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

The thread in which this post appeared has been locked and will be subject to some cleaning as far as I understand so in case it gets lost or forgotten somehow I'd like to share it here as it is the best thing I've read on this forum in months:

Unfortunately God does not walk the earth in human form to direct us.

Unfortunately there are no infallible human beings giving interviews.

Just millions and billions of human beings of various levels of fallibility. The religion as it is in Essence with God is perfect and infallible, no doubt. But the fact remains that it is mediated to us through fallible teachers, fallible leaders. From what I read, it seems that you take it as an article of faith that a hawza education in recent decades is the surest path to reducing fallibility, and that therefore it is most sensible to put these individuals in political leadership. That’s your political philosophy. Good for you. It’s not for me, and not for others.

Fact of the matter is this. Mankind over the centuries and millennia has developed, much as a child starts as a baby and grows and matures. God’s desire is that we become an adult humanity. As a species, we are still very childlike. The goal of messengers, prophets, and imams was to help us in this development. About 1400 years ago, the age of prophecy ended. Childhood finished, and on to adolescence. A short period of direct guidance by imams followed to help transition beyond this age to the new age of reason, to help guide mankind get some tools to move through adolescence. And then, 1200 years ago, even this imamate steps temporarily away, much as a parent steps back to give a child in his later adolescence the room to develop. The imam, much like a good parent, does not leave the adolescent humanity alone, but leaves the marjaiyyah as a final training wheel, a reminder of the teachings of the prophets and aimmah. The goal, the mission of the marjaiyyah is not to rule over mankind, but to help humanity in its task of “growing up.” Khomeini’s WF sees this adolescent state almost as the inevitable state of mankind, requiring the maraja, led by a WF, to oversee humanity as a sort of substitute foster parent in lieu of the imam. But the purpose is to help mankind rather grow beyond this, to prepare an adult humanity grounded in religious values, in the sciences necessary to master the world around them and their relations with each other, intelligent and able to think for themselves. To produce an adult humanity for the Imam to lead.

Earlier imams suffered precisely from the lack of a developed, adult humanity. Much as in a functional business, the boss requires people who are not only willing to blindly obey orders, but people who can combine this with an ability to work autonomously, taking general directives and having the intelligence to efficiently fill in the details themselves and carry them out, the imam requires similarly developed people. Now, to be fair, the IRI has had some considerable success in this regard. It took a nation with a small educated elite and a huge mass of ignorant, illiterate peasants and helped them to develop, raising their standard of living, raising literacy, raising technology and industry, raising the people’s political awareness, widening the educated middle class, enabling the development of a civil society. The leadership from the marjaiyyah has done relatively well, despite inevitable mistakes. The people have matured.

Now is the time for them to step back to a purely advisory role to allow the Iranian people to practice taking care of themselves, in a word, to practice being adults. This is the true path forward now to prepare the way for the imam. The marjaiyyah can have the sense to help, or they can stand in the way. The choice is open to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty and this is not negatively meant, I can't understand why Bro Kadhim bothered converting, assuming he was a Christian before. Surely most major denominations of Christianity have evolved to the extent that they are where Bro Kadhim would like Islam to be. They practice a hands-off approach to life, to the extent that one need only have contact with religion at birth, marriage and death.

Their religious leaders also avoid saying anything that may offend modern lifestyles and stick to motherhood and apple pie homilies that can make people feel good without obligations to change their behaviour in any respect. Of course if he wanted an ethnic angle to worship he could have joined one of the evangelical branches.

If it's a matter of Karbala, surely he could have taken the approach of some Hindus, which is to keep to their existing religion, but pay due respects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty and this is not negatively meant, I can't understand why Bro Kadhim bothered converting, assuming he was a Christian before. Surely most major denominations of Christianity have evolved to the extent that they are where Bro Kadhim would like Islam to be. They practice a hands-off approach to life, to the extent that one need only have contact with religion at birth, marriage and death.

Their religious leaders also avoid saying anything that may offend modern lifestyles and stick to motherhood and apple pie homilies that can make people feel good without obligations to change their behaviour in any respect. Of course if he wanted an ethnic angle to worship he could have joined one of the evangelical branches.

If it's a matter of Karbala, surely he could have taken the approach of some Hindus, which is to keep to their existing religion, but pay due respects.

Maybe he doesn't believe in the Trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty and this is not negatively meant, I can't understand why Bro Kadhim bothered converting, assuming he was a Christian before. Surely most major denominations of Christianity have evolved to the extent that they are where Bro Kadhim would like Islam to be. They practice a hands-off approach to life, to the extent that one need only have contact with religion at birth, marriage and death.

Their religious leaders also avoid saying anything that may offend modern lifestyles and stick to motherhood and apple pie homilies that can make people feel good without obligations to change their behaviour in any respect. Of course if he wanted an ethnic angle to worship he could have joined one of the evangelical branches.

If it's a matter of Karbala, surely he could have taken the approach of some Hindus, which is to keep to their existing religion, but pay due respects.

So, one most follow your idea of WF in order to be considered a Muslim? Otherwise don't both converting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he doesn't believe in the Trinity.

So how about Reform/Liberal Judaism? They accept converts. AIUI they were western creations in order to bring Orthodox Judaism *up-to-date*.

I can just about understand someone who is born into a religion, does not like it and wants it adapted.

But for someone to leave the *light of the enlightenment* and come into the *darkness that is Islam*, makes no sense to me at all. Unless of course the aim is to bring light into darkness, which is what all this seems to be about.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how about Reform/Liberal Judaism? They accept converts. AIUI they were western creations in order to bring Orthodox Judaism *up-to-date*.

I can just about understand someone who is born into a religion, does not like it and wants it adapted.

But for someone to leave the *light of the enlightenment* and come into the *darkness that is Islam*, makes no sense to me at all. Unless of course the aim is to bring light into darkness, which is what all this seems to be about.

I agree, and my point was that I'm sure Kadhim has theological reasons to be a Muslim. Or he may not be a Muslim. Or you may not be, or I may not be. It's irrelevant really, no one on this website is important enough for us to be concerned with their convitions. It's best just to discuss ideas rather than individuals. However, on your point, Kadhim's quoted post smacks of Sheikh Arif - a cerifiable brown person, so I don't think it's a matter of the white man saving the noble savage that is you and I.

Starting threads in someone's name is rarely a good idea, it's just not cricket, chaps.*

*not something an English gentleman would do.**

**not good etiquette.

Edited by Dirac Delta function

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty and this is not negatively meant, I can't understand why Bro Kadhim bothered converting, assuming he was a Christian before. Surely most major denominations of Christianity have evolved to the extent that they are where Bro Kadhim would like Islam to be. They practice a hands-off approach to life, to the extent that one need only have contact with religion at birth, marriage and death.

Their religious leaders also avoid saying anything that may offend modern lifestyles and stick to motherhood and apple pie homilies that can make people feel good without obligations to change their behaviour in any respect. Of course if he wanted an ethnic angle to worship he could have joined one of the evangelical branches.

If it's a matter of Karbala, surely he could have taken the approach of some Hindus, which is to keep to their existing religion, but pay due respects.

That was pretty low, Haji.

I became a Muslim because I believed in a monotheist Theism, believed in Prophets and Messengers, believed in Jesus as a human servant of God but not as a Greco-Roman God-Man, rejected the notion of original sin and the need for a sacrificial lamb, rejected the notion of Divine incarnation in physical form, and believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad son of Abdullah. I further took the Shia approach because that's where I was first introduced and because its theology and body of practice (usool and furoo) was to my mind more rational. I have continued and continue to hold my identity in that path for the same reasons. I can admire a lot about Catholics and some other Christians for their ability to be a functional community that can tangibly work together to get things done, but their theology is unacceptable.

On the other hand I have a theology which is sound, the soundest I can see, yet the rub is that many/most of those following the faith associated with it are frankly not very good human beings, that the community is divided, dysfunctional, disorganized, reactionary, intellectually regressive, obsessed with the trees while losing sight of the forest. Within the Muslim community I have encountered both the best human beings I have ever met, as well as the worst. Sometimes within the same building. I have become exposed to this reality gradually over the past 8 years. It is indeed a difficult position. But I'm a stubborn human being as my wife can attest. I will stick to an idea if I think it's right even if everyone else who believes in the idea is crazy in their application of the idea. Truth is truth, and Truth is not diminished by the weakness of its believers. Fortunately however it's not that bad; there are enough non-crazies to satisfy the psychological need for a social community aspect to the faith.

The criticisms I bring are not original to me; they have been repeated ad nauseum by our best thinkers for decades. I fail to see why, as a convert, I am forbidden from bringing the same lines of complaint. I've been in this for almost 8 years. I think I'm far enough inside to have the right to speak.

And, no, I don't demand "Islam" to change. What I say is that "Muslims" generally seem to have the wrong understanding of what Islam is, particularly when it comes to jurisprudence and political philosophy. It may seem arrogant of a relative newcomer to come to this conclusion, and, what is more, voice it, and voice it strongly, but, again, I am not by any means the only one bringing the same lines of critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for someone to leave the *light of the enlightenment* and come into the *darkness that is Islam*, makes no sense to me at all. Unless of course the aim is to bring light into darkness, which is what all this seems to be about.

This sits at the heart of the problem IMO. A big group of Muslims, both Shia and Sunnis, believe that the Change with capital C the world underwent in what is known as the Age of Enlightenment, the history which actually gave birth to that age, and that what naturally followed is somehow contrary to the universal teachings of Islam. The problem is aggravated due to the fact that the said change, gradual and extremely painful, took place not in the lands of Islam but in the lands of Kufr - a community of people who were in no position to offer anything valuable to the followers of the last and complete Divine Revelation because the followers of the Last and complete Divine Revelation do not need anything which they do not already possess. This rationale, naive and arrogant at the same time, was repeatedly brought up when Turkish muftis objected to the inventions of mechanical engineering, such as guns replacing swords, clocks, loudspeakers, printing press and the list goes on. The same was heard from the Shia kingdom of Persia around the same time.

These were the first instances of the conflict which started between the two approaches. Of course, it isn’t that simplistic anymore. In fact, there is a fully developed intellectual dimension to this mindset.

This approach looks backward in the past as opposed to looking forward in the future. It identifies a period in history, takes it as a model and then attempts to bring today’s society as closer to that model as possible. Their model is an agrarian, tribal and feudal society. Such a society had its own political, social and economic structures/system which served well as long as things remained stable.

The post-Enlightenment, post-Industrial, post-modern society [or an attempt to organise a backward society on these lines] sits at odds with their model society. The disagreements are of course on three fronts. i.e’ political, social/socio-political and economic. Let’s see how.

In the political arena, the reason they prefer a sort of authoritarianism [that is, religious authoritarianism] over free democracy is because this was how their model society was organised politically.

In matters social, they want the state to directly intervene in citizen's lives. They will justify any violation of the fundamental human rights as long as they can find a precedent in their model. They will not give any space to the organic development of social institutions if it is seen contrary to the sociology of their model. The obvious example is confining [forcing] womankind to “traditional roles”.

In economics, the religious right shows disgust at both capitalism and socialism. They can’t adopt to their satisfaction one or the other or a mix of the two because it is not practical today to replicate the economics of their model period. They still argue for the bait-ul-maal to be distributed among the believers. Ahmedinejad’s idea of doling out extra petrodollars to the poor didn’t come out of nowhere.

This is my theory in nutshell why these people see with contempt the developments which took place in the last couple of centuries. They wish things would never have changed so they wouldn't have to go through the torture finding compatibility of their beliefs with modernity. They believe that the days of the yore were best and the present is corrupt. Change, for better or for worse, depending on one’s point of view, is indeed difficult, painful and at times violent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

In all honesty and this is not negatively meant, I can't understand why Bro Kadhim bothered converting, assuming he was a Christian before. Surely most major denominations of Christianity have evolved to the extent that they are where Bro Kadhim would like Islam to be. They practice a hands-off approach to life, to the extent that one need only have contact with religion at birth, marriage and death.

Their religious leaders also avoid saying anything that may offend modern lifestyles and stick to motherhood and apple pie homilies that can make people feel good without obligations to change their behaviour in any respect. Of course if he wanted an ethnic angle to worship he could have joined one of the evangelical branches.

If it's a matter of Karbala, surely he could have taken the approach of some Hindus, which is to keep to their existing religion, but pay due respects.

I actually hope this was "negatively" meant.. otherwise it says really unfortunate things about your intelligence :( You just keep showcasing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills as if they are virtues that a grown man should be proud of having

They aren't :(

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, no, I don't demand "Islam" to change. What I say is that "Muslims" generally seem to have the wrong understanding of what Islam is, particularly when it comes to jurisprudence and political philosophy. It may seem arrogant of a relative newcomer to come to this conclusion, and, what is more, voice it, and voice it strongly, but, again, I am not by any means the only one bringing the same lines of critique.

I don't understand. In my experience, most converts stick to the more traditional line and accept everything all-knowing scholars of the religion feed to them. I have seen plenty of converts in the West, some on this website, who converted not only to the religion of Islam but also to the Arab/Persian culture. Some would even join the deluded Muslims in their hate of everything Western, thus denying themselves their identity.

I find it disappointing when “born Muslims” cast doubts on the eligibility and sincerity of a convert when in fact most of the support for your point of view actually comes from “born Muslims” in “Islamic countries”. So they know it that you are not the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what is so impressive about Kadhim's post that is quoted by the OP. The idea is that human's have become so developed and rational that they don't need a marji' leading them, they've become ''adults'' (or are nearly there) and should be left to ''take care of themselves''. If this is true, then we have no need for an Imam. When Imam Mahdi [aj] reappears he's not going to sit back as a kind of unofficial advisor; he's going to be THE ruler of the world. That's why the autonomous adult analogy fails. The Imam will always be the ''parent'' and we will always be the ''children'' obeying His orders without question. If the goal of maraji'iyyah is to produce Muslims with a mentality that they are ''rational'' enough to figure laws out for themselves (unlike the ''children'' at the time of the Prophet), then they are creating a mindset that thinks its smart enough not to need a Scholar to lead them. So then, why would they need an Imam? It's one thing to say that some scholars have got it wrong, and it's a completely different thing to say that society shouldn't be ruled by any scholar and left to people to figure things out for themselves, as they are so 'mature' they don't need scholars to lead them.

To the followers of WF and other forms of theocracy, one of the characteristics of a developed nation is that it is ruled by Islamic Law, not man made laws. Countries in which all their laws decided based on what most people think (the majority being ignorant of fiqh) are do not meet this criterion. Even if they are wealthy, with a good healthcare system etc. A country that allows denigration of Prophets under freedom of speech, allows homosexuality, pornography and other forms of corruption is absolutely not developed. It's in jahiliyyah.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see what is so impressive about Kadhim's post that is quoted by the OP. The idea is that human's have become so developed and rational that they don't need a marji' leading them, they've become ''adults'' (or are nearly there) and should be left to ''take care of themselves''. If this is true, then we have no need for an Imam.
That's why the autonomous adult analogy fails.

No, I addressed this in some detail.

But the purpose is to help mankind rather grow beyond this, to prepare an adult humanity grounded in religious values, in the sciences necessary to master the world around them and their relations with each other, intelligent and able to think for themselves. To produce an adult humanity for the Imam to lead.

Earlier imams suffered precisely from the lack of a developed, adult humanity. Much as in a functional business, the boss requires people who are not only willing to blindly obey orders, but people who can combine this with an ability to work autonomously, taking general directives and having the intelligence to efficiently fill in the details themselves and carry them out, the imam requires similarly developed people.

Even in an adult humanity, leadership is a good and useful thing. But a good leader needs good followers who can think for themselves and not need every minute detail explained and spoon fed to them. A leader with good followers can explain a broad course of policy action, peform some general assignment/delegation of tasks and responsibilities, and have the followers autonomously carry out the project. This is how great projects can be achieved.

As to the relationship between believers and marjaiyyah, no, with all due respect, the analogy does not fail. Rather, you fail to apply the analogy.

When a child grows to adulthood, does his relationship with his parents end? Does his parent literally abandon the child? No.

The parent is there, with love and readiness to help. If the child has a question, a confusion that he wants clarified, the parent is more than happy to help. The parent is there. but the parent does not try to continue to control the adult child as once was done for the immature child. The parent will advise, gently, yet firmly. But the parent will accept and come to terms with the fact that, for better or for worse, the grown adult child has to chart his own path.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

I don't see what is so impressive about Kadhim's post that is quoted by the OP. The idea is that human's have become so developed and rational that they don't need a marji' leading them, they've become ''adults'' (or are nearly there) and should be left to ''take care of themselves''. If this is true, then we have no need for an Imam. When Imam Mahdi [aj] reappears he's not going to sit back as a kind of unofficial advisor; he's going to be THE ruler of the world. That's why the autonomous adult analogy fails. The Imam will always be the ''parent'' and we will always be the ''children'' obeying His orders without question. If the goal of maraji'iyyah is to produce Muslims with a mentality that they are ''rational'' enough to figure things out for themselves (unlike the ''children'' at the time of the Prophet), then they are creating a mindset that thinks its smart enough to not need a Scholar to lead them. So then, why would they need an Imam? It's one thing to say that some scholars have got it wrong, and it's a completely different thing to say that society shouldn't be ruled by any scholar and left to people to figure things out for themselves, as they are so mature they don't need scholars to lead them.

To the followers of WF and other forms of theocracy, the most developed nation is one which is ruled by Islamic Law, not man made laws. Countries in which all their laws decided based on what most people think (the majority being ignorant of fiqh) are not ''developed'' countries at all. Even if they are wealthy, with a good healthcare system etc. A country that allows denigration of Prophets under freedom of speech, allows homosexuality, pornography and other forms of corruption is absolutely not developed. It's in jahiliyyah.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what is so impressive about Kadhim's post that is quoted by the OP. The idea is that human's have become so developed and rational that they don't need a marji' leading them, they've become ''adults'' (or are nearly there) and should be left to ''take care of themselves''. If this is true, then we have no need for an Imam. When Imam Mahdi [aj] reappears he's not going to sit back as a kind of unofficial advisor; he's going to be THE ruler of the world. That's why the autonomous adult analogy fails. The Imam will always be the ''parent'' and we will always be the ''children'' obeying His orders without question. If the goal of maraji'iyyah is to produce Muslims with a mentality that they are ''rational'' enough to figure laws out for themselves (unlike the ''children'' at the time of the Prophet), then they are creating a mindset that thinks its smart enough not to need a Scholar to lead them. So then, why would they need an Imam? It's one thing to say that some scholars have got it wrong, and it's a completely different thing to say that society shouldn't be ruled by any scholar and left to people to figure things out for themselves, as they are so 'mature' they don't need scholars to lead them.

Here is the obvious difference.

The Imam will be accepted, obeyed and followed unconditionally because he is the direct representative of Allah and an infallible. The scholars who demand similar obedience from the citizens forget that they do not possess said characteristics.

I will only say yes to one dictatorship - the benign and just dictatorship of God's infallible representative. All other dictatorships are rejected.

To the followers of WF and other forms of theocracy, one of the characteristics of a developed nation is that it is ruled by Islamic Law, not man made laws. Countries in which all their laws decided based on what most people think (the majority being ignorant of fiqh) are do not meet this criterion. Even if they are wealthy, with a good healthcare system etc. A country that allows denigration of Prophets under freedom of speech, allows homosexuality, pornography and other forms of corruption is absolutely not developed. It's in jahiliyyah.

Exactly how many laws in Iran, except for a tiny set of hudood, are made by God and not fallible men? Most, in fact, almost entirely all criminal as well as civil laws are made by fallible men according to the need driven by national and situational contexts. Those laws do not come from God. For instance, which Islamic injunction calls for a ban on all foreigners from purchasing property in Islamic Republic of Iran? Which Islamic injunction requires the nationals of Iran to take abroad only a certain amount of foreign exchange? AN's oil rationing was according to which Islamic law? The point is: The process of lawmaking is universal and independent of one’s religious affiliations. Iran is no different in this respect. Mystifying this process and existing laws under the pretext of "Islamic Law" is stupid. Justifying the curtailment of individual rights in the name of "Islamic" governance is outright insane.

The matter of hudood is further complicated as most of the supposedly Islamic laws are not really hudood but ta'azeerat, which means that fallible judges get to decide the type and degree of punishment. Most of these Islamic punishments would fall under this category if you looked closely.

Introducing a small set of hudood into the law regime of a country does not make it Islamic overnight - not even after 30 years. It takes a lot more to become Islamic.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

This sits at the heart of the problem IMO. ..............................................................Change, for better or for worse, depending on one’s point of view, is indeed difficult, painful and at times violent.

you my bro are caught up in a straight jacket.

when will you try to learn and understand that what you have learnt and understood so far is not all wisdom. there is far more of it in the realms that you have not been privy to so far. that is why we have progression. progression is exploring with a positive attitude.

I actually hope this was "negatively" meant.. otherwise it says really unfortunate things about your intelligence :( You just keep showcasing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills as if they are virtues that a grown man should be proud of having

They aren't :(

you exposed yourself badly my bro/sis in that you did not even understand why shabbir should not be called shibby

and two

you should not be posting in these topics as you are biased according to the religion field you selected, and/but that is something called integrity

@bro kadhim

my utmost respect for you my bro for all the faults in your understanding so far.

but hey we are all not perfect and developing along the way and this development inshallah continues till we pass away

may Allah(swt) behaqe muhammad (pbuh) and ali muhammad (as) bless you my bro

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what is so impressive about Kadhim's post that is quoted by the OP. The idea is that human's have become so developed and rational that they don't need a marji' leading them, they've become ''adults'' (or are nearly there) and should be left to ''take care of themselves''. If this is true, then we have no need for an Imam. When Imam Mahdi [aj] reappears he's not going to sit back as a kind of unofficial advisor; he's going to be THE ruler of the world. That's why the autonomous adult analogy fails. The Imam will always be the ''parent'' and we will always be the ''children'' obeying His orders without question. If the goal of maraji'iyyah is to produce Muslims with a mentality that they are ''rational'' enough to figure laws out for themselves (unlike the ''children'' at the time of the Prophet), then they are creating a mindset that thinks its smart enough not to need a Scholar to lead them. So then, why would they need an Imam? It's one thing to say that some scholars have got it wrong, and it's a completely different thing to say that society shouldn't be ruled by any scholar and left to people to figure things out for themselves, as they are so 'mature' they don't need scholars to lead them.

To the followers of WF and other forms of theocracy, one of the characteristics of a developed nation is that it is ruled by Islamic Law, not man made laws. Countries in which all their laws decided based on what most people think (the majority being ignorant of fiqh) are do not meet this criterion. Even if they are wealthy, with a good healthcare system etc. A country that allows denigration of Prophets under freedom of speech, allows homosexuality, pornography and other forms of corruption is absolutely not developed. It's in jahiliyyah.

I don't see anything wrong in Kadhim's post quoted by the OP. He said in a respectful way what many of us think. I think you missed the point, no where did he say Imam will sit back etc in the contrary he clearly mentioned that we should prepare ourselves for the Imam's leadership. When I read his quoted post, the way he described the role of the marja'iyah, I immediately related it to the wise stand of Ayatullah Sistani-He's not sitting back and watching but not getting in the way either, he's doing his job as a marji3 issuing Islamic jurisprudence, giving his opinion for those who are concerned, not interfering with politic but voices his opinion, gives his advices, not dictating himself over others but is rather a peaceful wise Marji'. Many people (maybe even Kadhim) agree that Imam Khomeini's revolution was a must at the time and his leadership was needed for that time under the circumstances then however what came after, what was imposed after is where the conflict starts. Yes, an Islamic government would be the best if Imam Ali was the leader and if all his assistants were Malik Al-Ashatar. What we're trying to say is the current available Islamic government is not infallible and sometimes oppressive (Now don't rephrase my sentence saying Sayed Khamanei is an oppressor-NO far from it) but the zillion people in that government are of all sorts of fallible, many laws are very different the ones during the Prophet's leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you my bro are caught up in a straight jacket.

when will you try to learn and understand that what you have learnt and understood so far is not all wisdom. there is far more of it in the realms that you have not been privy to so far. that is why we have progression. progression is exploring with a positive attitude.

Aye, that would be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the followers of WF and other forms of theocracy, one of the characteristics of a developed nation is that it is ruled by Islamic Law, not man made laws. Countries in which all their laws decided based on what most people think (the majority being ignorant of fiqh) are do not meet this criterion. Even if they are wealthy, with a good healthcare system etc. A country that allows denigration of Prophets under freedom of speech, allows homosexuality, pornography and other forms of corruption is absolutely not developed. It's in jahiliyyah.

Aye, that would be a good idea.

(bismillah)

(salam)

marbles my bro did not want you to go away with the wrong idea for progression, so have highlighted the confines and the the exclusions.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

marbles my bro did not want you to go away with the wrong idea for progression, so have highlighted the confines and the the exclusions.

(wasalam)

Ws

Thank you for your concerns but brother I have already dealt with these progressive ideas in my previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ws

Thank you for your concerns but brother I have already dealt with these progressive ideas in my previous posts.

(bismillah)

(salam)

my bro what you call progressive are really regurgitating regressive ideas of the jahilliya

and you might be correct in so far as muslims are concerned but not fiqh jaffaria

do you see a difference between the two.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't figure how does adult and baby analogy makes any sense in the original post. If he meant we have become more civilized than before then it may be so. However If the human nature itself has become less fallible or the human nature has become adult too as you put it. I don't think so. are people drinking less wine than before ? are people committing less fornication than before ? are people betting less than before ? Prostitution has become less or more ? Have human become less lusty for sex, wealth etc than before ? I don't have exact words to explain due to lack of vocabulary. However What I am trying to imply that Human nature has not matured and might never will. Therefore we would always need a guide. Who has the power and authority to implement the Islamic laws. Therefore you can see Christianity lost total control and you can see despite being 'more civilized or adult as you said' they are merely on the verge of collapse in terms of social human values. their social system is the worst on the planet as compare to any poor islamic country.

Edited by Jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, the idea is this. People have developed to the point where they are capable of understanding and operating at a higher level.

A child obeys rules when his parents are watching out of fear of punishment or for desire for a cookie. A child listens in class because he doesn't want to get time out.

An adult does the right thing whether being watched or not because he has been convinced that the thing is in his benefit. An adult pays attention in class because he recognizes that learning is important and that listening will help him learn better.

You can't treat an adult like a child. They have higher capabilities and need to be respected as such.

Coming to the hysterical example give by one brother of pornography, homosexuality, attacking prophets, etc as things that can end up legalized if people are allowed to choose their own path in a democratic nation.

Tell me: If the stern eyes of the clerics and their first of enforcement are all that is keeping Iranians away from legalizing or heavily practicing all these things (and I reject as absurd the notion that this is the case), then what in the world have the clergy been doing for the past 30 years? If the Iranian people have not been brought to the point where they understand with the eye of rational certainty that these things are bad, and dislike them internally, then the revolution has frankly been a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even in an adult humanity, leadership is a good and useful thing. But a good leader needs good followers who can think for themselves and not need every minute detail explained and spoon fed to them. A leader with good followers can explain a broad course of policy action, peform some general assignment/delegation of tasks and responsibilities, and have the followers autonomously carry out the project. This is how great projects can be achieved.

And this is all consistent with a scholar-led theocracy. The scholar do/does not have to spell out every detail of policy, (and this certainly isn’t the case in Iran), but the guidance that is given has to be followed. So there is room for a degree of autonomy, but within an Islamic framework.

As to the relationship between believers and marjaiyyah, no, with all due respect, the analogy does not fail. Rather, you fail to apply the analogy.

When a child grows to adulthood, does his relationship with his parents end? Does his parent literally abandon the child? No.

The parent is there, with love and readiness to help. If the child has a question, a confusion that he wants clarified, the parent is more than happy to help. The parent is there. but the parent does not try to continue to control the adult child as once was done for the immature child. The parent will advise, gently, yet firmly. But the parent will accept and come to terms with the fact that, for better or for worse, the grown adult child has to chart his own path.

Your analogy, as is clear from your post, was not restricted to the relationship between believers and marjaiyyah. For example, you contrast the state of people today (adults) with those at the time of the Prophet and Imams (children). You say that the Imams suffered because of this child mentality, and that today people are no longer children. What does this maturity mean according to you? It means that people can now ‘take care of themselves’, and they don’t need scholars leading them. As I said, the analogy fails because people will have the Imam leading them, who they will have to follow to the letter. They won’t be ‘taking care of themselves’ when the Imam is here, and regard him as only a loving father, but as an absolute leader. The Imam will not have to ‘accept and come to terms with the fact, for better or for worse, the grown adult child has to chart his own path.’

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.

No, you quoted the unedited version of my post; I changed it (before you posted). What I meant was that a necessary condition of a developed country is that it is ruled by God’s laws.

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

True, you can’t stop that, but you can stop people from doing all of those things openly. In the same way that you can’t stop people fantasizing about rape or murder, you can make laws that punish people who rape and murder. Islamic laws aren’t restricted to rape, murder and homosexuality, but cover everything, even if only indirectly. We don’t decide that rape shouldn’t be allowed just because most people think so; we say it’s not allowed because it’s immoral, evil. Everything that islam prohibits is immoral, and so we should oppose all of these things as well, not keep it open to lay people to decide what halaal and haraam is.

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.

I don’t see any examples of this type of country you speak of. All I see is an Islamic world dominated by western backed dictators, who are too afraid to do anything that upsets their masters. All muslim countries are weak countries, and this weakness can easily be exploited by the West to make the country fall into line. The reason this hasn’t happened to Iran is because of the Islamic government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is all consistent with a scholar-led theocracy. The scholar do/does not have to spell out every detail of policy, (and this certainly isn’t the case in Iran), but the guidance that is given has to be followed. So there is room for a degree of autonomy, but within an Islamic framework.

It's not consistent beause it lacks a mandate from the people, the consent that gives legitimacy to a government. Proponents of the Iranian version of WF do not think this consent is even necessary; they believe that they rule by divine right.

As I said, the analogy fails because people will have the Imam leading them, who they will have to follow to the letter. They won’t be ‘taking care of themselves’ when the Imam is here, and regard him as only a loving father, but as an absolute leader. The Imam will not have to ‘accept and come to terms with the fact, for better or for worse, the grown adult child has to chart his own path.

I feel sad for you.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, the idea is this. People have developed to the point where they are capable of understanding and operating at a higher level.

A child obeys rules when his parents are watching out of fear of punishment or for desire for a cookie. A child listens in class because he doesn't want to get time out.

An adult does the right thing whether being watched or not because he has been convinced that the thing is in his benefit. An adult pays attention in class because he recognizes that learning is important and that listening will help him learn better.

You can't treat an adult like a child. They have higher capabilities and need to be respected as such.

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.

Edited by Jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, the idea is this. People have developed to the point where they are capable of understanding and operating at a higher level.

A child obeys rules when his parents are watching out of fear of punishment or for desire for a cookie. A child listens in class because he doesn't want to get time out.

An adult does the right thing whether being watched or not because he has been convinced that the thing is in his benefit. An adult pays attention in class because he recognizes that learning is important and that listening will help him learn better.

You can't treat an adult like a child. They have higher capabilities and need to be respected as such.

Coming to the hysterical example give by one brother of pornography, homosexuality, attacking prophets, etc as things that can end up legalized if people are allowed to choose their own path in a democratic nation.

Tell me: If the stern eyes of the clerics and their first of enforcement are all that is keeping Iranians away from legalizing or heavily practicing all these things (and I reject as absurd the notion that this is the case), then what in the world have the clergy been doing for the past 30 years? If the Iranian people have not been brought to the point where they understand with the eye of rational certainty that these things are bad, and dislike them internally, then the revolution has frankly been a failure.

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro kadhim people on the whole have not really developed, they have regressed

can one be more developed and adult than the martyrs of kerbala

the highest form of adulthood is total submission

the mercy of Allah(swt) is that he has never left us without a guide.

and if in an entire adult(islam) world the idea of punishment is absurd then prescriptions in islam for crossing certain hudood are an abject failure

on the one hand as you so put it.

but these prescriptions are a mercy of his adalah(justice) which is absolute, atoms weight.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam
No, you quoted the unedited version of my post; I changed it (before you posted). What I meant was that a necessary condition of a developed country is that it is ruled by God’s laws.

I still disagree. I am not saying religion is not essential to a developed country. In fact, religion is be the best way to strengthen the mores of society, bring people outside of themselves, and check the power and corruption of government. Being "ruled by Allah's laws" is another matter entirely.

True, you can’t stop that, but you can stop people from doing all of those things openly. In the same way that you can’t stop people fantasizing about rape or murder, you can make laws that punish people who rape and murder. Islamic laws aren’t restricted to rape, murder and homosexuality, but cover everything, even if only indirectly. We don’t decide that rape shouldn’t be allowed just because most people think so; we say it’s not allowed because it’s immoral, evil. Everything that islam prohibits is immoral, and so we should oppose all of these things as well, not keep it open to lay people to decide what halaal and haraam is.

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.

I don’t see any examples of this type of country you speak of. All I see is an Islamic world dominated by western backed dictators, who are too afraid to do anything that upsets their masters. All muslim countries are weak countries, and this weakness can easily be exploited by the West to make the country fall into line. The reason this hasn’t happened to Iran is because of the Islamic government.

Good.. because that was my point. There are no shining Middle Eastern examples.. and I won't digress by going into why I think there are no shining examples in the ME.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Jaf, I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point. We are not talking about lawlessness here. We are talking about common people, to a level they did not before, having the education and mental faculties to study and learn and understand what is helpful and harmful to their society, and what therefore should be allowed and not. If the people are leaning toward being soft on something that is socially harmful, having the maraja prevent it by force is not the only or even best solution when dealing with an educated, rational populace. Rather, the maraja can explain to the people in a rational, adult fashion why the thing should be avoided, relying on the people's basic sensibility and desire to do what is in their own best interest. If the maraja are not capable of convincing people in this rational fashion in Iran, again, I have to ask, what have the maraja been doing in these past decades?

Again, taking my analogy, when a child becomes an adult, he doesn't stop respecting his parents or taking their advice seriously. I'm not talking about people kicking the maraja to the curb. I'm talking about a voluntary relationship of seeking and giving advice based on people's respect for the integrity of the institution of marjaiyyah and the marjaiyyah's respect for the people's intelligence.

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro kadhim people on the whole have not really developed, they have regressed

can one be more developed and adult than the martyrs of kerbala

the highest form of adulthood is total submission

the mercy of Allah(swt) is that he has never left us without a guide.

and if in an entire adult(islam) world the idea of punishment is absurd then prescriptions in islam for crossing certain hudood are an abject failure

on the one hand as you so put it.

but these prescriptions are a mercy of his adalah(justice) which is absolute, atoms weight.

(wasalam)

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.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

Jaf, I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point. We are not talking about lawlessness here. We are talking about common people, to a level they did not before, having the education and mental faculties to study and learn and understand what is helpful and harmful to their society, and what therefore should be allowed and not. If the people are leaning toward being soft on something that is socially harmful, having the maraja prevent it by force is not the only or even best solution when dealing with an educated, rational populace. Rather, the maraja can explain to the people in a rational, adult fashion why the thing should be avoided, relying on the people's basic sensibility and desire to do what is in their own best interest. If the maraja is not capable of convincing people in this rational fashion in Iran, again, I have to ask, what have the maraja been doing in these past decades?

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point. We are not talking about lawlessness here. We are talking about common people, to a level they did not before, having the education and mental faculties to study and learn and understand what is helpful and harmful to their society, and what therefore should be allowed and not. If the people are leaning toward being soft on something that is socially harmful, having the maraja prevent it by force is not the only or even best solution when dealing with an educated, rational populace. Rather, the maraja can explain to the people in a rational, adult fashion why the thing should be avoided, relying on the people's basic sensibility and desire to do what is in their own best interest. If the maraja are not capable of convincing people in this rational fashion in Iran, again, I have to ask, what have the maraja been doing in these past decades?

Again, taking my analogy, when a child becomes an adult, he doesn't stop respecting his parents or taking their advice seriously. I'm not talking about people kicking the maraja to the curb. I'm talking about a voluntary relationship of seeking and giving advice based on people's respect for the integrity of the institution of marjaiyyah and the marjaiyyah's respect for the people's intelligence.

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.

Edited by Jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, I'm telling you. You're missing something somewhere. Human weakness in the face of temptation to sin doesn't bear on the intellectual ability to tell that something is harmful to society, and should therefore be prohobited.

The human weakness that leads drivers to speed when the cops aren't around doesn't prevent them from understanding that speeding can kill, and putting in place laws to forbid speeding and authorize enforcement of the laws.

Nevertheless, as i stated above, in my opinion human nature will most probably will overcome people's education. And they would most probably go astray despite being 'educated' without a Cleric.

I'm actually pretty shocked to hear you say this. Ironically, some people here accuse me of slandering the maraja or belittling them. But what you are basically saying is that the maraja are incapable of fulfilling their role of raising the moral state of the people through their powers of rational persuasion, unless they have hired goons to ensure compliance.

Whereas I on the other hand have great confidence in their abilities in this regard. Why do you have such a low opinion of our scholars' abilities?

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaf, I'm telling you. You're missing something somewhere. Human weakness in the face of temptation to sin doesn't bear on the intellectual ability to tell that something is harmful to society, and should therefore be prohobited.

The human weakness that leads drivers to speed when the cops aren't around doesn't prevent them from understanding that speeding can kill, and putting in place laws to forbid speeding and authorize enforcement of the laws.

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 :-}

Edited by Jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what my point is what you said above, why do they need police when people are educated enough to know speeding can kill and there are laws too that prohibits it. Cleric is playing the same role as Cops do. So in absence of the Cleric people will overspeed (more often) despite being educated :-}

No no no. You're mucking up legislation and enforcement. Two separate issues.Relevant here is people's intelligence to be able to legislate for themselves. As much as people like to speed and grumble about speeding tickets, as much as people drive with a few drinks in them, still, consistently, year after year, they step forward to pressure their lawmakers to pass tougher punishments on drunk driving and stricter speed restrictions because they know it serves the interests of public safety.

Edited by kadhim

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...