نشریه تاریخ و فرهنگ
سال چهل و هشتم شماره 1 (پیاپی 96، بهار و تابستان 1395)

The conflict between the people of pen and sword (officials and military men) intensely prevailed throughout the Timurid period, including during the rule of Sultan Husayn Bayqara (ruled 837-911 AH). In this dispute, the Sultan himself and Mir Alisher Nava’i, who were both military commanders, took steps in weakening the viziership institution with their own actions. In his works, Mullā Ḥusayn Wā‘iẓ Kāshifī, one of the Iranian elites of this period, tried to revive the status of viziership and the officials (dīvāniān) class. To this end, stating the merits of viziership and the dangers with which the Turk commanders threatened the country, he indirectly warned the Sultan against getting too near to the military commanders and reinforcing them. Against the movement of expanding Turkish literature that was pursued by Nava’i, Kāshifī
tried to take steps toward reinforcing Persian language and literature by writing all his own books in Persian. Also, in his book, Makhzan al-Inshā’, he undertook to equalize the ranks of the officials and military men, which was unprecedented up to that time.

Since the rise the Safavid Shi’i government in Iran, Shi’ism has turned into a serious and important problem for the Ottomans, as well as the scholar class and the scholastics of the jurisdiction of this government. The spiritual influence of the Safavid household among a considerable part of the residents of Anatolia in this period has made the observers to conclude that this land had been on the verge of converting from Sunnism to Shi’ism. In circumstances this this important issue was interpreted as uselessness of propagative and scholastic activities of the past periods, the urgent solution in view of the majority of these scholastics was a violent confrontation by the Ottoman government with the groups advocating the Safavids in Anatolia. Thus, the famous and influential scholastics sought to create a psychological and propagational climate and employ the issuance of fatwas against the Shi’i-Safavids and thereby instigate the Ottoman government to engage in military confrontation against the Shi’as of Anatolia and the Safavids. Despite all these attempts, Bayezid II refused direct combat against the newly-established
Safavid Government and, while confronting with some Shi’i manifestations, imposed some restrictions on the advocates of the Safavids and Shah Isma’il. However, with the rise of Selim I to power and his political and personal motives for combat against the Shi’as and Safavids to establish his power, he succeeded in creating conditions in which the scholastics could prepare the ground for the Ottoman’s military invasion of Iran against the Shi’as. Accordingly, a part of the reasons for the occurrence of the Battle of Chaldiran should be sought in the positioning of the scholastics against the growth of Shi’ism in Anatolia and the rise of the Shi’i Safavid government.

Hakam b. Hisham, the Umayyad Emir of Andalusia (Ruled 180-206 AH/796-822 CE) was faced with different rebellions, one of which was the Rabaḍ rebellion with the participation of jurists and Muladis. With a historical approach and sociological viewpoint based on the theory of Chalmers Johnson’s revolutionary change, this article would examines the historical variants and data of the Rabaḍ rebellion and elucidates the factors and motives of the activities of jurists and Muladis. Using the indices of this theory, it was
clarified that in the social system of Andalusia, in the Umayyad period, which was known as the ground for the occurrence of the Rabaḍ rebellion, the confrontation of values and the inconsistency of changes paved the way for the Rabaḍ rebellion. The unbalanced social system of Andalusia in the Umayyad period, decline of power and the lack of credibility of Hakam’s rule were known as the essential causes of the Rabaḍ rebellion and the dethroning of Hakam by the jurists and allegiance with his cousin, Muhammad b. Qāsim, were reasons for expediting this rebellion.

With regard to the status of cloth-weavers in Iranian civilization, including the Timurid period, the present research, by relying on the descriptive-analytical method, tries to answer the question as to on what policy of the court was the manifestation of this art in most of the cloth textiles used in Timurid ṭoy (merrymaking) in the form of tents coverings by the weavers according to the narratives on texts and images left behind from Timurid gatherings. The findings based on the theological and visual analysis of the narratives and designs suggest that on one hand according to Timur’s art-loving nature and on the other hand due to representing the politico-military strength and stability in national and transnational arena, display of the artistic-cultural growth and sublimation of the land under its government, and acquisition of popularity and status among other nations, the attempts were always made that the tents for the Timurid ṭoy, in which sometimes the envoys of other countries attended, to be exclusively decorated. Subsequently, as a result of and due to Timur’s supportive policies toward the works produced in this field, the artistic styles of the weavers of this period achieved its pinnacle of growth and exuberance to the extent that the cloth used in ṭoy tents based on the artistic talent of the Iranian weavers considerably distanced from the Chinese style and achieved an artistic independence using the special fabrics, designs, and colors.

In order to acquire acceptability and the right to practice sovereignty over people, every rule needs a social logic and/or any other uniting factor for justifying its power. Neither religion nor any other factor alone can play this role in Iran; rather, a collection of factors combined, play this role together. That is to say, rules’ legitimacy in Iran is based on multi-foundations, which we call them as combined legitimacy and it is for this reason that the ruler in Iran is in principle a religious and political representative and in addition to that an administrative, military, cultural representative, and a manifestation of the history and the past of this country. With the descriptive-analytical method and with the help of first hand books and texts related to each period, we intend to analyze these foundations to prove the viewpoint that, in terms of legitimacy, the rules of Iran after Islam until the fall of the Khwarizm-Shahs have a combined or multiple legitimacy.

Early Qajar period, especially Fath-Ali Shah’s era, is highly important in the history of Shi’ism. On one hand, a relative peace had returned to the country and the ground was paved for the interaction between the scholars and the government due to the re-integration of Iran and creation of a central government; and on the other hand, the established rule needed various supports for safeguarding the borders and confrontation with the foreign and domestic powers, of which religion and the protection by the Shi’a scholars could be among the best choices.
The present article studies the opinions of four Shi’a master jurists (mujtaḥids) – Mīrza-yi Qummī, Shaykh Ja‘far Kāshif al-Ghiṭā’, Mullā Ahmad Narāqī and Sayyid Ja‘far Kashfī – on the legitimacy of monarchy institution. When studying the legal texts, treatises, and even the literary books of this period that have been written by the Shi’a scholars, there appeared to be a kind of contradiction and inconsistency in the opinions of the Shi’a scholars in their approach toward the monarchy institution of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar’s era, which resulted in the main question of this article as to the quality of the approach of the four Shi’a scholars toward the monarch institution in Fath-Ali Shah Qajar’s era. It is in response to this main question that by applying the framework of the theory of Islamic monarchy institution and with the provision of a trilateral pattern of ideal Shi’a government, jurist’s scope of authority, and the reality of the existing policy, we come the conclusion that such scholars as Mīrza-yi Qummī, Ahmad Narāqī, Kashfī, and Kāshif al-Qiṭā’ undertook to legitimize the monarchy institution, albeit in special circumstances, with unanimity on the jurist’s authority, the ideal Shi’a government, and with a look at the existing political realities governing the country as well as preservation of the independence of the religious field.