What Is Khomeinism?

[WiseCookie]

I started this thread because of a question that I asked in another thread. Seeing that I might be off-topic I decided to open a thread about it. My question as the title of this thread portrays is,

what is Khomeinism?

Is it fanatical religious movement? Is it a religious populist movement?

We see people constantly talking about Khomeinism, but I do not think that most of those people have a good understanding of what Khomeinism is. My opinion is that it's a vague concept that involves fanaticism and is lead by a religious fanatic. But like everything in life, you might have a wrong impression, and this why I opened this thread, and that is to know more about Khomeinism.

And on a further note, how is Khomeinism part of Hizballah's ideology? or is it a simple replica?

[ilovelebanon]

Originally Posted by WiseCookie

I started this thread because of a question that I asked in another thread. Seeing that I might be off-topic I decided to open a thread about it. My question as the title of this thread portrays is,

what is Khomeinism?

Is it fanatical religious movement? Is it a religious populist movement?

We see people constantly talking about Khomeinism, but I do not think that most of those people have a good understanding of what Khomeinism is. My opinion is that it's a vague concept that involves fanaticism and is lead by a religious fanatic. But like everything in life, you might have a wrong impression, and this why I opened this thread, and that is to know more about Khomeinism.

And on a further note, how is Khomeinism part of Hizballah's ideology? or is it a simple replica?

Firstly the word Khomeinism is introduced by foreign powers , not a new concept..

The only new thing Imam Khomeini introduced was Waliy Faqih( based on some hadeeths) , as for the rest it is about being a Husseini ( related to Imam Hussain(AS)) - more info in the thread of Ashoura...

Khomeini brought back the message of Imam Hussein(AS) when many were just sitting down and waiting for the awaited Mehdi to come and save them.. Khomeini taught that the people should not live oppressed ( again check the Ashoura thread - everything is based on that)

[WiseCookie]

Originally Posted by ilovelebanon

Firstly the word Khomeinism is introduced by foreign powers , not a new concept..

The only new thing Imam Khomeini introduced was Waliy Faqih( based on some hadeeths) , as for the rest it is about being a Husseini ( related to Imam Hussain(AS)) - more info in the thread of Ashoura...

Khomeini brought back the message of Imam Hussein(AS) when many were just sitting down and waiting for the awaited Mehdi to come and save them.. Khomeini taught that the people should not live oppressed ( again check the Ashoura thread - everything is based on that)

My question is still not being answered. You just gave me another vague answer. As a political system what is it ? And as a system of revolution what is it? How does it work?

[shadow1]

Originally Posted by WiseCookie

what is Khomeinism?

Is it fanatical religious movement? Is it a religious populist movement?

And on a further note, how is Khomeinism part of Hizballah's ideology? or is it a simple replica?

WC
in a nutshell
I am not sure there is a thing as Komeinism as such. There is though the Welayat Alfakeeh ( The reign of the Jurist) which Khomeini devised.
It's a religious doctrine whereby the Faqeeh is endowed with divine and temporal powers which according to shia tradition is endowed to the awaited Mehdi ( here I am not sure if the word is Mehdi or Mouhdi). In bygone eras popes used to think in the same way.

Khomeini devised this to concentrate power in his hand. As a religious doctrine it was opposed by leading Iranian Ayatollahs at the time but, true to Khomeini form, he silenced them because they considered it to be a heresy. To understand it better you need to be aware of what the Mehdi represents to shia. Not unlike the second coming of Christ, The Mehdi is awaited to reign over the world with justice and righteousness.
Now as to the details the doctrine entails it's basically an Islamic state founded on Islam's idea of Sharia Law and Islamic justice. But for now It's the Faqeeh who decides on these matters.
Insofar as Hizbullah is concerned they simply are believers of that religious doctrine.

[Kasparov]

Khomeinism is the west's description for "wilayat al faqih", you have to ask the creators of this word for its meaning .

[Dry Ice]

[Dry Ice]

Khomeinism
Merging church and state

Monday December 17, 1979
TIME Magazine


"Our nation, in the process of its revolutionary development, cleansed itself of the filth of despotism and shed off an alien culture and mode of thought." So says the remarkable 175-article constitution that the Iranians approved last week by a claimed margin of more than 99%. Instead of any alien mode of thought, the new constitution gives all power to a Faqih, or supreme religious figure—that is, Khomeini. This Faqih is supposed to be "respected by the majority of the people as their undisputed leader," but there is no provision for his being elected. While filling this lifetime post, the Faqih "will assume all the duties and responsibilites of the country." He is the supreme commander, approves the choice of President and appoints all judges. He also names the twelve-member "guardian council" of six clerics expert in Islamic law and six Islamic lay lawyers, which has veto power over all legislation. Warns the constitution: "The clergy will safeguard against any deviations by various government organizations from their true Islamic functions and obligations."

The charter makes bows to such Western-style rights as freedom of the press and political parties. It also endorses equal rights ("There is no distinction on grounds of race, color, language or creed. Men and women have equality before the law"). Yet in each case there is a variation of an important proviso: these freedoms will operate only if "Islamic principles of the Republic are not flouted." As one Tehran resident acerbically put it, "The new charter creates the world's only 20th century theocratic nation."

[>Watani<]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic

Important article written by Amir Taheri,

RISE OF KHOMEINISM AND THE LAST OF THE 'TEN LITTLE INDIANS'
February 12, 2004

1Ten Little Indians" is the title of a nursery rhyme that inspired one of Agatha Christie's best loved thrillers. In it, the "Indians" in question disappear one after another until we learn that "then there was none".

This could be a parable of Iran's "Islamic" revolution which, marked the 25th anniversary of its victory. The revolution started with quite a few "Indians".

In 1978 it had forged a coalition of parties that had nothing in common except hatred for the Shah.

The heart of the coalition consisted of Khomeinist militants ready to kill, and to die, to install their "Imam" in power in a system in which a single mullah is the absolute master of the nation.

Khomeinism, a form of totalitarianism, was, and remains, a consistent political doctrine. Khomeini was honest enough never to promise a pluralist system. He had raised the banner of revolt against the Shah not because Iranians did not have enough freedom, but because, he claimed, they had too much.

Nevertheless, many who described themselves as liberals, democrats, social democrats, and supporters of a constitutional monarchy, rallied to Khomeini.

Each must have known that Khomeini, or for that matter any mullah from any sect, is unlikely and unable to offer democracy. They all believed that they could use Khomeini as a bridge over which to walk to power. They underestimated Khomeini's intelligence. Having planned to double-cross him, they ended up being double-crossed by him.

There were other "little Indians" around the ayatollah.

They included a variety of mullahs - Iran had almost a quarter of a million of them in 1978 - who pursued different agendas. They, too, wanted to use Khomeini to win a bigger share of the cake, all along thinking that, once they had achieved their goals, they would double-cross him.

Again, Khomeini proved too clever for them. But the strangest of all "little Indians" of the time were the leftist parties whose leaders suddenly grew beards, bought rosaries, and started going to the mosques for prayers.

The Soviet-created Communists of the Tudeh (Masses) Party replaced the portraits of Marx and Lenin with those of Ali Ibn Abi-Talib and Hussein Ibn Ali, the first and third imams of Shiism. Their chief ideologist, the octogenarian Ihsan Tabari, even wrote a book to prove that Ali had been the true founder of "Socialism".

Then there were the People's Mujahedin, a terrorist organisation that specialised in robbing banks and killing policemen. Alongside them were two versions of another terror group, the so-called People's Fedayeen Guerrillas, one pro-Moscow, the other pro-Peking.

We also had the Trotskyites, the Spartacists, the Guevarists, and countless other leftist terrorist gangs with names such as "Storm", "Thunder", "Lightning", "Workers' Banner" and "Red Star".

Not gullible

They, too, secretly hoped that once the Shah was gone they could stab Khomeini in the back and seize power for themselves.

Khomeini, however, was not as gullible as the "little Indians" imagined. Once established in power, he started destroying his former allies one by one, starting with the weakest.

Within months, Khomeini had put Grand Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari under house arrest and disbanded his People's Republican Party. All the other "little Indians" applauded, naïvely hoping that they would escape a similar fate.

The next "little Indians" to disappear were the Musaddeqists, fans of Mohammed Mussaddeq who had served as prime minister for a couple of years in the 1950s. For 25 years they had criticised the Shah because of his alleged disregard of the 1906 Constitution. In 1978, however, they betrayed that constitution by rallying to Khomeini.

Khomeini gave them a few top posts for a few months and then got rid of them. Many fled abroad, some were jailed, and a few were shot.

The next "little Indians" to go were the "Islamist-Nationalists". Their leader Mahdi Bazargan was used by Khomeini as prime minister for a few months, before being disposed of like a used paper napkin. Then came the crackdown against the Mujahideen, followed by a campaign to annihilate the leftist guerrilla groups.

In every case one group co-operated with Khomeini against others, thinking that it would escape a similar fate.

By 1983 most of the "little Indians" who had hoped to double-cross Khomeini had been liquidated. Khomeini destroyed virtually the entire opposition to the Shah's regime, from the extreme right to the extreme left - something that the Shah had failed to do.

The "little Indians" took years to understand what had happened. They complained about having been "duped" by Khomeini. Even today remnants of the "little Indians" do not realise that they only have themselves to blame. They do not realise that if you lie to someone, he is likely to lie back to you. They lied to Khomeini, lied to the Iranian people and, above all, lied to themselves.

Logically, a Communist, a Mussadeqist, a socialist, a liberal, a nationalist, or a democrat cannot vote for "Walayat Faqih", the Khomeinist system under which power is concentrated in the hands of a single mullah. And yet, in the constitutional referendum that Khomeini organised within months of coming to power, they voted for that system.

Twenty-five years after the victory of the Khomeinist revolution, we have only two "little Indians" standing. One represents the genuine Khomeinists who believe that theocracy is the best system not only for Iran but for all nations.

Genuine Khomeinists do not seek to please the west. They do not go to Davos to impress American business tycoons and European intellectuals with their knowledge of Spengler and Hegel.

These Khomeinists sincerely believe that a woman is half as valuable as a man and that she should cover her hair because it emanates rays that drive men wild with lust. They genuinely believe that men who shave their beards will go to hell.

They regard the west as a civilisation in decline, and its values, including human rights and democracy, as decadent.

Their strategic goal is to destroy the global, west-dominated, civilisation and replace it with what they regard as a better, Islamic one. (Theirs). They dream of wiping Israel off the map and, one day, hoisting their flag of faith on top of the White House in Washington.

Balance of power

At the same time they are realistic enough to know that the current balance of power is not in their favour and that they should not become involved in a direct clash with the west. Thus they are ready to offer concessions, including some humiliating retreats, which may be required in foreign policy, provided their power inside Iran is not threatened.

Then we have the ersatz Khomeinists who suffer from split personality. They are fascinated by the West and die to be accepted by it as "reformists" and, or "democrats".

At the same time they are unable to cut the umbilical cord that connects them to Khomeinism, one of the most reactionary and brutal ideologies in history. At Davos they talk of democracy and pluralism. In Tehran they go on pilgrimage to Khomeini's tomb and light candles so that the imam will save them from annihilation.

These fake Khomeinists are the latest of the "little Indians" to be seen off by the revolution. The next general election, on February 20, could seal their fate.

Once these double-fakers are out of the way we shall be left with the last group of "little Indians", the hard-core, real McCoy Khomeinists. And then we shall look forward to the day when they, too, will disappear. And then there will be none.

[>Watani<]

THE IRANIAN HERESY, by Amir Taheri

June 1, 2004

RECENT actions by Tehran have led to questions about whether Iran was trying to play the Shiite card in Iraq's post-Saddam power game.

Tehran's state-controlled media have launched a campaign to incite Shiites in Bahrain against the kingdom's reform process. And Iran has ordered its clients, notably the Iraqi branch of Hezbollah, to step up disruptive activities to make the transition from occupation to Iraqi sovereignty as difficult as possible.

All this has led to suspicions against Shiites in several Arab countries. That is unfortunate.

The present Iranian regime is based on the ideology of Khomeinism - which is as far removed from Shiism as it is from other mainstream "ways" of Islam.

The first victims of that ideology have been Shiites. The Khomeinists have executed over 100,000 Iranians, mostly Shiites. They also caused the deaths of almost a million other Shiites in the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war. Over 3.5 million Iranians, most of them Shiites, have gone into exile.

That ideology has also divided Shiite communities everywhere.

When Khomeinism arrived in Lebanon for the first time in 1980, it immediately set out to destroy Amal, the united political movement of the Shiites. Having failed to do so, it created the Hezbollah as a rival to Amal.

By the 1990s, the Lebanese Hezbollah was showing some independence. Its religious leader, Sayyed Muhamad-Hussein Fadhlallah, refused to recognize the Iranian "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei as "the leader of all Muslims" as is claimed in the Khomeinist Constitution.

Tehran's response came in the form of support for splinter groups within Hezbollah. In a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that Tehran did not "limit its alliances in Lebanon" to the Hezbollah.

In Iraq, Tehran's policy over the past decade has aimed at splitting the Shiite community. Now Tehran is working hard to prevent a unified Iraqi Shiite front backed by the seminary at Najaf. The three-way split in the Dawa party was partly due to Iranian intrigues. And right now Iranian elements are working hard to split the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

It's no mystery that the shenanigans of Muqtada al-Sadr have been largely financed and encouraged by Tehran.

The Khomeinists were also responsible for splitting the Shiite community in Afghanistan. They backed the Shoeleh-Javid (Eternal Flame) group, a Maoist outfit whose members were of Shiite birth, against the Hazara Shiite establishment. During the communist rule in Kabul, the Khomeinists prevented the Hazara from fighting the Soviet occupation.

And when the Taliban started massacring the Hazara Shiites, Tehran did nothing but issue empty threats.

Nowhere has the divergence between Shiism and Khomeinism been more clearly manifested than in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is a majority Shiite country that won its independence after the disintegration of the Soviet Empire a decade ago. Yet for the past 10 years Tehran has backed Christian Armenia against Shiite Azerbaijan in the conflict over the enclave of Karabach.

Iran provided logistical support for the Armenian force that invaded and conquered Karabach and has been holding it since 1992. The trucks that drove Karabach's 80,000 Shiite Azeris out of their homes, in a little reported instance of ethnic-cleansing, were provided by Iran.

Everywhere, the Khomeinist aim is that Shiites should not be able to unite and act in their interests without receiving orders from Tehran. They should always remain divided and dependent on Tehran.

Although Khomeinism uses part of the Shiite mythology, religious vocabulary and iconography, it must be treated as a distinct doctrine with specific characteristics.

The key slogans of Khomeinism make this clear.

Everywhere in Iran one sees giant slogans reading: God, Quran, Khomeini!

Or: Allah Akbar, Khomeini Rahbar (God is the Greatest, Khomeini is the Leader!)

Inspired by North Korean and Maoist models, images of Khomeini have been carved in mountains or grown as mini-forests, visible even from the skies - a cult of personality bordering on idolatry.

Under the new Iranian school curriculum, the study of Khomeini's life and thoughts receives as much time (two hours per week) as the study of the Koran. The official Iranian calendar includes 26 days that are associated with Khomeini while the Prophet Muhammad gets only two days. Khomeini's tomb has been turned into a shrine.

In Iranian Shiism, the title of Imam is exclusive to Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, and 11 of his male descendants. In Khomeinism, however, the late ayatollah bears the title of Imam.

The Islamic Republic Constitution gives the "Supreme Guide" the power to suspend even the basic rules of Islam if he so wishes. And that, of course, is as abhorrent to Shiites as to other Muslims.

There are more Shiite clerics and students of theology in prison in Iran than at any other time in history. Khomeinism has also driven thousands of Iranian Shiite theologians into exile.

In short, Khomeinism is a cocktail in which Shiism is an accidental ingredient. Similar ideologies have developed in non-Muslim cultures in the developing countries. Its basic ingredient is a hatred of the West, especially the United States. It is also influenced by Marxism, especially with such ideas as thought control, single-party rule and the command of the economy by the state.

Some Shiites have adopted Khomeinism as their ideology. Hundreds have moved to Iran and taken up Iranian nationality. But there is no evidence that Khomeinism is supported by the broader Shiite communities in the Arab countries or elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Here is what Sabah Zangeneh, Iran's former Ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference had to say in Kuwait last week: "As far as matters of religion are concerned, the ulema of Najaf, especially Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, may have more influence in Iran today than Iranian mara'je [religious leaders] may have in Iraq."

The Arab governments would be wrong to equate Khomeinism with Shiism.

[ilovelebanon]

For those who say Khomeini divided the Shias.. They are wrong..

True he did open the path for causing newer divisions, but the unity amongst Shias wasn't strong before this time..

Again Khomeini did 2 things:
1) brought back the things Imam Hussein taught( live with dignity fite opression)
2) Wilayat Faqih

What people are soo afraid of in Lebanon is the first one , because the second one has been ruled out...

"Some Shiites have adopted Khomeinism as their ideology. Hundreds have moved to Iran and taken up Iranian nationality. But there is no evidence that Khomeinism is supported by the broader Shiite communities in the Arab countries or elsewhere in the Muslim world"

What do you mean , fighting for your rights is only for Shias?? Wilayat Faqih is respected by people who dont refer to Imam Khomeini or even Iranian scholars for that matter. Others feel happy they have a leader speaking for their rights worldwide.. Because of insecurity reasons the Arab govts view this as interference