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  
Palabras

Sayed Ammar discussing Iran on Wilayat al-Faqih

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In theory, if the 12th Imam supports WF, then one better follow WF. That's in theory anyway.

Also he seems to confuse "enemy" with "disagreeing". Having reservations on certain aspects of WF is one thing, which every WF supporter has, but being an outright "enemy" is something else completely.

I am sure that every WF supporter disagrees with aspects of the system over time and space.

If WF has an enemy, then one of them has to be right or wrong. And whichever is wrong, is cursed anyway. Personally, I am with the WF for obvious reasons such as things that resonate with this verse (for shias in specific):

"Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition"

To me the WF theory has led to potential candidates of the likes of the prophesied Khurasani as well as the prophesied role of Salman al Farsi's people in the end-times. That's just my theory and i would rather be optimistic than pessimistic. Opposing the only obvious candidates would be wrong to me. (plural because they are an extended team now, including the likes of NasrAllah, Houthi, Asad, Soleimani, etc. etc. .. who seem to be the leaders of the only men left on earth ). 

These people seem to be racing to khair. 2:148

But that's just my theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hassan Y said:

He said "Wilayat al Faqih is a theory of governance, and we need a theory of governance in the absence of the 12th imam".

Yes. We can't have Wilayat-e-Masoom until the appearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his return. All of our Ulema believe in Wilayat-e-Faqeeh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support WF, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion on an issue that does not have clear consensus amongst Shias. But who says you don't follow twelfth Imam if you don't follow WF? Also don't they say down with those who want to destroy WF rather than those who oppose it? This would be targeting the munafiqeen, the wahhabis and the zionists rather than the Shias who may have a different opinion on the extent of the leader's authority than Ayatollah Khomeini or Sayed Ali Khamenei do. Because if it really was about down with those who oppose it, then how is it that there are Ulema in Qom, who oppose it and they still aren't persecuted or imprisoned, they are free to preach and continue with their scholarly activities?

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a political framework to run Iran (and a lesser extent Lebanon through hezbollah) its ok. its what the Iranians clearly want, and what they repeatedly have chosen for themselves.

I think 99% of people who disagree with it, disagree with the Idea that WF is a global system which is the designated leadership of all muslims (shia and non shia).

within Iran = fine. 
global leadership = er how about no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hameedeh said:

Yes. We can't have Wilayat-e-Masoom until the appearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his return.

I don't know if I misunderstood this but Wilayat e Masoom is mandatory when an infallible is physically present among us or in occultation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find WF to be quite authoritarian. Imam Khomeini (r) had the idea that the Faqih should have the same power as an Imam, which is kind of over the top. Also, the Faqih can impose his opinion on an issue that Shia are dividend on, like tatbir, so followers of Najafi or Khorasani have to follow his ruling. But they have overthrown that tyrant Reza Pallavi and defended Iran against Saddam, which is why I support Khamenei in his claim to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

But they have overthrown that tyrant Reza Pallavi and defended Iran against Saddam, which is why I support Khamenei in his claim to power.

as a political movement its fine. the shah of iran had to go. the country was like 99.99% shia and the shia chose this system themselves. 

the problem comes when over excited WFers (mainly online) start adding masala onto it. he is not naib of the awaited imam. he is not the global leader. he is not X, Y and Z. 

the WF is the leader of his country, and that is it. read the constitution of Iran, read what powers the WF actually has compared with what zaidi-lite WF supporters are rambling about online.

you will be shocked at how misrepresented the system has been by idiot followers of the WF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

as a political movement its fine. the shah of iran had to go. the country was like 99.99% shia and the shia chose this system themselves. 

the problem comes when over excited WFers (mainly online) start adding masala onto it. he is not naib of the awaited imam. he is not the global leader. he is not X, Y and Z. 

the WF is the leader of his country, and that is it. read the constitution of Iran, read what powers the WF actually has compared with what zaidi-lite WF supporters are rambling about online.

you will be shocked at how misrepresented the system has been by idiot followers of the WF. 

Yes, those who believe he is the "Leader of the Muslim Ummah," are going WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far. Not even Khamenai says it is kufr to deny WF, or that denying it is equal to denying the Mahdi.

Though we must respect Iran from their efforts against the Saudis and Israelis.

And I deeply respect Imam Khomeini for his works in religion like Adabus Salehat, along with his belief that we must "rip the turbans off these imposter Mullahs."

 

Edited by Mansur Bakhtiari
Spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Yes, those who believe he is the "Leader of the Muslim Ummah," are going WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far. Not even Khamenai says it is kufr to deny WF, or that denying it is equal to denying the Mahdi.

what irritates me most about these people are their retarded crowd chants. "death to the enemies of wilayat faqih"

seriously? they curse the majority of shia who do not accept WF, but at the same time dedicate all their effort to unity with non shia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

what irritates me most about these people are their retarded crowd chants. "death to the enemies of wilayat faqih"

This is a case of being more Catholic than the Pope.

If you check the official fatwas of Ayatullah Khamenei in response to questions that ask his opinion about those who do not accept WF as practiced in Iran, the term that he uses about such Shias is "mazoor," (incapable or those who lack the capacity to understand).

I personally don't think fellow Shias should be labelled as "mazoor" for an intellectual difference of opinion on the Iranian version of WF, but it's still nowhere close to being called the enemies of Shi'ism, or of the Qa'im, or being turned into an object of mass death wish by its overzealous followers.

 

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

"death to the enemies of wilayat faqih"

seriously? they curse the majority of shia who do not accept WF, but at the same time dedicate all their effort to unity with non shia?

Yes.... But do not insult companions and wives.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how people think WF is a global system though. Not even all people in Iran follow the same marja right? Yes, Iran may have played a part in helping other nations, but I'd hardly call that establishing a global system. In Lebanon, they simply helped the Shias defend themselves against Israeli aggression by helping Hezbollah. In Syria and Iraq, they are simply helping fight terrorism and defending the shrines. Let's face it, the West isn't really interested in doing that anyway, so someone has to. But I would hardly call any of this establishing a global system. 

6 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

"death to the enemies of wilayat faqih"

seriously? they curse the majority of shia who do not accept WF, but at the same time dedicate all their effort to unity with non shia?

Enemies doesn't mean those who disagree with it necessarily. There are ulema in Qom that disagree with it, and they're not persecuted or anything. I think it refers to those who want to destroy Iran's sovereignty and their stance against Western, Israeli and Saudi aggression in the region. 

Btw how do you know its a majority? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand how some try to limit a spiritual and ideological revolution to physical borders, but that doesn't really make sense. Personally, I would not be surprised that WF supporters are one of the 73 sects foretold by the Prophet. I don't mean to make fitna or division, but different sects do exist - most probably even among 12ers. 

To me, before I even knew what WF was or what the difference was between shia and sunni, I was a full fledged supporter of that ideology and this leadership that manifests itself in the world of politics and military confrontations ( especially in 2006 ).

When it comes to opposing zionism and umayyid thought, the people who operate under the so-called WF system are the defacto leaders worldwide, and pretty much alone in this arena. They don't have much competition actually. 

Again, if we look at political (which must include military in any serious discussion) implementation of the shia Islamic expression, there is nobody else than WF.

In the end the people with the biggest guns rule and decide what agenda to implement. Do you know of any other political force that operates officially on the shia agenda, while opposing directly all forms of occupation?

 

Thank God for the WF, who saved most of the world from the NWO plans! Thank God. And may God forgive us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

basic maths. 

Eh? Is there a poll out there asking Shias are you for or against WF? Or are you basing this on people's maraja of choice? If so, is that even an accurate indicator? I follow Ayatollah Sistani, I am not anti-WF though, I understand the need for a political government amongst Shias in the world we live in, as do most of the people I know who do Sistani's Taqleed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Eh? Is there a poll out there asking Shias are you for or against WF? Or are you basing this on people's maraja of choice? If so, is that even an accurate indicator? I follow Ayatollah Sistani, I am not anti-WF though, I understand the need for a political government amongst Shias in the world we live in, as do most of the people I know who do Sistani's Taqleed.

no lets assume that being WF means accepting WF as is laid out in the Iranian constitution. this is the blueprint for WF and the basis of all his power. 

how many people based off the Iranian Constitution, follow WF? answer: the Iranians. 

how many people are NOT bound to follow WF based off the Iranian Constitution? everyone else on planet Earth. 

if we were to shift the goalposts, and say that anyone who follows sayed khamenei as a marja, is a supporter of WF system, then which side is more numerous, sayed khamenei followers, or the rest of the world combined?

ask yourself this, as a sayed sistani follower. why hasnt sayed sistani tried to implement WF in Iraq? its beem 13 years since saddamned (LA) fell. why does he always instead push for people to engage in the democratic election process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

what irritates me most about these people are their retarded crowd chants. "death to the enemies of wilayat faqih"

seriously? they curse the majority of shia who do not accept WF, but at the same time dedicate all their effort to unity with non shia?

Haha^

And what about followers of Ayatollah Shirazi or Khorasani? The former does not believe in WF, and the latter makes tatbir permissible. Does Sayed Khamenai overrule them? Even he does not claim that himself!!

There are pros and cons to WF, but weven shouldn'the case fellow muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

ask yourself this, as a sayed sistani follower. why hasnt sayed sistani tried to implement WF in Iraq? its beem 13 years since saddamned (LA) fell. why does he always instead push for people to engage in the democratic election process?

I would assume its because Iraq is an unstable country, with a large Sunni minority, who would feel more and more marginalized by having a Shiite cleric heading the affairs of the country? Iran is stable and has an overwhelming Shia majority. I can't imagine Ayatollah Sistani being safe in Iraqi politics, as it is when we visited him when we went for Ziyarat, we had to go through a lot of security to get inside, I can't imagine how many people in Iraq want to get rid of him as it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I would assume its because Iraq is an unstable country, with a large Sunni minority, who would feel more and more marginalized by having a Shiite cleric heading the affairs of the country? Iran is stable and has an overwhelming Shia majority. I can't imagine Ayatollah Sistani being safe in Iraqi politics, as it is when we visited him when we went for Ziyarat, we had to go through a lot of security to get inside, I can't imagine how many people in Iraq want to get rid of him as it is.

No Sayed Sistani has almost complete control over the shia of Iraq. he is massively powerful and influential. the majority of the country is still shia, which means democratically they could vote in WF if they wanted to and if he said to do so. 

can you find even a single resource written by him, where he argues for the need of WF within Iraq? not even a fatwa, maybe an article or statement or anything like that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I would assume its because Iraq is an unstable country, with a large Sunni minority, who would feel more and more marginalized by having a Shiite cleric heading the affairs of the country? Iran is stable and has an overwhelming Shia majority. I can't imagine Ayatollah Sistani being safe in Iraqi politics, as it is when we visited him when we went for Ziyarat, we had to go through a lot of security to get inside, I can't imagine how many people in Iraq want to get rid of him as it is.

No Sayed Sistani has almost complete control over the shia of Iraq. he is massively powerful and influential. the majority of the country is still shia, which means democratically they could vote in WF if they wanted to and if he said to do so. 

can you find even a single resource written by him, where he argues for the need of WF within Iraq? not even a fatwa, maybe an article or statement or book or anything like that where he discusses WF as a potential model for Iraq? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Nah, but he doesn't explicitly say WF is wrong either. This is his opinion. Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen.

These conditions may depend on context, which in Iran's case may apply, and in Iraq's case may not. There is a real possibility if he vocalized his support of WF in Iraq, it could spell a bloodbath for the Shias in the country too, more so than the genocide they've been undergoing anyway. Imam Hassan even gave up his caliphate to Muawiyah, because of the nature of circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Nah, but he doesn't explicitly say WF is wrong either. This is his opinion. Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen.

These conditions may depend on context, which in Iran's case may apply, and in Iraq's case may not. There is a real possibility if he vocalized his support of WF in Iraq, it could spell a bloodbath for the Shias in the country too, more so than the genocide they've been undergoing anyway. Imam Hassan even gave up his caliphate to Muawiyah, because of the nature of circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lover of Ahlulbait (ams) said:

If we are discussing WF of two marajas then it has different concept for both. Ayatullah Sistani, like Ayatullah Khoei doesn't believe in Absolute Guardianship like Ayatullah Khamenei and Ayatullah Khomeini. 

Of course, the extent of authority and control differs across Maraja, but that's not to say they oppose the entire system of WF. The amount of control or authority a fuqaha has is open to debate and discussion, and frankly, as a non-Iranian, I don't have enough knowledge or experience with it to comment on this myself. However, what I do know is that without any political government amongst Shias, who would fight on the frontlines to defend the shrines in Iraq and Syria? Who would help our Shia brethren in South Lebanon fight against Zionist aggression? Without the Islamic revolution, what would the status of Shias be in the world today? I can tell you that in my home country, before the revolution, according to my parents, many people did not wear hijab, there was not so much awareness about religion in general. We can also see because of the coverage Iran receives, a lot of people in Nigeria and other places have also converted to Shiism. There is no doubt that the greater political representation that WF in Iran brought has helped Shiism to grow and has brought more awareness. Its for these reasons I support WF. It is not a perfect system of course, anything run by people who are not infallible will never be, and there are issues, but that's not to say I oppose the system, I simply think its open to reform and change. I don't want the dismantlement of it entirely, because if that happens, then whatever replaces it, you will continue to see some of the same issues, and you will have removed the defending of shia sites in the middle east, and the greater awareness that the revolution brought. So in hindsight, you'd rather have WF but leave the doors of discussion with regard to its implementation and reforms open.

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

can you find even a single resource written by him, where he argues for the need of WF within Iraq? 

Question: What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Velayat-e Faqih?

Answer: Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah." As for general affairs to which social order is linked, and enforcement of doctrine, this depends on certain conditions, one of which is popularity of the Faqih among the majority of momeneen (believers).[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Question: What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Velayat-e Faqih?

Answer: Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah." As for general affairs to which social order is linked, and enforcement of doctrine, this depends on certain conditions, one of which is popularity of the Faqih among the majority of momeneen (believers).[

does this sound like he is endorsing WF in Iraq? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Marbles said:

This is a case of being more Catholic than the Pope.

If you check the official fatwas of Ayatullah Khamenei in response to questions that ask his opinion about those who do not accept WF as practiced in Iran, the term that he uses about such Shias is "mazoor," (incapable or those who lack the capacity to understand).

I personally don't think fellow Shias should be labelled as "mazoor" for an intellectual difference of opinion on the Iranian version of WF, but it's still nowhere close to being called the enemies of Shi'ism, or of the Qa'im, or being turned into an object of mass death wish by its overzealous followers.

 

Can you show me where he says that?

Also the chanting of 'death to the enemies of WF' is not for those who do not accept it, it's for the ones that pose a threat to them like the Zionists or Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

No I am just posting his views for everyone to see. I have heard they have a lot of fake articles about him and WF.

that's a real quote. Sayed Sistani is strictly non controversial - his fatwas are actually brilliantly written so no side can ever use them to argue their point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

Can you show me where he says that?

I saw a couple of fatwas on his official website which were later posted on SC. I'm trying to locate them, see if I can find them. If you put a question to the office of Ayatullah Khamenei I'm sure you will get a similar reply.

Quote

Also the chanting of 'death to the enemies of WF' is not for those who do not accept it, it's for the ones that pose a threat to them like the Zionists or Saudi Arabia.

I thought so. But zealous followers become excited and don't think twice before declaring fellow Shias as enemies of WF in case of disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Marbles said:

I thought so. But zealous followers become excited and don't think twice before declaring fellow Shias as enemies of WF in case of disagreement.

Except the animosity towards the general Shirazi group and vice versa, who has declared anyone else an enemy? Just wondering due to me never seeing that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

ask yourself this, as a sayed sistani follower. why hasnt sayed sistani tried to implement WF in Iraq? its beem 13 years since saddamned (LA) fell. why does he always instead push for people to engage in the democratic election process?

Iraq is a divided country, its completely different scenario.

Also, Ayatollah Sesstani has been much more active in politics and society in recent years, much more so than earlier.

 

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...