AYENEH-YE-PAZHOOHESH
Year:2021 | Volume:32 | Issue:5 (191)|Papers Count:17

Manuscript No. 4251 of the National Museum of Iran is one of the oldest Kufic Qur’ ā ns in Iran, almost all of its folios have been preserved together and its writing might be dated back to the second AH/eighth century. The codex contains 326 leaves; each having 16 lines, was among the endowments of Shah Abbas the Great, for the Sheikh Safi al-Din Shrine in Ardabil. Since 1937, it has been transferred to the National Museum of Iran and is kept there; however, so far no special study or research has been done on it. The present article, while introducing this old MS of the Qur’ ā n and examining its various textual and artistic features, shows that there are several features in this manuscript that distinguish it from other similar examples: First, drawing the symmetrical headers on the first page of each sū ra; second, mentioning the non-canonical and uncommon Qur’ ā nic readings; third, referring to the various Qur’ ā nic divisions (three-part to ten-part divisions of the Qur’ ā n); fourth, unusual naming of the sū ras, such as Sū ra Mū sā (instead of Ṭ ā hā , 20), Sū ra Sulaymā n (instead of the Shu‘ arā , 26) and Sū ra Dā wū d (instead of Ṣ ā d, 38). Among these, one of the significant features of this manuscript is the mentioning of non-canonical and unfamiliar Qur’ ā nic readings, which we call Shawā dhdh. Although the original diacritics of the manuscript has been done with golden dots, the scribe or diacritics maker, by using green dots in some letters, also referred to other readings, most of which are non-canonical, and sometimes they are unknown among the literary Islamic sources. It seems that this method of mentioning uncommon readings has been common in many Kufic Qur’ ā ns in the second AH/eight and third AH/ninth centuries, specifically in Iran.

The present article is a brief review of the importance of preserving and using private documents in the historygraphy of Qajar period. Since the structure of government in Iran during the Qajar period, except in few cases, did not have a central archive, the collection and use of private documents surviving from that period can be useful for a better understanding of the history of Iran at that time.

In this article, we have tried to distinguish Ibn Hisā m Hiravī from his namesakes by a comprehensive search about him and to introduce his works and poems for the first time, which had remained unknown until now. We have also tried to provide new findings from his lineage. What is presented in this article also provides readers with new insights into the scientific-literary history of the Ā l-e Kurt court and the scientific condition of those days.

Abu Al-Mufaḍ ḍ al Al-Shaybā nī is one of the most active hadith narrators, whose name appears in many Isnā ds of the hadiths narrated in the works by both Muslim sects. Despite the great importance of this narrator, so far a few comprehensive research has been done on his personality, and the emphasis has been more on the general descriptions of his weaknesses in Rijā lī sources, as a result of which his hadiths have been invalidated. However, one of the important sources that can lead us to a more accurate judgment about him is to pay attention to his books and to reconstruct them. In this article, the issue is discussed and in this regard, in addition to the heritage benefits which this study would have for us plus familiarity with some aspects of Abu Al-Mufaḍ ḍ al’ s personality, new indications that make his religious orientation clearer for us will be discovered. Also, useful points from the viewpoint of his personality regarding narrating hadith were clarified, according to which two arguments in weakening him could be rejected.

In the present article, the author has examined the text of several manuscripts as the twenty-seventh section of the series entitled Reading Manuscripts. These texts are as follows: Istiftā on an endowed pan: An example of Istiftā s in the Qajar period Shah Ali Yazdi Shī ī A poem about Nā ser al-Dī n, his quest for knowledge and the establishment of Dā r al-Funū n and inviting teachers from Austria Poems by Safaei Khansari in his own handwriting from 1110 Two freedom documents for two Georgian slave-girls from 1106 with the certificate of Allā mah Majlisī Famine in Isfahan A few historical notes From the praise of the Shah to the praise of Mullah Mohammad Reza Mujtahid A strange order for writing on an opal Letter from the janitor of Imam Hussein (as) shrine to one of the Safavid officials to ask for help Poem of Abolghasem Ghoshiri against a student of philosophy Ismail Amirkhizi› s poem about Allā mah Mohammad Qazvī nī Qajar women read Western novels in the winter sitting behind Kursis.

One of the meanings of the term Qī yā s in the works of the first centuries is the evaluation of narrations (especially Akhbā r Aḥ ā d) based on Quran, traditions and other evidence which for various reasons are sometimes interpreted as «Qī yā s» and therefore should not be considered as soon as it is seen in texts to mean the famous jurisprudential Qī yā s. It also seems that the issue of Qī yā s, especially among the Imamiyyeh, should be reconsidered, and perhaps, as Ayatollah Sistani has tried to explain the narrations and historical reports related to analogy, new interpretations of it can be presented and our understanding of the narrations may be transformed. This is while in the ‘ Usuli works of the Imamiyyeh, especially from the school of Hillah onwards, Qī yā s is sometimes mentioned as one of the criteria for evaluating the Aḥ ā d Akhbā r and also as one of the preferences in the case of the conflicting Hadith, and at least as a confirmation of Hadith and a part of «evidence collection».

The Hebrew translation of the Quran by Uri Rubin, (1944-2021) was first published in 2005. In 2016, the translator after 11 years, published its edited version. The importance of this translation, regardless of linguistic debates, is the existence of a lot of footnotes under the verses; the content of some of them will definitely help interpretive-Intertextuality discussions, but in some cases the footnotes have conflict with the Muslim views. In fact, the final text is something beyond translation, but a commentary. The content of the footnotes can be categorized in four main parts: I. Purely explanatory texts for literal explanation of the meanings of verses; II. Referring to exegetical views and disagreements of commentators; III. Referral to similar verses in the text of the Qur› an; IV. Referring to the similar concepts in Torah, and Midrash. The present article focuses on this new version and its changes in two subjects of basic issues and its references to pre-Islamic texts.

This article examines the sources of Quṭ buddī n Shī rā zī ’ s book Durratu-Taj. Quṭ buddī n Shī rā zī In this detailed work written in Persian, has referred to the works of various scholars such as Fā rā bī , Ibn Sī nā , Ghazā lī , Fakhr Rā zī , Suhriwardī , Shahrzū rī , Zamakhsharī , Yaqū b Qurṭ ū bī , ‘ Abdul Malik Shī rā zī , Ṣ afiyuddī n Irmavī , Sirā juddī n Irmavī , Saī duddī n Farghā nī , Ibn Kamū na, Jurjā nī , etc. Based on this, it has been shown that the book Durratu-Taj has emerged from the translation and integration of several different sources. In a way, except for the parts of logic whose source has not yet been determined, all its philosophical parts are taken from the works of others. This research is important in examining the originality of this work and determining the specific opinions of Quṭ buddī n Shī rā zī . At the end of the article, the different sections of this book are compared with the book of Al-Kā shif Ibn Kamū na.

The book of the list of manuscripts of the Ilkhanid Period in Iranian libraries by Ali Bahramian is a joint project of the Center for Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran with the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, which was published in 2017. The purpose of the book is to identify all the manuscripts in Iranian libraries from the invasion of Genghis to the fall of the Ilkhanid government. In the present article, the author has attempted to present a list of the book› s shortcomings based on the manuscripts available in the library of Ayatollah Mar’ ashi Najafī i.

Kā shifī is one of the authors who is quite fair in his works and usually introduces the sources in creating his works. He even shows the beginning and end of the passages he quotes from the works of others. This procedure is considered an important advantage at his time when his contemporaries were less committed to it. His belief in the rapprochement of religions, and the avoidance of divisiveness that has led to all sorts of accusations against him today, has also led to some hasty Judgments. Judgment on the Rowḍ at al-Shuhadā of Kā shifī , based on what he quotes from others (citing sources), cannot be expressed by the expressions such as lies and forgery. It is quite obvious that he has quoted his claim from the book Noor al-‘ Aimah, and he was not the fabricator of this story of, for instance, Z’ afar Jinnī . In this article, some scholars› views concerning the authenticity or fabrication of the contents of the book Rowḍ at al-Shuhadā have been narrated.

Abulrezā Rā vandī , an Imami scholar living in Kashan, who in his time was known as a well-known writer in the central Shiite areas of Jibā l. His special interest was editing and commenting on dictionaries and literary works, and had permission (Ijā zah) to narrate them. He has scribed a copy of the book Al-Ṣ iḥ ā ḥ Fi al-Lunghah by Juharī based on a validated version of the book. He has compared it with other copies and edited it based on them, including a copy of Abu al-Faḍ l al-Mikyā lī . This version has been the basis of a number of existing manuscripts of the book written in Kashan and Qom regions. His copy contains notes and points from Abū Sahl Hirawī on the book of Al-Ṣ iḥ ā ḥ , as well as points and comments quoted from «Zajā j».

This article is divided into three parts. In the first part, I will focus on the new editing of Marzbannameh, focusing on the editors› introduction. In the second part, I will review the bibliography of Marzbannameh published in Ayneh Pajuhesh magazine, and at the end, I will critique Gholamreza Afrasiabi› s claims about three Marzbannameh versions (two in Persian, the third in Arabic).

The book entitled Muthmir a work of Sirā juddī n Ā rizū , an Indian scholar, is a book containing the topics of lexical research based on Mazhar of Suyū ṭ ī . This book was published in Tehran some time ago. Although the new edition, has advantages over the previous one, it is still not void of mistakes and inaccuracies. Part of the book is about Mu’ arrabā t. This article is a brief correction of that part of the book, with a slight correction of the inaccuracies of the text of the book Mazhar.

Aḥ san Al-Qaṣ aṣ is a Persian translation of a book about Prophet Yusuf (AS). This ancient Persian text, which belongs to the end of the 5th century or the beginning of the 6th century AH, has been published recently, but unfortunately, it has significant shortcomings. In this article, we will try to show some of those shortcomings.

The close relationship between language and culture has led to the emergence of a concept regarding special words, phrases, and combinations that are referred to in translation studies as «cultural elements»; the structures which are specific to a particular society and language. The translation of these words, especially in literary texts and poetry, has always been a problem for translators. They have taken measures to translate them and have used strategies and techniques. The experts of translation have suggested methods for translating such elements. Molina and Albir (2002), while reviewing the researches in this field, have proposed eighteen strategies that have been the theoretical basis of the present research. In the present article, the cultural elements of the book A City Under Siege written by Habib Ahmadzadeh (2011) which was translated by Paul Sprachman (2010) are extracted and the strategies used by the translator in translating them based on the model of Molina and Albir are examined. Generalization and omitted equivalents are Sprachman› s most widely used strategies, and there are many cases of mistranslation and omission of cultural elements. Such studies can help improve the work of translators and the theorists of translation.