Alborz

Education is the way out!

Education is the best way to defeat ignorance. With it, eventually all backward mentalities will disappear. That is the trick to Iran's prosperity - not violent acts or revolutions or "regime change." There is no more fruitful and stable "regime change" than to educate people FAST! So instead of starting a violent revolution or wars or sanctions or threats, etc, build a university! It is by far more effective and subtle - sneaky, in fact!

What is the Issue Here?

Mashty wrote: “Why don't you try to learn something from this amazing discussion rather than just put your (excuse me) worthless comment that requires no studies, research or brain in this thread? Yes we get it, you don't like religion and it's bad. No one cares. This is not the issue here!”

Your comment would have been “worth” more if instead of calling mine “worthless,” you would have defined what “the issue” was here! Since you failed to do so, let me do it for you:

Briefly explained, the issue that Alborz blogged about and others commented on is taqlid, emulation, and Iranians who are rejecting velayat faghih. A few readers then raised the issue of religion vs. faith.

In my comment, I reiterated Alborz’s original point that Shi'a believers are required to select a source of emulation, adding to it the concept of infallibility. To contribute to the discussion, I then explained that this notion isn’t a matter of faith. It is blind faith.

Interesting post, thank you Alborz

Emulation is a basic and functional component, in most realms, at the foundations of any educational process. A truely educated person, a lover of knowledge, not just by degrees and titles, in religion as other fields, would be also intrigued by experiential factors in learning. Personal experiences and core beliefs are often integral in one's belief and pursuits, wouldn't you say?

In Iran, as I gather, with the broad use of the internet among the majority of the young population, there is good access to variety of educational resources, possibly modifying the blind factor in taqleed, be it faith-based or not.  

If your emphasis is emulation in religion, then I cannot see how emulation in shi'a is different than other formal faiths. I should read this thread and other sources, more thoroughly.

For Manocher and the faithful !

Dear Manoucher,

Thank you for your clarification of "faith"

I leave you with this poem, called "Faith" 

faryarm 

Alborz Jan

If I may interject, seems that you are using [knowledge] and [education] interchangeably, of course that is if I am not mistaking.

To take a shortcut, allow me to quote form our dear Wiki Jun:

Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and
information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of
one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.

Education on the other hand is the process of learning knowledge, information and skills during the course of life.

Secondly you say:[It is the acknowledgement that as spiritual beings, we must seek independently and not through others.]

Now IF as we have agreed FAITH is [something that there is no proof], then your statement is a PARADOX. Allow me to refer you to George Edward Moore , usually known as G. E. Moore, [4 November 1873– 24 October 1958] was a distinguished and influential English philosopher. He was, with Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and (before them) Gottlob Frege, one of the founders of the Analytic tradition in philosophy.

His most profound contribution to philosophy is known as Moore's Paradox, and this is how he explains it: "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is."

I can say [it is raining outside], OR I can say [I don't believe that is raining outside], but I can not say both. Applying this to your statement, IF faith does not exist, Education will not be able to independently prove its existence.

This a wonderful discussion.

Regards

-YT

Deal Laleh

Why don't you try to learn something from this amazing discussion rather than just put your (excuse me) worthless comment that requires no studies, research or brain in this thread? Yes we get it, you don't like religion and it's bad. No one cares. This is not the issue here!

Blind Faith

In all religions, followers are driven to the authority from whom they seek guidance. In the Shi'a religion, in particular, that authority is defined to be infallible. Hence, Shi'a believers suffer from blind faith, not faith, only blind faith.

Infallibility of any human being is a delusion.

Yes, Shi'a followers who practice their religion faithfully are delusional also. Those who have adopted a milder version of Shi'a are simply fooling themselves. They are Shi'a only in name. (Of course, everyone is free to practice any religion or any version of a religion as they wish. I am not questioning this right.)

Two Points

It seems to me that some people confuse faith with what is called religion, leave alone that the word religion as I understand simply means way or path without any adjective attached and so it can be any way of thought and creed and so on.  Religion is not faith, however it requires faith as any non-religious ways of thought and life requires faithful obedience.  So, in this context faith is simply a commitment towards a certain creed or thought.  

Second, it also seems to me that some people think in religious schools nothing is questioned and students follow their teachers without asking any question.  If there is such a perception, it is wrong.  There are lengthy debates about everything related to the matter (from politics to every day practice of prayers). 

Its roots go back to the at least the time of Showraa (when Ali's right to succeed the Prophet came forth).  In the first century of Hejra many schools of thought evolved around concepts like divine justices and many other topics and continued under the Abbaasee Khelafat when a Daro-Tarjomeh was established in Baghdaad and many scientific and philosphical sources were translated from other languages into Arabic.  At the time of Ma'moon even the Khalifeh himself participated in the debates of the scholars of different religious beliefs. It is through these debates and heated reasonings that many critical works of religion have come to existence.    

Dear Capt_Ayhab...

...thanks for the clarification.  I am not a scholar in anything and I continue to learn from contributions such as yours.

Alborz

Dear Princess, as always

...I welcome the exchange of views with you and let me apologize in advance for my rather long response.  As expected, you have raised a number of very valuable points.

My understanding is that "sources of emulation" in Shi'ism fulfill a specific and unique role that is linked to the occultation of the twelveth Imam.   Since such a parallel does not exist in Sunnism, then a similar relationship does not exist between the believer and the clerical order.

As I think about your question of "maraje taghlid" in terms of it being a problem, I am at a loss to respond to it in absolute terms.  After all, the tradition dates back to a time when the mass of believers were uneducated, uninformed and needed to be "led" by the most simple and direct means, namely "emulation".  Any apprentice may learn under the tutelage of a master, however, the apprentice acquires skills that enable it to be self-sustaining and independent in thought. This appears to not be the case in "emulation".  Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

You have also asked another fundamental question, and that is of Faith.  Clearly, our religious experience defines our understanding of Faith.  I recognize that in many religious traditions, Faith is synonymous with what you have said, "something for which there is no proof".  Again, how does one respond to this when "proof" is inextricably linked to comprehension and in turn comprehension is linked to education.  Is it not reasonable to acknowledge the fact that the evolution of humanity has changed the requirement for Faith.  What was accepted by the masses in bygone days, is not readily accepted today.  Is it not the evolution of humanity that creates the tensions and eventual ruptures with traditions of the past?

So, for me Faith is not "something for which there is no proof", but rather "first, conscious knowledge and, second, the practice of good deeds".  It need not be mysterious and incomprehendible, if I were to seek and understand.  My development as a human being is contingent on the knowledge that I acquire in all matters, not just academic, that gives meaning to my temporal physical life.  It is the acknowledgement that as spiritual beings, we must seek independently and not through others.  Could this not explain why so many Iranians consider themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious"?  It is perhaps the trapping of religion as we know it that compels us to be "irreligious". 

Next, I did not mean to imply that "emulation" is the opposite of "education".  Nor do I think that "education" is the opposite of "faith".   While I recognize the implied inverse correlation between "education" and "faith" (that the more educated a person is, the less likely it is that they believe in something for which there is no proof"), I see this as a factor that will drive a deepening divide between those that are educated and those that are not.  Otherwise, the reconciliation between the two groups would be contingent on the abandonment of the rational and independent thought (in all matters, not just academic or scientific) that the educated has developed.

Finally, I hope that my faith is strenghtened by asking questions.  It is my belief that asking questions serves as an antidote to fundamentalism and fanaticism.  Those that are intolerant of questions are precisely those that react harshly because they feel that their faith is jeopardized if it is questioned.  This would not be the case, if faith is "first conscious knowledge and second the practice of good deeds", particularly if this knowledge is acquired independently.  For this reason, it is precisely those that are firm in their faith that can tolerate the greatest of insults on the most sacred elements of their Faith.   Conversely, those whose faith is blind and is based on things they cannot explain, have repeatedly shown their reaction to such insults by violence and retaliation.

Best Wishes to you also,

Alborz

Alborz

Firstly thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoyed reading it. 

I, by no means am a religious scholar, however I do tend to agree with Princess in regards to [Taqlid].

Taqlid, technically means [to put a noose around one’s neck]. In Shariah, taqlid means: [To accept the saying of another without proof.] 

The Arabic word for proof used is ‘hujjah’ whereas the text of the Qur’an is itself a [proof] . We, therefore, cannot practice ‘taqlid’ of Allah  nor of the Messenger because The Qur’an IS the PROOF. To exercise taqlid, one must accept the saying of another without demanding  proof, and that can only be possible when such a saying is away from the direct context of the Qur’an and the i.e. one cannot practice ‘taqlid’ with respect to the  Qur’an. 

If one was to command me to do a particular act or omission which was not to be directly found in the  Qur’an, or that it was to be found in them but that the directive was vague and unintelligible by a person of my inability, my obedience to such an instruction of that qualified person would be my practicing of taqlid.

Taqlid, in one form or another IS part of our learning process, whether being in education or religion. As a matter of fact, process of learning language in particular pronunciation of words is a prime example of taqlid.

Thanks for your article.

Regards

-YT

This is what I call

A useful and educational Article+comments.

Thanks

Shi'ism?? Really?

Dear Alborz,

Very interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. 

Could you elaborate a bit on whether you see the problem of taghlid in Shi'ism in particular? Would the Sunni tradition pose less of a problem as it does not explicitly include the concept of "marga-e taghlid"?

Is the issue not really in the notion of 'Faith' rather than 'taghlid'? Would 'taghlid' be as problematic if the 'moqalad' explained the reasoning behind and provided real proof for his/her decree? In other words, if his/her authority was answerable to others? One can still learn a lot through 'taghlid', if the source is taghlid-able. After all, apprenticeship is learning through taghlid. 

Doesn't the problem really arise from 'Faith' as in a firm belief in something for which there is no proof? 

In my humble opinion, (and I don't claim to be a religious scholar in any shape or form) the opposite of education is not 'taghlid', but Faith. The key issue, as you have hinted at, is not being able to question things. Unfortunately that is something common in all faiths, as every faith holds something sacred which is inherently unquestionable.

Again, thanks for initiating this interesting discussion. I shall eagerly follow it from behind the scenes.

Best wishes,

Princess 

nur for love of god !

you keep referring to faryarm , this blog is belonging to alborz!!!!!!!!!!!!and faryarm has not posted anything on this thread. for love of 413 or 165 or 666 please stop this non sense and face it looks like that they are not answering you no matter what your saying . go post something:DD

To Haji Nur

"In fact the reason why this present regime continues to enjoy support and endure is precisely due to the support these non-urban, and very pious Muslim centers give to it. "

That non-urban support you're talking about, at most could constitute only 20-25 percent of the overall increasing young educated population.

The present regime endures and endures simply through creating fear and extreme repression. It is incredibly brutal and does not hesitate even for a single second to ruthlessly and violently crack down on the slightest sign of dissent. The number of summary executions, hangings, stonings, chopping off limbs, gouging of the eyes, a lot of them being done in the public, in the last 30 years, is proof enough.

Dear Alborz

You made a very clever analysis of the situation. I can not agree more.

Adding to the set of contradictions. I may say that there are also Dr. Moqleds like Mahmoud who are in fact some thing parvarideh by velayateh faghuieh having a thick colar. This is called Amoozesh-va-Parvaresh of Dr. Moqleds in Shi'ism.

interesting Forum in Iran

I thought this recent initiative by Iranian ( Muslim ) students in defence of Baha'is may be relevant to the current discussion.

//www.bahairights.org/2009/05/07/a-report-on-...

Ramin

Thank you Alborz

Yes Baha'is do not have clergy but :
ABMs for Propagation are Small Mullas
ABMs for Protection are Religious Police
Counselors are Big Mullas
ITC is Hoza-i-ilmiyyih
UHJ is Infallible i.e. Masoom and its 'taqleed' is obligatory on all baha'is, if anyone goes the other way, he is declared as Covenant Breaker and Shunned. Great !!!

Manouchehr Aziz, we agree...

...that education alone will not bring about a spiritual transformation which is what is needed to remedy many of the ills which society faces.

However, I certainly would not have expected you to apply the same standards of conduct to both religious and political leaders.  Would that bode well for any religion or its clergy?  Are they not supposed to be accountable to "higher authority"?

Good night and be well.

Alborz

ALborz Aziz;

Actually, existence of social leadership is not confined to what are called religious communities either.  Since the discussion was focused on a religious issue, I brought that statement.  Secular communities have their leaders as well as religious communities.  

Without being an attorney for any kind of regimes, I do not believe that non-religious systems are more kind than religious systems.  Just look at the two great wars.  From the beginning to the end of them they are concepted and directed by secular systems.  Another example is the Mongol Empire that was build upon thousands of demolished cities.  Changeez is not following any religious decree to commit those autorcities.  Basically, he is a secular person with secularistic ambitions.  As far as it comes to coparison between secularism and religious systems, historically seculars have bigger apetite to commit crimes.

Also, I do not believe education by itself will bring kindness and tolerance.  Believe or not, leaders of the tugs and hitmen are among the most educated people as commanders of armies are highly educated along those who serve in their ranks. 

If we disregard the selective way of showing sensitivity that mostly are injected by certain coverage of certain events or crimes, Iran is way and way safer than places like Iraq and Afghanestand and Pakestan where secular occupation forces are present and direct the events.  And believe or not, for the first time when I heard "Bahaaee Azaree va Bahaaee Koshee honar neest", I heard it from not very much educated Moslems in Iran who, as far as I recalled, prayed and fasted.

In the case of Iran, most of the aim is exactly focused on distablizing the country that I strongly disagree with because its human, financial, social, environmental, economic costs will be unimaginable.  The human rights issues are excuses.  Aim is Solteh (domination) and that's all.

I believe a kinder society will emerge once the dust of agitation settles and I do not see it far off.  Compare these days to 1361.

Thank you for your inputs

I don't believe in any

I don't believe in any religions, but one thing for sure, ALL Islamic countries are backwards. They descriminate against women, they have harsh and unfair laws, and because they have different interpretations of the 1400 year old doctrine, the results are misery, lack of progress and backwardness that we see today. Secularism is the way to go.

All religions are bad news. Period.

viva independent thinking and secularism

Manouchehr Aziz...

... while I agree with you that there has always been religious leaders or clergy, such as those in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, have not these symbols of "piety" and "scholarship" been the source of much disappointment and discontent amongst the believers, especially amongst the educated believers.

While I appreciate the difference between knowledge of information and scholarship, the fact is that the clergy have either lost their grip on entire societies of believers, or have held onto it by the use of force and exercise of religiously justified and "interpreted" brutality.  How can their station in Iran and their involvement in her political history be characterized?   Can their legacy as well as their current impact on Iran be characterized as having been positive?

My exchange with you, while enormously informative, and one that I consider an education, still leaves me with the question as to the purpose that they have served in modern history and may serve in the future, for the educated in Iran. 

Their emergence in 1979 is a topic that is much more related to geopolitics and one that I wish not to diverge into.

Far from implying that the Shi'ite population of Iran is homogeneous, I am in fact specifically pointing out the creation of a divide within our society based on education.  The educated is likely to abide by their intellect and the uneducated to an edict.  Much of the attrocities that have been committed against the defenseless "infidels" in Iran, have either been coordinated by the ruling theocracy or the uneducated mob that is responding to an edict from the local mullahs.   There appears to be no evidence that the educated class in our society have yielded to such enticements either overtly or covertly, nor is there any evidence that these attrocities have been stopped and prevented by any of the sources of emulation!

So much for the scholarship and expertise that they claim!

I am hoping that if there is anything that we can agree upon is that the record of the clerical rule in the past and present has not been a motive force for the progress of Iran. Is there any evidence that when the power of interpretation has been relegated to a single or group of clerics, it has led to the establishment of social justice, prosperity and equality?

We need not look very far to find heinous crimes committed at the behest of clerics in Iran and Egypt, representing both Shi'ite and Sunni traditions.  Again, have not their actors been the uneducated and the fanatic who also serve to justify their existence?

Thanks again for your kindness...

Alborz

PS. Please note that my responses to you are in the form of questions to which I am open to receive responses.  In contrast, those that speak with authority are in fact those that claim "scholarship" and have already demonstrated their potential for bias, bigotry, blasphemy, and if given the chance, violence.

Finally, I continue to be entertained by the responses of a commentator whose stated belief is that the hidden Imam has returned in the person of the Siyyid Ali Muhammad, the Blessed Bab. One would think that he would be sensible enough to argue  consistently and call for the elimination of the "sources of emulation" !!!!!  But it is understandable when he fails to do so, as his stated belief simply serves to feed his ego, no more, no less.

Thank you Nur;

You are right.  I did not spend more than few years on and off in studying Islam- mostly historically and mostly on my own- and based upon intellenctual trends that existed in the society in those days.  Basically, you know more than I do in this field especially when it comes to the differences between Usulee and Akhbaaree scholars that I basically have heard some basics of.

Thank you for more clarifying the subject.

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيّ

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

 آيه 43 سوره نحل: (...فاسئلوا أهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إنْ كُنْتُمْ لا تَعْلَمُونَ); اگر نمى دانيد از اهل ذكر بپرسيد.

آيه 122 سوره توبه، معروف به آيه نفر: (...فَلَو لا نَفَرَ مِنْ كُلِّ فِرْقَة مِنْهُمْ طائِفَةٌ لِيَتَفَقَّهُوا فِى الدّينِ وَ لِيُنْذِرُوا قَوْمَهُمْ إذا رَجَعُوا إلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ); چرا از هر گروهى از آنان ـ مؤمنان ـ طايفه اى كوچ نمى كنند تا در دين آگاهى يابند و به هنگام بازگشت به سوى قوم خود آنها را بيم دهند، شايد بترسند و خوددارى كنند.

 آيه 59 سوره نسا: (قُلْ أَطيعُوا اللهَ وَ أَطيعُوا الرَّسولَ و أُولى الأمرِ مِنْكُمْ); از خدا و از پيامبر(صلى الله عليه وآله) و اولوالامر اطاعت نماييد.

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

در دين هيچ اجبارى نيست و راه از بيراهه بخوبى آشكار شده است

دوست گرامی جناب البرز
همانطور که در این آيات مبارکه مشاهده می فرماید از دستورات الهی است که کسانی فارغ از هر کاری اجتهاد و سعی در دین کنند که جامعه به سمت درست برود مثل این میماند که شما در هنگام رانندگی از کسی بخواهید فقط تمرکز کند بر روی نقشه و به شما بگوید به کدام طرف بروید چرا که به علت پیچیدگی نقشه شاید شما اگر هر دو کار را انجام دهید راه را گم کنید البته همانطور که برادر گرامی جناب آواز نیا یاد آور شدند تقلید در اینجا اولا فقط و فقط در مثائل فرعی جایز است یعنی فروع دین در اصول دین خداوند در قران امر فرمودند از آنچه که علم ندارید پیروی نکنید چرا که اجزای بدن یعنی چشم و گوش شما در قیامت مورد بازخواست قرار می گیرند.در ضمن نام تقلید برای این انتخاب شده چرا بر اساس آیه فوق در دین اجباری نیست پس بنابر این حتی فروعاتی هم که در قالب رساله در اختیار مردم قرار می گیرد  تنها به منزله کتاب راهنماست که یعنی مثلا من آیت ا.. اینگونه وضو میگرم و یا نماز میخوانم شما هم اگر مایلید مثل من دست نماز بگیرید و یا نماز بخوانید و مفهوم تقلید درست است ریشه در قل و قلاده دارد اما از معنی عرفی آن که پیروی کردن از اعلم است استفاده میشود .حال شما تا پس فردا معنی که آقای بهاالله برای پیش برد مقاصد خود به شما القا کرده را تکرار کنید چیزی از اصل واقعیت کم نمی کند تنها خودتان بیشتر درکفر فرو میروید و گمراهتر میشوید . در جامعه اسلام شیعه محض اطلاع شما هر عالمی از دنیا برود رساله ایشان هم از دنیا به دنبال ایشان میرود و مطالب دوباره توسط مجتهدین دیگر باز بینی میشود مثلا حضرت امام (رحمت الله علیه و قدس السره رضوان العلیه)) صلوات خدا بر جد ایشان باد در تماس با مسیحان و یهودیان احتیاط را واجب میدانستند . اما رهبر عالی مقام و معظم انقلاب حضرت آیت الله خامنه ای (صلوات خداوند بر جد و خاندان ایشان باد) در رساله شان فرمودند ایشان اهل کتاب هستند و معاشرت با ایشان مانند تمام مسلمانان می باشد و از غذاشان هم میشور مصرف کرد. اما در جامع بهایی همانطور که خود اطلاع دارید مثلا در کتاب اقدس آمده که هیج کس حق ندارد هیج نوع تفسیری از این احکام خارج از معنی ظاهری آنها بکند و یا تعقییر دهد یعنی شما بهاییا ن هنوز دارید طبق رساله و احکامی و فروعاتی را بجا می آورید(تقلید میکنید ) که قریب به ١٤٠ پیش نوشته شده و صاحب این رساله دهها سال است از این دنیا رفته است و یا اینکه مشورتی که یکی از ستونهای خیمه آلم شماست در انتخابات شما حرام شمرده شده و تقلید از انتخاب قبلی جای آن را گرفته و در نتیجه معلوم است چه کسی از صندوق در می آید و خودتان سوتی آن خانمی که در سخنرانی اش فرمود بت الع العضمی چشم گوش و همه اداراک ماست را به خاطر دارید؟ آن تقلید است نه اینکه ما شیعیان انجام می دهیم .جناب البرز خواهشا سیاه کاری(ظلم و کفر) را بگزارید کنار . شما دم از دین به نرخ روز میزنید و احکامی دارید که انجامش هم نمی دهید مال عهد بوق هم آنور تر . همانطور که خدمتتون عرض کردم در رساله های مراجع بسیار محترم ما در فروع دین راهنمایی شده خواهشا به این پیروان ساده دلتان عوضی اطلاع نرسانید و پیروی از مراجع هم به علت اینکه ایشان هم مثل اعضای بیت الع شما معصوم نیستند اجباری نیست . تا سخنی دیگر یک صلوات ختم کنید شیطان را لعنت کنید

Answer to Faryar's points

1) Would you not agree that Islam is a religion that reguates the relationships in society and as such its laws and ordinances are to be interpreted for all aspects of life, from birth to burial?

Yes, but so does the Baha'i faith.

2) Based on 1, every Shi'ite (except those that you have noted) is obligated to identify a source of emulation to whom he can direct his questions and inquiries with regard to these laws and ordinances, as it pertains to his faith, 

This is nonsense and a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation by attempting to paint it as a monolith. Every Shi'ite is not obligated to identify a source of emulation as a principle of religion (usul-i-din). This is an Usuli position that is far from resolved. The identification of such a source of emulation is a secondary, not primary, issue. Shi'ites can validly make the argument that the only sources they would follow are the Qur'an, the Sunna of the Prophet (sws) and akhbar of the Imams, and, so long as the primary necessities of the religion (wajibat al-din) are known and maintained, there is not a mullah alive who can validly negate such a position. The necessity for a physical source of emulation arises out of conflicting interpretations over the secondary matters (furu'at). The Qur'an, the Sunna of the Prophet (sws) deriving from hadith and the akhbar of the Imams are all accessible to any literate Muslim, especially any non-clerical, literate Muslim who can read Arabic.

3) these laws and ordinances cannot be assumed to be known nor correctly interpreted by those that are not sources of emulation and therefore they are an integral part of practicing one's faith, and

This is nonsense and a demonstration of the woeful ignorance of Baha'is  regarding the history of Shi'ism and the religious dynamics of Shi'ism. First, it appears that Faryar is confusing the parametres, usage and implimentation of ijtihad with the actual content of the shar'ia, and thereby confusing the one with the other.

Second, the argument made above is the argument that the late Safavid, proto-Usuli jurists such as Majlisi II and Behbehani were making against the Akhbaris, i.e. the traditional, pre-Usuli position of the 'ulama before the final victory of the Usulis in the 19th century. The Akhbari position, which is a position that is once again finding increasing advocates amongst some of the 'ulama, is precisely that the laws and ordinances (a Baha'i terminological usage), or rather the foundation (usul) and the secondary matters (furu') of religion (din), can in fact be deduced by every literate Muslim with access to the sources. On this point the Usuli agree as well. The difference arises on the application of such known "laws and ordinaces" where the need for ijtihad is concerned. But since Alborz is still confused let me say this: the shar'ia is foundationally contained within the pages of the Qur'an. Next it is found within the hadith attributed to the Prophet (sws) constituting the Sunna (practice, custom), i.e. those universally recognized by all Muslims as canonical. After this, for the Shi'a, are the elucidations of the Imams (as) on these matters within the Shi'ite akhbar corpus. All of these sources are readily available to any believing and literate Muslim. As such it is a fallacy of reasoning to conclude that such "laws and ordinances" are either ambiguous or generally unknown. The issue is not about the content. It is about its implementation in juridical situations which is where the differences arise.

4) not only differences in interpretation can arise between sources of emulation but the believer is obligated to seek the guidance of the one source of emulation that he has entrusted these matters to,

Not necessarily. Even within the system of marja'iyyat, frequently believers switch back and forth between the sources of emulation. This is one of the longstanding frustrations of the Usuli Shi'ite establishment to begin with and why Khomeini took radical steps in the 1950-60s and (like Fazlullah Nuri before him) argued for the existence of a sole jurisprudent and guardian, i.e. a Shi'ite pope imposed over all the sources of emulation as the unifying authority (the political and rulership question of the VF follows from this). The ideological seeds of the VF are precisely in the fact that the Shi'ite establishment has not been able to control the bulk of the believing masses from switching back and forth, and so therefore unable to impose a uniformal  centralization structure to this system of emulation - and they still haven't succeeded!   

What plagues the system now is that since the revolution in Iran and the VF system the seminarians who are coming into their own now, while being encouraged by senior clerics in Qom, Mashhad as well as in Iraq, are clamoring for less (not more) centralization of the system. Some are even arguing for the end of the emulation system as we know it completely. What this is doing to issues of interpretation vis-a-vis ijtihad is somewhat of a Shi'ite democratic revolution in the seminaries because it is seeking to diffuse such onus more widely, rather than less. Of course, seeing how you Baha'is have  such bees in your bonnets regarding Iran and Iranian Shi'ite Islam you either don't know these things or wilfully try to conceal such facts when it suits. Certainly Ayat'ul-Baha' Moojan Momen is not ignorant of such things! 

5) can we expect the increasingly educated masses of Iran to be parting with those elements of their faith that regulates interactions in the daily life that they lead?

Do you have any evidence that the educated masses of Iranians  from the rural and semi-urban parts of the country - who are increasingly finding themselves more and more literate and with postgraduate degrees from the assorted polytechnic institutes and universities mushrooming all over Iran - are abandoning their faith in numbers? No, you do not, because it is not the case.

Wahid Azal

ALborz Aziz;

The points that you raised (as I understood) went so far that to almost totally shut the door of thought and freedom of will among Shii's.  The story of follwing a religious leader is a common phenomenon among all religions including Islam and Shii.  The necessity of this practice, as known in Islam, arises from the speciality of certain people who are experts in religion and it had existed since the time of Phrophet himself.  If a person has a question about a certain religious matter, he has to refer it to the person who is an expert in religious field.  There are some traditions that some people referred to the Prophet and asked him about a certain disease that they had and he told them to see a physician instead of seeing him.

Of course, I agree that Islam has regulated mostly, worldly aspects, of everyday life from conception to burial, but those regulations are not so rigid that harm the well-being of the society.  In the field of thought as everything was not exposed to the Moslem society at the time of the Prophet and many new things were to come and later Moslims intracted with the non-Molsem societies and new issues arose, something called Ejtehaad became to play a more significant roll according to the circumstances.  Shii believes that the door of Ejtehaad is never closed.  So, there is always room for mental activities either religious or physical.

If you open a book of Towzeehol Masaael, they basically talk about basic things like how to wash your hands and face for Vozoo or how enter the washroom that doesn't harm anyone if they do somehow differently, but it will enhance the spirit of community among them.  Have you ever heard a Marjaa to tell his followers to how prove the unity of Allah or if they have to pray or not?

There is a great difference in the Islamic vacabulary about being a scholar and having lots of information.  Just being informed is not enough to be a scholar as everyone is capable of storing plenty of information and still not be a scholar Aalem.  There are many conditions for someone to be a mafjaa.  God-fearing and justice is among the top requirements.  Still the believer who doesn't know the ruling of the religion and cannot do Ejtehaad has to have a Mojtahed to refer to in matters of religious concern.

The believer who doesn't know has to ask several people who very well know the Marjaa and Islam in order to introduce him to the right person for emulation.  If I don't know a good plumber, I ask someone who knows one.  There has always been many sources of emulation among Shii.  Rarely, it happens that there is one source only.  Of course, it has happened that there has been one marjaa at  a certain juncture of time.

About your piont number 5 I mention that these kinds of social moods have always existed in societies and they always fluctuate.  Look at our society in early fifties.  There is little evidence to convince us that the society will one day go towards religious principles.  Even in 1342 revolt, the movement is not in more than few cities and it is very limitted.  Even Moslem political activists mostly borrow their ideas from Communism.  Within several years the society went back to Shii principles to overthrow a government with which it was unhappy.  Do you believe that even Comminist women used to put on hejab for the campaign?  I saw those.  Now, my point is that these moods are unstable.  I am not sure if an external threat like the Iraqi invasion comes forward again the same a-religious youth not to become the wave of the Baseejee with the green shred of cloth around their heads.  Iranians at the time of Constitutional Revolution hanged Fazl'ollah Nuri who was amongst the highest learned of the Iranian clirics for siding with Mohammad Ali Shah.  How come the same Iranians returned to the same religion and its clerical leadership seventy-five years later?  As long as a stable society is not well-established these kind of fluctuations will continue to exist.

One last piont that existence of a class or social strata called spiritual class in Iran is an Iranian tradition with its roots going back to Iran even at the time Hakhaamaneshee.  Even Dariush mentions "Mateeya Maghoosh" a maji man in Beestoon.  It has been part of our social system and in many historic events they have played positive rolls to safeguard Iranian sovreignty.  

Thank you for your patience for this long haul.

Dear Manouchehr...

... your points are well taken and I would appreciate the opportunity to have this discourse with you.

1) Would you not agree that Islam is a religion that reguates the relationships in society and as such its laws and ordinances are to be interpreted for all aspects of life, from birth to burial?

2) Based on 1, every Shi'ite (except those that you have noted) is obligated to identify a source of emulation to whom he can direct his questions and inquiries with regard to these laws and ordinances, as it pertains to his faith, and

3) Based on 2, these laws and ordinances cannot be assumed to be known nor correctly interpreted by those that are not sources of emulation and therefore they are an integral part of practicing one's faith, and

4) Based on 3, not only differences in interpretation can arise between sources of emulation but the believer is obligated to seek the guidance of the one source of emulation that he has entrusted these matters to, and

5) Based on 4, can we expect the increasingly educated masses of Iran to be parting with those elements of their faith that regulates interactions in the daily life that they lead?

Fundamentally it is this separation, in my humble opinion, that leads to the conflict and contradiction that we Iranians are comfortable in accepting and enduring.   For example, how can one explain that a theocracy such as the IRI is not a beacon of justice that leads to the exhaltation of human values and shuns the very attributes to which it is associated?

Nothing in this blog denies nor diminishes the faith of the Twin Manifestations of the Baha'i Faith, Siyyid Ali Muhammad, The Bab, and Mirza Husayn Ali, Baha'u'llah prior to their declaration.  It is my belief, however, that their declaration and their teachings addressed the exigencies of the time in which we live.   Again no conflict in this regard is noted.

Finally, the essence of this blog is that "emulation" and its applicability, in an age where literacy is not a barrier and independence in thought is a virtue, what would be the necessity for these sources of emulation? If anything do they not lead to divisiveness and conflict in the instances that you have referenced?

I thank you for educating me on your perspective.

Alborz

Anonymous123

Following an Ayatollah for political reasons is different from doing a Taghleed.  Many people who followed other Maraaje at the time of the revolution were following Khomeini in politics. The young Mollas that you mentioned have not read enough to be scholars of religion.  Even Maraaje have different and sometimes opposing views about a certain matter.  When Mirza of Shiraz gave the prohibition of using tabaco, Abdollah Behbahanee went on the Menbar and smoked hooka and said he abrogated it.  But, people followed Mirza in their campaign.

There are many ayatollahs

There are many ayatollahs that are The source of emulation. which one is the true source of Illumination?

Manucher khan. many young

Manucher khan. many young mullahs who know about the facts and figures of religion follow an ayatollah that means they are moghalled and emulating a bigger mullah!
So that is not for people who ignore the fact of Islam.