آسیب شناسیِ مطالعات مزدک شناسی

1. Introduction
Research has specific difficulties in the subject of groups and social movements that are related to religious affairs. Usually, the followers of every religious sect consider their doctrines and teachings right, but they are introduced by their enemies and their rivals as void and deviant. Mazdakhi's teachings are one of these rituals that were introduced during the reign of Qobad Sassanid. The Mazdak religion was initially welcomed, so that it even challenged the Zoroastrian religion and the Sassanid government. Due to the strictness of Khosrow Anushirvan toward Mazdakians, nothing was mentioned about it until the end of the Sassanid period. Since the second century AH, Mazdakians were once again introduced in the history of Iran in connection with some sects, such as Khorramdin, Esoteric, inventive etc. The study of Mazdak and its followers, in addition to the common research difficulties in the subject matter, has its own unique problems due to the political and social conditions of the Sassanid era and the first Islamic centuries. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and explain the problems that exist in the field of Mazdocology.
2. Methodology
The information and data from this research have been gathered from library sources including: historical sources, Zoroastrian religious sources, and especially Arabic and Persian sources of the first Islamic centuries. The collected information and data of the study were described in a historical way and were then analyzed.
3. Discussion
Researchers are faced with a serious challenge to thoroughly examine Manicheans' beliefs and opinions, since Manicheans themselves have left no books or works to introduce their beliefs (Seddighi, 1996, 142). The Roman, Syriac, and Armenian sources, which have provided valuable information from the Sassanid era, have little interest in religious issues in Iran, and their awareness of Mazdak and his teachings is very little (yarshater, 2002, 450). The most information about Manicheans and Mazdak teaching are related to Zoroastrian sources and the official narration of the Sassanid court is widely reflected in the sources of the Islamic period. Given the enormous hostility of the Sassanid court and Zoroastrian priests with Manicheans, it is quite clear that these categories of bias were written partially.
    One of the other causes of scholarship research is whether the Mazdak religion is considered to be an Iranian religion or trans-Iranian. The range of the geographical scope of the Mazdak religion reached the territory of Hira in the same stages as in the beginning of Iran (dinavari, 1960, 229). Regarding the influence of Mazdaki's opinions in Hejaz, some sources of Islamic sources, including Ibn Qutybah Dinouri and Ibn Rusta, have given some interesting reports (Dinavari, 1960, 229; Ibn Rosteh, 2001, 264). It is not certain that the influence of the Mazdaki tendencies has been carried out on political grounds, influenced by the functions of the Sassanid court, or for the propagation and publication of the teachings of this religion to Arabic countries.
    There are also significant differences in the background and roots of Mazdak thoughts and beliefs. Christiansen believes that Manicheans are a branch of Manaviyans (Christinsen, 1995, 105). It is concluded from the traditions of some Islamic sources that Mazdak's rule is a new interpretation of Zoroastrianism which has been accused by the religious system of innovation in religion (Tabari, 2004, v 1, 105). Discussions have also been made on the influence of Plato's thoughts on Mazdaki teachings and instructions (Mashkour, 1999, 364).
    The greatest discrepancy that researchers face in Mazdokhi studies are the beliefs, instructions and teachings of Manicheans. These differences are so small that Mazdakologists failed to agree, whether the Mazdak movement was a religious movement or a social movement. The content of most Roman, Syriac, Arabic, Persian and Pahlavi sources indicate that Mazdaki teachings were summarized in two cases. One was the sharing of the property, and the second was the worship of women. Concerning the ownership of the discussion of the topic, it is less controversial; what is controversial between scholars and researchers is the question of women's widespread use or the shared use of women.
    The discussion of the gathering of Manicheans around Abu Moslem is one of the most important issues that is challenging for scholars. There are several questions and possibilities in this regard about whether these groups under the rule of Abu Moslem, who emerged after his death, were original Mazdaki populations, who, with the advent of Islam, became Muslims, or they were from Islamic sects and branches influenced by the revolutionary and anti-government doctrines of Mazdak and were called Manicheans.
 
4. Conclusion
Recognizing the problems of the subjects studied in various fields leads to more accurate researches. In relation to the topics that deal with sects, religions, and beliefs, the problem of pathology will end in more beneficial outcomes, because such issues have their own specific problems. Identifying sectarianism that has an esotericism and no works and resources have been left from them, there are more serious problems facing researchers. The Mazdak dynasty, which originated from the Sassanid period in Iran and caused many discussions in the second and third AH centuries, is among such sects. The most important difficulty for any scholar regarding the identification of Manicheans, is the lack of works, sources, and texts of from Manicheans themselves. In addition, the characteristics of Mazdaki's revelations are reflected in reports drawn from the traditions of the enemies of this ritual; therefore, this is a serious damage in the studies of allegorical scholarship. This serious damage to the study of allegorical scholarship has caused a sharp and widely differing views on Mazdak's hometown and descent, the background of intellectual teachings, beliefs, doctrines and beliefs of Mazdaki, the geographic scope and the course of the historical continuity of Mazdak beliefs, etc. not only in the sources, but also in the views of scholars and historians of Mazdak. These disagreements are so small that the Mazdakologists have not been able to agree even on the whole argument that the Mazdiki movement was a religious movement or a social movement. In addition to these kinds of damages and difficultiess that scholars have to struggle with in the study of Mazdak, the lack of historical continuity of Manicheans to the present day has caused little hope in finding future sources for clarifying these disparate disagreements. Therefore, it is suggested that among the various sources that has remained in relation to Manicheans, Zoroastrian sources of Pahlavi and religion should be considered more precise, scrupulous and specialized than other sources to identify Manicheans, what has been ignored by Mazdak theologians.