Jump to content
Sindbad05

Is Ammar Nakhswani against Wilayat e Faqih

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Its ultimately your decision, but you seem to be saying things he never said, he said Imam Khomeini's vision of absolute authority is not something that's agreed upon by all, he never said don't listen to an aalim.

Well, what kind of absolute authority do you mean Ayotullah Khomeini believes in ?

I am amazed as to how people take absolute authority, what Ayotullah has said that has become difficult for many people including Ammar Nakshwani to accept ?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Well, what kind of absolute authority do you mean Ayotullah Khomeini believes in ?

Absolute authority would imply a cleric ruling over the government in addition to ruling over non-litigious affairs. Consider Ayatollah Sistani's position in Iraq, and Ayatollah Khamenei's in Iran, Sistani is not a political leader, nonetheless he is a religious leader and a powerful authority for Iraqi Shias. Ayatollah Khamenei is the head of the political system in Iran. The reason many disagree with absolute authority is some maraja believe only a ma'asum should have this kind of power, that is Imam Mahdi when he reappears. All other leaders are fallible I know, so you may ask why can't Ayatollah Khamenei be the leader? Well, if we are talking purely based on how ulema view this issue, many would disagree about the extent of authority that a maraja has in politics, so yes it is not usul-e-deen. But  if you were to argue well perhaps its better for the ummah, that's people's opinion, and of course there are people who believe in Imam Khomeini's vision, but are critical of certain practices within IRI, are all of them enemies? Of course not. We can't have a perfect government in this period of occultation, and we shouldn't expect one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jebreil said:

The claim is vague because you do not show a clear route running from Wilayat ul-Faqih to those results and ideals

Hmm, are you implying without WF as it applies in Iran is not necessarily the reason we have people fighting against Takfiri and Zionist aggression?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Absolute authority would imply a cleric ruling over the government in addition to ruling over non-litigious affairs. Consider Ayatollah Sistani's position in Iraq, and Ayatollah Khamenei's in Iran, Sistani is not a political leader, nonetheless he is a religious leader and a powerful authority for Iraqi Shias. Ayatollah Khamenei is the head of the political system in Iran. The reason many disagree with absolute authority is some maraja believe only a ma'asum should have this kind of power, that is Imam Mahdi when he reappears. All other leaders are fallible I know, so you may ask why can't Ayatollah Khamenei be the leader? Well, if we are talking purely based on how ulema view this issue, many would disagree about the extent of authority that a maraja has in politics, so yes it is not usul-e-deen. But  if you were to argue well perhaps its better for the ummah, that's people's opinion, and of course there are people who believe in Imam Khomeini's vision, but are critical of certain practices within IRI, are all of them enemies? Of course not. We can't have a perfect government in this period of occultation, and we shouldn't expect one.

 

If you listen to what Ayotullah Khamanei has said, you might understand things differently.

1. He said the Absolute Guardianship is related to Fiqh "If a Faqih is just and does not go against the Fiqh rulings, then he is granted authority by the Fiqh to regulate affairs of the state as per Islamic rulings", so in reality, this is superiority of Fiqh and not Faqih. He further said: "If a Faqih is not abiding by the Islamic rulings, he should be deposed from his post". So, does this seem that there is no any consideration for the rule of Islam, Ahlebait and Imam e Zamana a.s. Fiqh is in reality domain of Allah and Ahlebait a.s where in Jurist only has the right to do ijtehad in new matters and that must again be according to Islam.

2. The difference of Iraq is that it is not totally a "Shia dominant" region. So, there is such office accorded to Marajas. However, separate from government, they perform same job as Ayotullah Khamanei or other Marajas are doing their. 

What I have understood from most of the opponents of Wilayah-e-Faqih is that Faqih should not involve in political activities while Islam was a system that systematized political thought incumbent leadership, political administration and political decisions were taken in the time of Prophet PBUHHP as well. I do not know why anti-WF do not see in Past. 

Fiqh has absolute authority over all the departments because it lays moral principles and ethical foundations to see if the departments are not violating honesty and trust of the people. So, there is job of Ulemas in Politics and it is to oversee if everything such as economists, army, civil and military bureaucracy is working  in accordance to Islam. 

I do not see opposition of Faqh in Islam and Wilayah Faqih is element of this Fiqh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Absolute authority would imply a cleric ruling over the government in addition to ruling over non-litigious affairs. Consider Ayatollah Sistani's position in Iraq, and Ayatollah Khamenei's in Iran, Sistani is not a political leader, nonetheless he is a religious leader and a powerful authority for Iraqi Shias. Ayatollah Khamenei is the head of the political system in Iran. The reason many disagree with absolute authority is some maraja believe only a ma'asum should have this kind of power, that is Imam Mahdi when he reappears. All other leaders are fallible I know, so you may ask why can't Ayatollah Khamenei be the leader? Well, if we are talking purely based on how ulema view this issue, many would disagree about the extent of authority that a maraja has in politics, so yes it is not usul-e-deen. But  if you were to argue well perhaps its better for the ummah, that's people's opinion, and of course there are people who believe in Imam Khomeini's vision, but are critical of certain practices within IRI, are all of them enemies? Of course not. We can't have a perfect government in this period of occultation, and we shouldn't expect one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2017 at 0:48 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

The issue here is some would say that under an infallible Imam, we know that this person is a perfect human being and therefore, we have no qualms about following him. With WF, the issue is who is this Faqih? Do we have a consensus on this issue? No, we don't. As I said earlier differing opinions doesn't necessarily mean someone is trying to divide the Shia community. 

Do we know individuals based on haq and batil or the other way around? If someone says that he can’t understand if what Wali Faqih generally does is based on Islam or not, he is actually saying that he can’t understand Islam. Especially, if he is a marja and mujtahid;,why does such a person claim that he is a marja, while he can’t distinguish between haq and batil and what is right or wrong?

Moreover, how would these individuals understand our Imams were/are right during their eras?

Here is what happens when we base haq and batil on individuals:

Quote

Shahid Mutahari, Polarization Around the Character of Ali ibn Abi Talib,  pages 64 and 65.

One of ‘Ali’s companions was badly seized by doubt during the battle of Jamal. He looked round about himself, and saw on one side ‘Ali and great figures of Islam who were gathered round him striking away with their swords; and on the other side he saw the wife of the Prophet, ‘A’ishah, about whom the Qur’an said: And his wives are as their mothers. Gathered round ‘A’ishah he saw Talhah, one of the forerunners in Islam, a man with a good past record, an expert fighter in the field of battle for Islam, a man who had done valuable services for Islam; and he saw az-Zubayr, too, a man with an even better past record than Talhah, who had even been among those who had gathered in ‘Ali’s house on the day of Saqifah."

This poor man was in a state of great bewilderment. What was going on! Are ‘Ali, Talhah and az-Zubayr not among the forerunners of Islam, the most devoted men, the strongest forts of Islam? Now they are fighting face to face. Who is the nearer to the truth? What must be done in this conflict? But take care: this man must not be blamed too much in his confusion. Perhaps if we found ourselves in the same situation as he had found himself, the personalities of Talhah and az-Zubayr would also dazzle our eyes.

Now that we see ‘Ali and ‘Ammar, Uways al-Qarani and others face to face with ‘A’ishah and az-Zubayr and Talhah, we do not feel any hesitation, for we were the second group as people with the look of criminals, that is, the effects of evil and treachery are evident on their faces; and when we look at the faces and their characters we guess that they are people of the Fire. But if we had lived in those times, and had known their pasts from close-up, perhaps we would not have been immune from doubt.

Today, when we know that the first group were for truth and the second group for falsehood, it is because we have come to know ‘Ali and ‘Ammar, on the one hand, and az-Zubayr, Talhah and ‘A’ishah, on the other, as a result of history’s passing and the clarification of the facts, and in this context we have been able to judge correctly. Or, at any rate, if we are not researchers and students of history, we have been inculcated with the idea that things were like this, right from our infancy. But in those days, neither of these factors existed.

Anyway, this man was able to come up to Amir al-Mu’minin and say: "Is it possible that Talhah and azZubayr and ‘A’ishah are gathered together for falsehood? How can personalities like these great companions of the Messenger of God err, and follow the way of falsehood? Is such a thing possible? "

In his reply, ‘Ali said something about which Taha Husayn, the Egyptian scholar and writer has said that no more forceful or greater thing has been said. He wrote that after the revelation had ceased and the call from heaven had come to an end, words with such greatness as these were not heard.

Ali said: "It is you who have been cheated; truth has become an error for you. Truth and falsehood are not to be known by the measure of the power and personality of individuals. It is not right that you should first measure up the personalities, and then weigh truth and falsehood according to these weights: this is true because it accords with this, and that is false because it does not accord with this. No, individuals must not be made the criteria for truth and falsehood. It is truth and falsehood which should be the standards for individuals and their personalities."

This means that one should be a knower of truth and falsehood, not a knower of individuals and personalities; one should measure individuals, whether they be great personalities or small, according to truth - if they accord with it, then accept their personalities, if not, then leave them. Then there is no question as to whether Talhah, az-Zubayr and ‘A’ishah are with falsehood or not.

Here ‘Ali establishes truth itself as the criterion of truth, and the spirit of Shi’ite Islam is none other than this. In fact, the Shi ‘ah sect is born from a special perspicacity and a granting of importance to principles, not from individuals and persons. It is natural that the Shi’ah were the first believers and idolbreakers. 

https://www.al-islam.org/polarization-around-character-ali-ibn-abi-talib-murtadha-mutahhari

So what matters is criteria. If we don't know the criteria to distinguish between right and wrong during the ghaybah era, what is the guarantee here to find the right way during the apparent presence of Imams?

I will talk about this more in my next post here, Insha'Allah.

On 9/5/2017 at 0:48 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

This is arrogance, so yes I agree, but other people have their reasons for not believing it is, and to each their own, Allah knows best.

What I am trying to say is that their reason(s) can't be anything other than one/two/all of these three things: 1. Lack of taqwa, 2. Miscalculation (being unable to analyze matters), 3. Misinformation (lack of required knowledge or being cheated by wrong data). These are what make it dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points about Welayat Faqih, we need to pay attention to:

Welayat Faqih doesn’t need to be proved, if there is just a little familiarity with Islam:


In case we are familiar with just basic principles of Islam, we don’t need even start thinking whether or not Welayat Faqih is necessary and useful. This is because welayat Faqih is based on basic principles of Islam and aql.


As Imam Khomeini says:

Quote

The governance of the faqih is a subject that in itself elicits immediate assent and has little need of demonstration, for anyone who has some general awareness of the beliefs and ordinances of Islam will unhesitatingly give his assent to the principle of the governance of the faqih as soon as he encounters it; he will recognize it as necessary and self-evident. If little attention is paid to this principle today, so that it has come to require demonstration, it is because of the social circumstances prevailing among the Muslims in general, and the teaching institution in particular.


http://statics.ml.imam-khomeini.ir/en/File/NewsAttachment/2014/1358-IslamicGovernment.pdf


These are the principles:


- Every society needs establishment/order/government.


- Ruling of government should be based on Islamic laws (Welayat Faqih).


-Ruler of government should be overall the best person possible and available (Wali Faqih).


If someone doesn’t believe in Welayat Faqih, he actually doesn’t believe in one or two or three of the principles above. It’s more than that. If someone doesn’t believe in principle 2 or 3, he is theorizing the Welayat of Taqout, since any form of government not directed to Allah, Islam, and Islamic rulings and fiqh is government of Taqout. As Imam Khomeini explains:
 

Quote

If there is no jurist and no Wilayat-e faqih, then it will be a Taghuti government. There is either God or taghut. If it is not God’s command and if Wilayat-e faqih does not appoint the president, then he will be unlawful, obeying him will be obeying taghut, and entering his realm will be entering taghut’s. Taghut will be removed when there is one who is appointed by God’s command. Do not be afraid of those who do not understand the meaning of Islam, jurist and Wilayat-e faqih. They think it is a catastrophe for the society! They consider Islam as a catastrophe but not Wilayat-e faqih, which is a continuity of Islam.


http://staticsml.imam-khomeini.ir/en/File/NewsAttachment/2014/1704-Sahifeh-ye Imam-Vol 10.pdf  (page: 156)  


 -Restricting discussion on Welayat Faqih to merely fiqh is wrong:


By merely fiqhi matters I mean things we don’t know their ruling unless we find the ruling in fiqhi books; ruling that can’t be known based on other principles.


Example:


Can we understand the ruling of “doubt between ra’ka’at in prayers” or “doubt that whether we performed one or two sajdeh”or “how to perform wozou” through other principles of Islam? No. We need to look at the Fiqhi books or ask someone who has read these books to understand our duty. These are some examples of merely fiqhi issue.


Now, what about ruling about, say, mocking or harassing someone in the world of internet? Can we understand the ruling without reading fiqhi books, if we know the ruling, but not in the world of internet? Clearly yes. We don’t need even to ask anyone such a funny question. The ruling is easily known based on other principles of Islam (harassing is haram, no matter what and regardless of any time and place), although there is nothing about internet in ahadith.


But, my brothers and sisters, do you believe some are making such mistake? They look at fiqhi books and if they are not so smart or have a sick heart they would say “we have no such thing as Welayat Faqih in Islam, in Quran and Ahadith”. Why? Because they can't or don't want to see words "Welayat Faqih and Wali Faqih" in our books. And even if they are smarter, they may make a slighter mistake.


These are while the principles Welayat Faqih is based on are clear (as I listed them above). We don’t need even any hadith in which the phrase “Welayat Faqih” is mentioned, although there are ahadith about this matter.


-That's true Wealayat faqih is the same as Welayat of Rasullallah and Aemah, but it doesn’t mean Welayat of Rasullallah and Aemeh is the same as Welayat Faqih:


While Wali faqih has the same welayat Ahlulbayt have in political and social matters, Ahlulbay’s welayat include other aspects that Welayat Faqih lacks. These are some examples:


- Ahlulbayt have spiritual Welayat in which they can affect our nofous (souls). Wali Faqih doesn’t have such a welayat at such a level.


-Welayat Masoum (infallible) is permanent, while Welayat of a Faqih goes on as long as Wali Faqih possesses required characteristics. Despite what some say that Wali Faqih’s Welayat is madam ul-omr (as long as he is alive), it’s accurate to say that Wali Faqih’s welayat is madam ul-sharayet (as long as he possesses required conditions).


Welayat Masoum can’t be questioned, while Faqih is monitored and he should govern according to appearances. For example, an infallible Imam can order someone to divorce his wife or order us to go into an alight oven and we are not allowed to question her order and disagree, while Wali Faqih doesn’t have such authority.

-Another difference between Wali faqih and Wali Masum is that Faqih may make mistake (mistake and not sin. committing sin, even a minor one will disqualify him for being a Wali Faqih), while Masum doesn’t make any mistake. Now, as it was mentioned, one may ask that “how can we follow someone who may have wrong decisions?"


Answer: Everything we do and everything we don’t is based on a decision. Actually even when we don’t do anything we are doing something: not doing anything is doing something. Making war, making peace, being indifferent, being silent etc. all are different forms of doing something and based on a decision. Now, if we don’t follow an order made by Wali Faqih for the reason he isn’t zatan(intrinsically) Masum, us not following his order is also an action based on a decision made by a non-Masum. So, one way or another we are following a fallible and acting according to fallible decision. As well as other necessities and usefulness within Welayat Faqih such as unity, Welayat Faqih is there to assure such a condition wherein probability of making mistake is less than other conditions. That’s because Wali Faqih is and should be overall the best person available for this matter to say the last word.

Edited by kamyar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kamyar said:

That’s because Wali Faqih is and should be overall the best person available for this matter to say the last word.

This is precisely the problem though, who decides the best person? How do we decide? Are there practical systems in place to remove the Faqih from power if he has committed transgressions or mistakes? Is there a reliable checks and balances system that ensures control of corruption and power? How are these systems implemented, who decides them? I am not attacking imam Khomeini or Ayatollah Khamenei personally btw, I'm just merely pointing out why people may disagree with imam Khomeini's theory. We have Islamic laws and they are clearly laid out, but circumstances may arise where applying those laws will depend heavily on context and making judgements, so how do we decide who makes this judgement? What if we have differing opinions across maraja, why does one Faqih have the authority over another? In the case of a Masum, there is no dispute, he is infallible, and there can be no doubting his level of knowledge relative to everyone else, nor his judgement. As for how will people accept a Masum if they don't accept a Faqih, well I believe those that reject imam Mahdi will do so out of arrogance and being stubborn, if there is a figure that can produce miracles and brings global peace and a stop to wars and destruction, and you still don't follow him, you're arrogant. I believe there is even a Hadith by imam Sadiq that states the people who worship the sun and the moon will enter his service while those who consider themselves to be with him will leave his command. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kamyar said:

There is either God or taghut. If it is not God’s command and if Wilayat-e faqih does not appoint the president

I would like to discuss this point. I am believer in the authority of Fiqh and believe that Every ruler whether in Iran or in other country like Pakistan should always act according to the Islam and for that require the guidance of Scholars in that field whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, I believe in the concept of Wilayatul Faqih whether directly or indirectly. 

I am also a strong supporter of Ayotullah Khomeini, May Allah AWJ bless him forever. Ameen. But there is a question which I want to ask about the above-mentioned problem. 

The question is that whether Wilayatul Faqih should have the power to choose the president or the nation ? Because if we see the theory of Wilayatul Faqih, the Assembly of experts have the power to choose Supreme leader. Now, since we know that Supreme Leader is fallible so how could one person have power to choose President, it is fine if Wialaytul Faqih says that in my sight, this person is better because this is a suggestion. It is also correct that he should have the power to depose the president, if he willfully goes against the Islamic injunctions in his duties. But, I am unable to understand that on what reasoning did Agha Khomeini says that Wilayatul Faqih should choose the president rather than a national conciliatory body ?

Could you help me to understand this concept ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

This is precisely the problem though, who decides the best person? How do we decide? Are there practical systems in place to remove the Faqih from power if he has committed transgressions or mistakes? Is there a reliable checks and balances system that ensures control of corruption and power? How are these systems implemented, who decides them? I am not attacking imam Khomeini or Ayatollah Khamenei personally btw, I'm just merely pointing out why people may disagree with imam Khomeini's theory. We have Islamic laws and they are clearly laid out, but circumstances may arise where applying those laws will depend heavily on context and making judgements, so how do we decide who makes this judgement? What if we have differing opinions across maraja, why does one Faqih have the authority over another? In the case of a Masum, there is no dispute, he is infallible, and there can be no doubting his level of knowledge relative to everyone else, nor his judgement. As for how will people accept a Masum if they don't accept a Faqih, well I believe those that reject imam Mahdi will do so out of arrogance and being stubborn, if there is a figure that can produce miracles and brings global peace and a stop to wars and destruction, and you still don't follow him, you're arrogant. I believe there is even a Hadith by imam Sadiq that states the people who worship the sun and the moon will enter his service while those who consider themselves to be with him will leave his command. 

The Faqih does not takes decisions on his own, he has entire Assembly of experts who checks his decisions and sanctions or withholds it. There is a whole system available to check his performance and decisions taken by him bro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kamyar said:

If there is no jurist and no Wilayat-e faqih, then it will be a Taghuti government. There is either God or taghut. If it is not God’s command and if Wilayat-e faqih does not appoint the president, then he will be unlawful, obeying him will be obeying taghut, and entering his realm will be entering taghut’s. Taghut will be removed when there is one who is appointed by God’s command. Do not be afraid of those who do not understand the meaning of Islam, jurist and Wilayat-e faqih. They think it is a catastrophe for the society! They consider Islam as a catastrophe but not Wilayat-e faqih, which is a continuity of Islam.

I believe that it means that "Wilayatul Faqih" should make preparations for the president to be elected and do not be a sole ruler because the responsibilities of "Wilayatul Faqih" is to ensure that system should be according to Islam and his duties does not extend beyond that. 

Am I right in this ? I believe this makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 4:31 PM, kirtc said:

no, I meant he takes alot of money for his lectures... 25$ per person for a religious lecture? 

What better way to make a living than by discussing Islam and telling people the merits of the AhlulBayt. I think all scholars can and should charge as much as they like. It's the purest money anyone can make.

It's an investment in our future. SAN is not a marja. But until we have articulate marajae who can communicate with the youth of the West, he is one of the better ones we have. I don't see a lot of marajae lobbying to the US government about Shia interests across the world, but he was.

As a nation, we are our own worst enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear @Mohamed1993,

I know. You are presenting reasons and questions regarding the Welayat Faqih as to why some may disagree with it. I too don't say such individuals will surely disobey Ahlulbayt in the time of their apparent appearance. But, I don't see any guarantee they would obey. Because in the time of Wali Faqih (which as some say: Welayat/wali Faqih era is an exercise duration for Welayat/Wali Masum era) they refuse to help him and follow him in certain required circumstances. Long story short, when I am witnessing an era wherein a Wali Faqih has raised the flag of Islam and is defending it against a world of kufr and estekbar, but some don't want to help him, then what can assure me these individuals will help Imams. If this flag bearer is in the right front, then I am right in my uncertainty and if he isn't, it should be proved to me to change my opinion about these individuals.

You may say, these people are not following due to their ijtihad and understanding, and not out of arrogance and stubbornness. Well, it might be so. But, their wrong ijtihad in such a critical political matter may remain even during the time of Imams too.

Anyways, to address these questions; firstly the questions are not within the realm of Welayat Faqih's definition. These questions, no matter what their answers are, have to do with the method and procedure of Welayat Faqih, but they don't necessarily disprove legitimacy and or necessity (wojoub) of it.

Moreover, similar questions can be asked about our marja taqlid. “How do we decide our marja is the best person available to be followed in fiqhi issues? We have different marjas and different opinions on some matters, how do we find out one marja’s opinion is the best one and the one we should follow? What if he was wrong? Then how do we detect it? In the case of a Masum, there is no dispute, he is infallible, and there can be no doubting his level of knowledge in comparison with everyone else.

So, what if some one says: "I just follow our Masum Imams, and not fallible individuals whom I am not sure whether or not they are right or wrong! What would our answer be to these questions and remarks?

The similar answer to the questions above about “how can we decide who the best marja is?” can be presented to the similar questions about “Wali Faqih”, except for the fact that marja is chosen by one individual, but Wali Faqih is chosen by a society. However, both are chosen based on criteria, which is Islam.

Now, the questions “How does a society choose a Wali Faqih?” and “How can this Wali Faqih be observed?” can have different answers which are related to the methods and procedures of implementing Welayat Faqih. These questions, regardless of their answers can’t disprove the necessity of Welayat Faqih. 

On 9/7/2017 at 12:00 PM, Mohamed1993 said:

What if we have differing opinions across maraja, why does one Faqih have the authority over another?

If that’s merely a personal fiqhi issue, everyone follows his own marja. But if that’s a certain social matter wherein one last word needed, here we follow one of these mujtahids whom the society has chosen (I will talk about it more in my next posts here, Insha'Allah). In fact, these tazahum's (differences) in certain social matters will prove the necessity of having someone to have the last word. I use the issue of tatbir as an example:

In the case of tatbir, like all other matters which are or will become a social matter, we have some different options:

-Letting the tatbir be free in the society with no specific restriction.

-Letting the tatbir be free in the society with some specific restrictions.

-Announcing the tatbir illegal. No one is allowed to perform tatbir.

…and or some other options.

At the end of the day, one, and just one, of the options available can and should be implemented. Let’s assume different marjas have different options on this matter. What can we do now? My answer is that we follow the opinion of the one we have chosen for these social matters when there is a need of a last word. One may say his opinion may be wrong. I don’t disagree. But the opinions of others too may be wrong. But we only can implement one of these opinions.

It also doesn't mean others should change their opinion and unify it with the opinion of Wali Faqih.

Insha'Allah, I will discuss it more as well as brother @Sindbad05 posts at another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kamyar said:

I know. You are presenting reasons and questions regarding the Welayat Faqih as to why some may disagree with it. I too don't say such individuals will surely disobey Ahlulbayt in the time of their apparent appearance. But, I don't see any guarantee they would obey. Because in the time of Wali Faqih (which as some say: Welayat/wali Faqih era is an exercise duration for Welayat/Wali Masum era) they refuse to help him and follow him in certain required circumstances. Long story short, when I am witnessing an era wherein a Wali Faqih has raised the flag of Islam and is defending it against a world of kufr and estekbar, but some don't want to help him, then what can assure me these individuals will help Imams. If this flag bearer is in the right front, then I am right in my uncertainty and if he isn't, it should be proved to me to change my opinion about these individuals.

 

I don't see any guarantee all WF supporters would side with Imam Mahdi either brother, that's not something anyone knows, according to a hadith, those who worship the sun and the moon will join Imam's army while those that think they will be with him will abandon him, those who are disbelievers right now are undoubtedly not Shia and hence also not pro-WF obviously, so we cannot make statements like this conclusively. 

3 hours ago, kamyar said:

But, their wrong ijtihad in such a critical political matter may remain even during the time of Imams too.

Except there is no dispute in the authority of the Imam is there? There is disputes over the extent of authority of the Faqih. 

4 hours ago, kamyar said:

Now, the questions “How does a society choose a Wali Faqih?” and “How can this Wali Faqih be observed?” can have different answers which are related to the methods and procedures of implementing Welayat Faqih. These questions, regardless of their answers can’t disprove the necessity of Welayat Faqih. 

But they can raise questions over how realistic it is for the entire ummah to follow a Faqih in the absence of an Imam. The problem some have with WF (absolute authority I mean) is that it is run by fallibles, so it cannot be perfect and some of these imperfections may cause people to not view it in the way they would view guardianship under Imam Mahdi. Some may say well we need a Faqih in the absence of an Imam for the protection of the ummah and are willing to set aside the imperfections that come with that system, some refuse to do so. 

4 hours ago, kamyar said:

But we only can implement one of these opinions.

 

Well you could technically have a council rather than a single leader, of course this then creates challenges that its more difficult to implement things, people disagree, this is true, its less efficient, but a group of leaders means there is more control of power, with one Faqih power is too heavily concentrated, so there is a trade-off. You're right ultimately one opinion is implemented, but perhaps there is room for more dialogue and more understanding when such decisions are reached, and more things are taken into consideration that may not otherwise have been looked into. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay...

On 9/13/2017 at 5:19 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

I don't see any guarantee all WF supporters would side with Imam Mahdi either brother, that's not something anyone knows, according to a hadith, those who worship the sun and the moon will join Imam's army while those that think they will be with him will abandon him, those who are disbelievers right now are undoubtedly not Shia and hence also not pro-WF obviously, so we cannot make statements like this conclusively. 

Legitimacy or illegitimacy of following or not following has to do with haq and batil, not at the first place with personalities. Even following Imams of our time is based on the fact that they are haq. Even following Imam Mahdi is based on “haq and batil criteria”, otherwise everyone can claim that he is imam mahdi.

“Not following someone, merely because he is not infallible” is a wrong attitude. For not following him, him not being haq should be proved. Now, if one can prove that the one at the top of a front, group, society is not in the haq direction, then he will not follow him. And, if one refuses to follow, because he says that he isn’t able to detect if this Leader is right or wrong, he actually isn’t able to detect what right and wrong is. This is the problem with some individuals I am talking about.

But, those who have found out the right path and jointed it and are helping its Leader, consequently they will join Imam Mahdi’s front and help him. Since, they are now in the right place and so is Imam Mahdi, unless they change. But as for the others, those who are not in the right direction, those who are not able to detect what is right and wrong and has postponed using Islamic criteria and aql, those who are not Muslim, those who are worshiping sun and moon, etc., they will not follow Imam Mahdi, unless they change. This is the difference between these two groups living during the gheybah.

On 9/13/2017 at 5:19 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Except there is no dispute in the authority of the Imam is there? There is disputes over the extent of authority of the Faqih. 

Brother, I posted all those contents so that we discontinue bring up this Masum or non-Masum guardianship issue. Do we read each other's posts carefully. Off course, Masum has preference over all and in all matters, but how can it have anything to do with extent of Islamic rulings. As Imam Khomeini says:

Quote

The idea that the governmental power of the Most Noble Messenger (s) were greater than those of the Commander of the Faithful (a), or that those of the Commander of the Faithful (a) were greater than those of the faqih, is false and erroneous. Naturally, the virtues of the Most Noble Messenger (s) were greater than those of the rest of mankind, and after him, the Commander of the Faithful was the most virtuous person in the world. But superiority with respect to spiritual virtues does not confer increased governmental powers.

God has conferred upon government in the present age the same powers and authority that were held by the Most Noble Messenger and the Imams (a), with respect to equipping and mobilizing armies, appointing governors and officials, and levying taxes and expending them for the welfare of the Muslims. Now, however, it is no longer a question of a particular person; government devolves instead upon one who possesses the qualities of knowledge and justice. When we say that after the Occultation, the just faqih has the same authority that the Most Noble Messenger and the Imams (a) had, do not imagine that the status of the faqih is identical to that of the Imams and the Prophet (a). For here we are not speaking of status, but rather of function. By ―authority‖ we mean government, the administration of the country, and the implementation of the sacred laws of the shariah. These constitute a serious, difficult duty but do not earn anyone extraordinary status or raise him above the level of common humanity. In other words, authority here has the meaning of government, administration, and execution of law; contrary to what many people believe, it is not a privilege, but a grave responsibility.

The governance of the faqih is a rational and extrinsic* matter; it exists only as a type of appointment, like the appointment of a guardian for a minor. With respect to duty and position, there is indeed no difference between the guardian of a nation and the guardian of a minor. It is as if the Imam were to appoint someone to the guardianship of a minor, to the governorship of a province, or to some other post. In cases like these, it is not reasonable that there would be a difference between the Prophet and the Imams (a), on the one hand, and the just faqih, on the other.

For example, one of the concerns that the faqih must attend to is the application of the penal provisions of Islam. Can there be any distinction in this respect between the Most Noble Messenger (s), the Imams, and the faqih? Will the faqih inflict fewer lashes because his rank is lower? Now, the penalty for the fornicator is one hundred lashes. If the Prophet (s) applies the penalty, is he to inflict one hundred fifty lashes, the Commander of the Faithful (a) one hundred, and, the faqih fifty? The ruler supervises the executive power and has the duty of implementing God‘s laws; it makes no difference if he is the Most Noble Messenger (s), the Commander of the Faithful (a) or the representative or judge he appointed to Basrah or Kufah, or a faqih in the present age.

Another one of the concerns of the Most Noble Messenger (s) and the Commander of the Faithful (a) was the levying of taxes— khums, zakat, jizyah and kharaj on taxable lands.12 Now when the Prophet (s) levied zakat, how much did he levy? One-tenth in one place and one-twentieth elsewhere? And how did the Commander of the Faithful (a) proceed when he became the ruler? And what now, if one of us becomes the foremost faqih of the age and is able to enforce his authority? In these matters, can there be any difference in the authority of the Most Noble Messenger (s), that of Ali (a), and that of the faqih? God Almighty appointed the Prophet (s) in authority over all the Muslims; as long as he was alive, his authority extended over even Ali (a).

Afterwards, the Imam (a) had authority over all the Muslims, even his own successor as Imam (a); his commands relating to government were valid for everyone, and he could appoint and dismiss judges and governors. The authority that the Prophet and the Imam (a) had in establishing a government, executing laws, and administering affairs, exists also for the faqih. But the fuqaha do not have absolute authority in the sense of having authority over all other fuqaha of their own time, being able to appoint or dismiss them. There is no hierarchy ranking one faqih higher than another or endowing one with more authority than another.

Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist, pages 45 and 46

So, by limiting authority of a Wali Faqih, we are limiting implementing Islamic rulings. Yes, for example, it can be discussed whether Khums should be paid to a Wali Faqih or paying it to every qualified marja is permissible. Here, firstly, in fact the discussion isn’t about extent of authority of a Wali faqih, but the discussion is about whether the issue of Khums is a matter related to the affairs of government, hence within the territory of a Wali Faqih authority, or it’s merely a personal fiqhi issue where everyone follows their own marja. In other words, actually the discussion is about masadiq (cases and instances) and not mafahim (concepts). Secondly, we are not going to refuse to give authority of Masum to a non-Masum and refuse to implement Islamic rulings, because at the end of the day we will do our duty and pay the Khums. So do these people even know what they are saying when they say we can’t give the authority of a Masum to a non-Masum? Imam Khomeini was right when he said that even many ulema don’t know what Islam is. May Allah forgive these Akhonds. Allah knows how much they have caused problem for Islam and Muslims, how much they have limited Islam and implementing its rulings throughout the history, and how much they have given the authority over Muslims to Shahs, Molouk , president and other tawaqit. Aren't those who refused to implement Islamic rulings in the society and give the authority to a qualified person responsible for paving the ground for a person like Saddam taking the power?

Alhamdulilah, Imam Khomeini wasn’t like them and Alhamdulilah for him giving us this Revolution and letting us get rid of these self-appointed Shahs, Alhamdulilah for him not being like these Pope-like Akhond’s:

“I am not one of those mullahs who merely sit with rosary beads in hand. I am not the Pope to perform certain ceremonies on Sundays only, spending the rest of my time imagining that I am a sultan and not concerning myself with any other affairs. This is where the key to Islamic independence lies. This country must be rescued from these difficulties.”

On 9/13/2017 at 5:19 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

But they can raise questions over how realistic it is for the entire ummah to follow a Faqih in the absence of an Imam. The problem some have with WF (absolute authority I mean) is that it is run by fallibles, so it cannot be perfect and some of these imperfections may cause people to not view it in the way they would view guardianship under Imam Mahdi. Some may say well we need a Faqih in the absence of an Imam for the protection of the ummah and are willing to set aside the imperfections that come with that system, some refuse to do so. 

Decisions are made and actions are taken in every government. These are either by a faqih or by a/some non-faqih(s). So, Welayat does exist in every society, we are either giving it to a faqih or a/some non-faqih(s). The form of welayat and executer(s) are the things that change, not its existence.

That being said, now what do those who say that “we can’t give the welayat to a faqih” mean? If they mean this authority (these decisions and actions) in the society can’t be given to a faqih because of nature of authority itself, since this authority necessarily exists, as a result they are giving it to a/some non-faqih(s) (either non-faqih with Islamic rules like had, ghesas etc. or non-faqih with non-Islamic rules –high level of secularism) unless they believe there should be no form of government and establishment; pure Anarchism. If they believe that “there is no problem in the authority itself and these decisions and actions can be and should be made and taken, but giving this authority to a non-Masum is too much and Islamically haram and authority should be divided among many individuals”, then they should provide proofs for this claim that where and how in Islam it says that one person shouldn’t take this responsibility, whether through Aqli method or naqli (Ayat and Ahadith) one. However, even if they prove this, they have not disproved Welayat of Fuqaha, which is another form of Welayat Faqih.

Let’s divide the paragraph above:

-There should be no form of government (Anarchism-not necessarily chaos, but no rule, hence no ruler): I don’t think anyone here and among others opposed to Welayat Faqih believe in it.

-There should be government, but not Islamic one (Secularism): This means that Islam either lacks rules for establishment or lacks the most appropriate rules.

-There should be government and the rules should be Islamic ones and based on Islamic laws (Fiqh), but the government shouldn’t be or shouldn’t be necessarily at the hand of scholars (fuqaha/faqih): Due to the reasons I will provide in the next post, Insha’Allah, government with Islamic rules but without a scholar/faqih ruler is impossible. In other words, Faqih ruler is a necessity for Islamic rules.

-There should be rules, Islamic rules and faqih rulers, not just one faqih at the top of the government: Firstly, this should be proved that why one qualified faqih taking the responsibility of the government is impermissible, but some faqih's isn’t. Moreover, even if it’s proved, this form of government is another form of Welayat Faqih.

Do we have another possibility apart from the ones above?

Now that we are living during the gheybah time, we should try the best form of government in which Islamic laws are not shut down. This is a duty. This is similar to us following our marja. Living during the time of ghaybah and lacking all the blessings we have during the time of reappearance in which we can directly follow our Imam’s opinions will not justify postponing Islamic rulings and refusing to do our duties. So, we use a marja, based on a criterion which is Islam, because we have found this way the best way possible and available to take our responsibility and justify our amal (actions), otherwise our amal won’t be justified. This is a duty, as choosing a qualified faqih (or even some faqihs) at the top of the government to carry out and implement Islamic rulings that need a person to be implemented is a duty, while neither of them are zatan Masum, neither Marja nor Wali Faqih. But some will follow Marja and at the same time present excuses to not follow Wali Faqih, while if these excuses are valid, they are valid regarding the issue of following a Marja too.

On 9/13/2017 at 5:19 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Well you could technically have a council rather than a single leader, of course this then creates challenges that its more difficult to implement things, people disagree, this is true, its less efficient, but a group of leaders means there is more control of power, with one Faqih power is too heavily concentrated, so there is a trade-off. You're right ultimately one opinion is implemented, but perhaps there is room for more dialogue and more understanding when such decisions are reached, and more things are taken into consideration that may not otherwise have been looked into. 

It doesn’t make any differences. At the end of the day, one, and just one, of the available options will be implemented, no matter which individual or group has decided it to be so. I am talking about the necessity of having a last word and necessity of obeying it by all the people, provided the one who has the last word has the required conditions: knowledge, justice and wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

@kamyar

Just to dissect this particular argument:

These are the principles:
- Every society needs establishment/order/government.
- Ruling of government should be based on Islamic laws.
-Ruler of government should be overall the best person possible and available.

The third premise, if by 'should' you mean legitimacy and not just preference, is not self-evident to reason, for reason can conceive of a moral theory that allows political participation on the condition that the ruler is infallible  - this would prohibit good fallible people from acting politically. Whether such a moral theory is true or not is logically unimportant; that it's conceivable is enough to render your premise less than evident. (Thus it requires separate proof.)

And even if you mean merely that it is more preferable, this too is not self-evident to reason, for it assumes that the least unjust fallible ruler will remain the least unjust throughout his tenure, and that government will have no corrupting effect on him. But this assumption needs proof, and much evidence, historical and scriptural, suggests that government does have a corrupting effect.

Nor will it do to say, should he become obviously unjust, he will be removed. For removing an unjust ruler who believes he has right to remain in power is no easy accomplishment, and no political mechanism is secure from bribery and censorship, should the ruler be as savvy as he is now unjust.

For these reasons, the third premise is not self-evident.

*

Let's see what happens if we deny the third premise.

Interpreting 'should' in the sense of 'legitimacy', by denying the third premise we do not imply that no government should be permitted to rule, but only that no government has legitimacy to rule.

Interpreting 'should' in the sense of 'preference', by denying the third premise we do not imply that no government is more preferable, but only that the best person available does not necessarily result in the more preferable government.

Interpreting 'should' in both senses, having denied the third premise, we may still affirm that we should permit more preferable governments to rule. But this still denies the legitimacy of that permitted government and denies it must be headed by the best person available.

In this way, one can still comply with the first two premises while refusing the third.

*

My own view about whether or not this doctrine requires proof or not is this. We respect people who ask us to prove God, who is indeed indubitable, and provide a handful, but when it comes to politics - always a source of tension, alas even among brothers of the same faith - we think that the absolute government of a fallible jurist over millions of lives does not need proof. Of course it does. And not only that, but arguments can be civilly provided and civilly accepted or civilly declined, for as far as the maraij` are concerned, no one's salvation depends on believing either view.

و علیکم السلام

و علیکم السلام و رحمه الله استاذنا برادر جبرئیل -دامت توفیقاته- و اما بعد

Both, not just preference, but also legitimacy...

A Wali Faqih should possess three conditions: Knowledge, Taqwa(Piety)/Edalat (Justice),Wisdom.

If we give the responsibility to implement the fiqh in society to a person who doesn’t have required knowledge in fiqh, then he wouldn’t be able to make decision and take action based on Islamic fiqh.

If he has knowledge but not taqwa, then he will not use this power in its appropriate direction. As they say, it will be like a thief with light. Since you are interested in poem:

تو چون موری و این راهست همچون موی بت رویان    مرو زنهار بر تقلید و بر تخمین و بر عمیا

چو علم آموختی از حرص آن گه ترس کاندر شب    چو دزدی با چراغ آید گزیده‌تر برد کالا

If he has required knowledge and taqwa, but lacks required wisdom, he won’t be able to use this knowledge and taqwa appropriately.

So, a person with required knowledge, taqwa and wisdom is an inseparable part of a society with Islamic laws, thus principle 3 is an inseparable part of principle 3 and is there to assure principle 2 to be implemented in the right direction.

Therefore, for example, a person stuck to the power just because he believes he has the right to remain in power against the will of both majority and experts is not a Wali Faqih, as a Wali Faqih doesn't and can't take the power or continue remaining in power without the consent of others, otherwise he isn't a Wali Faqih. A Wali faqih is not before these three conditions, but after them. 

Also, when we say Wali Faqih should be the best person available, it doesn't mean it should be the best person for example in terms of performing ebadat. The best person here means the best person who is able to take the responsibility of leading an Islamic society, implementing Islamic rules and managing the affairs based on Islamic criteria.

Quote

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

 

The asl, the principle, in fiqh is that all wilaya is God's - no man has intrinsic wilaya over another.

From God, we then prove with hujja, from reason or revelation, the wilaya of infallible prophets and then the wilaya of the infallible successors.

Now, for any further branching of wilaya, proof with hujja is needed.

In order to assert the religious legitimacy of the wilaya of X, Y or Z, one must provide hujja from reason or revelation. The criteria of hujja are those established in Ilm il Mantiq (burhan vs sophistry) and Ilm il Kalam (miracles vs tricks) and Ilm il Usul (dalala vs 'adam dalala) and Ilm il Diraya (adequate vs inadequate transmission).

The Imam al-Qaim علیه السلام comes with hujja. The certainties of his arrival have been foretold and his miracles are to be expected. These prove that he is an infallible successor and thus has wilaya.

Those who follow hujja and only hujja will have no problem in guaranteeing their loyalty to the Imam inshallah. But those who are moved without the force of hujja have something to fear. Without hujja there is no security from grave error, and that is why it is right to request hujja for every claim no matter how critical, and that is why we must scrutinise every argument that purports to be hujja.

*

With respect to Wilayat il Faqih, I am adamant to obtain from its believers the hujja-bearing proof. Not because I am an unbeliever, but until one is presented with a satisfactory argument, one has no choice but to suspend belief in the legitimacy of the doctrine. Commitment must be withheld until hujja comes along - conjecture would not do إن الظن لا يغني من الحق شيءاً. That the mashhur of the Imamiyya have not expressed the legitimacy of this doctrine is further reason for someone looking for proof to exercise caution. As for the committed ones, it is for them to present proofs and expect scrutiny.

و علیکم السلام

For a person who is called or claimed to be a prophet to be followed, him being a prophet should be proved, not whether we should follow a prophet or not.

For a person who is called or claimed to be an infallible Imam to be followed, him being an infallible Imam should be proved, not whether an infallible Imam should be followed or not.

For a person who is called or claimed to be a Wali Faqih to be followed, him being a Wali Faqih, him possessing required conditions, him possessing required taqwa, justice,knowledge and wisdom to run a society according to Islamic principles should be proved, not whether we should follow a Wali Faqih or not.

Clearer than this? Does such a concept have to be proved via things out of its field? Why should it be proved to a Muslim that we just can obey a Wali chosen based on Islamic conditions?

If someone at the top of the society is known as knowledgeable who knows the Islamic rulings needed for governance, pious and just who uses the knowledge justly, capable who manages affairs appropriately, as well as officials and people; this is a clear hujjah for following him. Even if there are differences between our opinions and his, while we testify his knowledge, piety and wisdom, for various reasons one of which is the one I explained above in the tatbir example, there is still hujjah to follow and obey him. 

The hujjah following a Wali Faqih in essence doesn’t differ from the one regarding following a Marja Taqlid. Like the hujjah in following a Marja Taqlid is him being a qualified person to be imitated in the personal fiqhi matters and not whether or not a marja taqlid should be followed, the hujjah in following a Wali Faqih is him being a qualified person to be followed in governmental matters and not whether or not a Wali Faqih should be followed.

What actually we need about Welayat Faqih is defining it. If ‘what a Wali Faqih means’ and ‘what his authorities are’ are defined, nothing more except believing in Islam is needed to believe in its concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 10:30 AM, Sindbad05 said:

I believe that it means that "Wilayatul Faqih" should make preparations for the president to be elected and do not be a sole ruler because the responsibilities of "Wilayatul Faqih" is to ensure that system should be according to Islam and his duties does not extend beyond that. 

Am I right in this ? I believe this makes sense to me.

We don’t believe Allah is just creator (khaliq), but also legislator (share’e:شارع). No one except Allah is allowed to issue any hukm. Any form of hukm (rules) issues in the government should be the same and based on the hukm issued by Allah. So the executor of the affairs in the society such as president should act according to Allah’s hukms.

In a society run by Wali Faqih, Wali Faqih’s opinion and hukm (due to his meticulous familiarity with Islamic rulings) is indicative of the hukm of Allah. Because of this, he should be the head of all branches, such as executive branch. In fact, President in Welayat Faqih’s government is Wali Faqih himself, otherwise what would be the philosophy behind Welayat Faqih. If we are going to give the position for presidency to a person who isn’t necessarily acquainted with fiqhi issues, then how can we claim our government is run according to the Islamic fiqh? But now that different people are needed to take the responsibility of the affairs of the society, a person also is needed the run the position called presidency.

Some believe this person should be directly chosen by Wali Faqih or at least they suggest such a method. Some others suggest, as it’s embedded in the Iranian Constitution, a public election in which some candidates with certain characteristics are nominated is held and then the one elected by the people will be the president, however his presidency should be accepted by a Wali Faqih to assure the one appointed by people is chosen and will act according to Islamic rulings, 'so I, the Wali Faqih, accept you as my representative for the position of presidency'. Besides that this acceptation (tanfiz, endorsement) includes a supervisory nature. In fact, this process is there to Islamically legitimatize the president and him taking the office.

One may say that “but we can’t say that presidents chosen during Islamic Republic have acted according to Islamic Fiqh, while the process was there to assure such a thing to happen!”.  Beside the fact that our discussion here isn't about Iran and its method of implementation Welayat Faqih, but our discussion here is about the concept of Welayat Faqih itself, since talking about it makes this already long post longer, and is not related to the core of our discussion here let’s skip it, although it’s an important and interesting issue.

Now some questions may be asked:

Isn’t such kind of welayat a form of dictatorship? What if Wali Faqih rejects people’s president elect? Or, What if then Wali Faqih depose this president chosen by the majority of the voters? How then can this governance be legitimate?

To answer these questions, let’s first define the word “dictatorship”.

A dictatorship government is a form of government whose verdicts are dictated upon people by one certain individual or group against their will. But, in Welayat Faqih, people have accepted these defined roles of Wali Faqih. People have accepted their votes getting accepted by a Faqih. Welayat Faqih and Wali Faqih’s hukm is not and should not be against the people’s will, although it may be against people's opinion (of course these cases don't happen too much and  a Wali Faqih is wiser than that to govern against people's opinion in too cases. In many cases, Wali Faqih acts in accordance with other's opinions and against his opinion, like the case we had in the JCPOA) . Otherwise, such government will become illegitimate. Even if Wali Faqih has all other conditions for running the society, people not accepting him and his role and verdicts will illegitimate implementing his Welayat. It doesn’t mean people’s opinions can decide what is legitimate and what is not, but one of the requirements for implementing a government is acceptation of people. It’s a necessary condition, not a sufficient one and just for implantation and not the intrinsic legitimacy.

Summarily, since people have accepted Wali Faqih accepting the president elect as president and monitoring his activities, this Welayat is neither dictatorship, nor illegitimate. But it’s a way to legitimize people’s vote based on their own will.

This is called “Religious Democracy”. In Religious democracy, demo (the people) have accepted religious cracy (governance) – We have found the Welayat Faqih the only mesdaq (example, case) for such government-, unlike Western Democracy wherein people’s vote (off course not even in practice!) is everything. A separate discussion is required to criticize the western democracy. 

Edited by kamyar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kamyar said:

Some believe this person should be directly chosen by Wali Faqih or at least they suggest such a method.

I want to talk about the point as to how can a Wali-Faqih chose himself the president while it is known that Wali-e-Faqih himself is elected by the people. He came to office with through the Ijma of the people and if he chooses president himself then it is as if his opinion is given preference over Ijma. Does not it imbalance the situation that the one who is chosen by the people come and tell people that my opinion is better than you ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kamyar 

I accept that Wilayatul Faqih's responsibility is to check and supervise the work of government machinery if that is according to Islam or not and have the powers to depose people on such grounds. But I do not believe that Wilayat-e-Faqih should have the power to choose president himself for he himself is chosen by the people. And, it is also proved Islamically that Ijma of the Majority shall be given preference to opinion of single person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam, I like this site a lot but sometimes there are some words used that I don't understand. Can someone reply with a brief list of words like for example namaz,... that lot of asian people use regarding islamic stuff so I can learn and understand. Thanks in advance
    • You could have invested in crypto, wait several months/years and made a profit lol
    • I could have, but I didn't do haram.
    • A simple answer, no its not necessary. A muslim by definition is someone who believes in oneness of God and Muhammad S.A.W being last prophet.  There is no condition of love. But as in case of parents we love them for what they have done for us. So, if one believes that God is the one given him life and everything else he/she has, gratitude and love is only natural.
    • Have you not seen the Arabic text right above the translation?

      Secondly, What is wrong in the translation of that verse? There is nothing wrong in it. I don't care who Shakir is, until he is translating the Arabic text correctly.    
×