Iraq: Clerical Rule or No?

[Spriglief]

I have an opinion, but since I am not Iraqi and not Moslem it is not my decision. I was grateful for that choice in this vote.

[Salem]

I'm "Non-Iraqi Muslim, for clerical rule" because:

At least the system that its based is Jafari for sure it will be against the global Zionism interests.

and that means, that system will help the underdogs and especially from the believers in this world and this is what the our god , prophet(s) and AhluBayt(a) have ordered us to do it.

If we are really moslems ,then we should listen to the AhluBayt's words.

[Muhammed Ali]

still waiting for a reply from "noorfatima"

[om_kadija]

Non-Iraqi muslim married to 1st generation Iraqi muslim, both against clerical rule.

[piggy]

Non Iraqi/ non Mulsim for clerical rule. Its simple really. I mean, who knows better how to run a country than gods men. Like look how well the pope runs vatican city. Unemployment is 0.

[ammarjasir3355]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Reading on some of the comments, its a great wonder why some shiite members are against cleric rule in Iraq. If the opposition came from a sunni brother then I can understand because in the first place they are the minority in Iraq altho they lorded it over the shiite majority for so many years until the shameful exit of the despotic Saddam.

I thought we shiites believe that the real government is: Of Allah, By the Prophets/Imams and For Allah ? That the real democracy, and hence a just government or laws is one which is contained in the Qur'an?

If we doubt the capabilities of our mujtahids to run a just government, what then is the use of putting our trust in their fatwas?

The situation in Iraq is just ripe and ideal for the establishment of another Islamic Republic. If only the majority shiites will unite, then they will take the helm of leadership. It is a golden opportunity and a great challenge for the mujtahids to prove that even before the coming of the Great IMAM AS our religious scholars can be capable of running a just government.

Why should we worry what will happen to the sunnis and other minority tribes under a shiite rule? If we doubt that our shiite clerics wont be able to run a just government and instead become dictatorial, can we still safely say that shiism is the real followers of the true Islamic faith?

Its a great challenge to our mujtahids. And I dare say that I have great trust that they will carry on a just rule as expected of the Holy Prophet and the Holy Imam AS.

A word of caution: the US and its cohorts will do everything to prevent another Islamic Republic under the leadership of an Ayatollah from ever happening. But Allah's will shall eventually prevail.

May Allah bless the Iraqis and grant their freedom soon under a just ruler.

Salaam to all... :)

ammarjasir3355

[NoorFatima]

(bismillah)

you either dont know the teachings of sayed shirazi or you just like to type whatever agress with your own ijtihad.

I find your very negative attitude towards me not only puzzling, but quite suspected from a Brother who likes to rudely undermine a fellow Shia just because we disagree on a political system. So far, I have been very polite and quite respectable when speaking to you; I would appreciate the same thing.

Answering your question now (you should of PMed me when you posted your reply); what I have said does not in anyway contradict what Ayatollah Muhammad AlShirazi has said in his Book. Looking at the highlighted parts you quoted, I do not disagree that the Mujtahid is the leader of the Nation, but I believe he's the leader of all Shiites (a Just and a true Mujtahid) and the Manifested representation of our Prince. Keep in mind that Ayatollah Al-Shirazi never said or claimed that the Mujtahid, or Alwaliu AlFaqeeh, can ever replace or equate the Holy Prince.

So if this is the case, how can the Mujtahids be the leaders/rulers while 99% of them are not ruling any states? The answer is quite obvious; the Mujtahid in his technical and Spiritual realm is the father of the community and head Guide (Dhahirian) whom introduces and applies religious verdicts and principals to those whom want this guidence, yet he does not have to rule politically in order to fulfill his function as a representative of the awaited Ma'soom.

Looking at another quotation you presented (a quotation that actually shows you two different expectations from the people and their function within the Islamic Government) - 'If there were more than one, those Mujtahids elected by the public, may elect one Mujtahid or a group from themselves to lead the country' - Could you please shed the light on the fact if Sayed Ali Khamanaei was elected by the people? Or better yet, were the Mujtahids that elected Sayed Khamanaei elected by the people? Another interesting contradiction, was it Mujtahids solely who elected Sayed Khamanaei or a Mix of low ranking Mullahs and a hand full of Mujtahids?

If you look at the quotations you presented, let alone the entire book, it not only contradicts Iran's current reality of a functional Islamic Republic and the procedure of which a Mujtahid way become a Waliul Faqeeh.

Please consider this advice, read your "refutation" before you post it.

(salam)

Edited December 12, 2004 by NoorFatima

[Shiaboy]

Assalam Alaikum

I would hate to get involved in this thread because people are really tense and although both sides mean good, they are disrespecting the way to engage in Islamic dialogues. Please refrain from fighting as it only makes things bitter between the lovers of Ahlulbayt (as).

I had something to mention because I saw some things that weren't really correct in fairness to the Ayatollahs mentioned:

The overwhelming majority of Shia Scholars do not accept the concept of Walih Al-Faqih with regards to Wilayah Mutlaqa. Sayid Muhammad Shirazi (ra) does not accept one Leader in taking all the decisions by himself when the matter is so large that it touches upon all the Muslim Ummah directly. What Sayid Shirazi (ra) does advocate is that the Council of Maraji' may elect one Marja' to be representative but other than that, he and others do not believe in one Walih Mutlaq taking decisions. The representative is a spokesman and that is straight from the mouth of a Wakil of his that has ijaza in all aspects as he lived with the Sayid (ra) himself for over a decade and a half and was among the first group of Shias to pledge Bay'ah to Sayid Khumayni (ra) in Karbala (where for the record Sayid Shirazi stepped back and gave Sayid Khumayni his place to lead the prayer as a sign of Bay'ah). This is straight from his 6 mujtahid sons as well and some of his Wuqala as I have met many of them. Sayid Shirazi (as a brother of mine put it) on Ahlul_bayt@yahoogroups.com list, believes in a bottom-up type of Council if there is to be an elected Walih Al-Faqih from the Council of Maraji's. Every Alim accepts the concept of Walih Al-Faqih in terms of having a Alim lead a State but otherwise, Wilayah Mutlaqa is ardently opposed and refused by the overwhelming majority (see Ayatullah Al-Khoei, Al-Sadrs, Al-Shirazis, Al-Qummi, Rouhani, Rouhani, Behjat, an-Najafi, al-Isfahani, Fayyadh (radwan Allah 3alayhim jamee3an), etc.. etc.. and I really could go on and on; in fact all the Ulamahs in Iraq refuse Mutlaqa except (according a friend of mine which has seen him, Sayid Muhammad Sa3eed Al-Hakim (ra) who doesn't want to discuss this).

As for some misconceptions, Ayatollah Shirazi (ra) was never put under house arrest, he choose to stay home as a sign of opposition to the way Iran was governed; that was back in mid-1981 when he took back the Fatwa he had issued saying "To all my followers, whatever Fatwa is given by Imam Khomeini (ra) you can follow" (which was issued as allegiance). Sayid Shirazi's Wakeel has told me personally that Sayid Muhammad Shirazi and Sayid Ruhollah Al-Khumayni had never had personal problems but a Fiqh disagreement; so the followers (muqalideens) should leave it as a friendly/brotherly discussion. Sayid Al-Khumayni (ra) even visited Sayid Shirazi (ra) in Qum as the only Alim he visited in time of crisis. As for one of the sons of Sayid Shirazi (Sayid Murtadha), he himself after being released from Prison did not reveal what had happened and never wished for it to be discord among the people. Yes I know what happened because of thorough research and his Wukala but no one has ever discussed this publicly as the Shirazi family refuses to cause more fitnah through something personal. Why would we bring this matter up when the Mujtahid himself refused to talk about it? Sayid Shirazi himself said forget my personal rights when it comes to preserving Brotherhood among the Believers so please refrain from pasting such tragic incidents to avoid complications among each other; we are all brothers and sisters in Faith please :). Also, in due fairness, this did not happen at the time of Imam Khumayni (ra). Lastly, Sayid Shirazi (ra) held the view that "I follow the same School as Imam Khumayni but replace Wilayah Mutlaqa by Shura" and that means he was very much into political involvement.

As a last advice, regardless of whether we believe in Wilayah Mutlaqa or not, we are brothers in Faith and Humanity and we should remain respectful to one another for the love of our Imam (ajtf) and for Allah (SWT)'s Mercy to be multiplied on an obedient and pious Ummah.

As for the original topic, I am for a clerical rule if that is best for Iraq; otherwise, let the Clerics be consulted in the Affairs and let specialized diplomats who respect Islamic Law deal with the International World as long as the Clerics' views are respected and heard as well.

I bid you well,

(hehe, I didn't know the board only allowed a maximum number of emoticons, please pardon me if i remove some of the (ra)s so that I can post my message, thank you!)

Wa Billah Nasta'een

[Guest abaleada]

up

[Orion]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Sorry to jump in without reading all posts. But I have a question. What is meant by "Clerical Rule".

Does it mean clergy running every government department? Does it mean clergy president or prime minister? Does it mean a Mujtahid providing guidance to the rulers or the government? Does it mean a Mujtahid having the final word that such and such law is in accordance with Islam or is un-Islamic?

WS

[Orion]

(bismillah)

(salam)

So if this is the case, how can the Mujtahids be the leaders/rulers while 99% of them are not ruling any states? The answer is quite obvious; the Mujtahid in his technical and Spiritual realm is the father of the community and head Guide (Dhahirian) whom introduces and applies religious verdicts and principals to those whom want this guidence, yet he does not have to rule politically in order to fulfill his function as a representative of the awaited Ma'soom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of the Holy Imams (as) also did not rule over Muslims as their head of state or Khalifa. And that did not stop them from being our leaders. But that does not mean that it was not their right to be the rulers. In fact they mentioned this several times.

So yes, a Musjtahid will still be our guide without ruling over us but the establishment of a just society run under Islamic laws is the basic responcibility of all Muslims. So how can our Mujtahids not try to establish something that they teach? How can they give lectures and write books on Islamic laws but never do anything to impliment it?

Yes, it is possible that the circumstances do not allow the Mujtahids to establish an Islamic government. But how can we say that they dont or should not strive for it if the circumstances are right?

Looking at another quotation you presented (a quotation that actually shows you two different expectations from the people and their function within the Islamic Government) - 'If there were more than one, those Mujtahids elected by the public, may elect one Mujtahid or a group from themselves to lead the country' - Could you please shed the light on the fact if Sayed Ali Khamanaei was elected by the people? Or better yet, were the Mujtahids that elected Sayed Khamanaei elected by the people? Another interesting contradiction, was it Mujtahids solely who elected Sayed Khamanaei or a Mix of low ranking Mullahs and a hand full of Mujtahids?

Again, sorry for jumping in. I dont know where the quote is from. Ayatullah Khamanaei was selected by a directly elected body of scholars called Majlis e Khobargan meaning "a body of experts who have the knowledge". Its a two fold process. People elect Majlis e Khobargan and the Majlis selects the leader.

WS

P.S.: Clarify that you are not discreminating. I note that you write Ayatullah in front of one scholar and just Sayed in front of another??????

Edited February 5, 2005 by Orion

[Moetheman]

Salaamuu Alakium Brothers and Sisters,

Ive been reading 2 pages of this thread and its pretty funny how you guys argue no offense towards anyone. All I have to say about this topic is that the Iraqis should choice for themselves. No one was there for the Iraqis when Sadaam was around........hmm I don't think there was this much people caring about the Iraqis as much as now. Let the Iraqis choice whatever they want the elections have been held and Inshalla everything goes as smoothly as possiple. And Inshalla these wahabis get out of Iraq all these suicide killers does anyone actually think its the Iraqis maybe the Baath People but not true Iraqis! I'm for whatever Sayed Sistani (Da2m Theloh Alsharif) says. As for Moqtada lool where do I start what he did in Najaf was wrong Nashkur Allah for Sayed Sistani being there to clear it up.

Wa Salaam,

Br.Mohammed

[iraqus]

Salaam

1st gen ex-pat - for or against?

There are three different cases to consider: the separation of religion from politics (France and Turkey), the separation of religion from state (most of world), or neither.

While we might compare religious leadership to the Prophet (SAW) or Imams (as), the fact is that during the occultation the religious leadership is FALLIBLE.

This is a very, very crucial difference.

With this in mind we have to think about the position the religious establishment occupies within the state. Given that they are fallible, there must be a way of ensuring accountability in the same way as anyone else in power can be held to account.

In an Islamic state, S.Moh. Baqir al-Sadr talks about wilayah and shahadeh. Wilayah corrsponds to the executive and legislative organs of a modern state while shahadeh's closest body is the judiciary. Both these powers were united as one in the Prophet and Imams due to their infallibility and divine messages. However in occultation they are separate and wilyah goes to the people (wilayat-al ummah) and shahadeh to the jurists/scholars.

While wilayeh is clearly described as the executive and legislative bodies (elected by the people), shahadeh was termed 'supervision' by S.Sadr and left very vague unfortunately. In Iran the supervisory role stretches over all organs of the state and therefore clerics dominate all the government. S.Sadr seemed to advocate a more limited role for the supervision in terms of occupying the role of judiciary, safeguarding the Islamic constitution of the country while also being accountable to the people.

So do i want clerics to rule?

It all depends on the extent of their powers and the existence of true accountability. They are humans not infallibles.

Ali

[Thaqalain]

هل ستكون الحكومة العراقية القادمة إسلامية؟

قال رئيس الوزراء العراقي المؤقت اياد علاوي يوم الثلاثاء انه يتوقع أن تكون الحكومة العراقية القادمة اسلامية لكنه أعرب عن أمله في سماع مزيد من الاصوات الليبرالية في عملية تشكيل مستقبل العراق.

وأبلغ السياسي العلماني رويترز في أول مقابلة معه منذ الانتخابات التي أجريت في 30 يناير كانون الثاني الماضي أنه يأمل أن يسمح الفائزون في الانتخابات لكل قطاعات المجتمع العراقي بالمشاركة في تشكيل الادارة القادمة.

وتظهر النتائج التي أعلنت الاحد الماضي أن الائتلاف العراقي الموحد وهو ائتلاف تهيمن عليه جماعات شيعية كان قد شكل بدعم ضمني من المرجع الشيعي الاعلى في العراق اية الله علي السيستاني فاز بنسبة 48 في المئة من أصوات الناخبين.

وأشار علاوي الى أن الائتلاف العراقي الموحد تجمع اسلامي وأن كان هناك بعض الليبراليين فيه ولكنهم يميلون هم ايضا الى التيار الاسلامي.

وأضاف أن 50 في المئة من الشعب العراقي قرروا أنهم يريدون رؤية حكومة اسلامية في العراق ويجب على الجميع احترام هذه الرغبة.

وأعرب عن رضاه بنتائج الانتخابات باعتبار أنها تمثل ارادة الشعب العراقي. وأشار الى أن العراقيين قرروا دعم الفصائل الاسلامية وقال "هذه هي الديمقراطية".

وقال ان أفكار الائتلاف الذي يتزعمه واضحة وتتمثل في أن الحكم في العراق ينبغي أن يكون ليبراليا وليس دينيا.

واحتل ائتلاف علاوي المركز الثالث في الانتخابات وحصل على نحو 14 في المئة من أصوات الناخبين بما يضمن له نحو 40 مقعدا في المجلس الوطني الجديد المؤلف من 275 مقعدا. وحُل ائتلاف يضم الحزبين الكرديين الرئيسيين في العراق في المركز الثاني وحصل على نسبة تزيد قليلا على 25 في المئة من أصوات الناخبين.

وقال علاوي الذي يتولى رئاسة الحكومة المؤقتة منذ يونيو حزيران الماضي ويتمتع بعلاقات جيدة ومتطورة مع حليفه الرئيسي الرئيس الامريكي جورج بوش انه لن يشعر بالانزعاج لترك منصبه.

وكان علاوي مرشحا لان يقع عليه الاختيار لشغل المنصب كحل وسط في حال فشل أقطاب الائتلاف العراقي الموحد الذي كانت التوقعات تشير دائما الى فوزه بالانتخابات في الاتفاق على مرشح من بينهم.

لكنهم اتفقوا يوم الثلاثاء على ما يبدو على أن يكون السياسي الاسلامي ابراهيم الجعفري زعيم حزب الدعوة الديني مرشحهم.

وقال علاوي مبتسما انه لا تروق له فكرة الاستمرار في منصب رئيس الوزراء لكنه أكد استمراره في العمل السياسي.

وفي حال تولي الجعفري منصب رئيس الوزراء فسيضيف المزيد من التوجهات الاسلامية على الارجح الى المنصب بعد ستة أشهر من قيادة علاوي العلمانية.

ومع ذلك فستتضح بمرور الوقت أبعاد النفوذ الاسلامي لان الاكراد الاكثر ميلا الى العلمانية والذين يتمتعون في الوقت الراهن بنفوذ بالغ بفضل أدائهم القوي في الانتخابات سيعملون على الأرجح على كبح قوة الشيعة.

وقال علاوي ان أي قرار بشأن مشاركته في الحكومة سيعتمد على مدى مشاركة ائتلافه. وليس من المستبعد أن يظل ائتلافه يحاول الدفع به كمرشح لشغل منصب رئيس الوزراء على الرغم من ضعف هذا الاحتمال.

وأضاف أن ائتلافه بدأ المناقشات يوم الثلاثاء وأن تلك المناقشات ستستمر مشيرا الى أن أقطاب الائتلاف يبحثون المشاركة في المساومات الجارية على رئاسة الحكومة.

وقال علاوي ان الأهم من المفاوضات الحثيثة التي تشغل البلاد في الوقت الراهن حول المناصب العليا هي الحاجة الى إشراك كل الاحزاب ـ العرب السنة والشيعة العلمانيين وغيرهم ـ في النقاش الدائر.

ومضى قائلا ان هناك أمرين رئيسيين لابد من حدوثهما لضمان استمرار العملية السياسية وهما ضرورة وجود رؤية واضحة واصرار على مشاركة كل الفصائل العراقية في العملية السياسية بالافعال وليس بالاقوال فقط ووجود حوار حقيقي من أجل كتابة الدستور.

وأضاف أنه لو تحقق هذا التوازن فسيجنى العراقيون ثمرة الانتخابات مشيرا الى أنه بدون ذلك الشمول فسيكون هناك خطر متمثل في تسلل الخلل الى الحياة السياسية العراقية.

وختم علاوي بالتأكيد مجددا على اعتقاده بأنه ليس من المناسب ادارة العراق في ظل حكم ديني-سياسي وطالب القوى الليبرالية والديمقراطية التي تتفق معه في هذا الرأي بتوحيد جهودها وأفكارها.

شبكة النبأ المعلوماتية - الخميس 17/2/2005 - 8/ محرم الحرام/1425

[M]

question: was prophet muhammad(s) directly involved in politics?

answer: yes

question: was imam ali(a) directly involved in politics?

answer: yes

question: are the prophet muhammad and imam ali our role models?

answer: yes

i think the rest is pretty obvious. :Hijabi:

khuda hafiz

fatema

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes they where involved in politics. But did they ever impose their political position on people or did they wait until the people requested their leadership? Not sure, i'm asking.

[zainabia]

Yes they where involved in politics.  But did they ever impose their political position on people or did they wait until the people requested their leadership?    Not sure,  i'm asking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bismillah

Assalamo Alaikum

Rasool Allah (saw) applied Islamic Laws FULLY (as has been done by WF in Iran), while there was no challanging force to Rasool (saw) and people were following him.

Imam Ali (as) applied the Partial Laws, while People have not accepted him as divine Imam, but wordly Khilafaah. (a thing, which Maraja Karam will do in Iraq, I think). You see, there were only handful of True Shias with Imam Ali (as). Rest the people of Kufa were Political Shias, who sided Ali in wars, but at same time accepted Abu Bakr and Umar to be ligitimate Caliphs.

Imam Mahdi (as), he will again apply the full Islamic System while he will be having power for this.

I dont see how people criticize WF in Iran (while majority in Iran are Shias and Imam Khomeini really got the power for implementation of full Islamic Government and laws.

In Iraq, the Maraja Karaam lac the Power for Complete Shia Islamic Rule like of WF due to presence of very large minorities and due to influence of US and other Arabic world, but off course majority of Iraq wants Basic Islamic Rules for the scoceity. So Iraqi Marajee will go for as much Islamic Rules, as much power they have.

Was Salam.

Edited February 22, 2005 by zainabia

[Orion]

Imam Ali (as) applied the Partial Laws, while People have not accepted him as divine Imam, but wordly Khilafaah. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

(salam)

Sister, I am not sure if it would be correct to say that Ameer Al-Momeneen (as) applied only "partial laws". Are there any such examples?

WS

[zainabia]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Sister, I am not sure if it would be correct to say that Ameer Al-Momeneen (as) applied only "partial laws". Are there any such examples?

WS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bismillah

Salam Alaikum

Brother Orion, I said so in the context of light of following Khutba of Mawla Ali (as).

Rudhutul Kafi, Sermon of Al-Fatan wa Al-Bidah, page 59, published in Iran:

"The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against Rasool Allah (saww). They broke the promises (which they made with Rasool) and changed the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saww). If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations) and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those Shi'a who recognise my virtues and rank.

Then he further explained by giving some examples that: "If I return Fadak to the heirs of Fatima as.gif, and if I order to restore the "SA'a" (a unit for measuring wheat) of Rasool Allah (s). And if I return the properties, which were given by Rasool (s) to their original owners, and deny the decisions which were based on injustice (and tyranny), and snatch the women who were illegally taken by some people and return them to their husbands, and if I deny the (unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to every one equally (as were originally given by Rasool (s), but earlier caliphs started giving according to status), �. and restore the condition of Khums of Rasool (saww), and to bring Masjid-e-Nabi to it's original position, and to make "Mash alal Khaffin" haram, and to issue punishment ("Had") for drinking "Nabeedh" (alcohol made out of barley), and give the fatwa for Mut'ah being Halaal, and start saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite "Bismillah" loudly during Salat, And I made marriages equal and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of abulation, ghusal and Salah to it's original form and time, and give back the fidya (which was unjustly taken) to Ahl-e-Najran, and return the slave girls of Ahle Faras, and ask people to return to Qur'an and Sunnah of Rasool (s), then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadhan, and told them that congregation (Jamah) in Nafal (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people started shouting that Sunnah of Hadhrat Umar has been changed.

Hope you understand my context of stating that statement.

Was Salam.