نشریه آینه پژوهش
سال بیست و نهم شماره 5 (پیاپی 173، آذر و دی 1397)

In the present paper, the author has studied a verse in one of the anecdotes in Sa›di›s Golestan: Gar nabinad be rooz Shab pare chashm / Chashmeye Ᾱftab rā che gonāh (If the bat can›t see during the day/ it›s not sun›s fault). He has tried to infer the meaning of the words «Shab pare» and «Shab pare-ye chashm». He states that the word «Shab pare»/»Shappare» and its other forms of writing which means bat has long been used in Iranian language and literature; however, it can be seen that, at the present time, the meaning bat has gradually turned to be obsolete and other meanings, including butterfly, have replaced it. He provides different examples in order to confirm this opinion.Following this, he examines the spelling of the word along with the structural form of the verse. Finally, he presents Omid Majd›s interpretation from this verse.

In the form of the fourteenth article of a series of publications titled “Skimming Manuscripts”, the author has scrutinized the texts of several manuscripts. These texts are as follow:What poem did Negār, Abbas Mirza›s daughter,write on Avicenna›s grave stone?Sa›id Nafisi›s autobiography written in 1326.Telegraph system in Zell-e Soltan era, and the areas around Isfahan.A note left from Zell-e Soltan era about Nooriya School.A memory from Ali Ᾱbād and Hasan Ᾱbād onQom-Tehran road.Some important notes about Masjid al-Haram›s condition and some of its inscriptions.Some information regarding Safavid monarchs in one manuscript.A verse by Shah Abbas I.

Each science has a set of specialized terminology whose proper use makes it easier and faster to convey the complicated concepts. In the field of Religious Studies, it seems that no significant  effort has yet been made to select accurate and scientific-based equivalents for the common terminology in Western texts. In the present paper, the author is going to  ropose new Persian equivalents for six English terms widely used in Religious Studies texts. Regarding this goal, he, first of all, explains about the definition and usage of each term in English, and mentions their previously used equivalents. Then, he presents his proposed equivalents along with some reasons and evidences.

An erroneous and confusing edition of Mullā Shamsā Gilāni›s Annotation on Khafri›s Ta›liqa on Qushchi›s Elāhiyāt-e Sharh-e Tajrīd (Theology of the Explanation of Abstraction) has recently been released by Iran Research Institute of Philosophy. This work has been published along with a series of other works of «The Conference of the Philosophical School of Isfahan», and it only concentrates on the part of Qushchi›s work which talks about the divine power and science. The leading article, citing a number of flaws and abnormalities, has criticized this edition, the flaws include: (1) typing errors, (2) improper recording, (3) improper use of editorial symbols, (4) wrong parsing, and 5. not providing the necessary references. Mentioning these errors shows that the edited version lacks credibility, and needs to be repaired and published thoroughly and completely.

The present paper is the fifteenth paper which focuses on the findings related to the history of literature, textology, and codicology. Some of the introduced sources and provided information are as follows:An ancient manuscript of Tāj at-Tarājem in QilichAli Pāshā Library.Completing a ruba›ī (quatrain) about the old collection of poems and newspapers which contained scholars› handwriting.Differentiation between Hesām Khuie›s TreatiseNuzhat ol-Kitāb and the early collection of the poems.Two more handwritten manuscripts from Jalāleddin Atīqi›s collection of poems.Hussein Dānesh Isfahāni (Pedrām)›s autobiography.Allāme Qazvīni›s rijāli explanation regarding the death of Mārkwārt.Master Mīnavi and the time he spent with Allāme Qazvīni.Dr. Qāsim Ghani›s praising Sa›īd Nafīsi›s library in a letter he wrote to Allāme Qazvīni.Hafez›s Divān (Collection of poems) corrected byAllāme Qazvīni in the College of Literature.

Bostān on-Nāzerīn fi Mu›arrifa A›emat ol-Hādīn, by Muhammad Yusuf Beika, was written in 1119-1120. It includes the  explanation of forty hadiths through which the author is trying to talks about different issues which are related to Shi›ism and his right beliefs. In fact, it can be considered as a work which introduces Shi›sm and its features. The present paper provides a report of this book in order to criticize its content.

This article, while briefly pointing to the variants of the Qur’ān, in 63:10 (wa-akun/ wa-akūna), shows that the second reading (wa-akūna), ascribing to Abū ‘Amr and also attributing to some of the Prophet’s Companions and the Followers, has been transcribed in some of the manuscripts of the Qur’ān from 4th to 12th century AH. However, in some of these codices and manuscripts, the reading has been modified into the more famous one, i.e. wa-akun. The final part of the article contains a table of information of these manuscripts, as well as some images containing the Abū ‘Amr’s reading (wa-akūna).

The author, based on Dibājalasmā’, an Arabic-Persian dictionary (written in 719), first obtains some words that are not in Comprehensive Dictionary of the Persian Language: “ābandāzak, ābchek, āb sangzade, ārāyesh pāreh, ārīj”. Following this, he specifies some words which have been included in the Comprehensive Dictionary of the Persian Language without having any examples from the 8th century: “āb khāre, āb dastān, āb dastgāh, āb ravesh, āb roushhan, ātang, ādram, ārdhāle, āzakh, āsookhte, āsoode, ākande, āmize, āmize moo, abrisham gozār”. What this article is tryingto show is the importance of the Arabic-Persian dictionaries, and the Persian words which have been chosen as equivalents for the Arabic words; the words which can’t sometimes be found in any other poetic or prose texts.

Writing refutation, criticizing, and rejecting the intellectual opponents› ideas has always been an accepted tradition welcomed in an Islamic society. Its clear evidence is the large number of books which have been reported in the rijāl books and relevant translations. These critiques were not just written by the opponents from other religions, sometimes a scholar from the same religion has also criticized his master›s ideas. One of the most famous example is sheikh Mufīd›s Tashīh al-I›teqād in which he challenged Sheikh Sadooq›s ideas recorded in Din al-Imamiya. Despite the currentreputation of this book, which is not less than its author›s fame, the author of the present article believes that there are some reasons which not only weakens the attribution of this book to Mufīd, but also, if reflected upon thoroughly and carefully, may prove that he mentioned work does not belong to this centural figure of the Imamiya Shia. The following article has adopted a descriptive-analytical- critical approach to study those reasons, and to show the incorrectness of this attribution.

Jame› ol-Hikāyāt, by Nasrollāh bin Shahrollāh Teromezi, includes 200 anecdotes regarding the righteous, and is one of the unique manuscripts in the Library of Iran Parliament. Being selected and corrected by Alireza Zakāvati Qarāgozloo, the book was published by Haqiqat Publication in 1396. In the present paper, the author, first of all, makes a list of the  chapters of the book, and talks about some of the anecdotes of this book. Then, he mentions some of the mistakes found in the book along with their number of the pages.