TwelverShia.net Forum

confusion about "Refer back to Allah and his Messenger PBUH if a dispute occurs"

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shia not Rafidi

i have a confusion regarding verse 4:59 which is about obeying the ulil-amr after Allah and Messneger PBUH.. Sunnis ssy that the obedience of Ulil-amr is conditional right..? as the verse is saying if a dispute arises between two of you, then refer back to Allah..
My Question is, does this verse really makes Ulil-amr fallible (they can be on mistake)?.
 what if we ourselves are at mistake and don't know exactly how Allah or Prophet PBUH commanded us to do a deed.. For example to make my Question clear :
Ulil-amr says 'you can either pray 2+2 Nafal prayers separately or 4 at once, there is no restriction on it.. but we say "no, we can't pray nafal Separately as 2+2"
.....
now here's a dispute in two of us, We have to refer back to Allah and his Messenger PBUH, and we find that actually we can pray Nafal prayer in both ways i.e 2+2 separatly and 4 at once which shows Ulil-Amr is not at mistake and proves Shia pov of ulil-amr..
sorry for excessive use of grammar but i only intended to make my confusion clear..
Was-salam
« Last Edit: May 03, 2019, 12:09:52 PM by Shia not Rafidi »
#__Shia of Ali__#
#__Sunni of Prophet Muhammad__#

Noor-us-Sunnah

i have a confusion regarding verse 4:59 which is about obeying the ulil-amr after Allah and Messneger PBUH.. Sunnis ssy that the obedience of Ulil-amr is conditional right..? as the verse is saying if a dispute arises between two of you, then refer back to Allah..
My Question is, does this verse really makes Ulil-amr fallible (they can be on mistake)?.
 what if we ourselves are at mistake and don't know exactly how Allah or Prophet PBUH commanded us to do a deed.. For example to make my Question clear :
Ulil-amr says 'you can either pray 2+2 Nafal prayers separately or 4 at once, there is no restriction on it.. but we say "no, we can't pray nafal Separately as 2+2"
.....
now here's a dispute in two of us, We have to refer back to Allah and his Messenger PBUH, and we find that actually we can pray Nafal prayer in both ways i.e 2+2 separatly and 4 at once which shows Ulil-Amr is not at mistake and proves Shia pov of ulil-amr..
sorry for excessive use of grammar but i only intended to make my confusion clear..
Was-salam

There are two aspects which are destroyed by this verse 1. Divine appointment 2. Infallibility.

In this example there is no angle of infallibility. But there are many other examples wherein the angle  of infallibility would be present.

As for this example, then even though it doesn’t have the angle of infallibility but still it destroys the belief of divine appointment. Because if Ulil Amr were divinely appointed then there wouldn’t have been any scope to dispute with them. Permissibility to dispute with them itself is an evidence that they aren’t divinely appointed.

Shia not Rafidi

There if Ulil Amr were divinely appointed then there wouldn’t have been any scope to dispute with them. Permissibility to dispute with them itself is an evidence that they aren’t divinely appointed.
Got the point, same as No one can disagree with Prophet PBUH (Because he is appointed by Allah and bis words would be considered as those of Allah), one should not disagree with Ulil-Amr (if they are God appointed like Prophet PBUH)
😊
thank you so much for your immediate reply, Jazak Allah
#__Shia of Ali__#
#__Sunni of Prophet Muhammad__#

Noor-us-Sunnah

Got the point, same as No one can disagree with Prophet PBUH (Because he is appointed by Allah and bis words would be considered as those of Allah), one should not disagree with Ulil-Amr (if they are God appointed like Prophet PBUH)
😊
thank you so much for your immediate reply, Jazak Allah
Wa iyyakum

Shia not Rafidi

Wa iyyakum

Bro,i have another question which i do not like to make a new post about so i'm asking here..
A shia friend of mine ,regarding Iman of Hazrat Abu Talib argues by the verse that Allah made it forbidden for Moses AS to suckle from a Non-Believer milkmaid ,how is it possible that the same Allah made it lawful for his Prophet Muhammad SAW to eat from a Non-Believer's house (Mean Abu Talib)..is it true Allah made Haram the milk of non-beleiver milkmaids for Moses AS ?
#__Shia of Ali__#
#__Sunni of Prophet Muhammad__#

Noor-us-Sunnah

Bro,i have another question which i do not like to make a new post about so i'm asking here..
A shia friend of mine ,regarding Iman of Hazrat Abu Talib argues by the verse that Allah made it forbidden for Moses AS to suckle from a Non-Believer milkmaid ,how is it possible that the same Allah made it lawful for his Prophet Muhammad SAW to eat from a Non-Believer's house (Mean Abu Talib)..is it true Allah made Haram the milk of non-beleiver milkmaids for Moses AS ?
Where did he find “non-believer” in the case of Musa(as)? What I know is that he was Prohibited to suckle from “any other woman” regardless of their belief, be it believer or non-believer, be from Bani Israel or not. Because the purpose was to return Musa(as) to his mother.

Secondly, where was Ibrahim(as) eating while he was with his father Azhar?

Thirdly, ask your Shia friend to tell us what did Ali(ra) receive as share of inheritance from Abū Talib?

Ibn Taymiyya

i have a confusion regarding verse 4:59 which is about obeying the ulil-amr after Allah and Messneger PBUH.. Sunnis ssy that the obedience of Ulil-amr is conditional right..? as the verse is saying if a dispute arises between two of you, then refer back to Allah..
My Question is, does this verse really makes Ulil-amr fallible (they can be on mistake)?.
 what if we ourselves are at mistake and don't know exactly how Allah or Prophet PBUH commanded us to do a deed.. For example to make my Question clear :
Ulil-amr says 'you can either pray 2+2 Nafal prayers separately or 4 at once, there is no restriction on it.. but we say "no, we can't pray nafal Separately as 2+2"
.....
now here's a dispute in two of us, We have to refer back to Allah and his Messenger PBUH, and we find that actually we can pray Nafal prayer in both ways i.e 2+2 separatly and 4 at once which shows Ulil-Amr is not at mistake and proves Shia pov of ulil-amr..
sorry for excessive use of grammar but i only intended to make my confusion clear..
Was-salam
after brother NOOR US SUNNAH has responded it doesn't require me to add a thing, but still please give this thing a thought
if it was as you said, that dispute occurs between us in our understanding of shariah, and in only that case the referral back to ALLAH and his messenger was required, then the whole concept of imamah is undermined.
because imam(a.s) is the representative of ALLAH and his messenger, if dispute was among us it must have been referred to imams but QURAN saying otherwise (hence no need of imams proved )impairs your case for imamah even severely if chose this route of understanding the verse
wasn't it for umar r.a , that islam entered persia ?

Soccer

If it said Ulil-Amr or Dul-Amr it's problematic with the issue of Ghayba.  Society can't refer to the current Wali-Amr because he is in Ghayba.

The word Messenger is more appropriate in that it says the one who comes with the messages from God is to be referred to.

There is a wrong understanding by both Sunni and Shiites, that Messengers all Anbiya, this is not true. And the opposite is also not true, not All Anbiya are Rusul. Almost all Rusul are Anbiya and almost all Anbiya are Rusul, but the exception to the rule happens time to time.

A Nabi is one who receives a divine revelation from God for humanity. A Rasool is when who has deliver clear message from God.

It took me a long time to see this, but Resalah is what the Messenger himself has to clarify to the people and bring down to their minds. Resalah is used to emphasize the need of the Sunnah and hadiths. It's harder to preserve and we humans failed to preserve the Sunnah of Mohammad (s) from corruption.

Nubuwa is to emphasized the special place of Quran.

Imama to emphasize their leadership and Naqeeb to emphasize that everyone has to be steered on course and take part in the ship and help.

Ulil-Amr is emphasized because of the flow of Mulk in this regard which is a contrast to authority claimed by scholars of Jews and Christians.

Mursaleen in Quran includes all Rusul and Anbiya.  A Nabi is mursal with a revelation to humanity to be held on to as everlasting proof of the authority God established in that Nabi.

A Rasool has to clarify and teach the people. This means the Sunnah and ahadith.

Resalah and Nubuwa go together, and so God use interchangeable almost, but then shows not all Anbiya are Rusul. This means a person can receive a revelation when there is no need to deliver a message to the people and teach them the clear teachings, because the clear teachings are all well known.

Whether Ulil-Amr would become Rusul, depended on how people respond. If Sunnah of Mohammad (s) was kept, they don't need to revive any of the Sunnah or emphasize on the clear message of Quran.

The Ahlulbayt were all Musraleen, but not Anbiya, and hence were Rusul.

But Imam Mahdi is yet to be one.  4:59 is saying we need God's revelation and a Messenger to explain it.  But now the messages of God are mixed with fabrications and so we await for the Wali-Amr to revive the messages of God and bring about the truth.

The Sunnah is what is be referred to, but is compromised with falsehood these days.  The Quran misinterpreted, and so we need a Messenger once more.

According to Sunni hadiths, Imam Mahdi is of the Mursaleen because the hadiths use that to denote that God will (same root word) the Mahdi.

4:59 is almost impossible to do these days.  We can try to refer to Quran and Sunnah and obey Ahlulbayt, but it won't result in the best end and goodness it was meant to be in.

We need again a Messenger among us to come in the open and we better not accuse him of sorcery when the signs and miracles are in the open again, and they do not cease to be in the open in any time or age, except the first generations reject the miracles and didn't fear God in this regard, and made the situation horrible in this regard for later generations.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 10:45:10 PM by Soccer »
"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

Ebn Hussein

I am baffled to this day how Shias can use this verse which is really DESTROYING their entire religion, but then, like with other verses, they either take it out of context or go even as far as to mention crucial parts of the verse. Look at the charlatans from al islam org for example:

https://www.al-islam.org/mikyalul-makarim-fee-fawaaid-ad-duaa-lil-qaim-vol-1/64-obedience-ulil-amr-those-authority


They only mention this part:

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ

Conveniently hiding the rest which looks like this:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا ﴾ [النساء: 59].

The red part (And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger....) pulverises their entire religion as they believe that disagreeing with the infallible is haram and kufr, yet the verse says that if we disagree we should refer our matter back to ALLAH and His MESSENGER and NOT Ulil-Amr which means Ulil-Amr are not infallible, are not restricted to a holy family, let alone 12 specific Imams.

Rafidism is such a whack religion, based on pathetic evidences, ambiguous (mutashabih) text, nothing else.
الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! - الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي.

Imam Al-Shafi3i - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah." [narrated by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/Al-Kifayah]

iceman

I am baffled to this day how Shias can use this verse which is really DESTROYING their entire religion, but then, like with other verses, they either take it out of context or go even as far as to mention crucial parts of the verse. Look at the charlatans from al islam org for example:

https://www.al-islam.org/mikyalul-makarim-fee-fawaaid-ad-duaa-lil-qaim-vol-1/64-obedience-ulil-amr-those-authority


They only mention this part:

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ

Conveniently hiding the rest which looks like this:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا ﴾ [النساء: 59].

The red part (And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger....) pulverises their entire religion as they believe that disagreeing with the infallible is haram and kufr, yet the verse says that if we disagree we should refer our matter back to ALLAH and His MESSENGER and NOT Ulil-Amr which means Ulil-Amr are not infallible, are not restricted to a holy family, let alone 12 specific Imams.

Rafidism is such a whack religion, based on pathetic evidences, ambiguous (mutashabih) text, nothing else.

Nothing is destroying us or our faith. You are either misinformed, mislead or twist and turn things because of what the Shaykhain got up to. This is what it all boils down to, protecting and defending the Shaykhain and what they did at all costs. You're living life at the edge and have been thanks to the Shaykhain. You have to and always will differ and disagree. You'll always put up a confrontational stance on everything otherwise the reputation and character of the Shaykhain is at stake. This is what it's all about and has been for all this time.

Shia not Rafidi

Nothing is destroying us or our faith. You are either misinformed, mislead or twist and turn things because of what the Shaykhain got up to. This is what it all boils down to, protecting and defending the Shaykhain and what they did at all costs. You're living life at the edge and have been thanks to the Shaykhain. You have to and always will differ and disagree. You'll always put up a confrontational stance on everything otherwise the reputation and character of the Shaykhain is at stake. This is what it's all about and has been for all this time.
Boring as usual 😒
#__Shia of Ali__#
#__Sunni of Prophet Muhammad__#

Soccer

I am baffled to this day how Shias can use this verse which is really DESTROYING their entire religion, but then, like with other verses, they either take it out of context or go even as far as to mention crucial parts of the verse. Look at the charlatans from al islam org for example:

https://www.al-islam.org/mikyalul-makarim-fee-fawaaid-ad-duaa-lil-qaim-vol-1/64-obedience-ulil-amr-those-authority


They only mention this part:

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ

Conveniently hiding the rest which looks like this:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا ﴾ [النساء: 59].

The red part (And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger....) pulverises their entire religion as they believe that disagreeing with the infallible is haram and kufr, yet the verse says that if we disagree we should refer our matter back to ALLAH and His MESSENGER and NOT Ulil-Amr which means Ulil-Amr are not infallible, are not restricted to a holy family, let alone 12 specific Imams.

Rafidism is such a whack religion, based on pathetic evidences, ambiguous (mutashabih) text, nothing else.

If there would no disputes as commanded by God, Ulil-Amr would not become Messengers. If there would be disputes, clarification would be required of them and hence would become Messengers.

Then referring to God and the Messenger would be referring to the Quran and the one explaining it.

The matters of dispute is not if you want to go watch a movie and your sister rather go golfing or something like that, it's to due with matters of safety and fear with regards to this world and the next.

The message by nature of being a good news and warning, is in matters of safety and peace.

What Momineen means in most verses is believers, but when God applies the title himself, it means that granter of safety/security.

In some verses, the only logical translation is that same meaning. 5:55 refers to one who granted safety and a group he represents by his actions, mainly the successors. The same with not taking disbelievers as authorities instead of _____. And it's same as not taking a Weelajatan other than ______________.

4:83 shows Ulil-Amr have the knowledge and foresight to guide in all matters of safety and fear, and if had been referred to those who can perceive the matters would have known it.

Is there any dispute in Islam that is not a matter of safety and fear?  Either of this world or the next,  the disputes talked and the commands were are meant to obey God and his Messenger in, pertaining to safety and fear.

4:59 is not saying "don't refer to Ulil-Amr", it's saying,  if there is a Messenger among you then refer disputes to his judgment.

As you know, if it said Wali-Amr or Dul-Amr (singular) of Ulil-Amr, we would not here the end of it of how this impossible to now do for the Mahdi.

But the Mahdi and his message is yet to come, and so there is no Messenger among us now. Being a Rasool after a founding Rasool means mostly likely things are going wrong.

It means the balaghal mobeen is needed all over again as the people don't understand the clear message.

If we are disputing among ourselves despite God's rope, it's saying, refer it to God and the Messenger, which is a hint that Ulil-Amr in that case would become Messengers and only cease if the clear conveyance is not needed.

They aren't Nabis because they don't receive a revelation to be revealed to the people from God, but they are Messengers that through the Quran and Sunnah, try to revive the clear message.

If there are no disputes as commanded in many places in Quran, if we didn't differ and held on to God's rope,  we would obey the Ahlulbayt and the authority they been given. No need of them reviving and delivering the clear message, instead, just nurturing us with insights and further knowledge.

But due to disputes, they all became of the Mursaleen with balaghal mobeen, and hence Messengers.

The Mahdi when comes with the message and revives the Quran interpretation and the Sunnah, and then this verse will be saying, refer your disputes back to him the one who comes with the clear conveyance and message to the people.

Resalah and Nubuwa go hand to hand such that most Anbiya are Rusul and most Rusul are Anbiya, but they are not the same exact role, but quite distinct.

The nature of the two has it that both roles are needed, as well, the role of them needing to be obeyed and be God's Rulers on his behalf.

To God belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth, one family of the reminder, after another, one family of the reminder, after another.

The Quran is easy to understand when reflecting. The clearest of all books. Nothing including the disconnected letters are that hard to understand. Some of it takes time, but, that's okay.

The Twelve Captains of Bani-Israel were destined with Nubuwa, it's unfortunate all of them were also tasked as Messengers.

Messengers task means things gone haywire and darkened the light and there needs to be clarification.

4:59 means God forbid you disobey God and the Messenger and Ulil-Amr and dispute regarding the religion and differ among yourself, refer the dispute back to God and the Messenger.

Nubuwa came to an end, by God's wisdom, but you have to understand God's plan with that.  Quran is the last revelation, but it's nature is quite unique even though all divine books are highly above other words, the Quran subtle clear nature and guidance to all humans is the greatest majestic revelation to humans.

One reason of it's clarity, is because it was revealed not all at once but a period of 23 years. It can't be denied, yet all those who study linguistics, don't believe this is possible by a human or even a group of humans.

It's not possible, because of the nature of it's dialect. The way we speak is different then we write. As well, the period thing makes it seem impossible.

Yet these people get desperate and try to make it now that Mohammad (s) doesn't exist.  Most historians will laugh at that and know he existed, but these people know for sure Quran can't be formed on those terms and so want to deny the history all together.

But they accuse Ummayads of creating the Quran which is funny to me, because, I see the family of Mohammad (s) in there, and I know they for sure don't want to give them that authority. ;)


« Last Edit: March 17, 2020, 04:39:08 PM by Soccer »
"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

iceman

Boring as usual 😒

The truth is either boring to you or it hurts. It's one thing or the other. 😊

Shia not Rafidi

The truth is either boring to you or it hurts. It's one thing or the other. 😊
what truth..? highlight that part in ur reply mate 😒
#__Shia of Ali__#
#__Sunni of Prophet Muhammad__#

iceman

what truth..? highlight that part in ur reply mate 😒

What's your problem? Oh... You're an anti shia. That's your problem. You've got the truth now. If you had an open mind and thought rationally you wouldn't be asking mate. 😊

Soccer

What I said has the cure to the curse and spell from Iblis and his forces pertaining to this verse.

Let who wants to reflect and remember and who wants to turn away and hold on to the darkness and confusion do as they will choose.
"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

iceman

There is no confusion regarding this verse. Confusion is only created by certain Sunnis who are adamant to protect the incident of Saqifa and the outcome of that incident.

Here is the verse;

"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. (4:59)"

Now ask yourself this, what is new here? "And those in authority from among you" is what is new. What about "those in authority from among you"? You have to obey them. It's a clear command. How important is the obedience towards "those in authority from among you"? Allah has made that clear by starting off with "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger".

Allah could have come straight out with the new command by saying "O you who believe! Obey those in authority from among you". Then only one could question the obedience towards "those in authority from among you" how important and necessary it is or isn't. How important and necessary is obedience towards "those in authority from among you" is clear by the sequence that just as you obey Allah and his Messenger s.a.w obedience towards those in authority from among you is just as equally important and necessary.

I know certain Sunnis won't accept this because it puts Saqifa in jeopardy. That's where the whole issue is.

Soccer

Iceman, very little of ahadith of Ahlulbayt are not Resalah. What I mean by that, Resalah is to convey the clear truth.

There are subtle details in ahadith, but most ahadith are geared to removing the cursed sorcery upon the Quran. The Ahlulbayt (as) regarding 4:59 mostly argued by 4:54 and some by the other Ulil-Amr verse combination, but most of the hadiths is arguing that 4:54 and the verses before and after 4:54 give context to Ulil-Amr in 4:59.

What has happened to Quran, is that we don't even apply contextual rules when we read all others books. No willfully or playfully or heedlessly the sorcery has it people take verses out of their place and isolate and interpret them out of place to the mini-context, or a whole theme  of context for example 42:23.

42:23 is proven by context, Imam Reda (a) argued that, and as well quoted the verses of the reward of the Prophets being only upon God in Suratal Shu'ara (the Poets).

He (a) also said it's because a kin of a person is connected to that person in love, what does this mean? Imam Reda (a) is arguing, it's not really a reward asked by God and his Messenger, but is regarding the reward the disbelievers accuse Mohammad (s) of seeking.

And 42:23 he argues is just saying "recognize us for who we are", this what Mohammad's (s) is saying, I don't care about blood link or power or being high and praised by people except that God guides by chosen houses, and yes I part of a kin that God has chosen and all you see me seeking reward in is just really asking us to recognize who we are and love us for it and accept us.

The verses in Suratal Shu'ara are in context of Prophets being accused of different things but primarily power and authority. They are accused of seeking power and authority. It's saying that reward that you accuse of us seeking, nothing we seek beyond that because we don't ask wealth from, but that selfish reward you accuse of really - it's upon God and no one else, to establish such authority and power in trusted humans.

And Suratal An'aam, the reward verse is in context of chosen offspring and from their brothers and fathers... and guidance of his chosen.

And 1:7 means the path of those who the favor of Islam is regarding not who's his wrath is regarding nor of those who go astray.

And Jesus and all chosen ones, are who the favor of his religion is regarding. 

It's been this clear all along, and 25:57 is in a Surah emphasizing without Mohammad (s) they have no way towards God and if they accuse of lying they will find no way to God, and has connected it with the reward they accuse him of seeking and said what is that really from power to fame to moral landscaping to authority etc, but God's way of establishing his way.

And 42:23 has connected the issue of chosen offspring themes, because Abraham's (a) offspring and Noah's (a) offspring was not emphasized for no reason.

And Fatima (s) is the trial here.  You got to believe she is an exception and way to connect Mohammad's (s) offspring to him, just as Jews were required to see Mariam (s) as exception to the father rule, and connect him to David (a) through her.

And what they see as him favoring Fatima's (a) offspring and his own blood line, is really, God's way of establishing guidance from Him in forms of a family of the reminder just he has done in the past.

42:23 by the line after "qurba" is saying, "and whoever does good we increase them therein beauty", which is shown to be that path of goodness.

And Muwadata includes affections and is a type of love humans have for one another, not for abstract things or relationships.

It has to be toward a living being and is used primarily for humans to humans.

Ahmadis are funny - their leaders didn't know enough Arabic and make it about closeness to God.  It's not possible to have love with affection closeness to God.

And while God is suppose to have that love towards his creation the other way doesn't happen. God doesn't need our compassion or affection.  Appreciating him and loving him takes on a different form which the word Muwadata would never even apply to.

It means love, but love in English is contextually based.  In Arabic many words for it, and sometimes the word hub means like and not love.

But Muwadata is a type of love that is inclusive of affection and is the type of human to human, not even used for animals.

"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

Mythbuster1

There is no confusion regarding this verse. Confusion is only created by certain Sunnis who are adamant to protect the incident of Saqifa and the outcome of that incident.

Here is the verse;

"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. (4:59)"

Now ask yourself this, what is new here? "And those in authority from among you" is what is new. What about "those in authority from among you"? You have to obey them. It's a clear command. How important is the obedience towards "those in authority from among you"? Allah has made that clear by starting off with "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger".

Allah could have come straight out with the new command by saying "O you who believe! Obey those in authority from among you". Then only one could question the obedience towards "those in authority from among you" how important and necessary it is or isn't. How important and necessary is obedience towards "those in authority from among you" is clear by the sequence that just as you obey Allah and his Messenger s.a.w obedience towards those in authority from among you is just as equally important and necessary.

I know certain Sunnis won't accept this because it puts Saqifa in jeopardy. That's where the whole issue is.

Lol hahahaha it’s......SAQIFA you dimwit 😂😂

If we don’t see that authority means divine imams then we are blind and it’s all saqifa a fault😂😂😂😂

Saba has got you by the bxxxx😂😂😂😂

Dimwit has NO clear evidence just look at how he is adding his/Shiite/Saba theory on the verses and yet the dimwit kid will reply back.........”your blind, you are shia haters, it’s all saqifas fault, the sahabas fault that you can’t see the truth”

😂😂😂😂😂

Shiism in a nutshell.

iceman

Lets move forward on to the next bit of the verse. Here is the verse again.

"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. (4:59)"

This is the following bit.

"then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger"

Now if you differ/disagree/quarrel over anything then what do you do? "Refer it to Allah and his Messenger". OK. Why didn't Allah just say "Obey those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger". Then it would be clear and there wouldn't be any confusion.

But Allah has said by starting off with "O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger". Surely there is a purpose and reason for this. Then Allah mentions the new thing and message "and those in authority from among you".

Allah has clearly mentioned that the obedience towards the Ulul Amre is just as the same as obedience towards Allah and his Messenger s.a.w. Otherwise what's the reason and purpose, what's the logic behind starting off with "O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger".

Now the confusion is by some and created by some on "then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger". Disagree/differ/quarrel about what? About the new message. And that is if you disagree/differ/quarrel on anything regarding the new message, for example who is or are the Ulul Amre etc then refer the matter towards Allah and his Messenger s.a.w.

Because what's the point and purpose of the Ulul Amre and obedience towards them that if you are going to disagree/differ/quarrel over anything then you are going to refer the matter towards Allah and his Messenger s.a.w then just stick to Allah and his Messenger s.a.w to begin with. There is no point, reason or purpose for the Ulul Amre. And obedience towards them goes out of the window.

No offence but when it comes to certain Sunnis they just don't bother with sense and logic and putting it to use.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 11:09:28 PM by iceman »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2974 Views
Last post March 13, 2015, 04:25:01 PM
by Abu Zayd
22 Replies
5702 Views
Last post August 22, 2016, 02:11:16 PM
by muslim720
3 Replies
1194 Views
Last post December 10, 2017, 06:19:59 AM
by Hadrami
0 Replies
325 Views
Last post February 21, 2018, 04:23:30 PM
by MuslimK