Essay on Major Themes of Khomeinis Idea of Islamic Government

The Basic idea of Islamic government is an exclusive observance of the Islamic law (Sharia). Khomeini exclusively stated that the individuals managing an Islamic government by holding and controlling various top posts ought to be acquainted with the Sharia. Islamic jurists make this cut such people). The ideas hold that the ruler of an Islamic nation ought to be a faqih. According to Khomeini and Khomeini, fagih is a person who has more knowledge than the others in the Islamic law (Sharia) and justice (Marja) and has intelligence as well as administrative ability (59).

The faqih rules and could be considered to be Islamic law itself because Sharia is considered to be the divine command/authority over everybody and the government (Khomeini and Khomeini, 56). The faqihs governance is comparable to an appointment of a minor guardian in the same way God established Prophet Mohammad to early Muslims leader and ruler. God made obedience to Him obligatory and fuqaha must also follow this rule as they rule over other Muslims today (Khomeini and Khomeini, 63). However, Imams and Prophet have greater status and spiritual virtues than modern faqih but not their power because that confers no more governmental powers (Khomeini and Khomeini, 62). Khomeini further described his ideal Islamic government as to consist of four major features.

According to Khomeini, velayat-e faqih is constitutional. However, the government is not constitutional based on the sense of the modern word. For instance, meaning based on the approval of laws in according to minoritys opinion. Additionally, instead of the forming a government with customary legislative, judicial, and executive branches, a less complex planning body is put in place of the legislative body which one of the branches of a government because there is no need of having a legislature as the Divine Legislator is the only one with the right to legislate laws Khomeini and Khomeini, 56).

Khomeini stresses that the Islamic government raises its revenue based on the taxes established by Islam. He adds that this more than enough because the khums is a large source Khomeini and Khomeini, 45). Khumi is a historical religious requirement that obligates all Muslim armies to pay a portion equivalent to one-fifth (1/5) of the war spoils; the money gathered from non-believers upon the completing a military campaign. Additionally, this type of tax was submitted to the caliph or the sultan who represented a state of Islam. Other forms of taxes that should be used include zakat, kharaj, and jizya.

Additionally, apart from being just, the Islamic government will not spare troublesome groups which cause corruption in the society as well as damage the Islamic state and Islam at large. Are the groups within the Islamic state but are violating the Islamic law. Consequently, Khomeini and Khomeini add that the velayat-e faqih will follow Prophet Muhammads footsteps regarding how he eliminated Bani Qurayzss tribe heads after the occurrence of the murderous treachery (89).

Lastly, the velayat-e faqih will follow the rectitude and unflinching courage of Imam Ali. This imam commanded from one of the corners of a mosque, but he was courageous and strict (Khomeini and Khomeini, 86). The government will look into examples of early Muslims armies who were triumphant and victorious armies and who set out the mosque into battles, feared only God, and followed only the Quranic command (Khomeini and Khomeini, 131). Khomeini and Khomeini state that if the government forms as willed by the Islam happen to come into existence, no one of the existing governments around the globe will resist it but they would capitulate (122).

Parsa and Idea of Islamic Government and the 1979 Iranian Revolution

Islamic regimes leaders continued to consistently claim that Iranian Revolution was for the benefit of the Islam. However, Parsa analyzed the collective nature of the actions of the main actors short before as well as during the 1979 revolution. Parsa examined the demands, timing, as well as the challengers and collectivities major claims especially those who took part in the whole process. Additionally, Parsa concluded that although some Iranian students and intellectuals were in the fight for the velayat-e faqih, the largest segment of the Iranian populace was never fighting for a theocracy that was lectured by Khomeini (Parsa, 53). It was hard to relate the causes, processes as well as the outcome of this revolution to a single comprehensible, ideological explanation. The entire cause was very complex.

The ideas of Islamic government from Khomeini and his allies had nothing to do with the 1979 revolution in Iran. Additionally, this could be true because Khomeini sought to pretend that there was a broad coalition but he never directly address any group of Iranians about the radical, theocratic ideas he had coined (Parsa, 68). Unfortunately, while in exile, Khomeini described his role to be different as people insinuated after the revolution. He explicitly said that his role was to guide the people. Islamic Republics first constitution where Khomeini appointed the prime minister did not provide for the positions of a Velayat-e Faghihs principle which the the foundation of the theocracy.

Although it was clear that Khomeini wanted to the establishment of the Islamic theocracy to happen, the coalition broke down. At long last, the supporters, led by Khomeini, had to dispense with challengers and partners of the coalition and retain power as complex factors made it hard for them to work things out (Parsa, 68). The rift in the coalition widened further because of domestic conflicts and, in turn, his supporters monopolized critical outlets such as mosques and media and other social groups could not use them anymore (Parsa, 68). This move paralyzed and killed the relationship that supposedly existed between his movement and other revolutionists when the prerevolutionary mobilization outlets such as mosques were blocked for the Islamic Republic dissidents.

British and the US forcefully opposed Mossadeghs Iran

While Mohammed Mossadegh seemed to enjoy great popularity in his term in office, his coalition came under much pressure. His former allies started to oppose him. Some of them were Ayatollah Kashani, Majless speaker and a great influence for politicized clerics next generation, significantly, Ruhollah Khomeini. Mossadeghs government started to get weaker and weaker (De Luce, n.p.). British had decided to oppose his leadership forcefully. The British government was opposed to his policies (Risen, 5). Particularly, the British government was unhappy after losing their control over the oil industry in Iran after he nationalized oil companies in Iran.

Attempts by Mossadegh to reach an agreement with the British ailed severally. Oil crisis arose in the country and this made Mossadegh unpopular, unlike before. His party could not control parliamentary businesses anymore which forced him to cancel parliamentary elections as he could not win the majority. Together with the US (CIA), the British started to instigate unrest in Iran (De Luce, n.p.). In February 1953, Mossadegh witnessed mass demonstrations against him which were allegedly planned (by external agents) and funded by the CIA. The demonstrations were strong enough to force to Mossadegh to increase security measures in his country.

What the British and the US (CIA) wanted was to put more pressure on Mossadegh leadership and make it look like his people were against his leadership. The British and the US staged protests and Coups against Mossadegh several times (ASSEMBLY, n.p). They also hired out large groups of people and bribed Iranians to stage a rebellion against Mossadegh. The man who was initially seen as a genuinely trusting as well as caring person had his reputation destroyed through manipulations on his people (De Luce, n.p.). This strategy worked for the British and the US (CIA), and Mossadegh government was overthrown.

However, while the Britishs reason for opposing Mossadegh from his policies and steps in nationalizing the oil companies in Iran, Americas reason was different. The US wanted to halt communism and allegedly prevent the world war (Risen, 11). Mossadeghs move to nationalize oil companies in his country did not go down well with the West. He was seen a caring person and a communist (De Luce, n.p.). The US was against capitalists, and they opposed communism, and because Mossadeghs policies were geared towards promoting communism, they could not imagine the later impacts of his actions. Thus, while the British were for western oil interests, the US was up to halt communism.

Works Cited

ASSEMBLY, GENERAL. "ERFURT MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017." (2017). Retrieved 9/1/2018, https://www.uni-erfurt.de/fileadmin/user-docs/MUN/EfMUN_BGG_GA.pdf

De Luce, Dan. "The spectre of Operation Ajax." The Guardian 20 (2003). Retrieved 9/1/2018 from, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/20/foreignpolicy.iran

Khomeini, Imam, and Ruhollah Khomeini. Islamic government: governance of the jurist. Alhoda UK, 2002.

Parsa, Misagh. "Ideology and Political Action in the Iranian Revolution." Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 31.1 (2011): 53-68.

Risen, James. "Secrets of History: The CIA in IranA Special Report: How a Plot Convulsed Iran in 53 (and in 79)." New York Times (2000): 1-13.