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  
Mazloom Mahdi

Wilayat-e-faqih Against Occultaion Of Imam Mahdi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear MysticKnight

I am not the claimer - the Imams are claiming all this:

Scholars are the Rulers over the People --- Imam Ali, not from me

Disobeying them is disobeying us and disobeying us is disobeying God, and is Shirk --- Imam Sadiq, not from me

As to the extent of their power, again, look to what they have said.

Imam Sadiq: if a dispute arises you are to refer to those who have knowledge of our narrations and teachings

Imam Mahdi: in your problems and difficulties you are to refer to the narrators

So, any religious difficulty or problem that we may have, we must refer them to the fuqaha.

Does "any" include the Constitution of an Islamic State in the time of Occultation? I think it does. And the Leader of such an Islamic State should be such a scholar? I think yes.

Imam Ali has said it all, and said it final: - The Scholars are the Rulers over the People.

How are we to dispute that?

(wasalam)

Salam bro

We can dispute it because hadiths are not infallible and there is a contradiction. There is to me an obvious contradiction between the hadiths that confine the Ulil-Amr to the Imams (as) and the hadiths that give the authority and command to the scholars.

If we go back to Quran, we can go back to the Imamate verse of Ibrahim (as). We know whom is a leader and to be followed per will of Allah would never be to whom commit injustice. It's confine to those free from thulm in their entire lives. Fuqaha are not such people, so how can they been given the mantle of leadership?

The Captaincy of the boat the sails by the name of Allah, the Leadership of that boat of believers, is confined to those whom would not ever commit thulm in their lives.

How is it that scholars are being given the mantle of leadership that has been confined as per the Imamate verse of Ibrahim (as)? How is they been given the mulkan atheema the exalted family of Ibrahim (as) were given which is said to binding obedience in our hadiths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Salam bro

We can dispute it because hadiths are not infallible and there is a contradiction. There is to me an obvious contradiction between the hadiths that confine the Ulil-Amr to the Imams (as) and the hadiths that give the authority and command to the scholars.

If we go back to Quran, we can go back to the Imamate verse of Ibrahim (as). We know whom is a leader and to be followed per will of Allah would never be to whom commit injustice. It's confine to those free from thulm in their entire lives. Fuqaha are not such people, so how can they been given the mantle of leadership?

The Captaincy of the boat the sails by the name of Allah, the Leadership of that boat of believers, is confined to those whom would not ever commit thulm in their lives.

How is it that scholars are being given the mantle of leadership that has been confined as per the Imamate verse of Ibrahim (as)? How is they been given the mulkan atheema the exalted family of Ibrahim (as) were given which is said to binding obedience in our hadiths?

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear MysticKnight

By disputing such hadiths,

Thus you dispute Marja'iyyah, the hadith of Hanzalah, the Sermon of Imam Huusain at Minaa, and more.

You also dispute the 'aqli reasons which say that if an Ulul-Amr rules you to obey x, to disobey x is to disobey the Ulul-Amr which is to disobey the Messenger and God Almighty.

In this Time of Occultation, if we don't obey Just, Pious Scholars, we will be forced to pursue unjust, sinful ignorants. This is what the system of WF is rejecting.

If you have a further comment, Insha'Allah I will read it tomorrow. Goodday/Goodnight.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear MysticKnight

Thus you dispute Marja'iyyah, the hadith of Hanzalah, the Sermon of Imam Huusain at Minaa, and more.

You also dispute the 'aqli reasons which say that if an Ulul-Amr rules you to obey x, to disobey x is to disobey the Ulul-Amr which is to disobey the Messenger and God Almighty.

In this Time of Occultation, if we don't obey Just, Pious Scholars, we will be forced to pursue unjust, sinful ignorants. This is what the system of WF is rejecting.

(wasalam)

Salam

I don't dispute the sermon of Mina, it's far to beautiful and exalted to be disputed, and I agree government is suppose to be in the hands of scholars, as well as it doesn`t contradict Quran but has confirmation on it. I don't disagree on this. I believe there is proof in this in Quran as well when Yusuf (as) says he should be given over the lands as he is hafeethan aleeem.

Those are the two characteristics neccessary to put over the land, hefth (safe guarding yourself and others from corruption) and ilm (knowledge and wisdom).

I do agree we are to refer our affairs to the Fuqaha, but, they have not been given the Command and Authority. The command and authority and mantle of leadership and binding obedience is the Imams (as) alone.

wa salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

I see dear MysticKnight

But then, if you accept that we are to refer to them in issue X

and they pass judgement (J) on issue X

we have a choice of obeying J or disobeying J.

If we are going to disobey J, what's the point of referring to them anyway.

If we are going to obey them sometimes and disobey them other times, isn't that just saying: we will obey them when we think it's right?

And if we are going to obey them always, isn't that Binding Obedience?

it makes sense for the Imams to want us to refer to scholars so that we obey them in all religious cases in the absence of the Imam. Otherwise, it would mean that we can pick for ourselves what we think is right. I hope I'm clear.

*Goodday/Goodnight :)

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I see dear MysticKnight

But then, if you accept that we are to refer to them in issue X

and they pass judgement (J) on issue X

we have a choice of obeying J or disobeying J.

If we are going to disobey J, what's the point of referring to them anyway.

If we are going to obey them sometimes and disobey them other times, isn't that just saying: we will obey them when we think it's right?

And if we are going to obey them always, isn't that Binding Obedience?

(wasalam)

Salam

I am talking about government being given to them. Otherwise, in all matters, it`s not obligatory to obey them. Also, people can overthrow the rulers be they scholars if they are corrupt, and it`s not binding obedience. Scholars can be corrupt. For decades the scholars have not told us to overthrow the governments and establish Islamic government but have told us to submit to those in power despite being corrupt. All this time, it`s obligatory to obey the scholars?

It`s only recently we see the sermon of mina and revolution of Imam Hussain (as) revived. Otherwise, this whole time, the scholars have not been commanding to the Maroof but instead telling us to obey the sultans. How can obedience be obligatory to them all this time.

Khomeini was a unique scholar. It`s not like the scholars have been commanding towards revolution and teachings of the sermon of mina all this timeÉ Also there are things in the Islam scholars teach that contradict the Quran. I don`t want to get into detail of this, but, again, binding following is not obligatory in religion. We can check Quran and Sunnah, and reject what scholars tells us if it contradicts Quran and Sunnah.

Really it`s the maroof we have to obey, and scholars are suppose to command the maroof, but they don`t always do. In fact, the sermon of mina shows the scholars were failing their duty at that time, so how can obedience be obligatory to the scholars, whom submitted the religion ot the Sultans of theri times. how can it be while they failed their duty as scholars?

It`s the maroof that is obligatory, as for Imams, we know all they command is good and must be obeyed, but the same is not true of scholars. That is why the mulkan atheem and Imamate is confined to the elected souls. Everyone else can command to maroof, but it`s the maroof in itself that is to be obeyed. However Imams are in themselves to be obeyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Jebreil,

You miss read what I wrote in regards to the fifth hadith you cited.

I am quoting here for the convince of discussion and the reader.

"5. When Imam Ja'far Sadiq (as) was asked about the problems, which are referred to despotic administration for decision he said, "Referring to these departments is very bad because it is referring to the despot and if someone gets back his right from these despotic departments it becomes unlawful. On such occasions however, it is your duty to refer to those people who know our teachings and narrations fully well, because I declare them as the Qazi (Judge) for you. Thus you should remember that if this jurist has given you his decision and you consider it worthless it is as if you have considered the Divine command as worthless. If anyone disobeys these jurists, it is as if he has disobeyed us, and whosoever disobeys us, has in fact disobeyed Allah and this action amounts to polytheism""

This hadith is referring to specific matters, namely contract disputes, and disputes over inheritance. It does not refer to general matters. This was my point. That the hadith is more limited in scope than the proponents of the current system of WF as practiced in Iran would like it to be.

And as far as your second point goes, you have not presented any reasoning as to why this is the case, when authority is given to a broad group they then have the authority to make a selection from amongst themselves. The appointment of judges is often cited. Is there an example in which the judges appointed by the Imam (aj), then turned around and select from themselves a chief judge? If there is please inform us.

If I have misunderstood the nature of the claim of being someone's representative, then enlighten me. It has been claimed so far that the WF exercises authority over all aspects of society, the function of the government, the operations of the military, foreign affairs, etc. In what regard is the WF not claiming all the authority of the Imam (aj)? If one points to, "well you can still follow whom ever you want with regards to how to pray, etc." then this seems to be a rather small concession when the issue is how the government is structured.

And the flaw in your reason here, "You also dispute the 'aqli reasons which say that if an Ulul-Amr rules you to obey x, to disobey x is to disobey the Ulul-Amr which is to disobey the Messenger and God Almighty. " is that you forget to mention that the matter when presented to Imam Sadiq (as) was regarding a and b issues in relation to a dispute between P and D, and that it was P and D who were told to obey the decision with rega5rds to matters a and b. This is far different from the formulation which you have provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Salam

I am talking about government being given to them. Otherwise, in all matters, it`s not obligatory to obey them. Also, people can overthrow the rulers be they scholars if they are corrupt, and it`s not binding obedience. Scholars can be corrupt. For decades the scholars have not told us to overthrow the governments and establish Islamic government but have told us to submit to those in power despite being corrupt. All this time, it`s obligatory to obey the scholars?

It`s only recently we see the sermon of mina and revolution of Imam Hussain (as) revived. Otherwise, this whole time, the scholars have not been commanding to the Maroof but instead telling us to obey the sultans. How can obedience be obligatory to them all this time.

Khomeini was a unique scholar. It`s not like the scholars have been commanding towards revolution and teachings of the sermon of mina all this timeÉ Also there are things in the Islam scholars teach that contradict the Quran. I don`t want to get into detail of this, but, again, binding following is not obligatory in religion. We can check Quran and Sunnah, and reject what scholars tells us if it contradicts Quran and Sunnah.

Really it`s the maroof we have to obey, and scholars are suppose to command the maroof, but they don`t always do. In fact, the sermon of mina shows the scholars were failing their duty at that time, so how can obedience be obligatory to the scholars, whom submitted the religion ot the Sultans of theri times. how can it be while they failed their duty as scholars?

It`s the maroof that is obligatory, as for Imams, we know all they command is good and must be obeyed, but the same is not true of scholars. That is why the mulkan atheem and Imamate is confined to the elected souls. Everyone else can command to maroof, but it`s the maroof in itself that is to be obeyed. However Imams are in themselves to be obeyed.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear MysticKnight

If you know something to be against Qur'an and Sunnah - and knowing means "yaqeen" in this case - then yes, of course, you must never follow it. Insha'Allah nobody of the Shi'a do such a thing.

However, if you do know something to be against Qur'an and Sunnah, doesn't that suppose that you are knowledgeable in the relevant area of Qur'an and Sunnah, and therefore a Faqih in your own right?

And if you are a Faqih/Scholar in your own right, you become an authority in that part - at least for yourself.

However, for those of us who do not know there are 2 options - to learn by ourselves, and this is not always possible - or to follow a scholar completely in what he knows and we don't know.

If a person who does not know, listens to scholars who know, and then acts against because of his or her own discretion is indeed committing a mistake - even if he is right. Because his right is not based on true fiqh, but based on his own uneducated understanding.

Now, assuming we don't know an issue (so we no longer no Ma'roof - and therefore we are not a Faqih/scholar) we go to the scholastic community, If there are scholars who differ - say Ayt. X and Ayt. B - then indeed you are free to choose. But the criteria is not to choose based on what they say, but based on their reputation of knowledge, justice, and piety.

And where does this reputation come from? Not from people who have no knowledge, justice or piety - but by similar scholars.

Therefore, we are advised to follow the most reputable scholar and follow him. This is in all Risaalah books and it is an 'aqli truth: If you don't know yourself, trust the person that is widely reputed to know the best.

The WF theory is an attempt for reputable scholars (elected by the people) to select an even more reputable scholar to lead the entire community.

If they don't do so, who will lead the community? Someone other than the most reputable of the reputable scholars. This is a fact.

----------------------------------

- æóÌóÜÏöáúåõã ÈöÇáøóÊöì åöìó ÃóÍúÓóäõ

"And argue with them with what is best..." - Holy Qur'an

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Brother Jebreil,

You miss read what I wrote in regards to the fifth hadith you cited.

I am quoting here for the convince of discussion and the reader.

"5. When Imam Ja'far Sadiq (as) was asked about the problems, which are referred to despotic administration for decision he said, "Referring to these departments is very bad because it is referring to the despot and if someone gets back his right from these despotic departments it becomes unlawful. On such occasions however, it is your duty to refer to those people who know our teachings and narrations fully well, because I declare them as the Qazi (Judge) for you. Thus you should remember that if this jurist has given you his decision and you consider it worthless it is as if you have considered the Divine command as worthless. If anyone disobeys these jurists, it is as if he has disobeyed us, and whosoever disobeys us, has in fact disobeyed Allah and this action amounts to polytheism""

This hadith is referring to specific matters, namely contract disputes, and disputes over inheritance. It does not refer to general matters. This was my point. That the hadith is more limited in scope than the proponents of the current system of WF as practiced in Iran would like it to be.

And as far as your second point goes, you have not presented any reasoning as to why this is the case, when authority is given to a broad group they then have the authority to make a selection from amongst themselves. The appointment of judges is often cited. Is there an example in which the judges appointed by the Imam (aj), then turned around and select from themselves a chief judge? If there is please inform us.

If I have misunderstood the nature of the claim of being someone's representative, then enlighten me. It has been claimed so far that the WF exercises authority over all aspects of society, the function of the government, the operations of the military, foreign affairs, etc. In what regard is the WF not claiming all the authority of the Imam (aj)? If one points to, "well you can still follow whom ever you want with regards to how to pray, etc." then this seems to be a rather small concession when the issue is how the government is structured.

And the flaw in your reason here, "You also dispute the 'aqli reasons which say that if an Ulul-Amr rules you to obey x, to disobey x is to disobey the Ulul-Amr which is to disobey the Messenger and God Almighty. " is that you forget to mention that the matter when presented to Imam Sadiq (as) was regarding a and b issues in relation to a dispute between P and D, and that it was P and D who were told to obey the decision with rega5rds to matters a and b. This is far different from the formulation which you have provided.

(bismillah

(salam)

Brother Abu Muntazer

The 'aqli reason was not referring to Imam Sadiq's command, but to Imam Mahdi's command in which all future problems were to be asked of the Narrators as there were "the hujjah of them as they were the hujja of Allah (Swt)".

If they command us to refer to them and obey them, we must obey them.

As for the question of the Group of Scholars then electing another, I will take a look.

As for the Hadith relating to Inheritance and the like, it is partly false - the person who asked (ibn Hanzalah) surely asked about inheritance and the like, but Imam Sadiq replied that "in cases of Haq and Baatil, things should be referred to those who know our ruling, whom I declare as judges..."

But don't you see - I can argue this way, saying that this is what is meant, and you can argue that way, saying that is not meant. But, in the end, am I qualified? Do I know Qur'an and Sunnah that well? Perhaps you do brother, and I commend you for that. But if I - someone who doesn't know - had to choose a scholar to listen to, I would choose someone amongst the more reputable Fuqaha - and in 1979, Imam Khomeini's reception in Iran and 1989, his massive funeral, his simple lifestyle, his ma'rifah, his humility, his beautiful words, showed that he was 1 if not the most reputable scholar - amongst the people and amongst the scholars.

This man derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah, such a theory: WF.

I feel more obliged to trust his understanding of this hadith than almost all - if not all - people on Shiachat. Not because he is the late Great Imam Khomeini 2010. But because he is Haj Agha Ruhollah 1979 who did what he did, and how he was respected, for his knowledge, justice and piety.

That is why we need scholars - to resolve disputes between us. And I think, for me, Khomeini was a great authority in Islamic Governance - and therefore, he resolved our dispute for me. That hadith does apply to support WF-theory. Your understanding of the hadith may not. But your understanding does not meet the criteria set down by the Imams - his has a chance.

Imam Ali: Scholars are Rulers.

Imam Huusain: Scholars are Enforcers of the Law.

Imam Mahdi: Refer to our Narrators.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

It`s the maroof that is obligatory, as for Imams, we know all they command is good and must be obeyed, but the same is not true of scholars. That is why the mulkan atheem and Imamate is confined to the elected souls. Everyone else can command to maroof, but it`s the maroof in itself that is to be obeyed. However Imams are in themselves to be obeyed.

Bismillah,

íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÃóØöíÚõæÇ Çááøóåó æóÃóØöíÚõæÇ ÇáÑøóÓõæáó æóÃõæáöí ÇáúÃóãúÑö ãöäúßõãú ۖ ÝóÅöäú ÊóäóÇÒóÚúÊõãú Ýöí ÔóíúÁò ÝóÑõÏøõæåõ Åöáóì Çááøóåö æóÇáÑøóÓõæáö Åöäú ßõäúÊõãú ÊõÄúãöäõæäó ÈöÇááøóåö æóÇáúíóæúãö ÇáúÂÎöÑö ۚ Ðóٰáößó ÎóíúÑñ æóÃóÍúÓóäõ ÊóÃúæöíáðÇ {59}

[shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

There are those people who fall in this category of "íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ " who obey Allah and His Rasul and Ulil Amri... therefore the maroof is also embbed in their souls (even though as NOT the same as Rasul and Ulil Amr)... give them the fullest respect and to some extend an obedience because Allah call them a "Believer" and they always return to Allah and the Rasul.

Layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Brother Jebreil,

You miss read what I wrote in regards to the fifth hadith you cited.

I am quoting here for the convince of discussion and the reader.

"5. When Imam Ja'far Sadiq (as) was asked about the problems, which are referred to despotic administration for decision he said, "Referring to these departments is very bad because it is referring to the despot and if someone gets back his right from these despotic departments it becomes unlawful. On such occasions however, it is your duty to refer to those people who know our teachings and narrations fully well, because I declare them as the Qazi (Judge) for you. Thus you should remember that if this jurist has given you his decision and you consider it worthless it is as if you have considered the Divine command as worthless. If anyone disobeys these jurists, it is as if he has disobeyed us, and whosoever disobeys us, has in fact disobeyed Allah and this action amounts to polytheism""

This hadith is referring to specific matters, namely contract disputes, and disputes over inheritance. It does not refer to general matters. This was my point. That the hadith is more limited in scope than the proponents of the current system of WF as practiced in Iran would like it to be.

And as far as your second point goes, you have not presented any reasoning as to why this is the case, when authority is given to a broad group they then have the authority to make a selection from amongst themselves. The appointment of judges is often cited. Is there an example in which the judges appointed by the Imam (aj), then turned around and select from themselves a chief judge? If there is please inform us.

If I have misunderstood the nature of the claim of being someone's representative, then enlighten me. It has been claimed so far that the WF exercises authority over all aspects of society, the function of the government, the operations of the military, foreign affairs, etc. In what regard is the WF not claiming all the authority of the Imam (aj)? If one points to, "well you can still follow whom ever you want with regards to how to pray, etc." then this seems to be a rather small concession when the issue is how the government is structured.

And the flaw in your reason here, "You also dispute the 'aqli reasons which say that if an Ulul-Amr rules you to obey x, to disobey x is to disobey the Ulul-Amr which is to disobey the Messenger and God Almighty. " is that you forget to mention that the matter when presented to Imam Sadiq (as) was regarding a and b issues in relation to a dispute between P and D, and that it was P and D who were told to obey the decision with rega5rds to matters a and b. This is far different from the formulation which you have provided.

(bismillah)

(salam)

I am writing this because I wanted to polish my argument from my previous post, and add arguments.

Brother Abu Muntazer

The 'aqli reason was not referring to Imam Sadiq's command, but to Imam Mahdi's command in which all future problems were to be asked of the Narrators as there were "the hujjah of them as they were the hujjah of Allah (Swt)".

If they command us to refer to them and obey them, we must obey them.

--------------------------------------

As for the question of the Group of Scholars then electing another, I will take a look.

--------------------------------------

As for the Hadith from Imam Sadiq - there are mistakes in your interpretation:

1. The Imam's Judgement is not about a dispute between 2 particular persons

2. The Imam's Judgement is not about a dispute on 2 particular issues

Regarding the 1st point: the Shia asks the Imam about solving a particular dispute in a Despotic/Taghut/UnGodly system - the Imam replies that all of the Shia must refer to those who know the Narrations and the Halaal and Haraam of Ahlulbayt (as) and know their Laws.

This is clear because the Imam says: "Any one("man") who goes to the Taghut, their judgement (the Taghut's) is baatil" - invalid.

Regarding the 2nd point: the Shia (ibn Hanzalah) surely asked about inheritance and the like, but Imam Sadiq replied that "in cases of Haq and Baatil, things should be referred to those who know our ruling, whom I declare as judges..."

------------------------

An Important Note

This is the hadith - and I understand it this way - and you understand it that way. Let me presume that we are both uneducated in fiqh. Where do we go? To those who are more knowledgeable in fiqh. The majority of the greatest qualified Fuqahaa are either pro-WF or silent on it. And more importantly, the fact that we have to go to the Fuqahaa to better understand our Laws (and of course, Good Government is based on nothing but Law), it means that in all Governmental issues - at least on the Constitutional level - the Fuqahaa have a right over us.

There is no disputing that "he who knows more in x has greater right to pass judgement on x than he who knows less" - our minds testify to this, our actions must testify to this as well. Our actions will only testify to this if and only if we submit to the "he who knows more in x".

And so don't you see Brother - I can argue this way, saying that this is what is meant, and you can argue that way, saying that is not meant. But, in the end, am I qualified? Do I know Qur'an and Sunnah that well? Perhaps you do brother, and I commend you for that. But if I - someone who doesn't know - had to choose a scholar to listen to, I would choose someone amongst the more reputable Fuqaha - and in 1979, Imam Khomeini's reception in Iran and 1989, his massive funeral, his simple lifestyle, his ma'rifah, his humility, his beautiful words, showed that he was 1 if not the most reputable scholar - amongst the people and amongst the scholars.

This man derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah, such a theory: WF.

I feel more obliged to trust his understanding of this hadith than almost all - if not all - people on Shiachat. Not because he is the late Great Imam Khomeini 2010. But because he is Haj Agha Ruhollah 1979 who did what he did, and how he was respected, for his knowledge, justice and piety.

That is why we need scholars - to resolve disputes between us. And I think, for me, Khomeini was a great authority in Islamic Governance - and therefore, he resolved our dispute for me. That hadith does apply to support WF-theory. Your understanding of the hadith may not. But your understanding does not meet the criteria set down by the Imams (reportedly high fiqhi knowledge) - his has a chance.

Imam Ali: Scholars are Rulers.

Imam Huusain: Scholars are Enforcers of the Law.

Imam Mahdi: Refer to our Narrators.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argue according to their intelligence.

This question - who are you to disagree may I ask? - was asked of me by you. It was your way of arguing against my claim that Imam Khomeini meant something else. You were trying to show that Imam Khomeini was more authority in WF matters than I was - and that therefore, I should agree with him.

I used this same reasoning brother. I was trying to show that Imam Khomeini was more authority in religious matters (fiqhi - hadith - seerah - ma'rifah - etc) than you are - and so, by token of the same argument, you should agree with him,

If you think this line of reasoning is not intelligent, why do you employ it against others?

According to your line of reasoning, who ever is the WFM of Iran, past or present should not be disagreed with. Unfortunately for you, I do disagree, as many others have, some including great scholars who were brutally silenced and some whom even perished. Many scholars even today disagree with the WFM, and many others are silent, distancing themselves. Does that mean all these scholars are wrong and lack the necessary education to comprehend what your camp is advocating. Then again it is the IRI constitution which legalises one to assume, so I guess you will assume that to be true.

Let me outline and make something clear:

The Meaning of WFM - Absouloute Authority to Govern

The Meaning of Marjah - to emulate, to follow

Bro Jebreil, I has several times in this thread explicitly stated that the topic of discussion is the WFM. I see you have also fallen in the same trap and are confusing what a marja is from the one who assumes to be WFM. A marja does not naturally hold the position to be WFM unless he is elected (according to the IRI constitution) in to office to assume wilayat and the responsibilities it holds. WFM has authority over the ummah including others marja's. The WFM can make governmental orders which are directly against obligatory acts. The WFM assumes the full responsibilities of the true Imam in his absance. A marja on the other hand leads those who choose to follow him in non governmental issues. This is just to make a correct distinction that my claim is against the usurped position of the WFM, which the IRI constitution sets the 'legal' grounds for a fallible man to assume the position of WFM. I have made this point several times during this thread. Now back to the discussion.

"without being appointed by the Infallible Imam"

This is not true. The WF is indirectly appointed by the Imam. Fact. Proof?

Lets see if your claims are true, that a WFM is 'indirectly appointed' by the imam.

1. Imam Hussain 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)

Keypoints

1: The hadith 'quotes', scholars, persons, these and people. All are plural

2: The hadith clearly defines limitation to 'do not make any changes in the Divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things' (obligatory acts)

Bro jebreil, did you even read and understand the hadith before you decided to share this with all of us? It truly is hurtful that our shia are quoting from Imam Hussain as but then change its meaning to imply and assume something else. This is classed as deception!

The hadith is clearly advocating scholars more than one. Its not marginalising its context to a single person but is defining the context to as many whom are scholars, god fearing and pious persons. What is even fascinating is the limitation the hadith states 'do not make any changes in the Divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things''

now let me quote what one of the responsibilities the current usurped WFM has;

Unlike conditional authority (Wilayat al-muqayada) that restricts the right of the faqih for issuing governmental orders solely in permissibility cases (mubahat), Wilayat al- mutlaqa, by definition, is a juridical view concerning the dominion of the just faqih to issue governmental orders even if it is in opposition with some obligatory Islamic laws

How can you even suggest the hadith is 'indirectly appointing' a WFM when it contradicts with the scope of responsibility the usurped WFM enjoys. This has become some what shameful and its not your fault bro Jebreil as its the IRI whom advocate it, and the rest are to accept it as gold .In the hands of spin doctors, they can make it mean what ever they want it to mean.

2. Imam Ali says, "Scholars are the rulers of the people". (Ghurarul Hikam, quoted from al- Hayat, vol. II, p. 293)

Again this hadith is talking about scholar's as in 'plural'. This hadith is clearly not 'indirectly appointing' a WFM but is defining a group or class of people whom are scholars.

3. Imam Kazim said: "Jurists are the fortresses of Islam"

again its plural in meaning so not indirectly even assuming to appoint a WFM.

4. The Holy Prophet (SAW) said, "Scholars are the successors of the Prophets". (Wasa'il, vol. XVIII, chapter 11)

Again scholars as 'plural' and no mention the WFM

5. When Imam Ja'far Sadiq was asked about the problems, which are referred to despotic administration for decision he said, "Referring to these departments is very bad because it is referring to the despot and if someone gets back his right from these despotic departments it becomes unlawful. On such occasions however, it is your duty to refer to those people who know our teachings and narrations fully well, because I declare them as the Qazi (Judge) for you. Thus you should remember that if this jurist has given you his decision and you consider it worthless it is as if you have considered the Divine command as worthless. If anyone disobeys these jurists, it is as if he has disobeyed us, and whosoever disobeys us, has in fact disobeyed Allah and this action amounts to polytheism".

Imam Ja'far Sadiq is telling the shia to 'refer to those' who know our teachings and narrations It also mentions 'these jurists' which is evident that this hadith is not 'indirectly appointing' a WFM. A key point here is, ' refer to the hadith and teachings of the ahlulbayt' and nothing more.

And last but not least:

Cant wait!

6. The living Imam Mahdi (ATF) with his own hand wrote in reply to a letter: "You should refer to our narrators about your problems and difficulties for they are our argument and proof on you just as we are the argument and proof of Allah".

In this hadith it clearly states narrators (mohadith). Those who narrate hadith and are expert in its sciences. It is not advocating that one must refer to a faqih for jurispundance, but the imam is telling the shia to refer to the narrators of the hadith The narrators are also used as plural. So no mention 'indirect appointment' of a WFM.

Bro Jebreil its evident from the above that all the hadith that you have brought forward are in no way directly or indirecly appointing a WFM. All the above hadith are in favour of taqlid which is a different topic altogether. I have told you, the pro WFM camp not to confuse the two, but you still do so. I don't know if its because you have not understood what you believe in, or if it's a case that you do know but are intentionally, knowingly and deliberately deceiving people. Only Allah knows best and may he guide us.

Its Also very clear from the first hadith, that scholars are given a direct order of limitation, and as we know WFM can act beyond that limitation. The imam has only designated a level of duties to the scholars. Bearing in mind the limitation of duties outlined in the hadith, it would be illogical and a crime for one to assume or to imply, 'he has been designated authority to assume authority, which is much greater in scope, then that which has been designated to him'.

From these hadiths only this can be established:

The scholars - narrators - jurists are the rulers - arbiters over the people in all problems and difficulties and they are successors to the Prophet and they are the hujjah of the Ahlulbayt as they are the hujjah of Allah (swt).

That's correct if your promoting taqlid, but its in no way indirectly appointing a WFM. All the hadith you have mentioned above are plural in context and none of the hadith are telling us to be obedient to just one person (how ironic) Its also evident from the first hadith, that there is a restriction and limitation on the scholars, which the WFM position falls beyond. So in no way an argument for 'indirect appointment' of WFM.

And once these Fuqaha appoint 1 amongst themselves to lead the Ummah, doesn't this appointment indirectly come from the Imams as per these hadiths?

Nope it doesn't. The hadith clearly tell's us to follow, the narrator's of hadith and the scholars who advocate the teachings of the Ahlulbayt. It is obligatory on us to follow the teachings of the Ahlulbayt nothing more and nothing less. From this we can gather it is haraam for us to follow that which is not part of the teachings of the Ahlulbayt. So its is correct to say, that the current system is against the teachings of the Ahlulbayt, how?

The Ahlulbayt didn't tell us, that the public should firstly choose from them a group of experts and then this group of experts will elects a fallible man to assume the absolute authority to govern the muslim ummah and assume all the imams functions and responsibility. The Ahlulbayt have not told the scholars to consult amongst themselves and then act on what they assume is advisable. The Ahlulbayt have mad it clear, that follow those pious scholars and narrators who narrate our hadith and teachings. The teachings of the Ahlulbayt and their hadith, do not tell the scholars to assume or to imply or to act on what they think is correct, but only to act according to their teachings and hadith. I hope now you can see the crime for what it is! Those clerics who assume WFM are doing so, according to there personal thoughts and not according to the teachings of the hadith or Ahlulbayt.

Now let me give you an example:

People are categorically told, to refer and to follow the medical advisors union based solely on the medical advisors journal (the journal has a strict but clear code of conduct). Now does this give the foundation for the medical advisors union to assume and appoint one amongst themselves as a medical surgeon which is much higher in responsibility and functions because they think its right? of course it doesn't. The level of duties and power of the medical advisors union is limited to the framework he is allowed to work in. It in no way gives them authority to appoint one to a higher authority. It would also be a crime if the medical advisors union take it upon themselves to assume greater authority and act as full fledged surgeons.

The WF is indirectly appointed by the Imam. Fact. Proof?

It has become evidently clear, there are no facts or proof to back the claim WFM has been 'indirectly appointed by the Imam himself. What is clear, some scholars have taken the responsibility on themselves to ASSUME the WFM has been appointed by the Imam. There is a massive difference from assumption and proof. Everything you have provided is based on assumption as is the very concept of the current WFM system.

It's just unbelievable how the IRI are deliberately misguiding the shia. The worst part is the constitution, which actually legalises one to ASSUME the WFM position, without being specifically appointed or designated by the Imam, as there is no facts or proof to make a legitimate claim.

Another point bro Jebreil, just for the sake of it, lets pretend for 1 second and 1 second only, there is indirect appointment. If so, then why does the constitution need use the word 'assumed' for one to accept the position of WFM. How silly of them to word the constitution for such an important role with the word 'assume'. This is further evidence that the current WFM has no permission from the imam to act as the WFM and is all based on the foundation of assumption and speculation. The imams told the scholars to narrate their hadith and teachings. not to speculate and assume.

Now let me again quote what the esteemed Imami school of thought has documented and preached since the occultation of the Imam, which is different to what the modern clerics belive, the difference being the modern clerics allows one to assume the position of WFM.

(1) Wilayat al-Mutlaqa (The Absolute Authority)

According to textual evidences, such as verse 6 of Chapter 33 of the Qur’an, Imami scholars believe that the Prophet and Imams have divine authority over the people. The verse states that the Prophet has more rights over the believers than they have over themselves; thus his discretionary authority is effective amongst the people. This same authority, according to Shi’a beliefs, is also bestowed upon the Imams.

(2)The absolute authority and guardianship of Allah (Wilayat al-mutlaqih) forms a central pillar of Imami political thought, which maintains that whoever wishes to exercise this authority must be appointed by Him (Allah). It is this idea that distinguishes Imamism from all other political theories and even other sects of Shi’ism; because although all schools of Shi’a thought agree that the Imam is subject to divine appointment through the Prophet, only Imamism tries to sustain this approach under circumstances when the infallible Imam is absent. In this doctrine, it is Allah alone who holds the absolute authority and He has EXPLICITLY appointed the Prophet and a number of believers (his family, i.e. the Ahlul-Bayt) as guardians (Wali), who are entrusted with authority over the Muslims.

(3) Wilayat al- mutlaqa, by definition, is a juridical view concerning the dominion of the just faqih to issue 'GOVERNMENTAL' orders even if it is in opposition with some obligatory Islamic laws.

All that which is present above is not an assumption. It categorically states Allah is absolute authority which he has given to the Ahlulbayt. If Allah has made his appointing for the Ahlulbayt so clear and evident due to the divine nature of the position, then why didn't the infallible's also leave clear evidence? (did they fail to notify us, nadobillah that we are left to assume and speculate)

It is a fact the clerics of Iran are assuming authority and they are also not denying it, and openly claim the right to assume the functions and responsibilities of the Imam

Please read the following statement which is from the WFM camp:

(1) It is legally established that a just faqih is able to mediate disputes and judge in legal cases. (2) Imamis believe that this function (Wilayat al-qada or al-hukuma) is encompassed within the Imam’s divine authority. Hence, only those who have his permission may assume this role. Imam as-Sadiq (pbuh) referred to the administration of justice (hukuma) as a constitutional right and duty of the Imam: 'Beware of the Hukuma (administration of justice). Indeed, al-Hukuma belongs to the Imam who is knowledgeable in matters of judicial decisions (qada) and who is the just one (al-adil) among the Muslims, like the Prophet or his legatee'

let me explain this

The first part of the statement says 'it is LEGALLY ESTABLISHED that a faqih can judge on legal matters' but

the second part of the statement categorically says the imami foqaha believe 'that this function (Wilayat al-qada or al-hukuma) is encompassed within the Imam’s divine authority' Imam Jafar sadiq pbuh goes on to say 'Indeed, al-Hukuma belongs to the Imam who is knowledgeable in matters of judicial decisions (qada) and who is the just one (al-adil) among the Muslims, like the Prophet or his legatee'

So basically the first statement is contradicting with the second. The second statement says Imami foqaha believe that judging in legal matters is the divine authority of the imam, which is backed up by the hadith of Imam Jafer Sadiq, but the first statement says, its legally established for a faqih to carry out such duties. One would wonder how is it legally established and then one encounters the constitution which legalises a fallible to assume himself as WFM. So on that legal basis he can carry out duties and functions which have been divine to the Imams.

It now should be even more clear, that there is no backing from our doctrine for a fallible to take the responsibility of WFM. It is clear that only in recent times the clerics of Iran have promoted such an idea and make the claim for the WFM position on the basis of assumption, and assumption only.

We also have a clear cut hadith from the Imam Sadiq as, who outlines that the functions of WFM belong to them.

Now the question is, what holds more weight?

a: The divine doctrine which clearly states, absolute authority and its responsibility solely belong to Allah and the Ahlulbayt or

b: A modern cleric who opposes all past doctrine and on the basis of assumption takes the same authority which has been manifested in the Imams

You are free to believe in either a or b as only Allah is the one who will judge you. I in no way intend to impose my belief, but I will present that which is the truth and that which is false. The current WFM is usurped by a fallible whom has assumed he has the same responsibility as the imam during the occultation. This is directly acting agaisnt the Imam.

The title of the post is still true to its word ' WFM is against the occultation of the true Imam'

Edited by Malik Ul Mowt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Bro Jebreil,

Keypoints

1: The hadith 'quotes', scholars, persons, these and people. All are plural

2: The hadith clearly defines limitation to 'do not make any changes in the Divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things' (obligatory acts)

Bro jebreil, did you even read and understand the hadith before you decided to share this with all of us? It truly is hurtful that our shia are quoting from Imam Hussain as but then change its meaning to imply and assume something else. This is classed as deception!

Cant wait!

Bro Jebreil its evident from the above that all the hadith that you have brought forward are in no way directly or indirecly appointing a WFM. All the above hadith are in favour of taqlid which is a different topic altogether. I have told you, the pro WFM camp not to confuse the two, but you still do so. I don't know if its because you have not understood what you believe in, or if it's a case that you do know but are intentionally, knowingly and deliberately deceiving people. Only Allah knows best and may he guide us.

The Ahlulbayt didn't tell us, that the public should firstly choose from them a group of experts and then this group of experts will elects a fallible man to assume the absolute authority to govern the muslim ummah and assume all the imams functions and responsibility. The Ahlulbayt have not told the scholars to consult amongst themselves and then act on what they assume is advisable. The Ahlulbayt have mad it clear, that follow those pious scholars and narrators who narrate our hadith and teachings. The teachings of the Ahlulbayt and their hadith, do not tell the scholars to assume or to imply or to act on what they think is correct, but only to act according to their teachings and hadith. I hope now you can see the crime for what it is! Those clerics who assume WFM are doing so, according to there personal thoughts and not according to the teachings of the hadith or Ahlulbayt.

Another point bro Jebreil, just for the sake of it, lets pretend for 1 second and 1 second only, there is indirect appointment. If so, then why does the constitution need use the word 'assumed' for one to accept the position of WFM. How silly of them to word the constitution for such an important role with the word 'assume'. This is further evidence that the current WFM has no permission from the imam to act as the WFM and is all based on the foundation of assumption and speculation. The imams told the scholars to narrate their hadith and teachings. not to speculate and assume.

The title of the post is still true to its word ' WFM is against the occultation of the true Imam'

(bismillah)

(salam)

I do not really know why you even bother calling me "brother" if you wish to hint and nudge that I may be deceiving or I am just gullible. Brother means brotherly manners. I wish to be a good Shi'a just like you do. I am a human being, trying to understand right from wrong, just like all.

I will go through each point which I have kept in a quote from you above:

1. All are plural - yes. I know that. And also, that is why Wilayah Mutlaqah belongs to the Fuqahaa. And if there is someone more knowledgeable than all Fuqahaa, all things must be referred to him.- there is such a hadith in singularity from Imam Askari (as), but I do not know the source, so I will not post it. (I would have later, but my welcomeness on this thread is fading)

2. No, they are not meant to change Divine Laws - and that is why I posted that Wilayah Tashri'iyyah does not apply to the WF. And Imam Khomeini has never advocated a change in Divine Laws.

Of course the Ahlulbayt didn't tell us that the people can elect a group of scholars who can then elect a WF. They didn't tell us anything about the form of government other than that it should be headed by fuqahaa, preferably one if there is one most knowledgeable. Did they tell us that we can have a democratically elected President? Or separation of Powers? That is why 'Aql is such a keystone concept in Shi'i fiqh.

As for the "assumption of power" - that is what happens when you try to reason with a text after you have translated it. The infinitive "to assume" in English may mean "to speculate" or even "to usurp" but it also means "to undertake". I hope in that 1 second - and 1 second only - you concede that you were wrong.

And don't take it lightly. It's a huge concession. It was a huge mistake to make.

As long as you don't change the title of the thread, it will remain that -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malik Ul-Mowt

Even if I take it for 1 second - and 1 second only - that you are right about all this... it will meaning nothing for you, if you cannot address me as your brother, kindly and respectfully, who says the same Shahaadatayn and prays to the same Qibla and seeks tawassul from the same persons. You and I and a small section of humanity - is all we have. Let's not lose one another at least.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÃóØöíÚõæÇ Çááøóåó æóÃóØöíÚõæÇ ÇáÑøóÓõæáó æóÃõæáöí ÇáúÃóãúÑö ãöäúßõãú ۖ ÝóÅöäú ÊóäóÇÒóÚúÊõãú Ýöí ÔóíúÁò ÝóÑõÏøõæåõ Åöáóì Çááøóåö æóÇáÑøóÓõæáö Åöäú ßõäúÊõãú ÊõÄúãöäõæäó ÈöÇááøóåö æóÇáúíóæúãö ÇáúÂÎöÑö ۚ Ðóٰáößó ÎóíúÑñ æóÃóÍúÓóäõ ÊóÃúæöíáðÇ {59}

[shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

There are those people who fall in this category of "íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ " who obey Allah and His Rasul and Ulil Amri... therefore the maroof is also embbed in their souls (even though as NOT the same as Rasul and Ulil Amr)... give them the fullest respect and to some extend an obedience because Allah call them a "Believer" and they always return to Allah and the Rasul.

Layman

Salam

Those believers whom fall in the category of obeying Allah, Rasool and Ulil-Amr, can command the maroof they know, but they in themselves don't hold the Authority and Command like the Ulil-Amr do. We can respect believers, but this is not to say, anyone holds the authority and command like the Ulil-Amr do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Jebreil

I have no issue with selecting the most qualified to lead the people in government and politics. After all, Imam Ali (as) said the most right to that position is the most knowledgable regarding it.

I have issue with however giving the Authority and binding obedience to scholars.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have issue with however giving the Authority and binding obedience to scholars.

When a qualified and pious faqih has given a verdict based on Quran and teachings of Ahlul Bait (as), it becomes binding on those concerned to obey the verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a qualified and pious faqih has given a verdict based on Quran and teachings of Ahlul Bait (as), it becomes binding on those concerned to obey the verdict.

It's binding to obey the Quran and teachings of Ahlebayt (as), it's not binding to obey a Faqih.

A negative statement can be said, when a Faqih gives a verdict that is not based on Quran and teachings of ahlebayt (as), it's not binding on those to obey the verdict.

And it can be said, if a Faqih gives a verdict that contradicts Quran and teachings of Ahlebayt (as), it's binding upon people to disobey it.

salam

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

It's binding to obey the Quran and teachings of Ahlebayt (as), it's not binding to obey a Faqih.

A negative statement can be said, when a Faqih gives a verdict that is not based on Quran and teachings of ahlebayt (as), it's not binding on those to obey the verdict.

And it can be said, if a Faqih gives a verdict that contradicts Quran and teachings of Ahlebayt (as), it's binding upon people to disobey it.

salam

(bismillah)

(salam)

Alhamdulillah - we have, I think perhaps, reached a significant point of agreement.

When the Faqih derives a verdict from the Qur'an and teachings of Ahlulbayt = binding

When the Faqih derives a verdict not from the Qur'an and teachings of Ahlulbayt = not binding

and who is to determine whether the verdict is or is not derived from the Qur'an and the teachings of Ahlulbayt?

A - anyone (such as we ourselves)

B - someone who has qualified knowledge of the Qur'an and the teachings of Ahlulbayt (faqih)

If A, how can we for example know for sure that this verdict is contrary to the Qur'an and the teachings of Ahlulbayt? We cannot unless we actually have ma'rifah and 'ilm in this field.

So, it means the option B is the only option.

So, we can only rely on a Faqih to tell us that another Faqih's verdict is contrary to Qur'an and the teachings of Ahlulbayt. Therefore, either way, whether we accept the verdict or reject it, we will be following and affirming the decision of a Faqih.

Conclusion would be:

We can only follow a Faqih to tell us whether some verdict is Islamic or not.

case 1

All Fuqahaa say: x

Conclusion: x

case 2

Faqih A says: x

Faqih B says: not-x

I think: Faqih B is more knowledgeable

Conclusion: not-x

Either way, a Faqih has to be followed.

If you disagree, please come up with a 3rd case which shows that there s a possibility of not following a Faqih.

If we can't find such a 3rd case at all, it would mean that these 2 cases are the only Islamically correct cases and therefore, the Conclusion will be:

"The Most Knowledgeable Faqih has to be followed in all verdicts."

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Salam

We can be presented with Quran and hadiths, as well. It need not be a Faqih. Somethings can be proven by Quran, logic, and hadiths.

wa salam

(bismillah)

(salam)

Yes brother, but i suppose you also want to add "a secure knowledge of the transmitters (rijaal), a mastery of the science of logic, a good understanding of the principles of Fiqh (so, Usul), studies in Tafseer, and also a lot of time in research and contemplation."

However, I do agree that Fuqahaa should present us with their reasonings - some already have begun to do so.

Yet, still, we are told to refer to the Most Knowledgeable Fuqahaa - unless you are a Mujtahid, I would say that you would be contradicting the hadith if you decided to pass a verdict by yourself - even in the face of the evidence.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro Jebreil, you will surely remain my brother in Islam and if not you will remain my brother in humanity.

Unfortunately my emotions were directed at you rather than the WFM establishment who publish hadith in support of their claims, which in fact are not. I did try and differentiate between you either not knowing the reality of the hadith or you know the reality but still use it wrongfully rather than to accuse you of deviation. I apologise, as my statement should have never been directed at you personally, but the establishment itself who full knowingly publish hadith in support of WFM when in fact they are in support of taqlid. I accept that you are inshallah a good pious brother striving for the better, please also understand my approach and claims are also sincere. I hope we can continue with the discussion, as long as we both agree to disagree without loosing brotherhood. The subject of discussion will always be sensitive so may Allah reward us with patience.

1. All are plural - yes. I know that. And also, that is why Wilayah Mutlaqah belongs to the Fuqahaa. And if there is someone more knowledgeable than all Fuqahaa, all things must be referred to him.- there is such a hadith in singularity from Imam Askari , but I do not know the source, so I will not post it. (I would have later, but my welcomeness on this thread is fading)

How did you conclude Wilayah Mutlaqah belongs to the Fuqaha? Non of the hadith that you present even suggest Wilayah Mutlaqha, but they all do propagate the necessity of doing taqlid according to the hadith and teachings of the ahululbayt and nothing more. the hadith tells us to go to scholars and not to just one person.

Let me agin present to whom Wilayah Mutlaqa belongs to:

1:The absolute authority and guardianship of Allah (Wilayat al-mutlaqih) forms a central pillar of Imami political thought, which maintains that whoever wishes to exercise this authority must be appointed by Him (Allah). It is this idea that distinguishes Imamism from all other political theories and even other sects of Shi’ism; because although all schools of Shi’a thought agree that the Imam is subject to divine appointment through the Prophet, only Imamism tries to sustain this approach under circumstances when the infallible Imam is absent. In this doctrine, it is Allah alone who holds the absolute authority and He has EXPLICITLY appointed the Prophet and a number of believers (his family, i.e. the Ahlul-Bayt) as guardians (Wali), who are entrusted with authority over the Muslims.

This above is very important as it clearly defines the nature of authority and those who have a right to express the authority. Wilaya Mutlaqah is divine authority which only belongs to Allah and to Allah alone. Allah the mighty and supreme EXPLICITLY appointed the Ahlulbayt as custodians of Wilayah Mutliqah. The reason for explicitly appointing the ahlulbayt is becouse of its divine nature. Absolute authority is divine, its perfection and therefore requires perfection to fully implement it. From the above its evident that Allah has only explicitly entrusted the ahlulbayt with this. What I cannot understand is, why hasn't the imam explicitly appointed a WFM as he appointed other representatives, when the position is so divine and holds a great responsibility. Why is it that we need to assume and speculate from one hadith to another before we introduce reason and logic to try and legitimise that a fallible can assume to be WFM. Is it not unjust to Allah that a fallible with his own reason and logic assumes, that he can attain the position of WFM, and execute the divine laws of Allah with chance to error. This chance to error is enough proof of Allah's wisdom to restrict Wilaya Mutliqah to the Ahlulbayt only.

Also this concept of a fallible attaining the position of WFM was indeed a very new innovation within Imamism that the founder of the revolution advocated. Its important to understand that great scholars before him and of his time disagreed with this idea, and insisted that this position is solely for the Imam or the one whom is appointed by him. We have no evidence apart from assumption and speculation that a fallible can assume to be WFM so far.

2: Also I would like to make you aware, that the constitution allows an individual to assume the WFM position even thou he is not the most knowledgable faqi but rather on other merits. The hadith you quote clearly say refer to scholars who narrate our teachings and hadith not refer to someone who me be 'possessing general popularity'

Article 107 of IRI-C:

In the event they find one of them better versed in Islamic regulations, the subjects of the fiqh, or in political and social Issues, or possessing general popularity or special prominence for any of the qualifications mentioned in Article 109, they shall elect him as the Leader.

2. No, they are not meant to change Divine Laws - and that is why I posted that Wilayah Tashri'iyyah does not apply to the WF. And Imam Khomeini has never advocated a change in Divine Laws.

let me quote what one of the responsibilities the current usurped WFM has;

Unlike conditional authority (Wilayat al-muqayada) that restricts the right of the faqih for issuing governmental orders solely in permissibility cases (mubahat), Wilayat al- mutlaqa, by definition, is a juridical view concerning the dominion of the just faqih to issue governmental orders even if it is in opposition with some obligatory Islamic laws

Its clearly evident from the above that the usurped WFM has been giving the 'legal' right to issue governmental orders even if they are in opposition of obligatory acts. The wording is clear to understand . Everything haram and halal falls within this domain.

As for the "assumption of power" - that is what happens when you try to reason with a text after you have translated it. The infinitive "to assume" in English may mean "to speculate" or even "to usurp" but it also means "to undertake". I hope in that 1 second - and 1 second only - you concede that you were wrong.

And don't take it lightly. It's a huge concession. It was a huge mistake to make.

Im glad you brought the definition forward which you also say 'could mean, to under take'. Your right it could mean that, but lets look at it more closely. The word used is 'assume' and for one to assume is for one to undertake something on the basis of what they think. In assumption and speculation, there is no accuracy or gurantee to suggest its 100% authentic or legitimate, hence one assumes and speculates a position of authority rather than being appointed or designated the authority. Please keep in mind the Wilayah Mutliqa by all accounts even the founder of the revolutions deems it as divine.

The constitution gives the usurped WFM its worldly legitimate right to act as the Imam by assuimg and speculating the position. Our Imami doctrine on the other hand, doesn't leave any room for assumption or speculation, and determines absolute authority to govern is with the Imam.

As long as you don't change the title of the thread, it will remain that -

I don't intend to change the title as it only is states what the reality is. And the reality is the WFM is infact against the occultation of the true Imam. May Allah bless us with his return.

Edited by Malik Ul Mowt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

I don't even remember you insulting me brother Malik Ul Mowt. insha'Allah I will never insult you either.

Before looking at your other points, can I still please insist that you retract the point you are trying to put forward revolving round the word "assume". The Persian equivalent is:

اصل پنجم ـ در زمان غیبت حضرت ولی‌عصر «عجل‌الله تعالی فرجه‌»در جمهوری اسلامی ایران ولایت امر و امامت امت برعهده فقیه‌عادل و باتقوا، آگاه به زمان‌، شجاع‌، مدیر و مدبر است که طبق اصل‌یکصد و هفتم عهده‌دار آن می‌گردد.

There is no link between the two meanings you are trying to suppose.

If you do appreciate this, please say so. If not, then how can I continue? This point you are making is clearly not valid.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Brother Malik Ul-Mowt

Thank you for the discussion.

I need some time off for University purposes, priority problems, etc.

Insha'Allah someone will discuss this issue with you and insha'Allah the true conclusion will be reached.

You do not need to address the previous post if you don't wish.

If you need to say anything to me directly, feel free to PM me or comment on my page. I will be notified of that and I will be swift to answer.

May God hasten the reappearance of our Master Imam al-Asr wa al-Zamaan!

Ya Maula!

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Those believers whom fall in the category of obeying Allah, Rasool and Ulil-Amr, can command the maroof they know, but they in themselves don't hold the Authority and Command like the Ulil-Amr do. We can respect believers, but this is not to say, anyone holds the authority and command like the Ulil-Amr do.

salam Bro..

insyaAllah no one will say fallibles will hold the authority like the ulil amr. Imam Khomeini derived authority was so limited and to lead a few million people against global oppressors. you cannot lead agroup of believers unless they trusted him to obey Allah, Rasul and ulil amri and derived his authority from Allah, Rasul and Current Imam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Brother Jebreil,

The only flaw that I see in your reasoning regarding he understanding of the hadith i question is that for the majority of the history of Shi'a Islam since the occultaltion of the Imam (aj) is the fuquha have considered the exercise of particular function sof the Imam (aj) to be impermissible. It was not not until 200 to 300 years ago that we even see the fuqhua allowing for the salat-ul-Eid and salat-ul-jumah. It was not until more recently that we see the ulema allowing for the collection of khums. The concept of government as expressed by Imam Khumayni (ra) is extremely knew in Shi'a Islam.

If the traditional view has been to have a much more limited role for the ulema to play in society, even more limited than the position I advocate, and the ulema themselves remain divided on this issue, put forward the idea that the broad array of governmental function should rest in the hands of a single fallible individual is extremely dangerous and cuts across the traditional position of the ulema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Brother Jebreil,

The only flaw that I see in your reasoning regarding he understanding of the hadith i question is that for the majority of the history of Shi'a Islam since the occultaltion of the Imam (aj) is the fuquha have considered the exercise of particular function sof the Imam (aj) to be impermissible. It was not not until 200 to 300 years ago that we even see the fuqhua allowing for the salat-ul-Eid and salat-ul-jumah. It was not until more recently that we see the ulema allowing for the collection of khums. The concept of government as expressed by Imam Khumayni (ra) is extremely knew in Shi'a Islam.

If the traditional view has been to have a much more limited role for the ulema to play in society, even more limited than the position I advocate, and the ulema themselves remain divided on this issue, put forward the idea that the broad array of governmental function should rest in the hands of a single fallible individual is extremely dangerous and cuts across the traditional position of the ulema.

(bismillah)

(salam)

so bro

now you have a shia population as a country

should we hire a british or an american to run our country

or should we have a non religious person running it

or a faqih

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before looking at your other points, can I still please insist that you retract the point you are trying to put forward revolving round the word "assume". The Persian equivalent is:

اصل پنجم ـ در زمان غیبت حضرت ولی‌عصر «عجل‌الله تعالی فرجه‌»در جمهوری اسلامی ایران ولایت امر و امامت امت برعهده فقیه‌عادل و باتقوا، آگاه به زمان‌، شجاع‌، مدیر و مدبر است که طبق اصل‌یکصد و هفتم عهده‌دار آن می‌گردد.

There is no link between the two meanings you are trying to suppose.

The word used is ambiguous and depending on the context can drive a slightly different interpretation The word itself defines responsibility. From what I understand it can range from:

to assume, devolve upon, to fall upon, to undertake etc. So the correct understanding would be ' a person takes the responsibility upon themselves, or has the responsibility passed down to them'.

Either way its fair to say , the only proof we have for the WFM system is the IRI constitution which makes it a legal process, without the true backing of traditional Imami doctrine. The handpicked hadith, which they do present are in line with taqlid and no sufficient proof is available apart from reason and thought. Unfortunately the many hadith which warn us from such actions are never narrated, and we are always encouraged to follow and not to critisise. Islamic governance is a good idea, but to have a head, which can execute divine authority, can lead to disaster due to human error. We will be accountable for our own actions and no one will take the burden of our sins. We should strictly follow that what's in the quran, hadith and teachings of Ahlulbayt and be careful of following or issuing absolute decree's on the ummah or issue governmental orders even if they are against obligatory acts. These actions can also be seen as 'man playing god' as the Ahulubayt always acted according to Allah's will and to his satisfaction, which a fallible is unable do.

without trying to disrupt the conversation

therefore by the same token bro

is your scrutiny and conclusion infallible for you are a fallible too

and

there are enough faqihs in the realm of shia to outright dispel the notion were it as conclusive as you have come to understand

afterall your understanding is fallible too

Bro haideriam,

I think that what you have said is the most smartest and the wisest thing through out this thread, without you even realising it.

Allah knows my good intentions and sincerity of my actions, and even then im able to error as im a fallible. Scholars of our past and some of our present time have also disagreed and strongly stood by the traditional doctrine of the Imami school, that absolute authority belongs only to the Imams. For this very reason it is unjust to Allah's authority to obey the command of a fallible, which does not have the backing of quran, hadith or teachings of the Ahlulbayt, as a decision without such backing has good chance for error. Therefore, as a fallible im able to make an error just the same way any other fallible person, regardless of who they are.

so bro

now you have a shia population as a country

should we hire a british or an american to run our country

or should we have a non religious person running it

or a faqih

No one is suggesting that brother, plus your understanding is limiting the potential of the shia. Without the WF Iran does not become a Zionist entity. Look at Lebanon for example where shia are involved with politics alongside other religious sects and groups. Iran's government is built on Islamic principles, and that should be enough with the support of its people to defend resist and to develop. There isn't a need for a fallible to take upon himself the functions and responsibilities if the 12th imam may peace and blessing be on him. We have marja's and scholars who are able to guide and advise society according to where and how they live.

Edited by Malik Ul Mowt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro haideriam,

I think that what you have said is the most smartest and the wisest thing through out this thread, without you even realising it.

Allah knows my good intentions and sincerity of my actions, and even then im able to error as im a fallible. Scholars of our past and some of our present time have also disagreed and strongly stood by the traditional doctrine of the Imami school, that absolute authority belongs only to the Imams. For this very reason it is unjust to Allah's authority to obey the command of a fallible, which does not have the backing of quran, hadith or teachings of the Ahlulbayt, as a decision without such backing has good chance for error. Therefore, as a fallible im able to make an error just the same way any other fallible person, regardless of who they are.

No one is suggesting that brother, plus your understanding is limiting the potential of the shia. Without the WF Iran does not become a Zionist entity. Look at Lebanon for example where shia are involved with politics alongside other religious sects and groups. Iran's government is built on Islamic principles, and that should be enough with the support of its people to defend resist and to develop. There isn't a need for a fallible to take upon himself the functions and responsibilities if the 12th imam may peace and blessing be on him. We have marja's and scholars who are able to guide and advise society according to where and how they live.

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro malik (name of a good friend ie malik ul moat)

in terms of absoluteness the highest realm belongs to the one and only AllahÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì

everything else is his selection and criteria in the realms of absoluteness

the foremost being the aliyyin

let us say all judgements lead to error from the fallibles

is it still wiser to seek council from a wiser person

especially if it is as directed

bro the answers are not my satisfaction, they should be yours

the window model for the door

no bro, if you can find a door model

may Allah(swt) behaqe masoomeen(as) bless you my bro

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

i had thought there was only one malik of moat

see bro this is where the literalists get mixed up

shall we leave the literalism to the salafis

who is the absolute wali

this should hopefully make your reaching an understanding better

with regards to my earlier questions/statements my thirst is still unquenched

(wasalam)

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...