An Authoritative Topic On Authority

[baradar_jackson]

(salam)

Dear friends:

The issue of authority is the most sensitive issue that faces Shia today.

We have a question of whether the ulama, the mujtahideen, the maraji, the General-Secretary, the Honorable Position... are a legitimate authorities or no.

One oft-used argument is that they are not infallible. Their authority is rejected on this basis.

Is this a legitimate reason to reject an authority?

For example!

Let's say we have two people. Person X of them is more learned, more moral, more faithful, more enlightened, more brave, more selfless, more ethical, etc... than Person Y. Meaning he is superior to the Person Y person in every conceivable way.

Person X is not a prophet or an Imam. He is an ordinary person who just happens to have developed these lofty characteristics.

Let's say that Person X -- owing to his lofty traits -- is right... 99 percent of the time. Meaning, he has all of these lofty traits but because he is not infallible he will make the occasional mistake.

Does this 1 percent mistake ratio then make Person Y less obliged to follow Person X?

Person Y is as ordinary as they come. He doesn't know anything about Islam except for the stuff that you need in your daily life: what to eat and not to eat, how to do ghusl, how to pray, etc.

Is it acceptable that Person Y not follow Person X?

Is the fact that neither of these people infallible, make them equal? Does it make Person X's right to leadership any less?

Discuss.

[Ali Hayder]

Does it make Person X's right to leadership any less?

Of course.

There is one overriding criteria for leadership (amongst others) and it is stated quite clearly in the Qur'an:

2:30 "Surely I will place a caliph on the Earth"

2:124 "And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He."

2:247 "He said: Surely Allah has chosen him (Talut) in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Amplegiving, Knowing."

4:54 Or do they envy the people for what Allah has given them of His grace? But indeed We have given to Ibrahim's children the Book and the wisdom, and We have given them a grand kingdom.

I could go on but I imagine that you get the point. This is our whole beef with people who are not followers of Ahlul Bayt (as). Being a good person is not sufficient. Allah has to appoint a person if he is to be followed.

Now as for the question of who should lead in the ghaybah of the Imam (as), there are clear instructions about that too:

: ‘As for guidance in the events which transpire, refer to those who narrate our traditions, since they are my proof over all of you and I am the proof of Allah over them.’ (Wasa’il al-Shi‘a, Vol. 18, p. 101, no. 9; Bihar Anwar, Vol. 2, p. 90, sec. 14, no. 13, in Mutlaq, p. 34).

[baradar_jackson]

^ Dude, Person X is not just acting like this on his on whim. He is implementing the ahlul bayt's teachings and model in his own life.

[Ali Hayder]

^ Dude, Person X is not just acting like this on his on whim. He is implementing the ahlul bayt's teachings and model in his own life.

Doesn't matter how good Person X is (like I already said). He has to either be appointed by Allah or by Allah's representative to have authority. Otherwise implementing Ahlul Bayt's teachings in one's own life is everyone's responsibility.

There's a narration from Imam Sadiq (as) that I once read but can't find the source of, it might be in Sulaym ibn Qays, in which he says we would have cursed Salman as well if he had usurped the right of Imam Ali (as). As you can see, being a good person therefore has nothing to do with it.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Ali Hayder

[Blissful]

Next.

[Naad e Ali]

if its just for ordinary case of X n Y.... of course the pious one should lead...

[titumir]

So in the end what do anti-WF people suppose we should do? Just be passive and live under the rule of any damn infidel tyrant who comes and invades the land? Never try to rule ourselves? Keep the business of government totally to non-Muslims?

[MysticKnight]

How would you know he is right 99% of the time?

[baradar_jackson]

Doesn't matter how good Person X is (like I already said). He has to either be appointed by Allah or by Allah's representative to have authority. Otherwise implementing Ahlul Bayt's teachings in one's own life is everyone's responsibility.

There's a narration from Imam Sadiq (as) that I once read but can't find the source of, it might be in Sulaym ibn Qays, in which he says we would have cursed Salman as well if he had usurped the right of Imam Ali (as). As you can see, being a good person therefore has nothing to do with it.

Who said anything about Person X just being a "good person"????

It seems you are simplifying the nature of Person X simply to make it seem as though he does not have the necessary traits for leadership.

"He has to either be appointed by Allah or by Allah's representative to have authority." No, you see I opened this thread to question this very idea. You cannot, then, use this idea on its own as a counter-argument. I say "X is wrong because Y," and you just say "No, Y can't be right. Because X!!" ???

But in any case, Imam Mahdi did impart authority -- in a general sense -- upon certain people in his absence: "In case of newly occurring social circumstances, you should turn for guidance to those who relate our traditions, for they are my proof to you, as I am God’s proof."

But that's besides the point.

The point here is principles. Is it acceptable for a person to reject the authority of someone who is clearly superior to himself, and is ismah even relevant to bring up in this case?

Consider this: Imam Ali was infallible. He had such lofty traits which we are all familiar with. He was this and that.

What was Imam Ali's approach toward the Messenger of God (pbuh)? Imam Ali, during the life of the Prophet, was he ever on equal footing with him??? Were they co-rulers?

Here are two infallible people. Infallibility which is used as a trump card for rebelling against our rightful authorities, can be turned right back against the deviant current with this analogy! Imam Ali, an infallible; a man of great justice as well as great bravery and akhlaq and etc... with respect to the Prophet, what was Imam Ali? Did he consider himself the Prophet's equal? No! He was as obedient and submissive as a slave. He was the Prophet's lieutenant; if the Prophet told him to jump off a cliff, he would do it. He followed his every command. The deviant current says, "Well that's different. The Prophet is ma'soom!" Well, isn't Imam Ali? Why does ma'soom Imam Ali have to follow anyone, ma'soom or otherwise? Why can't Imam Ali make his own judgements? Has God not given him infallibility, making his every judgement correct???

Clearly, Imam Ali is obliged to obey the Prophet. He isn't just doing it for giggles. Why is this so? Why must the Imam follow the Prophet? There is only one truth, and both the Prophet and the Imam are infallible. So they are essentially one mind. There is no distinction between the two whatsoever as far as their ideology or their piety or their obedience to God's command or any of their traits.

What conclusion can we draw from this? Even upon an infallible person, it can be obligatory to follow an authority. So the ismah trump card cannot be used in arguments of authority, and the distinction between rightful and illegitimate authority has nothing at all to do with ismah, in the sense that lack of ismah cannot be used to dismiss a leadership as illegitimate.

Edited August 29, 2011 by baradar_jackson

[Ruq]

It doesnt make person y obliged to, but he'd be wise to refer to person x on a subject. Of course, it isnt uncommon for persons x to come to different conclusions with the same level of education, so maybe its even wiser to consult several persons x and do your own investigation also.

[Ali Hayder]

Who said anything about Person X just being a "good person"????

It seems you are simplifying the nature of Person X simply to make it seem as though he does not have the necessary traits for leadership.

"He has to either be appointed by Allah or by Allah's representative to have authority." No, you see I opened this thread to question this very idea. You cannot, then, use this idea on its own as a counter-argument. I say "X is wrong because Y," and you just say "No, Y can't be right. Because X!!" ???

But in any case, Imam Mahdi did impart authority -- in a general sense -- upon certain people in his absence: "In case of newly occurring social circumstances, you should turn for guidance to those who relate our traditions, for they are my proof to you, as I am God’s proof."

But that's besides the point.

The point here is principles. Is it acceptable for a person to reject the authority of someone who is clearly superior to himself, and is ismah even relevant to bring up in this case?

Consider this: Imam Ali was infallible. He had such lofty traits which we are all familiar with. He was this and that.

What was Imam Ali's approach toward the Messenger of God (pbuh)? Imam Ali, during the life of the Prophet, was he ever on equal footing with him??? Were they co-rulers?

Here are two infallible people. Infallibility which is used as a trump card for rebelling against our rightful authorities, can be turned right back against the deviant current with this analogy! Imam Ali, an infallible; a man of great justice as well as great bravery and akhlaq and etc... with respect to the Prophet, what was Imam Ali? Did he consider himself the Prophet's equal? No! He was as obedient and submissive as a slave. He was the Prophet's lieutenant; if the Prophet told him to jump off a cliff, he would do it. He followed his every command. The deviant current says, "Well that's different. The Prophet is ma'soom!" Well, isn't Imam Ali? Why does ma'soom Imam Ali have to follow anyone, ma'soom or otherwise? Why can't Imam Ali make his own judgements? Has God not given him infallibility, making his every judgement correct???

Clearly, Imam Ali is obliged to obey the Prophet. He isn't just doing it for giggles. Why is this so? Why must the Imam follow the Prophet? There is only one truth, and both the Prophet and the Imam are infallible. So they are essentially one mind. There is no distinction between the two whatsoever as far as their ideology or their piety or their obedience to God's command or any of their traits.

What conclusion can we draw from this? Even upon an infallible person, it can be obligatory to follow an authority. So the ismah trump card cannot be used in arguments of authority, and the distinction between rightful and illegitimate authority has nothing at all to do with ismah, in the sense that lack of ismah cannot be used to dismiss a leadership as illegitimate.

Congrats for missing the point. Where in any of posts did I mention infallibility?

Talut wasn't infallible. His obedience was wajib because Allah made him the leader. Imam Ali (as) was obedient to the Prophet (pbuh) because the Prophet (pbuh) was appointed by Allah.

Therefore my point still stands. Person X has to either be appointed by Allah or by Allah's representative.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Ali Hayder

[MysticKnight]

Talut wasn't infallible.

Do you have proof he wasn't infallible from Quran and hadith perspective? Or is it just because he isn't a Prophet (also what if he became a Prophet later)?

Edited August 30, 2011 by MysticKnight

[Ali Hayder]

Do you have proof he wasn't infallible from Quran and hadith perspective? Or is it just because he isn't a Prophet (also what if he became a Prophet later)?

I would imagine we would need proof that he was?

[baradar_jackson]

Congrats for missing the point. Where in any of posts did I mention infallibility?

Talut wasn't infallible. His obedience was wajib because Allah made him the leader. Imam Ali (as) was obedient to the Prophet (pbuh) because the Prophet (pbuh) was appointed by Allah.

Therefore my point still stands. Person X has to either be appointed by Allah or by Allah's representative.

But Imam Ali was also appointed by Allah! Why should he obey anyone!

[Ali Hayder]

But Imam Ali was also appointed by Allah! Why should he obey anyone!

Sure he was appointed by Allah, but his authority was for the time after the Prophet. In the time of the Prophet, he had to obey because the Prophet was the one in authority. This is not comparable with someone who is not appointed by Allah for obvious reasons.

[baradar_jackson]

Sure he was appointed by Allah, but his authority was for the time after the Prophet. In the time of the Prophet, he had to obey because the Prophet was the one in authority. This is not comparable with someone who is not appointed by Allah for obvious reasons.

But Imam Ali was incapable of making any mistakes.

So I repeat the question: why was Imam Ali obliged to obey the Prophet?

[Ali Hayder]

But Imam Ali was incapable of making any mistakes.

Red herring. This was never part of my argument.

So I repeat the question: why was Imam Ali obliged to obey the Prophet?

Again I repeat the answer: the Prophet was appointed by Allah. There is only one divine authority at one time, even if there are multiple infallibles.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Ali Hayder

[baradar_jackson]

Red herring. This was never part of my argument.

I have said this many times in the past: I don't know what "red herring" means. Kindly stop saying this when you are talking with me.

Again I repeat the answer: the Prophet was appointed by Allah. There is only one divine authority at one time, even if there are multiple infallibles.

Then you are saying the same thing that I am saying! You are saying that authority is a separate issue from ismah!

The two infallibilities are negated, and still Imam Ali must obey the Prophet.

[Shia_Debater]

(salam)

I will use logic and common sense to answer your question baradar.

If we say that there isnt an Imam (as), and there is no one who he has appointed, then we have to see how do we follow islam?

There are two choices;

Follow yourself i.e. do your own thing, read hadiths and make decisions etc.

Follow someone else whoever that may be who also reads hadiths, makes decisions etc. but is more knowledgeable than you.

It is common sense to follow someone who is more knowledgeable than you, due to the fact that the decisions they make when it comes to matters of religion will be better than your decisions. Until you gain more knowledge than them or sufficient amount of knowledge to follow yourself.

Now we have to see who do you follow?

In your statement you said that person X has more knowledge than person Y

Now yes in terms of religion person X should be followed if hes knowledge is more, but then based on opinions of differing people the knowledge of person X may seem higher to some than others, thus Person Y may be more knowledgeable in the eyes of others.

Who has the position to say this person is 100% knowledgeable than that person? No one except for Imam (as) who isnt here which leaves us with a problem.

The conclusion is, Person X is a different person for each person, for some of us Person X is ayatollah so and so, for others of us it is Seyed so and so etc. and that is why we all follow different marja.

Im afraid this is a problem that cannot be solved, we each follow our marja (or follow ourselves) and in the end Allah (swt) will be our judge.

(wasalam)

Edited August 30, 2011 by Shia_Debater

[Ali Hayder]

I have said this many times in the past: I don't know what "red herring" means. Kindly stop saying this when you are talking with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring Educate yourself.

Then you are saying the same thing that I am saying! You are saying that authority is a separate issue from ismah!

The two infallibilities are negated, and still Imam Ali must obey the Prophet.

I have never once mentioned ismah in any of posts. You are arguing against a point that no one is arguing for. Ergo, red herring.

[baradar_jackson]

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Red_herring Educate yourself.

I have never once mentioned ismah in any of posts. You are arguing against a point that no one is arguing for. Ergo, red herring.

Brother, just answer my question: why was it necessary that Imam Ali have a leader?

[Ali Hayder]

Brother, just answer my question: why was it necessary that Imam Ali have a leader?

Scroll up. I already answered it.

[baradar_jackson]

Scroll up. I already answered it.

No you didn't.

You said that Imam Ali needed to be obedient to the Prophet because the Prophet was appointed by God.

You are only looking at this from one angle (i.e. the Prophet being appointed by God). What about the other half?

There should be no distinction made between Imam Ali and the Prophet. They were one mind. Conceivably, Imam Ali could obey the Prophet by default. So why do we see in the relationship between Imam Ali and the Prophet a relationship of general to soldier, father to son, teacher to student??? Are we saying that Imam Ali needed these things?

[Ali Hayder]

No you didn't.

You said that Imam Ali needed to be obedient to the Prophet because the Prophet was appointed by God.

You are only looking at this from one angle (i.e. the Prophet being appointed by God). What about the other half?

What is the other half? Enlighten me.

There should be no distinction made between Imam Ali and the Prophet. They were one mind. Conceivably, Imam Ali could obey the Prophet by default. So why do we see in the relationship between Imam Ali and the Prophet a relationship of general to soldier, father to son, teacher to student??? Are we saying that Imam Ali needed these things?

No, Imam Ali (as) did not need these things. But he was doing this to set an example for the rest of us. Just as when he asked for forgiveness, it wasn't because he sinned but so that we would know how to ask Allah.

[baradar_jackson]

What is the other half? Enlighten me.

The other half is Imam Ali.

Meaning, we not only have someone appointed by God which people must obey, but we have a person obeying him who, for all intents and purposes, is needless of an authority.

No, Imam Ali (as) did not need these things. But he was doing this to set an example for the rest of us. Just as when he asked for forgiveness, it wasn't because he sinned but so that we would know how to ask Allah.

Precisely.

Imam Ali needed to be obedient toward the rightful authority regardless of his own personal stature.

[Fink]

The whole idea of an infallible in today's times is irrelevant, so whether it may have existed in the past or not, its a trivial issue today. I dont believe Islam advocates pure anarchy so thats out of the question. How many options of govt are we then left with?. You see Islam is a pragmatic religion because at the end of the day there will always be misunderstandings. Lets put govt aside , muslims today differ on issues like salat, fasting, hajj etc thats the reality. And we shias cant say we have all the answers, otherwise we wouldnt be having taqleed and various opinions on a single issue.

Authority does not have to be as clear cut as we want it to be.

[baradar_jackson]

Authority does not have to be as clear cut as we want it to be.

Yes it does.

But you make a good point about anarchy.

Islam cannot be both a complete religion and an apolitical religion.

Politics is a human necessity, so any religion that ignores politics is by rule incomplete.

(In the same manner, Islam is condemned in the West for being a religion of war simply because it is not pacifistic, when in fact any religion which ignores the issue of war must be incomplete, because defence is a human necessity).

So we have a need for politics, and we supposedly don't have any leader appointed by God (when in fact, we do! Imam Mahdi was clear about who he appointed in his absence, and Imam Mahdi is incapable of going against God's injunctions.

So we have a completed ideology: Islam. It was completed at Ghadir.

We have appointed leaders, which Imam Mahdi used his invested authority to appoint.

Imam Khomeini said that the preservation of the Islamic state is more obligatory than salaat.

[MysticKnight]

The fact is Islam didn't give guidance regarding authority.

It didn't say how to elect the leader, how long the leader should stay in power, what to do if he is unjust or fails his duty..all the structure to take place to set up and maintain a just government

Khomeini simply gave a Faqih the same authority of the Prophet when it comes to government and political leadership. By the hadiths if they prove that, you realize every scholar has this authority, yet scholars can differ, be wrong, be unjust, etc..

Islam is not a complete guidance. It lacks essential guidance to humanity.

If Islam provided guidance towards government, there wouldn't be dictators ruling the middle-east today.

It provided details in our personal life yet avoided vital information on how society should conduct itself and structure a just government.

The fact is, till today, there is no government that is complele by the people. Europe and the West it's all at the end in the power of the elites and people just pick inbetween what elites pick.

If it was to be a guidance to humanity, it should not only have provided guidance regarding a country, but how to implement a global just government for humanity later.

Instead, we got left in the dark, and are just waiting for the Mahdi to come to establish justice.

If God wanted to guide us, he missed the most vital issues.

Edited August 31, 2011 by MysticKnight

[MysticKnight]

Politics is a human necessity, so any religion that ignores politics is by rule incomplete.

Islam ignored to much vital details of government politics. If Quran was a book of complete guidance, it would have went to great detail on how to establish a just government and maintain it, and a plan for the world even in a state where they don't accept Islam... but it lacks guidance...

this is why dictatorship has been the rule of Muslims and continues to be today.

Edited August 31, 2011 by MysticKnight

[Ali Hayder]

The other half is Imam Ali.

Meaning, we not only have someone appointed by God which people must obey, but we have a person obeying him who, for all intents and purposes, is needless of an authority.

Precisely.

Imam Ali needed to be obedient toward the rightful authority regardless of his own personal stature.

I still don't see the point. My argument that authority is only vested in those appointed by Allah or Allah's representative still stands. How does this relate to Ayatullah Khomeini's interpretation of WF?

[Fink]

My argument that authority is only vested in those appointed by Allah or Allah's representative still stands.

Sorry but this is by far the silliest argument I've heard.

[Ali Hayder]

Sorry but this is by far the silliest argument I've heard.

No need to be sorry to me; its what Allah says in the Quran on numerous occasions as I've already pointed out. So I'm sorry that you find Allah's argument to be silly.