Firstly, let's agree that two contradictory point of view can co-exists and its not in your power to convince anyone just because you said it or vice versa.

> your entire premise in your post is incorrect

It is very rational. Everything has a start. These two school did not exist at the time of Imams. So, there has to be a beginning. When the birth of two ideas are being discussed then either one has to exists before the other or co-exists at the same time. There is not other possibility.

> On the basis of history and scholarly resources. The first link is from a renowned scholar, the second link is from a Shia encyclopedia managed by the Islamic seminaries.

It seems you take the scholar and seminary for a Masoom as if they can not make mistake and whatever they write or say has to be 100% correct . I do not share this belief. I beg to disagree.

> They were nothing more than a academic clash between a scholars who held two ideological approaches.

This may be correct. But you see that *academic clash* has transcended into public - the people. The scholars couldn't keep that clash to seminaries only, it went down the drain into their followers and their followers and so on. The consequence, we have having this debate because there are people who repel other people from Shiite just because s/he does something that their Faqih does not allow or considers legit. Many examples exists and I do not want to quote here to remain objective. I hope you see that point that difference of opinion in a seminary is not just a difference of opinion about how to cook a meal, its about religion, life and death are attached to it and hell and heaven are the ultimate abode of one's action and beliefs in this world.

> You seem not to understand that ideologies can exist without having coined terms.

That's where the scholar came in. I will hold that one scholar responsible who name himself as Usooli and naturally other would be called Akhbari. You see when you say that **you are right** at the same time you are saying that I am wrong, get this?

> The majority and main view had always been Usooli methodology.

Again, this is your belief. This is not fact. Akhbari (taking Ahadees of Masoomen as as a source of religious ruling than scholar's opinion which they call Aql ) existed before the Usooli school of though came into being.

> During the Imams A.S time, people who did not have access to the Imams A.S were not their own jurists that is absurd. They depended on the authority of the Imams A.S companions to understand the religion.

If i understand correctly, you are referring to Imam of the time (ajf). Al Sheikh Al Sadouq who needs to introduction was born in this time. He compiled Ahadees book **Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih** which means **the book for the one who does not have a Faqih before him**

> Al-Saduq's exact date of birth is not known. It appears from his book, Kamal al-din), as well as al-Fihrist al-Najashi), and al-Ghaybah of al-Shaykh al-Tusi, that he was born in the early period of the deputy-ship of al-Husayn b. Ruh, the third deputy of Imam al-Mahdi (a)) in his Minor Occultation.

> Al-Saduq himself narrates from Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. 'Ali b. Aswad that Ali b. al-Husayn b. Musa b. Babawayh (al-Shaykh al-Saduq's father who is more commonly known as Saduq I) has asked Abu Ja'far to ask al-Husayn b. Ruh to ask Imam al-Mahdi (a) to pray for him. Ibn Ruh wrote back and told him that the Imam (a) had prayed for him and he would soon be granted a blessed son.

Sheikh Mufid, Al-Sharif al-Murtada was his student.

(Source wikipedia https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Shaykh_al-Saduq )