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

  • Veteran Member
10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I already clarified that the obligation to obey someone does not necessitate that he occupies a formal office of political authority. The Quran does say we are required to obey the Prophet, it doesn't say he has been divinely appointed to be the ruler. If the axis of your entire argument is going to be that Prophets must be obeyed and possess the highest authority in that respect among the creation, this is going to be a very easy and short discussion for me.

The point you need to address is was the Prophet divinely appointed to his office of formalized, political authority, his role of being chief arbitrator of Medina? I've already proven he was not divinely appointed to that office, he was elected to it by the clans of Medina. That's the point you need to refute.

The verse as quoted (4:59) mentions that

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

. FOr us those charged with authority (by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)( are imams.  A s per sunni belief  those charged with authority are rulers.  Are these rulers not supposed to obey  the prophet ?

If yes they are supposed to follow the prophet then it confirms that the prophet has political and religious  authority over the rulers, and believers.

As per sunni belief the verses refers "those  in authority" who were selected by the prophet for some military expedition, this is another evidence of the political authority of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) over the believers.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
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
9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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.

If the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) makes a Treaty with a group of people, is it binding on all Muslims to follow and obey the clauses of the treaty?

The Muslim Ummah as it stands today may not be a political entity because it is broken down by countries. However the Muslims of Mecca (pre-hijra) were a collective with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) being it's head. You are right that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was not the head of Bani Hashim and he didn't need to be because he was not the Prophet for Bani Hashim only. 

There is absolutely no mistake in stating that the way the Muslims were structured in Mecca, they were a collective and Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was their leader.

9 hours 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)

 

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.

Cherry - you need to make up your mind. When I started from the bottom of your post, you said start from the top. Now that I started from the top and want to discuss Mecca, you are jumping into the caliphate in Medina.

I am still in Mecca. So we are in agreement that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed divine political authority over Muslims. Please confirm this with Yes/No. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/3/2020 at 9:00 AM, Muslim2010 said:

I have already shown to you before that consultation is not a basis to choose a divine leader, ruler ,caliph, prophet or imam with the verses of Quran. I like to add the following verses in support my view from quran:

The interpretation for verse 42:38 is explained as below:

وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ

And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.

It is worthy of note that one is supposed to seek consultation regarding the affairs of people, but one is not supposed to do likewise concerning Divine matters, e.g. Prophethood, Resurrection, Imamate, and worship of God. Imamate and leading the Muslim community are also Divine Covenants, since Abraham (عليه السلام) invoked God Almighty and asked Him to appoint his offspring to lead the community and God Almighty answered to him:

“Leadership and Imamate are My Covenants and appointment of individuals to the same is dependent upon My Will rather than your invocation, since wrong-doers do not deserve leadership.” (2:124)

Thus, we should surrender to Him in terms of the leadership of the Muslim community, as it is reflected in the Holy Qur’an,

“Indeed, I appoint you as the leader of people.”

Believers also consult with each other and act upon each other’s discretion. They do not act opinionatedly. Consultation is fruitful in consulting with the wise and scholars since it leads to favorable consequences.

The selection of leaders / prophets/ imams / prophets /caliphs is not the affair of the people but it is the right of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone. The evidence can be seen from the following verses:

1- Hz Adam as was chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as caliph / successor on the earth.  No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

2- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Chosen Ibrahim as as Imam / leader of the people, No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

3-  Hz Adam, Nuh,  Ibrahim and the progeny of Imran were chosen above the worlds. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

4- The prophet Nuh and Ibrahim were  sent to his nation. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

5- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave the progeny of ibrahim, the book and the wisdom. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

6- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) chosed Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot—each graced over all the nations. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

7-Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made Isac and yaqub leaders / imams, No consultation was made for his selection with any one. whom Allah consulted for this selection of leaders / imams.

8- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made Dawood  a caliph ie his successor as his chosen representative on the earth. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

9- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made Haroon as and aider and adviser of hz Musa as. Did Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) make any consultation with the Children of israel for such selection? Or Musa made any shura for his selection?

10- Musa asked his adviser and aider made by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ie Harun to take his place as his caliph / successor  in his absence, when he left for Mountain Tur. Did he make any shura for Haroon selection? However the people themselves chose and took a calf in Musa's absence then they were condemned by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for this worst action.

11- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made 12 leaders among the children of israel. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

12- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) chosen Talut a leader over the children of Israel because of his knowledge and physical strength. No consultation was made for his selection by any one.

13- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) sent the prophet Muhammad saww as mercy to the mankind. Did Almighty aj make any consultation for his selection?

14- Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made the prophet Muhammad saww as his messenger and the last of the prophets. Did Allah make any consultation for this selection?

15- And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not theirs; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate (with Him). 28:68.

This verse in the light of above verses clearly indicates that the selection of representative (prophet / leader / imam/ successor) is the authority of Allah alone. and no one has any right for it. It does not involve any  consultation for  their selection.

16- The way of Allah does  not change:

ۚ فَهَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا سُنَّتَ الْأَوَّلِينَ ۚ فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا

But you will never find in the way of Allah any change, and you will never find in the way of Allah any alteration. (35:43)

17- The people do not have any right for selection of prophet or his representative then certainly they cannot choose any one after the prophet as his caliph ./ successor at their own (by any consultation) without permission by Allah.

Thus what happened after the prophet Muhammad saww for the selection of the successor(Calif Abubakr) is considered an innovation or bidda in the religion in violation to the established principles of the quran.

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. (33:36)

:NH:

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

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)?

:D Lets ask Ammi Aisha, what was her opinion:

Quote

كَانَ يَوْمُ بُعَاثَ قَدَّمَهُ اللهُ لِرَسُولِهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ، فَقَدِمَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَقَدِ افْتَرَقَ مَلَؤُهُمْ، وَقُتِلَتْ سَرَوَاتُهُمْ، وَجُرِّحُوا، فَقَدَّمَهُ اللهُ لِرَسُولِهِ فِي دُخُولِهِمْ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ.|
"Allah caused the day of Bu'ath to take place before Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was sent so that when he reached Medina, those people had already divided (in different groups) and their chiefs had been killed or wounded. So, Allah made that day precede Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) so that they (i.e. the Ansar) might embrace Islam." (Sahih al-Bukhari 3846)

Anyone who knows the history knew that the Khizraj (or perhaps Aws, not recalling my memory) came to Macca some five years before hijrah for making alliance with Quraish and when they were denied then the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) presented himself to them, given them dawat of Islam and seeking man'ah & nusrah (protection & victory), some of them accepted Islam and some refused.

This was soon followed by the war of Bu'ath. It took place 5 years before hijra. (Samhudi, Wafaa al-Wafaa, Vol. 1, p. 388)

Most of their key leaders (those who had a similar mentality to ibn Ubbay) who could hinder the dawat of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were killed as well as large numbers of their followers. Thus, the new generation wanted to unite again and utilised the offer of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). (Samhudi, Wafaa al-Wafaa, Vol. 1, p. 389, Shireef, Tarikh Makah wa al-Madinah, p. 367)

The promise of the Jews to kill and destroy the polytheistic Arabs on the arrival of their next prophet made al-Aws and al-Khazraj move to accept Islam and give man'ah and nusrah. As Aws and Khazraj collectively could exert control over the Jews, they received the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and were able to launch the Islamic state.

Next point is the stage when Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) arrived in Madina. We see that he was riding on his camel, each tribal leader used to pull the bridle of his camel asking him to live in their home. They used to say,

هَلُمَّ إلَيْنَا، إلَى الْعَدَدِ وَالْعِدَّةِ وَالْمَنَعَةِ
"Come to the (large) number, (best) equipment and protection." (Ibn Hisham, al-Seerah al-Nabawiyah, Vol. 1, p. 394)

But the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would excuse them saying,

خَلُّوا سَبِيلَهَا فَإِنَّهَا مَأْمُورَةٌ
"Leave (the camel) because it is ordered (by Allah to sit in a certain place)." (Ibid)

Given all these facts & references, I once again stress that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) acted & operated as an arbitrator in the capacity of Prophet of Allah. He entered into the city in the same capacity & resided in the house of Abu Ayyub Ansari (رضي الله عنه), the place where camel sat.

You are now requested to pray two more units & ask for a new inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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.

While I don't actually state this to be a necessity, I do believe that it is the case (ie that the aimmah (عليه السلام) are divinely appointed). 

My point in context of our discussion was that separating the sociopolitical role of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and stating that it is different from the divine appointment is not problematic with respect to the belief of imamate, in my humble opinion, because essentially the imamate was a similar role (albeit without the position of prophethood) and most of the Imams didn't have administrative leadership in their societies. 

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

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

Understood. I agree that it isn't the topic (yet) but it could be an interesting point to discuss one day on another thread. 

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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

Again, we can say that it doesn't necessarily have to be appointed. This doesn't however exclude that such a position can be awarded through divine appointment. After all there is no principle preventing or contradicting this. If the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) gives a command on social or political matters, his obedience is still required. Therefore I don't see why he shouldn't be able to nominate a successor who also has such functions. 

Another point that I want to raise here is the relevance of the sociopolitical leadership being a non divine appointment. Let's suppose that it wouldn't have occurred - would this really have reduced the required obedience to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in such matters? Would the muslimeen have had the option to disobey him in social, political and economic matters? I don't think so and therefore I question whether it's even relevant that this role was established through consultation (if the authority would anyway have been valid without it)

11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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.

Here is where I think your thesis becomes problematic for you. You have separated the divinely appointed role from the sociopolitical one, probably to pave the way for an argument saying that the khulafa were similarly nominated by their communities (something I believe is historically inaccurate but we can discuss this separately). But then you add in an extra role, which is essentially religious/spiritual leadership, even though this falls outside of the limitations of the non divine roles. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

While I don't actually state this to be a necessity

My point in context of our discussion was that separating the sociopolitical role of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and stating that it is different from the divine appointment is not problematic

Again, we can say that it doesn't necessarily have to be appointed. This doesn't however exclude that such a position can be awarded through divine appointment. After all there is no principle preventing or contradicting this

I'm loving this discussion because we are actually making rapid progress, and I seem to be making a huge break through.

So we have now come into full agreement that the succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his role of political leadership, and therefore the political leadership of the Muslim Ummah until Judgment Day does not necessarily have to be divinely appointed.

I totally agree with you that the political leadership of the Muslims may at times be divinely appointed and may at times not be divinely appointed. So I just want to confirm from you, do you regard it possible that there may be an instance where a Muslim has political authority without being divinely appointed and his authority is valid from the Islamic, Shari'ah perspective?

There's no need for us to go into specific instances and debate whether in such an instance leadership was suppose to be divinely appointed or not divinely appointed. You have apparently accepted the principle itself of the possibility of legitimate political authority that is not divinely appointed. That is a huge break through, and I hope you stick to this without back peddling, in sha Allah.

Quote

Another point that I want to raise here is the relevance of the sociopolitical leadership being a non divine appointment. Let's suppose that it wouldn't have occurred - would this really have reduced the required obedience to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in such matters? Would the muslimeen have had the option to disobey him in social, political and economic matters? I don't think so and therefore I question whether it's even relevant that this role was established through consultation (if the authority would anyway have been valid without it)

Yes, this same point has been raised many times already on the thread. Each time I have answered that a Prophet has the authority to challenge any human institution if the need arises. A Prophet can overrule any human institution and authority. This is a basic feature of Prophesy without even a single exception in Prophetic history. This "trump card" if I may describe it as such is not the same thing as a Prophet having an active political role or possessing a formal office of political authority and judgment. It is my contention that Allah did not divinely appoint the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to the office of political authority he attained in Medina. That was the office he vacated when he passed away, and that was the office that was filled by the exoteric Caliphs who were not divinely appointed to it either.

Now this role is relevant, because without it the Prophet would not be in a position to conclude treaties and agreements, dispatch armies, organize a state, organize an effective judiciary, and many other such matters which helped facilitate the spread of his Risalah.

If he never attained this authority, he would never have had the backing of military and political power to execute divine laws, his authority in those spheres would have remained theoretical.

Quote

Here is where I think your thesis becomes problematic for you. You have separated the divinely appointed role from the sociopolitical one, probably to pave the way for an argument saying that the khulafa were similarly nominated by their communities (something I believe is historically inaccurate but we can discuss this separately). But then you add in an extra role, which is essentially religious/spiritual leadership, even though this falls outside of the limitations of the non divine roles. 

There's no problem at all if you examine carefully what I wrote. I said the religious/spiritual leadership is a separate role from their political/administrative role. And the religious/spiritual leadership was vested in many, many Sahabah رضى الله عنهم who never possessed the exoteric caliphate. All I have pointed out is our belief that the exoteric Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan) رضى الله عنهم had an additional role of spiritual/religious, esoteric Caliphate which was not connected to their exoteric Caliphate. In fact, they possessed those roles of esoteric Caliphate even before the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away, and in the case of sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما he possessed it until he died, though he resigned from the exoteric Caliphate after possessing it for only six months or thereabouts.

I believe this role of esoteric caliphate is both Wahbi and Kasbi, and in fact can be a combination of both. A group of saintly individuals in the Ummah attain nearness to Allah through their personal effort, but when they reach a certain level, Allah grants one or some of them and not all of them a certain rank in the pyramid of Wilayah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

If the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) makes a Treaty with a group of people, is it binding on all Muslims to follow and obey the clauses of the treaty?

No, it is not binding on those Muslims who were outside the Prophet's political jurisdiction. Thanks for raising this point as I didn't mention it earlier for my thesis that the political authority the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came to possess was separate from his Prophesy. As you may or may not know, the terms of the Treaty of Hudaibiya did not apply to the persecuted Muslims who were in Mecca, and managed to escape.

Abu Basir and Abu Jandal رضى الله عنهما with about seventy men at their disposal, were Muslims and they continued to attack Meccan caravans because they were not bound by the Treaty of Hudaibiya - which clearly proves they were not under the Prophet's political jurisdiction. Being Believers, they were of course under his Prophetic authority, which permitted them to fight the Meccan pagans.

Notice how so many events from the Sirah are perfectly fitting and can only make sense in light of the theory I put forward in the OP and have been arguing for ever since?

Quote

 However the Muslims of Mecca (pre-hijra) were a collective with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) being it's head. You are right that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was not the head of Bani Hashim and he didn't need to be because he was not the Prophet for Bani Hashim only. 

There is absolutely no mistake in stating that the way the Muslims were structured in Mecca, they were a collective and Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was their leader.

They were a purely religious community, not a political entity, which also explains why they endured different treatment in Mecca because while being a united religious community, they were fractured into different political jurisdictions. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم enjoyed the protection of Bani Hashim since he was part of that clan, but the other Muslims, especially the slaves did not enjoy the same protection. It demonstrates that during the Meccan phase the Muslims existed as a religious community only but they were not a new political entity, they continued to function according to their respective membership of the political entities (tribes) that made up the structure of Meccan society.

Here you need to understand the concept of the distinction between church and state. A church can exist alongside the parallel existence of a state, both institutions have different functions and operate differently, and that was the scenario during the Meccan phase.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/3/2020 at 2:39 AM, Cherub786 said:

Therefore, this thread is dedicated solely to the next topic, which is my argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed two capacities or roles, the first his original office of Prophesy, and the second he acquired after the Second Pledge of Aqabah, the office of judge and arbitrator of Medina.

The First Bay'at (Pledge) of Aqabah.

The 12 men vowed their faith in Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) as a Prophet and swore:

  • Not to worship anyone but Allah alone.

  • Not to steal.

  • Not to commit adultery, nor bury their daughters alive.

  • Not to utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood.

  • Not to disobey the Prophet in any just matter and to perform good deeds.

Notice all of the vows are spiritual and religious - nothing economical or political.

 

 

The articles of the Second Aqabah Pledge:

  • To listen and obey in every difficulty and ease.

  • To spend in plenty as well as in scarcity.

  • To enjoin good and forbid evil.

  • In Allah's service, they will fear the censure of none.

  • To aid Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) when he comes to them, and protect him from anything that they protect themselves, their spouses and children from.

NADA. Nothing about the Messenger acquiring the office of judge and arbitrator of Medina. This is what the Quran says about the Ansar.

[Shakir 8:63] And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise.

On 9/3/2020 at 2:39 AM, Cherub786 said:

The succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was to his office of ruler, and not Prophet, since he is the last Prophet, and a successor to his Prophesy will necessarily be a Prophet too. Since the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not divinely appointed to the role of judge and ruler of Medina, it makes sense that his successor to that role would also not be divinely appointed:

 

In all honesty, your theory is only applicable to sunni islam since an overwhelming majority of the caliphs were devoid of any sense of religious piety. To justify the caliphate of such people, they claimed that even the prophets used to commit sins. Thus, the belief in the 'ismah (sinlessness) of the prophets was changed.

Let us examine the system of Islamic leadership. Is it democratic? The best definition of democracy was given by Abraham Lincoln when he said that democracy was "the government of the people, by the people and for the people".

But in Islam it is not the government 'of the people'; it is the 'government of Allah'.

How do people govern themselves? They govern themselves by making their own laws; in Islam laws are made not by the people, but by Allah; these laws are promulgated not by the consent and decree of the people, but by the Prophet, by the command of Allah. The people have no say in legislation; they are required to follow, not to make any comment or suggestion about those laws and legislations:

And it is not for a believer man or believer woman to have any choice in their affair when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter. . . (33:36).

Coming to the phrase 'by the people', let us now consider how people govern themselves. They do so by electing their own rulers. The Holy Prophet, who was the supreme executive, judicial and overall authority of the Islamic government, was not elected by the people. In fact, had the people of Mecca been allowed to exercise their choice they would have elected either 'Urwah ibn Mas'ud (of at-Ta'if) or al

Walid ibn al-Mughirah (of Mecca) as the prophet of Allah! According to the Qur'an:

And they say: "Why was not this Qur'an revealed to a man of importance in the two towns?" ( 43:31 ).

So not only was the Supreme Head of the Islamic State appointed without the consultation of the people, but in fact it was done against their expressed wishes. The Holy Prophet is the highest authority of Islam: he combines in his person all the functions of legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government; and he was not elected by the people.

In short, the Islamic form of government is the government of Allah, by the representative of Allah, to gain the pleasure of Allah.

https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/38152

in conclusion: a feeble attempt to justify saqifah.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, justAnothermuslim said:
  • To aid Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) when he comes to them, and protect him from anything that they protect themselves, their spouses and children from.

NADA. Nothing about the Messenger acquiring the office of judge and arbitrator of Medina.

The Ansar invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to Medina, as I established in the OP, and in the 2nd pledge they pledged to protect him.

When he arrived in Medina, the Charter of Medina formalized the Prophet's administrative role and clearly defined the new political structure.

Quote

Let us examine the system of Islamic leadership. Is it democratic? The best definition of democracy was given by Abraham Lincoln when he said that democracy was "the government of the people, by the people and for the people".

But in Islam it is not the government 'of the people'; it is the 'government of Allah'.

Totally off topic and red herring.

Who is discussing democracy?

The issue is did the Ansar invite the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to serve as chief arbitrator among them after a process of consultation among themselves? Or was he divinely appointed to that role?

Democracy or any other system of government is flawed insofar is it does not acknowledge the ultimate sovereignty and supreme authority of God.

Don't equate that with the Islamic prescription for consultative form of government (Surah 42:38)

Muslims are allowed, even encouraged, to consult and determine their matters which are not covered by the Divine Legislation. A classic example is a group of Muslims decide to order lunch. What will they order to drink? They don't have a choice when it comes to Halal and Haram, meaning, they don't have the freedom to order alcoholic beverages. But in the realm of Halal, they have a choice whether to order sodas, or milkshakes, or juice, or energy drinks, etc. Islam encourages them to consult among each other and then decide what they want to order for a drink, and when the decision is made, all are expected to respect the final decision. Islam doesn't say that Allah will divinely appoint which drink they must drink. Islam has legislated the basic and necessary laws and guidelines for human behavior, but it is not a dictatorship, and has also given us a large degree of freedom to consult among ourselves in matters that are discretionary

The political structure and leadership is one of those discretionary matters, as I have demonstrated in the OP and subsequent proofs from the Quran and history of the ancient Prophets

Quote

 The Holy Prophet is the highest authority of Islam: he combines in his person all the functions of legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government; and he was not elected by the people.

That's your baseless claim, where's the evidence? Where's the answer to my argument in the OP that clearly demonstrates the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was elected to the position of chief arbitrator in Medina by the elders and clan leaders of the Ansar?

Making claims is the easy part, backing them up with evidence is what you have totally failed to accomplish.

This is why I'd rather discuss with @Mahdavist and @ShiaMan14 at least they are engaging me and addressing the evidence, unlike the rest of your guys

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cool said:

Given all these facts & references, I once again stress that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) acted & operated as an arbitrator in the capacity of Prophet of Allah. He entered into the city in the same capacity & resided in the house of Abu Ayyub Ansari (رضي الله عنه), the place where camel sat.

You are now requested to pray two more units & ask for a new inspiration.

On the contrary, you have only described the circumstances which motivated the Ansar to decide to invite the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to come to them and assume the office of political authority among them. You can discuss the circumstances all you want, but the bottom line is the Ansar invited the Prophet, after a process of consultation, and if it wasn't for them, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could not have assumed the role of temporal authority.

As for the camel, that's neither here nor there.

So nice try, but try again

But I suggest you leave this discussion for @Mahdavist and @ShiaMan14

They are doing a lot better job in engaging with my argument, which they have at least comprehended and are attempting to deconstruct

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

 

Muslims are allowed, even encouraged, to consult and determine their matters which are not covered by the Divine Legislation. A classic example is a group of Muslims decide to order lunch. What will they order to drink? They don't have a choice when it comes to Halal and Haram, meaning, they don't have the freedom to order alcoholic beverages. But in the realm of Halal, they have a choice whether to order sodas, or milkshakes, or juice, or energy drinks, etc. Islam encourages them to consult among each other and then decide what they want to order for a drink, and when the decision is made, all are expected to respect the final decision. Islam doesn't say that Allah will divinely appoint which drink they must drink. Islam has legislated the basic and necessary laws and guidelines for human behavior, but it is not a dictatorship, and has also given us a large degree of freedom to consult among ourselves in matters that are discretionary

The political structure and leadership is one of those discretionary matters, as I have demonstrated in the OP and subsequent proofs from the Quran and history of the ancient Prophets

That's your baseless claim, where's the evidence? Where's the answer to my argument in the OP that clearly demonstrates the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was elected to the position of chief arbitrator in Medina by the elders and clan leaders of the Ansar?

1. We have no issue on worldly progresses such scientific and technology fields for us to consult each others, including non muslims.  The best strategy is to consult the most knowledgeable person.

2.  However, during consultation, if we find the most knowledgeable person, we make that person as the point of reference for the decision.  During the battle of Khandaq, muslims discussed on the strategies and finally accepted the tactical move made by Salman (رضي الله عنه), and made the trenches.  Final decision to accept it was made by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).  The victory was brought by Ali with a dual between Ali and Umar ibnu Abd Wud.

3.  During the battle of Khaibar, it was proven that none of the sahabahs could lead and bring victory to Muslims, except when Ali (عليه السلام) was selected to lead the Muslim army.

Rasul was best in akhlaq and just in judgement and naturally accepted by Arabs to be arbitrator or administrator.

The quality of a person plays an important role for worldly matters.

The touchy issue with muslims nowadays is the succession as admistrator of muslims ummah after the wafat of the Prophet. 

1.  As for Shias, when it concern the affairs of ALL muslim (divine and worldly issues in combination) at the highest level, the person has to be chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and endorsed by the Prophet.  Efforts were made to designate the person by referring to Quran and Narrations by the Prophet's.  

2.  As for Sunnis, the administrator at the highest level (Divine and worldly) it is all through consultation.

Let suppose if want to lead a mission to mine the Moon.  Who do we consult?  Mining the moon is Halal.  We even can consult non muslims for that matter because they are expert in the field.  They can be made a leader to that mission too.

However, to administer the affairs of all muslims covering Divine and worldly affairs, including future issues, the person must be connected to the Prophet and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) at all time.  This is a matter of belief and not like selection of a leader on a mission to mine the moon.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, layman said:

Rasul was best in akhlaq and just in judgement and naturally accepted by Arabs to be arbitrator or administrator.

I agree, the Arabs elected him to the office of arbitrator and administrator because they were impressed with his personal merits. He was not divinely appointed to the office of arbitrator and administrator

Quote

2.  As for Sunnis, the administrator at the highest level (Divine and worldly) it is all through consultation.

No, not divine, only worldly/temporal. Divine authority is in the institution of Prophesy, which has ceased after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

As the poet and philosopher Iqbal said: “The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad"

Quote

However, to administer the affairs of all muslims covering Divine and worldly affairs

what do you mean by "divine affairs"? The affairs of the Muslims which require administration are all worldly affairs

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/3/2020 at 12:09 AM, Cherub786 said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

From my blog:

The Angel Gabriel عليه السلام came to our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم while he was in a state of seclusion at the Cave of Hira, and came to him with the Word of Allah, the divine Revelation. He was informed that he is a Prophet of God and was subsequently instructed to announce his Prophesy to the people. For some thirteen years, in his native Mecca, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prophesied, but he did not possess any administrative authority. Nor did he tell the people that administrative authority over Mecca or anyone else was his divine right.

When some of the people of Yathrib came into contact with him, and were persuaded that he was a true Prophet, they confessed faith in him. As their numbers grew, they consulted among themselves and made up their minds to invite the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to join them in Yathrib (Medina). They desired that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم not only dwell among them so they could benefit from the company of a Prophet, but that the Prophet serve as an arbitrator and judge among them, to settle their internal disputes. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم graciously accepted their invitation, and consecrated it through the Second Pledge of Aqabah. Sayyidina Ka’b bin Malik رضى الله عنه who was present on that occasion narrates: We gathered in the ravine to wait for the Messenger of God. He came to us accompanied by his paternal uncle al-Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib, who at that time still adhered to the religion of his people, but wished to be present when his nephew was negotiating and to see that there was a firm agreement. When he had sat down, al-Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib was the first to speak, and said, "People of the Khazraj (the Arabs used to call the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aws together, by the name of the Khazraj), you know what Muhammad's position is among us. We have protected him against those of our people who have the same religious views as ourselves. He is held in honor by his own people and is safe in his country. He is determined to leave them and to join you, so if you think that you can fulfill the promises which you made in inviting him to come to you and can defend him against his enemies, then assume the responsibilities which you have taken upon yourselves. But if you think that you will abandon him and hand him over after he has come to you, then leave him alone now, for he is honored by his people and is safe in his country." We said to him, "We have heard what you have said. Speak, Messenger of God, and choose what you want for yourself and your Lord." The Messenger of God spoke, recited the Qur'an, summoned us to God, and made us desirous of Islam. Then he said, "I will enter a contract of allegiance with you, provided that you protect me as you would your wives and children." (Tarikh at-Tabari):

 

Now my thesis is that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was not divinely appointed as leader, administrator, arbitrator or judge over Medina. He was invited by their people, the Aws and Khazraj, to fulfill that role, and he accepted, under divine guidance. The Believers of the Aws and Khazraj had consulted among themselves and subsequently extended this invitation to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. When he accepted, and sealed that acceptance on both sides through the Second Pledge of Aqabah, then emigrated to Medina and practically assumed the position of authority, it is my assertion that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم took on an additional role to his role and office of Prophesy. The function of judge or administrator is not a necessary part of Prophesy, it is something that is in addition to it. That is of course demonstrated in the example of the vast majority of the Prophets of Israel, who did not possess administrative authority or dominion. And in his capacity of judge or administrator of Medina, with that jurisdiction later expanded to include all Arabia, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concluded treaties, appointed judges and governors to various towns and provinces, dispatched armies and appointed their commanders, received delegations and entered into negotiations with them, and so on and so forth. These were responsibilities associated not with his divine office of Prophesy, but with his position of temporal authority that he received not through divine right, but having been invited to take it by the people of Medina. So when Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away, he vacated that position of temporal authority, and not his office of Prophesy. That is because Islam fundamentally teaches that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the ‘Seal of Prophets’, after him the formal institution of Prophesy has concluded, and there cannot be any prophet after him. Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم could not be succeeded in his capacity of Prophet, for the successor of that role would necessarily be a prophet himself, which is impossible. The community of Believers he founded understood this fact. But they also understood that the Prophet had a secondary role of administrator and possessed temporal authority which could be succeeded to. Since the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself was not divinely appointed to that role, it was obvious that any successor to that role would not be divinely appointed either. Rather, just as the Prophet was invited to take on the responsibility of administration and temporal authority after consultation among the Believers of Yathrib, likewise, their elders and the senior companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ought to consult among themselves and elect a suitable successor to that role of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This they did, and consequently sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, the Prophet’s right-hand man and most senior companion, was elected his first Successor or Khalifah (caliph). He assumed only those responsibilities and functions that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wielded which were not connected to his office of Prophesy.

This argument was inspired to me, and I am fairly positive it has never truly been put forward by any Sunni Muslim to refute the falsehood of Shi’ism prior to this.

 

And we did not send any messenger but he should be obeyed by the permission of Allah. 4:64

Messengers invited their people towards their obedience by the permission of Allah,that means messengers possessed  authority from Allah.

Nuh(عليه السلام) said to his people , Indeed I m to you a trustworthy messenger, so fear Allah and obey me.26:107-108

Hud(عليه السلام) said to his people,  Indeed I m to you a trustworthy messenger, so fear Allah and obey me.26:125-126

Salih(عليه السلام) said to his people, , Indeed I m to you a trustworthy messenger, so fear Allah and obey me.26:143-144

Lut(عليه السلام) said to his people, , Indeed I m to you a trustworthy messenger, so fear Allah and obey me.26:162-163

Shuaib(عليه السلام) said to his people, , Indeed I m to you a trustworthy messenger, so fear Allah and obey me.26:178-179

mankind has two options  which rest on his will , 1. accept the authority. 2. reject the authority,

Surely we have shown him the way, he may accept or he may reject.76:3

Those accepted the authority are believers and those rejected the authority are disbelievers.

Based on this whole mankind is divided in to two groups1. Believers.2. kafirs

He is the one who created you and among you is a kafir and among you is a Mumin. 64:2

But most of the people denied their messengers, so the rejection of the authority by the people does not mean they did not possess the authority.

When prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) openly proclaimed that he was messenger of Allah,people of mecca rejected the messenger of Allah

And those who have disbelieved say, "You are not a messenger." Say,  "Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you, and [the witness of] whoever has knowledge of the Scripture."13:43

But people of madina recognized the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ,believed in him , and obeyed him in this way din of Allah was established in the Madina.

Muhammad(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was selected  as a messenger by Allah and his authority was accepted by the people of Madina in a gradual manner.

If according to you prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  concluded the treaties in his capacity of Judge or administrator of Madina

When writing the treaty of Hudabiyya The Prophet next asked Ali to write: “This is a treaty of peace between Muhammad, the Messenger of God and the Quraysh...” Suhayl again objected, and said: “If we had acknowledged you a messenger of God, why would we be fighting against you? Therefore, do not write the words, ‘the Messenger of God,' and write only your own name and the name of your father.”

Why didn’t he ask to write “This is a treaty of peace between Muhammad, Judge or administrator  of Madina  and the Quraysh...”  instead of Messenger of Allah ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, elite said:

If according to you prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  concluded the treaties in his capacity of Judge or administrator of Madina

When writing the treaty of Hudabiyya The Prophet next asked Ali to write: “This is a treaty of peace between Muhammad, the Messenger of God and the Quraysh...” Suhayl again objected, and said: “If we had acknowledged you a messenger of God, why would we be fighting against you? Therefore, do not write the words, ‘the Messenger of God,' and write only your own name and the name of your father.”

Why didn’t he ask to write “This is a treaty of peace between Muhammad, Judge or administrator  of Madina  and the Quraysh...”  instead of Messenger of Allah ?

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to have Messenger of God next to his name for a descriptive purpose, to identify who he is. It does not mean conducting this treaty was a function of his Risalah. That is why he was ultimately amenable to having it erased and replaced with "Son of Abd Allah". The function of Risalah is to convey the Message of God to the people, not to make treaties of a purely political nature

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

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to have Messenger of God next to his name for a descriptive purpose, to identify who he is. It does not mean conducting this treaty was a function of his Risalah. That is why he was ultimately amenable to having it erased and replaced with "Son of Abd Allah". The function of Risalah is to convey the Message of God to the people, not to make treaties of a purely political nature

Other functions of the messenger are to make people  1.worship Allah. 2. Keep away from taghut (16:36) 3 .establish justice among mankind. (57:25)

Abu bakr was saying contrary to what you are inspired.

Among the followers of the Prophet, however, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was to produce some violent allergic reactions. Oddly, just like the pagans of Makkah, the “chauvinists” in the Muslim camp also equated it with “surrender.” They were led by Umar bin al-Khattab. He considered its terms “dishonorable,” and he was so much distressed by them that he turned to Abu Bakr for answers to his questions, and the following exchange took place between them:

Umar: Is he (Muhammad) or is he not the Messenger of God?

Abu Bakr: Yes. He is the Messenger of God.

Umar: Are we or are we not Muslims?

Abu Bakr: Yes, we are Muslims

Umar: If we are, then why are we surrendering to the pagans in a matter relating to our faith?

Abu Bakr: He is God's Messenger, and you must not meddle in this matter.

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

Abu Bakr: He is God's Messenger, and you must not meddle in this matter.

It means that the Messenger of God صلى الله عليه وسلم should be trusted, because he acts according to divine inspiration and possesses a wisdom that ordinary people don't have direct access to. We don't derive from this that when Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله negotiated the Treaty of Hudabiyah he was acting in his capacity of Messenger of God, he was acting in his capacity of a statesman, but the divine inspiration and wisdom derived from his Risalah informed his decision regarding the enacting of this treaty

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

So we have now come into full agreement that the succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his role of political leadership, and therefore the political leadership of the Muslim Ummah until Judgment Day does not necessarily have to be divinely appointed.

There are some subtle differences here which I would like to point out. What I can agree to is that political leadership is not necessarily a part of the divinely appointed roles of the ambiya (عليه السلام) and the aimmah (عليه السلام). 

This then implies that one can succeed a prophet or imam without necessarily being a political or administrative leader. 

Moving onto the political leadership itself, if we are saying that this role is not directly linked to prophethood/imamate, I would question the nature of 'succession' here. Yes, from a sequential perspective one may say that one has succeeded the other, but the fact that the first personality was a divinely appointed guide (albeit not politically) and that the second isn't necessarily divinely appointed leads me to state that this isn't really a succession at all. This would only work if we separated the authority of the prophet as a political leader from his authority as a religious guide. But his authority is complete over the muslimeen (we don't distinguish between his orders to pray and his orders to go to war) whereas a common political leader without divine appointment doesn't have the same authority. Therefore this isn't a true succession, rather two different systems at two different times. 

10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

So I just want to confirm from you, do you regard it possible that there may be an instance where a Muslim has political authority without being divinely appointed and his authority is valid from the Islamic, Shari'ah perspective?

It's certainly possible that a Muslim has such a role, indeed it has happened for centuries and is still the case in many countries today.

Where I struggle is the validity of such a system and I must confess that it still isn't clear to me today. I am generally of the more conservative leaning that refuses to participate in political systems and processes in the absence of a divinely appointed leader. At the same time I recognize that muslimeen are searching for an answer regarding how to govern their societies and communities. 

My safe position has been that we must simply abstain from such things altogether. I believe you can somewhat relate to this position, keeping in mind your recent thread about the role of the United States with regards to Muslims today.

My answer to your question is: a non divinely appointed Muslim leader, to me, will have the authority of any other political leader which is that as a Muslim I will respect the laws of the land, but I will not see any Shar'i or Islamic legitimacy of such a system beyond this. It's a non Islamic system (even if led by a muslim) which one has to abide by if they are living under the territory. 

10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Now this role is relevant, because without it the Prophet would not be in a position to conclude treaties and agreements, dispatch armies, organize a state, organize an effective judiciary, and many other such matters which helped facilitate the spread of his Risalah.

If he never attained this authority, he would never have had the backing of military and political power to execute divine laws, his authority in those spheres would have remained theoretical.

I don't agree to this. With or without such an office, the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had the authority over the believers to do all such things. Whether the muslimeen would support him or rebel against him is another question and we can only speculate (which I prefer not to do), but even without any such office it is sufficient that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) gives an order and the muslimeen must abide by it. 

Therefore I don't think that such a position adds or removes anything from the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), it may have carried some importance in the eyes of non muslims or those who weren't prepared to fully obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) without some kind of official position, but the requirement to obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) remains regardless of such a position.

10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I said the religious/spiritual leadership is a separate role from their political/administrative role. And the religious/spiritual leadership was vested in many, many Sahabah رضى الله عنهم who never possessed the exoteric caliphate. All I have pointed out is our belief that the exoteric Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan) رضى الله عنهم had an additional role of spiritual/religious, esoteric Caliphate which was not connected to their exoteric Caliphate. In fact, they possessed those roles of esoteric Caliphate even before the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away, and in the case of sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما he possessed it until he died, though he resigned from the exoteric Caliphate after possessing it for only six months or thereabouts.

The issue here is that you have proposed a political and spiritual split/distinction, then you have attributed non divine succession to the political aspect (leaving aside the divinely appointed spiritual aspect) , explained that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) could have non divinely appointed political successors and then finally still attributed religious authority to these same successors. The divine appointment has somehow been bypassed altogether (although you try to reconciliate this later by suggesting that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted them to have religious authority due to their piety).

If it is your view and belief then you're entitled to it, but it is then quite unrelated to your original post in this topic and would require a separate discussion regarding proofs of such a claim. 

In any case, we probably won't agree on this point because I see the post prophethood khilafa as a man made political system without religious justification or authority. 

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

What I can agree to is that political leadership is not necessarily a part of the divinely appointed roles of the ambiya (عليه السلام) and the aimmah (عليه السلام). 

I'm afraid that's not really an agreement, because my position is that political leadership is never a part of the role of a Prophet, it is a totally separate role which some Prophets possessed while most others did not. If you remove the word "necessarily" from your sentence, then our positions become identical - at least as far as Prophets are concerned.

Having said that, are you implying that the divinely appointed roles of the Prophets differ from Prophet to Prophet?

Quote

But his authority is complete over the muslimeen (we don't distinguish between his orders to pray and his orders to go to war) whereas a common political leader without divine appointment doesn't have the same authority.

I do make a distinction between commands that are issued in his capacity of Prophet and commands that are issued in his capacity of administrator. I've even thrown in some examples you can go back and review in this thread. I mentioned how the Jews accepted Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as their Hakam but not as their Nabi. They once invited him to their madrassah in al-Quff to judge a matter of adultery that occurred within their community.

Get a load of this, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم judged them according to the law of the Torah and not his own Revelation. What clearer example can there be that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself was careful to maintain a distinction between his dual roles.

And obedience is required to a Hakam, regardless of whether that Hakam is a Prophet or not. Only if the Hakam's command is violating the Divine Law can it be disregarded. But obviously the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would never violate his own Divine Law, even in the capacity of Hakam, so either way he had to be obeyed strictly without question.

Some modernist thinkers like Ghamidi have gone to the other extreme and apply this principle wrongly. They accept the distinction between the Prophet's two roles, but claim that the laws associated with his Prophesy are only to be found in the Quran, and any law derived from a Hadith whose essence cannot be located in the Quran is not a law of the Din and Shari'ah, but a law that was strictly associated with the Prophet's secondary role of political ruler in Medina. In this way they have cunningly rid themselves from the Ahadith. But at least they are correct in understanding that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did possess dual but separate roles of Prophesy and administration.

Mahmud Taha of Sudan was even more extreme. He said that the Medinese verses of the Quran were not universal and not applicable because they were associated only with the Prophet's political role in Medina, whereas the Meccan verses are universal because they are connected to his Nubuwwah

Quote

Where I struggle is the validity of such a system and I must confess that it still isn't clear to me today.

A fair, honest answer. But let me give you some food for thought: If the political authority that is not divinely appointed isn't valid in the Sight of Allah, that means 99.9% of human history humans have been governed by invalid, illegitimate governments. Reading the Quran, do you really think that is what God wants to say? Is it not true then what many Islamophobes say, that Islam isn't a religion, but a dangerous political ideology like revolutionary Marxism, and that Muslims are only practicing taqiyah, in the back of their minds they want nothing else but to seize power and establish a global theocracy. I consider this accusation of theirs to be completely false and an ugly distortion of our beautiful Religion, what do you think?

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

I don't agree to this. With or without such an office, the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had the authority over the believers to do all such things. Whether the muslimeen would support him or rebel against him is another question and we can only speculate (which I prefer not to do), but even without any such office it is sufficient that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) gives an order and the muslimeen must abide by it. 

Therefore I don't think that such a position adds or removes anything from the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), it may have carried some importance in the eyes of non muslims or those who weren't prepared to fully obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) without some kind of official position, but the requirement to obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) remains regardless of such a position.

As I said, it is a matter of facilitating the spread of the Risalah. I agree that without political power the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would have still perfectly fulfilled his Prophetic duty and conveyed the Message of Allah and the divine Shari'ah fully.

But I believe it was part of the Divine Wisdom and plan that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم assume a secondary role of judge (I'm basically using this term "Judge" in the sense of the Judges of the Old Testament - military strongmen who led the Israelites before the monarchy was established for them), so as to facilitate the spread of Islam.

Furthermore, I believe that political dominion can be a blessing from Allah, and it is His promise as per Ayat al-Istikhlaf that He will grant the Believers Khilafah in the Earth subject to certain conditions (true belief, good deeds, worship Allah alone, establishment of Salat, giving of Zakat, Ita'ah to the Prophet - Surah 24:55-56). So I believe this divine promise was fulfilled in the very lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and hence he was granted Khilafah in the Earth (political dominion) during the Medinan phase.

Interestingly, according to your Shi'i narrative, this divine promise of Khilafah fil-Ard was snatched from the Muslims as soon as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died, and only returned to them briefly during the 6 year caliphate of sayyidina Ali and Hasan رضى الله عنهما. Am I right?

Finally, in possessing political dominion, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could practically demonstrate the execution of those laws in the Shari'ah which pertain to the political sphere, to war, and to governance. If he was not elected to the role of political authority, those laws of the Shari'ah would still have been revealed, but not a practical demonstration of how they are to be executed and acted upon.

Quote

(although you try to reconciliate this later by suggesting that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted them to have religious authority due to their piety).

If it is your view and belief then you're entitled to it, but it is then quite unrelated to your original post in this topic and would require a separate discussion regarding proofs of such a claim. 

In sha Allah, I'm going to start another thread soon on the topic of Finality of Prophesy and the Esoteric Succession. I will be very glad if you participate in that too and provide me with some valuable feedback

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I agree, the Arabs elected him to the office of arbitrator and administrator because they were impressed with his personal merits. He was not divinely appointed to the office of arbitrator and administrator

No, not divine, only worldly/temporal. Divine authority is in the institution of Prophesy, which has ceased after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

As the poet and philosopher Iqbal said: “The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad"

what do you mean by "divine affairs"? The affairs of the Muslims which require administration are all worldly affairs

The attempt to cut us off from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Nubuwwah and Imamah in our current and future daily affairs by your belief will ONLY benefit you.  We will not agree to it.

Nubuwwah and Imams exist until today.  The last of Imam is Al-Mahdi.  We believe that both are necessary as in Surah Al-fatiha, especially in our current conditions. 

[Shakir 1:5] Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
[Shakir 1:6] Keep us on the right path.
[Shakir 1:7] The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

We as a human contains two parts, physical and spiritual.  Our spiritual part is connected to Nubbuwah and Imamah.  

In all our actions...whether salah, or eating or to begin an action , we will say Bismillahi rahmani rahiim.  We don't discriminate a task to be religious or world affairs and forget Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), His Messenger and Imams.  

We believe that Quran is complete and Muhammad is the Last Prophet.  But, the correct or true explanation of the message of Islam will continue so true Islam cannot be misinterpreted based on personal opinions.  Divine protection is required.  

(4:59) O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said, we disagree over ANYTHING...refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Rasul.

Who is connected to the Prophet?  That is why we have Imams. 

That is reason to why The Prophet said that that we (me, you and all muslims) should follow, both Qur'an and Ahlulbayt and we will never be astray.

Is Qur'an protected?..15:9

Is Ahlulbayt protected?...33:33

Both are protected.

The religion of Islam covers all our activities, even in the matters of science and technology, let alone political or administration of muslim affair.

Can we as humans decide not to believe to the above.  Yes, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave that freedom.  At the end of day, humans will get loss and will come back and try to return to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Prophethood and Ulil-Amr.  This will occur when we start to fight, kill and having wars among humans.  The same scenario when Adam (عليه السلام) was created as a Prophet and the remarks made by Angels that humans lifestyles full of blood.  The intervention by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) through Imam will occur.

Therefore, we humans are left with 2 options, a system that has constant connection with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or the second choice...leave Divine connection.

Take your pick.

Edited by layman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

So nice try, but try again

I have done my job. No need to try again. It is for you to try again and bring any new inspiration. 

What you are trying to do is to obscure the capacity of Prophet of Allah. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has clearly said this:

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا 

59:7

So you would always get confused in judging whether Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has commanded/given this in the capacity of Prophet or in any other capacity (for instance, as an Elected Judge).

We are very clear in this matter. And yes, you are free to waste time of my brothers. I am done with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, elite said:

Other functions of the messenger are to make people  1.worship Allah. 2. Keep away from taghut (16:36) 3 .establish justice among mankind. (57:25)

:bismillah:

سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ أَكَّالُونَ لِلسُّحْتِ ۚ فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ تُعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ فَلَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ شَيْئًا ۖ وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ {42}

[Shakir 5:42] (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.

He is a divinely appointed judge. It was his freedom to act as judge or not for anyone. 

وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ ۖ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ أَنْ يُصِيبَهُمْ بِبَعْضِ ذُنُوبِهِمْ ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ لَفَاسِقُونَ {49}

[Shakir 5:49] And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا {65}

[Shakir 4:65] But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission.

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

I'm afraid that's not really an agreement, because my position is that political leadership is never a part of the role of a Prophet, it is a totally separate role which some Prophets possessed while most others did not. If you remove the word "necessarily" from your sentence, then our positions become identical - at least as far as Prophets are concerned.

Having said that, are you implying that the divinely appointed roles of the Prophets differ from Prophet to Prophet?

I understand your point. In principle I don't see an issue with what you are saying. Personally I am careful about making blanket statements, especially because I haven't researched this extensively. Prophet Sulayman (عليه السلام) for instance was granted an entire kingdom. Was this also part of his divine appointment? Possibly, I don't really know. In any case we know that it isn't something that every prophet had, so I think it's fair to separate it from prophethood generally speaking.

Did the role of prophethood differ from prophet to prophet? Essentially no, but there are differences. Some brought a book/revelation, other's didn't. There is always the classic discussion of who is a nabi, who is a rasool, who are the ulil azm etc 

Either way I don't think it matters too much in the context of this discussion.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

I do make a distinction between commands that are issued in his capacity of Prophet and commands that are issued in his capacity of administrator. I've even thrown in some examples you can go back and review in this thread.

I've seen the examples brother. As muslimeen I don't see them as applicable to us. It's true that the perception of Jews, Christians and others of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was different than our own, and more oriented towards his sociopolitical roles,  but also his qualities and abilities rather than his divinely appointed status. 

As a muslim though, one would not say that they obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in some aspects but disregard him in others. You have shared some of the less orthodox views on this, but I believe the conventional position of the ahl us sunnah and the ahl al tashayyu is that we obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) completely and not selectively.

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

But let me give you some food for thought: If the political authority that is not divinely appointed isn't valid in the Sight of Allah, that means 99.9% of human history humans have been governed by invalid, illegitimate governments.

This may indeed be the case. What would you say today of the large majority of courtrooms that rule outside of the guidelines of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? Was the nation state or the system of government even something that was divinely ordained, or is it simply a result of man made systems? It could indeed be that we have nearly all lived under illegitimate systems, I don't see a fundamental issue if that would be the case. 

I will address your second post later inshaAllah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Cool said:

I have done my job. No need to try again. It is for you to try again and bring any new inspiration. 

What you are trying to do is to obscure the capacity of Prophet of Allah. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has clearly said this:

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا 

59:7

So you would always get confused in judging whether Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has commanded/given this in the capacity of Prophet or in any other capacity (for instance, as an Elected Judge).

We are very clear in this matter. And yes, you are free to waste time of my brothers. I am done with you.

Brother indeed you have certainly clarified the view mentioned by verses of quran regarding the functions and authority of the prophet in this thread, i like to add the following:

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا

Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much. (33:21)

مَّن يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ ۖ وَمَن تَوَلَّىٰ فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظًا

Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them. (4:80)

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil): (59:7)

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission. (4:65)

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا

And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying. (33:36)

إِنَّمَا كَانَ قَوْلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذَا دُعُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَن يَقُولُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

The response of the believers, when they are invited to Allah and His Messenger that he may judge between them, is only to say: We hear and we obey; and these it is that are the successful. (24:51)

وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَخْشَ اللَّهَ وَيَتَّقْهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَائِزُونَ

And he who obeys Allah and His Messenger, and fears Allah, and is careful of (his duty to) Him, these it is that are the achievers. (24:52)

وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَهُ يُدْخِلْهُ نَارًا خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَلَهُ عَذَابٌ مُّهِينٌ

And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and goes beyond His limits, He will cause him to enter fire to abide in it, and he shall have an abasing chastisement. (4:14)

All the above verses provide the unconditional authority of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) over the believers in ALL the matters of life and religion. ALL includes the matters of religion, political, economic, education etc in all dimensions of social life, I  quote the hadith of the prophet here that " I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".

We ask a simple question to those who are denying the political authority of our prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) over the believers, that "Please quote a verse of Quran to verify and confirm the exclusion of the political authority of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from ALL the  matters as falsely quoted /assumed in your claim."

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

As I said, it is a matter of facilitating the spread of the Risalah. I agree that without political power the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would have still perfectly fulfilled his Prophetic duty and conveyed the Message of Allah and the divine Shari'ah fully

Indeed, I agree that the political position was beneficial. Sounds like we are in agreement here. 

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

But I believe it was part of the Divine Wisdom and plan that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم assume a secondary role of judge (I'm basically using this term "Judge" in the sense of the Judges of the Old Testament - military strongmen who led the Israelites before the monarchy was established for them), so as to facilitate the spread of Islam

This may have indeed been the case. I have no issues with this, I believe every muslim respects and appreciates the leadership of our beloved prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) regardless of whether it was in spiritual affairs, political ones or anything else.

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Interestingly, according to your Shi'i narrative, this divine promise of Khilafah fil-Ard was snatched from the Muslims as soon as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died, and only returned to them briefly during the 6 year caliphate of sayyidina Ali and Hasan رضى الله عنهما. Am I right?

Not exactly. The narrations regarding this ayah that I have seen refer to the aimmah (عليه السلام) in general or to Imam al Mahdi (عليه السلام) specifically. In this case we are not taking the khilafah fil ardh to necessarily be a political position (after all, Adam (عليه السلام) was also a khaleefatullah fil ardh). 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
18 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

No, it is not binding on those Muslims who were outside the Prophet's political jurisdiction. Thanks for raising this point as I didn't mention it earlier for my thesis that the political authority the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came to possess was separate from his Prophesy. As you may or may not know, the terms of the Treaty of Hudaibiya did not apply to the persecuted Muslims who were in Mecca, and managed to escape.

Abu Basir and Abu Jandal رضى الله عنهما with about seventy men at their disposal, were Muslims and they continued to attack Meccan caravans because they were not bound by the Treaty of Hudaibiya - which clearly proves they were not under the Prophet's political jurisdiction. Being Believers, they were of course under his Prophetic authority, which permitted them to fight the Meccan pagans.

Notice how so many events from the Sirah are perfectly fitting and can only make sense in light of the theory I put forward in the OP and have been arguing for ever since?

I still haven't left Mecca and you have jumped all the way to Hudaibiya. Even here you are incorrect. 

Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal abided by the clauses in the Treaty. There was a clause in the Treaty that any Muslim escaping to Medina would be returned to Mecca. As such, when one of them did escape to Mecca (I think it was Abu Baseer), he was returned to Mecca. So next time Abu Jandal and then Abu Baseer escaped Mecca and simply did not go to Medina thus abiding by the Treaty.

I can say categorically that no Muslim is outside the divine political jurisdiction of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Please confirm.

18 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

They were a purely religious community, not a political entity, which also explains why they endured different treatment in Mecca because while being a united religious community, they were fractured into different political jurisdictions. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم enjoyed the protection of Bani Hashim since he was part of that clan, but the other Muslims, especially the slaves did not enjoy the same protection. It demonstrates that during the Meccan phase the Muslims existed as a religious community only but they were not a new political entity, they continued to function according to their respective membership of the political entities (tribes) that made up the structure of Meccan society.

Here you need to understand the concept of the distinction between church and state. A church can exist alongside the parallel existence of a state, both institutions have different functions and operate differently, and that was the scenario during the Meccan phase.

We are in complete agreement over separation of church and state. I also agree that tribes protected their own but the as a community, the Muslims did not have the numbers to protect themselves.

I guess after going round and round playing musical chairs, we can agree that the Muslims in Mecca were a community and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was the head of that committee. Moreover, he had the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Muslims be they religious or political.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
16 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

As for the camel, that's neither here nor there.

So nice try, but try again

But I suggest you leave this discussion for @Mahdavist and @ShiaMan14

They are doing a lot better job in engaging with my argument, which they have at least comprehended and are attempting to deconstruct

Why is @Cool mentioning "camel parking" a problem. Isnt it similar to Caliph Abu Bakr being the right hand man (#FakeNews) and senior member. It distracted me for sure.

I think the main difference in what the others are saying and what @Mahdavist and I are saying is that there are 4 institutions in discussion here, not 3.

  1. Prophethood 
  2. Imamate
  3. Khalifa-fil-Ardh
  4. Caliphate

The distinction is that shias believe in 1, 2 and 3 as theology and say #4 should be a person from 1, 2, 3.

Sunnis (at least Cherry) believe in 1 and 4 and say anyone can be 4. It happened to be the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) initially and then open for anyone.

Are we all on the same page in terms of the disconnect and the attempt to reconcile the disconnection?

@Shiawarrior313  @Muslim2010 @elite @layman

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I think the main difference in what the others are saying and what @Mahdavist and I are saying is that there are 4 institutions in discussion here, not 3.

  1. Prophethood 
  2. Imamate
  3. Khalifa-fil-Ardh
  4. Caliphate

The distinction is that shias believe in 1, 2 and 3 as theology and say #4 should be a person from 1, 2, 3.

Sunnis (at least Cherry) believe in 1 and 4 and say anyone can be 4. It happened to be the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) initially and then open for anyone.

Are we all on the same page in terms of the disconnect and the attempt to reconcile the disconnection?

@Shiawarrior313  @Muslim2010 @elite @layman

The count of institution is agreed without any doubt. The verses of Quran mention the examples of the prophets who were Imams, caliphs and Khalifa fi AL Arz. That means the prophet can taking all of the positions depending upon whats is plan by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) with the requirements of the time.

I like to quote the verse of Quran that addresses these aspects from quran:

إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا

(4:163). "Verily We revealed to you as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him, and We (also) revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isac and Jacob and the Tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron, and Solomon, and We gave David the Psalms."

This verse provides the possibility of all the aspects / virtues for our prophet Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that he is a chosen above all like Nuh (عليه السلام),  and he is a grateful servant like Nuh & Ibrahim (عليه السلام). (who is a chosen Imam over mankind). Also he is a prophet like Ismael (عليه السلام) and true to his promise (The word Ismael has been repeated 12 times in quran).

Similarly for last name of prophet is Dawood (عليه السلام). in the above verse:

يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَىٰ فَيُضِلَّكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَضِلُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا نَسُوا يَوْمَ الْحِسَابِ

[We said], "O David, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of Allah ." Indeed, those who go astray from the way of Allah will have a severe punishment for having forgotten the Day of Account. (38:26)

Similarly as per above verses the prophet Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is like Dawood (عليه السلام). who is Caliph in the Earth and he does have all authority over the believers.

قُولُوا آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (2:136)

قُلْ آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَالنَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him." (3:84)

كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِّيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ

[This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded. (38:29)

After the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) Imams are guided leaders, they have authority over believers (to obey imams) being Caliph / khalia fi Alarz (chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for this status). They may or may not have apparent rule in land (like some prophets who did rule in land and some did not rule in the land). However, their positions remains unaffected ie guided imams and caliph / khalifa fi alarz.

I hope I have made my view clear by  the  above verses and statements. wasalam.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal abided by the clauses in the Treaty. There was a clause in the Treaty that any Muslim escaping to Medina would be returned to Mecca. As such, when one of them did escape to Mecca (I think it was Abu Baseer), he was returned to Mecca. So next time Abu Jandal and then Abu Baseer escaped Mecca and simply did not go to Medina thus abiding by the Treaty.

Incorrect. Firstly, it was Abu Jandal who escaped from Mecca and arrived in Medina, still having fetters and chains on his body, pleading for asylum. But that was the same day the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concluded the treaty with the Quraysh represented by Suhail bin Amr. Now Suhail told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that according to the Treaty, the Prophet could not offer refuge to Abu Jandal (who was Suhail's son). The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم therefore was the one who was asked to abide by the Treaty, not Abu Jandal. The Treaty never applied to Abu Jandal or the other Muslims left behind in Mecca.

Abu Jandal was forced to return to Mecca by his father Suhail. Suhail didn't go to Abu Jandal and say "look, here's the treaty, you have to come back". Suhail went straight to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said you can't take Abu Jandal رضى الله عنه

After Abu Jandal returned to Mecca with his father, he managed to escape again but this time he went over to Abu Basir's camp, those Muslims who were not under the Prophet's political jurisdiction and therefore not bound by the Treaty.

You must know that according to the Treaty, there was meant to be a ten year truce between Medina and Mecca, so why didn't Abu Basir and company abide by that truce, why did they continue to fight and raid the Quraish? That decisively proves your statement wrong "Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal abided by the clauses in the Treaty" - the main clause of the Treaty was the ceasefire agreement!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

there are 4 institutions in discussion here, not 3.

  1. Prophethood 
  2. Imamate
  3. Khalifa-fil-Ardh
  4. Caliphate

The distinction is that shias believe in 1, 2 and 3 as theology and say #4 should be a person from 1, 2, 3.

Sunnis (at least Cherry) believe in 1 and 4 and say anyone can be 4. It happened to be the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) initially and then open for anyone.

3 is a category of 4

2 and 4 are the same thing

So there are two: Nubuwwah and Khilafah

Nubuwwah is divinely appointed

Khilafah/Imamah/Imarah/Wilayah/Sultah/Mulk is usually not divinely appointed, but can be divinely appointed

The Prophet's Khilafah and Sultah in the Medinese phase was not divinely appointed

Hence, the succession to that Khilafah and Sultah was naturally not divinely appointed either

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I understand your point. In principle I don't see an issue with what you are saying. Personally I am careful about making blanket statements, especially because I haven't researched this extensively. Prophet Sulayman (عليه السلام) for instance was granted an entire kingdom. Was this also part of his divine appointment? Possibly, I don't really know. In any case we know that it isn't something that every prophet had, so I think it's fair to separate it from prophethood generally speaking.

Did the role of prophethood differ from prophet to prophet? Essentially no, but there are differences. Some brought a book/revelation, other's didn't. There is always the classic discussion of who is a nabi, who is a rasool, who are the ulil azm etc 

Quote

Imaam Ahmad - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - reports from Muhammad ibn Fudayl, from Amaarah, from Abu Zur’ah who said: I do not know this except from Abu Hurayrah - radi-Allahu ’anhu - who said:

“Jibreel was sitting with the Prophet sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam looking towards the sky, when he saw an angel. So Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - said to him: Indeed, this angel has never descended before today. So when the angel had descended, he said: O Muhammad! I have been sent by your Lord (to inquire) whether He should make you a Prophet-King or a Slave-Messenger.” [Related by Ahmad (2/321), al-Bazzaar (no.4262) and al-Haythamee in al-Majma’ (9/18-19])

There is also a narration related by Abu Ma’dhr from al-Maqburi from Aa'ishah - radi-Allahu ’anhaa - that the Prophet sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam said:

“An angel came to me and said: Allah sends blessings upon you and says: If you wish you may be a Prophet-King or a Slave-Messenger. So Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - indicated to me that I should humble myself: So I said: A Prophet-Slave.” So ’Aa'ishah said: So after that day, the Prophet sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam never ate whilst reclining, saying: “I eat like a slave eats and I sit like a slave sits.” [Related by al-Baghawee in Sharhus-Sunnah (no.4683)]

And from the mursal narrations of az-Zuhree -rahimahullaahu ta’aala - who said:

We were informed that an angel came to the Prophet sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam, who had never come to him before. Accompanying him was Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam. So the angel spoke, and Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - remained silent, so he said: Your Lord inquires whether you wish to be a king or a Prophet-Slave. So the Prophet sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam looked towards Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - as if he was seeking his advice. So Jibreel indicated that he should be humble. So Allah’s Messenger sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam said: “A Prophet-Slave.” Az-Zuhree said: So it is said that from that day onwards, the Prophet sal-Allahu 'alayhe wa sallam never ate whilst reclining, until he departed from this world. [Mursal narration, supported by narrations that have preceded]

From this we derive that there is a type of Nubuwwah which includes Kingship within it, and the classic examples of that are Kings David and Solomon عليهما السلام

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was offered this but he declined. Subsequently, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم attained political authority at Medina it was not a divine appointment, as he earlier declined the offer of a divine appointment to become King.

Quote

but I believe the conventional position of the ahl us sunnah and the ahl al tashayyu is that we obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) completely and not selectively.

Right, we are meant to obey him absolutely and not selectively. But there is an obvious distinction between the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordering Usamah bin Zaid رضى الله عنه to command an army, for example, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordering adult males to pray the Salat in congregation when they hear the Adhan. The former is an example of an order issued in his capacity of administrator, and the latter an example of an order issued in his capacity of Messenger of God.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

The count of institution is agreed without any doubt. The verses of Quran mention the examples of the prophets who were Imams, caliphs and Khalifa fi AL Arz.

After the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) Imams are guided leaders, they have authority over believers (to obey imams) being Caliph / khalia fi Alarz (chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for this status). They may or may not have apparent rule in land (like some prophets who did rule in land and some did not rule in the land). However, their positions remains unaffected ie guided imams and caliph / khalifa fi alarz.

I hope I have made my view clear by  the  above verses and statements. wasalam.

Yes, we are and were in agreement.

 

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

Incorrect. Firstly, it was Abu Jandal who escaped from Mecca and arrived in Medina, still having fetters and chains on his body, pleading for asylum. But that was the same day the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concluded the treaty with the Quraysh represented by Suhail bin Amr. Now Suhail told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that according to the Treaty, the Prophet could not offer refuge to Abu Jandal (who was Suhail's son). The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم therefore was the one who was asked to abide by the Treaty, not Abu Jandal. The Treaty never applied to Abu Jandal or the other Muslims left behind in Mecca.

Abu Jandal was forced to return to Mecca by his father Suhail. Suhail didn't go to Abu Jandal and say "look, here's the treaty, you have to come back". Suhail went straight to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said you can't take Abu Jandal رضى الله عنه

After Abu Jandal returned to Mecca with his father, he managed to escape again but this time he went over to Abu Basir's camp, those Muslims who were not under the Prophet's political jurisdiction and therefore not bound by the Treaty.

You must know that according to the Treaty, there was meant to be a ten year truce between Medina and Mecca, so why didn't Abu Basir and company abide by that truce, why did they continue to fight and raid the Quraish? That decisively proves your statement wrong "Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal abided by the clauses in the Treaty" - the main clause of the Treaty was the ceasefire agreement!

I still don't know why we are discussing Hudaibiya but let's clarify a few things.

Abu Jandal fleed to the Muslims at Hudaibiya and was returned.

Abu Baseer fleed to Medina and was returned.

The truce was between Quraish in Mecca and Muslims in Medina. Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were not Medina muslims so the Treaty was not applicable for them.

Back to Mecca...

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

3 is a category of 4

2 and 4 are the same thing

So there are two: Nubuwwah and Khilafah

Nubuwwah is divinely appointed

Khilafah/Imamah/Imarah/Wilayah/Sultah/Mulk is usually not divinely appointed, but can be divinely appointed

The Prophet's Khilafah and Sultah in the Medinese phase was not divinely appointed

Hence, the succession to that Khilafah and Sultah was naturally not divinely appointed either

Cherry - you just took 7 sentences to say what I wrote in 1 sentence. You believe in Prophethood and Caliphate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Not exactly. The narrations regarding this ayah that I have seen refer to the aimmah (عليه السلام) in general or to Imam al Mahdi (عليه السلام) specifically. In this case we are not taking the khilafah fil ardh to necessarily be a political position (after all, Adam (عليه السلام) was also a khaleefatullah fil ardh). 

1. You say the promise of Khilafah fil-Ard is specific to Imam al-Mahdi عليه السلام

What about Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم? Was he granted Khilafah fil-Ard as promised in Ayat al-Istikhlaf?

2. The example of Adam is interesting. He probably didn't have a formal political authority, as there wasn't a formal political structure in those pre-historic days. Nonetheless, if we interpret Khilafah fil-Ard more broadly to simply mean dominion and power in the Earth, it makes perfect sense that Adam was Khilafat Allah fil-Ard

Furthermore, the Quran never names Adam specifically as the Khalifah fil-Ard, rather, Allah says to the Angels I am going to make a Khalifah on the Earth. To me, that is speaking of humanity in general, and the collective Khilafah of mankind on the Earth, in the sense that we possess dominion on the Earth. I believe the Quran closely mirrors the Torah in this subject which reinforces my interpretation:

Quote

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28)

Notice also the fact that the Angels questioned Allah's decision to make man (collectively) His Khalifah in the Earth, by saying they will spread corruption and spill blood. Were the Angels speaking specifically about Adam the individual or about mankind in general? I think the answer should be obvious. (Adam never spilled any blood, the first murder in history was at the hands of Cain/Qabil)

And mankind's collective Khilafah on the Earth doesn't really mean political dominion, but a natural dominion over the rest of creation

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...