Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter 17: Faith as the Essence of Invitation of the Prophets (Part 2)

The Truth of Faith

In the previous session, by citing Qur'anic verses, we arrived at the conclusion that faith is the essence of the prophets’ invitation a fact that can with utmost clarity and explicitness be deduced from the Holy Qur’an. In the end, we raised questions which must be answered in order to make clearer the discussion.

One of the important subjects which are tackled in this issue and also the subject of many discussions nowadays in the academic circles inside and outside the country is“the truth behind faith.” All of us know that once a person has faith in something, a kind of confirmation of its existence exists in his self whether it is faith in a person or the existence of an attribute in a person or faith in a thing. In both cases, faith is accompanied by confirmation. Now, the question is: What kind of confirmation is this?

In a bid to better clarify the question, we have to say that it is sometimes a logical confirmation while at other times, psychological. Sometimes, confirmation is such that we consider the relationship between two elements of a case (subject and predicate, or antecedent and consequence) and we can observe that the relationship between them is logically positive. We then confirm the case and its authenticity. The status of confirmation to the existence of this logical relationship is either because it is among the obvious things such as the case of“The whole is bigger than the part” , or because it is among the analytical cases, for example, or some other existing ways. This is a logical confirmation; that is, once the intellect considers both sides of the cases, a positive relationship between them will logically become clear.

The point here is that logical confirmation is not always accompanied by and linked with psychological confirmation. For example, while a certain relationship is logically present between the subject and the predicate of a case, since it is a theoretical case and the concerned person is not aware of the proofs and evidence substantiating it, the existence of such a relationship may be doubted. It is like the case of a schoolchild to whom a particular geometrical case is not yet proved, and the teacher has not taught it to him. Here, the relationship logically exists and is correct and established, but since it is not yet proved to him, he is psychologically doubtful and he cannot confirm it. The opposite of this case is possible; that is, sometimes a person psychologically believes and confirms the existence of a thing while such a relationship does not actually exist.

Is to Confirm the Truth Behind Faith?

Now, the question is: Once we say that in faith to confirm the proof of a thing or to confirm the proof of an attribute is necessary for a subject, which confirmation is referred to? Is it logical confirmation, psychological confirmation, or both? The more important question is: If a proof is shown to us and we confirm the existence of a thing, accepting it as such, believing it and have conviction in it,1 is this enough for us to say that we have faith in that thing? Notwithstanding the demonstration of proof and the confirmation of the existence of relationship, and the presence of both logical and psychological confirmations for the person, is it possible that there is still no faith and it needs an additional element?

Many of those who have talked about the truth behind faith have regarded it as the same confirmation. According to them, the fact that firstly, the proof exists and secondly, the person is informed of the proof and his mind accepts it shows the presence of faith. Accordingly, it is not possible for a person to know something without having faith in it because the definition of faith is nothing but confirmation. Once both logical and psychological confirmations exist, faith will be present. In other words, faith is the same confirmation, and knowledge and faith are the same. Its only condition is that knowledge is consistent with the reality and not imagination and illusion.

It must be noted, however, that the above theory cannot be approved by referring to the verses of the Qur’an. In many instances, the Qur’an points out that there are those who have knowledge of things but do not have faith in them and in fact they have negated and denied them. From these expressions of the Qur’an, it becomes clear that knowledge and faith are different from each other, and that faith requires another element apart from knowledge and something which is more than knowing. One of the differences between faith and knowledge mentioned in the Qur’an is that once the proof of a thing is established, the human intellect has no alternative but to yield and confirm. But faith is an optional matter which cannot be materialized by compulsion.

Once the lamp is lit and you can see its brightness since your eyes are not defective, wittingly or unwittingly, you will acquire knowledge of the lamp being lit. According to this explanation, in this assumption faith will be acquired. According to the explanation of the Qur’an, however, notwithstanding the existence of knowledge, faith on the lamp being lit may not exist in yourself. One of the proofs in the Qur’an substantiating this fact is in the account of the Pharaoh and his people vis-à-vis Musa (Moses) (‘a).

The Qur’an says,“We gave nine signs (miracles) to Musa and sent him with the nine signs to Pharaoh and his people. He showed the signs one after another to the people, the first of which was the same famous episode of his staff’s transformation into a snake. Similarly, “the white (shining) palm” was one of his miracles. The reaction of Pharaoh to Musa (‘a) and his miracles was that he said to his people:

الْمَلَأُ مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرِي

I do not know of any god that you may have other than me. (28:38)

The verb in the sentence“I do not know” [ma ‘alimtu] is derived from the root“‘ilm” [knowledge]; that is,“I do not know of any god that you may have other than me.” Through the tongue of Prophet Musa (‘a), the Qur’an rejects this point, saying:

قَالَ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا أَنْزَلَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ إِلَّا رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ بَصَائِرَ وَإِنِّي لَأَظُنُّكَ يَا فِرْعَوْنُ مَثْبُورًا

“You certainly know that no one has sent these [signs] except the Lord of the heavens and the earth. (17:102)”

From the Arabic literary perspective, there are two emphases in this verse; one is the lam maftuh (the letter lam “ ل ” marked with the fathah “ فتحة ” vowel-point) and the word “ قَدْ ” in “laqad ‘alimta” at the beginning. That is, “O Pharaoh! You most certainly know and you have knowledge [‘ilm] that no one has sent down these miracles except the Lord of the heavens and the earth.”

Therefore, according to the text of the Qur’an, Pharaoh had knowledge of God and even knew that He had sent down these miracles. Yet, he was an unbeliever, and his disbelief continued up to the last moment and only at the time of drowning and ascertaining that there is no way out that he had faith with the aim of escaping death and saving himself, which of course was not accepted. Thus, based on an explicit verse of the Qur’an, in spite of recognizing God and knowing that those were His miracles and that Musa (‘a) was His messenger, Pharaoh remained an unbeliever. He had knowledge of both monotheism and apostleship, yet he had no faith in them.

Another proof is again related to the people of Pharaoh. The Qur’an states,

وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنْفُسُهُمْ ظُلْمًا وَعُلُوًّا فَانْظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ

They impugned them though they were convinced in their hearts. (27:14)

The people of Pharaoh were certain that these were divine miracles, signs and symbols and that Musa (‘a) was a prophet of God, and their minds and intellects confirmed these facts, yet their hearts had no faith and belief in them.

Therefore, by referring to the Holy Qur’an, it is perfectly evident that knowledge and faith are not identical and each is not correlative to the other such that wherever there is knowledge, faith must also be there.

Is Faith Correlative to Doubt and Ignorance?

Some people assume the stance opposite of those who regard knowledge and faith as the same, and they say that faith is talked about where there is no knowledge at all. Wherever man has knowledge of a thing, there must be faith. Faith is where man, while not certain and sure of a matter and doubtful and skeptical of it, accepts and confirms it. This statement, at this present time, has proponents in our own country, and if you read some national scientific magazines, you will observe pertinent subjects. The first explanation holds that whoever knows has faith as well. The second explanation is that faith is indeed related to where man does not know.

If we want to know the root of and reason behind the designing of this theory by some local intellectuals and so-called intellectuals, we have to cite two main causes. One cause is related to the imitation of the Western culture. For many centuries, faith has been defined in Europe in such a way that its background is ignorance and unawareness. The famous statement uttered by many ecclesiastical authorities is:“Believe first and then understand.” You have to have faith first so as to acquire knowledge and gnosis later!

This stance of the Church originates when it advances issues which are not only lacking rational proof but there is also a proof against it. For example, one of the fundamental teachings of the Church is the doctrine of the Trinity; that is, God has three persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. According to this doctrine of the Church, God, while having three persons, is One, and while being One has three persons! This is a matter which the intellect cannot accept. How can God, while the Father, be the Son and the Holy Spirit at the same time?! In order to solve this problem, the Church says that you have to have faith in Christianity first so as to understand the Trinity later.

As such, according to this way of thinking, the place of faith is in cases which the intellect cannot understand, rather even denies. The intellect dictates that“three” cannot be“one.” The intellect dictates that God who is the creator of everything is such Being Who has no place and cannot be in the form of a fetus inside the womb of Maryam (Saint Mary), to be borne by her and then crucified so as to save the entire human race! The Church observes that this affair, apart from lacking any rational explanation, is irrational. As such, it promulgates:“Have faith so as to understand!”

This way of thinking which for many centuries has been rampant in Europe particularly after the Renaissance has gradually spread in other cultures, and through the translation of books, has slowly found its way into other countries. Those who are more or less self-defeated by the Western culture and imagine that whatever comes from the West is the gospel truth believe that faith is indeed where knowledge, intellect and rational proof are not at work. We believe because we cannot understand!

Then, through this way, they wanted to solve the contradictions and irrational subjects in the Torah and the Evangel. Wherever we say,“This subject is not harmonious with knowledge and intellect,” they say,“Yes, this subject is ‘religious’; it is not scientific and rational.” That is, although we do not know and cannot understand, or the intellect even dictates that it is not correct, we have to have faith in and accept it.

According to them, in principle the realm of religion is such that if a subject is raised therein, the intellect does not accept while knowledge denies it. But if you want to be“religious” , you have to accept it! This is the way Christianity and the West have chosen for centuries for the famous issue of“knowledge and intellect’s conflict with religion” , and wherever there is no reply, it frees itself by means of this technique and says,“This issue is not in the realm of knowledge at all and the subject on the scientific and rational proof of this issue is basically wrong. This issue is a religious one and religion means to have faith unknowingly and to accept blindly!”

The Qur’an and the Alleged Contradiction between Knowledge and Faith

When this subject reached our xenomaniacs,2 they imagined that faith which is mentioned in Islam and the Qur’an is the same. In a bid to substantiate their claim, they have cited the fact that the Qur’an does not regard“knowledge” as not the same with“faith.” They quote the Qur’anic verse:

وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنْفُسُهُمْ ظُلْمًا وَعُلُوًّا

‘They impugned them though they were convinced in their hearts. (27:14)’

That is, once you have knowledge, you have no faith! It is thus clear that knowledge and faith are two different things which cannot be contained in a single container. Naturally, once there is no knowledge, there is doubt and ignorance. Once the Qur’an points to a case where there is knowledge and no faith, it will become evident that the place of faith is something other than that of knowledge, and no-knowledge is nothing but ignorance, doubt and unawareness. If it is knowledge, the way of acceptance is the same knowledge and there is no need for faith. Once we have doubt and ignorance, the way of acceptance is faith.

In elucidating further their view, the Muslim“intellectuals” who have accepted this interpretation of faith say: “By referring to the Qur’an, it becomes clear that faith is a voluntary affair:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ

And say, ‘[This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it’. (18:29)

On the other hand, freewill cannot be combined with knowledge because if a person knows something, he has no option but to accept it. Once a person knows a thing, there is no more room for denial. If he has knowledge, he has no more than one option and that is to accept and the line“let anyone who wishes disbelieve it” has no more meaning. Therefore, if faith is a voluntary affair, it must be raised in a case other than knowledge where there is the possibility of choosing either of two ways acceptance and denial. Where is it that both ways of acceptance and denial are open? It is where we have doubt. Once I have a doubt, I can either accept or refuse a thing. In this situation, once I accept it, it is said that I have faith in it.”

I have mentioned are subjects written and published in the existing periodicals in the Islamic Republic, and unfortunately, some of those who advanced these issues have Islamic seminary credentials. Anyway, without considering their personalities and their motives, let us see to what extent this contention is correct.

One question is this: Wherever a person has knowledge, will he definitely have faith, too? By referring to the Qur’an, we will find out that the answer to this question is negative. The people of Pharaoh, according to the text of the Qur’an, had knowledge but had no faith.

Another question is: Wherever we are totally ignorant, or more serious than this, where we are indeed certain to nonexistence and it negates the definite or scientific proof of a thing, in which thing can faith ever exist? For example, although we can see that this lamp is lit, do we have faith that its light is put out? Or, although we are certain that two times two is equal to four, do we have faith that two times two is equal to five? Is such a thing possible? Is it possible for us to have faith in something which we know and have real certainty that it is not true?

In order to answer the second question, we have to return to the additional element which is necessary in faith. At examining the answer to the first question, we pointed it out that an additional element apart from knowledge is required for faith to come into existence, and mere knowledge is not enough. If mere knowledge had been enough, Pharaoh would have believed. The Qur’an said that he was certain and he knew that the miracles were signs from the Lord of the heavens and the earth and that Musa (‘a) was indeed a prophet of God; nevertheless, he did not believe. Let us now introduce the auxiliary element which must accompany knowledge in order for faith to be realized.

The Correct Theory on the Truth of Faith

First of all, we have to take note that many subjects are discernible but not explainable; that is, we can understand it and be totally aware of it, but in explanation and elucidation, we cannot depict to others its nature and at most what we can do is to show its effects. We all know what fear is, but once we want to explain it, instead of pointing out its nature, we embark on mentioning its effects and signs. For example, we say,“Fear is a condition once it is experienced by a person, his hands and feet will shake, he will turn pale and his heart will beat faster.”

In the same vein, if we are asked,“What is love?” we cannot explain what love means; we can only mention its effects and signs. Concepts similar to these are not limited in number. Faith belongs to this sort of concepts; it is an inner state which is discernible through demonstrative knowledge, and in explaining it, we can only describe its effects and signs. Faith is an emotional and psychological state which requires that man should be bound to its requisites; that is, in action, he is supposed to be committed to fulfilling its requisites. There are so many things which are known to many people but they in practice are not willing to observe its requisites.

So many people know that smoking has many destructive effects which may bring about numerous problems, but they are not willing to put this knowledge into practice. They act as if they do not know. Here, there is knowledge and no faith. Why? It is because the decision is not accompanied by putting it into practice and fulfilling its requisites. If a person knows of a thing and then decides to be committed to this knowledge in practice, it means that he has faith in it. And if in spite of the knowledge he has, he makes no decision to act upon it accordingly or decides not to do it at all, he is then a denier [kafir] of it though he has knowledge of it.

Given this explanation, the meaning of Pharaoh’s denial [kufr] becomes clear; he knew that there is God; Musa is a prophet of God; and his miracles are divine signs, but he was not inclined to put this knowledge into practice; therefore, he was a kafir. The people of Pharaoh had the same case concerning knowledge:“They were convinced in their hearts” but“they impugned them.” They were not inclined to follow it in action.

Meanwhile, as to how man can, in spite of knowing a thing and having definite knowledge of it but being not inclined to follow it in practice is another story which is presently not connected to our discussion. If we want to give a brief to this question, we have to say that this matter is related to the enjoyments that man will experience in indulging in or abandoning it. In general, whims and caprice and emotional attachments hinder man from having faith. The story of the Prophet’s imprecation with the Christians of Najran which has been mentioned in the Qur’an is a good testimony to this fact.

The Christian priests and learned men of Najran (a city in the outskirts of Yemen) came to Medina and wanted to arrange an academic debate with the Prophet (S). Of course, they were prominent and learned men and they imagined that they could condemn the Prophet (S) in the academic dispute and defeat him. It was agreed upon that they would embrace Islam if they would be defeated in the debate. A large crowd gathered in the Mosque to witness the debate. The Prophet (S) engaged in a debate with them.

Finally, in this debate, the Christian scholars were condemned and defeated in the discussion. The Prophet (S) asked them to embrace Islam according to the promise they had given, but they refused to do so with the pretext that they were not yet convinced. A verse was revealed in which the Prophet (S) is asked to say to the effect: “Since you will not be convinced in a discussion, do a certain thing and be ready for an imprecation. The following day, the two parties were supposed to meet at a place outside Medina and curse each other so that God would send down His chastisement on the false group and annihilate them. The Qur’an thus says in this regard:

فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَلْ لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ

Should anyone argue with you concerning him, after the knowledge that has come to you, say, ‘Come! Let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, our souls and your souls, then let us pray earnestly and call down Allah’s curse upon the liars’. (3:61)

The Prophet along with Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn (who were then children), Lady Fatimah az-Zahra' and Imam ‘Ali (‘a) were present for the imprecation. Once the Christians of Najran cast their eyes upon these five holy personages, they were frightened and they said to themselves,“If he had only had an iota of doubt, he would not have brought with him the best of his nearest ones and in sum, he would have been present for the imprecation! We will not accept Islam anyway, but we are willing to pay the Jizyah tax.” Once the Holy Prophet (S) was asked about the reason behind this decision, he said,“They discerned and had ascertained that I am the Messenger of Allah and on the true side while they are on the false side, but because of their habit and interest in eating pork and drinking wine, which are both unlawful in Islam, we were not able to dispense with the enjoyment of eating pork and drinking wine, and thus, they did not yield to the truth.”

In spite of being certain about a thing, a person may not yield to it; rather, he may deny it because of whims and caprice, enjoyment, arrogance, etc. For example, if Pharaoh believed in God, his people would no longer acknowledge him as God and he would be forced to abandon all his power, wealth, outward splendor, elegance, and pomp, and would live like a common man.

Faith’s Relationship with Knowledge and Freewill

Thus, in faith, in addition to knowledge and awareness, there is another needed element; a mental and psychological element through which man should create in himself a state of submission, acceptance and obedience to the Truth and“to be bound by its requisites.” Faith means“knowledge in addition to the state of inner obedience in accepting the requisites of knowledge.” From here the issue of faith’s voluntary nature becomes clear, because to have or not to have this state of obedience is a voluntary affair. He who is addicted to smoking is still not willing to abandon this habit in spite of knowing its many destructive effects. He is not forced to smoke. In fact, like thousands of other people who decided to quit it and succeeded, he can also make a definite decision and quit smoking. This state of submission which is the resolution to be bound by the requisites of his knowledge is a totally voluntary affair.

As such,“to know” and“to be voluntary” have no contradiction. This is contrary to the claim that if a person acquires knowledge, he has no option but to accept and submit to it, and as such, faith cannot be reconciled with knowledge. Our reply is: knowledge is one thing, while the resolution to be bound by the requisites of the knowledge is another thing. As we have explained, the latter is an affair totally at the discretion of the person himself. Even knowledge and knowing themselves, from the perspective of their preliminaries, are voluntary. In order to pass the university entrance examination, a person studies and works hard, passes the exam and goes to the university. Is this going to the university voluntary or involuntary for him?

Obviously, it is voluntary. Thus, a person who has gone to the university and studied hard has become a teacher and expert because he himself wanted to do so and has indeed done it. If he had willed, he would not have studied and passed the examination, or after admission to the university, he might not have studied so to be expelled. It is true that if a teacher in a geometry class proves a theorem through a proof, the schoolchild will acquire knowledge and have no way for denial, but attending the class, sitting down there, and listening attentively to the teacher (which is required in acquiring knowledge) are voluntary affairs.

Even if we assume that acquisition of knowledge is not voluntary, faith is not mere knowledge and“obedience” is also a requisite; and obedience is completely a voluntary affair. To decide to be bound by the requisites of knowledge or not is at the discretion of man himself. So, it is not ironic to say that faith is a voluntary affair which is occasionally accompanied by knowledge whose acquisition is not voluntary. The secret behind this matter is that once there is a voluntary element in a set, this is enough for us to regard the set as voluntary.

Citing another example can help make the issue clear. Let us assume that I am now busy talking. Is speaking a voluntary or involuntary affair? Obvious, it is voluntary. But for me to talk and speak has hundreds of necessary prerequisites none of which is under my control. I should have lungs, voice, healthy vocal chords in the larynx, mouth and nose to emit air from my lungs, and many other prerequisites. Are they under my control? Is it under my will and control for me to have lungs, or not? Clearly, God has given me the lungs, but it might not be that I preferred to have lungs.

Is it my choice that there is air? God has created the air, and it is not that since I desired and preferred to have air, there is air. Now, the question is: Although none of these prerequisites is volitional and has formed out of our will, why do we still say that speaking is a voluntary action? The reply is that because a part of it is voluntary. For me to decide to use a certain word and voice to create certain words and expressions is under my control. So, the existence of a voluntary part in a set whose tens of parts are involuntary is enough to prove the voluntary nature of the set.

Faith is voluntary in this sense, although its requisite is knowledge which is sometimes acquired by man involuntarily. Knowledge may be acquired by me involuntarily but the decision to act upon the requisites of knowledge is under my control. This is enough to prove the voluntary nature of faith.

Now, you judge how wrong the one who introduces himself as a philosopher and says that even if it is voluntary, faith cannot be reconciled with freewill is. Is for me to merely know that smoking is harmful enough to make me avoid smoking? In addition, should we decide not to smoke? Since I have knowledge (of the harm of smoking), am I compelled not to smoke? Does being voluntary necessarily mean being associated with ignorance and unawareness?

What a senseless claim for us to say that the requisite of faith being voluntary is that there should be no knowledge as there are ignorance and doubt! Yes, this statement may be appropriate for the Church authorities who have been entangled with false and baseless doctrines. As we have pointed out, in order to escape the responsibility of the doctrines and teachings which are inconsistent with the intellect, they chose this way, i.e. to say that the domain of knowledge and intellect is different from that of religion, and these are religious teachings which have nothing to do with neither knowledge nor the intellect.

Yes, faith which Islam wants is not blind at all and it is not arisen from ignorance and lack of understanding; rather, we have to understand and be aware first, and then have faith. Blind and ignorant faith has no value. First, knowledge must be acquired and then one has to decide to be bound by it.

Which is the Premise of Faith, Logical Certainty or Conventional Certainty?

It is necessary to point out that knowledge, which is the premise of faith and whose existence is indispensable for the emergence of faith, is customary. Let us elaborate: One term for knowledge used in logic is that man is certain of a priori reality; that is, he has such total conviction that it is impossible to be the contrary. There is no probability, not even one in a million, of being the contrary. Many theorems in mathematics are like this. For example,“To combine two opposites is impossible” belongs to this group of theorems, and there are many others. This terminology is specific for knowledge and what we mean by knowledge which is the premise of faith is this one.

The knowledge which is indispensable in faith is that which is technically called certainty. It is an inner and psychological state in which man has no more inner and psychological worry and anxiety in relation to a matter, and he has peace of mind as far as it is concerned. A hundred percent rational evidence for it has not been established, and there is rational and philosophical probability to be the contrary, but this probability is so insignificant that people usually do not pay attention to it, and in spite of it, they are convinced that the matter is as they believe it to be. This certainty is not philosophical; rather, customary. That is, the same treatment of the philosophers toward the philosophical certainty is what the common people do to certainty. Rationally and philosophically, certainty is a very strong presumption with a very small probability of error. In other words, some subjects in our minds still have the status of uneasiness and agitation, and we do not feel certain peace of mind and tranquility of the heart in relation to them. Some other subjects are not like so, and the minds accept them easily.

We shall cite an example in order to better clarify the subject. Let us assume that you went out of your home in the morning and to your office or another place. After a few hours, you want to return home. At this moment, if you are asked,“Are you certain that your house is in order to which you want to return?” you cannot prove that it is in order through rational and mathematical evidence. Maybe, God forbid, something bad has happened and your house is totally destroyed. Such a probability cannot rationally be negated. But everyday, without entertaining such a probability, you return home with confidence. In essence, many activities in the custom of the wise and in the midst of people and society are performed on the basis of this very conviction and customary certainty. In spite of having no philosophical and absolute certainty, the wise follow the dictate of their knowledge and certainty without paying attention to the probability of error.

Now, concerning faith, we say that the knowledge which is the premise of faith is the same customary knowledge and certainty, and there is no need to have definite philosophical certainty whose probability of error is absolutely impossible. For example, we are certain that two times two is impossible to be other than four. Philosophical certainty regarding faith is possible for the saints of God and those who are like the Commander of the Faithful (‘a). This certainty is very rare, but different levels, lower and similar to it, are possible for other people. It is here that the discussion on the levels of faith is raised.

Two Contributory Factors in the Enhancement and Strengthening of Faith

The first level of faith is attainable with the same presumption and certainty mentioned earlier. Once a person’s mind becomes free from agitation, uneasiness and disturbance with respect to a subject and attains tranquility and serenity, if he is asked,“Do you know it?” he will say,“Yes, I know it.” That state is enough for attaining faith. After acquiring faith and deciding to act upon the requisites of this certainty and actually doing so, this thought will be strengthened gradually through further proofs and pieces of evidence and the resolution of man to undertake them will equally become stronger. In this state, faith will be enhanced and its level elevated. The Qur’an thus says:

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللَّهُ وَجِلَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَإِذَا تُلِيَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُهُ زَادَتْهُمْ إِيمَانًا وَعَلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ

The faithful are only those whose hearts tremble [with awe] when Allah is mentioned, and when His signs are recited to them, they (Allah’s signs) increase their faith. (8:2)

If a person has a proof for a subject and then acquires another proof, he will become more certain of it. This is one of the ways of strengthening and increasing faith.

Another way of enhancing and strengthening faith is through the effect of the same undertaking which a person acquires in practice. Once he becomes certain of the existence of a thing, closer to it and acquainted with it, his desire, interest and acceptance of it will gradually increase. We have definitely had such experiences. No one of us had this degree of faith that we have now during our childhood and early adolescence. Initially, they asked us to pray. Little by little, they said,“Pay attention to what you are reciting in your prayers.” They said,“Read the Qur’an and reflect on its meaning.”

They said,“Supplicate and recite litanies to God.” Gradually and slowly, man will feel the munificence of God and become more acquainted with and closer to Him. Therefore, action and practical undertaking contribute to the enhancement of faith. On the contrary, those who acquire faith in the beginning but fail to fulfill its requirements, their faith will not grow. If they indulge in sins and that which is contrary to its requirements, their initial faith gradually weakens and as the effect of further and repetitive sinning, it may end up in the total effacement of faith:

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ رُسُلًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِمْ فَجَاءُوهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَانْتَقَمْنَا مِنَ الَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا وَكَانَ حَقًّا عَلَيْنَا نَصْرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Then the fate of those who committed misdeeds was that they denied the signs of Allah and they used to deride them. (30:47)

Thus, faith can be strengthened or weakened. How can it be strengthened? One way is to enhance knowledge, which is among the foundations of faith. In doing so, man can enhance his level of certainty. Not only will that certainty find the main point, but also the negation of its opposite. The second way is through perseverance in fulfilling its requirements. The more he is careful and acts upon his certainty, delight, acceptance and obedience will increase.

Summary of the Discussion

Faith is voluntary knowledge and something more than the knowledge which is the premise of faith, and sometimes it may be acquired involuntarily. This voluntary action means that man experiences a state in his heart to decide to act upon the requirements of knowledge and what he knows. If he has knowledge but decides never to act upon its requirements, this is not faith. He who says,“I am certain that the Prophet of Islam is a divine prophet and has said the truth, but I decide not to obey any of his ordinances,” has no faith; what he has is only knowledge. Faith is that state whose requisite is to decide to act.

The condition of faith is not the knowledge of philosophical certainty; rather, the common and customary knowledge which is the same certainty is enough for faith. The mere fact that the mind has no more agitation and uneasiness (with respect to a thing), and although there is the probability of wrong belief, this probability is so insignificant for it to disturb the state of peace and tranquility of the mind and soul and for this reason, it is not given attention.

Faith has levels. Once a person’s attention is drawn to the purport of the verses of the Qur’an and he reflects upon them, the attraction of the Qur’an will capture his heart and soul and he will earn motivation to act upon them and to be more acquainted with God:“When His signs are recited to them, they (Allah’s signs) increase their faith.” On the contrary, when a sinful person decides not to be bound by the requirements of his knowledge and to indulge in sin upon sin, his initial faith will weaken and may even reach a point where it is totally wiped out:“Then the fate of those who committed misdeeds was that they denied the signs of Allah.”

Some claim that the requisite of faith and its voluntary nature is ignorance and doubt. This is false and baseless. If a person knows that something is not true, it is impossible for him to have faith in it. If it is proved to you that“one” is not“three” while“three” is not“one” , there is no possibility for you to believe that“one” and“three” are identical! The Christian Trinity is nothing but this: God is one in a trinity! Even a state of dilemma and 50-50 doubt will not end up in faith. One has to acquire preference-a considerable preference-so as to acquire faith. Those who have claimed that faith is a correlative of ignorance have not understood faith, ignorance, or knowledge.

Notes

1. The reason behind using these different expressions along with each other is that technically speaking, there are differences more or less among confirmation, belief and conviction, and since here we refer to them all, we have mentioned them all so that those who are familiar with these terms (and their differences) will not confuse one with the other.

2. Xenomaniacs: those infatuated with foreign and especially Western models of culture. This is the translation of a Persian term, gharbzadegan or gharbzadeh-ha, popularized by Jalal Al Ahmad (d. 1969) who was a writer of great influence in his book Gharbzadegi (“Xenomania” or“Occidentosis” ). See its English translation, R. Campbell (trans.) and Hamid Algar (ed. and anno.), Occidentosis: A Plague from the West (Berkeley: Al-Mizan Press, 1984). [Trans.]

Chapter 15: The Mutual Relationship between the People and the Government (Part 6)

A Review of the Discussion in the Previous Session

The subject of discussion during these many sessions was the relationship between the people and the government in the Islamic system. The discussion reached the point where we said that all the human systems can be divided into two groups: (1) statist (government-oriented) and (2) populist (people-oriented).

The group of systems which regards the government as the sovereign and master of the people holds that the government has the right to reign over the people while the people are duty-bound to unconditionally accept the orders of the government. In arguing for this theory, some reason out that since the human nature is a fox-like nature (the same famous statement of Hobbes that“Man is the fox of another man” ), there must be a strong and powerful body to prevent rebellion and these foxes’ cutting one another’s throat. The argument of some others is that the order and security of the society cannot be established without such a power. So, the government has to impose order upon the people through naked force and other means. The people, in turn, have to obey such a power. Other arguments to prove this theory have also been advanced.

Others (whose theory is the same currently well-known one), contrary to the view of the first group, believe that the people are the sovereigns while the government is the servant. In their opinion, the government must be totally at the disposal of the people and obey whatever their order; the government has to implement every law they approve; and whomever the people elect to implement the law has the right to implement the law. This is the same system which is called“populism” or“democracy.”

As in the past, some try to say that there is no other way than these two: either statism or populism. They add that statism is a reactionary affair related to the period of slavery, and as we live in the modern period, we cannot accept such a thing. Therefore, there is no other way but to accept populism. Populism means that people choose whatever law they like without any condition or inhibition. If there is any necessary condition in enacting the law, people have to enact it. As such, all the state power must be ascribed in a sense to the people and be chosen by them.

The View of Islam on the People and the Government

During the previous session, we stated that it is not correct to confine government into these two types and that in this regard there is another way on the basis of which the Islamic theory lies. The third theory is that neither the people have inherent dominance over the government nor the government has inherent dominance over the people. No dominance of any individual over another individual or a group over another group is correct and credible except with the permission of God. From the Islamic viewpoint, in essence the officials of the government are a group of the same people.

So, there is no distinction between the people and the government. It is not the case that the people have the right to enact the law while the government has no corresponding role, or vice versa. It is God the Exalted Who enacts the law because He is the Master of all people and He knows best what is good for them. God the Exalted knows best, compared to others including the people themselves, their welfare in this world and the Hereafter, material and spiritual prosperity, and individual and social interests.

Thus, since God the Exalted is the Lord of mankind, the Master and Authority over them, and His knowledge is boundless and there is no error along its way, only He has the right of legislation, and the people, both the government officials and the rest of people, are all equal before His law.

Now, the point is that this law requires an agent and in some cases, it needs an interpreter. Similarly, in some cases, the law needs to determine the branches and organize the executive rules. Naturally, these affairs must be delegated to certain individuals. As such, these affairs need a government to enact law and exercise mastership and dominance over others. There must be someone who is at the service of the decree of God, justice, the welfare human beings, and human values.

Along this line, there must be some people who take charge of this function and they must be the most deserving, compared to others, to assume it. Within a group of people under a commercial, economic or educational establishment, or any other name, the responsibilities of individuals are divided among themselves according to their respective talents and merits. This is the way of the wise. In a factory, the one to be the manager is the most expert in management. In an educational institution, the one to be the director is the most expert in that work.

In a class session wherein a teacher conducts a lecture, it implies that his merit to teach is more than that of the students. So, the teacher has to give lessons while the students have to listen. Here, there is no dispute that the teacher is the master of the students, or the students are the masters of the teacher, as the case may be. Once the realization of an objective lies in the struggle and coordination of the members of a group, it is natural that the tasks must be divided among individuals. In this division of labor, in every section those who are supposed to be assigned are the most deserving of the work. The expression“meritocracy” which is sometimes used in discussions is a very elegant expression for our subject.

Given this viewpoint, we can consider, alongside the two forms, the third form of relationship between the people and the government. In this viewpoint, the issue of merit is not a deal in principle. Here, the issue is that those who are designated by God the Exalted to implement the decrees He has promulgated have the permission to offer this service for the society. Of course, it is natural that this task requires that an order given should be followed by others; otherwise, no progress can be made and the existence of government will be rendered useless.

Similarly, if the principal of a school gives an order, the teachers have to comply with it; otherwise, no progress can be made and in this case the existence of the principal is senseless. Does the teachers’ mandatory compliance with the orders of the principal mean that the principal is the master and they are servants and slaves?! In materializing administrative objectives, the most deserving individuals have to assume the posts, too. In the Islamic government, these individuals are those who are authorized by God the Exalted. The permission of God the Exalted is necessary because He is our Master. As such, the affairs of people should be managed according to His approval.

Therefore, in the Islamic government, God gives authority to rule to the deserving individuals and on the basis of this permission they manage the society and implement the divine decrees. This is the spirit of the theory of wilayah al-faqih [guardianship of the jurist].

Based on this, the authority of the jurist-guardian over the Islamic society is grounded on the fact that he is the most meritorious person who can apply the law of God to the society. According to the conditions taken into account for the jurist-guardian, he has the greater and better understanding of the divine law. In addition, he must have the highest level of piety, moral excellences, management skills and qualification to administer the society. It is by means of the aggregate of these three qualifications that the jurist-guardian is identified.

The person whose knowledge of the law of Islam, whose piety in practicing Islam and implementing the divine laws, and whose acumen in managing the affairs of society are more than the rest has the guardianship and right to rule in the Islamic society. By taking into consideration these three elements, the person who should take charge of the government and management of the society and has the permission from God to implement the divine laws in the society can be identified.

For that reason, in the Islamic government and the theory of wilayah al-faqih, the relationship between the people and the government is at least like the relations of individuals belonging to an office, or that of an academic staff with the head of that staff. The jurist-guardian is designated to manage the society only because his merit in understanding and discerning the divine laws and the manner of implementing them is greater than that of others. Neither he enacts rules by himself nor do the people do the same by themselves. Instead, the laws and rules have been enacted by the Supreme Authority Who has conveyed them to the ruler and the people for implementation.

Ensuring the Spiritual Welfare as the Duty of Government and the Right of People in the Islamic Government

Concerning the people-government relationship, its spirit is traceable to the implementation of the Islamic laws, and this affair guarantees the material and spiritual welfare of the society. In this connection, attention to the spiritual welfare and providing for it constitute a significant part of the duties of the Islamic ruler, and one of the important functions of the government is to ensure the spiritual welfare of human beings. According to the Islamic perspective (which has provable solid proofs), the humanness of man does not mean merely engagement in mundane affairs. In fact, its main part is related to the spiritual values and affairs. On this basis, the government has to supervise the spiritual affairs which are related to the society so that the activities are done properly and the society’s spiritual interests are ensured.

The Duties of the Ruler and the People from the Viewpoint of the Commander of the Faithful

In a letter, the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) wrote to Malik al-Ashtar, he has mentioned the responsibilities at the very beginning of the epistle. In the said charter, he describes the duties of the Islamic ruler in this manner:“…to collect zakat there, to combat the enemies of Islam and Egypt, to work for the welfare of its people, and to look after its prosperity.” That is, as the governor of Egypt, you have four responsibilities.

Firstly, you have to properly collect the kharaj and taxes and closely attend to the public wealth so that it can properly be spent. Secondly, if an enemy attacks and puts to danger the country of Egypt, you are obliged to fight him and maintain the society’s security. Your third responsibility is this: You are obliged to strive for the people’s welfare. This is a responsibility, which is mentioned in the Islamic government but not so in other political systems. In the rest of the political systems, what is the duty of the government and to which it has to utilize all facilities and talents for its realization is only order and security,1 but as to whether the people are meritorious or not, it is their own responsibility, and it has nothing to do with the government, while in the Islamic government one of the very significant issues is that the Islamic government has to strive and mobilize the facilities of the Islamic country to reform the people. That is, it has to engage seriously in proper training and education in society according to the Islamic values.

Fourth:“to look after its prosperity.” Another duty of the workers of the Islamic government is to develop the cities. While addressing Malik al-Ashtar the governor of Egypt, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) says:“I sent you to Egypt so as to develop that place.”

Things similar to these subjects are mentioned elsewhere in Nahj al-Balaghah. These are rights the people have toward the ruler and can claim from him. In sum, the government is responsible to strive hard in ensuring the material and spiritual welfare of the people. Meanwhile, the right of the ruler over the people is that the people have to assist him in implementing the laws. There are two types of assistance: One is where the ruler issues definite orders based on his discretions. Here the duty of the people is to obey. In correctly implementing the divine laws and decrees and providing for the material and spiritual welfare of the people, they have to render assistance to the government; otherwise, a person or a small group cannot duly do this function.2

The other type of the people’s assistance to the government is an intellectual one. If, for example, the governmental official commits an error, the people must remind or criticize them, or present their suggestion if they have any. This is the meaning of“the mild admonition of the Muslims” mentioned in the traditions.

Elsewhere in Nahj al-Balaghah, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) expresses the reciprocal duties and rights of the people and the leader in this manner:

O people! I have a right over you and you have a right over me. As for your right over me, it is to counsel you, to pay you your dues fully, to teach you that you may not remain ignorant, and to instruct you in behaviorism that you may act upon. As for my right over you, it is fulfillment of (the obligation of) allegiance, well-wishing in presence or in absence, response when I call you, and obedience when I order you.3

So, all the rights of the ruler over the subjects and the rights of the subjects over the ruler can be traced back to the provision of the material and spiritual welfare of man and whatever is really needed by the society. The materialization of this objective depends on cooperation between the people and the government, and thus, some of the burdens can be shouldered by the ruler while some others by the people. As we believe, providing for the material and spiritual welfare of man is not possible except under the blessings of the Islamic laws. Hence, there should be cooperation between the people and the government in the implementation of the Islamic laws.

Questions and Answers

Question: Can the Islamic ruler act against the executive laws of the country? In essence, what is the station of the law?

Answer: What is meant here by“ruler” is sometimes a person while an executive body at another time. What is meant by“executive body” in turn is sometimes only the executive branch while at another time, all the three branches of the government. So, what is meant by“ruler” must be clarified. Probably, the questioner refers to the wilayah al-faqih here, because on top of the hierarchy of power in the Islamic system is the jurist-guardian who is the supreme ruler. Then, it will be asked: Can he act against the current laws of the country or not?

In reply, it must be asked: Which law is referred to as current laws of the country? If it means that Islamic laws mentioned in the Islamic text or the laws which have been enacted with the confirmation of the jurist-guardian, for the Islamic ruler to oppose them has no meaning. Opposition to the Islamic laws negates the credibility of the Guardianship [wilayah] and tarnishes the legitimacy of his rule because in this case, he deviates from justice, for opposition to the Islamic laws means opposition to Islam itself, which perversion is graver than this?

But if the current law of the country is against the law of Islam and what is stated in the Qur’an and the Sunnah or against an order given by the jurist-guardian in accordance with his discretions, such a law has no credibility. It is stipulated in Article 4 of the Constitution that any bill enacted in whatever stage of legislation has no credibility at all if it is contrary to the Islamic laws.

So, if what is meant by the current laws are laws that are ratified, for example, by the former regime in the country or some individuals without the approval, or even against or with the disapproval, of the jurist-guardian, and are treated as laws, the Constitution stipulated that such things have no credibility as they are against the law of Islam. As such, the ruler’s opposition to them is not an opposition to the credible law, but an opposition to a thing which is branded as law, for the legitimate, credible and authentic law is harmonious with Islam. This condition and qualification is stipulated in our Constitution, and if ever it is not stipulated, the Constitution has no credibility in principle. If it is not stated in our Constitution that whatever is contrary to the law of Islam is not credible, in that case we do not regard this constitution as credible. The credibility of the Constitution owes to its Article 4 which states that whatever is against Islam is not credible.

In sum, if the law of the country is credible, which means that it is consistent with the laws of Islam, neither the ruler nor anybody else has the right to oppose it, and if he does so, on the ground of perversion [fisq], he deviates from justice and his Guardianship has no credibility and legitimacy. However, if the law in question is against Islam, that law is not credible for the jurist-guardian to act in accordance with it.

Question: The discussion on the theory of the Islamic government is correct, but in action the question of efficiency of the Islamic government, which is certainly based on evaluation and decisions is raised. How can this question (of efficiency) be solved so as for the government to be responsive to the Islamic society?

Answer: Perhaps, what is meant by this question is that we have a general theory that in the Islamic government the Islamic laws should be observed and at the head of which is the jurist-guardian, and we accept it. But the question is: Keeping in view the methods of execution which require different times and places, how are these laws put into practice?

During the past twenty years, the manner of putting into practice the Islamic laws in the Islamic government has been clear. At the suggestion of the late Imam (may Allah be pleased with him), the Assembly of Experts [majlis-e khobregan] and by ratifying and implementing rules and regulations, the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran was established and reflected in the Constitution. The way of realizing the Islamic government and implementing the Islamic laws is what has been stated in our Constitution. All things stated in the Constitution are not in the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, but their credibility is with the credibility of the jurist-guardian’s signature. Since the eminent Imam (r) and then the Supreme Leader have a favorable opinion about his law, it follows that this law is credible for us and the law has defined the manner of its implementation. Here, there is a need for more specific rules. The manner of implementation of these general laws is determined by the law; that is, the laws that the Islamic Consultative Assembly enacts and must naturally pass through the channel of the Council of Experts so as to ensure their conformity with the Islamic ordinances.

In a nutshell, the ways of implementation are changeable according to the demands of time and space, but these ways must (directly or indirectly) be approved by the jurist-guardian so as to be credible and for the people to be religiously obliged to regard these ratified laws as credible and act upon them. In one of the discussions earlier, we have mentioned that such a guarantee does not exist anywhere else in the world that the people (at least on the basis of their own belief) are bound to implement the administrative laws. Yet, the laws of the Islamic state are religiously obligatory.

As a result, once it is ratified in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, for example, that a certain group or class has to pay a certain amount of taxes inheritance tax, income tax, or any other payment of such taxes, as in the case of khums and zakat, is incumbent upon them. This is the use of the approval of the jurist-guardian because any law approved by him is a decree of God.

The Imam (r) says many times that to abide with the rules of the Islamic Republic, as in the case of other religious laws, is religiously obligatory. Such a guarantee exists only in an Islamic system and this is a great service that the Islamic Revolution has offered to our society. Of course, culturally speaking, this issue has not yet settled well and many people do not pay attention to it since, for many years, the people had been living in a despotic system and they had always tried to circumvent the public laws because they regarded them as a kind of compulsion and tyranny against them. In view of this mental background, our people are not yet accustomed to faithfully abide by the state orders. However, for those who are bound to this affair, this issue will be a very strong executive guarantee.

Regarding what is related to my personal life in social issues, so long as it is credible law and religious proof, I regard myself bound to faithfully act upon it, though it might be against my material interests or personal opinion. Once the Islamic government ratifies this law and it is approved by the Supreme Leader, I consider it obligatory for me to observe it and many people are the same.

Question: Based on the previous discussions, there are three types of relationship between the people and the government: (1) statism, (2) populism, and (3) meritocracy (with leniency). As you have said, in the Islamic government, the only righteous position for legislation is the Divine Sacred Essence. Yet, we know that God does not come to rule over the people. He instead sends the Prophet (S) and the Imams (‘a). Up to the time of the Infallibles, we do not encounter any problem. But after the Infallibles, considering the openness of the gate of ijtihad among the Shi‘ah and the multiplicity of the views of prominent jurists, we are facing multiplicity of views and diversity of understandings.

Now, the first question is this: Which understanding should rule? Or, which understanding is now ruling? On the other hand, if the gate of ijtihad is open as it is and since the Constitution has been codified based on certain juristic understandings, in case of difference in the juristic foundations and understandings of a jurist-guardian with the former jurist-guardian, what should be done regarding the amendment of the Constitution? Secondly, it seems that Islam expresses the principles and foundations, and not the method, of implementation. Method of implementation is a rational affair. Based on the rational understandings of the people and experts of the society, methods anchored in the same Islamic principles and foundations can be selected. Why should we insist that the method of implementation, which is totally time-based, be also deduced by the religious text and then its outcome is for the inefficiencies to be attributed to the religion?

Answer: This is an elaborate question. If we examine all its details sentence to sentence, it will take time. Nevertheless, the gist of this question consists of two points: One is that since the head of the government is not infallible, mistakes will be committed. What is the guarantee that once a person who is not an infallible heads the government will not commit any error?

The reply is this: Are the experts who are responsible based on prevailing foundations in the world to enact the law and determine the methods infallible or do they have differences among themselves? Does the difference among parties existing throughout the world, each suggesting a particular method of implementing the government programs with the aim of providing for the welfare of the people, lead to the negation of the essence of existence of the parties and the government? Their reply is that different parties present to the people their considered views and policies, and whichever garners the highest votes must be acted upon. Is it other than this?

The jurists [fuqaha] have their own differences in religious edicts [fatawa], but in practice, the edict of the one who is superior to all and whose superiority is proved, shall be observed. Is not there any dispute in other issues?! Are not the physicians’ prescriptions different from each other? If you consult two doctors and they give you two different prescriptions, which prescription will you follow? Undoubtedly, it is the prescription of the one who is more proficient. Thus, the existence of differences of opinion among people about many cases is undeniable, and in the end they prefer the view of the majority or the most learned, and act upon it. Therefore, this affair is not a problem pertaining only to the Islamic system because there is difference of opinion everywhere. You will notice in the most advanced countries in the world that there are different parties, and the foundation of the multiplicity of parties is the diversity of viewpoints and difference of opinions. In spite of all this, a party will finally rule through alliance or as the majority and act upon its own view. Once the jurist-guardian is determined, his view is credible vis-à-vis that of others.

The other issue is: Has Islam mentioned the foundations but not the methods, or mentioned some methods but not the others? This discussion has three possibilities. One is that Islam has mentioned the foundations but not the methods at all. The second is that it has mentioned all the methods and left no stone unturned for man. The third is that it has mentioned some methods and delegated the other methods to others (to mention).

At the outset, it must be clarified what is meant by“foundations” and“methods.” By saying that Islam has mentioned the foundations, does it mean that Islam has only ordained that there should be security and that is all?! Or, has it only said that justice must be established? If that is so, it does not bring any excellence for Islam because all people have said so and Islam has not mentioned anything special. No wise person on earth says that justice must not be established in the society. Every wise person dictates that there must be justice. No one claims that security is something bad. All the wise in the world say that security is something good. Therefore, Islam having mentioned the foundations means that it has only mentioned these things and then ordained that the human beings have to maintain security and establish justice through whatever way they can and know.

If this understanding of Islam is correct, it follows that the people have no more need for Islam because they know that security is something good. We are not in need of Islam to teach us the way of maintaining security. God the Exalted explicitly says in the Holy Qur’an,“As for the thief, man and woman, cut off their hands as a requital for what they have earned. (5:38)” This means that one of the ways of maintaining the society’s security is for the hands of the male and female thieves to be amputated.

Of course, those who intend to annihilate religion or confine it to the personal affairs say that these are part of the methods, and methods change-one time it is like this and like that at another time. They sometimes say that 1,400 years ago Islam ordained that the hand of the thief should be cut off. Now, this method is not appropriate and has no use. They say that this kind of ordinances of Islam is like medicine whose expiration date has already passed, and thus, it must be thrown away! This statement implies that“As for the thief, man and woman…” must be removed from the Qur’an because this order belongs to the time 1,400 years ago and now its expiration date has passed! Does it mean anything except denial of Islam? Does denial of Islam have another specific form than this?!

It must not remain unsaid that there is a set of methods of implementation upon which the circumstances of time and space have effect and it is for this reason that Islam has placed them at the disposal of the ruler. In the words of some authorities such as the eminent martyr, the late Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr, they are part of the mantiqatu’l-faragh of the Islamic laws which serve as administrative laws. In cases where Islam has no specific order as to which method of implementation is to be used, the jurist-guardian through consultation and based on the Islamic standards chooses the method which is not against the laws of Islam.

Thus, there are three assumptions here. One is that Islam has mentioned the foundations only, but the other ordinances including the penal laws are the methods of realization of those foundations. The methods have nothing to do with Islam, and even if they are mentioned in the Qur’an, they belong to the time 1,400 years ago and can be of no use today. In our opinion, this assumption is totally inaccurate because this statement means the denial of Islam and setting aside and burying the Qur’an like the burying of medicines whose expiration date has passed.

The other view is that whatever we need is stated in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and there is no more room for legislation and decision-making. With only a bit of reflection, it can be realized that this statement is definitely false.

The correct view is that in some cases Islam has not promulgated a specific law and has delegated this affair to the infallible Imam or the jurist-guardian as the Islamic ruler such as the traffic and driving rules which are not mentioned in the sources of the Islamic legislation; namely, the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah, and yet their existence is necessary for the social order. Therefore, some methods which are not mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and are needed by the society are to be worth followed by the order of the jurist-guardian.

Question: In Islam, what are the preventive measures to ensure that the jurist-guardian does not commit an offense? And in case the jurist-guardian intentionally or unintentionally commits an offence, what measure is undertaken in the Islamic government to supervise and control these cases so as to assure the people?

Answer: One of these measures is that the designation of the jurist-guardian is not done through direct vote of the people. If the election of the jurist-guardian (like the elections of the president and Majlis representatives) is directly delegated to the people, the way for error and mistake will be opened from the very beginning. As you know, in such kinds of elections, even in our country, there is space for cheatings. For example, sometimes a candidate has thousands-and-so votes in a ballot box but it is said that so-and-so has a zero vote! Now, if the jurist-guardian is supposed to be elected in this way, what credibility does it have? To what extent do the people trust such a jurist-guardian?

As such, in designating the jurist-guardian, a precaution is made that the elite or experts trusted by the people designate him to this office so that possibility of committing error reduces, especially given the fact that membership in the circle of the experts has no material and worldly rights and advantages for a person to aspire for it. In accordance with their religious duty, the people make their own investigation and among the righteous ‘ulama’ they choose the more meritorious for the Assembly of Experts. Then, these experts conduct discussions in their meetings so as to see who among them or outside their circle is worthy to be designated. Thereafter, according to the law, the same Assembly of Experts continuously supervises the Leader and his performance so that, God forbid, no error or deviation is ever made.

Therefore, measures and arrangements for this purpose are anticipated, but since the jurist-guardian is not infallible after all, this preventive measure does not mean that there is no probability of the committing of error at all. However, does the jurist-guardian’s fallibility make us say that he has no right to rule and he should not be obeyed? Let us assume that we live during the time of an infallible Imam, the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) for example, and he dispatched a person like Malik al-Ashtar to Iran for an administrative post. Malik al-Ashtar is a person about whom the Imam (‘a) said,“You are to me as I was to the Prophet.” 4 So, the best person to govern a country has been chosen. Yet, Malik al-Ashtar is not infallible and he may commit error.

Does this probability prompt us to say that Malik al-Ashtar and his likes should not be given a responsibility? In this case, is it possible for the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) to directly govern such a vast Islamic land?! Of course, the Imam (‘a) used to give orders to his officials which if properly observed, the territories under his jurisdiction would be duly administered to the extent possible. An illustrious example of these admonitions has been stated in the famous epistle to Malik al-Ashtar. All these are preventive measures so that mistakes and errors are minimized. But not to commit a mistake at all is an impossible thing in the social life of a non-infallible person. Man, except the one under the special divine grace and possessing the quality of infallibility, is always prone to commit error and mistake. Therefore, the best system is the one that takes a measure to minimize mistakes and errors therein. This is anticipated in the political system of Islam and if properly acted upon, we will see that this system is the best one in terms of the realization of objectives.

Question: Whatever is stated in the Islamic government theory (in this discussion or in the previous ones) is all correct and factual. In practice, however, we can observe that the best way of governance which leads to the progress of countries is the same democratic way. It has been made clear that real democracy does not exist anywhere, but the same existing form of government in the West has these effects and benefits in those Western societies. What is your opinion regarding this?

Answer: Before anything else, one has to reflect on the judgment of this respected questioner. What does he mean by saying that the best existing form of government is democracy? Does it mean democracy even where the laws are anti-Islamic? Democratic government which is based on the will of the people may enact any law even if it is against the text of the Qur’an and the Islamic standards. In the opinion of the respected questioner, is such a government the best form of government? Or, by democracy and populism, does he mean democracy within the framework of the Islamic laws and values which is called“religious populism” ?

The falsity of the first notion is clear and definitely this is not what the respected questioner means. But if he means democracy within the framework of the Islamic values, this is the same thing which exists in our Constitution and is supposed to be faithfully acted upon as it is. Of course, as to whether it is observed in a corner of the country or there is violation of it in some cases, these words are raised throughout the world. As we have stated earlier, the fact is that real democracy is nowhere to be found in the world. Not too long ago, it was published in the newspapers that a writer in Egypt has written that real democracy in the world exists only in one country and that is Iran.

Anyway, democracy within the framework of the Islamic values exists in our Constitution as well as in the way of governance of the eminent Imam (‘a). The people have the right to elect their representatives for the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Assembly of Experts and other cases, and to choose a person for the presidential post. But if by democracy it means the second notion in which the people may even abrogate the laws of Islam and as in the words of that gentleman, demonstrate against God if they want, this notion is not consistent with Islam. Who has said that such a government is better than the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Is that government in which annually thirty thousand people are killed as the result of crimes committed therein better than the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran? This statistic has been given by the American government itself that every year more than thirty thousand are killed as the result of crimes. Moral corruptions and social misconducts as the outcome of libertarianism of the Western democracy have afflicted the entire world and the American people in particular. Their own voice scholars, reformers, congressmen, and senators is loud, and corruption, family breakdown, parentless children abandoned in the streets and thousands of other adversities have made their groaning louder. Is this system better than the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Question: God the Compassionate said that if the Holy Prophet (S) acted beyond His order, He would deal with him severely and“We will cut off his aorta of life. (69:44-46)” This legal threat shows in reality the lofty station of the government of God the Exalted. Now, since the Islamic government is the government of truth, why is it that whenever some of its officials act against the law, they are not dealt with severely so that another person, group, or official, in whatever position he is, will not do wrong? In fact, the same inopportune carelessness and indulgences lead to the spread of numerous problems in the Islamic society.

Answer: There are two issues at hand. One issue pertains to the time when an Islamic government can implement properly the Islamic laws. In a short discussion in which it was pointed out, we said that an Islamic government can properly discharge its duty if the people extend help. If the people do not cooperate, the Islamic ruler cannot singly implement the Islamic laws. This incapability is not a fault of the government but that of the people who have left the government and the just ruler alone.

Meanwhile, the other issue pertains to this: During this time, where should there be severity of action and where should there be leniency? This question is a religious decree. Who should determine this religious decree? Based on some of our defective comparisons and pieces of information, we say, for example, that the Prophet (S) did so and the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) also did. Thus, we have to do it. Yet, we have to bear in mind that there are numerous cases where the Imams (‘a) or the Holy Prophet (S) acted differently.

They used to show leniency. Given this, as to where leniency should be shown and where severity of action should be shown is an issue which must be decided upon by the jurist [faqih]. We say that it is obligatory to obey the wali al-faqih. Here is one of the cases where such obedience is necessary. If the wali al-faqih is the most informed of people, the most pious of all and knows best what is for the interest of society, it is he who should decide where severity of action should be demonstrated and where leniency should be displayed.

Yes, there are cases where we imagine that more severity of action is supposed to be shown and maybe we are indeed correct, but the reason for not executing it is that through our own performance we have made the social circumstances in such a manner that the ground for the Leader’s measures is not ready. During the period of rule of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a), did this problem not happen to him many times? During the Battle of Siffin, he wanted to get rid of Mu‘awiyah but the behavior of his people did not enable him to do what he wanted. At the present time, if we had only properly responded to the call of the Leader, the ground for implementation of the Islamic laws would have been paved better. It is better for us to consider our actions and behavior and to see if the behavior we have and the duties we are supposed to do are properly discharged or not.

Notes

1. This is the same thing which is described as the“minimal government” . That is, the government has the least right to interfere in the affairs of people and what the government has to strive to materialize is the maintenance of order and security of society. This outlook is a liberalist one which is founded on the absolute freedom of individuals and except in case of necessity, this freedom should not be limited. According to this outlook, the case of necessity is the same public order and the absence of encroachment on the freedom of others. See 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Section 2.

2. As Imam ‘Ali (‘a) says in Nahj al-Balaghah,

“And it is an obligatory right of Allah over the people that they should… cooperate with each other for the establishment of truth among them. No person, however great his position in the matter of truth, and however advanced his distinction in religion may be, is above cooperation in connection with the obligations placed on him by Allah.” Nahj al-Balaghah (Faydh al-Islam), Sermon 207.

3. Nahj al-Balaghah (Faydh al-Islam), Sermon 34.

4. For more information about the salient features and station of Malik al-Ashtar with respect to Imam ‘Ali (‘a), see Nahj al-Balaghah (Faydh al-Islam), Letter 38 and Saying 435.