A Statesman, Philosopher, Translator, Institution-Builder — and a Guardian of Persian Identity

Born in 1877, Foroughi became:

✔ Founder and first president of the Academy of Persian Language
✔ Key figure who protected the Persian script from being replaced by Latin letters (a real, serious movement in the early 20th century)
✔ Prime Minister in critical moments: at the rise of Reza Shah and again during the crisis of 1941
✔ One of Iran’s most important translators and intellectuals
✔ Author of The Course of Philosophy in Europe — the gateway of modern Western philosophy into Persian

He was a man of culture before anything else. A statesman who believed that:

A nation survives through its culture, not through political slogans.

This belief shaped everything he did.

⭐️ His Core Ideas 

 

These points are grounded in direct sources such as Seyr-e Ḥekmat dar Orupā, Payām-e man be Farhangestān, his political speeches, and scholarship about him.

1) He was neither anti-Western nor a blind follower of the West.

He believed Iranians must understand the world in order to thrive in it.

In The Course of Philosophy in Europe he introduced Descartes, Kant, Boethius, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith — not to imitate the West, but to give Iranians the intellectual tools needed for clear thinking.

Foroughi’s stance can be summarized as:

“Know the world, engage the world, but remain yourself.”

This is not West-phobia
and not West-worship —
it is world-awareness.

2) He saw culture as the true foundation of the Iranian nation.

In his message to the Academy of Persian Language (1936), he wrote:

*“I am deeply attached to the Persian language. Beyond the fact that it is my own language, through which I express my thoughts, and beyond the many joys I have received from its literary beauties,
I hold this view: Language is the mirror of a people’s culture, and culture is the source of dignity and one of the strongest elements of national identity.

Any people whose culture is worthy of attention will remain alive; and any people who lack such a culture neither deserve to survive, nor can they remain.”*

Persian (original):

«من به زبان فارسی دلبستگی تمام دارم؛ زیرا گذشته از اینکه زبان خودم است و ادای مراد خویش را به این زبان میکنم و از لطائف آثار آن خوشیهای گوناگون فراوان دیدهام،
نظر دارم به اینکه زبان آیینۀ فرهنگ قوم است و فرهنگ مایۀ ارجمندی و یکی از عاملهای نیرومند ملیت است.

هر قومی که فرهنگی شایستۀ اعتنا و توجه داشته باشد، زنده و باقی است و اگر نداشته باشد، نه سزاوار زندگانی و بقاست و نه میتواند باقی بماند.»

This is precisely one of the reasons why he resisted the Latinization of the script, a transformation that would have cut Iran off from a thousand years of literature and memory.

3) He believed true reform begins with /tarbiyat/ تربیت— the moral and intellectual cultivation of society — not political agitation.

In his personal diaries, Foroughi writes about Seyyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi (Afghani) — a major intellectual and political activist in the Muslim world.

As Moeen Paydar معین پایدار explains:

Foroughi regarded Seyyed Jamaleddin as intelligent, perceptive, and deeply influential—someone who affected those around him and shaped the condition of Muslims. He spoke of him with genuine respect; yet he had serious criticism of Jamaleddin’s reformist approach.
(Translated from Moeen Paydar’s post)

And now, a part of Foroughi’s critique:

 English Translation (faithful to the original):

*“I wish he had focused less on politics and more on the moral and intellectual cultivation of Muslims. Even today, after sixty or seventy years and after the world has changed so dramatically, Muslims still lack the foundation needed for proper political understanding.

The idea of ‘Islamic unity,’ which some other well-intentioned thinkers also promoted, was a naïve fantasy. Throughout all of history, we have never seen religion serve as the basis of lasting unity among different nations.”*

Persian (original text):

«ای کاش کمتر به سیاست و بیشتر به تربیت مسلمین می پرداخت؛ زیرا میبینیم امروز هم بعد از شصت هفتاد سال که اوضاع دنیا تغییر فاحش نموده و چشم و گوش مسلمانان بسی بازتر شده، هنوز قابل نیستند که سیاست صحیح داشته باشند و در مقابل اروپاییان بتوانند قد علم کنند.

فکر اتحاد اسلامی که بعضی از خیرخواهان دیگر عالَم اسلام هم پخته اند، مخصوصاً خیال خامی بود؛ چه اولاً در تمام دورۀ تاریخ هیچ وقت ندیده ایم که دین مایۀ اتحاد اقوام و ملل مختلف شود.»

Source: Daily Diaries of Foroughi, published in Bukhara Magazine, No. 121, pp. 129–133.

4) He rejected ideological fantasies in favor of realistic statecraft.

Before sharing Foroughi’s words, I want to add my own perspective here, because this is one of the ideas that speaks to me the most.

Religion — or belief in any form — is there as something that should expand your freedom, posperity, and dignity as a human, not shrink it. It connects your inner truth to something higher, and encourages compassion, dignity, and responsibility. Right?

But what happened after the 1979 Revolution was the opposite of what belief is meant to do.
What became dominant in Iran was not Islam, not faith, not spirituality — but a form of state ideology, built on censorship, fear, anti-freedom, anti-family, and ultimately anti-human principles. 

It is painful but necessary to say it clearly:
Even being Muslim is not a “winning card” under such a system, because the ruling ideology is not truly religious — it is a political machinery using the name of religion. What is dominant is not God, not the Qur’an, not spirituality, not love — it is the state itself.

This is why Foroughi’s critique feels timeless.

He saw, even a century ago, that ideology — when it tries to force unity, identity, or collectivism — will always fail, because real unity can never be manufactured by dogma. It grows only through understanding, education, and freedom.

Now his words:

 English Translation

*“Sectarian and religious conflicts are mostly excuses for worldly interests. Even without religious differences, other sources of conflict would still arise.

True unity can only happen when people, through knowledge and reason, recognize that their best interests lie in cooperation.”*

Persian (original text)

«اختلافات دینی و مذهبی غالباً بهانه برای اغراض شخصی و دنیوی است و اگر اختلافات قومی و اغراض دنیوی نبود، یقیناً این اندازه اختلافات دینی و مذهبی میان مردم پیش نمیآمد.

اتحاد مسلمین اگر صورتپذیر باشد، وقتی میشود که از روی علم و عقل تشخیص دهند که مصلحتشان در اتحاد است.»

Source: Daily Diaries of Foroughi, Bukhara Magazine, No. 121, pp. 129–133.

5) He believed that relying on one colonial power to escape another was folly

One of the most striking things about Foroughi is how deeply he understood the dynamics of power — especially global power. He wasn’t emotional, reactive, or ideological. He approached Iran’s political challenges with clarity, not fantasy.

Before quoting him, it’s important to explain the moment he was living in:

+ Iran was caught between Britain and Russia, two major empires who treated the Middle East as a chessboard (I tried my best to use a polite term here).

+ Some Iranian thinkers at the time believed that if Iran aligned itself with one, the other would protect it.

+ Many thought reliance on Russia would help Iran escape British influence, or vice versa.

But Foroughi saw through this illusion.
He understood something that many political actors — even today — still fail to grasp:

When two powers both want to dominate you, choosing one over the other does not give you freedom. It only changes the flavor of captivity.

This is where your worldview becomes relevant:
You believe in sovereignty, homeland, family, faith, and dignity.
You value connections with the world, not dependency.
You reject the idea that a nation should sacrifice its identity or freedom by attaching itself to another power — whether Western or Eastern.

This resonates profoundly with Foroughi’s clarity, because he believed Iran should stay open to the world, not subordinate to it.

And now we arrive at his unforgettable metaphor — one of the sharpest political warnings in Iranian history:

English Translation

“To rely on Russia in order to escape the harm of Britain was like escaping from a snake by seeking refuge with a scorpion.”

Persian (original text)

«برای دفع شرّ انگلیس به روس تکیهکردن، از مار به عقرب پناهبردن بود.»

Source: Daily Diaries of Foroughi, Bukhara Magazine, No. 121.

My Personal Reflection

 

Whenever I read Foroughi, I find myself imagining a different path for my country. I often wish that those who shaped the 1979 Revolution had looked at his clarity as a roadmap — a path rooted in culture, grounded in knowledge, protective of personal freedom, and open to the world.

Instead of building an identity through negation — anti-West, anti-heritage, anti-family, anti-home, and ultimately anti-prosperity — Iran could have chosen a direction that honored its own depth. A direction where freedom of expression was non-negotiable, where creativity and free markets supported people’s potential, and where connection with the world strengthened our identity rather than threatening it.

To me, loving your homeland has never meant rejecting others. Real national confidence comes from knowing who you are so deeply that the success of others never occurs to feel like a danger, but a point of strength. This is exactly the spirit Foroughi embodied: profoundly Iranian, profoundly cultured, and profoundly connected to the wider world.

It is a sorrow that his wisdom was not embraced at a decisive moment in our history — and a blessing that his writings remain, waiting for us to rediscover them with open eyes and a freer heart. I hope we make better decisions. 

 Suggested Reading 

In English & Persian:

1. 1. The Political-Cultural Legacy of Mohammad-Ali Foroughi
   کارنامۀ سیاسی فرهنگی محمدعلی فروغی
   — سیدبهرام موسوی

   2. Zoka-ol-Molḵ and the Events of 1941
   ذکاءالملک فروغی و شهریور ۱۳۲۰
   — باقر عاقلی

   3. The Life and Times of Mohammad-Ali Foroughi
   زندگی و زمانۀ محمدعلی فروغی
   — احمد واردی (ترجمۀ عبدالحسین آذرنگ)

   4. Foroughi’s Collected Articles (Maqālāt-e Foroughi)
   مقالات فروغی
   — بهکوشش محسن باقرزاده

   5. The Course of Philosophy in Europe (Seyr-e Ḥekmat dar Orupā)
   سیر حکمت در اروپا
   — محمدعلی فروغی