This bothers me a lot.
Before coming to power, Khomeini argued that the most important duty, indeed the raison d’etre of an Islamic government, was to implement fully the tenets of sharia. But once in power and faced with the complexities of modern Iranian society, he subtly changed the very foundation of his theory. He introduced the concept of maslaha–interests of the regime–and declared, much to the consternation of nearly every other ayatollah, that these interests, as determined by him or his successor, would supersede even the fundamentals of Islam.
To speak of Sayeed Khomeini, who used al-Islam as a sword and a shield to protect the fledgling islamic republic, as making Allah, the Creator of Worlds, He who Pastures the Stars… a “Puppet President”……
/spit
Khomeini was just like Andy Jackson. Both men would have done anything to preserve the republic in their slice of spacetime. Both men did what they had to.
Jackson did the Trail of Tears and expelled native americans to west of the mississippi and allowed the southern states to jail free black men from other nations on shore leave to appease the slaveholders.
Is Andrew implying Khomeini did not have cause?
cough, cough…Ajax…cough, cough
Shams al-Nahar 6:51 pm on July 9, 2009 Permalink |
Islam is a process.
So is democracy.
Conrad Barwa 2:27 pm on July 10, 2009 Permalink |
Yes, but unlike Andy Jackson, Khomeini ordered or justified the execution of a lot of people who supported/participated in the Revolution simply because they either opposed him or disagreed with him. I don’t think the same happened in the American Revolution.
Shams al-Nahar 1:10 pm on July 11, 2009 Permalink |
Nah, Jackson just ordered the ethnic cleansing of amerindians and the continued oppression of slave populations.
Conrad Barwa 3:06 am on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
Of course, neither Black Slaves nor Amerindians were seen as part of the legitimate political community; this is hardly new and was the view held by almost all European states at the time with the partial exception of the Revolutionary French state. Pretty obvious.
Khomeini on the other hand killed not only people who were meant to be outside this community and the opponents of the regime but even those inside it and who supported most of its aims. Even more degenerate imo.
Shams al-Nahar 8:10 am on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
Possibly, but paranoia was a fitness enhancer for the young islamic republic. They greatly feared that america would attempt to return the Shah and they didn’t have a moat.
Shams al-Nahar 8:18 am on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
And there were congressmen that advocated for both slaves rights and indians in Jackson’s congress…but those rights weighed less than the preservation of the Union in Jackson’s analysis. Like I said, Iran didn’t have the luxury of a moat that kept enemies months away from resupply in an atlantic crossing.