Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Benefit Behind Salman Rushdie Fatwa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses it was indeed a very disingenuous effort on his part to wrongfully depict the Holy Prophet in such a manner which is indeed devoid of any truth whatsoever

It still had side-effects. It is frequently used in non-Muslim rhetoric, and it solidifies in the non-Muslim's mind that Islam is barbaric, Iran is "terrorist regime", free speech good, Western values

This is a provocateur type thread. Recommend locking.

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member

Note on Rushdie:

l have been going through some old stuff and found this, inshallah.

lRNA 31Oct99  10:58

Tehran Times opined in sync with clerics that issued a fatwa condemning the playwrite of the blasphemous "Corpus Christi" to death.

This paper also opined that this writer is in the same apostate designation as Rushdie.

https://www.irna.com/cgi-bin/tmpget_news.pl?09105829.f09 

Note: These fatwas cannot be implemented as per policy if lRl and western law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/13/2020 at 1:24 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses it was indeed a very disingenuous effort on his part to wrongfully depict the Holy Prophet in such a manner which is indeed devoid of any truth whatsoever pertaining to his sublime character, unfortunately when questioned he would remark that Bukhari was used as a reference for his vile act. Now I understand as painful as it may be to lay idle as one man insults, slanders, and seeks to defame a figure which over 1.7 billion individuals revere greatly, however, I as a layman and Shia Muslim see that there served no benefit from the fatwa which called for the death of not only Salman Rushdie, but all those who aided in the configuration, translation, and in anyway shape or form contributed to the completion of the book. 

I see this as an issue which was downright counter intuitive, for it served to highlight to the world that as Muslims we do not tolerate any form of criticism (although dishonest). I am confident that it would have been a more beneficial and greater approach to the matter in not only the eyes of the public, but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as well, if instead of issuing a fatwa which would depict us as individuals who are against free speech to instead use that same method of media in producing a book which would show in every way shape or form how the Prophet is nothing like what was depicted in the satanic verses.

Sharing the same battlefield as the enemy and in a more civil and equitable means, for if they sought to draw their pens and defame us with falsehood we can indeed draw our pens of truth and vanquish whatever feeble attempts they may have had in their dishonest endeavors. With the publicity that the Islamic Government had at the time and the profound thinkers who have published phenomenal works, could they not had done such a thing and publicized a book which annihilates the foundation which was structured around the Satanic Verses.

Now one may say it would have affected the unity behind the Muslim Ummah as it could be a sort of stab at Bukhari, but I am sure the capability of the intellectuals could conjure a message which seeks to convey the pure sense of Islam without attacking the literature of the Sunni brothers. Instead of simply publicizing the book even more and depicting the Muslims as individuals who are intolerant, at a time when tolerance is especially needed for the good image of Islam, considering the book was written outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state which is a very important point.

Blood is not something which I consider to be cheap, and the sanctity of human life within Islam is greatly considered. I don't think that mere translators whose job was simply to translate books many of whom they were ignorant to the context of the book and perhaps saw it as another fictional tale like any other fictitious book which was far from any political sense. To call for their blood to be shed righteously in Japan and elsewhere was inconsiderate to innocent blood. This fatwa did not benefit Islam and the Muslims and I am prepared to read attentively your remarks.

@Mahdavist @A_A @habib e najjaar @313 Seeker @AmirioTheMuzzy @Ashvazdanghe @The Green Knight

Salaam brother, 

I would call it a great thread. But I do oppose your objection. I feel the fatwa was appropriate and support it completely. I don't know it's current condition. I don't even know how many muslims follow it. But it was essential at that time. Though I am not a fanatic and can add some reasons to it from my point of view. 
Since the fall of the Ottomans, muslims were constantly on backfoot in the entire world. We were getting attacked by enemies from all sides. From front and from behind also. After the fall of Ottomans several incidents happened against muslims:
1. Palestine
2. Partition of India resulting in the disintegration of Muslims.
3. Then again the division of Pakistan
4. Empowerment of Extremists groups within Muslims

Back to back defeats in wars. Imperialist- imposed dictators in all the muslim nations. And theft of important natural resources in the middle-east by the west. Their are many other events but let us focus on the main point. All of this was humiliating for the muslims and silence in the muslim world gave more confidence to the opponents. So, this fatwa on Salman Rushdie:

1. Became a reason to unite the divided Muslims
2. A way to answer the imperialists that 'it's enough'

We needed a strong response and a violent response at that time. Because they were not objecting or criticizing us. They were not even attacking us but rather mocking us. That book was a message to the Muslims that: "We will defame you and your prophet and you can't do a thing about it." So, a fatwa like that was the most appropriate response to the mockers. If Salman Rushdie had acted as a critique, then I would support your point of answering in an objective fashion. But it was just another attack by imperialists like the occupation of Quds, the creation of extremist groups etc. We were weaker in position at that time and the fatwa was a gesture of strength, toughness and mobility from the side of Muslims. A warning to the enemy that their attacks won't go unanswered.
Writing a book as an answer won't work because muslims were lagging a good media support needed to promote the book. Further, publishing the book in western publications would always be a toug BBC task. So, in the 1980s, a book (that too from Iran which was already hated because of Hostage crisis and war) would go completely ignored in the west. Although muslims would read it but that is not important. 

Now, another point you raised that it added more fuel to the fire and became a reason to defame Islam and the muslims. No my friend. Do you think that as a true devout muslim you will ever earn a good image among the imperialists? They mislead the people by spreading false information about our leaders. Taking anything out of context would mislead the west about us. How many times they depict Sayyed Nasrallah as a 'terrorist' and Ayatullah Khamenei as a 'dictator' without even showing their messages and stances. I agree that it led to a bit of defamation but that was nothing in comparison to what could have happened if the fatwa was not in place.

If Ayatullah Khomeini had not given that Fatwa, everyone would have read that book in the west (as Rushdie is a popular writer) and it would tear down the image of our Prophet (SAWW). The objective and genuine people in the west would have never found a popular reaction to it. This could be a humility for Islam and for Muslims that would be really difficult to bring down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Zainuu said:

Salaam brother, 

I would call it a great thread. But I do oppose your objection. I feel the fatwa was appropriate and support it completely. I don't know it's current condition. I don't even know how many muslims follow it. But it was essential at that time. Though I am not a fanatic and can add some reasons to it from my point of view. 
Since the fall of the Ottomans, muslims were constantly on backfoot in the entire world. We were getting attacked by enemies from all sides. From front and from behind also. After the fall of Ottomans several incidents happened against muslims:
1. Palestine
2. Partition of India resulting in the disintegration of Muslims.
3. Then again the division of Pakistan
4. Empowerment of Extremists groups within Muslims

Back to back defeats in wars. Imperialist- imposed dictators in all the muslim nations. And theft of important natural resources in the middle-east by the west. Their are many other events but let us focus on the main point. All of this was humiliating for the muslims and silence in the muslim world gave more confidence to the opponents. So, this fatwa on Salman Rushdie:

1. Became a reason to unite the divided Muslims
2. A way to answer the imperialists that 'it's enough'

We needed a strong response and a violent response at that time. Because they were not objecting or criticizing us. They were not even attacking us but rather mocking us. That book was a message to the Muslims that: "We will defame you and your prophet and you can't do a thing about it." So, a fatwa like that was the most appropriate response to the mockers. If Salman Rushdie had acted as a critique, then I would support your point of answering in an objective fashion. But it was just another attack by imperialists like the occupation of Quds, the creation of extremist groups etc. We were weaker in position at that time and the fatwa was a gesture of strength, toughness and mobility from the side of Muslims. A warning to the enemy that their attacks won't go unanswered.
Writing a book as an answer won't work because muslims were lagging a good media support needed to promote the book. Further, publishing the book in western publications would always be a toug BBC task. So, in the 1980s, a book (that too from Iran which was already hated because of Hostage crisis and war) would go completely ignored in the west. Although muslims would read it but that is not important. 

Now, another point you raised that it added more fuel to the fire and became a reason to defame Islam and the muslims. No my friend. Do you think that as a true devout muslim you will ever earn a good image among the imperialists? They mislead the people by spreading false information about our leaders. Taking anything out of context would mislead the west about us. How many times they depict Sayyed Nasrallah as a 'terrorist' and Ayatullah Khamenei as a 'dictator' without even showing their messages and stances. I agree that it led to a bit of defamation but that was nothing in comparison to what could have happened if the fatwa was not in place.

If Ayatullah Khomeini had not given that Fatwa, everyone would have read that book in the west (as Rushdie is a popular writer) and it would tear down the image of our Prophet (SAWW). The objective and genuine people in the west would have never found a popular reaction to it. This could be a humility for Islam and for Muslims that would be really difficult to bring down. 

Also,  want to add. Now, their is no need of such a step. And therefore, constructive efforts are done everytime to combat this. Muslim world is in a far better state than 1980s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thank you for your appreciated response brother @Zainuu from the time I created this thread until today, I believe a good portion of my concerns regarding this fatwa have been rectified, however, one final issue remains which is the inclusion of the translators among those who are to be killed. It may act as a deterrent to those who would possibly embark on such an endeavor - translating a defaming book in reference to the Prophet or another sacred figure - however, the issue is, the individuals who may have been killed are those who had no genuine intent on harming the Prophet, because they (most likely) viewed the satanic verses as another factitious novel. Such is the case of the Japanese translator who was killed. Would it be fair to say that they indeed were those who were caught in the crossfire of such a fatwa? Or perhaps it would have been best to simply include Rushdie and his likes - those with a clear agenda within the ruling. Severing the head (Rushdie) instead of a group of involuntary limbs (the translators). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Thank you for your appreciated response brother @Zainuu from the time I created this thread until today, I believe a good portion of my concerns regarding this fatwa have been rectified, however, one final issue remains which is the inclusion of the translators among those who are to be killed. It may act as a deterrent to those who would possibly embark on such an endeavor - translating a defaming book in reference to the Prophet or another sacred figure - however, the issue is, the individuals who may have been killed are those who had no genuine intent on harming the Prophet, because they (most likely) viewed the satanic verses as another factitious novel. Such is the case of the Japanese translator who was killed. Would it be fair to say that they indeed were those who were caught in the crossfire of such a fatwa? Or perhaps it would have been best to simply include Rushdie and his likes - those with a clear agenda within the ruling. Severing the head (Rushdie) instead of a group of involuntary limbs (the translators). 

Nice. The question is important. I have not read the entire fatwa and I'm not providing anything factual. Just my own observation on the matter. So, let us take the case. 

1. If Rushdie and all associated with the book include it's publisher, it's promoter and other who were the stakeholders (which is a likely possibility). Then, their is no question on it's accuracy. Because as I quoted before, it was an imperialist plot and not a 'one man job'. Rushdie was not the only one responsible.

2. If Rushdie and all associated also include those who translated it from one language to another or who sold it on their bookshops or kept in their library, then, I feel that some of them were guilty while to the other it becomes extreme. It might also be the case that some muslims misinterpreted the fatwa and associated those people with it who had no intent but had a small involvement. 

Elaborating my second point. I said that some of them might be wrong.  Here comes the example you said. A Japenese translator. I believe that a translator can likely have an active involvement in converting a book. 

Let me ask you a question. In the story of Karbala, is it that all the soldiers in Yazeed's Army were willing to kill Imam Husayn (عليه السلام)? No, so why all should be punished. Because many of them were simply employs of Yazeed. Some of them were even greedy about money so they didn't question anything. In short, they were simply unaware and it was just because of their ignorance. But all belong to the same category. All are the worst people, the murderers of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام). So, a translator in this case is involved in the character assassination of The Holy Prophet (SAWW). I mean he is translating the book. He knows two languages, how can he be so ignorant to not understand the context of the book? So, I believe that most of the translators translated the book either with full intention, as a job or in the greed of money. 

To conclude, a translator is responsible and has done wrong. Though, I don't think he deserves a fatwa. Maybe the muslims interpreted it badly and comprehension got mixed with emotions which led to assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Nice. The question is important. I have not read the entire fatwa and I'm not providing anything factual. Just my own observation on the matter. So, let us take the case. 

1. If Rushdie and all associated with the book include it's publisher, it's promoter and other who were the stakeholders (which is a likely possibility). Then, their is no question on it's accuracy. Because as I quoted before, it was an imperialist plot and not a 'one man job'. Rushdie was not the only one responsible.

2. If Rushdie and all associated also include those who translated it from one language to another or who sold it on their bookshops or kept in their library, then, I feel that some of them were guilty while to the other it becomes extreme. It might also be the case that some muslims misinterpreted the fatwa and associated those people with it who had no intent but had a small involvement. 

Elaborating my second point. I said that some of them might be wrong.  Here comes the example you said. A Japenese translator. I believe that a translator can likely have an active involvement in converting a book. 

Let me ask you a question. In the story of Karbala, is it that all the soldiers in Yazeed's Army were willing to kill Imam Husayn (عليه السلام)? No, so why all should be punished. Because many of them were simply employs of Yazeed. Some of them were even greedy about money so they didn't question anything. In short, they were simply unaware and it was just because of their ignorance. But all belong to the same category. All are the worst people, the murderers of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام). So, a translator in this case is involved in the character assassination of The Holy Prophet (SAWW). I mean he is translating the book. He knows two languages, how can he be so ignorant to not understand the context of the book? So, I believe that most of the translators translated the book either with full intention, as a job or in the greed of money. 

To conclude, a translator is responsible and has done wrong. Though, I don't think he deserves a fatwa. Maybe the muslims interpreted it badly and comprehension got mixed with emotions which led to assumption.

I genuinely appreciate your input and I believe the points you raised are quite solid Mashallah, thank you for your clarification brother. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you and your family. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I genuinely appreciate your input and I believe the points you raised are quite solid Mashallah, thank you for your clarification brother. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you and your family. 

May Allah bless you and ypur family too brother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The people who are raising the banners of free speech when it comes to insulting of holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s why are they  ready to jail, imprison people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.. They also share the same freedom of expression 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

l posted at the top of this page that Rushdie was financially ruined.

l found this LATimes article dated Sunday, 01October20OO:

"After Years of Offering Refuge, the British Write-0ff Rushdie" by Marjorie MiIIer  a short read and not complementary to 'Rashdie'.

https://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20001001/t000093236.html

"The knives are out for the 'author-out-of-hiding'. Hatchets and verbal whips, too."

[of Rashdie] "...whose scant claim to fame is he once wrote a book no one understood."

"The great pity is that it took 10 years and 10 million pounds of British taxpayers' money to protect him before he realized he wanted to shove off,"[go to NYC -ed.] Note: l read elsewhere that the UK billed him for this money.-ed.

"But in the interim, Rushdie lived in hiding, moving constantly among 30 safe houses with Special Branch officers parked in his kitchen, playing Scrabble with him and, quite possibly, reading his books to pass the time. lt made him a little cranky."

"Meanwhile, hit men killed the Japanese translator of "Satanic Verses" and wounded the ltalian translator and Norwegian publisher. Bombs were planted outside bookshops in Britian owned by its English publisher, Penguin Books. Scores of people were killed or injured in protests over the book."

Y'aII get the drift of this here article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 11/11/2020 at 4:03 AM, Zainuu said:

So, this fatwa on Salman Rushdie:

1. Became a reason to unite the divided Muslims
2. A way to answer the imperialists that 'it's enough'

Salaam brother,

Thank you for your active contributions and in depth response, MashaAllah you are very intelligent. I would like to say that on this topic I respectfully disagree with you. For point 1 from above, a lot of Muslims did not agree with the fatwa. According to Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad (see his YouTube video here), Al Azhar University did not support it. There were criticisms of the fatwa on Islamic grounds, some alleging that a Shar’i judgement can only be made with the perpetrator brought in front of a judge in a court trial, or others alleged that it should have been limited to an Islamic (shariah) state. 

For point 2, don’t you think there are many other ways of answering the imperialists that does not make Islam or the Islamic Republic of Iran look barbaric and terroristic to the average westerner, if you go on social media sites unfortunately this was the result.

On 11/11/2020 at 6:02 AM, Zainuu said:

In the story of Karbala, is it that all the soldiers in Yazeed's Army were willing to kill Imam Husayn (عليه السلام)? No, so why all should be punished. Because many of them were simply employs of Yazeed. Some of them were even greedy about money so they didn't question anything. In short, they were simply unaware and it was just because of their ignorance. But all belong to the same category. All are the worst people, the murderers of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام).

Yes but there also the movement of the Tawwabeen who felt guilty of not helping Imam Husain (عليه السلام) and they led an uprising. Also, even if we ignore the above arguments that the jurisdiction of Islamic laws is within its borders or that a proper trial is necessary, some also critiqued the fatwa in that the publishers were to be assassinated. Because a) transmission of blasphemy is not blasphemy and b) publishers were non-Muslims (and so need to be given 3 days to repent from what I know).

Wallahu a’lam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

For point 1 from above, a lot of Muslims did not agree with the fatwa. According to Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad (see his YouTube video here), Al Azhar University did not support it. There were criticisms of the fatwa on Islamic grounds, some alleging that a Shar’i judgement can only be made with the perpetrator brought in front of a judge in a court trial, or others alleged that it should have been limited to an Islamic (shariah) state. 

Salaam, 

Muslims are 1.8 billion in the world. I agree that many major institutes of Muslims didn't support it. But the institutes don't make a majority. Al-Azhar cannot even support your way of praying Salaat. Al-Azhar didn't support the fatwa of 'Shia Kafir' announced by the wahabis of Saudi Arabia. But who listened to them? A good amount of people among sunni groups stood with that infamous fatwa of 'Shia Kafir'. 

If you are searching for disagreements then on scholarly level, you don't need to go so far to al-Azhar. Criticism of even Wilayat al Faqih is even common in many Shia groups. But who hears them? 

Their is a quote in hindi, "Jo dikhta hai vo bikta hai". What's visible, is sold the most. We are discussing this fatwa here because it was popular and a good population among the muslims supported it. 

18 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

For point 2, don’t you think there are many other ways of answering the imperialists that does not make Islam or the Islamic Republic of Iran look barbaric and terroristic to the average westerner, if you go on social media sites unfortunately this was the result.

I answered this in detail:

Yes. Their are. And they are even put in practice now. But according to the situation, this was the only resort that days. 

You can check why other options were not feasible:

 

If you have an option that should have been better than the fatwa then you can put that up. I will reply for that. 

23 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Yes but there also the movement of the Tawwabeen who felt guilty of not helping Imam Husain (عليه السلام) and they led an uprising. Also, even if we ignore the above arguments that the jurisdiction of Islamic laws is within its borders or that a proper trial is necessary, some also critiqued the fatwa in that the publishers were to be assassinated. Because a) transmission of blasphemy is not blasphemy and b) publishers were non-Muslims (and so need to be given 3 days to repent from what I know).

Ironically, we are debating on the fatwa while no one checked the fatwa (including me) :

 

 

Quote

 

We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions.

— Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini

 


 

Fatwa is crystal clear for those who were aware of the content and still promoted it. I don't see any problem. FYI, in India, Rajiv Gandhi was the then PM and he banned the book immediately after the orders were announced. It was that simple if someone wanted to stay out. 

Further, let me clear it that this is not a fatwa but a hukm (command). It is not the part of Sharia but rather it would come under the hisbiyyah issues which are tackled by Wali e Faqih.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 11/11/2020 at 4:03 AM, Zainuu said:

Writing a book as an answer won't work because muslims were lagging a good media support needed to promote the book. Further, publishing the book in western publications would always be a toug BBC task. So, in the 1980s, a book (that too from Iran which was already hated because of Hostage crisis and war) would go completely ignored in the west. Although muslims would read it but that is not important. 

 

Salaamun alaikum,

There are so many rich Muslims, Shias and scholars, even if a couple got together it could have been published in large institutions.

On 11/11/2020 at 4:03 AM, Zainuu said:

Now, another point you raised that it added more fuel to the fire and became a reason to defame Islam and the muslims. No my friend. Do you think that as a true devout muslim you will ever earn a good image among the imperialists? They mislead the people by spreading false information about our leaders

That’s true. But we can earn a good image among some of the citizens, or at least we can try.

11 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Fatwa is crystal clear for those who were aware of the content and still promoted it. I don't see any problem.

Yes but does the sharia allow people who are aware and just transmit it to be killed. As far as I know it was only the public blasphemer.

11 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Further, let me clear it that this is not a fatwa but a hukm (command). It is not the part of Sharia but rather it would come under the hisbiyyah issues which are tackled by Wali e Faqih.

I think this sort of strong authority or strong response should only apply to the Qa’im; with due respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Because only he will do it most justly.

I suppose we can agree to disagree with due respect :).

Wsalam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

There are so many rich Muslims, Shias and scholars, even if a couple got together it could have been published in large institutions.

Where were these so-called 'rich' when al-Quds was attacked by the Zionists? Okay. Name me a single book published as an answer by any of these 'rich' as an answer to Rushdie??  Also, who read the book? Muslims. But the book should have reached the western audience?? 

These so-called rich people (scholar or whatever) did nothing but spent this richness on worldly gains while the imperialists were conquering the Islamic lands. Would they defend the identity of our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?? 

7 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

But we can earn a good image among some of the citizens, or at least we can try.

We do earn a good image in the minds of many rational westerners. Dr. Henry Corbin had a very deep relationship with Allama Tabatabai. A huge amount of leftist individuals in the west, hold a good image for us. 

9 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Yes but does the sharia allow people who are aware and just transmit it to be killed. As far as I know it was only the public blasphemer.

This was not the part of Sharia basically. Let me explain it. 

When you see Sayyed al Sistani (رضي الله عنه) for example. All the fatwas he has given apply to his followers. While when he gave a political order to combat ISIS in Iraq that was solely for the Iraqis. It didn't include his Indian or Pakistani followers. It did include every Iraqi. Because the matter was about the Hisbiyya issues. 

14 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

think this sort of strong authority or strong response should only apply to the Qa’im; with due respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Because only he will do it most justly.

Well, this leads us to a lengthy discussion on Wilayat Al Faqih. Imam al Khomeini prior to these orders has proved it clear that in the absence of an infallible authority, the Jurist can hold the authority. He mentioned a lot of proofs and traditions to support it. In fact, Ayatullah al Khoei (رضي الله عنه) also agreed in his works that the Jurist can interfere in the Hisbiyya issues if necessary. So the authority of the Jurist becomes plausible. 

Through rational argument, I would like to put some questions.

1. While our Imam (عليه السلام) is in ghaiba, should the scholars sit ideal and just give you fatwas regarding salaat, fasting and ritual purity? Is it right that the thugs are stealing our resources, insulting our holy figures and we are busy with explaining fighting on the way to pray,  to fast, marry, have kids etc. ??

2. Aren't we acting quite defensive? They invaded and destroyed 2 countries and hampered the development of the entire muslim world on the excuse of 9/11, while we need to justify an order of killing of some people who mocked our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) openly and blatantly.

3. Would they stop if the fatwa was not issued? 

4. Try to curse Khomeini (naudhubillah) and concede if they bring this to you. Then see what will happen. Will they then respect you or recognize Islam???? 

The answer of question is a discussion.

The answer to criticism is a debate. 

The answer to mockery is a 'slap on the face' (like it or not)

 

We are here to please Allah and not the west.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
23 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

These so-called rich people (scholar or whatever) did nothing but spent this richness on worldly gains while the imperialists were conquering the Islamic lands. Would they defend the identity of our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?? 

55 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Maybe you are right but we have this best speech by our Shia brother Mehdi Hasan in Oxford union. 

 

25 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

When you see Sayyed al Sistani (رضي الله عنه) for example. All the fatwas he has given apply to his followers. While when he gave a political order to combat ISIS in Iraq that was solely for the Iraqis. It didn't include his Indian or Pakistani followers. It did include every Iraqi. Because the matter was about the Hisbiyya issues. 

Yes but this was self defence. Should offensive be allowed in ghayba? Imam Mahdi will present clear proofs so those who reject will deserve it but in this case we can’t examine the heart conditions of everyone.

 

27 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

3. Would they stop if the fatwa was not issued? 

Now that it has been issued, what did we gain. Now people are organising a day every year  to curse our beloved prophet. Now they are burning the Quran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Maybe you are right but we have this best speech by our Shia brother Mehdi Hasan in Oxford union. 

I heard this speech and it was good. But again, has he done anything on the ground for the Muslims?? He is a secularists who supports as an anchor of Al-Jazeera, the terrorists in Syria, even after having clear-cut proofs about it. He is a mere employee who works for Al Jazeera which is funded by the Qatari government. 

And though he did a nice speech their. I don't find any necessity for these debates in a country that's responsible for the genocide of Muslims in Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. I don't understand what makes us answerable and every sane and rational person knows it. 

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Should offensive be allowed in ghayba?

Fatwa was also a defence. 

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Now that it has been issued, what did we gain. Now people are organising a day every year  to curse our beloved prophet. Now they are burning the Quran

They are not doing it because of a Fatwa. They are insane haters of a religion or maybe paid agents. Their media is provoking it constantly.

If it would not get issued, they would have published such books time and again. BTW, Almost 60000 books to defame our prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were written in 20th Century alone. 

Fatwa, on the other hand was crucial as I said before too, to mobilise the Muslims. To show the west that this is unacceptable and will be answered with great outrage. And Mashallah, let them do what they are doing. A sane rational person (whoever that might be) will never ever mock any holy figure. So, the fatwa didn't provoke them, they were like that. Also, Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world even after all this happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

I heard this speech and it was good. But again, has he done anything on the ground for the Muslims?? He is a secularists who supports as an anchor of Al-Jazeera, the terrorists in Syria, even after having clear-cut proofs about it. He is a mere employee who works for Al Jazeera which is funded by the Qatari government

Salaam,
You are right bro but he has to stay on that level and be a pro lgbt secularist otherwise he will lose his job. Plus if he was right wing then he would have to be against Muslims, despite the right wing sharing more of our conservative values. Imam Mahdi needs soldiers on high levels like him and Al Jazeera is probably the only mainstream or famous media where one can reach a high level of influence (I don’t think Qatar is against Iran as much as it was before right? Now it is getting close to Iran?). That being said maybe he should consider joining Press TV, but he might get assassinated like what happened to Malcolm Shabbaz or how Marzieh Hashemi was oppressed in America, considering his charisma. 

Plus he is a very strong and amazing journalist. Watch his head to head videos against top Israeli officials, Blackwater, India, atheist Richard Dawkins, Donald trump senior advisors. He even gave a debate saying iran is not our enemy and he had a debate against Saudi and Israel (something like anti-Zionism does not mean anti-Semitism). Bro his personal beliefs might be different, though I do think he is quite moderate when it comes to issues like apostasy laws. His work is amazing and western media lacks strong and passionate journalism like his. Plus he is shia and he has shared who is hussain campaign on his official Facebook profile with so many of his followers and on his Twitter I think he shared an article on the story of Karbala.

4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

If it would not get issued, they would have published such books time and again. BTW, Almost 60000 books to defame our prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were written in 20th Century alone. 

They are still being written as far as I know, people like “Imam” tawhidi writing “the crisis of Islam”, tommy Robinson writing his book and so many others making YouTube videos with dirty cartoons (nauzubillah). Plus when I have discussions with my non-muslim friends freedom of insult is seen as a human right (I disagree with this).

 

4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

 Also, Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world even after all this happening.

Yes but in terms of conversions the amount of ex Muslims and the amount of additional Muslims is roughly the same based on statistical research (tho many may be Murtad in their hearts but can’t come out in their country and similarly many may be Muslim in their hearts but can’t come out in their bogan families)  . Maybe roughly the same amount of converts /ex Muslims is one prophecy of this ayah (Allahu a’lam):
 

Quote

O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing. (5:54)

You’re right tho “makaroo wa makarAllah Wallahu Khayrul maakireen”.

 

4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

I don't find any necessity for these debates in a country that's responsible for the genocide of Muslims in Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere

It’s very much needed to do head to heads and debates like Mehdi Hasan is doing to expose the hypocrisy of governments like Israel, America, UK  to their citizens who unfortunately are victims of brainwashing. They get a lot of views as well because the world is hungry for such strong journalism. 
 

4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Fatwa, on the other hand was crucial as I said before too, to mobilise the Muslims. To show the west that this is unacceptable and will be answered with great outrage

Personally bro, I disagree with such blasphemy hukums. It does not feel right or the true spirit of Islam. It simply does not sit well with me and people in my family even got close to carrying it this hukum, but it seems extremist to me. I’m sorry. Maybe it is my westernised mind. I also don’t see it as defensive. But I am a nobody so my opinion does not matter. 

I understand the propaganda against Iran, western media saying it is a barbaric country or that the sharia law is barbaric. It’s all a ploy used to further the imperialist ambitions of the west. I understand that the Islamic republic of Iran is the only Muslim country standing against the rothschilds and against the zionists. So I am not an anti-Iran brainwashed western muslim (at least not completely) and on other media platforms I am arguing pro-Iran against the imperialists.

Btw bro is the Jews claim to Palestinian land legitimate at all? I heard that most Israelis were Europeans and not even Jews. Would the argument of Fadak be applicable here? I heard by a renowned Shia Sheikh who studied in Howrah for over 15 years that there are spiritual effects of living on occupied land. So we need to be careful that we are not living on land that is of the indigenous peoples in that area. Like in the US or Australia. I am a bit worried about this as I feel I may be living on occupied land. Whilst all land is Allah’s land, there is still spiritual effects of living on occupied land.
 

Edited by 313_Waiter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

He is a secularists who supports as an anchor of Al-Jazeera, the terrorists in Syria, even after having clear-cut proofs about it.

I think you need to be careful with how you phrase that. I doubt that the person in question supports terrorism. 

Remember that we will be questioned about accusations that we make against others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

You are right bro but he has to stay on that level and be a pro lgbt secularist otherwise he will lose his job. Plus if he was right wing then he would have to be against Muslims, despite the right wing sharing more of our conservative values. Imam Mahdi needs soldiers on high levels like him and Al Jazeera is probably the only mainstream or famous media where one can reach a high level of influence (I don’t think Qatar is against Iran as much as it was before right? Now it is getting close to Iran?). That being said maybe he should consider joining Press TV, but he might get assassinated like what happened to Malcolm Shabbaz or how Marzieh Hashemi was oppressed in America, considering his charisma. 

Plus he is a very strong and amazing journalist. Watch his head to head videos against top Israeli officials, Blackwater, India, atheist Richard Dawkins, Donald trump senior advisors. He even gave a debate saying iran is not our enemy and he had a debate against Saudi and Israel (something like anti-Zionism does not mean anti-Semitism). Bro his personal beliefs might be different, though I do think he is quite moderate when it comes to issues like apostasy laws. His work is amazing and western media lacks strong and passionate journalism like his. Plus he is shia and he has shared who is hussain campaign on his official Facebook profile with so many of his followers and on his Twitter I think he shared an article on the story of Karbala.

Salaam sister, 

I partially agree with you. 

Also, as @Mahdavist pointed out let me correct what I said. I am not saying he supports terrorists but he quite well supports the same agenda of imperialism and war for democracy that the west has been supporting for a long time. 

He deeply criticizes Iran and Hezbollah's involvement in Syria. If you want, you can watch his al-Jazeera upfront with Masoomeh Ebtekar and Javad Zarif. While it is clear to us normal people (whereas he is a journalist) that if it would not be for the Hezbollah and Iranian Quds forces headed by Gen Suleimani, ISIS would have been a ruler in Syria and Iraq and war would have reached Tehran. Adding to this only, he criticizes Iran on interfering in Iraq on Intercept by bringing up blatant arguments and supporting them with something called the 'Iran Files' Lol. Do we need a 'leak' to understand that Iran is involved in Iraq? Iran and Iraq are really really close to each other due to religious, historical, institutional ties. Problem occurs when the likes of journalists like Mehdi try to equalise this 'interference' with western colonialism.

He says "Assad is the biggest monster but other side is also also bad". This is the same disgusting narrative that is spinned by the west in order to split Syria. After a decade spent in this war, I don't think a journalist should make such blatant claims without even reaching on the grouund. Further, he still tries to make a point on the 'Chemical gas attacks' which were staged and OPCW leak clarifed that. Even experts like theodore postol before the leaks, clearly called the reports made-up. The lie of OPCW was such a BIG BREAKING NEWS but neither al-Jazeera nor Mehdi spoke a word about it. This is a clear cut bias. 

And let me tell you, media and journalists like Mehdi play a huge role in all these conflicts. So,  if he is irreponsible on his reporting, that is a huge blunder. If he is doing it deliberately, he is a sinner. 

I agree that if he is good he should join Press Tv or maybe start his own freelance journalism. Supporting a false narrative just for the sake of job is not how a Shia of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) should be. I was a die hard fan of Mehdi but when I went deeper, I found him being partial. He is a competant journalist. If he really cares about truth, why serving Al-Jazeera and supporting the false narratives. Even if he wants to continue with Al-Jazeera, why doesn't he tries to take some lessons from Robert Fisk for example. I don't agree at many points with Robert Fisk but he didn't lie. His perception was different. If he wants to leave Al-Jazeera and join nothing, what's wrong in doing freelancing like Vanessa Beeley or Eva Bartlett.

I won't comment on his personal beliefs but as far as his religion, I believe Imam Mehdi (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) will certainly not need him because of all what I mentioned above. 

Imams never made employees. They never found employees as their supporters. Imam Husayn  (عليه السلام)  addressing the Army of Yazid said "If you don't have faith, atleast be free". 

As of Karbala, even Biden tweeted as a tribute to Imam Husayn (عليه السلام). As of WhoisHussain, well that's a social campaign and nice if he does that but it doesn't justifies his rubbish journalism and political stances. 

As of opposing Zionists, well even Israel's Human rights group BtSelem does that. We need to see what is the complete stance of the person. He supports peaceful talks, which are futile. He cannot support Hamas or Axis or Iran for their solidarity with Palestine. This is like saying "Palestinians need to decide for themselves" and when a palestinian resistance comes up then: "No, you are a terrorist, we don't see you".

5 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

It’s very much needed to do head to heads and debates like Mehdi Hasan is doing to expose the hypocrisy of governments like Israel, America, UK  to their citizens who unfortunately are victims of brainwashing. They get a lot of views as well because the world is hungry for such strong journalism. 

I agree on this. But I am talking about debates like

"Is Islam a religion of peace?".

Says who: "The biggest destroyers of peace in the world".

We are not answerable to them. 

5 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Personally bro, I disagree with such blasphemy hukums. It does not feel right or the true spirit of Islam. It simply does not sit well with me and people in my family even got close to carrying it this hukum, but it seems extremist to me. I’m sorry. Maybe it is my westernised mind. I also don’t see it as defensive. But I am a nobody so my opinion does not matter. 

No need to be sorry Sister. You have a complete right to disagree and this is just about perception. I live in the east and you live in the west. I understand. No problem. Maybe I am wrong. Though, what you said about your mindset is correct. Even I looked at Iran from democratic-liberal perspective, but it is wrong. Why? Democracy as a system has some serious issues. Liberalism has just become a joke. Why should we base our opinions on something which is literally proving to be a failure? 

5 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Btw bro is the Jews claim to Palestinian land legitimate at all? I heard that most Israelis were Europeans and not even Jews. Would the argument of Fadak be applicable here? I heard by a renowned Shia Sheikh who studied in Howrah for over 15 years that there are spiritual effects of living on occupied land. So we need to be careful that we are not living on land that is of the indigenous peoples in that area. Like in the US or Australia. I am a bit worried about this as I feel I may be living on occupied land. Whilst all land is Allah’s land, there is still spiritual effects of living on occupied land.

According to me, the claim evidence is not wrong but the claim is wrong because the claimant is not legal. 

This verse is used as a proof of claim. Though it is a fallacy. Because the verse after it clarify the real incident. But even if we consider it, the real 'People of Musa' who have a claim to the land are Palestinians and not Zionists because their lineage is connected to the 'Children of Israel' who came on the land. 

Quote

 

21. "O' my people! enter the holy land which Allah has ordained for you and do not turn your backs, for then you will return (Us) losers."

In this verse, the Qur'an states the process of the arrival of the Children of Israel into the holy land as follows:

Moses (عليه السلام) told his people to arrive the holy land which Allah ((سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).) had assigned for them, and as for that arrival, they should not afraid of its difficulties. They were enjoined not to refrain from any self -sacrifice, because had they turned on their backs, they would have been of the losers. The Qur'an from the tongue of Moses says:

"O' my people! enter the holy land which Allah has ordained for you and do not turn your backs, for then you will return (Us) losers."

The objective meaning of the Qur'anic phrase /'ard-al-muqaddas/ (the holy land) is either the whole region of ancient Shamat (Syria, Jordan, Palestine, etc.), or Jerusalem

 

I don't know if that Sheikh was right about the spiritual effects. But I do feel so. A land occupied or snatched away from an indigenous population should never be inhabited by the foreigners. This is something I justify for myself morally. I mean the settlers in US, israel or Australia have actually added to the plight of the indigenous population instead of helping them. I hate that but it is my own opinion. Personally, I would feel guilty for living in any such country. 

I didn't understand Fadak argument?? You may clarify. 

May Allah bless you. 

Wassalam

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
20 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

And let me tell you, media and journalists like Mehdi play a huge role in all these conflicts. So,  if he is irreponsible on his reporting, that is a huge blunder. If he is doing it deliberately, he is a sinner.

Maybe he has been duped by his sources. But at the same time if he joins Press TV or starts supporting Iran and other groups then he will face a threat to his life I believe. He has done good work nonetheless, he even made John Bolton (who was war hungry) laugh at himself and go full red.

 

22 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

According to me, the claim evidence is not wrong but the claim is wrong because the claimant is not legal. 

Not sure I understand this point. Could you explain in other words.

 

thank you

 

may Allah bless you and your family

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

But at the same time if he joins Press TV or starts supporting Iran and other groups then he will face a threat to his life I believe.

He can speak truth even on Al-Jazeera or just leave it. Their are many journalists who expose the media channels because of their censoring. 

8 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Not sure I understand this point. Could you explain in other words.

I meant that:

The Zionist claim on Palestine is wrong because though Israelites in the time of Moses were given this land (Surah al Maidah:21) but the zionists are not the descendents of those Israelites. 

So, evidence of claim (i.e quran) can somehow be considered but because the one whose making the claim (i.e Zionists) are incorrect, the claim stands illegal. 

Now, you tell me that Fadak Argument question?? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
33 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Now, you tell me that Fadak Argument question?? :)

You already answered it it is the same question about occupation that Bibi Fatima was given fadak by Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

Thanks for your replies

May Allah (azz) bless you

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Also, as @Mahdavist pointed out let me correct what I said. I am not saying he supports terrorists but he quite well supports the same agenda of imperialism and war for democracy that the west has been supporting for a long time. 

Once again you are making the mistake of attributing views to someone. I think you know yourself that the person in question has never supported such wars.

Perhaps it's better to simply retract your accusations rather than to try and justify them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Once again you are making the mistake of attributing views to someone. I think you know yourself that the person in question has never supported such wars.

Perhaps it's better to simply retract your accusations rather than to try and justify them. 

I believe I have made enough explanations to make my point. Intentions of the said man might not be the same, but the works go in the same direction. 

No one is attributing views I believe. Discussion was clear cut focussed on Journalism. 

This is my observation. Their is no cursing going on here.

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...