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  
zuhair_naqvi

Wali-e-faqih VS Khalifat-ul-muslimeen

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In terms of practical governance and rights / authority over the ummah, how is the office of wail-e-faqih different from the office of khalifat-ul-muslimeen?

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't really much of a difference as the Suprem Leader takes many decisions that can only be taken by the rightful khalifa. These are the very same questions that cause some disagreement between the scholars, as some say that the Wilayat-e-faqih system that is governing Iran is the same as khilafat and therefore shouldn't be used, whereas others say that at the time of the occultation there needs to be scholars who can take care of the affairs of the muslim ummah. Basically, there are scholars who believe true wilayat-e-faqih should be a bit more "diluted" and taken down a few degrees.

Edited by MFAHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't really much of a difference as the Suprem Leader takes many decisions that can only be taken by the rightful khalifa. These are the very same questions that cause some disagreement between the scholars, as some say that the Wilayat-e-faqih system that is governing Iran is the same as khilafat and therefore shouldn't be used, whereas others say that at the time of the occultation there needs to be scholars who can take care of the affairs of the muslim ummah. Basically, there are scholars who believe true wilayat-e-faqih should be a bit more "diluted" and taken down a few degrees.

In that case, isn't Khamenei "amir-ul-momeen" (in historic sense of the phrase used for a caliph) for believers of Wilayat-e-Faqih?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, isn't Khamenei "amir-ul-momeen" (in historic sense of the phrase used for a caliph) for believers of Wilayat-e-Faqih?

That's the thing, those that follow wilayat-e-faqih don't see him as being amir ul momineen, they see him as just fulfilling the duties that must be performed in the ghayba of our Imam. On the other hand, from a general point of view it seems like he is taking up a role solely reserved for our Aimmah (as) . Any more input from others would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing, those that follow wilayat-e-faqih don't see him as being amir ul momineen, they see him as just fulfilling the duties that must be performed in the ghayba of our Imam. On the other hand, from a general point of view it seems like he is taking up a role solely reserved for our Aimmah (as) . Any more input from others would be helpful.

Effectively, an acting president is the president for all intents and purposes isn't he?

So why do the followers of wilayat-e-faqih feel guilty in declaring wali-e-faqih as ameer-ul momineen if he is playing that role (of a caliph)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effectively, an acting president is the president for all intents and purposes isn't he?

So why do the followers of wilayat-e-faqih feel guilty in declaring wali-e-faqih as ameer-ul momineen if he is playing that role (of a caliph)?

Perhaps they can't bring themselves to compare the faqih to the Aimmah (as) whom Allah Himself has chosen. There may also be a feeling that the true Wali is Imam Mahdi and that the Supreme Leader is just temporary, acting, this in their view may not be enough to call him Amir ul Momineen, although all the criterion are being met.

Edited by MFAHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they can't bring themselves to compare the faqih to the Aimmah (as) whom Allah Himself has chosen. There may also be a feeling that the true Wali is Imam Mahdi and that the Supreme Leader is just temporary, acting, this in their view may not be enough to call him Amir ul Momineen, although all the criterion are being met.

Doesn't that show a conflict in action and belief? Doing one thing and saying the other, which is also called 'hypocrisy'.

Either believe in it (wilayat-e-faqih) and accept it's logical conclusion (Supreme Leader is Amirul momineen) OR refute the concept of wilayat-e-faqih all together (like Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei did) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't that show a conflict in action and belief? Doing one thing and saying the other, which is also called 'hypocrisy'.

Either believe in it (wilayat-e-faqih) and accept it's logical conclusion (Supreme Leader is Amirul momineen) OR refute the concept of wilayat-e-faqih all together (like Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei did) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense.

True, or the concept of Wilayat -e- Faqih that Ayatollah Sistani upholds would seem like a good solution. His views regarding the concept seem much more plausable. It doesn't give the Supreme Leader as much power as Iran does.

Edited by MFAHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

In that case, isn't Khamenei "amir-ul-momeen" (in historic sense of the phrase used for a caliph) for believers of Wilayat-e-Faqih?

I hope that you are not one of the scholar hatters. Please take the name of our scholars with respect. You may put Sayyed, Sheikh, Ayatullah or something of that sort to show respect.

Effectively, an acting president is the president for all intents and purposes isn't he?

So why do the followers of wilayat-e-faqih feel guilty in declaring wali-e-faqih as ameer-ul momineen if he is playing that role (of a caliph)?

Note that Ameer al-Momineen was the title of IMAM ALI (as) and out of respect for him none of our Holy Imams (as), let alone scholars ever took that title.

Now regarding your original question. There is world of difference b/w the office of Wali-e-Faqih the office of Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen. One such difference is AUTHORITY. The authority of Wali-e-Faqih is limited with respect to the issues relating to the administration of the Islamic country and general affairs of Muslims. On the other hand the authority of a true Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen is beyond the scope of this discussion. For example he has authority over other living beings like Jinns, plants, animals and so on.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, or the concept of Wilayat -e- Faqih that Ayatollah Sistani upholds would seem like a good solution. His views regarding the concept seem much more plausable.

Can you please list the differences between Sayyed Sistani's version of wilayat-e-faqih and Sayyed Khamenei's version of wilayat-e-faqih?

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Doesn't that show a conflict in action and belief? Doing one thing and saying the other, which is also called 'hypocrisy'.

Calling any of our Marja a hypocrite is disrespect and it is against the rules of this forum. So a word of advise, mind your language.

Either believe in it (wilayat-e-faqih) and accept it's logical conclusion (Supreme Leader is Amirul momineen) OR refute the concept of wilayat-e-faqih all together (like Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei did) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense.

Ayatullah Khoi (may Allah bless his soul) is dead. Please dont attribute things to great scholars without references.

True, or the concept of Wilayat -e- Faqih that Ayatollah Sistani upholds would seem like a good solution. His views regarding the concept seem much more plausable. It doesn't give the Supreme Leader as much power as Iran does.

And Ayatullah Sistani's (may Allah bless him) office is open. Ask him and his office to explain his views.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

I hope that you are not one of the scholar hatters. Please take the name of our scholars with respect. You may put Sayyed, Sheikh, Ayatullah or something of that sort to show respect.

Note that Ameer al-Momineen was the title of IMAM ALI (as) and out of respect for him none of our Holy Imams (as), let alone scholars ever took that title.

Now regarding your original question. There is world of difference b/w the office of Wali-e-Faqih the office of Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen. One such difference is AUTHORITY. The authority of Wali-e-Faqih is limited with respect to the issues relating to the administration of the Islamic country and general affairs of Muslims. On the other hand the authority of a true Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen is beyond the scope of this discussion. For example he has authority over other living beings like Jinns, plants, animals and so on.

WS

I agree and I believe that a Amirul Muminin is Imam Ali's (as) exclusive title in shia belief. But please note that I mentioned "in historic sense of a phrase used for a caliph" all caliphs (including muawiya) were called amirul mominin which is a fact in history.

As for the difference you mentioned, the difference in authority over muslimeen vs authority over other forms of life is only if you believe in wilayat-e-takweeni. But in terms of sovereign authority, wali-e-faqih is the Caliph in relation to the ummah and by definition his rights are equal to the rights of the Prophet which include ordering jihad, collecting religious taxes and dictating shariah.

You either belong to this school of thought or you don't there is no "in-between" unfortunately.

(bismillah)

Calling any of our Marja a hypocrite is disrespect and it is against the rules of this forum. So a word of advise, mind your language.

WS

Do you not understand english? I was referring to people who CLAIM to believe in wilayat-e-faqih but are reluctant to accept it's logical conclusion. I was not referring to Maraje, please drink a glass of water, calm down, read posts more than once and when you understand, then reply.

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either believe in it (wilayat-e-faqih) and accept it's logical conclusion (Supreme Leader is Amirul momineen) OR refute the concept of wilayat-e-faqih all together (like Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei did) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense.

Refute the concept? I am surprised at that statement, some proof would help please. As far as I have read that all marjas believe in Wilayatul Faqee as a concept but differentiate on the issue of authority a faqee can hold. While Imam Khomeini believed in the authority being mutlaqa, the others did not feel such is the case including Ayatollah Khoei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refute the concept? I am surprised at that statement, some proof would help please. As far as I have read that all marjas believe in Wilayatul Faqee as a concept but differentiate on the issue of authority a faqee can hold. While Imam Khomeini believed in the authority being mutlaqa, the others did not feel such is the case including Ayatollah Khoei.

I am referring to wilayat-e-faqih as practiced (In Iran) which is Sayyed Khomeini's version, not appreciated by elder scholars like Sayyed Abul Qassim Khoei. Also the term "wilayat-e-faqih" itself was coined by Sayyed Khomeini so I cant understand what you are referring to when you say all maraje believe in it. If you're referring to the authority of a marja over his muqallideen, that's not wilayat-e-faqih as such.

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

I agree and I believe that a Amirul Muminin is Imam Ali's (as) exclusive title in shia belief. But please note that I mentioned "in historic sense of a phrase used for a caliph" all caliphs (including muawiya) were called amirul mominin which is a fact in history.

In history some Kings called themselves gods, but that did not make them True God. When discussing with Shia we dont care what enemies of Ahlul Bait (A) called themselves.

As for the difference you mentioned, the difference in authority over muslimeen vs authority over other forms of life is only if you believe in wilayat-e-takweeni. But in terms of sovereign authority, wali-e-faqih is the Caliph in relation to the ummah and by definition his rights are equal to the rights of the Prophet which include ordering jihad, collecting religious taxes and dictating shariah.

My understanding is that all qualified scholars have that authority. They can (if necessary) declare jehad, collect religious tax and dictate sharia (interpretation).

Even secular societies can not function without giving similar authority in the hands of someone. In case enemy attacks, someone has to declare jehad may it be a president, prime minister or king.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syed al-Khoei didn't reject the concept of wilayah al-Faqih altogether. The difference b/w scholars is over the issue of mutlaqa wilayat al-Faqih.

åá åäÇß ÇÌãÇÚ ãä ÚáãÇÆäÇ ÇáãÑÇÌÚ ÇáãÊÞÏãíä æÇáãÊÃÎÑíä Úáì æáÇíÉ ÇáÝÞíå¿

æÖÍæÇ áäÇ áíÊÈíä áäÇ ãä ÓãÇÍÊßã ÍÞíÞÉ ÇáãÓÃáÉ ÚäÏ ÚáãÇÆäÇ ÇáÇÚáÇã ÇáÐíä ÃÝÊæÇ ÈæáÇíÉ ÇáÝÞíå Ýí ÚÕÑ ÛíÈÉ ÞÇÆã Âá ãÍãÏ (ÚÌ) ÇáÔÑíÝ¿

ÇáÎæÆí: ÃãÇ ÇáæáÇíÉ Úáì ÇáÃãæÑ ÇáÍÓÈíÉ ßÍÝÙ ÃãæÇá ÇáÛÇÆÈ æÇáíÊíã ÇÐÇ áã íßä ãä íÊÕÏì áÍÝÙåÇ ßÇáæáí Ãæ äÍæå¡ Ýåí ËÇÈÊÉ ááÝÞíå ÇáÌÇãÚ ááÔÑÇÆØ ¡ æßÐÇ ÇáãæÞæÝÇÊ ÇáÊí áíÓ áåÇ ãÊæáí ãä ÞÈá ÇáæÇÞÝ æÇáãÑÇÝÚÇÊ¡ ÝÅä ÝÕá ÇáÎÕæãÉ ÝíåÇ ÈíÏ ÇáÝÞíå æÃãËÇá Ðáß¡ æÃãÇ ÇáÒÇÆÏ Úáì Ðáß ÝÇáãÔåæÑ Èíä ÇáÝÞåÇÁ Úáì ÚÏã ÇáËÈæÊ .

http://www.alseraj.net/ar/fikh/1/?MGS3DxCwUn1074533958&61&90&3

ÓÄÇá 6: åá ÊÑì ÓãÇÍÊßã æáÇíÉ ÇáÝÞíå ÇáãØáÞÉ Ãã áÇ¿

ÇáÎæÆí: Ýí ËÈæÊ ÇáæáÇíÉ ÇáãØáÞÉ ááÝÞíå ÇáÌÇãÚ ááÔÑÇÆØ ÎáÇÝ æãÚÙã ÝÞåÇÁ ÇáÃãÇãíÉ íÞæáæä ÈÚÏã ËÈæÊåÇ æÅäãÇ ËÈÊÊ Ýí ÇáÃãæÑ ÇáÍÓÈíÉ ÝÞØ æÇááå ÇáÚÇáã.

http://eram.shirazu.ac.ir/www2/CD1/www.tabrizi.org/html/bo/sirat/1/bew.htm

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

In history some Kings called themselves gods, but that did not make them True God. When discussing with Shia we dont care what enemies of Ahlul Bait (A) called themselves.

My understanding is that all qualified scholars have that authority. They can (if necessary) declare jehad, collect religious tax and dictate sharia (interpretation).

Even secular societies can not function without giving similar authority in the hands of someone. In case enemy attacks, someone has to declare jehad may it be a president, prime minister or king.

WS

That's what I'm saying, Sayyed Khamenei is the Caliph and the present day successor of the prophet for those who believe in wilayat-e-faqih. What's the disagreement about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please list the differences between Sayyed Sistani's version of wilayat-e-faqih and Sayyed Khamenei's version of wilayat-e-faqih?

Like ayatollah Khoei, ayatollah sistani doesn't really agree with Aytollah Khomeini and ayatollah khamenie. The main disagreement between all these ayatollah's is the scope of the power. Ayatollah Sistani believes in more power tha Ayatollah Khoie but less than Ayatollah Khomeini.

Question : What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the jurist)?

Answer : Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are technically called al-omour al-hesbiah. As for general affairs with which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of acceptability of Faqih among majority of momeneen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like ayatollah Khoei, ayatollah sistani doesn't really agree with Aytollah Khomeini and ayatollah khamenie. The main disagreement between all these ayatollah's is the scope of the power. Ayatollah Sistani believes in more power tha Ayatollah Khoie but less than Ayatollah Khomeini.

Question : What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the jurist)?

Answer : Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are technically called al-omour al-hesbiah. As for general affairs with which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of acceptability of Faqih among majority of momeneen.

Like most of his comments on politically sensitive issues, this one attempts to sound neutral and ambiguous as well but if you read it carefully, it's a nicer way of saying - Wilayat-e-Faqih Mutlaqa is practicable if the faqih is popular and meets certain other criteria. So Sayyed Sisitani's disagreement is with the criteria of wali-e-faqih and not the authority which is equal to that of the Prophet himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WF leadership is limited to politics and also the person in charge can be deemed to be unfitable and judgement can be made about his actions by society.. WF Mutlaqa gives Authoriy over all matters when it WF sees a decision effects the cause of Islam and welfare of the state/nation/Muslims...

Khamanei has many times said the system as well even Fiqh and Islam as we have it, is all about to question, dialogue and potential change, but it must be done without this Fitna hatred type thing people like to do...

Khalifate on the other required obedience in all matters (spiritual, Fiqh, Politics, etc) and unquestionable complete submission to the teachings and path and example of the one whom bears it. There is no room for criticism or seeing wrong decision was made, etc.... All of the Islam implemented by a Khalif cannot be question and the heart must be submissive to all judgments knowing it's based on the Eternal Light of God, his Haq, his Justice...

There is a huge difference...

Also regarding government, if you look at hadiths, it is like this:

Out of bad and good/just people, the latter should be leaders and evil people should not be let to rule.

Out of good people, it should be those with knowledge of the Deen...

Out of those with knowledge of the Deen, it should be the most knowledgable and most capable...

And we know the most knowledgabe and capable are those chosen by God...

This is what hadiths show...what Quran shows...what logic shows....

Accepting Taghoot rulers, a society doing this, has turned it's back on the clear message of Quran...

And saying there is no type of government enjoined by Islam, is to say their is no more morally right government to have over another in Ghayba, which is redicolous, and it;s out of the question...

The Islamic Government is a Outward Clear teaching of Quran, while infallibe Imams (as) is more unclear...

There is no way something a less clear verses will abrogate clear commands and verses... this is only people with diseased hearts that give no respect to Quran whom would ever think so....

So Muslims are more required to believe in Islamic Government and the need to establish it (because those verses are explicit) then the designation of Chosen ones..(which is implicit)..and if it was not implicit, it would not a coveyance on Ghadeer Khum so much so that without that conveyance, it would not have been conveyd to society and his Message would not have been completely conveyed....

People whom want to let the Jinn Worshippers and do nothing about it, just waiting, let them install and continue to instal all their puppets and oppose the Scholars that work to overthrow tyrants, etc.. see the sermon of Mina how those scholars are critized for that, how they oppose those scholars whom work to overthrow tyrants, these are the worse scum of the nation...

And people whom use rhetoric of "Imam" to go against everything they stood for, are also scum, and not to far off the worse scums of the nation, and they are Fitna makers, mufsideen, and people whom the hands of Muslims are not safe from.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm saying, Sayyed Khamenei is the Caliph and the present day successor of the prophet for those who believe in wilayat-e-faqih. What's the disagreement about?

First of enough proof has been given that all Shia scholars believe in wilayat-e-faqih (of some degree). So let us get that out of the way.

Second, the present day successor of the prophet (S) is our IMAM MAHDI (ATF).

Third, yes as head of an Islamic State and WF, Sayyed Khamenei has authority with respect to the issues relating to the administration of the Islamic country and general affairs of Muslims. But practically it is same as any head of state (king, president or prime minister) would have.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WF leadership is limited to politics and also the person in charge can be deemed to be unfitable and judgement can be made about his actions by society.. WF Mutlaqa gives Authoriy over all matters when it WF sees a decision effects the cause of Islam and welfare of the state/nation/Muslims...

Khamanei has many times said the system as well even Fiqh and Islam as we have it, is all about to question, dialogue and potential change, but it must be done without this Fitna hatred type thing people like to do...

Khalifate on the other required obedience in all matters (spiritual, Fiqh, Politics, etc) and unquestionable complete submission to the teachings and path and example of the one whom bears it. There is no room for criticism or seeing wrong decision was made, etc.... All of the Islam implemented by a Khalif cannot be question and the heart must be submissive to all judgments knowing it's based on the Eternal Light of God, his Haq, his Justice...

Yes, that would be another difference. In personal fiqhi matters you dont have to necessarily follow WF. You can follow any other qualified Marja. In case of Khalifa you wont have that choice.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WF leadership is limited to politics and also the person in charge can be deemed to be unfitable and judgement can be made about his actions by society.. WF Mutlaqa gives Authoriy over all matters when it WF sees a decision effects the cause of Islam and welfare of the state/nation/Muslims...

Khalifate on the other required obedience in all matters (spiritual, Fiqh, Politics, etc) and unquestionable complete submission to the teachings and path and example of the one whom bears it. There is no room for criticism or seeing wrong decision was made, etc....

There is a huge difference...

Also regarding government, if you look at hadiths, it is like this:

Out of bad and good/just people, the latter should be leaders and evil people should not be let to rule.

Out of good people, it should be those with knowledge of the Deen...

Out of those with knowledge of the Deen, it should be the most knowledgable and most capable...

And we know the most knowledgabe and capable are those chosen by God...

This is what hadiths show...what Quran shows...what logic shows....

Accepting Taghoot rulers, a society doing this, has turned it's back on the clear message of Quran...

And saying there is no type of government enjoined by Islam, is to say their is no more morally right government to have over another in Ghayba, which is redicolous, and it;s out of the question...

The Islamic Government is a Outward Clear teaching of Quran, while infallibe Imams (as) is more unclear...

There is no way something a less clear verses will abrogate clear commands and verses... this is only people with diseased hearts that give no respect to Quran whom would ever think so....

So Muslims are more required to believe in Islamic Government and the need to establish it (because those verses are explicit) then the designation of Chosen ones..(which is implicit)..and if it was not implicit, it would not a coveyance on Ghadeer Khum so much so that without that conveyance, it would not have been conveyd to society and his Message would not have been completely conveyed....

Again like, Orion you're talking about theoretical differences according to your personal belief. But in practice, abidance to wilayat-e-faqih requires total submission (Political, Spiritual and Physical) to the authority of the Supreme Leader, anyone who disagrees with his decree is deemed to be in disagreement with the sovereignty of the state and this is the station of a Caliph.

We're discussing practical differences in sovereign authority of Wali-e-Faqih and Khalifat-ul-muslimeen and not perceived difference in statuses (as perception of a difference in status doesn't change anything).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am referring to wilayat-e-faqih as practiced (In Iran) which is Sayyed Khomeini's version, not appreciated by elder scholars like Sayyed Abul Qassim Khoei. Also the term "wilayat-e-faqih" itself was coined by Sayyed Khomeini so I cant understand what you are referring to when you say all maraje believe in it. If you're referring to the authority of a marja over his muqallideen, that's not wilayat-e-faqih as such.

Wilayat ul Faqih means authority of a Jurist, even the concept of Taqleed relates to this authority and you will that any book which outlines the doctrine of Wilayat ul Faqih be it Mutlaqa or otherwise starts from the basic point which covers the authority of a Jurist in matters of Fiqh etc and then progress further to talk about the social and political aspects. An example would be how the book 'Shia Political Thought' outlines it.

And see this is my issue here you said in the previous post you stated 'refuted' and now 'not appreciated' please as I asked, present proof before stating such things and using such words. And yes all Marjas do believe in Wilayat ul Faqih this is well known from just reading their Rishalah.

Here is the differences between the two authorities:

4. Wilayat al-Mutlaqa (The Absolute Authority)

According to textual evidences, such as verse 6 of Chapter 33 of the Qur¡¯an, Imami scholars believe that the Prophet and Imams have divine authority over the people. The verse states that the Prophet has more rights over the believers than they have over themselves; thus his discretionary authority is effective amongst the people. This same authority, according to Shi¡¯a beliefs, is also bestowed upon the Imams.

5. Wilayat al-Usuba

According to Sunni jurists, this authority is connected to inheritance; it encompasses a class of inheritors. This category of Wilayat is not accepted by Imami scholars.

According to Imami doctrine, absolute authority (Wilayat al- Mutlaqa al-Elahiya) remains with the Absent Imam, even during his greater occultation. Therefore, in order to exercise authority, every just and capable faqih requires the sanction of the Imam, who is in turn designated by God as the possessor of absolute authority and guardianship.

Although all Imami scholars generally agree upon the doctrine of Vicegerency (Niyabat) that emphasizes the role of capable jurists as deputies of the Absent Imam, who are entrusted with a degree of his authority. However, the crucial issue is the scope and extent of this vicegerency and in which affairs the jurists have authority.

In order to clarify the dimensions of this discussion, it is necessary to examine the traditional roles and functions that qualified jurists undertake as deputies of the Imam.

source: Shia Political Thought

(Chapter 2 under meaning of Wilayat ul Faqih)

Furthermore regarding the view of Ayatollah Khoei, here is an extract from the book of Sayed Mohammad Rizvi. The only differnce between Imam Khomeini and Ayatullah Khoei is their understanding of what the limits of the faqih during occulation are. See the extract below:

Coming to the views of the late Ayatullah al-Khu'i on the wilāyat of the Prophet and the Ahlul Bayt, I quote from the transcripe of his lectures in which he says:

"As for the first type of wilāyat [takviniya, universal], obviously there is no doubt in their authority over the entire creation as is clear from the ahādíth because they are the link in creation, through them [continues] the existence, and they are reason for creation [of the universe]; if it had not been for them, Allāh would not have created the people altogether, the people have been created for them, through them the people exist, and they are the means of the pouring forth [of the Divine grace].

"Actually, they have the universal authority just below that of the Creator Himself; this authority [of theirs] is like the authority of Almighty Allāh on the creation, however, it is weaker compared to the authority of Almighty Allāh on the creation."[124]

Then al-Khū'í also talks about the civil/political authority of the Prophet and the Imams, and says,

"As for the second dimension of their legislative wilāyat (at-tashrí'iyya) in the sense that they possess the authority to independently administer the properties and the lives of the people-obviously, there is no dispute on their authority of this kind...This is proven from well attested ahādíth, and in the farewell sermon [the Prophet said], 'Whomsoever's master I am, this 'Ali is his master. Do I not have more authority over the believers than they have themselves?' They said, 'Yes.'..."[125]

Ayatullāh al-Khū'í, while affirming the universal wilāyat of the Prophet and the Imams, does not deny their political authority. Actually, he goes further to say that,

"And the presumption that the history is contrary to that [in the sense that the Imams did not historically exercise their political authority]...is invalid."

Thus he concludes,

"So not exercising [the authority in the historical sense] does not prove the non-existence of the authority as is obvious."[126]

In essence, the two great jurists of the contemporary Shí'a world representing Qum and Najaf have identical views about the wilāyat of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). They both believe in all dimensions of wilāyat -spiritual, socio-political, and universal- of the Prophet and the Imams. The difference that existed between the two was only on the limits of the authority of a faqih (mujtahid, jurist) during the Occultation of the Present Imam (a.s.).

Imamat and Wilayat - Chapter 6

Lastly, regarding the term Wilayatul Faqee it was not coined by Imam Khomeini rather it was centuries before him by Allama Naraqi who wrote about the Guardianship of Jurist first.

Edit:See post 21 in this thread for all the information relating to the differences relating to Wilayat ul Faqih as believed by Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khoei.

Edited by A follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuhair, I've noticed you've got this habit of dropping in the site every few months now and then, asking some "question", then going into a launch of your own anti-scholar pro-pseudo-Akhbari propaganda (whether in denouncing jurists or in promoting your particular beliefs about the Imams (as)). Frankly, it's kind of boring, and very annoying. If you want a platform for attention, please find it elsewhere.

To all the rest responding, please realize you're doing exactly what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuhair, I've noticed you've got this habit of dropping in the site every few months now and then, asking some "question", then going into a launch of your own anti-scholar pro-pseudo-Akhbari propaganda (whether in denouncing jurists or in promoting your particular beliefs about the Imams (as)). Frankly, it's kind of boring, and very annoying. If you want a platform for attention, please find it elsewhere.

To all the rest responding, please realize you're doing exactly what he wants.

I appreciate your criticism. Like a normal person though I get quite busy and find time once a couple of months to post here. And just because you're an admin doesnt mean you have the right to call me anti-scholar pseudo-akhbari etc. just like I dont have the right to call you a mutazili.

Apart from that, a forum is for holding a dialog isn't it? If you find a simple "question" offensive then you should really have questions about the vulnerability of your beliefs rather than questioning mine.

If you dont like being questioned, you can delete this thread and ban me, I dont care.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you also can question (but not oppose and cause Fitna) his political decisions and criticize..but you should not go make an all opposition, people then should see you like Mauwiya who did that with "Uthman needing justice" whether your claim is right or not, is irrelevant...(if you think about it, it will open room to Mauwiyas if you give "what if he's right thing" because then even people don't know or know they are wrong, they can use this rhetoric and the masses will be left in confusion like as happened in the past).

I find the biggest hypocracy in people whom take the role of Khums of Imams but think this political leadership is ofcoruse forbidden... they simply decide by their HOWA what roles of Imams (as) they wish to take...

However, this ROLE is not unique to Imams, as hadiths shows, it's general to scholars... but just like many Anbiya (as) or Imams (as) present, only one need to take on active main role of it in society... so it's the same now...

This stupidy inheirted from rejecters of leadership of Zaid (as).. this QAYAS, of that leadership, that role he took saying follow me, we will overthrow the governemnt, not as in follow me, I am your leader in all maters, Fiqh and revelation, I demand unquestionable obedience and am your spiritual guide and companion... not this type... rather I am son of Imam Sajjad (as), I am brother of Imam Baqir (as), and Imam (as) a follower of Imam JAffar (as), I love Ahlebayt (as), I love Islam, help me overthrow the tyrants, follow me in this... the people whom rejected this leadership were cursed and will continue to be cursed.. and Abu Jarud was a TRUE SHIA, he didn't turn his back on Imam Baqir (as), it's rather WUSSIES wanted to confuse the leaderships all to justify remaining WUSSIES and COWARDS...

The people whom make comparision with this leadership with that of Imams (as) are just inheritors of the same cursed people whom betrayed Imams (as) over and over again with same mentality, while the leaders behind all this uprisings, were at the end, no one but the Imams (as)....

The fact no one is more deserving of curse then these people, because it's all love of world to justify betraying Imams (as) causes and God in the NAME of IMAMATE...

And this is what exacltly Zuhair Naqvi inherits...

I'm a ZAIDI TWELVER SHIA, the ONE ABU JARUD (qas) properly taught.. . not your wussy mentality...

And may God bless Zaid (as) and those whom were martyred with him, true followers of Hussain (as), not just fake lovers whom no how to hang on to slogans...

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you also can question (but not oppose and cause Fitna) his political decisions and criticize..but you should not go make an all opposition, people then should see you like Mauwiya who did that with "Uthman needing justice" whether your claim is right or not, is irrelevant...(if you think about it, it will open room to Mauwiyas if you give "what if he's right thing" because then even people don't know or know they are wrong, they can use this rhetoric and the masses will be left in confusion like as happened in the past).

I find the biggest hypocracy in people whom take the role of Khums of Imams but think this political leadership is ofcoruse forbidden... they simply decide by their HOWA what roles of Imams (as) they wish to take...

However, this ROLE is not unique to Imams, as hadiths shows, it's general to scholars... but just like many Anbiya (as) or Imams (as) present, only one need to take on active main role of it in society... so it's the same now...

This stupidy inheirted from rejecters of leadership of Zaid (as).. this QAYAS, of that leadership, that role he took saying follow me, we will overthrow the governemnt, not as in follow me, I am your leader in all maters, Fiqh and revelation, I demand unquestionable obedience and am your spiritual guide and companion... not this type... rather I am son of Imam Sajjad (as), I am brother of Imam Baqir (as), and Imam (as) a follower of Imam JAffar (as), I love Ahlebayt (as), I love Islam, help me overthrow the tyrants, follow me in this... the people whom rejected this leadership were cursed and will continue to be cursed.. and Abu Jarud was a TRUE SHIA, he didn't turn his back on Imam Baqir (as), it's rather WUSSIES wanted to confuse the leaderships all to justify remaining WUSSIES and COWARDS...

The people whom make comparision with this leadership with that of Imams (as) are just inheritors of the same cursed people whom betrayed Imams (as) over and over again with same mentality, while the leaders behind all this uprisings, were at the end, no one but the Imams (as)....

The fact no one is more deserving of curse then these people, because it's all love of world to justify betraying Imams (as) causes and God in the NAME of IMAMATE...

And this is what exacltly Zuhair Naqvi inherits...

I'm a ZAIDI TWELVER SHIA, the ONE ABU JARUD (qas) properly taught.. . not your wussy mentality...

And may God bless Zaid (as) and those whom were martyred with him, true followers of Hussain (as), not just fake lovers whom no how to hang on to slogans...

I find it somewhat humorous to see you guys get so frustrated in answering a simple question. Please explain your allegation in relation to my post.

And why are you bosting about Zaidism here? Completely irrelevant.

I am really pleased with your akhlaq (or lack thereof) and your unusual sense of humour.. lol

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's got to be one of the most clueless posts you've ever written. Do you have any idea what Abu 'l-Jarud actually taught?

You know what MacIsaac, you can't see through anything...

We have authentic hadith connected back to him of knowing of exactly TWELVE Imams... he was a student of Imam Baqir (as)...

If he taught the Imam from them doesn't sit but rises against oppressor, well this exactly what I believe... did he say Imam Jaffar (as) is not the true Imam, no I don't think so...

Was Zaid ibn Ali (as) leadership binding yes...

I think this is what a true shia would teach after his betrayal, but then people whom want to not accept this, they will confuse things..

like he rejected the Imamate of Jaffar (as) or Imam Baqir (as) for Zaid (as)..even though no one believed Zaid was chosen by God while Abu Jarud did believe Imam Baqir (as) and other Imams (as) are chosen by God, It doesn't make sense to assume he disbeleived in this and exchanged that believe of infallibe Imamate to non-infallible type...

If you would just stop with the inherited bais (our Imams (as) were hiding the true deed, they didn't lead no uprsings,etc), you can see this is more reasonable then to assume all these bad things about Abu Jarud....

Why the heck would he think this? He would have atleast asked Imam Jaffar (as) and we an authentic hadith that Imam Jaffar (as) was sought permission by Zaid and told him if he is prepared to die then go fight... and no way in heck will a true shia will ever say, I'm not prepared to die! so this was a direct order? So you telling me he would not have sought claification..and ok if he didn't... imam Jaffar (as) would not try to guide him back and tell him that he the leader behind this in reality, but don't reveal our commands to the public.... but rather go to teach rising for justice and instil this in people, and I will find leaders to rise up... I would rise up myself publically but were it not for the danger of the deen... if you have this view..of the Islam, of duty of Jihaad...

Then it's quite clear this is what makes sense...

But if yuo believe like you probably do, that after Imam Hussain (as), everyone was told not to ever rise again till Imam Mahdi (as), sit and pass secrets, hide the Deen from public, etc. (the Sermon of Mina was just a one type duties enjoined abrogated after that)etc..

Then ok, yeah it doesn't make sense at all, how can you assume that?

My thoughts failed to remove his oppression. Whoever of Your people I asked for help disappointed me, and whoever of Your creation I relied on betrayed me. - Imam Ali Al-Hadi (peace be upon his holy soul)

I don't take Imam Hadi (as) unique in this path he took, rather all Imams (as) took it, but Imam Hadi (as) decided one day to a big supplication in public and reveal this fact of seeking help, trying to remove his oppression with all this thoughts, being betrayed by all people he depened on in this plan...

This was to make people aware and he was probably martyed very young because of that public awareness (and there was then a lot of uprisings after this from what I read during tme of Imam Hadi (as) but ofcourse Shias will want to say he has nothing to do with it to remain in their WUSSY SHIISM which is called "supporting in slogan opposing in action")...

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awakened, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Ziyad b. al-Mundhar, Abu 'l-Jarud, had been a follower of Imam Baqir (as) but then he abandoned the rightful Imams promoting his own weird ideas and did in fact reject the Imamate of as-Sadiq (as). It is narrated that Imam Baqir (as) called him as-Sarhub, which is a blind Shaytan that lives in the sea, hence his sect was called as-Sarhubiyya by us.

Amongst these odd ideas of the Jarudiyya was that all descendants of `Ali (as) were equal in knowledge. Meaning, whether a suckling baby or a 100 year old Shaykh, _all_ of them miraculously inherited the same knowledge, hence any of them could become Imam as such.

As to Zuhair:

I appreciate your criticism. Like a normal person though I get quite busy and find time once a couple of months to post here. And just because you're an admin doesnt mean you have the right to call me anti-scholar pseudo-akhbari etc. just like I dont have the right to call you a mutazili.

Apart from that, a forum is for holding a dialog isn't it? If you find a simple "question" offensive then you should really have questions about the vulnerability of your beliefs rather than questioning mine.

If you dont like being questioned, you can delete this thread and ban me, I dont care.

Thanks

You've assumed these are my beliefs. No, I'm just referring to you personally and the pattern you've demonstrated in your time on this site and where these "question" threads often lead to. If you wish to go on about how you think the Imam is basically the creator of the universe and how anybody who disagrees with you has a fornicating mother, and so on with slanders against scholars, then your kind is really not welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it somewhat humorous to see you guys get so frustrated in answering a simple question. Please explain your allegation in relation to my post.

And why are you bosting about Zaidism here? Completely irrelevant.

I am really pleased with your akhlaq (or lack thereof) and your unusual sense of humour.. lol

Zuhair Naqvi, I'm sick of the cowards whom betray Imam Mahdi (as) day and night in slogans...and justify their wussy stance in the name of the Wilayah of the holders of the Thulqifar (as).

I'm sick of this long occulation that is mostly due to this mentality...

I wish I could be more polite but this sort of condemning of traitors, was not done so politely in Quran to people, and Quran applies to all ages, and it's condemning betrayers today and people whom hate jihad and forbid this Maroof along with the Maroof of best trying to implement Islamic governement... I read about them in Quran, and they also have other characteristics from opposing the treasures that are with God as not being with God, not understanding how they belong to him, and also the slogan that we cannot know things, are our hearts are heeldess, there isn't this path to knowledge, heart can't see truths, all we got is relying on what is narrated..etc.. and other characertistics..

I read about what honor is, and read the context... read Quran, read the verses sorrounding Ulil Amri, "Thal Qarb" "Ahlebayt", tell me what is all about? Go read them and just label "social commands" "fighting in a way of God", when most of Quran is about this... why the heck we emphasize on what so small amount of Quran is and ignore and even regarded abrogated the greater majority of Quranic ayas?

Don't you see how people stoke to the verse of "khums" as not abrogated (and also twisted it beyond it's origin) yet the whole surah and the commands in there and the over all teaching of it, is abrogated? This is called FISQ, of the FASAD TYPE, of the Ignoring Quran out of love of world type...

You go ahead and stick to your Wilayah, I will recognize the Imams (as) by the command of MAROOFi and forbiding of EVIL, and you can read what that is in Quran, in Sermon of Mina of Imam Hussain (as), you can even know much of it by just realizing your own knowledge of it....

This is theri GREATNESS, is the JIHAD, it's the way, so much so that love his Messenger is one to one with love of Jihaad, it implies it, just as love of God implies love of Messenger... you can read this in the verse "more then Allah and his Messenger and Jihad in his way..."...

And yeah everyone can claim we love Jihaad, but we wait till Imam Mahdi (as), but this is called tricking yourself, because Jihaad is what is going to hastening the appearance and the only thing that will reverse the delay caused by not fulfilling the blessed Surah that near the end says if we do not do it, there will be great mischief and great turmoil in the earth....

And this means as long as we don't do it, there will be that... the day we go back to Quran, and I mean by that accept the clear commands, think about the clear themes, not telling we must know every little detail! then we might had to the direction of ending this cycle that Satan has kept mankind for too long in...

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awakened, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Ziyad b. al-Mundhar, Abu 'l-Jarud, had been a follower of Imam Baqir (as) but then he abandoned the rightful Imams promoting his own weird ideas and did in fact reject the Imamate of as-Sadiq (as). It is narrated that Imam Baqir (as) called him as-Sarhub, which is a blind Shaytan that lives in the sea, hence his sect was called as-Sarhubiyya by us.

Amongst these odd ideas of the Jarudiyya was that all descendants of `Ali (as) were equal in knowledge. Meaning, whether a suckling baby or a 100 year old Shaykh, _all_ of them miraculously inherited the same knowledge, hence any of them could become Imam as such.

As to Zuhair:

You've assumed these are my beliefs. No, I'm just referring to you personally and the pattern you've demonstrated in your time on this site and where these "question" threads often lead to. If you wish to go on about how you think the Imam is basically the creator of the universe and how anybody who disagrees with you has a fornicating mother, and so on with slanders against scholars, then your kind is really not welcome here.

Then you should find all Imamia who believe in wilayat-e-takweeni and ban them, and before you ridicule my belief you should know that I share it with great Imamia scholars such as Mohammad ibn Hasan Al-Saffar (Author of Basaer-ud-darajat and a close companion of Imam Hassan al Askari (as)), Shaikh Abu Ja'far Al-Tabari (author of basharat al mustafa le shiatil murtaza), Shaikh Ibn Shazan Al-Qummi, Aqa-e-Mahdi Bahrool uloom (read his tawale-ul-anwaar) and countless prolific Imamia scholars who believed in wilayat-e-takweeni.

And, why is it so difficult to stick to the topic?

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again like, Orion you're talking about theoretical differences according to your personal belief. But in practice, abidance to wilayat-e-faqih requires total submission (Political, Spiritual and Physical) to the authority of the Supreme Leader, anyone who disagrees with his decree is deemed to be in disagreement with the sovereignty of the state and this is the station of a Caliph.

We're discussing practical differences in sovereign authority of Wali-e-Faqih and Khalifat-ul-muslimeen and not perceived difference in statuses (as perception of a difference in status doesn't change anything).

I am talking about PRACTICAL differences. It would you wrong to say that wilayat-e-faqih requires total submission (Political, Spiritual and Physical) to the authority of the Supreme Leader.

1-In personal fiqhi matters you dont have to necessarily follow WF. You can follow any other qualified Marja. In case of Khalifa you wont have that choice.

2-Yet another difference is that Khalifa is Khalifa for life. On the other hand, WF can be removed by the elected council of experts (Majlis e Khabargan - a body of scholars) if need be.

Both these are practical differences.

WS

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...