ARE AYATULLAH'S SEEN AS GOOD OR BAD IN THE EYES OF SOME SHIA'S?

WHAT IS UR THOUGHT OF THE TOPIC TITLE/QUESTION?

EXPRESS UR THOUGHT AND COMMENTS BUT BACKING YOUR POINTS!

This title of Ayatollah has sprung up only recently, in the last hundred years or so. Beforehand most of them used to be referred to as Sheykhs. As proof of this I can present the following book :-

Fiqh and Fuqaha published by the world federation.

[/color][/font]http://www.al-islam.org/fiqh/chap2.html

The first person to use this title of Ayatollah was as mentioned under number 37 ]Ayatullah Seyyid Abul Hasan Isfehani which is around 1860 C.E. as mentioned in Islamic calendar as 1277 AH prior to this no one would dare to use this title.

Wherever the term Ayatullah has been used, it has been immediately followed by a Fatwa (Verdict) from Allah (s.w.t.) that whoever rejects them, falsifies them, does not place his faith in them, neglects them, denies them, mocks them, turns his face away from them, or fights against them has been referred to as either an unbeliever, person of Hell, one on whom is Divine Wrath, one whose deeds have been confiscated, the most unjust one, blind, deaf, dumb, one without posterity, an accursed, a loss maker, a transgressor and ungrateful.

"But those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance,- they are companions of the Fire, to dwell therein (for ever)"

"But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein."

They are many many.. verse like as mentioned above, but this should be sufficent to prove my point. You have now seen the Verses about the Ayatullahs and the Fatwas (Verdicts) of Allah (s.w.t.) that have been Issued to those that reject them. Let us look at this from another angle. Say there are two Mujtahids who call themselves Ayatullahs. One of them has declared something permissible whilst the other one has made it forbidden (e.g. Chess).

Question: Some people play with gambling instruments other than chess and backgammon for enjoyment and without placing a bet.


Answer: [It is prohibited to play with all that is considered a gambling instrument even without placing a bet].

Question: (Is it permissible) to play chess and backgammon without placing a bet?


Answer: It is not permissible to play them.

Question: What is the ruling on playing chess using the commonly known equipment? Is the ruling different if the play is conducted on a computer, using symbols?

Answer: Playing chess is haraam mutlaqan (absolutely or under any circumstances), even though betting is not used. There is no difference between the two methods of play.

http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=5&cid=445

Now Look at the following:-

Gambling Instruments

Chess

Q: What is the ruling on playing chess with/without placing a bet?

A: From the mukallaf’s perspective, should it not now be considered among the instruments of gambling, there is no objection to playing it provided that no betting is involved.


http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=38


This is just one example I have given, can you now tell me whether they are verifying each other or falsifying and opposing each other? You will have to admit that they are actually falsifying and opposing each other. And yet they both claim to be Ayatullahs. You have seen above the result of the one who falsifies or opposes an Ayatullah. Don’t both of these two people come under these Divine Verdicts?


The Holy Infallibles (a.s.) have actually referred to themselves as the Ayatullahs.

AL KAFI - H 528, Ch. 18, h1[/b]
Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad has narrated from Mu’alla ibn Muhammad from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah from Ahmad ibn Hilal from ’Umayya ibn Ali from Dawud al-Riqqi who has said the following: “Once, I asked abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, about the meaning of the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, ‘The signs and warnings are of no avail to the disbelieving people.’ (10:101) The Imam said, Signs are ‘A’immah, and warnings are the prophets, recipient of divine supreme covenant. ’”

AL KAFI - H 529, Ch. 18, h2
Ahmad ibn Mahran has narrated from 'Abd al-'Azim ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hassani from Musa ibn Muhammad al-‘Ijli from Yunus ibn Ya‘qub in a marfu‘ manner from abu Ja'far, recipient of divine supreme covenant, who has said the following: “In the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, ‘However, they rejected all Our signs. . . .’ (54:42) ‘The signs’ are all the successors(of the prophets, recipient of divine supreme covenant).’”

After all this, do you reckon that anyone other than the Holy Infallibles (a.s.) has any ]right to this title? It looks to me as if some people are taking this title very lightly?