The subject of the present paper is a prophetic tradition found in some compendia of eschatological aḥādīth which has received considerable scholarly attention since Wilferd Madelung dedicated an article to it in 1981. Whereas Madelung shares the opinion of earlier scholars that only some of the incidents “prophesied” by this tradition are historical, this study aims to show that it is a wholly ex post facto composition which, in its various strata, remarkably captures episodes from the Zubayrid war of propaganda against their rivals as well as their later attempts to redeem the memory of their lost cause as a just one. The discussion closes by producing a highly singular Syrian tradition most certainly put into circulation with the intent of countering these Zubayrid propaganda efforts.

Scholarly discussion of the abdāl (substitutes) has been limited to their appearance as the members of a saintly hierarchy first alluded to by al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. 295/905–300/910) and systematized by Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240). However, unlike the other members of this hierarchy, the abdāl are also known through the hadith, one of which is attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. This article explores this hitherto unstudied hadith material arguing that the concept originated in hadith circles with a specific purported context, the showdown between the Syrians and Iraqis at the Battle of Ṣiffīn (37/657). A gradual loss of this context went hand-in-hand with the emergence of the mystical saintly abdāl. As monistic Sufism penetrated all elements of Mamluk society, the boundary between the abdāl of the traditionists and of the mystics became porous. This paper concludes with an examination of the ensuing debate on the authenticity of the concept.

This article looks at the treatment of the Zoroastrians by central and provincial authorities in early modern Yazd, Kirman and Isfahan, emphasizing the institutional weaknesses of the central or khāṣṣa protection they were supposed to benefit from under the Safavids (907–1135/1501–1722). It is argued that the maltreatment the Zoroastrians endured under the Safavids had little to do with religious bigotry. Rather, it arose from rivalries between the central and the provincial services of the Safavid bureaucracy, putting Zoroastrians in Yazd, Kirman, Sistan and Isfahan at risk of over-taxation, extortion, forced labour and religious persecution. The argument developed in this article pivots on the material interest of the central and the provincial agents of the Safavid bureaucracy in the revenue and labour potentials of the Zoroastrians, and the way in which the conflict of interest between these two sectors led to such acts of persecution as over-taxation, forced labour, extortion and violence.

Most scholarly contributions analysing the Han Feizi tend not only to overlook the influence military literature might have had on its conception and unfolding, but also to assert that the figure of the ruler, as described in this text, and that of the commander, as portrayed in military treatises, are incompatible. In refuting this view, I shall attempt to demonstrate that the writings collected in the Han Feizi fully embrace the logic of military confrontation, which entails, among other things, the deployment of deception and irregular procedures as a necessary means to secure sovereign power and to achieve a complete control of the administration. Accordingly, I shall show that a comprehensive understanding of this important work in the history of classical Chinese thought is not possible unless one takes into account this convergence of shared ideas and concepts from both spheres, that of military strategy and that of political science as set forth in the Han Feizi.

J.M. Tronson believed that the language of the word-list which he collected in 1856 on the Lower Amur, and published twice in 1859 was Nivkh. Among contemporary scholars, only Roman Jakobson noted that the language of Tronson's word-list is not Nivkh, but Tungusic. Unfortunately, neither Jakobson nor other specialists have specified what language that might be. We confirm E.G. Ravenstein's unnoticed assertion of 1861 that the language is Oroch and, from this new perspective, we offer a critical edition of Tronson's pseudo-Nivkh word-list.