‫ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬

‫ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ »ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ«‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﺍﺛﺮ ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺳﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺟﻮﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‬

‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ‪۱ .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ "ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ" ‪۲ ....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ ‪۳ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪ‪۳ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻭﻝ‪۳ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺩﻭﻡ ‪۴ .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺸﻢ ‪۴ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﺗﻤﻪ ‪۶ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺮﺩﻳﺪﻫﺎ‪۷ .......................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪۸ .........................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪ -۱‬ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺍﺻﻐﺮ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ ‪۸ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪ -۲‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻱ ‪۹ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪ -۳‬ﺷﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ‪۱۰ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻫﺎ ‪۱۱ ............................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ ‪۱۱ ....................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭﻳﺰﺍﺳﻴﻮﻥ ‪۱۲ ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ‪۱۲ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ‪۱۳ .............................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻛﻼﻡ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ‪۱۳ ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ‪۱۴ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ‪۱۴ .......................................................................................................................................................‬‬

‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻤﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺁﻗﺎﻱ ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‪» ،‬ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺪﺍﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻳﻚ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﮕﻲ‪ -‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ« ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺸﺴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻮﭼﻚ ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﻟﻴﻦ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﺑﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻲ ﻭ ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺗﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺖ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻮﻳﻨﻲ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺁﺭﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﻧﺸﺴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﮔﺰﺍﺭﻱ ﻧﺸﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ« ﻭ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺧﺮﺩﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭﺭﺯ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺑﺮ ﻏﻨﺎ‬
‫‪۱‬‬
‫ﻭ ﮊﺭﻓﺎﻱ ﻧﺸﺴﺖ ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻴﻔﺰﺍﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﭼﻨﺎﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ‪ ١٨‬ﮊﺍﻧﻮﻳﻪ ‪ ،٢٠٠٣‬ﻧﺸﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ »ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﺑﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﻟﻴﻦ ﺑﺮﮔﺰﺍﺭ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺨﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫‪ .١‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻓﺸﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ ﻃﺮﺡ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻫﺎ‬
‫‪ .٢‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫‪ .٣‬ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻫﺎ‬

‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ‪ ١٥٠‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺮﻟﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺷﻬﺮﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﻤﻨﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻭ ﺷﻜﻴﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﺕ ‪ ٧‬ﺳﺎﻋﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﻨﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﭘﻲ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﺍﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻔﻜﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﮕﻮ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﮊﺭﻑ ﺗﺮﻱ ﻣﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺑﺮ ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ »ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ«‪ ،‬ﻭ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻮﺷﺶ ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺶ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ -‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻲ ﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺵ ﭘﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻫﺎ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺪﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﻼﺵ ﻭﺭﺯﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻣﭙﻴﻮﺗﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺑﺨﺶ‬
‫ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺳﺖ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻛﺎﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﺍﻣﻴﺪﻭﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﺸﺴﺖ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﮔﺎﻡ ﻣﺆﺛﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻤﻨﺪ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﻚ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ "ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ"‬

‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪ‪ ٦ ،‬ﻓﺼﻞ ﻭ ﻳﻚ ﺧﺎﺗﻤﻪ ﺩﺭ ‪ ٥٦٤‬ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺳﻪ ﺗﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻳﺎﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺷﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﺪ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ‪ :‬ﺍﺯ ﭼﺎﻟﺪِﺭﺍﻥ ﺗﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻤﺎﻥ ﭼﺎﻱ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﻃﺮﺣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﮕﺎﻥ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ‪ :‬ﺳﻔﺎﺭﺕ ﻭ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺷﺸﻢ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺧﺎﺗﻤﻪ‪ :‬ﻃﺮﺣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫•‬

‫‪۲‬‬
 ‫ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩﯼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺍﯼ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺮ ﺗﺤﻮﻻﺕ ﻓﮑﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ )ﻣﺪﺭﻧﻴﺘﻪ( ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻣﯽ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻨﺘﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻦ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ ﺗﺼﻠﺐ ﺷﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎ ِﻡ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺼﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻦ ﺑﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻭﺝ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺸﻢ ﻫﺠﺮﯼ ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻣﯽ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺪﻑ ﺗﻼﺵ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﯽ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﮑﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﯼ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﮐﻮﺷﺸﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﻁ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺭﺍﻫﻴﺎﺑﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺩﺳﺘﻴﺎﺑﯽ ﺑﻪ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﯽ‪ ،‬ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﺎﺯ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﯼ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺗﻼﺷﯽ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻧﻴﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﯽ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﯽ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺗﻼﺷﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﺩﻭﺍﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻳﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮎ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺘﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺒﻊ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺪﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﻳﻢ‪ :‬ﺍﺯ ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸﺎﻫﯽ ﻫﺨﺎﻣﻨﺸﯽ ﺗﺎ ﻭﺍﭘﺴﻴﻦ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ‪ :‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺗﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﯽ ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸﺎﻫﯽ ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺏ ‪ :‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﯽ )ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮﯼ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ(‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ‪ :‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ )ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﮓ ﭼﺎﻟ ِﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺗﺎ ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﺮﮐﻤﺎﻥ ﭼﺎﯼ(‬
‫ﺏ‪ :‬ﻣﮑﺘﺐ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺰ )ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ ﺗﺎ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ(‬
‫ﺝ‪ :‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ )ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﯽ(‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻭ ﻃﺮﺣﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﭼﺎﻟ ِﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺗﺎ ﺗﺮﮐﻤﺎﻥ ﭼﺎﯼ )‪ ٨٩٣‬ﺗﺎ ‪ ١٢٠٧‬ﺷﻤﺴﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ‪ ١٥١٤‬ﺗﺎ ‪ ١٨٢٨‬ﻣﻴﻼﺩﯼ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺭﻭﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺍﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﺟﻨﮓ ﭼﺎﻟﺪﺭﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺻﻼﺣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺳﺴﺖ ﻋﻨﺼﺮﻱ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻓﻐﺎﻧﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺷﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺯﻧﺪﻳﻪ ﻭ ﻗﺎﺟﺎﺭﻳﻪ ﻣﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺎ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻘﺪ ﺩﻭ ﻋﻬﺪﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﮔﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺮﻛﻤﻦ ﭼﺎﻱ ﻭ ﺟﺪﺍ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺐ ﺗﺸﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻮﻑ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩﻛﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻣﺘﺄﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺍﻱ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻧﻜﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻨﺘﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﭼﺎﺭﺗﺼﻠﹼﺐ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻧﻮﺁﻳﻴﻦ ﻭ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻐﺮﺏ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﭼﻴﺮﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺑﯽ ﺧﺒﺮﯼ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻭ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺁﮔﺎﻫﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻨﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺳﺮﺷﺖ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﺁﻳﻴﻦ ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻴﺎﻣﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪۳‬‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺩﻭﻡ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻃﺮﺣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮ ﻫﻴﻨﺘﺲ )‪،(Hinz‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻭﻛﻠﻤﺎﻥ )‪ ،(Brockelmann‬ﺳﻴﻮﺭﻱ )‪ ،(Savory‬ﺟﻮﺯﻑ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﺮ )‪ ،(Stayer‬ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﻭﻳﭻ )‪ ،(Kantorowicz‬ﺑﻨﻮﻧﻴﺴﺖ )‪(Benveniste‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻫﮕﻞ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻮﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻃﺮﺣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻣﺎﻳﻪ ﺑﻘﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻗﻠﻤﺮﻭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻗﻮﺍﻡ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻣﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﺷﺎﻫﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺕ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﻭ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﻘﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻣﺪ‪ .‬ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸﺎﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻫﺎﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺜﺮ ِ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺎﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺧﻮﺩﻛﺎﻣﻲ ﻭ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺩﻫﻪ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﻣﻘﺘﺪﺭﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﻭ ﺣﺬﻑ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ‬
‫ﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﺯﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺏ ﻭ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ ﺷﮑﺎﻑ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﮑﻮﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﯼ ﭘﯽ ﺁﻣﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻬﻤﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﯽ ﺁﻣﺪﻫﺎ ‪.‬ﺟﺎﻧﺸﻴﻨﯽ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﯼ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺩﮐﺎﻣﮕﯽ ﮔﺸﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﭘﯽ ﺁﻣﺪ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﮑﻮﻳﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﻭ ﻫﻮﻳﺖ »ﻣﻠﯽ« ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺟﺪﺍﻳﯽ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻭ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺒﺖ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﺪﺭﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﮔﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺻﻞ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻚ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺸﻢ‬

‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺸﻢ ﺩﺭﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﻳﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻃﺮﺣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍ ِﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪ ٩‬ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﻏﺮﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍ ِﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻧﻪ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻠﮑﻪ ﺑﺎﺯﺭﮔﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﺎﻧﮕﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺟﺮﺍﺟﻮ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﮐﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎﻳﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻭ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﮑﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﯽ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍ ِﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩﮐﺎﻣﮕﯽ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻫﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻄﺐ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﯽ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻫﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻤﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺍﻧﯽ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻫﺎﻥ ﺳﺴﺖ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻳﮏ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﮐﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﯽ )ﺷﺎ ِﻩ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ(‬
‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﻭ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎ ﺿﻌﻒ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻓﻴﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﻭﺛﯽ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻣﻨﺪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ(‪ ،‬ﺭﻳﺶ ﺳﻔﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﺎﻥ ﻗﺒﻴﻠﻪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻗﺒﻴﻠﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺗﺮﮐﺎﻥ( ﻳﺎ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺕ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻐﻮﻝ(‬
‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ﻣﺎﻟﮑﻴﺖ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﯽ )ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎﻟﮏ(‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺍﻓﺰﻭﻥ ﺑﺮ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺎﻻ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﻭﺭﺵ ﻭﻟﻴﻌﻬﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺮﻣﺴﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﺎﻫﯽ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺑﻮﺩﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻋﻀﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﻧﺪﺍﻥ ﺷﺎﻫﯽ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﯽ ﺷﺪﻥ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺎﻫﯽ ﺍﺧﻼﻕ ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪۴‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻓﺼﻞ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻔﺮ ﻭ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ ٩‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﻭﺭ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻭ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ ﺳﻔﺮ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ ٥ .‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺳﺘﺎﺩﮔﺎﻥ ﺷﺎﻫﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻘﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﺯﺭﮔﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﺎﻧﮕﺮﺩ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻻ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺳﺘﺎﺩﮔﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻌﻤﻮ ﹰ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺑﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺷﻴﻔﺘﻪ ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻭ ﻋﺠﺎﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻭ ﮐﻨﺠﮑﺎﻭﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻧﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﮐﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﺮﺑﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺘﯽ ﺳﻄﺤﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻧﯽ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﺁﻥ ﺑﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺎﻭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺎﻟﻮﺩﻩ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﺁﻥ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻪ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻘﺸﻲ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﺷﻮﺷﺘﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﻴﺮ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻮﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺧﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﺠﺪّﺩﻃﻠﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﻣﺘﻔﮑﹼﺮﺍﻥ ﻗﻮﻡ« ﻗﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﮔﺎﻧﮕﯽ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺠ ّﺪﺩﻃﻠﺒﺎ ِﻥ ﺑﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﻞ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﯽ ﺧﺒﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﻭﮔﺎﻧﮕﯽ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺷﮑﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻜﺴﻮ ﻭ ﺍﻫ ِ‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﻓﺼﻞ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻭ ﺩﺍﻭﺭﯼ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻲ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﺩ ﻭ ﻳﮏ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺑﻨﺪﯼ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ‪ -‬ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺷﺎﻟﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻥ‬
‫ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺧﺮﺩﮔﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﻭ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺧﺮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺿﺎﺑﻄﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻱ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺑﻮﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﻮﻋﻠﻲ ﻣُﺴﻜﻮﻳﻪ ﺭﺍﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﻮﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺑﻮﺍﻟﻔﻀﻞ ﺑﻴﻬﻘﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ »ﻣﻠﻲ« ﻭ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﭘﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻦ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺑﺴﻂ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻗﺪﻳﻢ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﻲ‪ -‬ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ »ﻣﻠﻲ« ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﻣﻲ ﻳﺎﺑﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺠﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻧﺸﻴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﮔﺮ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺗﺼﻮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﻴﻊ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﭽﻮﻥ ﺧﻠﻴﻔﻪ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺟﻠﻮﻩ ﮔﺮ ﻭ ﺩﺍﻳﺮﻩ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺩﺍﻳﺮﻩ ﻧﺒﻮﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺎﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﻣﻨﺸﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﺑﻴﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﮐﺎﺭﮔﺰﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻉ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺗﮑﻠﹼﻒ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺍ ﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﺳﺮﻣﺸﻖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺧﻼﻗﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ‪ ،‬ﻳﮑﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﯽ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺿﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻗﻮﺕ ﺩﻧﻴﻮﻱ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺿﻌﻒ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﮔﺮﻳﺰﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻭ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺁﺧﺮﺕ ﻣﻴﻞ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ »ﻗﺪﺳﺎﻧﻲ« ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﭘﯽ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻥ ﻣﺒﺘﺬﻝ ﻣﺘﺄﺧﺮ‬
‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺷﺸﻲ ﺑﻲ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻋُﺮﻓﯽ ﺯﺩﺍﻳﯽ ﻳﺎ ﻗﺪﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻻﺟﺮﻡ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺮﺩﮔﺮﺍﻱ ﻋﺼﺮ‬
‫ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﺗﻬﻲ ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻋﺮﺿﻪ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻴﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨ ِ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺷﺸﻢ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻃﺮﺣﯽ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻴﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨ ِ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ ﻧﮑﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﯽ ﻭ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﯽ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﻭ »ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ«‬
‫ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻳﯽ ﮔﺮﺩﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎ ُ‬
‫ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﭘﻴﺮﻭ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﯽ ﻭ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﻧﻮﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﯼ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﻭ ﺍﺧﻼﻗﯽ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻳﮏ ﮐﻼﻡ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺑﯽ ﺍﻫﻤﻴّﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﯽ ﭘﺮﺍﺑﻬﺎﻡ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﻣﯽ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻭ ﺷﺮﺡ »ﻋﻬﺪﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺍﺷﺘﺮ« ﺍﺯ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻓﺎﺿﻞ ﻣﺸﻬﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺖ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺖ‬

‫‪۵‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻣُﺮﺳﻠﻪ«‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﺘﺎﺳﻔﺎﻧﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻭ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﻓﺎﺿﻞ ﻣﺸﻬﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﻧﻬﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﮕﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺣﻜﻤﺎﻱ ﺍﻟﻬﻲ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﻧﻮﺯﺍﻳﯽ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ ﺩﺳﺘﺨﻮﺵ ﭼﻨﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﻠﺒﻲ ﻧﺸﺪ ﻛﻪ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺟﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴﺦ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺼﻠﺐ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﻩ ﻗﺸﺮﻱ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺖ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﻩ ﻫﺮﮔﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻮﺯﺍﻳﺸﻲ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﮔﺴﺴﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍِﻋﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﻣﺎﻧﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺖ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻧﻴﺰ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺠﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺧﺎﺗﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻫﻤﭽﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻏﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻣﻐﺮﺏ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻏﺮﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﭘﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﮕﺬﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﺘﻲ ﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﺸﺪﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﭼﻪ ﺭﺳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻲ ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸﺎﻫﻲ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻲ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺣﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻲ ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﺪﺍﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﯽ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ‬
‫ﺍﺧﻼﻕ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﺑﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻫﺠﻮﻡ ﺍﻗﻮﺍﻡ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮ ﺷﺶ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .١‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻳﻴﻨﻲ‪ -‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺭﻓﺘﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻬﻦ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺁﻳﻴﻦ ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺷﺎﻟﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺁﻳﻴﻨﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻫﺮ ﺑﺎﺭ ﻛﻪ »ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ« ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﻴﺪﻩ ﻧﺸﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻜﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺘﺨﻮﺵ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮﻩ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٢‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺧﹸﻠﻖ ﻭ ﺧﻮﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﻛﺎﻣﻪ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺘﻲ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻞ ﺑﻲ ﺛﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻧﻬﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺘﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺘﻲ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺭﺿﻲ ﻭﮔﺬﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺗﺸﻴﻊ‪ -‬ﺗﺼﻮﻑ‪ -‬ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻄﺮﻩ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻗﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ ﻭ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭ ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٣‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻴﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻳﻮﺭﺵ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻜﺮﺭ ﺍﻗﻮﺍﻡ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻢ ﺟﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻳﻜﺴﻮ ﻭ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻓﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﺖ ﺑﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺖ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻣﺎﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻪ ﺟﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﭘﻴﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﻏﻠﺒﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﻑ ﻭ ﺩﻳﺎﻧ ِ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻗﻮﺍﻡ ﺟﻨﮓ ﺳﺎﻻﺭ ﻭ ﻣﻠﺘﻲ ﻓﺮﻫﻴﺨﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻴﺨﺘﮕﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﻭ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﭘﺸﺘﻮﺍﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺁﻳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٤‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻭ ﺁﻳﻴﻦ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﺕ ﺗﺮﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﺩﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺁﺩﺍﺏ ﺗﺮﻛﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﺮﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﭼﺎﻟﺸﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﺕ ﺗﺮﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﭼﺎﻟﺸﻲ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﺑﻄﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﻧﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ )ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﺑﺎ ﻋﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‬

‫‪۶‬‬
‫ﻋﺼﺮ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﻴﺪ( ﺑﻪ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﺩﺏ )ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻣﻐﻮﻻﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺷﺪ( ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻮﻥ »ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ« ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٥‬ﭘﻲ ﺁﻣﺪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ :‬ﺍﻭﺝ ﺷﻜﻮﻓﺎﻳﻲ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺑﺎﺩﺍﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺍﺑﻲ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻩ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻛﺎﺭﻭﺍﻧﺴﺮﺍﻫﺎ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯﻳﻦ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺘﻲ ﻭ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٦‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺏ ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﺕ ﺟﻤﻌﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻫﻢ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪ ﻣﺤﺮﻭﻡ ﮔﺸﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﭘﺎﻳﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﺳﺴﺘﻲ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﺕ ﻭﺍﭘﺴﻴﻦ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﻭﺝ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﻛﻨﺸﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﻳﺎﺭﻭﻳﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎﺑﺴﺎﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺭﺍ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺟﻨﮓ ﭼﺎﻟﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ... .‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺳﻪ ﺳﺪﻩ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻨﺤﻂ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﻤﯽ ﺳﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺳﺨﻴﻒ ﻭ ﻧﺜﺮﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻉ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺗﮑﻠﻒ ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﻧﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲ ﺟﻨﮓ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺍﻣﻨﻲ ﻭ ﺁﺷﻮﺏ ﻭ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺧﺮﺩﻭﺭﺯﺍﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺗﺼﻮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺑﻪ »ﻣﺘﻔﻜﺮﺍﻥ ﻗﻮﻡ« ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻳﮕﺎﻧﻪ »ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ«‬
‫ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ »ﻣﻠﻲ« ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﻀﺎﻋﻒ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻦ ﺑﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍ ِﻥ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍﻧﺪﻩ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ »ﻣﻠﻲ«‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ »ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ« ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺸﺘﻮﺍﻧﻪ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻬﻤﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺁﻥ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻧﺮﺳﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻧﻄﻔﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ »ﺧﻂ ﻣﻘﺪﻡ ﺟﺒﻬﻪ« ﺩﺭ »ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﻨﻪ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺰ« ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﺛﺮﺍﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺳﺪﻩ ﺍﻱ‪ -‬ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻧﻲ ‪ -‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺯﺍﺩﮔﺎﻩ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺰ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻭﺍﻛﻨﺶ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺳﺪﻩ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﻥ »ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺰ« ﺑﻮﺩ‪«.‬‬

‫ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺮﺩﻳﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﺗﻤﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺮﺩﻳﺪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺁﻳﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ »ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ« ﻭ ﺑﺮﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻧﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻏﺮﺑﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺑﺮﻋﮑﺲ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻧﯽ ﻭ ﮐﻠﻴﺴﺎﺯﺩﺍﻳﯽ ﻣﻴﺴﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؟ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﻼﻣﯽ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬
‫ﺁﻳﺎ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ »ﻋﺼﺮ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﺑﺎ ﭘﻮﺷﺎﻧﺪﻥ ﻟﺒﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﮐﻼﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺗﻬﯽ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺕ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ‬
‫ﻚ ﺍﺭﺳﻄﻮﻳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎ ِ‬
‫ﻲ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳ ِ‬
‫ﻧﮑﺮﺩﻧﺪ؟ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﮔﺮﺩﻳﺴ ِ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ »ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ« ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺟﺴﺖ؟ ﺁﻳﺎ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﻱ ﻭ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺷﺮﻉ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻲ ﻣﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ؟ ﺁﻳﺎ »ﻋﺼﺮ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﻛﻪ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﺶ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻘﻞ ﺷﺮﻋ ِ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺖ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺪﺍﺭﻙ ﻧﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬

‫‪۷‬‬
 ‫ﺁﻳﺎ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺷﺎﻫﯽ‪-‬ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﻴﺪﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ؟‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻦ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﮔﺮﻳﺰ ﻗﺪﺳﺎﻧﯽ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻦ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﮔﺮﺍ ﺳﮑﻮﻻﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻳ ِ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻓﺼﻞ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ »ﺳﮑﻮﻻﺭ« ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﯽ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻴﺸﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﺩﻳ ِ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﮑﻮﻻﺭ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺍﺯ ﺳﮑﻮﻻﺭﻳﺰﺍﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺟﺪﺍﻳﯽ ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﻦ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ‪ ،‬ﮐﻠﻴﺴﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺩﺭ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ؟‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻥ ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻧﮑﻮﻫﺶ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺗﺮﯼ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ُﻣﻠﮏ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ‪ ،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ »ﻓﺼﻠﯽ ﻧﻮ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ« ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪ؟‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻣﻠﯽ ﮊﺭﻑ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺮﺷﺖ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﮔﺎﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﻫﯽ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺍﻧﯽ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﮏ ﻃﻮﺳﯽ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﭼﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬

‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬

‫‪ -۱‬ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺍﺻﻐﺮ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‬

‫ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺍﺻﻐﺮ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ »ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ« ﻭ »ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭ‬
‫ﻲ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ« ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋ ِ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﮏ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﺋﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻻﺯﻡ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﯽ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺎﺳﻔﺎﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﻋﻼﻗﻤﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﻫﻴﭻ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﮐﻪ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﺋﯽ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﭼﻪ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻲ ﻳﺎﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﭼﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﭼﺮﺍ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﭙﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ‪» ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸ ٌﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﯼ« ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺤﮏ ﺗﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﺋﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ؟‬
‫ﭼﺮﺍ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩ ﺧﻴﺰ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﮐﻪ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ »ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﯼ« ﻭ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺽ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﭼﺸﻢ ﻣﯽ ﺑﻨﺪﺩ؟‬

‫ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﺋﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺳﺎﻥ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ« ﻭ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﻬﺎﯼ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﺋﯽ ﺑﺎﺯﺗﺎﺏ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪﯼ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﺋﯽ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺗﮑﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﺏ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﺋﯽ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺫﮐﺮ ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﯼ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﺋﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺌﻮﺍﻝ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﯼ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻳﮏ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﺋﯽ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﻳﻦ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻭ‬
‫ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺑﯽ ﺍﻧﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺳﻴﻢ ﻃﺮﺣﯽ ﺑﭙﺮﺩﺍﺯﻳﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺗﮑﺮﺍﺭ ﭘﯽ ﺩﺭ ﭘﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﺯ ﻭ ﻧﺸﻴﺐ ﻫﺎ ﺍﻧﻌﮑﺎﺱ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ؟ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻃﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﯽ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﺋﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﺪﻳﻖ‬
‫ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﺋﯽ‪» ،‬ﺧﺮﺩﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻪ« ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻧﺎ ﺑﺨﺮﺩﺍﻧﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﯼ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺟﺪﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻳﻚ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻗﻄﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﯼ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﮑﻪ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻛﺎﻓﻲ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﭘﻴﺪﺍﻳﺶ ﺁﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻭ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻲ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪۸‬‬
 ‫‪ -۲‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻱ‬
‫ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﺎ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﻓﺮﺻﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻀﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺯﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻒ ﺷﻮﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻞ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻛﺮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﹰﺎ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻨﻮﻳﺴﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬
‫ﻭﻱ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺑﺴﺘﺮ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﭘﻴﺸﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﻗﻬﻘﺮﺍ‬
‫ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪﻱ ﺗﻨﮕﺎﺗﻨﮓ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﻭﺟﻮﻩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺗﺌﻮﻟﻮﮊﻳﻚ ﻳﺎ ﺧﺪﺍﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺳﻬﻢ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﻳﻮﺁﺧﻴﻢ ﻓﻴﻮﺭﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻳﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺁﺧﻴﻢ ﻓﻴﻮﺭﻩ ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﭘﻴﺸﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺧﻮﺷﺒﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺁﮔﻮﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﺰﺍﺭﻩ ﺷﻜﻮﻫﻤﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺍﺳﻮﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻳﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺧﻄﻲ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺣﻠﻘﻪ ﻣﺴﺪﻭﺩ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﮔﺸﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺗﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﮔﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﺎﺭﻭﺭ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺁﺧﻴﻢ ﻓﻴﻮﺭﻩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺍﻟﻲ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻧﻜﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻗﺎﺋﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﻛﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﮕﻞ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺛﻘﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ »ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻢ‪ ،‬ﭘﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺴﺘﻢ« ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺳﻮﮊﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺷﻚ ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺗﻲ ﻭ »ﻣﻦ«ﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺷﮕﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺷﮕﻞ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﮊﻩ ﺍﻱ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﻨﮕﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺯﺗﺎﺑﺎﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺟﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ‬
‫ﭼﻴﺰ ﺷﻚ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻴﺪ ﻭ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﻲ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻧﻨﮕﺮﻳﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﭼﻪ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺳﺮﺭﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻳﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻴﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺗﻲ ﻧﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺑﺒﺮﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﻥ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﻱ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﮕﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫=‪(transzendentale Logik‬‬ ‫)‪ (Sinnlichkeit=sensibility‬ﻭ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺗﺮﺍﻓﺮﺍﺯﻧﺪﻩ‬
‫)‪ transcendental logic‬ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﺷﺪ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺮﺩ ﺟﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺧﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻳﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺮﺩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ ﻳﺎ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ )‪ (Einbildungskraft=faculty of imagination‬ﭼﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﮕﺎﻧﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻋﺘﻨﺎﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ ﺍﺭﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﮕﻞ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺮﺍﺙ ﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻫﮕﻠﻲ ﻣﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﻴﺮ ﻭ ﺳﺮﮔﺬﺷﺖ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻨﻮﻳﺴﺪ ﻭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ ﺩﺭﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺴﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻏﺮﺏ ﺷﮕﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺭﺁﻭﺭ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻮﺩﺑﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻨﮕﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺏ ﻭ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﻣﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺮﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﺁﻧﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺘﺮﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺎﺕ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻝ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺭﺍﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻣﺸﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻬﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻲ ﻣﻨﻘﻄﻊ ﻭ‬
‫ﮔﺴﺴﺘﻪ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﻱ ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲ ﮔﺴﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﺎ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺑﺪﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺮ ﺷﻜﻞ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ »ﺳﻮﮊﻩ« ﻣﺤﻮﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ »ﻣﻦ« ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻛﺎﺭﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﺎﺭﻑ »ﻣﻦ« ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺟﻮﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻴﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﭘﺮﻭﺭﺩﮔﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﻓﻨﺎ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﭙﺲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻭ ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﭘﻲ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺮ‬

‫‪۹‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﻑ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺑﺮﺗﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺏ ﻛﺎﺭﺳﺎﺯ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﺑﺰ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﺩﺍﻭﺭﻱ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺑﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻲ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ ﻭ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻦ ﺁﻧﻬﺎﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺭﺍﺳﺘﻦ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻚ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ ﺳﻮﺩﻣﻨﺪ ﺍﻓﺘﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﻭ ﻓﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﺩ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻥ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺮﻳﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺘﻲ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻳﺪﺋﻮﻟﻮﮊﻱ ﺑﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪ -۳‬ﺷﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺳﻮﻣﻴﻦ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ "ﻧﮑﺎﺗﯽ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻥ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ" ﺑﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﺩﺭ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻌﻀﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮﯼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯽ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺑﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﺧﺺ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺑﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻋﻢ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺗﺎﺭﻳ ِ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺧﺮﺩ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﻱ ﺟﻬﺖ ﮔﻴﺮ ِ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ "ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ" ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ ﮔﻴﺮﯼ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﻣﺠﺒﻮﺭ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺵ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺮ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﭘﻴﮕﺮﯼ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺠﺎﻧﺲ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ ﮔﻴﺮﯼ ﻳﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﯽ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺗﻨﮕﺎﺗﻨﮓ ﺑﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﺸﻤﻮﻝ ﮐﻪ ﻻﺯﻣﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﺔ ﻣﻬﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﮐﺰ ﻫﺮ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﯼ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ "ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ" ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﮑﯽ‬
‫ﺟﺎﯼ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﺍﻡ ﻣﯽ ﻳﺎﺑﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﺷ ِﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﮑﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻢ ﻓﺮﻭ ﻣﯽ ﭘﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺷﮑﻞ ﮔﻴﺮﯼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎﻧﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ ﮐﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺸﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﮕﻞ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺎ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺟﺎ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻤﺎﺗﻴﮏ‬
‫ﺁﺭﺍﯼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯽ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﮑﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺮﺩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﻣﺪﺭﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺪﺍﺭ ﺧﺮﺩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ« ﺩﺭ ﭘﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﻓﻜﻨﺪﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻃﺮﺡ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﮑﻼﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻄﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪ "ﺍﺳﻄﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ" ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺟﺪﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﭘﺴﺎﻫﮕﻠﯽ ﻳﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻭ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻭ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺎﺕ ﮐﻨﻮﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻓﻖ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﻴﮑﯽ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺎﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﮐﻮﺗﺎﻫﯽ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺁﻥ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﮑﯽ ﺍﻱ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺮﺗﺎﺳﺮ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻮﻻﺕ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺒﻊ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺰﺩﻳﮑﯽ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺭﯼ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺗﺠﻠﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸﺎﻫﯽ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﻭﻥ ﺭﻓﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺴﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻮﺭﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﺎ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺵ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺗﺎﻟﯽ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﯽ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﯽ ﺳﺒﺐ ﮔﺸﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺒﻌﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺧﺮﺩ ﻭ‬
‫ﯼ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮ ِﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺩﻭﺍﺭﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺒﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺳﻮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎ ِ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺩﻭﺍﺭﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻭ ﻧﺎﻛﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﻧﻮﺯﺍﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺪﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺳﻮﺩﺟﺴﺘﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﺍﺭﮔﺎﻧﺴﻴﻢ ﺯﻧﺪﻩ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﮐﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪﯼ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﺎﻣﺘﻌﺎﺩﻟﯽ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ "ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ" ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻥ ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪۱۰‬‬
‫ﻭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺗﯽ ﻣﻲ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻳﮏ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻧﺎﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺗﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﯽ ﮐﻠﻴﺪﯼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﭼﻮﻥ ﭘﻴﺸﺮﻓﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻤﻨﺪﯼ ﻭ ﺣﺮﮐﺖ ﺧﻄﯽ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﻄﻮﺭﻩ ﻭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺧﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻳﺎﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻫﺎ‬

‫ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺑﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ«‪ ،‬ﺩﻛﺘﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺪﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﮔﺰﺍﺭﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺻﻤﻴﻤﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﺸﻜﺮ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻳﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ‬

‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻏﻴﺮﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺷﻤﻮﻝ ﻧﻮﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻫﮕﻞ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺰﻭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻭﻱ ﻣﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ‬
‫‪ Objekt=object‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ‪ Subjekt=subject‬ﻛﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬

‫‪ .۱‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻣﺒﻨﺎﻱ ﻫﻮﻳﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺳﺎﺯﺩ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ؟‬

‫‪ .۲‬ﺁﻳﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺑﮋﻛﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﻚ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ؟ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﻛﺮﺩ؟‬
‫‪ .۳‬ﻭ ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺁﻳﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺯﺩ؟‬

‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻮﻓﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺷﻮﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﮔﺮﻩ ﺑﺰﻧﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺯﺍﻳﺶ ﻳﺎ ﺭﻧﺴﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺎ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻃﻲ ﻛﻪ ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻣﺒﺘﻼ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺷﺪ؛ ﺩﺭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺮﺩﻭﻧﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ »ﺻﺪﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺫﻳﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﺳﺖ« ﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﺪﺭ ﻭ ﺫﻳﻞ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺭﺍﻫﻲ ﺟﺰ ﭼﻨﮓ ﺯﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﺘﻲ ﺳﻨﺘﻲ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺳﺨﻨﻲ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﺭﻱ ﺟﺴﺘﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﻁ ﻭ ﻣﺒﺘﻜﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻋﻴﻨﹰﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻳﻚ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﮕﺮ ﭼﻴﺮﻩ ﺩﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﻣﺒﺘﻜﺮﺍﻧﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﮕﺮﻳﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ »ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ« ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﮔﺮﺩ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﭼﻪ ﺣﺪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺳﻮﺩ ﺑﺮﺩ؟ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ :‬ﻫﻢ ﻛﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺭﺍ ﭘﻴﺶ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻛﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻔﻜﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻘﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻘﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﻤﻠﮕﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻄﺎ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻀﻞ ﻭ ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﻙ ﻭ ﺣﻞ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺎ ‪ -‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﻣﺤﻪ ﮔﻔﺖ‪ -‬ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻭ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺑﻜﻨﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺰﻧﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﻣﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﻡ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻬﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻪ ﮔﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺟﻠﺪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ« ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺟﻠﺪ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻡ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺯﻳﺮ ﭼﺎﭖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺠﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺩﻱ ﻭ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻛﺪﺍﻣﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻭ ﭼﺮﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻭ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﻮﺩ ﺑﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪۱۱‬‬
 ‫ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭﻳﺰﺍﺳﻴﻮﻥ‬

‫ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭﻳﺰﺍﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺒﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﺎﺑﺠﺎﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻛﺎﻣ ﹰ‬
‫ﺁﺩﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﺮﺯﻧﺪ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻓﺮﺯﻧﺪ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﺩﺭﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﻴﺢ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺩﻭ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻟﻄﻴﻔﺶ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺰ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻭ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺟﺎﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭﻳﺰﺍﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﻋﺮﻓﻲ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺩﻧﻴﻮﻱ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻭ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﺁﺧﺮﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ‪ ،‬ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﺁﺧﺮﺕ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺮﻑ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﺷﺮﻉ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻣﻀﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻣﻀﺎﺀ ‪ -‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺐ ‪ -‬ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺸﻮﺩﻥ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﻭ ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭﻳﺰﺍﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﮔﻔﺖ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻠﺪ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻡ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻭ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻋﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﺴﻴﺢ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﭘﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﻛﻠﻴﺴﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺣﺘﻲ ﭘﺎﭖ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺭﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﭘﺎﭖ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻃﻼﻕ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻣﻀﺎﺀ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﻭ ﻓﻘﻬﻲ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺗﺴﻨﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ ۳۰‬ﻫﺠﺮﻱ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺗﺸﻴﻴﻊ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ‪ ۳۳۰‬ﻫﺠﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻏﻴﺒﺖ ﻛﺒﺮﺍ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ ﻳﺎﺑﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ‬
‫ﻋﺮﻑ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺮ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻋﺮﻑ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ‬

‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﻌﺪﻱ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﮔﻔﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻋﺮﻓﻲ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻱ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﻛﻨﻮﻧﻲ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻛﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﻝ ﺍﺷﻤﻴﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺖ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻌﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﺷﻤﻴﺖ ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻜﻮﻻﺭ ﺷﺪﻥ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻗﺪﺍﻥ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻛﺎﺭﻝ ﻟﻮﻳ ِ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ .‬ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﻳﻨﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﻤﻠﮕﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻠﻮﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﮒ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﻛﺸﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻭ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺭﻭﺑﺮﻭﺋﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﻳﻨﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻲ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻝ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﺮﻋﻜﺲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﮔﺴﺴﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻗﺪﻳﻢ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻴﺮﻡ‪ .‬ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻋﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻏﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮ ﻧﺸﺪﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻋﺮﺍﺽ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﺭﺍﺑﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺪﺩ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﻨﺎﻱ ﺟﺪﺍﻟﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺷﻜﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺻﻮ ﹰ‬
‫ﻫﻴﭽﻮﻗﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺭﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻳﻢ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﻢ ﺍﻭ ﻭ ﺁﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﻫﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﺻﻮﻻ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﻫﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺳﻬﺮﻭﺭﺩﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺎﻧﺮﻱ ﻛﺮﺑﻦ ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺴﻮﻱ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺳﺎﻝ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻪ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ؟ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺻ ﹰ‬
‫‪ ۱۹۵۰‬ﻣﻴﻼﺩﻱ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﭼﺮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺻ ﹰ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻣﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻤﺎﻧﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺳﻨﺘﻲ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺟﻮﺍﻣﻊ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﭼﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺭﻭﺑﺮﻭﺋﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺁﻣﺪ ﻋﺎﺩﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻋﻨﺘﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﻜﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻒ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪۱۲‬‬
 ‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﮔﻔﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﻡ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻭ ﺛﻐﻮﺭﺵ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻠﺪ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﺘﺎﻥ ﻧﺮﺳﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮ ِﻡ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻠﺪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﻳﺘﺎﻥ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻗﺮﻭﻥ ﻭﺳﻄﻲ ﻧﺎﻡ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﻱ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺭﻧﺴﺎﻧﺲ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺸﺮ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﭘﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻬﺮ ﻭ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺯﺩ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺠﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺠﺎ ﺧﺘﻢ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻭﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺠﺎﺳﺖ؟ ﻭ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺠﺎﺳﺖ؟ ﺗﺎ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﻜﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻴﺎﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﻳﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﻳﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻇﻠﻤﺖ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻇﻠﻤﺖ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺎ ﭼﻪ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﺳﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﺎﭘﻠﺌﻮﻥ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﻣﻦ ﺍﻭ ﺯﺩ ﻭ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﻪ »ﺍﻱ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎﻳﻪ ﻓﻼﻛﺖ ﻣﻦ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ؟ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺁﻓﺘﺎﺑﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺷﻤﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﺎﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﺎﺑﺪ ﻭ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﺎﻙ ﺁﻥ ﺧﺎﻙ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؟« ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﻧﻄﻔﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺟﺪﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻧﮕﻮﻧﺒﺨﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺯﻳﺮ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺴﺎﻁ ﻛﻬﻨﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﭼﻴﺪ ﻭ ﻃﺮﺣﻲ ﻧﻮ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺧﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺯﻧﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺳﺪ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺁﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻄﻔﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺎﺳﺖ‪.‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺰﺍﺭ ﻭ ﺩﻭﻳﺴﺖ ﺳﻲ ﺳﺪ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻮﺭﺵ ﺍﻓﻐﺎﻧﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻧﻴﺰ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻧﺸﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻛﻨﻮﻧﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﺯﺍﻳﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﺗﺮﻱ ﻣﻲ ﻃﻠﺒﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺒﻮﺭﻡ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻠﺪ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺗﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻪ ﺩﻫﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻭ ﻛﻮﺷﺶ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺪ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻳﺎ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺭﻭﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﻛﻼﻡ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ؟‬
‫ﻭﻱ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻣﻨﻔﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺰﻭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺗﺌﻮﻟﻮﮊﻱ ﺗﺎﺳﻴﺲ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺟﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﻲ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ؟ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻳﻚ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻧﺴﺘﺮﻭﻛﺴﻴﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﻳﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﺷﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﺮﻓﺎ ﻟﻄﻴﻔﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻧﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻬﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺒﺮ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺒﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺮ ِﻉ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻴﻨﻘﺪﺭ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﻔﻈﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻛﻠﻴﺴﺎ‬
‫ﻭ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻡ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺌﻮﻟﻮﮊﻱ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺟﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﺣﺴﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺳﺪﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺮﻥ ‪ ۱۲‬ﻭ ‪۱۳‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﻼﺩﻱ ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﻣﺎﺱ ﻗﺪﻳﺲ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺳﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻧﻤﻲ ﻛﻨﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﻮﻟﻲ ﺭﺍ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺖ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻧﻤﻲ ﻛﻨﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‪ -‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺷﻤﻴﺖ ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ ‪ -‬ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻧﮕﻬﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﺁﻧﺤﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻠﺐ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﻡ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ‬

‫‪۱۳‬‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﺎﻝ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺟﺎﻱ ﺷﮕﻔﺘﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯﻩ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺳﻨﺪ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺣﺪﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺘﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ ﭘﺬﺑﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻨﺪ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻞ ﺑﺮ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺑﻮﻳﺮﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻬﺪﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺍﺷﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺭﺳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﺣﻪ ﺧﺎﺻﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺖ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻬﺪﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻣﺮﺳﻠﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺖ ﺭﻋﻴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻣﺘﺸﺮﻉ ﻭ ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺒﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻛﻪ » ُﻣﻠﻚ ﺑﺎ ﻛﻔﺮ ﻣﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻇﻠﻢ ﻧﻤﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﺪ«‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﻪ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻋﻬﺪﻧﺎﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺭﻋﻴﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﻴﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺣﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻭ ﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﺑﮕﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﮔﺮﭼﻪ‬
‫ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺗﻮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﻧﮕﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺑﮕﻴﺮ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﮔﻔﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻮ ﺑﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﻛﻨﻢ‪ .‬ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺳﻨﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺗﺶ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﻣﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻐﻮﻝ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺷﺎﻫﻲ‪-‬‬
‫ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻱ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻭ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻧﻲ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﭼﻮﻥ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺟﺎﻧﺸﻴﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﮔﻪ ﺍﻱ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻢ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﻣﻲ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺖ ﺭﻋﻴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻬﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻣﻨﺪ ﻳﻚ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﻨﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻠﻠﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺟﺎ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺗﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺁ ﻥ ﻫﺎ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺴﻂ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺘﺎﻟﻬﻴﻦ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺷﺮﻉ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻧﺸﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻡ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺑﺮﺑﺎﻳﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﺍﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻴﺎﺭﻭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﻙ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ‬

‫ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻭ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻋﻘﻞ‪ .‬ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﻼﻡ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻗﺎﺋﻞ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺧﺪﺍﻳﻲ ﻫﺴﺖ ﻭ ﻣﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‬
‫ﻣﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻋﻘﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻓﺎﺭﺍﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﺎ ﺳﻬﺮﻭﺭﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻗﻠﻤﺮﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻬﺎﻱ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺪﺍﺩﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﻓﺎﺭﺍﺑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﻳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﺴﻂ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺎﺭﺍﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻴﻌﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻭ ﻧﺎﻇﺮ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻘﻞ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻚ ﻋﻘﻞ ﺑﺰﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺑﺮﻋﻜﺲ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﺋﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﺼﺮ ﺯﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻓﺎﺭﺍﺑﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻫﻞ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﻪ ﻓﺎﺿﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﻼﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﺝ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻲ ﻗﺎﺋﻞ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﻭ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﻪ ﻓﺎﺿﻠﻪ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺩﺍﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﻳﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻘﻴﻪ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺿﺎﻟﻪ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻬﺎﻱ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺩﻫﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪۱۴‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﻫﻢ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ« ﺩﻭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻴﻬﻘﻲ ﺑﻨﻮﻳﺴﻢ ﻭ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﺘﺎﺳﻔﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻢ ﻭ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﻢ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ‬
‫ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻛﺎﺭﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﻳﻴﻢ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﺸﻬﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻜﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺛﻘﻞ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻞ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻓﺖ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﻼﻑ ﻛﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺭﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺳﻬﺮﻭﺭﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ ۵۵۰‬ﺑﺮ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺧﻴﺰﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺣﻜﻤﺖ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﺮﺯﺍﻧﮕﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﺪ ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﻤﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﺝ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﻩ ﺍﻣﭙﺮﺍﻃﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻭ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻐﻤﻪ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺧﺎﻣﻮﺵ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺴﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺧﻴﺰﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻮﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻢ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺑﻜﻨﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﻬﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺗﺎ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﻴﻬﻘﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻧﻨﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﺎ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﺩﻳﺪ ﻭ ﻓﻬﻤﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻧﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﻱ ﻭ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﮔﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﻛﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﻭﺋﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻓﻬﻤﺸﺎﻥ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺗﺸﺎﻥ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﻛﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﺮﺑﻲ ﻳﺎ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﻛﻬﻦ ‪ ،‬ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﮔﺮﻩ ﺧﻮﺭﺩﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺟﺰﺍﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﻛﺸﻮﺭﺷﺎﻥ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﺣﺘﻲ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ‪ ...‬ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻭ ﺫﻫﻦ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻨﮕﻴﻨﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺳﻨﮕﻴﻨﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﻛﺮﺩ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺭﻭﺯﻱ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺗﻜﻠﻴﻒ ﺧﻮﺩﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﻧﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻦ ﻳﻚ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻌﺶ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺑﺮﻧﻤﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﻣﻠﺘﻲ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺏ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﻛﺸﻴﺪﻥ ﺑﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻬﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺟﺰ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﻭﺯﻱ ﺭﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻌﺶ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﻴﺎﻳﺴﺘﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺗﺼﻔﻴﻪ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﻩ‬
‫ﺖ ﻛﻢ ﺩﺍﻣﻦ ﺯﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺳ ِ‬

‫*************‬

‫ﺳﻤﻴﻨﺎﺭ »ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ« ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺬﺷﺖ ‪ ۷‬ﺳﺎﻋﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﺯ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﮔﺮﻡ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺪﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻦ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺎﻗﺪﺍﻥ ﻭ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪۱۵‬‬