پژوهشگاه مطالعات امنیت و پیشرفت فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی 1735-0727 28 3 2025 11 22 The Metaphysics of khurūj (Rebellion) in Khwāja Niẓām al-Mulk’s Siyar al-Mulūk (Book of Politics) متافیزیک خروج براساس کتاب سیرالملوک 41 79 236774 10.22034/ssq.2025.540428.4301 FA محمد علی قاسمی ترکی گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران. 0000-0001-8398-6714 یدالله هنری لطیف‌پور گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران. Journal Article 2025 06 09 Introduction The concept of khurūj (rebellion) constitutes one of the central themes of Khwāja Niẓām al-Mulk’s Siyar al-Mulūk (Book of Politics), as evidenced by the fact that its longest chapters are devoted to the historical narration of rebellions and seditions (chapters 43–47). Khwāja employs the notions of khurūj/rebellion and fitna/sedition to encompass a wide range of uprisings and acts of defiance and, while emphasizing their significance, presents a detailed discussion of them as an act of counsel and goodwill toward the Seljuk state. His remarks suggest that rebellion, in his view, is a recurring phenomenon across time and space; the absence of uprisings in certain periods is attributed not to their impossibility but to the awe inspired by powerful rulers and the effectiveness of state institutions. Khwāja’s tendency to classify a broad spectrum of movements—including Sinbād the Infidel, the Mazdakites, the Khurramites, and various Shiʿi groups, particularly the Ismailis and the Qarmatians—within a single category raises an important question: what common feature did he perceive among these diverse movements, and what form of unity did he discern beneath their apparent diversity? Methodology To clarify Khwāja Niẓām al-Mulk’s understanding of rebellion, this study adopts a minimal hermeneutic approach in reading his historical text. This approach is based on the assumption of the author’s intellectual coherence, the presence of a unified underlying logic throughout the work, and the application of the principle of charity. In order to identify and explain the unity underlying diverse manifestations of rebellion, the analysis also draws on a metaphysical framework in the Aristotelian sense—namely, the search for an ultimate principle or final cause beneath multiplicity and variation. The objective is to determine what, in Khwāja’s view, lay behind the heterogeneous ideas and claims advanced by rebels and seditionists. Findings and Discussion The analysis indicates that Khwāja Niẓām al-Mulk clearly distinguishes between the cunning and manipulative leaders of rebellions and the masses who followed them. The largely ignorant populace tended to act as mere followers and was willing to comply with even the unreasonable demands of their leaders—including the abandonment of religious obligations—often motivated by the prospect of modest gains. By contrast, the leaders of rebellions and uprisings were typically intelligent and frequently drawn from elite circles. Khwāja’s remarks suggest that the primary causes of rebellion can be reduced to two main factors: first, the pursuit of power, wealth, and fame, accompanied by submission to personal desires and the instrumental use of religious beliefs to conceal genuine intentions; and second, the deception and misguidance of individuals holding erroneous beliefs. Conclusion This interpretation, however, gives rise to a fundamental paradox. If the emergence of every new belief or ideology—and the social and political transformations that follow—is attributed to such flawed and suspect motives, how should the founders of accepted religions and legitimate sects be understood? Moreover, does this perspective not risk legitimizing whichever religion happens to be endorsed by those in power as the true faith? To address this paradox, two possible explanations are proposed. The first emphasizes Khwāja’s political pragmatism, suggesting that he prioritizes considerations of political expediency without presupposing a single, coherent metaphysical framework, focusing instead on practical governance. The second points to the possibility of later textual interpolations, omissions, or alterations introduced by scribes after Khwāja’s death, shaped by the political and intellectual conditions of subsequent periods. <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">یکی از دغدغه‌های اصلی و «امنیتی» خواجه نظام در سیرالملوک، خروج خارجیان یا شورش علیه حکومت است. در این مقاله تلاش می‌شود تا با طرح سؤالی درباره متافیزیک خروج یا فتنه از منظر سیرالملوک، به وجوه دیگری از منطق این اثر پرداخته شود. مراد از متافیزیک، برداشت ارسطویی و جستجوی ماده‌المواد یا جوهر‌الجواهر و یا به بیان دیگر عنصر وحدت‌بخش در ورای کثرت‌ها و تنوعات است؛ اگر از نظر خواجه نظام‌الملک خروج‌ها، در همه ادوار و علیه همه پادشاهان و انبیا بوده و خارجیان عموماً بدمذهب بوده و عقاید باطله را دنبال می‌کردند، چه چیزی آنها را به این کار برمی‌انگیخته است؟ با تحلیل محتوای سیرالملوک معلوم می‌شود که خواجه امیال و هواهای نفسانی و راحت‌طلبی (قاعده خرّمیّه) را عامل گرایش به عقاید باطله تلقی می‌کرده است. اما اگر این ایده تا منتهای منطقی‌اش امتداد یابد، پارادوکس‌هایی در آن پدیدار می‌شود؛ از جمله اینکه «آیا مذهب و عقیده صحیح تابع آرای مذهبی حاکمان و غالبان است؛ آیا انبیا و علمای سلف، که امروزه عقایدشان مورد اِتباع است، در زمان خود بددین و بدعت‌گذار تلقی نمی‌شدند؟ آیا در این صورت، استقلال اعتقادات و اندیشه از میان نمی‌رود؟». در خصوص منشأ احتمالی این پارادوکس‌ها، دو تبیین مطرح می‌شود: یکی پراگماتیسم و ضرورت‌های عملی حیات سیاسی خواجه و توجه‌نداشتن به تبعات تئوریکِ نمونه‌ها و مثال‌هاست؛ و دیگری این احتمال است که شاید متن از قلم واحدی پدید نیامده و مثلاً فصول و قسمت‌هایی از آن توسط کاتبان و نسّاخان بعدی در متن دخیل شده باشد.

https://quarterly.risstudies.org/article_236774_9a291be0384002884e8d8b134c89f633.pdf