نشریه عیار پژوهش در علوم انسانی
پیاپی 1 (بهار و تابستان 1388)

The first step in finding out the efficiency of every research and study is recognizing its different aspects, especially its methodology. Study of religion as one of the most important spheres of research – if not the most important one – is based on a host of methodological principles and rules; it would be difficult and even impossible to derive correct and reliable results without recognizing and applying these principles and rules. One of them is “the principle of precaution”. According to this principle, the researcher in the sphere of religion must enter this realm responsibly and be accountable to the results of his/ her research. This would be possible through practical mechanisms such as avoiding subjective interpretation and starting from certain premises. The present article is aiming at explaining the necessity of observing “the principle of precaution” in studying religion. It also investigates practical methods for observing this principle

If we consider “research” as a process of data-analysis belonging to a realm with a collective identity in a system, leading to an innovation, then “being systematic” is the necessary constituent of the identity of research. One question arises: does the research method constitute a part of science or precede it? The answer is that there is a mutual correlation between the research method of a science and the science itself. This is not to say that there is no general research method. Rather, if we have a general approach to research method including the general principles of research, we would have a general research method.The research method theoretical framework of the science depends on the science itself. There are two different views on this. According to the logical view, what constitute the theoretical framework of science are the logical rules governing that science. According to the sociological view, the theoretical framework of science results from the discourse running among the scholars of that science.

Contemplation on the early scholars’ works and sources – who did not a priori consider properly the issue of methodology and applying research methods and techniques consciously – is a valuable activity with little precedence in our society. The present paper is seeking to scrutinize one of the great scientific sources, i.e. Ibn Khaldun’s Muqqadima, and thereby identify, extract, classify, and interpret the methodology rules and principles used by that author for gathering data, analyzing them, reviewing others’ views and historical reports in terms of his own newly-established science of Omrān (“construction”). Before entering the discussion on methods, the author’s epistemological bases and general outlines of sociological and historiographical thoughts – with its introductory role in the discussion of methods – have been briefly investigated.

To understand the methodology, it is necessary to understand the nature of its subject matter epistemologically. In the present study, political philosophy as the subject of methodology is seeking to discover the facts of political affairs, just as the philosophy – based on its primary origin – is seeking to discover the facts of things. Intuition is the best method for discovering the facts of things and wisdom stays at the next stage in the gradational hierarchies. Understanding this causes the political philosophy to be differentiated – both conceptually and methodologically – from other compounds such as philosophy of science, political science, political theory, philosophy of politics, political ideology and other similar expressions.

The present paper is seeking to study different methods of religious sociology, and identify its deficiencies so that it may present a paradigm for sociology of religion without the defects of the existing religious sociologies. To do so, it has discussed – after presenting the problem and investigating various aspects and levels of religion – three “affirmative”, “interpretive”, “critical”; it has also specified their main presuppositions. It then has scrutinized the relationship of each to religious sociology; it also investigates the level and aspect of religion selected by each method as the subject of religious sociology. Finally, it states the followings as the subjects of religious study in each “the objective” aspect in affirmative method; “subjective” aspect in interpretive method; and both “objective and subjective” aspects in critical method. Of course, investigating the consequences of each and criticizing them has also been dealt with.

To introduce a good translator in one phrase, we should say: “a good translator is the one well-informed in the translated subject as well as a good command of both source and destination languages”. Not being skilful in the subject matter in hand and not having a good command of each of the related languages or not observing their requirements and rules would result in impairments in conveying the original notion. In the present paper, we have selected a translation of an 18-pages article published in one of the Iranian specialized journals (Qabasāt), and have briefly reviewed it to optimize the knowledge of comprehending English texts.In this review, we have used the title “translation” for the translator’s work, and the title “suggested translation” for the correct and approved translation. We have noted the key point(s) in each phrase under the title “explanation” – if necessary.

A comparative study of translations is a comparison between two or three translations of one text based on three general lines of “honesty in translation”, “eloquence of translation”, and “fluency of translation”. Accordingly, in a comparative study, translators’ loyalty to the original text, their ability in transmitting the writer’s intent, and the arrays and fluency of the translation are studied and compared respectively. A translator’s inability in presenting a translation loyal to the original text, eloquent and fluent can occur due to factors such as indulging in verbal translation, ignoring the scientific notions and terminologies, misunderstanding the structures of sentences in the source language, and not observing the writing principles in the destination language. To do more objective discussions, the present article applies the abovementioned suggested framework in a comparative study of two translations. This study has well revealed the merits and demerits of those two translations objectively and can inspire future studies.