伊朗的抽象面纱与神权统治

The reason I wanted to discuss Iran stemmed from an unfortunate personal connection. When the Iran-Iraq War broke out on February 28th, I was planning a trip to the UAE. However, Iran subsequently launched missiles, forcing other Gulf states to alter their travel advisories, which in turn caused me to change my itinerary.

Speaking of Iran, my first impression, and likely that of many viewers, was that it felt too abstract. On the Chinese internet, Iran is often perceived as a delicate entity, a key member of the “Justice League,” and an ally due to its anti-American stance. While some pro-establishment voices strongly support the Iranian regime, even the most steadfast supporters would likely find it difficult to genuinely like the current Iranian regime itself, particularly its Islamic Republic ideology, because its presentation is too abstract.

In this abstract country, women have been subjected to incalculable control and persecution. For instance, women wishing to travel abroad must obtain consent from their male guardian – a father or husband. They are prohibited from singing and dancing in public, and from entering certain public places, such as stadiums. Divorce is only permissible under special circumstances, and the initiative for divorce is almost entirely in the hands of men.

Furthermore, this country has countless capital crimes. Extramarital affairs and same-sex sexual behavior, for example, carry the maximum penalty of death, potentially by stoning – a rather primitive form of torture. Even women wearing headscarves inappropriately or engaging in public intimacy are categorized as serious sex crimes. Iran also has a unique crime: apostasy. Renouncing the Islamic faith or converting to another religion can also result in a death sentence. Consequently, it is not surprising that Iran possesses a strong culture of martyrdom（为信仰献出生命的理念）, exemplified during the Iran-Iraq War where the regime used religious fanaticism to organize children to clear landmines, employing human wave tactics against Iraqi defenses. Iran is also one of the few countries that still retains the death penalty for minors.

While there is ample content online regarding the history of the Iranian War and the Iranian Regime, our focus today is different. I am more interested in how this theocratic politics（由宗教领袖或宗教机构统治的政治体系）, especially the kind established by Khomeini, operates. How can we approach understanding the Islamic Revolution from psychological and philosophical perspectives? Although the specific Shia religious terms may be unfamiliar, their underlying psychological mechanisms and operational logic are quite relatable and meaningful. We are not simply creating a popular science episode on Iranian history; instead, we will analyze this ideology from different angles, exploring its deep psychological basis. This video will be included in the "History and Society" list. If you have topics for discussion or consultation, please contact me via email to schedule an appointment.

霍梅尼的承诺与“被欺骗”的民众

There was a figure who, before seizing power, fiercely critiqued the previous regime's corruption, claiming to establish a just, equal, and clean political system, winning recognition and support from all societal levels. After taking office, the regime he led began betraying its enlightened political promises and launched a purge of past comrades and other parties, vowing to eradicate the pollution of foreign cultures and ideologies. In the economic field, he initiated a wave of nationalization, confiscating numerous businesses and assets. In terms of diplomacy, he actively exported revolution, vowing to liberate the suffering people of the world. I believe everyone can guess; he is the Islamic... Khomeini, the leader of the revolution.

Before Khomeini came to power, he made very enlightened commitments to people from all walks of life. He told secular liberals that Iran's future would have freedom of the press and speech. He told left-wing intellectuals that the revolution would achieve social justice and wealth redistribution. He told the ordinary middle class that the revolution would end the king's corruption and Western exploitation. In short, before the revolution succeeded, Khomeini successfully made almost everyone believe he was one of them.

However, after the Pahlavi dynasty fell and Khomeini truly seized power in the country, his former allies gradually realized who they had supported. Left-wing political parties were banned, secular intellectuals were persecuted and exiled. Even high-ranking religious figures who disagreed with Khomeini, including the Great Ayatollah, were placed under house arrest and suppressed. Many who had devoted themselves to the revolution with high ideals later expressed the same sentiment: "We were deceived."

Why did the Iranian people at that time, including the well-educated, intellectuals, and middle class, still follow, agree with, and even fanatically support him? Was it solely due to his political deception? Or does something older and deeper exist in Iranian society, making its soil naturally suitable for the growth of theocratic politics? It cannot be said that the Iranian people were simply too stupid. Looking back at history, it's difficult to understand why they would agree with such an abstract concept. To understand this, we must return to the origin of Shia Islam itself, as Khomeini's success was due not only to his political skills but also to his accurate utilization and modification of profound elements within Shia doctrine.

什叶派与逊尼派：起源与分歧

This stems from the disagreement between the two major Islamic sects, Sunni and Shia, which originated from a fundamental question after Prophet Muhammad's death: who should succeed him as leader? Sunni Muslims believe the heir should be chosen by the Muslim community through negotiation or election, meaning leadership legitimacy derives from community consensus. The Shia Muslims believe leadership must be inherited by the Prophet's direct descendants, specifically Ali and his descendants, known as Imams. From the Shia perspective, only the Imam possesses sacred authority to interpret doctrine, bestowed by bloodline, not elected. The Twelve Imams within Shia Islam believe there are only 12 in total, with the 12th Imam reportedly going into hiding in 941 AD. In today's Islamic world, Sunnis make up the vast majority (including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey), while the core stronghold of the Shia sect is Iran. It can be said that to a large extent, Shia Islam and Iranian national identity are deeply bound.

现代价值下的什叶与逊尼

Given these origins, we can ask: which of these two schools of thought is closer to modern values like rationality, equality, freedom, and human rights? Neither school is fully compatible with modern values; both are duty-oriented rather than rights-based, requiring believers to first consider their obligations to God over individual rights. In this sense, they lack a modern concept of equality and a robust spirit of critical inquiry. However, for comparison: on the surface, Sunnis advocate for religious leaders elected by the community, seemingly implying negotiation and democratic republicanism. The Shia, on the other hand, insist on bloodline inheritance, which sounds like a more primitive and backward political idea.

But if we look deeper, the situation becomes more complex. In the Shia tradition, because the Twelfth Imam entered a state of seclusion a thousand years ago, the exclusive nature of Shia religious authority endowed religious scholars well-versed in Islamic law with power. Secular monarchs, on the other hand, primarily controlled administrative and military power. This actually formed a kind of de facto separation of church and state（事实上的政教分离: 指宗教权力与政治权力虽然并未正式法理上分开，但实际运行中相互独立且可能对立的状况）. Although different from modern separation, religious authority and political authority were in an antagonistic relationship. Religious scholars were not subservient to state power; they had independent sources of income and an independent education system, thus possessing the right to criticize, even rebel against secular monarchs. Precisely because they did not hold secular power, they could stand on a moral high ground, criticizing the tyranny of the state apparatus. Consequently, Shia Muslims developed a strong victim mentality, shaping a timeless narrative model: "We are justice, but oppressed by secular power." Though the enemy was powerful, it was unjust.

Precisely because Shia Islam has a history of long-term non-dependence on and suppression by state power, they more easily gain sympathy and recognition from the lower classes. Speaking of which, we can draw a brief comparison with Chinese history. Measured by this separation of church and state, Shia Islam's is quite pronounced and far superior to ancient China's relationship between Confucian scholars and imperial power. Many might argue ancient China was not a religious state, thus the issue of theocracy did not exist. However, ancient China, lacking a monotheistic religion, had Confucianism and various folk beliefs that inherently bore religious functions, building a spiritual world and meaning system tied to daily life. Yet, the Chinese spiritual system had a relatively low level of transcendence, almost entirely tied to secular power, to the point where it didn't feel like a religion. Therefore, the problem in ancient China was not the union of politics and religion, but rather the essential lack of distinction between them. The social status and economic resources of Confucian scholars and academic authorities were highly dependent on imperial power, with no institutional force restraining it. Shia religious scholars, conversely, had their own independent funding, seminaries, and follower networks, with their authority stemming from mastery of doctrinal rules rather than state appointment.

At this point, the situation is exactly the opposite of Shia. Sunni caliphs often simultaneously held political power, possessing a dual identity as leader and defender of religious beliefs. The religious class became more dependent on the state apparatus; religion provided legitimacy to a regime, and the regime provided protection for religion, forming a close symbiotic relationship. Under this structure, it was difficult for religious scholars to develop an independent theory or a critical stance on state power. This is very interesting: the legitimacy of Sunni Islam is based on real-world consensus. A leader does not necessarily need divine blood; as long as the Muslim community approves, they can enjoy authority. However, in actual operation, because information and resources were in the hands of rulers, this ironically made it easier for the monarchy to manipulate religion, turning it into a subservient force of power. Shia Islam emphasizes the inheritance of sacred bloodlines; only those with prophetic lineage can represent religion. After the 12th Imam went into hiding, no one could fully represent divine authority, which in turn allowed for critiquing reality and provided rulers with a theoretical basis.

什叶与逊尼的理性演变

Let's talk about the rational spirit. Shia Islam experienced a period that can be described as an internal rational revolution. Around the beginning of the 14th century, the Shia sect established a very important principle called 伊智提哈德（Ijtihad: 伊斯兰法学中，学者运用理性推导新法律规范的原则）, or "creation." In short, this means allowing religious scholars to use reason to deduce and interpret new legal norms, instead of simply copying the literal texts left by prophets and Imams. The establishment of this principle was the result of a rationalist faction within the Shia sect defeating the traditionalists, known as the Ahbari faction, who advocated strict adherence to the literal meaning of narration and scriptures. The victory of the rationalists enabled Shia jurists to obtain extreme legal interpretation power and independent status, theoretically granting Shia doctrine the possibility of dynamic evolution—though clearly still far from Enlightenment rationality.

The historical trajectory of Sunni Islam went in the opposite direction. As the Pakistani philosopher Muhammad Iqbal believes, for Sunnis, "the door to creation has been closed." Historically, Islamic civilization existed for a considerable period and was once a world leader, with the Abbasid Caliphate encouraging the exploration of knowledge, philosophy, and science. However, in the later Sunni revival movement, two opposing camps emerged: the traditionalists, who emphasized that believers should not question doctrine with reason, and the rationalists, who advocated reflecting on faith based on reason, not blindly believing religious authority. The traditionalists ultimately prevailed. As recorded in the book "文明的逻辑" (The Logic of Civilization), the Seljuk dynasty began constructing numerous Islamic schools that focused on religious studies, replacing older schools centered on scientific research. The original intention was not to discover new knowledge but to strengthen Quran interpretation and consolidate the rulers' power, which, to some extent, led to a significant regression in the Islamic world's scientific level.

悖论与未解之谜

So, if we return to our question: in terms of the separation of religion and state and rational space, Shia Islam has actually gone further than Sunni Islam. This is a very counter-intuitive fact. But this leads to a question, an even more perplexing one: If Shia Islam traditionally practiced a separation of church and state, and its religious scholars were historically known for independence and criticizing tyranny, how did Khomeini transform such a tradition into an unprecedented autocratic system? We will continue this discussion in the next video.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss topics with me, please contact me via email to make an appointment. For example, if you wish to discuss a specific article, quote, video, social phenomenon, or even your diary, you can send me the relevant text in advance. I will read it thoroughly before our formal exchange. Discussing your life experiences, confusion, and emotions is also acceptable. If you are concerned about privacy and security, or have questions regarding payment and communication methods, please let me know as soon as possible. If you are unable to pay or become a member, please also contact me; I will provide alternative methods. Please refer to the image for details. I will list this video under "History and Society" and also recommend my other videos in this list. Thank you for watching, goodbye.