14 replies to this topic

[AhlulBayt_313]

Assalamu Alikoum, I am currently reading this and if anyone is familiar with this topic, I would appreciate your feedback. http://www.iranchamb...ayat_faqeeh.pdf I linked the topic here so you can see what I'm referring to. I just started getting into this topic, so if you have any insight, disagreements, or if you agree with this topic, I am open to all feedback. I would just like to get a better perspective about it. Some of you, whether you agree or disagree with it, may be more familiar with it, and could shed some light for me. Thank you and Wasalam.

[Ibn al-Hassan]

Let the fighting begin.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 22 May 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Let the fighting begin.

This wasn't created to start a war, I simply want to hear both sides since I am reading it. Let's be objective about this please. Still waiting to hear feedback...waits in anticipation

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Yesterday, 02:29 AM.

[hasanhh]

I'll read this later, inshallah.

I had vilayat-i-faqih in college and not all Ayatollahs agree with this.

The Companion Umar had scholars around himself when he was Caliph as they could remember better than himself.

[AhlulBayt_313]

hasanhh, on 22 May 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

I'll read this later, inshallah.

I had vilayat-i-faqih in college and not all Ayatollahs agree with this.

The Companion Umar had scholars around himself when he was Caliph as they could remember better than himself.

Insha'Allah, thank you

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Yesterday, 06:00 AM.

[Ibn al-Hassan]

AhlulBayt_313, on 22 May 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Assalamu Alikoum, I am currently reading this and if anyone is familiar with this topic, I would appreciate your feedback. http://www.iranchamb...ayat_faqeeh.pdf I linked the topic here so you can see what I'm referring to. I just started getting into this topic, so if you have any insight, disagreements, or if you agree with this topic, I am open to all feedback. I would just like to get a better perspective about it. Some of you, whether you agree or disagree with it, may be more familiar with it, and could shed some light for me. Thank you and Wasalam.

See, I don't have much interest in reading too deeply into these arguments (although, I did actually read that treatise by Sayyid Khomeini awhile back). The reason being that our Masumeen [as] did not teach it. Simple as that. They did not encourage their Shi'ah to involve themselves in political movements and such. In fact, if anything they have emphatically commanded their Shi'ah to stay away from these political endeavors and ambitions. We are to wait for the deliverance of the Qa'im [as]. We were never told to establish political government through the utilization of the faith and transform it into a distinct ideology. The establishment of a just, Islamic government is the prerogative of an Imam al-Masum, and the Qa'im [as] in particular. What we see now is this attempt at crystallizing Shi'ism into a political force to be reckoned with. I find this problematic, as the Imams [as] did not teach this. Second, it has always been the assertion of the Shi'ah that religious leaders need be infallible. Was this not our dispute with the Sunnis? Nobody differed over whether or not we should have a caliphate. They differed over the qualifications of that caliph. We Shi'ahs have always emphasized the point that leaders must be infallible for them to be above scrutiny (although, it was always the Infallible leaders that were most welcome to criticism). Now, we find ourselves, essentially, in favor of the Sunni conception of the caliphate (with the relatively minor requirement that he must be knowledgeable in matters of fiqh, like that really makes a difference to how he rules). If we continue to go down this path, I fear that head of the "Islamic" state will eventually become a "Divinely inspired" seat, very much akin to how the Pope is seen in Catholicism. We will elevate fallibles to the level of infallibility (even if we don't outright acknowledge it).

Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways), than to have political ideology mixed in with the pristine faith, allowing fallibles to dictate our beliefs and actions and closing the doors to interpretation. Not only that, but most of the time the policies of the government will have to do with what's in the best interest of the people of that specific nation. The resources will go towards favoring those individuals over others. Ex. The Islamic Republic of Iran definitely favors those people who are "Iranian", nobody can just move over to Iran and reap the benefits of the Islamic government as they should for being Muslim. Instead, the government favors non-Muslim Iranians over non-Iranian Muslims. Is this what the Prophet [sawa] taught? I'm not sure how he would have carried this forth, but I can be sure he would not care much for the nationality of a particular Muslim.

Anyways, that's all for the moment. And even if you happen to agree with the political theory of Walayat al-Faqih, there have been major changes in terms of the power and authority of the Wali al-Faqih than was originally given to him and was envisioned by Sayyid Khomeini. You may want to read this paper here: https://www.dropbox....ic Republic.pdf

[Ali-Reza]

I say we need to go back to Quran and see how Allah (swt) used the word "Walayat" in His words. And if one reads it carefully, one will find that Walayat is for Allah (swt) only. And of course those whom he chooses (prophet and ahlulbayt). In their absence Allah(swt) tells us to do things in Shura in Quran.  

Going to hawza for so many years can make you a good marjah but Wali...I highly doubt.


So I don't personally subscribe to this concept it and I hope Allah (swt) forgive me if I am wrong as I am only a laymen but sometimes you don't need to read a ton of books to figure out things are being twisted in favor of staying in power.

Edited by Ali-Reza, Yesterday, 02:15 PM.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 22 May 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

See, I don't have much interest in reading too deeply into these arguments (although, I did actually read that treatise by Sayyid Khomeini awhile back). The reason being that our Masumeen [as] did not teach it. Simple as that. They did not encourage their Shi'ah to involve themselves in political movements and such. In fact, if anything they have emphatically commanded their Shi'ah to stay away from these political endeavors and ambitions. We are to wait for the deliverance of the Qa'im [as]. We were never told to establish political government through the utilization of the faith and transform it into a distinct ideology. The establishment of a just, Islamic government is the prerogative of an Imam al-Masum, and the Qa'im [as] in particular. What we see now is this attempt at crystallizing Shi'ism into a political force to be reckoned with. I find this problematic, as the Imams [as] did not teach this. Second, it has always been the assertion of the Shi'ah that religious leaders need be infallible. Was this not our dispute with the Sunnis? Nobody differed over whether or not we should have a caliphate. They differed over the qualifications of that caliph. We Shi'ahs have always emphasized the point that leaders must be infallible for them to be above scrutiny (although, it was always the Infallible leaders that were most welcome to criticism). Now, we find ourselves, essentially, in favor of the Sunni conception of the caliphate (with the relatively minor requirement that he must be knowledgeable in matters of fiqh, like that really makes a difference to how he rules). If we continue to go down this path, I fear that head of the "Islamic" state will eventually become a "Divinely inspired" seat, very much akin to how the Pope is seen in Catholicism. We will elevate fallibles to the level of infallibility (even if we don't outright acknowledge it).

Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways), than to have political ideology mixed in with the pristine faith, allowing fallibles to dictate our beliefs and actions and closing the doors to interpretation. Not only that, but most of the time the policies of the government will have to do with what's in the best interest of the people of that specific nation. The resources will go towards favoring those individuals over others. Ex. The Islamic Republic of Iran definitely favors those people who are "Iranian", nobody can just move over to Iran and reap the benefits of the Islamic government as they should for being Muslim. Instead, the government favors non-Muslim Iranians over non-Iranian Muslims. Is this what the Prophet [sawa] taught? I'm not sure how he would have carried this forth, but I can be sure he would not care much for the nationality of a particular Muslim.

Anyways, that's all for the moment. And even if you happen to agree with the political theory of Walayat al-Faqih, there have been major changes in terms of the power and authority of the Wali al-Faqih than was originally given to him and was envisioned by Sayyid Khomeini. You may want to read this paper here: https://www.dropbox....ic Republic.pdf

   You stated: "Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways)"    I can see where you are coming from here. Quick question. What if the laws and policies are set in place for an Islamic country, and people are not following it to the point where it's directly affecting those people who actually are following it? Should an Islamic government be set in place to protect the people and to keep some sort of Islamic order. This is just for instance, but what if there were certain "bad" people causing so much disarray in an Islamic state, to the point where actual Muslim's were being directly affected or hurt by those actions? Think of the reflection and poor influence it has on new generation's like the children.  Should we just let people act however they want on account of freewill?  I think you are right, as Muslim's we should have freewill to act in accordance with laws and policies that are placed before us, but what about the bad people who ruin it for everyone trying to live a life serving Allah (swt)? What is the solution with those Mongers?

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Yesterday, 03:59 PM.

[Ibn al-Hassan]

AhlulBayt_313, on 22 May 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

   You stated: "Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways)"    I can see where you are coming from here. Quick question. What if the laws and policies are set in place for an Islamic country, and people are not following it to the point where it's directly affecting those people who actually are following it? Should an Islamic government be set in place to protect the people and to keep some sort of Islamic order. This is just for instance, but what if there were certain "bad" people causing so much disarray in an Islamic state, to the point where actual Muslim's were being directly affected or hurt by those actions? Think of the reflection and poor influence it has on new generation's like the children.  Should we just let people act however they want on account of freewill?  I think you are right, as Muslim's we should have freewill to act in accordance with laws and policies that are placed before us, but what about the bad people who ruin it for everyone trying to live a life serving Allah (swt)? What is the solution with those Mongers?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bad" people hurting Muslims. Do you mean that they are physically stopping them from performing religious obligations and rituals? Any government would have to allow for some reasonable amount of religious freedom, not only in holding certain beliefs, but also in carrying out their own rituals and rites. So, this wouldn't only apply to an Islamic government.

[Ali-Reza]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 23 May 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bad" people hurting Muslims. Do you mean that they are physically stopping them from performing religious obligations and rituals? Any government would have to allow for some reasonable amount of religious freedom, not only in holding certain beliefs, but also in carrying out their own rituals and rites. So, this wouldn't only apply to an Islamic government.

ya you probably can practice Islam more freely in none Muslim countries because of freedom of religion than in so called Muslim states. In Pakistan you can get bombed, in Saudi Arabia all sort of things can happen to you, and even in Iran, you need to close your mosque on Fridays in Friday sermons or you get in serious trouble.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Both of you oppose it, I'm still waiting for someone to reply who agrees with it.  Is there no one who agrees with it???? There has to be at least one person on SC who agrees with it and can state why they do.

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Today, 03:40 AM.

[repenter]

AhlulBayt_313, on 23 May 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Both of you oppose it, I'm still waiting for someone to reply who agrees with it.  Is there no one who agrees with it???? There has to be at least one person on SC who agrees with it and can state why they do.

After so many years on shiachat, we have learned better.....its been argued to death and then some.

Basically it all comes down to the Mutlagh part. Some people say only masoom can do this, some people say ulama can do this as well. Few Ulama disagree with Wilayat Faghi, most disagreement is on the mutlagh part.

[AhlulBayt_313]

repenter, on 23 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

After so many years on shiachat, we have learned better.....its been argued to death and then some.

Basically it all comes down to the Mutlagh part. Some people say only masoom can do this, some people say ulama can do this as well. Few Ulama disagree with Wilayat Faghi, most disagreement is on the mutlagh part.

Oh, good to know. Well, if that's the case, let me look in an older thread to see what the "Heavyweight's" had to say in the matter.  I want to see an agreement (not just disagreements)

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Today, 04:05 AM.

[Ali-Reza]

repenter, on 23 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

After so many years on shiachat, we have learned better.....its been argued to death and then some.

Basically it all comes down to the Mutlagh part. Some people say only masoom can do this, some people say ulama can do this as well. Few Ulama disagree with Wilayat Faghi, most disagreement is on the mutlagh part.

Repenter pointed this out very well. I think is the Mutlagh, the absolute part, that people have problems with. I personally prefer a religious leader over a non religious one because I know he will have taqwa (inshallah) but then again through history of Islam many have claimed just that. So for that reason "mutlagh" is only of prophets and Imams IMHO.

[awaiting_for_the.12th]

WF > any form of government except obviously the one Imam will setup, which according to my understanding will be an extension and addition/deletions to the current government. It has few drawbacks (which is expected from any government setup by non-masoom). But it is the closest to how an Islamic system should be.
Throughout time, Shias have tried to establish a government (after Prophet's wafat) but due to various reasons it kept getting postponed or the priorities changed for that era. Shias were imprisoned, executed, exiled, kept in minority or in hostile conditions so every era had its own challenges but the idea of a just government was always in the back of head.

First one was setup by Imam Ali , which lasted 5 years and even in that most was spent in Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan
Second one was setup by Mukhtar in Kufa
I cant recall if there were any other significant ones after that which were based on Ahlulbayt teachings
Then we have the Islamic revolution which has AlhumdAllah lasted 34 years. This is the golden age for Shias.