Background and Objectives: The research pursues several purposes, which are as follows: a) Investigating the topics that are discussed in the classifications and FANKHA also pays attention to them, but they are few in terms of the number of authorships; b) Examining topics that have been of interest in the classifications, but despite having authored examples, have been neglected in the FANKHA classification; c) Examining topics that have not been given much attention in the classifications, but have been introduced as a specific subject branch in FANKHA, while they do not have a large number of authors; d) Examining the commonalities and thematic differences of Muslim scholars' classifications with FANKHA subjects.
Methodology: In this article, which is a type of analytical-comparative studies and was carried out in a library method, it was tried to extract the opinions of five Muslim scientists in the classification of sciences in different historical decades by using sources and reviewing texts. Volumes 37 and 38 of FANKHA, which is the subject profile, and volume 45, which reports the state of authorship in Iran before the printing industry, are considered the source of the current research.
Findings: Referring to FANKHA's thematic profile, which introduces the manuscripts' topics in 40 main branches and 120 sub-branches along with the number of authors in each topic; And on the other hand, with regard to the table of the subject-authorship of manuscripts in the 15th century, a significant gap can be seen between the statistics of these two tables. Of course, it should be noted that a huge part of this gap is caused by the unknown status of works with unknown author and unknown date, so that the works that do not have a specific author or author date are not included in the subject table - compositions in the 15th century, but in the subject indexes of FANKHA have became. The topics selected for the manuscripts based on the topic profile are more closely related to the classifications under review. B) Based on the set of data provided by FANKHA in the form of 15 tables based on the subject of manuscripts in 15 centuries, it seems that a more scientific analysis would have been obtained if more attention was paid to the selection of subjects as well as the main and sub-branches of the subjects. This analysis was more consistent with both the subject profile provided by FANKHA and the classifications of the scientists examined in this research. For example, by reviewing the classifications of sciences, it seems that the subject of literary sciences is important, as it is visible in all classifications, and considering that the statistics of FANKHA in the field of literature also show a high figure (more than 15 thousand), It would be better to consider the branch of literary sciences independently in the table of the subject-compositions of manuscripts according to the century in FANKHA. In addition, as can be seen from the tables presented in the research, the medical issue is also among the independent and important issues that have been addressed in all classifications. However, in FANKHA, it is included as a sub-subject branch under the subject of natural sciences and is considered equal to sub-subjects such as zoology and astronomy. In addition, in terms of the number of publications, the data of the medical subject in the Qur'an table does not match with the subject profile of FANKHA related to the said subject. C) Contrary to the method mentioned in the introduction of FANKHA, the findings of the research showed that some sub-topics have a very small number of authorships, examples of which were mentioned in the text of the article. This calls for a focus on the topics dedicated to manuscripts in FANKHA, which requires more detailed, detailed and text-based investigations of manuscripts.
Discussion: By relying on the background of Muslim scientists' classifications of sciences and explaining the commonalities and thematic differences raised in them, it is possible to propose a framework for classification and designing a special classification for manuscripts. In general, due to the fact that there are commonalities in most subjects in the categories of science and FANKHA, it seems that FANKHA, with modifications and adjustments, can be a suitable basis and platform in the field of compiling a special subject heading for manuscripts and Iranian-Islamic sources. In addition, it should be mentioned that this classification can be more comprehensive when most of the Iranian-Islamic manuscripts are introduced collectively.