Fate of Religious Dues After the Marja's Death

One of the most important and seemingly unsolvable problems of the current taqlid mechanism is: upon the death of a marja', what happens to the funds that people have paid to him under the headings of khums and other religious dues? Has God or the Infallible Imams (a) determined that these funds should go to the marja's heirs, be placed at the disposal of the ruling system, or that the marja' can appoint an executor for how these dues should be spent? The author's inquiries and searches regarding whether the Infallibles (a) — for example, Imam Sadiq (a) despite having thousands of students — ever said anything about this important issue and resolved it have so far yielded no result. The ruling system may also be non-Islamic at times, and it is unlikely that delivering such large amounts of money to them would be without problems.

If the marja's appointed executor has absolute authority, the question arises whether such authority is truly justified for him. People, with great difficulty and trouble, and for example, through the testimony of a group of experts, have ultimately concluded that a certain person is the most learned (a'lam); that is, he is more precise and worthy in determining subsidiary rulings than others, and his opinion is authoritative for them and does not need examination. But is his behaviour also authoritative? Can it be said that in choosing an executor, he also discerns better than others and is unlikely to appoint an unworthy person to be responsible for and in charge of these funds? Let us assume that while the marja' is alive, he personally supervises the correctness of his agents' actions and prevents any deviation. However, after the marja's death, are people obliged to continue trusting the persistence of the executor's conditions and qualifications and allow the enormous remaining sums to be distributed in whatever manner he deems appropriate? The marja' may also specify the manner of spending in his will, but determining the instances will still rest with the executor. That is, the marja' may will that a specific percentage be given to the poor, but determining who qualifies as poor will be with the executor.

In other words, one might generously assume that great knowledge and high morality necessarily lead to proper management. But the point is that when people pay religious dues to the marja' himself, they trust his own knowledge and piety. Are they also required to have the same trust in the person the marja' introduces after himself to manage these funds? If the answer is yes, and high levels of knowledge cause the marja' to inherently come to know others and their future changes, then it would be better to ask the marja' from the outset to introduce the next marja' so that people may trust him. And if the answer is no, what is to be done with that enormous amount of funds? Is it right for a faithful person to close his eyes to this problem and not think about it, assuming that God willing the heirs will be pious and will prevent all slips and the funds will be spent correctly — and if not, see no problem with it, considering it normal alongside all the other financial abuses that occur in the country?

When the situation above is presented as a "source of corruption," defenders of taqlid call it merely a "possibility of corruption" — meaning the executor might err, or might not. However, "possibility of corruption" only makes sense when there is a mechanism for identification, supervision, and correction. In this issue, however, huge sums of money are placed in the hands of individuals without clear and formal accounting, without supervision, and without a claimant or plaintiff, in an atmosphere where no one dares to cast the slightest doubt on the marja's household and associates. This creates a situation far beyond mere "possibility of corruption." Some individuals may even enter the marja's household precisely with this motive and hope. Given the very large sums involved, this situation itself — regardless of whether actual misuse occurs or not — is a source of corruption.

Perhaps one of the reasons the Infallibles (a) severely forbade taqlid was this very issue. The work of God and the Infallibles (a) is not without accounting and loose. A rational society also does not place its wealth where its fate remains unclear. It may be said that once religious dues are specified, they are no longer part of the muqallid's property and he need not worry about their fate. Yes, that is true. But is this not society's wealth? Does the muqallid have no responsibility toward the fate of society's wealth and its proper and reliable management?

Parent page: What Harms Does Taqlid Have

Return to: Table of Contents