Mahsa Amini, 22-year old Iranian, dies after morality police arrest

[Hameedeh]

8 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

 

There is absolutely no reason that this thuggery should be happening in London. Very disturbing and disgusting. 

[Andaros]

1 hour ago, Hameedeh said:

There is absolutely no reason that this thuggery should be happening in London. Very disturbing and disgusting. 

Allegedly:

"They were attacking someone who they identified as doing surveillance for the Regime's embassy. The video from other angles shows many members of the crowd urging restraint and holding back the violent ones. Not v responsible the way you've framed this."

Edited September 27, 2022 by Andaros
Edited to make it clear I was quoting someone and not engaging in a personal attack

[Hameedeh]

On 9/24/2022 at 5:43 AM, Hameedeh said:

People promoting violence have been and will be banned. 

A guest promoting violence will not be approved. 

[علوي]

6 hours ago, Jeffrey Rafidhi said:

This isn't a good comparison as they (PBUTF) were infallibles and no state be it democratically elected or other form are infallible!!

The Ahlulbayt (A) being infallible is not a reason to not strive to be like them.

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

I don’t think you’re really responding to what I said here though. How much is religion going to be part of everyday life when the youth just drop it and say f it to the idea of passing it to their children? These youth are the ones who have to keep the chain going. Right? You understand that equation, right? How Islamic is it going to be when you finish driving a whole generation away from it, for all intents and purposes? How is it seriously going to be “more Islamic” just because people are forced to wear the costume of religiosity at gunpoint? It’s absurd.

The reality is that this trend of secularization you’re worrying about as a hypothetical is the trend line the country is already on. I’m trying to explain a way off that track, as counterintuitive as it might seem.

If Iranians are already moving away from religion, removing religion from society is only going to speed that process up.

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

Seestani doesn’t have this. Are you saying he’s not capable of nahi anil munkar?

Ayatollah Sistani (ha) isn't the head of a state. He's very influential, but he's not much of a political figure. Imam Khamenei (ha), on the other hand, is called 'wali al-amr al-muslimeen'. He practically runs a state which is Shi'ite. This is why amr bil marouf and nahi anil munkar is more possible in his situation.

 

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

You don’t need an enforcement arm to do this. You just have to speak. If you have the respect of people and moral authority. It’s called soft power. Are you familiar with the term? Do you know what it means? The former moral authority of the ulema of Iran is what made the revolution happen in the first place. Not raw power in itself. And it is exactly this crucial element of the revolution that is slipping away. 

This moral authority is what the government of Iran and the ulema of Iran are losing. Moreover—and this is crucial for you to try to understand—even the stick only works so far if you don’t have moral authority. If the stick and hard power are all you have and no moral authority, then the people might obey out of fear for a time, but as soon as the people smell blood in the water, look out. 

If the ulema can pull back to the sidelines, they have a chance to regain some of this moral authority over time. 

What do you want Iran to be here? A Shia version of a collapsing authoritarian basket case like Russia? What’s your endgame here? 

Russia seems pretty fine to me. 

But besides that, the Iranian 'regime' does have the respect of people. It's just a minority that disapprove. But the Western media makes it seem like 99% of the nation are against the 'regime'. These are just lies.

This is why I mentioned Russia; because the vast majority of Russians support the government. But the West doesn't want you to see that, so they show you (funded) protests against Putin's mobilization, etc. 

What I'm saying is that it sounds like you think 99% of Iranians are against the Iranian government. I don't blame you, I blame Western media. But this is an idea which is false. Most Iranians support the so-called 'regime'. 

[khizarr]

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

See how Christianity is rapidly declining?

*shrugs* I don't accredit the decline of Christianity to state-church separation. There's always been much more to it. What the separation did do was eventually allow people to stop pretending like they ever had any real, grounded faith in the first place. But, in reality, Christianity was always quite poor in its theological strength, and the doctrine wouldn't have been much of a sell once people started gaining access to information that was once only available to upper-class intellectuals (i.e. Enlightenment period). This is just one of many rudimentary elements for why Christianity started to wane. I won't go over all of the reasons here. Speaking about American Evangelicalism isn't good for my health anyway.
 

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

I'm saying that if Islam is separated from society, society will forget about it.

Why are you using the word "society"? I never suggested that Islam should be separated from society. I'm saying there should be a buffer between state and religion. They should not be contaminated by each other. Religious institutions, the ones that are in the "society" to guide "society", should by all means continue their work. 

 

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Without the laws of the land enforcing religion, religion will be lost. This is why Iran is so strict on enforcing shari'a. Because if they stop, the people will stop practising. If they stop practising, they will stop believing.

Actually, I want you to explain this one. Because I can take all of what you said and reword it like this: 

Without state enforcement, religion will be lost, therefore Islam must anchor itself to a state to have a chance at survival, and the Muslims are a people that need the deen to be forced onto them in order to keep them in the habit of practicing it, lest they lose belief (even though belief comes before practice, but okay, let's roll with it). 

 

Is this what you're essentially saying? Or am I missing something here? 
 

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

This leads to yet another "democratic", "westernized" country, and I'm sure no one wants that.

Why, what's wrong with "democratic" countries? Do people stop practicing Islam in democratic countries? The West has the likes of Canada and New Zealand and Britain, where Islam has prospered most organically, without any kind of coercion. Where Muslims have acquired wealth, that they can then spend in the way of Islam. And they do. Without anyone to stop them. Why is this so problematic to you? Why would someone not want this? 
 

 

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

The Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) state did. Ameer al-Momineen's (عليه السلام) state did.

And? I mean, both of them were involved in a whole lot of other things as well..

Also, this is not a good example to use, as their situation was unique in the history of Islam. Muhammad (s) and Ali (a) were, more or less, the founding fathers of Islam with the foremost responsibility to nourish the religion in its state of infancy. They were the trailblazers. They had great insight and understood that establishing Islam, by tying it to the state for a while, was the need of the time. But once the religion was established, and that need was fulfilled, the duty could be passed onto another branch of society (the scholars, for example). Contrary to the Prophet (s) and 'Ali b. Abi Talib (and his two sons, to some extent), most of the other aimmah were not involved in the political sphere and did not desire to fuse religion with politics at all. There is a very clear process of evolution here that cannot be disregarded. 
 

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

What I'm saying is that Iran doesn't care for its public image. If it wanted to oppress women, nothing would stop it. It's already drowning with sanctions anyway.

The Iranian regime has a lot to lose by oppressing people on a large(r) scale. It's not like they have much else going for them - they have provided no economic relief for their people and they have no real good standing in the world either. In light of those two facts, they know better than to eject their mullah-ism all over the country en masse. Besides, forget international reactions. The Iranians are quite evidently a very resilient and a strikingly proud people that will not tolerate something like that happening on their own home ground. I think that was made very clear over the past week or so.

9 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Notice how President Raeisi only wears his turban in meetings and international events? That doesn't look like someone trying to please the "modernised" West. 

Wow, how cool is that. I haven't seen him in a while, but I'm sure he's rocking his black turban.

Edited September 27, 2022 by khizarr

[Abu Hadi]

On 9/26/2022 at 7:46 AM, kadhim said:

No. 

I pray my five daily prayers. I fast my month of Ramadan. Sometimes I’m feeling it. Sometimes I’m not. But I do it, of myself, as part of my relation to Him. And it has (God willing) worth and value because I make myself do it. 

But if some middlebrow apparatchik from the government came up to me on the street telling me it’s 1:05 PM, zhuhr started at 1:01 PM, you should go pray or asking me whether I’m fasting, I would treat that person with the sort of utter contempt I reserve for border patrol officers, and would be thinking of curb stomping him. 

Because I’m an adult with dignity. And you don’t govern grown adults like children. 

If it was me placed into that situation, I wouldn’t blame the religion for it, because I have that long personal experience of the religion as something freely chosen to lean on to separate what the people do from what it actually is. But for a 20 year old who has only known Islam as a corrupt cop’s knee on their neck? I don’t agree with it but I totally understand it.  

And I’ve said it before, I say it now, and I’ll say it again. It’s really quite precious to see you saying this from the comfort of  Dearborn. And especially as a (fellow) convert, as someone who chose this freely, without coercion, and who lives in a country where he can choose it freely every day, you really should know better than to support this sort of nonsense of coerced religious practice. 

That's fine but you have to understand that this opinion of yours 'Sometimes I'm feeling it, Sometimes I'm not' and saying you would treat someone with contempt for reminding you about those things, comes from arrogance, not from the other part you mentioned. Doing the 'wajibat' when you're not 'feeling it' is the test of whether your Islam is solid or not. If you do it, despite not 'feeling it', that is Islam. If you don't do it, then there is something missing in your Islam. 

A person whose Islam is solid would not be bothered when a brother or sister reminded them. They would say 'Alhamduillah, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has sent someone to help my by reminding me so that I don't forget'. The word 'nas' is used in the Quran for human beings and the root of this word is insah, which means 'to forget'. Man has a forgetful nature (men and women), that is why reminders are necessary, at least for the important things. Salat, fasting, Hijab, all those things are important, because they are wajibat. Just because you're an adults, with children, maybe a good job, degrees from University, etc, doesn't mean you have managed to change your (all of our) basic nature, which is rooted in forgetfulness. 

Everyone has a part of them that is arrogant, and everyone acts on it from time to time. I am not immune from this myself, and I have done it in the past, and hope not to do it in the future, InShahAllah. The only difference between me and you is that I recognize this in myself, recognize it as arrogance, and I am actively trying to get rid of it whereas according to your above statement, you think of this as some sort of a virtue ? Not sure if you think of it as a virtue but this is what it sounds like based on what you wrote. That's how I interpret it. I might be wrong (I hope I'm wrong). 

As a brother, and as a revert also, I have a duty to tell you that, not because I like to and not because I like 'calling people out' (I actually really don't like doing this) but because it is our wajib kafiyyat on our brothers and sisters to do this. 

As for the last part, I am a proud American. I wouldn't live anywhere else. I wasn't raised in Dearborn, or in Michigan, and I have lived in other states. My family has been in this country (both sides) for at least 6 generations. I could live other places, and I have been offered jobs, well paying jobs in other countries like Canada, Dubai, etc (because I have a post graduate education and skills and experience in my field). I love living in America, and there are many good things about living here, I don't deny that, and maybe you missed my other posts about it. I don't think it's relevant to this topic, which is why I didn't post about it here. 

As an American, I feel that it is my civic and ethical responsibility to point out where the U.S. Government has gone wrong and made mistakes and also when it does something good. This is called 'Free Expression' it has a basis in the US Constitution. So I'll keep doing it. Thanks for that observation though. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[rkazmi33]

I agree with @kadhim, forcing people to follow religion only takes them away from religion. We make no distinction between amar bil maroof nahi anil munkir and "bullying". People, who are bullies, have found a great justification for their behavior in amar bil maroof nahi anil munkir and they are the ones who are biggest supporter of doing this. Despite living in west, I was religious for 19 years, then my sister decided to become religious and started doing amar bil maroof nahi anil munkir and bullied me and she received support from community. Now I am so far from religion and the all blame it on me living in west.

I heard one great thing from Brother Shabbir Kirmani this Muharram. He said that don't take religion from mimbar because religion that is represented on mimbar is controlled by people who give donations and by the government. I wish more scholars had the moral courage to say this truth. People, who give most donations are the ones who make most money and they are usually most corrupt. 

[Ibn Tayyar]

For the brothers who believe that Islam and the State should be seperated, what do you make of Islamic Laws that are in the Holy Qur'an, such as inheritance and transactional laws, aswell as the Islamic punishments for sins such as fornication, stealing and such.

Do you believe that such laws should not be enforced, and that these laws were simply "contextual" for the times, and we have evolved past them (as some might claim)?

[kadhim]

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

That's fine but you have to understand that this opinion of yours 'Sometimes I'm feeling it, Sometimes I'm not' and saying you would treat someone with contempt for reminding you about those things, comes from arrogance, not from the other part you mentioned. Doing the 'wajibat' when you're not 'feeling it' is the test of whether your Islam is solid or not. If you do it, despite not 'feeling it', that is Islam. If you don't do it, then there is something missing in your Islam. 

A person whose Islam is solid would not be bothered when a brother or sister reminded them. They would say 'Alhamduillah, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has sent someone to help my by reminding me so that I don't forget'. The word 'nas' is used in the Quran for human beings and the root of this word is insah, which means 'to forget'. Man has a forgetful nature (men and women), that is why reminders are necessary, at least for the important things. Salat, fasting, Hijab, all those things are important, because they are wajibat. Just because you're an adults, with children, maybe a good job, degrees from University, etc, doesn't mean you have managed to change your (all of our) basic nature, which is rooted in forgetfulness. 

Everyone has a part of them that is arrogant, and everyone acts on it from time to time. I am not immune from this myself, and I have done it in the past, and hope not to do it in the future, InShahAllah. The only difference between me and you is that I recognize this in myself, recognize it as arrogance, and I am actively trying to get rid of it whereas according to your above statement, you think of this as some sort of a virtue ? Not sure if you think of it as a virtue but this is what it sounds like based on what you wrote. That's how I interpret it. I might be wrong (I hope I'm wrong). 

As a brother, and as a revert also, I have a duty to tell you that, not because I like to and not because I like 'calling people out' (I actually really don't like doing this) but because it is our wajib kafiyyat on our brothers and sisters to do this. 

As for the last part, I am a proud American. I wouldn't live anywhere else. I wasn't raised in Dearborn, or in Michigan, and I have lived in other states. My family has been in this country (both sides) for at least 6 generations. I could live other places, and I have been offered jobs, well paying jobs in other countries like Canada, Dubai, etc (because I have a post graduate education and skills and experience in my field). I love living in America, and there are many good things about living here, I don't deny that, and maybe you missed my other posts about it. I don't think it's relevant to this topic, which is why I didn't post about it here. 

As an American, I feel that it is my civic and ethical responsibility to point out where the U.S. Government has gone wrong and made mistakes and also when it does something good. This is called 'Free Expression' it has a basis in the US Constitution. So I'll keep doing it. Thanks for that observation though. 

If a friend or even a random friendly stranger on the street with tact and good manners came up to me with a “so sorry to bother you; in case you’re unaware, the prayer time is coming in; if you like, there is masjid down the street, or if you like I have an extra mat in my shop right here; most welcome,” then obviously I’m fine with that. 

It’s quite another to get the same thing without any manners from the equivalent of a surly DMV clerk. 

It’s kind of sad to see you purposefully smudge the difference between those two very different things just to try to get some passive-aggressive digs in. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by kadhim

[kadhim]

14 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

If Iranians are already moving away from religion, removing religion from society is only going to speed that process up.

Did you miss the part that the very reason they are moving away from religion is the way the government handles these sorts of things? Your solution to the train going off the tracks is “more gas?”
 

14 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Russia seems pretty fine to me. 

But besides that, the Iranian 'regime' does have the respect of people. It's just a minority that disapprove. But the Western media makes it seem like 99% of the nation are against the 'regime'. These are just lies.

This is why I mentioned Russia; because the vast majority of Russians support the government. But the West doesn't want you to see that, so they show you (funded) protests against Putin's mobilization, etc. 

What I'm saying is that it sounds like you think 99% of Iranians are against the Iranian government. I don't blame you, I blame Western media. But this is an idea which is false. Most Iranians support the so-called 'regime'. 

Can you dudes just stop it with this annoying habit of going totally out of your way to choose to read things in the most unflattering, “this dude is retarded” sort of interpretation imaginable? It’s incredibly rude behavior. 

Duh. Obviously it’s not 99%. 
But it’s also not the tiny minority you want to paint it to be. In fact I’d be willing to wager it’s not even a minority. 
And especially if we’re talking about younger generations, it’s definitely not a minority.

I’m not going to even bother trying to unpack the Russia comments; there’s too much to unpack and I also just don’t feel like bothering. 

 

14 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Ayatollah Sistani (ha) isn't the head of a state. He's very influential, but he's not much of a political figure. Imam Khamenei (ha), on the other hand, is called 'wali al-amr al-muslimeen'. He practically runs a state which is Shi'ite. This is why amr bil marouf and nahi anil munkar is more possible in his situation.

You didn’t answer the question. Please do so. Do you believe that Seestani is successfully executing amr bil marouf wa nahi anil munkar or not? 

Edited September 27, 2022 by kadhim

[root]

After all these years, of western governments plotting against muslims, bombing every country to hell, coups, supporting wahabism, supporting munafeqin, doing cyber warfare on instagram, facebook, twisting truths, lying, breaking oaths...............

I have to say it's amazing how some of you guys still eat up their stories like warm bread. Muslim public was, is and will be the easiest population to trick and become emotional, instead of being rational and filled with basirah. 

Good luck to us when Imam Mahdi comes, you think the trials are tough now........

[Abu Hadi]

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

If a friend or even a random friendly stranger on the street with tact and good manners came up to me with a “so sorry to bother you; in case you’re unaware, the prayer time is coming in; if you like, there is masjid down the street, or if you like I have an extra mat in my shop right here; most welcome,” then obviously I’m fine with that. 

It’s quite another to get the same thing without any manners from the equivalent of a surly DMV clerk. 

It’s kind of sad to see you purposefully smudge the difference between those two very different things just to try to get some passive-aggressive digs in. 

I totally agree with u that it's much better if someone has good aklaq and does it. But even if they do it without good aklaq it's still valuable but less likely to be heeded. 

Oh good. We agree on something

[Abu Hadi]

3 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I totally agree with u that it's much better if someone has good aklaq and does it. But even if they do it without good aklaq it's still valuable but less likely to be heeded. 

Oh good. We agree on something

If I was in charge in Iran I would tell them to go up to women without hijab and have a selection of designer hijab from Dior and Channel and other famous designers. I would say 'Do u like this one or this one till I found one they liked and give it to them'. I think that would work better but  not in charge so oh well. Maybe someone who is will get that idea

[Qa'im]

It is interesting that, when there is police brutality in the United States, protesters don’t call for the overthrow of the administration, nor do they call for the death of its leaders, nor do they rip up the U.S. constitution, nor do foreign powers put sanctions on the country.

That shows that the protests in Iran have less to do with the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody and more to do with other grievances. Many of these grievances are legitimate. But we can’t act like there aren’t anti-Islam forces at play. Many Iranians, especially in the diaspora, are diehard atheists, racists, and monarchists. Some work openly with Marxists, Zionists, evangelical organizations, militantly secular media and academia, and other actors. Some are openly burning the Quran, the hijab, and other Islamic items.

Alleged incidents of police brutality ought to be investigated thoroughly, and justice must be established. But that’s not what these protests are about.

Women in Iran are not being killed over their hijab everyday or every year. Many women in Tehran and other places don’t wear a proper hijab to begin with. You’re more likely to be accosted by atheists in Tehran if you’re wearing a thobe or a turban than by police if you’re compromising your veil.

Sanctions, the war in Ukraine, corruption etc have far more to do with the current riots than the tragic death or murder of Mahsa Amini. Foreign powers do not care about the Iranian people — they only want chaos, and that chaos can turn the religious against the secular, the Persian against the Azeri/Turk/Kurd/Arab/Afghan, the monarchist against the Islamist, the communist against the liberal, and further destabilize the region.

But here's one unpopular opinion that I have:

How much culpability does the Iranian government have in this matter?
  
I don't mean on the specific case of Mahsa Amini, because we don't know the full story. Until that has been properly investigated, then all we can say is that she died in custody. If there indeed was foul play, then may the full force of the law be unleashed on the perpetrator(s). Likewise, may God foil the plans of those who want to harm Muslims and their religion.
  
But should there even be a hijab law? There isn't an Islamic penalty (hadd) for failing to wear a khimar. A ruler or a judge can decide on a ta`zeer law, which is a penalty for those who commit a sin (especially a public sin). Government-enforced hijab mandates are, basically, ta`zeer. However, this is not the way pre-modern Islamic societies dealt with hijab. There are plenty of references in our literature to slave women, dhimmi women, or bedouin women who did not publicly wear a khimar. There are also different rulings on the gaze of men in some of these cases. Hijab mandates are more of a modern reaction to the colonial reaction to Islamic veils.
 
The khimar was part of an ID system that free Muslim women would use to distinguish themselves. It was socially-enforced, because a woman with a khimar would want to be identified as a free, practicing Muslima. After slavery was abolished, the khimar became a way to distinguish those who were okay with sinning publicly (fisq) and those who weren't. This is where reputation comes into play, and it wasn't necessarily hard to convince folks that wearing a khimar was a good idea.
 
Fast forward to Iran in 2022. A large portion of the population (we will never know how many) are non-practicing or even non-Muslim. There is a lot of denial of this among the Islamic Republic's diehard supporters. But yes, they are a large number of people, and they are not just the pre-1979 Pahlavis; they include many people born and raised in Iran today.

Why is this the case? We can blame the Shah and his supporters, but they were deposed 43 years ago. Why is it that the average Jordanian, for example, who comes from a secular and West-oriented country, knows more about the Quran, the Seerah, etc. than the average Iranian? Why is it that militant secular states like Syria or Egypt produced a more conservative population than the Islamic Republic? The Iranians are some of the most intelligent people in the world when it comes to language, poetry, architecture, philosophy, history, and the arts; but here in Toronto, I constantly (almost daily) run into Persian ex-Muslims who make the most 2-dimensional arguments against Islam that even the most hard-headed Islamophobes don't make. Many of these ex-Muslims went through the Iranian education system or even went to hawza, yet their arguments are elementary; and when I provide a simple response, it is as though they've never heard it before in their life. And these are educated, sophisticated, intelligent people. An alarming number are pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and even converts to evangelical Christianity or identify as Zoroastrian. Again, you don't see much of this in even the most secular Muslim countries.
 
So how do we enforce a khimar on those in the population who just aren't Muslim? If you go to Tehran, the hijab of many young women barely covers their hair - what good is in that, if any? Not only is an action meaningless without iman, but the convertible-style hijab doesn't do anything to lower the male gaze either. So instead, for the non-Muslim, it becomes this daily nuisance and a grievance that you have with Islam and an Islamic government. Those who come to the West then tell their sob story and work tirelessly against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 
Some may say that the hijab is a symbol of an Islamic country. But, to be honest, politics is pretty secular in Iran.

This is a country with usury-banking, traditional hudud are no longer implemented, and the foreign policy is based on a neorealist model of international relations. The wali al-faqih does not intervene much in the decisions of the president, parliament, and judiciary. Some may say that the country protects the pillars of the religion, but almost every country does. Others may say that it is a "God-centric society", but much of the population is becoming non-religious or apostate, and there seems to be no plan in place to remedy this. It has straddled the line between ethics and pragmatism in some of its foreign excursions, and this has generated a lot of hate for Iran in the region. The Islamic Republic also romanticized revolution as an act, which has resulted in many attempts at subsequent revolutions to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Revolution in Islam is the exception, not the norm. The hardline Wilayat al-Faqih supporters also don't tolerate much constructive criticism, which only results in further stagnation.

For many, it is Islamic enough to have alcohol/drug laws, the hijab law, a Shia identity, and an active role in Palestine. Evidently, this isn't enough to maintain an Islamic state in the modern day.

We cannot underestimate the affect that the sanctions and American TV and music have had on the country. While people appear to be protesting hijab, I doubt this would be the case if the country had no sanctions or corruption. But, there needs to be a reckoning of the current system, and the WFers need to stop being in denial.

Foreign powers will continue to exploit the hijab law to create discord and as a cheap political point, as it has been doing every couple years.

May Allah bring forth His government soon and in our days. We need it.

[root]

1 hour ago, Qa'im said:

Why is this the case? We can blame the Shah and his supporters, but they were deposed 43 years ago. Why is it that the average Jordanian, for example, who comes from a secular and West-oriented country, knows more about the Quran, the Seerah, etc. than the average Iranian?

You wrote a long post so it's a bit harf answering on the phone. In short, to the question why is this the case? Well, same reason Imam Ali was left alone, Imam hassan lost 2/3 of his army in 1 day, same reason Muslim turned around and saw literally noone left behind him.

 

People fall off, and they are often more noticeable. The average Iranian that knows about the Quran doesn't spend time on facebook and Instagram and Shiachat, so it's hard to notice. It's very hard to argue that the "average" Iranian is all these things when it was the Iranian culture and fostering of academia that produced the majority of scholars in Quran, Hadeeth, law etc, even for Sunnis. Half their heavyweight Ulama that they rely on were Iranian. And it's very strange that people notice 1000-2000 people...let's be generous and say 1 000 000...often in Tehran... rioting and flapping about. But we do not notice the 30 million people coming out in 22 Bahman? How do we calculate average and numbers here exactly? These....people...are loud...loud does not mean right, nor great in number.

 

The reckoning comes the day people learn to make good choices. Never in shia history has the leaders run 100miles/hour when the public only walks. We have many examples from the time of Imam Ali until now, masoum and non masoum leaders. It takes time to grow, and people need to learn. The nizaam also makes mistakes, no doubt, it also needs to learn. WF only intervenes when the direction of the nizam is diverting or it is in danger. We saw that in the green movement. We saw that when Isis came closer. We saw that in the kurdish uprising etc.

When the revolutionary guard came to Imam khomeini with proof that Bani Sadr is a spy and a munafigh, Imam Khomeini told them to cooperate with him, people do not know this and will react if we arrest him. Work with him until their basirah and understanding grows. It took some time, but it worked. That is his job, not be the judge and jury of every action of every organization and sub department of every position in Iran. 

[Irfani313]

@Qa'im @kadhim

I enjoyed reading both of your comments here. What do you really suggest though? At what trajectory, and to what extent should the IRI mollify the current laws, and its enforcements? Also what, and where (at what stage) should the Islamic education be changed so the IRI youth learns the essence of Islam as opposed to the superficial deen? 

My simple reading into the completely atheist youth is, their parents are and were like this and have been since the revolution, so they never accepted their setback since then. If you have met those extremely rich, and rabidly racist shah-Iranians, you would know each one of their egos are the size of the Sun, and they never swallowed the defeat they had at the hands of a poor man with a white beard. For me the strangest thing was witnessing their egos ballooned at the wins of Qasim Sulemani, all the while celebrating his martyrdom. 

Obviously IRI isn’t immune to grave and long lasting mistakes either, one among those were their population control in the 80s & 90s. IRI should have been a nation of over 200mil. Another recent one is their sharply reducing the subsidies, and miscalculating it as the sole reason for the corruption in their economy discounting the incompetence and the role of the huge state owned enterprises. If indeed not rightly managed this weird push and pull of religion there, it would become their mortal mistake; and no freedom minded, anti imperialist, anti tyranny person, who cares for this planet earth would want the fall of the modern IRI.

[khizarr]

7 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

For the brothers who believe that Islam and the State should be seperated, what do you make of Islamic Laws that are in the Holy Qur'an, such as inheritance and transactional laws, aswell as the Islamic punishments for sins such as fornication, stealing and such.

Do you believe that such laws should not be enforced, and that these laws were simply "contextual" for the times, and we have evolved past them (as some might claim)?

Few things.

The laws that are mentioned in the Qur'an don't stand independently divine. The revelation is divine - of which the laws are a part of - in the sense of its nature of transmission and in the fact that it cannot be altered in word. But its applicability is subject to change. People extend the divine "unalterable" part to the implementation as well, and I think that's a little fallacious.

Yes, I do believe these things were contextual. They would not have been what they are had the Qur’an been sent to a different time and place. The laws of inheritance assume a lot of societal realities that simply don't exist the same way anymore. And this opinion shouldn’t rattle anyone; some of the Malakis, for example, had substituted the hand-chopping punishment with monetary penalties in the 8th century Maghreb. My point is, understanding some of these things in context isn’t some new age development that serves to appease the West. It goes as far back in classical Islamic history as you look. It’s also good to note that “Islamic” punishments were actually just a continuation of Judaic law, it’s not as if Islam came up with a set of new ones on its own. This should shed some light on its historical reality as well. As the lifestyle of people changed and societies began to come into contact with other cultures and ideas, the penalties would have changed as well. And they did. It’s such a natural, inevitable consequence of the ever-changing human experience.

Also, I don’t want to get into this one too much because it’s a different discussion and kind of swerves into the whole Sunni-Shi'a issue, but there is a distinction between what we would call “nidhaam” which is best translated as system, and “qaanoon” which is the law. Nidhaam would be democracy, for example. Islam provides no strict nidhaam and it doesn't seem to prescribe a nidhaam to have any hue either, yet people over here are arguing that the nidhaam itself should somehow be infused with the deen and, in fact, needs to be so in order for any particular Islamic principle to prevail in its most pristine and correct sense. I don’t see where this is found in the Qur’an or the tradition. I really don’t. As in, what is the contention that people have with the nidhaam being a neutral institution (like a basketball team would be, for example) in a Muslim-majority society? Do people not trust that the Muslim population will interact with the legislative body to make the order more just or "Islamic" through a democratic process? Why do people feel that the hard, trickle-down effect will work in making society more religious as a whole, but the softer, "trickle up" effect won't?

[root]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXPPK00B1tc

[Hameedeh]

22 minutes ago, root said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXPPK00B1tc

That video is from a week ago. I had not seen it before. Thank you.

[Ibn Tayyar]

1 hour ago, khizarr said:

Few things.

The laws that are mentioned in the Qur'an don't stand independently divine. The revelation is divine - of which the laws are a part of - in the sense of its nature of transmission and in the fact that it cannot be altered in word. But its applicability is subject to change. People extend the divine "unalterable" part to the implementation as well, and I think that's a little fallacious.

Yes, I do believe these things were contextual. They would not have been what they are had the Qur’an been sent to a different time and place. The laws of inheritance assume a lot of societal realities that simply don't exist the same way anymore. And this opinion shouldn’t rattle anyone; some of the Malakis, for example, had substituted the hand-chopping punishment with monetary penalties in the 8th century Maghreb. My point is, understanding some of these things in context isn’t some new age development that serves to appease the West. It goes as far back in classical Islamic history as you look. It’s also good to note that “Islamic” punishments were actually just a continuation of Judaic law, it’s not as if Islam came up with a set of new ones on its own. This should shed some light on its historical reality as well. As the lifestyle of people changed and societies began to come into contact with other cultures and ideas, the penalties would have changed as well. And they did. It’s such a natural, inevitable consequence of the ever-changing human experience.

Thank you brother. I guess it would be reasonably to ask you a few questions then;

1) How do you differentiate between a "contextual" law and a timeless law?

2) I think every society would consider stealing to be a punishable crime, but what should be the punishment for specifically religiously known crimes such as fornication, for example, in a majority Muslim country?

Should it even be a punishment at all?

Is the whole "punishment" part contextual in your opinion, and not just the way the punishment is carried out (lashings)?

1 hour ago, khizarr said:

Also, I don’t want to get into this one too much because it’s a different discussion and kind of swerves into the whole Sunni-Shi'a issue, but there is a distinction between what we would call “nidhaam” which is best translated as system, and “qaanoon” which is the law. Nidhaam would be democracy, for example. Islam provides no strict nidhaam and it doesn't seem to prescribe a nidhaam to have any hue either, yet people over here are arguing that the nidhaam itself should somehow be infused with the deen and, in fact, needs to be so in order for any particular Islamic principle to prevail in its most pristine and correct sense. I don’t see where this is found in the Qur’an or the tradition. I really don’t. As in, what is the contention that people have with the nidhaam being a neutral institution (like a basketball team would be, for example) in a Muslim-majority society? Do people not trust that the Muslim population will interact with the legislative body to make the order more just or "Islamic" through a democratic process? Why do people feel that the hard, trickle-down effect will work in making society more religious as a whole, but the softer, "trickle up" effect won't?

While it is true that there is no "Islamic system" which can be read from the Qur'an and Sunnah that literally contains all the complexities of Governances and things such as regulatory bodies, healthcare policies etc, it does offer quite a lot - meaning that if a country implemented everything in the Qur'an and hadiths, that country would stand out among the world and people may call the way it is run a different type of system.

And to answer your question on democracy, I don't believe traditionalism/orthodoxy is necessary against it, but we would say that when a matter is clear cut in the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no room for dispute and discussion, atleast in theory. In practice of course you would be met with all sorts of opposition, which is why most countries, actually all of them, that have implemented a certain version of Shari'ah, do often take a "soft" approach.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Ibn Tayyar

[Andaros]

In case you had any doubts:

https://foreigndesknews.com/trending/5-ways-u-s-israel-saudi-arabia-and-other-nations-can-help-iranian-protesters-right-now/

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/26/2022 at 5:24 PM, kadhim said:

I’m a fan of pure democracy myself. It has its problems, but it’s the least worst of the options. 

I think the easiest and least jarring fix would be to maybe keep some of the WF structures, but convert it into a “soft power” advisor structure rather than something with hard power. 

Whatever the WF system has formal power over today, give that to the directly elected executive. WF system gets no veto. 

This is what should have happened a couple of decades ago, but better late than never.

The WF structures can then serve a role as a (hopefully) respected moral voice outside of the dirt of political power, giving moral advice the same way that the Pope does or the way Seestani does in Iraq. 

 

The Iranian republic and its people are all grown up now. It can stand on its own feet without a “guardian.” 

Salam surly "The Iranian republic and its people are all grown up now. It can stand on its own feet without a “guardian.” is a true statement which you have a wrong interpretation from it due to your grudge against procedure of existing Marjas in Shia community in similar fashion of Khawarij & Salafis/Wahabists  which their slogan is that they don't need a guardian because they can extract anything from sources based on their level of knowledge which in similar fashion Internet guys in western society claim that  they are expert in anything because they can find anything on Internet so therefore we have too much self declared Physicians & experts in any field which they give farfetched advises to people which sometimes it can causes serious damages to people.

Quote

The original authentic concept of WF was about scholars stepping in to take care of immature people who didn’t have a guardian to watch over their affairs, to watch over them until they were mature.

Your understanding from WF is totally wrong which your remarks are just insulting to Shias because every shia must knows principle of religion by themselves which duty of any Marja is in similar fashion of any expert is giving advises due to having  certification in religious matters to people who don't have this certification likewise everyone doesn't need to  be an expert in everything which physicians & engineers & scientists & etc from highly educated people don't need to be expert in field of each other which they can cooperate with each other which in similar fashion they still need a highly educated scholar in religion likewise a Marja to as their religious questions from him or cooperate with him in their field of specialty which    you just  want to change WF into Pope in christanity which has no rule in our world except wasting a lot of resources   because main procedure & policy of WF is governing Shia community during occultation of Imam Mahdi (aj) which other Marjas & scholars can give moral & religious advise under his supervision  in similar fashion of presence of Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) in Kufa as especial deputy of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) anyway he has not duty for establishing a government because Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has been apparent Imam   which people of Kufa has called him to come to Kufa in order to rule  likewise Imam Ali (عليه السلام) so therefore duty of Muslim ibn Aqil(رضي الله عنه) has not been giving moral & religious advise to people of Kufa because it's shia population have had people likewise Sulayman b. Surad al-Khuza'i who has been a devout shia Muslims & highly knowledgeable person anyway he has been suffering from lack of insight which although of his letter for inviting Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)  in similar fashion of you he has wanted just a personal Shia belief system  without a powerful leader in all aspects of life which his actions has lead to betraying to Muslim ibn Aqil(رضي الله عنه) so therefore martyring of imam Hussain (عليه السلام) . 

Quote

Personality

Both Shi'a and Sunni historians mention Sulayman by speaking in favor of him in their reports. According to the historians of both schools, Sulayman b. Surad al-Khuza'i was a devout, virtuous and renowned person who prayed a lot. He was in a strong position among his tribe that obeyed him.

 

Quote

Meeting with Imam al-Hasan (a)

Historians report about Sulayman's meeting with Imam al-Hasan (a) after the peace treaty with Mu'awiya and that he deemed it inappropriate.^[13] Also, in another meeting with Imam al-Husayn (a), he mentions the issue, but Imam (a) stresses on keeping the peace until the death of Mu'awiya.^[14]

 

Quote

Some other researchers take the indolence of people of Kufa, including Sulayman b. Surad, to be the main reason why they did not join the Imam (a) in Karbala. The confession by Sulayman and other people of Kufa to their sin because of not helping the Imam (a) and their onset of Tawwabun Uprising support this view.^[21].^[22] Thus, some authors take Sulayman b. Surad and other people of Kufa to be irresolute Shi'as.^[23] The view is also reinforced by Sulayman b. Surad's record of opposing Imam Ali (a) and Imam al-Hasan (a).^[24] Some old sources have also pointed to skepticism of Sulayman concerning the story of Ashura.^[25]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Sulayman_b._Surad_al-Khuza'i

On 9/27/2022 at 9:04 AM, khizarr said:

*shrugs* I don't accredit the decline of Christianity to state-church separation. There's always been much more to it. What the separation did do was eventually allow people to stop pretending like they ever had any real, grounded faith in the first place. But, in reality, Christianity was always quite poor in its theological strength, and the doctrine wouldn't have been much of a sell once people started gaining access to information that was once only available to upper-class intellectuals (i.e. Enlightenment period). This is just one of many rudimentary elements for why Christianity started to wane. I won't go over all of the reasons here. Speaking about American Evangelicalism isn't good for my health anyway.
 

Why are you using the word "society"? I never suggested that Islam should be separated from society. I'm saying there should be a buffer between state and religion. They should not be contaminated by each other. Religious institutions, the ones that are in the "society" to guide "society", should by all means continue their work. 

 

Actually, I want you to explain this one. Because I can take all of what you said and reword it like this: 

Without state enforcement, religion will be lost, therefore Islam must anchor itself to a state to have a chance at survival, and the Muslims are a people that need the deen to be forced onto them in order to keep them in the habit of practicing it, lest they lose belief (even though belief comes before practice, but okay, let's roll with it). 

 

Is this what you're essentially saying? Or am I missing something here? 
 

 

 

And? I mean, both of them were involved in a whole lot of other things as well..

Also, this is not a good example to use, as their situation was unique in the history of Islam. Muhammad (s) and Ali (a) were, more or less, the founding fathers of Islam with the foremost responsibility to nourish the religion in its state of infancy. They were the trailblazers. They had great insight and understood that establishing Islam, by tying it to the state for a while, was the need of the time. But once the religion was established, and that need was fulfilled, the duty could be passed onto another branch of society (the scholars, for example). Contrary to the Prophet (s) and 'Ali b. Abi Talib (and his two sons, to some extent), most of the other aimmah were not involved in the political sphere and did not desire to fuse religion with politics at all. There is a very clear process of evolution here that cannot be disregarded. 
 

Salam your whole of post is about justifacation of usurping right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & infallible Imam after him because according to Wahabists & Salafists all of three caliphs so then cursed Muawiah & Ummayids & Abbasids have been experts in religion which people which three caliphs so then  cursed Muawiah have been another branch of experts in religion according to your statement .

Quote

Why, what's wrong with "democratic" countries? Do people stop practicing Islam in democratic countries? The West has the likes of Canada and New Zealand and Britain, where Islam has prospered most organically, without any kind of coercion. Where Muslims have acquired wealth, that they can then spend in the way of Islam. And they do. Without anyone to stop them. Why is this so problematic to you? Why would someone not want this? 
 

There is nothing wrong with it expect whole of these system are failed systems which there is many reports about rising Islamophobia in Britain & Canada  whih even New Zealand has been affected by Islamophobia in Australia.

 

On 9/27/2022 at 3:36 AM, kadhim said:

If the stick and hard power are all you have and no moral authority, then the people might obey out of fear for a time, but as soon as the people smell blood in the water, look out. 

This is totally wrong anyway you think that you are only wise guy in room because you have illusion of living in a liberal democrat country which you compare your illusion with Iran which in case of removing moral authority & fear people in western society will be more savage than anywhere else even they will back to stone age& barbaric era .  

Quote

 

The Iranian regime has a lot to lose by oppressing people on a large(r) scale. It's not like they have much else going for them - they have provided no economic relief for their people and they have no real good standing in the world either. In light of those two facts, they know better than to eject their mullah-ism all over the country en masse. Besides, forget international reactions. The Iranians are quite evidently a very resilient and a strikingly proud people that will not tolerate something like that happening on their own home ground. I think that was made very clear over the past week or so.

 

whole of it is just repeating westerner propaganda against iran anyway you have a point that " The Iranians are quite evidently a very resilient and a strikingly proud people that will not tolerate " American & Zionist oppression again . 

Quote

Wow, how cool is that. I haven't seen him in a while, but I'm sure he's rocking his black turban.

He totally active but because MSM has not shown him recently you have insulted him .

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:36 AM, kadhim said:

What do you want Iran to be here? A Shia version of a collapsing authoritarian basket case like Russia? What’s your endgame here? 

Certainly no because every time Iran has received lessons from it's mistakes so then corrected it's mistake which there is a famous quote which "everything that doesn't kill me makes me stronger " which endgame is fall of Zionist israel & oppressive  American government & joining government of Iran to government of Imam Mahdi (aj) inshaAllah although your grudge against Iran & WF.

[islamicmusic]

Copy pasting some fb comments related to the topic.

There is no law in Iran that says kill women for not wearing hijab. Hijab law has been there for 40 years. This case is being investigated by Govt and initial cctv shows no violence towards her, she was invited to attend the morality class and she fainted there.

Shiat Ali stands for what Allah wants from us. Imam al-Husayn did not fight Yazid for feminism. Imam al-Husayn rose against Yazeed because he failed to implement Islamic law and gave people freedoms to violate Islamic law.

At Maqam al-Baidha, Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) praised and glorified Allah and then said:

“O, people! The Messenger of Allah (S) has said: ‘Whoever sees a tyrannical ruler making lawful what Allah has forbidden, breaking the covenant of Allah, opposing the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, but does not [rise to] change the situation neither by his action nor his word, then it is binding on Allah to make him enter where the tyrant shall enter.

Indeed these people have clung to the obedience of shaitan and have forsaken obeying the All-Merciful. They openly indulge in corruption and have stopped the enforcement of hudud [Islamic punishments]. They have appropriated for themselves the spoils of war, they have made lawful what Allah has forbidden and have prohibited that which Allah has made lawful. And I am more entitled to bring changes than anyone else."

[Speech of Husayn (عليه السلام) taken from the Book -Event of Taff - The earliest historical account of Karbala by Abi Mikhnaf]

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by islamicmusic

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/26/2022 at 2:48 PM, kadhim said:

Oh, hey bud. Did Daddy let you go back online to play with your friends again? That’s awesome bud. You go git ‘em. 

Your response just shows level of your morality  which unfortunately thi is  too low in you  which just shows your childish mindset anyway if I don't play online with my friends  so then I don't lose anything but on the other hand you will be became

"Game Over" because you have taken your religion as a game which you may lose in it.

Quote

Those who took their religion for diversion and play and whom the life of the world had deceived. So today, We will forget them as they forgot the encounter of this day of theirs, and as they used to impugn Our signs. (51)

لَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَهُمْ لَهْوًا وَلَعِبًا وَغَرَّتْهُمُ الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا ۚ فَالْيَوْمَ نَنسَاهُمْ كَمَا نَسُوا لِقَاءَ يَوْمِهِمْ هَٰذَا وَمَا كَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يَجْحَدُونَ ‎﴿٥١﴾‏

https://tanzil.net/#7:51

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 AM, Hameedeh said:

There is absolutely no reason that this thuggery should be happening in London. Very disturbing and disgusting. 

Salam this has  been inevitable because all members of so called opposition parties against Iran are thugs in suits which they hate each other more than from their hate from Iranian regime which this thuggery has been a miniature of showing their true colors which if they could defeat Iran so then they would massacre Iranians in streets in broad daylight which if they would kill someone from Iranian embassy or Islamic center of England so then British & MSM Media would call it a normal thing  without criticizing it but because some polices get hurt so then they had to show minimum amount of criticism anyway ironically they have mixed their criticism  with their propganda against Iran by reffering to accusation of those thugs against Iran . 

Quote

Police said bottles and other items were thrown at officers trying to protect the embassy building, and that protesters also targeted the nearby Islamic Centre of England

 

British police said on Monday that 12 people were arrested and at least five police officers were seriously injured after violent disorder broke out during protests outside the Iranian Embassy in London.

 

Quote

The Metropolitan Police force said most protesters had been peaceful, but on Sunday a group of activists sought to confront police and other protesters with different views.

Police said bottles and other items were thrown at officers trying to protect the embassy building, and that protesters also targeted the nearby Islamic Centre of England.

At least five officers were hospitalised with injuries including broken bones, police said.

At least five officers were hospitalised with injuries including broken bones, police said.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/12-arrested-after-clashes-outside-iranian-embassy-in-london/article65937974.ece

Quote

Twelve arrested at London protests after death of Mahsa Amini in Iran

Other protests have taken place across Europe, including in Paris, where teargas was fired at protesters who were making their way towards the embassy in the French capital. A photo of Amini could be seen on one poster in London, while another said: “Stop execution in Iran.”

Footage on social media showed altercations among those in the crowd, and two officers wrestling a protester to the ground who had broken through the police line.

Scotland Yard said several Metropolitan police officers sustained injuries during the protests, including broken bones, but none are believed to have been seriously hurt.

Riot police were seen trying to clear protesters off the road near Marble Arch, about a mile away from the embassy across Hyde Park.

“A significant policing presence will remain in and around the area to monitor the situation,” the Met said.

By 7.30pm the crowd had been cleared from the area outside the embassy, but a handful of officers remained outside the building. Protesters, some of whom had been outside the embassy earlier in the day, stood before walls of riot police who had cordoned off Kilburn Road near the Islamic Centre of England in north-west London, where crowds had gathered earlier.

Dozens assembled to call for an end to the Islamic republic, some of whom became involved in altercations with officers and one another

The Met’s Cmdr Karen Findley said: “We respect the right of people to protest peacefully and always work with organisers to make that possible, but we will not tolerate unprovoked attacks on our officers as we have seen today or protest that leaves other communities feeling unsafe.

“We have officers in hospital tonight because they were attacked in what was a significant outbreak of violent disorder. We will make sure they get the support they need.

“We have already made a number of arrests, but we know there are people who were not caught tonight who committed serious offences.

“In the coming days, we will be using all the tools at our disposal – including CCTV and other footage – to identify those people and bring them to justice.”

 

Quote

Iran’s foreign ministry said on Sunday that it had summoned Britain’s ambassador, Simon Shercliff, over what it described as a hostile atmosphere created by London-based Farsi-language media outlets.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/25/protesters-clash-with-police-outside-iranian-embassy-in-london

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-summons-british-ambassador-to-protest-over-media-coverage-of-mahsa-amini-unrest-12705149

https://apnews.com/article/iran-middle-east-london-england-7b7b5e0f1b2b1c1ec277168519058a22

4 hours ago, Andaros said:

In case you had any doubts:

https://foreigndesknews.com/trending/5-ways-u-s-israel-saudi-arabia-and-other-nations-can-help-iranian-protesters-right-now/

They have done all of these during these 40 years which they have not taken lessons from their mistakes in their losing battle against Iran.

[Ashvazdanghe]

Explained: How the killing of a 15-year-old Iraqi girl by US troops exposes the Western media’s double standards

Quote

Zainab Essam Majed al-Khazali was killed by a stray bullet when US troops were conducting military drills in Baghdad. The mainstream media has kept mum on the issue, with some Twitter users saying that if the crime had been committed by 'a non-American country, the world would have gone mad'

 

On 9/27/2022 at 9:04 AM, khizarr said:

Wow, how cool is that. I haven't seen him in a while, but I'm sure he's rocking his black turban.

 

“What about all the people killed by American police? Did all these deaths get investigated?” asked Ebrahim Raisi, the Iran president, at a news conference held in New York on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the world’s leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.

 

Quote

While speaking to the media, he lamented what he said were “double standards” in the West regarding human rights. Amid all the tension, social media users highlighted the death of a 15-year-old girl in Iraq, who was allegedly killed by American troops.

 

Quote

The death of Zainab Essam Majed al-Khazali

On 20 September, 15-year-old Iraqi Zainab Essam Majed al-Khazali was killed by US gunfire while they were conducting military drills on Victoria Base, near Baghdad International Airport.

The incident took place near the Abu Ghraib prison, which has earned infamy for being the spot where members of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency committed a series of human rights violations and war crimes against detainees during the Iraq occupation of 2004.

The Iraqi Security Media Cell announced that they have launched an investigation into the murder, which was described as a “random shooting”.

 

Quote

Iraq’s security forces was quoted as telling TheCradle, “The killing of Zainab Essam Majed coincided with the presence of training operations for the American forces… the bullet that was taken out of the girl’s head confirms that it is from one of the weapons used by the American forces in the embassy and airport.”

 

Incidentally, the teen was killed just days after the death of Mahsa Amini in Iran, but has little or no coverage in the Western media.

Quote

Media coverage

There has been a deafening media silence regarding the death of the 15-year-old teenage, with most Western media outlets focusing on the death of Mahsa Amini in neighbouring Iran.

 

Quote

Is anyone talking about Zainab Essam Al-Khazali? the 15 year old Iraqi girl who was shot and killed by US forces in Iraq yesterday. She wasn’t killed by Iran so her story does not matter to western media. pic.twitter.com/o31F16wTH1

— Hadi Nasrallah (@HadiNasrallah) September 21, 2022

 

Some analysts have pointed out that the lack of reporting on the death of the 15-year-old is part of the West’s attempts of pushing anti-Iran propaganda — at a time when the country is still trying to revive its nuclear deal.

https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/how-the-killing-of-15-year-old-iraqi-girl-zainab-essam-majed-al-khazali-us-troops-exposes-western-medias-double-standards-11319341.html

[Ashvazdanghe]

UPDATE: Officers seriously injured and 12 arrested after Iranian Embassy protests

Quote

The disorder initially broke out in the immediate vicinity of the embassy before moving to Marble Arch and then to Maida Vale where the Islamic Centre of England was targeted.

Officers were able to protect the security of the building but in doing so, were subjected to further attacks.

 

Quote

Masonry, bottles and other projectiles were thrown and a number of officers were injured. At least five are in hospital with injuries including broken bones.

12 people have been arrested on suspicion of violent disorder.

 

Quote

“We have officers in hospital tonight because they were attacked in what was a significant outbreak of violent disorder. We will make sure they get the support they need.

“We have already made a number of arrests, but we know there are people who were not caught tonight who committed serious offences.

"In the coming days, we will be using all the tools at our disposal – including CCTV and other footage – to identify those people and bring them to justice.”

A Section 35 dispersal order has been put in place for the next 48 hours in the area impacted by today’s disorder.

https://news.met.police.uk/news/update-officers-seriously-injured-and-12-arrested-after-iranian-embassy-protests-454403

[Ashvazdanghe]

POLITICS

FEBRUARY 21, 20073:32 AMUPDATED 16 YEARS AGO

Tearful soldier tells court of Iraq rape-murder

By Andrea Hopkins

4 MIN READ

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier under court-martial at a Kentucky military base broke down in tears on Wednesday as he described how he and others planned the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, murdered along with her family.

Quote

Sgt. Paul Cortez, 24, is the second U.S. soldier to plead guilty to raping the girl and killing her and her family in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, in March 2006. The soldiers then poured kerosene on the girl’s body and lit her on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime.

 

Quote

“While we were playing cards Barker and Green started talking about having sex with an Iraqi female. Barker and Green had already known...” Cortez said before breaking down. He bowed his head and remained silent, sniffling occasionally, for a full minute before continuing.

 

Quote

“During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom. After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead,” Cortez said.

 

On 9/27/2022 at 2:15 AM, khizarr said:

I called you out for the blatant misinformation that you shared.

a gift of American regime  for people of Iraq which has had this gift for Iran too.

Quote

Cortez said the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped. He said she screamed and cried throughout the assault.

 

 

Quote

According to the charges, three soldiers raped the girl, while another helped commit the crimes. A fifth kept watch back at their outpost. All have been charged.

Barker pleaded guilty in November and was sentenced to 90 years in a military prison. Green was discharged from the Army for a “personality disorder” and is in a Kentucky prison awaiting civilian trial.

Barker and Cortez both avoided the death penalty by pleading guilty and have agreed to testify against Green and others charged in the crime.

Cortez also pleaded guilty to rape, arson and breaking into the girl’s house and to obstruction of justice for helping get rid of the murder weapon, an AK-47, which was thrown into a canal.

The other soldiers accused in the case are Pvt. Jesse Spielman and Pvt. Bryan Howard.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iraq-murder-idUSN2037158220070221

US soldier admits killing family after raping girl

· Body of 14-year-old was burned to conceal atrocity
· Defendant pleads guilty to avoid death penalty

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/16/usa.iraq1

More US troops charged with Iraqi girl's rape and murder

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/10/usa.iraq

[kadhim]

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Your understanding from WF is totally wrong which your remarks are just insulting to Shias because every shia must knows principle of religion by themselves which duty of any Marja is in similar fashion of any expert is giving advises due to having  certification in religious matters to people who don't have this certification likewise everyone doesn't need to  be an expert in everything which physicians & engineers & scientists & etc from highly educated people don't need to be expert in field of each other which they can cooperate with each other which in similar fashion they still need a highly educated scholar in religion likewise a Marja to as their religious questions from him or cooperate with him in their field of specialty which    you just  want to change WF into Pope in christanity which has no rule in our world except wasting a lot of resources   because main procedure & policy of WF is governing Shia community during occultation of Imam Mahdi (aj)

Ugh. I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule of just totally ignoring your posts, but there’s some general educational value in this case for other people, so I make a rare exception. 

No, my understanding of traditional WF is completely textbook. 

Traditional WF is a basic social welfare program. Anyone who lacks the resources to take care of themselves—orphans, mentally disabled, physically disabled, the insane, widows—and they need a guardian but don’t have family to take this on, the marjaiyyah took this on for as long as it needed to. Because it was a moral obligation of the community and because they managed the khums money, and part of it is for that. Some people like the medically insane and the mentally and physically disabled would often be under this for life. But others would graduate out of it because their lack of capability is temporary or another guardian can be found. A young man comes of age and starts a career to care for himself. A young lady on maturity or a widow remarried and finds a guardian. 

Khomeini’s non-traditional new take on this was to apply this to the political affairs of all people. With the implicit or explicit assumption that all non-marjaiyyah are somehow politically mentally disabled or immature but somehow they as marjaiyyah are not. 

Distinct from all this is the general role of the marjaiyyah as expert guides to people in legal matters. Traditionally, this part did apply generally to anyone without scholarly expertise.

The incoherence of what you just wrote is that you are jumbling together these two roles in ways that are not justified traditionally speaking.

[kadhim]

12 hours ago, Irfani313 said:

I enjoyed reading both of your comments here. What do you really suggest though? At what trajectory, and to what extent should the IRI mollify the current laws, and its enforcements? Also what, and where (at what stage) should the Islamic education be changed so the IRI youth learns the essence of Islam as opposed to the superficial deen? 

Politically, I don’t know. As I said earlier, I  tend to think the most natural evolution would be that the WF layer stays as an advisory body, but without official power to say no to anything. I think it could play an interesting role of moral guidance and authority if it distanced itself from the raw machinery of direct power. 

But it’s complicated by the hard feelings and lost prestige and the fact that should have already happened organically 10 or even 20 years ago. 

And I’m not sure, pragmatically how you get there. What the steps are.

Maybe a good first step is for the leadership to say, calm down, rein in the violence, and then let’s send some representatives and let’s have a long hard talk about grievances and what we can do to address this.

I would sort of suggest a referendum on a change to the constitution toward something more like I suggested. That lets the new generation have their own shot at deciding what the system will be in the same way their parents and grandparents did back in the 1970s. 
The only problem though is the perceptions of vote rigging, so I don’t know if there would be trust in the results of such a thing. 

It’s a mess.

12 hours ago, Irfani313 said:

My simple reading into the completely atheist youth is, their parents are and were like this and have been since the revolution, so they never accepted their setback since then. If

I really tend to agree with Qaim that it’s way beyond that sort of retro-Pahlavist dead-enders crowd now. It’s become broader. 
 

12 hours ago, Irfani313 said:

If indeed not rightly managed this weird push and pull of religion there, it would become their mortal mistake; and no freedom minded, anti imperialist, anti tyranny person, who cares for this planet earth would want the fall of the modern IRI.

Really broad strokes, agreed. There’s so much I find unforgivably awful about the Iranian government system. But uncontrolled collapses and revolutions are rarely pretty and beneficial to the people. I’m a pragmatist, so it’s better to pragmatically evolve and adapt in a smooth way to something else. But it does have to be a significant constitutional level change. Tiny tweaking is not going to cut it this time. Or at a minimum it will just be delaying what is inevitable at this point. 

I hope @Qa'imcan chime in again because that was a wonderfully balanced yet tough contribution to the conversation. 

[khizarr]

14 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

1) How do you differentiate between a "contextual" law and a timeless law?

It’s not always either or, at times they can overlap as well. But, just to summarize, I think the government should be trying to make sure that people’s life, property, honor, rights, and security are not compromised. This would be the “test” I would run everything through to decide what is timeless and what is contextual. So does theft, for example, fail this test? Yes. So theft should remain a punishable crime.

14 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

2) I think every society would consider stealing to be a punishable crime, but what should be the punishment for specifically religiously known crimes such as fornication, for example, in a majority Muslim country?

Should it even be a punishment at all?

Fornication is still a sin, for reasons I do not need to state here, but yes - I do believe that capital punishment for it was contextual and that it would be liquidated once certain communal goals were met. The state wasn’t trying to punish people for what they were doing in their bedrooms just for the sake of it. Islam, in its early most stages, focused entirely on building the family unit from the grassroots up, and it was quite a robust nuclear unit, therefore as a byproduct of that, fornication, adultery, and even homosexual relations were restricted or outright terminated.

But I do want to say one thing. Laws are there to make a society more just, not to make individuals more devout. That’s what the ‘ulema should be trying to do (i.e. educating people). So if someone can bring an argument that shows me how fornication (consensual, of course) undermines anyone's rights or how it has any considerable financial or social costs and how exactly limiting premarital sex would reduce the strain on the medical system for example, I would be willing to look into it. Again, no personal piety talk here. I want something pragmatic.

14 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Is the whole "punishment" part contextual in your opinion, and not just the way the punishment is carried out (lashings)?

That would depend on what we’re talking about.

14 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

While it is true that there is no "Islamic system" which can be read from the Qur'an and Sunnah that literally contains all the complexities of Governances and things such as regulatory bodies, healthcare policies etc, it does offer quite a lot - meaning that if a country implemented everything in the Qur'an and hadiths, that country would stand out among the world and people may call the way it is run a different type of system.

That wouldn’t be the system. That’s policies, laws. The system sets the parameters for lawgiving, not the other way around. So the country would probably stand out for the laws it implements, but it would most likely be borrowing the system or parts of the system from somewhere else. So the nidhaam wouldn't stand so unique, in any political sense. The Sunnis tried to come up with one, using the "shura" verse as a foundation, but that's pretty vague. What would the "shura" include? The entire Muslim population, or just the intellectual think tank, or just the electoral college, or some other kind of aristocratic system? A lot of them may genuinely feel that hereditary monarchy is the way to go. The early Shi'a felt that Imamate was the solution, and anything else may even amount to kufr, but then the aimmah surprised them by disassociating from this madness and refusing to even try to revolt. This threw the Shi'a into disarray, and since then we've had to review a lot of our understandings on the role of the Imam. 

14 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

And to answer your question on democracy, I don't believe traditionalism/orthodoxy is necessary against it, but we would say that when a matter is clear cut in the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no room for dispute and discussion, atleast in theory. In practice of course you would be met with all sorts of opposition, which is why most countries, actually all of them, that have implemented a certain version of Shari'ah, do often take a "soft" approach.

That would be a pseudo-democracy then. Something that Pakistan has tried, for example, and failed miserably at. When we assume there is a democracy, it is meant to do whatever its citizens decide it is meant to do. The agreement is what drives any social contract as well. Would you, and other Muslims here, be okay with a system like that?

Edited September 28, 2022 by khizarr
typo

[Ibn Tayyar]

1 hour ago, khizarr said:

It’s not always either or, at times they can overlap as well. But, just to summarize, I think the government should be trying to make sure that people’s life, property, honor, rights, and security are not compromised. This would be the “test” I would run everything through to decide what is timeless and what is contextual. So does theft, for example, fail this test? Yes. So theft should remain a punishable crime.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint brother.

So then the question I guess I would ask is this; since everyone agrees that theft is a timeless sin and deserves a punishment, why would implementing the punishment in the Qur'an be "wrong"? The early Muslims could have easily imprisoned thieves as modern society does. What would chopping a Muslim's hand achieve that a prison sentence couldn't in 700AD?

I make this point because the traditionalist orthodox opinion is that knowing the "reasoning" - unless it is explicitly mentioned in texts - behind Islamic Laws (including punishments) is not necessary, even if they do not make "sense" to us. 

Side note: Life imprisonment for stealing is actually - in the hadiths - a punishment for getting caught stealing for the third time.

1 hour ago, khizarr said:

Fornication is still a sin, for reasons I do not need to state here, but yes - I do believe that capital punishment for it was contextual and that it would be liquidated once certain communal goals were met. The state wasn’t trying to punish people for what they were doing in their bedrooms just for the sake of it. Islam, in its early most stages, focused entirely on building the family unit from the grassroots up, and it was quite a robust nuclear unit, therefore as a byproduct of that, fornication, adultery, and even homosexual relations were restricted or outright terminated.

So since the context was to protect or build the nuclear family unit, if a modern Islamic country were to suffer from high fornication and adultery rates and the nuclear family was under threat, would a ruler be within their rights to declare "we will return to the capital punishment of the old days to get this under control"? Or would you say it is a matter of "what worked in the past may not work anymore"?

I ask this because although I personally disagree with nearly everything you and other brothers who believe in this "contextual" approach to Islamic Law, I do find it interesting on a personal level.

1 hour ago, khizarr said:

 

That wouldn’t be the system. That’s policies, laws. The system sets the parameters for lawgiving, not the other way around. So the country would probably stand out for the laws it implements, but it would most likely be borrowing the system or parts of the system from somewhere else. So in that sense, the nidhaam wouldn't stand so unique, in any political sense. The Sunnis tried to come up with one, using the "shura" verse as a foundation, but that's pretty vague. What would the "shura" include? The entire Muslim population, or just the intellectual think tank, or just the electoral college, or some other kind of aristocratic system? A lot of them may genuinely feel that hereditary monarchy is the way to go. The early Shi'a felt that Imamate was the solution, and anything else may even amount to kufr, but then the aimmah surprised them by disassociating from this madness and refusing to even try to revolt. This threw the Shi'a into disarray, and since then we've had to review a lot of our understandings on the role of the Imam. 

You are correct in that calling a set of laws a "nidhaam" would be incorrect.

Shi'a traditionalist clergy disagreed among themselves who on should be the executive and what their role should be. A faqih? A group of fuqaha? A King that is restricted by the fuqaha? Should a parliament exist? 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Ibn Tayyar

[Jeffrey Rafidhi]

On 9/27/2022 at 9:08 AM, -Rejector- said:

The Ahlulbayt (A) being infallible is not a reason to not strive to be like them.

In regards to the statehood that you are inferring to, this statement is absurd. The statehood that was built by Holy Prophet (SAWA) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was supported by their divinely gifted powers & knowledge and as far as govt of Iran is concerned, they don't have those to tick the boxes.

Secondly, as for imbibement of religion is concerned, the life of Holy Prophet (SAWA) is a very good example wherein He (SAWA) penetrated the rustiest of hearts with the essence of His (SAWA) magnificent morals in the harshest land of Arabia, the land wherein girls were buried alive, widows were shunned and the status quo was "Might is right".

Finally, the life of Aimmah (عليه السلام) reverberates the fact that still Shiism exists even in those people's hearts who never felt the iron fists of the government clenching on them to practice religion. Even when Aimmah (عليه السلام) didn't possess any sort of statehood, yet the religion prevailed & still prevails & its wajibats still practiced with sincereness.

The question arises is when people practise wajibats on the basis of an iron fist hammering over their heads, does those wajibats really possess the essence of "قربة الى الله" and will Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grant reward to this acts which are based on Jabr?

[Debate follower]

A very interesting and high-quality debate.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Shi'a traditionalist clergy disagreed among themselves who on should be the executive and what their role should be. A faqih? A group of fuqaha? A King that is restricted by the fuqaha? Should a parliament exist? 

Pardon me for my interjection, dare I ask, shouldn’t the 12^th Imam be guiding them and clearing their differences to keep all on the right track?