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
Sign in to follow this  
Montazer Al-Zaidi

Why Iran & Iraq need: Separation of Mosque-State

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As we have seen during the course of SOFA or ex issues, Maliki installed regime is shuttling between US Embassy and Najaf Al Ashraf to a negotiated path. It's a typical approach and Maliki/any shi`iete installed government will continue to face. The most recent one is going to be Basra alongwith 19 provinces to be declared as an independent state.

In todays Iran/Iraq, many opponents of the government advocate the creation of a secular state. Soroush(chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini to “Islamicize” Iran’s universities) himself supports the separation of mosque and state, but for the sake of religion. He seeks freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Thus he speaks for a different — and potentially more effective — agenda.

The medieval Islamic mystic Rumi once wrote that

“an old love may only be dissolved by a new one.”

In a deeply religious society like Iran/Iraq, whose leaders have justified their hold on power as a divine duty or referring to Ayatollahs during trouble times of the puppet installed regime, it may take a religious counterargument to push the society toward pluralism and democracy. Soroush challenges those who claim to speak for Islam, and does so on their own terms.

Edited by Montazer Al-Zaidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should Ayietulla's OR Learned people (as I would like to refer to them) be considered any different than others.

Why should they be treated as if they have some kind of religious disease, and they should exit politics?

I think those who are against the theocratic system have some kind of Brain failure.

We have genius (particularly in the west) who pushing the technology to the limits - BUT - when it comes to religion their brains start to malfunction.

They cannot add TWO plus TWO and come to FOUR.

Edited by Ali Fazel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many reasons, I do not support the Iranian régime. Politics are corruption by nature, and we should not let our religious scholars be influenced by political issues.

Also, I oppose the Absolute Vilayet-e Faqih of which Khomeini was a proponent. Admittedly, I am not a Twelver (I am a Shi'ah but of undeclared allegiance to any particular school), but I am familiar with the issue (aren't we all?) since it is a big one for all kinds of Muslims and I know that many prominent 12er scholars were and are horrified at the notion. The notion of vilayet-e faqih in general is an old one (ash-Shaykh al-Mufid is said to have first written about it), but the absolute vilayet-e faqih is problematic to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are not a twelver, why are you worried about the affairs of twelvers? Anyway, you are welcome to enjoy our hospitality.

true but still its an important issue for us all. On the one hand I support the Iranians, unlike these 'cypress' types, on the other hand I worry about the damage being done to Islam in the sense that many people are not religious and actually dont know all that much about Islam.

Edited by Hassan kachal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on the other hand I worry about the damage being done to Islam in the sense that many people are not religious and actually dont know all that much about Islam

Islam can never be damaged, ever since Karbala incident.

Its usually wahhabis who say that islam is under danger or is getting damaged somehow and they need to do something about it. Its a buncha bs. Truth is that islam is forever and its only a particular group of muslims who are getting damaged if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For velayate Faqih..We respect other opinions and even a rejection, Velayate Faqih as it is being practiced allows disagreement. But it is one thing to respectfully disagree and another to dismiss it and wish for a regime change. Since the majority have chosen for this system, ALL people, Iranian and especially Non-Iranian must respect it. It is one of the most recent referendums' held on what regime to have especially compared to the Western nations, where there is much larger public disapproval.

On another note, if we examine the arguments brought forth by those who oppose it, you will find they are

(1) Deliberately vague because of insufficient knowledge or because they prefer to reach the "bewildered herd of the masses", in the words of chomsky and are not interested in the truth

(2) Do not live in Iran or are Non-expatriates or have never to Iran, ever or are Exiled for life because their families were remnants of the taghoot regime (Saltanat Talab, Monarchist, MKO, Oil thieves etc.)

(3) Are not Moslems or non practicing or Are not Shiites or non-practicing

(5) Arab nationalists

A number of these groups are also mentioned by Shahid Ayatollah Motahhari when he put some time in refuting lies about Shiism, Islamic state and Pre-islamic Iran, fabricated by people in these groups since they are the most contagious for fraudulent statements against Iran and Islamic Republic. We know the motives behind a number of them ofcourse.

Iraqi's are choosing Islamist leaders because Politics is corrupt.

However in the ideology of Velayate Faqih, its politics are a meritocratic theocracy which aims to become technologically independent of the world and create everything itself and become self sufficient, destroying current hegemony and encouraging collectivism and a form of religious calvinism in the contributing process of society, in addition it had the duty according to Islamic shiite authentic scriptues accepted by the majority of Shiite scholars in Iran that they hold on to the power of approval (if things are halal or haram) and putting them into practice in society until the Imam Mahdi returns.

We believe this to be a sacred Islamic teaching by the Prophet himself and stressed by Imam Khomeini and if we were to actually hold a discussion, going against not only the establishment, our religious leaders but in fact popular demand it should have some relevant counter arguments, our people have had this discussion for the past 30 years and many points raised are not substantial nor hold weight

If Iraq is choosing an Islamic theocracy, it is only because politics indeed is very corrupt generally. They have seen how secularism can behave in a society predominately Muslim and that this is a creation of the West and not suitable for a Muslim society. Velayate Faqih has been a blessing for some of our Shiite moslem brothers and sisters outside of Iran, because they now have everything from nothing, went from occupation to freedom, they have food when they did not before, they have power and honour when they before did not. I have personally experienced hospitality, kindness, help of those great people. It is around times and places like this people get a genuine understanding of concepts like a single "Ummah"

God bless them all

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should Ayietulla's OR Learned people (as I would like to refer to them) be considered any different than others.

Why should they be treated as if they have some kind of religious disease, and they should exit politics?

I think those who are against the theocratic system have some kind of Brain failure.

Hi Ali Fazel: I have a problem with Theocracies I should say all theocracies. The reason is fundamental really, the minorities become second class citizens. The law is defined by the the state religion and there is trouble finding a good job if you are in the minority because of your faith. I have no problem with men of faith being in gov't but I do not like people of any particular gov't being the gov't.

"We have genius (particularly in the west) who pushing the technology to the limits - BUT - when it comes to religion their brains start to malfunction.

They cannot add TWO plus TWO and come to FOUR."

Please tell me the foundation upon which you built the two statements above.

Peace

Satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Islam can never be damaged, ever since Karbala incident.

Its usually wahhabis who say that islam is under danger or is getting damaged somehow and they need to do something about it. Its a buncha bs. Truth is that islam is forever and its only a particular group of muslims who are getting damaged if anything.

Sorry thats is right i meant the image of Islam. You are right about Karbala... the foundation of La illaha Il Allah' is Karbala!

Edited by Hassan kachal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A number of these groups are also mentioned by Shahid Ayatollah Motahhari when he put some time in refuting lies about Shiism, Islamic state and Pre-islamic Iran, fabricated by people in these groups since they are the most contagious for fraudulent statements against Iran and Islamic Republic. We know the motives behind a number of them ofcourse.

Iraqi's are choosing Islamist leaders because Politics is corrupt.

However in the ideology of Velayate Faqih, its politics are a meritocratic theocracy which aims to become technologically independent of the world and create everything itself and become self sufficient, destroying current hegemony and encouraging collectivism and a form of religious calvinism in the contributing process of society, in addition it had the duty according to Islamic shiite authentic scriptues accepted by the majority of Shiite scholars in Iran that they hold on to the power of approval (if things are halal or haram) and putting them into practice in society until the Imam Mahdi returns.

We believe this to be a sacred Islamic teaching by the Prophet himself and stressed by Imam Khomeini and if we were to actually hold a discussion, going against not only the establishment, our religious leaders but in fact popular demand it should have some relevant counter arguments, our people have had this discussion for the past 30 years and many points raised are not substantial nor hold weight

If Iraq is choosing an Islamic theocracy, it is only because politics indeed is very corrupt generally. They have seen how secularism can behave in a society predominately Muslim and that this is a creation of the West and not suitable for a Muslim society. Velayate Faqih has been a blessing for some of our Shiite moslem brothers and sisters outside of Iran, because they now have everything from nothing, went from occupation to freedom, they have food when they did not before, they have power and honour when they before did not. I have personally experienced hospitality, kindness, help of those great people. It is around times and places like this people get a genuine understanding of concepts like a single "Ummah"

God bless them all

Very well written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still a Shi'ah. That is why I am here. Should I go chat on Wahhabist sites? I don't think so.

As for velayet-e faqih, the "quietist" interpretation that most Twelver scholars support is not the same as regency by al-fuquhaa. I don't believe they should be rulers. Their job is not rulership, but spiritual leadership, and the two do not sit together. The activist notion of V-e F is innovative. I know for a fact Sistani opposes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still a Shi'ah. That is why I am here. Should I go chat on Wahhabist sites? I don't think so.

As for velayet-e faqih, the "quietist" interpretation that most Twelver scholars support is not the same as regency by al-fuquhaa. I don't believe they should be rulers. Their job is not rulership, but spiritual leadership, and the two do not sit together. The activist notion of V-e F is innovative. I know for a fact Sistani opposes it.

First of all its Ayatollah Sistani,

secondly, he doesn't oppose WF, he opposes full authority WF. As a matter of fact, very few marjas oppose WF, the disagreement is on the level of authority.

Ayatollah Sistani opinion of WF is somewhere between Ayatollah Khoei and Ayatollah Khomeini, even so more leaned towards Ayatollah Khomeini rather than his own teacher.

The fact that you don't "believe" they should be rulers is fair enough, but its pretty much useless if you can't back it up by some sort of academic foundation and justification.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes repenter,

and actually the amount of authority of WF today is limited as we all know

It was a surprise to me when i was sitting with two U.S. "masters" students in beirut and only then having realized they are tricked, through their curriculum or media that WF = totalitarianism..good point, my guess its a mixture of both.

Ayatollah Sistani holds a WF passport..and he is an iraqi citizen

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
secondly, he doesn't oppose WF, he opposes full authority WF. As a matter of fact, very few marjas oppose WF, the disagreement is on the level of authority.

Ayatollah Sistani opinion of WF is somewhere between Ayatollah Khoei and Ayatollah Khomeini, even so more leaned towards Ayatollah Khomeini rather than his own teacher.

Both of the above statements are wrong.

First of all all of the maraji3 through out the history DO believe in wilayat al faqih but like you said to different extends.

Furthermore Sayed Sistani's opinion regarding wilayat al faqih is exactly like his teacher Sayed Al-Khoei which is the opinion of the hawza of Najaf and contradicts the opinion of Sayed Khomeini and hawza of Qom who believe the faqih has absolute and full authority like the Imams and the prophet.

wallahu a3lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the opinion of the hawza of Najaf and contradicts the opinion of Sayed Khomeini and hawza of Qom who believe the faqih has absolute and full authority like the Imams and the prophet.

This is absolutely NOT the opinion of Qom - it never has been, and never will be. There is not one soul in Qom that thinks that the Supreme Leader is the equivalent to a Prophet or Imam, so stop exaggerating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is absolutely NOT the opinion of Qom - it never has been, and never will be. There is not one soul in Qom that thinks that the Supreme Leader is the equivalent to a Prophet or Imam, so stop exaggerating.

What you mean by Qom?! If you for example take Shaikh Vahid Al-Khorasani or Mirza Jawad Al-Tabrizi as examples yes they dont believe in such a thing which is because they are the students of the hawza of Najaf. Of course it isnt always 100% and you may find a few Ayatullahs in hawza of Najaf believeing in what the hawza of Qom believes and a few Ayatullahs in hawza of Qom believing in what the Hawza of Najaf believes but this is very rare.

I did not say they are equivalent to the Prophet or the Imams but what they believe in means that the faqih has the same rights as the Imams and the Prophet during the occultation, what is called wilayat faqih al mutlaqa. Please feel free to do some research before saying I am exaaggerating.

wallahu a3lam

Edited by Najafi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Let's assume that we were running a country but didn't want to implement an Islamic system. What would we implement? Capitalism? Communism? Would we re-invent our own method of governance? Which code of rules and regulations would we use? On what basis would we decide what is allowed/prohibited?

How would we justify allowing something that the Qur'an forbids?

Of course it isnt always 100% and you may find a few Ayatullahs in hawza of Najaf believeing in what the hawza of Qom believes and a few Ayatullahs in hawza of Qom believing in what the Hawza of Najaf believes but this is very rare.

Brother beliefs aren't based on the hawza you attend. They aren't something that you imitate from a teacher, rather it's something that each believer has the duty to understand and maintain for themselves. You can find a whole range of beliefs within Qum, just as you probably can in Najaf.

I did not say they are equivalent to the Prophet or the Imams but what they believe in means that the faqih has the same rights as the Imams and the Prophet during the occultation, what is called wilayat faqih al mutlaqa. Please feel free to do some research before saying I am exaaggerating.

There are probably many more differences, but one example that comes to mind is that of the offensive jihad, which I believe can only be declared by an infallible Imam (as). (Note that this isn't the case for defensive jihad).

Wilayatul-Faqih doesn't even require the adherent to be a muqallid. On the other hand, during the presence of the Imam (as), you obviously can't follow somebody else's jurisdictions. In fact, in Iran the Wali-ul-faqih doesn't even have to be a marja.

I would hardly describe this as having the same rights as an Imam (as).

Edited by Asadollah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Let's assume that we were running a country but didn't want to implement an Islamic system. What would we implement? Capitalism? Communism? Would we re-invent our own method of governance? Which code of rules and regulations would we use? On what basis would we decide what is allowed/prohibited?

It is not either black or white. Like Iraq you could have the law and the rulings of the country based on Islamic rulings but not necessarily establishing an Islamic state. Then you can leave the country to secular politicians democratically elected who have some experience in politics to run the country of course with respecting Islam and its rulings as well as having the interest of the country on their mind.

wallahu a3lam

Edited by Najafi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you mean by Qom?!

Qom-Iran-map.jpg

If you for example take Shaikh Vahid Al-Khorasani or Mirza Jawad Al-Tabrizi as examples yes they dont believe in such a thing which is because they are the students of the hawza of Najaf.

We're talking about Qom here - not Najaf. Please stop with your obsession with Najaf. Najaf is here:

hire4.jpg

Of course it isnt always 100% and you may find a few Ayatullahs in hawza of Najaf believeing in what the hawza of Qom believes and a few Ayatullahs in hawza of Qom believing in what the Hawza of Najaf believes but this is very rare.

Again, this isn't Qom Vs Najaf and the sooner you realise this the less close-minded you will seem to WF conceptually.

I did not say they are equivalent to the Prophet or the Imams but what they believe in means that the faqih has the same rights as the Imams and the Prophet during the occultation,

This is still wrong because it implies that WF is an ends in itself. We don't believe that WF is the end product of Islam - but that it is the only alternative that we have whilst the Imam (atf) is in occultation. For us to accept the Supreme Leader as having the same rights as Imam and Prophets would mean believing that he is infallible - which we don't, and only a Wahhabi will try to argue otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore Sayed Sistani's opinion regarding wilayat al faqih is exactly like his teacher Sayed Al-Khoei which is the opinion of the hawza of Najaf and contradicts the opinion of Sayed Khomeini and hawza of Qom who believe the faqih has absolute and full authority like the Imams and the prophet.

Salaam Alykum,

Interesting statement. Can you elaborate on two questions regarding the above statement please.

1- Ayatollah Khui (ra) view on the aspect of Offensive Jihad during the time of Ghayba is that it can be undertaken by a Faqhi where as Ayatollah Khomaini (ra) differed on this and held the view that Offensive Jihad cannot be undertaken by a Faqhi in the time of Ghayba. How does the view of Ayatollah Khui (ra) relate to the aspect of authority of a Faqhi during the time of Ghayba?

2- If Ayatollah Sistani holds the same opinion as that of his teacher does that mean that he has the same view on Offensive Jihad as Ayatollah Khui (ra) had?

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother beliefs aren't based on the hawza you attend. They aren't something that you imitate from a teacher, rather it's something that each believer has the duty to understand and maintain for themselves. You can find a whole range of beliefs within Qum, just as you probably can in Najaf.

There are probably many more differences, but one example that comes to mind is that of the offensive jihad, which I believe can only be declared by an infallible Imam (as). (Note that this isn't the case for defensive jihad).

Wilayatul-Faqih doesn't even require the adherent to be a muqallid. On the other hand, during the presence of the Imam (as), you obviously can't follow somebody else's jurisdictions. In fact, in Iran the Wali-ul-faqih doesn't even have to be a marja.

I would hardly describe this as having the same rights as an Imam (as).

As a matter of fact the beliefs are very muched based on the hawza you go. For example most of the maraji3 or students of Najaf dont believe in wilayat faqih al mutlaqa such as Sistani, Khorasani, Hakim, Tabrizi, Fayadh (except Najafi who is the only one) ..... and most of the maraji3 of Qom do beleieve in wilayat faqih al mutlaqa such as Lankarani, Makarem ......

I was speaking about wilayat faqih and this is what this topic is about. Jihad is another issue and even those who say that Jihad can be done during the occultation say it must be decided by the ummah and the experts but it will be supervised by faqih.

You are mixing up the terms. Faqih and Marja3 is different. once again we are talking about wilayat al FAQIH not wilayat al marja3.

wallahu a3lam

Salaam Alykum,

Interesting statement. Can you elaborate on two questions regarding the above statement please.

1- Ayatollah Khui (ra) view on the aspect of Offensive Jihad during the time of Ghayba is that it can be undertaken by a Faqhi where as Ayatollah Khomaini (ra) differed on this and held the view that Offensive Jihad cannot be undertaken by a Faqhi in the time of Ghayba. How does the view of Ayatollah Khui (ra) relate to the aspect of authority of a Faqhi during the time of Ghayba?

2- If Ayatollah Sistani holds the same opinion as that of his teacher does that mean that he has the same view on Offensive Jihad as Ayatollah Khui (ra) had?

WS

Refer to my previous post.

wallahu a3lam

Qom-Iran-map.jpg

We're talking about Qom here - not Najaf. Please stop with your obsession with Najaf. Najaf is here:

hire4.jpg

Again, this isn't Qom Vs Najaf and the sooner you realise this the less close-minded you will seem to WF conceptually.

This is still wrong because it implies that WF is an ends in itself. We don't believe that WF is the end product of Islam - but that it is the only alternative that we have whilst the Imam (atf) is in occultation. For us to accept the Supreme Leader as having the same rights as Imam and Prophets would mean believing that he is infallible - which we don't, and only a Wahhabi will try to argue otherwise.

I gave you examples of the maraji3 and hawzat i would appreciate the same from you to back up your argument.

wallahu a3lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital of shia islam... neither Qom nor Najaf..

its Karbala.

Every land is karbala and every day is Ashura..

Islam is not like christianity.. it cannot be separated from politics.. hence Imam Mahdi is going to be the leader of the world as well as Grand Ayatollah of Ayatollahs..

King of the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was speaking about wilayat faqih and this is what this topic is about. Jihad is another issue and even those who say that Jihad can be done during the occultation say it must be decided by the ummah and the experts but it will be supervised by faqih.

You are mixing up the terms. Faqih and Marja3 is different. once again we are talking about wilayat al FAQIH not wilayat al marja3.

Refer to my previous post.

Salaam Alykum,

In the explanations of Wilayat al Faqih, the debates revolves around the roles and the responsibilities of a Jurist in the time of Ghayba. While Faqih and Maraji maybe be different terms but the authority of a Faqih encompasses both these roles hence to assert that it is exclusive to a Jurist is again misinformation. The aspect of Offensive Jihad along with many other roles do come under consideration when the maraji discuss the issue of Wilayat al Faqih.

If the Ummah has to decide whether the Jihad should be undertaken during the time of Ghayba then how does that fit in with the authority of the Faqih? The responsibility of the Offensive Jihad in the time of the Imams (as) is with their authorisation and in the time of Ghayba this authorisation aspect falls on the Faqih. Many maraji and ulema of the olden times such as the likes of Allama Hilli (ra) and others considered this responsibility to be the right of the Imams (as) alone along with the aspect of Khums and many other aspects, it was only later on with the School of Usoolism or so that this thought changed and discussions regarding such an authority is inclusive in the authority of a Faqih or not. Hence if the Ummah has to decide regarding the aspect of Jihad then it completely negates the authority of the Faqih. Furthermore, according to Ayatollah Khui (ra), he indicated that such a responsibility can be undertaken by a Faqih not supervision. He is stating clearing that the call of this Jihad can be done by a Faqih which further negates your statement.

While you might wish to remove the aspect of Jihad from the role of a Faqih, the reality is otherwise. All the books of the maraji, be it those who believe in Wilayatul Faqih al Mutlaqa or otherwise have indicated that this duty/responsibility does fall under the authority of a Faqih.

So I await the answer to my two questions.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I gave you examples of the maraji3 and hawzat i would appreciate the same from you to back up your argument.

You merely name-dropped without providing any real insight into what they believe and have written. They only serve the purpose of backing up your Najaf/Qom fantasy battle.

Edited by Iqra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, according to Ayatollah Khui (ra), he indicated that such a responsibility can be undertaken by a Faqih not supervision. He is stating clearing that the call of this Jihad can be done by a Faqih which further negates your statement.

Please refer to "Mihaj Al Saliheen" of Sayed Al-Khoei "3ibadat" part one. In the chapter of Jihad he states that if Jihad during occultation is allowed then it must be based on the decision of the experts and Muslims and supervised by faqih to avoid corruption. So again nothing to do with wilayat al faqih.

Note this is just about jihad and doesnt mention about offensive or defensive and so far i havnt found anything on offensive jihad and i would appreciate it if you could let me know of your source.

wallahu a3lam

You merely name-dropped without providing any real insight into what they believe and have written. They only serve the purpose of backing up your Najaf/Qom fantasy battle.

lool I hope atleast you could do the same.

wallahu a3lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please refer to "Mihaj Al Saliheen" of Sayed Al-Khoei "3ibadat" part one. In the chapter of Jihad he states that if Jihad during occultation is allowed then it must be based on the decision of the experts and Muslims and supervised by faqih to avoid corruption. So again nothing to do with wilayat al faqih.

Note this is just about jihad and doesnt mention about offensive or defensive and so far i havnt found anything on offensive jihad and i would appreciate it if you could let me know of your source.

wallahu a3lam

Salaam Alykum,

From Minhaj Al Saliheen, here is a post made by a member of another forum giving the rulings in relation to Jihad:

In vol 1 of Minhaj Saliheen, Sayid Khoi [r] says that Jihad against polythiests, Ahlul Kitab and also Muslim transgressors can still be carried out during the Ghayba, as it doesnt need the permission of an Imam. The ba'this were transgressors, as was the Shah and his followers. Regarding the transgressors:

áØÇÆÝÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ : ÇáÈÛÇÉ ¡ æåã ØÇÆÝÊÇä :

ÅÍÏÇåãÇ : ÇáÈÇÛíÉ Úáì ÇáÇãÇã Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ¡ ÝÅäå íÌÈ Úáì ÇáãÄãäíä Ãä íÞÇÊáæåã ÍÊì íÝíÆæÇ Åáì ÃãÑ Çááå æÅØÇÚÉ ÇáÇãÇã Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ¡ æáÇ ÎáÇÝ Ýí Ðáß Èíä ÇáãÓáãíä æÓíÌÆ ÇáÈÍË Úä Ðáß .

æÇáÇÎÑì : ÇáØÇÆÝÉ ÇáÈÇÛíÉ Úáì ÇáØÇÆÝÉ ÇáÇÎÑì ãä ÇáãÓáãíä ¡ ÝÅäå íÌÈ Úáì ÓÇÆÑ ÇáãÓáãíä Ãä íÞæãæÇ ÈÇáÇÕáÇÍ ÈíäåãÇ ¡ ÝÅä ÙáÊ ÇáÈÇÛíÉ Úáì ÈÛíåÇ ÞÇÊáæåÇ ÍÊì ÊÝÆ Åáì ÃãÑ Çááå . ÞÇá Çááå ÊÚÇáì ( æÅä ØÇÆÝÊÇä ãä ÇáãÄãäíä ÇÞÊÊáæÇ ÝÃÕáÍæÇ ÈíäåãÇ ÝÅä ÈÛÊ ÅÍÏÇåãÇ Úáì ÇáÇÎÑì ÝÞÇÊáæÇ ÇáÊí ÊÈÛí ÍÊì ÊÝÆ Åáì ÃãÑ Çááå )(3)

However on pg 366 he mentions that there are ahadith which say we shouldnt fight unjust leaders before the advent of the Imam [a], but he says that these arent related to the issue of Jihad with Kufar. But what I dont understand is - what about the Jihad with the muslim transgressors? Could it be that he believes we are allowed to fight muslim transgressors as long as they arent the leaders? Unfortunately he doesnt expand much on that.

Then on page 388 he says its wajib for Muslims to fight if Islam is seen to be in danger, including in Ghaybah, and whoever dies in this path is a shaheed:

ÇáÏÝÇÚ

( ãÓÃáÉ 57 ) : íÌÈ Úáì ßá ãÓáã ÇáÏÝÇÚ Úä ÇáÏíä ÇáÇÓáÇãí ÅÐÇ ßÇä Ýí ãÚÑÖ ÇáÎØÑ ¡ æáÇ íÚÊÈÑ Ýíå ÅÐä ÇáÇãÇã Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÈáÇ ÅÔßÇá æáÇ ÎáÇÝ Ýí ÇáãÓÃáÉ . æáÇ ÝÑÞ Ýí Ðáß Èíä Ãä íßæä Ýí Òãä ÇáÍÖæÑ Ãæ ÇáÛíÈÉ ¡ æÅÐÇ ÞÊá Ýíå ÌÑì Úáíå Íßã ÇáÔåíÏ Ýí ÓÇÍÉ ÇáÌåÇÏ ãÚ ÇáßÝÇÑ ¡ Úáì ÃÓÇÓ Ãäå ÞÊá Ýí ÓÈíá Çááå ÇáÐí ÞÏ ÌÚá Ýí ÕÍíÍÉ ÃÈÇä ãæÖæÚÇ ááÍßã ÇáãÒÈæÑ ¡ ÞÇá : ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã íÞæá : " ÇáÐí íÞÊá Ýí ÓÈíá Çááå íÏÝä Ýí ËíÇÈå æáÇ íÛÓá ÅáÇ Ãä íÏÑßå ÇáãÓáãæä æÈå ÑãÞ Ëã íãæÊ " ÇáÍÏíË ¡ æÞÑíÈ ãäåÇ ÕÍíÍÊå ÇáËÇäíÉ(2) .

If anyone can clear up the ambiguity (with references) then i would be grateful. Whats clear is that his stance is not as ''quietist'' as is sometimes made out to be, at least in theory anyway.

ws

That is from Minhaj Al Saliheen, his rishalah. If you wish to see what he has said about the Offensive Jihad then please relate to his book where he discusses the authority of a Jurist in which he mentions what I quoted. Give me some time and I shall post that for you from one of his books.

Now can you post regarding what you stated in regards to the experts or tell me which page it is on in his rishalah?

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam Alykum,

From Minhaj Al Saliheen, here is a post made by a member of another forum giving the rulings in relation to Jihad:

That is from Minhaj Al Saliheen, his rishalah. If you wish to see what he has said about the Offensive Jihad then please relate to his book where he discusses the authority of a Jurist in which he mentions what I quoted. Give me some time and I shall post that for you from one of his books.

Now can you post regarding what you stated in regards to the experts or tell me which page it is on in his rishalah?

WS

Like i said before what i had quoted was from the first part of "Minhaj Al Saliheen", "3ibadat" of Sayed Al-Khoei and its in the last chapter called "jihad".

I really cant see any relevance between what you have posted and what you claimed before and what the above post has got anything to do with offensive jihad. I am waiting for your reply to back up your claims on offensive jihad and i try to find out what i can too.

Furthermore jihad has nothing do with wilayat faqih al mutlaqa and is part of "omoor al hisbiya" to which extent Sayed Al-Khoei and generally the maraji3 of Najaf believe in wilayat al faqih. So i really dont know what your point is? Or what you are trying to prove?

wallahu a3lam

Edited by Najafi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE (A RELIGIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE MULLAHS' DOMINATION

[B)

by Amir Taheri

New York Post

October 22, 2006]

Be careful what you wish for: Reformers' push to end clerical domination of Iran's government could backfire — and put ultimate power in the hands of the extremist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

October 22, 2006 -- FOR the past two months, a tree- lined back alley in a quiet corner of Tehran, Iran's bustling megapolis of a capital, has been transformed into the scene of what looks like a daily carnival - until the arrests begin.

Each morning, busloads of men sporting bushy beards and women clad overall in black hijab arrive before sunrise to perform the first of their five daily prayers in the courtyard of a villa known as Manzel Agha (The Master's Abode).

Once the prayers end, the crowd starts shouting slogans against the rulers of the Islamic Republic, starting with "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. Often, people from the neighborhood join the demonstration - which invariably ends with police intervention and dozens of arrest.

"The Master" whose abode has become a sort of shrine for the religious opponents of the Islamic Republic is one Grand Ayatollah Muhammad-Hussein Kazemaini Borujerdi, a Shiite cleric in his 50s.

To the authorities, he is nothing but a troublemaker wearing a black turban. His followers, however, refer to him as Grand Ayatollah and claim that he is in frequent contact with the Hidden Imam - a Mahdi-figure who, according to Shiite lore, went into hiding in 940 A.D. and will someday return to preside over the end of the world.

The Islamic Republic's leadership is particularly annoyed at Borujerdi because he attracts the same type of people who swept the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power in 1979. The crowd at Borujerdi's villa on Sarv Lane consists of men, women and children from the poorest districts of Tehran, where the hope of the Mahdi's return often provides the sole solace for a life of poverty and frustration.

BORUJERDI'S supporters claim that their leader has received specific instructions from the Hidden Imam to lead a campaign aimed at "separating religion from politics." Their argument is based on a classical Shiite theological position that maintains that all governments formed in the absence of the Hidden Imam are "oppressive and illegitimate" (jaber wa ja'er).

Under that doctrine, all that Shi'ites must do during the absence of the imam is to tolerate the government in place, cooperate with it to the strict minimum necessary - but never pay taxes to it or feel any loyalty toward it. In the absence of the imam, government is nothing but a necessary and temporary evil.

This classical Shiite doctrine, shared by the overwhelming majority of Shiite clerics since the 16th century, is in direct contradiction with the ideological matrix of the Khomeinist regime. Khomeinism is an innovation (bid'aa) in Shiism insofar as it claims that a mullah bearing the title of "Faqih al-Wali" (Custodian Jurisconsult) must rule on behalf of God, thus circumventing the Hidden Imam.

The case for the Khomeinist doctrine was most cogently put recently by Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Meshkini, the powerful president of the Assembly of Experts that chooses the "Faqih al-Wali.": "The Islamic Republic is a continuation of God on earth," Meshkini said. "Thus any disobedience of its rules amounts to a revolt against God."

MOST Shiite theologians find Mehskini's view - which reflects the official doctrine of the Islamic Republic - as scandalous. Going further, Borujerdi describes that doctrine as a form of shirk (associating others with God).

Borujerdi, who was taken into custody earlier this month, is not alone in arguing that Shiism provides for a separation of religion and government. His view is shared by more eminent theologians - Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, and, in Iran, Grand Ayatollah Hassan Qomi-Tabatabi in Mashad and Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri and Ayatollah Hassan San'ei in Qom.

This doctrine of separation does not mean that religion has no role in society. On the contrary, clerics like Borujerdi believe that the mullahs, having distanced themselves from day-to-day politics and government duties, would be in a stronger position to offer society the moral guidance that no secular authority can provide. The clergy would be a watchdog, overseeing the government, when necessary taking it to task or even calling for its overthrow.

It is virtually impossible to know what a majority of Iran's estimated 300,000 mullahs think about this debate. But one thing is certain: Not a single prominent Shiite cleric today is prepared to endorse the Khomeinist doctrine publicly and unequivocally.

Some mid-ranking ayatollahs such as Fadil Lenkorani and Makarem Shirazi flirt with Khomeinism, largely for personal reasons, but are not prepared to acknowledge the current "Supreme Guide" as anything but a political figure.

The best-known mullahs within the regime - the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei, and the two former presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami - are recognized as politicians with a clerical background, but never as religious authorities.

OFTEN portrayed as a theocracy, the Islamic Republic is, in fact, a form of oriental despotism with a turban. A majority of Shiite clerics are opposed to the regime and its ideology. This is why proportionally more mullahs are in prison in Iran than other social strata.

Interestingly, Borujerdi's position is partly shared by Grand Ayatollah Muhammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi - the man widely acknowledged as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Marjaa al-Taqlid (Source of Imitation). Unlike Borujerdi, Mesbah-Yazdi does not want to abolish the Islamic Republic outright - but he, too, insists that secular power should be exercised by politicians rather than clerics. (Critics of that view claim that mullahs like Borujerdi and Mesbah-Yazdi want power without responsibility while mullahs like Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Khatami are prepared to assume both.)

THE showdown between the two views will take place in December, when a new Assembly of Experts is elected. The assembly is a crucial organ of the regime because it can dismiss the current "Supreme Guide" and pick a new one.

It could also propose amending the constitution to reflect the views of Mesbah-Yazdi, by ending the organic link that Khomeini established between the mosque and the state. Such a separation is anathema to political mullahs such as Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Khatami who will fight tooth and nail to prevent the emergence of a distinctly political space as Mesbah-Yazdi and Borujerdi demand.

In the meantime, each of the factions involved in the power struggle is trying to claim the Hidden Imam for itself. Ahmadinejad claims that he receives periodical instructions from the Mahdi, while Borujerdi's associates insist that the Hidden Imam has chosen him as a mouthpiece.

IN mainstream Shiite lore, the Hidden Imam was initially in contact with just four pious men, known as The Nails (Owtad). But one of Shiism's most prominent theologians in the last century, the late Imadeddin Assar, rejected the idea of limited contact. He argued that the Imam was in contact with 36 pious men, six for each of the six directions, while reserving his right to contact anyone else he deemed necessary.

According to Assar, the Hidden Imam could approach any believer at night and whisper instructions in his ears. Thus, there is no reason to doubt claims of contacts with the Mahdi made by Ahmadinejad or Borujerdi or Khatami or anybody else.

Source: Click here

Edited by Montazer Al-Zaidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont think we need to refer to people such as Amir Taheri for our religious issues. Furthermore the Borujerdi that he is talking about i believe was arrested and maybe executed by the iranian regime. He was not even an Ayatullah. His confessions were aired on the Iranian TV and i believe there are some parts on youtube too. He admitted that everything he had said was a lie and what helped him to become popular was first his figure and shape which looked like one's of Ayatullahs and second his surname which lead people to think that he is related to Grand Ayatullah Borujerdi.

wallahu a3lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really dont think we need to refer to people such as Amir Taheri for our religious issues. Furthermore the Borujerdi that he is talking about i believe was arrested and maybe executed by the iranian regime. He was not even an Ayatullah. His confessions were aired on the Iranian TV and i believe there are some parts on youtube too. He admitted that everything he had said was a lie and what helped him to become popular was first his figure and shape which looked like one's of Ayatullahs and second his surname which lead people to think that he is related to Grand Ayatullah Borujerdi.

wallahu a3lam

Leave aside his name, but concentrate on what was being reported? Any one can confess anything under state oppression? He is not first or last Ayatollahs being targeted by the ruling so-called WF Iranian regime.

What's the full name of other Ayatollah Broujerdi? What are his views? Are you sure the two are separate?

What about other names mentioned?

Borujerdi, who was taken into custody earlier this month, is not alone in arguing that Shiism provides for a separation of religion and government. His view is shared by more eminent theologians - Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, and, in Iran, Grand Ayatollah Hassan Qomi-Tabatabi in Mashad and Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri and Ayatollah Hassan San'ei in Qom.

And what about Moqtada Al Sadr, presently he must be studying higher theocracy. Who is his present teacher in Qom? Did he chose to follow his teacher's teaching and that's why he too became silent following Houz-e-Nateqa concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KARBALA, Iraq (AFP) – Iraq's supreme Shiite religious authority Ali Husseini al-Sistani called on Iraqis on Friday to make sure they vote in provincial elections in January.

"If you vote then you are right 100 percent because participating in the elections and voting is a process that creates a country," Ahmad al-Safi, Sistani's representative in Karbala told worshippers at Friday prayers.

Now at this moment should I ask why Ay. Sistani involved in State Affairs? Why not he kept silent as he was used to be!

Why Mosque-State Affairs are mixed now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one question to those who advocate a seperation of Mosque and state on the basis of not agreeing with WF. Why is it that you advocate only liberal democracy as the best form of government for the Muslim world? Why is it that liberal democracy is taken as the standard to which Muslims should emulate - why not Socialism, Nationalism, Fascism, Mercantilism or any other doctrine?

Edited by Iqra

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...