فصلنامه پژوهش در تاریخ
سال دهم شماره 27 (بهار و تابستان 1399)

Manichaean religion which was the combination of Zoroastrianism and Christianity, Buddhism and some other mystical leanings of Gnosticism expanded in the third century AD rapidly. Globalization, Salvation, Liberation and Individual Mysticism, were the most common religious tendencies were at that time that Mani cleverly collected them all in his religion. On the other hand, after gaining successive victories in the east and west of Iranshahr, and especially after winning the battles against the Roman Empire, Shapur I found himself in a situation where he was dreaming the king of the world. The intersection of these two worldviews brought them (Shapur and Mani) together for a time. Shapur's support for Mani was due to the use of Manichaeism's charachteriscis such as universality and the capacity to attract followers of common religions and sects was expanding in the Sassanid territory. The rise of the young Sassanid dynasty and Mani's common invitation coincided. Therefore, Mani adapted elements of his teachings to the political and social realities of the Sassanid Empire, and placed in his teachings the common religious teachings in the territory of Iranshahr, which were rooted in the main and common traditions and religions of that time.

We learn of Andragoras from one mention by the Roman hist orian Justin stating that it was this governor (praefect us) who was killed by Arsakes I, the founder of the Arsakid state. Arsakes invaded Parthia when he heard the news of the defeat of Seleukos II at the hands of the Gauls at Ankyra in Asia Minor. In Latin sources, the title praefectus is usually equivalent to the Seleukid offfice of strategos. But it is possible that Justin’s praefectus means in this case ‘satrap’. A Greek inscription discovered in the Iranian province of Gorgān (ancient Hyrkania) around 1959 mentions a Seleukid offficial called Andragoras. In all likelihood, the mentions in Iustinus and the inscription refer to the same power-holder. Parthia alongside Hyrkania made up a single administrative province in the Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic period. This large double satrapy encompassed Iranian Khorasan, the Gorgān region, and southern Turkmenist an. Several sources point to the fact that Parthia seceded from the Seleukid Empire in the 250s-240s B.C.

This article looks at the continuing political vitality of the urban crowd in early Pahlavi Iran and the role it played in the crises which wracked Tehran in the first half of the 1920s, examining, as far as possible, the ways in which crowds were mobilized, their composition, leaderships, and objectives. In particular it analyses Riza Khan’s own adoption of populist tactics in his struggle with the Qajar dynasty in 1924 – 1925, and his regime’s attempts to manipulate the Tehran crowd in an effort to overcome opposition, both elite and popular, and to intimidate formal democratic institutions such as the Majlis (parliament) and the independent press. In attempting to rescue the Tehran crowd from obscurity, or from condemnation as a fanatical and blindly reactionary mob, this article hopes to rectify the imbalance in much older scholarship which views early Pahlavi Iran solely through the prism of its state-building effort, and to introduce into the study of Iranian history some of the perspectives of ‘‘history from below’’.

Juan Cole the Writer of Muhammad the prophet of peace amid the clash of empires has perceived the peace as the pivotal attitude of Quran and the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. The contrast between this view and the theories propounded by some of the orientalists and particularly the specialists with focus on Islam led to numerous and sometimes different feed backs. Some of the readers have praised the author’s new perspective, although some believe that there is no scientific approach and even, he is regarded as a begot. This issue doubles the importance and necessity of this review. This article is an attempt to explain the main context of the book and also investigate the author’s claims about Islam and Quran. We might be able to receive a logical response to this question that why this book and even its author has been faced with these different and contrast feedback.