تحلیل انتقادی گفتمان طریقت و شریعت دربارﮤ ﻗﺼﮥ ابومسلم‌نامه

ﻗﺼﮥ «ابومسلم‌نامه» از زمان پیدایش، یعنی دوران سلجوقیان تا پایان عصر صفویه، ﺻﺤﻨﮥ رویارویی طیف‌ها و جریان‌های مذهبی‌فرهنگی و فکری، به تبعیت قدرت سیاسی، بوده است. قصه‌ای با قهرمانی، ایرانی که باورهای مذهبی وقت را به چالش کشید. در ابتدای قدرت‌یابی صفویان، این قصه علاوه‌بر سرگرم‌کردن یاوران قزلباش مرشد کامل، در حکم مرام‌نامه‌ای اعتقادی، در انسجام و تشجیع آنها برای غلبه بر حریفان مخالف داخلی و خارجی نقش بارزی ایفا کرد؛ ولی با تثبیت حکومت صفویه و ورود گفتمان شریعت، این اثر با بی‌مهری روبه‌رو شد و حتی راویان و دوستارانش، با هجمه و تهدید و قتل مواجه شدند.هدف این مقاله با تاکید بر فتوای محقق کرکی 940ق/1533م، عالم برﺟﺴﺘﮥ دورﮤ صفویه، و علمای شیعی آن است که ضمن بازنمایی بافت تاریخی حکومت صفویه، علت‌های همگرایی موافقان و واگرایی مخالفان این اثر کلاسیک را به طرح گفتمان شریعت و طریقت بررسی کند؛‌ سپس براساس مربع «وون‌دایک» و استفاده از تمهیدات بلاغی‌بیانی، این مسئله را تبیین کند که هر گفتمان چگونه با استفاده از شگردهای تخریب، انکار، تهدید و قتل و در مقابل با برجسته‌کردن ویژگی‌های مثبت خود، قادر است حریف را از ﺻﺤﻨﮥ قدرت به حاشیه براند.نتیجه آنکه علما به علت ساختارمندبودن گفتمان شریعت و جلب نظر شاهان صفوی، با بهره‌گیری از تمهیدات بلاغی و با خدشه واردکردن به باورها و قهرمان‌های گفتمان تصوف و قزلباش‌ها، موفق شدند آنها را از ﺻﺤﻨﮥ قدرت بیرون برانند و با کنترل و تفوق قدرت، گفتمان شریعت را بر ارکان سیاسی سیطره دهند.

A Critical Analysis of the Discourse of Tarigha( order) and Shari’a in the Story of Abu Moslem Nameh

The story of & Abu Moslem Nameh & has been the scene of confrontation of religiouscultural and intellectual stands and views following political power since its inception, i.e. the Seljuq period until the end of the Safavid era. At the beginning of the Safavids’ rise to power, this story, while entertaining the Qizilbash supporters of the Supreme Murshid (Murshid –i kãmil), played a significant role as a creed of belief in their cohesion and encouragement to overcome internal and external opponents. The story of Abu Moslem Nameh, which best contained the elements and tools of discourse needed by the fledgling Safavid government, persuaded its listeners and narrators and acted as a charter in unifying the forces of the scattered Qizilbash tribes.With the suppression and destruction of internal and external opponents and the consolidation of Safavid power, those interested in their Abu Moslem Nameh became a threat to the power of the Safavid kings. The Qizilbash’s disregard for the Murshid i kãmil due to the change of some beliefs and their disregard for the rules of Shari’a and religious rites due to their nomadic temperament and superficial acquaintance with the rules of Shari’a, paved the way for king Safavid by inviting Arabic Shari’a scholars from Syria and Iraq to Iran to promote and revive religious principles and teachings based on the Shiite school. Following the formation of a sharp contrast between the new and old discourses, Qizilbash beliefs and their propaganda tools were disregarded and the character of Abu Muslim was attacked by the Abbasids because of not trying to restore the rights of the Alawites and the story of Abu Moslem Nameh due to the inclusion of some improper Shiite teachings; consequently the followers, narrators and lovers of this view, were attacked, threatened and killed. IntroductionThis article tries to emphasize the fatwas of the prominent scholars of the Safavid period (Mohaghegh Karak 1533 AD) and the Shiite scholars of the first and last centuries; meanwhile it represents the historical context of the Safavid rule, the reasons for the convergence of the proponents and the divergence of the opponents of Abu Moslem Nameh, by analyzing the discourse of Shari’a and Tariqat, according to the &Van Dijk& model; furthermore,  by using rhetoricalexpressive arrangements, the article describes, interprets and explains how activists used the tactics of destruction, denial, intimidation and murder, to the extent that they succeeded in marginalizing the opponent in exchange for highlighting their positive characteristics. Material and Methods The purpose of this article is to use the story of Abu Moslem Nameh purposefully according to Van Dijk’s ideological method and activist methods of discourses to advance religious goals and ideas in the two discourses of Shari’a and Tariqah in order to overcome the opponent. This article is based on descriptiveanalytical method and uses library resources. Discussion of Results and ConclusionsThe purpose of this article is to represent the confrontation between the Shari’a discourse and the Tariqah in the first and last centuries of the Safavid dynasty, and how at first Morshid i kãmil was able to reduce the power of the Qizilbash discourse by inviting a rival religious trend. Initially, this confrontation was formed by emphasizing the fatwa of the prominent scholar of the Safavid period Mohaghegh Karaki and Shiite scholars and limited the power of the Qizilbash. But in the last century, due to the acquisition of court positions and other interests by the discourse of the Shari’a and the desire of the Safavid kings for Sufi masters, not only did the power of Sufism not diminish, but some scholars were persecuted and some scholars were accused of Sufism.This article tries to examine the causes of convergence and divergence around this classic work while representing the historical context and explains how the new discourse of Shari’a was first formed by creating the ideological atmosphere of “We and Other” and how it was able to use rhetoricalexpressive arrangements and techniques of destruction, denial, threats and assassinations, in contrast to highlighting their positive qualities, Fmarginalizing the opponents from the scene of power; although in the next stage it was not very successful. Analysis of the discourse surrounding the story of Abu Muslim on the issue of Shari’a and Tariqah leads to the conclusion that the sharp reaction of Shari’a scholars to the story of Abu moslem nameh, contrary to the views of some scholars who have reduced it to a pan Arab and nonArab issue, shows the influence of Ahlul Tarighat, as the early Safavids supporters, who played important social roles in cultural and ideological structures and intellectual institutions. For this reason, the followers of Shari’a have tried to dominate the discourse of Shari’a by articulating and creating a new discourse, destroying the discourse of their favorite opponent and hero, and accusing the lovers of the story of Abu Moslem Nameh as followers of atheistic and nonShiite ideas. To this end, they tried to make their conception of the Shari’a the truth by changing the historical character of Abu Muslim and detexturing the mystical ideas and teachings that spread among the public in the form of epic and miraculous stories. Relying on the Qur’an and hadiths, they tried to marginalize Abu Muslim and the narrators and friends and even the listeners of Abu Moslem Nameh by using the techniques of negative attribution and uncertifying, nomination and classification, reference and decoupling.