Indeed, the theory of wilāyat al-faqīh [guardianship of the jurist] can be regarded as the most important foundation of the political system in Islam during the period of occultation [‘aṣr al-ghaybah] of the Imām of the Time [Imām al-Zamān] (‘a). It is the theory that practically proved during the last quarter of the 20th century to all and sundry that religion is competent to administer the affairs of society. Relying on this idea, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ḥaḍrat Imām Khomeinī (qs), was able to establish the Islamic government system and to administer it well notwithstanding the opposition of all imperialist powers in the world.
Though the notion of separation of religion and politics and the irresponsiveness of religion in solving social problems and its incompetence in administering the society have been vigorously propagated since the end of the 16th century in the West by both political scientists and statesmen and also acknowledged by the ecclesiastical authority, a Muslim cleric who was a source of emulation was able to bewilder both friends and foes by setting up a government system based on religious principles, values, laws, and in brief, the religious thought. By emphasizing the slogan that “Government is the practical philosophy of all Islamic laws” and refusing to give any name to the new government other than “Islamic republic” and that is, that omitting the word “democratic” suggested by some for this government, he has shown in theory and practice that the “Islamic republic system” under the axis of wilāyat al-faqīh is a purely religious system, and that this new system which is detached and distinct from all the current systems in the world, in spite of the arbitrary claim of the opponents, is able to administer the society successfully.
The importance of discussing Wilāyat al-Faqīh
Our political system, which is now more than two decades old[1] and which thrived at the cost of the pure blood of thousands of noble and self-denying individuals, is a system characterized by its Islamic nature. The establishment of this system is ascribed to numerous contributory factors but the key factor is the love for Islam, and as Islamic system its survival will not be possible without preserving this feature. A sociopolitical system with its Islamic character has to be based on Islamic principles and values both in legislation and execution. This characteristic will continue to exist as long as the people and those who accept this system believe in Islamic doctrines and abide by Islamic values. If, God forbid, Islamic beliefs and thoughts are gradually forgotten by the members of society, essence of Islam will be subject to deviation or if the people forget the foundational values of Islam and deviant trends emerge, the edifice of the Islamic system will decay and there will be nothing to guarantee its survival in the long run. Of course, the name of Islam may remain, but its essence and truth will fall into oblivion. Muslim society already had such an experience at the outset of Islam, and that was after the demise of the Prophet of Islam (ṣ) when the Islamic and divine system was transformed into a monarchial and ṭāghūtī[2] government of the Umayyads and ‘Abbāsīds, and only the name of Islam remained and then Islamic beliefs were distorted and Islamic values were forgotten, and the status of the government was more lamentable. This bitter experience ought to be a useful lesson to all of us. This situation went on like for fourteen centuries until another revolution patterned after the divine revolution of the Prophet of Islam (ṣ) took place in the world, and a new sociopolitical system anchored in the Islamic principles was established. Yet, we should know that just as the first Islamic system and revolution of the Holy Prophet (ṣ) was not immune from dangers and it did not last long before deviation actually permeated in society, the immunity of this revolution will not be guaranteed, unless we learn from the past and unless the Muslims show great perseverance in preserving this system. Their devotion to Islamic beliefs and values should be such that they would be ready to resist such elements and dangers and offer their lives and properties for the preservation of this sacred system of Islam.
One may ask: From where can deviation originate? The reply is that deviation initially surfaces in people’s way of understanding. In other words, if the people do not try to understand Islamic foundations and principles properly or if their awareness diminishes, satanic hands will actively be involved and propagate incorrect thoughts in place of Islamic knowledge, and try to mislead the people by groundless thoughts through the use of propaganda. Therefore, those who are loyal to this revolution and worry about it should strive with utmost vigilance for preserving people’s Islamic thoughts and beliefs and decisively parry any threat that may divert their minds and beliefs.
Parrying these threats does not mean that the ideas and beliefs of others be suppressed because surfacing of deviant ideas cannot be controlled by restricting the freedom of people’s minds. Doubts are raised and deviant ideas are put forward. As a result, erroneous ideas and thoughts will willy-nilly find their way to people’s minds. Therefore, the most appropriate way of encountering intellectual and ideological threats is to strengthen people’s intellectual foundation and to widen their knowledge about Islam lest they should be affected by deviant ideas because when their religious and ideological knowledge is very firm, they would not be influenced by doubts, and, most importantly, they would be able to clear these doubts up. Thus, one of the most important issues that ought to be widely discussed and settled as one of the social problems is the issue of the legitimacy of this system or in other words, the issue of Islamic government.
Our revolution came to establish an Islamic government but the people’s image about the Islamic government was general and ambiguous. It is true that this general and ambiguous picture was enough to topple down the ṭāghūt, but it is not enough to achieve and preserve unerringly the Islamic system and to make this idea settle, by the help of God, the Exalted, in the hearts of people and future generations for centuries. These concepts should be made clear and the people should have a more realistic perception of the Islamic government and understand its exigency so that they may be prepared to defend their ideas against the opposing schools of thought and theories and not be satisfied with chanting slogans.
The academic status of the question of Wilāyat al-Faqīh
When we say that we are supporters of the Islamic system and our society has to be governed according to Islam, we mean that the government should be based on Islam. Of course, attempts were made to consolidate the foundations of this system in our Constitution and to rely upon them. The principle of wilāyat al-faqīh [guardianship or governance of the jurist] is the most important of all other principles. At this juncture, we shall touch on the issue in question so as to explain what we mean when we say that the system and government must be Islamic.
The ideological nature of a system and its reliance upon specific principles and values—in other words, the dependence of a system on a set of specific principles, doctrines, ideas, and thoughts—manifests itself in at least two dimensions; the “legislative” dimension and the “administrative and executive” dimension. Of course, a third dimension, i.e. the “judicial” dimension can also be considered, but this dimension is not as firm as the two dimensions already mentioned. In any case, there are two main dimensions, i.e. the legislative and the executive, and the judiciary comes next. In view of this introduction, we may say that if firstly the laws, which the system regards as binding and which the system is ready to defend, are Islamic, and secondly those who are in charge of executing these laws reach the said position according to Islamic standards, principles and values, then it is an Islamic system. We do emphasize the idea that the Islamic nature of a system is conditional on the existence of the two dimensions. As such, if the laws are drifted away from the Islamic path and non-Islamic laws are to be the criterion of execution, or if all the laws are purely Islamic and consistent with the Qur’an and the sharī‘ah [Islamic law] but those who are in charge of the affairs and executive officials have not assumed the said responsibilities according to Islamic standards and criteria but through non-Islamic ways, the system will in neither of the cases be “Islamic” in the exact sense of the word. So, theoretically, two main points come to the fore in this discussion. The first point is related to the kind of conditions and criteria which contribute to Islamizing legislation and legislature. The other point is on how and when, according to Islamic law, executive and administrative officials can acquire and on what basis they can exercise authority over the society and people. These two issues are placed under a general subject called “Islamic political philosophy”. Our main concern in this book is the second issue and our treatment of the first issue will be postponed. In this discussion, we have kept two things in mind; treating the subject with great accuracy and discussing things in as simple manner as possible so that it may be a source of interest not only to highly educated people but also to the general public.
Curled from the book titled “A Cursory Glance at the Theory of Wilāyat Al-Faqīh” by Āyatullāh Muḥammad Taqī Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, translated by Mansoor Limba
Footnotes
[1] . It is three decades now. [Trans.]
[2] . The term tāghūt applies to any idol, object, or individual that prevents men from doing what is good, and leads them astray. The term has been used eight times in the Qur’an. Prior to Islam, tāghūt had been the name of one of the idols of the Quraysh tribe. This name is also used to mean Satan. Moreover, the term is attributed to the one who rebels against lofty values, or whose despotism surpasses all bounds and who claims the prerogatives of divinity for himself either explicitly or implicitly. [Trans.]
