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

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.

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:

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.

^ 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. . .

A Follower, on Apr 14 2007, 09:01 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.

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

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.

A Follower, on Apr 14 2007, 11:13 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 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

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

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

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

This is by Talib e ilm from SC again:

Quote

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.

Quote

I read this in many places. One place is in Abul Hassan Bani-Sader's book 'My turn to speak'; however, if you were to read this book and accept its contents, you would think that Beheshti was an immoral scheming hypocrite par excellence. Bani-Sader was the first president and had many arguments with the mullahs and Khomeini; hence, he is a biased source. At any rate, this matter of Khomeini opposing a cleric for presidency at first is well-known and in many sources, not just this one. I can't remember the other ones specifically.

Khomeini is really the most complex leader after the Masoom Imams . To understand him I think one would really need to undertake a deep study of the Islamic sciences and especially Irfan, including such books as Al Asfar Wal Arbah.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Well, actually, clearly i stated :

Quote

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.

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

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

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.

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

Interpreter, on Apr 15 2007, 07:04 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).

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).

SpIzo, on Apr 15 2007, 03:53 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.

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?

A Follower, on Apr 15 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

The issue really was that Abul Hassan Bani-Sader and the 'mullah party' (Islamic Republican Party headed by Ayatollah Beheshti and Sheikh Rafsanjani) and Khomeini were at odds in the visions on what Iran should become; but, this in my opinion, was not the biggest problem. The biggest problem was lack of trust and communication. Bani-Sader was seen as a secular Islam that did not take guidance from the Hawza, and there were many many arguments particularly between him and Beheshti.

Imam Khomeini tried to make peace and reconcile between them, but it seems that Beheshti et. al. and Bani-Sader had a relationship of mutual abhorrence; God knows who did who wrong. At that time, MKO was not what it has become subsequently, however. It seems that, despite many groups having participated in the revolution, there was no clear and universal consensus, among all groups, as to the exact ideological directions the revolution/government/nation would take.

Bani-Sader's secular/pro-democracy sort of 'Islam' was obviously not in the taste of the mullahs'. Eventually Bani-Sader believed that Khomeini/mullahs were acting in ways to grab power for themselves (which may be true, but it seems their intentions were really for their own view of what Islam should be, not themselves) and openly acted and spoke against them. I think he called for the people to rise up against them. However, this guy and his allies could not possibly outdo the hawza, which is a deeply entrenched institution ingrained in Iranian Islamic culture.

Hence, ultimately Khomeini removed him. Bani-Sader, fearing for his life, fled Iran. However, he claims that his communication with Khomeini did not end. According to him, Khomeini disagreed with him and would not allow him to take Iran in his path, but was not without respect for him. Allegedly, Khomeini once told Sayyid Ali Khamenei and Mir Hussain Musavi (president and prime minister at the time, respectively), when they came to him regarding a dispute, "You two together are not worth Bani-Sader's little finger". Now, this is Bani-Sader's claim and God knows if it is true.

He also claims that Khomeini wanted to somehow make amends and invited Bani-Sader back to Iran in order to reconcile, but the later refused and his reason was that Iran was not free. Bani-Sader also alleges that one mullah brought up the idea to Khomeini to have him killed, but Khomeini said, "Why? He is a Muslim".

All these claims are in Bani-Sader's book My turn to Speak.

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

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

Quote

"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

"... 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

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.

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:

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

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

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

To the OP:

There are differnt levels of Wilayat according to scholars, they are:

1. Wilayat al-Qaraba
This type of authority (Wilayat) is given to a father or paternal grandfather over minors and those who are insane (even after the age of adolescence). This authority to act as a guardian is based on relationship.

2. Wilayat al-qada¡¯
According to Imami Jurisprudence, the infallible Imam originally possessed the sole authority to judge amongst the people based upon God¡¯s law and revelation. At this time, however, a just and capable faqih may undertake this responsibility with the Imam¡¯s permission.

3. Wilayat al-Hakim
In this case, authority is given to a regular administrator of justice (hakim), to supervise the interests of a person who is unable to take care of his own affairs; such as a fool or an insane person. Whoever does not have a guardian (Wali), jurists say: al-hakim is the guardian of those who have no guardian.

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

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

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

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

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

source: Shia Political Thought
(Chapter 2 under meaning of Wilayat ul Faqih)

Also to see sources from hadeeth with deeper explanation refer to this article from Ayatulah Jawad Amuli:
Wilayah
Read Paragraphs 5 and 6

Regaurding differnt views of Wilayat ul Faqih (as the head of a state), this is a complicated issue. Which I will try to do my best to explain (with sources).

There isn't any way to clearly show the differences of the Ulamah in this concept, because their differences are not fundementaly different. Democracy and Monarchy are two distinctly differnt systems that can easily be distinguished as seperate from each other. Regaurding Wilayat al Faqih and how much authority (or wilayah) the Faqih can have is not as simply understood. The over whelming majority of the Ulema (the only exception being the very very small group that doesnt believe in any form of Islamic government at all till the coming of the Imam [as] ) believe in the idea of Wilayat al Faqih, but disagree with how much authority this Faqih can have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus he concludes,

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

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

Imamat and Wilayat - Chapter 6

Here Sayyid Rizvi is stating that the only differnce between Imam Khomeini and Ayatullah Khoie is their understanding of what the limits of the faqih during occulation are. Since there are many differnt views of what the rights of a faqih are during occulation there will be many differnt views of what the limit of the faqih is, regaurding his rulership over the state. This has to do with what rights a mujtahid (faqih) has in making Islamic rulings. Here are some of the rights that exisit in Islamic fiqh:

i) Divine Laws (Al-Hukm as-Shari’)

This refers to a set of rules and commands legislated by God and expressed to people through the Prophet Muhammad and his successors. Hukm al-Shari’ is usually divided by Muslim Jurists into two divisions. The first part is called ‘al- ahkam al-taklifi’ which is the laws of duty and in turn divides into five divisions (obligation, prohibition, desirability, undesirability and permissibility or ‘mubah’). The second part is called ‘al-ahkam al-waz'i’ which establishes specific relationships and situations (waz') that are subject to particular divine laws. For instance, marriage, ownership, purity and uncleanness are all situations that the Islamic legal system endorses and defines in particular matters and circumstances - usually al-hukm al-waz'i is subject to particular laws of duty. Divine laws also are called the first order laws (al-ahkam al-aWaliya) because deeds and things by themselves - with no regard to temporal and unexpected accidents - are subjects to these laws and legislation of Islam.

ii) The Judge's Command (Al-Hukm al-Qadi)

Even though the legal decision of Judge (faqih) is issued with consideration of the Shari’ah and decrees of Islam, it is not a component of the Shari’ah. The judge’s role is merely the execution (tanfidh) and application of Islamic law to juridical cases. In administration of justice, the faqih as Judge does not deduce Islamic laws rather he attempts to apply the most appropriate laws to the situation.

iii) Governmental Orders (Al-Hukm al-Wilai)

Supporters of universal authority (Wilayat al-amma) do not restrict the orders (hukm) of the faqih to merely the administration of justice. As a hakim, the jurist may issue orders and it is incumbent upon all Muslims, even other fuqaha, to obey them. These include his edicts concerning the beginning of Ramadhan or the application of legal penalties (hudud). The best examples of orders that fall into this category are the governmental commands that the faqih may issue as the political leader of a society. The Wali al- faqih may issue orders regarding situations that he recognizes as affecting the interests of Islam, Muslims and Islamic laws and values. A situation may arise in which the Wali al-Faqih can issue an order based on the interest (maslahat) of the people, even though in principal the action would not otherwise be compulsory in Shari’ah.

Two crucial questions arise regarding these orders. The first concerns the nature of the order; whether the governmental command is categorized as the ‘first order’ of the Shari’ah, or as the ‘second order’ (al-akham as-sanavy). The second question concerns the scope of such orders. A faqih may issue an obligatory or prohibitive order regarding matters that are considered permissible (mubah) and for which there is no prior obligation (for doing or not doing it) in Islamic law. However, a dispute arises about whether or not the faqih may issue orders that disregard the commands of the Shari’ah. Since the answer to the latter of these questions emerges from the former, it is necessary to explain what we mean by ‘second order’ commands (akham as-sanavy).

iv) Al-Hukm al-Awaly and al-Hukm al-Sanavy

The actions that we commit according to our free will are subject to one of the following categories in Shari’ah, namely obligation (wajib), prohibition (haraam), desirability (mustahab), undesirability (makruh) and simple permissibility (mubah). These ‘first order’ laws (al-ahkam al-awaly) are determined by the law giver (hakim) upon considering the essence and natural status of deeds and things. However, in exceptional situations and under circumstances in which people should not or cannot respect previous legislations, new rulings must be issued. These temporal laws are legislated according to the demands made by exceptional situations, and are called laws of 'the second order'(al-ahkam al sanavy).

They are secondary and temporal because people must revert to obeying the first order laws as soon as the exceptional circumstances return to normal. For instance, according to Shari’ah it is not permissible for Muslims to eat “carrion” (dead animals) or the meat of animals not ritually slaughtered. It is a first order command, but in a dire situation when a person has nothing to eat at all, God permits him or her to eat such meat, this permission is a second order law. The Qur’an says:

He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) other than (that of) Allah has been invoked, but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him. [Chapter 2, Verse 173]

Fuqaha usually cite ‘necessity’ (ezterar), damage (zarar), distress and constriction (usr wa haraj), disorder of the Muslim's system (ekhtelal al-nidham) and compulsion (ekrah) as the major exceptional topics that demand and require second order laws, as reasons for reverting to laws of ‘the second order’. The prevailing conception amongst Imami Jurists emphasizes that the governmental orders should be issued by the faqih only in one of the aforementioned exceptional situations because al-hukm al- hukmati is but a second order command.

When we consider this opinion, the answer to the second question – which is the relationship between governmental order and Shari’ah - is very clear. In a normal situation, the faqih has no right to issue orders in opposition to obligatory (either haraam or wajib) first order laws, even if the interests (maslahat) of the Muslims demands thus. In other words, interest as such cannot justify governmental orders when they are on the contrary with Islamic obligatory laws.

However, situations in which the interest (maslahat) becomes so serious that ignorance of it could cause significant damage, distress and constriction or disorder, would allow the Wali al-Faqih to issue these orders.

Ayatollah Khomeini, in a revolutionary view, stated that although the implementation of Shari’ah is very important, it is not the ultimate goal. Islamic laws (Shari’ah) serve as a means to achieve the primary aim embodied in the protection of Islam and the extension of Justice. For him the Islamic State is not merely one part of Islam amongst others, but it is Islam itself. Consequently the significance of Islamic laws is overshadowed by the significance of protecting the Islamic system and the interest (maslahat) of Islam. He expressed the view during his lectures in Iraq - the seminary of Najaf - years before the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

After the Islamic Revolution in Iran he explored this view more explicitly. In his famous letter to Ayatollah Khamenei (the current Wali al-Faqih), he insists that the authority of the Prophet and Imams to govern is not only a first order divine law but also it has priority over others such as praying, fasting, Hajj and so on. He writes:

The government or the absolute guardianship (al- Wilayat al-mutlaqa) that is delegated to the noblest messenger of Allah is the most important divine laws and has priority over all other ordinances of the law. If the powers of the government restricted to the framework of ordinances of the law then the delegation of the authority to the Prophet would be a senseless phenomenon. I have to say that government is a branch of the Prophet's absolute Wilayat and one of the primary (first order) rules of Islam that has priority over all ordinances of the law even praying, fasting and Hajj...The Islamic State could prevent implementation of everything - devotional and non- devotional - that so long as it seems against Islam's interests[59].

Unlike conditional authority (Wilayat al-muqayada) that restricts the right of the faqih for issuing governmental orders solely in permissibility cases (mubahat), Wilayat al- mutlaqa, by definition, is a juridical view concerning the dominion of the just faqih to issue governmental orders even if it is in opposition with some obligatory Islamic laws.

As has become clear from the current discussion, the meaning of Wilayat al-mutlaqa is totally different from ‘absolutism’ and the establishment of a totalitarian and dictatorial government. Some qualifications and conditions are essential for the Wali al-Faqih such as justice, piety and the necessary socio-political perspicacity. So, if he fails to meet one of them, he will be dismissed. In the constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran a group of experts elected by people supervise and control the leader. This constitution in article 111 says:

Whenever the leader becomes incapable of fulfiling his constitutional duties, or loses one of the qualifications mentioned in Article 5 and 109, or it becomes known that he did not possess some of the qualifications initially, he will be dismissed. The authority of determination in this matter with the experts specified in Article 108.

As I indicated before, in Imami Political Jurisprudence ‘Wilayat al-mutlaqa’ is a new term. Imami fuqaha usually use other terms such as ‘Wilayat al-amma’ and ‘neyabat al- Amma’ to refer to the authority of faqih. Imam Khomeini applied the term publicly, then in 1990 it was enshrined in the constitution of Islamic Iran. Article 57 says:

The power of government in the Islamic Republic are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the absolute religious leader and the leadership of the ummah.

Chapter 2 - Divine Laws

The question arises, does the faqih in the absense of the Imam have the right to have authority over all of these in regaurds to the state?

This creates differnt opinions among the Ulema. Which im not really qualifed to expand upon. But I should note that the most sound form (in my opinion) is that of Mutalq (complete authority of all these with the absense of the Imam) which is followed by the Islamic Republic, and from my readings its the one that has been explained in the most detail.

SpIzo, on Apr 15 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

Thanks for attempting to post something regarding the topic- HOWEVER, the fact that it relates to a greek concept doesnt mean anything. People before islam engaged in warfare, engaged in familial ties and marriage, and believed in one God- the fact that they believed such things in no way or form NEGATES anything that we believe today.

And thank you bro A Follower, for posting something which is regarding the topic

Sorry Millionth Hijabi this is not pertaining to the topic, but Spizo's post deserves a response because of the misrepresentation it may bring about.

Maybe the mods can sort out the topic after this post.

Quote

It seems as if though you are inferring with these quotes that Imam Khomeini was against the idea of Absolute Authority of the jurists. As has been pointed out, WF Mutlaqa was mentioned in his books years before the revolution. These quotes you have provided are quotes of Imam Khomeini speaking on a PERSONAL level that he does not wish to take on the responsibilities. This does not in anyway negate his belief in WF Mutlaqa years before the revolution if that is what you are trying to infer, if not then I apologize. If you are trying to infer that Imam Khomeini did not want to be the WF, we can agree he did not in the beginning of the revolution. But does that mean that it is wrong for him to eventually take on the role of WF later on, especially since he had the support of the Iranian people. It seems as if you are fond of the west (forgive me if I am mistaken). If that is the case, lets take the example of George Washington. He did not want to be President, but when observing the circumstances and knowing he had the support of the people, the only choice was for him to take on role as President.

Quote

This really means little to those who understand and know the ins and outs of the hawza and marjjiyat institution. Ideas are formulating and changing and being altered even as we speak. For example, WF was a not so popular idea in the 1960s. It started to gain popularity in the 70s and 80s but still was not amongst the majority opinion. Finally in the 90s and today, it is safe to say that WF is the majority opinion of the scholars. Now in 5, 10, 15 years from now, it may be the minority opinion again, that is how frequently ideas change. Not only do ideas change in matters of politics, but also in matters of fiqh due to the simple nature of the world changing at a fast pace, see the example of tatbir for example. So to say that the idea of WF was not-popular and unknown in the 70s (which is not true, but I will agree it wasn't the majority idea) is in no way an argument against it.

Shiatullah, on Apr 16 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

It's okay, dont worry about it- I do agree that these misrepresentations do need to be combated, so thanks!

This is from Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi's book, Shi'ism: Imamate and Wilayat, Chapter 6:

Quote

Shiatullah, on Apr 17 2007, 04:50 AM, said:

Thank you for your response. You're polite now and not hostile as you were before, so I'll respond to your post.

There are actually more direct quotes by him where he stated that `ulema will not govern the nation or they will not hold any power in the government. They will only advise and guide the nation, but hold no position of power. Here, he is clearly not speaking on a personal level.

The justifications by Kazim Qadizadeh also prove this. (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) That was one of the reasons I posted it, because I knew the first attack against me if I just post the quotes of Sayyed Khomeini, from, maybe an anti-WF site, would be that I'm taking my material from anti-WF sites to prove, which obviously holds no water for you all.

Quote

Lol, why do people infer that because I'm not for the concept, I'm in favour of the West? The surprising thing is that most of you are living in the West and contributing to its economy.

^

Forgive me if I was hostile in the past, I don't think I meant to be.

Lets agree with what you have said above, it still does not mean much considering the fact that ideas in the hawzas are changing at a rapid pace, even more so back then. Just because his ideas and thoughts along with other ulema changed, does not in any way discredit the notion of WF in any form including mutlaqa.

In response to the West, there is nothing wrong in admiring the West. It is in a much better state than Islamic countries for many reasons. I only mentioned that because I would think those who admire the West would admire G. Washington and his actions were similar to those of Khomeini in regards to the way I presented earlier.

Shiatullah, on Apr 17 2007, 10:48 PM, said:

Your argument in defence is not convincing, bro, but since I'm not interested in starting it all over it again, I'll just say that if the ideas are changing, then I feel people should stop referring to the book 'Islamic Government' or Kawther or whatever books they quote from, in defining the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih.

Quote

Lol, I'm sorry but you thought wrong.

But again, thank you for polite response.

^ You have failed to understand what I meant. Those books, when printed were NOT at that time the majority opinion. Even in the 80s, WF was not the majority opinion. Alhamdulilah, in the 90s and today, the majority opinion of the ulema is in favor of WF as described in those books, so use of those books as a justification is perfectly understandable. One more point is that we need not refer to those books only when referring to WF. We can refer to interviews, statements, articles, and speeches for support of WF from the ulema. The reason you don't see books as extensive as those mentioned today because those who agree with WF, agree with those books, so what need is there to write another book on it when those at the moment are more than sufficient?

I am not sure why the defense is not convincing, it is the simple truth. If something is unclear or not convincing, please let me know what part is. You can even look at the rulings on abortion from as little as 5-10 years ago, and look at the rulings today, they have darastically changed. So if fiqh issues have changed, certainly political issues change even more rapid.

Shiatullah, on Apr 18 2007, 01:45 AM, said:

Well, I don't want to drag on and on in this topic but my point was that if political ideologies kept changing, and even if I accept that those books were not printed when majority was in favour of it, your argument is baseless because if I want to counter what is in those books, I can do so by presenting the actions of Khomeini. That he, himself, contradicted his own theories.

Secondly, majority were/not in opinion, proves nothing because Khomeini implemented Wilayat ul-Faqih (different from what he had defined in the books) when the majority was still not in opinion.

And from when did the majority opinion become the de facto opinion?

Quote

Fiqh changes, but you will see that the halal never becomes haraam and haraam never becomes halal. I'm not implying anything with regards to political issues because whether we believe in the authority or not, it does not imply loss of faith or absence of a fundamental belief.

Not meaning to sound arrogant or anything, but I like the fact that I've a moderate view with regards to the authority of the `ulema. Neither disregarding them completely nor giving them absolute control but only to the one who has the right to have complete control or authority i.e my Imam (ATF).

Quote

That isn't true. What actions of his contradicted his words in books? I don't see that happening here, please explain further.

Quote

He did not implement WF differently than presented in his books, not at all. I have his book in my hands as we speak, and it does not state something different than what he implemented. Please point out where you see this difference. And I am not saying majority opinion proves anything except for the fact that ideas change frequently in the hawza, such as opinion on government structure in IRAN by Imam Khomeini.

Imam Khomeini did not do something different than what is in his books. He did different than what he said in some statements he made regarding his role and role of ulema in the IRANI(stress on Irani) government. This of course changed with the unexpected response of the Irani people turning it into an ISLAMIC government therefore implementing Islamic politics of WF.

Quote

Although majority opinion means little until it becomes a consensus (ijma), I did not say it meant something. My only point in mentioning what the majority believe is to illustrate how ideas change in the hawza. Where at one point majority do not adhere to WF and at another point WF is the majority opinion. This does not strengthen the idea of WF unless there was a consensus of the ulema BUT shows how ideas change frequently.

Second, if the majority of the marja-taqleed favor WF, then it is probable the majority of muqallids favor WF, so in this case majority opinion is a big factor.

Quote

This has nothing to do with WF.

Quote

Our Imam has complete control of course. Right now he is not exercising that control and through hadiths and logic we can see that control has been given to our ulema by our Imam. Please explain to me in what way have you given complete control to our Imam? How so are you showing our Imam has complete control through your actions?

Shiatullah, on Apr 19 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

See brother, if you want to argue with me on this for the sake of arguing, then I'm not interested in responding to any of your points. You may think whatever you want, I don't care. I'm not really sure whether you want to know genuinely, because if you did, I wouldn't have to go through explaining my posts again.

Quote

It has. I was talking about believing in absolute authority.

Quote

Just as you have given complete authority to (or accepted the absolute authority of) the Wilayat ul-Faqih.

Quote

We have all tried being nice but it seems hard for you.

Is this a long way of saying "I don't know"? All I did was ask how did his actions contradict his books. Have you even read his book to make this claim? Or are you simply following the typical propaganda? Is it me who is arguing for the sake of arguing when it is you who provides no proof?

Quote

Really? Can you please ask Imam Mahdi if it is politically and Islamically a good idea to visit President Bush in the White House to discuss Iraq even though it may seem like a sign of support?


In regards to your halal/haraam issue, there are few cases which makes your sentence incorrect.

Such as in the cases of smoking cigarettes, abortion, tatbir, music, and others.

There are 4 sources of Islamic Law- Quran, Hadith, Ijma, and Aql. Sometimes haraam changes to halal and vice versa due to Ijma and Aql, as long as the Quran/authentic hadith are not contradicted as in the cases presented above AND in the case of WF. Simple use of Aql will do wonders for one's mind. Law changes in some cases because new things are introduced such as computers. Cigarettes for example, were not around in the time of Prophet and when they did come around, there was no information on their harm. Once information came out regarding their harm they became makruh and now the ulema hold the belief if it causes harm it is haraam unless withdrawal is more harmful, but to start smoking is haraam. Perfect example of something halal becoming haraam. So Ideas DO change, and sometimes halal becomes haraam and vice versa.

So you can explain yourself as I have asked because it is certainly not true what you have stated about the actions and writings of Imam Khomeini or you can choose not to explain yourself.

Shiatullah, on Apr 19 2007, 10:34 PM, said:

Lol, I did say you may think whatever you want. If you think you've "won" or "I don't know", I'm not really bothered. As for being nice, well, I did try too, but somehow reiterating myself ten times, doesn't make me hold my patience for long. If you had genuinely wanted to know, may be I would've answered accordingly.

Well, I'm done with this topic. For the final time, hopefully.

^ This isn't about winning or losing and never was. You brought forth evidence that you simply couldn't back up and in the end lied about Imam Khomeini, surely a great sin.

It is sad to see that Shias today cannot control themselves and have such little patience. What are we going to do when our Imam returns and helps others before he helps the Shia? Lose patience and join with Dajjal?

I am glad you are an arif and all and know my intentions and what I genuinely want to know.


I suggest you try growing up sister.

^Thank you for your compliments and advice. I don't actually deserve them, but nevertheless thank you. I'm glad when people blatantly contradict themselves and accuse others of committing "great sins". I suggest you follow your own advice, brother.

^ Where did I contradict myself? Do you see what I mean? You say Imam Khomeini contradicted himself yet bring no proof. I contradicted myself yet no reference to where? If you are not willing to bring evidence, then don't say it else you are lying.