Jump to content
Mansur Bakhtiari

Extent of Wilayah al Faqih

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7krOCzot2Q&t=129s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DPq_iJyszQ&t=114s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtiLjte2q8

Despite these videos coming from very different sources, I think there is somewhat a consensus between these two opinions. Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah al-Hakeem both believe that the "wilayah" of a jurist extends to Umour al Hesbiyya, which according to Sayed al Khoei (refer to last two videos) in essence is all the issues which factor into daily life, or (as Sheikh Allahyari put it) all issues that are not already taken care of (an example is an orphan without a guardian or an abandoned Waqf property). And also according to the opinion of Sayed al Khoei, this extended to government, so the jurist should, according to his view, have a place in the government (second video). Sayed Shirazi also holds the same beliefs (I'll add source tomorrow when I can find it again inshallah), though he believes that it is not right for Hudud punishments to be done by the Fuqaha. So the government in his view should have alternative punishment to keep public peace (second video mentions that Umour al Hesbiya is anything which keeps the public peace). ( @M.IB this is better then the explanation I gave you on discord lol)

Now that this is cleared up, my real question is regarding Hudud punishments. Are there hadith on this falling under the authority of jurists? From my understanding the viewpoints are that scholars believe It is Haram to form governments in the time of ghaibah, Scholars have authority over anything which involves keeping the public peace (Majority opinion (Khoei, Sistani, Hakim, Shirazi), or Wilayat al Faqih al Mutlaqa, which is followed by Khomeini/Khamenei and the scholars who support the Iranian government. Though what are the opinions of scholars and ahadith on Hudud in the time of ghaibah? This is one aspect which confuses me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When there is natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, etc) or man made disaster (war, nuclear explosion, terrorism), where/how/who/what to use wilayah faqih ? This is not mocking question, if you cannot answer please refer some reference/books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shirazi believed that the government should be controlled by a group of jurists rather than one (Khomeini). 

As for the punishments, khoi(ra) believed in Islamic punishments during the ghayba, I believe sistani (ha) does as well. That part of the Wilayat tends to be what is more accepted by jurists. We have plenty of jurists who write  books about Islamic punishments hudood and their details. Sayed al khoi (Ra) has a book for example where he mentions the punishments for sodomy. It's not really a question of what evidence is there for Islamic punishments, you have ahlul bayt (as) and hadiths and historical accounts of them telling others to punish and how to for certain crimes. The real question is what evidence is there against implementing them In an Islamic government?

that is really what you need to prove. It also can't be said the imam (as) is not here at all, we are allowed to follow the non masum Maraji because he is technically still here and over as well as under the system, watching over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, myouvial said:

When there is natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, etc) or man made disaster (war, nuclear explosion, terrorism), where/how/who/what to use wilayah faqih ? This is not mocking question, if you cannot answer please refer some reference/books.

?

well, as for earthquakes.

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/1764/Leader-s-Message-of-Condolence-on-Bushehr-Earthquake

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2026/Leader-s-Speech-in-Meeting-with-People-of-Zarand

As for terrorism etc.. watch this video, completely.

https://www.shiatv.net/video/333870537

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reference. I will look into those. Thanks so much, i pray Allah SWT that i owe you knowledge of Ahlul Bayt a.s. so that whatever good from me shall be shared to you also because of this knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Al Hadi said:

Shirazi believed that the government should be controlled by a group of jurists rather than one (Khomeini). 

As for the punishments, khoi(ra) believed in Islamic punishments during the ghayba, I believe sistani (ha) does as well. That part of the Wilayat tends to be what is more accepted by jurists. We have plenty of jurists who write  books about Islamic punishments hudood and their details. Sayed al khoi (Ra) has a book for example where he mentions the punishments for sodomy. It's not really a question of what evidence is there for Islamic punishments, you have ahlul bayt (as) and hadiths and historical accounts of them telling others to punish and how to for certain crimes. The real question is what evidence is there against implementing them In an Islamic government?

that is really what you need to prove. It also can't be said the imam (as) is not here at all, we are allowed to follow the non masum Maraji because he is technically still here and over as well as under the system, watching over. 

Ok, I understand your viewpoint. Though don't you know the hadith which say not to claim something as Islamic when you are unsure? If we don't have solid proof for something, should we implement it and say it is authorized by Allah and the Ahlulbayt (asws)? Thats why I'm hoping someone will post hadith on this.

1 hour ago, myouvial said:

When there is natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, etc) or man made disaster (war, nuclear explosion, terrorism), where/how/who/what to use wilayah faqih ? This is not mocking question, if you cannot answer please refer some reference/books.

In a state run by jurists like Iran, or where the jurists hold lots of power like Iraq, usually you'll see a reaction from the scholars. For example during the American invasion of Iraq Ayatollah Sistani advised the Iraqi people not to revolt against the Americans as it would end badly, or in 2014 with ISIS he and other scholars in Najaf issued fatwas for any able bodied Iraqis who have the means to do so to fight against ISIS. The most famous example of the jurists issuing verdicts is the "Tobacco Fatwa" in the early 20th century.

As for natural disasters specifically, there's what Al Hadi posted, plus the fact that this does fall into "public peace," so jurists would have some responsibility in these matters. Here are some other examples:

http://www.english.shirazi.ir/218

http://makarem.ir/main.aspx?lid=1&typeinfo=4&catid=6416&pageindex=1&mid=345060

http://www.alnajafi.org/messages/169-an-appeal-for-the-muslims-in-burma.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Now that this is cleared up, my real question is regarding Hudud punishments. Are there hadith on this falling under the authority of jurists? From my understanding the viewpoints are that scholars believe It is Haram to form governments in the time of ghaibah, Scholars have authority over anything which involves keeping the public peace (Majority opinion (Khoei, Sistani, Hakim, Shirazi), or Wilayat al Faqih al Mutlaqa, which is followed by Khomeini/Khamenei and the scholars who support the Iranian government. Though what are the opinions of scholars and ahadith on Hudud in the time of ghaibah? This is one aspect which confuses me...

Which scholar believe that it is haram to form government in the time of ghaibah ? No any scholars except those who are enemies of Islam believes that forming government is haram. Even there is no disagreement between the Marajas regarding the role of a Jurist. Although every jurist or marajas has assumed the position which Islam asks them to play such as Ayotullah Seestani does not hold a public office like Ayotullah Khomeini. The reason of this is that Ayotullah Seestani resides in a country which is inhabited by Sunnis and Shias and not only Shias. Neither is there any constitution provision which may hold Ayotullah Seestani to hold the office or else it will be great disservice to Islam. Mind that if there had been any constitutional provision which would require Ayotullah Seestani to hold a office through a mandate of the people, Ayotullah Seestani would consider it a religious duty and denying it would be denying the verses which says "The oppressed women and the children pray to God, O! Allah send us help from you so that he could liberate us from the oppression of the people". However, since there is no constitutional provisions even then Ayotullah Seestani is held responsible by the position as a Maraja to guide people in the matters of religion, if he had not done that Allah AWJ would ask him about his pledge as to why he did not help people while he had the capability and the intellect.

As for those who say that engaging in politics is haram such as Allahayari, then for such people, it is haram to talk about politics and hence they are going against the thing which they are preaching to others as haram. 

Share this post


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

Which scholar believe that it is haram to form government in the time of ghaibah ? No any scholars except those who are enemies of Islam believes that forming government is haram. Even there is no disagreement between the Marajas regarding the role of a Jurist.

 He is quoting Ayatollah Sayed Ahmad Khonsari. He was considered close to Sayed al Khoei in knowledge, and did not believe in Hudud punishments in Ghaibah. Pretty clear there's no consensus. There's also Ayatollah Muhammad Shariatmadari, who actually gave Sayed Khomeini the title of Marj'a.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

He is quoting Ayatollah Sayed Ahmad Khonsari. He was considered close to Sayed al Khoei in knowledge, and did not believe in Hudud punishments in Ghaibah. Pretty clear there's no consensus. There's also Ayatollah Muhammad Shariatmadari, who actually gave Sayed Khomeini the title of Marj'a.

Let alone every Maraja, our Holy Imams including Imam Ali a.s did not want to subject someone to Hudood punishment unless a person  deserved that punishment. Hudood is the exemplary punishment and for it to qualify, one has to gone through a criteria that involves degree of freedom and awareness of law. Many times, Imam Ali a.s saved people from Hudood punishment when Umer subjected them to it but Imam Ali a.s defined to umer that they do not qualify for it and hence they were subjected to Tazeer. 

Share this post


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

Let alone every Maraja, our Holy Imams including Imam Ali a.s did not want to subject someone to Hudood punishment unless a person  deserved that punishment. Hudood is the exemplary punishment and for it to qualify, one has to gone through a criteria that involves degree of freedom and awareness of law. Many times, Imam Ali a.s saved people from Hudood punishment when Umer subjected them to it but Imam Ali a.s defined to umer that they do not qualify for it and hence they were subjected to Tazeer. 

I am not talking about the Imams. They have the right to practice Hudud. Where does it say that Hudud punishments when the Imam (ajtf) has not arrived, fall into the hands of the scholars? 

1 minute ago, Sindbad05 said:

And, is there no one good than Allahayari to quote ? He is a liar who claims that he is the one who has the only hadith of Sharoosi al Shamasi and even marajas do not have such hadith, what a liar. 

I will find the quote right now, as it is on Shia Online Library (as he said clearly in the video).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

I do not understand arabic bro....

As far you say that Imams define Hudood then even today, Marajas if they subject someone to Hudood, they first look into what Imams have said and it is actually Imam who is subjecting them to Hudood while Jurist is just telling them through cases as to how did Imams subjected people to Hudood or Tazeer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

I do not understand arabic bro....

As far you say that Imams define Hudood then even today, Marajas if they subject someone to Hudood, they first look into what Imams have said and it is actually Imam who is subjecting them to Hudood while Jurist is just telling them through cases as to how did Imams subjected people to Hudood or Tazeer. 

The translation is in the video with Sheikh Allahyari.

The question isn't hat though. It's did the Imams say that anyone other than themselves or those whom they appoint have the right to administer Hudud punishments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

The translation is in the video with Sheikh Allahyari.

The question isn't hat though. It's did the Imams say that anyone other than themselves or those whom they appoint have the right to administer Hudud punishments? 

Ask Allahayari that when Imam Ali a.s was khalifah did he go to every province to administer the Hudood laws or were it the appointed to administered the Hudood laws as Imams taught them to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

 He is quoting Ayatollah Sayed Ahmad Khonsari. He was considered close to Sayed al Khoei in knowledge, and did not believe in Hudud punishments in Ghaibah. Pretty clear there's no consensus. There's also Ayatollah Muhammad Shariatmadari, who actually gave Sayed Khomeini the title of Marj'a.

 

Interesting, I meant it was a majority opinion based off of my understanding. 

Shariatmadari, wasn't necessarily soley responsible for khomeini's marjiyat, he was part of the group of scholars who announced it to save khomeini's (ra) life from my memory. The shah was going to execute khomeini (ra) but according to Iranian law at that time, it was illegal to execute a marja so they announced it to save his life. Still shariatmadari did at least take part in it. Regardless he was corrupt, tried to kill khomeini (ra) or at least took part in it, even lost his turban and cloak for it. So it kind of adds to sinbad's point of corrupt scholars (not saying all who think this way are corrupt though) 

as for khonsari according to who, that he was he close to khoi (ra)? highly doubt that statement is safe from scrutiny and criticism. Regardless they say that about a few others Including khomeini (ra), shaykh al hilli (ra), as well as muhammad shahroudi (ra) I've never seen evidence of the other two believing in hudood but I think they do. I never seen cause i never checked, I'm sure they do and I could check. 

I can say based on my understanding the majority accept hudood. The question really is what evidence is there against it in the ghayba. We know it was allowed in the imam's (as) time so the question is why wouldn't it be allowed in the ghayba and what evidence is there against it? The burden of proof is on the side against hudood from this perspective. Also allahyari isn't really a good source for much to be honest.

 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


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

Shariatmadari, wasn't necessarily soley responsible for khomeini's marjiyat, he was part of the group of scholars who announced it to save khomeini's (ra) life from my memory. The shah was going to execute khomeini (ra) but according to Iranian law at that time, it was illegal to execute a marja so they announced it to save his life. Still shariatmadari did at least take part in it. Regardless he was corrupt, tried to kill khomeini (ra) or at least took part in it, even lost his turban and cloak for it. So it kind of adds to sinbad's point of corrupt scholars (not saying all who think this way are corrupt though) 

Huh, didn't know that, I'll have to look into it.

14 hours ago, Al Hadi said:

The burden of proof is on the side against hudood from this perspective. 

I disagree, for something to fall into the hands of the scholar, we have to have proof that this is their right. If we have proof it is the right of scholars to execute hudood punishments, then of course theres no questioning it. I just don't see hadith on it, thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

I disagree, for something to fall into the hands of the scholar, we have to have proof that this is their right. If we have proof it is the right of scholars to execute hudood punishments, then of course theres no questioning it. I just don't see hadith on it, thats all.

There's not really hadiths for the other Wilayat of the scholars as well like Taqleed itself doesn't solely rely on hadiths.

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


×