scholarly reviews of this translation is available in following publications:wall street journal;globe and mail;jewish news(ny);the age(australia),among others.as an authentic source of religious information it remains singularly indispensible for a better understanding of post-revolutionary iran .thank you

The history of these lands is so complex that his book are a welcome sigh of relief: he writes clearly and shows the origins of the going ons. Learning the whys and hows of the development of that history DEFINITIVELY make you re-evaluate your attitudes toward many figureheads. The massive crossover of disciplines (intellectuals of all fields) that shaped the ideological/political developments of these lands (and eventually of the modern world) are bewildering. Any reader will be amazed to find out the interests/implications of freemason societies, media and government agents that took active roles.

More than just a biography, this is the story of a people, the Iranian people who have experienced one of the darkest phases of their long history.
The book is based on extensive research and written in a language that is both liveley and erudite.
I recommend it to all those interested in biography, hisory and politics.
Amelia

Read it as history or just as the story of a man and a nation. Khomeini appears as a shorthand word for the most dramatic experience that Iran has had in its contemporary history- an experience which would need millions of words to explain. The bleak society that produced Khomeini is depicted with mastery. This is a book that gives you an insight nto the deepest recesses of the Iranian soul and helps you understand the convulsions that have shaken the Muslim world in the poast two decades.

This scholarly biography of the late Ayatollah Khomeini portrays a world that is both far and near to us in the West.
It is far because it is based on values, traditions, practices and common memories that challenge, if not actually violate what we cherish most.
It is so near because today there are more than 25 million Muslims in Western Europe and North America who share many of Khomeini's beliefs, sentiments and prejudices.
Taheri, an Iranian author and scholar, has not limited his book to telling the story of just one man. For him, Khomeini's biography is an excuse, or an opportunity if you prefer, to depict the traditional Islamic society, warts and all.
I see that some reviewers have described the book as " a pleasure to read". In a sense, it may be. But I found it more of a chilling read. PLB. Paris, France

Written shortly after the major events surrounding the Rushdie Conflict (though not before the murder of the Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses), Daniel Pipes provides major insight and perspective into the root causes of this international conflagration. He provides both a breakdown of Rushdie's work, and an explanation of the translation difficulties that further encouraged misunderstanding about the Book's actual contents. He appears to have a steady grasp of Arabic by the bibliography and transliteration, consonant with a fair amount of expertise in analyzing Islam. He provides the Islamic rationales for trying Salman Rushdie for apostasy, and indicates the questionableness of Khomeini's method (not the penalty itself) even under Islamic standards.(Gotta give 'em a trial, a chance to repent over three days, and then chop-chop- at least for the Sunni variety of Islam, though the various madhdhabs or schools of jurisprudence differ on the exact details of divinely sanctioned murder.) After reading the Satanic Verses, I whole heartedly concur that because of its level of erudition and numerous allusions to less familiar (to Westerners) stories from the salvation history of Islam to South Asian culture, it is no surprise how few people actually read the entire novel. But what is rather disturbing about human nature, is that this didn't stop complete Ignoramuses from opining- Pipes provides a multitude of quotes indicating the level of hearsay fed to the masses. Pipes also emphasizes the unprecedented scale of this eruption of world-wide riots and protests, citing works critical of Islam with far graver blasphemies. One blasphemous volume mentioned by Pipes that I found enjoyable was 23 years- a critical biography of the Prophet Muhammad by Ali Dashti, who although Pipes doesn't make reference to it, "disappeared" in 1980's Iran.

Pipes also mentions some of the effects the conflict had on the front lines of bookselling and publishing, pondering over the possible changes the death threats and bombings inaugrated by religious fervor. A decade later, I don't know how to guage his power of prophecy, but his commentary on the complex intersecting issues remain both incisive and fascinating.

Here is one example: the title of Rushdie's book. Pipes explains that while in English "the Satanic verses" is a plain ordinary phrase that refers to an embaraasing event in Islamic history, this phrase is not used in Arabic. Most Muslims won't recognize the event by that designation; Muslims call it something quite different. But when "verses" is translated into Arabic the word used refers specifically to Quranic verses. So the title is translated roughly as "The Satanic Verses of the Quran" or "The Satanic Quran".

Don't assume from this that Pipes if profferring an apologetic. He is not; this book is critical of "fundamentalist Islam". But Pipes is careful to explain how such Muslims think and react.

Salman Rushdie is brilliant. He knows who to derive from and steal from: James Joyce being one of his main sources. Good for him. If you're going to steal, steal from the best. Joyce's footprints are all over THE SATANIC VERSES. I felt at home. And Rushdie's tough and demanding like Joyce. Even moreso because he's dealing with issues western readers are not familiar with. So you have to go slow and get internet help (plenty available). Slowly, the novel begins to take shape. It's a book of dreams and nightmares bounded by the first and last very moving chapters about Chamcha's domestic crises with his father and ensuing alienation. Chamcha's torn between cultures, a lost searching soul, an alienated man. He's also an intellectual prig who wears many protective masks to conceal his sufferings and with which he explores religious and emotional wanderings. Read the first and last chapters to make contact with the down to earth domestic issues of the novel. Very moving. In between, you have this massive and intensive and witty and funny and dark and brilliant exploration of Muslim religion as seen from a willing/unwilling, searching unbeliever's point of view. He mocks and participates all at the same time. The language is gorgeous because it moves on many levels--from slang to pop to literary to religious, back and forth--and from the point of view of two languages and cultures. At one minute it's blasphemous, at another it's holy...and it's always a rich and makes the reader smile, smile, smile at the author's brilliance and learning. It's linguistic magic. What does it all add up to? You got me. I haven't scratched the surface. It may or may not add up. Talk to me in a year.

Far from reducing the Islamic Republic of Iran to some kind of timeless expression of Islamic culture, tradition, or identity, the author demonstrates the competing ideological influences that shaped the Islamic Republic -- not least of which were Western notions of political particpation. The author does a good job of showing how these tensions are reflected in the reform movement, and in the struggle for power currently unfolding in Iran. Thus I found the book very useful. I would only add that the author may have given insufficient attention to the power of the conservative clerics.

This book's title could be misleading if one assumes this work is a revisionist biography of Ayatollah Khomeini. However, it is not the author who is doing the reinventing, but rather Iranians themselves, as different political factions draw on different aspects of Khomeini's life and thought to justify their agenda.

Brumberg draws heavily on social science in his analysis, which means this could be a tough slog for the casual reader. He traces the development, first of Khomeini's own ideas about government and religion, and then how these ideas influenced different political groups after the revolution, such as President Khatami's reform movement.

Readers of this work will see an Islamic Republic far more dynamic than the one usually portrayed in the media, and see how, far from being a struggle between a true, hard-line Khomeinism and Westernized reformers, the reformers themselves look to Khomeini as a guide, and Khomeini was heavily influenced by the West. This is a must-read for all who wish to understand Iran today.

Iran had always fascinated me, and this book only adds to the intrigue. It is a fascinating case of how dictators (in this case the Shah) are an interesting mix of ignorant, cruel, coward, confused, appeasing and corrupt. Also, a good case of how people in their desperation to get away from one evil don't think twice about accepting the other evil.

I have seen several of Shah's family (in exile) on TV imploring their case to "serve their country". While I used to feel sympathy for them earlier, this book helped me understand why millions turned against their tyrannical rule.

The author claims that the Shah defrauded the State exchequer worth hundreds of millions of dollars by forcing banks to give him (and his family) huge loans (which remained unpaid), by running virtually all major corporations of Iran as personal business, and foolishly thinking of taking Iran back to its past glory.

This is also a telling tale of how the CIA virtually ran Iran during the Shah's reign. I would have liked a little more info on the Iran-Iraq war, but found it interesting to note that it was started by Shah's foolishness in dismissing Saddam, as incapable of taking him on.

Since this book was written only after 3 years of the Shah's departure, the author tends to have deep bias against him, and even some sympathy for the Islamicists led by Khomeini. It would be interesting to come across a book on Iran where there is a comparison between Shah's rule and the Islamic rule. However, it is a great starting point to learn the modern history of a country with tremendous potential to be a world leader.

I thought it was excellent insight from a firsthand account of someone who was there. It exposes a lot of truth behind the revolution and the so-called leaders of it.

What happened in Iran and why? Mohamed Heikal has managed to bring some understanding into the build up to the Revolution of 1979. This is not a religious book, nor is it totally anti West.

We Christians hear a lot about the horrors of Islam - that is why I read this book. It is not a doctrine on Islam and its teachings, however the roots of the religion are explained and the message comes accross quite clearly why the Ayatollah mannaged to achieve what he did.

The book is well written and translated, the translations from Arabic are understandible. I found it very interesting and read it a second time to be able to more clearly grasp the sequence of events, names and places.

For somebody who wants to understand what happened in Iran in the 70's this book is a good start.

Khomeini was nothing but a Psycho Maniac who was born in India and had no roots what so ever to Iran. He was a Murderer just like Hitler. According to many books that I have read his father died when he was 6 months old and his mother died a few years later. He used to take care of sheeps in the desert and in the mean while was taken care of by a women who used to wash the dead for a living. Khomeini was a very DEPRESSED individual in need of Psychological help. He, as I have read in many books, had also murdered an old blind man when he (Khomeini) was around the age of 15 years. So all of you who are trying to put a nice image for this murderous psycho maniac, get a life. This is the 21st Century and people are no longer fooled by such non-sense.....so just save it.

Khomeini was nothing but a Psycho Maniac who was born in India and had no roots what so ever to Iran. He was a Murderer just like Hitler. According to many books that I have read his father died when he was 6 months old and his mother died a few years later. He used to take care of sheeps in the desert and in the mean while was taken care of by a women who used to wash the dead for a living. Khomeini was a very DEPRESSED individual in need of Psychological help. He, as I have read in many books, had also murdered an old blind man when he (Khomeini) was around the age of 15 years. So all of you who are trying to put a nice image for this murderous psycho maniac, get a life. This is the 21st Century and people are no longer fooled by such non-sense.....so just save it.

I read this book shortly before I took a trip to Iran last year. I left Iran in 1975 and never returned till last year. What I saw was totally unexpected. I was amazed to see how people were actively engaged in political debates. From my days, I remember that only an insane person would engage in a political discussion, unless your political views were 100% pro Shah. I don't agree with Mr. Khomeini in all his views, no doubt that some of his stance caused damage to Iran. But from what I saw, I say his damage was temporary and the good he did is forever. He helped Iranian to gain their long lost self confidence and self reliance, and more importantly he rid Iran from a 25 century, obsolete system of government.

Like most students of Iran, Abrahamian brings the academic's bias against religion having much importance. He prefers to see Khomeini's ideas "as a flexible political movement." But discount this bias and you'll find Abrahamian makes a strong and original case that "the behavior of Khomeini and the Islamic Republic has been determined less by scriptural principles than by immediate political, social, and economic needs." He makes this case the old-fashioned way, through a close reading of texts and study of events. Abrahamian's intimate knowledge of Iran imbues his short study with the sort of insight all too rare in the study of Iran; and it's certainly one of the most important books on Iran to appear in English in some years. The author catalogues the profound changes in Khomeini's thinking that took place in the era 1965-70, when he replaced many of his traditional Shi'ite beliefs with the trendy notions of European Marxism (as mediated by Leftist Iranian intellectuals). Abrahamian demonstrates the evolution of the mullahs' relations with the Left through a close analysis of May Day celebrations. Over and over again, he shows how Khomeini changed his views to fit current needs, contradicting not only himself but some of Islam's most basic tenets (such as the priority of Sacred Law over raison d'état). Indeed, the sainted ayatollah apparently stuck with just one tenet through his entire career: the inviolability of private property.

Middle East Quarterly, June 1994