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  
zuhair_naqvi

Wali-e-faqih VS Khalifat-ul-muslimeen

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

We have authentic hadith connected back to him of knowing of exactly TWELVE Imams... he was a student of Imam Baqir (as)...

Reference of this 'authentic' hadith?

Awakened, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Ziyad b. al-Mundhar, Abu 'l-Jarud, had been a follower of Imam Baqir (as) but then he abandoned the rightful Imams promoting his own weird ideas and did in fact reject the Imamate of as-Sadiq (as). It is narrated that Imam Baqir (as) called him as-Sarhub, which is a blind Shaytan that lives in the sea, hence his sect was called as-Sarhubiyya by us.

Amongst these odd ideas of the Jarudiyya was that all descendants of `Ali (as) were equal in knowledge. Meaning, whether a suckling baby or a 100 year old Shaykh, _all_ of them miraculously inherited the same knowledge, hence any of them could become Imam as such.

This is strange. . .

زياد بن المنذر : أبو الجارود الهمداني - من أصحاب الصادق والباقر ( ع ) زيدي

المذهب - ثقة - روى عن الباقر ( ع ) في

تفسير القمي ، وروى عن أبي عبد الله قاله النجاشي - سماه أبو جعفر ( ع ) سرحوب في رواية مرسلة - له أصل و

كتاب تفسير عن أبي جعفر الباقر ( ع ) وطريق الشيخ إلى أصله وتفسيره ضعيف ، وطريق الصدوق اليه ضعيف -

روى بعنوان زياد بن المنذر عدة روايات ، منها عن أبي جعفر ( ع ) ، وروى بعنوان زياد بن المنذر العبدي

Is this tawthiq by Syed al-Khoei only because he is a narrator in tafsir al-Qummi ?

http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=7375

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuhair Naqvi, I'm sick of the cowards whom betray Imam Mahdi (as) day and night in slogans...and justify their wussy stance in the name of the Wilayah of the holders of the Thulqifar (as).

I'm sick of this long occulation that is mostly due to this mentality...

I wish I could be more polite but this sort of condemning of traitors, was not done so politely in Quran to people, and Quran applies to all ages, and it's condemning betrayers today and people whom hate jihad and forbid this Maroof along with the Maroof of best trying to implement Islamic governement... I read about them in Quran, and they also have other characteristics from opposing the treasures that are with God as not being with God, not understanding how they belong to him, and also the slogan that we cannot know things, are our hearts are heeldess, there isn't this path to knowledge, heart can't see truths, all we got is relying on what is narrated..etc.. and other characertistics..

I read about what honor is, and read the context... read Quran, read the verses sorrounding Ulil Amri, "Thal Qarb" "Ahlebayt", tell me what is all about? Go read them and just label "social commands" "fighting in a way of God", when most of Quran is about this... why the heck we emphasize on what so small amount of Quran is and ignore and even regarded abrogated the greater majority of Quranic ayas?

Don't you see how people stoke to the verse of "khums" as not abrogated (and also twisted it beyond it's origin) yet the whole surah and the commands in there and the over all teaching of it, is abrogated? This is called FISQ, of the FASAD TYPE, of the Ignoring Quran out of love of world type...

You go ahead and stick to your Wilayah, I will recognize the Imams (as) by the command of MAROOFi and forbiding of EVIL, and you can read what that is in Quran, in Sermon of Mina of Imam Hussain (as), you can even know much of it by just realizing your own knowledge of it....

This is theri GREATNESS, is the JIHAD, it's the way, so much so that love his Messenger is one to one with love of Jihaad, it implies it, just as love of God implies love of Messenger... you can read this in the verse "more then Allah and his Messenger and Jihad in his way..."...

And yeah everyone can claim we love Jihaad, but we wait till Imam Mahdi (as), but this is called tricking yourself, because Jihaad is what is going to hastening the appearance and the only thing that will reverse the delay caused by not fulfilling the blessed Surah that near the end says if we do not do it, there will be great mischief and great turmoil in the earth....

And this means as long as we don't do it, there will be that... the day we go back to Quran, and I mean by that accept the clear commands, think about the clear themes, not telling we must know every little detail! then we might had to the direction of ending this cycle that Satan has kept mankind for too long in...

I respect your feelings but what you want to do? Launch a global campaign against all world governments and conquer the planet to establish one world government headed by the leader of your choice? Wow, you seem really frustrated with life in general.

You want to know why the Imamia consider Military Jihad impermissible unless decreed by an infallible? It's because only the one who has given life knows when to take it, and no one but Allah's hujjat is aware of Allah's decree in regards to a human's life. It's not WUSSYNESS that stops Imamia from being barbaric like salafis, it's the respect for Allah's rights and belief in his justice which keeps us content with our condition.

As macisaac rightly said, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about and need to rest.

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awakened, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Ziyad b. al-Mundhar, Abu 'l-Jarud, had been a follower of Imam Baqir (as) but then he abandoned the rightful Imams promoting his own weird ideas and did in fact reject the Imamate of as-Sadiq (as). It is narrated that Imam Baqir (as) called him as-Sarhub, which is a blind Shaytan that lives in the sea, hence his sect was called as-Sarhubiyya by us.

Amongst these odd ideas of the Jarudiyya was that all descendants of `Ali (as) were equal in knowledge. Meaning, whether a suckling baby or a 100 year old Shaykh, _all_ of them miraculously inherited the same knowledge, hence any of them could become Imam as such.

It is narrated that all companions turned back but 3.

It is narrated this and that..

it is narrated that Zaid (qas) didn't even believe in Imamate and wasn't told by his father less he be jealous of Imam Baqir (as)... So what, opposites of that is narrated...

It is expected the very people whom hated the called of Zaid (rising up) would make all this [Edited Out] about him... but thankfully their is hadiths clearing this about him...

Yeah it's expected something like this is narrated, that is a given... now you didn't address any of what I showed aside from telling me about a narration...

We have tons of hadiths of an impossible meaning to Khums, with tons of hadiths also showing it is impossible as well... and they are "sahih' some of them..so what? You think this would convince me?

I can look at history with what I know of Quran and way of Rasool (pbuh) and I know this hide not reveal anything you guys hold on to is nothing but [Edited Out]. They didn't hide the Quranic teachings of not accepting oppressors, of choosing honor and dignity with death and fighting over humilation and disgrace, they have this double image, one with few people, and one with public, the things that were hidden where their specific commands, which too can be revealed at the right times... I read tuhafaql Uqool and I don't care that it has no chains, the haq in much of that book, this is what the author to show, through understanding, not through "it is authentically narratted this so accept"thing, but make us understand something of the Deen, and Wilayah, through logic shown.. not everything there is true... not saying that, but what was shown to be of reality of Taqiya and how it made sense..and the context of it..and Imam (as) talking about how going to be sucessful uprisings were ruined because people revealed secerts, early, this made Taqiya make sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking about PRACTICAL differences. It would you wrong to say that wilayat-e-faqih requires total submission (Political, Spiritual and Physical) to the authority of the Supreme Leader.

1-In personal fiqhi matters you dont have to necessarily follow WF. You can follow any other qualified Marja. In case of Khalifa you wont have that choice.

2-Yet another difference is that Khalifa is Khalifa for life. On the other hand, WF can be removed by the elected council of experts (Majlis e Khabargan - a body of scholars) if need be.

Both these are practical differences.

WS

1. What do you mean in case of Khalifa you dont have that choice? Historically, caliphs never imposed their fiqh on their ummah, in fact, their ummah did taqleed of mujtahideen / imams of their choice such as abu hanifa, ahmad ibn hanbal etc while being in allegiance of the caliph.

2. Even Khalifa can be removed if people withdraw their support from him, there's no such rule that a caliph has to rule all his life.

Thoughts?

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What do you mean in case of Khalifa you dont have that choice? Historically, caliphs never imposed their fiqh on their ummah, in fact, their ummah did taqleed of mujtahideen / imams of their choice such as abu hanifa, ahmad ibn hanbal etc while being in bayat of the caliph.

2. Even Khalifa can be removed if people withdraw their support from him, there's no such rule that a caliph has to rule all his life.

Thoughts?

Ok now your talking about the Sunni Khalifate...

One difference is Sunni accept whomever is in Rule even if he is a well known Fasiq ...

They submit to oppression and don't want to overthrow oppressors....

I would say their view is actually more similar to your view... except that they say "God commands this directly" and you say "Taqiya" and be patient till Imam Mahdi (as) under whomever rulers, which translates to "God indirectly commands this"

So looking at their concept of Khalif, they call him Khalif, you simply call them "government" of whatever place...

Not to different...

Ofcourse on the other hand, we believe in replacing bad governments with better governments, and doing as best possible to oppose their plans and this includes if necessary, taking up arms...but different situations have different stances we can take....

So it depends on formation the society you live in, what is their view, what you can do in light of that....

You ofcourse can just wait till God decides there will be 313 Saints among us, and then finally Imam Mahdi (as) can save the day, he's got 313, now he can do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok now your talking about the Sunni Khalifate...

One difference is Sunni accept whomever is in Rule even if he is a well known Fasiq ...

They submit to oppression and don't want to overthrow oppressors....

We are talking about practical differences in the office of caliphate in muslim history (not in shia ideology) and the office of wali-e-faqih. That is what the discussion's about and not Zaidism for God's sake! where did you sneak that one in from?

I would say their view is actually more similar to your view... except that they say "God commands this directly" and you say "Taqiya" and be patient till Imam Mahdi (as) under whomever rulers, which translates to "God indirectly commands this"

So looking at their concept of Khalif, they call him Khalif, you simply call them "government" of whatever place...

Not to different...

Ofcourse on the other hand, we believe in replacing bad governments with better governments, and doing as best possible to oppose their plans and this includes if necessary, taking up arms...but different situations have different stances we can take....

So it depends on formation the society you live in, what is their view, what you can do in light of that....

You ofcourse can just wait till God decides there will be 313 Saints among us, and then finally Imam Mahdi (as) can save the day, he's got 313, now he can do it!

Again, I answered your senseless urge-to-kill and conquer the planet and self assumed responsibility of establishing one world government in my previous post which I will only quote:

"You want to know why the Imamia consider Military Jihad impermissible unless decreed by an infallible? It's because only the one who has given life knows when to take it, and no one but Allah's hujjat is aware of Allah's decree in regards to a human's life. It's not WUSSYNESS that stops Imamia from being barbaric like salafis, it's the respect for Allah's rights and belief in his justice which keeps us content with our condition."

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You want to know why the Imamia consider Military Jihad impermissible unless decreed by an infallible? It's because only the one who has given life knows when to take it, and no one but Allah's hujjat is aware of Allah's decree in regards to a human's life. It's not WUSSYNESS that stops Imamia from being barbaric like salafis, it's the respect for Allah's rights and belief in his justice which keeps us content with our condition."

This is what you claim, but the reality is it causes more death and more losss... over all.. so they're decission is causing more death, more oppression, more lives taken, as quran shows, and if it were not for the other people, then this would reach a proportion that we cannot even imagine, but the very existence of the other people, stops this...

You see unlike other things, Quran went into great detail finest detail with regards to Jihaad and this, it in fact, shows that Companions should not even stop on their path of Jihaad, if the Messenger (pbuh) of God dies...the cause they are in, they are to continue it, no Messenger, a Messenger, doesn't matter, and Imamate of Ali (as) was not revealed then (it was revealed at Ghadeer)...

So now Imam Mahdi (as) goes to occulation and this call ofcourse is all something to be abandoned...

Anyone reading the context of Jihaad verses will see Eternal Argumetns of why it must continue...

And this no one gives and takes but the Hujja (as) thing is just another rhetoric being made up to abrogate Quran and way of Imam Hussain (as) with no proof....

And yes we need a leader for Jihaad, and as hadiths shows Faqihs are leades, and they are just and can judge, etc...Also it can be just a just leader, don't go fighting without leadership and make sure he is just and not a person fighting for his own motives (love of power for example)...

Your rhetoric will not refute to the slightest bit of what I'm been saying...

Your a muharaf of Quran and your Muharaf of the true Ahlebayt (as), you don't believe in what either taught, nor the way of either, you just take Jihad of Imam Hussain (as) as a big promise sacrifice to cry over.. you think his path is not be followed anymore.etc...

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either believe in it (wilayat-e-faqih) and accept it's logical conclusion (Supreme Leader is Amirul momineen) OR refute the concept of wilayat-e-faqih all together (like Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei did) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense.

(salam)

We need to make something clear.

I hear this from people all the time: "al-Khoe'i (ra) refuted the concept of Wilayat ul-Faqih." This doesn't make any sense.

Wilayat ul-Faqih is an established concept within Usooli Ijtihad, and if you don't believe it in, you shouldn't be doing Taqleed. If you read the work of al-Syed ul-Khoe'i (ra) called al-Tanqeeh fi Sharh il-'Urwat il-Wuthqa, first volume (al-Ijtihad wa'l-Taqleed), you will see that the difference of opinion is over the scope of this Wilayat. al-Syed ul-Khoe'i (ra) limited this scope, as did al-Sheikh Murtadha al-Ansaari (ra) in Kitab ul-Makaasib a century before him when he refuted the work of his teacher Mulla Ahmed Naraaqi (ra) regarding the absolute and all-encompassing Wilayat for the jurist. Most of the jurists limit this scope. Some, like Khomeini (ra), believed in the Absolute scope (al-Wilayat ul-Mutlaqa), but this is not established amongst the majority of the jurists.

The difference of opinion is over only the definition/scope of this Wilayat, and not the essence of the concept itself.

- Mansab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you claim, but the reality is it causes more death and more losss... over all.. so they're decission is causing more death, more oppression, more lives taken, as quran shows, and if it were not for the other people, then this would reach a proportion that we cannot even imagine, but the very existence of the other people, stops this...

You see unlike other things, Quran went into great detail finest detail with regards to Jihaad and this, it in fact, shows that Companions should not even stop on their path of Jihaad, if the Messenger (pbuh) of God dies...the cause they are in, they are to continue it, no Messenger, a Messenger, doesn't matter, and Imamate of Ali (as) was not revealed then (it was revealed at Ghadeer)...

So now Imam Mahdi (as) goes to occulation and this call ofcourse is all something to be abandoned...

Anyone reading the context of Jihaad verses will see Eternal Argumetns of why it must continue...

And this no one gives and takes but the Hujja (as) thing is just another rhetoric being made up to abrogate Quran and way of Imam Hussain (as) with no proof....

And yes we need a leader for Jihaad, and as hadiths shows Faqihs are leades, and they are just and can judge, etc...Also it can be just a just leader, don't go fighting without leadership and make sure he is just and not a person fighting for his own motives (love of power for example)...

Your rhetoric will not refute to the slightest bit of what I'm been saying...

Your a muharaf of Quran and your Muharaf of the true Ahlebayt (as), you don't believe in what either taught, nor the way of either, you just take Jihad of Imam Hussain (as) as a big promise sacrifice to cry over.. you think his path is not be followed anymore.etc...

1. This shows your complete misunderstanding of Karbala - If you had any knowledge of history and if you had read the Maqtal you would know that Imam Hussain (as) did not revolt against Yazid (la) - Imam Hussain was revolted against. After the death of Muawiya (la), yazid wrote a letter to Walid ordering him to pressurise Imam Hussain (as) to pledge allegiance to Yazid and Imam relocated to Mecca for 4 months and 9 days to avoid confrontation but Waleed and Marwan persued the innocent Imam in Mecca too and planned to kill him during Hajj. There was no sanctuary for Ahlulbayt in Mecca or Medina. In such circumstances the Kufan's wrote to Imam about 150 letters pleading of him to visit Kufa for their spiritual guidance and for fulfilling the religious duties an Imam.

You are making it look as though Imam Hussain (as) marched in pursuit of the throne and power (naudhubillah)

2. I sense the sprirt of Abbasids in your argument who overthrew Ummayads under the banner of avenging Imam Hussain (as) and established their throne under non-masoom leadership.

3. How can you call yourself a twelver while implying that (naudhubilah) Imams from the 4th Imam to 12th lacked courage to revolt?

4. You need psychiatric help.

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

1) Wilayat al-Faqih is the guardianship of a political system, executive bodies include government, (independent) judiciary, parliament, and various other bodies. WF has no say on the decisions of these various groups unless consultancy, and unless they cross red boundaries established by the Revolution. Imam Al-Mahdi designated the scholars of Islam as his representatives that must guide the Muslims and for an Islamic governance to be established before he returns.

2) Caliph is the rule over Muslims and executive decision making by 1 man alone with regards to all affairs, it evolves around direct successorship chosen by the Prophet himself.

Seeing how the average age of posters in this forum ranges 14-17 year olds, and how most of the world's media understands nothing about Iranian affairs, it is better to leave this questions for other fora.

Actually this attempt to constantly question WF is done by Western capitalist governments to overthrow the Iranian government, we should not question the existence of system, as it is the first of a new sea of Muslim emancipation, we will welcome both WF and Khalifa in Western countries if they are democratically elected and rise to power. This upcoming century is for the Islamists.

.

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no doubt the verses of Jihaad are displaying Haq (not what wussies make up in their head of honor and light) of the Light... and Imam Hussain (as) brightened it and it will remain bright in the hearts of all his lovers... real lovers like Zaid ibn Ali (as), not cowards whom twist things and mix things to make ambigious the clear teachings of God's book to iresist his way and path...

And Isa (as) if you read tuhafaqal uqool, he condemns the Rabbis for not overthrowing tyrants and compares it to a house on fire, if you don't put it out, the next house goes on fire, and it's the same with Rulers, you leave it, and then it just continues through out to each generation, and inherited fire...

And ofcourse people instead of loving this warrior stance, this belief in facing oppressors and overthrowing them, and calling people bravely in midst of these very tyrants publically to do this and condeming them not to, what do people hear of him? "turn the other cheek"...

And what do we hear? "Taqiya" "taqiya".

Ofcourse when you go look into it deeper, you will see taqiya is not as everyone makes out to be..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This shows your complete misunderstanding of Karbala - If you had any knowledge of history and if you had read the Maqtal you would know that Imam Hussain (as) did not revolt against Yazid (la) - Imam Hussain was revolted against. After the death of Muawiya (la), yazid wrote a letter to Walid ordering him to pressurise Imam Hussain (as) to pledge allegiance to Yazid and Imam relocated to Mecca for 4 months and 9 days to avoid confrontation but Waleed and Marwan persued the innocent Imam in Mecca too and planned to kill him during Hajj. There was no sanctuary for Ahlulbayt in Mecca or Medina. In such circumstances the Kufan's wrote to Imam about 150 letters pleading of him to visit Kufa for their spiritual guidance and for fulfilling the religious duties an Imam.

Lol Kufans were calling for spiritual guidance.. you got to be kidding me...

REad the sermon of Mina, he called for revolt and told the scholars to help him, and also shows yes his intention is not seeking power (that's not the end), it's a means for showing religion, winning back the rights of oppressed, etc, that all comes with government of an Imam (as)...

You are making it look as though Imam Hussain (as) marched in pursuit of the throne and power (naudhubillah)

As an end, it means nothing, as a means, it means a lot... this is what Imam Ali (as) shows, this is what Quran shows (otherwise Sulaiman (as) would be accused of wanting "Uool" in the earth), so please save your rhetoric...

We know of Wussies Qayas, Qayas of leadership tyoe of Zaid (as) with Imam (as), now Qayas of wanting to establish Islamic government for all the good that comes with it, to that of want of Mauwiya and others for government,.... it's really quite pathetic..and shows how much one hates the truth.

3. How can you call yourself a twelver while implying that (naudhubilah) Imams from the 4th Imam to 12th lacked courage to revolt?

Where did I ever say they lacked couraged to revolt, I believe they all did revolt, tthey taught people should estbalish Islamic governemtn, support the truth, they taught oppressors were illegitimate auhorities, hey supported uprisings, and they were eventually martyred due to this stance, not out of misunderstanding or jealousy of their qualities,etc...

Their matrydom was due to the struggle they engaged in against the tyrants......

"revolt" doesn't have to mean you yourself are leading a an army with weapons...but supporting overthrowing them and supporting those whom do fight and praising those whom follow that....

I don't think Imams (as) taught it was really bad to accept oppressors only while a Ma'asoom is outwardly present, and then for the next hundreds of years, all that does not matter, society is as justified in accepting an oppressor as much as accepting a good leader... nor that authority is measured by God's authority and condemn people for replacing God's Mastership with men's Mastership only to be justified to take rulers whom don't implement Islamic laws... and act against Islam and not only against Islam, but the towards Fitma and corruption.

It makes no sense your stance, this wussy stance is so illogical...

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

1) Wilayat al-Faqih is the guardianship of a political system, executive bodies include government, (independent) judiciary, parliament, and various other bodies. WF has no say on the decisions of these various groups unless consultancy, and unless they cross red boundaries established by the Revolution. Imam Al-Mahdi designated the scholars of Islam as his representatives that must guide the Muslims and for an Islamic governance to be established before he returns.

2) Caliph is the rule over Muslims and executive decision making by 1 man alone with regards to all affairs, it evolves around direct successorship chosen by the Prophet himself.

Seeing how the average age of posters in this forum ranges 14-17 year olds, and how most of the world's media understands nothing about Iranian affairs, it is better to leave this questions for other fora.

Actually this attempt to constantly question WF is done by Western capitalist governments to overthrow the Iranian government, we should not question the existence of system, as it is the first of a new sea of Muslim emancipation, we will welcome both WF and Khalifa in Western countries if they are democratically elected and rise to power. This upcoming century is for the Islamists.

.

The Supreme Leader reverses the ultimate authority to override any of these systems and veto any of these bodies.

And systems of government did exist under Caliphs too, there were administrative bodies and judiciary of qazis etc. under rashidoon, abbasiyoon and ottoman Caliphs too. So, this inst really a difference.

As far as legitimate questions such as this one being labelled as "yet another attempt by the West" goes, there are conspiracy theories that go either ways. It's really easy to accuse a critic compared to thinking independent of the beliefs one's brought up with.

Also a lot of people are confusing wilayat-e-faqih with marjaiyyat which are two completely different things, I support Marjaiyyat and Imam Mahdi (ajf) has instructed the shia to turn towards (fa 'irjaoo ila ruat-e-ahadithena) the preachers of traditions of ahlulbayt (as).

And I am not questioning WF, I am seeking to understand the difference between the principle behind Election of Naib-e-Rasool and Election of Naib-e-Imam becaused a Sunni questioned me saying "What right do you Shias now have to question the election of Abubakr as Naib of the Prophet by saying that Naib of the Prophet (Imam) is appointed by Allah when you have started to elect naib of Imam yourself?" and I was stumped by the question to be honest.

Looking forward to hearing how you would answer this sunni argument agasint wilayat-e-Ali on the basis of wilayat-e-Faqih

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think we have an argument like it's evil for people to elect a good person whom is the been praised as the best person during time of the Prophet (as)? This is the Sunni view of Abu Baker...

So do you believe let us say, they are right, and Abu Baker was praised by him as the best, that they would be wrong to elect him and they're being no Nass of the Imam? You can't show this to be evil.

Let us put it this way, if Imam Mahdi (as) told us "so and so" is the best person amongst you, do you think it would be wrong if we make him our ruler if we had the choice?

You should rather say what about later, why did you guys submit to Tyrants while you know better, people have high qualities was among them? Why do you think God would make it an obligation to obey them...

Your thinking in a wrong way...

Leadership as infallible leadership, is not for the purpose of government only, but certainly that person is best suited for Government and would implement perfectly as intended by God....

So you have to say well the original intention of Islam is the Perfect Islam...and form the argumetn from there if you want to argue solely from the view of a perfect government....

But Imamate is not that only, it has to do with leading in the path of knowledge, perfecting morals, keeping the light as perfect as it, teaching the true teachings of Quran, guiding in the path of Worship, etc...

This was a Sunna in Bani-Israel, it was about contstant guidance, the only difference is that they had revelations and messages from God, because of a difference in situation...

But with God's plan now, there is no more Nubuwa, because he wants to seal that out of his wisdom, but it doesn't take the Imamate of Anbiya (as) and the sunna and wisdom in having that in the community, so that Imamate ofcourse get's continued but with no more revelation...

As Imamate role is shown in Quran, aside from "conveying message" role or revealing a revelaiton, and that type of guidance is shown, so the reason of it continuing and needing to continue is shown there...

Aside from that, you should discuss direct Nass in Quran (the wage verses and ayat tatheer along with what is said about family in Suratal Hud)...So this can prove to him.

Maybe you should rely on solid arguments, not arguments that are not shown to be sequitor to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think we have an argument like it's evil for people to elect a good person whom is the been praised as the best person during time of the Prophet (as)? This is the Sunni view of Abu Baker...

So do you believe let us say, they are right, and Abu Baker was praised by him as the best, that they would be wrong to elect him and they're being no Nass of the Imam? You can't show this to be evil.

Let us put it this way, if Imam Mahdi (as) told us "so and so" is the best person amongst you, do you think it would be wrong if we make him our ruler if we had the choice?

You should rather say what about later, why did you guys submit to Tyrants while you know better, people have high qualities was among them? Why do you think God would make it an obligation to obey them...

Your thinking in a wrong way...

Leadership as infallible leadership, is not for the purpose of government only, but certainly that person is best suited for Government and would implement perfectly as intended by God....

So you have to say well the original intention of Islam is the Perfect Islam...and form the argumetn from there if you want to argue solely from the view of a perfect government....

But Imamate is not that only, it has to do with leading in the path of knowledge, perfecting morals, keeping the light as perfect as it, teaching the true teachings of Quran, guiding in the path of Worship, etc...

This was a Sunna in Bani-Israel, it was about contstant guidance, the only difference is that they had revelations and messages from God, because of a difference in situation...

But with God's plan now, there is no more Nubuwa, because he wants to seal that out of his wisdom, but it doesn't take the Imamate of Anbiya (as) and the sunna and wisdom in having that in the community, so that Imamate ofcourse get's continued but with no more revelation...

As Imamate role is shown in Quran, aside from "conveying message" role or revealing a revelaiton, and that type of guidance is shown, so the reason of it continuing and needing to continue is shown there...

Aside from that, you should discuss direct Nass in Quran (the wage verses and ayat tatheer along with what is said about family in Suratal Hud)...So this can prove to him.

Maybe you should rely on solid arguments, not arguments that are not shown to be sequitor to begin with.

Subhanallah.. So you actually agree with legitimacy of Sakhifa? This is taking ittehad bainul muslimeen to a whole new level!

Secondly, he can ask you - why search for Nass about a personality in Quran in case of Naib-e-Rasool (Imam) while ignoring the absence of such a Nass in case of election of Naib-e-Imam? Who's also the defacto Naib of Rasool?

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either believe in it (wilayat-e-faqih) and accept it's logical conclusion (Supreme Leader is Amirul momineen) OR refute the concept of wilayat-e-faqih all together (like Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei did) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense.

This is one of most foolish thing that I've ever heard.

Either believe in it (Immamat) and accept its logical conclusion (ALL Imam are Amirul momineens) OR refute the concept of Immamat all together (like sunnis) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense. :lol:

Ofcourse, by definiton, and in literal sense, all the Imams are our commanders, and so are the ones whom they have left their responsibility over to, but the title of Ameerul Momineen is a specially reserved one for Imam Ali (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of most foolish thing that I've ever heard.

Either believe in it (Immamat) and accept its logical conclusion (ALL Imam are Amirul momineens) OR refute the concept of Immamat all together (like sunnis) - hanging between belief and guilt makes no sense. :lol:

Ofcourse, by definiton, and in literal sense, all the Imams are our commanders, and so are the ones whom they have left their responsibility over to, but the title of Ameerul Momineen is a specially reserved one for Imam Ali (as).

Yes all Imams are Amirul Mumineen in their reality except the title has been reserved for Maula Ali (as). And, of course it's not making sense to you because you're reading it without context. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that I have mentioned "isn't Khamenei "amir-ul-momeen" (in historic sense of the phrase used for a caliph)".

This question was provoked by a sunni's argument against wilayat-e-Ali on the basis of Wilayat-e-Faqih.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuhair, I've noticed you've got this habit of dropping in the site every few months now and then, asking some "question", then going into a launch of your own anti-scholar pro-pseudo-Akhbari propaganda (whether in denouncing jurists or in promoting your particular beliefs about the Imams (as)). Frankly, it's kind of boring, and very annoying. If you want a platform for attention, please find it elsewhere.

To all the rest responding, please realize you're doing exactly what he wants.

(bismillah)

(salam)

oh yes i remember that topic where bro sayyid zuhair naqvi wanted to write his own risalah.

the topic died a natural death when bro shabbir pointed out to him that he had not even got the spelling of his

own name correct.

the search feature is still not fully upto form, once it is the topic will be highlighted.

enough for bro sayyid

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

oh yes i remember that topic where bro sayyid zuhair naqvi wanted to write his own risalah.

the topic died a natural death when bro shabbir pointed out to him that he had not even got the spelling of his

own name correct.

the search feature is still not fully upto form, once it is the topic will be highlighted.

enough for bro sayyid

(wasalam)

Some people never run out of off-topic ideas, in any case, I dont want to leave it unanswered. Pronunciation of an arabic word in english can lead to a number of spellings, but you're right I cant spell my name correctly but wouldn't that also apply to these personalities?

Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani - http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=1

Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah - http://english.bayynat.org.lb/

Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Aqeel-ul-Gharavi

Sayyed Ali Khamenei - http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=20

Ofcourse it does NOT, and you only showed your ignorance from that comment.

And, I didnt want to publish my risalah - I was looking for risalah of an akhbari marja or alternatively collect ahadith with sanad on ibadaat. And behamdillah I found the Risalah of Shaikh Hurr Al Ameli (ar) and it's called Bedayat al-hidaya.

Can I request you and others on this thread to not go off-topic unnecessarily?

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people never run out of off-topic ideas, in any case, I dont want to leave it unanswered. Pronunciation of an arabic word in english can lead to a number of spellings, but you're right I cant spell my name correctly but wouldn't that also apply to these personalities?

Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani - http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=1

Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah - http://english.bayynat.org.lb/

Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Aqeel-ul-Gharavi

Sayyed Ali Khamenei - http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=20

Ofcourse it does NOT, and you only showed your ignorance from that comment.

And, I didnt want to publish my risalah - I was looking for risalah of an akhbari marja or alternatively collect ahadith with sanad on ibadaat. And behamdillah I found the Risalah of Shaikh Hurr Al Ameli (ar) and it's called Bedayat al-hidaya.

Can I request you and others on this thread to not go off-topic unnecessarily?

(bismillah)

(salam)

we shall have to wait for the search feature to become fully operational, won't we.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

we shall have to wait for the search feature to become fully operational, won't we.

(wasalam)

You don't need to, an easier way to find my post on SC is to google "site:shiachat.com zuhair_naqvi" - go for your life mate :-)

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Supreme Leader reverses the ultimate authority to override any of these systems and veto any of these bodies.

I thought I was very clear, maybe you have not read what I wrote very carefully. You are trying to push for an agenda which does not even exist.

The Supreme Leader does not just 'override' anything, in fact if such a thing does occur it has to be approved by a number of clerics, and this rarely EVER happens, one of the instances it did was under Bani Sadr and his managing of the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, an "Amir ol-Momenin" has the duty of conducting such wars in addition to power over all matters without consulting, or being responsible towards anyone.

Also this is trying to push for a subjective agenda and even manipulating history:

And systems of government did exist under Caliphs too, there were administrative bodies and judiciary of qazis etc. under rashidoon, abbasiyoon and ottoman Caliphs too. So, this inst really a difference.

Didn't I mention the judiciary, among the other bodies are Independent. During the Caliphs, they were bound to the Caliphate. This is the difference between a charismatic authority and rational-legal authority, the latter being WF. In fact, the "Supreme Leader" can be removed from power and replaced, try doing that with a Caliph and see how your head rolls.

As far as legitimate questions such as this one being labelled as "yet another attempt by the West" goes, there are conspiracy theories that go either ways. It's really easy to accuse a critic compared to thinking independent of the beliefs one's brought up with.

These are not 'conspiracies' Hassan Abbasi, one of the most important popular opinion leaders in Iran put this forward. These are not legitimate questions you are asking, these are elementary analogies that have neither historical basis and are manipulated by purpose because you are not willing to understand anything, you would much rather write to us 'the reality', this is called a zealot.

It is called an Islamic Republic (Jomhuriye Eslami) for a reason, it is not a Prophetic appointment, many in Iran push forward the idea of calling it "Hokoumate Eslami" as the official term, but this is not correct as it is a fallible government, with many mistakes but sincerely established awaiting the return of Al-Mahdi who appointed the Scholars as guardians, representatives of the Muslims until he returns. However as we know, most of IRI government does not consist of scholars, and they are not told what to do by the Supreme Leader, even if someone like the president try to bring the country to 'an economic collapse' (if we were to believe populist elements).

.

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I was very clear, maybe you have not read what I wrote very carefully. You are trying to push for an agenda which does not even exist.

The Supreme Leader does not just 'override' anything, in fact if such a thing does occur it has to be approved by a number of clerics, and this rarely EVER happens, one of the instances it did was under Bani Sadr and his managing of the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, an "Amir ol-Momenin" has the duty of conducting such wars in addition to power over all matters without consulting, or being responsible towards anyone.

Also this is trying to push for a subjective agenda and even manipulating history:

Didn't I mention the judiciary, among the other bodies are Independent. During the Caliphs, they were bound to the Caliphate. This is the difference between a charismatic authority and rational-legal authority, the latter being WF. In fact, the "Supreme Leader" can be removed from power and replaced, try doing that with a Caliph and see how your head rolls.

These are not 'conspiracies' Hassan Abbasi, one of the most important popular opinion leaders in Iran put this forward. These are not legitimate questions you are asking, these are elementary analogies that have neither historical basis and are manipulated by purpose because you are not willing to understand anything, you would much rather write to us 'the reality', this is called a zealot.

It is called an Islamic Republic (Jomhuriye Eslami) for a reason, it is not a Prophetic appointment, many in Iran push forward the idea of calling it "Hokoumate Eslami" as the official term, but this is not correct as it is a fallible government, with many mistakes but sincerely established awaiting the return of Al-Mahdi who appointed the Scholars as guardians, representatives of the Muslims until he returns. However as we know, most of IRI government does not consist of scholars, and they are not told what to do by the Supreme Leader, even if someone like the president try to bring the country to 'an economic collapse' (if we were to believe populist elements).

.

I can see your point that the mechanics of functioning of Wali-e-faqih are somewhat different from that of a Caliph and Wilayat-e-Faqih is not a monarchy but the discussion is in regards to the relationship the believers of Wilayat-e-Faqih have with Wali-e-Faqih verses the relationship between a Caliph and those who pledged allegiance to him.

So far, we understand that:

1. Wilayat-e-Faqeeh is not a monarchy unlike Caliphate

2. Majles-e Khebregan-e Rahbari theoretically has the authority to dismiss a supreme leader unlike Banu Saqifa who would be compelled to stick with a Caliph they choose for as long as he was alive.

Also, you're making it sound as though wilayat-e-faqih in Iran is through explicit appointment by Imam Mahdi (ajf) both of us know that's not true. The Tawqheeh of Imam relating to what shia ummah must restort to during occultation states " Fa 'irjaoo ila ruaat-e-ahadithena" meaning "turn to the narrators of our traditions" and is a proof for marjaiyyat. Where as the concept of Naib-e-Imam was the idea of Shaheed athaani more than 600 years after major occultation when he proposed the theory of Naib al Khaas, which had no explicit link with the Imam (ajf) and this was later transformed in to the station of Wilayat-e-Faqih.

I am not opposing it, just trying to minimise bias (like implying direct appointment by Imam) and stick to the facts.

In any case, thanks for your answer - it was by far the closest to what I was looking for.

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subhanallah.. So you actually agree with legitimacy of Sakhifa? This is taking ittehad bainul muslimeen to a whole new level!

Secondly, he can ask you - why search for Nass about a personality in Quran in case of Naib-e-Rasool (Imam) while ignoring the absence of such a Nass in case of election of Naib-e-Imam? Who's also the defacto Naib of Rasool?

I didn't agree with legitimacy because I believe there was designation of Imamate and also I don't believe most people gathered and certainly not most companions, in fact, I think if most people gathered, they would have chose Imam Ali (as) and if the Umma always got to choose, it would have been Ahlebayt (as) because they were the highest people in their hearts every time, both Sunnis and Shias later, they all had highest respect and would pick them any day over anyone else.

I think Imam Ali (as) would say how can it be said that it was on consensus when few people imposed on all those whom were absent.

So it didn't even happen the Sunni way they say, the nation never chose...

I don't know what would happen if the whole Umma participates in an election....

There is no absence of Nass for Ghayba as well in Quran, one the people whom will represent the message, because of the message itself, and the traits of seeing people, and there is details, but I talked about this before, general Nass (Characteristics) and specific Nass (names), in Ghayba, the Nass is general. So people carrying the Quranic call and working to revive (ie. those few Uluma talked about in Sermon of mina that trangressing scholars were oppossing), they have political authority...and should not be disobeyed because their specific commands is with regards to fufilling general well known commands of Quran...

In fact there is general succession to Rasool (pbuh) and specific succession (12 Imams (as)), hadiths exist designating both.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awakened, perhaps you don't realize the Jarudiyya didn't believe in an explicit nass. Their belief was that the Messenger (pbuh) had implied that `Ali (as) would be the khalifa but that he was not explicitly designated for it. However, unlike the Batri Zaydis, they believed that the clues that he gave were strong enough that the companions in not following him all (except the few exceptions) became apostate kuffar.

Still think you're a Jarudi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awakened, perhaps you don't realize the Jarudiyya didn't believe in an explicit nass. Their belief was that the Messenger (pbuh) had implied that `Ali (as) would be the khalifa but that he was not explicitly designated for it. However, unlike the Batri Zaydis, they believed that the clues that he gave were strong enough that the companions in not following him all (except the few exceptions) became apostate kuffar.

Still think you're a Jarudi?

What I mean is what Abu Jarud was originally aiming for...not what they are now...(what do they got now? they inherit barely anything and barely have any idea of original teachings as would be expected with a people oppressed as much as they were, but what i believe is then the original core of them of 12vers just disappeared with their stance as many sects sort of just dissappeared and mixed in with the others (ie. the rejectors of Zaid and accepters got mixed, which is why we got both type of hadiths ).

It doesn't make sense all these narrations were being taken from him, including ones with Twelve Imams (as) mentioned, and he didn't have faith in this Imamate....

It really doesn't make sense for a person to go from believing infallible Imamate to non-infallible Imamate thing....there was no people thought Zaid was chosen Imam...

What people did is they mixed things to justify rejecting every single Alim (and Uluma duty look ath what Ahlebayt (as) says that is) rising and teaching them to rise up, to say, "your not Imam", we only believe in Imamate of Jaffar (as) or whatever... it was a khana'a, they knew very well in their hearts whom Zaid ibn Ali (as) was...

And this mixing of this type leadership, which is not unlike a millitary commander being appointed by Rasool (pbuh) but it's different with Imams (as) ofcourse, because of the state they are in... but it was not that people originally mixed it up in sincerity, it was rhetoric that came out to justify their stances and then all sorts of fabrications of Zaid not believing Imamate and other stuff, like would have been jealous over his brother Imam Baqir (as) type of thing...

Like right now, it would be like a person following Khamanei saying I won't follow you Narslallah because I only follow Khamanei, it's quite similar to that...it makes no sense when Zaid ibn Ali (as) is son of Imam Zainal abideen (as) and brother of Imam Baqir (as) and not only that, but his virtues were well known and he was praised by Ahlebayt (as)...

You would expect than a counter movement, showing know Zaid ibn Ali (as) rose for the truth.. now this is the most threatening movement possible, not only for the tyrants of that time, but Satan knows this can end a big cycle he been making mankidn go through...and yes it puts the life of Imam (as) at risk, but they were matryed for taking these risks... not for jealousy or Tyrant hating the fact people followed him..stuff like that...

The counter movement would be expected because this is a huge falsehood, that if the Imam (as) doesn't come out in battle himself, all uprisings are illegitimate... it makes no sense, why can't he lead and not being with a sword in his hand and fighting in that sense? so I would expect a student of Imam to start a counter movement...and make aware the real stance of Ahlebayt (as)...

This a huge falsehood not only for that time, but it would be fatal for future times, when people would think of a non-resistance stance taken...which makes the rising of Imam Hussain (as) an obscure thing that people go with all sort of explanations, other then the most obvious, he rose to overthrow Yazeed and establish Islamic government (like Sermon of Mina shows) and restore the teachings of Islam and win back the rights of the oppressed through that.

In fact we do have hadiths clearing up Zaid (ra) rising and also in showing whom people should follow for these uprisings...

But the I would also expect counter efforts...as well...

If yuo look at history of Christians for example, do you really think that all they say about what gnostics believed is true?

I'm saying the Zaidi movement origins is more obscure and complicated then this just one guy going to found them with a whole new beleif he just had...denying the previous Imamate he believed in...and you know the whole basis of the assumption he betrayed is that Imam Jaffar (as) didn't support it, right? So he opposes his Imamate says Imam has to rise and stuff.. while I told you looking at the supporting stance of Imam Jaffar (as), this would not make sense, and if the illusion of needing to come out in battle yourself, I mean he was a student of Imam Baqir (as) , I wold not think he was that dumb, but let us say he assumed that, I would think Imam Jaffar (as) would clarify, we are rising don't make things obscure, and if he believed in Zaid uprising, this would make him content in the heart, and support Imam Jaffar (as), not reject him... because then begs the question, where was his sword? Obviously his stance is supporting the cause, so if Imam Jaffar (as) supprots it and is also calling for uprisings (ie,scholars should lead people to reject Oppressors and eventaully stand up against him)..I would think he would not reject his Imamate... but the assumption of why he rejected is on the basis that Imam (as) did not and took a silent stance...which I don't believe in and I know there is hadiths opposing this view (there is two type of hadiths regarding this)...

I reasoned through this for a long time...because it didn't make sense to reject Imam (as) espeically as a student of Imam Baqir (as), he would know their stance is about rising with the sword...becasue of this my beleif in true teachings of thaqalain, I conclude a different history happened than what is claimed.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

What is wrong with you zuhair_naqvi. By your name you seem to be Sayeed Shia from India or Pakistan? But you keep mixing Shia beliefs with Sunni beliefs.

Again, I answered your senseless urge-to-kill and conquer the planet and self assumed responsibility of establishing one world government

Here you are comparing Shia with Salafi Wahabis???????????? Dont you know that in Shia Islam Jihad is for defensive purposes only. Shia have no interest in taking up other peoples lands.

You want to know why the Imamia consider Military Jihad impermissible unless decreed by an infallible? It's because only the one who has given life knows when to take it, and no one but Allah's hujjat is aware of Allah's decree in regards to a human's life. It's not WUSSYNESS that stops Imamia from being barbaric like salafis, it's the respect for Allah's rights and belief in his justice which keeps us content with our condition.

You say Jihad is impermissible unless decreed by an Infallible. If that is the case what should Shia do if their town or country is attacked by someone. Should they wait for the Infallible Imam to come and give them a fatwa and in the mean time they should let others take their land, rape their women, snatch away their belongings or even let others male them slaves or kill them. Where is your logic, man???????

1. What do you mean in case of Khalifa you dont have that choice? Historically, caliphs never imposed their fiqh on their ummah, in fact, their ummah did taqleed of mujtahideen / imams of their choice such as abu hanifa, ahmad ibn hanbal etc while being in allegiance of the caliph.

2. Even Khalifa can be removed if people withdraw their support from him, there's no such rule that a caliph has to rule all his life.

Thoughts?

Same mistake again. You are taking Khalifa as the Sunni Khalifas. w00t.gif

When I say Khalifa, I mean Masoom Khalifa like our Imams (as) and not Banu Umayah or Banu Abbas khalifas.

During Masoom Khalifas rule you wont have any choice. And he would be Khalifa for life.......got it?

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

It depends on what you say is offensive Jihad...

Calling to Islamic government often results to confrotation with whomever is leading...

But our duty is to call all societies to Islam... and Quran shows what to do when your strong enough and the people decide not to confront your ideas with dialogue but with direct attacking...

I will give you an example, a Nabi (as) of the past says "Obey me and do not obey the commands of Musrafeen. Those whom make fasad in the earth and do not act aright."

He is taking a direct stance against leaders, because he is propagating Islam and justice.

And it's up to the enemy if they will respond by dialogue or if they will with battle, if they choose battle, and you can fight them back, you fight... You don't back down and say no we will no longer command people to Justice and Islam...

You tell society, you should choose the right path and show it, if you get attacked, then you should be patient in the way of God and continue struggling, not say I will back down now.

Also if there is an oppressed nation, with oppresive governemtn and the people want your help against them, you can go help them, and you read that about Quran "what reason don't you have to fight in the way of God..." and says something to do with that in Suratal Nisa.

Like I said not simple as just defensive and offensive...rather Quran goes into details, the different situations....

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)(salam)

IF your confused about wilayt e fiqh, just look at it as a religious leader who knows his religion very well. A khalifa has absolute power over all things bu a wilayt e fiqh has a council to supervise what he does. So far, i haven't found a marja who has rejected the wilayt fiwh, if anyone knows message me.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

What is wrong with you zuhair_naqvi. By your name you seem to be Sayeed Shia from India or Pakistan? But you keep mixing Shia beliefs with Sunni beliefs.

Here you are comparing Shia with Salafi Wahabis???????????? Dont you know that in Shia Islam Jihad is for defensive purposes only. Shia have no interest in taking up other peoples lands.

You say Jihad is impermissible unless decreed by an Infallible. If that is the case what should Shia do if their town or country is attacked by someone. Should they wait for the Infallible Imam to come and give them a fatwa and in the mean time they should let others take their land, rape their women, snatch away their belongings or even let others male them slaves or kill them. Where is your logic, man???????

Same mistake again. You are taking Khalifa as the Sunni Khalifas. w00t.gif

When I say Khalifa, I mean Masoom Khalifa like our Imams (as) and not Banu Umayah or Banu Abbas khalifas.

During Masoom Khalifas rule you wont have any choice. And he would be Khalifa for life.......got it?

WS

1. I request you to read the posts of the person I was responding to before assuming what I may be saying. The guy was saying that we should organise groups and appoint leaders and go on a global campaign to change regimes, he wasn't talking about self defense.

2. Again I fail to understand how the spelling of Sayyed, Syed or Sayyid matters!? I am a decedent of Ali Naqi (as) by lineage and I don't think it's a major issue if I spell my name as Sayyid or Siyyid or Syed or any other spelling as long as it's my name!

3. If a fly comes near your eye and shut your eyes to avoid the fly, would you call it Jihad? Self defence is simply self defence, a right endowed to every living being by innate. Jihad in maktab-e-Imamia is combat on order of an infallible Imam (as)

4. Regardless, Mujtahideen have ordered outbound or offensive jihad (a right which was reserved for Ma'soom until 18th century) in the past:

(1804-1813), Fath Ali Shah's son and heir, Abbas Mirza, who was conducting the campaign, turned to the new ulama and obtained from Shaykh Ja'far Kashiful Ghita and other eminent clerics in Najaf and Isfahan a declaration of jihad against the Russians, thus implicitly recognizing their authority to issue such a declaration – one of the functions of the Hidden Imām. Kashifu l-Ghita used the opportunity to extract from the state acknowledgment of the ulama's right to collect the religious taxes of Khums. [1]

The discussion is in regards to "Khalifatul Muslimeen" referring to actual Caliphs that have held the office of caliphate in the past (excluding Imam Ali (as) ) the discussion is NOT about "Khalifatullah" (an infallible Caliph / Imam) which is a completely different stature.

Ref:

[1] Momen, Moojan (1985), An introduction to Shi’i Islam : the history and doctrines of Twelver Shi’ism, Oxford: G. Ronald, p. 191

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah how evil it is to call people to Islam...no one but Imam Mahdi (as) is allowed to call what Quran calls to... we can't strive in God's way anymore, what a big haram... Amer bel Maroof wa nahal bel munkar is forbidden too. Don't forbid oppression, don't command to get rid of oppression, don't call people to follow God's Judgment, no no, all this big haram...you sit down and bequiet and wait for Imam Mahdi (as) to come do everything.

Don't worry I don't need to launch any global campaign, Rasool (pbuh) did that a long time ago, and if we fail to aide his cause, then we will be replaced by a people whom will...

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

2. Again I fail to understand how the spelling of Sayyed, Syed or Sayyid matters!? I am a decedent of Ali Naqi (as) by lineage and I don't think it's a major issue if I spell my name as Sayyid or Siyyid or Syed or any other spelling as long as it's my name!

My comment was not about the spelling of your name. It was about you being a Sayyed Shia and still taking "Khalifa" as in Sunni doctrine when I was talking about Khalifa of Allah as in our Imams.

3. If a fly comes near your eye and shut your eyes to avoid the fly, would you call it Jihad? Self defence is simply self defence, a right endowed to every living being by innate. Jihad in maktab-e-Imamia is combat on order of an infallible Imam as.gif

I see no difference b/w Self defense and Islamic Jihad as per maktab-e-Imamia.

Lets say you live in a town with Shia Majority and Hindus attack your town. How would you act differently to protect the town in "self defence"verses in "Jihad"? Please list the practical differences b/w "JIHAD" and "Self Defense" (as per your understanding).

1-

2-

3-

4-

5-

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah how evil it is to call people to Islam...no one but Imam Mahdi (as) is allowed to call what Quran calls to... we can't strive in God's way anymore, what a big haram... Amer bel Maroof wa nahal bel munkar is forbidden too. Don't forbid oppression, don't command to get rid of oppression, don't call people to follow God's Judgment, no no, all this big haram...you sit down and bequiet and wait for Imam Mahdi (as) to come do everything.

Don't worry I don't need to launch any global campaign, Rasool (pbuh) did that a long time ago, and if we fail to aide his cause, then we will be replaced by a people whom will...

You're missing the point again - Rasoolullah (sawas) was Ma'soom and was the Custodian of the will of Allah (swt) and his orders were based on what Allah had decreed specifically for each life. Only the giver of life knows when it's to be taken! Remember, taking one innocent life is like killing all mankind. Those who dont believe in his ismah (such as salafis) can justify pointless murders in the way of what they think is spreading Islam.

Your purpose of life is not to push others conform to your political beliefs, the purpose of your life is to gain Marifat of your creator and that is what you're really accountable for Mawla Ali (as) said "Awwalil ilme ma'refatij jabbar" - The first knowledge to gain is the ma'refat of your creator.

No ma'soom ever said that he who did not reform governments dies a kafir but Rasoolallah did say "Man maata walam ya'rifo IMAME ZAMANEHI faqad maata meetatan jaheliyya" - He who dies without gaining the Marifat of the Imam (as) of his time dies the death of kufr.

Also, your arguments are very similar to those of Mutazila - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazili if you find truth in this ideology then identify yourself as a Mutazili and not an Imami perhaps then your point of view will be better received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets say you live in a town with Shia Majority and Hindus attack your town. How would you act differently to protect the town in "self defence"verses in "Jihad"? Please list the practical differences b/w "JIHAD" and "Self Defense" (as per your understanding).

Struggle to protect yourself is JIHAD FEE SABEELIN-NAFS (both literally and logically) - If a sinner dies protecting himself from a wild animal (self defence) would you call him a martyr?

WHERE AS:

Struggle to protect the covenant of Allah (i.e. at the command of an infallible) is JIHAD FEE SABEELILLAH

Can't make it any simpler!

Edited by zuhair_naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point again - Rasoolullah (sawas) was Ma'soom and was the Custodian of the will of Allah (swt) and his orders were based on what Allah had decreed specifically for each life. Only the giver of life knows when it's to be taken! Remember, taking one innocent life is like killing all mankind. Those who dont believe in his ismah (such as salafis) can justify pointless murders in the way of what they think is spreading Islam.

Your purpose of life is not to push others conform to your political beliefs, the purpose of your life is to gain Marifat of your creator and that is what you're really accountable for Mawla Ali (as) said "Awwalil ilme ma'refatij jabbar" - The first knowledge to gain is the ma'refat of your creator.

No ma'soom ever said that he who did not reform governments dies a kafir but Rasoolallah did say "Man maata walam ya'rifo IMAME ZAMANEHI faqad maata meetatan jaheliyya" - He who dies without gaining the Marifat of the Imam (as) of his time dies the death of kufr.

Also, your arguments are very similar to those of Mutazila - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazili if you find truth in this ideology then identify yourself as a Mutazili and not an Imami perhaps then your point of view will be better received.

I will push others like you push, you have political view (do nothing, site, wait for Ma'asoom) and I have political view (Rise like blessed true Shia like Zaid ibn Ali (as) not coward people like his rejectors ), but God knows best whom wants what he calls for and whom just loves his dogma rhetoric that won't help Islam in the slightest bit, while the opposite of what he is supporting, is keeping Jinn Worshippers from their New Middle East plans, and like Quran shows were it not for God defending some people with some people, ie. True Warriors like Nasrallah (ha) , oppression and fasad would reach completely on the earth, no Masjid would stand, no Church, no religon, Just JINN worshippers and what they want...

And as for Jihaad, there is only two, one for God and one for taghoot, all that is good to do, like defending yourselves against oppressors, this is called Jihaad fee sabeelalah,

Allah (swt) is with the oppressed, if they rise, they rise with haq, so they fight in his way...

While disbeleivers fight in the way of the Taghoot.

"those whom believe fight in the way of God..those whom disbelieve fight in the way of the Taghoot"..

Again Quran leaves no middle ground...God is the source of morality, so any moral fight is fighting in the moral way, which is in his way...

Edited by Awakened

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...