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
Sayyed_Splinter

There is any hawza in Qom (or Iran in general) where 'wilayatul faqih' isn't preached?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Well the Iraqi followers of Ayatollah Sistani said to me that he favors a secular state which respect religion.

They don’t have access to more or less information than you. It's better to rely on first hand or well referenced information. Sometimes people attribute their own views to scholars even if these scholars have never said such a thing.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if fallible people can’t rule by the Qur'an, it only follows that fallible can’t follow the Qur'an either.

And both are correct, we can never perfectly rule by the Qur'an, but we non-masoom can try.

Still awaiting for an alternative to WF?

Edited by ShiaChat Mod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Sayyed_Splinter said:

Allahyari is pro-secularism. He believes falible people can't rule by the qur'an, only a ma'soom. And ofc my message was deleted, dajjalis get sad every time they remember Khamenei going to hamam mansouri lmfao

So here there are some points I don't understand. If you say that we can't rule with the Qur'an do that mean that us as Muslims we must not care if our ruler allow some unislamic stuffs like alcool, prostitution, homosexuality, fornication etc.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

They don’t have access to more or less information than you. It's better to rely on first hand or well referenced information. Sometimes people attribute their own views to scholars even if these scholars have never said such a thing.

Wallahu a'lam 

I am not an Arabic speaker so that would be better to ask Arabic speaking people here. 

Share this post


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

I think there had been some confusions here. I never said that Ayatollah Sistani was against actions practiced by groups like hezbollah. But as far as I know Lebanon is not an Islamic Republic nowadays. So doing some politics to protect religion and Muslims why not. But he doesn't want to do an silamic republic ruled by clerics like in Iran this is what I understood. 

You don't get it. I use hezbullah as an example where you can't have a revolution or establish a Islamic republic, however as Shias they are also not promoting secularism or accepting it.

Also many non-Shia and non-Muslims support hezbullah within Lebanon.. why? because they do what's needed for the community, build schools, roads, buildings etc.

Suppose Hezbullah obecomes favorite political party in the future because they apply Islam so well that even non-Muslims become attracted to this model... or Iran manages to fully implement Islamic law in Iran... much like the world is attracted to the western model today, one day they can appreciate the Mahdavi or Islamic model.

Having clerical leadership, provided sincere clerics, is an ideal situation, Iran is trying to implement... no one is saying they have reached it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayyed Splinter I must admit that I found very weird that you put Yasser al Habib on your new profile picture. 

You maybe don't know but actually Yasser al Habib is for WF (not exactly like in Iran but a similar system) and Allahyari said he was an heretic. 

So I find actually strange that you approve calling Ayatollah Khamenei a dajjal because he is a leader who approves WF while as the same time you look to approve someone else who approves it like Al Habib. 

Here a publication of Allahyari calling Habib an heretic because he believes in WF 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=441757652913452&id=230493697373183

So it is a little weird. It looks like you are talking about some stuffs you don't really know. Or maybe you could explain if we are wrong to think that. Hope to read an answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayyed Splinter I must admit that I found very weird that you put Yasser al Habib on your new profile picture. 

You maybe don't know but actually Yasser al Habib is for WF (not exactly like in Iran but a similar system) and Allahyari said he was an heretic. 

So I find actually strange that you approve calling Ayatollah Khamenei a dajjal because he is a leader who approves WF while as the same time you look to approve someone else who approves it like Al Habib. 

Here a publication of Allahyari calling Habib an heretic because he believes in WF 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=441757652913452&id=230493697373183

So it is a little weird. It looks like you are talking about some stuffs you don't really know. Or maybe you could explain if we are wrong to think that. Hope to read an answer. 

Share this post


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

Sayyed Splinter I must admit that I found very weird that you put Yasser al Habib on your new profile picture. 

You maybe don't know but actually Yasser al Habib is for WF (not exactly like in Iran but a similar system) and Allahyari said he was an heretic. 

So I find actually strange that you approve calling Ayatollah Khamenei a dajjal because he is a leader who approves WF while as the same time you look to approve someone else who approves it like Al Habib. 

Here a publication of Allahyari calling Habib an heretic because he believes in WF 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=441757652913452&id=230493697373183

So it is a little weird. It looks like you are talking about some stuffs you don't really know. Or maybe you could explain if we are wrong to think that. Hope to read an answer. 

Yes I agree with Allahyari in political views. But Allahyari is doing a great mistake insulting Yasser (ha), and no problem, he isnt infalible as your God Khamenei.

Edited by Sayyed_Splinter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sayyed_Splinter said:

Yes I agree with Allahyari in political views. But Allahyari is doing a great mistake insulting Yasser (ha), and no problem, he isnt infalible as your God Khamenei.

And so you don't think it is a little strange to ask if there are hawza in Iran wich don't teach WF while at the same time you put a picture of someone wanting a similar system? 

By the way you didn't answer my other question about the implications resulting if we put a secular system in a predominant Muslim country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Brother I think actually mostly like you. But we must not forget that Irak is diverse religiously and I think a system like we have in Iran is maybe not the best for a country like Irak. Also I don’t really know what Ayatollah Sistani said exactly. I just repeat what some of his followers said to me.

Salam based on Hawza .net & ensani.ir he doesn't believe to absolute WF but in every aspect his view is very near to WF idea from Theoretical Foundations he believes  to sticking politics & religion together in three fields of giving Fatwa , Judging & Supervision in extended definition of it so in taking political responsibility of community for safeguarding of religious regime that accepted by majority of people by qualified Marja so in conclusion his viewpoint is very near to WF 

https://hawzah.net/fa/Article/View/95899/تبیین-نظریه-ولایت-فقیه-با-تأکید-بر-دیدگاه-آیت‌-الله-العظمی-سیستانی

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/339182/تبیین-نظریه-ولایت-فقیه-با-تأکید-بر-دیدگاه-آیت-الله-سیستانی

in his meeting with late Ayt Hashemi (ex president of Iran at time of meeting that was president of Iran) insisted on following leader 

۱: دیدار ایت الله هاشمی رفسنجانی با آیت الله سیستانی در نجف اشاره کرد که ایشان بر تبعیت از رهبری به آقای هاشمی صریحا تاکید می نمایند و آن را رمز موفقیت ایران و حل مسایل می شمرند.(به نقل از سایت راسخون http://rasekhoon.net/news/Show-۵۴۹۹۴.aspx)

continuous contacts of his office with office of Imam Khamenei

۲: دیدارها و تماس هایی که از سوی دفتر ایشان با رهبری معظم انقلاب مرتبا حاصل می شود نیز نمونه آشکاری دیگری در این راستا می باشد.(به نقل از سایت بهشت ایران http://dehnar۱۴۰۰.persianblog.ir/post/۹۵/)

 https://www.porseman.com/article/آيت-الله-سيستاني-ولايت-مطلقه-فقيه--آيت‏الله-سيستاني-و-رهبري/146381

 

 

QUESTION: I wanted to know, if a source emulation   order was different from that of the supreme leader, what should the imitator does?

Answer: Someone's ruling that has  Shari'a wilayat in the affairs of society,in common  affairs [that] on which the system of society and the livelihood of the people is based on it , his ruling is superior over other Mujtahids , unless there is  knowing of his mistake or his opposition to what is revealed in the Book and the Tradition is definitely established. 

پرسش: می‌خواستم بدانم اگر حکم مرجع تقلیدی با حکم ولی فقیه فرق داشت، مقلد باید از کدام اطاعت کند؟

پاسخ: حکم کسی ولایت شرعی دارد، در امور عامّه [که] نظام جامعه و معاش مردم بر آن مبتنی است بر همه نافذ است حتی بر مجتهدین دیگر، مگر اینکه علم به خطا بودن آن یا مخالفتش با آنچه از کتاب و سنت قطعاً ثابت شده داشته باشد.

https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/111473/سه-پاسخ-محکم-آیت-الله-العظمی-سیستانی-پیرامون-ولایت-فقیه

 

According to one of the leading Ayatollahs, Sayyid Sistani, Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist

means every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are technically called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs with which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of acceptability of Faqih among majority of momeneen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_Islamic_Jurist

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, khamosh21 said:

Lets drop WF, what alternative political theory do you have to offer? Does Shia Islam even have another form of governance or political theory?

Also, go to Najaf, you'll find what you want there.

 

Any theory whereby the Mullas can mind their own business and not get in the way of people’s personal affairs.  Any theory whereby religion is not felt like it is being imposed by Mullas.  Any theory whereby religion is not used as a means of political control.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

 

Any theory whereby the Mullas can mind their own business and not get in the way of people’s personal affairs.  Any theory whereby religion is not felt like it is being imposed by Mullas.  Any theory whereby religion is not used as a means of political control.  

 

 

So in short you want a secular system like in America or Europe ? Also what is wrong that scholars manage political affairs when they have better knowledge of religions than most Muslims ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohammadi_follower said:

So in short you want a secular system like in America or Europe ? Also what is wrong that scholars manage political affairs when they have better knowledge of religions than most Muslims ?

They tend to be fanatical.  I’d rather trust an atheist over a fanatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see now why people have become so alienated by this political fundamentalism. In a few short steps, the one who doesn't agree with WF is being equated to an atheist (with no religious justification whatsoever)

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all 

Wallahu a'lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

You can see now why people have become so alienated by this political fundamentalism. In a few short steps, the one who doesn't agree with WF is being equated to an atheist (with no religious justification whatsoever)

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all 

Wallahu a'lam

No I never said that. I said that people calling Shia scholars fundamentalists talks like non Muslims. I never said that because he doesn't believe in WF he is a kafir. I respect a someone who have different opinion than me but calling Shia scholars fundamentalists is too much for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

You can see now why people have become so alienated by this political fundamentalism. In a few short steps, the one who doesn't agree with WF is being equated to an atheist (with no religious justification whatsoever)

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all 

Wallahu a'lam

You have no problem that he called the people on your profile picture "fanaticals"? 

Share this post


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

 

Any theory whereby the Mullas can mind their own business and not get in the way of people’s personal affairs.  Any theory whereby religion is not felt like it is being imposed by Mullas.  Any theory whereby religion is not used as a means of political control.  

 

 

Have you been to Iran? it is nothing like you are describing above.

I would prefer sincere mullahs over the psychos sitting in government in every country today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like has been said, if there was a Houza that didn't teach WF, it is a Houza that is not teaching hadith of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام))

A few point to remember 

1. All Shia agree on the general concept of Wilayat Al Faqih (the one who is knowledgeable and just (ilm and adl) is the one who deserves to lead the people)

2. The disagreement is over two issues.  First, who is the one who is 'knowledgeable' and 'just' ? Second, what is the scope of that leadership. For example, does it only include leadership in Hukm Sharia(Islamic Law) related to personal issues, I.e. Salat, Saum, Hajj, Khums, etc or does this leadership also include Political Leadership ? 

In my humble opinion, the most essential quality in a leader, is that he protects the mumineen and muminaat by standing up firm against the enemies of Islam and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) and doesn't waiver on this when his personal interests are at stake. Without security and protection, there is no point in discussing the other aspects of Islam, because without security and protection, the mumineen and muminat would either be physically eliminated by their enemies (ie they would no longer be alive) or would be forced to live in a state of extreme taqiyya, so we couldn't have real and open discussions at all. Which country and which system is the only country and system that has been standing up to the enemies of Islam in recent times (last few decades) with strength and consistency ? Ask yourself that question and you will know what is the correct interpretation of Wilayat Al Faqih. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Any theory whereby the Mullas can mind their own business and not get in the way of people’s personal affairs.  Any theory whereby religion is not felt like it is being imposed by Mullas.  Any theory whereby religion is not used as a means of political control.  

 

 

You've only answered my question with the same question... do have another better model that you can tell us about, all ears.

all these people tht criticize WF have yet to provide an alternative... 

Share this post


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

You have no problem that he called the people on your profile picture "fanaticals"? 

If he did, I might disagree with his opinion but I wouldn't start questioning his core religious beliefs. 

Off-topic, but I doubt he was referring to the late sheikh falsafi and the late sheikh tabrizi. 

Share this post


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

If he did, I might disagree with his opinion but I wouldn't start questioning his core religious beliefs. 

Off-topic, but I doubt he was referring to the late sheikh falsafi and the late sheikh tabrizi. 

As I understood his comment he was insulting all Shia scholars in general including those in your profile. And again I didn't say he was an atheist or he was an atheist because he refuses WF I just said he spoke like a non Muslim but now if you find that acceptable to insult great Shia scholars this is after all your opinion not mine. 

Edited by Mohammadi_follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, khamosh21 said:

You've only answered my question with the same question... do have another better model that you can tell us about, all ears.

all these people tht criticize WF have yet to provide an alternative... 

A better one would be the US.

that is why I live in the US.  

If I didn’t like it I would have gone to Iran to live there.  I don’t think I would have been able to even say this in Iran.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

A better one would be the US.

that is why I live in the US.  

If I didn’t like it I would have gone to Iran to live there.  I don’t think I would have been able to even say this in Iran.  

So Trump in your opinion is a better leader than Rouhani or Khamenie? 

Man I really respected your philosophy and ability to understand the truth, but the above answer defies any intelligence.

Also you are again demonstrating your ignorance about Iran, as people in Iran openly not only criticize the government but also the "mullah" regime here. Walk down Tehran and use the subways, and it doesn't feel much different from New York. And you have better chances of seeing someone in a chador or niqab in NY then in Tehran.

The only way you can give a knowledgeable answer about Iran is if you have lived there (which I have and I am fluent in Farsi).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if I could personally choose to live somewhere it would be Iran (it's cheap, beautiful, amazing history, culture, and language). The people are amazing.

The other place would be South Island in New Zealand.

Ive lived in America, it's not a bad place to live, but definitely not ideal among Western countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

A better one would be the US.

that is why I live in the US.  

If I didn’t like it I would have gone to Iran to live there.  I don’t think I would have been able to even say this in Iran.  

So you have no problem to see "religious orgnisation" performing "same sex weddings" and seeing the government letting cultural companies doing pornographic and blasphemic productions like they do in US ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, khamosh21 said:

Also if I could personally choose to live somewhere it would be Iran (it's cheap, beautiful, amazing history, culture, and language). The people are amazing.

The other place would be South Island in New Zealand.

Ive lived in America, it's not a bad place to live, but definitely not ideal among Western countries.

It is maybe not good to think like that but I have the feeling that New zealand is too much far from everything ^^ .

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.


×
×
  • Create New...