CHAPTER FIVE

5.0: General Conclusion

5.1: Introduction

In this work, we have so far endeavoured to bring into the fore a discourse

assessment of one of the most controversial modern political theories tagged

Wilayatu’l-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) as popularized and championed in

a treatise titled Hokumat-el-Islami (Islamic Government) written by a 20th

century Iranian shi’ite cleric generally referred to as Imam Khomeini (1908-

1989). The theory enunciated that a leading religious figure-faqih occupies the

guardianship and headship of a theocratic polity. Such government therefore, in

concordance with the theory amongst other things is expected to recognize and

accord due respect, honour and reverence to him and the Office he occupies.

The theory by extension creates fora and avenues for clear-cut checks and

balances to avert dictatorship, despotism and any form of undue oppression

and suppression of the populace in the hands of the faqih. This is achieved with

specific political mechanisms put in place, especially the supervision and

monitoring of the Assembly of Experts, the Expediency and Guardian Councils.

Each of these governmental bodies and agencies work in tandem and harmony

to sustain a virile relationship amongst them. Although its Presidency is being

moderated by the Parliament; and by extension the Council of Ministers

distinctively, and at the same time concurrently.1

One noticeable feature of the theory is the recognition of the Office of the

President as the second-highest office in the executive capacity, though with

attendant limitations (for instance, decisions on Security, Armed Forces,

Defence and major foreign policy are at the prerogatives of the Supreme Leader)

and thus its placement under the Office of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic

Republic of Iran. The implication of this is that the President could be

impeached or removed from Office ditto to any other exalted office holders

upon the approval of the Supreme Leader. The Expediency Council is the

advisory body to the

Supreme Leader and therefore plays supervisory roles in checking the excesses

of other bodies or agencies. It acts and performs delegating responsibilities on

behalf of the Supreme Leader. Whilst the Guardian Council is the most

influential, it is necessarily not the most powerful according to the theory of

wilayatu’l-faqih. It consists of six theologians appointed by the Supreme Leader

and another six jurists nominated by the Judiciary and approved by the

Parliament, which constitutes and epitomizes the Majlisu’ sh-Shurah

(Parliamentary Consultative Assembly) of the Islamic Republic. It consists of 290

members carefully chosen from all the strata of the larger society as true

representations of people’s hopes, yearnings and aspirations.2

We have deliberately limited the scope of this work to the descriptive

presentation of the theory as compared to other theories and from the fear of

overflogging the discourse at hand. Similarly, we have abstained from excessive

quotation of Shi’ite sources, especially its jurisprudential proofs and legal

justifications against the backdrop of political concepts of Imamah and Khilafah,

and most importantly their evaluation and criticism. This is an area for further

research.

This work has therefore properly contextualized and adequately situated the

theory with the treatise. The fact that the theory has withstood the test of time,

though fraught with its attendant challenges, (like any other political theories) is

just quite enough to either ‘denounce’ or ‘commend’ it as it might not therefore

be the best nor the worst of theoretical concept. The past three decade

anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran which was celebrated amidst great

ovation and pageantry appears a hallmark of achievements and a springboard

of more successes and challenges ahead. Whilst it remains undisputed that the

Iranian nationhood or rather the Islamic Republic of Iran, is not in the good

records of the Western blocs3, it nevertheless represents a harbinger of hopes

for the ‘lost’ Islamic commonwealth and could as well later on prove to be a

beacon for the Muslim hegemony.4 Furthermore, we have been extremely

cautious to retain the Persian identity and fragrance of the treatise’s title both

in written and pronunciation respectively. This is deliberately done to preserve

the nature of the work and since Arabic and Persian have areas of convergence

and divergence especially in the calligraphy set-up, and which might

concurrently differs in the inflectional intonations.5 Also, we have come across

various translations of the working terms-wilayatu’l-faqih. Notable amongst

such renditions are: Rulership of the Jurist, Authority of the Jurist, Governance

of the Jurist and concretely Guardianship of the Jurist. Consequently, we have

chosen the last translation in this work, and have been consistent on it

throughout the shaping of this work. Whilst others are quite correct, germane

and relevant, we need to align with a particular one for the sake of academic

reliability, probity and validity.

In emphasizing the relevance of this discourse and the need to consolidate on it,

we may recount that the late Imam Khomeini mentioned two issues of the limit

of individual and social freedom as well as outlining and determining the

authority of Wilayatu’l-Faqih within the governmental apparatus and the

society as belonging to the class of issues encountered by the people as well as

the governance.

He states inter alia:

In an Islamic government the door of Ijtihad (jurisprudential efforts)

should be always open, and the nature of the Revolution and the Islamic

government constantly necessitates and supports that Ijtihadu’l-fiqhi

(scientific jurisprudential exertions) view in various fields; even if they

oppose each other; be freely expressed, and no one has the power or the

right to stop this. But what is important is a correct understanding of the

government and society so that the Islamic government could plan on its

basis the betterment of the Muslims.6

It therefore becomes imperative to highlight theories of government, albeit

been limited, and which can be classified in many ways. The most important

criteria of classification are:

The origin and essence of the government;

Its objective;

The limits of individual freedom and governmental authority;

The source of legitimacy of political power.

The classification of legal theories of government on the basis of source of

legitimacy of political power is, in our opinion clearer than other classifications.

As to whether we consider the source of governmental power to be God or

natural law or the will of the people has an impact upon the extent of

governmental authority and the limits of individual freedom. However the

theories of government as discussed in this work have been classified on the

basis of legitimacy of political power.7 By legitimacy, is not meant legal

legitimacy or specifically mashru‘iyyatu’l-fiqhi, rather it is a political legitimacy

or technically referred to as mashru ‘iyyatu’s-siyasi which is implied. The issue

of legitimacy implies a rational explanation of the power exercised by a ruler.

In effect, legitimacy requires of the strength of the political system to create

and sustain the belief that the existing political organs are the most suitable

ones for the society. Legitimacy is therefore closely linked with the idea of

pledge and commitment to obey.8

5.2: Summary

One thing that is quite discernible in the context of this work is the issue of the

concept of legitimacy. The concept has caught the attention and observation of

this effort to a larger extent, especially in the preliminary chapter. It may not be

wrong therefore to rest this dissertation within its purview by way of carrying

home our points, essentially in the concluding chapter. Besides, this notion has

inevitably built our confidence to thrash further this concept as a leeway to

legalize, standardize and sustain our assessment of the theory of Wilayatu’l-

Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) as contained in the treatise titled: Hokumat-

el-Islami (Islamic Government) being the thrust of this work. Amongst other

contentions of some experts and non-experts 9were the rationality, efficiency,

acceptability, and dominance of the theory, prior to the framework and

periscope of its legality and above all its eventual legitimacy to wield power and

authority respectively in governance. Imam Khomeini as one of the modern

exponents of the theory was to contend with these, but surmounted them with

his unique charisma. Subsequent developments have made an interlocutory

caricature of the theory, though these are been controlled and curtailed by the

efficiency and efficacy of the theory.10

As earlier highlighted, the basis of source of legitimacy and the theories of

governance in Shi’ite jurisprudence can be divided into two groups:

The first group represents theories based upon divine legitimacy, and;

The second group comprises of theories based upon public legitimacy

coupled with observance of divine rules.

Consequently, the theories of both groups are similar from the angle of their

ultimate reliance upon God for legitimacy and in their acceptance that He

possesses absolute authority over the world and human beings. Apart from this

they believe that as long as the infallible Imam11is present in the society, the

authority belongs to him. But during the period of Occultation of the infallible

Imam, then the fuqaha’ (jurists) belonging to the first group are of the view that

the divine authority (wilayatu’l-llahi) has been directly entrusted to the fuqaha’

(jurists). They are, with God’s permission, appointed by the infallible Imam.

Therefore the ruler of the people is the vicegerent and viceroy of God on earth

and the proxy and representative of the Prophet (s) and the Imam respectively.

We have referred to this, as divine legitimacy, because of absence of neither

public involvement nor human element in it.

Contrary to this, the fuqaha’ (jurists) belonging to the second group believe that

God has made man the ruler of his own destiny, and during the Occultation of

Imam Mahdi, political authority (wilayat) has been granted to him so that he

may exercise it within the divine framework and on the basis of the shari‘a

(Islamic law). Subsequently, on the basis of this principle, it is the prerogative of

the people, and this God-given right cannot be taken away from them. Despite

the fact that the theories of the second group ultimately depends on God and

the ummah too can solely act within the framework of the divine law for

exercising its God-given political authority, we have named this kind of

legitimacy as public legitimacy coupled with the observance of divine rules due

to the total involvement in it of the public element.

Again, Article 56 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states:

Absolute sovereignty over the world and man belongs to God, and it is He

who made man master of his own social destiny. No one can deprive man

of this divine right, nor subordinate it to the vested interest of a particular

individual or group. The people are to exercise this divine right in the

manner specified in the following articles. 12

The theories of the second group can be further divided into two sub-groups.

First sub-group: Theories which believe that the ummah is bound to hand

over political authority to the fuqaha’ (jurists): A just faqih (jurist) is the

representative of the people and he rules on the basis of Islam. The

concept of political authority of a faqih through election (wilayat-e-

intikhabi-e-faqih) is considered amongst the theories of this group.

Second sub-group: It is the theory which considers that the Islamic

ummah is free to choose a ruler as well as to exercise political authority,

and restrict fuqaha’ (jurists); who are the experts in Islamic Law to the

domain of verifying the conformity of laws with the shari‘ah, and does

not consider it as a necessary quality for a ruler or an essential requisite

of public administration. Elected government based upon Islamic laws is

thus a theory of the second group.13

Conclusively, further discussion about these two types of legitimacy is hereby

considered an area for further research. The zealousness and doggedness

displayed by the Shi’ites at the onset concerning some doctrinal disagreements

mainly, al-Imamah (Leadership), al-Khilafah (Vicegerency), at-Taqiyyah

(Dissimulation), al-Ghaybah (Occultation), amongst others have distinctively

aroused actual disagreements between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis in certain

aspects of theology and legal practices. These were not as important as the

rivalry spirit working behind these negligible divergences. Such spirit arising

from the differences in the fundamental approach and interpretation of Islam as

discussed in the early part of this work, issued forth a realm in the Shi’ite

concepts of leadership and vicegerency of the community after the Prophet. It is

therefore the doctrine of divinely-ordained leadership which distinguishes the

Shi’ites from the Sunnis within Islam.14

Perhaps the submissions of Roger Grainger might be apposite herein:

Cognitively speaking, attitudes of mind associated with religious belief

and belonging play an important part in the psychological economy of

individuals and groups, whether or not they involve statements of

acceptance or denial with regard to any particular religion. Because

religion is concerned with the meaning of life, its constructs occupy that

part of our personal awareness that bestows meaning on (or withholds it

from) other parts. Seen in this way constructs of atheism, agnosticism or

even apathy are as important as constructs of belief, wielding the same

kind of authority over the organization of the system as a whole.15

By way of recapturing the contents of this work, the first and preliminary

chapter attempts a background of Shi’ite political thoughts; the concepts of

legitimacy, power, authority, efficiency, heredity, ascendancy, and command as

compared with the Sunnite political thought. The second chapter chronicles the

life and times of the ideologue-Imam Khomeini; his socio-political thoughts and

visions, his works and legacies and peoples’ critique and perception of him.

Whereas the third chapter reflects the kernel of this study; wherein the theory

is thrashed to a limit, amidst a critical appraisal of the theory and sparkles of

relevant clauses culled from the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the

fourth and penultimate chapter captures glimpses from the treatise with an

introduction, features and content summary. It elucidates an appraisal of the

treatise and its coherent and incoherent application into other settings.

Consequently, the fifth and last chapter tackles a general conclusion, summary,

contribution to knowledge, suggestions and recommendations.

The contribution of this work to knowledge could be summarily itemized as

follows:

Examination of the Islamic precepts on political culture and tradition with

drawn inferences required to appreciate different governmental and

administrative challenges;

Establishment of the relationship between politics and religion and vice-

versa in an Islamic polity, and evaluating therein recurring indices that

often lead to political imbroglio and panacea to contain such tide;

Determining the provisions of the Shari‘a (Islamic legal system) on power,

leadership, governance, authority, legitimacy, essentially from the

viewpoints of Shi’ism and Sunnism concurrently;

Generation of thoughts for political scientists and comparative observers

on a particular and peculiar theocratic conceptual theory of the 20th

century into the 21st century and beyond;

Ventilation of resources on the supposedly Iranian ‘complex’ political

structures and its age-long tradition of harmonizing the clergy and the

laity, and the attendant travails;

Development of a theological cum legalistic frameworks which take into

cognizance on all the above, but not limited to them within and outside

the context of this humble efforts.

In effect, this work has undoubtedly avail us a privy opportunity into the

political history of a nation once traumatized and distressed as well as its

eventual blossoming into a theocratic efflorescent nation-state under the aegis

of the theory of Guardianship of the Jurist as catalogued in Hokumat-el-Islami. It

has equally exposed us to appreciate a very rare political traditional culture in

its auspicious stance as test-run and stereotyped in the Iranian case. Similarly, it

has sharpened our focus and horizon to critically assess the theory’s structure,

component and idiosyncrasy in an ideological framework. It has succinctly

captured in-depth and innate institutionalized political paraphernalia as

influenced by the Shi’ite conceptual thought of governance and leadership

respectively. Above all, it worth been emphasized here, that throughout our

excursion into the theory and the treatise, we have seen no tips of political

arrogance or a feeling of aristocratic tendencies in the treatise. Rather, both

have worked in tandem to translate an unprecedented political humility and

administrative submissiveness as dividends of theo-democracy16. This fact

corroborates accommodation of dynamism and adaptability into governmental

societal demands or dictates. The bewilderment of political quagmire that is

evidential in many supposedly Arab-Islamic or generally Muslim-dominated

nations in recent past could have taken a cue from the Iranian experiment, and

fundamentally cling unto the path of the recommended theory and practice of

theocratic governance, thereby shunning the westernized socio-political styles

of administration. Since the Islamic faith encompasses all facets of life;

mundane and spiritual, it will not be too preposterous to revert to the glowing

and reverberating days of Islam.17

That is why in the contemporary Muslim world, (whether Sunni or Shi’ite), the

echoing of Imam Khomeini is still reverred and honoured. Many scholars have

drawn inspiration from his school of thought. On the other hand, some people

despised him, (even amongst his fellow Shi’ites) 18so much that they could have

called for his head. Their grouse with the Imam, though politically motivated,

may not be unconnected with malicious jealousy and more importantly their

inability to accurately digest his theory as well as his stand on some theological

and legalistic issues treated in the treatise, or on general religious verdicts.

Throughout his analysis in Hokumat-el-Islami, Imam Khomeini did not mince

words in calling a spade a spade without any fear of being called a

fundamentalist cleric or a socio-religious fanatic. He would draw comparison

between the first generation of the Ummah when pristine Islam was being

followed wholeheartedly, and the contemporary time when many Muslims are

far from the principles of pristine Islam.

There are many instances to corroborate that Imam Khomeini was never

apologetic in expressing his stand of Islam on any given issue, more especially

when such an issue has to do with debunking the materialists’ claim that unless

one was materialistic, one’s life may not be worthwhile. As a self confident

believer and an erudite scholar who is commenting on socio-political themes,

Imam Khomeini would provide sufficient proof and evidence for Islamic

injunctions in order to justify their benefits to mankind as well as the likely

repercussion that failure to obey them could cause. Thus Imam Khomeini has

succeeded in explaining many pressing issues and challenges of our time within

the Islamic terms of reference. This inevitably made the treatise to be an

insightful book of socio-political administration which is profitable to scholars

and students of our time alike as it attempts somewhat successfully to make

them appreciate the modus operandi of changeful indices attached to political

legitimacy and ascendancy.

5.3: Recommendations and Suggestions

Amongst many array of suggestions, this work is not oblivion of many relevance

of this subject either instantaneous or futuristic as noted interalia. Be that as it

may, Imam Khomeini’s Hokumat-el-Islami remains a classic of a sort, though

fraught with its lacunae of not providing enough guidelines, yet it is still a sine

qua none in the Islamic political library for which oppressed Muslims owes the

author an abiding gratitude and unalloyed thankfulness. Nevertheless,

Hokumat-el-Islami is like a sea with a lot of pearls embedded in it, and in order

that the wider Muslim world communities have access to it and benefit from it,

it therefore needs to be translated into all the major Muslim languages. Reliably

confirmed, the treatise has been translated into languages like French, Arabic,

Turkish, English and Urdu. Other possibly anticipated mediums may include

Malay, Swahili, Hindu, Hausa, Wolof, etc.

Although structured on the Shi’ite values and tailored upon the precepts of al-

Imamah, al-Ghaybah, at-Taqiyyah and al-Khilafah (as earlier highlighted at the

onset of this chapter) respectively, despite that, the treatise has a goldmine of

information19 for political scientists, sociologists, educationists, economists,

anthropologists, religious historians and legal luminaries, amongst others to

digest its content, and thereafter diffuse them into their respective political

domains. It has potentials of assisting all Islamic inclinations because of its

holistic approach to issues. In effect, both Shi’ites and non-Shi’ites inclined

could eminently benefit from the treatise.

Inadvertently, what may be difficult to do is to assess precisely the influence of

Hokumat-el-Islami on the Muslims all over the world. But it is not difficult to risk

two conclusions, namely: Muslims have been able to imbibe enough Islamic

principles on the hukumiyyah and or hakimiyyah,20 the Divine Authority and or

Sovereignty and how they could bring themselves under it. But the problem still

lies in their will to take a practical step towards the realization of that goal and

also in the tripartite problems - forces of Zionism, Neocolonialism and

Materialism. The second conclusion is that the political awareness and

consciousness in some Muslim states may be a manifestation of the impact of

Imam Khomeini’s ideas have made on the Muslim activists.

It will be incorrect to think or assume that the impact of Hokumat-el-Islami is

arguably limited to Iran, for events in some Muslim states, elsewhere have

shown the disdain of the conscious Muslims against their political systems.

Having said these much, it is pertinent to suggest within the purview of this

work as follows:

Adaptation of the contents of the treatise to be digested by major

students of Sociology, Political Science, Public Administration and

International Relations respectively;

Cultivation of receptive and reciprocating hearts by both the Sunnis and

the Shi’ites to cross fertilize ideas; transform and blossom the jointly

aspired Islamic sovereignty amongst the comity of nations and thereby

shun the detestable concept or ideology of tabarra’21(a religio-

psychological hatred developed by the Shi’ites for the Sunnis);

Encouraging both the Sunni and Shi’ite scholars to understudy Sunni and

Shi’ite mores and values thereby mounting and ascending higher studies

in Sunnism and Shi’ism, and indirectly building an arsenal of think-tanks

of intellectualism, instead of ventilating and spreading of schism, rancour

and misunderstanding;22

Although, Shi’ism has been formally declared a state religion in the then Persia

Kingdom by early 16th century, during the reign of Shah Ismail I, an ideal practice

was not feasibly actualized until mustered efforts were concerted to introduce

the theory of Wilayatu’l-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) after more than four

centuries in incubation, although the ninth century marked the occultation

period. By and large, Iran remains a nation with a long tradition in which both

clergy and laity engage in lively intellectual debates over a number of social,

political and religious issues: modernization, constitutionalism, political and

social freedoms or simply put the roles of Shi’ite clergy. More recently past, the

country became an Islamic Republic. For over three decades, Islamic Law, or the

Sharia has defined the nature of the state and has been enshrined in its

constitution. Since the demise of Imam Khomeini, new and indeed fresh

tensions between the state and civil society have emerged over the place of

religion in a religious government. In fact, public debates intensified

significantly after the first election, almost more than a decade and half ago, of

a reformist President, Mohammad Khatami, who served two tenures in office

(1997–2001 and 2000–2005) and on whom the Islamic revolution proposed the

creation of a religiously based system’.23

It is a fact that in Islamic Republic of Iran, debates over the place of religion in

society have not been restricted to discussions amongst clerics, but have

involved the laity, making for very lively debates. Early revolutionary

intellectuals, whether from the clergy (Imam Khomeini, d. 1989) or the laity (Ali

Shariati, d.1977), had argued for a ‘holistic view’ of society subordinated to

religion. Imam Khomeini thereby legitimized the appropriation of political

power by the clergy, namely, the Islamic jurists, with the concept of

‘guardianship of the jurist’. The religious jurist henceforth became the

legitimate leader and guide of the Iranian Shi’a during the period of ‘occultation’

(since the ninth century) of the Twelfth and last Shi’i Imam. The responsibility of

Islamic jurists was to impose religious norms on all facets of the Islamic Republic

from 1979 onwards. The Supreme Leader declares war and peace and he is

installed in office for life. Imam Khomeini ruled for only ten years as the first

Waliyyu’l-Faqih. He may for his unique role ultimately be recognized as the

harbinger of the new Islamic era. It is not our purpose here to appraise him as a

leader, but it is noteworthy that he was emphatic about Shi’ite sectarianism and

thus devoted three quarters of his last will and testament to matters in that

regard. The manner of electing the Iranian Supreme Leader is also unusual in

our times, but neither without historical precedence and plausible ‘logic’. The

rationale, to our understanding, is that qualification being of paramount

importance; it takes experts to adequately assess the candidates. By requiring

the Assembly of Experts, from which the Supreme Leader must be chosen, to

enjoy a popular mandate; in point of fact, such popular appeal becomes a real

criterion, in addition to erudition. It is actually, a practice that dates back to the

election of the early Madina Caliphs.24

Notes and References

1. See CNN News: Inside Iran, a special documentary feature on Iran’s political imbroglio

tagged: “Ahmadinejad is undermining Khomeini” on 20th June, 2011 at 11:00 -12:00 GMT; See

also the following: M. Theodoulou, “Ahmadinejad fights to stay relevant” as posted on The

Prophecy Blog. www.theprophecyblog.com. 11th June, 2011; B. Murphy, “Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad, Iran President faces tough final years” as webcast on Huffpost World.

www.huffingtonpost.com. 10th May, 2011.

2. Cf: J. Pottengill, “Accusations of witchcraft fly as Ahmadinejad–Khamenei Feud Intensifies”

as posted on The Scoop Henry Jackson Society Blog. www.henryjacksonsociety.org. 17th May,

2011. See also: T. Erdbrink, “Iran’s Ahmadinejad affirms Khamenei decision, tensions

remain.” Washington Post. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Information. 8th May, 2011.

3. The allied nations that are against Iran emerging as a theocratic state notably includes,

United States, the Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc. See: USDS/BIIF, Obama in Cairo: A

Commemorative Transcript - Remarks by the President on a New Beginning. Lagos: U. S.

Mission Nigeria. 2009, pp. 10-13. However, Russia (former Soviet Union) is always an ally of

the Islamic Republic of Iran.

4. Such works include but not limited to the following materials: A. Gauhar, (Ed.) The

Challenge of Islam. London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1978; A.R. Moten, Political Science: An

Islamic Perspective. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1996; A.U. Jan, The End of Democracy.

Ontario: Pragmatic Publishing, Canada, 2003; M. Muslehuddin, Islam and Its Political

System.1st Ed., New Delhi: International Islamic Publishers, 1992; S.K. Bakhsh, (Ed.) Politics in

Islam: Von Kramer’s Staatsidee des Islams. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2003; F. Mernissi, Islam

and Democracy. M.J. Lakeland (Trans.) Indianapolis, IN: Addison-Wesley, 1992; M. Bennabi,

The Question of Ideas in the Muslim World. M. E. El-Mesawi (Trans.) Kuala Lumpur: Islamic

Book Trust, 2003; H. Y. Al-Mallah, The Governmental System of the Prophet Muhammad: A

Comparative Study in Constitutional Law. 1st Ed. Beirut: DKI, 2008; A. Hussain, Western

Theoretical Approaches to the Political Order of Muslim States: A Critique. Leicester: The

Islamic Foundation, 1981; A. Rahnema, (Ed.) Pioneers of Islamic Revival. New Updated

Edition. London: Zed Books Ltd., 2005; M. F. Gullen, The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic

Thought and Activism. M. Cetin (Trans). New Jersey: The Light Publications Inc., 2007.

5. Cf: S.O. Ajani, “The Adaptability and Utility of Arabic Alphabet in other Languages: Persian

as a Case Study”. REFA: National Journal of Contemporary Issues in Religions, Arts & Social

Sciences. 6 (2), Nov. 2008, pp. 94-110 for details on the intricacy of both languages.

6. This quotation is culled from Imam Khomeini’s Sahifah-e-Nur as adapted in M. Kadivar,

“Theories of Government in Shi’i Fiqh”. M. Husayn (Trans.) Hikmat: A Quarterly Journal of

Islamic Research. 1(3), Winter 1996/1416, p. 310.

7. Examples of these classification and typology form an impressive discourse in: M. Kadivar,

ibid., pp.310-14; R.D. Marcotte, Religion and Freedom: Typology of an Iranian Discussion.

ARSR: Australian Religion Studies Review, 18 (1), 2005, pp. 49-67. See also: A. Hussain,

Western Theoretical Approaches to the Political Order of Muslim States: A Critique. Leicester:

The Islamic Foundation, 1981, pp.6-39.

8. See: M. Kadivar, op. cit., p. 311.

9. These are religious leaders and scholars (or simply, the clergy and the laity) who later

raised aversions to the theory on some conditions or clauses. Prominent amongst them are

Ayatollah Muhammad H. Fadlullah and Ayatollah Muhammad H. Muntazeri, amongst others.

See details in: R.D. Marcotte, op. cit., p. 64.

10. See various encounters surveyed in this work as it affects the Offices of the Supreme

Leader and the President respectively.

11. Details on the concept of infallibility of Shi’ite Imams, the struggle for legitimacy and the

doctrine of Imamate abound in S.H.M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a

Islam. Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 1989, pp.235-258 and pp.280-312 respectively.

12. Culled from the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran through the official website of

the Office of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic on Google search engine.

13. See: M. Kadivar, op. cit., pp. 311-312 for more details.

14. S.H.M. Jafri, op. cit., p. 312. See also the following materials: R. Al-Banna, ash-Shi‘ah wa s-

Sunnah wa Ikhtilafatu’l-Fiqhi wa’l-Fikr wa’t-Tarikh. Cairo: Daru’l-Ma‘rif, 2005, 355pp; M.

Musawi, A Critical Revision of Shi‘ah: The Conflict between Shi‘ah (The Belief) and Shi’tes (The

People). Lombard, IL: The High Islamic Council of the Americas, 1412/1992, 201pp; M. R.

Muzaffar, The Faith of Shi‘a Islam. 6th Ed. Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 2005, 89pp.

15. R. Grainger, “Believing and Belonging: A Psychological Comment on a Paper Given by E.I.

Bailey at Windsor, 1990. Implicit Religion: Journal of the Centre for the Study of Implicit

Religion and Contemporary Spirituality. 6 (1), April, 2003, p. 53; See also the following

materials: W. Dupre, “The Critical Potential of the Concept of Implicit Religion”. ibidem, pp.

5-16; D. Hay, “Why is Implicit Religion Implicit.” ibidem, pp.17-40; E.I. Bailey, “Common

Religion’ and ‘Believing without Belonging”. The Suburban Context. Windsor: St. George’s

House Consultation, Windsor Castle, pp.21-23.

16. M. F. Gullen, The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. M. Cetin

(Trans.) New Jersey: The Light Publications Inc., 2007, pp.1-3.

17. The expression is believed to have been coined by Abu’l-Ala al-Mawdudi, the great Islamic

sage and is used copiously in many of his socio-religious writings.

18. Thematic discourses on Islamic revivalism and activism are well discussed, analyzed and

presented in: M. F. Gullen, op. cit., 172pp.

19. See: supra, no. 9 for the list of such disgruntled opponents.

20. The term hakimiyyah (technically, political administration, governance or hegemony) is

used by Sayyid Qutb (1906 – 1966). He also, like Imam Khomeini creditably excelled in

analyzing requisite structures for an ideal Islamic political system based on the Shari‘a. See

concise details in the following: B.L. Yusuf, Sayyid Qutb: A Study of His Tafsir. Zaria: ABU Press

Ltd., 2010, pp. 275-77; C. Tripp, “Sayyid Qutb: The Political Vision.” A. Rahnema, (Ed.)

Pioneers of Islamic Revival. New Updated Edition. London: Zed Books Ltd., 2005, pp. 154-183.

21. The term tabarra occurs in Q. 2: 166-167. See details in: A. G. O. Oloruntele, Introduction

to Islamic Theology: The Historical Origin and Doctrines of the Early Muslim Sects. Ilorin:

Taofiqullahi Publishing House, 2001, pp. 66-67.

22. R.D. Marcotte, “Religion and Freedom: Typology of an Iranian Discussion”. ASRS:

Australian Religion Studies Review. 18 (1), 2005, p. 49.

23. See: ibid., pp. 50–67 for details.

24. M. Kamil, The Logic of Faith. Lagos: Manuscripts Noetic Associates Ltd., 1999, pp. 280-290

for explicit details.

Bibliography

Abbas, F. 2011. “The Effects of the Arab Conflicts on the Muslim World.” Al-Mirqat (The

Ladder), 1 (12), Muharram-J. Thanni, 1432/January-June. Ibadan: MAN Publications.

Abbas, L. O. 2011. “Islam without the Arabs”. Al-Mirqat, ibidem. Ibadan.

Abubakre, R.D., et. al. (Eds.). 1993. Religion and Politics in Nigeria. Ilorin: NASR Publications.

Abdul, M. O. A. 1988. The Classical Caliphate: Islamic Institutions. Lagos: IPB.

Abdulhamid, A. M. 1989. Principles of Politics. Tehran: Tus Publications.

Abdulrahman, A. 1994. The Foundations of Politics. Tehran: Ney Publications.

Adetona, L. M. 1994. “The Muslim Theory of the Caliphate”. The Muslim World League

Journal, 22 (5), J/Ula-March, 1415. Makkah: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Ajani, S.O. 2008. “The Adaptability and Utility of Arabic Alphabet into other Languages:

Persian as a Case Study.” REFA: The National Journal of Contemporary Issues on Religions,

Arts, and Social Sciences, 6 (2), November.

Ajani, S. O. and N. Rassouli, 2007. “The Challenges facing Islam and Muslims in Contemporary

Nigeria”. REFA: The National Journal of Contemporary Issues on Religions, Arts, and Social

Sciences, 6 (1), June.

Akinkuotu, A. 2011. “Playing the Ostrich”. TELL: Nigeria’s Independent Weekly. (12). March

28. Lagos: Tell Communications Ltd.

Aliyu, M. B. 2011. Leadership and Governance: Emerging Issues for Genuine Transformation

of Nigeria. Convocation Lecture. Fountain University, Osogbo. Minna: Speech Writing Unit &

Research and Documentation Unit, Governor’s Office, Niger State.

Ansari, H. 2009. The Narrative of Reawakening: A Look at Imam Khomeini’s Ideal, Scientific

and Political Biography (From Birth to Ascension). Tehran: ICIPIKW. International Affairs

Department.

Arjomand, S. A. (Ed.) 1988. Authority and Political Culture in Shi’ism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Babawale, T. 2007. Nigeria in the Crisis of Governance and Development: The Political

Economy of Development, Governance and Globalization. Volume 1. Lagos: Concepts

Publications Ltd.

Bailey, E. I. 2006. “Common Religion’ and Believing without Belonging”. The Suburban

Context. Windsor: St.George’s House Consultation. Windsor Castle.

Bakhsh, K. (Ed.) 2003. Politics in Islam: Von Kremer’s Staatsidee des Islams. Enlarged and

Amplified Edition. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan.

Bana, al- R. 2005. Ash-Shi’ah wa ’s-Sunnah wa Ikhtilafatu’l-fiqhi wa’l-fikr wa’t-Tarikh. Cairo:

Daru’l-Ma’rif.

Bazzi, M. 2010. Khomeini’s Long Shadow: “How a Quiet Revolution in Shi’ism Could Resolve

the Crisis in Iran”. Foreign Affairs. June/July.

Bazzi, M. 2008. “The Latter-Day Sultan”. Foreign Affairs. November/December.

BBC News Guide, 2011. News Guide: How Iran is ruled. London: BBC House, London.

Bennabi, M. 2003. The Question of Ideas in the Muslim World. M. E. El-Mesawi (Trans.) Kuala

Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust. Malaysia.

Bidmos, M. A. 2010. A Manual for the Teacher of Islamic Studies. 3rd Ed. Lagos: University of

Lagos Press.

Bidmos, M. A. 1994. “A Muslim Leader for a Multi-Religious State? A Case Study of Nigeria”.

The Muslim World League Journal, 21 (9), Ramadan,1414/March,1994.

Dabashi, H. 1993. Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundations of the Islamic

Revolution in Iran. NY: NYU Press.

Dauda, Y. 1997. Political Elites and Islamic Movement. Lagos: Iman Services Ltd.

Dogan, M. 1999. Various Attitudes to the Issue of Legitimacy: Selection of Security-Political

Articles. Tehran: Research Centre for Strategic Studies. (2).

Dupre, W.2006. “The Critical Potential of the Concept of Implicit Religion”. Implicit Religion:

Journal of the Centre for the Study of Implicit Religion and Contemporary Spirituality. 6 (1),

April.

Egom, P. A. 2004. NEPAD and the Common Good. Lagos: Global Market Forum.

Eliade, M. (Ed.) 1987. The Encyclopaedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan.

Erdbrink, T. 2011. “Iran’s Ahmadinejad affirms Khamenei Decision, Tensions remain”.

Washington Post. July Series. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Information.

Ervand, A. 1993. Khomeinism. London: University of California Press.

Esikot, I.F. 2001. Socio-Political Philosophy: The Basics and the Issues. Lagos: Minder

International.

Esposito, J. L. (Ed.). 2000. The Oxford Dictionary of Islamic World. Oxford: OUP.

Farhang, R. 1990. “What is Politics? How is it Defined?” Foreign Policy Magazine. 4 (2).

Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Farrai’, al-Y. A. 2006. Ahkamu’s-Sultaniyyah. (A Treatise on Weights, Measures and Price

Controls) A. Y. Faqi (Ed.). 2nd Edition. Beirut: DKI.

Ganji, A. 2008. The Road to Democracy in Iran. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Ganji, A. 2009. “Rise of the Sultans”. Foreign Affairs. August/September.

Ganji, A. 2010. “The Struggle against Sultanism”. The Journal of Democracy. 16 (4).

Gauhar, A. (Ed.). 1978. The Challenge of Islam. London: Islamic Council of Europe.

Grainger, R. 2003. “Believing and Belonging: A Psychological Comment on a Paper Given by E.

I. Bailey at Windsor”. Implicit Religion: Journal of the Centre for the Study of Implicit Religion

and Contemporary Spirituality. 6 (1). April.

Gullen, M. F. 2007. The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. M. Cetin

(Trans.). New Jersey: The Light Publications Inc.

Guwahi, A. R. 1996. “The Causes of the Islamic Revolution of Iran”. Hikmat: A Quarterly

Journal of Islamic Research. 1 (3), Winter.

Hathout, H. 2002. Reading the Muslim Mind. Illinois: American Trust Publications.

Hay, D. 2006. “Why is Implicit Religion Implicit?” Implicit Religion: Journal of the Centre for

the Study of Implicit Religion. 6 (1).

Hitti, P. K. 1977. History of the Arabs. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Hunter, S. T. 1991. “Post-Khomeini Iran: 1989/1990”. Foreign Affairs. (10).

Hussain, A. 1981. Western Theoretical Approaches to the Political Order of Muslim States: A

Critique. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation.

Ibn Arbab, M. A. 2010. Fiqhus’-Siyasah ‘ala minhaju’n-Nubuwah. 1st Ed. Beirut: DKI

Publications.

Iraqi, al- M. 1983. Al-Wilayatu’l-Ilahiyyah wa Wilayatu’l-Faqih. Qum: Academy of Islamic

Thought. 1413.

Jafri, S. H. M. 1989. The Origin and Early Development of Shi’a Islam. Qum: Ansariyan

Publications.

Jan, A. U. 2003. The End of Democracy. Ontario: Pragmatic Publishing. Canada.

Jimoh, S. L. 2002. “The Appointment of ’Ulu’l-’amr in the Islamic Political Theory of

Governance: A Recipe for Democratic Nigeria.” Al-Ijtihad: The Journal of Islamization of

Knowledge & Contemporary Issues. 3 (2), July, 1423.

Jimoh, S. L. 2004. “Religion and Community Development: The Islamic Perspective”. AJAIS:

Journal of Arabic & Islamic Studies. 1 (1).

Kadivar, M. 1996.”Theories of Government in Shi’i Fiqh.”M. Husayn (Trans.) Hikmat: A

Quarterly Journal of Islamic Research. 1 (3). Winter. 1416.

Kamil, M. 1999. The Logic of Faith. Lagos: Manuscripts Noetic Associates Ltd.

Kani, A. M. and A. Gandi (Eds.). 1990. State and Society in the Sokoto Caliphate. Sokoto: UDU

Press.

Kani, A. M. 1985. The Intellectual Origin of Sokoto Jihad. Ibadan: Iman Publications.

Khaliqi, A. 2004. Legitimacy of Power. F. Arjomand (Trans.) 1st Edition. Tehran: ICIPIKW.

International Affairs Department.

Khomeini, I. 2005. Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist. H. Algar (Trans.) 2nd Ed.

Tehran: ICPIKW. International Affairs Department.

Khatib, al- M. 1978. Al-Ikhilafah wa Imamah: Diyanatan wa Siyasatan. (A Treatise on

Governance and Government in Islam).2nd Ed. Cairo: Daru’l-Marif.

Khonsari, M. and S. Peterson, 2011. “Iran’s Ahmadinejad survives Worst Storm of his

Presidency.” New York: Christian Studies Monitor. World Middle East Series. June.

Kittani, al- A. Y. 2008. Nizam ’d-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah. Beirut: DKI Publications.

Laguda, D. O. 2002. “Roles of Traditional Rulers and Religious Rulers in Conflict Management

in Nigerian Communities”. Al-Hadarah: LASU Journal of Arabic & Islamic Studies. (5), June.

Landolt, H. 1987. “Walayah.” EM. Eliade (Ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Religion. 10. New York:

Macmillan.

Leeds, C. A. 1998. An Introduction to Politics. Tehran: Ata Publications.

Mallah, al- H. Y. 2008. The Governmental System of the Prophet Muhammad: A Comparative

Study in Constitutional Law. 1st Ed. Beirut: DKI Publications.

Maloney, S. 2009. “Clerical Error: Can Iran’s Reformers exploit Fissures in the Regime”.

Foreign Affairs. August/September.

Marcotte, R. D. 2005. “Religion and Freedom: Typology of an Iranian Discussion.” ARSR: The

Journal of the Australian Association for the Study of Religions. 18 (1), May.

Mawardi, al- M. Y. 2006. Ahkamu’s-Sultaniyyah. Cairo: Daru’l-Hadith.

Mehdi, al- S. 1978. “The Concept of an Islamic State.” A. Gauhar (Ed.) The Challenge of Islam.

London: Islamic Council of Europe.

Mernissi, F. 1992. Islam and Democracy. M. J. Lakeland (Trans). Indianapolis IN: Addison-

Wesley. United States of America.

Middle East Online Journal, 2011. “Fadlallah’s Death leaves a Vacuum in the Islamic World”.

MEOJ. February.

Ministry of Islamic Guidance, 1979. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran. 1st Ed. Tehran.

Moin, B. 2000. Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.

Moin, B. 2005. “Khomeini Search for perfection: Theory and Reality.” A. Rahnema (Ed.)

Pioneers of Islamic Revival. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Momen, M. 1985. An Introduction to Shi’i Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Moten, A. R. 1996. Political Science: An Islamic Perspective. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Muhibbu-din, M. A. 1993. “Islamic Concept of an Ideal State”. R.D. Abubakre, et. al. (Eds.)

Religion and Politics in Nigeria. Ilorin: NASR Publications.

Musawi, M. 1992. A Critical Revision of Shi‘ah: The Conflict between Shi‘ah (The Belief) and

Shi’ites (The People). Lombard, IL: The High Islamic Council of the Americas.

Muslehuddin, M. 1992. Islam and Its Political System. New Delhi: International Islamic

Publications.

Muzaffar, M. R. 2005. The Faith of Shi‘a Islam. 6th Ed. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.

Nasr, V. 2006. The Shi’a Revival. New York: Norton Publications.

Nasiri, A. A. 2011. 2011. “A New Version of the Argument for the Intermingling of Religion

and Politics from Imam Khomeini’s Viewpoint”. Islamic Government: The Quarterly Journal of

Research Centre for the Islamic Political Thought. 15 (4). Winter.

Odebode, N. 2011. “Nigeria and the Arab Revolutions”. The Punch. 17 (20,952), Wed. 24th

Aug. Lagos: Punch Newspaper Ltd.

Oloruntele, A. G. O. 2001. Introduction to Islamic Theology: The Historical Origin and

Doctrines of the Early Muslim Sects. Ilorin: Taofiqullahi Printing House.

Pottengill, J. 2011. “Accusations of witchcraft fly as Ahmedinejad- Khamenei Feud

intensifies”. The Scoop Henry Jackson Society Blog. May.

Qasimi, al- M. A. 2002. Nadhratun ‘abiratun ‘ala ’l-qada’I wa’l-qudat fi’l-Islam. Al-Ba‘ath el-

Islami. (47). Rajab, 1423.

Qazwini, S. 2000. “Wilayah in the Qur’anic Context”. Mahjubah: The Islamic Family Magazine.

Tehran: IITF. (193). Oct/Rajab, 1421.

Qutaybah, Ibn A. D. 2009. Al-Imamah wa ’s-Siyasah. 3rd Ed. Beirut: DKI Publications.

Raheemson, M. O. 2006. “Islamic Ethical Principles and Practical Living”. The Nigerian Journal

of Islamic Political Thoughts. 3 (1).

Rahnema, A. (Ed.) 2005. Pioneers of Islamic Revival. New Updated Edition. London: Zed Books

Ltd.

Raji, M. G. A. 1991. Background to Islamic Culture. Zaria: ABU Press Ltd.

Reynolds, J. 2001. “Analysis: Row between Iranian Leaders comes to a Head”. London: BBC

News Cable Network. July.

Roy, O. and A. Sfeir, 2007. The Columbia World of Islamism. Columbia: Columbia University

Press.

Sachedina, A. 1998. The Jurist in Shi’ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in

Imamate Jurisprudence. New York: OUP Ltd.

Salisu, T. M. 2008. “Imam Ayatollah Khomeini: A Catalyst for Resurgence of Islam in Iran”.

LASU Journal of Humanities. (5). September.

Salisu, T. M. 2004. “Shura (Mutual Consultation): A Provision Par Excellence in the Medieval

Polity”. AJAIS: Anyigba Journal of Arabic & Islamic Studies. 1 (1).

Sani, S. 2011. “Protest: The Universal Religion.” Tell: Nigeria’s Independent Weekly. (12).

March 28. Lagos: Tell Communications Ltd.

Saunders, J. J. 1980. A History of Medieval Islam. London: R & K Paul Ltd.

Siddiqe, F. R. 2009. The Concept of Islamic State: From the Time of the Four Caliphates till the

20th Century. Beirut: DKI Publications.

Siddique, K. 1980. The Islamic Revolution: Achievements, Obstacles, and Goals. London: The

Muslim Institute.

Sternberg, D. 1999. Legitimacy: Selection of Security – Political Articles. Tehran: Research

Centre for Strategic Studies. (1).

Summers, D. (Ed.) 2005. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary of English: The Living English

Dictionary. 4th Edition. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Tabataba’i, S. M. H. 1989. A Shi’ite Anthology. W. C. Chittick (Trans.) 2nd Ed. Qum: Ansariyan

Publications.

Theodoulou, M. 2011. “Ahmadinejad fights to stay Relevant”. The Prophecy Blog. June.

Timehin, S. O. 2010. In Search of Peace. Lagos: Dar’ul-Haq Islamic Heritage.

Tripp, C. 2005. “Sayyid Qutb: The Political Vision.” A. Rahnema (Ed.) Pioneers of Islamic

Revival. New Updated Edition. London: Zed Books Ltd.

United States Department of State. n.d. What is Democracy? Washington DC: Office of

International Programs.

United States Department of State/Bureau of International Information Programs. 2009.

Obama in Cairo: A Commemorative Transcript - Remarks by the President on a New

Beginning. Lagos: U. S. Mission, Nigeria.

Usman, A. M. 2004. “Principles of Governance and Issue of National Integration: An Islamic

Perspective”. AJAIS: Anyigba Journal of Arabic & Islamic Studies. 1 (1).

Wintle, J. 2003. The Rough Guide History of Islam. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Yusuf, B. L. 2010. Sayyid Qutb: A Study of His Tafsir. Zaria: ABU Press Ltd.