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: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283247
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
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. 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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
 The Legitimacyof the Early Qajar Rule
as Viewed by the Shi'i Religious Leaders
Abdul-HadiHairi

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
of justice have both been unquestionablyentrustedto the mujtahids.The
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
politicsandrulershipwerealso to be entrustedto the mujtahidsas theGeneral
Agents of the Twelfth Imam.2
On the other hand, however,therehave been other religiousauthorities
who, basingthemselveson a seriesof traditionalistandrationalistreasonings,
have come to believe that the mujtahidsas well as the non-mujtahidkings
mightsharerulershipand legitimatelyrulethe Muslimcommunity.The latter
group of the ulama hold that the king and the mujtahiddivide the offices
betweenthemselvesaccordingto theirspecialty,knowledgeand experience.3
In the last decadeof the eighteenthcentury,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
1797- 1934/1211- 50), wereableto suppresstheirrivalsand, for the firsttime
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
ulama,who had been underpressurefor decadesto the extentthat they had
migratedto Indiaand Iraq, enjoyedgreatinfluenceon the governmentand
commandedgreat prestigeamong the people.
In the circumstances,the ulamawereable to interpreta certainnumber
of the hadithsin favor of their own rightto rulership.5On the other hand,
the QajarShahs(Kings)did not claimdescentfrom the Shi'i Imams,nor did
they declarethemselvesto be the agentsof the TwelfthImam.The question
of a rightfulruler,therefore,was of vital importanceto both the ulamaand
Qajarrulers.6The aim of the presentstudyis to examinethe positionof the
religiousleadersin Irantowardthe problemof rulershipduringthe first few
decadesof Qajarrule.
In order to gain insight into the actual situation in which the ulama
expressedtheirviewpoints,severalfactorsshouldbe takeninto consideration:
272 MIDDLEEASTERNSTUDIES

1. Fath Ali Shah's need for legitimacycreateda necessityfor a friendly

relationshipwiththe ulama.He thereforetook an interestin religiousaffairs
and had the greatestesteem for the ulama.7
2. SinceIranwasat warwiththe non-MuslimRussiansduringthelastyears
of the eighteenthcenturyand the earlydecadesof the nineteenth,the ulama
were bound to co-operatewhole-heartedlywith the Shah and his Regent,
Abbas Mirza,who weredefendingthe Islamicterritoryagainstthe infidels.
Thus the ulamacalled them the 'mujtahids'whom no one was to disobey.8
3. Theunremittingstrugglesof themujtahidswiththe Sufis,theAkhbaris,
and the Shaykhisseemto havebeenanotherimportantmotivefor theirclose
co-operationwith Fath Ali Shah. Having the Shah as a great and strong
supporter,the mujtahidswerein a betterand strongerpositionto suppress
theirrivals.
Proceedingto the mainsubjectof studywe see how, in the circumstancesat
that time, the mujtahidstheoreticallydealt with the problemof rulership
andhow fartheywerepreparedto go to legitimizethe ruleof theearlyQajars
withinthe frameworkof the Twelver-Shi'iideology.For our purposewe will
deal with four distinguishedmujtahids,each of whom was a good represen-
tative exampleof the clericalleadershipof the period, and approachedthe
problemof a legitimaterulerin his own particularway. The mujtahidsunder
discussionare as follows:
1. ShaykhJa'far al-Najafi, known as Kashifal-Ghita'(d. 1812/1227);
2. MirzaAbu'l Qasim, known as Mirza-yiQummi (1737-1816/1150-
1231);
3. Mulla Ahmad Naraqi (1771-1829/1185-1245);
4. Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi (1775-1850/1189-1267).

QUMMI:CONSULTATIONAND COMPROMISE
Qummibelongedto a familyoriginatingin Shaft,a smalltownin Gilan,Iran.
His fathermovedto Japilaq,72 kilometersfromBurujird,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
professorsincludingAqa MuhammadBaqirBihbihani.Lateron he spentforty
yearsof his life in Qum, and for this reasonhe was calledMirza-yiQummi.'0
He died in the same city in 1816/1231.
Qummihasbeenconsideredone of thegreatmujtahidsandmarja'-itaqlids
of the Shi'i world. He wrotea numberof books and treatisesonfiqh, usul,
ethics and philosophy, some of which still exist in manuscriptform. His
correspondence withthe QajarShahsindicateshis amicablerelationshipwith
them,especiallywithFathAli Shahwho hadparticularrespectfor him,proven
by the extentthat he was preparedto acceptQummi'sdemandsand recom-
mendations."IIn turn, Qummisupportedthe Shah and legitimizedhis rule.
Qummiwrote his 'Irshad-Namah'when he was about fifty yearsof age,
and sincehe wasbornin 1737/1150,the dateof writingthe treatisemusthave
been circa 1787/1202. The Shah he addressedin the treatisewas therefore
probablythe founderof the Qajardynasty,Aqa MuhammadKhan."2In this
LEGITIMACYOF THE EARLYQAJARRULE 273

treatise,Qummitalksaboutthe importanceof the authorityof the Shahand

kingship,the meaningof 'zillAllah'(shadowof God)andits connectionwith
the Shah, and about his own positionas a mujtahidin comparisonwith that
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
'wickedsoul andmalafides'(su'-isariratvakhubth-iniyyat).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, encroach-
ments 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. '
274 MIDDLEEASTERNSTUDIES

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 com-
manded 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 legit-
imate 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:
LEGITIMACYOF THE EARLYQAJARRULE 275

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 monarchto followSufism
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.

KASHIFAL-GHITA',THE 'LORD'OF THE SHAH

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
276 MIDDLEEASTERNSTUDIES

everynightin worshippingGod, and he mortgagedhis housein orderto help

the poor.27He was influentialin the arenaof politicsto the pointthat 'he was
in close contactwith the Shahsand rulers',28and 'the Arabsas well as non-
Arabsobeyedhim'.29It was for this reasonthat in 1812/1227he was invited
to act as an intercessor(shafi') in the Iran-Ottomanborderconflicts.30His
specialtyin the Islamicscienceslenthimthe titles'Shaykhal-Akbar'(Greatest
Shaykh)3'and 'Shaykhal-mujtahidin'(Masterof the Mujtahids).32
This greatreligiousleaderhad close and friendlyrelationswith Fath Ali
Shah,andin his bookKashfal-Ghita'writtenon fiqh he admiredhis govern-
mentandhopedthatthe Shah'sgovernmentalsystemmightbe prolongedand
connectedto that of the TwelfthImam.He finallydedicatedthe book to the
Shah.33Despitethese facts, however,Kashifal-Ghita'neverconsideredthe
Shah'sruleto be genuinelylegitimateanddidnot allowhimto claimlegitimacy
unless sanctionedby the usuli ulama, i.e. those religiousauthoritieswho
practicedijtihadandcondemnedtheAkhbariswho did not believein ijtihad.
Concerningthe necessityof declaringa holy war againstthe Russians,
Kashifal-Ghita'arguesthat when Islamicterritorywas attackedby infidels
it would be obligatoryupon the Imamto defend it. If the Imamshould be
absent,the mujtahidswouldleadthejihadcampaign,butif, for somereason,
the ulama'sactualleadershipwere not possible, then any qualifiedman or
menshouldtakethe responsibility.Hence, it wouldbe a compulsorydutyof
thepeopleto supportand obeysucha personor persons;anyonewho refused
to do so would have, in fact, disobeyedthe Imam, the Prophet, and God.
Kashifal-Ghita'goes on to arguethat undersuch circumstancesit 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
authoritiesof the age, I will be determinedto authorizeFathAli Shahto lead
thejihad campaignagainstthe infidels'.Thenhe declaresit incumbentupon
theMuslimsto obeytheShahandwarnsthatactsof disobedienceto thelatter's
orderswill be consideredas disobedienceto God and will invokeHis wrath.34
Kashifal-Ghita'considersthe Shah'srulelegitimateonly whenit is author-
izedand sanctionedby a mujtahid,andclearlydeniesthe Shah'sgenuineand
independentclaim to a legitimaterule. He does not even abandonhis argu-
mentat this point. In orderto preventFathAli Shah fromtakingany advan-
tage of the conditionallegitimacyhe enjoyed,Kashifal Ghita' again insists
upon the originalillegitimacyof 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.
Obedienceto the authorityof the Prophet'svicaris obligatorynot out of
expediencyor 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 preparingweaponsand
recruitingsoldiersfor a warunderthecommandof the kingmaybe considered
as preliminaryobligatorydutiesupon whichthe principalobligatoryduties
are based.35
LEGITIMACYOF THE EARLYQAJARRULE 277

In a separatetawqi'(decree)writtenon the necessityof a jihadagainstthe

Russiansunderthe commandsof FathAli ShahandAbbasMirza,Kashifal-
Ghita' 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
functionaries.He 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
hereafter.36
It is interestingto note that in defiance of the fact that this mujtahid
recognizedthe Shah's authoritywith such severereservations,a son-in-law
of Kashifal-Ghita',SayyidSadral-Din'Amili, knownalso as SadrIsfahani,
(d. 1847/1264)still criticizedhim heavily.SadrIsfahaniarguedthat Kashif
al-Ghita'entrustedFathAli Shahwitha numberof religioustaskswhichwere
to be withinthe jurisdictionof the virtuousIslamicauthorities,whereasthe
Shah was an oppressiveand unrighteousman and was not qualifiedfor the
position.Accordingto SayyidSadral-DinSadr(a grandsonof SadrIsfahani
who died in 1953/1373), since Kashif al-Ghita' was not convinced, Sadr
IsfahanimigratedfromIraqto Isfahanin orderto removehis associationwith
Kashifal-Ghita'.37

DISAPPROVAL OF REASON, SCHOOL AND THE SULTAN

Anotherdistinguishedandinfluentialthinkerand mujtahidof the periodwas

MullaAhmad Naraqi. Naraqi, who declareda jihad againstthe Russians38
and participatedin the jihad campaignin a shroud,39was also a prolific
author.Apartfromwritingon fiqhandusul, Naraqialso producedworkson
Islamicethics.His proficiencyin the Islamicscienceswasparticularly admired
by ShaykhMurtazaAnsari(1799-1864/1214-81), a discipleof Naraqiand
himselfthe most prominentShi'i religiousleaderof the nineteenthcentury.40
In one of Naraqi'sworkswrittenin the formof a 'mathnavi'the authority
of the Shah appearsto be highly respectedand the Shah is depictedas an
exampleof goodnessandexcellence.Firstly,he entitledhis 'mathnavi'Taqdis,
the latterbeingthe nameof the archedthroneof KhusrawParviz,the great
king of pre-IslamicIran.41Secondly, 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'(theKingof thevirtuousbeings).He admires'theprivacyof theheart'
(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 Shahappearsas a personwhoalwaysleadsthepeople
to the rightpathand bringsthemto salvation.43 He is constantlyoccupiedin
performinghisdutiesandwouldneverhesitateto faceallkindsof sufferingand
harmfor the sake of others.The king that Naraqidescribesrepresentsonly
admirablequalities,and there is no referenceto the oppression,homicide,
medieval types of tyranny and debaucherywhich may also characterize
kings.'
278 MIDDLEEASTERNSTUDIES

In his Taqdis,Naraqialso mentionsthe storyof the ProphetIbrahimwho,

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'canonlyhavebeenexemplifiedby the historical
kingsandemperorsof whomhe andhisaudiencehadknowledge.In describing
the qualificationsof a just kingin his otherwork,Mi'rajal-Sa'adah,Naraqi
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 wasappointedby Himwasnoneotherthan
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
legitimacyof FathAli Shah'skingshipaccordingto astrologicallaws,implying
that the emergenceof the Qajarrule was a naturalphenomenon,ordained
by God.49It is perhapsfor this reasonthatNaraqidid not hesitateto dedicate
hisMi'rajal-Sa'adahto FathAli Shah,usinghighlyeulogisticexpressionsto
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 referenceto FathAli ShahandAbbasMirza,used
many phrasesof a hyperbolicnature.50
Despite his friendlyrelationswith the Shah and his legitimizationof the
Qajarrule,Naraqiappearsto be quiteoutspokenin his treatmentof the Shi'i
theoryof governmentanddoes not hesitateto recognizethejust faqihsas the
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 comprehensiveas that
of the Prophetand the Imamunlessthereappearsa clearevidencewhichmay
LEGITIMACY OF THE EARLY QAJAR RULE 279

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
individualsand societyand the organizationof religiousandworldlymatters
dependon them. If no specifiedpersonis appointedto takechargeof certain
individualor socialaffairstheywillbe automatically
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 associatingwiththem
for the sake of your religion.5
By coherentand systematicargumentNaraqiclearlydeclaredthat 'vilayat-i
faqih' (theunquestionableandcomprehensiveguardianshipof the faqihover
the rest of the people)was the only genuinelylegitimatetype of ruleplanned
by the Prophet of Islam and the infallible Shi'i Imams for the Muslim
community.In fact, it wasNaraqiwho, in his 'Awa'id,providedan important
source of reasoning for the founder of the present regime in Iran when
formulatinghis own doctrineof 'vilayat-ifaqih'and preparingto put it into
operation in 1979/1399.52
A comparisonbetweenwhat Naraqiwrotein his Mi'rajal-Sa'adah,Sayf
al-Ummah,and al-Khaza'inand the contentof his 'Awa'idclearlyshows a
volte-facein his approachto the problemof rulership.By surveyingNaraqi's
philosophy,expressedin particularthroughhis lyricsandmysticalpoems,one
still comes acrossanothertype of thinkingwhich is entirelycontraryto his
previouslydiscussedtheoriesof government.In writingsof thisnature,Naraqi
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),the people,thefaqihs and Islamicpreachers.He
goes on as far as to declarethe Islamicjurisprudence(fiqh) to be a barrier
to progress(sadd-irah-omani'-itakmilshud)andevenclaimsto havebecome
astonishedto see a 'madrasah'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
religiouscustomsandinstitutionswhichherenounced.It seemsthatNaraqidid
not trulybelievein those titles, customsand institutionsand did not find the
contemporarycustodiansof politicsandreligiondutifulandon therightpath.
In practice,however,he sawhimselfobligednot to breakwiththecommunity.
Perhapshe found out that the psychologicalmotivewhichurgedhim to act
reluctantlyin harmonywiththe lesspleasingcharacteristics of the community
was somethingwhich he called "aql' (wisdom;rationality).We see Naraqi
declarewar against 'aqland heavilycriticizehimself for leavingthe control
of his heartin the handof 'aql(zamam-idil bi dast-i 'aqldadah).Particularly
in laterlife, he regrettedhis pastactivitiesandcondemnedhis associationwith
the Shah, remarking'I disdainto be associatedwith the royal crown and
throne' (zi taj-o takht-isultanim 'arast).54
280 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

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 NECESSITY OF SHAH - ULAMA CO-OPERATION

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 dis-
obedience 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
LEGITIMACY OF THE EARLY QAJAR RULE 281

classifiesalltypesof vicarships,thegreatestandmostimportantof whichbeing

that of the ulamarelatedas it is to knowledgeand learning('ilm); those of
othersare relatedto action ('amal), the latterbeing lower in rankthan the
former.63Kashfigoes on to say that these ulamapossessingexotericas well
as esoteric knowledge('ilm-i zahir va batin) are friends of God and 'are
associatedwithtriumphandprosperity'.Their'benevolenceandblessing'will
'spreadthroughthe universe,from the east to the west, and the people will
liveundertheirprotection'.Two hadithsapplyto thistypeof ulama:one states
that 'the ulamaare heirsto the prophets'(al-'ulama'warathatal-anbiya'),
and the othercontainsa remarkattributedto the ProphetMuhammad:'The
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
instructionof the former.As faras Kashfiwasconcerned,if thistheorycould
have been put into practicean ideal form of governmentwould have come
into existence.Kashfithensuggestedmanydifficultconditionsfor a mujtahid
ruler;a manof meritwho mighthavemet those conditionswas 'rareto find'
(nadiral-wujud).65
By way of example,Kashfibelievedthat knowledgeof the 'conventional
sciences'('ulum-irasmiyyah)wasnot sufficientin orderfor a personto qualify
for rulership.i He shouldalso possess'sacredpower'(quvvah-yiqudsiyyah)
andbe endorsedby 'theheavenlyspirits'(arvah-imalakutiyyah). An approach
of this natureclearlysuggeststhat Kashfiwas not preparedto endorsethe
candidacyof anyof his contemporarymujtahidsfor rulership.It wasperhaps
for this reasonthat he heavilycriticizedthoseulamawho, in his view, did not
performtheirdutiesand greatlyharmedthe Muslimcommunity.Although
he devoteda substantialpartof his 'Mizanal-Muluk'to criticismof theulama,
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
Whatthenwas Kashfi'ssolutionto the problemof rulership?The answer
to this questionraisesa third featureof Kashfi'sapproachto the problem.
He certainlytook into considerationtheruleof the kings,althoughin principle
thiswasnot in harmonywithhis Shi'itheoryof government,andhe considered
theroyalcourtsto be centersof manytypesof corruption,evildeeds,injustice
and oppression,interpretingthesecharacteristicsas signsof the appearance
of the Hidden Imam.68However, since Kashfilaid greatsignificanceupon
state securityand order,he saw himselfboundto regarda strongkingas the
only rulerableto establishorderand security.Withinthis frameworkKashfi,
by referringto the Islamicsources,madeeveryendeavorto legitimizethe rule
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.
However,if he is oppressive,thenthepeopleshouldshowforbearance towards
him untilGod bringssome relief'.69Kashfiarguesthat sincekingshipis a gift
from God it also embracesKhilafat, knowledgeand prophethood.It goes
withoutsayingthat 'knowledgeandprophethoodarenot of muchuse unless
282 MIDDLEEASTERNSTUDIES

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.'70He continuesby explainingthat it is of absolute
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 con-
sideredto 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 depo-
sition 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,
LEGITIMACYOF THE EARLYQAJARRULE 283

consideringit to be proof that the wiseandjust kingsare, like the mujtahids,

the deputiesof the Imam.He saysthatthosekingswho putthe "Ahd-Namah'
into practicearethe specifiedagents(na'ib-ikhass)of the Imam,becausethe
letteris addresseddirectlyto a specifiedruler,i.e., Malik,whereasaccording
to the hadith,the mujtahidsarethe Imam'sGeneralAgents.Kashfiaddsthat
at this time knowledge(i.e. mattersrelatedto the ulama)is separatedfrom
the sword(i.e. mattersrelatedto the kings).In the 'Ahd-Namah,thenwhat-
ever concerns knowledgeapplies to the mujtahids;affairs of the sword,
kingship,politicsand orderaredealtby thosekingswho act accordingto the
'Ahd-Namah.78
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
extentthathe consideredhimto be 'thekingof kingsin therealmof the divine
vicarship'(Shahanshah-i khiftah-yikhilafat-iilahi).He believedthatthe kings
enjoyedGod'semanation(fayz) andfavors(tavajjuhat)andhe foundin Fath
Ali Shahan exampleof such a king.79In sum, the positivequalitiesascribed
by Kashfito the authorityof the kingsalso attributedto the QajarShah;the
legitimizationof theQajarruleseemsto be themainpoint,or in factthe raison
d'etre, of Kashfi's Tuhfatal-Muluk.
ThisarticlebeganwithShaykhMurtazaAnsari'sargumentthattheulama's
claim to rulershipneedsto be provedthroughdiscussionand investigation.
It seems that commentariesrelatingto the four mujtahidsare entirelyin
harmonywithAnsari'spoint. Beinga contemporaryof those mujtahidsand
certainlywellawareof theirdifferingapproachesto the problemof rulership,
Ansariseemsto have formedhis theoryof governmentat least partlyin the
light of their arguments.All the mujtahidsunder discussionshared the
opinionthaton principle,the mujtahidsarelegitimaterulerswho areto enact
the rulesof the TwelfthImamduringhis CreatorOccultation.Eachof them,
however,approachedthe problemin a differentway, basingtheirarguments
on differentsourcesof information,undertakingvarioustypesof discussions,
and taking into considerationcertainnecessitiesand expediencies.
The existenceof the different,and sometimesopposite, hadithsconcern-
ing the ruleof the mujtahidsand the legitimacyor illegitimacyof the ruleof
the non-mujtahidkingswas a serious,if not the most serious,sourceof dis-
agreementamong 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,Ansariconsideredthe problemof rulershipandits applica-
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.
284 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

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 Abdul-
Hadi 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 Constitution-
alism 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.
LEGITIMACYOF THE EARLYQAJARRULE 285

20. Idem, Jami'al-Shitat,Vol.1, p. 44.

21. Idem,'Murshidal-'Awamm',PersianMS., Kitabkhanah-yi Jami'-iGawharshad, 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-WahhabMunshial-Mamalik]',PersianMS., Kitabkhanah-
yi Majlis-iShura-yiIslami,No. 5348, ff. 69-70.
26. Idem, Jami' al-Shitat,Vol.1, p. 92.
27. MuhammadTunukabuni,Qisasal- 'Ulama(Tehran,1976/1396),p. 70ff.
28. Al-SayyidMuhsinal-Amin[al-'Amili],A 'yanal-Shi'ah(1962),Vol. 16, p. 308.
29. Khwansari,Rawdat,p. 152.
30. MuhammadHasan KhanI'timadal-Saltanah,Tarikh-iMuntazam-iNasiri (1918/1300),
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' 'anKhafiyyatMubhamat
al-Shari'aal-Gharra'(1899/1317),pp.2-3.
34. Ibid., p. 394. On the Akhbari-Usulidisputesee interalia JuanCole, 'Shi'iClericsin Iraq
and Iran, 1722-1780:The Akhbari-UsuliConflictReconsidered',IranianStudies,XVIII
(1985),pp.3-34.
35. Kashifal-Ghita',Kashf al-Ghita',p. 394.
36. Anonymous,'[Jihadiyyah]', PersianMS., Kitabkhanah-yi Astan-iQuds-iRazavi,Mashhad,
No. 123/2343, 'rukn-iyikum', of its 'muqaddimah'.
37. Abdul-HadiHairi,'AyatAllahSadr',inSal-Namah-yiNur-iDanish, VII(1952),pp.99-107.
Moreinformationon Kashifal-Ghita'maybe foundin Ann K.S. Lambton,'A Nineteenth
CenturyView of Jihad', StudiaIslamica,XXXII (1970),pp. 181-92.
38. Lisanal-Mulk,Nasikhal-Tawarikh,Vol.1, p. 184.
39. HamidAlgar,Religionand State in Iran 1785-1906 (Berkeley,1969),p.89.
40. Abdul-HadiHairi, 'Ansari',El2, Supplement(1980),pp.75-7.
41. ArturChristensen, Irandarzaman-iSasaniyan,translatedby RashidYasimi(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 mujtahidof the Safavidperiod,
wroteaboutthesameastrologicallawsandappliedthemto ShahAbbas1;seeBaha'al-Din
Muhammad(ShaykhBaha'i),Kashkul,trans.byM. B. Sa'idi(Tehran,1979),Vol.11,p. 149.
50. Naraqi,Mi'rajal-Sa'adah,pp.4-6; Idem,Sayfal-UmmahwalBurhan al-Millah(1912/1330),
pp. 39-40.
51. Idem, 'Awa'idal-AyyamfiBayanQawa'idal-AhkamwaMuhimmatMasa'ilal-Halalwa
al-Haram(1913/1331),pp. 185-8. Seealso AhmadKazemiMoussavi,'TheEstablishment
of the Positionof Marja'iyyat-iTaqlidin the Twelver-Shi'iCommunity',IranianStudies,
XVIII (1985),pp. 35-51.
52. [RuhAllahMusaviKhumaynilHukumat-iIslami(1971/1391).For an Englishtranslation
of this book see Khomeini,Islam and Revolution:Writingsand Declarationsof Imam
Khomeini,translatedand annotatedby HamidAlgar(Berkeley,1981),pp.27-166.
53. Naraqi,Taqdis,pp. 104,279,323;idem,Ghazal-iMullaAhmadNaraqiMutakhallisbiSafa,
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.
56. Accordingto Tunukabuni,at a timetherewasa disagreement betweentheShahandNaraqi
about 'an oppressivegovernor'of Kashanto the point that Naraqicalledthe Shah 'an
286 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

oppressivesultan'.It seems,however,that thistypeof conflictwasnot lastingand serious

enoughto placeNaraqiamongthe Shah'sadversaries;cf. Tunukabuni,Qisasal-'Ulama,
p.130.
57. MuhammadNasirFursatHusayniShirazi,Athar-i 'Ajam(Bombay,1934/1353),Vol.1,
p.103.
58. Muhammad HasanKhanI'timadal-Saltanah, Al-Ma'athirwaal-Athar(Tehran,1888/1306),
p. 156.
59. SayyidJa'farDarabiBurujirdi Kashfi,Ijabatal-Muztarrin(1957/1377),Vol.1, Introduction.
60. Zayn al-'AbidinShirvani,Bustanal-Siyahah(n.d.), p. 9.
61. Kashfi,Ijabah,p. 90; idem, 'Mizanal-Mulukwa al-Tawa'ifwa Siratal-Mustaqimfi Suluk
al-Khala'if',PersianMS., Kitabkhanah-yiAstan-iQuds-iRazavi,Mashhad,No. 3581, no
pagination.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Idem, Ijabah,p. 84.
67. Idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk'.
68. Idem,Ijabah,pp. 328-9.
69. Idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk'.
70. Ibid.
71. Idem, Tuhfahal-Muluk(1856/1273),no pagination.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Idem, 'Mizanal-Muluk'.
75. Idem, Tuhfahal-Muluk.
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid.