Refuting the book "Islamic government" (series of lectures of Khomeini)
October 16, 2018 at 7:04 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm by Mystic.)
I'm going to be refuting this book systematically and show that not only does Khomeini have an essential contradiction in his lectures, but that the Ayatollah and revolution leader ignores majority of clear texts regarding this, and twists unclear ones in his favor.
And not to mention what the Quran says.
For those interested, here is a book with the series of lectures: https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-governm...m-khomeini
He presents it as the primary purpose of Imammate, and appointing Imams, was for establish of government. And some respects, he is right, it was to have a just government. But to have a just government, the reason why you need appointed leaders from God, is because corruption will take place in the religion with respect to interpretation.
He presents an ad hoc reasoning, the Prophet could have just presented the laws in a book, or God could have just presented. Well since, he didn't, than the preservation of the laws and the interpretation of the divine book, was never a big deal.
But obviously it is a big deal, since Islamic government rests on it today without a leader from God.
An unjust interpretation of the laws of Quran and unjust corrupt interpretation of ahadith, and unjust approach to Quran and Sunnah, was the primary struggle of the Imams. In fact, when unjust government became a default reality, the rest of the Imams after Imam Hussain, devoted their lives to educating the masses about the true teachings of Islam.
Tusi rightly said for every hadith in Shiite hadiths, there is the exact opposite, (this is not totally true, just that there is so many with contradictions).
While he was right that Islam is not divorced from politics. What I will be arguing, that, the Jurist doesn't take the position of the Prophet and 12 Imams with respect TO ANY authority they had, including government.
In fact, I will be arguing the model of government has to be democratic anarchy, in the sense, that it has to be mutual council between believers, and not looking for a few elite clergy class to lead them in Quran and Sunnah.
Keep in mind how he dismisses the issue of incorrect laws or teachings or interpretation as insignificant, as the Prophet could have wrote "all the laws" in a book.
This also ignoring the history in which the first 3 Caliphs burned hadith books all in the name of preserving Quran which was already preserved during Prophet time, but rather, it was to eradicate the commentary of the Prophet and the Sunnah, to make way for innovations.
All that, is not important part of history. Islam was not divorced from politics in that time, he is right, but it was misused, and the Sunnah on the attack by 3 Caliphs to the extent they burned hadith books and forbid writing of hadiths.
The many Quran collected was to get rid of any commentary people put in those as well.
And here we have it, all that, could of easily been all solved, if the Prophet just wrote all the laws in the book, but obviously, that laws being preserved and true interpretation is not important for Khomeini at this point.
He needs to convince the scholars to support him for his power hunger in order to defeat imperialism. The subject of how do we what is truly Islam and what is not, thus is diminished for this purpose.
Keep this in mind as I will quote other parts of his so called proofs.
And not to mention what the Quran says.
For those interested, here is a book with the series of lectures: https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-governm...m-khomeini
Quote:We believe in government and believe that the Prophet (s) was bound to appoint a successor, as he indeed did. Was a successor designated purely for the sake of expounding law? The expounding of law did not require a successor to the Prophet. He himself, after all, had expounded the laws; it would have been enough for the laws to be written down in a book and put into people’s hands to guide them in their actions. It was logically necessary for a successor to be appointed for the sake of exercising government. Law requires a person to execute it. The same holds true in all countries of the world, for the establishment of a law is of little benefit in itself and cannot secure the happiness of man. After a law is established, it is necessary also to create an executive power. If a system of law or government lacks an executive power, it is clearly deficient. Thus Islam, just as it established laws, also brought into being an executive power.
There was still a further question: who was to hold the executive power? If the Prophet (s) had not appointed a successor to assume the executive power, he would have failed to complete his mission, as the Qur’an testifies. The necessity for the implementation of divine law, the need for an executive power, and the importance of that power in fulfilling the goals of the prophetic mission and establishing a just order that would result in the happiness of mankind—all of this made the appointment of a successor synonymous with the completion of the prophetic mission. In the time of the Prophet (s), laws were not merely expounded and promulgated; they were also implemented. The Messenger of God (s) was an executor of the law. For example, he implemented the penal provisions of Islam: he cut off the hand of the thief and administered lashings and stonings. The successor to the Prophet (s) must do the same; his task is not legislation, but the implementation of the divine laws that the Prophet (s) has promulgated. It is for this reason that the formation of a government and the establishment of executive organs are necessary. Belief in the necessity for these is part of the general belief in the Imamate, as are, too, exertion and struggle for the sake of establishing them.
He presents it as the primary purpose of Imammate, and appointing Imams, was for establish of government. And some respects, he is right, it was to have a just government. But to have a just government, the reason why you need appointed leaders from God, is because corruption will take place in the religion with respect to interpretation.
He presents an ad hoc reasoning, the Prophet could have just presented the laws in a book, or God could have just presented. Well since, he didn't, than the preservation of the laws and the interpretation of the divine book, was never a big deal.
But obviously it is a big deal, since Islamic government rests on it today without a leader from God.
An unjust interpretation of the laws of Quran and unjust corrupt interpretation of ahadith, and unjust approach to Quran and Sunnah, was the primary struggle of the Imams. In fact, when unjust government became a default reality, the rest of the Imams after Imam Hussain, devoted their lives to educating the masses about the true teachings of Islam.
Tusi rightly said for every hadith in Shiite hadiths, there is the exact opposite, (this is not totally true, just that there is so many with contradictions).
While he was right that Islam is not divorced from politics. What I will be arguing, that, the Jurist doesn't take the position of the Prophet and 12 Imams with respect TO ANY authority they had, including government.
In fact, I will be arguing the model of government has to be democratic anarchy, in the sense, that it has to be mutual council between believers, and not looking for a few elite clergy class to lead them in Quran and Sunnah.
Keep in mind how he dismisses the issue of incorrect laws or teachings or interpretation as insignificant, as the Prophet could have wrote "all the laws" in a book.
This also ignoring the history in which the first 3 Caliphs burned hadith books all in the name of preserving Quran which was already preserved during Prophet time, but rather, it was to eradicate the commentary of the Prophet and the Sunnah, to make way for innovations.
All that, is not important part of history. Islam was not divorced from politics in that time, he is right, but it was misused, and the Sunnah on the attack by 3 Caliphs to the extent they burned hadith books and forbid writing of hadiths.
The many Quran collected was to get rid of any commentary people put in those as well.
And here we have it, all that, could of easily been all solved, if the Prophet just wrote all the laws in the book, but obviously, that laws being preserved and true interpretation is not important for Khomeini at this point.
He needs to convince the scholars to support him for his power hunger in order to defeat imperialism. The subject of how do we what is truly Islam and what is not, thus is diminished for this purpose.
Keep this in mind as I will quote other parts of his so called proofs.
