Talk:Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sistani v Iran

I'd like to suggest that you add a seciton on the differences between him and the Ayatollah(s) of Iran. From what I understand, which isnt much, he is of a different school of thought that is conservative but has allowed followers in the secular western world a degree of latitude in certain respects of personal life which followers in eastern nations including Africa and South Asia do not enjoy. He more conservative when it come to subjects such as the permissibility of music and singing than the clerics in Iran.

I note that the Grand Ayatollah's Family name can be spelt Seestani and Sistani. Just like Habib and Habeeb. The 'i' is a long vowel.

Differences in religion are nothing to do with the country the cleric is from Kadhumia flo 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Muqtada al-Sadr

This article says that Sistani and Muqtada al-Sadr agreed on a common slate of candidates for the Iraqi elections of Jan. 30, 2005, but the article on Sadr states: "It is believed he implicitly backed the National Independent Cadres and Elites party which was closely linked with his Mahdi Army. Many of his supporters, however, backed the far more popular United Iraqi Alliance of al-Sistani." As far as I know, the Sadr article is more accurate in that Sadr did not endorse the United Iraqi Alliance which was associated with Sistani. Can anyone confirm which article is correct? --Metropolitan90 04:11, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] His Eminance

I have removed the "his eminance" prefix to the article opening sentence. I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to have these included - we don't put "her royal highness" before Princess Diana, "her majesty" before the article on Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. I have no objection to it being added again but on as long as it remains consistent with other prestigious international figures. Comments welcomed. --Rebroad 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, but perhaps we should mention in the next (or so) sentence how his name is properly styled, like we do with other royal figures.--Aleron235 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I did a search on Google here, and there is no evidence that this person is officially referred to as "His Honerable Eminence", so although I was going to add mention of this to the article, I don't see sufficient evidence to feel comfortable doing so now. --Rebroad 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Please note that communique regarding Ayatollah Sistani (along with other Shia marja) are primarily done in Arabic and Persian. Thus, a 'search on Google' does not constitute thorough research. Grand Ayatollah's have a few stylistically proper forms of address and 'His Eminance' is one of them, presumably a translation of <moazem> or <uzma>. Either visiting the websites of Grand Ayatollahs or simply speaking to knowledgable shia muslims will clarify this point.66.108.20.150 21:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism

Removed criticism section.

The statement "the unbelievers (infidels, kafir) are listed as equally unclean as faeces, urine, dogs and pigs" is _blatently_ wrong. The rules regarding the impurity of faeces, urine, dogs, pigs and non-Chrisitians/Jews/Muslims all differ, each with different degrees of impurity. Further, unbelievers, non-Chrisitians/Jews/Muslims and kafir/infidel are _different_ things in Islam! (BTW jews/christians and infidels are not the same thing). Unfortunately, muslims do a horrible PR job and these things generally go uncorrected in the western media. (I can explain further if needed).

Further, though I do not doubt that someone, somewhere, at some point in time called Sistani's ruling on playing chess 'fundamentalist', but this does not add any value to the page. It is not even a valid point as the nuances of Islamic canonical rule exhibit no connection with religious extremism (especially in this case). If one considers any prohibition of certain kinds of behavior as in and of itself 'fundamentalist' than any religion which values its canonical laws is fundamentalist (e.g. some sects of Christianity would be fundamentalist for prohibiting pre-marital sex or some sects of Judaism would be fundamentalist for prohibiting work on the Sabbath). 66.108.59.171 00:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please either cite the source or remove the comments regarding "the unbelievers (infidels, kafir) are listed as equally unclean as faeces, urine, dogs and pigs". A more exact cite is needed as I am quite familiar with his Islamic Laws text yet nowhere do I find statements supporting this claim. If no new citation is given, I will edit the page accordingly.
Comments regarding 'fundamentalism' have any citation from a credible source, or are they just simply POV?66.108.59.171 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the recent edits to the criticism section as they seem to be closer to incoherent remblings than a substantial argument. To the editor who cites a more precise source: I do not debate that kafir (those who know right (truth) but oppose it for their own aims) are impure, but their impurity is not the same as that of a dog, for instance. The methods of purifying oneself after touch a _wet_ dog and a _wet_ kafir vary (it is much more stringent for the dog case and the least stringent for the kafir case). To elaborate, if you touch a wet dog or it licks you, one must wash the area seven times. If a _known_ kafir touches your wet hand, you need only put your hand under running water for an instant to purify it. Now please, no more of this. As nearly all Grand Ayatollahs have the same viewpoint on this issue (or nearly the same), if you have a critique, put it on Shia.66.108.59.171 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See najis--13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No messages from Sistani?

On the messages section of Ayatollah Sistani's English-language web site [1], it looks like no new messages have been added since October 2004. Has he not been issuing messages, or are his messages just not being translated into English? --Metropolitan90 04:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead?

I've heard a rumor on the internet(s) that Sistani has been killed and that a headline was briefly displayed by CNN or CNN International that he had been killed during the fighting taking place in Najaf. Be wary of possible reports or vandalism. 129.71.73.248 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peaceful?

"his military activities have undermined the peaceful teachings of Sistani"


I've got to take issue with the word peaceful here. I'm pulling this from the "Gay rights in Iraq" article.

This is partly due to a fatwa issued in October, 2005 by Iranian-born Iraqi Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, published on the Arabic portion of his homepage, stating that homosexuality and lesbianism are both "forbidden" and that they should be "Punished, in fact, killed. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

Instructing that people should be killed in the "worst, most severe way" is not peaceful. I'll request that something be written in this article connecting it to the Gay rights in Iraq article. Perhaps a more comprehensive and detailed section on his views--social, political, and religious--could clear this up and keep this page's viewpoint less nebulously aligned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.194.45 (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC).


5/2 I'm not sure why, but the On Gay and Lesbian Human Rights section was removed without discussion. I'll be adding that back now.