violence resulting from the denunciation and excommunication of the Akhbaris at the hands of the Usulis. In this bloody campaign, the tragic struggle of Mirza Muhammad Akhbari (1178–1232 AH), an Akhbari scholar born in India and killed in Kazimayn, with the Usuli jurists of Iraq (and to some extent Iran) is a decisive and instructive example. Rasul Jafarian refers to this conflict as “one of the most unparalleled disputes among Shia scholars” (Jafarian’s introduction to “Two Treatises by Kashif al-Ghita’ against Mirza Muhammad Akhbari”, Tehran: Library of Parliament, 1391, p. 21).

Mirza Muhammad Akhbari can be considered the last reviver of Akhbarism. In Kazimayn, Mirza defended Akhbarism so stubbornly and openly that a group of Usuli jurists ultimately declared him an “infidel” and “one whose blood must be shed” in an official fatwa. It was not long before Muhammad Akhbari was torn to pieces in an attack by an angry mob on his home. Although his murder was carried out with political motives and not purely doctrinal ones, the ground for this murder was prepared by the collective fatwa of a group of Usuli jurists against Mirza Muhammad Akhbari.

The fatwa for the killing of Mirza Muhammad Akhbari was issued by Musa Kashif al-Ghita’ and co-signed by a number of other Usuli jurists. But earlier, Musa’s father, Ja‘far Kashif al-Ghita’, had written a treatise in refutation of Mirza Muhammad Akhbari, in which he called Mirza a transgressor, fame-seeking, and illiterate, and cursed him. Mirza Muhammad Akhbari had gained such influence that not only, according to Kashif al-Ghita’s account in this treatise, had some people under the influence of Akhbari propaganda in Isfahan resorted to writing on walls against the mujtahids, but Mirza had also managed to win the favor of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar.

The denunciation of Mirza Muhammad as misguided by Kashif al-Ghita’ the father led to his being declared an infidel by Kashif al-Ghita’ the son, and political factors also set the stage for the murder. This is a historical example of how denunciation can lead to excommunication, and excommunication, combined with a political context, can lead to murder.

2.2. Denunciation: The Case of Ni‘matullah Salihi Najafabadi

Ni‘matullah Salihi Najafabadi (1302–1385 SH), born in Najafabad, Isfahan, was one of the mujtahids and historical researchers whose book titled “Shahid-i Javid” (The Eternal Martyr) caused an immense uproar. In this book, published in 1349 SH, he presented a different analysis of the motive behind Imam Husayn’s uprising. According to the prevailing Shia view, Imam Husayn knew the details of his martyrdom, and his duty was to proceed along the path of martyrdom that had been ordained for him in the heavens, and it was only through this path that Islam could be preserved. Salihi opposed this view and believed that Imam Husayn did not know the details of his martyrdom, and that his goal in heading toward Kufa was the “establishment of an Islamic government,” not martyrdom. This view rejected the Imam’s absolute knowledge and also portrayed the Imam as having failed to achieve his goal, which, according to Salihi, was the “establishment of an Islamic government.”

This book caused a great deal of controversy, and the maraji‘ al-taqlid of the time, such as Shihab al-Din Mar‘ashi Najafi and Muhammad-Rida Gulpaygani, openly opposed it. Gulpaygani had said: “It is forbidden for anyone who follows me in taqlid to read this book.” Also, a group of the seminary’s learned scholars of that time (such as Rafi‘i Qazvini, Muhammad-Husayn Tabataba’i, Fadil Lankarani, and Safi Gulpaygani) wrote refutations of the book. Preaching clerics also accused the book’s author of “Wahhabism.” The atmosphere of opposition became so intense that ‘Ali Mishkini, one of those who had written a commendation (endorsement) of the book, publicly retracted his endorsement.

Nevertheless, Salihi Najafabadi did not back down from his view, and this further increased the scope of the protests. Muhammad Al Taha, a preacher close to the household of Gulpaygani, had called on people to wear shrouds against the author of this book. More than four decades after the controversy over the book “Shahid-i Javid,” Al Taha, in an interview, described Salihi Najafabadi as a “deviant” who possessed a “spirit of atheism.”

However, although Salihi Najafabadi was denounced as “misguided,” he was not excommunicated and died a natural death.

2.3. Denunciation: The Case of Muhammad-Husayn Fadlallah

Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah (1935–2010 CE) was a Shiite marjaʿ born in Najaf. He is referred to as the “spiritual father of Hezbollah in Lebanon.” In one of his public lectures, the video of which was later released, Fadlallah called into question and described as “unbelievable” the account of the door being “set on fire,” a nail being “driven” into Lady Fatima’s chest, her being “slapped,” her rib being “broken” as a result of the attack on the house to secure Imam Ali’s allegiance for Abu Bakr’s caliphate, and the subsequent “miscarriage” of Lady Fatima’s child and her eventual death “due to” the injuries sustained in this assault.

His reasoning was that historical evidence indicates that Imam Ali and a group of the Banu Hashim were also in the house at the time of the siege. In such a situation, an “attack” on and “harming” of the Imam’s wife would be incompatible with the spirit of defending the oppressed and protecting one’s honor—a spirit that Imam Ali and the Banu Hashim possessed. In his view, it is unbelievable that such an attack could have occurred while Ali and his companions sat idly by and offered no defense. Furthermore, Fadlallah pointed out that the religious belief in the “breaking of Lady Fatima’s rib” is not a principle of the religion or the sect, and consequently, denying it does not place a person outside the religion or the sect.

In his book entitled Zahraʾ al-Qudwa (Beirut: Dar al-Malak, 2001, pp. 109–110), Fadlallah also expressed the view that while the “threat” to set fire to Lady Fatima’s house is historically certain for him, the carrying out of this “threat” is not proven to him, though he does not negate it either.

This view stirred much controversy, and several refutations of Fadlallah’s opinion were written. But the harshest reaction came from Mirza Jawad Tabrizi (a marjaʿ of the time) and Hussein Vahid Khorasani. In response to an inquiry (istiftaʾ), they called Fadlallah “ḍāll wa muḍill” (misguided and misleading). Sadeq Rouhani also supported the opinion of these two marājiʿ.

The text of Sadeq Rouhani’s fatwa is interesting and particularly relevant to our discussion on the distinction between taḍlīl (declaring misguided) and takfīr (excommunication). After enumerating several instances that, in his view, indicate Fadlallah’s “misguidance,” Sadeq Rouhani writes: “His books are among the books of misguidance (kutub al-ḍalāl), but these do not cause him to become an apostate; therefore, there is no reason for takfīr; rather, he is ḍāll muḍill.” Some time later, a group of advanced-level (suṭūḥ ʿāliya) instructors at the Qom Seminary issued a statement supporting the fatwa of Vahid Khorasani and Mirza Jawad Tabrizi against Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah—much like the statement issued against the views of Kamal al-Haydari, which I will address later.

Like Salehi Najafabadi, Fadlallah was only declared “misguided” and was not considered “outside the religion,” and he died a natural death.

2.4. Declaring Misguided: The Recent Case of Kamal al-Haydari

Kamal al-Haydari (born 1956) is an Iraqi jurist residing in Qom. He first gained fame by criticizing “Wahhabism.” For years, he criticized “Wahhabism” on the Kowsar network (the Arabic-language overseas channel of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting). His programs provoked critical reactions on Sunni religious networks as well as Shiite networks independent of the Islamic Republic on the one hand, and brought him the admiration of a significant portion of Shiites on the other. Al-Haydari considered “Wahhabism” separate from Sunnism and called for Shiite-Sunni unity.

Nevertheless, he leveled frank criticisms at the Sunni hadith heritage. Gradually, however, his criticisms also encompassed major Shiite jurists of the past and present, and eventually, al-Haydari began to criticize the Shiite hadith heritage itself. About four years ago, in one of his most explicit statements, al-Haydari claimed that: “Much of the Shiite hadith heritage is fabricated (mudassas) and entered Shiism from Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism.” Beyond this, in an interview, he stated that even a portion of the authentic narrations of the Shiite Imams are no longer applicable today because times have changed: “Many of the actions of our Imams are not applicable in our time.”

It was at this point that the scope of the criticisms against him escalated to such an extent that they reached the Shiite Marja' and Heydari's program on Kowsar TV was discontinued. Heydari, who seemed to have no intention of retreating, gradually acquired a new controversial image in the public mind. He who was previously a

.

---

.