Abdul Qaim

"Nexal Consciousness"? I see you have adopted Shaykh Idris Samawi's rendering of "Jahl". It is certainly far superior to the usual renderings of "Intellect" or "Intelligence".

I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm sensitive. Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's rear end if 3 or 4 people try to resurrect an extinct Shi'i sect. I don't envisage that the ilhaad is going to spread like a zombie virus and infect the faithful in the foreseeable future. What I find amusing is the hysteria that this insignificant occurrence has engendered amongst many users here, hence the facetious reply...

The quasi-hysterical bleating from some of the folk here is what I don't take seriously. Some people here need to get a grip.We're not talking about someone becoming a Hindu, btw. A few people - at most - have deviated from what most of us here believe to be the norm. I can't see a wave of mass conversions to Waqifism anytime soon. I'm surprised that anyone still bothers to even discuss the matter.

I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved, but I can't control myself. Now, how is one to determine who is the a'lam Marja' ? Surely one must be well versed in fiqh to be able to make such a determination in the first place? Even amongst lower-ranking scholars there is ikhtilaaf on which 'aalim is the most knowledgeable. We currently have scores of Maraja'. Each one considers themselves al-a'lam, otherwise they would logically not accept the position. They would simply practice ijtihaad for themselves and leave other 'ulama of greater knowledge with the heavy burden which comes with becoming a focus of emulation by muqallideen. The fact that there is no unanimity whatsoever - in fact, quite the opposite - among our brightest and most knowledgeable scholars may indicate to a person who reflects on the logic of such a system, that it is indeed flawed. Nobody is saying that one should not seek the counsel of our greatest scholars, but rather that it may be wise for some to seek the advice of multiple scholars on certain issues.

There must only be a handful of Neo-Waqifa in existence, so I'd be fascinated to know who the person in question is. Edit: It appears as if the person involved has changed their status as : RASUL GO AWAY Their location is now "Shiachat", and the sig reads, "IGNORE WHATEVER I HAVE SAID ON THIS FORUM" ... I think I may know as well,..

Precisely. Thank you for elucidating what I obviously made murky ...

You'd better tell most of the Maraaja' then, because other than in matters deemed "ihtiyaat waajib", most of them do not agree with you. I never said that my opinion is a hujjah on anyone else, so please learn to understand English properly before arguing with someone whose comprehension is superior to your own. As I said in my last post ... Anyway, this whole debate is a circular process, and we all know what happens when one flies in ever decreasing circles, don't we? Ma'a salaama

No offense, but that comparison is plain silly. Taqleed of the Imams (as) is absolute - that of fallible scholars is not. I am not advocating that believers should be scouring through Wasailu sh-Shi'a in order to deduce their own fataawa. What I am against, however, is blindly following the edicts of any one particular scholar. Tab'eed of various Maraaja' is perfectly acceptable for a mukallif, IMHO. Anyway, this whole debate is a circular process, and we all know what happens when one flies in ever decreasing circles, don't we? Ma'a salaama wa fee aman Allah

*Sigh* Akhee al-kareem, I never said that there was anything wrong with consulting scholars. What I am arguing against is the wujub of doing taqleed to any particular scholar. Please understand the difference ...

The Ahl al-Dhikr are the Imams (as), not your 'ulama ...

I think it's self-evident that the lemur in question is Buddhist...

I'm really confused. Yesterday it was Shi'ah, today it's Takfeeris. Who will it be tomorrow?

Thanks ...

My Arabic is far from perfect, but is he referring to ghuluww/irtifa'a as a modern side-effect of not adhering to strict rijaali-sanadi sciences?