Samarqand

In 1979, in relation to understanding the poetry of Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, known as Ḥāfiẓ-i Shīrāzī, I proposed that in the Ṣūfic sonnets of Ḥāfiz, form was as important as meaning.  I also added that when interpreting those pieces one needs more than a mere knowledge of Persian and assistance from medieval and modern dictionaries. Those poems need to be interpreted in the philosophical and/or Ṣūfic contexts in which they have been composed. In that article, and another one called "Hafiz and the Sufic Ghazal," I analyzed four sonnets, each dealing with a particular aspect of the Ṣūfic way of life.  In 2008, I used the same technic and argument in presenting an analysis of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī's "Az jamādī mordamu nāmī shodam."
In the analysis of the Ṣūfic poem of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī that follows, I intend to follow the same line of argument as in the previous articles and show that like Ḥāfiz and Rūmī, Jāmī, too, expresses his sublime thoughts using powerful Ṣūfic imagery. There is, however, a major difference. In Jāmī content supersedes form. In other words, Jāmī pays more attention to the correct development of the idea that he presents than to the way in which the idea is presented. Thus, while Ḥāfiz's ghazals are memorized and recited as exemplary pieces of poetry by almost everyone in the Persian-speaking world, Jāmī's poetry does not evoke similar reactions. It does, however, leave an indelible mark on the reader who can follow his thoughts.

Despite recognition of Abū l-Ḥasan al-Rustughfanī (d. ca. 345/956) as the most important student of Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), a sustained treatment of his theological views has not hitherto appeared. One of the challenges that has been identified in prior studies is a lack of primary sources. To overcome this obstacle, I analyse manuscripts of “Bāb al-mutafarriqāt min fawāʾid” and “al-Asʾila wa-l-ajwiba,” two texts recording al-Rustughfanī’s theological responsa, locating them within available bibliographic information and discussing the question of literary structure. I then contextualise the material within the polemical milieu of mid-fourth/tenth century Samarqand, arguing that al-Rustughfanī is the earliest figure in the Samarqandī Ḥanafī kalām tradition to self-consciously adopt the full name ahl al-sunna wa-l-jamāʿa to express his theological identity. Finally, I provide an annotated theological overview of the main doctrines found in the texts with a detailed case ...

Samarqand had a long history of fine ceramic production – until the 11th century the northern suburb of Afrasyab was well-known for its manufacture of slip-decorated earthenwares produced for the ruling Samanid dynasty (819–999).  A second important production period of stonepaste wares began in 1371 when Timur made the city his capital; after his death in 1405, the cultural and commercial importance of the city was maintained under his grandson Ulugh Beg (governor 1409–47, r. 1447–9). A third notable period was in the 19th century when a variety of brightly-coloured earthenwares were made that echo some of the early medieval designs. The Fitzwilliam Museum holds a small number of examples of tiles and vessels dating to the Timurid period as well as a few 19th century pieces.

The sources show that two different groups of sheikhs were followed in the Hanafi usūl al-fiqh: ‘Iraqi and Samarqandi sheikhs. However, the perception of followers of ‘Iraqi sheikhs formed the dominant Hanafī tradition. This situation has caused different approaches of the theologian methodologists who followed the Samarqandi sheikhs to become in shadow. Considering this separation within this denomination, when the sunnah sections of usūl al-fiqh literature are compared it is possible to see the different points raised within the Hanafi usūl al-fiqh. In this study, “the definition of sunnah”, “the acts of the Prophet”, “the imitating companions”, “the criteria of ard (submission) to the Qur’an” and “the problem of faqīh (jurist) narrator” are determined as differentiated notions. Considering these issues, since the concepts which differentiate theologian methodologists, whose perception have been taken into account in this paper, from the dominant Hanafi usūl tradition have been generally related to theological concerns, it is possible to argue that this distinction can be explained by their approach of usūl in which theological premises considered as important as other concerns. Eventually, this paper aims to show that like any denomination Hanafi sect also does not have a uniform approach about sunnah.

Summary: In this study, the marks of differentiations in sunnah topics were followed based on the works of Ḥanafī usūl al-fiqh written in the Transoxanian region between 5th-8th centuries A.H. The reason for the limitation of this issue is that there have been some changes and developments in the sect in this region and period. It is because Ḥanafī usūl al-fiqh, which is in two different lines, namely ʿIrāqī sheikhs and Samarqandī sheikhs, has improved in favor of one side in this period. It is thought that this dual disintegration occurs due to the effect of different theological tendencies. This situation has caused the different approaches of the theologian methodologists who mostly followed the Samarqandī sheikhs to be overshadowed. Because Ḥanafī tradition, which became a permanent establishment, mostly followed the line of ʿIrāqī sheikhs in terms of both the topics that are discussed and the approaches in these issues. The aim of this study is to determine the different approaches of the line of Samarqandī sheikhs to sunnah. In the study which is based on comparative method, sunnah topics of Dabūsī, Pazdawī, Sarakhsī and those who followed them and the theologian methodologists Abū l-Yusr, Samarqandī, Lamishī and Usmendī’s sunnah topics were compared and the differentiation points of the second group were determined.

In this context, it is seen that there are two different approaches in the Ḥanafī usūl al-fiqh regarding the definition and scope of sunnah. Because the Ḥanafī principals who followed the ʿIrāqī sheikhs, while describing the sunnah, they included the companions in the scope of sunnah. However, Abū l-Yusr, Samarqandī and Lamishī did not mention the companions in the sunnah description and stated that the only person to be subjected was the Prophet. In addition, the Ḥanafīs in the second group, unlike others, do not accept the opinion that the meaning of absolute sunnah word is only sunnah of the Prophet. At this point they have shared the same conviction with the ahl al-ḥadīth (the traditionists) and cumhūr al-ulemā (majority of ulema).


There are two different approaches, which are based on ʿIrāqī and Samarqandī sheikhs in the show of the judgments of the acts of the Prophet. According to the ʿIrāqī Ḥanafīs, the Prophet's act is attributed to mubāh (permissible) when there is no evidence about its feature. According to the Samarqandī sheiks, such an act is attributed to vucūb (obligation) in terms of practice and stopped in terms of faith. Most of the later Ḥanafī scholars have adopted the idea of ​​ibāha (permissibility) of the ʿIrāqī Ḥanafīs. On the other hand, Samarqandī, Lamishī and Itkanī have tended to the opinion of the Samarqandī sheikhs.

It is seen that two different approaches were adopted by Ḥanafī scholars in the field of imitation of companions. Most of the Ḥanafīs adopted the view of Bardaī. According to this view, it is necessary to imitate companions and their expression takes precedence over the qiyās (legal analogy). On the other hand Samarqandī and Lamishī adopted the opinion of Māturīdī. According to this opinion, a companion who has reached the rank of fatwā (legal opinion), it is necessary to imitate that person if one of his peers did not oppose his opinion on a subject that is not likely to be hidden because the general public needs it.

There is also a dispute between the Ḥanafī scholars on the type of information expressed by the famous report. Dabūsī, Pazdawī and Sarakhsī and later Ḥanafīs believe that the famous report does not refer to certain knowledge but to assured knowledge. However, it is understood that, Abū l-Yusr, Samarqandī and Lamishī believe that the famous report refers to certain knowledge. But this conflict between the Ḥanafīs only affects the issue of the takfīr who denies the famous report. It does not cause any dispute on judgments.

There are two different approaches in the sect about the issue of opposition to the Qur'an covered by internal interruption. In this matter, the issue of opposition to the Qur'an, especially through ziyāda alā al-nās, has been evaluated in different ways. According to the ʿIrāqī sheikhs and majority of the Ḥanafīs, which followed them, ziyada ala al-nas is naskh (abrogation). But according to Māturīdī and Ḥanafīs which followed him, it is also possible that ziyāda alā al-nās is naskh and statement. One of them cannot be preferred without any evidence. In addition, according to the ʿIrāqī sheikhs general and apparent words of the Qur'an express certain knowledge. However, according to the Samarqandī sheikhs the general words of the Qur'an don not express certain knowledge. So, these words can be specialized by isolated tradition. But it was observed that this conflict between the Ḥanafīs was related to the fact that the first opinion caused some problems related to the faith.

In the issue of the faqīh narrator, it was determined that three different approaches were exhibited by Ḥanafī scholars. Firstly, the attitude towards not accepting the report of the non-faqih narrator, expressed by the ‘Īsā b. Abān in Abū Hurayra, is gradually being softened along with Dabūsī and adopted by the later Ḥanafī principals. However, despite the same scientific environment and period, Abū l-Yusr does not follow this approach. At the same time, it is possible to say that Samarqandī, Lamishī and Usmendī don not adopt the faqīh narrator criterion. While ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Bukhārī and Kakī did not adopt this approach but criticized it openly.

As a result, it is seen that Ḥanafī sect which contains different orientations in itself does not have a uniform approach about sunnah. The points which differentiate theologian methodologists, whose perception have been taken into account in this paper, from the dominant Ḥanafī usūl tradition have been generally related to theological concerns. So, it is possible to say that this distinction can be explained by their approach of usūl in which theological premises considered as important as other concerns. In addition, it is seen that some of the opinions theologian methodologists present as an alternative to dominant Ḥanafī usūl al-fiqh tradition are close to the ahl al-ḥadīth and cumhūr al-ulemā.

This paper analyses New Persian words transcribed in Chinese script in huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a New Persian-Chinese glossary compiled in Ming China. The analysis reveals a correspondence between the vowel contrasts of modern Tajik and those of the variety of New Persian whose words are recorded in the glossary. This paper also identifies, based on historical records, the variety as an early fifteenth-century New Persian which had diplomatic currency in the Timurid court in Samarkand.

When the Arabs took control, the Sogdian city Bukhara, for well over a century, had been issuing a distinctive coinage derived from a Sasanian prototype with the name of its lord, the Bukhara-Khuda. When the Muslims took firm control of the city, the coinage was continued with the names of Arab governors of the Abbasid region Khurasan, starting in 755 CE. Working on the Bukhara coinage in its historical, geographical, administrative and numismatic context, it is easy to put the series in order and assign firm dates to most of the issues. It seems that some of the issues came from Samarqand. The last of the Abbasid series has the name of `Ali b. `Isa b. Mahan, who was removed in 807. There is one last issue in the name of "al-Khaqan al-A`zam" that is very like the coins with "`Ali," but the Khaqan cannot be identified. This presentation was made at the 2017 B. D. Kochnev Seminar in Central Asian and Middle Eastern Numismatics at Hofstra University, organized by Prof. Alexandr Naymark.

In the 9 th century c. A.H/15 c. A.D Ulugh Beg, the son of Shāhrukh, became the ruler of Samarqand and invited a group of astronomers and mathematicians to Samarqand to establish a school (madrasa) and observatory there. During the last century some historians of science dealt with the details of the events which occurred in that scientific circle and tried to identify the dates of the events concerning this circle. It seems that some of these events have been neglected, or incorrectly dated by them. It mainly goes back to two reasons. The first one was the differences in citations between historical sources and the second one was the way in which the dates can be interpreted. The present article follows three main aims. First of all, it provides a time table of the known events related to the scientific circle and observatory. Secondly it deals with the dated events in various historical Persian texts, based on possible different translations and interpretations. Thirdly we will discuss the possible different dates given by some researchers on these events and will distinguish those which may be more authentic. It is noteworthy to say that the Persian texts concerning the Samarqand School and Observatory are translated into English in this article for the first time.

In this article the data of Abu Hafs 'Umar ibn Muhammad al-Nasafi (460 – 537/1068 – 1142) on the historical topography of Samarqand of his time are analized. Theese data were collected from his recently discovered work "al-Qand fi dhikr 'ulama' Samarqand" (The Sweet about the scholars of Samarqand), written in Arabic in Samarqand. The author lived in Samarqand and had a good knowledge on the topography of the city.

Samarqand, the Center of the World: where Alexander the Great and Tamerlane 'met'
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 16η Ιουνίου 2019.

Στο κείμενό του αυτό ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αποδίδει περιληπτικά αλλά περιεκτικά την κοσμοϊστορική σημασία της Σαμαρκάνδης (Αφρασιάμπ), μιας πόλης γύρω από την οποία η Παγκόσμια Ιστορία περιστράφηκε για δύο χιλιετίες (500 πτεμ – 1500 τεμ) με πολύ πιο πολύπλευρο, αποφασιστικό και καταλυτικό τρόπο από όσο γύρω από οποιαδήποτε άλλη πόλη ή πρωτεύουσα του κόσμου. Παρουσιάζοντας αυτή την οπτική, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης μεταφέρει στοιχεία από διάλεξη, την οποία έδωσα τον Ιανουάριο του 2016 στην Νουρσουλτάν (τότε Αστάνα) στην οποία ο ίδιος παρευρισκόταν μαζί με άλλους Γερμανούς, Ρωμιούς, Ρώσσους, Σομαλούς, Καζάκους, και Κινέζους φίλους.

First republished on 15th September 2021 here:
https://profmegalommatistextsingreek.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/σαμαρκάνδη-το-κέντρο-του-κόσμου-εκεί-π/

Dimitrios Alexandridis: A Remarkable Greek Scholar and Translator of Ulugh Beg's Zij-i Sultani remains Unknown in Greece!

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 6η Αυγούστου 2019.

Συνεχίζοντας την παρουσίαση του παγκοσμίως κορυφαίου επιπέδου επιστημονικής έρευνας στο οποίο βρισκόταν τον 15ο αιώνα η Σαμαρκάνδη, πρωτεύουσα των Τιμουριδών, και αναπαράγοντας πρότερες συζητήσεις μας για το θέμα, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης σκιαγραφεί εδώ το πορτραίτο ενός κορυφαίου Ρωμιού επιστήμονα του τέλους του 18ου και των αρχών του 19ου αιώνα, ο οποίος συγκαταλέγεται στους ηγετικούς ερευνητές και οριενταλιστές της εποχής του, πιστοποιώντας ότι οι Ρωμιοί της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας ήταν εφάμιλλοι ερευνητές των Ευρωπαίων και ότι καθόλου δεν χρειάζονταν το επάρατο, νεοελληνικό ψευτο-κράτος το οποίο τους εβύθισε στον ραγιαδισμό και στην υποτέλεια στους δυτικούς κηδεμόνες, και έτσι απετέλεσε -για 200 χρόνια ντροπής- μία κατεξευτελισμένη αποικία των Γάλλων, των Άγγλων και των Αμερικανών.
———————
First republished on 12th September 2021 here:
https://profmegalommatistextsingreek.wordpress.com/2021/09/12/δημήτριος-αλεξανδρίδης-ένας-σημαντι/