کژخوانی مواضع سیاسی صفی‌علی‌شاه در عصر ناصری در مقالۀ «بررسی گونه‌شناسی تفسیر صفی»

علی صادقی‌حسن آبادی و عبدالله رادمرد (1398) در مقالۀ »بررسی گونه شناسی تفسیر صفی « تفسیر صفی را با رویکرد ژانری از سه منظر فرامتن، متن و بینامتن تحلیل و بررسی کرده اند. از آنجا که مهم‌ترین تفاسیرِ منظوم قرآن ازجمله کامل ترین آن یعنی تفسیر صفی در عصر قاجار پدید آمده، تحلیل موقعیت سیاسی و اجتماعی مفسران به ویژه صفی علی شاه در روند شکل گیری و گسترش متون تفسیری منظوم مهم و قابل بررسی است. این تحلیل ضمن مقالۀ »بررسی گونه شناسی تفسیر صفی « صورت گرفته است. به‌باور نگارنده، تحلیل های مندرج در مقالۀ مذکور با کژخوانی هایی همراه است که در جستار پیشِ‌رو به تبیین آن پرداخته شده است.

Misunderstanding of Safi Ali Shah's Political Views in The Nasiri Era in the Paper “Investigating the Typology of Safi Interpretation”: A Paper Review

Ali Sadeghi Hassanabadi and Abdullah Radmard in the paper Investigating the Typology of Safi Interpretation (1398) have analysed Safi rsquo;s interpretation with a genre approach from three perspectives: metatextual, textual, and intertextual. The most important poetic interpretations of the Qur #39;an, including the most complete one, the Safi interpretation, have emerged in the Qajar era. Therefore, the analysis of the political and social situation of the commentators, especially Safi Ali Shah, seems necessary. This issue is effective on the studies about the process of formation and expansion of poetic interpretive texts. These have been done in the paper Investigating the Typology of Safi Interpretation . From the author #39;s point of view, this paper contains some misunderstandings. The present paper seeks to explain these misunderstandings.Extended Abstract IntroductionIn the paper ldquo;Investigating the Typology of Safi rsquo;s Interpretation rdquo; (2019); Safi rsquo;s Interpretation by Mirza Hassan Ibn Mohammad Baqir Isfahani, nicknamed Safi Ali Shah (13161251 AH) has been analyzed from three perspectives: metatextual, textual, and intertextual. The most significant poetic interpretation of the Qur #39;an, including the most complete one, the Safi rsquo;s interpretation, have emerged in the Qajar era. Therefore, studying the political and social aspects of the commentators rsquo; lives, especially Safi Ali Shah, seems necessary. These have been already carried out in the paper Investigating the Typology of Safi rsquo;s Interpretation , which contains some misunderstandings.QuestionThe purpose of this study is to clarify the misunderstandings of the mentioned paper. It confuses the audience as there are too many referrals in the paper to demonstrate scholar #39; views about the relation of Nematollahi dynasty and political power. In just four pages (pp. 144148), the opinions of 14 authors in 12 texts, have been examined not just once but 24 times. The authors of the mentioned paper have, in fact, summarized the views of other scholars on the relation of Safi Ali Shah with the ruling political power. They have made two claims, neither of which has a solid foundation.Discussion Rejection of the first claim; ldquo;Safi Ali Shah was trying to enter the body of the ruling power and was forced to praise Nasser alDin Shah . One of the historical sources that the authors have repeatedly referred to is the book Tarikhe Selselehae NeˈmatAllahiye dar Iran [The History of NematAllahi dynasty in Iran]. However, they were not attentive to some parts of this book. Interestingly, there are facts in the book that indicate the instable position of Safi Ali Shah in the Nasseri court. Although he had followers in the court, he also had serious opponents whose efforts caused Naser alDin Shah to send a message to Safi twice and demanded his departure from Tehran. The authors believe that the praise of Nasser alDin Shah, which is in the introduction of some of Safi Ali Shah #39;s works, such as Divān Safi Ali Shah and ErfānAl hagh, was done by force (Sadeghi Hassanabadi and Radmard: 148147). This claim is not true because: 1. The praise of sultans in the introduction of writings, especially in the Safavid and Qajar eras, was a common practice. The praise of Safi Ali Shah in comparison to others, including jurists and moralists, have no special prominence. 2. Based on the available sources, it seems that the most important reason for praising Nasser alDin Shah was more for escaping from the possible problems that might be created in the society for him than entering the body of ruling power. On the other hand, he usually praises Nasser alDin Shah for his merits, i.e., his praise is justified.Rejection of the second claim: ldquo;Safi Ali Shah opposed constitutionalism and sought to consolidate the traditionalist discourse rdquo;. Regarding Safi Ali Shah #39;s opposition to the constitutionalism, it should be said that the constitutional event occurred in 1324 AH, while Safi Ali Shah died 8 years before this event in 1316 AH. Now, on what basis should it be accepted that Safi was against constitutionalism? Are there any documents proving his opposition to the constitution? The paper does not specify who was meant by the constitutionalists in the Nasiri era and how Safi opposed them. After studying the works of Safi Ali Shah no significant point about Safi #39;s opposition to the modernity of the Nasiri era was obtained. On the contrary, there are statements that confirm Safi #39;s supports and acceptance of the manifestations of modernism. There are also some evidence confirming that Safi Ali Shah did not oppose modernism and even tried to eliminate the social gap in the Nasiri era.In the mentioned paper, there is a clear contradiction about Safi Ali Shah #39;s viewpoint on the discourse of traditionalism and modernism. The authors consider Safi rsquo;s interpretation as a text to strengthen the traditionalist discourse and ignore the modernist discourse (Sadeghi Hassanabadi and Radmard, 2019: 148). These statements are in contradiction with their third hypothesis: Safi rsquo;s interpretation propagated the discourse of mysticism (Nematollahi) and ignored the discourse of traditionalism rdquo; (Ibid: 141). Considering this hypothesis, the authors actually believe in three discourses: the discourse of traditionalism, modernism and mysticism, but the statements of the authors in the paper indicate that mystical discourse and traditionalism are the same. It is in contrary with the mentioned hypothesis.Conclusion: It seems that the misunderstanding of the authors about the political positioning of Safi Ali Shah during the Nasiri era is due to two reasons: 1. The authors mainly used secondary sources. They would have achieved more accurate and precise results if they had read and reviewed the original text of Safi #39;s interpretation and other works of him instead of using some excerpts from other scholars #39; papers and quoting them phrase by phrase. 2. Because the scope of the research is not limited, the metatextual feature of Safi rsquo;s interpretation is superficially addressed. The title of the mentioned paper is Investigating the Typology of Safi rsquo;s Interpretation rdquo;. Typology is essentially a structural study that examines the structure of a text or a group of texts. A typologist must either examine the characteristics of a group of texts in order to achieve the conventions of a literary genre, or examine the conventions of a literary genre in a text belonging to that genre. The authors of this paper, without referring to the literary type of conventions of mystical interpretation , have only studied the characteristics of a text (Safi rsquo;s interpretation).