It is a fact that many Muslims are dazzled by the Iranian presidential elections viewing it as a civilized pattern to elect a publicly accepted leader who is to achieve people's hopes, bearing in mind the deteriorating situation in most Arab countries. Actually, Arab countries are ruled by a group of presidents, kings and sultans who came to power unelected by their people. Even in countries where elections are conducted, election results are always rigged. This is why Muslims admire any electoral pattern regardless of whether it is Western, Shiite or anything else.

However, should Iranian election be taken as a realistic example to be followed? Does the president elected by the people have powers enough to achieve the hopes of those who elected him? Is there any chance to reform corruption once it takes place? Is the Iranian regime that vivid as those charmed by Shia like to say? We have to go back to origins if we are to understand how Iran is practically ruled. I advise readers to read my previous articles on the issue for a clearer vision of facts I will cite below in this article. These articles are: "Origins of Shia", "Shia's Dominance", "Shia's Peril" and"Our Attitude toward Shia".

Al-Khomeini staged the Shiite Revolution in 1979 and toppled the regime of Shah Bahlavi, who had great powers in Iran besides the power of his ruling regime.

 So, what change did Al-Khomeini make? He, in fact, established a more dictator regime than that of the Shah giving himself much more powers than those enjoyed by the Shah. Although there had been little room for opposition during the Shah reign, there is no room at all for opposition during the reign of Al-Khomeini. However, conflicts, opposition parties and competing camps we see nowadays are only allowed within a defined and limited frame and ultimately aim at beautifying the image of the regime and making everyone feel that there is wide scope of freedom, the country is good and that the people's choice is respected.

How did this take place? What are the roots of the story?

Al-Khomeini came to power though preaching a Shiite-history-based theory, i.e. the theory of the "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists". The Shiite ideology originally provides that guardianship or authority should be given to the infallible Imam. Actually, they believe that the twelve Imams including Imam Ali bin Abu Talib, his sons Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein and the succeeding sons of the latter are all infallible. However, it happened that Imam Al-'Askary, the eleventh Imam as to Shia, died in 260 A.H. nominating no "infallible" Imam to succeed him. Based on the suggested solutions of such a dilemma, Shia were divided into many sub-sects, including the Twelver (Ithna 'Ashriyyah) Shiites who claimed that Imam Al-'Askary nominated his five-year-old son Muhammad to succeed him. However, the twelfth Imam occulted and is thought by Twelever Shiites (in Iran and Lebanon) to be still alive in the Sirdab (cellar) he entered. They believe that he, as the awaited-for Mahdi, will certainly return from occultation to rule the world. Shiites further believe that no authority is to be assumed and rulings of religion, such as Jihad, establishment of the Muslim community and enforcement of Hudud (prescribed punishments), are to be observed unless an infallible Imam exists. Hence, all religion-related affairs are suspended until the rise of such a false Imam.

Anyway, Al-Khomeini revived a theory based in Shiite literature, i.e. the theory of "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists". The theory provides that the absent Imam Al-Mahdi (the child that disappeared in the Sirdab) entrusted the Faqih (guardian jurist) who is endowed with a high jurisprudential capacity with doing things the infallible Imam would do if existent. Accordingly, the Faqih should be the head of the Ummah and assume all powers of an infallible Imam, including infallibility itself, being inspired by Allah and being held in higher esteem than prophets in view of the fact that prophethood came to an end while imamate is still ongoing. In this regard, we have before quoted Al-Khomeini in his book "Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Government)" as saying, "It is a fundamental of our faith that Imams are held in an esteem never held by a close angel or a dispatched prophet."

Were Iranians to hold such a theory, they would not be permitted to object to rulings issued by a Faqih who rules the country, known as the guardian jurist, the Supreme Leader and the Revolution Guide, which are all synonyms indicating the first and last figure in the new Iranian system. Actually, this is very serious; it is even more serious than the situation as to corrupt Arab regimes. In fact, dictator Arab rulers do not claim to be divinely inspired rulers or to be infallible. Moreover, their peoples do not deem obeying them something enacted by Shari'ah (Islamic law). Regarded by Arab peoples as meritorious, opposing tyranny and injustice in Iran is considered a criminal act committed against Allah himself before being against the regime or the leader.

Al-Khomeini designed the new Iranian constitution in such a manner as may keep his dictatorship and that of adherents of the deviated Twelver Shiite thought who succeed him. He thus laid down the constitutional provision that the Revolution Guide's post is a lifelong one. He then formed the Assembly of Experts, a deliberative body whose members are elected by direct public vote from a list of candidates who has to be jurists, adherents of the Twelver faith and believing in the theory of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. The assembly is charged with electing the Guardian Jurist that is to succeed Al-Khomeini after his death and to assume the lifelong post of Supreme Leader. The assembly elected Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to be the Supreme Leader, a post that he has assumed since 1989 up till now.

More amazingly, Al-Khomeini added to his influence many other powers as provided for in the article 110 of the constitution to the effect that the Supreme Leader is entrusted with designing general policies of the regime, leading the armed forces, appointing and dismissing heads of institutions and principal councils of the state and appointing the head of the judiciary. The article further provides that he is the head of radio and TV, the head of joint general command and the Revolutionary Guard. Above all, it entitles him with the right to depose the publicly-elected president!

Actually, it is a scope of dominance never dreamt of by any Arab dictator. Furthermore, all the abovementioned authorities are deemed to be vetted by the absent Imam Mahdi, in the sense that obedience to the commandments of the Supreme Leader is a sin that is tantamount to disbelieving in Allah on account of opposing an infallible. Thus thinking, they believe in a statement falsely attributed to Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq that reads, "If someone rejects a judgment issued by us, he will be disparaging Allah's judgment. Moreover, refusing our judgment is tantamount to committing Shirk (disbelief in Allah)."

Trying to beautify the image of the regime so that it might not apparently seem a dictator regime, Al-Khomeini introduced the so-called post of the President of the Republic although the actual president of the country is the Supreme Leader. Aiming at exhausting the energy of his people and making them feel it is them who choose and who are at the helm, he provided that the president be elected by direct public vote. Let us now stop for a while to talk about the post of the Republic of Iran's President.

How the president is elected?

Al-Khomeini introduced what he called the Guardian Council of the Constitution charged with approving of candidates to the President. The 12-member council is composed of six Islamic jurists, to be selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and six jurists, to be elected by the Head of the Judicial Power, who, in turn, is also appointed by the Supreme Leader. This means that all members of the council are elected, or at least approved of, by the Supreme Leader.

 It is charged with supervising elections of, and approving of candidates to, the President of the Republic and thus approves of only candidates having good ties with the Supreme Leader, which gives no chance whatsoever to the rise of any opposition to him. Actually, the so-called conservatives and reformists are no more than a representation of slight differences permitted within the frame allowed by the Supreme Leader. Suffice it to know that only four candidates, two reformists and two conservatives, were approved by the Guardian Council, out of the 476 men and women who had applied to seek the presidency of Iran in the 2009 election. However, all of those approved are the legitimate sons of the regime and devoted followers of the Supreme Leader. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a conservative who is very close to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a strict advocate of the theory of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists.

His strongest competitor is Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who, although a reformist, belongs to the Revolution and traveled bearing its principles to Paris. Moreover, he served as the last Prime Minister of Iran, from 1981 to 1989, before the position of Prime Minister was abolished. The third candidate was Mehdi Karroubi, former Speaker of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) from 1989 to 1992. The fourth candidate was the conservative Mohsen Rezaee, former Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard during the Iran-Iraq war.

No doubt, all of them belong to the regime and are strong supporters of all the Supreme Leader's decisions.

Let us suppose that the elected president forgets who he is and issues a decision in conflict with that of the Supreme Leader. What should happen in such a case? Actually, we need not conjecture, for the actual fact gives a definite answer. For example, Banisadr was elected to as the first President of the republic in 1980, receiving 78.9 percent of the vote.

Banisadr thought he is an actual president enjoying powers enjoyed by all world presidents, bearing in mind the huge percentage of votes he received. However, he found himself so helpless that he cannot name a prime minister or participate in choosing cabinet ministers. He also came to realize that he has to refer to the Supreme Leader regarding all matters. However, he did not yield to this situation and showed objection to meet the doomed end!

He was removed from his office by Al-Khomeini and a new president was appointed!

Having received more than 75% of the vote availed him nothing. What does then elections actually worth? What benefit is there behind spending funds on propaganda and why public debates are held in mass media?

Another example, because Ali Khamenei, Iran's president from 1981 to 1989, passed the labor law that was opposed by the Guardian Council of the Constitution as incited by Al-Khomeini, Al-Khomeini sent him a strongly-worded message. In the message, Al-Khomeini reminded him that the Guardian Jurist enjoys the same authority as that of a prophet, in view of being nominated by the absent Imam. However, president Khamenei yielded to warnings, bearing in mind that he will later be the successor of Al-Khomeini to the post of Supreme Leader and consequently to infallibility and thus will accept none to put back his commands.

Moreover, nothing has changed with reformists, such as Muhammad Khatami, who served as the fifth President of Iran from 1997 to 2005, assuming presidency!

Actually, conservative-ruled Iran is not different from reformist-ruled Iran; everything is in the hands of only one person, the Supreme Leader!

Furthermore, we do not consider that conservatives and reformists represent separate parties in Iran and thus there is no institutional work to guarantee the tendency of Iran's president. Thus, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents himself in elections which is the case with Mir-Hossein Mousavi. However, this is not the case in US elections, for example,  where Obama is a representative of the democrats program while McCain is a representative of the republicans program. Actually, the issue is much more simple in Iran as it is a weightless farce.

Even when conflict arose between two presidential candidates in Iran's streets and reciprocated accusations in mass media, the religious leadership deliberately kept silent. In this regard, Mir-Hossein Mousavi who lost elections commented, "With all ways to secure their rights blocked, the innocent people are confronted with the silence of the clerics, and this will bring more damage than a change in votes."

Clerics kept silent in order to show the conflict in a form of a conflict for a very important post and to show off the country's democracy allowing the existence of two competing currents the success of any of which is determined by the people. Nevertheless, it is no more than a farce which theme is of people who are to elect the actor who will perform the role designed by the playwright, the Supreme Leader!

More disastrous, the Leader do not enforce the enactments of the Qur'an and Sunnah; rather, he inculcates a serious creed deviation and is authorized by the absent Imam, who disappeared in the Sirdab, to rule and thus he moves the whole country in such a direction as goes in line with his unobjectionable desires.

Having known these facts, why are we then dazzled by such tragic affairs? Why some, sometimes Islamic-oriented, writers consider Iran a model to be copied?

Actually, we are dazzled due to many reasons…

Among such reasons is that we do not know such facts about the Iranian constitution, the Iranian system of government and the relation between president and the Supreme Leader. Therefore, we issue emotion-based, rather than rational, judgments and tend to support anyone who raises the flag of Islam even if heretic and deviated.

Another reason is that we do not know about the true Islam that gave Muslims the freedom to oppose Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) and even to argue with the Prophet (peace be upon him) on non-revelation-based matters.

A third reason is that we, Arab citizens, suffer from oppressive dictator regimes, elections whose results are openly rigged and a large-scale corruption in all sectors. As a result, we seek even if a slightly successful regime overlooking all its negativities in order to have a false feeling of satisfaction with the existence of a country that puts into practice the Shura (consultation) principle.

A fourth reason is that we are not aware of dangers to which Iraq, Bahrain, KSA, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and even Sunnis in Iran itself are exposed. This is because of the rise of a Leader holding the theory of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists who thinks that Sunnis are negligent on the part of religion and that he is authorized by the absent Imam to reform the corruption in the world so that it may be ready for receiving the Imam Mahdi after his return.

Another reason is that we suffer from the injustice of the USA and Jews and thus feel happy if anyone speaks badly of them. On the other hand, we do not bother to know events or read history so that we might be sure that there is no possibility whatsoever that Iran fights against Israel to liberate Palestine.

We, dear Muslims, need to establish our Ummah on sound foundations and bases following no Eastern or Western thought patterns and adopting no Shiite or Kharijite approaches. Rather, we should only enforce the commandments of the Qur'an and Sunnah, go back to our original principles and study the approach of the Prophet (peace be upon him), as well as that of the many righteous persons along the history of our Ummah, in order to make a change.

To conclude, righteous persons should never be dazzled by those deviated.

I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.

Dr. Ragheb ElSergany

https://www.islamstory.com/index.php/en/artical/3407500