نشریه آینه پژوهش
سال سی و یکم شماره 3 (پیاپی 183، امرداد و شهریور 1399)

The forthcoming article concerns a discussion about a phrase from the Persian book of Tārīkh-e Sistān, in which the author has examined the phrase “Gush-e Asp-e Keykhosrow”, “The ear of Keykhosrow’s horse”. In his opinion, it is likely that the “Gush” (ear) of Keykhosrow’s horse, which is mentioned in the history of Sistān, was in fact the “Būsh” of Keykhosrow’s horse, and “Būsh” is a reading of “Bush” meaning the mane of a horse.

In the following article, the author has made an effort to introduce Yadollah Jalali Pendari, a professor of Persian language and literature at Yazd University. In line with this goal, he talks about literary activities, membership in scientific societies, his judgments, his status in Persian literature, and finally, his works (articles and books).

The series of essays which will be published with the title “Ishārāt wa tanbīhāt (pointers and reminders)” is an opportunity to present various writings such as critical reviews, book reviews, and short communications and notes on the Islamic heritage, each of which is a short and independent essay on a specific and distinguished topic. The first essay of the series includes the following notes: - A review on “Licit Magic: The Life and Letters of al-Ṣāḥib b. ʿAbbād (d.385/995), By: Maurice A. Pomerantz”. - A Critical review on the bibliography of printed works in Iran. - An Imami creed from the late Ḥilla school

The present essay concerns the study of the first part of a two-part old manuscript. The first section contains notes on the fundamental issues of Akhbārī and Uṣūlī, Sufism, and Affluence, which were common issues of the last half of the Safavid period. These texts were prepared and edited by a person named Haji Hussein Zāvānī and include several sections. In this article, the author discusses the issues raised in different sections of this manuscript. The first section concerns the issues debated by Akhbārī and Uṣūlī proponents and contains a relatively detailed discussion of the preference of ijtihad and rationalism over traditionalism, and summarizes some of the most important arguments that rationalists have in their critique against traditionalism. The second part includes a text by Muḥaqiq Sabzivārī, which is a Persian treatise written for students and is about the subject of ijtihad and Taqlīd. The third part is related to the new question that Haji Hussein Zāvānī has raised about the hadith of “Indeed, we are giving you the principles and you need to extract the secondary issues from them” and explains whether the hadith indicates the permissibility of ijtihad or not.

The distinguishing feature of Adonis from his counterparts in the Arab and Iranian worlds is his attention to the various dimensions of the Islamic tradition and the context in which Arabic poetry was formed. He believes that any fundamental critique of the structure of poetry depends on the knowledge of the sources that inspired it. The author has written this article with the aim of making the audience aware of Adonis’s ideas in the field of Islamic culture. In order to achieve this goal, after introducing Adonis, he explains the meaning of “fixed” and “transformed” in his thought. In addition, it presents examples of imitation and innovation in Islamic culture in Adoni’s views in the field of politics, poetry and literature, and so on. Finally, by stating that critiques of Adonis’s views on Islamic tradition and culture have been written, he points to cases that have not been addressed in current critiques.

In the margins of a copy of the book, Al-Nihāya Fi Mujarad al-Fiqh wa al-Fatāwī written by Sheikh Ṭūsī (460 AH) in the handwriting of Abū al-Ḥasan Ali ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥassan ibn Musā Farāhānī dated 591 AH (available in the Ja’fari library in Madrisah Hindi of Karbala, No. 72) some parts of several missing Shiite books have been reflected. In this article, while introducing the version in detail, the remaining sections of these books are quoted. These books are: al-Jāme’ ‘Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Nasr Bazanṭī Kūfī (221 AH); Al-Mashyakha Ḥassan ibn Maḥbūb Sarrād Bajalī (224 AH); al-Arkān wa Lamḥ al-Burhan fi Kamāl Shahr Ramaḍān by Sheikh Mufīd (413 AH); Sharh al-Nihāyah Quṭbuddīn Saīd bin Hibatullāh bin Ḥassan Rāvandī (573 AH); And one of the books of Abu Ja’far Muḥammad ibn Ali ibn Ḥassan al-Muqrī Neyshābūrī (6th century).

Abū al-Barakāt Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥusaynī was one of the most important Shiite scholars in the fourth century and the first quarter of the fifth century AH in Khorasan. Not much is known about his birthplace and biography, but a search of historical sources shows that he was a Twelver Imāmī Shiite, one of the scholars and poets of Khorasan, and a resident of Neishabour. In addition to mentioning his name and poems in the works of Abū Manṣūr Tha‘ālibī (d. 429/ 1037), and mentioning his name among the students and narrators of al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq (d. 381/ 991), the components of a thirty-part Qur’ān, transcribed by him, now available in the endowments of the Shrine of Imām al-Riḍā in Mashahd, would draw our attention more to him and his academic life. After reviewing his life and works, this article introduces the thirty-part Qur’ān, which he wrote and devoted to the Shrine of Imām al-Riḍā in the holy city of Mashhad in the month of Ramadan in 421 / September 1030.

The brief but prolific treatise of “Istiqṣāʾal-Naẓar fi-l-Baḥth ʿan al-Qaḍāʾ wa-l- Qadar” is one of the monographs of the famous Imami theologian, Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf ibn Alī ibn Muṭahhar, known as Al-ʿallāma al-Ḥillī (648- 726), which concerns the controversial issue of man predestination and free will. In this work, he has tried to explain the views and arguments of the proponents of predestination or human free will in performing various acts, and then to explain the correct position on this issue based on rational and narrative reasons. In the present article, first of all, the most important writings of the theologians before Al-ʿallāma-al- Ḥillī on the subject of predestination and free will are introduced. then, the structure and content of the treatise “Istiqṣāʾal-Naẓar”, the date of its writing, the various published editions of the work, the commentaries written on it, as well as the valuable and old manuscript of the treatise are examined.

The theory of “thematic unity of Surahs” is one of the methods of interpreting the Qur’an that considers the conceptual relations between the verses of the Qur’an in the light of the purpose of the surah. The mission of this theory is to make each surah systematic and coherent, in which the commentator while paying attention to the literary and linguistic aspects, seeks a way to discover the connection of the themes and semantic fit between the general subject of the surah and the semantic propositions. The effort to make the character of each surah distinct and independent has been suggested as one of the fruits of this theory. So being aware of the new ideas in this regard can give a new perspective to this theory. The book al-Tafsīr al-Mowḍūī Lisuwar al-Quran al- Karīm “Thematic Interpretation of the Surahs of the Holy Quran” is one of these works that has been published under the supervision of Dr. Mustafa Muslim in the present decade. This book includes new interpretive opinions and views or re-reading and reconsidering a number of them that need to be taken into account; Therefore, this article has tried to introduce this commentary and how to apply the theory of thematic unity in it

Allāmah Muṣṭafavī, the author of the book Tafsir Roshan, in his book, after mentioning one or more verses of the Qur’an, describes the words and then translates the verses under the title of “Tarjimah”. In the present article, the author has reviewed this translation. According to him, the author’s translation, in many verses, does not clarify the purpose of the speaker; there is also a semantic distortion in it. It is also complex, illegible, and includes errors. To confirm his criticisms, the author first writes about the reasons for the book’s shortcomings. He believes the problems arise from the weakness of the author’s Persian writing and the principles he accepted about the words of the Qur’an and their meanings from the book al-Taḥqīq fi Kalamāt al-Qur’an. After that, by presenting examples from the text of the book, he presents the errors that have occurred in the translation of the Qur’an.

Ali ibn Ahmad SeyfĪ Neyshabouri’s book “Rasāil al-‘Ushāq wa Wasā’il al-Mushtāq” is the oldest and the first comprehensive manual for writing romantic letters in Persian which includes a collection of samples of letters suitable for the different romantic circumstances. In other words, it is an instruction and several examples for writing romantic letters in which the author has brought one hundred beautiful love letters with Persian prose alongside excellent poems of great poets. Each letter is about a topic. In the present article, the author has introduced and examined the book in details. In Seyfi’s book, we come across poems by Ferdowsi. Therefore, in a part of the article, the author mentions Seyfi’s references to Ferdowsi and, mentions some verses that are not found in the Shahnameh or are different.

Sajjad Aydenlu in his book entitled “Azerbaijan and Shahnameh” Has conducted research on the position of Azerbaijan, Turks and Turkish language in Shahnameh and the millennial position of Shahnameh in Azerbaijan and has dealt with various aspects of the connection between Azerbaijan and Shahnameh; He showed the place of Azerbaijan, Turks and Turkish language in Shahnameh and also examined the position of Shahnameh in Azerbaijan and among the people, culture and art of Azerbaijan and responded to the problems and criticisms raised in this regard that Shahnameh is an anti-Azerbaijani work.The author has written the following article with the aim of introducing the mentioned book.

Saeed Pourazimi wrote a review about the book “Memoirs of ‘Ārif Qazvīnī” written by Nour Mohammadi in an article with Persian title: “Ey Aman az in Amanat-e Khar”” in issue 176 of Ayneh Pajuhesh. Noor Mohammadi then responded to him in issue 182 in an article entitled “I consider the whole work defensible.” The following article is Pour-Azimi’s response to Nour Mohammadi’s note.