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  
Guest Logic

[Closed/Review]Khamenei - Hussain (as) of the time?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Logic

https://www.memri.org/player/clip/43980/1/1

People have started to do ghuluw with scholars. Here is a part of Nasrallah's 'Ashura' speech of this year. 

Nasrallah believes Khamenei is Imam Hussain of the time. Does Khamenei deserves this title more than Imam e Zamana (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف). Does anyone even deserve to be called as Hussain of the time. Comparing fallible and infallible?

He addresses him as Al-Qa'im. 

Imam al-Jawad (a) was asked why he [al-Mahdi (a)] is called 'al-Qa'im'. He said: "because [he] will rise up when his name is forgotten" 

(Ṣadūq, Kamāl al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 378) 

Share this post


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

Nasrallah believes Khamenei is Imam Hussain of the time.

 

1 hour ago, Guest Logic said:

He addresses him as Al-Qa'im.

Did he really say this???? Sorry can't listen to it right now.

Share this post


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

https://www.memri.org/player/clip/43980/1/1

People have started to do ghuluw with scholars. Here is a part of Nasrallah's 'Ashura' speech of this year. 

Nasrallah believes Khamenei is Imam Hussain of the time. Does Khamenei deserves this title more than Imam e Zamana (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف). Does anyone even deserve to be called as Hussain of the time. Comparing fallible and infallible?

He addresses him as Al-Qa'im. 

Imam al-Jawad (a) was asked why he [al-Mahdi (a)] is called 'al-Qa'im'. He said: "because [he] will rise up when his name is forgotten" 

(Ṣadūq, Kamāl al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 378) 

To be fair, it is a video from MEMRI. They seem have to a bias against Iran,  it may not be true to begin with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

To be fair, it is a video from MEMRI. They seem have to a bias against Iran,  it may not be true to begin with. 

These MEMRI memes you see on social media about fatwas against Sponge Bob etc, are they jokes or do they actually talk about nonsense like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aaaz1618 said:

These MEMRI memes you see on social media about fatwas against Sponge Bob etc, are they jokes or do they actually talk about nonsense like that?

I asked the brothers and sisters here if it was a joke and the SpongeBob thing is a joke, MEMRI does spew some pretty spectacular crap.

Share this post


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

What is wrong with taking the resistance as the Hussein (عليه السلام) of today ?

There's a big difference between being a Hussain and being inspired by Hussain.

As with my OP, until one doesn't go on the battlefield himself, with his family and sees their martyrdom and tastes his own, none can compare with Hussain.

Whatever good Khamenai is doing for the Shias and the Iranian resistance, good on him. May Allah aid them and all, against the oppressors. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and start handing out elevated titles when there's no comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jaane Rabb said:

There's a big difference between being a Hussain and being inspired by Hussain.

As with my OP, until one doesn't go on the battlefield himself, with his family and sees their martyrdom and tastes his own, none can compare with Hussain.

Whatever good Khamenai is doing for the Shias and the Iranian resistance, good on him. May Allah aid them and all, against the oppressors. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and start handing out elevated titles when there's no comparison.

His right arm is paralyzed after an assassination attempt that occurred after he returned  from the frontline. Pretty sure he has seen the battlefield himself. Take into mine that what sayyed Nasrallah (probably) meant is that sayyed Khamenei is leading a resistance against the tyranny in this world like Imam Al-Hussein was leading a resistance against Yazid. He isn’t comparing the personalities or position of Imam Al Hussein 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in the context of the slogan "every day is Ashura and every country is Karbala" you could say that any one who resists tyranny is Hussain of our time. In that case it would also be reasonable to call Nasrallah him self a Hussain of our time. I think that Nasrallah's point is more like Iran as a whole should be seen as Hussain of our time rather than Khamenai as a person. Imam Khamenai then being a symbol of Iranian resistance to American tyranny. What makes this a little difficult is that some Iranians (expats in particular) might see Ali Khamenai as a tyrant himself. (Not that I have any thing against Ali Khamenai. I actually think he is a sensible and moderate person.)
What makes Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) stand out is that he was prepared to be martyred. I don't know how many would actually be prepared to follow Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

قال الباقر عليه السلام: إنا أهل البيت لا يقاس بنا أحد، من قاس بنا أحدا من البشر فقد كفر

نوادر المعجزات  الصفحة ١٢٤

Khamenei is too far of being even some good...

Share this post


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

Yeah let's all curse her in public and bleed our backs and head. That is much more respectful to Imam Hussein's struggle (عليه السلام).

There's no relation in him addressing Aisha as Sayyedah and bleeding our heads. One can atleast not give respectful titles to dushmane Ahlul Bayt (عليهم اسلام) if he can't curse/condemn her. How about keeping mum in public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Take into mine that what sayyed Nasrallah (probably) meant is that sayyed Khamenei is leading a resistance against the tyranny in this world like Imam Al-Hussein was leading a resistance against Yazid. He isn’t comparing the personalities or position of Imam Al Hussein 

He is a human being brother he can make mistakes like you and me. If he has misspoken we should be honest enough to point it out rather than to blindly leap to his defense as if he was a ma'soom. 

Quote

I suppose in the context of the slogan "every day is Ashura and every country is Karbala" you could say that any one who resists tyranny is Hussain of our time.

A slogan which has been falsely attributed to the 6th Imam (عليه السلام), whereas in reality our narrations say 'there is no day like your day, Aba Abdillah'

Quote

There's no relation in him addressing Aisha as Sayyedah and bleeding our heads. One can atleast not give respectful titles to dushmane Ahlul Bayt (عليهم اسلام) if he can't curse/condemn her. How about keeping mum in public. 

This argument is completely random and has nothing to do with the thread so I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

Firstly, what Nasrallah did is in the same spirit as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in terms of his behaviour with A'isha. The Imam (عليه السلام) was respectful even after having been confronted in the battlefield. 

Secondly I don't know where you get the idea that 'Sayyedah' is some kind of unique and elevated title. It is a very common and basic way of addressing a woman in Arabic.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


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

If he has misspoken we should be honest enough to point it out rather than to blindly leap to his defense as if he was a ma'soom. 

Who is going to make that judgement whether he has misspoken or not and on what basis/knowledge bank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayyed Ali Khamenei (رضي الله عنه) is good and all but I wouldn't compare him to one of our exemplary Imams (عليه السلام)

Share this post


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

Firstly, what Nasrallah did is in the same spirit as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in terms of his behaviour with A'isha. The Imam (عليه السلام) was respectful even after having been confronted in the battlefield.

How was he respectful to her after the confrontation in the battlefield?

He hit her howdah with a spear after it had been showered with arrows, until it looked like the spines of a hedgehog, all in front of his eyes.

لَمَّا قَدِمَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَامُ مِنَ اَلْكُوفَةِ جَاءَتِ النِّسْوَةُ يُعَزِّينَهُ بِأَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ output-onlinepngtools.png.781c65f14945b7d6d8f83dc70fd649fd.png وَدَخَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَزْوَاجُ النَّبِيِّ output-onlinepngtools.png.6e21bcd18525349cc5981ee6c057372d.png فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ يَا أَبَا مُحَمَّدٍ مَا مِثْلَ فَقْدِ جَدِّكَ إِلَّا يَوْمَ فُقِدَ أَبُوكْ، فَقَالَ لَهَا الْحَسَنُ output-onlinepngtools.png.781c65f14945b7d6d8f83dc70fd649fd.png: نَسِيتِ نَبْشَكِ فِي بَيْتِكِ لَيْلًا بِغَيْرِ قَبَسٍ بِحَدِيدَةٍ، حَتَّى ضَرَبَتِ الْحَدِيدَةُ كَفَّكَ فَصَارَتْ جُرْحًا إِلَى الآن، فَأَخْرَجْتِ جَرْدًا أَخْضَرَ، فِيهِ مَا جَمَعْتِهِ مِنْ خِيَانَةٍ، حَتَّى أَخَذْتِ مِنْهُ أَرْبَعِينَ دِينَارًا عَدَدًا لَا تَعْلَمِينَ لَهَا وَزْنًا فَفَرَّقْتِيهَا فِي مُبْغِضِي عَلِيٍّ مِنْ تَيْمٍ وَعَدِيٍّ قَدْ تَشَفَّيْتِ بِقَتْلِهِ!! فَقَالَتْ: قَدْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ

(Mashāriq Anwār al-Yaqīn, page 129).

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Guest Logic said:

https://www.memri.org/player/clip/43980/1/1

People have started to do ghuluw with scholars. Here is a part of Nasrallah's 'Ashura' speech of this year. 

Nasrallah believes Khamenei is Imam Hussain of the time. Does Khamenei deserves this title more than Imam e Zamana (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف). Does anyone even deserve to be called as Hussain of the time. Comparing fallible and infallible?

He addresses him as Al-Qa'im. 

Imam al-Jawad (a) was asked why he [al-Mahdi (a)] is called 'al-Qa'im'. He said: "because [he] will rise up when his name is forgotten" 

(Ṣadūq, Kamāl al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 378) 

Nasrullah calls him 'al-Qaid" :leader 

13 hours ago, starlight said:

 

Did he really say this???? Sorry can't listen to it right now.

 

12 hours ago, Ali~J said:

@realizm , @Soldiers and Saffron & @Gaius I. Caesar expalined it & I completely agree with them but Akhbaris of our site like as @Simon the Canaanite :blabla:take everything as direct meaning & don't use their intellect :einstein:

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Brother, you must be very short sighted not to undersand the analogy.

It is a dangerous analogy. It implies that the way of Khamenei is the only correct way. It leaves no room for disagreement, and as is obvious, many ulama including jurists do not agree with the way of Khamenei. 

Furthermore, the only Husayn (عليه السلام) of this time is his grandson Al-Mahdi (عليه السلام). 

But this is all old. You can find the obvious examples of ghulu towards him, such as those who call him "na'ib" (representative) of the Mahdi, and those who say if all the ulama go one direction, and Khamenei goes another direction, one must follow Khamenei, or those who have made an actual written ziyarah of Khomeini.

5 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Firstly, what Nasrallah did is in the same spirit as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in terms of his behaviour with A'isha. The Imam (عليه السلام) was respectful even after having been confronted in the battlefield. 

Secondly I don't know where you get the idea that 'Sayyedah' is some kind of unique and elevated title. It is a very common and basic way of addressing a woman in Arabic.

No what he did was not in the same spirit. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not sent tarradhi on his enemies. And the belief that he was "respectful" to her after the battle is simply another thing that is parroted on the pulpits with no strong foundation. 

This is what Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) says:

عن الإمام الصادق «عليه السلام»: إنّ عليـًا «عليه السلام» إنما منّ عليهم كما منّ رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله» على أهل مكة، وإنما ترك عليٌ «عليه السلام» لأنه كان يعلم أنه سيكون له شيعة وأن دولة الباطل ستظهر عليهم، فأراد أن يقتدى به في شيعته، وقد رأيتم آثار ذلك هو ذا يسار بسيرة علي «عليه السلام»، ولو قتل علي أهل البصرة جميعا وأتخذ أموالهم لكان ذلك له حلالا، لكنه منَّ عليهم ليمنّ على شيعته من بعده.


This narration is stating that it would have been halal for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to destroy all the people of Basra and to take all their money, but he chose not to do so, but to instead be merciful to them, so that they may be merciful to his Shi'a later on. It also says he (عليه السلام) did this in the same manner to which the Prophet (saww) was merciful to the people of Mecca after the conquest.

And as for "Sayyedah", it is usually not a term one would give to their enemy. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I I listened to it. Her referred to Ayatullah Khamenei quite a few times as 'Our Sayyed, Our Imam, Our Hussein' 

I wish people would leave their political motives aside at least on the 10th of Muharram. Can we make10th of Muharram about Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) only or does every possible occasion has to be about WF? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Did you know that al Mahdi(ajf) is in occultation?

So? He is still the Imam (عليه السلام) of time and grandson of Husayn (عليه السلام)

Share this post


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

So? He is still the Imam (عليه السلام) of time and grandson of Husayn (عليه السلام)

 

Just now, Sumerian said:

And? What an irrelevant point. He is our Leader, whether he is in occult or whether is he among us.

As long as he is occulation, he is not among us. Not in the same sense as how he will be once he rises.

When seyyed Nasrallah refers to seyyed Khamenei as the Hussein of our era, he is referring to the person who stands up against oppressors and fights them, in our era - I.e. the ones who are present. That does not mean that seyyed Khamenei is better than Imam Mahdi(ajf), only a fool would interpret it that way, whether he does it consciously or subconsciously.

 

Mourning for Imam Hussein(عليه السلام) is only half of honoring his sacrifice, spreading his message and living his message is the other half. The Husseins of our era are the ones who do both.

Do you guys know of any other Shia leaders in the world who are fighting the enemies of Islam as openly and resistant as seyyed Khamenei currently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Making the remarks on Monday on the eve of Ashura, he said that “we are in the middle of a big battle and our camp is being besieged by the US and Israel.”

“Today, the US, Israel, and their tools are trying to besiege our camp. The leader of this camp is Imam Ali Khamenei and the center of this camp is the Islamic Republic of Iran,” AlManar quoted him as saying.

“This is our camp, and this is our Imam, our leader, and Hussein of this era. In this battle there is no place for neutrality. You are either with Hussein or you are with Yazid. The battle is renewed and so is the confrontation,” he noted.

Seyyed Nasrallah Called for crowding on the 10th of Muharram, the day of Ashura in the Southern Suburb of Beirut to pledge allegiance to Imam Hussein and to “tell Netanyahu, the Zionists, and all the conspirators against us: We are a people who neither a siege, nor starving, thirst, fear or war can influence our will, determination, certainty and faith.”

“If our Husseini leader came out to tell us that you are free to leave, our response will be: By Allah, O master and leader, if we are to be killed, all of us… we shall never leave you o son of Hussein,” Hezbollah leader concluded.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/149878/Nasrallah-vows-to-never-leave-Imam-Khamenei-alone

If anyone ask from Syed Khamenei, he would for sure say that he is nothing but a servant of Hussain as well as servant of Hussain of this era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

That does not mean that seyyed Khamenei is better than Imam Mahdi(ajf), only a fool would interpret it that way, whether he does it consciously or subconsciously.

No one said he is better than Imam e Zamana (عليه السلام) or Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) because no one is even close.

8 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Do you guys know of any other Shia leaders in the world who are fighting the enemies of Islam as openly and resistant as seyyed Khamenei currently?

Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) is a Masoom(عليه السلام) Ayatullah Khamenei isn't.  Do we refer to Shaheed Baqir us sadr and Amina as Sadr as Abbas (عليه السلام) and Zainab(عليه السلام) of their times? Allah knows what he means when he said those words but he is setting up a very wrong and very dangerous precedent by doing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

As long as he is occulation, he is not among us. Not in the same sense as how he will be once he rises.

No, but it means only he is worthy of ultimate loyalty, and only he is absolved from criticism and mistakes. Khamenei isn't.

18 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

When seyyed Nasrallah refers to seyyed Khamenei as the Hussein of our era, he is referring to the person who stands up against oppressors and fights them, in our era - I.e. the ones who are present. That does not mean that seyyed Khamenei is better than Imam Mahdi(ajf), only a fool would interpret it that way, whether he does it consciously or subconsciously.

He is comparing loyalty to Husayn (عليه السلام) to loyalty of Khamenei. This is the motive behind his analogy. The fact is it is permissible to disagree with Khamenei, and to follow someone other than him. When you say he is the Husayn (عليه السلام) of your time, you are saying his way is the only way which must be followed. 

And this isn't the first time Nasrallah has made such an analogy. 

This is even more obvious:

He says if all the ulama go in one direction, and Khamenei goes another way, you MUST follow Khamenei, the same way the Prophet (saww) is reported to have said if all the companions go one direction, and Ali (عليه السلام) goes another, you must follow Ali (عليه السلام).

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

first during his last calls for asking for anyone to help him an army of djinn responded to him and offered to wipe out the whole army of yazeed

second as he was about to be given his final blows Zeinab ran towards the place where it was going to happen and he ordered her to turn back , but she was already within sight of the incident so he hit the ground with his hand and caused the ground to sink and so that they fell in and a hill was between himself and zeinab peace be upon them both

so as you can see he had the ilm ul ghayb to just wave his hand and he could have caused the ground ot swallow the whole army of the opposition or he could have accepted the help of the djinn to wipe out the whole yazeeds army, but he knew and responded to them that God wishes to see him martyred there

There were one or two interesting threads last year comparing what was recorded in the earlier works of history (Kitab Maqtal al Hussain of Abu Mikhnaf, then later Kitab al Irshad of Sheikh al Mufeed and even later than that Al Luhoof of Sayyed ibn Tawus) with the stories that people come up with today 1400 years later.

I humbly suggest that we refer to reliable sources, especially when we then go on to build theories and concepts based on such things.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No what he did was not in the same spirit. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not sent tarradhi on his enemies

On this point I agree, but the objection (off topic by the way) was to the word 'Sayyadah' which is far from taraddhi. 

Quote

This narration is stating that it would have been halal for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to destroy all the people of Basra and to take all their money, but he chose not to do so, but to instead be merciful to them, so that they may be merciful to his Shi'a later on. It also says he (عليه السلام) did this in the same manner to which the Prophet (saww) was merciful to the people of Mecca after the conquest.

If anything this supports what I wrote rather than contradicts it. 

Anyway this isn't the topic so we don't have to derail the thread further.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theObserver
14 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

There were one or two interesting threads last year comparing what was recorded in the earlier works of history (Kitab Maqtal al Hussain of Abu Mikhnaf, then later Kitab al Irshad of Sheikh al Mufeed and even later than that Al Luhoof of Sayyed ibn Tawus) with the stories that people come up with today 1400 years later.

I humbly suggest that we refer to reliable sources, especially when we then go on to build theories and concepts based on such things.

Wallahu a'lam 

perhaps maybe those hadiths were proven to be false but you do agree that the Imams were given the whole il ul ghayb , Imam Ali talked about this where he said the servants of suleyman(peace be upon them both) had two letters of the 72(ilm ul ghayb) while he had the whole book(72) and this knowledge was passed down to each Imam after the previous one

this knowledge contained the knowledge to control matter including the lives of others , such as they can do the miracles of other Prophets(pbut) there is even in the ziyarah of Imam Hussein the lines "inheritor of suleyman, ibrahim, adam, isa, musa....etc" which is talking about inheriting their status and the knowledge that came with it

Imam Mahdi will be the only one to use his knowledge in full force when he goes on his mission, but all the previous Imams had just as much ability to use this knoweldge including Imam Hussein

and we don’t know the extent of this knowledge , but it was within their grasp, and they mostly hardly ever used it, even when debating people they never used that as an argument to prove their divinity or proof of God afterlife etc

there is a haidth about Imam Mahdi(ajtf) that he will point to the ground and water will sprout from it and he will feed and quench the thirst of his soldeirs this way, you think Imam Hussein((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) didnt have this ability? he also inherited the ilm ul ghayb and he had it at his disposal,but he also was obedient to God's decree to experience thirst and suffering etc you think he couldnt get water if he was allowed to get it? but it was decreed that they will suffer that so they accepted it and didnt interfere with God's decree

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...