Is Iran an Islamic State?

WILAYAT UL FAQIH

The basis for the ruling system in Iran

Islamic Republic of Iran is considered by many, all over the world, to be an Islamic state. Shia

and some Sunni alike hold up Iran as the model Islamic state and leader of the muslim world. All this is In spite of the fact that Iran has rejected the Khilafah system and has chosen instead the system of Wilayat ul Faqih.

WILAYAT UL FAQIH is usually taken to mean the jurist who is in charge or who has the authority. It derives from the Shia belief that the authority of ruling is limited to the imams who are masoom (infallible) and chosen by Allah [These imams number twelve in total. Muhammad al Askaree (R.A.) being the twelfth imam according to the Shia belief, the Twelfth Imam, absented himself (ghaybat-i sughra) from the physical plane in the year 260 A.H./872 A.D., followed seventy years later by a greater absence or occultation (ghaybat-i kubra)].

THE IMAMS (according to lmamiyyah al lthna Ashiyyah)

1. Ali (RA)
2. Hasan (R.A.)
3. Hussein (R.A.)
4. Ali Zaynul Abideen (R.A.)
5. Muhammad al Baqir (R.A.)
6. Jafar as Sadiq (R.A.)
7. Musa al Kithim (R.A.)
8. Ali ar Rida (R.A.)
9. Muhammad Al Jawad (R.A.)
10. Ali al Hadee (R.A.)
11. Hasan al Askaree (RA)
12. Muhammad al Askaree (RA).

Given the long absence of the Twelfth Imam this clearly presented a great problem for the Shia ulama.

What should be done in the absence of the Twelfth Imam?

Ayatollah Khomeyni for example, in his book ‘Islamic Government’ posed the following questions: “From the time of the Lesser Occultation down to the present ( a period of more than twelve centuries that may continue for hundreds of millennia if it is not appropriate for the Occulted Imam to manifest himself), is it proper that the laws of Islam be cast aside and remain unexecuted, so that everyone acts as he pleases and anarchy prevails? Were the laws that the Prophet of Islam laboured so hard for twenty-three years to set forth, promulgate, and execute valid only for a limited period of time? Did God limit the validity of His laws to two hundred years? Was everything pertaining to Islam meant to be abandoned after the Lesser Occultation?"

The ulama agreed they could not rule, because authority in ruling was for the Imam. Nevertheless, they considered it right that they, i.e. the fuqaha, could demonstrate and explain the rules (hokmn), collect zakat, khums and kharaj and distribute this wealth. When the absence of the Imam extended certain ulama said the fuqaha could extend their responsibilities to include judging between followers, applying the hudud (limits) and protecting the faithful. Some went further, making ijtihad, they said it was allowed for the fuqaha (jurisprudents) to undertake matters of ruling within certain limitations, others said generally. In other words, as a deputy for the imam during his prolonged absence. From this materialises the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih.

According to this ijtihad (legal exertion to ascertain the rule of Allah) the implementation of Islam devolves upon the fuqaha, they supervise the functioning of the government. Thus, they perform a role much more than expounding the law as previously maintained.

There are two notions behind this concept

1. In the absence of the infallible (masoom) Imam, it is allowed for the fuqaha (jurists) to rule according to their capacity.

2. In the absence of the Imam, certain divine laws - not all- can be implemented.

To say that it is allowed to have more than one ruler (fuqaha) at a time contradicts the very basis or Wilayat ul Faqih. The basis being that ruling in Islam is limited to the imam who is infallible (masoom) and chosen by Allah. Yes, it is allowed to have ulema with different fatwa, but the ruler must be one.

After the death of the Prophet (SAW) the Sahaba met in Sahifah to choose a successor, when the Ansar and Muhajireen suggested "From us will be an Amir and from you another." the ijma as-Sahaba (unanimity of the companions) rejected this idea. The Prophet (SAW) said: "When oaths of alliance (baya) has been taken for two khalifahs, kill the latter of them. " [Muslim]

As for notion that in the absence of the Masoom imam it is allowed for the ruling faqih to rule with that which is easy and can be established, this is 100% against Islam. Because he is the one to whom people are following (taqlid), and they give him zakat and khums, and Islam should be replaced immediately in every single kufr system. The ruler has the power to do this.

Let us now examine the basis of the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih, which is the idea that the authority of ruling is limited to the infallible imam chosen by Allah.

DID THE PROPHET(SAW) CHOOSE ALI TO BE HIS SUCCESSOR?

Those who maintain that Ali (RA) was chosen by Allah and His Messenger as the successor to Muhammad (SAW) rely upon the following evidences:

1. The hadith of Wilayah at Gadir khom.

In the tenth year of Hijra Ali was sent to Yemen by the Prophet (SAW). "Whilst he was there the Prophet (SAW) received a letter containing complaints about Ali, whereupon the Prophet (SAW) said: "If I am your Maola (master or person who is close to you) Ali is your Maola too. 0 Allah, support whomsoever supports him and hate whomsoever hates him."

2. The Hadith of Thakelayn.

The Prophet (SAW) said: "I am leaving you two things, the Book of Allah and my household... Do not run ahead of them, for you will be ruined; do not neglect them, for you will be ruined."

3. The Hadith of Manzeia (honoured place).

The Prophet (SAW) said to Ali "Don't you want to be to me like Haroon was to Musa, except there is no prophet after me."

4 The Hadith of Daar.

Following the order of Allah to convey Islam to the Prophet's (SAW) relatives, he made a banquet and invited all his family to attend. The Prophet (SAW) asked "Who among you will aid me to bear this burden, who will become my successor?" They remained muted except Ali who said: "0 Prophet! I will be thy successor over them.”

From these evidences the Shia understand that Ali (R.A.) was chosen by the Prophet (SAW) as his successor.

OTHER EVIDENCES THAT PROVE ALI WAS NOT CHOSEN TO BE MUHAMMAD’S (SAW) SUCCESSOR

The evidences above are correct (sahih) evidences and are clear in the question of succession, but not in the question of ruling and leadership. For instance, how can one conclude from the hadith of daar that this was a conferment of leadership over all muslims? Only the family of the Prophet (SAW) was present, there were no other people invited - if only for the purpose of being witnesses. If this was intended to be a declaration of succession in leadership over all mankind, would not the Prophet (SAW) have made this declaration in front of everyone? Thus we conclude succession in this instance is meant as a succession in leadership of the household of the Prophet (SAW) and not over all mankind. That is why this address of the Prophet (SAW) was made only to his family.

Notwithstanding this, the proof that Ali was not chosen by the Prophet (SAW) as his successor is contained within the book Nahjul Balagha (The Peak of Eloquence) which is regarded by the Shia as an authentic text.

1. “... And one of them said: ‘0 son of Abi Talib! You are zealous for leadership.’ I [Ali] replied, 'I swear by Allah that it is you who are zealous for leadership and far away from it! And I am closer to it and, what’s more, I deserve it more than anyone else!" Sharif Rida, Vol. 1,p116 (Arabic Edition).

2. Ali said: “We deserve to lead in this matter because we have a noble heritage and genealogy and we are closer to the Prophet.” Sharif Rida, Vol. 3, p63.

These two evidences - from Shia sources - prove that Ali (R.A.) considered himself as deserving leadership, because he was best qualified for the task, and not because the Prophet bad chosen him as the successor. Otherwise Ali would have mentioned so, in other words, not that he deserved it but that it was his right bestowed upon him by the Messenger of Allah (SAW).

3. “When Umar [bin Khattab] consulted him [Ali] if he should go to the war against the Romans, Imam Ali (A.S.) told him: 'If you go there, the muslims will have no one to turn to in your absence, and should anything happen to you there it may have an effect here. So stay and protect your people instead of going." Sharif Rida Vol. 3 p28.

4. Writing to Muawiah “...Those who gave allegiance (baya) to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman are the same people who are giving the baya now. Thus the witness has nothing to decide and the absent nothing to reject. The shura (consultation) is for the Muhajireen and Ansar, If they choose someone and name him Imam, then Allah As pleased by It" Sharif Rida Vol. 3, p7.

5. Writing to Talha and Zubayr "...I did not want this job (leader), but the people wanted me to have it; and I did not want to accept baya, but they, including you two, obliged me to accept it. Furthermore, prior to this I was not a king or wealthy man." Sharif Rida B3, p111.

All these quotes from Ali prove that he was a good advisor and consultee to the three imams before him. Furthermore, they prove that Ali took the oath of allegiance (baya) through 'offer and acceptance' and by shura (consultation); the shura being with the Ansar and Muhajireen. Please do not say that Ali mentioned all this because he was scared, or because he did not want trouble for the muslims. Even when Ali became Khalifah and had the power in his hand he never mentioned that the Khilafah was taken from him or that he was chosen to take this leadership by Allah.

6. And on the death of Uthman (R.A.) when the muslims asked him to accept the baya, he said: “Leave me and choose someone else, because we are going to confront this leadership with its many faces and colours. It is better for you to have me as a minister than an amir." Sharif Rida, Vol. 1, p48.

This shows that Ali was not chosen as a successor by Allah nor the Prophet (SAW). Quite simply, Ali saw himself as one who deserved the leadership because of his qualities and capacity to carry out the task.

7. He said: "I swear by Allah, I never had any strong desire for khilafah nor in wilayat, but you invited me to it and carried me on the top of it." Sharif Rida, Vol. 2, p 184.

8. When Imam Ali was dying in bed, people asked him: “...’Are you not going to choose your successor?’ He said, 'Why should I? The Prophet (SAW) did not choose one, all he said was 'If Allah wants the good for them He will bring them someone who is best after their Prophet.” Talkhis E Shaffi for Taussy and Sharif Rida, Vol. 2,p372.

Even if we suppose that the Imam was chosen by Allah and not by shura, why didn't Allah mention it clearly and explicitly in Quran to avoid bloodshed and harm befalling Muslims. After all we see that the Quran mentions many minor and less important things. Furthermore, if this responsibility of choosing the ruler of muslims falls on Allah and not the people through shura, then the Imam should be present in all times to avoid sin, the presence of an absent imam is of no relevance to us. We have our affairs to run according to the rule of Allah, are we to sit idle whilst the absent Imam remain invisible?

After all this can anyone still argue that Ali (R.A.) was chosen as a successor to the Prophet (SAW) by Allah or Muhammad (SAW)?

Whether one agrees with our contention or not, the point which, insha Allah, has become clear is that this whole question is far from being conclusive. In other words, there is room for misunderstanding and error. Nobody, with sincerity, can maintain after all these evidences - gleaned from Shia texts - that this subject should belong in the domain of one's creed (Aqeeda). Rather this subject belongs to the area of Ijtihad, where differences of opinion are possible.

Placing this subject in the area of belief, alongside belief in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgement and divine destiny, is sinful. Yes, sinful, because Allah blames and censures those people who believe in conjecture and probable things, i.e. thann. Allah says:

"It is not but names you and your forefathers used for which Allah has not sent authority. They follow nothing but conjecture (thann) and what their souls desire, even though there have already come to them guidance." [AI Najm : 231

"But most of them follow nothing but conjecture (thann), truly conjecture can be of no avail." [Yunus : 36] "Verily those who disputed about him were suspicious and with no certain Knowledge, but only conjecture (thann) to follow, for surely they killed him not." [AI Nisa :157]

Many more verses deal with the same point and all conclude with Allah censuring those who establish their faith on probability, conjecture or guessing. This leads one to conclude that that faith must be based on conclusive proof and certain knowledge, i.e., yakeen and qatai.

The evidences relied upon by the Shia, and the evidences from their books which we have brought indicate that this subject cannot yield certainty.

THE ISMAH (INFALLIBILITY) OF THE IMAMS

The Imamiyyah al Ithna Ashriyyah believe that the Imams were infallible throughout their entire existence, that it was impossible for them to commit a sin or to make a mistake or forget.

However, the Ismah (infallibility) is only for the prophets. Moreover, it pertains to the prophets only in so far as it relates to the conveying of the Message.

Actually, there is no strong evidence from Quran and Sunnah to prove they were masoom (infallible). The proof that they were masoom comes from the mind, i.e., aaqly, as opposed to naqly, i.e., from Kitab; and Sunnah.

We believe the messengers and prophets were infallible in conveying their message, because if they made mistakes or forgot or even concealed the message then Allah's message would not reach the people. Allah, who knows everything, would not choose a messenger if Allah knew that he would lie, make a mistake or forget.

When we examine this question of their infallibility we observe that the companions of the Prophet (SAW) would differentiate between the revelation - whether Kitab or Sunnah - and the Prophet's own speech, i.e., his own opinions and actions not connected to the revelation. For example, during the Battle of Badr Muhammad (SAW) took up a position with the muslim army that appeared to the military expert, lbn al Mundir, not to be satisfactory. Ibn al Mundir asked the Prophet (SAW) if this position was from reverlation,or a matter of strategy and tactics. When Muhammed (SAW) informed him it was a matter of strategy Ibn Mundir suggested to him a better place in front of the wells of Badr. The Prophet (SAW) accepted this idea.

Another example occurred when the Prophet (SAW) odered to give one third of the dates of Medina to the tribe Ghatafan if they would depart from the Battle of the Trench. The Prophet (SAW) asked Sa'd bin Mu’adth and Sa'd bin Ubada what they thought of the matter. They said: “Is it a thing you want us to do, or something Allah has ordered you to do which you must carry out? Or is it something you are doing for us?" When the Prophet (SAW) informed them he was doing it for them they refused and the Prophet (SAW) duly accepted their view.

In another incident, concerning the grafting of date palms in Medina, the Prophet (SAW) said to the people you know more about your life matters than I. At one time the Prophet (SAW) even forgot the number of rakat he had performed in prayer, and the companions said: “Are, you doing Qasr (shortening the prayer) Prophet of Allah?" The Prophet (SAW) replied no and continued the prayer.

Furthermore, Allah says in the Quran:

"Say, I am only a human being receiving Message".

Thus we conclude from all this that the Prophet (SAW) was Masoom only in his actions, speech and silence relating to the Message.

Outside this, if the Prophet (SAW) made a mistake it was not a mistake in the sense of making a sin, absolutely not. Rather it was in the area of Mubah, that is to say in the area where Allah permits one to partake or refrain from a course of action. The Prophet (SAW) may have chosen the course which Allah determined was not the best. In English we say good, better, best; the Prophet (SAW) may have chosen the better action instead of the best according to Allah’s judgement. For example in Surat Abasa Allah says:

"The Prophet frowned and turned away, because there came to him a blind man interrupting." (80:1-2)

Allah also said: “Allah forgave you when you gave them permission”.

Accordingly, if we conclude that the Prophets are infallible in conveying their message then there can be no other infallible people by this understanding of masoom. Muhammad (prayer and peace be upon him and his family) is the last of the prophets and our religion is complete and perfect and in need of no other people to convey the revelation of Allah, because there is no more revelation to come.

“This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (5:4)

This verse is so clear it needs no explanation.

Those who maintain the Imams must be masoom because they explain the religion and protect the religion are completely wrong. Imam Ali (R.A.), the first Imam, suggested to be masoom resided as leader for only 5 years, thereafter the other imams did not even smell the leadership, let alone practice ruling. Secondly, the idea that the religion will be lost without the masoom imams does not stand up when one considers the fact that the Twelfth Imam has been absent for some twelve hundred years. It is for this very reason that the Shia jurists (fuqaha) have had to develop the idea of Wilayat ul faqih.

THE EVIDENCES USED BY THE SHIA TO PROVE THAT ALI AND THE IMAMS WERE MASSOOM

The evidences brought by the Shia to prove that Ali and the other imams are masoom and chosen by Allah are as follows:

“And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of Ignorance and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only Wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family, and to make you pure and spotless.” (33:33)

The Shia use this to say that the twelve Imam, plus Fatima, were masoom. The other believing members of the Prophet's family: his daughter's Umm Kulthum and Ruqaya, his wives and uncles are all excluded. What discrimination! Actually, in this verse starting from “Allah only wishes..”, includes all the believing members of the household of the Prophet (SAW). Removing abomination does not mean mistakes, rather it means the bad, evil and ugly things.

As for the hadith of thakalyn: "I leave among you two precious things: the Book of Allah and my Household..." It is a command from the Prophet (SAW) to take care and to love the household of the Prophet, it is not an evidence to make them a source of shariah like Quran.

When Imam Ali was dying, he said: “I have a wassiat (bequest) for you. Do not associate anybody with Allah, and follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW); fulfill these two pillars" Sharif Rida, Vol. 1, p3.

Ali (R.A.) did not say follow my son Hasan because he is masoom.

They also bring the hadith of the Prophet (SAW) which says: "0 Allah make the truth be with him [Ail] where ever he goes."

They say that Allah always answers the supplication (du'a) of the Prophet (SAW) thus Ali is masoom. But this is incorrect, because Allah answers the du’a in three ways: Allah immediately answers it; Allah warding off evil from him; and thirdly, Allah postpones answering the du’a until the Day of Judgement. The Prophet (SAW) said: “I asked Allah do not put war and trouble between my Ummah (nation), but Allah did not answer my du’a”.

All this, however, is besides the point because Ali himself said: “Do not hesitate to stop me if I say something without prove or without consultation, because I can make mistakes." Usol al Kafi, Vol. 2, p201 and A‘yann Shia; Vol. 1, p736.

Furthermore, Ali (R.A.) said to Uthman(R.A.)"I do not know anything which you do not know. You knew when I knew, you heard when I heard from the Prophet (SAW), and you saw what I saw, and you had been a close companion to the Prophet like I had been." Sharif Rida, Vol. 2, p68.

In the first hadith Ali makes it clear that he is not masoom. In the second hadith Ali says that Uthman was equal to him in knowledge of religion and companionship to the Prophet (SAW). So we may say, if Ali is masoom Uthman is masoom as well. But Uthman is not masoom and neither is Ali.

As for the argument that we must have a masoom Imam to protect the religion, this contradicts the wisdom of Allah in ending the line of Prophethood and constitutes no proof at all. Are they trying to say the Quran is incomplete or the Message of Muhammad (SAW) was not enough? In fact to say that Imam Ali was masoom is an insult to the Prophet (SAW) and a blasphemy and an indirect accusation to Allah and His Prophet (SAW). Infallibility is connected only to revelation, the imams have no relationship to the wahy (revelation); they only have ijtihad.

According to Shia books of hadith, one day "Fatima (A.S.) entered her house and saw Ali with his head in the arms of Jaria [a female worker]. She said ‘O Abu al Hasan! You did it! ‘And he [Ali] said ‘I swear by Allah, 0 daughter of Muhammad(SAW) I did not do anything." Elal-0-Shara-eh, p163; and Beharo-al-Andar, chapter entitled Her relationship with Ali (A.S.), pp43-44.

If Ali was really Masoom Fatima should have harboured no doubt about him.

As for the imams being chosen by Allah, one of Ali's bequests (wassiat) to Hasan (RA) to take care of the family included..."Do not eat except with good (maroof) and spend only with maroof, and should anything happen to Hasan while Hussein is still alive he will take charge after Hasan." Sharif Rida, Vol. 2, p 186.

If Ali did not know who, of Hasan and Hussein, would outlive the other, how can we say they and their succession were chosen by Allah.

In the time of Jafar Sadiq (RA), the sixth Imam, he gave his wassiat for Imammah to his eldest son Ismaiel (R.A.). Ismaiel, however, died before his father; so Jafar gave his wassiat to his other son Musa (R.A.). From this event the Ismaieli group arose. They said the Imamah went to Ismaiel and then passed on to Muhammad and not Musa al Kathim (RA).

This proves that the concept of the Imams being masoom did not exist at their time. The idea of wassiat, i.e., a bequest of succession, that was in some way tied to the Khilafah came later.

Conclusions on Wilayat ul Faqih

So there you have it, the basis for the concept of Willayat ul Faqih. All its evidences are far from being conclusive and containing certainty (yakeen). For this reason, it should not be established as a pillar of iman and an article of one's creed. It certainly should not be used to differentiate between muslims as to who is a believer or not.

During the Battle of Siffeen, Imam Ali (R.A.) was asked about the opposing troops who had died in the battle, he said: "We have one God, our dawa (call) in Islam is one, and we have nothing extra as iman (faith) than them. They are the same as us, it is just that they had confusion over the blood of Uthman." Sharif Rida' Vol. 2, p114.

We know that the people who fought Ali did not accept him as Khalifah. In spite of this Ali did not say they were not believers, nor that we are believers and they are Muslims.

The concept of Wilayat ul Faqih is the result of ijtihad the basis for which is the Jafari madhab (school of thought). As, in our opinion, the Jafari madhab is an Islamic madhab, the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih is therefore an Islamic concept.

However, we are not obliged to follow it.

In our opinion, the proofs and evidences relating to the system of Khilafah are much stronger and correct than those that relate to the system of Wilayat ul Faqih. We are convinced by the Khilafah system and consider ourselves obliged to follow it.

The obligation to follow the system of wilayat ul faqih falls upon those who believe in it.

As far as the state of Iran is concerned, the obligation to follow it - for those who believe that it is Islam - pertains only if the following two conditions are fulfilled, they are:

l. The state should be built correctly on the basis of wilayat ul faqih; and

2. The divine law (shariah) should be applied.

Whilst Iran claims to have established itself on the basis of wilayat ul faqih, it applies a mixture of Islamic laws and Kufr (non-Islamic) laws. In our opinion this does not constitute an Islamic system.

One must realise that there is a difference between the misapplication of the system, on the one hand, and the non-implementation of the system, on the other.

The vast majority of the people who are supporting Iran and the system of wilayat ul faqih, have no awareness or knowledge of whether the system is being correctly implemented or not.

If a ruler declares that he cannot implement the sharia laws in its totality, but is, instead, gradually moving towards that condition, this means the system is not Islamic Sharia laws in its totality, but is, instead, gradually moving towards that condition, this means the system is not Islamic. For it means the system will stay under Kufr until the society is ready to accept the Islamic system. This is exactly what has happened in Iran. This shows the implementation of Kufr on purpose, it can not be said that it is a misapplication. The muslims must change such a situation, by force if necessary. Allah says: "Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed are fasiqs." [al-Ma’idah 5:47].

Such a system will remain un-Islamic until all laws become Islamic. At that time we will say it has become Islamic.

Al-Fajr Magazine