132 replies to this topic

[thecontentedself]

shiasoldier786, on 14 February 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Hassan Nasrallah talking about a Greater Islamic Republic, under the Leadership of the Wali e Faqih.

roo7i fidak ya seyyed

[baradar_jackson]

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

Since Khamenei calls himself the "Wali ul-Amr of all Muslims", what does he expect from the world's muslims?  For example, does he expect all muslims everywhere to consider him to be the highest religious authority on earth?  Under Iranian law, is there a punishment for muslims who refuse to acknowledge him as their leader?  Obviously, the vast majority of the world's muslims, and in all probability even the vast majority of the world's Twelver Shiites, do not consider him their leader, in either a religious or political sense.

The majority of Muslims are not that observant, either.

In any group of people, you have a majority who are either ignorant, indifferent, or both. You cannot expect everyone to be fervent. That's an unreasonable expectation.

[ShiaBen]

It's quite funny that Sanaei, Montazeri, and Shariatmadari are deeper and more experienced theologians than Khameini will ever be.

But with that said, Imam picked Khameini to succeed him as supreme leader, simply on the basis of trust and iman.

If he were to pick out the position on expertise and knowledge, perhaps Sanaei, Montazari, maybe Shariatmadari and other candidates would have been more ideal given their knowledge of Islam.

But Khameini was selected instead, out of the basis of loyalty, trust, and dedication for the people of Iran, unlike those 3 and some other major scholars, that were willing to perhaps, weaken the nation through dangerous reforms and quite possibly to the point of selling Iran on paper to its enemy nations.

[Tigger]

baradar_jackson, on 15 February 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

The majority of Muslims are not that observant, either.

In any group of people, you have a majority who are either ignorant, indifferent, or both. You cannot expect everyone to be fervent. That's an unreasonable expectation.

You're not being very clear, but it appears you are saying that Khamenei is the unquestioned leader of all muslims everywhere, and not just the Twelvers who live in Iran.  Correct?

If that is not what you are saying, then please clarify.

[Blissful]

Oh god, what has happened to this thread

Khamenei rahbar

[baradar_jackson]

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

You're not being very clear, but it appears you are saying that Khamenei is the unquestioned leader of all muslims everywhere, and not just the Twelvers who live in Iran.  Correct?

If that is not what you are saying, then please clarify.

He is the rightful leader of all Muslims, yes.

There is a difference between nominal power and legitimate power.

[Tigger]

baradar_jackson, on 15 February 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

He is the rightful leader of all Muslims, yes.

There is a difference between nominal power and legitimate power.

Is he also the rightful leader of non-muslims who live both inside and outside Iran?

What do you think should happen to the billions of people, both muslim and non-muslim, both inside and outside Iran, who refuse to acknowledge him as their leader?  Are they guilty of a crime?  Are they guilty of blasphemy?  

What is the difference between "nominal power" and "legitimate power"?  Which type of power does Khamenei have?

[akf]

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

Is he also the rightful leader of non-muslims who live both inside and outside Iran?

No, the the non-muslims have nothing to do with it.

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

What do you think should happen to the billions of people, both muslim and non-muslim, both inside and outside Iran, who refuse to acknowledge him as their leader?  Are they guilty of a crime?  Are they guilty of blasphemy?  

Again, the non-muslims have nothing to do with it. As for the Muslims, I doubt that those who reject even the leadership of Imam Ali   and the 11 imams are expected to acknowledge Sayyed Khamenei   . The differences arise when we consider the need for the Ithna Ashari (Twelver) Shia to acknowledge his leadership.

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

What is the difference between "nominal power" and "legitimate power"?  Which type of power does Khamenei have?

I think that the brother meant nominal to mean "fake" and legitimate to mean "real". In that case, of course the Leader's power is legitimate as he was chosen legitimately.

*Edited a spelling mistake (make that two   )

Edited by akf, 15 February 2011 - 09:20 PM.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

literalism is a disease so is illiteracy.

Eight men were joking and suddenly caught a lizard and said : everybody is fighting as to who is the imam.

Let us make this lizard our imam.

Few days later imam Ali asws was adresing in the mosque of kufa and he recited the ayat. Every person will be raised with their imam and eight persons among them would be raised with a lizard as their imam.

In tuhaf ul uqool imam sadiq asws said: Allah azwj won't speak to someone who calls someone else as his father rather than his real father. When enquirer what it means. He said: it is the one who calls someone else as his imam other than imam e masoom.

Ali haqq Ali qaid, Ali wali e amr. Ali ameer ul momineen, Ali moula, Ali agha..

Ya Ali Madad

[baradar_jackson]

siraatoaliyinhaqqun, on 15 February 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

literalism is a disease so is illiteracy.

Eight men were joking and suddenly caught a lizard and said : everybody is fighting as to who is the imam.

Let us make this lizard our imam.

Few days later imam Ali asws was adresing in the mosque of kufa and he recited the ayat. Every person will be raised with their imam and eight persons among them would be raised with a lizard as their imam.

In tuhaf ul uqool imam sadiq asws said: Allah azwj won't speak to someone who calls someone else as his father rather than his real father. When enquirer what it means. He said: it is the one who calls someone else as his imam other than imam e masoom.

Ali haqq Ali qaid, Ali wali e amr. Ali ameer ul momineen, Ali moula, Ali agha..

Ya Ali Madad

Yeah... lizard vs. Seyyed Ali... same thing.

Period when Imam Ali (A) was alive vs. today... same thing.

Calling someone an Imam vs. calling him the Imam's placeholder... same thing.

Perfect analogy. Congratulations.

Edited by baradar_jackson, 15 February 2011 - 10:35 PM.

[Tigger]

akf, on 15 February 2011 - 09:20 PM, said:

The differences arise when we consider the need for the Ithna Ashari (Twelver) Shia to acknowledge his leadership.

I don't know what percentage of Twelvers outside of Iran consider him to be their leader, but it would certainly be a very small percentage.  And I'd be amazed if even half of Twelvers within Iran acknowledge his leadership.  So, are all these Twelver muslims guilty of a crime or sin?  Do you consider them to be guilty of blasphemy?

[baradar_jackson]

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't know what percentage of Twelvers outside of Iran consider him to be their leader, but it would certainly be a very small percentage.

Open this.

Go to page 18/38 in the PDF (the number 16 will be written on the page, but 18 will be written in Adobe Reader).

61 percent of those polled said that they believe the leader to have an adequate amount of power, and another 6 percent said that he should have even more power.

If one believes that the leader has an adequate or less than adequate amount of power, it is safe to say that he/she firmly supports the leader. So at the very least, 67 percent of the Iranians polled firmly stand behind the leader.

Even the 17 percent who answered that he has too much power, may not be completely opposed to him.

So your guess (and with such "certainty!") is wrong.

Ya Ali

[Tigger]

Under Iranian law, is it blasphemy for a Twelver muslim to criticize Khamenei?  If so, then we can hardly trust any statistics coming out of Iran on this topic.

[baradar_jackson]

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 10:58 PM, said:

Under Iranian law, is it blasphemy for a Twelver muslim to criticize Khamenei?  If so, then we can hardly trust any statistics coming out of Iran on this topic.

Not done by Iran, doosh bag. Done by American pollsters.

Edited by baradar_jackson, 15 February 2011 - 11:05 PM.

[Tigger]

baradar_jackson, on 15 February 2011 - 11:04 PM, said:

Not done by Iran, doosh bag. Done by American pollsters.

I think you mean to call me a "douche bag".  And, it doesn't matter who did the poll.  If the wrong answer can get a person executed for blasphemy, then obviously you can't trust the poll.

[baradar_jackson]

Tigger, on 15 February 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

I think you mean to call me a "douche bag".  And, it doesn't matter who did the poll.  If the wrong answer can get a person executed for blasphemy, then obviously you can't trust the poll.

People in Iran don't get executed for such a thing. Unless you are saying that the government tracked down the people who answered that the leader has too much power and executed them. Is that what you are saying?

The anonymity of people who are polled is kept anonymous.

And even if they were not kept anonymous, one thing Westerners who visit Iran are quick to observe that people are not afraid to speak their minds, even if their words are hostile toward the state.



Keep reaching though. Anything it takes to keep your fantasy world intact. If scientific polls aren't enough for you then I'm not sure what is.

Edited by baradar_jackson, 16 February 2011 - 12:18 AM.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

baradar_jackson, on 15 February 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

Open this.

Go to page 18/38 in the PDF (the number 16 will be written on the page, but 18 will be written in Adobe Reader).

61 percent of those polled said that they believe the leader to have an adequate amount of power, and another 6 percent said that he should have even more power.

If one believes that the leader has an adequate or less than adequate amount of power, it is safe to say that he/she firmly supports the leader. So at the very least, 67 percent of the Iranians polled firmly stand behind the leader.

Even the 17 percent who answered that he has too much power, may not be completely opposed to him.

So your guess (and with such "certainty!") is wrong.

Ya Ali

didn't imam ali asws said: if u are a momin; what u consider halal today should consider halal tomorrow and what u consider haram today u should consider it haram tomorrow.... Nahjul balagha.

So, the stealers of titles of masoomeen asws yesterday were his asws's enemies and the stealer's of titles today are also his enemies.

Ya Ali Madad

[Tigger]

baradar_jackson, on 15 February 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

He (Khamenei) is the rightful leader of all Muslims, yes.

Let's imagine a scenario where four muslims refuse to acknowledge Khamenei as leader, and openly criticize his rule.  These four muslims are:

(1) an Iranian twelver living in Iran,
(2) an Iranian sunni living in Iran,
(3) a Norwegian twelver living in Norway, and
(4) a Norwegian sunni living in Norway.

Which of these muslims have committed sins by criticizing Khamenei?  Which of these muslims have committed crimes (under Iranian law) by criticizing Khamenei?  What punishments can these four muslims expect, both here on Earth and in the afterlife?

[The Persian Shah]

Tigger, you seem to be very perplexed by this topic. I am not sure why you would like a comprehensive conceptual enquiry covering all possibilities either, I don't think that will help. But I will explain anyway:

Firstly, it's very simple: The state of one who does not recognise the legitimacy of the Wali Al-Faqih, is just like the state of the one who does not acknowledge the legitimacy of everything else, like Imam Ali [AS], or the legitimacy of salat. I know this explanation will shortly be blown completely out of proportion by some retarded minds, so I will point out just one aspect of unity of this analogy you need to focus on: Something can be legitimate, but one can easily not accept it, and not accepting does not devoid that thing - like the fact that God does actually exist, but just because somebody doesn't accept it, does not mean He's just going to go away for them. Or the duty to do salat. You may not accept, but it does not become no longer incumbent upon you. Or the fact that Imam Ali [AS] was the righteous Imam, but because most people did not give him bayah (pledge of allegiance), does not mean he is no longer the righteous Imam - even if not a single soul did not make bayah or recognised him, it would not make the least difference in his legitimacy, which is bestows by Allah [SWT].

As for your follow-up regarding 'sins' and 'punishments', there is again no difference between this issue and other religious issues. As is well-known in discussion on religious pluralism, it is not merely a matter of whether someone simply rejects or accepts in actuality (bi-l fi`l) to do salat, acknowledge the Imam, or the Wali Al-Faqih. The criterion of sin is the intention, and this is proven in narrative (naql) and intellectual (aql) arguments, which you can refer to Shahid Mutahhari's [QS] book for full details. Briefly, that is to say for example, you can reject the Islam which is literally presented in the media as an unpleasant terrorising religion to you, or may you simply have never heard of Islam before (read: Descartes) - now you have not accepted Islam in actuality here, but that does not mean you are a "kafir" and will be punished for it, like someone who acknowledges the veracity of Islam, but then goes on to reject it due to overwhelming passions, whims, stubborness or other reasons which make the thought stumble. An example of the latter, is Iblees [LA], who knows for example, full well God exists, but knowingly disobeys Him. The word kafir (disbeliever) in Arabic, means to cover. Of course, there has to be something there [the truth] in the first place in order for you to "cover".

With respect to the first issue (sins), this is something judged by the Divine Eye, and the criterion was mentioned in the paragraph above (that is, you will only be punished for it by God if you know about the Divine legitimacy of the Wali Al-Faqih, but then knowingly go on to reject it, or act against him).

With respect to the second issue (crimes), this is something upto the decision of the hakim al-shar`. The outcome (punishment, if any at all) will vary depending on different factors, times, situations, etc. There is no categorical answer for this, and it depends on the jurisprudence of the hakim al-shar`. However, generally, we can say it is not unusual for there to be a discrepancy with the punishment of God, since other factors supersede just the niyyah here. That is, the fact that all your acts influence and have an impact on the rest of society. So, for example, you can do something wrong, but if it is detrimental to the rest of the society, then that needs to be stopped and/or dealt with - even if you did it with a right (in your mind), or ignorant intention. The outcome on the rest of society does not need to be considered in the first case, because most notably, there is no longer a society in that scenario.

With this more universal explanation, you can yourself assess and obtain all the answers to your particular questions.

[Tigger]

Let's examine a specific instance of a Shiite making a statement which some Shiites have interpreted as being against Khamenei.

In regards to the 2009 Iranian election, Hussein-Ali Montazeri (who was both a Grand Ayatollah and Grand Marja) is reported to have said:

"[The government used elections in] the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and scientists".

Did Montazeri commit either a crime or a sin by contradicting Khamenei?  If he committed a crime, what should have been his earthly punishment?  If he committed a sin, what punishment did he receive in the afterlife?

Edited by Tigger, 25 February 2011 - 12:02 PM.

[Shiatullah]

Bismillah,

ShiaBen, on 15 February 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

It's quite funny that Sanaei, Montazeri, and Shariatmadari are deeper and more experienced theologians than Khameini will ever be.

Where did you get this from?

Quote

But with that said, Imam picked Khameini to succeed him as supreme leader, simply on the basis of trust and iman.

And on knowledge, taqwa, piety, political awareness, and baseerat in general among many other things.

Quote

If he were to pick out the position on expertise and knowledge, perhaps Sanaei, Montazari, maybe Shariatmadari and other candidates would have been more ideal given their knowledge of Islam.

Definitely not.

[mehdi soldier]

first of all let me say that wilayat al-faqih is a religious institution and its leadership is legitimate.

how you view different issues relating to it or your attitude towards Ayatollah Sayyed Khamanei,is really irrelevant.let us pray for all our shia brothers everywhere and wish them well.let us dont distract ourselves with what is unnecessary.

as for using phrases from ziyarat ashura,it all depends on how you understand it.you can say that "you are war upon the enemy of your father and peace upon those who are at peace with him" and that apply to all our wise leaders,may Allah protect them all.however it should be understood not from the same angle as when applied to the Infallibles because only the Infallibles are beyond any criticism.

Edited by mehdi soldier, 25 February 2011 - 04:42 PM.

[Tigger]

mehdi soldier, on 25 February 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

...it should be understood not from the same angle as when applied to the Infallibles because only the Infallibles are beyond any criticism.

I have often witnessed Shiites using terms such as "perfect", "sinless", and "infallible" to describe Khamenei.  If (as some of you claim) Khamenei is without question the supreme leader of all muslims, then does it follow that he is perfect, sinless, and infallible?

[mehdi soldier]

Tigger, on 25 February 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

I have often witnessed Shiites using terms such as "perfect", "sinless", and "infallible" to describe Khamenei.  If (as some of you claim) Khamenei is without question the supreme leader of all muslims, then does it follow that he is perfect, sinless, and infallible?

i dont get  who you refered to as "some of you".

i believe all our scholars are not infallible but are very wise men and some of the wisest you will find on the face of the earth.

i personally believe that Sayyed Khamanei is the head of the revolution in iran,the first of its kind.he is the wali al-faqih in iran and his rule is legitimate and divinely sanctioned from the imams and we must respect for our general good.i will stop short from saying he is the leader of all muslims because muslim lands and territories are not all under his control nor are they unified and i do not want to deceive myself.there are other scholars of eminence too who are followed and obeyed.and there is no central coordination among the scholars at least politically to affirm one person they among themselves look up to as leader of all muslims.perhaps when iraq becomes islamic and other countries as well,then they too will they have their wali al-faqihs.then we hope muslim lands will unite and finally we will have only one person agreed upon unanimously by scholars and ordinary people alike to lead us shia.i am not even talking of sunnis here because it is impossible to think sunnis can have a unified leaership or even think that sunnis have a religious and political leaership.

Edited by mehdi soldier, 25 February 2011 - 08:59 PM.

[Al-Mufeed]

The Persian Shah, on 14 February 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Ibn Abdullah, very good reply. +1. Unfortunately, anyone here long enough will realise there is a not a single one of these threads which these small minds (mac) unable to grasp certain turths cannot not troll. Whenever some more knowledgeable poster enters the thread (not me), he immediately flees on the account of wasting time. There is without a shadow of doubt, no problem in the veracity of statements like being the na`ib of the Imam [AJTF], or being the amir of the momineen. The former being justified through the numerous textual injunctions, ahadith and tauqee of the Imam [AJTF] which delegates affairs to the `ulema after him in a general and universal way. The latter being justified by the very fact of actually being the ruler of a faithful nation. How is this heresy? macisaac knows these things well too, but as you said all his comments like to paint a straw man fallacious argument and only create fitna and confusion. He never enters discussion, arrogant takfir upon the rest of us Shia suffices for him. And unfortunately since gaining power, his extremist talibani ideology has manifested in action. Because he can't intellectually defend himself, he (and his ilk) thinks he can silence pro-IRI members and comments by threats ("warnings"), censoring threads/posts, putting me on mod preview for 3 months, vetoing users demands. All on the account of "posting heresy" (heresy according to his weird mind) - whilst simultaneously mocking the police of the IRI as being "over-intrusive"..

No matter how many times I am harassed for speaking out against these blatantly absurd actions, I will continue to fight for this truth, either until he stops being a taliban or at least leaves office and the rest of us in peace..

"Stop trying to blow things out of proportion and cause fitna. Coming here and accusing us of such things, you are the one who should be ashamed of yourself and your ignorance."

SILMUN LIMAN SALIMAKUM, AGHA
HARBUN LIMAN HARABAKUM, AGHA

LABBAYK KHAMENEI

"There is without a shadow of doubt, no problem in the veracity of statements like being the na`ib of the Imam [AJTF], or being the amir of the momineen"


Please do not make ignorant statements. I suggest before making such statements you educate your self properly:

Wasail Al Shia Volume 14:

http://www.alseraj.n.../14030.html#275


106 ـ باب أنه لا يجوز أن يخاطب أحد بإمرة المؤمنين
إلا علي بن أبي طالب ( عليه السلام )

Translation: The chapter on it being impermissible to call any individual Amir al Mumineen except for Ali ibn Abi Talib

2 ـ محمد بن يعقوب ، عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن إبراهيم بن إسحاق الدينوري (1) ، عن عمر بن أبي زاهر (2) ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : سأله رجل عن القائم يسلم عليه بإمرة

المؤمنين ؟ قال : لا ، ذاك اسم سمى الله به أمير المؤمنين (3) ، لم يسم به أحد قبله ، ولا يسمى (4) به بعده إلا كافر ، قلت جعلت فداك كيف يسلم عليه ؟ قال : تقول (5) : السلام عليك يا بقية الله ، ثم قرأ ( بقيتُ الله خير لكم إن كنتم مؤمنين

A man wants to know if it is possible to say Salam to you with the title Amir al Mumineen? Imam sadiq sad: "No, this title is the title that Allah gave to Amir al Mumineen (meaning imam Ali . No one was given this title before him, and no one will take this title except a Kafir." So how should we say salam to you? " Say, Salamu Alayka ya baqeeatullah, then he recited the verse "Baqeeatullah is better for you are from the believers" (hud 86).

Baqeeatullah means the reservoir of Allah ie- the Imam .


As far as I know neither khamenie or any other scholar has asked any one to call him amir al mumineen, do not do it is haram.

Edited by Al-Mufeed, 25 February 2011 - 09:21 PM.