µþ°¿¸éŪ´³·¡¸é¶ÙĪ, AYATOLLAH ḤĀJJ Ä€QÄ€ ḤOSAYN ṬABĀṬABĀʾĪ (1292-1380/1875-1961), director (³ú²¹Ê¿Ä«³¾) of the religious teaching institution (ḥa·É³ú²¹) at Qom for seventeen years and sole ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ-e taqlÄ«d of the ShiÊ¿ite world for fifteen years. He was born in á¹¢afar, 1292/March-April, 1875, in the western Iranian city of BorÅ«jerd to a family of scholars that traced its descent back by thirty intermediaries to Imam Ḥasan. Among his celebrated ancestors in more recent times were Sayyed Moḥammad-MahdÄ« Baḥr-al-Ê¿OlÅ«m, the paternal uncle of his grandfather, and MÄ«rzÄ MaḥmÅ«d BorÅ«jerdÄ«, a great-uncle who clashed frequently with NÄá¹£er-al-DÄ«n Shah. At the age of twelve BorÅ«jerdÄ« began his formal education at the local madrasa in BorÅ«jerd, where he studied with his father, Sayyed Ê¿AlÄ«, and other scholars. In 1310/1892-93 he went to Isfahan, which was then still the major center of religious learning in Iran, and he swiftly acquired the main elements of his erudition. His teachers in the religious sciences were Abu’l-MaÊ¿ÄlÄ« KalbÄsÄ«, Moḥammad-TaqÄ« ModarresÄ«, and Sayyed Moḥammad-BÄqer Daá¹›Äaʾī. He also studied philosophy with Āḵūnd MollÄ Moḥammad KĚī and the famous JahÄngÄ«r Khan QašqÄʾī and Ê¿±ð°ù´ÚÄå²Ô with Moḥammad Moqaddas Eá¹£fahÄnÄ«. Such was the prowess he displayed during his roughly ten years in Isfahan that he not only completed there the ²õ´Çá¹Å«á¸¥ stage of the traditional curriculum but also attained the degree of ±ðÂá³Ù±ð³óÄå»å and began teaching ´Çṣūl himself.
In keeping with the conventional pattern of an Ê¿Äå±ô±ð³¾ career, BorÅ«jerdÄ« then went to Najaf, in either 1318/1900-01, 1320/1902-03, or 1323/1905-06. There BorÅ«jerdÄ« joined the circle of the great ´ÇṣūlÄ« scholar Āḵūnd MollÄ Moḥammad-KÄẓem ḴorÄsÄnÄ«. The notes that BorÅ«jerdÄ« wrote on ḴorÄsÄnÄ«’s KefÄyat al-´Çṣūl seem to have been his earliest piece of important writing. While in Najaf, BorÅ«jerdÄ« also associated with the other chief authority of the age on ´Çṣūl, Āḵūnd Moḥammad-KÄẓem YazdÄ«, and studied Ê¿elm al-rejÄl with Šayḵ-al-ŠarÄ«Ê¿a Eá¹£fahÄnÄ«.
In 1328/1910 BorÅ«jerdÄ« returned to his native town, staying there for almost thirty-five years, during which he devoted himself to the training of students and to writing (chiefly on ḥa»åīṯ and Ê¿elm al-rejÄl). This long residence in BorÅ«jerd was interrupted only three times: twice to visit Mašhad, and once to perform the ḥaÂáÂá and pay a return visit to Najaf. But despite the relative remoteness of BorÅ«jerd his renown for piety and erudition continuously spread so that in time he became the chief ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ-e taqlÄ«d of western and southern Iran, as well as parts of Khorasan and Iraq.
In 1363/1944 he traveled by way of Qom to Tehran to be treated for a hernia at the FÄ«rÅ«zÄbÄdÄ« hospital. While still in the hospital he received an urgent invitation from the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ of Qom to settle there and assume the leadership of the ḥa·É³ú²¹, which since the death of Ê¿Abd-al-KarÄ«m ḤÄʾerÄ« in 1355/1937 had been under the temporary administration of Ayatollahs á¹¢adr, Ḥojjat, and ḴᵛÄnsÄrÄ«. ḤÄʾerÄ« himself had once pressed BorÅ«jerdÄ« to take up residence in Qom, when he passed through the city en route to Mašhad in 1347/1928, but he had refused. This time, after some hesitation, he decided to make the move, and on 14 Moḥarram 1364/27 December 1944 he left Tehran for Qom, accompanied by a group of scholars from Qom that came to escort him. His welcome there was effusive. Ayatollah á¹¢adr deferentially turned over to him the leadership of the congregational prayer in the shrine, and Ayatollah Ḥojjat gave him the time and place for teaching feqh he had inherited from Ê¿Abd-al-KarÄ«m ḤÄʾerÄ«. In the fall of 1325 Š./1946 Ayatollah Abu’l-Ḥasan Eá¹£fahÄnÄ«, the chief ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ-e taqlÄ«d of the day, died, and within roughly a year BorÅ«jerdÄ« emerged as successor to his position. He thus came to combine the positions of ³ú²¹Ê¿Ä«³¾ and supreme ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ, and all the functions of religious leadership were concentrated in his hands.
One of the factors that helped him attain this position of authority was, no doubt, the freshness and originality he had brought to the cultivation of feqh. It has been said (Moá¹ahharÄ«, p. 235), indeed, that he created in Qom a distinctive school of feqh, one that combined the best features of the schools of Isfahan and Najaf. For the better part of a century the study of feqh had been virtually restricted to a few standard compendia, mostly of recent origin, supplemented only by the discussion of dubious or hypothetical cases as a means of intellectual diversion. Koranic exegesis and the science of tradition were largely neglected on the assumption that aspects of those sciences relevant to feqh had already been studied exhaustively by past scholars. BorÅ«jerdÄ«, however, was acquainted with the whole legacy of Islamic feqh—Sunnite and ZaydÄ« as well as Twelver ShiÊ¿ite, and in his teaching he insisted on going back beyond the well-known ´ÇṣūlÄ« manuals of the past century to re-examine the classic works of Shaikh Moḥammad MofÄ«d and Shaikh AbÅ« JaÊ¿far Moḥammad ṬūsÄ«. In addition he would relate questions of feqh directly to the appropriate texts in the Koran and tradition. It is no accident that some of BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s most important writings—atypically for a ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ—dealt with ḥa»åīṯ and Ê¿elm al-rejÄl. Chief among them were TajrÄ«d asÄnÄ«d al-KÄfÄ« and Tahá¸Ä«b wasÄʾel al-šÄ«Ê¿a, the latter being the collective work of his students, accomplished under his supervision but published after his death.
More immediately evident than these scholarly accomplishments were the strengthening and expansion of the ḥa·É³ú²¹ that took place during BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s administration. After the death of ḤÄʾerÄ«, Iranian students had begun to gravitate to Najaf instead of Qom, but this trend ceased soon after BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s arrival. It is said (WÄÊ¿eẓzÄda, 1340, p. 64) that in 1323 Š./1944, there were only 2,500 students at all the madrasas in Qom; the number had grown to 4,000 by 1334 Š./1955 and to 6,000 by the time of BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s death in 1340 Š./1961. The support of these á¹o±ô±ôÄå²ú (as well as 500 others in Najaf, KarbalÄʾ, and SÄmarrÄ, who counted on subventions from BorÅ«jerdÄ«) called for considerable sums of money. It is said that by 1340 Š./1961 5 million rials a month were being channeled to Qom, as well as more than 200,000 rupees from ShiÊ¿ite communities in India and Pakistan (see ¶Ù´Ç²Ô²âÄå, 12 FarvardÄ«n 1340 Š./1 April, 1961).
The gathering of this revenue was in large part made possible by the more orderly way in which BorÅ«jerdÄ« ran the affairs of the ḥa·É³ú²¹. It had been the case previously that individuals would volunteer to act as agents (·É´Ç°ì²¹±ôÄåʾ) in different parts of the country for collecting and forwarding to Qom the religious taxes (wojÅ«h-e šaṛʿī) paid by believers. Each would be supplied with a letter of authorization (·É±ð°ìÄå±ô²¹³Ù-²ÔÄå³¾²¹), but no record was kept of the agents, so that some areas might have more than one agent and others none at all. BorÅ«jerdÄ« had a register drawn up of all ·É´Ç°ì²¹±ôÄåʾ in the country, with a precise delineation of their districts of responsibility and the terms of their appointment (Moá¹ahharÄ«, p. 247). Apart from its primary, financial, purpose the orderly network thus established was of general utility in enhancing the role of Qom as spiritual center of the country. Another administrative innovation of BorÅ«jerdÄ« that contributed to reinforcing the centrality of Qom was his institution of a register of correspondence, permitting the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ at the ḥa·É³ú²¹ to build up a further network of contacts throughout the country (Moá¹ahharÄ«, p. 248).
The income that passed through BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s hands enabled him to engage in considerable building activity as well as the support of á¹o±ô±ôÄå²ú. His main architectural monument is the Masjed-e Aʿẓam in Qom, built next to the shrine of Hażrat-e Maʿṣūma. He also enriched Qom with a hospital and a new madrasa. Elsewhere—in Tehran, KermÄnšÄh, ŠÄhrÅ«d, BorÅ«jerd, ĪrÄnšahr, Najaf, and KarbalÄʾ—he provided for the building of both mosques and madrasas. Such activity was traditional, although the extent to which a ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ was able to engage in it was, perhaps, new. A complete innovation, by contrast, was the patronage BorÅ«jerdÄ« extended to schools of a modern type—both primary and secondary—where instruction was given in both religious and secular subjects. The purpose of these schools, many of which were run by the JÄmeÊ¿a-ye TaÊ¿lÄ«mÄt-e EslÄmÄ« (Islamic Teaching Society), was to lessen the dichotomy prevailing in the Iranian educational system and demonstrate the compatibility of Islamic commitment with the acquisition of modern knowledge.
Also indicative of BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s breadth of vision was his interest in promoting a ShiÊ¿ite-Sunnite rapprochement. He gave his support to the DÄr al-TaqrÄ«b bayn al-Maá¸Äheb al-EslÄmÄ«ya (Institute for the Reconciliation of the Islamic Schools) established in Cairo in 1947 by an Iranian Ê¿Äå±ô±ð³¾, Shaikh Moḥammad-TaqÄ« QommÄ«, and sent Ayatollah ḴalÄ«l Kamaraʾī to Cairo as his own representative. In addition, he conducted a friendly correspondence with two successive rectors of al-Azhar, Ê¿Abd-al-MajÄ«d SÄlem and MaḥmÅ«d ŠaltÅ«t, which contributed to the issuing of ŠaltÅ«t’s celebrated ´Ú²¹³Ù·ÉÄå of February, 1949, recognizing ShiÊ¿ite feqh as a valid school of Islamic law and to the foundation of a chair at al-Azhar for teaching it. BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s interest in promoting a sympathetic understanding of ShiÊ¿ite Islam also caused him to send representatives to Lebanon (MÅ«sÄ á¹¢adr), Kuwait (ḤÄjj Sayyed Zayn-al-Ê¿Ä€bedÄ«n KÄšÄnÄ«), Sudan (ḤÄjj Sayyed Moḥammad-Ḥosayn ŠÅ«štarÄ«), and Pakistan (Ḥojjat-al-EslÄm ŠarÄ«Ê¿atzÄda Eá¹£fahÄnÄ«). Further, the foundation of the Islamic Center of Hamburg resulted from an initiative of BorÅ«jerdÄ« (RÄzÄ«, 1332, II, p. 19).
During the fifteen years in which he was sole ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ, BorÅ«jerdÄ« maintained an almost unwaveringly quietist stance, remaining more or less neutral in the stormy political contests of the postwar period. He is said to have acquired an early abhorrence of political activity from Āḵūnd ḴorÄsÄnÄ« in Najaf, who impressed upon him the bitter regret that he felt for having supported the Constitutional Revolution (DavÄnÄ«, 1360, p. 339). It has also been claimed, however, that in 1323 Š./1944 BorÅ«jerdÄ«—then a student in Isfahan—participated in the protest movement led by ḤÄjj NÅ«r-AllÄh Eá¹£fahÄnÄ«, and even that he was once briefly imprisoned by ReÅ¼Ä Shah, “on account of measures he had taken in collaboration with the ³¾²¹°ùÄåÂá±ðÊ¿ of Najaf” (WÄÊ¿eẓzÄda ḴorÄsÄnÄ«, 1360, p. 336). What is certain is that during the reign of Moḥammad-ReÅ¼Ä Shah BorÅ«jerdÄ« refrained from all oppositional activity. He accepted a visit from the shah while he was in the FÄ«rÅ«zÄbÄdÄ« hospital (for a photograph of the occasion, see ŠarÄ«f RÄzÄ«, 1332, II, p. 8), and was later visited by him in Qom on several occasions. The Ministry of the Court had a special division for maintaining ties with BorÅ«jerdÄ«. The initiative for such contacts seems generally to have come from the court, and BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s concern was probably not so much to cultivate closeness as to ensure a tranquil atmosphere in which the ḥa·É³ú²¹ might flourish and grow (WÄÊ¿eẓzÄda, 1340, p. 68). In February, 1949, he convened a conference of Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ in Qom which sought to prohibit Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ from engaging in open political activity and from joining political parties (Akhavi, pp. 63, 66). He was not averse to quiet pressure on the government for limited purposes (in March, 1949, for example, he sought and received assurances that proposed changes in the constitution would not touch on religious matters; see the text of his letter to six scholars of Qom, dated 22 JomÄdÄ I 1368/22 March 1949, in MajmÅ«Ê¿a-Ä« az maktÅ«bÄt, soḵanrÄnÄ«hÄ, payÄmhÄ wa fatÄwÄ«-e EmÄm ḴomeynÄ«, Tehran, 1360 Š./1981, pp. 7-8), but he was adamantly set against all revolutionary confrontation with the state. He opposed in particular the chief activist group of the day, the FedÄʾīÄn-e EslÄm, and despite the intercession of MortaÅ¼Ä Moá¹ahharÄ« he compelled the group to move its Qom headquarters from the Madrasa-ye Fayżīya (WÄÊ¿eẓzÄda, 1360, p. 339). The FedÄʾīÄn responded with open criticism of BorÅ«jerdÄ«, condemning him for—among other things—failing to support publicly the campaign for the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry (see Nabard-e mellat, 21 Bahman 1329 Š./10 February 1950).
As for Dr. Moḥammad Moá¹£addeq, BorÅ«jerdÄ« is said to have spoken positively of him in private and to have resisted attempts by the court to incite the Qom ḥa·É³ú²¹ against him. He did, however, force the withdrawal of a bill for female enfranchisement, in late 1331 Š./1952, and he expressed, in guarded terms, his opposition to Moá¹£addeq’s plans for a referendum in MordÄd, 1332 Š./August, 1953 (see ·¡á¹á¹±ð±ôÄåÊ¿Äå³Ù, 10 MordÄd 1332 Š./1 August 1953). Accusations that BorÅ«jerdÄ« supported the royalist coup that soon followed appear to be unfounded; when Prime Minister Fażl-AllÄh ZÄhedÄ« sent him a message of good wishes soon after the event, he did not respond (Doroshenko, 1975, p. 100).
About two years after the coup BorÅ«jerdÄ« involved himself in the anti-Bahai campaign launched by the well-known preacher Abu’l-QÄsem FalsafÄ«. A letter from BorÅ«jerdÄ« to FalsafÄ« was published in ·¡á¹á¹±ð±ôÄåÊ¿Äå³Ù on 18 OrdÄ«behešt 1334 Š./9 May 1955, in which he expressed appreciation for FalsafÄ«’s efforts leading to the destruction of the dome of the main Bahai gathering place (ḥaẓīrat al-qods) in Tehran. The same newspaper reported six days later that BorÅ«jerdÄ« was preparing to demand the complete dismantling of the Bahai community in Iran and the sequestration of its assets. However, BorÅ«jerdÄ« never pressed these demands, and the anti-Bahai campaign petered out in a few months.
In the years after the coup BorÅ«jerdÄ« also raised his voice sporadically on other issues, such as “the publication of immoral articles and stories that are contrary to Islam” (see °²¹²â³óÄå²Ô, 15 MordÄd 1339 Š./6 August 1960). Most significant was his condemnation of the land reform bill that was put before the Majles in December, 1959. In a letter to Ayatollah Moḥammad BehbahÄnÄ«, dated 25 ŠaÊ¿bÄn 1379/23 February 1960, BorÅ«jerdÄ« offered the opinion that the limitation of private agrarian holdings was contrary to Islamic law, and he asked BehbahÄnÄ« to organize parliamentary opposition to the bill (for an English translation of the letter, see Echo Reports, no. 334, 17 February 1962). BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s views on the matter had little long-term effect other than to give the shah’s regime a pretext for claiming in later years that the oppositional movement led by Ayatollah ḴomeynÄ« was motivated by opposition to land reform.
BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s relations with Ayatollah ḴomeynÄ« are difficult to assess. ḴomeynÄ« was one of the group of Qom Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ that escorted BorÅ«jerdÄ« from Tehran to Qom in 1323 Š./1944, and he was also active in canvassing support for BorÅ«jerdÄ« as ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿ-e taqlÄ«d, traveling to HamadÄn to persuade the senior Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ of that city of BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s suitability (RūḥÄnÄ«, p. 98). ḴomeynÄ«’s support for BorÅ«jerdÄ« is said (RūḥÄnÄ«, p. 99) to have been based on the hope that he would mobilize the ḥa·É³ú²¹ against the shah’s regime, having given indications of his willingness to do so. Although this clearly did not happen, BorÅ«jerdÄ« is related to have consulted ḴomeynÄ« occasionally on political matters, including the threat perceived in government plans to amend the constitution. In general, however, apolitical or pro-shah elements in BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s entourage were able to prevail, and in 1334 Š./1955, during the anti-Bahai agitation, ḴomeynÄ« confided to Dr. Moḥammad Mofatteḥ his suspicion that “hidden hands” were at work in BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s household, hindering him from accepting the advice that ḴomeynÄ« proffered (interview with Mofatteḥ, Tehran, 16 December 1979).
Ayatollah BorÅ«jerdÄ« died on 13 ŠawwÄl 1380/10 FarvardÄ«n 1340 Š./30 March 1961, and was buried next to a side entrance of the Masjed-e Aʿẓam in Qom. The grief that was expressed on his death was genuine and universal and bore witness to the reassertion of Islamic sentiment that had taken place during BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿīyat.
Bibliography:
AÊ¿yÄn al-ŠÄ«Ê¿a XXVI, pp. 139-42.
Ä€qÄ Bozorg ṬehrÄnÄ«, ṬabaqÄt aÊ¿lÄm al-ŠÄ«Ê¿a, Najaf, 1375/1956, I/2, pp. 605-09.
S. Akhavi, Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran, Albany, New York, 1980, pp. 24, 63, 66, 77-79, 91-95, 99.
Ê¿A. BaḵšÄyešÄ«, Yak á¹£ad sÄl mobÄraza-ye rūḥÄnÄ«yat-e motaraqqÄ«, Qom, n.d., II, pp. 70-71; III, pp. 120-34.
Ê¿A. DavÄnÄ«, ZendagÄnÄ«-e ³ú²¹Ê¿Ä«³¾-e bozorg-e Ê¿Älam-e tašayyoÊ¿ Ê¿allÄma-ye Ê¿ÄlÄ«qadr Hażrat-e BorÅ«jerdÄ«, Qom, 1340 Š./1961.
Idem, Nahżat-e rūḥÄnÄ«yÅ«n-e ĪrÄn, Qom, 1360 Š./1981, II, pp. 336-41.
E. A. Doroshenko, “O nekotorykh religioznykh institutakh i deyatel’nosti shiitskogo dukhovenstva v sovremennom Irane,” in Religiya i obshchestvennaya mysl’ narodov vostoka, ed. B. G. Gafurov, Moscow, 1971, pp. 180-82.
Idem, Shiitskoe dukhovenstvo v sovremennom Irane, Moscow, 1975, pp. 87-88, 99, 100, 103, 105, 112-13.
M. M. J. Fischer, Iran. From Religious Dispute to Revolution, Cambridge, Mass., 1980, p. 89 (gives a useful diagram of BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s ancestry).
A. Hairi, “BurÅ«djirdÄ«,” in EI2. M. M. MadanÄ«, “FaqÄ«d al-EslÄm al-EmÄm al-BorÅ«jerdÄ«,” ResÄlat al-EslÄm, no. 49, ŠaÊ¿bÄn, 1381/January, 1962, pp. 101-06.
M. Moá¹ahharÄ«, “MazÄyÄ wa ḵadamÄt-e Marḥūm Ä€yat-AllÄh BorÅ«jerdÄ«,” in Baḥṯ-Ä« dar bÄra-ye ³¾²¹°ùÂᲹʿīyat wa rūḥÄnÄ«yat, 2nd ed., Tehran, n.d., pp. 233-49.
M. ŠarÄ«f RÄzÄ«, ĀṯÄr²¹±ô-ḥoÂáÂá²¹, Qom, 1332 Š./1953, I, p. 125; II, pp. 620.
Idem, GanjÄ«na-ye dÄnešmandÄn, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973, I, pp. 344-56.
Ḥ. RūḥÄnÄ«, BarrasÄ« wa taḥlÄ«lÄ« ay nahżat-e EmÄm ḴomeynÄ«, n.p., n.d., pp. 98-102 (concerning BorÅ«jerdÄ«’s relations with ḴomeynÄ«).
M. WÄÊ¿eẓzÄda ḴorÄsÄnÄ«, “Ä€yat-AllÄh BorÅ«jerdÄ«, faqÄ«d-e Ê¿aẓīm-e EslÄm,” NÄma-ye Ä€stÄn-e Qods, no. 5, OrdÄ«behešt, 1340 Š./April-May, 1961, pp. 62-69.
Idem, “Sayr-Ä« dar zendagÄ«-e Ê¿elmÄ« wa enqelÄbÄ«-e ostÄd-e šahÄ«d MortaÅ¼Ä Moá¹ahharÄ«,” Yad-nÄma-ye ostÄd-e šahÄ«d MortaÅ¼Ä Moá¹ahharÄ«, ed. Ê¿Abd-al-KarÄ«m SorÅ«š, Tehran, 1360 Š./1981, pp. 336-40.
(Hamid Algar)
Originally Published: December 15, 1989
Last Updated: December 15, 1989
This article is available in print.
Vol. IV, Fasc. 4, pp. 376-379
Hamid Algar, “µþ°¿¸éŪ´³·¡¸é¶ÙĪ, ḤOSAYN ṬABĀṬABĀʾĪ,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, IV/4, pp. 376-379, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/borujerdi-hosayn-tabatabai (accessed on 30 December 2012).
