The Anti-Islamic "Islamic Republic of Iran"

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

This classical discourse is also supported by hadith and the Qur’an. For example, following the establishment of the first Muslim community, the Prophet Muhammad established the Constitution of Medina, which essentially created a contract between the ruler, the ruled, and God. (Abou Fadl p. 25-26) By this contract, the Prophet ruled by the consent of its citizens and in consultation (shura) with them.

Shura, thus, served as the basis of Prophet Muhammad legitimacy. The notion of shura is also found in the Qur’an, which requires the ruler to conduct “their affairs by mutual consultation” (Qur’an 42:38 and “consult [the people] in affairs [of the moment].” (Qur’an 3:159) As such, the ruler loses his authority once he fails in upholding the divine law or by not consulting with the ruled. Therefore, both the Qur’an and hadith envision that the ruler is not divine himself, but rather subject and limited to divinity as well as popular will.

Moreover, an Islamic state must value the importance of individual rights. Because there is no single authoritative body which determines the source of rights under Islamic law, human diversity and differences are considered as a necessary means of fulfilling justice. (Abou Fadl p. 41) Similarly the Qur’an entitles people to use their reason, rationale, and intuitions to define the text. (Abou Fadl p. 60)

The Qur’an itself makes each individual a vicegerent of God. (Qur’an 2:30) As such, where a government restricts people’s right to reason or can never be subject to change or removed, it cannot be “Islamic.” It is precisely for that reason that popular approval was initially required in Iran. Following the 1979 Revolution a national referendum was required to legitimate the Islamic Republic, the Assembly of Experts was elected by the people, and the members could not approve a principle which would put into question the sovereignty of the people.

Despite the emphasis on shura, diversity, and individual rights in Islam, the Iranian government is structured so that the there is no effective review of its actions.

Rather, the Iranian Constitution creates a vertical relationship between the ruler and the ruled whereby it is the ruler which determines Islamic law and assures that the ruled are controlled by them. As such, the government, particularly the velayat-e faqih, can act arbitrarily without consultation, without accountability, and can force its own Islamic interpretations against the polity in violation of the Islamic tenet that “there is no compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an 2:256) This can primarily be attributed to Iran’s cyclical power structure which avoids popular accountability--a hallmark of the classical Islamic discourse as noted above.

The Guardian Council has the authority to vet candidates for the Presidency, Majles-e Showra-ye Melli, and the Assembly of Experts pursuant to Article 99 of the Iranian Constitution. The members of the Guardian Council are themselves directly and indirectly selected by the velayat-e faqih and the velayat-e faqih is chosen by the Assembly of Experts. Subsequently, the velayat-e faqih can enforce the status quo by selecting a Guardian Council of likeminded individuals, whom in turn assure that only persons in favor of the dominant Islamic philosophy can run for office as President, parliamentarian, or member of the Assembly of Experts. Thus, there is no process by which the popular will could ever remove the ruler for violating tenets of Islamic law.

An “Islamic” state may never potentially exist since the participation of humans will always “taint” the divine will of God. The establishment of political institutions which consolidate power into the hands of the unaccountable few, on the basis of Islam, is, therefore, less an actual expression of Shari’ah, than its manipulation for political consolidation .