Babism, Baha'ism and the Ulama
Exported from Holy-Writings.com on 2026-09-17 - 1 clipping

Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Hamid Algar, Babism, Baha'ism and the Ulama, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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.
-- Babism, Baha'ism and the Ulama (Used by permission of the curator)