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.

wannabe

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.
haha...keep on reading will you!
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.
i wonder what made you missed the next word i used ie "seriously.....". ::)
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.
oh really?
does Quran [4:59] categorically say "do not refer at all to ulil amri"? No. why? Quran [4:83] say otherwise. i sure hope can you see the relevancy now. After all these are the only 2 verses tallking about Ulil Amri.
sorry to say but i'm not really interested in your mental gymnastic stunt over the word minkum.  ;D
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).
same as above. i'm only disproving the accuracy of your mental gymnastic stunt.
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.
oh really? let's see the verse once again.
[Shakir 4:83] And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread it abroad; 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.
the word comes tells me that the spreading of news of security or fear, without referring to rasul and ulil amri (irrespective of what one believes ulil amri means), could be happening till judgment day.
with what consequences? you follow your own conjectures and thus could have certainly followed shaitan.
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).
haha...this is the reason why i brought up minhum/minkum, against which you said "What do they have to do with what is being discussed?". does not this prove i did meant what i said: i  read almost all sunni-shia polemics.
when i said both have evidences for their beliefs, it's not the same as saying both are right or both are wrong or one is right and the other is wrong. i'm more interested in "no fighting among muslims".
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.
hang on. not so fast. Do consider this verse please...
[Shakir 25:30] And the Messenger cried out: O my Lord! surely my people have treated this Quran as a forsaken thing.

all i'm saying, you're making a harsh and unwarranted claim
Quote
...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.

wannabe

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
so these are the verses, using:-
a. https://www.islamicity.org/ps/default.asp?UserString=rasul+minhum&ref=&ShowTranslation=on&ShowTransliteration=on&ShowArabic=on

2:129 "O our Sustainer! Raise up from the midst of our off spring [106] an apostle from among themselves, who shall convey unto them Thy messages, and impart unto them revelation as well as wisdom, and cause them to grow in purity: for, verily, Thou alone art almighty, truly wise!"

16:113 And indeed, there had come unto them an apostle from among themselves -but they gave him the lie; and therefore suffering overwhelmed them while they were thus doing wrong [to themselves].

23:32 and [every time] We sent unto them an apostle from among themselves, [he told them:] �Worship God [alone]: you have no deity other than Him. Will you not, then, become conscious of Him?

62:2 He it is who has sent unto the unlettered people an apostle from among themselves, [1] to convey unto them His messages, and to cause them to grow in purity, and to impart unto them the divine writ as well as wisdom - whereas before that they were indeed, most obviously, lost in error

b. https://www.islamicity.org/ps/default.asp?UserString=rasul+minkum&ref=&ShowTranslation=on&ShowTransliteration=on&ShowArabic=on

2:151 Even as We have sent unto you an apostle from among yourselves to convey unto you Our messages, and to cause you to grow in purity, and to impart unto you revelation and wisdom, and to teach you that which you knew not:

6:130 [And thus will God continue:] "O you who have lived in close communion with [evil] invisible beings and [like-minded] humans! Have there not come unto you apostles from among yourselves, who conveyed unto you My messages and warned you of the coming of this your Day [of Judgment]?" They will answer: "We do bear witness against ourselves!"-for the life of this world had beguiled them: and so they will bear witness against themselves that they had been denying the truth.

7:35 O CHILDREN of Adam! Whenever there come unto you apostles of your own, conveying My messages unto you, then all who are conscious of Me and live righteously - no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve;

39:71 And those who were bent on denying the truth will be urged on in throngs towards hell till, when they reach it, its gates will be opened, and its keepers will ask them, �Have there not come to you apostles from among yourselves, who conveyed to you your Sustainer�s messages and warned you of the coming of this your Day [of Judgment]? �They will answer: �Yea, indeed!� But the sentence of suffering will [already] have fallen due upon the deniers of the truth;

when the verse speaks to second-person (you), the phrase minkum is used.
when the verse speaks about a third-person (they, them), the phrase minhum is used.
At least, from the perspective of english language, there's nothing magical about it.

What we have is already perfect. But i was wondering what would be our understanding if the verse Quran [4:59] has phrases:
1. obey Rasul from among you and Ulil Amri from among you;
or
2. obey Rasul and Ulil Amri;


Equate

so these are the verses, using:-
........

when the verse speaks to second-person (you), the phrase minkum is used.
when the verse speaks about a third-person (they, them), the phrase minhum is used.
At least, from the perspective of english language, there's nothing magical about it.

O.o well, duh! "kum" in arabic means ypu (plural) and hum means them (plural). Is this what we were talking about? Unfortunately, you understood nothing from brother Abu Muahammad's post in reply #10 (below) and my subsequent expounding of it. And, at this point you don't know yourself what you are talking about. Read again below and ponder.

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...

.......
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.

iceman

O.o well, duh! "kum" in arabic means ypu (plural) and hum means them (plural). Is this what we were talking about? Unfortunately, you understood nothing from brother Abu Muahammad's post in reply #10 (below) and my subsequent expounding of it. And, at this point you don't know yourself what you are talking about. Read again below and ponder.

And question, was Ali not the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time? Yes or no? If yes then why didn't Muawiya acknowledge and obey rather than confrontational stance and disobey? Simple and straight answer please.

muslim720

If yes then why didn't Muawiya acknowledge and obey rather than confrontational stance and disobey? Simple and straight answer please.

Muawiya was adopting Imam Ali's (ra) sunnah.  Imam Ali (ra) did not give bayah to others before him (as is your belief); Muawiya sought to emulate him.  If Muawiya's action upsets you, blame your own first Imam (ra) for setting such an example, lol!
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

wannabe

O.o well, duh! "kum" in arabic means ypu (plural) and hum means them (plural).
haha...i know what they mean ;D
Is this what we were talking about?
then who's talking about
Quote
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".
:o
Unfortunately, you understood nothing from brother Abu Muahammad's post in reply #10 (below) and my subsequent expounding of it.
i know for sure, ASWJ and Shia, both have hadith expounding on Quran [4:59]. But, sorry to say this, you're using mental gymnastic stunt to give meaning to the verse, to suit your personal agenda (maybe).
And, at this point you don't know yourself what you are talking about. Read again below and ponder.
i know there's nothing magical about the words minkum and minhum, except (apparently) to convey the message that Rasul/Ulil Amri are NOT from angels or some other Allah's creatures. They're from among us, human beings. But are we like them?
with respect to Rasul, none believe we are like Rasul . why? all (maybe excluding quranist) accept that Rasul is a specialized human being.
with regard to Ulil Amri, there's a split of opinion.
some believe they are also specialized individuals and some believe any muslim can be Ulil Amri.
so who's right about the true meaning of the verse Quran [4:59]?
maybe the second meaning given by Tafsir Ibn Kathir about this verse, could shed some light on it.
if we stick to the first meaning, then the way forward is:
[Shakir 5:48] .... and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

know what? imo, the time to move on was yesterday  :(



« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 03:38:42 AM by wannabe »

wannabe

maybe the second meaning given by Tafsir Ibn Kathir about this verse, could shed some light on it.
sorry, i mean Quran [3:7].
know what? imo, the time to move on was yesterday  :(
however, it's better late than never.

investigating

4:59 & 4:83=> Actually nullify Shia Dogma of Imamate by suggesting that the authorities of PLURAL individuals seemed to be established at all time. Hence the arguments are:

1) How come the verse suggests referring to multiple divine authorities where there could be one divinely appointed imam at one time? (Note that Khumaini used this verse to prove Wilayat-ul-Faqeeh with singular version of word that is Waliul-Amr. Hence, proving the Sunni instance that "Authorities" after Prophet (saw) are never divine in nature.)

2) How does the verse applies to the believers at the time of Holy Prophet (saww), who according to shia was himself was himself a divinely appointed Imam? How can the divine authority of other Imams be established in his (saww) presence? (Note that the verse doesn't say anything "After Prophet" or "In absence of Prophet")

3) The divine authorities are supposed to be PRESENT AMONG believers in all ages. Who are those authorities today and how to follow them?

Equate

And question, was Ali not the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time? Yes or no? If yes then why didn't Muawiya acknowledge and obey rather than confrontational stance and disobey? Simple and straight answer please.

Thank you for proving the original post.
Quote from: Equate
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.....
From discussing proof of infallible imamate in the Quran dragging it back and around to muawiya (ra) - ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What happened? Does it make you feel embarrassed that one of the most important pillars of faith upon which salvation in afterlife (in shi'ism) is dependent and that which essentially separates shi'ism and real Islam has absolutely no basis in the Quran that you now feel the need to ultimately (like other shias) try to drag it down to muawiya (ra) and all the other emotional appeals from historico-political discords to have a chance at proving your religion?

4:59 & 4:83=> Actually nullify Shia Dogma of Imamate by suggesting that the authorities of PLURAL individuals seemed to be established at all time. Hence the arguments are:

1) How come the verse suggests referring to multiple divine authorities where there could be one divinely appointed imam at one time? (Note that Khumaini used this verse to prove Wilayat-ul-Faqeeh with singular version of word that is Waliul-Amr. Hence, proving the Sunni instance that "Authorities" after Prophet (saw) are never divine in nature.)

2) How does the verse applies to the believers at the time of Holy Prophet (saww), who according to shia was himself was himself a divinely appointed Imam? How can the divine authority of other Imams be established in his (saww) presence? (Note that the verse doesn't say anything "After Prophet" or "In absence of Prophet")

3) The divine authorities are supposed to be PRESENT AMONG believers in all ages. Who are those authorities today and how to follow them?

Good points raised. But, you know what the funny thing is? The funny thing is when you ask them to show CLEARLY where infallible imamate is in the Quran, they bring up these very handful verses and say "here, CLEARLY written but you can't understand them". The points/arguments raised in this thread and elsewhere by sunnis dismantles the even remote allusions ("maybes") about imamate in these verses yet when they say "look its CLEAR" it makes you think if these people are even sane. Amazing what psychological conditioning can do to human reasoning.

Did they look up what "CLEARLY" means? "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only" - (Quran 112:1). This is called clear text of a pillar of faith. You get it the moment you read it. No ifs and buts. If someone who had never heard of shia infallible imamate read the Quran in arabic with full understanding from A to Z, even if he read a million times, it would be impossible for him to have the slightest inkling of shia imamate concept from the Quran until and unless he went out to learn it from the shias (external origin).

Again, the title of the thread is "The need for infallible prophet-like imams to be CLEARLY mentioned in the Quran" - let alone "clearly", when all arguments/points raised are all against even the slightest inkling of it in the Quran, it serves to show you how far shi'ism is from truth.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2018, 04:50:48 AM by Equate »

investigating

Good points raised. But, you know what the funny thing is? The funny thing is when you ask them to show CLEARLY where infallible imamate is in the Quran, they bring up these very handful verses and say "here, CLEARLY written but you can't understand them". The points/arguments raised in this thread and elsewhere by sunnis dismantles the even remote allusions ("maybes") about imamate in these verses yet when they say "look its CLEAR" it makes you think if these people are even sane. Amazing what psychological conditioning can do to human reasoning.

Did they look up what "CLEARLY" means? "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only" - (Quran 112:1). This is called clear text of a pillar of faith. You get it the moment you read it. No ifs and buts. If someone who had never heard of shia infallible imamate read the Quran in arabic with full understanding from A to Z, even if he read a million times, it would be impossible for him to have the slightest inkling of shia imamate concept from the Quran until and unless he went out to learn it from the shias (external origin).

Again, the title of the thread is "The need for infallible prophet-like imams to be CLEARLY mentioned in the Quran" - let alone "clearly", when all arguments/points raised are all against even the slightest inkling of it in the Quran, it serves to show you how far shi'ism is from truth.

Well said. Let me explain this verse with an easy example for a layman:

A principal of a school enters the class room where a teacher, students and monitors (prefects) among those students are also present. The principal makes an announcement:

"O ye who study (students): Obey the me (the principal), the class teacher and PREFECTS among YOU, and if you differ in anything among YOURSELVES, refer it back to me (the principal) and your class teacher!"

Who on the earth can use it as a proof of "Intrinsic Authority" of Prefects among students like that of Class Teacher?

Don't Shia brothers have common sense? :-[



iceman

Well said. Let me explain this verse with an easy example for a layman:

A principal of a school enters the class room where a teacher, students and monitors (prefects) among those students are also present. The principal makes an announcement:

"O ye who study (students): Obey the me (the principal), the class teacher and PREFECTS among YOU, and if you differ in anything among YOURSELVES, refer it back to me (the principal) and your class teacher!"

Who on the earth can use it as a proof of "Intrinsic Authority" of Prefects among students like that of Class Teacher?

Don't Shia brothers have common sense? :-[

We've got plenty of it and use it well. But you lot refrain to use it most of the time. You have to admit that Allah put someone third in line in authority alongside himself and his Messenger. This argument has been going on for long and will still go on. We understand that you have no choice but to defend the unfortunate and coincidental incident of Saqifa and stand by the hasty and immature decision made no matter what it takes.

Mythbuster1

We've got plenty of it and use it well. But you lot refrain to use it most of the time. You have to admit that Allah put someone third in line in authority alongside himself and his Messenger. This argument has been going on for long and will still go on. We understand that you have no choice but to defend the unfortunate and coincidental incident of Saqifa and stand by the hasty and immature decision made no matter what it takes.

This guy has a free mind so he can see the divine authority in there.......it all goes back to saqifa the usurpers stole the authority which was from god and made themselves kings and rulers and ummah has been crying from then onwards till this day.


This is the mind of a free thinker........god help us all😊

iceman

This guy has a free mind so he can see the divine authority in there.......it all goes back to saqifa the usurpers stole the authority which was from god and made themselves kings and rulers and ummah has been crying from then onwards till this day.


This is the mind of a free thinker........god help us all😊

If a few people today, a handful of people travel to Saqifa and select a leader for the Ummah, you'll probably acrept it 😆 Gosh, some system of selection you have there. May God save us all.

Mythbuster1

If a few people today, a handful of people travel to Saqifa and select a leader for the Ummah, you'll probably acrept it 😆 Gosh, some system of selection you have there. May God save us all.

Yes I would I mean it’s much much better than following a fairytale story of divinely inspired beings after prophethood who bypassed tests to be promoted straight up the ladder to divinely inspired super beings who can tell futures and move atoms and live for centuries.

iceman

Yes I would I mean it’s much much better than following a fairytale story of divinely inspired beings after prophethood who bypassed tests to be promoted straight up the ladder to divinely inspired super beings who can tell futures and move atoms and live for centuries.

Ok, so who's your Caliph nowadays? I mean it is a very important matter that's why they ran to Saqifa. Which direction are you running since this important matter is still hanging? 😆

Soccer

Nubuwa - role - the channeling of revelation from God to humans.
Resalah - role - conveying message(s) on behalf of God
Imama - role - leading humanity by divine authority

If you define Nubuwa as Imama, yes, it looks like we just hiding behind different label.

However this is not the case.  Resalah also is not the same as Nubuwa.

Imam Mahdi will become a Rasool (with a message to humanity he will convey) but will not be a Nabi.







"Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

 

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
1622 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