In the Name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful Blessings of Allah be on you, O Saaheb al-asr, help us and forsake us not Salaamun Alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu Today, the subject of Wilayat-e-Faqih is among the most hotly debated topics in the Shiite world. Efforts to address the subject have unfortunately been futile, raising more queries than answers. The answers advanced by the proponents of the theory of Wilayat-e-Faqih, are neither sufficient nor decisive, and raise a great many questions and objections.we are listing them down here in the hope that it will lead to a more concrete response to the subject. We hope that an impartial study of these objections will make our stand clear. We are not at all raising the objections to subconsciously fulfill the intentions of the enemies, since this is the allegation raised against those who have doubts and objections on Wilayat-e-Faqih. We hope that by refraining from such allegations and taunts, efforts are put in motion to advance replies based on solid proofs. May Allah (swt) enhance our taufeeq in this regard. Argument against Wilayat-e-Faqih Some of the arguments against Wilayat-e-Faqih can be summarized in four questions: (1) Election of the religious leader, by the Shia people, has what standing in the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). It has been observed that Allah (swt) has nominated ALL the 124,000 prophets from Hazrat Adam (a.s.) to the Holy Prophet Mohammad (saww); and ALL the 12 Imam s from Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) to Imam Mahdi (atfs); and even the four Special Deputies of Imam Mahdi (atfs) were nominated by Allah s commands. It has also been observed that even now when a mujtahid appoints different people in different areas, countries he nominates them and no election is done. (2) From 329 h, the start of Ghaybatul Kubra to 1400 h; a period of more than 1000 years; the Shia s didn t have any waliye Faqih. The doctrine of Wilayat-e-Faqih has been pushed into the Shia community 34 years ago. IF the Shia s of that era, (from 329h to1400h), were correct in their religious affairs, without any waliye Faqih; THEN even today if someone does not agree to the ideology of Wilayat-e-Faqih, his (or her) religious affairs are perfect; and how can he (or she) should be accused that their religious affairs are not right? (3) Without relation and alliance with Rehbar-e-Moazzam can the Islamic movement (of Tabligh) be encouraged? (4) Does the appointment of a guardian by the Iranian scholars hold any significance for other nations? When the guardian has been appointed by the Iranians, how can the satisfaction and support of other nations be achieved regarding their choice?
Rationale for Wilayat-e-Faqih presented by the proponents of the ideology According to Quranic verses and traditions, the guidance of humanity revolves around the institution of Imamat. It was the conduct of the prophets that whenever they used to depart for journey or for jihad or for migration or leave the city for any reason, the first thing they did was appoint a deputy. The question is that when Imam Mahdi (atfs) was apparently going away from the nation into Ghaibat-e-Kubra whom did he appoint as waliye Faqih? If in Ghaibat-e-Kubra the noble fuqaha (jurists), (al Ulama ul Umana), with specific characteristics have the capability of assuming deputyship, so is this deputation regarding the affairs of jurisprudence only or should it be extended for general matters of leadership? There are various meanings of Wali such as friend, uncle, master, slave. But here the meaning of Wali is in the sense of governance. Wali-e-Faqih means the leadership of Islamic jurisprudence under the deputy of Imam Mahdi (atfs).when Imam Mahdi (atfs) is the Imam of every nation, race, inhabitant and of every country. So his deputy is also superior and distinct to all the inhabitants of the earth be they of any race, colour or nation and he will also be considered as their leader. And because he is the deputy of Imam Mahdi (atfs), he will be considered as a deputy in general. Thus it is just that marjaeyyat is responsible for a general deputation and a Marja-e-Aalam is superior to the geographical boundaries. In the Tawqee (letter) of Imam Mahdi (atfs), deputation (general deputyship and not the special deputyship), is given to ALL the jurists; Al Ulama ul Umana, during the period of ghaybatul kubra. And we do not deny this deputation. And this deputation is not only for all Muslims but for all the people of the world.thus all the jurists and mujtahideen are included among the deputies of Imam (atfs) and they are proof upon us. And that, this responsibility is imposed by the Shariat, on those who are not Mujtahideen themselves, they must refer to the Marja in case of all the problems related to Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). Whether they are related to affairs such as justice or political affairs because political affairs are also included in Islamic jurisprudence. Fiqh means a duty bound action in which the order has been established whether it is obligatory, forbidden, makrooh, mustahab or mubah. Thus, political affairs are included in Fiqh and are not separated from them. Reply to the argument of Wali-e-Faqih The aforementioned explanation regarding the Faqih and his position in Shiite society is broadly accepted by everyone. However, the most critical question remains unanswered: Is the one to be obeyed in political affairs, a single Faqih? Rather the basic question is: Has Imam Mahdi (atfs) appointed a single waliye Faqih for the whole world, during the ghaybatul kubra?
Thus the reality is that when Imam is for the whole world so his deputies collectively not only one deputy, are also for the whole world. And every mujtahid is a proof for his muqallid only; which means, he is the Wali-e-Faqih of his muqallid and not for the muqallid of other mujtahideen. But if it is claimed that one mujtahid is the Wali-e-Faqih for all and only he is the deputy of Imam and others are not the deputies; that means the mujtahid under question is the Wali-e-Faqih of all the other mujtahideen, and also the Wali-e-Faqih of the followers of those mujtahideen, then it must be proved from the noble Tawqee; who is that deputy and that he will be the Wali-e-Faqih for the whole world. This is necessary since evidently Imam Mahdi (atfs) has given his deputation to all the jurists (common deputation as opposed to specific deputation); which means that various mujtahideen can be deputies at the same time. It must be known that Imam Mahdi (atfs) has not appointed any one specifically from among them, to be his deputy for the whole world, after the four special deputies during the ghaybatul Sughra. So on what basis are we electing as Wali-e-Faqih, one from among all other mujtahideen? The question - should the reins of the Islamic government of the whole world be in the hands of one Wali-e-Faqih or should it be with the mujtahid of that country? This argument has been addressed very logically by Allamah Syed Muhammad Hussain Tabatabaai in his book Nazariyyat-e-Siyaasah wa al-hukm fil Islam (Published by: Daar al-islamiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon) ; whereby he mentions In the Islamic Shariah, no such order has been proved, thus taking a unilateral decision is uncalled for; rather it is advisable to take a decision on consensus after a careful study of the circumstances. But under all circumstances, it is necessary to consider three points:- i) The Islamic nation should remain united ii) Consensus of opinion should be observed iii) Geographical boundaries and national boundaries have no importance in Islam. According to Allamah Tabatabaai, till the time the unity of the nation remains secure different mujtahideen can establish different governments in different areas. Therefore it is not necessary for a single Wali-e-Faqih to govern the affairs of all Shias globally. And this is a logical view that all mujtahideen are not infallible and every mujtahid is well aware of the condition of his own country as compared to a mujtahid of another country. Therefore, every mujtahid is the deputy of Imam Mahdi (atfs), and can establish an Islamic government in his area with the condition that the Islamic unity remains intact. This is just as the infallibles Imam s (a.s.) in their eras would depute someone who would not be for the whole world but for a particular area. Different deputies were appointed, which posed no threat to the unity of the Islamic nation; all of them were deputies of the Imam (a.s.) who was the axis for the Muslims. In the same way, during ghaybatul kubra, according to the conditions put forth by Allamah Tabatabaai, every mujtahid and jurist can establish a separate Islamic government and this does not
pose any danger to the unity of the nation. All these deputies function under Imam Mahdi (atfs). There is no place for emotions and prejudices in this regard. It also is not proved that in ghaybatul kubra, there should be only one Islamic ruler in the whole world. And when this argument was tackled by Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, in his book, Al Huqooq wa Siyaasah fi al Qur an; (Published by: Daar al-ta aruf al-matbooaat, Beirut, Lebanon); he wrote that we all are waiting for one government of Imam Mahdi (atfs), therefore if possible different countries should become one and aim for a unified government; but since it is impossible to do this under the present circumstances, our efforts should not be wasted on trying to form a unified government; rather a good and virtuous person should handle the system of government in every country. From the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, in concordance with the views of Allamah Tabatabaai accepts the necessity of having more than one Islamic government during the ghaybatul kubra of Imam Mahdi (atfs), as per the necessity of the time, and very eloquently explains that in today s day and age it is not possible to establish a single, unified Islamic government. Hence, the only option is to abandon the pursuit of a unified Islamic government and a separate Islamic government should be established in every Islamic country, which is governed by the pious people of the nation according to the demands of the nation. If there are references of scholars like Allamah Tabatabaai and Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi which support the need for a single Wali-e-Faqih, it would be interesting to review them. As yet we have not come across any such references. Hence the question arises whether it is correct to have a single Islamic government governed by the Rehbar? As per Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, it is clearly not necessary. Moreover, the proponents of Wali-e-Faqih, claim that there are no geographical boundaries for Marjaeyyat, then why there are geographical boundaries for the Wali-e-Faqih. In a single family people may follow different Marja (mujtahideen). But concerning the Wali-e-Faqih it is claimed that there is a single Wali-e-Faqih. When there is no compulsion in the matter of choosing a mujtahid, similarly there should be no compulsion in following the waliye Faqih. All the Shia s do not follow the same Marja and nor does anyone claim so; but it is claimed that there is only a single Wali-e-Faqih. And the other major difference is that the domain of the Marja is only regarding religious edicts whereas the Wali-e-Faqih performs the additional task of governance and hence it is claimed that there should only be a single government ruled over by the Wali-e-Faqih for the entire world. Hence there is a claim that the world should be ruled over by a single Wali-e-Faqih but there is no claim that there should be a single Marja. When there is no single Marja for the entire world then there is clearly no basis for demanding that there be a single Wali-e-Faqih for the entire world. This is because the Marja is
(seemingly) a lower position than the Wali-e-Faqih. When unity is not yet established for the lower position, how can it be claimed for a higher position? Now let us return to the original discussion, whether it is necessary to have a single Wali-e-Faqih for the entire world. It is evident that the Wali-e-Faqih is only for political order and governance. That the entire world should be governed by a single Wali-e-Faqih which is known as Wahdah al-hukumah (single Islamic government), which has been rejected by Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi and Ayatullah Tabatabaai who clearly state that in the ghaybatul kubra of Imam Mahdi (atfs), the concept of Wahdah al-hukumah, is not established through Islamic laws. Even if we accept that the entire world should be governed by a single Wali-e-Faqih, how are we to elect this Wali-e-Faqih from the multitudes of scholars who are present today? This is a discussion that finds no mention in Islamic laws and is entirely guided by what each side considers intellectually appealing. Who shall be the single Wali-e-Faqih? Who shall have authority over all other religious scholars and how shall he be elected? What becomes apparent in this regard is that the Wali-e-Faqih should be one who is superior to all other scholars in the matters of social understanding, political acumen, piety and justice. Allamah Tabatabaai has written at length on this topic. (Nazariyyat-o-Siyaasah wa al-hukm fil Islam by Allamah Sayyid Mohammad Husain Tabatabaai page 69 - Publisher Daar al-islamiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon). It should be noted that only Allah the Almighty, has the authority to appoint someone not Majlis-e- Khobargaan (Assembly of Experts). The most comprehensive discussion on the subject of how to get the Wali-e-Faqih, is by Shaikh Wahbi of Lebanon in his book Al-Buhooth fil Wilayat-e-Faqih. He writes that there are various methods of getting the Wali-e-Faqih, among which are: (1) The theory of addressing (Nazariyyate-e-Iltasidi); (2) The theory of selection (Nazariyyat-e-Intekhab); (3) The theory of pledging allegiance (Nazariyyat-e-Bay at); (4) The theory of consultative council (Nazariyyat-e-Shura). He has discussed each of the theories along with the objections raised against them. However under the discussion of the theory of addressing, (Nazariyyate-e-Iltasidi), he mentions that it is incorrect to assume that when a mujtahid presents himself as a Wali-e-Faqih, it is obligatory on all other scholars to follow him, and he has raised several objections against this belief. And finally he proves that if a Mujtahid presents himself as a Wali-e-Faqih, and he possesses the required characteristics of a Walie-Faqih, and all other scholars accept this; only then would such a presentation be beneficial. Hence a mujtahid cannot be considered a Wali-e-Faqih only on the basis of his claim of being the Wali-e-Faqih, rather it is necessary that he should possess the characteristics of being a Wali-e-Faqih, and all other scholars accept that he is the Wali-e-Faqih. If a Wali-e-Faqih is to be elected for the whole world, then he needs to be better than all the other mujtahideen in politics, piety and justice.
However, the Assembly of Experts of Iran elects the Supreme Leader from the mujtahideen of Iran, and not from all the mujtahideen of the world. Meaning he can only claim to be the Wali-e-Faqih for Iran, and not for the whole world, as it is possible that there are other mujtahideen in the world superior to him. His being Wali-e-Faqih for the others can only be established, if the Experts who elect are from all the countries of the world and they elect him as the best on the whole world. But the Assembly of Experts of Iran does not elect in this manner which is transparent. Because the comprehensive list of mujtahideen which form the basis for electing the Wali-e-Faqih are all Iranians. This means that the Assembly of Experts of Iran has a clear and unambiguous mandate to elect the best only from the mujtahideen of Iran. When the election is for the best mujtahid in Iran, what is the religious and rational basis for enforcing it on all the Shias of the world? Thus, it is clear the Supreme Leader is only for the local mujtahideen and Shias of Iran and he is not the global Wali-e-Faqih. This is not even the claim of the scholars neither of Iran nor of the members of the Assembly of Experts of Iran. The appointment of a global Wali-e-Faqih means that he is more capable of all the jurists of the world and to decide on this capability universally is impossible in today s times. Under the circumstances the Supreme Leader cannot be considered as the best of all jurists of the world and he does not qualify to be a global Wali-e-Faqih under any religious or rational justification. As there are other jurists who are far superior to him in other countries. The Assembly of Experts of Iran is clear that a non Iranian jurist cannot be chosen as a Wali-e-Faqih and cannot be included in the list of mujtahideen. This, by itself, is an admission that the Wali-e-Faqih is only for the Iranians. This was a general discussion on the Wali-e-Faqih and as we can see the debate for his selection on a global basis is inconclusive. Then there specific areas on the debate on Wali-e-Faqih that need addressing. There is no denying that the Supreme Leader is the general deputy of Imam Mahdi (atfs) just like other mujtahideen. But for him to be the Wali-e-Faqih for the whole world other jurists in those areas must conclude their deputyship and they along with their followers must submit to his deputyship. Only then can the Supreme Leader be the Wali-e-Faqih of the world. But this has never been witnessed thus far. As per the Tawqee of Imam Mahdi (atfs), all the jurists and scholars, al Ulama ul Umana, are the general deputies of Imam Mahdi (atfs). Therefore if it is claimed contrary to the Tawqee, that only one jurist is the deputy, i.e. he is in the position of Wali-e-Faqih, then this needs to be supported with definite and solid proofs like Quranic verses or Tawqee; since the Tawqee of Imam Mahdi (atfs) is very clear in this regard. The Assembly of Experts of Iran does not give any single individual, the right to rule over the whole world. This is the right of Allah (swt) alone. He has given the general right to rule to the jurists. This is
the view of Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi and Allamah Tabatabaai. However, they do not accept the authority of the Assembly of Experts of Iran to appoint a global Wali-e-Faqih. It is claimed that Ayatullah Khomeini, appointed the Supreme Leader as the Wali-e-Faqih for the Muslim umma, although it is the exclusive right and authority of a Ma asum to appoint his successor as the religious leader. This right can never be claimed by a fallible; - just as the right of initiating a war is exclusively with an infallible and a fallible can never claim this right. According to the book Al Buhooth Fil Wilayat-e-Faqih by Shaikh Wahbi, it is clearly mentioned that the right to appoint a Wali-e-Faqih for the Muslim umma is the exclusive right of an infallible. The capability of Wali-e-Faqih It is claimed that a person can become the Wali-e-Faqih when the rule in an area is in the hands of a just jurist. Then the question arises that initially when a government is established in the area, on what basis is the jurist elected? And when he is already governing the affairs, then what is the point of another person becoming the Wali-e-Faqih? This does not find any support from the writings of Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi and Allamah Tabatabaai. The reasoning over here is circular i.e. the appointment of Wali-e-Faqih depends on there being an Islamic government and Islamic government depends on there being a Wali-e-Faqih. No scholar has supported this line of reasoning. It is claimed that the selection of the Assembly of Experts of Iran has a religious command over the whole world. The election of Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Talib (a.s.) is advanced as proof to support the claim. The Imamat and rule of an Imam is applicable for all; and all the people are responsible for it. But apparent rule cannot be implemented until the people are not satisfied, i.e. the rule of an Imam cannot be based on force, allegiance is required. And secondly, even if it is accepted that an Imam s rule is established in a particular region, then it is obligatory on others to adhere to it, not due to any man-made rule, rather as a religious responsibility of the people to accept an infallible as their ruler whether the rule of the infallible is apparent or not. And even Imam Ali (a.s.) said the same to Muawiyah which can be summarized as - don t oppose me as my selection is in the same manner as that of the ones before me and therefore it is necessary for you to accept my rule. Else, you will rule upon the people without their allegiance and will be considered as a tyrant and I will have to wage war against a tyrant. An Imam does not rule over a region with force. Then if it is claimed the order of the Iranian Assembly of Experts is applicable to other countries just as the order of the Shura of Medina, which was commissioned by the second khalifa, used to be applicable to other countries, then this is a mere desire
or wish, it is not based on reality, because the people of other countries in those times supported the people of Medina, but do other countries support the Iranian Assembly of Experts today in the same manner? And the infallible, during the time of ghaybatul kubra, has given this right to govern to the jurists. If the rule of a particular jurist in a particular region is accepted, how does he automatically become the Walie-Faqih for the whole world? Clearly the Supreme Leader has not been appointed the Wali-e-Faqih over the whole world. The proofs advanced at best constitute Qiyaas Maál Faariq which lacks any religious basis. It may be argued that it is a demand of the intellect that the whole world should have a single Wali-e- Faqih. But it is equally important to debate the manner in which the Wali-e-Faqih is elected. Without a proper framework for selection rooted in Quran and traditions, the concept of global Wali-e-Faqih remains only a theory with no practical and legitimate illustration.