Islam, Law, and Political Control in Contemporary Iran

Muslims agr-ee that the establishment of an Islamic state requires the implementation of Islanzic principles and lawvs. In Iran, Khomeini and his suppor-ters developed doctrinal justifications for- uncontested clerical rule to ensure political order and social conformity. By emphasizing "conzmunal interest" in legislation and establishing an extensive institutional mechanism of legal contr-ol, the clerics gradually marginalized the Shari'ah and sacrificed the Islamic notion of universality of law for legal terr-itor-iality. This legal tr-end is separating the clerics from their traditional role and is undermining their legitimacy. Ironically, the current attempts at legal and political reform by the reformers, as harshly opposed by the har-d-line clerics, would beneft the clerical class by pursuing a mor-e liber-al legal and political agenda consistent with the Shari'ah. Islamists have always favored the establishment of an " Islamic Order." In their pursuit of an Islamic Order, they have sought to establish an Islamic polity committed to the enforcement of Islamic values and laws. Historically, however, Muslims have lived under all forms of governments that have, at best, paid only scant attention to the social, economic, and political rulings of Islam. In modern times, both monarchic and republican forms of government that have governed Muslim societies have found it increasingly impossible to rule purely and solely based on the Islamic laws and norms that governed early Muslim communities. Both the inadequacy of Islamic laws for modern governments and their inconsistencies with modern-day issues have left leaders of Muslim countries with little choice but to incorporate modern, largely western, legal theories and principles into the traditional Islamic ones. This infusion of western values has become an easy scapegoat for the ills of today's Muslim societies. Many suggest that the current problems of the Islamic world should be primarily, if not solely, attributed to their regimes' intentional and self-serving deviation from Islam. Thus, according to Islamists, the only solution to the current problems lies in their return to an Islamic Order that is committed to the very same institutions and principles in place during the rule of prophet Muhammad. However, Islamists agree neither on the nature of these values and principles nor the manner by which they should be implemented. To some, the current regimes must recommit themselves to Islamic laws and values through extensive reform strategies. To the more radical, the current political institutions are inherently incompatible with Islam and the only viable solution is a total transformation of these societies through revolutionary means. At the heart of these perspectives is an urgent need to commit to Islamic teachings as the only salvation. The Islamists dominated the Iranian revolution, which by most accounts was primarily a revolution against the repressive Pahlavi regime, early after the Shah's ouster. Under Khomeini's leadership and uncompromising commitment to the establishment of an Islamic state, the emerging Islamic Republic was established on the basis of the doctrine of Jurisprudent Leadership (Vilayat-e Faqih). This doctrine (for a detailed discussion of this doctrine, see Tamadonfar 1989) suggests that a state is Islamic only if it is founded upon Islamic principles and laws, and those trained in Islamic laws (Shari'ah) are the only ones qualified to govern. While the idea of the need to rely on Islamic law for managing society is fairly common in mainstream Islamic thought, the doctrine of Vilayat-e Faqih seems extreme even among the Shi'i thinkers. The role of the clergy