Document Type : Scientific-research

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD student, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Tamhidat is the most important work of Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani, a free-thinking mystic of the Seljuk era, and one of the most famous works of Islamic mysticism, which has been examined in the present research through Norman Fairclough’s “critical discourse analysis” approach. The purpose of this research is to answer several questions: How has the discourse order of Iran’s Seljuk era been reproduced in Tamhidat? Which of the social acts do the discourse acts of Tamhidat reflect? And what was Ayn al-Quzat’s solution to dispose of the discourse of dominance and prejudice in the Seljuk period? The findings of the research show that the social order of the Seljuk era which was based on the authority of political rulers over the people, religious scholars over the followers, and Sufi sheikhs over the disciples, representing various types of social classification, has been reflected in Tamhidat via “naming” the participants. By using two pre-existing genres, “Qur'an exegesis” and “Sermon”, which were considered two distinct cultural and social acts, Ayn al-Quzat, while instilling his beliefs in the audience, created a counter-discourse in opposition to the existing discourses; and even from the position of a social critic and thinker proposed the novel idea of knowledge and “love” in order to dispose of the discourse of domination, violence and radical religiosity of his time. The use of affirmative sentences and special imperative and interrogative patterns in Tamhidat shows that in this discoursal confrontation, the stance of Ayn al-Quzat is an authoritative one; epistemic authority against the authority of domination and the authority of love against the authority of prejudice and violence. These features move Tamhidat beyond the didactic and interpretive position and even consider a social mission for it.

Keywords

djudani, M. (2005). Iranian constitution. Tehran: Akhtaran.
Aghagolzadeh, F. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications.
Aghagolzadeh, F. (2007). Critical Discourse and Literature Analysis. Journal of Persian Language and Literature. 1(1). 17-27.
Aghagolzadeh, F. (2012). Description and Explanation of Ideological Linguistic Structure in Critical Discourse Analysis. Language Related Research. 3 (2). 1-19.
Afrasiabi, Gh. (1993). Soltan Ol Oshagh. Shiraz: Shiraz University Publishing Center.
Paltridge, B. (2020). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Translated by Tahereh Hemati. Tehran: Neveeseh Parsi Publishing.
Khademi, S. (2013). Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani opinion about Iblis and its connection with good system. Philosophy Month Book. 68. 10-14.
Khalili, A. Hassanpour-Alashti, H. (2019). Analysis and Inspection of the Image in the Tamhidat Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani. Persian language studies. 2 (4). 77-105.
Dreyfus, HL. Rabinow P. (2013).  Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Translated by Hossein Bashirieh, Tehran: Ney Publishing.
Rahbar, B. Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B. Karimi-Khanlooi G. (2012). The Relationship between Gender and Speech Interruption: A Sociolinguistic Study. Language Related Research. 3 (4). 135-147.
Zarrinkoob, A. (1984). Search in Iranian Sufism. Tehran: Amirkabir.
Sajjadi, SZ. (1993). The Foundations of Mysticism and Sufism. Tehran: Samt.
Soltani, SA (2008). Power, Discourse and Language. Tehran: Ney.
Sharifian, M. Vafaie-Basir A. (2012) The Commonalities of Savaneh-al-oshagh (Lover’s Events) and Tamhidat (preparations) Concerning Mystic Love. Erfanyat Dar Adab Farsi. 3 (9). 91-114.
Shafiei-Kadkani, MR. (2013). The language of poetry in Sufi prose, Tehran: Sokhan.
Shafiei-Kadkani, MR. (2010). Taziyane Haye Solouk. Tehran: Agah.
Zabih-Allah, S. (1985). History of literature in Iran, the second volume. Tehran: Ferdous.
Ayn al- Quzat Hamadani. (1994). Arrangements. With the introduction and corrections of Afif Asiran, 4th edition. Tehran: Manochehri.
Ghiyasi, T. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of the political-mystical thought of Ayn al- Ghozat Hamadani. Master’s thesis, under the guidance of Seyyed Ali Qasemzadeh. Persian language department of Valiasr University of Rafsanjan.
Fairclough, N. (2008). Critical discourse analysis. Translated by Fatemeh Shayesteh Piran and et. al, second edition, Tehran: Center for Media Studies and Research.
Jørgensen, MW. Phillips, LJ. (2010). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Translated by Hadi Jalili. Tehran: Ney.
Qajri, H. Nazari, J. (2012). The use of discourse analysis in social research. Tehran: Sociologists.
Mostofi, H. (1983). Selected history. by Abdul Hossein Navaei, Tehran: Amirkabir.
Mirbagheri, SA. Mohammadi, M. (2010). The role of essay in mystical language (examination and analysis of the role of essay in the Persian works of Ayn al-Quzat Hamdani). Journal of Boostan Adab. 2(2). 185-208.
Mills, S. (2013). Discourse. Translated by Fattah Mohammadi. Tehran: Hezareh Sevom.
Yarmohammadi, L. (2006). Communication from the perspective of critical discourse. Tehran: Hermes.
Yarmohammadi, L. (2020). An introduction to discourse studies. Tehran: Hermes.
Yazdi, M. (2019). Fairclough’s Organizational Critical Discourse Analysis Methodology in the Studies of Art Organizations and Events. Research journal of the Iranian Academy of Arts. 2 (1). 113-132.
Dabashi, H. (2018). Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani. Richmond: Curzon.
McFadyen, RG. (1996). Gender, status and ‘powerless’ speech: Interactions of students and lecturers. British Journal of Social Psychology. 35(3). 353-367