Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

How To Spot The Fitna Monger (fm)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Nobody asked for another lesson on irrelevant Iranian politics; the dysfunctional nature of the Assembly of Experts; etc. Perhaps you want to go back down the route of crying Iran has too many councils again ?

You are right, anybody can be a Marja, but anybody cannot be a Marja in my opinion.

That sentence made me laugh. You acknowledge that "anybody can be a marja" as beng factually correct. But then contradict that by saying they can't ("in your opinion"). I think perhaps you meant to say not every deserves to be a marja ?

Just answer the question, on what grounds do you consider Khameini [HA] to not be a marja, today ("in your opinion") ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(bismillah) (salam) The 'Shia' Fitna Mongers (FM) are an unscrupulous bunch bent on instilling hate throughout the Shia community in order to influence us to become believers in their malevolent

Posted Images

Nobody asked for another lesson on irrelevant Iranian politics; the dysfunctional nature of the Assembly of Experts; etc. Perhaps you want to go back down the route of crying Iran has too many councils again ?

You did - by claiming the members of AoE are "80 leading scholars" and simultaneously claiming Rafsanjani is not a mujtahid.

Effectively, you ruined your argument because a majority of the same "80 leading scholars" voted for Rafsanjani to head the council, after he passed the necessary oral and written exams to confirm the quality of his Ijtihad.

That sentence made me laugh. You acknowledge that "anybody can be a marja" as beng factually correct. But then contradict that by saying they can't ("in your opinion"). I think perhaps you meant to say not every deserves to be a marja ?

Good to have made you laugh. Laughing is good for you.

As for the question, you stated "anybody can be a Marja", which I agreed with since it's a subjective thing. For example, Wahid Khurasani did not consider Fadlallah to be a Marja, and the long list of scholars I mentioned don't consider Khamenei to be a Marja. Yet others did not consider Shirazi to be a scholar, etc.

The discussion was not about whether a person can consider somebody else to be a Marja. The question was: Did Khamenei ascend to power in a legal way, in other words did he have the qualifications?

After I proved that Khamenei was never considered a Marjaby anyone in Iran before the night he ascended to power, you then made a false claim stating that "Marjaiyyah is not a requirement for WF", and I proved - with hardproof in the form of the pre-1989 constitution - that Marjaiyyah was indeed a requirement for being WF.

So what we have now is:

1) You effectively rendering your claim that these people are "80 leading scholars" useless and false since you obviously do not agree with them,

2) Your false claim about Marjaiyyah not being a requirement at the time Khamenei ascended to power refuted

Just answer the question, on what grounds do you consider Khameini [HA] to not be a marja, today ("in your opinion") ?

I don't really care, because I don't emulate him, nor have I ever opposed anybody emulating him (which I've also told Ya Aba countless times). People can follow a pink unicorn, for all I care.

My issue with Khamenei has to do with the entire charade that went on when he came to power unconstitutionally and illegally by claiming the issue of Marjaiyyat when he was not considered one by anyone at the time, and his subsequent rulership (in the role of WF). I also believe he lacked elementary knowledge of WF Mutlaqeh, and I've provided a speech from Khomeini where he publicly rebuked Khamenei, stating that what Khamenei says about WF Mutlaqeh is the opposite of what Khomeini believes.

Edited by waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

And we provided many links that say the opposite. Imam Khomeini never mentioned Khamenei by name in what you claim. But he has said many times according to Ulama that Khamenei has the ability and knowledge to become WF. And i don't see why we are talking about what waiting thinks. Who cares what waiting thinks, even his marja thinks Imam khamenei is a marja, thats why he doesn't say who his marja is.

Point is, 80 of the greatest Ulama thought he was good enough, and Ulama of the Assembly of experts, so with or without constitution, they have final say. So take a coke and a smile, and learn your place in society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And we provided many links that say the opposite.

Opposite of what?

Imam Khomeini never mentioned Khamenei by name in what you claim.

"Government is among the most important divine injunctions and has priority over all peripheral divine orders. Your [Khameini’s] interpretation of what I said, that is, the government has jurisdiction within the framework of divine injunctions...is contradictory to what I said. Were the powers of government to lie only within the framework of secondary divine decrees, the designation of the divine government and of absolute deputed guardianship to the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon and his progeny) would have been in practice entirely without meaning and content. Let me refer to the consequences of such a view – consequences which no one would accept. For example, the laying of roads that necessitates the confiscation of houses or of the land on which they stand is not provided for within the framework of the secondary divine ordinances. Military conscription and the compulsory dispatch of soldiers to the front; forbidding the import or export of foreign currency, or of various kinds of goods; the prohibition of hoarding; customs duties, taxation, the prohibition of exorbitant pricing, price regulation; the prohibition of narcotics and addiction, with the exception of alcoholic drinks; the prohibition against bearing all kinds of arms; and hundreds of similar measures, none of these, according to your interpretation, are among the powers of the state. I must point out, the government...is among the primary ordinances of Islam, and has precedence over all secondary ordinances, such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage....The government is empowered to unilaterally revoke any lawful agreement ... if the agreement contravenes the interests of ... the country. It can prevent any matter, whether religious or secular, if it is against the interests of Islam.

Qtd. in Sachedina, A. (2001) 'The rule of the religious jurist in Iran' in Esposito and Ramazani, "Iran at the Crossroads," p. 136.

But he has said many times according to Ulama that Khamenei has the ability and knowledge to become WF.

I never read that and Montazeri was Qa'em-Maqam until a few months before Khomeini's death and the same "80 leading clerics" which you are praising appointed him, as did they vote for Rafsanjani to head the council even though you claim he is corrupt, but let's assume he said a hundred times.

It has no bearing whatsoever because the Law is above everything, including Khomeini or anybody else, and it stipulated specifically that Marjaiyyah is a condition for WF.

And i don't see why we are talking about what waiting thinks.

Neither do I, ask your co-opinionists, they brought the topic up.

Point is, 80 of the greatest Ulama thought he was good enough, and Ulama of the Assembly of experts, so with or without constitution, they have final say.

Again, I don't know by what criteria you consider them "80 of the greatest Ulama", infact Montazeri was appointed by that council at some point, and Rafsanjani who according to you is corrupt is heading it.

And in anycase, what do you mean "with or without constitution"? The contitution is the basic Law of the country, anything that goes against it is illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Opposite of what?

"Government is among the most important divine injunctions and has priority over all peripheral divine orders. Your [Khameini’s] interpretation of what I said, that is, the government has jurisdiction within the framework of divine injunctions...is contradictory to what I said. Were the powers of government to lie only within the framework of secondary divine decrees, the designation of the divine government and of absolute deputed guardianship to the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon and his progeny) would have been in practice entirely without meaning and content. Let me refer to the consequences of such a view – consequences which no one would accept. For example, the laying of roads that necessitates the confiscation of houses or of the land on which they stand is not provided for within the framework of the secondary divine ordinances. Military conscription and the compulsory dispatch of soldiers to the front; forbidding the import or export of foreign currency, or of various kinds of goods; the prohibition of hoarding; customs duties, taxation, the prohibition of exorbitant pricing, price regulation; the prohibition of narcotics and addiction, with the exception of alcoholic drinks; the prohibition against bearing all kinds of arms; and hundreds of similar measures, none of these, according to your interpretation, are among the powers of the state. I must point out, the government...is among the primary ordinances of Islam, and has precedence over all secondary ordinances, such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage....The government is empowered to unilaterally revoke any lawful agreement ... if the agreement contravenes the interests of ... the country. It can prevent any matter, whether religious or secular, if it is against the interests of Islam.

Qtd. in Sachedina, A. (2001) 'The rule of the religious jurist in Iran' in Esposito and Ramazani, "Iran at the Crossroads," p. 136.

I never read that and Montazeri was Qa'em-Maqam until a few months before Khomeini's death and the same "80 leading clerics" which you are praising appointed him, as did they vote for Rafsanjani to head the council even though you claim he is corrupt, but let's assume he said a hundred times.

It has no bearing whatsoever because the Law is above everything, including Khomeini or anybody else, and it stipulated specifically that Marjaiyyah is a condition for WF.

Neither do I, ask your co-opinionists, they brought the topic up.

Again, I don't know by what criteria you consider them "80 of the greatest Ulama", infact Montazeri was appointed by that council at some point, and Rafsanjani who according to you is corrupt is heading it.

And in anycase, what do you mean "with or without constitution"? The contitution is the basic Law of the country, anything that goes against it is illegal.

"Qtd. in Sachedina, A. (2001) 'The rule of the religious jurist in Iran' in Esposito and Ramazani, "Iran at the Crossroads," p. 136."

I'm going to be honest, i doubt the authenticity of this. Who wrote this book? And what is the reference from the book?

Even if it is true, which i doubt, im guessing it has to be from long before the revolution from when Ayatollah Khamenei was still a freshy.

Opposite of what?

Imam khomeini has said that ayatollah khamenei enjoys the criterias for WF. That is the opposite of what your saying.

I never read that and Montazeri was Qa'em-Maqam until a few months before Khomeini's death and the same "80 leading clerics" which you are praising appointed him, as did they vote for Rafsanjani to head the council even though you claim he is corrupt, but let's assume he said a hundred times.

Again, I don't know by what criteria you consider them "80 of the greatest Ulama", infact Montazeri was appointed by that council at some point, and Rafsanjani who according to you is corrupt is heading it.

And in anycase, what do you mean "with or without constitution"? The contitution is the basic Law of the country, anything that goes against it is illegal.

Well, for one, discussing the criteria is a huge issue and should be done another place.

Two, so what that they appointed Montazeri. Abu bakr was a good guy until he made a fool of himself. So was Montazeri. Who said ayatollahs were immune to punishment and judgment?

Third, even though i think Rafsanjani has made the mistake of letting his family and friends take advantage of him, i don't consider him of being corrupt.

Ayatollah Shirazi proved that the rule of Ulama when the interest of the country and religion is at case is more important than the constitution.(when he banned tobacco)

And I'm pretty sure WF can overrule anything the constitution says. And Imam Khomeini said, and so did majlise khobregan that

1. Ayatollah Khamenei enjoys the criterias required to be WF.

2. I'm not sure, and excuse me for not paying attention, but have you proved that the constitution says this? If so, can you provide link?If no, can you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in what you "think". You have been provided with references, and your personal opinions are irrelevant. You haven't "proven" anything.

And I'm pretty sure WF can overrule anything the constitution says. And Imam Khomeini said, and so did majlise khobregan that

Again, your personal opinion is irrelevant. The constitution outlines and defines the role of WF, without the constitution there is no WF.

1. Ayatollah Khamenei enjoys the criterias required to be WF.

No, he didn't, and this discussion is pointless because you are either acting ignorant, or you have reading comprehension issues.

2. I'm not sure, and excuse me for not paying attention, but have you proved that the constitution says this? If so, can you provide link?If no, can you?

You're not excused. Read the posts properly before writing. Yes, I provided a link to the pre-1989 constitution. Scroll up and read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam allaikum,

The discussion was not about whether a person can consider somebody else to be a Marja. The question was: Did Khamenei ascend to power in a legal way, in other words did he have the qualifications?

After I proved that Khamenei was never considered a Marja by anyone in Iran before the night he ascended to power, you then made a false claim stating that "Marjaiyyah is not a requirement for WF", and I proved - with hardproof in the form of the pre-1989 constitution - that Marjaiyyah was indeed a requirement for being WF.

I really don't understand the point of all this argument. It seems you just like debate for the sake of debating bro. For example even assuming what your saying is true does it really make a difference? We all know that the officeship of marjaiyya isn't a science; sometimes someone may be qualified to become a marja but due to the status of someone already a marja they don't take that position.

For example ayatollah khomeini was long qualified to be a marja but due to his teachers position he waited many years before actually becoming one. He didn't become politically active until his teacher and mentor had passed away out of respect. There may be many in the world who have the qualifications of being a marja but due to one already being there (usually their teachers) out of respect they never seek the position. Also even more importantly no one will ever come out and say i am a marja; this is against the rules of akhlaq. I dont' think anyone ever starts their career as a talabe wanting to become a "marja".

There is no doubt that today ayatollah khameni is considered a marja by many in the world.

Anyways basically i'm asking what the heck is your point in all this??

People will debate a point to teach or convey something...all your doing is argueing for the sake of argueing. This isn't beneficial to people bro.

This thread is about fitna mongering...meaning saying things simply to cause a rift between people. isn't that what you've been doing the whole thread? First the comments about palestinians, then onto iran. Your point don't have much value in the sense that they prove any point. You just keep throwing things out.

i'd ask you to reconsider the whole point of what your trying to convey because so far all i see is bashing and insulting other groups with no real benefit to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
Qtd. in Sachedina, A. (2001) 'The rule of the religious jurist in Iran' in Esposito and Ramazani, "Iran at the Crossroads," p. 136.
You chose the wrong man to quote, since half the people here do taqlid of Sayyid Sistani who issued a hikma that it's forbidden to attend Sachedina's lectures. Anyways, I've quoted where Sachedina got his info from. What we find is Sayyid Khamana'i agreed to Imam Khomeini's views, and is implementing them as we speak.

Attached are the version of events based on the books from

Spokesmen for the Despised: Fundamentalist Leaders of the Middle East - R. Scott Appleby

and

Parliamentary Politics in Revolutionary Iran: The Institutionalization of Factional Politics - Bahman Baktiari

Just as a matter of interest, who do you suggest should be the Supreme Leader today, and who do you think should have been the Supreme Leader after Imam Khomeini?

Mind you, I don't expect a response. You're so good at dodging questions, as already been proven in this thread.

My issue with Khamenei has to do with the entire charade that went on when he came to power unconstitutionally and illegally by claiming the issue of Marjaiyyat when he was not considered one by anyone at the time, and his subsequent rulership (in the role of WF). I also believe he lacked elementary knowledge of WF Mutlaqeh, and I've provided a speech from Khomeini where he publicly rebuked Khamenei, stating that what Khamenei says about WF Mutlaqeh is the opposite of what Khomeini believes.
That was the final insult against a great Shia scholar. Consider yourself no longer a representative of this site.

post-39-1214864574_thumb.jpg

post-39-1214864621_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for "waiting"

1. Since you have no knowledge of how being a mujdahid versa WF works, let me educate you:

a: When a student has a master, he rarely shows of himself as a mujtahid in respect to the scholar. Not unless the master himself kinda hints him to do so. (Khomeini/Khamenei comes to mind)

b: You don't have to be a marja to become WF, you have to read the constitution yourself. You have to be mujtahid which is different than being a marja.

c: Again read the constitution, you are ignorant and a slow learner if you can't understand that WF overrules the constitution.

2. Since referring to the son of Imam khomeini, or other Ulama who are witness of Imam Khomeini saying Ayatollah khamenei has the criterias of being WF isnt enough for you, they you are not worth talking to as your aim is not to share information and learn, but to be stubborn and accept nothing but your own ideas.

3. Since the acceptance of 80+ Ulama that Ayatollah Kahmenei isn't enough for you, who are we fooling to think WE can convince you? you are a lost cause to start with. Just stop spreading fitnah, thats all we ask. I personally to some time ask God to guide people when they spread fitnah. If they keep doing it, i ask God to curse them. You are getting close.

4. That speech is a lie. You are naive and ignorant if you think Imam Khomeini ever said that about Ayatollah Khamenei and should keep yourself busy with zikr and dua. You certainly are a student of Montazeri. You should know your place in politics. Either your naive or really spreading fitnah and lie. I think it's both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
What claim is "false"? You are right, anybody can be a Marja, but anybody cannot be a Marja in my opinion. And we have been discussing my opinion. Now it so happens, my opinion was also the opinion of everybody before the night Khamenei ascended to power.
I'm not interested in what you "think". You have been provided with references, and your personal opinions are irrelevant. You haven't "proven" anything.

Again, your personal opinion is irrelevant. The constitution outlines and defines the role of WF, without the constitution there is no WF.

I fail to understand how your opinion is relevant 'waiting', but somebody else's isn't? That's a little harsh isn't it...how come your posts are full of sarcasm and attitude?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Khamanei (ha) did a speech saying how the Shariah alone rulers and WF has no authority himself but just to implement revelation.

Khomeini (qas) replied and showing how if that was true, not even taffic rules can be implaced by the government (ie. since there is no Nas from hadiths on traffic rule), and other things. There is also the issue when something is against the interest of islam and the country (for example, Stoning today is not done from adultery to avoid harm from Media of the west), the WF has the right to judge what is in the best interest of islam.

Khamanei (ha) apologized and agreed with Khomeini (qas) right after.

The issue is he was expressing the rule that the in islam, the Shariah is the law and rule, which Khomeini (qas) does agree, however, the truth about the issue is that certain things have no direct Nass (like taffic laws) and also some political interests of islam and country have precedence over some of shariah.

But Khamanei (ha) was not opposing Khomeini (qas), he merely stated that issue but Khomeini (qas) wanted to point out a flaw in that, and so for example, traffic laws cannot be implaced by government if government can only implement things through Nas.

wa salam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam

The simple logic for any government ruling the muslims is implement traffic rules and any rule which is necessary for the state but by not naming it Islamic because of the absence of Nas. If there is a Nas on everything and a permission to implement a Islamic government by the Imam a.s. then they can do it.

Ya Ali Madad

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Interesting debate.

I tend to agree with both sides on this one if that is possible. Sunnis are wonderful people as Shias but rather unpredictable at times, specially times of political strife. In Afghanistan where I come from, in 1892 when the British decided to turn it into a modern nation state where govt held the monopoly of violence, the British puppet king declared Jihad against Shias, and the Sunni subjects from all over the country followed. Around 70% of our population were either killed or enslaved and sold to slavery and their fertile lands in southern Afghanistan (Helmand, Uruzgan, parts of Kandahar etc) usurped- sending us to take refuge in the mountains.

Fast forward 100 years latter. This time when CIA is building the foundation for its New American Century, there was an upsurge of wahabis in Afghanistan, especially in Kabul. They too declared Shias kafir and started killing shia civilians in their own neighborhood while Afghan sunnis, some with the blessing of Ayatollah Khameni's WF, following those idiots and committing heinous crimes. They were beaten in the first round but stood no chance when the Taliban was created from fragments of their first Jihad. Taliban's slogan of 'All Shias are Kaffir' justified the murder of tens of thousands of innocent shia civilians by the ordinary and misguided sunnis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • Site Administrators

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96XlzX7gLTo

You may wonder why Wahhabist Takfiris like the pro-Bin Laden terrorist Adnan Al-Aroor, and the Shiahhabi Takfiris like Yassir Habib are allowed to come into the media and spill their venomous tongue and blood-lusty fangs into the psyche of the masses. It's quite simple, ferment hatred.

So what is it that's so similar about both these fitna mongers? One who's apparently a 'Sunni' and another who's apparently a 'Shia'?

For one, both want the collapse of Syria.

Two, both want Muslims to spill each others blood by fermenting hatred through their hate speeches.

Three, they're both on the MI5 and/or Bandar-Bin-Shaytan payroll.

Every Muslim needs to know how these people operate. It's the only way to stop further blood-shed in the Middle-East, and to avert any new Takfiri Wahhabist Saudi terrorist attacks in the West funded by the CIA/MI5/Bandar-Bin-Shaytan mafia criminal class.

If you ever come across any of these snakes, throw a shoe directly at their noses!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

(salam)

You may wonder why Wahhabist Takfiris like the pro-Bin Laden terrorist Adnan Al-Aroor, and the Shiahhabi Takfiris like Yassir Habib are allowed to come into the media and spill their venomous tongue and blood-lusty fangs into the psyche of the masses. It's quite simple, ferment hatred.

So what is it that's so similar about both these fitna mongers? One who's apparently a 'Sunni' and another who's apparently a 'Shia'?

For one, both want the collapse of Syria.

Two, both want Muslims to spill each others blood by fermenting hatred through their hate speeches.

Three, they're both on the MI5 and/or Bandar-Bin-Shaytan payroll.

Every Muslim needs to know how these people operate. It's the only way to stop further blood-shed in the Middle-East, and to avert any new Takfiri Wahhabist Saudi terrorist attacks in the West funded by the CIA/MI5/Bandar-Bin-Shaytan mafia criminal class.

(bismillah)

íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÇÌúÊóäöÈõæÇ ßóËöíÑðÇ ãöøäó ÇáÙøóäöø Åöäøó ÈóÚúÖó ÇáÙøóäöø ÅöËúãñ ۖ æóáóÇ ÊóÌóÓøóÓõæÇ æóáóÇ íóÛúÊóÈ ÈøóÚúÖõßõã ÈóÚúÖðÇ ۚ ÃóíõÍöÈøõ ÃóÍóÏõßõãú Ãóä íóÃúßõáó áóÍúãó ÃóÎöíåö ãóíúÊðÇ ÝóßóÑöåúÊõãõæåõ ۚ æóÇÊøóÞõæÇ Çááøóåó ۚ Åöäøó Çááøóåó ÊóæøóÇÈñ ÑøóÍöíãñ ٤٩:١٢

By the way, the person in the video you posted is not a twelver shiite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

(salam)

(bismillah)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ ۖ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا ۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيمٌ ٤٩:١٢

By the way, the person in the video you posted is not a twelver shiite.

Obviously you don't know the definition of ghiba. You can read up about it here http://www.al-islam....tyhadith/20.htm

Secondly, MI5 agents aren't your brothers in religion, they're complicit in the blowing up of the Imamain 'Askariyayn maqaams in Samaraa' because of their fitna tongues.

Thirdly, his actions are public, which makes him susceptible to public criticism. It's not Ghiba if you tell the person to his face that he's a fitna monger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Obviously you don't know the definition of ghiba. You can read up about it here http://www.al-islam....tyhadith/20.htm

Secondly, MI5 agents aren't your brothers in religion, they're complicit in the blowing up of the Imamain 'Askariyayn maqaams in Samaraa' because of their fitna tongues.

Thirdly, his actions are public, which makes him susceptible to public criticism. It's not Ghiba if you tell the person to his face that he's a fitna monger.

I think you missed the first part of the verse :) I wasn't referring to gheeba.

To make it clearer, the reference was to your accusation of Sheikh Yassir being an MI5 agent (naudhubillah).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

(bismillah)

(salam)

íóÇ ÃóíõøåóÇ ÇáóøÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÇÌúÊóäöÈõæÇ ßóËöíÑðÇ ãöäó ÇáÙóøäöø Åöäóø ÈóÚúÖó ÇáÙóøäöø ÅöËúãñ ۖ æóáóÇ ÊóÌóÓóøÓõæÇ æóáóÇ íóÛúÊóÈú ÈóÚúÖõßõãú ÈóÚúÖðÇ ۚ ÃóíõÍöÈõø ÃóÍóÏõßõãú Ãóäú íóÃúßõáó áóÍúãó ÃóÎöíåö ãóíúÊðÇ ÝóßóÑöåúÊõãõæåõ ۚ æóÇÊóøÞõæÇ Çááóøåó ۚ Åöäóø Çááóøåó ÊóæóøÇÈñ ÑóÍöíãñ {12}

[shakir 49:12] O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.

http://quran.al-islam.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

(bismillah)

(salam)

íóÇ ÃóíõøåóÇ ÇáóøÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÇÌúÊóäöÈõæÇ ßóËöíÑðÇ ãöäó ÇáÙóøäöø Åöäóø ÈóÚúÖó ÇáÙóøäöø ÅöËúãñ ۖ æóáóÇ ÊóÌóÓóøÓõæÇ æóáóÇ íóÛúÊóÈú ÈóÚúÖõßõãú ÈóÚúÖðÇ ۚ ÃóíõÍöÈõø ÃóÍóÏõßõãú Ãóäú íóÃúßõáó áóÍúãó ÃóÎöíåö ãóíúÊðÇ ÝóßóÑöåúÊõãõæåõ ۚ æóÇÊóøÞõæÇ Çááóøåó ۚ Åöäóø Çááóøåó ÊóæóøÇÈñ ÑóÍöíãñ {12}

[shakir 49:12] O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.

http://quran.al-islam.org/

Please learn tafsir Al-Qur'an sis :)

Anyone who wishes or is acting in a way that destroys Islam, MUST be exposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

Please learn tafsir Al-Qur'an sis :)

Anyone who wishes or is acting in a way that destroys Islam, MUST be exposed.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Brother, I agree with you and that video is super. :) I was just posting the English translation of the post before mine, for those who don't know Arabic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

Brother, I agree with you and that video is super. :) I was just posting the English translation of the post before mine, for those who don't know Arabic.

Jazakallah sis.

Also, notice how the aya says "most (katheeran) of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some (ba'd) cases is a sin,"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 years later...
  • Basic Members

1 Imam Khoei's (rh) statements in Minhaj Al-Saliheen page 366 :

" Offensive Jihad is obligatory in time of occultation."

"The Muslims, if they possess the readiness equipment and power, then indeed Jihad against the faithfulness to call them to religion is obligatory upon them."

"Indeed acting upon this important order in the open requires a leader <ka'it> and a commander <amir> who the Muslim ses as an authority <amrihi> upon them."

"So most certainly is assigned to the jurist <faqih> who fulfills the required conditions"

"He conducts this important role through the issue of Hisba, on the basis that somebody else taking such a role would result in chaos and disorder."

2 In his another statements of another books he says : because al-omour al-hesbiah are everything that falls into protecting the stability of life, it is indeed a requirement of Islamic Law, and because it has not been assigned to a specific person, therefore, this Wilaya is a provision assigned to the jurist who fulfills the conditions. [Al-Tanqih, volume 1, Al mustanad, volume 2]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...