راستی آزمایی استدلال های بابیان ازلی در نقد دعوت بهاءالله (با تکیه بر رساله سید محمد اصفهانی) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
سید علی محمد باب پس از آغاز دعوی نسخ دیانت اسلام و بنیان گذاری آیین بیان، برای دیانت خود موعود و ناسخی با لقب «من یظهره الله» مشخص کرد. پس از اعدام او و آغاز رهبری جانشینش، میرزا یحیی صبح ازل، برخی از بابیان خود را در مقام من یظهره الله معرفی کردند، اما به جز میرزا حسینعلی بهاءالله هیچ یک نتوانستند در گسترش آن دعوی پیشرفت کنند. با آغاز دعوت بهاءالله در نسخ تعالیم باب در آیین بیان و تأسیس آیین بهایی به سال 1283ق، برخی از بزرگان بابیان بهایی نشده که به اصالت ریاست صبح ازل و استمرار آیین بیان معتقد بودند، به نگارش کتاب ها و رساله هایی در نقد دعوت بهاءالله روی آوردند و کوشیدند به پیروان باب نشان دهند او نمی تواند موعود باب و ناسخ آیین او باشد. این مقاله بر آن است به این پرسش پاسخ دهد که با مبنا گرفتن تعالیم و آموزه های باب که برای بابیان بهایی شده و بابیان بهایی نشده وحی الهی و آیات خداوند به شمار می آمد، مخالفان بابی بهاءالله تا چه اندازه در چینش استدلال های خود در رد دعوت او به درستی عمل کردند؟ بررسی و تحلیل آثار مخالفان نشان می دهد آنها در مجموع از آموزه های باب به خوبی استفاده و نادرستی دعوت بهاءالله را به صورتی مستدل مشخص کردند. در این پژوهش، بررسی استدلال های ایشان با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و با تکیه بر منابع، ضمن تمرکز بر محتوای ردیه سید محمد اصفهانی که از ردیه های موجز اما مهم ایشان است و نیز با آوردن استدلال های مشابه برخی دیگر از مخالفان بابی و برجسته بهاءالله انجام شده است.Analysis of Babi-Azalis’ Arguments for Criticizing Baha'u'llah’s Call with a Focus on Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani’s Treatise
After the execution of Sayyid Ali-Muhammad the Bab, Mirza Hussein-Ali Nouri (Baha'u'llah) claimed himself to be the person who was to introduce the religion after Babiism and in turn faced the opposition of the Bab's successor, Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Azal. Then, some of the Babi elite compiled works against Baha'u'llah's dawah. This paper aims to answer this question, based on the teachings of the Bab that both Babis and Baha'is considered divine words of God, how well did the Babi opposers of Baha'u'llah build their arguments? Analyzing their works shows that overall, they used Bab's teachings correctly and highlighted the flaw of the Baha'u'llah's dawah reasonably. In this research, the scrutiny of their arguments is done by the Analytical method based on the contents of the Raddiyah of Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani and by presenting similar arguments of other distinguished Babi opposers of Baha'u'llah IntroductionAfter founding the Religion of Bayan, the Bab appointed a promised abolisher for his religion. After the Execution of the Bab and the ascent of Subh-i-Azal as his successor, some of the Babis claimed to be that figure but did not make much progress; anyhow Baha'u'llah who was the link between Subh-i-Azal and his followers claimed that title and faced the opposition of Subh-i-Azal. This conflict was the start of the division of Babis into Babis who did and did not convert to Baha'ism (Baha'is and Azalis). In this situation, some Azali elites worked against the dawah of Baha'u'llah and he answered them. Writing Raddiyahs continued in the next Azali generations and some of the Baha'i propagandists started to refute Azali beliefs. Analyzing the material of these works between these two groups is of much use when one tries to study their history. MethodologyAs far as this study is concerned, because of the unavailability of most of the manuscripts of Azali Raddiyahs in public during the past years, researchers who work in the field of Babi and Baha'i studies did not analyze them. Also, the arguments of Baha'u'llah against Azalis are still not scrutinized. Thus, this paper aims to focus on the contents of the Raddiyah of Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani by using the Analytical method and relying on the sources. It also seeks to provide evidence of its material from the Raddiyahs of early Azalis and the ones after, and to answer the question that how did Azalis use the works of the Bab to refute the Baha'u'llah’ dawah and how well did they build their arguments. Results and DiscussionAmong the early Azalis' Raddiyahs, the short treatise of Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani holds a special place due to the fact that at the start of Baha'u'llah's dawah, he was the second most important figure within Babis after Subh-i-Azal and eventually was assassinated by orders from Baha'u'llah. In this paper, that treatise is called "Estedlaliyeh of Nabil" (The Argument of Nabil). In that treatise, he mentions numerous letters from the Bab in which he appoints Subh-i-Azal as his successor and manages to quote some of them as well; he concludes that all Babis must obey Subh-i-Azal. One of the most important works is "The Tablet of Vesayat." Some of those letters, including the Tablet of Vesayat were existent before and were published by the followers of Subh-i-Azal. Some of those were quoted by Baha'is in their works and others were mentioned in the book Mustaqiz by Subh-i-Azal, which was much celebrated among Babis. Many of the sayings and letters of the Bab about the succession of Subh-i-Azal that were used by Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani are also observed in the works of some other Babi opposers of Baha'u'llah who wrote Raddiyahs at the start of his dawah. Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani also expresses that Baha'u'llah's letters are not divine words of God. He argues that those letters are to be miraculous and unique, but Subh-i-Azal, whose divinity is approved by the Bab, is much better at writing. Another argument of Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani is that Baha'u'llah has none of the characteristics that the Bab attributed to the promised figure. He provides an example from the Bab's works and mentions that the promised figure must be born under the Babi Religion, but Baha'u'llah was born under Islam so he cannot be the one who brings the next faith. Baha'is refer to one of the sayings of the Bab and argue that under the time of the next religion, the works of the Bab are not to be cited. Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani reasons that this saying of the Bab is like his other sayings about the promised bringer of the next religion and all of those sayings are to be noted simultaneously. The result of such inquiry will be that, when the promised figure with characteristics attributed by the Bab and none possessed by Baha'u'llah, emerges, the works of the Bab are not to be cited anymore. It appears that this argument is the most important reason for Baha'is against Azalis and it is criticized by Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani as mentioned above. Conclusion In this research, many arguments of "Estedlaliyeh of Nabil" (The Argument of Nabil, a work by Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani: the second in the Babi ranks at the start of Baha'u'llah's dawah) were scrutinized along cases from Raddiyahs written by other Azalis; among those, the more important ones are to be categorized into two groups. the emphasis on Bab's manifold sayings about the succession of Subh-i-Azal and also asserting that, based on the works of the Ba, Baha'u'llah does not possess the characteristics of the promised figure which shows that Bab recognized someone else as the promised figure, appear to be reasonable. One can say that the claim of Baha'is against the permission to cite the Bab is also well criticized. Therefore, it can be acknowledged that definite Babi arguments show that the teachings of Bab do not affirm the Baha'i Faith and Azalis insisted on the Babi inauthenticity of Baha'u'llah's dawah truthfully.
تبلیغات
