TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Link on April 15, 2016, 04:25:06 PM

Title: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 04:25:06 PM
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 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.
 
It emphasizes in this context that God doesn't forgive associating with him. 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 15, 2016, 04:55:58 PM
Welcome back to the boards.

Just a general note, you will want to keep posts simple if you want to reach readers. There aren't many philosophical types like yourself around here.

Other than that, do enjoy your time here.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on April 15, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Part 1: A multi-angular refutation of Shiite views on Ulil-Amr(4:59)
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/part-1-a-multi-angular-refutation-of-shiite-views-on-ulil-amr459/


Part 2: A multi-angular refutation of Shiite views on Ulil-Amr.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/part-2-a-multi-angular-refutation-of-shiite-views-on-ulil-amr/
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 05:33:30 PM
To simplify:

Contrast
of authority of people claiming to be sources of guidance to their people with the authority of the family of Abraham and those envied. The contrast is made to emphasize the authority is in God's hands and he gives it to who he pleases (ie. the likes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc). And the contrast is made to say you se that very leadership Jewish and Christian scholars claim to have, it in fact is God's authority by which he vests in his chosen ones and links obedience to himself.

Comparison of the authority of the family of Abraham is made with that of the Ulil-Amr and envied people by flow, and emphasis on punishment with turning away from this authority and God's Ayat, shows this is a divinely appointed institution.

At the end the truth stands clear from error.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 15, 2016, 05:46:18 PM
Bro Noor, it is always preferred to engage in a conversation than to send a link to an article.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 15, 2016, 06:38:40 PM
To simplify:

Contrast
of authority of people claiming to be sources of guidance to their people with the authority of the family of Abraham and those envied. The contrast is made to emphasize the authority is in God's hands and he gives it to who he pleases (ie. the likes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc). And the contrast is made to say you se that very leadership Jewish and Christian scholars claim to have, it in fact is God's authority by which he vests in his chosen ones and links obedience to himself.

Comparison of the authority of the family of Abraham is made with that of the Ulil-Amr and envied people by flow, and emphasis on punishment with turning away from this authority and God's Ayat, shows this is a divinely appointed institution.

At the end the truth stands clear from error.
Yes but Akhi the rest of this verse tells us to refer to Allaah as his messenger and those who hold authority doesnt really just refer to the family of Abraham because we don't see a verse specifically connecting them to that phrase or the word 'amr for that matter. Nor does the context seem to show any particular connection to praising the family of Abraham.

Another thing the whole of the Quraysh is 'Aal Ibrahim so I don't see much of a connection.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 06:54:54 PM

Yes but Akhi the rest of this verse tells us to refer to Allaah as his messenger and those who hold authority doesnt really just refer to the family of Abraham because we don't see a verse specifically connecting them to that phrase or the word 'amr for that matter. Nor does the context seem to show any particular connection to praising the family of Abraham.

Another thing the whole of the Quraysh is 'Aal Ibrahim so I don't see much of a connection.

What's the type of authority being discussed in your opinion?  The word "Amr" can mean affair, and the word "mulk" can mean kingdom, but we see them together and in context of the topic at hand, it's referring to Authority.

For example Jewish scholars weren't claiming they have the kingdom of God or control over the heavens and the earth, but rather they should be referred to in matters of guidance because they were "authorities" over what God has revealed.

So for example our Imams emphasize the verse "do they have a share in the mulk", refers to the Imammate (Leadership) and Succession.

The mulk here then means Authority.

The next verse then links the issue of that authority with the family of Abraham. It's saying, do you envy these people for the very same authority you accept in the family of Abraham?

To say as many Sunni tafsirs have said that mulk here refers to the kingdom of Sulaiman or Dawood or Yusuf, is missing the point of contrast.

The contrast is saying that very authority you are claiming, do you really have a share in it, or do you envy the people for what God has given them out of his grace while acknowledging that very authority in the family of Abraham.

It's saying that authority was so great that believing it lead to paradise while disbelieving it lead to hell, because it was linked to obedience to God.

It was in light of that and warning not to disbelieve in God's Ayat in that context, that God then says to obey the Ulil-Amr.

And before that emphasizes obedience to himself to show that it's really about obeying God.

So the type of authority here is not about governors or anything like that, the context is about guidance on behalf of God and who should obey and follow with respect to submitting to God.

People of the book scholars were for example claiming this position although none of them taught they were appointed by God or that they were infallible sources, they made their collective leadership among the people such that it was a binding authority.

And we see this how bani-Israel disobeyed the Prophets, they followed their clergy class, rather then seeking the truth and reflecting over the clear proofs of God in his scriptures revealed as well as the divine miracles.







 
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 15, 2016, 08:40:46 PM
What is meant by great kingdom can be the kingdom of Dawud (as) and Sulayman (as). Allah combined both prophet-hood and kingdom for Sulayman and Dawud (as) and they are those who were given a great kingdom from Aal-Ibrahim (as). Of course in this sense Yunus (as) or Ayyub (as) are not from those who were given a great kingdom from Aal-Ibrahim (as).

The great kingdom can also mean the dominion as in they are to be obeyed at all times and their obedience is that of God, this exceeds a normal authority or kingdom and is a thing only prophets are blessed with.

Now let's take a look at the three things that God bestowed upon those men from Aal-Ibrahim to find out who is being talked about.

{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.}

Let's see what your own Imam says in Tafsir al-`Ayyashi:

تفسير العياشي عن حمران عن الباقر عليه السلام { فقد آتينا آل إبراهيم الكتاب } قال: النبوة, { والحكمة } قال: الفهم والقضاء, { وملكاً عظيماً } قال: الطاعة

[Himran bin A`yun from al-Baqir (as): {The Scripture} The prophet-hood. {And wisdom} The understanding and judgement. {Great kingdom} The obedience.]

Now these three things are specific properties that distinguish prophets from normal folks, scholars or kings. A prophet is one who possesses the book of God, he possesses great wisdom and his dominion is great in that he must be obeyed by all whether scholars or kings since he is God's direct representative. These are things that would make all men jealous and envious and it may lead some to falsely claim that they're prophets (such as what happened during our Nabi's life).

Therefore, some men believed in Ibrahim's (as) prophet-hood and that of his children and others disbelieved due to envy and jealousy.

Here's the thing, no matter how you twist and turn, the verse has no mention of a great kingdom given to Aal-Muhammad (saw). Therefore, you're an innovator if anything since you aren't following the verses rather you're coming up with your own new laws. If what you're saying at the end of the day had any shred of truth the verse would have easily said "Obey Allah and obey his prophet and those in authority from Aal-Muhammad" rather it says "Those in authority from among you" which encompasses all those placed in authority by the Prophet (saw) during his life as well as those who assumed authority after him. As opposed to you folks we don't believe Allah is powerless and scared nor does he practice Taqiyyah so as to make things so unclear.

Next your Imams contradict your interpretation about this verse:

{Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.}

Quote
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.

في الكافي وغيره في عدة روايات أن الخطاب إلى الأئمة عليهم السلام أمر كل منهم أن يؤدي إلى الإمام الذي بعده ويوصي إليه ثم هي جارية في سائر الأمانات.

In al-Kafi and other narrations it is reported that those being addressed are the Imams (as), each of them was ordered to give the trust to the Imam that succeeds him...

وفيه وفي العياشي عن الباقر عليه الصلاة والسلام ايانا عنى أن يؤدي الإِمام الأول إلى الذي بعده العلم والكتب والسلاح.

And in al-`Ayyashi from al-Baqi (as): "We are the ones meant here, each Imam must entrust his knowledge and books to the succeeding Imam."

We on the other hand say that the verse is a general ruling that has nothing to do with the gibberish attributed to your Imams by some liars in Qum or Kufah.

In the books of Ahlul-Sunnah we find that `Ali ibn abi Talib states that this verse is addressing those in authority and advising them, he says:

حق على الإِمام أن يحكم بما أنزل الله وأن يؤدي الأمانة فإذا فعل ذلك فحق على الناس أن يسمعوا له وأن يطيعوا وأن يجيبوا إذا دعوا

[It is the leader's duty to rule by that which Allah has revealed and to render the trusts to whom they are due, if he does so then it is the people's duty to listen and obey his requests.]

This matches the following verse perfectly which orders us to obey Allah, his prophet and the ones in authority as long as they obey Allah and his prophet. The judge between us if we differ is the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 10:23:38 PM
Given the context that "Do they have a share in the mulk", I don't think kingdom of Sulaiman and Dawood is even a possibility.

Rather it's about emphasizing the true authority.

The line "so of them is who believed in it" obviously refers to the authority of the family of Abraham, because that is the whole topic. "Do they have share in the mulk" and then "and verily we gave the family of Abraham a great mulk", is referring to one issue.

And those people having a portion of the book are not being asked if they have worldly kingdom of Kings, they are being asked if they have share in the authority in general. And it's showing they would not give atom's worth of value if they were given such authority.

The line "so if you dispute in a thing refer it to God and the Messenger" is an important line, in that it shows Quran and Sunnah is suppose to be the judgement. But who do people take authorities regarding that? Scholars. While Quran is showing people aren't authorities except those who God appoints.

That is why it picked the people of the book, because if anyone would of have had authority before Mohammad, it would their scholars, because they were entrusted with teaching the revelation of God. But it's showing they don't and it is making the issue clear so that we are guided regarding this issue.

Ulil-Amr are obvious ways to refer back to Quran and Sunnah, and that is why it's emphasized "therefore if you dispute in a thing refer it to God and the Messenger", in context of the obedience to the Ulil-Amr, because they are extentions of the authority of Allah and his Messenger.

It's how revelation is going to be implemented by people, through obeying the Rasool and Ulil-Amr.

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.

However, in this context, it's guiding all of humanity, including Sunnis and Shias regarding this issue....that apart from God's chosen ones who are compared to the family of Abraham, no one has this authority.

In other words, scholars don't have this authority, Marjaas don't have this authority....

It's warning humanity that yes God is making up a rope to stick to, a revelation to follow, but don't take authorities aside from those who God has appointed. Don't do the same mistakes of bani-Israel, and don't do the same mistakes of the Christians and the Jews.

Don't make normal people into that axis that you fully trust and follow. I am making that axis myself, I am making the handhold to stick to, so hold on to that, hold on to that rope...and you will be guided.



Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 15, 2016, 10:29:26 PM

What's the type of authority being discussed in your opinion?  The word "Amr" can mean affair, and the word "mulk" can mean kingdom, but we see them together and in context of the topic at hand, it's referring to Authority.

For example Jewish scholars weren't claiming they have the kingdom of God or control over the heavens and the earth, but rather they should be referred to in matters of guidance because they were "authorities" over what God has revealed.

So for example our Imams emphasize the verse "do they have a share in the mulk", refers to the Imammate (Leadership) and Succession.

The mulk here then means Authority.

The next verse then links the issue of that authority with the family of Abraham. It's saying, do you envy these people for the very same authority you accept in the family of Abraham?

To say as many Sunni tafsirs have said that mulk here refers to the kingdom of Sulaiman or Dawood or Yusuf, is missing the point of contrast.

The contrast is saying that very authority you are claiming, do you really have a share in it, or do you envy the people for what God has given them out of his grace while acknowledging that very authority in the family of Abraham.

It's saying that authority was so great that believing it lead to paradise while disbelieving it lead to hell, because it was linked to obedience to God.

It was in light of that and warning not to disbelieve in God's Ayat in that context, that God then says to obey the Ulil-Amr.

And before that emphasizes obedience to himself to show that it's really about obeying God.

So the type of authority here is not about governors or anything like that, the context is about guidance on behalf of God and who should obey and follow with respect to submitting to God.

People of the book scholars were for example claiming this position although none of them taught they were appointed by God or that they were infallible sources, they made their collective leadership among the people such that it was a binding authority.

And we see this how bani-Israel disobeyed the Prophets, they followed their clergy class, rather then seeking the truth and reflecting over the clear proofs of God in his scriptures revealed as well as the divine miracles.

Firstly its incorrect of you to quote those previous verses because the verse before it is about judgement:

"Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing."

and the verse after it is talking about legislation:

"Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.

So this clearly illustrates that its talking about legal disputes with regards to state judgement and its sources of legislation. So your attempt to connect it to the verse about the great kingdom as a more spiritual meaning is false and I find your attempt as interpreting in a more metaphorical light quite lacking in evidence as there is nothing that really clearly connects it to a metephore. Rather its talking about how God bestowed on 'Aal Ibrahim a reward as 'Aal Ibrahim is also the whole of Bani Isra'il (and the whole of the Quraysh for that matter so the Ayat cannot be pinned to just 'Aal Muhammad) and this reward was the Kingdom of Israel. Your interpretation doesn't fit. The Qur'an Tafsir is like a jigsaw, it has to fit the verse, you can't force the piece in because to you it looks like it could fit.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 10:38:15 PM
Salam

Verse 4:58 is emphasizing on one of the purposes God assigns the Prophets and chosen ones as leaders and guides. It's so judgement occurs between people by justice, while justice would be an obscure thing without revelation, a book from God, and appointed Guides.

As Hani showed, there is ahadith that states it is talking to Rasool and his successors, that God entrusts them to give the trusts to their owners....

This would go well with the subject because they have the right to say "so and so" is to be followed, so and so is your Master after me, so and so are appointed by God....

This is while the Jews and Christian leaders saying Mohammad and his family were not chosen by God,  didn't have such authority, because they had no share in the authority.

It's not to however neglect all the verses before. The verses before are all leading up to the Ulil-Amr and are obviously connected.

To disconnect them is to only to not want the Quran to explain itself.


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 10:53:17 PM
Regarding the family of Abraham being normal people or bani-Israel or Quraysh....

There is verse 3:33 which shows they are chosen in the same way Adam and Noah are chosen.  This supports that they people like Adam and Noah and chosen in that sense. That emphasis on Adam and Noah is to show they are chosen like they are chosen. The verses after also support that by emphasizing on how God purified Mariam and chose her, and chosen her above the women of the world.

There is also the verse in suratal Hud about the fact that Sarah should not wonder at being Isaac and Jacob, because it's the affair of God, and to emphasize on that says "God blessings and mercy is upon you o People of the House"....

This while normal people related by blood to Abraham should wonder if they are promised children in old age, and wonder at such an affair, but this giving of Isaac and after Isaac Jacob, was obviously of the affair of God.

And normal blessed people should wonder at that, so the blessings and mercy of God upon them, is such that all blessings found in the alive people were upon them.

And this would continue in Jacob then Joseph.   Auli-Ibrahim are obviously introduced in God's book to emphasize the concept of chosen family is not all that new. That a special meaning of family is given to certain chosen people who are joined in a cause with regards to a nation.

And God also out of his wisdom, made them related by blood, but the closest to Abraham were those who followed him and not necessarily those related by blood.

That is why it makes sense the chosen family of Abraham refers to specific people (Sarah and the Prophets from his seed that succeeded him in leading his nation).






Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 15, 2016, 11:03:09 PM
Regarding the family of Abraham being normal people or bani-Israel or Quraysh....

There is verse 3:33 which shows they are chosen in the same way Adam and Noah are chosen.  This supports that they people like Adam and Noah and chosen in that sense. That emphasis on Adam and Noah is to show they are chosen like they are chosen. The verses after also support that by emphasizing on how God purified Mariam and chose her, and chosen her above the women of the world.

There is also the verse in suratal Hud about the fact that Sarah should not wonder at being Isaac and Jacob, because it's the affair of God, and to emphasize on that says "God blessings and mercy is upon you o People of the House"....

This while normal people related by blood to Abraham should wonder if they are promised children in old age, and wonder at such an affair, but this giving of Isaac and after Isaac Jacob, was obviously of the affair of God.

And normal blessed people should wonder at that, so the blessings and mercy of God upon them, is such that all blessings found in the alive people were upon them.

And this would continue in Jacob then Joseph.   Auli-Ibrahim are obviously introduced in God's book to emphasize the concept of chosen family is not all that new. That a special meaning of family is given to certain chosen people who are joined in a cause with regards to a nation.

And God also out of his wisdom, made them related by blood, but the closest to Abraham were those who followed him and not necessarily those related by blood.

That is why it makes sense the chosen family of Abraham refers to specific people (Sarah and the Prophets from his seed that succeeded him in leading his nation).
If that were the case don't you think Allah (subhaanahu wa ta 'ala) would be more vivid instead of using a general term like 'Aal Ibrahim which with your logic would make sense because they were all chosen as people who would receive divine revelation:

"Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture, purchasing error [in exchange for it] and wishing you would lose the way?

in that verse its obvious that they aren't the line of Prophethood and their families and they are given the revelation while distorting it so its obvious that 'Aal Ibrahim as a whole was chosen to have the revelation revealed to. So your idea that its a specific family has no hard evidence to it.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 15, 2016, 11:16:23 PM
I'm trying to understand your point. Perhaps reword it.

I'm not sure what to make out of it.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 16, 2016, 12:46:13 AM
I'm trying to understand your point. Perhaps reword it.

I'm not sure what to make out of it.

I feel its quite clear. Its that nothing indicates that it was just the prophetic families who are chosen. Quite the opposite as I proved its rather the descendants as a whole.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 12:54:11 AM
In Suratal Naml, what is your understanding of the servants of God that he has chosen?

When it says:

"Peace be upon the servants of God that he has chosen...."

Who are they?

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 16, 2016, 03:20:32 AM
In Suratal Naml, what is your understanding of the servants of God that he has chosen?

When it says:

"Peace be upon the servants of God that he has chosen...."

Who are they?
You're missing the point. The point is none of these verses can be really connected to specifically Ahlulbayt. Especially not that verse, its talking about the Muwahid servants of Allah as in the same verse and the one coming after it the excelence of Tawhid and evil of Shirk. Allah as i proved chose to give a portion of the scripture to the corrupt of bani Isra'il, whats your point?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 04:59:23 AM
When it says "And indeed they (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were with us from the chosen, the selected"

What does it mean?

When you say "Al-Mustafa" regarding Mohammad [pbuh&hf], what does it mean to you?



Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Abubakar on April 16, 2016, 12:34:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 16, 2016, 02:04:18 PM
When it says "And indeed they (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were with us from the chosen, the selected"

What does it mean?

When you say "Al-Mustafa" regarding Mohammad [pbuh&hf], what does it mean to you?
They were selected for prophethood. My point is chosen is ambiguous.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 05:33:55 PM
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.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Rationalist on April 16, 2016, 06:23:58 PM
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?

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Abu Muhammad on April 16, 2016, 06:38:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 16, 2016, 06:46:40 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 07:38:36 PM
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.


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 07:50:32 PM
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.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 09:10:46 PM


Quote
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}



Quote
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}
 
Quote
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}
Quote
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}

Quote
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
Quote

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}
 
Quote
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}
Quote


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
Quote

"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}
 
Quote
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}

Quote
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}
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 09:51:41 PM
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.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 16, 2016, 11:14:28 PM
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.




Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 16, 2016, 11:35:50 PM
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
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Abu Zayd on April 16, 2016, 11:57:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 12:31:17 AM
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"
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 12:47:20 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 17, 2016, 02:10:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 17, 2016, 02:27:24 AM
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 17, 2016, 02:32:03 AM

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.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 03:25:36 AM
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.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 03:33:37 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Abu Muhammad on April 17, 2016, 03:47:09 AM
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").
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 03:51:24 AM
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.


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 17, 2016, 04:04:50 AM
@ Link:

The Imams did not hold the same view that you did. Take this narration for example:

Ali bin Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Umair from Umar bin Uthayna from Buraid bin Mu’awiyah, he said: Abu Ja’afar recited, “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 and those in authority amongst you,” [Surat Al-Nisa’a: 59] He then said, “How can he order to obedience but not in disagreement? He said this to those that were ordered, those that were told to: Obey Allah and obey His Messenger.”

The Imams taught that the current Qur'an was incorrect because of inconsistency.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 04:16:58 AM
This is not my translations:


H 525, Ch. 16, h 1
Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn 'Amir al-Ash'ari has narrated from MuAlia ibn Muhammad
who has said that al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Washsha' narrated to him from Ahmad ibn ‘A'idh from
ibn ’Udhayna from Burayd al-‘Ijli who said that he asked abu Ja'far
(a.s.) about the meaning of the following words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High,
"Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those who possess (Divine) authority among
you." (4:59 Holy Quran). The read the following words of Allah. "Have you seen how those
who had been given a share of the Book believe in idols and Satan and who say, "The
disbelievers are better guided than the believers" (4:51) ‘The say that the leaders of
misguidance and those who call people to Hell’ "God has condemned them. No one can help
one whomGod has condemned. (4:52) Do they have a share in the Kingdom (Divine authority
and Imamat)? Even if they did, they would not have given the smallest thing to the
people." (4:53) " People is a reference to us and the word ‘Naqir’ means the seed inside the
nutt." The Imams (a.s.) explained and added. "Do they enviey the favors that God has done to
some people?" ‘We are the ones who are envied because of the Divine authority that Allah
has given us exclusively.’ The Imams (a.s.) commented. "We have given to the family of
Abraham the Book, Wisdom, and a great Kingdom (4:54). Aliah says that from the
descendents of Abraham He has made His Messengers, Prophets and Imams. How is it that
these people acknowledge the case about the descents of Abraham but they refuse to accept
the leadership (Imamat) in the family of Muhammad?’ The Imams (a.s.) further explained.
"Some have believed, others have disbelieved and tried to prevent people from believing. For
these people, only the intense fire of hell is a sufficient punishment (4:55). We will make
those who reject Our revelations suffer in hell fire. As soon as the fire destroys their skins,
We will give them new skins so that they may suffer more of the torment. God is Majestic
and All-wise." (4:56 Holy Quran)
H 526, Ch. 15, h 2
A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id
from Muhammad ibn al-Fudayl from abu al-Hassan (a.s.) who has said the following about
the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, Or are they envious of the people whom
Allah has granted of His bounties? ( 4:54 Holy Quran) "We are the envied ones."
H 527, Ch. 15, h 3
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id
from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halabi from Muhammad al-Ahwal from Humran
ibn A‘yan who has said that when he asked Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the meaning of
the words of Allah that say, "We have given to the family of Abraham the Book, Wisdom,
and a great Kingdom." (4:54) The Imams (a.s.) said, "It means Prophet-hood." I then asked
about the meaning of ‘wisdom’. The Imams (a.s.) said, "It means understanding and
judgment." I then asked about the meaning of ‘great kingdom.’ The Imams (a.s.) said, "It
means obedience."
H 528, Ch. 16, h 4
Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad has narrated from MuAlia ibn Muhammad from al-Washsha'
from Hammad ibn ‘Uthman from abu al-Sabah who has said that when asked Imam abu
‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the meaning of the words Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, "Or are
they envious of the people whom Allah has granted of His bounties? ( 4:54 Holy Quran) The
Imams (a.s.) said, "O abu al-Sabah, we, I swear by Allah, are the people who are envied."
H 529, Ch. 16, h 5
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Muhammad ibn abu ‘Umayr from 'Umar
ibn Udhayna from Burayd al-‘IJli from abu Ja'far (a.s.) who has said the following about the
words of Allah, the Most Holy, ""We have given to the family of Abraham the Book,
Wisdom, and a great Kingdom." (4:54)
"Great kingdom means that He set Imamat (leadership) in the descendants of Abraham,
Whoever would obey them he has obeyed Allah and whoever would disobey them has
disobeyed Allah and thus is the great kingdom."

In Uyunal Akbar:

From Imam Retha (the 8th Imam): “The Honorable the Exalted God gave distinction to the (prophetic) household over other people in the Wise Book.” Al-Ma’mun asked him (s), “Where is that in God’s Book?” Al-Reza (s) told him, “Indeed the Honorable the Exalted God says, ‘Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people. Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.’ In another place the Honorable the Exalted God says, ‘Or do they envy those people for what God hath given them of his bounty? So then We had already given the family of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and conferred upon them a great authority.’ He then addressed this effect to the rest of the believers, so he said: O ye who believe Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those with the Authority from you.’ This means those whom God has given them the Book and the Wisdom for which they are envied. Therefore, what is understood from the Honorable the Exalted God’s words, ‘Or do they envy the people for what God hath given them of his grace? So then We had already given the family of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and conferred upon them a great authority’ This refers to obeying the Chosen Pure ones.”, so the authority here refers to the obedience owed to them.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 04:25:09 AM
@ Link:

The Imams did not hold the same view that you did. Take this narration for example:

Ali bin Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Umair from Umar bin Uthayna from Buraid bin Mu’awiyah, he said: Abu Ja’afar recited, “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 and those in authority amongst you,” [Surat Al-Nisa’a: 59] He then said, “How can he order to obedience but not in disagreement? He said this to those that were ordered, those that were told to: Obey Allah and obey His Messenger.”

The Imams taught that the current Qur'an was incorrect because of inconsistency.

Thoughts?

1. The Quran is protected by reasoning we know Quran holds over a hadith.
2. There is hadith from Imam Hussain where he says:

وفي الإِحتجاج عن الحسين بن علي عليه السلام في خطبته وأطيعونا فان طاعتنا مفروضة إذ كانت بطاعة الله وطاعة رسوله مقرونة قال الله تعالى أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم فان تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول وقال ولو ردوه إلى الرسول وإلى أولي الأمر منهم لعلمه الذين يستنبطونه منهم ولولا فضل الله عليكم ورحمته لاتبعتم الشيطان إلا قليلاً { إنْ كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَومِ الآخِرِ } فان الإِيمان يوجب ذلك { ذَلِكَ } أي الرد { خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً } من تأويلكم بلا رد.

Basically he quotes the verse as is. There is also a similar hadith from Imam Ali.

3. I don't want to get into a discussion about Tahreef.
4. The reasoning I showed shows the real problem would be if Ulil-Amr were mentioned in the referral, and the fabrications attributed to our Imams about this, just verifies to me, that the Quran is written by an author that perceives beyond humans hasty perceptions.




Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 17, 2016, 04:57:37 AM
Your reasoning conflicts with the reasoning of the Imam and the reasoning of many top Shia scholars. Keep reasoning out of this. I have provided solid evidence that your understanding is incorrect. You cannot simply brush it aside with your "reasoning".

Also... Al Ihtijaaj is your source? It is a few centuries too late. I provided a primary source with an auhentic chain from your most reliable book of hadith Al Kafi. This is also in Tafseer Al Qummi, your earliest and most authoritative book of Tafseer. Your choice of Al Ihtijaaj is a biased approach, for you're simply cherry-picking whatever you like.

Is your ultimate source of guidance your own personal reasoning? If so, then you must believe in an unjust god, for nobody understands these verses in the same way that you do, and the evidence upon the creation seems to only be clear to your unique rationale.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 05:03:56 AM
You don't believe our Imams said this, yet you argue by it. That's a logical fallacy.

That's not an honest discussion.



Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 05:10:14 AM
If so, then you must believe in an unjust god, for nobody understands these verses in the same way that you do,

I remember I use to have discussion with Qaim on shiachat about these verses when he was not a Shia. He eventually came to see Ahlulbayt in Quran.  We use to discuss about the issue of true authority all the time. I know people can eventually submit and accept the truth. Now I'm sure Qaim is much better lover of Ahlulbayt that I am and perceives their truth better then I do.

The thing is it's not about whether people can perceive what I'm saying or not. It's really about hearing past the veils, reflecting past the knots or locks, and defeating what the Shayateen whisper and inspire that try to keep people from Auli-Mohammad.

It took me five years to defeat illogical recitations inspired by Satan and come back to Islam. I know Satan can make the Quran's majesty disappear in the heart, so I'm not wondering about the issue of how Satan can keep people from seeing Auli-Mohammad in Quran, in Salah, in Sunnah.



Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Rationalist on April 17, 2016, 05:31:26 AM
If so, then you must believe in an unjust god, for nobody understands these verses in the same way that you do,

I remember I use to have discussion with Qaim on shiachat about these verses when he was not a Shia. He eventually came to see Ahlulbayt in Quran.  We use to discuss about the issue of true authority all the time. I know people can eventually submit and accept the truth. Now I'm sure Qaim is much better lover of Ahlulbayt that I am and perceives their truth better then I do.

Are you talking about the same Qaim who believes lying is  a pillar of Islam? This is what you call recognizing the Ahlul Bayt?

Q Since when is this taqiyah ? This is just practicing good character. Taqiyah is done when you present your belief and you'llget killed as a result.


That's just one side of it. As you see in the link I posted, part of taqiyya is even praying in the first row at Sunni masajid, visiting their homes and funerals, etc. The point is we cannot be openly against what you believe as the majority, because that risks the bond between Muslims and sometimes it even risks our lives. Many of the early Shi'ah even had kept it a secret that they were Shi'i.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234971164-taqiya-the-shia-concept/#comment-1986660


Quote
It took me five years to defeat illogical recitations inspired by Satan and come back to Islam. I know Satan can make the Quran's majesty disappear in the heart, so I'm not wondering about the issue of how Satan can keep people from seeing Auli-Mohammad in Quran, in Salah, in Sunnah
The Taqiyyah which your brother Qaim believes is the same tactic Iblis used to trick Adam (as).

And he swore unto them (saying): Lo! I am a sincere adviser unto you-  ( Quran Surah Al-A'raf 7:21)
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Rationalist on April 17, 2016, 05:38:18 AM

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


That was the case with Hisham ibn Hakam. He believed God had a body, and in one ahadith Musa al Kazim (as) cursed him for it.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 17, 2016, 09:43:04 AM
You don't believe our Imams said this, yet you argue by it. That's a logical fallacy.

That's not an honest discussion.





I am holding what is authentically accepted in your books and creed against you.

I do not have to believe in it, nor do you have to believe in what is in my books to hold it against me.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 17, 2016, 03:00:59 PM

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.

did that clause really require a mini essay replying to it?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 17, 2016, 03:06:27 PM

I remember I use to have discussion with Qaim on shiachat about these verses when he was not a Shia. He eventually came to see Ahlulbayt in Quran.  We use to discuss about the issue of true authority all the time. I know people can eventually submit and accept the truth. Now I'm sure Qaim is much better lover of Ahlulbayt that I am and perceives their truth better then I do.


In English that is the phenomenon known as brainwashing. Do you think we care who you've misguided before? Do you want a medal or something?

Btw about most people not understanding Tawheed without reflecting on the Qur'an, who are you to say that? I've reflected on them loads, I just do it with a clean slate so I don't lean everything in some way towards Ahlulbayt. What you mean by that is that you want people to reflect on them in your way, not the rational clear and obvious way of Ahl as-Sunnah.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on April 17, 2016, 03:11:36 PM
Isn't "Link" the same guy who became a Murtad, after doing mubahila with some members on Hcy forum? When did he repent later?

And didn't he say that he is undergoing treatment due to mental illness?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 04:41:09 PM
You don't believe our Imams said this, yet you argue by it. That's a logical fallacy.

That's not an honest discussion.



I am holding what is authentically accepted in your books and creed against you.

I do not have to believe in it, nor do you have to believe in what is in my books to hold it against me.

It would prove that our means of authenticating ahadith through our opinions of who is trustworthy or not, is not accurate.

I already believe that anyways. So your not proving anything new. I know there are "authenticated" ahadith in both Sunni and Shia literature, that contradict the Quran.

So it's not proving anything I don't know.

Now you might get into a discussion if Ilmel Rijaal is not a certain means of authenticating ahadith, then, how do we know the true Sunnah?

And to be honest, I can get into a discussion about this, and about how believers in the past were required to act when they didn't know for certain what was truly attributed to God and his Messengers, what they were suppose to do in those times....

And that Ghayba is similar in many respects, but I doubt you want to hear it.

So let's stick to the topic at hand shall we?

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 17, 2016, 05:21:31 PM
Quote
It would prove that our means of authenticating ahadith through our opinions of who is trustworthy or not, is not accurate.

I already believe that anyways. So your not proving anything new. I know there are "authenticated" ahadith in both Sunni and Shia literature, that contradict the Quran.

So it's not proving anything I don't know.

Now you might get into a discussion if Ilmel Rijaal is not a certain means of authenticating ahadith, then, how do we know the true Sunnah?

Indeed, there is no doubt that you do not have a methodology to ascertain truth from falsehood, which is why I do hold the view that you are a follower of your own hawa.

More importantly, every single person in the chain that I have provided is a wajh min wujooh of Shiasm. These narrators are your top scholars according to the likes of Al Tusi and Al Najashi. If you want to believe that they fabricated this narration, then so be it.

Though, be aware that whoever this fabricator is, you can bet your last buck that he does not buy your weak interpretation, which is why he had to claim that the Qur'an was corrupted!
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 05:41:47 PM
So a fabricator that appeared sincere and truthful and top scholar to people had a problem with the verse as is.  So Tusi and Najashi didn't have absolute knowledge and were wrong about a person being truthful. I'm suppose to abandon what because of that?

Does it change what I've said regarding the verse because a fabricator couldn't realize it? Do the verses flowing and leading up to it all a sudden disappear that I ought to begin to doubt it refers to Ahlulbayt?

And the people according to Quran following their desires were always those who followed their fallible leaders and took religion and truth from them dogmatically.

It never shows submitting to the system of scholarship of fallible people is the way to avoid following howa. Rather quite the opposite, it showed people were given light from revelations, clear proofs of the path, and they had reason and light within themselves, to be guided.

But people gave up their Fitra all for verifying the religion passed on by fallible people. That is the trap of Satan. They abandoned the clear light and what was certain, for what was doubtful.

People awakening to the ways of Satan entrapping people to those people who love to lead and those who love to follow their leaders are always accused of being low and ignorant etc.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Farid on April 17, 2016, 06:05:12 PM
Quote
So a fabricator that appeared sincere and truthful and top scholar to people had a problem with the verse as is.  So Tusi and Najashi didn't have absolute knowledge and were wrong about a person being truthful. I'm suppose to abandon what because of that?

When they refer to a scholar as wajh min al-wujooh, then it means that this person was accepted by their community of peers. In this case, we are talking about the best of the best companions of the Imams.

To be honest, their opinions seem to have more weight than yours.

Do not forget that this narration was mentioned in Al Kafi and Tafseer Al Qummi, which suggests that they did not necessarily see this view as heretical.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Abu Muhammad on April 17, 2016, 07:51:16 PM
Bro Link, don't you realized that what you are doing all this while is EXACTLY what typical fallible scholars do? Interpreting and digging the meaning behind Quranic verses to understand their messages?

And how sure are you that your interpretation of those verses are the truth being you yourself are also fallible and, I believe, far more inferior than those scholars with regards to the knowledge and tools required to carry out the task of making tafseer?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 17, 2016, 08:15:38 PM
I lose all passion to reply when the opponent replies with a long unconvincing answer.

BTW if we are to believe the Shia narrations of Tafsir are correctly attributed to the Imams, that would be explicit evidence of their ignorance about Allah's book. (I can provide many examples)

PS. Shia Imams taught no one is allowed to interpret Allah's book except them, the one who does so is a sinner even if his interpretation happened to be correct.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 08:50:03 PM
To be honest, you guys are shifting the discussion from it's origin (about verses of Quran). You want to discuss different ahadith or what our scholars have authenticated and what they haven't instead.

I'll take it you guys don't have a real response. You guys want to cut off the verse 4:53 (mulk) from the next verse (4:54) and make it talking about two different mulks. Disconnect both from the next verse (4:55) and miss the emphasis that's it's emphasizing it's that very authority which is the foundation of Islam (ie. submitting to God's authority in his chosen ones and believing in it). You disconnect that then from the emphasis on God's Ayat, as if Ulil-Amr and the envied people have nothing to do with that. And you try to make it as if Ulil-Amr weren't envied along with the Messenger, despite the clear flow. And then you focus on "refer it to God and the Messenger" but when show there can be logical reasons why God said that that doesn't negate the absolute obedience to the Ulil-Amr and that it even would be problematic that "Ulil-Amr" would be mentioned in the referral, you resort to ahadith. You say why God didn't mention this and that, but when shown there is wisdom in emphasis these people envied who have be likened to the family of Abraham and their authority compared to each other and by contrast to Jewish and Christian scholars false claim of authority and ledaership, you say these are just excuses.

At the same time, you never say, why didn't God say "wa laken in" "but if" or say "then do not obey them" or something clear that would negate them having absolute authority, but you stick to an ambiguous reasoning and argument from ignorance.

Then you want to make a discussion about all sorts of different topics and go away from the original discussion.

You also purposely avoid the meaning of "chosen" with regards to the family of Abraham, because you have becoming allergic to the concept of chosen families in Quran knowing very well they would imply the true family of Mohammad is such a family as well.

You are being purposely obtuse. The clear flow is manifest and it's said in a warning tone, to not disbelieve in the authority of Ulil-Amr by flow.

But you show no fear to God and boldly make yourself obtuse to the clear subject at hand.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 17, 2016, 09:02:06 PM
Dude who the heck is "likened to Abraham's family"??? The verses don't mention Aal-Muhammad in the first place let alone liken them to anyone. The verses are talking about prophets, not regular folks like Ali or his kids. Some Jews envied what Allah bestowed on Abraham's folks from prophecy n kingdom.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 09:14:34 PM
The Ulil-Amr have been compared to the family of Abraham by flow, and it's obvious they are included in the envied people. They are not regular people, they are chosen, exalted, and special like Prophets are. It was that authority that was emphasized that was linked to God, and it was in flow in negating regular claimed authority by normal leaders in society.

O God Bless Mohammad and the family of Mohammad just as you blessed Abraham and the family of Abraham indeed you are Praiseworthy Majestic and make us not turn away from their authority like those who turned away from the authority of the family of Abraham for indeed you have promised fire for those who disbelieve in your Ayat and great reward for those who believe


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 17, 2016, 09:45:27 PM
No they're not special, who gave you permission to raise the level of scholars and politicians to that of prophets!? Even though people may envy them for having authority but we're instructed to follow unless they disobey Allah then the Quran and Sunnah will be the judge between us.

Those previous people you talk about were prophets who received revelation and wisdom. Our leaders after prophethood are not chosen by divine text like prophets, this isn't mentioned anywhere in fact the opposite is common knowledge.

We can't accept your vague interpretation as it's not explicit and quite vague. Are you crazy? You're literally telling us to follow a ghost that you claim Allah has appointed. Nobody has ever seen or heard of this phantom, go believe in this backwards junk yourself.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 17, 2016, 10:44:19 PM
The Ulil-Amr have been compared to the family of Abraham by flow, and it's obvious they are included in the envied people. They are not regular people, they are chosen, exalted, and special like Prophets are. It was that authority that was emphasized that was linked to God, and it was in flow in negating regular claimed authority by normal leaders in society.

O God Bless Mohammad and the family of Mohammad just as you blessed Abraham and the family of Abraham indeed you are Praiseworthy Majestic and make us not turn away from their authority like those who turned away from the authority of the family of Abraham for indeed you have promised fire for those who disbelieve in your Ayat and great reward for those who believe


Nothing in those two verses connects whatsoever, not a word or a phrase. They are about two totally different things. If they were connected the word would have been Ulil Mulk. But it is not so there is no connection. When Allaah connects two verses they use the same terminology or word. Also 'Aal Ibrahim would include the whole of the Quraysh as well so you can't pin it to 'Aal Muhammad anyway.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 10:50:56 PM
^mulk can have multiple meanings and Amr can have multiple meanings, but in context of each other, it's obvious here they are referring to one and the same thing.

This way they interpret one another. This is while if only Amr was used in the verses before, people can then say it's talking about their affair, and not necessarily their authority. While if Amr was not used, it can be said it's referring to kingdom, as people already do.

But together with flow, they interpret one another. That mulk refers to Authority, and Amr refers to authority.

This way Allah [swt] kept the meaning in tact and clear with no way to wiggle out of it.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 17, 2016, 10:55:57 PM
^mulk can have multiple meanings and Amr can have multiple meanings, but in context of each other, it's obvious here they are referring to one and the same thing.

This way they interpret one another. This is while if only Amr was used in the verses before, people can then say it's talking about their affair, and not necessarily their authority. While if Amr was not used, it can be said it's referring to kingdom, as people already do.

But together with flow, they interpret one another. That mulk refers to Authority, and Amr refers to authority.

This way Allah [swt] kept the meaning in tact and clear with no way to wiggle out of it.

yes and you both interpret them as meaning authority... So if they're connected why don't they use the same word?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 17, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
I just explained that. For example say it only used "Amr", people can say it doesn't mean "authority" but it means the affair, and hence others can have authority like a Marjaa or something.

If it only used mulk that people can say it means kingdom and refers to those who have been given the kingdom.

But together used in context of each other, it's obviously referring to the authority. In this way they become synonymous and protect the meaning of what is intended with no room for ambiguity.



Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hadrami on April 18, 2016, 01:03:36 AM
So a fabricator that appeared sincere and truthful and top scholar to people had a problem with the verse as is.  So Tusi and Najashi didn't have absolute knowledge and were wrong about a person being truthful. I'm suppose to abandon what because of that?

A shia discussing a verse which he said is about a bunch of imam who will be our guide, keep us away from deviation and to keep the religion pure, but then later, the same shia is talking about how shia scholar may not know a hadith is fabricated.

Looks like the imam has failed to keep us away from deviation and to keep the religion pure. Another shia FAIL topic :D
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Abu Muhammad on April 18, 2016, 03:56:35 AM
"To be honest, you guys are shifting the discussion from it's origin (about verses of Quran)."

Bro Link, I don't see anybody trying to shift the discussion here. The argument was, as what bro Farid summed up in Reply #43, "Your reasoning conflicts with the reasoning of the Imam and the reasoning of many top Shia scholars". And you yourself admitted that no scholars of your sect interpreted those verses the way you did.

Hence, the question is remain valid. Since you are the only one uniquely holding that kind of interpretion, how could we believe that your interpretation are the truth being you yourself are also fallible and, I believe, far more inferior than those scholars with regards to the knowledge and tools required to carry out the task of making tafseer?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 18, 2016, 08:06:38 AM
BTW this man just destroyed his entire religion without knowing it, by emphasizing on the "flow" of verses and rejecting the narrations, he literally destroyed the Shia understanding of the verse of Wilayah, the verse purification and every single other verse that is related to Ahlul-Bayt since they are all taken out of context.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 19, 2016, 07:52:43 PM
The following is a reply why I don't believe in all out full Taqleed (don't get me wrong, I do follow scholars with a semi blind trust with things I haven't studied with enough knowledge) :


Something that I didn't bring up is the verse:

 

From the Jews were people who alter words from their places and they say we heard and disobeyed, and they heard as one who hears not and listen to us distorting with their tongue and slandering the religion and if they said we heard and we obeyed and do hear and look upon us it would of been better for them and more upright but God has cursed them for their disbelieve so they don't believe but a little.

 

It can be seen that hearing the words of God and Prophets is important, but this is not the same as people then taking the mantle of authority and saying "listen to us", rather, they they must hear and obey and tell people to listen to God and his Prophets and that people only then should look upon them (ie. scholars) for guidance, but this is different then "listen to us" mentality.

I think the following response to a Quranist and part of discussion with them, helps put into perspective this verse with the gist of the discussion leading up to Ulil-Amr.

Salam Atlas

I did forget the verse:

"These who are God has cursed, and who God has cursed you will not for them a helper"

To discuss the translation, you translated as "kingdom". That is a valid translation as far the word goes itself. Indeed words have multiple meanings and often mulk in Quran can only be translated to kingdom.

However, I would say the word "Ulil-Amr" as well as the gist of the discussion, shows the proper translation is "the authority" regarding mulk in these sentences. The reason why amr was not used before, is as you know, amr can be translated as "affair"...so this would probably what is translated just like like mulk is translated into kingdom here. So in this way Amr and mulk become interchangeable and are synonyms and are talking about the same subject here.

Aside from that, is that the people saying "there are more guided then those who believe" who were given a portion of the book were obviously not claiming kingdom. They weren't claiming they had kingdom of Kings in the sense they have an army a palace and dominion of a country under them.

They rather were claiming to be authorities regarding guidance. So the gist of the discussion seems to start with this issue of authority. Do people claiming religious authority or given religious authority by their people have authority? This is the gist of the discussion. So Ulil-Amr is revealed in this context.

But aside from that, if you look at the verse after "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 wisdom and we gave them a great mulk"...it doesn't make sense that mulk here refers to something else then the topic at hand. And this is verified by the words "Ulil-Amr" which verifies the mulkan atheem is about the great authority they were given.

In this sense the gist of the discussion is not saying do they envy worldly kingdom. This is not the issue. What they were envying, was the divine authority given to certain people out of God's grace.

The talk before showed religious scholars of Bani-Israel were such that they wanted to be listened to and obeyed while they themselves would not properly listen to the truth and obey it. They rather were disobedient, and had they listened and said look upon us, ie. rather then you must listen to us and obey us type mentality, it would of been better. But here it's that they had to listen to the Prophets themselves and obey them, then they can be looked upon for guidance, but not given authority in the sense they must be listened to and obeyed.

And the Prophets were rejected due to the false mantle of leadership these people took and now were continuing to take to refute that Mohammad was a Guide and that his successors were bestowed with the authority.

Aside from that, is the emphasis "of them is who believed in it and of them is who turned away from it..." while worldly kingdom is not really something to believe in or disbelieve in regarding God's guidance, but rather is just something that is what it is. But rather it's the divine authority that the family of Abraham was given that, disbelieving in it was such that it merited hell, because it has clear signs and evidence for it, and reward lied in those who believed in it, and hence followed it.

The context of Ulil-Amr is not about government primarily. That his hinted to be part of the reason they were appointed, to govern disputes between people by justice, but that is not the sole reason.

The verses after show the issue of leading the community against oppressors, against their enemies, protecting them against hypocrites, is part of the reason of their authority and leadership.

But the verses before show it definitely is about primarily the authority of guidance, that which people must follow to be guided. That is why it emphasizes on the authority of the family of Abraham.

And to refute that scholars have this authority, we see first it was said it's not for them to say "listen to us" (ie. you must obey us) but rather people can look upon them, and take whatever guidance they can from them, which is totally different then claiming people must obey them.

And then it talks about if these people have a share in the authority, but then people can claim, ok these people have no share, but religious scholars from this nation do. However, you see it then emphasizes that such authority is that which was given to the family of Abraham by God's grace. That such is the true authority, that obedience is linked to God truly through the likes of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. That Joseph was a true possessor of the authority.

And this fairly obvious to everyone because they were Prophets. Prophets as the verses after show, were all sent to be obeyed by God's permission.

The gist of the discussion then is about divine authority. That is the context of the true authority.

Government by the people is important in absence of these people, but I believe Quran shows that democratic anarchy is the true philosophy of authority in absence of those who possess divine authority.

That we aren't going to say this person has authority over us but rather we are trusting you to implement the will of the people and the organization should be grass roots.

However in the case of those who possess the authority and are given the authority, society has to recognize them and submit.

And Atlas, I don't want to insult you, but I feel to be honest, people who don't acknowledge the verses regarding Auli-Mohammad in Quran, are taking the religion as a play thing.

To them this issue is like intellectual masturbation. They want to argue with the verses of God and his way of guidance, rather then submitting to those he who has linked to his rope, and linked to his path.

It's not a game, religion is not a game to be played with. Any ways, I will see your response to this, but if you don't bring anything new, I will move to other verses about the family of Mohammad like the wage verses.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 19, 2016, 08:59:54 PM
^ How many times are you going to repeat that same explanation of yours? It's unconvincing. Rather you're the one playing games with God's verses. You "link" things to each-other the way you prefer without any real need for certain things to be linked. For instance you will link all previous verses discussing prophets to the later word saying "Those in authority from among you" but that's just due to your desire to link it, there's absolutely no issue whatsoever in saying those in authority are neither appointed nor divinely guided, nor is a concept of a divine guide who isn't a prophet recognized by the Arabs. Those in authority in the previous verses you were discussing are far more elevated above those in authority from our nation since they were prophets and they have to be chosen. The obedience of those in authority from our nation is tied to their obedience of God since we can differ with them and in that case God's religion shall be the judge between those in authority and their subjects.

Quote
The verses after show the issue of leading the community against oppressors, against their enemies, protecting them against hypocrites, is part of the reason of their authority and leadership.

But the verses before show it definitely is about primarily the authority of guidance, that which people must follow to be guided. That is why it emphasizes on the authority of the family of Abraham.

Actually it seems to be talking about political authority since it says:

{Or have they a share of kingdom? Then [if that were so], they would not give the people [even as much as] the speck on a date seed.}

This is related to how kings rule their kingdoms and how greedy and vile some of them are.

The one playing games and being detached from reality is yourself, since you call us to implement the impossible. The man you claim God appointed to lead in a divine fashion is absent, nobody has saw or heard of him since centuries let alone confirm his existence.

The last verse about those in authority among us is God's divine way in how subjects and their leaders should settle their differences in a just and fair way that pleases Allah. This is a very useful verse as it organizes the relationship between the ruler and the subjects. This is because rulers are always in position of power as opposed to the poor subjects, so if the people have an issue with their leader in most cases the leader will have his way, he will force them to submit to his views. However, the merciful verse puts both leaders and subjects at an equal footing and places the Book as judge. That's why the likes of Abu Bakr and `Umar used to say "Obey me as long as I obey Allah, when I disobey Him you have no obligation to listen to me."

You as a Twelver who understands nothing of Allah's book except trying to "link" everything to your foreign belief in "Imamah" have stripped the verse of its usefulness and reduced it to another order to obey the non-existent phantom you worship.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 19, 2016, 10:12:44 PM
When God says la yathulumu fateela, it's obviously an expression, that he doesn't do any injustice at all. The verse is saying if they were given authority, the people (whoever is meant here) would not benefit from them at all. They would be nothing to gain from them.

They weren't claiming kingdom in the sense of having dominion over a country and it's citizens, neither would having that give them the right to say what they said "these are more guided then those who believe", and try to misguide people away from the Prophet.

What does political power have to do with the issue of who is more or less guided and being taken as an authority on that?

 
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 19, 2016, 11:03:29 PM
When God says la yathulumu fateela, it's obviously an expression, that he doesn't do any injustice at all. The verse is saying if they were given authority, the people (whoever is meant here) would not benefit from them at all. They would be nothing to gain from them.

That's a possibility but the apparent meaning of the words suggests what I told you. Therefore, not only can there be two interpretations for this but yours is the weakest of the two.

They weren't claiming kingdom in the sense of having dominion over a country and it's citizens, neither would having that give them the right to say what they said "these are more guided then those who believe", and try to misguide people away from the Prophet.

Because they envy the fact that Allah bestowed guidance upon the believers but also they envy the fact that it is the believers who shall have authority. So two things they have an issue with.

Allah is telling us about how they worshiped priests and idols, how they associated with Him partners and how out of arrogance they claimed that they are more guided than the Prophet (saw) and the believers.

Then Allah talks about their lust for power and authority, how if they had be given it they would be greedy and vile and no goodness would come from their rule.

Then Allah speaks of how envious they are and how jealous they are of what he had bestowed upon prophets before Muhammad (saw). This wasn't the first time they acted this way. Then Allah talks about punishment and rewards.

After that, Allah gives advice for those who rule to be just and fair when they judge. Then he tells us to obey such rulers when they follow His guidance but in case they do not follow it, then refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah as judge.

Complicated no?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 19, 2016, 11:54:31 PM
Yeah to me it would be misleading to mean rulers by God.

He talks about religious scholars misleading humanity against his Prophets in Bani-Israel, and continuing to do so with Mohammad.
It then negates their authority asking do they in fact have any share in the authority and if they were in fact given such authority, the people (whoever is meant) would not benefit from them.

So far it's about authority regarding guidance.

Then it emphasizes that those who they envied, whoever they are, are compared to the family of Abraham, and the family of Abraham, were given a great authority as well as the book and wisdom.

Then it emphasizes on those who turned away from that authority, and emphasizes on those who believed in it and tied with disbelieving and believes in his Ayat.

Then it talks about the rule of justice between people which is of course linked to the topic at hand, because, society is need of justice, but this is one of the purposes of revelation (Prophetthood) and the wisdom, and this best implemented by giving due right to God's chosen one.

Then says to obey Allah, and obey Rasool and Ulil-Amr from us, "Authority" here to mean political power doesn't make sense. The verses leading up to it, none of it was a discussion about power in that sense or rulers in that sense.

The emphasis to not turn away from the authority of the Family of Abraham is also very misleading in this context.

For example:

The Nabi says "O you who believe, God appointed Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, And Jacob as leaders and guides before you, indeed who followed them was in paradise, and those who turned away from their authority were in hell, Indeed he gave them a great authority. Indeed those who disbelieve in God's Ayat are going to be in hell while those who believe and do good will be in paradise. O you who believe obey  God and obey me and those who possess the authority from you to the extent you refer all differences among you to the Quran and Sunnah."

It's misleading to think "authority" here refers to anything but the true divine authority of God.

To think here it means rulers is misleading, to think it means divinely appointed guides is the apparent meaning.

Now the Quran is even clearer then the above statement, because it

1. Did a contrast to the misguiding leaders of the past nations. Said do they have such an authority? And this even after telling them it was not in their position to say the past scholars in Bani-Israel, it was not for them to say "listen to us" but rather even if they heard and obeyed, it was upon them say listen (to the words of God and his Prophets) and look toward us, as opposed to saying "listen to us" and obey us, claiming authority and being the axis themselves!
2. Then emphasized such authority is in fact only vested in the like of his chosen ones like the family of Abraham, and that are certain people were being envied in that respect and that such an authority was in fact very great and not meant for normal people.
3. Emphasized on belief in that turning away from  that great authority they were given and warned against disbelief.
4. Emphasized that with "Ayatallah" and disbelief and belief with that is tied to that issue.
5. Then reminds us that God intended the rule of justice among many things and it obviously was that the family of Abraham was such that if they were accepted by humanity, justice would of been implemented, specially due to he knowledge and wisdom and higher taqwa they were given.
6. Then tells us to Obey God and obey the Messenger and those who Possess the Authority from us....

To mean here normal people, or authority is not the same as the one talked above, that disbelieving resulted in hell and believing was tied with believing in God's Ayat, would be very misleading of God in my opinion.

That and the issue if you are realistic, you will know, that if a ruler is given power, and is seen as an authority, it's not so simple to say "I will not obey you when you tell me disobey Quran and Sunnah". It's not that simple.

If you study political science, Quran topics you will begin to see talk a lot about the issue of power. From the perspective of "do not fear people but fear me", and the real issue of contending powers in society, and that power is in the minds of the people, and it's all about the minds of people.

However if people are the real source of who they give power to, then in absence of those who God gave divine authority to, the structure makes sense to be democratic anarchy.

That is why we see Quran talk about everyone being told to be come Rabaniyeen, and that everyone revealed the book is to judge by what God revealed or rule by what God revealed.

It's a responsibility that that falls on the people as a whole.  Even in presence of those given divine authority, the people have to help, they have to speak truth and not spread falsehood, the people have to help one another in Taqwa and righteousness, and have to stand up for justice and strive for it and rise by it.

And inshallah I will make a thread about how this issue also emphasized in Suratal Maeeda, which I believe also by flow is similarly negating authority from people of the book and those who take the religion as a play thing among themselves, and emphasizing who the true Master/Authority/Wali of society is and flows with the issue of making God the ruler/judge for a people that are certain.




Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 20, 2016, 07:53:17 PM
You said:

((Yeah to me it would be misleading to mean rulers by God.))

Well guess what, then according to you God used misleading words. Since the first thing that comes to the mind of any Arab who read "Mulkan `Adheem" "Naseebun min al-Mulk" "Ulil-Amr" are the Rulers. So the apparent meaning for most people is political authority before anything and this in fact was an opinion of some Mufassirin so your opinion is only a possibility therefore you can't build rulings upon it.

You said:

((He talks about religious scholars misleading humanity against his Prophets in Bani-Israel, and continuing to do so with Mohammad.
It then negates their authority asking do they in fact have any share in the authority and if they were in fact given such authority, the people (whoever is meant) would not benefit from them.
So far it's about authority regarding guidance.))

No it's not about authority regarding guidance, I saw your analysis as to why you think it's authority about guidance and it's unconvincing. What was being talked about are two separate things, one is their rejection of correct beliefs as it would spoil whatever money they were making by robbing people:

{Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture, purchasing error [in exchange for it] and wishing you would lose the way?}

And the other is being envious of those whom Allah chose to be in position of political authority simply because they're greedy for money and power.

{Or have they a share in the kingdom? Then [if that were so], they would not give the people [even as much as] the speck on a date seed.}

You said:

((What they there claiming was that they were leaders that ought to be followed with respect to the guidance.))

That's not true, they were actually claiming to be leaders in the general sense. Their leadership was not to be tied only with religious affairs, they wanted to be true kings as that would enable them to have more power and rob people of their wealth.

This was not going to work since Allah chose certain people from Ibrahim's (as) progeny as prophets and kings then gave those men authority both religiously and politically over the corrupt Israelites. This caused them to be jealous and to reject the men chosen by God including our own Prophet (saw).

So when you claim the same for those in authority in our nation, that makes not much sense since those in authority from our nation are neither appointed by God nor are they divine or infallible and this goes for both scholars and kings. You yourself said:

((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.))

You said it with your own mouth, THEY WERE PROPHETS hence they must be obeyed religiously and politically. After our Prophet (saw) there are no more prophets, no one receives revelation thus no one is free from error nor does anyone speak on God's behalf.

Then you go one with some wacky explanations such as:

((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.))

No man, nothing in the verse says that, nor is infallibility mentioned nor are the "trusts" referring to "leadership". You came up with that out of your own pocket. Rather `Ali ibn abi Talib says the verse is advising the ones in authority on how to rule, to give people the trusts and to judge between them in justice. The verse after that discusses the relation between the subjects and the rulers and that it should be based on obedience to God and his messenger.

Your explanation is full of Takalluf and is wacky, I doubt anyone would buy it. As for your so called Shia narrations, they attribute almost every verse to be referring to the 12 Imams so no surprise they claimed it for these verses.

The Prophet (saw) never even followed your philosophy. In his own life he appointed MANY men and placed them in authority and made some generals and placed others in judiciary positions and leaders and deputies etc... All of these men in authority were not infallible nor chosen by divine text even. So how do you expect people after his death (saw) to seek an infallible leader when he himself (saw) never taught them that? They weren't familiar with your Jewish Persian beliefs of legatees and whatnot.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on April 21, 2016, 01:32:03 AM
It doesn't make sense for them to be asked about whether they have dominion in the sense of holding a country under their power, because they weren't claiming that.

It's referring to an authority that they are claiming and were given to it by some people.

It's saying do they have a share in the authority at all, so it does include political authority, but the emphasis is about guidance.

And it shows in reality no one has a share of any authority but those who God appoints like the family of Abraham.

The emphasize on "mulk" "great mulk" is then emphasized "So them is who believed in it and of them is who turned away from it", while this doesn't make sense to be about acknowledging outward kingdom, but rather, it's obviously about authority that is linked to God and believing in his Ayat.

Aside from that, was the verse before about certain Jews saying "listen to us" while they themselves were people who heard but it was if they didn't hear and were disobedient, while took on the mantle of leadership and purity.

You are saying the comparison doesn't make sense to you because those in the authority in this nation are not appointed by God, but that is where the verse of Ulil-Amr is placed, that it what is emphasized (ie. those who God gave his authority to like the family of Abraham) so it obviously, it doesn't make sense with your outlook but with the Shia out look it makes sense.

So even if it was a foreign concept the Quran introduces it, and manifests it clearly, by emphasizing on the authority a certain family was given and emphasizing on believing in it and tying it with believing in God's Ayat, and warns against disbelieving it and ties it with disbelieving in God's Ayat, and in this flow, emphasizes on obedience to Ulil-Amr.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on April 21, 2016, 04:23:45 AM
No it ain't clear, sorry mate, even your Imam claimed it was corrupted and that Tahreef took place because how can God appoint divine leaders then allow people to differ with them. That's what's apparent, keep wrestling with it.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: GreatChineseFall on April 22, 2016, 11:57:38 PM
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:

Quote
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.

I really had to scratch my head with this one too. I guess he meant that everything can be made ambiguous by people playing dumb just like how sunni's play dumb with his evidence. At least I hope that was what he meant.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on April 23, 2016, 02:14:04 PM
Is he really still going?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on September 01, 2017, 02:40:18 PM
I re-read this thread, and I honestly don't know why you guys don't accept except that you are overwhelmed by the sorcery.

Read the last two Surahs (the two refuge Surahs) often before you sleep, when you get up, etc...

Inshallah - you will be cured of the overwhelming darkness and see the truth.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: wannabe on September 04, 2017, 05:31:55 AM
do we have any hadith, companions asking who are these ulil amri?
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on September 04, 2017, 06:40:19 AM
do we have any hadith, companions asking who are these ulil amri?

Most likely not, because NO ONE understood it in the way this weirdo understands it, if they understood it like that they would have asked the Prophet (saw) directly and in NUMBERS, so it wouldn't be one or two individual asking, it'll be hundreds.

I like to add, that we actually have an authentic narration saying EXACTLY why this verse was revealed and who was the individual (A chief appointed by the Prophet) that was being discussed.

Again I repeat, this weirdo took a beneficial verse of great wisdom and turned into a useless text talking about a non-existing phenomenon.
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on September 05, 2017, 01:16:18 AM
.Again I repeat, this weirdo took a beneficial verse of great wisdom and turned into a useless text talking about a non-existing phenomenon.

Because it's more beneficial to obey Yazeed then to obey Hussain.

Because it's more beneficial to be ruled by the devil and his forces then Yahya who was martyred by them.

Because it's more beneficial to follow people you can't even prove are not Illuminati let alone prove they are believers...

Because it's more beneficial to follow people who attribute purity to themselves as opposed to those who God attribute purity by clear proof and clear authority.

Because it's more beneficial to follow the disaster of human governing themselves as opposed to making God the Master and Governor of our affairs through his appointed Kings.

You religion is a mess. It created a mess to the world because it's origin is as Quran shows the dark friends of Satan and his Jinn army.

You follow the Pharaohs and Hamans...

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on September 05, 2017, 01:19:42 AM
do we have any hadith, companions asking who are these ulil amri?

Yes, the believers do have these reports from the Prophet.

...from Jabir ibn Abdillah al-Ansari that he said: "When Allah, the Mighty, the Great, sent to His Prophet, Muhammad (s.a.w.), the verse, O you who believe! obey Allah and the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, I said, 'O Messenger of Allah! We know Allah and His Messenger, but who are those vested with authority whose obedience Allah has conjoined to your obedience? (The Prophet) said: 'They are my caliphs, O Jabir! and the Imams of the Muslims after me. The first of them is 'Ali son of Abutalib, then al-Hasan, then al-Husayn, then 'Ali son of al-Husayn, then Muhammad son of 'Ali who is mentioned as al-Baqir in the Torah; you will surely meet him, O Jabir! when you see him convey my salam (greetings) to him. Then as-Sadiq Ja'far son of Muhammad; then Musa son of Ja'far; then 'Ali son of Musa; then Muhammad son of 'Ali; then 'Ali son of Muhammad; then al-Hasan son of 'Ali; then Muhammad (whose name and patronym will be the same as mine) son of al-Hasan, the Proof of Allah on His earth andBaqiyyatullah (the one kept safe by Allah) among His servants; he is the one by whose hands Allah, Sublime is His remembrance, will conquer the whole world from the east to the west; he it is who will remain hidden from his followers and friends for a such a long period that no one will remain firm on the belief of his imamah except he whose heart has been tested by Allah for faith.'"Jabir says: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Will his followers get any benefit from him during his occultation?' (The Prophet, s.a.w.) said: 'Certainly, by Him Who has sent me with prophethood! they will be guided by his light and benefit from his wilayah(love, mastership) during his occultation as people benefit from the sun when it is hidden in cloud. O Jabir! this is part of the hidden secrets of Allah. So keep it hidden except from the people who deserve to know.'" (Tafsir al-Burhan )


Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Link on September 05, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
.Again I repeat, this weirdo took a beneficial verse of great wisdom and turned into a useless text talking about a non-existing phenomenon.

Because it's more beneficial to obey Yazeed then to obey Hussain.

Because it's more beneficial to be ruled by the devil and his forces then Nabi Yahya who was martyred by them.

Because it's more beneficial to follow people you can't even prove are not Illuminati let alone prove they are believers...

Because it's more beneficial to follow people who attribute purity to themselves as opposed to those who God attribute purity by clear proof and clear authority.

Because it's more beneficial to follow the disaster of human governing themselves as opposed to making God the Master and Governor of our affairs through his appointed Kings.

You religion is a mess. It created a mess to the world because it's origin is as Quran shows the dark friends of Satan and his Jinn army.

You follow the Pharaohs and Hamans...
Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on September 05, 2017, 04:41:25 AM
do we have any hadith, companions asking who are these ulil amri?

Yes, the believers do have these reports from the Prophet.

...from Jabir ibn Abdillah al-Ansari that he said: "When Allah, the Mighty, the Great, sent to His Prophet, Muhammad (s.a.w.), the verse, O you who believe! obey Allah and the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, I said, 'O Messenger of Allah! We know Allah and His Messenger, but who are those vested with authority whose obedience Allah has conjoined to your obedience? (The Prophet) said: 'They are my caliphs, O Jabir! and the Imams of the Muslims after me. The first of them is 'Ali son of Abutalib, then al-Hasan, then al-Husayn, then 'Ali son of al-Husayn, then Muhammad son of 'Ali who is mentioned as al-Baqir in the Torah; you will surely meet him, O Jabir! when you see him convey my salam (greetings) to him. Then as-Sadiq Ja'far son of Muhammad; then Musa son of Ja'far; then 'Ali son of Musa; then Muhammad son of 'Ali; then 'Ali son of Muhammad; then al-Hasan son of 'Ali; then Muhammad (whose name and patronym will be the same as mine) son of al-Hasan, the Proof of Allah on His earth andBaqiyyatullah (the one kept safe by Allah) among His servants; he is the one by whose hands Allah, Sublime is His remembrance, will conquer the whole world from the east to the west; he it is who will remain hidden from his followers and friends for a such a long period that no one will remain firm on the belief of his imamah except he whose heart has been tested by Allah for faith.'"Jabir says: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Will his followers get any benefit from him during his occultation?' (The Prophet, s.a.w.) said: 'Certainly, by Him Who has sent me with prophethood! they will be guided by his light and benefit from his wilayah(love, mastership) during his occultation as people benefit from the sun when it is hidden in cloud. O Jabir! this is part of the hidden secrets of Allah. So keep it hidden except from the people who deserve to know.'" (Tafsir al-Burhan )




Who told you Jabir said this? Prove he said it.

Title: Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
Post by: Hani on September 05, 2017, 04:43:28 AM
.Again I repeat, this weirdo took a beneficial verse of great wisdom and turned into a useless text talking about a non-existing phenomenon.

Because it's more beneficial to obey Yazeed then to obey Hussain.

Because it's more beneficial to be ruled by the devil and his forces then Yahya who was martyred by them.

Because it's more beneficial to follow people you can't even prove are not Illuminati let alone prove they are believers...

Because it's more beneficial to follow people who attribute purity to themselves as opposed to those who God attribute purity by clear proof and clear authority.

Because it's more beneficial to follow the disaster of human governing themselves as opposed to making God the Master and Governor of our affairs through his appointed Kings.

You religion is a mess. It created a mess to the world because it's origin is as Quran shows the dark friends of Satan and his Jinn army.

You follow the Pharaohs and Hamans...



See? Only cryptic messages about Illuminati and nonsense, nothing of substance. Then he accuses Islam of being a "mess".