In this article I will investigate and criticize Nasr Hamed Abu-Zaid’s views and thoughts which are affected by historicism. Presenting some relevant bases of historicism, I will criticize Abu-Zaid’s views regarding the historicity of Quran and some of its teachings and commands.

Myth is not the primordial and naïve insight of man; rather it is the dominant rationale of immortal and sacred man: a rationale of “origin” and “repetition” which, in its precise and harmonious structure, elevates every trivial thing to the level of signifier of eternity. The necessity and preciseness of this rationale is only comprehended in comparison (contrast) to the historical paradigm. Mythical originalism wants to collect all the pluralities and differences in one origin and foundation and, through this, turn them into eternal identities and archetypes: identities which are the natures or timless secret of things. Each event is a primordial rarity: this return to a single (united) origin, in its own nature, has concealed the tendency towards unity and “totality”. Synthesis of this "originalism" and "Unitarianism" is achieving an anti-historical theory in a mythical perspective: in such a world the revealing of eternity is tied to "denial of history".

New Historicism is a new approach in literary and cultural studies that mainly focuses on the historical background of a text as an inseparable part of it. New Historicists assume that language can form its culture and is organized by it. The concept of language in new historicism is more than word-of-mouth. According to their ideas, language includes discourse, writing, literature, social reaction and any type of social relations.These relations provide a person or a group with the possibility to impose his view or disposition upon the others. Therefore, the text becomes a battlefield where the conflicting thoughts of the author, society, customs, institutions and social acts interact and finally the author and the reader come to an agreement by their perception of them. New historicists believe that there is no difference between a literary text and a nonliterary one, because any text contains some discourses which have a pivotal role in making a culture. From this perspective, the author’s situation, whether cultural or social, creates a work of art; thus, awareness of dominant ideology and discourse can help create a scope for advancing. New historicists consider literature as a place where there is a conflict between non-dominant sub-discourses and dominate discourse. This approach views literary text as a place for the interaction between different discourses (and) demonstration of power relations. Many thinkers have contributed to this approach and Foucault was one of them. In his opinion history was a complicated relationship between different kinds of discourse. Discourse and power are inseparable and power is exerted through language. This approach attempts to portray the interaction between different discourses in a literary text and to show how discourses and texts are influenced by each other. Bahman Forsi has indicated his ideology by social discourses in his play Aramsayeshgah. The theme of the play is rooted in the society where the playwright lived. It shows cultural and social aspects of that ere.Power is presented throughout the whole society. On the surface, the theme of the play seems an ordinary one.According to New historicism social, political and cultural aspects of time are included in the texts created in that time. Therefore, the text or work of art is regarded as a social product. For example, characters in Forsi’s play are wasted intellectuals who cope with their frustration and disillusionment. This paper attempts to show that Aramsayeshgah is a place where different discourses interact. It also tries to find the source of social rules and regulations, the dominant discourse in the text, and show that they are a reflection of social situations and norms in the historical time the author tried to depict.

New historicism refers to an approach that does not accept history as the historians convey. This approach mostly is based on the ideas of the American professor, Stephen Greenblatt, in the eighties of the twentieth century. According to Greenblatt, new historicism presents a new reading of the text, not a school of criticism. New historicism investigates the multilateral relations of the literary works with other texts including the historical ones to clarify their inter-textual and extra-textual aspects. New historicism inspects the relations of power and cultural, social, and ideological constructs. From the new historicist point of view, there is no difference between literary and non-literary texts. The present paper attempts to examine The Silence of the Sea to reveal the author’ s and the history’ s influence in creating the literary work. With the help of Greenblatt and Foucault views, inter-textual factors such as power relations as the main context are studied in the paper as well.

The subject of this research is the processing of historicism in the contemporary Iranian architectural works. Historical signs in architecture are the most prominent features of historicism in the contemporary context. This research begins with the question “ How historicism is presented in contemporary architectural works? ". It is assumed that his tory in contemporary architecture has presented itself with objective and subjective elements and has been crystallized in different ways. Also, the contemporary Iranian architectural works with a rich his tory of ancient architecture, are not exception for the acceptance of his tory in the contemporary world. Moreover, assuming that historicist practices allow the historical classification of the contemporary Iranian architectural compilations, these compilations mus t inevitably be placed in the identification model of the type of historicism. After processing the concept of historicism and periodization, the research provides a model for studying the works. Based on the views of Hegel and other architectural theorists such as Alan Colquhoun, this model classifies historicism into three types (Classical historicism, Symbolic historicism, and Philosophical). Colquhoun believes: historicism can be used for three things: The firs t one is an approach; the second is anartistic practice and the third is a theory of his tory. Attention to his tory leads to the emergence of historicism as a perceptible and analyzing process. A concept that, in a particularly, influential way in Hegel's philosophy, was found to be its clear and influential scheme and continued with various narratives in the next philosophical schools. Moreover, examining the periodization method of each work in the 2000s, this research conducts a thematic categorization and proceeds through the Hegelian historicism process, which is a method of doing historical research. “ Periodization” is the separation of works and events in the form of occasional categories and styles. “ Periodization” is a historical view and an attempt to express the “ Zeitgeist” , Also is one of the main tools of historical studies. But using this tool has its own difficulties. Historical periodization, for historians, is a frequent controversy that implies the necessity of an agreement and often appears as a historic event. Analysis of the common periods and types of historicism is another aspect of this research for answering the research questions. This research is of qualitative type with an interpretive strategy that reflects the historical context of the architecture of Iran through a historical-critical approach. The selected case studies include contemporary Iranian architectural compilation works of the 2000s, which include a total of eight books attempting to determine the periodicity of the contemporary Iranian architectural works in various ways. The results of this paper show that historicism evaluated in the architectural works in the 2000s can be classified into six categories. In the study of various types of historicism, it was also found that there have been no compilations of classical historicism. In five works, symbolic historicism, and only in one book, philosophical historicism has been the criterion for determining the periodicity of the contemporary architectural works. There have been no signs of historicism in three works.

In study of done research about classical Persian literature, this difficult is seen that a significant number of studies or researches lacks any innovation and merely repeats the previous studies. We should seek the root of this problem not in classical Persian literature, but in repetition of old approaches to these texts. To solvthis problemm, it can be used from newer approaches to literary criticism such as “new historicism’’. Since the new historicism destroys on the one hand, Literary and non-literary border, and on the other hand, the border between history and literature, The benefit of this approach in studies of classical Persian literature would lead to different readings of literary works and Different readings of historiographical works such as Beyhaghi History as well as scientific and non-literary works. Other advantages of using this new approach are wide range of research in classical Persian literature and their reading's diversity.

In the 1980s, after post-structural criticism, "New Historicism" appeared through the work of Stephen Greenblatt as a response to traditional historicism. A new historian believes that literary texts have been interwoven with other discourses and rhetoric structures and they constitute a part of the history that is being written. We gain knowledge about this period through works written at the end of the Salgoqian reign in Iraq nearly after one century and it demonstrates the power of historiography in the Saljoqian period. Social circumstances and daily life of people in that time are not clear due to the decay of historiography and limited sources; however, Mohammad Ghazali's letters are one of the significant works of the Saljoqian period which provides a report on discourses and political, social, and cultural issues of the same period and opens a window to the said historical period. New Historicism is seeking a link between literature and public culture of a period and in general, any cultural text. Taking advantage of this theory in rereading and interpreting Ghazali's letter can reveal the timepiece and uncover the latent discourses that are hidden under apparent discourse.

New historicism is an approach that emerged in response to traditional methods and traditional historicism in the late 20th century. New historians consider history a set of conflicting discourses and address the marginalized voices. They believe that what historians write is not an objective recording of the past events but the interpretation and narrative of the past events based on the discourse of historians. Therefore, history has a discursive nature and is a tradition of narration. In 2012 Rabee Jaber the Lebanese novelist won the International Prize for Arabic fiction for his novel “, Druze of Belgrade”, . This thesis tries to examine the novel from the perspective new historicism in order to recognize the relation of text with historical discourses. the results of the study show that there are six discourses represented in this article: the discourse of ottoman government, the discourse of European governments, the dialogue of the Balkans, the discourse of prisoners of prisoners, the discourse of Lebanese Christians, and the discourse of Muslims of the Balkans. It also shows that the novel focuses on the marginalized voices and the victims of sectarian violence and governance, whose representatives are on one side, imprisoned Druze, and by the other, Hanna Yacoub and his family. The novel tries to provide a positive image of Druze, contrary to official discourse of Ottoman Empire.

Folklore is to some extent derived from a history, whose bitterness is disregarded and is essentially transformed as pleased through tales by the public to relieve themselves. It is through such a drive and attempt that the general public leave behind their preferred history in tales, a narrative that consists of the elements of historical and meta-historical/utopian discourses. Such an approach in textualism of stories can be consolidated by prominent theories of literary criticism and, in here, using the theory of neo-historism. This approach is utilized for investigations into a variety of discourses such as power in politics, silenced and non-dominant discourses, cultural discourses, etc. This study investigates the tale of "Shah Ismail and Arab Zangi" based on the neo-historicism approach and using the historical explanation method. This text tells us not only about the various aspects of the discourse of political power in the Iranian history, which was connected with the religious ideological discourse in the Safavid era and manifested with the symbol of Zulfiqar (Imam Alichr('39')s sword), but also about the discourse of the Kurdish minority at that time and other social and cultural discourses at and beyond that time.

Literary criticism is the analysis of the text's semantic layers based on theories that are mostly drawn from other fields of the humanities. The new historicism, which was established by Stephen Greenblatt in the late 1970s and early 1980s, is one of the most current theories in this area. Modern historicism holds that literature and history both have an impact on one another, in contrast to conventional historicism, which speaks of the one-sided influence of history on literature. Modern historians contend that literature does more than just reflect history; rather, the link between history and literature is dialectical rather than reflective. Based on current historicism, library, and document studies, and using a descriptive-analytical approach, this study has looked into and analyzed the story of Fereydoun and Zahak, and has offered a new interpretation of it. According to the study's findings, the conflict between the Iranian discourse and the non-Iranian discourse (Fereydoun and Kaveh) in this story is driven by power, which ultimately leads to the dominance of the Iranian discourse. The characters of this story are each representative of discourse in the story community. Iranian discourse is on the margins and out of power at first, while non-Iranian discourse is dominant and in power. However, by the end of the story, the situation has changed. The plot is driven by the conflict between Iranian and non-Iranian discourse on power. Introduction The story in question was composed as a poem in one of the most sensitive historical situations, that is, the time when the Arab element thought itself superior to Iran and Iranians. The ideological pressures from the Arabic discourse have become more sophisticated throughout this time, and they now want to marginalize the Iranian discourse, which takes the shape of the Shu'ubiyya movement. The space for Shu'ubiyya's Iranian discourse has been constrained by these restrictions from the Baghdad-based authority and its close allies in Iran, notably the Ghaznavid empire. In such a circumstance, Ferdowsi uses the story of Fereydoun and Zahak, which is rich in elements of battle and resistance, to rekindle Iranians' spirit of battle and resistance against the notion of Arab superiority. This story reflects the struggle between Iranian discourse (Feryedoun and Kaveh) and non-Iranian discourse (Zahhak); the struggle that existed during Ferdowsi's period and the Shu’ubiyya movement has been in conflict with what was against Iran and Iranians. Freyedoun, an Iranian aristocrat, is related to Jamshid. Zahak pulled Jamshid down from the kingdom and killed him. Since then, Fereydoun and all other Jamshidis have lost their position in the society and privileges. Fereydon's fight against Zahak is motivated by three different reasons, considering the fact that Zahak also murdered his father Abtin and the Bermaye cow that Fereydon fed on as a child. The reasons were 1) national motivation (saving Iran from the oppressive non-Iranian element), 2) class motivation (restoring the social position and privileges of the Jamshidian class), and 3) personal motivation (taking revenge on Zahhak for murdering Abtin and Barmayeh cow). As a patriotic Iranian, Fereydoun finds Zahak's existence intolerable and feels it is his national responsibility to rebel against the foreign, alien, and oppressive forces that have imposed themselves on Iran. Materials and Methods In this study, an effort is made to analyze the Fereydoun and Zahhak battle story in Shahnameh using modern historicism and to provide a novel interpretation of it. The research is based on new theories and schools, text analysis, and criticism. By using library and documentary studies, as well as descriptive and analytical approaches, we have attempted to offer a novel interpretation of the text under discussion and respond to the following research questions: 1) What are the dominant (in power) and marginal (outside of power) discourses, and what is their connection to power? 2) Why did Ferdowsi favor a particular discourse? 3) What was the reason for it and how did this favoritism occur? 4) What is the relationship and similarity between the story of Fereydoun and Zahak with the history of Ferdowsi's time? 5) What genre and group are the target audience of the story? And 6) what is the intertextual relationship of this story with other Persian literary texts? Research Findings The study's findings demonstrate that the struggle between the Iranian discourse (represented by Fereydoun and Kaveh) and the non-Iranian discourse in this story is motivated by a desire for power which ultimately leads to the dominance of the Iranian discourse. The characters of this story are each representative of discourse in the story community. Other discourses are on the margins and outside of power, but Zahak's discourse is dominant and in power. The effort and struggle between these marginal discourses to gain power and the center gave rise to the story, and these conflicts between the marginal discourses and the dominant discourse (Zahak) serve as its driving force. The element of conflict in the story is represented through disobedience, rebellion, and war. As a poet, Ferdowsi has clearly taken the side of the marginal discourses centered on Fereydoun. Ferdowsi is inclined toward the usage of positive adjectives and phrases. He sets his supported discourses apart from other discourses in this way. Discussion of Results and Conclusions Instead of focusing on the characters' specific historical actions, this story attempts to explore the universal nature of man by narrating the behavior of the characters in a way that makes the reader think about the historical patterns of the members of their society or even the general nature of mankind. As a result, any autocratic, murderous, and cruel dictator may be likened to Zahhak, and every person fighting for liberation from tyranny can be compared to Kaveh. In addition, there are similarities between the characters in the story and historical figures from Ferdowsi's era that are worthy of consideration and come about as a result of how we interpret the story. For instance, Zahhak and the Abbasid caliphs are comparable in terms of race, autocracy, and animosity toward the Iranian race. In other words, the murder, repression, and brutality of the Abbasid caliphs have been demonstrated in the form of the myth of Zahhak. Additionally, there are similarities between Abu Mansour Abd al-Razzaq and Abtin in the Zahhak stories; both of them were murdered by Iranians and are of Iranian ancestry and royal descent. That is, Abtin was murdered by Zahhak Tazi and Abu Mansour by Abul Hasan Simjur of Arabic descent. Additionally, both of their children seek revenge; Fereydon rises against Zhahak, and Mansour, the son of Abu Mansour Abd al-Razzaq, rises against Simjurians and Samanians, and is murdered in this manner.