Search the Community

786 I have seen many threads dealing with this subject on Shiachat and the general misconception has been association of Welayat Faqih with the concept of Welayat Takwini which is exclusive to Allah (s.w.t.) and the 14 Infallibles (a.s.). The Q/A I have attached clearly debunks this misconception and illustrates the attachment of the concept of Welayat Faqi to Welayat Tashri'i which the 14 Infallibles gave to their representatives in government, judicial and religious affairs. I hope this helps eliminate misconceptions and misunderstandings on the subject for those who are sincerely attempting to learn about this concept in Jurisprudence. Those who have political opposition to the concept and/or the IRI, please ignore the thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa6688 Summary Question: How is it possible to entitle someone (Wali Faqih) with the authority of God, His prophet and the Imams who has nothing to do with wahy or infallibility? Detailed Question: Shadowing the issue of Welayat Faqih are the following arguments, please enlighten: The Prophet has been entitled the status of welayat for his infallibility and wahy-based knowledge. Given the Shia belief regarding the infallibility of the Shia Imams (free from mistake, inaccuracy and divine knowledge) entitling them with welayat due to their knowledge and infallibility is reasonable. Now in this context, how is it possible for a person to be accredited with Welayat Faqih when he isn’t infallible and as knowledgeable as the Imams nor is he protected from mistake! How is it acceptable to give someone who doesn’t possess any qualities such as infallibility and wahy the authority of God, His Prophet and Imams? He has not been chosen by an Infallible Imam nor is he safe from mistake! Concise answer: What is intended by the welayat of a just faqih being the welayat of the prophets is the aspect of politicalwelayat (meaning the government and management of the affairs of the people) which is part of welayat tashri’i (legal leadership). But welayat takwini (authority over creation and the natural world, also known as the ‘great’ wilayah) is confined to the infallible imams that carry divinely inspired knowledge and infallibility. The primary criteria for political welayat are justice and fiqahat (jurisdiction). Therefore, not only is allotting political welayat to a just faqih by the imams not irrational, it is the most reasonable choice the Imams could have made. Detailed Answer: There are two different welayats: A. welayat takwini, B. welayat tashri’i. According to arguments of towhead both welayats belong to Allah Almighty. A. Takwini Welayat: Based on Quranic teachings Allah is capable of interfering in and arranging anything as He wishes. This is what is referred to as the ‘creation’ and ‘takwini guidance’ of His creations, which is also conducted by the complete man (God’s proof) whether alive or not. This is the welayat acknowledged for Imam Asr (aj) and furthermore his absence in the time of occultation doesn’t change this situation; thus welayat takwini isn’t something the wali faqih possesses. B. Welayat Tashri’i: This type of welayat is understood from the set of ayahs that associates Allah with the authority of tashri’ (legislating), guidance, tawfiq and the like. This welayat includes the management of worldly matters in the manifestation of government; that is that the wali accepts to manage and oversee the religious and material affairs of the people (whether this task ends with the people coming on board and establishing the Islamic government or not). In the time of occultation of the infallible Imam (as) this duty has been put on the shoulders of a just faqih and in reality, welayatfaqih is the continuance of a the welayat of the Imams. The relation between these two has legitimized the leadership and actions of a competent and qualified faqih, because every legitimate government must be divinely assigned directly or indirectly and this is an essential point to be noted.[1] Thus, in the time of the occultation of an infallible Imam, the welayat tashri’i of God must be given to a just faqih – meaning the closest and most similar person to the infallible Imam – the wali faqih must bear the highest level of justice and although he isn’t infallible, it is the best replacement and on top of that the Islamic hakem (ruler) must be a faqih (that is he must be an expert in Islamic matters and amujtahid) to be the proper replacement for divine knowledge. This is why it has been said that: In the time of occultation, when the Imam is absent part of his duties are delegated to his general representative and the welayat of the faqih is the continuance of the welayat of the Imams and prophets and is equal to their political welayat.[2] From all of the above, it can be deduced that what actually bears welayat and authority, is fiqahah(jurisprudence) and Idalah (justice), not the faqih himself; specifically speaking the faqih doesn’t have any welayat at all, it is the characteristic of fiqahat and justice that give him this authority and thiswelayat has been handed over to him as the Imam’s general representative.[3] If any of the vital circumstances stated do not exist, he will not have any welayat.[4] Therefore just like you stated, Allah’s pledge will not be given to the wrong doers. Based on this, the most prominent condition for the Islamic ruler in the time of occultation – when infallibility isn’t an option - is idalah (justice). However the wrongdoing and mistake or even crime of another person within the Islamic government has nothing to do with the just wali faqih. The moment the wali faqihwas informed of the inconvenient situation at the Kahrizak prison, he demanded it be shut down. This scenario - where some of their executives would make mistakes or commit crimes - took place in the time of the great Prophet and Imam Ali (as) as well! Although, it is noteworthy that accusing the Islamic government of untrue claims, claims that are most probably untrue and accusing them of harassment for political interests is completely wrong and inappropriate. Abstaining from mentioning these things, especially since there isn’t any particular evidence about it, is the best choice. Imam Ali (as) says: “اخوک دینُک فَاحْتَطْ لِدینک “Your religion is your brother, so practice precaution for your religion.”[5] [1] Adopted from Question 2868 (website: 5199). [2] See: Imam Khomeini, Sahifeye Imam, vol. 19, pg. 403, The Institute for Compilation and Publication of the Works of Imam Khomeni, fourth print, Tehran, 1386. [3] General representation means that in the ahadith, the characteristics of the representative are listed, but a specific person hasn’t been designated. See: Jawadi Amoli, Abdullah, Wilayah Faqih, pp. 178-184, Isra’ Publications, first print, Qom, 1378; Waezi, Ahmad, Hukumate Eslami, pp. 148-164, Center of Management of the Islamic Seminary in Qom, second print, Qom, 1381; Ma’rifat, Muhammad Hadi, Wilayah Faqih, pp. 122-129, Al-Tamhid Publications, second print, Qom, 1377. [4] Imam Khomeini, Sahifeye Imam¸vol. 11, pg. 306; vol. 10, pg. 352. [5] Sheikh Hurr Ameli, Wasa’el al-Shia, vol. 27, pg. 167, Aal al-Bayt Institute, Qom, 1409 ah.

Salam This thread is dedicated to Sayyid Khomeini's speeches, letters and sayings. I will be posting some of the interesting parts of a series of books called "Imam's Sahifah" which contains nearly all of what the great Sayyid has said or written in response to different issues, God willing. I also thank @Repenter for this. You can find the entire series here. Simply search for "Sahifeh" in that website. http://en.imam-khomeini.ir/en/page/127/BOOK-LIBRARY/?kind=167&action=qs&txt=sahifeh With that said, let me begin: Religious minorities under the protection of Islam From one direction we are faced with multifarious propaganda. Propagandists both in Iran and abroad are using the issue of religious minorities in Iran to create the distorted view that were an Islamic government established in Iran, then all minority religions would be swept away. Do you (addressing the Shah) treat religious minorities better or does Islam? You are trampling both the minority religions and the majority religion underfoot and are destroying them! You have eliminated all human rights in Iran. You have allowed neither Muslims nor non-Muslims to be free. In Islam, however, the religious minorities are shown respect, they are free. Yet we are repeatedly asked the same question: “If an Islamic government were established (in Iran), how would it treat the religious minorities?” They ask this question because they are constantly instilled with the idea that in the event of an Islamic government being set up in Iran, all the Jews or all the Christians or Zoroastrians would be murdered. At what period in Islamic history did an Islamic country during peacetime—I am not speaking of a country at war here—massacre its religious minorities or murder people from minority religions. Hadrat Amir (Imam Ali) wanted to die of shame when a Jewish woman, a dhimmi, who was living under the shelter of Islam, had her anklet stolen while he was ruler. He said: “If a person were to die in such circumstances, it would be worth it.” Is then Islam or an Islamic government going to do the things they say it will do to those of religious minorities? This is all propaganda created by the Shah and his supporters and trumpeted over their loudspeakers to tarnish the image of Islam and Islamic government and sully the reputation of the Muslim clergy—at least in the eyes of those non-Muslims and non- religious people outside Iran. They promote the idea that they (the clergymen) want to have a reactionary government, a reactionary Islamic government! This man himself portrays Islam as being reactionary. On the one hand he invokes “the true religion of Islam” and on the other he says that those who preach Islam to the people are reactionaries! They are reactionary in that they have gone back one thousand four hundred years! They propagate something which belongs to one thousand four hundred years ago. The fact that he himself is reviving something which belongs to two thousand five hundred years ago is irrelevant! He is not considered to be a reactionary, only those who are promoting progressive laws from one thousand four hundred years ago, those who say that this man should be delivered a blow in the mouth for depriving the people of freedom, for establishing foreign rule in Iran and placing the people under the rule of the superpowers, are considered to be the reactionaries! While those who are stealing the wealth of the people through force and suppression, those who have deprived the people of freedom, they are seen to be the civilized ones who open the gates of freedom!

Salaamun 'alaykum This is an interesting summary of some of Ayatullah Muhammad Ishaq al-Fayyadh's views on Islamic government and the role of women in politics: https://db.tt/4H2vFdw4 With duas