نشریه تاریخ و فرهنگ
سال چهل و چهارم شماره 2 (پیاپی 89، پاییز و زمستان 1391)

Recognition of the accurate concept of rafḍ (heresy)، its characteristics، and its precise and fair definitions is of high importance، especially given that the Sunnī jurists have stipulated critical consequences and rulings such as blasphemy on rāfiḍī. Entering into the field of jurisprudential discourse، this article analyzes various opinions on the concept of rāfiḍī and the most significant evidences of the Sunnī jurists concerning the excommunication of rāfiḍī and draws the conclusion that rafḍ is a historical appellation on a group of Muslims who had taken a challenging position against what happened in the event of the Prophet’s succession. The blasphemy of rāfiḍī is also lacking in foundation and is rooted in religious enmities.

In the Timurid period، the emirs were mostly Turkish-Mongol and the viziers were Iranian. The non-distinction between the civil and military affairs and the power and authority of the emirs and the attempts of the Iranian bureaucrats in maintaining their own interests، had prepared the ground for the permanent conflict and competition between them. The long vizierate period of Khawja Qiyāth al-Dīn Pīr Aḥmad Khwāfī (d. 858/1454)، one of the famous viziers of Shāhrukh Timurid، who was able to maintain his position against the emirs، is of high importance in the Timurid history. In this article، the relations between the institution of vizierate and emirate is studied، with an emphasis on the vizierate of Khawja Qiyāth al-Dīn Pīr Aḥmad،

According to the historians، the Safavid dynasty was the pioneer of the Shī‘ī ideology against the official rule of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern countries. The Safavid Empire in Iran came into being by the mutual assistance of the Qizilbāsh troops rising form the geopolitics of Asia Minor. What is of importance، however، is the attitude and beliefs of these supporting troops of the Safavid order. The research findings suggest that Asia Minor، due to its political and economical problems، has always been recognized as a significant center for promulgation of schools and orders. Therefore، the people residing in this region have for several centuries been exposed to the proselytization and the movements affiliated to such schools as the Babism (Bābiyya)، Baktashites (Baktāshiyya)، the Literalists (Ḥurūfiyya)، etc. The forces supporting the Safavid discourse (Qizilbāshs) stood in the center of these trends and، finally، established a state with a Shī‘a orientation after marginalizing the Ak Koyunlu rule in Iran. Relying on the geographical dispersion of the Qizilbāsh، this research touches upon the intellectual layers of Asia Minor to display the impact of various ideas، schools، and orders on the mind-set of the people of Asia Minor، especially the Qizilbashs.

Study of the works left behind from the pre-Islamic culture of Iran and the periods after that indicate the fact that growing the hair of one’s head and beard has not been regarded as a negative point. The faces of noble and the common people، the Akaemenid kings، and the Sasanid clerics indicate that shaving the head and face in the pre-Islamic era had been almost unknown، except in some rare instances. In the early centuries after Islam، too، with respect to the report on the Prophet’s (S. A. W.) appearance as well the impressionability of the Iranians of chahārḍarb، accepting the prevalence of this practice among the newly converted Iranians is not possible. However، with the appearance of qalandars (calenders)، we encounter individuals، who would shave their heads، faces، and eyebrows، practicing what were termed as chahārḍarb. Various reasons، such as the presence of the Buddhists in the East of Iran during early Islamic period and their abiding by chahārḍarb، the knowledge of the Muslim Iranians and Qalandars about them، the similar intention of both groups in practicing chahārḍarb and carrying stones and razors (ustura) by both groups indicates that the Qalandariyya’s chahārḍarb has been influenced by Buddhism and its monks.

It is related in studies concerning the Timur’s military expedition and the monuments belonging to the Sarbedaran rule that in 785/1383، after suppressing the people of Sabzevar and conquering the city، Timur ordered the rebels to be put amid the mud and bricks alive and make a minaret thereof. This report has in some instances as been a source of historical analyses as well. In the present article، it is clarified through the study of this incident in various sources of Timurid period that this suppression and massacre has happened in Herat’s Esfezar that had also been famous as Sabzevar. In fact، the reason for the incorrect attribution of this incident to Sabzevar has only been the confusion of names of these two cities.

The sources have made little reference to Ḥusayn b. Rūḥ Nawbakhtī (d. 326/938)، a relative of Nawbakhtī household، who was known to the Imāmī Shī‘as as the third deputy of the Twelfth Imam، or they have made no reference to his personality dimensions. The issue this article deals with is whether his specific deputyship has been addressed in the earlier sources including the historical، theological، and narrational writings of the Shī‘a and the books of rijāl and sects. It seems that due to his intense precautionaryا dissimilation (taqiyya) and that of the Shī‘as of that time، no reference has been made to the specific deputyship of Ḥusayn b. Rūḥ in his contemporary historical and Shī‘ī sources and only after his death his deputyship has been pointed out. In order to examine the above-mentioned assumption، first the material brought up in historical books concerning Ḥusayn b. Rūḥ in 4th/10th to 8th/14th Centuries are studied and then the Imāmī theological-narrational sources and the histories related to the Ahl al-Bayt in these centuries are taken into consideration and finally the books of rijāl and sects are dealt with.