چکیده:
the terms of geographical-administrative units are important elements in the works of geographers. they determined the basis of the system and geographical division of different lands in the islamic period. two important geographical-historical works in the region of andalusia, which refer to the system of geographic divisions of andalusia, are tarṣi’ al-akhbar wa-tanwi’ al-athar written by ibn al-dalā’i and farḥa al-anfas written by ibn ghalib. examining these two works gives us a set of reforms that are identical to the geographical-administrative terms of the east of the islamic world: terms such as medina, ḳarya, kura, iqlim, etc. although those terms are the same in appearance, they are very different in terms of their meaning and usage in andalusia. this research tries to answer these questions: what terms were used in the administrative-geographical divisions of andalusia and what was the position of each of these reforms? and what is the difference between these terms and their equivalents in the east of the islamic world? the findings are as follows that some of the geographical-administrative terms of andalusia are in fact the same as the geographical-administrative reforms of the east of the islamic world, both in terms of meaning and in terms of appearance, but in the meantime, some terms such as madinah and iqlim, in addition to the general meaning, have another meaning which is common and used only in the divisions of andalusia.
خلاصه ماشینی:
According to the findings of this research, the Mazdakite movement in the official historiography of the Pahlavi era possessed specific characteristics and particular semantic implications that served the ideological discourse of this era, centered around components such as king-centered historiography, social and territorial centralization, and the criticism of any form of rebellion or protest in opposition to the political structure.
The goal of this examination of two historiographical perspectives is to show how the official narrative in the historiography of the Pahlavi era was challenged by currents that were, at the same time, considered the most important political and ideological rival movements of the Pahlavis in the field of social structure; in fact, the dynamic epistemological conflict that appeared over the layers of Iranian history between these two official and leftist currents was a sign of a larger and broader confrontation that was flowing within the overall political and ideological dimensions in the context of society; therefore, challenging the official narrative of the Pahlavi government regarding the Mazdakite movement demonstrated a more dynamic conflict that was, above all else, resulting from the convergence of their intellectual currents and combatant tendencies against the official ideology in order to create social changes in Iran.
" (Tabari, 1347: 29) This reading, of course, was in direct opposition to the official narrative of the Pahlavi government, which attempted to portray the Sasanian era as a brilliant and glorious period and to narrate its decline and fall by the Arabs as the most important tragedy in the history of Iran.
(
, 
, 
)
