The Satanic Deception of Iran's Velayat-e Faqih

The Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the principle of velayat-e faqih, which grants clerics political power through their interpretation of divine will. This idea has faced significant critique from various theologians and intellectuals.

Introduction

Velayat-e Faqih, or "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist," is a political theory that underpins the governance structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Proposed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, this doctrine asserts that a senior Islamic jurist should wield political power to ensure the implementation of Islamic law. However, there are arguments suggesting that Velayat-e Faqih may embody a form of deception contrary to spiritual and ethical principles. This essay explores these claims, examining the theory's implications and criticisms within both Islamic and broader ethical contexts.

The Doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih

Velayat-e Faqih positions a senior Islamic jurist, or Faqih, as a representative of divine authority on earth. According to this theory, the Faqih has the right to govern and make decisions on behalf of the people, ensuring that all political and social actions align with Islamic law. This concept was formalized during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, leading to the establishment of a theocratic regime where the Supreme Leader, a Faqih, holds significant power.

Soroush’s Critique: Philosopher Abdolkarim Soroush argues against velayat-e faqih, claiming that human understanding of God’s will is inherently limited. He criticizes the clerics, particularly the Supreme Jurisconsult Ayatollah Khamenei, for monopolizing religious interpretation and argues that this leads to the stagnation of religious thought. Soroush suggests that velayat-e faqih is just one interpretation among many and should not be considered an absolute or unchallengeable model.

Orthodox Shiite Doctrine: Many traditional Shiite clerics reject the concept of velayat-e faqih, viewing it as contrary to the true role of the clergy. They believe that clerics should not hold political power and that true Islamic governance should be achieved through different means. Historical figures like Reza Zanjani and Hasan Qomi criticized the concentration of power in clerics and advocated for a more consultative or representative approach.

Vekalat Theory: Opponents of velayat-e faqih often support the vekalat theory, which advocates for a government elected by the people rather than ruled by clerics. Prominent figures like Muhammad Hossein Naini and Ayatollah Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari argued for a system that respects popular sovereignty and limits the role of clerics to religious guidance rather than political authority.

Montazeri’s Interpretation: Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, who was initially a supporter of velayat-e faqih, later criticized its implementation. He believed that the role of the Supreme Jurisconsult should be limited to oversight rather than direct involvement in politics. Montazeri’s critiques highlight the shift from the original intent of the doctrine and call for a system more aligned with republican principles and popular sovereignty.

Current Critiques: Recent critics, including Ayatollah Ahmad Azari-Qomi, Mohsen Kadivar, and Abdallah Nuri, challenge the concentration of power in the hands of the Supreme Jurisconsult. They advocate for a more balanced approach that incorporates democratic elements and respects the sovereignty of the people.

Theoretical and Practical Criticisms

1. Concentration of Power: Critics argue that Velayat-e Faqih concentrates power in the hands of a single individual or a small elite, potentially leading to authoritarianism. This concentration of power can undermine democratic principles and create a system where dissent is not tolerated.

2. Lack of Accountability: The Faqih, according to this doctrine, is considered infallible in their decisions, which can lead to a lack of accountability. This lack of accountability can result in abuses of power and a failure to address the needs and rights of the people.

3. Deviation from Islamic Principles: Some argue that Velayat-e Faqih deviates from the true spirit of Islamic governance, which traditionally emphasized justice, consultation, and the rule of law. Critics claim that the doctrine prioritizes the authority of the Faqih over the principles of Shura (consultation) and Ijtihad (independent reasoning).

4. Ethical Implications: From an ethical standpoint, Velayat-e Faqih can be seen as a form of deception. The idea that one individual possesses divine authority and infallibility can be interpreted as contrary to the principles of humility, justice, and collective responsibility found in many ethical and spiritual traditions.

5. Impact on Society: The practical application of Velayat-e Faqih has led to various social and political challenges in Iran, including human rights violations, restrictions on freedoms, and economic difficulties. These outcomes raise questions about the doctrine's efficacy and ethical legitimacy.