IntroductionHadith is one of the important sources for understanding and knowing about different aspects of Islam. Hadith, like many other texts, needs explanation and interpretation, that's why scholars have been explaining it for a long time. Each of the hadith commentators has explained the hadiths with a special approach. Among these, we can mention two approaches, philosophical rationalism and transmitivism. In the Safavid era, some hadith commentators used these two approaches to explain hadiths. To better understand the effects of these two approaches in the method of understanding and explaining traditions, it is necessary to study them.Materials and MethodsIn this study, we use a comparative method to study the commentaries of two influential thinkers of the Safavid era, namely Mullā Ṣadrā and Muhammad Bāqir Majlesī, who are respectively a rationalist philosopher and a transmitivistic scholar, on the book Kāfī.Results and DiscussionThe result of this study shows that although there is no significant difference between Mullā Ṣadrā and Majlisī in explaining the meaning of words, in some cases, Mullā Ṣadrā's logical and philosophical view has been influential in his explanation of words. In morphological topics Even though Mullā Ṣadrā has paid attention more than Majlisī in some cases, but in cases where the discussion led to a difference in meaning, Majlisī has paid more attention to those matters than Mullā Ṣadrā. This difference between Mullā Ṣadrā and Majlisī is due to their attitude in explaining hadiths; Explaining that Mullā Ṣadrā often explains traditions with one aspect and does not tend to mention different aspects, but unlike him, Majlisī is very attentive in mentioning different aspects. In the topics of syntax Even though Mullā Ṣadrā pays attention to these topics, the Majlisī's attention to these topics is more than his. Perhaps one of the reasons for Majlisī's greater attention to these topics is his attention to different aspects of meaning in tradition, because as we have said, Majlisī is interested in mentioning different aspects of meaning in traditions, and different aspects of syntax sometimes lead to different aspects of meaning in tradition. In some cases, when Majlisī discussed syntax and Mullā Ṣadrā did not discuss syntax, or on the contrary, Mullā Ṣadrā discussed syntax but Majlisī did not discuss it. It is possible that there is a reason for taste. Another reason why Majlisī paid more attention to the discussion of syntax than Mullā Ṣadrā could be that Mullā Ṣadrā was more interested in explaining the content of the tradition and did not consider the discussion of syntax very important to him. Another possible reason is that Majlisī, influenced by some other interpretations of Kāfī, raised some syntactical debates and his attention to some syntactical debates is a result of this. Another point worth noting is that the source of tradition is not particularly important for Mullā Ṣadrā, but it is important for Majlisī. It seems that Mullā Ṣadrā's rationalism and mysticism and Majlisī's transmitivism have been influential in giving importance to the source of the traditions they cite, and it is as if for Mullā Ṣadrā that there is a reasonable aspect of the tradition in his opinion is enough for him to cite it, but for Majlisī, who is a transmitter, the source of the tradition is important and he was more careful in narrating the traditions. The reason for this state of tradition of Mullā Ṣadrā may be attributed to this tolerance in quoting from various sources, and the other is his lack of mastery over Shia traditions. Another point worth noting is that Mullā Ṣadrā used a lot of other works, with or without citing; But there is no trace of his benefiting from the explanations and margins that were written before him on Kāfī. Unlike Mullā Ṣadrā, Majlisī used a lot of other Kāfī commentaries in his explanation of Kāfī principles, and his reliance on them is surprisingly high. Also, it can be said that Mullā Ṣadrā quotes other people's words along the path of his own thought system, but Majlisī does not follow a particular coherent thought system, and sometimes quoting other people's words is centered for him. Majlisī is cautious and mentions various aspects in explaining hadiths, but unlike him, Mullā Ṣadrā explains the hadiths with a decisive statement and usually explains the traditions with only one aspect, and even if from others, what with reference and even if he quotes without reference, it is usually based on one aspect in the way of explaining the tradition.ConclusionMullā Ṣadrā is from philosophy and mysticism and has used them in his commentary, but Majlisī does not have an optimistic view of philosophers and opposes them. However, Majlisī has quoted and used some sayings of philosophers in his description. Majlisī also disagrees with the Sufis, however, he also quotes from them. Investigations show that Majlisī was not against the principle of mysticism, but he was against some deviations. Another point is that although Majlisī did not oppose the principle of mysticism, but contrary to Mullā Ṣadrā's description of the principles of Kāfī, the talk of discovery, intuition and mysticism and their defense is not prominent in “Mir'āt al-‘uqūl”.

In the case of the treasury of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, firsthand sources are its documents and goods, newspapers of the memories of Naser al-Din Shah and his courtiers, travelogues, government newspapers, and books such as Rawżat aṣ-ṣafā-e Naseri, Nasikh al-tawarikh of Qajar Sultans, Mir'āt al-buldān, Montazam-e Naseri, etc., which were created during that period. The important point is that some firsthand sources include the writings of people whom were close to the happening that they are writing about. It is possible that, for various reasons, some firsthand sources will print an article that is not true; such cases can be seen in many government newspapers, courtiers' memoirs, etc., and especially in many travelogues. Therefore, the firsthand sources can be divided into two categories in terms of credibility, and there is always an original and authentic category and another category that needs to be verified. Among the issues that have always occupied the writer's mind regarding the icons of Hazrat Ali (AS) is the icon in the treasures of the previous monarchs of Naser al-Din Shah. No. 305 of the newspaper Vaqaye-e Ettefaqiyeh in1273 A.H. has mentioned an icon of Imam Ali (AS) that has been painted during his reign from his blessed face and has been transferred from the treasures of the previous monarchs to the treasury of the Naseri. Today, there is no information about the treasures of the previous monarchs, and no independent research has been done about it. The main question of the current research is whether such an icon exists. The sub-questions are related to how the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs was, who the previous monarchs were, which icon was its reference and which country was the origin of it, and how was the reference icon from which Sani al-Mulk has painted the medallion under the command of Naser al-Din Shah. In this way, the research is based on the hypothesis that the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs has been documented in the Royal Jewelry Document Booklet of the Naseri period, and the most important goal then has been to find the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs. The booklet in question contained the documents of the icons in the treasury and the court of Naser al-Din Shah, and it is currently kept at Documentation Center of the Malek National Library and Museum Institution under registration number 6164. In this booklet, there are documents of five icon of Hazrat Ali (AS), which were introduced and identified in the article "The Lost Shamayel-Khaneh". In this way, these five icons of Hazrat Ali (AS) have been considered as the statistical population of the current research, and an attempt has been made to find out the icons of treasures of the previous monarchs among the icons of the statistical population by using qualitative (inductive) research method and by using the tools of description, evaluation, analysis, comparison and matching. The first icon of the booklet is a medallion, which was painted by Sani al-Mulk, and there is no information about its current fate. The second icon is a photograph of the blessed face of Hazrat Ali (AS) under the stone mirror and is now kept in The Treasury of National Jewels. The third icon is the work of Agha Hassan, the nephew of Agha Yaqoub, and the fourth icon is the work of Ismail Jalayer, and both are now kept in the treasury of the Golestan Palace. The fifth icon in the booklet is an oil painting of the image of Hazrat Ali (AS) on canvas that its creator and location are unknown. The information that we have found through the texts of other Qajar reports about the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs is that Sani al-Mulk had copied an icon from it on a medallion under the command of Naser al-Din Shah. In the way of discovering how the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs was, the first step is the order that Sani al-Mulk was painted from it, because this icon had a direct reference to the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs. According to the comparative studies carried out in this research, it seems that the first icon document in the Royal Jewelry Document booklet is related to the order icon drawn by Sani al-Mulk, and therefore, the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs must be similar to it. It should be noted that out of these five icons, three icons do not have the factors of being the candidate of treasures of the previous monarchs; because the first icon was drawn by Sani al-Molk from the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs, and the fourth icon was the work of Ismail Jalayer, so they were not from the previous monarchs. The third icon also did not exist in the Shamayel-Khaneh before and was added by Agha Hassan, the nephew of Agha Yaqub, and therefore, it was not from the treasures of the previous monarchs. Therefore, the remaining two icons were identified as candidates for the treasury of the previous monarchs and were investigated. Not only the two candidates are very similar, but they both also resemble the icon of the medallion. Therefore, the task was clear about the shape, form, and general content of the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs, and the discussion was about the details. Investigations showed that the first candidate was bought by Naser al-Din Shah in 1282 A.H. and therefore it did not come from the treasures of the previous monarchs, and therefore the second candidate came from the treasures of the previous monarchs. It seems that the icon belonged to the time period before the Naseri period to the Safavid period; Therefore, the characteristics of the icon were extracted from the text of the document and compared with the important oil paint icon in the Qajar period that was installed in the Takyeh Dowlat, and the results of the study showed that the characteristics of the icon of the Takyeh Dowlat, which is now kept in the treasury of The Astan Quds Razavi Museum, is equal to the document, and if the accurate age measurement of the icon of Takyeh Dowlat shows that it is older than the Naseri period, then this icon belongs to the booklet document and this is the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs. However, if accurate age measurement determines its age around the Naseri period, then this replica icon is equal to the original icon of treasures of the previous monarchs and was created in the Naseri period, and the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs has not been found yet. Since the reports of the newspaper Vaqaye-e Ettefaqiyeh were recorded in issues 305 and 317 with a gap of about four months, they may have talked about two different icons of Imam Ali (AS) created by Sani al-Mulk. Especially because the first report talks about the order, but there is no mention of the order in the second report. The report of 317 of the newspaper Vaqaye-e Ettefaqiyeh also implicitly refers to the unrivaled skill of Sani al-Mulk in the European style of realism and naturalism. From this issue, it can be understood that the work that was modeled for the duplication has a realistic style and Sani al-Mulk has completed this duplicating with complete skill. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs was the model of Sani al-Mulk in creating this particular icon, and referring to report 317, it should be said that if the icon of the treasury of Astan Quds Razavi Museum is not the icon of the treasures of the previous monarchs, then it is the Sani al-Mulk’s admired icon. At this point, the author only raises the issue of attributing the icon of the treasury of Astan Quds Razavi Museum to Sani al-Mulk and defers the definitive result to the announcement of the result of the exact age of this icon. In summary, it should be said that there is a single type of icon in three works in the Naseri treasury, one of which is the icon of Sani al-Mulk, one of which was obtained from the treasures of the previous Iranian monarchs (the second candidate) and the other one was purchased from a foreign country (the first candidate, that is in The Treasury of National Jewels). This means that both candidates were created from a single pretext in two different time periods (previous monarchs and Naseri period). Unfortunately, at present, there is no accurate information about what pre-text these icons were created based on, in which museum and which country they were available, and by whom they came to Iran. But because there were similar icons from the Safavid period in Iran, it is clear that there was a pretext for these icons from the Safavid period in Iran. It is believed that these icons were created from the original icon that was created during the lifetime of Imam Ali (AS) from his blessed face by a Christian painter.