Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Madre de Zahra

Khomeini And Plato

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It was during these years that Ruhollah embraced mysticism, studying Man, which is the conceptual foundation of mysticism, and a kind of Islamic existentialism taught by the scholar Mohsin Faiz. He also became fascinated with Aristotle and Plato, whose Republic provided the model for Khomeini's concept of the Islamic republic, with the philosopher-king replaced by the Islamic theologian. He wrote lyric poetry under the pseudonym "Hindi"—a fact that SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, later used to insist that he was Indian rather than Iranian by birth.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...20508-4,00.html

I’ve been reading some books by John Taylor Gatto lately. (Author of Dumbing Us Down the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory schooling) I totally agree with his thoughts on education and in particular education of children being best self-directed, offering them freedom of expression, individuality, and exploration. While reading “The Exhausted School” he talked about how modern American schooling was founded so the state could control, assimilate, and use the children as workers. Essentially it is a form of slavery that he discussed while also talking about how the state created foster, adoption, and Children’s Court to remove kids from their home. That the state would be the “mother” of children and raise them to only benefit the state. And how basically there was no autonomy whatsoever, especially in education. Now, he talks about how Plato’s Republic is at the centre of these ideas. He calls it the “Pagan Bible” and says its more read then the Bible. He says

Ask the question who reads Plato’s Republic then and now and you get the surprising answer that everybody who counts did and does.* The majority of elite young college men in the past three centuries all read it. Other classics come and go, the Republic stays. …

He further states it’s a “comprehensive secular agenda to organize all human society” and how it must be run by the few elite and the State must have supreme control. So I’m reading along and like yeah man, this guy is right on. Down with all this blah blah. I read the footnotes, which I never do and it says.

“According to biographers of the Ayahtollah Ruhollah Khomeini, his vision of an Islamic state led by philosopher-king stemmed from his time in Qum as a young man when he became enchanted by Plato’s Republic. … “

Now, I must be the slowest person alive or something cause I never thought of the system like that before. But now it seems maybe they are one reality and that’s why there is such uniformity of thought that comes out of Qum. I hear talk about how there’s only one hawzah (and if your not educated there then you’re not a “real” scholar), and even some talk about how the system should be so regulated that only a pool of qualified scholars can talk and their pay and this and that all regulated.

Any thoughts appreciated

Edited by Madre de Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was during these years that Ruhollah embraced mysticism, studying Man, which is the conceptual foundation of mysticism, and a kind of Islamic existentialism taught by the scholar Mohsin Faiz. He also became fascinated with Aristotle and Plato, whose Republic provided the model for Khomeini's concept of the Islamic republic, with the philosopher-king replaced by the Islamic theologian. He wrote lyric poetry under the pseudonym "Hindi"—a fact that SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, later used to insist that he was Indian rather than Iranian by birth.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...20508-4,00.html

I’ve been reading some books by John Taylor Gatto lately. (Author of Dumbing Us Down the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory schooling) I totally agree with his thoughts on education and in particular education of children being best self-directed, offering them freedom of expression, individuality, and exploration. While reading “The Exhausted School” he talked about how modern American schooling was founded so the state could control, assimilate, and use the children as workers. Essentially it is a form of slavery that he discussed while also talking about how the state created foster, adoption, and Children’s Court to remove kids from their home. That the state would be the “mother” of children and raise them to only benefit the state. And how basically there was no autonomy whatsoever, especially in education. Now, he talks about how Plato’s Republic is at the centre of these ideas. He calls it the “Pagan Bible” and says its more read then the Bible. He says

Ask the question who reads Plato’s Republic then and now and you get the surprising answer that everybody who counts did and does.* The majority of elite young college men in the past three centuries all read it. Other classics come and go, the Republic stays. …

He further states it’s a “comprehensive secular agenda to organize all human society” and how it must be run by the few elite and the State must have supreme control. So I’m reading along and like yeah man, this guy is right on. Down with all this blah blah. I read the footnotes, which I never do and it says.

“According to biographers of the Ayahtollah Ruhollah Khomeini, his vision of an Islamic state led by philosopher-king stemmed from his time in Qum as a young man when he became enchanted by Plato’s Republic. … “

Now, I must be the slowest person alive or something cause I never thought of the system like that before. But now it seems maybe they are one reality and that’s why there is such uniformity of thought that comes out of Qum. I hear talk about how there’s only one hawzah (and if your not educated there then you’re not a “real” scholar), and even some talk about how the system should be so regulated that only a pool of qualified scholars can talk and their pay and this and that all regulated.

Any thoughts appreciated

Salaams,

Ayatollah Khomanys book "Governance by the Jurists" makes use of only narrations of the prophets and the Imams and their logical interpretations. It has nothing to do with philosophy. Those religeous shia figures/ Scholars who donot fully agree with the Islamic System have never made assertions that counter Ayatollah Khomanys work on the basis of the notion that they were influenced by Philosophers of the past including Plato and Aristotle. Rather they have a differnce of opinion on the interpretations of the narrations themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any thoughts appreciated

I've written a bit on SC before about this, WF is a Greco-Iranian concept with an Islamic shroud in my opinion.

The concept of the Philosopher-King like you mentioned, is evident. But in addition to that, there is the old Iranian belief that there should always be somebody on top that is "above" everything and everyone else.

Anyway, a system very similar to WF existed in Iran about the time of Prophet Muhammad. So definitely, this system is inspired by other models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've written a bit on SC before about this, WF is a Greco-Iranian concept with an Islamic shroud in my opinion.

The concept of the Philosopher-King like you mentioned, is evident. But in addition to that, there is the old Iranian belief that there should always be somebody on top that is "above" everything and everyone else.

Anyway, a system very similar to WF existed in Iran about the time of Prophet Muhammad. So definitely, this system is inspired by other models.

The first records/ references available in history on the subject of "Public Administration" in general are those found in Philosophy. Accordingly all models of administrations (mordern or historical) of the world are then "Philosophical".

The following sentence is very astonishing and requires references since you so easily found parallels between WF and a system implemented in Iran during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) yet fail to find no anology between the system proposed by the Prophet (pbuh) himself and WF:-

Anyway, a system very similar to WF existed in Iran about the time of Prophet Muhammad

May Allah hasten the Zahoor of the Imam of out Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've written a bit on SC before about this, WF is a Greco-Iranian concept with an Islamic shroud in my opinion.

This is like those who say that Shi'a is really a twisted form of Catholicism, or that Islam itself has been influenced by Judaism and Christianity. The logical fallacy of this statement lies in a misunderstanding of the very nature of Islam.

If there are similarities in Islam (or, Islamic mode of governance, such as WF) with past or other forms that existed or continue to exist in this day and age, then that does not suggest that Islam has been influenced by those models, but rather is a proof of Allah's revelations. With Islam, Allah (swt) completed the revelations, and in doing so also corrected and clarified past revelations, and provided us Muslims with the most perfect deen.

And it is from this deen that Imam Khomeini drew his knowledge of Islamic governance, but what he did was nothing new, he only presented what is Islam, nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first records/ references available in history on the subject of "Public Administration" in general are those found in Philosophy. Accordingly all models of administrations (mordern or historical) of the world are then "Philosophical".

...your point being?

The following sentence is very astonishing and requires references since you so easily found parallels between WF and a system implemented in Iran during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) yet fail to find no anology between the system proposed by the Prophet (pbuh) himself and WF:-

Anyway, a system very similar to WF existed in Iran about the time of Prophet Muhammad

Yes, it's astonishing, that the similarities are so great. The best reference I can give you is Christensen's "Sassanid Persia" which explains how things worked in detail during the later period of Sassanid era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is like those who say that Shi'a is really a twisted form of Catholicism, or that Islam itself has been influenced by Judaism and Christianity. The logical fallacy of this statement lies in a misunderstanding of the very nature of Islam.

If there are similarities in Islam (or, Islamic mode of governance, such as WF) with past or other forms that existed or continue to exist in this day and age, then that does not suggest that Islam has been influenced by those models, but rather is a proof of Allah's revelations. With Islam, Allah (swt) completed the revelations, and in doing so also corrected and clarified past revelations, and provided us Muslims with the most perfect deen.

And it is from this deen that Imam Khomeini drew his knowledge of Islamic governance, but what he did was nothing new, he only presented what is Islam, nothing more, nothing less.

WF is not a pillar of Islam, and is a theory on political governance - one out of many theories, and with many different variants. It's relatively recent and did not exist 200 years ago. Many scholars have dismissed it altogether, and a large majority of scholars dismiss the variant applied in Iran today (Divinely appointed, Absolute WF).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...your point being?

Yes, it's astonishing, that the similarities are so great. The best reference I can give you is Christensen's "Sassanid Persia" which explains how things worked in detail during the later period of Sassanid era.

The point is that your finding similarities between WF and later period of Sassanid era does not proove that WF is not a Universal Islamic System but rather one influenced by Sassanids only. The first lesson that a student of public administration is taught is, that one can eaisily find similarities between administrative systems of the world, since most have roots in Greek Philosophy. What this means is that I can as easily list down similarities between any 2 or 3 administrative models applicable in the world today or those of the past era.

That is why any difference of opinion with regards to WF cannot be comparitive to a certain model or any philosophical interpretation as all model have there roots in philosophy. Any difference of opinion with regards to WF should be (and is) on the basis of Interpretation of narrations of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams, which teh Grand Ayatollah Khomaynee makes use of in his Book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WF is not a pillar of Islam, and is a theory on political governance - one out of many theories, and with many different variants. It's relatively recent and did not exist 200 years ago. Many scholars have dismissed it altogether, and a large majority of scholars dismiss the variant applied in Iran today (Divinely appointed, Absolute WF).

You call it a theory and i call it a fact. What I have come to learn in years is that none of the scholars oppose WF but rather have a difference of opinion with reagrds to its scope and application. 200 years ago WF did exsist since those narrations that Grand Ayatollah Khomany makes use of in his book "Government by the Jurist" are those of the Imams and the Prpophet (pbuh).

Yes 200 years ago WF may not have been presented as a constitution since the economic and socio - political conditions of the Shias was not condusive for presenting the same. The principle of time of space naturaly applies here as well.

Since you are making a refence to 200 years ago I must add that no major works in Islamic Litrature was added by muslim scholars (shias and sunnis) during this period since most muslim countries were eithier colonized or moving towards it.

May Alah hasten the Zahoor of the Imam(A.S) of our Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've written a bit on SC before about this, WF is a Greco-Iranian concept with an Islamic shroud in my opinion.

The concept of the Philosopher-King like you mentioned, is evident. But in addition to that, there is the old Iranian belief that there should always be somebody on top that is "above" everything and everyone else.

Anyway, a system very similar to WF existed in Iran about the time of Prophet Muhammad. So definitely, this system is inspired by other models.

Thats false reasoning. Just because there have been systems of leadership in the past which bear some similarity to WF, it doesnt follow that WF was definitely inspired by them. Thats just a very cheap way of trying to discredit WF, and the same reasoning can be (falsely) applied to many other beliefs - just as br skylight has pointed out. Similarity with other beliefs is irrelevant, what matters is whether there is Islamic proof for the concept, and those fuqaha who believe in it believe there is.

WF is not a pillar of Islam, and is a theory on political governance - one out of many theories, and with many different variants. It's relatively recent and did not exist 200 years ago. Many scholars have dismissed it altogether, and a large majority of scholars dismiss the variant applied in Iran today (Divinely appointed, Absolute WF)

??

What has that reply got to do with what skylight wrote? He was replying to your skewed logic that similarity to other beliefs means its not islamic. It being a theory on political governance is irrelevant, as is what you mentioned about some scholars rejecting it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the comments and feedback. This is all good. I'm wondering how much WF controls the thoughts that come out of the hawzah? How free are folks to disgaree or to challenge what has been said/taught? Waiting, do you think that WF is more a hinderance to Islam? Also, can u point me to any of the postsing you made that would be relevant thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Now, I must be the slowest person alive or something cause I never thought of the system like that before. But now it seems maybe they are one reality and that’s why there is such uniformity of thought that comes out of Qum. I hear talk about how there’s only one hawzah (and if your not educated there then you’re not a “real” scholar), and even some talk about how the system should be so regulated that only a pool of qualified scholars can talk and their pay and this and that all regulated.

There isn't really any "uniformity of thought", as such. Of course, the principles and core beliefs are the same (regardless of whether you're at Qum, Mashad, Najaf, Karbala, Zainabiyyah, South Lebanon or anywhere else), albeit differences on details. However, when it comes to thought, there is a wide variety of views that can be found among the various scholars of the Jaafari school, let alone the entire ummah.

As for qualifications, it's a necessity, especially when you consider the current state of the community and the causes/consequences. If you want to teach people mathematics, you ideally take somebody who has learnt not only the various fields of mathematics, but also how to display, demonstrate and explain this to various levels of non-mathematicians (and eventually other mathematicians) from experts.

A high school student can help you with a few basics (without being able to mathematically demonstrate what he's showing you), but that's just about it.

If you then attributed the entire implementation and resolution of mathematics/mathematical problems to this same student, either he/she would admit to not being able to do it, or he/she would attempt to do it and end up losing credibility in the eyes of those who can recognize his/her deficiency, and misguiding those who don't.

Thank you for the comments and feedback. This is all good. I'm wondering how much WF controls the thoughts that come out of the hawzah? How free are folks to disgaree or to challenge what has been said/taught?

Obviously not too much, seeing as there are different views of Wilayatul Faqih within Iran itself, as well as many other social/political/jurisprudential/historical/spiritual issues.

Many scholars have dismissed it altogether, and a large majority of scholars dismiss the variant applied in Iran today (Divinely appointed, Absolute WF).

I think that's a misportrayal of the situation. I would say that the differences lie in the implementation rather than the core concept. Furthermore, I don't think anybody suggests that the Wali ul-faqih is divinely appointed.

This is like those who say that Shi'a is really a twisted form of Catholicism, or that Islam itself has been influenced by Judaism and Christianity. The logical fallacy of this statement lies in a misunderstanding of the very nature of Islam.

If there are similarities in Islam (or, Islamic mode of governance, such as WF) with past or other forms that existed or continue to exist in this day and age, then that does not suggest that Islam has been influenced by those models, but rather is a proof of Allah's revelations. With Islam, Allah (swt) completed the revelations, and in doing so also corrected and clarified past revelations, and provided us Muslims with the most perfect deen.

And it is from this deen that Imam Khomeini drew his knowledge of Islamic governance, but what he did was nothing new, he only presented what is Islam, nothing more, nothing less.

Ahsantum.

I would also like to add that I don't know why people look towards foreign texts, such as those of Plato, when the core material is found within Islamic texts, namely narrations from the Aimmah (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you are making a refence to 200 years ago I must add that no major works in Islamic Litrature was added by muslim scholars (shias and sunnis) during this period since most muslim countries were eithier colonized or moving towards it.

The bulk of your posts was your opinions which I have no intention of debating, but this particular comment is just awfully wrong. There is an immense amount of literature written during that period.

Thats false reasoning. Just because there have been systems of leadership in the past which bear some similarity to WF, it doesnt follow that WF was definitely inspired by them. Thats just a very cheap way of trying to discredit WF, and the same reasoning can be (falsely) applied to many other beliefs - just as br skylight has pointed out. Similarity with other beliefs is irrelevant, what matters is whether there is Islamic proof for the concept, and those fuqaha who believe in it believe there is.

I stated my opinion on the subject, and I do believe they were inspired by them (among other things). If you think particular political theory dropped down from heaven and was not inspired by anything or anyone except the Qur'an and Hadith, that is your prerogative, but I disagree with it.

What has that reply got to do with what skylight wrote?

A theory on political governance during the Greater Occultation - such as WF - is not part of Islam, but an attempt by scholars to interpret Islam and apply a specific model during a limited time and place. That, in my opinion, can and has been inspired by other (non-islamic) political theories.

Religion is revealed by God Almighty who cannot and is not inspired by anyone or anything else.

I think that's a misportrayal of the situation. I would say that the differences lie in the implementation rather than the core concept. Furthermore, I don't think anybody suggests that the Wali ul-faqih is divinely appointed.

I would say the differences are very deep and fundamental and completely change the meaning of the concept itself, and what it implies. If they had not been that great, we would not have had the conflicts we do.

Your second comment is incorrect, I've made some posts about that in the politics forum, and if I were to go into that debate we would go off-topic. But if you are interested in finding out more about different political theories in Shi'i jurisprudence in general, and about the different variants of WF in particular, I recommend this book: http://www.kadivar.com/Index.asp?DocId=530...AL=1&DT=dtv

The book goes through the following nine contemporary political models proposed by Shi'i scholars:

A. THEORIES OF STATE BASED ON DIRECT DIVINE LEGITIMACY

1. APPOINTED VELAYATEH FAQIH WITHIN RELIGIOUS REGULATIONS AND THE SECULAR MONARCHY OF COMPETENT MOSLEMS, IE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY (ALAMEH MAJLESSI, MIRZA QOMI, SEYED KASHFI, SHEIKH FAZLOLAH NOORI, SHEIKH ABDOLKARIM HAERI YAZDI, AND AYATOLLAH ARAKI).

2. APPOINTED AND GENERAL VELAYET FOR ALL FAQIHS (MOLA AHMAD NARAGHI, SAHEB JAVAHER, AYATOLLAH BOROOJERDI, AYATOLLAH GOLPYGANI, ETC).

3. APPOINTED VELAYAT FOR THE COUNCIL OF GRAND AYATOLLAHS (AYATOLLAH SEYED MOHAMMED SHIRAZI).

4. APPOINTED AND ABSOLUTE VELAYATEH FAQIH (IMAM KHOMEINI).

B. THEORIES OF STATE BASED ON DIVINE-DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY

5. CONSTITUTIONAL STATE THROUGH THE PERMISSION AND SUPERVISION OF FAQIHS (ALAMEH MIRZAYEH NAYINI).

6. PEOPLE’S CALIPHATE THROUGH THE SUPERVISION OF GRAND AYATOLLAH (AYATOLLAH SEYED MOHAMMED BAGHER SADR).

7. ELECTED BINDING VELAYATEH FIQH (AYATOLLAH MONTAZERI).

8. ELECTED ISLAMIC STATE (SHEIKH MOHAMMED JAVAD MOGHANIYEH AND SHEIKH MOHAMMED-MEHDI SHAMSEDIN).

9. JOINT OWNERSHIP PROXY (DR MEHDI HAYERI YAZDI).

THE WRITER BRIEFLY DESCRIBES EACH VIEW AND CONCLUDES WITH THIS QUESTION: WHICH OF THE ABOVE NINE THEORIES OF STATE IN SHIITE FIQH IS EMBODIED IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. HE DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IN THIS BOOK.

http://www.kadivar.com/Index.asp?DocId=908...AL=1&DT=dtv

The theory being applied today is a more extreme variant of A.4., namely a divinely appointed person with absolute powers (equal to those of the Prophet). However, the IRI constitution is a compromise between A.3., A.4. and B. 7 because of the influence of Montazeri who was the head of the Constitutional Assembly that drafted the Constitution.

I'm wondering how much WF controls the thoughts that come out of the hawzah? How free are folks to disgaree or to challenge what has been said/taught? Waiting, do you think that WF is more a hinderance to Islam? Also, can u point me to any of the postsing you made that would be relevant thanks.

It would be too much of an off-topic post to go into those questions. Let's stick to the topic at hand, which is more of a theoretical debate. I really recommend the book I mentioned above, because in my experience 99% of the people I meet on this board lack elementary knowledge of WF, as a good starting point if you're interested in the wide variety of political theories proposed by Shi'i scholars during the Greater Occultation.

Edited by waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stated my opinion on the subject, and I do believe they were inspired by them (among other things). If you think particular political theory dropped down from heaven and was not inspired by anything or anyone except the Qur'an and Hadith, that is your prerogative, but I disagree with it

Of course you're free to hold any opinion, but my post was specifically in relation to your claim that there being a similarity means it's definitely inspired.

A theory on political governance during the Greater Occultation - such as WF - is not part of Islam, but an attempt by scholars to interpret Islam and apply a specific model during a limited time and place

What determines whether a theory of political governance is part of Islam or not is whether there is textual proof for it. If you dont think there is that's fine, but many scholars do believe there is and on this basis believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you're free to hold any opinion, but my post was specifically in relation to your claim that there being a similarity means it's definitely inspired.

I ended the sentence with "my opinion". I'm not arrogant to claim that my opinions are absolute, infallible or definite.

What determines whether a theory of political governance is part of Islam or not is whether there is textual proof for it. If you dont think there is that's fine, but many scholars do believe there is and on this basis believe in it.

I disagree with you about that, and I mentioned it already, what is part of Islam is what was revealed/inspired to the Infallibles, WF and other political theories on governance are attempts of interpreting things according to the capabilities of a certain scholar. It doesn't mean that I believe Khomeini etc. are insincere or liars, but what I stated was that their interpretation is according to their combined knowledge, experience etc. and within a specific timeframe and geographical location, and not eternal or definite.

Our religion on the other hand is eternal, definite, and it's obvious to everyone that ten different concurrent political theories that contradict eachother can be "part of Islam" simultaneously.

Edited by waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with you about that, and I mentioned it already, what is part of Islam is what was revealed/inspired to the Infallibles, WF and other political theories on governance are attempts of interpreting things according to the capabilities of a certain scholar. It doesn't mean that I believe Khomeini etc. are insincere or liars, but what I stated was that their interpretation is according to their combined knowledge, experience etc. and within a specific timeframe and geographical location, and not eternal or definite.

Our religion on the other hand is eternal, definite, and it's obvious to everyone that ten different concurrent political theories that contradict eachother can be "part of Islam" simultaneously.

That goes with everything in fiqh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bulk of your posts was your opinions which I have no intention of debating, but this particular comment is just awfully wrong. There is an immense amount of literature written during that period.

Yes this is the best way of escape from an argument. Given that all your posts about WF certainly make use of no references to scholars nor a narrations of the prophet/ Imams nor Quranic verses.

You may hardly be ever debating with yourself I suppose since the bulk of your owns posts are nothing but badly refered opinions or most randomly repeated self-opinion(s) about WF which we are made to read again and again in various threads that you post in.

Refer to "Introduction in the study of Public Administration" by Leonardo D.White (Opening Chapters) and "Public Administration: A Conparative Prespective" by Ferrel Heady from Page 1 to page 113, Chapter 14 and Chapters on Iran pg. 32,84, 333, 336 - 341, 476.

These books I must add are a more Literaray and systemetic way of studying administrative models compared to historical books like the one you refered sassnids and your eye- opening conclusion that it resembles the WF model. "Public Administration: A Conparative Prespective" by Ferrel Heady should solve most of your problems.

A request: It does not suite a mod to bluff a members argument or redicule it on the basis of an error that he himself demostrates so regualrly.

An Advice: Next time you want to proove that the Iranian Ulema are corrupt kindly use better references then what bloggers have to so since you are so sensitive about strong references. It is always advisable to practice what you preach.

May Allah hasten the Zahoor of the Imam of out Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams,

Ayatollah Khomanys book "Governance by the Jurists" makes use of only narrations of the prophets and the Imams and their logical interpretations. It has nothing to do with philosophy. Those religeous shia figures/ Scholars who donot fully agree with the Islamic System have never made assertions that counter Ayatollah Khomanys work on the basis of the notion that they were influenced by Philosophers of the past including Plato and Aristotle. Rather they have a differnce of opinion on the interpretations of the narrations themselves.

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosopher-king idea has parallels not to to WF but even to Imamate. Plato's contention was basically that the ruler must be the most learned and just individual. Philosophy in ancient times was not confined to logic and metaphysical studies as it is today. Rather it encompassed nearly every academic subject such as history, physical science, and even art. Hence philosophers were intellectual giants of their time.

If you look at the hadith of the Imams (as), they state the same criteria as Plato for rulership, namely knowledge and justice. The Imams themselves were the philosopher-kings of their era because they were foremost in both. By extension, the successor of the Imam should possess the same qualities. Whether you call him WF or philosopher-king is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a fundamental difference between Plato and the Islamic scholars. Plato believed that the masses do not posses the intelligence to be educated in the metaphysical sciences. The Philosopher King thinks for his subjects. Conversely, the Islamic scholars urge people to take responsibility for their own education and to continually expand intellectually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well this difference is not really relevant to the Wilayat al-Faqih system which clearly states that its legitimacy does not depend on what the people think. Whether the people have intelligence or not, they still don't take part in the decision making process because they do not have the expertise of the Wali Faqih. In other words, people can think for themselves but when it comes to running the country it is the Wali Faqih with his small circle of experts who do the thinking for them.

in any case, noone is saying that Ayatollah Khomeini plagiarised Plato so obviously there will be differences. Quite simply, he was influnced by a theory which he was very familiar with as a lover of philosophy and he used it among other sources to construct his own unique theory. Thats what intellectuals do, no branch of knowledge exists in a vacuum and being influenced by something you think is right does not undermine your position as a unique thinker. It also doesn't make you an un-islamic thinker if you make some use of philosophical sources along with islamic ones - all true knowledge is islamic and besides, those of our scholars who, like Ayatollah Khomeini, were very much into philosophy did consider it islamic because even those Greek theories they took mostly from Arab Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina and others. People like Mulla Sadra have incorporated many elements of classical philosophy, illuminationist philosophy etc. into their theories, they didn't just quote a few hadith, but it doesn't make their theories any less islamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...