HA and its supporters - Discussion of Wilayat Al Faqih

A

Abbees

Active Member
No need to ever change the hizzib toward any political polarization, because they will not take away the glass of wine from the Christain or attack the druze or sunni--they will respect and tolerate anyone including the Homosexual so as long as that homosexual is not a traitor, liar and/or murderer.
 
  • Advertisement
  • AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    "noting in" your opinion

    For me it is a big problem because religious parties follow their beliefs without reasoning. Religious parties think that they are following what god's want without reasoning.

    A religious parties thinks that any victory in war is called a divine victory.
    Religious parties think that god helps them in wars.
    What is "reasoning"? Define it, please.

    Can you disprove that God (swt) exists??????!? or that He has not helped us in the last war??!?!
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    What is "reasoning"? Define it, please.

    Can you disprove that God (swt) exists??????!? or that He has not helped us in the last war??!?!
    can you disaprove the the "Jewish" God doesnt exist and it didnt help them in building the state of Israel ?
    After all, it is more advanced, organized and beautiful than all the arab neighboring coutnries ?
    please wake up from that divine victory - it was a good resistance backed by some iranian-chinese weapons ... the countries building HA weeapons do not beleive in God !!
    Smell some coffee !!
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    can you disaprove the the "Jewish" God doesnt exist and it didnt help them in building the state of Israel ?
    I wasn't the one who advanced the "reason" argument. Religion is a matter of belief, and if people choose to believe in the "Jewish" god they are free to do so.
     
    S

    SeekNirvana

    Well-Known Member
    Building up on the discussion of Mahyar and AlGhaliboon, I still have a couple of concerns that both of you might be able to explain.

    1- So, as pointed out sometime somewhere before by AlGhaliboon (Please confirm), there is some sort of committee that votes this Waliy. Are there any more details on what are the characteristics he/she (can it be a she?) has to have?

    Apparently, Al Waliy Al Faqih, so far, happened to be in Iran. However, it is not imperative that this Waliy will always be an Iranian. If this Waliy happens to be a Lebanese, what authority will he have over the Lebanese Shiites and would that create a conflict with the Lebanese government? Now that I think about it, how can this Waliy be anywhere but in Iran?

    2- AlGhaliboon said that HA requested arbitration from him. I look at it this way: The majlis al shura of HA is composed of 7 (or 9?) members, so when there is a split, you decide by majority and that's why the number is odd. The arbitration of Ayatollah Khamenei can be seen as if the Majlis is formed by a pair number and he is the additional member that can make the difference. So in the least of the cases, Ayatollah Khamenei is considered part of the Majlis al Shura.

    Regards,
     
    Mey

    Mey

    Well-Known Member
    well truce is not the same as peace, and the issue of what israel is considered friend or enemy has to do with a general concept not a particular circumstance or a particular order that must be carried out, again as i said there are no particular orders that interfere with the political sovereignty and context of each state...
    Yes a general concept that falls under the juridistriction of Waliy Al Faqih, imagine we have a truce, and The waliy calls for war against Israel, will HA break the truce ?

    Another case, imagine we already as Lebanon have peace, will HA respect that peace when the Waliy Al Faqih is insistant on the position of Izalat Israel min al wojood ?

    In case Waliy AL Faqih declares that Muslims must fight the Israeli state, and in case we have gotten all prisoners, no occupied LEBANESE land, no Israeli violations, will HA force the others in war to liberate Palestine ?

    In the MoU they committed that they will not, but in the ideology of HA, this is not garaunteed, why don't HA declare that they cannot commit to the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih Al 3amma because it violates the principle of Lebanese sovereignity as I explained in previous posts ?

    In the MoU, HA committed that they will work for a civil society in Lebanon, how civil is it when HA is committed politically by Waliy Al Faqih (as I explained in previous posts), this violates the concept of the civil society, will HA also clarify this issue ?

    Once HA declares that, I personally would not have a problem with those issues anymore. My only problem as I explained is the ideology of wilayat al faqih and its implications on Lebanon.

    do you actually have a real example of this happening?
    No but we do not need an example, we have the text and the principles, we can simply apply them ! In case such a thing occurs, since we have the text we know how HA will act since they believe in Wilayat Al Faqih Al Motlaqa.

    so what you are saying is that the social and political realms are entirely separate and have got nothing to do with each other? why do parties have social platforms then? for what reason do people actually vote for parties?
    Maybe I should have clarified better, what I meant by social is the daily issues of the people, the 7alel and the 7aram, the share3 laws, without interfering with politics. The school of thought that is known as Wilayat Al Faqih al Nisbiya believes that Waliy Al Fakih does not interfere in the issues of the state, like the foreign policy, the decisions of peace and war, etc.. but focuses on the daily life of people, the halel and haram, the share3, just like any religious mufti in a state, without having power to determine the policy of that state.

    you still did not answer my question, how does it qualify as interference?
    You seem to be skimming my post not carefully reading it. You would have noticed that I fully supported you that those who talk about Hijab and such issues as interference are VERY WRONG, so on this point I support you, I have no problem with social interference,.

    Hijab is a personal matter decided by the woman, if she wishes to wear it she is free, and it is a violation of human rights and freedom of religion in case it is banned or considered as an interference.

    Values and Lifestyles (such as Hijab) can be imported via TV, via internet, communication is easily spread due to globalisation. That is not a problem and those who criticize such issues and classify them are narrow minded.

    My problem is not there, my problem is about the political interference which I spoke about in my previous post which I showed how by Qassem's book and Khomeini's book, the interference that Waliy Al Faqih can pose to those who believe in the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih Al 3amma.
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    Yes a general concept that falls under the juridistriction of Waliy Al Faqih, imagine we have a truce, and The waliy calls for war against Israel, will HA break the truce ?
    We are already at war against "israel" ........ :confused: who else would we go to war with?

    Another case, imagine we already as Lebanon have peace, will HA respect that peace when the Waliy Al Faqih is insistant on the position of Izalat Israel min al wojood ?
    already answered it, the above is general, this one becomes particular, i already said there is something called context that is taken into account.

    In case Waliy AL Faqih declares that Muslims must fight the Israeli state, and in case we have gotten all prisoners, no occupied LEBANESE land, no Israeli violations, will HA force the others in war to liberate Palestine ?
    see above.

    In the MoU they committed that they will not, but in the ideology of HA, this is not garaunteed, why don't HA declare that they cannot commit to the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih Al 3amma because it violates the principle of Lebanese sovereignity as I explained in previous posts ?
    because it does not violate the principle of Lebanese sovereignty.

    In the MoU, HA committed that they will work for a civil society in Lebanon, how civil is it when HA is committed politically by Waliy Al Faqih (as I explained in previous posts), this violates the concept of the civil society, will HA also clarify this issue ?
    A civil society is in the interests of Lebanon, it is a step in the right direction for enhancing justice and fairness and representation, as for the issue of wilayat al Faqih, i already said it will not and cannot be and no one wants to impose it by force, and the movement towards civil society gives people more alternatives than they have now, and if they choose to accept and support the wilayat al Faqih then that's great, if not, it is still in Lebanon's interest to have a strong ciivl society.

    Once HA declares that, I personally would not have a problem with those issues anymore. My only problem as I explained is the ideology of wilayat al faqih and its implications on Lebanon.
    well you know, you should check out what H.A has said on this issue, we have said we don't think the majority of Lebanese want it, and we don't think it will happen, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in it, ideology is one thing, practice and feasibility is another, are you saying parties should give up on what they deem not to be feasible? so fpm should drop its reform project because it seems "impossible"?

    No but we do not need an example, we have the text and the principles, we can simply apply them ! In case such a thing occurs, since we have the text we know how HA will act since they believe in Wilayat Al Faqih Al Motlaqa.
    well you are interpreting the text wrongly, re: the issue of sovereignty...

    Maybe I should have clarified better, what I meant by social is the daily issues of the people, the 7alel and the 7aram, the share3 laws, without interfering with politics. The school of thought that is known as Wilayat Al Faqih al Nisbiya believes that Waliy Al Fakih does not interfere in the issues of the state, like the foreign policy, the decisions of peace and war, etc.. but focuses on the daily life of people, the halel and haram, the share3, just like any religious mufti in a state, without having power to determine the policy of that state.
    the social and political are interrelated, the political in this sense has nothing to do with power or the struggle for power, it has to do with governance of the affairs of the people in a way that would meet certain laws and practices.

    You seem to be skimming my post not carefully reading it. You would have noticed that I fully supported you that those who talk about Hijab and such issues as interference are VERY WRONG, so on this point I support you, I have no problem with social interference,.

    Hijab is a personal matter decided by the woman, if she wishes to wear it she is free, and it is a violation of human rights and freedom of religion in case it is banned or considered as an interference.

    Values and Lifestyles (such as Hijab) can be imported via TV, via internet, communication is easily spread due to globalisation. That is not a problem and those who criticize such issues and classify them are narrow minded.

    My problem is not there, my problem is about the political interference which I spoke about in my previous post which I showed how by Qassem's book and Khomeini's book, the interference that Waliy Al Faqih can pose to those who believe in the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih Al 3amma.
    no... i was not referring to the Hijab. my question was in reply to the 2nd part of that paragraph: "I am speaking specifically about political influence and interference". How is the wali al-faqih interfering? well influence is another thing so let's not use it interchangeably, even TVs can influence someone...
     
    Mey

    Mey

    Well-Known Member
    1- Apparently, Al Waliy Al Faqih, so far, happened to be in Iran. However, it is not imperative that this Waliy will always be an Iranian. So, as pointed out sometime somewhere before by AlGhaliboon (Please confirm), there is some sort of committee that votes this Waliy. Are there any more details on what are the characteristics he/she (can it be a she?) has to have?
    The wali el-fakih is elected by 72-member Iranian college whose members are elected by the Iranian people.

    I will research more on characteristics and get back to that later.

    Moreover, if this Waliy happens to be a Lebanese, what authority will he have over the Lebanese Shiites and would that create a conflict with the Lebanese government? Now that I think about it, how can this Waliy be anywhere but in Iran?
    The authority is the same whether he is Iranian or Lebanese. The Lebanese Waliy Al Faqih in your example will rule in Iran not in Lebanon however the Shiites of Lebanon who believe in the concept of Waliy Al Faqih Al Mutlaqa will follow him just like they are doing with Khamen2i. He cannot be but in one place mkhoury, the place of the Islamic State, however his authority is the same, so this Lebanese Waliy Al Faqih will rule Iran just like Khamen2i is ruling Iran now.


    2- AlGhaliboon said that HA requested arbitration from him. I look at it this way: The majlis al shura of HA is composed of 7 (or 9?) members, so when there is a split, you decide by majority and that's why the number is odd. The arbitration of Ayatollah Khamenei can be seen as if the Majlis is formed by a pair number and he is the additional member that can make the difference. So in the least of the cases, Ayatollah Khamenei is considered part of the Majlis al Shura.
    Firstly, the case of 1992 elections is different. It was not a tie, majlis Al shura of HA proposed a lijne to study the participation in the elections. The MAJORITY saw that they should participate (10 out of 12), HOWEVER even though it was not a split, they still cannot adopt the decision, because to them they were not sure if it is SHAR3E (follows Religion) to participate in an elections in a system that is not an Islamic state, so the proposal of participation in elections was sent to Waliy Al Faqih to issue whether the decision is Shar3e (compatible to Islamic Faith) or not, and his decision was that it is shar3e, and thus it was adopted.

    You need to notice here, that had the Waliy Al Faqih decided that it was unshar3e according to religion of course (not from his head), then EVEN THOUGH the majority decided to participate in elections, they would not have done so, because it violates the directions of Waliy Al Faqih, the leader of the Umma.

    Concerning the majlis Shura, HN as Al Amine Al 3am has two votes, while others have one so in case of a tie he is the one to decide, but again, the decisions of HA cannot violate the directions of Waliy Al Faqih, because he is the one to issue what is right and what is wrong (religion wise)

    Mkhoury, the role of Waliy Al Faqih is WAY MUCH MORE than a decidor in case of a tie.

    The decisions of the Waliy Al Faqih are binding. His consent is required, not only in religious and doctrinal matters, but also in political matters with a strategic implication.

    The Waliy Al Faqih's authority is the same as the prophet, or Ameer Al Mo2meenen.

    Again I will put the quotes that define the role of Waliy Al Faqih from Naim Qassem's book.

    اما الولاية فهي "مطلقة وعامة"، وهي تشمل كل صلاحيات النبي والأئمة المعصومين من دون نقصان أو استثناء، يقول الامام الخميني: "فتوهم ان صلاحيات النبي في الحكم كانت اكثر من صلاحيات امير المؤمنين وصلاحيات أمير المؤمنين اكثر من صلاحيات الفقيه هو توهم خاطىء وباطل. نعم ان فضائل الرسول بالطبع هي أكثر من فضائل جميع البشر، لكن كثرة الفضائل المعنوية لا تزيد في صلاحيات الحكم. فالصلاحيات نفسها التي كانت للرسول والأئمة في تعبئة الجيوش وتعيين الولاة والمحافظين، واستلام الضرائب وصرفها في مصالح المسلمين، قد أعطاها الله تعالى للحكومة المفترضة هذه الأيام. غاية الأمر لم يعين شخصاً بالخصوص وانما أعطاه لعنوان العالم العادل". (الخميني، الحكومة الاسلامية) أي الولي الفقيه.

    "... يحتاج المسلم المكلف في القسم الاول (أي قسم العبادات والمعاملات) الى مرجع تقليد لمعرفة الاحكام الشرعية وضوابطها، وفي القسم الثاني (القسم العام المرتبط بالامة ومصالحها وحربها وسلمها وتوجهاتها العامة) الى قائد هو الولي الفقيه لتحديد السياسات العامة في حياة الأمة ودور المكلفين العملي في تنفيذ احكام الشرع المقدس والسهر على تطبيقها في حياة الأمة. وقد تجتمع المرجعية والولاية في شخص واحد (...) كما حصل بالنسبة للامام الخميني مع انتصار الثورة، وللامام الخامنئي بعد اختياره للولاية" (ص 69-70).

    لا علاقة لموطن الولي الفقيه بسلطته كما لا علاقة لموطن المرجع بمرجعيته. فقد يكون عراقياً او ايرانياً او لبنانياً او كويتياً او غير ذلك (...) فالامام الخميني كولي على المسلمين، كان يدير الدولة الاسلامية في ايران كمرشد وقائد وموجه ومشرف على النظام الاسلامي هناك، وكان يحدد التكليف السياسي لعامة المسلمين في البلدان المختلفة
    So as you see mkhoury, the Waliy Al Faqih has the authority of the prophet, his control (authority) spreads to outside the country he is ruling in (Iran) to all Muslims who believe in the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih (HA being one)

    So he controls the System in the country of the state and he defines al Talkleef Al Siyassi for the Muslims in other countries. (Siyassi is political, so he has a political say.

    For more info on this issue please review my post here:
    http://www.lfpm.org/forum/showpost.php?p=391664&postcount=36
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    Mahyar, you are quoting but your quotes do not show how this qualifies as interference.
     
    S

    SeekNirvana

    Well-Known Member
    Indeed Mahyar, I agree with what you posted and I already saw the post. I was merely following AlGhaliboon's logic that was advocating that Al Waliy was asked to be an arbitrator, and saying that even in that case, it will be considered interference. However, thanks for the clarification though, I wasn't sure about the votes of the Majlis el Shura.

    The authority is the same whether he is Iranian or Lebanese. The Lebanese Waliy Al Faqih in your example will rule in Iran not in Lebanon however the Shiites of Lebanon who believe in the concept of Waliy Al Faqih Al Mutlaqa will follow him just like they are doing with Khamen2i. He cannot be but in one place mkhoury, the place of the Islamic State, however his authority is the same, so this Lebanese Waliy Al Faqih will rule Iran just like Khamen2i is ruling Iran now.
    Mahyar, if it is the case, then I see that there are two logical consequences to this:
    1- The Islamic state will be opening its doors to Shiites' imigration, the Shiites that believe in the Wilayat Al Faqih.
    2- The Islamic state will be looking to increase Shiite influence in the region in order to annex other countries to the Islamic state.
    Is this too far fetched?

    You need to notice here, that had the Waliy Al Faqih decided that it was unshar3e according to religion of course (not from his head), then EVEN THOUGH the majority decided to participate in elections, they would not have done so, because it violates the directions of Waliy Al Faqih, the leader of the Umma.
     
    Mey

    Mey

    Well-Known Member
    A civil society is in the interests of Lebanon, it is a step in the right direction for enhancing justice and fairness and representation, as for the issue of wilayat al Faqih, i already said it will not and cannot be and no one wants to impose it by force, and the movement towards civil society gives people more alternatives than they have now, and if they choose to accept and support the wilayat al Faqih then that's great, if not, it is still in Lebanon's interest to have a strong ciivl society.
    We agree that HA will not impose it on force on the rest of the Lebanese, no problem here. My concern is that HA as a political party follows the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih, thus HA is linked to Wilayat Al Faqih (currently in Iran), HA is guided politically (I will show below) by this Wilaya (religous) where is the civil society in this ? Apparently we have a different view of what civil is.

    well you know, you should check out what H.A has said on this issue, we have said we don't think the majority of Lebanese want it, and we don't think it will happen, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in it, ideology is one thing, practice and feasibility is another, are you saying parties should give up on what they deem not to be feasible? so fpm should drop its reform project because it seems "impossible"?
    You can believe in it, but I can disagree with it and that is the case here :smile: I cannot agree with this ideology because it allows political interference from Waliy Al Faqih (I will show below)

    Now to the texts, which you claim I am interpreting wrongly, and I would be glad if you can correct what you see wrong.


    لا علاقة لموطن الولي الفقيه بسلطته كما لا علاقة لموطن المرجع بمرجعيته. فقد يكون عراقياً او ايرانياً او لبنانياً او كويتياً او غير ذلك (...) فالامام الخميني كولي على المسلمين، كان يدير الدولة الاسلامية في ايران كمرشد وقائد وموجه ومشرف على النظام الاسلامي هناك، وكان يحدد التكليف السياسي لعامة المسلمين في البلدان المختلفة
    Al Waliy Al Faqih decides the takleef siyasi for all Muslims who follow this concept, HA included. Is this not political interference ???

    Imam Khomeini considers religious and political authority for Muslims is one. He says in his book:

    In understanding the concept of religion in our Islamic culture, it is clear that no contradiction exists between religious and political authority. Political struggle is an integral part of the mission and duties of a cleric. The command and orientation of political struggle are part of the responsibilities of the mission conferred upon religious authority.
    So the command and orientation of political struggle is a part of the religious authority of Al Waliy Al Faqih. Is this not political interference ? Since his authority stems to ALL MUSLIMS who follow this concept.

    Again check the responsibility and the authority of Al Waliy Al Faqih


    "... يحتاج المسلم المكلف في القسم الاول (أي قسم العبادات والمعاملات) الى مرجع تقليد لمعرفة الاحكام الشرعية وضوابطها، وفي القسم الثاني (القسم العام المرتبط بالامة ومصالحها وحربها وسلمها وتوجهاتها العامة) الى قائد هو الولي الفقيه لتحديد السياسات العامة في حياة الأمة ودور المكلفين العملي في تنفيذ احكام الشرع المقدس والسهر على تطبيقها في حياة الأمة. وقد تجتمع المرجعية والولاية في شخص واحد (...) كما حصل بالنسبة للامام الخميني مع انتصار الثورة، وللامام الخامنئي بعد اختياره للولاية" (ص 69-70).
    The second section specifically talks about the role of Al Waliy Al Faqih to Muslims who follow it regardless in which country they are, regardless of the system in that country (as it is specified in the first quote) li3amat Al Muslimeen fi al boldan al mokhtalifa.

    The Waliy Al Faqih has the authorities of the prophet, was the prophet able to interfere politically in any Muslim or not ? YES

    Thus the authority of the Waliy Al Faqih transcends above borders and includes all Muslims who follow that principle.

    A prophet authority, and we still ask about political interference ?

    The Umma is not restricted to Iran and HA considers themselves part of this Umma.
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    Is this too far fetched?
    Yes. How did you arrive to this conclusion?

    HA is guided politically (I will show below) by this Wilaya (religous) where is the civil society in this ? Apparently we have a different view of what civil is.
    Civil society encourages the development of civic nationalism, in this case the logical result would be the development of real Lebanese nationalism. In this context it would be less worrying to discuss the issue of the Wilayat el-Faqih and it would in the presence of a civic nationalism and by extension a united/single (rather than multiple) vision of Lebanon's interests, be better understood than it is now (now it's viewed with suspicion). So even if people reject it, they will not base their rejection on suspicion and fear, and this will help build more trust amongst ideologically diverse and opposing groups.

    No, it is not political interference. I will tell you why. You need to stop quoting selectively. This does not amount to interference because the issues that have to do with Lebanese politics are left to the party in question. There is no interference on the part of the Wali el-Faqih in such affairs, unless his arbitration is requested, and even then it is only general issues having to do with whether or not an action is religiously sanctioned or not.

    You want me to quote Sheikh Na'im Qassem? I am sure he discusses this issue. But I have to type his writings from the book.... you really want me to? :eek: :crying:
     
    S

    SeekNirvana

    Well-Known Member
    Here's what Al-Mustaqbal had in one of its pages today. Regardless of the intentions of Al-Mustaqbal, let's not make it a bashing thread about Future Media.


    نصرالله في العام 1997:
    العصيان لا يتم إلا بأمر من الوليّ الفقيه

    في 14 تشرين الثاني 1997، أي قبل تسعة أعوام تماماً، وبعد أسابيع قليلة على اعلان ما سمّي "ثورة الجياع" من قبل الشيخ صبحي الطفيلي، تحدث الأمين لحزب الله السيّد حسن نصر الله في صالون سميح الصلح السياسي في بيروت، وقال رداً على سؤال: ماذا عن العصيان والنزول الى الشارع؟ (تعقيباً على تهديد الشيخ الطفيلي بالعصيان المدني):
    "ان العصيان غير مقبول بالمعنى الشرعي، بل أن حفظ النظام العام واجب وعدم الالتزام بالقوانين يرتّب مفاسد كبيرة على أوضاع الناس وشؤونهم الحياتية وهناك حالة واحدة يجوز فيها العصيان هي عندما تصبح المفسدة كبيرة الى الحد الذي لا يوجد فيها حل آخر وهذا يحتاج الى إذن من الوليّ الفقيه".
    (الحديث نشرته كل الصحف اللبنانية في حينه، ومرفق ما نشرته جريدة "السفير" على سبيل المثال).
    والمعروف أن الوليّ الفقيه، وفقاً لحزب الله، هو مرشد الثورة الاسلامية في ايران السيد علي خامنئي، وله وكيلان في لبنان هما الشيخ محمد يزبك والسيّد حسن نصر الله.

    Regards,
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    Here's what Al-Mustaqbal had in one of its pages today. Regardless of the intentions of Al-Mustaqbal, let's not make it a bashing thread about Future Media.


    نصرالله في العام 1997:
    العصيان لا يتم إلا بأمر من الوليّ الفقيه

    في 14 تشرين الثاني 1997، أي قبل تسعة أعوام تماماً، وبعد أسابيع قليلة على اعلان ما سمّي "ثورة الجياع" من قبل الشيخ صبحي الطفيلي، تحدث الأمين لحزب الله السيّد حسن نصر الله في صالون سميح الصلح السياسي في بيروت، وقال رداً على سؤال: ماذا عن العصيان والنزول الى الشارع؟ (تعقيباً على تهديد الشيخ الطفيلي بالعصيان المدني):
    "ان العصيان غير مقبول بالمعنى الشرعي، بل أن حفظ النظام العام واجب وعدم الالتزام بالقوانين يرتّب مفاسد كبيرة على أوضاع الناس وشؤونهم الحياتية وهناك حالة واحدة يجوز فيها العصيان هي عندما تصبح المفسدة كبيرة الى الحد الذي لا يوجد فيها حل آخر وهذا يحتاج الى إذن من الوليّ الفقيه".
    (الحديث نشرته كل الصحف اللبنانية في حينه، ومرفق ما نشرته جريدة "السفير" على سبيل المثال).
    والمعروف أن الوليّ الفقيه، وفقاً لحزب الله، هو مرشد الثورة الاسلامية في ايران السيد علي خامنئي، وله وكيلان في لبنان هما الشيخ محمد يزبك والسيّد حسن نصر الله.

    Regards,
    So how exactly does the highlighted part show that the Wali el-Faqih would be interfering? Taking permission means one is asking if something is allowed, if I ask you something and you answer me with a yes or no, how does that qualify as interference??! So I can say, stop interfering in my affairs?

    Amazing that they bring this up by the way. The wahabi machine is in full swing I guess.
     
    Mey

    Mey

    Well-Known Member
    I think I have to agree with AL-Ghaliboon on this one.

    Notice the difference between the headline: العصيان لا يتم إلا بأمر من الوليّ الفقيه

    Which is alluding that Waliy Al Faqih ORDERS the disobedience

    And the context:
    وهناك حالة واحدة يجوز فيها العصيان هي عندما تصبح المفسدة كبيرة الى الحد الذي لا يوجد فيها حل آخر وهذا يحتاج الى إذن من الوليّ الفقيه

    Which states that the specific case of the country that si decided by the specific Islamic party in the country asking for permission for the disobedience.

    I do not think Al Waliy Al Faqih goes that specific in directing the Muslims of the specific countries because we have to admit that it is also mentioned in Naeem Qassem's book that Al Waliy Al Faqih takes into consideration the specific situation of state that the Muslims live in (so that Al-Ghaliboon does not have to type from Arabic, that was the issue you wanted to mention :smile:). So basically in many of the decisions he takes into consideration the nature of the Lebanese state before issuing a guideline for HA.

    But again in the example given by Al Mustaqbal, it is ibvious that he has the final say, so whatever the decision of HA, he can accept it or refuse it.

    The examples of elections and this example are both examples of HA asking whether their action complies with Share3 (religion) or not.

    However I still insist that this is interference because ACCEPTING or REFUSING the decision has an impact on the political situation in Lebanon as a state. And thus the final decision of Al Waliy Al Faqih will in a way or another affect the political situation in Lebanon by allowing/disallowing a certain action of HA.

    And we need to stress that it is not always the case that HA will come up with a decision and ask whether it complies with religion or not (answered by Al Waliy Al Faqih), as I posted earlier, it could be the case (and the texts were quoted above) that Al Waliy AL Faqih issues a certain guideline and HA follows.

    One of the guidelines issued is the famous "Israel is a cancer state and needs to be removed from existance" which was a guideline set by Khomeini.

    The Muslims who follow Al Waliy Al Faqih would have to work to remove Israel's existance. And my concern here is that it is not only an issue of Lebanese land then, but would transcend that because as I said the Umma is not restricted to Lebanon.

    How would they work ? Al Waliy Al Faqih leaves it here for the command of the local Muslim communities (in our case HA). HA has fought with arms Israel in Lebanon, if the case happens that we have peace later on, what will happen ?

    Will HA support the Palestineans by donations and speech and media (I support this myself) - thus in a way helping in defeating Israel.

    Will HA go into an armed fight from Lebanon to Palestine ? (I staunchly disagree) - thus in a way fighting to defeat Israel.

    I do not know, and when asking involved people in HA, the answer was, at the time of that incident, HA will decide on the best way taking into consideration the interest of the Umma, and achieving the general guideline.

    No, it is not political interference. I will tell you why. You need to stop quoting selectively. This does not amount to interference because the issues that have to do with Lebanese politics are left to the party in question. There is no interference on the part of the Wali el-Faqih in such affairs, unless his arbitration is requested, and even then it is only general issues having to do with whether or not an action is religiously sanctioned or not.
    Al-Ghaliboon, the general guidline, the general politics is set by Al Waliy AL Faqih, the details of implementation are left to HA to decide on what is best. If I am setting your end target, am I not interfering ? And this target is not one that has been set and thus is your ideology.

    Guidelines are issued by Al Waliy Al Faqih at anytime he wishes to issue a guidline. Thus he is defining the targets that HA should work on achieving, HOW HA achieves them is left as you said to HA. And while choosing the method HA must also consult whether it is shar3e or not.

    So setting a general POLITICAL guideline for HA to achieve is not interference ?

    P.S.: I still have not forgotten the representation post, I will answer later :wink:
     
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    But I myself cannot go against this idea, I cannot denounce it nor renounce it. Why do people want me to renounce it? What do they gain from it?

    مع أني فقدتُ "شهية" الحوار مع ايديولوجي منذ زمن، لأنه لا يملكُ أمرَ نفسه، ولأنهُ يعتبرُ أنّ واجبَهُ الديني المقدس طاعة وليّ الأمر، سواء اقتنع باوامره أم لم يقتنع

    فقد كنتُ في مرحلةٍ ما ايديولوجيٌّ حزبيّ وعرفتُ جيداً العالم النفسي الداخلي الذي يعيشه الايديولوجي الديني، وكنتُ قريباً من هؤلاء، ورأيتُ كم أنهم يبحثونَ دوماً عن وصيّ على عقولهم ومشاعرهم و... حياتهم من المهد الى اللحد
    ***

    لديّ الكثير من الكتب التي تتحدث عن ولاية الفقيه. لكني لن أنكبّ على قراءتها مجدداً لأني لا أرى جدوى في مناقشة ايديولوجي، فمهما قدمتَ له من أدلة سيظلُّ يدافعُ عما هُوَ عليه لأنه يعتبرُ ذلكَ واجبه الديني، فالأمر محسوم لديه. أفكار تبناها ولن يموتَ إلا عليها

    لكني سأعطيكم مثالاً صغيراً عن نفسية هؤلاء وعقولهم. وأقولُ لكم إني كلما قرأتُ لهم كلما وجدتُ الخواء. وكمثال، كنتُ قد قرأتُ دراسة عن ولاية الفقيه لرئيس السلطة القضائية في ايران، محمود الهاشمي شهرودي، عنوانها: "نظرة جديدة في ولاية الفقيه". ومنذ البداية يتوجّهُ بالحديث عن المختلفين معه في الرأي قائلاً: "... وأن نقف عندها قليلاً، خصوصاً في ظلّ المسائل الأخيرة التي حدثت في البلاد، سيما الأقاويل المطروحة مع الأسف في الحوزة من قبل الأصدقاء الجُهّال واللاواعين، أو الحاقدين، وكان بعض تلك الأحاديث التي رأيتها يحتوي على نقاط سلبية كثيرة، وفي الحقيقة على نوع من القدح والهتك والاستهتار في هذه الظروف الدقيقة من أيامنا". ا

    فحينَ تختلفُ معه في الرأي، إذاً، أنتَ حاقد وهاتك وجاهل. ودوماً، هناكَ "ظروف دقيقة". كلما صدرَ موقف أو طُرِحَ رأيٌ لا يعجبهم، يتذكرونَ "الظروف الدقيقة" التي نعيشها. أما حروبهم، أما أسلحتهم المكدّسة، فلا شأنَ لها بـ"الظروف الدقيقة".ا

    ونتابعُ مع رئيس السلطة القضائية، وأحد أركان النظام الايراني، يقول: "ليس من الانصاف، أو الوجدان، أن ينال أشخاص من هذا الأصل المهم (ولاية الفقيه)، وهو الأساس لعزّة وشرف وشوكة وعظمة هذه الثورة وهذه الأمة وهذا الشعب، من جراء مسائل، وأغراض ومصالح خاصة مُبْتَذَلة جداً ورخيصة جداً ونتيجة أمراضهم النفسية. إنّ الذينَ استهدفوا هذا الأساس وشككوا فيه وأساؤوا إليه بعيدون عن الانصاف والضمير".ا

    الجريمة كل الجريمة إذا أنتَ شككتَ بصوابية وجدوى ولاية الفقيه. إذاً، أنتَ مريض نفسياً، ولا ضميرَ لك، ومُسي،ء وأسبابك مبتذلة ورخيصة، ولم ينسَ صاحبنا كلمة: "جداً" للتأكيد على الرخص والابتذال في دوافع ناقدي ولاية الفقيه

    ويتابع: "... الامام (يقصد الخميني) كان يواجه تلك الكلمات من أيِّ شخص ومقام صدرت عنه، بكل قوة وشِِدّة وأقلها أن كان (رحمه الله) كان يؤنّبهم ويخاطبهم قائلاً: إنكم لم تفهموا مسألة ولاية الفقيه".ا

    فهم لا يناقشونَك بالتي هي أحسن كما أرادَ الله سبحانه، بل يعتمدونَ الشدّة والقسوة، كما أنهم يدّعونَ فهماً للأمور أكثر من الآخرين، وأنّ الآخرين إذا انتقدوا ولاية الفقيه فإنّ عقولهم قاصرة ومحدودة. يكونُ العقلُ واعياً وفاهماً فقط إذا تبنّى ولاية الفقيه. بل ويقومُ زعيم الثورة الخميني بتأنيبهم كما يفعلُ ناظرُ المدرسة مع تلاميذ الصف الابتدائي. فلا يسمحُ بالندية والتكافؤ والتعاطي الودي مع المختلفين في الرأي. دائماً ينظرونَ إليكَ من أعلى لأنهم – كما يعتبرونَ أنفسهم – أصحاب الهداية، بينما المختلفون معهم في الرأي والعقيدة والتصوّر أتباعُ الشيطان ولا ضميرَ لهم ومرضى نفسياً وأسبابهم رخيصة ومبتذلة... ولا تنسوا: "جداً". ا


    بيكاسو​
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    However I still insist that this is interference because ACCEPTING or REFUSING the decision has an impact on the political situation in Lebanon as a state. And thus the final decision of Al Waliy Al Faqih will in a way or another affect the political situation in Lebanon by allowing/disallowing a certain action of HA.
    I disagree. It is not interference. It might have an impact and it might be called influence but it is not interference. Interference assumes that you did not ask for it...

    How would they work ? Al Waliy Al Faqih leaves it here for the command of the local Muslim communities (in our case HA). HA has fought with arms Israel in Lebanon, if the case happens that we have peace later on, what will happen ?
    Peace? With whom?

    Will HA support the Palestineans by donations and speech and media (I support this myself) - thus in a way helping in defeating Israel.

    Will HA go into an armed fight from Lebanon to Palestine ? (I staunchly disagree) - thus in a way fighting to defeat Israel.
    Well, what does it matter what H.A will do, the decision rests with H.A, and there is no intervention on the part of the Wali el Faqih unless arbitration is requested, so again we come back to the same point, it is not interference and H.A can take decisions alone without interference.

    Al-Ghaliboon, the general guidline, the general politics is set by Al Waliy AL Faqih, the details of implementation are left to HA to decide on what is best. If I am setting your end target, am I not interfering ? And this target is not one that has been set and thus is your ideology.
    No, you are not interfering. You are not interfering first because the other side (H.A) is willingly believing in the system. Second, the other side is not receiving orders on how to act, if it is in doubt on how to proceed help is requested and it is given accordingly, and this cannot be considered interference. Third, even if we are to look solely at the goals set, there are still many ways that this goal can be achieved, and some of these would allow for the maintenance of the status quo, as you said, like helping the Palestinians indirectly, etc.
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    مع أني فقدتُ "شهية" الحوار مع ايديولوجي منذ زمن، لأنه لا يملكُ أمرَ نفسه، ولأنهُ يعتبرُ أنّ واجبَهُ الديني المقدس طاعة وليّ الأمر، سواء اقتنع باوامره أم لم يقتنع

    فقد كنتُ في مرحلةٍ ما ايديولوجيٌّ حزبيّ وعرفتُ جيداً العالم النفسي الداخلي الذي يعيشه الايديولوجي الديني، وكنتُ قريباً من هؤلاء، ورأيتُ كم أنهم يبحثونَ دوماً عن وصيّ على عقولهم ومشاعرهم و... حياتهم من المهد الى اللحد
    ***

    لديّ الكثير من الكتب التي تتحدث عن ولاية الفقيه. لكني لن أنكبّ على قراءتها مجدداً لأني لا أرى جدوى في مناقشة ايديولوجي، فمهما قدمتَ له من أدلة سيظلُّ يدافعُ عما هُوَ عليه لأنه يعتبرُ ذلكَ واجبه الديني، فالأمر محسوم لديه. أفكار تبناها ولن يموتَ إلا عليها

    لكني سأعطيكم مثالاً صغيراً عن نفسية هؤلاء وعقولهم. وأقولُ لكم إني كلما قرأتُ لهم كلما وجدتُ الخواء. وكمثال، كنتُ قد قرأتُ دراسة عن ولاية الفقيه لرئيس السلطة القضائية في ايران، محمود الهاشمي شهرودي، عنوانها: "نظرة جديدة في ولاية الفقيه". ومنذ البداية يتوجّهُ بالحديث عن المختلفين معه في الرأي قائلاً: "... وأن نقف عندها قليلاً، خصوصاً في ظلّ المسائل الأخيرة التي حدثت في البلاد، سيما الأقاويل المطروحة مع الأسف في الحوزة من قبل الأصدقاء الجُهّال واللاواعين، أو الحاقدين، وكان بعض تلك الأحاديث التي رأيتها يحتوي على نقاط سلبية كثيرة، وفي الحقيقة على نوع من القدح والهتك والاستهتار في هذه الظروف الدقيقة من أيامنا". ا

    فحينَ تختلفُ معه في الرأي، إذاً، أنتَ حاقد وهاتك وجاهل. ودوماً، هناكَ "ظروف دقيقة". كلما صدرَ موقف أو طُرِحَ رأيٌ لا يعجبهم، يتذكرونَ "الظروف الدقيقة" التي نعيشها. أما حروبهم، أما أسلحتهم المكدّسة، فلا شأنَ لها بـ"الظروف الدقيقة".ا

    ونتابعُ مع رئيس السلطة القضائية، وأحد أركان النظام الايراني، يقول: "ليس من الانصاف، أو الوجدان، أن ينال أشخاص من هذا الأصل المهم (ولاية الفقيه)، وهو الأساس لعزّة وشرف وشوكة وعظمة هذه الثورة وهذه الأمة وهذا الشعب، من جراء مسائل، وأغراض ومصالح خاصة مُبْتَذَلة جداً ورخيصة جداً ونتيجة أمراضهم النفسية. إنّ الذينَ استهدفوا هذا الأساس وشككوا فيه وأساؤوا إليه بعيدون عن الانصاف والضمير".ا

    الجريمة كل الجريمة إذا أنتَ شككتَ بصوابية وجدوى ولاية الفقيه. إذاً، أنتَ مريض نفسياً، ولا ضميرَ لك، ومُسي،ء وأسبابك مبتذلة ورخيصة، ولم ينسَ صاحبنا كلمة: "جداً" للتأكيد على الرخص والابتذال في دوافع ناقدي ولاية الفقيه

    ويتابع: "... الامام (يقصد الخميني) كان يواجه تلك الكلمات من أيِّ شخص ومقام صدرت عنه، بكل قوة وشِِدّة وأقلها أن كان (رحمه الله) كان يؤنّبهم ويخاطبهم قائلاً: إنكم لم تفهموا مسألة ولاية الفقيه".ا

    فهم لا يناقشونَك بالتي هي أحسن كما أرادَ الله سبحانه، بل يعتمدونَ الشدّة والقسوة، كما أنهم يدّعونَ فهماً للأمور أكثر من الآخرين، وأنّ الآخرين إذا انتقدوا ولاية الفقيه فإنّ عقولهم قاصرة ومحدودة. يكونُ العقلُ واعياً وفاهماً فقط إذا تبنّى ولاية الفقيه. بل ويقومُ زعيم الثورة الخميني بتأنيبهم كما يفعلُ ناظرُ المدرسة مع تلاميذ الصف الابتدائي. فلا يسمحُ بالندية والتكافؤ والتعاطي الودي مع المختلفين في الرأي. دائماً ينظرونَ إليكَ من أعلى لأنهم – كما يعتبرونَ أنفسهم – أصحاب الهداية، بينما المختلفون معهم في الرأي والعقيدة والتصوّر أتباعُ الشيطان ولا ضميرَ لهم ومرضى نفسياً وأسبابهم رخيصة ومبتذلة... ولا تنسوا: "جداً". ا


    بيكاسو​
    لقد فقدت شهية الحوار مع "ايديولوجي"؟ اعتقد أنّ الحوار الحقيقي بالنسبة اليك هو حوار مُفبرَك يُرضي كلّ المناقشين ... لأنّهم ذوو عقليّة احتكارية وايضاً لأنهم لا يؤمنون بتعدّديّة الآراء...ولكن اودّ ان أسألك: إذاً لن تناقش أمراً ما لأنني "ايديولوجي"؟ وهل بإمكانك تزويدنا بتعريف هذه الكلمة التي على اساسها ترفض مناقشة الموضوع؟

    أمّا بالنسبة لما قلته عن عالمنا النفسي الداخلي فهذا غير صحيح وأظنّ أنّك لا تعرف حقّاً حقيقة عالمنا النفسي ولا تعرف شيئاً عن أسباب التزامنا المطلق بـ"ايديولوجيا" ولاية الفقيه ولا تملك حتى ادنى درجات المعرفة عن مشاعرنا فإن كانت معرفتك سليمة فلما كنت قد قلت ما قلته.ا
     
    nizaryahya

    nizaryahya

    Well-Known Member
    Mahyar,
    I have a question to you. Do you think people follow Wali-Al-Faqih because they opt for the guidelines of Wilayat al Faqih, or they follow the guidelines because they follow him in person.

    Al Wilaya is a choice. People can opt to it or not.
    Of course any ideological party will follow its ideology.
    And of course the ideology then will affect the country.
    However, it does affect only because people in the country opted for it. So it is genuinely local.

    The problem isnot when people follow an ideology and go back to references and authorities on that ideology.
    The problem is when people follow orders from foreign authorities that have no guidelines and no accountability and no democratic processes to issue these orders such as Embassadors and what have you.
     
    M

    maroon1

    Active Member
    مع أني فقدتُ "شهية" الحوار مع ايديولوجي منذ زمن، لأنه لا يملكُ أمرَ نفسه، ولأنهُ يعتبرُ أنّ واجبَهُ الديني المقدس طاعة وليّ الأمر، سواء اقتنع باوامره أم لم يقتنع

    فقد كنتُ في مرحلةٍ ما ايديولوجيٌّ حزبيّ وعرفتُ جيداً العالم النفسي الداخلي الذي يعيشه الايديولوجي الديني، وكنتُ قريباً من هؤلاء، ورأيتُ كم أنهم يبحثونَ دوماً عن وصيّ على عقولهم ومشاعرهم و... حياتهم من المهد الى اللحد
    ***

    لديّ الكثير من الكتب التي تتحدث عن ولاية الفقيه. لكني لن أنكبّ على قراءتها مجدداً لأني لا أرى جدوى في مناقشة ايديولوجي، فمهما قدمتَ له من أدلة سيظلُّ يدافعُ عما هُوَ عليه لأنه يعتبرُ ذلكَ واجبه الديني، فالأمر محسوم لديه. أفكار تبناها ولن يموتَ إلا عليها

    لكني سأعطيكم مثالاً صغيراً عن نفسية هؤلاء وعقولهم. وأقولُ لكم إني كلما قرأتُ لهم كلما وجدتُ الخواء. وكمثال، كنتُ قد قرأتُ دراسة عن ولاية الفقيه لرئيس السلطة القضائية في ايران، محمود الهاشمي شهرودي، عنوانها: "نظرة جديدة في ولاية الفقيه". ومنذ البداية يتوجّهُ بالحديث عن المختلفين معه في الرأي قائلاً: "... وأن نقف عندها قليلاً، خصوصاً في ظلّ المسائل الأخيرة التي حدثت في البلاد، سيما الأقاويل المطروحة مع الأسف في الحوزة من قبل الأصدقاء الجُهّال واللاواعين، أو الحاقدين، وكان بعض تلك الأحاديث التي رأيتها يحتوي على نقاط سلبية كثيرة، وفي الحقيقة على نوع من القدح والهتك والاستهتار في هذه الظروف الدقيقة من أيامنا". ا

    فحينَ تختلفُ معه في الرأي، إذاً، أنتَ حاقد وهاتك وجاهل. ودوماً، هناكَ "ظروف دقيقة". كلما صدرَ موقف أو طُرِحَ رأيٌ لا يعجبهم، يتذكرونَ "الظروف الدقيقة" التي نعيشها. أما حروبهم، أما أسلحتهم المكدّسة، فلا شأنَ لها بـ"الظروف الدقيقة".ا

    ونتابعُ مع رئيس السلطة القضائية، وأحد أركان النظام الايراني، يقول: "ليس من الانصاف، أو الوجدان، أن ينال أشخاص من هذا الأصل المهم (ولاية الفقيه)، وهو الأساس لعزّة وشرف وشوكة وعظمة هذه الثورة وهذه الأمة وهذا الشعب، من جراء مسائل، وأغراض ومصالح خاصة مُبْتَذَلة جداً ورخيصة جداً ونتيجة أمراضهم النفسية. إنّ الذينَ استهدفوا هذا الأساس وشككوا فيه وأساؤوا إليه بعيدون عن الانصاف والضمير".ا

    الجريمة كل الجريمة إذا أنتَ شككتَ بصوابية وجدوى ولاية الفقيه. إذاً، أنتَ مريض نفسياً، ولا ضميرَ لك، ومُسي،ء وأسبابك مبتذلة ورخيصة، ولم ينسَ صاحبنا كلمة: "جداً" للتأكيد على الرخص والابتذال في دوافع ناقدي ولاية الفقيه

    ويتابع: "... الامام (يقصد الخميني) كان يواجه تلك الكلمات من أيِّ شخص ومقام صدرت عنه، بكل قوة وشِِدّة وأقلها أن كان (رحمه الله) كان يؤنّبهم ويخاطبهم قائلاً: إنكم لم تفهموا مسألة ولاية الفقيه".ا

    فهم لا يناقشونَك بالتي هي أحسن كما أرادَ الله سبحانه، بل يعتمدونَ الشدّة والقسوة، كما أنهم يدّعونَ فهماً للأمور أكثر من الآخرين، وأنّ الآخرين إذا انتقدوا ولاية الفقيه فإنّ عقولهم قاصرة ومحدودة. يكونُ العقلُ واعياً وفاهماً فقط إذا تبنّى ولاية الفقيه. بل ويقومُ زعيم الثورة الخميني بتأنيبهم كما يفعلُ ناظرُ المدرسة مع تلاميذ الصف الابتدائي. فلا يسمحُ بالندية والتكافؤ والتعاطي الودي مع المختلفين في الرأي. دائماً ينظرونَ إليكَ من أعلى لأنهم – كما يعتبرونَ أنفسهم – أصحاب الهداية، بينما المختلفون معهم في الرأي والعقيدة والتصوّر أتباعُ الشيطان ولا ضميرَ لهم ومرضى نفسياً وأسبابهم رخيصة ومبتذلة... ولا تنسوا: "جداً". ا


    بيكاسو​
    I agree with all what you said

    And you are not closed-minded like some of the people that we have in this forum


    وهل بإمكانك تزويدنا بتعريف هذه الكلمة التي على اساسها ترفض مناقشة الموضوع؟
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
     
    Top