Jump to content

kamyar

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

kamyar last won the day on May 6 2015

kamyar had the most liked content!

About kamyar

  • Rank
    سرمایه محبت زهراست دین من
  • Birthday 09/24/1988

Profile Information

  • Location
    Iran
  • Religion
    Islam - Shia

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,421 profile views
  1. Thoughts 2017

    Salam Ibn Sina jan, I can't access YouTube currently. It would be good if you can give me this video on another website like Aparat, or at least write some of the sentences of the remarks. Bah Bah, Mubarake Insha'Allah. You don't forget our shirini, do you?
  2. We don’t believe Allah is just creator (khaliq), but also legislator (share’e:شارع). No one except Allah is allowed to issue any hukm. Any form of hukm (rules) issues in the government should be the same and based on the hukm issued by Allah. So the executor of the affairs in the society such as president should act according to Allah’s hukms. In a society run by Wali Faqih, Wali Faqih’s opinion and hukm (due to his meticulous familiarity with Islamic rulings) is indicative of the hukm of Allah. Because of this, he should be the head of all branches, such as executive branch. In fact, President in Welayat Faqih’s government is Wali Faqih himself, otherwise what would be the philosophy behind Welayat Faqih. If we are going to give the position for presidency to a person who isn’t necessarily acquainted with fiqhi issues, then how can we claim our government is run according to the Islamic fiqh? But now that different people are needed to take the responsibility of the affairs of the society, a person also is needed the run the position called presidency. Some believe this person should be directly chosen by Wali Faqih or at least they suggest such a method. Some others suggest, as it’s embedded in the Iranian Constitution, a public election in which some candidates with certain characteristics are nominated is held and then the one elected by the people will be the president, however his presidency should be accepted by a Wali Faqih to assure the one appointed by people is chosen and will act according to Islamic rulings, 'so I, the Wali Faqih, accept you as my representative for the position of presidency'. Besides that this acceptation (tanfiz, endorsement) includes a supervisory nature. In fact, this process is there to Islamically legitimatize the president and him taking the office. One may say that “but we can’t say that presidents chosen during Islamic Republic have acted according to Islamic Fiqh, while the process was there to assure such a thing to happen!”. Beside the fact that our discussion here isn't about Iran and its method of implementation Welayat Faqih, but our discussion here is about the concept of Welayat Faqih itself, since talking about it makes this already long post longer, and is not related to the core of our discussion here let’s skip it, although it’s an important and interesting issue. Now some questions may be asked: Isn’t such kind of welayat a form of dictatorship? What if Wali Faqih rejects people’s president elect? Or, What if then Wali Faqih depose this president chosen by the majority of the voters? How then can this governance be legitimate? To answer these questions, let’s first define the word “dictatorship”. A dictatorship government is a form of government whose verdicts are dictated upon people by one certain individual or group against their will. But, in Welayat Faqih, people have accepted these defined roles of Wali Faqih. People have accepted their votes getting accepted by a Faqih. Welayat Faqih and Wali Faqih’s hukm is not and should not be against the people’s will, although it may be against people's opinion (of course these cases don't happen too much and a Wali Faqih is wiser than that to govern against people's opinion in too cases. In many cases, Wali Faqih acts in accordance with other's opinions and against his opinion, like the case we had in the JCPOA) . Otherwise, such government will become illegitimate. Even if Wali Faqih has all other conditions for running the society, people not accepting him and his role and verdicts will illegitimate implementing his Welayat. It doesn’t mean people’s opinions can decide what is legitimate and what is not, but one of the requirements for implementing a government is acceptation of people. It’s a necessary condition, not a sufficient one and just for implantation and not the intrinsic legitimacy. Summarily, since people have accepted Wali Faqih accepting the president elect as president and monitoring his activities, this Welayat is neither dictatorship, nor illegitimate. But it’s a way to legitimize people’s vote based on their own will. This is called “Religious Democracy”. In Religious democracy, demo (the people) have accepted religious cracy (governance) – We have found the Welayat Faqih the only mesdaq (example, case) for such government-, unlike Western Democracy wherein people’s vote (off course not even in practice!) is everything. A separate discussion is required to criticize the western democracy.
  3. و علیکم السلام و رحمه الله استاذنا برادر جبرئیل -دامت توفیقاته- و اما بعد Both, not just preference, but also legitimacy... A Wali Faqih should possess three conditions: Knowledge, Taqwa(Piety)/Edalat (Justice),Wisdom. If we give the responsibility to implement the fiqh in society to a person who doesn’t have required knowledge in fiqh, then he wouldn’t be able to make decision and take action based on Islamic fiqh. If he has knowledge but not taqwa, then he will not use this power in its appropriate direction. As they say, it will be like a thief with light. Since you are interested in poem: تو چون موری و این راهست همچون موی بت رویان مرو زنهار بر تقلید و بر تخمین و بر عمیا چو علم آموختی از حرص آن گه ترس کاندر شب چو دزدی با چراغ آید گزیده‌تر برد کالا If he has required knowledge and taqwa, but lacks required wisdom, he won’t be able to use this knowledge and taqwa appropriately. So, a person with required knowledge, taqwa and wisdom is an inseparable part of a society with Islamic laws, thus principle 3 is an inseparable part of principle 3 and is there to assure principle 2 to be implemented in the right direction. Therefore, for example, a person stuck to the power just because he believes he has the right to remain in power against the will of both majority and experts is not a Wali Faqih, as a Wali Faqih doesn't and can't take the power or continue remaining in power without the consent of others, otherwise he isn't a Wali Faqih. A Wali faqih is not before these three conditions, but after them. Also, when we say Wali Faqih should be the best person available, it doesn't mean it should be the best person for example in terms of performing ebadat. The best person here means the best person who is able to take the responsibility of leading an Islamic society, implementing Islamic rules and managing the affairs based on Islamic criteria. For a person who is called or claimed to be a prophet to be followed, him being a prophet should be proved, not whether we should follow a prophet or not. For a person who is called or claimed to be an infallible Imam to be followed, him being an infallible Imam should be proved, not whether an infallible Imam should be followed or not. For a person who is called or claimed to be a Wali Faqih to be followed, him being a Wali Faqih, him possessing required conditions, him possessing required taqwa, justice,knowledge and wisdom to run a society according to Islamic principles should be proved, not whether we should follow a Wali Faqih or not. Clearer than this? Does such a concept have to be proved via things out of its field? Why should it be proved to a Muslim that we just can obey a Wali chosen based on Islamic conditions? If someone at the top of the society is known as knowledgeable who knows the Islamic rulings needed for governance, pious and just who uses the knowledge justly, capable who manages affairs appropriately, as well as officials and people; this is a clear hujjah for following him. Even if there are differences between our opinions and his, while we testify his knowledge, piety and wisdom, for various reasons one of which is the one I explained above in the tatbir example, there is still hujjah to follow and obey him. The hujjah following a Wali Faqih in essence doesn’t differ from the one regarding following a Marja Taqlid. Like the hujjah in following a Marja Taqlid is him being a qualified person to be imitated in the personal fiqhi matters and not whether or not a marja taqlid should be followed, the hujjah in following a Wali Faqih is him being a qualified person to be followed in governmental matters and not whether or not a Wali Faqih should be followed. What actually we need about Welayat Faqih is defining it. If ‘what a Wali Faqih means’ and ‘what his authorities are’ are defined, nothing more except believing in Islam is needed to believe in its concept.
  4. Sorry for the delay... Legitimacy or illegitimacy of following or not following has to do with haq and batil, not at the first place with personalities. Even following Imams of our time is based on the fact that they are haq. Even following Imam Mahdi is based on “haq and batil criteria”, otherwise everyone can claim that he is imam mahdi. “Not following someone, merely because he is not infallible” is a wrong attitude. For not following him, him not being haq should be proved. Now, if one can prove that the one at the top of a front, group, society is not in the haq direction, then he will not follow him. And, if one refuses to follow, because he says that he isn’t able to detect if this Leader is right or wrong, he actually isn’t able to detect what right and wrong is. This is the problem with some individuals I am talking about. But, those who have found out the right path and jointed it and are helping its Leader, consequently they will join Imam Mahdi’s front and help him. Since, they are now in the right place and so is Imam Mahdi, unless they change. But as for the others, those who are not in the right direction, those who are not able to detect what is right and wrong and has postponed using Islamic criteria and aql, those who are not Muslim, those who are worshiping sun and moon, etc., they will not follow Imam Mahdi, unless they change. This is the difference between these two groups living during the gheybah. Brother, I posted all those contents so that we discontinue bring up this Masum or non-Masum guardianship issue. Do we read each other's posts carefully. Off course, Masum has preference over all and in all matters, but how can it have anything to do with extent of Islamic rulings. As Imam Khomeini says: So, by limiting authority of a Wali Faqih, we are limiting implementing Islamic rulings. Yes, for example, it can be discussed whether Khums should be paid to a Wali Faqih or paying it to every qualified marja is permissible. Here, firstly, in fact the discussion isn’t about extent of authority of a Wali faqih, but the discussion is about whether the issue of Khums is a matter related to the affairs of government, hence within the territory of a Wali Faqih authority, or it’s merely a personal fiqhi issue where everyone follows their own marja. In other words, actually the discussion is about masadiq (cases and instances) and not mafahim (concepts). Secondly, we are not going to refuse to give authority of Masum to a non-Masum and refuse to implement Islamic rulings, because at the end of the day we will do our duty and pay the Khums. So do these people even know what they are saying when they say we can’t give the authority of a Masum to a non-Masum? Imam Khomeini was right when he said that even many ulema don’t know what Islam is. May Allah forgive these Akhonds. Allah knows how much they have caused problem for Islam and Muslims, how much they have limited Islam and implementing its rulings throughout the history, and how much they have given the authority over Muslims to Shahs, Molouk , president and other tawaqit. Aren't those who refused to implement Islamic rulings in the society and give the authority to a qualified person responsible for paving the ground for a person like Saddam taking the power? Alhamdulilah, Imam Khomeini wasn’t like them and Alhamdulilah for him giving us this Revolution and letting us get rid of these self-appointed Shahs, Alhamdulilah for him not being like these Pope-like Akhond’s: “I am not one of those mullahs who merely sit with rosary beads in hand. I am not the Pope to perform certain ceremonies on Sundays only, spending the rest of my time imagining that I am a sultan and not concerning myself with any other affairs. This is where the key to Islamic independence lies. This country must be rescued from these difficulties.” Decisions are made and actions are taken in every government. These are either by a faqih or by a/some non-faqih(s). So, Welayat does exist in every society, we are either giving it to a faqih or a/some non-faqih(s). The form of welayat and executer(s) are the things that change, not its existence. That being said, now what do those who say that “we can’t give the welayat to a faqih” mean? If they mean this authority (these decisions and actions) in the society can’t be given to a faqih because of nature of authority itself, since this authority necessarily exists, as a result they are giving it to a/some non-faqih(s) (either non-faqih with Islamic rules like had, ghesas etc. or non-faqih with non-Islamic rules –high level of secularism) unless they believe there should be no form of government and establishment; pure Anarchism. If they believe that “there is no problem in the authority itself and these decisions and actions can be and should be made and taken, but giving this authority to a non-Masum is too much and Islamically haram and authority should be divided among many individuals”, then they should provide proofs for this claim that where and how in Islam it says that one person shouldn’t take this responsibility, whether through Aqli method or naqli (Ayat and Ahadith) one. However, even if they prove this, they have not disproved Welayat of Fuqaha, which is another form of Welayat Faqih. Let’s divide the paragraph above: -There should be no form of government (Anarchism-not necessarily chaos, but no rule, hence no ruler): I don’t think anyone here and among others opposed to Welayat Faqih believe in it. -There should be government, but not Islamic one (Secularism): This means that Islam either lacks rules for establishment or lacks the most appropriate rules. -There should be government and the rules should be Islamic ones and based on Islamic laws (Fiqh), but the government shouldn’t be or shouldn’t be necessarily at the hand of scholars (fuqaha/faqih): Due to the reasons I will provide in the next post, Insha’Allah, government with Islamic rules but without a scholar/faqih ruler is impossible. In other words, Faqih ruler is a necessity for Islamic rules. -There should be rules, Islamic rules and faqih rulers, not just one faqih at the top of the government: Firstly, this should be proved that why one qualified faqih taking the responsibility of the government is impermissible, but some faqih's isn’t. Moreover, even if it’s proved, this form of government is another form of Welayat Faqih. Do we have another possibility apart from the ones above? Now that we are living during the gheybah time, we should try the best form of government in which Islamic laws are not shut down. This is a duty. This is similar to us following our marja. Living during the time of ghaybah and lacking all the blessings we have during the time of reappearance in which we can directly follow our Imam’s opinions will not justify postponing Islamic rulings and refusing to do our duties. So, we use a marja, based on a criterion which is Islam, because we have found this way the best way possible and available to take our responsibility and justify our amal (actions), otherwise our amal won’t be justified. This is a duty, as choosing a qualified faqih (or even some faqihs) at the top of the government to carry out and implement Islamic rulings that need a person to be implemented is a duty, while neither of them are zatan Masum, neither Marja nor Wali Faqih. But some will follow Marja and at the same time present excuses to not follow Wali Faqih, while if these excuses are valid, they are valid regarding the issue of following a Marja too. It doesn’t make any differences. At the end of the day, one, and just one, of the available options will be implemented, no matter which individual or group has decided it to be so. I am talking about the necessity of having a last word and necessity of obeying it by all the people, provided the one who has the last word has the required conditions: knowledge, justice and wisdom.
  5. Dear @Mohamed1993, I know. You are presenting reasons and questions regarding the Welayat Faqih as to why some may disagree with it. I too don't say such individuals will surely disobey Ahlulbayt in the time of their apparent appearance. But, I don't see any guarantee they would obey. Because in the time of Wali Faqih (which as some say: Welayat/wali Faqih era is an exercise duration for Welayat/Wali Masum era) they refuse to help him and follow him in certain required circumstances. Long story short, when I am witnessing an era wherein a Wali Faqih has raised the flag of Islam and is defending it against a world of kufr and estekbar, but some don't want to help him, then what can assure me these individuals will help Imams. If this flag bearer is in the right front, then I am right in my uncertainty and if he isn't, it should be proved to me to change my opinion about these individuals. You may say, these people are not following due to their ijtihad and understanding, and not out of arrogance and stubbornness. Well, it might be so. But, their wrong ijtihad in such a critical political matter may remain even during the time of Imams too. Anyways, to address these questions; firstly the questions are not within the realm of Welayat Faqih's definition. These questions, no matter what their answers are, have to do with the method and procedure of Welayat Faqih, but they don't necessarily disprove legitimacy and or necessity (wojoub) of it. Moreover, similar questions can be asked about our marja taqlid. “How do we decide our marja is the best person available to be followed in fiqhi issues? We have different marjas and different opinions on some matters, how do we find out one marja’s opinion is the best one and the one we should follow? What if he was wrong? Then how do we detect it? In the case of a Masum, there is no dispute, he is infallible, and there can be no doubting his level of knowledge in comparison with everyone else. So, what if some one says: "I just follow our Masum Imams, and not fallible individuals whom I am not sure whether or not they are right or wrong! What would our answer be to these questions and remarks? The similar answer to the questions above about “how can we decide who the best marja is?” can be presented to the similar questions about “Wali Faqih”, except for the fact that marja is chosen by one individual, but Wali Faqih is chosen by a society. However, both are chosen based on criteria, which is Islam. Now, the questions “How does a society choose a Wali Faqih?” and “How can this Wali Faqih be observed?” can have different answers which are related to the methods and procedures of implementing Welayat Faqih. These questions, regardless of their answers can’t disprove the necessity of Welayat Faqih. If that’s merely a personal fiqhi issue, everyone follows his own marja. But if that’s a certain social matter wherein one last word needed, here we follow one of these mujtahids whom the society has chosen (I will talk about it more in my next posts here, Insha'Allah). In fact, these tazahum's (differences) in certain social matters will prove the necessity of having someone to have the last word. I use the issue of tatbir as an example: In the case of tatbir, like all other matters which are or will become a social matter, we have some different options: -Letting the tatbir be free in the society with no specific restriction. -Letting the tatbir be free in the society with some specific restrictions. -Announcing the tatbir illegal. No one is allowed to perform tatbir. …and or some other options. At the end of the day, one, and just one, of the options available can and should be implemented. Let’s assume different marjas have different options on this matter. What can we do now? My answer is that we follow the opinion of the one we have chosen for these social matters when there is a need of a last word. One may say his opinion may be wrong. I don’t disagree. But the opinions of others too may be wrong. But we only can implement one of these opinions. It also doesn't mean others should change their opinion and unify it with the opinion of Wali Faqih. Insha'Allah, I will discuss it more as well as brother @Sindbad05 posts at another time.
  6. A few points about Welayat Faqih, we need to pay attention to: Welayat Faqih doesn’t need to be proved, if there is just a little familiarity with Islam: In case we are familiar with just basic principles of Islam, we don’t need even start thinking whether or not Welayat Faqih is necessary and useful. This is because welayat Faqih is based on basic principles of Islam and aql. As Imam Khomeini says: These are the principles: - Every society needs establishment/order/government. - Ruling of government should be based on Islamic laws (Welayat Faqih). -Ruler of government should be overall the best person possible and available (Wali Faqih). If someone doesn’t believe in Welayat Faqih, he actually doesn’t believe in one or two or three of the principles above. It’s more than that. If someone doesn’t believe in principle 2 or 3, he is theorizing the Welayat of Taqout, since any form of government not directed to Allah, Islam, and Islamic rulings and fiqh is government of Taqout. As Imam Khomeini explains: -Restricting discussion on Welayat Faqih to merely fiqh is wrong: By merely fiqhi matters I mean things we don’t know their ruling unless we find the ruling in fiqhi books; ruling that can’t be known based on other principles. Example: Can we understand the ruling of “doubt between ra’ka’at in prayers” or “doubt that whether we performed one or two sajdeh”or “how to perform wozou” through other principles of Islam? No. We need to look at the Fiqhi books or ask someone who has read these books to understand our duty. These are some examples of merely fiqhi issue. Now, what about ruling about, say, mocking or harassing someone in the world of internet? Can we understand the ruling without reading fiqhi books, if we know the ruling, but not in the world of internet? Clearly yes. We don’t need even to ask anyone such a funny question. The ruling is easily known based on other principles of Islam (harassing is haram, no matter what and regardless of any time and place), although there is nothing about internet in ahadith. But, my brothers and sisters, do you believe some are making such mistake? They look at fiqhi books and if they are not so smart or have a sick heart they would say “we have no such thing as Welayat Faqih in Islam, in Quran and Ahadith”. Why? Because they can't or don't want to see words "Welayat Faqih and Wali Faqih" in our books. And even if they are smarter, they may make a slighter mistake. These are while the principles Welayat Faqih is based on are clear (as I listed them above). We don’t need even any hadith in which the phrase “Welayat Faqih” is mentioned, although there are ahadith about this matter. -That's true Wealayat faqih is the same as Welayat of Rasullallah and Aemah, but it doesn’t mean Welayat of Rasullallah and Aemeh is the same as Welayat Faqih: While Wali faqih has the same welayat Ahlulbayt have in political and social matters, Ahlulbay’s welayat include other aspects that Welayat Faqih lacks. These are some examples: - Ahlulbayt have spiritual Welayat in which they can affect our nofous (souls). Wali Faqih doesn’t have such a welayat at such a level. -Welayat Masoum (infallible) is permanent, while Welayat of a Faqih goes on as long as Wali Faqih possesses required characteristics. Despite what some say that Wali Faqih’s Welayat is madam ul-omr (as long as he is alive), it’s accurate to say that Wali Faqih’s welayat is madam ul-sharayet (as long as he possesses required conditions). Welayat Masoum can’t be questioned, while Faqih is monitored and he should govern according to appearances. For example, an infallible Imam can order someone to divorce his wife or order us to go into an alight oven and we are not allowed to question her order and disagree, while Wali Faqih doesn’t have such authority. -Another difference between Wali faqih and Wali Masum is that Faqih may make mistake (mistake and not sin. committing sin, even a minor one will disqualify him for being a Wali Faqih), while Masum doesn’t make any mistake. Now, as it was mentioned, one may ask that “how can we follow someone who may have wrong decisions?" Answer: Everything we do and everything we don’t is based on a decision. Actually even when we don’t do anything we are doing something: not doing anything is doing something. Making war, making peace, being indifferent, being silent etc. all are different forms of doing something and based on a decision. Now, if we don’t follow an order made by Wali Faqih for the reason he isn’t zatan(intrinsically) Masum, us not following his order is also an action based on a decision made by a non-Masum. So, one way or another we are following a fallible and acting according to fallible decision. As well as other necessities and usefulness within Welayat Faqih such as unity, Welayat Faqih is there to assure such a condition wherein probability of making mistake is less than other conditions. That’s because Wali Faqih is and should be overall the best person available for this matter to say the last word.
  7. Do we know individuals based on haq and batil or the other way around? If someone says that he can’t understand if what Wali Faqih generally does is based on Islam or not, he is actually saying that he can’t understand Islam. Especially, if he is a marja and mujtahid;,why does such a person claim that he is a marja, while he can’t distinguish between haq and batil and what is right or wrong? Moreover, how would these individuals understand our Imams were/are right during their eras? Here is what happens when we base haq and batil on individuals: So what matters is criteria. If we don't know the criteria to distinguish between right and wrong during the ghaybah era, what is the guarantee here to find the right way during the apparent presence of Imams? I will talk about this more in my next post here, Insha'Allah. What I am trying to say is that their reason(s) can't be anything other than one/two/all of these three things: 1. Lack of taqwa, 2. Miscalculation (being unable to analyze matters), 3. Misinformation (lack of required knowledge or being cheated by wrong data). These are what make it dangerous.
  8. Let's not make mistake, my dear brother. It’s not a matter of following a fallible or an infallible. It’s about whether or not we are going to be under the umbrella of the right front, the flag of the right front, whether it's led by a fallible or by an infallible. If someone doesn’t want to help the right front and follow its Leader during the gheibah era, does such a person have the morale to help infallible Imams? If someone doesn’t believe wali faqih is leading the front of haq (right), they should have reason to present before Allah. But if they know this is a right front and the Wali Faqih is a qualified leader, however they refuse to follow him (in certain affairs that right front needs), then what would be the guarantee they would help Wali Masoum? Yes. It’s easy to say: If I was in Karbala, I would had sacrificed my life for Imam Hussein. If I were during the time of Imam Ali, I would have fought Muawiyah and his tricks. But In practice things may change. Now, at this time, what are we doing? However, since Imam Mahdi will present clear proofs and his path will be shown clearly, there may be people who, based on misinformation or miscalculation, are not currently on the right, but when they witness Imam Mahdi's proofs and his etmam hojat, the way of joining him may be open for them too.
  9. Taherei is head of a cult named Erfane Halgheh (Ring mysticism). As I read somewhere, he has claimed that he has received revelations from Rouh-alghodos –someone like Mohamad Ali Bab and something like Bahai’at mixed with cabalism and exorcism. It’s so obvious that his teachings and actions were absolutely against the Shari'at of Islam and even tawhid principle, although he speaks of Quran, Imam Hussein, etc. You don’t need to be so knowledgeable to detect his illiteracy. As a result of his actions many people have been seriously affected, both mentally and physically. Also, he was the cause of some families’ disintegration. Achieving illegal money, illegal intervention in medical matters, contacting with non-mahrams are his other sins. As far as I am aware he is not yet executed. These are just some of the things about him and his cult. There are clips of people whose lives are ruined by this man. Some of the clips from his classes are repulsive, otherwise I would have shared them here. Also, there is a Farsi documentary about this cult, named Halgheye Sheitan (Satan’s Ring): http://www.aparat.com/v/yiw0W/مستند_شوک_حلقه_شیطان What is interesting, and of course not new, is that such a person is being defended by a few of these anti-Iran individuals and their media and so-called human right defenders and presented as thinker, Professor Taherei! Same old, same old. Eid Qadir Mubarak, everyone!
  10. @baradar_jackson, this is the latest news: http://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/733824/محمدرسول-الله-به-شبکه-نمایش-خانگی-می-آید
  11. Thoughts 2017

    Dear brothers and sisters, please pray for our brothers and sisters in Bahrain. Let’s not forget them in this holy month of Ramazan. The tweet before martyrdom: "Without Jihad one reaches nothing. Neither in this world nor in the hereafter" Resistance goes on...✌️
  12. Wait bro I just noticed is your birthday actually the same as Imam Khomenei's(ra)?

    1. kamyar

      kamyar

      Thank you so much bro, I didn't know that!

    2. Al Hadi

      Al Hadi

      Really you didn't know?

      I found out yesterday then saw your birthday that's crazy that's awesome though.

    3. kamyar

      kamyar

      Yes brother, I didn't know my birthday is the same as Imam Khomeini's according to Gregorian calendar. According to Solar calendar there is one day gap. It happens 1 in four years.

  13. Sister, we should read the fatawa more clearly: "Insulting figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren, including the wife of the Prophet of Islam [Aisha] is prohibited. This includes the wives of all prophets, particularly the master of all prophets Muhammad (May God’s greetings be upon him and his household)." As you see, it says revered figures by Sunnis, which means they are revered by Sunnis, not us. Or here “He treated a woman, who had come to fight against him, with the utmost respect because she was the Prophet’s wife; otherwise the Commander of the Faithful (as) would not stand on a ceremony with anyone: hence, no such disrespect should ever occur”. The "otherwise" here means that she deserved to be punished by Imam Ali, but she wasn’t, just because she was Prophet’s wife. This is a general rule that is not restricted just to the time of Imam Ali. Really, these things should be explained? As for the cursing, please read this post: BTW, Ayatullah Khamenei's opinions and fatawa on how to deal with Sunni respected beliefs and figures and Islamic Unity don't differ from ,say, Ayatullah Sistani's. But, why do they just attack Leader of the Islamic Revolution?
  14. Thoughts 2017

    1) Obama – Hypocrisy = ? Or, 2) Trump + Hypocrisy = ? Or, 3) Obama –Trump = ? My thoughts: Why can't many people solve these simple equations?
  15. The more interesting part of the story which shows the nature of the people behind creating such fake videos is that, Ayatullah Wahid remarks is prior to Ayatullah Khamenei's. I talked about it earlier here, and re-post some part again on this thread: Ayatullah Khamenei does not say “you shouldn’t cry loudly for Imam Hussein”. He is criticizing the noha reciters who use different procedures, no matter what, to make people cry: Also, the lecture by Ayatullah Wahid in the video after Ayatullah Khamenei's - which claims that's Ayatullah Wahid's response to Ayatullah Khamenei - is for about 3 years before Ayatullah Khameni's speech and it can be seen from their website: Date of Ayatullah Wahid statements: 23 February 2008۱۵ صفر المظفّر ۱۴۲۹ ۴ اسفند ۱۳۸۶ http://wahidkhorasani.com/فارسی/صوتی-و-تصویری/محتوا/78_به-مناسبت-اربعين-و-عزاداري-سيد-الشهدا-علیه-السلام This is while Ayatullah Khamenei's speech delivered in Jun 3, 2010: http://english.khamenei.ir/news/1326/Leader-s-Speech-on-the-Occasion-of-Fatima-al-Zahra-s-s-a-Birthday
×