The Persian Shah

No, the clerical class (_only_) has authority. "No one has the right to rule but God" (la hukm illa li-Allah). Laws cannot be legislated by man. Thus, those governments which do not govern by God's law are commonly referred to as the taghuti regimes in the religious garb (because they lack the Divine mandate).

(1) There is no evidence of that. On the contrary, we've just his opinion/reply to these claims. (2) He is the Na'ib of the Mahdi [AJTF]. This is quite some epistemic arrogance. You've never read a single book from Ayatullah Mesbah Yazdi neither is your Farsi good enough to go through a single quarterly review document of the erudite scholars of the Assembly of Experts - so your personal opinion might reflect a couple of rumours you overheard from some exiles - which is even worst than the news sites they get it from - but is pretty far from reflecting what goes on in the mind of the ruling elite. Go on. Why? So what's it to be? All scholars should rule or none but the Mahdi [AJTF]? (or just pick up any set of disparate arguments that serve an anti-Khamenei agenda?) Legitimacy is passed on the entire class of Islamic jurisprudents, not the persons. Secondly, all scholars have the duty to be involved in more spheres of life including politics, but that doesn't mean you can say "I will follow Ayatullah Talebani in political affairs" when the guy doesn't do politics, just like you can't say "I will follow Obama in my religious affairs". We have to be idealists, but there are realistic limitations. I agree it is unfortunate that more scholars are not on a level, but until they are still stuck in the 13th Century figuring out the intricacies of menstruation, that is not going to prevent the new generation adopting a broader mindset - and follow figures that are leading that revolution. Er, yes, I think people generally understand Sayyid Khamenei is not one of the 12 Infallible Imam's [AS] ( :lol:). This might appear strange to you, but the Iranian nation is pretty advanced in this regard: There is widespread permeation of Islamic culture (something American-backed propaganda satellite channels would like to change). Religious values and beliefs are part of the very fabric of society. These things are pretty trivial things for them. Conflating issues: those incidences were very different, and you know that. There is no absolutely no problem in these claims. In fact, such leadership is not only possible but necessary. (1) Governance is necessary (since anarchy is inadmissible) (2) Now that someone has to govern - should it be Islamic or non-Islamic? Clearly Islamic (if possible). Just because this may not have been the case in the past, does not mean that is how it should be. Many of the Imams [AS] were prisoned or restricted - that does not mean they would NOT have taken up governance if they could (like Imam Ali [AS]). Allameh Majlisi took up a position with the King as Shaykh ul-Islam, because it is the interest of the religion and that is the best he logistically could do. Imam Ridha [AS] also took up a position with Mamun (interestingly, he also had a backlash from the simple-minded 'Shia' that though religion and politics should not mix).

Yes, that's incorrect. He essentially dismisses it as a 'flight of imagination', in a very strong yet highly diplomatic manner :). He refers to the famous saying, 'the best of poetry, is the most exaggerated most false' (ahsanu sher, akzabu). The gist is that it is completely false/exaggerated what he recited, however, we can let it go since it is within the realm of poetry (dar sher, in chishah ghabeleh ghabooleh = in poetry/poems, these things [i.e. untrue sayings, false statements] can be accepted/tolerated)..

Good to see some things never change here :). ​ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSLDVfn7q3s [ 33387 ] 6 ـ وعن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، عن الحسن بن أيوب ، عن أبي عقيلة الصيرفي ، عن كرام ، عن أبي حمزة الثمالي ، قال : قال أبو عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) : إياك والرياسة ، وإياك أن تطأ أعقاب الرجال ، قلت : جعلت فداك ، أما الرياسة فقد عرفتها ، وأما أن أطأ أعقاب الرجال فما ثلثا ما في يدي إلا مما وطئت أعقاب الرجال ، فقال لي : ليس حيث تذهب ، إياك أن تنصب رجلا دون الحجة ، فتصدقه في كل ما قال . 6 – And from Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa from al-Hasan b. Ayyub from Abu `Aqila as-Sayrafi from Karram from Abu Hamza ath-Thumali. He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: Beware you of leadership, and beware you of treading upon the heels of men (an expression meaning to follow someone in submission to their command). I said: May I be made your ransom, as to leadership then we have known it, but as to treading upon the heels of men, then there is not a third of what is my hand but from what I have trodden upon the heels of men. So he said to me: It is not where you are going (i.e. not what you think), beware you that you appoint a man apart from the Hujja, and you believe him in everything he says.The problem is that only the simple mind thinks this amounts to 'physically' that person in question (Imam Mahdi [AJTF])..

Salam Br. Muhammed Ali, Long time :). This argument isn't valid. This is basically an inductive argument. The fact that another person also believes the same thing, increases the likelihood that this is an independent law. If there were more people that agreed, that would be even better. By observing some particulars, we aim to arrive at a universal. Just as by observing many different cups of water all boiling at 100 degrees, we try to infer that all water boils at 100 degrees. However It could be possible that somebody does not agree. And it is known that a particular negative is sufficient to negate a universal affirmative. This argument would never be conclusive unless you reliably interviewed all humans, past and present, everywhere (i.e. istiqra 'l-tam). Even if everyone did agree in instance, conceptually, that does not rule out the possibility for someone to disagree . Even if everyone did agree, this association still does not prove the cause the author wishes to. In this case, it could be possible for example, that everybody agreed because of the cultural context they grew up in, not because of some objective morality. I think moral objectivity is largely misunderstood and in most cases a misnomer. I don't understand why theists try to pursue it so much - various flavours of relativity in morality is quite self-evident and there is no need to reject it. This is not correct either. Few of important comments: a. "When we say that something is good or bad we are making a rational judgement": Why? I don't think we do. As Islamic philosophers explain (Shahid Mutahhari [QS] explains quite well too at the start of the article posted above) - there is a theoretical intellect, and a practical intellect. The theoretical intellect narrates a reality (propositions like, 'the weather is cold'). The practical intellect describes ought to's/not to's (propositions like 'one should not lie'). Propositions pertaining to the practical intellect may not be a 'biological urge', but that does not mean they are 'rational statements' either (in the same sense as how we apply it to theoretical propositions). b. "I do not need to justify the latter statement, I just know that it's true" - not quite so accurate. Yes, whilst it is true there exists self-evident (badihi) propositions like the aforementioned, and non-axiomatic (nazari) propositions - it's not quite true that we 'just know'. What is meant, is that we do not need to advance any syllogistic reasoning for self-evident propositions (what you refer to as 'rational truths'). The reasoning/conclusion is immediate, not that it is non-existent. In fact, even these propositions can be decomposed or linked back to the principle of non-contradiction (or it's other two variants). For example, 'every effect needs a cause' is self-evident because the predicate 'needing a cause' is inherent in the subject ('effect') - so it's negation would lead to a violation of the law of identity, which is inadmissible. The 'whole is greater than it's parts', etc similarly. c. You might note that there still exists at least one objective rational truth (principle of non-contradiction), but the main point here is you cannot apply 'truth' to both types of propositions (at least not in the same manner). For theoretical propositions, they are true 'if they correspond with external reality' (see: correspondence theory). So if I say 'the weather is cold' - if the weather in external reality is actually cold, then the statement is true, otherwise it is false (btw, you might be interested to know that this [i.e. sensible propositions] is also one of the sub-divisions of badihi propositions, not just those ones you listed :) ). However, you cannot apply this to practical propositions: There is nothing for "lieing is bad" to correspond to in external reality! As some Islamic philosophers might say, they don't have a 'nafs al-amr'. Some Platonic Islamic philosophers tried to justify this stance by saying there exists some immaterial realm where the nafs al-amr of these propositions subsist and correspond to. However, that would land you with bigger problems to solve, and this view is not even taken very seriously in philosophical discourses.

The teapot argument may not be valid in the particular sense you are all complaining about, but it does have it's own importance. For example, it is Shahid Mutahhari [QS] who notes in "The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism" (Usul-e Falsafa wa Ravesh-e Riyalism): The arguments for God vary and not all are complete/flawless. The argument by design can only take one to the frontiers of the metaphysical realm, but it cannot go beyond that. So, someone can reply to this argument by saying that only the existence of a Creator/Designer has been proved, but what that entity is remains to be established. It could be your conception of God, or the flying spaghetti monster, or another, or even multiple designers. Of course, we also can't beat him in eloquence of speech :): "Thirdly, the path of empirical knowledge, or the path [to the knowledge of God] through nature, is one which extends from nature to the frontier of the metaphysical, no further. We do not say that it is a path which stretches- from nature to the frontier of the Divine realm, or that it is sufficient, as they say, for 'the journey from the creatures to God' (min al-khalq ila al-Haqq). All that we are saying is that it is a road that leads only up to the frontiers of the metaphysical. That is, it only proves that nature has a metaphysical plane to which it is subject. But whether that metaphysical is itself created or not; that is, whether that metaphysical power is the creator of all things, or itself created and subject to something beyond it; and presuming that there is nothing beyond it, whether it is simple or composite, one or many; are its knowledge and power finite or infinite; is its grace finite or infinite; is man free or not vis-à-vis it—none of these and scores of similar other questions can be answered by it." - Shahid Mutahhari [QS], "The Causes Responsible for Materialist tendencies in the West"

Spaces still left.. http://absoc.co.uk/?p=1546 http://www.facebook.com/events/262466817187559/?ref=ts

It's obviously not very difficult to work it out either (unless one really wishes to deceive themselves): The term 'riwayat hadithuna' is used in several reports, and with the context it makes it clear what is intended: Someone who is well-versed and has comprehension of the ahadith (or 'our/the correct rulings'). Not in their capacity to narrate (otherwise a tape recorder would win - and besides being absurd, doesn't do much in the way of 'hawadith al-waqia' ['newly-occuring events'] anyways) - but rather, someone who has complete knowledge of the entire corpus of ahadith (Islam). This coincides with the definition of a learned, pious 'faqih' (ironically the conditions on the WF).. The following is from the footnotes of Sheikh Saduq's [QS] book, after he quotes this hadith (this was on tashayyu too before mac removed the 'extra parts'): "It is said: The newly-occuring events are those in which one is needy of the ruler, such as the wealth of the orphans, so the wilayat al faqih should be established in it; and it is of no consequence. And apparently, there is no agreement among the people regarding the problems whose ruling they know not. So it is necessary for them that they turn towards one who does their istinbaat from the traditions that have appeared regarding them. And what is meant by the ‘narrators of the hadith’ are the fuqahaa’ (jurists) who have comprehension of the hadith and know its particularity and its generalisation and its manifest and its ambiguous. And they recognise its authentic from its diseased (weak) and its good from its forged. And these are they who have the power of decomposing the unadulterated from it from the spurious ones and discriminating the original from the fake, al matqul (?), not those who recite the known books and memorise the apparent of its expressions (words) but do not understand its meaning nor have the ability of istinbaat while they claim that they are the bearers of the hadith." "God is one, the leader is one" - fuqaha plural because that is the entire class selected from, but there can only be one leader. This is like saying 'we were told to follow the Prophets or Imams', thus pointing out a contradiction why there was no plurality in leadership at that time when there was two Imams alive.. Don't be baffled (and you really need not insult her of 'hypocrisy' :wacko:), it really doesn't require much brain-power bro (did you really read her reply? :mellow:).. At that time there was an infallible alive and present ['hayy wa hadhir']. Now there isn't. "Contradiction" resolved. Now you can go back to sleep peacefully..

nope, just from myself ^_^..

Sayyid Kamal Al-Hadari is non-apologetic and annihilates all those devious views, in public, too.. Being open, clear and non-apologetic does not mean we have to adopt extremist views ourselves..

This is itself a 'reason'. More specifically, this is an inductive argument: Only on the balance of probability, it is unlikely for our entire existence to be meaningless.. In fact, anything you advance to support it, will be always be a 'reason'.. Logic is inescapable..

_So_ very tempted to start posting fake Sufism topics in there now :lol:.. Good job guys :)..

Depends on your definition on "popular". It's more just like who the people in power like. They are the real problem unfortunately (not all of them, some real gems amongst them) - if they were trained/selected more properly, this would not be an issue. Some exemplary actions: in the same thread I received a 'death threat' from MDM, I was somehow put on suspension (for several months) - for apparently "harassing admin members" (main problem is that they seem themselves beyond critique). Another time for cracking an internal joke (with waiting) - which the admin was entirely clueless of and instantly banned me, and even after explained to, she wouldn't admitted she was wrong. Another example of "harrassment": merely critiquing one of the views of the admin on tahreef, which although entirely clean, by the nature of being criticism, was taken as a "potshot", and thus "personal".. All excuses were grotesquely actually incorrect - ironically issued by the same set of admins, and resolved by the other same set.. Without naming names, some quotes: "You've a tendency, when on a public stage, to act like a bit of an ass. By that I mean the loud donkey." "So when are you going to start folding your hands in salat?" "I approved your comment, and then replied with the following. "I only approved your comment so that people can see how petty and childish you are. You have used a thread where the slaughter of shia brothers and sisters is being discussed, the last group of which were killed only for the "crime" of doing ziyarat of the Imams, to broadcast your petty disputes with other members of this board. Do us all a favor and grow up?" - although I was actually just defending one of the maraji' from a 30-page unrestricted and aggravated onslaught - notice this is exactly what MDM did with the killings in Pakistan 'to purely vent his animosity with the completely innocent WF'..I am not here to kick up a fight (would add names with plenty more quotes/actions if I wanted to). My point is merely: that clean up the administration team => clean up the forums.. The former is the main problem, and I really wouldn't be surprised if this post was also used as the pretext for another random suspension..

They don't 'come' from anywhere.. (1) Depends on how you define world - they are 'metaphysical laws', so can be said to be part of the 'world' in this sense.. (2) Second part I assume you mean whether it is something 'objective or subjective'. They would be objective. Exists is probably not the best word to use though. We can say they 'hold true' 'independent of the perceiver'..

This criterion is completely rational..