23 replies to this topic

[AhlulBayt_313]

Assalamu Alikoum, I am currently reading this and if anyone is familiar with this topic, I would appreciate your feedback. http://www.iranchamb...ayat_faqeeh.pdf I linked the topic here so you can see what I'm referring to. I just started getting into this topic, so if you have any insight, disagreements, or if you agree with this topic, I am open to all feedback. I would just like to get a better perspective about it. Some of you, whether you agree or disagree with it, may be more familiar with it, and could shed some light for me. Thank you and Wasalam.

[Ibn al-Hassan]

Let the fighting begin.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 22 May 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Let the fighting begin.

This wasn't created to start a war, I simply want to hear both sides since I am reading it. Let's be objective about this please. Still waiting to hear feedback...waits in anticipation

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, 22 May 2013 - 02:29 AM.

[hasanhh]

I'll read this later, inshallah.

I had vilayat-i-faqih in college and not all Ayatollahs agree with this.

The Companion Umar had scholars around himself when he was Caliph as they could remember better than himself.

[AhlulBayt_313]

hasanhh, on 22 May 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

I'll read this later, inshallah.

I had vilayat-i-faqih in college and not all Ayatollahs agree with this.

The Companion Umar had scholars around himself when he was Caliph as they could remember better than himself.

Insha'Allah, thank you

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, 22 May 2013 - 06:00 AM.

[Ibn al-Hassan]

AhlulBayt_313, on 22 May 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Assalamu Alikoum, I am currently reading this and if anyone is familiar with this topic, I would appreciate your feedback. http://www.iranchamb...ayat_faqeeh.pdf I linked the topic here so you can see what I'm referring to. I just started getting into this topic, so if you have any insight, disagreements, or if you agree with this topic, I am open to all feedback. I would just like to get a better perspective about it. Some of you, whether you agree or disagree with it, may be more familiar with it, and could shed some light for me. Thank you and Wasalam.

See, I don't have much interest in reading too deeply into these arguments (although, I did actually read that treatise by Sayyid Khomeini awhile back). The reason being that our Masumeen [as] did not teach it. Simple as that. They did not encourage their Shi'ah to involve themselves in political movements and such. In fact, if anything they have emphatically commanded their Shi'ah to stay away from these political endeavors and ambitions. We are to wait for the deliverance of the Qa'im [as]. We were never told to establish political government through the utilization of the faith and transform it into a distinct ideology. The establishment of a just, Islamic government is the prerogative of an Imam al-Masum, and the Qa'im [as] in particular. What we see now is this attempt at crystallizing Shi'ism into a political force to be reckoned with. I find this problematic, as the Imams [as] did not teach this. Second, it has always been the assertion of the Shi'ah that religious leaders need be infallible. Was this not our dispute with the Sunnis? Nobody differed over whether or not we should have a caliphate. They differed over the qualifications of that caliph. We Shi'ahs have always emphasized the point that leaders must be infallible for them to be above scrutiny (although, it was always the Infallible leaders that were most welcome to criticism). Now, we find ourselves, essentially, in favor of the Sunni conception of the caliphate (with the relatively minor requirement that he must be knowledgeable in matters of fiqh, like that really makes a difference to how he rules). If we continue to go down this path, I fear that head of the "Islamic" state will eventually become a "Divinely inspired" seat, very much akin to how the Pope is seen in Catholicism. We will elevate fallibles to the level of infallibility (even if we don't outright acknowledge it).

Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways), than to have political ideology mixed in with the pristine faith, allowing fallibles to dictate our beliefs and actions and closing the doors to interpretation. Not only that, but most of the time the policies of the government will have to do with what's in the best interest of the people of that specific nation. The resources will go towards favoring those individuals over others. Ex. The Islamic Republic of Iran definitely favors those people who are "Iranian", nobody can just move over to Iran and reap the benefits of the Islamic government as they should for being Muslim. Instead, the government favors non-Muslim Iranians over non-Iranian Muslims. Is this what the Prophet [sawa] taught? I'm not sure how he would have carried this forth, but I can be sure he would not care much for the nationality of a particular Muslim.

Anyways, that's all for the moment. And even if you happen to agree with the political theory of Walayat al-Faqih, there have been major changes in terms of the power and authority of the Wali al-Faqih than was originally given to him and was envisioned by Sayyid Khomeini. You may want to read this paper here: https://www.dropbox....ic Republic.pdf

[Ali-Reza]

I say we need to go back to Quran and see how Allah (swt) used the word "Walayat" in His words. And if one reads it carefully, one will find that Walayat is for Allah (swt) only. And of course those whom he chooses (prophet and ahlulbayt). In their absence Allah(swt) tells us to do things in Shura in Quran.  

Going to hawza for so many years can make you a good marjah but Wali...I highly doubt.


So I don't personally subscribe to this concept it and I hope Allah (swt) forgive me if I am wrong as I am only a laymen but sometimes you don't need to read a ton of books to figure out things are being twisted in favor of staying in power.

Edited by Ali-Reza, 22 May 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 22 May 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

See, I don't have much interest in reading too deeply into these arguments (although, I did actually read that treatise by Sayyid Khomeini awhile back). The reason being that our Masumeen [as] did not teach it. Simple as that. They did not encourage their Shi'ah to involve themselves in political movements and such. In fact, if anything they have emphatically commanded their Shi'ah to stay away from these political endeavors and ambitions. We are to wait for the deliverance of the Qa'im [as]. We were never told to establish political government through the utilization of the faith and transform it into a distinct ideology. The establishment of a just, Islamic government is the prerogative of an Imam al-Masum, and the Qa'im [as] in particular. What we see now is this attempt at crystallizing Shi'ism into a political force to be reckoned with. I find this problematic, as the Imams [as] did not teach this. Second, it has always been the assertion of the Shi'ah that religious leaders need be infallible. Was this not our dispute with the Sunnis? Nobody differed over whether or not we should have a caliphate. They differed over the qualifications of that caliph. We Shi'ahs have always emphasized the point that leaders must be infallible for them to be above scrutiny (although, it was always the Infallible leaders that were most welcome to criticism). Now, we find ourselves, essentially, in favor of the Sunni conception of the caliphate (with the relatively minor requirement that he must be knowledgeable in matters of fiqh, like that really makes a difference to how he rules). If we continue to go down this path, I fear that head of the "Islamic" state will eventually become a "Divinely inspired" seat, very much akin to how the Pope is seen in Catholicism. We will elevate fallibles to the level of infallibility (even if we don't outright acknowledge it).

Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways), than to have political ideology mixed in with the pristine faith, allowing fallibles to dictate our beliefs and actions and closing the doors to interpretation. Not only that, but most of the time the policies of the government will have to do with what's in the best interest of the people of that specific nation. The resources will go towards favoring those individuals over others. Ex. The Islamic Republic of Iran definitely favors those people who are "Iranian", nobody can just move over to Iran and reap the benefits of the Islamic government as they should for being Muslim. Instead, the government favors non-Muslim Iranians over non-Iranian Muslims. Is this what the Prophet [sawa] taught? I'm not sure how he would have carried this forth, but I can be sure he would not care much for the nationality of a particular Muslim.

Anyways, that's all for the moment. And even if you happen to agree with the political theory of Walayat al-Faqih, there have been major changes in terms of the power and authority of the Wali al-Faqih than was originally given to him and was envisioned by Sayyid Khomeini. You may want to read this paper here: https://www.dropbox....ic Republic.pdf

   You stated: "Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways)"    I can see where you are coming from here. Quick question. What if the laws and policies are set in place for an Islamic country, and people are not following it to the point where it's directly affecting those people who actually are following it? Should an Islamic government be set in place to protect the people and to keep some sort of Islamic order. This is just for instance, but what if there were certain "bad" people causing so much disarray in an Islamic state, to the point where actual Muslim's were being directly affected or hurt by those actions? Think of the reflection and poor influence it has on new generation's like the children.  Should we just let people act however they want on account of freewill?  I think you are right, as Muslim's we should have freewill to act in accordance with laws and policies that are placed before us, but what about the bad people who ruin it for everyone trying to live a life serving Allah (swt)? What is the solution with those Mongers?

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, 22 May 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Ibn al-Hassan]

AhlulBayt_313, on 22 May 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

   You stated: "Now, I know people will say, "but we have to establish an Islamic government". Though, you can have Islamic laws and policies that reflect the Islamic way of life, without placing a single man on the top (who then has the ability to control nearly every policy decision in the country). If people truly believe in their Islam and out of their own free will choose to accept it, they will naturally favor those policies that befit them as Muslims. But, I'd rather do without an "Islamic" government (which we are not obligated to establish anyways)"    I can see where you are coming from here. Quick question. What if the laws and policies are set in place for an Islamic country, and people are not following it to the point where it's directly affecting those people who actually are following it? Should an Islamic government be set in place to protect the people and to keep some sort of Islamic order. This is just for instance, but what if there were certain "bad" people causing so much disarray in an Islamic state, to the point where actual Muslim's were being directly affected or hurt by those actions? Think of the reflection and poor influence it has on new generation's like the children.  Should we just let people act however they want on account of freewill?  I think you are right, as Muslim's we should have freewill to act in accordance with laws and policies that are placed before us, but what about the bad people who ruin it for everyone trying to live a life serving Allah (swt)? What is the solution with those Mongers?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bad" people hurting Muslims. Do you mean that they are physically stopping them from performing religious obligations and rituals? Any government would have to allow for some reasonable amount of religious freedom, not only in holding certain beliefs, but also in carrying out their own rituals and rites. So, this wouldn't only apply to an Islamic government.

[Ali-Reza]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 23 May 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bad" people hurting Muslims. Do you mean that they are physically stopping them from performing religious obligations and rituals? Any government would have to allow for some reasonable amount of religious freedom, not only in holding certain beliefs, but also in carrying out their own rituals and rites. So, this wouldn't only apply to an Islamic government.

ya you probably can practice Islam more freely in none Muslim countries because of freedom of religion than in so called Muslim states. In Pakistan you can get bombed, in Saudi Arabia all sort of things can happen to you, and even in Iran, you need to close your mosque on Fridays in Friday sermons or you get in serious trouble.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Both of you oppose it, I'm still waiting for someone to reply who agrees with it.  Is there no one who agrees with it???? There has to be at least one person on SC who agrees with it and can state why they do.

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Yesterday, 03:40 AM.

[repenter]

AhlulBayt_313, on 23 May 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Both of you oppose it, I'm still waiting for someone to reply who agrees with it.  Is there no one who agrees with it???? There has to be at least one person on SC who agrees with it and can state why they do.

After so many years on shiachat, we have learned better.....its been argued to death and then some.

Basically it all comes down to the Mutlagh part. Some people say only masoom can do this, some people say ulama can do this as well. Few Ulama disagree with Wilayat Faghi, most disagreement is on the mutlagh part.

[AhlulBayt_313]

repenter, on 23 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

After so many years on shiachat, we have learned better.....its been argued to death and then some.

Basically it all comes down to the Mutlagh part. Some people say only masoom can do this, some people say ulama can do this as well. Few Ulama disagree with Wilayat Faghi, most disagreement is on the mutlagh part.

Oh, good to know. Well, if that's the case, let me look in an older thread to see what the "Heavyweight's" had to say in the matter.  I want to see an agreement (not just disagreements)

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Yesterday, 04:05 AM.

[Ali-Reza]

repenter, on 23 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

After so many years on shiachat, we have learned better.....its been argued to death and then some.

Basically it all comes down to the Mutlagh part. Some people say only masoom can do this, some people say ulama can do this as well. Few Ulama disagree with Wilayat Faghi, most disagreement is on the mutlagh part.

Repenter pointed this out very well. I think is the Mutlagh, the absolute part, that people have problems with. I personally prefer a religious leader over a non religious one because I know he will have taqwa (inshallah) but then again through history of Islam many have claimed just that. So for that reason "mutlagh" is only of prophets and Imams IMHO.

[awaiting_for_the.12th]

WF > any form of government except obviously the one Imam will setup, which according to my understanding will be an extension and addition/deletions to the current government. It has few drawbacks (which is expected from any government setup by non-masoom). But it is the closest to how an Islamic system should be.
Throughout time, Shias have tried to establish a government (after Prophet's wafat) but due to various reasons it kept getting postponed or the priorities changed for that era. Shias were imprisoned, executed, exiled, kept in minority or in hostile conditions so every era had its own challenges but the idea of a just government was always in the back of head.

First one was setup by Imam Ali , which lasted 5 years and even in that most was spent in Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan
Second one was setup by Mukhtar in Kufa
I cant recall if there were any other significant ones after that which were based on Ahlulbayt teachings
Then we have the Islamic revolution which has AlhumdAllah lasted 34 years. This is the golden age for Shias.

[GodBlessAli]

Ibn al-Hassan, on 23 May 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bad" people hurting Muslims. Do you mean that they are physically stopping them from performing religious obligations and rituals? Any government would have to allow for some reasonable amount of religious freedom, not only in holding certain beliefs, but also in carrying out their own rituals and rites. So, this wouldn't only apply to an Islamic government.

I actually quite admire your reasons for not agreeing with WF because so many people on ShiaChat and around the world don't know much about it but draw up conclusions based on the bad things they hear about from others. Most anti-WF people are haters who say stereotypical things like, "the Mullahs have a dictatorship" or "the Mullahs are stealing all our money" without actually researching much about it.

I actually have two ahadith from our 3rd infallible Imam (a) which not only support the mixing of religion in politics, but also the enforcing of Islamic laws.

Imam Husayn (a) - "Your difficulties are worse than others , because you were deprived of the rank of the scholars - considering your legitimacy and merit - (These difficulties are) because administering the affairs of the society and conveying the (religious) rules must be done by scholars who truly believe in God and know what is permitted and what is forbidden by God." [p.238 Tuhaf ul-Uqul]

"Discharging of the duties and the enforcement of laws should be in the hands of the scholars, God-fearing & pious persons. These are the people who do not make any changes in the divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things, and who are the custodians of trusts." [p.242 Tuhaf ul-Uqul]

[repenter]

GodBlessAli, on 23 May 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

I actually quite admire your reasons for not agreeing with WF because so many people on ShiaChat and around the world don't know much about it but draw up conclusions based on the bad things they hear about from others. Most anti-WF people are haters who say stereotypical things like, "the Mullahs have a dictatorship" or "the Mullahs are stealing all our money" without actually researching much about it.

I actually have two ahadith from our 3rd infallible Imam (a) which not only support the mixing of religion in politics, but also the enforcing of Islamic laws.

Imam Husayn (a) - "Your difficulties are worse than others , because you were deprived of the rank of the scholars - considering your legitimacy and merit - (These difficulties are) because administering the affairs of the society and conveying the (religious) rules must be done by scholars who truly believe in God and know what is permitted and what is forbidden by God." [p.238 Tuhaf ul-Uqul]

"Discharging of the duties and the enforcement of laws should be in the hands of the scholars, God-fearing & pious persons. These are the people who do not make any changes in the divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things, and who are the custodians of trusts." [p.242 Tuhaf ul-Uqul]

Well said. Thing is few,,very few scholars disagree with Wilayat Faghi. The only disagreement is on the execution of it, namely the mutlagh part. If you see a scholar not being active in politics or social issues, it doesn't mean he doesn't agree with it, i means either he has dedicated his time to something else or that he has realized that he might not be good at it and has decided to not involve himself for the greater good, and there is no shame in that.

[Abu Hadi]

AhlulBayt_313, on 22 May 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Assalamu Alikoum, I am currently reading this and if anyone is familiar with this topic, I would appreciate your feedback. http://www.iranchamb...ayat_faqeeh.pdf I linked the topic here so you can see what I'm referring to. I just started getting into this topic, so if you have any insight, disagreements, or if you agree with this topic, I am open to all feedback. I would just like to get a better perspective about it. Some of you, whether you agree or disagree with it, may be more familiar with it, and could shed some light for me. Thank you and Wasalam.

It is wajib on any muslim, that when they see injustice and oppression happening, they should try to correct it and set thing right. How they go about this depends on their resources and ability. I am not trying to start a war, but I never read anything in hadith that states that this obligation for 'Amr bil Maroof wa nahiya and munkhar' (enjoining good and forbidding evil) on a societal level is not valid until the time of Al Qaim(a.f.s). The basis of Wilayat Al Faqih is to 'enjoing good and forbid evil' and to establish justice in society and to combat injustice and oppression. If we see any group or individual who believe in Allah(s.w.a) and the Day of Judgement, who believe in Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and the Wilayat of 12 Imam(a.s.) and are working to enjoing good and forbid evil and establish justice and fight against oppression and injustice, then we should support them.

Edited by Abu Hadi, Today, 05:00 AM.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Abu Hadi, on 24 May 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

It is wajib on any muslim, that when they see injustice and oppression happening, they should try to correct it and set thing right. How they go about this depends on their resources and ability. I am not trying to start a war, but I never read anything in hadith that states that this obligation for 'Amr bil Maroof wa nahiya and munkhar' (enjoining good and forbidding evil) on a societal level is not valid until the time of Al Qaim(a.f.s). The basis of Wilayat Al Faqih is to 'enjoing good and forbid evil' and to establish justice in society and to combat injustice and oppression. If we see any group or individual who believe in Allah(s.w.a) and the Day of Judgement, who believe in Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and the Wilayat of 12 Imam(a.s.) and are working to enjoing good and forbid evil and establish justice and fight against oppression and injustice, then we should support them.

Thank you, that was a very collective response and much appreciated.  What you mentioned is something that I have discussed with several people, and for them, it boils down to Imam Mahdi (atfs) who should be the sole one instituting that justice.  I have tried to explain that we have a duty as Muslim's whereas it is incumbent for us to "enjoin the good and forbid the evil;" however, this doesn't always translate to people I am trying to explain this to.  Now, when I try to have a civilized conversation about the topic, it ends up with a huge debate, because they come back and say the way Veleyat al-Faqeeh is being used is causing more harm than good.  I will give an example: (No names of course for confidentiality purposes) Some people have told me that if you don't follow it, the ruler will basically punish you without warning and also that people have been suffering on account of this (which to them is not justice).  Basically, the sanctions that are being used are not being enforced properly, and the general public have no say so in the matter.  Simply, if they don't abide by the laws governed or (agree with it), they are persecuted.  Now, I don't know how true all that is (or at least to the extent of the claims), so I am trying to research it.  I've heard many many stories from people who live or lived in Iran, and have personally said they have been a victim or witnessed these "so-called" injustices in the area, so I can't say anything but listen to their complaints.  Am I going to base my opinion of the matter soley on those claims (of course not), but I do want to know what they are referring to.  Are people being oppressed because of the Veleyat al-Faqeeh or not?  Is justice being carried out properly?  It saddens me think that the Marja would be responsible for some of the accusations, and I have a lot of respect for him as a Marja. I, personally, don't like to hear anyone talk bad about him, because from a religious standpoint he has my support, but I don't know enough about the political nature of him.  Given that statement, I don't know how true some of the accusations could be based on his character I've witnessed thus far.  Also, for people to claim he is responsible for certain actions, where is the proof?  Even in my Hawza, I've had several people tell me that I am going to be brainwashed by this topic, as it may be introduced at some point; which bothers me, but that's my own issue dealing with backlash by people.  It's just hard for me to fathom the accusations made against him, because his religious teaching's are so paramount to me, and it breaks my heart hearing how people talk about him, and also the Marja who has preceded him.  Feel free to enlighten me on any of the information I have posted here. Wasalam

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Today, 06:19 AM.

[AhlulBayt_313]

I know there used to be an old threat on this subject; however, it no longer exists.  It would have been benefical for me to read it. It would have been nice both sides on the matter, and could have answered many of my questions and/or clear up some misunderstandings.

[Abu Hadi]

Thats the theory behind Wilayat Al Faqih. If you want to talk about a specific case, such as Iran, I am probably not the best one to answer that because I have never visited the country. It is up to each individual to look at the actions of the leader and decide for themselves whether this leader fulfills that role of 'Enjoining Good and forbidding evil and establishing justice'. When i hear second hand information regarding Iran, I always consider the source. Is this person honorable and credible, do they have some sort of pre-conceived idea not based on evidence or are they speaking not from logic and evidence but from emotions such as prejudice or irrational hatred or dislike. If they are honorable and speaking from evidence and logic, i will listen and consider, if not, I won't. I am comfortable with saying that I don't know or I don't have enough information to give a reliable answer on specific details.

Edited by Abu Hadi, Today, 07:44 AM.

[AhlulBayt_313]

Abu Hadi, on 24 May 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Thats the theory behind Wilayat Al Faqih. If you want to talk about a specific case, such as Iran, I am probably not the best one to answer that because I have never visited the country. It is up to each individual to look at the actions of the leader and decide for themselves whether this leader fulfills that role of 'Enjoining Good and forbidding evil and establishing justice'. When i hear second hand information regarding Iran, I always consider the source. Is this person honorable and credible, do they have some sort of pre-conceived idea not based on evidence or are they speaking not from logic and evidence but from emotions such as prejudice or irrational hatred or dislike. If they are honorable and speaking from evidence and logic, i will listen and consider, if not, I won't. I am comfortable with saying that I don't know or I don't have enough information to give a reliable answer on specific details.

That's exactly how I feel as well.  I brought up this particular case, because it's been brought to my attention time and time again, and then some...  You may not have some of the answers I was looking for, but you did open me up to more reflection on a couple points you made, and I thank you for that brother.  I also commend you on saying you were not comfortable with answering some of my questions, again...thank you very much for your input and taking time to help me discern a few things (much appreciated).  Wasalam

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, Today, 07:53 AM.

[AhlulBayt_313]

GodBlessAli, on 23 May 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

I actually quite admire your reasons for not agreeing with WF because so many people on ShiaChat and around the world don't know much about it but draw up conclusions based on the bad things they hear about from others. Most anti-WF people are haters who say stereotypical things like, "the Mullahs have a dictatorship" or "the Mullahs are stealing all our money" without actually researching much about it.

I actually have two ahadith from our 3rd infallible Imam (a) which not only support the mixing of religion in politics, but also the enforcing of Islamic laws.

Imam Husayn (a) - "Your difficulties are worse than others , because you were deprived of the rank of the scholars - considering your legitimacy and merit - (These difficulties are) because administering the affairs of the society and conveying the (religious) rules must be done by scholars who truly believe in God and know what is permitted and what is forbidden by God." [p.238 Tuhaf ul-Uqul]

"Discharging of the duties and the enforcement of laws should be in the hands of the scholars, God-fearing & pious persons. These are the people who do not make any changes in the divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things, and who are the custodians of trusts." [p.242 Tuhaf ul-Uqul]

Here is the difference with me, I am simply asking questions about it.  I haven't judged anyone who disagrees with it.  Like I said, I am open to hear differences in opinion and I encourage people to share their opinions too.  All information, whether it's true or false will help me to have a better understanding on the matter.  It is my responsibility to think objectively and to be open to all information, that way I can discern what I believe to be true, and I respect all comments thus far.  You see, I have heard many bad statements from people (in general), and it's unfortunate to say the least.  However, whether I agree with those comments or not, I respect everyone who wishes to comment.  Don't worry, I am no lowly sheep out here simply following things without researching it first.  It is my duty as a Muslim to seek knowledge and ask questions Wasalam

Thank you to everyone who has commented thus far, I appreciate your efforts and respect your opinion's. Wasalam

Edited by AhlulBayt_313, 48 minutes ago.

[Abu Hadi]

NP Wassalm.