The Legitimacy of the Early Qajar Rule as Viewed by the Shi'i Religious Leaders Author(s): Abdul-Hadi Hairi

Source: Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 271-286 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: Accessed: 28/07/2010 07:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Middle Eastern Studies.

The Legitimacyof the Early Qajar Rule as Viewed by the Shi'i Religious Leaders
Generallyspeaking, it seems that most of the Shi'i mujtahids(religious authorities)of the past two centurieshave held that there have been three offices in Shi'ism dealingwith the affairs of Muslimbelievers.The office which is responsiblefor religious mattersand that of the administration entrustedto the mujtahids.The of justice have both been unquestionably third office is that of politics and rulership.The idea of the latter being under the authority of the ulama (religiousleaders) during the Greater Occultation(ghaybat-ikubra)of the TwelfthImam(i.e. the HiddenImam) has not been universallyaccepted, and thereforedoes requirediscussion and investigation.'On the basis of this argument,after a great deal of researchand inquiry some of the mujtahidscame to the conclusionthat as werealso to be entrusted the mujtahids theGeneral to politicsandrulership Agents of the Twelfth Imam.2 On the other hand, however,therehave been other religiousauthorities and on reasonings, who, basingthemselves a seriesof traditionalist rationalist kings have come to believe that the mujtahidsas well as the non-mujtahid rule The and mightsharerulership legitimately the Muslimcommunity. latter group of the ulama hold that the king and the mujtahiddivide the offices accordingto theirspecialty,knowledgeand experience.3 betweenthemselves In the last decadeof the eighteenth century,Iranhadjust survivednearly a centuryof confusion,insecurity, foreigninvasions,civilwars,and frequent massacres. The Qajars, under the command of Aqa MuhammadKhan (d. 1797/1211)and duringthe reignof his nephew,Fath Ali Shah (reigned theirrivalsand, for the firsttime 1797 1934/1211 50), wereableto suppress after the fall of the Safavids(1722/1135),turnedIranagaininto a relatively strong central Shi'i state and establishedrelative peace and unity.4The country,therefore,becamea congenialplace for Shi'i studiesand the Shi'i for ulama,who had been underpressure decadesto the extentthat they had and migratedto Indiaand Iraq, enjoyedgreatinfluenceon the government commandedgreat prestigeamong the people. the a In the circumstances, ulamawereable to interpret certainnumber On of the hadithsin favor of their own rightto rulership.5 the other hand, the QajarShahs(Kings)did not claimdescentfrom the Shi'i Imams,nor did they declarethemselvesto be the agentsof the TwelfthImam.The question to of a rightfulruler,therefore,was of vital importance both the ulamaand The Qajarrulers.6 aim of the presentstudyis to examinethe positionof the duringthe first few religiousleadersin Irantowardthe problemof rulership decadesof Qajarrule. In order to gain insight into the actual situation in which the ulama severalfactorsshouldbe takeninto consideration: expressed theirviewpoints,



1. Fath Ali Shah's need for legitimacycreateda necessityfor a friendly relationship withthe ulama.He thereforetook an interestin religiousaffairs and had the greatestesteem for the ulama.7 during lastyears the 2. SinceIranwasat warwiththe non-Muslim Russians of the eighteenth centuryand the earlydecadesof the nineteenth,the ulama with the Shah and his Regent, were bound to co-operatewhole-heartedly Abbas Mirza,who weredefendingthe Islamicterritoryagainstthe infidels. Thus the ulamacalled them the 'mujtahids'whom no one was to disobey.8 withthe Sufis,theAkhbaris, 3. Theunremitting struggles themujtahids of motivefor theirclose and the Shaykhisseemto havebeenanotherimportant co-operationwith Fath Ali Shah. Having the Shah as a great and strong supporter,the mujtahidswerein a betterand strongerpositionto suppress theirrivals. at Proceedingto the mainsubjectof studywe see how, in the circumstances that time, the mujtahidstheoreticallydealt with the problemof rulership the andhow fartheywereprepared go to legitimize ruleof theearlyQajars to withinthe framework the Twelver-Shi'i of ideology.For our purposewe will deal with four distinguished mujtahids,each of whom was a good represenof the tative exampleof the clericalleadership the period, and approached under rulerin his own particular problemof a legitimate way. The mujtahids discussionare as follows: 1. ShaykhJa'far al-Najafi, known as Kashifal-Ghita'(d. 1812/1227); 2. MirzaAbu'l Qasim, known as Mirza-yiQummi (1737-1816/11501231);
3. Mulla Ahmad Naraqi (1771-1829/1185-1245); 4. Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi (1775-1850/1189-1267).

in Qummibelongedto a familyoriginating Shaft,a smalltownin Gilan,Iran. His fathermovedto Japilaq,72 kilometers fromBurujird,Iran,and Qummi himself, accordingto a chronogram,was born in the latter city in 1737/ 1150.9He studied mainly in the Shrinecities of Iraq under a numberof Lateron he spentforty professors including Aqa Muhammad BaqirBihbihani. Qummi.'0 yearsof his life in Qum, and for this reasonhe was calledMirza-yi He died in the same city in 1816/1231. and taqlids Qummihasbeenconsidered of thegreatmujtahids marja'-i one of the Shi'i world. He wrotea numberof books and treatisesonfiqh, usul, ethics and philosophy, some of which still exist in manuscriptform. His with his relationship with correspondence the QajarShahsindicates amicable with for respect him,proven them,especially FathAli Shahwho hadparticular to by the extentthat he was prepared acceptQummi'sdemandsand recomIn mendations."I turn, Qummisupportedthe Shah and legitimizedhis rule. when he was about fifty yearsof age, Qummiwrote his 'Irshad-Namah' and sincehe wasbornin 1737/1150,the dateof writingthe treatise musthave been circa 1787/1202. The Shah he addressedin the treatisewas therefore In Khan."2 this probablythe founderof the Qajardynasty,Aqa Muhammad



of treatise,Qummitalksaboutthe importance the authorityof the Shahand with kingship,the meaningof 'zillAllah'(shadowof God)andits connection with that the Shah, and about his own positionas a mujtahidin comparison of the Shahas the actualrulerof Iran.He finallycallshis discussionon these
topics 'a scientific discussion and religious negotiation of two wise men' and la secret consultation of two authorities with each other'. Qummi depicts the Shah as a deputy of God, elected king according to His divine will; no servant, therefore, should disobey him: The creator of the universe created all the children of Adam, male and female ... and then crowned one of them and made him like His own deputy on earth to own other servants. God placed one person on the throne [to whom this verse of the Qur'an is applicable]: 'We gave them a great kingship' (IV:54), and put the rope of abjectness on the neck of another and made him the servant of other servantsand revealed [this verse of the Qur'an] about him: '... an owned slave who has no power over anything' (XVI:75). Neither the degraded servant is to disobey or express ingratitude, nor is it becoming [to the chosen king] to repay [God's] favor with ingratitude by encroaching upon the rights of his captives and by tyrannizing them.'3 In placing more weight on the authority of the king, Qummi says that kingship is bestowed on a person by divine destiny. God has given this rank to righteous kings according to their merits and to wicked ones by way of a test. This arrangement, however, does not mean that whatever action the wicked king takes is determined by divine destiny. The latter type of king is left to his own

va 'wickedsoul andmalafides'(su'-isarirat khubth-i niyyat).In orderto give
a man final notice, God puts him to the test by granting him the power and authority of a king. A ruler of this nature, of course, is not unanswerable for his deeds, and it is his duty to supervise the servants and watch their affairs with vigilance; he will otherwise be reprimanded.In other words, Qummi holds the wicked kings responsible only to 'Merciful God'; not only does he dissuade the people from disobeying an oppressive king, who receives his kingship from God, but he also considers obedience to him quite necessary.14 Qummi pays particular attention to separate positions and duties that the mujtahids and kings had in the Islamic community and considers the two authorities to be in mutual need of, and complementary to, each other. His argument on this point is quoted as follows: God has appointed the kings to safeguard the worldly [affairs] of the people and to protect them from the evil of mischief-makers; the ulama and others, therefore, are in need of the kings. God has also appointed the ulama to safeguard the religion of the people and to ameliorate their worldly [affairs. These functions are performed] by settling the disputes of the people and by eliminating corruption, unjust dealings, encroachments and [other actions which] transgress the bounds of the right path and which destroy this world and the hereafter. Therefore, in taking this course of action and in finding the right path, the kings as well as others are in need of the ulama. '



Although Qummi has recognized here the legitimate authority of the secular king to the safeguard of the worldly affairs of the people, and, as mentioned before, had a good relationship with Fath Ali Shah, some of his writings show that he was not always prepared to make legitimizing statements in favor of the Shah. In a treatise written for the common people'6 Qummi refutes the Sunnis who, basing their argument on the principles of consensus and oath of allegiance (ijma' and bay'at), conclude that obedience to the king is obligatory. He argues that rulership is a very important concern, second only to prophethood, and should not be transferred into the hands of ordinary people. 17 In his other writings, including reference books, Qummi also questions the legitimacy of the existing power holders and calls them oppressive rulers (hukkam-ijawr).'8 He forbids charitable funds to be given to the oppressive sultan even if he has risen from among the Muslims.'9 Concerning the payment of taxes, Qummi says that the land taxes (kharaj-i arazi) which are levied by the oppressive sultans are not lawful unless they are collected by permission of a just mujtahid and the receivers of taxes consist of students of religious studies and prayer leaders.20Qummi made this statement in his Jami'al-Shitat which is written for students of Shi'i religious studies. He seems, however, to have been particularly interested in informing ordinary citizens. Hence, in his Murshid al-'A wamm (A Guide for the Common People), a book which surely serves this purpose, he deals with the same topics, clearly describing the existing rulers as oppressive.2' In another section of Jami' al-Shitat, which seems to have been written during the first Russo-Iranian war,22Qummi refers to the famous hadiths such as the 'maqbulah-yi 'Umar b. Hanzalah' and clearly emphasizes the authority of the faqih (expert in Islamic law, i.e. mujtahid) as the General Agent of the Hidden Imam. He goes on to argue that in the absence of the faqih's power, he is compelled to compromise with the oppressive Caliphs (al-mumashat ma'a khulafa' al-jawr).23 Someone asked Qummi whether the jihad, declared by the ulama against the Russians but organized and commanded by secular authorities, was in accordance with Islamic as well as the customary law (shar' va 'urJ).In answerto this question Qummi clearlyshowed his disapproval of the existing ruling system. He said that at that time there was no legitimate Islamic ruler to levy taxes and to spend the revenues earned from taxation on the warriorsand defenders of the Islamic territoryaccording to Islamic law. He went on to explain that the type of kingship and conquest which may be considered as waging war for the cause of God surely did not exist then.24 In his long letter to Fath Ali Shah, writtenone year before his death, Qummi proposed with greater clarity the theory that the Shah had no genuinely legitimate claim to rulership.The internalevidence shows that the letter was written when the enemies of the mujtahids, includingthe Sufis, were tryingto apply the title of 'ulu ' amr' (men endowed with ruling authority) to the Shah. The 'ulu'l amr' are among the authorities whom the Qur'an (IV; 59) has orderedMuslims to obey, and the question of the applicability of this Qur'anic title to the Shah invited Qummi's open protest and his complaint to the monarch. A paraphrase of Qummi's complaint might not be without interest:



I notice that some people want to apply the title of 'ulu'l amr' to the Shah.Thisactionis in linewithSunniIslambut clearlyagainstShi'ism, and the Sunniswill be proudof seeingthe Shi'i monarchfollow their steps.Attemptsarebeingmadeto disposethe monarch followSufism to whichis worsethanSunnismand makeshimirreligious. Sincethe Sufis have borrowedtheir ideas and practicesfrom Christianity,then the
Europeans and Christianswill be happy to bring the monarch under their own influence. I also hear that some people bring up philosophical questions which will end in infidelity. Concerning the problem of the 'ulu'l amr' I would like to make it clear that the current interpretation of this concept is absolutely wrong. It is true that the Qur'an says: 'Obey God, His Messenger and the 'ulu'l amr' (IV:59), but the Shi'i ulama have unanimously agreed, and countless numbers of hadith support the idea, that the title of 'ulu'l amr' is applicable only to the Twelve Shi'i Imams. On the other hand, it stands to reason to argue that it would be improper of God to oblige the believers to obey a sultan unconditionally even though he might be oppressive and ignorant of God's rules. Hence, reason and tradition agree that a man, obedience to whom is considered to be compulsory, is bound to be infallible and to know all branches of learning. If forced by necessity and access to the infallible Imam is impossible, then it will be obligatory for the Muslims to obey a just mujtahid. If the enemies of Islam attack the Muslims' territoryand no one except a Shi'i sultan can repulse them, then it will be compulsory for the Muslims to obey him. Under this circumstance, obedience to the sultan is not compulsory simply because of his being a Shi'i sultan; rather it is for the sake of defending the Islamic land against the enemies.25 One may notice some differences between whatever Qummi wrote to Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar at the approximate age of fifty on the legitimacy of a non-faqih rule and what was written by him on the same subject when he was nearly eighty years old. One reason behind this inconsistency was perhaps his principle of 'mumashat' (compromise); it is also possible that during the years he had changed his opinion. At any rate, most of Qummi's writingsshow that in theory he did not recognize Fath Ali Shah as a lawful and legitimate ruler, but in practice he closely co-operated with him and prayed that God might dispose 'Our sultan and his children' to be helpers and protectors of the Prophet Muhammad's family.26What seems certain is that those writers who base their discussion about Qummi's theory of government solely on his 'Irshad-Namah' are in error.

Another celebrated Shi'i mujtahid who supported Fath Ali Shah in practice but did not consider him to be legitimate without the ulama's sanction was Shaykh Ja'far Kashif al-Ghita'. This iraqi religious leader was an interesting person in many ways. According to Tunukabuni he used to eat a great deal; 'every night he had sexual intercourse with a woman'; he spent two-thirds of



his God, and he mortgaged housein orderto help everynightin worshipping in the poor.27He was influential the arenaof politicsto the pointthat 'he was and in close contactwith the Shahsand rulers',28 'the Arabsas well as nonArabsobeyedhim'.29 was for this reasonthat in 1812/1227he was invited It His borderconflicts.30 (shafi') in the Iran-Ottoman to act as an intercessor al-A lent in specialty the Islamicsciences himthe titles'Shaykh kbar'(Greatest and 'Shaykhal-mujtahidin' (Masterof the Mujtahids).32 Shaykh)3' This greatreligiousleaderhad close and friendlyrelationswith Fath Ali his Shah,andin his bookKashfal-Ghita'writtenon fiqh he admired governand mentandhopedthatthe Shah'sgovernmental systemmightbe prolonged the connectedto that of the TwelfthImam.He finallydedicated book to the Shah.33 Despitethese facts, however,Kashifal-Ghita'neverconsideredthe and Shah'sruleto be genuinely legitimate didnot allowhimto claimlegitimacy unless sanctionedby the usuli ulama, i.e. those religiousauthoritieswho the practiced ijtihadandcondemned Akhbariswho did not believein ijtihad. Concerningthe necessityof declaringa holy war againstthe Russians, was Kashifal-Ghita'arguesthat when Islamicterritory attackedby infidels it would be obligatoryupon the Imamto defend it. If the Imamshould be wouldleadthejihadcampaign, if, for somereason, but absent,the mujtahids were not possible, then any qualifiedman or the ulama'sactualleadership menshouldtakethe responsibility. dutyof Hence, it wouldbe a compulsory thepeopleto supportand obeysucha personor persons;anyonewho refused to do so would have, in fact, disobeyedthe Imam, the Prophet, and God. it Kashifal-Ghita'goes on to arguethat undersuch circumstances would be more pleasingto God and more prudentialfor any rulerto organizethe affairs of state underthe religiousauthorityof the mujtahids.He therefore states that 'If I myself am a mujtahidand may representthe distinguished of authorities the age, I will be determined authorizeFathAli Shahto lead to thejihad campaign upon againstthe infidels'.Thenhe declaresit incumbent to that theMuslims obeytheShahandwarns actsof disobedience thelatter's to as orderswill be considered disobedience God and will invokeHis wrath.34 to only whenit is authorKashifal-Ghita' considers Shah'srulelegitimate the izedand sanctioned a mujtahid,andclearlydeniesthe Shah'sgenuineand by claim to a legitimaterule. He does not even abandonhis arguindependent mentat this point. In orderto preventFathAli Shah fromtakingany advantage of the conditionallegitimacyhe enjoyed,Kashifal Ghita' again insists of upon the originalillegitimacy the Shah'srule. He says that the obligatory dutiesare different;one obligatorydutyis to obey the vicar(khalifah)of the Prophetof God, and anotheris to obey a kingwho is in a positionto defend the rights of Islam and the Muslims. Obedience the authorityof the Prophet'svicaris obligatorynot out of to or expediency for a specialreason,but becauseof the fact that it is essential, and the natureof such authorityrequiressuch obedience.Whereas,on the other hand, obedienceto the king is an accidental('aradi)duty performed to meet certainends. In other words, dutiessuch as preparing weaponsand for of recruiting soldiers a warunderthecommand the kingmaybe considered as preliminary obligatorydutiesupon whichthe principalobligatoryduties are based.35



In a separatetawqi'(decree)writtenon the necessityof a jihadagainstthe Russiansunderthe commandsof FathAli ShahandAbbasMirza,KashifalGhita' again declares the mujtahids to be the real and original authorities of

the jihad and considers the Shah and the Regent as his own appointed He functionaries. evencallsthe Shah 'ourservantwho admitshis servitude', and hopes that the Regent, who suppresses'the rebelliousunbelievers' (ahl al-tughyan wa'l juhud), may enjoy 'our intercession'(shafa'atuna)and be placed 'under our shadow and our protection' in this world and the

It is interestingto note that in defiance of the fact that this mujtahid a recognizedthe Shah's authoritywith such severereservations, son-in-law of Kashifal-Ghita',SayyidSadral-Din'Amili, knownalso as SadrIsfahani, (d. 1847/1264)still criticizedhim heavily.SadrIsfahaniarguedthat Kashif FathAli Shahwitha number religious of taskswhichwere al-Ghita'entrusted to be withinthe jurisdictionof the virtuousIslamicauthorities,whereasthe man and was not qualifiedfor the Shah was an oppressiveand unrighteous position.Accordingto SayyidSadral-DinSadr(a grandsonof SadrIsfahani who died in 1953/1373), since Kashif al-Ghita' was not convinced, Sadr Isfahanimigrated with fromIraqto Isfahanin orderto removehis association 37 Kashifal-Ghita'.

and thinker mujtahid the periodwas and Anotherdistinguished influential of MullaAhmad Naraqi. Naraqi, who declareda jihad againstthe Russians38 and participatedin the jihad campaignin a shroud,39 also a prolific was author.Apartfromwritingon fiqhandusul, Naraqialso produced workson in Islamicethics.His proficiency the Islamicsciences particularly was admired by ShaykhMurtazaAnsari(1799-1864/1214-81), a discipleof Naraqiand himselfthe most prominent Shi'i religiousleaderof the nineteenth century.40 In one of Naraqi'sworkswrittenin the formof a 'mathnavi' authority the of the Shah appearsto be highly respectedand the Shah is depictedas an of his example goodnessandexcellence. Firstly,he entitled 'mathnavi' Taqdis, the latterbeingthe nameof the archedthroneof Khusraw Parviz,the great king of pre-IslamicIran.41 Secondly, in the story of 'The Parrot and the Shah', after referringto a 'hadithqudsi' (a class of the hadithswhich give wordsspokenby God), Naraqilikensthe Shahto God and callsGod 'Shah-i Khuban' Kingof thevirtuous (the beings).He admires privacy theheart' 'the of (khalvat-idil) and believesthat it is 'an auspiciousprivacy'whichdeserves to be the Shah'sabode and no beggaris to haveaccessto sucha placewhich is also 'the divinitypalace'.42 In the samestory,the Shahappears a personwhoalwaysleadsthepeople as to the rightpathand bringsthemto salvation.43 is constantlyoccupiedin He his to performing dutiesandwouldneverhesitate faceallkindsof suffering and harmfor the sake of others.The king that Naraqidescribesrepresents only admirablequalities,and there is no referenceto the oppression,homicide, medieval types of tyranny and debaucherywhich may also characterize kings.'



In his Taqdis,Naraqialso mentionsthe storyof the ProphetIbrahim who, accordingto the Islamicsources,was to show his willingnessto sacrificehis son Isma'ilas a sign of devotionto, and trustin, God. SinceGod wantedto test Isma'il in that great trial, with successfulresults,Naraqigives him the rank of king and king of kings (Shahanshah) and considerskingshipand prophethood(shahi-opayghambari)to be sourcesof honor whichbecame eternalin Isma'il's family.45 It seemsthat the elevatedsymbolicmeaningswhichNaraqiattachesto the term'Shah'and 'Shahanshah' onlyhavebeenexemplified the historical can by kingsandemperors whomhe andhisaudience knowledge. describing of had In the qualifications a just kingin his otherwork,Mi'rajal-Sa'adah,Naraqi of mentionsby way of exampleSultanMahmudGhaznavi(d. 421/1030) and Malik Shah Saljuqi(d. 1092/485).4 Naraqi goes on to argue that the just kingsarealso shadowsof God on earthand areappointedby Him to protect the people's propertyand honor and eliminateoppression.47 In his discussion,Naraqiuses the word 'Khaqan',then a title of Fath Ali Shah. This point, togetherwith other indications,suggeststhat in the eyes of Naraqithe shadowof God who wasappointed Himwasnoneotherthan by Fath Ali Shah. In order,it seems, to answerthe criticismthat the attributes he ascribesto the just king may not be applicableto the QajarShah, Naraqi quotes a hadith, reportedon the authorityof the SeventhShi'i Imam. This hadithwarnsthe Shi'ah that they will be despisedby othersif they disobey their sultan. The hadithalso remindsthe Shi'ah that, If the Shah is just, do ask God to perpetuatehis life; and if he is tyrannical,you should ask God to lead him to the rightpath because your being righteousis dependentupon your sultan'srighteousness.48 In addition, in his book, al-Khaza'in,Naraqimakesan effort to prove the legitimacy FathAli Shah'skingship of according astrological to laws,implying that the emergenceof the Qajarrule was a naturalphenomenon,ordained by God.49 is perhapsfor this reasonthatNaraqidid not hesitateto dedicate It hisMi'rajal-Sa'adahto FathAli Shah,usinghighlyeulogisticexpressions to describehim such as 'shadowof God', 'fighterfor the cause of God', and 'founderof the laws of justice'. In his other book, Sayf al-Ummah,which he devoted to the refutationof his contemporary,the English missionary HenryMartin,Naraqi,in reference FathAli ShahandAbbasMirza,used to many phrasesof a hyperbolicnature.50 Despite his friendlyrelationswith the Shah and his legitimization the of Qajarrule,Naraqiappearsto be quiteoutspokenin his treatment the Shi'i of theoryof government does not hesitateto recognizethejust faqihsas the and only genuinelylegitimaterulersof the Muslimcommunity.In his 'Awa'id, Naraqisays that no one can exerciseany sovereignpowerover anyoneelse unlesshe is appointedby God, the Prophet,or one of the latter'sauthorized agents(awsiya'),i.e. the TwelveImams.Thenby quoting19hadiths,Naraqi attemptsto provethat it is only the qualifiedfaqihswho carrythis authority as the GeneralAgents of the TwelfthImamduringthe GreaterOccultation. Naraqiwritesthat the authorityof the faqihsis as comprehensive that as of the Prophetand the Imamunlessthereappears clearevidencewhichmay a



makea specifiedcase an exceptionto this generalrule. He goes on to argue that reason,the Islamiclaw and the existingcustomssay thatmattersrelated to this world and the hereafterhave to be settled, since the affairs of both and individuals societyand the organization religiousandworldlymatters of dependon them. If no specifiedpersonis appointedto takechargeof certain individual socialaffairstheywillbe automatically or placedundertheauthority of the faqihs. By quotinga hadithreportedon the authorityof the Prophet Muhammad,Naraqiextendshis argumentas far as to say that The faqihs are the trusteesof the Prophetand will not be tied up with the kings.If theybecomeso, thenyou shouldstop associating withthem
for the sake of your religion.5

By coherentand systematicargument Naraqiclearlydeclaredthat 'vilayat-i and faqih' (theunquestionable comprehensive of guardianship the faqihover the rest of the people)was the only genuinely legitimatetype of ruleplanned by the Prophet of Islam and the infallible Shi'i Imams for the Muslim In community. fact, it wasNaraqiwho, in his 'Awa'id,provided important an source of reasoning for the founder of the present regime in Iran when his formulating own doctrineof 'vilayat-ifaqih'and preparing put it into to
operation in 1979/1399.52

A comparison betweenwhat Naraqiwrotein his Mi'rajal-Sa'adah,Sayf and the contentof his 'Awa'idclearlyshows a al-Ummah,and al-Khaza'in volte-facein his approachto the problemof rulership. surveying By Naraqi's in philosophy, expressed particular throughhis lyricsandmystical poems,one still comes acrossanothertype of thinkingwhich is entirelycontraryto his previously discussed theories government. writings thisnature,Naraqi of In of does not makeany endeavorto legitimizethe rule of eitherthe kings or the mujtahids.Rather,he openly renouncesthe Shah and all things relatedto asceticism(zuhd); the prayer carpet (sajyadah),the rosary (subhah), the religiousschool(madrasah), people,thefaqihs and Islamicpreachers. the He goes on as far as to declarethe Islamicjurisprudence (fiqh) to be a barrier to progress (sadd-irah-omani'-itakmilshud)andevenclaimsto havebecome astonished see a 'madrasah' to beingbuiltwhere,in his opinion,'a winecellar could have been founded' (jayi ki dar an maykadahbunyadtavankard).53 As we know, in the earlyperiodof the QajarruleNaraqiwasa prominent religiousleader.himselfa holderof the religioustitlesanda custodianof the religious customs institutions and whichherenounced. seemsthatNaraqidid It not trulybelievein those titles, customsand institutions did not find the and custodians politicsandreligion contemporary of dutifulandon therightpath. In practice, however,he sawhimselfobligednot to breakwiththecommunity. Perhapshe found out that the psychological motivewhichurgedhim to act in reluctantly harmony withthe lesspleasingcharacteristics the community of was somethingwhich he called "aql' (wisdom;rationality).We see Naraqi declarewar against 'aqland heavilycriticizehimself for leavingthe control of his heartin the handof 'aql(zamam-i bi dast-i 'aqldadah).Particularly dil in laterlife, he regretted pastactivities condemned association his and his with the Shah, remarking'I disdainto be associatedwith the royal crown and throne' (zi taj-o takht-isultanim 'arast).54



A characteristic feature of Naraqi's lyric poetry is frequent praise of wine from which he, especially as a faqih, had to abstain. On one occasion he appears gratified that he is given admission to a wine cellar and adds 'I will bid farewell to my wisdom again and put my religion in pledge in the wine cellar'." To the reader, it is apparent that Naraqi always kept himself aloof from any intoxicating liquor in real life. It seems, however, that since the existing political and social institutions were not functioning to his satisfaction and expediency did not permit explicit criticism, he had recourseto the poetical expressionsrelatingto wine, wine cellarsand wine drinking, all indirectprotests against the existing social and political order. At the same time, Naraqi, like his other contemporary ulama, believed that his support of Fath Ali Shah under the then circumstances would strengthen Islam and protect Iran against internal corruption, disorder and external encroachment. He was therefore, obliged to speak out in favor of the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty.56However, when Naraqi came to deal with the Shi'i theory of government, especially in a book like 'Awa'id, which was meant to be used by students of Islamic law and religion, he seems to have felt it necessary to explain clearly his approach to what he considered to be an ideal form of government.

The last, but not the least, Shi'i religious leader and usuli faqih to be discussed is Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi. He was a disciple of 'Allamah Bahr al-'Ulum in Najaf and he himself taught religious sciences in that city. Fursat Shirazi describes Kashfi as a famous mujtahid who was distinguished in the commentary of the Quran and in the hadith,57and I'timad al Saltanah considers him to be well versed in Islamic studies.58Kashfi wrote many books, eighteen of which have been identified,59 but to the best of our knowledge only two of them were published. He had a friendly relationship with Fath Ali Shah and his seventh son, Muhammad Taqi Mirza who was at a time the governor of Burujird;6'indeed, Kashfi dedicated some of his books to him. Concerning the problem of rulership, Kashfi, basing his argument on a hadith reporting on the authority of the Sixth Shi'i Imam, says that Muslims should act in obedience to the rule of those reporting the hadiths on the authority of the Imam and are aware of, and accurate in their dealing with the hadiths. These persons are appointed by the infallible Imam, and disobedience to their rule would mean disobedience to God's rule - a sin equal to polytheism.6" On another occasion Kashfi writes that a qualified sultan should know the revealed law of Islam (Shari'at), Islamic ethics, fundamentals and branches of religion. In other words, he should be able to exercise ijtihad. If the sultan is not a mujtahid, he should adopt the legal decision of a mujtahid (bar vajh-i taqlid) and keep company with a man of religious learning and insight in order to be led to the right and lawful path. In this way he will be inspired by God and will duly be able to perform the duties related to kingship.62 In his 'Mizan al-Muluk', Kashfi considers every individual to be a vicar (khalifah) of God on earth, appointed to perform certain duties. He then



all the and classifies typesof vicarships, greatest mostimportant whichbeing of that of the ulamarelatedas it is to knowledgeand learning('ilm); those of othersare relatedto action ('amal), the latterbeing lower in rankthan the former.63 Kashfigoes on to say that these ulamapossessingexotericas well as esoteric knowledge('ilm-i zahir va batin) are friends of God and 'are and Their'benevolence blessing'will and associated withtriumph prosperity'. 'spreadthroughthe universe,from the east to the west, and the people will Two hadiths liveundertheirprotection'. applyto thistypeof ulama:one states that 'the ulamaare heirsto the prophets'(al-'ulama'warathat al-anbiya'), attributed the ProphetMuhammad: to 'The and the othercontainsa remark ulama of my community(ummah)are like the IsraeliteProphets'.64 In theory, Kashfi legitimizedthe rule of qualifiedfaqihs, approvingthe rule of a king only on condition that the latter place himself under the if of instruction the former.As faras Kashfiwasconcerned, thistheorycould have been put into practicean ideal form of government would have come into existence.Kashfithensuggested manydifficultconditionsfor a mujtahid ruler;a manof meritwho mighthavemet those conditionswas 'rareto find' (nadiral-wujud).65 By way of example,Kashfibelievedthat knowledgeof the 'conventional was in sciences' ('ulum-i rasmiyyah) not sufficient orderfor a personto qualify for rulership.i He shouldalso possess'sacredpower'(quvvah-yi qudsiyyah) andbe endorsed 'theheavenly An by spirits'(arvah-i malakutiyyah). approach of this natureclearlysuggeststhat Kashfiwas not preparedto endorsethe of for It candidacy anyof his contemporary mujtahids rulership. wasperhaps thoseulamawho, in his view, did not for this reasonthat he heavilycriticized performtheirdutiesand greatlyharmedthe Muslimcommunity.Although he devoteda substantial of his 'Mizanal-Muluk' criticism theulama, of part to and in doing so backedhis argumentby a varietyof the hadiths,he seems to have continued a self-imposed form of censorship, remarkingat one juncture'Anyonewho was taughtthe secretsabout God, his mouthis sealed and [his lips] are sewn'.67 The Whatthenwas Kashfi'ssolutionto the problemof rulership? answer to this questionraisesa third featureof Kashfi'sapproachto the problem. in He certainly the took into consideration ruleof the kings,although principle and withhis Shi'itheoryof government, he considered thiswasnot in harmony evil theroyalcourtsto be centersof manytypesof corruption, deeds,injustice as and oppression,interpreting thesecharacteristics signsof the appearance of the Hidden Imam.68 However, since Kashfilaid greatsignificanceupon state securityand order,he saw himselfboundto regarda strongkingas the only rulerableto establishorderand security.Withinthis framework Kashfi, to to by referring the Islamicsources,madeeveryendeavor legitimize rule the of a king ratherthan that of a mujtahid. He quotes, for instance, the Prophet Muhammadwho reportedlysaid: 'If a king is just the believersshould obey him as they should obey God. thenthepeopleshouldshowforbearance However,if he is oppressive, towards him untilGod bringssome relief'.69Kashfiarguesthat sincekingship a gift is from God it also embracesKhilafat, knowledgeand prophethood.It goes withoutsayingthat 'knowledgeandprophethood not of muchuse unless are



they are backed by the forces of kingship'. In relation to the latter, the Prophet of Islam said: 'I am the Prophet of the sword (ana nabi al-sayf). Undersuchconditions,workingfor the causeof God and the hereafterwill be easierand in plenty.'70 continuesby explainingthat it is of absolute He necessityto havea kingin orderto establishpeaceand orderin societywhere
the rights of the people are defined and justice is carried out. For this reason it has been said that 'The padishah (king) is the shadow of God on earth and every oppressed person will place himself under his protection', and that 'the sultan is appointed by God to act as a protector' of the people.7" Kashfi stresses the necessity of peace and order on several occasions, even stating that 'an oppressive padishah is better than a constant sedition caused by his absence', and that forty years of an oppressive rule is better than one hour of anarchy.72At one point Kashfi considers it an obligatory duty to depose an oppressive king, but he does not seem to attach much value to this idea, because soon after that he undertakes a long discussion concerning the necessity of being tolerant to an oppressive Shah.73It is true that in the eyes of Kashfi knowledge is superior to action and therefore the ulama are consideredto be higherin rank than the king. However, as far as the actual benefits of knowledge and its applicability are concerned, the ulama will occupy 'the third rank of vicarship (Khilafat)', i.e. a rank lower than that of the kings and ministers, because 'the dissemination and prevalence of knowledge is materialized by sword and kingship'.74 Kashfi found out that the ideal mujtahid who could lawfully rule did not exist and at the same time he laid great importance on the authority of a king. On the other hand, he believed that kingship and religion were complementary to each other, that kingship without religion was suited to the life of animals, not to human society, and that religion without order and kingship could not have materialized. He then came to the conclusion that both the mujtahid and the king occupied 'the position of the Imam', that is, both were deputies of the Twelfth Imam.75 In explaining this particular point, Kashfi goes on to say that the position (mansib) of the Imam is composed of two pillars(rukns), religionand kingship, both of which should be originallycenteredin one person. In the past, however, the ulama desisted from the kingship, because the kings opposed them. This opposition gave rise to sedition and disorder. On the other hand, the kings only directed their attention to the worldly aspects of kingship, limiting themselves to dealing with problems of order and to relatedsciences without consideration of religious affairs. The affairs of the deputyshipof the Imam were divided into two rukns, religion and kingship, coming under the authority of the ulama and kings respectively. The two authorities handled these affairs in co-operation with each other for some time, later turning against each other; consequently, affairs of religion and kingship which should have been united became separated.76Even under such conditions Kashfi does not endorse the deposition of an irreligiousking if the latter establishes order and prevents anarchy, because he believes that God, the Messengers of God, the Twelve Imams, and all wise men would not approve of such a deposition.77 At the end of his book, Tuhfatal-Muluk, Kashfi quotes in full the famous letter ('Ahd-Namah) of Ali b. Abi Talib, the first Shi'i Imam, to Malik Ashtar,



it considering to be proof that the wiseandjust kingsare, like the mujtahids, the deputies the Imam.He saysthatthosekingswho putthe "Ahd-Namah' of into practicearethe specifiedagents(na'ib-ikhass)of the Imam,becausethe letteris addressed directlyto a specifiedruler,i.e., Malik,whereas according are to the hadith,the mujtahids the Imam'sGeneral Agents.Kashfiaddsthat at this time knowledge(i.e. mattersrelatedto the ulama)is separatedfrom the sword(i.e. mattersrelatedto the kings).In the 'Ahd-Namah, thenwhatever concerns knowledgeapplies to the mujtahids;affairs of the sword, kingship,politicsand orderaredealtby thosekingswho act according the to

Thus Kashfi legitimizedthe rule of the non-mujtahidkings despite his originalbelief in the qualifiedmujtahidas the ideal rulerof the Shi'a during the GreaterOccultation.At the same time he admiredFath Ali Shah to the him extentthathe considered to be 'thekingof kingsin therealmof the divine vicarship' (Shahanshah-i ilahi).He believed the kings that khilafat-i khiftah-yi enjoyedGod'semanation and (fayz) andfavors(tavajjuhat) he foundin Fath Ali Shahan exampleof such a king.79 sum, the positivequalitiesascribed In to by Kashfito the authorityof the kingsalso attributed the QajarShah;the legitimization theQajarruleseemsto be themainpoint,or in factthe raison of d'etre, of Kashfi's Tuhfatal-Muluk. Thisarticle beganwithShaykhMurtaza Ansari's argument theulama's that claim to rulership needsto be provedthroughdiscussionand investigation. It seems that commentariesrelatingto the four mujtahidsare entirelyin harmonywithAnsari'spoint. Beinga contemporary those mujtahids of and well certainly awareof theirdifferingapproaches the problemof rulership, to Ansariseemsto have formedhis theoryof government least partlyin the at light of their arguments.All the mujtahidsunder discussionshared the opinionthaton principle, mujtahids legitimate the are rulerswho areto enact the rulesof the TwelfthImamduringhis Creator Occultation. Eachof them, the however,approached problemin a differentway, basingtheirarguments on differentsourcesof information, varioustypesof discussions, undertaking and taking into considerationcertainnecessitiesand expediencies. The existenceof the different,and sometimesopposite, hadithsconcerning the ruleof the mujtahidsand the legitimacyor illegitimacy the ruleof of the non-mujtahid kingswas a serious,if not the most serious,sourceof disagreementamong the mujtahids.It was for this reason that, for example, Mirza-yi Qummi argued under certain conditions that obedience to an oppressiveking was improperor repugnant(qabih), whereasNaraqi and Kashficonsideredit an obligatoryduty in certainother circumstances. For the samereason,Ansariconsidered problemof rulership its applicathe and bility to be somethingwhich requireddiscussionand investigation.
NOTES Many thanks to Mr. Abdol Hossein Haeri of the Majlis Library, Tehran, and Mr. Mahdi Vila'i of the Astan-i Quds-i Razavi Library, Mashhad, for giving me access to a number of important but obscure and rarely known manuscripts used in this article.



1. For instance consult Shaykh Murtaza Ansari, Al-Makasib (Tabriz, 1955), p. 153. 2. A good example of this type of ulama who supported the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1906-1909 is Mirza Muhammad Husayn Na'ini; see Abdul-Hadi Hairi, Shi'ism and Constitutionalism in Iran: A Study of the Role Played by the Persian Residents of Iraq in Iranian Politics (Leiden, 1977). 3. Shaykh Fazl Allah Nuri who was an anti-constitutionalist mujtahid was in favor of dualism in rulership, and clearly said '... the assumption of religious affairs and the use of power and glory and alertness over the security [of the state] centered in two [separate] authorities' by which the Shaykh meant 'deputyship in the affairs of prophecy and kingship'; see AbdulHadi Hairi, 'Shaykh Fazl Allah Nuri's Refutation of the Idea of Constitutionalism', Middle Eastern Studies, 13 (1977), pp. 327-39; the quotation on p. 336. 4. The events which took place in Iran under Aqa Muhammad Khan's rule and the latter's strenuous efforts to establish a central government have been studied by a number of Iranian and Western authors who have admired Aqa Muhammad Khan despite his unusual cruelty and bloodthirstiness; cf., for example, G. R. G. Hambly, 'Aqa Mohammad Khan and the Establishment of the Qajar Dynasty', JRCAS, L (1963), pp. 161-74. 5. For an English translation of a number of these hadiths see Hairi, Shi'ism and Constitutionalism in Iran, p. 59. 6. For information on the approach of the previous ulama such as Shaykh Tusi, Shaykh Mufid, and Sharif al-Murtada on the problem of rulership and its legitimacy consult Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Tusi, al Nihayahfi Mujarrad al-Fiqh wa al-Fatawa (Beirut, 1970); Ann K. S. Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam: A n Introduction to the Study of Islamic Political Theory: The Jurists (London, 1985), pp. 138-51, 219-63; W. Madelung, Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam (London, 1985), passim; Jean Galmard, 'Les olama, le pouvoir et la societe en Iran: le discours ambigu de la hierocratie', in J.-P. Digard (ed.), Le Cuisinier et le Philosophe: Homage a Maxime Rodinson (Paris, 1982), pp. 253-61. 7. See, inter alia, his correspondence with Mirza-yi Qummi in [Husayn] MudarrissiTabataba'i, 'Panj Namah az Fath 'Ali Shah Qajar bi Mirza-yi Qummi', Barrasiha-yi Tarikhi, x, No. 4 (1975), pp.247-76. 8. Mirza Buzurg Qa'immaqam Farahani, Jihadiyyah (Tehran, n.d.) 9. Muhammad Ali Mudarris, Rayhanah al-Adab fi Tarajim al-Ma'rufin bi al-Kunyah aw al-Laqab ya Kuna va Alqab (Tabriz, n.d.), Vol. 6, p. 71. 10. Tabataba'i, 'Panj Namah'. 11. Ibid. 12. Hasan Qazi Tabataba'i, 'Irshad-Namah-yiMirza-yiQummi', Nashriyyah-yiDanishkadah-yi Adabiyyat va 'Ulum-iInsani-yi Tabriz, 20, No. 3 (1968), pp. 368-9. This treatise has been introduced as a letter written by Qummi to Fath Ali Shah; see ibid., p. 366. A few years later, the same treatise was again published in the introduction where Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar was mentioned as Qummi's addressee. The editor of the latter version claimed that 'it is obviously an error' to consider Fath Ali Shah as Qummi's addressee, but did not explain how the error was so 'obvious'; cf. [Husayn] Mudarrisi Tabataba'i, 'Namah-'i az Mirza-yi Qummi bi Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar', Vahid, 11 (1973), p. 1150ff. Two years later, making no reference to the latter version of Qummi's letter and basing her information only on the version introduced by Qazi Tabataba'i, Lambton also claimed that the treatise was addressed to Fath Ali Shah. She also gave an account of the contents of the treatise; see A. K. S. Lambton, 'Some New Trends in Islamic Political Thought in Late 18th and Early 19th Century Persia', Studia Islamica, xxxix (1974), p. 114ff. For more information on Mirza-yi Qummi consult Mudarris, Rayhanat al-Adab, Vol.6, pp.68-72; al-Mirza Muhammad Baqir al-Musawi al-Khwansari al-Isbahani, Rawdat al-Jannat fi Ahwal al'Ulama, wa al-Sadat, edited by Sayyid Muhammad Ali Rawzati (1947/1367), pp. 493-96. 13. Qazi Tabataba'i, 'Irshad-Namah', p. 377. 14. Ibid., p.380. 15. Ibid., p. 382. 16. Mirza Abu'l Qasim Qummi, Usul-i Din (1890/1308), p. 46. 17. Ibid., p. 52. 18. Idem, Jami' al-Shitat (Tehran, 1976/1396), Vol. 1, p. 36. 19. Idem, 'Fi Ahkam al-Jizyah' [one of the 22 treatises appended to Qummi's other book entitled Ghana'im al-AyyamfiMasa'il al-Halal wa al-Haram] (Tehran, 1901/1319), p. 590.



20. Idem, Jami'al-Shitat,Vol.1, p. 44. Persian 21. Idem,'Murshid Jami'-iGawharshad, al-'Awamm', MS., Kitabkhanah-yi Mashhad, Iran, No. 1734,no pagination. 22. Idem, Jami' al-Shitat,Vol.1, pp. 87-8, 92. 23. Ibid., Vol.1, p.93. 24. Ibid., Vol.1, p.92. 25. Idem, '[Radd-iMirza'Abdal-Wahhab Munshial-Mamalik]', PersianMS., Kitabkhanahyi Majlis-iShura-yiIslami,No. 5348, ff. 69-70. 26. Idem, Jami' al-Shitat,Vol.1, p. 92. 27. Muhammad Tunukabuni, Qisasal- 'Ulama(Tehran,1976/1396),p. 70ff. A 28. Al-SayyidMuhsinal-Amin[al-'Amili], 'yanal-Shi'ah(1962),Vol. 16, p. 308. 29. Khwansari, Rawdat,p. 152. 30. Muhammad Hasan KhanI'timadal-Saltanah,Tarikh-i Nasiri (1918/1300), Muntazam-i Vol.III, p.99; MuhammadTaqi Lisan al-MulkSipihr, Nasikh al-Tawarikh: Salatin-i Qajariyyah (Tehran,1974),Vol.1, p. 226. 31. Mudarris, Rayhanahal-Adab,Vol. V, p. 24. 32. Qa'immaqam, Jihadiyyah,p. 18. 33. Al-ShaykhJa'faral-Najafi[Kashifal-Ghita'],Kashfal-Ghita' 'anKhafiyyat Mubhamat al-Gharra' al-Shari'a (1899/1317),pp.2-3. 34. Ibid., p. 394. On the Akhbari-Usuli disputesee interalia JuanCole, 'Shi'iClericsin Iraq and Iran, 1722-1780:The Akhbari-Usuli ConflictReconsidered', IranianStudies,XVIII (1985),pp.3-34. 35. Kashifal-Ghita',Kashf al-Ghita',p. 394. Persian 36. Anonymous, Astan-i '[Jihadiyyah]', MS., Kitabkhanah-yi Quds-iRazavi, Mashhad, No. 123/2343, 'rukn-iyikum', of its 'muqaddimah'. 37. Abdul-Hadi Hairi,'AyatAllahSadr',inSal-Namah-yiNur-iDanish, (1952),pp.99-107. VII Moreinformation Kashifal-Ghita'maybe foundin Ann K.S. Lambton,'A Nineteenth on CenturyView of Jihad', StudiaIslamica,XXXII (1970),pp. 181-92. 38. Lisanal-Mulk,Nasikhal-Tawarikh, 1, p. 184. Vol. 39. HamidAlgar,Religionand State in Iran 1785-1906 (Berkeley,1969),p.89. 40. Abdul-HadiHairi, 'Ansari',El2, Supplement (1980),pp.75-7. 41. ArturChristensen, darzaman-i Iran translated Rashid Sasaniyan, by Yasimi (Tehran, 1938), p. 328ff. 42. MullaAhmadNaraqi, Taqdis(Tehran,1954/1374),pp.4, 9. 43. Ibid., p. 10. 44. Ibid., p. 34. 45. Ibid., p. 378. 46. Idem,Mi'rajal-Sa'adah(Tehran,n.d.), pp. 357-9. 47. Ibid., p. 348. 48. Ibid., p. 360. 49. Idem,AI-Khaza'in (1890/1308),p. 13. ShaykhBaha'i, a mujtahid the Safavidperiod, of wroteaboutthesameastrological lawsandappliedthemto ShahAbbas1;seeBaha'al-Din Muhammad trans.byM. B. Sa'idi(Tehran, (Shaykh Baha'i), Kashkul, 1979),Vol.11,p. 149. 50. Naraqi, al-Sa'adah, 4-6; Idem,Sayfal-Ummah pp. walBurhan al-Millah (1912/1330), Mi'raj pp. 39-40. 51. Idem, 'Awa'idal-AyyamfiBayanQawa'idal-AhkamwaMuhimmat Masa'ilal-Halalwa al-Haram (1913/1331),pp. 185-8. Seealso AhmadKazemi Moussavi,'TheEstablishment of the Positionof Marja'iyyat-i Taqlidin the Twelver-Shi'i Community', IranianStudies, XVIII (1985),pp. 35-51. 52. [RuhAllahMusaviKhumaynil Hukumat-i Islami(1971/1391).For an Englishtranslation of this book see Khomeini,Islam and Revolution:Writings Declarations Imam and of and Khomeini,translated annotatedby HamidAlgar(Berkeley,1981),pp.27-166. 53. Naraqi,Taqdis, 104,279,323;idem,Ghazal-iMullaAhmadNaraqiMutakhallisbiSafa, pp. editedby AkhtarNaraqi(1972), p. 122;Mudarris, Rayhanatal-Adab, Vol.6, p. 162. 54. Naraqi,Ghazal,pp. 118-19, 121. 55. Ibid., p. 121;Mudarris, Rayhanatal-Adab,Vol.6, p. 162. at 56. According Tunukabuni, a timetherewasa disagreement to between ShahandNaraqi the about 'an oppressive governor'of Kashanto the point that Naraqicalledthe Shah 'an



57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

oppressive sultan'.It seems,however,that thistypeof conflictwasnot lastingand serious enoughto placeNaraqiamongthe Shah'sadversaries; Tunukabuni, cf. Qisasal-'Ulama, p.130. Muhammad NasirFursatHusayniShirazi,Athar-i 'Ajam(Bombay,1934/1353),Vol.1, p.103. HasanKhan I'timad Muhammad al-Saltanah, Al-Ma'athir al-Athar(Tehran, wa 1888/1306), p. 156. Vol. Sayyid Ja'farDarabi Burujirdi Kashfi, Ijabatal-Muztarrin (1957/1377), 1, Introduction. Zayn al-'AbidinShirvani,Bustanal-Siyahah (n.d.), p. 9. Kashfi,Ijabah,p. 90; idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk al-Tawa'if Siratal-Mustaqim Suluk wa wa fi PersianMS., Kitabkhanah-yi Astan-iQuds-iRazavi,Mashhad, 3581, no al-Khala'if', No. pagination. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Idem, Ijabah,p. 84. Idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk'. Idem,Ijabah,pp. 328-9. Idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk'. Ibid. Idem, Tuhfahal-Muluk(1856/1273),no pagination. Ibid. Ibid. Idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk'. Idem, Tuhfahal-Muluk. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful