جمعه 13 تير 1404

                                                                                                                        


                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

 

منو سخنرانی مکتوب

ENGLISH shiaquest

منو بهداشت و سلامت

Socialism and Communism

In socialism, there are many creeds the most famous of which is the socialist creed, which is based on the Marxist theory, and argumentative materialism, which is a certain philosophy of life and a materialistic comprehension of it according to the dialectical method. Dialectical materialists have applied this dialectical materialism to history, sociol­ogy and economy. So, it has become a philosophical creed in world affairs, a method to study history and sociology, a creed in economy and a plan in politics. In other words, it formulates all of mankind into a particular structure as regarding his way of thinking, his attitude towards life and his practical method therein.
There is no doubt that the materialistic phil­osophy and the dialectical method have never been innovations or creations of the Marxist creed. The materialistic trend has lived within the philosophical field for thousands of years, once in the open and once hidden behind sophistication and absolute denial. Also, the dialectical method of reasoning is deeply rooted in the lines of human thinking. Its lines were perfected at the hands of Hegel, the well ­known idealistic philosopher. Karl Marx only adopted such "reasoning" and philosophy. He tried to apply it in all fields of life; so, he made two researches: One of them is his purely materialistic, in a dialectical method, interpretation of history. The other is his claim therein that he found out the contradictions within the capital and surplus value which the capitalist steals in his creed from the labourer[7][5].
On these "achievements" has he erected his belief in the necessity of abolishing the communist and socialist societies which he considered to be a step for mankind to completely apply communism. The social field in this philosophy is one of battling contradictions, and every social situation which prevails on such field is but a purely materialistic phenomenon which harmonizes with the other phenomena and materialistic climes and is affected by them. But he at the same time carries his own self-contradiction in the essence, and a battle of contra­dictions will then be waged within its context until all contradictions assemble to cause a change in that situation and prepare for another one.
Thus does the battle linger until all mankind form one single class, and the interests of every individual will be repre­sented in the interests of that unified class. At that moment will harmony prevail and peace become a reality, and all bad effects of the democratic capitalist system will be completely removed, for they resulted only from the existence of many classes within one society, and such multitude resulted from di­viding the society into a producer and a labourer. Therefore, such a division has to be stopped by abol­ishing (private) ownership. Here, communism differs from socialism in the main economic outlines, for the communist economy hinges on:
First: Abolishing private ownership and its complete eradication from the society, giving wealth to the public and placing it in the hands of the State since the latter is the legal representative of the so­ciety in managing and utilizing it for the common welfare. The communist belief in the necessity of this absolute nationalization is due to the natural reaction of the consequences of private ownership in the democratic capitalist system.
This nationaliz­ation has thus been justified: It is meant to abolish the capitalist class and unite the society into one class in order to put an end to that struggle and to forbid the individual from utilizing differ­ent means and methods to accumulate his wealth in order to satisfy his greed, motivated by his own selfish interest.
Second: Distribution of products according to individuals’ consumption need. It can be summed up thus: From everyone according to his capacity, and for everyone according to his need. This is so because every individual has natural needs without which he cannot live. So, he gives the so­ciety all of his endeavour so that the society may provide him with his living necessities and take care of his livelihood.
Third: An economic procedure planned by the State, in which it combines the society's need with production in its volume, diversity and limitation, so that the society will not be inflicted with the same line in the communist economy, that is, the abolish­ment of private ownership, has been substituted with a moderate solution: nationalization of heavy indus­tries, foreign and domestic trades, putting all of them under government monopoly; in other words, abolishing large mass capital by freeing the simple industries and trades, leaving them to the individuals.
The wide line of the communist economy collided with the reality of the human nature, to which we referred above, for the individuals started neglecting the performance of their duties and of being active in their jobs, running away from their social obliga­tions; the system is supposed to guarantee their livelihood and the fulfilment of their needs.
Also, it is supposed not to exert any further effort; there­fore, why should the individual exert himself and sweat as long as the result is already in his calculation, the result of both states of laziness and activity? Why should he rush to provide happiness for others, trading the convenience of others for his own sweat, tears, life and energy, since he does not believe in any principle in life except that of a purely materialistic nature?
Therefore, the advocates of such a creed were forced to freeze absolute nationalization. They were also forced to adjust the other line in the communist economy by allowing wages to vary in order to push the labourers to be active and perfect in their jobs, making the excuse that these variations are only temporary, and that they will disappear once the capitalist mentality is crushed and man is created anew.
For the latter purpose, they continuously create changes in their economic methods and socialist modes in order to follow the failure of an old method by trying a new one. They have not yet succeeded in getting rid of all basic cornerstones of the capitalist econ­omy. For example, the interest loans have not been totally abolished, although they are, in fact, the basis of social corruption in the capitalist economy.
All of this, however, does not mean that those advocates have had shortcomings, or that they have not been serious in their creed or unfaithful to their doctrine; rather, it means that they have clashed with reality while trying to put them to practice, finding their path full of obstacles and contradictions put forth by the human nature before the revol­utionary method of the "social reform" which they have been promising. Reality, then, forced them to go back on their word in the hope that a miracle would sooner or later take place.
As regarding the political aspect, communism, in its long run, aims in the end at erasing the "state" from the society when the miracle takes place and the "social mentality" prevails on all humans, so much so that all people will be thinking of nothing but of the materialistic social welfare. Before then, as long as the miracle has not taken place yet and people are not unified into one "class", when the society is still divided to capitalist and proletariat forces, it is necessary that the government should be purely proletariat; so, it is a democratic rule within the circle of labour and also a dictatorship regarding the masses. They have reasoned thus: Proletariat dictatorship of government is necessary in all stages passed by mankind, using the individual mentality for the protection of the interests of the working class, strangulating capitalism and forbidding it from coming to the field again.
In fact, this creed, represented by Marxist social­ism then by Marxist communism, is distinguished from the democratic capitalist system in its reliance on a particular materialistic philosophy which adopts a particular concept of life to which all idealistic prin­ciples and values are not ascribed and which is analyzed in a certain sort of analysis which does not leave room for a Creator above the natural limits, nor to an anticipated compensation beyond the borders of this limited materialistic life. This con­trasts democratic capitalism, for although it is a ma­terialistic system, it has never been based on a precise philosophical foundation.
The accurate linkage between the realistic understanding of life and the social issue as accepted by materialistic communism versus democratic capitalism has neither believed in this theory, nor has it tried to explain it. Hence, the communist creed is worthy of a philosophical study and of a test through tackling the philosophy on which it has hinged and from which it has been derived.
Judging any system is dependent on the extent of the success of its philosophical concept in portraying and compre­hending life. It is easy to comprehend, when we cast the first glance at the simplified or "accomplished" communist system, that its general nature is the fusion of the individual into the society, making him a tool for the achievement of the general criteria which it enforces. It completely contradicts the free capital­ist system which puts the society at the service of the individual for the achievement of the latter's interests.
It seems that it has been predestined for the individual and social personalities, according to the precepts of both systems, to clash and to duel with each other. The individual personality has become victorious in one of them, the one based on the individual and his own personal benefits, inflict­ing the society thereby with economic catastrophes which have shaken its existence and mutilated life in all its sectors. The social personality has won in the other, which has come to correct the mistakes of the previous one, assisting the society and reducing the individual personality to dissolution and annihi­lation, inflicting the individuals with severe dilemmas which ruined their freedom, personal existence and natural rights of selecting and rationalizing.
Communism Criticized
Actually, although the communist system has treated several inflictions of free capitalism by abolishing private ownership, such a treatment has had some natural consequences which have made such a treatment very costly and the method to put it to use very exerting and cannot be used except when all other ways and methods fail. On the other hand, it is an incomplete treatment which does not guar­antee the eradication of social corruption, for it has not really been successful in its diagnosis of the ail­ment and the discovery of the point from which evil has set out to subjugate the world to the capitalist system, keeping that point maintaining its position in the social life of the communist creed. There­fore, mankind has not won a definite solution to his greatest problem, nor has he obtained the medicine to medicate his ailments and uproot his sickening symptoms.
As regarding the consequences of this treatment, they are, indeed, great: They can put an end to the freedom of individuals for the sake of substituting communist ownership for private ownership. The case is so because this tremendous social change contra­dicts the general human nature upto, at least, the pre­sent time, as its promoters admit, since materialistic man still thinks subjectively, calculating his interests through his own limited individualistic eyes.
Estab­lishing a new structure for the society in which the individuals dissolve completely, a structure which totally puts an end to personal motives, requires a strong power to hold the society's reins with iron hands, suppressing any resisting voice, strangulating any opposition, monopolizing all means of news media and the press, enforcing a belt around the nation nobody can by any means go beyond, and becoming habituated to charging and doubting, so that the rein of authority may not suddenly slip out of its hands.
This is natural in every system desired to be imposed on the nation before the mentality of such a system ripens in it and its spirit prevails. Yes, if materialistic man starts reasoning social­ly, realizing his interests in a social mentality, with his own personal feelings, desires and inclinations melting through his own self, then a system in which individ­uals "melt" can be established, leaving in the arena none but as huge “social” giant.
But the achievement of this in the materialistic man, who does not believe except in a limited life without knowing any meaning for it except materialistic pleasures, needs a miracle to create paradise on earth and to bring it down from hea­ven. The communists promise us such a paradise, wait­ing for that day when the factory changes the human nature, creating him anew with idealistic thoughts and deeds even if he does not believe the weight of an atom in ideal values or ethical principles. If such a miracle happens, then we will have a talk with them.
As for the time being, the position of the social structure which they desire calls for the confinement of individuals within the limits of this structure's idea and its guarantee for protection by the group that believes in it and using caution concerning it by sup­pressing the human nature and the psychological emotions, forbidding them by all possible means from setting themselves free.
Even when he wins a total assurance and a social guarantee of his livelihood and needs, for the social wealth provides him with all of these during the time of need, the individual who lives in the shade of a system like this will be better off if he can get such an assurance without losing the pleasure of breathing the fresh air of cultivated freedom rather than being forced to melt his personality in fire and drown him­self in the tumultuous social sea.
How can he have a desire for freedom, in any field, when he is deprived of freedom in livelihood, while sustaining his life is totally tied to a particular "committee", although economic and sustain­ing freedom is the basis of all other norms of free­dom? The advocates answer this question by still asking: "What can man do with freedom and enjoyment of his right to criticize and publicize his opin­ions while moaning under a horrible social burden? What benefit can his discussion and opposition bring him when he needs accurate nutrition and guaranteed life more than opposition or the fuss freedom brings him?"
Those who ask such questions look only at capi­talist democracy as if it is the only social issue which competes with their own in the field; therefore, they underestimate the value of the individual dignity and its rights, for they see it as a menace to the general social torrent. But humanity has the right not to sacrifice any of its principles or privileges as long as it does not have to. It has but to choose either a dignity which is an ideal privilege of humanity, and a need which is its materialistic privilege, only if it lacks the system which can combine both aspects and succeed in solving both problems.
The man whose energy is being squeezed by others, without finding a good and comfortable life or a fair salary and an assurance during the time of need, is indeed one deprived of enjoying life, separated from a stable and quiet life. Also, a man threatened every moment, questioned about every movement, liable to be arrested without a trial and be imprisoned, banished or even killed for any reason, is indeed one who lives in fear and ter­ror; horror forbids him from enjoying the pleasures of this life.
The third man, the one whose life is comfort­able, feeling assured of preserving his dignity and safety, is indeed humanity's sweet dream. So, how can such a dream become a reality? When will it become an existing actuality? We have said above that the communist solution to the social problem is incomplete, in addition to its consequences to which we have also referred. For he, although human emotions and feelings breathe within him, is evoked by the general social pressure which caused some thinkers to resort to the new solution, but they did not put their hands on the causes of corruption so that they could eradicate it; rather, they eradicated something else; therefore, they were not successful in their medication.
The concept of private ownership is not the one responsible for the sins of absolute capitalism which shook the world and its felicity, so much so that it is not the one that forces millions of labourers to be idle for the sake of the investment of a new machine which put an end to their industry, as it happened at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, nor is it the one that forces the capitalist to destroy large quantities of his products in order to maintain their price and in preference of extravagance to satisfy the need of the poor thereby.
Nor is it the one that invites him to make his wealth a gaining capital multiplied through usury, absorbing the civilians' endeavour without production or toil. Nor is it the one that pushes him to buy all consumption goods from the market in order to monopolize them and raise their prices. Nor is it the one that forces him to open new markets, even when the freedom and rights of nations will be violated by them and their prestige and freedom weakened. All of these terrifying calamities have not re­sulted from private ownership; rather, they are the breed of the materialistic individual interest which has been made the criterion of life in the capitalist system and the absolute reason for all acts and deal­ings.
When a society is based on such an individual criterion which is self-advocate, nothing can be ex­pected from it except what has already befallen. It is from the nature of this criterion that all curses and calamities befall the entire human race, not from the principle of private ownership. If the criterion is changed, and a new cultivated objective for life is put forth, one that harmonizes with the human nature, only then will the real remedy of the greatest human problem become a reality.
Notes:
[8][5] I have explained these theories and undertaken a detailed scientific study of them in my book Iqtisaduna.

Author: Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr
Source: Imam reza network

Form of Democracy Acceptable to Islam

The second meaning of democracy has been accepted with certain conditions and qualifications. No legislative authority has the right to oppose the definite laws of Islam which is how we accept democracy. Meanwhile, concerning democracy as a method of solving differences, it must be said that as long as Islamic values are sufficient to solve differences, they shall take precedence, but in case of differences where Islamic laws have no specific way of solving them and there is also no competent arbiter, the majority view shall be preferred.
For example, a number of people form a committee within the framework of law to decide an important matter and all believe in Islam and observe Islamic values, but do not arrive at a consensus on the issue as the majority has a certain opinion while the minority has another opinion and there is no basis to prefer one view over the other—the majority view will take precedence, and opposing majority view shall be considered an undue preference.
As such, whenever we have no preferable option, we can obtain a sound opinion from the majority view which will be credible and preferred. If through the majority view of ignoramuses, we can not obtain a sound opinion, preferring that opinion will be rationally reproachable and incorrect. This method is credible to a certain extent, but it is not correct to abuse it by placing the majority of people against a minority of experts. For example, let us assume that for sketching a military plan there are ten military experts and one thousand common people who are unfamiliar with military issues.
If attention is given to the view of common people who are unfamiliar with military issues while the view of experts is rejected, this act is unreasonable. Every intelligent person says that the view of the experts takes precedence over the view of non-experts. Thus, democracy as a means of solving differences with certain limits and conditions is credible, but as the basis of giving preference to every majority over every minority it is not credible
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Islam’s Ideal Form of Democracy

As to which of these administrative forms is acceptable to Islam, we have said earlier that if democracy in legislation means that whatever is approved by the majority of people—that is, 50% plus 1—is a credible, official and binding law even if it were against the text of the Qur’an, then Islam does not accept such democracy in legislation. Islam that has its own explicit laws in various administrative affairs, judiciary, economics, management, and related to other organs of the country does not allow a law against the explicit text and fixed decree of the Qur’an to be recognized officially. To officially recognize such a law is tantamount to rejection of Islam.
What needs further explanation and which I promised to discuss is the executive dimension of democracy, the role of the people in electing those who want to enact the laws within the framework of Islamic foundations, viz. the deputies in the Islamic Consultative Assembly. In cases where Islam has not enacted fixed and permanent laws, there is the need to enact new laws for new issues and needs, Islam has authorized the legitimate government apparatus to enact necessary laws for this domain while observing the general principles and standards of Islam and not contradicting the framework of Islamic laws, labeled by the late Shahid (Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir) Sadr as “free zone” [mantaqah al-firagh]. The driving and traffic laws stipulate the side to move—right or left—and the speed of a vehicle. Evidently, the Qur’an and traditions have no text in this regard.
The people’s role in determining the legislators and executives that enact and implement temporary laws can be materialized by observing Islamic standards. In other words, democracy and the vital role and participation of people are practiced in our country observing limits and conditions set by Islam by electing those who qualify. Electoral candidates must be Muslims committed to Islamic laws and observe Islamic standards in enacting laws and rules. In addition to the conditions set for deputies in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, with the exception of a few deputies of religious minority groups, the rest of the representatives must be Muslims committed to observe Islamic laws.
Lest there were negligence and shortcomings and Islamic laws were not observed in enacting laws, a number of experts constituting the so-called Council of Guardians are duty-bound to conform the ratified bills of the Majlis to the Constitution and religious standards and then validate them. In the case of their nonconformity, the said bills are returned to the Majlis for review. This is the type of legislative and executive mechanism accepted in our country and no one opposes it.
Similarly, executives with the President at top must observe Islamic laws and standards. First of all, the President must possess the conditions, qualities and merits mentioned in the Constitution which are taken from Islamic laws, and in taking charge of the government he must be, so to speak, authorized by God, the Exalted in the sense that after garnering the majority vote and endorsement of the people, he must be designated by the wali al-faqih. In this case, his government shall be legitimate and credible. This is something which is implemented in our country.
With the aim of understanding the role of the people and the domain of their involvement in the Islamic system, let me cite an example. Let us assume that we were living during the caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful(‘a) and in our own city we knew of a righteous person who deserved to be the city ruler and we endorsed him to the Imam (‘a). After receiving the endorsement, the Imam (‘a) possibly designated him as the new ruler. Now, if the majority of people had such endorsement, the Imam(‘a) would highly regard their view and designate the said person as governor of one of the regions under his jurisdiction.
So, the role of the people in the government structure and administrative decision-making, in terms of theory and legitimacy, is that people decide who is the most meritorious in enacting or enforcing the law and then cast their vote in his favor. The vote of the people is equivalent to a recommendation to the leadership. In reality, it is a pact they forge with the wali al-faqih that if he designates the recommended person to the presidency, they will obey him. It is on this basis that during the time of the eminent Imam (‘a), when the majority of people elected a person to the presidency, he would say, “I do hereby designate him, who is endorsed by the people, to be the President.” That is, “the vote of the people is like an endorsement for me to accept him.”
This is the theory of the Islamic government which has no contradiction whatsoever with the second meaning of democracy. It is functioning in our country since the Revolution and no (theoretical) problem has ever emerged. Yet, if democracy means that religion should have no role in the affairs of society and none of the religious symbols be seen in the government institutions, such a thing is incompatible with Islam!
Democracy in its third sense, as interpreted by the Global Arrogance that wants to impose it on others is absolutely opposed to Islam, for it means the negation of Islam. However, democracy in its second sense has been accepted by observing the conditions set by Islam for rulers, legislators, implementers, and judges. That is why the people should seriously elect individuals who deserve to legislate and implement laws, and thus, prove their cooperation and support for the Islamic state and regard themselves as participating in the affairs of the country. This form of democracy is accepted in Islam and practiced in our country. If there are violations in some cases, they are also committed elsewhere, and one should be vigilant lest they are repeated.

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi

Source: Imam reza network

Connection of the Immutable Laws of Islam with Government Structure and Alterable Laws

As said earlier, people argue that laws and ordinances needed by our society must be enacted and ratified in the legislative assembly. If we only rely on those mentioned in Islamic texts such as the Book and Sunnah, the needs of society can never be met. Considering that in the Islamic republican system laws are ratified by the Majlis deputies—based on the system observed in other democratic countries—why do we insist on calling our system “Islamic government” and introducing the laws ratified in the Majlis as “Islamic laws”?
There is no doubt that in every country the people’s representatives act according to the culture dominant there and respect the values of society while ratifying laws. As a matter of course, in our country whose people are Muslims and dominated by a particular culture and values, the Majlis deputies more or less observe the religious culture and values. But in any case, the process of legislation in our country is the process observed in democratic countries. Therefore, what is the need of saying that our government is Islamic and that Islamic laws are implemented in our country?
As we have said, the reply to this objection is that laws of Islam are divided into two: (1) immutable laws and (2) alterable laws that also change according to the circumstances of time and place. With changes and transformation in human societies and the emergence of diverse conditions in time and place, there is no change in the immutable laws of Islam. Their form and substance remains immutable and fixed. They must be acted upon under all circumstances at all times. Now, if in ratifying the current laws of the country the inalterable laws of Islam are not observed and the ratified laws are against the laws and decrees of Islam, those laws are not Islamic even if they are unanimously ratified by people’s deputies.
Any law that is against Islam has no legitimacy and legal standing. In fact, it cannot be regarded as a law at all. As stipulated in Article 4 of the constitution of our country, all laws and ordinances of the Islamic country must be consistent with Islamic laws and standards. If a ratified bill is against religious principles, it shall have no legal value.
Therefore, the immutable laws of Islam that have been mentioned in the Qur’an, and mutawatir, authentic traditions, must be observed and no sort of change or abrogation can affect them. Meanwhile, we have a set of alterable laws that are determined by the competent authority according to the needs and conditions of time and place.
In today’s culture the alterable laws are known as statutory laws that are enacted and ratified in legislative organs, but in Islamic culture and juristic parlance alterable laws are the same administrative laws whose enactment and ratification are within the discretion of the wali al-faqih who may enact and implement special ordinances consistent with the changing needs of society. At least, the ratified ordinances to be implemented must be endorsed and approved by him.
Of course, sometimes the wali al-faqih directly enacts laws and ordinances and at times these laws are ratified by different experts in the advisory body of the wali al-amr al-muslimin after sufficient study and deliberation. In any case, according to Islam, the credibility of statutory laws and ordinances lies in the permission and approval of the wali al-amr al-muslimin; otherwise, they are not binding at all.
The wali al-amr al-muslimin or any other legislative authority has no right to enact statutory laws and ordinances according to their personal whims by neglecting the general principles, standards and values of Islam. In other words, statutory laws and alterable ordinances must be codified and ratified within the framework of general immutable laws and decrees of Islam by the faqih or expert in religious and juristic questions who has the ability to apply them to particular cases.
Since it is a difficult task, it is stipulated in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the bills ratified by the Islamic Consultative Assembly must finally be approved by the Council of Guardians which is composed of outstanding jurists and legal experts to see to it that those laws and ordinances ratified by the Majlis are not against Islamic standards.
Primary and secondary laws and the secondary laws’ alleged conflict with Islam
Some people imagine that temporary administrative decrees and laws enacted according to certain circumstances of time and place are in some cases against the laws of Islam. It is because people always tend to consider only primary laws as the divine laws of Islam, without knowing that the secondary laws enacted for special conditions are also treated as religious laws. Islam also has a set of other laws that are called “secondary laws” and related to emergency cases and special conditions. Some of these secondary laws are also mentioned in the Book and Sunnah while others are mentioned in other religious sources. To enact them is under the discretion of the wali al-amr al-muslimin.
For example, it is obligatory upon us to perform ablution [wudhu] before saying our prayers. If bathing [ghusl] is wajib for us before prayer, then we have to perform ghusl. The obligatory nature of wudhu and ghusl is part of the primary laws for common situations when our bodies are physically sound and water is not harmful for us and there is available water. But under exceptional situations when, because of ailment, we cannot perform ablution as water is harmful to our health, or we have no access to water, to perform dry ablution [tayammum] shall become wajib in lieu of wudhu and ghusl as a secondary law. For this reason, it is said that if you have no access to water or if water is harmful to your health, tayammum is regarded as the emergency substitute of wudhu and ghusl.
Once the primary laws and also the secondary laws which are likewise called “emergency laws” are mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions, we cannot observe any difference between them because in practice, the subject of the primary law, like wudhu and ghusl, is one who has access to water and to whose health water is not harmful, while the subject of the secondary law, like tayammum, is one who has no access to water and to whose health water is harmful. As such, some people are commanded to perform ablution and others are commanded to perform dry ablution.
In some cases, however, opposite to the primary laws are special laws that are suitable to exceptional and emergency situations and not particularly mentioned by religion. Here, it is said that primary laws must be implemented unless they cause hardship and embarrassment because Islam does not want the servants of God to undergo intolerable hardship and embarrassment in discharging their obligations:
...وَ مَا جَعَلَ اللهُ عَلَيكُم فِي ٱلدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ...
“and has not placed for you any obstacle in the religion.”[44]
...يُرِيدُ اللّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلاَ يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ...
“Allah desires ease for you, and He does not desire hardship for you.”[45]
The noteworthy point is that in some cases emergency laws and their substitution of primary laws are mentioned in religion and in other cases other emergency or secondary laws are not mentioned. But it is at the discretion of the wali al-amr al-muslimin to determine the obligation of the people if certain primary laws cannot be implemented and their implementation brings about unbearable hardship and embarrassment. So, what the wali al-faqih announces according to Islamic standards are secondary laws of Islam, because Islam has enjoined him to determine the obligation and duty of people in case of hardship and embarrassment because of which the implementation of certain primary laws can be suspended.
Thus, since they are only acquainted with the primary laws of Islam, when the wali al-amr al-muslimin or the legislature of the Islamic government approves a law contrary to primary laws, some people claim that such a law is against Islam. The fact is that the said law is neither against Islam nor religious laws. It is rather contrary to primary laws of Islam as it is part of the secondary laws. Indisputably, the secondary laws are also considered part of Islamic laws.
As stipulated by Islam, a traveler is not supposed to fast but a resident or non-traveler must fast. No one regards the non-fasting of a traveler as against the commandment of Islam because Islam itself has explicitly ordained that a traveler or sick person must not fast. Similarly, regarding social, civil, judicial, and commercial laws, if acting upon pertinent primary laws brings about unbearable hardship and embarrassment for the people, the implementation of those laws shall be suspended. According to special rules and regulations, the wali al-amr al-muslimin will enact a new law or decree consistent with the demands of time and place. Definitely, the said secondary law is not against Islam. It can be contrary to primary laws of Islam but Islam includes both primary and secondary laws.
In view of new needs that consistently emerge in Islamic society as a result of changing social conditions—such as the expansion of roads, or the need to administer a city and keep its cleanliness and beautification, or the need for a water and sewage system, electric supply and others which did not exist before—and because of the complexity of social conditions, population explosion and other socio-environmental factors, those needs can no longer be met by the people alone as they are not like the needs of past societies which could be met by people themselves. So, special ordinances must be enacted by the concerned authorities.
Our point is that these ordinances are not without basis and they are not formulated purposelessly according to personal whims. In fact, these secondary laws and ordinances must be within the framework of the general laws of Islam. It makes no difference whether these secondary laws indicate preference of what is more important over what is important, or their enactment depends on the demands of time and place. In our system this part of secondary laws is usually ratified in the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the endorsement and approval of the wali al-faqih. Hence, such laws are not outside Islamic laws because either they are ratified through a decree of the wali al-amr al-muslimin or they are codified according to special rules and regulations like “hardship and embarrassment” [‘usr wa haraj], “no harm” and other tenets [qawa’id] in jurisprudence.
As such, on the mere pretext that in the Islamic government some temporary ordinances and alterable laws are not mentioned in the Book and Sunnah, one cannot discard the Book and Sunnah and enact laws according to the will and dictates of the people. The immutable laws of Islam must definitely be implemented and alterable laws should also be enacted by the wali al-faqih or those who are granted authority by him within the framework of primary laws and general decrees.
Shortcomings of the democratic systems
As we have said before, the government structure is like a pyramid with three sloping sides, viz. (1) legislative power, (2) executive power (3) and judicial power. This pyramid-like of the government gained currency since the time of Montesquieu who raised the theory of separation of powers.
Up to the present, government has three branches but it does not necessarily mean that the same arrangement has to continue in future. Due to new advancements or the emergence of new social conditions, there may be a change in the structure of government. For example, additional branches of government might be created that will in turn make the government structure quadruple or perhaps pentagonal. Yet, it must be noted that the basic rule and principle in our system is that all powers that constitute government structure meet on top of the pyramid.
That is, once we liken the government structure which is composed of different powers and chains of command to a pyramid, the more we go down in each of its sides, the more we will find the powers decentralized and dispersed. At the base of the pyramid we will observe considerably huge, vast and multiple government departments. But as we gradually go up, the powers and structures of government become more centralized and integrated until finally all these powers meet on top of the pyramid and these dispersed and multiple powers attain unity and clarity.
In the pyramid of power, the three sides of powers gradually meet at the top, and that point is the spot of conjunction and union of all powers. So to speak, the discretion of the powers and branches of government join together and it is from there that they are divided and scattered on different sides—executive, legislative and judiciary—and each power has its own hierarchy of power or chain of command.
Exigency of the powers’ coordinating agency
It is true that a government system is composed of the three powers—executive, legislative and judicial—but they must be linked to each other. Since all of them constitute a single government apparatus, there must be a coordinating agency or unifying factor among them. Because of the absence of this unifying factor in many democratic systems in the world, the lack of coordination can be noticed which sometimes even leads to a national crisis. With the aim of avoiding such crises, certain measures have been conceived in some systems. One of these measures is the granting of veto power to the president.
For example, the legislature has the right to enact and ratify laws, and according to its function, the members of the congress ratify a bill after extensive debate and deliberation. Then, the said bill is approved by the members of the senate. However, as the president has the right to veto and suspend bills ratified by parliament, he may veto a ratified bill and suspend its implementation even if it be for a limited time. If legislation were the right of the legislative and the executive had no right to interfere in the affairs of the legislative, how would the executive veto a bill ratified by the legislative and suspend its implementation? So, a total separation of powers is not practical. There is always a sort of overlapping of functions between the legislative and executive.
Similarly, because of the absence of the coordinating agency and unifying factor, in some countries there are sometimes tensions among the three powers as an outcome of political differences among parties. It sometimes leads to a point where the country is deprived of any government or cabinet and thus practically paralyzed. For example, a government or cabinet is formed and granted authority but after a while it is dissolved by the parliament and thus collapses.
It is also possible that for a certain period, a new government or cabinet cannot be formed because the one who aspires to become the prime minister and form the government cannot garner the majority vote in parliament. In the parliamentary systems, the ruling party that can form a government is that which has absolute majority of seats in the parliament or can garner the majority vote through an alliance with other parties.
Recently one of our neighboring countries had no government or cabinet for sometime because the one nominated for premiership could not garner the majority vote of the MPs. The MP’s also attend to the current affairs of the country but whenever the prime minister and his deputies are temporarily appointed, the natural tendency is that they do not take their work seriously. A country whose officials are tardy and careless for a period of six months, for instance, will obviously incur great losses.
In some political systems, the president has the right to temporarily dissolve the parliament in special circumstances. Thus, executive power openly interferes and even dissolves the legislature. No doubt, such interferences lead to tension, discord and even intense crises. The reason behind it is that either the preeminent and influential factor to prevent such crises has not been premeditated in the laws of those systems, or the premeditated factor is not that effective. For example, in some systems the presidency is regarded as a mere ceremonial position and has not the executive power. At times, when the country is facing a crisis, it is he who gives stability by resolving the crisis. Actually, he demonstrates his role and function only during a crisis.
The coordination of powers in the wilayah al-faqih system
In current systems in the world measures have been taken to save the country from a crisis as a result of interference in one another’s affairs, but none of these measures or solutions is sufficient, and the problem or difficulty remains as before. However, in the wilayah al-faqih system—which is unfortunately presented as reactionary by some biased writers—such situations have been taken into account. Whenever the country faces a crisis, he guides the nation, solves the crisis with prudence and astuteness, and does not allow the country to plunge into perdition.
Like other countries, we also have executive power headed by the president and judicial and legislative powers which are separate from each other. But they are powers of the same system and join together on top of the political pyramid. All these powers converge at one point. The central and main point of the system at the top of the pyramid is the wali al-faqih who unifies all the powers and brings them together.
In contrast to other systems which either do not have the coordinating agency or unifying factor, or if there is any it is very weak and feeble, in the wilayah al-faqih system the three powers are under the leadership and supervision of the focal point of the system, viz. the wali al-faqih. He is also the protector of the Constitution. He sees to it that Islamic laws, values, objectives and ideals of the Revolution are not violated. He also serves as the coordinating agency between the three powers, inviting all to camaraderie, unity, amity, and understanding. If the country happens to face any serious tensions, he eases them and saves the country from the brink of disaster.
In the course of more than twenty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution,[46] whether during the time of the eminent Imam (q) or that of the Supreme Leader (may Allah prolong his sublime presence), in numerous cases the country experienced intense crises caused by particular disputes and tensions that willy-nilly happened in society. If it were not because of the sagacious management of the Leader, our country would have succumbed to crises that countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan are experiencing today. Fortunately, by the grace of the presence of this holy personality and position, and the love and affectionate relationship between him and the people, such crises were undermined.
The wilayah al-faqih system’s superiority over other systems
By comparing the Islamic system of our country to the democratic systems in the world that are presently known as the most advanced government systems, it is worth enumerating the distinctions of the Islamic systems:
1. Internal cohesion
The first distinction of our system is its internal cohesion. We have shown a sample of the internal contradictions of those systems, saying that no power is supposed to interfere in another’s affairs but in actuality we do not know of any system in which the three powers are totally independent and do not interfere in one another’s affairs, and in which the law has not sanctioned a certain extent of interference in one another’s affairs, not to mention the illegal interferences, violations and pressures exerted by one power over another.
We can actually observe one branch of the government enjoying authority and exerting pressure on others. Once the military and disciplinary forces, economic and financial means, and the budget of a nation are at the disposal of the executive, in practice all instruments of pressure are at its disposal, and whenever the chief executive wants, he can abuse his power.
So, a sort of internal contradiction can be observed in the democratic systems in the world. In our system, however, that contradiction does not exist in spite of the fact that the three powers are separate from one another and each of them has independent discretions. It is because in our system there is the coordinating and unifying element called the wali al-faqih who, by virtue of his authority over the three branches of government, coordinates and brings them together.
As the pivot of the system, he prevents the emergence of any crisis. We have even witnessed how in many instances the Supreme Leader has prevented the emergence of tension among officials of the three powers. Whenever there was a crisis, the chief executive officially asked him to solve it by exercising the power vested in him, which he did. The wali al-faqih is directly not the head of any of the three powers but he designates the head of each of these powers and in the expression of the constitution, he confirms [tanfidh] the vote of the people. By virtue of his confirmation or designation, the position and function of each of the heads of the three powers acquire legitimacy and official status.
2. Internal and external executive guarantee
The second distinction of our system is the internal and external executive guarantee that exists in the people. This internal executive guarantee arises from the sense of religious responsibility in observing laws and ordinances of this Islamic state. Such an internal guarantee or control does not exist in other systems. In almost all other systems laws are imposed upon the people by force and violence. Whenever people sense more freedom and less control over them, they avoid being subjected to the laws.
It can be heard frequently that some people talk about the observance of law and order in European countries. They claim, for instance, that in Western or European countries the people spontaneously and instinctively act upon laws and ordinances and pay taxes. This outward discipline and order is due to an advanced system of control which compels people to observe laws and pay taxes. Because of it, only a few can violate laws.
The system of tax collection there, because of many centuries of experience especially in the last half century has a complex, yet accurate, mechanism. On this basis, taxes are collected from people in different ways and the masses willingly pay their taxes. However, by collaborating with national officials and establishing connection with power-holders, giant companies are trying to evade paying taxes.
At this point, I deem it necessary to tell those who are infatuated with the West that their talk about order, discipline and high-level culture is nothing but empty rhetoric and far from the truth. For example, it is claimed that in Western countries drivers observe traffic rules faithfully and maintain exemplary order and discipline. This claim is not true. I will mention an instance that refutes this claim.
I was invited to deliver a speech at the University of Philadelphia in the United States. In order to see the cities and towns along the way, I took a car from New York to Philadelphia. Along the way, I noticed that the car driver used to place a devise in front and remove it after a while. He repeated it many times. This incited my sense of curiosity and I asked him about the utility of the devise.
He said that in America the speed limit was 90 miles per hour. In order to detect any violation the police had installed radar along the highways. Since the traffic and speed of vehicles is monitored by radar the devise in question is used to undermine it. This devise can easily be sold and bought in the market. Knowing this, policemen are stationed along the highways to stop and fine drivers who, by using the devise undermine the police radar, and drive beyond the speed limit. As such, by installing the said devise they can drive at whatever speed they like. Whenever they approach a policeman, they hide it, and install it again afterwards!
You can see that in order to circumvent the rules and render futile the law-enforcers’ monitoring devise, they invented a counter-devise which was sold abundantly in the open market. Yet, we imagine that the Americans have such a progressive culture that they willingly and cheerfully obey ordinances and maintain order and discipline. Criminal cases reportedly happening there everyday have a long story. An acquaintance who returned to Iran after many years of residence in America said that there was no high school in America without armed policemen. Yet, every now and then we witness killing in those schools. For example, an armed student recently shot his classmates and teacher, killing them! This is an example of order and discipline in that country!
The main factor that prompts people in the West to abide by law is an external factor—fear of fine, imprisonment or physical punishment. If they were not only afraid of this deterrence and could render ineffective the monitoring devise of law-enforcers, most of them would not hesitate to violate laws. In the Islamic system, however, apart from this external deterring factor which exists, there is a more important factor which if cultivated among people has great potential to solve social problems. It is the internal deterrence which makes people obey ordinances and laws.
This factor stems from faith in the necessity of abiding by laws and ordinances of the Islamic state. In reality, people regard obedience to laws as part of their religious duties. If the Islamic system or state had not established and the Imam as leader and source of emulation [marja‘ at-taqlid] had not declare obedience to laws of the Islamic state as religiously obligatory, people would have obeyed the laws only in order to be immune from physical punishment or fine.
Nowadays, in obedience to the wali al-amr al-muslimin the religious and revolutionary people of Iran act upon the laws and ordinances of the state although, in certain cases, they know that those laws are not in their favor. This internal executive guarantee which stems from the faith of people and is a very important and valuable factor in persuading people to abide by the laws exists in our society and we do not fully comprehend its value.
This factor makes people consider laws of the Islamic state as laws of God and obeying them as pleasing to Him, and thus, having a sense of religious and divine responsibility they follow them and regard their violation a sin. Of course, we do not deny that there are also cases of law violation in our system but compared to the cases of obedience to laws these violations are insignificant. If the percentage of violations was greater than that of obedience, there could no longer be progress and the system would disintegrate.
3. The Leader possessing the highest degree of piety and merit
The third distinction of our system in comparison to other systems is that the Supreme Leader must possess the highest level of piety, moral integrity, and personal standing because he is the deputy of the Prophet (s) and the Imam of the Time (‘a). The people recognize him as the manifestation and embodiment of the personality of the Imam of the Time (‘a). As such, they also extend to him their love and affection for the Prophet (s) and the Imam of the Time (may Allah, the Exalted, expedite his glorious advent).
If the Supreme Leader, who holds the highest post and exercises all political powers, commits a violation or sin that leads to debauchery and injustice, he shall be automatically dismissed from the station of wilayah over the Muslims, and there will be no need for a court hearing or trial to prove the offense, just dismissal. The fact that he commits an offense, God forbid, makes him lose his justice and stand dismissed. The only function of the Assembly of Experts is to declare his incompetence because his dismissal results from his losing his sense of justice!
There is no political system in the world in which the high-ranking officials have the moral integrity that the Leader in our system has. In fact, the leaders of some countries are openly involved in moral corruption and sin. For instance, in the U.S. of America, one of the so-called greatest, civilized and progressive countries of the world, the president was accused of moral and sexual corruption.[47] Certain witnesses bore testimony to his debauchery and offense and he himself made a confession. However, when the issue of his impeachment was brought up in Congress and then moved to the Senate, a majority of Senators acquitted him of the charge.
Thus, he remained in power as president until the end of his term and no problem emerged thereafter.[48] All people of the world knew that he committed adultery and perjury but due to the political collaboration of some Senators the required number of votes to impeach the president was not reached, and that embodiment of moral corruption remained in his position! There are many similar cases about senior officials who openly violated their own laws and were even convicted in a court, but remained in their posts thanks to their political connections. They have also been elected for another term sometimes.
According to Islam if the Leader lacks even a single qualification and commits an offense, he is dismissed from his post because by committing a major sin he falls from justice and becomes a transgressor. Hence, he is not competent to lead the Muslims. There is no more need for any trial or the vote of the Assembly of Experts to prove his offense. No system in the world has shown such severity with respect to national officials, especially the highest official, i.e. the Leader.
4. Observance of the spiritual and real interests of human beings
Finally, one of the most important distinctions of our system is the observance of the real interests of human beings. As Muslims we believe that God knows best the interests of human beings, and we want those interests to be realized in society. This important pursuit cannot succeed except by acting upon religious laws and decrees. On this earth, it is only the Islamic Republic of Iran whose constitution (Article 4) has stipulated that all current laws and ordinances of the country should be ratified and implemented on the basis of Islamic standards. If a law or ratified bill is against the general principles of religion, it is of no legal value. Therefore, the only country whose laws guarantee the real interests of human beings is our country.
Everybody knows that this system achieved and accomplished its goals because of the sacrifices of our people and the blood of martyrs especially that of the Tir 7 martyrs.[49] By sacrificing their lives and offering their valuable blood to the Revolution, they gave us honor, nobility and lofty values. We must be vigilant not to ungratefully lose those values. Today, hands are at work to besmirch the essence of Islam, wilayah al-faqih, the system, and the Islamic principles because these values are like thorns in their flesh. They have been trying their best to destroy them, and render them a blow, using all their ability, skill and artfulness.
Sometimes, they question the essence of Islam and Islamic laws in their speeches and newspapers with wide circulation, saying: “Today, it is no longer the time for us to talk about wajib and haram. We have to set the people free to decide for themselves and elect what they like!” They also dare to insult wilayah al-faqih. Had the high cultural officials not been highly tolerant, they would be legally prosecuted and punished. But these officials are not taking necessary action.
It is here that as revolutionary Muslims and followers of the Imam and the Supreme Leader, we have the duty to identify these impudent and insolent elements and not allow the sacred religion of Islam, Shi‘ism and values that are the means of our felicity in this world and the next to be sold at a meager and miserable price in the trade fair of deceitful politicians and identity-less culture effacers, and this would bring nothing to us but ignominy, disgrace and the curse of God, the Apostle (s), the angels and the future generations. Let it not be.
Notes:
[44] Surah al-Hajj 22:78.
[45] Surah al-Baqarah 2:185.
[46] Now, it is almost 30 years after victory of the Islamic Revolution. [Trans.]
[47] It alludes to the sexual scandal involving ex-US president William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. The US House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998, making him only the second president in US history to be impeached. Article I accuses him of perjury in his grand jury testimony about his relationship with Lewinsky while Article III accuses him of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. The US Senate began an impeachment trial against him on the two articles approved by the House of Representatives, but on February 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted him of the charges against him. The Associated Press, December 19, 1998. [Trans.]
[48] It is worthy of note that throughout the controversy, polls showed that a large majority of Americans thought the president was doing a good job and that he should not be impeached or removed from office. [Trans.]
[49] It refers to the bomb explosion at the Islamic Republican Party Headquarters perpetrated by the hypocrites on Tir 7, 1360 AHS (June 28, 1981) where the first Judiciary Chief Dr. Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Beheshti and 71 other members of the judiciary, thinkers, writers, and revolutionary figures were. [Trans.]
Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Relationship between Wilayat al-Faqih and the Marja'iyat

Question: What is the relationship between governance of a jurist (wilayat al-faqih) and authority in jurisprudence (marja’iyat)?
Brief Answer
Wilayat is a part of marja’iyat in the culture of the Shi’as. The great maraji’ not only guided people with respect to the divine Law, but they also led people in the particular problems of society—even judging between people in particular matters and domestic disputes. But if we separate the two matters and associate the former with marja’iyyat then a number of questions arise:
1. Is it permissible to separate marja’iyyat and wilayat?
2. If we suppose that it is permissible, then is it possible to have multiple mara’ji and leaders?
3. If it be possible to separate the marji’ and the leader, is it possible to follow other than the leader in rules relating to society and the individual?
The answers to the aforementioned questions are as follows: The reason that the jurisprudent is an authority in matters of the law is because of his specialization in jurisprudence and his power to derive the rules of Allah (awj) from their sources. While the reason that a leader is what he is, is because aside from the above mentioned qualities, he has the ability to manage society according to the principles and values of Islam. It is because of this that it becomes possible for a person to be chosen as a leader due not so much to his aptitude in jurisprudence as much as to his better management skills.
In lieu of this reality, the separation of the offices of the marji’ and the leader becomes a reasonable, and in some instances, a necessary expedient.
In principle, leadership is confined to a single person, whereas the marja’iyyat is applicable to numerous individuals. But the possibility for the reverse situation also holds; just as does the possibility that the two offices should be combined in a single individual. Since following the orders of the leader is obligatory upon all people—including other jurisprudents—and it is forbidden to disobey his orders, hence it is not possible for people to follow other than the leader in matters related to the social order and the running of society.
What was said above regarding the authority of the jurisprudent was in reference to the individual order and to matters of a personal nature; it is in these matters that people can follow other than the leader.
Detailed Answer
The Noble Prophet (ص) of Islam had three mandates:
1. To propagate Allah’s (awj) message; teaching the laws of religion and guiding the people;
2. To judge between people when they differed;
3. To lead and manage society.
All of these qualities and functions exist for the jurisprudents in the time of the occultation of the Imam. They too have three functions:
1. Acting as judges and resolving disputes that arise between people;
2. Giving edicts in law and expounding the general rules of the Divine law for the people. This can be considered a type of guidance of the people;
3. Leadership.
Wilayat is a part of marja’iyat in the culture of the Shi’as. The great maraji’ not only guided people with respect to the divine Law, but they also led people in the particular problems of society—even judging between people in particular matters and domestic disputes. But if we separate the two matters and associate the former with marja’iyyat then a number of questions arise:
1. Is it permissible to separate marja’iyyat and wilayat? In other words is it possible that one individual is the one people refer to in the general matters of the law while another person is the leader of the Islamic nation?
2. If we suppose that it is permissible, then is it possible to have multiple maraji’ and leaders? Is there a difference between them in this regard?
3. If it be possible to separate the marji’ and the leader, is it possible to follow other than the leader in rules relating to society and the individual?
Before we answer the aforementioned questions it is necessary for us to give a brief explanation of the “edict” that the leader issues.
When the jurisprudent refers to the religious sources in order to obtain the general rule of Allah (awj) regarding a certain problem and uses the special techniques that exist for obtaining the rules of the Law, it is called giving an edict or “fatwa”. When the leader pays attention to the general rules of Allah (awj), the various systems in Islam, and the conditions of the time, and according to these delineates a person’s or a specific group’s responsibility with regards to a certain matter, this is called giving an order or a “hukm”. In doing this, he not only pays attention to the general rules of Islam and the lofty aspirations of the religion, but also to the specific conditions that exist in that time. As long as those conditions exist, the order issued by him or his representative is binding. Of course from the point of view of the Law, the rules of Allah (awj) and the edicts of the jurisprudent who has all the necessary qualifications are also binding, just like the rulings of the leader, but with this difference that the jurisprudent’s rulings are binding on him and his followers only, while everyone must follow the orders of the leader.
With this in mind we will now answer the first question, in other words the separation of the marja’iyyat and the leader. According to the logic of the “leadership of the jurisprudent” and its proofs, the jurisprudent takes upon himself the management of society and in accordance with the values of Islam, he takes on the responsibility of leadership. But marja’iyyat means simply to issue an edict and is a completely different matter. In order to understand marja’iyyat it is necessary to explain taqlid first.
In the Persian language, taqlid means to follow someone without a proof. Taqlid in the parlance of jurisprudence means that someone follows a specialist in a specific matter that is in line with his specialty. The first meaning is considered bad in the eyes of all sane people, but the second is totally sound and accepted by them. The most important proof as to the permissibility of taqlid lies in the fact that the person who is not a specialist in a particular field must refer to the specialist of that field. All of the proofs that are contained in the traditions and verses of the Qur`an regarding taqlid point to this very fact. Like for example the verse that says,
“We did not send [any apostles] before you except as men to whom We revealed—ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.”[394]
With this explanation it becomes clear that the reason that the jurisprudent is an authority in matters of the law is because of his specialization in jurisprudence and his power to derive the rules of Allah (awj) from their sources while the reason that a leader is what he is, is because aside from the aforementioned qualities, he has the ability to manage society according to the principles and values of Islam.
It is because of this that it becomes possible for a person to be chosen as a leader due not so much to his aptitude in jurisprudence as much as to his better management skills.
In lieu of this reality, the separation of the offices of the marji’ and the leader becomes a reasonable, and in some instances, necessary expedient.
With regards to the second question (i.e. whether the leadership and the marja’iyyatis confined to one person or is open to more than one person) and assuming that a separation of the two is possible, we must remember that when someone refers to the marji’ he does so because the marji’ is a specialist in the field of law and the one who refers, is not. This being the case, it is possible that there be numerous specialists in society. Moreover, this is something that is to be sought after so that everyone can refer to them with ease and obtain their rulings.
But the leadership of society, because it is tied up with the order of society and because the multiplicity of centres of decision making would cause a disturbance–since it is necessary for everyone to follow the leader in his rulings–dictate that the leader be one. This is especially true because according to Islam there is only one nation of Islam. Of course it is possible that specific conditions dictate that specific areas have their own leaders, but all of these leaders should cooperate with one another. But it is not necessary that various jurisprudents issue one edict in order that society not be disturbed. Rather, every jurisprudent issues his edict according to his judgment and the general rules of deriving the laws from their sources.
In principle, leadership is confined to a single person, whereas the marja’iyyat is applicable to numerous individuals. But the possibility for the reverse situation also holds true.
As to the third question (i.e. the possibility of following someone other that the leader in all matters) we must not lose sight of the fact that when the leader issues an order or a ruling he looks at all aspects of the situation from the perspective of the various systems and realms within Islam, and after such an appraisal and due to his position it is his opinion which has the final say.
If it were permissible for people to follow other than the leader in all matters, while the orders of the leader remain binding upon them, then in certain cases this would lead to a serious problem. In other words, it is possible that in a specific matter of social order the leader could issue an edict and say that if my ruling was other than this I would have said so, while on the other hand the marji’ of the people could issue a ruling other than his. In this situation how can we expect the people to follow the edict of the ruler?
It is with regards to this problem that it seems necessary that people do not follow other than the leader in social and state matters, since to disobey his order is forbidden according to all the jurisprudents. Therefore what was said above regarding the authority of the jurisprudent and marji’ was in reference to the individual order and to matters of a personal nature; it is in these matters that people can follow other than the leader.
Notes:
[394] Surat al-Nahl, (16), verse 43:

Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani
Source: Imam reza network

Sources of Legislation in Islam

The Shia: The Real Followers of the Sunnah
Sources of Legislation for the Shi'ah
Anyone who follows up the Imamiyyah Shi'ah fiqh,will verily see them devoted absolutely, in (taking) all fiqhi rules -except the recently originated ones110 to the Prophet (S) through the Twelve Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (A).
They follow only two sources of legislation: The Book and the Sunnah, with which I mean the first source i.e. the Holy Qur'an, and the second one being the Prophetic Sunnah, upon its bearer be the best of benediction and peace.
These are the beliefs of the Shi'ah in the past and lately, and rather of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, of whom no one claimed of exerting his opinion or issuing a rule according to his conjecture.
The first Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is the best example, as when they have acknowledged him as a caliph provided that he should rule according to the Sunnah of the Two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and 'Umar), he replied; I will never rule but according to the Book of Allah and His Messenger's Sunnah.111
In the forthcoming chapters, we will clarify that he (A) has been all the time adhering to the Prophet's Sunnah without deviating from it, doing his best to restore people to follow it. This practice has resulted in exciting the Caliphs' rage, and people's turning away from him, due to his hardness and devotion in God's Essence (Dhat Allah), and clinging to the Prophet's Sunnah.
Further, al-'Imam al-Baqir (A) used to say: "If we debate with you according to our opinion we shall be misguided as happened to those before us, but we give you an evidence from our Lord, that He has revealed upon His
110. We mean by it the ijtihad of the 'ulama, concerning that for which not text is revealed, as occurred after occultation of the Twelfth Imam.
111. In some narrations he said: "and other than them, I exert my opinion", which is false addition by the followers and the supporters of ijtihad. As al-'Imam 'Ali has never claimed to exert his opinion, but he used to extract the rulers from the Book of Allah and His Messenger's Sunnah, or used to say: We have al-Jami'ah, which contains whatever needed by People even the minute points. This Sahifah is dictated by the Messenger of Allah and written by 'Ali. We refered to al-Sahifah al-Jami'ah in the chapter "Ahl al-Sunnah and Obliterating the Sunnah" in this book.
Prophet,who in turn has manifested for us"
In another place he (A) said: "O Jabir, if we were used to talk to people according to our opinion we would have perished, but we disclose to you traditions we have hoarded up from the Messenger of Allah (S) as others hoard up gold and silver.
Al-'Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (A) has also said:
By God we never utter anything according to our desire nor to our opinions, but our utterance is exactly as revealed by our Lord (God). Whatever replies I give you are verily reported from the Messenger of Allah, and by God we never follow our opinion in everything.
All men of letters and investigation are aware of this fact about the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, as they have never reported from any of them exerting the opinion, or to act by qiyas (analogy) or istihsan or anything other than the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
When referring to the contemporary great religious authority (marji), Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (may God be pleased with him), we see him saying in his treatise (risalah), "al-Fatawa al-wadhiha": It is necessary to refer briefly to the references upon which we mainly depended in deducing in the outset of our speech, the Holy Qur'an and the Prophetic Sunnah, reported from trustworthy pious narrators, wherever be their madhhab112 (school of thought). We do not see any legislative justification to depend upon analogy and istihsan (approval), or alike things.
Concerning what is called the rational evidence (al-dalil al-'aql), that mujtahidun and muhaddithun have differed as to whether acting according to it was permissible or not. Though we believe that is justifiable to apply it, but we have never found even one rule (hukm) whose establishment (ithbat) relies solely on the rational evidence with this meaning, but rather, what is established by al-dalil al-'aql, is
112. Here it is proved how the Shi'ah 'ulama' refer to the righteous trustworthy men whatever be their madhhab, which is a good refutation against the claimants that the Shi'ah never trust the Sahabah. While the fact is that the Shi'ah reject the ahabi's hadith only when it contradicts what is narrated by Ahl al-Bayt Imams.
already established at the same time by the Book or the Sunnah.
As regards the so-called ijma' (unanimity), it cannot be considered a source (of legislation) beside the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is unreliable but only due to its being a means for affirmation in some cases.
Therefore it is confirmed that the Qur'an and the Sunnah have been the only two sources of legislation. We implore the Almighty to make among those clung to them. "Whoever graps them has grasped a firm hand-hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower".113
So this phenomenon is prevalent among the Shi'ah throughout history, as the only dependable sources of legislation being only the Qur'an and the sunnah, and none of them has issued even one fatwa (verdict) derived from qiyas or istishan. The episode of al-Imam al-Sadiq with Abu Hanifah is quite known for all, when he forbade him from applying qiyas (analogy). He (A) said to him: "Don't use qiyas in regard of God's religion, since the Shari'ah (Islamic law) will be obliterated when qiyas is applied on it, and the first one who applied qiyas was Iblis when he said (to God): I am better than him (Adam) as You have created me from fire but You created him out of clay.
These are the sources of legislation for the Shi'ah, from the time of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib till the present day. What are the sources of legislation for Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-jama'ah?
113. Al-Fatawa al-wadihah, by the Martyr Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, p. 98.
Sources of Legislation for Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah
By tracing back the sources of legislation for Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah, we see that their number beings so large that they exceed the limits of the Book of Allah, and the Sunnah ordained by Allah and His Messenger.
The sources that they depend upon-beside the Book and Sunnah-include: The Sunnah of al-Khulafa'a al-Rashidun, sunnah of the Companions, sunnah of the Tabi'un who are the 'ulama' of trace, sunnah of the rulers which they call sawafi al-'umra', qiyas (analogy), istihsan (approval), ijma' (unanimity), and sadd bab al-dhara'i (closing the door of pleas).
They constitute altogether ten sources which they regard to domineer Allah's religion. In order not to utter anything without a convincing evidence, or be accused of exaggeration, it is inevitable to cite some proofs taken from their own sayings and books, to manifest the truth for the dear reader.
We are not going to debate Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the first two sources, i.e. Book and the Sunnah, about which there is no disagreement, being the wajib that was recognized by naql (transmission), 'aql (reason) and ijma' (unanimity). It is as stated in the Al-Mighty's saying: "And whatever the Messenger giveth you, take it. And whatever he forbidden, abstain (from it)", (59:7) and His saying: "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger" (5:92), also His saying: "...when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair" (33:36), beside other manifest verses indicating the wujub (obligation) of legislation the rules only from the Book of Allah and Sunnah of His Messenger, but we debate them concerning the other sources that they have added from their fabrication.
First: The Sunnah of al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun:
They (Ahl al-Sunnah) have argued with the hadith "Adhere to my sunnah and the sunnah of the Rightly-guided successors after me. Hold on to it and cling on it stubbornly".114
We have stated in the Book 'Ma'a al-Sadiqin "that those who are meant by al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun (Rightly-guided successors) in this hadith are in fact the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, and I intend here to mention more proofs for those who missed reading that Book.
It is reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim and other traditionists, that the Messenger of Allah has confined his successors in twelve ones, when he said: "The successors after me are twelve (men), all of whom are from Quraysh". This sahih hadith indicates explicitly that he meant by them the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), not the Caliphs "rulers" who have usurped the caliphate.
Someone may raise this question: Wheather by "the successors" are meant the Twelve Imams of Ahl al-Bayt as the Shi'ah believe, or the Four Guided Caliphs as Ahl al-Sunnah believe, the sources of legislation are only three: the Qur'an and the (Prophet's) Sunnah and the Calips' sunnah?
This is right in the opinion of Ahl al-Sunnah, but the Shi'ah never accept it, as the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt have never legislated (rules) according to their ijtihad and opinions, but whatever they uttered was but the sunnah of their grandfather the Messenger of Allah. They have learned it from him, and preserved it for manifesting it to people when necessary.
But the books of Ahl al-Sunnah are replete with inference from the sunnah of Abu Bakr and sunnah of 'Umar, as a source for the Islamic legislation, even if it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah.
We will be more certain that Abu Bakr and 'Umar
114. It is reported by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Mjah, al-Bayhaqi, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
were not meant by the Prophet's hadith, by knowing that 'Ali has refused to rule according to their sunnah when the Sahabah stipulated this as a condition for acknowledging him (as a caliph). Had the Prophet meant them by al-khulafa al-Rashidun, it would not have been permissible for 'Ali to refute the Prophet's hadith and reject their sunnah, so it is ascertained that Abu Bakr and 'Umar are not among al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun.
However, Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah mean by al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun: Abu Bakr and 'Uthman alone, since 'Ali had not been counted among them, but he was added to them lately as mentioned before. In fact he had been cursed over pulpits, so how could they follow his sunnah??!
This fact will be even more verified by reading what is reported by Jalal al-Din al-Sayuti in his book Ta'rikh al-Khulafa', when he quoted Hajib ibn Khalifah as saying: I heard the Caliph 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz addressing the people saying:
"Whatever is prescribed by the Messenger of Allah (S) and his two companions is a religion we adopt and end at, and we put aside whatever is prescribed by others".115
In fact most of the Sahabah and Umayyad and 'Abbasid rulers were of the opinion that whatever was prescribed by Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman being a religion they adopt and end at.
And as these three Caliphs have embarked on preventing the Messenger's Sunnah from reaching people as we realized earlier, so nothing is left then of the Sunnah except what they have prescribed, and of the rules except what they have confirmed.
Second: The Sahabah's Sunnah in General:
Many proofs and numerous evidences are available
115. Al-Suyuti's Ta'rikh al-khulafa', p. 160.
which attest the fact that Ahl al-Sunnah have been following the Sunnah of the Sahabah in general with no exception.
They argue with a false hadith, which we have elaborately discussed in the book 'Ma'a al-Sadiqin". The hadith reads thus: "My Companions are like the stars (nujum), whichever of them you follow, you shall be guided rightly", and Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah has argued with this hadith against the argumentation of the Companion's opinion.116
This fact has also been admitted by al-Shaykh Abu Zuhrah, when he said: "We have found all of them (fuqaha' of Ahl al-Sunnah) adopt the fatwa' of the Sahabi". Then he adds another statement: To argue with the Companions 'sayings and fatawa, has been the conduct of the multitude (al-jamhur) of fuqaha, and they were contradicted by the Shi'ah,117 but Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah has supported al-Jamhur with about forty-six aspects, all being strong arguments (hujaj)...".
We address al-Shaykh Abu Zuhrah, and question him: How could the argument (hujjah)--that contradicts the Book of Allah and sunnah of His Prophet--be strong?! All the arguments (hujaj) cited by Ibn al-Qayyim are as frail as the spider's house, and you (to Abu Zuhrah) have demolished them yourself when you said: "But we found al-Shawkani say: It is true that the companion's opinion is not a hujjah, as Allah --the Glorious and Exalted -- has never sent to this Ummah except our prophet Muhammad (S). We do not have but one messenger, and all the Companions and those who succeeded them are equally charged with following his Shar' in the Book and Sunnah, and whoever opines that the hujjah in God's religion can be established with other than them, he will be as that who has opined regarding God's religion with improvable belief, and has confirmed a law (shar') not commanded by Allah".118
Thus al-Shawkani has said the truth, and was never affected by the school of thought, so his utterance came to be
116. A'lam al-muqi'in, vol. iv, p. 122.
117. This being another testimony from Al-Shaykh Abu Zuhrah, affirming our saying that the Shi'ah never acknowledge for legislation of Allah except the Qur'an and Prophetic Sunnah.
118. Kitab al-Shaykh Abi Zuhrah, p. 102.
in consonance with that of the Imams of guidance, the Pure 'Itrah...may God be pleased with him if his acts comply with his sayings.
Third:The Sunnah of Tabi'un (Ulama' al-'Athar):
The other source upon which Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah have depended (for deriving rules), used to be the opinions of the Tabi'un, whom they used to call as 'Ulama' al'Athar, who include: Al-Awza'i, Sufyan al-Thawri, Hasan al-Basri, Ibn 'Uyaynah, and many others. They also concur on adopting the interpretations (ijtihadat) of the Imams of four schools, and imitating them, though they being the followers of the followers.
The Companions themselves confess of committing errors many times, and of uttering what they know not.
When Abu Bakr, for instance, was asked about a matter, he would reply: "I will give my opinion in its regard, if I be right it is from Allah, but if I err it is from me or from Satan". 'Umar also has once said to his followers: "I may enjoy you to things that happen to be not for your convenience, and forbid you from things that happen to be for your benefit."119
So if this be their level of knowledge, and they just follow conjucture which assurely can by no means take the place of truth, so how can a Muslim, being aware of Islam, give himself the right to make the acts and sayings of such people as a sunnah to be followed, and as one of the sources of legislation? After this discussion will there remain any trace of the hadith "My Companions are like stars"?
If the Companions who attended the Prophet's majalis (meetings) and learned from him, utter such discourses, so what to say about those who succeeded them, adopted their opinions and took part in the sedition?
If the leaders of the four schools exert their opinions
119. Ta'rikh Baghdad, vol. xiv, p. 81.
regarding God's religion, with explicitly admitting the possibility of committing an error, as one of them says: I think this (rule) is correct, and may be any others opinion is correct, so what made the Muslims obligate themselves to follow and imitate them?!
Fourth: The Rulers' Sunnah:
Ahl al-Sunnah call it "Sawafi al-'umra" and they cites as an evidence for it the holy verse: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority" (4:59).120
In their view, those in authority are the rulers even if they are controlling the rule by force and suppression, as they believe that Allah has invested them with authority over people, so it is incumbent upon everyone to obey them and adopt their sunnah.
Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri has vehemently refuted Ahl al-Sunnah, by saying: "On the basis of what you say, the rulers are authorized to annual from and increase in the shara'i' (laws) ordained by Allah and His Messenger as they desire, there being no difference between addition and deletion, in this respect. Surely this is infidelity on the part of whoever permits it".121
Al-Dhahabi has refuted Ibn Hazm by saying: "This is verily an invalid report and an exorbitant mistake, as it is unanimously agreed by all the Ummah --except Dawud ibn 'Ali and whoever followed him--that those in authority (Ulu al-'amr) have the right to rule according to opinion (ra'y) and (ijtihad), when there being no text revealed (in the Qur'an). And they say: It is unlawful for them (those in authority) to rule according to opinion and ijtihad, despite their awareness the of presence of a revealed text regarding the matter, thus they are allowed to increase in the shar' to the limit permitted by shar', but are allowed to invalidate from the shar' whatever they desire".
120. We have explained with evidence in Ma'al-Sadiqin that Ulu al'amr (those authority), are the guidance Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, and not th usurping rulers, as it is not possible that Allah commands to obey the oppressors, debauchees and infidels.
121. Ibn Hazm's Mulakhkhas ibtal al-qiyas, p. 37.
We ask al-Dhababi that: "How do you claim the unanimity of the Ummah, while you have accepted Dawud ibn 'Ali and whoever followed him?! Why haven't you identified those who followed him by names? Then whey haven't you accepted the Shi'ah and Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, is it because that they are not considered among the Islamic Ummah in your view?! Or that your sycophancy to the rulers has made you permit them to add to the shar', in order that they increase your gift and fame?
Have the rulers, who ruled over Muslims in the name of Islam, been aware of the Qur'anic and Prophetic texts (nusus) so that to stop at their limits?
Had the two Caliphs Abu Bakr and 'Umar deliberately contradicted the Qur'anic and Prophetic nusus, as we mentioned in previous chapters, how would those who succeeded them have adhered to those texts, which have been substituted, changed and obliterated?
If the fuqaha' of Ahl al-Sunnah give a verdict for the rulers to opine in God's religion whatever they will, so no wonder to see al-Dhahabi follow and imitate them.
It is reported in Tabaqat al-fuqaha', form sa'id ibn Jubayr that he said: I questioned 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar about ila' (insertion)? He said: Do you intend to say: Ibn 'Umar said so, Ibn 'Umar said so?
I replied : Yes, and we accept whatever you say and are convinced with it, Ibn 'Umar then said: The opinion regarding this is as stated by al-'umara' (rulers), or rather as stated by Allah and His Messenger, and whoever reports from them.
It is also reported from Sa'id Jubayr that he said: "Rafa' ibn Hayat has been regarded the most knowledgeable faqih in Sham, but when you instigate him you find him to be a Shami, saying: 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan has issued a so and so ruling in such a mtter".122
It is also reported in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, from
122.Tabaqat al-fuqaha', translated by Sa'id ibn Jubayr.
al-Musayyab ibn Rafi 'that he said: "If any question (mas'alah) is to be solved by the ruler, that it is not exposed in the Book (Qur'an) and Sunnah, it is called "Sawafi al-'umara', so it will be handed to them (rulers), and scholars will be gathered for (debating) it, whatever attains their unanimity will be counted as truth." 123
We say to them: "And if the Truth had followed their desires, verily the heavens and the earth had been corrupted ..." (23:71) and: "Nay, but he bring them the Truth; and most of them are haters of the Truth".(23:70)
Fifth: Other Sources of Legislation (for Ahl al-Sunnah):
Of them we mention: qiyas (analogy), istihsan (approval), istishab (accompaniment), sadd bab al-dhara'i (closing the door of pleas), and ijma (unanimity) which are very well known and common among them.
Al-'Imam Abu Hanifah was so much known of applying qiyas and refuting the traditions (of the prophet). Al-'Imam Malik was known of resorting to the acts of Ahl al-Medinah and sadd bab al-dhara'i. Al-'Imam al-Shafi'i was known of acting according to the fatawa of the Companions whom he classified into divisions and ranks, in the following order:
-The priority for the ten promised with Paradise,
-Then the earlier Muhajirun (Emigrants),
-Then the Ansar (Helpers),
-Then come Muslimat al-Fath, with whom he means al-Tulaqa'(the set-free prisoners), who embraced Islam after Fath Makkah (conquest of Mecca).124
It was about Ahmad ibn Hanbal that he never practiced ijtihad, and never issued fatwas but the adopted the opinion of any companion whosoever.
Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi has reported from him that: someone has inquired from him regarding a matter related to
123. Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd vol. vi, p. 179.
124. Manaqib al-'Imam al-Shafi'i, vol. i, p. 443.
halal and haram, whereat Ahmad said to him (the question): May God protect you, you can ask some other one. The man said: O Abu 'Abd Allah, we wish to know your reply. Said he again: May God protect you, you may ask some other one, you can ask the fuqaha', ask Abu Thawr.125
Al-Maruzi has also reported from him his saying: Concerning the hadith we have been relieved of it, and regarding the masa'il (matters, questions), I have made up my mind not to give reply to anyone questioning me.126
Undoubtedly it was Ahmad ibn Hanbal who has insinuated the idea of the justice (adalah) of all the Sahabah with no exception, so his school has impressed Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah.
It is reported by al-Khatim in the second volume of his book Taraikh Baghdad through the chain (isnad) reaching to Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sayrafi that he said: We said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal: If the Prophet's Companions differ regarding a question, is it permissible for us to probe into their opinions to recognize with whom lies the truth (sawab), so that to follow him?
He replied : It is not permissible to probe into the opinions of the Prophet's Companions. I said : What to do then? He said : You can imitate whomever you like (of them) .
We say to him: Is it permissible to imitate one who cannot recognize truth from falsehood? How strange to see Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) issue a fatwa--while he avoids giving verdicts --to imitate any of the Companions without investigating their opinions, to realize where the truth is!
After presenting this brief survey about the sources of the Islamic legislation for the Shi'ah and Ahl al-Sunnah, we come to know explicitly that the Shi'ah have been the true followers of and adherents to the Prophet's Sunnah and never thought of following other than it, till it has become a motto for them as admitted and witnessed by their opponents.
Whereas Ahl al-Sunnah, on the other hand, follow
125. Ta'rikh Baghdad, vol. ii, p. 66.
126. Manaqib al'-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, p. 57.
the sunnah of any Companion, any Tabi'i, and any ruler, whomsoever.
Their books and sayings are before us, give evidence against them, with which we suffice as a witness. God-willing we will, in a forthcoming chapter, discuss their acts and conduct to see that they have nothing to do with the sunnah.
I will leave to the reader to conclude and recognize for sure, who are Ahl al-Sunnah, and who are Ahl al-Bid'ah (heretics).
An Inevitable Commentary to Complete the Research
It is noteworthy to mention that the Shi'ah have adhered faithfully to the Book and Sunnah as sources of legislation, without adding any other source to them, due to availability of sufficient texts (nusus) with their Imams, for each and every matter and question (mas'alah) needed badly by people.
Some people may be surprised at this and regard as importable, that the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt possesses texts containing all rules and solutions for all matters and problems facing people, for all ages and times till the Doomsday.
For the sake of exposing this fact, it is inevitable to indicate the following points:
If any Muslim believes that Allah--Subhanahu--has delegated Muhammad with a Shari'ah that perfects all previous shara', and prevails over them for continueing the march of humanity on earth, to return thereafter to the eternal life. "He it is Who hath sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion".(9:33)
If a Muslim believes that Allah --Subhanahu --wanted man to be submissive to His rule and commandments in all of his sayings and acts, and to commit himself completely to the will of God."Lo! religion with Allah (is) the surrender (to His will and Guidance)".(3:19)
"And whoso seek as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him". (3:85)
If this be the case, God's rules should be perfect and all-inclusive for meeting all man's need in his tiresome progress toward overcoming all obstacles, and withstanding life challenges to attain the aspired aim.
About this fact, the Almighty Allah has stated in the Qur'an :
"We have neglected nothing in the Book of our decrees" (6:38).
On this basis, nothing is there but being mentioned in the Book of Allah- the Exalted -but man, due to his limited mentality, cannot perceive all things Allah, the Glorified, has mentioned (in Qur'an) for an extreme wisdom, known only for men of letters. This fact has been expressed by the Almighty Allah:
"And there is not a thing but hymn His praise; but ye understand not their praise..."(17:44)
The phrase (there is not a thing) indicates man, animal, and substance, with no exception, all praise (God). Man may accept the praise of animal and living creatures, like plants, but his brain is unable to perceive the praise-hymn of stone for example, God has said:
"Lo! We subdued the hills to hymn the praises (of their Lord) with him at nightfall and sunrise". (38:18)
When admitting and believing in this, we should believe that Allah's Book contains all the rules that people badly need till the Day of Resurrection. But it is infeasible for us to perceive them unless we refer to the man unto whom the Book was revealed, and who apprehend all its meanings, being the Messenger of Allah, as stated by the Almighty Allah:
"And We reveal the Scripture unto thee as an exposition of all things..." (16:89)
If we admit that Allah -Subhanahu-has exposed all things for His Messenger, so that he can expose to mankind what is revealed to them, we should admit that the Prophet (S) have verily exposed and explained everything needed by people till Doomsday, and has never neglected anything without a rule.
If we could not get access to that exposition, or being unaware of it today, it is due to our inertia, remissness and ignorance, or it is resulted from the betrayal of the medium between them and him (Prophet), or due to the Companions' ignorance and not comprehending what the Prophet (S) has exposed.
But Allah -the Glorified, the Exalted -is aware that all these probabilities are imminent, so for the sake of safeguarding His Shari'ah against loss and negligence, He has elected Imams from among His bondmen, giving them the knowledge and exposition of the Book as inheritance, so that no plea will remain for mankind to raise against Allah. The Almighty has said: "Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our bondmen". (35:32)
The Messenger of Allah (S) verily undertaken the task of exposing for people whatever they need, singling out his wasi' Ali with everything needed by people after him till the Doomsday, due to the merits possessed by 'Ali, from among all Companions, including infinite intelligence, sharp perception, strong memorizing and consciousness of whatever reaching his ear. So the Prophet taught him ('Ali) all the knowledge he (S) had, leading the Ummah to follow him as he being the gate from which people should enter (to get the knowledge).
Someone may argue that Allah has sent the Prophet unto all mankind, so he is not entitled to single out only one of them, with his knowledge, and deprive all others. Our reply is thus: The Messenger of Allah has no right whatsoever in this matter, since he is just a commanded bondman, executing whatever is revealed unto him from Lord. In fact he has been ordered by Allah to do so, since Islam is a religion of monotheism (tawhid) and established on unity in everything. It is necessary to unify people an gather them under one leadership, which is an intuitive matter determined by the Book of Allah, and approved by reason ('aql) and conscience. The Almighty Allah said:
If there were therein gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been disordered". (21:22)
He also said:
"...Nor is there any god among with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly overcome others..."(23:91)
Also, had God sent two messengers at a time, mankind would have divided into two nations, and have turned to be to rival parties. Allah-the Exalted- said: "...And there is not a nation but a Warner hath passed among them ".(35:24)
Further, for every prophet there has been a wasi (executor), to succeed him among his folk and ummah, to prevent their scattering and segregation.
This being a natural matter known by all, whether being learned or ignorant, believer or infidels. It is fact that every tribe, and every party and every state should have one head (president), to head and lead it, being impossible for them to be ruled by two chiefs at the same time.
That is why Allah-Subhanahu- has elected apostles from among angels and mankind, honoring them with the task of leading His bondmen, and making them example (imams) to guide people to His religion. Allah--the Exalted --said: "Lo! Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the Family of 'Imran above (all His) creatures". (3:33) The Imams, Allah has elected to seal the Muhammadan message, are the Imams of guidance from the Prophet's Kindred ('Itrah), all being from the family of Abraham, a progeny descending from the other. It is them who have been referred to by the Messenger of Allah (S) by saying: "The successors (khulafa') after me are twelve ones, all being from Quraysh".127
For every time there should be a certain Imam, whoever dies without being aware of the Imam of his time, his death is that of ignorance. Certainly when Allah -Subhanahu wa ta'ala -elects one as an Imam, He verily purifies him, guards him (against error), and gives him knowledge, as He never gives wisdom but to those deserving it.
127. This hadith is reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, vol viii, p. 127, and Sahih Muslim, vol. vi, p. 3. In other narrations he said: All of them are from Banu Hashim, instead of Quraysh. Whether they are from Banu Hashim or Quraysh, all of them are as it is known, from Abraham's household.
Should we return to the point, that is the Imam's being aware of the rules of Shari'ah needed by people, through the texts revealed in the Scripture and the Sunnah, which keep pace with the march of humanity till the Doomsday. No one among the Islamic Ummah can claim having this merit except the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (A), who have recurring disclosed their possessing al-Sahifah al-Jamiah (the all inclusive sheet), that was dictated by the Messenger of Allah and written by 'Ali ibn Abi Talib containing all things (rules) needed by people till the Doomsday, even arsh al-khadash (the smaller trouble) .
We have referred to this al-Sahifah al-Jamiah, that used to be held by Ali everywhere, and it was mentioned by al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs, so no Muslim ever deny this.
On this basis, the Shi'ah, who have devotedly followed the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, have ruled in the Shari'ah according to the texts (nusus) of the Qur'an and Sunnah, never being coerced to follow other than them throughout three centuries -the lifetime of the Twelve Imams.
But Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah have resorted to ijtihad and qiyas and other alike percepts, due to the absence of nusus and their Imams' unawareness of them, from the earlier days of caliphate. This being natural for them, when knowing that their caliphs have burn the Prophetic texts, beside preventing and hiding them, and when hearing their head say: We are sufficed with the Book of Allah, neglecting and ignoring thus the Prophetic Sunnah, which exposes the rules of the Qur'an itself.
We are all aware of the scarcity of the apparent Qur'anic rules, and that they are generally in need of the Prophet's exposition. So Allah-the Exalted -has said: ''And We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them..." (16:44)
If the Qur'an is in need of the Prophetic Sunnah to expose its rules and meanings, and if Ahl al-Sunnah have burnt the Sunnah that exposes the Qur'an, so they are left with no texts to expose the Qur'an and to expose the Sunnah itself.
They had no choice but to apply ijtihad and qiyas, and consult their 'ulama', adopting istihsan and that which meets their temporary convenience. It has been natural for them to be in need of all these acts due to their lack for the texts (nusus).
Muhammad al-Tijani al-Samawi
Source: Imam reza network

Government in Islam

In many cases it is the duty of every individual to support what is right and to see that law is enforced in an equitable manner. But there are cases in which this duty requires more energy, more specialized knowledge and more power­ful machinery than an individual can possess. The vital duty of `exhorting to good and restraining from evil' demands that in such cases all people should co‑operate to set up a powerful social organization having enough authority to undertake the required task. In an ideological society the organization charged with this responsibility is called "Government".
Under the social system of Islam a government comes to power in one of the following three ways:
(1) By appointment by Allah, which automatically means its recognition by the people.
(2) By appointment by the Prophet, which also means recognition by the people.
(3) By appointment, or in other words election by the Muslims.
Appointment by Allah
Appointment by Allah in the then newly‑founded society of Medina the holy Prophet was in charge of the government. He was assigned this post by Allah. The Muslims were told by the holy Qur'an to obey him in their social affairs.
"Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger". (Ale Imran, 3:32). "Obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel among yourselves lest you lose your courage and strength ". (Surah al‑Anfal, 8:46).
This government began with the proclamation regarding the formation of the Muslim ummah and the issue of certain charters, following the arrival of the holy Prophet in Medina. The pledging of their allegiance to the holy Prophet by the representatives of Medina shortly before his migration (Hijrah), and by the various groups of the Muhajirs and the Ansar on other occasions, was a national and popular recognition of his Divine appointment.
During this period the governors, the judges, the army commanders, the treasury officers and other important functionaries were appointed by the Prophet himself, and had to discharge their duties within the framework of Islamic law. Their powers were also normally determined by the Prophet. In ideological societies the founder of the movement, which culminates in the formation of a society naturally holds the reins of the government himself, for, being the founder of the ideology, he knows its dimensions and implications better than anybody else. Moreover, his competence and efficiency having already been proved, naturally he is the fittest person to assume the leadership of the new society.
(2) Appointment by a Prophet
In many cases a Prophet appoints somebody to manage the affairs of the society. Such appointments have two forms:
(a) In his lifetime he appoints, in the territory under his control, governors, judges and commanders. As his appointees, these people exercise the power given to ‑them by the Prophet. They are in reality his deputies. They derive their authority to rule from the order of the Prophet. They are just like the officials appointed to various posts by the central authority of any country.
(b) The second forts of an appointment by a Prophet is that of his own successor. According to the Shi'ah belief, the holy Prophet appointed Imam Ali (P) to succeed him as the head of the Muslim ummah. The Shi'ah in this respect rely on a number of traditions which have been reported by the authentic Sunni sources also. The tradition of al‑Ghadir is one of them.
Tradition of al‑Ghadir
In the 10th year of the Hijri era, while returning from his last pilgrimage, the holy Prophet assembled his companions at a place called Ghadir al‑Khum and spoke to them. From his talk on various occasions during this journey, people were apprehending that the end of his life was imminent. Naturally at this stage they expected him to make clear as to who would succeed him as the head of the newly‑founded Islamic society. As expected, he took up this question in his speech and said:
"Have I not more authority over the Muslims than they have over themselves?"
All the Muslims exclaimed with one voice:
"Yes, you have; you are the Prophet of Allah". The holy Prophet then said:
"Ali is the master of him whose master I am. May Allah be the friend of him, who is the friend of Ali, and the enemy of him who is the enemy of Ali. May He love him, who loves Ali, and hate him who hates Ali. May He support him who supports Ali and let down him who lets down Ali". (Kanz al‑Ummal, vol. 6 p. 403).
This tradition has been handed down by 110 companions of the Prophet and is recorded in authentic books.
Besides this tradition, there are other sayings of the Prophet in which he referred to the leadership (Imamate) and succession (Caliphate) of other Imams. For example, he is reported to have said that the number of his successors would be twelve. (al‑Sahih by Muslim, vol. 1 p. 119 and al‑Sahih by Bukhari, vol. 4 p. 164). According to another tradition he once pointed to Husayn ibn Ali (P) and said:
"He is an Imam, son of an Imam, brother of an Imam and father of nine Imams". (al‑Minhaj by Ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 4 p. 210).
The traditions are largely accepted by all or most of the non‑Shi'ah Muslims also but they interpret them differently. For example, concerning the tradition of al‑Ghadir they say that in his speech the Prophet did not appoint Ali to be his successor, but only introduced him as a fit person to succeed him, subject to his selection by the people.
It is evident that on the basis of this interpretation also the net result is the same, for the founder of an ideology being the best judge of the level of the faith, knowledge and competence of his associates, and because of his love for and interest in the expansion and consolidation of the principles propounded by him, will naturally introduce only that person for the leadership of the society who is most fit for that position and most loyal to the cause dear to him.
As such, it is the duty of the people also to accept the person so introduced, and pledge their allegiance to him, if they are really loyal to the ideology and give it preference over their personal inclinations and desires. In fact at the time of the Prophet's demise the majority of the newly‑founded Muslim society consisted of neophytes who did not have deep knowledge of Islam. Their pagan nature had not undergone a total change, and they were not yet fully accustomed to new intellectual and social values. Hence, it was too early for the ummah to be in a position to use its discretion in the selection of its leader. The same is still the case even in many ideological societies of the 20th century.
Anyhow, a ruler appointed by the Prophet is both a leader and a ruler of the society like the Prophet himself. The society being ideological, naturally its head is expected to take measures to safeguard its ideological borders as well as to guide the people to mould their lives according to its principles.
According to a tradition what Imam al Sadiq (P) has said in this connection comes to this: A leader is a religious guide also. It is his duty to work for the progress and prosperity of the Muslims. Leadership is the basis as well as the principle of Islam.
Salat, Saum, Zakat, Hajj and Jihad are performed under the aegis of the appointed leader (Imam). Under him the public treasury expands and the injunctions of Islam, and its penal laws, are enforced. The frontiers become safe. (Usul al‑Kafi, vol. 1 p. 198 ‑ 205).
(3) Election by the people
This form of government is accepted by all Muslim sects, with the difference that the Shi'ah regard it as justified only during the occultation of the Imam of the Age. Otherwise the Shi'ah, give preference to those who were appointed or designated by the Prophet and the Imams. But according to the Sunnis immediately on the death of the holy Prophet, this form became the only right form of the government.
From the Shi'ah point of view, since the major occultation of Mahdi, the Imam of the Age in 329 A.H. no particular person has been appointed to be the Head and Leader of the Muslim ummah. That is why in the traditions related to leadership during this period only the general qualities and characteristics required to be possessed by a leader have been mentioned. This shows that it is up to the people themselves to choose a person as their leader, having those qualities and characteristics.
Main qualifications of a ruler during the period of occultation
(1) Faith in Allah, His revelations and the teachings of His Prophet.
The Qur'an says:
`Allah will never let the disbelievers triumph over the believers". (Surah al‑Nisa, 4:141).
(2) Integrity, adherence to the laws of Islam, and earnest­ness about their enforcement. When Allah told the Prophet Ibrahim (P) that he had been appointed the Imam and Leader, the latter asked whether anyone of his family would also attain that position: In reply Allah said:
`My covenant does not include the wrong‑doers". (Surah al‑Baqarah, 2:124).
The Prophet Daud (P) was told by Allah: "O Daud! We have made you Our ‑representative on the earth. There­fore judge rightly between people". (Surah Sad, 38:26).
(3) Adequate knowledge of Islam, appropriate to his prominent position.
"Is he who guides the people to the truth more worthy to be followed or he who does not guide unless he himself is guided?" (Surah Yunus, 10:35).
(4) Enough competence for holding such a position and freedom from every defect not in keeping with Islamic leadership.
(5) His standard of living being equal to that of the low‑income people.
In this connection there is enough material in the sermons of Imam Ali (P) and in the epistles he sent to his officials. In a number of epistles it has been emphasized that an administrative officer should be free from love of money, ignorance, inefficiency, outrage, timidness, bribery, and violation of Islamic injunctions and traditions and should not be guilty of shedding blood.
The commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (P) says:
"You should remember that it is most inappropriate that a person, under whose charge the honour, the life, the property and the laws of the Muslims are placed should be:
• A lover of money and consequently should attempt to mis‑appropriate the property of other people;
• An ignorant person and consequently should mislead them;
• An unreliable person with whom others do not like to have relations;
• Discriminative in his treatment and favouring the influential people only;
• Accepting bribe and deviating from the course of justice and law, disregarding the laws and divine traditions and thus injuring the interests of the ummah". (Nahj al‑Balaghah).
In his charter to Malik al Ashtar Imam Ali (P) said:
"You must strictly refrain from shedding the blood of the innocent. There is nothing more provocative, more catastrophic and more destructive than indulging in that". (Nahj al‑Balaghah).
Once Imam Ali (P) received a report that a certain com­mander of a town in Persia was corrupt and fond of wine and women. He immediately wrote a letter to him, in the course of which he said:
"A man of your character is not fit to be entrusted with the defence of the borders or to be allowed to issue any order. Such a man is not fit to be promoted and no confidence can be reposed in him". (Nahj al‑Balaghah).
By this very letter the Imam recalled the officer concerned and asked him to relinquish his post.
These qualifications of those who are appointed to a high
office, are the natural corollary of an Islamic government.
As we have already stated:
• The Muslim ummah is an ideological society;
• Islamic law is the basis of the administration of this society;
• It is the joint responsibility of all the people to see that this law is implemented.
• In many cases it is inevitable to set up a vast organiza­ tion for this purpose.
• As this organization, including its head, is set up with a view to realize the aspirations of Islam and to establish the system and the laws of this religion, it is necessary that its leaders and functionaries should be aware of these aspirations and should have faith in them. They should be honest, competent and efficient. Should they not have these qualifications, the basic aims and objects of the organization can hardly
be realized.
Role of Shura and Bay’at
In this study we propose to deal with two questions namely consultation (Shura) and role of allegiance (Bay’at) briefly:
Role of consultation
In Islam consultation has an important role in connec­tion with social questions.
(a) Administrative affairs
In the Qur'an the holy Prophet was commanded:
"Hold consultation with them in regard to the conduct of affairs". (Surah Ale. Imran, 3:159).
Describing the characteristics of the believers the Qur'an says: "Whose affairs are a matter of counsel". (Surah al‑Shura, 42:38).
In the life account of the holy Prophet we find many instances of his consultation with his companions. For example, on the occasion of the Battle of Badr when he received the report that the caravan of Quraysh had escaped and was beyond the reach of the Muslims, and that the well‑equipped enemy had moved from Mecca with the intention to fight, he consulted his companions as to the action to be taken. It was with their consent that he decided to join the battle. He made consultations on the occasions of the Battle of Ohad and the Battle of the Ditch also. When Imam Husayn Ibn Ali (P), while on his way from Mecca to Kufah, received the report of the martyrdom of Muslim Ibn Aqeel he consulted his companions whether he should continue his journey.
From such evidence we learn that the management of government affairs and social questions should not be despotic and dictatorial.
(b) Election of the ruler
Certain Muslim sects are of the opinion that the election of a ruler (or Head of the State) is dependent on the voting of men of integrity, knowledge, virtue, and sound judgement. (al‑Ahkam al‑Sultaniyyah by Mawardi pp. 5 ‑ 6).
There is a difference of opinion as to the number of the voters necessary to form an electoral council. Some people (like Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) are of the view that a meeting of all men of opinion among the Muslim ummah is necessary. Others think that a meeting of a lesser number is also enough. According to a certain sect, the competent persons only nominate someone as a candidate for the caliphate, but the real factor in determining his election is the vote of the people. This sect regards the pledge of allegiance as a vote and considers the vote of the majority to be enough. (al‑Shakhsiyyah al‑Dawliyyah by Muhammad Kamil Yaqut p. 463).
Our comments in this connection are briefly as follows:
In those cases in which there is no special evidence that the holy Prophet designated a particular person to be the Head of the State, it is the general duty of the Muslim society to elect an eligible candidate to enforce the Islamic injunctions in the best possible manner. As a head of the state or ruler he must have certain qualifications. It is the duty of those who influence public opinion to introduce such persons to the masses and prevent the nomination of every Tom, Dick and Harry.
Secondly, none of the electoral councils held since the demise of the holy Prophet aimed at the introduction of a nominee. They were always held for the purpose of election and appointment. Thirdly the pledge of allegiance by all other people did not amount to election. That was only a proclamation of their loyalty to the ruler elected or appointed by the council.
(2) Role of the pledge of allegiance
The pledge of allegiance is a sort of covenant of loyalty and obedience which is concluded with a new ruler, or in certain cases it is a renewal of a covenant already existing. In the latter case it amounts to a vote of confidence in the government in power facing some extraordinary situation.
Usually the pledge of allegiance is accompanied by giving hand to the ruler in token of an undertaking to give him full support in all battles of life.
On several occasions on which the Muslims took the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet, the undertaking they gave was quite definite. At Aqabah the representatives of the people of Medina undertook to support him against his enemies in any battle anywhere.
A special undertaking was included in the text of the pledge taken at Hudaybiyah, known as Bay'at al‑Rizwan. (Surah al‑Fath, 48:18). The same was the case with the pledge taken by the immigrant women. (Surah al‑Mum­tahina, 60:12).
Anyhow, though a pledge of allegiance concerns the government affairs, it has nothing to do with the appoint­ment of a ruler. It only means the acknowledgement of his power and influence by the person taking the pledge, who declares his loyalty to the ruler concerned.
We know that Islam has emphatically enjoined adherence to all covenants in more than 30 verses of the Qur'an. To live up to one's commitments is necessary for the maintenance of one's good relations with others. All agree­ments, whether they are at the limited level of the indivi­duals, or are concluded between the ummah and the rulers or between the Muslim society and other societies should be respected. Anyhow a pledge of allegiance should not be construed to mean that loyalty is obligatory in all conditions. There are two pre‑requisites of the validity of a pledge: Firstly it should have been taken under proper conditions; and secondly the ruler must be abiding by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and must not personally have done anything to make him unfit for holding his office.
Loss of eligibility to rule
If a leader of congregational prayers loses his integrity, he is no longer fit to lead prayers. If the guardian of a minor becomes mentally unsound, he will be removed from guardianship by the authorities concerned. We have already said that a ruler must have certain qualifications. If he loses these qualifications, for example, he becomes lax in his faith in Islam, infringes Divine laws, misappro­priates funds out of public treasury, or governs tyranni­cally, in all these cases he is no longer fit to be the Head of a Muslim State.
However, the deposition of a ruler being a very grave matter affecting the interests of the whole nation, it must be thoroughly discussed at the meeting of a general assembly and the final decision in this respect should be taken by competent persons only. Everybody cannot express his individual opinion on such a vital question. Some authorities are of the opinion that the question of the deposition of a ruler should be decided only by the Islamic Legislative Assembly after due deliberations. (al‑Shakhsiyyah al‑Dawliyyah by Muhammad Kamil Yaqut).
According to the Shi'ah doctrine, this question cannot arise during the government of the Imams designated to Imam by the holy Prophet. According to the Shi'ah view all Imams are infallible and immune from every sin and slip. Their position is above that of ordinary integrity and purity. Anyhow, this question can arise even for the Shi'ah during the occultation of the designated Imam. In any case, the purity and fitness of the ruler is a vital question in the social system of Islam, and it is a big social duty of the Muslims to keep a constant watch over the activities of the rulers.
Caliphate and Imamate
Caliphate: Caliphate is another term signifying the supreme social and religious leadership. It also implies the question of the succession to the holy Prophet. A caliph is a person who, as a successor to the Prophet, assumes the leadership of the Muslims in regard to their secular and religious affairs.
The rulers who came to power after the demise of the holy Prophet invariably called themselves the caliphs, or successors to the Prophet, irrespective of the fact whether they were good or bad. The designation of Caliph continued till the downfall of the Ottoman Govern­ment in 1922.
The question of Caliphate has two aspects:
(1) Historical aspect in the sense that every Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman ruler, and even the Umayyads of Andalus, the Fatimid rulers of Egypt, and the rulers of several other dynasties, called themselves caliph of the Prophet and ruled under this designation. This is a histori­cal fact and there can be no controversy about it.
(2) Legal aspect in the sense whether anyone of them was really fit to hold this position in accordance with the true standards of Islam, which were valid not only in those days but which are valid for all times. To deal with this aspect of the question, we have to go through a detailed dis­cussion of the various questions related to the government:
Does the accession to the position of Caliphate depend on designation by the holy Prophet as is maintained by the Shi'ah in respect of the succession of the twelve Imams on the basis of authentic evidence?
Or is the question of succession to be decided by a council? If so, by which council and consisting of how many people? Does the opinion of the people decide the question of accession to Caliphate, or is their duty only to pledge their allegiance and to declare their loyalty?
For a person to accede to Caliphate is it enough to have been designated by the preceding caliph or is it necessary that this designation be ratified by a council or by a general election?
What are the conditions of the accession to Caliphate? Can a caliph be deposed? If so, by which authority? These are the questions which the Muslim scholars have discussed exhaustively in their detailed or short books.
Imamate: With the advent of the Prophet of Islam and the express declaration by the Qur'an that he was the last Prophet, the age of Prophethood came to an end. Now no new religion can be revealed. Islam is the last Divine religion. But still there are certain needs of the Muslim society which should be met, such as:
(1) All the functions of a ruler and a government, including the settlement of legal disputes and maintenance of law and order.
(2) Propagation of Islam and the expansion of the sphere of its social and governmental influence.
(3) Exposition of the Qur'an and the religious law.
(4) Constructive education of the people, in the sense that the imam being a model of all virtues and being free from all sins and faults sets a practical example and a standard of virtuous life. People can, without any hesita­tion, acknowledge him to be their leader and attain salva­tion under his guidance.
According to the Sunnis the first two duties are within the jurisdiction of the caliph. During the period of the companions of the Prophet, the third was also to some extent included among his functions, in the sense that his exposition of the Qur'an and the law was authentic. But in this respect he was not distinguished from other companions, because this function did not exclusively pertain to him.
As for the fourth function, especially at its full‑fledged level, they do not consider it to be a necessary qualifica­tion of a caliph.
In contrast, the Shi'ah believe that all these functions are combined in the person of an imam designated by the holy Prophet. Anyhow, the governmental functions, dispensing justice, and taking action to expand Islam through propagation and jihad, are possible only when the reins of governmQnt are actually in the hands of an Imam, otherwise when he does not have `a free hand', that is, he is not in power, he cannot practically perform these functions, though he possesses all the necessary qualifica­tions and capabilities to do so.
As for the other two functions, they imply complete knowledge of Islam and moral leadership of the highest calibre. This is a position which can neither be assigned nor withdrawn, by anybody. It is not subject to voting or the issuance of an order. An imam has full knowledge of the Divine commandments and Islamic standards. He possesses all the virtues, and is the mirror of Islam. His knowledge and worth are an undeniable fact and a Divine gift. They are not conferred on him by any human being. To enable you to comprehend the Shi'ah logic in this respect let us quote a portion of the lengthy sermon of Imam al‑Riza (P) from Usul al‑Kafi, volume one.
• "Imamate is religious leadership. It entails the management of the affairs of the Muslim society and
improving and exalting the position of the Muslims.
• An Imam protects the Divine bounds; defends the Divine religion and invites the people to Allah by
means of logic, argument and good advice.
• An Imam is a trustee of the people appointed by Allah.
• He is His sign and His vicegerent on the earth.
• He is immune against all sins and free from all defects.
• He is peerless in his time. None can attain his position.
• No scholar can equal him.
• All virtues are manifested in him.
• He has many kinds of knowledge which cannot be polluted by ignorance.
• He is an indefatigable guardian of the ummah.
• He is the source of purity, piety, knowledge and devotion.
• He is truly fit to be a leader. He knows the intricacies of politics.
• He is infallible; enjoys Divine support and is free from every fault and slip.
• Allah has given him such a position that he is His sign to the people and a model of virtue and excellence".
In short just as the Prophet of Islam was elevated to the rank of Prophethood on account of his superior qualities, his successor also should at least be the second to Prophet.
In view of these basic criteria of the ruler and leader of the ummah, and in pursuance of what the holy Prophet said about the chiefship of Imam Ali (P), a number of prominent Muslims and well‑known companions of the Prophet seriously supported the selection of Ali (P) as the ruler immediately after the demise of the holy Prophet. They believed that he alone could lead, on correct lines and to its logical end, the movement started by the Prophet and advance to a fruitful stage for the deliverance of humanity from all anti‑God and anti‑man propensities.
This group of the supporters and followers of Ali (P) and the believers in the necessity of his rulership came to be known as Shi ah.
The word, Shi ah means a group of friends and followers. It is better if we quote the words of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (P) in regard to the origin and interpretation of this word.
In one of his letters Imam Ali (P) says:
"This letter is from the servant of Allah ‑ Ali, Amir al‑Mo'minin to his Shi'ahs; and this name ‑ Shi'ah ‑ is the name which Allah adores, and has put it down in the Qur'an; Surely one of his (Noah's) Shi'ahs was Ibrahim (P). [54] And you are (in fact) the Shi'ah of the Prophet Muhammad (P)".
The Qur'an says:
"One of them belonged to his Shi ah (supporters) and the other an enemy". (Surah al‑Qasas, 28:15).
Here Shi'ah means a group of supporters.
There are certain sayings of the holy Prophet in which he referred to the Shi'ah of Ali (P).
Once he pointed to Ali (P) and said: "By Him in whose hands my life is, this man and his Shi'ah will be successful on the Day of Resurrection". (al‑Durr al‑Manthur ‑ com­mentary on the verse 7 of Surah al‑Bayyinah ‑ by Suyuti).
On other occasions also he used similar expressions. Such instances have been mentioned in Sawaiq al‑Aluhriqah by Ibn Hajar Shafi'i and in Nihayah by Ibn Athir.
Thus the Muslims from the Prophet's time were conversant with the idea that Ali (P) would be an Imam and would have followers who would be a model of true Muslims.
After the demise of the holy Prophet while the Hashimites and some of his other companions were busy in arrang­ing his funeral, a group of the Muhajirs and the Ansar assembled at Saqifah to decide the question of Caliphate.
This group at last announced that Abu Bakr had been elected the ruler of the Muslim ummah. The Hashimites and some other companions refused to pledge their allegiance and openly criticized the decision. They held that Ali (P) was superior in every respect, and the holy Prophet had already hinted at his imamate. Imam Ali (P) himself said:
"By Allah! We are the most deserving of Caliphate, because we belong to the House of the Prophet. Among us there are people who understand the Qur'an, have enough know­ledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and are conversant with the problems of the society. They defend the rights of the people against all violations and distribute wealth equitably. Such persons deserve to hold the reins of the government". (al‑Imamah wal‑Siyasah by Ibn Qutayba).
Some other companions of the Prophet, like Salman and Abuzar made similar statements in public and before. (Ibn Abil Hadid Mo'tazali vol. 2 p. 17 and Tarikh Ya'qubi vol. 2 p. 148).
But as the newly‑founded Islamic society was threatened by the danger of external enemies and internal hypocrites, Imam Ali (P) avoided to take action against the government and did not like to disrupt Muslim unity in those critical circumstances. He declined to accept the proposal of Abu Sufyan to declare himself to be the caliph and start a struggle and join fighting.
Anyhow, the question of the fitness of Ali (P) for Caliphate could not be shelved. A number of the companions of the Prophet stuck to this position. Gradually his supporters or the Shi'ah became a distinct body. Some scholars have collected, from various sources (e.g. Isabah, Usud al‑Ghaba, Isti'ab) 300 names of the companions who were Shi'ah.
The second caliph came to power on the basis of his nomination by the first. This added to the worry of the Hashimites and the close associates of Imam Ali (P). They apprehended that in future also, in contravention of the instructions of the Prophet, the caliphs would be appointed on the basis of their nomination by their predecessors.
The six‑member committee appointed by the second caliph, though it included Imam Ali (P), was formed in a way that he was left out, and Uthman was appointed to be the third caliph.
The foundation of the Umayyad power was laid in Syria during the time of the second caliph. Now as Uthman belonged to this family, the power of the Umayyads was further increased and consolidated. The administration of several other areas of the Muslim territory was handed over to the relatives of the caliph. Gradually justice and equality of Islam gave place to discrimination and partiality, and an oligarchical government was set up.
These events added to the resentment of the people and strengthened the Shi'ah movement. Abuzar, the well­known companion of the Prophet was expelled from Medina because he criticized the rulers for their hoarding of money and mishandling of public property. He was continuously persecuted, till he died. Another companion, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who raised his voice against the expulsion of Abuzar earned the displeasure of the caliph. He was also harassed till his death.
At last the resentment of the people reached its boiling point. Some people revolted. Uthman was killed. Under the pressure of public opinion Imam Ali (P) became caliph. But it was too late.
The Umayyads, who were old enemies of Islam, were now appearing in the garb of the defenders of the faith and by means of their unlimited wealth and power had entrenched themselves in Syria and several other points of the Muslim territory.
A new class of aristocrats having huge income had sprung up. Naturally Imam Ali (P), who was dedicated to upholding justice and equality and doing away with paganism and corruption, could not put up with this situation.
He dismissed Mu'awiyah and restrained the aristocrats from playing with public treasury. Bat the resistance of the deviators and self‑seekers increased, and by and by three groups rose to fight against Imam Ali (P).
(1) The haughty aristocrats who instigated the Battle of the Camel. They were defeated, but this conflict cost the Muslims dearly.
(2) The Umayyads under the command of Mu'awiyah, the supporters of aristocratic and racist government and the revivers of despotic imperialism who caused the Siffin affair. When they were about to be defeated, they resorted to a ruse to stop fighting. Mu'awiyah was able to continue his unlawful government.
(3) The foolish pietists who during the Battle of Siffin were instigated to rise against Imam All (P). They caused the Battle of Nahrawan. During this struggle the way of Imam Ali (P) became distinct from that of others and all the good Muslims who liked him rallied round him.
After the martyrdom of Imam Ali (P), the field was open to the old enemies of Islam to do what they liked. The Umayyads were now masters of the whole Muslim world. They trampled on the Islamic principles and standards to the utmost possible extent. Their tyrannies and massacres, their open violation of the Islamic laws, their hostility to the Shi'ah and the members of the Holy Family, who were the champions of Islamic justice, and above all the tragedy perpetrated by them at Karbala, and the massacre at Medina a year later, made the position of the Shi'ah extremely difficult. But these events also galvanised the Shi'ah and turned them into a compact body, having as their distinctive feature two important doctrines in the Islamic and social fields. These doctrines of Imamate and justice were derived from the Book of Allah and the sayings of the Prophet and the Shi'ah regarded their observance as a pre‑requisite of being a perfect Muslim.
Doctrines of Justice and Imamate
According to the Shi'ah belief, one of the principles of the Islamic Faith is that of human freedom and responsibility and Divine justice with regard to the prescription of duties and the recompense and retribution on the basis of the deeds performed out of free will. The Shi'ah also believe in the setting up of a just system of the distribution of wealth, equal opportunities of employment and respect for the rights of all individuals.
The Shi'ah deduced the principle of justice from the fundamentals of Islam and wanted it to be observed both by the rulers and the ruled. But the rulers gradually pro­pagated the philosophy of predestination. They wanted the people to believe that all their misfortunes were the outcome of a preordained fate, to which they had no alternative but to submit patiently. These rulers insisted that the people should exercise no free will, should make no efforts to change the existing situation and should not feel any responsibility towards the social events.
Further, the rulers maintained that their own actions should be interpreted on the basis of a sort of ijtihad. In other words it should be conceded that they had a right to have their own private opinions and could not be blamed even if they were wrong.
The Shi'ah strongly opposed this attitude. They declared that according to the teachings of Islam man was a respon­sible being who could exercise his will, that society was a product of human determination, and that changes in history could be brought about by the efforts of resolute and purposive men.
At the same time they put forward definite criteria of ijtihad so that every selfish and irresponsible opinion might not be termed as such.
Doctrine of Imamate
With regard to the Imamate and headship of the ummah the Shi'ah believe that:
Firstly, the head and the ruler of the Muslims should be a person, whose individual and social life may be the best model of the Islamic way of life. Not only his Muslim followers should be able to accept him as an object of imitation, but even the non‑Muslims may find in him and his leadership the best example of Muslim conduct.
Secondly, if it is known that Allah or His Prophet has designated a person to be the leader of the Muslims, he will automatically be given preference over all others. Our being obedient to Allah and His Prophet necessitates that we must not accept any Imam in the presence of one designated by them. There can be no doubt that to know the worth and capability of an individual there is no source more reliable than Allah and His Prophet.
Evil consequences of the infringement of this doctrine
(a) The violation of this doctrine culminated in the total collapse of the Islamic system of government. Gradually it took on the colour of hereditary despotism. In the name of Islam, paganism, egotism and feudalism of the Roman and Sasanid emperors were revived in a new form. Injustice and chaos prevailed and all‑round human development, freedom of thought, equitable distribution of wealth and the selection of competent persons for the administration of public affairs came to an end.
Lady Fatimah‑tuz‑Zehra (P), daughter of the holy Prophet in her last public address delivered before the Muhajirs and Ansar women, said:
"I wonder what characteristic of Ali displeased the people that they ceased to support him. By Allah! They did not like his sharp sword, his steady steps, and his strictness in the implementation of the Divine commandments. But by Allah! they themselves are the losers. People never suffered injustice under Ali. He always took them to the spring of justice and knowledge, and slaked their thirst".
Then she made the following forecast:
"What they have done is like a pregnant she‑camel. Wait till it delivers. Then you will draw from it a bowl of blood and deadly poison instead of milk. That is how the doers undergo a terrible loss and the coming generations reap the unlucky fruit of what their predecessors sowed. Rest assured that commotion and turmoil will overtake you. I warn you that you will be confronted with sword, coercion, chaos and despotic tyranny. Your property will be carried off as booty and your people will be threshed like ripe corn". [55]
(b) Muslims lost competent authority on Islamic knowledge
Those, who were the interpreters of revelation and the exponents of Islamic knowledge, were cast aside, while what the companions of the Prophet had learnt from him was limited. For a long time the caliphs did not pay attention to the recording of hadith. They even dis­couraged that.
With the expansion of the sphere of Islamic influence the needs and the problems of the society increased. In these circumstances there was the need of a reliable source fully aware of the spirit of the Qur'an to impart knowledge like the Prophet himself on a scale commensurate with the expansion of the Muslim world. Especially the need of a source above all suspicion of selfishness and serving the cause of any evil power was strongly felt.
Though such a source actually existed, unfortunately the Muslim society could not be benefited by it. On the other hand, the evil rulers, with a view to advance their own selfish ends, employed some prominent scholars and heavily bribed them out of public treasury to fabricate traditions in their interests and against those of their rivals. This false propaganda was rampant during the time of the Umayyads.
Anyhow, the Shi'ah never forgot the doctrine of Imamate, nor did they accept the validity of the evil governments. They continued to be guided by the traditions of the imams, for they knew that the Prophet had said:
"I am leaving two precious things with you: the Book of Allah (Qur'an) and my Progeny (Ahl al‑Payt). They will not be separated from each other". And that is no wonder, because an ideological school and its leader are not separable. Without a suitable leader there can be no certainty of its continuance.
Back to the main discussion
What we have said so far makes it clear that the Shi'ah do not believe in anything additional to the fundamentals of Islam and its teachings. In actual fact they are the upholders of true Islamic principles and advocates of a right and just government. It is significant that in their most serious clashes with the rulers of the time, these very objectives were always conspicuous. Let us mention a few instances: Ibn Ziyad said: "Ibn Aqeel, you are a bad man. The people of this city were living calmly. There was no disunity. You came here and provoked discord. You are instigating one group against another".
Muslim Ibn Aqeel said:
"No, that's not true. The people here believe that your father killed many pious and freedom‑loving persons out of them, and caused the blood to flow. He revived the traditions of Khusrow and Caesar. I have come to invite the people to justice and to the commandments of Allah". Ibn Ziyad said:
"Do you think you have a claim on this government?" Muslim said: "It's not a question of thinking. We're sure". [56]
During the imamate of Imam Husayn (P), Mu'awiyah received certain reports about him. He wrote a letter to him, warning him against creating trouble. In reply Imam Husayn (P) wrote a detailed letter to Mu'awiyah, enumera­ting many of his (Mu'awiyah's) crimes, including the killing of those who opposed his tyranny, and the innova­tions he had introduced in the religion. In the end Imam Husayn (P) wrote:
"You ordered your assignee (Ibn Sumayyah) to kill those who adhered to the religion of Ali, and he carried out your orders. You know well that the religion of Ali is the same as that of the Prophet. It is because of your using the name of this very religion that you are occupying your present position. You say that I should not create trouble. But I do not find any trouble bigger than your government. In these circumstances I think the best thing I can do is to fight against you". (al‑Imamah wal‑Siyasah vol. 1 p. 190)
Zayd ibn Arqam was shocked at the criminal treatment which was being meted out to the Prophet's family by the Umayyads. Once addressing the close associates of ibn Ziyad, he said:
"You people are no better than slaves. You killed the son of Fatimah and made Ibn Marjanah your ruler. He kills the pious, and he has enslaved you. You submit to humiliation. What an unlucky lot you are !" (Tabari)
In the course of all these encounters there was a talk of injustice, humiliation, slavery, manslaughter, trampling of the rights, and also of religious injunctions, rightful government and the supremacy (walayat) of the Holy Family. All this talk is purely Islamic.
It wants to defend only what is right and just, for that is what Islam connotes. In a wider sense it wants but to defend men and his humanity.
All these events took place before the insurrection of the Iranians against the Umayyads and their rallying round the Holy family. Hence the notion that Shia'ism is an Iranian invention is only fantastic. It is either a selfish distortion of history or a biased exaggeration of the Iranian role in the big changes in the history of Islam.
Historical investigation shows that the Iranians opposed the Umayyad government because of its injustice, tyranny and undue discrimination against the non‑Arab Muslims
The inception of the Safawid government in Iran and its wars with the Ottomans in the early 10th century also have nothing to do with the beginning and development of Shia'ism. The events and the movements of the early Islamic years and the philosophical and scholastic studies of the Shi'ah preceded the Safawids by centuries. Hence how can it be imagined that they had any hand in the development of Shia'ism?
Martyr Muhammad Husayni Beheshti & Martyr Muhammad Jawad Bahonar
Source: Imam reza network

The establishment of an Islamic government as one of the highest religious duties

With governmental support, tenets of religions and schools of thought could be implemented in society. Because of this, every group wants to establish a government in order to attain and implement its own objectives. Islam, which is the most superior heavenly creed, also pursues the establishment of an Islamic government and it considers the formation and preservation of the government of truth as one of the highest religious duties.
The Noble Prophet of Islam (S) exerted all his efforts in establishing an Islamic government and strove to lay its foundation in the city of Medina. After his death—despite the inspiration of the infallible Imams (‘a) and the distinguished ‘ulama’ to continue this Islamic government—the governments that came into being, with the exception of a very few cases, have not been divine, and till the time of the advent of Hadrat Mahdi (‘a) most governments will be based on falsehood.
The hadiths that have been transmitted to us from the Prophet (S) and the Imams (‘a), describe the governments prior to the uprising of al-Mahdi (‘atfs) in general terms. We will now point out some of their characteristics.
The Despotism of Governments
One of the ills which human society will suffer before the advent of the Imam (‘a) is injustice and tyranny perpetrated by governments against the people. In this regard, the Messenger of God (S) said: “The world will be filled with tyranny and injustice such that there will be fear and war in every house.”[1][12]
Hadrat ‘Ali (‘a) said: “The world will be filled with tyranny and injustice such that there will be fear and grief in every house.”[2][13]
Imam al-Baqir[3][14] (‘a) said: “Hadrat Qa’im[4][15] (‘a) will not rise up except at a time full of fear and dread.”[5][16]
This fear and dread will mostly stem from the rule of despotic and obstinate rulers in the world before the advent of al-Mahdi (‘a).
In this regard, Imam al-Baqir said: “The Mahdi (‘a) will rise up at a time when the helm of affairs would be in the hands of tyrants.”[6][17]
Ibn ‘Umar said: “(At the end of time) a noble man having wealth and children will wish for death because of the suffering and adversity he will experience from the rulers.”[7][18]
It is worthy of note that the followers of the Prophet (S) will suffer not only from the aggression and encroachment of alien powers but also from their own despotic and self-centered governments in such a way that the earth, notwithstanding its expanse, will become too small for them. Instead of experiencing a sense of freedom, they will feel that they are in bondage. Even now in the Muslim world many leaders in Muslim countries are not on good terms with Islam and the Muslims are alien to them.
In this context, it is thus narrated in the hadiths: The Noble Messenger of Islam (S) said: “At the end of time, a great calamity—greater than which has not been heard of—will be experienced by my ummah[8][19] in such a manner that the vastness of the earth will become narrow for them, and the earth will be filled with injustice and despotism to such an extent that the believer will not find a sanctuary in which he could seek refuge.”[9][20]
Some hadiths have emphasized the Muslims’ entanglements with self-centered leaders and give glad tidings of the advent of a universal savior after the rule of oppressive rulers. This set of hadiths has made mention of three types of government that will emerge after the Noble Messenger of Islam (S). These three types of government are the following: the caliphate, the emirates and kingdoms, and finally the tyrants.
The Noble Prophet (S) said: “After me the caliphate will rule; after the caliphs the emirs will come, followed by kings, and after them tyrants and oppressors will rule, then the Mahdi (‘atfs) will reappear.”[10][21]
The Composition of States
If those who administer the government are righteous and efficient individuals, the people will live in comfort and ease. However, if unworthy individuals rule, the people will naturally experience suffering and agony. It is exactly the same condition which will prevail in the period prior to the advent of Hadrat Mahdi (‘atfs). At that time, states will be formed by treacherous, transgressing and oppressive individuals.
The Noble Prophet of Islam (S) said: “A time will come when rulers will be oppressors; commanders will be treacherous; judges will be transgressors; and ministers will be tyrants.”[11][22]
The Influence of Women on Governments
Another problem that is discussed concerning governments during the end of time is the dominance and influence of women, who will either directly rule over the people or subject the rulers under their sway. This subject has various ramifications. In this regard, Hadrat ‘Ali (‘a) said: “A time will come when corrupt and adulterous individuals will live in coquetry and bounty and the ignoble will acquire position and status while the just men will become weak.” It was asked: “When will this period come to pass?” He said: “It is at the time when women and bondswomen take charge of the affairs of the people and youngsters become rulers.”[12][23]
The Rule of the Young
Rulers are supposed to be well-experienced and good managers in order for the people to live in comfort and ease. If, in their stead, youngsters or feebleminded people would take charge of affairs, one should seek refuge in God from the evil of the sedition (fitnah) that will arise.
In this regard, it will suffice to mention two hadiths:
The Noble Prophet (S) stated: “Seek refuge in God from the first seventy years and the rule of youngsters.”[13][24]
Sa‘id ibn Musayyib said: “A sedition (fitnah) will come to pass and its beginning will be the game of the young.”[14][25]
The Instability of Governments
A government with political stability is the one capable of serving the people of a country, for if it is in a state of continuous change, it would be incapable of undertaking great tasks in the country.
The governments at the end of time will be in a shambles, and sometimes a government will assume office at the beginning of the day and will be removed by sunset. In this regard, Imam as-Sadiq[15][26] (‘a) said: “How will you be when there would be no Imam to guide; would you remain without knowledge and learning; and be fed up with each other? (It will be) the time when you would be put to a test and the good and the bad from among you will be separated from each other and the chaff shall be separated from the grain. At that time swords will be sheathed and unsheathed alternately while war will be a blaze. A government will assume office at the beginning of the day and will be deposed and removed with bloodshed by the end of the day.”[16][27]
The Impotence of Powers in Administering Countries
Before the advent of the Imam of the Time (‘atfs), repressive governments will be weakened and this will pave the way for the people’s acceptance of the global government of Hadrat Mahdi. In this regard, Imam as-Sajjad[17][28] (‘a) has said concerning the noble ayah (verse):
حَتَّى إِذَا رَأَوْا مَا يُوعَدُونَ فَسَيَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ أَضْعَفُ نَاصِرًا وَأَقَلُّ عَدَدًا
“When they see what they are promised, they will then know who is weaker in supporters and fewer in numbers.”[18][29]
“The promise that has been given in this verse is related to Hadrat Qa’im (‘a), his companions, supporters, and enemies. At the time when the Imam of the Time rises up, his enemies will be the weakest of enemies and will have the least number of forces and armaments.”[19][30]
Najmuddin Tabasi
Source: Imam reza network

An Examination and Criticism of the Theory of Separation of Powers

The government has acquired the image of a pyramid since the beginning. Aristotle portrayed government as having three ‘sides’. One side of government was allotted to the elite group of society. This section which is presently called “legislative power” was composed of those who used to ratify necessary ordinances for the political system by using their intellect. The other ‘sides’ were equivalents of executive and judicial powers called:
(1) the governors and administrators of society and
(2) those who rendered justice.
In the past, Western political philosophers had also subscribed to the triple dimensions of government, and finally, Montesquieu identified the three branches of government, viz. legislative, judiciary and executive. For this purpose, he wrote the book The Spirit of the Laws[28] (1748; trans. 1750) in which he elaborately discussed the structure and framework of each of these powers. His intellectual effort and new ideas popularized the theory of separation of power so much so that some have identified him as the founder of the theory.
Nowadays, the constitutions of most countries, including ours, are codified based on the theory of separation of powers, considering the independence of three powers from one another as one of the principles of democracy. Internationally, a country is considered democratic if its legislative, judicial and executive powers are independent and no single power dominates the other two.
Reasons behind the separation of powers
1. The functions and responsibilities of government are complex and multiple and their performance requires awareness, knowledge, experience, and expertise which is beyond the capability of one person, and necessitates division of labor and separation of powers. As such, all the functions performed by the government are classified into three. Of course, most of them belong to the executive branch. For example, taking command of war and defense affairs, attending to deprived members of society, administering training, education, health and medical affairs pertain to executive power. In fact, judiciary engages only in rendering justice and the legislature in lawmaking. Attending to the needs of society are among the responsibilities of the executive.
In view of the extensiveness and enormity of the executive branch, it can be said that placed alongside legislative and judicial powers, executive power is one of the branches of government. However, in the pyramid of power it definitely has more ‘sides’ than one. At least, in the division of power in which one ‘side’ of the pyramid is allotted to every power, the scope and extent of executive power is far greater.
The issue to be questioned is this: Can the diversity of responsibilities of government be a sufficient justification for the division of powers and their independence from one another? The answer is that the diversity of responsibilities can only justify the separation and independence of powers. It can never be regarded as the sole reason for the separation of powers. When we examine executive power, we observe different responsibilities which are not related to one another such as war, defense, and health concerns. Yet, they are all within the scope of responsibility of the executive power. If diversity of responsibilities and functions causes the separation of powers, then we ought to have more than ten powers, each assuming a distinct set of responsibilities.
2. The main reason and justification for the separation of powers which prompted Montesquieu to introduce the theory of separation of powers is that man naturally or inherently tends to dominate and oppress others. If all three powers remain under the control of a person or a group, the ground for despotism and abuse of power will be much greater because a single person or group engages in legislation, adjudication and implementation of laws.
The inclination to enact laws, implement them, and adjudicate for personal benefits is greater. In view of this tendency, Montesquieu believed that in order to mitigate this power, combat despotism and abuse of power, the three powers must be separated from are another.
We realized that if the powers are separated from each other and become independent, the ground for abuse of executive power is restricted, because once the judiciary is totally autonomous, all are equal before law, none is immune from punishments, and all are obliged to respond to summons from the judiciary. The judiciary has the opportunity to summon to a court of law even the highest ranking executive officials of the country, and convict and penalize them if they are proven to have violated laws.
Similarly, if the legislative power violates the constitution and Islamic laws in some cases, the judicial power will have the chance to investigate it. In the same way, if the legislature is independent, it will not be influenced by any pressure exerted by the judiciary or executive. During the time of ratifying bills, members of the parliament can think independently and not be dictated by other powers.
The impossibility of totally separating and delineating the powers
Political philosophy theorists opine that the realization of real democracy depends on the independence and separation of powers both in theory and practice. A political system may possibly be established on the basis of separation of powers and pretend that the three branches of government are totally independent and not influenced by the others, but in practice one power, for certain reasons, may interfere in the domain of other powers and attempt to dominate and control them.
If we examine the political systems established under the name of democracy in the world, we will find that it is rare to find a government in which the three powers are totally independent, or the judiciary and legislature are not somehow influenced by the executive. Once the budget and facilities are at the disposal of the executive, and elections are conducted and supervised by it, chances that those who are in the executive will gain the upper hand over their rivals in multiparty elections. Maintaining power after the elections, the other branches of government will also come under their control.
For this reason, we see executive power and its high officials openly or secretly interfere in other branches of government and exert pressure on them. This is especially true in countries with a parliamentary form of government, where the high-ranking officials of executive power are also elected by parliament from among the deputies or MPs. That is, the MPs are directly elected by the people and then through a majority vote the executive officials and ministers are elected from among the MPs.
In presidential systems, in which people directly elect the president, executive power is totally in the hands of the president. The executive also interferes and influences the legislature and judiciary. This is especially true in many countries where the constitution has granted the president the power to veto and nullify certain ratified bills of the congress and cabinet. This means that the legislature does not impose its views on the executive and control it. The members of parliament who have the legislative right sit together and ratify a bill through a majority vote after holding discussions and deliberations, but since the constitution itself grants the president this veto power, a ratified bill of congress can be rendered null and void.
I do not know any country whose three branches of government are totally independent and not under the influence of each other, and in which one branch does not somehow interfere in the affairs of other branches. As such, the separation of powers stipulated in the constitution is only on paper. In actual practice, there is no such thing as separation of powers or their independence from one another. The executive actually overshadows the other two.
In view of this interference among powers, it is worth reflecting on the real possibility of delineation of functions and scope of responsibility of each of the three powers; the separation of essentially legislative issues from the executive power, and reciprocally, the separation of essentially executive issues from the legislative domain. We can see in our country as well as others that some functions of legislative nature have been entrusted to the government, i.e. the executive.
For example, within the framework of the constitution, the cabinet passes a bill and implements it as a law. Of course, the said bill also requires the approval and signature of the head of the legislature but sometimes just informing the parliament is sufficient. In some forms of government, there is no need of even that. The mere fact that executive orders and bylaws are ratified and issued by cabinet legally makes them binding and subject for execution. But even in cases where the approval and signature of the speaker is considered a requisite, that approval or signature is essentially ceremonial. In practice, whatever the cabinet ratifies or issues will be approved by the speaker of the house. Assuming that the signature of the speaker is not ceremonial in essence, with his approval will it not be considered ratified by members of parliament?
Some issues and functions are legislative in nature but because they are urgent and need to be implemented immediately, they are included in the functions of the executive, and the constitution has granted authority to the executive to ratify them. Meanwhile, some functions are essentially executive in form but because of their vital role and importance, the constitution stipulates that their implementation depends on the endorsement and approval of the legislative. For example, signing of international treaties and pacts on military and economic issues and granting of rights to foreign companies to explore and exploit ground resources have executive underpinnings, but as stipulated by the constitution, they must be approved and ratified by the legislative body. Our point is that theoretically the total separation of functions of the legislative from the executive is an incorrect and illogical venture.
Furthermore, in various forms of government, apart from the parliament there are other parallel councils and assemblies which perform legislative functions. For example, in our country the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution[29] passes bills which are treated as laws.
The nature of these laws requires that they be ratified by the deputies to the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis), but because of the importance of cultural issues for our political system legislation of major cultural matters must be entrusted to those who have the required expertise in formulating cultural policies and resolutions. There are also other special institutions which are considered an integral part of the executive. Their officials give decisions as law enforcers and have no legislative functions. For instance, the Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Economic Council are composed of experts who, compared to others, are more talented with profounder insight in their relevant fields and meticulously study, examine and identify the key strategic issues and make important decisions for the country.
It should have become clear from our discussion that total or absolute separation of the three powers, especially the separation of responsibilities and functions of the executive from the legislative is theoretically onerous and practically unrealistic. In most countries, the executive openly or secretly interferes in functions of the legislature and judiciary. Therefore, in order to limit and control this interference and meddling, there is a need for a sort of contract and agreement.
Need for an institution that coordinates and supervises the three powers
Even if absolute separation of the three powers is really possible and we can have an autonomous legislature, executive and judiciary, in terms of policymaking and administering the country we will face a serious problem splitting up the political system. It would seem as if there are three governments ruling over a given country, each of which administers a part of national affairs and whose jurisdiction has nothing to do with that of the other two.
In a nutshell, the necessity of maintaining the cohesion of its political system, a country requires the existence of an axis in the government which maintains the unity and solidarity of the system, cooperation between the three powers and supervises the performance of each power.
There is a need, therefore, for a supreme coordinating institution which can solve differences, frictions and clashes among the powers, and at the same time, be the axis of unity in society; for, a society ruled by three autonomous powers may not be treated as a unified society and it may willy-nilly lead to dispersion and disunity.
In a bid to solve the abovementioned problem we shall deal with the approaches represented by Islam.
Wilayah al-faqih as the unifying axis of society and the political system
In the Islamic system the best way of solving the abovementioned problems is to make sure that an infallible person occupies the highest position in the political hierarchy. Naturally, once such a person occupies the highest government post, he will serve as the pivot of unity and the coordinator of the different powers and solve any friction, differences and discord among the powers. Moreover, being immune from any form of egoism, profit-seeking, and partisanship, he will never be under the influence of ungodly motives and intentions. (Of course, as we said earlier, the ideal form of Islamic government will only be realized during the time of an infallible Imam.
In the second and lower form of Islamic government, the person who occupies the highest government post is the most similar to the infallible Imams (‘a). Apart from his possession of the required qualifications, he has the highest level of piety and sense of justice after the Infallibles (‘a). That person who is to be recognized as the wali al-faqih is the pivot of unity of society and government, the coordinator of the three powers, and the observer of the performance of public servants. He is the overall guide of government and the chief policymaker.
In order for power-holders not to abuse their authority, Montesquieu and others advanced the theory of the separation of powers which is universally accepted and effective to some extent. But it does not solve the main problem. If government officials in the three branches do not have true piety and moral integrity, corruption in society and government will also mutate and permeate the three branches of government. In this case, if we observe that the corruption in the executive branch has decreased, it is because the said branch has been limited, constituting only one of the three powers. But we should not think that corruption in the government has decreased, because it has permeated the judiciary as well as the legislature which is usually under the sway of the executive.
Therefore, the only way to prevent corruption and one power’s interference and meddling in other powers’ affairs is that we should lay more emphasis on piety and moral virtue. Every administrator or official who shoulders a particular set of responsibilities must have a certain degree of piety commensurate to the importance and level of his position.
Naturally, the person who occupies the highest government post is supposed to be the most pious of people, officials and administrators. Similarly, he must be preeminent in knowledge of laws and management. Thus, if there are shortcomings and deficiencies in the three powers, through the leader’s lofty efforts and blessings, affairs will be set right and problems will gradually be solved. As an example, throughout the twenty years[30] of existence of the Islamic government in our country, we have witnessed and do witness the vital, pivotal and enlightening role of the Supreme Leader.
Notes:
[28] Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). An electronic text of the book is available online at http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/montesquieu/spiritoflaws.pdf. [Trans.]
[29] Imam Khomeini issued a decree on Khordad 23, 1359 AHS (June 13, 1980) on the formation of the Cultural Revolution Headquarters. On Adhar 19, 1363 AHS (December 10, 1984) he made a directive regarding the formation of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution to replace the Cultural Revolution Headquarters. [Trans.]
[30] It is almost three decades now. [Trans.]

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Different Levels of Understanding the Islamic Government

In previous discussions we described the structure of the Islamic system and described the Islamic government as a pyramid having at its top a person who is directly or indirectly designated and appointed by God. This idea is advanced in political philosophy as a theory, but to prove that this idea is indeed the theory of Islam and the best one that can be presented about governance and the macrocosmic management of Islamic society, requires meticulous academic study and examination. There are relevant questions which the experts and fuqaha must answer after conducting extensive academic research. These questions can be answered on three levels.
1. General understanding
Sometimes, in order to know their responsibilities and duties people refer to an expert or specialist who can answer their questions and specify their responsibilities according to his knowledge. For example, laities refer to maraji‘at-taqlid [sources of emulation], asking them questions and requesting them to determine their practical responsibilities in religion. It is also like the referral to the experts of every field. For example, patients consult their physicians and ask for medicine that will cure them. People refer to a civil engineer for their house design and plans. In these cases, general and practical answers are given and there will be no mention of the intellectual basis of an answer. Actually, the product and extract of extensive scientific efforts, ijtihad and assiduous investigations are presented to people.
Evidently, our society already has a general knowledge of the Islamic government because of the establishment of the Islamic system in our country. Perhaps, prior to the victory of the Islamic Revolution, there might had been people here and there who were unaware of the Islamic government or the theory of wilayah al-faqih and who needed to be informed. But now no one asks about the realization and establishment of the Islamic government. Of course, it does not mean that the notion of Islamic government does not need any elaborate, comprehensive and complete explanation. Rather, the point is that the theory of wilayah al-faqih and the Islamic government has already been settled and clarified to our society so much so that even opponents and foreigners are aware of it although they sternly oppose Islam and the Islamic Revolution.
Our people who have discerned the truthfulness of our system faithfully defend the great achievements of the Islamic Revolution, i.e. the Islamic government or the wilayah al-faqih system, and will continue to do so in future. While facing the enemies of the Islamic Revolution and system, these people chant the slogan “Death to the anti-wilayah al-faqih” [marg bar dhidd-e wilayat-e faqih] as a political symbol and emblem of opposition to the opponents of wilayah al-faqih. They even chant it as a supplication and form of worship in political and religious gatherings as well as in mosques.
Apart from a general reply to the question on the Islamic government and wilayah al-faqih, there are two other levels of examining it. One is the high level of academic and jurisprudential examination of the theory of wilayah al-faqih for the experts and authorities. The other is an average level for the students and researchers.
2. Specialized and technical understanding
An accurate, scientific, intensive or academic study of the subject of Islamic government and wilayah al-faqih shall be done by those who occupy a high academic standing, by utilizing their utmost knowledge, talent, means and time. For example, the doctoral student who wants to write his dissertation on the Islamic government or one of its branches must have a comprehensive and intensive knowledge of the subject. He must take into account all its aspects, spend many years studying and examining it, refer to authentic and reliable authorities, consult professors specialized in the field and entertain their suggestions in order to present his arguments, so that his dissertation is approved.
An endeavor similar to this extensive academic research, is also being conducted in our religious seminaries. Those taking advanced studies [bahth al-kharij] to obtain the license to exercise ijtihad sometimes conduct a thorough study and examination of a specific and seemingly simple subject, reading tens of books and consulting and discussing with fuqaha and scholars, so that they can finally express their expert opinion. In all theoretical discussions on beliefs, ethics, secondary laws, social, political and international issues, meticulous, comprehensive and intensive studies are conducted by authorities in order to preserve the richness, loftiness and dynamism of the Islamic culture. It must be noted, however, that this level of examination of the Islamic government or wilayah al-faqih is neither necessary nor useful for the public.
3. Average understanding
While dealing with the average level of understanding we will neither present a general answer on the Islamic government as a rector [mufti] or marja‘ at-taqlid answers a question [istifta’] and explains an issue in his treatise on the practical laws of Islam [risalah al-‘amaliyyah], nor approach the issue in an academic and elaborate manner which requires many years of research, studies and reading of many reference books. Our aim is to give the different strata of society an average awareness and understanding so that they can counter the objections raised by enemies and opponents and confront conspiracies and threats.
Culturally, the present state of affairs in our society is like that of a society facing a contagious disease like plague, and are on the verge of being afflicted with an epidemic. In combating this disease or plague it is not enough to give only a single piece of advice or only an expert’s opinion in the newspapers or other media. Through constant reminders as well as necessary and sufficient admonitions, the level of awareness of the masses should be elevated to attain a healthy cultural condition to combat a social plague. Besides admonition, holding seminars, roundtable conferences, sufficient explanations and information drives must be held so that the people are fully informed of the ever looming threats.
Now, I would like to present the average understanding with information about the Islamic government and wilayah al-faqih because I feel that our new generation does not have sufficient information about the issues of the Islamic Revolution including the issue of wilayah al-faqih which is the main pillar of this system, and wicked whisperers have led them to the verge of deviation and misguidance.
Our future inheritors of this revolution need to become aware of these issues and not be afflicted with cultural plagues and satanic mischief. I am offering average level discussions to pave the necessary social and cultural ground to improve their insight and certainty on the theory of wilayah al-faqih to enable them to struggle and resist deviant eclectic ideas prevalent in society today. Also, if someone asks them about their acceptance of the Islamic government and the exigency of wilayah al-faqih, they can answer and defend their beliefs. If they are asked questions that require a thorough study and more profound knowledge, they must refer them to the concerned authorities. With this aim in mind, I have divided this series of discussion into two parts, viz. (1) legislation and (2) statecraft.
A review of the characteristics of law and its necessity
The first part of the discussions came to the following conclusions:
(1) Man in his social life is in need of law because life devoid of law means chaos, disorder and savagery, and leads to the collapse of human values—something which cannot be denied by any intelligent person.
(2) According to Islam, any law considered for the social life of man must ensure his material and spiritual interests. Some philosophers have asserted that no law can cover both worldly and otherworldly issues. A political system must be either world-oriented whose only pursuit is to ensure worldly and material interests, or otherworld-oriented that should not interfere in worldly interests and material needs. This criticism is the most ignominious of all those ever expressed against the Islamic political system. Unfortunately, some of those who hold government posts misguide others by employing a grandiloquent style while criticizing our political system.
The bedrock of Islamic thought is that life in this world is a prelude to life in the hereafter and what we do in this world can be a source of our eternal felicity or endless perdition in the hereafter. Religion is essentially meant to lay down a set of programs and plans for this worldly life which ensure comfort and prosperity in this world besides guaranteeing eternal bliss in the otherworld.
By following the set of programs received by the prophets (‘a) from God for the guidance of mankind, man’s success in both worlds is guaranteed. In view of the clarity and self-evident nature of these points, it is surprising that those who have enough knowledge of the Qur’anic verses and traditions and cannot be regarded as ignorant, spitefully close their eyes to the truth and introduce in their talks issues and matters related to the world as separate from those related to the hereafter.
They say, Religious affairs and otherworldly interests are dealt with only in the temples, churches and mosques. Also, social and worldly problems can only be solved by the human mind and experience, and religion cannot and should not play any role in them! This satanic assertion of Muslims who say they know the fundamentals of religion is against the essential principles of all revealed religions, Islam in particular.
(3) The third preliminary point is that it is incumbent upon human beings to secure their material interests through acquired experience, use of intellect, skills and various sciences, but they can not secure their spiritual and otherworldly interests[31] because they do not have any spontaneous knowledge of their spiritual and otherworldly interests. Man does not know what is useful for his eternal felicity in the other world simply because he has no experience of life in the hereafter. Neither can he benefit from the experience of others as no one has any experience of the hereafter. As such, he cannot find the way to a blissful life in the hereafter on his own.
Keeping in view what has been said, it is clear that worldly and otherworldly interests can only be identified by God and those who are endowed with divine knowledge, and the law that emanates from God the Exalted, must be implemented in society to secure worldly, otherworldly and spiritual interests.
Another review of the qualities of the implementers of Islamic laws
During the “legislation” part of the discussion, we enumerated three main qualities that a person with divine connections must possess, if his main duty is implementation of the law which guarantees worldly and otherworldly interests.
First condition or qualification: The implementer of law and any Islamic ruler, in general, must know the law. Of course, there are different degrees and levels of knowledge and learning, the ideal one being impeccable knowledge of divine laws. He who possesses this quality and attains this station is an infallible person who does not err in his gnosis, perception and discernment and knows the law revealed by God perfectly. Naturally, in the presence of such a person, i.e. an Infallible, his sovereignty over society becomes indispensable and exigent. But in the absence of the Infallibles, the government and the implementation of laws shall be delegated to the person who knows the laws better than anyone.
Second condition or qualification: The implementer of law should not be influenced by personal or factional interests, whims and caprice. In other words, he must have moral integrity. Like intellectual competence, moral integrity also has different degrees and the ideal degree can be found in an infallible person who is never influenced by ungodly motives, threats and temptations. He will never sacrifice collective interests before the altar of personal, familial or factional interests. Of course, in the absence of the Infallibles, the person who is morally nearest to them has the right to rule and implement law.
Third condition or qualification: The possession of managerial skill and talent to apply general laws to specific cases. He is supposed to know their various applications and how to implement them so that the spirit of law and purpose of legislation are preserved. Of course, to reach this degree of managerial skill requires specific experiences and wisdom that a person acquires throughout his life of management. The highest level of this quality is also possessed by the Infallibles. They are immune from any error in knowledge and understanding of divine laws, not influenced by carnal desires, and possess special divine blessings. They do not deviate or err in discerning what is good for society while applying general laws to particular cases.
Theoretical connection of Islamic government with ideological principles and foundations
It will be easier for a person to believe in the truthfulness of the Islamic political system who acknowledges that human society must have law that ensures both material and spiritual interests of human beings, and is convinced of the qualifications of Islamic rulers and administrators. Of course, the acceptance of these preliminaries is itself based upon certain presumptions. First and foremost, man has to accept that there is God and that a prophet has been commissioned by God to expound divine laws.
He has to equally accept that beyond this life man has an eternal life in the hereafter, and life in this world and the other have a causal relationship. These presumptions are the essence of the subject of our discussions. Their proofs are included in theology, scholasticism and philosophy. One cannot deal with each of them in a social, legal and political discourse as it would take many years before one arrives at a conclusion.
Our addressees are Muslims who believe in God, religion, revelation, the Day of Resurrection, apostleship, and the infallibility of the Prophet (s), and who want to know whether Islam has a distinct political system or not. They are not those who deny God, or say that man can demonstrate and chant a slogan against God! They do not reject the religion and laws of Islam or say that even the Prophet might have committed an error in understanding the revelation.
Similarly, others who oppose us in principle are not the focus of our present discourse. If they are open to dialogue and willing to listen, we must discuss our ideological principles by means of rational and philosophical proofs, and persuade them to believe that there is God and the Day of Judgment; that God has revealed ordinances for the felicity and prosperity of mankind in this world and the hereafter; obliged His Apostle (s) to convey them to His servants; also, the Apostle (s) is immune from committing error in understanding the revelation; otherwise, he could not have been a prophet.
Can any intelligent person accept another person on top of the hierarchy of power notwithstanding the presence of a person who is infallible in knowledge and action and the best one to identify what is good for society? Everybody knows that preferring the inferior to the superior in optional affairs is shameful and indecent, and no intelligent person accepts it. Our talk is not meant for those who claim to be Muslims but deny the existence of a ma‘sum, believing that neither the Apostle nor the Imams have been infallible. We have no business with them. My assumption is that we all accept the thematic principles of the discussion and acknowledge that the Apostle (s) is ma‘sum and according to Shi‘ah beliefs the Imams (‘a) are also infallible.
Now, assuming that a ma‘sum is present in society, should the government and the implementation of law be entrusted to a fallible person? Delegation of the affairs to a non-ma‘sum is tantamount to allowing error in understanding law. Permitting what is not supposed to be permitted [tajwiz] means that one prefers his interests to that of society, sacrificing the latter before the altar of the former. Tajwiz means that one who has no competence in managing society becomes the ruler! All of these forms of tajwiz are condemnable and rejected by reason.
Therefore, in the presence of a ma‘sum no intelligent person will ever deny that it is expedient for the ma‘sum to rule, and to choose another person instead of him is an irrational and foolish act. No one has any qualms in accepting this proposition. Reason dictates it and we do not need to cite Qur’anic verses and traditions to prove it, indicating that it is obligatory to obey the Apostle (s) and the Imams (‘a), such as these:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ...
“O you who have faith! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority among you…”[32] and
مَّنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللّهَ...
“Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah...”[33]
Logical and rational basis of Islamic government’s linear degrees
In connection with the exigency of the rule of a ma‘sum when he is present and accessible, our argument is rationally acceptable. But our main concern is to present the Islamic viewpoint for the period of occultation of Imam al-Mahdi (‘a) when the people are deprived of his presence and have no access to him to benefit from his government. We are also concerned with the period when a ma‘sum was present but the oppressive powers deprived him of ruling over the Muslims, or the social circumstances were not conducive for him to assume political power.
For any post or position, certain conditions and qualifications are laid down. The one who possesses all the qualifications is chosen. If such a person cannot be found, the one who possesses most of these qualifications is chosen. Let us cite another example. If you know a doctor who has thirty years of medical experience, but you consult a young doctor who has recently opened a clinic, and he aggravates your condition instead of curing you, will you not be condemned by both reason and the reasonable?
They will ask you why you left the proficient and consulted the inefficient. You could be excused if the proficient doctor was demanding a huge amount as medical fee, or you had to travel abroad in order to be treated by a specialized doctor and could not afford it. But our assumption is that you had access to a proficient and specialized doctor and the medical fee he was demanding was less than the rest, or the same. In this case, if you consulted a neophyte doctor and your health condition got worse, you will not be excused by the reasonable. Everybody will reproach and criticize you.
The above rational rule is applicable in all social affairs and acceptable to all reasonable people, Muslims and non-Muslims. Its support is the dictate of reason and needless of religious proof. According to this rule, if the ideal form of Islamic government which is rationally also the best form of government is not possible and we have no access to an infallible person with the most knowledge, piety and skill, what will be the dictate and verdict of reason? Will our reason give us freedom to do whatever we like and choose anyone we like as the ruler?
Or, will our reason demand that in case of the unavailability of an infallible person who is the ideal one to rule, we have to choose the most competent person who is the most proximate to the station of the Infallibles? If the perfect grade is not available, we have to choose the grade of 99, 98, 97, so on and so forth. Once the perfect grade is unobtainable, all other grades should not be treated identically and count 99 as equal to 1 on the pretext that our target being the ideal was not available, so it made no difference whom we chose! Undoubtedly, reason will not accept it.
We have to look for the person who is competent to rule over the Muslims and who is nearest to the Infallibles in knowledge, piety and managerial skill. This rational proposition can easily be grasped and understood by every intelligent person and there is no need to substantiate it with intricate juristic and theological proofs.
Presenting some questions regarding Islamic government
There are other questions regarding Islamic government which must also be addressed. Has Islam, only laid down the conditions and qualifications of the person who heads the government and not specified the form of government? That is, does Islam only recommend who must head the government and leave other things including the form of government to the whims of people and change according to the changes in social circumstances?
A more technical question which is comprehendible and understandable to those who are acquainted with juristic and legal discourses is this: Is the government a foundational [ta’sisi] or conventional [imdha’i] matter? A set of Islamic laws or juristic rulings is foundational. Before their actual forms are shown to the people, the sacred religion mentions these laws as well as describes their actual manifestations. For example, the ritual prayer [salah] is a foundational form of worship.
The religion of Islam has mentioned it and the manner of performing it has also been demonstrated to the people by God through the Prophet (s). Besides, before this obligatory act and the manner of its performance were conveyed to the people, no one had been aware of it. In general, the forms and manners of all ritual acts of worship are foundational as the people learned them from the Prophet (s).
For example, obligatory acts like fasting, Hajj pilgrimage and other devotional laws are all foundational.
In contrast to these foundational laws of Islam, there is a set of Islamic laws which in the parlance of jurisprudence [fiqh] is called ‘conventional’. That is, in their social interactions and intercourses, people have formulated a series of rules, regulations, contracts, and agreements, some of which are unwritten but people are bound to them; for example, trade and barter.
At the beginning the sacred religion had not ordered the people to engage in trade or barter whenever they needed a commodity. The people of wisdom knew of the necessity of this affair and they formulated the ways and manners of engaging in them. Then, religion approved this wise practice and gave it a religious credence, stating, for example:
وَأَحَلَّ اللّهُ الْبَيْعَ...
“Allah has allowed trade.”[34]
God allowed and made permissible [halal] the same trading and transactions practiced by people. This approval and permission of trade is a conventional [imdha’i] and not a foundational [ta’sisi] religious ruling. It is like the acceptance of a system formulated by people of wisdom on how to conduct their mutual transactions.
Now, this question is raised concerning government: Before God ordered people through the prophets (‘a) to abide by the divine government, had the people themselves founded a particular form of government which was later endorsed by religion? Or, did people also acquire knowledge of the form of government from God, and that if the prophets (‘a) had not ruled over people by God’s leave and permission and people were not obliged to follow and obey them, they would not have known the form of government?
In sum, once we say that the Islamic government is a well defined system with a religious legal standing and God has made it incumbent upon people to submit to it, the question asked is whether this government has been ordained and founded by God? Or, did the people themselves choose this form of government and found it on the basis of a social contract and God only endorsed and approved it, and therefore, this government has been considered Islamic as it has been endorsed, approved and sanctioned by God?
Notes:
[31] Of course, worldly interests can be secured only by securing the otherworldly interests. Without benefiting from the divine ordinances and revelation, man could not be able to secure his material interests.
[32] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:59.
[33] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:80.
[34] Surah al-Baqarah 2:275. [Trans.]
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

The Connection between the Absolute Guardianship of the Jurist and the Islamic Government Establishment

Whenever a responsibility is entrusted to a person or a duty is assigned to him, certain prerogatives must be granted to him so that he can exercise them in discharging his duty or responsibility. The heavier responsibilities of the Islamic state in terms of magnitude and scope demand greater prerogatives and facilities than those of other governments in order to do justice to them. We shall cite an example in order to make this point clearer and more empirical.
With incessant technological advancement and transformation in the recent past, new conditions and situations have emerged in human society requiring a change in the manner of interaction, way of living and attitude towards the environment. New vistas like exploration of outer space have been opened to mankind. When cars were not yet invented, people had contracted roads and narrow pathways which could give way to only horses and the like. In some parts of ancient cities such a condition still exists. Yet, when the number of vehicles multiplied, people had no option but to commute within the city through vehicles. They had to expand the narrow roads and construct streets and highways to make traffic easy and comfortable and prevent any possible dangers and accidents.
Once the state and its officials want to construct and expand roads and streets, they have no option but to exercise authority over the lands and houses of people and demolish them. If the state is expected to make traveling comfortable, but not authorized to demolish some houses (along the streets to be expanded or constructed), such a demand is absurd, illogical and impractical. So, the state must have such authority to be able to discharge its duty. The state has to compensate for the damage caused and rehabilitate the affected people somewhere else.
Connection between absolute guardianship (wilayat-e mutlaq) and government prerogatives
In Shi‘i jurisprudence [fiqh], the Islamic government’s possession of necessary and sufficient prerogatives for the performance of its responsibilities in line with discharging of responsibilities is attributed to the absolute guardianship of the faqih.
In the Qur’an, traditions and statements of jurists [fuqaha], usually the word “guardianship” [wilayah] is used instead of “government” [hukumah]. Apart from that, the word wilayah is more appropriate than the word hukumah—just as the Supreme Leader Ayatullah al-‘Uzma Sayyid ‘Ali Khamene’i pointed out, the connotation of the word hukumah is laden with a sense of dominance and imposition—as the word wilayah is more profound and associated with love and affection. At any rate, the word wilayah can be used in lieu of hukumah, as one who regards “government” as necessary for society also feels the same about “guardianship” for society in juristic parlance and usage.
Given these introductory remarks, we argue that if this wilayah enjoys all prerogatives through which all responsibilities can be discharged and all needs of society addressed in accordance with Islamic and legitimate standards, it can be said that this wilayah is absolute. But if the wali al-amr [Guardian or Master of the Affair] has wilayah only to the extent necessary, i.e. only in cases where the lives of some people are in danger that we believe in him to have the right to exercise authority over the properties of people, and no authority in city development and beautification as well as construction of green zones (parks) and squares, it is said that this wilayah is limited and conditional.
People’s skepticism on absolute guardianship
We are explaining these things because some people, in a bid to misguide the people in general and the youth in particular, are poisoning their minds by pointing out certain fallacies in the theory of wilayah al-faqih. Initially, they objected to the word wilayah, saying that “guardianship” [wilayah] is applicable to children and the mentally retarded. Wali means “guardian” and is needed by those who do not have the necessary intelligence and capability to administer their daily lives. So, anyone who advances the theory of wilayah al-faqih, in reality regards the people as having low intelligence quotients (IQs) and needful of guardians.
This fallacy is very clear and self-evident. Just as the wilayah of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) does not literally mean their guardianship of people and the latter’s need for a guardian, wilayah here is used to mean hukumah, i.e. administering social affairs and overall management of society. Wilayah al-faqih means that certain individuals are authorized by God to administer the primary affairs of society, and it is not that those who are under the rule of wilayah al-faqih and Islamic government are children, the mentally retarded or psychopaths!
They have further committed a fallacy with respect to the word mutlaq [absolute]. They have claimed in some of their writings that “absolute guardianship” is tantamount to polytheism [shirk]. Thus, accordingly, those who believe in “absolute guardianship” are polytheists and have associated deities to God because apart from Him who is the Absolute, they have also recognized the wali al-amr as “absolute”! Sometimes, one does not know how to react to these childish and silly claims.
Let me say briefly that firstly, in the Islamic texts, the Qur’an and traditions in particular, the word mutlaq has never been used for God, and in Arabic lexicon it is not correct to associate the word mutlaq to God. If ever out of carelessness or modification of the meaning of mutlaq, we associate it to God, it implies that God, the Exalted, is unlimited without any weakness, defect and deficiency.
No one has such a belief about anyone other than God. We believe that the One and Only God has Absolute Perfection without having any defect and deficiency and He has all the eternal Attributes. Obviously, this belief does not necessarily mean that the Islamic state should not have the necessary prerogatives to perform its duties. Basically, these two points have no connection with each other.
“Absolute guardianship” means that the ruler, leader and head of the Islamic ummah has the necessary prerogatives to discharge his duties and do what is good for Islamic society, and the wali al-faqih may interfere or exercise authority whenever necessary. In order to make this point clearer, we shall explain the Islamic government theory further, though we have already dealt with it earlier.
Investigating the structure of Islamic government
Once the structure and nature of Islamic government is talked about, some people refer to political philosophy books and mention the different types and forms of governments established in human society since time immemorial such as oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy. Nowadays, democracy is divided into republicanism and constitutional monarchy, and republicanism into presidential and parliamentary.
They ask us whether the Islamic government is one of those mentioned forms of government or something distinct. If the Islamic government is republican, it is the same democracy or “government of the people for the people by the people” and thus Islamic government is in no way different. If it is said that Islamic government is a monarchy, then why is the government in Iran called “Islamic Republic”? In any case, has Islam no idea about its form of government, or does it grant freedom to the people to choose the type and form of their government, or has it stipulated a distinct form of government?
In reply to the question on the structure of government according to Islam, many of them have said that Islam does not endorse a particular form of government. To some extent this answer is correct, but it is not devoid of ambiguity. To explain this, I deem it necessary to highlight two points which must not be neglected.
1. The extensiveness and irrevocability of Islamic laws
The first point is that Islam and its laws are not confined to a particular time and place. The inalterable and constant laws of Islam have been enacted in such a way that they are applicable to all ages and societies. Meanwhile, a government may be established in a small and limited territory or an island with a small population. It may equally be founded in a country with a population of one million or a country like India or China with a population of about one billion or more than a billion. In any case, the government may assume numerous forms. A small community of one hundred families may have a government of its own.
A country with a population of one billion may also have a government of its own. It is even possible that one day a global government will be established on earth. In view of the diversity of governments, can a model or laws for a government be proposed that would encompass all governments? Or, is it that a particular form should not be determined for the government, and if ever a particular form is presented, it will not be suitable for some societies and not applicable to other societies? For example, if we claim that during the advent of Islam its laws were initially applicable to the small community at Medina, and the government founded by the Messenger of Allah (s) was suitable for the society at that time whose population probably did not exceed a hundred thousand.
Is the model and form which Islam wants to present as the Islamic government the same model and form of the government of the Prophet (s) during the early period of Islam with features and characteristics suitable for a small population of that time with particular moral and cultural elements? Or, is it that Islam is not only devoid of a particular model and form of government but also has not set any pertinent limits, conditions, requirements and rulings?
The fact of the matter is that the Islamic approach is neither of the two. In fact, apart from presenting a specific form of government suitable to its inalterable and constant laws, Islam has introduced a general or overall framework which can integrate changes, variations and numerous or diverse forms. Islam has neither given total freedom to the people to do whatever they want nor presented a limited and narrow form of government applicable only to a certain age and place. The general framework introduced by Islam has a broad scope and span, containing all correct and reasonable forms of government.
We describe this general framework of government as the Islamic government. This framework emerges at a given time with a particular structure and form, and with a different structure and form at another time. Neither of these two forms and structures or any other form or structure for that matter is incompatible and repugnant to the Islamic nature of the government in question.
In other words, Islam does not endorse a particular form or type of government. Its guiding principle is the observance of the general framework; the structure of government should neither be beyond it nor inconsistent with it. The inalterable and constant laws of Islam which have been enacted for all societies up to the Day of Resurrection have a general structure. In contrast, secondary and alterable laws conducive to particular times and places are also enacted. Among these alterable laws are administrative laws which are issued or approved by the wali al-faqih. To obey and follow these laws in their forms or shapes is obligatory.
2. Presentation of government models derived from Islam
The second point is that the goal of the Islamic government is to reach and realize a set of ideal and desirable conditions. But since it is not always possible to achieve them, there is no option but to consider a substitute of the ultimate choice. That is, if the ideal condition is not available, the second choice will replace it, and if the second choice cannot be achieved, the third choice will replace it. This implies that our value system is neither monolithic nor considers value as confined only to all that is ideal. Instead, in the Islamic value system values have a multilayered structure and diverse degrees as well as the most ideal and supreme value. Below this zenith of value, other degrees are also valuable in their own rights. It is not correct that if the ideal value cannot be realized, we should totally give up and not resort to an equally valuable option below it.
The point is that Islam has set an ideal form of government which can be established whenever the said government is headed by the Prophet (s) or an infallible Imam. This ideal option has been explicitly emphasized by God in the Noble Qur’an:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ...
“O you who have faith! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority among you…”[22]
In another verse, He says thus:
وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا...
“Take whatever the Apostle give you, and relinquish whatever he forbids you...”[23]
The foremost view of Islam is that an infallible person must head the government and hold the reigns of power so that he can manage and supervise the political apparatus. But a ma‘sum is not always present among the people to directly hold the reigns of government. Even when a ma‘sum is present, it does not follow that he is in a position of strength to establish a government and exercise power.
In fact, among our Imams, only the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) and Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (‘a) for a very short period were able to rule. Since the time of Imam al-Husayn (‘a) the circumstances were not suitable for the infallible Imams (‘a) to establish an Islamic government. Either the people or majority of them did not support them to establish an Islamic government or an influential section of society prevented them from establishing it. As such, each of the Imams (‘a) was forced to distance himself from the government of the day.
Precedence of the notion of “state within a state” in Islam
In case the government is not under the control of an infallible Imam or a just ruler but an oppressive and taghuti regime is established, should people leave all affairs to an illegitimate and tyrannical ruler and totally relinquish government affairs? Are righteous and pious individuals not supposed to properly attend to government affairs at any level and guide society to the extent possible? Undoubtedly, the reply of Islam is in the negative.
In such cases, Islam has set emergency substitutes and maintained that if an infallible Imam is present but has no support in establishing a government, or he is not present and the government is outside the control of his righteous and just successor, the people may, as much as possible, refer in matters related to government to a person who is most similar to a ma‘sum.
Indisputably, conflicts and disputes always occur in society about personal, family, social, commercial and matters of inheritance. For example, two partners may have a dispute over their shares; inheritors may fight over the inheritance; spouses may have a quarrel. Certainly, in order to resolve these differences people are in need of government decisions. They have to refer to a legal authority that will investigate the differences and discords.
Under the pretext that the government of truth does not exist and an infallible Imam or a just ruler is not in control of government, people are not supposed to be contented with the taghuti government, do whatever it commands and reject an alternative. In fact, in particular and limited cases if there is a chance to refer to a person who issues and implements the correct Islamic decree, it is expedient to refer to him. As such, the infallible Imams (‘a) have introduced a scheme for such circumstances and conditions which in modern parlance is described as establishing a “state within a state”.
If the government is in the hands of tyrants and usurpers and the people do not have sufficient power and means to rise up and overthrow them and establish the government of truth, in relation to administrative matters the people are supposed to refer to the fuqaha and those who, though not infallible, have been trained in the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) and occupy the highest station of piety and knowledge of religion and who in knowledge and moral conduct are nearest to the infallibles. In relation to their administrative problems people must refer to the faqih who has the intellectual capability to deduce and apply the correct Islamic law, has the necessary managerial skill to adjudicate and issue a verdict, and has the highest decree of piety, trustworthiness and credibility.
This statement or the notion of a “state within a state” means that within the vast jurisdiction of an illegitimate state, small and limited ‘states’ that can to some extent become the sanctuary of people in their administrative problems must be established. In our Islamic culture, such a government is described as “restricted guardianship” [wilayat-e muqayyad]—a kind of guardianship which fuqaha had even during the time of the infallible Imams (‘a). With the permission of the Imams (‘a), fuqaha had the authority to adjudicate, bid and forbid.
Even during the period of occultation [ghaybah] the fuqaha, though incapable of establishing a government, used to exercise authority in certain cases of litigations, disputes, quarrels, urgent matters, and what is described in our jurisprudence as “financial affairs” [al-umur al-hasbiyyah]. In terms of form, substance and extent of prerogatives, however, “restricted guardianship” was considerably different from the “absolute guardianship of the jurist” [wilayat-e mutlaq-e faqih].
Throughout the history of Shi‘ism, “restricted guardianship” has been enjoyed by the fuqaha, and people, with full satisfaction and confidence used to refer some of their social problems, disputes and differences to them and ask for correct solutions. Perhaps, it is because of this historical precedence that theoreticians are less skeptical about it, and it does not meet much opposition. On the contrary, on account of its lack of long historical precedence in the recent past, and its strictness towards malevolent xenophiles and their illegitimate interests, the “absolute guardianship of the jurist” has been a subject of pusillanimous objection and attack.
Imam Khomeini’s presentation of “absolute guardianship of the jurist”
From the time of occultation of Hadhrat Wali al-‘Asr (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) up to the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the possibility that one day a rightful and truthful government will be established by a duly competent faqih was more akin to a dream and illusion.
Even if the people in our country were told, as late as thirty or forty years ago, that one day a faqih will topple down the taghuti regime, no one would believe it and consider such an idea as nothing but mere daydreaming. It would be like someone saying that a time will come when we will fly without the help of instruments and facilities, for it is believed that such an event will happen only in dreams and never take place in real life.
At that time, it was funny for people to hear someone claiming that a cleric in place of the taghut will take control of the country. The people would ask, “Is it possible? How could a person who, could hardly find his daily bread, was not secure even in his home, whose house could be raided, and he, banished, imprisoned and tortured, acquire the power to establish a government?!
It is true that wilayah al-faqih was not actually implemented in the past as it did not seem reasonably probable, but since its assumption was possible, some prominent fuqaha advanced the theory of “absolute guardianship of the jurist”. They examined the question: If one day conditions for the faqih to rule are provided and he actually takes charge of government, would his wilayah be absolute or limited?
Contrary to those periods of the infallible Imams (‘a), when on the one hand, they practiced dissimulation [taqiyyah] in a position of weakness, deprived of their right to interfere in administrative issues, and people referred some of their problems like disputes and differences to them only in private and acquired their verdicts; and, on the other hand, when the fuqaha distanced themselves from the government and were robbed of the chance to interfere in administrative matters; if a chance appeared for a faqih to rule and he became politically strong enough to establish a government, should he exercise wilayah only in “urgent matters” and interfere only in “financial affairs”? Or, should all limitations, conditions and “specific restrictions” on the faqih’s exercise of authority, imposed during the reigns of taghuts and tyrants, be removed, and, exactly like an infallible Imam who is politically capable of establishing a government, should the faqih also have all the prerogatives that an infallible Imam has in the overall administration of society? This option has been presented as the theory of “absolute guardianship of the jurist”.
Among our prominent figures, the one who, in addition to expounding the theory of “absolute guardianship of the jurist” as a juristic proposition, regarded the same as practically realizable, was His Eminence Imam Khomeini (q). Forty years ago, he used to mention in his lectures that there is the possibility of a faqih establishing a government in a certain geographical location.[24] The faqih would have all the prerogatives of a religious ruler and his authority would not be confined to financial affairs and urgent matters. As far as the interests of Islamic society were concerned, he could exercise authority within the framework of religious standards and Islamic precepts.
At that time, when the Imam discussed this theory, his students accepted it intellectually with good intention, good opinion and affection for him. Yet, they could not imagine that it would be implemented until finally, the Islamic movement in Iran gained momentum and gradually the Revolution triumphed and the Islamic government was established.
So, the “absolute guardianship of the jurist” means that the one who, according to Islam, is competent to rule, and in terms of knowledge, piety and managerial skill is most similar to a ma‘sum, and is able to establish a government will have all the prerogatives of an infallible Imam in managing the affairs of society. Once the wali al-faqih enjoys these extensive prerogatives, all laws, executive orders and ordinances to be passed in the Islamic government under the command of the wali al-faqih will be deemed legitimate only through his permission and approval. Without his permission, no one else will have the direct and independent right to legislate or implement a law.
All administrative affairs shall become official by his permission and authority. Under his government, individuals shall implement laws through his designation, or if they are elected according to predetermined laws and arrangements, their assumption of office shall become official through his approval and permission. Thus, without the permission and authority of the wali al-faqih no step shall be deemed official and legitimate.
The Imam used to say time and again: If a government is formed without the approval and permission of the wali al-faqih, it is taghuti. It means that we have no more than two essential types of government: the government of truth and the government of taghut. The government of truth is that which is headed by the wali al-faqih who is the supreme authority in all administrative affairs and issues, and all matters shall acquire legitimacy through his permission and approval. If it is not so, then it is the government of falsehood and taghut, and as the Qur’an states,
...فَمَاذَا بَعْدَ الْحَقِّ إِلاَّ الضَّلاَلُ
“…So what is there without the truth except error?”[25]
Description of wilayat al-faqih in the maqbulah of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah’
In view of what has been said, the prerogatives of the faqih are confined to sacred religious standards and laws and do not go beyond them, making it clear that belief in the “absolute guardianship of the jurist” does not mean polytheism or considering someone other than God as absolute. As a matter of fact, according to some narrations transmitted from the infallible Imams (‘a), anyone who disobeys the decree and order of the wali al-faqih is a polytheist [mushrik].
As narrated in the maqbulah of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah, concerning two believers who had a dispute over religious issues or worldly matters like inheritance, they asked Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) whom they should refer to for judgment and solving of their conflict. The Imam (‘a) dissuaded them from referring to a taghut or tyrant ruler but instead ordered them to refer to the narrators of hadiths, religious scholars and experts, saying:
...فَإِنّي قَدْ جَعَلْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ حَاكِمًا، فَإِذَا حَكَمَ بِحُكْمِنَا فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْهُ مِنْهُ فَإِنَّمَا إسْتَخَفَّ بِحُكْمِ اللهِ وَ عَلَيْنَا رَدَّهُ وَالرَّادُّ عَلَيْنَا الرَّادُّ عَلىٰ اللهِ وَ هُوَ عَلىٰ حَدِّ الشِّرْكِ بِاللهِ...
“…For I appoint him as judge over you. Anyone who rejects his judgment is as if he belittles the judgment of Allah and rejects us, and anyone who rejects us is as if he rejects Allah, and rejection of Him is tantamount to associating partners with Him.”[26]
According to the abovementioned tradition, if the duly competent faqih establishes a government or takes charge of government affairs, anyone who opposes him and rejects his orders and words is as if he opposes the infallible Imams (‘a) and opposition to them is tantamount to polytheism [shirk]. This polytheism is not in the ontological Lordship [rububiyyat-e takwini] of God but rather polytheism in the legislative Lordship [rububiyyat-e tashri‘i]. The explanation for this is that monotheism [tawhid] has different classifications and degrees:
(1) monotheism in creation, i.e. belief in the Unity or Oneness of the Creator of the universe;
(2) monotheism in Divinity [uluhiyyah] and servitude [‘ubudiyyah], i.e. belief that no one is worthy of worship but God who is the Absolute Lord and Legislator; and
(3) Divine Unity [tawhid-e rububi] which is divided into two: (a) ontological Lordship and (b) legislative Lordship.
“Ontological Lordship” means that we have to consider that the designing and management of the entire universe lies with God and to believe that the rotation of the sun and moon, the taking place of day and night, life and death of man and animals, and the protection of the world and all its inhabitants from destructive collisions and clashes all depend on God. It is He who protects heaven and earth. All beings that come into existence in any part of this vast universe, grow and die, procreate, do anything that manifests their existence are all under the supervision and control of God. No phenomenon is outside His Lordship.
“Legislative Lordship” is only related to the discretional management of human beings whose movement, impact and evolution, contrary to that of other creatures, depends on their own discretion. For example, God introduces the straight path to man and acquaints him with good and evil, and enacts and issues laws and ordinances for the individual and social life of man.
Based on what has been said about monotheism and its different categories, anyone who denies the legislative Lordship of God, even if he recognizes the ontological Lordship or the Unity of God in creation and servitude, is a polytheist. The same kind of polytheism was committed by Satan who recognized God as the One and Only Creator and His ontological Lordship. As such, he said:
قَالَ رَبِّ بِمَا أَغْوَيْتَنِي لأُزَيِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ وَلأُغْوِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ
“He said: My Lord! As You have consigned me to perversity, I will surely glamorize [evil] for them on earth, and will surely pervert them all.”[27]
It can be noticed that Satan believed in God’s ontological Lordship, regarding Him as his Cherisher and Sustainer. What he denied or rejected was the legislative Lordship and thus he became a polytheist (nay, the first polytheist). Since God the Exalted, makes it obligatory to obey any of the infallible Imams (‘a), anyone who refuses or declines to obey actually denies the legislative Lordship of God and is tainted with polytheism in the legislative Lordship.
Similarly, when an infallible Imam (‘a) appointed or designated a person and made it incumbent upon others to obey him, anyone who did not recognize him or submit to him was tainted with polytheism in the legislative Lordship. So, if Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) said that opposition to the wali al-faqih is tantamount to associating partners with Allah, it was not a hyperbole as he spoke the truth, for it was polytheism in legislative Lordship, which Satan was also tainted with.
Based on what has been said, according to Islam the structure of the Islamic government has different degrees. Its ideal degree can be reached whenever the Prophet (s) or an infallible Imam (‘a) takes control of government. Its lower degree is when government is entrusted to the duly competent faqih who in terms of knowledge, piety and managerial skill is the nearest to the infallible Imams (‘a). One degree lower than this one is that if there is no duly competent faqih, or the faqih accessible to people lacks the competence to manage society, the wilayah and government shall be entrusted to ‘just believers’ because society cannot be abandoned without any government.
Thus, in the presence of an infallible Imam his government or wilayah is most ideal and during his absence the faqih who is most akin to the infallible Imams (‘a) should take control of government. In the absence of such a faqih, a just believer whose sense of justice and piety are such that people trust him and are satisfied with his implementation of laws shall take hold of government though his knowledge and learning is not equal to that of a faqih.
Of course, we hope that the ‘ulama’ and figures that are capable of guiding and managing society are always present so that they can shoulder this responsibility of guiding society. God the Exalted, favored us by blessing us with the dear Imam who guided our society remarkably well. After the Imam, He preserved his righteous student and successor for us, the nearest to the Imam in piety, asceticism, political insight, consideration for the interests of Muslims, management and leadership of Islamic society, and other outstanding characteristics.
Islam’s view on separation of powers
Another subject which needs to be dealt with at present is the separation of powers and government responsibilities. According to Islam, the government does not have a specific form or type suitable to a society with particular characteristics. According to Islam, the government may have a structure or form which is suitable to a small society composed by a limited number of families, or to a country with one billion-strong population or even a global society. Naturally, all the responsibilities and special functions of the government that bespeak of the raison d’être of the state—especially in densely populated societies—cannot be shouldered by a single or two persons.
Issues related to internal security, defense against foreign enemies, supervision of economic activities and international affairs, conduct of international relations, the observance of Islamic rites and the implementation of Islamic laws are also extremely heavy responsibilities. So, the option is to have division of labor. This division of labor can be done in two ways, viz. horizontally and vertically. That is, both sections of government activities are located in two separate compartments comprising two triangular shanks which do not intersect each other at the middle and finally end at the top of the pyramid.
In plain language, the best and most expressive similitude of government is a pyramid, hence, the term “pyramid (hierarchy) of power” has been chosen by political philosophers for government. The hierarchy of power is like a pyramid which has its own specific features. It consists of a triangular base and different sloping sides that meet in a point at the top.
Once we consider the government in its general sense, each side of the pyramid represents a section of government responsibilities. Based on the division of power in the political and legal philosophy of Montesquieu government power is divided into three branches—legislative, judiciary and executive—the three ‘sides’ or sections of government deal with legislation, adjudication and implementation. One part of government activities consists of codifying general and particular laws and ordinances; another part is related to the resolution of conflicts and differences according to law; yet another part deals with implementation of laws and management of society.
Grounds for overlapping of functions
It is true that division into three is appropriate and proper, but it must be noted that drawing dividing lines is not an easy job. In practice we can never totally remove enactment and codification of laws and ordinances as well as ratification of bylaws from the executive branch and not allow executive power at any level to engage in the enactment of executive orders and bylaws. Nowadays, in all democratic countries that have recognized the separation of powers, there is willy-nilly a degree of overlapping between legislation and implementation. The most evident form of overlapping of functions can be observed in parliamentary systems. Meanwhile, democratic systems are classified into two: parliamentary and presidential:
1. The parliamentary system of government is formed on the basis of the fusion of power. That is, all powers are concentrated in parliament. After the election of members of parliament (MPs) from among electoral candidates of various parties and the formation of parliament, high-ranking executive officials, such as the premier and cabinet ministers are elected from among the MPs. Under this system, parliament grants authority to ministers to head different ministries and it may also take back that authority.
2. The presidential system of government is based on the principle of separation of powers. Under this system, the president or chief executive is not elected by congress. Ministers are directly appointed by the president and the legislature cannot remove them. Reciprocally, the legislature is separate and independent from the executive. Under this system, the essential and irreconcilable difference between membership in congress and membership in cabinet is that the president cannot appoint an MP to a cabinet position unless the said MP resigns from his post in congress.
In the presidential system the president is directly elected by the people, and an overlapping of functions is observed. The codification of some ordinances and bylaws is delegated to the cabinet of ministers. Nowadays, in our country an executive order is legally sufficient to undertake some social, economic and other transactions. That is, the cabinet holds a meeting, and after a series of discussions and deliberations, issues an order which it also implements. Thus, the cabinet has been authorized to enact and ratify a set of ordinances in some cases.
Meanwhile, the function of parliament is legislation and ratification of bills but it also assumes executive functions in some cases. For example, signing contracts with foreign states is an executive matter, and as a rule, the executive has to directly sign them, but because of the importance and sensitivity of this issue, observance of all precautions, prevention of any abuse, essential scrutiny of the conditions of such contracts and necessary investigations and precautions are observed by the cabinet, then deliberated upon by the legislative house and implemented only after ratification and approval by the deputies.
In conclusion, the notion of separation of powers demands that the three powers—judiciary, legislative, executive—function independently but in practice there is overlapping of functions experienced by the varying political systems in the world. Of course, the more the separation of powers is observed, the more autonomous each power will be, and the chances of abuse of power and interference in each other’s functions will automatically decrease.
Notes:
[22] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:59.
[23] Surah al-Hashr 59:7.
[24] See Imam Khomeini, Islamic Government: The Governance of the Jurist, trans. Hamid Algar (Tehran: The Institute for the Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works, 2001). http://www.al-islam.org/islamicgovernment [Trans.]
[25] Surah Yunus 10:32.
[26] Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 67; Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 1, chap. 2, p.34.
[27] Surah al-Hijr 15:39.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: al-islam.org

Categorized Models of Islamic Government

The basis of values in Islam is not “all or none” or of a single level. Values have varying degrees which begin with the lowest degree up to the highest. The same is true of the Islamic political system. Islam presents an ideal form of government which can materialize under particular circumstances by those who have exceptional qualifications, capabilities and merits that cannot be found in others. In reality, that form of Islamic government can be run only by those who possess infallibility [‘ismah] and do not have the least defect and blemish in their thinking, speech or action.
This is the highest form of Islamic government that can be described so far—the government headed by the one who not only refrains from thinking of sin but also does not unconsciously make a mistake. He has no blemish of any sort and completely abides with what is good; he perfectly knows the code of Islamic laws and implements them exactly. This is exactly the ideal form of government which was implemented by the prophets including the Prophet of Islam (s) and during the short reign of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a).
Of course, more ideal than this can also be imagined but it is impossible to implement, and that is the form of government whose chief executive as well as commanders, governors and mayors are all infallible [ma‘sum].
As we have said, this form of government will never be realized because in no period of time will the number of infallible personages be such that all government posts can be occupied by them. The only ideal form which can materialize is that a ma‘sum heads the government hierarchy. Besides, this ideal form will only materialize at the time of the presence of a ma‘sum after removal of all impediments to his rule.
Therefore, in the Islamic political system various stages and degrees have been considered for the government. After failing to establish the highest form of Islamic government headed by a ma‘sum, (during this period of occultation [ghaybah]) we should not give up trying to establish an Islamic government.
In the case of inaccessibility of an infallible Imam we have to entrust the government to one who in terms of knowledge, God-wariness and management—whose highest degree can be found in a ma‘sum as he has infallibility in knowledge, motive and action—is nearest to an infallible Imam. In the absence of such a person, the government must be entrusted to the one who is lower to him in station, one after the other, until it reaches the turn of the one who has the least qualification to run the government. With a degree lower than that, the government objectives will never materialize. Under no circumstances should this form of government be chosen.
Rational proof of the wilayah al-faqih system
The ideal and highest form of Islamic government which is the sought-after according to Islam is the rule of a ma‘sum. When its ideal form cannot be established due to the absence of a ma‘sum, the one chosen to rule should be one who is nearest to the infallibles in both knowledge and action. He can be no other than a duly competent jurist [faqih] who, on account of merits, capabilities and proximity to the infallibles in terms of knowledge, behavior and managerial skill, is regarded as the successor to the infallible Imam.
So, the justification of the wilayah al-faqih system is that when there is no direct access to the infallible Imam, the duly competent faqih who is superior to the rest in the knowledge of laws, in piety, even in sociopolitical matters, in the observance of social justice and enforcement of laws, in possessing political acumen to manage society and practical skill in ways of implementing laws, in struggling against evil and carnal desires and preferring the interests of Islam to personal and factional interests, has to take charge of government affairs.
In this regard, one may possibly say: Since we do not have direct access to a ma‘sum, the qualifications required for the Islamic ruler are no longer necessary nor credible—neither the expertise in Islamic jurisprudence, God-wariness nor managerial skill. Anyone may file his candidacy to rule over the Muslims, and once the majority of people accept him, his authority should be credible and binding. In reality, this hypothesis is anchored in the principle of “all or none”.
That is, if the highest form of qualifications which only a ma‘sum possesses is unavailable, those qualifications in their lower forms are no longer credible. Once the piety of a ma‘sum is not possessed by anyone, piety is not necessary at all for a ruler. A corrupt person who commits a cardinal sin can also occupy the highest post in an Islamic government. One who does not have a rudimentary knowledge of jurisprudence can also occupy the highest post in an Islamic government. According to the Islamic political system, this notion has no justification at all and is rejected. It can only be justified in the Western democratic theory.
In Muslim countries, some intellectuals who have a superficial and scanty knowledge of Islam have mixed their understandings of Islam with the tenets of Western culture and succumbed to eclecticism. In supporting the democratic model, they show in practice that they have accepted the notion of “all or none”. These narrow-minded Muslims believe that in the presence of an infallible Imam, he must rule over the Islamic society. In his absence the criterion should be the opinion of the majority, and no condition other than popular acceptability be binding. Such a view is in no way compatible and concordant with the Islamic perspective and the dominant spirit of Islamic laws.
Islam has laid down different levels for its laws. In its value system, it has also considered different degrees of values. With respect to social issues, we can equally observe that it has taken into account special or particular conditions for some social matters. In case of failure to meet all the required conditions, those conditions that can be met are acceptable. With the aim of elucidating this point, we shall deal with the issue of pious endowment [waqf] which is one of the social laws of Islam.
It is stated in the rulings on waqf that if a pious bequest [mawqufah] is endowed with a particular use, it must be utilized for only that particular use. Now, if that particular use is practically no more available and has no external manifestation, the pious bequest must be utilized in something which is most similar to the intended utility. For example, our predecessors had endowed many pious bequests to provide the forages of riding animals of pilgrims to the holy shrine of the Doyen of the Martyrs (‘a). The income of these endowed properties was spent on the forages of horses and camels mounted by pilgrims to the mausoleum of Imam al-Husayn (‘a) in Karbala’.
However, since that utility is no longer applicable now as no one goes to Karbala’ for pilgrimage riding a horse or camel anymore and traveling is done by air, rail or road, shall we dispense with those endowed properties and not consider any utility for them on the basis of the “all or none” thesis, or as the Islamic perspective or approach demands, shall we choose the other options which are the most similar to the previous utility to provide fuel for airplanes and vehicles of pilgrims to Karbala’?
Similarly, if an endower [waqif] wills that after him any one of his sons who becomes a mujtahid will assume the custodianship of his waqf, yet none of his sons is a mujtahid though one of them has almost attained ijtihad or is a quasi-mujtahid, will the waqf remain without any guardian since none of the potential guardians is fully qualified? Or, shall we choose the second most qualified in the absence of the perfectly qualified guardian, i.e. choose the one who has almost attained ijtihad in the absence of a mujtahid?
In religious and sociopolitical issues there are many examples that both reason and religion regard as having an array of degrees. Similarly, in the Islamic government different degrees have been considered for the ruler. In the case of unavailability of the highest degree, i.e. an infallible Imam like in this period of occultation, the government should be entrusted to the one who is the deputy of the infallible Imam (‘a) and the nearest to him in every respect, and that is no one other than the duly competent faqih.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Islam’s non-judgmental approach in value-giving and assigning duties

In contrast to the above single level and one-dimensional value system, in some systems concerning personal and individual actions as well as sociopolitical changes, various levels and diverse schemes have been functioning. In the first place, an ideal scheme is presented and then other schemes with lesser degrees, advantages and conditions, and finally, emergency schemes. In various cases and situations, there is also the “case-to-case basis” permission in Islam.
For example, in Islam it is incumbent upon any person who reaches the age of puberty to perform prayer with utmost concentration and sincerity including all other conditions. But this ruling is not fixed but alterable in emergency and exceptional situations. It is applicable only to the situation when a person is capable of performing prayer with all its conditions and parts, whereas in exceptional and emergency situations some of its conditions and parts are no longer required. In a situation when the person praying must take a bath [ghusl] but there is no water available, or water is harmful for him; or he must perform ablution [wudhu] but cold water (which is the only available) is harmful for him; or he cannot perform ablution, Islam does not accept the notion of “either all or none”.
Islam does not say that one should pray only when all conditions can be fulfilled and do so with utmost concentration and sincerity or not pray. In such cases, instead, Islam has offered man alternatives commensurate with the exceptional and emergent situation he may be in. In the abovementioned example, it has ordained that if a person is incapable of taking a bath or performing ablution, as the case may be, he still has to pray after performing dry ablution [tayammum]; if he cannot stand and pray, he should sit and pray; if he cannot pray while sitting, he should pray lying down. Even in a situation when a person is still conscious but cannot move his body including his tongue, Islam has not exempted him from prayer. Even in such a critical and bad situation he has to pray, but it is commensurate to his condition or situation.
This shows that in the Islamic value system different qualitative and quantitative degrees have been taken into account for sociopolitical and religious obligations, each of which has a value commensurate to its nature. In the first place, the lofty and ideal degree is considered and below it are the second and third degrees until the lowest degree which is related to an emergency or an exceptional situation. The obligation of man in the latter situation is the least that can be expected from him.
Worship has different degrees of value
Another example that can show the fundamental distinction and difference between the Kantian theory and the Islamic viewpoint is the value of worship [‘ibadah] and its different degrees. The highest form of worship is that which is done solely because of love and reverence for God—the same worship the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) described in one of his litanies [munajat]:
اِلٰهى مَا عَبَدْتُكَ خَوْفاً مِنْ عِقَابِكَ وَ لاَ طَمَعًا فِي ثَوابِكَ وَلٰكِنْ وَجَدْتُكَ أهْلاً لِلْعِبَادَةِ فَعَبْدتُك
.
“My Lord, I have not worshipped You out of fear of Your chastisement or out of greed for Your reward, but I found You worthy of worship so I worshipped You.”[20]
In another place, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) divides the worshippers into three groups:
إِنَّ قَوْماً عَبَدُوا اللهَ رَغْبَةً فَتِلْكَ عِبَادَةُ التُّجَّارِ، وَإِنَّ قَوْماً عَبَدُوا اللهَ رَهْبَةً فَتِلْكَ عِبَادَةُ الْعَبِيدِ، وَإِنَّ قَوْماً عَبَدُوا اللهَ شُكْراً فَتِلْكَ عِبَادَةُ الاَْحْرَارِ
.
“A group of people worship Allah out of desire for reward; this is the worship of traders. Another group worship out of fear; this is the worship of slaves. Yet another group worship Allah out of gratefulness. This is the worship of free men.”[21]
In his statement, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) regards the worship done solely out of gratitude and reverence to God as the highest and most superior, and Islam wants that all believers perform that kind of worship. However, it is clear that not all have the station, capacity and dedication to perform such worship. Such worship can only be done by the sincere awliya’ of Allah whose station is so sublime that they have been annihilated in the Beauty of the Beloved, and even if they are thrown into hellfire, they will not desist from worshipping and calling unto Him. Or, even if they are not admitted to paradise, they will not stop worshipping Him. No doubt, such individuals can hardly be found in millions.
Now, once we accept Kant’s notion of “all or none” and believe that an act is morally good only when it fulfils all necessary conditions and capabilities without even an iota lacking in it, it means that the only acceptable worship is that of the highest degree which is done solely because of gratitude and reverence to God; only the worship of the sincere awliya’ of Allah is accepted, and not the worship of those who desire paradise or are afraid of divine chastisement. Islam does not accept this myopic and bigoted view.
In order to facilitate the servants of God and remove any hardship or difficulty along their way, Islam has considered varying degrees as far as worship and other obligatory acts are concerned—degrees which begin with the least required capabilities and conditions, i.e. possession of the minimum valuable quantities, up to the highest degree or level which has all the required capabilities and conditions and to reach it means attainment of the highest spiritual station of man.
It is like the worship of personages such as the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) and the students of his school [maktab] who have attained the most exalted station and gnosis and reached the highest degree of servitude to God. But the worship of those who are below them and have reached lower stations and worship God out of desire for spiritual rewards and recompense is also acceptable. So is the worship of those who are even lower than them and worship God out of fear of His punishment. Their worship also has some value.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi Source: Imam reza network

Requisites of Legislation and Its Station in Islam

In Islamic legislation the goal of law is to protect the material and spiritual interests of human beings. Subsequently, a question is raised: Who should be the legislator? There are different views regarding this. Generally, the credibility of two conditions among political and legal philosophers is common: One is that the legislator must be one who knows the purpose of law. The second is that he should not sacrifice the interests of society before the altar of personal interests.
Legislator’s qualifications as exclusive to God
Here, apart from taking into account the above two qualifications, Islam holds that the legislator must definitely be aware of all the material and spiritual interests of man and not favor personal and group interests at the expense of the interests of society. Islam also highlights the point that legislation is basically the right of the one who can bid and forbid human beings. Even if certain individuals have great knowledge of the interests of society and consider the interests of society as more important than individual and group interests, still the right of legislation does not essentially belong to them because every law consciously or unconsciously contains command and prohibition.
In the session in which we talked about the relationship between right and duty, we explained that every law explicitly, implicitly, or suggestively commands and prohibits. Sometimes it says, “Don’t encroach upon the property of people,” which is an explicit prohibition, or “Honor the property of others,” which is an explicit command. At times, the language of law is bidding and forbidding. For example, it says that the right of so-and-so is established so others should observe this right. This is a command which is embedded in law. Similarly, others are not supposed to transgress this right, and this is a prohibition which is embedded in law.
Thus, the legislator must have the right to bid and forbid others and this right essentially belongs to God. The first condition is that the legislator must have the most knowledge and awareness of the interests of men and the highest form of such a condition is present in God because He is the most knowledgeable of what is good for His servants. Also, the second condition is that the legislator should not consider the individual interests as more important than the social interests and the highest form of such a condition is present in God because He acquires no benefit from the actions of His servants.
For all people to be faithful does not benefit Him whatsoever. Also, for all people to become infidels does not harm Him whatsoever. Observing or violating laws does not affect Him at all. Meanwhile, the third condition is something which none except God intrinsically possesses, which is the right over others to bid and forbid. What right do some people have to rule over others? All are equal before God and it is He who is the Owner of all human beings. The entire human race solely belongs to Him and it is only He who has the right over people to bid and forbid.
In other words, human beings should recognize God’s Lordship and give His right of Lordship. Thus, Lordship manifests itself in two senses: one in the ontological sense; that is, man has to regard the management of the universe as intrinsically belonging to God. He should believe that God has set innate laws in the universe. The sun and moon move by His leave and command, and the transformations in the universe take place according to His will. Thus, He is the cosmic Lord and Cherisher of the universe, Master of the Command, and the Regulator and Maintainer of the universe. Similarly, he has to believe that God also has the legislative Lordship. During the previous session we discussed the point that legislative Lordship belongs to God and monotheism in the legislative Lordship requires that man should acquire ranks from God alone, obtain the law from Him, while the implementer implements it in society by God’s permission.
Objection on the necessity of legal authorities’ plurality
This gives rise to skepticism thus expressed: You say that the law must be enacted by God for this is what monotheism in the legislative Lordship demands, but we see that in society we need laws which God has not enacted. The people enact these laws and were they not to do so, society would be left in abeyance. For example, so many laws in our Islamic society are enacted by the Islamic Consultative Assembly. These laws, needed by society, have not been enacted by God and the Prophet (s) and an illustrious example of these laws which everybody is familiar with are traffic laws. Without the existence of these rules, there would be so many accidents in the world endangering the lives and assets of people.
On the one hand, society is in need of such laws, and on the other hand, God has not enacted these relevant laws. Any driving and traffic rule is present neither in the Qur’an nor in the words of the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a). So, how can all laws be divine and godly and enacted by God? If common laws enacted by human legislators are also binding, it follows that we have two sources of legislative authority; one is God and the other, the people—which according to you is tantamount to polytheism in religious legislation. This skepticism is expressed in various forms, and already been addressed, but unfortunately, it is not understood the way it should be.
Reply to the first objection
In replying to the legitimate question raised, we need to pay attention to two points. One is that the law has numerous terminologies. Sometimes, law is referred to as general rules and does not include specific laws, executive orders and instructions. At times, the term “law” is so broadly understood that it includes even an administrative instruction issued by the head of an office to his subordinates. In other words, law is a term with general and specific meanings and both are correct.
The second point is that in Islam there is a set of fixed laws which under no circumstances can be amended. They are fixed for all people and at all times. There is also a set of alterable laws which follow the circumstances of time and place. While keeping in view the general principles elucidated in Islam, the mujtahidin, religious scholars and fuqaha have to legislate and enact these alterable laws.
What needs emphasis is that fixed laws are promulgated by God, and general frameworks are to be determined for alterable laws. It is impossible for all fixed and alterable laws to be enacted by a legislator uniformly and evenly all over the world. The alterable laws needed at all times and places are not limited and confined. The mental and intellectual capacity of man cannot contain all alterable laws needed from the beginning to the end of the world. As such, every part of these laws must be enacted at a particular time.
Assuming that during the early period of Islam when there was no trace of automobiles and vehicles, if it was said that drivers must keep to the right, the people would never understand and comprehend it. These laws must be enacted in every period according to specific requirements and circumstances, but they have a framework already determined by God. Those who enact these laws should follow that framework. There is a set of values which should not be neglected. This important task should be shouldered by those who know the fixed laws and the framework for alterable affairs better than everyone else.
Thus we mean that laws, which are divine and from God, are fixed and eternal laws. Secondly, God has already determined the framework for alterable laws which are the criterion for identifying the merit of alterable laws. In this regard, the Qur’an has an emphatic expression:
وَوَضَعَ الْمِيزَانَ ٭ أَلَّا تَطْغَوْا فِي الْمِيزَانِ
“And set up the balance, declaring, ‘Do not infringe the balance!’”[38][164]
What the divine and monotheistic outlook emphasizes and demands is that since law includes both command and prohibition, the one who has the right to enact law is he who has the right to bid and forbid the people and that is no one but God. Human beings have essentially no right to bid and forbid one another, let alone enact and implement laws. If alterable laws suitable to the requirements of time and place are supposed to be enacted, the authority to enact laws must come from God because it is He who has the intrinsic right to command and forbid. He has to grant others that right so that laws they enact become binding.
Second objection: absence of God’s will in legislation
Another objection being raised is that considering the authority of God as a requisite in legislation is nothing but empty rhetoric. It is not that given this requisite, changes are really taking place in the legislative process. Mere playing with words is taking place. For example, in the Islamic Consultative Assembly a certain number of people gather and deliberate what law they will enact about a particular alterable social affair at a given period.
Finally, they enact a certain law. What difference will it make whether God has granted authority or not? This is mere rhetoric. The criterion of the law’s credibility is that a number of experts examine the pros and cons and enact a law after identifying its merits. Is there any difference whether this law is enacted by individuals who have so-called legislative authority, or by other experts? The objection is noteworthy.
Reply to the second objection
The objection asserts that for a person to authorize another to do a certain work does not change the reality of the work. I ask, can social life be established without these authorizations? Assume that a person has parked his vehicle and you need it due to an emergency. Can you drive his vehicle without his permission, go, attend to the emergency, and return? Prior to his permission, do you have the right to use his vehicle? If you used it without his permission, then you did something against the law, giving him the right to sue you in court and ask for your conviction because he had not given you permission.
Consider as another example a man and a woman who want to marry each other. They have known each other for years. They have been working together in an office and are familiar with each other’s character. They are well- acquainted with each other’s families. Yet, as long as the wedding contract is not signed or a ceremony acceptable in their custom not held, their intimate relationship will be illegitimate. It is true that the marriage contract is mere verbal pronouncement that is observed through the consent of both parties, but it is an utterance that renders thousands of unlawful things lawful and also thousands of lawful things unlawful.
The social life of man depends on the same authorization. In principle, social life exists through the same authorization, permission, signing, and rejecting. Another example; assume that somebody is supposed to be appointed as your city mayor, but his letter of appointment is yet to be issued and the meeting for his appointment is awaited, does he have the right to go to the mayor’s office, occupy the mayor’s seat and start working? He has no such right and the employees will kick him out and say, “This is the table of the mayor!” If he says, “This table belongs to me, and a month from now I’m supposed to be your new mayor,” they will reply, “As soon as we receive your appointment, you will be our mayor.” If he says, “It’s only a matter of a signature and authority to be issued by the minister.” They will say, “Yes, it’s the same signature that will give you authority.” All social transactions acquire official status through a signature; so with legislation. When legislation is a prerogative of God, as it really is, only through His authority can rules enacted by others become binding; otherwise, those rules will never acquire legitimacy and credibility:
قُلْ ءَاَللّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَمْ عَلَى اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ
“Say, ‘Did Allah give you the sanction [to do so], or do you fabricate a lie against Allah?’”[39][165]
In the absence of God’s authority, what right do you have in saying that a certain act is permissible or not, halal or haram? This is the meaning of enactment of law—that is, this act is permissible while that act is not permissible. In simple terms, this is halal and that is haram. In the absence of authorization from God, can you issue such decrees? The difference between the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the National Assembly of the ex-regime lies in this—this assembly is formed through the one who is designated by God.
That is, the wali al-faqih gives it the permission to enact alterable laws and his authorization gives credit to the bills of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Once the wali al-faqih is granted this right by the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent), others do not have such a right. Also, once the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) is granted this right by God, others do not have such a right. The one who has been authorized by God directly or indirectly can exercise authority with respect to the affairs of others and command them to do or not to do a thing. But the one who has no authority has no right to bid and forbid, and his command and prohibition are not binding.
(In my theoretical discussions, I do not want to cite quotations from individuals, but Imam Khomeini cannot be placed in the rank of other individuals. His statements were derived from the Book and the Sunnah. As such, I shall quote his statements.) In one of his speeches, he explicitly said: “If the President is not designated by the wali al-faqih, he is taghut and it is not permissible to obey him.”[40][166]
The President is elected by the people through a general suffrage, but if he is not granted authority by the wali al-faqih, he is taghut as said by the Imam. His command and prohibition are not binding and it is not permissible to obey him. In all his decrees of confirmation [tanfidh] of the President, the Imam said: “I do hereby designate [nasb] you.” (In some instances, he stipulated: “By virtue of the divine guardianship [wilayat-e ilahi] I have, I do hereby designate you to the Presidency.”) This was in spite of the people’s vote, and their vote was confirmed to be valid.
Of course, the people are supposed to participate in social activities. It is their religious duty to get involved in elections. As such, during elections, the Imam would say: “It is a religious duty to participate in the elections. In the end, however, the religious credibility of the act of every legislator or designated authority must be traced back to God for it is He who is the Authority in the world. God has granted the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a) the authority to rule and legislate. The other person would be one designated by the Prophet (s) and the infallible Imam (‘a) through a general designation such as in the case of the wali al-faqih, or through a specific designation as in the case of the governors and deputies during their time. Such a person acquires legitimacy through the authority of any of the infallible personages. Once he is given authority, he acquires credibility.
So, having or not having authorization, having approval or not is the difference which exists in all social issues. What is the difference between a “mayor” whose appointment is not yet announced and the others? What is the difference between the “Minister” of Training and Education whose appointment is not yet announced and the others? It is true that the appointment is soon to be released but today he has no right to engage in any kind of official transaction. When he receives his letter of appointment, he will be officially commissioned and by means of a single signature, exercise authority over the public treasury.
A person may turn over his millions worth of property to you, and grant you the authority to spend it in whatever way you like. He may also give it as a public endowment. In any case, by uttering a single sentence, “I do hereby give my wealth,” everything is finished, and to exercise authority over his wealth becomes halal and permissible. But in the absence of his authority and grant, it is haram to exercise authority over his wealth. Anyone who exercises authority over his wealth shall be deemed criminal. In general, all social affairs follow this sort of authorization. In the absence of this permission and authority, nothing in social affairs can be deemed official. Given this, how can it be said that anyone who under the name of God wants to rule over the people and bid and forbid them is needless of any authority?
Is it possible to rule over the servants of God without His permission? As the people are not our servants, we have no right to rule over them. They are servants of God. The ruler and the ruled are equal before God. In the absence of God’s authorization, the president and the presided, the leader and the led are equal. When God authorizes a person, his command and prohibition become binding on others.
Man’s mastery over his destiny
Another issue is the concept of man’s mastery [hakimiyyah] over his destiny raised in newspapers and even in some speeches of the intellectuals and roundtables organized by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) saying that “human liberties are honorable because according to the Constitution, people are masters over their destiny,” It is thus, necessary to explain the various dimensions of this subject.
The word “hakimiyyah” (mastery or sovereignty) is discussed in two fields of law. (Of course, since the two terms are synonymous, those who do not have enough information tend to use them interchangeably.) One is in public international law in which it is said that every nation has mastery over its destiny (sovereignty). As a principle in public international law, this term governs the relations between countries, their position in relation to one another and against imperialist countries.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in the Western world, the sphere of colonialism was extended. Any state that possessed power and force occupied a land at the point of the bayonet or through trick and ruse, or placed a satellite state there, or sent its envoy to rule over there. That is, the destiny of a nation was controlled by others, or it became the protectorate of another country. In essence, the term “mandate” [qaymumiyyah] is a term used in international law. After the people became aware of this global oppression and rose up to claim their rights, the principle of sovereignty of nations was raised.
Gradually, it was established in international law that every nation had mastery over its own destiny. That is, others have no mandate or colonial right over any nation. “National sovereignty” means that every nation is independent in relation to another and has mastery over its own destiny. No nation has the right to regard itself guardian of other nations and no state has the right to consider itself mandatory of other states .This is the terminology used in international relations.
The second term is sovereignty of individuals within a society. This principle is related to basic rights. A society is comprised of factions and groups, but no faction or group has the right of dominance over another faction or group. This is opposed to the class-oriented views that existed in many countries throughout the world in which the ruling class was already specified and defined. For example, a family with one thousand members had the right to rule and anyone who wished to rule had to belong to that class. The rulers belonged to the noble class, landowners, or a specific race. This principle of mastery of every person over his own destiny negates the dominance of a particular class or person. So, within society no person can automatically say, “I have dominance over other people.” No group, class or race has the right to regard itself dominant over other groups, classes, or races. This is the principle of human rights.
All these rights and principles apply to the relationship between human beings, and not the relationship between man and God. Those dealing with these principles—whether they profess any religion or not—have never considered the relationship between man and God, let alone saying that God also has no right to exercise sovereignty over man. They were not interested in it. Instead, their interest was determining relations between people—i.e., did a country have the right to exercise sovereignty over another country? Did a certain group, faction, class or individual have the right to dominate others and shoulder the burden of determining their destiny?
That every person is master over his or her own destiny does not mean that God also does not have that right. Now, let us assume that all those who drafted these laws and stipulated these principles professed no religion and did not believe in God. But it is enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic that the people have mastery over their own destiny, provided God is the absolute Sovereign. The evidence is the tens of provisions in the Constitution which stipulate that divine laws must be implemented. Given the existence of these provisions, how can a person imagine that this right of sovereignty stipulated for individuals negates the sovereignty of God?! Can any intelligent person have such an understanding of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic?
Lack of contradiction between mastery of man and sovereignty of God
For clarity sake, I shall cite an example from psychology on the issue of “self-confidence”. It is said that man should have self-confidence. This sentence can be heard and read in books more than often. One of the outstanding pivots and dimensions of many discussions conducted daily in radio and television, especially in discussions on child-rearing and family discourses, is relevant to the issue of self-confidence. For example, it is said that a child must be brought up in such a manner that he or she acquires self-confidence.
Dealing with the youth must be such that they acquire self-confidence. Similarly, when raising moral issues it is much emphasized that individuals must have self-confidence and must not depend on others. Meanwhile, in Islam we have another concept called “trust and reliance in God” [tawakkul]. That is, man should not expect anything from himself vis-à-vis God. He has to seek everything from Him and to regard Him as the Omniscient and Omnipotent:
وَإِنْ يَمْسَسْكَ اللّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلاَ كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلاَّ هُوَ وَإِن يُرِدْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَلاَ رَآدَّ لِفَضْلِهِ يُصِِيبُ بِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ وَهُوَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ
“Should Allah visit you with some distress, there is no one to remove it except Him; and should He desire any good for you, none can stand in the way of His grace: He grants it to whomever He wishes of His servants, and He is the All-forgiving, the All-merciful.”[41][167]
Benefit and loss comes from Him and the will of man vis-à-vis the will of God is nothing. Compared to the majesty of God’s other creatures, he is utterly insignificant. In the teachings of Islam and the Qur’an, there has been an endeavor for man to be trained in such a manner that he always regards himself insignificant, humble and abject before God. The foundation of Islamic training rests upon the Lordship of Allah and the servitude of man.
They might ask: How is it possible for man to have self-confidence and at the same time regard himself insignificant before God? Is belittling oneself before God consistent with self-confidence, self-esteem, personality development, and similar concepts tackled in psychology especially in educational psychology?
This is similar to the objection they raised about sovereignty [hakimiyyah] which belongs to political issues and is related to the question of dominance over a person while this objection is raised in relation to psychological, moral and educational issues. Concerning the psychological question, the emphasis is on self-confidence vis-à-vis reliance on other people—the child must be trained in such a manner that he or she does not need to rely on his or her parents, friends, neighbors or relatives and can stand on his or her own feet. That means not to rely on other people and be dependent on them; but it does not mean to regard oneself independent of God.
Essentially, the discussion is related to a person’s relationship with other people. The concept of “self-confidence” means that you should behave and train yourself in such a way that you do not rely on others, and this is also emphasized in Islam. In the conduct of the Prophet (s) and the pure Imams(‘a) it is highlighted and emphasized, but unfortunately, we pay little attention to them, thinking they have been newly arrived at by the West.
During the time of the Holy Prophet (s) his companions were trained in such a manner that if someone was riding a horse and the whip in his hand fell on the ground, he would not ask his comrade who was moving beside his horse to pick it up for him. He would dismount, pick up the whip and ride again! This is the Islamic training which urges us to stand on our own feet, to carry our own load, not to be dependent on others, and not to covet others. But this does not mean that we should also regard ourselves independent of God:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ
“O mankind! You are the ones who stand in need of Allah, and Allah—He is the All-sufficient, the All-laudable.”[42][168]
Is it possible for man who is in a state of total poverty and need to regard himself needless of God? This is also a form of polytheism. Not to rely on God is diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the entire message of the Qur’an. There are hundreds of Qur’anic verses and traditions in this regard which enjoin man to regard himself as nothing before God and to ask Him for everything. Self-confidence is meant to determine the relationship between human beings, and teach them not to rely on other people because no one is more capable than another.
This is the reply to the question on self-confidence and reliance on God Similarly, in the realm of political issues such as that of individual sovereignty and national sovereignty, the case is the same. National sovereignty means that every nation should stand on its own feet and others should not exercise a mandate over it. Individual sovereignty means that a person has no spontaneous right to rule and dominate others. It means the individual and national right of sovereignty is subservient to the sovereignty of God. In essence, sovereignty belongs to God, and by extension, anyone who has been given authority to rule has the right to rule to the extent that God has granted him. In the absence of God’s permission, no person has the right to dominate another person.
Notes:
[43][164] Surah ar-Rahman 55:7-8.
[2][143] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:150-151.
[3][144] Akhund: a word of uncertain etymology that originally denoted a scholar of unusual attainment, but was later applied to lesser-ranking scholars, and then acquired a pejorative connotation, particularly in secularist usage.
[5][146] Surah al-Baqarah 2:34: “He was one of the faithless.”
[6][147] Surah al-Hijr 15:36-39.
[7][148] Surah Al ‘Imran 3:64.
[8][149] Surah at-Tawbah (or, Bara‘ah) 9:31.
[9][150] Surah an-Nahl 16:116.
[10][151] Surah Yunus 10:59.
[11][152] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:59.
[12][153] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:80.
[13][154] Surah an-Najm 53:3-4.
[14][155] Maqbulah: a hadith to which one may make acceptable reference. [Trans.]
[15][156] The maqbulah tradition is the tradition of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah who asked Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) whether it was permissible in the event of a disagreement between two Shi‘ah concerning a debt or a legacy to seek the verdict of the ruler or judge. He replied: “Anyone who has recourse to the ruler or judge, whether his case is just or unjust, has in reality had recourse to the taghut (i.e., the illegitimate ruling power). Whatever he obtains as a result of their verdict, he will have obtained by forbidden means, even if he has a proven right to it, for he will have obtained it through the verdict and judgment of the taghut, that power which God Almighty has commanded him to disbelieve in: “They desire to seek the judgment of the Rebel, though they were commanded to defy it” (Surah an-Nisa’ 4:60).” Imam as-Sadiq then advised the Shi‘ah to refer to one of the fuqaha, i.e. one learned in the principles and ordinances of Islamic law or, more generally, in all aspects of the faith. See Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 18, the section on the attributes of judges, pp. 98-99. [Trans.]
[16][157] Marfu‘ah: ‘traceable’ – refers to any tradition that can be traced back to a Ma‘sum (infallible – referring specifically to the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a)), regardless of the continuity in its chain of transmission.
[17][158] Abu Khadijah, one of the trusted companions of Imam as-Ṣadiq (‘a), relates: “I was commanded by the Imam (‘a) to convey the following message to our friends (i.e., the Shi‘ah): ‘When enmity and dispute arise among you, or you disagree concerning the receipt or payment of a sum of money, be sure not to refer the matter to one of these malefactors for judgment. Designate as judge and arbiter someone among you who is acquainted with our injunctions concerning what is permitted and what is prohibited, for I appoint such a man as judge over you. Let none of you take your complaint against another of you to the tyrannical ruling power’.” Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 18, p. 100. [Trans.]
[18][159] Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 67; Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 18, 98.
[19][160] Surah adh-Dhariyat 51:56.
[20][161] Surah Luqman 31:13.
[21][162] Surah Yunus 10:59.
[22][163] Surah an-Nahl 16:116.
[24][150] Surah an-Nahl 16:116.
[25][151] Surah Yunus 10:59.
[26][152] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:59.
[27][153] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:80.
[28][154] Surah an-Najm 53:3-4.
[29][155] Maqbulah: a hadith to which one may make acceptable reference. [Trans.]
[30][156] The maqbulah tradition is the tradition of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah who asked Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) whether it was permissible in the event of a disagreement between two Shi‘ah concerning a debt or a legacy to seek the verdict of the ruler or judge. He replied: “Anyone who has recourse to the ruler or judge, whether his case is just or unjust, has in reality had recourse to the taghut (i.e., the illegitimate ruling power). Whatever he obtains as a result of their verdict, he will have obtained by forbidden means, even if he has a proven right to it, for he will have obtained it through the verdict and judgment of the taghut, that power which God Almighty has commanded him to disbelieve in: “They desire to seek the judgment of the Rebel, though they were commanded to defy it” (Surah an-Nisa’ 4:60).” Imam as-Sadiq then advised the Shi‘ah to refer to one of the fuqaha, i.e. one learned in the principles and ordinances of Islamic law or, more generally, in all aspects of the faith. See Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 18, the section on the attributes of judges, pp. 98-99. [Trans.]
[31][157] Marfu‘ah: ‘traceable’ – refers to any tradition that can be traced back to a Ma‘sum (infallible – referring specifically to the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a)), regardless of the continuity in its chain of transmission.
[32][158] Abu Khadijah, one of the trusted companions of Imam as-Ṣadiq (‘a), relates: “I was commanded by the Imam (‘a) to convey the following message to our friends (i.e., the Shi‘ah): ‘When enmity and dispute arise among you, or you disagree concerning the receipt or payment of a sum of money, be sure not to refer the matter to one of these malefactors for judgment. Designate as judge and arbiter someone among you who is acquainted with our injunctions concerning what is permitted and what is prohibited, for I appoint such a man as judge over you. Let none of you take your complaint against another of you to the tyrannical ruling power’.” Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 18, p. 100. [Trans.]
[33][159] Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 67; Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 18, 98.
[34][160] Surah adh-Dhariyat 51:56.
[35][161] Surah Luqman 31:13.
[36][162] Surah Yunus 10:59.
[37][163] Surah an-Nahl 16:116.
[39][165] Surah Yunus 10:59.
[40][166] Ṣahifeh-ye Nur, vol. 9, p. 251.
[41][167] Surah Yunus 10:107.
[42][168] Surah Fatir (or al-Mala’ikah) 35:15.

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: al-islam.org

Legislation and Sovereignty in Islam

Hence, according to the Islamic perspective and legislative Lordship, it accrues that the Legislator in principle must be God and beside Him, no one has the right of legislation. Now, the question here is: Is there no other type of legislation which is legitimate? In reply, it has been stated before that subordinate to God’s legislation and not parallel to Him, there are those who have the right to enact law by God’s leave, and that law is credible and binding with the permission of God.
وَلاَ تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَـذَا حَلاَلٌ وَهَـذَا حَرَامٌ لِِِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ لاَ يُفْلِحُونَ
“Do not say, asserting falsely with your tongues, ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful,’ to fabricate lies against Allah. Indeed those who fabricate lies against Allah will not be felicitous.”[24][150]
As such, one should not say to himself, “This is halal and that is haram” for halal and haram do not depend on your opinion and preference. This is a form of polytheism. You have to see what God has said. In another place, the Qur’an thus states:
قُلْ ءَاَللّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَمْ عَلَى اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ
“Say, ‘Did Allah give you the sanction [to do so], or do you fabricate a lie against Allah?’”[25][151]
Yes, God gave the Prophet (s) authority to legislate and to bid and forbid the people, saying: “Obey Allah and obey the Apostle”[26][152] and “Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah.”[27][153]
Of course, the Messenger of Allah (s) would not act according to his own desire. Rather, his action was based on divine inspiration and revelation. At times when a verse would not be revealed to him, he used to receive divine inspiration [ilham] and non-Qur’anic revelation [wahy] by the legislative will of God:
وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى ٭ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى
“He does not speak out of [his own] desire: it is just a revelation that is revealed [to him].”[28][154]
Therefore, if a person is authorized by God to enact laws, any law he enacts becomes respected and binding. The Shi‘ah believe that such an authority granted to the Holy Prophet (s) is also granted to the infallible Imams (‘a). Of course, in scholastic theology [‘ilm al-kalam] clear proofs substantiating this claim have been presented. One of these proofs is the tradition about the two weighty things [hadith ath-thaqalayn] in which the pure Imams (‘a) are treated as partners [‘idl] of the Qur’an:
إنِّي تَارِكٌ فِيكُمُ الثَّقَلَيْنِ: كِتَابَ اللهِ وَعِتْرَتِي أهْلَ بَيْتِي، مَا إنْ تَمَسَّكْتُمْ بِهِمَا لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِي أبَداً
.
“Verily, I am leaving among you two weighty things [thaqalayn]: The Book of Allah and my progeny [‘itrati], the members of my Household [Ahl al-Bayt]. If you hold fast to them, you shall never go astray.”
Here we are not in pursuit of presenting and proving the Shi‘ah doctrines but to point out that those who believe in this principle acceptable to the Shi‘ah regard the infallible Imams (‘a) besides the Holy Prophet (s) to also have such authority. On the contrary, there are also those who say that only the Messenger of Allah (s) was infallible and incumbent upon us to follow. But this difference in opinion does not make such a difference as far as our subject is concerned.
Assuming that we were living at the time of the Holy Prophet (s) who appointed a governor of a city and asked us to obey the governor, was it obligatory to obey the governor under the aegis of obedience to the Holy Prophet (s), or not? Was obedience to him inconsistent with obedience to the Prophet (s) and God and the sovereignty of Allah? The answer is negative because that person was the representative and envoy of a prophet who in turn had been designated by God. Our belief is that the infallible Imams (‘a) also have the same prerogative.
For the present time, they have also designated individuals on the basis of quality and not personality, and the one who is closest to the Infallibles (‘a) and the most righteous is appointed by them to rule. Now, sometimes this belief can be proved through the Maqbulah[29][155] of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah,[30][156] Marfu‘ah[31][157] of Abu Khadijah[32][158] and other traditions, and at times through rational proofs. Through various statements fuqaha have engaged in proving it.
Thus, the essence of the theory is that just as the Holy Prophet (s) during his lifetime appointed a person to rule and govern a region of the Islamic land and obedience to him was incumbent upon the people of the region, or just as the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) during his caliphate appointed individuals as governors and rulers of Islamic territories such as Bahrain, Ahwaz, Egypt, and others and obedience to them was obligatory, during this period of occultation [ghaybah] those who are like Malik al-Ashtar in political acumen and knowledge of jurisprudence and have the competence, merit and capability to lead and administer the Islamic society are designated to take charge of the government according to the principle of wilayah al-faqih and obedience to them is incumbent upon us.
This is not in conflict with the legislative Lordship of God. In fact, their sovereignty is under the auspices of Divine Lordship. Since God has commanded His Prophet (s), and the Prophet (s) in turn, appointed them as governors, or since the infallible Imam (‘a) designated his specific or general deputies, it is incumbent upon us to obey them. In other words, obedience to the governor is obedience to the Prophet (s) and God. On the contrary, opposition to him is tantamount to opposition to the Prophet (s) and opposition to the Prophet (s), in turn, is tantamount to opposition to God.
In the same vein, obedience to the wali al-faqih is obedience to the infallible Imam (‘a) and the Prophet (s), and thus, to God, and disobedience to him is disobedience to the infallible Imam (‘a) and the Prophet (s), and thus, to God. This point has been categorically stated in the Maqbulah of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah when Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) says:
يَنْظُرُ إِلىٰ مَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ قَدْ رَوىٰ حَدِيثُنَا وَ نَظَرَ في حَلاَلِنَا وَ حَرَامِنَا وَ عَرَفَ أَحْكَامَنَا فَلْيَرْضُوا بِهِ حَكَمًا فَإِنّي قَدْ جَعَلْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ حَاكِمًا. فَإِذَا حَكَمَ بِحُكْمِنَا فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْهُ مِنْهُ فَإِنَّمَا إِسْتَخَفَّ بِحُكْمِ اللهِ وَ عَلَيْنَا رَدَّ وَ الرَّادُّ عَلَيْنَا الرَّادُّ عَلىٰ اللهِ وَ هُوَ عَلىٰ حَدِّ الشِّرْكِ بِاللهِ
.
“They must seek out one of you who narrates our traditions, who is versed in what is permissible and what is forbidden, who is well acquainted with our laws and ordinances, and accept him as judge and arbiter, for I appoint him as judge over you. So, anyone who rejects his judgment is as if he belittles the judgment of Allah and rejects us, and anyone who rejects us is as if he rejects Allah, and rejection of Him is tantamount to associating partners with Him.”[33][159]
The Imam (‘a) said that it “is tantamount to associating partners with Him” because polytheism is the opposite of monotheism, and one of the pillars of monotheism is belief in the legislative Lordship. Now, if we accept the sovereignty of God, and under His auspices, the sovereignty of the Prophet (s) and the Imam (‘a) and those who are designated by God through the Imam (‘a), it follows that we have accepted monotheism in the legislative Lordship.
And if we reject it, it means that we are committing polytheism in the legislative Lordship. Thus, “rejection of them” means that if a person rejects the fuqaha designated to rule over the people it is as if he has rejected the Imams (‘a). That is, if a person says, “I do not recognize wilayah al-faqih,” he is saying, “I do not recognize the infallible Imam” and if a person does not accept the Imam (‘a), he has in a sense associated partners with God because he has rejected an aspect of His legislative Lordship. Of course, this is spiritual and esoteric polytheism and it does not render a person ritually impure [najis].
As such, it is established that if a person accepts that sovereignty intrinsically belongs to God alone, he has to accept also that at a lower level, it also belongs to the Messenger of Allah (s). It is under the auspices of God’s sovereignty that the sovereignty of the Messenger of Allah (s) and that of the Imams (‘a) and their deputies are realized and acquire legitimacy. If we uphold the legitimacy of rule in a different way, we have actually upheld a form of polytheism in sovereignty.
Therefore, the rational reason why the Islamic system must be based on divine laws and under a ruler designated by God is the legislative Lordship of God. If we try to properly understand tawhid, we will arrive at the same conclusion, and if certain people reject this conclusion, their faith is essentially weak and their [state of belief in] tawhid is impure and tainted with shirk.
One may ask, “Why must laws of society be divine”? If certain people do not believe in God and His law and enact and implement laws by themselves, will the society not be reformed? If so, how have certain societies in the world reached a certain stage of life without acting upon God’s law? This is a skepticism raised by many “intellectuals” who ask, “Why should law be promulgated by God?” They are of the opinion that by using their intellect people can make laws and act upon them, without arising any problem.
Reasons behind God’s legislative monopoly
In order reply to this skepticism, it must be noted that man is a unitary being but he has various organs, senses and dimensions, and these dimensions are linked and knitted together. Man does not have an economic dimension alone. So long as one enacts laws for the economy and administers the economic dimension of his society, his condition shall be in order. His economy is related to his polity. His polity is related to his civil and social laws. His civil laws are related to his criminal laws, and all these are related to the international law. Their totality is firmly connected to man’s spiritual, psychological and moral dimensions.
Man does not constitute ten beings. He does not have ten souls either. Man has a divine spirit which has different dimensions and aspects, all interconnected. So, if there is a defect in one dimension, it will naturally affect the others. God who has created man and ordained social life for him has endowed his natural disposition [fitrah] with elements which naturally and innately draw him toward the establishment of social life. Therefore, God has a purpose in the creation of man which is to attain human perfection under the aegis of social life, and advance all dimensions of his existence which are at the service of the spiritual and religious dimension toward perfection, and finally, achieve the ideal:
وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ
“I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me.”[34][160]
What is said must take place under the auspices of worship [‘ibadah] which is inextricably interwoven with tawhid and rububiyyah; otherwise, human perfection will not materialize. Of course, through another way, outward order may also be established in society which is worthy of reflection; for example, the “order” which exists today in countries whose symbol is America. It can be observed that in all high schools in the model of “civilized” countries in the world armed policemen must be stationed. Notwithstanding the presence of armed units, killing and crimes take place daily in these high schools. This is the order established by mankind. The same is true in cases of other corruption and crimes.
Even assuming that without acting upon divine laws and paying attention to the spiritual dimension of man, outward civil order can still be established in society, yet the ultimate purpose of his life can not be ensured. Is the life of man that of a termite? Or, is human society similar to bees which can be established through an outward order? All these systems, security measures, advancement, growth, science, industry, and technology are means to evolve the human soul and get closer to God. Who can grasp this relationship?
Who can identify which type of food or manner of living will contribute toward achieving proximity to God? Who ascertains whether eating pork and drinking wine will contribute toward the achievement of happiness? Notwithstanding their progress in the science of medicine, medical scientists of the world conclude that excessive consumption of alcohol may be harmful for the brain cells, but they do not know whether it affects the eternal bliss of man because they have no experience in this regard being beyond empirical observation.
Man’s life must be codified in such a manner that all dimensions are taken into account and the focus is not only on his physical health and wellbeing and political-economic condition. The interrelationship of all dimensions must take place in a cohesive and harmonious system. No one except God the Creator, with his all-embracing knowledge can establish a relationship between these dimensions and guide them toward ultimate perfection. This is the reason why it is God who must enact the law. Furthermore, which legislator will set his personal interests aside at the moment of legislation? It is clear that any group that gains power tries to enact and implement laws which serve its interests. For instance, in Muslim countries, as soon as an administration assumes office, it enacts new rules and regulations which are mostly in favor of the ruling party. It makes no difference whether it is leftist or rightist. This is human nature, and by the way, most human beings are fallible.
Only God is immune from individual or group favoritism and His interest is not served in any way. The laws of God are neither favorable nor unfavorable to Him. His only concern is what is good or bad for human beings. Thus, on one hand, His knowledge is boundless, and on the other hand, He has no personal interest in enacting laws. Moreover, He has the right of Lordship over His creatures. If man wants to attain perfection, he has to observe the right of Divine Lordship. This is another subject that requires explanation which is not possible in this limited time.
Human beings have rights over one another and they know of latitudinal rights [huquq al-‘Ardht] like the right of the farmer over the worker and vice versa, or the right of the ruler over the people and vice versa. The people know these rights, yet do they know the right of God over the people and the manner of granting it? The hallmark of the Islamic outlook is that above all rights is the right of Allah [haqq Allah]. Therefore, it must first be granted so that the rights of people can be given under the aegis of God’s right. Can the rights of men be considered in statutory laws without taking the right of God into account? It is certainly unjust if not cruel, to deny the rights of God! With this ingratitude, can one attain human perfection?
Which ingratitude is greater than ingratitude to God which the Qur’an points out: “Polytheism is indeed a great injustice”?[35][161]
The greatest of injustices is injustice toward Divine Lordship. As such, if we do not take into account the right of God, we will commit a great injustice. How then will we be just to others? How can a person be just who is unjust to his Creator? As we have said, one of the forms of shirk is the belief in other than God’s having the right of legislation.
Since God is perfectly aware of our interests, gains no benefit in legislation and has the right of legislative Lordship over man, the law of God must be observed, and rules obeyed which have been introduced by those who are designated by God as far as they are authorized, so that man is not guilty of what the following verse describes:
قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُم مََا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ لَكُم مِّن رِزْقٍ فَجَعَلْتُم مِنْهُ حَرَامًا وَحَلاَلاً قُلْ ءَاَللّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَمْ عَلَى اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ
“Say, ‘Have you regarded what Allah has sent down for you of [His] provision, whereupon you made some of it unlawful and [some] lawful?’ Say, ‘Did Allah give you the sanction [to do so], or do you fabricate a lie against Allah?’”[36][162]
And in another verse, it is stated:
وَلاَ تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَـذَا حَلاَلٌ وَهَـذَا حَرَامٌ لِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ لاَ يُفْلِحُونَ
“Do not say, asserting falsely with your tongues, ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful,’ to fabricate lies against Allah. Indeed those who fabricate lies against Allah will not be felicitous.”[37][163]
Therefore, in order to observe the right of legislative Lordship of God, one should first refer to the law of God and then examine whom He has granted the authority to enact laws or whom He has granted the authority to implement them. The reason for this is that if the implementation of those laws is beyond His command, exercise of authority [tasarruf] over the servants of God without the permission of their Master will again take place.
In the divine perspective, exercise of authority even on oneself is not permissible if it is against the pleasure of God, let alone exercise of authority over others. As such, man has no right to commit suicide. In Western liberalism, it may possibly be said that since man owns himself, he has the right to commit suicide if he wants to, but in the divine system it is not so. Man has no ownership of himself as he belongs to God. Thus, he has no right to commit suicide because God has not permitted him to do so. The authority over the life and soul of man is with Him and with none else. Hence, how can one who has no right to kill himself, grant permission to others to kill him?
None has the right to amputate his hands or blind his eyes because the Owner of these body limbs is God who has not given him that permission. How can a person give authority to another to amputate the hand of a thief or imprison a person? No one has such a right because others are also servants of God and without the permission of God, one cannot exercise authority over them. Thus, in legislation as well as in the implementation of laws, the permission of God is binding. In a nutshell, the Islamic political theory in this regard stands on the proposition that God’s legislative Lordship is a pillar of tawhid and he who does not observe this pillar commits kufr similar to that which is committed by Iblis.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

اطلاعات تماس

 

کمک و هدایای مالی به سایت جهت پیشرفت:

6037998157379727 (بانک ملی بنام سیدمحمدموسوی )

روابط عمومی گروه :  09174009011

 

 شماره نوبت استخاره: 09102506002

 

آیدی همه پیام رسانها :     @shiaquest

 

پاسخگویی سوالات شرعی: 09102506002

آدرس : استان قم شهر قم گروه پژوهشی تبارک

 

پست الکترونیک :    [email protected]

 

 

 

درباره گروه تبارک
گروه تحقیقی تبارک با درک اهميت اطلاع رسـاني در فضاي وب در سال 88 اقدام به راه اندازي www.shiaquest.net نموده است. اين پايگاه با داشتن بخش های مختلف هزاران مطلب و مقاله ی علمي را در خود جاي داده که به لحاظ کمي و کيفي يکي از برترين پايگاه ها و دارا بودن بهترین مطالب محسوب مي گردد. ارائه محتوای کاربردی تبلیغ برای طلاب و مبلغان ،ارائه مقالات متنوع کاربردی پاسخگویی به سئوالات و شبهات کاربران ,دین شناسی، جهان شناسی ،معاد شناسی، مهدویت و امام شناسی و دیگر مباحث اعتقادی ،آشنایی با فرق و ادیان و فرقه های نو ظهور، آشنایی با احکام در موضوعات مختلف و خانواده و... از بخشهای مختلف این سایت است. اطلاعات موجود در این سایت بر اساس نياز جامعه و مخاطبين توسط محققين از منابع موثق تهيه و در اختيار كاربران قرار مى گيرد.

تمامی حقوق این پرتال برای گروه  پژوهشی تبارک محفوظ است .

Template Design:Dima Group