The Rise and Demise of the 1920-21 Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran in Gilan played like an intense drama in modern Iranian history. It provided Iran with an example of a national liberation movement and a peasant-backed guerrilla force; it introduced to the country the founders of the Iranian Communist Party, exercising social authority and power in what they considered to be a liberation movement; it offered a brief experiment with socialism which ended tragically. Its principal leader, Mirza Kuchik Khan, combined an intense radical nationalism with a strong sense of politically engaged Shi'ism, thus providing Iranian opposition movements in the twentieth century with some of their archetypal characteristics. The defeat of the republic led to the death of Mirza Kuchik Khan (1880—1921) and the continued domination of Iran by Britain.

More than Fifty Books, and More than 100 Academic Articles, Have appeared in English alone dealing in significant part with the Iranian revolutionary movement. This impressive output, published in just 15 years, does not reflect a similarly copious wealth of source materials. In fact, the study of the Iranian revolutionary movement is largely, one might argue, sound and fury, a lot of grand theorizing lacking a solid empirical basis. No work on the Iranian revolution has made systematic use of all forms of primary evidence that are currently available, though some are more thorough than others.

This paper discusses Western historiography of the Iranian revolutionary movement of 1977–79, which led to the fall of the Pahlavi regime in February 1979. It does not attempt to cover works on the post-revolutionary period, after the fall of the shah. In addition, it does not deal specifically with individual secondary works on the Iranian revolution.

Among The Forerunners of Modernism in Nineteenth-Century Iran Mirza Fath ‘Ali Akhundzada was probably the most outspoken in his defense of secularism and his attack on religion as the chief obstacle to social progress. His writings on these subjects, his advocacy of an improvised script—a lifetime preoccupation—and his plays with distinct social messages, have already been subjects of study. In their treatment of Akhundzada most writers have satisfied themselves with cursory content analyses of his social ideas and literary achievements. Yet the question remains: to what extent was his socio-religious criticism—what he called qirītīka (Persianized rendering of the Russian kritika)— the outcome of his exposure, directly or indirectly, to modern European thought? To what extent, on the other hand, was his blend of theological skepticism and social disquietude rooted in exposure to the lingering Perso-Islamic “esotericism” (bāṭinīya) of his time.

Much Scholarly Ink has been Spilled over the Question of What constitutes dance in different societies. Several attempts have been made to create a universal category for dance that would enable dance scholars to transcend this fundamental question and get down to the business of conducting research, secure in the knowledge that all of their colleagues understand the basic definitions of “dance.”

None of the current definitions takes into account dance and dance events in societies such as those of the Islamic areas of the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa where the term for dance (usually the Arabic word raqṣ) can possibly bear powerfully negative or, at least, ambiguous connotations. While dance, and a word to denote that activity, exists and we can perhaps come to an agreement over what constitutes dance, an even more crucial issue is what dance is not in an Islamic environment.