Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Necessity Of Imamah (An Intellectual Argument)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

 

The state of the Sharia today in both the Sunni and Shia madhabs is in a state of confusion and ijithad based upon speculative sources. This is because fiqh (jurisprudence) covers so many aspects of life and has potentially an infinite amount of different unique cases that is is impossible that a compendium of hadith could contain all of these issues, nor is it possible that any type of usul system using general principles can dictate the formulation of these potentially infinite specific laws, not to mention that much of the Sharia if not almost all is based upon khabar wahad(single reports). Thus logical necessity dictates that an imam must be present in order that he may clarify and give the believers proper instruction, we know this is true because the alternative means that Allah swt has revealed a religion that has a lacking in it, and this is impossible. The principle of Adl(justice) dictates that Allah has latf (grace) in that he has made it an obligation upon himself to complete this religion and to do what is best for the guidance of mankind. If having an imam is for the best and the most advantageous for mankind to follow Islam then it is logically necessary that he would appoint such an imam.

 

 

Salaam alaykum and jazakAllah khair for the effort!

 

Based on this argument, having an imam, to guide Muslims past the finishing line, is a logical and rational idea.  But where is the logic and rationality in having an Imam [ra] who guides as he hides?  What new proper guidance has the Imam [ra] sent our way in these thousand-plus years that the Qur'an and the Sunnah did not impart to us?

 

Lastly, as per your research, if it is from Allah's [swt] "latf" (or grace) to send an Imam to guide the Muslims, then to say that He [swt] sent a hiding Imam is to say that Allah [swt] short-changed us from His grace, naudhibillah.

 

Therefore, logically and fundamentally, your "logic" fails due to the following reasons:

 

1.  A hiding Imam can not be a guiding Imam.

 

2.  Allah [swt] cannot short-change us when it comes to receiving His grace.  That is an insult to Allah [swt].

 

3.  A representative of Allah [swt] - someone alleged to carry the torch of Islam after Prophet (saw) - cannot be sent only for him to choose to shun responsibility and go into hiding.  That is an insult to every Prophet (asws) and every rightly-guided representative of Islam [ra].

 

Remember Yunus (asws)?  He only tried to get away from carrying out Allah's [swt] will and Allah [swt] caused the whale to swallow him.  How is it that the Imam [ra] was sent to guide us, after Rasulullah (saw), but he has evaded responsibility and shunned himself away in a place not known to anyone?

Edited by muslim720
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

 

Salaam alaykum and jazakAllah khair for the effort!

 

Based on this argument, having an imam, to guide Muslims past the finishing line, is a logical and rational idea.  But where is the logic and rationality in having an Imam [ra] who guides as he hides?  What new proper guidance has the Imam [ra] sent our way in these thousand-plus years that the Qur'an and the Sunnah did not impart to us?

 

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Posted (edited)

This is also an answer to the dear brothers (Ali musa, Shia deabter) and inshallah for our new brother in tashayyu muslim720 who were asking questions as to how the ghayba and the arguments for Imamah are reconciled and understood on the intellectual level (without using texts).

 

 

 

Shia debater, or anyone else who have any questions or objections, please feel free to ask or state what you feel so that we may all benefit.

 
 
الحمد الله رب العالمين
Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
  • Advanced Member
Posted

 

 

1.  The Imam as we said is an essential part of Islam in that he guides and takes control of the ummah lest it would fall into corruption and misinterpretation. 

 

2.  This is because the ghayba occurred necessarily in reaction as to how human beings would react to the 12th Imam if he revealed himself in the wrong time and with the wrong conditions (they would kill him). 

 

3.  So we have two necessary principles.

 

4.  If the guidance of the Imam is necessarily present (Allah appoints him), but then the people based upon their free will and choice choose to abuse and kill this Imam

 

5.  the only logical alternative left is an Imam being protected. I hope this is clear to you now.

 

6.  Also you mentioned what has the Imam given us that the Qur'an and Sunnah has not given us? Do me a favor if you can, go into any of the 4 madhabs, bring me any hadith, bring me any verse in the Qur'an, and show me the answer to this masa2la.

 
7.  I answered all your objections in the above response but I will repeat myself so that Inshallah you and others reading can benefit.

 

8.  All of your objections have been answered in the above.

 

9.  Can Islam function without some type of leader?

 

10.   If it cannot function without some type of leader, then has Allah showed how to pick one?

11.  If you say no, then has Allah short changed you on a facet of this religion that is so important that without it the sharia is not established?

 

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

 

(Oh you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those who have authority among you).

 

It is a simple question. How can Allah commanded us to obey those who make errors and sins? When it is clear in Quran, where Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì command not to obey Sinner or disbeliever;  and obey neither a sinner nor a disbeliever among them 076:024

 

What is this authority is, is it not Allah giving authority? Because it is he who appoints Prophets, Imams, Messengers, Kings, Rules. But whatever Allah appoint, he appoints for the task those who are infallible.

Edited by Dhulfikar
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

 

 

1.  Instead of proving your point and actually showing why you're correct, all you did was make a statement that Imamah is not found in the Qur'an nor in Islam.

 

2.  In reality Imamah is accepted by the entire ummah as a necessary concept, we just differ on what this concept entails.

 

3.  (Oh you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those who have authority among you).

 

Tafseer Ar-Raazi 

والدليل على ذلك أن الله تعالى أمر بطاعة أولي الأمر على سبيل الجزم في هذه الآية ومن أمر الله بطاعته على سبيل الجزم والقطع لا بد وأن يكون معصوما عن الخطأ ، إذ لو لم يكن معصوما عن الخطأ كان بتقدير إقدامه على الخطأ يكون قد أمر الله بمتابعته

 

"And the proof for this is that Allah has ordered the obeying of the people of authority dogmatically in this verse, and whoever Allah has ordered us to follow dogmatically then he must be free from error (masum), and if he was not free from error then his decision making will be based upon error and this would mean Allah has ordered to follow him(and his errors)".

 

4.  I honestly believe that his tafseer is a better proof for imam than the two proofs I presented in my opening post, and what is funny is that it comes from a Sunni. 

 

5.  Your question is meaningless, if he is ordered to go into ghayba by Allah then by definition the hour of death is not approaching

 

6.  Also the Imams (as) knowing their hour of death is another issue entirely and is irrelevant to this post.

7.  Indeed no one can advance or delay his hour of death, but again the Imam's hour is not apporaching since he was ordered to go into ghayba, he didn't "dodge" his "pre-destined" death,

 

8.  So Muhammad saw when he wore armor on his body at badr it was illogical? When Musa (as) ran away from pharaoh lest he would of been killed according to you is illogical? Musa (as) should of stayed in egypt and allowed the government to kill him? Of course not, you would say that of course Allah swt would take all measures to protect his prophet and give him orders to leave from egypt and go into hiding.

9.  Also you failed when you tried to answer my questions.

 

 

1.  To you, this is a matter of being right and winning the argument.  For me, as you have rightly noted, it is about the Qur'an and Islam and that there is no Imamat - the way believed and preached by Shias - in the Qur'an. 

 

2.  Somewhat true.  Every masjid has an imam but he is neither infallible nor does he know his hour of death.  And surely, he is not in control of the atoms.

 

3.  Now I do not have access to Tafseer Ar-Raazi but I can sense that what you have shared is either a misquotation or misinterpretation.  This is how I can assume what I have said.

 

"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."

 

Crystal clear!  If you have a dispute, refer it to Allah [swt] and the Prophet [saw].  If those in authority were infallible - or the phrase hints at infallible Imams - then why leave them out?  Why does the verse not say that in case of a dispute, just refer to "those of you who are in authority"?  The fact that we are asked to refer back to Allah [swt] and Rasulullah [saw] ONLY (not those in authority) is a clear-cut way of saying that those "in authority" are not infallible.

 

4.  Well, it is hard to believe your "proof" because the verse itself leaves no room for infallibility of anyone except Allah [swt] and Rasulullah [saw].

 

5.  Who ordered him to go into ghayba?  If you say that Allah [swt] did, then that means that revelation did not stop coming down after Rasulullah [saw].  In that case, you open a new can of worms.  To support one falsehood, you create so many more.  But if your foundation is shaky, the whole entire building will eventually collapse.

 

6.  It is relevant.  If your Imam knows his hour of death - and given that he cannot avert his death - then why is he hiding?  He should have known that he would be alive till March 2014 (at least).  He could have used these 1000+ years to guide us but he is hiding because he fears death.  But Shias say he knows his hour of death yet he is hiding because he is afraid that someone will kill him.  It just does not add up.  You fix this end and the other side comes undone.  You address the other side and the third side does not add up.

 

7.  But why go in to ghayba if he could use all this time to guide you and me?  The reason why he went into ghayba was because he feared someone would kill him.  Well, if he knows his hour of death, he - out of all of us - should be the last one to fear death because it is something that he will know when it approaches.  And in the time being, he knows he is safe.  So why go into hiding out of fear? 

 

8.  No Muslim, not even Rasulullah [saw] nor Musa [asws] ever claimed that they know their hour of death.  But you believe that your Imam knows his hour of death.  So you clutching on straws, and bringing up Rasulullah [saw] and Musa [asws], shows your desperation. 

 

9.  Your questions were designed to salvage a failed cause.  If you cannot establish Imamat, how can I contribute anything to a failed cause to substantiate any of it?

 

 

What is this authority is, is it not Allah giving authority? Because it is he who appoints Prophets, Imams, Messengers, Kings, Rules. But whatever Allah appoint, he appoints for the task those who are infallible.

 

Alright.  He appoints all the categories of people you have mentioned then why did He leave out Imamat of Imam Ali [ra] and his descendants?  Was it too hard to make mention of them when we even have been told about Talut, a king appointed to expose the hypocrisy of the Children of Israel (who made excuse after excuse to avoid going to war)?

Edited by muslim720
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

 

 

Alright.  He appoints all the categories of people you have mentioned then why did He leave out Imamat of Imam Ali [ra] and his descendants?  Was it too hard to make mention of them when we even have been told about Talut, a king appointed to expose the hypocrisy of the Children of Israel (who made excuse after excuse to avoid going to war)?

He did not leave Imamat of Ali (as) and his descendants out, because Allah[swt] don't need to mention their names in Qur'an to make them legal that they are Imams. The Messenger of Allah words and commands are from Allah and The messenger of Allah clearly appointed Ali as his successor. He did not appointed Abu Bakr, or Umar or Uthman, or Muawiyah, or Yazid.

 

 

 

Was it too hard to make mention of them when

Don't question Allah [swt] will.

Edited by Dhulfikar
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

He did not leave Imamat of Ali (as) and his descendants out, because Allah[swt] don't need to mention their names in Qur'an to make them legal that they are Imams. The Messenger of Allah words and commands are from Allah and The messenger of Allah clearly appointed Ali as his successor. He did not appointed Abu Bakr, or Umar or Uthman, or Muawiyah, or Yazid.

 

Don't question Allah [swt] will.

 

Alright!  So it was per Allah's [swt] will for Imam Ali [ra] to become the leader.  Well then that says a lot about Abu Bakr [ra], Umar [ra] and Uthman [ra] because they were successful in undoing Allah's [swt] Will (naudhubillah).  Or at least you can say they delayed His Will.  That makes them quite mighty, right?

 

Do I believe that?  No!  But that is what you are making it out to be.  I am only following your reasoning and taking it a step further.  And as you can see, your reasoning leads to more problem than cure.

 

Again, if Imamat is what my salvation and my aakhira depended upon, then Allah [swt] would have made explicit mention of the concept and named those who were to come just like he named Ahmad [saw] to come after 'Isa [asws], et cetera.

Edited by muslim720
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

Alright!  So it was per Allah's [swt] will for Imam Ali [ra] to become the leader.  Well then that says a lot about Abu Bakr [ra], Umar [ra] and Uthman [ra] because they were successful in undoing Allah's [swt] Will (naudhubillah).  Or at least you can say they delayed His Will.  That makes them quite mighty, right?

 

Do I believe that?  No!  But that is what you are making it out to be.  I am only following your reasoning and taking it a step further.  And as you can see, your reasoning leads to more problem than cure.

 

Again, if Imamat is what my salvation and my aakhira depended upon, then Allah [swt] would have made explicit mention of the concept and named those who were to come just like he named Ahmad [saw] to come after 'Isa [asws], et cetera.

They did not undoing Allah[swt] will. They went against Allah [swt] will, by making their own conditions and made themselves leaders (observe Saqifa) and thus claiming to be successors of Nabi. When they are not. They did not delay Allah[swt] Will,  because still Imam Ali [as] was their Imam no matter what Abu Bakr and his rest supporter thinks or believe.

 

 

 

  And as you can see, your reasoning leads to more problem than cure.

I don't think so.

 

 

 

Again, if Imamat is what my salvation and my aakhira depended upon, then Allah [swt] would have made explicit mention of the concept and named those who were to come just like he named Ahmad [saw] to come after 'Isa [asws], et cetera.

Are you making the conditions or Allah [swt]?

Edited by Dhulfikar
  • Advanced Member
Posted

They did not undoing Allah[swt] will. They went against Allah [swt] will, by making their own conditions and made themselves leaders (observe Saqifa) and thus claiming to be successors of Nabi. When they are not. They did not delay Allah[swt] Will,  because still Imam Ali [as] was their Imam no matter what Abu Bakr and his rest supporter thinks or believe.

 

If Imam Ali [ra] was Divinely-Appointed, then no one could have made their own conditions or made themselves leaders.  If others were able to do such a thing, then that means that there was no Divine-Appointment of Imam Ali [ra].  Maybe it was Allah's [swt] Will for three to come before him to lead the Muslims.

  • Advanced Member
Posted

If Imam Ali [ra] was Divinely-Appointed, then no one could have made their own conditions or made themselves leaders.  If others were able to do such a thing, then that means that there was no Divine-Appointment of Imam Ali [ra].  Maybe it was Allah's [swt] Will for three to come before him to lead the Muslims.

We can use the same argument with prophets. If Allah meant to be worshipped on earth and He sent prophets with miracles, no one should have had made their own teachings and religion. But we clearly can see that that is not true! People have had always put their opinions in higher place than the divine teachings.

  • Veteran Member
Posted

Prophethood: To bring down the message from Allah swt to the people.

Imamat:  To protect the message from corruption so that it remains pure.

 

Whether the general people want to make the Imams as their community leader or not, that is their choice.  Imam will only lead the community if the community pledge allegiance to him. If the community elected someone else as their leader, Imam is still an IMAM.

 

The Shias argue that the community should be led by an Imam and recommended by the Prophet too.  The Sunnis believe that the people is to decide on the leadership of community.

 

Imam Mahdi (as) and Isa (as) are living in occultation not to lead the community, but to ensure that community is having opportunity to access the uncorrupted version of message of Allah swt that was sent down through the Prophet, if the community choose to do so.  Each person cannot blame Allah swt that he/she has no access to pure message of Allah swt.  Therefore,  Imamate is a neccessity.

  • Advanced Member
Posted

We can use the same argument with prophets. If Allah meant to be worshipped on earth and He sent prophets with miracles, no one should have had made their own teachings and religion. But we clearly can see that that is not true! People have had always put their opinions in higher place than the divine teachings.

 

See, when you say such things, it puts me in a dilemma.  It makes me wonder if you take me as naive or is that you do not know what you are talking about.  Some of our Shia brothers on this website are quick to engage in a discussion to defend Imamat while overlooking fundamental Islamic concepts only to make themselves look misinformed.

 

People have made their own religions, or perverted pure and divine revelations, because they have free will.  And Islam attests to this. 

 

During the time of the Prophet [saw], there emerged a couple of false prophets.  However, it was Allah's [swt] Will for Prophet Muhammad [saw] to lead mankind and the false prophets were exposed and finally, Abu Bakr [ra] had them killed.  If the same Will applied to the Imamat of Imam Ali [ra], then the entire world, mankind and jinn put together, could not have averted or delayed his leadership.

Prophethood: To bring down the message from Allah swt to the people.

Imamat:  To protect the message from corruption so that it remains pure.

 

Whether the general people want to make the Imams as their community leader or not, that is their choice.  Imam will only lead the community if the community pledge allegiance to him. If the community elected someone else as their leader, Imam is still an IMAM.

 

The Shias argue that the community should be led by an Imam and recommended by the Prophet too.  The Sunnis believe that the people is to decide on the leadership of community.

 

Imam Mahdi (as) and Isa (as) are living in occultation not to lead the community, but to ensure that community is having opportunity to access the uncorrupted version of message of Allah swt that was sent down through the Prophet, if the community choose to do so. 

 

Each person cannot blame Allah swt that he/she has no access to pure message of Allah swt.  Therefore,  Imamate is a neccessity.

 

I honestly like this reasoning and I think this is the best way to present Imamat, especially the part I have underlined.  I can see myself entertaining this idea.  However, the argument that you built so beautifully was shattered by the very next sentence that I have highlighted in red.  You are right in saying that we cannot blame Allah [swt] for not having access to the pure message because that pure message is the Qur'an.  That message has been preserved and will be preserved till the Day of Judgment and Allah [swt] says that He will protect it (from corruption).  And in that very Qur'an, we do not find any mention of 'Isa [asws] and Imam Mahdi being appointed as those who will be in occultation but with the responsibility to ensure that Muslims have access to the "uncorrupted version of message of Allah [swt] that was sent down through the Prophet [saw]."

Posted (edited)
3.  Now I do not have access to Tafseer Ar-Raazi but I can sense that what you have shared is either a misquotation or misinterpretation.  This is how I can assume what I have said.
 
"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."
 
Crystal clear!  If you have a dispute, refer it to Allah [swt] and the Prophet [saw].  If those in authority were infallible - or the phrase hints at infallible Imams - then why leave them out?  Why does the verse not say that in case of a dispute, just refer to "those of you who are in authority"?  The fact that we are asked to refer back to Allah [swt] and Rasulullah [saw] ONLY (not those in authority) is a clear-cut way of saying that those "in authority" are not infallible.

 

 

Why do you speak when you are not certain?

 

When the Qur'an says "refer back to Allah and the messenger" it means refer your issues back to the Qur'an and Sunnah, additionally this does not negate the previous order of obeying those in authority it is complimenting it. How do you think this rejects the other?

 

I have two questions for you

 

1- Is Allah commanding you to follow an Imam in this verse, yes or no?

 

2- Is Allah commanding you to follow an Imam who makes mistakes, yes or no?

 

 

Also this person is claiming I am making things up and not giving the correct translation of the sunni tafseer, if you could please translate the following for us then since I am "misquoting".

 

والدليل على ذلك أن الله تعالى أمر بطاعة أولي الأمر على سبيل الجزم في هذه الآية ومن أمر الله بطاعته على سبيل الجزم والقطع لا بد وأن يكون معصوما عن الخطأ ، إذ لو لم يكن معصوما عن الخطأ كان بتقدير إقدامه على الخطأ يكون قد أمر الله بمتابعته

 

 

 

 
4.  Well, it is hard to believe your "proof" because the verse itself leaves no room for infallibility of anyone except Allah [swt] and Rasulullah [saw].

 

 

You're incorrect.

 

Everyone is in agreement that this verse is speaking about Imamah including both sunni and shia schools.

 

The sunni school says that the "uli l amr" are those who are the kings or scholars.

 

The Shia say that this refers to the Imams.

 

What we disagree on are the sifaat (attributes) of this Imam.

 

Ask yourself this very simple question, is Allah commanding you to follow someone who can make mistakes?

 

  Who ordered him to go into ghayba?  If you say that Allah [swt] did, then that means that revelation did not stop coming down after Rasulullah [saw].  In that case, you open a new can of worms.  To support one falsehood, you create so many more.  But if your foundation is shaky, the whole entire building will eventually collapse.
 

 

 

You're making the mistake in thinking that simple orders from Allah fall under "new revelation" , this is false. There is "inspiration" called "ilham" which was given to the mother of Musa 3layhuma salam, no one calls her a prophet nor do they say she received revelation so your point is moot.

 

Also it is agreed that during the last days Isa (as) will be ordered to reappear, does this mean that Isa (as) is getting new revelation?

 

Your argument makes no sense.

 

 

 

It is relevant.  If your Imam knows his hour of death - and given that he cannot avert his death - then why is he hiding?  He should have known that he would be alive till March 2014 (at least).  He could have used these 1000+ years to guide us but he is hiding because he fears death.  But Shias say he knows his hour of death yet he is hiding because he is afraid that someone will kill him.  It just does not add up.  You fix this end and the other side comes undone.  You address the other side and the third side does not add up.

 

 

No offense but your question is rather stupid, this is like saying why would Rasulallah (as) wear armor to protect his life when he knows his hour of death and cannot avert it, and if you say that Rasulallah (as) doesn't know his hour of death then you are not using your mind sadly. This is because if Rasulallah (as) knows he is the final messenger, then by logical necessity he cannot be killed until the Qur'an and Islam is fully revealed.

 

Not only are you also contradicting reason when you say that Rasulallah (as) doesn't know the hour of his death, but you are also contradicting your own hadith.

 

Rasulallah would tell the companions where each one of them would die, what time, and what place. Rasulallah (as) in your sahih bukhari even told fatima (as) the time she would die,  so how can you say that the prophet (as) doesn't know his own hour?

 

{"Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet called his daughter Fatima during his illness in which he died, and told her a secret whereupon she wept. Then he called her again and told her a secret whereupon she laughed. When I asked her about that, she replied, "The Prophet spoke to me in secret and informed me that he would die in the course of the illness during which he died, so I wept. He again spoke to me in secret and informed me that I would be the first of his family to follow him (after his death) and on that I laughed."  (Book #57, Hadith #62) }

 

 

 

If the Imam knows his hour of death, and he went into ghayba, then by logical necessity he knew that his hour of death wouldn't occur before ghayba by logical necessity of him knowing that he would go into ghayba to avoid the instruments that would of otherwise hypothetically cause his death.

 

 

The rest of your objections were already answered in the above posts, please read and understand before you reply.


Then why is it wajib to obey a marja (fallible)?

 

Completely irrelevant. 

 

It is wajib to obey the marja because it is the better choice of two while in ghayba, following a non-educated person In islam (including yourself) , or following a scholar. The latter is logically better and hence wajib (necessary).

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

 

If Imam Ali [ra] was Divinely-Appointed, then no one could have made their own conditions or made themselves leaders. 

Why not? What about people who don't even care of Imamat of Ali[as] or Hasan[as] or Husain[as]? They could do it.

 

 

 

If others were able to do such a thing, then that means that there was no Divine-Appointment of Imam Ali [ra]. 

So it depends on people will? Are you assuming here that because Abu Bakr was appointed by an group, it means there were no divine imam appointed by prophet? What kind of logic is this? Also how it is possible that Abu Bakr is suddenly successor of Prophet Muhammad[saws], when prophet never did appoint him?

 

 

 

Maybe it was Allah's [swt] Will for three to come before him to lead the Muslims.

I don't question Allah's[swt] will. If Allah [swt] allow something, it does not mean He accept the act of the person. Imam Ali(as) at time of Abu Bakr was an Imam who guided people. He guided Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and many many companions of Prophet Muhammad[saws]. At the same time his rights was taking.

 

 

Then why is it wajib to obey a marja (fallible)?

Good question. Insha'Allah some other more knowledgeable person can answer that question. Personally i only take advice (in concern of Islam) from ulema and make my conclusion, because I believe that in Islamic matters we only should obey those who were appointed by Allah[swt]. 

 

 

Also this person is claiming I am making things up and not giving the correct translation of the sunni tafseer, if you could please translate the following for us then since I am "misquoting".

 

Brother, it is a Sunni mentality. It is either misquotation or misinterpretation, or if it is not either of them, then they will ignore it (like the tafasir of Sunni about the existence of mut'ah verse). When others sahih hadiths are ageinst of their other sahih hadiths, they don't say it is possible of forgery. And they take their scholars viewpoint (about hadiths or event of Islam) in such a manner that they assume it is the truth.

Edited by Dhulfikar
  • Advanced Member
Posted

See, when you say such things, it puts me in a dilemma.  It makes me wonder if you take me as naive or is that you do not know what you are talking about.  Some of our Shia brothers on this website are quick to engage in a discussion to defend Imamat while overlooking fundamental Islamic concepts only to make themselves look misinformed.

 

People have made their own religions, or perverted pure and divine revelations, because they have free will.  And Islam attests to this. 

 

During the time of the Prophet [saw], there emerged a couple of false prophets.  However, it was Allah's [swt] Will for Prophet Muhammad [saw] to lead mankind and the false prophets were exposed and finally, Abu Bakr [ra] had them killed.  If the same Will applied to the Imamat of Imam Ali [ra], then the entire world, mankind and jinn put together, could not have averted or delayed his leadership.

"

Who said that the Imamah of Imam Ali is restricted to his era? Lokk around, we are all Muslims due to his efforts in compiling Quran, teaching islamic fiqh to new Muslims through his faithful companions (Ammar, Abu Dher, Ibn Masoud) they were governors on iraq, Syria and Egypt during Umar reign. They defeated his restriction of banning hadith teaching. Imamh and leadership of Ali continued after him through his progeny TILL THIS VERY DAY.

Who is talking about fading and failing imamah? Who is talking about the Sunnah of Umer which is proving itself to be wrong day after day?

We are talking about ever dominating, ever lasting leadership of Imam Ali , just like the religion of our last prophet is dominating the other religions. 

  • Advanced Member
Posted

See, when you say such things, it puts me in a dilemma. It makes me wonder if you take me as naive or is that you do not know what you are talking about. Some of our Shia brothers on this website are quick to engage in a discussion to defend Imamat while overlooking fundamental Islamic concepts only to make themselves look misinformed.

People have made their own religions, or perverted pure and divine revelations, because they have free will. And Islam attests to this.

During the time of the Prophet [saw], there emerged a couple of false prophets. However, it was Allah's [swt] Will for Prophet Muhammad [saw] to lead mankind and the false prophets were exposed and finally, Abu Bakr [ra] had them killed. If the same Will applied to the Imamat of Imam Ali [ra], then the entire world, mankind and jinn put together, could not have averted or delayed his leadership.

Classic argument Bruv

Hammered it

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

Then why is it wajib to obey a marja (fallible)?

Technically we are not obeying the marja for it is the marja who derives rulings from the infallibles and provides us with the rulings. Therefore we are obeying the infallibles.

Edited by PureEthics
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

 

 

Why do you speak when you are not certain?

 

 

 

I speak because I can read and think for myself.  If Ar-Raazi endorses the Shia concept of Imamat (infallible Imams and the like thereof), then that does not make it a Sunni belief.  Sunni scholars disagree over matters and this difference, within reason and limits, is a blessing.

 

 

 

When the Qur'an says "refer back to Allah and the messenger" it means refer your issues back to the Qur'an and Sunnah, additionally this does not negate the previous order of obeying those in authority it is complimenting it. How do you think this rejects the other?

 

Sure but in  our case, involving you and I, we have to go through the entire verse to be able to reach a conclusion.  We have a dispute and we must refer it back to Allah [swt] and the Prophet [saw] because our scholars, clearly, are at each others' throats.

 

 

I have two questions for you

 

1- Is Allah commanding you to follow an Imam in this verse, yes or no?

 

2- Is Allah commanding you to follow an Imam who makes mistakes, yes or no?

 

I will answer both questions with one statement.  We are asked to follow our leaders, scholars and men of knowledge as long as they are correct and within the frame of Qur'an and Sunnah.  If a dispute arises, we have to refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah.  Remember, only Prophets [asws] and Angels [as] are infallible.

 

 

 

 

 

Also this person is claiming I am making things up and not giving the correct translation of the sunni tafseer, if you could please translate the following for us then since I am "misquoting".

 

والدليل على ذلك أن الله تعالى أمر بطاعة أولي الأمر على سبيل الجزم في هذه الآية ومن أمر الله بطاعته على سبيل الجزم والقطع لا بد وأن يكون معصوما عن الخطأ ، إذ لو لم يكن معصوما عن الخطأ كان بتقدير إقدامه على الخطأ يكون قد أمر الله بمتابعته

 

Never said that you're making anything up.  I only said that I do not have access to Tafsir Ar-Raazi.

 

 

 

 

You're incorrect.

 

Everyone is in agreement that this verse is speaking about Imamah including both sunni and shia schools.

 

The sunni school says that the "uli l amr" are those who are the kings or scholars.

 

The Shia say that this refers to the Imams.

 

What we disagree on are the sifaat (attributes) of this Imam.

 

Did I not say the same thing?  Here is what I said, "Well, it is hard to believe your 'proof' because the verse itself leaves no room for infallibility of anyone except Allah [swt] and Rasulullah [saw]."  Clearly, if you read my statement, you can see that I disagree with you on the attributes of an imam.  You like to read in between the lines to prove Imamat but cannot read a straight-forward statement.

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself this very simple question, is Allah commanding you to follow someone who can make mistakes?

 

There is no infallibility outside the realm of Prophets [asws] and Angels [as] so Allah [swt] is asking us to follow our leaders and scholars so long as they are in agreement with the Qur'an and Sunnah.  The fact that the verse says that if a dispute is to come into being indicates that these "ulil amr" are not infallible, hence the possibility for disputes to arise.  Furthermore, the very reason why we are asked to refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah, in case of a dispute, is a clear indication of the fallible nature of the "ulil amr."  If you cannot understand this point then we are not on the same wavelength and this discussion does not need to proceed any further.

 

 

 

 

You're making the mistake in thinking that simple orders from Allah fall under "new revelation" , this is false. There is "inspiration" called "ilham" which was given to the mother of Musa 3layhuma salam, no one calls her a prophet nor do they say she received revelation so your point is moot.

 

Also it is agreed that during the last days Isa  (as) will be ordered to reappear, does this mean that Isa  (as) is getting new revelation?

 

Please read what I said.  I said, "Who ordered him to go into ghayba?  If you say that Allah [swt] did, then that means that revelation did not stop coming down after Rasulullah [saw].  In that case, you open a new can of worms."  Clearly, the Qur'an does not mention Imamat nor does it say anything about the 12th Imam going into hiding.  Therefore, this concept of Imamat and ghayba (being recommended for the 12th Imam) are not "simple orders from Allah."  They need to be mentioned in the Qur'an for them to be Divine Order.  If they are not, then you are insinuating that the Qur'an is incomplete (such matters of "aqeedah" cannot be labeled "simple orders from Allah" and be left out of the Qur'an).  If you insist that these are Divine Order that came after the Prophet [saw], then you do not believe in Rasulullah [saw] being the last prophet.  

 

 

 

 

 

Rasulallah would tell the companions where each one of them would die, what time, and what place. Rasulallah  (as) in your sahih bukhari even told fatima  (as) the time she would die,  so how can you say that the prophet  (as) doesn't know his own hour?

 

I want to see this.

 

 

 

{"Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet called his daughter Fatima during his illness in which he died, and told her a secret whereupon she wept. Then he called her again and told her a secret whereupon she laughed. When I asked her about that, she replied, "The Prophet spoke to me in secret and informed me that he would die in the course of the illness during which he died, so I wept. He again spoke to me in secret and informed me that I would be the first of his family to follow him (after his death) and on that I laughed."  (Book #57, Hadith #62) }

 

Did Rasulullah [saw] mention the date, time and exact hour of his death?  Have you not heard people say that their time has come once they know that their bodies cannot recuperate from an illness or injury?

 

 

 

 

If the Imam knows his hour of death, and he went into ghayba, then by logical necessity he knew that his hour of death wouldn't occur before ghayba by logical necessity of him knowing that he would go into ghayba to avoid the instruments that would of otherwise hypothetically cause his death.

 

Would have, not "would of" and this statement is the zenith of ridiculousness.  

Edited by muslim720
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

 

There is no infallibility outside the realm of Prophets [asws] and Angels [as] so Allah [swt] is asking us to follow our leaders and scholars so long as they are in agreement with the Qur'an and Sunnah.  The fact that the verse says that if a dispute is to come into being indicates that these "ulil amr" are not infallible, hence the possibility for disputes to arise.  Furthermore, the very reason why we are asked to refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah, in case of a dispute, is a clear indication of the fallible nature of the "ulil amr."  If you cannot understand this point then we are not on the same wavelength and this discussion does not need to proceed any further.

 

 

 

 

You are mistaken. Ayatollah Tabatabai answers this false claims one by one: http://www.almizan.org/tafsir/4-59-70/

Please actually read it carefully and thoroughly.

Edited by PureEthics
Posted (edited)

Muslim720:

 

I speak because I can read and think for myself.  If Ar-Raazi endorses the Shia concept of Imamat (infallible Imams and the like thereof), then that does not make it a Sunni belief.  Sunni scholars disagree over matters and this difference, within reason and limits, is a blessing.

 

 

 

Shakh Ar-Razi is not just a Sunni scholar, he is one of the most prominent scholars of aqeedah among ahlus sunnah. Also him believing in the infallibility of those in authority was just a side argument, the main point is that both schools believe that Imamah is being referred to in this verse.

 

 

 

Muslim720:

 

Sure but in  our case, involving you and I, we have to go through the entire verse to be able to reach a conclusion.  We have a dispute and we must refer it back to Allah [swt] and the Prophet [saw] because our scholars, clearly, are at each others' throats. 

 

I will answer both questions with one statement.  We are asked to follow our leaders, scholars and men of knowledge as long as they are correct and within the frame of Qur'an and Sunnah.  If a dispute arises, we have to refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah.  Remember, only Prophets [asws] and Angels [as] are infallible. Did I not say the same thing?  Here is what I said, "Well, it is hard to believe your 'proof' because the verse itself leaves no room for infallibility of anyone except Allah [swt] and Rasulullah [saw]."  Clearly, if you read my statement, you can see that I disagree with you on the attributes of an imam.  You like to read in between the lines to prove Imamat but cannot read a straight-forward statement.

 

There is no infallibility outside the realm of Prophets [asws] and Angels [as] so Allah [swt] is asking us to follow our leaders and scholars so long as they are in agreement with the Qur'an and Sunnah.  The fact that the verse says that if a dispute is to come into being indicates that these "ulil amr" are not infallible, hence the possibility for disputes to arise.  Furthermore, the very reason why we are asked to refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah, in case of a dispute, is a clear indication of the fallible nature of the "ulil amr."  If you cannot understand this point then we are not on the same wavelength and this discussion does not need to proceed any further.

 

 

I would like the readers to notice that I asked "muslim720" two questions. 

 

The first question I asked him was 

 

 
Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz:
 
1- Is Allah commanding you to follow an Imam in this verse, yes or no?

 

 

He said yes =

 

Muslim720:

 

Allah [swt] is asking us to follow our leaders and scholars 

 

 

Then I asked him a second question.

 

Ibn-Ahmed Aliy Herz:

 

2- Is Allah commanding you to follow an Imam who makes mistakes, yes or no?

 

 

He replied =

 

Muslim720:

 

 as long as they are correct and within the frame of Qur'an and Sunnah.  If a dispute arises, we have to refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah

 

 

Let's look at the verse in Arabic and see how your interpretation is wrong.

 

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ

 

Allah is addressing the believers and telling them to following Allah, the messenger, and those who have authority over them, there are 4 entities in this verse with the believers being addressed.

 

 

فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ

 

Then the Qur'an says " Fa in tanaaza3tum fi shay" , meaning if they (the believers) argue among themselves then they are to refer it to the Qur'an and Sunnah. The people who are of authority are grammatically excluded from the verb تنازع and this is absolutely clear. The believers are not arguing nor correcting the uli l amr with the Qur'an and Sunnah as there are 4 entities mentioned in this verse, Allah, his messenger, and the uli l amr being grammatically excluded from the believers being addressed in this verse.

 

challenge you to bring me any tafseer or any Arab speaker from any forum to say otherwise regarding this.

 

 

Anyways, as you can see he did indeed say yes to my second question, but he masked it in the form as "if they make mistakes we should refer back to the quran and sunnah". Really? What is the point then in Allah telling you to obey someone in regards to religion, politics and all affairs of the Muslims including the interpretation of the quran and sunnah, if you have the ability to disagree with him using the Qur'an and Sunnah yourself, what is the point in Allah telling you to obey them? You are openly admitting and claiming that Allah is commanding you to follow a person who can make errors.

 

 

 

 

Muslim720:

 

Never said that you're making anything up.  I only said that I do not have access to Tafsir Ar-Raazi.

 

 

 

 

This is what you said

 

Now I do not have access to Tafseer Ar-Raazi but I can sense that what you have shared is either a misquotation or misinterpretation.  This is how I can assume what I have said.

 

 

 

Please show me how this is a misquotation or a misinterpretation? 

 

 

Please read what I said.  I said, "Who ordered him to go into ghayba?  If you say that Allah [swt] did, then that means that revelation did not stop coming down after Rasulullah [saw].  In that case, you open a new can of worms."  Clearly, the Qur'an does not mention Imamat nor does it say anything about the 12th Imam going into hiding.  Therefore, this concept of Imamat and ghayba (being recommended for the 12th Imam) are not "simple orders from Allah."  They need to be mentioned in the Qur'an for them to be Divine Order.  If they are not, then you are insinuating that the Qur'an is incomplete (such matters of "aqeedah" cannot be labeled "simple orders from Allah" and be left out of the Qur'an).  If you insist that these are Divine Order that came after the Prophet [saw], then you do not believe in Rasulullah [saw] being the last prophet.  

 

 

 

 

What you're saying is really silly and I think you know it is too.

 

You're claiming that if Allah gives an order to someone that this counts as "revelation", and if Allah gives an order to someone after Rasulallah (as) has passed away then it is revelation after the final messenger. 

 

This is silly.

 

Your definition of "wahi" (revelation) is completely wrong since Musa's (as) mother received orders from Allah including maryam (as).

 

I have a simple question to ask you, did Maryam (as) receive revelation?

 

If you answer no, then obviously Allah giving an order is not synonymous to revelation.

 

If you answer yes then you have existed Islam.

 

I hope you understand now.

 

 

 

Did Rasulullah [saw] mention the date, time and exact hour of his death?  Have you not heard people say that their time has come once they know that their bodies cannot recuperate from an illness or injury?
 

Would have, not "would of" and this statement is the zenith of ridiculousness.  

 

 

 

 Even if there aren't any hadith showing that the prophet (as) knew the exact hour of his death, this is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because rasulallah (as) knew that he was the final messenger of Allah and could not be killed until the revelation was completed but he still wore armor to defend his life and he stilled fled from his house and put Ali (as) in his bed lest he would be killed. According to your logic since rasulallah (as) knows he is not going to die he should of just lay in bed and not flee, I think we both know that your theory is really weak and you have no argument against us.

 

Also if someone knows the hour of his death, then obviously him avoiding apparent harm would not contradict this knowledge since his hour of death being fixed and him knowing this fixed time is also caused by him avoiding harm. There is no contradiction logically nor textually.

 

 

Now regarding the Imamah of Ahlul Bayt (as) you also have not answered this hadith =

 

 
"إني تارك فيكم خليفتين: كتاب الله، حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض، أو ما بين السماء إلى الأرض، وعترتي أهل بيتي، وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض
: صحيح
 
"Indeed I leave you for two khalifas, the book of Allah which is a rope extended  from what is between the heavens and the earth or what is between the sky to the earth, and my ahlul bayt, and indeed they shall not depart from each other until the return to my at my foundation al howd".
 

Are the Ahlul Bayt (as) your khulafa2 after the prophet (as) or no?

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
  • Moderators
Posted

 

"إني تارك فيكم خليفتين: كتاب الله، حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض، أو ما بين السماء إلى الأرض، وعترتي أهل بيتي، وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

: صحيح
 
"Indeed I leave you for two khalifas, the book of Allah which is a rope extended  from what is between the heavens and the earth or what is between the sky to the earth, and my ahlul bayt, and indeed they shall not depart from each other until the return to my at my foundation al howd".

Let me quote something similiar and intresting. Here we have similiar sahih hadith, but instead in these hadith it declare that Ahlulbait (as) are from the bloodline of Prophet Muhammad (saws). 

 

Imām Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (d. 287 H) records: Abū Bakr – ‘Amr b. Sa’d Abū Dāwud alḤafrī – Sharīk – al-Rakīn – alQāsim b.Ḥisān – Zayd b. Thābit: The Messenger of Allāh , peace be upon him, said, “I am leaving behind among you the two khalīfahs after me: the Book of Allah and my bloodline, my Ahl al-Bayt. Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.

 

source: Abū Bakr b. Abī ‘Āṣim, Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. alḌaḥḥāk b. Mukhlid al-Shaybānī, Kitāb alSunnah (al-Maktab al-Islāmī; 1st edition, 1400 H) [annotator: Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn alAlbānī], vol. 2, pp. 350-351, # 754

 
‘Allāmah al-Albānī declares: ﺢﯿﲱ ﺚﯾﺪ It is a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth.
-----
 
Imām Aḥmad too documents:
 
‘Abd Allāh (b. Aḥmad) – my father (Aḥmad b.Ḥanbal ) – al-Aswad b. ‘Āmir – Sharīk – al-Rakīn – al-Qāsim b.Ḥisān – Zayd b. Thābit: The Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, said, “ I am leaving behind among you two khalīfahs: the Book of Allāh – a rope stretching between the heaven and the earth or from the heaven to the earth – and my bloodline, my Ahl al-Bayt . Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.” 
 
Source: Abū ‘Abd Allāh Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal al-Shaybānī, Musnad ( Cairo : Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnāūṭ], vol. 5, p. 181, # 21618
 
Shaykh al-Arnāūṭ comments: The ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ through its shawāhid(witnesses)
 
----
 
Imām al-Haythamī (d. 807 H) too copies this report from Musnad Aḥmad:

 

The Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, said, “ I am leaving behind among you two khalīfahs: the Book of Allāh – a rope stretching between the heaven and the earth or from the heaven to the earth – and my bloodline, my Ahl al-Bayt . Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.”

Source: Nūr al-Dīn ‘Alī b. Abī Bakr al-Haythamī, Majma’ al-Zawāid (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr; 1412 H), vol. 9, p. 256, # 14957

 
Aḥmad has narrated it and its chain is good ( jayyid).
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Instead of proving your point and actually showing why you're correct, all you did was make a statement that Imamah is not found in the Qur'an nor in Islam.

 

In reality Imamah is accepted by the entire ummah as a necessary concept, we just differ on what this concept entails. It is agreed that an Imam must be necessary as we also find the Qur'an, note that this verse also proves that the Imam (as) must be immune from sin, and what it is even more funny is that this tafseer is from a famous sunni scholar Shaykh ar raazi al ashari.

 

  ياأيها الذين ءامنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم

 

(Oh you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those who have authority among you).

 

Tafseer Ar-Raazi 

والدليل على ذلك أن الله تعالى أمر بطاعة أولي الأمر على سبيل الجزم في هذه الآية ومن أمر الله بطاعته على سبيل الجزم والقطع لا بد وأن يكون معصوما عن الخطأ ، إذ لو لم يكن معصوما عن الخطأ كان بتقدير إقدامه على الخطأ يكون قد أمر الله بمتابعته

 

"And the proof for this is that Allah has ordered the obeying of the people of authority dogmatically in this verse, and whoever Allah has ordered us to follow dogmatically then he must be free from error (masum), and if he was not free from error then his decision making will be based upon error and this would mean Allah has ordered to follow him(and his errors)".

 

I honestly believe that his tafseer is a better proof for imam than the two proofs I presented in my opening post, and what is funny is that it comes from a Sunni. 

 

(salam)

 

That is a called a deception. You distorted the words of al-Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi [rah]: 

 

He is just quoting an opinion (likely to be a Shia opinion) and quotes other opinions then gives his own opinion: 

 

and this is what he says in the end of his answer:

 

 ( فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول )

 ولو كان المراد بأولي الأمر الإمام المعصوم لوجب أن يقال : فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الإمام ، فثبت أن الحق تفسير الآية بما ذكرناه 

 

Translation: If the Ulul Amr was the infallible leader then the verse should have said "if you disagree on anything then refer it to Imam". 

 

You can read the full text here and see how he refutes the Shia claim:

 

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=132&ID=1790

 

------------------------------------------

 

I posted this in other place but I am posting again as it is relevant: 

 

This verse of 4:59 is problematic for Shia for several reasons. Thats why early Shia fabricated narrations and attributed it them to Ahlulbayt that this verse 4:59 was distorted by the Companions of the Prophet (saw). Also, see what Majlisi says in the end. 

 

They claimed the real verse was revealed like this:

 

Tafseer Al-Qumi (p. 135), we read:

 

فرض على الناس طاعتهم فقال: { يا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم } يعني أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام حدثني أبي عن حماد عن حريز عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال نزلت : 

فإن تنازعتم في شيء فارجعوه إلى الله والرسول وأولي الأمر منكم }.

 

[He made their obedience obligatory on the people, so he said: {Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders} meaning Ameer al-Mu'mineen peace be upon him. My father told me, from Hamad bin Hurayz, from abu `Abdillah  (as) that he said: "It was revealed: {refer it to Allah, His Messenger, and the leaders among you.}]

 

A similar narration is present in Rawdat Al-Kafi #212 in which he recites the verse in that fashion, implying that the Qur’an is corrupted.

 

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from ibn abi `Umayr, from `Umar bin Udhaynah, from Burayd bin Mu`awiyah that abu Ja`far (as) recited: {Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders, if ye fear that you would differ among yourselves then refer it to Allah and the messenger and your leaders} Then he (as) said: "How can he order their obedience then allow you to differ with them? He only meant the ones who are under orders when he said {Obey Allah and obey the messenger}.]

 

The narration was declared as “Hasan” by Al-Majlisi in his book “Mir’at al-`Uqoul” 26/76.

 

Al-Majlisi adds:

[it is apparent from many of the narrations that the term "and the leaders among you" was affirmed here, but was then removed.]

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani
Posted (edited)

(salam)

 

That is a called a deception. You distorted the words of al-Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi [rah]: 

 

He is just quoting an opinion (likely to be a Shia opinion) and quotes other opinions then gives his own opinion: 

 

and this is what he says in the end of his answer:

 

 ( فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول )

 ولو كان المراد بأولي الأمر الإمام المعصوم لوجب أن يقال : فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الإمام ، فثبت أن الحق تفسير الآية بما ذكرناه 

 

Translation: If the Ulul Amr was the infallible leader then the verse should have said "if you disagree on anything then refer it to Imam". 

 

You can read the full text here and see how he refutes the Shia claim:

 

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=132&ID=1790

 

------------------------------------------

 

I posted this in other place but I am posting again as it is relevant: 

 

This verse of 4:59 is problematic for Shia for several reasons. Thats why early Shia fabricated narrations and attributed it them to Ahlulbayt that this verse 4:59 was distorted by the Companions of the Prophet (saw). Also, see what Majlisi says in the end. 

 

They claimed the real verse was revealed like this:

 

Tafseer Al-Qumi (p. 135), we read:

 

فرض على الناس طاعتهم فقال: { يا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم } يعني أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام حدثني أبي عن حماد عن حريز عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال نزلت : 

فإن تنازعتم في شيء فارجعوه إلى الله والرسول وأولي الأمر منكم }.

 

[He made their obedience obligatory on the people, so he said: {Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders} meaning Ameer al-Mu'mineen peace be upon him. My father told me, from Hamad bin Hurayz, from abu `Abdillah  (as) that he said: "It was revealed: {refer it to Allah, His Messenger, and the leaders among you.}]

 

A similar narration is present in Rawdat Al-Kafi #212 in which he recites the verse in that fashion, implying that the Qur’an is corrupted.

 

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from ibn abi `Umayr, from `Umar bin Udhaynah, from Burayd bin Mu`awiyah that abu Ja`far (as) recited: {Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders, if ye fear that you would differ among yourselves then refer it to Allah and the messenger and your leaders} Then he (as) said: "How can he order their obedience then allow you to differ with them? He only meant the ones who are under orders when he said {Obey Allah and obey the messenger}.]

 

The narration was declared as “Hasan” by Al-Majlisi in his book “Mir’at al-`Uqoul” 26/76.

 

Al-Majlisi adds:

[it is apparent from many of the narrations that the term "and the leaders among you" was affirmed here, but was then removed.]

 

 

 It doesn't matter what Ar-razi says because my main point regarding the scholars of ahlus sunnah was that this verse where it says "uli l amr" it is referring to Imamah, thats it, honestly even if ar-razi was only giving an opinion as you rightly said or that he actually believed in it is completely irrelevant.

 

Regarding the hadith that say that the Qur'an has been added or it has been changed then these ahadeeth are considered weak or mursal according to shaykh saduq (ra).

 

Also you didn't answer anything in my post, my argument does not rest upon what Ar-razi says, as I said this is only a side argument.

 

 

Regarding your claim that the shia have issues with this phrase in the ayaat "فإن تنازعتم في شيء فارجعوه إلى الله والرسول " then I already explained it in the above post here :

 

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ

 

Allah is addressing the believers and telling them to following Allah, the messenger, and those who have authority over them, there are 4 entities in this verse with the believers being addressed.

 

 

فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ

 

 

Then the Qur'an says " Fa in tanaaza3tum fi shay" , meaning if they (the believers) argue among themselves then they are to refer it to the Qur'an and Sunnah. The people who are of authority are grammatically excluded from the verb تنازع and this is absolutely clear. The believers are not arguing nor correcting the uli l amr with the Qur'an and Sunnah as there are 4 entities mentioned in this verse, Allah, his messenger, and the uli l amr being grammatically excluded from the believers being addressed in this verse.

 

 

 

Please refute this ^

 

Also here is the tafseer of shaykh tabatabai who explains the verse beautifully and even replies to the sunni argument and razi.

 

(The sunnis says) :

 
"In short, it is compulsory to obey the ulu'l-amr, even if they are not sinless, and could commit mistakes and even debauchery. They shall not be obeyed if they indulge in debauchery; they shall be returned to the Qur'an and the sunnah when it is known that they had deviated from them, but in all other cases, their orders shall be obeyed and their decisions enforced. There is no harm in implementing an order which does not visibly go against actual divine law (even if in reality it does) for the sake of preserving Islamic unity and for the well-being of the Muslim nation."
 
Reply :  If you ponder on what was written earlier, you will realize that this fallacy has no leg to stand on. It is possible to use this 'argument' for restricting the generality of the verse in case of debauchery, by putting forward the above-quoted Prophet's tradition, "No creature is obeyed in disobedience of the Creator", or some Qur'anic verses of the same import, e.g., "Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency" (7:28); and other similar verses. Likewise, comparable cases may be quoted for religious obligatory-ness of obeying orders which are apparently binding, like obedience of the commanders of expeditions who were appointed by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.), the governors he sent to various places like Mecca or Yemen, or who were left in charge of Medina when he himself went out. Another is the authoritative nature of mujtahids ruling for his followers, and so on.
 
But all this cannot restrict the generality of the verses in any way. Correctness of a theory is one thing, and it being proved by apparent meaning of a Qur'anic verse is quite another.
 
The verse proves obligatory-ness of these ulu l-amr's obedience, without putting any restriction or condition, without attaching any proviso. Nor is there any other Qur'anic verse to limit its generality. 
 
Ulu'l-amr, being a plural noun, shows that there must be a number of those vested with authority, and it is correct without any doubt, but obviously it is possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time. Thus all of them taken together will be collectively entitled to the believers' obedience, as we say, 'Pray your compulsory prayers and obey your superiors and elders.'
 
Strangely enough, ar-Razi has objected to this idea, saying "it would mean using a plural for singular and that is contrary to a word's apparent usage." It seems he had forgotten that such usage is very common in literature, and the Qur'an itself is full of such verses. For example, So do not yield to the rejecters (68:8); So do not follow the unbelievers (25:52); surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men (33:67); and do not obey the bidding of the extravagant ones (26:151); Maintain the prayers (2:238); and make yourself gentle to the believers (15:88) and various other verses containing positive and negative statements, and having declarative as well as exclamatory sense.
 
It would be against the apparent meaning of a word if a plural were used for only a single individual; but it is not against apparent meaning if it is used for a group of individuals, in a way that it turns into a series of numerous orders. For example, we say, 'Honor the scholars of your town'; meaning: Honor this scholar, and honor that scholar, and so on.
Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

The narration was declared as “Hasan” by Al-Majlisi in his book “Mir’at al-`Uqoul” 26/76.

 

Al-Majlisi adds:

[it is apparent from many of the narrations that the term "and the leaders among you" was affirmed here, but was then removed.]

 

why is it that when I searched for the hadith I did not find any shia results but from anti-shia extremist websites?

Edited by PureEthics
  • Advanced Member
Posted
 

Completely irrelevant. 

 

It is wajib to obey the marja because it is the better choice of two while in ghayba, following a non-educated person In islam (including yourself) , or following a scholar. The latter is logically better and hence wajib (necessary).

 

It is totally relevant and clearly contradicts Shia's interpretation of the verse.

 

All you are doing is justifying an exception to the rule. 

 

 

Technically we are not obeying the marja for it is the marja who derives rulings from the infallibles and provides us with the rulings. Therefore we are obeying the infallibles.

 

Technically you are obeying the marja. 

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...