مطالب

One of the observable phenomena in jurisprudential Ḥadīth texts is their contradiction ( Taʻāruḍ ), which makes it difficult to understand their true intent. There are several methods for dealing with this category of narrations. Shaykh Ṭūsī , in his book Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām , utilized multiple approaches to resolve conflicting narrations. One of these is attributing the narration to Taqīyya (dissimulation). Based on the narrative texts of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) regarding the discrepancy in ḥadīths , it becomes clear that various factors contributed to these differences, one of which is Taqīyya . The present study aims to answer the following questions: ‘What are Shaykh Ṭūsī' s criteria for attributing narrations to Taqīyya ?’ ‘To what extent does the attribution to Taqīyya align with the Fatwas (religious decrees) and narrative sources of the Ahl al-Sunna (Sunnis)?’ ‘Are the reconciliatory interpretations presented in this case considered arbitrary reconciliations or are they based on valid evidences and signs?’ Using a descriptive-analytical method and examining the book Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām , the researchers concluded that Shaykh Ṭūsī 's criteria for attributing a narration to Taqīyya are not solely limited to conformity with the views of the ʻĀmma (Sunnis); other standards also exist. With respect to the latter two questions, a specific case study was rigorously validated, and it was observed that in that instance, the attribution to Taqīyya based on conformity with the views of the ʻĀmma , and its reconciliatory interpretations, lack strong argumentative support. It appears that this method was predominantly adopted with the aim of reducing narrative conflicts. The authors' objective in presenting this case is to create a reasonable doubt regarding the Taqīyya -based attributions and reconciliatory interpretations proposed by Shaykh Ṭūsī , so that researchers avoid uninvestigated acceptance and analyze the narrations and viewpoints with greater scrutiny. This study demonstrates that Shaykh Ṭūsī utilized arbitrary reconciliation in presenting some of the reconciliatory interpretations.

The increasing ubiquity and impact of audiovisual content has turned it into one of the primary objects of study in a number of disciplines in humanities, including Translation Studies. In the recent decade, audiovisual translation (AVT) has been a thriving research focus in many parts of the world. This article aims at mapping AVT in the context of Iran by reviewing the published Persian AVT research worldwide. The article is organized into two parts: the first part provides an overview of the main research articles, delineating the main research trends in AVT research in Iran. The second part presents and discusses research gaps and areas that merit further scholarly attention by academia. The article concludes that research on the topic in Iran is still in a fairly early stage, with the studies focusing mainly on the dubbing and subtitling of audiovisual products. Particularly, accessibility research in the context of (non-)interactive audiovisual products is yet to attract focused attention. Certain areas are highlighted and recommended for future research

This article examines the U.S. presidents’ securitization and desecuritization of post-revolutionary Iran. Employing securitization theory as its theoretical framework and qualitative content analysis as its research method, it analyzes 104 paramount instances of U.S. presidential rhetoric including State of the Union addresses, speeches delivered during the United Nations General Assembly's General Debates, and National Security Strategy reports. The analysis shows how successive U.S. presidents have framed Iran as an existential threat across multiple security sectors—military, political, societal, economic, and emerging cybersecurity—to justify their extraordinary policies regarding the country. A key finding of the research is the distinction between U.S. presidents’ securitization of the Iranian state and the Iranian nation, which first emerged during George W. Bush’s first term. Moreover, the study identifies both continuity and change in U.S. securitization and desecuritization of Iran over the past four decades, conceptualizing them into two overarching frameworks: the Realist approach and the Constructivist approach. This research introduces the novel concept of Positive Securitization, or Desecuritizing Securitization, as a new addition to the theoretical framework of securitization theory, and highlights its application during the Obama administration. Positive securitization refers to the use of securitizing discourse to justify the desecuritization of dialogue and political engagement within a specific context. It does so by claiming that even extreme exceptional measures—military or economic—would prove inadequate in addressing a perceived threat, thereby presenting diplomacy as the only viable solution. The article offers a comprehensive exploration that provides a detailed understanding of U.S. presidential rhetoric and the gradual construction of Iran’s image as a threat.