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

Is Ammar Nakhswani against Wilayat e Faqih

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Recently, I saw a video of Ammar Nakhswani. He just say that Wilayat-e-Faqih is not among Usul-e-Deen. However, I believe that in Usul-i-Deen, there is Imamate and Imams ask us to follow those who are good in religion if we do not have direct access to Imam. So, are we playing in the hands of Western society ? This is a shame for us, I was really sad to have listen this from Ammar Nakhswani.

I will try not to listen him again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

:salam:

Of course, Wilayat al faqih is not from usul eddeen. 

Problem is people who speak about it in even with the slightest criticizm often do it in opposition to Iran's political stance.

By the way, democracy is not from usul eddeen either. I have yet to see a shia speaker speak against it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
39 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

He's right it isn't, its a theory Imam Khomeini had, you're not forced to accept it if you're Shia. There are maraja who disagree with it in Qom as well. He's neutral on the issue btw, not actually against it, he respects Imam Khomeini and Sayed Ali Khamenei, but he doesn't think they should be elevated to the extent of an infallible, which perhaps some Shias tend to view them as.

dont propagate this please... no shia thinks they are infallible... And I know alot of WFers....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, kirtc said:

dont propagate this please... no shia thinks they are infallible... And I know alot of WFers....

Let me word this differently, he said there are those who think if you don't follow WF, you don't follow twelfth imam, in other words likening the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

there are those who think

Since when did we base our understanding of things on "there are those who think"?

And two words likening each other does not equate each other.

Your first mistake was ignoring the leader of WF stance on his infallibility, your second mistake is to take "those who think"'s misunderstandings/self delusions as a basis of judgement of the principle of WF and your third mistake was to equate words that does not equate each other and then pass statements.

I will tell you one thing brother, for sure, those who wish to cause friction between followers of WF and those who do not follow it have their basis in animosity towards islam as a religion. And these friction causing ideas and whispered words are nothing but the wests agenda.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم

 

The controversy surrounds this quote from Sayyed Khomeyni:

The wilaya of the faqih is something that God has made; it is the very same wilaya of God's Emissary.

The correct interpretation is that the faqih has the same legal jurisdiction as the Prophet - the wilaya here is one of legal authority, authority over legal affairs, which to a lesser degree is had by fathers and guardians. It is not wilaya over the physical or spiritual cosmos.

Accordingly, during the Occultation, his person represents the absolute sovereignty of God over the community's legal affairs, and his exercise of these sovereign powers - which are absolute - are unconditionally effective.

Some think this elevates the office too high. The controversy over whether the doctrine is scripturally or even rationally supported or not is fire beneath the ashes but the immensity of the claim only serves to stoke it.

It's important to represent God's absolute sovereignty in legal affairs, and as of now this is the only doctrine that at least appears to do so. No politically feasible alternatives exist at this moment, and so conserving what we have rather than destructing it is probably the wisest.

 

 

P.S. I apologise to @Sindbad05 for saying something tangentially related to his post.

و عليكم السلام

Edited by Jebreil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
4 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Recently, I saw a video of Ammar Nakhswani. He just say that Wilayat-e-Faqih is not among Usul-e-Deen.

You have a link to the video?

Edited by Hameedeh
Fixed the quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Recently, I saw a video of Ammar Nakhswani. He just say that Wilayat-e-Faqih is not among Usul-e-Deen.

Well, both Ayatullah Khamenei and Ayatulah Khamenei are people of great learning and taqwa. .

But a learned or a muttaqi person does not necessarily have all that it takes to run a country.

It is undeniable that both could do with some courses inn diplomacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
54 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

those who wish to cause friction between followers of WF and those who do not follow it have their basis in animosity towards islam as a religion

Not everyone that disagrees with WF wants to cause friction though or destroy it, some have legitimate disagreements and I believe we can have an open discussion about these issues. There are a lot of issues maraja disagree on and I don't really see why we cant' do so respectfully. 

54 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

your third mistake was to equate words that does not equate each other and then pass statements.

By saying if you don't follow WF you don't follow twelfth Imam, what else are you implying though? Some reject WF because they only believe in absolute authority under the umbrella of an infallible, so by saying you're rejecting twelfth Imam if you reject WF, aren't you implying you think the leader of WF is infallible, seeing as though there is definitely no consensus over this issue in Shia theology?

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
53 minutes ago, Reza said:

You have a link to the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mw-iiJN83o. I believe he did misunderstand the death to enemies of WF though as I'm pretty sure that bit means to those who want to topple the system, not simply those who have differences of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
13 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

By saying if you don't follow WF you don't follow twelfth Imam, what else are you implying though? Some reject WF because they only believe in absolute authority under the umbrella of an infallible, so by saying you're rejecting twelfth Imam if you reject WF, aren't you implying you think the leader of WF is infallible, seeing as though there is definitely no consensus over this issue in Shia theology?

Regular people are way below the level of wisdom and faith from either, so practically speaking, what's the point of discussing these discernments anyway? It's like a poor homeless beggar comparing different sizes of mansions and palaces. Most people would be fortunate to be to the level of the deputy's deputy's deputy's deputy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Recently, I saw a video of Ammar Nakhswani. He just say that Wilayat-e-Faqih is not among Usul-e-Deen. However, I believe that in Usul-i-Deen, there is Imamate and Imams ask us to follow those who are good in religion if we do not have direct access to Imam. So, are we playing in the hands of Western society ? This is a shame for us, I was really sad to have listen this from Ammar Nakhswani.

 

Waliyat-e-Faqih is different and doing taqleed of marja is different, I hope you are not mixing both of them. Waliyat-e-Faqih is a governance system of a shia state before the re-appearance of Imam (A.S). Even some marja also have difference regarding how much authority one can have as a Waliya-e-Faqih. So there is no problem if Ammar has different opinion. For me he is really helping young shia generation to have grip and knowledge of their deen. We should appreciate his effort rather than just point of out some content we don't agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

@Reza

To Whom you submit is the quintessential Islamic question and must never be delegated to another without evidence. And where there is a lack of adequate evidence, the claim to authority should be rejected and refused. It is the essence of tawalla and tabarra.

Your argument is bad. There are Sunni thinkers of greater wisdom and faith than the regular guy, but regular guys must judge between their claim and the Shi'i claim on the loci of authority. This they do on the basis of evidence and argument.

Since there are discussions where evidence and argument is presented, one should consult them in order to know whether they must submit or refuse submission.

و علیکم السلام

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Well if we're going to make choices on who we do and don't listen to based on their stance on this issue then we may as well clear the doubts right? 

That's a choice people have to make. Speakers have opinions, they don't exist to cater and validate every belief and opinion we have. If that's the criteria we have before we listen to a speaker, there won't be many that fit the bill. 

52 minutes ago, Jebreil said:

To Whom you submit is the quintessential Islamic question and must never be delegated to another without evidence. And where there is a lack of adequate evidence, the claim to authority should be rejected and refused. It is the essence of tawalla and tabarra.

I didn't say it wasn't an important question in its own right. I'm just saying the discussion often is at a level that has little productive and practical significance for most people on the ground. 

52 minutes ago, Jebreil said:

Your argument is bad. There are Sunni thinkers of greater wisdom and faith than the regular guy, but regular guys must judge between their claim and the Shi'i claim on the loci of authority. This they do on the basis of evidence and argument.

Since there are discussions where evidence and argument is presented, one should consult them in order to know whether they must submit or refuse submission.

Again, I say practically speaking. While we can have discussions on the exact details of authority, people have real lives, and have to take positive guidance and support wherever they can find it, from near to far. And it's hard to separate things that are so far away from us. You just know it's good. God gives guidance for that realization. But we still like to talk like we know it all, even though our eyes are blurry. 

Trusting in others above us on the righteous spiritual path, no matter who they are, or where on the spectrum, will always be in the proper scope and context. The sincere and balanced ones, with guidance from the Lord, understand this instinctively and will be successful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

@Reza

People have real lives and so cannot ascertain for themselves which authority God wants them to legitimise? Strange attitude.

The revolution was built on the premise that Divine sanction of government was a priority in people's lives. It was the main argument not only against what preceded it but also for what followed.

You say practically speaking and real lives, but when it comes to real authority over lives, I cannot see anything more practical than this. Not to mention the religious dimension which obliges loyalty to legitimate authority and prohibits allegiance to illegitimate authorities.

*

In any case, I recommend people interested in politics do look into this in an intellectual way whenever they have some leisure. It's fascinating, relevant and challenging.

و علیکم السلام

Edited by Jebreil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
45 minutes ago, Jebreil said:

People have real lives and so cannot determine for themselves which authority God wants them to legitimise? Strange attitude.

I didn't say this. All I said is that hairsplitting within a plane far above the grasp of most people isn't a valuable exercise. It doesn't help one spiritually, nor really give much insight on the essence of authority. 

Also, I don't understand your insistence on pigeonholing a solitary worldly authority, when in reality, we have a spectrum, and continuous sting of authorities, whose position relative to one another is not in dispute -- but in one's life, they must go through the chain. And it's best to do in order.

Legitimacy of an authority rests on whether they lead you to the next legitimate authority on the Godly chain, which ultimately ends in God himself. It's as simple as that.

Youre thinking too hard about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

 

@Reza

 

Divine legitimacy requires evidence from the Divine. It's as simple as that.

And it is a right of every individual to request evidence before allegiance, because once allegiance is given one is responsible for it.

And this applies to all claimants of legitimate authority who demand allegiance. It just happens that this thread was related to this office in particular.

 

*

 

I can't change your wish not to exercise that right, but when you suggested that regular Shi'as would be wasting their time investigating this issue, I found it was backed by a poor argument.

 

و علیکم السلام

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
1 minute ago, Jebreil said:

I can't change your wish not to exercise that right, but when you suggested that regular Shi'as would be wasting their time investigating this issue, I found it was backed by a poor argument.

Again, you're missing my point entirely here. We're looking at things from different vantage points. 

There's not much more I can do to clarify myself. If I wasn't clear enough, I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

He's right it isn't, its a theory Imam Khomeini had, you're not forced to accept it if you're Shia. There are maraja who disagree with it in Qom as well. He's neutral on the issue btw, not actually against it, he respects Imam Khomeini and Sayed Ali Khamenei, but he doesn't think they should be elevated to the extent of an infallible, which perhaps some Shias tend to view them as.

I have never seen any Shia who consider Khamanei and Khomeini as infallible bro.

If there are any in your sight, please refer me some names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Let me word this differently, he said there are those who think if you don't follow WF, you don't follow twelfth imam, in other words likening the two.

Wilayah-e-Faqih is not only Khamanei and Khomeini, they include all marajas who narrate to Hadith and if you really are against following all the Faqih in religion, then may I ask why you listen to physicians ? why not treat yourself with medicine ? There is Wilayah everywhere, in religion it is through the most learned in religion. In universities, they are teachers and in hospitals they are doctors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jebreil said:

The controversy surrounds this quote from Sayyed Khomeyni:

The wilaya of the faqih is something that God has made; it is the very same wilaya of God's Emissary.

The correct interpretation is that the faqih has the same legal jurisdiction as the Prophet - the wilaya here is one of legal authority, authority over legal affairs, which to a lesser degree is had by fathers and guardians. It is not wilaya over the physical or spiritual cosmos.

Sorry brother, first of all please mention the source of this which Khomeini said it. I want to see it.

Secondly, the faqih do not have same legal jurisdiction as the Prophet, Prophet is lawgiver appointed by God where as Faqih is the expounder of the laws of Allah through lawgiver. There are many things which are not explicit in Quran but Prophet PBUHHP made it clear to us such as who are entitle to Sadqa and who are entitled to Khums and Prophet PBUHHP told us this. No any Faqih can have power to tell it except with the help of Hadith of Masoomeen. 

Henece, Faiqh has not same legal jurisdiction as of Prophet and Imam. However, if you give me reference of what khomeini has said, I will tell you what does it mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Wilayah-e-Faqih is not only Khamanei and Khomeini, they include all marajas who narrate to Hadith and if you really are against following all the Faqih in religion, then may I ask why you listen to physicians ? why not treat yourself with medicine ? There is Wilayah everywhere, in religion it is through the most learned in religion. In universities, they are teachers and in hospitals they are doctors. 

Bro, not all maraja agree with the absolute authority of the maraja including control over the political affairs of the nation as it exists in Iran, that is what Sayed Ammar is debating here. Many maraja say the role of the jurist should be limited to non-litigious matters in the absence of an infallible Imam. 

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Bro, not all maraja agree with the absolute authority of the maraja including control over the political affairs of the nation as it exists in Iran, that is what Sayed Ammar is debating here. Many maraja say the role of the jurist should be limited to non-litigious matters in the absence of an infallible Imam. 

1. I have a question that has Quran or Hadith prohibited that any Alim or Maraja should be president or Prime Minister of the State ? I believe there is no such thing in Quran or Hadith.

2. I have different opinion for WF. That is the main field of religious scholar is religion. Therefore, he can hold a public office to oversee the affairs of the state if they are running according to Islamic laws or not. However, the other affairs of the state belong to people having knowledge in respective fields such as economists should govern finance, auditor should be responsible for audit and People having journalism degree to regulate Media. 

3, Having said that religious scholar should oversee ethics and morals in the state departments does not mean that if he has extra knowledge about politics, he should not be president or Prime Minister or Head of the state. So, this is where I think Ammar Nakswani have said, instead of giving impression that there is no Wilayah for Faqih at all. Lolz 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

He's right it isn't, its a theory Imam Khomeini had, you're not forced to accept it if you're Shia. There are maraja who disagree with it in Qom as well. He's neutral on the issue btw, not actually against it, he respects Imam Khomeini and Sayed Ali Khamenei, but he doesn't think they should be elevated to the extent of an infallible, which perhaps some Shias tend to view them as.

Obviously they are not infallibles. But he is our Spiritual Leader in the period of Ghaybah of Imam e Zamana (ajfs).

And one should note that number of Religious Maraje supporting Wilayat e Faqih are far more in number than those who are neutral and those who oppose it. But The System of Wilayat e Faqih is so essential and deeply rooted in Islam that you can't deny that. Every Ummah needs a Leader and the characteristics of this Leader can't be listed down so easily. The Leader of our Age (The Last Age) is Imam e Zamana (ajfs) but because he(a.s) is not among us to direct us we need a representative. And that representative has various characteristics for Eg - Just, Brave, Pious, Intellectual, Politically Active etc etc.

But if we put the notion of a leader aside then we will surely loose unity. Just see through it. Before the Islamic Republic came into existence, How much unity was then practiced anonymously? How much oppression was there across the globe on Shias and the Shrines of Ahlulbayt(a.s). 

If there is no Wilayat e Faqih then there will be no one to lead the Ummah to protect the Ummah, to guide the Ummah, to serve the Ummah, to unveil the face of Hypocricy on Earth, to take away power from the hands of oppressors, to do everything that God wants. People of Iran and other parts of the World are in Deep Love with Imam Khamenei (h.a) and Maraje Ekram Ayatullah Seestani (h.a) who are both playing very very vital role in guiding the Ummah. And Ayatullah Seestani (h.a) himself says people to follow Imam Khamenei very very religiously!

 

Warriors of Iraq say that they will give their lives for these 2 leaders. One needs to have a very rational thinking ability and pure heart to understand the rank that these 2 leaders hold in the Eyes of Imam (a.s) and ultimately Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى.

And if you are Neutral over following Wilayat E Faqih then sorry brother you are indirectly neutral on the blood of Holy Martyrs who are defending Holy Shrines all day and night, Who are there to rescue oppressed ones from Iraq, Syria and other parts of Middle East.

Neutral is not an option. Allah said, Enjoining Good and Forbid Evil. There is no notion of neutralism. You are either supporting good or bad.

 

Edited by Waseem162
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

1. I have a question that has Quran or Hadith prohibited that any Alim or Maraja should be president or Prime Minister of the State ? I believe there is no such thing in Quran or Hadith.

2. I have different opinion for WF. That is the main field of religious scholar is religion. Therefore, he can hold a public office to oversee the affairs of the state if they are running according to Islamic laws or not. However, the other affairs of the state belong to people having knowledge in respective fields such as economists should govern finance, auditor should be responsible for audit and People having journalism degree to regulate Media. 

3, Having said that religious scholar should oversee ethics and morals in the state departments does not mean that if he has extra knowledge about politics, he should not be president or Prime Minister or Head of the state. So, this is where I think Ammar Nakswani have said, instead of giving impression that there is no Wilayah for Faqih at all. Lolz 

Look into what other maraja have said on this matter, there is a great level of detail on the net, but in any case back to your original question, it is unwise in my opinion to not watch someone because his views on a certain matter are different, Sayed Ammar is certainly not going against Islam by saying what he said, there is no real consensus on this issue across maraja.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Waseem162 said:

And if you are Neutral over following Wilayat E Faqih then sorry brother you are indirectly neutral on the blood of Holy Martyrs who are defending Holy Shrines all day and night, Who are there to rescue oppressed ones from Iraq, Syria and other parts of Middle East.

Neutral is not an option. Allah said, Enjoining Good and Forbid Evil. There is no notion of neutralism. You are either supporting good or bad.

 

Not everyone that doesn't agree with the Iranian mode of governance is bad. I support Iran's foreign policy btw, but if we want to be accurate, there are disagreements over the extent of authority that a maraja has, this is pretty clear, even Sayed Sistani has a different view on this matter. 

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).[31]

I support Iran's foreign policy, but ultimately the fate of the country's political system is in the hands of its people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم

@Sindbad05

 

ولایت فقیه چیزی است که خدای تبارک و تعالی درست کرده است همان ولایت رسول الله است.

 

(صحیفه نور، ج ۱۱، ص ۲۶ و ۱۳۳)

 

*

 

The office is conditional on Fiqh, so naturally the powers do not extend to modifying Fiqh. But the question of jurisdiction is this: are his powers limited to some specific subject-area or is it universal? The doctrine says it is the latter, which is exactly the jurisdiction the Prophet enjoyed. Thus, the Wali Faqih - acting in his capacity as faqih - can decide on anything and it would be legally enforceable.

*

Note this has nothing to do with marja'iyya. The Wali Faqih issues a hukm - a ruling - that is meant to be binding on everybody. The marja' has no jurisdiction over his muqallid and only communicates his understanding of the law, which is iftaa.

 

و علیکم السلام

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jebreil said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم

@Sindbad05

 

ولایت فقیه چیزی است که خدای تبارک و تعالی درست کرده است همان ولایت رسول الله است.

 

(صحیفه نور، ج ۱۱، ص ۲۶ و ۱۳۳)

 

*

 

The office is conditional on Fiqh, so naturally the powers do not extend to modifying Fiqh. But the question of jurisdiction is this: are his powers limited to some specific subject-area or is it universal? The doctrine says it is the latter, which is exactly the jurisdiction the Prophet enjoyed. Thus, the Wali Faqih - acting in his capacity as faqih - can decide on anything and it would be legally enforceable.

*

Note this has nothing to do with marja'iyya. The Wali Faqih issues a hukm - a ruling - that is meant to be binding on everybody. The marja' has no jurisdiction over his muqallid and only communicates his understanding of the law, which is iftaa.

 

و علیکم السلام

I would call it misinterpretation of what Ayotullah Khomeini has said. Indeed, obeying Imams is following Prophet PBUHHP and obeying Prophet PBUHHP is obeying Allah AWJ. Prophet PBUHHP said: "If I appoint a slave upon you with a responsibility, you have to follow him". So, following that slave will be following Prophet PBUHHP as slave is emissary of Prophet and Prophet is ambassador of Allah AWJ. However, the slave has no authority to go beyond what Prophet has enjoined and Prophet has no authority to go beyond what Allah has enjoined. So, there is limited capacity which you have misinterpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Look into what other maraja have said on this matter, there is a great level of detail on the net, but in any case back to your original question, it is unwise in my opinion to not watch someone because his views on a certain matter are different, Sayed Ammar is certainly not going against Islam by saying what he said, there is no real consensus on this issue across maraja.

No one among existing Marajas believe in the absoluteness Wilayah-e-Faqih. The Wilayah-e-Faqih is thought as assistants of Imams and if any Faqih goes against what Imams have told, then they are counted out of Islam. Ammar Nakshwani said many wrong things, he himself is an Alim, I agree his point that one who does not follow any Maraja, his Eman is not invalidated but he will not attain highest form of purity if a person does not listen to Faqih and Alim-e-Deen because they narrate us ahadith. So, here Ammar Nakshwani is wrong.  

Edited by Sindbad05
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...