Something can be wrong with your thinking process.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Link the problem is your arguments really don't make sense. Its all waffle. You make people want to fall asleep zzzzzzz.
You're somewhere inbetween yoda & chubacca in star wars.

[Hani]

Great Mr.Debates, Let's start this debate by finishing off your article which you base your beliefs upon.




Link: http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2341:the-context-and-meaning-of-ulil-amr-those-whom-possess-the-authority&catid=177&lang=en&Itemid=115




The article revolves around this verse:




{O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.}




You begin your article with a lie.

The Shia interpretation is that it refers to the 12 Imams. The Sunni interpretation is that it refers to government officials and commanders.

First of all, one of the strongest positions of Ahlul-Sunnah is that it refers to the religious scholars. As stated by many Mufassirin in their books and narrated from a group of the Salaf. Therefore, those who hold this also view it as spiritual/political authority since for them even the politicians fall under the ruling of the Mufti.




The reason for the revelation was regarding a commander of an army that the Prophet (saw) appointed but the reasons of revelation do not restrict a general verse usually.




So again, the first statement is inaccurate if not a lie and shows you've done no research.




In the second paragraph you talk about absolute obedience, you write:

Through out Quran, obey has had one meaning. It meant to follow without question in everything that is told.

and

There is unconditional obedience to the Messenger, as such there is unconditional obedience to the Ulil-Amr.

Of course, when God tells us to obey we must obey. In the time of prophet-hood there were three figures that were obeyed, God Almighty in His Book, the Prophet (saw) in his guidance and instructions, and finally those in authority who were appointed by the prophets to many positions such as: Army chiefs, commanders of pilgrimage, collectors of charity, leaders of prayer, judges etc...


Those appointed to positions of authority must also be obeyed and it is mass transmitted from the Prophet (saw) in plenty of narrations to obey Ulil-Amr (those in authority) unless they order us to disobey God or commit a clear act of blasphemy.




Nothing new here, so what's new then?




You who claim to contemplate the Qur'an and understand it, if you didn't know, the Qur'an has MANY verses ordering us to obey God and obey His messenger (saw).




Such as:




{"Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.}

{And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may obtain mercy}

{And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and beware. And if you turn away - then know that upon Our Messenger is only [the responsibility for] clear notification.}

{So fear Allah and amend that which is between you and obey Allah and His Messenger, if you should be believers.}

{And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute and [thus] lose courage and [then] your strength would depart; and be patient. Indeed, Allah is with the patient.}

{O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and do not invalidate your deeds}


Among others...




So what separates these verses from our verse? Our verse contains two additions, A- Inclusion of those in authority, B- A CONDITION.




As you can see, none of the above verses or their likes contain conditions for obedience, they are general as obedience to God and His Messenger (saw) is absolute. HOWEVER, only our verse above includes a Condition and this is your second lie as you wrote that the verse is unconditional!




Rather the condition is clear, the Sunnah is very clear on this but the Qur'anic verse also states clearly that if we differ then we return the matter to the TWO main DIVINE authorities whose obedience is absolute: {And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger}




NOTE: If this condition was not included at the tail of this verse, then everyone would have obeyed those in authority unconditionally and you wouldn't be having a hard time proving your point here.




In the next paragraph you argue that the referral to Ulil-Amr would have made no sense next to the referral to God and His Messenger (saw):

One reason why Sunnis don't accept Ulil-Amr to be infallible Authorities is because the referral in disputes is not said to refer to them. However, it doesn't make sense to say to refer to Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain while at the same time referring to the Messenger of God. What makes sense is that referring to the Messenger is sufficient for the disputes. Otherwise it would mean alongside going to judgment of the Messenger, they would have to go to Ali, Hassan and Hussain to judge their disputes, which makes no sense.

This is false of course, not only is it false but it directly conflicts with another Qur'anic verse:




{But if they had referred it back to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it.}




Here, one can also argue like you: "Oh, it makes no sense that those in authority are mentioned alongside the Prophet (saw), since this means we have to go to `Ali, Hasan and Husayn alongside the Prophet (saw) to draw a conclusion from an event.




Truth of the matter is, the verse could have just said "Return it to God" However, Allah wanted to be thorough and thus He mentioned the divine authorities and specified "To Allah and to His Messenger".




NOTE: If God Had actually listed those in authority as a referral here, you would not be having a hard time proving your point.




You continue:

What makes more sense is that referring to the Imams is referring to the Messenger of God, and only the Quran and Sunnah need to be referred to.This is because the Ulil-Amr don't bring anything new, and are implementers of the Quran and Sunnah.

A word of truth in which you seek falsehood. If the purpose of the "divine leaders" was to teach people the correct religion, then their names should have been specified here as referring to the Qur'an and Sunnah can be through multiple interpretations. What is required here is the infallible interpretation, all the more reason to having the "divine leaders" mentioned.




In other words, even if the leaders brought no new legislation, it is not a sufficient reason to not explain to people that they must seek the judgement and verdicts of the divine leaders during disputes. Otherwise, if two believers dispute, they can refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah according to the understanding of abu Hanifah; they can seek Ahmad bin Hanbal as judge and dismiss al-`Askari.




In the next paragraph, you try to pinpoint who can claim authority:

Other verses have negated authority of sinners and extravagant people. It also says the Unjust will testify they have no authority over anyone on the day of judgment. Therefore it makes sense the authority refers to the Divine Authority, not authority that it has negated and is shared by sinners. Now divine authority needs  appointment from God. Therefore Ulil-Amr are appointed by God over the people.

First of all, the common understanding of all Arabs is that those in authority are not appointed by God. The Arabs knew that prophets were divinely appointed but had no concept of people in authority being appointed. Abu Sufiyan was from those in authority in Makkah, was he divinely appointed by God? Or Sa`d bin `Ubadah the leader in Madinah? Of course not nor did any Arab from Quraysh expect a holy text to accept the man's station and orders.




So if you were to inform folks in Arabia that they should randomly conclude that "those in authority among you" means divine appointed infallible folks who do miracles, they'll be rather surprised. It was God's duty to have explain this new concept of divine leadership to these Arabs of Quraysh in his book just as prophet-hood was clearly discussed.




After this introduction, let me reply to your deceptive argument.




Above you simply said that those who are UNJUST have no authority and thus the only other possibility is that those in authority can be divinely appointed infallible individuals. This is deception because you are implying to your readers that there is only two options, A- Unjust folks and B- Infallible folks which is simply not true.




There are many groups of people but we do not wish to go into detail, the Qur'an makes this distinction clearly:




{O you who have believed, spend from that which We have provided for you before there comes a Day in which there is no exchange and no friendship and no intercession. And the disbelievers – they are the unjust.}






{You will see the unjust fearful of what they have earned, and it will [certainly] befall them. And those who have believed and done righteous deeds will be in lush regions of the gardens [in Paradise] having whatever they will in the presence of their Lord. That is what is the great bounty.}




So there are those who are righteous (not necessarily divinely appointed) and there are those who are unjust. A person is never described as an unjust person if he is pious and sincere, an unjust person in the tongue of the Arabs is one who constantly commits injustice and is known for it.




As for small acts of oppression or injustice, this can happen to any of us and no human is free from it as God says:






{And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their oppression, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, but He defers them for a specified term. And when their term has come, they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it].}




To conclude, your argument that authority cannot go to the unjust means that it must be given to an infallible is incorrect because:




A- You skipped the righteous believers who can assume authority and are not called "unjust". (This is sufficient)




B- If we are talking about absolute divine authority then God may only give this to Prophets and Messengers and no one else and there is no evidence that non-Prophets can attain absolute divine authority.




Next you try to link between the kingdom given to Ibrahim's (as) family and those in authority from our nation:

The emphasis on the divine authority of the family of Ibrahim means the Ulil-Amr are also given such divine authority.

This is incorrect as the verse of Ibrahim (as) is talking about dominion (Mulk) over kingdoms and the reception of divine wisdom and holy books and thus clearly hints towards prophets and Messengers.




As for our verse, it is simply instructing us to be obedient to people of authority (Ulil-Amr) and to adhere to the chain of command and use God's Book and the Prophet's (saw) instructions to settle our disputes.




These are two different ideas and there is no need to bind then jump to random conclusions like you did.




As for those who envy, which is your final paragraph, they are the disbelievers who rejected Muhammad (saw) for no other reason than jealousy. They detested that he, a Hashemite, would have authority over them. So God reminds them of those folks who disbelieved before them and refused to believe in Ibrahim (as) and his sons Isma`il (as) and Ishaq (as) and how God cursed them and prepared for them a suitable punishment. The point here was to show that there were always people who rejected for no other reason than pride and jealousy.




{Or have they a share of dominion? Then [if that were so], they would not give the people [even as much as] the speck on a date seed. (53) Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them of His bounty? But we had already given the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom and conferred upon them a great kingdom. (54) And some among them believed in it, and some among them were averse to it. And sufficient is Hell as a blaze.}




Finally, you jump to quoting a random fabricated Hadith:

In misbahal shariah we read Salman Farsi knows from the people of two books, that the Prophets are always sent with 12 Captains. the 12 Captains are the Successors. The people of the book also knew about the chosen families. They understood Auli-Mohammad (saw) to be a chosen family.

We believe this to be a sectarian fabrication by your sect, it clearly is and I believe it's not even authentic per Shia standards. Otherwise, might we ask what verse of the bible says that "for every prophet there are 12 captains"? And if so, are the 12 captains all available at once or are they successors? Are the 12 from the progeny of the first prophet or not?




I doubt the answer to any of this will be to your satisfaction.




And thus your entire article is refuted wal-Salam.

[Hani]

It's sad that I had to waste my time replying to such weak arguments rather than finishing up my book. Bad judgement on my part.

[Ebn Hussein]

Allah bless you Hani! He boasted how his deceptive secterian distortion of an article pops up on the top of Google searches, yet Allah made him to destroy his own work by referring it to you and you refuting it to shreds. Wallahi the religion of the Rafidah - like all false sects - is based on nothing but mutashabihat. 12 Rivers, 12 disciples of Jesus (one being a Dajjal like the 12th Rafidi one), an utter mess.

Alhamdulillah who made me leave this religion of lies and misguidance. I testify that the Imamah of their 12 Imams is nothing but a lie, one of the biggest religious scams of human history hence it is the only sect that constantly (in one way or the other) champions Tahrif of the Quran as they know that the SUNNI Quran is pretty much useless to them and doesn't support their beliefs (except with dumb out of context misusage of verses etc).

[Link]

1. This was an article I wrote when I was young and it doesn't include all the recent points I have brought towards you guys.

2. There is more context to these verses. But let us concentrate on that you say it's conditional.

The "fa" can be interpreted as a "so" "therefore" and be an implication of the two obedience commands.

If it is interpreted that way, then it would be further emphasizing on their authority. That is it would mean they are such that they always command to refer dispute back to Quran and Sunnah.

For example if you make the contra positive of the implication, it would mean "if you do not refer disputes back to Quran (Allah) and Sunnah (Rasool) you are disobeying God and the Messenger/Ulil-Amr from you".

This contrary to your desires would be emphasis that Ulil-Amr never command against the Quran and Sunnah.  It is on you to show that obey means something different here when they are coupled with Rasool in same obey command, and when obey never meant conditional authority anywhere in Quran.

You have to show why the exception here. You can repeat your points but the above shows it saying "therefore if you dispute in a thing refer it to Allah and the Messenger" would be emphasis to their followers:

- Ahlulbayt command us to refer our disputes back to Quran and Sunnah.

- Ahlulbayt want people to have knowledge of Quran and Sunnah, as opposed to saying refer it to so and so who you believe is most knowledgable.


3. Your statement scholars are included goes against the whole talk before of "do they a share in authority" and the issue of people forbidden to attribute purity to themselves.  The Quran says no one shall touch the Quran but the purified. How then can a person claim to be an authority over Quran and Sunnah with no divine proof. It's up to God to attribute purity to who he pleases and not for people. Neither is it alright to have everyone call you pure and you sit silently accepting it while there is no proof from God that you are.

4. The similarity of the other verse of Ulil-Amr is there, but there is a difference. One verse is a command, while the other verse keeping in mind that Rasool is sufficient as an authority is stating what would of happened if they had referred to Rasool, and what would of happened if they referred to the Ulil-Amr. In this case, it shows Ulil-Amr are all of a unified view. They don't disagree unlike the case of scholars. The 3rd thing is that the matter could be a specific one of a special nature, with no universality, or "matter of safety and fear" is a general phrase. If the latter, remember everything in religion is a matter of safety and fear. This shows Ulil-Amr all have a unified view of religion, and are a means to know the true of all such matters be it security that is of a social political type or spiritual type, they know it.  This verse you brought to refute the logic actually compliments. We know people don't have to go both to Rasool and then others, Rasool is sufficient. So this is saying what would of happened had they referred to both Rasool and Ulil-Amr. It shows Ulil-Amr are of the same view of Rasool regarding all matters of safety and fear. Something that shows they are divinely chosen and not normal governors or scholars.

5. The view that it is scholars is even more absurd when we realize the believers over all in that time had more knowledge of the religion then scholars of later times.  They were taught the wisdom by Rasool and knowledge was more in them then scholars of our times. Yet they were not authorities but being told to obey God and the Messenger and Ulil-Amr from them.

6. There is no dispute Auli-Ibrahim were over all Prophets. What you don't understand it's that it's emphasizing the following. 1: Group of chosen ones together with divine authority has happened in the past. 2. They are so closely linked they are a family to one another that others are not who are not chosen in that cause. 3. They were blessed with the book, wisdom, and they were given a great authority. The fact that it emphasizes here on their authority and then talks about the consequences of turning away from it and links that to faith or disbelief in God's Ayat, then tells us to Obey God and obey the Messenger and Ulil-Amr from us is sufficient.

7. There is a problem with your thinking. You don't want Ayatallah to exist after Nabi in the form of divine chosen leaders. You go to your utmost to deny all clear instances of their appoint not due to it being unclear but because you have hatred towards guidance of God in his chosen ones. This is because of your attachment to people you follow with more attachment to them then God. Your disease is obvious to the extent you twist God's words just to justify the blindness and hatred rooted in your sect and leaders.

8. The view of whole world has always been wrong about authority. That is why so much Quran is devoted to showing people take their idols of themsleves and others as authorities because they devalue the authority of God. This Surah among others is saying if you associate with the authority of God, you do so because you value others more then God or on par with God. God will never forgive that.  The Quran emphasized on Taghut before and after Ulil-Amr verse. It emphasized to disbelieve in it.

[Link]

9. If you take away unjust/sinners from those who have authority, then how do you justify authority. If it means government, then both unjust and righteous can be in government per your beliefs. So what does word "authority" mean here. If is government given by the people, it can include unjust. If it means authority linked to God, doesn't that require proof from God? Isn't there so many verses showing that is up to God to choose and not the people. For example, if there would be gods among his creation, it would be God who chooses from who he wants and not people choosing which Jinn or Human reached that. It would require divine proof "bring your proof if you are truthful" "these are names that they just named, why don't they bring proof from God if they are truthful", and "And your Lord creates and chooses, it's not for them to pick...." the latter is on topic of exalted servants of God saying if there were gods who are means to God, they were surely be who God chooses, that is aside from God being far above what they say, if there are people they should exalt to that level, it's not up to them. It's up to God to show who is the means to him.

That is why Quran emphasizes "and God attributes purity to who he pleases"....it's not up to us to say who is purified and who is not. It's God who manifests who is and who isn't. This is because if we know someone is totaly purified, he becomes a standard of right and wrong.

And if Yazeed is not included, there goes your whole explanation of twelve Caliphs including him.   

[Link]

10. The Twelve Captains don't all live during the life time of one Nabi but succeed one another. Contrary to people belittlement of what God did with Aeron (ie. had him never lead the people but for 40 days), when God chooses a person and trusts him, he uses him to lead humanity and become the means of submission to him. In case of Bani-Israel, as verse 5:12 implies, they were over all Messengers. The Twevle Captains with each one of them is either the previous or following ones linked to them in their holy cause, who are part of them being one group, also known as a "family". In case of Moses, it's 12 who succeeded him. In case of Jesus, it's the twelve (including Moses) who is the Twelve Captains with him. And they are called Captains because they entrusted to be who steers the boat which by the name of God is it's sailing and anchoring.

[Link]

11. Twelve in Bible is very suspect. Everywhere it talks about it, it's as if it was very significant, but then they are trying to say this is all it really means which as the odor of their tahreef by desires. It's almost as if there was a righteous sect with Twelve Successors from Moses, who emphasized on words of Twelve from all Prophets, but they were trying to say, no it doesn't mean what these people say,  it's rather something insignificant. For example instead of 12 princes being seen as a prediction that a King would be born out of Ismail to the whole world, who would be succeeded by 12 (ie. hence called princes), because God is the True King, it's made it to something insignificant. And then so many verses talking least to say non-sense emphasis on twelve, as if that is why twelve was emphasized by Moses.    But Salman understands when God emphasizes on Twelve princes or something like that or people are talking non-sense of twelve, it's due to there originally being significance of twelve. That and the people of the area had more then what we know of the bible today. They also had much truth with them that is no longer manifest among people today. That is why a lot knew about Twelve successors and the emphasis of the chosen families.

[Link]

they know that the SUNNI Quran is pretty much useless to them

The Sunni Quran is not only useless to us but it is detrimental to all humanity.

[Hani]

All right, let's waste more time on your points.

1. This was an article I wrote when I was young and it doesn't include all the recent points I have brought towards you guys.

Starting a post by "I was too young" is not a good sign.

The "fa" can be interpreted as a "so" "therefore" and be an implication of the two obedience commands.
If it is interpreted that way, then it would be further emphasizing on their authority. That is it would mean they are such that they always command to refer dispute back to Quran and Sunnah. For example if you make the contra positive of the implication, it would mean "if you do not refer disputes back to Quran (Allah) and Sunnah (Rasool) you are disobeying God and the Messenger/Ulil-Amr from you".

We can rightly translated to "And", so it is adding a clause. In fact abu Hazim confronted Maslamah bin `Abdul-Malik about it when the son of `Abdul-Malik said that obedience to rulers is absolute, aba Hazim told him this obedience is dropped whenever the ruler opposes truth. I doubt you understand the function of "Fa" more than the early followers and scholars who have mastery in linguistics. Those who have authority are "from among us", so if WE (as in "us") differ (this includes those in authority) then we return things to Qur'an and Sunnah without blindly following leaders as you preach.


In this sense we can say: "And if you should differ with those in authority then return it to Allah and his Messenger (saw)."


It is extremely unwise, to tell people to give absolute obedience to those in authority without highlighting explicitly and clearly who they are in the same verse otherwise chaos would ensue. Everyone knew who God was and who the Messenger was but those in authority are anonymous. Thus, the condition was added and was correctly understood by the Muslims and this is why this verse of obedience is the only one accompanied by a special clause which you're too stubborn to accept.


The rest of your points here deserve no attention due to weakness.

The Quran says no one shall touch the Quran but the purified. How then can a person claim to be an authority over Quran and Sunnah with no divine proof. It's up to God to attribute purity to who he pleases and not for people. Neither is it alright to have everyone call you pure and you sit silently accepting it while there is no proof from God that you are.

The believers are the purified and their authority over it is derived from their teacher Muhammad (saw).

Besides who told you that "pure" in those verses refers to a specific thing you have in mind? Pure can refer to goodness and purity of heart which is a description of believers, pure may also refer to purity of body as opposed to filth and Najas.

Here's a physical purification
{[Remember how it was] when He caused inner calm to enfold you, as an assurance from Him, and sent down upon you water from the skies, so that He might purify you thereby}

And here's a spiritual purification
{Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them}

Secondly, Those who do not touch it may be referring to the Kitab preserved on the board in which case this verse is referring to angels only as they are the ones who touch it.

Indeed, it is a noble Qur'an (77) In a Register well-protected; (78) None touch it except the purified.

The protected register refers to the Lawh-ul-Mahfoudh and not the Mushaf we have in our hands today.

In any case, if by "touching" you wish to imply accessing its truth and understanding it perfectly, then we include the prophets and agree then say "And today, our scholars are the heirs of the prophets and their students."

The similarity of the other verse of Ulil-Amr is there, but there is a difference. One verse is a command, while the other verse keeping in mind that Rasool is sufficient as an authority is stating what would of happened if they had referred to Rasool, and what would of happened if they referred to the Ulil-Amr.

While it is not necessary to refer the matter to both. The opponent can argue against you by saying {And if they had referred it to the Messenger and those in authority} is an indirect order to refer it to both. Meaning, God would have been pleased if they had referred it to the Messenger (saw) and those in authority. Thus your point is dropped.

The view that it is scholars is even more absurd when we realize the believers over all in that time had more knowledge of the religion then scholars of later times.

Then they will argue that the Qur'an is for every age, so whoever possesses the highest authority in every age is intended. Thus, in the time of the Companions it would be the commanders and judges and teachers appointed by the Prophet (saw). Whereas, in the later times it refers to the high scholars and Muftis who ideally have authority over rulers in case those rulers were ignorant of religious jurisprudence.


Rather the verse is general and refers to all those who hold authority in the government and judicial system as well as the tribal leaders and scholars. Even in our own families our parents have authority and they are obeyed for as long as they obey religion.

There is no dispute Auli-Ibrahim were over all Prophets. What you don't understand it's that it's emphasizing the following. 1: Group of chosen ones together with divine authority has happened in the past. 2. They are so closely linked they are a family to one another that others are not who are not chosen in that cause. 3. They were blessed with the book, wisdom, and they were given a great authority.

If Ibrahim (as) had two sons who were prophets then Muhammad (saw) had no sons who were prophets. The similarities between both cases are very limited. The rest is sectarian propaganda you wish to spread as you desperately attempt to reconcile your Madhab to the Qur'an.

There is a problem with your thinking. You don't want Ayatallah to exist after Nabi in the form of divine chosen leaders. You go to your utmost to deny all clear instances of their appoint not due to it being unclear but because you have hatred towards guidance of God in his chosen ones.

Wrong, the Qur'an is full of signs of God and it exists after the Nabi (as). Rather it's you who is adamant about your sect's 12 leaders that you're shoving them in God's Book. I seriously don't see a clear instance of their appointment in this verse, the verse doesn't even mention appointment it's talking about obedience to those in authority; nobody was designated or appointed.

The view of whole world has always been wrong about authority. That is why so much Quran is devoted to showing people take their idols of themsleves and others as authorities because they devalue the authority of God.

If your 12th Imam is the embodiment of God's authority then God literally has no authority Na`udhubillah min al-Khabal! Your issue is with the apparent meaning of the clear verse, you go to great lengths to impose your understanding.

This Surah among others is saying if you associate with the authority of God, you do so because you value others more then God or on par with God.

The Surah is saying, do not reject God's Messenger (saw) due to jealousy. God Has always chosen his messengers so it is up to us to believe or reject. God simply gave Ibrahim (as) and his sons as an example, you took whatever you intended from that example literally and dropped what you disliked. When God says disbelievers are like donkeys are you imagining quadrupeds with long ears? How ignorant must you be to cherry pick what you think agrees with your Madhab!?


I'll cut you off by saying `Ali is not from those in authority since Ibrahim's (as) family were given prophet-hood.


Seriously how deluded can you be? If you hadn't been suckling Shia propaganda for ages, and you were not aware of Shia `Aqidah, there's no way you'd reach any of your conclusions by reading the Qur'an or even by reading the Sunnah. You only attempt to explain things in a way that suites this dull Madhab.

So what does word "authority" mean here. If is government given by the people, it can include unjust.

Verse doesn't say "Obey the authority of God, his messenger and your leaders" It's not the same authority as each category's authority is of a different nature. Authority does not need explanations, the leaders in Arabia are referred to as those in authority. What you need to understand is that "those in authority" is not a new invention, they always existed, they were there before our Prophet (saw) and after him. If you wish to give "those in authority" a special meaning then God must clearly to these poor Arabs that these words now hold very different meanings.


When the Prophet appointed an army commander during a Ghazwah, the people understood the man was from those in authority and they obeyed him. When he died during battle, the prophet was not present, so the people appointed Khalid bin al-Walid and thus he became the one in authority, they obeyed him and the battle was won.


There was no concept of infallible people in authority nor were they rebuked by the Prophet (saw) upon their return. Those in authority are not Gods nor Messengers, they are just people who assumed authority. When they do good we follow them and if they disobey we refrain and advise. If they commit blasphemy we rebel and fight. Yet you're trying to bestow upon them God's authority and I'm sure every tyrant is thankful to you.

The Twelve Captains don't all live during the life time of one Nabi but succeed one another. Twelve in Bible is very suspect. Everywhere it talks about it, it's as if it was very significant, but then they are trying to say this is all it really means which as the odor of their tahreef by desires. It's almost as if there was a righteous sect with Twelve Successors from Moses, who emphasized on words of Twelve from all Prophets, but they were trying to say, no it doesn't mean what these people say,  it's rather something insignificant. For example instead of 12 princes being seen as a prediction that a King would be born out of Ismail to the whole world, who would be succeeded by 12 (ie. hence called princes), because God is the True King, it's made it to something insignificant.

Apparently your ability to interpret the bible is as bad your ability to understand Qur'an. This is the bible verse:


{Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son and thou shall call him Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. And as for Ishmael I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly, twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.} (Genesis 18: 19-20)


The emphasis on number 12 is because there were 12 tribes or clans, each had a leader, and so resources were divided proportionally such as 12 rivers etc...


The twelve all ruled different tribes at the same time and were not successors to rule over humanity as a whole among other differences. This has nothing to do with your beliefs.


Genesis 25:13-16 states their names and purpose:


{These are the names of Ishmael's sons; their names according to the family records are: Nebaioth, Ishmael's firstborn, then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.}


Additionally, it wasn't 12 successors, the 12 here are children of Ibrahim's (as) son so that makes it 14 successors to Ibrahim (as) counting his other son.



The number seven recurs WAY MORE in the Qur'an than the number 12, heck number twelve recurs 4 times out of 6000+ verses. No emphasis at all! However, you make it the center of the universe.

But Salman understands when God emphasizes on Twelve princes or something like that or people are talking non-sense of twelve, it's due to there originally being significance of twelve. That and the people of the area had more then what we know of the bible today. They also had much truth with them that is no longer manifest among people today. That is why a lot knew about Twelve successors and the emphasis of the chosen families.

Or the Shia narrations about the 12 are later fabrications which is the likelier case. Based off of Isra'iliyat and bible verses that they incorrectly interpreted.


Heck Muslim deviants went and narrated many false tales, it was reported by Nu`aym bin Hammad in al-Fitan that the Prophet (saw) was one of the 12. It was narrated by the `Uthmanis that the 12 are Umayyads who rule AFTER `Uthman etc... Similarly, your sect made stuff up and linked it to a prophetic Hadith and some mis-interpreted bible verses.

The Sunni Quran is not only useless to us but it is detrimental to all humanity.

There is no Sunni and Shia Qur'an, it is only ONE book that you do not understand.