Abstract
This chapter focuses on the juridical dimension of wilāya in the theory of wilāyat al-faqı̄h on one hand, and its further conceptualizations in the writings of Khomeini’s students, chief among them Husayn ʿAlı̄ Muntaẓirı̄ and Muhsin Kadivar, on the other. The author studies the juridical wilāya, as well as the theory of wilāyat al-faqı̄h, from the perspective of socio-political developments in early twentieth-century Iran and argues that the changes that can be explained as ‘radical Shı̄ʿı̄sm’ were not only greatly influenced by transformations in the political arena but were also reactions to them. The author seeks to explain how the conceptualization of juridical wilāya underwent a tremendous shift from being purely juridical, to having a political reading. Unlike mystical wilāya which is old, the idea of wilāyat al-faqı̄h is a new chapter in Shı̄ʿa jurisprudence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The details of these policies have been discussed in several books, including:
Touraj Atabaki and Erik J. Zurcher (eds), Men of Order: Authoritarian Modernization Under Atatűrk and Reza Shah, 2004 (London & New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd).
Stephanie Cronin (ed), the Making of Modern Iran: State and Society under Riza Shah, 1921–1941, 2003 (London & New York: Routledge).
Stephanie Cronin (ed), the Army and the Creation of the Pahlavi State in Iran, 1910–1926, 1997 (London, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd).
- 2.
Shahrough Akhavi has studied the formation of the Endowment Organization (Sāzmān-i Awqāf ), its history and its impact on the financial position of the hierocracy. See:
Shahrough Akhavi, Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran: Clergy-State Relations in the Pahlavi Period, 1980 (New York: State University of New York Press), pp. 132–143.
- 3.
For an analysis of the restructuring and reorganizing the ḥawza under Burūjerdī, as well as the impact of his measures in the later emergence of the Islamic movement, See: Martin, Op.cit, 2007, pp. 48–74.
- 4.
Murtiḍā Muṭahharī also reviews Burūjerdī’s works and contribution to the ḥawza in:
Murtiḍā Muṭahharī, Mazāyā wa Khadamāt-i Marḥūm Ayatollah Burūjirdī (Advantages and Contributions of the late Ayatollah Burūjerdī), in Baḥthī Darbāra-yi Marjaʿīyyat wa Rawḥānīyat, 1341 shamsī/1962 (n.d., Anjuman-i Kitāb), pp. 231–249.
- 5.
The text of the constitution is accessible here:
http://m-hosseini.ir/mashrot/articles-3/278.pdf, last accessed 3/29/17.
- 6.
ʿAlī Akbar Ḥikamī Zādih, the son of Shaykh Mahdī Qumī, was one of the most well-known scholars of Qum in the early twentieth century. He had such a reputation and popularity to the extent that when Shaykh ʿAbdulkarīm Ḥāʾirī Yazdī moved to Qum from Arak, he resided in his home. ʿAlī Akbar, the author of Asrār-i Hizār Sālih was a young student in Qum when he started revising his ideas and was very much inspired by Aḥmad Kasravī, the notable Iranian linguist, historian, and reformer who was murdered on March 11, 1324 shamsī/1946. In the Asrār, Ḥikamī Zādih sets forth a number of questions and critiques against Islam, Shīʿīsm, and Shīʿa ʿulemā.
- 7.
For a historical account of hierocracy in Iran after the Constitutional Revolution to the present time, see: Mehdi Khalaji, Naẓm-i Nuwīn-i Rawḥānīyat dar Iran (the New Clerical Order in Iran), 1389 shamsī/ 2010 (Bochum: Aida Publication).
- 8.
Recently, Dāwūd Feyraḥī gave an account of the two categories of ‘constitutionalist jurisprudence’ and ‘political jurisprudence’. See: Dāwūd Feyraḥī, Fiqh wa Sīyāsat dar Irān-i Muʿāṣir; Fiqh-i Sīyāsī wa Fiqh-i Mashrūṭih (Jurisprudence and Politics in Contemporary Iran; Constitutionalist Jurisprudence and Political Jurisprudence), 1390 (Tehran: Ney Publication).
- 9.
By ‘intention’, I mean ‘weak intention’ or ‘individual viewpoint’ or ‘expressed beliefs’ which, as it is observed in the Introduction (C.2., pp. 19–24) are equal to ‘hermeneutic meanings’, whose discovery should only be the task of the historian of ideas. To recall Bevir, ‘weak intention’ is “the meaning an utterance had for its author or a later reader, whether consciously or unconsciously” (Bevir 2004, p. 171), and therefore, if the task of the historian of ideas is “to study only the meaning of the action” (Bevir 2004, p. 135), then he needs to concern himself only with the beliefs it expresses (Bevir 2004, pp. 135ff).
- 10.
There exists a number of sources on the relationship between the Shah and Ayatollah Burūjerdī:
Ayatollah Husayn ʿAlī Muntaẓirī, Khāṭirāt (Memoirs), 2 volumes which is accessible here:
https://amontazeri.com/book/khaterat, last accessed 3/23/17.
Mehdi Ḥāʾirī Yazdī, Khāṭirāt (Memoirs), Habib Lajevardi (ed), 1381 (Tehran: Kitāb-i Nader). Accessible here: http://honarvarnet.blogspot.com/2010/07/1_22.html, last accessed 3/23/17.
Shahrough Akhavi, Op.cit, 1980.
Saïd Amir Arjomand, Op.cit, 1988, pp. 94–95.
Hamid Algar, Burūjerdī, Ḥosayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Encyclopaedia Iranica, IV/4, pp. 376–379, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/borujerdi-ayatollah-hajj-aqa-hosayn-tabatabai-1292-1380-1875-1961, last accessed 3/24/17.
- 11.
As Fatemeh E. Moghadam has shown, during the 1960s and 1970s, the rural economy of Iran experienced major structural changes due to two important forces: “deliberate government policies aimed at introducing structural changes in the countryside, and the rapidly growing, industrializing, and urbanizing Iranian economy stimulated by rising oil revenues” (Moghadam 1996, p. 1). In agricultural policy of the regime which had been incorporated into the White Revolution, three phases were identifiable: land reform of 1962–1967 that resulted in massive redistribution of land from landlords to peasants, the establishment of large-scale farms which lasted from 1967 to 1976, and “the acceptance of the status quo in land property relations without any further attempt by the government to alter them” that lasted from 1976 to 1979 (Moghadam 1996, p. 2). The agricultural policies changed the traditional land relations forever and resulted in the increased power of the Shah, and also paved the way for the Islamic revolution of 1979.
- 12.
Akhavi mentions another initiative which was conducted shortly before the above-mentioned book. He calls it the first reform movement which started immediately after the death of Burūjerdī. Akhavi, Op.cit, 1980, pp. 117–119.
- 13.
For a comprehensive review of the book and the context in which the book is written, see: Akhavi, Ibid., pp. 119–129.
- 14.
Akhavi has categorized the ‘pattern of ʿulemā’s behavior’ into four factions of radicals, social reformers, the conservatives, and finally those who wanted to cooperate with the court. Khomeini, as it is mentioned above, was leading the radicals and it seems that the more his status was lower, the more radical his stance was. Akhavi, Ibid., pp. 100–105.
- 15.
As Vanessa Martin shows, the hierocracy during 1960s had experienced a growing power, and as the country and the state that grew wealthier, so did the clergy. The increased contribution from the believers and the increased number of mosques, madrasas, and religious students testify to the fact that “the clergy remained an important source of referral on personal law and conduct. They also branched out into publishing, the establishment of Islamic societies, and welfare activities, all of which ensured their influence among the Shīʿa community remained high” (Martin 2007, p. 24).
- 16.
With the full name of Dr Seyyed Ḥassan Arsanjānī, the minister of agriculture in the cabinet of Dr ʿAlī Amīnī (d. 1371 shamsī/1992), and the main figure who introduced the program of land reform in Iran.
- 17.
The cabinet of Assadullāh ʿAlam (d. 1357 shamsī/1978) issued two new decrees on January 17, 1963. One was the Additional Articles and the other nationalized Iran’s forests and pastures. In order to obtain national approval of these and previous decrees, the Shah held the referendum (Majd 2000, p. 218).
- 18.
For the chronology of Khomeini’s exile, see this website:
- 19.
In Islamic Law, taʿzīr refers to punishment, usually corporal, and that can be administered at the discretion of the judge as opposed to the ḥudūd which have been defined by the Lawgiver.
- 20.
Anṣārī discusses the issue in his book al-Makāsib (Transactions). Many of his works also center on fiqh and uṣūl al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence). Al-Makāsib is a detailed exposition of Islamic commercial law and is taught in today’s ḥawzas.
- 21.
Ayatollah Jawādī Āmulī in his Wilāyat-i Faqīh; Wilāyat-i ʿIdālat wa Fiqāhat (the Guardianship of the Jurist, the Guardianship of Justice and Jurisprudence), stresses that in the theory of wilāyat al-faqīh, the kalāmī, and not the juridical reading of the office of wilāya, is preferred.
- 22.
The book is referred to as Wilāyat-i Faqīh throughout this chapter.
- 23.
Muhsin Kadivar divides Khomeini’s political thought into four phases and maintains that the theory of wilāyat-i faqīh (as discussed in the book of Wilāyat-i Faqīh) belongs to the second phase which is the Najaf period. Khomeini’s wilāyat-i faqīh in this period does not differ in essence from the concept of wilāyat al-ʿāmmah (general wilāya) in the writings of figures such as the above-mentioned Mullā Aḥmad Narāqī and Ayatollah Burūjirdī. According to Kadivar, Khomeini was sharpening his tongue over years and from being a constitutionalist (Qum period) ended up in the absolute wilāyat-i faqīh. See:
https://kadivar.com/?p=14576, last accessed 12/27/18.
Kadivar’s observation of the evolution of Khomeini’s political thought does not contradict with our analysis of this theory and its further developments, because Khomeini’s configuration of this theory in the last two phases (Paris and Tehran periods) were based upon Najaf’s outline, which is the basis of our analysis of his theory in the present research.
- 24.
The phrase ‘kashf al-ghiṭāʾ’ (to breach the veils) is a reminder of the above-mentioned Kashf al-Asrār, or can be indicative of the influence of mysticism on Khomeini. Kashf (to unveil, to reveal) of an obstacle between God and servant is an important topic in Islamic mysticism.
- 25.
Khomeini discusses wilāyat al-faqīh in Kitāb al-Bayʿ, and there is a reason for that. When he was in Najaf, his old students who had moved with him from Iran to Iraq asked him to continue his lectures from where they had stopped in Qum, and he started his classes with transaction or Bayʿ. In the following, “he broached the topic of the role and responsibility of the Islamic jurist as guardian or custodian of minors and the mentally deranged, in cases where the latter were involved in a transaction. It was at this point that Khomeini intentionally strayed from the normal legal trajectory of his subject matter to advance a political theory” (Rahnema 2014, p. 89). Ali Rahnema has discussed the topic and its background extensively. See:
Ali Rahnema, Ayatollah Khomeini’s Rule of the Guardian Jurist From Theory to Practice, in A Critical Introduction to Khomeini, Arshin Adib-Moghaddam (ed), 2014 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 88–114.
- 26.
Obviously, reminiscent of ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s definition of wilāya as “immutable law of nature” (Ṭabāṭabāʾī 1341 shamsī, p. 75).
- 27.
Hamid Mavani has the same reading and argues that “it appears that he [Khomeini] regards this concept as part of the madhhab’s fundamentals, like justice and imamate, that ought to be grouped under ‘beliefs’ rather than as a juridical opinion under jurisprudence. Of course, such a perspective would severely constrain the sphere of tolerance, deliberation, and disagreement on this concept” (Mavani 2013b, p. 183)
- 28.
The book is composed of two volumes and is written in 1385 H/1343 shamsī (1964).
http://www.noorlib.ir/View/fa/Book/BookView/Image/3830, last accessed 3/31/17.
- 29.
Mavani argues that Khomeini’s theory, as well as his understanding of the role and the office of imamate, “is primarily political in nature” (Mavani 2013, p. 9) and stands in contrast to the viewpoint of scholars such as Amir-Moezzi and Corbin who overemphasize Shīʿīsm as a “suprarational esoteric tradition” (Amir-Moezzi 1994, p. 19 in Mavani 2013b, p. 9).
- 30.
Ayatollah Khomeini brings this āyah in al-Rasāʾil as well, though he omits the controversial part which is on ulu-l-amr. So, the āyah is cited incomplete. See: Khomeini, vol. 2, pp. 111–117.
- 31.
For the similarities between Khomeini’s Nahḍat and its Sunni peer, Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, See: Martin, Op.cit, 2007, pp. 197–202.
- 32.
Along with the aforementioned verse, Ṣadr interprets the verse on ulu-l-amr as well to sustain his argument that the Islamic state is qualified to be part of ulu-l-amr. Mavani, like Mallat, estimates Ṣadr’s reading as “novel” which has paved the way for other Shīʿa scholars—such as Husayn ʿAlī Muntaẓirī—to argue that “jurists have a mandate to govern during the messianic imām’s concealment” (Mavani 2013b, p. 150). Mavani estimates Muntaẓirī’s elaboration on the theory as “quite anomalous in post-Occultation Shīʿa scholarship, [which] expanded the jurist’s scope of power and eliminated the plurality of authority in government … [though] he advocated a role for the jurisconsult that was based on a social contract between the jurisconsult and the public” (Mavani 2013b, p. 155).
- 33.
Khomeini’s letter as well as explanation on the concept of ḥukūmat-i Islāmī is stated in this website: http://www.hawzah.net/fa/Article/View/5350, last accessed 5/17/17.
- 34.
Saïd Amir Arjomand discusses the developments that led to Khomeini’s decision in detail and calls these developments “the constitutional crisis of the 1980s and Khomeini’s second revolution”. See:
Saïd Amir Arjomand, Authority in Shiism and Constitutional Developments in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in The Twelver Shia in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History, Rainer Brunner and Werner Ende (eds), 2001 (Leiden, Brill), pp. 301–333.
- 35.
Muḥammad Ḥassan Najaf Ābādī was born in 1230 shamsī/1852 in Najaf Abad and entered the seminary of Isfahan to study jurisprudence and philosophy with figures such as Jahāngīr Khān Qashqāʾyī and Mullā Muḥammad Ākhund Kāshānī. After completing saṭḥ (intermediate level of the hawzawī schooling), Najaf Ābādī emigrated to Najaf to attend the classes of Ākhund Khurāsānī (1329 H/1911) and Seyyed Muḥammad Kāẓim Ṭabāṭabāʾī Yazdī (d. 1337/1919). He received the ījāza of fatwā from both Khurāsānī and Yazdī and came back to Iran to teach and train students in the seminary of Isfahan. Due to his skill in jurisprudence, he became famous as ʿĀlim (lit. learned, erudite scholar). He died in 1344 shamsī/1966 and was buried in Isfahan. He wrote a book entitled Faḍīlat al-Sīyāda wa Faḍāʾil al-Sādāt (the Virtues of the Household of the Prophet).
- 36.
The information about Muntaẓirī’s biography, teachers, studies, books, and students are gained through:
https://amontazeri.com/biography, last accessed 4/21/17.
http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2009/01/090129_ir_montazari.shtml, last accessed 4/21/17.
- 37.
The Assembly was founded in the summer of 1358 shamsī/1979, headed by Muntaẓirī, to write a new constitution for the Islamic regime. It convened on August 18, 1979 to consider the draft constitution written earlier and completed its deliberations on the rewriting of the constitution on November 15, 1979. Finally, the constitution was approved by referendum on December 2 and 3, 1979 by over 98% of the vote. The draft of the constitution was written by Ḥassan Ibrāhīm Ḥabībī (d. 1392 shamsī/2013) without any indication to wilāyat al-faqīh. Wilāyat al-faqīh as the form of the new government was incorporated into the final draft of the constitution by the efforts of Muntaẓirī. Muhsin Kadivar gives a lengthy account of Muntaẓirī’s stance on the article of the wilāyat al-faqīh in the Islamic constitution in his book Ḥukūmat-i Wilāyī, Op.cit, 1378a, pp. 185–187.
- 38.
Even before Muntaẓirī became appointed as the heir apparent to Khomeini in 1364 shamsī/1985, he had started reviewing his opinion about wilāyat al-faqīh by giving lectures on the theoretical foundations and practical implications of this theory. The lectures were published in Arabic in 1988, though became translated into Persian entitled Mabānī Fiqhī Ḥukūmat-i Islāmī (the Jurisdictional Foundations of Islamic Government) and is the main text containing Muntaẓirī’s reinterpretation of the theory of wilāyat al-faqīh.
- 39.
Husayn ʿAlī Muntaẓirī, Mabānī Fiqhī Ḥukūmat-i Islāmī (the Jurisdictional Foundations of the Islamic Government), translated into Persian by Maḥmūd Ṣalawātī and Abuʾl-Faḍl Shakūrī, 8 volumes, 1367 shamsī (Tehran, Sarāʾyī publication).
- 40.
As is observed earlier in this chapter, Khomeini used the same argument to prove the necessity of wilāyat al-faqīh for believers.
- 41.
Muhsin Kadivar insists that Muntaẓirī’s revised theory is in fact in line with Khomeini’s reading of wilāyat al-faqīh and should be regarded as the continuation of the latter’s theory, and not in opposition to it. See: Muhsin Kadivar, Op.cit, 1378a, p. 148 & 212.
- 42.
With regard to the centrality of the concept of the contract, Kadivar calls Muntaẓirī’s theory wikālat (also wikāla, lit. agency, delegation). See: Muhsin Kadivar, Op.cit, 1378a, p. 151, though in his other book, Naẓarīyahāy-i Dawlat dar Fiqh-i Shīʿa, Kadivar calls Muntaẓirī’s theory naẓarīya-yi wilāyat-i intikhābīya faqīh (the theory of the elective and constrained guardianship of the jurist); see: Naẓarīyahāy-i Dawlat dar Fiqh-i Shīʿa, Op.cit, 1378b, pp. 148–158.
- 43.
As I argued elsewhere, Risāla-yi Ḥuqūq contains Muntaẓirī’s discussions on human rights and is regarded as a foundation for his jurisprudence of human rights, which was and still is quite innovative in Shīʿa jurisprudence. Muntaẓirī pruned his theory of wilāyat al-faqīh and particularly downweighted wilāya in order to make room for his doctrine of human rights, because he rightly believed in the inconsistency and incompatibility of these two. Also, he shifted from the classic duality of ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ to ‘rights’, itself a recognition of modernity and its discourse of rights. See:
Leila Chamankhah, Human Rights and Muslims, in Handbook of Contemporary Islam and Muslim Lives, Ronald Lukens-Bull and Mark Woodward (eds), 2019 (Springer).
- 44.
There is a number of āyahs on Man’s vicegerency, but Muntaẓirī brings two of them; one in the sūrat al-Asrāʾ (the Night Journey): “We have indeed honored the Children of Adam, and We carry them over land and sea, and provide them with good things, and We have favored them above many We have created” (Nasr 2015, pp. 714–715) and the other in al-Muʾminūn (the Believers): “Then of the drop We created a blood clot, then of the blood clot We created a lump of flesh, then of the lump of flesh, We created bones and We clothed the bones with flesh; then We brought him into being as another creation. Blessed is God, the best of creators!” (Nasr 2015, p. 852).
- 45.
While in the Mabānī, Muntaẓirī had maintained that the walī can execute the sharīʿa laws. In terms of restricting the rights and the authority of the walī-ya faqīh to supervise and not execute the laws, Ḥukūmat-i Dīnī is a more radical book and contains Muntaẓirī’s latest revision of the theory of wilāyat al-faqīh.
- 46.
As Sussan Siavoshi is certain, the evolution of Muntaẓirī’s views on state-society relations did not end with the essay he wrote during the presidency of Khatami. She maintains that “the greater the state oppression and violation of people’s rights after 2005, the more he objected and distanced himself from his earlier authoritarian position” (Siavoshi 2016, p. 44).
- 47.
As it is observed, Khomeini uses the same methods and sources.
- 48.
Kadivar’s opinions are cited in his books, Ḥukūmat-i Wilāyī and Naẓarīyahāy-i Dawlat dar Fiqh-i Shīʿa; both of them are used extensively throughout this thesis.
- 49.
Schwerin, on the basis of Ḥukūmat-i Wilāyī and Naẓarīyahāy-i Dawlat dar Fiqh-i Shīʿa, which were written long time ago, comes to this conclusion that Kadivar does not provide his readers with his final opinion about wilāyat al-faqīh and leaves it to them to draw their own conclusion (Schwerin 2015, p. 186). Considering Kadivar’s recent writings, such an outlook does not seem to be plausible.
- 50.
Vanessa Martin also emphasizes the Platonic root of Khomeini’s theory. Martin, Op.cit, 2007, p. 203.
Bibliography
English Books
Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran between Two Revolutions, 1982 (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Akhavi, Shahrough, Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran: Clergy-State Relations in the Pahlavi Period, 1980 (New York: State University of New York Press).
Algar, Hamid, Borūjerdī, Ḥosayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Encyclopædia Iranica, December 1989.
Amanat, Abbas, From Ijtihad to Wilayat-i Faqih: The Evolving of the Shi’ite Legal Authority to Political Power, Logos, 2.3, summer 2003.
Amir Arjomand, Saïd, The Turban for the Crown; the Islamic Revolution in Iran, 1988 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Amir Arjomand, Saïd, Sociology of Shiʿite Islam (Collected Essays), 2016 (Leiden and Boston: Brill).
Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali, The Divine Guide in Early Shiism; the Sources of Esotericism in Islam, Translated into English by David Streight, 1994 (New York: State University of New York Press).
Bevir, Mark, The Logic of the History of Ideas, 2004 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Cook, Michael, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought, 2004 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Cronin, Stephanie (ed), the Making of Modern Iran: State and Society under Riza Shah, 1921–1941, 2003 (London & New York: Routledge).
Kadivar, Muhsin, Wilāyat al-Faqīh and Democracy, in Authority: Medieval Issues and Modern Concerns, Asma Afsaruddin (ed), 2011 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
Kazemi Moussavi, Ahmad, Religious Authority in Shiite Islam: From the Office of Mufti to the Institution of Marja, 1996 (International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization: Kuala Lumpur).
Lambton, Ann K. S., A Reconsideration of the Position of the Marja’ Al-Taqlīd and the Religious Institution, Studia Islamica, No. 20 (1964), pp. 115–135.
Majd, Mohammad Gholi, Resistance to the Shah, landowners and ulama in Iran, 2000 (Florida: University Press of Florida).
Mallat, Chibli, the Renewal of Islamic Law; Muhammad Baqer Sadr, Najaf and the Shi’i International, 1993 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Martin, Vanessa, Creating an Islamic State, Khomeini and the Making of a New Iran, 2007 (London & New York: I. B. Tauris).
Mavani, Hamid, Religious Authority and Political Thought in Twelver Shiism, 2013a (London & New York: Routledge).
Mavani, Hamid, Khomeini’s Concept of Governance of the Jurisconsult (Wilaya al-Faqih) Revisited: the Aftermath of Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election, the Middle East Journal, Vol 67, Number 2, Spring 2013b, pp. 207–228.
Moghadam, Fatemeh E., From Land Reform to Revolution: the Political Economy of Agricultural Development in Iran 1962–1979, 1996 (London and New York, I.B. Tauris Publication).
Moin, Baqer, Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah, 1999 (I.B. Tauris Publishers, London & New York).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein and Others (eds), the Study Quran, a New Translation and Commentary, 2015 (New York: HarperCollins Publishers).
Rahnema, Ali, Ayatollah Khomeini’s Rule of the Guardian Jurist From Theory to Practice, in A Critical Introduction to Khomeini, Arshin Adib-Moghaddam (ed), 2014 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 88–114.
Ridgeon, Lloyd, Sufi Castigator: Ahmad Kasravi and the Iranian Mystical Tradition, 2006 (London and New York: Routledge).
Ridgeon, Lloyd, Hidden Khomeini: Mysticism and Poetry, in A Critical Introduction to Khomeini, Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, (ed), 2014 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 213–232.
Schwerin, Ulrich von, The Dissident Mullah: Ayatollah Montazeri and the Struggle for Reform in Revolutionary Iran, 2015 (London & New York: I.B. Tauris).
Siavoshi, Sussan, the Flock of a Shepherd or the Sovereign Citizen: Ayatollah Muntaẓirī on the role of the People, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4, Summer 2016, pp. 26–47.
Singh, David Emmanuel, Sainthood and Revelatory Discourse: An Examination of the Basis for the Authority of Bayan in Mahdawi Islam, 2003 (Oxford and Delhi, Regnum International).
Persian Books
Feyraḥī, Dāwūd, Fiqh wa Sīyāsat dar Irān-i Muʿāṣir; Fiqh-i Sīyāsī wa Fiqh-i Mashrūṭih (Jurisprudence and Politics in Contemporary Iran; Constitutionalist Jurisprudence and Political Jurisprudence), 1390 (Tehran: Ney Publication).
Kadivar, Muhsin, Ḥukūmat-i Wilāyī (Divine Government), 3rd edition, 1378a (Tehran: Ney Publication).
Khomeini, Rūḥullāh, Wilāyat-i Faqīh (Guardianship of the Jurist), 23rd edition, 1390 (Tehran: Muʾasasay-i Tanẓīm wa Nashr-i āthār-i Imām).
Khomeini, Rūḥullāh, Kashf al-Asrār (Unveiling of the Secrets), n.d.-a (n.p.).
Muntaẓirī, Hossein ʿAlī, Mabānī Fiqhī Ḥukūmat-i Islāmī (the Jurisdictional Foundations of the Islamic Government), translated into Persian by Maḥmūd Ṣalawātī and Abulfaḍl Shakūrī, 8 volumes, 1379 shamsī (Tehran, Sarāʾyī publication).
Muntaẓirī, Hossein ʿAlī, Risāla-yi Ḥuqūq (the Book of Rights), 1383 shamsī/1425 H (Tehran, Sarāʾyī publication).
Muntaẓirī, Hossein ʿAlī, Ḥukūmat-i Dīnī wa Ḥuqūq-i Insān (Religious Government and People’s Rights), 1387 shamsī/1429 (Tehran, Sarāʾyī publication).
Muntaẓirī, Hossein ʿAlī, Wilāyat-i Faqīh wa Qānūn-i Asāsī (the Guardianship of the Jurist and the Constitution), in Dīdgāhhā (Collected Essays), 1377 shamsī/1998 (n.p.).
Muntaẓirī, Hossein ʿAlī, Ḥukūmat-i Mardumī wa Qānūn-i Asāsī (Popular Government and the Constitution), in Dīdgāhhā (Collected Essays), 1378 shamsī/1999, (n.p.).
Murtiḍā Muṭaharī, Mazāyā wa Khadamāt-i Marḥūm Ayatollah Burūjirdī (Advantages and Contributions of the late Ayatollah Burūjirdī), in Baḥthī Darbāra-yi Marjaʿīyyat wa Rawḥānīyat, 1341 shamsī/1962 (n.d., Anjuman-i Kitāb), pp. 231–249.
Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Muḥammad Hossein and Others, Baḥthī Darbāra-yi Marjaʿīyyat wa Rawḥānīyat (A Discussion on Leadership and Hierocracy), 1341 (n.p.: Shirkat-i Sahāmī-ya Intishār).
Arabic Books
Khomeini, Rūḥullāh, Al-Rasāʾil (The Treatises), 2 volumes, 1368 shamsī/1410 H (Qum: Muʾasasayi Ῑsmāʿīlīyān).
Narāqī, Aḥmad, ʿAwāʾid al-Ayyām fī Bayān-i Qawāʿid al-Aḥkām wa Muhimāt-i Masāʾil al-Ḥalāl wa-l-Ḥarām (Achievements of the Years), 1375 shamsī/1417 H (Qum: Maktab al-Aʿlām al-Islāmī).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chamankhah, L. (2019). Khomeini as the Jurist and Wilāya. In: The Conceptualization of Guardianship in Iranian Intellectual History (1800–1989). Palgrave Series in Islamic Theology, Law, and History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22692-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22692-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22691-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22692-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)