VELAYAT-E-FAQIH
This topic is arguably one of the most discussed and most controversial topic in the contemporary Shia political thought. The concept emerged on the world scene following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 when the leader of the revolution Imam Khomeini took over the reigns of power. Imam Khomeini was the one who presented this concept to contemporary world and his concept formed the basis of the constitution of the Islamic Republic. Ever since this has been the topic of numerous books, theses, lectures, seminars and conferences. Academics and laymen have both troweled the subject. My late father had an immense interest in this subject and he often used to discuss it with my cousin brother Justice (Retd) Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain and I used to be a spectator in these vigorous discussions. It is from these sessions that I have developed a passion for trying to understand the concept. So naturally the first step is to go to the original source and try to understand it.
DISCUSSIONS OF THE VELAYAT-E-FAQIH BY IMAM KHOMEINE
Imam Khomeini did not actually write a book explaining the concept. The book "Governance of The Jurist" including relevant footnotes and explanations,which is available to us and which is the basis of this discussion is actually the compendium of thirteen speeches of His Eminence Imam Khomeini delivered during his stay in Najaf from January 21 to February 8, 1970. These speeches had been reproduced and disseminated then in various forms as lessons and instruction materials. Later, in autumn of 1970 the texts of the speeches were edited and prepared for printing. Following the approval of Imam Khomeini, it was printed in Beirut (Lebanon) by Imam Khomeini's friends, then secretly sent to Iran, while copies of which were simultaneously sent to the revolutionary Muslims in Europe, United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The book which forms the basis of this discussion is the one translated by Hamid Algar. You may disagree with the concept but you cannot deny the historical importance of this treatise. It represents a paradigm shift in fact a tectonic shift in Shia Political thought. There have been books and dissertations written about this topic both in support as well as in refutation of the concept. As is true with any revolutionary concept which challenges the status quo there has been an expected vehement rebuttal from the establishment and this has continued even till date. Imam Khomeini in fact faced a stiff resistance and opposition during his stay in the Holy City of Najaf. Imam Khomeini repeatedly complained about this resistance which he said was more difficult to face than the real enemy. When we see and hear academics and scholars discuss this concept we generally get an impression that it is something innovative, something new, something controversial which was introduced very recently by Imam Khomeini and is vehemently debated and rejected by many of the leading Shii scholars, This may be true but as far Imam Khomeini himself is concerned he begins his book by making a very dramatic claim. He says:
" The governance of the faqīh is a subject that in itself elicits immediate assent and has little need of demonstration, for anyone who has some general awareness of the beliefs and ordinances of Islam will
unhesitatingly give his assent to the principle of the governance of the faqīh as soon as he encounters it; he will recognize it as necessary and self-evident."
This is a sweeping statement. Imam says that the concept of governance of faqih is so self-evident that you don't need to be a scholar of Islam to agree to it. Even if you have only some general awareness of the beliefs and ordinances of Islam you will agree to it. Is it really so? Is there any evidence for this statement of Imam Khomeini or is it an attempt to make your argument seem obvious? To see it we have to have an outline of the history of Shia political thought. It is no exaggeration to say that Shia'ism started as a political protest. From the very beginning it had strong political undercurrent. It started as an issue of leadership and governance. The fundamental question at the heart of this whole controversy is that of Authority or WILLAYAH as it is called in Shi'i terminology.Shiaism arose out of the differences as to who should be the leader of the Ummah after the death of Holy Prophet. Shias believe that just like designation of anyone as Prophet is a prerogative of Allah (SWT) designation of his successor is also so. They contend that Allah had chosen Imam Ali (A.S) as the successor of The Holy Prophet (SAWW) who on many occasions had made his choice known especially at Ghadeer Khum. After the passing away of Prophet Imam Ali was prevented from carrying out his divine duty and the leadership was taken over by Abu Bakr which established the so-called Caliphate in the world of Islam.Shias outrightly reject the legitimacy of this institution and believe in an alternative institution of Imamah based on the concept of Willayah or authority. They believe that Willayah or authority belongs to Imam Ali after the Prophet and then to his descendants through Syeda Fatima (SAA) till Imam Mahdi the 12th descendant who they believe is in occultation and will reappear to establish "just Islamic government". Thus the concept of "Willayah" is an axiological concept of Shi'ism. Shias argue from the Holy Quran and the Hadith of the Holy Prophet as to the Willayah of Imam Ali after the demise of the Prophet and then in progeny of Imam Ali till the 12th Imam. Thus it is clear from above that it is all about politics, leadership, authority and government. The concept of Imamah is a comprehensive one which includes ideological, spiritual, practical as well as political leadership. Imamah as an institution is divinely ordained and hence can not be taken away from one who has been designated as an Imam. Imam Ali continued to be an Imam even though very few people amongst the people of Medina testified to his Imamah after the passing away of Prophet. Even if they denied the Imamah they however recognised his merit as one most learned and frequently sought his guidance. However they categorically denied political leadership to him. This state of affairs is unacceptable to the Imams although they more often then not did not press their demands in the interest of unity. Imam Ali did finally become the political head when people forced him to become Caliph after the assassination of 3rd Caliph Uthman bin Affan. He was however challenged first by the wife of Holy Prophet Aisha bint Abu Bakr who was supported by two of Prophets close companions Talha and Zubair, and then by Mowiya ibn Abi Sufyan. Imam Ali was finally assassinated by a member of the extremist group known as Kharjites. His son Imam Hassan after an initial insignificant resistance abdicated in favour of Mowiya ibn Abi Sufyan and retired to Medina where he lived a life of seclusions from political events till his death. His brother Imam Hussain maintained the same attitude till Mowiya died and before his death designated his son Yazid as Caliph. Imam Hussain refused to accept Yazid as the Caliph and decided to rise against him but due to betrayal of his supporters of Kufa was martyred in Karbala. Imam Hussain's rising was the last attempt of the Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt to try and take the political leadership of the Muslim nation. All the Imams after him pursued pacifist policy wherein they showed no apparent interest in the political leadership and concentrated on ideological, and spiritual development of the community. Even after Karbala there were many movements started by Shias against the government with the aim of restoring the Caliphate to the family of The Prophet. In fact the Abbasids started their movement in the name of Ahl ul Bayt and paid allegiance to Mohammad ibn Abdulla the great grandson of Imam Hassan (AS) known as Nafs al-Zakiyya. Once they became successful they back tracked and took over the Caliphate for themselves. Nafs al-Zakiyya then decided to rise against the Abbasid Caliph Mansour. Imam Jaffar Sadiq (AS) refused to support this uprising and tried to persuade him to give up his idea of rising against Mansour. This pacifist attitude continued right up to the occultation of 12 th Imam. Now the most important question to answer is whether this attitude of Imam's of the Ahl-ul-Bayt represented a permanent change of direction after Karbala or did it represent a deliberate policy of lying low till the conditions were suitable for establishing the just government of Ahl ul Bayt? It is important to understand that after the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (A.S) at Karbala the Imams separated themselves from the social and political life of Muslims and busied themselves with scientific, spiritual and non-political aspects of Islam. This does not however mean that they gave up or abdicated their right to political leadership of the Ummah. This isolation was one enforced upon them by circumstances. It is clear that their cautious approach was a result of their decision that it was not wise to rise in revolt to establish an Islamic government till there are reasonable chances of it's success. Thus establishing a "JUST ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT" as opposite the ones which came to be formed throughout the Islamic history has been THE FUNDAMENTAL objective and aim of the Shia doctrine and anyone who denies it is denying the very basis of Shia doctrine. It is exactly to this fact that Imam Khomeini is pointing to. The problem is that after the four and a half years of Imam Ali's rule the Imams never got this political opportunity to carry out this fundamental mission. This state of affairs continued till the occultation of Imam Mahdi which threw the Shia community in turmoil. They had right from the establishment of Caliphate rejected it and had proposed that the only legitimate government will be one which is established under the leadership of a "masoom(infallible) imam". They had fought for this, had been tortured and massacred for this belief but they never abandoned it. The Imams were isolated, imprisoned and persecuted but there was always a hope till they were physically present in this world. Now suddenly Shias were faced with a situation wherein the Imam although physically present had become inaccessible. Imams had been inaccessible before also but their inaccessibility was imposed by outside forces but the Imam was physically there. Now this was a unique situation wherein Imam was physically present but no one was in a position to establish any contact with him. The question was what was the role of the Shias as far as the establishment of JUST ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT is concerned? The leadership of Ummah during the occultation of Imam is a question which can't be ignored and brushed under the carpet. You can't say that it is not an important issue and is not from amongst the fundamentals of religion. The fundamental problem which the Shias faced in my opinion was their concept of Imamah. The leadership qualities which were present in the Imam were those which were divine in origin and thus could not be found in anyone other then the Imam himself. It was not possible to achieve these qualities say by hard work. Although Imam was recognized as human some of the attributes he possessed were divine in origin and therefore not attainable by anyone other then him. Importantly it were precisely these attributes which in the first place qualified him to lead the Ummah and it was the absence of these attributes which disqualified those persons who actually acquired the leadership and thus made them as usurpers. These attributes were those of ISMAH i.e, infallibility and that of possession of DIVINE or INHERITED KNOWLEDGE. These were attributes which could neither be transferred to someone else nor could they be achieved by someone by training and hard work. Thus once the Imam went into occultation the Shiites were left with only two choices:
1) Not to accept anyone as the leader and remain as a leaderless community waiting for the return of the Imam.
2) To accept the leadership of someone who did not possess the qualities which traditionally were accepted as necessary for leadership i.e, except the leadership of someone who was not a masoom and did not possess divine or inherited knowledge.
" The governance of the faqīh is a subject that in itself elicits immediate assent and has little need of demonstration, for anyone who has some general awareness of the beliefs and ordinances of Islam will
unhesitatingly give his assent to the principle of the governance of the faqīh as soon as he encounters it; he will recognize it as necessary and self-evident."
This is a sweeping statement. Imam says that the concept of governance of faqih is so self-evident that you don't need to be a scholar of Islam to agree to it. Even if you have only some general awareness of the beliefs and ordinances of Islam you will agree to it. Is it really so? Is there any evidence for this statement of Imam Khomeini or is it an attempt to make your argument seem obvious? To see it we have to have an outline of the history of Shia political thought. It is no exaggeration to say that Shia'ism started as a political protest. From the very beginning it had strong political undercurrent. It started as an issue of leadership and governance. The fundamental question at the heart of this whole controversy is that of Authority or WILLAYAH as it is called in Shi'i terminology.Shiaism arose out of the differences as to who should be the leader of the Ummah after the death of Holy Prophet. Shias believe that just like designation of anyone as Prophet is a prerogative of Allah (SWT) designation of his successor is also so. They contend that Allah had chosen Imam Ali (A.S) as the successor of The Holy Prophet (SAWW) who on many occasions had made his choice known especially at Ghadeer Khum. After the passing away of Prophet Imam Ali was prevented from carrying out his divine duty and the leadership was taken over by Abu Bakr which established the so-called Caliphate in the world of Islam.Shias outrightly reject the legitimacy of this institution and believe in an alternative institution of Imamah based on the concept of Willayah or authority. They believe that Willayah or authority belongs to Imam Ali after the Prophet and then to his descendants through Syeda Fatima (SAA) till Imam Mahdi the 12th descendant who they believe is in occultation and will reappear to establish "just Islamic government". Thus the concept of "Willayah" is an axiological concept of Shi'ism. Shias argue from the Holy Quran and the Hadith of the Holy Prophet as to the Willayah of Imam Ali after the demise of the Prophet and then in progeny of Imam Ali till the 12th Imam. Thus it is clear from above that it is all about politics, leadership, authority and government. The concept of Imamah is a comprehensive one which includes ideological, spiritual, practical as well as political leadership. Imamah as an institution is divinely ordained and hence can not be taken away from one who has been designated as an Imam. Imam Ali continued to be an Imam even though very few people amongst the people of Medina testified to his Imamah after the passing away of Prophet. Even if they denied the Imamah they however recognised his merit as one most learned and frequently sought his guidance. However they categorically denied political leadership to him. This state of affairs is unacceptable to the Imams although they more often then not did not press their demands in the interest of unity. Imam Ali did finally become the political head when people forced him to become Caliph after the assassination of 3rd Caliph Uthman bin Affan. He was however challenged first by the wife of Holy Prophet Aisha bint Abu Bakr who was supported by two of Prophets close companions Talha and Zubair, and then by Mowiya ibn Abi Sufyan. Imam Ali was finally assassinated by a member of the extremist group known as Kharjites. His son Imam Hassan after an initial insignificant resistance abdicated in favour of Mowiya ibn Abi Sufyan and retired to Medina where he lived a life of seclusions from political events till his death. His brother Imam Hussain maintained the same attitude till Mowiya died and before his death designated his son Yazid as Caliph. Imam Hussain refused to accept Yazid as the Caliph and decided to rise against him but due to betrayal of his supporters of Kufa was martyred in Karbala. Imam Hussain's rising was the last attempt of the Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt to try and take the political leadership of the Muslim nation. All the Imams after him pursued pacifist policy wherein they showed no apparent interest in the political leadership and concentrated on ideological, and spiritual development of the community. Even after Karbala there were many movements started by Shias against the government with the aim of restoring the Caliphate to the family of The Prophet. In fact the Abbasids started their movement in the name of Ahl ul Bayt and paid allegiance to Mohammad ibn Abdulla the great grandson of Imam Hassan (AS) known as Nafs al-Zakiyya. Once they became successful they back tracked and took over the Caliphate for themselves. Nafs al-Zakiyya then decided to rise against the Abbasid Caliph Mansour. Imam Jaffar Sadiq (AS) refused to support this uprising and tried to persuade him to give up his idea of rising against Mansour. This pacifist attitude continued right up to the occultation of 12 th Imam. Now the most important question to answer is whether this attitude of Imam's of the Ahl-ul-Bayt represented a permanent change of direction after Karbala or did it represent a deliberate policy of lying low till the conditions were suitable for establishing the just government of Ahl ul Bayt? It is important to understand that after the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (A.S) at Karbala the Imams separated themselves from the social and political life of Muslims and busied themselves with scientific, spiritual and non-political aspects of Islam. This does not however mean that they gave up or abdicated their right to political leadership of the Ummah. This isolation was one enforced upon them by circumstances. It is clear that their cautious approach was a result of their decision that it was not wise to rise in revolt to establish an Islamic government till there are reasonable chances of it's success. Thus establishing a "JUST ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT" as opposite the ones which came to be formed throughout the Islamic history has been THE FUNDAMENTAL objective and aim of the Shia doctrine and anyone who denies it is denying the very basis of Shia doctrine. It is exactly to this fact that Imam Khomeini is pointing to. The problem is that after the four and a half years of Imam Ali's rule the Imams never got this political opportunity to carry out this fundamental mission. This state of affairs continued till the occultation of Imam Mahdi which threw the Shia community in turmoil. They had right from the establishment of Caliphate rejected it and had proposed that the only legitimate government will be one which is established under the leadership of a "masoom(infallible) imam". They had fought for this, had been tortured and massacred for this belief but they never abandoned it. The Imams were isolated, imprisoned and persecuted but there was always a hope till they were physically present in this world. Now suddenly Shias were faced with a situation wherein the Imam although physically present had become inaccessible. Imams had been inaccessible before also but their inaccessibility was imposed by outside forces but the Imam was physically there. Now this was a unique situation wherein Imam was physically present but no one was in a position to establish any contact with him. The question was what was the role of the Shias as far as the establishment of JUST ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT is concerned? The leadership of Ummah during the occultation of Imam is a question which can't be ignored and brushed under the carpet. You can't say that it is not an important issue and is not from amongst the fundamentals of religion. The fundamental problem which the Shias faced in my opinion was their concept of Imamah. The leadership qualities which were present in the Imam were those which were divine in origin and thus could not be found in anyone other then the Imam himself. It was not possible to achieve these qualities say by hard work. Although Imam was recognized as human some of the attributes he possessed were divine in origin and therefore not attainable by anyone other then him. Importantly it were precisely these attributes which in the first place qualified him to lead the Ummah and it was the absence of these attributes which disqualified those persons who actually acquired the leadership and thus made them as usurpers. These attributes were those of ISMAH i.e, infallibility and that of possession of DIVINE or INHERITED KNOWLEDGE. These were attributes which could neither be transferred to someone else nor could they be achieved by someone by training and hard work. Thus once the Imam went into occultation the Shiites were left with only two choices:
1) Not to accept anyone as the leader and remain as a leaderless community waiting for the return of the Imam.
2) To accept the leadership of someone who did not possess the qualities which traditionally were accepted as necessary for leadership i.e, except the leadership of someone who was not a masoom and did not possess divine or inherited knowledge.
Comments
Post a Comment