Theoretical and comparative study of hadith foundations of Muhammad Amin Astarabadi with Sheikh Yūsuf Baḥrānī

Introduction
Akhbarists are one of the movement of thought that arose in the Imami school of Shiism, which emerged in the 11th century with the two characteristics of hadith sufficiency and avoidance of reason.
Two pious muhaddith and jurisprudents, the owner of Fawa'id al-Madaniyyah and the owner of Ḥada'iq al-Nāḍarah, each of whom is attributed to two ranges of Akhbaris, who have a high scientific position and, despite having a general line, have different approaches and functions regarding the authority of issuance hadiths and the validity of authority. Among the radical prominent scholars of this movement, Mohammad Amin Astarabadi is the founder of the Akhbari trend in the 11th century.
He also institutionalized extremism in the thought of Akhbarism with opinions such as abandoning the Qur'an due to the lack of authenticity of its dhawahir and the error of ijtihad and slandering the mujtahids. During the time of Sheikh Yusuf Baḥrānī, this school assumed the color of moderation by criticizing the extremes of Astarabadi. Muhaddith Baḥrānī is a full-fledged representative of the spectrum of moderate Akhbarists.
materials and methods
This article tries to use a descriptive analytical method to obtain the fundamental idias that they specified by extracting the opinions and fundamental beliefs of these two scholars and comparing these opinions with each other, and the points of commonality and difference arising from the basis of both regarding the validity of narrations.
Examining and evaluating the opinions of these two muhaddiths is important because, the works of these two Akhbari scholars, especially "Al-Fawa'id al-Madaniyyah" and "Al-Hadā'iq al-Nāḍirah" still have a special and valuable position among other scholars and are a reference for researchers in the field of Qur'an and Hadith and on the other hand, accurate knowledge, extracting commonalities and differences, and expressing the validity and correctness of their bases and opinions, without any prejudice, is one of the important fields of better knowledge and deeper understanding of their views, in order to take advantage of Their opinions are at the present time and smart against modern journalism.
One of the well-known foundations of Mullah Amin Astarabadi and Muhaddith Baḥrānī is their good faith in the hadiths of the popular Akhbari books, especially the four books of Shia hadith [Al-Kafi, Man Lai Yaḥḍuarhu Al-Faqih, Tahdhib and Istabṣār]. Although they discuss the authenticity of the Qur'an, they almost agree on the validity and authenticity of the Akhbar and, as a result, the authenticity of thetraditions.
In recent decades, a lot of research has been done on the subject of Akhbarism, in such a way that not only Imami scholars, but also Orientalists have studied and criticized their foundations and have written numerous articles in this field, such as "Extension of Akhbarism by Sayyid Abbas Salehi" based on the continuity of Akhbarian thought and the possibility of their thoughts appearing in the new framework. (Houze, 1386, No. 143, 144); "Astarabadi" and "Akhbariyeh" by Etan Kohlberg in the Iranica Encyclopaedia, based on the analysis of the opinions of Akhbarians; The article "Debates between the Akhbarists and Usulists of the Imamiyyah of Iran" by Roberto Scarcha based on the evaluation of the opinions of the Akhbarists and the differences between them.
Results and findings
These two noble scholars have differences in the topic of fundamentals and do not have the same opinion in different cases, but their way of dealing with traditions shows that their similarities are more than their differences.
One of the well-known bases shared by them is their good conjecture in the hadiths of common Akhbari books, especially the four books of Shia hadith [Al-Kafi, Man Lai Yaḥḍuarhu Al-Faqih, Tahdhib and Istabṣār]. Although they discuss the authenticity of the Qur'an, they almost agree on the validity and authenticity of the traditions and, as a result, the authenticity of the traditions.
Another basis accepted by the two Akhbarist muhadiths of Maslak is their serious opposition to the tanwī' al-hadith. Mohammad Amin Astarabadi severely criticizes Allameh Hilli's point of view on the tanwī' al-hadith, sees his view on authentic hadith incompatible with the term of the predecessors, and gives eight reasons for rejecting the tanwī' al-hadith.
One of his reasons is that tanwī' al-hadith and paying attention to basic rules in sunni books is a well-known matter, and some of our scholars like Ibn Junaid and Ibn Abi Aqīl were influenced by these discussions as a result of mixing with them, and Sheikh Mufīd was also influenced by them. Good conjecture in them accepted these issues and since then such content has become common among Shiites.
Among the principles accepted by the two Akhbari Muhaddith who discuss it in different positions, the validity of a single tradition and benefiting from it is at the top of the jurisprudence. Khabar-e-Wāḥid has always been the focus of scholars during different eras, and the reason for this is that most of the rulings of the Shari'ah in the era of great occultation are obtained from Khabar-e- Wāḥid.
The authentic and correct traditions in the field of rulings can be cited in the eyes of all the evidence and in the field of actions and behavior. The subject of dispute is the authenticity of the opinions, which both muhaddith consider the Khabar-e- Wāḥid to be correct and valid in the field of opinions in addition to rulings. Astarabadi considers Khabar-e- Wāḥid as absolute proof in al-Fawad al-Madaniyyah.
Among the other findings of this article is finding the common beliefs of Astarabadi and baḥrānī regarding the ineffectiveness of the science of masculinity. Mulla Amin Astarabadi, while rejecting the science of Rijal, considers it as a knowledge without evidence and believes that despite the certainty of Shia traditions, we do not need science of Rijal and there is no need to study and refer to it.
Conclusion
From the obtained results, it appears that these two noble scholars have both generally relied on common foundations such as counting the hadiths of traditional books as correct, the inefficiency of diversifying hadith, the lack of validity of reason in interpreting texts, and the validity of Khabar-e- Wāḥid in rulings and beliefs. Among the cases of differences arising from their basis in relation to the validity of the traditions, which is worth mentioning, is that the Qur'an and the Prophet's (pbuh) hadiths have no authority other than through the Ahl al-Bayt (as) by Astarabadist, who is not a critical muhaddith in this regard.
But the basic points of difference between the two muhaddiths are: the non-authenticity of the appearances of the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) other than through the Ahl al-Bayt (as) by Astarabadi, who is a critical muhaddith due to the acceptance of the authenticity of the appearances of the verses in theoretical rulings and others, in this regard he is with him. The origin of the conflict of traditions is also one of the differences between two hadiths, and the critical muhadith of this conflict is caused by taqiyya, and if two conflicting traditions cannot be reconciled, the tradition issued based on taqiyya is discarded.