32 replies to this topic

[Wizdom]

aliasghark, on 18 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Brother repenter, there's still a problem. How do we know he is the best leader for the Muslim world? He came into light because of a process in Iran, that ulama outside didn't have a say in.

Robin Hood, on 18 February 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

So if the US was to attacks Iran, Iran can order Hezbollah to get implicated in it, regardless of where Lebanon's interests stand?

Precisely. And one of the proofs that Sheikh al-Yaqoobi uses to justify his stance that WF doesn't cross borders is that the Prophet (SAWA) went to Madina because the people there wanted him, and then went to Makka later on, when the people there wanted him too. He (SAWA) did not force himself (SAWA) upon them.

Further to that, Imam Ali went to Kufa because that was where his Shia was.

[Ali Abdullah 313]

Majority of the Shi'a have a disease of Assabiyya (nationalism,tribalism). The Islamic Ummah is ONE, it doesnt distinguish between a Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian or Pakistani, artificial borders created by the colonialists to divide Muslims. When we undertand the concept of the Ummah alot of of our problems will be solved.

[repenter]

aliasghark, on 18 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Brother repenter, there's still a problem. How do we know he is the best leader for the Muslim world? He came into light because of a process in Iran, that ulama outside didn't have a say in.

He came into light because of a process in Iran, that ulama outside didn't have a say in.

Ulamas outside of Iran did support it non the less and did influence it, characters like Sadr and Hakim, two heavyweights. Other than these two, you had Khoei family and Sistani family. Considering number of people that voted for him, even if you took into consideration all the heavyweights outside of Iran, he still would have won with a landslide decision.

Brother repenter, there's still a problem. How do we know he is the best leader for the Muslim world?

This is true, and has been a muslim problem since the beginning hasn't it? It really comes down to faith in the end, even if 2000 ulamas vote for the guy, still comes down to faith. A scholar once gave a good example.

Student in university: How do we know that this leader is really a representative of Imam Mahdi?
Scholar: Would you be happy if we brought you a letter from Imam Mahdi confirming he is?
Student: Yes
Scholar: Would you then not ask - How do I know this is Imam Mahdis signature?
Student: Yes
Scholar: Would you then be happy if we took you too Imam Mahdi to confirm it?
Student: Yes
Scholar: Would you then not ask - How do I know this is Imam Mahdi?
Student: Yes
Scholar: Would you then not ask it to be confirmed by the Prophet?
Student: Yes
Scholar: If we took you to the Prophet, would  you then not question if this is the Prophet himself?
Student: Yes
Scholar: So it really doesn't matter what we show you, it really comes down to faith in the end.

[repenter]

Totem, on 18 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Precisely. And one of the proofs that Sheikh al-Yaqoobi uses to justify his stance that WF doesn't cross borders is that the Prophet (SAWA) went to Madina because the people there wanted him, and then went to Makka later on, when the people there wanted him too. He (SAWA) did not force himself (SAWA) upon them.

Further to that, Imam Ali went to Kufa because that was where his Shia was.

That's really not a good example. Imam Ali was in Kufa because that was where his base was. Imam Hassan was in Saudi, so all the shias suddenly moved to Kufa? Then to Mashad? Then to Medina?
And while imam ali was in Kufa, he had ambassadors and governors all the way to Egypt.

With this logic, shias in Saudi should not have followed imam alis orders if he ever gave one, because he was the WF of Kufa and Iraq and not saudi. This logic breaks the whole point of Imamaat for one, and leadership second.

It's fine that you have a different opinion, you are entitled to it. But if that is the case of Sheikh Yaqoob, then he needs to make a better one, because it doesn't make much sense. And i'm also sure he has a much stronger case, we just need to investigate what it is.

[Wizdom]

repenter, on 19 February 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

That's really not a good example. Imam Ali was in Kufa because that was where his base was. Imam Hassan was in Saudi, so all the shias suddenly moved to Kufa? Then to Mashad? Then to Medina?
And while imam ali was in Kufa, he had ambassadors and governors all the way to Egypt.

With this logic, shias in Saudi should not have followed imam alis orders if he ever gave one, because he was the WF of Kufa and Iraq and not saudi. This logic breaks the whole point of Imamaat for one, and leadership second.

It's fine that you have a different opinion, you are entitled to it. But if that is the case of Sheikh Yaqoob, then he needs to make a better one, because it doesn't make much sense. And i'm also sure he has a much stronger case, we just need to investigate what it is.

I didn't say that all the Shia were in one place. I said that Imam Ali moved to Kufa because that was his main base. But you're right, it's not a good example - this was actually my example, not Sheikh al-Yaqoobi's. Sheikh al-Yaqoobi's example was the first one, the Prophet (SAWA) and Madina. And it's just an example, i'm sure he didn't produce his entire ideology based on one example!

It's difficult to compare WF with Imamat, I shouldn't have used Imam Ali as an example.

[repenter]

Totem, on 19 February 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I didn't say that all the Shia were in one place. I said that Imam Ali moved to Kufa because that was his main base. But you're right, it's not a good example - this was actually my example, not Sheikh al-Yaqoobi's. Sheikh al-Yaqoobi's example was the first one, the Prophet (SAWA) and Madina. And it's just an example, i'm sure he didn't produce his entire ideology based on one example!

It's difficult to compare WF with Imamat, I shouldn't have used Imam Ali as an example.

Finally, someone that doesn't rant and can keep a good conversation going.

Comparing WF(the concept, not the person) with Imamat is actually not far off. One of the jobs of the Imams were to be WF. They later left the job to the fughaha in time of occulation. The concept of WF that Ayatollah Khomeini and co believed in was that if fughahas disagree on who can take on the role as WF then there should be a council of fughaha taking the role. But if they are in majority in agreement that one of them can take the role, then that's the way they go.

Part of the book written by Ayatollah Khomeini

Quote

The two qualities of knowledge of the law and justice are present in countless fuqahā of the present age. If they come together, they could establish a government of universal justice in the world.

If a worthy individual possessing these two qualities arises and establishes a government, he will posses the same authority as the Most Noble Messenger (‘a) in the administration of society, and it will be the duty of all people to obey him.

The idea that the governmental power of the Most Noble Messenger (s) were greater than those of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a), or that those of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) were greater than those of the faqīh, is false and erroneous. Naturally, the virtues of the Most Noble Messenger (s) were greater than those of the rest of mankind, and after him, the Commander of the Faithful was the most virtuous person in the world. But superiority with respect to spiritual virtues does not confer increased governmental powers. God has conferred upon government in the present age the same powers and authority that were held by the Most Noble Messenger and the Imāms (‘a), with respect to equipping and mobilizing armies, appointing governors and officials, and levying taxes and expending them for the welfare of the Muslims. Now, however, it is no longer a question of a particular person; government devolves instead upon one who possesses the qualities of knowledge and justice.

When we say that after the Occultation, the just faqīh has the same authority that the Most Noble Messenger and the Imāms (‘a) had, do not imagine that the status of the faqīh is identical to that of the Imāms and the Prophet (‘a). For here we are not speaking of status, but rather of function. By “authority” we mean government, the administration of the country, and the implementation of the sacred laws of the sharī‘ah. These constitute a serious, difficult duty but do not earn anyone extraordinary status or raise him above the level of common humanity. In other words, authority here has the meaning of government, administration, and execution of law; contrary to what many people believe, it is not a privilege, but a grave responsibility. The governance of the faqīh is a rational and extrinsic[104] matter; it exists only as a type of appointment, like the appointment of a guardian for a minor. With respect to duty and position, there is indeed no difference between the guardian of a nation and the guardian of a minor. It is as if the Imām were to appoint someone to the guardianship of a minor, to the governorship of a province, or to some other post. In cases like these, it is not reasonable that there would be a difference between the Prophet and the Imāms (‘a), on the one hand, and the just faqīh, on the other.

This part of the book is specially important because there are many shias, specially here on shiachat that claim that we believe the status of Ayatollah Khomeini or khamenei to be the same as the Prophet (astakhfurillah) and make funny little comments about our 13th imam etc. This is just a sidenote to prove them wrong, once again.

Edited by repenter, 19 February 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[awaiting_for_the.12th]

An Imam has: Wilayat Taqwini (authority over each and every atom) and Wilayat Mutlaqa. A WF has only Wilayat Mutlaqa and in that the only thing a WF cant do is Jihad Ibtadai.

[Hasan0404]

Nice topic OP.