Ulil-Amr (another analysis)

[Link]

I think you want the concept of chosen ones to be ambiguous, because Quran says such servants existed after Mohammad, and because you aren't willing to accept that family of Abraham consists of only such servants. And to me it's obvious the family of Abraham is chosen in the same way that Nuh is chosen.

So you want to make that everyone can practically be chosen, lower the status of the word "astafa".

This goes to show that no matter what Quran says, it can made ambiguous if people don't want to accept the meaning that is manifest out of reasons.

You can disconnect the verse "Do they have a share in the authority..." from the next verse....and then that verse from the next verse, and that verse from the next verse, and so on, then say Ulil-Amr is ambiguous.

But this to me is ignoring what Quran is stating simply to follow your sect and leaders.  This is because to you understanding God's words is not important, but rather,  stating they are ambiguous and interpreting them in whatever way you can to avoid the clear flow, the clear meaning, is what you are doing.

There is no doubt Auli-Ibrahim are all chosen members like Nuh and Adam in my mind.

[Rationalist]

I think you want the concept of chosen ones to be ambiguous, because Quran says such servants existed after Mohammad, and because you aren't willing to accept that family of Abraham consists of only such se
servants. And to me it's obvious the family of Abraham is chosen in the same way that Nuh is chosen.

If they are chosen why did you decide on picking a dozen?

[Abu Muhammad]

Bro Link, could you state for each statement of yours in your first post, corresponds to which verse in Surah An-Nisa' to make easier for people to follow your argument.

[Ibn Yahya]

I think you want the concept of chosen ones to be ambiguous, because Quran says such servants existed after Mohammad, and because you aren't willing to accept that family of Abraham consists of only such servants. And to me it's obvious the family of Abraham is chosen in the same way that Nuh is chosen.

So you want to make that everyone can practically be chosen, lower the status of the word "astafa".

This goes to show that no matter what Quran says, it can made ambiguous if people don't want to accept the meaning that is manifest out of reasons.

You can disconnect the verse "Do they have a share in the authority..." from the next verse....and then that verse from the next verse, and that verse from the next verse, and so on, then say Ulil-Amr is ambiguous.

But this to me is ignoring what Quran is stating simply to follow your sect and leaders.  This is because to you understanding God's words is not important, but rather,  stating they are ambiguous and interpreting them in whatever way you can to avoid the clear flow, the clear meaning, is what you are doing.

There is no doubt Auli-Ibrahim are all chosen members like Nuh and Adam in my mind.

Firstly if we were to take your view of a direct line of prophethood through a certain progeny then that would ignore the progeny of Dawud who are not directly connected to the previous line of such as that of Musa's which refutes the idea that only the direct relatives were chosen for revelation and prophethood. In fact many of the prophets of Bani Isra'il had almost no relation to the previous one except through Ya'qub and then through Ibrahim. Here are some examples other than the one I mentioned:

Yusha' bin Noon was only distantly related to Musa (through Ya'qub)
Daniel, Irmiya and Uzayr were not related except through Ya'qub
Alyasa' was not related to Ilyas other than through Ya'qub
Zakariyyah was not related to Alyasa' other than through Ya'qub
'Isa was only related to Yahya through their mothers who were cousins

So its clear that the verse is speaking about 'Aal Ibrahim in a general sense and though you said you agree with that but the point is that this idea of a chosen family is very strenuous because 'Aal Ibrahim and 'Aal Imran were huge progenies and the prophets mostly had almost no blood relation to each other except through these progenies (which depending on the prophet was very very distant). So to look at them like you look at 'Aal Muhammad makes no sense.

Secondly you contradicted yourself because you said 'Aal Ibrahim consisted of only the pious servants and then said that 'Aal Ibrahim are all chosen members and I proved earlier that Allah gave the scripture to Bani Isra'il as a whole, not a select few.

Also if you're referring to 4:53 the "they" in that is obviously referring to the corrupt of Bani Isra'il as expressed by the previous verse, not a family. I'm not sure why you're claiming I'm disconnecting the verses surrounding the Ulil 'Amr verse because I've quoted them and showed that the context doesn't point to anything about a special family, rather it points to legislation as I proved earlier.

 

[Link]

The people you mentioned not being related to me is an issue of relying on Christians and Jews for their lineages. But this maybe of Satan's way of obscuring the issue.

It seems the Quran does talk about the family of Moses and family of Aeron and what they leave behind being a proof of authority.

It seems it emphasized on Yahya succeeding Zakariya. It emphasized on Sulaiman inheriting Dawood. And it emphasized about Isa being part of a chosen family as well.

It also emphasized that Dawood and Sulaiman were both Spiritual leaders and political leaders, that it was never a separate office political kingship and spiritual leadership, like Jews made it out to be.

I can't rely on what is unclear from what is clear, what is doubtful to what is certain.

What is certain is Quran emphasized on the family of Moses and Family of Aeron and by the singular taraka emphasizing they were both one family that left that legacy found in the Tabut which was a sign of Authority.

It seems Quran emphasizes through out about chosen families.  We can say about history shows but history from Jews Christians and we have collected of ahadith is not certain knowledge like Quran.

We have to see what is for certain in Quran and rely on those clear signs and indications.

[Link]

I have to think and think and still not getting what brother "Link " is trying to put across.

If your religion requires such ambiguous "philosophy" before it can be understood, then I am sorry it doesn't make sense.

The arguments for Tawheed are more philosophical in nature and even transcend normal reasoning, and appeals to higher reasoning, and you will see Atheists always say this is ambiguous, "it's a philosophy I don't understand", so this intellectually laziness is something not to be proud of. And the philosophy of following those who God appointed as Leaders while those with no proof from God claiming leadership and authority should not be followed, is not very complicated, and is even less profound and less deep then the issue of Tawheed and how we are connected to God and his knowledge.

But it's been my experience people who don't reflect don't even understand how Quran proves Tawheed or God.

[Link]

To give a analysis on the verses leading up to Ulil-Amr which is one of the main reasons I believe in Imammate of the family of Mohammad.
 
First it reminds of a people who were entrusted with the revelation of God but then disobeyed God's Messengers.

The verse in question is the following:

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَٰكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا {46}

The question really is how did this happen? If we do a study of what happened in Bani-Israel, they gave equal authority or even more authority to their scholars with the Prophets. The scholars hence then lead them astray despite the clear proofs of miracles as well as scriptures from God.
 
Then it emphasizes a certain people attribute purity to themselves from them and this is sufficient as a lie against God. The lie is that they are claiming to be his representatives who due to their purity and sincerity have reached a level where they can represent God and his Prophets.

The verses I am talking about are these:

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يُزَكُّونَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ ۚ بَلِ اللَّهُ يُزَكِّي مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَلَا يُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا {49}
انْظُرْ كَيْفَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ ۖ وَكَفَىٰ بِهِ إِثْمًا مُبِينًا {50}
 

It emphasizes in this context that God doesn't forgive associating with him.

The verse is the one before those emphasizing:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا {48}

Then it reminds us there is a portion from the people give a portion of the book that believe in the Jibt and Taghut, and say these people are more guided then those who believe.

The verse is as follows:

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا نَصِيبًا مِنَ الْكِتَابِ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْجِبْتِ وَالطَّاغُوتِ وَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا هَٰؤُلَاءِ أَهْدَىٰ مِنَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا سَبِيلًا {51}

Then it says "do they have a share in the mulk", I would translate it here as in "authority", because they weren't claiming to have a share in God's kingdom or control of the heavens and the earth or anything like that. What they there claiming was that they were leaders that ought to be followed with respect to the guidance.   So here it is posing a good question do they share in the authority?

أَمْ لَهُمْ نَصِيبٌ مِنَ الْمُلْكِ فَإِذًا لَا يُؤْتُونَ النَّاسَ نَقِيرًا {5

But what is the true authority? "Or do they envy the people for what God has given them out of his grace? So we gave the family of Abraham, the book, and the wisdom, and gave them a great authority"
 
Here what is the great authority the family of Abraham was given? They were Prophets and hence obedience to them was obedience to God.  They were to be followed so that God is followed spiritually socially and politically.

أَمْ يَحْسُدُونَ النَّاسَ عَلَىٰ مَا آتَاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۖ فَقَدْ آتَيْنَا آلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَآتَيْنَاهُمْ مُلْكًا عَظِيمًا {54}
 

But it being in contrast to the authority scholars was claiming, it's saying, do you claim you been given the same authority that the family of Abraham was given?
 
Then it talks about "So of them is who believed in it and of them is who turned away from it, and hell is sufficient as a burning", so the authority of the family of Abraham was not something that can be turned away from.
 

فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ صَدَّ عَنْهُ ۚ وَكَفَىٰ بِجَهَنَّمَ سَعِيرًا {55}

Those they were envying to me were obviously a chosen family like the family of Abraham or else the comparison would be misleading,  and they had similar authority.
 
Then the Quran says "Indeed those who disbelieve in our Ayat...", in Quran Jesus and Mary are said t to be an "Ayah" and hence with flow, although this includes Quran is primarily about those given authority of God.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِآيَاتِنَا سَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِمْ نَارًا كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا لِيَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا {56

"And as for those who believe..." ie. it can be seen that faith includes faith in all of God's Ayat, because that is way to submit to him and follow him.

وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ سَنُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ۖ لَهُمْ فِيهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُطَهَّرَةٌ ۖ وَنُدْخِلُهُمْ ظِلًّا ظَلِيلًا {57}
 

Then it says "God commands you to give the trust to it's owners...", it can be said, that leadership itself a trust and we ought to give it to people who God appoints as opposed to making fallible people into leaders. "and that when you judge between people, you judge by justice", the justice is by applying what God and his Messenger teach, the Quran and Sunnah, as the next verses would indicate.
 

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تُؤَدُّوا الْأَمَانَاتِ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهَا وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَنْ تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُمْ بِهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا {58}

And in this flow, in this context, after emphasizing the false authority some people of the book were claiming in leadership over people, and compares to the authority they were claiming to that of the family of Abraham and that being really the authority those who they were envying were given, and emphasizes on reward and punishment with regards to believing or disbelieving in this authority...
 
It emphasizes all with this flow:
 
O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger and those who possess the authority from you: therefore if you dispute in a thing, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you believe in God and the last day, this is better and best in the end.
 
 
I would understand people saying the above verse is ambiguous in itself, but given the talk above, giving the context, given the flow, and given what the whole of Quran has said regarding leadership and authority, it no doubt refers to those who God has chosen for himself, those leaders who were never unjust and guide by God's authority/command.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا {59}

[Link]

I just thought of another angle to 3:33. We know Prophets were chosen in all places all over the world. So what makes the offspring of Abraham unique and above the rest of the nations who had Prophets or offspring that had Prophets.

It surely then is referring to the fact, that the family of Abraham refers specifically to chosen ones.

So for example bani-hashim has Mohammad, but another tribe had x Prophet and another tribe had x Prophet...so what makes distinction above the whole world, when practically much of the world tribes had Prophets.

The fact is 3:33 has to be about chosen members who are exalted like Nuh and Adam.

[Link]

For the sake of argument, let's say Quran said "and verily we gave Dawood and Sulaiman a great kingdom" and this is what meant by the family of Abraham being given the great mulk.

What it would mean by flow? Even then, it's saying Dawood and Sulaiman had divine authority, they were meant to be obeyed by society, and Allah [swt] made it that society recognized that right and they then had kingdom that corresponded to God's right of being obeyed absolutely and they were his representatives.

Even in that light, it's saying, those envied, are meant to have such kingdom being given to them. They are meant for such position to be given to them by society.

With flow to the Ulil-Amr, it would then be saying, these people possess the authority of God, hence,  you should obey them in the same way Dawood and Sulaiman were obeyed, to the extent, they rule over you.

Even in this respect, even though it goes against reason as far the issue that the spiritual guidance of Anbiya is greater and the emphasis was on the guiding role to society that some of the people of the book were taking....but even then....

It's saying you acknowledge that Dawood and Sulaiman were given a kingdom that was due to the obedience owed to them for being chosen representatives of God, and that God made society follow them to the extent to they were given power in the land.....

So you should not envy these people, and that obedience to Ulil-Amr would be saying obey those given divine authority and help them establish that same kingdom of Dawood over the people.

The subject no matter how we cut it, refers to those who God appointed. It doesn't refer to the kingdom of the likes of Pharaohs but then to the kingdom of the likes of Dawood and Sulaiman.

Even then....it's then about kingdom in the hands of God's chosen ones and obedience owed to them. That who ever is being envied is that who is meant for such authority to be obeyed by society and kingdom conferred by them.

But to make the subject of the "do they have a share in the authority" to be that authority is off-topic, and hence, the proper flow with that it's simply about divine authority given to the family of Abraham.

But I was saying even for sake of argument....it was about Dawood and Sulaiman's kingdom and the great kingdom they were given was due to being representatives of God and obedience owed to them, and power over the land coming together.

So it still remains about divine authority bestowed by God, and hence Ulil-Amr would be such servants of God (his representatives) who are meant to be obeyed and accepted as rulers like Sulaiman and Dawood were.

[Ibn Yahya]

I fail to see your point but anyway I'm going to keep it short.

Why does the rest of 4:59 say to only refer to Allaah and his messenger and not the Ulil 'Amr who you interpret as your Imams? Keep your answer a short paragraph

[Abu Zayd]

The arguments for Tawheed are more philosophical in nature and even transcend normal reasoning, and appeals to higher reasoning, and you will see Atheists always say this is ambiguous, "it's a philosophy I don't understand", so this intellectually laziness is something not to be proud of. And the philosophy of following those who God appointed as Leaders while those with no proof from God claiming leadership and authority should not be followed, is not very complicated, and is even less profound and less deep then the issue of Tawheed and how we are connected to God and his knowledge.

But it's been my experience people who don't reflect don't even understand how Quran proves Tawheed or God.

But it's worth noting that Islam wasn't revealed to scientists, philosophers or 'intellectuals'. It was revealed to a relatively simple people who nonetheless believed in Tawheed in whatever capacity they could - and in many cases those people understood it much better than you and I.  But any belief can describe itself as deeply philosophical and needing higher reasoning and man will believe it to be true. I've heard some fairly ridiculous explanations the concept of Trinity - those who believe in it use their 'true' interpretations of the OT and NW to justify it, but I think I would be right in saying that for most people, it's mumbo jumbo to say the least.

[Link]

I fail to see your point but anyway I'm going to keep it short.

Why does the rest of 4:59 say to only refer to Allaah and his messenger and not the Ulil 'Amr who you interpret as your Imams? Keep your answer a short paragraph

I can ask you why didn't it say "wa laken in" "but if" since you guys treat it exactly like that. Perhaps it's for emphasis that Ulil-Amr command according to Quran and Sunnah,  as it says therefore. "fa" means so/therefore, and perhaps this means is to emphasize they are extensions of the authority of Allah and his Messenger. For example if says "Obey Quran and obey Ahlulbayt therefore if you dispute in a thing refer it the matter back to the Quran and Sunnah", it's easily understood that Ahlulbayt teach according to the Sunnah and part of obeying Quran and Ahlulbayt is to settle all matters with the Quran and Sunnah. The same is with "Obey God and obey the Messenger and those who possess the authority from you therefore if you dispute in a thing refer it to God and the Messenger"

[Link]

The arguments for Tawheed are more philosophical in nature and even transcend normal reasoning, and appeals to higher reasoning, and you will see Atheists always say this is ambiguous, "it's a philosophy I don't understand", so this intellectually laziness is something not to be proud of. And the philosophy of following those who God appointed as Leaders while those with no proof from God claiming leadership and authority should not be followed, is not very complicated, and is even less profound and less deep then the issue of Tawheed and how we are connected to God and his knowledge.

But it's been my experience people who don't reflect don't even understand how Quran proves Tawheed or God.

But it's worth noting that Islam wasn't revealed to scientists, philosophers or 'intellectuals'. It was revealed to a relatively simple people who nonetheless believed in Tawheed in whatever capacity they could - and in many cases those people understood it much better than you and I.  But any belief can describe itself as deeply philosophical and needing higher reasoning and man will believe it to be true. I've heard some fairly ridiculous explanations the concept of Trinity - those who believe in it use their 'true' interpretations of the OT and NW to justify it, but I think I would be right in saying that for most people, it's mumbo jumbo to say the least.

If you study verses about the issue of Tawheed, they are very deep. For example the name Al-Hayu is a deep concept in itself. The issue of "Allah's Name" or "all-beautiful Names" is a deep issue.

These were explained in the time of the Prophet as the verses were revealed. Today, we are use to simple commentary, but we don't know the commentary people received from Imam Ali for example during the time of the Nabi who was the door to the city of knowledge.

There is deep teachings in Quran, and it was taught in deep manner I believe. It says it's revealed for a people who reflect.

This is not to say it's meant for elite of society or anything like that, but it's not meant to be just believed without deep reflection.

The concept that there is a being such that no being can be with him in his highness, that nothing can be with him is his absolute existence, is not such an easy concept to grasp. How do we know this? Why do we know this? How can it be possible? How did we witness this fast in the first place when Allah said "am I not your Lord".

Then comes the degree of sincerity and value we ought to give that being, and the path that treads in gaining his knowledge through that which is connected to him.

The Quran talks about "they desire his face", the face of God is a deep concept in itself. It's no easy thing to grasp. We get a general scent of it, but it's deep issue.

The Quran talks about how Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth, but how?

All this was slowly taught to the people in stages.  The knowledge of the self was taught till the people saw the signs of God in themselves and in the horizons and they knew God was the truth then.

It was not an easy matter. And people were objecting, why send an Angel to you, and then you talk to us, why not just send Angels to us, or why not send an Angel with you.

They had all these "intellectual" objections as well. They knew it all made sense, the miracles were there, everything pointed to the truth, but they stoke to intellectual slogans that kept them from belief.

They are right if God wanted everyone to follow the Prophet absolutely in an absolute way, he could of sent them Angels and made the matter beyond clear, and he could of did miracles which they would not have denied or called sorcery, but this God's test.

And at the end people can be obstinate, or they can listen with their hearts.

This issue is very simple to me. God's guides to the truth and hence I shouldn't follow people who claim authority but rather those who guide by God's authority and command.

When they are not among us, I don't follow men claiming their authority or leadership.

[Ibn Yahya]

I fail to see your point but anyway I'm going to keep it short.

Why does the rest of 4:59 say to only refer to Allaah and his messenger and not the Ulil 'Amr who you interpret as your Imams? Keep your answer a short paragraph

I can ask you why didn't it say "wa laken in" "but if" since you guys treat it exactly like that. Perhaps it's for emphasis that Ulil-Amr command according to Quran and Sunnah,  as it says therefore. "fa" means so/therefore, and perhaps this means is to emphasize they are extensions of the authority of Allah and his Messenger. For example if says "Obey Quran and obey Ahlulbayt therefore if you dispute in a thing refer it the matter back to the Quran and Sunnah", it's easily understood that Ahlulbayt teach according to the Sunnah and part of obeying Quran and Ahlulbayt is to settle all matters with the Quran and Sunnah. The same is with "Obey God and obey the Messenger and those who possess the authority from you therefore if you dispute in a thing refer it to God and the Messenger"

No it says specifically after to only use the Qur'an and Sunnah for legislation, not the Ulil 'Amr. You're saying perhaps and trying to use deduction and reasoning to defend your position. If your position is so certain and well backed then it shouldnt be that. I only want clear facts.

[Hani]

Look at how ridiculous his arguments are, I asked him: Why didn't the verse then say Obey Allah, his Prophet  and those in authority from Aal-Muhammad.

He replied:

Lastly, why didn't say "from the family of Mohammad", that would leave room to assume there are Ulil-Amr outside of the family of Mohammad in this nation, that it's telling us to obey those who possess authority from the family of Mohammad, but it would also imply that the family of Mohammad in general doesn't have authority or it can be interpreted like that.

So according to you, if Allah specified that we HAVE TO OBEY those in authority from among the family of Muhammad, that would imply that others have authority other than them?

Wow, great argument. So mentioning them clearly and specifying them causes us to assume wrongly. However, NOT mentioning them at all makes things very clear.

How about I tell you the entire argument doesn't make sense? Because if Allah says to obey those in authority among the family of Muhammad, then that makes their obedience obligatory unlike others who may be in authority since only Aal-Muhammad were singled out for absolute obedience. In fact, that would be a solid argument for those who wish to restrict authority to Aal-Muhammad as the verse is specifying who should be in authority over us.

I'm done with this nonsense.

[Hani]

No it says specifically after to only use the Qur'an and Sunnah for legislation, not the Ulil 'Amr. You're saying perhaps and trying to use deduction and reasoning to defend your position. If your position is so certain and well backed then it shouldnt be that. I only want clear facts.

His argument is that those in authority didn't need to be mentioned as they are representatives of Allah and his prophet (saw).

This doesn't make sense because the Prophet (saw) himself need not be mentioned as he represents Allah. So Allah could have said: {Return it to Allah} instead of {Return it to Allah and the prophet}.

Nonsensical argument.

[Link]

If your position is so certain and well backed then it shouldnt be that. I only want clear facts.

The clear facts to me is by not getting obsessed over what Allah didn't say but on what he did he say. He paired up their obedience with the Messenger in one obey command, and the flow of the verses before clearly show whoever these people are they been given divine authority and their authority must be believed in like how the authority of the family of Abraham must be believed in.

But one reason is that it would imply that during the time of the Messenger for example, people would have to refer to Ali as well and Al-Hassan, and Al-Hussain. If people wanted to get technical, this is what would imply. But it commanding to obedience and it saying another place "and had they referred it to Rasool and Ulil-Amr from them", it implies that Rasool is sufficient for referral.

If it meant  Ulil-Amr were to be referred to during the time of the Nabi, it would imply these meant judges or something like that, that were entrusted to judge on behalf of Nabi.

However the context of the verses before and the not mentioning them for the referral, implies they will succeed the Messenger, and that referring to them would be referring to Allah and the Messenger. 

So I know it's hard to see it now because you are use to thinking "if it said this..I would surely think this and that", but the fact is if Allah mentioned the command people would argue like the argue for the verse "had they referred it to Messenger and Ulil-Amr from them", that people couldn't be commanded to refer the matter to the Imams during the time of the Nabi. However the line is "had they..." which implies hypothetical, which is different then a command.

But obeying them means when they command you obey them, so it didn't have to mean they were commanding at that time.

And if it said Ulil-Amr in referral, even if Ali Hassan and Hussain were all suppose to be referred to during the time of Nabi alongside him, the problem is that those who succeed him (the other 9 Imams) would not be included.

So you would use it ironically as a proof that it's not about Imams. This is just increases my faith in the wisdom of God and that he truly is the author. This is while if people a person or fabricator was writing this verse, he would do the mistake as you guys think, and say to refer to all three, which ironically show they are not successors, even if the author wanted to show they are successors.

This is a proof of a very wise Lord who thinks beyond the hasty recitation of people. He says what is accurate and what cannot be falsified.

[Link]

So according to you, if Allah specified that we HAVE TO OBEY those in authority from among the family of Muhammad, that would imply that others have authority other than them?

I'm not saying it would imply others have authority aside from them, but it would not absolutely negate authority from all other then them. To put it perspective, the Ghayba of last Imam is something that would happen.  And people can think in time of Ghayba, others have the authority that was negated from the Jewish and Christian scholars in the verse "do they have a share in the authority".

But if it said from "Ahlulbayt of Mohammad", people might say, yes there are great scholars from Ahlulbayt of Mohammad but it doesn't mean not following other scholars.

You have to keep in perspective the ghayba period is longer then the period in which Auli-Mohammad are present among the people, well atleast till the Mahdi comes it is.

And that period needs guidance, and part of the wisdom is that Ulil-Amr is been taught to be only the 12 Imams. No one shares that authority, no one.

People can claim they represent the 12 Imams and are to be followed in the same capacity as leaders to guide to what Allah and his Messenger brought, but the fact is by flow,  all such authority is negated.

And the negation of the authority of people claiming to be authorities over the religion is just as important as establishing those who possess the true authority regarding the religion.



It's the same with what is done by hadithal thaqalain. A lot of Sunni scholars believed it meant to follow the knowledgeable members of Ahlulbayt but don't believe they are divinely appointed.

However, the verse is saying by flow, that the only people who do have authority are those who were envied and compared to the family of Abraham.

It negates the authority of Jewish and Christian scholars and compares the people they were envying to that of the family of Abraham and their authority.

[Abu Muhammad]

Bro Link,

I hardly see you quoting any other sources i.e. opinions/interpretations of others especially your imams or scholars with regard to those ayahs to strengthen your argument. And this has been true in all your posts (there are a number of them on SC as far back as 2008 and in this forum alone, you have 2 other similar posts). It seems like all are purely coming from your own reasoning. I wonder if you are just "tafarrud" i.e. alone in your interpretation of those ayahs.

You know what. Those ayahs have been there for more than 1,400 years and have passed through thousands (if not millions) of great minds throughout those years. If you are "tafarrud", it will make ones wonder why should people want to buy into your interpretation of those ayahs. To make thing worst, you are not even a scholar to start with (let alone being "infallible").

[Link]

Abu Mohammad,

Our Imams have said regarding "the envied people", they are Ahlulbayt, they have said regarding "the great authority" it's obedience owed to the pure chosen ones, or the Imammate.

They have said regarding "do they have a share in the mulk", that it's about Imammate and Caliphate.

I am saying this assuming people are aware that this what our Imams use to argue by.

I will inshallah share these ahadith. They linked these ayas to Ulil-Amr often in our ahadith.

As for our Scholars, I do not know why they don't argue by the flow, while our Imams did.