As the author of the work under review explains, the bi-weekly Parcham, published by the celebrated Iranian social and religious critic and historian Ahmad Kasravi (1890–1946), was significant because (1) it marked the culmination of Kasravi’s idiosyncratic religious thought and (2) it was the religious attacks on Shiʿism written by Ali-Akbar Hakamizadeh published in that journal which led the young cleric Ruhollah Khomeini to call for the execution of Kasravi, culminating in his savage murder on the steps of the courthouse in which he was being tried for heresy. I would add (3) it was these challenges Kasravi launched against Shiism which inspired many young Iranians to break with the beliefs of their forefathers; as Ervand Abrahamian states, many of the members of the Tudeh Party, which was one of the biggest communist parties in the Middle East and had a huge influence on the post-war 2017 generation, recalled Kasravi’s fiery attacks on Shiism as the turning point in their ideological development.

The author steeped himself in many of the relevant archives (pertaining to journalism and its laws in Iran and to Kasravi himself), which gives depth and breadth to his work. He has clearly studied Kasravi’s writings and much of the secondary literature.

The author starts by examining in meticulous detail Iran’s press laws from the Constitutional period through the 1940s. He presents the legal hurdles someone who wanted to start a newspaper faced as well as the chaotic state of executing journalistic law. Thus, in one case, some draconian laws of the Reza Shah years were never enforced at least in part because no one had been appointed to the clerical court taxed to do the job! (p. 22).

The laws in the post-Reza Shah era could also be severe. There was a fine of up to 50,000 rials for libel (p. 27). Even launching a journal required a deposit of up to 50,000 rials (p. 29). Other articles stipulated a punishment of up to ten years for publishing something against national security and three years in jail for insulting or weakening one of the three branches of government (p. 31) or a fine of up to 20,000 rials for preaching class strife (p. 32).

The author then moves on to his discussion of Parcham. He begins with a helpful biography of Kasravi. I would only take exception to the claims on his linguistic ability. Pace the author’s claims, in his biography he is quite modest about his Arabic; and indeed his written Arabic was faulty, though he seems to have had a good reading knowledge of it. He tried to learn Armenian or, more precisely, classical Armenian, according to his biography, but he never used it, so it is doubtful that he actually got very far with it. The author then discusses Kasravi’s Peyman, his first attempt at a journal.

Kasravi dated his new religion, Pakdini, to the day Peyman was founded (e.g. p. 37), although it is left unclear if the faith had any followers at the time or if it was only an idea in Kasravi’s mind or, more likely, that this was declared retrospectively nearly ten years later when he openly proclaimed it. He then mentions Pakdini’s major scripture, Ayine, of which he says, “Kasravi’s journalistic works would all follow some broad ideas presented in the Ayine” (p. 36). This discussion is the book’s biggest disappointment. The two paragraphs he devotes to it are inadequate to explore its ideas. He does not even mention its date of publication (the first volume around 1942, the second in early 1944).

On the other hand, his handling of Varjavand-e Bonyad, the distillation of Kasravi’s philosophy, which he dates to just before the founding of Parcham (pp. 100–5) is excellent, original, and detailed. Particularly interesting was the discussion on the centrality of kherad (wisdom) in Kasravi’s ideas (p. 102) and the discussion of the idea of change and progress in his thought (pp. 102–3).

The author is brutally honest about Kasravi’s ultimate goal; it was a world in which everyone accepted his beliefs and those who attacked it would be destroyed (e.g. p. 51). He is also clear on the party’s cult-like qualities (p. 107), for example severing its members from the outside world, particularly by creating its own language (p. 58).

The twice-weekly Parcham became the organ of the party of followers of Kasravi’s idea, the Bahamad-e Azadegan (pp. 46 ff.). Kasravi had started ramping up its attacks on Shiism in Parcham’s predecessor, Peyman, which led to an exodus of followers, leaving behind a hard core of believers. And so Parcham became a propaganda organ guided by its leader (p. 44). The author examines the relationship between the party and the religious movement, noting that there seems to have been a distinction between them. At its peak, the party had chapters in forty-four cities (p. 47). It had a military squad, Razmandegan, which was supposed to defend itself against its enemies and, ultimately, annihilate those who would attack Kasravi’s beliefs (pp. 51–2).

The author presents what little we know about the Azadegan’s rituals. The most controversial of these rituals was the burning of books which Pakdini considered evil (works of fiction, mystical poetry, etc.) (pp. 68 ff.).

He squeezed out whatever information he could get on the membership of the Azadegan, filling an appendix of several pages with information about its known members (pp. 160 ff.). He examined letters to Peyman to open a window on the inner life of Azadegan; of particular interest are the letters from women members (pp. 52–4). The fact is that Pakdini dogma was relentlessly patriarchal, relegating women to traditional roles (not discussed in this work), and yet women Pakdinis found a place in the party’s intellectual and political life.

The author gives a sophisticated analysis of Kasravi’s purified Persian, zaban-e pak (p. 59 ff.). For instance, he points to the Turkish roots of some of his reformist ideas (p. 60), its sources in Iranic dialects and ancient Iranian, including a famous hoax, and its general methodology. There was a sort of high dialect reserved for religious writings and a more popular dialect, difficult enough, for his histories and other sources. He has studied the letters to Parcham of people offering advice (often graciously accepted) and criticism (not so graciously received) (p. 63).

Like any leader of a political movement struggling out of obscurity, Kasravi had to struggle with rival political movements.

First, of course, was Shia Islam itself (pp. 78 ff.). As the political atmosphere opened up under the Allied occupation, both the reactionaries (like Minister of Justice Musa Sadr) and radicals were able to raise their heads, leading to an explosive situation. Kasravi’s attacks on Shiism sharpened, leading first to him to being tried for apostasy and then to assassination. The author notes, however, that the “criticism of Shi’ism and mullahs found in Parcham is not the most sophisticated” (p. 84).

Next in line were the Babis and Bahais. The author notes that he rejects the conspiracy theory implicating these sects in an imperialist plot; rather, he relentlessly questions their faith’s foundational narratives (pp. 85 ff.).

Finally, there were the Communists. As the author states (unlike his religious rivals), the founders of Communism, Marx and Lenin, were well-meaning but misguided, since only religion could save humanity (p. 95). And even there, at least the Russian Communists were workers who put their lives on the line for their own liberation, while the Iranian Communists were aristocratic poseurs (p. 94).

A few additional comments: The author separates Kasravi’s more positivistic work (especially on history) from his religious work (p. 37). However, the connection here is significant and deserves a more in-depth approach. Also it should be noted that the news section of Peyman, edited by Kasravi’s close comrade Reza Soltanzadeh, was not neutral, but markedly pro-Axis (p. 38). Moreover, I do not believe that Kasravi’s “vision” about taking on the slogan “God is with us” (p. 102) can be separated from the Nazis’ use of this slogan. Along the same lines, one unsympathetic Iranian observer drew that connection between his militia, Razmandegan, and the Hitler youth.Footnote ¹ I also do not believe there is a generally clear connection between his beliefs and Nazism. For instance, Kasravi was clearly uninterested in racism. The copy-editing is very weak, and the book is full of minor typos.

These shortcomings notwithstanding, on the whole this book is a significant contribution to the study of Kasravi’s thought and a welcome addition to the existing studies on Kasravi in Polish.Footnote ²