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  
5a49

With Or Against Wilayat Al Fakih

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLpuY--VlM

KHAMENEI VISITS THE QOM - THE CITY OF THE BIGGEST MARJA'S IN THE WORLD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__YxYHjJet8

Millions of believers in the city of Qom are screaming: "Down with the enemies of Waliyatul Faqeeh" right outside the houses (metaphorically) of the BIGGEST Marja's in the world including Ayatullah Saadiq Shiraazi(ha) and Ayatullah Roohani(ha) and Ayatullah Khoraasani(ha), May Allah(swt) PROTECT THEM ALL!

You must understand NOBODY (except a minority of lunatics) is AGAINST Wilayatul Faaqih - they may disagree with the extent of it - but NOBODY IS AN ENEMY OF IT!

May Allah(swt) teach the Shia how to be 1% like the Marja's they claim to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must understand NOBODY (except a minority of lunatics) is AGAINST Wilayatul Faaqih - they may disagree with the extent of it - but NOBODY IS AN ENEMY OF IT!

True, "Death to the enemies of Wilayat ul-Faqih" is a reference to those who fight against it and seek to undermine an independent Islamic government (and in truth are fighting Islam). A lot of people claim it means we wish death upon anybody who disagrees with the concept (which is far from the truth).

You can disagree all you want, but to this date I have not seen a more solid or successful implementation of Islamic government than I have in Iran. The system has done more for Muslims across the globe than anybody else.

May Allah (SWT) bless Sayyid al-Khamenei (HA) and the Islamic Revolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am wondeting why it is either with or against , coud i not be with but with disagreement or with but with conditions

wilayat alfaqeeh for OP info is not controversial amon shia scholars nor among shia pubic unless you dont have marj'e or you dont know whats wilyaha means

wilayat al faqeeh dose not equal to iranian political system

your qustion should be , do we agree or disaree with iranian political view of wilayat alfaqeeh from shia point of view or from human rights point of viwe or from democracy point of viwe you choose but please be specific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic sickens me now.

You ever notice how on SC we have these waves? That is, for a while we'll have some group come in with their cause and try to turn SC to being just about that cause? We've had it with the (pseudo) Akhabaris, sometimes the Wahhabis have come in, etc. Seems since that now banned user had his thread about the recent fatwa of Khamane'i, we've been having this topic, pushing WF, as the latest wave.

It'd be nice if we could get back to discussing our religion, instead of all these politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ever notice how on SC we have these waves? That is, for a while we'll have some group come in with their cause and try to turn SC to being just about that cause? We've had it with the (pseudo) Akhabaris, sometimes the Wahhabis have come in, etc. Seems since that now banned user had his thread about the recent fatwa of Khamane'i, we've been having this topic, pushing WF, as the latest wave.

It'd be nice if we could get back to discussing our religion, instead of all these politics.

Consdering this forum is "Politics, Current Issues and Headlines" I think we'll keep discussing politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You ever notice how on SC we have these waves? That is, for a while we'll have some group come in with their cause and try to turn SC to being just about that cause? We've had it with the (pseudo) Akhabaris, sometimes the Wahhabis have come in, etc. Seems since that now banned user had his thread about the recent fatwa of Khamane'i, we've been having this topic, pushing WF, as the latest wave.

It'd be nice if we could get back to discussing our religion, instead of all these politics.

Wow..

These ARE part of our religion. Get used to it.

There is no way you will get away with implementing your hidden agenda on these boards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen how the Sunni people (not meant as insult – Just an observation - to compare) stand on the political and religious platform of the world. This is because they do not have the concept of taqleed as we have in Shias.

Muslim world before the Shias, lost India to British and before that they lost Kashmir to Moguls as result of that jealousy, today large part of Kashmir is in the hands of India. India also succeeded in dividing Pakistan (east Pakistan is now Bangladesh). And Palestinian is now Jewish controlled Israel. Arabs had the wear the dunce cap of Yom-Kippur war (cape of Shame) for decades until Hezbullah turn the tables. Note, due to the absence of religious leadership (like in Shias) the Sunni Arab leaders are traitors to their own.

Also look at the fatwas amongst Sunni people. Every person preaching in the mosque thinks he is a qualified Alim in the Sunni world with rights to issue fatwa. This is because they do not have the concept of taqleed. You find hundreds of different rulings amongst sunnis (esp in Pakistan) from every imam who leads prayers in the mosque. Recently Saudi had to ban these, as things were going out of control.

The system of marjiyet, we have has kept us Shias on the best of discipline. We do not follow any Tom Diick and Harry.

Tomorrow in the Islamic world, if were to come under attack, who would we look towards to guide us into defence or indicate a different path to war? How would we know if the war is jaiz of haram – beneficial of harmful?

We should thank Allah (SWT) for sending the best of His servant (Muhammad (SAWWS) and his pious progeny who are the beacons of light.

We should Thank Allah for our Ulemah who are like Ambiah of bani Israel,

And for wali-e-faqih who guided us from the slavery (period of the tyrant Shah Reza pahalvi) and establish a true Islamic republic

and today for sayyied Ali Khameini who stands as our guardian and a guide on the political platform of this world.

Also thank Allah (SWT) for Sayyied Sistani who (behind the scenes) guided Iraq from the clutches of US.

After all this how can any person in his sane mind oppose our Ulamah, esp. the Wiliet-e-faqih?

My sermon for the day - any criticism ?????? :))

Edited by Ali Fazel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding it's intrinsic shortcomings, 'Leadership of the Jurisprudent' is the closest thing we have to the political system idealised in true Islam. I view the WF model of governance as set out by Imam Khomeini [qs] as a 'prototype' for the Imam's [aj] system. The WF element and its spiritual, impartial and supervisory function, provided the individual occupying the post of WF is just and possessive of wisdom and foresight, is of great benefit to the process of administration. It's my belief that had the post revolutionary system in Iran omitted the element of WF it would have, by now, deviated from its ideals and mutated into some deformed entity.

Perhaps it's suitable to use here an analogy from physics to illustrate the benefit of WF, now that Iran is a nuclear power! - The WF in its function should be viewed like the 'strong nuclear force'. This is the strongest (e.g. highest authority) of the four fundamental forces in the universe, acting within the atom (e.g. Iran) and its function is to hold together the subatomic particles (e.g. governing bodies); the protons an neutrons. Without this force the atom will not achieve its stability and form (e.g. Islamic goals).

As for the argument that politics and religion should not be intertwined, I must say this has always been a baffling conundrum for me. How can there be any justification for religion to be indifferent to politics? If the issue of justice and injustice is intrinsic to religion how is it possible to divorce religion from politics? When I hear people often make this assertion I stare and wonder whether they know anything at all about the object and meaning of religion, be it Islam, Christianity or something else.

justice and injustice is intrinsic to many religions yes (not all), but justice comes from God, not man.

you may be baffled by it, but for centuries it was the standard doctrine of Shia Twelver jurisprudence (known as Quietism) - that the clergy need not condescend to the worldly level of politics (which is filthy business by definition).

But mostly, people say politics and religion shouldn't mix, because of history - because of all the examples where religion has dominated politics, and how they've as a whole been much worse than secular liberal societies (Dark Ages in Christian Europe, Saudi Arabia, the North Korea of the last 20 years, Israel, Gaza, the Catholic Church, the Church of England - they're all abysmal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

justice and injustice is intrinsic to many religions yes (not all), but justice comes from God, not man.

All good qualities come from God, as per the Holy Qur’an, and man is His vicegerent. As such the very purpose of man’s existence is the reflection of these good qualities in his conduct with fellow man. Among those qualities is Justice. This is not disputable among any credible Islamic expert. Understood in this clear way the implications very evident and make politics, which is the administration of social justice, intrinsically tied to religion. There is no other way about it.

you may be baffled by it, but for centuries it was the standard doctrine of Shia Twelver jurisprudence (known as Quietism) - that the clergy need not condescend to the worldly level of politics (which is filthy business by definition).

I have always been against such a doctrine in principle and would have been had I lived centuries ago. Even so, we can rightfully argue that this group has been historically ‘quiet’ justifiably in view of their position as a minority and fear of persecution which has always been a problem for Shi’ahs. We can liken this to Taqqyia whereby the believer is permitted to conceal his faith because of fear for his life. However, this is not the same as permission for him to renounce his faith! In the same way, we should not liken justifiable instance of ‘quiteism’ in Islamic history to a permanent dissolution of political activity from religious life! This is a silly blunder and serves none but those who seek to turn Islam into a spineless way of life limited to within the confines of brick and mortar.

If we use the Ahlul-Bayt as a yardstick to settle this dispute all we have to do is study the positions of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain and Sayyida Zainab, among others. They were definitely political in principle even though at times they were forced by circumstances to adopt ‘quieter’ positions.

Hence, we can overall say that there are times when we ought to adopt lower political profiles (as a calculated ‘political’ decision) but this should not be mistakenly adopted by as an extreme ban on all political activity in society! When Muslims’ circumstances (e.g. Islamic Revolution of Iran) have changed to positions of strength then there is no justification for shunning political activity to retain their rights.

As for the idea that politics is dirty by definition, then this is true by the secular understanding. Islamic politics otherwise is one of responsibility and accountability before God and it definitely works on the condition that politicians are pious individuals and believers in the aforementioned accountability.

But mostly, people say politics and religion shouldn't mix, because of history - because of all the examples where religion has dominated politics, and how they've as a whole been much worse than secular liberal societies (Dark Ages in Christian Europe, Saudi Arabia, the North Korea of the last 20 years, Israel, Gaza, the Catholic Church, the Church of England - they're all abysmal).

This is definitely true and has been so for the larger part of history and it is hence not surprising that the impression of politics upon peoples’ minds has been painted negatively. But history also bears witness to the fact that when believers administered political life then this stereotype has not been true. Islamic politics is embodied in the personality of Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali and this diametrically opposed to the dirty politics which we understand today. You might say that the infallibles are an inimitable and unique exception. While this is true it does not preclude the fact that there have existed and still do exist fallible yet politically responsible individuals both among Muslims and non-Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have bot seen a better option than the WF in Iran. Now you could make some changes here and there so it cn be more popular with the people but it is a great government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good qualities come from God, as per the Holy Qur’an, and man is His vicegerent. As such the very purpose of man’s existence is the reflection of these good qualities in his conduct with fellow man. Among those qualities is Justice. This is not disputable among any credible Islamic expert. Understood in this clear way the implications very evident and make politics, which is the administration of social justice, intrinsically tied to religion. There is no other way about it.

I have always been against such a doctrine in principle and would have been had I lived centuries ago. Even so, we can rightfully argue that this group has been historically ‘quiet’ justifiably in view of their position as a minority and fear of persecution which has always been a problem for Shi’ahs. We can liken this to Taqqyia whereby the believer is permitted to conceal his faith because of fear for his life. However, this is not the same as permission for him to renounce his faith! In the same way, we should not liken justifiable instance of ‘quiteism’ in Islamic history to a permanent dissolution of political activity from religious life! This is a silly blunder and serves none but those who seek to turn Islam into a spineless way of life limited to within the confines of brick and mortar.

If we use the Ahlul-Bayt as a yardstick to settle this dispute all we have to do is study the positions of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain and Sayyida Zainab, among others. They were definitely political in principle even though at times they were forced by circumstances to adopt ‘quieter’ positions.

Hence, we can overall say that there are times when we ought to adopt lower political profiles (as a calculated ‘political’ decision) but this should not be mistakenly adopted by as an extreme ban on all political activity in society! When Muslims’ circumstances (e.g. Islamic Revolution of Iran) have changed to positions of strength then there is no justification for shunning political activity to retain their rights.

As for the idea that politics is dirty by definition, then this is true by the secular understanding. Islamic politics otherwise is one of responsibility and accountability before God and it definitely works on the condition that politicians are pious individuals and believers in the aforementioned accountability.

This is definitely true and has been so for the larger part of history and it is hence not surprising that the impression of politics upon peoples’ minds has been painted negatively. But history also bears witness to the fact that when believers administered political life then this stereotype has not been true. Islamic politics is embodied in the personality of Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali and this diametrically opposed to the dirty politics which we understand today. You might say that the infallibles are an inimitable and unique exception. While this is true it does not preclude the fact that there have existed and still do exist fallible yet politically responsible individuals both among Muslims and non-Muslims.

1) That's your opinion (that your religion exhorts you to be active politically). Very well. Still, you cannot prove to me from anywhere in the Qu'ran that any of the modern-day Ayatollahs ought to rule the political world.

2) Islamic politics are not dirty? Many of the most corrupt nations on earth are supposedly "Islamic" (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, and, yes, Iran)

3) Then how is it that the most just, and least corrupt countries politically today, are not Muslim countries? They are countries like Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia. It's got nothing to do with religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread. It gives us an idea of the enemies of Iran and the supporters of Iran.

This is why ***, and company get angry when they see these types of threads.

They hate seeing the high # of WF supporters on SC.

Edited by Haji 2003
Best not to personalise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is all about powers and authority. Politics is not bad. Politics itself is a neutral word. Don't confuse it with the acts of the dirty corrupt secular politicians.

If you think Islam is your way of life, would you prefer to be ruled by a person who knows nothing about God's law? A person who has the powers to force you and your society to do unislamic acts?

Edited by аli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is all about powers and authority. Politics is not bad. Politics itself is a neutral word. Don't confuse it with the acts of the dirty corrupt secular politicians.

If you think Islam is your way of life, would you prefer to be ruled by a person who knows nothing about God's law? A person who has the powers to force you and your society to do unislamic acts?

Politics is dirty. If it's not the politician himself, it will be people around them. Power attracts bad people.

If even in the caliphate of imam Ali as. people like Talha and Zubair were trying to get in, what chance do people like ayatollah Khamenei and president Ahmadinejad have not to attract bad people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is dirty. If it's not the politician himself, it will be people around them. Power attracts bad people.

If even in the caliphate of imam Ali as. people like Talha and Zubair were trying to get in, what chance do people like ayatollah Khamenei and president Ahmadinejad have not to attract bad people?

So what if power attracts bad people? It doesn't mean that good people should not be a leader.

The WF system try to minimize that possibility from taking place by regulate that the authorities should be held by scholars who have dedicated their life for Islam.

We cannot just wait to be oppressed by dhalimin.

Can we stay survived in disorganized condition but in the same time, the bathil people are already organized to exterminate the haq?

Edited by аli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Did Imam Ali have a magic wand during his political rule? Were all problems immediately solved? Was everything just perfect? So then why do the haters here have such an unrealistic expectation of the WF?

Because they are whiners and complainers who see the glass half empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if power attracts bad people? It doesn't mean that good people should not be a leader.

The WF system try to minimize that possibility from taking place by regulate that the authorities should be held by scholars who have dedicated their life for Islam.

We cannot just wait to be oppressed by dhalimin.

Can we stay survived in disorganized condition but in the same time, the bathil people are already organized to exterminate the haq?

The question was if politics is dirty.

By the way, I'm a supporter of WF.

Did Imam Ali have a magic wand during his political rule? Were all problems immediately solved? Was everything just perfect? So then why do the haters here have such an unrealistic expectation of the WF?

Because they are whiners and complainers who see the glass half empty.

Exactly my point.

With the exception of your last two sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question was if politics is dirty.

By the way, I'm a supporter of WF.

Exactly my point.

With the exception of your last two sentences.

That's really depends on how you define politics. I define politics as something all about power and authority.

Wikipedia has good article about the definition and etymology about politics.

You should give your vote "With" to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really depends on how you define politics. I define politics as something all about power and authority.

Wikipedia has good article about the definition and etymology about politics.

You should give your vote "With" to this thread.

This is what wikipedia says:

"Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens") is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society."

In my earlier post I stated that because bad people will try to meddle in state affairs, politics will become a dirty game. In the above definition I can see this confirmed in the 'special interest groups'.

Like how in the USA the zionist lobbies influence all politics. In Iran it would be the greens (who don't have much influence, but still they do). In his letters to his governers imam Ali a.s. warns them alot about staying pious, abstaining from evil deeds. Some of his governers were corrupted by power so he replaced them. If this can happen to him, I'm sure it can happen to ayatollah Khamenei.

I'm a basic member yet so I can vote, but when I can, I will vote 'with'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A small excerpt on opponents...First group is the Marbles group, second group is the macisaac group.

Opponents of Islamic governance can be divided into two major categories: The first of these are the supporters of secularism, who contend that religion must be completely separate from worldly affairs. In their eyes, the concept of a religious state is backward and outdated. They maintain that this model of political system must be confined to a time when human beings lacked the knowledge or experience to organize their social order and were in need of religion to arrange their legal, economic and cultural relationships. However, secularism is not a doctrine that merely addresses the relationship between religion and politics. Essentially, it is a radical approach to the role of religion and revelation in shaping human knowledge. Secular rationality maintains that the human intellect is capable of forming its own knowledge independent of revelation. According to this, reason in itself is self-sufficient and autonomous. Hence, mankind is capable of constructing natural and human sciences as well as philosophy, law and ethics without the aid of God or religion.

Secular thinking, therefore, leaves very little scope for religion. According to secularist thought, every instance in which the human intellect is capable of gaining knowledge exists as part of the exclusive realm of the human being, without any need for faith or revelation. Such reasoning constrains the role of religion to regulating the individual relationship between man and his creator, while isolating it from the social and political order. This is because social relationships form part of “human” affairs and not “divine” affairs; they are “extra-religious” as opposed to “intra- religious”. Law, economy and political decisions as well as the formations of our social structures and systems of rights and duties are all considered as merely dealing with the relationship between man and man, not man and God. Therefore, religion in these cases must delegate everything to human reasoning and science.

This concise overview of secular thinking illustrates that the reduction of secularism to a political doctrine, which purely insists on the separation of faith from politics, is incorrect. The isolation of religion from politics is but one of the many accomplishments of secular rationality. Advocates of this view insist on the disengagement of religion, not only from politics, but also from ethics, art, law, philosophy and the sciences. Consequently, they advocate not only a secular state, but secular laws, a secular culture, a secular science and so on.

Whereas the first approach delegates a limited scope for religion, the second group of opponents have no argument with those who believe it cannot be restricted to merely having a limited, fixed or previously determined capacity. In principle, they agree that no one has the right to confine the contents and the implementation of Islam to private life, or more precisely, to the individual relationship between man and God. The central concern of the second group, however, is that although Islam embodies certain values and ideas, it is not composed of both spirituality and politics. Thus it has not specified any particular form of government and Muslims are free to support any regime they desire.

So the fundamental distinction that arises between these two groups is that, while secularists argue that religion and politics must remain separate, the second faction contend that Islam does not in any way oblige it’s followers to establish it in the political realm. They attempt to demonstrate that Islam has no connection to politics by concentrating on the Holy Qur’an and early Islamic history, arguing that it is a purely spiritual doctrine, as opposed to a spiritual and political one. Secularists, on the other hand, focus on the demands of modernity, the inability of religion to conduct and organize the contemporary world, and its failure to overcome the complications presented by modernism. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify whether or not Islam compelled its followers to establish an Islamic government, and whether or not Islam is indeed capable of regulating modern society.

No credible Muslim thinker advocates the segregation of religion from worldly affairs, as the secular tradition would insist, reducing it to little more than a personal relationship between man and God. In fact, very few Islamic intellectuals appeal to secular rationality other than to insist on the separation of religion from socio-political relationships (i.e. restricting the scope of religion and extending the role of reasoning in public life). Although these thinkers do not explicitly call themselves secular, their attitudes towards the issue of Islam and politics obviously have common characteristics with those of secularists.

Edited by comrade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is not all about power and authority. These are dunya terms with limited value.

Read al-islam.org about politics. Wikipedia is trash.

http://www.al-islam....liticalthought/

What is your definition of politics?

Imam Khomeini (ra) said "Islam is politics or it is nothing".

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...