JOURNAL OF IRAN HISTORY (JOURNAL OF HUMAN SCIENCES)
Year:2009 | Volume:- | Issue:59/5|Papers Count:7

Inquiry into the nature of the Iranian state is one of the most important issues for researchers about the state. One reason why researchers pay attention to this issue is probably the crises which the rising state underwent at the transition to the new type of constitutional state in Iran. Although these efforts mostly rely on the notorious western typology of narrative found in Russian Marxist conventional literature, understanding this theory is an important step in the reassessment of the foundations of the state under the Ghajari dynasty. In the present article, three theoretical approaches are examined; the Marxist approach, the Iranian despotism’s approach and Weber’s theory of Sultanism.

Village has an ancient background in Iran and this background has caused the related words and concepts to be various and widespread. Research about the types, meanings, and diversity of these terms is essential for fundamental knowledge and the evolution of villages in Iran. The background of the village and village life in Iran had an effect on the diversity of the words that are associated with this concept. Because of this, the aim of this research is to find out which words with which kinds of backgrounds have been used to mean "village"? The variety of these words and their usages presumes that by means of historical etymology of the word "village" we can pave the way for historical research in this case. Thus, this research is carried out by means of the historical method and historical etymology.

During sixteenth century, the Russian dominance extended throughout Asia, the north of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, where the population were all Muslims. The Ottomans had the idea of constructing a channel from the Don River to the Volga, in order to easily have contact with the Turkish Muslims and obtain their support against the Russians and open a new front against Iran in Caspian Sea. But the Russians forestalled and occupied the cities of Ghazan, Astarkhan and the basin of Volga and advanced into Caucasus and were able to divide the Muslims in those regions. The Ottomans endeavored to counteract the Russian moves in the Caucasus but was obliged to discard the plan because they were occupied in central Europe and were having internal difficulties.This paper intends to discuss the Ottomans' policy against the Russians in those regions and the consequences of their failure.

The revolt of Zayd ibn Ali and the rise of the Zaydi movement encouraged some Zaydi scholars in Iraq and Hejaz to devote parts of their scholarly output to early Zaydi history. These historical works are primarily monographs and it was out of this tradition that the Zaydi hagiography has been developed. As this tradition aimed first and foremost at laying a legitimate ground for the advent of the Zaydi sect, the Zaydi tradition of historiography is proved to be based on certain paradigms. A study of 'Abu al-'Abbas al-Hasani's Kitab al-masabih shows how the historiography of the Zaydiyya, a marginalized trend within the Islamic community, had been under the heavy influence of its founding-fathers' polemical and theological approach to concepts such as the Islamic community and its salvation and iniquity.   

Despite the increasing number of studies dealing with the history and culture of Sassanid Iran, there are but a few mentions of the process during which a Sassanid king was elected, so the question of succession under this dynasty has been overlooked. In historical accounts of those periods when the power of the central government of the Sassanid dynasty was at its height, the kings chose to elect their successors when they were still alive, while during the periods of decline, kings used to be elected through the intervention of the nobles, royal families, and a notable body of electors who gave member of the king’s family the right of accession. However in Letter of Tansar to Ghosnasb, the questoin of the succession of Sassanid kings is reported differently from the records in other historical accounts. In Letter of Tansar, mowbeda¯ n mowbed (the high priest), dabl¯rbed (chief secretary), and spa¯ hbed (general), have been called the electors of Sassanid kings. This study aims at finding an acceptable answer to the contradiction between the report of the Letter of Tanssar and other historical accounts, rather than calling this process of succession reflected in Letter of Tanssar as "faked."

In the reigning age of Haroun Al-Rashid, there occurred various uprisings and revolts with different motives, and establishing independent governments, separated some parts of the Abbasid territory. During this time, the ongoing uprisings of the Khavarej in various parts of Haroun's land can be considered as the most significant event of his time. The question presented in this article is which factor was the most influential in the ongoing occurrence of armed revolt by the Khavareji during the reign of Haroun? In response to the above question, Haroun's tyranny disguised as caliphate and the unjust conduct of his greedy subjects are considered the major factors in the Khavareji's revolts against Haroun. 

The appearance of modern civilization in Europe and the diffusion of this modern civilization through colonialism beyond the European border imposed modernization on eastern societies including Iran. However, this compelled modernization led to a mixed and dual civilization instead of a newly established one. This deficiency could not be resolved without voluntary modernization and a complete transfer of new civilization and it was not possible to transfer the new civilization without a specified theory and practical plan and pattern. The findings of this research show that Amir Kabir had a mental image and conception of the totality of a new civilization and his modernization efforts had been started based on a specific plan and pattern both theoretical and practical and his main goal was to establish a new civilization. Therefore, the failure of his efforts was not because of conceptual and cognitional deficiencies and problems of a new civilization, but it was because of the opposition and conquest of the defenders of the status quo and current affairs and also because of the opposition to modernization and an all aspects of modernization.