FYI: I am a fourth year student of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Copenhagen. I am one oral exam and a 20 page essay away from receiving a bachelor's degree in Iranian studies. I speak Persian, to some extent, and visited Iran this february.thelike5 wrote:Well aren't you the little fountain of knowledge!!
One of my exams last semester was an essay on Khomeini's ideology and the history of the Islamic Republic. In addition to texts by scholars of Western universities, primarily Ervand Abrahamian (who is violently critical of the Khomeini and the Islamic Republic), it meant familiarising myself with what Khomeini himself wrote, as well as the constitution of the Islamic Republic.
I wouldn't call myself a fountain of knowledge by any stretch of the imagination, but I would hazard the guess that the list of books by reputable authors I've read on the subject is a little longer than yours?
I'm not going to provide you with an account of what was changed to allow Khamenei to assume the title of Supreme Leader after Khomeini's death, unless you really do want it. And by "rewrote the constitute", I quite obviously meant rewrote parts of it. That's quite common in most countries that have a constitution, except the US. The Danish one was last changed in 1953 to allow a Queen to be the monarch, since our then-King had had only daughters.If "they" removed a few "superlatives" or even rewrote the constitution(WTF? isn't that a red herring?) who's to say that if Ahmadinejad wants it they won't amened the description for him, too?
Anyways, here's a quick description of why Ahmadinejad is not going to ever become the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic:
Khomeini's vision of the Islamic Republic is based on the idea that Islam is a complete legal system, providing rules and regulations for all aspects of human life, which was actually a rather innovative idea at the time. He concluded, at some point in the 1960's, that the only just society is one where all these laws are implemented exactly as they are described in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition (again, a rather innovative idea at the time, in spite of what you might have read).
He redefined the traditional concept of the Guardianship or Custodianship of the jurist (Velayat-e Faqih, you will most likely come across the term) from having meant a responsibility for those who could not take care of themselves to a guardianship over the whole of society and all legal matters.
The Islamic Republic and its constitution were founded on this idea, that the best of the jurists should ensure the complete and just society. The role obviously went to Khomeini himself after the referendum that instated the Islamic Republic in 1979, and after his death all sorts of power plays resulted in the election of Hojjatoleslam Khamenei, who was promoted to the rank of Ayatollah for the occassion.
Now, he might have been a controversial choice because he wasn't widely recognised as the most knowledgable jurist, but he was still a cleric with a lifetime of schooling behind him. Iran is ruled by the Supreme Leader, who is to guide the republic according to the laws of Islam. The supreme leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are all learned clerics. It is based if nothing else on the one principle that Islamic law is the only form of justice. Tell me again how you defend the idea that an engineer, with no schooling in Islamic law, would be elected by an assembly of clerics who've spent their whole life studying that law, to Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
