In contemporary Central Asia, Soviet-era authors are national heroes. Writers’ natal homes have become lovingly curated home-museums; statues of poets bedeck city squares; and schoolchildren write dictations from twentieth-century novels. Less often discussed in public, such writers also once belonged to the Soviet Writers’ Union, many of these poets called themselves “proletarian,” and their novels purported to imagine “revolution.” Poems about tractors rarely appear in today's anthologies, and new editions of 1930s novels excise the once-obligatory references to Stalin. In reaction to their Soviet-era canonization, some writers have been knocked from their pedestals, as recently happened to Hamza in Uzbekistan. Due to the political sensitivity of many Soviet writers in Uzbekistan, most serious scholarly attention has turned, since 1990, toward transitional Jadid writers of the early revolutionary years who were ultimately devoured by the official regime, such as Cho'lpon and Fitrat.

This article explores the ideas of Iranian reformist scholar Sedigheh Vasmaghi and her contribution to religious reformist thought in Iran. As this article demonstrates, a significant aspect of Vasmaghi's work concerns how she understands the extent to which the legal aspects of the Qurʾān and the associated rulings found in fiqh literature are relevant to the conditions of the modern world. This article investigates Vasmaghi's ideas about the Qurʾān and her contextualist approach to interpretation, arguing that her views on Islam's socio-legal rulings are rooted in her approach to the Qurʾān. As the article will demonstrate, Vasmaghi's ideas add to the work of other prominent Iranian reformist scholars such as Abdolkarim Soroush, Muhammad Mujtahed Shabestari, Mohsen Kadivar and Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari, but her approach is also subject to criticism, in particular her manner of differentiating between the mutable and immutable aspects of religion.

What is the relevance of the Persianate as a category of analysis in a world wherein even world literature continues to be framed as the literary history of discrete nations? First coined by historian Marshall Hodgson in 1974, Persianate initially referred to cultures such as Georgian, Armenian, Chaghatay, Urdu, and Ottoman, which were heavily influenced lexically and culturally by Persian without themselves being related to Persian linguistically. Gradually, an additional meaning was grafted onto “Persianate,” which referenced cultures such as Judeo-Persian that were linguistically Persian but culturally diverse, bearing multiple alphabets, religions, and identities. These two meanings—the first grounded in cultural affinity and the second in linguistic origins—complement each other and ensure that the concept of the Persianate is reducible neither to language nor to identity.

The article contributes to filling the research gap concerning Iranian Zoroastrians in diaspora. Using a narrative approach, it explores how second-generation Zoroastrians raised in the United States learn and practice religion while facing the challenges of a pluralistic American society. The article includes a case study of two young Zoroastrian women interviewed in 2019, members of the Californian community. The contrastive cases shed light on the internal heterogeneity of Zoroastrianism, different ways the religion is perceived and experienced, and different ideas about future preservation of the ethno-religious heritage. The study contributes to an understanding of how Zoroastrianism evolves on a new continent and how it differs from what Zoroastrian immigrants brought from Iran.

This paper seeks to shed light on the metaphorical discourse of the secretive minority religion of Yārsān. Metaphor is demonstrated as a central rhetorical device, applied as a linguistic apparatus that serves the ideology of concealment. To express heterodox concepts, Yārsān texts principally employ two rhetorical devices, metaphor and lexical substitution. The metaphorical models objectively conceptualize highly abstract religious notions and serve to obscure heretical concepts that strongly vary from established orthodox beliefs. As for lexical substitution, the most frequent metaphorical models are verbalized using foreign loanwords that are not common in Kurdish dialects. Together, these strategies construct a highly puzzling and mysterious discourse that is too difficult for outsiders to unravel. It can be argued that the metaphorical discourse of Yārsān functions as an anti-language that effectively challenges the limitations of expression imposed by the orthodox mainstream in the medieval era. Yārsān followers are able to express non-expressible ideas and disguise them within complicated imageries.