AYENEH-YE-PAZHOOHESH
Year:2024 | Volume:35 | Issue:3 (پیاپی 207)|Papers Count:23

Waḥīd Behbahānī (d. 1205 AH) was one of the most prominent jurists of the 12th century Hijri, who passed away in the early years of the 13th century. He left behind a significant legacy in jurisprudence and principles and trained many distinguished students, some of whom are among the most notable jurists of the 13th century Hijri. Most importantly, in his intellectual life, he defeated the Akhbari movement that had dominated most Shiite seminaries during the 12th century. Some of his works are collections of jurisprudential questions and answers, known as Istiftā'āt. These questions and answers contain social, cultural, and civil information and emphasize certain key concepts crucial for understanding the religion and its interpretive methods. This article is based on one of these collections of Istiftā'āt and presents a selection from them.

After the closure of the Central National Library of Iran and with the rising importance of the Constitutional Revolution, a group of intellectuals decided to establish a new library. This library, named the Tehran National Library, was inaugurated in 1324 AH and ceased operations after two years and five months, coinciding with the cannon fire on the Majlis (parliament). The author of this article discusses the establishment process, founding members, donors and benefactors, the catalog of donated books, and the reasons behind the library's closure.

Specialized libraries provide the resources, documents, and services needed by experts in specific fields. One such specialized field is children's literature, which includes a diverse group of professionals involved in the production and consumption of reading materials for young children, children, and adolescents. This article explores the search for the main specialized library for children's literature in Iran and evaluates the potential of various existing libraries to become such a library. The study considers national libraries, university libraries, research centers, and libraries focused on children's education and culture. The review shows that the Reference Library of the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, and subsequently the Research Library of the Children's Book Council, have the potential to become the central specialized library for children's and youth literature in Iran, despite their considerable distance from other libraries.

The Laki satirical fragment known as “Zin-e Khord Amir” is a poem in one of the Laki dialects, composed by Mulla Mohammad Hassan Khan Kuliwand. Despite its popular reception, the complete text has not been preserved. Nonetheless, the remaining verses of this poem are of great importance due to the scarcity of Laki literary manuscripts. Research into such works will pave the way for a better understanding of the culture and language of the Laki people.

This article, while providing a general review of contemporary translations of the verse "And We sent the winds as fertilizing agents" (Al-Hijr: 22), focuses on an unknown and ancient translation (from the 5th–6th centuries AH) rendered as "And We sent the winds to the marriage of flowers and trees." This translation was a subject of debate among linguists and translation scholars between 1982 and 1998. Initially, the late Abolhassan Najafi defended this translation in an article, emphasizing adherence to style and describing it as a faithful translation. Later, Lotfipour Saeedi, by highlighting the addition of metaphorical patterns in the translation, deemed it completely unstable and unfaithful, accusing the translator of "betraying the translation" rather than preserving its "fidelity." According to him, Najafi contradicted himself in the course of his defense. Subsequently, Saleh Hosseini made considerable (if somewhat strained) efforts to defend Abolhassan Najafi. All these disputes have been independent of the exegetical discussions and the context of the entire verse. As a result, Biazar Shirazi, in his role as an exegete, attempted to find a middle ground in defending the translation. In this article, the context of the verse, the arguments of both supporters and critics, and an analysis of the meanings are presented, indicating the instability of this translation. Moreover, the discussions here are solely focused on translation studies related to this issue, and other matters, including the scientific miracles of the Quran (in connection with this verse), are not considered.

In the first section of “Neveštegān 8”, two words from the Persian translation of the Book of Jeremiah, written in Hebrew script and dating back to the 4th century AH, are discussed, and corrections are made to two mistakes by its publisher. The second section attempts to justify the final diacritics of several words from two early Persian translated texts. Subsequently, the term “zyfʾy” in Qurʾān translation manuscript no. 1732 from the Astan Quds library, likely from the 4th or 5th century AH, is examined. In the final two sections, building on the discussions in the previous issue of “Neveštegān”, additional evidence for the form “murwādīr” is provided, and a word from the Tarǰume-ye Qurʾān-e Quds is corrected.

The book Logic and Theology, published by Brill, contains articles in German, English, and French on the study of medieval Islamic and Western scholarship in the fields of logic and theology. Each article in this book is authored by an expert in the respective subject. The present article, titled “Taftāzānī and Philosophy” is a translation of Wilferd Madelung's original German text. In this article, Madelung highlights an aspect of Taftāzānī’s scholarly character that has either been overlooked or given less attention in the shadow of figures such as al-Fārābī, Avicenna, and Mullā Sadrā—namely, the philosophical dimension of Taftāzānī’s thought and works. Madelung, through careful research and an emphasis on Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, brings to light the philosophical elements present in Taftāzānī’s writings and examines the attribution or misattribution of certain works to him. In this way, Madelung provides both a scientifically rich article and a methodological guide for research in this particular area.

These notes address various words, expressions, and themes found in certain Persian and Arabic texts, which were previously published on virtual networks. They are presented here with some modifications. This time, the focus is on brief notes regarding the Shahnameh, Vis and Ramin, the Dictionary of Meisari, the Qabusnameh, the Makhzan al-Asrār, the Eskandarmameh, the Bustan, the Nowruznameh, Kalila and Dimna, the Seidana, the al-Tafhim, the Jamāhir, the History of Bayhaq, the History of Bayhaqi, and the al-Fihrist. Some of these notes are based on the research of Western scholars.

Among the rare manuscripts prepared for the library of Jalal al-Din Iskandar (the grandson of Timur Gurkani), is a collection of poems and writings compiled in 813 AH, which is now housed in the Gulbenkian Museum Library in Lisbon. This precious manuscript contains two separate volumes bound together, one dedicated to poetic works and the other to writings. The poems in the first volume include works by prominent Persian poets and scholars from the 5th to the early 9th century, written by two scribes of Iskandar Mirza’s court: Hassan al-Hafiz and Mahmoud al-Hosseini. Among the poems in this anthology are seven quatrains attributed to Khayyām and 22 quatrains attributed to Mahasti Ganjavi, which we introduce and examine in this article. Additionally, we provide a brief report on the quatrains section of the manuscript.

The collection and publication of scattered documents related to the Qajar era have helped us open a small window into the behind-the-scenes politics of that period. The case involves the murder of a young man in the second half of 1317 AH in a narrow alley leading to the Jameh Mosque of Bijar, where he was shot. The victim was connected on one side to the Amir Nezam Garusi family and on the other to a ruling family in Bijar. This familial connection between the two families soured a few years later due to the death of the bride, who was the daughter of Amir Nezam Garusi. Amir Nezam Garusi believed that Haji Amir Tuman had poisoned his daughter. Gradually, the conflict spread within the family, and the son demanded his mother's dowry from his father. The matter escalated to court, intensifying the conflict between father and son, ultimately leading to the murder of the son by one of the headmen of Bijar near his home. Although it was clear to the central judiciary that the headman was the killer, it is unlikely that he was executed despite the efforts of the victim's sister and wife. This case must have incurred significant expenses for the government. .

The discussion of the Appearance has a history as long as Islam itself, as the belief in the Mahdi has been intertwined with Islam from the very beginning. The Abbasid Revolution is a chapter in the history of the Appearance, and titles such as Saffah and Mansur were part of this narrative. This trend continued, as detailed in many historical sources, which I have also explored in my work on False Mahdis. The intriguing practice of some individuals, particularly Sufis and mystics with a penchant for cryptic texts, attempting to deduce the date of the Appearance has historical precedents. The current example revolves around a text titled  Nafaḥāt al-Rayāḥīn , written in 1179 AH in Ottoman lands. The author of this text endeavors to decipher the date of the Appearance by interpreting certain poems of Ibn Arabi and passages from Futūḥāt al-Makkiyah. In this article, along with a report on that treatise, the text has also been critically edited and presented as much as possible.

Research in any field requires that the researcher clearly distinguishes their contributions from previous work, so that readers can easily identify which parts of the text are the result of the researcher’s own efforts and which parts are derived from others' research. Critiquing works that do not adhere to this essential requirement and identifying instances of copying and plagiarism undoubtedly contributes to improving the quality of research writing. This article critiques the book "Cognitive Science of Religion" authored by Naima Pourmohammadi from this perspective. The authors of this article compared significant portions of the book with several well-known and reputable sources in the field of cognitive science of religion written in English. They concluded that a substantial portion of the book is translated or adapted from these English sources and is not the result of the "author's" own research, to the extent that it would be more appropriate to use the term "book fabrication" instead of "authorship" and "pseudo-author" instead of "author." Naima Pourmohammadi assembled the book by using content from a few limited sources, assembling them, and publishing it under the guise of "authorship." The various sections of the "Cognitive Science of Religion" book are compiled in three ways: (1) sections that are complete and uninterrupted translations of other sources, sometimes spanning dozens of pages; (2) sections that are fragmented, selective, and arbitrary translations from other sources; (3) sections that, although not complete or selective translations, are content copies from other sources, making it appear as if the content is from the compiler, but in fact it is from others. The author's misleading and deceptive references are such that a non-specialist reader would not realize what is happening and would consider all content as the result of the author's research. In summary, this book represents a major act of plagiarism and a form of clumsy book fabrication and copying in the realm of research, with the "author" contributing almost nothing of value. Although the book's lack of originality is a primary issue, structural and content-related critiques are also warranted, as the book contains serious and sometimes ridiculous flaws, which are briefly addressed in the second part of the article.

The book Lughat-e Furs, authored by Abū Manṣūr Ali ibn Aḥmad Asadī Ṭūsī and edited by the late Abbas Iqbal, was published in 1940. As stated in the book's introduction, this edition was critically edited based on three manuscripts and one printed edition, which was published by the German orientalist Paul Horn in 1898. The following note provides a review of some of the words in this book, utilizing texts from ancient and old Persian literature.

In 2020, a new critical edition of Nasir Khusraw's Travelogue was published by Mohammadreza Tavakoli Saberi. The primary manuscripts used for this edition include a copy from the Library of the Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow (1006 AH) and another from the British Museum (1102 AH). The Lucknow manuscript has been used, directly or indirectly, in all previous editions of the Travelogue. However, it seems that the British Museum manuscript has not been utilized in any prior critical editions of the text. The editor has addressed the issues in these two manuscripts by consulting various editions of the book. In other words, the text is a synthesis of these two manuscripts combined with several printed editions. However, since this critical edition lacks variant readings, the contribution of each manuscript and edition to the final text remains unclear. Other issues have also been noted in this edition, most of which can be attributed to the editor's insufficient familiarity with the methods of editing ancient texts and with literary and linguistic research. These include errors in reading the manuscript recordings, incorrect or unnecessary diacritical markings, and inaccurate explanations and annotations. Nevertheless, some readings in this edition appear more accurate than those in the previous edition.

In addition to the various works we know from the distinguished and renowned scholar Dr. Mohammad Moein, he also wrote annotations on certain texts. Among these, his annotations on the Divan of Khaghani were published many years ago. Another text adorned with Dr. Moein's notes is the Divan of Lāmi'ī Gurgānī. In the present study, we focus on publishing these annotations.

Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638 AH), known as "the Greatest Sheikh," is a prominent figure in Islamic mysticism and one of the most influential personalities in theoretical Sufism. Ibn ʿArabī's writings, particularly his book Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam and some of its commentaries, have been taught in many religious schools across the Islamic world for centuries. The first work of Ibn ʿArabī to be published in the West was the brief treatise Ṣūfī Terminology, which was edited and published by the German orientalist Gustav Flügel (d. 1870 CE) in 1845, along with the book al-Taʿrīfāt by Mir Sayyid Sharīf Jurjānī (d. 816 AH). Since then, numerous works on Ibn ʿArabī's ideas have been published in the West, and interest in Ibn ʿArabī has intensified significantly in recent decades. One of the works that introduces I Ibn ʿArabī to the general Western reader and provides a concise overview of his ideas is the book Ibn Arabi: Heir to the Prophets by William Chittick. This book has been translated into Persian and Arabic. The present article introduces Chittick's book and its translations.

This article is a section of the book "The Bukhara Myth" and critiques the book " Sirat al-Imām al-Bukhārī " (The Chief of Jurists and Imam of Hadith) authored by Abdul Salam Mubarakfuri. Mubarakfuri's book is one of the sources cited in the book "Ṭu’ū'n wa Shubuhāt al-Shi'a al-Imāmiyya hawl Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī wa al-Radd 'alayhā" by ‘Ādil ‘Azāzī, which was recognized as the best doctoral research in Hadith sciences at Al-Azhar University in Egypt. Therefore, the critique of Mubarakfuri's book also serves as a critique of ‘Azāzī's research. This paper, after introducing Mubarakfuri's lineage, education, teachers, efforts, inclinations, publications, and academic standing, focuses on the book's title, its context and authorship, sources and references, approach, and its Arabic translation. The research concludes that Mubarakfuri was relatively unknown before the publication of this book and that his knowledge did not warrant the scholarly title of "’Allāmah." This title was conferred by the Arabic translator of the work, influenced by the critical climate against Bukhārī at the time of the book's publication, to enhance the book's credibility. Similarly, the book's title was distorted, with the term "al-Imam" added between the main title and the subtitle ("The Chief of Jurists and Imam of Hadith"). The subtitle of the book also attempts to challenge the view that Bukhārī lacked jurisprudence and ijtihad; the book's original Urdu title was "Sirat al- Bukhārī," which underwent significant changes in its Arabic and English translations.

Although the challenges of translating the Quran have been acknowledged to some extent throughout history, and translators have not been entirely unfamiliar with them, the difficulties of rendering Quranic verses into other languages were not a major focus in earlier periods due to the lack of a tradition of translation critique. However, in recent times, a grand movement in all fields of Quranic studies has emerged, bringing special attention to the challenges of translating Quranic verses, and a significant amount of work has been written on this subject. Among these writings is the focus on the errors made by some translators, which have sometimes resulted in incorrect translations. The present article, like the previous one, has been compiled using an analytical-critical approach and examines additional examples.

The addition of marginal notes to the main text is one of the types of scribal errors that occasionally occurred in the process of scribing ancient works in manuscripts. This led to the obscurity, misinterpretation, or inconsistency of certain passages in these texts. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāḍī (d. 606 AH), the renowned Ash‘arite scholar, discusses the confusing and misleading scribal errors of adding marginal notes to the main text in manuscripts in two instances in his commentary on Ibn Sina's (d. 428 AH) famous work, "‘Uyūn al-Ḥikmah". He mentions that such scribal errors also occurred in his own works. His testimony is noteworthy from several aspects, particularly as it indicates the early occurrence of these types of errors and alterations in manuscripts, and that such problematic scribal errors could occur not only over several centuries but sometimes even within a few decades or year.

This paper is a response to Mr. Farzad Ziyaei Habibabadi's critique of the Divan of Mahmoud and Rukn al-Bakrani, published in issue 206 of the "Ayeneh-ye Pajhuhesh" journal. In his critique, Mr. Ziyaei not only criticized the work but also targeted the editors and creators of the work with insulting language before providing a constructive critique.