Need Info on Shia Internal Issues

[Cherub786]

السلام عليكم

I need some insider info on the inner workings of the Shia world. If anyone can help me understand some issues:

1. There seems to be a controversy over Khums among the Shia. I know of a Shiite mujtahid in Pakistan known as Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain Najafi (Allama Dhakoo). Apparently he said collection of Khums is not from the dururiyat of the Din, and there is ikhtilaf among the Shia regarding its collection during the Ghaybat al-Kubra.
This is a similar controversy regarding establishing of the Salat al-Jumuah during the Ghayba

2. There is a HUGE controversy within the Shia world regarding the issue of reading Shahadat al-Thalitha (Aliun Waliullah) in the Adhan, Iqama and Tashahhud of Salat. "Ayatullah" Bashir Hussain Najafi (Jalandhari) says it is an innovation, as does Allama Dhakoo.
Sistani says it is allowed to read it in Tashahhud with the Niyyah of reading a Du'a.

3. The issue of Wilayat al Faqih brought forward by Khomeini. What is the controversy with the "Shirazi group" on this matter?

4. The Usuli - Akhbari controversy over Ijtihad

The system of Marjaiyyat is very fascinating in Shiism. In Ahlus Sunnah we have four madhahib, and most Sunnis make taqleed of one of these madhahib. Most Sunni Ulama say that Ijtihad is practically terminated after these four madhahib and there can never come a Mujtahid Mutlaq now.

But in Shiism, it is often said they follow the Jafari madhhab. Yet they say that ijtihad is continuous and every Shii has to choose a living Mujtahid to make taqlid of. Doesnt that mean that every mujtahid is basically creating his own madhhab, what is this "Jafari madhhab" then?

[Rationalist]

2. There is a HUGE controversy within the Shia world regarding the issue of reading Shahadat al-Thalitha (Aliun Waliullah) in the Adhan, Iqama and Tashahhud of Salat. "Ayatullah" Bashir Hussain Najafi (Jalandhari) says it is an innovation, as does Allama Dhakoo.
Sistani says it is allowed to read it in Tashahhud with the Niyyah of reading a Du'a.

https://irshadonline.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/from-bid%CA%BFa-to-sunna-the-wilaya-of-%CA%BFali-in-the-shi%CA%BFi-adhan/

3. The issue of Wilayat al Faqih brought forward by Khomeini. What is the controversy with the "Shirazi group" on this matter?

12er Shia believe only 12 imams can rule the ummah. They see Waliyah faqih to be a non-shia belief. In fact, its an offshoot of the Sunni belief of the Caliphate.

Will come back to discuss the other points.

[Cherub786]

12er Shia believe only 12 imams can rule the ummah. They see Waliyah faqih to be a non-shia belief. In fact, its an offshoot of the Sunni belief of the Caliphate.

As I understand it, in the theory of Wilayat al faqih, the Faqih (or "Rahbar") doesn't rule of his own accord but acts as the agent or deputy of the fictional 12th Imam.

Similar to how the Dawoodi and Sulemani Ismailis have the Da'i al-Mutlaq who is the representative of the "hidden" 21st Imam.

Khomeini developed and expanded this theory. He said that if the Faqih can act as a representative in certain matters, why not expand it to include the government and running of the state. There were and continue to be fierce debates in the world of Shiism on this point.

Some Shiite Ulama said that a government that rules on behalf of the 12th Imam can be valid, but the role of the Ulama or Fuqaha is not to rule on behalf of the absent Imam but to advise the ruler. This appears to be the dominant position of the Shiite Ulama before the Iranian revolution. As I understand it, many Shiite Ulama felt this was their role vis a viz the Safavid, Qajar and even Pahlvi dynasties.

I have watched a few lectures of Shiite scholars where they explain the theory of Wilayat al Faqih. It is a very technical subject from what I gathered.

[Rationalist]

Some Iraqi 12er Shia believe Waliyah al Faqih cause interferences in Iraq. They believe Iran is trying to control everything 12er Shia do in Iraq. Whoever, disagrees with them are targeted.

[Cherub786]

Sistani and Muqtada are examples of powerful Shiite clerics who wanted to limit Iran's influence on Iraq. From a political perspective, I say that these two gentlemen were at least sincere to their country. In the very early days of the American occupation, they mobilized massive support which obstructed the American agenda of transforming Iraq into a Western liberal and secular democracy that would be a natural ally of Israel. The Americans even wanted this to be Iraq's new flag:

In the very early days of the American occupation, the so-called "insurgency" to liberate Iraq from America was non-sectarian. Sunna and Shia co-operated for the common Islamic cause of cleansing their land of non-Muslim foreign occupation. Having said that, it was of course a positive development that the Americans removed Saddam from Iraq. The Americans did it for their own narrow self-interests (which is why they did not directly invade and liberate Syria from Baathist rule - the cost of doing so would outweigh the interest for them). The Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq initially joined the Governing Council. Tragically, al-Qaeda came in and under Zarqawi sparked a sectarian civil war which proved to be a disaster for the Sunnis. They were ethnically cleansed from Baghdad and elsewhere and subjected to the terror of Shiite death squads in revenge for the Samarra shrine bombings. Otherwise, it was a great opportunity for the Sunni Arabs to advance their own Islamization project as the Shiites were doing under the leadership of Dawa party, Muqtada, and SCIRI (al-Hakims).