After reading the recommended book "The Islamic System of Government", I still have a number of questions, which I hope you would care to answer them.

Ayatollah Shirazi in his article "Freedom in Islam" (on your website) says that Muslims have the right to elect their leader whether he (leader) is Iraqi, Iranian, Kurdish or whatsoever . . . So my question is:

0) From which time this rule starts?

Answer to question 0:

The idea that Muslims should elect their leader during the absence of the Imam of our Time (Imam-e Zaman (AS)) Imam Mahdi (AS), and that nationality does not come into it, this idea is based upon the teachings of Islam, as seen in the holy Qur'an and the teachings of Rasulollah (S) and the Ahl-ul-Bayt (AS).   Nationality has no place in Islam and a Muslim is not, and may not be judged by his/her nationality, race, colour etc.  As Allah says in the holy Qur'an {The best of you in the sight of Allah is the most pious and righteous amongst you.}  49:13.  Piety is the only criterion to prefer one Muslim to another.

So this idea that Ayatollah al-Uzma Shirazi proposes, or any other idea for that matter, is based solely on the teachings of Islam, be it from the Qur'an or from the hadith.  In fact that is what is expected from a Muslim; everything he does should be based on the teachings of Islam, and nothing, absolutely nothing that he does may be based on anything other than Islam, and if something that he does is based on anything that is in contradiction to Islamic Teachings, like distinguishing between Muslims and treating them differently on the bases of their nationality, then he has acted against the orders of Allah, and the teachings of Rasulollah and the infallible Imams of the Ahl-ul-Bayt (AS).

{and those who do not rule/judge according to what Allah has sent down, are infidels indeed} 5:44,

{and those who do not rule/judge according to what Allah has sent down, are unjust indeed} 5:45,

{and those who do not rule/judge according to what Allah has sent down, are transgressors indeed} 5:47.

1) Can you give any examples after the occultation of Imam Mahdi (as) when this rule was applied and a 'Rahbar' or ruler was elected by the General public?

Answer to question 1:

the leader of the 'Tobacco' revolution in Iran - Ayatollah al-Uzma al-Sayyid Muhammad Hassan Shirazi - was accepted as leader when the people of Iran en masse followed his orders and his leadership to repel the attempt and the domination of the British Empire to overtake the country.  He led the revolution against the British from his Hawzah in Samarra in Iraq ! And the revolution was a complete success against the most powerful superpower of the time!  This was so because the people and the leader adhered to all the Teachings of Islam, and did not introduce any un-Islamic ideas in their affairs.

Another example is that of the 1920 revolution in Iraq when, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British invaded and occupied Iraq .  This time under the leadership of Ayatollah al-Uzma Mirza Muhammad Taqi Shirazi again the super power of the time was kicked out of Iraq , and Iraq was freed from the British military occupation.  The secret of success was again adhering to the Teachings of Islam.

2) Who can be considered among general public that elect a ruler? Must they be Shi'a of Amir-ul-Mu'minin Ali (as) Ibn-e-Abu Talib (AS)?

Answer to question 2:

All the Muslims are eligible to vote in the election of the leader.  If the election was taking place in a predominantly Shi'a country such as Iran or Iraq , then the leader or the "Council of Leadership of the Maraje'" would be predominantly Shi'a.  However if the Islamic government were to cover several countries where there are significant portions of Shi'a and Sunni then each group or sect would elect their own leaders to the Council of leadership.  [There is a separate discussion about the significance and importance of the concept Council of Leadership of the Maraje'.]

3) Agha Muhammad Sultan Mirza Dehalvi in his book "Albalagh Al Mubeen Dar Asbaat e Khilafat e Amir-ul-Mu'minin" vol. 2, Urdu version, after a long and fruitful discussion says that "It is proved that there is no democracy in Islam and Muslim Ummah/nation has no right to elect the leader. It is the duty of Allah through Prophet (Muhammad SAWS) to nominate a caliph".... If democracy is not in Islam then when it was entered and under which circumstances it was believed that a ruler of Islamic nation must be elected by a general public? What is the difference between the statement of the writer of the above mentioned book and the writer of this article, Ayatollah Sayyid Shirazi???

Answer to question 3:

According to what you quoted Mirza Dehlavi as saying in his book, it seems that two issues are getting mixed up here.  As far as Democracy in Islam and the concept of electing a leader are concerned, these issues are inherent in Islam and the people have been inherently given, by Allah, the option of effectively choosing their leader.  As for the installing a caliph by Allah, this is a different issue from that Democracy in Islam.

Democracy, or to use the Islamic terminology, Consultation in Islam has been established by the orders of Allah in the Qur'an in the "Shura" ayahs.  There is even a Surah or chapter of the Qur'an called "Shura" (42): 38, and the concept of Shura is also referred to in Aal Imran (3): 159.  Therefore it is imperative that the Muslims implement Shura / Consultation or in other words a form of democracy, to manage and progress their affairs, without which not only we have disobeyed Allah's orders but we would not achieve the progress as desired.  When we talk about consultation or democracy we do not mean to decide and to choose an infallible Imam.  This election of leader etc. takes place in order to elect leaders to lead the nations in the absence of the infallible Imam.  Also when we talk about democracy we do not mean to refer to that which is in the West, some of which is not acceptable in Islam; by democracy we mean to refer to the system of consultation as referred to by Islam in the holy Qur'an and the teachings of the Ahl-ul-Bayt (AS).

The separate issue that is being mixed up is that the choice of the infallible Imam is made by Allah Almighty.  But:  This does not mean that in the absence of the Imam we cannot choose a leader to lead the Ummah.  Let me give you some examples to clarify the situation.

Although Rasulollah (S) was chosen and sent by Allah Almighty to mankind and there is no dispute about that, but still the people made Bay'ah with him on several occasions.

Another example is that of the occasion of Ghadeer.  On the day of Ghadeer, Allah Almighty instructs Rasulollah (S) to officially declare Imam Ali as his immediate successor.  Rasulollah (S) does so and orders the people to make Bay'ah with Imam Ali (AS) as the Commander of the Faithful - Amir-ul-Mu'minin. Some 120,000 people are reported as having made this Bay'ah with Imam Ali (AS).  Similarly, after Imam Ali (S), the followers of Imam Ali made Bay'ah with Imam Hassan (AS).  A similar case is reported for Imam Hussein (AS) when thousands of people made Bay'ah Imam Hussein (AS).   All of these are examples indicate that the people have a role to play even in the presence of the infallible Imam.  Their role is not to decide whether the Imam is Ma'soom or not or whether he is chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah.  As far as we are concerned the people have always had the choice and the freedom to elect their leader.

4) Did Ayatollah Shirazi endorse Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomaini and thus Islamic Government of Iran? If no, then what are the points of disagreement? Please feel free to give your views and ideas!

Answer to question 4:

Ayatollah Shirazi paid the price of his support dearly when most of the high-ranking scholars opposed Khomeini and his revolution.

Ayatollah Shirazi was one of the ardent supporters of the revolution of ayatollah Khomeini, but a few months after the revolution he withdrew his support when the establishment and government did not implement the teachings of Islam in the various domains of life, including freedom of expression, party political pluralism, Muslim brotherhood, and various other guidelines as set by last messenger of Allah, Rasulollah (S) and Amir-ul-Mu'minin (AS) during their rule when in office.  Muslim brotherhood means Muslims are not discriminated against on grounds of their nationality etc. The senseless continuation of the war with Iraq in which millions of Shi'a were unnecessarily killed, is another reason for the withdrawal of support.

5) What is the difference between the Government of an Infallible Imam (in which people has no right to elect leader) and the government recommended by Ayatollah Shirazi? (in which people has the right to elect leader)???

Answer to question 5:

The infallible Imam has an authority which the elected Marje' leader(s) does not have.  It should be noted that even the infallible Imam (AS) seeks the Bay'ah of the Mu'minin.  The example of this abundant in history.   The Muslims made Bay'ah and paid homage of allegiance to Imam Ali (AS) on the day of Ghadir, but they went back on it after Rasulollah (S) died.  Then after Othman, the people came and made Bay'ah to Imam Ali, hence 'electing' him to the office of government.  In the case of Imam Hassan (AS) people made Bay'ah with him and at the last minute went back on their Bay'ah, etc.  It should be made clear that the Ma'soom Imam remains Wajib-al-Ta'at, i.e. it is obligatory to obey him, regardless of whether people make Bay'ah with him or not, and the Bay'ah is the manifestation of that obligation.

5#2) Some people and their Marje' argue that Imams of all times after the Sullah-e-Hassan (as) refrained from the government issues and continued the Prophetic mission of spreading True Islam. Then why the scholars/Maraje' of modern time bother so much about Islamic Government? Actually they criticise Ayatollah Khomaini...What could be the refutation???

Answer to question 5 #2:

As for the claim that after the Sulh-e-Hassan (AS), the Imams of all times refrained from government issues and continued the prophetic mission of spreading True Islam . . . this is not correct for at lease two reasons.

1. After the Sulh-e-Hassan (AS), the following Imam, Imam Hussein (AS) involved himself, and his entire family companions, in government issues to the extent that he paid for this involvement by his sacred life and those of his sons, and companions. In defining the goals of his sacred mission, Imam Hussein (AS) declared that his aim is "seeking to reform the Ummah of his grandfather".

2. The second point is that the prophetic mission of spreading True Islam involved the establishment of the first Islamic government by Rasulollah (S).

6) If Ayatollah Khamenei is Wali-al-faqih and he is the Rahbar of Muslims or ruler of Muslims (according to the answers which I have received from www.wilayah.org/istiftaa@wilayah.org) then why he does/did not protect Shi'a outside Iran ? Is he not supposed to protect Shi'a outside Iran because they are not Iranians???!!!

Answer to question 6:

A Wali-al-Faqih, a Marje' Taqleed, or any other Muslim in any position, they are all obliged to defend the Muslims anywhere.

7) Will every Shi'a of the world whether he is Iraqi, Iranian or American, Pakistani etc be given the right to give his/her vote and to elect their leader??? If no, why?

Answer to question 7:

Yes.  Every Shi'a of the world whether he is Iraqi, Iranian or American, Pakistani etc. has the right to give his/her vote and to elect their leader. 

8) In which part of the world this Islamic government will be established? Sunnis will not allow us . . . and we have not a totally occupied land where we can establish an Islamic State, except Iran ?? Actually we Shi'a are scattered in different parts of the world, i.e. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, India, Pakistan . . . Number of Shi'a in Pakistan and India when added, perhaps equals the number of Shi'a in Iran but still Shi'a of Sub-continent are oppressed. They are always considered as a minority. What will the ideological Islamic Government of Ayatollah Shirazi do for such Shi'a who don't have their political centre and therefore they are weak in their country???

Answer to question 8:

The view of Ayatollah al-Uzma al-Sayyid Muhammad Shirazi on government is based upon, and manifested within "the Singularity of the Muslim Ummah", and as a "united force" standing firm before the Ummah of Kufr, and this view is represent a complete and a coherent system as taught by Islam.

It is important that this Islamic government is first established in the countries where the Shi'a are majority, such as Iran and Iraq .  When a true and sincere Islamic government is established there it would care and work for the prosperity of the Shi'a minority elsewhere.

9) Ayatollah Shirazi says in the book 'The Islamic System of Government', "The governments income is held in the Bayt-el-Maal or the Central Bank and is spent in the interest of the Muslims. The money surplus to requirement should be returned to the public, as the Prophet and Amir-ul-Mu'minin, Ali (PBUH) used to do."

My question is: How it is possible to divide surplus money among Muslims of the state? Suppose the surplus money is $1,00,000 then how it can be divided among the people that are, say, 1 million in number? It is almost impossible to maintain justice in this? Furthermore, government cannot count the exact number of people in the country. Will you explain it to me?

Answer to question 9:

Redistributing the surplus wealth back to the individuals may be done in any way seen fit by the government of the time.  For example in the USA they are returning surplus 'tax' that the government had already taken from the people in the form of "Tax Return".  If you read the press these days, you will find that the government in USA is giving back the surplus of money it has back to the people in the form of Tax returns.  Any amount can be returned to the people through "Tax Return". For example if the government collected $100 million and used $90 million, then the remaining $10 million is returned to the people as 10% of what they paid out.

10) Ayatollah Says: "In non-Islamic environments where the Islamic government is not fully established or the Islamic political, economic, and other systems are not instituted, the code of punishment defined by Islam, i.e. the Hadd, may not be exercised. The offender, however, should be punished as seen fit by the judge."

Q: What will be the ruling when partially Islamic government exercise code of punishment defined by Islam and thus punishes offenders? In Pakistan , sometimes the head of state cannot even recite Qur'an correctly and are not eligible to lead prayers. They often punish offenders according to Islamic rulings of Hadd?

Answer to question 10:

The ONLY people who are authorised to issue the decree for executing the Hadd are the elected Maraje' in the leadership council, no one else!  Executing such Hadd has its own criteria.  For example to execute the Hadd for stealing, Ayatollah al-Uzma Shirazi cites more than forty conditions all of which must be met simultaneously.  If one of the conditions is not met then the Hadd may NOT be executed.

11) Ayatollah says: "Many learned scholars have indicated that the punishments (Hadd) prescribed in the holy Qur'an and the Teaching may not be exercised unless in the presence of al-Imam al-Mahdi (PBUH)."

Is this also a belief of Ayatollah Shirazi too? Well, I think that we cannot omit Islamic Shari'ah from the world in the absence of an Imam!!! Imams have clarified the religion and we are here to establish it... How can we abandon this all? If this is the case, then what are our duties?

Answer to question 11:

If you want to discuss things in a scholarly manner then you must do so with an open mind, and not be temperamental.   The execution of the Hadd is an awesome responsibility, and the learned scholars have come to this conclusion after years of very careful and meticulous studies.  Before you give any judgement you should carefully consider all the evidence!!

At the time of the Ma'soom Imam (AS) we have a perfect system where justice will be upheld, and society and government will be in the state as described and defined by Islam, and therefore there would be no excuse for the offender to have committed the crime, and as a result the offender would deserve the punishment as prescribed by Islam.  Whereas during the time of the occultation or the absence of the Imam (AS), if there were an Islamic government, there might be some shortcomings which could have pushed the offender to commit a crime, and therefore the offender would, to some degree, have some excuse for committing the crime, for the government and society are not in the (perfect) state that Islam has prescribed.

Back to categories