The Degrees of Wilayah
The Degrees of Wilayah
Bibliographic Information:
- Main Entry: Nikoonam, Mohammadreza (b. 1327)
- Title and Author: The Degrees of Wilayah / Nikoonam.
- Publication Information: Tehran: Sobhe Farda Publications, 1393.
- Physical Description: 82 pages.
- ISBN: 978-600-6435-17-6
- Cataloguing Status: FIPA.
- Note: Previous edition: Zohour Shafaq, 1386 (84 pages).
- Note: Second Edition.
- Note: Bibliography as footnotes.
- Subject: Wilayah (Guardianship).
- Congress Classification: BP223/8/N76M4 1393.
- Dewey Classification: 297.45.
- National Bibliography Number: 3684125.
Preface
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon Muhammad and his pure family, and perpetual curse upon all their enemies.
The concept of Wilayah and the necessity of understanding and belief in it have been emphasized in many hadiths and are considered the central foundation of the faith.
What is Wilayah and in whom is it manifested? How does one attain the rank of Wilayah, or is it purely a divine gift, where acquisition does not play a role? Is Wilayah something that can be scientifically proven and discussed in an academic context?
This writing aims to answer these questions by examining the meaning of the term Wilayah, exploring its historical shifts, and stressing that Wilayah is the inner aspect of the Divine, which in relation to the Creator is intrinsic, and in relation to the created world, it returns to the Truth.
This text elaborates on the degrees and realms of Wilayah, including the ontological guardianship of the divine prophets and the Imams (peace be upon them), who possess the degree of the divine Wilayah and the Shari’ah Wilayah associated with them. Furthermore, it addresses the arguments for the guardianship of the jurist and responds to some of the most significant doubts in this regard—responses that offer new perspectives.
Praise be to Allah.
Wilayah in Islamic Thought
The essence of Wilayah is one of the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine and a major pillar of divine teachings in Islam.
The discussion of Wilayah concerns two main aspects: one is its conceptual direction, and the other is the practical manifestation in specific individuals where the truth of Wilayah is actualized.
Exploring the spiritual and lordly reality of Wilayah and identifying the individuals in whom it manifests, as well as how this reality appears in certain individuals and its subsequent effects and characteristics, requires extensive scientific and spiritual exploration.
The examination of the spiritual truth of Wilayah raises questions such as how a person, by saying “Qum bi-idhni Allah” (“Arise by the permission of Allah”), can revive the dead, and why others do not possess such abilities. Understanding and embodying such meanings necessitates profound spiritual preparation.
The second aspect of the Wilayah discussion involves analyzing both rational and transmitted evidence for the Wilayah of the divinely appointed figures, defining their attributes, laws, characteristics, and conditions.
The Truth of Wilayah
Understanding the essence of Wilayah and attaining it is the privilege of the divinely appointed saints (peace be upon them), who are the ones who experience and comprehend its levels and effects. Only through reaching and cultivating such spiritual states can one achieve a proper understanding of Wilayah and attain its various degrees. Mere speech and discourse cannot enable one to grasp the essence of Wilayah or experience its sublime fragrance.
Entering this station is not achieved through words or writing but must be attained through purity of heart and the flourishing of the soul—a subject that requires a specific context and opportunity to fully explore. Of course, more detailed discussions on the subject of Wilayah can be found in our work The Red Journey and in other independent books, where we have revealed secrets and wisdom that cannot be found in other texts.
The concept of Wilayah and its proofs can be a subject of discussion for theologians, philosophers, and even jurists. Each of these disciplines engages with it according to its own principles, as this subject concerns language, narration, and speech. The proofs for and against the Wilayah of the saints depend on valid evidence and documentation, which we will explore in accordance with the scope of this book.
Wilayah and Its Origins
Wilayah is derived from the root word “Wali”. We must first examine the meanings and concepts of Wali, Mawla, and Wilayah with care, to understand the deeper connotations of these terms. Throughout history, the term has undergone many changes, and sectarian biases have complicated its understanding. The term Mawla is derived from the root “Mafa’la”, which carries meanings related to preference or closeness and encompasses various interpretations of the term Wali, whether it refers to someone who possesses authority or is a close confidant. All the meanings of this term ultimately return to the concept of “proximity” and natural, authentic closeness based on love, spirituality, virtue, and worthiness. The ability to govern, dominate, and have a cosmic influence are among the inherent effects of this state.
A Mawla is one who is the true leader in matters of Wilayah; their dominion over all things is rooted in the principle of love and proximity, manifesting in different forms from creation to law, in accordance with their respective stations and conditions.
The Inner Face of Wilayah
We stated that Wilayah represents the inner aspect of creation, which, in the Divine, refers to the Essence, while in creation, it refers to the Truth. Wilayah is an intrinsic relationship of created beings with the Divine, based on proximity, love, and devotion. This truth, although it has relative contexts in creatures, appears in varied forms in different beings, objects, and all creatures, but in the Divine, it is uniquely absolute, beyond all relativities.
In the realm of the necessary and absolute, Wilayah is attributed only to the Divine. However, in the realm of the infallible saints (peace be upon them), it is a divine gift, descending from the necessary and intrinsic, which retains its comprehensive and absolute nature.
The Presidency
Since the presidency and governance are necessary aspects and manifestations of the practical exercise of authority, it is essential to focus on them.
Governance may rest on three general forms of backing:
- Power, Authority, or Coercion
It is possible for individuals to assume control over a society or community and rule for a time without any legitimate popular or divine support, or by forcing people, often in an unhealthy manner, to accept their rule. This might occur even without the use of physical force, but with the backing of a specific influential group, whether financially or intellectually, in a way that may appear peaceful and unobtrusive. - Popular Backing or Personal Merit
A person may be chosen to lead based on personal merits, such as scholarly or virtuous attributes, which position them as a leader in society. In this case, virtue and moral standards make an individual a prominent figure, even if there is no divine or worldly support behind them. - Divine Backing
It is possible for a group of individuals to be divinely chosen and appointed to govern societal affairs, even during the period of occultation (ghayba). This divine selection does not change or diminish in validity, regardless of public approval or rejection, as it is ultimately the will of God. People’s acceptance or rejection can influence the practical implementation of such leadership but does not affect its inherent legitimacy.
The first category of rulers, although more tangible and often based on coercion or political manipulation, may not necessarily align with truth or justice. They may rule through force, deception, or other dishonest means. This was the case with many past monarchs and rulers, who governed through a combination of coercion, wealth, and deceit. Even when there was no overt oppression, these rulers often maintained power through patronage from select elites.
The second category, relying on popular support, while not as prone to outright oppression, may still foster authoritarianism and ideological control in societies rife with political manipulation and propaganda. Even in such cases, though, governance based on merit is relatively superior to coercive regimes, and it can still provide some societal benefits.
The third form of governance, with divine backing, refers to the system wherein leaders are divinely appointed and endowed with spiritual authority. This right, which belongs to God, is most manifest in the prophets and the infallible Imams, who possess full authority over all aspects of governance. Even during the period of occultation, this right remains intact, as no human being can revoke or alter the divine will regarding governance.
The Governance of Non-Infallible Leaders
The spiritual and general authority of non-infallible leaders is, to some degree, divisible. In the absence of the infallible leaders, individuals may each possess a certain share of spiritual authority. While it may be rare for one person to attain the full extent of this authority, it is possible for different individuals to manifest aspects of this leadership in varying fields, although they may not achieve comprehensive leadership.
Spiritual figures, scholars, and those with deep insights into religious and philosophical matters hold a portion of this divine authority, and in their respective domains, they administer guidance. Those with an elevated spiritual status may act as mentors, leading others toward moral and spiritual development. These individuals provide nourishment for the soul and offer support to those in need.
Similarly, those who hold positions of judicial and religious authority, such as judges or jurists, exercise their power according to the necessary qualifications. Their rule is legitimate to the extent that they fulfil the requisite conditions of Islamic jurisprudence.
However, it is important to acknowledge that these forms of authority—both spiritual and judicial—have historically been subject to various corruptions. People must exercise wisdom and discernment in distinguishing between legitimate and corrupt leaders, as falling prey to deceptive or false authorities can lead society into confusion and hardship.
Shari’ah Governance by Non-Infallible Authorities
The authority and governance of non-infallible leaders, as sanctioned by Shari’ah, requires specific legal proof and justification, which is not always easily established. Throughout history, many rulers have claimed divine legitimacy for their rule, often with the help of opportunistic clergy who, despite lacking true piety, lent religious cover to secular rulers.
This phenomenon can be observed in the Islamic world, where some rulers, despite their indifference or hostility towards the faith, assumed the title of caliph and claimed to rule on behalf of God, even though they acted contrary to religious teachings. The clearest example of this is the oppression of the infallible Imams, especially the tragic events surrounding the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (A.S.) in the Battle of Karbala, which clearly demonstrated the discord between tyrannical rulers and the rightful divinely-ordained leadership.
Shi’a Jurists and Governance
Among Shi’a scholars, there is a division regarding the governance and rule appointed by Shari’ah during the period of occultation. While there is no dispute among Shi’a scholars regarding the principle of “Wilayat al-Faqih” (the governance of the jurist) in general, there are significant differences regarding the scope, limitations, and conditions of this authority.
Two groups have raised doubts about the legitimacy of the wilayat of the jurist in the absence of the infallible leader:
- Some scholars of Shi’a Islam.
- Some modernist and reformist individuals who have adopted secularized or “enlightened” views.
The Rational Principle
Before delving into the arguments for and against the wilayat of the jurist, it is crucial to consider the rational principle, which is accepted by both religious scholars and intellectuals alike. This principle asserts that no individual has inherent dominance or authority over another, and that the “freedom” of each person negates the idea of one person exercising authority over others, except where there is a strong and justifiable reason.
There is, however, justification for certain forms of authority, such as the authority of God, His Messenger, and the Infallible Imams. Similarly, some limited forms of authority, like that of a father over his child or a guardian over a minor, are logically justified by specific legal frameworks.
Thus, while the general principle of “non-superiority of individuals over others” holds, certain exceptions exist, particularly where divine or legitimate legal authority is involved. The question remains whether the governance of a jurist, with full religious qualifications, can be established through clear and valid legal proofs, or whether the historical record presents challenges to such an assertion.
The Practical and Theological Challenges of Jurist Governance
The governance and leadership of a Shi’a jurist over a society require strong legal and theological justifications. The qualifications for a jurist to become a spiritual leader are rigorous and time-consuming, requiring years of study and practical experience. Given the complexity of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not feasible for a jurist to simultaneously fulfill both his religious and political roles effectively.
The idea of a jurist holding both religious and political leadership presents a contradiction, as a jurist typically reaches the highest levels of scholarship later in life, whereas political leadership often demands youthful energy and practical experience. Therefore, the notion of combining both religious and political leadership is problematic.
Historically, there has been a clear separation between religious and political authority. Rulers have governed, and scholars have provided spiritual guidance and legal rulings. While this separation does not imply a total disjunction between religion and politics, it does mean that religious leaders are not necessarily political leaders. The role of scholars is to guide and advise rulers, who take on the responsibility of leading society.
It is important to understand that the governance of a religious scholar over society does not contradict Islamic law or logic, provided that the scholar meets the necessary qualifications. However, the claim to a divinely-ordained political role requires clear and sound theological evidence, which, in many cases, is not readily available.
In general, regarding the governance of religious scholars, two propositions can be made:
First, although there is no religious obligation for the governance of religious scholars, there is no religious prohibition either. If the conditions are met, their governance can be possible over others;
Second, beyond the lack of a religious obligation for the governance of religious scholars, there is also an intellectual prohibition and an ordinary and substantive delegation, and it is preferable for scholars to focus on their appropriate tasks, just as rulers should do. In contrast to these two propositions, which share the absence of a religious obligation, the theory of the governance of the Guardian Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih) and the religious sovereignty of Islamic jurists affirms an obligation and necessity.
Against the proposition of non-obligation, there is the claim of the general governance and absolute guardianship of the jurist, which is summarized here in four fundamental points to effectively illustrate this discussion:
A – Religion outlines the correct method of human life;
B – The governance ultimately belongs to the Almighty God, who has entrusted its execution to the Prophets and the Imams in the case of availability;
C – In the absence of the Imams, religion and religious affairs cannot be neglected, and the enforcement of divine laws remains in force;
D – A competent jurist, who is a righteous believer and a scholar familiar with the truths of religion and divine laws, possesses the guardianship and succession of the Imams.
With this explanation, the principle of the necessity of a just and knowledgeable ruler who is aware of both religious and worldly matters, and who serves the common good, is both rational and religious. The argument for the appointment of a complete and qualified jurist is supported by both religious and narrational evidence, and many documents and testimonies exist to prove it—evident in their detailed and well-reasoned exposition. The governance of a just jurist, apart from having no issue in its substantiation, is also supported by numerous rational and religious arguments, which clearly confirm its legitimacy.
At this point, after affirming the absolute guardianship of a complete and qualified jurist and the general governance of such a jurist, the problems of the previous proposition must be clearly presented and resolved so that no obstacle remains in proving the matter, and the discussion can be completed both rationally and religiously with the existence of justification and the removal of obstacles.
Among the Shia scholars, there is no disagreement regarding the guardianship appointed by divine law for a complete jurist. All scholars accept the authority and intervention in various matters for themselves. However, what we believe is that the subject of the guardianship of the jurist in the time of occultation refers to the “just jurist,” and there is no definitive argument for terms such as “most learned,” “the most learned of the scholars,” or “the one who possesses such and such attributes.” Moreover, these terms bring about a problem in substantiation, as the existence of such a jurist does not have any real existence, let alone the necessary political sufficiency and social qualifications. However, if justice and ijtihad (juridical competence) are genuinely and correctly embodied in an individual, that individual is fully qualified to assume this important position. It is essential, as previously stated, that ijtihad and justice be genuine and complete in such an individual, not artificially constructed or based on misleading propaganda. Those who narrow the scope of the subject to such an extent that no qualified individual remains are detached from reality. They are individuals with misguided views who lack the competence to think and reason on these matters.
Moreover, scholars who deny the very principle of the guardianship of the jurist—though very rare—must be questioned regarding their mental health, and modernists who reject this principle for a just jurist are, by default, disbelievers in the fundamental principles of religion. They either doubt the subject of ijtihad and justice in an individual or criticize the external, factual, and tangible aspect of it, rather than the core religious viewpoint. There are, however, those who deny many truths.
The principle of non-governance by one individual over another, although correct and widely accepted by scholars, is only valid in the absence of a reason; for the governance of the jurist, a strong argument exists. On this basis, there is no room to apply this principle here, just as the guardianship of God, the Prophet, and the infallible Imams does not contradict the application of this principle.
From the preceding, it becomes clear that there are no issues in terms of proving the governance of religious scholars, provided they possess the necessary conditions, nor do oppressive rulers have any religious or conventional legitimacy. Their rule has only been established through force and despotism. The division of labor whereby rulers are free to do whatever they want, and scholars are only engaged in preaching, issuing fatwas, or adjudicating at the behest of the rulers, is a tale of the weakness of the religious position and the ignorance of the people. Occasionally, when rulers grant nominal permissions to scholars or vice versa, it only reflects personal relationships, maintaining a specific time-based context and not a religious law or principle. History is full of chaotic relationships, occasional conflicts, and periods of silence or neglect between rulers and religious scholars.
The argument that “the existence of multiple titles of rulers and religious scholars does not signify the separation of religion from politics, but rather the separation of religious scholars from rulers, with both acting in their religious duties under the shadow of religious politics” is a fallacy, because it is religious politics that asserts: leadership in the time of occultation must be in the hands of a just and knowledgeable jurist, and the tyrant has no right to rule over the people. So, how can one align religious politics with the removal of the guardianship of the just and knowledgeable jurist and the rule of the tyrant? How can religious scholars obey tyrants or, if able, relinquish governance and power to the oppressive forces? How can an unjust ruler take control of the executive branch, while under his rule, no legitimate laws would be in force, and the scholars would have no power in the legislative branch, especially considering that the tyrants have always considered themselves to be the legislative branch and have only engaged in superficial interactions with scholars?
It must be clear that governance and the position of the jurist are not like that of a physician, where each has its own domain of work. According to the laws of Shari’a, the governance and management of society fall under the responsibilities of religious scholars in the time of occultation, and it is incorrect to say that the governance of rulers is separate and distinct from the religious duties of scholars.
This statement, “In the time of occultation, there are many claimants, and the guardianship of the infallible Imams has been divided, with some becoming rulers, some becoming mystics, and some becoming jurists,” although historically accurate, is not a reality. The weakness of individuals and social deprivation are the causes of such division; otherwise, a jurist who is a mystic can, if empowered, also become a ruler. However, due to the stagnation of society and the disarray within the Islamic community, the powers have been divided, with the jurist focusing on jurisprudence and the mystic on mysticism, while some become rulers through oppression and tyranny. The jurist and mystic, if the conditions are met, are qualified relative to their abilities; although the mystical and jurisprudential knowledge might be separated, the discussion here is about the ruler’s legitimacy, under what authority they ascend to the throne, and with what legal or popular decree they govern.
Regarding the governance of religious scholars, while it was said, “It is not problematic from a religious or intellectual perspective, and if the necessary conditions are met, it is even preferable!” it was not followed by a discussion on the governance of tyrants. Does it not have a religious or intellectual prohibition, or does it too have a religious and intellectual necessity for governance—this interpretation is deeply flawed.
It is, of course, accurate to say that a caretaker (someone without true authority) should not practice medicine or surgery. Incompetent and unqualified individuals should not rule over people, whether in the form of monarchy or under the guise of religious authority. Rather, every individual must possess the necessary qualifications for governance at their level. Truly, this is an adequate expression for the necessity of training and licensing for driving a car, but when it comes to managing and leading a storm-tossed ship of society in the turbulent seas of an unjust and tempestuous world, there are no qualifications required?
How is it possible for every nurse (without real authority) to practice medicine or surgery, when, in such a case, many dead bodies (representing numerous social problems) would emerge from that hospital every morning?
It cannot be established that an individual is qualified based solely on wearing the clerical garb, as this would lead to the loss of the beneficial outcomes of this group.
Based on what has been discussed, it should not be confused between the following:
A – Oppressive rulers do not meet the religious, intellectual, and popular conditions for governance, and their rule is based only on despotism.
B – Just and knowledgeable jurists, upon fulfilling the necessary qualifications and the need for them, take on social responsibilities, and there is no religious, evidential, or substantiation issue in this.
C – The necessary religious, scientific, and jurisprudential qualifications, along with the necessary social and political awareness, must not be superficial and ceremonial, but must be accurately fulfilled. Simply wearing clerical attire and knowing some Farsi or Arabic does not suffice for such high religious and social positions. Unqualified leadership at any level is against the law, and those who accept it, according to Shia narrations, are misguided and lead both themselves and others to ruin.
Concept of Wilayah: Divine and Spiritual Authority
In Shia thought, the concept of Wilayah refers to a divine and spiritual authority that is never separate from its actuality. The Wilayah is not limited merely to external governance but is viewed as an inherent truth, with the external government being the least manifestation of its broader essence. The truth of Wilayah encompasses not only the imams’ leadership but extends to all aspects of belief and practice, which include acts of worship. For instance, the validity and acceptance of rituals like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and charity are dependent on the foundational principle of Wilayah.
The claim that “Wilayah is only limited to a formal, symbolic authority” is incorrect. Rather, it can be said that Wilayah encompasses a broad, divine truth that includes both formal and substantive elements of governance, without limiting it to a symbolic, legalistic dimension. It is through the imams’ Wilayah that actions and deeds are rendered valid and effective, as this divine authority encompasses both the real and formal aspects of governance.
Furthermore, the concept of Wilayah implies the spiritual proximity to God, where devotion and submission to the Imams are considered the necessary intermediaries through whom one reaches closeness to the divine. In this framework, worship and righteous deeds are only meaningful and accepted when they align with the divine will, as expressed through the Imams. The acceptance of these acts by God hinges on their connection to the divine authority of the Imams.
The Relationship between Wilayah and Governance
In a society, if there is no establishment of a divinely authorized government, or if a religious government is absent, the acts performed by the people may not be accepted, as their deeds would lack the divine authority of the Imams. This does not mean that the validity of worship and righteous deeds is conditional solely on formal governance, but rather on the metaphysical and spiritual connection to the Imams.
The imams’ governance is not contingent upon people’s approval. It is the people who must align themselves with the divine leadership; if they fail to do so, they stray from the divine path. Thus, the authority of the Imams is a divine and permanent truth, irrespective of whether they hold political power. Their role is essential to the proper functioning of both spiritual and worldly matters, as they are seen as the perfect manifestations of God’s will.
The Role of the Imams in Spiritual and Social Matters
The Imams are regarded as the perfect examples of closeness to God. They hold the highest spiritual status, and it is through their proximity to God that others can achieve spiritual elevation. This relationship is key to understanding the importance of their governance, both in the spiritual and earthly realms. The governance they provide is not simply a political institution but a reflection of divine justice and order.
In the context of governance, the Imams do not require the approval or consent of the people. Their authority and governance are divinely ordained, and the people’s acceptance of this authority determines their own spiritual and moral standing. Those who reject or fail to recognize the divine authority of the Imams are considered to deviate from the righteous path, while those who accept their guidance are spiritually perfected.
Intermediaries Between God and Humanity
The Imams serve as intermediaries between God and humanity, acting as the necessary agents through whom people can come to understand divine truths. This concept is integral to the Islamic worldview, particularly in Shia thought, where the idea of spiritual proximity to God is intertwined with the recognition and acceptance of the Imams’ authority. Without acknowledging the Imams, worship and spiritual practices cannot lead to true closeness to God.
In this regard, the Imams’ authority is not merely symbolic or ritualistic; it is a necessary condition for achieving spiritual fulfillment and divine approval. The idea that one can bypass this relationship and still attain divine favour is considered a misconception in Shia theology.
The Imams’ Influence on Human Development
The role of the Imams extends beyond merely guiding people in religious practices; they are the catalysts for human spiritual development. The text draws a comparison to a teacher who does not merely instruct but transforms the student, making the Imams the true educators of humanity. They guide not only through their teachings but through their very existence, which serves as a model for others to follow.
Furthermore, their influence is not limited to the believers alone. The Imams’ presence and actions affect the entire world, as they are seen as the moral and spiritual leaders of humanity. They bring clarity and purpose to human existence, and their governance ensures that divine principles are enacted in the world.
The Role of Faith and Knowledge
Faith in the Imams and recognition of their divine authority is integral to spiritual success. The text highlights that true knowledge and understanding come through recognizing the Imams’ role as the direct conduits of divine wisdom. This knowledge is not just theoretical but is deeply connected to one’s spiritual practice and the fulfilment of religious duties. Without the guidance of the Imams, human efforts to attain true knowledge and spiritual maturity are considered incomplete.
