The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period by HAMID ALGAR
UNI VERSI TY OF C A L I F OR NI A PRESS BERKELEY, LOS ANGELES, LONDON University of C alifornia Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Copyright ©1969 by T he Regents of the University of California C alifornia Library R eprint Series Edition, 1980 ISBN 0-520-04100-3 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 72-79959 Designed by W. H. Snyder Printed in the U nited States of America
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Contents
A Note on the Sources______________________________xi Abbreviations___________________________________ xvii I The _l II The Eve of Qajar Rule 26 III The Clerical Policy of Fath ‘All Shah 45 IV ‘Abbâs Mïrzâ, Qâ’im Maqâm, and the Ulama 73 V The Ulama and the Early Foreign Impact 82 VI T h e R eig n o f M uham m ad Shah 103 VII TheJFirst Four Years of Nâsir ud-Dfn Shah’s Reign and the Ministry of Mïrzâ Taqï Khân Amir Kabïr (1264/1848-1268/1851) 122 VIII Bâbism, Bahà’is and the Ulama IX Between Two Reformers, Mïrzâ Taqï Khân Amïr Kabïr and Mïrzâ Husayn^Khân Sipahsâlàr (1268/ 1851-1288/1871) 152 VIII
Bâbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama
The rise of Bâbism and its successor Bahâ’ism was swift and ac companied by much bloodshed; it seemed at least initially to be of great importance for the history of Iran, and even, it was thought, for the whole of the Middle East. As such, it has received much attention, and several attempts at interpretation have been made. In these, the reaction of the ulama to the appearance of Bâbism has not been closely studied. It was, however, the ulama who formulated the most explicit reaction to Bâbism and its claims, and in this case as in others we see the ulama functioning as de facto leaders of the nation, concerned on this occasion to preserve its religious uniformity. Both Bâbïs and Bahâ’ïs recog nized the ulama as among their chief adversaries, and this recogni tion was expressed in word and deed. That this should be so was perhaps inevitable. Bâbism, at all stages of its doctrinal development, was of necessity opposed to Islam, for its claim to validity presupposed the supersession of Is lam. The coming of a new revelation would have destroyed the worth of the existing one, which regarded itself as final. The ulama, on the other hand, were the institutional expression of the power 138 Religion and State in Iran of Islam, the expositors and guardians of its doctrine and the en forcers of its law, and among their functions was the rebuttal of heresy and innovation. The sources for the history of Bâbism are opposed in emotional and religious emphasis; yet if Bàbï accounts are stripped of their hagiographical elements, and state chronicles of their polemical fervor, a fairly reliable narrative can be established. It is clear that when Sayyid ‘Alï Muhammad, in 1259/1843, first claimed to be the Bab, the “gateway” to the Hidden Imam, he clashed immediately with the ulama. One of the earliest writers on the history of Bâbism, Comte Arthur de Gobineau, suggests that anticlerical themes formed a large part of his early preaching, and that their acceptability was an important element in the earliest conversions to the new faith.1 More significant a cause for the hostility of the ulama to the Báb was doubtless provided by the realization that his doctrines constituted biďat, i.e., reprehensible innovation in matters of faith. Mullâ ‘Alï Akbar Ardistànï, one of the early con verts, appended to the idhân (call to prayer) he proclaimed from the mosque of Àqâ Qàsim in Shiraz: “I bear witness that ‘Alï Mu hammad is the ‘remnant’ (baqiya) of God.”2 The governor of Shiraz, Husayn Khàn Nizàm ud-Daula (also entitled Âjüdànbàshï) had been absent from the town. After his return, the ulama persuaded him, on Sha'bân 16/September 11, to punish Mullâ ‘Alï Akbar, Mullâ Muhammad Sâdiq, and other followers of the Bâb.3 Some were whipped, others, such as Muham mad ‘Alï Bârfurüshï, were paraded around the bazaar with black ened faces and burnt beards.4 On Ramadán 15/October 9, Sayyid ‘Alï Muhammad was brought to Shiraz from Bushire, where he had first publicly announced his claims. In Shiraz, he was confronted for the first time with the ulama.5 Accounts given of this confron tation by sources hostile to the Bâb contain two elements recur ring in later interrogations—his deficient knowledge of Arabic and 1 A. de Gobineau, Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l’Asie Centrale (Paris, 1865), pp. 148-149. 2 E. G. Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd or New History of Mïrzâ ‘Alï Muhammad the Bâb (Cambridge, 1893), p. 200. According to Khan Bahadur Agha Mirza Muhammad (“Some New Notes on Bâbism," JRAS, n.v. [July 1927], 451), Mullâ Muhammad Sâdiq was the first to proclaim this deformed idhân. 3 Browne, ed., op. cit., p. 200; RSN, X, 311; MN, III, 184. 4 E. G. Browne, A Traveller’s Narrative, Written To Illustrate the Episode of the Bab (Cambridge, 1891), II, 7. 5 MN, III, 185; RSN, X, 311. Bàbism, Bahà’ism, and the Ulama 139 the traditional religious sciences, and his recantation.6 While it is legitimate to question the accuracy of these accounts, and details may have been invented or emphasized to discredit the Bâb, the silence of Bàbï sources on the course of the confrontations suggests that the Bâb was in fact worsted by the ulama in debate. The con frontations demonstrate the role of the ulama in refuting Bàbism: by employing that scholastic knowledge which was one of their chief qualifications, they questioned the legitimacy of his claims; and by accepting his recantation, visibly asserted their own author ity. At the end of his interrogation, the Bab was beaten and then conducted by ‘Abd ul-Hamïd Khàn Kalàntar to the Masjid-i Vakil, where he publicly repeated his recantation.7 Bàbï accounts agree that a meeting between the Bâb and the ulama took place, without offering any detail, and that it was attended by Sayyid Yahyà Dàrâbï, who was subsequently to lead the Bàbï insurrection at Nayrlz.8 Although thus far Husayn Kliàn Nizàm ud-Daula appears to have acted in cooperation with the ulama, differing approaches by the state and the ulama to the problem of Bàbism can be detected. According to Gobineau, both the ulama of Shiraz and Husayn Khàn wrote to Tehran explaining the situation; and their example was followed by the Bâb.9 It seems entirely possible that at this stage the Bàb hoped to secure his position by winning the support of Muhammad Shàh and his minister. Even when imprisoned in Màkü, the Bàb still considered it worth his while to compose a risàla dedicated to Hàjjï Mïrzà Àqàsï.10 Although Bàbï political theory left little room for the exercise of regal power,11 Sayyid ‘AH Muhammad may have sought to make use of the conflict between ulama and state by presenting himself as an instrument for the destruction of clerical power. Gobineau writes that he asked for permission to come to Tehran, and that Hàjjï Mïrzà Àqàsï was
« M N , I I I , 184. 7 Muhammad, op. cit., pp. 452-454. According to this account, the Bâb was interrogated twice by the ulama in Shiraz, the second meeting being caused by the rashness of his followers. If this is so, we see here already how the development of Bàbism as a movement of revolt proceeded more or less inde pendently of the Bâb and his pronouncements. 8 Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadîd, p. 203; Browne, ed.. Traveller's Narrative, I, 10. 9 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 151. 10 Browne, ed., op. cit., II, 274. 11 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 335. 140 Religion and State in Iran initially disposed to let him come.12 One of such heterodox outlook as Hâjjï Mïrzâ Àqàsî can scarcely have been scandalized by the Bab's claims; more probably he hoped for some amusement from the spectacle of the Bab’s clash with the ulama, and even for an amount of support in his own constant struggle with the clerical class. The opposition of Shaykh ‘Abd ul-Husayn Mujtahid forced him to change his intentions. He pointed out that if the ulama were to be obliged to defend themselves against the government and the Bab, they were capable of doing so.13 As in the case of the demand for war against the Ottoman Empire, Hájil Mïrzâ Âqâsï appears to have made all unavoidable outward concessions, while being careful not to encourage the expression of clerical power. He sent orders to Husayn Khân prohibiting further discussion be tween the Bâb and the people of Shiraz.14 The Bâb was confined to his house, but evidently his confinement was not strict, for it was in Shiraz that Mullâ Husayn Bushravayh, on his way from Arab Iraq to Kirman, accepted the Bab’s claims.15 He it was who, on be ing converted, organized the insurrections in Khurasan and Ma- zandaran. Thus far-reaching were the consequences of the Bab’s residence in Shiraz. The ulama protested against the inefficacy of his confinement, but without success.16 The danger of Bâbism, not only to orthodoxy but also to the state, was not yet apparent. The failure to isolate the Bâb completely represented not only the customary inefficiency of the administration, but also its indiffer ence to the support of orthodoxy. The ulama, for their part, al though dissatisfied with the laxity of the measures taken against the Bâb, do not yet appear to have demanded his death.17 The imâm jum‘a of Shiraz considered his release from prison permissi ble if he recanted;18 and others of the ulama considered the Bâb in sane and therefore neither responsible for his words, nor liable to the punishment they would otherwise bring him.19 Despite all this,
12 Ibid., p. 153. 13 Ibid., p. 154. 14 Ibid., p. 155. 15 Ibid., p. 157. 16 Ibid., p. 155. 17 The Traveller's Narrative (ed. Browne, I, 7, 14) claims that the ulama of Shiraz issued a fatvâ for the killing of the Bâb. It should be remembered that the Bahâ’ï histories lay great emphasis on the role of the ulama. This is largely justified; but in this case events appear to have been anticipated. 18 Muhammad, op. cit., p. 453. 19 RSN, X, 311. Bàbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama 141 an ambiguity in the attitude of the state is observable, and the ulti mate execution of the Bab was preceded by several fatvâs declaring him deserving of death.20 Mullâ Husayn Bushravayh, on his way from Shiraz to Khurasan, had passed through Isfahan and informed the governor, Manü- chihr Khàn Mu'tamad ud-Daula, of the appearance of the Bab.21 Both Bábi and other Persian sources agree that Manüchihr Khân was favorably inclined to the Bab and had him brought to Isfahan to satisfy his personal curiosity.22 With Manüchihr Khân, the iden tification of the Bab with the state almost became a reality. In order, presumably, to conceal his inclinations and to nullify any possible agitation, Manüchihr Khân caused the Bâb to be accom modated in the residence of the imâm jum'a, and after a period of forty days, to be publicly confronted with the ulama of Isfahan, gathered in the Masjid-i Shâh.23 It is clear that the ulama suspected the nature of Manüchihr Khân’s intentions. By again confronting the Bâb with the ulama, he may have hoped to erase the impression left by his experience in Shiraz, or at least to provide a pretext for postponing any final decision. Most of the ulama refused to attend the confrontation saying that as the incompatibility of the Bâb’s pretensions with the shari'at was “clearer and brighter than the sun,” any further discussion was superfluous, and all that remained to be done was to enforce the relevant provision of the law.24 This appears to have been the first clear demand by the ulama for the execution of the Bâb. Only the imâm jum'a, Àqâ Mir Muhammad Mihdl, and Mïrzâ Hasan Nürï, son of Mullâ ‘Alï Nürï, attended
20 A. K. S. Lambton (“Persian Society under the Qajars,” JRCAS, XLVIII [1961], 136) writes that in Qajar times as earlier, movements of social revolt tended to take on a religious coloring “because orthodoxy was associated with the ruling institution,” and that “because there was no separation between Church and State, unorthodoxy was almost automatically regarded as a threat to the existing régime”; and cites Bâbism as the chief example. We have al ready noted, however, the alienation of the ulama from the state; and in the case of B â b ism , th e d a n g e r w as in itia lly o n ly to o r th o d o x y . T h e s ta te re a c te d seriously only when its own security was affected. The most significant move ments of social revolt in the Qajar period took place precisely within an “orthodox” frame of expression, drawing on a long tradition in so doing. 21 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 15. 22 Browne, ed., op. cit., II, 15; Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd, p. 208; RSN, X, 312; N T , p. 426; MN, III, 185. The last three imply that Manüchihr Khàn was deceived as to the nature of the Bab’s claims. 23 Browne, ed.. Traveller’s Narrative, II, 16; Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadid, p. 210. 24 Browne, ed., Traveller’s Narrative, II, 16. 142 Religion and State in Iran the meeting in the Masjid-i Shah.25 Mïr Muhammad Mihdï inquired of the Báb what was the source of his certainty, for after the occultation of the Twelfth Imam, certain knowledge on any point of religious law was to be had only by a pronounce ment of the Hidden Imam, vouchsafed in a vision. Mïrzà Hasan Nürï asked him to describe the circumference of the earth, since the knowledge of this, among other matters, was a sign of the Mahdi.26 Both questions he was unable to answer, and the meet ing was dissolved without conclusive result.27 Manüchihr Khan protected the Báb until his death, and again the Báb appears to have had enough freedom to maintain and even expand contact with his followers.28 The ulama protested to Hàjjï Mïrzà Àqàsï, but received only a noncommittal reply.29 On the death of Manüchihr Khân in 1263/1847, Hàjjï Mïrzà Âqàsï gave orders that the Bàb be brought to Tehran.30 According to the Traveller’s Narrative, the Bàb, when a few stages distant from Tehran, wrote a letter to Muhammad Shâh, asking to be granted an audience.31 Hàjjï Mïrzà Àqàsï, anxious neither to arouse the opposition of the ulama, nor to give them an oppor tunity of asserting themselves, refused his consent.32 Instead the Bàb was sent in chains to be imprisoned at Màkü in Azerbayjan. En route, he spent forty days in Tabriz, but the ulama refused to meet him.33 From Màkü, he was transferred to the fortress at Chih- rïq near the Ottoman border. Here again he appears to have been able to maintain contact with his disciples, who were by now en gaged in revolt in Mazandaran.34 The disquiet caused by the Bàbï uprisings, together with the continuing agitation of the ulama, led Hàjjï Mïrzà Àqàsï, three months after the Bàb had been brought to Chihrïq, to have recourse again to the device of a confrontation, one little more conclusive that the preceding ones in Shiraz and 25 Ibid., II, 17. 2 6 N T , p. 427. The Târïkh-i-Jadïd (Browne, ed., p. 209) claims that Mir Muhammad Mihdï accepted the claims of the Bâb. 2 7 N T , p. 428. 28 Browne, ed., Traveller’s Narrative, II, 15. 2 9 Text given in Ahmad Kasravï, Bahâ’ïgarï (Tehran, n.d,). p. 26; Firïdün Âdamïyat, Amir Kabïr va Iran (Tehran, 1334 Sh/1955), p. 202. 3 0 Browne, ed., op. cit., II, 18. 31 Ibid., II, 20. 32 Ibid., II, 19. There may be some truth in the suggestion that Hàjjï Mïrzà Âqâsï was afraid of Muhammad Shah transferring his spiritual loyalties to the Bâb. See Browne, ed., op. cit., II, 21. 33 Ibid., II, 22. 34 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 274. Bâbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama 1 4 3
Isfahan. The Traveller’s Narrative represents Hàjjï Mïrzâ Àqàsï as being still reluctant to conform with the wishes of the ulama;35 but on this occasion, the ulama of Tabriz, hoping possibly for a definitive solution of the problem, consented to meet the Bab in the presence of Nâsir ud-Dïn Mïrzâ, at the time heir apparent and governor of Azerbayjan. The Bâb was brought from Chihriq by Sulaymàn Khàn Afshàr, and the day after his arrival in Tabriz was interrogated by Mullà Muhammad Mamaqànï, chief of the Shay- khï ulama of Tabriz;36 Hàjjï Mullà Mahmüd Nizàm ul-‘Ulamà;37 Mïrzâ ‘Alï Asghar Shaykh ul-Islàm; Mïrzâ Ahmad Mujtahid Imàm Jum'a; and Hàjjï Murtadà Qulï Marandï.38 Various questions were put to the Bàb, concerning Arabie grammar and syntax, and the signs traditionally associated with the coming of the Hidden Imam.39 Unable to answer them, he again recanted, and after being beaten by the shaykh ul-Islàm in person, was sent back to Chihrïq.40 Still, then, the Bàb was left alive; and it was only when Amïr Kabïr thought the state endangered that the penalty for apostasy was applied. Religious duty had to wait on the state for its fulfillment. The episode of the Bâb provided one of the clearest examples of the dependence of shar‘ law on the state for the execu tion of its judgments. The shaykh ul-Islàm of Tabriz wrote to the Bàb that only doubts concerning his sanity prevented his immedi ate execution,41 but it is difficult to see in what manner these doubts
35 Browne, ed., op. cit., II, 25. 3 6 Nadir Mïrzâ, Târïkh va Jughrâfï-yi Dâr us-Saltana-yi Tabriz (Tehran,
1323 Q/»9°5). P- n 7- 37 Mullà Mahmüd was tutor to Nâsir ud-Dïn, and when his pupil mounted the throne, he occupied a position of some importance at court. See below, p. 160. 38 Browne, ed., op. cit., II, 20; Browne, ed., Târikh-i-Jadïd, p. 285; Kasravï, op. cit., p. 29; RSN, X, 423; N T, p. 470. According to the Târïkh-i-Jadïd, the Bâb was lodged in the house of Mïrzâ Ahmad; according to N T, in that of Kâzim Khân Farrâshbâshï. 39 The substance of this examination of the Bàb is not seriously disputed by either the Traveller’s Narrative or the Târikh-i-Jadïd, both Bahâ’ï sources. Ridâ Qulï Khân claims to base his account on the information of Hàjjï Mullà Mahmüd (RSN, X, 423). Together with the versions given in Q‘U (p. 46) and N T (pp. 470-472), it corresponds in detail with the report sent to Tehran by Nâsir ud-Dïn Mïrzâ (original in Majlis library, Tehran; text reproduced by Âdamïyat, [op. cit., p. 202], Kasravï, [op. cit., pp. 30-32] and E. G. Browne [Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 253-256]). 40 Browne, ed., Traveller’s Narrative, II, 27; Browne, ed., Târîkh-i Jadid, p. 290. 41 Kasravï, op. cit., p. 34. The fact that the Bâb was a sayyid (Gobineau [op. cit., p. 143] considers his claim weak) may have been a further cause for delaying his execution, and also for choosing Armenian troops to shoot him. *44 Religion and State in Iran were dispelled before the execution of the Bàb in 1266/1849. On the other hand, the threat posed to secular authority became ever clearer. Mullà Husayn Bushravayh had gone from Shiraz by way of Tehran to Khurasan, and there attempted to secure acceptance of the Bab’s claims. He met with partial success in Nayshapur, and then moved to Mashhad, where in the last years of Muhammad Shah’s reign, the Sàlàr and Hamza Mïrzà Hishmat ud-Daula were struggling for the possession of the town.42 However, Mullà Husayn was repulsed by both of them, and Hamza Mïrzà impris oned him at the bidding of the ulama.43 Escaping, he moved in the direction of Sabzavar, where he and his followers were armed by a certain Mïrzà Taqï Juvaynï.44 At this point, the rebellion against the state began. This fact was obscured by the death of Muhammad Shàh, and the Bàbï revolt became one element in the chaos sur rounding the succession. Mullà Husayn, together with Mullà Muhammad ‘Alï Bàrfurüshï and Qurrat ul-‘Ayn, moved into Mazandaran, and here the first battles between Bàbism and the state took place. The immediate threat was, however, to the ulama, just as the claims of the Bàb appeared initially to endanger only religion. The ulama of Bârfurüsh (modern Bàbul) were threatened by Mullà Muhammad ‘AH who marched through the streets of the town at the head of three hundred men with drawn swords: “le clergé jugea qu’il était grandement temps d’engager la lutte si l’on ne voulait pas courir le risque d’être un plus peu tard anéanti sans combat.”45 Sa'ïd ul-‘Ulamâ Bàrfurüshï led the resistance to the Bàbïs, constantly pleading for troops to be sent against them.46 Nàsir ud-Dïn Shah was preparing to leave for Tehran, and evi dently the matter was thought too trivial to warrant serious atten tion.47 At the request of Sa'ïd ul-‘Ulamà, however, ‘Abbàs Qulï Khàn, governor of Làrïjàn,sent three hundred troops to Bârfurüsh,
42 See above, p. 125. 4 3 N T , p. 473; RSN, X, 422; Gobineau, op. cit., p. 171. 44 Ibid., p. 173. 45 Ibid., p. 185. 46 Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd, p. 52. The same work (p. 91) claims that Sa'ïd ul-'Ulamâ’ was a Jewish convert to Islam, implying, perhaps, that his re sistance to Bâbism was inspired by the enthusiasm of a proselyte. The short biographical notice of Sa'ïd ul-'Ulamâ’ in Mïrzà Muhammad Hasan Khan I'timâd us-Saltana, al-Ma’athir va-1-Âthâr (Tehran, 1306 Q/1889, p. 150) makes no mention of any Jewish origin. 4 7 Muhammad, op. cit., p. 457. Bàbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama * 4 5
and Mullà Husayn and his followers withdrew from the town.48 There then followed the siege of the Bâbï stronghold at Shaykh Tabarsl. In the course of the repeated defeats suffered by govern ment troops, Sa'ïd ul-'Ulamà exhorted them constantly to persist against the Bâbîs; when ultimately Shaykh Tabarsl fell, he exe cuted some of the survivors with his own hands in the marketplace at Bàrfurüsh.49 As the most important of the ulama of Mazan- daran, he thus played a central role in combating Bàbism. Whereas the Bâbîs in Mazandaran established themselves in a stronghold at some distance from the main towns of the region, the insurrection in Zanjàn was a more direct challenge to govern mental authority. There it was led by Mullà Muhammad Zanjànï, who before adopting Bàbism had followed the Akhbârï madhhab. It appears that even before his conversion to Bàbism, he had con stantly been in dispute with both state and ulama.50 When visiting the governor of Zanjàn, he was always accompanied by a group of armed followers.51 His disputes with the Usülï ulama of Zanjân became so acrimonious that they wrote to Tehran requesting his removal from the town.52 He was banished on several occasions; it was on one of these, toward the end of the reign of Muhammad Shâh, that he met Mullà Husayn Bushravayh in Tehran.53 In the confusion following the death of Muhammad Shàh and the fall from power of Hàjjï Mïrzâ Âqàsî, he returned to Zanjàn, where he was enthusiastically received by his former followers.54 He pro claimed that he had become a Bàbï, and his followers decided also to adopt the new faith. Initially, his violence was directed only against the ulama; a Bahâ’ï source records that a mullà was dragged down from his minhar (pulpit),55 and the son of the shaykh ul-Islàm was murdered.56 The ulama informed the capital 48 Gobineau, op. cit., pp. 186-187. 49 Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd, pp. 58, 72, 88; RSN, X, 446. 50 Gobineau (op. cit., p. 233) writes: “A s’en faire une idée tout a fait im partiale, on peut voir en lui un de ces nombreux musulmans qui, au vrai, ne le sont pas du tout, mais que pressent un fond très ample et très vivace de foi et de zèle religieux dont ils cherchent remploi avec passion.” The analysis does not, however, give an immediate impression of impartiality. 51 RSN, X, 448. 52 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 234; Browne, ed.. Traveller’s Narrative, II, p. 13; Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadid, p. 135. 53 Browne, ed., Traveller’s Narrative, II, 12. 54 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 235. 55 Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadid, p. 371. 56 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 238. 146 Religion and State in Iran of what was happening, but it was not until one of the Bàbïs was arrested that fighting broke out. He was arrested for nonpayment of fiscal arrears, and Mullà Muhammad ‘All attempted to free him by force.57 Although the insurrection was in the name of Bâbism and was pursued with great ferocity, we see here a repetition of one of the traditional motives for movements of disobedience led by the ulama: in particular it may be compared with the rising of 1253/1837—1838 in Isfahan.58 One of the many motives that led to the dissemination of Bâbism was thus the readiness of a devoted following to obey the directives of a mullà, even after his conver sion to Bâbism. Here, one aspect of clerical power is reflected in Bâbism; but the case of Zanjàn, with the exception of that of Nayrïz, is isolated. Sayyid Yahyà Dàrâbï, as mentioned above, attended the first in terrogation of the Bàb in Shiràz, doing so, according to Bahà’î sources, on behalf of Muhammad Shàh.59 From Shiraz he had gone to Yazd, whence he was expelled for preaching Bâbism in 1850.60 Reaching Nayrïz, he enclosed himself in the citadel from which he was driven after a prolonged siege.61 His father, Sayyid Ja'far, had enjoyed wide popularity which was transferred to him, while a dispute between the townspeople and their governor, Mïrzà Zayn ul'Abidln, supplied an additional reason to welcome him.62 Here again it is evident that loyalty to the person of a powerful mullà survived his conversion to Bâbism, when he fulfilled the traditional role of opposition to the oppression of the governor. The Tdrlkh-i- Jadïd confirms that Sayyid Yahyâ relied on the faithfulness of his father’s followers.63 The insurrection in Zanjàn at last decided Amir Kabïr to do away with the Bàb, as ultimate source of the unrest.64 Again he was brought from Chihriq to Tabriz, and fatvàs were delivered by 57 Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd, p. 140; Gobineau, op. cit., p. 238. 58 See above, pp. 111-112. 5 9 Browne, ed., Traveller’s Narrative, II, 10; Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd, p. 113. 60 Browne, ed., Traveller’s Narrative, II, 254. 61 Ibid., p. 254. 62 RSN, X, 457. 63 p. u8. See, too, Muhammad, op. cit., p. 466. It is questionable how well the participants in Bâbï-led revolts were acquainted with Bábi tenets. Browne (introduction to Târïkh-i-Jadïd, p. xxvii )points out that the devotion of the Bâbïs was, in general, more to leaders than to books and precepts. 64 RSN, X, 456. The Târïkh-i-Jadïd (p. 292) bears witness to Amir Kabir’s reluctance, and to his being motivated solely by reasons of state. Bâbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama *47
various of the ulama condemning him to death. The Traveller’s Narrative mentions Mullâ Muhammad Mamaqânï, Mïrzâ Bàqir Mujtahid, and Mullâ Murtadà Qulï Marandï.65 At last, the state decided to enforce the penalty for apostasy; but the offense caus ing it to do so was one in nature less religious, and more directly threatening itself. On Sha'bân 27, 1266/July 8, 1850, the Bàb was shot dead in the citadel of Tabriz.66 This ended the first stage in the development of the religious movement resulting in the syncretist doctrines of Bahâ’ism.67 It was the ulama who were first threatened by it and often suffered from its violence. In Qazvin, Hâjjï Mullâ Muhammad Taqï Burg- hânï was killed in the mihrâb (niche) of a mosque by Mïrzâ Çâlih Shîrâzï for his persistent denunciation of Bâbism.68 The Bâb him self, though largely remote from the activities of his followers, indi cated his attitude to the ulama by breaking a stick over the chief mullâ of Mâkü.69 Furthermore, it was the ulama who throughout encouraged the state to suppress the movement, and their resis tance to it was more consistent than that of either Hâjjï Mïrzâ Àqâsï or Amïr Kabïr. Their function of defending the religio- national community was, then, again exemplified in the struggle against Bâbism, while in this struggle the role of the state appeared to them, at best, as lacking in enthusiasm and, at worst, as ambiguous. It is, nonetheless, necessary to recall that many of the leading Bâbïs were drawn from the ulama, though only one mujtahid, Aqâ Sayyid Husayn Turshïzï, appears to have joined their ranks.70 The majority of these were Shaykhïs, and in the light of the expecta tions implicit in Shaykhï teaching, their conversion is not remark able.71 We have seen that, on the other hand, Mullâ Muhammad ‘Ali Zanjânï was an Akhbârï before his conversion, but it appears possible that he was attracted above all by the insurrectionary as- 65 II, 55. Gobineau (op. cit., p. 260) says that another discussion between the ulama and the Bâb was provided for, which most of them refused to attend. It is probable, however, that he is confusing these events with the earlier bringing of the Bâb from Chihriq. 66 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 263; N T , p. 489. 67 It is arguable that the movement began with Shaykh Ahmad Ahsâ’î, or even earlier. See Kasravl, op. cit., pp. 2-20. 68 Q‘U, p. 22. 69 Browne, ed., Târïkh-i-Jadïd, p. 352. 70 Browne, ed., Traveller's Narrative, II, 212. 71 A list of some Shaykhï mullâs who accepted Bâbism is given in ibid., p. 6. ij 8 Religion and State in Iran pects of the new faith. The Târikh-i-Jadid estimates the number of ulama to have accepted Bâbism at 400, and claims that they occupy “the position of a touchstone or measure for the proving of his [the Bab’s] claims, which distinguishes base metal from true.”72 That indeed the vast majority of the ulama rejected the Bab’s claims was probably the most important single factor working against their acceptance. Had the Bab in fact been acknowledged as the Hidden Imam, the function of the ulama would have ceased to exist. It may be conceded that they thus had a vested interest in the con tinued occultation of the Hidden Imam; but even Baha’is realized that the ulama had only two possible courses of action: to reject as false the Shi'i traditions considering the manner of the appearance of the Hidden Imam, or to consider the Bab a blasphemous apostate.73 Bâbism had certain consequences for the ulama and for Iran as a whole, many of which are suggested by a comparison with Ismà'îlism. The comparison was made in the Qajar period and has been repeated by later investigators.74 Both Ismà'îlism and Bâbism were heresies of Shi'ite origin seeking to overthrow orthodoxy (Sunni and Ithnâ'asharï respectively) by violence, and spreading their doctrines by secret instruction.75 Doctrinally, too, there were similarities: the title of Bâb was given in Ismà'îlism to one of the seven grades of the esoteric hierarchy.76 The Bâbîs for their part revived the mystic use of the numeral seven with the theory of the seven letters (hurüf) by means of which God accomplished the task of creation.77As Bàbï-Bahà’ï doctrine lost its Shi'ite tinge, it tended to attract the religious minorities, particularly the Zoroastrians78 72 pp. 231-235. 73 Browne, ed.. Traveller’s Narrative, II, 32. 74 Q‘U, p. 46; article on Bâbism by Jamâl ud-Dïn Asadâbâdî in Dâ’irat al- Ma’ârif, ed. Butrus Bustânî (Beirut, 1881), V, 26; Jamâl ud-Dïn Asadâbâdî, “Radd-i Naycharïya," in Ârâ va Mu‘taqadàt-i Sayyid Jamâl ud-Dïn-i Afghani, ed. M. Chahârdihï (Tehran, 1337 Sh/1958), p. 49; ‘Abd ar-Razzâq al-Hasanï, al-Bâbiyün wa-l-Bahâ’ïyùn fi Hâdirihim xva Mâdïhim (Sidon, 1376 Q/1956- 1957), p. 10; G. Scarcia, "A Proposito del Problema della Sovranità presso gli Imamiti,” Annali del Istituto Orientale di Napoli, VII (1957), 121 (Bâbism a *‘neo-Ismâ‘ïlï interpretation of Shaykhi Imâmism”). 75 On Ismâ'ilï use of violence, see Marshall G. Hodgson, The Order of Assas sins (’s-Gravenhage, 1955), pp. 110-115. 76 H. Corbin, Histoire de la Philosophie Islamique (Paris, 1963), p. 131. 77 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 314. No complete analysis of the doctrines of Bâbism and its successors is attempted here. 78 E. G. Browne, A Year amongst the Persians (new ed., London, 1950), p. 430. Bâbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama 149 in much the same way as Ismà'ïlism had proclaimed “interconfes- sionalism” in its attempts to subvert orthodoxy.79 The threats pre sented by Bâbism and Ismâ'ïlism, being both pervasive and hidden in their nature, permitted accusations of allegiance to heresy to become means of controversy and enmity. This was particularly the case with Bâbism, after the attempted assassination of Nâsir ul-Dïn Shâh.80 Taqïya, the prudent concealment of belief in circumstances of danger, was both a cause and a result of this pervasive fear and suspicion. The original justification of taqïya, self-protection from Sunni intolerance, had virtually ceased to exist,81 but the habits of concealment and ambiguity it engendered lived on. Many of the Bâbïs who remained in Iran found themselves obliged to practice taqïya, as the violence of the early Bâbïs was paid back to their successors by the ulama and the state. Taqïya at the same time en abled them to continue in, or penetrate, the ranks of the ulama, and the discontent of Bahâ’ïs and Azalïs added a further element to the opposition to the Qajar monarchy, one that became en twined with the ulama themselves. Probably the emergence of Bâbism affected the Shaykhïs more than other sections of the ulama, and taqïya was in practice forced on them too. The process had started when Sayyid Kâzim Rashtï, successor to Shaykh Ahmad Ahsâ’ï as leader of the sect, was obliged to confess that the apparent meaning of certain of Shaykh Ahmad’s doctrines constituted misbelief.82 On the death of Sayyid Kâzim, not only the Bâb, but two other rival successors emerged, both hostile to the pretensions of Sayyid ‘Alï Muhammad.83 Mullâ Muhammad Mamaqânï, a follower of Mirzâ ShafT Tabrïzï, one of the claimants to the succession, was among the ulama who con demned the Bâb to death in Tabriz. Hâjjï Muhammad Karim Khân, the other claimant, was not less decisive in his reaction to Bâbism. In Kirman, he gave a fatvâ for the killing of two Bâbï missionaries.84 He wrote a treatise refuting the Bab’s claims, al legedly at the request of Nâsir ud-Dïn Shâh, but more probably to
79 B. Lewis, The Origins of Ismâ'ïlism (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 93-96. 80 Gobineau, op. cit., p. 304. 81 See below, p. 228. 82 Q T, p. 31. 88 Kasravi, op. cit., pp. 19-20. 84 Browne, ed., Târikh-i-Jadïd, p. 200. 150 Religion and State in Iran establish a distance between himself and the Báb.85 In his treatise Si Fa$l, he later claimed that, far from suffering from Bàbï inclina tions, he was the first to pronounce the Bab an infidel.86 It is clear that a certain similarity existed between the initial claims of the Báb and the Shaykhï concept of the shVa-yi kámil (the perfect shi'a) as human intermediaries between the community of believers and the Hidden Imam. Therefore, the followers of Hàjjï Muhammad Karim Khan found it prudent to reexplain the concept as no more than an idea, not to be identified with any one person.878When he wrote a treatise summarizing Shaykhï beliefs, significantly such typical Shaykhï concepts as the jism-i hürqalïyâ’ï88 received no mention.89 A successor of Hàjjï Muhammad Karim Khan even went so far as to suggest that the differences between Usülïs and Shaykhïs were purely terminological.90 Thus did the emergence of Bàbism force one section of the ulama to resort to taqïya in its struggle with the majority. This struggle, though secondary to that between ulama and state, continued until the Constitutional Revo lution and was another element in the confusion of motive sur rounding that event. The development of Bàbism into Bahâ’ism confirmed the exist ing hostility to the ulama.91 Thus Mïrzà Jànï Kàshànï, author of the Nuqtat ul-Kàf, looked forward to the beheading of 70,000 mullàs by the Hidden Imam on his emergence,92 and thought them less valuable than the carcass of a dog.93 The attempt on the life on Nâsir ud-Dïn Shah was preceded by a similar plot against the imam jum'a of Tehran, which however was not put into operation. The Bahà’ïs dissociated themselves from the attack on the Shah,
85 Browne, A Year amongst the Persians, p. 608; ‘Abd ul-Husayn Navâ’ï, “Hâjj Muhammad Karim Khân Kirmànï,” Yâdgàr, V (1328 Sh/1949-1950), 117. 86 Ibid., IV, 72. 87 Alessandro Bausani, Persia Religiosa (Milan, 1959), p. 406. 88 Jism-i hurqalïyà’ï : “Hurqalyan body,” the subtle body in which the Hidden Imam subsists in the realm of Hurqalïyâ, a region intermediate between spirit and matter (see Henry Corbin, Terre Celeste et Corps de Résurrection [Paris, i960], pp. 99-164). 89 Navâ’î, op. cit., IV, 68. 90 Shaykh Abû-l-Qâsim Kirmânï, Fihrist-i Kutub-i Marhûm Shaykh Ahmad-i Ahsâ’ï va Sâ’ir-i Mashàyikh-i Tzâm (Kirman, 1337 Sh/1958-1959), p. 105. 91 Azalism, the other successor to Bàbism, becomes of importance later than Bahâ’ism. 92 Browne, ed., Târikh-i-Jadid, p. xvii. In one sense, a curious sentiment to entertain, for the Bab had claimed precisely to be the Hidden Imam. 93 Ibid., p. 15. Bâbism, Bahâ’ism, and the Ulama I5I
and in fact sought to achieve with Nâsir ud-Dïn Shah what the Bâb had failed to accomplish with Muhammad Shah: to present them selves as allies of the state against the ulama. ‘Abd ul-Bahâ wrote in this vein to Nâsir ud-Dïn Shah.94 Not only was the role of the ulama in suppressing Bâbism emphasized, but they were held responsible for preventing Nâsir ud-Dïn Shah from introducing a policy of toleration.95 The charge was hardly justified; in reality the Bahâ’ïs came to occupy something of a position between the state and the ulama, not one enabling them to balance the two sides, but rather exposing them to blows each side was aiming at the other. The government, interested in maintaining order, would resist persecu tion of Bahà’is by the ulama, but would equally, when occasion demanded, permit action against the Bahâ’ïs. Despite these consequences of the rise of Bâbism, the contradic tion between ulama and state, its origins and its results, remained largely unchanged. Not long after the execution of the Bâb, Amïr Kabïr expelled the shaykh ul-Islâm and the imâm jum'a from Tabriz. Even while Sayyid Yahyà Dârâbï was leading the Bâbï insurrection in Nayrïz, a not less violent conflict was raging in Isfa han between clerical and secular power. Bâbism was ultimately no more than a side issue in the Qajar history. 94 Text and Arabic translation in al-Hasani, op. cit., pp. 132-164. 95 Browne, ed.. Traveller’s Narrative, II, 149.