Jump to content
hoskot

No Sahabi asked "Who are these Ulil Amri?".

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

no bro. he was not a khalifa. he was a king. khilafa ended after hasan AS. muawiya and the rest were kings. we have ahadith to prove that.

People gave allegiance to him. He appointed governors. He asked the allegiance from people. So he was practically khalifa. Yes latter was not khulafa Rashidoon. But definitely he was khalifa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

no bro. he was not a khalifa. he was a king. khilafa ended after hasan AS. muawiya and the rest were kings. we have ahadith to prove that.

People gave allegiance to him. He appointed governors. He asked the allegiance from people. So he was practically khalifa. Yes latter was not khulafa Rashidoon. But definitely he was khalifa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, islam25 said:

People gave allegiance to him. He appointed governors. He asked the allegiance from people. So he was practically khalifa. Yes latter was not khulafa Rashidoon. But definitely he was khalifa. 

Narrated Safinah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.

Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's caliphate as two years, 'Umar's as ten, 'Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

sunan abi dawud, 4646

this hadith is also mentioned in musnad ahmed 21973, sunan nasai al kubra 8155, tirmidhi 2226 and albani's silsilah sahihah 459 with all the chains and slightly different wordings. 

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

Narrated Safinah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.

Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's caliphate as two years, 'Umar's as ten, 'Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

sunan abi dawud, 4646

this hadith is also mentioned in musnad ahmed 21973, sunan nasai al kubra 8155, tirmidhi 2226 and albani's silsilah sahihah 459 with all the chains and slightly different wordings. 

So there is some contradiction. There will be twelve khalifa amongst quresh and other narration indicate  khilafah will last for 30 years. 

Basic question was ulilamar. So yazeed was ulilamar and Muslims followed his command to fight arebel Imam Hussain. 

Now recognising yazeed an ulilamar is not misinterpretation of the understanding of ulilamar. 

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, islam25 said:

So there is some contradiction. There will be twelve khalifa amongst quresh and other is khilafah will last for 30 years. 

Basic question was ulilamar. So yazeed was ulilamar and Muslims followed his command to fight and rebel Imam Hussain. 

Now recognising yazeed an ulilamar is not misinterpretation of the understanding of ulilamar. 

other narrations say that the khilafah will return afterwards. so, these 30 years alone dont have to make up the 12 khalifas.

yes. yazid was ulil amr. i dont know much about that time period so cant say who did right. but i have a feeling imam hussain was on haqq. how could he not be. if you want, i can read up on it and get back to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

other narrations say that the khilafah will return afterwards. so, these 30 years alone dont have to make up the 12 khalifas.

yes. yazid was ulil amr. i dont know much about that time period so cant say who did right. but i have a feeling imam hussain was on haqq. how could he not be. if you want, i can read up on it and get back to you?

It is now today people say Hussain was right. But practically people followed order of ulilamar to kill a rebel.And there was no suspicion that they are doing unislamic act .

So is there room for better understanding of the ulilamar. 

Are at most we can say that  ayah of ulilamar was restricted only to the time period of Prophet saww. 

Or is this authority restricted to only religious affairs and not political .

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, just a muslim said:

why do people ask questions? to know the answer. correct? if people already know the answer, would they still ask the question?

salam akhi
there's a saying like so "Ask to learn and do not ask to cause annoyance".
it's alright with me if you believe none among companions asked who are these ulil amri. After all, i'm not here to force my belief on any1 else. peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoskot said:

salam akhi
there's a saying like so "Ask to learn and do not ask to cause annoyance".
it's alright with me if you believe none among companions asked who are these ulil amri. After all, i'm not here to force my belief on any1 else. peace.

you didnt answer my question. if they already know the answer, would they still ask the question? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, islam25 said:

It is now today people say Hussain was right. But practically people followed order of ulilamar to kill a rebel.And there was no suspicion that they are doing unislamic act .

So is there room for better understanding of the ulilamar. 

Are at most we can say that  ayah of ulilamar was restricted only to the time period of Prophet saww. 

Or is this authority restricted to only religious affairs and not political .

whoever follows the leader in falsehood, is also false. simple as that. you are not supposed to follow/obey them in sin. you are saying hussain was a rebel. im not.

no room for better understanding. no need.

no. it is general.

no. every affair as long as no sin is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

whoever follows the leader in falsehood, is also false. simple as that. you are not supposed to follow/obey them in sin. you are saying hussain was a rebel. im not.

no room for better understanding. no need.

no. it is general.

no. every affair as long as no sin is involved.

It is not me. 

Rather ulilamar of that time yazeed said Hussain rebelled against khalifa. How come common people recognise what must the stand of muslim. 

Abu Bakr used force against muslims in battle of Rida. People followed Abu Bakr's order. 

Ali used force against rebells of battle of camal and siffin. 

So yazeed too used force against Imam Hussain. 

Now how come common muslim recognise what true. They followed orders of ulilamar to crush a rebel.

And I think fighting against a rebel is not sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, islam25 said:

It is not me. 

Rather ulilamar of that time yazeed said Hussain rebelled against khalifa. How come common people recognise what must the stand of muslim. 

Abu Bakr used force against muslims in battle of Rida. People followed Abu Bakr's order. 

Ali used force against rebells of battle of camal and siffin. 

So yazeed too used force against Imam Hussain. 

Now how come common muslim recognise what true. They followed orders of ulilamar to crush a rebel.

And I think fighting against a rebel is not sin.

like i said, i dont know what happened at the time. i dont have enough knowledge to make any comment. will have to read up on it first. will get back to you later today inshaAllah.

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

like i said, i dont know what happened at the time. i dont have enough knowledge to make any comment. will have to read up on it first.

That is OK. 

My only concern was interpreting the "ulilamar" as all those who have authority and following them is problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

you didnt answer my question. if they already know the answer, would they still ask the question? 

akhi, i don't quite understand what's your point? if u r saying sahaba already knew who are these ulil amri, that is ok with me.

so the logical explanation for the absence of ahadith relating sahaba asking who are these ulil amri is because they already knew who are these ulul amri.

is this what u r driving at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hoskot said:

akhi, i don't quite understand what's your point? if u r saying sahaba already knew who are these ulil amri, that is ok with me.

so the logical explanation for the absence of ahadith relating sahaba asking who are these ulil amri is because they already knew who are these ulul amri.

is this what u r driving at?

yes. and we know they already knew because of the ahadith that i mentioned.

as for why their knowledge/question is not mentioned in the quran, if that is what you are asking, then only Allah knows. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. basic principle of logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

yes. and we know they already knew because of the ahadith that i mentioned.

as for why their knowledge/question is not mentioned in the quran, if that is what you are asking, then only Allah knows. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. basic principle of logic.

the ahadith u posted tell only  as to why the verse was supposed to be revealed, nothing about companions asking who are these ulil amri.

let me put it this way - to counter ur assertion that people (sahaba) don't ask what they (sahaba) already know.

1. sometimes i asked my son, what does 2+2 = to? does this mean i don't know the answer? obviously i do know the answer.

2. (a) every month, sahaba will see new moon. they knew about new moon and yet they still asked the Prophet. the proof that they asked is quran 2:189.

    (b) there are only 2 instances of ulil amri in Quran. it's quite a stretch to believe sahaba knew who are these ulil amri when the verse 4:59 and verse 4:83 were revealed without asking the Prophet.

so, sahaba already knew who are these ulil amri, as the logical explanation for the absence of relevant ahadith in sunni hadith collection, fails miserably, if i were to be honest with myself.

 

 

 

 

Edited by hoskot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:16 PM, SunniBrother said:

I still stay on my position that the 12 leaders hadith was fabricated by the Umayyads or Abbasids. No one actually explained why there was a major confusion after Imam Ja'afar Al Saddiq (r.a) which resulted in several splits (not just twelver and ismaelis). If people knew, there wasn't going to be confusion. If someone want to know why and from where I take this position PM me.

Your point is valid. But there is always intrusion of shiatan to mislead. 

Why despite narration of Prophet saww that the khalafah based on Prophecy will  remain for 30 years then kings will come.

Still muslims did bayath to yazeed and killed Hussain. 

What is your justification that Prophet saww narrated that Hussain is master of youth in jannah. Still muslims killed him that too considering it is righteous action. 

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 1:46 PM, just a muslim said:

no akhi it doesnt. here is the translation:

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

this is a word for word translation. now let me explain. it says, obey Allah and obey the messenger. correct? notice how the explicit command/verb of obeying is only with Allah and Messenger. then it says "and those in authority among you". there is not separate verb for ulil amr. absolute obeying is hence only for Allah and his messenger.

[Shakir 8:20] O you who believe! obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear.

using the same logic as u used above, absolute obedience is hence only for Allah?

On 9/21/2017 at 1:46 PM, just a muslim said:

and it is as if Allah answers your claim in the very next line: "if you disagree in something, refer it to Allah and Messenger"

u forgot the trailing, "if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day". A question one might ask, why not "if you should believe in Allah and Rasul"? were they (some of O you who have believed) had any issue with obeying the Prophet? or doubts whether this is a command from Allah?

maybe some1 with great knowledge with computer programming (IF statement) able to  transform this portion of ayat into IF statements and see whether it's a green-light to differ or a rebuke to dissenting voices.

 

On 9/21/2017 at 1:46 PM, just a muslim said:

let me ask you this. would we disagree obeying Allah and messenger? no. because they command the same thing. the only margin of disagreement is with the ulil amr. if they tell us to do something, and we say something else, we return it to the quran(Allah) and sunnah(messenger), not to the ulil amr.

shias believe obedience to ulil amri is by the command of Allah as per 4:59. they wouldn't lead us to hell fire. let's agree to disagree here.

On 9/21/2017 at 1:46 PM, just a muslim said:

you may say that ulil amr doesnt have the verb itself because the messenger and those in authority have to be followed in the same way. i say, there's two problems with this. 1. does that mean that we dont have to follow Allah and the messenger in the same way? since both of them have got separate verbs for themselves? 2. when talking about refering back in case of disagreement, the quran says refer back to Allah and messenger, not the ulil amr, because absolute obeying is only for Allah and his messenger. so many places in the quran where it says to obey Allah and the messenger. nowhere does it talk about disagreements. the only place where it talks about obeying the ulil amr, the very next line talks about what to do about disagreements. 

same as above

there's a discussion on it, quite some time ago.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235016692-verse-459-ulil-amr/?page=36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoskot said:

the ahadith u posted tell only  as to why the verse was supposed to be revealed, nothing about companions asking who are these ulil amri.

let me put it this way - to counter ur assertion that people (sahaba) don't ask what they (sahaba) already know.

1. sometimes i asked my son, what does 2+2 = to? does this mean i don't know the answer? obviously i do know the answer.

2. (a) every month, sahaba will see new moon. they knew about new moon and yet they still asked the Prophet. the proof that they asked is quran 2:189.

    (b) there are only 2 instances of ulil amri in Quran. it's quite a stretch to believe sahaba knew who are these ulil amri when the verse 4:59 and verse 4:83 were revealed without asking the Prophet.

so, sahaba already knew who are these ulil amri, as the logical explanation for the absence of relevant ahadith in sunni hadith collection, fails miserably, if i were to be honest with myself.

the ahadith say that the verse was revealed with regards to the commander of the army. and that the people should follow him too. hence, the ulil amr in that ayah was specifically for that commander, but in general, it is for any person of authority. your boss. your leader. your president. 

1. incorrect analogy. when you ask your son, you are asking him to teach him. the companions dont ask to teach. they ask to learn.

2. (a) wrong. they asked about the new moons. plural. not singular. they knew WHAT the moon was. they could see it every night. if you read the answer to the question about new moons, you will see why they asked about the new moons. it says: Say, "They are measurements of time for the people and for Hajj."

they asked about the purpose of there being a new moon every month. 

(b) i already told you, the reason for revelation was known, according to hadith. ulil amr was referring to that commander of the army and generally to every person of authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoskot said:

[Shakir 8:20] O you who believe! obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear.

using the same logic as u used above, absolute obedience is hence only for Allah?

u forgot the trailing, "if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day". A question one might ask, why not "if you should believe in Allah and Rasul"? were they (some of O you who have believed) had any issue with obeying the Prophet? or doubts whether this is a command from Allah?

maybe some1 with great knowledge with computer programming (IF statement) able to  transform this portion of ayat into IF statements and see whether it's a green-light to differ or a rebuke to dissenting voices.

 

shias believe obedience to ulil amri is by the command of Allah as per 4:59. they wouldn't lead us to hell fire. let's agree to disagree here.

same as above

there's a discussion on it, quite some time ago.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235016692-verse-459-ulil-amr/?page=36

8:20 we cant use the same logic here because 1. there are many places where the verb of obeying comes for both Allah and the messenger. 2. 4:59 is in a certain context of obeying the leader/authority. and about how to deal with differences with them. 8:20 and others like it have nothing to do with differences among the ummah, or about ulil amr. 3. the criteria for returning in case of disagreement is also not there in 8:20 because there is not way there will be a disagreement between Allah's command and Messenger's command.

 

sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

the ahadith say that the verse was revealed with regards to the commander of the army. and that the people should follow him too. hence, the ulil amr in that ayah was specifically for that commander, but in general, it is for any person of authority. your boss. your leader. your president. 

haha...we are getting in circles here - just one of those fabricated ahadith by ummayyads/abbassids to justify their kingdom.:grin:

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

 

1. incorrect analogy. when you ask your son, you are asking him to teach him. the companions dont ask to teach. they ask to learn.

but sufficient to disprove: people only ask what they don't know :D

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

2. (a) wrong. they asked about the new moons. plural. not singular. they knew WHAT the moon was. they could see it every night. if you read the answer to the question about new moons, you will see why they asked about the new moons. it says: Say, "They are measurements of time for the people and for Hajj."

they asked about the purpose of there being a new moon every month.

the fact remains, they did asked about something they had experienced (hence knowledge) almost every months

 

2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

(b) i already told you, the reason for revelation was known, according to hadith. ulil amr was referring to that commander of the army and generally to every person of authority.

sorry bro,  just one of those fabricated ahadith by ummayyads/abbassids to justify their kingdom.:grin:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Shakir 8:20] O you who believe! obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear.

2 entities 1 OBEY command

[Shakir 47:33] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and do not make your deeds of no effect.

2 entities 2 OBEY commands

[Shakir 4:80] Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah,

so essentially, the Quran is telling us, it's immaterial whether the number of entities = number of the verb OBEY.

hence the need to obey ulil-amri, just as we need to obey the prophet.

the argument for the need of a separate OBEY for ulil amri in verse 4:59 for it to be unconditional obedience, is null and VOID, IMO.

this is only for those who seek the truth.

for the rest of us, "fastabiqul khoiraat...."

wassalam.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, just a muslim said:

like i said, i dont know what happened at the time. i dont have enough knowledge to make any comment. will have to read up on it first. will get back to you later today inshaAllah.

But you know that Imam Hussain a.s. was of the Prophet's progeny a.s. right? And you know that your salat is void when you do not give the salawat on them a.s. do you?

How can you doubt for only just one sec. if Imam Hussain a.s. was on Haqq or not and his killer was?

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Faruk said:

But you know that Imam Hussain a.s. was of the Prophet's progeny a.s. right? And you know that your salat is void when you do not give the salawat on them a.s. do you?

How can you doubt for only just one sec. if Imam Hussain a.s. was on Haqq or not and his killer was?

 

yes i know that.

i am not doubting anything. nor am i saying that his killer was on haqq. i am saying i dont know what happened. the details. 

but just to be clear, on an unrelated topic, i do not believe the progeny of the prophet pbuh was infallible, not even the ahl e kisa, despite what you extract from 33:33.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, just a muslim said:

yes i know that.

i am not doubting anything. nor am i saying that his killer was on haqq. i am saying i dont know what happened. the details. 

but just to be clear, on an unrelated topic, i do not believe the progeny of the prophet pbuh was infallible, not even the ahl e kisa, despite what you extract from 33:33.

But you do believe that killing them is the opposite of sending blessings upon them a.s. do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoskot said:

haha...we are getting in circles here - just one of those fabricated ahadith by ummayyads/abbassids to justify their kingdom.:grin:

but sufficient to disprove: people only ask what they don't know :D

the fact remains, they did asked about something they had experienced (hence knowledge) almost every months

 

sorry bro,  just one of those fabricated ahadith by ummayyads/abbassids to justify their kingdom.:grin:

 

so these ahadith are fabricated because? your scholars say they are? my scholars say they arent. why are your scholars right and mine wrong?

no. read my last response again. i already responded to this exact claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Did someone miss that Russia actually made a deal with Saudi Arabia and sold them S-400 air defense missile? Don't you get it, these people are playing with the resistance and it is sadness that we buy and ask help from the enemy of Islam. It is us that gonna lose every war that they create, because that is how they make easy money.
    • I live in a burb of Chicago. Population of the Metro Chicago area and it’s surrounding areas = 9.5 mil
    • actually, one such effort done is: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. http://ammanmessage.com/the-three-points-of-the-amman-message-v-1/ but extreme wahhabis reject this. let's not be extremists like them. i remember, during 2003 invasion of iraq, thousands of gi joes died. today, the modern jihadists are their foot soldiers. how to prevent this (being foot soldiers for US or some other entities) from repeating itself in future? 1. spread the fact that shiism is not majoosi/jewish creation. 2. while not belittling others, shiism has strong evidence to be the islam  propagated by the Prophet, preserved through His Ahu Bayt as. 3. let's race towards good deeds - you don't have time to throw stones during a 100m dash, do you?
    • Looking at anyone who is not your partner in marriage - with lust - is haram.
    • Al-Salamu Alaykum This is what you should do if you found a lost item: Question: Suppose that Muslim, residing in a non-Muslim country finds a suitcase (full of clothes) with or without the owner’s nametag on it. What should he do with it? Answer: A suitcase of personal belongings normally has the nametag through which the owner can be contacted. If he knows that it belongs to a Muslim or a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct (or even if there is a likelihood —a considerable likelihood— [that it belongs to a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct]), it is necessary for him to announce it for one whole year that he has found that item [so that the owner can come forward and claim it]. If he cannot find the owner [even after the lapse of one year], he should, based on obligatory precaution, give it in charity. However, if he knows that it belongs to a non-Muslim, it is permissible for him to keep it provided that he is not legally bound to announce what he finds in that country or to hand it over to the authorities, etc. (1) In the latter case, he is not allowed to take possession of it; rather it is compulsory on him to act in accordance with the legal undertaking. Question: If I find an item in a European country without any distinctive sign on it [identifying the owner], is it permissible for me to keep it? Answer: If it has no distinctive sign by which one can contact the owner, it is permissible for you to keep it except in the case [of the legal undertaking] mentioned earlier. Source:  http://www.sistani.org/english/book/46/2057/
×