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  
Redrum

Bro Kadhim's Post

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In a secular country laws about morality revolve around the principle of harm. Two adults wanting to have a relationship does not directly harm anyone, so there is no law against it. A man raping a woman (or any variation of that) does harm someone, therefore it is punishable and outlawed. You are suggesting that we do not rule society by this principle of harm, but rather by imposing your religious beliefs (as interpreted by fallible men who are corruptible) on the masses. That is what I was addressing.

That is only a claim. If they really meant it then they would ban alcohol, but they don't. In reality it's only applied when most people want it to be applied, and in the case of alcohol, most people don't, eventhough it is so harmful. Further, even if you're right that homosexuality doesn't directly harm anyone, it definitely indirectly harms society. For example, once it becomes socially acceptable, more people will be involved in homosexual relationships and carry out homosexual acts. More people who would have never considered homosexuality, and would otherwise have been repulsed by it, would consider it. Bisexuals who would have stuck with the opposite sex would be more likely to go for same sex relationships...and so on. (It goes without saying that this is based on the Islamic premise that homosexuality is harmful to a person's spirituality).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

That is only a claim. If they really meant it then they would ban alcohol, but they don't. In reality it's only applied when most people want it to be applied, and in the case of alcohol, most people don't, eventhough it is so harmful.

It isn't only a claim.. let me simplify it for you

They don't ban sex- they outlaw rape.

They don't ban alcohol- they outlaw drunk driving.

See the differentiation? Understand the principle of harming others? Good.

They actually tried to ban alcohol in America once and then realized that if the people want to drink alcohol.. they will drink alcohol. It might be worth mentioning that there are a lot of Muslims in the West who could drink alcohol and choose not to do so because of their religious beliefs.

Further, even if you're right that homosexuality doesn't directly harm anyone, it definitely indirectly harms society. For example, once it becomes socially acceptable, more people will be involved in homosexual relationships and carry out homosexual acts. More people who would have never considered homosexuality, and would otherwise have been repulsed by it, would consider it. Bisexuals who would have stuck with the opposite sex would be more likely to go for same sex relationships...and so on. (It goes without saying that this is based on the Islamic premise that homosexuality is harmful to a person's spirituality).

No. What on earth are you on about? If homosexuality was suddenly "permitted" you think that men who are attracted to women would suddenly consider sleeping with other men? That is ridiculous. Homosexuality isn't something people just decide to pick up whenever it becomes in vogue. Being gay isn't like buying a pair of fashionable LV heels.*

That is the problem. You need to accept that a mullah dictating morality and enforcing the spirituality of people through government isn't the only thing holding Qom back from becoming San Fransisco. If it is? Lets just say the mullahs have not been doing their job properly ;)

not a tasteless attempt to reinforce stereotypes*

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. What on earth are you on about? If homosexuality was suddenly "permitted" you think that men who are attracted to women would suddenly consider sleeping with other men? That is ridiculous. Homosexuality isn't something people just decide to pick up whenever it becomes in vogue. Being gay isn't like buying a pair of fashionable LV heels.*

That is the problem. You need to accept that a mullah dictating morality and enforcing the spirituality of people through government isn't the only thing holding Qom back from becoming San Fransisco. If it is? Lets just say the mullahs have not been doing their job properly ;)

not a tasteless attempt to reinforce stereotypes*

Do you realize that human also have tendency to follow or do or get encouraged by what their fellow human beings do. When homosexuality becomes legal in a country, it would give them rights to practice it openly. Which necessarily would not make every straight man to sleep with another man. However what I am trying to imply, something which is openly practiced could be adopted by others just because of the human nature or tendency to act or do what other do. This is valid for both good and bad practices. In short homosexuality in that society would be widespread not only because people were 'born' homosexual (which is a different debate altogether) but also because of the human tendency to follow other people's act or behavior.

Edited by Jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

Do you realize that human also have tendency to follow or do or get encouraged by what their fellow human beings do. When homosexuality becomes legal in a country, it would give them rights to practice it openly. Which necessarily would not make every straight man to sleep with another man. However what I am trying to imply, something which is openly practiced could be adopted by others just because of the human nature or tendency to act or do what other do. This is valid for both good and bad practices. In short homosexuality in that society would be widespread not only because people were 'born' homosexual (which is a different debate altogether) but also because of the human tendency to follow other people's act or behavior.

Monkey see, monkey do. Great. Lets move past the homosexuality debate and the debate over whether or not laws permitting homosexuality would = people becoming homosexual (I really can't be bothered). There are millions of Muslims who live in the West and abstain from alcohol, sex, etc. The reason? They have a religion that they sincerely believe is righteous and sacred and therefore they do not feel the need to indulge in sin. To me this is far more noble and virtuous than a man who has no choice in the matter. If the only thing holding you back from sin is the lack of acceptance or opportunity, perhaps you need to reconsider your commitment to Islam.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holding Qom back from becoming San Fransisco

I might have misunderstood it. I guess you were implying that Qom is not as technological advanced as San Fransisco because of Clerics ? :unsure: because San Fransisco is considered to be hub of technology in US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley - OK removed that part of the post since you were not implying that. ^_^

Edited by Jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

I might have misunderstood it. I guess you were implying that Qom is not as technological advanced as San Fransisco because of Clerics ? :unsure: because San Fransisco is considered to be hub of technology in US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley

um, I was referring to San Fransisco's gay community. Given the context (we were discussing homosexuality) that would have made more sense than a reference to technological advancement. Actually, given any context, that is usually the first thing that pops into my mind when I think about San Fransisco. :lol:

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um, I was referring to San Fransisco's gay community. Given the context (we were discussing homosexuality) that would have made more sense than a reference to technological advancement. Actually, given any context, that is usually the first thing that pops into my mind when I think about San Fransisco. :lol:

:!!!: :!!!: alright it's not my fault either, as a hobby I am a technology blogger and I keep an eye on everything that is happening in the Silicon Valley and write about Google, Microsoft, Apple and other Tech related stuff. :blush: anyway that part of the post has been removed.

coming back to topic.

I agree to the most part of your argument. However at the same time you can not ignore human's tendency that i referred to. Also i jumped into this debate between you and another member therefore I would need to look for in which context this is being discussed. Are you talking about Homosexuality to be legalized in an Islamic country or in Western Country ? and might reply later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite interesting to see that its usually the extreme examples of boozing and homosexuality that are used to scare us into believing that without a strict Islamic government we will necessarily fall into one massive chaos and corruption and to allegedly support the entire idea of every aspect of social life being governed by imposing fiqh rules on people. Incidentally, when we look into ahadith we do have some examples of public drinking and homosexuality being punished but we do not see any religious police on the streets of Medina checking if couples are married or related or if women don't show too much hair from underneath their scarves. You guys seem to be trying to extract general rules from exceptions/extreme examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few points here that I think should be clarified.

1) Zahratul-Islam, not every law in the West is about harming others. The most prominent examples that come to my mind are seat belts and bicycle/motorcycle helmets. These laws were made to protect the individual from themselves. I am sure there are more out there- these are just the ones that come to my mind.

2) Even in Iran, the do no harm to others rule does apply to a certain level. For example, if you want to sit at home and drink alcohol until you die, then you are free to do so. What is banned is to make a public display of it. Do you think that drug use for example is not a problem in Iran? If the Iranian government was so strict and was enforcing fiqh in people's personal lives, they would go to people's houses and throw out all their alcohol bottles, for example. Or monitor who comes and leaves their houses. But, they don't.

3) People are assuming that individual behaviors do not affect society at large. This is untrue. When certain behaviors are shunned in public, they have a certain level of stigma attached to it. For example, people don't bat an eye here if they are watching a movie on public television with an inappropriate scene between a man and a woman. We've become desensitized to it. We're corrupting our own eyes and being influenced in the West whether we like it or not... it is practically impossible to not be exposed to these things as they are literally everywhere. I am not knocking the West and saying nothing good comes out of here and blah blah blah... but, there are certain realities here that we have to think about. It's a tradeoff- just like there are tradeoffs living anywhere else in the world, including Iran.

Wasalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're getting a little distracted anyway. Whether it would be helpful or harmful to decriminalize alcohol or homosexuality or whatever is another question. More relevant to the thrust of the discussion about whether you need clerics to have explicit review power over legislation to protect the moral course of civilization (rather than an informal advice to lawmakers and citizens) is this: in an Iran that voted 62% for a Conservative like President Ahmadinejad (let's assume the infamous results are legit, whether in entirety or in ballpark at the very least) it is not exactly plausible that Iranian legislators will be going in the direction of hyper-liberalization anytime in the conceivable future, if ever. You have the inherent conservativeness of the people, the conservative clergy present as a voice of moral reason, conservative intellectuals, and the cautionary tale of the North American and European example all to help temper the social liberalization of society in the process of political liberalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're getting a little distracted anyway. Whether it would be helpful or harmful to decriminalize alcohol or homosexuality or whatever is another question. More relevant to the thrust of the discussion about whether you need clerics to have explicit review power over legislation to protect the moral course of civilization (rather than an informal advice to lawmakers and citizens) is this: in an Iran that voted 62% for a Conservative like President Ahmadinejad (let's assume the infamous results are legit, whether in entirety or in ballpark at the very least) it is not exactly plausible that Iranian legislators will be going in the direction of hyper-liberalization anytime in the conceivable future, if ever. You have the inherent conservativeness of the people, the conservative clergy present as a voice of moral reason, conservative intellectuals, and the cautionary tale of the North American and European example all to help temper the social liberalization of society in the process of political liberalization.

This is true. But, the question that you pose (whether we need clerics to have explicit review power over legislation to protect the moral course of civilization), has different varieties of what that could look like. Iran's example is not the model that exists on a theoretical level.

Wasalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, there are different possibilities. My sense of what would be best for Iran and the least disruptive and the most in keeping with the spirit of the IRI would be to keep some of the clerical structures, such as the Wali al-Faqih and the Guardian Council, but to demote these to figureheads and move the explicit powers to the legislature and executive. Keep the role of the Guardian Council as a reviewer and giver of input and advice on legislation, but remove any formal veto powers. Remove this power of the GC to veto candidates for office. Place the military under the president as Commander in Chief, with the legislature overseeing spending and authorizing decisions of war and peace. Keep the Wali al-Faqih as the leader of the Guardian Council and its spokesperson, and have the body responsible for representing the voice of the clergy and acting as a voice of morality above the fray of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true. But, the question that you pose (whether we need clerics to have explicit review power over legislation to protect the moral course of civilization), has different varieties of what that could look like. Iran's example is not the model that exists on a theoretical level.

Wasalaam

I think the model bro kadhim is proposing doesn't exist only in theory. It is and has always been in action. See how the scholar like Sistani conducts his affair. See how the great scholar like late Burojerdi of Iran protected the morals of religion. This has been the norm, the way of the marjiyyah. The model in Iran has challenged the long held Shia tradition.

Nice to have you back. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, there are different possibilities. My sense of what would be best for Iran and the least disruptive and the most in keeping with the spirit of the IRI would be to keep some of the clerical structures, such as the Wali al-Faqih and the Guardian Council, but to demote these to figureheads and move the explicit powers to the legislature and executive. Keep the role of the Guardian Council as a reviewer and giver of input and advice on legislation, but remove any formal veto powers. Remove this power of the GC to veto candidates for office. Place the military under the president as Commander in Chief, with the legislature overseeing spending and authorizing decisions of war and peace. Keep the Wali al-Faqih as the leader of the Guardian Council and its spokesperson, and have the body responsible for representing the voice of the clergy and acting as a voice of morality above the fray of politics.

When you say "above the fray of politics" what do you mean exactly? Should the WF have any role in politics at all? If not, what is the point of keeping him there? If the clergy are just a voice of morality, how is that any different than keeping them out of politics entirely? Also, if the laws contradict Islamic ideals, would not the WF be held responsible, even if he is just a figurehead?

I'm all for checks and balances with a government, but all in all, I am confused about what role the clergy would play in such a system. I would imagine that it would be difficult for a marja to just have a figurehead position in a government because he, even as a figurehead, is responsible for what happens in the government.

Someone suggested to keep the clergy out of the role of government entirely.... but there would be a council of scholars who would have oversight about laws being passed to make sure they are within an Islamic framework. What would you think of such a system?

I think the model bro kadhim is proposing doesn't exist only in theory. It is and has always been in action. See how the scholar like Sistani conducts his affair. See how the great scholar like late Burojerdi of Iran protected the morals of religion. This has been the norm, the way of the marjiyyah. The model in Iran has challenged the long held Shia tradition.

But ayatullah Sistani doesn't really play a role in politics... not even a figurehead role. His role is to basically give advice and direct people (and not very often it seems) in political matters.

Nice to have you back.

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say "above the fray of politics" what do you mean exactly? Should the WF have any role in politics at all? If not, what is the point of keeping him there? If the clergy are just a voice of morality, how is that any different than keeping them out of politics entirely? Also, if the laws contradict Islamic ideals, would not the WF be held responsible, even if he is just a figurehead?

Above the fray in that they have no formal power or responsibility over the laws passed. They could be given an opportunity to review and comment on pending legislation (similar to committee hearings in parliaments and congresses today), but would have no formal veto powers. Their objections and comments would be recorded and published, but would not have the power to block a law. If the lawmakers and president decide to go against the advice and comments in whole or part, the clerics will have fulfilled their responsibility as advisors.

In short, they will naturally have some political power, due to people's respect for their opinions. But it would be a soft power of influence rather than hard formal power.

Someone suggested to keep the clergy out of the role of government entirely.... but there would be a council of scholars who would have oversight about laws being passed to make sure they are within an Islamic framework. What would you think of such a system?

I would agree with that as long as this council had no formal veto powers, but was merely responsible for reading and publishing commentary and suggestions.

The reason I suggest a figurehead WF and council within the government in Iran, though without formal power is a suggestion specifically for Iran, as a transitionary form that would be a more pragmatic solution in terms of passing the change and convincing a wide swath of people (WF supporters and non-supporters alike) to support the change.

Although in places with no history of clerics having explicit power, I would probably suggest instead a council of scholars with a spokesperson leader outside government and with guaranteed independence and freedom of political critique as an embodiment of the concept of WF in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

There are a few points here that I think should be clarified.

1) Zahratul-Islam, not every law in the West is about harming others. The most prominent examples that come to my mind are seat belts and bicycle/motorcycle helmets. These laws were made to protect the individual from themselves. I am sure there are more out there- these are just the ones that come to my mind.

2) Even in Iran, the do no harm to others rule does apply to a certain level. For example, if you want to sit at home and drink alcohol until you die, then you are free to do so. What is banned is to make a public display of it. Do you think that drug use for example is not a problem in Iran? If the Iranian government was so strict and was enforcing fiqh in people's personal lives, they would go to people's houses and throw out all their alcohol bottles, for example. Or monitor who comes and leaves their houses. But, they don't.

3) People are assuming that individual behaviors do not affect society at large. This is untrue. When certain behaviors are shunned in public, they have a certain level of stigma attached to it. For example, people don't bat an eye here if they are watching a movie on public television with an inappropriate scene between a man and a woman. We've become desensitized to it. We're corrupting our own eyes and being influenced in the West whether we like it or not... it is practically impossible to not be exposed to these things as they are literally everywhere. I am not knocking the West and saying nothing good comes out of here and blah blah blah... but, there are certain realities here that we have to think about. It's a tradeoff- just like there are tradeoffs living anywhere else in the world, including Iran.

Wasalaam

1)Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear. I never said that every law in the West was about harming others, I was just clarifying a point for .InshAllah. about why rape was outlawed, etc. Obviously no government in the world is going to strictly adhere to the harm principle. Laws are intrinsically moral and government tries to play a parental role. A motorcycle law is completely different from a theocracy.

2) The Iranian government may not literally come into your home and check to see if you are committing any sins (bounds of reason.. its not like they have a problem with it in principle.. it would just take a lot of time). No one is saying the Iranian government has to be something out of an Ayn Rand novel.

3) I think I addressed this before sis. If the only thing stopping the Iranian people from being like the West is restriction, what the heck have the mullahs been doing? Also, I am not advocating that the mullahs be done away with as spiritual advisers who help maintain the moral decency of the Iranian people. It is not like Islamic values would be totally eradicated.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ayatullah Sistani doesn't really play a role in politics... not even a figurehead role. His role is to basically give advice and direct people (and not very often it seems) in political matters.

I think Sistani’s influence in political matters of Iraq is understated. He has steered the Iraqi Shia through the war and occupation with great mastery. Of course he does not have any formal power nor he has any sort of non-binding advisory role but he has been successful in giving general direction to large population of Shia in a very difficult juncture of Iraq’s history. On the other hand, anti-Sistani camp has created more problems than they solved, and that under the name of Islam.

I would agree with that as long as this council had no formal veto powers, but was merely responsible for reading and publishing commentary and suggestions.

The reason I suggest a figurehead WF and council within the government in Iran, though without formal power is a suggestion specifically for Iran, as a transitionary form that would be a more pragmatic solution in terms of passing the change and convincing a wide swath of people (WF supporters and non-supporters alike) to support the change.

Although in places with no history of clerics having explicit power, I would probably suggest instead a council of scholars with a spokesperson leader outside government and with guaranteed independence and freedom of political critique as an embodiment of the concept of WF in that situation.

Do you mean something like THIS?

Their function is to “advise the legislature whether or not a certain law is repugnant to Islam, namely to the Qur'an and Sunna.” Weblink

Their advice is non-binding and the council has no formal power of any sort to force their advice on the legislature.

The main functions of the council are:

The functions of the Islamic Council shall be:

a. to make recommendations to Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies as to the ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives individually and collectively in all respects in accordance with the principles and concepts of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah;

b. to advise a House, a Provincial Assembly, the President or a Governor on any question referred to the Council as to whether a proposed law is or is not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam;

c. to make recommendations as to the measures for bringing existing laws into conformity with the Injunctions of Islam and the stages by which such measures should be brought into effect; and

d. to compile in a suitable form, for the guidance of Majlis-e-Shoora(Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies, such Injunctions of Islam as can be given legislative effect. Weblink

The problem with this council is that it is constitutional and a semi-state organ. There has been a lot of controversy regarding some of the recommendations made by this council. It gained special powers during the times of the notorious Zia-ul-Haq to the detriment of Shia and other non-Muslim minorities.

A council of ulema such as this can only work with a degree of integrity and independence if it is not in any way part of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I addressed this before sis. If the only thing stopping the Iranian people from being like the West is restriction, what the heck have the mullahs been doing?

@Zahratul_Islam

I have already replied to this argument in details in all of my previous posts in reply to brother Kadhim. And you are advocating the same argument as he does. And I am yet to see any sensible argument against it. Thing is, Mullah can not change human nature which is totally being ignored by you and bro Kadhim. Anyway before you reply here are the arguments that i made against Kadhim's analogy and I can't write them over and over again.

I guess I already made it clear, that your analogy is flawed because the Human nature which is the real reason behind every sin or crime has not developed enough and might never will. Secondly, Humanity is always in transition from one generation to another. One generation got education under teachers and If next does not then how will they get educated unless you believe that their parents generation (as in children brought up and taught by their parents) teach them which is hardly any sensible argument to make. The next generation would have to go to school/college like the previous generation did.

I never meant by implementing Islamic laws in the country you can make it totally infallible state. The World can never be free of sins/crimes whatsoever. However what we can do is make it less full of crimes and sins etc. Which I guess is already proven Iran has less crime rate than any of the non-Muslim country with same population.

Kadhim, I have fully understood your point and analogy. However why i am critical of your analogy is that it ignores human nature altogether which in my opinion would overcome the 'education' - Your analogy is solely dependent on the people's education and level of understanding. And when we are talking about educated people I hope you are not referring it to those people who can upload videos to youtube etc. We are essentially talking about people who have deep understanding/education of the religion as well as the worldly matters. Which in my opinion is not right to be referred as populace. Since these kind of people are far less than general populous you were referring to. Nevertheless, as i stated above, in my opinion human nature will most probably overcome people's education. And they would most probably go astray despite being 'educated' without a Cleric.
This is exactly what my point is what you said above, why do they need police when people are educated enough to know that speeding can kill and there are laws too that prohibit it. Cleric is playing the same role as Cops do. So in the absence of the Cleric people will overspeed (more often) despite being educated :-}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, we've been over this. You're confusing restriction of the people's free involvement in the political process with restriction on the individual due to laws.

What is more, the argument that "human nature" is unchangeable is not even correct. This is what internalized morality, the ultimate goal of religious ethics does; it masters and controls the raw animal drives. I don't refrain from rape, murder, and stealing out of fear of the law, whether wordly or other-worldly. I refrain because I know within myself that these things are wrong and have control over myself.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, we've been over this. You're confusing restriction of the people's free involvement in the political process with restriction on the individual due to laws.

What is more, the argument that "human nature" is unchangeable is not even correct. This is what internalized morality, the ultimate goal of religious ethics does; it masters and controls the raw animal drives. I don't refrain from rape, murder, and stealing out of fear of the law, whether wordly or other-worldly. I refrain because I know within myself that these things are wrong and have control over myself.

Bro, I am simply trying to get my point across the Human nature (nafs) is something must be taken into account when we talk about Clergy-free society. Like any other typical Islamic fundamentalist I could put forward several Hadith or Verses of Quran to debunk your arguments, But i rather choose to debate with people based on rational and logical arguments. In addition to 'Nafs' or basic Human nature which has been prominently discussed in Quran and points out that a Human is born with certain weaknesses, (such as lust for wealth, women, etc) you are forgetting that there is a concept/belief of a Devil in a religion too. Which would also leave no stone untouched to make people go astray as Quran tells us (i never wanted to mention this but just for the sake the debate included that). So taking these two points into account, I don't think getting rid of clergy would make any thing better in Iran but only worse.

I don't refrain from rape, murder, and stealing out of fear of the law

If you don't do that out of the fear of law it makes you a noble and good human being but it never means the temptations to do so don't exist any longer in human nature. :-} and most of the populous that you referred to is not as noble and good human being as you either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was it said that the idea of punishment or law was absurd? Are you reading the posts before commenting?

Let me make a correction to your statement about submission.

The highest form of adulthood is total submission based not simply on desire for reward and fear of punishment, but out of an understanding of what is beneficial and harmful and an internal moral desire to do what is right.

(bismillah)

(salam)

the idea is imposition in itself, am i correct

but we have classes in jannah

surah waqiah

foremost

and

people of the right hand

therefore our level of submission is different and will always remain different

totally agreed but to expect all and sundry to be such is utopia or jannah

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bro, I am simply trying to get my point across the Human nature (nafs) is something must be taken into account when we talk about Clergy-free society.

No one has mentioned anything about a "clergy-free society." Try to keep up.

But i rather choose to debate with people based on rational and logical arguments.

Excellent. Let me know when you're ready to get started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this attitude is only to be mocked by true Muslims then what does it tell us about our relation with our religion? That it can only hold us in its grips when its imposed? Take that away and we instantly fall into corruption?

By the way Persian Shah, I guess you have missed my post in the Saanei discussion, you mentioned your SC post regarding Saanei's aqaid and I asked you to give me a link cause I wasn't able to find it, could you help me out please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this attitude is only to be mocked by true Muslims then what does it tell us about our relation with our religion? That it can only hold us in its grips when its imposed? Take that away and we instantly fall into corruption?

:huh:

By the way Persian Shah, I guess you have missed my post in the Saanei discussion, you mentioned your SC post regarding Saanei's aqaid and I asked you to give me a link cause I wasn't able to find it, could you help me out please?

Can't find it either. It's an old discussion anyway, his office took the page down after I sent them an email..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has mentioned anything about a "clergy-free society." Try to keep up.

Alright, replace it with whatever you arguing for. anyway. If you have known me and gone through my previous posts esp., in Islamic laws section. You would realize that I am not a rigid Islamic fundamentalist. However I am not a liberal either ideologically. I believe in taking a stance based on rationality and reality in regard to any issue. Therefore i opposed to your analogy. Which makes sense to some degree. However if you take more 'realistic' approach to this issue. You might find that my arguments are not as silly as it might seem to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if people are hungry, life expectancy rates are lower, and freedoms are restricted, it is still "developed" as long as we are hanging the homos? You can't stop people from watching pornography, masturbating, or being gay. You can't open a man's heart or mind and instill in him a love for the Prophet (saw) and the ahlul bait (as). A country where people are religious and sincerely choose Islam will keep the government uncorrupted and hold them accountable even when religion is not being imposed on them. A country where Islam is being imposed on the masses by fallible men who are playing the role of politician and spiritual/paternal leader will result in the worst form of corruption. This has played itself out repeatedly.

On what basis do you think you know what is best for society?

I think the problem is the opposite, its not that the scholars are taking over and forcing the religion upon the others, its that people like you are forcing your own non islamic views on everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, replace it with whatever you arguing for. anyway. If you have known me and gone through my previous posts esp., in Islamic laws section. You would realize that I am not a rigid Islamic fundamentalist. However I am not a liberal either ideologically. I believe in taking a stance based on rationality and reality in regard to any issue. Therefore i opposed to your analogy. Which makes sense to some degree. However if you take more 'realistic' approach to this issue. You might find that my arguments are not as silly as it might seem to you.

Your previous posts are a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. You're unable to distinguish between understanding what is right or wrong and doing what is right or wrong. As a result, what you say has no bearing. This has been pointed out toyou repeatedly. Instead of providing a meaningful response to that, you just repeat yourself. Step up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your previous posts are a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. You're unable to distinguish between understanding what is right or wrong and doing what is right or wrong. As a result, what you say has no bearing. This has been pointed out toyou repeatedly. Instead of providing a meaningful response to that, you just repeat yourself. Step up.

I understand your frustration and panic man. Anyway I am done here. there is nothing to be discussed any further. Both sides have made their points clearly. Unless we want this thread to be turned into personal attacks or rants on each other. Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your frustration and panic man. Anyway I am done here. there is nothing to be discussed any further. Both sides have made their points clearly. Unless we want this thread to be turned into personal attacks or rants on each other. Thank you very much.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

On what basis do you think you know what is best for society?

I think the problem is the opposite, its not that the scholars are taking over and forcing the religion upon the others, its that people like you are forcing your own non islamic views on everyone.

I think the problem is that you have not actually read my posts. Or your reading comprehension needs some work? Either way, I have not the slightest clue when I suggested forcing non Islamic views on people. I can't be bothered to clarify something for someone who is on some random tangent that has sweet shiz to do with this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that you have not actually read my posts. Or your reading comprehension needs some work? Either way, I have not the slightest clue when I suggested forcing non Islamic views on people. I can't be bothered to clarify something for someone who is on some random tangent that has sweet shiz to do with this conversation.

I quoted the relevant post, I cant see why you are getting so defensive and rude. Perhaps I misunderstood you, or you werent clear, either way you could at least explain.

Try taking a break and comming back when you are in a better mood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Wilayat al-Faqih is a branch issue that some jurists agree with and others disagree with, either partially or wholly. It does not render one a non-Muslim to disagree with this doctrine and we ought to refrain from such insinuations, either implied or explicit. Many if not most jurists seem to agree with this doctrine either wholly or with some differences therefore it cannot be totally unfounded either. My personal opinion is that there is both rational and textual evidence for the theory of leadership of the just and competent jurist.

Islam is a complete way of life permeating every aspect of our existence; if Islam were to be mute on even a single issue then we must accept that Islam is imperfect or limited. But this is an impossibility due to Divine Wisdom, which is Absolute. All Fuqaha (jurists) agree with this; that Islam should be present in all the affairs of an Islamic society and the the Fuqaha must be involved. However, the difference pertains to the form of involvement, where some advocate a supervisory (active) involvement and others an advisory (passive) role.

My personal opinion as to which has primacy and is therefore preferred is that the issue must be analyzed in the context of the matter of the Hidden Imam [aj]. As we well know, the Imam’s [aj] emergence is dependent upon certain pre-requisites, some of which are directly under the influence of Muslims (e.g. various forms of preparation) and others which are less within their sphere of influence (e.g. general global condition).

It’s important for us to understand that the emergence is dependent upon pre-requisites since the success of Imam Mahdi’s [aj] revolt will depend on a natural process of causality and evolution. Thus, with regards to that which Muslims can directly influence (i.e. preparation), it stands to reason that a kind of ‘prototype’ Islamic system, which precedes the ‘utopian’ system of the Mahdi [aj] in his absence, is the greatest form of mobilization and preparation that the Muslim community can strive for. A prototype or draft model constitutes the best stepping stone for the implementation of the final project.

The real question then is whether it is a supervisory or an advisory role for the Fuqaha that best mobilizes the society and its resources for the rule of the infallible Imam [aj]. Needless to say, a merely advisory function, despite its pure intentions, by definition of its lack of interventional power is less able to ensure implementation of justice, the reign of Islamic law and the protection of the society from outsiders’ ever present manifest and hidden plots. On the other hand, a Faqih’s supervisory rule is better able to achieve the aforementioned objectives of Muslims during the occultation and hence of precipitating the actualization of the utopian system upon the Imam’s [aj] emergence. Hence, despite its fallibility, it’s the closest possible model to that of the infallible and hence acquires primacy and preference over the advisory model, while understanding the limitations; the supervisor is himself supervised by other Fuqaha and does not directly govern the daily affairs of the nation.

There is also textual evidence for the validity of the theory, for instance:

The Holy Prophet [pbuh] said, "Scholars are the successors of the Prophets". (Wasa'il, Vol. 13, chapter 11)

Imam Ali [as] says, "Scholars are the rulers of the people". (Ghurarul Hikam, quoted from al-

Hayat, Vol. 2, p. 293)

Imam Hussain [as] says, "Discharging of the duties and the enforcement of laws should be

in the hands of the scholars, God-fearing and pious persons. These are the people who do not

make any changes in the Divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things, and who are

the custodians of trusts". (Tuhaful 'Uqul, p. 242)

apba

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...