You write Iranians "don't actually call him the supreme leader in Persian". I am a little surprised by this. According to my wife, who is Iranian, Iranian state TV and newspapers printed in Iran commonly use the term رهبر معظم (انقلاب) , the Supreme Leader (of the Revolution). There are considerably more elaborate examples too, emphasizing the supreme nature of the position. Sometimes, the term Leader of the Revolution is used, dropping the attribute Supreme. In all cases, the elaborate nature of the honorific denotes status, power, and respect. Their use in official media is very likely not optional.
Having said that, in ordinary speech outside of the media, Iranians do use the term the Leader or Imam.
In English, the term Leader functions as an unmarked term, referring to both the broad category of leadership and a particular position. As an unmarked term in a Western context, Leader applies equally well to a President or Prime Minister. Because it is unmarked, its meaning depends heavily on context. When people speak of the New Zealand's leader, for instance, they invariably refer to New Zealand's Prime Minister, not the hereditary monarch living in London who is the sovereign and head of state of New Zealand.
It seems to me that in a Western sociolinguistic context the term Supreme Leader is a marked term that lessens ambiguity; using the unmarked form Leader would be confusing for many readers and viewers accustomed to it normally referring to a President or Prime Minister. Given Iran does have a President, its use seems logical to me.
It is unfortunate that the term Supreme Leader, while logical and I think unavoidable, also has connotations attractive to Orientalists and bigots. However, I am not aware of an alternative term.
Similarly, it is most unfortunate that the term Islamist is used to name the pursuit of authoritarian Muslim governance, especially when pursued violently. While it's true that grammatically Islamist shares much in common with terms like socialist, anarchist and capitalist, Islamist is not used to describe nonviolent Muslim movements such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God). I am not aware of admirers of Khan's movement wanting to use the term Islamist to describe it, even though many of the Khudai Khidmatgars wanted their society to reflect religious norms. Probably the term has become so strongly associated with political violence and socio-cultural repression that no self-respecting nonviolent devotee would deign to use it.
Thus we have two terms, Supreme Leader and Islamist, that while both linguistically logical have varying sociolinguistic implications. I'm arguing that the term Supreme Leader is unavoidable despite its potential for abuse, even while I'm also arguing that Islamist is so heavily abused that it cannot be used as a mere neutral term to describe a movement's desire to see society reflect Muslim norms. Such is the nature of language!
People so quickly forget that there was a powerful indigenous force in the region 90 years ago for education, freedom and dignity, including of girls. For instance, the journal "The Pukhtun" had stories by woman writers exhorting Pukhtuns to respect women's rights. Yet the British ruthlessly repressed Bacha Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgars, and Pakistani elites carried on from where the British left off. I agree with Prof. Cole: what happened to Malala is the tragic but logical conclusion of greed, bigotry, and short-sightedness on behalf of a range of people, not just the Taliban.
You write Iranians "don't actually call him the supreme leader in Persian". I am a little surprised by this. According to my wife, who is Iranian, Iranian state TV and newspapers printed in Iran commonly use the term رهبر معظم (انقلاب) , the Supreme Leader (of the Revolution). There are considerably more elaborate examples too, emphasizing the supreme nature of the position. Sometimes, the term Leader of the Revolution is used, dropping the attribute Supreme. In all cases, the elaborate nature of the honorific denotes status, power, and respect. Their use in official media is very likely not optional.
Having said that, in ordinary speech outside of the media, Iranians do use the term the Leader or Imam.
In English, the term Leader functions as an unmarked term, referring to both the broad category of leadership and a particular position. As an unmarked term in a Western context, Leader applies equally well to a President or Prime Minister. Because it is unmarked, its meaning depends heavily on context. When people speak of the New Zealand's leader, for instance, they invariably refer to New Zealand's Prime Minister, not the hereditary monarch living in London who is the sovereign and head of state of New Zealand.
It seems to me that in a Western sociolinguistic context the term Supreme Leader is a marked term that lessens ambiguity; using the unmarked form Leader would be confusing for many readers and viewers accustomed to it normally referring to a President or Prime Minister. Given Iran does have a President, its use seems logical to me.
It is unfortunate that the term Supreme Leader, while logical and I think unavoidable, also has connotations attractive to Orientalists and bigots. However, I am not aware of an alternative term.
Similarly, it is most unfortunate that the term Islamist is used to name the pursuit of authoritarian Muslim governance, especially when pursued violently. While it's true that grammatically Islamist shares much in common with terms like socialist, anarchist and capitalist, Islamist is not used to describe nonviolent Muslim movements such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God). I am not aware of admirers of Khan's movement wanting to use the term Islamist to describe it, even though many of the Khudai Khidmatgars wanted their society to reflect religious norms. Probably the term has become so strongly associated with political violence and socio-cultural repression that no self-respecting nonviolent devotee would deign to use it.
Thus we have two terms, Supreme Leader and Islamist, that while both linguistically logical have varying sociolinguistic implications. I'm arguing that the term Supreme Leader is unavoidable despite its potential for abuse, even while I'm also arguing that Islamist is so heavily abused that it cannot be used as a mere neutral term to describe a movement's desire to see society reflect Muslim norms. Such is the nature of language!
New Zealand women won the right to vote 1893, 26 years before their American counterparts -- and before Australia, Denmark and Iceland too.
People so quickly forget that there was a powerful indigenous force in the region 90 years ago for education, freedom and dignity, including of girls. For instance, the journal "The Pukhtun" had stories by woman writers exhorting Pukhtuns to respect women's rights. Yet the British ruthlessly repressed Bacha Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgars, and Pakistani elites carried on from where the British left off. I agree with Prof. Cole: what happened to Malala is the tragic but logical conclusion of greed, bigotry, and short-sightedness on behalf of a range of people, not just the Taliban.