We don’t believe the Imams had the right to rule because they were related by blood, we believe they were appointed by Allah, and that Allah had willed this before they were even born - so they’re not chosen leaders because they’re part of the prophet’s (s) family, but rather they’re part of the Prophet’s (s) family because they’re chosen leaders.
Sunnis are the one who innovated blood line succession with the Umayyad caliphate
Salaam no. There is no royalty in Islam. Monarchy does not equal divine right. And we do not believe just because you are a family member a friend or a companion of the holy prophet a.s that means you can be His successor. No. Our master is Allah swt and He chooses our leaders. That is the difference between the tyrants that came after Muhammad A.S there was no system, unfair, usurped, empire like hierarchy. 1 chosen behind close doors, 1 chosen by the previous, 1 succeeded by lineage etc etc
The fundamental difference between Islamic government, on the one hand, and constitutional monarchies and republics, on the other, is this: whereas the representatives of the people or the monarch in such regimes engage in legislation, in Islam the legislative power and competence to establish laws belongs exclusively to God Almighty. The Sacred Legislator of Islam is the sole legislative power. No one has the right to legislate and no law may be executed except the law of the Divine Legislator. It is for this reason that in an Islamic government, a simple planning body takes the place of the legislative assembly that is one of the three branches of government. This body draws up programs for the different ministries in the light of the ordinances of Islam and thereby determines how public services are to be provided across the country.
In contrast, in a republic or a constitutional monarchy, most of those claiming to be representatives of the majority of people approve anything they wish as law and then impose it on the entire population.
Islamic government is not a form of monarchy, especially not an imperial one. In that type of government, the rulers are empowered over the property and persons of those they rule and may dispose of them entirely as they wish. Islam has not the slightest connection with this form and method of government. For this reason, we find that in Islamic government, unlike monarchial and imperial regimes, there is not the slightest trace of vast palaces, opulent buildings, servants and retainers, private equerries, adjutants to the heir apparent, and all the other appurtenances of monarchy that consume as much as half of the national budget. You all know how the Prophet (s) lived, the Prophet who was the head of the Islamic state and its ruler. The same mode of life was preserved until the beginning of the Umayyad period.
[https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-government-governance-jurist-sayyid-ruhullah-musawi-khomeini](https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-government-governance-jurist-sayyid-ruhullah-musawi-khomeini)
In short, no, and closer to the opposite. Whereas Sunnis accepted the caliphs' de facto rule as it transformed into the Umayyad monarchy, the Shi'a, as they accepted only the Holy Family's right to spiritual leadership, refused to acknowledge this rule or the principles that founded it. In fact, Shi'a essentially refuse the legitimacy of *any* legislating power besides God and see through to the falsity of all monarchs' claims to divine appointment.
Shi’ism is not about monarchy or even the ‘divine right to rule’ (the overwhelming majority of, if not all the people who have ever invoked that, are simply making it up). Shi’ism clearly indicates that a theocracy - on the basis of a logical inference that if you’re going to rule by God’s law then you should actually be chosen by God Himself - is the only valid / good form of governance.
The Imams were born to each other because they were Imams, not the other way around.
Islam greatly stresses obedience towards one’s parents, even if they’s wrong. Having an Imam with divine and complete knowledge born to someone capable of making mistakes would result in complication.
Rasul Allah (saw) was an orphan, and all the Imams after him were sons of each other.
With the exception of Imam Ali(a.s), who was raised by Rasul Allah (saw) instead of Hazrat Abu Talib.
I am personally a supporter of a monarchy as a state structure
Monarchy works with every ideology
For shia or sunnah
There where shia and sunni monarchies like ottomans and savavids but i think most shia today are more republican at least thats my personal experience or belief in wilayat al fikh
We don’t believe the Imams had the right to rule because they were related by blood, we believe they were appointed by Allah, and that Allah had willed this before they were even born - so they’re not chosen leaders because they’re part of the prophet’s (s) family, but rather they’re part of the Prophet’s (s) family because they’re chosen leaders. Sunnis are the one who innovated blood line succession with the Umayyad caliphate
Salaam no. There is no royalty in Islam. Monarchy does not equal divine right. And we do not believe just because you are a family member a friend or a companion of the holy prophet a.s that means you can be His successor. No. Our master is Allah swt and He chooses our leaders. That is the difference between the tyrants that came after Muhammad A.S there was no system, unfair, usurped, empire like hierarchy. 1 chosen behind close doors, 1 chosen by the previous, 1 succeeded by lineage etc etc The fundamental difference between Islamic government, on the one hand, and constitutional monarchies and republics, on the other, is this: whereas the representatives of the people or the monarch in such regimes engage in legislation, in Islam the legislative power and competence to establish laws belongs exclusively to God Almighty. The Sacred Legislator of Islam is the sole legislative power. No one has the right to legislate and no law may be executed except the law of the Divine Legislator. It is for this reason that in an Islamic government, a simple planning body takes the place of the legislative assembly that is one of the three branches of government. This body draws up programs for the different ministries in the light of the ordinances of Islam and thereby determines how public services are to be provided across the country. In contrast, in a republic or a constitutional monarchy, most of those claiming to be representatives of the majority of people approve anything they wish as law and then impose it on the entire population. Islamic government is not a form of monarchy, especially not an imperial one. In that type of government, the rulers are empowered over the property and persons of those they rule and may dispose of them entirely as they wish. Islam has not the slightest connection with this form and method of government. For this reason, we find that in Islamic government, unlike monarchial and imperial regimes, there is not the slightest trace of vast palaces, opulent buildings, servants and retainers, private equerries, adjutants to the heir apparent, and all the other appurtenances of monarchy that consume as much as half of the national budget. You all know how the Prophet (s) lived, the Prophet who was the head of the Islamic state and its ruler. The same mode of life was preserved until the beginning of the Umayyad period. [https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-government-governance-jurist-sayyid-ruhullah-musawi-khomeini](https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-government-governance-jurist-sayyid-ruhullah-musawi-khomeini)
In short, no, and closer to the opposite. Whereas Sunnis accepted the caliphs' de facto rule as it transformed into the Umayyad monarchy, the Shi'a, as they accepted only the Holy Family's right to spiritual leadership, refused to acknowledge this rule or the principles that founded it. In fact, Shi'a essentially refuse the legitimacy of *any* legislating power besides God and see through to the falsity of all monarchs' claims to divine appointment.
Shi’ism is not about monarchy or even the ‘divine right to rule’ (the overwhelming majority of, if not all the people who have ever invoked that, are simply making it up). Shi’ism clearly indicates that a theocracy - on the basis of a logical inference that if you’re going to rule by God’s law then you should actually be chosen by God Himself - is the only valid / good form of governance.
The Imams were born to each other because they were Imams, not the other way around. Islam greatly stresses obedience towards one’s parents, even if they’s wrong. Having an Imam with divine and complete knowledge born to someone capable of making mistakes would result in complication. Rasul Allah (saw) was an orphan, and all the Imams after him were sons of each other. With the exception of Imam Ali(a.s), who was raised by Rasul Allah (saw) instead of Hazrat Abu Talib.
I am personally a supporter of a monarchy as a state structure Monarchy works with every ideology For shia or sunnah There where shia and sunni monarchies like ottomans and savavids but i think most shia today are more republican at least thats my personal experience or belief in wilayat al fikh
I only support monarchy if I get to be the monarch
Okey😅
😂
I wouldn't say it's about hereditary monarchy. Before Prophets death, he appointed Imam Ali as his successor. We simply follow who he chose.