Sa’di’s hints on Abolfaraj ibn Jawzi’s identity in Golestan

Saadi in Gulistan (Saadi, 1368: 94) has referred to his attendance in meetings of "Ibn Jawzi". In the sixth and seventh centuries two Ibn Jawzis lived: the first is that is known with many compilations and is called “Abdulrahman bin Ali” and passed away in 597, the second is his grandson called “Abdor-Rahman Muhyiddin ibn Yusuf” that was killed in 656 in the Baghdad decline incident. About Ibn Jawzi identity in Gulistan, the researchers are divided into two groups: some say he is the same known Ibn Jawzi; and others say he is the second Ibn Jawzi or his grandchild.  Late Iqbal and Allama Qazvini have said this Ibn Jawzi is the second or grandchild. The thing that makes them to consider the second as the second Ibn Jawzi is that they believe that Saadi was born in the early sixth century and was Saadi is unlikely to would have lived so much. No evidence these two have to prove their claim and yet they have not had any doubt in this regard. The author of these lines believes that the said Ibn Jawzi in Gulistan is the same known Ibn Josi or the first that passed away in the year 597.  When Saadi speaks of his presence befor ibn Jawzi in his story, it is seen that there is evidences that with analyzing them versus historical and biographical books, this issue is proved that the one said is the same known as Ibn Jawzi. These evidences are as follow: Saadi has stated "Rahmatullah" after the name of Ibn Jawzi. Saadi has used to state these words and phrases just for the deceased and departed and not for the alive. And when he would have been writing Gulistan in 656, the famous Ibn Jawzi has not been alive, but Ibn Jawzi the grandchild has passed away at the same year. Ibn Jawzi the second or grandchild would have been an assistant teacher in school "Mustansiriyah" and then has become a teacher. In all of these two periods he would have taught only Hanbali fiqh. We certainly know that Saadi has not been a Hanbali Muslim in order to deduce he would have learned Hanbali Fiqh before him. Ibn Jawzi the second or grandchild would have not taught elsewhere. But the famous Ibn Jawzi might have been a great scholar that many people of different ages and from different religions would have participated in his lesson meetings, and therefore, it is natural that the said person in Gulistan is the known or first Ibn Jawzi. Saadi in Bustan has said that he had educated at Baghdad Nezamiyeh. His education at Nezamiyeh denies his education at Mustansiriyah because these two schools had both been religious ones and no one can educate similar courses at two schools. Saadi in Gulistan story introduced himself as "early youth" and Ibn Jawzi as "Sheikh al-ajal". Historical sources indicate that Ibn Jawzi the second or grandson was born in the early seventh century. If Saadi was born in the early seventh century, Ibn Jawzi could not have been the Sheikh al- ajal and the other early youth. It can be probable that someone would have been Sheikh and the other one a disciple. But Saadi has emphasized on age not on Sheikh and discipleship. But “Sheikh al-ajal" can be correct for famous or first Ibn Jawzi and no problem occurs. Saadi in Gulistan has used the titles "Sheikh" and "Sheikh al- ajal" for Ibn Jawzi. Sources and historical evidence proves that the title has been used only for the known or first and not for the second Ibn. Ibn Jawzi in his books refers to presence of teens before him and their repentance and training and recommends them to reclusion. This is fully consistent with the theme of the Gulistan story. Saadi in Gulistan mentioned the said person as Abol-faraj Ibn al-Jawzi. Sources and historical evidence suggests that this has been just used for the famous or first Ibn Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and not for the second Ibn Jawzi. All the above evidence suggests that the Gulistan of Ibn Jawzi is the famous or first Ibn Jawzi called "Abdulrahman bin Ali" that had died in the year 597, not the second or grandson of Ibn Jawzi Called "Abdul Rahman Ibn Muhyiddin Yusuf," who was killed in 656 in the event of the decade of Baghdad.What we can deduce out of this paper is that it seems the birth of Saadi may not be in the early seventh century, but in the last quarter of the sixth century. However, in this case Saadi's age goes up (because he had died in the year 690 to 694), but there is no obstacle to its acceptance. And we see no compelling reason that Saadi could not have long life.