نشریه آینه پژوهش
سال سی‌ام شماره 3 (پیاپی 177، امرداد و شهریور 1398)

In our literature and culture, using the word “tāzi” meaning “Arabic language” or “Arabic race” has a long history. However, some people have considered using this word as a kind of disrespect, and a sign of taking stance against Islam or Arab. In the present article, the author talks about the structure of this term. Reflecting on the way the word “tāzi” has been used by the scholars of the religious sciences and old literature, the author makes it clear that there is no sign of insult when one uses this word.

In the form of the sixteenth article of a series of publications titled “Skimming Manuscripts”, the author has scrutinized the texts of several manuscripts. These texts are as follow:• How much is a camel fare from Jeddah to Mecca?• E’temād od-Dowle: Qurchi Bashi can attend an Imperial House party while not covering his head• A manuscript of Bukhāri endowed to Astan-e Quds, available in Parliament library• A Qajari document from Kermjgan (Qom).• The right way for Shah Sultan Hussein Safavid.

In the following article, the author has carefully studied one of Sa’di’s verses. Answering several question regarding the verse “Ravān-e rowshan-e Sa’di ke sham’-e majles-e tost / be hich kār naiyāyad garash nasoozāni”, the author tries to reach its appropriate reading and interpretation. Regarding this, he firstly discusses the verse’s meaning explained by some of the scholars, and then mentions a different recording of this verse found in some of the manuscripts. Finally, he is going to presents his own interpretation of the verse.

In the present paper, the author has made an attempt to review Mirkermāni’s Kolliyāt-e She’r (Complete works of Mirkermāni), published by Vahid Qanbary and Sokhan publishing house in 1397. Regarding this, he, first of all, provides some examples of the book text in order to point out misread parts. Following this, he talks about a number of wrongor suspicious recordings, and the repetition of the scribe’s mistakes, and…. Finally, he concludes this review by mentioning some of the problems in the annotations of the book.

Part of the valuable scientific legacy left by Khawja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (d. 672 AH), the wise Shiite Imam scholar, is his scientific correspondence in various fields with scholars of different religions. Among these correspondences are treatises written by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Najm al-Din Kātebi about an interpretation of Seddiqin argument in order to prove the existence of God. In these correspondences they also discussed the validity of this interpretation of Seddiqin argument, as well as the arguments regarding the impossibility of the infinite regress. From these philosophical correspondences, two versions are left: an original and a compiled one. Three editions have so far been presented from its original text and one edition has been presented from the compiled text. The present article first deals with the main themes and issues raised in this correspondence. Then the two original and compiled texts are introduced, relying on the most important known manuscripts of this correspondence. In addition, the four presented editions from Tusi’s correspondences have been introduced and evaluated separately. This review shows that all four editions so far published from these correspondences are erroneous, non-critical, and invalid. Therefore, it is necessary to revise and publish the correspondences based on ancient manuscripts in a scientific and critical manner.

This article introduces and examines an old Qur’ān from the 5th century AH, which was owned by a maiden named Khorāsān bint Abi al-Qāsim b. Ali b. Mānkadīm in the early sixth century AH. More than 17 different parts (juz’) of this Qur’ān have so far been found in various libraries in Iran and around the world. There is no proof of this manuscript’s being endowed in any part of its found pages. The only mentioned name is its owner’s name which is written in the beginning of the first juz’ of the Qur’ān (MS no. 2752 in the Library of Ᾱstān Quds, Mashhad) along with her lineage reaching up to Imam Ali ibn Abi Tālib (AS) indicating that her ancestors were from the Alawites of Tabaristān, but her father’s ancestor emigrated to Nishapur a century before this copy was transcribed. The Qur’an has been written in 30 separate parts along with a Persian translation in the old Naskhī script, possibly in Nishapur (where Khorāsān bint Abi al-Qāsim lived). The text of this Qur’ān is written based on the reading of al-Kisā’ī, Ibn ‘Ᾱmir and AbŪ ‘Amr. The Persian  translation of the verses, although influenced by the style and diction of the Persian translation of Tabarī’s commentary  (Tarjume Tafsīr Tabarī), has its own spelling and lexical specifics.

One way to optimize teaching sciences is to update their texts. In the Seminary School, syntax is taught during the first three years. The production of new syntax textbooks has been underway for some years. Since the production of new texts takes a long time, editing the available books has been on the agenda. Among these books is Mughni al-Adib which has been taught in the third year of the Seminary School. Prior to this book, Mughni al-Labib had been taught for many years; however, due to certain reasons, this book was content edited by some of the lecturers of the Seminary School in 1370, and published under the title of Mughni al-Adib. In 1397, Mughni al-Adib was also edited and published under the title of Mughni al-Arib. Since Mughni al-Arib is being taught in the third year of the new system of the Seminary School, it is necessary to criticize it. This article is going to criticize the introduction and the content of the book. The most important criticism is that Mughni al-Adib has been edited and changed into Mughni al-Arib while its teaching objectives have not yet been clarified by the Seminary School department of education for the teachers and the students. Basically, the students do not know about the purpose or purposes of learning this book. They do not know why they should only study the first and the fourth chapter out of the 8 chapters. They do not know why they need to learn Al-Bahjat al-Marziat before learning this book? They do not know what skills they will acquire in the knowledge of syntax through studying Mughni al-Adib which they have not achieved through studying Al-Bahjat al-Marziat. Why Mughni al-Adib should change to Mughni al-Arib while these questions are left unanswered? The present article come to this conclusion that teaching this new book should be reconsidered.