ميراث ناتمام فيض كاشاني براي جهان غرب

The incomplete Heritage of Feiz-e Kashani for the Western World

محور اصلي اين مقاله، نشان دادن وضعيت مطالعات مربوط به فيض كاشاني (1100 ق 1680 م) در مغرب زمين است. مولف براي رسيدن به اين مقصود، ابتدا به بررسي مطالعات غربيان درباره شيخ بهايي (1040 ق / 1620 م) پرداخته و نشان داده است كه درك غربيان از خدمات و آثار شيخ بهايي رشدي فزاينده و رو به كمال داشته است. نويسنده مقاله خود را در تصحيح برخي تصورات نادرست غربي‌ها درباره شيخ بهايي و مسايل عصر او به ويژه در برابر كساني كه گرايش‌هاي عرفاني و اخباري شيخ بهايي را برجسته كرده-اند، موثر مي‌داند و به آثار خود در اين زمينه اشاره مي‌كند. وي در ادامه مقاله، مستند به برخي متون عصر صفويه، دامنه اختلاف اخباري ـ اصولي را فراتر از متون فقهي بررسي كرده و كوشيده است جايگاه فيض كاشاني را در اين ميان معلوم كند. مولف بر اين باور است كه اعتقاد فيض كاشاني به وجوب عيني نماز جمعه در عصر غيبت و قبول امامت جمعه نشان دهنده رويكرد اجتماعي فيض و وفاداري او به حكومت است و كناره‌گيري او از اين منصب هم تنها به دليل نگراني او از تشديد اختلافات بين مردم بوده است. مقاله همچنين با تقسيم مخالفان فكري فيض به چهار دسته، نظر فيض را در مورد آنها بررسي كرده است. و افزون بر اين نظر يكي از معاصران فيض در ناميدن فيض به مجتهد محدث را درست ارزيابي مي‌كند. اين تلاش مولف، واكنشي است به تصويري ناقص و از هم‌گسيخته از فيض كه همچنان در مغرب زمين وجود دارد. علت اين امر از نظر مولف اين است كه بيشتر شارحان و مفسران آثار فيض كاشاني بيش از آنكه به ارايه برداشت‌هايي مفهومي و بررسي تاريخي آثار فيض بپردازند، بر اهميت ميرات وي تاكيد ورزيده‌اند.

The Pivotal point of this article is to demonstrate studies about Feiz-e Kashani in the western world. To realize his goal, the writer first undertakes a review of western studies about Sheikh-e Bahaʹi (1040 A.H./1620 A.D.) and shows that western understanding of Sheikh Bahaiʹs works and services has had an increasing growth and improvement. The writer (referring the reader to his other works on the topic) considers his article to be effective in correcting a number of western misconceptions about Sheikh-e Bahaʹi and the issues of his age, in particular of those who have made the Sheikhʹs mystic and Traditionalistic (hadith – based) inclinations prominent. Citing texts of the Safavid era, the writer continues his article holding the difference between the Akhbari* (Traditionalist) – Usuli (Rationalist) schools to go boyond fighhi (legal) texts. and tries to place Feiz-e Kashani in his proper postion in the midst of all this. The writer believes that Kashaniʹs position that Friday prayers are compulsory in the Occultation Period and his agreement to act as the Friday prayers leader himself is indicative of Feizʹs social approach and his loyalty to the state, and that his later decision to resign from this post had been rooted in his concern over the rising differences among the people. The article has classifed the intelleatual opponents of Feiz into four separate groups and discussed his opinion about them as well. Also, the article evaluates the view of one of Feizʹs contemporary scholars as correct regarding the calling of Feiz as Mujtahid-e Muhaddith (The Relator – of – Hadith Jurist). This effort by the writer is in fact a reaction to the incomplete and incoherent picture of Feiz that still persists in the West. According to the anthor, the reason for this is that most of the commentators and interpreters of Feiz-e Kashaniʹs works have emphasized on his heritage rather than present their conceptual interpretations or historical studies of Feizʹs works.