TwelverShia.net Forum

Ulil-Amr (another analysis)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2016, 07:14:34 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


Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hani

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2016, 07:45:27 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.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 07:54:42 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Ibn Yahya

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2016, 08:44:19 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.

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #63 on: April 17, 2016, 08:50:56 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.

Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Ibn Yahya

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2016, 08:55:57 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?

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #65 on: April 17, 2016, 08:59:55 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.



Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hadrami

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #66 on: April 17, 2016, 11:03:36 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?

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

Abu Muhammad

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2016, 01:56:35 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?

Hani

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2016, 06:06:38 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.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2016, 05:52:43 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.
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hani

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #70 on: April 19, 2016, 06:59:54 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.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 07:04:22 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2016, 08:12:44 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?

 
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 08:14:15 PM by Link »
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hani

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2016, 09:03:29 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?
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #73 on: April 19, 2016, 09:54:31 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.




« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 09:59:38 PM by Link »
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hani

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #74 on: April 20, 2016, 05:53:17 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.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 05:59:36 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #75 on: April 20, 2016, 11:32:03 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 11:37:53 PM by Link »
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hani

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #76 on: April 21, 2016, 02:23:45 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.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

GreatChineseFall

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #77 on: April 22, 2016, 09:57:38 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.

Ibn Yahya

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #78 on: April 23, 2016, 12:14:04 PM »
Is he really still going?

Link

Re: Ulil-Amr (another analysis)
« Reply #79 on: September 01, 2017, 12:40:18 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.
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
2280 Views
Last post June 14, 2015, 05:21:39 PM
by Furkan
2 Replies
2007 Views
Last post November 30, 2015, 06:31:30 PM
by Bolani Muslim
2 Replies
765 Views
Last post March 19, 2017, 06:43:52 PM
by Link
21 Replies
3990 Views
Last post September 29, 2017, 12:16:28 PM
by Link