Iran has been a country of controversy for decades. One of the many points of controversy is the role of religion in the Iranian government. The entire government is structured to keep people with similar religious beliefs in power and to allow the government to make decisions based on Shiite principles. This structure was established as a result the 1979 Iranian Revolution where one regime over took another. This change in leadership gave the clergy more power than ever and directly affected foreign relations. Iran has faced the consequences of their Shiite based government through conflict with countries spanning multiple continents, such as Saudi Arabia and the United States. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran’s government became controlled by religion, causing tense foreign relations. The Iranian government is lead by a religious figure and …show more content…
At the top of Iran's power structure is the Supreme Leader who, according to the constitution, will rule until his death. The current leader is Ayatohllah Ali Khamenei, who appointed himself Supreme Leader after the 1979 Revolution (“The Structure of Power in Iran”). The Supreme Leader is responsible for almost every aspect of the Iranian government. He controls local radio and television, domestic and foreign polices, the armed forces and intelligence and security operations, and he appoints and dismisses members of the judiciary (“The Structure and Power in Iran”). Khamenei is a Shiite Muslim, a branch of Islam that the majority of Iranians practice. Khamenei believes that religion is an essential part of government and "only clerical rule in accordance with Shiite law can create just government in the absence of the Prophet and the Imams"(Cole, Juan). Khamenei has structured the Iranian government to keep himself in power and prohibit anyone with opposing viewpoints to impact
In the opening chapter, Kimball begins his discussion by describing his encounter with the then Ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini, in Qom, Iran on Christmas Day. He described the Ayatollah as being very charismatic and grandfatherly, as well as being an extraordinarily influential religious and political leader (Kimball, p. 1). The two discussed a number of important issues like the Iranian revolution, Christian-Muslim relations, Jesus, and the U.S. hostages (Kimball, p.
Twenty years after reinstating the Shah, Iranians were dissatisfied with his government and instead wanted Ayatollah Khomeini, a clergy who supported a revolutionary Islamic government. The concept of the shah and his pro-American stance did not meet the standards of Iranians. Consequently, the shah was overthrown and exiled to Egypt. In regard to President Carter’s human rights sentiment, the United States administration refrained from defending the shah during Iran’s revolution. For many months, the shah lived in various countries and expressed interest in gaining asylum in the United States.
According to document E by Rick Steve, "I asked, 'But what if you want to get somewhere in the military or government?' Seyed answered, 'Then you'd be a Muslim.' I added, 'A practicing Shia Muslim.' He said, 'Yes.'” Iran had created a successful theocracy through political and social aspects, though it has also been concluded that Iran still needs improvement in its economy to become a better theocracy.
History An Islamic revolution had started in Iran in January 1978 that would eventually topple their government. The Shah Reza Pahlavi, commonly referred to as the Shah of Iran, fled Iran in January 1979. Immediately upon his departure, Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile. His popularity would eventually allow him to control the political power of Iran.
In 1979 their government became a theocracy, a form of government based on a religion. The laws are based on the religious leaders interpretations of the Quran and Sharia Law. But women in Iran are treated very unfairly because of these laws. In document five it states, “A theocracy is a type of government that is based on a religion. It is run by religious figures and its laws are based in religious laws.
I find the role of religion in government quite interesting. In a previous lesson we learned about the Byzantine and Persian Empires and how they served as patrons for religious orthodoxies. Now as we start to discuss more about post-Muhammad Islam, we learn about the empires that served as the patrons for Islam. Religion seems to be the primary foundation for the rise and success for many of these empires, but in the 21st century religion does not serve this same purpose. The Safavid Empire was govern by and for Shiite Muslims, the Mughul Empire is quite distinct in that it seemed to be fueled by religious tolerance, so it was a hybrid of Islam and Hinduism, and the Ottoman Empire is also noteworthy as Robinson describes it as the “mightiest of the three”, most likely due
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a member of Iran’s royal family, was reinstated as Shah to the new government created in 1953 by Americans. The shah’s pro-western, secular government allied with the United States, blocked the Communist Russians from Iran. Preventing Russia from gaining access to Iran was an extensive addition to cheap oil relations of the United States. Diplomats used a single method to remain ties to the shah and insured cheap oil. This scheme composed granting any of the shah’s request including American weapons and fighter aircrafts.
In order for all this to happen, he said, there would be negotiations with the opposition to form a democratic government of national reconciliation. It fact, though, there was going to be none, as Khomeini rejected his offer outright. How did the revolution succeed? The opposition was effectively in control of Tehran when Ayatollah Khomeini finally decided to fly back to Iran.
Without God as a guiding presence in her life, Marji began to rebel against the ever-encroaching fundamentalist institution as much as possible. Under the pretense of religion, Iran strictly enforced new laws against social gatherings and all items of decadence, “They found records and video-cassettes at their place. A deck of cards, a chess set, in other words, everything that’s banned… It earned him seventy-five lashes”(105). This sudden loss of mediums to enjoy one’s self and prevalence of excessive punishment enforcing the declared moral code (132) were invitations to rebel for Marji.
Shortly after, Bakhitar went into hiding. Iran became the Islamic Republic of Iran on April 1, 1979 and drafted a new constitution. Ayatollah Khomeini became the Supreme Leader of Iran and established a new government that is still in place
Because the country is run on Islamic principles, beliefs, and values, these values are enforced in the everyday life of the people who live in Iran. This creates an authoritarian form of government. When citizens of Iran do not practice the same Islamic values the government requests, then punishment is often enforced as a political or criminal crime. For example, a man was
bortion between France and Iran France and Iran are too different. The way they think, the way they do things. Imagine how their point of view about abortion is? The laws from getting an abortion, the population and social problems influence in the way they see and do things. In the last century France and Iran change their mind.
This article will discuss relationship between USA and Iran through military, economic, and political variables. Iran and the USA were two powers that fought to stop the spread of communist in Iran. In 1951 when Iran democratically elected Premier Mohammed
The Iran and Iraq war caused a lot of death and destruction in both countries. By understanding the strategies used and objectives, we can further digest the purpose of the Iran-Iraq war. Historically, Iran and Iraq’s problems go way back. Aside from the fact that one side is Arabs and the other is Persian, they have cultural differences.
Religion has no place in Government Thesis Statement: Religion has no place in the Government because we do not live in a theocracy without requiring to have a Religious Experience, and Religious virtue. That religion has no place in government is both a positive and normative statement, by which I mean it can be read both ways: as either a statement of fact, that there simply is no place for religion in government; or as a statement with moral intention, that there ought to be no place for religion in government. These two readings are related but not the same. They are related both because whether something is so is no argument for its being so, and because, things that are nonetheless often carry moral inertia, and justify themselves by their being.