40 replies to this topic

[newab]

I want just to say <mehdi hashemi> was the brother groom of ayat Allah montazeri not his groom

[repenter]

zanyrulez, on 22 December 2009 - 02:50 AM, said:

Thats my point. Nobody is saying that Khomeini was infallible but they are behaving like he was.

We should all try to reach that impossible state. If not, then what are we doing here?
And the fact that so many anti khomeini members here and elsewhere constantly keep saying "khomeini wasnt infallible" (as if we dont know that already)
gives khomeini credit more than it discredits him. It shows that you have searched very hard to find errors in him but couldn't so you turn to such comments.

[Abdul Qaim]

repenter, on 22 December 2009 - 08:37 PM, said:

And the fact that so many anti khomeini members here and elsewhere constantly keep saying "khomeini wasnt infallible" (as if we dont know that already)
gives khomeini credit more than it discredits him. It shows that you have searched very hard to find errors in him but couldn't so you turn to such comments.

Actually, some of us are neither pro or anti-Sayed Khumayni. There are people here who regard him as a very learned, pious 'alim, but they may not agree with some of his political ideas. It's not a case of "you're either for us or against us." .

I suspect one of  the reasons why many don't spell out what errors they think he committed is because they don't want to offend his supporters, who tend to be extremely sensitive of any criticism direct at him ...

[Aafreen]

It is in deed fascinating that Ayatollah Montazeri, who spent decades fighting the Shah alongside such stalwarts like Ayatollah Khomeini, was only convicted of naivete and gullibity, and found to be 'political' (what ever the heck that distinction means?) after a misunderstanding on political issues. Stranger still is the fact, that Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei have been granted an aura of infallibility, despite claims to the contrary. For example, the acceptance of the ceasefire (originally offered in 1983) in 1988 is seen neither is naivete nor lack of political insight. Although I would consider it to be both. A political leader who does not invoke religion as a means to legitimize his government or the state can afford to be guilty of such naivete as has been done with the Shah or Zardari in Pakistan for instance. Politicians make mistakes and ought to be held accountable for them. In the case of a religious leaders, more loyal than the king supporters, of which there are many, will bend over backwards to demonstrate that no mistakes were made. Hence it is alleged that several bouts of summary executions of opponents were legal and that the responsibility for prolonging the Iran-Iraq lies solely with the world despite evidence that the VF and his close aides urge to export the revolution beyond Iranian borders may have influenced the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands on either side.

The very fact that proponents of the 'Islamic Republic' point out Montazeri's naivete and gullibility in order to explain away his guilt is a severe blow to their own argument for the Islamic Republic/VF. Montazeri was sidelined from his position as a successor to Khomeini not as the result of a system of checks and balances but due to the personal intervention of Khomeini himself. If we are to assume, that had Khomeini died 3-4 years prior to his eventual death, there's every reason to believe Montazeri would have succeeded him. What kind of Iran would we have today is besides the point. But, if we're to believe the Islamic Republicans, a naive and gullible Montazeri would be the Supreme Leader, the Rahbar.

The accusations thrown at Montazeri, particularly through the oft-pasted infamous letter to him by Khomeini, require an elaborate response. Until I have a chance to do that, the above should suffice...

[shabbir.hassanally]

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

motee, on 22 December 2009 - 02:41 PM, said:

Bismill..

Asalaamu Alaykum,

     Your statement is partially true.  The whole spiritual aspect of Wilayatul Faghih lies in the idea of having complete trust in a leader. In the case of our leaders today, Imam Khomeini and Ayatoll.. Khamenei, we understand that they are not infallible and are prone to make mistakes, but we also realize that in this day and age they are the most capable of leading the ummah.  Wilayatul Faghih boils down to the fact they yes, the leader will possibly make mistakes, but those mistakes are very minimal compared to the rest of the choices he makes, this being extremely similar to the idea of a marja'. The majorities of shia, are very familiar with the concept of marja'. A marja' gains knowledge and to the best of his ability makes decisions regarding Islamic laws.  We all follow a marja' knowing that he could make a mistake in some of his rulings, but we give him the benefit of the doubt.  Since the maraje' cannot ask our Imam (atfs) about Islamic rulings, they try their best in making a decision and realize that they can be corrected on Yowm al Ghiyama or when the Imam (atfs) reappears.

     Wilaytul Faghih is a very similar concept, however it includes a political realm.  This is the point of disagreement amongst some of the shia.  Now, I'm not here to convince anyone to agree with WF, but I think it is necessary for those who don't to at least understand where those who believe in it, come from.  It all comes down to this, that Wilayatul Faghih helps us prepare ourselves to become better followers of the Imam of Time (atfs). It gives us the opportunity to practice how to follow.  This is the whole basis of the Islamic Republic. We are practicing how to make a government and how to follow the lead of our Imam (atfs).  Just because our "sun" is not out yet, doesn't mean we need to live in the dark till he comes. We can light a candle. That is what Wilayatul Faghih and the Iranian government is: a candle compared to the sun, but nonetheless it is our only source of light at the moment.  I have given my life as a gift to my leader, Ayatoll.. Khamenei.  If he tells me to fight, I will fight.  I give him liberty over my body, hoping that inshall.. I will do the same when our Imam (atfs) comes. Actually, what I'm truly hoping for, is that he'll even find my life worthy of sacrifice, but in any case, WF is like a training course. When our Imam (atfs) comes, he needs people to be prepared. We are showing him that we can follow and have proof to show it.  

So yes, in a way, we are "acting" like we're following an infallible, in the sense that this is our show of demonstration to our Imam (atfs) that we are ready to follow his lead iA!


All the truth which has been said is from All.. (swt) and that which is not is from myself.

Masha Allah; an excellent post brother.   This is what myself and a number of others have been trying to say for years and years.  Alhamdu lillah; you have put it beautifully.

Aafreen, on 23 December 2009 - 02:32 AM, said:

It is in deed fascinating that Ayatollah Montazeri, who spent decades fighting the Shah alongside such stalwarts like Ayatollah Khomeini, was only convicted of naivete and gullibity, and found to be 'political' (what ever the heck that distinction means?) after a misunderstanding on political issues. Stranger still is the fact, that Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei have been granted an aura of infallibility, despite claims to the contrary. For example, the acceptance of the ceasefire (originally offered in 1983) in 1988 is seen neither is naivete nor lack of political insight. Although I would consider it to be both. A political leader who does not invoke religion as a means to legitimize his government or the state can afford to be guilty of such naivete as has been done with the Shah or Zardari in Pakistan for instance. Politicians make mistakes and ought to be held accountable for them. In the case of a religious leaders, more loyal than the king supporters, of which there are many, will bend over backwards to demonstrate that no mistakes were made. Hence it is alleged that several bouts of summary executions of opponents were legal and that the responsibility for prolonging the Iran-Iraq lies solely with the world despite evidence that the VF and his close aides urge to export the revolution beyond Iranian borders may have influenced the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands on either side.

The very fact that proponents of the 'Islamic Republic' point out Montazeri's naivete and gullibility in order to explain away his guilt is a severe blow to their own argument for the Islamic Republic/VF. Montazeri was sidelined from his position as a successor to Khomeini not as the result of a system of checks and balances but due to the personal intervention of Khomeini himself. If we are to assume, that had Khomeini died 3-4 years prior to his eventual death, there's every reason to believe Montazeri would have succeeded him. What kind of Iran would we have today is besides the point. But, if we're to believe the Islamic Republicans, a naive and gullible Montazeri would be the Supreme Leader, the Rahbar.

The accusations thrown at Montazeri, particularly through the oft-pasted infamous letter to him by Khomeini, require an elaborate response. Until I have a chance to do that, the above should suffice...

Br/Sis "Aafreen"; with the utmost of respect; have you not heard the example of Abdullah ibn Abbas, the companion of Imam Hasan(A), who near the end, when the Imam(A) needed obediance from him, betrayed the Imam(A) through having a lack of solidification in his belief?  Betrayed the Imam(A) and aligned himself with Muawiyyah.  Haven't you heard of Shimr ibn Dhiljawshan?  He was a companion of Imam Ali(A) at one point; and then he became that same cursed person who murdered the grandson of the Prophet(S)?  Haven't you heard of the many companions of the Aimmah al-Athaar(A) who near the end of their lives betrayed that same person who they had at one point declared their Imam?  Subhan Allah the situation of Mr Montazeri is nothing new in Islamic History; however; having said that it doesn't make it any less tragic.

We must realise that at the end of our lives; if we are not on the allegeience with our Imam(AJ), may our souls be HIs ransom, then our entire lives are worthless; our good deeds are irrelavent, and we will be amongst the losers.

Look at the most profound example of this; Shaytaan; he spent millenia, countless countless years worshiping and glorifying Allah, yet at one point he succumed to the illnesses of the nafs; and betrayed Allah, disobeyed his commandment, and in a way made himself an equal to Allah by defying (or attempting to defy) him.  He was then cursed by Allah, and declared as being amongst those who cover up and betray the truth.  Subhan Allah; why don't we think?

Just because someone is wearing an Amameh, just because someone has much knowledge, that doesn't excempt that person from being accountable and having to stay loyal to the Truth; we have many many examples; and they are well known as I have explained.

So please; let us realise the situation of Mr Montazeri; it is no different to that of Abdullah ibn Abbas in the time of Imam Hasan(A) and others in fact; others who betrayed the Truth, and confused the Truth with Falsehood; and rejected the advise of Allah to them.

At this time; our allegience and loyalty should be for the Leader(HA), Imam Khamenei(HA) in the absence of Imam al-Hujjah(AJ), as our respected brother "motee" has so eloquantly explained.  If it is not; then we should prepare ourselves for a fate not dissimilar to that awaits Mr Montazeri; and Allah is the best of the Judges.

As for those who choose to create this schism between "religion" and "politics" - please realise one very important thing; there is no separation; they are intertwined.  An ideology that separates "religion" and "politics" is a very confused ideology and is one that is opposed to Allah; our every action, be it social, personal, private or public are governed by the commandments of Allah; it is not that only our praying and fasting is governed by Allah, but that our policies on international relations they refer to thier own confused thoughts?  Subhan Allah - have you learned nothing from the Prophet of Allah(S)?  Have you learned nothing from Imam Ali(A)?  Have you learned nothing from Lady Zahra(A)?  We are in Muharram, have you not learned anything form the stand of Aba Abdillah al-Husayn(A) and the stances of Imam Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abedeen(A) and Lady Zaynab(A)?

The spiritual and the temporal are connected; the true believers understand this and follow this line; those who wish to create a dichotomy between what they call "religion" and "politics" are nothing more than either confused people or are working for the enemies of Allah.  Islam is a perfect system; to suggest that it is only a "religion" is to insult Islam in the most fundamental fashion, and to understand the basics of Islam; the fundamentals, the Usul ad-Din.  If Islam was split away from politics then tell us; why is the concept of Adl (Justice) so central?  Justice has a portion that is personal, but it also has a portion that is in the realm of the socio-political, the economic realm, etc.

So please; don't give these feable and pathetic statements making claims and suggesting (ignorantly) that religion and politics are separate.  They are not; they are intertwined and CANNOT be separated.

May Allah hasten the return of our Master(AJ), and alleviate our suffering.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

[Gypsy]

shabbir.hassanally, on 23 December 2009 - 09:27 AM, said:

So please; don't give these feable and pathetic statements making claims and suggesting (ignorantly) that religion and politics are separate.  They are not; they are intertwined and CANNOT be separated.

See, here is the problem I have with this statement. Sometimes people use this banner (Islam and politics cannot be separated) whenever someone wants to garner support to his/her cause. But when an Ayatullah disagrees with them, the Ayatullah is classified as naive and should leave politics altogether. That isn't very fair, is it?

I am urging both sides to sit down and address any grievousness that you may have without resorting to name-calling. Please try to listen to the other side, and highlight your differences, in a very calm manner.

[shabbir.hassanally]

Zareen, on 23 December 2009 - 11:01 AM, said:

See, here is the problem I have with this statement. Sometimes people use this banner (Islam and politics cannot be separated) whenever someone wants to garner support to his/her cause. But when an Ayatullah disagrees with them, the Ayatullah is classified as naive and should leave politics altogether. That isn't very fair, is it?

I am urging both sides to sit down and address any grievousness that you may have without resorting to name-calling. Please try to listen to the other side, and highlight your differences, in a very calm manner.

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

With respect Sister Zareen; it is not Shabbir or anyone else who is saying that religion and politics cannot be separated, rather; it is Quran, it is the Prophet(S), it is the Aimmah al-Athaar(A), it is Imam Khumayni(A).   No-one is trying to "garner support" - what is being given is the true Islam of Muhammad(S).

The Islam that was considered perfect by Allah, such that he chose it for us as our ideology (as per the Quranic ayah of Takmil):

Quote

...This day have I perfected your ideology for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your ideology . ...

(Quran, Surah al-Maidah, Ayah 3)

If Islam was deficient, i.e. didn't contain teachings and rulings for any - regardless of how signficant or insignificant - facet of the human condition; then Allah would have been a liar when he said it was perfected; since perfected means without any difficiency.  Since Allah is NOT a liar; we can safely understand that Islam encompasses every single, signficant or insignificant facet of the human condition - that includes politics, sociol interaction, economics, spirituality, etc, etc, etc.

Please try to understand.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

[Ya Imam-e-Zamana Adrikni]

Just one note on brother shabbir's statements. It was Ubaydullah ibn Abbas and not Abdullah ibn Abbas that betrayed Imam Hasan and switched sides to Muawiya. They were brothers, but I wanted to clarify that.

[Noah-]

Zareen, on 23 December 2009 - 11:01 AM, said:

See, here is the problem I have with this statement. Sometimes people use this banner (Islam and politics cannot be separated) whenever someone wants to garner support to his/her cause. But when an Ayatullah disagrees with them, the Ayatullah is classified as naive and should leave politics altogether. That isn't very fair, is it?

I am urging both sides to sit down and address any grievousness that you may have without resorting to name-calling. Please try to listen to the other side, and highlight your differences, in a very calm manner.

No one classifies someone as naive, especially the Ayatollahs. Perhaps, a group of other Ayatollahs described someone like Ayat. Muntaziri as naive. It is not about disagreements and it is not about criticism, and it is not about purity and infallibility. It is about some specific topics where Muntazeri insisted to oppose the majority of scholars including Imam Khomaini at the time.... His criticisms were rejected and they all tried to explain the situation so he could understand them better, not because they were criticisms, but because they did not suit to benefit Islam and Iranian nation at the time. Instead of discussing the legality or illegality of some terms, why no body presents the real situation and the stances of both sides on the matter? From a few letters that I read, it clearly explains that majority of people and scholar stood by Imam Khomaini and most of his points seemed to be logical.

[shabbir.hassanally]

Ya Imam-e-Zamana Adrikni, on 23 December 2009 - 12:52 PM, said:

Just one note on brother shabbir's statements. It was Ubaydullah ibn Abbas and not Abdullah ibn Abbas that betrayed Imam Hasan and switched sides to Muawiya. They were brothers, but I wanted to clarify that.

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

Thanks for that, I always get confused between the two, thanks for the reminder.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

[Shia & Proud]

Shabbir you have not addressed the contradiction highlighted by sister Zareen below:

Zareen, on 23 December 2009 - 11:01 AM, said:

See, here is the problem I have with this statement. Sometimes people use this banner (Islam and politics cannot be separated) whenever someone wants to garner support to his/her cause. But when an Ayatullah disagrees with them, the Ayatullah is classified as naive and should leave politics altogether. That isn't very fair, is it?

[motee']

Zareen, on 23 December 2009 - 11:01 AM, said:

See, here is the problem I have with this statement. Sometimes people use this banner (Islam and politics cannot be separated) whenever someone wants to garner support to his/her cause.

Bismill..

Asalaamu Alaykum,

As mentioned by Brother Shabbir, politics is a part of Islam. Truthfully, I find it a bit tedious when it comes to explaining this to others, simply because I can never see the two separate from one another.  As shias, our entire history, revolves around the fact that the rightful position of governor, to rule and lead the ummah, was taken from Imam Ali and justice has not been established since that time.  If the command of All.. (swt) had been carried out at the time of the Prophet 's death, we as shias, know and have complete faith that our ummah would not be what it is today.  If politics, was not a feature of Islam, then as shias, we should not have an issue with the institution of Caliphate. The Imam's all continued to teach the true Islam, even though they were not given the tile of "Amir al Mo'mineen" by the ummah as a whole.  However, this way of life was not the right system of leadership.  We call ourselves shias for this fundamental reason, to make a clear distinction from other Muslims that we believe the Ahl al Bayt were suppose to have been allowed to rule as the leaders of the muslim ummah.  We have numerous ahadith narrated from the Imams explaining how they believed they were the true leaders who had the responsibility of ruling the "Islamic government" not because of their own desires, but because All..(swt) commanded so.  Now, I've heard the argument that we, as people, do not choose our leaders, All.. (swt) does (sahih), and hence WF is illegitimate.  The matter of WF is very different from that of "Amir al Mo'mineen."   There are many books written about Wilayatul Faghih, I would suggest those who would like to learn more about it, to refer to them.  WF cannot be explained in a page or two, it takes much more than that. But one point, that may aid me in continuing this discussion, is the fact that those leaders, that we agree are required to be chosen by All.. (swt), have the authority to make fundamental changes in Islamic law. Not that those changes are from themselves, but as we know whatever our Ma'soomeen say, is from All.. (swt). So therefore, those chosen by All.. (swt) have the authority and liberty to "make halaal, haraam and make haraam, halaal." In a situation where an Imam does this, we know automatically that that is All.. (swt)'s wish.  In relation to this, the characteristics of Wilayatul Faghih are different and encompass a more limited realm of Islamic Jurisprudence.

Going back to the system of politics in Islam, it is an established idea, and I hope as shias we all agree that, ruling the Islamic Government was the responsibility of our Imams . It was their right, and those who took it from them, committed the worst of crimes.  Here, in our Imams , we see the key point.  The Ma'soomeen all fought in the name of All.. (swt), for the sake of All.. (swt), and to establish the laws that All.. (swt) taught them.  These laws, are not revealed unto us individually, but rather the laws of All.. (swt) are for all mankind. The laws of Islam are just and if they are carried out properly, no being will be oppressed under it.  The Prophet established a government in Medina. A government, that had Jews and Christians living under it, all of whom had to adhere to the Islamic laws of the city.  So, how is it that we accept an Islamic Government, when the Prophet established one, but we don't accept it now? Every step the Prophet takes, becomes sunnah for us. The way the Prophet ate is mustahaab upon us, so how is it, that the government he established, is now suppose to be a dead cause?  Yes, the Prophet was the most just of creations, the living Qur'an and hence the best of governors amongst All.. (swt)'s creations. But that does not imply that we should not continue to carry on his principles.  The Prophet also had the best salaah and the best of sujood, does that mean we should stop praying? We are to "try our best" in every aspect of our deen, till we master it.  

A secular Islam, completely contradicts itself. Islam was "formatted" to be "played out" in a government.  There are thousands of laws in Islam, that can't even be practiced if there isn't an Islamic Government to carry them out. Laws regarding robbery, adultery, marriage, and ect. As Muslims, we are all hoping, praying for the day our Savior (atfs) will come and establish the perfect Islamic Government, that follows the laws of All.. (swt) word for word.  Until then though, we must simply try our best; like every other thing we do in this donya.

In regards to Ayatoll.. Montazeri, to those whom follow him or even have respect for views or how he stood up for them; I simply am saddened for you. To put your trust or your loyalty in the hands of a man like him, is simply a tragedy. I will refrain from using references and various quotes to disprove Ayatoll.. Montazeris actions, since other members are alhamdulill.. making good arguments.  All I will say is that I take pride in having a leader such as Ayatoll.. Khamenei. I walk with pride in this day and age for that sole reason.  My leader, is a servant of All.. (swt) and a humble soldier of Imam Mahdi (atfs).  In every situation, he has akhlagh. Even when faced with the lowest of men, he still talks with respect.  He got his akhlagh from Imam Ali and  learned the eloquence of speech from Hadhrat Fatemah (sa).  Ever since his "fall out," Ayatoll.. Montazeri has sat in a corner and bashed not only the concept of Wilayatul Faghih, but every individual who supports it.  I have listened to many of his speeches, all I can conclude, is that he is a bitter man, who has no Islamic Adab.  Any and everything that came to his mind, he would say, with no regard to proper language.  In the past, while listening to him, all I could think of was what will he say when he is questioned on Yowm al Ghiyama.  Like my dear Leader, Aytoll.. Khamenei said, maybe the struggles he made before the revolution for Islam, will help lessen the burden of the other actions he committed in his later years."  All.. A'laam.

Aafreen, on 23 December 2009 - 02:32 AM, said:

Montazeri was sidelined from his position as a successor to Khomeini not as the result of a system of checks and balances but due to the personal intervention of Khomeini himself. If we are to assume, that had Khomeini died 3-4 years prior to his eventual death, there's every reason to believe Montazeri would have succeeded him. What kind of Iran would we have today is besides the point. But, if we're to believe the Islamic Republicans, a naive and gullible Montazeri would be the Supreme Leader, the Rahbar.

Ayatoll.. Montazeri did not have a “fall out” with only Imam Khomein or Aytoll.. Khamenei.  I assure you, if he was not dismissed by Imam Khomeini and was chosen as Wilayatul Faghih, the moment he started to drift away from the principles of the revolution, he would have been dismissed by both the ulama and the people.  None of our great alims in Qom, have had any contact with him for many years and as we have seen in the past few days refuse to have any contact even in his death.  The leader's position is not as simple as you make it seem.  A group of very knowledgeable alims choose the leader based on various attributes. I have no doubt that great scholars, like Ayatoll.. Jannati and Ayatoll.. Javadi Amoli, would not hesitate in fighting against Ayatoll.. Montazeri if the situation you mentioned happened.  I would say, "Naudhubill.."  but alhamdulill.. that's not going to happen.  Also note that the majority of the alims, openly spoke out against Ayatoll.. Montazeri.   The Islam that was taught to us by Imam Husayn lies in the chest of great alims like Ayatoll.. Javadi Amoli.  When he leaves this world, he will take secrets with himself that we will never know of.  He is my very dear teacher, who is one of the most valuable treasures of our religion.  When someone like Ayatoll.. Javadi Amoli, considers Ayatoll.. Khamenei to be his leader, I find myself humbled in the face of Wilayatul Faghih.

As a matter of fact, a piece of news that ties into this topic very well is that a few hours ago, on the Iranian news channel, it showed the demonstrations in Qom, where people came out to protest against the protests that people had during the jenaza of Ayatoll.. Montazeri.  Ayatoll.. Noori-Hamedani was voice of the demonstration, who in simple words, said if the "pro-montazeris" dare raise havoc again, the "pro-Wilayatul Faghihies" will not respond kindly.  All I have to say is, “Ayatoll.. Noori-Hamedani, just give us the green light and were on it iA!”

shabbir.hassanally, on 23 December 2009 - 09:27 AM, said:

Masha Allah; an excellent post brother.  

I appreciate your response; but I'd rather stay a sister.  You got me a bit worried. Makes me wonder how I come off to others...?



All the truth which has been said is from All.. (swt) and that which is not is from myself.

Edited by motee', 23 December 2009 - 08:11 PM.

[skylight1]

^

not much to add, thank you for your post sister -

[Ehsan]

In His Name, the Most High
Salam

Zareen, on 23 December 2009 - 11:01 AM, said:

See, here is the problem I have with this statement. Sometimes people use this banner (Islam and politics cannot be separated) whenever someone wants to garner support to his/her cause. But when an Ayatullah disagrees with them, the Ayatullah is classified as naive and should leave politics altogether. That isn't very fair, is it?

I find your question quite paradoxal sister Zareen. Why? As when a person propagates a secular version of islam by using political means he in fact opposes his own message! On one hand he says that "Islam and politics should be separated" on the other hand this message is used politically. This shows that Islam and politics cannot be separated!

I believe there is a matter of sincerity. If a person sincerly with pure intentions and investigations has reached the conclusion that islam is secular - that person will sooner or later reach the Truth of the matter as the Quran has promised to guide those who strive for Allah. But when the Truth has been presented to them in a convincing way and they reject it, in that moment they have rejected a portion of the Truth which will influence them and move them further from perfection.

When it comes to religious or political leaders their impact on the masses are far greater then laymen. Common people who don't read and reflect as much trust their judgement, but if their judgement is proven to be wrong and they commit mistakes in their judgements time upon time it is not more then just that they are removed from their post until their condition is reformed and improved. Don't you think anything other then this would be unfair sister?

Salam
Ehsan

[Gypsy]

Nice to see you again bro Ehsan. You haven't been posting much in the poetry forum    Do you go to other web forum? Sorry..!  

I use the word unfair because I don't think it is necessary to attack someone's marja in a very ugly way.

So what if Ayatullah X disagrees with Ayatullah Y and Ayatullah Z disagrees with both Ayatullah X and Y.

Both sides need to be sensible and discuss these disagreement rationally and nicely without calling each other traitors or oppressors or enemy of Islam or friend of shaytan.

I know politics usually makes you go   but we just cannot be extremely rude to people who disagree with us politically.

[snowabc]

Montazeri's home was looted by the Basij. Obviously something is very wrong with the Iranian regime and it's clerics.