Talk:Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Controversial:Mullahcracy

This viewpoint about "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" is very political. There are some funny mistakes which show lack of scholar information.

1- This idea is related to Twelverss and not all of Muslims.
2- Although all of Shi'a clerics have accepted this doctorine but there varied viewpoint about its restrictions. Only few of Shi'a scholars agree with political Guardianship of clerics. Most of them limited it to judicial Guardianship.

Unfortunately almost all of the refrences aren't scholastic refrences. For example look at these six sources which refered to in lead: "the defeat of the mullahcracy...would be...historic event."BBC News on Middle East 29 October 2003[http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24022/pub_detail.asp United States Policy toward Iran TESTIMONY Committee on International Relations (U.S. House of Representatives) Publication Date: 8 March 2006 by Michael Ledeen who uses the word ]No weapons in Iraq? We'll find them in Iran Sunday Herald 01 June 2003MENACING MULLAHCRACY Foundation for Defense of Democracies 21 February 2006Middle East: what will emerge from the ruins? Zawya.com 12 August 2006Is it compulsory to be anti-Western to condemn Israel’s war? Turkish Daily News 15 August 2006On cause and effect of a 'disproportionate response' Persian Journal 9 August 2006

Do you refered to these sites in technical or scientific cases.

This article should be written on the basis of Ja'fari jurisprudence and theology of Shi'a. Also you can use some the idea of Westen scholars like Vali Nasr who understand the meaning of Islamic concepts.

--Sa.vakilian 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me you misunderstood. This article is about "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" (ولایت فقیه) and it's a technical and scholar word in Ja'fari jurisprudence. You can make another article and called it mullahcracy and put whatever you want in it.--Sa.vakilian 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV:Limited and illimited Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists

It should be mentioned that that there is two viewpoint among Shi'a clerics from beginning untill now. We should mention welayet-e-faghih doesn't mean rule of religious clerics. The majority of Shi'a jurists believe in limited form of it which include Judiciary and observation but not legislation and executive power. Some of them believe in illimited welayet-e-faqih. It means jurist have the Islamic legitimate right and authority to do whatever Shi'a Imams do in social and political life.

The article does mention that Khomeini revised the idea and advocated total control by Islamic jurists.--Patchouli 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more reliable sources

Because this article is about technical schlar Islamic issue, public media like BBC aren't reliable sources. We should find some sources which have written by some Islamic and secular scholars.

Reliability of sources:

This article is written by Paul Reynolds Paul Reynolds The part of this article which relates to this article is POV and uses foul language, thus it's not reliable.

Inaccessible.

These are good sources:

This is a reliable source about Naraqi's idea.

I propose these ones too:

  • [2] nterview: Dr. Hamid al-Bayati

UK representative of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)--Sa.vakilian 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] irrelative parts

I insist that "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" is a scholar term. A distinct interpretation of this idea result in Islamic government in Iran. Also we can add something about the experience of a this government but we shouldn't write about the situation of Iran. Therefor I Propose to move these parts to another articles:

We can move this part of article to Politics of Iran.

  • "Additionally, as an OPEC member, Iran need not worry even if technocrats don't have the ultimate say on public policy. Due to revenues pouring in from the oil commodity, it can withstand economic sanctions and not fret about "begging foreign investors to come into Iran."[[3]]

This part doesn't relate to "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" anyway. It should be moved to Economy of Iran

  • "Moreover, Islamic education is mandatory in schools. "All public school students, including non-Muslims, must study Islam," according to International Religious Freedom Report 2006 Furthermore, no one born to Muslim parents can enter a university without passing a test on Islam and per sharia no abandoning of Islam is permissible as it constitutes apostasy. As a result, for example, one cannot study physics at a university without having attained a substantial understanding of Islam and Arabic."Baha'is may not teach or practice their faith or maintain links with co-religionists abroad" [4]. his part doesn't relate to "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" anyway. It should be moved to Islam in Iran and Status of religious freedom in Iran.--Sa.vakilian 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the statments made by Sa.vakilian in this section. --Striver 18:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Mullahcracy is a political and religious principle. Mandatory Islamic education is an aspect of the way of governance that is essential for understanding how a mullahcracy affects governmental decisions. Furthermore, the "In practice" section is not exclusively on Khomeini's book.

If you are reading Ruhollah Khomeini's book and wish to strictly include a summary thereof, then please edit Valiyat-e faqih (book by Khomeini).--Patchouli 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Make an article and called it Mullahcracy. Absolutly it's different with Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. I'm certain you aren't familiar with the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists.--Sa.vakilian 10:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Also I should remind you that "Mandatory Islamic education" was not an aspect of this kind of government. During Pahlavi distiny there was Mandatory Islamic education in school. Of course Islamic Republic emphasizes on it more. --Sa.vakilian 10:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That is because Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a Muslim and mullahs had influence in Iran even before 1979 as I found out by reading parts of the Iran's constitution of 1906. Does guardianship of Islamic jurists not require mandatory Islamic education?

I see no difference between velayat e faqih and mullahcracy. (1) They mean introduction of sharia courts with mullahs as judges to decide many issues like family law and personal conduct. The fact that Iran had mandatory Islamic education (though, to a lesser extent) put Iran one step ahead towards this type of government. (2) It allows mullahs to implement whatever they deem in line with Islam like compulsory hijab. There was never a referendum on compulsory hijab or religious police once people voted for theocracy as their form of government.

Hypothetically speaking, if Albania were to adopt velayat e faqih, how would that differ from mullahcracy?--Patchouli 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood. There is wide difference about limitations of guardianship. It's wrong to recognize Sistani's viewpoint as criticism against Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists.[5]--Sa.vakilian 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the unsuitability of the section title.--Patchouli 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mullahcracy

User Sa.vakilian is right. The term Mullahcracy is a neologism and is actually pejorative. The term is in violation of WP:NEO, it states "neologisms should be avoided in articles". This is nothing but Patchouli's trend of POV pushing. He has used other pejorative terms in articles. For example he created the term "Mullah-in-cheif". These are not terms used by scholars and should not be included. Although some people may use the term "Mullahcracy" it is not in referrence to Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (velayat e faqih). User Sa.vakilian has shown that user Patchouli uses sources that are in violation of WP:V. Patchouli has also used blogs as sources on other articles (i.e. the Clerical fascism article). The BBC article he provides mentions Mullahcracy but only in quoting someone else and does not attributes it to Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. I propose removing the term "Mullahcracy" from the article. I will implement this change if there are no objections. Agha Nader 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

It is not enough to cite sources that use the term Mullahcracy. Even if you cite scholarly works and reliable source it won't be sufficient. Please WP:NEO, it states "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Agha Nader 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Furthermore, user Leroy65X unilaterally reverted my edit of removing the neologism without discussing it on the Talk page. Agha Nader 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

The term Mullahcracy is a neologism because it is not in the dictionary and is a new term. Please see [6]. WP:NEO defines a neologism as "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Agha Nader 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I did indeed unilaterally reverted Agha Nader edit. I have made a lot of edits in this article without anyone saying boo, but I should have seen the "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here." In defense of the use of the term I should say that it generates 40,700 hits on google [stupid mistake deleted.]
--Leroy65X 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The term in question is Mullahcracy, not theocracy (I say this because the definition you provided was for theocracy not Mullahcracy). In fact, the word theocracy should be used in this article. But definitely not a pejorative neologism like Mullahcracy. Furthermore, I would take search engine results with a grain of salt. Also, 3,700 of the results were Wikipedia mirrors. Please see [7]. Agha Nader 00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
yes, you are right I posted the incorrect definition without reading it.--Leroy65X 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Mullahcracy appears to be a term used by certain opposition people, their blogs, and other POV sources across the internet. The usage is entirely negative. For some reason many Wikipedia articles use the term, but this is very inappropriate since it is a POV term. To use "mullahcracy" instead of the formal, neutral name for the government is comparable to using "the Great Satan" instead of the US throughout Wikipedia.

I think that the term should be given a brief mention in the "Criticism" section of this article, and be eliminated elsewhere in the encyclopedia. What do y'all think? The Behnam 03:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could be addressed. The problem I have with it is that I don't know which article would be the most appropriate to address this neologism. This problem gives way to the more important problem which is the ambiguous meaning of Mullahcracy. As you know it is not a word found in the dictionary. WP:NEO says "Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia". From my understanding Mullahcracy means an Islamic theocracy (with a negative connotation). I believe the word theocracy is inherently critical in that it conflicts with democracy, and a neologism is not necessarily imperative in showing this. The only added benefit that I see from this addition is that it would inform readers of this new term. I feel this is negligible since that falls into the category of Wikitionary, and not Wikipedia. I propose that you go ahead and add the brief mention and if there are problems we will discuss them. Agha Nader 05:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Yes, it is a neologism. Really it is more of a compromise to mention it here under "Criticism," since it is out there, but not in any reliable sources. It is used primarily in minor POV articles, blogs, and chats (aka 'a certain group'). But I think some people may wonder about it, so I aim to include it under the Criticism here, and eliminate it from elsewhere. Also, Mullahcracy will redirect straight to the Criticism section. All I need now is a good source indicating its usage, but of course, this is difficult since it is a neologism. The Behnam 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader, I think you're overreacting. Mullahcracy obviously means rule by mullahs, it's not in the same league of insult as Great Satan. It is not used by supporters of VF because they find it too irreverent, and prefer more formal and respectful terms like ulama or fuqaha. But VF supporters can't disagree in principle with the idea that Iran is ruled by mullahs, they think it should be. Americans do disagree that their country is satanic. --Leroy65X 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
My "Great Satan" comparison was simply to address that it is not right to use the detractors' terms in description, especially when there are neutral terms available. I added a brief mention under the "Criticism" section. If you could provide something for that "citation needed" it will be better. I see something below by "J. Burke" that would be the perfect citation, but I do not know where it is from. Thanks The Behnam 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, is it all possible that you mention something relevant instead? Or, if you insist that censorship is an issue here, please persuade us first before more unilateral edits. Thanks. The Behnam 22:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to throw my coins into the pot as a third party; I have no interest in this article one way or the other, besides it being the best it can. However, I would like to add my opinion as regards the debated term 'Mullahcracy'.

I don't like it. It's a neologism, seemingly coined by detractors, and as an amateur linguist I'd have to say it feels awkward at best. It just doesn't fit. If there are better accepted terms, I would recommend using those instead.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mullahs in the USA

Anyone want to point out that the US has it's own mullahs: Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Whatsisname Graham etc? Unelected persons who hold tremendous influence owing to their perceived expertise in matteers of religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] moved from main article

Mullahcracy

The word Mullahcracy, literally ‘the rule of the Mullahs,’ is a simple extrapolation of Theocracy, in an attempt to define the very specific mode of governance in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The noun Mullah denotes a Muslim learned in Islamic theology and sacred law, and whilst the term theocracy entered the English language in 1622 as ‘sacerdotal government under divine inspiration,’ it had been redefined by 1825 as a ‘priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power.’ This later emphasis on the human element interpreting law rather than directly receiving it has never been fully accepted, and theocracy carries the stigma of not only its Puritan introduction to the language (a stigma born publicly in the failure of revolution), but also of the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that effectively quashed the aspirations of the Church in Western Europe. Theocracy is a term laden with negativity in popular consciousness, it is redolent of irrationalism and intolerance; a legacy in recent times of the shockwaves caused by the Iranian revolution of 1979, and the instant rhetorical response of an ever more liberal west.

In this context, Mullahcracy begins to appear a derogatory term. Despite Islam’s importance in the long journey to Renaissance, as both repository of knowledge and jewel of the liberal arts, it has not taken part in the past five hundred years of philosophical discussion or scientific innovation. The reason for its resistance to the great reforming movements perhaps lies in the relative youth of the religion, and the geographic barriers of Muslim territories, for despite suffering a schism similar to that of Christianity (but also much earlier in its history), there was no central ruling authority comparable to Catholicism, and therefore little chance of a deep and internalised corruption. There was, in effect, no single authority to resist.

In the later half of the twentieth century the Shah of Iran began a process of modernisation that was also seen be a secularisation of the State, and the public reacted furiously, ending ultimately in the 1979 revolution. Since that time the highest authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran has the Supreme Leader, an Ayatollah, and a figure described in article 5 of the constitution as ‘combining supreme political and religious power,’ and also as, ‘a manifestation of the integration of politics with religion. In the intervening years since the constitution was drawn up, the Assembly of Experts for Leadership has replaced the original Leadership Council, which would operate in the absence of an Ayatollah. In the original constitution the Iranian people could elect a leader (providing a legal basis for the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini), but this responsibility, along with the removal of the Leader if ‘he proves incapable of carrying out his duties, or if he loses the requirements of a leader, or if it becomes clear that he lacked some of them from the beginning,’ now belongs to the Assembly of Experts. The Ayatollah acting as leader is no longer required to be a supreme theological authority (marja`taqlid) that Shia Muslims follow, a fact that seriously undermines the adoption of even the easy code of theocracy when searching for a term to describe the modern Iranian state.

The secular-humanist tradition is a result of internal religious conflict in the west, a logical conclusion, or perhaps a way of coming to terms with, the Judeo-Christian tradition, but regardless of the secularising forces emerging in many Muslim countries, it constitutes a lack of imagination to suggest that Islam is in any way comparable to medieval Christianity, and that it will necessarily follow a similar path to modernisation, albeit in an accelerated way. Iran in particular, has, over the past 27 years, become something of a model Islamic state when viewed statistically, but much of this has to do with compromise on behalf of the Republic with internal non-governmental reform movements. The elections that play such an active role in the lives of Iranians (since 1979, there have been nine presidential elections and seven parliamentary) , were made as a concession to secular forces and though these democratic practices exist in only a limited way, they are taken extremely seriously by the populace. Any description of the Iranian mode of governance should be carefully considered in recognition of her engaged and active populace, for they will be the deciding factor in any movement towards reform.

                                                                                               --J. Burke

12:00, 21 January 2007 194.80.178.1 (Talk) (inserted a broad overview that should be too open to dispute) ->unformatted text not in article format, moved here so those writing on that article can discuss it. --Hurax 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integrating Farhoudk's "misunderstandings" section into main article

I'm attempting to work Farhoudk's comments into the article sometimes replacing the original text as his comments seem to be the best informed

--Leroy65X 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Economic and Education implications of VF

what does Economic implications and Education have to do with the title? With Patchouli is gone, someone should rewrite this.

Maybe even delete it. What economic and educational policy does VF call for other than following the sharia and protecting the interests of the Islamic state? --Leroy65X 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic

The Arabic transliteration (posted on this page prior to May 20, 2007) is not notable enough to merit inclusion. Arabic script is notable enough. Perspicacite 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)