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

The Islamic Government, Challenges and Cultural Plots

Our concern was to elucidate the Islamic political theory which states that the law which is either directly stipulated by God the Exalted in the Holy Qur’an or enacted by the Holy Prophet (s) and the infallible Imams (‘a), or by a person designated by an infallible Imam (‘a), is binding in society. In any case, the law must be pleasing to God and in accordance with Islamic standards. Those who oppose the idea that religious laws must rule and be implemented in society can be divided into three. The first group essentially does not accept religion. Such people do not want particular religious laws to be implemented in the country. Thank God such people are very few in our society.
The second group is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of religion is separate from that of society and politics. It regards religion as concerned with personal affairs and the relationship between God and man, saying that problems pertaining to social life have nothing to do with religion. This trend is generally called “secularism” or the separation of religion from the problems of life.
The third group really believes that Islam has sociopolitical laws but it is unconsciously influenced by eclecticism and Western culture. Some of its views are inconsistent with Islam.
The clergy and its crucial duty of guidance
In any case, in accordance with the duty set by God, the Exalted, we need to point out these truths as much as possible in order to clarify the Islamic stance and prevent intellectual, ideological and religious deviations. Some of our friends and well-wishers think that engaging in these discussions in these particular sociopolitical conditions is unnecessary, while others think that it is harmful, as it encourages differences in opinion and conviction.
They imagine that the more we strive for intellectual and ideological unity and avoid issues that lead to dispersion and separation is beneficial for society. Out of good intention, there are also some who say, “Instead of holding such discussions, engage in more positive activities in society, assume positions of authority and render services which are beneficial for society.”
Let me say to these colleagues most of whom are well-wishers and with good intentions: Our concern is the religious duty which God, the Exalted, has placed upon our shoulders. It is incumbent, first and foremost, upon the prophets and infallible Imams (‘a) and then upon the ‘ulama’.
It is a tortuous path full of dangers, not mere verbal opposition, but accompanied by abuse, calumny, foul language, and at times, exile, imprisonment, torture and libel, and sometimes, even assassination. These difficulties have been experienced throughout history by the prophets and infallible Imams (‘a). On our part, we have no choice but to tread this path even if our friends reproach and criticize us. As God, the Exalted, says:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى مِن بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَـئِكَ يَلعَنُهُمُ اللّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ
“Indeed those who conceal what We have sent down of manifest proofs and guidance, after We have clarified it in the Book for mankind—they shall be cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers.”[13][133]
Those who are aware of the truth of religion and conceal it on account of personal gains and group interests will incur the curse of God, the angels and holy saints [awliya’]. As mentioned in the noble hadith,
إِذَا ظَهَرَتِ الْبِدَعُ فِي أُمَّتِي فَلْيُظْهِرِ الْعَالِمُ عِلْمَهُ وَ إِلاَّ فعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللهِ...
“When innovation in religion [bid‘ah] emerges in my ummah, it is incumbent upon the scholar [‘alim] to reveal his knowledge (of the religion) otherwise the curse of Allah shall be upon him…”[14][134]
Based on this, we have two options: Either we endure the reproaches and criticism of friends and the calumny of enemies, and in return, seek the pleasure of God, or prefer the praise of some people and thus, incur the curse of God. We prefer to endure slanders and not incur the curse of God. Thus, this crucial responsibility is placed upon our shoulders and for the likes of us, dealing with these matters is more urgent than anything else.
It is true that today we have problems along our borders, and, in future military dangers may arise. It is true that members of our consular staff and 35 drivers are held captive by the deviant and retrogressive Ṭaliban in Afghanistan, which has upset our nation and government and prompted public demonstrations, protests and been referred to international commissions.
In our opinion, however, the danger of the capture of 40 to 50 Iranians by enemies is not greater than the danger of the capture of thousands of our Muslim youth in universities by the agents of America. The bondage of our youth by the agents, functionaries and proponents of Western culture is far more dangerous than the capture of a number of Iranian citizens by a deviant group. It is true that they are experiencing difficulties and tribulations but they shall be rewarded by God.
When our dear youth, especially the children of martyrs and freed prisoners of war, however, are on the verge of intellectual and religious deviation and bondage, what could be more serious? Should no one feel a sense of responsibility in this regard?
(Some people may say, “You are thinking erroneously.” Well, if man is free to express his views, at least as a person who is engaged in religious and Islamic sciences for more than 50 years I also have the right to express my views.)
Our concern is their opposing our claim that Islamic and divine laws must govern society, and raising doubts already mentioned in previous discussions. They say that implementing the laws of Islam in society is discordant with the natural rights of man. One of the natural rights of man is freedom which is manifested in freedom of thought, expression, religion and political views.
By nature, every person has the right to choose whatever religion he or she likes, change his or her religion; express and promote any view and belief he or she has. If Islamic laws must govern this country, there will be some who do not want these laws. They all have the right to express their views, cast their vote and say that “We do not want these laws”. Those who totally reject religion to express such a view is not surprising, but unfortunate when the same is sometimes expressed by those who claim to be religious, and worse, even use an Islamic appellation for themselves, and introduce themselves as followers of the Imam!
Promotion of destructive Western freedom in the national press
This state of affairs has reached a point where it is posed in newspapers—sometimes with a serious tone and at times as humor, sometimes as a quotation from a certain writer, a young man or a woman—Why, in principle, a man can have many wives while a woman cannot have many husbands. They also suggest that a communal wedding be held and a number of men share a single wife!
It is worth noting that these issues are not from periodicals of communist countries. Instead, such issues are presented in newspapers of the Islamic Republic! There is also someone who delivers a speech in an Islamic university, which he describes as an Islamic institution, in which he says, “Today, opposing a leader or the Prophet is nothing. Even if people want to demonstrate against God, no law has the right to prevent them!”
If these words are uttered in a non-Muslim country or by a person who is an infidel or a polytheist, it will not surprise. But in reality, these words have been uttered in the Islamic Republic, under the sovereignty of Islam and under the rule of wilayah al-faqih, in universities, and no one is confronting them. Sometimes, a student protests but it is of no avail. It is for this reason that I feel a sense of responsibility and I hereby declare that these utterances are dangerous innovations in religion and are repugnant to the foundation of Islam.
If there are people who want to make these utterances in their speeches, at least they should not do so in the name of Islam, so that the difference between Islam and kufr remains clear. This freedom of religion and freedom of expression is a fruit of Western culture which is deceitful and ostensibly pleasant but innately venomous. It might be appropriate for Western culture, but certainly not to this extent for our Islamic culture.
Religion in Western culture today, is a matter of taste, like inclination toward a political party. If for example, in a country a number of political parties are already functioning and the following day, another party is registered and announces its existence, transferring from one party to another, is not surprising. The same applies to religion in the West, especially in America, where every day a new religion or sect is founded. This is astonishing for us. More than a century ago, someone named “Bab” emerged saying, “I founded a new Islam and the Imam of the Time expected by the Shi‘ah has already appeared.”
This set everybody wondering how someone could claim that a new religion had emerged. (Of course, outside Iran particularly in America, this corrupt sect is publicized as “modern Islam”, where it is not surprising at all.) But every year, a number of religious sects are founded in Canada, America and European countries. For instance, the main Christian denominations are Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism alone has more than 500 sects officially registered in Western countries.
Last year, I visited some Latin American countries. I noticed that several new sects were founded whose preachers were busy propagating their respective sects. Such innovations are very common there. It is announced in a newspaper that a priest has founded a new religion or a new sect, and people easily transfer from one sect to another. This is what they called “freedom of religion”.
“Islamic Protestantism” as a conspiracy against Islam
Some expect that there shall also be freedom for the religion in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, for a long time they have suggested the emergence of “Islamic Protestantism”. As far as I know, it was Fath-‘Ali Akhundzadeh (Akhundof) who first proposed that there should be a “protestant sect” in Islam. After him, other “intellectuals” promoted this in their speeches and books, suggesting that “Islamic Protestantism” should come into being in Iran.
Today, in America, it is propagated that there should also be a new “Martin Luther” in Iran, a new “protestant religion” and a “modern Islam” which is consistent with modern conditions, insisting that the Islam which came into being 1,400 years ago is of no use in life today!
One should not be surprised if America makes such a suggestion because their goal is to obliterate Islam. They themselves have said that for this task they have a particular program and allotted a specific budget. They have confessed repeatedly that their Archenemy at this stage is Islam.
But what is surprising is that gradually this propaganda is gaining ground in our country, and there are those who explicitly question the essential and fixed laws of Islam in newspapers and magazines. For instance, they question the injustice between man and woman in laws of inheritance, woman given no right to have many husbands, or the like, and sometimes, they ridicule the essential laws of Islam.
As you may recall, during the initial years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, when the bill regarding the law of retaliation [qisas] was passed, they said, “The bill regarding qisas is inhuman,” and the Imam (q) said that if they had made this utterance consciously, their Muslim spouses would be haram for them and the right of ownership for their property would be transferred to their Muslim inheritors and their lives would no more be held in honor. Of course, laws pertaining to apostasy [irtidad] are not only confined to the person who denies qisas and its laws.
Denial of any essential law is tantamount to apostasy. But we can observe today, that without any shame and hesitation, individuals explicitly reject the essential laws of Islam in newspapers and magazines of the Islamic Republic, and sometimes in newspapers founded through grants from the Muslims’ public treasury. Some people should remind them that the decree of the Imam pertaining to the deniers of qisas is not only confined to the issue of qisas.
It can sometimes be observed that laws unanimously accepted by the Shi‘ah and Sunni fuqaha and are not opposed even by the Sunnis are questioned and mocked! Should the concerned authorities not address these problems?
Should they not be reminded that such dangers pose threats to our young generation? Those who have neither heard the speeches of the Imam nor studied his lectures can be influenced by the questions raised in newspapers published in the Islamic Republic and think that the Islamic political system and the Islamic state also agree with these ideas and that the same are Islamic ideas! There should at least be a venue to announce that these ideas have nothing to do with Islam.
The notion that religion is a matter of taste and that man can choose whatever religion he likes and then change it once he no longer likes it, is dangerous. In Western countries, sometimes a teenager goes to the church with his friend who says, “I like so-and-so church more,” and thus changes his religion. The said teenager will also be influenced and in following his friend, he will also change his religion. They think that religion is like a garment which a person can wear today and change tomorrow. Islam does not endorse the view. “Choose whichever you accept for the state guarantees this freedom as a natural right of the people.” Islam regards religion as the most important matter in the life of man and that felicity and perdition in this world and the hereafter depends on ‘choosing the right religion.’
So, the reason behind these discussions is the existence of such dangers which we can feel, discern and even witness sometimes, and by struggling against them discharge our duty.
Real meaning of natural right
The best definition of “natural right” is that it is a need demanded by the nature of man and no one should deny it. So, talking and expressing views are among the demands of man’s nature and no one should prevent them. We have said that eating and drinking are also among the demands of man’s nature. In fact, it is the most natural right of every man to eat, but merely because eating is a demand of man’s nature, does a person have the right to eat anything that belongs to others? Is there no law that specifies which is halal and which is haram, and whose property a person has the right to consume and whose property a person has no right to consume?
Is there any reasonable person who can accept the notion that man is free to take whatever he likes from anybody. Talking is also a natural right of man, but it does mean that he can express anything everywhere and for whatever reason and motive. How can the law afford to dictate what things to eat or not to eat, and how can religion decree that pork and alcoholic beverages should not be consumed, when eating and drinking are natural rights of man? The same is the case with talking: The subject of talk, its time, place, and limitation are determined by law.
More or less, this idea has been accepted everywhere in the world. Regarding religion, however, the Westerners say, “You can say whatever you like because religion is a personal matter of taste which is irrelevant to the serious concerns of life and at most, it is related to the relationship between man and God and this relationship assumes different forms. Choose whatever form of relationship with God you like.
This religion is a straight path; that religion is another straight path. Idol-worship is a straight path; Islam is also a straight path!” But what Islam states is something else; of course, we mean Islam which has been propagated by Hadhrat Muhammad (s) and not the “modern Islam” to be brought by Babs and Martin Luthers. We are referring to Islam which Hadhrat Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah (s) introduced.
Traditional interpretation as the only authentic interpretation of Islam
They say, “Yes, we also accept the same Islam but it has diverse interpretations. You express a particular interpretation of it.” One of the products of Western culture is to advance different interpretations and understandings of religious texts. As I have mentioned before, sometime ago a Christian sect was founded in Canada. The founding priest of the said Christian sect was asked, “What is your opinion about homosexuality?” He replied, “For the meantime, I do not want to express my opinion but I tell you that the Bible should be interpreted anew!” This is because homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Torah and the Gospel just as it is condemned in Islam. These gentlemen also say, “Islam and the Qur’an must be interpreted anew!”
We declare that we are among those who regard as credible the 1,400 year-old interpretation of Islam by the Shi‘ah and Sunni ‘ulama’. The “Islam” we are talking about is that which has been interpreted by the pure Imams (‘a) and thereafter by the ‘ulama’ of Islam for the past fourteen centuries. We take that interpretation as the criterion. If new interpretations arise according to which Islam and all its laws must be changed and a new “Islam” be formulated, we do not accept and have nothing to do with that “Islam” and also, I don’t think that our Muslim people would be attached to such “modern Islams” to be brought by Babs and Martin Luthers.
The Islam which we know, talk about and adhere to is the one whose sources are the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and the pure Imams (‘a) and whose essential and definite laws have been elucidated by the Shi‘ah and Sunni fuqaha for the past fourteen hundred years, especially those laws about which the Shi‘ah and Sunnis have no difference of opinion.
This Islam tells us, “Just as you have to observe limitation and regulation in eating and drinking, limitation and regulation must also be observed in talking.” Religion is not a garment to be worn today and be removed tomorrow. One must conduct research and accept the religion of truth.
In the domain of Islam, there is ample proof to establish its truthfulness and no one can say that the issue has been obscure for him and that he failed to identify the truth unless there were shortcomings in his research. If a person in a Micronesian island says, “I failed to grasp the truthfulness of Islam,” he might be excused. But living in the domain of Islam, in which for the past fourteen hundred years the greatest ‘ulama’ of Islam have written the most valuable and important books about Islam, if a person says, “I failed to identify the truth,” I don’t think that he can be excused.
In any case, the Islam we know states, “Just as you need to observe limits in eating and drinking, you need to do likewise in talking. You have no right to say whatever you like. You must follow the Islamic rules. Once you act beyond the Islamic rules, it is to the detriment of Islamic society. As you know, one of the prohibited acts mentioned in the treatises on practical laws of Islam [risalah al-‘amaliyyah] is to buy and sell deviant books. Islam does not grant the right to anyone, especially the one who does not possess the power to distinguish truth from falsehood, to go everywhere, listen to any talk or read any writing. As this noble verse explicitly states,
وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ...
“When you see those who gossip impiously about Our signs, avoid them until they engage in some other discourse…”[15][135]
And regarding the faithful, the Qur’an forbids them to mingle and sit together with those who put religion into question:
وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ ان إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللّهِ يُكَفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلاَ تَقْعُدُواْ مَعَهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُواْ فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِّثْلُهُمْ إِنَّ اللهَ جامِعُ المُنَافِقينَ وَ الْکَافِرينَ فی جَهَنَّمَ جَمِيعاً...
“Certainly He has sent down to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s signs being disbelieved and derided, do not sit with them until they engage in some other discourse, or else you [too] will be like them. Surely Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell…”[16][136]
Thus, those who talk about Islam but establish relationship with the enemies of Islam and promote their words are the same hypocrites [munafiqun] whose abode, together with the infidels [kafirun], is hellfire.
Once again, I emphasize that Islam commands: “Go and search for the truth and argue with the enemies of Islam. With the truth that Islam teaches, you shall overcome them. However, as long as you have not acquired enough capability to defend your doctrines and values, you should not accompany and mingle with the misguided and wicked ones.” It is like the advice given to an athlete to undergo training before participating in wrestling. A youngster who has not yet undergone enough training should not challenge a veteran wrestler as he shall surely be defeated and his backbone broken. This does not mean campaign against freedom. This is an admonition to a youngster to learn Islamic sciences and teachings and then argue with the enemies.
In any case, the Islam we know has limited freedom, and regards as untenable the argument that since talking is a natural necessity of man, talking must be free because man also has other instincts such as the sexual instinct; eating and drinking can also be considered as natural rights that should not be restricted. Just as the consumption of every food is unacceptable to a reasonable person, the same is true of talking. Being an innate necessity does not justify its unbridled use. Reason and religion should determine its limits based on the material and spiritual interests of society which have been specified and introduced by religion.
Legitimate freedom
While interpreting my petitions, there are those who have said, “So-and-so commits a fallacy because we have not said that freedom must be absolute. Our point is that there should be legitimate [mashru‘] freedom.” I ask: What do you mean by mashru‘? Do you mean that which is acceptable to religious law [shar‘]? In lexicography, there are two meanings of the word “mashru‘”. Its first meaning is what religious law [shari‘ah] has declared as lawful. (Of course, it is improbable that they refer to this meaning of mashru‘ because those raising these issues are not attached to the shari‘ah.)
So, if mashru‘ is that which shari‘ah permits, it means that freedom must be within a framework permitted by the shari‘ah. The other meaning of mashru‘ is that which is legal. According to this meaning also, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as stipulated in the Constitution, the law must be concordant with Islam. Our Constitution consistently points out that all rules and decrees must be concordant with Islam, and in essence, the raison d’être of the fuqaha in the Council of Guardians as reflected in the Constitution is to examine the bills to be ratified by the Islamic Consultative Assembly—whether they are consistent with Islam or not.
Even assuming that all the people and deputies in the Majlis (apart from the deputies of minority groups whose rights are also protected) are Muslim, religious and devoted, they may sometimes tend to be negligent and approve a bill which is against Islam. In keeping with the Constitution, the ratified bills of the Majlis are examined by the Council of Guardians—whether they are consistent with the Constitution and Islam, or not. The fuqaha of the Council of Guardians confirm the Islamic nature of the ratified bills while the lawyers of the Council confirm the consistency of these bills with the Constitution.
If our Constitution does not regard it necessary for all laws to be Islamic, then what is the raison d’être of the Council of Guardians? And for what purpose is all the emphasis on the sovereignty of Islam and the absolute guardianship of the jurist [wilayat-e mutlaq-ye faqih] stipulated in provisions of the Constitution? One should not be surprised if so-called lawyers say, “Since the Constitution stipulates that freedom must be observed, no religion or law has the right to limit that freedom!”
Does the Constitution clearly stipulate that freedom should be mashru‘, or not? It is you who say “azadiha-ye mashru‘” [legitimate freedom]. What do you mean by “legitimate freedom”? If mashru‘ is derived from shar‘ [religious law], then “legitimate freedom” means freedom which the religious law endorses. And if mashru‘ means “legal” [qanuni], then according to the Constitution, freedom which has been approved by the religious and canonical laws are “legitimate freedom”.
Religion and law as restrainers of freedom
Freedom cannot be above law. Those who claim that freedom is above religion and law should answer these questions: In principle, what is the purpose of religion and law? What is the essence of law? Is law meant to point out that an action should be done in a specific manner? Does it permit and forbid certain acts or not? I have no option but to repeat some of the previous points. Every law explicitly or implicitly says actions should be restricted and must be done within a certain framework.
Thus, in principle, the essence of law is to restrict freedom. If law and religion do not permit the restraining of freedom, their existence is useless. As it includes sociopolitical laws, religion filters and restricts the social and political actions of man and decrees that certain actions should be done within a specific framework. If religion means other than this, what is the purpose of its existence?
If religion has been revealed so that everyone should behave in whatever way he or she likes, what then is its function? And what is its role? The existence of religion and law has no meaning other than limiting the liberties of man. Hence, to say that freedom is above both religion and law is absurd. Yes, under the name of religion some people may suppress the legitimate freedom of people and prohibit what God has made lawful through superstitions and ethnic customs.
For example, in some parts of our country, some ethnic tribes unfortunately still prohibit what God has made lawful and in the culture of our present society some lawful things are also still considered abominable. Had it not been for such an attitude in society, so many types of sexual corruption would have been prevented. The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) said:
لَوْ لا ما سَبَقَ مِنِ ابْنِ الخَطّابِ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ ما زنى اِلاّ شَقِىّ
.
“Had (‘Umar) ibn al-Khattab not prohibited fixed-time marriage [mut‘ah],[17][137] no one would ever commit adultery and fornication [zina] except a wretched person.”[18][138]
Regrettably, in our culture this thing made lawful by God, which is a key solution for many problems, is still considered abominable. Yes, if there are those who under the name of religion want to declare lawful that made unlawful by God, it is abominable. Apart from being abominable, it is also unlawful [haram] and it is a kind of religious innovation [bid‘ah]. The same is true for its opposite. Forbidding the lawful is also an innovation:
انَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ اَنْ يُؤْخَذَ بِرُخِصِهِ كَما يُحِبُّ اَنْ يُؤْخَذَ بِعَزائِمِهِ
“Verily, God loves people to benefit from the permissible [mubahat] and lawful [halal-ha] things just as He loves them to perform the compulsories [wajibat] and shun the unlawful [muharramat] things.”[19][139]
Thus, under the name of religion, or under the name of tribalism or local, ethnic and clannish prejudices nobody has the right to declare unlawful what has been made lawful by God. In the same manner, setting limits on freedoms is unlawful and an innovation. But if what is meant by “freedom” is illegitimate freedom, no one should expect religion not to oppose it! This is because freedom can either be legitimate or illegitimate. If legitimate, both religion and law declares it lawful and is not opposed to it, and there is no point in saying that religion or law has no right to deprive society of legitimate freedom. If a religion permits something, how can it prohibit what it has permitted? This is contradictory in itself. But if a certain freedom is illegitimate and religion has prohibited it, it is meaningless to say that religion has no right to prohibit it. This is another form of contradiction.
Necessity of restraining freedom
It can thus be deduced that we also regard freedom as a very noble element permitted by God and a prerequisite for the material and spiritual exaltation, advancement and perfection of man. We believe that if man does not possess the gift of freedom, he cannot consciously choose a religion and act upon its commandments, for his conviction will have no value. The advancement and perfection of man lies in his conscious acceptance of religion. This is also the meaning of “There is no compulsion in religion.”[20][140] We believe that freedom is one of the greatest gifts of God, but is most beneficial when used within limits specified by the Giver of the gift:
...وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
“…And whoever transgresses the bounds of Allah—it is they who are the wrongdoers.”[21][141]
Transgressing the bounds set by Allah leads to wretchedness and deprivation of the divine gift. The same thing which leads to man’s felicity will result in his misery. Once a person consumes food beyond limit, he will get sick and it may even cause his death. Once gratification of the sexual instinct which is a divine gift goes beyond limits, it will bring about social corruption and inflict dangerous diseases and sometimes even the extinction of society. The Islamic state not only guarantees legitimate freedom but at the same time, it has to prevent illegitimate freedom.
The skepticism expressed in newspapers is that by holding these discussions, I allegedly want to omit the article on national sovereignty from the Constitution. They say, “According to the Constitution, the people are masters of their own destiny. So, if they are compelled to follow religion only, they will no longer be masters of their own destiny!” This skepticism is so deceptive. I say to them: Is this the only thing mentioned in our Constitution? Is it not stipulated in the same constitution that sovereignty belongs to God the Exalted?
Does not the same constitution say that the laws to be implemented in the country must be in agreement with Islam? Are these facts not mentioned in the Constitution with the article that people shall be the masters of their own destiny? It may be said that these two articles of the Constitution are contradictory and are in need of interpretation and solution. But if we try to analyze them carefully, we will understand the purpose of the two articles. Once it is stated in the first article that sovereignty belongs to God and then it is stated that the people are masters of their own destiny, it means that under the aegis of God’s sovereignty, the people are masters of their own destiny.
Thus, those who are outside Islamic society and not among the people of this country have no right to impose their own ideas, preferences, religion, and law on us. America has no right to impose its law on us. It is the people of this country who are supposed to vote for their own desirable law and they have already voted in favor of Islamic law.
In his speech at Ahwaz University, a certain person has said: “Even if the people demonstrate against God, the law is not supposed to prevent them!” Is this what the sovereignty of the people means? Does the Constitution say so? If a certain person who is unfamiliar with the Constitution makes such utterances, it is understandable.
What is surprising is that a certain person who regards himself a legal expert makes such a claim! He may say, “We do not accept your interpretation of the Constitution.” In reply, it must be said that if there is an ambiguous point in the Constitution, its authorized interpreter is the Council of Guardians. If you accept this constitution, you will see that it does not give you the authority to interpret it. If you really believe in this law, you have to seek its interpretation from the Council of Guardians. It is this Council of Guardians which is the guardian of Islam and the Constitution and is composed of Muslim jurists whose function is to guard and protect Islamic laws. Once your view is approved, you have the right to trample Islam under your feet!
Notes:
[22][133] Surah al-Baqarah 2:159.

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

Legislation in Islam and Democracy

We mentioned in the last session that conciliation between Islam and democracy in legislation cannot be established. Democracy means populism or government of the people. In other words, it means upholding the people’s will and view. Now, the question is: Is credibility based on the will of people limited or not? When we say that the criterion and basis is the people’s will, is it so even if it is against the will of God? Or, is the credibility of the will of people so perfect that it is not in conflict with the law and will of God? What is intended by this concept and terminology in the West is that the people’s view is the main criterion and no other power in heaven and earth has the right to interfere in people’s destiny and legislation for them. The law is what the people want.
At this point, this question is relevant: Is the consensus of opinion of all people the criterion of the law’s credibility, or is majority vote enough? The consensus of opinion of all people is impossible in actuality, and if the majority vote is enough, what will be the duty of the rest, and should the majority vote be binding on them? In reality, today’s democracy is a mixture of democracy and elitism. That is, the people elect an elite group to enact laws for them.
Now, if there is a conflict between the view of the majority of people and their elected representatives, which view shall prevail? Of course, the representatives usually enact laws in accordance with the will of the people; otherwise, they will not be elected in the next round of elections. Since they have to fulfill the wish of the people, they enact laws as per the desire of the people. There are also cases, nevertheless, when the people’s view differs with that of the majority of representatives.
There are those who have explained that their aim is to replace the Islamic government—the government of the clergy and wilayah al-faqih—with a democratic government in Iran. “Democratic” implies that apart from the will of the people, nothing has a say in determining the law. Can the Muslims accept it or not?
Meanwhile, to those who claim that Islam is harmonious with democracy, this question is posed: Is the vote of the people binding even if it were against the definite decree of God, or not? If it is not binding, it follows that democracy has not been established. If the criterion of the law’s credibility is the vote of the people even if it were contrary to the definite decree of God, in this case democracy is not harmonious with Islam. Is Islam other than obeying God and the Apostle (s)? Do we have another Islam?
Nowadays, it is said that there are many interpretations of Islam but the interpretation on the basis of which this Revolution has come into being is that the decree of God and divine values must prevail in society. The interpretation of those who staged this Revolution, have defended it up to the last drop of their blood and will do the same in future.
Thus, if democracy in the legislative dimension means giving precedence to the will of people even if the enacted laws were against the decree of God, such a democracy from the viewpoint of Islam and the Muslims is unacceptable. However, if democracy has another meaning such that while preserving the Islamic foundations, principles and values, the people could get involved in the legal and social issues of their society by electing their representatives and enact specific laws for certain circumstances of time and space. This is something which exists in our country. That is, the people elect their deputies in the Majlis.
The Majlis’ deputies engage in a debate and deliberate about a bill and afterwards ratify it. However, the ratified bills are credible provided that they are not against the laws of Islam.
In any case, for the people to elect their representatives to determine the variable laws according to specific circumstances of time and space is something existing in our country. The Imam endorsed the same process and our Constitution also approved it. If democracy in legislation refers to it, such a democracy exists and nobody opposes it.
The binding law in the Islamic government
An important question is that when the people’s representatives ratify a bill in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, is this ratified bill credible because the people’s representatives have ratified it and in principle the people have elected their representatives for this purpose, or is it because the ratified bill is in a sense confirmed by the wali al-faqih? Theoretically, we believe that the foremost right that man should observe in his life is the right of Allah [haqq Allah].
If we are supposed to observe certain rights, the right of Allah takes precedence and the foremost right of Allah over the people is the right of Lordship [haqq-e rububiyyat] which has two types, viz. cosmic Lordship [rububiyyat-e takwini] and legislative Lordship [rububiyyat-e tashri‘i]. Legislative Lordship denotes that whatever God commands is obligatory upon man. So, if God prohibits a thing, it must not be done, and violation of the divine laws and decrees is an infringement upon the divine right of Lordship, and denying and regarding it as non-binding is a form of shirk.
As such, the law which is pleasant to God will be credible in Islamic society. If God prohibited a law, it shall not be binding because the right of Allah is violated and by violating the right of Allah, the rights of men will also be violated. Does God acquire any benefit from legislation? In bidding and forbidding us and enjoining a decree, does God want anything other than the welfare of man? So, whenever an act is against the dictum of God, it is also against the welfare of man. In conclusion, the main pillar of the law’s credibility is that once the preservation of the interests of man is endangered, the right of Allah is also violated.
As such, such a law shall not be binding. It is on this basis that after the ratification of the bill by the people’s representatives, there is another filter, and that is, certain lawyers and fuqaha have to adapt a bill to the religious standards and check whether it is against the law of God or not. This is the function of the Council of Guardians.
If the credibility of law depends only on the people’s vote, what are the fuqaha of the Council of Guardians then supposed to do? The people have cast their vote. Their representatives have ratified and enacted the law they requested and the said law has become binding! In the Islamic Republic system, the first and foremost function of the Council of Guardians (and of course, they have other duties) is to check the conformity of the statutory laws of the Majlis with Islam; that is, what the people have voted for through their representatives.
One reason why you see the Westernized elements, and those who pour water into the enemy’s watermill, talk about the abolition of the Council of Guardians is that they want the absence of a filter that checks the conformity of laws with Islam. Today, I am making this statement for you to be informed—perhaps you cannot believe, and God willing, it will not happen—that the liberals and Westernized elements are trying to remove Islam and wilayah al-faqih from the Constitution. By His will, God will not give such a chance to the enemies of Islam and the Islamic system.
Note:
[2][107] Surah Al ‘Imran 3:64.
[3][108] Surah al-‘Ankabut 29:46.
[4][109] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:171.
[5][110] Surah Maryam 19:90.
[6][111] Surah an-Nahl 16:36.
[7][112] Surah al-Bayyinah 98:5.
[8][113] Surah az-Zumar 39:3.
[9][114] Surah Luqman 31:22.
[10][115] Surah al-Ma’idah 5:38.
[11][116] Surah al-Baqarah 2:4.
[12][117] Surah adh-Dhariyat 51:20.
[13][118] Surah at-Tawbah (or, Bara‘ah) 9:45.
[14][119] Surah ?ad 38:8.
[15][120] Surah al-‘Ankabut 29:65.
[16][121] Surah Al ‘Imran 3:185.
[18][115] Surah al-Ma’idah 5:38.
[19][116] Surah al-Baqarah 2:4.
[20][117] Surah adh-Dhariyat 51:20.
[21][118] Surah at-Tawbah (or, Bara‘ah) 9:45.
[22][119] Surah ?ad 38:8.
[23][120] Surah al-‘Ankabut 29:65.
[24][121] Surah Al ‘Imran 3:185.
[26][123] Surah al-Baqarah 2:159.
[27][124] Surah al-Kahf 18:29.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: al-islam.org

Theocracy and Democracy

The Meaning of Theocracy
The concept of theocracy or the sovereignty of God, admittedly, would sound strange and remote in a society as today's. Centuries and ages have passed without such ideas and concepts making any impres­sion on the minds of those who have ruled and administered human societies or there being any discussion about them. Moreover, the intel­lectual arena has been occupied by cults of sovereignty of kings or that of the people. That is why any scheme of deliverance of mankind from the bondage of egoism and self‑alienation appears vainglorious and far­fetched. Henceforth, it is the demand of a humane and truth‑seeking logic not to surrender our search in the despair and fear of an artificial intellectual atmosphere created by power‑hungry and egocentric rulers. Undaunted by the fearsome gallery of idols, we should courageously examine every kind of beneficial and promising truth. But before every­thing, let us try to clear up the heavy mists that lurk around the concept of Divine sovereignty and dissociate it from the many layers of prejudice and ignorance that conceal its real face. There are two elements in the term theocracy: God (theos, god) and sovereignty (Kratein, to rule). We shall examine each of them beginning with God.
1. God: Obviously the concepts forged in common minds about God, or the ideas of some suffering from some kind of allergy regarding that Supreme Being cannot be of much value for obtaining the know­ledge of that Supreme Being. The strangest of intellectual aberrations is observed in this regard: the necessity of differentiating between the crude and commonplace notions of a reality and the specialist's version of it, is acknowledged in. every scientific discipline; nevertheless this rule is not observed in the case of God!
To illustrate what we have said, a botanist in his research about a certain kind of shrub or herb is not content to take the coarse opinions of a shepherd, who has never been out of his village or valley, as the last word about a variety of herb of that species common in his village.
However with regard to the meaning of the word "God," it is considered sufficient to rely on the most rudimentary notions.
God: an old king in heaven,
Squatting on the roof of the great sky;
His courtroom, an impeccable magnificence;
Wherever he goes, his entourage follow him.
They don't know the God known by Ibrahim al‑Khalil, Musa ibn Imran, `Isa ibn Maryam and Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah (S). They have not the remotest idea of what "God" meant for men like `Ali ibn Abi Talib. Further, on a level much lower than those great spiritual figures, they don't understand the discovery of Divine made by such persons as Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, Shaykh Mahmud Shabistari, Jalal al‑Din al‑Rumi and Decartes, who said: "If someone were to allow himself to doubt the existence of God, I would consider him incapable of proving to me even the self‑evident principles of Mathematics."
When we speak of "the rule of God upon earth and upon men," our conception of what we mean by "God" makes all the difference. Is it `an old man in heaven squatting on the roof of the world,' or is it the Being worshipped as their Lord by men such as 'Ali ibn Abi‑Talib, or Abu‑Dharr, his pupil, and such others as the poet Rumi?
The Deity whose rule on earth and upon mankind is implicit in the concept of theocracy, is the Omnipotent Being the imprint of Whose Will is clearly manifested in the wonderful order of the universe. It is the All‑powerful, All‑knowing Being, Who, through His absolute power and wisdom, `reveals' human models for liberation from egoism and the worship of earthly pleasures. It is the God Whose discovery has been expressed in differing words by all aware and enlightened human beings in all human societies from the most ancient times to the present. It is the God, the relation between Whose `radiance' with all other beings is similar, though not identical, to that of light passing through trans­parent bodies. It is the God Who has given the capacity and power to the pure human nature, and the magnificent conscience of man, to dis­cover Divine Will, judge truth and falsehood, and select rational life, through the means of prophetic revelation and reason. It is the God who has endowed all human beings with the capacity of direct or indirect contact with Him. It is the God who has bestowed man with the power of acquiring perfection, and shown him the way to it. It is the God who exalts him into His Presence on having acquired a higher awareness. It is the God who originated the creation of the universe and man on the basis of justice, and has condemned injustice against even the most insignificant of living things. It is the God, the ways of approach to Whom, are as numerous as the number of the souls of creatures: The ways towards God are as numerous as the number of souls of the creatures.
Yes. This is what is meant by "God" in our discussion of the concept of theocracy or the sovereignty of God. It is not the "god" fabricated by vulgar minds, or invented by egocentric men of the world, whose minds have been retarded in the most elementary stages of gnosis by a social environment forged by egoistic and power‑hungry dema­gogues and despots.
2. Sovereignty: The same kind of intellectual delusions and aberra­tions that surround the conception of God also exist in the case of the concept of theocracy. There might be some who imagine that what is implied by theocracy is that, God, having personified himself in a stately form, sits down behind a table stacked with files and scribbles out "laws" on sheets of paper ...and having written them down, gets up swinging a lash and determined to see them implemented! To others it means that God plans to impose His will upon men through his self­righteous henchmen and tyrannical priests, whose dictates He expects all mankind to obey. There are still others who think that theocracy means the sovereignty and domination of a priestly class who profess spirituality in a way similar to professionals and craftsmen of various kinds. Such kinds of misconceptions about theocracy proliferate in the minds of untutored populace. However, their value for an understanding of the significance of theocracy, is the same as the worth of dumping grounds of the garbage of a big city for knowing the life‑style of its scholars and geniuses.
The relationship of God with human beings can be compared to the relationship of the soul with the activities of the body. However, the caution is necessary that it is only an approximate metaphor; for, nothing can be likened to God in accordance with the Quranic verse: Nothing is like Him. (42:11)
Nevertheless, this obviously imperfect allegory can be used to illustrate the concept of Divine sovereignty. It is impossible to deny that the human "ego," "self," "soul," or whatever we may name it, is the active principle behind the administration of the total personality of the human being. The "self," through its various faculties, adminis­ters and manages the realm of an individual's existence. If we extend this metaphor to the domain of human society, we can say that the most developed intellects of humanity, and the purest and unpolluted nature and consciousness of man in the form of God‑sent prophets and messengers, are the agency and means of God's sovereignty and rule. In other words the meaning of sovereignty of God, is manifestation of Divine Will in 'human society, through the medium of Divine apostles and through undeviated human reason and consciousness. It is compa­rable to the human will centered in the "self" which causes the body's limbs to be moved in accordance with its volitions through the agency of nerves and muscles. The question may arise whether it is possible to accept this interpretation for the possible actualization of the potential sovereignty of God. Our reasons for considering it as acceptable are the following:
1. There can be no doubt that except for the devotees of Machiavellan politics and unabashed advocates of social Darwinism seeking to offer theoretical justification for the lusts of egocentric tyrants and despots, it has been the sincere endeavour of all leading thinkers of humanity in the realms of economics, politics, human sciences and education, and every other sphere of human endeavour, to search for things and discover that which can be truly beneficial for human happi­ness and felicity. The Holy Quran describes this sacred phenomenon in these words: As for the scum, it vanishes as jetsam, and what profits men abides in the earth. Even so God strikes His similitudes. (13:17)
This is a kind of Divine sovereignty that operates through the laws of creation (hakimiyyat al‑tahwin, creative sovereignty). As to the legislative sovereignty (hakimiyyat al‑tashri`), it operates in the manner described in the following Quranic verse: Indeed We sent Our Messengers with the clear signs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men might uphold justice. (57:25)
Is not the essence of justice, whose achievement the Quran regards as being the goal of Divine laws and the mission of apostles, innate and ingrained within human conscience, consciousness and reason, in their state of purity? The fact that no school of thought has ever had the power to explicitly contradict the idea of justice, is a testimony to the truth of the above statement. This is the meaning of `sovereignty of God,' which acts through the agency of Divine messengers, and which has no other purpose than to reinforce the positive traits ingrained in human nature.
2. All philosophers and thinkers who have endeavoured to under­stand human nature, with all their difference of opinion and divergence in their outlook of the universe and man, are united in the opinion that man in the process of his movement towards perfection is capable of attaining the independence and sublimity of a being symbolized by `rational life,' by cultivating the foundations of his destiny and bringing it to fruition. The unceasing endeavours of the benefactors of huma­nity, for the realization of this independence and sublimeness, have been so preponderant through the course of history that the egocentric power‑worshipping followers of Machiavellian politics have failed to reduce their significance. This sublimity and independence rests on the basis of that freedom of man which can afford him to attain the station of self‑determination. The human propensity for a serious, unceasing search for this freedom, independence and self‑determination, is the basic manifestation of Divine sovereignty upon human beings. It is not possible to ascribe this urge for emancipation from extraneous coercive agents and passion for attainment of self‑determination to a bundle of natural or instinctive factors. It was the endeavour for this emancipa­tion that has always saved man from annihilation. This self‑determina­tion, which means a fully blossomed freedom dedicated to goodness and perfection, is impossible without acceptance of a Supreme Being and without a sense of commitment to the highest of human values. Consequently, the meaning of Divine sovereignty is that God, the Supreme, has planted the seeds of goodness and perfection in the nature of man, and arranged for the conditions of their growth through inspired reason and conscience, and revelations conveyed through Divine messengers, and demanded their steady cultivation from man­kind.
3. It is well‑known that a group of leading thinkers have seriously favoured the idea that rulers should be righteous philosophers. Plato, in his Republic, after distinguishing between genuine and counterfeit philosophers, argues that the former are fit to be the Guardians of the state. In a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, in the Book VI of the Republic, the following characteristics of the true philosophers are enumerated:
1. an eager desire for the knowledge of all real existence;
2. hatred of falsehood, and devotion to truth;
3. contempt for the pleasures of the body;
4. indifference to money;
5. highmindedness and liberality;
6. justice and gentleness;
7. a quick apprehension, and a good memory;
8. a musical, regular, and harmonious disposition.
If we ponder upon these sublime human qualities pointed out by Plato as requisite for rulers, we shall find that the rule of such persons is in fact the sovereignty of God upon earth. This is not an outdated idea of an ancient mind, but a reality that shall be acknowledged by every researcher of insight and enlightened conscience interested in fathoming the problem of government with all due sincerity and seriousness. For instance, those familiar with the political thought of Rousseau, know that despite his support for a government and society based on the con­cept of democracy, he is of the opinion that "to discover the rules of society that are best suited to nations, there would need to exist a superior intelligence, who could understand the passions of men with­out feeling any of them, who had no affinity with our nature but knew it to the full, whose happiness was independent of ours, but who would nevertheless make our happiness his concern." From these criteria that Rousseau draws for an optimum lawgiver, he comes to the conclu­sion that only "gods would be needed to give men laws." Obviously only Divine messengers and God's deputies on earth ‑ as they are called in the terminology of the Islamic religion ‑ can fulfill the role envisaged by Rousseau for "gods" as the perfect lawgivers. Perhaps, that is what Rousseau ‑ being a Christian and a monotheist that he was ‑ in fact implied. In another place he writes: A sublime reason, which soars above the heads of the common people, produ­ces those rules which the lawgiver puts into the mouth of the immortals, thus compelling by divine authority persons who cannot be moved by human pru­dence. But it is not for every man to make the gods speak, or to gain credence if he pretends to be an interpreter of the divine word. The lawgiver's great soul is the true miracle which must vindicate his mission.
The salient difference between Plato's stand and that of Rousseau is that, while Plato considers a group of qualities as necessary for rulers, Rousseau regards a Divine dimension in the lawgiver as being the essen­tial condition. A close examination of the opinions of these two thinkers will bring us to a truth recognized by Islam: it is necessary for the legislator to possess a Divine dimension: a condition fulfilled by God‑sent messengers and infallible Imams, both of whom are equipped with Divine morals. The same qualification is required in Islam for leaders and rulers; that is, the rulers hold sovereignty by virtue of a rela­tion with the Divine. In the case an apostle is a ruler, his link with the Divine exists by virtue of his Divine morality and through the medium of revelation. In the case where the ruler is an infallible Imam, his link with the Divine exists by virtue of his immaculate personality and Divine morals without the presence of revelation.
In the light of what has been said above, the sole solution of the problem of true democracy framed by Plato and Rousseau is the exis­tence of Divine personalities among human beings, without which the problem of selection of ruler and legislator is absolutely insolvable. The conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion is that sovereignty of God over man is not contradictory to the precept of participation of people in determining their own destiny or for attaining a "rational life" dependent on Divine principles and interpretable according to the highest criteria of life.
Earlier in our discussion we mentioned the imperfect metaphor of relationship of God with mankind as resembling the one between the soul and its activities. This is partially borne out by the following statement of 'Ali ibn Abi‑Talib (A): [God is] inside things without intermingling and outside them without exclu­sion.
Accordingly, the relation between sovereignty of God upon human beings and democracy, is like the relation between the soul and its activities. For example, when the people, or a group of wise men of wholesome minds and undeviated consciousness, recognize a truth, a law based upon this perspective and implemented by the people will be enforcement of Divine sovereignty by people upon the people. The criterion behind this is what is called `the authority of reason' based upon the principle, which means every judgement given by reason >s the same as the judgement of the Shari'ah, and is called `the principle of concurrent necessity of reason and the Shari'ah.'
Most of us know that the reason and conscience of the masses are handicapped on account of their restricted perspective and vague vision of the ultimate purposes of life, and also on account of continued darkening of their intellectual horizon by the clouds of lusts and egocentric inclinations. These factors, together, deprive reason of its efficiency and of its effective role in administration of public life. Rather, it may be said that the higher spheres of `rational life,' through­out history, have remained outside the arena of popular consciousness. That is why, there arises the necessity for the mission of the God‑sent prophets, who, by virtue of their direct link with God, through the agency of revelation, strive to liberate mankind's intellect and con­science from bondages and clinging impurities gathered through egoism and materialism. It is for this reason that the reliable Islamic traditions refer to the intellect as "the inner testimony," and to the Divine messengers as "the outer testimony" of God. Imam Ja'far al‑Sadiq (A) is related as having told his disciple Hisham: O Hisham, God has two (kinds of) testimonies (hujjatayn) against mankind: the outer (or the manifest) testimony (hujjah zahirah) and the inner testimony (hujjah batinah). The prophets, messengers and imams are the manifest testimony, and the intellect (`aql) is the inner testimony.
Another tradition refers to prophets as men of perfect intellects: God has not sent any prophet or messenger, unless that He perfected his intellect. A prophet's intellect is superior to that of every individual of his nation.
Yet another tradition refers to `aql (intellect) as being the guide of a true believer (mumin): Intellect (or reason) is the guide of a mu'min.
`Ali, Amir al‑Mu'minin (A), in the first sermon of the Nahj al-­balaghah, considers fruition of people's intellects as being one of the aims of prophetic mission: ...and they (the prophets) bring to surface the buried treasure of (the people's) intellects.
Now, the question arises whether it is possible that there may sometimes be a contradiction between the two forms of testimony, that is, intellect and prophethood? According to Islam, such a situation is impossible; because, it would be absurd for the prophets first to introduce reason or intellect as a collaborator in their mission, and, later on, to discover it to be opposed to their teachings! Moreover, the perfect harmony between intellect and prophetic revelation is also confirmed by the matter that, in Islamic jurisprudence, reason is con­sidered as one of the sources of Islamic law; the other three being: the Book, the Prophet's sunnah (practice) and consensus (ijma`). On the basis of what has been said hitherto, it may be asserted that a society whose laws are based on the people's uncorrupted intellect, and in which, these laws, thus framed, are implemented by a ruler of fully ­developed intellect, has a government of the people upon themselves through the means of laws and regulations derived from prophetic revelation and human reason (the inner and outer testimonies of God).
A Metaphor: According to the conclusion reached above, the government of the people over themselves, in Islam, is similar to the sovereignty of the soul over human activity and behaviour. The real objective of such a government is to support and strengthen the material and spiritual dimensions of the society, to eliminate the causes of distress of the people, and to insure their movement towards the goal of highest felicity referred to as `rational life'. The establishment of such a government is not possible through merely material and purely physical or natural means based on diverse selfish interests of the people.
The government in Islam is the manifestation of God's sovereignty upon the earth, and a state based upon such a vision is by no means in harmony with oppression, injustice and any of the various forms of social idolatry. It is comparable to the authority of the human soul adorned with all sublime human qualities, and it is not possible for such a soul to become a source of physical oppression, injustice and tyranny. To further explain this point, we may say that the meaning of govern­ment of the people over themselves, is not that a handful of men may forcefully impose general policies and frameworks of social life on the rest of individuals. Nor it is true democracy that a section of society should be able to impose its whims and baseless fancies on the rest of people. Similarly, it is not democracy that a group may have the power to impose upon others whatever they imagine as being fit or as being in the interest of the people; because, the real purpose of the state is to lead people towards the goal of `rational life' and to bring about harmony and coordination among their ranks for realization of this goal.
We should remember that movement towards `rational life' is not a naturally existing current in the society; instead, such a current has to be created. The currents that naturally exist in every society are those which are based on the natural animalistic instincts that operate in a self‑perpetuating fashion in the social atmosphere. For the creation of `rational life' for a society, the state is an absolute necessity so as to guide the purely physical and biological entity towards the ideal of rational social existence; so that, the crude biological reality is trans­formed into a refined spiritual ideal which does not come into existence by itself. Therefore, the meaning of government of the people over themselves is the sovereignty of their pure unspoiled consciousness and intellect rather than the sovereignty of force and power, personal or group bias, fancies, prejudice's, and the like.
We think no supporter of the sovereignty of the people, however staunch, will have anything significant to add to what we have discussed above as the criteria for righteous government. We do not think any thinker, in his right mind, and familiar with human nature, and moreover cognizant with various aspects of social and individual exis­tence, will ever advocate power and force, people's prejudices and baseless fancies as the criteria of true democracy. Not even Machiavelli, who, in the view of most thinkers, has committed the gravest treachery against mankind's political existence, will claim the above devious criteria as being the basis of a state. If Machiavelli can possibly offer any apology for his perverse work, he may say that he had only tried to discuss unscrupulous means for despots and rulers to perpetuate their rule.
In any case, it may be regarded as indubitable that true democracy lies in the sovereignty of the pure and unadulterated intellect and con­sciousness of men. It is comparable to the management of human acti­vities by the human soul or spirit and is a direct manifestation of God's sovereignty over mankind.
The Role of Consensus
The issues of consensus and counsel (ijma `and shura) on the level of Muslim community have great significance in Islamic sources. State­ments such as the following are found in plenty in the Islamic texts: With group lies Divine mercy.
The hand of God is with the group or community.
These two traditions point out to a basic reality that individuals, when organized in groups, can benefit from one another's understand­ing, intellect and conscience for attainment of a predetermined goal. The least that can be said about people coming together for mutual consultation is that their individual understanding increases in arithma­tical and sometimes in geometric progression. A prophetic tradition gives high worth to the opinion of a person who relies on the counsel of others: The most merited of men in matters of opinion is one who regards others' counsel as indispensable.
Two Quranic verses point out the significance of counsel‑taking from others: It was by mercy of God that you (the Prophet (S)) were gentle to them; had you been harsh and hard of heart, they would have scattered from about you. So pardon them, and pray forgiveness for them, and take counsel with them in affairs; and when you are resolved, put your trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust in Him. (3:159)
Whatever thing you have been given is the enjoyment of the present life; but what is with God is better and more enduring for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the heinous sins and indecencies and when they are angry forgive, and those who answer their Lord, and per­form the prayer, their affair being counsel between them, and they expend of that We have provided them, and who, when injustice affects them help owe another. (42:36‑39)
The above two verses require some explanation. The first verse does not mention any qualification far those who should be consulted. This has led some to imagine that all persons irrespective of their intellectual development can provide useful advice. This does not appear to be correct; because, mutual counsel always occurs among a group of persons about a subject that is not self‑evident, and around which all members taking part in a consultation express their personal opinions and beliefs. The members of a council attempt to illuminate an issue that is unclear at the beginning, and try to find a solution to maximize profit or benefit of their community and minimize its losses and dangers. In view of this objective of a council, if, supposedly, all members participating in the process of consultation lack in the necessary qualities of commitment, knowledge and perception required to deal with the issues, the results of their consultation will be most undesir­able: It may be said, therefore, that a person lacking in the qualities of commitment, knowledge and perception has nothing to offer for the benefit of other human beings through his opinions. Accordingly, to disregard the necessity of commitment, knowledge and perception for discovery of the best and the most beneficial opinion in the favour of the interests of the people‑which is the ultimate goal of counsel and consultation‑is a mistake that no committed ruler of any society can afford to make. In addition, it may be pointed out that the aforemen­tioned Quranic verse is, in the first place, addressed to the Holy Prophet (S) himself. Is it acceptable that the Prophet (S), with his supreme knowledge of all things beneficial and detrimental for his people's lives, should be asked to equate his intellect with the mind of a person utterly devoid of knowledge and perception? Consequently, we are led by reason to adopt the interpretation of this verse pointed out above; that is, the members of a council should possess the necessary qualifications. Aside from what we said, the second verse quoted above clarifies the exact meaning of counsel enjoined by the first one. The latter verse defines the eligible members of a council as those who possess the following qualifications:
1. They are free of major sins, deviations and indecencies;
2. They are serene and forgiving in anger;
3. They, in general, answer Divine call and observe Divine commands as for salat;
4. They assist others out of what God has provided them with;
5. When their brothers are subject to injustice and oppression, they hasten to their support and assistance.
It is clear from the above explanation that awareness and know­ledge about the subject of consultation is as essential as the qualities of justice, commitment and taqwa (godfearing). There is a prophetic tradition quoted by the late Ayatullah Aqa Mirza Muhammad Husayn Na' ini O companions, advise me.
At the time of the Battle of Uhud, the Prophet (S), and a number of companions, were of the opinion that they should face the enemy while remaining inside the city of Medina. But, since the majority of the Prophet's companions wanted to go out of the city to fight the enemy, the Prophet (S) gave his consent. However, it later became clear that the Prophet's suggestion was right. Similarly, in the Battle of Ahz5b (Khandaq), the majority of the companions was against con­ciliation with the tribe of Quraysh. The late Ayatullah Na'ini, linking the principle of shura (counsel) with the general ,Sirah of the Prophet (S), writes: "The books on the history of the Prophet's life, bear out in detail the fact that the principle of counsel is firmly based on the sunnah of the Prophet and such statements of the Prophet (S) as `O companions, advise me."'
The issue of shura has received special treatment in the discourses of Imam Ali, Amir al‑Mu'minin (A).In one of his sermons, Ali (A) says: Do not flatter me for the obligations I have discharged towards Allah and towards you; I have done nothing more than discharge my continuing obliga­tions and have performed by obligatory duties. Do not address me in the manner despots are addressed. Do not treat me with the affected caution and reserve with which tyrants are usually treated. Do not think that when truth is said in my presence, it would be hard upon me. For, if one finds it diffi­cult to hear a word of truth and justice, he would find it much more difficult to act upon it. Therefore, do not abstain from mentioning the truth and do not hold back from me your honest advice. 1 do not regard myself above erring and 1 am not secure from it except that God, who has more power over my self than I myself, sages me from it. Certainly, I and you are slaves of Allah, besides whom there is no lord. He rules over that part of ourselves which is beyond our own control. It is He who has raised us from the lowest state of life to the sublime station of humanity. He gage us guidance which replaced misguidance, and bestowed upon us vision which took the place of blindness.
The above quotation throws light on the significance of counsel. It lays great emphasis on the necessity of accepting truth without pride or irritation. Expression of truth, even if it is not in the shape of counsel, is enjoined and encouraged. Imam Ali (A) enjoins people not to withhold their candid advice from him. Elsewhere he says:
There is no backing like counsel.
There is no backing firmer than counsel.
And
Counsel is to guidance what eyes are to the body. Confining solely to one's' own opinion as risky and dangerous.
Ali (A), in his lifetime, was a staunch adherer to the principle of shura. As the late Ayatullah Na'ini points out, during the time of his caliphate and at the most sensitive times of his rule, All (A) acted according to the opinion of the majority, even though he strongly disagreed with it. During his confrontation with Mu'awiyah, he had to yield to arbitration as demanded by the majority‑a matter which added immensely to Ali's difficulties. Later, when they realized their error, Ali (A) told them, "I had advised you against it. I tried to convince you that justice was on your side in the battle against Mu'awiyah, but you did not accept." That regrettable incident of Islamic history bears un­equivocal testimony to the legal validity of the opinion of the people. The Islamic texts, the Quran, hadith (traditions), and the lives and practice of Divine leaders of Islam, all confirm the fact that shura or counsel is one of the most evident and necessary Islamic principles, denial of which can be explained by either ignorance, malice or conceit.
The Basis of Shura: In the light of the Quranic verses and traditions quoted in the course of our discussion, it may be asserted that human reason and prophetic revelation are the inner and outer sources of Divine sovereignty. In view of our discussion about the ultimate aim of consultation or shard as a collective rational means for arriving at truth, it may be added that the legitimacy of the principle of shura in Islam is supported both by reason and by prophetic revelation. Therefore, the outcome of a right kind of consultation conducted among those who possess the five qualities mentioned earlier, has the necessity of a law attached to it.
On the other hand, we know that the opinions of the people, no matter how much free of deviations and delusions they may be, are not secure from error; because, the individual intellects of the people gene­rally lack the necessary qualities of awareness, aptitude, understanding and psychological stability. These qualities are not so common so as to consider the opinion of a section, or even that of the majority of per­sons in a society, as a realistic means for reaching a desirable goal. Bertrand Russell, the Western thinker of reknown says: "Possession of a balanced intellect is a totally relative matter. Very few individuals have completely balanced minds. Almost everyone has a certain angle of madness in him."
In one of his books at first he poses this question: one of the dif­ficulties facing man is that he seems incapable of doing anything with moderation; if possibly he begins some work in a good manner, he soon pushes it to some kind of extreme; will man, after all, learn to tread the path of moderation? Then, in reply Russell says: "I am hopeful and confident that man will at last find the middle path. It is my belief that it is most necessary and that it is totally possible. I do not consider those dark prophecies as a word of revelation." Alfred North Whitehead writes: "Human nature has become so much entangled that the worth of programmes charted out for correct management of society is con­sidered less than rubbish by statesmen." A little amount of study is enough to provide plenty of similar examples from all thinkers of the East and the West.
With the assumption that moderation of thought and balance of intellect is found in a very restricted number of persons, how is it Pos­sible to vindicate and consider as valid the outcome of consultation and deliberation among persons? The Islamic answer to this question can be put as follows:
Firstly, Islam regards the perpetual education, training and guidance of individuals in an Islamic society and upliftment of their level of awareness, knowledge of the real world and spiritual purification as a fundamental social duty. Preparation of the people for thinking in a correct manner is a duty that can be of considerable assistance in laying the foundations of `rational life'. This can also be inferred from the inspiring words of Ali (A) in which he puts the complete responsibility of the multi‑faceted development of human beings on the shoulders of their `guardians' at all social levels: All of you are tenders of your flock and responsible for it.
Secondly, the principle of counsel is a great blessing of God that allows people to rely on themselves. It makes them aware of their hid­den constructive capacities and talents and awakens them to the signifi­cance of mutual understanding for creation of social consensus and harmony. By confirming this principle, God has confirmed man's capa­city for organizing his life on the basis of reason and intelligence. The fact that the opinion of the majority, or even a total social consensus does not necessarily lead to the right view, is evident and indubitable; but it does not invalidate the basis of the principle of counsel; because, God, who has asked man to follow the right path, has also provided the means of attaining righteousness and laid down a law for movement to­wards that goal. That law is that man, in search of the `rational life', should orient himself towards reality with all his existence. That is, in a room where he can have access to sunlight itself by moving aside the curtains from windows, he should not light a dim lamp and deceive himself. When he cannot reach out for the sun, he should not enshroud himself in total darkness, but should make use of any secondary source of light that he can get hold of Shura, or counsel, is that secondary source of light that can deliver human beings from total darkness when there is no possibility of approaching reality itself. It is just this degree of deliverance from darkness and access to reality that is acceptable to the Creator of life and death, who says: And their affair is through counsel among them. (42:38)
This is a just one aspect of the utility of counsel. Another aspect of shura is that it affords individuals to express their opinion in accor­dance with their highest intellectual perceptions, and, since awareness, justice and stability are the requisite conditions of participants in a council, even if the product of their counsel is opposed to what it should have been, it does not reduce anything from its true worth and value. Because, their decision‑making errors do not necessarily indicate ignorance, corruption or perverseness on the part of the members of the shura; rather, it reflects an inadvertent weakness and shortcoming for which no one may be blamed. Now we can proceed to discuss the most fundamental issues of shura from the point of view of Islam.
The Subject of Shura In Islam
From our foregoing discussion it became clear that shura means assembly of a group of persons who are capable, reliable and well ­informed about a subject, for the purpose of reaching a truth related with that subject through consultation.
The subject (maudu`) of shura in Islam, that is the affairs which are subject to counsel and consultation, consists of all the spheres of human life as well as the background for determination of the secon­dary laws (al‑ahkam al‑thanawiyyah). To explain this further, it may be said that all matters of opinion surrounding the individual and collec­tive life of Muslims are divided into two categories: hukm and maudu'
1. Hukm. Hukm or command applies to the primary (awwali) and the secondary (thanawi) laws.
The Primary Laws: The al‑ahkam al‑awwaliyyah (the primary laws) constitute all Islamic duties and obligations deduced and inferred by jurists (fuqaha' or Mujtahidin) from the four sources consisting of the Book, sunnah, ijma` (consensus) and `aql (reason), and are communi­cated to all Muslims. The al‑ahkam al‑awwaliyyah, or the primary laws, constitute the duties of all responsible (mukallaf) Muslim men and women. These laws, since they are by no means subject to change or variation, are never set forth for consultation or shura, such as the five categories of acts, which are, wajib (obligatory), muharram (forbidden), mustahabb (enjoined but not obligatory), makruh (distasteful and un­desirable) and mubah (permissible). None of the acts of a mukallaf are outside these five categories, such as, salat, saum, hajj, zakat, khums, jihad, and defence. Other primary laws relate to the commerical deal­ings, punishments (hudud), compensation (diyyah, blood money or indemnity for bodily injury), and yet others relate to the process of trial, testimony and litigation et al. The general definition for this category is that these laws are those which, being based on the Quran, sunnah, ijma` and `aql, with due consideration of the physical and spiritual nature of man and its proneness to various deviations and defects, and with view to various things which are to its benefit and advantage, are not subject to any form of change whatsoever; although they are subject to modulation, depending on the varying states and conditions of a mukallaf (a responsible Muslim). These varying conditions of a muhallaf may be such as travelling, presence in home‑town, compul­sion, exigency, or any other ordinary or extraordinary condition.
There‑ is a very important point related to these laws, and which must be duly observed, is that, in view of the close social relations of Muslims with one another and also their relations with non Muslim communi­ties, the variance of opinion among jurists‑a natural consequence of the controversial nature of the jurist's material and sources‑‑should not be the cause of disturbance and confusion in the social life of Muslims. For this reason, it is necessary that the fatawa (legal opinions) and laws related with social affairs should be issued through a council of leading jurists; if not, variance of legal opinion can cause consider­able confusion and disturbance in the Islamic society.
The Secondary Laws: The secondary laws, or al‑ahkam al‑thanawiyyah, are those issued by someone who is a faqih jami` al‑shara'it (a faqih well‑versed in all spheres of the Islamic Shari`ah, an all‑rounder jurisprudent) with due consideration of the circumstances and condi­tions of an individual or society. An example of this category of laws is the famous fatwa issued by the late Ayatullah Aqa Mirza Muhammad Husayn Shirazi‑may God's mercy be upon him forbidding the use of tobacco.
The difference between the primary and secondary laws can be put as follows:
1. The former are directly based on the four sources, namely, the Book, the sunnah, ijma` and `aql, and which being the class of unchang­ing Islamic laws, together with the fundamental doctrines of the faith, constitute the framework of Islam. The secondary laws, on the other hand, do not directly correlate with the four above‑mentioned sources, but are the product of juristic inference drawn in view of the provisional conditions of an individual or the community. This does not, however, mean that the secondary laws deduced by a faqih jami ` al ­shara'it have no connection with the four sources of law. It means that the faqih jami` al‑shara'it, in consultation with other jurisprudents, issues a fatwa or legal verdict for the benefit of the Muslim society or in order to thwart a danger threatening it through inspiration from general principles and laws that specify the duty to safeguard the existence of the Islamic society.
2. An important point to note in connection with the secondary laws is that they relate to the category of actions and affairs that are generally considered mubah or permissible, as in the case of tobacco, which is mubah, and was forbidden by the late Ayatullah Shirazi. The primary laws, on the other hand, are not changeable on any account.
3. The primary laws, which are suspended in case of idtirar (exi­gency), ijbar (coercion), or karahiyyah (reprehensibility), should not be confused with the secondary laws (al‑ahkam al‑thanawiyyah). For instance, in case of insecurity of roads and sea‑routes the faqih may sus­pend the obligation of the hajj pilgrimage. This is not a secondary law because the duty of hajj is suspended or prohibited since `ilm (know­ledge), ikhtiyar (freedom) and qudrah (power) are the fundamental requirements for the application of a wajib.
4. With the disappearance of the cause and motive behind the secondary laws, their validity expires and the domain (maudu`) of its application returns to the sphere of primary laws.
References
1. The late Ayatullah Aqa Mirza Muhammad Husayn Na'ini, in his book Tanbih al‑ummah wa tanzih al‑millah, p. 17, rejects this misconception in these words: In the same way as submission to the whims of tyrants and despots is a form of slavery in the sphere of politics, so also uncritical surrender to the dogmas and dictates of religious figures put forth in the name of religion, is also another form of slavery.'
2. Jean‑Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, p.84, English translation by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Books, 1978.
3. Ibid. p. 84.
4. Ibid. p. 87.
5. Kulayni, Usul al‑Kafi, vol. I, p. 16, Tehran.
6. Ibid. p. 25.
7. Ibid. p. 13.
8. Abd al‑Wahid Amadi, Ghurar al‑hikam wa durar al‑kalim, p. 429.
9. Ayatullah Aqa Mirza Muhammad Husayn Na'ini, Tanbih al‑ummah wa tanzah al‑millah, p. 34.
10. Ibid. p. 56.
11. Ibid. p. 34.
12. Nahj al‑Balagha, Sermon 214, vol. III, p.p. 226‑227.
13. Ibid. vol. III, p. 478.
14. Maudu or subject of a law, means the domain or sphere of personal or social life to which the law applies. More specifically, every relation between man and the world that constitutes a field of activity, can be considered as the maudu ` of a law. For example, agriculture is an important field of human activity. It is said to be a maudu` or subject of one or more laws. For instance in case of its necessity for human existence it may be declared a wajib. Marriage is yet another maudu` subject to various laws depending on its degree of necessity; that is, it may be specified as a wajib in some cases, and as a mustahabb in others. Similarly, the issues of war and peace between Muslims and non‑Muslims are domains subject to various laws depending on the varying conditions. Also activities such as production, distribu­tion, exploitation of underground resources education and so on, are all different domains subject to a variety of laws depending upon varying conditions of the in­dividual or society.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Jafari
Source: Imam reza network

Special Functions of State and Islamic Perspective on Public Participation

Apart from the necessity of guaranteeing implementation of laws, there are also other reasons behind the exigency of government or executive power. It is by means of considering the aggregate of these reasons that it becomes possible to logically explain and justify the government’s set of obligations and prerogatives. If the duty of government were only implementation of laws and ensuring their implementation, such purpose would be met by organizing the armed forces. Yet, governments, including the Islamic government, have other obligations, such as providing for public needs of society, which are beyond the limited domain of individual action.
Sometimes, we study the life of man and examine his needs as an individual. Naturally, the person concerned must meet these needs through hard work by acting within the framework of rules and regulations. However, some needs are related not only to the family or a certain person but to the whole society or a wide section of it. For example, internal and external security is a public need. Designing the necessary means to combat domestic violence, law violation and insecurities and organizing a potent defense force to resist external enemies that threaten the Islamic country are not related to a specific section of society. They are related to all members of society. Since a certain person or a few people are unable to meet such needs, they must be met by the whole society. No doubt, by introducing rules and taking necessary steps, the government on behalf of society can meet such needs.
An organized movement and effective and appropriate military force is needed once there is a threat along the borders. In reality, the all-out participation in a defensive war must be based on law. Here, personal and subjective operations and activities based on personal preference cannot bring any good result and cannot stop the enemies’ satanic forces and their organized and well-planned military manoeuvres. Through efficient programs and schemes designed by an organization which is comprised of military experts, who are familiar with the dangers posed by the enemy and their level of facilities and capabilities, military forces must be organized for war operations. Such need can be met only by an organ which enjoys full authority over all members of that society.
By designing special programs and rules, it is the government which can mobilize people to participate in the war to thwart the danger to their country. In addition, to be prepared to confront external and internal threats, necessary defensive armaments and facilities must be acquired and efficient military training of individuals must be taken into account so that the country can have sufficient guards for external threats, as well as for internal security. This important task can only be shouldered by the government whose orders are obeyed and regarded as binding by the people.
The examples mentioned in relation to the second reason behind the need for government, i.e. meeting the public needs of society, give importance to defense issues of the country and confronting external enemies. In our country, the armed forces, comprising of the army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are discharging this crucial and vital duty. Also, the examples we mentioned in relation to the first reason, i.e. guaranteeing the implementation of law, pertain to the maintenance of internal security and practical ways of compelling offenders to obey the law. This important duty has been placed upon the disciplinary forces.
Among public needs which cannot be met by individuals and must be addressed by the state are the medical needs of society. Society has always been on the verge of succumbing to contagious diseases some of which pose serious threats, and if not prevented can cause heavy human loss. In the past, human societies had been afflicted with contagious and infectious diseases such as cholera, plague, and small pox which caused heavy human losses because of the lack of advanced knowledge in medicine and hygiene and overall programs. Through interstate programs and the use of obtained knowledge and facilities in medicine today, prevention and elimination of those diseases became possible.
For instance, infantile paralysis (poliomyelitis or polio) caused heavy human loss to us, but through planning, grand medical activities and initiation of vaccination programs, our country has obtained valuable results. Undoubtedly, without state planning and public participation, such programs could not have materialized. A power superior to that of individuals, i.e. the government, by planning, providing facilities, issuing required orders, and codifying special rules and regulations must take a step in the scene of action and people must follow government orders so that society’s health need can be met and the root of diseases that threaten society be eliminated.
Similar to the above is the war against the smuggling, distribution and use of narcotic drugs, for this ruinous catastrophe seriously threatens the physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing of society. Without interference of the state, serious steps and well planned programs, it will not be uprooted, nor the limited measures of individuals make considerable difference. As such, because of the multiplicity of those needs and the difference among them, a ministry has been considered for meeting each of them
Of course, individuals can meet many needs of society, but the motive to meet them does not exist in everybody nor is it equally strong. Left to individuals, they cannot be met satisfactorily and sufficiently. Some sections of society will still be deprived of those facilities and needed things. Therefore, meeting those needs has also been delegated to the government so as to avoid any shortcoming. For example, people can be entrusted with the construction of schools, learning centers, academic curricula and provision of the budget needed by those centers throughout the country as done before.
Today, in some advanced countries, the administration and maintenance of many of these centers has been entrusted to the people but, unfortunately, all individuals do not have a strong motive to construct or provide the budget for those educational institutions where children can pursue their studies on different levels. Of course, we do not deny that there have always been philanthropists who shoulder heavy expenses of construction of schools, but their activities are limited and do not cover all levels of society. If the government delegates this need to volunteers, the interests of society will not be ensured.
Therefore, the government must have a pertinent program and policy in order to serve the interests of society. The budget for these needs must be allocated by the people. That is, by levying taxes and other custom duties and considering necessary ways, the government must make people pay the expenses for those needs, or itself provide the budget through national resources. Whatever means are employed, education must be at the disposal of all members of society for its welfare. If circumstances change and some volunteers shoulder the expenses of building and administering academic centers, a heavy burden will be removed from the government’s lot.
Dual structure of functions of state
Certain responsibilities may be delegated to the people. But the government cannot delegate some important duties to the people; for example, the portfolio of defense and war with the enemy cannot be handled by unorganized individuals and groups. Policymaking, planning, budget allocation, and meeting the needs of this vital and fundamental issue must be entrusted to government alone. Of course, after assuming the responsibility of war and defense, planning, policymaking and facilitating ways, the government can permit people to voluntarily take part in the war as popular mobilizing [basij] forces, and defend the Islamic country and government.
Therefore, there is no need for the government to assume all social responsibilities. In fact, people themselves can shoulder many responsibilities and voluntarily provide the pertinent budget. It is true that the government must play a pivotal role in order to have cohesion and avoid any discordance, make room for public participation and assumption of responsibilities, design overall and long-term programs. The main role of some ministries is policymaking and the rest of the work is done by the people.
For example, the main function of the Ministry of Trade is not to engage in trade, as, in principle, domestic and foreign trade must be carried out by people. Because of abuses committed by those affiliated with the monarchy during the previous regime, in high-level commercial transactions whose benefits the masses were deprived of, it is stipulated in the Constitution that trade and high-level commercial transactions will be carried out by the government.
In principle, business and commercial activities must be carried out by the people and not the government. It is known that the government is not a suitable trading agent. Once it directly engages in commercial activities, it fails because in trade and industry, and in economic affairs in general, personal motivation and group competition play a very important role, and when properly guided, such motivation brings about progress, development and dynamism in trade and industry. Once trade becomes a state affair, motivation no longer exists. As a result, no progress is made.
In totalitarian governments and centralized states such as the socialist and communist regimes in China, Cuba, the erstwhile Soviet Union, and countries of the former Eastern Bloc, the state directly assumes all activities, policymaking and planning, and in all economic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities people do not play any role as the state’s executive agents. All affairs are entrusted to the state, and the people, i.e farmers and factory workers, work as public workers and wage-earners. Contrary to this, the Islamic government believes in principle that functions that can benefit by being entrusted to the people should be handed over to them and their ownership and autonomy respected.
Need for organizations dealing with low-income strata of society
As indicated, public centers must be established in society so that the low-income strata that cannot meet some of their needs can benefit from the facilities and services of those centers. For example, there is a need for special medical centers with free medication to serve those who cannot afford their medication expenses. As such, hospitals have been built for this purpose within the framework of social insurance law. In advanced countries such centers render extensive services to the people by exempting them from paying medical fees, and the state is obliged to provide medical expenses for people through taxes or national resources.
Once the taxation system is formulated for the procurement of a part of the state budget, including social and medical insurance, the people are obliged to pay their taxes according to the low. In advanced countries complex methods are used through which no one can evade taxes. The tax-payers also enjoy the benefits and utilities of taxes, but the low-income and vulnerable strata benefit from the free services of social and medical insurance. But the question is: Is it better to entrust public welfare activities and building medical centers to the people so that patients can benefit from their services, or the state should compel people to pay taxes and itself engage in constructing medical centers so that the low-income strata can benefit from their services?
Indisputably, the first option is better and more desirable. This option is preferred in the philosophy of Islamic laws. In Islam the people have been recommended to spend some of their earnings on public welfare works and let others benefit from them, for in this way, the value of charity will be preserved and the doers will attain self-perfection and otherworldly rewards, while the needs of society will be met. But if people are compelled to give a portion of their earnings, the value of volunteerism will be lost and they will not earn any spiritual reward nor acquire perfection.
The institution of pious endowments is an example of the voluntary work of charity by our benevolent Muslim people throughout history which has brought enormous benefits to our society. It can be said that there is no village in this country which has no pious endowment benefiting people. However, in recent years, unfortunately, this endowment has diminished and fewer people establish pious endowments, notwithstanding the value, nobility and sanctity of this pleasing-to-God work. In addition, we have many pious endowments which are either forgotten or not properly managed.
No doubt, if a pious endowment were revived and its status recognized again, many of the needs of the state would be met, and if many pious endowments were reestablished, a heavy burden would be removed from the state, and thereby, the people would also receive more spiritual rewards. Once the people engage in charity work out of their own freewill and volition with more freedom and autonomy of action, the more rewards they will receive.
However, if people do not take any action and social needs are not sufficiently addressed, the state becomes duty-bound to compel people to pay their taxes through the enactment and implementation of compulsory laws, and satisfy social needs.
The Islamic paving of ground for public participation
Entrusting affairs to people and paving the ground for public participation in various social arenas, like meeting extensive social needs, is recognized as among the characteristics of civil society. Of course, “civil society” and many other terms that originated in the West have different meanings and are sometimes exploited. However, we consider those terms in accordance with concepts acceptable to us. For instance, different, and at times contradictory, conceptions and interpretations of “civil society” have been presented.
One of the meanings of “civil society” is that as much as possible, social works must be taken from the state and entrusted to the people themselves. As much as possible, the people should voluntarily be ready to engage in social activities and only in times of necessity should the state interfere. Of course, in all countries overall policymaking in social affairs is undertaken by the state and practical programs and various phases of implementation are undertaken by the people.
Undoubtedly, the above conception of civil society is a fundamental Islamic principle in which Islamic society, and the City of the Prophet (s) [madinat ’un-nabi] has been anchored since the beginning. Initially, the Islamic government or state was not undertaking all social activities. It was the people who were undertaking most of the social activities but gradually, with the progress of society and the emergence of new needs, the state of affairs became such that common people could no longer meet their needs and an organized institution like the government had to meet those needs.
For example, the need to illuminate a city before could be met by placing torches in the alleys and streets, and by doing so, the people could pass by at night. Naturally, the said need at such level could be met by people themselves. Nowadays, however, by using electricity to illuminate a city and its residential areas, the people alone cannot meet this need satisfactorily. So, the state has to provide the necessary means to meet that need.
Factors undermining public participation
Generally, two factors undermining public participation in meeting public needs can be mentioned. The first factor is the daily increase of needs and the complexity and specialization of the process of meeting those needs. This condition practically deprives people of meeting those social needs and makes it the government’s responsibility to fill the existing vacuum.
The second factor is the weakening of moral and religious values and the prevalence of profit-oriented Western culture among people which urges them to help themselves rather than others. Western culture is based upon profiteering, individualism and freedom from responsibility, which prevailed in the West after the Renaissance and gradually permeated Muslim countries and weakened the spiritual and moral motives of Muslims.
It dissuaded man from thinking for others and helping the needy and activated the sense of indifference towards fellowmen. This culture persuades a person to avoid accepting social responsibilities and only pursue his interests. This culture is diametrically opposed to Islamic culture which has been prevalent for centuries among our people, urging them to think about the interests of society and serve the needy.
Heedlessness to Islamic traditions and values and penetration of Western culture in recent years has hindered the thriving of the noble tradition of pious endowment [waqf] and the number of endowed buildings and lands has tremendously decreased compared to the past. Also, other voluntary public welfare works have diminished and the spirit of civility which existed in Islamic society has weakened. As a result, the government’s obligation has multiplied and its burden has become heavier. If by the blessing of the Islamic Revolution, Islamic and human values are revived and people pay heed to their spiritual, moral and religious responsibilities by engaging in charitable work, the government’s burden of responsibility will decrease and it could entrust some of its responsibilities to the people. This state of affairs, in a sense, will be a return to Islamic civil society.
Status of civil society in Islam
I would like to emphasize that civil society in this sense is rooted in Islam and the apostolic invitation of the Prophets (‘a), but having drifted away from Islam, we have drifted away from it. Now, with the blessing of Islam, we need to return to it. The West is not supposed to guide and direct us towards the establishment of civil society. It is actually we who are supposed to hold them under obligation, for during the apex of Islamic civilization most of the Western societies were quasi-barbarians. Islamic culture and civilization gradually civilized them and they acquired the civil society from Islam. Today they claim to be exporting the salient features of Western culture to our country and civilizing us!
Thus, the ideal civil society is rooted in Islam and Islamic civilization, and by returning to Islam this civil society will materialize. Yet, “civil society” has also other meanings which are unacceptable to us. Nowadays, in the West “civil society” is used in opposition to “religious society” and it refers to a society in which religion does not rule and has no role whatsoever in social organizations and activities. In such an irreligious civil society—which is extensively promoted today—all members of society have equal opportunity to occupy all government and public posts.
If they say that Iranian society must be transformed into a civil society, it implies that a Jew could also become the president of Iran because all human beings are equal in humanity and we have no first or second class human beings. Under the rubric of “civil society” they are striving for the official recognition of an atheistic and deviant sect affiliated with Zionism. Under the pretext that all human beings are equal, they want members of notorious groups inclined towards America and Zionism to also have the chance to occupy important positions, such as the presidency.
If we claim that to some extent distinction among citizens is present and accepted, this is because in occupying certain political posts, some qualifications have been laid down in the Constitution, and God also says, thus:
وَلَن يَجْعَلَ اللّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلاً
“And Allah will never provide the faithless any way [to prevail] over the faithful.”[10]
Such a view is not inconsistent with civil society. According to Islam, “civil society” in which disbelievers and Muslims have equal rights and opportunities to occupy political posts is not acceptable. We openly announce that Islam does not allow disbelievers to prevail over Muslims in Islamic society. Neither does it allow a Zionist-affiliated atheistic sect and party to obtain official recognition. It makes no difference whether they label this difference in rights and qualifications as “discrimination in citizenship” or any other.
New ways of opposing Islamic criteria for selection
Today, those who are associated with the Global Arrogance inside the country are striving to promote Western liberalism and democracy by raising the slogan of equality among men and citizens. They want to inculcate the belief that there is no difference between human beings as they enjoy equal rights, and their views must receive equal attention while codifying laws of the country. Of course, human beings do not belong to different classes according to Islam. In this regard, God says:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ...
“O mankind! Indeed We created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes that you may identify with one another. Indeed the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most God-wary among you...”[11]
In the above verse, human beings have been declared equal in their intrinsic and essential qualities, and thus, difference or classification among them is inconceivable. However, the latter part of the verse points to the contingent [‘aradhi] differences.
That is, some valuably acquired characteristics and attributes make some of them superior to others. As such, the God-wary people have a sublime station in the sight of God, and it cannot be said that all human beings are equal before God. Similarly, in view of differences between individuals due to possession of merits and qualifications, they differ in capability and cannot hold any post that requires specific qualifications. For example, in all parts of the world an illiterate person can not be President. Can it be said that considering the condition of literacy for the assumption of the presidential post is contrary to the equality of men? Does it mean that human beings have two classes the literate and illiterate?
In all parts of the world special conditions are taken into account for key positions such as the Presidency. The Islamic nature of our political system has also laid down certain conditions. The President must have sufficient literacy and education, be a devoted supporter of Islam and not be associated with an enemy of Islam. These are in accordance with Islamic principles. So, if the condition of being Muslim is stipulated for becoming a Majlis deputy or occupying other posts, this does not mean discrimination of human beings according to classes. In Islamic society, commensurate to the rights and obligations that Muslims have in lieu of the khums and zakat they pay, distinct rights and obligations are considered for followers of other religions. This does not signify a discrimination of human beings according to classes, though it can be said that those differences are related to classes of citizenship.
To claim that the position of the Supreme Leader, Presidency or other key and strategic posts can be held by those opposed to Islam and the Islamic system and who do not accept the Constitution, is equivalent to entrusting Islam to its enemies! Such a thing is neither rational nor possible, and if, God forbid, some would like to do so, Islam will not allow them because God has not given the faithless dominion over the Muslims and does not accept such domination over Muslims. This is our belief and we do not care if they accuse us of classifying citizens.
Need to preserve Islamic values and principles and counter enemy plots
Equality in humanity does not necessarily mean equality in rights. It is true that human beings are all equal in humanity but they are not so in human virtues. In Islamic society, therefore, many posts and positions must be entrusted to people who have the necessary merits and qualifications. As such, the Leader must be a faqih so that he can supervise the implementation of Islamic laws, for he can not successfully supervise if he is not familiar with Islam. Also, the President must be a Muslim. A Jew or a Christian cannot rule over a population of 90% Muslims.
We should not worry if newspapers and pens in the hands of those who are affiliated with the Global Arrogance accuse us of believing in second class citizens. Nothing more than this can be expected from them; they even deny the essentials of Islam. Through the Islamic system, we must strive to present Islam as it is to the world and not as its enemies project it.
If we say or write something which pleases the American hegemonic power newspapers and mass media and makes them applaud us, we should not be glad. In fact, we should be anxious and worried. It is known that when it was said to Aristotle, “So-and-so applauded you,” he started crying. When he was asked why he was crying, he said: “I do not know what foolish act I have done that has pleased that ignorant person!” If we do something for the benefit of our enemies and present Islam in a manner that is pleasant to them, we have served the enemies and not Islam! We have to defend the Islam which has been introduced by the Prophet (s) and the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) to us, and not the “Islam” which the enemies dictate to us.
We cannot consider Muslims and non-Muslims as equal in holding key national posts. How can Islam allow us to officially recognize a religion which is affiliated with International Zionism, for the sake of “civil society”?
Notes:
[10] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:141.
[11] Surah al-Hujurat 49:13.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: al-islam.org

The Government’s Legitimacy in Islam

From the Islamic point of view, the same intellect that tells man that an action is good and another is bad and that his parents, teacher and the people have rights over him and he must give them their rights, tells him that the rights of God, who created the world, him and all human beings, are greater and more profound than that of others, and that he must admit that. Now, if God—who is our Master and has created us, and by whose will everything comes into being and will cease to exist if He wills—designates a person to implement His laws and decrees, his position is legitimate regardless of the acceptance or non-acceptance of people.
When God who has the greatest rights over human beings—nay, all rights belong to Him—grants the right to rule or guardianship [wilayah] over the people to the Apostle (s), an infallible Imam or the deputy of an infallible Imam, he has the right to implement the divine laws in society because he has been designated by the One to whom belongs all creation.
Therefore, the Islamic political theory on the basis of which the Islamic ruler has the right on behalf of God to implement divine laws and decrees and punish violators and criminals does not have inconsistency of any sort, and this theory is harmonious with rational principles. Of course, it is acceptable to those who believe in God. Those who do not believe in God will certainly not accept this theory. At the outset, we will have to prove to them the existence of God and the essence of monotheism [tawhid].
Should they accept God and embrace Islam, then we should sit together and discuss Islamic political theory. Thus, for those who believe in God, the Apostle (s) and the religion of Islam, the most rational legitimacy of government that could ever be conceived is that the Lord of the universe delegates the right to rule over people to one of His servants and designates him as ruler.
By knowing Islam and understanding its political theory, we will find out that above the rights that human beings have over one another, there is another right and that is the right of God over people.
Accordingly, if God commands His servant to do something—even if it is harmful to him—he must do so because he is a subject of God and belongs to Him, and being the Master, God can exercise authority over any of His servants. Of course, out of His infinite grace, benevolence and mercy, God does not bid or forbid anything detrimental to His creatures. He does not desire to harm anyone. His commandments and prohibitions are for the benefit, welfare and interests of human beings both in this world and the hereafter. In case they suffer by acting upon His commandments—for example, they are deprived of certain material enjoyments and blessings for a couple of days—God shall compensate them in the hereafter and recompense them a thousand times or more.

The prophets and their way of guiding people
God sends His apostles (‘a) to invite the people towards what is good and blissful in this world and the hereafter. At the beginning, the apostle or prophet of God guides and invites them to the truth and reads to them passages from a revealed scripture. By informing them and elevating the level of their understanding and knowledge, he paves the ground for their acceptance of the truth and divine duties. In reality, at this stage the apostle plays the role of “detached or external intellect” [‘aql-e munfasil]. Without exerting pressure and compelling the people and depriving them of liberty, he enhances their level of understanding in order to guide them towards their free choice and decision to willingly accept Islam and its lofty decrees.
An apostle is commissioned by God to inform the people of truth and falsehood and let them freely choose one of the two ways—truth or falsehood. For this reason, he cannot invite the people to his call by force and impart his teachings to them by pressure as this is against divine will. God wants people to choose whichever they like after knowing the truth and falsehood. So, at the beginning of his mission, the messenger of God has to establish contact with people, interact and talk with them, convey to them his message by means of rational proof and divine signs and miracles, and inform them of the truth.
In inviting the people to God and His signs and establishing divine order, the apostles of God do not employ any sort of compulsion or imposition on the people. As a policy, they pay special attention to human freedom and their conscious choice. In fact, they respect the liberty of people more than what is observed in other ideological systems. They make sure that in dealing with the invitation and system offered, the people have an absolutely free choice. It is because the purpose of God in creating man is for him to be a free and choosing creature, to accept truth freely and be guided by it. The use of compulsion and force by the apostles of God in the establishment of divine order is repugnant to divine purpose.
If man is supposed to choose a way by compulsion and force, chances are he would not know the truthfulness of the way and he may even possibly think that the way is not the correct one. In order to discern the correctness and truthfulness of the way, man must be informed and made aware at the outset, and the way must be paved for his free choice.
Again, since divine purpose is to allow man to freely, consciously and knowingly accept the path of truth and divine signs, God does not impose the path of truth on people by showing miracles. He does not desire to deprive the people of a conscious choice even by means of showing miracles and interfering in their free choice so that they accept the truth involuntarily and not resist it. As such, God said:
لَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نَّفْسَكَ أَلَّا يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ ٭ إِنْ نَشَأْ نُنَزِّلْ عَلَيْهِم مِن السَّمَاء آيَةً فَظَلَّتْ أَعْنَاقُهُمْ لَهَا خَاضِعِينَ

“You might kill yourself [out of distress] that they will not have faith. If We wish We will send down to them a sign from the sky before which their heads will remain bowed in humility.”[55]

The need to remove obstacles along the way of guidance
God wished to guide the people by means of His messengers and separate the path of truth from that of falsehood for them to choose the correct path with knowledge, understanding and free choice. The arrogant profiteers, who had accumulated excessive wealth by exploiting the ignorance of people considered the invitation of the apostles (‘a) as a great obstacle along their satanic objectives and interests. They rose up against the Messenger of Allah (s) and did not allow him to talk to the people and recite verses of truth to guide them.
By employing excessive torture, persecution, harassment and unbearable problems, they hindered the guidance of people. In the Holy Qur’an, God called this group “the leaders of unfaith” [a’immat al-kufr] and the chiefs of corruption and vice, and ordered the Apostle (s) and his companions to fight them and get rid of them because their presence and satanic activities hindered the realization of the divine purpose. God wants all human beings to be guided and be able to distinguish the path of truth from falsehood, but they obstruct His divine purpose:
...فَقَاتِلُوا أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لاَ أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُونَ

"Then fight the leaders of unfaith—indeed they have no [commitment to] pledges—maybe they will relinquish.”[56]
If a person driving along a road is obstructed by a rock or big stone, he has no option but to remove it to continue driving. As such, he will try his best and do everything in order to get rid of the said obstruction. Basically, every rational person removes any hindrance along his way. Similarly, for the realization of His purpose, He commands the Apostle (s), his companions, and all Muslims throughout history to fight and eliminate the obstructions to guidance, i.e. the oppressors in the world, monarchs, tyrants, money-worshippers, and all satanic powers that hinder the path of guidance.
God does not enjoin you to smile at them and cheerfully request them to allow the people to be guided! If they were listening to requests and had desisted from their wicked acts, they would not have been arrogant. They are essentially arrogant, wicked and corrupt. They want others to become their servants and subjects and exploit them to the fullest and not allow their own interests to be threatened.
As such, they do not allow people to be guided to the path of truth and become followers of the Messenger of Allah (s). Certainly, for the faithful and people of guidance there is no other way but to confront them violently. For this reason, in the Qur’an God commands the Holy Apostle (s) to fight them and deal with them violently, severely and sternly—the same Apostle (s) who is described by God in the Qur’an in this manner:
فَبِمَا رَحْمَةٍ مِنَ اللّهِ لِنْتَ لَهُمْ وَلَوْ كُنْتَ فَظًّا غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ لاَنفَضُّوا مِنْ حَوْلِكَ...

“It is by Allah’s mercy that you are gentle to them; and had you been harsh and hardhearted, surely they would have scattered from around you...”[57]
Elsewhere in the Qur’an, God commands him to fight and be severe with the faithless:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ

“O Prophet! Wage jihad against the faithless and the hypocrites, and be severe with them. Their refuge shall be hell, and it is an evil destination.”[58]
In yet another verse of the Qur’an, God orders the Apostle (s) to retaliate in kind against those who have threatened the lives and properties of Muslims and fight them with utmost severity:
وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ... ٭ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ...

“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you… And kill them wherever you confront them and expel them from where they expelled you...”[59]

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi 

Source: Imam reza network