TwelverShia.net Forum

The need for "infallible prophet-like imam" to be clearly mentioned in the Quran

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Equate

Assalamu alaikum,

I've always observed that the shias always, in their attempts to establish their religion, will try to drag you into the depths of sentimental discussions about historico-political discords and events that took place after the death of the prophet (pbuh). They try to make it look like its all about "khilafah vs. imamah", "who you choose to follow and who we choose to follow" after the prophet (pbuh) etc. etc. However, an informed scrutiny immediately reveals that "imamah" (as understood in the shia theology) is anything but a counterpart to "khilafah" (in sunni Islam). "Imamah" is rather a direct counterpart to the concept of "nabuwwah" in the Quran. Imamah, as I understand reading from various shi' sources, is simply an extension to nabuwwah (with imams being supposedly of higher order) in the name of leadership after prophet (pbuh) under the guise of the word "imam". Narrowing shia vs. sunni down to "khilafa vs. imamah" as though it were just a historico-political split is really misguiding to the unsuspecting mind. Seeing shias try to often do that is very frustrating.

We don't follow the three khalifas (ra) as infallible prophet-like holy figures whose words are absolute truth. We don't follow them as prophets like they do their imams. We don't build shrines around their dead bodies and send millions of worshippers to bow down there and pray for help. The three khalifas were part of the Islamic history, but they are long gone and dead. They were righteous humans who strove to bring us the message of Allah (swt) and His Rasul (pbuh); they will dwell in Jannah (radiAllahu anhum) as Allah (swt) promised for them. We respect them and accept them as righteous leaders in the history of Islam.

But, what about the imams? Even the most moderate verson of twelverism believe that their imams are higher in rank than prophets! Their infallibility is via direct divine intervention (just like prophets). They must be followed absolutely (just like prophets). They receive inspiration directly from Allah (swt) to guide people (just like prophets). Denying their words are like denying the words of prophets and of Allah (swt). Much of their religion is based on quoting their hadiths because they regard their words as equal to the words of prophet (pbuh), and as infallible about Islam as the words of prophet (pbuh).

Imamah = An extension to nabuwat (supposedly of higher order) in the name of leadership after prophet (pbuh) under the guise of the word "imam"
Imamah =  Associating intermediaries with Allah (swt) in apparent acts of worship by going to shrines, performing patterned rituals (kissing, bowing down), and asking them for what one otherwise asks and prays to Allah (swt) alone.

VS.

Khilafa of Abu Bark, Umar, Uthman (radiAllahu anhum) = A history of the past about the leaders of the muslim ummah after the death of prophet (pbuh).

And, in the present, khilafah is general leadership of the muslim ummah as chosen through shura. Imamah is the guiding of mankind through direct divine intervention, infallible communication and instructions from Allah (SWT) directly (such privileges were reserved only for prophets and messengers, and Quran makes it very clear that Muhammad ((pbuh) is the last such person to have direct communication and intervention from Allah (swt)).

So, this begs the question, how is khilafah a counterpart to imamah then?


Now, what do we understand when we say nabi or rasool? Whatever word we use, the underlying sense is that Allah (SWT) throughout history has elected persons from amongst mankind with whom He (SWT) had direct communication, and they had the task of inviting people to Allah (SWT) and guiding mankind as per His instructions. So, since they were holy representatives who received information from Allah (SWT), when they communicate with the people, their representation, the words they speak, or the communication with the people must be infallible. The prophets throughout time were not all given the same rank in their prophethood. Some were prophets who were leaders for great nations and great many people (e.g. Ibrahim (as) and some of his progeny). Some were prophets who had little to no following and restricted to their small locality and following. But, what they all had in common was that they all had the task to guide humans and had direct communication with Allah (SWT), and they were infallible in relaying His (SWT) message. The most fundamental problem with shi'ism that I find is that they give this EXACT attributes of prophethood (that essentially defines prophethood) to their imams as well even though some of them try to distinguish imams from prophets with the excuse that its a different word (as if it makes a difference). [I heard their classical scholars actually admit there is no difference between prophets and imams except that imams are actually higher than prophets. Somebody can clarify].

All this in light of the fact that the Quran clearly mentions that this line of divinely chosen infallible human representatives ends with Muhammad (pbuh) being the last of them. This does seem to put shi'ism on a very dangerous level on the verge of kufr (or this is probably one of the reasons why many sunni scholars call shi'sm kufr much in the same way that Qadiayanism is kufr).

With that said, such an incredible concept (which is apparently much in contradiction to such clear Quranic messages as 'khatmun nabiyyeen') warrants an incredible proof. But, there is not the slightest hint of it in the Quran, let alone "an incredible proof". Islam is the truth, and anyone coming to Islam from outside of it will find two different sets of hadith literature (sunni vs. shia hadiths) with the Quran being the only commonality. So, he/she HAS to judge these two groups exclusively by the Quran to come to a conclusion about the truth. It really needs no mentioning who is in line with the Quran on such fundamental issues as "does divine intervention and appointment continue after Muhammad (pbuh)?"

Imamah is not just any usul ad-deen upon which salvation is dependent, it is one of those "usuls ad-deen" that absolutely need a mentioning in the Quran. If the creator of the universe wants us to follow His way through the infallible instructions as spoken/communicated by certain divinely appointed persons (whose words are absolute truth as if it were from the creator Himself), the least He could do is tell us who those persons are, or tell us CLEARLY that there is this office of representatives from Him that we must follow to be saved. Yet, let alone telling us clearly or mentioning by name, there is not even the slightest inkling about it in the Quran. [Claims such as "those of authorities from amongst you = infallible imams" are just so ridiculous]. Imagine a world where we have a Quran in which Muhammad (pbuh) is not mentioned, and we don't know who our prophet is, and many different narrations connecting to many different persons are being claimed to be the sunnah of the said prophet.  :-\
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 01:47:42 AM by Equate »

Abu Muhammad

Very well written, brother Equate!
How could I miss this post for over 2 weeks?
😅

Muhammad Tazin

good work indeed

iceman

Very well written? Good work indeed? If I or any Shia had put a post that long then the words ESSAY or BORING or YAWN while reading it would have been used. Anyways if you had read the Qur'an properly and understood it truly and really knew what Shiaism is all about then you wouldn't be dwelling in such thoughts. Apart from this you need to save your own made belief and faith which depends on historical incidents and events based on political rife and personal differences.

Mythbuster1

Very well written? Good work indeed? If I or any Shia had put a post that long then the words ESSAY or BORING or YAWN while reading it would have been used. Anyways if you had read the Qur'an properly and understood it truly and really knew what Shiaism is all about then you wouldn't be dwelling in such thoughts. Apart from this you need to save your own made belief and faith which depends on historical incidents and events based on political rife and personal differences.

Lol you still cannot produce a CLEAR verse on divine authority, you use historical evidences to back up your claim.

Verse 33/33 you use historical evidences and then twist it

Verse 5/55 you use historical evidences and twist it to your understanding, that verse could be for ANY Muslim in prayer.

Verse 2/124 you use history and argue from history to argue about a promotion theory????😜

You can’t and couldn’t provide a clear verse like I did with.....SHURA, you add on historical events to add weight to your divine Imamate theory.

Trust me there is NOTHING of shiism in the Quran the brother who started the thread is RIGHT look at your theory on verse of Ibrahim as you call it promotion without ANY evidence from the Quran but you will use historical evidence to back yourself up not understanding the concept of nabuwwah and blindly accepting Shiite theories without thinking, one example being the FRIEND/KHALIL of Allah swt and one of the greatest prophets as being prophet before being promoted......yet our great prophet saw never got promoted to such whilst His progeny bypassed prophethood to attain Imamate???

It’s all theories plucked from historical accounts.

iceman

Lol you still cannot produce a CLEAR verse on divine authority, you use historical evidences to back up your claim.

Verse 33/33 you use historical evidences and then twist it

Verse 5/55 you use historical evidences and twist it to your understanding, that verse could be for ANY Muslim in prayer.

Verse 2/124 you use history and argue from history to argue about a promotion theory????😜

You can’t and couldn’t provide a clear verse like I did with.....SHURA, you add on historical events to add weight to your divine Imamate theory.

Trust me there is NOTHING of shiism in the Quran the brother who started the thread is RIGHT look at your theory on verse of Ibrahim as you call it promotion without ANY evidence from the Quran but you will use historical evidence to back yourself up not understanding the concept of nabuwwah and blindly accepting Shiite theories without thinking, one example being the FRIEND/KHALIL of Allah swt and one of the greatest prophets as being prophet before being promoted......yet our great prophet saw never got promoted to such whilst His progeny bypassed prophethood to attain Imamate???

It’s all theories plucked from historical accounts.

😊 Many verses have been provided but unfortunately you can't win from ignorants or make them understand. 😊

iceman

Lol you still cannot produce a CLEAR verse on divine authority, you use historical evidences to back up your claim"

No, clear verses have been provided from the Qur'an.

"Verse 33/33 you use historical evidences and then twist it"

Apart from our analysis you were asked about yours and NO COMMENT from the other side.

"Verse 5/55 you use historical evidences and twist it to your understanding, that verse could be for ANY Muslim in prayer"

Put the verse forward and give your analysis. Tell me how it could be for ANY Muslim.

"Verse 2/124 you use history and argue from history to argue about a promotion theory????😜"

When you are put through a test or quest and if you succeed then what was it for? What's the purpose? Abraham was tested by his Lord and when he succeeded then he was made an Imam of the people, what's difficult to understand here? What are you running from?

Shura, yes of course. Where was Shura in Saqifa? Abu Bakr named and appointed his successor and Umar arranged a five man committee to choose the next leader, why didn’t they follow Shura?
WAKE UP MAN!

Mythbuster1

Lol you still cannot produce a CLEAR verse on divine authority, you use historical evidences to back up your claim"

No, clear verses have been provided from the Qur'an.

"Verse 33/33 you use historical evidences and then twist it"

Apart from our analysis you were asked about yours and NO COMMENT from the other side.

"Verse 5/55 you use historical evidences and twist it to your understanding, that verse could be for ANY Muslim in prayer"

Put the verse forward and give your analysis. Tell me how it could be for ANY Muslim.

"Verse 2/124 you use history and argue from history to argue about a promotion theory????😜"

When you are put through a test or quest and if you succeed then what was it for? What's the purpose? Abraham was tested by his Lord and when he succeeded then he was made an Imam of the people, what's difficult to understand here? What are you running from?

Shura, yes of course. Where was Shura in Saqifa? Abu Bakr named and appointed his successor and Umar arranged a five man committee to choose the next leader, why didn’t they follow Shura?
WAKE UP MAN!


Verse 3/33 has been explained and there is vast information on it from our side in this website please do use the SEARCH feature maybe you know our stance instead you like to go round the merry go round😉

Verse 5/55.......I believe in Allah swt and His messenger saw they are MY allies
MY allies are those who also believe whom also establish prayer give charity and BOW DOWN in worship..........sounds like ANY ahlu sunnah follower.

See straight from the Quran EASILY understood and implement.

Somehow you will relate it to Ali ra and a beggar and USE OTHER WORKS and NOT Quran to prove your point😜
Try using Quran on its own LIKE I DO!

You can’t hence you are stuck in explaining Imamate clearly from Quran for months if not nearly a year to me, you back out by saying we are close minded.....LOL😂😂👍😂

How come Ibrahim as has a test yet prophet saw wasn’t even promoted?? On top of that His progeny bypassed prophethood to get the higher Imamate status??
Contradictions??? Look it up in a dictionary!

Yes SHURA is in the Quran alhamdulillah it’s clearly worded.........where in Quran is divine Imamate CLEARLY worded???
It’s been months if not a year.......WAKE UP MAN!!!!

😂😂😂👍👍😂

Equate

Very well written? Good work indeed? If I or any Shia had put a post that long then the words ESSAY or BORING or YAWN while reading it would have been used. Anyways if you had read the Qur'an properly and understood it truly and really knew what Shiaism is all about then you wouldn't be dwelling in such thoughts. Apart from this you need to save your own made belief and faith which depends on historical incidents and events based on political rife and personal differences.

Many verses have been provided but unfortunately you can't win from ignorants or make them understand.

All you do is write empty rhetoric and make ad-hominem attacks. I've seen you time and time again doing this all over in this forum. If you don't have something constructive to write that actually addresses the points being made in the posts you are replying to, then don't write a response at all. The "oh many evidences have been provided but you can't understand them", "oh it is there you don't get it", "oh such a big TLDR essay" - if you only respond with such emotional balderdash/childish rhetoric and nothing else that actually addresses the points, its really frustrating for the people reading through these threads looking for a shia stance on them but coming out empty.

I am going to quote something from you and give you my stance on it. I really hope you make proper, sensible and constructive response actually addressing my points rather than spewing the usual, evasive "oh the essay! oh TLDR! you ignorant! you don't understand!" ones.

When you are put through a test or quest and if you succeed then what was it for? What's the purpose? Abraham was tested by his Lord and when he succeeded then he was made an Imam of the people, what's difficult to understand here? What are you running from?

You know the Quran is in arabic. The first thing any sincere reader of the text will do is look up what the arabic word "imam" actually means. Here is lane's lexicon (that quotes classical dictionaries such as kamoos al-muhit, taj al-arus etc.): Imamun: A person, or learned man, whose example is followed, or who is imitated; any exemplar, or object of imitation, to a people or company of men, such as head, chief, or leader, or some other person.
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000128.pdf

The plain understanding anyone (who is not influenced by extraneous pre-conceived ideas like a shia is) will get after reading the text in its context is: after putting Ibrahim (as) through a test, Allah (SWT) promised to make him a leading example FOR a great assembly of people (imam li-nnas) as a prophet whose conduct and path are to be imitated and followed. Isn't it what he (as) became? Didn't Allah's (SWT) promise come true? More than half of the world's population are adherents of what is called "abrahamic religions".

This is exactly what is echoed in nearly all sunni tafasir and exactly in line with the definition provided for the word in dictionary. Can you please stop looking at the word "imam" through your constricted shia lenses? You know the word "imam" has a generic sense.

Now, was Ibrahim (as) already an "imam (in the above sense) for the people/mankind" before he was promised to be made such? No. A prophet does not necessarily intrinsically mean that he is also "imam (sense above) for mankind" (the part "li-nnas" is important). There have been prophets that had little to no following at all. There have been prophets that we've never heard of or known, never mentioned in the Quran or any previous scripture. Could Ibrahim (as) been one of those regular prophets if he hadn't acted the way he did in the test and if Allah (SWT) never made such promise to him and some from his progeny? Absolutely yes. Did they get a promotion? Well, duh!

You know the word "nabi" has a very specific religious meaning strictly and clearly assigned to it by the Quran and only used in that sense UNLIKE the word "imam" which is over and over again being used in the generic sense as mentioned above from lane's lexicon. Take for example,

"And those who say, "Our Lord, grant us from among our wives and offspring comfort to our eyes and make us an imam for the righteous."" (Quran, 25:74)

Is every muslim an "imam for the righteous"? Absolutely not. Are we asking for a promotion? Absolutely yes. Are we asking to be promoted to a specific higher station in which we are infallible and what not? I don't think this needs an answer from me, does it? Unfortunately, you use this exact fallacy from the texts in the Quran to make a case for your infallible prophet-like shia imams. Saddeningly, as absurd as this is, other instances where you try to squeeze water from a rock in desperation of trying to prove shia imamah (e.g. "those of you in authority = CLEAR proof of infallible imams") are even more absurd.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 10:58:06 PM by Equate »

wannabe

You know the word "nabi" has a very specific religious meaning strictly and clearly assigned to it by the Quran and only used in that sense UNLIKE the word "imam" which is over and over again being used in the generic sense as mentioned above from lane's lexicon. Take for example,

"And those who say, "Our Lord, grant us from among our wives and offspring comfort to our eyes and make us an imam for the righteous."" (Quran, 25:74)

Is every muslim an "imam for the righteous"? Absolutely not. Are we asking for a promotion? Absolutely yes. Are we asking to be promoted to a specific higher station in which we are infallible and what not? I don't think this needs an answer from me, does it?
[Shakir 25:63] And the servants of the Beneficent Allah are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.
[Shakir 25:64] And they who pass the night prostrating themselves before their Lord and standing.
[Shakir 25:65] And they who say: O our Lord! turn away from us the punishment of hell, surely the punishment thereof is a lasting.
,
,
[Shakir 25:72] And they who do not bear witness to what is false, and when they pass by what is vain, they pass by nobly.
[Shakir 25:73] And they who, when reminded of the communications of their Lord, do not fall down thereat deaf and blind.
[Shakir 25:74] And they who say: O our Lord! grant us in our wives and our offspring the joy of our eyes, and make us guides to those who guard (against evil).
[Do take note of conjunction AND used].
i can always recite Quran[25:74] in my dua. but honestly i was disquaiified by  Quran[25:64], if not by Quran[25:63] already. so, i believe, this ayat is not for ordinary muslim like me.

...Saddeningly, as absurd as this is, other instances where you try to squeeze water from a rock in desperation of trying to prove shia imamah (e.g. "those of you in authority = CLEAR proof of infallible imams") are even more absurd.
are you referring to ayat Quran [4:59]?
[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
i understand, there're differing interpretations of this ayat.
my understanding is that, there're 3 entities (let's take out Allah from the equation) ie
1. O you who believe
2. the Messenger
3. Ulil Amri.
it's quite obvious to me, (2) and (3) are not included inside (1), in this ayat.
thus "you" in the phrase "then if you quarrel about anything" is referring to those mukmin being commanded to obey.
if this sound absurd, then the fault is totally mine  ::)

Abu Muhammad

are you referring to ayat Quran [4:59]?
[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
i understand, there're differing interpretations of this ayat.
my understanding is that, there're 3 entities (let's take out Allah from the equation) ie
1. O you who believe
2. the Messenger
3. Ulil Amri.
it's quite obvious to me, (2) and (3) are not included inside (1), in this ayat.
thus "you" in the phrase "then if you quarrel about anything" is referring to those mukmin being commanded to obey.
if this sound absurd, then the fault is totally mine  ::)


It does sound absurd:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ       
[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you;

To whom the phrase "مِنْكُمْ" refers to if not back to no. 1 i.e. "O you who believe". It is obvious from the ayah itself.

Thus, "you" in the phrase "then if you quarrel about anything" is referring to those mukmin being commanded to obey AND THE ULUL AMRI HIMSELF

You claimed to be non-partisan but most of the time, you argued more than Twelvers do. I wonder why...

wannabe

It does sound absurd:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ       
[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you;

To whom the phrase "مِنْكُمْ" refers to if not back to no. 1 i.e. "O you who believe". It is obvious from the ayah itself.

Thus, "you" in the phrase "then if you quarrel about anything" is referring to those mukmin being commanded to obey AND THE ULUL AMRI HIMSELF
Quote
my understanding is that, there're 3 entities (let's take out Allah from the equation) ie
1. O you who believe
2. the Messenger
3. Ulil Amri.
it's quite obvious to me, (2) and (3) are not included inside (1), in this ayat.
from among you... so that we know ulil amri is not from JIN but mankind. seriously, do you think ulil amri is included in (1)? if this is not the case, then "you" as you mean it, is a bit odd to me. but that's ok as i believe everyone is free to choose
[Shakir 18:29] ....so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve;
You claimed to be non-partisan but most of the time, you argued more than Twelvers do. I wonder why...
i do read a lot from different sources. most of the time, i joined just to present the other side of the story so as to cool down the situation. otherwise, i'm just a silent reader.
why? it seems kinda of stupid to "fight" about something that happened 14++ years ago while the ummah is being attacked from left and right.

Equate

from among you... so that we know ulil amri is not from JIN but mankind...

So, Allah says "from among you" in order that we are able to know that those amongst us in authority are actually human and not jinn?  :o

If this ^^ is  genuinely your understanding of the verse (and your genuinely understood argument about the reason for using the phrase "minkum"), then I'm not sure if anybody should take you seriously in this forum. No offense.

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." (Quran 4:59)

The rule of referring by pronoun in language makes it absolute that "those in authority" are indeed part of "you" in "if you disagree over anything" -  because "you" in "if you disagree over anything" must refer back to the preceding "you" in "those in authority among you". Therefore, "those in authority" are clearly included as a subset of "you" in "if you disagree over anything".

The fact that "those in authority" are indeed included in "you" of "if you disagree over anything" is corroborated by the complete absence of "those in authority" in the next sentence where Allah (SWT) is telling us to refer to Allah and the Messenger ONLY, if there is a dispute. The obvious meaning is as follows:

If you (you = O you who believe = those under authority as well as those in authority, i.e., believers as a whole) disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2018, 08:20:54 PM by Equate »

Equate

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." (Quran 4:59)

If "those in authority among you" referred to divinely appointed infallible authorities as guided by direct communication from Allah (SWT) Himself, it would be VERY odd that Allah decided not to refer to them as well in times of disputes, i.e., it would be VERY odd that He did not use the phrase "refer it to Allah, the messenger, and those in authority" just like in the preceding part.

If the shia theory were to be taken, the vast majority of the time the muslim ummah will exist would be at the hands of the divine infallible guidance of "those in authority" rather than of the prophet (pbuh). Therefore, referring things to the infallible "those in authority" at times of dispute in the ummah would make more sense than referring it to the messenger who would be there for a very short period of time. YET, the next sentence in the verse completely omits "those in authority" in terms of where to refer to when there is a dispute. In light of this alone, a genuine reader will have absolutely no doubt that "those in authority from among you = infallible imams" is a pure invention/an interpolation, and a poor one at that. The fact that Allah (SWT) omitted "those in authority" in the next sentence when it comes to settlement of disputes makes it clear that "those in authority" are simply not infallible (they too are subject to falling to disputes) and that "Allah and the messenger" are the only infallible sources of guidance that the ummah will be left with.

In terms of the general obeying, "Allah, the messenger and those of authority from among the believers" is used. But, in the very succeeding sentence, when it came to the matters of settling of dispute, the sudden absence of "those in authority" alongside "Allah and the messenger" (as it appeared in the preceding sentence) was so devastating to the shia theories that many esteemed shi'i scholars actually went on to explain that there was a tahreef done on the verse, insinuating themselves that in the present state the verse simply is against the concept of shia imamah rather than for it.

Read here: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/

wannabe

So, Allah says "from among you" in order that we are able to know that those amongst us in authority are actually human and not jinn?  :o

If this ^^ is  genuinely your understanding of the verse (and your genuinely understood argument about the reason for using the phrase "minkum"), then I'm not sure if anybody should take you seriously in this forum. No offense.
none taken. i'm just a layman. Now that you've mentioned it, i did a little search and found out verses containing:
1. rasuulan min anfusihim
2. rasuulan minkum
3. rasuulan minhum
4. ulil amri minkum
5. uill amri minhum 

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." (Quran 4:59)

The rule of referring by pronoun in language makes it absolute that "those in authority" are indeed part of "you" in "if you disagree over anything" -  because "you" in "if you disagree over anything" must refer back to the preceding "you" in "those in authority among you". Therefore, "those in authority" are clearly included as a subset of "you" in "if you disagree over anything".

The fact that "those in authority" are indeed included in "you" of "if you disagree over anything" is corroborated by the complete absence of "those in authority" in the next sentence where Allah (SWT) is telling us to refer to Allah and the Messenger ONLY, if there is a dispute. The obvious meaning is as follows:

If you (you = O you who believe = those under authority as well as those in authority, i.e., believers as a whole) disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.
it's not that i don't want to believe you but Quran says
[Shakir 4:83] ....; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few.

bro abu muhammad: pls just bear with me. i'm not here to bring fitna to anyone.

wannabe

Read here: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/
TBH, i've read the above and many other polemics, from both sides with open mind. the conclusion i've arrived at is: both sides have their own arguments, however ridiculous/illogical/etc it may seems to others.
Thus, let's not mock one another. if you feel you still need to prove yours is upon the truth, then let's do positive advertising please.
Otherwise, IMO, quranist stands to benefit more and will grow in strength in coming years.

ps: i can very well understand if you're defending your faith from being attacked. But attacking others' is quite beyond me.
[Shakir 16:125] Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner;

Equate

none taken. i'm just a layman. Now that you've mentioned it, i did a little search and found out verses containing:
1. rasuulan min anfusihim
2. rasuulan minkum
3. rasuulan minhum
4. ulil amri minkum
5. uill amri minhum 

What do they have to do with what is being discussed? All 5 of what you mentioned have their respective contexts. A phrase is used in a context. The same phrase may mean a different thing in a different place in a different context. Context is necessary in understanding the meaning of a phrase, a word or anything for the matter. Randomly picking up similar looking phrases from different places as if you have a point? Umm, no, I don't think so.

The context in 4:59 is strictly about human society (us as believers) and call for loyalty to Islam and observation of law and order and authorities in human society. Where did Jinn come from? I just found your response to the brother a bit silly, that's all. I apologize if it hurt you a bit too much.

it's not that i don't want to believe you but Quran says
[Shakir 4:83] ....; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few.

You bring a completely different ayah with a different context in response to my post of why "you" of "if you disagree" also includes "those in authority" in 4:59? Seriously? The post you quoted from me argues about the specific linguistics of 4:59, namely "you" in "if you disagree over anything", and why it includes "those in authorities" - that post was strictly unique to and in regards to the language (pronoun etc.) used in verse 4:59. Verse 4:83 is a completely different ayah that does not have those "linguistics" that my post was addressing (about 4:59). Yet, you thought 4:83 was a perfect response to the points unique to 4:59?? smh. Please be relevant in your responses. The irony is in the way you word your responses as well: "it's not that i don't want to believe you but Quran says" - trying to make it appear like the Quran is against the quoted post? Heh? Well, that is your own anecdotal statement (and a sneaky way to throw jibe at your opponent), but Quran 4:83 is not even relevant to the points made in quoted post.

Why bring 4:83 at all? Is it because you found a different ayah where it had similar phrasing as that used in 4:59? And, how does that prove that ulil amri are infallible? If anything, 4:83 rather alludes to the fact that such phrasing is not necessarily used to refer to infallible persons at all (as you will see below).

Well, now that you've mentioned 4:83, did you even check the context of 4:83? Unlike 4:59 where the context is of a general command to obey, the context in 4:83 is in light of an event that occurred in the past. The article (which you probably never read and won't I guess) actually has an excellent point where it showcases why "ulil amri minhum" in 4:83 absolutely can not mean infallible imams (and hence shias do not usually bring this ayah to propel imamate theory either).
Quote
Note that, Ulil Amr(those in authority) is a plural Noun, it isn’t singular ...The problem that rises now is that even though Quran suggested that, people should have referred Ulil Amr(those in authority) during those events that occurred in the past, however Shias themselves claim that when one Imam is in authority then the other Imam even if present, isn’t in authority. In other words, only one Imam can be in divine authority at a time. So, if Prophet(SAWS) as an Imam(leader) was in divine authority then Ali(RA) can’t possess divine authority. Likewise, if Ali(RA) is in divine authority then Hassan(RA) and Hussain(RA) won’t be in divine authority. But Quran says that, during those events that occurred in the past, Ulil Amr(those in authority) alongside Prophet(SAWS) were present, so that people could refer them. So how could Multiple people possess divine authority at a time? During those events, only Prophet(SAWS) possessed divine authority, there cannot be anyone else alongside Prophet(SAWS) who possessed divine authority over people.

If anything, 4:83 proves that only because "those in authority" is used alongside "the messenger" after the verb "refer to", it does not mean "those in authority" are also infallible like the messenger (pbuh). If one were to say "Oh children of muslims, obey Allah and the sayings of the prophet (pbuh), and your parents, and your teachers" - obviously it does not mean that parents and teachers are now on par with prophet (pbuh) as infallibles. You obey them in their respective ways. Likewise for 4:59. It's very clear. The burden of proof is on you (the shias) to prove it doesn't mean what it apparently means but rather refers to some infallible persons.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 10:37:23 PM by Equate »

Equate

TBH, i've read the above and many other polemics, from both sides with open mind. the conclusion i've arrived at is: both sides have their own arguments, however ridiculous/illogical/etc it may seems to others.

Well, that's your personal, anecdotal experiences and conclusions. Good for you that you arrived at that. I am not interested in discussing how you personally feel about things. You could well be a flat-earther that finds the science books teaching round-earth in elementary schools "polemics by opponents" for all I care. I like to use objective reasoning and understanding to come to my conclusions, and when I post I make points or counter-points that actually pertain to the subject-matter.

iceman

Well, that's your personal, anecdotal experiences and conclusions. Good for you that you arrived at that. I am not interested in discussing how you personally feel about things. You could well be a flat-earther that finds the science books teaching round-earth in elementary schools "polemics by opponents" for all I care. I like to use objective reasoning and understanding to come to my conclusions, and when I post I make points or counter-points that actually pertain to the subject-matter.

"I like to use objective reasoning and understanding to come to my conclusions"

Ok, so lets give it a shot then. Do you honestly believe that the Prophet s.a.w passed away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? The companions were very quick after the demise of the Prophet s.a.w to act on this important matter but Muhammad s.a.w didn't think it was that important? I'll let you respond.

Equate

"I like to use objective reasoning and understanding to come to my conclusions"

Ok, so lets give it a shot then. Do you honestly believe that the Prophet s.a.w passed away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? The companions were very quick after the demise of the Prophet s.a.w to act on this important matter but Muhammad s.a.w didn't think it was that important? I'll let you respond.

Maybe he (saw) did, maybe he (saw) didn't. Does/did it harm Islam either way? Islam was made complete with or without him electing someone to govern. Allah (SWT) said He completed the religion and chose it for all of mankind. The prophet (saw) came to this world with a mission, and he completed it with the completion of Islam. Who are we talking about here? A fallible human ruler that needs to worry about there being a successor to his empire lest it ceases to exist? We are talking about Allah (SWT) and His religion and His messenger! If Allah (SWT) chose that he (saw) did not need to appoint a ruler, then so be it. The spread and preservation of Islam was upon Allah (SWT) immediately after the death of the prophet (pbuh) just like they are upon Him (SWT) now, at this moment. Allah has propagated Islam through great and righteous leaders as Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and many others. He (SWT) could have done it through anyone else had He willed so.

How about you worry about upholding the most important fundamentals of Islam (where you gravely deviate) instead of delving into secondary political issues? How about you take a moment and think about why you have something like this in your religion as the original post is actually talking about: https://youtu.be/zPwtuS_YoRQ

or, this: https://www.duas.org/Misc/nade_ali_kabeer.htm

Discussing political rulership in favor of a religion (shi'ism) that does not even comply with the most fundamental/core teachings of Islam to begin with (e.g. tawheed, khatmun nabieen etc.) is kind of silly to be honest. You should be glad I even bothered to respond nonetheless.

Quote from: iceman
Do you honestly believe that the Prophet s.a.w passed away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him?

Well, you have my response up there. But, let me ask you a counter question that pertains to this. What you have asked, I often see shias try to argue along these lines. If you are trying to tell us that we must need an actively engaged leader to guide us, how come the last imam went into hiding never to be seen again, and we have remained under no "active leader" for the most part of our existence as an ummah anyway? Doesn't that completely undermine your own point?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 10:42:52 AM by Equate »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
37 Replies
6980 Views
Last post July 02, 2015, 01:53:17 AM
by muslim720
6 Replies
1621 Views
Last post July 12, 2016, 10:37:16 AM
by Sabih
0 Replies
700 Views
Last post May 22, 2017, 08:54:50 PM
by Link
0 Replies
165 Views
Last post July 07, 2020, 06:06:45 PM
by Soccer