Campusalam

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to search
• Skip to navigation for this section

Shi’a political thinking differs from that of the Sunni in their historical analysis; not least because of they believe that the Prophet designated Ali and his descendents as his successors in both socio-political and religious leadership. This confers on Shi’a political thought a strong emphasis on leadership; Shi’a political thinking focused on the teachings and figure of the Imam, his characteristics and functions. Within Shi’a thought two distinct theories on Islamic governance emerged in modern times, breaking with the anti-political stance of much of Shi’a history. These two concepts are ‘wilayat al-faqih’ and ’wilayat al-ummah’.

Wilayat al-faqih was promoted by Ahmed Al-Naraqi and later adopted and put into practice by Ayatollah Khomeini. This theory argues that authority invested in the Prophet and the Imams has been handed on to the qualified faqih as their viceregent, trustee and successor. This theory represents an attempt to move from one characteristically Shi’a stance of ‘quietism’ or disengagement from secular politics, and towards a religious argument that allows the religious leader a role in government.

Wilayat-al-ummah is an alternative political theoretical framework which was developed by the prominent scholars Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr and Al-Muhaqiq Na’ini. Al-Sadr postulates that governance (khilafah) is a right given by God to the whole of humanity; thus any government only derives its legitimacy from its people. This establishes the right of the people to choose their leaders, and it does not necessarily mean they should choose a religious man to be in power. Although al-Sadr emphasises the need for morality to be part of the conduct of the state, he does not explicitly call for religious leadership of the nation. Na’ini proposed that an Islamic state should be governed by a constitution, as a state is less likely to suffer from dictatorship with a defined constitution than without one. Hence, to have a dictatorial government is, for Na’ini, opening the door for an unjust ruler, which is rejected by the ummah.

Many Shia Muslims hold an intermediate stance which confers the leadership of the community on the plurality of jurists rather than on a single individual.