About the time that the thirteen colonies of North America were gaining their independence to form the nucleus of the mighty Republic of the West, France was inching her way towards a revolution such as the world had never seen, and Britain was striding along the road to a revolution of a different kind, industrial, agrarian and economic in nature, a cleric of the Islamic ShÍ`ah persuasion left his island-home in the Persian Gulf for the great centres of ShÍ`ah learning and ShÍ`ah devotion in `IrÁq. His purpose was to find a much larger audience in order to give voice to thoughts and presentiments that had developed with his years.

Shaykh A?mad-i-A?sÁ'Í (1743-1826), the founder of the ShaykhÍ school, belonged to the ancient tribe of BanÚ-?akhr, and his family originated from the region of A?sÁ on the Arabian mainland. His father's name was Shaykh Zayni'd-DÍn, and Ba?rayn had been their home. Shaykh A?mad first visited Najaf, where the Tomb of `AlÍ, the first ImÁm, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mu?ammad, is situated. Then in KarbilÁ, close by the Shrine of the martyred ?usayn, the third ImÁm, he began to preach and a circle of earnest students gathered round him. He asked the leading ShÍ`ah divines of the holy cities of `IrÁq to issue him a licence which would give him recognition as a mujtahid in his own right, that is, a divine empowered to interpret and prescribe. They all declared that they considered Shaykh A?mad to be a man of knowledge and talent superior to their own, and that their testimonial was written solely at his request.

The fame of Shaykh A?mad soon spread throughout ÍrÁn. Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh (reigned 1797-1834) and Mu?ammad-`AlÍ MÍrzÁ,[A] a son of the ShÁh who held the life-long tenure of the governorship of KirmÁnshÁh, were particularly desirous to meet him. But Shaykh A?mad preferred to go to ÍrÁn by way of BÚshihr (Bushire) in the south, rather than by the nearer and more accessible route of KirmÁnshÁh in the west. From BÚshihr he went to ShÍrÁz and thence to Yazd, where he stayed for a number of years. Siyyid KÁ?im-i-RashtÍ, a young man barely out of his teens, who shared the same views, joined him there (sometime in 1231 A.H.: 1815-16). Shaykh A?mad was then making his final arrangements to go on pilgrimage to the holy city of Mashhad,[B] prior to his visit to ?ihrÁn. He received Siyyid KÁ?im with great affection and asked him to remain at Yazd to take up his own patient work of many years. In Mashhad and later in ?ihrÁn, Shaykh A?mad was shown every mark of high respect and reverence.

Eventually Siyyid KÁ?im travelled north to be in his company, and together they went to KirmÁnshÁh, as the Prince-Governor had been urgently begging his father to let Shaykh A?mad visit him. They stayed in KirmÁnshÁh as long as the Governor lived. After his premature death, they departed for KarbilÁ, where Shaykh A?mad, his zeal unabated and his powers untouched by advancing years, preached and taught. He was in his early eighties when he took the road to Mecca and Medina. From that journey he did not return and lies buried in the famed cemetery of Baqi`, in the vicinity of the Tomb of the Prophet Mu?ammad.

Shaykh A?mad's constant theme was the near advent of the Deliverer of the Latter Days, promised to the world of IslÁm, the QÁ'im of the House of Mu?ammad or the MihdÍ (MahdÍ).[1] In the course of his last pilgrimage to the holy cities of Arabia, he told a merchant from I?fahÁn[C] who was with him: 'You will attain the presence of the BÁb; salute Him on my behalf.'[2] Shaykh A?mad did not believe in physical resurrection nor in the physical ascent (Mi`rÁj)[D] of the Prophet Mu?ammad to heaven on the night that the Angel Gabriel took Him to view the celestial world. Mi`rÁj was an experience of the spirit, Shaykh A?mad maintained. Moreover he asserted that the signs and portents of the coming of the QÁ'im, given by the Prophet and the ImÁms, were allegorical. These and similar doctrines were anathema to the orthodox, but while Shaykh A?mad lived, royal patronage muted their hostile criticism.

Siyyid KÁ?im (1793-1843), who, in accordance with the will of Shaykh A?mad, succeeded him in guiding his disciples, was the son of Siyyid QÁsim of Rasht, a town in northern ÍrÁn close to the Caspian Sea. He came from a family of well-known merchants and was no more than thirty-three years old when he occupied the seat of authority. The orthodox divines now began their vitriolic assaults in earnest until, at last, Siyyid KÁ?im felt that he needed solid support in ÍrÁn from the ranks of the orthodox. For that purpose he chose one of his ablest disciples, MullÁ ?usayn, a native of the small town of BushrÚyih in KhurÁsÁn, to go to I?fahÁn and secure the aid of ?ÁjÍ Siyyid Mu?ammad-BÁqir-i-RashtÍ, a noted divine whose influence was felt far and wide. MullÁ ?usayn succeeded brilliantly in accomplishing the mission entrusted to him, obtained the support of that famous man in writing, and then proceeded to Mashhad to acquire a similar pledge from yet another powerful divine.

In the meantime not only did Siyyid KÁ?im suffer from the intrigues and onslaughts of his adversaries headed by Siyyid IbrÁhÍm-i-QazvÍnÍ, but the whole of KarbilÁ was thrown into turmoil. These disorders were of long standing and gradually the authority of the Ottoman government had ceased to exist. Within the town there were several factions at odds with one another, but all determined to resist the re-establishment of Ottoman power. Two successive VÁlÍs (governor-generals) of `IrÁq tried to force the people of KarbilÁ to submission, but failed conspicuously. However, in the closing months of the year 1842, NajÍb PÁshÁ, a man resolute and even obstinate, came to occupy the post of VÁlÍ. Affairs in KarbilÁ had gradually gone from bad to worse. Lawlessness had increased and mob rule prevailed. NajÍb PÁshÁ's first thought was to resolve this problem which had baffled his predecessors. He tried to negotiate a settlement, but neither he nor the rebels of KarbilÁ could really trust one another. NajÍb PÁshÁ moved near-by to Musayyib and sent Sar`askar (Colonel) Sa`du'llÁh PÁshÁ with a small force to reduce the town. Negotiations proceeded apace. Emissaries came and went. Persian princes, who lived in KarbilÁ, took part in the negotiations, but nothing was achieved.

During those fatal weeks, at the end of the year 1842 and the beginning of 1843, Siyyid KÁ?im, who was greatly respected both for his wisdom and humanity,[E] took a leading role, urging all parties to act with moderation and in a spirit of conciliation. Twice, in company with a small delegation, he visited the camps of NajÍb PÁshÁ and Sa`du'llÁh PÁshÁ outside KarbilÁ. Lieutenant-Colonel Farrant, the British Special Commissioner, reported his efforts to Constantinople:
claimed the throne of ÍrÁn. He showed great benevolence
towards the divines of KarbilÁ and Najaf, sent them money and stood up for them. However, he was unsuccessful and betook himself to KarbilÁ. There he fell on hard times and suffered poverty. He expected the divines to come to his help and applied to them, one by one. But none heeded him. One night he and his family had to go to bed hungry. At midnight he heard a knock on his door. When he opened it he found someone, who had pulled his `abÁ over his head so as to hide his face. This man put a purse with money in it into his hands and went away.

'Time passed. Indigence and want recurred. Again the same person, head covered with `abÁ, came at midnight, handed a sum of money and went away without a word. To the repeated question "who are you?" he gave no answer. Then, that man came a third time with a purse containing money. This time `AlÍ-ShÁh followed him and saw him enter the house of ?ÁjÍ Siyyid KÁ?im and shut the door. `AlÍ-ShÁh related this event in many gatherings. He used to say: "O people! I am not a ShaykhÍ, but this deed is the work of righteousness. None but a man of truth would act in this way."'[3]

The Chief Priest Hajee Seid Kausem did all in his power to prevent hostilities, he preached against their proceedings, he was abused and threatened, they would not listen to him—this I have heard from many people at Kerbella—at this time all were unanimous in defending the place

... to the very last he entreated them to listen to the Pacha but without avail, he shewed great courage on the occasion, as he had all the chief Geramees[F] and Mollahs against him.[4]

Unhappily, his counsel was ignored by both rebels and Turks. In January 1843, after a siege of twenty-four days, the holy city was taken by assault, causing great suffering to the innocent inhabitants. The files of the Public Record Office in London contain several documents that throw light on this episode, as well as on the central part played by Siyyid KÁ?im. (See Appendix I.)

During the siege ?ÁjÍ Siyyid KÁ?im had spent himself in an effort to forestall violence and protect all parties to the conflict. Although only fifty years of age, he became aware that his life was nearing its close. He was warned of this, we are told, by the dream of an Arab shepherd who recounted it to him. When his disciples expressed their distress, Siyyid KÁ?im replied:

Is not your love for me for the sake of that true One whose advent we all await? Would you not wish me to die, that the promised One may be revealed?[5]

The year 1844 was about to dawn when Siyyid KÁ?im breathed his last and was laid to rest near the tomb of ImÁm ?usayn. His death was reported by Farrant, who wrote on January 24th 1844 to Sir Stratford Canning, sending a copy in February to Lt.-Col. (later Sir) Justin Sheil,[6] the British chargÉ d'affaires in ?ihrÁn:

Hajee Seid Kausem one of the Chief Priests of Kerbella died lately on his return from a visit to Samerrah—Seid Ibrahim Kasveenee the other Chief Priest who was greatly opposed to him, will now enjoy full power, and all contention between the two religious parties will cease.[7]

When MullÁ ?usayn-i-BushrÚ'Í returned to KarbilÁ from his highly successful mission in ÍrÁn, his teacher was dead. He had not appointed anyone to succeed him.

II

To follow the events of this narrative, it may be helpful to consider their background in some aspects of Iranian history.[G]

Mu?ammad ShÁh, the third monarch of the QÁjÁr dynasty, ruled the land in 1843, but real power rested in the hands of ?ÁjÍ MÍrzÁ ÁqÁsÍ, his unprepossessing Grand Vizier. The QÁjÁrs were a tribe of Turkish origin. ÁqÁ Mu?ammad KhÁn, a eunuch chieftain of this tribe, arose in the year 1779 to carve out a kingdom for himself. Fifteen years later he finally won the crown of ÍrÁn when he captured and brutally murdered Lu?f-`AlÍ KhÁn, the last ruler of the Zand dynasty, who was brave and high-minded but piteously young. The eunuch king was utterly and savagely ruthless, and he managed to hold off the Russians in the area of the Caucasus until 1797 when he was struck down by three assassins. He was succeeded by his nephew, Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh, a man of soft heart and weak will, who was highly uxorious. At his death in 1834, fifty-three sons and forty-six daughters survived him.

During the reign of Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh, ÍrÁn lost heavily to Russia in a series of disastrous wars. Her ministers, comfortably cocooned in their isolation from the currents of world affairs, and totally ignorant of the realities of the European situation, believed that with the aid of the Emperor of France the Russian menace could be thwarted. Hard on the heels of General Gardanne, Bonaparte's envoy, not one but two envoys from the more familiar 'IngrÍz' (English) came in 1808. Sir Harford Jones had been dispatched from the court of King George III and Sir John Malcolm from India. In 1801 the latter, on behalf of the Marquis of Wellesley, Governor-General of India, concluded an abortive treaty with the shrewd and immensely ambitious Grand Vizier[H] of Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh. But in the intervening years Bonaparte, subsequent to his dÉbacle in Egypt and Syria, showered his dubious favours on the Persians, and the British connexion was conveniently ignored by the ministers of Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh, who had entered into the Treaty of Finkenstein (1807) with the French. Moreover, in the same period, the most capable ?ÁjÍ IbrÁhÍm KhÁn, who had contributed more than anyone to the downfall of the Zand dynasty and the ensuing victories of the eunuch king, fell from power and, as legend has it, met his death in a boiling cauldron.

Indeed, high hopes centred on what the Emperor of France would do for ÍrÁn, only to be dashed by Bonaparte's change of policy; when he met Tsar Alexander I at Tilsit (1807) he did not remember any of his promises. And so General Gardanne was ignominiously ousted from ?ihrÁn, and Sir Harford Jones and Sir John Malcolm were left at peace, to glower at each other, much to the amusement and also surprise and embarrassment of the Persian ministers. But as Napoleon's star waned, so did the interest of the British in Persian affairs. The wars with Russia went on until the Persians acknowledged defeat in the Treaty of GulistÁn of 1813.

Amidst abysmal ignorance, nepotism and malpractice which abounded in the realm, there stood two men in particular, untouched by corruption, who were fully aware of the needs of their country: Prince `AbbÁs MÍrzÁ, the heir to the throne, and his vizier, MÍrzÁ Abu'l-QÁsim, QÁ'im-MaqÁm-i-FarÁhÁnÍ. But their attempts at reform could not obtain the success they deserved because of the obscurantism surrounding the person of the sovereign. It was this Crown Prince who sent the first group of Iranian students to Britain to learn the crafts of the West. Their story, which does no credit to the government in London, is preserved in a number of documents lodged in the Public Record Office. Incidentally, one of these men, a student of medicine, was named MÍrzÁ ?ÁjÍ BÁbÁ, the eponym of the chief character of James Morier's well-known satire.

Prince `AbbÁs MÍrzÁ, worsted in the field by the Russians, now tried to provide his country with a modern army and engaged British instructors. As in the past, ?ihrÁn gave him little help. Yet he was under constant pressure to resume hostilities. The divines, particularly, were urging it.[I] Yet Russia had no desire to fight; nor had Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh: war was too expensive. Prince Menchikov arrived from St. Petersburg (the present-day Leningrad) not to dictate but to negotiate. But the demands of those who sought war—the clerics and the powerful court faction of AllÁh-YÁr KhÁn[J]—proved irresistible; Menchikov returned to St. Petersburg.

In the war that soon followed the Persians were soundly beaten and Russian forces surged forward to occupy the city of TabrÍz. The first to abandon the field was a group of clerics, who, with raised standards, had accompanied the army. By the Treaty of TurkumanchÁy (1828), onerous and humiliating in the extreme, ÍrÁn was excluded from the Caucasus. In addition to the payment of heavy indemnities, she lost her rights in the Caspian Sea and the frontier between Russia and ÍrÁn was fixed on the river Aras.

Prince `AbbÁs MÍrzÁ was now a sad and broken man. Rash actions forced upon him had brought total desolation. His modern army was shattered. Because he knew of the intrigues that plagued his father's court, and to make certain that his eldest son would not be left undefended, he asked for guarantees from the Tsar, which were readily given. After this ordeal of defeat and submission Prince `AbbÁs MÍrzÁ did not live long. He died at the age of forty-five, and a year later his father followed him to the grave.

The eldest son of `AbbÁs MÍrzÁ, named heir-apparent by Fat?-`AlÍ ShÁh, came into his heritage by a combination of the assured support of Britain and Russia, and the wise strategy of QÁ'im-MaqÁm. Sir John Campbell, the British Minister in ?ihrÁn, and Sir Henry Lindesay Bethune, who took command of the forces loyal to the son of `AbbÁs MÍrzÁ, brought him safely from TabrÍz to ?ihrÁn. QÁ'im-MaqÁm, in the meantime, secured the backing of influential men in the capital, where another son of the late king had styled himself `Adil ShÁh[K] and was claiming the throne. But his reign was brief, and soon Mu?ammad ShÁh, the heir-apparent, was well entrenched in ?ihrÁn, for Sir Henry Lindesay Bethune (whom a Persian historian calls Mr. Lenzi) easily routed other pretenders.[8]

Mu?ammad ShÁh did not wish to seem beholden to the British officials who had helped him to his throne, nor did he show much gratitude to QÁ'im-MaqÁm, the architect of his victory. Within a year he contrived the death of that great minister who had served him and his father so well. By the death of QÁ'im-MaqÁm, treacherously designed, ÍrÁn sustained a tremendous and irreparable loss. QÁ'im-MaqÁm was not only a brilliant statesman, but also a master of prose whose style rescued the language from encrusted artificialities.[L]

His successor as the Grand Vizier was ?ÁjÍ MÍrzÁ ÁqÁsÍ, a man ignorant and devoid of all graces, affecting deep piety. This is how Sir Henry Layard[9] saw him in 1840:

We waited upon the Prime Minister, the Haji Mirza Agasi, who was then the man of the greatest influence, power and authority in Persia. The Shah had committed to him almost the entire government of his kingdom, occupying himself but little with public affairs, aware of his own incapacity for conducting them. 'The Haji'—the name by which he was familiarly known—was, by all accounts, a statesman of craft and cunning, but of limited abilities. He was cruel and treacherous, proud and overbearing, although he affected the humility of a pious mulla who had performed the pilgrimage to Mecca and the holy shrines of the Imaums. The religious character which he had assumed made him intolerant and bigoted, and he was known to be a fanatical hater of Christians. He had been the Shah's tutor and instructor in the Koran, and had acquired a great influence over his pupil, who had raised him to the lofty position which he then held. He had the reputation of being an accomplished Persian and Arabic scholar, but he was entirely ignorant of all European languages. His misgovernment, and the corruption and general oppression which everywhere existed had brought Persia to the verge of ruin. Distress, misery, and discontent prevailed to an extent previously unknown. He was universally execrated as the cause of the misfortunes and misery from which the people and the State were suffering. We found him seated on his hams, in the Persian fashion, on a fine Kurdish carpet spread in a handsome hall. Before him was a large tray filled with ices and a variety of fruit.... He was a man of small stature, with sharp and somewhat mean and forbidding features, and a loud shrill voice. His dress was simple—almost shabby—as became a mulla and a man devoted to religious life.... It was evident that the Haji suspected that we were spies and agents of the British Government. However, he declared that the Shah was willing that we should visit any part of his territories where we could travel in safety, and that orders had been issued for the preparation of our farman [royal decree]; for his Majesty had said that we belonged to a friendly nation, and his quarrel was not with England but with Lord Palmerston, who had treated Persia ill, and had recalled the Queen's Ambassador[10] without sufficient cause....

Nor was ÍrÁn on good terms with the Ottomans. Layard's book, Early Adventures, indicates the considerable extent of the incursions which the Turks had made into Iranian territory. The meeting between Layard and ?ÁjÍ MÍrzÁ ÁqÁsÍ in 1840 took place in HamadÁn, not far from the frontier, where Mu?ammad ShÁh was encamped with his army. The relations between the Ottoman and Iranian governments were further strained by the storming and sacking of KarbilÁ in January 1843, where the chief sufferers were Persian. We have seen how the Persian princes living in KarbilÁ at the time of its investment by the troops of NajÍb PÁshÁ took a hand in negotiations. They were exiles and fugitives who had contested with Mu?ammad ShÁh and offended him, and senior among them was `AlÍ-ShÁh, the ?illu's-Sul?Án.

Yet another issue reared its ugly head to exacerbate relations between ÍrÁn and the Ottoman Empire, that of ShÍ`ah against SunnÍ. Sheil, the British Minister in ?ihrÁn, reported to the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Aberdeen:

If the Moollahs, and in particular the chief priest of Ispahan, Hajee Syed Moollah Mahomed Baukir, whose religious influence in Persia is powerful, should use the present opportunity for regaining their former position by exerting their authority among the people, and preaching a crusade against the rival branch of Mahommedanism, it is not easy to foresee the consequences.[11]

Indeed, reported Sheil, the Persian Foreign Minister and ?ÁjÍ MÍrzÁ ÁqÁsÍ were considering the possibility of war.[12]

This chief priest of I?fahÁn, mentioned by Sheil, was the same divine from whom MullÁ ?usayn-i-BushrÚ'Í obtained unqualified support for Siyyid KÁ?im-i-RashtÍ.

It is helpful to compare the authority of the divines of these two great branches of IslÁm. The ShÍ`ah divine in contradistinction to the SunnÍ has the power of 'IjtihÁd', that is, issuing ex cathedra decrees and judgments. His position is, in a sense, analogous to that of the English judge who can, within the boundaries of equity and common law, establish precedents. The SunnÍ divine belongs to one of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence: the ?anafÍ, the ShÁfi`Í, the MÁlikÍ and the ?anbalÍ. The jurisconsults, who founded these four schools or rites, which are named after them, set certain standards from which the SunnÍ divine cannot deviate. The ShÍ`ah divine, on the other hand, relies exclusively on the text of the Qur'Án and the Traditions ascribed to the Prophet and the ImÁms, all of which are wide open to interpretation. Moreover, the ShÍ`ah mujtahid—the divine who pronounces ex cathedra—does so, it is understood, as the deputy of the ?Á?ibu'z-ZamÁn, the Lord of the Age.