µþ·¡±áÄ€¹ó´¡¸éĪ¶Ù, Zoroastrian heresiarch and self-styled prophet, killed 131/748-49. His name is given variously as BehÄfarÄ«d b. FarvardÄ«nÄn, “BehÄfarÄ«d the son of FarvardÄ«n” (ḴᵛÄrazmÄ«, MafÄtīḥ al-Ê¿olÅ«m, p. 38; BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, ĀṯÄr al-bÄqÄ«a, p. 210). Ê¿AwfÄ« (fol. 213b) mentions him among false prophets and mistakenly identifies him as MÄhÄfarÄ«n but elsewhere (fol. 336a) speaks of him as BehÄfarÄ«d (see also Ebn al-NadÄ«m, p. 407; á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, Ḡo°ù²¹°ù,p. 34; and GardÄ«zÄ«, ed. ḤabÄ«bÄ«, p. 119). In Haft kešvar (p. 91), he is called BehzÄd-e MajÅ«s (BehzÄd the Magus), which, since the name BehzÄd is synonymous with BehÄfarÄ«d, makes it likely that the author interpreted an Arabic translation of the name as the Persian BehzÄd (Sadighi, p. 115 n. 4). The name BehÄfarÄ«d is not unprecedented among Iranians (cf. ṬabarÄ«, II, p. 813, the lineage of ArdašÄ«r BÄbakÄn; °ÕÄå°ùīḵ-±ð³§Ä«²õ³ÙÄå²Ô, p. 8). Only ŠahrestÄnÄ« (I, p. 238) calls him SÄ«sÄn and his followers SÄ«sÄnÄ«ya and BehÄfarÄ«dÄ«ya. ZÅ«zan in the ḴᵛÄf district is generally acknowledged as the place where BehÄfarÄ«d was born, and raised (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, and GardÄ«zÄ«, p. 119), though Ebn al-NadÄ«m (p. 407) gives the village RÅ«y of Abaršahr, i.e., NÄ«šÄpÅ«r. According to ḴᵛÄrazmÄ« and BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, BehÄfarÄ«d began his crusade in the township of SÄ«rÄvand in the ḴᵛÄf district (°ù´Ç²õ³ÙÄå±ç) of NÄ«šÄpÅ«r. GardÄ«zÄ« and ŠahrestÄnÄ« also record ḴᵛÄf, and Majd ḴᵛÄfÄ« (p. 280) mentions the province of ḴᵛÄf and the village ZÄva (present-day Torbat-e ḤaydarÄ«ya) as the place where BehÄfarÄ«d began his crusade. These places are all located close to one another in the ḴᵛÄf area (YÄqÅ«t [Beirut], II, p. 399, III, p. 158; ´ÜÅ«³ú²¹²ÔÄ«, introd., pp. panjÄh-haftÄd o šeš, Jonayd ŠÄ«rÄzÄ«, p. 539; Ebn Baá¹á¹Å«á¹a, I, p. 252). BehÄfarÄ«d’s Zoroastrian background is confirmed by both his own name and that of his father as well as by the report that ZÅ«zan was the site of a fire temple (YÄqÅ«t, III, p. 158; MaqdesÄ«, µþ²¹»åʾ IV, p. 26; Ebn al-NadÄ«m; á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ«; BaḡdÄdÄ«, p. 214; GardÄ«zÄ«; ŠahrestÄnÄ«). BehÄfarÄ«d’s birth date, however, is not recorded in the sources. BÄ«rÅ«nÄ« and Majd ḴᵛÄfÄ« record that at the outset of his mission, BehÄfarÄ«d vanished for seven years, staying in China. á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ« states that he went to China as a trader; on his return he brought back wondrous objects with him, among which was a shirt of green silk and a matching robe that were so sheer and soft that they could be folded so as to fit in the palm of the hand (on China and the green color of this garment, see Amoretti, p. 513). á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ« (Ḡo°ù²¹°ù, p. 34) relates that BehÄfarÄ«d used the shirt and the robe during a resurrection he staged to support his claim of prophethood, telling people that they were heavenly garments and that he would reveal to them what he had learned when he was in the next world. After his resurrection, many people in the area became BehÄfarÄ«d’s followers. (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«’s account is slightly different.) After BehÄfarÄ«d made his views known, many Zoroastrians gravitated to him.
Various accounts indicate that the period of BehÄfarÄ«d’s activity occurred between the revolt of AbÅ« Moslem against the Omayyads (129/747) and the date AbÅ« Moslem left Marv for NÄ«šÄpÅ«r (131/748-49; ṬabarÄ«, III, p. 3). Spuler (p. 196) considers 127/745 to be the beginning of BehÄfarÄ«d’s movement. The sources (ḴᵛÄrazmÄ«, BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, and ŠahrestÄnÄ«) also state that BehÄfarÄ«d wrote a book in Persian in which he expounded his views and practices to his followers and which has not survived. From what can be gleaned from the sources, BehÄfarÄ«d has the following credenda: He accepted Zoroaster as a prophet, but rejected some of the practices of contemporary Zoroastrians (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; Majd ḴᵛÄfÄ«, p. 281; Haft kešvar, p. 91). This affirmation combined with BehÄfarÄ«d’s exposition of innovative views causes one to speculate: Did BehÄfarÄ«d consider himself above Zoroaster, a prophet charged with the completion of his mission, or did he consider Zoroaster’s followers to have strayed from their prophet’s teachings? What is likely is that he approved of those Zoroastrian beliefs about which he did not express an opinion (Sadighi, p. 123). As BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, and GardÄ«zÄ« make clear (and as indicated by references in ḴᵛÄrazmÄ« and ŠahrestÄnÄ« to BehÄfarÄ«d’s scripture), BehÄfarÄ«d claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelation. According to one source, he prescribed five daily prayers facing the left side of the qebla but without full prostration (EbrÄhÄ«m ṢūlÄ« apud Ebn al-NadÄ«m, p. 408). Most sources, however, mention seven prayers, a number which seems more correct in view of the importance of the number seven to BehÄfarÄ«d: namely, seven years in China; the tithing of one-seventh of his followers’ wealth for public works and welfare (cf. Amoretti, p. 515). The prayers, whose times were not specified, were devoted to: 1. affirmation and worship of the one god; 2. the creation of the heavens and the earth; 3. the creation of animals and their sustenance; 4. death; 5. resurrection and the day of judgment; 6. the inhabitants of heaven and hell and their fates; and 7. extolling the inhabitants of paradise (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; GardÄ«zÄ«, p. 120). Prayers were to be performed facing the sun and kneeling on one knee (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, GardÄ«zÄ«, ŠahrestÄnÄ«). BehÄfarÄ«d also called for: abandoning fire-worship (ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, p. 238); giving up the practice of zamzama, ritual droning during meals (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, pp. 238-39; on zamzama see M. MoÊ¿Ä«n, MazdayasnÄ wa taʾṯīr-e Än dar adabÄ«yÄt-e fÄrsÄ«, Tehran, 1326 Š./1947, pp. 254-57); a ban on eating the flesh of dead animals (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ«; GardÄ«zÄ«, p. 120; ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, p. 238) and of animals not slaughtered in the proper manner or not hunted (Sadighi, p. 126); prohibiting the killing of animals before they became old and weak or reached a specified age (ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, p. 239); banning marriage with one’s mother, daughter, sister, niece, nephew, and maternal and paternal aunts (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ«; GardÄ«zÄ«, p. 120; ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, p. 238); limiting the marriage portion to 400 dirhams (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ«; GardÄ«zÄ«); letting their hair grow long (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, p. 238); prohibiting wine (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; ŠahrestÄnÄ«; á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ« á¸amm-e mastÄ«); not burying corpses (Sadighi, p. 129); the one-time tithe of one-seventh of one’s wealth for bridge and road repair and caravanserai construction (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«; á¹®aÊ¿ÄlebÄ«; GardÄ«zÄ«; ŠahrestÄnÄ«); nursing the sick, helping the needy, and other charitable acts (Sadighi, p. 126). A precedent for the last practice was found among Zoroastrians, who tithed one-third of their wealth to help the needy, repair bridges, dredge rivers, and develop the land (MaqdesÄ«, µþ²¹»åʾ IV, p. 28).
Several points emerge from these prescriptions. From the disruptions and splits that were taking place among the Zoroastrians of the time BehÄfarÄ«d sensed the necessity of reform, especially reform of those parts of the Zoroastrian rite which were the subject of the most criticism (e.g., incest). Moreover, the similarity between some of his beliefs and those legislated in Islam (e.g., prohibition of incestuous marriages, of wine, of eating the flesh of dead animals, and calling for donating a measure of one’s wealth for the public good) has prompted the view that BehÄfarÄ«d intended a kind of synthesis between the rites of ancient Iran and those of Islam (cf. Sadighi, p. 127 n. 2; Spuler, p. 196; Sourdel, p. 1209; ZÄrrÄ«nkÅ«b, 1352, pp. 142-43; idem, Camb. Hist. Iran IV, p. 33; and Amoretti, pp. 489-90). BehÄfarÄ«d’s indirect borrowings from Islamic teachings and the ascendancy of the practical and social over the spiritual and philosophical aspects of his beliefs has caused scholars to assert that his movement was at root social in nature (Sadighi, pp. 117, 122, 127). This view is supported by the fact that the beginning of BehÄfarÄ«d’s movement coincided with the troubles Naá¹£r b. SayyÄr, the Omayyad governor in Khorasan, was having with ḤÄreṯ b. Sorayj (ṬabarÄ«, s. aa. 127-28), the struggle against JodayÊ¿ b. Ê¿AlÄ« KermÄnÄ«, and the insurrection of AbÅ« Moslem in Khorasan (YÅ«sofÄ«, pp. 161-62). Thus BehÄfarÄ«d’s actions at this juncture signify his grasp of the proper moment for political and social change. One cannot also rule out such priorities as shoring up the defenses of his coreligionists and fellow countrymen or such personal incentives as ambition and the quest for fame (Sadighi, p. 117). That, according to most sources, in a relatively short period of time he attracted many followers testifies to the speed with which his cause progressed, and it is likely that the anti-Omayyad political and social atmosphere of Khorasan at the time aided this progress. Some authors have also suggested that the fact that BehÄfarÄ«d offered a scripture in Persian played a role in attracting the masses and that perhaps the decrease in the marriage portion and the allocation of one-seventh of one’s wealth to public works caused the poorer elements of society to gravitate toward him. Another factor which speeded the progress of BehÄfarÄ«d’s movement was the internal dissension among the Zoroastrian priests. In general scholars have seen BehÄfarÄ«d’s actions as a revolt supported by farmers and the poor against the traditional Sasanian-Zoroastrian power (Amoretti, p. 490). Muslims, of course, would have naturally opposed BehÄfarÄ«d, and the Zoroastrians soon realized the danger his movement presented. Given their belief in a 12,000-year world cycle and in the appearance of Zoroaster at the end of the ninth millennium and of a prophet at the end of each millennium, BehÄfarÄ«d’s claim of prophethood in the year 129/747 was unacceptable, and thus they branded it heresy. In order to eliminate the danger he represented and to redress the blow and insults they had received at his hands, the Zoroastrians were not even loathe to turn to AbÅ« Moslem, the Muslim standard-bearer of the Ê¿Abbasid cause in Khorasan (Spuler, p. 196). Thus a group of priests (mowbad) and religious masters (³óÄ«°ù²ú²¹»å) went and complained to AbÅ« Moslem that BehÄfarÄ«d was destroying Islam and Zoroastrianism. AbÅ« Moslem charged ŠabÄ«b b. WÄj (Ebn al-NadÄ«m has DÄḥ but WÄj is correct, see Sadighi, p. 127 n. 3) and Ê¿Abd-AllÄh b. SaÊ¿Ä«d (BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, Ê¿AwfÄ«, and Majd ḴᵛÄfÄ«, who probably perpetuated a scribal error, have Ê¿Abd-AllÄh b. ŠoÊ¿ba) with the task of overthrowing BehÄfarÄ«d. Ê¿Abd-AllÄh advanced on ZÅ«zan with an army, captured BehÄfarÄ«d in the mountains of BÄdḡīs and brought him to NÄ«šÄpÅ«r where he was hanged at the BÄb al-JÄmeÊ¿ (ŠahrestÄnÄ«, I, p. 239); his followers were also put to death (131/748-49). According to Ebn al-NadÄ«m, ŠabÄ«b and Ê¿Abd-AllÄh gave BehÄfarÄ«d the chance to affirm his faith in Islam, and he accepted but his confession was not accepted on grounds of auguring (according to one account for apostasy) and thus he was executed. BÄ«rÅ«nÄ« and ŠahrestÄnÄ« (I, p. 239) write that BehÄfarÄ«d’s servant and followers claimed that he mounted a golden horse and flew to heaven, and would return quickly to get even with his enemies. Scholars have explained AbÅ« Moslem’s motives in destroying BehÄfarÄ«d in several ways: as his taking advantage of an opportunity presented by the Zoroastrians to involve himself in their affairs (Spuler, p. 196); an attempt to attract the Zoroastrians of Khorasan to his cause with actions that were more advantageous to them than to the Muslims (ZarrÄ«nkÅ«b, 1352, pp. 132, 144; idem, 1343, p. 470); a form of mobilizing anti-Arab forces against the Omayyads (idem, Camb. Hist. Iran IV, p. 33); and as a coincidence of sentiment in the two religious movements, i.e., just as the guardians of the Zoroastrian rite were opposed to BehÄfarÄ«d, so too would AbÅ« Moslem, as the Muslim champion, have been opposed to him (Frye, p. 30).
Despite its limited duration, BehÄfarÄ«d’s movement survived his death by several centuries. According to Spuler (probably based on GardÄ«zÄ«, pp. 124-25) the revolt of OstÄá¸sÄ«s (150/767) during the time of the Ê¿Abbasid caliph al-Manṣūr (136-58/754-75) attracted remnants of BehÄfarÄ«d’s supporters. EbrÄhÄ«m ṢūlÄ« (d. 243/957-58) as quoted by Ebn al-NadÄ«m (p. 408) confirms that in this day a group in Khorasan were followers of BehÄfarÄ«d (for other references see MaqdesÄ«, µþ²¹»åʾ I, tr. p. 164; ḤodÅ«d al-Ê¿Älam, p. 94; tr. pp. 105, 238; BÄ«rÅ«nÄ«, ĀṯÄr²¹±ô-²úÄå±çÄ«²¹, pp. 210-11; á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, Ḡo°ù²¹°ù, p. 35; ŠahrestÄnÄ«, al-Melal wa’l-neḥal I, p. 239). BaḡdÄdÄ« (pp. 214-15) classifies the BehÄfarÄ«dÄ«ya among the four Zoroastrian sects: from among these a Muslim is forbidden to take a wife, and he is not allowed to partake of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by them; he also did not consider collecting the head tax (jezya) from them to be permitted, because their doctrine was an innovation that appeared after Islam.
Bibliography:
B. S. Amoretti, in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 489-90, 513-17.
Moḥammad Ê¿AwfÄ«, JawÄmeÊ¿ al-ḥekÄyÄt wa lawÄmeÊ¿ al-rewÄyÄt, MS, Bib. Nat., supp. Pers., 95. AbÅ« Manṣūr Ê¿Abd-al-QÄher BaḡdÄdÄ«, al-Farq bayn al-feraq, ed. M. L. KawṯarÄ«, Cairo, 1367/1948, pp. 214-15.
Barthold, Turkestan4, London, 1977, p. 194.
Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia I, pp. 308-10.
Dehḵoda, s.v. BehÄfarÄ«d. Ê¿A. EqbÄl, “Ḏekr-e baʿż-Ä« az qadÄ«mtarÄ«n ÄṯÄr-e mafqÅ«da-ye naṯr-e fÄrsÄ«,” Šarq 1/2, 1309 Š./1932, pp. 95-98.
R. N. Frye, “The Role of AbÅ« Muslim in the Ê¿AbbÄsid Revolt,” Muslim World 37, 1947, pp. 28-38.
Haft kešvar yÄ á¹£owar al-aqÄlÄ«m, ed. M. SotÅ«da, Tehran, 1353 Š./1974.
MoÊ¿Ä«n-al-DÄ«n Abu’l-QÄsem Jonayd ŠÄ«rÄzÄ«, Šadd al-ezÄr fÄ« ḥaá¹á¹ al-awzÄr Ê¿an zowwÄr al-mazÄr, ed. M. QazvÄ«nÄ« and Ê¿A. EqbÄl, Tehran, 1328 Š./1949, p. 539.
AbÅ« Ê¿Abd-AllÄh Moḥammad ḴᵛÄrazmÄ«, MafÄtīḥ al-Ê¿olÅ«m, ed. G. van Vloten, Leiden, 1895, p. 38.
Majd ḴᵛÄfÄ«, Rawża-ye ḵold, ed. M. Farroḵ, Tehran, 1345 Š./1967, pp. 280-81.
V. Minorsky, “Sharaf-al-ZamÄn ṬÄhir MarvazÄ«,” in On China, the Turks and India, London, 1942, pp. 3, 65.
M. Moscati, “Studi su AbÅ« Muslim,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, ser. 8/4, 1949-50, pp. 474ff.
Ebn al-Nadīm, ed. Tajaddod, pp. 407-08.
Gh. H. Sadighi, Les mouvements religieux iraniens au IIe et au IIIe siècle de l’hégire, Paris, 1939, pp. 111-31.
Abu’l-Fatḥ Moḥammad ŠahrestÄnÄ«, al-Melal wa’l-neḥal, ed. M. S. GÄ«lÄnÄ«, Beirut, 1395/1975, I, pp. 238-39.
C. Salemann, Mélanges asiatiques tirés du Bulletin de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 9/4, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 453ff.
D. Sourdel, “BihʾÄfrÄ«d b. FarwardÄ«n,” in EI2 I, p. 1209.
B. Spuler, Iran in frühislamischer Zeit, Wiesbaden, 1952, p. 196.
á¹²úÊ¿Äå±ô±ð²úÄ«, Ḡo°ù²¹°ù, in M. Th. Houtsma, “Bihʾafrid,” WZKM 3, 1889, pp. 30-37.
Ḡ.-Ḥ. YÅ«sofÄ«, AbÅ« Moslem, sardÄr-e ḴorÄsÄn, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966, pp. 158, 161-62.
Ê¿Abd-al-Ḥosayn ZarrÄ«nkÅ«b, Do qarn-e sokÅ«t, 4th ed., Tehran, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 141-44.
Idem, TÄrīḵ-eĪrÄn baÊ¿d az EslÄm, Tehran, 1343 Š./1964, p. 470.
Idem, in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, p. 33.
´ÜÅ«³ú²¹²ÔÄ«, KetÄb al-maá¹£Äder, ed. T. BÄ«neš, Mašhad, 1340 Š./1961, introd., pp. LIX-LXXVI.
Search terms:
| به Ø¢Ùرید | behafarid | behafreed | behaafrid |
(ḠolÄm-Ḥosayn YÅ«sofÄ«)
Originally Published: December 15, 1989
Last Updated: December 15, 1989
This article is available in print.
Vol. IV, Fasc. 1, pp. 88-90
