Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MajiC

  1. As someone else mentioned, time will be your healer. Don't dwell on the issue and instead keep yourself busy with other things. Be productive; work, gym, see friends, make a to-do list for those times you're alone and smash it - you'll achieve a lot and while you would have lost this person (or walked away from them) you would have gained something from your productivity! Time will fizzle out your emotions and sooner or later, when you deduct the emotions, she or he will be just a 'person you once knew'. Many of us will go through something similar in life and it's hard 'at first', yes, but with time one can move on and come out even stronger. A successful person never comes out of a difficult situation without taking something away from it. Connect with and confide in Allah [(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)] and be mindful of his presence during your difficult time. He is there whether you like it or not. He will help if you choose to rely on Him with good intent and sincerity. But He works very mysteriously and this can be frustrating for us feeble humans who demand immediate intervention. Though remember He works with great foresight and knows better how to navigate through your problem; an immediate fix is not always better than one which 'unfolds' gradually and involves a more complex process than only He understands. He answers the prayers of the sincere but works mysteriously and with holistic vision so be patient during difficulty, it will make you a stronger and more refined person. The successful person allows hardship to transforms him or her into the steel which hardens with each blow. As someone else mentioned, there is great value in the lessons and advice given to us by the illustrious Imams [as] and we often only realise their true value only with life experience. "Love the one you marry". This doesn't mean we pair up with just 'anyone' and rely on this hadith. It means we observe the Islamic etiquette when exploring a potential partner for marriage. Explore the person, their characteristics, life plans and habits and make a 'rational' not 'emotive' judgement to purse a relationship. When the foundations are established then it's safe for one to let their wall down and become emotionally involved and 'step into love' rather than helplessly 'fall' into it with your eyes blinded.
  2. You have misunderstood the hadith. It does not imply that the Imam [aj] emergence will be 'instantaneous'. Rather, it implies it will be 'imminent'. Even so, and as Sheikh Ali Korani has recently expressed in his opinion, if the new king Salman lasts longer than "months" i.e. a year or longer then the recent events may not be associated with this hadith. In any case, combining this with the recent Yemeni revolution from which the promised Yamani will soon emerge inshaAllah, ongoing events in Sham and a myriad of other indicators, explicit and more subtle, we really should be expecting the good news in all seriousness. When that will be is in God's knowledge alone, but inshaAllah we shall be the generation to witness it.
  3. My immediate impression was that this message by Sayyied Khameini is not just routine but an important, strategic and calculated one that aims to prime the non-Muslim youth of the West for what is - inshaAllah and God knows best - on the horizon. The reference to the youth as heirs of the future is in this context an address to those who will actually become the helpers of the Imam [aj] and Prophet Jesus [pbuh] in their revolution. In my understanding the Imam [aj] will not just "conquer" the western nations in the classical way but rather it's the indigenous youth of these lands, who become his followers through the sheer reason of his message, that will do so in their own revolts against the status quo.
  4. Iraqi Sunnis flock to recruiting centers to fight back ISIL http://en.alalam.ir/news/1603353 At leat 300 ISIL militants killed in Iraq's Tal Afar http://en.alalam.ir/news/1603362 Egypt Fatwa Center prohibits Muslims from joining ISIL http://en.alalam.ir/news/1603316 Iraqi Volunteers Answer Ayatollah Sistani's call to defend their country:
  5. Be very cautious of reports like this. Their sole and only purpose is to absolve and conceal the hands of the true sponsors of this ISIL project, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ISIL is not merely a money-making enterprise as the article alludes. ISIL is not merely out to make profit and their activities in Syria and Iraq are not merely a 'get rich quick scheme' for them. Their intentions are more complex, sinister and far-reaching (even if they are bound to fail). It's important that while brave Iraqi's are currently resisting the terrorists we fulfil our role in the information war that seeks to misinform other about us while demoralising our ranks. Media reports for the most part are either misinformed or intentional misinformation. For every report we read by the BBC, CNN, Guardian, Telegraph etc, we should read what Al-Alam, Al-Manar, Farsnews etc have to say and only then try to discern facts from nonsense.
  6. People should stop insisting on Western media sources which falsely claim that Iranian troops have or are being deployed to Iraq. The reason why they do so is obvious; there is an information war going on at the moment to demoralise the Iraqi people, army and government and consequently to further the goals of ISIS and their sponsors (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel). Therefore, these media sources falsely introduce an 'unprecedented development' - the entrance of Iranian troops as a 'desperate last measure for Iraqi's to save themselves'. What could be more demoralising than that? The truth is the Iraqi army is very capable of rooting the terrorists out if only they are organised properly and this is certainly a wake up call for the government and their opponents to get their act together. These claims are being repeatedly denied by the Iranian side. President Rouhani has said:
  7. The recent report by Wall Street Journal war mongers is apparently not true (see Iran's official response below). There is bound to be quite a bit of misinformation by western media sources regarding the recent events in Iraq and people ought to weight different sources and reports before making judgement. The Iranian position is that there is a sectarian ploy to drag Iran into these events and inflame Sunni sentiment and therefore swell the takfiri ranks even further. The Iranian view is that the Iraqi army should be reasonably capable of confronting ISIL. On that basis Iranian forces are apparently not (yet) involved and as per official statements this would only be necessary should the Iraqi government request assistance or should red-lines be crossed. The latter being a reference to the hypothetical scenario that the takfiri worms somehow manage to wiggle their way to the southern regions housing the holy shrines. Incidentally - and I may have digressed - this is also when the narrations themselves describe the Iranians will actually make an appearance. This is not all to say that Iran may not currently be assisting in the capacity of a strategic advisor though. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930323000768
  8. Imagine we were so stubborn so as to deny the reality of every entity in order and one by one and all that remained was our negation of the supposed reality of the universe(s). Then, in doing so and whether we like it or not we are at the very least acknowledging the ‘reality’ of our supposition – that everything is indeed ‘unreal’. When the atheist in your example says there was no reality before the universe(s) then at a minimum there is the 'reality' of his supposition. So contrary to his claim there IS a reality even if it is abstract for now and cannot be conceptualised satisfactorily in his mind. This is what I mean by the statement that negation of total reality presupposes a substrate of ‘reality’. Now, that was the hard part and from there on everything (i.e. attributes) falls into place readily and I would say instantaneously: When this ‘reality’ is present even in our attempt to annihilate it then clearly it exists necessarily. By implication it is self-subsisting which is equivalent and identical to an entity possessing absolute and pure existence in all its ontological dimensions (i.e. all the perfections - essence and attributes). Note: It is tempting for some to understand the first part as nothing more than semantics. But with a bit of careful meditation inshaAllah you would see that it is beyond just that. All I would say is that any apparent elusivity of its truth is due to the sheer simplicity of the Truth.
  9. It's true that many of the proofs are convoluted. However, I have understood Allamah Tabatabai's exposition of the burhan to be as follows and I find this to be the most satisfying: 1) Denial of (all) reality presupposes its truth and reality. 2) Impossibility of denying (the primariness of) Reality in (1) affirms the immutable essence of Reality. 3) That immutable essence being of eternal necessity (as shown in (2))is then self-subsisting which is identical with pure and absolute existence. (1) and (2) confirm existence and (3) establishes the essence/attributes. Once you contemplate and are satisfied with (1) then the other two very readily and naturally follow inshaAllah.
  10. There is all this discussion and there is no mention of a very interesting fact that in my opinion solves the question of the OP quite decisively especially when considering the broader context (another scope!): We all know that before the Imam's rise three individuals shall struggle over the Sham territory; al-Sufyani, al-Abqa and al-As'hab. We all know that these are symbolic rather than actual titles. However, we should also know that al-As'hab or أَصْهَب (arabic) is in fact one of the synonyms of al-Assad or "lion" (أَسَد) in arabic. For this reason and others, I wouldn't put my money on al-Assad 'turning' into the Sufyani. Insha'Allah the former is who we hope he is among them.
  11. Interestingly, I read somewhere that Rohani's votes came substantially from the towns and villages where the people are generally more conservative and appear to have favoured Rohani - being the only cleric in the presidential race. If true this would seem to dispel the prevalent notion that this was a 'reformist victory' - notwithstanding that Rohani is more accurately described a 'centrist' anyway. Could anyone confirm from the Farsi reports?
  12. According to Iran’s constitution the president must be from among religious and political personalities possessing certain other qualifications relating to competence. These criteria are enshrined in Article 114 of the constitution which Iranians have themselves endorsed by 98.2%. Consequentially, it is the people who vet the candidates via the mechanism of the Guardian Council. I’m sure you realise there’s much more to the process but perhaps you're lazy to think about it. Not “anyone” can become a presidential candidate that is unless they are “favoured” by their party; it’s a cutthroat and dog-eat dog “journey”. In Iran the only obstacle is Article 114 of the constitution which essentially stipulates ‘traits’ and ‘competences’. Furthermore, you can only compete with the backing of billions of dollars of campaign money. As Prof. Mohammed Mirandi says there is no ‘democracy of information’ and in the recent US elections Ron Paul was ignored by the media. Contrast this with Iranian elections where each of the 8 candidates was given equal and substantial media converge – free of charge. That is, you don’t have to have a dime to be president in Iran! Many of the electoral processes in the west are flawed in that the head of state is not elected by direct popular vote. Yes that's right. But I wonder how many people actually realise that? For an example let’s take the US as a case study. It is no secret that the US president cannot be elected by popular vote. He must be approved by a group of electors known as the ‘Electoral College’. There are a myriad of flaws associated with the latter, foremost of which is the fact that voting power is unequal and depends on where you live! This means that there is no such thing as one-man one-vote in the world’s “greatest” democracy! You should find out more: http://www.fairvote.org/problems-with-the-electoral-college/ The flaws of US democracy were glaring and controversial when in 2000 the vice president Al Gore, who although had more national votes, lost to George Bush because he was favoured by the Electoral College. In some European countries the head of state is elected by parliament rather than popular vote. Contrast this with Iran’s electoral process which is based on the constitution in which the people elect the president directly. Refer to the case of Al Gore mentioned above. If we define democracy as one man one vote then George Bush effectively refused to hand over power to the real winner by popular vote – Al Gore. You assertion that Ahmadinejad lost the 2009 election is ridiculous and was never actually proven. No credible poll ever showed Mousavi to be ahead of Ahmadinejad, even if Mousavi claimed to have "information" that he won even before the actual voting occurred! This is while I can give you details of 6 independent western polls which showed that the incumbent president was generally ahead on a 2:1 basis. While there was regrettable violence between police and protesters there is no credible proof to my knowledge for some of the claims, especially those about Neda’s death.
  13. Perhaps with the exception of Turkey, other so-called democracies in the middle-east have much to be desired and are either dysfunctional or actually fascist for all intents and purposes but passing off as democracies (a la Israel). In an case, the point to be made here is that the appraisal of Iran’s democracy should therefore not be limited to this context and the OP suggests this point quite well.
  14. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't!
  15. You could try the following, which have helped me in the past 1) click on your profile and search your posts which are listed by date, or 2) search shiachat through google. In the search field put your name and some key words you recall from a specific post I have to disagree with your context here. I am always disappointed and double face-palmed when I hear some pundits and others refer to Iran as "perhaps the best democracy in the Middle East" when there are really no other - at least functioning - democracies in the middle east to speak of. This region stuck in a backward and pre-historic phase. Consequentially, to limit the praise of Iran's democracy to this context is insulting. It's like telling a seagull among fat chickens "congratulations birdie you demonstrate the most exemplary flying skills in this pack", when the chickens inherently lack the skills to compete. Rubbish. Iran's democracy competes with and is worthy of appraisal against the self-proclaimed bastions of democracy themselves., viz. US et al. This is what the OP is getting at. To pre-empt the anti-Iran minions on this forum, yes Iran's democracy cosmetically differs from that of the West but the crux of democracy is the 'the peoples mandate' and if Iranians choose a rich flavour of democracy which enshrines their cultural and religious values then who the hell are you to define what 'democracy' should be for them?
  16. For all the nonsense spewed by the western propaganda machine and its army of pseudo-pundits, hit-men and mercenaries who work its rusty cogs and the unsuspecting minions in the millions who are brainwashed as a result, a little introspection is useful and would reveal the stark reality: "Six candidates had free and equal access to Iranian media to present their manifestos, and the people then decided; as it turns out they decided for a surprise winner. Contrast that vibrant and free exercise in people power with the lassitude of many Western states, where voter turnout is often as low as 50 percent; and where the electorate is presented with an empty “choice” between two candidates or parties, all controlled and vetted by the corporate ruling elite. The United States of America is perhaps the most salient exponent of this moribund and oxymoronic state of Western so-called democracy. In the US, no-one can run for election unless they are bankrolled by billions of dollars. The top one percent of corporate and financial rulers makes the shortlist of presidential candidates from which the electorate is permitted to “choose”. The US system is the antithesis of democracy and that’s why almost half of the electorate - more than 100 million people - don’t even bother going to the polling stations. They know it is a waste of time and vote - because the result is pre-determined by the ruling elite; and that’s why there is never any change in America’s plundering, criminal policies at home and abroad." http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/16/309323/irans-stunning-victory-against-west/
  17. Please can you respond in the correct thread as I originally made an error here.
  18. I am not Iranian so unfortunately I can't vote. Although I'd generally describe myself as inclined to the Principalist camp, I don't agree with those who become 'alarmist' about the potential outcome of results, especially if it appears to favour a 'reformist', as though this is the camp of the devil. We tend to forget and therefore must always be mindful of the following: 1) Reformists believe in the principles of the Islamic Revolution. What separates them from Principalists is their different take on administrative matters within the framework of the Islamic Republic. 2) Even having said that, Sheikh Hassan Rouhani is not strictly a Reformist but a 'Centrist' fostering good relations with both groups. He has excellent credentials. 3) All presidential candidates are approved by the Guardian Council. Therefore, any of the approved candidates who goes on to win an election is perfectly acceptable as far as the principles of the Islamic Revolution are concerned, whether described as Reformist or Principalist is ultimately irrelevant. Once approved their allegiance (among other things) is established and they are henceforth only distinguished by their policies. Thereafter people will vote based on social and economic interests not 'allegiance' matters. 4) Highly strategic decisions relating to foreign policy, peace and war are outside the realm of the executive branch of government. Thus, even if somehow they wanted to, successful candidates are not exactly going to establish ties with Israel, start a major war or allow night clubs and strip clubs to mushroom all over the Islamic Republic. All that matters is this. So long as Rule of the Just Jurisprudent, Islamic Revolution Constitution and Guardian Council vetting exist then the Revolution will always be protected. Any elected president will therefore navigate within this framework and must therefore be respected and supported; we can criticise their executive decisions but not their intentions. Terms like 'principalist' and 'reformist' only relate to administrative differences of approach within the framework of the Islamic Republic.
  19. Gentlemen, why don't we resolve this issue somewhere in the middle. As you know, the Prophet [pbuh] has taught that 'the best path is that between'. In that case, it may be neither from the "sky" nor from ordinary "TV" but perhaps the issue will be resolved on 'Sky TV'. Is that satisfactory for the both of you? Joking aside, it is perfectly possible that the first declaration of the Imam's [aj] emergence will be transmitted to the peoples of the world via no miracle other than that of technology. Miracles of the past are not as necessary in modern times since humanity has reached a level of reason. If I were an atheist I could quite reasonably dismiss an apparent miraculous phenomenon as a work of advanced technology. Things like holograms and amplified sounds (including voices) can quite easily be dismissed as technology induced. While the Prophet's of the past were endowed with physical miracles to persuade the ancients, the Imam's [aj] foremost miracle will be that of his extraordinary 'knowledge' and his piercing and flawless 'reason'. By that he will conquer the intellects of a people belonging to a civilisation that is reason-based.
  20. That's a very disingenuous spin on things. They were put under house arrest because they were sore losers and, during a time when Iran was surrounded by wolves, were willing to compromise Iran's internal stability. They went down and wanted the whole of Iran to go down with them - their actions reveal they were selfish and harboured personal political ambitions. While I generally respect Ahamdinejad and for that matter all Iranian politicians within the revolution's fold, whether reformist or principalist, he is regrettably acting like a bad loser. It is no secret that Mashaei is a dangerous individual, if anything by virtue of his publicly voicing positions that are clearly against the constitution and revolution, viz., his pronouncements on Israelis being friends and Islamism being dead without Iran, etc. I very highly doubt the Leader will 'succumb' to Ahamdinejads naive, insulting and plain ridiculous request for the Guardian Council to reinstate him as a candidate. That is because the Leader does not compromise on truth. Mark my words it will not happen.
  21. Most things in life are impossible for the average person to verify unless they are directly involved in the experience. Therefore, about 90% of people's beliefs are based on the unseen, whether these beliefs are of a worldy or otherwordly nature. This is where our faculties of discernment are important. There are two types of people; person (A) who discerns the validity of information flow through his mind by the filter of his or her intellect and person (B] whose mind is cheap and "free for all" - there is no "anti-virus filter". It is sad but true that most people are inclined to the latter, simply because it is easier. This is where the mass media is very powerful in shaping peoples beliefs and filling this "void". As with the marketing industry, the mass-media markets its own "brand" of the story via the mechanism of subliminal messaging and sooner or later this leads to chronic brainwashing. Hollywood and MTV are a perfect example of how brainwashing applies to culture. As for shaping beliefs, the issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the mass-media is an example of this par excellence. The mass-media is tasked with marketing Revolutionary Iran as an uncivilised and backward entity with no intellectual capacity to achieve any sort of greatness. Person B: his mind is subtely sculptured by the mass-media narrative in piecemeal fashion and once brainwashed he will see a particular reality only through these spectacles. Person A: assesses broader range of information and viewpoints and recognises who has been truthful in the past and any patterns. In the past the media has mocked Iranian claims (e.g. monkey space-launch, rocket-launch, RQ-170 hacking) only to later stand corrected. With regard to the video in question, Person (A) would ask (in light of the subject being 'Iran') whether these photos were officially released before shouting "fake". Importantly, Person (A), gazing into the horizon with a thoughtful expression on his face as his palm gently caresses his chin, would pause and ponder for a moment the very fact: [thought-bubble] ...while Iran's technological claims may be too impressive to believe, it is indeed true that Western statistical research agencies (e.g. Science Metrix) have confirmed a process of substantial scientific growth in Iran today. Say, if that is so, could we reasonably assume Iran's technological claims to be far-fetched? I say not! [/thought-bubble]
  22. First of all, I don't think they execute for eveything and this is limited only to things like murder, rape, armed robbery, drug trafficking (over 5kg), adultery, terrorism and one or two other things. Now these things are pretty harsh and many people would say it's reasonable that the punishment should also be harsh - or as it is in reality "commensurate". The idea behind punishment anywhere in the world is justice but also deterrance. If I'm a prospective serious criminal I would definately want to think twice before attempting anything, especially where the risks are capital punishment! If the risks are a mere slap on the wrist or a brief jail sentence within what in some countries is effectively a "leisure centre" then I'd be inclined to be more lax and rash with my crime in comparison. That deterrance has a net positive effect on the safety and security of society. Nothing here is unreasonable as long as facts have been substantiated beyond doubt and justice has been established affirmatively. Secondly, as another poster mentioned, the issue in question is not a mere 'theft' but an 'embezzlement' of a substantial amount of funds. The scale and quality of such a crime has the potential to be felt in the economy to which every citizen is tied. Now while I'm not privy to the judicial reasoning in this case I'd say that the definition of such a crime (due to scale and nature) shifts from mere "theft" to actual "treason". Pause and reflect for a moment that similar financial crimes in the Western world today are leading to the loss peoples jobs and homes and destroying nations (slowly but surely) and setting the stage for inevitable upheavals to come. Many would agree that cutting such a criminal's hand or clipping his finger nails are not commensurate with the crime. You would be suprised to hear what common westerners' opinions are on fitting punishments for greedy bankers are these days.
  23. I think there are still a few good men in the Iraqi government who wish well for the country. Unfortunately one man can't do everything. At times, the Imam's themselves couldn't help their cause as they otherwise intended because of the complex calculus which prevailed. When people ask me what I think of the situation in Iraq, I often respond somewhat pessimistically that when the vice president is out to kill the Prime Minister what hope do you have for the country? The issue is neither black nor white in Iraq and there is a complex tug of war which will make governance a difficult challenge for any party or individual.
  24. The implication of your logic is that since politics is corrupt then we should leave it to the corrupt. This is not exactly a ground-breaking treatise in political science that promises to solve problems of governance is it. Even worse, whether you realise it or not you are positing that the Prophet of Islam [pbuh] was by implication corrupt (or partook in corruption) since, with all his spiritual glory, he was also a stateman. The Prophet [pbuh] never seperated politics from religion because the issue of justice (in all its dimensions) was intrinsic to both. Islam is all about justice and the path to that end is through politics. Wilayat al-Faqih is probably the best vehicle to that destination in the absence of an infalible Imam. The alternative is slavery under the rule and whim of the corrupt.
  • Create New...