Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies


Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies | 2020 | T. LXXIII | No 1 |


Asma Jahangir, the prominent Pakistani lawyer and human rights activist, who had received several awards for her courageous work, passed away on February 11, 2018. Her untimely death at the age of 66 was mourned by a wide public, not only in Pakistan. The newspaper obituaries particularly highlighted her accomplishments and campaigns on behalf of women, children, religious minorities, poor and disenfranchised communities. The deceased “voice of the voiceless” is probably best known for her advocacy on the rights of the most vulnerable and disempowered sections of society and her uncompromising commitment to democratic principles. However, another aspect of Asma Jahangir’s legacy, her thoughts and insights on political power mechanisms in Pakistan and beyond, has so far been rather neglected. With her long-term experience as a lawyer, an activist, and a UN Special Rapporteur, Asma Jahangir often offered useful reflections on the main causes of human rights abuses in Pakistan and the neighbouring countries. Among other things, she pointed to the detrimental effects of the politics of sectarianization and securitization, and also stressed the ongoing aspiration of a great part of the population in the global South to live a dignified life. On the basis of selected publications, reports, and interviews, this paper will provide a number of Asma Jahangir’s explanations for national, regional, and international shortcomings and structural problems (fragile democracies, undermined rule of law; the influence of militant non-state actors; regional/international interconnections and constraints, etc.) which remain relevant under the current conditions.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Roswitha Badry


The paper presents how the pluralism of relations in the early Muslim sources concerning the memory the Qādisiyya narrative is problematic for reconstructing the event of the battle by modern scholars. Specific studies of the early Islamic sources concerning the Battle of Al-Qādisiyya lead to the conclusion that it is certainly easier to interpret the functions of particular topoi than to determinate the facts about the Maʿrakat al-Qādisiyya. The main, unsolved questions related to the Qādisiyyah narrative are the uncertainty of the date of the battle, the size of the Muslim and Persian forces that fought in the Maʿrakat al-Qādisiyya as well as some contradictions and different presentations of the battle. Scholars have undertaken many attempts to make the conflicting accounts more coherent but in fact, they only made some speculations or, at the best, case scenario – explanations made on the basis of limited and uncertain evidence. For these reasons, the paper contains the suggestion to avoid an undue emphasis on the importance of the Maʿrakat al-Qādisiyya and to replace this term by the more general expression “the Mesopotamian campaign 634–637.” The critical evaluation of the Muslim sources leads to a more general description of the Battle of Al-Qādisiyya as an element of the campaign (stage 634–637) whose unambiguous evaluation is impossible.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Krzysztof Kościelniak


Among the big corpus of the commentaries over the Qur’an, one of the special developments was a genre of gloss (hāšiya). The study addresses main Ottoman glosses written to the Qur’anic commentaries, contextualizing it within the internal dimensions of the content transformations. It is argued that since the glosses were used as the textbooks in the Ottoman medrese, they could be considered as the “mainstream” Ottoman reading of the Qur’an. This reading was not merely one of the practices for approaching the Qur’an, but the kind of tradition with the related authorities and meaningful developments. The research covers these patterns of interpretations applied to the case of Āl ‘Imrān, 3: 7, showing the way of how the philology and theology interacted in the Ottoman tafsīr glosses.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Mykhaylo Yakubovych


The article highlights the significance of the first full English translation of Naqd al-Hitāb ad-Dīnī (Critique of Religious Discourse), one of the most characteristic and important works of the acclaimed Egyptian intellectual Nāsr Hāmid Abū Zayd (1943–2010). The work was firstly published in 1992 by Sīnā li-an-Našr in Cairo, coinciding with the beginning of the so-called Case of Abū Zayd (1992–1995), the campaign of Egyptian fundamentalists against the scholar. Abū Zayd’s critique of the dominant discourses and worldviews in the Arab world, created both by the Islamic fundamentalists and so-called Islamic left, has gained huge acclaim in the international academia but so far there has not been a full translation of the work into English (also taking into account the important role of the full German edition published by Chérifa Magdi and Navid Kermani in 1996). In 2018 Jonathan Wright’s translation was published by Yale University Press in the series “World Thought in Translation”. The edition was enriched by Carool Kersten’s scholarly introduction. The following article discusses the translation dilemma regarding Naqd… (e.g. problems with finding equivalents for Arabic semiotic and hermeneutical terminology utilised by the Egyptian scholar), giving examples of the choices made by the translator. Adding to it, the more general issues of the impact of Abū Zayd’s work on the contemporary rereading of Arab-Islamic turāt are analysed.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Michał Moch


In recent reflections on the current situation of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and the threat of their extinction, a number of Iraqi intellectuals have stressed they cannot imagine their society without the plurality and diversity that have contributed to the creation of a common interethnic and interreligious Iraqi identity and historical memory. Among them are writers who raise this issue not only in essays, articles and interviews, but also in their fiction. The aim of the present article is to show the interweaving of literary discourse on Iraqi minorities and the wider debate among Iraqi intellectuals on the deteriorating condition of Iraqi Christians – which has led to their mass emigration – as reflected in a number of post-2003 Iraqi novels. The literary image of this exodus cannot be discussed without addressing the position of Christians among other Iraqi communities currently and in the past, as well as the question of their identity. This article refers to the following novels: Taššārī (Dispersion, 2012) by In‘ām Kaǧaǧī, I‘ǧām (Diacritics, 2004) and Yā Maryam (Ave Maria, 2012) by Sinān Antūn, Sīra dātiyya riwā’iyya (An Iraqi in Paris: An Autobiographical Novel, 2012) by Samū’īl Šam‘ūn, Frānkanštāyn fī Baġdād (Frankenstein in Baghdad, 2013) by Ahmad Sa‘dāwī, and Sabāyā dawlat al-hurāfa (Slaves of the Imaginary State, 2017) by ‘Abd ar-Ridā Sālih Muhammad. The article is divided into four parts, including an introduction in which the above-mentioned debate is presented. The second part depicts the plight of Iraqi Christians after 2003 through a brief outline of the lives of four literary characters. The third part focuses on the situation of Iraqi Christians before 2003 by relating the memories of five fictional protagonists. These two descriptive parts are followed by some final remarks. The theoretical framework of this article is based on the reflections of Birgit Neumann and Astrid Erll concerning the role of literature as a medium in the construction of cultural memory.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Adrianna Maśko


In the article the author deals with the contributions of Goettingian scholars to the study of the so-called “Runic”-Turkic inscriptions discovered in the early 18th century in Siberia during the 18th and 19th centuries before their decipherment by Vilhelm Ludvig Peter Thomsen (1842–1927) and Friedrich Wilhelm Radloff (Vasilij Vasilievič Radlov; 1837–1918). The author points to the scholars speculations on the unknown language of the inscriptions based in Göttingen as well as the research in this field and times outside that town.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Michael Knüppel


UNkulunkulu is a very important figure within Zulu pantheon but his nature is not really defined. Should he be considered God, a god or the first ancestor? The problem comes from Western (Christian) need to find and define a supreme deity within Zulu religious beliefs. In 2013, 2018 and 2019 I conducted thorough field-studies among South African sangomas and asked them about uNkulunkulu. This article aims to organise knowledge about uNkulunkulu and tries to place him within the deity stratum. Also, my research allows to show if searching for answers about uNkulunkulu is a Zulu problem or maybe just Western scholars’. Field studies that enabled writing this paper were sponsored by Polish National Science Centre, Poland (Narodowe Centrum Nauki), project no.: 2017/25/N/HS1/02500.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Agnieszka Podolecka


The shrine antechamber is a standard component of the Indian temple architecture. It was originated in the Buddhist context, and the context was the rock-cut architecture of the Deccan and central India. The first antechamber was attempted in circa 125 CE in the Nasik Cave 17. It was patronised by Indrāgnidatta, a yavana , who possibly hailed from Bactria. The second antechamber was created in Bāgh Cave 2 in ca. late 466 CE. The patron remains unknown. The third antechamber was initiated in Ajanta Cave 16 within a few months. It was patronised by Varāhadeva, the Prime Minister of Vākātaka Mahārāj Hari Sena. When the third antechamber was only half excavated, the plan was cancelled by the patron himself due to a sudden threat posed by the Alchon Hūns led by Mahā-Sāhi Khingila. The Nasik antechamber was inspired from Bactria, the Bāgh antechamber was inspired from the parrallels in the Greater Gandhāra region, whereas the Ajanta Cave 16 antechamber was inspired from Bāgh Cave 2.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Rajesh Kumar Singh


The term “comfort women” refers to the women, mainly from the Korean Peninsula and China, who had been forced to serve as sexual slaves by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Second World War. The problem emerged at the beginning of the 1990s and became an impediment especially in relations between Japan and South Korea. The article analyzes how the “comfort women” issue was approached to by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in both countries. It is argued that while the problem led to invigoration of civil society institutions, it also incited strong nationalist movements. Anti-Japanese feelings in South Korea contributed to lack of flexibility in negotiations with Japan and rejection of the apologies by the government of that country. Such reaction, in turn, weakened the position of moderate NGOs in Japan that tried to compensate the victims, and made them prone to criticism from right-wing movements. The paper examines these complex developments.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Karol Żakowski

Instrukcja dla autorów

Instrukcje dla autorów

W czasopiśmie publikowane są przede wszystkim oryginalne artykuły. Złożenie artykułu w redakcji drogą elektroniczną jest równoznaczne z oświadczeniem Autora(ów), że praca nie była dotychczas publikowana i nie jest zgłoszona do publikacji w żadnym innym czasopiśmie. Autorzy przyjmują także odpowiedzialność za uzgodnienie wszystkich praw do jej zgłoszenia. Wszystkie nadesłane do redakcji artykuły oceniane są przez dwóch niezależnych recenzentów spośród autorytetów uznanych w danej dyscyplinie. Recenzenci zostają poproszeni o wykonanie recenzji, otrzymują tekst artykułu (bez danych personalnych autorów) oraz formularz recenzji, w uzasadnionych przypadkach poszerzony o dodatkowe pytania dotyczące artykułu. Czas oczekiwania na recenzje wynosi od 1 do 6 miesięcy. Po zakończeniu procesu recenzowania Autorzy są informowani o jego wynikach oraz – jeżeli obie recenzje są pozytywne – proszeni o naniesienie sugerowanych poprawek. O przyjęciu pracy do druku decydują opinie niezależnych recenzentów i akceptacja redakcji.

Prześlij swój artykuł

INSTRUKCJA DLA AUTORÓW „Rocznika Orientalistycznego”

- Każdy nadesłany materiał zostanie poddany recenzji, kwalifikującej tekst do publikacji. Zarówno nazwiska recenzentów, jak i rezultaty ich pracy są danymi poufnymi Redakcji.

- „RO” prosi o nadesłanie wraz z publikacją wszystkich niestandardowych czcionek w niej użytych oraz, pliku w formacie *.doc, *.docx, a w uzasadnionych przypadkach także jako *.pdf.

- Przyjmujemy teksty w językach angielskim, niemieckim, francuskim i rosyjskim.

- Całość tekstu powinna składać się z nagłówka tytułowego, tekstu głównego, słów kluczowych (co najmniej 4-5.) i abstraktu w j. angielskim (od 150 do 200 słów).

- Autorzy proszeni są o podanie swojego numeru ORCID oraz przygotowanie bibliografii załącznikowej (na końcu artykułu).

- Autor zapewnia, że posiada stosowne zezwolenia na reprodukowanie w swoim artykule cudzych materiałów. Autor oświadcza, że nadesłany tekst nie był wcześniej w żadnej formie opublikowany. Redakcja jednocześnie, że zarówno „ghostwriting”, jak i „guest authorship” są przejawem nierzetelności naukowej, a wszelkie wykryte przypadki będą demaskowane, włącznie z powiadomieniem odpowiednich podmiotów.

- Zgłaszając artykuł do „Rocznika Orientalistycznego” Autor jednoznacznie wyraża zgodę na udzielenie autorskiej licencji eksploatacyjnej do nadesłanego tekstu (dot. postaci drukowanej i/lub elektronicznej), co obejmuje prawo Redakcji do: kopiowania, publikacji, reprodukcji, cytowania, umieszczenia w formie elektronicznej w bazach danych, itp., itd. Czas trwania udzielonej licencji jest zgodny z dyrektywą UE. Licencja zostaje udzielona „RO” nieodpłatnie.

- Autor otrzymuje 2 egz. numeru „RO” w przypadku artykułu i 1 egz. w przypadku recenzji.

- Redakcja zastrzega sobie prawo do skracania i redagowania złożonych tekstów.

- Po przyjęciu tekstu do druku i zredagowaniu Autor otrzyma drogą elektroniczną tekst do korekty, którą jest zobowiązany uczynić i odesłać do Redakcji w możliwie najszybszym terminie.

Style of Reference

Style Sheet

Zasady etyki publikacyjnej

Publishing ethics

The Editorial Board of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies urge the authors to present the results of their original work in a transparent and reliable way, thereby preventing any cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship (honorary authorship). The term ghostwriting describes a situation in which a person has significantly contributed to a publication without being listed as co-author or without his/her name being mentioned in the acknowledgement. Guest authorship, in turn, means that a person’s contribution to a publication is negligible or none at all, yet such a person is listed as co-author or author.

All cases of misconduct will be publicised by the Editorial Board, which includes notifying the relevant institutions (the authors’ employers, academic societies, etc.).

The editorial staff of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies act in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. All parties involved in the publication process (the editor, the author, the reviewer, the publisher) should be familiar with ethical standards observed in the journal.

Duties of Editors:

1) The editors have the authority to decide which of the submitted papers should be accepted for publication (taking into account: the text conformity with the profile of the journal, the academic importance of the contribution, the originality as well as clarity of the input). When making decisions, the editor should be guided by the journal’s policy, as well as by legal regulations on matters such as infringement of copyright and plagiarism.

2) The editors assess the submitted manuscripts on basis of their scholarly merit, without regard to race, gender, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the authors (fair play).

3) The editors do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric, i.e. the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons. Authors should not be required to include references to the editors’ articles.

4) The editors do not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, and – in special circumstances – other editorial staff. In exceptional circumstances, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct.

5) The editors ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. The editorial board will require all collaborators to disclose any competitive interests and will make every effort to prevent it. If necessary, steps to be taken include retracting a manuscript or publishing a corrective statement.

6) The editor can retract an article when: – research results have already been published elsewhere; – the manuscript contains plagiarism or otherwise breaches ethical principles; – there is clear evidence that the results of research are unreliable or that data has been fabricated. A notification of manuscript retraction should be understood as a de facto removal of the text. Such a notification should inform who has made the decision and for what reasons is the text being retracted.

7) The editors reserve the right to edit the texts for length, stylistic details, conformance with style guides etc.

Duties of Authors:

1) An author of the article is considered to be an individual who had a decisive influence on the final shape of the text in the version in which it is to be published.

2) If more than one person has been involved in writing the text and/or in the research underlying it, the contributions of all persons should be specified in the statement submitted together with the manuscript.

3) The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.

4) An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Publication of some kinds of articles in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

5) If any unethical conduct on the part of the author of the publication is revealed– such as plagiarism, data falsification or re-publication of a previously published work or part of it (the so-called self-plagiarism)– the editors ask such an author for explanations and then may take appropriate steps in line with the COPE guidelines. At a later stage of the proceedings, this may mean notifying the authorities of the author’s academic unit, rejecting a given article, and refusal to publish any future texts by that person in the journal.

6) In line with COPE guidelines, any change to authorship information requires written consent from all co-authors. This should be expressed by each author in a separate (electronic) letter of consent addressed to the editor-in-chief. The consent of all co-authors to changing authorship information of a submitted or already printed paper must take written form. If authors cannot reach agreement on this, they should consult the authorities of their home institution(s).

Duties of Reviewers:

1) Reviewers influence the decisions made by the editor-in-chief. Their comments on the subject matter can also help the authors improve their manuscripts.

2) In the reviews the quality of the reported research should be judged objectively. Reviewers should explain their judgment clearly and support it.

3) A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should inform the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

4) If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

5) Reviewers are obliged to submit their opinion statements timely. If for any reason (from scholarly ones to time pressure) they cannot meet the deadline or cannot undertake the reviewing at all, they should notify the editorial board immediately.

6) All materials sent for review should be treated as confidential. Disclosing their contents to third parties (with the exception of persons authorised) is inadmissible.

7) The principle of preventing conflicts of interest:

A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the research unit which he or she represents), a reviewer or an editor is engaged in personal or economic relations which may inappropriately influence his/her actions. Each author or reviewer noticing an existing conflict of interest is obliged to report it to the editors.

Procedura recenzowania

Review process

The manuscripts should be original and inventive, and significantly add to existing research.

Submitted articles will undergo a double, anonymous and independent peer-review process (the identity of the reviewed author will not be disclosed to reviewers, nor vice versa). At least two reviewers will be appointed by the editors among specialists in fields related to the topic of the article. The reviewers will not be members of the journal’s editorial staff and will not be affiliated with the same institution as the author. At least one reviewer will be affiliated to a foreign institution, other than the nationality of the author. The reviewers will be appointed in such a way as to avoid any conflict of interest (understood as relations between the author and the reviewer: personal relations like kinship, legal relations, conflict, subordination in a workplace; direct scholarly co-operation in the period of two years preceding the reviewing process). The review must contain an explicit conclusion stating whether the article should or should not be accepted for publication. The list of reviewers will be published at the end of each year in one of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies volumes.

As a result of the review process, authors may be expected to modify their articles according to the recommendations of the reviewers. Amended articles could be accompanied by a cover letter explaining how the comments were addressed and the changes made. Editorial board retains a right to publish, to reject or to return an article for modifications. In the event of an ambivalent publishing review, the text is submitted for another evaluation. Articles on which two negative opinions have been passed will not be accepted for publication. The authors of negatively assessed texts will be notified as soon as the reviews reach the editorial board.

Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies has neither processing charges nor submission charges.

A different review process conducted by the editorial board applies to book reviews.

The review of an article submitted to Rocznik Orientalistyczny / Yearbook of Oriental Studies - form

Ta strona wykorzystuje pliki 'cookies'. Więcej informacji