[the millionth hijabi]

Both amongst the most respected scholars of the 20th century- yet apparently conflicted in some of their ideas. Described to be "his most fierce critic", Ayatollah Khoei did not always agree with wilayatul faqih and Imam Khomeini.

I hope that InshAllah this topic will open up discussions regarding the issue, and will also give links to reliable (scholarly) articles regarding the issue as they are extremely difficult to find!

With salams
- the millionth hijabi

PS. I understand that this is a controversial issue- HOWEVER, I'd like to request that posts in this thread will pertain to the topic only- i.e. Ayatollah Khoei's views and our views on those views- not our views on wilayatul faqih. Thanks

This post has been edited by the millionth hijabi: 13 April 2007 - 09:29 PM

[shiavoice]

It should be noted, firstly and originally tha, to be quite frank, they did not get along- period. During Imam Khomeini (q) Najaf day's, they never seemed to get along and they had conflicting personalities, for whatever reasons. It is interesting to see how they dealt with this, whereby they simply kept away from each other and that is how the entire 'conflict', if this word could be used, was taken care of.

Now, the question then arises as to whether, Ayatollah Al-Khoei's views opposing the Wilayat of the Faqih, during occultation was reflective of this previous discrepency. Now, clearly he disagreed with Imam Khomeini (q) view on the Wilayat Al-Faqih, however it may be possible that he supported it to some extent, however this could not be clear. I think it is clear that he did not agree with Imam Khomeini (q) view on the Wilayat Al-Faqih, etc.

Was this bias.. well.. that is another issue; for even his 'greatest' student, Ayatollah Al-Uzzma Sayyed Sistani- the respected scholar, doe snot disagree intirely on the Wilayat Al-Faqih, however he put's conditions on it. Then the question arises as to whether Ayatollah AL-Khui's opinions were based on something personal, or otherwise; as the students opinions are usually very closely reflective of there mentors; as there methods seem to be similar, and very few discrepencies do exist.

Now the following, i need confirmation and am seeking confirmation for this as i was extremely suprised when i read this:

Ayatollah Al-Khoi' wrote a letter of support to the Shah just before the revolution.

I am not sure, i read this, and need confirmation.

Wasalam.

[SpIzo]

I don't want to get into this Wilayah al-Faqih again, but I couldn't help responding to this:

shiavoice, on Apr 14 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Ayatollah Al-Khoi' wrote a letter of support to the Shah just before the revolution.

I would suggest you do your homework, and then post. ALL the `ulema supported the revolution, whether they were Iraqi, Iranian, etc.. It was only after the revolution when Sayyed Khomeini claimed absolute authority and all, that most of them withdrew their support. The discrepancies started thereon.

[A Follower]

^ It was not after the revolution he claimed 'absolute' authority. As I have said before and let me repeat it again, have a read of his speeches which are compiled in the book 'Kawther' and in his every speech he has mentioned the Islamic Government one way or another.

Secondly Imam Khomeini gave the lectures on Wilayat ul Faqih in Najaf and I am sure we all are aware of this that he was in Najaf before the revolution climaxed so in Najaf itself he gave lectures on the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih which later were compiled in the book called 'Islamic Government'. So if he was giving these lectures before the revolution where he defined everything about the Wilayat ul Faqih concept then how did he change it afterwards?

Everything was crystal clear from the beginnig. . .

[SpIzo]

A Follower, on Apr 14 2007, 09:01 PM, said:

^ It was not after the revolution he claimed 'absolute' authority. As I have said before and let me repeat it again, have a read of his speeches which are compiled in the book 'Kawther' and in his every speech he has mentioned the Islamic Government one way or another.

Secondly Imam Khomeini gave the lectures on Wilayat ul Faqih in Najaf and I am sure we all are aware of this that he was in Najaf before the revolution climaxed so in Najaf itself he gave lectures on the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih which later were compiled in the book called 'Islamic Government'. So if he was giving these lectures before the revolution where he defined everything about the Wilayat ul Faqih concept then how did he change it afterwards?

Everything was crystal clear from the beginnig. . .

It was after the revolution. Sayyed Khomeini mentioned Islamic Government before the revolution, which frankly speaking, the `ulema did want; but what they didn't anticipate was his claims of absolute authority. He even maintained that the clerics would just act as advisors and not have any role in the government which is why he vehemently opposed Shaheed Beheshti for the role of the President in the beginning of the formation of the Islamic Government.

And how conveniently the pro-WF have justified it.

[A Follower]

SpIzo, on Apr 14 2007, 06:05 PM, said:

It was after the revolution. Sayyed Khomeini mentioned Islamic Government before the revolution, which frankly speaking, the `ulema did want; but what they didn't anticipate was his claims of absolute authority. He even maintained that the clerics would just act as advisors and not have any role in the government which is why he vehemently opposed Shaheed Beheshti for the role of the President in the beginning of the formation of the Islamic Government.

And how conveniently the pro-WF have justified it.

As I said have a read through his speeches in the book 'Kawther'. If he wanted to wait till after the revolution to talk about the authority then why would he mention the fundamentals of the Islamic Governments in all his speeches. Would that make any sense?

Please look up about the italics part again. In the book 'Islamic Government' he talks about how the scholars have a role in the government.

No one is justifying anything, everything is clearly written.

[SpIzo]

A Follower, on Apr 14 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

Please look up about the italics part again. In the book 'Islamic Government' he talks about how the scholars have a role in the government.

If he did write about the scholars role in the government, why did he oppose Shaheed Beheshti for the role of Presidency on the basis that the clerics should have not have any role in the government? Why did he say before the revolution that the clerics will only act as advisors and not have any role in the government? Why were the Iranians not aware of the concept of Wilayah al-Faqih al-Mutlaqa when they opted for the Islamic Government? As Hamid Algar (a pro-WF) has written he was surprised that when he visited Iran after the revolution, before the implementation of the concept, when he mentioned in passing about Wilayah al-Faqih, the Iranians didn't have a clue what the concept was; they had never heard of it.

Quote

No one is justifying anything, everything is clearly written.

If it was, today there would have been no contention.

[A Follower]

SpIzo, on Apr 14 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

If he did write about the scholars role in the government, why did he oppose Shaheed Beheshti for the role of Presidency on the basis that the clerics should have not have any role in the government? Why did he say before the revolution that the clerics will only act as advisors and not have any role in the government? Why were the Iranians not aware of the concept of Wilayah al-Faqih al-Mutlaqa when they opted for the Islamic Government? As Hamid Algar (a pro-WF) has written that he was surprised that when he visited Iran after the revolution, before the implementation of the concept, when he mentioned in passing about Wilayah al-Faqih, the Iranians didn't have a clue what the concept was; they had never heard of it.

Iranians were not aware of Wilayat ul Faqih concept in Iran? Shaheed Mutahhari was in Iran during the whole time while Imam Kheomini was in exile, also Ayatollah Montazeri was in Iran too and these guys were propogating the ideas of Imam Khomeini and his speeches etc throughout Iran in the exile of Imam Khomeini. Here is an extract from someone who inquired this first hand from an Iranian person living in Iran at the time of the revolution [I am sure you know who Elwiya is from SC ]:

Quote

Not to be boastful or anything but from my observations I would guess that the iranian layman would have a fairly accurate idea of Imam Khomeini's ideas at the time of the revolution - they're generally really into this sort of stuff and were likely even more so at that time. Although literature that wasn't to the shah's liking was banned (including Motahari's A_follower), and I think bro A_follower mentioned this, his ideas were circulating and quite actively too. In all sorts of circles and not just ulama and whatnot.

This is by Talib e ilm from SC again:

Quote

I doubt though that the layman really understood "the idea of Islamic government as proposed by Khomeini." Ayat. Khomeini's book Hukumat-i-Islami was published about 9 years before the revolution and distributed secretly in Iran. According to the book's foreword, it was one of the top prohibited books in Iran at the time so perhaps because it couldn't gain wide circulation, Khomeini's ideas didn't reach the masses fully although it did reach the clergy. I remember reading a back issue of Time dated around the time of the revolution that stated Khomeini was intending to create an Islamic version of Plato's republic where he would serve as the philosopher-king. This shows even the Western media were vaguely familiar with Khomeini's ideas.

As for him opposing the presidency of Shaheed Beheshti can you please provide a link or some textual proof of that? This is the first time I am hearing of this.

[SpIzo]

A Follower, on Apr 15 2007, 12:23 AM, said:

Iranians were not aware of Wilayat ul Faqih concept in Iran?

I've read Elwiya's reply and Talib-e-Ilm's response too. But did you really read Elwiya's reply well? Because she said:

I asked someone who was there and voted and everything, and I asked with you in mind so I thought I'd just come here and answer you despite my reluctance toward posting on this thread. So according to my source, and don't take my (or my source's) word for it, there were different options for Islamic governments, and there was an option for "an Islamic government as proposed by Khomeini" but no mention of WF.

[A Follower]

SpIzo, on Apr 14 2007, 09:35 PM, said:

I've read Elwiya's reply and Talib-e-Ilm's response too. But did you really read Elwiya's reply well? Because she said:

I asked someone who was there and voted and everything, and I asked with you in mind so I thought I'd just come here and answer you despite my reluctance toward posting on this thread. So according to my source, and don't take my (or my source's) word for it, there were different options for Islamic governments, and there was an option for "an Islamic government as proposed by Khomeini" but no mention of WF.

Yea I read that part but did you read the statement before it. There was an option for an Islamic Government as proposed by Imam Khoemini, that says it all. Imam Khomeini proposed it clearly as I said in Najaf as well as in all his speeches. Take a look in Kawther.

Also note as Talib e ilm mentioned Imam Khomeini wrote his book 'Islamic Government' 9 years before the climax of revolution are you telling me seriously that in those 9 years the people of Iran didnt know the concept of WF which was the very basis of what Imam Khomeini wanted to implement in Iran? Hence the statement of Elwiya which states 'an Islamic government as proposed by Khomeini' shows clearly that he had outlined the Islamic Government which included the WF otherwise what would be the Islamic government which Khomeini proposed without the WF?

From your post you are suggesting that Imam Khomeini explained the WF for years and years more than a decade and then when finally the revolution climaxed and the time to install the government came he threw out the WF. That is contradictory as I mentioned already his thoughts were clear and they were recorded in his works which I gave reference to.

[.InshAllah]

Prof Hasanain Rajabali said in one of his lectures that in response to this fitna Imam Khomeini [r] came out and said 'Sayyid Khoi is the Sun and I am the Moon'. Does anyone have a reference for this?


اللهم لا تَجْعَلْ فِي قُلُوبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا

[shiavoice]

Salam.

That is very interesting, i'd like to see that too. There is so many lies going around, in particular in relation to islam and Modern day Shia' Political thought, it is interesting to see and distinguish truth and falsehood.

Quote

ALL the `ulema supported the revolution

I'd disagree, the Qom Hawza, in particular the leader of the Qom Hawza, was against Imam Khomeini (q) and the revolution.

It has also been mentioned that some in the Najaf Hawza, clearly did not support the revolution. If this meant support for Shah, or just meant disagreement with Imam Khomeini (q) is another issue. I think it is highly unlikely that this meant direct support for the Shah.

Quote

QUOTE(shiavoice @ Apr 14 2007, 04:55 PM) Ayatollah Al-Khoi' wrote a letter of support to the Shah just before the revolution.

I would suggest you do your homework, and then post.

Well, actually, clearly i stated :

Quote

Now the following, i need confirmation and am seeking confirmation for this as i was extremely suprised when i read this:

Ayatollah Al-Khoi' wrote a letter of support to the Shah just before the revolution.

I am not sure, i read this, and need confirmation.

As you see, i was not sure, and i did read this, is it true was another issue; that is why i said i need confirmation.

Don't manipulate my words.

Thanks.

Salam.

[Interpreter]

shiavoice, on Apr 15 2007, 04:56 AM, said:

I'd disagree, the Qom Hawza, in particular the leader of the Qom Hawza, was against Imam Khomeini (q) and the revolution.

Dear brother, no one in the Qum Hawza was against the revolution. Imam Khomeini at the time of the revolution was the leading Marja' in the Hawza.

Quote

It has also been mentioned that some in the Najaf Hawza, clearly did not support the revolution. If this meant support for Shah, or just meant disagreement with Imam Khomeini (q) is another issue. I think it is highly unlikely that this meant direct support for the Shah.

One has to understand the role of the rulers in relation to the Shi'i Hawza. The Shah in this case, clearly knew of the strength of the Hawza and would try to work his way around the Islamic standards of the Hawza; it's that simple. He used to send representatives to Sayyed Buroujerdi ; and to my best knowledge he sent a letter to Sayyed Muhsin Al-Hakim following the demise of Sayyed Buroujerdi .

As for the question of presidency; please just read the constitution of Iran people - shouldn't take you more than 20 minutes. The Wali Al-Amr and the definition of his role is entirely different from the executive role of the president. The president is elected by the people; and just because Imam Khomeini did not want a clerical Alim, if true, in the beginning to be president, we therefore suppose that he had a problem with his system? That argument to be honest, is beyond ludicrous - so let's be a bit more objective. You can point to a myriad of other reasons why, mainly pertaining to the immediate safety of the Islamic Republic, but you can definitely NOT make the point that this was because the WF model was not perfect.

The executive role is one that is based on awareness of the requirements of the nation and implementing policies/programs that are rationally accepted to be effective in providing those needs. It's as simple as that.

This post has been edited by Interpreter: 15 April 2007 - 02:09 PM

[SpIzo]

A Follower, on Apr 15 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

From your post you are suggesting that Imam Khomeini explained the WF for years and years more than a decade and then when finally the revolution climaxed and the time to install the government came he threw out the WF. That is contradictory as I mentioned already his thoughts were clear and they were recorded in his works which I gave reference to.

Interpreter, on Apr 15 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

As for the question of presidency; people if anything, please just read the constitution of Iran - shouldn't take you more than 20 minutes. The Wali Al-Amr and the definition of his role is entirely different from the executive role of the president. The president is elected by the people; and just because Imam Khomeini did not want a clerical Alim, if true, in the beginning to be president, we therefore suppose that he had a problem with his system?

I don't think you can blame me for what I pointed out and I'm definitely not making things up. I read the arguments from articles written by pro-WF who justified all what Sayyed Khomeini did (what you're finding ludicrous and shocking).

This is the chronological events of how Sayyed Khomeini changed his mind (at least this is how I conclude from my readings):

In Kashf al-Asrar (written in 1941), he maintained that the government need not be in the hands of a faqih.

In Islamic Government (Hukumat-e-Islami), he said scholars have a pivotal role in the government (and as pointed out by Talib-e-Ilm was written 9 years before the revolution).

Before the revolution, in 1978, he repeatedly stated in interviews to French journalists, that he does not want any role in the government and that clerics will just act as advisors.

After the implementation of the concept of Wilayah al-Faqih (which as I stated before, most of the Iranians were unaware of and which was not even implemented immediately after the formation of Islamic Government), he acted upon his words of "advisors to the government and no role", but "due to corruption in the state", he took matters in his own hands (which now changed the definition of Wilayah al-Faqih).

shiavoice, why will the Qum Hawza and Najaf Hawza be against the revolution, when the whole nation (Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Shi'a, Sunni, Jews, Christians, etc..) was against Shah? I would have posted an article but it seems the host's have removed from their server. I'll quote a part of it:

These days, there is a tendency, both in the West and in Iran, to view the revolution of 1979 as an Islamic revolution instigated at the behest of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This is a historical fiction that emerged out of two and a half decades of post-revolutionary propaganda.

The truth is, there were dozens of voices raised against the shah; Khomeini's was merely the loudest. In fact, a full 10 per cent of Iran's population actively took part in the overthrow of the shah, thus making it the largest popular revolution in modern history.

Feminists, communists, socialists, Marxists, secular democrats, Westernized intellectuals, traditional bazaari merchants, die-hard nationalists, religious fundamentalists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, men, women, and children: nearly every sector of Iranian society was represented in the revolution. Khomeini's genius was his intuition that, in a country steeped in the faith and culture of Shiism, only the symbols and metaphors of Shiite Islam could provide a collective language with which to mobilize a disparate coalition that had little in common save its virulent hatred of the shah.


This article is by Reza Aslan (and before you all say that he is anti-WF, let me tell you - I don't really care).

[A Follower]

SpIzo, on Apr 15 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

I don't think you can blame me for what I pointed out and I'm definitely not making things up. I read the arguments from articles written by pro-WF who justified all what Sayyed Khomeini did (what you're finding ludicrous and shocking).

This is the chronological events of how Sayyed Khomeini changed his mind (at least this is how I conclude from my readings):

In Kashf al-Asrar (written in 1941), he maintained that the government need not be in the hands of a faqih.

In Islamic Government (Hukumat-e-Islami), he said scholars have a pivotal role in the government (and as pointed out by Talib-e-Ilm was written 9 years before the revolution).

Before the revolution, in 1978, he repeatedly stated in interviews to French journalists, that he does not want any role in the government and that clerics will just act as advisors.

After the implementation of the concept of Wilayah al-Faqih (which as I stated before, most of the Iranians were unaware of and which was not even implemented immediately after the formation of Islamic Government), he acted upon his words of "advisors to the government and no role", but "due to corruption in the state", he took matters in his own hands (which now changed the definition of Wilayah al-Faqih).

You are quoting a text of 1941 and saying he held that belief, so let me ask you can he not change his belief from 1941 till 1970? or more to that did he not? If you think every Faqih or religious authority keep the same opinion on things through out their life then I am sorry to say you are gravely mistaken.

Secondly if you read the Islamic Government (Hukumat e Islami) he goes on to describe the whole basis of Wilayat ul Faqi. It was not something he at all implemented in the Government after the revolution. In the very book in the last 2 chapter he goes on to talk about the Wilayat ul Faqi and its responsibilities.

I have given you two textual sources as evidence. 'Islamic Government' and 'Kawther' if you can provide textual evidence of either the presidency claim or the french interviews that would be great. Oh btw Ayatollah Montazeri wrote a book about Wilayat ul Faqi, which is 8 volumes and in the last 3 volumes he fully describes the concept of Wilayat ul Faqee down to the very last detail. Shaheed Mutahhari wrote about the Wilayat ul Faqee too which mirrored the thoughts of Imam Khomeini's Hukumat e Islami. There you have more textual evidence. More to that these two individuals were in Iran throughout the exile of Imam Khomeini and were propogating the message of Imam Khomeini to the people as mentioned in my quotes from Elwiya. Now the question here would arise is this would Shaheed Mutahhari and Ayatollah Montazeri write such texts reflecting the same thoughts of Imam Khomeini on Wilayat ul Faqi had there been no evidence of it at all from before?

Took what matters in his own hands? Removal of Bani Sadr? Is that what you are saying? If so then maybe you should research on who was the Supreme leader after the elections when the revolution climaxed and what is the job of the Supreme leader when the president is creating disunity amongst the people and bringing in MKO supporters in the government?

[SpIzo]

A Follower, on Apr 15 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

You are quoting a text of 1941 and saying he held that belief, so let me ask you can he not change his belief from 1941 till 1970? or more to that did he not? If you think every Faqih or religious authority keep the same opinion on things through out their life then I am sorry to say you are gravely mistaken.

I would like it if you do not assume my opinion.

Quote

'Islamic Government' and 'Kawther' if you can provide textual evidence of either the presidency claim or the french interviews that would be great.

"Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system." -- Interview with the Associated Press, Paris, November 7, 1978

"I have repeatedly said that neither my desire nor my age nor my position allows me to govern." -- Interview with the United Press, Paris, November 8, 1978

"I don't want to have the power or the government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power." -- Interview with The Guardian newspaper, Paris, November 16, 1978

"I don't want to be the leader of the Islamic Republic; I don't want to have the government or the power in my hands. I only guide the people in selecting the system." -- Interview with an Austrian TV reporter, Paris, November 16, 1978

"It is the Iranian people who have to select their own capable and trustworthy individuals and give them the responsibilities. However, personally, I can't accept any special role or responsibility." -- Interview with Le Journal newspaper, Paris, November 28, 1978

"After the Shah's departure from Iran, I will not become a president nor accept any other leadership role. Just like before, I limit my activities only to guiding and directing the people." -- Interview with Le Monde newspaper, Paris, January 9, 1979

http://www.iranian.c...ugust/Khomeini/

This has been justified by Kazim Qadizadeh as follows:

In view of the fact that, the criteria for the position of Wilayat-i Faqih are found more among religious figures and scholars who have been thoroughly trained at theology schools, it is important to point out that, Imam Khumayni had revised his views about the role of 'ulama ' in the government, and observed a much greater role for the Waliyy-i Faqih in leading the Islamic state. For instance, in the interviews during his stay in Paris, Imam Khumayni repeatedly stated that his future role would be to advise the government, and the role of the 'ulama ' would be to guide the nation. However, in the same period, by applying his authority as the Waliyy-i Faqih, Imam Khumayni dismissed the Shah's parliament and appointed a number of individuals to form a provisional government. He also selected others for certain important positions.

Quote

Oh btw Ayatollah Montazeri wrote a book about Wilayat ul Faqi, which is 8 volumes and in the last 3 volumes he fully describes the concept of Wilayat ul Faqee down to the very last detail. Shaheed Mutahhari wrote about the Wilayat ul Faqee too which mirrored the thoughts of Imam Khomeini's Hukumat e Islami. There you have more textual evidence. More to that these two individuals were in Iran throughout the exile of Imam Khomeini and were propogating the message of Imam Khomeini to the people as mentioned in my quotes from Elwiya. Now the question here would arise is this would Shaheed Mutahhari and Ayatollah Montazeri write such texts reflecting the same thoughts of Imam Khomeini on Wilayat ul Faqi had there been no evidence of it at all from before?

"... some of Khomeini's lay advisers, such as Sadeq Qotbzadeh, were ignorant enough of the concept that they were completely bewildered when they heard it for the first time months after the revolution," according to Abrahamian.

Ref.
Personal communication from Dr. Mansur Farhang, the former Iranian representative at the United Nations to Ervand Abrahamian quoted in Khomeinism : Essays on the Islamic Republic by Ervand Abrahamian, p.30

One person who had heard of the concept of velayat-e faqih was Hamid Algar, the man who had translated Khomeini's lectures on the subject into English. When Algar, a British-born convert-to-Islam and Khomeini supporter, asked an unnamed "prominent member" of Iran's ruling Council of Islamic Revolution whether the principle of rule-by-jurist would be used in the new Iranian Islamic Republic he was told: "Imam Khomeini had not been heard to speak about velayat-i faqih for a long time; and it was highly unlikely that he himself still believed in the necessity or the legitimacy of this principle."

Ref.
Hamid Algar, `Development of the Concept of velayat-i faqih since the Islamic Revolution in Iran,` paper presented at London Conference on wilayat al-faqih, in June, 1988, quoted in "The Rule of the Religious Jurist in Iran" by Abdulaziz Sachedina, p.133 in Iran at the Crossroads, Edited by John Esposito and R.K. Ramazani

Quote

Took what matters in his own hands? Removal of Bani Sadr? Is that what you are saying? If so then maybe you should research on who was the Supreme leader after the elections when the revolution climaxed and what is the job of the Supreme leader when the president is creating disunity amongst the people and bringing in MKO supporters in the government?

Kazim Qadizadeh:

Also, regarding the 'ulama, Imam Khumayni initially used to emphasize on their role as "guides" and "propagators of Islam", and his conduct at the outset of the movement proves this. Within a few days after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khumayni left the capital city - the center for making decisions - and took up residence in Qum. And those who were appointed by him to administer governmental and military affairs were generally lay men. It is said that he opposed well-known 'ulama' such as Ayatullah Dr. Beheshti to fill the position of presidency. In fact, no 'alim stood for the presidency in the first elections.
However, the corruption witnessed among the officials, very shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, left no choice for Imam Khumayni but to change his view in that respect, and thus emphasize his own role in leading the nation. For instance, he assumed full responsibility as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Let me repeat, Kazim Qadizadeh (a pro-WF) has just attempted to justify the "flip-flops" of Sayyed Khomeini. You may find it quite convincing, but I don't. It also shows that Sayyed Khomeini himself couldn't decide what exactly he meant by 'Wilayah al-Faqih', because he changed the definition soon after "corruption engulfed the state".

Anyway, I think I've said enough on this matter. Allah (SWT) knows Best.

[SpIzo]

One last thing, since this discussion is regarding Sayyed Kho`i's view on Wilayah al-Faqih, I remembered something interesting which I had read on SC posted by waiting:

waiting said:

Quote

iii. Qoi's view on the philosophy of vilayat-e-faqih as being misguided, and the concept itself bearing a striking resemblance to the Platonic concept of the "Philosopher King".

I mentioned here, several years ago, something about that. In 2004 (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=33415&view=findpost&p=402841) I wrote:

"Wilayat al Faqih is a Greco-Iranian concept. It is greek, because its basis that the most knowledglable has a right to rule is a direct deduction from Plato's "The Republic" with his claims of the "Philosopher-Kings". It is iranian, because Iranian monarchy in particular has pressed on the monarchs as godly men who must be absolutely obeyed."

Now I had no idea that Kho'i believed this. Would you care to expound on that?

http://www.shiachat....showtopic=92777

[the millionth hijabi]

Thanks everyone, especially for acknowledging my request in my first post.

the millionth hijabi, on Apr 13 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

PS. I understand that this is a controversial issue- HOWEVER, I'd like to request that posts in this thread will pertain to the topic only- i.e. Ayatollah Khoei's views and our views on those views- not our views on wilayatul faqih. Thanks

This post has been edited by the millionth hijabi: 15 April 2007 - 09:29 PM