Document Type : Research article
Author
Associate Professor, Department of Persian language and literature, Shahrekord Branch, islamic Azad University,, iran
Abstract
Highlights
Validation of the Events of Abu Said’s Trip to Xaraqân Based on the report of Asrâr-Attouhid[1]
Introduction:
Totally there are six reports of the travel of Abu Said Abolxair to Xaraqân. Reports narrated by two specific groups of disciples of Abu Said Abolxair and Xaraqâni, with two different perspectives.
Goal:
These discrepancies in reports can be summarized in five general categories:
Method:
The identification of these differences, which is the result of comparison of two groups of reports from two different sources, will clearly reveal the transformation of some events which has distorted what has happened to Abu Said in Xaraqân and concealment of some facts by the main raconteur.
Regarding the first discrepancy, what seems worth mentioning is that according to Hassan Mo’addab’s reports, main intention and his motivation for travelling to Xaraqân was to participate in the funeral of Abol-Hasan’s son and condolences to his family.
In these reports, Abu Said’s trip to Mecca is described as a secondary purpose. This is while in the two remaining articles about Xaraqâni’s biography, not only is no mention of the synchrony of Abol-Hasan’s son’s murder with the journey of Abu Said, but they are emphasized that Abu Said made this trip with the intention of travelling to Mecca and participating in Hajj rituals and on the way, he went to meet Šeix Abol-Hasan Xaraqâni .In these sources, it is even explicitly stated that Abu Said consulted with Šeix Abol-Hasan about correctness of his decision to travel to Mecca. But this consultation is not mentioned in Asrâr-Attouhid.
The second discrepancy is that Xaraqâni’s biographies do not mention the presence of Abu Said in the funeral of Abol-Hasan’s son. It is also not said that Abol-Hasan’s son was murdered at the same time as Abu Said travelled to Xaraqân. The murder of Abol-Hasan’s son probably took place shortly before Abu Said’s trip and did not coincide with it.
The third discrepancy is about Abu Said’s bewilderment around Xaraqân. It is said in Asrâr-Attouhid that Abu Said lost his way when he first entered Xaraqân. But in Xaraqâni’s biographies, it is said that Abu Said got lost when he was returning from Dâmqân, at the second time of his arrival in Xaraqân.
The fourth discrepancy is about the number of Abu Said’s companions and the length of their stay in Dâmqân and the reason of cancellation of travelling to Mecca. In Asrâr-Attouhid the number of Abu Said’s companions is mentioned as one hundred, but in Xaraqâni’s biographies, seventy people are mentioned as Abu Said’s companions.
In Asrâr-Attouhid, the length of Abu Said’s stay in Dâmqân is three days, while in Xaraqâni’s biographies, forty days are mentioned.
In addition to these differences, in Nur Al-olum, two reasons have been mentioned for Abu Said’s not going to Hajj and returning to Xaraqân. The first reason is that the road to Iraq was blocked and the second reason is, when Abu Said was forced to return, his servant could only rent horses and mules for route of Bastâm and Xaraqân. This is while it is said in Asrâr-Attouhid that Abu Said himself decided not to travel to Mecca after staying in Dâmqân for three days. Abol-Hasan Xaraqâni, who had realized based on his intuition that Abu Said intended to return, sent three of his disciples to Abu Said and invited him to Xaraqân. Abu Said also accepted the invitation.
The last dissension is the issue of whether or not Abu Said lectured in the Xaraqâni’s monastery. Asrâr-Attouhid emphasizes that he did not lectured there.
This is while it is emphasized in Xaraqâni’s biographies that Abu Said spoke in the presence of Šeix Abol-Hasan Xaraqâni.
Conclusion:
This study shows that Hassan Mo’addab in the report of this trip has skilfully distorted some facts. One of these distortions is that he falsifies the truth of Abu Said’s intention to travel to Xaraqân. Another distortion is that whether or not Abu Said spoke in the presence of Šeix Abol-Hasan Xaraqâni. Hassan Mo’addab did these distortions for two reasons. One was the very bad speech by Abu Said in the Xaraqâni’s monastery, which the disciples wanted to know the reason of that matter. Another was to answer the question of the disciples who asked why and how Abol-Hasan Xaraqâni dissuaded Abu Said from going to Hajj. To answer these two questions, Hassan Mo’addab distorted the facts in a report of the trip.
First, he stated the main reason for Abu Said’s trip to Xaraqân to attend the funeral of Abol-Hasan’s son. He pretended that Abu Said went to Xaraqân to comfort the family of Abol-Hasan, whose son had been killed and he did not say that Abu Said traveled to Xaraqân to consult with Xaraqâni whether or not to go to Hajj. Then, he hides Abu Said’s very bad speech and says that Abu Said had been silent all the time he was in the Xaraqâni’s monastery and had not given a speech.
Keywords: Abu Said Abolxair, Abol-Hasan Xaraqâni, Xâje Hasan Mo’addab, Asrâr-Attouhid, Montaxab-e Nur al-olum, Treaty of Qotb al-sâlekin
References
Ebn Monavvar, Mohammad (1371), Asrâr Attouhid fi maqâmât-e Šeix Abi Said, tashih M-R. Šafi’I Kadkani, Tehran: Ââh.
Abu-Ruh Lotfollâh, Jamâloddin (1384), Hâlât va soxanân-e Abu Said Abol-xeir, tashih M-R. Šafi’I Kadkani, Tehran: Soxan.
Attar Neišâburi, Faridaddin (1399), Tazkerat al-auliyâ’, tashih M-R. Šafi’I Kadkani, Tehran: Soxan.
Minovi, M. (1354), Montaxab-e Nur al-olum, Tehran: Ketâb-xâneye Tahuri.
[1] Amir Hosein Hemmati, Assiociate Professor of Persian Language and Leterature of Shahrekord Azad University. Hemmatiamir80@yahoo.com
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
