AḴŪND MOLLĀ MOḤAMMAD-KĀẒEM ḴORĀSĀNĪ (1255-1329/1839-1911), Shiʿite religious leader.
Āḵūnd was the fourth and youngest son of Mollā Ḥosayn, an itinerant preacher from Herat who finally settled in Mašhad; there Āḵūnd was born, received his early education, and married. In 1277/1860 he left Mašhad for Sabzavār, where he studied Islamic philosophy under Ḥāǰǰī Mollā Hādī Sabzavārī; later he continued this study under Mollā Ḥosayn Ḵoʾī at the Madrasa-ye Ṣadr in Tehran. He arrived in Naǰaf “two years and a few months” before Shaikh Mortażā Anṣārī’s death (1281/1864), i.e., in 1279/1862 (Sayyed Hebat-al-dīn Šahrestānī, “Āyatallāh al-Ḵorasānī, akbar ʿolamāʾ al-dīn wa raʾīs al-moǰtahedīn,” al-ʿElm 2, 1912, pp. 290ff., 339ff.), and he was able to benefit from Anṣārī’s teaching for some time (M. ʿA. J. Tamīmī, Mašhad al-Emām II, Naǰaf, 1954, pp. 13-14). He also studied both feqh and oṣūl for over a decade under Sayyed Mīrzā Moḥammad-Ḥasan Šīrāzī (d. 1312/1894, q.v.), well known for his 1309/1891 declaration against the tobacco concession.
In 1291/1874 Šīrāzī moved from Naǰaf to Sāmarrāʾ, providing Āḵūnd an ample opportunity to demonstrate his mastery of feqh and oṣūl in Naǰaf while receiving support from Šīrāzī (M. Modarresī, Tārīḵ-erawābeṭ-e Īrān va ʿErāq, Tehran, 1351 Š./1972, pp. 259-63). Although hundreds of Šīrāzī’s disciples followed him to Sāmarrāʾ, Āḵūnd probably never left Naǰaf to join him (M. Amīn, Aʿyān al-šīʿa XLIII, Beirut, 1958, pp. 92ff.; but see Tamīmī, op. cit., II, p. 13). After Šīrāzī’s death, Sāmarrāʾ lost its importance, and Āḵūnd was recognized as a great religious leader. This is perhaps the reason a number of authors such as ʿA. Davvānī (Zendagānī-e zaʿīm-e bozorg-e ʿālam-e tašayyoʿ ʿallāma-ye ʿalīqadr ḥażrat-e Āyatallāh Borūǰerdī, Qom, 1961, pp. 18-38) and Šahrestānī (al-ʿElm II, 1912, pp. 340-41) have ranked Āḵūnd as sole marǰaʿ-e taqlīd immediately after Šīrāzī (see also A. Hairi, Shīʿism and Constitutionalism in Iran: A Study of the Role Played by the Persian Residents of Iraq in Iranian Politics, Leiden, 1977, pp. 62-65). The presently available sources, however, question this line of succession. Āḵūnd attracted an unparalleled number of students from different regions of the Muslim world to his daily lecture on oṣūl (M. R. Ṭabasī, Ḏarāʾeʿ al-bayān II, Naǰaf, 1957, p. 174; al-Ḏarīʿa IV, p. 111; ʿA. al-Šarqī, al-Aḥlām, Baghdad, 1963, p. 82; ʿA. Moḥammad-ʿAlī, al-Moṣleḥ al-moǰāhed al-šayḵ Moḥammad Kāẓem al-Ḵorāsānī, Naǰaf, 1972, pp. 35-63). It appears that he was recognized as an unquestionable master of oṣūlal-feqh before Moḥammad Fāżel Šarabīānī’s death in 1322/1904, and from then on as the sole marǰaʿ-e taqlīd in the Shiʿite world.
The earliest known documents relevant to Āḵūnd’s anti-government activities concern the 1321/1903 unrest following the two Russian loans to Moẓaffar-al-dīn Shah (F.O. 416/14, 17 September 1903, no. 286, p. 362). During the constitutional revolution he appeared as a powerful supporter of the establishment of a parliamentary form of government. Together with two other high ranking moǰtaheds, Mīrzā Ḥosayn Tehrānī and Shaikh ʿAbdallāh Māzandarānī he issued many manifestos and fatwās and sent telegrams to tribal chiefs, prominent national and political leaders, and heads of state in England, France, Germany, and Turkey (Waḥīd 1/10, 1343/1964, p. 69). When Moḥammad-ʿAlī Shah ascended the throne in 1325/1907, Āḵūnd sent him a ten-point directive, which included instructions to protect Islam, to promote both domestic industries and modern science, to put an end to intervention by foreign powers while retaining diplomatic relations, and to establish justice and equality (al-ʿErfān 2, 1910, pp. 119ff.). When the shah shelled the parliament building (Jomādā I, 1326/June, 1908) and executed many constitutionalists, Āḵūnd intensified his campaign against his rule.
Āḵūnd believed that in the absence of the Imam the best possible political institution would be a constitutional form of government, which might not be at variance with Islam. On more than one occasion he and his supporting colleagues asserted that participation in the Persian revolution was a holy war incumbent upon all Moslems, and warned that opposing it was to wage war against Islam (Hairi, “Why did the ʿUlamā Participate in the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1909?”, Die Welt des Islams 17, 1976-77, pp. 127-54, and S. Jāvīd, Nahżat-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān va naqš-e āzādīḵᵛāhān-e ǰahān, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 30ff.). In order to depose the shah and to restore the constitution, Āḵūnd launched his most enduring campaign: He asked Iranian revolutionaries residing in Istanbul to prepare an expedition of ʿolamāʾ to Iran (M. Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-eenqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān, Tehran, 1327-35 Š./1948-56, V, pp. 105-09; Ḥabl al-matīn, 3 October 1910). Misled by British statements in favor of democracy and constitutionalism, and perhaps unaware of the Anglo-Russian common cause in Iran especially after the 1907 convention, on 4 August 1908, Āḵūnd made an attempt to attract British support for the constitutional revolution, but his request was turned down (F.O. 416/37, 16 September 1908, no. 548). In Ramażān, 1326/October, 1908, Āḵūnd and his two colleagues submitted a note to the official French representative at Baghdad complaining bitterly about Moḥammad-ʿAlī Shah’s actions (Manifest 1, Spring, 1974, pp. 80-81, cited from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs archives). Āḵūnd decreed that Iranians should remove the shah and not pay taxes to his government (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa2, p. 730). At the same time he publicly condemned the royalist clerical leader, Shaikh Fażlallāh Nūrī (q.v.), who in support of Moḥammad-ʿAlī Shah’s regime had attacked the constitutionalists (Hairi, “Shaikh Fażl Allāh Nūrī’s Refutation of the Idea of Constitutionalism,” Middle Eastern Studies 13, 1977, pp. 327-39).
During this period, the revolutionaries of Transcaucasia, many of them Persian emigrants mobilized by the Social Democratic Party, were actively fighting against Tsarist Russia (L. Beria, On the History of the Bolshevik Organization in Transcaucasia, Proletarian Publishers, n.d.). Being fully aware of the willingness of the Caucasians to extend their support to the Persian revolution (M. Pavlovitch, “Le Caucase et la Revolution Persane,” RMM 13, 1911, pp. 324-33), Āḵūnd and Shaikh ʿAbdallāh Māzandarānī, in Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa, 1326/December, 1908, sent a joint letter to “all brothers in the faith in Caucasia, Tiflis, Batum, and other territories” and invited them to unite with the revolutionaries of Tabrīz and put an end to Qāǰār despotism (Moḥammad-ʿAlī, al-Moṣleḥ, p. 217). M. Maschkow, the Russian representative at Baghdad admitted that “Mullah Mohammad Kadhem Khorasani had great influence in Baku which . . . [was] a centre for revolutionary propaganda” (F.O. 416/41, 4 August 1909, no. 387).
Āḵūnd welcomed the Young Turks’ revolution of 1908 by sending Sultan ʿAbd-al-Ḥamīd II a telegram concerning the necessity of enforcing the Turkish constitution (ʿA. al-Fayyāż, Al-Ṯawra al-ʿEraqīya al-kobrā sanat 1920, Baghdad, 1967, p. 95). He found it expedient to cooperate with the Young Turks’ pan-Islamic policy (RMM 13, 1911, pp. 385-86), and even threatened to declare ʿAbd-al-Ḥamīd II dethroned after his counter-revolution in 1909 (S. M. Ḥ. Naǰafī Qūčānī, Sīāḥat-e šarq, Mašhad, 1972, pp. 474-76). However, Āḵūnd sent a number of telegrams to the sultan urging him to help the Persians rid themselves of Moḥammad-ʿAlī Shah (F.O. 416/37, 16 September 1908, no. 548, and al-ʿErfān 1, 1909, pp. 240-41; for an English translation of the telegrams and two related documents, see Hairi, Shīʿism and Constitutionalism, pp. 88-89, 242-46).
Both the British and the Russian ministers at Tehran now personally insisted that the shah declare a constitutional regime (F.O. 416/40, 22 April 1909, no. 399). The shah promised as much, and sent a telegram to the ʿolamāʾ of Naǰaf and Karbalā informing them of the reestablishment of a constitutional system. Āḵūnd and his colleagues refused to believe him, declaring that firm commitments had to be made (F.O. 416/41, 16 June 1909, no. 53). Meanwhile, the two great powers jointly submitted a “Draft Anglo-Russian Identic Communication” to Āḵūnd and other constitutionalist leaders in Iraq asking them to end their political activism and to advise the Persian parties to exercise moderation. By doing so the moǰtaheds would be acting to their own benefit (F.O. 416/40, 23 May 1909, no. 529). It seems that the ʿolamāʾ paid no heed to this
advice. The uncompromising position of Āḵūnd towards the two powers seems to have been the reason for the negative remarks repeatedly made about him in the British official correspondence of this period (see inter alia F.O. 371/1243, 1911, p. 10).
While Āḵūnd was fighting against British interests in Iran, he was also on the payroll of the Oudh Bequest, a charitable fund assigned by the king of Oudh in 1825 to be distributed to the poor by the Shiʿite ʿolamāʾ of Naǰaf and Karbalā. Arthur H. Hardinge, the British minister at Tehran, called the bequest a powerful lever helping to promote good relations between himself and the Persian ecclesiastics (A Diplomatist in the East, London, 1928, pp. 323-24). No doubt some of the ʿolamāʾ were aware of the British intentions, since a number of them, including Shaikh Mortażā Anṣārī, refused to accept an allowance (M. Maḥmūd, Tārīḵ-erawābeṭ-e Īrān va Engelīs VI, Tehran, 1953, pp. 1741-45). Āḵūnd’s response to a letter of 20 September 1909 from the British consul shows clearly that he believed he had the right to use the fund at his own discretion. He writes that the only responsibility of the British government is to take care in selecting recipients who are then free to spend the money as they see fit (F.O. 371/1244, p. 7).
In order to offer more effective support to the Persian revolution, the ʿolamāʾ of Naǰaf, led by Āḵūnd, set out for Karbalā, whence they planned to proceed to Iran. But the expedition was never completed, since soon afterwards, on 26 Jomāda I 1327/15 July 1909, the constitutionalist forces occupied Tehran (Hairi, “Estebdād-e ṣaḡīr va fatḥ-e Tehrān,” Rāhnamā-ye ketāb 19, 1976, pp. 30-40, 325-31). Certain secularist measures were adopted by the new government which were not to the liking of the ʿolamāʾ ; and because of the propaganda campaign launched by the anti-constitutionalist forces headed by Shaikh Fażlallāh’s followers in Iran and by Sayyed Kāẓem Yazdī in Naǰaf, Āḵūnd and his constitutionalist colleagues suffered a loss in reputation and popularity. Consequently they complained bitterly against the functioning of the constitution (“Ṣūrat-e teleḡrāf-e mobārak,” a telegram to the Persian authorities published in Naǰaf in 1330/1910).
Despite these setbacks, Āḵūnd again raised his voice in favor of the Iranian constitutionalists who were resisting the 1911 Anglo-Russian invasion of Iran and the Russian ultimatum to the Persian government, and once again he sought the Ottoman sultan’s intervention. He decided to move to Iran to oppose the foreign invasion, but he died suddenly in his house on 20 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 1329/13 December 1911 (S. Ḥ. Neẓām-al-dīn-zāda, Tārīḵ-ehoǰūm-e Rūs be Īrān va eqdāmāt-e roʾasāʾ-e dīn dar ḥefẓ-e Īrān, Baghdad, 1331/1913, passim). Anglo-Russian elements were suspected in his death, as well as Sayyed Kāẓem Yazdī and the governor of Naǰaf (F.O. 371/1490, 3 January 1912, p. 7). On an earlier occasion, Māzandarānī had clearly indicated that both his life and that of Āḵūnd had been threatened (Ḥabl al-matīn, 26 September 1910; see also F.O. 371/1243, 1911, p. 9).
In Iraq Āḵūnd established three religious schools (M. Mūsawī, Aḥsan al-wadīʿa I, Naǰaf, 1968, pp. 147-48) and a number of modern schools; he also helped found a number of periodicals in Naǰaf, such as al-Ḡorā and Naǰaf-e ašraf (Moḥammad-ʿAlī, al-Moṣleḥ, pp. 135-45). He believed in the development of domestic trades and industries; on more than one occasion, he seriously discouraged the consumption of foreign goods. In 1316/1898, when a “šerkat-e eslāmīya” was established to undertake the production of textiles and to promote their trade in Iran, Āḵūnd declared it the duty of all Muslims to boycott clothes made in foreign factories and to wear clothes produced domestically (S. J. Eṣfahānī, Lebās al-taqwā, Šīrāz, 1318/1900, pp. 2-15).
In the field of oṣūlal-feqh, Āḵūnd has been referred to as a renovator (moǰadded). His most important contribution is Kefāyat al-oṣūl in two volumes, dealing respectively with verbal proofs (al-adella al-lafẓīya) and rational proofs (al-adella al-ʿaqlīya); it has been used as a textbook in Shiʿite circles since its first appearance in 1303/1885 and numerous commentaries have been written upon it; a list of 104 of them is given by Moḥammad-ʿAlī (al-Moṣleḥ, pp. 123-33).
Āḵūnd’s published works: Taʿlīqa ʿala ’l-makāseb, Tehran, 1319/1901.
Al-Fawāʾed al-feqhīya wa’l-oṣūlīya, Tehran, 1315/1897.
Takmelat al-tabṣera, Tehran, 1328/1910.
Šarḥ takmelat al-tabṣera, Baghdad, 1331/1913.
Rūḥ al-maʿānī fī talḵīṣ neǰāt al-ʿebād, Tehran, 1327/1909.
Al-Qaṭarāt (a collection of several treatises), Baghdad, 1331/1913.
Dorar al-fawāʾed fī šarḥ al-farāʾed, Tehran, 1315/1897.
Ḥāšīa ʿala ’l-noḵba, Tehran, 1306/1889.
Other sources: Mīrzā ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān, Tārīḵ-eʿolamāʾ-e Ḵorāsān, ed. M. B. Sāʿedī Ḵorāsānī, Mašhad, 1341 Š./1962, pp. 244-45.
Moḥammad-Ḥasan Abu’l-Maḥāsen, Dīvān, Naǰaf, 1963, p. 44.
J. Al-Maḥbūba, Māẓī al-Naǰaf wa ḥāżerohā I, Naǰaf, 1958, pp. 137ff.
M. al-Amīn al-ʿĀmelī, al-Raḥīq al-maḵtūm (Dīwān), Damascus, 1333/1915, p. 198.
M. H. Amīnī, Moʿǰam al-maṭbūʿāt al-Naǰafīa, Naǰaf, 1966.
Idem, Moʿǰam reǰāl al-fekr wa’l-adab ḵelāl alf ʿām, Naǰaf, 1964.
Anonymous, Tārīḵča-ye farhang-e Īrān dar kešvar-e ʿErāq az sāl-e 1285 tā 1345 ḵoršīdī [1906-1966], n.p., n.d. M. Anṣārī, Zendagānī va šaḵṣīyat-e Šayḵ Anṣārī, Ahvāz, 1339 Š./1960, pp. 299-300.
G. R. Atiyyah, Iraq 1908-1921: A Political Study, Beirut, 1973, passim.
Bāmdād, Reǰāl IV, p. 1. K. Ṭāherzāda Behzād, Qīām-e Āḏarbāyǰān dar enqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān, Tehran, 1334 Š./1955.
E. G. Browne, The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909, Cambridge, 1910.
R. Baṭṭī, al-Adab al-ʿaṣrī II, Cairo, 1341/1923, p. 167.
N. Fatḥī, Zendagī-nāma-ye šahīd-e nīknām Ṯeqat-al-eslām Tabrīzī, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 413-14.
A. Ḥowayzī, Dīwān al-Ḥowayzī I, Naǰaf, 1350/1931, p. 57.
M. ʿA. Kamāl-al-dīn, Ṯawrat al-ʿešrīn fī ḏekrāhā al-ḵamsīn, 1971.
Idem, al-Taṭawwor al-fekrī fi’l-ʿErāq, Baghdad, 1960, pp. 23-25.
ʿA. Ḵāqānī, Šoʿarāʾ al-ḡorā VIII, Naǰaf, 1955, pp. 113, 119.
Idem, al-ʿAllām al-ṣādeq fī ḏekrāh al-ūlā, Baghdad, 1965, p. 68.
A. K. S. Lambton, “The Persian ʿUlamā and Constitutional Reform,” Le Shîʿîsm Imamite: Colloque de Strasbourg (6-9 mai 1968), ed. T. Fahd, Paris, 1970, pp. 245-69.
H. Moʿāṣer, Tārīḵ-eesteqrār-e mašrūṭīyat dar Īrān, Tehran, 1968.
Rayḥānat al-adab I, Tabrīz, 1346 Š./1967.
Namāzī, Rūḥānīyūn va mašrūṭīyat, Šīrāz, 1349 Š./1970.
Ḥ. Nowbaḵt, “Āḵūnd Mollā Moḥammad Kāẓem Ḵorāsānī,” Waḥīd 14, 1976, pp. 135-37.
M. Nāẓem-al-eslām Šarīʿatmadār Kermānī, Tārīḵ-ebīdārī-e Īrānīān, 3 vols., Tehran, 1324-32 Š./1945-53.
M. P. Pavlovich, V. Tria, and S. Iranskiĭ, Enqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān va rīšahā-ye eǰtemāʿī va eqteṣādī-e ān, tr. M. Hūšyār, Tehran, 1329 Š./1950, pp. 35ff.
A. Qāsemī, Šeš sāl enqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān, Milan, 1974.
E. Rāʾīn, Ḥoqūqbegīrān-e Engelīs dar Īrān, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968.
ʿA. Raštī, Ketāb dar ḵoṣūṣ-e etteḥād-e moslemīn, Naǰaf, 1329/191l, pp. 27-28.
M. Ṣadūqī (Sohā), “Āḡā Mīrzā ʿAlī-Akbar Āqā Ardabīlī va ḵānadān-e ū,” Waḥīd 10, 1351 Š./1972, pp. 445-50.
M. R. Šaybī, Dīvān, Cairo, 1360/1941, p. 188.
I. Spector, The First Russian Revolution: Its Impact on Asia, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1962.
W. Šerīs, Lamaḥāt men taʾrīḵ al-Naǰaf al-ašraf, Naǰaf, 1973.
ʿA. Wardī, Lamaḥāt eǰtemāʿīya men taʾrīḵ al-ʿErāq al-ḥadīṯ III, Baghdad, 1972.
M. Yaʿqūbī, al-Bābelīyāt III, Naǰaf, 1955, pp. 52-54.
Āḵūnd’s Kefāyat al-oṣūl is considered the most advanced work in oṣūl-e feqh and is employed in the final stage of study in Shiʿite madrasas. Before Āḵūnd, oṣūl’s subject matter was said to be the “sources of feqh” (adellat al-feqh), i.e., the Koran, the Sunna, eǰmāʿ or the consensus of the ʿolamāʾ, and ʿaql or reason (Sayyed Mortażā ʿAlam-al-hodā [d. 436/1045], al-Ḏarīʿa elā oṣūl al-šarīʿā, ed. A. Gorǰī, Tehran, 1346-48 Š./1967-69, I, p. 7; Shaikh Abū Jaʿfar Ṭūsī [d. 460/1068], al-ʿOdda fī oṣūl al-feqh, Tehran, 1314/1934, preface); but according to Āḵūnd, oṣūl also deals with any general topic (kollī) related to any of oṣūl’s individual problems (Kefāya I, p. 6). In defining oṣūl he gives an important position to al-oṣūlal-ʿamalī “principles concerned with action,” since he considers oṣūl “an art (ṣanāʿa) through which one comes to know the rules (qawāʿed) that can be employed in deriving prescriptions (estenbāṭ) or that can become the basis for action” (ibid., p. 9). Āḵūnd devotes almost 200 pages or one-fourth of al-Kefāya to principles of action (II, pp. 165-361); in earlier periods, these were dealt with only briefly (e.g., al-Ḏarīʿa, pp. 827-37; Shaikh Ḥasan [d. 1011/1602-03], Maʿālem al-oṣūl, Tehran, 1324/1873, pp. 217-22). Āḵūnd did not deal with subjects that pertain specifically to Sunni oṣūl, such as qīās, esteḥsān, or maṣāleḥmorsala, though these were usually discussed by his predecessors (al-Ḏarīʿa—the first independent work on Shiʿite oṣūl—discusses qīās and raʾy in detail, pp. 656-791; Maʿālem al-oṣūl, the first work on oṣūl with a thoroughly Shiʿite color, still used in introductory courses, discusses qīās, pp. 213-17; Mīrzā Qomī [d. 1231/1815] in Qawānīn al-oṣūl, Tehran, 1324/1906, the first volume of which is still used to teach al-oṣūl al-lafẓīya or principles concerned with linguistics and semantics, deals with qīās, esteḥsān, and maṣāleḥ morsala, pp. 79-93). Āḵūnd’s treatment of both major branches of oṣūl, ʿamalī and lafẓī, is so comprehensive that after him no one has attempted to write an independent text; scholars have limited their efforts to explaining and commenting on oṣūl’s subject matter and the opinions of the great ʿolamāʾ. Among Āḵūnd’s most important students, who in turn taught most of today’s moǰtaheds, were Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Nāʾīnī (d. 1355/1936-37), Āqā Żīāʾ-al-dīn ʿErāqī (d. 1361/1942), and Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Kompānī (d. 1361/1942). Of particular importance is Nāʾīnī; two major transcripts of his lectures (known as Taqrīrāt-e Nāʾīnī) were published with his approval, one by Moḥammad-ʿAlī Kāẓem (Fawāʾed al-oṣūl, Qom, 1368/1948) and the other by Abu’l-Qāsem Ḵoʾī (Aǰwad al-taqrīrāt, Tehran, n.d.). Both these works focus on the subjects discussed in al-Kefāya and compare the viewpoints of Shaikh Mortażā Anṣārī (d. 1281/1864) and Āḵūnd.
The tendency to ignore Sunni discussions and concentrate on those connected specifically to Shiʿism resulted from the conflict between the Aḵbārī and Oṣūlī (qq.v.) schools. It was developed by such Oṣūlīs as Waḥīd Behbahānī (d. 1207/1792) and Shaikh Anṣārī. Although the latter’s Farāʾed al-oṣūl (or Rasāʾel, Tabrīz, 1373/1954; summarized as al-Rasāʾel al-ǰadīda, Qom, 1390/1970) is the first work completed with these objectives in mind, it deals only with oṣūl-e ʿamalī, while Āḵūnd discusses oṣūl-e lafẓī as well. The Oṣūlī movement also attempted to base the derivation of prescriptions on rational (ʿaqlī) rather than transmitted (naqlī) sources; as a result their arguments are presented with especial care and rigor. Āḵūnd expended much more effort than his teachers in applying the categories and methods of logic; his readers can easily be led to believe that philosophical arguments are among ošūl’s most important subjects.
See also M. Šehābī, Taqrīrāt-eoṣūl, Tehran, 1380/1960-61, pp. lvi-lxii.
A. Gorǰī, “Negāh-ī be taḥawwol-e ʿelm-e oṣūl va maqām-e ān dar mīān-e ʿolūm-e dīgar,” Maqālāt va barrasīhā 13-16, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 27-80, especially pp. 70-80.
(A. Hairi, S. Murata)
Originally Published: December 15, 1984
Last Updated: July 29, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. I, Fasc. 7, pp. 732-735