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

imami

Unregistered
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About imami

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Scandinavia
  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Private

Recent Profile Visitors

1,076 profile views
  1. Salaam, can you close my SC-account, thanks, With Salaam,
  2. Salaam, I have not mention Umar anywhere in this or previous post in this thread. The learned men you spoke ill words of was al-Khoi, Khomeini and there contemporary. I do not care about your other threads - do not believe I can learn much from you, Yasser al-Habib or al-Tirmidhi that I not already know of. Either you suffers from serious delusions or the like - or rather - you deny the truth just so you don't let your hand down. Just accept that your statements where wrong and not sound. It takes a man to accept than he made a mistake; beating about the bush is the cowardly way - everybody can do it, just turn on the TV with blindfolds and point out a politician. Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki be the bigger man and do what is right, Allah is with us all everywhere, so don't think there is no 'witness' between us. With Salaams,
  3. Salaam, Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki you are neither a donkey or a learned man; something in between as I. But don't expect to be treated as a gentleman when you walk in and disrespect everybody else beside of 'your club'. Is it really necessary that I quote all the insulting words/statements/phrases you stated, before you acknowledge that you alone posted these in this thread alone. Moreover; come on, be fair; you spoke of 'not bothering scrolling up, but still you got the courtesy to link to the 'first Salaam' you stated and then making this a legal obligatory to the rest of the thread, while you in the meantime are fighting me on starting and ending all my post with a Salaam - that just no right. Finally, you are quite a special guy Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki; from the very first post to the last, I endeavored everybody to contemplate, think, use reason as a argument etc. on there statements, especially you for your strong words against learned men - and now where you don't got any more to say, you turn it around and ask me to contemplate. lol; that so sad that it is even funny. May Allah guide you and may all of us that have made an effort (in quite different ways) enlighten your understanding of Islam as a true follower of Ahl al-Bayt, With Salaams.
  4. Salaam, frankly I don't know what 'kind of Islam' you believe in, but the 'kind' I believe in, we as Muslims great one another with Salaam - even though we disagree. Paradoxical, you speak of akhlaq to me: now that's strange. If I recall correctly - as you don't want to scroll thought all the previous pages - you alone was the one that disrespected all the creeds learn men and wished Hell as there final Home, just because they agreed upon a ruling that you could't comprehend! No truly you alone is the one lacking akhlaq Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki; but you can't understand this, you can't see this - because your religion is not based on contemplation, by blind following - the taqleed made forbidden in the Words of Lord on High. You defend Yasser al-Habib like it was a football-team and you are the biggest fan. It is this concept of fan-ization that I call 'idolization in disguise', because for you, Yasser al-Habib is completely right, for whatever he has said and what ever he will say. I would't be amazed that you will be the first "turn back on their heels" (cf. Q. 2:143) if he later on agrees with this ruling. There is a very famous saying, 'than if a fool drops a stone in a well, even 100 learned men can't get the stone out and restore the liveliness of the water'. The Persian collector of ahadith al-Tirmidhi was one of these fools - still now when everybody on a sound basis are refuting him and his teachings, some narrow-minded people find it in there advantage to support his view. Yasser al-Habib don't differ from al-Tirmidhi, even though his form is different. I am only harsh in my statements, because you are - all my other post in other threads at SC testify to this; 'treat a donkey as a donkey and a learned as a learned'. With Salaams,
  5. Salaam, This wasn't a discussion from the very begin; just a Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki that spreads fitna by clinging to "his rulers claim" as Mua'wiya did in response to al-Hasans letters. Astounding, history repeated itself time and time again, but people just look the other way.. What will the true Shi'i say about us from a century from now.. Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki: I am still waiting for all the answers you promised us - don't be a fool and say 'which/what/huh', just scroll to the very begin of the thread and look upon all the people that wasted time and effort in trying to guide your young mind, while you where to busy defending a right you don't even self understand. With Salaams,
  6. Salaam, you alone is spreading ignorance with your tiresome defending of Yaser al-Habib. You still owe all of us responses to the clear-cut statements posted by hameedeh, thenamelessone and Nader Zaveri that you either promised to 'turn back to' or 'ignored along the way'. With Salaams,
  7. Salaam, Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki your lack of insight into the Qur'an and sunna of the Ahl al-Bayt is quite evident; may Allah inshallah increase your faith with time. Equivalent to extreme Sunnis, the extreme Shi'is view only the subject matter as 'legal if it corresponds to there understanding' or else it must be 'illegal because they don't agree'. You are defending a view to the bitter end, even though you don't know where it will take you - this is not the taqleed our learn men are preaching about, it is idolization in disguise. These threads of your about Yasser al-Habib are only dividing us more than even, and in the meantime you are have a kick about it, because your thread hit the 'number 100 views' or whatever that makes you post his statements. Just review this and similar threads about this one person and show me a instants it created unity and not fitna in the Shi'i community. I personally do not care much about your/his semi-ghulat statements, peoples like you/him have been there since the Kufa-people called upon Imam Ali as god on earth. But the young minds that use this forum as a inspiration to the study of Shi'ism only find more disquiet about the Shi'i Faith in it's completeness with this fitna. So, even if you disagree with me - as I know you do, please post in another forum where you don't create fitna but unity. Just sit back and contemplate: do you think Allah is pleased with your stating something that create fitna - and please - don't deny this fact, no one thread about Yasser al-Habib in Shiachat have produced anything of a value for the Shi'i community. I know you won't understand the depth of my statement and you will most likely refuse it - but I hope with time that you don't forget what you used to do by posting thread as these and you seek forgiveness from the Lord on High. So rather this statement is not for you, but all the bright young minds that may find them self seduces by your disguise. With Salaams,
  8. Salaam thenamelessone, may Allah enlighten your heart with knowledge that will extend fare beyond what I know for your careful chosen words. I am in no position to define a spectrum of ideas of walaya just to be one single theological thought somewhere along the spectrum. What I am stating is that walaya have a 'somewhat' common denominator between the two extremes. In other words, the isma', 'ilm and nass defines the boundaries that all Shi'i can relate to. One can views these attributes of the imams as a blueprint for the understanding of the range/scope of the walaya. So, instead of teaching the community 'one' theological perspective of walaya, we should rather give them the basis foundation of walaya and the each individual use his contemplation to derive his own understanding of walaya. Too many young Shi'i, within the contemporary marjariyya-framework, just accept there marjas concept/understanding of walaya and defends it to the 'bitter end', even thought they never them self have understood what it real means. I urge people to contemplate - read a acquire knowledge and Allah will fill your heart with wisdom. With Salaams,
  9. Your statement is not sound. Again i urge, as the thread also based it self upon, to use your contemplation and read instead of saying what befalls you on the tip of your tongues. I have already mention S. H. M. Jafri's 'The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam' that is to be found online, Hossein Modarresi's 'Crisis and Consolidation in the formative period of Shi'ite Islam' (above amazon link). For the people that would like to know more about the more extreme 'universal walaya', read especially 'The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism - The Source of Esotericism in Islam' by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and also his Part II: 'On the Nature of the Imam: Initiation and Dualism', chapter 'Some Remarks on the Divinity of the Imam', 'The Pre-Existence of the Imam' and 'Notes on Imami Walaya' in his book 'The Spirituality of Shi'i Islam'. Furthermore I have also been touching upon some of these issues (e.g. semi-ghulat, the early Shi'i community) in another thread, see Tahreef In Quran (shiachat link). With Salaams,
  10. Salaam again, maybe from your perspective, but others will find it as exaggeration of what the scope of walaya real is. Rather the Shi'i community should talk about walaya from a common denominator instead of the two extremes. With Salaams,
  11. Salaam, what you are talking about is believe; as well as understanding should be regarded as a continuum, so too should the scope of walaya. Said with different words, a child do not comprehend the full scope of walaya before understanding begins to develops with age. I accept the fact that within the Shi'i community we profess difference of believe concerning walaya - but the thread "The Scope Of Imam's (a) Wilayat" was rather a definition of what the scope of walaya is, rather than a specific theological groups understanding of what they believe walaya to be. With Salaams,
  12. Salaam, If you look at it from a historical perspective, since the formative period of Shi'ism there have always existed a difference in opinion concerning the wilaya/imama that extend between two extremes on a continuum. In the one end you got the ghulat that believed in the highest degree of power bestowed upon the imams, for instants the imams was only secondary to God in decreasing power upon mankind, the universe and had complete knowledge about the unseen (ilm al-ghayb). Figurative you can speak of the imams as manifestations of the One True God, Gods Attributes in human form or the gods on earth. In the other end you got the ones that only looked upon the imams as primus inter pares ('ulama abrar atqiya') - the most distinguished scholar of the shari'a and nothing else. They only spoke of the imams as the people with most intellectual 'ilm and on that basic should be followed as a authority in Islam. In the second Islamic century a new and more advance form for ghulat tendency evolved that had semi-ghulat ideas about the rang/station of the imam - better know as the mufawwida. It is true to state, that they accepted all ghulat tendencies except the ones that looked upon the imams as identical or manifestations of God. Rather they spoke of the imam (and his walaya) to extend to a unlimited boundary, because 'if the Imam did't know, God would grant him knowledge - even of the unseen'. The imams are the 'pole and axle of the world' and if the imam wasn't created 'the hole world would collapse'. Before the creation of creation 'humankind and all the prophets bow down and accept the imams as the greatest lights, except the prophet Adam and that is why God decreased him from the heaven' etc. The mufawwida interpretative of the walaya, was always to the full extent [exaggerate] of what one can say about 'ilm, isma', nass, nur Muhammad/Allah, hujja etc in the scope of the imams. As a result to these ghulat and semi-ghulat tendencies in the early Shi'i community, mainstream Shi'i developed a counter-perspective to these. By the ghulat they came to be known as the muqassira, 'shortcoming' or moderates. They only saw the 'ilm and nass of the imam as being the key essence of the walaya. Now, these different theological perspectives or movements in the spectrum have over time developed to present-day. No Shi'i today accept the complete ghulat perspective, so one can speak of a narrowing in the extreme wing. Furthermore the perspectives are now incorporated into the marjiyya system, because the boarder public not only follows there marja' in jurisprudence (furu al-fiqh) but also his theological standings on different issues (including the scope/range of walaya). Indeed Fadl Allah is one of the best examples of modern-"extreme" muqassira and the Shirazi-family-marjas as most modern-"extreme" mufawwida. Both groups speak of the range/scope of walaya and proves is from the same books (al-kafi etc), even though they interprets it different. And please don't pull up a hadith and 'prove your point of standing': indeed from the same formative book you are citing, there exists a counter perspective. Contemplation as I stated in the first post - this should lead to understanding of the true scope of walaya. And Allah knows best. With Salaams,
  13. Salaam, the 'Universal Wilayat' in this concept presents a strict mufawwida perspective and is only 'universal' for the once Jafri state as semi-ghulat, The Doctrine of the Imamate (al-islam.org link) (CTRL+F and read from ''There is another important point ...") highlights more about this. See also H. Modarressi's 'Crisis and consolidation in the formative period of Shi'ite Islam' (amazon link). I too bear witness to Imam Alis imama/walaya, but only thought contemplation can one find the true scope and range of walaya, instead of literally speaking of the imams as the shadow of God, With Salaams,
  14. Salaam, it is preferred not to recite the prayer in our on the Ka'ba. Furthermore, where you pray should not make a difference - imaan rest within oneself, and not around oneself. With Salaams,
  15. Even though it is a quite polemical way of expressing oneself, I do to some extend agree with you.
×
×
  • Create New...