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 e

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 `Aqi

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

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

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 coinci

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 inst

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..