219 replies to this topic

[shiasoldier786]

maula dha mallang, on 11 August 2010 - 01:56 PM, said:

you know, sometimes you rabid pro khamenei spin doctors really would put abu hurraira to shame with the lengths you will go to and lies you will spout in order to defend your nonsense, cringe worthy, retarded and ignorant stance.

the only sensible question so far has come from brother nocturne. who asked what the *actual* office of "the supreme master" says. and here is a direct quote.



http://www.islam-pur...was/further.htm

go on. defend that.  








who wants a bet im about to get reported, the next 10 posts will be PMSy attacks on me and no one will answer? any takers?

LOL, defending what? Ayatollah Khamenei (HA) being called Imam?

A quick wiki search would be of been good.

''An imam is an Islamic leadership position...'' It is just logical to follow a leader, who is elected by the learned Ulama, as the Wali Al Amr in the absence of Imam Mahdi.

Off topic, but honestly, you know, sometimes you rabid mallangs really would put nusayris and ghullats to shame with the lengths you will go in equating Imam Ali to Allah (swt). Im not too sure if your buddy Nader here would be impressed.

[sarmad17]

He is one of the few that are wali umr al muslmieen

[Maula Dha Mallang]

shiasoldier786, on 11 August 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

Off topic, but honestly, you know, sometimes you rabid mallangs really would put nusayris and ghullats to shame with the lengths you will go in equating Imam Ali to Allah (swt). Im not too sure if your buddy Nader here would be impressed.

thank you for proving my point *rolls eyes*

stay out of this. i dont want to argue with you. pick someone else to have ur time of the month with.

[Thurston]

shiasoldier786 - aren't you in Taqlid of Sayed Sistani ?

[shiasoldier786]

Thurston, on 11 August 2010 - 04:51 PM, said:

shiasoldier786 - aren't you in Taqlid of Sayed Sistani ?

I usually refer to both Ayatolah Sistani and Ayatollah Khamenei (May Allah protect them both) on all matters.

[Thurston]

shiasoldier786, on 11 August 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I usually refer to both Ayatolah Sistani and Ayatollah Khamenei (May Allah protect them both) on all matters.

which valley does one go to find out when holy month starts my friend ?

[shiasoldier786]

Nocturne, on 21 January 2010 - 11:57 PM, said:

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

or Wali Amr Al-Muslimeen e Jahan?

Sorry for the late reply; but I came across this just quite recently.

Article 5

During the Occultation of the Imam of the time (may Allah bring forward his reappearance), the Imāmah and leadership of the Ummah devolve upon the just, pious courageous, and resourceful faqīh who is fully aware of the circumstances of his age and possessed of administrative ability. He assumes the responsibilities of this office in accordance with Article 107.

Article 57

The branches of government in the Islamic Republic are the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. They function under the supervision of the absolute wilāyat-e-’amr and the leadership of the Ummah in accordance with the forthcoming articles of this Constitution. These branches are independent of each other.


http://leader.ir/lan...hp?p=leader_law

[Nocturne]

^ it's talking about Islamic Republic of Iran only.

[wayfarer.]

MajiC, on 22 January 2010 - 08:12 AM, said:

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

Well said. Jazakallah khayr.

[DoubleAgent4]

If Khamenei is Wali Amr al Muslimeen (then may God help us) as I do not believe that he is just. Btw, aren't all our Marjas representatives of Imam Al Mahdi ?

Prophet Muhammad(as) has said : No (one may) harm nor (be) harmed in Islam.

Unfortunantely, the Prophets saying hasn't been taken into consideration in the ' IRI'.

Also, from the book I've been reading I have a couple of quotes that I'd like to share. " Under an Islamic system of government and environment, one is given all the possible opportunities to attain one's goal and aspirations, and therefore one would not usually be in a posstion to commit crime or any illegal act."

Um.. no wonder we see that crime in Iran is increasing and becoming prevelant amongst the society. I've heard atrocious stories, which bear truth in them, regarding the crimes in Iran...

Regarding punishment in Iran: Islamic punishment may only be carried out if an Islamic system has been established in every domain: socially,politically, economically etc.

A corrupt government lures the people into crime, as the Arabic saying goes : "people follow the conduct of their leaders"

Exactly what I've said on numerous occassions. If there's something wrong with the people in control then this reflects in people and their behaviour.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

^^the now legendary "was ayatollah khomeini good or bad" thread. people have copied and pasted every word i wrote and made facebook groups of it :

http://www.shiachat....ni-good-or-bad/

dont forget our favourite alim ayatollah rafsanjani....one of ayatollah khomeinis innermost circle......he just CANT be ignored can he!!!!

http://www.forbes.co...3/0721/056.html

has anyone noticed how all these wacky assed rabid WF supporters *ALWAYS* wheel out "oh its the zionists fault" deus ex machina? when in doubt, blame the zionists. its never shias own faults, theyre the representatives of the awaited imam ™!

i suggest all of the WF supporters read the book 1984 by george orwell and apply it to your own lives

Edited by maula dha mallang, 12 August 2010 - 05:39 PM.

[wayfarer.]

If Hawraa29 regards a person like, lets say, the Shah as the Wali Amr al Muslimeen, then may God help us

Hawraa29, on 12 August 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

from the book I've been reading I have a couple of quotes that I'd like to share. " Under an Islamic system of government and environment, one is given all the possible opportunities to attain one's goal and aspirations, and therefore one would not usually be in a posstion to commit crime or any illegal act."

Yes, thats true. Please read what you have quoted again. So this means that there will still be people committing crimes or illegal acts under an Islamic government and environment.

  

Hawraa29, on 12 August 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

    Um.. no wonder we see that crime in Iran is increasing and becoming prevelant amongst the society. I've heard atrocious stories, which bear truth in them, regarding the crimes in Iran...

"No wonder????" LOL.....whats the relation between that quote and  the words "no wonder"???? You make it seem like you proved something there.

Please back this up with credible sources instead of " ooo i've heard so many atrocious stories!!"

You made a claim that crime in Iran has been increasing so now you must be ready to bring solid evidence for that. Please show us that compared to the last 50 years the crimes in Iran have increased. By the way, "crime" is a very vague term. Lets be more specific. Please also list what crimes have increased in Iran since the formation of the Islamic government. If you cannot do this, then you have to take back your statement. Plus, how long did the Shah rule Iran? Compare that with the duration of the islamic govt. in Iran.

[GothicShia]

Nadir, on 20 January 2010 - 12:32 PM, said:

See, the other maraja DO have political views, and they DO issue political statements. Sayyed Sistani on Iraq is an example. What if Iraq adopted the system of Wilayatul Faqih, who would be the leader in Iraq? Sayyed Khamenei or someone ONLY Iraqis elect, just like ONLY Iranians elect Sayyed Khamenei? If it's another marja, then what happens if he and Sayyed Khamenei have political disagreements? If they're both representatives of the Imam, and they hold political office and DISAGREE on political issues, then at least one representative has to be wrong, doesn't he? A representative of the Imam cannot afford to make a wrong decision if he holds political office. If Sayyed Khamenei becomes the leader in Iraq, then voting cannot be limited to Iranians. If suffrage extends to Iraqis as well, then the leader of the Muslims will be voted in because of their nationality. Yes, religion should be more important than nationalism. Yes, religion should have a part to play in politics, BUT it doesn't. Simple as that.

I accept Sayyed Khamenei as my religious leader, and I will follow him on whatever he says. I believe it's my religious duty. However, firstly, I don't understand how he can be considered to be the leader of the Muslims if only Iranians are allowed to vote him in. Secondly, the political influence he has on non-Iranians is limited. The political statements he makes directly concern Muslims in Iran, not the world. The political statements he makes which concern the global Muslim ummah are similar to the ones made by other Maraja. Boycott Israel. Follow the law of the land unless it contradicts Islamic law. These things are said by ALL the maraja. I'm just asking with the aim to understand: how is Sayyed Khamenei the Leader of the Muslims of the world?

good points...

[GothicShia]

maula dha mallang, on 12 August 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

^^the now legendary "was ayatollah khomeini good or bad" thread. people have copied and pasted every word i wrote and made facebook groups of it :

http://www.shiachat....ni-good-or-bad/

dont forget our favourite alim ayatollah rafsanjani....one of ayatollah khomeinis innermost circle......he just CANT be ignored can he!!!!

http://www.forbes.co...3/0721/056.html

has anyone noticed how all these wacky assed rabid WF supporters *ALWAYS* wheel out "oh its the zionists fault" deus ex machina? when in doubt, blame the zionists. its never shias own faults, theyre the representatives of the awaited imam ™!

i suggest all of the WF supporters read the book 1984 by george orwell and apply it to your own lives

lool !!!  on top of that.. if you are not a WF beleiver, they just think you arent a shia anymore.. LOL

[Ali_Hussain]

As for the crimes in iran, until last year iran had the worst heroin problem in the world, as a ratio of population/addiction iran was top,however last year the russians managed to overtake them,now iran only have to second most amount of smack heads. The amount of damage drug addiction epidemics actually cause a society is another debate, I would imagine the drugs are cheap in iran considering afghanistan is their neighbour. And as such,there is not necessarily a big correlation between that and the crime rate.
By the way,in the 'war on drugs' iran are more commited than any other country, more police (who control the border) are killed than any other country in the fight on drugs, also,they don't hide this,they know there is a problem and are trying to deal with it. But nevertheless drug use/addiction is a problem. Western psychologists reckon people who use drugs do so because they are abused....but that could be a load of rubbish, I would image fun must surely come into it somewhere, everyone one in the western world drinks(=takes drugs) does that mean everyone there was abused.
The bottom line is iran is a normal country, PEOPLE ARE JUST PEOPLE, fallible and make mistakes

[Maula Dha Mallang]

GothicShia, on 20 August 2010 - 05:33 AM, said:

lool !!!  on top of that.. if you are not a WF beleiver, they just think you arent a shia anymore.. LOL

lol innit "he is the wali e amr e muslimeen e jehan only. therefore if he isnt, you arent a muslim of this world QED"

*rolls eyes*

[Muhammed Ali]

Hawraa29, on 12 August 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Exactly what I've said on numerous occassions. If there's something wrong with the people in control then this reflects in people and their behaviour.

Like when the infallibles were in power?

[Al-Mufeed]

Is he the Wali Al Amr?

Since it is the Month of Ramadhan I thought I would use an appropriate example, don't all of you recite Dua Iftitah each night?

Çááåã æ Õá Úáì æ áí ÇãÑß

I guess its not a problem to give the title of the Imam to a non masoom....

[shiasoldier786]

Al-Mufeed, on 20 August 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

Is he the Wali Al Amr?

Since it is the Month of Ramadhan I thought I would use an appropriate example, don't all of you recite Dua Iftitah each night?

اللهم و صل على و لي امرك

I guess its not a problem to give the title of the Imam to a non masoom....

Another appropriate example. In the Quran, a couple of Allah (swt) attribute are to be Loving and Just.

I guess its not a problem to give the titles of Allah (swt) to the masooms...

Edited by shiasoldier786, 20 August 2010 - 10:25 AM.

[Socrates]

Al-Mufeed, on 20 August 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

Is he the Wali Al Amr?

Since it is the Month of Ramadhan I thought I would use an appropriate example, don't all of you recite Dua Iftitah each night?

Çááåã æ Õá Úáì æ áí ÇãÑß

I guess its not a problem to give the title of the Imam to a non masoom....

Lets be honest though, all the usoolis with the titles like "Ayatollah", "Hujjatul Islam", "Thiqatul Islam", "Wali al-Amr" given to fallibles while they belong solely to the Imams .

shiasoldier786, on 20 August 2010 - 10:24 AM, said:

Another appropriate example. In the Quran, a couple of Allah (swt) attribute are to be Loving and Just.

I guess its not a problem to give the titles of Allah (swt) to the masooms...

Trust the pro-IRI lot to be not understanding.

I say my friend is loving. Have I just given him Allah's attribute? At least try to formulate a sensible argument once in your life.

[Al-Mufeed]

Quote

Another appropriate example. In the Quran, a couple of Allah (swt) attribute are to be Loving and Just.

I guess its not a problem to give the titles of Allah (swt) to the masooms..

actually.. it is

You can not call some one "Al-Rahman" you have to call them Abdul Rahman

Quote

Lets be honest though, all the usoolis with the titles like "Ayatollah", "Hujjatul Islam", "Thiqatul Islam", "Wali al-Amr" given to fallibles while they belong solely to the Imams .

These titles are relatively new, and their history only dates back less than 100 years. Personally I am against them, however in modern usage its just to denote respect, and hierarchy among the clerics.

As in, Hujjat Al Islam (low ranking cleric)
           Hujjat al Islam wal Muslimeen (mid ranking cleric)
           Ayatullah - Mujtahead

Again I am against these terms, but it is a simple classing system, although often times these terms are used for political reasons ie Rafsanjani being titled by certain media outlets in Ian as "Ayatullah" even though the man is not a mujtahead.

[shiasoldier786]

Al-Mufeed, on 20 August 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

actually.. it is

You can not call some one "Al-Rahman" you have to call them Abdul Rahman

Nevermind Abdul Rahman, Im talking about using the attributes mentioned in the Quran about Allah (swt), which are used for masoooms. Allah is All-Just. Now, why dont you have a problem with people also calling the Imams "All-Just"?

[Muhammed Ali]

Socrates, on 20 August 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

Lets be honest though, all the usoolis with the titles like "Ayatollah", "Hujjatul Islam", "Thiqatul Islam", "Wali al-Amr" given to fallibles while they belong solely to the Imams .

It's a common complaint of the Akhbaris: http://hubeali.com/a...s-On-Titles.pdf

They need to prove that those are exclusive titles of the Imams [a] and before doing that they would need to show that those phrases were used as titles and not just as descriptions.

Some of their arguments are rather weak, for example they say that the words ulama/alim are exclusive to the Imams [a] because of the hadith:

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from Jamil who has said the following: “I heard Imam abu ‘Abd Allah, saying, ‘People become of three groups: Scholars, those who learn and garbled ones. We are the scholars. Our followers are the ones who learn. The rest of the people are garbled ones.”

However there are narrations where the Imams [a] use the word alim for fallibles too. The word ulama in the above mentioned hadith has been used in a particular context and those malang types are applying that contextual meaning to all other contexts. It's like when the sunnis take the hadith: "The ulama are the inheritors of the prophets and the prophets did not leave dihams and dinars .....", the sunnis wrongly generalise the restriction on prophetic inheritance.

[Socrates]

shiasoldier786, on 20 August 2010 - 10:50 AM, said:

Nevermind Abdul Rahman, Im talking about using the attributes mentioned in the Quran about Allah (swt), which are used for masoooms. Allah is All-Just. Now, why dont you have a problem with people also calling the Imams "All-Just"?

Who calls the Imams "All-Just"? Doing so would be both kufr and shirk.

The Imams are the manifestation of justice because they are Allah's representatives. Please stop clinging to the straws.

Muhammed Ali, on 20 August 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

It's a common complaint of the Akhbaris: http://hubeali.com/a...s-On-Titles.pdf

They need to prove that those are exclusive titles of the Imams [a] and before doing that they would need to show that those phrases were used as titles and not just as descriptions.

Some of their arguments are rather weak, for example they say that the words ulama/alim are exclusive to the Imams [a] because of the hadith:

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from Jamil who has said the following: “I heard Imam abu ‘Abd Allah, saying, ‘People become of three groups: Scholars, those who learn and garbled ones. We are the scholars. Our followers are the ones who learn. The rest of the people are garbled ones.”

However there are narrations where the Imams [a] use the word alim for fallibles too. The word ulama in the above mentioned hadith has been used in a particular context and those malang types are applying that contextual meaning to all other contexts. It's like when the sunnis take the hadith: "The ulama are the inheritors of the prophets and the prophets did not leave dihams and dinars .....", the sunnis wrongly generalise the restriction on prophetic inheritance.

Lets look at the titles that I mentioned:

Wali al Amr al Muslimeen : The master of the affairs of the believers.

Now lets go back to the Qur'an and see 4:59 where we know it refers to Ahlul Bayt . It is our argument against the Sunnis that a non Masoom cannot be the master of the affairs.

Hujjat ul Islam : The proof of Islam

It is quite clear that hadith of the Prophet if there was no Hujjat the world would perish - refers to the Masoomeen once again. Who else could dare to be the proof of Islam other than one without whom Islam would cease to exist?

Ayatollah : sign of Allah

I give you this one, as it could be used in a generic sense, as we are all signs of Allah as his creation.

As for the hadith you've posted, true I agree, but that was never my contention nor my argument.

[Muhammed Ali]

Socrates, on 20 August 2010 - 10:59 AM, said:

Hujjat ul Islam : The proof of Islam

It is quite clear that hadith of the Prophet if there was no Hujjat the world would perish - refers to the Masoomeen once again. Who else could dare to be the proof of Islam other than one without whom Islam would cease to exist?

You are making the same mistake that I pointed out earlier. The word Hujjat can be used in different contexts. A Hujjat al-Islam may be a person who has enough knowledge to prove the truth about Islam whereas a Hujjat of Allah over the creation would be something of an entirely different level.

Anyhow I don't like how these titles are used for mediocre "scholars".

Socrates, on 20 August 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

Trust the pro-IRI lot to be not understanding.

Is there anything wrong with being pro IRI?

Edited by Muhammed Ali, 20 August 2010 - 11:14 AM.