Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

I Want Everyone In This Thread

Rate this topic


fallah

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

I will try to expose my current thoughts about this whole sunni/shia issue, and what seems to make sense and what does not.

Please understand that this whole subject has become confusing to my mind, and the current political atmosphere is making things worse.

First, I would like to expose my thoughts on this whole subject about succession and the companions, perhaps binding in my thoughts about the hadiths at the same time.

Looking at the stories of the Prophets throughout the Quran, we understand that history repeats itself. There's this general idea that the Prophets of all times have been treated harshly and have suffered greatly, even though they deserve the best of treatments. What we also see is that most people reject the message. We see that Noah preached for 950 years and less than 10 embarked on the ark. We also see that the children of Israel began to worship the calf after 40 days of absence from Moses. Attitudes of family members of prophets are not the same throughout history, meaning not all of them were good, and of course alot of them were pious. There were wicked women who were destroyed by Allah, and good women who were saved and promised marvelous rewards. It is the same when it comes to men. Being the son, uncle or father of a prophet did not ensure good behavior.

Now, we come to our Prophet's time. What I find is that the personalities that the shia reject are often tainted in ungodly behavior in the sunni sahih hadith. Personally, I fail to see how sunnis don't see this in their books. It is as if some behaviors are accepted and not questioned just because they were among the prophet's presence. We can recall different situations, such as the event of the pen and paper, or when the Prophet told them to follow Usama. Theses 2 events happened at the end of the prophet's time, yet people fail to see how this is an important detail. If the sahaba were still disobeying the Prophet during his last days, when would the sahaba understand who this Muhammad was? This seems to confuse me.

Then comes the events of the burial of the Prophet. It is said his body remained unburied for 3 days. It is also said while Ali and his family were busy with his body, some sahaba heard about some meeting taking place between different people concerning the caliphate. Ok now things get confusing. While it is understandable that the succession is an important matter, it cannot be more important than the Prophet's funeral. Another problem is that, if we were to believe that the Prophet did not designate or see the need to designate his successor, we cannot really say that the sahaba knew more about the need of this ummah than he did, so to say it was an emergency and they had to leave doesn't sound like a legitimate excuse. Also, to say that indeed the Prophet did designate Abu Bakr as his successor by telling him to lead the prayer at some previous time, then there was obviously no need for a shura, and Ali wouldn't complain about his non-participation of the process as it is related in the sahih. The idea that the Prophet did designate a successor is an attractive thought. As the shias would say, Ali was designated successor of the Prophet at Ghadir, and their tafsir of "mawla" being "master" in the speech of the Prophet seems more convincing than the sunni version.

More questions arise. The concept of Immamat the shias propose is not rigid, lacks consistency, and is not available in the Quran explicitly. The verses used to support this concept are often extracted without looking at the context, and exaggeration is used. While they have a list of 12 successors and their version of Ahlul-Bayt seem to correspond to the sunni sahih muslim hadiths, the concept of infallibility and overexageration of their characteristics does not go hand in hand with history. Ali did not protest the caliphates, although it could be said he did for 6 months during the first, even according to the sunni sahihs. The sunni version that Ali gave his alliance twice is weak. While we could show that the Prophet nominated Ali, we cannot show that Hassan was next, and that the 6th would be al-Sadiq. The Prophet did not seem to give out the names before his death, and there was confusion about the imam of the time as I have understood. The occultation of the 12th Imam isn't shocking, for Jesus was in occultation according most muslims. While the shia version of Imam Mahdi goes hand in hand with the hadith about being of the descendant of fatima, it leaves questions in my mind, since the purpose of immamat was to guide, and not hide. This is quite funny, for there are theses isolated sects where they are at their 49th? imam and seem to serve the concept better, but we know he's making haram halal. Also, the concept of being secret imams is repulsive, a divine guide does not fulfil his role by hiding from the public eye and using taqiyya. This whole secretive aura the shias have given to the lives of the imams seem very contrary to the spirit of Islam. To me, this abundance of farfetched ideas have been integrated in the shia ahadith over time. Theses 12 men could indeed be the 12 leaders, but not the way the shia have protrayed them. We can find many hadith where the imams are turned into demi-gods, controlling the universe and bestowed exagerated amounts of hidden knoweldge. Today, this exaggeration can be seen through the way some venerate them in their shrines. Indeed, this is sad.

There is also this thing where Umar, at first sight, seems to change the sunna of the Prophet during his rule. We can see that in the sunni ahadith concerning mutaa for example. While mutaa was revealed in the Quran in verse 4:24 as shown in tafser ibn kathir, there is in fact no verse abrogating it. And the conflicting accounts in sunni hadith when it was abrogated seem to confuse the reader, and the scholars of sunnis even declared that the Prophet permitted mutaa twice and banned it twice. Although this seems to support the shia view, the conditions to practice mutaa seem to have nothing to do with how it was practiced back in the times.

Fatima is at the center of this conflict. While we can understand that Abu Bakr had good intentions, the mystery behind Fatima's death and her illustrated anger cannot be a subject of little importance. I am against exagerating the events, such as saying that she was kicked in the stomach, because it comes as a direct insult to Ali, since there is no reports that he took action to defend her. Obviously something did happen, and it should not be tossed on the side. One question that comes into mind is, "is there shia hadith about this?" Are there shia hadiths about Fadak, the burning of her house, the hadith of pen and paper, the hadith of the cloak? I see them being quoted from sunni hadith but I have not really encountered them in shia hadith.

Ah, while I have not spoke of everything, I want to say something on the tragedy of Karbala. To my understanding, the sunnis say the 10th of Muharram is a jolly day because of certain events concerning the prophets. While this is a coincidence, one might be forced to believe it is an intentional one.

Please understand something conerning the visiting of the graves. Imagine the graves to be the persons in them. Would any of you put his hands all over the Prophet? Or would you stand at a proper distance and say salam to him and pray that Allah bless him? Other than that, we muslims have nothing else to do in front of tombs. You visit them out of respect, give salam, pray that Allah bless them, and go. It is ignorance to jump on stone and start touching it everywhere like people without reason. While I respect shias for their visiting of the graves, I do not show an respect when they exagerate and act like drunk pagans. I also want to say I like how the salafis are hard against shirk and bidda, but do not appreciate their takfir and destroying the graves of people. Yes they should not become idols as they already have become, but it does not permit someone to disrespect the deceased person, especially that they are pious.

Aisha. Shias do not like her. Sunnis consider her to be the favorite wife of the Prophet. While this could be the case, we cannot close our eyes on the sahih hadith. Aisha narrates lots of them. While I do not believe in inflicting harm on the persons character, she was known to be jealous. And in fact, didn't she narrate about how the Prophet used to talk of Khadija? I mean to me a Prophet wouldn't have a "favorite" wife, for he was a Prophet and was beyond favoritism. Where are his other wives? Why are they not as present in the hadith? I understand that sunnis do say she was wrong when she got on the Camel against Ali, they don't go as far as accusing her for the deaths during the battle. They say the army began to fight without her orders. And Ali did not seem to disrespect her after the battle. Did he show hostility? Doesn't seem like it. So while she was wrong, shias can be more forgiving, since they themselves have done things that are not worthy of praise. Ali did seem to forgive her, so you can too, unless you are not of his shia.

There are still alot of things to be discussed.

----

Leave your comments.

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

If you want my opinion, my opinion is that you're are a Bitree mutlaq. Your ignoring the facts about the 3 "caliphs", and you dismiss them as confusing and illogical. Smells like Bitree-Bakree to me.

(wasalam)

Edited by haidar al karrar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

If you want my opinion, my opinion is that you're are a Bitree mutlaq. Your ignoring the facts about the 3 "caliphs", and you dismiss them as confusing and illogical. Smells like Bitree-Bakree to me.

(wasalam)

I'm pretty sure I made my point. I said both sects are confusing and illogical at different points. Ali didn't refuse their rule. If they were disbelievers or w/e, I don't think "safeguarding the ummah" is a valid reason because there was no ummah left, as you guys put it. If he didn't refuse their rule, why do you?

He would have made war. He would have declared their illegitimacy, he wouldn't participate in their government. People quote "If it wasn't for Ali, x would be lost". Logical deduction, Ali participated in their governments. Did Ali participate with disbelievers?

Edited by fallah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

I will try to expose my current thoughts about this whole sunni/shia issue, and what seems to make sense and what does not.

Please understand that this whole subject has become confusing to my mind, and the current political atmosphere is making things worse.

First, I would like to expose my thoughts on this whole subject about succession and the companions, perhaps binding in my thoughts about the hadiths at the same time.

Looking at the stories of the Prophets throughout the Quran, we understand that history repeats itself. There's this general idea that the Prophets of all times have been treated harshly and have suffered greatly, even though they deserve the best of treatments. What we also see is that most people reject the message. We see that Noah preached for 950 years and less than 10 embarked on the ark. We also see that the children of Israel began to worship the calf after 40 days of absence from Moses. Attitudes of family members of prophets are not the same throughout history, meaning not all of them were good, and of course alot of them were pious. There were wicked women who were destroyed by Allah, and good women who were saved and promised marvelous rewards. It is the same when it comes to men. Being the son, uncle or father of a prophet did not ensure good behavior.

Now, we come to our Prophet's time. What I find is that the personalities that the shia reject are often tainted in ungodly behavior in the sunni sahih hadith. Personally, I fail to see how sunnis don't see this in their books. It is as if some behaviors are accepted and not questioned just because they were among the prophet's presence. We can recall different situations, such as the event of the pen and paper, or when the Prophet told them to follow Usama. Theses 2 events happened at the end of the prophet's time, yet people fail to see how this is an important detail. If the sahaba were still disobeying the Prophet during his last days, when would the sahaba understand who this Muhammad was? This seems to confuse me.

Then comes the events of the burial of the Prophet. It is said his body remained unburied for 3 days. It is also said while Ali and his family were busy with his body, some sahaba heard about some meeting taking place between different people concerning the caliphate. Ok now things get confusing. While it is understandable that the succession is an important matter, it cannot be more important than the Prophet's funeral. Another problem is that, if we were to believe that the Prophet did not designate or see the need to designate his successor, we cannot really say that the sahaba knew more about the need of this ummah than he did, so to say it was an emergency and they had to leave doesn't sound like a legitimate excuse. Also, to say that indeed the Prophet did designate Abu Bakr as his successor by telling him to lead the prayer at some previous time, then there was obviously no need for a shura, and Ali wouldn't complain about his non-participation of the process as it is related in the sahih. The idea that the Prophet did designate a successor is an attractive thought. As the shias would say, Ali was designated successor of the Prophet at Ghadir, and their tafsir of "mawla" being "master" in the speech of the Prophet seems more convincing than the sunni version.

More questions arise. The concept of Immamat the shias propose is not rigid, lacks consistency, and is not available in the Quran explicitly. The verses used to support this concept are often extracted without looking at the context, and exaggeration is used. While they have a list of 12 successors and their version of Ahlul-Bayt seem to correspond to the sunni sahih muslim hadiths, the concept of infallibility and overexageration of their characteristics does not go hand in hand with history. Ali did not protest the caliphates, although it could be said he did for 6 months during the first, even according to the sunni sahihs. The sunni version that Ali gave his alliance twice is weak. While we could show that the Prophet nominated Ali, we cannot show that Hassan was next, and that the 6th would be al-Sadiq. The Prophet did not seem to give out the names before his death, and there was confusion about the imam of the time as I have understood. The occultation of the 12th Imam isn't shocking, for Jesus was in occultation according most muslims. While the shia version of Imam Mahdi goes hand in hand with the hadith about being of the descendant of fatima, it leaves questions in my mind, since the purpose of immamat was to guide, and not hide. This is quite funny, for there are theses isolated sects where they are at their 49th? imam and seem to serve the concept better, but we know he's making haram halal. Also, the concept of being secret imams is repulsive, a divine guide does not fulfil his role by hiding from the public eye and using taqiyya. This whole secretive aura the shias have given to the lives of the imams seem very contrary to the spirit of Islam. To me, this abundance of farfetched ideas have been integrated in the shia ahadith over time. Theses 12 men could indeed be the 12 leaders, but not the way the shia have protrayed them. We can find many hadith where the imams are turned into demi-gods, controlling the universe and bestowed exagerated amounts of hidden knoweldge. Today, this exaggeration can be seen through the way some venerate them in their shrines. Indeed, this is sad.

There is also this thing where Umar, at first sight, seems to change the sunna of the Prophet during his rule. We can see that in the sunni ahadith concerning mutaa for example. While mutaa was revealed in the Quran in verse 4:24 as shown in tafser ibn kathir, there is in fact no verse abrogating it. And the conflicting accounts in sunni hadith when it was abrogated seem to confuse the reader, and the scholars of sunnis even declared that the Prophet permitted mutaa twice and banned it twice. Although this seems to support the shia view, the conditions to practice mutaa seem to have nothing to do with how it was practiced back in the times.

Fatima is at the center of this conflict. While we can understand that Abu Bakr had good intentions, the mystery behind Fatima's death and her illustrated anger cannot be a subject of little importance. I am against exagerating the events, such as saying that she was kicked in the stomach, because it comes as a direct insult to Ali, since there is no reports that he took action to defend her. Obviously something did happen, and it should not be tossed on the side. One question that comes into mind is, "is there shia hadith about this?" Are there shia hadiths about Fadak, the burning of her house, the hadith of pen and paper, the hadith of the cloak? I see them being quoted from sunni hadith but I have not really encountered them in shia hadith.

Ah, while I have not spoke of everything, I want to say something on the tragedy of Karbala. To my understanding, the sunnis say the 10th of Muharram is a jolly day because of certain events concerning the prophets. While this is a coincidence, one might be forced to believe it is an intentional one.

Please understand something conerning the visiting of the graves. Imagine the graves to be the persons in them. Would any of you put his hands all over the Prophet? Or would you stand at a proper distance and say salam to him and pray that Allah bless him? Other than that, we muslims have nothing else to do in front of tombs. You visit them out of respect, give salam, pray that Allah bless them, and go. It is ignorance to jump on stone and start touching it everywhere like people without reason. While I respect shias for their visiting of the graves, I do not show an respect when they exagerate and act like drunk pagans. I also want to say I like how the salafis are hard against shirk and bidda, but do not appreciate their takfir and destroying the graves of people. Yes they should not become idols as they already have become, but it does not permit someone to disrespect the deceased person, especially that they are pious.

Aisha. Shias do not like her. Sunnis consider her to be the favorite wife of the Prophet. While this could be the case, we cannot close our eyes on the sahih hadith. Aisha narrates lots of them. While I do not believe in inflicting harm on the persons character, she was known to be jealous. And in fact, didn't she narrate about how the Prophet used to talk of Khadija? I mean to me a Prophet wouldn't have a "favorite" wife, for he was a Prophet and was beyond favoritism. Where are his other wives? Why are they not as present in the hadith? I understand that sunnis do say she was wrong when she got on the Camel against Ali, they don't go as far as accusing her for the deaths during the battle. They say the army began to fight without her orders. And Ali did not seem to disrespect her after the battle. Did he show hostility? Doesn't seem like it. So while she was wrong, shias can be more forgiving, since they themselves have done things that are not worthy of praise. Ali did seem to forgive her, so you can too, unless you are not of his shia.

There are still alot of things to be discussed.

----

Leave your comments.

(salam)

It's good to see you follow and believe through your own eyes and not blindly follow any sect, thats something we all can learn from. I have always said that if you look at Islamic history that there is no way that the Ahul Sunnah utopia could possibly exist. And that is the main reason I am Shi'a, the fact there was conflict. The fact that Ali (as) did not give bayah to Abu Bakr for even ONE second is enough for me to know something was up, the fact that there was a secret meeting called Saqifa, the fact that Umar told to the Prophet (pbuh) to not write his will, the fact that Ahul Sunnah say there was no need for Rasollah (pbuh) to appoint a leader when 20 years after his death Muslims start killing each other such as the Battle of Sifeen and the Battle of The Camel, the fact that there was an uprising against Uthmans Calipha with respected people participating in it, the fact that Uthman brought in the enemies of Islam into power. And of course that history repeats itself.

And at the same time I agree with your assessments against the Shi'a. There are some flaws. Though Imamat is in the Qur'an;

"And (remember) when his Lord tried Ibrahim with His commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: I have appointed you an Imam for mankind. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? He said: My covenant includes not the unjust." (Surah al Baqarah, 11:124)

The details of Imamat or rather the definition is defined by Shi'a scholars through hadith and Qur'an as well as the Imams themselves occasionally. I definitely agree with you that the Shi'a tend to over exaggerate the status of the Imams.

Edited by MuslimUnity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm pretty sure I made my point. I said both sects are confusing and illogical at different points. Ali didn't refuse their rule. If they were disbelievers or w/e, I don't think "safeguarding the ummah" is a valid reason because there was no ummah left, as you guys put it. If he didn't refuse their rule, why do you?

He would have made war. He would have declared their illegitimacy, he wouldn't participate in their government. People quote "If it wasn't for Ali, x would be lost". Logical deduction, Ali participated in their governments. Did Ali participate with disbelievers?

But fallah, it wasn't Imam Ali's (a.s) responsibility to fight for khilafat. It was the ummah's responsibility to give the khilafat to him. No Prophet has ever fought wars to be recognized by the people. Why does everyone expect Imam Ali (a.s) to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But fallah, it wasn't Imam Ali's (a.s) responsibility to fight for khilafat. It was the ummah's responsibility to give the khilafat to him. No Prophet has ever fought wars to be recognized by the people. Why does everyone expect Imam Ali (a.s) to?

Also, to add to what brother SayYaAli wrote (mind you, that I did not read the opening post yet), it is said in the prelude of the book Nahj al Balaghah something to the effect of:

Rasool telling Imam, concerning the khalifat of the ummah, that his position to it is that of the Kaaba; you do not go towards them, the people have to come to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Fallah,

You are just playing a game and wasting our time here.

You have already decided that all sahabas are Holy (even if they are murderers and rapist like Khalid al Walid (LA)).

You are incapable to see the haq/truth because your Islamic knowledge is very weak. You think the teaching of Islam can be suspended as long as it is done by the Sahabas.

- You think it is okay to leave the dead body of the Prophet unattended because Abu Bakr and Umar did not pay any respect.

- You think stealing Fatima's wealth is acceptable because Abu Bakr supposedly recited a hadith that abrogated many Quranic verses.

- Fatima was angry with Abu Bakr and Umar. Do you know that whoever angers Fatima angers the Holy Prophet? And do you also know that whoever angers the Holy Prophet, calls the wrath of Allah swt upon them?

- You think Uthman was sinless when you know very well how bad he was as a ruler. Do you know why Ayesha called Uthman a Jew? Because he used the public treasury to line the pocket of his family. He was killed by the people of his time because they couldn't stand the massive corruption perpetrated by him and his family. After his death, no one wanted to bury his body. I bet you just gloss over this fact like you do with everything else.

- Ayesha fought the Imam of the time. What happens to people who fight the Imam of time? According to the Holy Prophet: "They die the death of Jahiliyah". The Holy Prophet also said "The believers will love Ali and only hypocrites will hate him"

Now, you tell me who are the believers and who are the hypocrites?

You think it was okay for Muslims to abandon and forsake the ahlul bayt because your precious caliphs and their daughters fought them! Well Fallah, I've got news for you.

Any honest person will be able to see how false your belief and understanding is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, we come to our Prophet's time. What I find is that the personalities that the shia reject are often tainted in ungodly behavior in the sunni sahih hadith. Personally, I fail to see how sunnis don't see this in their books. It is as if some behaviors are accepted and not questioned just because they were among the prophet's presence. We can recall different situations, such as the event of the pen and paper, or when the Prophet told them to follow Usama. Theses 2 events happened at the end of the prophet's time, yet people fail to see how this is an important detail. If the sahaba were still disobeying the Prophet during his last days, when would the sahaba understand who this Muhammad was? This seems to confuse me.

you are misreading those hadith and never heard of others, or are ignoring other hadiths.

many times the companions were in the wrong and a verse of the Quran was sent down, to offer them DIRECT guidance for what pleases Allah SWT. do you not see this as an honour?

also you are merely coming across incidents which are shia/sunni debate-ables, and not others. for example ali ra was also sometimes in the wrong and was offered guidance but this matter is not played upon because it is neiither in the interests of shia, and is against the madhab of ahlesunnah to focus on these aspects.

if you read what the nonmuslim negotiator at the treaty of hubaidyah went back and said to his leaders you will get a clearer picture:

"O people of the Quraish I have seen kings, but by God I have never seen any king as I have seen Muhammad amongst his companions. If he makes his ablutions, they would not let the waterfall on the ground; if a hair of his body falls they pick it up. They will not surrender him for anything in any case, do what you may".

many of the merits of the companions are hidden from you, and you only see those incidents which the shia propagandanists think they can play on. you have to have to remember one of the rules of ahlesunnah - the believers must love the prophet more then their ownselves

Then comes the events of the burial of the Prophet. It is said his body remained unburied for 3 days. It is also said while Ali and his family were busy with his body, some sahaba heard about some meeting taking place between different people concerning the caliphate.

how far was the shed from the house the prophet prophet sallallahualaihiwasalam (sometimes refered to as the house of aisha ummulmomineen ra)?

unity was paramount, and if you read about the incident you will see that the ansar were ready to elect their own leader and possibly forever split into shiyas. Umar ra and abu bakr ra did not know if they were going for jihad/ or what, they just knew they were going to stop the split of the muslims. never again did the ansar try to split, this incident also disproves ghadeer. although one of the many discrepencies of shia-ism is the importance of ghadeer and succesion when they also say that ali ra is 'rabb' refered to in the quran who helped previous prophets.

Edited by kalim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
More questions arise. The concept of Immamat the shias propose is not rigid, lacks consistency, and is not available in the Quran explicitly. The verses used to support this concept are often extracted without looking at the context, and exaggeration is used.

Verse 4:59 is sufficient as proof for Imamat

[4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and Ulil Amra 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Verse 4:59 is sufficient as proof for Imamat

[4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and Ulil Amra 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.

If you quarel, Allah says return to the Prophet and Allah, not to the ulil amr. Thus, ulil amr can be in the wrong.

Edited by fallah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you quarel, Allah says return to the Prophet and Allah, not to the ulil amr. Thus, ulil amr can be in the wrong.

(bismillah)

The first part of the verse is clearly showing (within Arabic grammar) that Allaah has authority and then we listen to the Prophet and then the ulil amr. But in other parts of the Qur'an Allaah has said that we cannot follow sinners, meaning that the Prophet and the ulil amr would not be sinners. The second part of that verse is saying that if you quarrel, as in, if you dispute over anything regarding Islaam, refer to the words of Allaah and the words of the Prophet because from them we know what is halal and haraam. The ulil amr, the Imams, do not decide haraam and halal, they only transmit the rules established by the Prophet and by Allaah and that is why they are not mentioned in the second part of the verse.

I read the rest of your post and I do think that you are misunderstanding some things. But I don't have the time to reply to it and there are plenty of threads on these issues already.

May Allaah guide us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you quarel, Allah says return to the Prophet and Allah, not to the ulil amr. Thus, ulil amr can be in the wrong.

"Come! We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie" (3:61),

Read the sunni tafsir. For the self, the Prophet took Imam Ali (as) for sons Hasan and Hussain (as) and for women Fatima (as)

and in many places he has stated Ali is part of me and I am part of Ali, Hasan is part of me and I am part of Hasan, Hussain is part of me and I am part of Hussain, Fatima (as) is part of me and I am part of Fatima (as) so bayah of Ali or his sons is bayah of Prophet (pbuh) and Allah

Verse 4:59 is sufficient as proof for Imamat

[4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and Ulil Amra 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.

Edited by zakzaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you quarel, Allah says return to the Prophet and Allah, not to the ulil amr. Thus, ulil amr can be in the wrong.

Have you not noticed at word 'obey' which is common between His mesenger and Ulil Amra among you?

and for messenger it is mentioned that 'If ye obey him, ye will go aright'.

[24:54] Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is) for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged, and for you (to do) only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.

But when Rasool(S.A.W.) is not between us then whom do we obey?

Edited by elite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Have you not noticed at word 'obey' which is common between His mesenger and Ulil Amra among you?

and for messenger it is mentioned that 'If ye obey him, ye will go aright'.

[24:54] Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is) for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged, and for you (to do) only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.

But when Rasool(S.A.W.) is not between us then whom do we obey?

Have you not noticed the rest of the verse?

When Allah says obey authority, he of course means obey those who are in charge because in any type of group, in order to have cohesion, you must obey those in authority. Now the question comes when this authority is not islamic, thus Allah says "If you quarel, return to the messenger and Allah", meaning, don't obey authority if they tell you to do something unislamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

you are misreading those hadith and never heard of others, or are ignoring other hadiths.

many times the companions were in the wrong and a verse of the Quran was sent down, to offer them DIRECT guidance for what pleases Allah SWT. do you not see this as an honour?

also you are merely coming across incidents which are shia/sunni debate-ables, and not others. for example ali ra was also sometimes in the wrong and was offered guidance but this matter is not played upon because it is neiither in the interests of shia, and is against the madhab of ahlesunnah to focus on these aspects.

if you read what the nonmuslim negotiator at the treaty of hubaidyah went back and said to his leaders you will get a clearer picture:

"O people of the Quraish I have seen kings, but by God I have never seen any king as I have seen Muhammad amongst his companions. If he makes his ablutions, they would not let the waterfall on the ground; if a hair of his body falls they pick it up. They will not surrender him for anything in any case, do what you may".

many of the merits of the companions are hidden from you, and you only see those incidents which the shia propagandanists think they can play on. you have to have to remember one of the rules of ahlesunnah - the believers must love the prophet more then their ownselves

how far was the shed from the house the prophet prophet sallallahualaihiwasalam (sometimes refered to as the house of aisha ummulmomineen ra)?

unity was paramount, and if you read about the incident you will see that the ansar were ready to elect their own leader and possibly forever split into shiyas. Umar ra and abu bakr ra did not know if they were going for jihad/ or what, they just knew they were going to stop the split of the muslims. never again did the ansar try to split, this incident also disproves ghadeer. although one of the many discrepencies of shia-ism is the importance of ghadeer and succesion when they also say that ali ra is 'rabb' refered to in the quran who helped previous prophets.

Honestly speaking, you are misreading the hadiths as well & understanding the Quranic verses wrongly. How does correcting someone who is on the wrong path constitute an honour for the people who are wrong? You are just highlighting the points which please you and forgetting the ones which have reprimanded the sahabas for their unlawful deeds. There are so many hadiths and verses in Quran which show us that not all sahabas were with the prophet whole heartedly. For instance, the battles of Hunayn and Badr show us that some hypocrites were hiding behind the veil of sahabas as we read in the Holy Quran. So how can you say that sahabas need to be respected irrespective of their deeds?

Secondly, if the two did go to stop the creation of disunity among muslims why didn't one of them not send for Ali (as) to stop this fitna among the muslims? Didn't the Prophet (saws) mention that "I am the city of knowledge and Ali (as) is it's gate" which proves that he was the most knowledgeable person amongst everyone around. Why did these two just leave without informing Hazrat Ali (as)? How can anyone believe that they were so busy that they didnt even get a minute of their time to think of involving Ali (as)? If you read the history carefully, you will see that Ali (as) was right with them at prophet's (saws) house when one of them whispered into the other's ears & they both departed secretly.

Also, a lot of Sunni books prove that Umar did wish Ali(as) on becoming the master of all believers on the day of Ghadeer. You need to read your books carefully.

What actions of Ali (as) were wrong that you have mentioned in your example above? Please quote some reliable hadiths to prove your example otherwise stop such blasphemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It doesn't say where the Ulil Amr are wrong, the verse says when YOU argue i.e. when YOU are confused and are wrong, go back to Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s.a.w.w).

lol, that's why Allah doesn't include ulil amr, amirite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, that's why Allah doesn't include ulil amr, amirite?

You do nothing to prove your sincerity when you use acronyms like "lol". The fact that you find a response funny shows that you really don't care about the Truth, but just the game of pitting your ego against someone else's to win the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You do nothing to prove your sincerity when you use acronyms like "lol". The fact that you find a response funny shows that you really don't care about the Truth, but just the game of pitting your ego against someone else's to win the argument.

should i be weeping instead of lol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Have you not noticed the rest of the verse?

When Allah says obey authority, he of course means obey those who are in charge because in any type of group, in order to have cohesion, you must obey those in authority. Now the question comes when this authority is not islamic, thus Allah says "If you quarel, return to the messenger and Allah", meaning, don't obey authority if they tell you to do something unislamic.

As you have translated word ‘Ulil amara’ as authority weather Isalmic or Non Islamic.Let me say in the world two types of Authority prevailing

1. kingship 2. Democracy.

For king Quran says

[27:34] She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.

For Democracy

[ 6:116] And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie.

In democracy elected members are servants of People.for their act elected members are responsible to the people.At the time of election have you seen them how they beg for vote ?.Beggers can never be master.

People are master. So How master obey servant? Instead people cooperate in running the affairs.

At very first Quran is preventing believers from obeying disbelievers and people of book.so It is meaningless to translate ‘Ulil Amra ‘ as authority weather Islamic or Non Islamic and then obey it.

[3:149] O you who believe! if you obey those who disbelieve they will turn you back upon your heels, so you will turn back losers.

[25:52] So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.

[ 3:100] O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book, they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.

Result of obeying worldy power is shown in following verse.

[33:67] And they shall say: O our Lord! surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men, so they led us astray from the path;

By translating ‘Ulil Amra’ as worldy authority you have preferred ‘duniya’ over ‘akherat’ which is nothing else but but mentioned as 'play and amusement ' in quran

Where Quran says

[ 87:16] Nay! you prefer the life of this world,

[ 87:17] While the hereafter is better and more lasting.

[ 6:32] What is the life of this world but play and amusement? But best is the home in the hereafter, for those who are righteous. Will ye not then understand?

[29:64] What is the life of this world but amusement and play? but verily the Home in the Hereafter,- that is life indeed, if they but knew.

[47:36] The life of this world is but play and amusement: and if ye believe and guard against Evil, He will grant you your recompense, and will not ask you (to give up) your possessions.

[40:39] "O my people! This life of the present is nothing but (temporary) convenience: It is the Hereafter that is the Home that will last.

[ 57:20] Know ye (all), that the life of this world is but play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting and multiplying, (in rivalry) among yourselves, riches and children. Here is a similitude: How rain and the growth which it brings forth, delight (the hearts of) the tillers; soon it withers; thou wilt see it grow yellow; then it becomes dry and crumbles away. But in the Hereafter is a Penalty severe (for the devotees of wrong). And Forgiveness from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure (for the devotees of Allah). And what is the life of this world, but goods and chattels of deception?

While we constantly seeking for guidance atleast five times during our prayer..and object of our life is pleasure of Allah and jannat

[1:6] Guide us the right path.

[1:7] The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

[3:185] Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.

Instead ‘Ulil Amra ‘ are divine guide whose unconditional obedience is compulsory upon believers

If you quarel, Allah says return to the Prophet and Allah, not to the ulil amr. Thus, ulil amr can be in the wrong.

Ulil amra are not mentioned because they are not independent . They are one who are obedient to Allah and his messenger.

[4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

‘If you diifer in anything among yourselves ‘ this is for difference between believers. Not between believers and Ulil Amra

Ummah is commanded to make prophet Judge in their dispute.Prophet judge between ummah according to Book of Allah.

[4:65] But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.

When prophet is not between Ummah then they are Ulil amra who judge between ummah.Ulil Amra judge between Ummah according to Book of Allah and Sunnah of Prophet(S.A.W.)

[24:51] The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey": it is such as these that will attain felicity.

"If you quarel, return to the messenger and Allah", meaning, don't obey authority if they tell you to do something unislamic.

You are playing with translation of quran.

Verse does not say "If you quarel, return to the messenger and Allah" instead it says 'refer the matter of dispute to Allah and His messenger'

[shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

[Pickthal 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

[Yusufali 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

What do you mean by 'return to Allah and his messenger" is it turning back from kufra to Islam?

Edited by elite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...