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
Sign in to follow this  
StrugglingForTheLight

Verse 4:59 - Ulil Amr.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Assalamu alaykum

It's not a long post but I'm going through a few books and just looking for a few last things. I thank you for your patience my dear brother.

May Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì bless you

Salams

 

I see, In this Case, I look forward for your reply brother.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was very clear that Muavia and Aisha had differences and disagreements, with the Ulul Amre of their time, which led to battles even wars, now according to you it is obvious that, these differences and disagreements were religious because everything falls under the umbrella of Islam. Now how Muavia and Aisha wrong according to you??? Having a disagreement and difference, with your Ulul Amre on religious grounds and at the same time being wrong??? Care to elaborate on this understanding and explanation of yours???

Assalamu alaykum

The difference Ayesha r.a and co had with ali a.s was religious difference but they were wrong.

Let me explain. In islam one is only allowed to shed the blood of a Muslim when:

1. He leaves islam and refused to repent

2. Commits illegal sexual intercourse

3. Commits murder

Now since uthman ibn affan r.a did not commit any of the above three his blood was spilt unjustly so yes it does without s shadow of a doubt fall under religion

Now Ayesha r.a and co wanted justice, because under ISLAMIC law they were right BUT the method they used was wrong. They shouldn't have tried to fight for justice but should have stayed patient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu alaykum

The difference Ayesha r.a and co had with ali a.s was religious difference but they were wrong.

Let me explain. In islam one is only allowed to shed the blood of a Muslim when:

1. He leaves islam and refused to repent

2. Commits illegal sexual intercourse

3. Commits murder

Now since uthman ibn affan r.a did not commit any of the above three his blood was spilt unjustly so yes it does without s shadow of a doubt fall under religion

Now Ayesha r.a and co wanted justice, because under ISLAMIC law they were right BUT the method they used was wrong. They shouldn't have tried to fight for justice but should have stayed patient

 

 

Wanted justice?

Brother she fought because she hated Ali (as).

She was one of the people who Contributed to Uthmans Death....What justice are you taking about????

Allah has Warned her in the Quran.

(salam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu alaykum

The difference Ayesha r.a and co had with ali a.s was religious difference but they were wrong.

Let me explain. In islam one is only allowed to shed the blood of a Muslim when:

1. He leaves islam and refused to repent

2. Commits illegal sexual intercourse

3. Commits murder

Now since uthman ibn affan r.a did not commit any of the above three his blood was spilt unjustly so yes it does without s shadow of a doubt fall under religion

Now Ayesha r.a and co wanted justice, because under ISLAMIC law they were right BUT the method they used was wrong. They shouldn't have tried to fight for justice but should have stayed patient

how did ibn masoud died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanted justice?

Brother she fought because she hated Ali (as).

She was one of the people who Contributed to Uthmans Death....What justice are you taking about????

Allah has Warned her in the Quran.

(salam)

1. Yes

2. This is not true

3. This is not true I've been over this before with another shia brother and I refuted him because he bought me unauthentic hadith.

4. So????? She has also been praised as the mother of the believers. Allah (swt) "warned" her he (swt) never doomed her.

how did ibn masoud died?

?????come again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes

2. This is not true

3. This is not true I've been over this before with another shia brother and I refuted him because he bought me unauthentic hadith.

4. So????? She has also been praised as the mother of the believers. Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì "warned" her he ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì never doomed her.

?????come again

 

I can bring Authentic Hadith don't worry.

I Will make a post Especially on this issue.

(salam) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu alaykum

The difference Ayesha r.a and co had with ali a.s was religious difference but they were wrong.

Let me explain. In islam one is only allowed to shed the blood of a Muslim when:

1. He leaves islam and refused to repent

2. Commits illegal sexual intercourse

3. Commits murder

Now since uthman ibn affan r.a did not commit any of the above three his blood was spilt unjustly so yes it does without s shadow of a doubt fall under religion

Now Ayesha r.a and co wanted justice, because under ISLAMIC law they were right BUT the method they used was wrong. They shouldn't have tried to fight for justice but should have stayed patient

 

Salaam brother.Ok so Hazrath Usmaan (ra) didn't commit any of those, so what do you think was the reason behind his murder??? I mean murders don't just happen out of the blue do they??? There has to be a reason and a build up from that reason. Hazrath Aisha (ra) and co wanted justice??? And Hazrath Ali (as) wasn't interested in justice??? Or probably just didn't care??? What are you trying to say here??? If their method of getting justice was wrong, then do you think they didn't realize what course they were taking??? What do you think their punishment should have been for being the cause of rebellion??? Was Hazrath Aisha (ra) not warned, by Allah himself, to stay out of public affairs, to stay out of the public limelight??? 

Edited by Ameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazrath Aisha (ra) made a lot of fuss about Hazrath Usmaan's (ra) murder, what about Hazrath Umar's (ra) murder??? Why didn't she make any sort of fuss on this occasion??? Was the second Khalif and his murder not that important??? Hazrath Aisha (ra) suddenly out of the blue wanted justice, so she decided to rebel against the fourth Khalif, instead of working closely with him. What kind of a way is this, to get justice and what rights did she have to take such a step and why??? Was the fourth Khalif not interested??? Did she meet the fourth Khalif, considering this matter, on many occasions and he just turned a blind eye??? According Islamic history, straight from Ahle Sunnah authentic books, she didn't even get along with the third Khalif. Never mind about getting along, she had major differences with the third Khalif.


Salam to all, 

 

If I could make a request here. This is an important thread and is now a discussion between two parties, Br. The Islam History and Br. Just the Truth. I will kindly ask that all others stop posting on this thread until Br. Just the Truth has made his reply to Br. The Islam History regarding Ul Al Amr, .which he outlined in posts #270 and #271

 

The following request has been made and I will accept it. From now on I wont be posting until further notice, so guys have fun and good look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes

2. This is not true

3. This is not true I've been over this before with another shia brother and I refuted him because he bought me unauthentic hadith.

4. So????? She has also been praised as the mother of the believers. Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì "warned" her he ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì never doomed her.

?????come again

you said :

Let me explain. In islam one is only allowed to shed the blood of a Muslim when:

1. He leaves islam and refused to repent

2. Commits illegal sexual intercourse

3. Commits murder

Now since uthman ibn affan r.a did not commit any of the above three his blood was spilt unjustly

 

and i asked :

 

how did ibn masoud died, the full story of his return to madinah and how he died angry at Uthman plus other details that should complete the picture for you if you are really seeking knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE ISLAMIC HISTORY

Assalamu alaykum

YOU SAID

Bring me a Sunni Tafsir or a Shia tafsir what says so please.

I want your beliefs and not assumptions, And if they were the Leaders of the Armies in the time of the prophet:

Then therefore:

badr: ALI!

khaybar: ALI!

KHANDAQ: ALI!

ALI! YA ALI!

MY ANSWER

My brother islamic history you have time and time again accused me of coming up with my "own assumptions" but I have told you time and time again that what I believe is the believe of ahle sunnah as a whole. In your previous long reply You said you wanted an answer from either shia or sunni tafsirs. I will give you an answer from sunni side and leave the explanation of the shia side to you. Having said this I will try to refer to shia side whenever I can.

With this reply inshallah I will try and use authentic hadith as much as possible and directly keep them hadith linked to verse 4:59.

1. I have said from day one that obeying Allah (swt) and his messenger (pbuh) is unconditional and to disobey them can lead to ones ultimate devastation in the hereafter.

Here is a verse warning anybody who disobeys Allah (swt) and his messenger (pbuh):

Surah 4:14

And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits - He will put him into the Fire to abide eternally therein, and he will have a humiliating punishment.

No such verse exists for disobeying the ulil amr. Also Allah (swt) has refrained from describing exactly who the ulul amr are, because all it means is "those with authority" and personally to me those with authority could be anyone from a leader to your parents. The whole ummah is unanimous that we have to obey our parents BUT this obedience is conditional. As long as the parents don't tell you do go against sharia:

Surah 31:15

But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do

So in this surah the limits are given that we should disobey them if our parents tell us to go against sharia. So obedience is not always unconditional.

Now coming back to ulil amr.

You asked me for evidence so I shall give you the best I could find:

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 108:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Verse: "Obey Allah and Obey the Apostle and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority." (4.59) was revealed in connection with 'Abdullah bin Hudhafa bin Qais bin 'Adi' when the Prophet appointed him as the commander of a Sariyya (army detachment).

So you see brother the verse was revealed for a fallible and below I shall point out why in the second part of the verse it says refer to Allah (swt) and his messenger (pbuh) and does not mention the ulil amr when it comes to referring.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 629 :

========================

Narrated by 'Ali

The Prophet sent a Sariya under the command of a man from the Ansar and ordered the soldiers to obey him. He (i.e. the commander) became angry and said "Didn't the Prophet order you to obey me!" They replied, "Yes." He said, "Collect fire-wood for me." So they collected it. He said, "Make a fire." When they made it, he said, "Enter it (i.e. the fire)." So they intended to do that and started holding each other and saying, "We run towards (i.e. take refuge with) the Prophet from the fire." They kept on saying that till the fire was extinguished and the anger of the commander abated. When that news reached the Prophet he said, "If they had entered it (i.e. the fire), they would not have come out of it till the Day of Resurrection. Obedience (to somebody) is required when he enjoins what is good."

So you see my brother obedience to the ulil amr is only required when he enjoins what is good. This is why we should refer to Allah (swt) and his messenger (pbuh) if the ulil amr tells us to do anything which seems wrong. Later in this reply I will try to go into as much detail as possible as to why there is mention of referring to ulil amr in surah 4:83 and not in 4:59.

My dear brother you also said this to me:

YOU SAID

Sunnah Was not mentioned. Please Quote.

MY ANSWER

So now I will quote.

The way to turn to Allah is to act diligently according to the CLEAR and EXPLICITorders given in His Holy Book and to the turn to the Holy Prophet (s) means to FOLLOW THOSE OF HIS ORDERS ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO DOUBTAND AMBIGUITYAND WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERALLY ACCEPTED TO BE CORRECTLY RECORDED.

This obviously means the prophet (pbuh) hadith. The only reason I'm quoting from this letter is to prove to you that we can refer to the prophet (pbuh) through his teachings whereas you for some bizarre reason do not accept this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now since we differ on hadith (unfortunately) the only option we have is to follow the CLEAR and EXPLICIT verses, like I've been saying for the past month. So do you have a clear and explicit verse as ali a.s said and as the verse 3:7 says.

Now going back to verse 4:83.

Firstly brother if this verse is talking about your imams then you have a serious problem because in verse 4:59 you said we cannot refer to the prophet (pbuh) because he isn't here whereas I've argued with you from day one that the prophet (pbuh) can be referred to through his authentic narrations, which is the method used by ahle sunnah when we come across any problems with our ulil amr.This is why ahle sunnah believe the prophet (pbuh) is thee guide even today through his narrations and anybody including your 12 imams who you call your guides are actually secondary guides as they are themselves following guidance of the prophet (pbuh). So the prophet (pbuh) is the Warner and the guide and ali a.s is the secondary guide, but you believe the prophet (pbuh) was only a Warner and ali a.s was the guide.

Now as you can see in verse 4:83 it says:

4:83And when there comes to them news of security or fear, they spread it; and if they had referred it to the Messenger AND to those in authority among them, those among them who (can) draw out the truth in it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Satan, save a few.

So in this verse we have to refer to ulil amr AND messenger. If it said prophet (pbuh) OR ulil amr then this would have worked for you because it would mean that we could refer to the ulil amr if the prophet (pbuh) was no longer around.

So by using your theory that we can only refer to the prophet (pbuh) while he is alive then this verse would have only worked for you until the messenger (pbuh) was alive because we are ordered in this verse to refer to BOTH ulil amr and prophet (pbuh).

Now a very important question comes to mind. Why has Allah (swt) said in this verse refer to ulil amr and not in 4:59??

Let me explain.

As Allah (swt) has told that they should have referred it to ulil amr then this only proves that the difference was not with the ulil amr but between normal believers. So it would make perfect sense to mention both ulil amr and messenger (pbuh). If any difference takes place between believers then the first thing we would do is refer it to the ulil amr this is obvious.

Now to verse 4:59.

Why hasn't the ulil amr been mentioned here when it came to "referring". Let me point out a hadith to explain my view

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 629 :

========================

Narrated by 'Ali

The Prophet sent a Sariya under the command of a man from the Ansar and ordered the soldiers to obey him. He (i.e. the commander) became angry and said "Didn't the Prophet order you to obey me!" They replied, "Yes." He said, "Collect fire-wood for me." So they collected it. He said, "Make a fire." When they made it, he said, "Enter it (i.e. the fire)." So they intended to do that and started holding each other and saying, "We run towards (i.e. take refuge with) the Prophet from the fire." They kept on saying that till the fire was extinguished and the anger of the commander abated. When that news reached the Prophet he said, "If they had entered it (i.e. the fire), they would not have come out of it till the Day of Resurrection. Obedience (to somebody) is required when he enjoins what is good."

As you can see here in the above hadith the difference was with the ulil amr so it's obvious that we have to refer the ulil amr to an authority above him, Allah (swt) and messenger (pbuh). Obedience is only required when he enjoins what is good which is exactly what I've been saying since day 1. That Is why in verse 4:59 the ulil amr was left out when it came to referring because why would we refer to somebody who we have a difference with.

Also since you believe that your imams were appointed guides and this verse is talking about your imams then why have they been left out when it came to referring?

After all the whole point the imams were sent was so that we could refer all matters to them so I don't understand why they have been left out in the verse when it came to referring if this verse is talking about your imams.

Also brother you should know that this verse is unspecific when it comes to talking about the ulil amr.

Let me explain.

Allah (swt) tells you who he (swt) is then he (swt) tells us that the second is his messenger( pbuh) but when it comes to the third all it says is "ulil amr", why is that?

I mean if this verse was sent for your imams then Allah (swt) could have precisely described the ulil amr as your imams as he (swt) described himself and his messenger (pbuh).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brothers. I did say that i was going to follow the request but it seems like, i'm going to change my mind, after reading your post, brother just the truth. Anyways, it is an open thread and a free for all discussion. The conversation, between you two, is obviously going to be on going, lengthy and unlimited, so it wouldn't be wise to sit on the sideline and remain silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brothers. I did say that i was going to follow the request but it seems like, i'm going to change my mind, after reading your post, brother just the truth. Anyways, it is an open thread and a free for all discussion. The conversation, between you two, is obviously going to be on going, lengthy and unlimited, so it wouldn't be wise to sit on the sideline and remain silent.

Feel free to contribute

Assalamu alaykum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE ISLAMIC HISTORY

Assalamu alaykum

YOU SAID

Bring me a Sunni Tafsir or a Shia tafsir what says so please.

I want your beliefs and not assumptions, And if they were the Leaders of the Armies in the time of the prophet:

Then therefore:

badr: ALI!

khaybar: ALI!

KHANDAQ: ALI!

ALI! YA ALI!

MY ANSWER

My brother islamic history you have time and time again accused me of coming up with my "own assumptions" but I have told you time and time again that what I believe is the believe of ahle sunnah as a whole. In your previous long reply You said you wanted an answer from either shia or sunni tafsirs. I will give you an answer from sunni side and leave the explanation of the shia side to you. Having said this I will try to refer to shia side whenever I can.

With this reply inshallah I will try and use authentic hadith as much as possible and directly keep them hadith linked to verse 4:59.

1. I have said from day one that obeying Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his messenger (pbuh) is unconditional and to disobey them can lead to ones ultimate devastation in the hereafter.

Here is a verse warning anybody who disobeys Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his messenger (pbuh):

Surah 4:14

And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits - He will put him into the Fire to abide eternally therein, and he will have a humiliating punishment.

No such verse exists for disobeying the ulil amr. Also Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì has refrained from describing exactly who the ulul amr are, because all it means is "those with authority" and personally to me those with authority could be anyone from a leader to your parents. The whole ummah is unanimous that we have to obey our parents BUT this obedience is conditional. As long as the parents don't tell you do go against sharia:

Surah 31:15

But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do

So in this surah the limits are given that we should disobey them if our parents tell us to go against sharia. So obedience is not always unconditional.

Now coming back to ulil amr.

You asked me for evidence so I shall give you the best I could find:

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 108:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Verse: "Obey Allah and Obey the Apostle and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority." (4.59) was revealed in connection with 'Abdullah bin Hudhafa bin Qais bin 'Adi' when the Prophet appointed him as the commander of a Sariyya (army detachment).

So you see brother the verse was revealed for a fallible and below I shall point out why in the second part of the verse it says refer to Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his messenger (pbuh) and does not mention the ulil amr when it comes to referring.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 629 :

========================

Narrated by 'Ali

The Prophet sent a Sariya under the command of a man from the Ansar and ordered the soldiers to obey him. He (i.e. the commander) became angry and said "Didn't the Prophet order you to obey me!" They replied, "Yes." He said, "Collect fire-wood for me." So they collected it. He said, "Make a fire." When they made it, he said, "Enter it (i.e. the fire)." So they intended to do that and started holding each other and saying, "We run towards (i.e. take refuge with) the Prophet from the fire." They kept on saying that till the fire was extinguished and the anger of the commander abated. When that news reached the Prophet he said, "If they had entered it (i.e. the fire), they would not have come out of it till the Day of Resurrection. Obedience (to somebody) is required when he enjoins what is good."

So you see my brother obedience to the ulil amr is only required when he enjoins what is good. This is why we should refer to Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his messenger (pbuh) if the ulil amr tells us to do anything which seems wrong. Later in this reply I will try to go into as much detail as possible as to why there is mention of referring to ulil amr in surah 4:83 and not in 4:59.

My dear brother you also said this to me:

YOU SAID

Sunnah Was not mentioned. Please Quote.

MY ANSWER

So now I will quote.

The way to turn to Allah is to act diligently according to the CLEAR and EXPLICITorders given in His Holy Book and to the turn to the Holy Prophet (s) means to FOLLOW THOSE OF HIS ORDERS ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO DOUBTAND AMBIGUITYAND WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERALLY ACCEPTED TO BE CORRECTLY RECORDED.

This obviously means the prophet (pbuh) hadith. The only reason I'm quoting from this letter is to prove to you that we can refer to the prophet (pbuh) through his teachings whereas you for some bizarre reason do not accept this

 

Salaam brother just the truth. Lets examine and comment on your points.

You said,

 

"but I have told you time and time again that what I believe is the believe of ahle sunnah as a whole".

 

My dear brother the Ahle Sunnah is a collective name for people of different schools of faith, people who differ in belief/faith, thought, opinion and point of view.

 

Let me give you a few examples:

People follow 4 different schools of thought and they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah. Some people believe Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) was Afzalul-Bashar and Afzalul-Khalaq, after the Messenger (pbuh) and the others disagree and differ with this but they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

 

Some people believe that Tareeka-e-Fazeelath (importance), when it comes to the Khulafaa-e-Rashedain, is dependent on and is due to Tarteeb-e-Khilaafath, (sequence of khilaafath) and the others disagree and differ with this but they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

 

Some people believe that those who planned and funded Jamal and Safeen, those who rebelled against the 4th rightly guided Khalif, were wrong but others believe they were right but the 4th Khalif made some serious mistakes during his Khilaafath and therefore was on the wrong or got it wrong but they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

 

Some people believe that Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) and his companions saved Islam by standing up to Yazeed and consider Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) as blessed and Yazeed as lanthi but others claim that the killing of Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) was wrong. It was just mass murder, a tragedy but it had nothing to do with Islam. Infact it was political and nothing else.

 

Where as others believe that being the grandson of the Prophet (pbuh) is fine but Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) was wrong, since he rebelled against Yazeed, the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims. These people believe Yazeed was selected and elected and accepted by the vast majority and was a favourite of the people and they show the incident of Karbalaa to prove their claim.

 

They say "take a look at the battle of Karbalaa and you will see thousands and thousands on one side and on the otherside, well only 72, not even a hundred. So who was popular??? Who was the favourite??? Who was the majority with??? well, who was actually on haq then???". these people call Yazeed Hazrath and (ra). These people also call themselves Ahle Sunnah and they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

 

Talibaan, Haq char Yaar, Sipa-e-Sahaba, Al Qaidah, Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Jangavi, Al Nusra, Ahle Hadees, Wahabi etc, my friend, all call themselves Ahle Sunnah I can go on and on and on.

Edited by Ameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brother just the truth. Lets examine and comment on your points.

You said,

"but I have told you time and time again that what I believe is the believe of ahle sunnah as a whole".

My dear brother the Ahle Sunnah is a collective name for people of different schools of faith, people who differ in belief/faith, thought, opinion and point of view.

Let me give you a few examples:

People follow 4 different schools of thought and they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah. Some people believe Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) was Afzalul-Bashar and Afzalul-Khalaq, after the Messenger (pbuh) and the others disagree and differ with this but they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

Some people believe that Tareeka-e-Fazeelath (importance), when it comes to the Khulafaa-e-Rashedain, is dependent on and is due to Tarteeb-e-Khilaafath, (sequence of khilaafath) and the others disagree and differ with this but they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

Some people believe that those who planned and funded Jamal and Safeen, those who rebelled against the 4th rightly guided Khalif, were wrong but others believe they were right but the 4th Khalif made some serious mistakes during his Khilaafath and therefore was on the wrong or got it wrong but they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

Some people believe that Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) and his companions saved Islam by standing up to Yazeed and consider Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) as blessed and Yazeed as lanthi but others claim that the killing of Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) was wrong. It was just mass murder, a tragedy but it had nothing to do with Islam. Infact it was political and nothing else.

Where as others believe that being the grandson of the Prophet (pbuh) is fine but Hazrath Imaam Hussain (as) was wrong, since he rebelled against Yazeed, the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims. These people believe Yazeed was selected and elected and accepted by the vast majority and was a favourite of the people and they show the incident of Karbalaa to prove their claim.

They say "take a look at the battle of Karbalaa and you will see thousands and thousands on one side and on the otherside, well only 72, not even a hundred. So who was popular??? Who was the favourite??? Who was the majority with??? well, who was actually on haq then???". these people call Yazeed Hazrath and (ra). These people also call themselves Ahle Sunnah and they are all collectively known as Ahle Sunnah.

Talibaan, Haq char Yaar, Sipa-e-Sahaba, Al Qaidah, Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Jangavi, Al Nusra, Ahle Hadees, Wahabi etc, my friend, all call themselves Ahle Sunnah I can go on and on and on.

Brother AMEEN please stick to the topic at hand (who is ulil amr). What you've posted has nothing to go with the topic.

ALL ahle sunnah believe abu bakr r.a was the first caliph and the ulil amr of his time. The rest of your post is irrelevant. I could easily argue with the same regarding shia!! Have u seen how many sects there are in Shiism yet they all claim to be followers of the AHLE BAYT.

PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, i just made a comment on one of your points and you know that everything is relevant. You've felt disappointed because sometimes the truth hurts, like it has to you on this occasion but this is part of life and reality. You know this as well as i do. You can easily argue about the Shia??? Whem did i say you couldn't??? If i had made a point, just like you did, you would have easily comeout and made a comment on it. Take a look at yourr posts and you will find that, you have mentioned things, which have got nothing to, with any of my questions, comments or points. I always stay on the subject or respond to what ever you have posted and that is exactly what i've done here. I will not sit here and say that, Shias do not have any disagreements and differences, since they do but i must say not at your scale. You wont find any Shia claiming, Yazeed was right or the people of Jamal and Safeen, who opposed the fourth Khalif, were right or Hazrath Ali (as) wasn't the best man on earth, after the Messenger (pbuh), infact somebody else was and still call themselves Shia. You wont find Shia calling, each and every sect among them right and they wont accuse and abuse each other, just for seeing the other wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked quite a few questions and made quite a few comments and points, on which i am still waiting for a response from you. You want to know why Allah didn't name the Ulul Amre in the Quran, when he could have easily done and you have raised similar questions about the twelve Shia Imaams, about why Hazrath Ali's (as) name is not mentioned in the Quran, regarding his superior status etc, etc, etc. You have raised many questions as such that, well why isn't this straight in the Quran and why isn't that straight from the Quran.

Brother, it's all about understanding. You sound like a person who is a Quranist and who has absolute disregard for the Sunnah, what so ever. You call yourself Ahle Sunnah and you just simply want everything from the Quran and nothing else is important. If it's not mentioned in the Quran, then it can't be true or i'm not going to accept it. Why don't you start calling ypurself Ahle Quran, rather than Ahle Sunnah??? I can raise many questions as such but here's just one for you to understand, where does it say in the Quran that dawn prayers (Fajar Salah) is two raka'th??? Why didn't Allah clearly mention about everything in the Quran??? And if you can't prove this then, you will no harm in increasing or decreasing your raka'th in your prayers??? Such questions are raised to cause suspicion and doubt, to move people away from getting to know and learn about and such questions are an absolute disregard to the Prophet (pbuh) and his Sunnah.

I have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, i just made a comment on one of your points and you know that everything is relevant. You've felt disappointed because sometimes the truth hurts, like it has to you on this occasion but this is part of life and reality. You know this as well as i do. You can easily argue about the Shia??? Whem did i say you couldn't??? If i had made a point, just like you did, you would have easily comeout and made a comment on it. Take a look at yourr posts and you will find that, you have mentioned things, which have got nothing to, with any of my questions, comments or points. I always stay on the subject or respond to what ever you have posted and that is exactly what i've done here. I will not sit here and say that, Shias do not have any disagreements and differences, since they do but i must say not at your scale. You wont find any Shia claiming, Yazeed was right or the people of Jamal and Safeen, who opposed the fourth Khalif, were right or Hazrath Ali (as) wasn't the best man on earth, after the Messenger (pbuh), infact somebody else was and still call themselves Shia. You wont find Shia calling, each and every sect among them right and they wont accuse and abuse each other, just for seeing the other wrong.

My dearest AMEEN the truth yes you're right sometimes truth hurts BUT this time nothing has hurt me because you've not said anything true.

I see from your posts that you're always trying to prove that you're right and I'm wrong by saying comments like "IM TRYING TO GAIN LOST WEIGHT OR TRUTH HURTS".

Okay.... My dear AMEEN lets see how much truth hurts now....

You said in your posts that in surah 4:59 it says:

"If you differ ANYTHING IN THIS

when really it says

If you differ IN ANYTHING

Care to explain yourself?? Before you start typing away I want a reliable shia link from you to prove your view as I have a reliable shia link which agrees with me that in surah 4:59 it does not say what you said.

DO NOT TRY AND DENY WHAT YOU SAID AS I WILL DRAG BACK OLD POSTS BACKING UP MY CLAIMS.

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have replied to your question many times over but it seems to me that, your the one whos going in circles and accusing me of it. Anyways, here we go again!

Allah has early said " Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and also the Ulul Amre from among you ". Now i don't know if you've bothered to look up the meaning of obey in the dictionary. Obey means, to submit and submit is from submission and this means, absolute and total surrender.

Also Allah has straight forwardly said " Obey the Ulul Amre ". Allah didn't put down any condition or lay down any circumstances. If he has or i'm missing something here then, please enlighten me about what those conditions and circumstances are.

Allah next says " And if you disagree ", here Allah is telling you of a situation that, if you find yourself in this situation (disagreement) then, the following applies. If you don't find yourself in this situation (disagreement) then, it is obvious my friend that, the following does not apply.

Allah next says " fee-shay-inn " meaning, on anything within this. If Allah said " ala-kule-shay-inn ", then this would mean, on everything. For example Allah has said " zalikal-kithabo-la-raiba-fee ", meaning, this is that book, there is no fault WITHIN THIS. As you can see " fee " has been used, meaning, within this.

In other words " And if you disagree on anything within this ", within this meaning, about the announcement that has been made, the message that has been delivered. If there is any confusion, misunderstanding or doubt about this or

regarding or concerning the Ulul Amre, then in such a case only and not in every case or not in anything, what do we do??? " Refer the matter back towards Allah and his Messenger ".

Only in such a case/matter/thing, not in every case/matter/thing. In all of the rest case/matter/things you refer to and obey the Ulul Amre. Otherwise if every case/matter/thing has to be referred back towards Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) then, what is the point of the Ulul Amre???? What is the need of the Ulul Amre??? What is the position of the Ulul Amre??? What is the point of the Ulul Amre??? And most of all, how would you obey the Ulul Amre??? You obey someone in some case, matter or thing. So if everything has to be referred back then, in what or which case, matter or thing are you going to obey and show obedience towards the Ulul Amre in???

In the 5th paragraph down AMEEN You said it says ANYTHING WITHIN THIS when it clearly says IN ANYTHING.

Please explain yourself with proof. Then we'll see how much the truth hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear brother, all i have done is put the truth forward, based on reality and facts. Do you deny the truth??? If yes, then why don't you respond to my points sometime???

What ever i have said, i will stand by it, unless you prove otherwise. My dear, references and links as evidence and proof are the second stage in a discussion. The first stage is reality and facts based on sense and logic. Will reply to you soon. Working at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brother just the truth. According to me "fee shay in" means "on anything within this". Brother, before we go for references and links, lets examine this, through sense and logic, based on reality and facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brother just the truth. According to me "fee shay in" means "on anything within this". Brother, before we go for references and links, lets examine this, through sense and logic, based on reality and facts.

No problem brother. Lets start with "fee shayin"

Fee means in

And shayin means anything

How can you put the shayin after the fee is beyond me.

You're saying shayin fee which would mean in this anything but if you look it says fee shayin and not shayin fee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dearest AMEEN the truth yes you're right sometimes truth hurts BUT this time nothing has hurt me because you've not said anything true.

I see from your posts that you're always trying to prove that you're right and I'm wrong by saying comments like "IM TRYING TO GAIN LOST WEIGHT OR TRUTH HURTS".

Okay.... My dear AMEEN lets see how much truth hurts now....

You said in your posts that in surah 4:59 it says:

"If you differ ANYTHING IN THIS

when really it says

If you differ IN ANYTHING

Care to explain yourself?? Before you start typing away I want a reliable shia link from you to prove your view as I have a reliable shia link which agrees with me that in surah 4:59 it does not say what you said.

DO NOT TRY AND DENY WHAT YOU SAID AS I WILL DRAG BACK OLD POSTS BACKING UP MY CLAIMS.

 

Salaam brother just the truth. First of all lets start off from obedience. If you are asked to obey someone then, you simply follow the command/order, unless there is an addition to the command/order, in the face of exception that, you must not obey according to the following circumstances, for example a situation and/or a condition is given that, if you find yourself in the following situation and/or condition then, one must not obey. You can't say that Allah has issued a command/order for us to obey the Ulul Amre but we don't necessarily have to obey the Ulul Amre on all occasions because Allah hasn't said any where in the Quran that, if you don't obey the Ulul Amre then, you will be punished or held accountable.

 

Brother no offence and i'm not being sarcastic but I have been in discussion and debate, with many individuals and party/group from the Ahle Sunnah on many occasions. One thing I have noticed is, the Ahle Sunnah refuse or do not use sense and logic, when it comes to religious affairs and matters. If you are in a gathering and a discussion cicks off, on religious matters and affairs and they are not aware of who you are, as soon as you start discussing and debating and you bring sense and logic, reality and facts in to discussion and debate, they become alarmed and ask you "excuse me, are you a Shia???".

 

Brother one needs to go through the first stage and that is, reality and facts based on sense and logic.If you are told to obey the Ulul Amre then, you obey the Ulul Amre. It's as simple as that, unless the terms and conditions are mentioned or the circumstances are set down that, in the following situation/condition one must not obey. You can't come up with ideologies and theories by yourself, based on its and buts.

 

Brother you asked me who the Ulul Amre are according to me, well here are their attributes of the Ulul Amre to begin with: They have to be infallible. Why??? Because Allah didn't command/order us to obey the Ulul Amre, he first set the standard and level of obedience that, he required from us towards the Ulul Amre, by starting off this new command/order from him and his Messenger (pbuh) and bringing the new party/group in sequence and in line alongside himself and his Messenger (pbuh).

 

The way, manner and fashion in which this new command/order has been issued and set out, clearly tells us that, this new command/order has been put forward to us, not in a separate and singular manner, but in connection with the previous two commands/orders and that is to obey Allah and to obey his Messenger (pbuh). The new command/order has been issued jointly and in absolute connection, with the previous two commands/orders and this surely means and stands for something.

 

To be continued!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued!

 

Point 1,Since the command/order, to obey the Ulul Amre, has come directly from Allah Alone. Point 2, The way, manner and fashion in which this command/order has been issued. Taking a close look at these two key points tell you that, the Ulul Amre have to be infallible. WHY??? Because the one who has issued the new command/order is infallible and in the way, manner and fashion in which the new command/order has been issued is also infallible, therefore the Ulul Amre has to be infallible because Allah wouldn't take any party/group and stick them in the same sequence and in the same line as the infallibles and that is Allah and his Messenger (pbuh). You would only be told to obey those who are worthy of obedience and they can't be anybody.

 

Brother does this make sense that Allah is putting Hakim-e-Waqth, who can be anybody and do anything, as the Ulul Amre, right alongside and in sequence with himself and his Messenger (pbuh) and asking us to obey him???Hakim-e-Waqth, can be anybody and who can say or do anything, even command/order you to go against the Quran and the Sunnah. Would Allah chose and put such individuals, right alongside and in sequence with himself and his Messenger (pbuh) and ask us to obey such an authority, who can be good as well as bad, pious as well as corrupt?? In this case you have people like Muavia and Yazeed who would be Ulul Amre by your understanding and explanation. Imagine such individuals alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMEEN my brother you speak about sense and logic. Okay then lets start by agreeing on what the verse says before we move forward, this is more sensible and logical. I mean like if we can't agree on what the verse says then how can we talk about anything. It's a bit like trying to run before we can crawl.

So please tell me does it say fee shayin (in anything) or shayin fee (anything in this)??

Once we come to an agreement regarding this then and only then can we discuss further.

Assalamu alaykum

Brother no offence and i'm not being sarcastic but I have been in discussion and debate, with many individuals and party/group from the Ahle Sunnah on many occasions. One thing I have noticed is, the Ahle Sunnah refuse or do not use sense and logic, when it comes to religious affairs and matters. If you are in a gathering and a discussion cicks off, on religious matters and affairs and they are not aware of who you are, as soon as you start discussing and debating and you bring sense and logic, reality and facts in to discussion and debate, they become alarmed and ask you "excuse me, are you a Shia???".

To be continued!

???????? Blowing your own trumpet ???

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMEEN my brother you speak about sense and logic. Okay then lets start by agreeing on what the verse says before we move forward, this is more sensible and logical. I mean like if we can't agree on what the verse says then how can we talk about anything. It's a bit like trying to run before we can crawl.

So please tell me does it say fee shayin (in anything) or shayin fee (anything in this)??

Once we come to an agreement regarding this then and only then can we discuss further.

Assalamu alaykum

???????? Blowing your own trumpet ???

Lets take a look at the next part of the Ulul Amre verse. "And if you disagree". There are two points that come out here, 1, Disagree with who??? 2, Disagree in what??? Now let's examine the first point.

1, Disagree with who???

This is my claim that if the people disagree among themselves. Why??? Because you are suppose to obey the Ulul Amre. This is the clear command/ order that, has been given. In my opinion this would be wrong that, if you disagree with the Ulul Amre. Why??? Because like I said, we need to use our head and bring in some sense and logic that, the command/order is to obey the Ulul Amre. If you are confused, in who the disagreement is regarding then, take a step back in the verse and take a look for yourself about, what is said previously and connect the next part of the verse, by joining it to the previous part.

This is exactly what I mean about, using sense and logic. Use your ability to think and I am not blowing my own trumpet here, just trying to get you to stop blowing yours and start using your head, rather than getting influenced by the anti Shia fever that, if I accept then I will be letting the Ahle Sunnah down. This is exactly what I mean that, the Ahle Sunnah scholar preach to their people, not to read others books apart from their own and not to look and dwell into reality and facts too much because this will get you to start thinking, with sense and logic then, you will start getting confused and eventually start moving away from what your belief and faith is. This might seem funny or fun poking to you but it's true. Oh yes baby, it's true.

So this bit of the verse "And if you disagree" rather than cutting it off and taking into your own fantasised direction, why don't you connect it to the previous bit by joining it together. " And if you disagree", disagree with who??? Among yourselves of course because the disagreement can't be with the Ulul Amre, since you are just told to obey the Ulul Amre. There is no question of disagreement or difference, with who you have just been given a direct command/order to obey. You can't take one part of the verse into one direction then, take the next part of the same verse into a different direction.

This is where I humbly ask you to use your head and start thinking, using sense and logic. Not blowing my own trumpet, just getting you to stop being arrogant and ignorant because this is exactly how some of my brothers, in Islam, behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Allah is speaking to the people about the Ulul Amre and this is exactly what the situation is, in the entire verse. You have got yourself all mixed up here and you are, taking bits and pieces of the verse and going in totally different directions with them. You believe, by looking at this part of the verse "And if you disagree" that Allah is probably speaking to/talking to the people and the Ulul Amre, jointly and collectively.

My dear brother this is not the case. In fact Allah is speaking to the people about the Ulul Amre, right from the beginning and all the way to the end. You probably believe that Allah is speaking to the people, at the beginning and from the next part of the verse "And if you disagree" you probably think Allah is speaking to both, to the people as well as and along with the Ulul Amre, jointly and collectively. My friend this is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Allah is speaking to the people about the Ulul Amre and this is exactly what the situation is, in the entire verse. You have got yourself all mixed up here and you are, taking bits and pieces of the verse and going in totally different directions with them. You believe, by looking at this part of the verse "And if you disagree" that Allah is probably speaking to/talking to the people and the Ulul Amre, jointly and collectively.

My dear brother this is not the case. In fact Allah is speaking to the people about the Ulul Amre, right from the beginning and all the way to the end. You probably believe that Allah is speaking to the people, at the beginning and from the next part of the verse "And if you disagree" you probably think Allah is speaking to both, to the people as well as and along with the Ulul Amre, jointly and collectively. My friend this is not the case.

I see you believe we should run before we can crawl!!!

Why you not getting to the main point of fee shayin?? USE YOUR SO CALLED "LOGIC" THERE.

Since you believe that the ulil amr is your imams then the imams (according to shia) were here so we could "refer" all matters to them then tell me WHY WHEN IT SAYS "REFER" TO Allah (swt ) and MESSENGER (pbuh) there is no mention of "referring" to the ulil amr (which you believe are your imams).

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...