Iranian modernity has chiefly been examined in the context of a dialectical antagonism between “traditionalists” and “modernists”—main categories comprised of related sub-headings such as “Islamist” versus “secular,” “reactionary” versus “revolutionary,” and “regressive” versus “progressive.” Following this approach, Iranian adaptations of modernity have often been (de)historicized as a theater of national “awakening” resulting from the toils of secular intellectuals in overcoming the obstinate resistance of traditional reactionaries, a confrontation between two purportedly well-defined and mutually exclusive camps. Such reductionist dialectics has generally overwritten the dialogic narrative of Iranian modernity, a conflicted dialogue misrepresented as a conflicting dialectic. It has also silenced an important feature of Iranian modernity: the universally acknowledged premise of the simultaneity and commensurability of tradition with modernity. The monazereh (disputation or debate) is the account of the interaction between rival discourses that engaged in opposing, informing, and appropriating each other in the process of adapting modernity. Narrativizing the history of Iranian modernity as the conflict between mutually exclusive binaries overlooks its hyphenated, liminal1 identity—a narrative of adaptation rather than wholesale adoption, of heterogeneity rather than homogeneity, of dialogues rather than dialectics. The monazereh is the account of modern Iranian histories.

In contemporary Iran, many shops are under the “shop-lease contract with sar-qofli.” In this contract, sar-qoflisar-qofli, a strong usufructuary right supported by intangible assets such as the shop’s reputation, is given to the tenant. The “shop-lease contract with sar-qofli” originated from a traditional merchants’ custom in Iran’s business quarters. After the 1979 Revolution, the Law of Lessor–Lessee Relationships, which provides a legal framework for the practice of “shop-lease contract with sar-qofli,” was completely revised, since Islamic jurists regarded haqq-e kasb o pisheh o tejārat as problematic. Haqq-e kasb o pisheh o tejārat, the legal designation of sar-qofli, was based on a heterogeneous value concept introduced into the Iranian legal system from abroad during World War II. As a result of this revision, another alternative for asset management was granted to shop owners. Nevertheless, “shop-lease contract with sar-qofli” remains the most widely employed form of lease in Iran’s property lease market.

This article represents Talebof ’s thought on the modern idea of liberty defined in terms of selfishness, selflessness, and selfhood. First, a brief background is set forth in an attempt to show some of the influences on Talebof by others of the Iranian intelligentsia and European philosophers. Having set the stage, his philosophy is represented systematically, as against chronologically. This approach helps to reveal a shortcoming in Talebof ’s philosophy regarding the modern idea of liberty. The shortcoming is evident: Talebof defined liberty in terms of selfishness and selflessness, but then did not dig deep enough to methodically examine selfhood as a more fundamental basis for liberty. The article argues that this shortcoming was caused by a number of factors, including philosophical poverty coupled with natural tendency for reification, and anxiously pragmatic ethos caused by lawlessness under the Qajars and exposure to the hegemonic West. In short, this paper defines the modern idea of liberty, describes Talebof ’s understanding of it, and explains the obstacles that prevented Talebof from setting out a more comprehensive examination of the modern idea of liberty.

Phonology is one of several aspects of a natural language and it is the study of sound systems of languages. The purpose of this article is to study and describe the phonemic system of the dialect of Marvdashti. Marvdashti dialect belongs to the southwestern branch of New Iranian languages. The article deals with an inventory of Marvdashti dialect sounds and their features and it covers the phonological rules which specify how sounds interact with each other. This study first introduces and examines the consonants and vowels of Marvdashti dialect, and then explores phoneme arrangement, syllable structure and phonological processes such as assimilation, dissimilation, alteration, epenthesis, deletion and methathesis.

This paper investigates the difference of perspective which informs The Qābūs Nāmih’s and The Nasirean Ethics’ respective treatments of the topic of slavery. While in various parts of their discussions both works show an engagement with each side of the hybrid status of a slave’s existence as both subject and object, The Qābūs Nāmih deals with the issue almost entirely in terms of the slave’s status as an object, while The Nasirean Ethics engages this issue with clear acknowledgments to his/her status as a subject. It is possible that the divergent approaches of these two works are a reflection of the two distinct modes of the genre of Islamic advice literature in which they were respectively written.

The debate over political commitment in Iran was never limited to adjudicating content: it was frequently a debate over form as well. In the realm of fiction, this debate fixated on realism, the nature of mimesis, and the autonomy of art and the literary text. Within a few short years after forming the iconoclastic journal Jong-e Esfahan in 1965 with a group of likeminded colleagues, the writer Hushang Golshiri had become the preeminent modernist fiction writer in Iran. His critical essays represented a passionate defense of aesthetic autonomy at a time when realism and, particularly, socialist and “engaged” literature were powerful shibboleths in the Tehran literary scene. This paper begins with a look at Golshiri’s critical interventions in this debate and then moves on to show how the short stories he produced in the Jong era were an even more integral part of his response to the mimesis question. By reading his stories with a methodology drawn from “possible worlds” theories of narratology, Todorov’s fantastic, and Golshiri’s own theories, we see how these works break down the “one-world” frame of reality that realism takes for granted, and require the reader to grapple with multiple, often contradictory, possible realities in its stead.

Rebellions bringing together peasant-pastoralists, local dignitaries, and a few Sayyids prevented the Safavid monarchs from effectively controlling the political and economic activities in the province of Astarabad until the late sixteenth century. This paper investigates the nature of these rebellions led by the siyāh pūshān (wearers of black), and the socio-economic background and religious leanings of these rebels and their diverse allies. It also pays special attention to Astarabad’s Sayyids, their intellectual formation, and their distinct approaches to the Safavid state from the early sixteenth century until the late 1570s when the uprisings lost much of their vigor. While heterodoxy may have been part of Astarabad’s religious landscape, there is no evidence that it had a significant manifestation in the Siyah Push movement. More importantly, urban Shiʿi doctrinal and legal traditions had profound roots in Astarabad, nurtured by the Sayyids and promoted by the Betekchi dignitaries prior to the rise of the Safavids. This is significant given the fact that a group of Sayyids from Astarabad (especially the town of Fenderesk) were directly involved in the insurgency against the early Safavids.

“The politic” and “the religious” have had many relations with each other in Iranian history and in some cases “the religious” has been defined in a situation beyond the extent of the political power. A case in point is the right of taking sanctuary in Shi‘ite shrines. Throughout Iran’s history, subjects could take refuge in Shi‘ite shrines and some other places related to religious and non-religious authorities. Persecution was delayed or the individual was forgiven, though sometimes they were sentenced when exiting the shrine. By referring to religious texts that have reinforced that tradition, this article seeks to trace continuities between early Islam and modern Iran. It focuses on sanctuary taking and sit-ins at shrines and tombs, and on the interplay between those actions and political power, and discusses the changing mobility and dynamisms of those actions at different periods of Iranian history.