On September 16, 2022, Iranian woman Mahsa Amini was taken into custody by Iran's morality police and killed for an alleged breach of hijab mandates. The tragic death of the young lady spurred a global outcry as it drew light upon the highly controversial junction of religion and state affairs in Iran. The incident shows a number of larger issues developing from the theocratic government of Iran based on the Islamic Revolution in 1979 forefronted by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini's policies, emphasizing rigid adherence to Islamic law, ushered in a repressed censorious environment with limited freedom for women and ethnic minorities, highlighting what is perhaps the most important risk: those of the integration of religion into governance, a very timely global theme considering that time and again, the inclusion of religion within a governing framework has led to societal control and repression. 

Iranian government invokes religious doctrines to justify rigid social policies, including those against women and minorities. Iran's modern experience thus raises some fundamental questions about what religious government means for freedom and autonomy, particularly where women and vulnerable communities are concerned. 

The Rise of Theocracy: Khomeini's Vision The Pahlavi regime exercised its authoritative rule and encouraged secularization and Westernization prior to the Islamic Revolution in 1979. This would relate to alienating much of Iranian society, especially the religious conservatives who want the preceding status of Iran as a nation and Islamic state. It was opposed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who promised that he would rid the country of corruption and would return the country to the true ways of Islam. Similarly seeking the restoration of Islamic values, Ayatollah Khomeini was against such Western influences. 

As Chehabi relates, Khomeini issued a fatwa giving "unconditional authority to the Islamic State," which gave the state carte blanche on all matters in Iranian life. This was the most significant move toward theocratic rule at this point and provided the model for a political regime inextricably linked with Sharia law.

 Khomeini's constitution thus provided an Islamic Republic in which political authority lay with a Supreme Leader, who is appointed by a council of ecclesiastical clerics and not via democratic election. Just eight of the 1,014 presidential candidates were deemed acceptable in the government after the revolution-a clear demonstration of the constraint of popular will (U.S. Senate Document, 1979). But here, religion became both the basis and the legitimacy of such centralized authority, wherein Khomeini was able to accumulate power in the name of righteousness. 

Repression via Religious Authority: The Morality Police and Women's Rights: To give effect to Islamic mores, Khomeini established a morals police that was intended to apply strict literal interpretations of Sharia. This organ, which gained notoriety due to its means of applying them, has been accused of meting out harsh punishments, including beatings and torture, and even extrajudicial killings of women for failure to comply with the hijab requirements. This institution, according to scholar Janet Afary, has persecuted women who repress individual freedoms in the name of religious observance. The case of Mahsa Amini, on the other hand, became just the embodiment of such oppression. An Iranian Kurd by origin, her family was not only restricted by the hijab mandates but had also been limited in cultural expression because she was not allowed to have a Kurdish name (Afary, 2009). These practices only echo the policies of Khomeini, which Afary and others have argued institutionalize the repression of minorities and dissenters, cast as "outsiders" against the "insiders" who fulfill the regime's religious expectations. 

A Culture of Punishment and Separation: The transition into Khomeini's governance gave way to a culture of "us versus them," typical of most authoritarian and radical regimes across the world. Marking the challenger to the religious and political establishment as "outsider" opponents who should be awarded with intimidating punishments that silence opposition, such a mentality of division has squashed freedoms by stifling free thought and expression-ideas supposed to be part of what it means to be Iranian. Running parallel to other historical examples around the world where religion was used as an excuse to oppress the masses, as in Puritanical colonial America as expressed in The Crucible, a desire of and attempt at behavioral control of the public by the Iranian government endures, noticeably concerning women's attire and behavior. 

Cultural Preservation II: The Argument Some scholars, however, disagree and believe that the Iranian government utilizes Islam to maintain cultural heritage and resist Westernization, and not as an oppressive tool. For example, Meysam Tayebipour suggests that the Pahlavi regime was just as repressive in its own form of secular authoritarianism, and that the religious government of Iran represents one long campaign on behalf of its leadership to self-aggrandize power. Similarly, Antonio Reyes argues that any state has to be based on the consolidation of power in order for it to be well-governed, and the deployment of religious rhetoric in Iran is no more but a usual pattern of governance-one that provides an imperative for legitimation and compliance.

 Impact on Women and Ethnic Minorities: While the government of Iran has utilized historical oppression as a basis to back policies, under this regime, the influence of religion has reached new heights, in particular concerning the treatment of women and ethnic minorities. As Fereshteh Ahmadi mentions, the post-revolutionary government adopted an extremely instrumental attitude toward religious doctrine in trying to manage the lives of women, obliged to follow Sharia law, along with punishment for disobedience. The strict hijab laws of the regime, a ban on adultery, and the banning of cultural expressions all point to a minimum level of personal freedom for women and minorities. This more so illustrates how the integration of religion into governance can codify discriminatory practices that would otherwise be reserved as personal choices. 

Conclusion: The Danger of Church-State Integration The theocratic policies of the Iranian government serve as a stern warning to those who would consider the mergers of church and state. Under the leadership of Khomeini, religious doctrine had been weaponized: Sharia law was now used to oppress women and ethnic minorities of that country. By this theocratic model, how such a mode of government can act as an obstacle toward freedom and equality has been demonstrated. While the United States and other countries debate legislation interlocking with religious values-like in the case of the overturning of Roe v. Wade-the implications seen in Iran are a reminder of the separation of church and state. If the U.S. truly wishes to be the "land of freedom," then it needs to preserve that separation of church and state in order to keep the freedom of its people. The Iranian experience clearly shows the more subtle risks of institutionalizing religion in governance-most particularly when it comes to freedom of expression, gender equality, and cultural diversity. In that respect, the Iranian example will be quite relevant in reminding societies around the world of the risks involved in mixing political and religious authority.

Works Cited

• Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin. “Islamic Secularism and the Question of Freedom in Iran.” Middle East Critique, vol. 25, no. 1, 4 Nov. 2015, pp. 71–82, Google Scholar https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2015.1101873. 
• Afary, Janet and Kevin B. Anderson. "Woman, Life, Freedom: The Origins of the Uprising in Iran." Dissent, vol. 70 no. 1, 2023, p. 82-98. Project MUSE. Google Scholar, https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2023.0032. 
• Bitarafan, Mohammad, et al. “Controversy Over the Concept ‘Freedom’ During the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1906– 09).” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 46, no. 1, 11 Sept. 2017, pp. 1–13. Taylor & Francis Online https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2017.1361316. 
• Boroumand, Ladan, and Roya Boroumand. “Illusion and Reality of Civil Society in Iran: An Ideological Debate.” Social Research, vol. 67, no. 2, 2000, pp. 303–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971475.
• Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. "The Iranian Regime: Human Rights and Civil Liberties Under Siege." U.S. Department of State, Google Scholar 18 Apr. 2007, https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/83185.htm.
• Chehabi, H. E. “Religion and Politics in Iran: How Theocratic Is the Islamic Republic?” Daedalus, vol. 120, no. 3, Summer 1991, pp. 69–91. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20025388. 
• Farazmand, Ali. "Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran." International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 3, no. 3, 1995, pp. 227-257. Google Scholar, https://doi.org/10.1163/157181196X00074.
• Reyes, Antonio. "Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions." Discourse & Society, vol. 22, no. 6, 2011, pp. 781-807. Sage Journals https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927.
• Sadeghi, Fatemeh. “Women And The Islamic Republic Of Iran: A Story of a Muslim Woman.” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, vol. 11, no. 1, 2007, pp. 92–100. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48505423. Accessed 22 Apr. 2024.
• Tayebipour, M. "Khomeini and Nationalism: Ayatollah Khomeini Through the Lens of the Iran-Iraq War”, Studies in Iranian Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2023. Google Scholar https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14907-8_5.