History of Islam and Iran
Year:2024 | Volume:34 | Issue:61|Papers Count:6

As Iran confronted Western modernity and the resulting discursive conflicts, discussing women, their identity, and their living conditions became a central topic. A wide range of discourses formed around these issues, making women a significant focus of debate. This article examines the modernist discourses on women, utilizing critical discourse analysis to explore the semantic construction of the modern woman in these discourses. It addresses the question of what the subject of the modern woman meant in the modernist discourse of the Qajar era, what ideologies dominated this discourse on women, and what position this discourse achieved in the dominant discourse of the constitutional era.The research findings indicate that the modern woman, who was formed in opposition to tradition, is constructed in the modernist discourse as a demanding and critical subject. By criticizing traditions and focusing on the core idea of equality, it seeks modern identity elements for women like those for men. This discourse has been more successful in propositions that did not explicitly oppose tradition.

During the Sāsānid era, “Dīvān-e Sepāh” (in Arabic and Persian sources: “Dīvān al-Jūnd”, “Dīvān al-Jeyš”, “Dīvān al-Moqātala” or “Dīvān-e Sepāh”), was one of the most important organizations of the Sāsānid Empire, directing the warfare and guarding the borders of the country. Some of the experienced secretaries of this organization, who were called “Dabīr-e Sepāh”/ “Secretary of the corps” (in Arabic sources: Kātib al-Jūnd” or “Kātib al-Jeyš”), went to war with the Corps and as chroniclers/ historians, reported the war with the enemies and the actions of the fighters and the commander of the corps. They also wrote the list of spoils of war as well as the number of troops killed in the war and reported to the king. These secretaries, who during the battle, carried out correspondence between the army commander and the king or others, were also the special “eyes and ears” of the king in the army, and with their presence, the army and commanders were less likely to engage in secret activities and rebellion against the king. Thus, this study will discuss the importance of the “Dabīr-e Sepāh” in the Sāsānian bureaucracy, as well as their roles in wars, as the “eyes and ears” of the king and as event writer/ historians in the corps.

The toponyms used to name a large area in ​​the western half of Iran, from the fall of the Sassanids to the rise of the Safavids, experienced many changes in the social and political-administrative arena, and were reflected in different ways in the writings produced at this point. In Islamic historiography, these toponyms were also used alternately, and historians used them to address the geographical area they were considering. The main question of the upcoming research is how the names Jebal, Qohestan and Iraq-e Ajam appeared in various historians' writings and how they were used. The research approach of this article is based on thick description. The research findings indicate that in the opinion of Islamic historians, Jebal (approximately) was used as a common toponym for a wide area in ​​the western half of Iran in the third century. Gradually and without having a specific definition and limitation, it became popular in all kinds of historical writings and replaced the ancient toponyms of the region such as Mah and Pahle, but in the next century, due to the political developments in the region and the importance of some cities such as Ray and Isfahan, the city became central to the attitude of many Historians prevailed and did not allow Jebal to spread as a common toponym. Also, the name Qohestan, which was the Persian translation of Jebal, became popular in Persian writings at this time and added to the confusion. In the sixth century, the toponym of Iraq-e Ajam, gradually made its way in the writings of historians; But due to the flourishing of general historiography in the 8th and 9th centuries of Hijri, which were provided based on the sources of the third to the sixth century of Hijri, the toponyms of Jebal and Qohestan, while they were almost forgotten in the social and political-administrative arena, also came to life in the writings of Persian historians. They continued, of course, the historians of Egypt and the Levant were largely left out of this mess.

The stability of traditional relations and the lack of development of the economic structure in the Qajar period were among the causes of the decline and the occurrence of social and economic crises. This disorder affected various groups and led to difficulties in livelihood and life matters. As one of the lower groups of the society, the theologians learned science under the supervision and support of the religious schools, and often lived on religious funds, but the economic crises directly affected the lives of the theologians by decreasing the general income of the society and as a result of the lack of funds, and led them to earn unconventional incomes. In Zanjan, Jameh Mosque, as the most important and largest religious school, had the largest number of theologians, and they, like other areas, faced challenges and livelihood problems. This study raises the question is raised that due to the unfavorable state of the economy in the Qajar period, how and by what  (unconventional) methods the theologians of the Jameh Mosque earned a living and what obstacles and challenges they faced. The hypothesis of the research is that the scholars and other groups claimed to be close and dependent on the site of the mosque’s endowment income, which included the school status of the school and the payment of teachers and students’ salaries, and aimed at addressing the challenge of the challenge. The livelihood helped them against the claimants. According to the findings, during the difficult years of life, the Theologues met the needs of life by taking over government jobs, propaganda, advertising, codification in the villages, creating chaos, interference with town hall and dependence on the Shari’a courts. This article has investigated the issue in a descriptive and explanatory way by using library resources and documents of governmental, private and private organizations, articles and manuscripts.

This study analyzes the historical evolution of the Barzashabadi branch of the Kobrawieh dynasty in Iran during the Safavid period. This Sufi sect in the Safavid period is known as the Ẕahabiyya. The article examines the historical developments and intellectual activities of the masters of this sect in the Safavid period with a descriptive and analytical method, relying on historical sources, especially the sources related to this sect. The research approach is that the term Ḏahabīya. was not considered an appropriate name for this Sufi order until the end of the 11/17th century and the historical development of this sect is related to the end of the 11/17th century (the end of the Safavid period) and is the result of the wise activities of Muezzin Khorasani (death 1078 AH/1668 AD) and his student is Najibuddin Zargar Esfahani (about 1108 AH/1696-1696 AD). The transformations of the sect in the Safavid period and the activities of its leaders in the Safavid period are the main subject of the present research.

The Khwarazmshahids followed the Hanafi school of thought, which was also the predominant belief system among the majority of people living in their territory. What kind of policy did they pursue towards Hanafism? To answer this question, the Khwarazmshahid era was divided into five periods. Their policies in each period were evaluated on five parameters: behavior towards Hanafi people and clergy, relations with Hanafi rulers, appointment of Hanafis in political positions and establishment of religious institutes. The results show that in the period of obedience (1098-1136 A.D.) the Hanafipeople and clergy had security and welfare because of Muhammad and Atsiz to obedience for Sanjar. In the independence period (1136-1173) , the Hanafi people and clergy were attacked and insulted because of Atsiz’s arrogance towards Sanjar and Ilarsalan’s expansionism, although this hostility was political and in reality neutral. In the Empire-Establishing Period (1174-1201) the neutral policy was intensified in favor of the Shafiites following the conquest of Iraq, where the non-Hanafites were in the majority. In the Empire-Peak Period (1201-1221) because Sultan Muhammad's government wasn’t legitimized by the caliph and the non-Mutazilite Hanafites did not recognize his reign as legitimate thus the neutral policy converted at times to antagonism against Hanafites. Following the anarchy of the Post-Mongol Attack Period (1221-1231) the sultan’s sons tried to conquer part of the empire by any means necessary. Thus Qurshah and Pirshah allied themselves with Shafiites against the Hanafites but Jalal-al-Din, as the savior of Islam, implemented an Islamic unity policy and generally avoided supporting Hanafites. Since the Khwarazmshahids were mutazilites, they supported the mutazilite Hanafis in all periods except that of Jalal-al-Din. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing a desk study methodology for data collection and analysis.