219 replies to this topic

[Marbles]

^ Marbles, if he was your leader, then you would take his deputy as your leader as well. Unfortunately, you have failed to understand that, like the people of Kufa betrayed Hz. Muslim , you have betrayed Ayatullah Khamenei (ha).

His deputy? Who made the Supreme Leader of Iran his deputy?

I only recognise 4 direct deputies of Imam Mahdi.

[Shiatullah]

^ Can you ask one of them or him himself a question for me?




Hasan Sajjad
President

[Bonafide Hustler]

bahahahahah loving the polll results, quite surprising considering the amount of ignorant blind followers on this board.

[Marbles]

^ There you go. I have evened it up with poll at 20/20 at this humble moment.

[Bonafide Hustler]

lmao at the rate the current muslim ummah is getting itself rid of this blind fold of brainwashed ignorance, the self proclaimed righteous followers will be far and few between Inshallah. But then eventually they will be on sc claiming to belong to the extreme momin minority which signifies the end of times.

[Shiatullah]

^ Can you ask one of them or him himself a question for me?




Hasan Sajjad
President

[SoRoUsH]

^ There you go. I have evened it up with poll at 20/20 at this humble moment.

Now's it's 21 NOs.

You know what that means though, right?

There are at least 21 ignorant Zionists, who take orders from MKO, CIA, and the devil himself, who are not true Shias, and instead are hypocrites and followers of Yazid.
There are at least 21 people, who are dumb enough to have been manipulated by the western media, and who are dumb enough to take PressTV as a reliable source for all true muslims.
There are at least 21 people on this forum that have a hidden agenda and are hoping to destroy Islam.



Did I miss anything?

Oh wait...
If there are any Persians, who voted no, they must be a bunch of "bache gherti" or "bacheh soosool," who want a western lifestyle in Iran, and are supporters of green criminals, who are obviously not true muslims and are hypocrites.



I think that covers it all.

[Muhammed Ali]

I think it is sensible to support him politically. Muslims need to unite behind one leader and he seems to be the natural and the best choice.

[repenter]

Sweet, the polls show that once again shias support the wrong side. History repeats itself i guess.

But who knows, things might change. Let´s give it a couple more weeks.

[Maryaam]

Now's it's 21 NOs.

You know what that means though, right?

There are at least 21 ignorant Zionists, who take orders from MKO, CIA, and the devil himself, who are not true Shias, and instead are hypocrites and followers of Yazid.
There are at least 21 people, who are dumb enough to have been manipulated by the western media, and who are dumb enough to take PressTV as a reliable source for all true muslims.
There are at least 21 people on this forum that have a hidden agenda and are hoping to destroy Islam.



Did I miss anything?

Oh wait...
If there are any Persians, who voted no, they must be a bunch of "bache gherti" or "bacheh soosool," who want a western lifestyle in Iran, and are supporters of green criminals, who are obviously not true muslims and are hypocrites.



I think that covers it all.

Yep, think so......

[fyst]

^ Can you ask one of them or him himself a question for me?

You didn't answer the question. You said, "you would take his deputy as your leader as well". Now when did Imam Mahdi [a] make Sayyid Khamenei "his deputy"? It's a pretty simple question, so try not to avoid it this time.


As for your irrelevant questions, I don't mind answering them, even though they have nothing to do with this topic.

"Can you ask one of them" -- No, they are dead. Can Sayyid Khamenei ask them questions from me?

"or him himself a question for me?" -- No, I don't have his contact info. But can Sayyid Khamenei ask him a question from me?

[Nocturne]

What does the Ayatullah's office say about being Wali Amr Al-Muslimeen?

or Wali Amr Al-Muslimeen e Jahan?

[shiasoldier786]

The title of ''Wali Amr Al-Muslimeen'' doesn't mean we that we are comparing Ayatollah Khamenei (HA) to the infallible Imams in any way whatsoever, its just an acknowledgement to show that he is currently the best suited candidate to deal with the affairs of the Muslim ummah.

After the death of the Holy Prophet (SAWS), we argue the need for having Imams to guide us. How different is that to having the need for a leader today, in the absence of the 12th Imam (ATF)?

The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence, and Ayatollah Khamenei was elected by, and is supervised by the ''Assembly of Experts'', which is a body of 86 top elected Mujtahids...

[fyst]

The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence

Please explain with references -- Imam Mahdi asked us to follow the `ulemah in what respect? For issues of fiqh, or in all issues, including non-fiqhi ones?

[shiasoldier786]

The Evidence

The evidence proving Wilayat al-Faqih, the Authority of Faqih may come from three distinct sources:

1. The judgement of reason

2. The examples and traditions of the people of wisdom and their accumulated experiences

3. The texts of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.


A. The Judgement of Reason

The judgement of reason is based on the following considerations:

1. Man by nature is a social creature, driven to cooperation and social life.

2. Great differences and disputes may emerge among individuals due to different ideas, psychological characteristics, physical conditions and capabilities.

3. A great deal of conflicts take place among people because of differences of views, interests, aims, and ambitions, which may lead at times to violent confrontation.

In the light of the above, it is obvious that if people were to be left to themselves, the outcome would lead to corruption, discord, violence, chaos, and destruction of life and property. The only way, therefore, is to save the society through an authority, which can exercise effective control over the people's ambitions and runaway-uncontrolled desires. The Holy Quran relates the story how the angels expressed their doubts about the wisdom of the creation of Adam:

"And when thy Lord said unto the angels: ' I am about to appoint a deputy on earth,' they said: Wilt Thou place therein one who will cause corruption therein and bloodshed?". . (2:30)

Such reaction of the angels was, of course, justified in the light of what they knew about human nature. However, what they were ignorant of was God's plan to appoint spiritual leaders and guides to save human society from corruption and chaos and to establish justice. God answered them: " . . . I certainly know that which you do not know not." (2:30)

B. The Practice and Traditions of the People of Wisdom (Sirat al-'uqala'):

Since the dawn of civilization there has never been any human society without rulers and administrators. Whether voluntary or imposed, subjecting the society to the authority of a guardian or ruler has continued until the present age and will do so as long as civilized society continues to exist. All this we owe to precedents established by the people of wisdom, based on long and hard to achieve experience. In other words, experience, as well as reason; have taught us that every society needs a government and a governor. And having been convinced of its necessity the people of wisdom have practically confirmed the necessity of the existence of State. It is solid evidence the 'practice of the people of wisdom' (Sirat al-'uqald') has provided, which distinguishes it from purely rational evidence (dalil al-'aqli).

C. The Textual Evidence (Adillah al-Naqliyyah)

Textual or canonical evidence to the effect that society stands in need of a Wali, guide and leader, are found in abundance. What follows is just a small sample of the verses and Ahadith that provide such evidence.

1. Consider the following verse of the holy Quran:

"Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as Warner and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed".... (2:213)

It is indicative of the fact that there was a time when human beings had not yet formed complex communities. At that time, they had not yet been given any divine law (Shari’ah), and were left to conduct their affairs on their own judgement and commonsense. This state of affairs continued until men formed small communities. Then conflict between communities developed due to conflicting aims and objectives. There was the need for guardianship to remove these conflicts. Allah appointed His messengers and gave man the Scriptures, which contained comprehensive programs and laws for social life to solve their differences and to resolve their conflicts. There is no contradiction between what has just been said and the belief that man has never been without religion since his creation, because Shari’ah is part of religion not all of it. Religion consists of beliefs and certain forms of worship, and has been much the same since the time of Adam (a.s). Shari’ah is a collection of all the rules and regulations governing man's personal, social, economic, political and other affairs. According to the holy Quran and the traditions of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s) religion or Din has remained the same during all phases of human history. Islam, submission to God has always been the religion. "Indeed the (only) religion with God is al-Islam." ... (3:19). There are, on the other hand, five different Shari'ah's, beginning with that of Noah (a.s) and ending with that of the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w).

2. Consider another verse, which is similar to the one quoted above:

"We certainly sent Our messengers with clear proofs and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance that mankind may uphold justice".... (57:25)

3. Also consider the following verse: "There were... Messengers with good tidings and warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers."... (4:165)

4. Al-Imam al-Sadiq (a.s) has said: "God is greater in majesty than that He should leave the world and its inhabitants without a leader and guide to uphold justice."

5. Al-Imam al-Sadiq (a.s) was asked, "Is it possible for God to leave a society without a guardian?" He answered: "He never did so."

6. Al-Imam al-Rida (a.s) has said, "The leader, the guardian, and the Wali of the Ummah is the means for protection of the faith and the guarantee for the integrity of the social structure, the development of the economy and the implementation of the Divine Laws. His existence ensures the security of the frontiers and enforcement of the laws of God; it procures the Divine rights, maintains the integrity of the faith, and safeguards the honor of Muslims. He may, however, cause sorrow and anger for the hypocrites and disappointments for the unbelievers. The Imam of the Ummah is the untiring shepherd of the people, a capable statesman and administrator of their affairs, whose will and determination are impervious to exhaustion and weakness."

7. Of the verses of the holy Quran dealing with the prophets and their authority over human society, there is the following verse dealing with God's appointment of Abraham al-Khalil (a.s) as the Imam and leader of mankind:

"He said: ' I have appointed thee a leader for mankind.".... (2:124)

And God, we are told, made David (a.s) His Khalifah, steward and bestowed upon him the authority over society: "David, We have set thee as a deputy on earth; therefore judge aright among people".... (38:26)

Solomon (a.s) asked God to grant him authority and dominion unsurpassed by any other man: ... "Bestow on me authority such as will not belong to any after me." (38:35)

He gave Moses the mission of forming a State extending over the eastern and the western parts of Palestine: "We made the nation who was oppressed to inherit the eastern parts of the land and the western parts thereof which We had blessed." ... (7:137)

http://www.islamic-l.../waliefaqih.htm

Please explain with references -- Imam Mahdi asked us to follow the `ulemah in what respect? For issues of fiqh, or in all issues, including non-fiqhi ones?

Who else would you want to follow in non-fiqhi, political issues? Secular leaders who are clueless about Islam I guess.

[IloveImamHussain]

The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence

I think tnat applies only to FIQH.

Apart from that, the Quran also asks us "AFALA TAFAKKAROON ? "

[fyst]

The Evidence

Where exactly in that cut-and-paste job of yours does it say that "The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence"???

Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Who else would you want to follow in non-fiqhi, political issues?

That is irrelevant. You said, let me remind you, that "The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence".

Now I'm asking you to back up what you said with references.

Show me where Imam Mahdi [a] has asked us to follow the `ulemah in non-fiqhi issues.

[repenter]

Where exactly in that cut-and-paste job of yours does it say that "The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence"???

Oh, that's right, it doesn't.



That is irrelevant. You said, let me remind you, that "The 12th Imam has asked us to follow the ulema during his absence".

Now I'm asking you to back up what you said with references.

Show me where Imam Mahdi [a] has asked us to follow the `ulemah in non-fiqhi issues.

I didnt bother to read what the brother wrote, but somethings are pretty much logical and can be answered by asking a few counter-logical questions

1. Did Allah make Quran for ALL manking, in particular muslims? yes

2. Out of 100 ayats in the Holy Quran, 90 of them is about social or political issues, only 10 is about figh and personal issues. Should we ignore 90% of the Quran because Imam Zaman isnt here yet?

Also do you think that Allah would leave us without someone to take charge of these issues in the absence of Imam Mahdi?

No, that wouldn´t make sense. Issues such as Jihad, national security for a huge number of muslims, and other social issues should be under the control of a brave and smart faghi. it should be under the wilayat of a faghi(that himself is under control of other ulamas)
Take Iraq as an example now. Let´s pretend Ayatollah Sistani says to his followers to participate in Jihad. On the other side Moqtada and other ulamas say no, no jihad. The split it will cause would be ridiculous and make shias look humiliated and incapable. The system of Wilayat Faghi causes unity and determination as well. Of course you will find people who will go up against it, but when hasn´t that happened in history?

[MajiC]

It should come as no surprise that there will be some Muslims who will be opposed to the (political) leadership of Sayyied Khameini. This is merely history repeating itself. It happened with the infallible leaders and there is no reason why it should not also be the experience of the fallible leaders. If infallibles were not able to satisfy every soul how then should fallibles be expected to satisfy all inclination?

It happened during the rule of Imam Ali with the Kharijites, it happened to Imam Hussein when his followers, the Kufans, betrayed him and it is it is said to happen again at the time of the Imam’s reappearance, where many who claim to be his followers will show reluctance to join him.

Sayyied Khameini is no doubt prone to error (i.e. it is possible for him) but certain decisions, such as putting a scholar under house arrest, should not be immediately and solely construed as stemming from unjust intentions – this is a simplistic and casual observation of things. An alternative possibility, which deserves equal consideration, is that such a decision could be based on wisdom and the greater good of the Islamic nation. As an example, non-Muslims consider the Islamic penal code to be harsh while Muslims, who are aware of the facts, strive to explain the underlying wisdom and reasoning. A child-like, casual and superficial review of Islam's penal code, on the part of some non-Muslims, is clearly not a conclusive analysis as far as we Muslims are concerned. In the same way, both fallible and infallible leaders will occasionally be faced with people who are either rebellious by nature or sincere but inattentive to facts and reality. So long as such a leader is not blatantly un-Islamic and un-Just then we ought to be more perceptive of the other possibility.

All in all, no person, however just, can satisfy all inclinations. Rather, it’s people who may need to reflect on rebellious inclinations and seek to understand the possibility of wisdom underlying the decision of a leader who is otherwise not blatantly un-Islamic and un-Just, such as Sayyied Khameini. Even if, for argument sake, we (or the assmbely of expert scholars) discovered that the leader was mistaken in some instance, this does not justify outright rebellion to his rule but criticism at most. If we were to apply this principle of rebellion so hastily and capriciously then it would be practically impossible for us to designate a lasting leader, whether fallible or infallible (due to misunderstanding).

apba

Edited by MajiC, 22 January 2010 - 08:30 AM.

[Marbles]

Sayyied Khameini is no doubt prone to error (i.e. it is possible for him) but certain decisions, such as putting a scholar under house arrest, should not be immediately and solely construed as stemming from unjust intentions – this is a simplistic and casual observation of things. An alternative possibility, which deserves equal consideration, is that such a decision could be based on wisdom and the greater good of the Islamic nation. As an example, non-Muslims consider the Islamic penal code to be harsh while Muslims, who are aware of the facts, strive to explain the underlying wisdom and reasoning. A child-like, casual and superficial review of Islam's penal code, on the part of some non-Muslims, is clearly not a conclusive analysis as far as we Muslims are concerned. In the same way, both fallible and infallible leaders will occasionally be faced with people who are either rebellious by nature or sincere but inattentive to facts and reality. So long as such a leader is not blatantly un-Islamic and un-Just then we ought to be more perceptive of the other possibility.

Classic, simply classic. This is the all too familiar excuse for justifying any violation which is otherwise completely unjustifiable. This is the same excuse which is used to slander those who have been put to death for political reasons BECAUSE those rebels, 'the followers of Yazid', were the 'enemies of God, His prophet and His Imams'. It had to be done for the sake of wisdom and 'greater good' of Islam.

These same people would cry foul for the same human rights abuses if you only took the trouble of replacing Sayyid Khamenei's WF with someone else.

This also smells of patriarchy, loaded with the insulting assumption that common people are not adult enough or lack Islamic understanding to be trusted with leadership. Therefore, they need to be herded like a flock of sheep - and who else is best suited for this job save the self appointed custodians of Islam? This insult to intelligence would be considered benign and somewhat understandable if overwhelming majority of people in a nation were illiterate and uneducated. Those times have long gone and people are no longer simple minded fools.

Edited by Marbles, 22 January 2010 - 09:54 AM.

[Shiatullah]

You didn't answer the question. You said, "you would take his deputy as your leader as well". Now when did Imam Mahdi [a] make Sayyid Khamenei "his deputy"? It's a pretty simple question, so try not to avoid it this time.


As for your irrelevant questions, I don't mind answering them, even though they have nothing to do with this topic.

"Can you ask one of them" -- No, they are dead. Can Sayyid Khamenei ask them questions from me?

"or him himself a question for me?" -- No, I don't have his contact info. But can Sayyid Khamenei ask him a question from me?

The Prophet and all of the Imams have always asked us to take the scholars as our guides, rulers, etc. This isn't something that is new, and I know you know that. What YOU and those like YOU disagree with is the fact that Shias have taken the WF as a guide in issues "other than fiqh". The Imam's never limited the role of the ulema to just fiqh, so what gives you that right?

And why are you making the mistake of separating Islam from politics? When did ANY Imam ever do that? Even the Duas of Imam Sajjad are very political at times. What right was bestowed upon you to change this?

And how is my question irrelevant. You are saying your leader is the Imam, and he is, alhamdulilah. But every leader gives us access to him, are you saying the Imam has failed to do so? Even the ulema have representatives for themselves, but you are claiming the Imam doesn't have representatives for us? Is that practical to you?

Please explain with references -- Imam Mahdi asked us to follow the `ulemah in what respect? For issues of fiqh, or in all issues, including non-fiqhi ones?

The Imams never limited the role of the ulema to just fiqh. The Imams are well aware of the facts that Islam is a way of life, not something limited to 5 times a day. If you forgo your political and social responsibilities, your fiqh is just a ritual. Even the essence of Jamaat namaaz, Jummah namaaz and other matters that are "only" related to fiqh have a very sociopolitical aspect.

I think tnat applies only to FIQH.

Says who? The Imams in many hadith did not limit the role of the Ulema to fiqh.

If you take the ulema as guides and as inheritors of the ambiya, as our Imams and Prophets asked us to, Imam Sadiq specifically saying "ruler"

I know if I give you hadith, you will ask for sources, and rightfully so. So with a quick search and skim, here is some I came across with the correct sources:

“al-fuqahaau umanaa ur-rusul ma lam yadkhulu fiddunya”
qeela, wa ma dukhooluhum fiddunya?
“ittibaa’ us-sultan, fa-iza fa’aloo zalika, fahzaroohum ‘ala deenikum”
[al-kafi, v.1, p.46]
“the fuqahaa (scholars) are the entrusted amanat-carriers of messengers,
as long as they do not enter into the dunya.
when asked, what do you mean? he said:
“following an unislamic ruler, when the do that, be careful from them about your religion”

surat ul-hadeed 57, ayat 25:
certainly We sent our messengers with manifest proofs, and We sent down with them the book, and the balance, so that mankind may stand for justice…

What justice can you have without the leadership of those well versed in the true justice of Islam?

There are many more hadith that I already alluded to and more than that even that point to the rule of the scholar. Virtually no marja has disputed the concept of WF, sure its implementation may be debated amongst the ulema, but nonetheless it is a political leadership role.


If you don't need a representative today, then what makes you think you will need the Imam tomorrow?



Hasan Sajjad
President

Edited by Hasan_Sajjad, 22 January 2010 - 10:38 AM.

[Noah-]

bahahahahah loving the polll results, quite surprising considering the amount of ignorant blind followers on this board.

Why is it always that people who do not think as you are 'blind followers' and 'backwards' or 'radicals'?
How come you are not a blind follower of those who oppose Islam and Ayatollah Khamenei? or only Muslims could be blind followers?
Maybe those who follow a few Ayatollahs see things much better than those who are opposing.

The poll result is simple and clear. Firstly, there shouldn't be such a poll...secondly, most Shias outside the ME and SA regions (Shichaters) know and study the work of Ayatollah Sistani or Ayat. Fadhullah, and when it comes to these things...Shias who do not follow Khamenei, will not vote for him in this regard...same with those who do not follow a specific marjah.

[Bahadur Ali]

Wali.ul Amr ul Muslimeen? What's next? Ameer ol Momineen? This is getting out of hand and slipping into outright heresy and rebellion against our real master, Imam-e Zaman ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ.

Edited by Bahadur Ali, 22 January 2010 - 07:43 PM.

[shiasoldier786]

Wali.ul Amr ul Muslimeen? What's next? Ameer ol Momineen? This is getting out of hand and slipping into outright heresy and rebellion against our real master, Imam-e Zaman ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ.

Subhanallah. Do you really even know what the translation of the title "wali amr al-muslimeen" is? Calling Ayatollah Khamenei(HA) the guardian of the affairs of the Muslim Ummah in the absence of the 12th Imam, is outright rebellion? whooaa

What next? We should stop following scholars, turn Iran into a secular republic, and sit with out hands crossed, crying out Al-Ajal.

[shiasoldier786]

There is the following statement of the Twelfth Imam (a.s) which is part of the reply to a query by Ishaq Ibn Ya'qub and has been handed down to us as a Hadith’ "... As to the emerging cases, you should refer to those who are narrators of our Ahadith, since they are my authorized representatives among you, and I am God's representative . . ." (al-Shaykh al-Ansari, al-Makasib; al-Shaykh al-Saduq, Ikmal al-Din wa Itmam al-ni'mah.

Al-lmam al-Rida (a.s) has said: "We do not find any community or nation living and surviving without a leader and chief; they cannot deal without him with their religious affairs. God, the Wise, does not leave mankind without a leader; He knows that they cannot do without him and they do not have any support except from him. With his help they can halt their enemy, equitably distribute their gains, establish their prayer in congregation on Fridays and other days and protect the rights of the weak from being violated by the strong ones."

It is worthwhile to note that the hadith cited above is quite contrary to the allegations that Islam has been silent on the question of State and Government.

Now I'm asking you to back up what you said with references.