This article was originally published by the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS SOAS).

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

The Persian language, with its rich literary tradition and deep historical roots, stands as one of the world’s most enduring cultural treasures. For over five hundred years, the term Persian has been used in the English language to describe both a nation with a 7,000-year archaeological history and the language that nation has spoken since the rise of the first Persian Empire, the Achaemenids. This linguistic and cultural legacy has shaped not only Iran but also vast regions of Asia, from the Indian Subcontinent to Central Asia, where Persian served as a lingua franca for centuries.

 

Unfortunately, in recent decades, the word ‘Farsi’ has increasingly and incorrectly been used to describe the Persian language. This shift is not merely a matter of semantics; it represents a profound erosion of the historical and cultural associations that the term Persian carries. For a nation with such a long and illustrious history of civilisation, the loss of these associations is not only regrettable but also deeply insulting to Iran’s heritage.

 

This paper outlines the linguistic and cultural context of Persian, exploring the motivations of those promoting the incorrect usage of the term ‘Farsi’. It argues that the use of ‘Farsi’ instead of ‘Persian’ undermines the language’s historical prestige, weakens Iran’s cultural identity, and diminishes its global standing. By examining the linguistic evolution of Persian, its role in shaping Iranian identity, and the broader implications of this terminological shift, the paper seeks to reaffirm the importance of preserving the term Persian in English and other Western languages.

 

 

2. LINGUISTICS

Persian is described linguistically as an Indo-European language. It is a member of the Western Iranian branch of the Iranian languages, which are themselves a subgroup of the Indo-Iranian (or Indo-Aryan) family of languages. As such, Persian is distantly related to the vast majority of European languages, including English. Over the past three millennia, it has developed through three distinct stages: Old, Middle, and New Persian.

 

The linguistic evolution of Persian is not merely a matter of academic interest but also a testament to its resilience and adaptability. Despite invasions, political upheavals, and cultural shifts, Persian has retained its core structure and identity, serving as a unifying force for the Iranian people. This continuity is a rare phenomenon among world languages and underscores the importance of preserving its historical name, Persian, which reflects its enduring legacy.

 

2.1. Old Persian

Old Persian and Avestan are the two most prominent members of the Old Iranian languages. Avestan is categorised as an Eastern Iranian language and was spoken in northeastern and eastern Iran from the second half of the second millennium BCE (Old Avestan) down to about the beginning of the Achaemenid period (Younger Avestan) [1]. It is also the language of the sacred texts of the Zoroastrian religion. The Gathas, or metrical sermons of the prophet Zarathushtra, were composed sometime in the second millennium BCE in Older or Gathic Avestan. Later texts are recorded in Younger Avestan, which constitutes a subsequent and distinct linguistic phase [2], more similar to the language of the oldest Old Persian inscriptions than to Old Avestan [3]. Old Avestan is very close to Old Indic Rigveda and, as such, represents a highly archaic Indo-European linguistic type [4].

 

Old Persian was the vernacular tongue of the Achaemenid monarchs [5], though it had already been spoken for a few centuries prior to the rise of the Achaemenid dynasty [6]. The Old Persian script, called ‘Aryan’ (Old Persian: ariyā) by the Achaemenids, is largely known from an extensive body of cuneiform inscriptions, especially from the time of Darius the Great (r. 522–486 BCE) and his son Xerxes (r. 486–465 BCE) [7]. Some scholars believe that Aryan was invented by the first Iranian dynasty, the Medes (728–550 BCE), and then adopted by the Achaemenids as the imperial script [8].

 

The linguistic and cultural significance of Old Persian cannot be overstated. It served as the administrative and literary language of the first Persian Empire, facilitating communication across a vast and diverse territory. This early standardisation of the language laid the groundwork for its subsequent evolution and its role as a vehicle for Persian culture and identity.

 

2.2. Middle Iranian (Middle Persian)

The two major languages in this group are ‘Pahlawānīg’ (also called Arsacid Pahlavi, Parthian and Northwest Pahlavi [9]) and ‘Pārsīg’ (or Southwest Pahlavi and, more commonly, Middle Persian). The term ‘Pahlavi’ is a noun derived from the adjective ‘Pahlav’ [10], which is the equivalent of the Old Persian word ‘Parθava’, meaning ‘Parthian’ [11].

 

Arsacid Pahlavi (Parthian) was the official language of the Arsacid dynastic empire (248 BCE–224 CE) [12]. It is also preserved in a large body of Manichean texts, which provide evidence for its continuation in Central Asia right up until the 10th century [13]. While Arsacid Pahlavi is categorised as a dialect within the Northwestern subgroup of Iranian languages, it retains many archaic Eastern Iranian features, likely because the founders of the Arsacid dynasty, the Parni tribe, were originally speakers of a Northeastern Iranian language similar to Scythian [14]. Parthian has no known direct linguistic ancestor [15], but is closely related to the other major Middle Iranian language, ‘Pārsīg’ or Middle Persian.

 

Middle Persian was a direct successor to, and derived from, Old Persian. It has a multiplicity of Southwestern Iranian features. Gradually developing into a distinct idiom after the reign of Emperor Xerxes [16], it became the official language of the Sasanian Empire (224–651 CE) and was utilised in a noteworthy literature of Zoroastrian sacred texts. Following the Arab invasions of Iran in the seventh century, it evolved into New Persian.

 

The transition from Middle to New Persian marked a pivotal moment in the language’s history. Despite the Arab conquest, Persian not only survived but thrived, absorbing Arabic loanwords and adapting to new cultural contexts while retaining its essential character. This resilience is a testament to the strength of Persian as a cultural and linguistic force, further underscoring the importance of preserving its historical name.

 

 

2.3. New Persian

New Persian, or simply Persian, is classified as one of the Modern Iranian languages, alongside Baluchi, Gorani, Kurmanji, Luri, Sorani, Tati, Zaza, Pashto, Ossetic, and many others. It can be divided into two phases: classical and modern, although both variants remain mutually intelligible [17].

 

The period following the Islamic conquest is referred to by Iranian scholars as the ‘Two Centuries of Silence’. During this time, there is no inscriptional or textual evidence for New Persian, and only scant indications of the continued use of Middle Persian. However, scholars argue that it is unlikely that Iranians abandoned their mother tongue entirely in favour of Arabic [18]. The absence of literary evidence from this period is likely exacerbated by the destruction of Iranian libraries by the Mongols under Genghis Khan and his successors, as well as other potential reasons that remain unknown to us [19].

 

The subsequent ‘Persian renaissance’ was marked by the emergence of Classical Persian. This form of the language arose in Khorasan, in eastern Iran, and was heavily influenced by Eastern Iranian linguistic elements [20], [21]. Arabic also had a notable impact, contributing a large number of loanwords and increasing palatalisation. Notably, the relationship between the Persian and Arabic scripts has been a subject of scholarly debate. While it is commonly asserted that the Persian script borrowed from the Arabic script, an alternative argument posits that the Arabic script itself evolved from the Middle Persian script. This perspective highlights the historical role of Persian ‘dabīrs’ (meaning ‘scribes’, referred to one of the four distinct social classes within Sasanian society.) in the early Islamic administration, as Arabs lacked a developed script of their own. A closer examination of the Middle Persian script reveals striking similarities to the Arabic script, suggesting a shared lineage rather than a one-sided borrowing.

 

The adoption of a modified version of the Middle Persian script for writing New Persian created a shared script between the two languages, with certain letter changes to accommodate Persian phonology. For instance, Persian has more consonants than Arabic, such as ‘p’, ‘č’, ‘ž’, and ‘g’. Notably, the Arabic language lacks the /p/ phoneme, which led to the substitution of /f/ for /p/ in words such as ‘Pārsī’, resulting in ‘Fārsi’. Consequently, the region of ‘Pārs’, the Sasanians originating from there, and their language came to be referred to by natives as ‘Fārs’ and ‘Fārsi’.

 

Additionally, the conversion of many Persian scholars, scientists, philosophers, and polymaths to Islam during the early Islamic period played a pivotal role in the development of New Persian. As Arabic became the ‘lingua franca’ of the Islamic Empire, these intellectuals increasingly composed their works in Arabic to reach a broader audience within the Islamic world. This was particularly evident in fields such as philosophy, medicine, astronomy, and literature, where figures such as Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā), Al-Farabi (Fārābī), Rhazes (Rāzi), Ibn Khordadbeh (Khordādbeh) and Al-Biruni (Bīrūnī) produced seminal works in Arabic, despite their Iranian heritage [22].

 

The dual linguistic identity of these scholars, writing in both Arabic and New Persian, facilitated not only the influx of Arabic loanwords into Persian but also the dissemination of the term ‘Fārsi’ as a replacement for ‘Pārsī’. This shift was not merely a linguistic phenomenon but also a cultural and political one, reflecting the integration of Persian culture into the broader Islamic framework. The adoption of the Arabic script for writing Persian, along with the influence of Arabic phonology, further reinforced this change. Over time, this usage permeated both literary and vernacular contexts, to the extent that Iranians began to refer to their national language as ‘Fārsi’ rather than ‘Pārsī’. This transformation underscores the profound interplay between language, identity, and cultural exchange in the Islamic Empire [23].

 

Following these linguistic adaptations, Persian remained largely unchanged until the nineteenth century. At that time, what is now termed Modern or Standard Persian developed from the Tehrani vernacular, following the designation of Tehran as the capital of Iran by the Qajar dynasty in 1787.

 

 

3. NOMENCLATURE

The name Persian derives from the province of ‘Pārs’ (modern ‘Fārs’) in southwestern Iran. This region was named after the Persian tribes of Indo-European nomads who migrated, along with other Iranian peoples, from territories east of the Caspian Sea onto the Iranian plateau during the middle [24] or later part of the second millennium BCE [25].

 

The Persians settled in the mountainous region rising above the northeastern side of the Persian Gulf, encompassing the high basin in the west where Persepolis and Shiraz are located [26], sometime between the seventh and ninth centuries BCE [27]. The name ‘Pārs’ endured as ‘Fārs’ [28]. This region subsequently became the birthplace of two Persian dynastic empires, the Achaemenids (550–330 BCE) and the Sasanians (224–651 CE), as well as the cradle of the Persian language.

 

The Achaemenid Persians referred to their language (Old Persian) as ‘Pārsa’, and the Greeks adopted this term, naming it ‘Persis’. From that point onward, other nations have predominantly used words based on the root ‘Pārs-’ to refer to Persia and Persian [29].

 

For example, the English term Persian has a five-hundred-year history [30] and is derived from the Latin Persianus, which itself draws on the Greek Persis. Similarly, the French use Persane, the Germans Persisch, the Italians Persiano, and the Russians Persiska.

 

As previously outlined, Persian came to be referred to as ‘Fārsi’ by natives of Iran only after the P/F letter substitution associated with the Arab conquests.

 

 

4. SAME LANGUAGE, DIFFERENT NAMES

Persian is spoken by at least 110 million people worldwide, with sixty to seventy million of these being native speakers. The largest populations of Persian speakers are found in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, but notable numbers also reside in neighbouring countries [31], [32], including Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, and the Caucasus [33], as well as in the Persian Gulf states [34]. Additionally, since the 1979 revolution, emigration from Iran has led to the establishment of Persian-speaking diaspora communities in numerous countries worldwide, particularly in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Israel. The largest urban community of Iranians outside Iran is now located in the Los Angeles area [35].

 

These populations use regional varieties of Persian, which incorporate differing proportions of non-Persian loanwords [36] and exhibit slight variations in pronunciation [37] compared to the Persian spoken in Iran [38]. Some of these varieties have distinct local names: Tajiks refer to their Persian as ‘Tojiki’, while Afghans often use the term ‘Dari’ [39].

 

However, unlike Arabic, all these varieties are mutually intelligible. Contrary to the views of some academics and institutions, they constitute the same language.

 

The Cultural Heritage News Agency of Iran provides an explanation for why the varieties of Persian have at least as strong a claim as those of Arabic to be considered a single language [40]:

“Some mistakenly believe that, in English, the official language of Iran should be called ‘Farsi’, while the language spoken in Tajikistan and Afghanistan should be called ‘Dari’, and Persian should be used to refer to all of them. However, the difference between the Persian spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, or Tajikistan is not notable or considerable enough to warrant such a distinction and classification. Consider the following case: an Egyptian and a Qatari engage in conversation in Arabic. They will encounter a great deal of difficulty in comprehending each other. Despite this fact, the language used in their conversation is referred to as Arabic . . . On the other hand, Iranians, Tajiks, and Afghans can converse in Persian and easily understand each other. Why, then, should their dialects be classified separately and referred to by different names?”

 

Despite this, some academics and academic institutions treat the Persian spoken in Iran and elsewhere as separate entities. For example, Professor Michael Hillman of the University of Texas, while lecturing at the ‘Fifth Biennial Conference on Iranian Studies’, referred to ‘Farsi’ and ‘Tajiki’ as dialects of Persian [41, 42]. Similarly, undergraduates at Emory College in the United States are taught ‘Farsi’ as one variety of Persian [43]. Even the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University, which has been teaching Persian since the seventeenth century and therefore ought to know better, now describes Tajik as one of the ‘branches’ of Persian [44].

 

 

5. THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE AND IRANIAN IDENTITY

The rich legacy of the Iranian nation, that is, Iranian identity at its most fundamental, is defined by, and intertwined with, the Persian language. Persian is not merely a means of communication but a cornerstone of Iranian culture, history, and collective memory. It has served as a unifying force for over two and a half millennia, binding together diverse peoples and regions under a shared linguistic and cultural framework.

 

Professor Ehsan Yarshater, editor of ‘Encyclopaedia Iranica’, affirms this eloquently [45]:

“Persia has cherished and preserved against all odds . . . the shared experience of a rich and rewarding past. It finds expression primarily through the Persian language, not simply as a medium of comprehension but also as the chief carrier of the Persian world view and Persian culture. The Persian language . . . is a reservoir of Iranian thought, sentiment, and values, and a repository of its literary arts. It is only by loving, learning, teaching, and above all enriching the language that the Persian identity may continue to survive.”

 

A key element in the history of Persian language and culture, within the discourse of Iranian history, is the struggle between Arab-Islamic and Iranian-nativist identities [46]. This is not to say that Persian has not contributed to Islam: on the contrary, Persian played a major role in the propagation and spread of the religion in the Indian Sub-Continent, Central Asia, and even as far as China and the Far East [47]. Persian became the language of Islamic scholarship, poetry, and administration in many regions, demonstrating its adaptability and enduring influence.

 

The Persian language has also been a vehicle for resistance and cultural preservation. During periods of foreign domination, such as the Arab and Mongol invasions, Persian literature and poetry flourished, serving as a means of safeguarding Iranian identity and values. The works of poets such as Ferdowsi, whose ‘Shahnameh’ (Book of Kings) revived and celebrated Iran’s pre-Islamic heritage, exemplify this role. Ferdowsi’s famous declaration, “I have revived the Ajam [Iranians] with this Persian [language],” underscores the language’s centrality to Iranian identity.

 

Moreover, Persian has historically functioned as a lingua franca across much of Asia, facilitating trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Its influence extended from the Ottoman Empire to Mughal India, where it was the language of administration, literature, and high culture. This widespread use of Persian reinforced its status as a language of prestige and sophistication, further embedding it in the cultural consciousness of the region.

 

In contemporary Iran, the Persian language remains a powerful symbol of national unity and pride. It is the medium through which Iranians express their shared history, values, and aspirations. To undermine the language by replacing ‘Persian’ with ‘Farsi’ is to erode this vital link to the past and weaken the foundation of Iranian identity.

 

The Cultural Heritage News Agency of Iran has emphasised the importance of preserving the term ‘Persian’ in international contexts, noting that it carries with it a wealth of historical and cultural associations that ‘Farsi’ cannot replicate. These associations include the grandeur of the Persian Empire, the richness of Persian literature, and the enduring legacy of Persian art and architecture. By retaining the term Persian, Iranians can ensure that their language, and by extension, their culture, continues to be recognised and respected on the global stage.

 

In conclusion, the Persian language is not merely a tool for communication but a vital component of Iranian identity. Its preservation and promotion are essential for maintaining the continuity of Iranian culture and heritage. To substitute Persian with ‘Farsi’ is to sever this connection to the past and diminish the language’s historical and cultural significance.

 

 

6. REGIONAL AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES ON PERSIAN

The above discussion focuses on Iranian and Middle Eastern perceptions of Persian. Looking further afield, there is a long tradition of valuing Persian language and culture: “At its height, [the Persian language] stretched from the Aegean in the West to Sinkiang and the Bay of Bengal in the East and from the Russian steppes in the North to the Indian Ocean in the South” [48].

 

Persian, within what Arnold Toynbee termed the ‘Iranic Society’ [49], served as the administrative and literary language of the Ottomans and Mughal India [50, 51]. All medieval histories of India were written in Persian [52], and under British rule, knowledge of Persian was considered desirable for Englishmen aspiring to high office in India [52]. in fact, until 1834, Persian was the medium of all official correspondence in India [54].

 

From a purely European perspective, Persian epic stories were first brought back to France by the Crusaders [55]. Wolfram von Eschenbach translated versions of these stories into German around 1180 [56]. Presenting what became known as the Parsifal Legend, Eschenbach “utilised several Persian legends dating from about 600. By transmuting the sacred personages of the original legends into romantic knights, he modernised the tales for his own time. For this modernisation, he took as a model a grand epic from the end of the eleventh century, the ‘Barzu-Nama’, the story of a knight named Barzu” [57].

 

However, it was not until the reign of the Safavid dynasty (1507–1702), with their increasingly international commercial and political links, that Europeans began to engage with Persian literature in any depth [58]. The earliest extant reference to Persian literature in English appears to date from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. In The Arte of English Poesie (1589), George Puttenham provides translations of four Persian poems [59].

 

The 17th-century German Orientalist Adam Olearius played a notable role in popularising knowledge about Iran following his visit there in 1633 as secretary to the ambassador of Frederick III of Schleswig-Holstein [60].

 

 

7. PERSIAN NOT ‘FARSI’

Using the term ‘Farsi’ rather than ‘Persian’ is not only linguistically nonsensical but also culturally undermining.

 

Linguistically, it is widely accepted that native speakers and foreigners use different words to describe the same language. Alex Bellem from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, observes [61]:

“If we insist on ‘Farsi’, then shouldn’t we insist also on ‘Türkçe’ or ‘Español’ or ‘Ελληνικά’, and so on? Since it is accepted in linguistics as natural that non-native words are adapted to conform to the phonology of the borrowing language (perhaps via an intermediate ‘conveyor’ language), can we object to Persian on linguistic grounds?”

 

Joseph Bell, Professor of Arabic and Middle-Eastern Languages and Cultures at the University of Bergen in Norway, is more emphatic in his condemnation [62]:

“No one would seriously consider substituting ‘Deutschland’ for ‘Germany’, or ‘Deutsch/Deutscher’ for ‘German’ in English. ‘Deutschland’ exists, of course, in English, but with connotations for which a high price was paid . . . But to use the word [‘Farsi’] as the normal term for the national language of Iran has to be classified as one of the greatest affronts to great cultures in our time.”

 

He further examines the negative cultural implications of this usage [63]:

“Saying ‘Farsi’ instead of Persian robs the language and the culture of all the sense of splendour the name Persian has taken on in Western languages through two and a half millennia of war, trade, religious and cultural influence, and other forms of confrontation or subtle interaction.”

 

This sentiment is echoed by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature (Farhangestān-e Zabān va Adab-e Fārsī) in Iran, which explicitly advocates the use of the term Persian over ‘Farsi’ [64]:

“Persian has been used in a variety of publications, including cultural, scientific, and diplomatic documents, for centuries and therefore connotes very notable and cultural meanings. Hence, changing Persian to ‘Farsi’ is to negate these important established precedents. Changing Persian to ‘Farsi’ may give the impression that it is a new language, and this may well be the intention of some Persian users.”

 

Hossein Samei, Linguistics Professor at Emory University in Atlanta, argues that [65]:

“Persian, alongside being the name of a language, may be used as an adjective for other aspects of our history and culture. For example, we can speak about ‘Persian Literature’, ‘Persian Gulf’, ‘Persian Carpet’, and ‘Persian Food’. In this way, Persian may be [seen as] a common concept and function as a link between all aspects of Iranian life, including language. ‘Farsi’ does not have such a characteristic.”

 

Franklin Lewis, Professor of Persian Language & Literature at the University of Chicago, reaffirms this view [66]:

“As there is no such thing as ‘Farsi’ carpets, ‘Farsi’ literature, ‘Farsi’ cats, ‘Farsi’ food, etc., it seems rather ridiculous to use this English neologism as a general adjective for the language.”

 

The use of the term ‘Farsi’ dilutes this distinctive quality and undermines Iranian culture.

 

Professor Ehsan Yarshater, the Editor of ‘Encyclopaedia Iranica’, drives the point home [67]:

“[The word ‘Farsi’] has no foundation in the English language, and its relationship to the identity of Iranian civilisation and culture, as reflected in phrases such as ‘Persian literature’, ‘Persian art’, and ‘Persian poetry’, is not at all clear . . . As well as the linguistic points, when the word ‘Farsi’ is used in English for the Persian language, it ignores all the positive cultural connotations of the word Persian.”

 

 

8. WHO IS PROMOTING THE WORD ‘‘FARSI’’ AND WHY?

Some of those using the term ‘Farsi’ may be acting out of ignorance or misunderstanding. For example, a ‘Wall Street Journal’ editor naively surmises [68]:

“Supporters of the name Iran prefer calling the language ‘Farsi’, it seems, while the supporters of the historical name Persia prefer Persian.”

 

Professor Geoffrey Lewis attempts to be charitable [69]:

“. . . hard though it is when dealing with the ‘Farsi’ -merchants. Some of them probably use the term because they feel uncomfortable with the seemingly fuddy-duddy Persian and are deterred by some spark of good sense from calling the language of Persia ‘Iranian’. For that is a family name which covers many other languages besides Persian.”

 

Professor Bell asserts that the problem stems from a lack of knowledge and respect [70]:

“If we know a people well enough to respect them, we will not tamper with the corrupt forms of their names, their place names, and the names of their languages. It is only when we do not have sufficient respect that we yield to the urgings of the mapmakers and revert to the ‘native’ form.”

 

However, when considering those who may have other motivations, there are three main groups worthy of further discussion: those in the West; Islamic fundamentalists and pan-Arabists; and, perhaps most worryingly of all, the Iranian diaspora.

 

 

8.1. Those in the West

Professor Franklin Lewis reflects on the origins of this usage [71]:

“The term ‘Farsi’ began to creep into English in the 1960s, mostly as a result of foreigners in Iran hearing it from native speakers who, presumably, did not know English well enough to know that the English name of their language had always been Persian.”

 

An Iranian commentator blames the Western media for perpetuating this trend [72]:

“. . . [during the 1979] a bunch of Western journalists who didn’t speak the language were sent to Iran to report on the revolution. Using this exotic word ‘Farsi’ instead of Persian might have made the impression that they knew what they were talking about, which very often they didn’t. I was just a teenager at that time, but I still remember. In most cases, they were hanging out in the Hotel Marmar and drinking beer, then reproducing bar gossip as authentic reports from the heart of the revolution.”

 

Frances Pritchett, Professor of Modern Indic Languages at Columbia University in the US, believes that the use of the term ‘Farsi’ was further propagated by Urdu speakers living in the West [73]:

“All my Urdu-speaking friends refer to Persian as ‘Farsi’, which is its Urdu name; they tend to transfer that name into English quite naturally. I picked up the habit directly from them.”

 

Now, this habit is becoming institutionalised at the highest levels. The ‘Guidelines for UK Government Websites’ [74], as well as the British Embassy in Tehran, currently describe Persian as ‘Farsi’ [75].

 

The BBC, with its long-established ‘BBC Persian’ radio service, is launching a range of TV channels for the Middle East in 2008. This includes a Persian language service, which is to be called ‘’Farsi’ TV’. Interestingly, the Arabic counterpart is named ‘Arabic TV’, rather than ‘al-Arabiyya TV’. Many Iranians still remember the provocative stance and partisan posture taken by the BBC in 1979 [76] (widely known as the ‘Ayatollah BBC’ [77]). With these events in mind, it is difficult to interpret the BBC’s choice as anything other than a conscious decision.

 

Across the Atlantic, despite the US Library of Congress Standards recommending the use of the term Persian [78], ‘Farsi’ is used in the United States for Security Initiative Programmes of language teaching [79, 80, 81], as well as in other official documents and websites [82, 83].

 

American usage of ‘Farsi’ instead of Persian has not only created confusion but also suggests division among Persian-speaking peoples. For instance, according to the CIA’s ‘World Fact Book’, the language of Iran, Afghanistan, and the UAE is stated as Persian, while Bahrainis are said to speak ‘Farsi’ [84].

 

 

8.2. Islamic Fundamentalists and Pan-Arabists in Iran

On the other side of the ideological divide, the situation is not notablely different. In post-revolutionary Iran, news agencies [85], English-language journals [86], textbooks issued by the Islamic Regime Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance, and resources for foreign tourists frequently refer to Persian as ‘Farsi’.

 

Since the rise of the theocratic regime in Iran, its leaders have dedicated considerable resources to supress and restructuring Iranian identity, culture and values. Iranians are now vigorously encouraged to choose Arabic or Islamic names for their children [87], and a notable number of Iranian names have been outlawed [88]. Many pre-Islamic historical and archaeological sites have been devastated under the guise of development projects: destroyed during the construction of highways [89] and railway tracks [90]; irreparably contaminated by chemical factories [91]; undermined by nearby hotels [92]; obliterated as part of mining operations [93]; or submerged beneath dam reservoirs [94], [95]. There have even been threats to bulldoze Persepolis [96]. In general, pre-Islamic Iranian heritage has been downplayed and undermined in favour of promoting Islamic culture [97], the Islamic way of life, and, above all, the Arabic language. There have even been systematic attempts to change the name used in the international community for the Persian language to ‘Farsi’ , as a political statement [98].

 

Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic regime, made no secret of his contempt for pre-Islamic Iranian culture, deriding everything Iranian from ‘Nowruz’ to the Persian language [99]:

“. . . [Khomeini] made no secret of his contempt for the non-Muslim dimensions of Iranian life. He injected Persian with so many Arabic words that it confounded the ordinary listener, something for which he compensated by repetitiveness.”

 

This attitude was echoed by many other prominent members of the Islamic regime. Although the Friday Sermons organised by the Islamic regime rarely mention the Persian language, indicating its perceived lack of importance, a detailed and explicit statement was made in 1981 by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, then Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council. On that occasion, he linked the fate of the Persian language directly to that of Persian nationality, asserting that both would vanish in the future [100]:

“. . . we believe that the future [is] Arabic, not Persian . . . on the day the united Islamic government is established, certainly its language cannot be anything but Arabic.”

 

Some senior regime members have been less negative, at least in their words, if not in their actions. Ali Khamenei, then the state President and now the Supreme Leader of the Islamic regime, emphasised the importance of the Persian language in a 1988 speech entitled “The Greatness of the Persian Language and the Necessity of Protecting it” [101]. He spoke about:

“[the] revolutionary duty to promote the national language, and [how] that national language constitutes the most important and original determinant of cultural identity for any nation.”

 

He further asserted the past and present international importance of the Persian language in the Islamic world, particularly in India and Central Asia, concluding that:

“[Today,] Persian is the language of true . . . and revolutionary Islam.”

 

More recently, however, various Islamic commentators have been less committed to the Persian language. For example, in 2003, Naser Pourpirar [102] demanded that the national language of Iran should be replaced with Arabic [103]:

“It is very unfortunate that we cannot put the Persian language aside and replace it with the language of the Qur’an. However, the future of Iran is in the hands of Islamic Unity. Spreading the Arabic language among Iranian youths and incorporating it more seriously into the education system . . . can lay the foundation for such Islamic Unity.”

 

Pourpirar holds a startling range of views, including the claim that the Parthian and Sasanian dynasties are baseless fabrications by Jewish Orientalists and that the indigenous peoples of Iran were wiped out by the ‘savage Slavic Achaemenids’, leaving Iran uninhabited until the arrival of the Muslim Arabs. Despite these claims, he is recognised as a scholar by the Islamic regime, which frequently quotes from his work.

 

Ghahreman Safavi is another of the Islamic regime’s new breed of pseudo-scholars. Based in the UK, he presented a paper on ‘Iranian identity’ in 2004 at SOAS, consistently using the term ‘Farsi’ , though often inaccurately [104]:

“Old ‘Farsi’ is a branch of [the] Avestan language . . . [and the] Avesta has been written in Iranian language (Ancient ‘Farsi’) . . . [while] New ‘Farsi’, which is Dari ‘Farsi’ . . .”

 

 

8.3. The Iranian Diaspora

Perhaps most concerning, however, is the use of the term ‘Farsi’ by some Iranians, particularly those in the diaspora. It is difficult to comprehend why they might, even inadvertently, contribute to the denigration of Iranian cultural achievements in this way.

 

Professor Yarshater writes about this phenomenon [105]:

“. . . the Iranians living in the USA, when they answer questions about languages that they know in their application forms for jobs or university courses. I suspect that they even feel gratified to think that ‘the known word of ‘Farsi’’ can now be used in the English language. If only they knew that by using the word ‘Farsi’ . . . they are irreparably damaging the fame and cultural status of Iran.”

 

A number of Iranian academics now use the term ‘Farsi’ to refer to Persian in their English publications [106]. For example, Dr. Mohammed Chaichian, Professor of Sociology at Mount Mercy College, discusses the question of cultural identity among first-generation Iranians, always using ‘Farsi’, thereby inadvertently diminishing that identity [107].

 

Professor Franklin Lewis reflects on the snowball effect this has when the media becomes involved [108]:

“The media has accelerated and canonised [this] process with the spread of the Iranian diaspora around the English-speaking world, especially, perhaps, in North America.”

 

For Iranians in French-speaking countries, the use of the term ‘Farsi’ for the Persian language is doubly incongruous, as it sounds indistinguishable from the word ‘farci’, meaning ‘stuffed’ [109].

 

Some diaspora Iranians have, however, begun to recognise the problem and are now proposing action. A contributor to ‘Persian Gulf Online’ comments [110]:

“The notable point, which unfortunately seems very difficult to get through to the Iranian diaspora, especially those residing in the United States, by far the biggest and potentially most influential group of the Iranian émigré community, is that by keeping the term Persian, we help preserve a ‘CONTINUITY’ which is an important cultural necessity.”

 

They further suggest:

“We cannot preserve the best in our culture unless we are prepared to take care of it. I believe we Iranians have succeeded in confusing everyone about our identity and culture, ourselves included. We have diluted our identity by over-educating foreigners. We are so eager to defend the Iranian image outside of Iran that we have created confusion about the name of our country, the name of our people, the name of our seas, and the name of our language.”

 

To strengthen the case, it is worth considering the broader implications of this linguistic shift within the diaspora. The Iranian diaspora represents a vital bridge between Iran and the rest of the world, playing a key role in shaping global perceptions of Iranian culture. By adopting the term ‘Farsi’, diaspora Iranians risk perpetuating a fragmented and diminished image of their heritage. Conversely, by reclaiming Persian, they can assert a unified and dignified identity that reflects the language’s historical prestige and cultural significance.

 

 

9. CONCLUSION

Dr. John Perry, Professor of Persian Language at the University of Chicago, emphasises the importance of language for a nation [111]:

“Of all man’s cultural badges, that of language is perhaps the most intimately felt and tenaciously defended.”

 

Sadly, it appears that a notable number of Iranians are not yet defending their cultural heritage with sufficient vigour. This is not merely a linguistic issue but one with profound implications for Iran’s cultural identity, global perception, and even its geopolitical influence.

 

Of course, it may still not be too late, even though warnings were being issued over twenty years ago. Professor Geoffrey Lewis of Oxford University expressed his outrage in 1984 at the inappropriate use of the term ‘Farsi’ [112]:

“It may still not be too late to put an end to the grotesque affectation of applying the name ‘Farsi’ to the language which for more than five hundred years has been known to English-speakers as Persian.”

 

Yarshater adds his full intellectual weight to this argument:

“We should, in order to protect our literature and ancient cultural credibility in the West, strictly avoid using the word ‘Farsi’ and instead use the same old and well-known word Persian. We should realise that the usage of the word ‘Farsi’ instead of Persian acts against our national interests.”

 

In conclusion, using the term ‘Farsi’ for Persian in any Western language, particularly English, is a linguistic absurdity. Furthermore, it undermines all the positive cultural connotations associated with the word Persian for modern Iran and contributes to the recent media portrayal of Iran as a strange and distant society [113]. This misrepresentation not only diminishes Iran’s rich historical legacy but also weakens its soft power and cultural diplomacy on the global stage.

 

To use the term ‘Farsi’ instead of Persian is an insult to the Iranian people and their culture and “one might even venture to say uneducated” [114]. It is “one of the greatest affronts to great cultures in our time” [115]. However, by reclaiming and consistently using the term Persian, Iranians can reaffirm their cultural continuity, strengthen their national identity, and project a more accurate and dignified image of their civilisation to the world.

 

While some may argue that ‘Farsi’ is simply a native term and its use reflects linguistic authenticity, this perspective overlooks the historical and cultural weight carried by the term Persian in global discourse. The adoption of ‘Farsi’ in English not only disrupts this established precedent but also risks fragmenting the perception of Persian as a unified language and cultural force. By contrast, embracing Persian as the standard term in English would reinforce the language’s historical prestige and its role as a bridge between Iran and the wider world.

 

In doing so, Iranians can ensure that their language, and by extension, their culture, remains a source of pride and respect, rather than confusion and diminishment. The choice is clear: to honour the past, preserve the present, and secure the future, the word Persian must prevail.

 

 

Bibliography, Footnotes, References:

1. Skjærvø, P.O. (2005) ‘An Introduction to Old Persian’. Available at: https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldPersian/opcomplete.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2007).

2. Kent, R.G. (1953) ‘Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon’. 2nd rev. ed. New Haven: American Oriental Society, p. 6.

3. Skjærvø, P.O. (2005) ‘An Introduction to Old Persian’. Available at: https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldPersian/opcomplete.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2007).

4. Ibid.

5. Kent, R.G. (1953) ‘Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon’. 2nd rev. ed. New Haven: American Oriental Society, p. 6.

6. Skjærvø, P.O. (2005) ‘An Introduction to Old Persian’. Available at: https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldPersian/opcomplete.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2007).

7. Kent, R.G. (1953) ‘Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon’. 2nd rev. ed. New Haven: American Oriental Society, p. 6.

8. Dandamayev, M. and Medvedskaya, I. (2006) ‘Media’, Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. Available at: https://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp10/ot_media_20060106.html (Accessed: 28 June 2007).

9. Kent, R.G. (1953) ‘Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon’. 2nd rev. ed. New Haven: American Oriental Society, p. 6.

10. Collitz, H. (1926) ‘World Languages’, Language, 2(1), p. 6.

11. Kent, R.G. (1953) ‘Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon’. 2nd rev. ed. New Haven: American Oriental Society, p. 7.

12. Collitz, H. (1926) ‘World Languages’, Language, 2(1), p. 6.

13. Windfuhr, G.L. (1997) ‘Persian’, in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 293.

14. Lecoq, P. ‘Aparna’, Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. Available at: https://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f2/v2f2a023.html (Accessed: 21 June 2007).

15. Windfuhr, G.L. (1997) ‘Persian’, in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 293.

16. Wiesehöfer, J. (1996) ‘Ancient Persia’. London: Tauris Publishers, p. 8.

17. Wilson, C.E. (1922) ‘The Formation of Modern Persian, the Beginnings and Progress of the Literature, and the So-Called Renaissance’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 2(2), p. 217.

18. Ibid., p. 116.

19. Wilson, C.E. (1922) ‘The Formation of Modern Persian, the Beginnings and Progress of the Literature, and the So-Called Renaissance’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 2(2), p. 222.

20. Gilbert Lazard’s hypothesis regarding the evolution of Middle Persian into New Persian proposes that New Persian originated from a Northern dialect of Middle Persian. This dialect was spoken in the former Parthian region and incorporated numerous Parthian loanwords. In contrast to this Northern dialect, the Southern dialect of Middle Persian is preserved in various written forms, including Inscriptional, Zoroastrian, Manichaean, and Judeo-Persian texts. Lazard’s theory draws notable support from a text attributed to Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, which delineates the languages of Iran during the late Sasanian period. These languages include Pahlāwī, Dērī, Parsī, Khuzistānī, and Syriac. The text identifies Dērī as the language of the imperial court in Ctesiphon and associates it with the northeastern region, particularly Balkh. This association provides a critical link between New Persian and a Northern Sasanian dialect. Meanwhile, Pahlāwī (or Pahlawīg) was spoken in regions such as Isfahān, Ray, Hamadhān, Nahāwand, and Āzarbaijān, while Pārsī (al-Farsīyah) was used by Zoroastrian priests, scholars, and the inhabitants of Fars, the Sasanian homeland. Lazard’s hypothesis builds on the earlier work of Christensen, who suggested that the Sasanian military presence in the northeastern part of Greater Iran, specifically Khorasan, a strategically vulnerable frontier, may have facilitated the spread of Dērī. Additionally, Lazard highlights the notable influence of Parthian noble families within the Sasanian elite, which may have contributed to the development and dissemination of this dialect. By integrating historical texts and contextual analysis, Lazard’s hypothesis presents a coherent narrative for the linguistic transition from Middle to New Persian. However, this narrative must contend with the complexities inherent in the historical evidence, such as the account provided in Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadīm. Source: Lazard, G. (1975) ‘The rise of the New Persian language,’ Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 595-632.

21. Henning, W.B. (1939) ‘Sogdian Loan-Words in New Persian’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 10(1), pp. 93–106.

22. Persian scholars made notable contributions to the development of the Arabic language itself. Figures such as Sibawayh, often regarded as the father of Arabic grammar, and Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, a key figure in the translation and adaptation of Persian literary and administrative traditions into Arabic, were instrumental in shaping the structure and richness of the Arabic language. Sibawayh’s seminal work, ‘Al-Kitāb’, laid the foundation for Arabic grammatical theory, while Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ’s translations and original works helped bridge Persian and Arabic intellectual traditions.

23. Lazard, G. (1975) ‘The rise of the New Persian language,’ Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 595-632.

24. Young, T.C. Jr. (1997) ‘Persians’, in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 295.

25. Wiesehöfer, J. ‘Fars: History in Pre-Islamic Period’, Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. Available at: https://www.iranica.com/articles/v9f3/v9f393a.html#ii (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

26. Cook, J.M. (1993) ‘The Rise of the Achaemenids and Establishment of their Empire’, in ‘The Median and Achaemenid Periods’, The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 238.

27. Young, T.C. Jr. (1997) ‘Persians’, in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 295.

28. Cook, J.M. (1993) ‘The Rise of the Achaemenids and Establishment of their Empire’, in ‘The Median and Achaemenid Periods’, The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 238.

29. Named after an Iranian tribe settled in southwest Iran around 1500 BCE. In the Achaemenid inscriptions it was called Parsa, in Elamite Parsin, in modern Persian Fārs, and in Arabic Fars or Fāris, it became the general name of the whole country under the Achaemenid dynasty (550–330 BCE).

30. Lewis, G. ‘The Naming of Names’, Bulletin British Society of Middle Eastern Studies, 11(2), p. 123.

31. ‘Languages of Pakistan’, ‘Ethnologue’. Available at: https://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_country.asp?name=Pakistan (Accessed: 16 June 2007).

32. ‘Country Profile: Uzbekistan’, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Available at: https://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019745010121 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

33. Windfuhr, G.L. (1997) ‘Persian’, in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 293.

34. ‘The World Factbook’, CIA. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ba.html (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

35. ‘Persian Handbook’, National Middle East Language Resource Centre. Available at: https://nmelrc.org/handbooks/PersianHandbook.pdf (Accessed: 16 June 2007).

36. Katouzian, H. (1995) ‘Problems of Political Development in Iran: Democracy, Dictatorship or Arbitrary Government?’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 22(1/2), p. 16.

37. Nab, E. (1980) ‘The Ethnic Factor in Soviet-Afghan Relations’, Asian Survey, 20(3), p. 239.

38. Katouzian, H. (1995) ‘Problems of Political Development in Iran: Democracy, Dictatorship or Arbitrary Government?’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 22(1/2), p. 15.

39. Nab, E. (1980) ‘The Ethnic Factor in Soviet-Afghan Relations’, Asian Survey, 20(3), p. 239.

40. ‘‘Farsi’ or Persian’, Cultural Heritage News Agency (CHN), 19 November 2005. Available at: https://heritage.chn.ir/en/Article/?id=88 (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

41. ‘The Fifth Biennial Conference on Iranian Studies (ISIS) 2004’, University of Texas at Austin. Available at: https://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/mes/faculty/profiles/Hillmann/Michael%20Craig (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

42. ‘Iranian Events’, 7Rooz.com. Available at: https://www.7rooz.com/archives/2004/05/fifth_biennial.html (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

43. Emory College, Office for Undergraduate Education. Available at: https://www.college.emory.edu/current/support/fame/pdf/students/ForeignLangauages.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

44. Faculty of Oriental Institute, University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/nme/persian_info.shtml (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

45. Yarshater, E. (1993) ‘Persian Identity in Historical Perspective’, Iranian Studies, 26(1-2), pp. 141–142.

46. ‘What is Persian?’, The Centre for Persian Studies, University of Maryland. Available at: https://www.languages.umd.edu/persian/persianlanguage1.php (Accessed: 14 June 2007).

47. Jahanpour, F. ‘Western Encounters with Persian Sufi Literature’, Sufism. Available at: https://www.sufism.ru/eng/txts/western.htm (Accessed: 17 June 2007).

48. Ibid.

49. Issawi, C. (1989) ‘Empire Builders, Culture Makers, and Culture Imprinters’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 20(2), p. 183.

50. Foltz, R.C. (2004) ‘Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World’s Religions’. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, p. 4.

51. Allen, D.O. (1854) ‘The State and Prospects of the English Language in India’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online of the American Oriental Society, 4, p. 35.

52. ‘Persian’, ‘Department of Persian Language, University of Mumbai’. Available at: https://www.mu.ac.in/Department/persian.html (Accessed: 18 June 2007).

53. ‘First Asians in Britain: Their Social, Cultural and Political Lives’, ‘Fathom Online’. Available at: https://www.fathom.com/course/21701766/session4.html (Accessed: 18 June 2007).

54. Yohannan, J. (1952) ‘The Persian Poetry Fad in England, 1770–1825’, ‘Comparative Literature’, 4(2), p. 138.

55. Unger, M. and Baker, T. (1932) ‘The Cradle of the Parsifal Legend’, ‘The Musical Quarterly’, 18(3), p. 430.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Jahanpour, F. ‘Western Encounters with Persian Sufi Literature’, ‘Sufism’. Available at: https://www.sufism.ru/eng/txts/western.htm (Accessed: 17 June 2007).

59. Korn, A.L. (1954) ‘Puttenham and the Oriental Pattern-Poem’, ‘Comparative Literature’, 6(4), pp. 289–303.

60. Olearius, A. ‘The Travels of Olearius in Seventeenth-Century Persia’, ‘University of Washington’. Available at: https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/olearius/travels.html (Accessed: 18 June 2007).

61. Belham, A. (2006) ‘1. Subject: Persian or ‘Farsi’ response’, ‘Arabic-L:GEN:Persian or ‘Farsi’ responses’, 16 August. Available at: https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0608c&L=arabic-l&D=1&P=687 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

62. Bell, J. (1998) ‘Lacking Sense of Splendor’, Iranian.com, 8 June. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Opinion/June98/Language/#lack (Accessed: 15 June 2007).

63. Ibid.

64. ‘Report of 34th meeting on 7th of December 1992’, Farhangestān-e Zabān va Adab-e Fārsī, Tehran, January 2000.

65. Samei, H. ‘The proper name of our language is Persian’, ‘Persian Gulf Online’. Available at: https://www.persiangulfonline.org/research/propername.htm (Accessed: 9 June 2007).

66. Lewis, F. (2006) ‘3. Subject: Persian or ‘Farsi’ response’, ‘Arabic-L:GEN:Persian or ‘Farsi’ responses’, 16 August. Available at: https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0608c&L=arabic-l&D=1&P=687 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

67. Yarshater, E. (1992) ‘Zabān-i Nozohur’, Iran-Shenasi: A The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online of Iranian Studies, 4(1), pp. 27–30; (1988) ‘Iran Ra dar Zabānhā-ye Khāreji Cheh Bayad Khānd?’, Rahavard: A The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online of Iranian Studies, 5/6(20/21), pp. 70–75; (1992) ‘Nām-e Keshvar-e Mā Ra dar Zabān-e Englisi Cheh Bayad Khānd?’, Rahavard, 8(29), pp. 22–26.

68. Martin, P. (2007) ‘Is ‘Farsi’ verboten?’, Wall Street Journal Online, 21 January. Available at: https://blogs.wsj.com/styleandsubstance/2007/01/21/vol-20-no-1 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

69. Lewis, G. ‘The Naming of Names’, Bulletin British Society of Middle Eastern Studies, 11(2), p. 123.

70. Bell, J. (1998) ‘Lacking Sense of Splendor’, Iranian.com, 8 June. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Opinion/June98/Language/#lack (Accessed: 15 June 2007).

71. Lewis, F. (2006) ‘3. Subject: Persian or ‘Farsi’ response’, ‘Arabic-L:GEN:Persian or ‘Farsi’ responses’, 16 August. Available at: https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0608c&L=arabic-l&D=1&P=687 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

72. Nima, M. (1998) ‘Western Journalists, ‘Farsi’: Bittersweet?’, Iranian.com, 8 June. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Opinion/June98/Language/#west (Accessed: 15 June 2007).

73. Pritchett, F. (1998) ‘Sense of proportion, ‘Farsi’: Bittersweet?’, Iranian.com, 8 June. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Opinion/June98/Language/#keep (Accessed: 15 June 2007).

74. ‘Guidelines for UK Government Websites, Illustrated Handbook for Web Management Teams’, Archive of Cabinet Office (UK). Available at: https://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/docs/resources/web_guideline_handbook/pdf/wgl_2-7.pdf (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

75. ‘Iran at a Glance’, British Embassy, Tehran. Available at: https://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1106073750790 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

76. Engdahl, W. (2004) ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order’. London: Pluto Press, p. 172.

77. Shahidi, H. (2001) ‘Injaa landan ast: BBC Persian Service 60 years on’, The Iranian.com, 24 September. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/History/2001/September/BBC (Accessed: 20 June 2007).

78. ‘Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages’, ‘The Library of Congress’. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/English_list.php (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

79. ‘National Security Language Initiative’, ‘US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’. Available at: https://exchanges.state.gov/NSLI/fact_sheet.htm (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

80. ‘Department of Education’, White House Website. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/education.html (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

81. ‘National Foreign Language Centre, University of Maryland’. Available at: https://www.nflc.org/policy_and_strategy/language_and_national_security/q_and_a#3 (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

82. Rawan, A. ‘Artemis Project’, Government Documents, The University of Arizona Library. Available at: https://www.library.arizona.edu/about/libraries/govdocs/projects/artemisproject.html (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

83. ‘US Department of Health and Human Services’. Available at: https://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/pdf/panflureport3.pdf and https://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/individual (Accessed: 10 June 2007).

84. ‘The World Factbook’, CIA. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ba.html (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

85. ‘‘Farsi’-Uzbekistan-Olympiad ‘Farsi’ Language Olympiad exam held in Uzbekistan’, ‘IRNA’, 29 April. Available at: https://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-16/0704292483235537.htm (Accessed: 11 June 2007).

86. ‘Iranian literati invited to Tajik, ‘Farsi’ speakers biennial’, Mehr News, 3 September 2006. Available at: https://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=375515 (Accessed: 12 June 2007).

87. ‘We will replace Islamism with Iranism’, SMCCDI, 13 March 2006. Available at: https://daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3371.shtml (Accessed: 25 June 2007).

88. Dacey, A. ‘Reading Madison in Tehran, The Next Secular Revolution’. Available at: https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=Dacey_25_4 (Accessed: 25 June 2007).

89. ‘Destruction of a Sasanian Fire Temple in the Name of Development’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online, 11 August 2006. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/August2006/11-08-destruction.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

90. ‘Kaaba of Zoroaster’s Destruction Project Began by Iran’s Taliban’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online, 1 December 2006. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/December2006/01-12.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

91. ‘Fresh Concerns over Irresponsible Construction Projects at Bistun’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online, 14 February 2006. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/February2006/14-02.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

92. ‘Hotel Construction Continues in Tarisha Heritage Site’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online, 22 December 2006. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/September2006/22-09.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

93. ‘Mine Explosions Destroying Sasanian “Da va Dokhtar” Fortress’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online, 27 December 2007. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/December2005/27-12-mine.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

94. ‘The Construction of a New Dam on the Polvar River: Potential Threats to Pasargadae’, CAIS News, 24 July 2004 to 20 February 2001. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2001/Febryary2001/20-02.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

95. ‘Sivand Dam in News’, CAIS News, 24 July 2004 to 17 April 2007. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/Sivand/sivand_news.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

96. As just one example, Persepolis was threatened with bulldozing by Sadeq Khalkhali, one of the most notorious clerics in Iran. However, the inhabitants of the nearby city of Shiraz set up barricades and risked their lives by laying down in front of the bulldozers, saving the ancient site from destruction. Khalkhali had intended to continue on to attack the mausoleum of Ferdowsi, the greatest Persian writer of the greatest Persian epic, but was dissuaded by the strongly negative public reaction at Persepolis.

97. ‘$250 Budget for Bistun’s World Heritage Site’, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) Online, 22 December 2006. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/December2006/22-12.htm (Accessed: 29 June 2007).

98. Talattof, K. (1997) ‘Persian or ‘Farsi’? The Debate Continues...’, ‘The Iranian.com’, 16 December. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Features/Dec97/Persian (Accessed: 21 June 2007).

99. Hakakian, R. (2006) ‘Persian...or Iranian’, The Wall Street Journal Online, 28 December. Available at: https://www.royahakakian.com/newsletter/WSJ_Persian_or_Iranian.html (Accessed: 14 June 2007).

100. Rafsanjani, H. (1982) Friday Sermon, 8 January, quoted in Paul, L. (1999) ‘“Iranian Nation” and Iranian-Islamic Revolutionary Ideology’, ‘Die Welt des Islams’, 39(2), pp. 183–217.

101. ‘Azamat-e Zabān-e Fārsī va Lozūm-e Herāsat-e Ān’, ‘Nashr-e Dānesh’, 8(4), Tehran 1988, pp. 5–8, quoted in Paul, L. (1999) ‘“Iranian Nation” and Iranian-Islamic Revolutionary Ideology’, ‘Die Welt des Islams’, 39(2), pp. 183–217.

102. Pourpirar, N. Official Weblog. Available at: https://www.naria.blogfa.com (Accessed: 14 June 2007).

103. Pourpirar, N. (2001) ‘Poli bar Gozashteh, Asnad va Natijeh’. Tehran: Karang, p. 259.

104. Safavi, G. (2004) ‘Iranian Identity’, ‘London Academy of Iranian Studies Online’. Available at: https://iranianstudies.org/lectures/iranian%20identity.htm (Accessed: 15 June 2007).

105. Yarshater, E. (1992) ‘Zabān-i Nozohur’, Iran-Shenasi: A Journal of Iranian Studies, 4(1), pp. 27–30; (1988) ‘Iran Ra dar Zabānhā-ye Khāreji Cheh Bayad Khānd?’, Rahavard: A Journal of Iranian Studies, 5/6(20/21), pp. 70–75; (1992) ‘Nām-e Keshvar-e Mā Ra dar Zabān-e Englisi Cheh Bayad Khānd?’, Rahavard, 8(29), pp. 22–26.

106. Mirsepassi-Ashtiani, A. (1994) ‘The Crisis of Secular Politics and the Rise of Political Islam in Iran’, Social Text, 38, pp. 51–84.

107. Chaichian, M.A. (1997) ‘First Generation Iranians and the Question of Cultural Identity: The Case of Iowa’, International Migration Review, 31(3), pp. 612–627.

108. Lewis, F. (2006) ‘3. Subject: Persian or ‘Farsi’ response’, ‘Arabic-L:GEN:Persian or ‘Farsi’ responses’, 16 August. Available at: https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0608c&L=arabic-l&D=1&P=687 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

109. ‘Farci’, ‘WordReference.com’. Available at: https://www.wordreference.com/fren/farci (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

110. Beigie, A.R.B. (2002) ‘‘Farsi’, is this a New Language?’, ‘Persian Gulf Online’, January. Available at: https://www.persiangulfonline.org/articles/’Farsi’.htm (Accessed: 12 June 2007).

111. Perry, J.R. (1985) ‘Language Reform in Turkey and Iran’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 17(3), p. 295.

112. Lewis, G. ‘The Naming of Names’, Bulletin British Society of Middle Eastern Studies, 11(2), p. 123.

113. Talattof, K. (1997) ‘Persian or ‘Farsi’? The Debate Continues...’, ‘The Iranian.com’, 16 December. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Features/Dec97/Persian (Accessed: 26 June 2007).

114. Lewis, F. (2006) ‘3. Subject: Persian or ‘Farsi’ response’, ‘Arabic-L:GEN:Persian or ‘Farsi’ responses’, 16 August. Available at: https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0608c&L=arabic-l&D=1&P=687 (Accessed: 19 June 2007).

115. Bell, J. (1998) ‘Lacking Sense of Splendor’, Iranian.com, 8 June. Available at: https://www.iranian.com/Opinion/June98/Language/#lack (Accessed: 15 June 2007).