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  
Ya Aba 3abdillah

Pseudo-akhbari Accusations Against the Maraaji'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Sayyid Sistani says paying khums is halal and wajib. We know that khums is broken up into sahm is-saada and sahm il-imaam.

Sayyid Sistani has been reading the ahadith for over 50 years. He knows what they say and don't say.

So for those that say it is not wajib or let alone halal to give Sayyid Sistani khums, do you really think you're in the right of accusing the Sayyid of being a liar when he says it's wajib shar'i ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference in interpretation of aHadith on the subject, surely? And he is one `alim of many, who held varying opinions on the issue.

Are you getting emo? It can frustrate me and grieve me much the way some people here feel they are bigshots enough to condemn the `ulamaa' - not just respectfully disagree - but I think you are going a bit overboard :-\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro I know your intention was good plus the title will make everyone go on the post as they think you're slandering Ayatollah Sistani when really you are defending him but I think the title is a bit inappropriate.

Edited by Shia_Debater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sachedina published a journal article implying khums is haram. Sayyid Sistani gave a Hikma (not a fatwa only for his followers, but an edict to all the Shia) against him, and against reading or listening to any of his deviant works. http://www.jstor.org/pss/544332 "Al-Khums: The Fifth in the Imami Shi'i Legal System" - AbdulAziz Sachedina (you can't access the article if you don't have a jstor account).

The pseudo-akhbaris accuse Sayyid Sistani of being a deviant and stealing the people's money. It is a clear attack on our scholars.

what did the original shias do with khums, straight/ early after the major occultation?

Gave it to the saada and to the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adilrizvi

Gave it to the saada and to the poor.

What about nowadays ? How and where is the khums people pay to Ayatollahs spent exactly? I understand sehm-e-sadat goes to poor syeds but what about sehm-Imam .. the other half. Can someone please explain a bit, is it kept safe for the Imam(af) so that it might be available to him when he comes out of the occultation (may it be soon) or is it spent on funding hawzas and stuff? :donno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed like they passed it down for a while, until they realised this can't really be the right thing to do..

For this reason the eminent leaders of the Imamites, al-Mufid (d.413/1022) and al-Tusi (d. 460/1067), refused to give themselves authority over the half of the khums [824]which was set aside for the Imam. Al-Mufid held that any faithful follower who wanted to pay the Imam's share should put it aside and either keep it in a safe place or bury it. In case of his death, he should turn it over to a trustworthy person to give to the Imam when he rises. As for the other half of the khums,which is called sadat share, it should be divided into three shares and distributed equally among the needy members of the Prophet's family, i.e. the orphans, the poor and the penniless travellers.[825]

Al-Mufid's view was also held by such later scholars as al-Tusi, Abu al-Salah and Ibn Zahra al-Halabi. This consensus among the Fuqaha' concerning the khums continued until the 7th/13th century. But since the Twelfth Imam's occultation prolonged, the believers did not know what to do with the Imam's share in the khums,which they have been trusted with by their predecessors.

By the beginning of the 7th AH/13th century the Imamite Fuqaha',in particular, al-Muhaqiq al-Hilli wanted to solve this problem. He began receiving the Imam's share in the khums and spent it on religious activities serving the Shiite cause. This step taken by the later Fuqaha' marked a break with the authority of the earlier Fuqaha'.

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adilrizvi

(bismillah)

They attack Khums for two reasons.

1-They dont want to give away their money.

2-They want to weaken the financial position of our Marjas.

They are jealous and scared of the recent successes, power and influence of Marjas in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy wat the heck is with these random obessions? first everyone goes and bashes on the follow of Ahmad Al Hasan now the Akhbaris whose next? the islaemis or the Zaydis or the Nusayris? really guys? we are the followers of the Best of Personalities who are dearly loved by the Most High to whom all praise is due, so let us not lose our level by having these offense threads. We are Shia of Ahlul Bayt of Allah's Blessing onto all worlds (SAW) not wahabi hate-mongors. if someone is misguided then guide them and if they wish not to pay heed then to them their way and to us our path. I hope i have not offended anyone i just think it needs to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy wat the heck is with these random obessions? first everyone goes and bashes on the follow of Ahmad Al Hasan now the Akhbaris whose next? the islaemis or the Zaydis or the Nusayris? really guys? we are the followers of the Best of Personalities who are dearly loved by the Most High to whom all praise is due, so let us not lose our level by having these offense threads. We are Shia of Ahlul Bayt of Allah's Blessing onto all worlds (SAW) not wahabi hate-mongors. if someone is misguided then guide them and if they wish not to pay heed then to them their way and to us our path. I hope i have not offended anyone i just think it needs to be said.

When one group of Shia considers the leadership of the marja'iyah illegitimate, and another group (the vast majority) considers it legitimate, how can unity between the two be considered as possible?

Don't make Akhbaris out to be victims. They targeted the most learned, most purified individuals among us. They can't not expect any backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

They attack Khums for two reasons.

1-They dont want to give away their money.

2-They want to weaken the financial position of our Marjas.

They are jealous and scared of the recent successes, power and influence of Marjas in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

Is it that hard to conceive that people might just think differently from you based on principles and coming to different conclusions, and not on some corrupt agenda?

When one group of Shia considers the leadership of the marja'iyah illegitimate, and another group (the vast majority) considers it legitimate, how can unity between the two be considered as possible?

Amazing. So unity with fellow Shi`a is impossible according to you. Will you say the same about Sunnis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that hard to conceive that people might just think differently from you based on principles and coming to different conclusions, and not on some corrupt agenda?

Lets face it. These anti-Marja pseudo-Akhbaris and wannabes have huge differences amongst themselves. But they satay quiet and never correct each other. If it was about principals you would see them correcting each other or arguing amongst themselves. But instead, you see them helping each other when one of them opens a thread to attack and disrespect us and our scholars.

Why don't the admins open a new separate forum for these pseudo-Akhbaris like the one we have for "Shia/Sunni Dialogue". This way the "General Discussions" forum would stay clean.

Amazing. So unity with fellow Shi`a is impossible according to you. Will you say the same about Sunnis?

You cannot have unity with those who disrespect our Holy Imams (A) and scholars. These people are called "Nasbis" and not Sunnis. Majority of Sunnis don't indulge in such behavior. And therefore unity towards common goals is possible with them.

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I think some of Usulli are over reacting with the accusations that Akhbaris refuse to pay khums because they don't want to give their money or they want to weaken the financial's position of Marja'. Probably, there are some Akhbaris who think that way, but as we're commanded to avoid bad prejudice especially to fellow Shi`i, I can see if some Akhbaris refuse the obligation of khums in the time of ghaybah because for them it's not an obligation. The most common arguments used by Akhbaris for the non-obligation of khums during ghaybah:

1. Tauqi`at of Imam `Asr

2. The diverse opinion of early Shi`i `ulama regarding this, implying there was no unanimous command from the Aimmah (as) on what to do regarding khums in the time of ghaybah

3. The (present) concept of marja`iyyah which according to Akhbari was not present in the time of early Shi`i `ulama.

Reading the materials on this issue, I also have unresolved issues with the obligation of khums during ghaybah, but nevertheless I think it's better to pay this as ihtiyat even if you are not convinced of its obligation. Furthermore, khums can help Shi`i `ulama to be able to have independence from any outside interference, different from Sunni `ulama which usually depend on the mercy of their government (example: Egypt).

One point which I'd like to point out is be careful with our accusation & keep the discussion on the rational level. We don't want our accusations (especially if it turns out to be false) to be something that burden us in the hereafter, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing. So unity with fellow Shi`a is impossible according to you. Will you say the same about Sunnis?

Unity doesn't mean we have to agree with each others doctrine. Sunnis are only confined to discussing their doctrine in the Sunni Dialogue sub-forum. Similarly, we really should have a sub-forum just under that one dedicated to Pseudo-Akhbarism where those that wish to make the Halal of Khums and Taqlid as Haram, can confine their views in that sub-forum.

This way the Shia aren't corrupted to a level that is happening now when our Scholars are attacked by the Sunnis and the Pseudo-Akhbaris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the akhbaris on this website ? why arent they defeding themselves ? forgive me for my stupidity but if you dont follow a marja3 and your an akhbari, then isnt that an individual choice ? like wouldnt they all have different opinions according to each persons own interpretation ?

Hence should they be called akhbaris, or simple deviants ?

Someone clarify me please im a little confused !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing. So unity with fellow Shi`a is impossible according to you. Will you say the same about Sunnis?

Shia-Sunni unity is quite a different story, because it implies no unity of belief or leadership; it is simply a unity of not letting sectarian divides cause bloodshed and suffering, and of emphasizing common points over divergent points.

However, a unity between Shia and Shia implies a common leadership and a common ideology. The impure elements reject the leadership of the scholars, and the follow an eccentric Talibani ideology. So how can their rightfully be unity between the two? When one group accepts a leadership and the other rejects it, unity is quite impossible!

And is there even a need to have unity between "the Shia ummah under the leadership of the scholars," and "five Shia guys who write blogs and see themselves as more learned than the scholars"?

Its comical to even think of, to be honest. It's like the United States stressing out because a hostile government has come to power in Burkina Faso (which, actually, the US probably would).

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunnis are only confined to discussing their doctrine in the Sunni Dialogue sub-forum. Similarly, we really should have a sub-forum just under that one dedicated to Pseudo-Akhbarism where those that wish to make the Halal of Khums and Taqlid as Haram, can confine their views in that sub-forum.

This way the Shia aren't corrupted to a level that is happening now when our Scholars are attacked by the Sunnis and the Pseudo-Akhbaris.

^^ Excellent. Its about time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't happen, there will be resistance from the pseudo-akhbaris and their supporters claiming they should be free to preach anti-Maraaji' anti-Taqlid anti-Khums sentiments.

It might not happen. But its worth trying. The General discussions forum is often consumed with these issues and members who are not interested complain about the wrangling that goes on.

And it was a mistake to give pseudo-Akhbaris and their supporters so much say. The Shiachat team should be a reflection of mainstream Shia views and not these splinter groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might not happen. But its worth trying. The General discussions forum is often consumed with these issues and members who are not interested complain about the wrangling that goes on.

And it was a mistake to give pseudo-Akhbaris and their supporters so much say. The Shiachat team should be a reflection of mainstream Shia views and not these splinter groups.

hmmmmmm, will look into changing the "Research into Other Sects" sub-forum to include pseudo-akhbari doctrine, then those threads can be moved there so as to not saturate the forum with their misguidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They attack Khums for two reasons.

1-They dont want to give away their money.

2-They want to weaken the financial position of our Marjas.

They are jealous and scared of the recent successes, power and influence of Marjas in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

You really can't accept other people having a different view point.

Yes Orion, everyone who believes differently against a Marja's opinion is deviant, ignorant, lost, and misguided. If only we knew the right path, just like how God told you personally.

Al-Mufid held that any faithful follower who wanted to pay the Imam's share should put it aside and either keep it in a safe place or bury it.

So you are expecting the Imam to come back with a shovel?

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really can't accept other people having a different view point.

Yes Orion, everyone who believes differently against a Marja's opinion is deviant, ignorant, lost, and misguided. If only we knew the right path just like God has told you personally.

There is a real and present problem here of people being brainwashed into thinking that taqleed shouldn't be done (in fact they go as far as saying it's haram and that Sistani is preaching something that's haram), and misguiding others to not pay khums also although it's wajib. Sayyid Sistani says if clothes that should have khums paid on them, but the khums wasn't paid, that salah is deemed void.

So how do you think this problem should be resolved? We're open to ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a real and present problem here of people being brainwashed into thinking that taqleed shouldn't be done (in fact they go as far as saying it's haram and that Sistani is preaching something that's haram), and misguiding others to not pay khums also.

How do you think this problem should be resolved? We're open to ideas.

One big problem people have is taqleed being wajib. They don't like the concept of mandatory obedience to a fallible. Many do like seeking advice from marjas/scholars, it's the wajib part that's an issue.

You may disagree with it, but it's a valid argument from an unbiased perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...