Hasan_Sajjad, on 27 January 2010 - 02:36 PM, said:
If you are looking for the specific name of Ayatullah Khamenei (hA), then obviously you will not find it.
Nice of you to finally admit that you made up that claim about Sayyid Khamenei having been appointed as a deputy by Imam Mahdi [a].
That is much like the Sunni argument, asking for the name of Imam Ali
in the Qur'an.
Not at all similar. If a Shi'a makes the claim that Imam Ali [a] has been explicitly named in the Qur'an itself, then Sunni's would be right to call this person out for making this false claim. Similarly, you made the false claim that Sayyid Khamenei is Imam Mahdi's "deputy", hence you were called out for it.
Shaykh Ansari quotes a tradition from Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) in his book ‘Ihtijāj’.
“And among jurists (Fuqaha) those who protect themselves (from sins), guard their religion, defy their carnal desires and are obedient to their Master, it is incumbent upon the people to follow them. Such characteristics are found only in a few of them and not all.”
First of all, the translation is wrong. This is the actual hadith from al-Ihtijaj, vol 2, page 263:
ÝÇãÇ ãä ßÇä ãä ÇáÝÞåÇÁ ÕÇÆäÇ áäÝÓå¡ ÍÇÝÙÇ áÏíäå¡ ãÎÇáÝÇ Úáì åæÇå¡ ãØíÚÇ áÇãÑ ãæáÇå¡ ÝááÚæÇã Ãä íÞáÏæå¡
Where does it have the word "incumbent" in it?
That's right, it doesn't.
Second, this hadith has absolutely nothing to do with anyone being the "Wali Amr". It is explicitly
talking about taqlid
(fa lil `awaam an YAQLUDOOH
- ÝááÚæÇã Ãä íÞáÏæå
). But we already know that we can do taqlid of fuqahaa -- that has never been the issue. The question is whether or not we have a "Wali al-`Amr " in these times. So posting a hadith about permissibility of taqlid (which practically everyone here agrees on) as evidence of Sayyid Khamenei being the Wali al-`Amr just shows how ignorant you are about this issue.
Thirdly, and the most importantly, where does this hadith say that we can only refer to ONE such faqih for guidance???
Even if you falsely assume that this hadith is referring to the issue Wali al-`Amr, and not taqleed, where do we see the Imam saying that there must be a single
such Waliy whom the people must take for guidance? The hadith simply states a set of criteria a person has to look for in a faqih if he wises to perform his taqlid. So we can refer to any
faqih who satisfies this criteria, not just the leader of Iran.
Imam Mahdi (aj)
“Look carefully at those people who relate our traditions with deliberation upon our permitted and prohibited things, and know our precepts and commandments. Select one of them for adjudication, since I have appointed such a person for the said task. If his verdict is rejected then it is as if the command of Allah is deemed light and our ordinance refuted. Certainly the one who refutes our ordinance has refuted the ordinance of Allah. Verily such a person has stepped into the boundary of Shirk (Polytheism).”
Again, this hadith has nothing to do with the position of Wali al-`Amr. The hadith states that there were two men who were in a dispute over a debt or a legacy, and were told by the Imam [a] that they were not allowed to refer to the sultan to resolve that issue (that is, the sultan of the oppressive Abbasid regime at that time). But EVERYONE already knows that you cannot refer to an unIslamic tyrant for adjudication of your fiqhi disputes! You can only refer to someone who is knowledgeable in Shi'i fiqh. So what on earth does this hadith have to do with there being a Wali al-`Amr???
And again, just like last time, this hadith says that we can select ANY pious and knowledgeable "narrator of our ahadith", not just a single appointed "Wali al-`Amr". So even this hadith just confirms that there is no such "Wali", and the Shi'a can choose who they want to settle their disputes, as long as the "narrator of hadith" satisfies the mentioned criteria.
Like I said, and like those that have already been quoted, there are many more of these types of hadith.
Sadly for you, NONE of "these types of hadith" have anything to do with there being a Wali al-`Amr in the ghaybah of the 12th Imam.