It appears there are folks out there who’ve read my recent @thedispatch essays on Iran and past articles I have done with the always-scholarly-historically-curious Ray Takeyh who object to our use of the word “mullah” when referring to the clerical regime...

...which is officially known as the vilayat-e faqih, that is, “the rule of the jurisconsult.” (In Matt Duss’ case, I am amused that a gentleman who doesn’t know Persian reprimands the Persian words used by those who do.)

Note that these folks don’t seem to be as upset by the word “clergy” and its derivations in reference to the Islamic Republic. “Clergy” comes from Latin via the French. But a Persian word borrowed from Arabic perturbs.

I do think this is an example of linguistic enthocentricism, and I would hope that progressives would be above such crude Occidentalism.

FYI: “mollah” is the commonly used word in Persian for clerics, as Iranians use “alim” and “faqih”, and their plurals “ulama” and “fuqaha”, less. They are just a bit pedantic.

Perhaps Ray and I should use the pejorative word “akhund”, which is the word Iranian progressives (say a Matt Duss Irani) often use to describe those who rule over them.