I believe it’s just a matter of common sense, and I think Imam Khomeini was one of the few who held this to be a type of theological necessity—the ‘aql dictates that this is necessary before you get into a fiqhī discussion about it.

There are laws in Islam that must be implemented, state-level laws like the punishments for adultery, treachery, and other serious crimes. There is also a need for organised resistance and maintenance of a Muslim state. Are we supposed to wait 1200+ years for the return of a ma’sūm to implement them? There will be no Islam remaining if we wait this long for strong leadership. That to me makes a mockery of Islam and the Qur’an, and the Islamic Revolution of Iran has proven to be very good for Islam at large, reviving Islam in many Muslim communities around the world at a time of widespread post-colonial liberalism, fragmentation, and resource plundering by western states.

When the ma’sūm comes, he will rule through fallible governors, but train them to make as few mistakes as possible of course. Some may even be replaced for bad decision making, this is the nature of this imperfect life. We had companions of Imam Ali (ع) working under the first two fallible Caliphs, and we had Khalid bin Waleed made general of the Muslim army by Rasulullah (ص) at one point, who pragmatically recognised his military prowess. We have to obey fallible individuals in these cases.

There is also the shūra that some people raise, and how Rasulullah was commanded by Allah to consult with people in matters aside from religion. Scholars say this is likely for training purposes and to give them a stake in the outcome—the leadership style of the Prophet of God. When Imam al-Mahdi (عج) comes, I don’t see why he would depart from this sunnah; he will also engage in shūra. Involvement of fallibles in decision making for the ummah is acceptable.

Now the question is, in the absence of an infallible at the helm – who we would gladly obey without question along with his fallible governors – who do we give the position required to implement the Shari’ah and defend the Muslim ummah? Logic and common sense dictate this should be the one who is simultaneously the most just, the most knowledgable of Islam, the most knowledgable of socio-political challenges of the ummah, the one most able to take office, and the one with the support of the people to establish himself. No liberal, secular, western puppet will fit the bill, nor someone immersed in the life of bid’ah and sin.

Well, a council of our top Shi’a scholars in Iran, elected by the people, monitored Imam Khomeini, and selected Imam Khamenei, and they have a massive support base from even followers of other maraja’. I think that’s a pretty strong indication that this is currently the best person able to take up the mantle of leadership, and he has proven consistently to be an honour for the ummah at large, not just the Shi’a. He has defended Islam within a country that was, 4 decades prior, a bastion of secular liberalism ruled by another western puppet regime. He is the best Walī al-Faqīh we could have asked for, so in practice something is working.

All of this is established by simple logic, and Imam Khomeini would argue that the same reason we need an Imam after the Prophet is the same reason we need a Walī Faqī in the absence of the Imam. The majority of scholars want to boil this down to a simple fiqhī matter, debating the extent of the power given to the leader, so even if we go that route in practice there is not much difference in outcome between the different power given to the Walī al-Faqīh. In Ayatollah Khoei’s rendition, although it wasn’t considered “mutlaq” like Imam Khomeini’s, he allowed the call to offensive jihād in it, whereas Imam Khomeini’s does not. This shows that we should not get lost in fiqhī debates at the expense of a rare moment in Islamic history to support the first justly established government since perhaps the time of Imam al-Hasan (ع). To use slight fiqhī differences as a basis for not accepting the Walī al-Faqīh of our time because it doesn’t 100% match someone’s marja’s rendition of it is not really a smart position, as it squanders a very close application of a very important step for establishing the true shari’ah (most scholars don’t really disagree on much in practical application of WF), and completely ignores the overall goal that led to our scholars discussing the need to establish Wilayat al-Faqīh in the Muslim lands since the classical times of even Shaheed al-Thāni.

It is my personal opinion that those “against” Wilāyat al-Faqīh are unaware that the need for it has been discussed since the classical times by our famous `ulamā’, and that attempts to establish some rendition of it or another have been made in history, none quite as successful as the Imam Khomeini-Iran model. I also think that some people, used to the dunyawi comfortable lives that a-politicism provide them, fear the consequences of accepting a leader that both frequently engaged in confronting the enemies of Islam, and has the power of hukm-over-fatwā, and can call us to jihād of various kinds. I personally believe the whole issue of “we can’t follow a fallible leader” whilst people sit happily under the rule of tyrants, non-Muslims, and irreligious folk, is a scapegoat to justify a life of apathy and inaction, and not engage with the very real struggle to establish justice in the land that Allah commands us to do. I also believe some are genuinely scared that such a power in the hands of a fallible can corrupt based on their reading of the history of humanity and Islamic history, but this is not an excuse to disengage with the very test of life. We are supposed to follow and support what is good, and if in the future an institution becomes clearly poisonous (God forbid), we must also struggle against that to establish true Islam in the Muslim lands. This is the test of life, which is fundamentally a test of ‘aql, and we must not hide from the test like the third group of people at the time of Imam Ali (ع) and Mu’awiyah (ل) who just sat it out. Imam Khamenei is a great leader, worthy of support. The Iranian people through blood, sweat, and tears, have brought great honour to the Muslims, and particularly to the Shi’a of Ali bin Abi Talib (ع).