Faruk

Salam, I'd like to know the names of some influential writers and titles of books that were fundamental for the Islamic Revolution or came as an effect of the Islamic Revolution.

Salam, Thank you for the interactions and discussions here on ShiaChat. I enjoyed it very much and learned a lot. There was always an amount of love and respect no matter the disagreements and diffirences of opinions. I love you very much, maybe even more than followers of other sects and denominations in Islam. But as I am a father who has to take care of a family I have to set priorities. Islam was, is and will always be my greatest passion. Maybe once I earn a six figure income I have more time to discuss things on ShiaChat. Just wanted to give you my Salam. May Allah bless you all, Yours sincerely, Ibrahim Allahumma salli `ala Muhammadin wa `ala Ali Muhammadin kama sallaita `ala Ibrahima wa `ala Ali Ibrahima Innaka hameedun Majid

As I already said, we do agree that he (عليه السلام) accepted or at least stayed silent. The neverending discussion is about WHY he (عليه السلام) did so. As his attitude is decisive and should be taken as the criterium, unfortunately for those who believe in the traditional interpretation of imamate, it wasn't in favor but actually at the expense of it. Rather his attitude was in defense of the institution of the caliphacy which he (عليه السلام) never opposed when not in charge and which he (عليه السلام) defended accordingly when in charge after his election. During all his life he (عليه السلام) never acted otherwise. To raise question marks and assume or guess what his intentions were is a blank space that can be filled in by anyone. While I believe that we should judge by the established and explicit facts without any.ambiguity as those are all we have.

There were disagreements but these did not lead to wars, rebellions or insurrections. There were even interactions between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his predecessors concerning governmental and judicial matters which proofs that things were blown up and over-exaggerated later on. To support and assist a government which is usurped and considered to be the greatest fitna in Islam is a terrible contradiction.

The point is that you exceed this backwards to a period BEFORE the wars as well. I believe that such an approach is insincere and irrational.

Both Sunni and Shia historians agree that there wasn't any fighting between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه). The fights between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his opponents that took place later on were 1) of a defensive character and 2) were only about his election by the jamat according to the norms and standards of caliphacy which he (عليه السلام) accepted and took its responsibility. This makes the concept of imamate questionable and leaves space for other interpretations of imamate. As I said over and over again. Imamate is rather a matter of consent than explicit rulership as rulership was transferable in the case of the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه) and Muawiya. Yet its legitimacy depended on the consent of the Imams which was at the expense of Yazid.

Are the Kasmiri Muslims as lenient to Iran as Iran to them?

No the historical facts accepted by both sects. The disagreements are not in what happened but rather in the interpretations of the happenings (hidden intentions, why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did so, etc.). By Sayyid ‘Ali Sistani Question: As-Salāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh. An independent [television] channel has repeatedly claimed that Sayyid Sistani (may Allāh protect him) has given the fatwa of kufr (infidelity) for one who does not believe in Imamate [of the Ahlul Bayt], and among such people are the Sunni brethren. This is based on what has been quoted from Al-Abḥāthu ’l-‘Aqā’idiyyah website which is under the patronage of the respected Sayyid as claimed in the beginning of the “al-Hiwār aṣ-Sarīḥ” program of the channel. What is your response on their specific claims since they are repeating that almost every day since the beginning of the present month of Ramadhan [1431]. With thanks. Answer: In the name of Allāh, the Beneficent, the Merciful As-Salāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh. The respected Sayyid Sistāni in the manual of his fatwas, Minhāju ’ṣ-Saliḥīn, vol. 1 (1st edition) p. 138 has clearly stated that a kāfir(infidel) is one who 1. does not have a religion 2. or follows a religion other than Islam 3. or follows Islam but rejects what is known as an essential part of the Islamic faith (I.e., what has come from the Prophet [(عليه السلام).]) in a way that his rejection leads to belying the Prophet ((عليه السلام).) in what he has conveyed from Almighty Allāh. By considering the fact that most of our brethren from Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamā‘at who deny the Imamate of the Twelve Imams ((عليه السلام).) believe that Imamate is not part of [the faith] that was brought by the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).), therefore their rejection does not harm their Islam based on the view of the respected Sayyid. This is [also] clear from his other fatwas such as: 1. His verdict on obligation of doing the funeral prayer on a Muslim even if he is of a different sect (madhhab). (Minhãju ’ṣ-Ṣãliḥīn, vol. 1, p. 106) 2. And his verdict on validity of a Shī‘a lady marrying a Muslim from other madhhab.(Minhãju ’ṣ-Ṣãliḥīn, vol. 3, p. 70) 3. And his verdict that the Muslims can inherit from one another even if they differ in their madhhab, principals and beliefs. (Minhãju ’ṣ-Ṣãliḥīn, vol. 3, p. 323) In short, whoever is aware of the fatwas of the respected Sayyid knows that he considers the general Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā‘at as Muslims whose lives are to be preserved, whose properties are sacrosanct, and all rules specific to Muslims would apply on them… May Allãh grant you success. Was-salaamu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullãhi wa barakãtuh. 12 Holy Ramadhan 1431 AH [Seal of the Office of As-Sayyid as-Sistãni, an-Najaf al-Ashraf] *** Yes they are. The Shura ordered by Umar (رضي الله عنه) for example is a.general accepted fact. Don't lie about that. Just as the protection of the house of Uthman (رضي الله عنه) by al-Sibtayn and even confirmed by scholars as Wilferd Madelung in one of his books about the succession. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) accepted the rule of Umar (رضي الله عنه) as he (عليه السلام) obeyed him (رضي الله عنه) several times so Imam Ali (عليه السلام) indirectly gave his consent as well. You should rather remind yourself of the transfer of imamate from Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to Muawiya. If you condemn the appointment of Muawiya by Umar (رضي الله عنه) then you should condemn the transfer by Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to Muawiya as well but as this is firmly established in history you will come up with all kind of arguments which I understand. But do not use double standards when it comes to Umar (رضي الله عنه).

Then follow him (عليه السلام) and obey who he (عليه السلام) obeyed.

History is clear about that. So al-Sistani is not a scholar? Dude, These words mean nothing as they contradict his attitude and deeds as transmitted by the historical accounts. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) obeyed the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) lot of times. He (عليه السلام) even ordered al-sibtayn (عليه السلام) to protect the house of Uthman (رضي الله عنه) when threathened. This is in total contradiction to someone who does not pledge allegiance or thinks he has the right to be obeyed instead. He (عليه السلام) co-operated fully and only accepted leadership by election like his predecessors. He didn't took nor opposed when it came to rulership and this, dude, is a characteristic of a true leader and Imam. He (عليه السلام) obeyed the will of the jamaat unlike Muawiya who crowned hiz son Yazid a prince. This is the diffirence between Muawiya and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه), Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) situation and Imam Hussein's (عليه السلام). situation.

The first thing Bayat al-Ghadeer should do is to take Shamsi via the Qur'an to Sunni ahaadith. Shamsi knows that Imam Ali's superiority only can be proven with Sunni ahaadith. That is why he wil never discuss Sunni ahaadith with Shi'I because that is his weak spot

That is qhy qe should not take 9ur knowledge from (secular) politicians when it comes to Islam.

His adab no but his knowledge and adressing the weak spots yes. Bayat al-Ghadeer's approach is much more ideological and harder ro defend. Isa the Black Intellektual Shia knows this.

They are Muslims like me.

If so then more power to the Salafi shaykh. But you're right although I believe Shia also commired atrocities in these problem areas. Certain militias and govermental soldiers operate in name of the nation but their intention can be rooted in Sunni hatred as well But however not as organized and as much as the pseudo-Sunni Takfiri's.