Iraq: Clerical Rule or No?

[Orion]

Before I answer this question, you need to ask yourself: Is it Nass that gave the Mujtahid power to rule over a nation or is it Ijtihad?

If you say Nas, then the answer to your question is yes, if you say Ijtihad, then it's tangible to change and modification and that makes it weak since it isn't God who directed the Wilaya to bound rulership by the state.

(bismillah)

(salam)

The ruler is already a Faqih. He does not have to write books to prove his qualification.

Imam Ja3far Al-Sadiq said: "We rule by the heart, not by power" - and this is how a Faqeeh should rule, in order to capture my heart, I have to see your wisdom, knowledge and potential in your books and writings, otherwise, what makes you different from the politician who is wearing a suit and tie?

Whenever the time and circumstances were right, Prophets and Imams also ruled as head of the states. Take the example of Prophet Suleman (as) , Dawood (as) and our Prophet pbuh . Same is true about Imam Ali (as) and Imam Hassan (as). Other Imams also expressed their right to the Khalafat.

So being a Prophet or Imam does not mean they have nothing to do with the governmet.

Also it is important to establish an Islamic system of governmet. This is why we see Sayed Seestani stress on the issue of Islamic laws.

I am not disputing this point, I agree with you, and this is why Sayed Muhammad produced and promoted the theory behind Shura since the distribution of work must be shared by the most knowledgeable scholars within the Umma. However, wilayat Al-Faqeeh Al-Mutlaqa isn't based on the "distribution or work" - it is based on the ultimate Faqeeh that’s chosen by the assembly of Fuqaha'a (and even this was later changed by Sayed Ali so it can also include other scholars from other Provinces who may not be themselves Mujtahids) - then he bounds the responsibility of ruling over the state ultimately, thus making our problems begin here since the Faqeeh is given the power and rights of the Holy Prophet, and that eliminates the factor of "shared responsibility and work".

If you read the views of Sayyed Shirazi he himself says that the "Assembly of Fuqaha'a" could choose a Leader. So no matter how you look at it the responcibility can be on one individual. Also the constitution of Iran does provide the provision of a Council of Fuqha to rule (Leadership Council) in case one Leader could not be apointed.

To me, educating society of their priorities is better than ruling any state of government, this is how the Imams ruled and continue to do so.

Here we have to distinguish b/w an Islamic State and a Secular State. Naturally a scholar would not lead a secular state and would rather spend his time in education, etc. But in case of an Islamic state, scholars have to provide the leadership and guidance. Remember what the scholars teach at the hawza and write in their books, a large part of it has to do with the social aspect of Islam including an Islamic system of government, laws, punishments, etc. So in fact what they teach and write in the "theory". The practical form of this theory is an Islamic government.

Anyone who says that a scholar should not take part in the government is basically saying that scholars should not implement into practice what they teach and write in books.

WS

[Orion]

(bismillah)

(salam)

in addition I would like to add, that as a Political Science student, it seems to be the natural state of affairs, as the famous maxim goes, that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

the main problem with the system of clerical rule in Iran is the fact that the wali/faqih is given absolute power. in other words, he is given such powers that are supposed to be reserved only for the Ma'soom Prophet or Imam.

Please give me some examples of these reserved powers. E.g. Ma'soom Prophet or Imam (as) had power over trees and carpet paintings. Do the Iranian scholars claim they have those powers?

not only is the faqih not ma'soom (infallible), but because of the nature of politics and power, positions of power and rule are undoubtedly corrupting factors. those who hold some power want more and more power. the situation is different from the time of Imam Ali  or the Prophet (saw), since both were protected by God from committing any mistakes or sins. but in addition to this, there is no real or sincere system of checks and balances to minimize such corruption. there is no accountability or transparency.

with regards to those who brought up the fact that Imam Ali  had put non-infallible people in charge of certain posts and as governors of certain provinces, even this is totally different from the current situation, since those who held such posts and positions were directly accountable to an INFALLIBLE Imam , and hence indirectly accountable to Allah, for all of their actions. there is no such accountability to a pure, infallible, and unerring Imam  in the current system of wilayat al faqih, and up and above this there is hardly a viable or serious system of checks and balances that would overlook every aspect of the wali al faqih in order to ensure that he doesnt step out of line or fall among what Dr. Mossadegh called "the den of theives" (in reference to the Majlis in the 1950s).

The the million $ question is, who should be the ruler during the occultation of the Masoom Imam (as) ?

Should a society with Islamic laws exist in Muslim lands?

-If no, what should be the law? British code, Chinese law, what. :o

-If yes, who should have the last word in matters concerning the State and the laws it is governed with? A secular person or a qualified Faqih. Or should we let Sunnis or Non-Muslims be our rulers? :unsure:

--------

For me it is straight forward:

-Islam is a complete way of life. It includes Islamic Laws and a Islamic system of government.

-Muslims should live by these God given laws in Muslim lands.

-The best people to rule over us are the Masoom Prophets and Imams (as) .

-During the occultation of the Imam (as) , the next best people able to interpret these laws are our Eminent scholars.

-Our Imam (as) told us to obey the qualified and pious scholars (Fuqha) of our time. They are our leaders and guides.

-In an Islamic society or state, it is the Eminent scholars (Fuqha) who provide us with leadership and guidance.

-In all matters including affairs of the state, the last word should that be of a Faqih.

WS

Edited June 5, 2004 by Orion

[-7áydér-]

"are you seriously telling me that you don't mind living under a rule similar to Wilayat AlFaqeeh?"

If Iraq is going to be run in a "Wilayat alFaqeeh" style then that would be the most dissapointing day of my life as an Iraqi. It will be a Shia version of Saddam. Silence all the opposition...let clerics rot in jail...and beat up women for protesting against its authority.

[Hizbullah]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Ahsantum brother Orion. Very well explained :)

If Iraq is going to be run in a "Wilayat alFaqeeh" style then that would be the most dissapointing day of my life as an Iraqi. It will be a Shia version of Saddam. Silence all the opposition...let clerics rot in jail...and beat up women for protesting against its authority.

Sorry to tell you but all our scholars accept the concept of wilayat al faqeeh :rolleyes: . It really doesn't surprise me to see people like yourself comparing the islamic leadership with saddam and dictatorship. Sooner or later everybody will wake up and realize how mistaken they have been all these days.

So what is it that you want, then? Now, you got a president without elections and appointed by the friends of Iblees. Does that please you?

[-7áydér-]

"Now, you got a president without elections and appointed by the friends of Iblees. Does that please you?"

It doesnt please me, but it is a sh*t load betta then what the Iraqis had in Saddam's time.

"comparing the islamic leadership with saddam and dictatorship"

If ONLY it was really an "ISLAMIC" leadership. But as far as i know, Islam doesnt teach you to FORCE people to obey you. In Islam LA IKRAAHA FIL DEEN...THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION...i repeat NO COMPLUSION.

U cannot FORCE the women to wear hijba even if there is ONE non-muslim women living in that country. Do u re-call the prophet taking women to prison because they have not got a scarf on their heads?

[Hizbullah]

(bismillah)

(salam)

It doesnt please me, but it is a **** load betta then what the Iraqis had in Saddam's time.

Hmmm Yeah maybe. Don't forget that Saddam was fostered by the US. The child is gone and the father has taken over. If it weren't for America, Saddam wouldn't have done all what he has done to the oppressed Iraqi people. I don't trust the puppet government.

As I said, it's only a matter of time. Everything will be clear inshallah.

U cannot FORCE the women to wear hijba even if there is ONE non-muslim women living in that country. Do u re-call the prophet taking women to prison because they have not got a scarf on their heads?

I think this is off-topic. You seem to be new to this place. These topics have been discussed quite a lot now. Do a search and you will get lots of results.

wassalam

[Frodo]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Ahsantum brother Orion.  Very well explained :)

If Iraq is going to be run in a "Wilayat alFaqeeh" style then that would be the most dissapointing day of my life as an Iraqi. It will be a Shia version of Saddam. Silence all the opposition...let clerics rot in jail...and beat up women for protesting against its authority.

Sorry to tell you but all our scholars accept the concept of wilayat al faqeeh :rolleyes: . It really doesn't surprise me to see people like yourself comparing the islamic leadership with saddam and dictatorship. Sooner or later everybody will wake up and realize how mistaken they have been all these days.

So what is it that you want, then? Now, you got a president without elections and appointed by the friends of Iblees. Does that please you?

Salam,

Pray tell, in this noble and righteous Islamic government of yours, is it ok to put eminent scholars and maraji' under house arrest? Such as Ayatullah Mohammad al Shirazi (ra)? Or to threaten other top-notch maraji' such as Sheikh al Tabrizi with being put under house-arrest simply because he had some highly critical things to say about some of the racist implications of some of the government policies being carried out against non-Persians living in Iran (kurds, arabs, etc..)? How about the torture of Syed Murtada al Shirazi, the son of Syed Mohammad, for simply writing a book called "Shural Fuqaha" which simply elucidated a different style of government than that of wilayat al faqih?

When you break it down, that's really the type of thing that Saddam Hussein mastered in, i.e. killing off or putting under house-arrest great maraji' in order to silence them and put a tap on their dissidence, torturing political dissidents simply because they disagree with the regime, ect... Maybe in terms of the scale of such acts, Saddam was likely far worse. But in principle, it seems to be pretty similar, if you ask me.

Which is precisely the reason most Iraqi Shias, even staunchly religious ones, oppose clerical rule in Iraq, especially the kind implimented in Iran. Plus, Iraq has significant minority groups of Kurds, Turkomans, Sunnis, Christians, etc... The Islamic government of Iran didnt really leave a noble or impressive precedent when it came to dealing with their own minorities, such as the Sunnis, the Baha'is, the Kurds, and the Arabs in the Arab provinces. Something similar would likely happen in Iraq, which would be a disaster.

Edited June 5, 2004 by Frodo

[Muhammed Ali]

ayatullah shirazi did accept that the shura can vote for a single leader from amongst themselves. ayatullah khamenie was elected in that manner!

Who told you that Sayed Shirazi accepted such a style vote and who told you that he accepted Sayed Ali?

i didnt claim that he accepted sayed khamenie. however he did teach that the shura can vote for a single leader and thats exactly what happens in iran.

i raised this question ages ago on this site and no one gave a good opposing response:

(salam)

plesase try to avoid fitnah in this thread and stick to the topic.

from shirazi.org.uk:

Q. who is the present Waley-e-Faqih and Waley-e-Amr of the Muslims?

As for your last question that who is the Waley-e-Faqih or Waley-e-Amr, officially we the Muslims do not have one, since at the present time the if we were to have a Waley-ul-Faqih or Waley-ul-Amr that would be the "Shura al-Fuqaha al-Maraje' " or the Leadership Council of the Maraje' Fuqaha.

according ot the same site:

If there was only one Faqih who met all the criteria of a Marje' and was overwhelmingly elected by the Muslims to lead the country, then he is the Waley-ul-Faqih.  However, if there were several Fuqaha who meet all the criteria for being Marje', and there was no overwhelming endorsement for just one of them - which is usually the case - then the ruler of the country and its Waley-ul-Faqih in this case is the "Shura al-Fuqaha al-Maraje' " or the Council of the Maraje' Fuqaha.  The members of this council are the qualified Fuqaha and Maraje' who are elected/followed by the public.  This Council of Leadership isthe ruler of the Muslim Ummah and its Waley-ul-Faqih.  On the other hand members of this council may elect one of the members as their leader and therefore the leader of the country, i.e. the Waley-ul-Faqih. 

a few questions:

1, in iran the leader is elected by a shura of scholars who are elected by the people. so doesn’t that meet the criteria above highlighted in red?

2, if the shura doesn’t elect a single leader (seemingly promoted by the statement above) then how are quick decisions made? every half decent functioning state in history had a single leader.

3, the justification for the system of wilayahtul faqih is given by a set of hadith and quranic verses. these same proofs are used to justify the concept of taqlid and marjaiyah. if a shura system is wajib for the institution of wilayah al faqih then shouldn’t a shura system be wajib for marjaiyah? shirazi.org.uk says that there is no current wali al faqih because there is no shura system; using the same arguments could we not say that there is no marja e taqlid because there is no shura implementation?

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...1762&hl=shirazi

please note the words: "This Council of Leadership isthe ruler of the Muslim Ummah and its Waley-ul-Faqih. " and then: "On the other hand members of this council may elect one of the members as their leader and therefore the leader of the country, i.e. the Waley-ul-Faqih. "

thus imam khameinie would be the leader of the muslim ummah according to that criteria :D

Edited June 5, 2004 by Muhammed Ali

[Frodo]

Please give me some examples of these reserved powers. E.g. Ma'soom Prophet or Imam  had power over trees and carpet paintings. Do the Iranian scholars claim they have those powers?

We're talking about absolute political power here, similar to the absolutism of the French monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries. These kings claimed to rule their kingdoms by divine authority, which gave them legitimacy to do as they willed without being criticized or held accountable.

Giving a fallible man such absolute power is insane by any standards.

The the million $ question is, who should be the ruler during the occultation of the Masoom Imam  ?

Should a society with Islamic laws exist in Muslim lands?

-If no, what should be the law? British code, Chinese law, what. 

-If yes, who should have the last word in matters concerning the State and the laws it is governed with? A secular person or a qualified Faqih. Or should we let Sunnis or Non-Muslims be our rulers?

In the absence of the Imam (as), it's my opinion that things should be run democratically, according to the will of the people, and that there should be a council of maraji' and ulema who can advise the politicians in their policies and laws and what not. Of course a democracy is not desirable, and surely it doesnt have much basis in the Quran or Islamic thought (minus the concept of Shura, of course), but in the absence of a perfectly just and absolute Imam (as), who is definitely the only person, in my opinion, who can rule a state in the "absolute" sense with no strings involved, then unfortunately, the next best option in the absence of such a man is that the people should choose. At least under such a democratic system, there is some form of transparency and accountability involved, with people being voted in and out according to their merits, so that the corruption and tyranny that arises from the "absolute" power of one man has no place to arise in such a society. It is far worse, in my opinion, to allow such "absolute" power to one man who could potentially (and even likely) become an oppressive tyrant, than it is to follow the will of the majority who may err or make mistakes in their decisions from time to time.

Edited June 5, 2004 by Frodo

[The Venerator of Ali]

thus imam khameinie would be the leader of the muslim ummah according to that criteria

:o

Up till this day I was mislead by people telling me the leader of the Muslims was someone called Imam Mahdi :o

Sorry Imam Mahdi you are not my leader anymore, Imam Khameni is :!!!:

[waiting]

Shame on you.

The shame is the person who supports someone who puts Sources of Emulation in house arrest, tortures religious scholars, academics, intellectuals, journalists and students and makes them hate religion. Not to mention, appoints individuals who kill others. That is the real shame - and you should think about it.

[Muhammed Ali]

thus imam khameinie would be the leader of the muslim ummah according to that criteria

:o

Up till this day I was mislead by people telling me the leader of the Muslims was someone called Imam Mahdi :o

Sorry Imam Mahdi you are not my leader anymore, Imam Khameni is :!!!:

maybe i should have written "ruler" instead of "leader" becasue thats the word that shirazi.org.uk uses. :angel:

[The Venerator of Ali]

ayatullah shirazi did accept that the shura can vote for a single leader from amongst themselves. ayatullah khamenie was elected in that manner!

Who told you that Sayed Shirazi accepted such a style vote and who told you that he accepted Sayed Ali?

i didnt claim that he accepted sayed khamenie. however he did teach that the shura can vote for a single leader and thats exactly what happens in iran.

i raised this question ages ago on this site and no one gave a good opposing response:

(salam)

plesase try to avoid fitnah in this thread and stick to the topic.

from shirazi.org.uk:

Q. who is the present Waley-e-Faqih and Waley-e-Amr of the Muslims?

As for your last question that who is the Waley-e-Faqih or Waley-e-Amr, officially we the Muslims do not have one, since at the present time the if we were to have a Waley-ul-Faqih or Waley-ul-Amr that would be the "Shura al-Fuqaha al-Maraje' " or the Leadership Council of the Maraje' Fuqaha.

according ot the same site:

If there was only one Faqih who met all the criteria of a Marje' and was overwhelmingly elected by the Muslims to lead the country, then he is the Waley-ul-Faqih.  However, if there were several Fuqaha who meet all the criteria for being Marje', and there was no overwhelming endorsement for just one of them - which is usually the case - then the ruler of the country and its Waley-ul-Faqih in this case is the "Shura al-Fuqaha al-Maraje' " or the Council of the Maraje' Fuqaha.  The members of this council are the qualified Fuqaha and Maraje' who are elected/followed by the public.  This Council of Leadership isthe ruler of the Muslim Ummah and its Waley-ul-Faqih.  On the other hand members of this council may elect one of the members as their leader and therefore the leader of the country, i.e. the Waley-ul-Faqih. 

a few questions:

1, in iran the leader is elected by a shura of scholars who are elected by the people. so doesn’t that meet the criteria above highlighted in red?

2, if the shura doesn’t elect a single leader (seemingly promoted by the statement above) then how are quick decisions made? every half decent functioning state in history had a single leader.

3, the justification for the system of wilayahtul faqih is given by a set of hadith and quranic verses. these same proofs are used to justify the concept of taqlid and marjaiyah. if a shura system is wajib for the institution of wilayah al faqih then shouldn’t a shura system be wajib for marjaiyah? shirazi.org.uk says that there is no current wali al faqih because there is no shura system; using the same arguments could we not say that there is no marja e taqlid because there is no shura implementation?

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...1762&hl=shirazi

please note the words: "This Council of Leadership isthe ruler of the Muslim Ummah and its Waley-ul-Faqih. " and then: "On the other hand members of this council may elect one of the members as their leader and therefore the leader of the country, i.e. the Waley-ul-Faqih. "

thus imam khameinie would be the leader of the muslim ummah according to that criteria :D

1.

(a) The 1 billion Muslims do not elect the Iranian Shura

(B) The 1 billion Muslims will not accept a man from a minority sect.

Their ultimate leadership (caliphate) is gone/finished, I dont think they are looking for any other one.

2.

(a) It will be very nice to for Iranians to elect the shura, that is not the case, the 13'th Imam appoints them, the people vote for them just like they vote for Saddam.

(B) If I am wrong, and Imam Khameni is the wali faqhi whatever, then I am sure Imam Mahdi will not leave his followers in a circumstances such that they do not know whether he appointed Imam Khameni as their leader. i am sure he will send a letter as he has done in the past, or since we are in the 21st centruy he can send a signed fatwa to shiachat?

[waiting]

The iranians have not elected anything in that council freely. You have to pick among a bunch of people they have already screened. It would be like me putting up Saddam, Bush and Sharon here and force you guys to pick one of them. I would hardly call that "election". Election when there is freedom to pick whomever you want, without a "Big Brother" telling you which ones you can and which ones you can't pick.

Infact, elections in the current constitution are useless and cosmetical, and used as a tool to bring international legitimacy to the clerical regime.

The clerics will never accept any outcome that is not to their benefit. They will cheat, harass, screen, eliminate and in some cases even try to assasinate their political opponents. Nothing is too much in their quest for power.

[NoorFatima]

(bismillah)

The ruler is already a Faqih. He does not have to write books to prove his qualification.

I’m not speaking of “qualifications” and the ground rules they follow, I’m speaking of reality, currently in Iraq, no Marje3 wants to imply Wilayat Al-Faqeeh and its many versions due to the simple fact that it is, was, and will be a failure in Iran – this is why Sayed Al-Hakim (who was very popular with the Shias of Iraq, not to mention the Marja3iya of Sayed Al-Sistani) refused Wilayat Al-Faqeeh as a form of governance and promoted democracy. Once the Faqeeh holds absolute power; every person, ideology or criticism becomes a threat (and if it picks up momentum, it will become a full opposition) that will lead to opposition. Once this takes full swing, everyone who opposes him becomes the enemy of God by default and must be “liquidated” – and this what precisely happened in Iran.

Also, I’m speaking of the state of the Faqeeh when he holds power, not his qualifications. He can be more than qualified to hold the Job, but what happens after he holds power? The past twenty five years of clerical rule in Iran was not too kind to the image of the ruling Faqeeh. This is due to the unbalance I was referring too above in the case of Sayed Ali, which lacks qualifications according to your above criteria.

Whenever the time and circumstances were right, Prophets and Imams also ruled as head of the states. Take the example of Prophet Suleman  , Dawood  and our Prophet  . Same is true about Imam Ali  and Imam Hassan . Other Imams also expressed their right to the Khalafat.

Please read what Br Frodo said above, I could not have said it any better, I'll copy the portion for you here and save the trouble:

not only is the faqih not ma'soom (infallible), but because of the nature of politics and power, positions of power and rule are undoubtedly corrupting factors. those who hold some power want more and more power. the situation is different from the time of Imam Ali or the Prophet (saw), since both were protected by God from committing any mistakes or sins. but in addition to this, there is no real or sincere system of checks and balances to minimize such corruption. there is no accountability or transparency.

with regards to those who brought up the fact that Imam Ali had put non-infallible people in charge of certain posts and as governors of certain provinces, even this is totally different from the current situation, since those who held such posts and positions were directly accountable to an INFALLIBLE Imam , and hence indirectly accountable to Allah, for all of their actions. there is no such accountability to a pure, infallible, and unerring Imam in the current system of wilayat al faqih, and up and above this there is hardly a viable or serious system of checks and balances that would overlook every aspect of the wali al faqih in order to ensure that he doesnt step out of line or fall among what Dr. Mossadegh called "the den of theives" (in reference to the Majlis in the 1950s).

If you read the views of Sayyed Shirazi he himself says that the "Assembly of Fuqaha'a" could choose a Leader. So no matter how you look at it the responcibility can be on one individual. Also the constitution of Iran does provide the provision of a Council of Fuqha to rule (Leadership Council) in case one Leader could not be apointed.

Dear brother, I know very well what are the views of Sayed Muhammad and Sayed Sadiq in regards to Wilayat Al-Faqeeh and its many conditions, so I thank you for your recommendations in "reading" their views (which I'm already fully aware of) - Now I ask you to read the Book of Ayatollah Al-Khomeini, "Alhukomah Al-Islamiya" and tell me the difference between his version and that of Sayed Muhammad?

Also answering your question, the Sayed said that It was possible for the Assembly to elect a Faqeeh, but he did not support it since it gives too much power to the Faqeeh, and he (Sayed Muhammad) suggested that the Assembly "watches over" the ruling Faqeeh - but he rejected that notion since the Faqeeh will be already more powerful than the assembly itself, since all major pillars pf power and governance will be in his hands (including the military) - so if he becomes a tyrant, who will remove him if the assembly objects?

Once the Faqeeh becomes all power, the system that is suppose to keep him in check (the assembly) will become just a shadow that won't do anything if he steps out of line, and this is what is happening currently - I ask you sincerely, who holds most power, Sayed Ali or the house of assembly?

This is why the Sayed finalized his opinion in 1979 when he wrote his final book on Wilayat Al-Faqeeh and presented the Ashura form as the most just and acceptable. I for one don't think you have fully read his opinion, not to mention the complete understanding of his ideas and theories.

Here we have to distinguish b/w an Islamic State and a Secular State. Naturally a scholar would not lead a secular state and would rather spend his time in education, etc. But in case of an Islamic state, scholars have to provide the leadership and guidance.

Objectively speaking, we don’t want a complete secular government, we want a complete separation between “Church” and “State” as two separate institutions, but I for one (whether I like it or not) will not be able to separate religion and politics because I don’t have power over other individuals and their hearts (and minds).

I want Islam to be part of the laws of the land, like banning alcohol and other prohibited materials, like I said above; we want a democracy that isn’t designed by the west, but a democracy that fits our needs and demands as Muslims.

Al-Faqeeh will have more than enough power to influence the state, look at Sayed Al-Sistani and power in opposing the Americans for their early plans in forming a government In Iraq, If the Faqeeh has power over the hearts of the People (like Sayed Ali Al-Sistani), within an hour, he’ll have massive protests moving against the government and changing it’s plans immediately.

The Faqeeh doesn’t need his door to have the tag “Mr. President” so he can make a difference – I feel it is you who is downsizing the Faqeeh, he is more powerful than you think, and it seems that those who support Wilayat Al-Faqeeh believe that if the Faqeeh doesn’t have power, Society will fall in Moral decay and destruction. If that was the case, then no Muslim should be praying, fasting or performing any of his duties since Al-Ghayba Al-Kubra since we had no Faqeeh ruling over the government.

(salam)

[NoorFatima]

(bismillah)

Br Muhammed Ali,

I have said this before on Shiachat, the "shirazi.org.uk" website isn't the official website of Ayatollah Shirazi, it is made by a 25 year old who extremely dislikes the Iranian government, and highly mixed his beliefs along with the Sayed's - And I also said: "I will only answer to the words of the Sayed which are either taken directly from his books and/or Audio cassettes.

If you also want his official website, check out my signature.

(salam)

[Orion]

We're talking about absolute political power here, similar to the absolutism of the French monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries. These kings claimed to rule their kingdoms by divine authority, which gave them legitimacy to do as they willed without being criticized or held accountable.

Giving a fallible man such absolute power is insane by any standards.

(bismillah)

(salam)

You comments above are un-related to my question. Here we are talking about Fuqha who rule according to Shia Islamic laws.

In the absence of the Imam (as), it's my opinion that things should be run democratically, according to the will of the people, and that there should be a council of maraji' and ulema who can advise the politicians in their policies and laws and what not.

Exactly my point. It is a democracy that work under the Marja.

Of course a democracy is not desirable, and surely it doesnt have much basis in the Quran or Islamic thought (minus the concept of Shura, of course),

Islam does provide a democratic system.

but in the absence of a perfectly just and absolute Imam (as), who is definitely the only person, in my opinion, who can rule a state in the "absolute" sense with no strings involved, then unfortunately, the next best option in the absence of such a man is that the people should choose. At least under such a democratic system, there is some form of transparency and accountability involved, with people being voted in and out according to their merits, so that the corruption and tyranny that arises from the "absolute" power of one man has no place to arise in such a society. It is far worse, in my opinion, to allow such "absolute" power to one man who could potentially (and even likely) become an oppressive tyrant, than it is to follow the will of the majority who may err or make mistakes in their decisions from time to time.

Again democracy is an integral part of an Islamic system. This is why we have an elected President and paliament in Iran.

WS

[Ehsan]

You can whine all you want my beloved run-aways (or perhaps it is emigrants),

but at the end of the day we have our glorious Islamic Republic, shining and

blossoming more powerfull then ever, and its progress casts deep hateful agony

into your hearts so you sit behind a computer 1000000000000 miles away

critisizing a almost perfect system which you neither can affect, live under but

have fled from.

The battle is from within, not the outside.

"Either you are with us or against us." (Bush)

Your stances and true colours have been manifested and noted, indeed Imam

Mahdi(AJ) sees and without doubt he will not fight for the crusade of Emperor

Bush.

Speak up all you want, you are losing and this makes you angrier and angrier. :rolleyes:

May Allah(SWT) bless the Islamic Republic, the Islamic Revolution and its folowers

and death be upon its enemies and opposers.

Marg bar Amrika!

Marg bar Israel!

Marg bar Munafeqin!

Marg bar Zedane Wilayat Faqih!

Khodaya! Khodaya! Ta enqelabe Mahdi, Rahbare ma Negah dar!

Edited June 5, 2004 by Ehsan

[The Venerator of Ali]

ayatullah shirazi did accept that the shura can vote for a single leader from amongst themselves. ayatullah khamenie was elected in that manner!

Who told you that Sayed Shirazi accepted such a style vote and who told you that he accepted Sayed Ali?

i didnt claim that he accepted sayed khamenie. however he did teach that the shura can vote for a single leader and thats exactly what happens in iran.

i raised this question ages ago on this site and no one gave a good opposing response:

(salam)

plesase try to avoid fitnah in this thread and stick to the topic.

from shirazi.org.uk:

Q. who is the present Waley-e-Faqih and Waley-e-Amr of the Muslims?

As for your last question that who is the Waley-e-Faqih or Waley-e-Amr, officially we the Muslims do not have one, since at the present time the if we were to have a Waley-ul-Faqih or Waley-ul-Amr that would be the "Shura al-Fuqaha al-Maraje' " or the Leadership Council of the Maraje' Fuqaha.

according ot the same site:

If there was only one Faqih who met all the criteria of a Marje' and was overwhelmingly elected by the Muslims to lead the country, then he is the Waley-ul-Faqih.  However, if there were several Fuqaha who meet all the criteria for being Marje', and there was no overwhelming endorsement for just one of them - which is usually the case - then the ruler of the country and its Waley-ul-Faqih in this case is the "Shura al-Fuqaha al-Maraje' " or the Council of the Maraje' Fuqaha.  The members of this council are the qualified Fuqaha and Maraje' who are elected/followed by the public.  This Council of Leadership isthe ruler of the Muslim Ummah and its Waley-ul-Faqih.  On the other hand members of this council may elect one of the members as their leader and therefore the leader of the country, i.e. the Waley-ul-Faqih. 

a few questions:

1, in iran the leader is elected by a shura of scholars who are elected by the people. so doesn’t that meet the criteria above highlighted in red?

2, if the shura doesn’t elect a single leader (seemingly promoted by the statement above) then how are quick decisions made? every half decent functioning state in history had a single leader.

3, the justification for the system of wilayahtul faqih is given by a set of hadith and quranic verses. these same proofs are used to justify the concept of taqlid and marjaiyah. if a shura system is wajib for the institution of wilayah al faqih then shouldn’t a shura system be wajib for marjaiyah? shirazi.org.uk says that there is no current wali al faqih because there is no shura system; using the same arguments could we not say that there is no marja e taqlid because there is no shura implementation?

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...1762&hl=shirazi

please note the words: "This Council of Leadership isthe ruler of the Muslim Ummah and its Waley-ul-Faqih. " and then: "On the other hand members of this council may elect one of the members as their leader and therefore the leader of the country, i.e. the Waley-ul-Faqih. "

thus imam khameinie would be the leader of the muslim ummah according to that criteria :D

1.

(a) The 1 billion Muslims do not elect the Iranian Shura

(B) The 1 billion Muslims will not accept a man from a minority sect.

Their ultimate leadership (caliphate) is gone/finished, I dont think they are looking for any other one.

2.

(a) It will be very nice to for Iranians to elect the shura, that is not the case, the 13'th Imam appoints them, the people vote for them just like they vote for Saddam.

(B) If I am wrong, and Imam Khameni is the wali faqhi whatever, then I am sure Imam Mahdi will not leave his followers in a circumstances such that they do not know whether he appointed Imam Khameni as their leader. i am sure he will send a letter as he has done in the past, or since we are in the 21st centruy he can send a signed fatwa to shiachat?

Is someone going to answer my questions or what, or are they going to let their emotins to get the better of them like Ehsan's :rolleyes:

[NoorFatima]

(bismillah)

Br Ehsann

Enough with "Shabbirh" style of labelling and threatening, the original question of this thread was about Iraq and clerical rule in Iraq, and we for once, as Iraqis, have given our opinion to why we don't want an "Iranian style rule" - the Iranians themselves don't want this clerical rule, let alone us.

Besides, I find it funny that you have said: “criticizing an almost perfect system which you neither can affect, live under but have fled from." - are you calling Iran perfect? I think you're pushing it.

(salam)

[waiting]

Interestingly, Br. Ehsan, I just returned from meeting with some of the diplomats and clerks from the country you named.

I can assure you that the supreme majority of all the workers, clerks and diplomats are very decent and good people - and completely disbelieve in what you think they believe.

But sometimes, you have to keep silent to feed yourself.

Anyways, you have the right zeal but unfortunately for some (to me unknown) reasons, you chose to either not understand, or simply cannot understand the point others are trying to make. I will gladly tell you whatever information you need to have to clear any misunderstandings.

It would be a waste if you did not use your energy for religious purposes instead of engaging in political mumbo jumbo which will not benefit you.

[Orion]

(bismillah)

(salam)

I’m not speaking of “qualifications” and the ground rules they follow, I’m speaking of reality, currently in Iraq, no Marje3 wants to imply Wilayat Al-Faqeeh and its many versions due to the simple fact that it is, was, and will be a failure in Iran – this is why Sayed Al-Hakim (who was very popular with the Shias of Iraq, not to mention the Marja3iya of Sayed Al-Sistani) refused Wilayat Al-Faqeeh as a form of governance and promoted democracy. Once the Faqeeh holds absolute power; every person, ideology or criticism becomes a threat (and if it picks up momentum, it will become a full opposition) that will lead to opposition. Once this takes full swing, everyone who opposes him becomes the enemy of God by default and must be “liquidated” – and this what precisely happened in Iran.

The WF system comes in many versions. One of them is implimented in Iran, another we are witnessing in Iraq. Ayatullah Seestani is the defecto Leader of Iraqi shia. He is agreeing or disagreeing with what is happening. He wants Islamic laws in place. He is proposing language that will bar any un-Islamic law. This is all a form of Wilayat e Faqih.

-Islamic Laws are implimented and respected.

-Anything against Sharia is stopped.

Now who will say what is according to Islam or not. Naturally the Fuqha. If the future Iraqi government does something against Islamic Laws, Sayyed Seestani (or other Fuqha) can declare it void (e.g. by a fatwa). So the ultimate power is with the Fuqha.

Please read what Br Frodo said above, I could not have said it any better, I'll copy the portion for you here and save the trouble:

not only is the faqih not ma'soom (infallible), but because of the nature of politics and power, positions of power and rule are undoubtedly corrupting factors. those who hold some power want more and more power. the situation is different from the time of Imam Ali or the Prophet (saw), since both were protected by God from committing any mistakes or sins. but in addition to this, there is no real or sincere system of checks and balances to minimize such corruption. there is no accountability or transparency.

with regards to those who brought up the fact that Imam Ali had put non-infallible people in charge of certain posts and as governors of certain provinces, even this is totally different from the current situation, since those who held such posts and positions were directly accountable to an INFALLIBLE Imam , and hence indirectly accountable to Allah, for all of their actions. there is no such accountability to a pure, infallible, and unerring Imam in the current system of wilayat al faqih, and up and above this there is hardly a viable or serious system of checks and balances that would overlook every aspect of the wali al faqih in order to ensure that he doesnt step out of line or fall among what Dr. Mossadegh called "the den of theives" (in reference to the Majlis in the 1950s).

I have already answered Br Frodo. The fact is if you are a Muslim (Shia or Sunni) and want Islamic Laws (Sharia) implimented in your Muslim country, there is no scape from the authority of Fuqha.

Objectively speaking, we don’t want a complete secular government, we want a complete separation between “Church” and “State” as two separate institutions, but I for one (whether I like it or not) will not be able to separate religion and politics because I don’t have power over other individuals and their hearts (and minds).

I want Islam to be part of the laws of the land, like banning alcohol and other prohibited materials, like I said above; we want a democracy that isn’t designed by the west, but a democracy that fits our needs and demands as Muslims.

Al-Faqeeh will have more than enough power to influence the state, look at Sayed Al-Sistani and power in opposing the Americans for their early plans in forming a government In Iraq, If the Faqeeh has power over the hearts of the People (like Sayed Ali Al-Sistani), within an hour, he’ll have massive protests moving against the government and changing it’s plans immediately.

The Faqeeh doesn’t need his door to have the tag “Mr. President” so he can make a difference – I feel it is you who is downsizing the Faqeeh, he is more powerful than you think, and it seems that those who support Wilayat Al-Faqeeh believe that if the Faqeeh doesn’t have power, Society will fall in Moral decay and destruction. If that was the case, then no Muslim should be praying, fasting or performing any of his duties since Al-Ghayba Al-Kubra since we had no Faqeeh ruling over the government.

I find very little difference b/w what I am saying and what you are saying. Ask yourself this.

-Will the laws written by the Iraqi government in line withIslamic Sharia or against it?

-Will the fuqha have the power to declare any law un-Islamic and not made part of the Iraqi rules?

If your answer is Yes, you have an Islamic WF System in place.

Now as far as the title of the Fuqha weather they be called President, Suprime Leader, Guide, Waley al-Faqih whatever......it does not matter in my view as what maters is that in an Islamic system the final authority remains with the fuqha may they be in lime light or behind the scene.

So when I voted for clerical rule. It does not necessarily mean I want Iraqi President or Prime Minister to be a amama wearing scholar (although we would love to see that) but what I mean is that the government is democratically elected, Islamic law is in place, no law is against Islam and a system in place that the Fuqha have the final authority to guide the government. Nothing less than that is acceptable.

WS

Edited June 5, 2004 by Orion

[Ehsan]

Your anger and hatred for the Islamic Republic and its Victorious Revolution is a

self-evident fact, and this is manifested even further when its lovers scream out

their love for it, as I get not one, not two, but three entire replies dedicated just

for me because of my initiating post.

I wont waste my energy showing the light for someone who has shut his eyes, I

have better things to do, even jogging is a better advancement towards the

Islamic Revolution of al-Mahdi(AJ) then the rubbish you wailing people waffle

about day and night, "Oh the Islamic Republic this, Oh the Islamic Republic

that :cry: "

Oh please, you sound like old nagging grannies!

The Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic under the Celestial Leader of the

Muslims(HA) will prosper whether you like it or not.

Pull yourselves together and join this movement, as it is right now, each time a

lover chants,

Marg bar Amrika!

Marg bar Israel!

Marg bar Munafeqin!

Marg bar Zedane Wilayat Faqih!

you get all mussy and fussy, crying like baby girls about Zionist fabricated lies.

Grab hold of yourselves and realize reality, stop whining about something you will

not affect. You are like mosqituoes trying to hurt a roaming lion.

The Islamic Revolution will win as the blessed hand of Imam Mahdi(AJ) is behind it!

Edited June 5, 2004 by Ehsan

[The Venerator of Ali]

I love it when people get Imam Mahdi into their propaganda of ^_^ Little do they know what Imam Mahdi has prepared the tyrant and his supporters an end with severe punishment :rolleyes:

|I have yet to receive any answers to my questions, quetions that are very simple, and only require a simple answer. Thank you please :D

[Ehsan]

Little do they know what Imam Mahdi has prepared the tyrant and his supporters an end with severe punishment :rolleyes:

yeah, I'll assure you that he begins with the communists.. ;)

[Frodo]

Little do they know what Imam Mahdi has prepared the tyrant and his supporters an end with severe punishment  :rolleyes:

yeah, I'll assure you that he begins with the communists.. ;)

actually, according to the reports, he'll start with turbanned clerics who allegedly spoke in his name :)

[The Venerator of Ali]

Little do they know what Imam Mahdi has prepared the tyrant and his supporters an end with severe punishment  :rolleyes:

yeah, I'll assure you that he begins with the communists.. ;)

[EDITED]

Read the tons of hadiths from bihar al-anwar, no actually, read the articles from Taliyah, and you would see more muslims wil be killed than any one else. Even some sun-worshippers will follow him ( this is saying of your Imam), but not the (majority) of muslims. Read your own hadiths!

Long Live Socalism!

Death To Bigot System!

[Moderator's Note: Personal Attack. Have some respect towards other members. It is not for you to judge.]

Edited June 6, 2004 by Heaven

[Ehsan]

actually, according to the reports, he'll start with turbanned clerics who allegedly spoke in his name :)

Then praise be to Allah who has put His rule upon earth through the glorious

Islamic Republic which hastens the Islamic Revolution of Imam Mahdi(AJ)

through punnishing these turban-headed bandits who speak in the name of

Islam, so as to make the job done for him.

Don't you just love the mercy of the Islamic Republic? :cry:

While Imam Mahdi(AJ) will behead these "turbanned clerics", the Islamic

Republic "imprisons" them in their homes, gives them liberty and human rights,

allow them to teach and write. Such is the way the Islamic Republic respects

human values and the same time hastens the coming of Imam Mahdi(AJ) through

making the job done for him!

You make me laugh you patheic excuse for a human being  ^_^

I am not the One who created me, so if you have any complaints about me being a human then go to Him. :)

Even some sun-worshippers

will follow him ( this is saying of your Imam), but not the (majority) of

muslims. Read your own hadiths!

Yeah, and their true colours have been fully manifested. Whoever opposes the

Islamic Revolution prior to the coming of al-Mahdi(A) will do so after him as well.

Thankyou very much for your advice, actually I have read them, but I invite you

to do so as well.

Afterall, this is an Islamic Revolution that is happening, not a

Communistic/Socialistic one.. ;)

Marg bar Amrika!

Marg bar Israel!

Marg bar Munafeqin!

Marg bar Zedane Wilayat Faqih!

Edited June 5, 2004 by Ehsan

[waiting]

Here is one of those ugly zionists Ehsan is talking about, speaking recently:

"[Dr. Kadivar said:] We have never seen in history, that clerics have had as much power as they do presently. In the undeveloped countries, there was always criticism towards the rulers, and the clerics acquired power in the beginning of the revolution in order to fight the corruption caused by power. Today, after 25 years we can determine with our own eyes how successful they have been in that respect. Have they been able to fight with the corruption [they intended to]?

He continued: One of the problems with clergy which has weakened them is the fact that they do not tolerate criticism. The clergy does not accept criticism and had it done so, many problems would have been solved. The revolutionary leader Imam Khomeini used to say that the theological seminaries and the clergy should have the initiative and be cutting edge in the field of ideas, but is it like that today? Today, the clergy control military, economic and security apparatus but the question is if they have managed to keep the level of power they used to have before acquiring this.

He continued criticizing the clergy, saying: Clerics must submit to intellectual reasoning. The way out of this crisis is intellectualism in the public sphere. The clerics must speak in such a way that is understandable by the masses, and start a dialogue with them. People should be able to ask questions and the clerics must be prepared to answer questions and face criticism. They must speak in a clear and understandable way, and should believe that whatever they say will not be accepted and may be rejected, and they should be prepared to defend their views through logic.

He added: There are some books published today wherein Prophethood, Leadership and the Resurrection are criticized, and these are let free, but if someone speaks against the clergy and questions them, there is a great hue and cry. It is as if the clergy have a higher degree of sanctity than Prophethood and Leadership, and a person who speaks against the clergy is an apostate, and things will happen to that person like what happened to Dr. Aghajeri [who has sentenced to death for criticism the clergy].

The "official clergy" after the revolution has shown little patience for criticism; one of the clerics that all of you know of has said that "Wilayat al Faqih can shut down [even] Monotheism"! Now is this more dangerous, or what Dr. Aghajeri said?

Kadivar concluded: Whomever does not accept criticism, will move in the direction of removal from history. While the clergy will not be gone, the educated classes - along with their increase in awareness - will decrease their level of contact with the clerics, and if it continues like this, it will end up with the clerics being the last resort for people."

Edited June 5, 2004 by waiting

[NoorFatima]

(bismillah)

While Imam Mahdi(AJ) will behead these "turbanned clerics", the Islamic

Republic "imprisons" them in their homes, gives them liberty and human rights,

allow them to teach and write.

Ehsan,

Have you totally lost your mind? Do you comprehend what [edited] you wrote above?

I was going to answer brother Orion, but [EDITED] is spouting some dangerous stuff here - Are you calling Sayed Al-Shirazi, along with many other Mujtahids and men of great faith, Bandits?

Are you also saying that Sayed Ali has more mercy than Hujjat Allah?

[edited]

(salam)

[Moderator's Note: Some content has been edited due to a personal attack and name calling another member.]

Edited June 6, 2004 by Heaven

[Ehsan]

Have you totally lost your mind? Do

you comprehend what the hell you wrote above?

Nope, I'm still perfectly sane and intellectually capable of grasping reality.

Yep, I comprehend it...truth hurts, ayh? :)

I was going to answer brother Orion,

but this idiot is spouting some dangerous stuff here

I am still not insane and thus cannot be considered an idiot. An idiot is someone

who has lost hold of reality and hence Islamic Laws are not imposed upon him. Go

read some fiqh books and you'll grasp that either you are right or you have some

really akward morals. :rolleyes:

Are you calling Sayed Al-Shirazi,

along with many other Mujtahids and men of great faith, Bandits?

Nope, I have not mentioned him, you have. If he fits into the category its not my

problem. Truth hurts, ayh? :)

Are you also saying that Sayed Ali has more mercy than Hujjat Allah?

Nope, you are still.

But while Hujjat Allah(AJ) kills them, Sayed Ali warns them. This is facts.

You surely must have lost your marbles.

Nope, not according to the Islamic Law, I have not. I am Aqil and hence capable

of leading prayers as well as follow the Sharia.

Its funny though how you scream in fury at the glance of someone bearing pure love

for the Islamic Republic and its Leader(HA).

I advice you to go read some Fiqh books or articles regarding the topic of

Insanity, as this knowledge clearly seems to be something you lack, unfortunately. :cry:

In the meanwhile,

Marg bar Amrika!

Marg bar Israel!

Marg bar Munafeqin!

Marg bar Zedane Wilayat Faqih!

Edited June 5, 2004 by Ehsan

[Orion]

(bismillah)

(salam)

I would request both sides to STOP attacking each other and above all Scholars directly or indirectly. There could always be some differences among scholars regarding the implementation of the Wilayat al-Faqih (WF) system. But they seem to agree on two basic principals:

1-Implimentation of Islamic law in Muslim lands.

2-Authority of Fuqha during the occultation of the Imam (as).

These could be the foundation of a fruteful discussion.

WS

Edited June 5, 2004 by Orion

[Ehsan]

Ahsantum habibe-qalbi, najme-rohi, Orion.

I wish you all a good night. :)

Wasalam

me

Edited June 5, 2004 by Ehsan

[-7áydér-]

The day the Iranian government starts acting in accordance with Islam...u can call it an ISLAMIC revolution.

But as for now...how the HELL can u call a government who lets the Baseej get on their motorbikes and beat up women on the streets simply because they have protested against their curropt government an "ISLAMIC" one?! dont make me laugh.

"Marg bar Zedane Wilayat Faqih!"

oh get a life.

[Frodo]

Have you totally lost your mind? Do

you comprehend what the hell you wrote above?

Nope, I'm still perfectly sane and intellectually capable of grasping reality.

Yep, I comprehend it...truth hurts, ayh? :)

I was going to answer brother Orion,

but this idiot is spouting some dangerous stuff here

I am still not insane and thus cannot be considered an idiot. An idiot is someone

who has lost hold of reality and hence Islamic Laws are not imposed upon him. Go

read some fiqh books and you'll grasp that either you are right or you have some

really akward morals. :rolleyes:

Are you calling Sayed Al-Shirazi,

along with many other Mujtahids and men of great faith, Bandits?

Nope, I have not mentioned him, you have. If he fits into the category its not my

problem. Truth hurts, ayh? :)

Are you also saying that Sayed Ali has more mercy than Hujjat Allah?

Nope, you are still.

But while Hujjat Allah(AJ) kills them, Sayed Ali warns them. This is facts.

You surely must have lost your marbles.

Nope, not according to the Islamic Law, I have not. I am Aqil and hence capable

of leading prayers as well as follow the Sharia.

Its funny though how you scream in fury at the glance of someone bearing pure love

for the Islamic Republic and its Leader(HA).

I advice you to go read some Fiqh books or articles regarding the topic of

Insanity, as this knowledge clearly seems to be something you lack, unfortunately. :cry:

In the meanwhile,

Marg bar Amrika!

Marg bar Israel!

Marg bar Munafeqin!

Marg bar Zedane Wilayat Faqih!

Holy Mother of Jesus (as). I really cant believe what I am reading here. Truth hurts? Reminds me of what Imam Ali (as) said to the Khawarij; "Kalimatu haqqin aradu bi7a ba6il."

Craziness, honestly :blink:

Edited June 6, 2004 by Frodo