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

Prophet ص Was Elected Through Consultation

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Where's my man @Mahdavist?

I just want to summarize a few points I added to strengthen my argument:

1. Jews accepted the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as a Hakam in Medina, but not as a Nabi. This is another proof of dual, separate roles

2. Prophet Samuel was not political ruler of Israel, he appointed a non-prophet (Talut/Saul) to act as king. This is one of many examples where there were Prophets who did not possess formal political office

3. Prophet Joseph was appointed by an Egyptian king (non-Believer) to the office of treasury minister. In his capacity of treasury minister, Prophet Joseph was actually subordinate to the Egyptian king. This is a proof that a Prophet can even be appointed to a secondary role of political authority that is subordinate to a higher political authority (but in his capacity of Prophet, a Prophet is not subordinate to a non-Prophet)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم @ShiaMan14 recommended I start a new thread Like @Mahdavist pointed out, the discussion on the succession thread I started is simply going in circles, and nothing fr

Cherry - you need to read more sunni literature than shia literature. Yes, you are rejecting the Tabari narration about Hudaibiya but the same narration exists in Sahih Bukhari as well. I am sure you

وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا ۖ قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ {124} [Shakir 2:1

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member
46 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Hmmm, I was expecting a curveball, instead you throw me this softball.

Hmmm, why were you expecting a curveball? I have much to learn from you as you do from the other members on ShiaChat. Relax Cherry.

46 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

So is your argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم made a strategic, political decision which indicates he possessed political authority? (it doesn't, any one can make a strategic, political decision, that doesn't necessitate possession of formal, official political authority)

Or is your argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم telling his followers to emigrate to Abyssinia required political authority to issue such a decision? (it doesn't)

Regarding the second scenario, did the Prophet order, permit or recommend that his followers emigrate to Abyssinia? There are fine distinctions between all three (order, permit and recommend).

We are discussing, not arguing.

No matter which way you slice it, it seems like you are saying that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did not possess political authority over the Muslims in Mecca. Correct?

48 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The Believers are required to obey the Prophet, regardless of whether the Prophet possesses formal, political office or not. Possession of formal, political office means an individual is in a position to execute his orders with the backing of power, force (the Prophet clearly did not possess such power in Mecca), and that the functions of political authority are organized and systematized.

The above wouldn't be possible without a state, correct? In order to establish an islamic nation, the Prophet would need the above. So ws establishing an Islamic Nation part of the duties/responsibilities of Prophethood?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

I don't claim that a Prophet's authority is limited. A Prophet possesses the highest authority, as he speaks directly on behalf of God. No one can overrule a Prophet.

The issue is do all Prophets necessarily occupy an office of administrative rule and leadership? The answer is no. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not occupy such an office during the Meccan phase. He was appointed to it in the Medinese phase by the Ansar, who consulted among themselves and decided to select him to act as their judge and ruler in the political sense.

Consider the example of Prophet Samuel عليه السلام appointing Talut (Saul) King of Israel. Talut was not a prophet, but he was the one who became king and not the Prophet (Samuel).

This doesn't mean Prophet Samuel's authority was ever limited, or that Talut possessed greater authority than him. Prophet Samuel, being a Prophet, possessed the highest authority at the time, as he spoke directly on behalf of God. He could potentially overrule Talut, if Talut acted or ordered something contrary to the divine Revelation of the Prophet Samuel.

But note Prophet Samuel did not occupy any office of political authority, before or after the appointment of Talut as king.

According to your doctrine, the Israelites should never have asked their Prophet (Samuel) to appoint a king for them, since the Prophet is present and should already possess the office of political rule. The fact that the Israelites asked for a king, so they could have a kingdom and wage Jihad, points to its administrative benefit. It also proves that just because there is a Prophet present, it doesn't follow that he occupies an office of political authority. He if does occupy that office after becoming a Prophet (in the case of Prophet Muhammad), then that office is separate from the Prophetic role, though subject to it

The separation of kingship and prophethood was a special case for Israelites before the take over of Palestine. This rule was removed with prophet Dawud (عليه السلام), when the Israelites were ready to accept the combination of roles. We had hadith that explains this. Regardless, it was Allah's decree to treat Israelites differently, for whatever situational reason. Allah set alot of rules for Israelites that were out of norm and were later removed. This has more to do with the Israelites, their deficiencies, biases, and general tribalistic tendencies than with with the authority of the prophets or Allah forbidding them from role of leadership and rulership.

We see that after Prophet Dawud defeated Jalut, the Israelites were so impressed that they dropped Talut (عليه السلام) and move on to prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) as their king. This was the level of maturity needed by them to make the transition complete. Prophet themselves always acted based on the readiness of the masses and exercised their authority accordingly. Rasolallah exercised his authority once the people accepted it. If he was restricted in any way by Allah ( in considering of the situation ), he would have conveyed that to the people and not have accepted such rule. 

Therefore, Allah places no restrictions on the Prophets authority, but is considerate of their context and the society they are part of, and thus through his prophets, directs them to fully accept his (Allah's) authority through his prophets, including rulership. 

Leadership and rule of prophets and Imam are different than any traditional rule that has ever existed. It's not based on command structure (dictating to the masses), but welayat (guiding the masses), hence the prophets lead based on the capacity of the masses. This requires basirat from Allah ( something unguided rulers (taguts) do not have access to). The complexity of their rule is incomparable to any other method of rule that has ever existed and its only unique to representatives of Allah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Hmmm, why were you expecting a curveball? I have much to learn from you as you do from the other members on ShiaChat. Relax Cherry.

We are discussing, not arguing.

Alright, no problem

Quote

No matter which way you slice it, it seems like you are saying that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did not possess political authority over the Muslims in Mecca. Correct?

Yes, or more accurately, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not possess a formal office of political authority in Mecca.

Quote

The above wouldn't be possible without a state, correct? In order to establish an islamic nation, the Prophet would need the above. So ws establishing an Islamic Nation part of the duties/responsibilities of Prophethood?

Not necessarily, political authority can be wielded without the formal structure and institutions that have come to characterize a Dawlah (State). An example is the administrative authority that is wielded and executed by a tribal chief among his tribe. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not even possess this kind of political authority in Mecca either (in that respect he was actually subject to the authority of Abu Talib)

Also, the establishment of a State or political entity is by no means one of the duties of Prophesy

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
15 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Yes, or more accurately, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not possess a formal office of political authority in Mecca.

Well, we already know he did not have any formal political office in Mecca. But my question was if he had political authority over the Muslims or not?

21 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

The Believers are required to obey the Prophet, regardless of whether the Prophet possesses formal, political office or not. Possession of formal, political office means an individual is in a position to execute his orders with the backing of power, force (the Prophet clearly did not possess such power in Mecca), and that the functions of political authority are organized and systematized.

 

15 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Not necessarily, political authority can be wielded without the formal structure and institutions that have come to characterize a Dawlah (State). An example is the administrative authority that is wielded and executed by a tribal chief among his tribe. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not even possess this kind of political authority in Mecca either.

Aren't you contradicting yourself in the texts in bold?

Based on the above tribal example, is it fair to say that the political leader of the tribe of Muslims in Mecca was in fact Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? If not, then who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

The separation of kingship and prophethood was a special case for Israelites before the take over of Palestine. This rule was removed with prophet Dawud (عليه السلام), when the Israelites were ready to accept the combination of roles. We had hadith that explains this. Regardless, it was Allah's decree to treat Israelites differently, for whatever situational reason. Allah set alot of rules for Israelites that were out of norm and were later removed. This has more to do with the Israelites, their deficiencies, biases, and general tribalistic tendencies than with with the authority of the prophets or Allah forbidding them from role of leadership and rulership.

This is strange, considering the fact that some of your co-religionists have been arguing that my theory (or our Sunni theory) is incorrect because it has no precedent from the history of Bani Israel as narrated in the holy Quran. Therefore, I think you need to explain this to individuals like @Muslim2010 and come up with a consistent argument on your side

Now at least you have admitted that there was a "separation of kingship [political rule] and prophethood", though you argue it was a special case for Israelites. My question is, isn't the nature of Nubuwwah universal, or are you now arguing that the nature and functions of Nubuwwah have evolved and been modified?

Secondly, while you have admitted that the nature of Nubuwwah was such in Bani Israel that it did not always have the function of political rule as one of its aspect, how does that prove that the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم had political rule as intrinsic to it?

Also, you claim this alleged transformation in the role of Nubuwwah took place with King David. But history bears witness that Kings David and Solomon were the only Prophet-Kings among the Israelites, they had many other kings who came after David and Solomon (most of whom were wicked, but some righteous ones too), and those kings were not prophets. On the contrary, Prophets continued to appear in Israel after King Solomon, and none of them possessed political authority.

Quote

We see that after Prophet Dawud defeated Jalut, the Israelites were so impressed that they dropped Talut (عليه السلام) and move on to prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) as their king. This was the level of maturity needed by them to make the transition complete. Prophet themselves always acted based on the readiness of the masses and exercised their authority accordingly. Rasolallah exercised his authority once the people accepted it. If he was restricted in any way by Allah ( in considering of the situation ), he would have conveyed that to the people and not have accepted such rule. 

Please clarify, are you saying that the Israelites made King David their king, because they were impressed with his defeat of Goliath? Doesn't this nullify your doctrine that King David was divinely appointed to the kingship?

I believe that Talut (Saul) was divinely appointed to the kingship by Allah, but I remain silent on the kingship of Kings David and Solomon as I see no explicit proof in the Quran either way (for divine or non-divine appointment to kingship)

Now you have introduced another bizarre theory that Prophets only assume their "divine right" based on the readiness of the masses. I believe they do not have such a "divine right" to rule in the first place. How can your theory be proven, without circular arguments?

Next you say the Prophet exercises his political authority (which you claim is his "divine right") only once the people accept it. Then doesn't that logically imply that a Prophet first calls people to grant him that political authority? Is there an example from the Sirah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم where he called upon the people to grant him political authority, which was supposedly his "divine right"? I mean, how else are the people suppose to know that they are meant to give the Prophet political authority if he doesn't explicitly instruct them toward that end? Are they suppose to read his mind?

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

3. Prophet Joseph was appointed by an Egyptian king (non-Believer) to the office of treasury minister. In his capacity of treasury minister, Prophet Joseph was actually subordinate to the Egyptian king. This is a proof that a Prophet can even be appointed to a secondary role of political authority that is subordinate to a higher political authority (but in his capacity of Prophet, a Prophet is not subordinate to a non-Prophet)

This again is based on consideration of the context of its time. We're talking about primitive people at primitive times. What the masses have capacity of is far different that what Allah wants in the long term. It takes decades and centuries to get the believers to a state where a prophet's direct rule can be fully accepted by the masses. You seem to have very little understanding of methodology of Welayat of Allah. After all you're young and raised in a madhhab of dictators and taguts, how could you know better. Better to learn than be argumentative, patting yourself in the back based on your own ignorance. 

Methodology of Welaya is extremely complex and not too many can completely figure out that method of the rule of representatives of Allah. With Rasulallah (عليه السلام) it was a bit simpler as the opposition of Rasulallah's (عليه السلام) rule were kufar, but during the time of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), it was muslims (munafiqs, Khawarij, nawsibis), hence the masses couldn't figure out his methodology. The masses expected the continuation of kingship that was the method of previous Khalifas, including continuous expansion, direct dominance and command structure, however Imam Ali, directed his attention to cleansing the ummah, which led to civil war. He abided by people's requests rather than just commanding them (as with case of accepting sending Abu Musa al-Ash'ari to negotiate with Mu'awiya. Then when Abu Musa failed, the people wanted Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to seek forgiveness since he made the wrong choice by listening to them). Because the masses couldn't understand and follow Imam Ali (عليه السلام), they easily fell to propaganda and abandoned him, to the point that the masses were surprised that Imam Ali was killed in a mosque (they didn't believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) even prayed). When we have such simple people, one can gain appreciation the level of basirat (awareness) and faith that is required by the masses to fully accept the rule of representatives of Allah and why the prophets in the past didn't fully exercise their authority. 

This will however change with the return of Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) as the muslims will be ready by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Well, we already know he did not have any formal political office in Mecca. But my question was if he had political authority over the Muslims or not?

No, he صلى الله عليه وسلم did not possess political authority over the Muslims in Mecca

Quote

Aren't you contradicting yourself in the texts in bold?

No, because you only bolded part of the sentence which if taken in isolation misrepresents my argument. I didn't say political authority can be wielded without a formal structure, I said it can be wielded without the formal structure that characterizes a State. Tribal leadership is also formal and structural, but tribal system is less developed and formal than that of a state.

Quote

Based on the above tribal example, is it fair to say that the political leader of the tribe of Muslims in Mecca was in fact Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? If not, then who?

No, because the Muslims were not a tribe. Nor did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possess the power to enforce any kind of political authority over the Muslims. Being Believers, they accepted his authority in all matters voluntarily, since they accepted him as their Prophet. But they were not a tribe, nor organized as a tribal structure, nor did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم act as a tribal chief in Mecca, on the contrary, he was a member of the Bani Hashim clan and was subject to the authority and protection of the Bani Hashim clan structure, under their chieftain Abu Talib

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Next you say the Prophet exercises his political authority (which you claim is his "divine right") only once the people accept it. Then doesn't that logically imply that a Prophet first calls people to grant him that political authority? Is there an example from the Sirah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم where he called upon the people to grant him political authority, which was supposedly his "divine right"? I mean, how else are the people suppose to know that they are meant to give the Prophet political authority if he doesn't explicitly instruct them toward that end? Are they suppose to read his mind?

You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around, trying to wrap your mind around something you don't understand. Welaya of Allah is a difficult topic to understand. The prophets have unbound authority from Allah, how they exercise that authority is based on what the masses can bear. The prophets guide (welaya) the masses so that they would reach the conclusion that they need their rule, rather than them just telling them (command). This is done by teaching them about the Islamic social laws and goals (requiring leadership), teaching about obedience of the representative of Allah (unconditional), teaching them about the overall goal's of Allah, Khalifat on earth. Once this has been accomplished, the people will ask for it and seek out the representative of Allah to rule them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

That just proves my position that the Prophet was not divinely appointed to the office of "chief arbitrator", he was invited to occupy that office by the clans of Medina

First of all, it appears that you are beginning to accept that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was not "elected as judge". Rather the authority was delegated to him to act as an arbitrator. This alone is sufficient that your argument was wrong.

Secondly, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) cannot be anything other than the Prophet "wama Muhammadan illa Rasool". In the same capacity he acted and operated as an arbitrator, it was his choice as mentioned by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى):

13 hours ago, Cool said:

فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ تُعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ فَلَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ شَيْئًا ۖ وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

5:42

Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) acted & operated as an arbitrator in the capacity of Prophet of Allah. 

11 hours ago, Cool said:

In the name of God, the Beneficent and the Merciful

(1) This is a prescript of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), the Prophet and Messenger of God (to operate) between the faithful and the followers of Islam from among the Quraish and the people of Madina and those who may be under them, may join them and take part in wars in their company.

The Prophet actually did acted as an arbitrator in Macca too when he issued judgement for fixing of "hajr e aswad" which was a matter of disagreement between clans of Macca. 

There cannot be any office for an arbitrator. An arbitrator is independent and neutral entity, not under obligation or not under rule of any law whatsoever. 

So this has really punctured your argument. I suggest you to pray another two units of salah & ask for a new inspiration :hahaha:

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Also, you claim this alleged transformation in the role of Nubuwwah took place with King David. But history bears witness that Kings David and Solomon were the only Prophet-Kings among the Israelites, they had many other kings who came after David and Solomon (most of whom were wicked, but some righteous ones too), and those kings were not prophets. On the contrary, Prophets continued to appear in Israel after King Solomon, and none of them possessed political authority.

You seem confusing kingship and Allah's rule. People can choose anyone as kings, doesn't mean it's the one Allah chooses. Israelites broke Allah's covenant and went their own separate ways, killing the prophets Allah sent them, until prophethood was completely removed from them. 

16 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Please clarify, are you saying that the Israelites made King David their king, because they were impressed with his defeat of Goliath? Doesn't this nullify your doctrine that King David was divinely appointed to the kingship?

The authority of prophet David (عليه السلام) and Solieman (عليه السلام) is given, what the people were willing to accept is whats at stake. They finally accepted that both roles can be combined, hence prophet David (عليه السلام) took such position, putting an end to the separation. When Israelites went their own way afterward, is their doing and paid the price as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

No, he صلى الله عليه وسلم did not possess political authority over the Muslims in Mecca

No, because you only bolded part of the sentence which if taken in isolation misrepresents my argument. I didn't say political authority can be wielded without a formal structure, I said it can be wielded without the formal structure that characterizes a State. Tribal leadership is also formal and structural, but tribal system is less developed and formal than that of a state.

No, because the Muslims were not a tribe. Nor did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possess the power to enforce any kind of political authority over the Muslims. Being Believers, they accepted his authority in all matters voluntarily, since they accepted him as their Prophet. But they were not a tribe, nor organized as a tribal structure, nor did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم act as a tribal chief in Mecca, on the contrary, he was a member of the Bani Hashim clan and was subject to the authority and protection of the Bani Hashim clan structure, under their chieftain Abu Talib

It irks me when smart people try to play word games.

Okay the Muslims in Mecca were not a tribe. Were the Muslims in Mecca an Ummah? Or were they a group?

Or to get really literal, was there ever a gathering of a group of arabs who happened to be Muslims and an outsider could point and say, "oh look, a group of Muslims".

I think I get your point - the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed all authority over Muslims except political authority.

So all ayahs around "Obey Allah, obey Rasool..." should really be "Obey Allah, obey Rasool in all aspects except political,...". Agreed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cool said:

First of all, it appears that you are beginning to accept that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was not "elected as judge".

When did I accept that?

Quote

Secondly, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) cannot be anything other than the Prophet "wama Muhammadan illa Rasool".

Quoted out of context, it doesn't prove that Sayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم cannot have additional roles to his Risalah, the Ayah is speaking of his mortality and denying the idea he can live forever without dying and is some kind of semi-divine figure.

Going by your (false) interpretation, if Sayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم only possesses a single role of Rasul, then it means he is not a father and a husband, because fatherhood and husbandry are additional and separate roles from Prophesy.

Quote

The Prophet actually did acted as an arbitrator in Macca to when he issued judgement for fixing of "hajr e aswad" which was a matter of disagreement between clans of Macca. 

Shouldn't have made this argument, now it's going to backfire on you. Was the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم divinely appointed to this role, or did the people of Mecca appoint him to it, based on his personal merits of honesty and sincerity (and not based on his Prophesy)?

Quote

In the name of God, the Beneficent and the Merciful

(1) This is a prescript of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), the Prophet and Messenger of God (to operate) between the faithful and the followers of Islam from among the Quraish and the people of Madina and those who may be under them, may join them and take part in wars in their company.

Not sure what you are quoting here since no source is provided, and I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make with it. Please explain and provide a reference

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It should be noted that prophets exerting their authority is not a simple matter of declaring they have divine authority and that other should accept their rule, or else it would be like the case of prophet Haroun (عليه السلام) during the disappearance of prophet Musa (عليه السلام). Prophet Haroun (عليه السلام) was given Khalfat by Allah during the 40 days of absence, but since he went against what the masses desired, they turned against him and threatened him with violence. Only a few remained on his side. Hence, such event exist as an opportunity to understand that prophet's of Allah must move with the capacity of the masses and lead them to accepting their authority rather than exerting or demanding it from them. 

The return of Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) will not occur until the muslims (Shia's) are ready to accept his authority fully and unconditionally and understand the need for him as Allah's Khalifa on earth.

Edited by Shiawarrior313
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Okay the Muslims in Mecca were not a tribe. Were the Muslims in Mecca an Ummah? Or were they a group?

Or to get really literal, was there ever a gathering of a group of arabs who happened to be Muslims and an outsider could point and say, "oh look, a group of Muslims".

I'm not playing word games at all. You simply require further education in political theory to make a distinction between types of groups that constitute a political entity, and types of groups which don't.

A tribe is a political entity in the way it is structured and the functions and powers that are vested in the chief of the tribe.

The Muslim Ummah is not a political entity.

Quote

I think I get your point - the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed all authority over Muslims except political authority.

So all ayahs around "Obey Allah, obey Rasool..." should really be "Obey Allah, obey Rasool in all aspects except political,...". Agreed?

Incorrect, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possesses supreme (divinely-delegated) authority over the Muslims in his capacity of Prophet, which encompasses all matters including political, legal, social, family, personal, religious, doctrinal, in short, every sphere of human life.

But there is a difference between possessing supreme authority in a particular sphere and occupying a formal office associated with that sphere. A formal office in the political sphere has the backing of political power, the capacity to enforce and execute the authority vested in it.

We need to understand what a Prophet is. According to the Jewish Study Bible: "That God alone appoints the prophet makes the prophet independent of all institutions and able to challenge them" (p.408)

Untitled.png.89ebe89d57fc5f6e5f27a2af9ce11653.png1393126818_Prophetindependentofallinstitutionsabletochallengethem(JewishStudyBiblep.408).png.6cbc2c9c6b0715d6b2a4216731097818.png

So a Prophet can potentially challenge a human institution (if the need arises), but he is not synonymous with any human institution. If he acquires that human institution, it is necessarily an additional role to his Prophesy.

Therefore, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died, the human institution that he was in charge of remained after him, not the institution of Prophesy which is independent of all human institutions. The successor of the Prophet succeeded him in his leadership of the human institution, not the divine institution of prophesy. That is why the Prophet's successor does not possess supreme authority in all spheres of human life, otherwise the successor would be a prophet too, thereby violating the Finality of Prophesy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

then it means he is not a father and a husband, because fatherhood and husbandry are additional and separate roles from Prophesy

:) Don't think like Ummul Momineen Aisha, lest you question:

مَنْ أَنبَأَكَ هَذَا

He was and is a Prophet of Allah in any case. 

28 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Was the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم divinely appointed to this role,

 

وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا

5:48

How many verses should I quote to show you a simple fact,?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Whats to be understood from these discussions is the complexity of Allah's rule through his representatives. Allah gives glimpses of rule by his prophets throughout history to demonstrate the difficulty of holding on to them. From Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) leading the Israelites ( them failing to follow him to promise land ), to prophet Davud (عليه السلام) and Soleiman (عليه السلام), who gave the world a glimpse of what an end times Khalafa of Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) will look like ( as their kingdoms fell apart soon after the passing of these prophets, due to the masses breaking their covenant with the subsequent prophets). With the Rasolallah (عليه السلام) the masses fell short in recognizing his divine authority, in many cases questioning if what he was commanding is from Allah or from himself, and subsequently failing the test of successorship.

In every case from the time of Adam (عليه السلام), the masses have fallen short in accepting Allah's authority, and all these examples have been provided to us by Allah to understand what we need to reach the readiness for Allah's Khalifa ( Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام)  ) and establishing Allah's rule on earth and beyond. Inshallah we can get there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Where's my man @Mahdavist?

Salam alaikum brother, thanks for opening the thread. I have read your argument and can inshaAllah provide some high level feedback. Details can be discussed later inshaAllah if they turn out to be relevant.

In general you are saying that there are two main roles, one which is the divine appointment of guidance and the second which is a socio-political role that was established through consultation.

For the sake of discussion I am fine to proceed with this position even if we may have to revisit it. 

Essentially this doesn't counter or contradict the concept of Imamate in our madhab. We agree that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was the guide and religious leader of the ummah, regardless of administrative roles, and this is consistent with the role of the aimmah (عليه السلام). Whether they were caliphs, prisoners, exiled or martyred by an army of muslimeen , their role as Imam remains equally as valid and relevant. It is not dependent on the acceptance of the people nor of any political role. Therefore we continue to take our madhab through the path of the Quran, the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his progeny (عليه السلام).

Interestingly, your argument of separating the administrative role from the religious one confirms that the khulafa did not have any religious authority, and therefore there is no basis to take the madhab and sunnah from them. Once again, this is consistent with the position of the ahl al tashayyu'. The caliphs have no role in our madhab. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around, trying to wrap your mind around something you don't understand. Welaya of Allah is a difficult topic to understand. The prophets have unbound authority from Allah, how they exercise that authority is based on what the masses can bear. The prophets guide (welaya) the masses so that they would reach the conclusion that they need their rule, rather than them just telling them (command). This is done by teaching them about the Islamic social laws and goals (requiring leadership), teaching about obedience of the representative of Allah (unconditional), teaching them about the overall goal's of Allah, Khalifat on earth. Once this has been accomplished, the people will ask for it and seek out the representative of Allah to rule them.

Three verses of the Holy Quran define the basic functions and duties of a Prophet and Messenger of God (2:129; 3:164; 62:2):

يَتْلُوا۟ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْحِكْمَةَ

Reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom

In essence 1. conveying the divine Revelation, 2. purifying, 3. teaching the Scripture and Divine wisdom

Where has Allah in the Quran mentioned that a function and duty of the Prophet is to assume temporal, political authority in the Earth or to establish a state or political entity?

Then you say that the Prophets were assigned this task, but could not practically accomplish it because the masses were not adequately reformed by them. You also claim that the "overall goal of Allah, Khilafat on earth", but how is that the overall goal, where does it state this anywhere in the Quran?

Most of your posts are just filled with claims and the standard Shi'i narrative, but you have failed to back it up with concrete, definitive evidence, unlike me, who has first stated his theory in the OP including evidence, plus additional strong evidence in subsequent posts

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Incorrect, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possesses supreme (divinely-delegated) authority over the Muslims in his capacity of Prophet, which encompasses all matters including political, legal, social, family, personal, religious, doctrinal, in short, every sphere of human life.

But there is a difference between possessing supreme authority in a particular sphere and occupying a formal office associated with that sphere. A formal office in the political sphere has the backing of political power, the capacity to enforce and execute the authority vested in it.

We need to understand what a Prophet is. According to the Jewish Study Bible: "That God alone appoints the prophet makes the prophet independent of all institutions and able to challenge them" (p.408)

You're almost getting it.... though then you go way off course in quoting Jewish Bible? The heck? are you a crypto jew? Anything jewish is not proof upon us. 

If you agree that the prophet has authority in every sphere of life, then it's just a matter of the masses accepting it for it to become official upon them. The institutions, systems and rule that prophets setup is vastly different than the ones Taguts setup. Once the prophet rule is accepted by the masses, then the hard part starts, in the masses being able to follow the prophet, which history has shown them to be incapable of.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Salam alaikum brother, thanks for opening the thread. I have read your argument and can inshaAllah provide some high level feedback. Details can be discussed later inshaAllah if they turn out to be relevant.

In general you are saying that there are two main roles, one which is the divine appointment of guidance and the second which is a socio-political role that was established through consultation.

For the sake of discussion I am fine to proceed with this position even if we may have to revisit it. 

Essentially this doesn't counter or contradict the concept of Imamate in our madhab. We agree that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was the guide and religious leader of the ummah, regardless of administrative roles, and this is consistent with the role of the aimmah (عليه السلام). Whether they were caliphs, prisoners, exiled or martyred by an army of muslimeen , their role as Imam remains equally as valid and relevant. It is not dependent on the acceptance of the people nor of any political role. Therefore we continue to take our madhab through the path of the Quran, the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his progeny (عليه السلام).

Interestingly, your argument of separating the administrative role from the religious one confirms that the khulafa did not have any religious authority, and therefore there is no basis to take the madhab and sunnah from them. Once again, this is consistent with the position of the ahl al tashayyu'. The caliphs have no role in our madhab. 

Wa alaikum as salaam

Excellent! This is why I appreciate your feedback the most, it is relatively the most straightforward and unbiased. You seem to be agreeable to going in the direction where the river of evidence is flowing, and not try to paddle against the tide.

Now let's move a little forward. Remember, the issue is which role of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was up for succession after he died. You say that his role of guiding the Ummah spiritually and morally was inherited by the Imams. You further say that because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was divinely appointed to Prophesy, the Imams meaning his successors in the spiritual guidance of the Ummah must necessarily be divinely appointed to.

I also accept this idea partially - the difference is you have restricted this to twelve Imams, plus added specific functions of this spiritual Imamate which we do not accept because we regard those functions as exclusively Prophetic. Nonetheless, in essence, let me accept this proposition for the sake of argument. We also have this concept of spiritual Imamate, successors of the Prophet, which we can call an esoteric Caliphate, the institution of Wilayah, the institution of Tajdid. But we do not restrict it to twelve Imams (we have thousands and even tens of thousands of such spiritual successors of the Prophet), nor do we say that all of them are divinely appointed, though the Mujaddids from among them are divinely appointed, and the Mahdi is likewise divinely appointed, and some of the others may or may not be divinely appointed.

But this is an entirely different subject.

My thesis was that the administrative role occupied by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was a role he was not divinely appointed to. The succession to that role, which we call the exoteric Caliphate, is therefore naturally not divinely appointed either. Therefore, unlike the Imamiyah Shi'ah, we do not agree that the political/administrative leadership of the Ummah has to be divinely appointed. This is the point that is under discussion in this thread.

As for your final point, we believe that the exoteric Rightly-Guided Caliphs in their capacity of administrative leaders, possessed the temporal authority over the Muslims.

So what about their spiritual authority? Firstly, we also recognize that our four Rightly-Guided Caliphs were men of piety and closeness to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, who through close association and obedience to him possessed the esoteric Caliphate at well. That is a role in addition to their exoteric Caliphate.

For example, sayyidina Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه was the last exoteric, Rightly-Guided Caliph. He resigned from his exoteric Caliphate voluntarily, but he did not lose his esoteric Caliphate, his spiritual and moral leadership of the Ummah.

Also, when I speak of spiritual authority, I don't mean with the same functions and powers that the Imamiyah Shi'ah assign to the Imams, because we consider that trespassing on the exclusive domain of Prophesy. The spiritual authority is to revive, teach and personify the Quran and Sunnah, it is not an authority that is independent of the Prophet Muhammad, his Shari'ah and Sunnah.

If you accept this idea in principle, I think there is nothing further to debate. We may differ regarding the personalities, but if we can come to an agreement on the core concept and principle of Caliphate, that would be a huge achievement

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Where has Allah in the Quran mentioned that a function and duty of the Prophet is to assume temporal, political authority in the Earth or to establish a state or political entity?

Then you say that the Prophets were assigned this task, but could not practically accomplish it because the masses were not adequately reformed by them. You also claim that the "overall goal of Allah, Khilafat on earth", but how is that the overall goal, where does it state this anywhere in the Quran?

So, all the verses on Khalafat are nothing? you're jaded. Appointing Khalifa's on earth means exactly that, on earth, not part of it. That is the intent, which will be fully realized by Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام). The other prophets showed glimpse of that. Such as prophet Musa (عليه السلام) and Haroun (عليه السلام) (who was directly appointed as Khalifa). Ponder a bit and don't just respond. 

Most of Islamic laws are social and not personal, eg. usury. These require Islamic rule directed by the representative of Allah to establish. It's quite obvious in today's world. A prophet can tell people not to be involved with usury, but if the entire economic system is based on that, such system needs to be abolished and replaced. This requires an islamic governance, rule. This is just one out of hundreds of systems required. If Rasolallah rule through the Imams continued, they would have created such society, where every system governing the society would be based on quran's teachings. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

You're almost getting it.... though then you go way off course in quoting Jewish Bible? The heck? are you a crypto jew? Anything jewish is not proof upon us. 

Despite its name, the Jewish Study Bible is not a Jewish, religious text, it is a secular text written by secular, neutral scholars and named "Jewish" because it is examining and commenting on the Jewish Bible. I actually received a hard copy of this text in a secular university in a course on religion or the history of the Bible (something like that). I didn't receive it from a Synagogue.

Quote

If you agree that the prophet has authority in every sphere of life, then it's just a matter of the masses accepting it for it to become official upon them. The institutions, systems and rule that prophets setup is vastly different than the ones Taguts setup. Once the prophet rule is accepted by the masses, then the hard part starts, in the masses being able to follow the prophet, which history has shown them to be incapable of.  

A Prophet having authority in every sphere of life doesn't mean a Prophet must necessarily occupy an active role in one of those spheres of life. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed supreme economic authority but he was not an economist. He always possessed supreme authority in the political sphere since becoming a Prophet, but he was not always a statesman (he attained that role after the people of Medina elected him to it).

When we say a Prophet possesses supreme authority in all spheres of life, and is able to challenge all human institutions, we mean that they can potentially overrule any human institution in their capacity of speaking on behalf of God directly. So for example, with many examples of history, the generic scenario is there is a king with valid authority in the land, but he orders something that is against the Divine Law, the Prophet raised up by God goes to him and rebukes him for that, he challenges the institution of monarchy, but the Prophet is not the monarch himself. The Prophet does not tell the king "vacate your throne, that's my seat!", rather, the Prophet says "you may be the king, but I'm the Prophet, what you command and how you are behaving is against the Will of God". So historically, the role of the Prophet is to be the moral compass of the society, the voice of dissent against the corruption in society, that challenges human institutions when those institutions become corrupt or disobey the Divine Law. The Prophet's objective is not to occupy political office.

Please note this crucial distinction. We do not believe Prophets were sent to seize thrones and grab political power from the kings and rulers of their day. As Prophets, they possessed the authority to challenge their kings and rulers when they ruled against the Divine Law, but the Prophets were not the rulers themselves in most instances. When a Prophet did become a ruler, like Kings David, Solomon, and Prophet Muhammad as judge in Medina, it was an additional, secondary role to their Prophesy, because they possessed the personal merits to occupy political office, not because it was the "divine right" associated with their Prophesy

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
38 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

For the sake of discussion I am fine to proceed with this position even if we may have to revisit it. 

 

16 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Wa alaikum as salaam

Excellent! This is why I appreciate your feedback the most, it is relatively the most straightforward and unbiased. You seem to be agreeable to going in the direction where the river of evidence is flowing, and not try to paddle against the tide.

For the record Cherry, I have been in agreement with you from the get go that caliphate is a much lower rank than Prophethood and Imamate. 

After all, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) called it worth less than the sneeze of a goat.

My main reason for engaging with you on this topic is because I find your discourse fascinating. I find your "ilham" and "never been argued before" so entertaining because our scholars have been discussing the separation (or not) of religion and politics for ages. There is nothing new here.

I do disagree with you on the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) authority and will pursue that line of questioning.

 

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

For the record Cherry, I have been in agreement with you from the get go that caliphate is a much lower rank than Prophethood and Imamate. 

Do you also accept that it is a separate rank from Prophesy and not intrinsic to Prophesy? That's the whole point of my thesis and OP.

Quote

 I find your "ilham" and "never been argued before" so entertaining because our scholars have been discussing the separation (or not) of religion and politics for ages. There is nothing new here.

My Ilham was specific, it was that the Prophet was elected to political office by the people and not divinely appointed, so that same political office which he vacated upon his death should naturally be filled by someone who is elected through consultation and not divinely appointed.

This was the specific Ilham. You may prove me wrong by citing example of any Sunni ever using this polemic before me, or any Shi'i ever responding to this specific argument before me. I am open to the possibility of being wrong on this, but first you have to prove me wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

So, all the verses on Khalafat are nothing?

Khilafah in the Earth is a blessing, not an objective in itself. It is the ideal means to create a moral, Islamic society and utopia. Ayat al-Istikhlaf speaks of this Khilafat fil-Ard as a general phenomenon in which Believers possess authority and influence in the land. It is not speaking of a specific, formal institution either, although we regard the historic Khilafat ar-Rashidah as the supreme manifestation and fulfillment of the promise in Ayat al-Istikhlaf for this Ummah.

The Khilafah spoken of in Ayat al-Istikhlaf is Kasbi, it is attained through Believers fulfilling the conditions outlined in Ayat al-Istikhlaf itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Most of Islamic laws are social and not personal, eg. usury. These require Islamic rule directed by the representative of Allah to establish. It's quite obvious in today's world. A prophet can tell people not to be involved with usury, but if the entire economic system is based on that, such system needs to be abolished and replaced. This requires an islamic governance, rule. This is just one out of hundreds of systems required. If Rasolallah rule through the Imams continued, they would have created such society, where every system governing the society would be based on quran's teachings. 

I'm not sure I can agree with your claim that "most of Islamic laws are social and not personal". Have you literally numerated all the Islamic laws and were able to determine which percentage of them fall in the category of social laws and which fall in the category of personal laws?

I agree that Islamic governance is ideal, but I disagree that it is necessary or the objective of Prophets was to establish governments, institutions and systems. That is an idea that came about in the mid 20th century with a political fikr developed by such individuals as Mawdudi, Qutb, Shariati, and others. This 20th century political fikr was a mixture of ideas and elements from revolutionary Marxism, Shi'ism and Kharijism.

The following Hadith is in Bukhari, it's a well-known part of the Sirah, but I'm not sure if you will accept it as a Shi'i:

غَزَوْنَا مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَبُوكَ، وَأَهْدَى مَلِكُ أَيْلَةَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَغْلَةً بَيْضَاءَ، وَكَسَاهُ بُرْدًا، وَكَتَبَ لَهُ بِبَحْرِهِمْ‏

We accompanied the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) in the expedition of Tabuk and the King of Ailah presented a white mule and a cloak as a gift to the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam), and he wrote for him a treaty allowing him to keep authority over his country. (Sahih al-Bukhari #3161)

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was perfectly fine with allowing the kings and rulers of his time to retain their temporal authority, to maintain their political structures and systems. He invited the various kings and rulers in the epistles he dispatched to them to believe in him as a Prophet of God. He never instructed them to vacate their thrones, nor did he say he was sent to overturn their political systems and structures. On the contrary, when the Negus of Ethiopia رضى الله عنه became a Believer, the Prophet never required him to vacate his throne and leave Ethiopia. The system of rule continued in place in Ethiopia. Similarly, the Prophet confirmed the political authority of Badhan King of Yemen when he converted to the Faith.

 

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

prophet's of Allah must move with the capacity of the masses and lead them to accepting their authority rather than exerting or demanding it from them. 

This bizarre theory goes against the divine appointment of a non-prophet (Talut/Saul) to the monarchy in the presence of a Prophet (Samuel).

Instead of the Prophet (Samuel) leading the masses to accept his political authority, he is doing the opposite and appointing someone else as king, that too under divine instruction!

How do you solve this perplexing riddle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Please note this crucial distinction. We do not believe Prophets were sent to seize thrones and grab political power from the kings and rulers of their day. As Prophets, they possessed the authority to challenge their kings and rulers when they ruled against the Divine Law, but the Prophets were not the rulers themselves in most instances. When a Prophet did become a ruler, like Kings David, Solomon, and Prophet Muhammad as judge in Medina, it was an additional, secondary role to their Prophesy, because they possessed the personal merits to occupy political office, not because it was the "divine right" associated with their Prophesy

This is where we differ. We in Shia Madhhab believe to fully establish and implement Allah's guidance within the ummah, governance is required and taguts need to be removed. Its not enough for prophet to simply confront unjust rulers, but rather if situation manifests itself, they must remove them. Hence, Allah removed pharoh throuugh Prophet Musa (عليه السلام), prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) removed the taguts in Palestine and Raoulallah (عليه السلام) removed the taguts in Meka. Though the prophets, Allah establishes his authority on earth. 

Since Allah's religion encompasses all aspects of life, his Khalifa's also posses such knowledge to implement these facets fully, including economic, political, military... knowledge. There is no gap in their knowledge. This allows for all the social laws within islam to be fully established and systems governing the society to be fully based on quran's teachings, hence fulfilling their role of prophethood to the fullest. Else, we will always be in contradiction with those who have power over us, but do not wish to implement aspects of Islam as it does not fit their agenda. Usury is one example. 

Usury is not as simple as disallowing interest in loans. As society becomes more complex, more complex means of commerce are required and economy as whole needs to be well defined in all its facets with removal of usury as its cornerstone. This includes islamic system of investment, definition and implementation of corporations, definition of ownership, function of money lending institutions and their function, value of money in society, social welfare systems and mechanisms of distribution of wealth, loans and its methodology, definition of money ( do we go back to gold standard, or something else). The society that Rasoulallah (عليه السلام) governed was simplistic in comparison to what we have today. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as ruler would go out and feed the homeless,, now we need an entire welfare system. All of these need to be under the umbrella of Islamic values working in harmony with hundreds of other systems. 

If we look at the west, they started of with a philosophy or materialism and that we're all intelligent animals (darwinism), and then built a society within that philosophy: survival of the fittest (depicted in economy, politics, military, education, health), where the elite of this system are the ones with most wealth and fame. Hence, they define what a human is and build an entire society around it. A society has over a thousand systems governing them, working in harmony under one materialistic philosophy. 

In Islam, the same needs to be done. Define what a human is ( a spiritual being, requiring guidance towards Allah) and then build the thousand plus systems associated with it. Each system within the society will have the capacity to guide the masses towards Allah, as opposed to systems today that accomplish the opposite. eg. people go to universities and come out with much weaker faith. Allah provides his Kahlifa with such means and knowledge to lead mankind towards such society, something well beyond us normal humans. Rulers without such knowledge simply get in the way. A prophet does not need to remove other rulers, he needs to have a society under him to implement this, the rest of the world will follow suite.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

This bizarre theory goes against the divine appointment of a non-prophet (Talut/Saul) to the monarchy in the presence of a Prophet (Samuel).

Instead of the Prophet (Samuel) leading the masses to accept his political authority, he is doing the opposite and appointing someone else as king, that too under divine instruction!

How do you solve this perplexing riddle?

According to hadith we have describing the events, before prophet Dawud (عليه السلام), Israelites had their kings and prophets separate. Why? i don't know. Israelites had alot of tribalistic problems and history of disobeying prophets. Hence, they demanded continuation of the same with prophet Samuel (عليه السلام). What if Allah decreed that the prophet would be their king? would they accept or would it be like the even of prophet Haroun (عليه السلام). We know what Israelites are capable of, and we know that even though they were told afterward to drink only a bit from the river, only 313 abided. So, their capacity to disobey commands from Allah was great. Afterwards, with prophet dawud (عليه السلام), they warmed up to the idea of prophethood and rulership being combined. This comes up as dealing with limitations of ignorant and disobedient people who are barely following Allah's prophets as it is. If Israelites were the best people for Allah's prophets to lead, then one can only imagine what the rest of the world was like. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

What if Allah decreed that the prophet would be their king?

The problem with your theory is that it makes Allah subservient to the wishes of a corrupt nation. If in principle the political rule is the divine right of the Prophet, why would Allah compromise that principle simply to fulfill the desire of the corrupt nation? After all, it was Allah Himself Who divinely appointed Talut. You are interpreting that as Allah compromising with a wicked nation because they are not ready to have a Prophet as their king (such an interpretation has no basis from the text of the Quran itself).

On the contrary, the Quran actually says that when Talut was appointed king over Israel, the Israelites initially objected to his divine appointment, saying "How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him and he has not been given any measure of wealth?" (2:247)

So according to you, Prophet Samuel should have been king, but because Israelites are not ready or willing, Allah makes Talut king, but even then the Israelites object and question why Talut is king? Does any of this make sense, 'cause it doesn't make any sense to me!

That's what happens when you try to force a preconceived idea and theory into the Quran which is simply not present there. Why not wipe the slate clean and read the Quran without any preconceived bias, putting your Shi'ah doctrines to the side and try to understand the teaching of Islam for what it really is?

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

This is where we differ. We in Shia Madhhab believe to fully establish and implement Allah's guidance within the ummah, governance is required and taguts need to be removed. Its not enough for prophet to simply confront unjust rulers, but rather if situation manifests itself, they must remove them. Hence, Allah removed pharoh throuugh Prophet Musa (عليه السلام)

Did Allah make Prophet Musa عليه السلام the Pharaoh? The destruction of Pharaoh was not for the purpose of Moses and Bani Israel seizing political power in Egypt. On the contrary, Moses told Pharaoh that he was to release the children of Israel so they could accompany Moses to the Promised Land. They had no interest in ruling Egypt. Pharaoh was destroyed because he was actively resisting the objective of Prophet Moses عليه السلام, not because he was occupying the throne in Egypt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The problem with your theory is that it makes Allah subservient to the wishes of a corrupt nation. If in principle the political rule is the divine right of the Prophet, why would Allah compromise that principle simply to fulfill the desire of the corrupt nation? After all, it was Allah Himself Who divinely appointed Talut. You are interpreting that as Allah compromising with a wicked nation because they are not ready to have a Prophet as their king (such an interpretation has no basis from the text of the Quran itself).

On the contrary, the Quran actually says that when Talut was appointed king over Israel, the Israelites initially objected to his divine appointment, saying "How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him and he has not been given any measure of wealth?" (2:247)

So according to you, Prophet Samuel should have been king, but because Israelites are not ready or willing, Allah makes Talut king, but even then the Israelites object and question why Talut is king? Does any of this make sense, 'cause it doesn't make any sense to me!

It's not subservient to the wishes of corrupt nation, rather guiding a weak nation, like teaching children how to walk before teaching them how to run. Step by step, getting them to the desired path, which is rule of a prophet upon them as was done with prophet Dawud (عليه السلام). The fact that they objected to Talut being their king, shows they're barely willing to deviate from what they're inclined towards. so, what would happen if the king/prophet separation was removed, right there and then, they would not accept. 

Try pondering a bit and maybe Allah will guide you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Did Allah make Prophet Musa عليه السلام the Pharaoh? The destruction of Pharaoh was not for the purpose of Moses and Bani Israel seizing political power in Egypt. On the contrary, Moses told Pharaoh that he was to release the children of Israel so they could accompany Moses to the Promised Land. They had no interest in ruling Egypt. Pharaoh was destroyed because he was actively resisting the objective of Prophet Moses عليه السلام, not because he was occupying the throne in Egypt.

Allah had other plans. It was obvious Pharoh was not going to let the cheap labour go. Hence, Allah destroyed him through prophet Musa (عليه السلام), and set him on course to the promise land, where they could setup their governance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another proof that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed dual roles of Prophet and statesman, and that these roles were distinct, the former being divinely appointed and the latter being attained through consultation and election by the Aws and Khazraj, is the fact that the orders which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم issued in his capacity of Prophet constitute the universal laws of the Shari'ah, while the orders he gave is his capacity of chief arbitrator and political ruler of Medina are not permanent laws or universal rules.

For example, in his capacity of judge (as in military strongman or warlord), the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed sayyidina Usamah bin Zayd as commander of an army and ordered this army to make an expedition to Syria in retaliation for the Battle of Mu'tah. Now obviously, this command of the Prophet is not a Prophetic command that is connected to the universal Shari'ah, it is his command tied to his non-divinely appointed political office.

That is why, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away, there was a confusion whether this order could be rescinded as it was not a Shari' command connected with the Nubuwwah. When a political leader dies and he is succeeded by another political leader, the new political leader is authorized to abrogate or rescind the executive orders of his predecessor.

After the Prophet's death, there was a mass apostasy among the Bedouin tribes and other Arabs outside Medina. Some Sahabah رضى الله عنهم counselled sayyidina Abi Bakr not to execute the command of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم regarding the objective of sayyidina Usamah bin Zayd's army, because it was apparently more crucial to deal with the apostasy rebellion first rather than attack the Romans. If the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم understood the Prophet's command regarding the expedition of sayyidina Usamah bin Zayd's army to be a command connected to his Nubuwwah and the universal Shari'ah, they would have never given such counsel.

Yet, sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه decided to execute the Prophet's order anyway because he believed there was blessing in it and he wanted to continue to the Prophet's policy blindly, come what may.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...