This study focuses on the work Do Qarn Sokut (Two Centuries of Silence) written by Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub in 1952, who left a significant mark on the intellectual and literary world of 20th-century Iran as a historian, literary figure, translator, and literary critic. Zarrinkoub, a second-generation historian whose intellectual mindset and histography developed under the influence of the archaism-based Iranian nationalism ideology, published most of his works during the peak of the Pahlavi government’s interest in nationalism in the early 1970s. His famous work Do Qarn Sokut deserves to be examined and considered because both its comprehensive and segmented aspects reveal its purpose of elevating and sanctifying ancient Iran and Iranians, embodying the Pahlavi-era historical writing project and official historiography.

Despite being among the most discussed and debated books in Iranian history, Do Qarn Sokut is criticized for its weak scientific foundation. The book, written with an exaggerated nostalgia shaped by the sense of defeat, sorrow, longing, and defensive sentiment, lacks a solid scholarly foundation. Zarrinkub’s responses to critiques in the preface of the second edition, though claiming a commitment to correcting mistakes, suggest a persistent biased and ideological perspective in the first edition. In the preface of the second edition of Do Qarn Sokut, published five years later, Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub, in response to the criticisms directed at his work, acknowledged the validity and accuracy of the critiques. He expressed his belief in the necessity of pursuing truth and rectifying errors by attentively considering criticism rather than persistently insisting on mistaken viewpoints. During the intervening five years, Zarrinkoub emphasized that he had the opportunity to engage in a more profound examination of his subject matter, which led him to reassess and revise his initial contentions. In his earlier work, he admitted to adopting a perspective in which everything deemed good, beautiful, and correct was attributed to Iran (ancient Iran) and its people, while anything external to Iran was characterized as negative, unattractive, and devoid of value. Zarrinkoub acknowledged that he had written the book with youth exuberance, lacking the mature ability to objectively evaluate the causes of Iran’s defeat against Islam and the nuanced aspects of historical events. He characterized his earlier perspective as reflective of immaturity, bias and extremism. However, the author, who did not give up his derogatory attitudes and expressions toward Muslim Arabs - neither in the later editions of Do Qarn Sokut nor in his other works - underlined that even if they were Muslims, the Arabs were a wild-natured, aggressive and destructive community, devoid of the world of meaning, and he gave examples of this in many parts of his book. He tried to reveal the material and spiritual superiority of Iranians through comparisons.  

One of the most notable and widely debated aspects of the book is undoubtedly the title Zarrinkoub chose for it. The years covered in the book represent one of the most sensitive, tense, and turbulent periods in the history of Iran and Islam. Known in history as a time marked by the chaos and disorder caused by rebellions and movements erupting across nearly every region of Iran, it raises the question, which is also expressed by the author himself, why he opted for the title “Two Centuries of Silence” instead of a more accurate and appropriate term, such as “Two Centuries of Chaos and Disorder.” This choice has been a subject of ongoing curiosity and debate. In the relevant section of his book, the author attempts to clarify this matter, stating that by “Two Centuries of Silence,” he did not mean political or social silence and stagnation but was referring to the Persian language. He emphasizes that during this period, Persian was completely overshadowed by Arabic, almost fading into oblivion, and that the only language spoken was the language of the sword. However, this explanation has also been deemed inconsistent with historical realities, and the debate continues.

It is possible to say that what Zarrinkoub said about the general characteristics of the pre-Islamic Arab society, which is called “Jahiliyyah”, the Period of Ignorance in Islamic literature, coincides with what he explained and narrated in the basic Islamic sources that he references extensively in the book, and that this is essentially the meaning of the concept of Ignorance in the minds and literature of Muslims. However, what makes his narrative different and remarkable is that his approach to the issue concerns ethnic and cultural racism rather than description. What is even more striking is that he extends this approach not only to Arabs but to other nations as well, as it is clearly evident from the derogatory remarks he makes about Turks in the later pages of his book. Despite the author’s possible intellectual shifts after writing the book, as we have demonstrated in this study, Zarrinkoub, who views the Muslim Arab conquest of Iran as an invasion, and argues that the events following the conquest were aimed at erasing the intellectual and historical heritage of these lands, particularly the Persian language and Iranian culture, from the historical stage, continues to maintain his excessively biased and dogmatic stance as seen in the first edition of his book. This suggests that, despite his claims of correcting his misunderstandings, there is little hope of reaching a logical analysis free from emotional bias for an objective reader.

In this study, where the aforementioned book is analyzed using content analysis methodology, the reasons for Zarrinkub’s reactionary negative attitude toward Muslim Arabs and the Islam he pioneered, as well as the ideas he put forth in his book, are examined and analyzed. This study focuses not on whether the historical narrative in the book aligns with historical reality and truths, and thus whether it should be rejected or confirmed, but rather on the purpose (ideological, political, and social) for which and how it was shaped. It is concluded that the author, by highlighting the characteristics, abilities, and talents of his own culture, strives to prove its superiority over the opposing “other,” and through this endeavor, endeavors to establish an identity and memory by determining his and his opponent’s place in history. Additionally, his negative-reactionary attitude toward Muslim Arabs is mostly related to the weakening and loss of influence of the Iranian national identity during the first century of Islam. The excessive significance the author attaches to language and race in his critique of identity, culture, and historicity, and his judgment of historical-cultural heritage solely within the context of language and race, lead him to an incomplete and flawed analysis and evaluation.