legitimacy of early qajar rule as viewed by shii religious leaders - abdul-hadi hairi

The Legitimacy of the Early Qajar Rule as Viewed by the Shi'i Religious LeadersAuthor(s): Abdul-Hadi HairiSource: Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 271-286Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283247Accessed: 28/07/2010 07:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://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 printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283247?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

The Legitimacy of the Early Qajar Rule as Viewed by the Shi'i Religious Leaders

Abdul-Hadi Hairi

Generally speaking, it seems that most of the Shi'i mujtahids (religious authorities) of the past two centuries have held that there have been three offices in Shi'ism dealing with the affairs of Muslim believers. The office which is responsible for religious matters and that of the administration of justice have both been unquestionably entrusted to the mujtahids. The third office is that of politics and rulership. The idea of the latter being under the authority of the ulama (religious leaders) during the Greater Occultation (ghaybat-i kubra) of the Twelfth Imam (i.e. the Hidden Imam) has not been universally accepted, and therefore does require discussion and investigation.' On the basis of this argument, after a great deal of research and inquiry some of the mujtahids came to the conclusion that politics and rulership were also to be entrusted to the mujtahids as the General Agents of the Twelfth Imam.2

On the other hand, however, there have been other religious authorities who, basing themselves on a series of traditionalist and rationalist reasonings, have come to believe that the mujtahids as well as the non-mujtahid kings might share rulership and legitimately rule the Muslim community. The latter group of the ulama hold that the king and the mujtahid divide the offices between themselves according to their specialty, knowledge and experience.3

In the last decade of the eighteenth century, Iran had just survived nearly a century of confusion, insecurity, foreign invasions, civil wars, and frequent massacres. The Qajars, under the command of Aqa Muhammad Khan (d. 1797/1211) and during the reign of his nephew, Fath Ali Shah (reigned 1797 - 1934/1211 - 50), were able to suppress their rivals and, for the first time after the fall of the Safavids (1722/1135), turned Iran again into a relatively strong central Shi'i state and established relative peace and unity.4 The country, therefore, became a congenial place for Shi'i studies and the Shi'i ulama, who had been under pressure for decades to the extent that they had migrated to India and Iraq, enjoyed great influence on the government and commanded great prestige among the people.

In the circumstances, the ulama were able to interpret a certain number of the hadiths in favor of their own right to rulership.5 On the other hand, the Qajar Shahs (Kings) did not claim descent from the Shi'i Imams, nor did they declare themselves to be the agents of the Twelfth Imam. The question of a rightful ruler, therefore, was of vital importance to both the ulama and Qajar rulers.6 The aim of the present study is to examine the position of the religious leaders in Iran toward the problem of rulership during the first few decades of Qajar rule.

In order to gain insight into the actual situation in which the ulama expressed their viewpoints, several factors should be taken into consideration:

272 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

1. Fath Ali Shah's need for legitimacy created a necessity for a friendly relationship with the ulama. He therefore took an interest in religious affairs and had the greatest esteem for the ulama.7

2. Since Iran was at war with the non-Muslim Russians during the last years of the eighteenth century and the early decades of the nineteenth, the ulama were bound to co-operate whole-heartedly with the Shah and his Regent, Abbas Mirza, who were defending the Islamic territory against the infidels. Thus the ulama called them the 'mujtahids' whom no one was to disobey.8

3. The unremitting struggles of the mujtahids with the Sufis, the Akhbaris, and the Shaykhis seem to have been another important motive for their close co-operation with Fath Ali Shah. Having the Shah as a great and strong supporter, the mujtahids were in a better and stronger position to suppress their rivals.

Proceeding to the main subject of study we see how, in the circumstances at that time, the mujtahids theoretically dealt with the problem of rulership and how far they were prepared to go to legitimize the rule of the early Qajars within the framework of the Twelver-Shi'i ideology. For our purpose we will deal with four distinguished mujtahids, each of whom was a good represen- tative example of the clerical leadership of the period, and approached the problem of a legitimate ruler in his own particular way. The mujtahids under discussion are as follows:

1. Shaykh Ja'far al-Najafi, known as Kashif al-Ghita' (d. 1812/1227); 2. Mirza Abu'l Qasim, known as Mirza-yi Qummi (1737-1816/1150-

123 1); 3. Mulla Ahmad Naraqi (1771-1829/1185-1245); 4. Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi (1775-1850/1189-1267).

QUMMI: CONSULTATION AND COMPROMISE

Qummi belonged to a family originating in Shaft, a small town in Gilan, Iran. His father moved to Japilaq, 72 kilometers from Burujird, Iran, and Qummi himself, according to a chronogram, was born in the latter city in 1737/ 1150.9 He studied mainly in the Shrine cities of Iraq under a number of professors including Aqa Muhammad Baqir Bihbihani. Later on he spent forty years of his life in Qum, and for this reason he was called Mirza-yi Qummi.'0 He died in the same city in 1816/1231.

Qummi has been considered one of the great mujtahids and marja'-i taqlids of the Shi'i world. He wrote a number of books and treatises onfiqh, usul, ethics and philosophy, some of which still exist in manuscript form. His correspondence with the Qajar Shahs indicates his amicable relationship with them, especially with Fath Ali Shah who had particular respect for him, proven by the extent that he was prepared to accept Qummi's demands and recom- mendations."I In turn, Qummi supported the Shah and legitimized his rule.

Qummi wrote his 'Irshad-Namah' when he was about fifty years of age, and since he was born in 1737/1150, the date of writing the treatise must have been circa 1787/1202. The Shah he addressed in the treatise was therefore probably the founder of the Qajar dynasty, Aqa Muhammad Khan."2 In this

LEGITIMACY OF THE EARLY QAJAR RULE 273

treatise, Qummi talks about the importance of the authority of the Shah and kingship, the meaning of 'zillAllah' (shadow of God) and its connection with the Shah, and about his own position as a mujtahid in comparison with that of the Shah as the actual ruler of Iran. He finally calls his discussion on 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 servants and 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 'wicked soul and malafides' (su'-isarirat va khubth-i niyyat). In order to 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. '


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.20 Qummi 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,22 Qummi refers to the famous hadiths such as the 'maqbulah-yi 'Umar b. Hanzalah' and clearly emphasizes the authority of the faqih (expert in Islamic law, i.e. mujtahid) as the General Agent of the Hidden Imam. He goes on to argue that in the absence of the faqih's power, he is compelled to compromise with the oppressive Caliphs (al-mumashat ma'a khulafa' al-jawr).23 Someone asked Qummi whether the jihad, declared by the ulama against the Russians but organized and commanded by secular authorities, was in accordance with Islamic as well as the customary law (shar' va 'urJ). In answer to this question Qummi clearly showed 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 warriors and defenders of the Islamic territory according 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, written one year before his death, Qummi proposed with greater clarity the theory that the Shah had no genuinely legitimate claim to rulership. The internal evidence shows that the letter was written when the enemies of the mujtahids, including the Sufis, were trying to 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 ordered Muslims to obey, and the question of the applicability of this Qur'anic title to the Shah invited Qummi's open protest and his complaint to the monarch. A paraphrase of Qummi's complaint might not be without interest:


I notice that some people want to apply the title of 'ulu'l amr' to the Shah. This action is in line with Sunni Islam but clearly against Shi'ism, and the Sunnis will be proud of seeing the Shi'i monarch follow their steps. Attempts are being made to dispose the monarch to follow Sufism which is worse than Sunnism and makes him irreligious. Since the Sufis have borrowed their ideas and practices from Christianity, then the Europeans and Christians will 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' territory and 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 writings show 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.26 What seems certain is that those writers who base their discussion about Qummi's theory of government solely on his 'Irshad-Namah' are in error.

KASHIF AL-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


every night in worshipping God, and he mortgaged his house in order to help the poor.27 He was influential in the arena of politics to the point that 'he was in close contact with the Shahs and rulers',28 and 'the Arabs as well as non- Arabs obeyed him'.29 It was for this reason that in 1812/1227 he was invited to act as an intercessor (shafi') in the Iran-Ottoman border conflicts.30 His specialty in the Islamic sciences lent him the titles 'Shaykh al-A kbar' (Greatest Shaykh)3' and 'Shaykh al-mujtahidin' (Master of the Mujtahids).32

This great religious leader had close and friendly relations with Fath Ali Shah, and in his book Kashf al-Ghita' written on fiqh he admired his government and hoped that the Shah's governmental system might be prolonged and connected to that of the Twelfth Imam. He finally dedicated the book to the Shah.33 Despite these facts, however, Kashif al-Ghita' never considered the Shah's rule to be genuinely legitimate and did not allow him to claim legitimacy unless sanctioned by the usuli ulama, i.e. those religious authorities who practiced ijtihad and condemned the Akhbaris who did not believe in ijtihad.

Concerning the necessity of declaring a holy war against the Russians, Kashif al-Ghita' argues that when Islamic territory was attacked by infidels it would be obligatory upon the Imam to defend it. If the Imam should be absent, the mujtahids would lead the jihad campaign, but if, for some reason, the ulama's actual leadership were not possible, then any qualified man or men should take the responsibility. Hence, it would be a compulsory duty of the people to support and obey such a person or persons; anyone who refused to do so would have, in fact, disobeyed the Imam, the Prophet, and God.

Kashif al-Ghita' goes on to argue that under such circumstances it would be more pleasing to God and more prudential for any ruler to organize the affairs of state under the religious authority of the mujtahids. He therefore states that 'If I myself am a mujtahid and may represent the distinguished authorities of the age, I will be determined to authorize Fath Ali Shah to lead the jihad campaign against the infidels'. Then he declares it incumbent upon the Muslims to obey the Shah and warns that acts of disobedience to the latter's orders will be considered as disobedience to God and will invoke His wrath.34

Kashif al-Ghita' considers the Shah's rule legitimate only when it is authorized and sanctioned by a mujtahid, and clearly denies the Shah's genuine and independent claim to a legitimate rule. He does not even abandon his argument at this point. In order to prevent Fath Ali Shah from taking any advan- tage of the conditional legitimacy he enjoyed, Kashif al Ghita' again insists upon the original illegitimacy of the Shah's rule. He says that the obligatory duties are different; one obligatory duty is to obey the vicar (khalifah) of the Prophet of God, and another is to obey a king who is in a position to defend the rights of Islam and the Muslims.

Obedience to the authority of the Prophet's vicar is obligatory not out of expediency or for a special reason, but because of the fact that it is essential, and the nature of such authority requires such obedience. Whereas, on the other hand, obedience to the king is an accidental ('aradi) duty performed to meet certain ends. In other words, duties such as preparing weapons and recruiting soldiers for a war under the command of the king may be considered as preliminary obligatory duties upon which the principal obligatory duties are based.35


In a separate tawqi' (decree) written on the necessity of a jihad against the Russians under the commands of Fath Ali Shah and Abbas Mirza, Kashif al- 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 even calls the Shah 'our servant who admits his servitude', and hopes that the Regent, who suppresses 'the rebellious unbelievers' (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 interesting to note that in defiance of the fact that this mujtahid recognized the Shah's authority with such severe reservations, a son-in-law of Kashif al-Ghita', Sayyid Sadr al-Din 'Amili, known also as Sadr Isfahani, (d. 1847/1264) still criticized him heavily. Sadr Isfahani argued that Kashif al-Ghita' entrusted Fath Ali Shah with a number of religious tasks which were to be within the jurisdiction of the virtuous Islamic authorities, whereas the Shah was an oppressive and unrighteous man and was not qualified for the position. According to Sayyid Sadr al-Din Sadr (a grandson of Sadr Isfahani who died in 1953/1373), since Kashif al-Ghita' was not convinced, Sadr Isfahani migrated from Iraq to Isfahan in order to remove his association with Kashif al-Ghita'. 37

DISAPPROVAL OF REASON, SCHOOL AND THE SULTAN

Another distinguished and influential thinker and mujtahid of the period was Mulla Ahmad Naraqi. Naraqi, who declared a jihad against the Russians38 and participated in the jihad campaign in a shroud,39 was also a prolific author. Apart from writing on fiqh and usul, Naraqi also produced works on Islamic ethics. His proficiency in the Islamic sciences was particularly admired by Shaykh Murtaza Ansari (1799-1864/1214-81), a disciple of Naraqi and himself the most prominent Shi'i religious leader of the nineteenth century.40

In one of Naraqi's works written in the form of a 'mathnavi' the authority of the Shah appears to be highly respected and the Shah is depicted as an example of goodness and excellence. Firstly, he entitled his 'mathnavi' Taqdis, the latter being the name of the arched throne of Khusraw Parviz, the great king of pre-Islamic Iran.41 Secondly, in the story of 'The Parrot and the Shah', after referring to a 'hadith qudsi' (a class of the hadiths which give words spoken by God), Naraqi likens the Shah to God and calls God 'Shah-i Khuban' (the King of the virtuous beings). He admires 'the privacy of the heart' (khalvat-i dil) and believes that it is 'an auspicious privacy' which deserves to be the Shah's abode and no beggar is to have access to such a place which is also 'the divinity palace'.42

In the same story, the Shah appears as a person who always leads the people to the right path and brings them to salvation.43 He is constantly occupied in performing his duties and would never hesitate to face all kinds of suffering and harm for the sake of others. The king that Naraqi describes represents only admirable qualities, and there is no reference to the oppression, homicide, medieval types of tyranny and debauchery which may also characterize kings.'


In his Taqdis, Naraqi also mentions the story of the Prophet Ibrahim who, according to the Islamic sources, was to show his willingness to sacrifice his son Isma'il as a sign of devotion to, and trust in, God. Since God wanted to test Isma'il in that great trial, with successful results, Naraqi gives him the rank of king and king of kings (Shahanshah) and considers kingship and prophethood (shahi-o payghambari) to be sources of honor which became eternal in Isma'il's family.45

It seems that the elevated symbolic meanings which Naraqi attaches to the term 'Shah' and 'Shahanshah' can only have been exemplified by the historical kings and emperors of whom he and his audience had knowledge. In describing the qualifications of a just king in his other work, Mi'raj al-Sa'adah, Naraqi mentions by way of example Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi (d. 421/1030) and Malik Shah Saljuqi (d. 1092/485).4 Naraqi goes on to argue that the just kings are also shadows of God on earth and are appointed by Him to protect the people's property and honor and eliminate oppression.47

In his discussion, Naraqi uses the word 'Khaqan', then a title of Fath Ali Shah. This point, together with other indications, suggests that in the eyes of Naraqi the shadow of God who was appointed by Him was none other than Fath Ali Shah. In order, it seems, to answer the criticism that the attributes he ascribes to the just king may not be applicable to the Qajar Shah, Naraqi quotes a hadith, reported on the authority of the Seventh Shi'i Imam. This hadith warns the Shi'ah that they will be despised by others if they disobey their sultan. The hadith also reminds the Shi'ah that,

If the Shah is just, do ask God to perpetuate his life; and if he is tyrannical, you should ask God to lead him to the right path because your being righteous is dependent upon your sultan's righteousness.48

In addition, in his book, al-Khaza'in, Naraqi makes an effort to prove the legitimacy of Fath Ali Shah's kingship according to astrological laws, implying that the emergence of the Qajar rule was a natural phenomenon, ordained by God.49 It is perhaps for this reason that Naraqi did not hesitate to dedicate his Mi'raj al-Sa'adah to Fath Ali Shah, using highly eulogistic expressions to describe him such as 'shadow of God', 'fighter for the cause of God', and 'founder of the laws of justice'. In his other book, Sayf al-Ummah, which he devoted to the refutation of his contemporary, the English missionary Henry Martin, Naraqi, in reference to Fath Ali Shah and Abbas Mirza, used many phrases of a hyperbolic nature.50

Despite his friendly relations with the Shah and his legitimization of the Qajar rule, Naraqi appears to be quite outspoken in his treatment of the Shi'i theory of government and does not hesitate to recognize the just faqihs as the only genuinely legitimate rulers of the Muslim community. In his 'A wa 'id, Naraqi says that no one can exercise any sovereign power over anyone else unless he is appointed by God, the Prophet, or one of the latter's authorized agents (awsiya'), i.e. the Twelve Imams. Then by quoting 19 hadiths, Naraqi attempts to prove that it is only the qualified faqihs who carry this authority as the General Agents of the Twelfth Imam during the Greater Occultation.

Naraqi writes that the authority of the faqihs is as comprehensive as that of the Prophet and the Imam unless there appears a clear evidence which may


make a specified case an exception to this general rule. He goes on to argue that reason, the Islamic law and the existing customs say that matters related to this world and the hereafter have to be settled, since the affairs of both individuals and society and the organization of religious and worldly matters depend on them. If no specified person is appointed to take charge of certain individual or social affairs they will be automatically placed under the authority of the faqihs. By quoting a hadith reported on the authority of the Prophet Muhammad, Naraqi extends his argument as far as to say that

The faqihs are the trustees of the Prophet and will not be tied up with the kings. If they become so, then you should stop associating with them for the sake of your religion.5

By coherent and systematic argument Naraqi clearly declared that 'vilayat-i faqih' (the unquestionable and comprehensive guardianship of the faqih over the rest of the people) was the only genuinely legitimate type of rule planned by the Prophet of Islam and the infallible Shi'i Imams for the Muslim community. In fact, it was Naraqi who, in his 'A wa 'id, provided an important source of reasoning for the founder of the present regime in Iran when formulating his own doctrine of 'vilayat-ifaqih' and preparing to put it into operation in 1979/1399.52

A comparison between what Naraqi wrote in his Mi'raj al-Sa'adah, Sayf al-Ummah, and al-Khaza'in and the content of his 'A wa'id clearly shows a volte-face in his approach to the problem of rulership. By surveying Naraqi's philosophy, expressed in particular through his lyrics and mystical poems, one still comes across another type of thinking which is entirely contrary to his previously discussed theories of government. In writings of this nature, Naraqi does not make any endeavor to legitimize the rule of either the kings or the mujtahids. Rather, he openly renounces the Shah and all things related to asceticism (zuhd); the prayer carpet (sajyadah), the rosary (subhah), the religious school (madrasah), the people, the faqihs and Islamic preachers. He goes on as far as to declare the Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) to be a barrier to progress (sadd-i rah-o mani '-i takmil shud) and even claims to have become astonished to see a 'madrasah' being built where, in his opinion, 'a wine cellar could have been founded' (jayi ki dar an maykadah bunyad tavan kard).53

As we know, in the early period of the Qajar rule Naraqi was a prominent religious leader. himself a holder of the religious titles and a custodian of the religious customs and institutions which he renounced. It seems that Naraqi did not truly believe in those titles, customs and institutions and did not find the contemporary custodians of politics and religion dutiful and on the right path. In practice, however, he saw himself obliged not to break with the community. Perhaps he found out that the psychological motive which urged him to act reluctantly in harmony with the less pleasing characteristics of the community was something which he called "aql' (wisdom; rationality). We see Naraqi declare war against 'aql and heavily criticize himself for leaving the control of his heart in the hand of 'aql (zamam-i dil bi dast-i 'aql dadah). Particularly in later life, he regretted his past activities and condemned his association with the Shah, remarking 'I disdain to be associated with the royal crown and throne' (zi taj-o takht-i sultanim 'ar ast).54


A characteristic feature of Naraqi's lyric poetry is frequent praise of wine from which he, especially as a faqih, had to abstain. On one occasion he appears gratified that he is given admission to a wine cellar and adds 'I will bid farewell to my wisdom again and put my religion in pledge in the wine cellar'." To the reader, it is apparent that Naraqi always kept himself aloof from any intoxicating liquor in real life. It seems, however, that since the existing political and social institutions were not functioning to his satisfaction and expediency did not permit explicit criticism, he had recourse to the poetical expressions relating to wine, wine cellars and wine drinking, all indirect protests 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.56 However, when Naraqi came to deal with the Shi'i theory of government, especially in a book like 'A wa'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,57 and I'timad al Saltanah considers him to be well versed in Islamic studies.58 Kashfi wrote many books, eighteen of which have been identified,59 but to the best of our knowledge only two of them were published. He had a friendly relationship with Fath Ali Shah and his seventh son, Muhammad Taqi Mirza who was at a time the governor of Burujird;6' indeed, Kashfi dedicated some of his books to him.

Concerning the problem of rulership, Kashfi, basing his argument on a hadith reporting on the authority of the Sixth Shi'i Imam, says that Muslims should act in obedience to the rule of those reporting the hadiths on the authority of the Imam and are aware of, and accurate in their dealing with the hadiths. These persons are appointed by the infallible Imam, and disobedience to their rule would mean disobedience to God's rule - a sin equal to polytheism.6" On another occasion Kashfi writes that a qualified sultan should know the revealed law of Islam (Shari'at), Islamic ethics, fundamentals and branches of religion. In other words, he should be able to exercise ijtihad. If the sultan is not a mujtahid, he should adopt the legal decision of a mujtahid (bar vajh-i taqlid) and keep company with a man of religious learning and insight in order to be led to the right and lawful path. In this way he will be inspired by God and will duly be able to perform the duties related to kingship.62

In his 'Mizan al-Muluk', Kashfi considers every individual to be a vicar (khalifah) of God on earth, appointed to perform certain duties. He then


classifies all types of vicarships, the greatest and most important of which being that of the ulama related as it is to knowledge and learning ('ilm); those of others are related to action ('amal), the latter being lower in rank than the former.63 Kashfi goes on to say that these ulama possessing exoteric as well as esoteric knowledge ('ilm-i zahir va batin) are friends of God and 'are associated with triumph and prosperity'. Their 'benevolence and blessing' will 'spread through the universe, from the east to the west, and the people will live under their protection'. Two hadiths apply to this type of ulama: one states that 'the ulama are heirs to the prophets' (al-'ulama' warathat al-anbiya'), and the other contains a remark attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: 'The ulama of my community (ummah) are like the Israelite Prophets'.64

In theory, Kashfi legitimized the rule of qualified faqihs, approving the rule of a king only on condition that the latter place himself under the instruction of the former. As far as Kashfi was concerned, if this theory could have been put into practice an ideal form of government would have come into existence. Kashfi then suggested many difficult conditions for a mujtahid ruler; a man of merit who might have met those conditions was 'rare to find' (nadir al-wujud).65

By way of example, Kashfi believed that knowledge of the 'conventional sciences' ('ulum-i rasmiyyah) was not sufficient in order for a person to qualify for rulership.i He should also possess 'sacred power' (quvvah-yi qudsiyyah) and be endorsed by 'the heavenly spirits' (arvah-i malakutiyyah). An approach of this nature clearly suggests that Kashfi was not prepared to endorse the candidacy of any of his contemporary mujtahids for rulership. It was perhaps for this reason that he heavily criticized those ulama who, in his view, did not perform their duties and greatly harmed the Muslim community. Although he devoted a substantial part of his 'Mizan al-Muluk' to criticism of the ulama, and in doing so backed his argument by a variety of the hadiths, he seems to have continued a self-imposed form of censorship, remarking at one juncture 'Anyone who was taught the secrets about God, his mouth is sealed and [his lips] are sewn'. 67

What then was Kashfi's solution to the problem of rulership? The answer to this question raises a third feature of Kashfi's approach to the problem. He certainly took into consideration the rule of the kings, although in principle this was not in harmony with his Shi'i theory of government, and he considered the royal courts to be centers of many types of corruption, evil deeds, injustice and oppression, interpreting these characteristics as signs of the appearance of the Hidden Imam.68 However, since Kashfi laid great significance upon state security and order, he saw himself bound to regard a strong king as the only ruler able to establish order and security. Within this framework Kashfi, by referring to the Islamic sources, made every endeavor to legitimize the rule of a king rather than that of a mujtahid.

He quotes, for instance, the Prophet Muhammad who reportedly said: 'If a king is just the believers should obey him as they should obey God. However, if he is oppressive, then the people should show forbearance towards him until God brings some relief'.69 Kashfi argues that since kingship is a gift from God it also embraces Khilafat, knowledge and prophethood. It goes without saying that 'knowledge and prophethood are not of much use unless


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). Under such conditions, working for the cause of God and the hereafter will be easier and in plenty.'70 He continues by explaining that it is of absolute necessity to have a king in order to establish peace and order in society where 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.72 At 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.73 It is true that in the eyes of Kashfi knowledge is superior to action and therefore the ulama are considered to be higher in 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), religion and kingship, both of which should be originally centered in 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 related sciences without consideration of religious affairs. The affairs of the deputyship of 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.76 Even under such conditions Kashfi does not endorse the deposition of an irreligious king 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,


considering it to be proof that the wise and just kings are, like the mujtahids, the deputies of the Imam. He says that those kings who put the "Ahd-Namah' into practice are the specified agents (na 'ib-i khass) of the Imam, because the letter is addressed directly to a specified ruler, i.e., Malik, whereas according to the hadith, the mujtahids are the Imam's General Agents. Kashfi adds that at this time knowledge (i.e. matters related to the ulama) is separated from the sword (i.e. matters related to the kings). In the 'Ahd-Namah, then whatever concerns knowledge applies to the mujtahids; affairs of the sword, kingship, politics and order are dealt by those kings who act according to the 'Ahd-Namah.78

Thus Kashfi legitimized the rule of the non-mujtahid kings despite his original belief in the qualified mujtahid as the ideal ruler of the Shi'a during the Greater Occultation. At the same time he admired Fath Ali Shah to the extent that he considered him to be 'the king of kings in the realm of the divine vicarship' (Shahanshah-i khiftah-yi khilafat-i ilahi). He believed that the kings enjoyed God's emanation (fayz) and favors (tavajjuhat) and he found in Fath Ali Shah an example of such a king.79 In sum, the positive qualities ascribed by Kashfi to the authority of the kings also attributed to the Qajar Shah; the legitimization of the Qajar rule seems to be the main point, or in fact the raison d'etre, of Kashfi's Tuhfat al-Muluk.

This article began with Shaykh Murtaza Ansari's argument that the ulama's claim to rulership needs to be proved through discussion and investigation. It seems that commentaries relating to the four mujtahids are entirely in harmony with Ansari's point. Being a contemporary of those mujtahids and certainly well aware of their differing approaches to the problem of rulership, Ansari seems to have formed his theory of government at least partly in the light of their arguments. All the mujtahids under discussion shared the opinion that on principle, the mujtahids are legitimate rulers who are to enact the rules of the Twelfth Imam during his Creator Occultation. Each of them, however, approached the problem in a different way, basing their arguments on different sources of information, undertaking various types of discussions, and taking into consideration certain necessities and expediencies.

The existence of the different, and sometimes opposite, hadiths concerning the rule of the mujtahids and the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the rule of the non-mujtahid kings was a serious, if not the most serious, source of disagreement among the mujtahids. It was for this reason that, for example, Mirza-yi Qummi argued under certain conditions that obedience to an oppressive king was improper or repugnant (qabih), whereas Naraqi and Kashfi considered it an obligatory duty in certain other circumstances. For the same reason, Ansari considered the problem of rulership and its applicability to be something which required discussion and investigation.

NOTES

Many thanks to Mr. Abdol Hossein Haeri of the Majlis Library, Tehran, and Mr. Mahdi Vila'i of the Astan-i Quds-i Razavi Library, Mashhad, for giving me access to a number of important but obscure and rarely known manuscripts used in this article.


1. For instance consult Shaykh Murtaza Ansari, Al-Makasib (Tabriz, 1955), p. 153. 2. A good example of this type of ulama who supported the Persian Constitutional Revolution

of 1906-1909 is Mirza Muhammad Husayn Na'ini; see Abdul-Hadi Hairi, Shi'ism and Constitutionalism in Iran: A Study of the Role Played by the Persian Residents of Iraq in Iranian Politics (Leiden, 1977).

3. Shaykh Fazl Allah Nuri who was an anti-constitutionalist mujtahid was in favor of dualism in rulership, and clearly said '... the assumption of religious affairs and the use of power and glory and alertness over the security [of the state] centered in two [separate] authorities' by which the Shaykh meant 'deputyship in the affairs of prophecy and kingship'; see 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] Mudarrissi Tabataba'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-yi Mirza-yi Qummi', Nashriyyah-yiDanishkadah-yi

Adabiyyat va 'Ulum-iInsani-yi Tabriz, 20, No. 3 (1968), pp. 368-9. This treatise has been introduced as a letter written by Qummi to Fath Ali Shah; see ibid., p. 366. A few years later, the same treatise was again published in the introduction where Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar was mentioned as Qummi's addressee. The editor of the latter version claimed that 'it is obviously an error' to consider Fath Ali Shah as Qummi's addressee, but did not explain how the error was so 'obvious'; cf. [Husayn] Mudarrisi Tabataba'i, 'Namah-'i az Mirza-yi Qummi bi Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar', Vahid, 11 (1973), p. 1150ff. Two years later, making no reference to the latter version of Qummi's letter and basing her information only on the version introduced by Qazi Tabataba'i, Lambton also claimed that the treatise was addressed to Fath Ali Shah. She also gave an account of the contents of the treatise; see A. K. S. Lambton, 'Some New Trends in Islamic Political Thought in Late 18th and Early 19th Century Persia', Studia Islamica, xxxix (1974), p. 114ff. For more information on Mirza-yi Qummi consult Mudarris, Rayhanat al-Adab, Vol.6, pp.68-72; al-Mirza Muhammad Baqir al-Musawi al-Khwansari al-Isbahani, Rawdat al-Jannat fi Ahwal al- 'Ulama, wa al-Sadat, edited by Sayyid Muhammad Ali Rawzati (1947/1367), pp. 493-96.

13. Qazi Tabataba'i, 'Irshad-Namah', p. 377. 14. Ibid., p.380. 15. Ibid., p. 382. 16. Mirza Abu'l Qasim Qummi, Usul-i Din (1890/1308), p. 46. 17. Ibid., p. 52. 18. Idem, Jami' al-Shitat (Tehran, 1976/1396), Vol. 1, p. 36. 19. Idem, 'Fi Ahkam al-Jizyah' [one of the 22 treatises appended to Qummi's other book

entitled Ghana'im al-AyyamfiMasa'il al-Halal wa al-Haram] (Tehran, 1901/1319), p. 590.


20. Idem, Jami'al-Shitat, Vol. 1, p. 44. 21. Idem, 'Murshid al-'Awamm', Persian MS., Kitabkhanah-yi Jami'-i Gawharshad, 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-i Mirza 'Abd al-Wahhab Munshi al-Mamalik]', Persian MS., Kitabkhanah-

yi Majlis-i Shura-yi Islami, No. 5348, ff. 69-70. 26. Idem, Jami' al-Shitat, Vol. 1, p. 92. 27. Muhammad Tunukabuni, Qisas al- 'Ulama (Tehran, 1976/1396), p. 70ff. 28. Al-Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin [al-'Amili], A 'yan al-Shi'ah (1962), Vol. 16, p. 308. 29. Khwansari, Rawdat, p. 152. 30. Muhammad Hasan Khan I'timad al-Saltanah, Tarikh-i Muntazam-i Nasiri (1918/1300),

Vol.III, p.99; Muhammad Taqi Lisan al-Mulk Sipihr, Nasikh al-Tawarikh: Salatin-i Qajariyyah (Tehran, 1974), Vol. 1, p. 226.

31. Mudarris, Rayhanah al-Adab, Vol. V, p. 24. 32. Qa'immaqam, Jihadiyyah, p. 18. 33. Al-Shaykh Ja'far al-Najafi [Kashif al-Ghita'], Kashf al-Ghita' 'an Khafiyyat Mubhamat

al-Shari'a al-Gharra' (1899/1317), pp.2-3. 34. Ibid., p. 394. On the Akhbari-Usuli dispute see inter alia Juan Cole, 'Shi'i Clerics in Iraq

and Iran, 1722-1780: The Akhbari-Usuli Conflict Reconsidered', Iranian Studies, XVIII (1985), pp.3-34.

35. Kashif al-Ghita', Kashf al-Ghita', p. 394. 36. Anonymous, '[Jihadiyyah]', Persian MS., Kitabkhanah-yi Astan-i Quds-i Razavi, Mashhad,

No. 123/2343, 'rukn-i yikum', of its 'muqaddimah'. 37. Abdul-Hadi Hairi, 'Ayat Allah Sadr', in Sal-Namah-yiNur-iDanish, VII (1952), pp. 99-107.

More information on Kashif al-Ghita' may be found in Ann K. S. Lambton, 'A Nineteenth Century View of Jihad', Studia Islamica, XXXII (1970), pp. 181-92.

38. Lisan al-Mulk, Nasikh al-Tawarikh, Vol. 1, p. 184. 39. Hamid Algar, Religion and State in Iran 1785-1906 (Berkeley, 1969), p.89. 40. Abdul-Hadi Hairi, 'Ansari', El2, Supplement (1980), pp.75-7. 41. Artur Christensen, Iran dar zaman-i Sasaniyan, translated by Rashid Yasimi (Tehran, 1938),

p. 328ff. 42. Mulla Ahmad Naraqi, Taqdis (Tehran, 1954/1374), pp.4, 9. 43. Ibid., p. 10. 44. Ibid., p. 34. 45. Ibid., p. 378. 46. Idem, Mi'raj al-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. Shaykh Baha'i, a mujtahid of the Safavid period,

wrote about the same astrological laws and applied them to Shah Abbas 1; see Baha' al-Din Muhammad (Shaykh Baha'i), Kashkul, trans. by M. B. Sa'idi (Tehran, 1979), Vol. 11, p. 149.

50. Naraqi, Mi'raj al-Sa'adah, pp. 4-6; Idem, Sayf al-Ummah walBurhan al-Millah (1912/1330), pp. 39-40.

51. Idem, 'A wa'id al-Ayyamfi Bayan Qawa'id al-Ahkam wa Muhimmat Masa'il al-Halal wa al-Haram (1913/1331), pp. 185-8. See also Ahmad Kazemi Moussavi, 'The Establishment of the Position of Marja'iyyat-i Taqlid in the Twelver-Shi'i Community', Iranian Studies, XVIII (1985), pp. 35-51.

52. [Ruh Allah Musavi Khumaynil Hukumat-i Islami (1971/1391). For an English translation of this book see Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, translated and annotated by Hamid Algar (Berkeley, 1981), pp. 27-166.

53. Naraqi, Taqdis, pp. 104,279,323; idem, Ghazal-iMullaAhmadNaraqiMutakhallisbiSafa, edited by Akhtar Naraqi (1972), p. 122; Mudarris, Rayhanat al-A dab, Vol.6, p. 162.

54. Naraqi, Ghazal, pp. 118-19, 121. 55. Ibid., p. 121; Mudarris, Rayhanat al-Adab, Vol.6, p. 162. 56. According to Tunukabuni, at a time there was a disagreement between the Shah and Naraqi

about 'an oppressive governor' of Kashan to the point that Naraqi called the Shah 'an


oppressive sultan'. It seems, however, that this type of conflict was not lasting and serious enough to place Naraqi among the Shah's adversaries; cf. Tunukabuni, Qisas al-'Ulama, p.130.

57. Muhammad Nasir Fursat Husayni Shirazi, Athar-i 'Ajam (Bombay, 1934/1353), Vol. 1, p.103.

58. Muhammad Hasan Khan I'timad al-Saltanah, Al-Ma'athir wa al-A thar (Tehran, 1888/1306), p. 156.

59. Sayyid Ja'far Darabi Burujirdi Kashfi, Ijabat al-Muztarrin (1957/1377), Vol. 1, Introduction. 60. Zayn al-'Abidin Shirvani, Bustan al-Siyahah (n.d.), p. 9. 61. Kashfi, Ijabah, p. 90; idem, 'Mizan al-Muluk wa al-Tawa'if wa Sirat al-Mustaqim fi Suluk

al-Khala'if', Persian MS., Kitabkhanah-yi Astan-i Quds-i Razavi, Mashhad, No. 3581, no pagination.

62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. Idem, Ijabah, p. 84. 67. Idem, 'Mizan al-Muluk'. 68. Idem, Ijabah, pp. 328-9. 69. Idem, 'Mizan al-Muluk'. 70. Ibid. 71. Idem, Tuhfah al-Muluk (1856/1273), no pagination. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Idem, 'Mizan al-Muluk'. 75. Idem, Tuhfah al-Muluk. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid.

legitimacy of early qajar rule as viewed by shii religious leaders - abdul-hadi hairi

Documents