Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Welayat Faqih (Takwini Vs. Tashri'i) Explained

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
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.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Jazakallah for this post Brother.

I was skimming thorough the book by Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi (ha) on the subject and he made some interesting points. He poses the question that if we are unable to do something perfectly and completely, should we then just abandon it, or should we try to achieve the next best option?

He provides an example of Waqf. In previous times people left behind land as Waqf (Endowment) to be used for the benefit of the animals that took pilgrims to Ziyarat. The produce of the land would be used on the pilgrims and their animals. Over time, things have changed, and no people dont go Ziyarat on horses. So what should we do with the Waqf? Just leave it to rot because we can no longer fulfil the original condition? Or do we use the land for the next best option, which is to use it to cater for the new transport facilities of the pilgrims?

The way the scholars have answered this question is by going with the second option, by trying to use Waqf for the next best scenario.

After explaining this example he moves on to the question of the Islamic Government. In the absence of the Infallible Imam (as), should we just sit around waiting or should we go for the next best option, which is the rule of the 'Just Qualified Jurist'? 

Something to think over inshaAllah :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
786
 
Here is an explanation of Welayat mutlaqah faqih within the scope of Welayat Tashri'i.  Again, it should shed some light on the concept of Welayat Faqhi and Islamic Government from reliable sources.  I have also seen incorrect association of Welayat Mutlaqah Faqih with Welayat Takwini on many threads discussing this topic or threads that have veered into thei topic and this misconception has caused many brothers and sisters to assume that the IRI has given the WF the same authority and rights as the 14 Masoomeen.  I hope my beautiful cutpasta:) helps to further clear misunderstandings within the Ummah and sincere seekers of knowledge. 
 
 
   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Can you shed some light on the scope and limits of wilayat-e faqih (rule of jurisprudent)?
 
question
 
Can you shed some light on the scope and limits of wilayat-e faqih (rule of jurisprudent)?

Concise answer

The evidence and proofs supporting the rule of the jurisprudent (wilayat-e faqih) during the period of the occultation consider the jurisprudent as the ruler of Islamic society and deputy of the Infallibles, peace be upon them. What is in fact necessary for leadership and administration of society and which the sagacious and wise people of the world consider to be a right and an authority of the leaders of society and of the Infallibles (a.s.) are also proved for the jurisprudent in the time of occultation. Such a meaning is termed as wilayat-e faqih (rule or governance of the jurisprudent) which applies to two main spheres:

1. Those who are subject to this authority (Muwla 'alayhim )

2. Affairs which the jurisprudent has wilayah (authority) over;

As for the first category, the jurisprudent enjoys wilayah over each and every individual of society including Muslims and non-Muslims, Mujtahid and laity, his followers and other Mujtahids’ followers and even on himself. If he issues a ruling, everyone including jurists and even he himself should abide by it and act upon it.

As for the affairs in which the jurisprudent enjoys authority, it should be said that the jurisprudent enjoys authority over all social affairs. He can issue orders in accord with the Shari’ah rules and criteria. If he gives an order, it is necessary on all people to abide by it. There is no doubt that since the jurisprudent has acquired his authority from God, he should act within the framework of rules and standards which God, the Exalted, has presented in various regards.  For this reason, when it comes to the non-binding rules, he should take the public good (maslaha) into consideration and when it comes to the binding rules, he should act in accordance with the conditions set in regards to tazahom (contradiction).

Additionally, it is necessary for the jurisprudent to adhere to the rules prescribed for man’s various social realms and which are referred to and called “school” or “system” according to the codified (written) thought. He should endeavor to help materialize the economic, educational and social systems of Islam in the concrete external world. This by itself will be another limitation on the part of the divine lawgiver in exercising the authority vested with him.

Detailed Answer

The evidence and facts for the rule of the jurisprudent (wilayat-e faqih) during the period of the occultation consider the jurisprudent as the ruler of Islamic society and deputy of the Infallibles, peace be upon them. Therefore, what is necessary for leadership and administration of society and which the sagacious and wise people of the world consider to be a right and an authority of the leaders of society and of the Infallibles (a.s.) are also proved for the jurisprudent in the time of occultation. The authority of a jurisprudent is inferred from unconditional and absolute statements especially those of the Imam of Time. This authority is called absolute guardianship of the jurisprudent as opposed to ‘restricted guardianship of the jurist’. Wilayat mutlaqah faqih extends in scope into two spheres of leadership: 1. The first is in regards to those whom the Faqih has authority over (muwalla alayhim) 2. The second is in regards to the affairs which he has authority and guardianship over.

As for the first category, the jurisprudent has wilayah on each and every individual of society including Muslims and non-Muslims, Mujtahid and laity, his followers and other Mujtahids’ followers and even on himself. If he issues an order, everyone including jurists and even he himself should abide by it and act upon it. The reason, as was mentioned above, is that the textual proofs are absolute and unconditional.[1] Such a meaning is considered to be a rational part and parcel of the leadership of society.

Contrary to the above view, a group of Muslims interpret the term “wilayat” as custody or guardianship in which the subject to authority (Muwla 'alayh ) is unable to manage his own affairs nor is he able to distinguish between the good and the bad. They have thought that the rule of the jurisprudent (wilayat-e faqih) is also restricted to the same area i.e. the ‘incapacity’[2] of the subject whereas the fact is thatwilayat-e faqih is applicable to two areas one of which is the incapacity of the subject while the other is leadership of society.[3]

Therefore, wilayat-e faqih does not imply in any way the incapacity of the subject to the authority of the jurisprudent so that it may be claimed that the Islamic republic under the authority of the jurisprudent is a self-contradictory premise.[4] In fact, in spite of the capability and perfection of the individuals under authority, wilayat in the sense of leadership is proved because the administration and management of societal affairs would not be possible without leadership. For this reason, other jurisprudents who should, despite enjoying the position of wilayat – as per the famous view which subscribe to divinely appointed leadership –inevitably abide by the command of the jurisprudent who has taken control of the affairs of society.  If this obedience was due to the incapacity of the followers, how would the arguments and proofs in favor of the rule of the jurisprudent include them?

As for the second condition, the jurisprudent has authority over all the various issues of society and is able to rule over these factors; when he issues a ruling in regards to societal issues, it is obligatory on all the people to obey him. The reason behind this is the lexical meaning of the word Wilayah (guardianship), as well as the necessity of such a thing in the governance of society.

At the same time, since the jurisprudent derives his authority from God, he is bound to exercise his authority within the framework that God has set out for him. If the jurisprudent is going to rule on an issue that is mubah (meaning that it is neither wajib nor haram), his criterion must be the interest of the Islamic state. This means that if there exists benefit for the overall society or for the Islamic system as a whole, or for a certain group within the society, then the jurisprudent can issue a command or prohibit on the basis of this benefit. This is the same principle by which individuals decide what is in their best interests in their own personal lives when it comes to permissible acts that aremubah. The best proof towards this principle can be found in the following verse of the Quran: «النَّبِیُّ أَوْلى‏ بِالْمُؤْمِنینَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ», which means: “The Prophet has more precedence over the faithful than their own souls…”[5]. The argument of wilayat al-Faqih needs to be added to this verse to prove our point. From this verse, it is understood that the Prophet (s) has precedence in regards to the people to a higher degree than they have in regards to themselves. Therefore, if the people are free to do various things or not do them, the Prophet (s) has the authority to command them or forbid them based on his authority over them.[6] In the same way that the Prophet (s) and the Imams (a) possess this authority in their governance over society, the jurisprudents (who are their representatives) also possess such an authority on behalf of the Infallibles (a).[7] In order to be able to discern where the interests of the Islamic state lie, Islamic guidelines must be taken into consideration, and also, specialists in different fields and sciences should be referred to and consulted to make sure of the existence of these interests and benefits. The jurisprudent has no choice but to refer to various experts in various societal fields in order to know what is truly in the best interests of his society when he wishes to exercise his authority.

If a jurisprudent wishes to exercise wilayat (authority) in the area where God has a binding command or prohibition and the jurisprudent gives a ruling contrary to it, this is possible only when he should act in accordance with the conditions set in regards to contradiction.

Contradiction is a state in which two binding religious but contradictory commandments require the duty-bound (mukallaf) to abide by them whereas it is not possible for him to act according to both of them at the same time, in which case if he acts upon one of them, it will result in his disobedience of the other injunction. In this case, the duty-bound should take the more important and more binding obligation than the less important and less binding one which is also important per se.

When it comes to individual affairs, it is the individuals themselves who distinguish the contradictions and prefer the more important over the less important. As for social affairs, it is the head of the society who should adopt a strategy in this regard. Once he declares his standpoint and position, it is necessary on every individual to follow him. An example which is normally given in regards to contradictions in individual affairs is the following:

Suppose a person walks through another person’s residential place at a time when he sees a child drowning in a swimming pool. He then faces with two obligations which he cannot fulfill jointly and simultaneously: 1- To save the drowning child, 2 – To avoid entering the other person’s private residential place without his permission. Here one should fulfill the obligation which is more important. Obviously, he should save the child by entering that person’s residence without seeking his permission.

For contradiction of obligations in social affairs, we can give the following example:  Suppose there is a country whose people are suffering from acute shortage of food and nutrients. The situation is such that if a solution is not looked for and found, the entire Islamic system would fall into crisis and will eventually collapse. On the other hand, the country has a huge quantity of non-halal food resources such as non-halal fish or fish without scales. If these fish become allowable for consumption, the crisis will end and the danger will be averted. In this case, there are two choices that the Islamic government can adopt: 1- The necessity of protecting the system 2- The prohibition of eating fish without scales. The government will take action to do what is more important. In other words, it will announce to the public to consume non-scaly fish in order to survive.

In this contradiction, eating non-scaly fish becomes permissible for people. In fact, contradiction occurs only when there is not any allowable alternative in sight to remedy the hunger problem. The rules relating to contradiction is valid insofar as the contradiction exists, and it will not be valid as and when there is no contradiction. Obviously, in the absence of any contradiction, it is necessary to act according to the primary Shari’ah rule.

Hence, when it comes to the non-binding rules, the jurisprudent should take the public good (maslaha) into consideration and when it comes to the binding rules, he should act in accordance with the conditions set in regards to contradiction.

Additionally, it is necessary for the jurisprudent to adhere to the rules prescribed for man’s various social realms and which are referred to and called “school” or “system”[8] according to the codified (written) thought. He should endeavor to help materialize the economic, educational and social systems of Islam in the concrete external world. This by itself will be another limitation on the part of the divine lawgiver in exercising the authority vested with him.

Further reading:

- Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani, wilayat wa Diyanat (Guardianship and Religiosity), Khana-e Kherad Cultural Institute, 2nd edition, 1380 (2001).

[1] - See: Index: Proofs of Wilayat-e Faqih.

[2] - It means lack of ability to run and manage one’s own life.

[3] - See index: The Concept of Wilayat-e Faqih

[4] - See Mahdi Haeri Yazdi, Hikmat wa Hokumat, pg. 216.

[5] -Al-Ahzab, 6.

[6] - Vide index: The Reasons for Guardianship of the Infallibles.

[7] - Vide Index: The Proofs for Wilayat-e Faqih (Rule of the Jurisprudent).

[8] - Vide Index: Islam and the Theory of Written Thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

well guys, i understand that welayat al faqeh government is useful system...then why ayatollah khoei rejected it? such knowledgable person why rejected this view? and even wrote that In the time of Ghayba there is absolutely no evidence that proves the Wilayah of the Fuqahah. Wilayah is only the prerogative of the Prophet and Imams. The Fuqahah not only don't have Wilayah in general affairs, but they also do not have any legal Wilayah in non-litigious affairs.

Al-Tanqeeh fi Sharha urwatul wusqa of Al-Khoei by Mirza Ali Gharvi Tabraizi - Page number 424 التنقیح فی شرح العروه الوثقی، الاجتهاد والتقلید، آیت‌الله خویی، تقریرات از میرزا علی غروی تبریزی؛ قم، ص 424 ????????????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/8/2013 at 3:26 PM, mostazaf17 said:

well guys, i understand that welayat al faqeh government is useful system...then why ayatollah khoei rejected it? such knowledgable person why rejected this view? and even wrote that In the time of Ghayba there is absolutely no evidence that proves the Wilayah of the Fuqahah. Wilayah is only the prerogative of the Prophet and Imams. The Fuqahah not only don't have Wilayah in general affairs, but they also do not have any legal Wilayah in non-litigious affairs.

Al-Tanqeeh fi Sharha urwatul wusqa of Al-Khoei by Mirza Ali Gharvi Tabraizi - Page number 424 التنقیح فی شرح العروه الوثقی، الاجتهاد والتقلید، آیت‌الله خویی، تقریرات از میرزا علی غروی تبریزی؛ قم، ص 424 ????????????????????

He rejected because the concept doesn't really exist.

Generally you can play around with Islam, tweak it the way you want it to look and people has been doing that for centuries. So, it's no surprise when you look at how fancy the concept of “wilayah al faqih” is.

But the underlying assumptions that Mullahs somehow have any sort of political authority is false. That doctrine doesn't exist in Islam.

If you have the freedom to create any political system (while the Imam is not presence among us), then you are not limited to one governance style. You are pretty much free to follow/implement anything. You definitely don't need to follow priestly/religious class.

I don't really like Wilayah al-Faqih system, because it's a system of Mullah, by Mullah for Mullah. I dont mind respecting them, but when the Mullahs turned into politicians, that's when I draw the line, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Here is a short book by Shiekh Leghaei on the topic where he aims at clarifying some of the most common misunderstandings:

(A Short Treatise on the Guardianship of the Jurist)

http://www.al-islam.org/a-short-treatise-on-the-guardianship-of-the-jurist-mansour-leghaei/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/11/2013 at 11:32 AM, kadhim said:

No misunderstandings. Just bad ideas. Sandcastles dispersed by a small wave or a gentle breeze.

Then so be it brother, your research and investigation has led you to a conclusion that gives you satisfaction. May Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى keep you happy :)

For those confused and unsure, looking for more information, there are a number of books and articles available that can inshaAllah shed more light on the issue. Here is another book that answers some pertinent queries:

"On The Shore of Contemplation: Wilayatul Faqih"

http://www.al-mubin.org/images/Full-Length%20Books/IPH/352_On%20the%20Shore%20of%20Contemplation.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 8/11/2013 at 11:32 AM, kadhim said:

No misunderstandings. Just bad ideas. Sandcastles dispersed by a small wave or a gentle breeze.

I'm sure there were many during Prophet Yusuf's rule and Imam Ali's caliphate who said the exact same thing, using a similar disgruntled bias. 

Some people will never be satisfied. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well guys, i understand that welayat al faqeh government is useful system...then why ayatollah khoei rejected it? such knowledgable person why rejected this view? and even wrote that In the time of Ghayba there is absolutely no evidence that proves the Wilayah of the Fuqahah. Wilayah is only the prerogative of the Prophet and Imams. The Fuqahah not only don't have Wilayah in general affairs, but they also do not have any legal Wilayah in non-litigious affairs.

Al-Tanqeeh fi Sharha urwatul wusqa of Al-Khoei by Mirza Ali Gharvi Tabraizi - Page number 424 التنقیح فی شرح العروه الوثقی، الاجتهاد والتقلید، آیت‌الله خویی، تقریرات از میرزا علی غروی تبریزی؛ قم، ص 424 ????????????????????

Although Sayyid khoei do not believe in WF, it does not mean he is against anIslamic government. Thus he does not claim that the lawsd are suspended, etc.

Sayyid khoei s fatwa:

2795. If a free man commits adultery he should be whipped one hundred times, and if he commits adultery thrice and is whipped one hundred times on each occasion, he should be killed, if he commits adultery for the fourth time. If a person has a permanent wife or a slave girl, and has had sexual intercourse with her in the state of being adult, sane and free, and on have sexual intercourse with her any time he likes, and in spite of that he commits adultery with a woman, who is adult and sane, he should be stoned to death.

Just saying...

Edited by Nima
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/11/2013 at 2:34 PM, magma said:

I'm sure there were many during Prophet Yusuf's rule and Imam Ali's caliphate who said the exact same thing, using a similar disgruntled bias. 

Some people will never be satisfied. 

Ah..I take it you're a thalatha-asheri then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/11/2013 at 3:51 PM, aliasghark said:

People who believe in the concept of deferring to scholars for leadership aren't equating them to a divine Imams, so unless you're joking I don't know why you ask if magma believes in 13 Imams. 

Well, it was odd, he compared objecting to WF to rejecting Yusuf and Imam Ali. I figured that must have been what he meant.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess that would make him arba'a-ashari.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2013 at 4:12 PM, kadhim said:

Well, it was odd, he compared objecting to WF to rejecting Yusuf and Imam Ali. I figured that must have been what he meant.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess that would make him arba'a-ashari.

Comparing isn't equating. I could say Rohani is a good leader, as is Khamenai, and rejecting either one of them is rejecting the IRI system. That doesn't mean Rohani is at the same level of Khamenai. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

I'm not comparing and contrasing the rule of prophets and imams with the the modern scholars of the WF (even though they are all working for the same purpose, unless you can prove otherwise).  I am comparing what YOUR perception of both during that time period and this one would be. 

I'm arguing that you would be just as bitter, disgruntled, and negative if you were around back then as you are now.  Because there has (and is) always been corruption, social problems, and inequity on the ground level, no matter the best intentions of the top leadership, whether it be Imam Ali or Syed Khamenei. 

It's easy for you, after the fact, 1400 years later to claim the moral high ground, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/11/2013 at 4:54 PM, magma said:

I'm not comparing and contrasing the rule of prophets and imams with the the modern scholars of the WF (even though they are all working for the same purpose, unless you can prove otherwise).  I am comparing what YOUR perception of both during that time period and this one would be. 

I'm arguing that you would be just as bitter, disgruntled, and negative if you were around back then as you are now.  Because there has (and is) always been corruption, social problems, and inequity on the ground level, no matter the best intentions of the top leadership, whether it be Imam Ali or Syed Khamenei. 

It's easy for you, after the fact, 1400 years later to claim the moral high ground, isn't it?

Sounds kind of presumptuous to me. In actuality, it's up to you to prove they are working to the same purpose. That's kind of how it works in judging ideas "Islamic." If someone wants to argue something, he needs to bring meaningful textual evidence. And I don't mean twisting something vague ten ways beyond what can evidently be read from it.

When there's no textual evidence for something, and it's all just rationalizations, I get a bit suspicious. It looks like someone is building a sandcastle.

Nothing bitter or "disgruntled" about it. I don't live in Iran, so it doesn't affect me. Actually, you're looking a little oddly prejudiced here in resorting so quickly to trying to attach some imagined emotional motive.

The reality of the problem is that WF is just another manmade political philosophy made up by some people, possibly well intentioned, but manmade nevertheless. One of a long line of political philosophies going back to the times of Plato and Aristotle. It can demand no more religious allegiance a priori than any other manmade political philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 8/11/2013 at 5:08 PM, kadhim said:

Sounds kind of presumptuous to me. In actuality, it's up to you to prove they are working to the same purpose. That's kind of how it works in judging ideas "Islamic." If someone wants to argue something, he needs to bring meaningful textual evidence. And I don't mean twisting something vague ten ways beyond what can evidently be read from it.

When there's no textual evidence for something, and it's all just rationalizations, I get a bit suspicious. It looks like someone is building a sandcastle.

Nothing bitter or "disgruntled" about it. I don't live in Iran, so it doesn't affect me. Actually, you're looking a little oddly prejudiced here in resorting so quickly to trying to attach some imagined emotional motive.

The reality of the problem is that WF is just another manmade political philosophy made up by some people, possibly well intentioned, but manmade nevertheless. One of a long line of political philosophies going back to the times of Plato and Aristotle. It can demand no more religious allegiance a priori than any other manmade political philosophy.

I was just asking a curious reflection question.  It's rhetorical, you don't have to answer.  Just speculating that you would find excuses for illigitimacy back then as you do now.

As for presumptious and predjudiced, heck ya.  I'm human.  I know how we work.  The system's survival and legitimacy will be proven or disproven beyond what either us morons here say.  That's the beauty of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

I was just asking a curious reflection question.  It's rhetorical, you don't have to answer.  Just speculating that you would find excuses for illigitimacy back then as you do now.

Given that the main problem with WF is an utter lack of foundation in the primary texts, including the words of the aimmah, this is an odd bit of speculation to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 8/11/2013 at 5:57 PM, kadhim said:

Given that the main problem with WF is an utter lack of foundation in the primary texts, including the words of the aimmah, this is an odd bit of speculation to say the least.

Eh...there's a lots of books and stuff talking about it.  Read that stuff....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/11/2013 at 6:06 PM, magma said:

Eh...there's a lots of books and stuff talking about it.  Read that stuff....

I've read the books. That's the problem. Too much stretching and rationalizing-based extrapolation. Baiting and switching, taking a legit statement about something much more restrictive, and pretending it applies to something more general. It's not very impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 8/11/2013 at 6:17 PM, kadhim said:

I've read the books. That's the problem. Too much stretching and rationalizing-based extrapolation. Baiting and switching, taking a legit statement about something much more restrictive, and pretending it applies to something more general. It's not very impressive.

Eh, that's too bad.  Your impressions are most paramount.  The world does revolve around it, I know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

guys i coulndt und anything...stop arguing....i wanted clear explanation....why seyed khoei rejected this theory?

Sayyid Khoei (r.a..) didnt believe the Quran Kareem and the traditions of the Infallibles legitimised a faqih holding political authority.

Sayyid Khomeini (r.a..) was of the absolute opposite view. He argued the Quran Majeed and the traditions of the Infallibles licensed a qualified Faqih to take charge of the political affairs of Muslims.

Scholars have always had differences of opinions. Each does his utmost, according to his understanding, to do that which is in accordance with the pristine teachings of Islam. All we can do in such situations is read through each of their arguments and act in accordance with him who has the best proof to support his stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • Basic Members

1 Imam Khoei's (rh) statements in Minhaj Al-Saliheen page 366 :

" Offensive Jihad is obligatory in time of occultation."

"The Muslims, if they possess the readiness equipment and power, then indeed Jihad against the faithfulness to call them to religion is obligatory upon them."

"Indeed acting upon this important order in the open requires a leader <ka'it> and a commander <amir> who the Muslim ses as an authority <amrihi> upon them."

"So most certainly is assigned to the jurist <faqih> who fulfills the required conditions"

"He conducts this important role through the issue of Hisba, on the basis that somebody else taking such a role would result in chaos and disorder."

2 In his another statements of another books he says : because al-omour al-hesbiah are everything that falls into protecting the stability of life, it is indeed a requirement of Islamic Law, and because it has not been assigned to a specific person, therefore, this Wilaya is a provision assigned to the jurist who fulfills the conditions. [Al-Tanqih, volume 1, Al mustanad, volume 2]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be extreme anti WF for most of my life. I believed (after being taught) that sayed khamenei was the golden calf of our time.

Having studied it properly (i.e. away from shiachat) I think its a perfectly reasonable method of government within iran. its what the majority of iranian people want, and what they freely choose for themselves. anyone who has any sort of issue with this doesnt understand what WF is.

sayed khomeini specifically laid out WF as a political method of governship within Iran, and any state that wishes to submit to it. again - absolutely zero issues from me.

the problem is that people who do not understand sayed khomeinis book (or just havent read it) think that sayed khamenei is some sort of global shia pope, whose powers extend beyond irans borders and into the souls of every muslim on earth - shia or not, accepting him or not.

this is plain lunacy. do not pay attention to these numptys. WF is a political method currently used to rule Iran. nothing more, nothing less.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...