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  
TryHard

Islamic Government

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, TryHard said:

ya if your trying to say the Imam (عليه السلام) is the only one that can establish the great kingdom of God throughout the entire Earth I definitely agree with you.

Yes Brother, that is what I mean. The verse is actually beautiful, Prophet Muhammad (saws) and the Imams (عليه السلام) belongs to the Family of Ibrahim (عليه السلام) and the verse clearly include that only they will establish the great kingdom, that's why the verse 2:124 only include those who are infallible:

“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Yes Brother, that is what I mean. The verse is actually beautiful, Prophet Muhammad (saws) and the Imams (عليه السلام) belongs to the Family of Ibrahim (عليه السلام) and the verse clearly include that only they will establish the great kingdom, that's why the verse only include those who are infallible:

“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)

If we are in agreement then cool. Thanks for the discussion. 

and the verse is beautiful.

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TryHard said:

Question where did I explicitly say you were a troll?  

As for master is america again not foul language also why are you offended some people might like that and think its a good thing. Don't you think serving America is a good thing? I do think your disingenuous, though that is grasping at straws as far as insults go. 

Also again I get the impression your implying I'm Isis and a Salafist but whatever. I know they serve America so.....

Let's see here, it's says:

Quote
  1. No swear words, inappropriate language, unmannered replies or racist comments, especially when directed at other members. A warning followed by a temporary ban shall be met. If a member repeats their offensive or racist language, a permanent ban will take place. No excuses. Overt slogans of "death" or "destruction" (or similar wording) of any specific government, nation, people, group, or religion are not permitted. However, constructive criticisms of the above are welcomed and encouraged.

I think you should read this, your replies to me have been ill-mannered and slanderous towards me. I understand you disagree with me and think I'm disingenuous and that's perfectly ok with me but Iran is not even a true Islamic government nor a "kingdom" as described in 4:54.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Let's see here, it's says:

I think you should read this, your replies to me have been ill-mannered and slanderous towards me. I understand you disagree with me and think I'm disingenuous and that's perfectly ok with me but Iran is not even a true Islamic government nor a "kingdom" as described in 4:54.

you calling me a salafist/Isis is quite ill mannered. Also slandering Imam Khamenei (ha) (albeit indirectly) and Iran, would also be slander. 

But I guess its up to the mods to define ill mannered. If I am supposed to be rosy with everyone including people who spout American propaganda than Ill see myself out of shiachat no ban necessary. However I don't think that is the case I have been here for a while just about as long as you have actually and based off the members I've seen get banned and not get banned I think I am okay, the mods aren't as strict as you make them out to be generally speaking. 

Iran is a true Islamic government you can cry to your master America about it, as much as you like but you saying so doesn't make it true. 

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


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

Iran is a true Islamic government you can cry to your master America about it, as much as you like but you saying so doesn't make it true. 

My master is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), not some fallible government like Iran or America. At least, I don't call it a "true Shia " country, an Islamic government in the truest sense of the word is with the Mahdi (afts), and he's yet to arrive.

I'm terribly sorry you can't grasp that I disagree with you but I can't help you there. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I don't call it a "true Shia " country, an Islamic government in the truest sense of the word is with the Mahdi (afts), and he's yet to arrive.

at least in Iran Shias have upper hand & can practice their faith without fear but based on your previous posts , you have problem to practice it in your home anyway I agree that " true Shia government' only applicable after reappearance of Imam Mahdi(aj) but for his reappearance we need Iran governance to provide condition for his reappearance that is main agenda of doing revolution & establishing current regime & government in Iran although it suffers from many problems & malfunctions.

Share this post


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

at least in Iran Shias have upper hand & can practice their faith without fear but based on your previous posts , you have problem to practice it in your home

Right, I partially agree with you, although when I get my own place, I believe I won't  have any issues worshipping, insha'Allah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

My master is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), not some fallible government like Iran or America. At least, I don't call it a "true Shia " country, an Islamic government in the truest sense of the word is with the Mahdi (afts), and he's yet to arrive.

You serve America whether you admit it or not. Again I'm seeing the same problem with you here your comparing a government run by kafirs with one run by Muslims (Shia specifically). I don't think you will ever understand. 

When the Mahdi (عليه السلام) arrives he will be ashamed to look at people who you who contributed nothing to his cause and did nothing but insult and slander those like Iran and Hezbollah who tried to pave the way for his return.

13 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I'm terribly sorry you can't grasp that I disagree with you but I can't help you there. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us.

I'm actually the one who is sorry you ignored all my arguments and refused any type of discussion. You are like the kuffar who covered their ears when the Qur'an was recited to them. 

Allah guide us indeed. 

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TryHard said:

Iran is a true Islamic government

It might be the best attempt there currently is, but it is not a 'true Islamic government', and there is no way it ever could be. It is a nation-state, something that didn't exist before the Treaty of Westphalia. This nation-state concept has many far-reaching consequences, and as a result, Iran violates many Islamic rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When the Mahdi (عليه السلام) arrives he will be ashamed to look at people who you who contributed nothing to his cause and did nothing but insult and slander those like Iran and Hezbollah who tried to pave the way for his return.

People of Iran are different than government of Iran. I love and respect my Iranian believer brothers and sisters and same goes with other Shi'as. About fallible Governments we may disagree partially or totally. I believe that it is impossible totally to agree on fallible government because there are moments when bad judgement or law or execution may occur. One example are these house arresting of scholars because they disagree or criticism. 

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


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

It might be the best attempt there currently is, but it is not a 'true Islamic government', and there is no way it ever could be. It is a nation-state, something that didn't exist before the Treaty of Westphalia. This nation-state concept has many far-reaching consequences, and as a result, Iran violates many Islamic rules.

Sad.

It is a true Islamic government. As for this treaty you mention I don't think they follow those principles specifically. They are a state for Iranians because they can’t just let anyone who says they are Muslim in the country due to things like spies and the like. But they do support Muslims throughout the world because they believe in the concept of one Ummah as a true Islamic government does. Westphalian principles basically demand people be concerned with their own borders and no one else. But countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria will tell you that Iran is concerned for the Ummah and not simply their own nation. 

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

People of Iran are different than government of Iran. I love and respect my Iranian believer brothers and sisters and same goes with other Shi'as. About fallible Governments we may disagree partially or totally. I believe that it is impossible totally to agree on fallible government because there are moments when bad judgement or law or execution may occur. One example are these house arresting of scholars because they disagree or criticism. 

the problem with those "scholars" is they don't know when it is appropriate to speak and choose to benefit the agendas of western powers. Iran is fighting powerful countries with lots of tools at their disposal yet these "scholars" love to shout, yell and cause unrest. 

It is important especially in times like these for people to unite behind Iran (the government and believers) because this government is run by Mujtahids who are lovers and servants of Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) it is really simple when you think about it. 

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


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

It might be the best attempt there currently is, but it is not a 'true Islamic government', and there is no way it ever could be. It is a nation-state, something that didn't exist before the Treaty of Westphalia. This nation-state concept has many far-reaching consequences, and as a result, Iran violates many Islamic rules.

I want to also add that the concept of Wilayat al Faqeeh extends beyond borders Muslims in other countries follow the wali al amr al muslimeen Imam Khamenei (ha). Hezbollah is one example of this. I don't think Iran is nationalistic in its essence. 

Share this post


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

Sad.

It is a true Islamic government. As for this treaty you mention I don't think they follow those principles specifically. They are a state for Iranians because they can’t just let anyone who says they are Muslim in the country due to things like spies and the like. But they do support Muslims throughout the world because they believe in the concept of one Ummah as a true Islamic government does. Westphalian principles basically demand people be concerned with their own borders and no one else. But countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria will tell you that Iran is concerned for the Ummah and not simply their own nation. 

Just like there is IRGC and regular army In Iran, there is also static conventional state that has borders and protocols, and the 'other' Islamic state that is more dynamic, 'borderless'. If you put these considerations into the equation, many things will make more sense.

Edited by 000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 000 said:

Just like there is IRGC and regular army In Iran, there is also static conventional state that has borders and protocols, and the 'other' Islamic state that is more dynamic, 'borderless'. If you put these considerations into the equation, many things will make more sense.

I think your misjudging it. IRGC doesn't necessarily acknowledge these borders look at hezbollah. Waleeh al Faqeeh commands all Muslims even outside Iran. 

Share this post


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

Westphalian principles basically demand people be concerned with their own borders and no one else.

I didn't mean Westphalian principles in the non-interventionist sense. I meant it as a short-hand for the basic legal principles underlying the modern state system.

Ideally, interventionism should be avoided in the Islamic context. 

However, Iran is justified to protect its sovereignty and interests in the region.

Share this post


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

I think your misjudging it. IRGC doesn't necessarily acknowledge these borders look at hezbollah. Waleeh al Faqeeh commands all Muslims even outside Iran. 

I didn't imply that. I was not even confronting you. What I'm saying basically is that you should decouple the inner Islamic state from the conventional westphalian state.

 

Although we have Rahbar, we still need president.

Although we have IRGC, we still need regular conventional army

Although we have great tradition, we still need philosophies

Although we have hawza, we still need universities

 

We just can't simply get rid of legacy systems.

Edited by 000

Share this post


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

I didn't mean Westphalian principles in the non-interventionist sense. I meant it as a short-hand for the basic legal principles underlying the modern state system.

Ideally, interventionism should be avoided in the Islamic context. 

However, Iran is justified to protect its sovereignty and interests in the region.

Right now the way things are I think Iran has its valid reasons for doing things the way it does them. I don't think the way it runs its country, despite some of the seemingly nationalistic principles, disqualify it from being a true Islamic government. 

Are there elements in Iran that could be Improved. Ya 100%. There are things. But at the end of the day none of those things disqualify it from being an Islamic government that shouldn't have the support of the Shia. When I see people comparing it to America (not you btw) that is where I draw the line.

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 12:08 PM, TryHard said:

You serve America whether you admit it or not. Again I'm seeing the same problem with you here your comparing a government run by kafirs with one run by Muslims (Shia specifically). I don't think you will ever understand. 

When the Mahdi (عليه السلام) arrives he will be ashamed to look at people who you who contributed nothing to his cause and did nothing but insult and slander those like Iran and Hezbollah who tried to pave the way for his return.

From Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as):

(٣٣٠٩٢) ٣ - وعن عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن أبي عبد الله المؤمن، عن ابن مسكان، عن سليمان بن خالد، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: اتقوا الحكومة فان الحكومة إنما هي للإمام العالم بالقضاء، العادل في المسلمين لنبي (١) أو وصي نبي

“Beware of the government, for the government surely is for the Imam who is knowledgeable of law, the just among the Muslims - a Prophet, or the Trustee of a Prophet [is the only authority].”

References:

1. Al-Kāfī, vol. 6, pp. 406.
2. Wasāʿil al-Shīʿah, vol. 27, pp. 17.

I stay far, far away from what you and many others associate our religion with. It doesn't matter if the people are Shia or kuffar, government is strictly in the domain of the Mahdi (afts).

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sirius_Bright @Moalfas @Abu Nur @starlight @Ashvazdanghe

So it's with great trepidation that I write this, because I'm not sure I'm giving this subject  the tact and sensitivity that it deserves. Plus, I have no desire to insult any scholars.

To Ashvazdanghe- My views aren't born of the idea that secularism is somehow better than Islam. Rather they are informed by hadiths like this: 

 

“... said the Imam: “Oh Mufaddal, every bay’ah before the reappearance of the Riser is a bay’ah of disbelief, hypocrisy and trickery. God’s curse be upon he who pledges it, and he who takes it.”

 

1. Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 53, pp. 8.


 

In Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 69, pp. 132.

 

al-Imam al-Ṣādiq told Ḥamrān bin Aʾyan: “Whoever opposed you in this matter is a zindeeq,” Ḥamrān said: Even if he was a ʿalawi and a fāṭimi (Sayyid)? He said: “Even if he was a muḥammadi, ʿalawi and a fāṭimi.”


 

In a long tradition in Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 30, pp. 18, the Prophet says,

 

“…Whoever makes an uprising and he is not one of my household, [then] they are the dajjāliya…”

 

فأيَّما راية خرجت ليست من أهل بيتي فهي الدجالية

 

“Had our Riser risen, he would’ve began with those who claim [arrogate] our love, so he would hit their necks.”

 

«لو قد قام قائمنا بدأ بالذين ينتحلون حبنا فيضرب رقابهم»

 

[al-Iḍhāḥ, pp. 208-209].

 

As a Muslim, reading these hadiths has made me apprehensive and cautious of supporting wilayat al-faqih in general. Especially since the current understanding of it is only fourty years old. Personally, when it comes to the people of Nuh (عليه السلام), I find more similarity with some members who quick to judge anyone as non Shias for disagreeing with the current WF theory and yet, they always preach about unity. 

 

Unity is good, but one cannot be so quick to label his own brothers with takfir and plead with our Sunni selves for unity at the same time. That's what is truly disingenuous and damaging for the Ummah. There's no other word for it except unacceptable. 

 

The verse 4:59 doesn't imply the authority of the fuqaha, but rather the authority of the Imamah and the Prophet's deputy as per my previous post. Again, "Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O' people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification." [33:33]

 

This purification is needed for a true Islamic government.

 

 To everyone else- If I wanted to justify WF, I wouldn't know what to do about the hadiths like this: “When al-Imam al-Mahdi emerges, he won’t have any clear enemy other than the religious authorities [jurists], he and his sword are brothers, and if it wasn’t by the sword in his hand, they would have have delivered verdicts to kill him, but God will support him by the sword and by generosity. They [the jurists] will obey him and will be fearful [of him]. Thus, they would be accepting his rule without faith, but they will have enmity against him.”

 

1. Bayān al-Aʾimmah, vol. 3, page 99. 

 

Or: Imam Ali said: “...and everyone who rises from my sons before al-Mahdi, then he is a jazūr (slaughtered camel), beware of the dajjāls from the children of Fatima, for indeed there are dajjāls from the children of Fatima, and a dajjāl shall emerge from the dajjāls of Basra, he’s not from me, and he’s at the front of all dajjāls.”

 

1. al-Malāḥim wal-Fitan, tradition 362, pp. 246.

 

I'm not sure what to think of these hadiths but it gives me pause and much reflection of my previous views I know I'll probably get more flack for this post but I don't want to blindly support  or believe  in anything without full, proper understanding as a revert. If it's too long or controversial, feel free to edit it.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there's this hadith as well:

ورأيت الفقيه يتفقه لغير الدين، يطلب الدنيا والرئاسة

“And you will see the jurist study jurisprudence for other than religion, and seek this world and leadership.”

1. Kāfī, vol. 8, pp. 40.

^That hadith alone calls the modern concept of wilayat al faqih and Islamist politics in question for me and proof that people are in general unable to handle politics and religion together or within a religious context.

 

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 10:42 PM, azizaliallah said:

All governments have a theology.

How can you govern without God or Idols?

A Nihilistic Republic ? Or a Nihilistic Democracy?

Communists where atheists but could they govern without false gods? 

Impossible.

America is motivated by faith, faith not in Allah but the Goddess of Colombia.

People are deceived, can't see the evil that todays Idols bring.

Every nation has a Pharaoh, every nation has a Kabba filled with idols.

Imam Khomeini put the entire Iranian nation on his shoulders, and they smashed the false gods of the west.

Islamic revolution smashed the idols of American Exceptionalism, Feminism , Communism, Capitalism.

Most Important development of the last century. 

Everyone thinks “Allah” is their own

g-od.  

this is the problem.  ;)

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gaius I. Caesar

الإمام علي عليه السلام

لا تستوحشوا طريق الحق لقلة سالكيه 

 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said 

Do not feel alone on the path of Haqq because of the lack of people taking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My stance is that I live where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) put me and I try to just follow rightly Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) religion and laws. If I can't, I move somewhere where I can Insha'Allah.

Surely the ones whom the Angels take up, (while) they are unjust to themselves- (to them) (the Angels) say, "In what (condition) were you?" (I.e., In what circumstances were you? Of what religion were you?) They say, "We were deemed weak in the Earth." They (the Angels) say, "Was not the Earth of Allah wide so that you (could) have emigrated in it?" So, the abode for those (men) is Hell, and what an odious Destiny! 4:97

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 10:42 PM, azizaliallah said:

All governments have a theology.

I forgot to address this: 

Quote

1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

^Theology has absolutely nothing with government. I think you meant  to say that all governments have an ideology. Which is absolutely true, especially in these times.

On 1/27/2020 at 10:42 PM, azizaliallah said:

America is motivated by faith, faith not in Allah but the Goddess of Colombia.

Wrong, America has always been motivated by separation of state and religion : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And paganism was never and still isn't a thing in the United States today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 10:06 AM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

From Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as):

(٣٣٠٩٢) ٣ - وعن عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن أبي عبد الله المؤمن، عن ابن مسكان، عن سليمان بن خالد، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: اتقوا الحكومة فان الحكومة إنما هي للإمام العالم بالقضاء، العادل في المسلمين لنبي (١) أو وصي نبي

“Beware of the government, for the government surely is for the Imam who is knowledgeable of law, the just among the Muslims - a Prophet, or the Trustee of a Prophet [is the only authority].”

References:

1. Al-Kāfī, vol. 6, pp. 406.
2. Wasāʿil al-Shīʿah, vol. 27, pp. 17.

I stay far, far away from what you and many others associate our religion with. It doesn't matter if the people are Shia or kuffar, government is strictly in the domain of the Mahdi (afts).

You also have hadiths that say every uprising before the coming of the Imam is a false uprising. Yet Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) had an uprising and Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) supported Zayds uprising. The problem with this hadiths and others like it is they are talking about the Abbasid or Ummayid government of the time and not every other government or uprising.

Proof that nails that entire argument in its coffin is Shia scholars pretty much unanimously reject it as far as that interpretation goes. 

السؤال: ما هو تعريفكم لولاية الفقيه ؟

الجواب: الولاية فيما يعبّر عنها في كلمات الفقهاء (رض) بالامور الحسبية تثبت لكل فقيه جامع لشروط التقليد ، واما الولاية فيما هو اوسع منها من الامور العامة التي يتوقّف عليها نظام المجتمع الاسلامي فلمن تثبت له من الفقهاء ولظروف إعمالها شروط اضافية ومنها ان يكون للفقيه مقبولية عامة لدى المؤمنين .
sayed Sistani (ha) in the above istiftat not only approves of Islamic government but of Wilayat al Faqih (I underlined both so you can use a translator)
Even Sadiq Shirazi believes in a Shura government, that means @Gaius I. Caesar that means you can say everyone is in agreement as to the validity of Islamic government. Now you might not like Imam Khamenei (ha) fine but what will you say to Sadiq shirazi or Yasir habib who although disagree with Wilayat al Faqih believe in a different form of Islamic government? 
From Muhammad Shirazi's book "the Islamic System"
 
"Article 8 The leader or the Head of State under the Islamic system of government is the Mujtahid who satisfies all the criteria required" http://www.english.shirazi.ir/books/the_islamic_system.pdf 
 
Another noteworthy individual is Shaheed al Sadr (رضي الله عنه) another believer in Islamic government and part of the reason he became shaheed in fact.
The point to remember Gaius is no one really agrees with your interpretation. The Islamic scholars have more knowledge than you and despite the hadiths you mentioned (addressed in Imam Khomeini's(رضي الله عنه) works btw) mujtahids still believe in Islamic government. even sides that are opposed to each other still at least agree with the Idea of Islamic government.
Edited by TryHard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

السؤال: ما هو تعريفكم لولاية الفقيه ؟

الجواب: الولاية فيما يعبّر عنها في كلمات الفقهاء (رض) بالامور الحسبية تثبت لكل فقيه جامع لشروط التقليد ، واما الولاية فيما هو اوسع منها من الامور العامة التي يتوقّف عليها نظام المجتمع الاسلامي فلمن تثبت له من الفقهاء ولظروف إعمالها شروط اضافية ومنها ان يكون للفقيه مقبولية عامة لدى المؤمنين .
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TryHard said:

The point to remember Gaius is no one really agrees with your interpretation.

So essentially, nobody agrees with Imam Sadiq  (عليه السلام) that the Islamic government and the matters involved with it are for the Mahdi (afts) alone? A sad sign of the upcoming end times.

4 hours ago, TryHard said:

what will you say to Sadiq shirazi or Yasir habib who although disagree with Wilayat al Faqih believe in a different form of Islamic government? 

I think if people are going to establish a government  with Islamic principles, it will probably be under a shura but regardless of what I think, it seems any human attempt of establishing an "Islamic government" is a transgression against the Mahdi (afts) and by extension, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

So essentially, nobody agrees with Imam Sadiq  (عليه السلام) that the Islamic government and the matters involved with it are for the Mahdi (afts) alone? A sad sign of the upcoming end times.

astaghfirullah, Your saying none of these ulema agree with Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) and they all are going against them? See this is my problem with you. You say you are this learning revert yet when people who have much more knowledge than you clearly show that you are mistaken in a certain topic you arragontly refuse to listen. Do you think the scholars of Islam don't know of these hadiths? Why do you think you understand things better than they do? See the arrogance is probably what upsets me the most about you.

Also you still don’t answer the rest of my post answering your questions how surprising. 

8 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I think if people are going to establish a government  with Islamic principles, it will probably be under a shura but regardless of what I think, it seems any human attempt of establishing an "Islamic government" is a transgression against the Mahdi (afts) and by extension, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

clearly misguided. Holding yourself in way too high esteem above all the scholars of Islam. The Imam said specifically "and as for the affairs after me go to the narrators of our hadiths (Islamic scholars)" yet you are ignoring the command of the very same Imam (عليه السلام) you claim to follow. Allah guide you from your very misguided path. 

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


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

you think the scholars of Islam don't know of these hadiths? Why do you think you understand things better than they do?

Of course they do, and I don't claim understand things better than they do either. Yet the hadiths and Qur'an seem clear as daylight about this, Islamic government can only by a Prophet and/or his Trustee (Muhammad (sawas) and Ali (as)), because only a member of the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) is pure enough to not to use the government as a means for power and leadership. And jurists will have enmity and resent the Mahdi (afts) for establishing it. 

^ This alone is enough for me to reconsider and disassociate from wilayat al faqih. 

6 hours ago, TryHard said:

Also you still don’t answer the rest of my post answering your questions how surprising. 

What parts do you want to me to answer? You never clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Yet Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) had an uprising and Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) supported Zayds uprising.

Not necessary, some scholars believe he did and others not. Again this subject does not have 100% agreement, only everyone is agreeing 100% for the government of Imam (عليه السلام).

Share this post


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

Not necessary, some scholars believe he did and others not. Again this subject does not have 100% agreement, only everyone is agreeing 100% for the government of Imam (عليه السلام).

Again Imam hussains (عليه السلام) uprising was an uprising that happened after Imam Ali(عليه السلام) hadith supposedly forbidding it. Zayds uprising did happen and the Imam (عليه السلام) clearly supported it but bring proof from scholars if you disagree. There were other uprisings supported by Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) like mukhtars uprising as well and others like it. No scholar I know of disagrees with Islamic government or uprising against the thalims. There is ijma on it. All the big top scholars definitely agree on it and that is called ijma. 

 

6 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Of course they do, and I don't claim understand things better than they do either. Yet the hadiths and Qur'an seem clear as daylight about this, Islamic government can only by a Prophet and/or his Trustee (Muhammad (sawas) and Ali (as)), because only a member of the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) is pure enough to not to use the government as a means for power and leadership. And jurists will have enmity and resent the Mahdi (afts) for establishing it. 

^ This alone is enough for me to reconsider and disassociate from wilayat al faqih. 

What parts do you want to me to answer? You never clarified.

Saying they are wrong cause you believe so is indirectly claiming you know something they don’t. I.E arragontly stating you understand the hadiths of Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) better than they do. The scholars know what those hadiths mean and where they apply to better than you do. It is clear as day to them that those hadiths don’t make it haram to establish an Islamic government. It is clear as day to me as well. Once again seeing you being disingenuous. 

Edited by TryHard

Share this post


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

Again Imam hussains (عليه السلام) uprising was an uprising that happened after Imam Ali(عليه السلام) hadith supposedly forbidding it. Zayds uprising did happen and the Imam (عليه السلام) clearly supported it but bring proof from scholars if you disagree. There were other uprisings supported by Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) like mukhtars uprising as well and others like it. No scholar I know of disagrees with Islamic government or uprising against the thalims. There is ijma on it. All the big top scholars definitely agree on it and that is called ijma. 

 

Saying they are wrong cause you believe so is indirectly claiming you know something they don’t. I.E arragontly stating you understand the hadiths of Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) better than they do. The scholars know what those hadiths mean and where they apply to better than you do. It is clear as day to them that those hadiths don’t make it haram to establish an Islamic government. It is clear as day to me as well. Once again seeing you being disingenuous. 

I have been very patient with you. Alas, my patience is wearing thin. You say I'm disingenuous but you don't explain how,  so I can't help with you with that and regardless of your feelings about me,  I didn't narrate these hadiths out of thin air.  Nobody is above the Imams (عليه السلام) or Muhammad (sawas).  Also, I can clearly see these hadiths having no other interpretation than the one I presented.

The language is very literal. It doesn't take an hadith expert to comprehend that, in the end times, the faqihs will pursue religious knowledge for the sake of power and influence. They will fight Al-Mahdi (afts) and they will accept his rule begrudgingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TryHard said:

Again Imam hussains (عليه السلام) uprising was an uprising that happened after Imam Ali(عليه السلام) hadith supposedly forbidding it. Zayds uprising did happen and the Imam (عليه السلام) clearly supported it but bring proof from scholars if you disagree. There were other uprisings supported by Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) like mukhtars uprising as well and others like it. No scholar I know of disagrees with Islamic government or uprising against the thalims. There is ijma on it. All the big top scholars definitely agree on it and that is called ijma. 

Because there is no clear statement, you will have always some doubts and two sided camps. From wikishia:

{Zayd's revolt occurred during the imamate of Imam al-Sadiq (a), but the Imam (a) did not participate in the revolt, and there are no clear statements by Imam al-Sadiq (a) regarding the revolt. Some maintain that the fact that the Imam (a) did not participate in the revolt indicates his disagreement with it, however some others believe that while the Imam (a) was supportive of the revolt, he did not regard it beneficial to participate directly in the revolt. Some scholars such as al-Shahid al-Awwal, Ayatollah Khoei, and Mamaqani believe that Zayd b. Ali was permitted by Imam al-Sadiq (a) to revolt. In this regard, a hadith is adduced, which reports that Zayd consulted with Imam al-Sadiq (a) and the Imam (a) told him, "If you wish to be the one who will be hung in the midden of Kufa, this is the way." Adducing the same hadith, some other scholars hold that, although Zayd truly intended to hand over the caliphate to Imam al-Sadiq (a), the Imam (a) prohibited him from the revolt. Based on a hadith, Allama Tihrani too holds that Zayd's revolt was conducted without the Imam's (a) permission.

According to some hadiths from Imam al-Sadiq (a) and Imam al-Rida (a), Zayd intended to transfer the caliphate to Imam al-Sadiq (a). Al-Shaykh al-Mufid states that Zayd led his revolt to bring to power "the pleased one from the family of the Prophet (s)", and did not seek the caliphate for himself. Al-Allama al-Majlisi attributes this opinion to the majority of Twelver Shiite scholars and adds that he has not seen a different opinion from them.

According to al-Shaykh al-Mufid, when Imam al-Sadiq (a) was informed of the murder of Zayd, he was deeply affected and ordered that an amount of money be distributed among the families of those who had been killed in the revolt.}

- It is possible that the Imam (عليه السلام) supported it. It is also possible that he did not. It is also possible that he supported it and at same time deny because of Taqiyah.

Edited by Abu Nur

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...