In the preceding chapters, the relevance of the Shi'i schools of law for the modern constitutional debate, as well as the most direct sources at the origin of the present Iranian Constitution, primarily Muhammad Baqer as-Sadr's 1979 studies, have been presented. With these contributions in mind, this chapter will analyse some of the constitutional issues which have recently unfolded in the system. Occasionally, a comparative perspective will be introduced to shed more light on the problems that the Iranian institutions face.

In the widest acceptation of government, the quintessential constitutional question is about who ultimately holds the power to say what the law is. In view of the centrality of the shari'a in the definition of an Islamic state, this issue represents the essential problem of contemporary Islamic law.

A guiding perspective to the analysis of this chapter is offered by the celebrated exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice: ‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”. “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that's all”’; or, as in a sermon preached two centuries ago: ‘Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them.’