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

  • Moderators
7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The same is the case with Khilafat fil-Ard, unless you can show me an example where Allah declared someone a Khalifah in the Earth without that individual possessing the least bit of political dominion and practically exercising the authority associated with Khilafah

I have noted your points (to keep the posts shorter I am not quoting the entire text).

The concept of khilafah in the Qur'an is always presented as a divine appointment. There is no instance of consultation in such an appointment. 

You say that khilafah is dependent on some form of sociopolitical role, yet we see with Adam (عليه السلام) that this wasn't necessarily the case. 

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

18 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Sorry, over 2 years. I edited my posted.

I don't have a point but a question. The first and second pledge of allegiance - were they pledging allegiance to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Administrator Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

The terms of the first bay’ah were purely religious and so they made their pledge to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his capacity of Prophesy.

As for the second bay’ah, let me quote Dr. Hamidullah: “In the pledge of Aqaba, in which the people of Madina accepted the Prophet as their leader, invited him to come to their country and agreed to obey his orders in weal and woe.”

So in this second bay’ah, they were making a pledge as is given to one who is to possess political office.

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

The terms of the first bay’ah were purely religious and so they made their pledge to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his capacity of Prophesy.

As for the second bay’ah, let me quote Dr. Hamidullah: “In the pledge of Aqaba, in which the people of Madina accepted the Prophet as their leader, invited him to come to their country and agreed to obey his orders in weal and woe.”

So in this second bay’ah, they were making a pledge as is given to one who is to possess political office.

Are we in agreement that pledging allegiance is a political act and not a religious act?

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

Premise #1: the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was invited by the Ansar and not divinely-appointed to occupy the office of political authority among them, which he accepted

Premise #2: When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died it was this office of political authority he vacated and not the office of his Prophesy, which is sealed after him

Conclusion: Whoever succeeded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his office of political authority was therefore not meant to be divinely appointed, as the Prophet wasn’t, and could not succeed to the Prophet’s Prophesy which was sealed, but only wield those powers which the Prophet wielded as a political authority.

The problem with premise 1 is that you are simultaneously trying to present this position as khilafah fil ardh (divinely granted) and as a matter of consultation (non divine). The concepts are getting mixed up and there's no consistent conclusion. 

Anyway for the sake of discussion I will follow your original position which you have also stated here (premise 1).

We move to premise 2. You state that the prophet can only be succeedeed in his political role. This would then mean that the non divinely appointed successor has political authority only and no religious authority. Fine for me, as Shia we don't take our madhab from the caliphs anyway. 

You say thay since the prophethood is sealed there is no successorship. We agree on the finality of the prophethood. However, there is still a role of guidance which exists which you have recognized in your other thread, even if we differ on the nature and the structure. For us this is the imamah. 

So in the end your premises work out quite well for us, but are somewhat problematic for those who take their madhab from non appointed political leaders.

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

The concept of khilafah in the Qur'an is always presented as a divine appointment. There is no instance of consultation in such an appointment. 

You say that khilafah is dependent on some form of sociopolitical role, yet we see with Adam (عليه السلام) that this wasn't necessarily the case. 

Let’s leave aside the issue of consultation for now, and focus on the binary of divine appointment vs. Non-divine appointment, because consultation is simply one of the methods of a non divine appointment. The Quran praises consultation as a means for Believers to determine their affairs. But first we need to see if the matter of Khilafah can be non-divinely appointed, if yes, then obviously consultation would be the best method for it.

Now you claim that in the Quran the concept of Khilafah is always divinely appointed:

  1. can you present one such instance from the Quran?

  2. For the sake of argument, if all instances of Khilafah in Quran are divine appointments, is that sufficient to make a principle that Khilafah must necessarily be a divine appointment?

Please also confirm whether you regard Ayat al-Istikhlaf as an example of divinely appointed Khilafah.

As for the example of Adam عليه السلام, I did answer before that it is the Khilafah of natural dominion, but dominion nonetheless, and furthermore, it is not necessarily Adam’s personal Khilafah, but Adam as representing man collectively, which possesses natural dominion on the Earth.

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

The problem with premise 1 is that you are simultaneously trying to present this position as khilafah fil ardh (divinely granted) and as a matter of consultation (non divine). The concepts are getting mixed up and there's no consistent conclusion.

Khilafah fil-Ard is divinely granted in the takwini sense, and comes about through asbab such as consultation. That is certainly true in the case of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and how he acquired the office of political authority in Medina.

Quote

Anyway for the sake of discussion I will follow your original position which you have also stated here (premise 1).

We move to premise 2. You state that the prophet can only be succeedeed in his political role. This would then mean that the non divinely appointed successor has political authority only and no religious authority. Fine for me, as Shia we don't take our madhab from the caliphs anyway. 

We Sunnis take our madhhab from the Quran and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Caliphs were never meant to be an independent source of the Religion. The exoteric Caliphate is for the purpose of leading, administering, and organizing the Muslims. In discretionary matters (masa’il al-ijtihadiyyah) some schools of thought do give preference to the judgments of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, but theoretically, they are not binding on the Muslims of all times and places unlike the divine Shari’ah and the Prophet’s Sunnah.

Quote

So in the end your premises work out quite well for us

That’s super. So let me summarize where I think we have agreed thus far:

The political succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم does not carry any binding religious authority.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did vacate such an office of political authority which he was not divinely appointed to.

The office itself is valid, though we may disagree who was most suitable to occupy it after the Prophet’s death. Yet we have agreed that the office itself was not divine, does not carry binding religious authority, and that theoretically, the method of consultation is a valid means to determine who should occupy it after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Free free to modify this summary to more accurately represent what you have agreed with. I hope that by the end of this we can issue a joint statement detailing what exactly it is we have agreed upon

Link to post
Share on other sites

W. Montgomery Watt writes concerning the evolution of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم political authority in Medina that when he first arrived in Medina he was recognized as Prophet by the main Arab clans, but in political matters, he was not considered their head, only the head of the Muhajirin. Only after the Battle of Khandaq, in April 627 could it be said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم achieved political mastery over Medina.

This is clear proof that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was recognized as possessing two capacities, his Prophesy, which was accepted by the main clans of Medina on the eve of Hijrah, and his political role, which evolved and extended itself over time with the prestige he gained through victories of Badr and then Khandaq.

Untitled.png.9cd32c52268507dfff1143810132b7c9.pngp96.png.323459d0295d1cdbb178339682f0261a.png

Notice the title of the book Prophet and Statesman

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

No, it can be both. The first bay’ah of Aqabah was a purely religious act, the second was a political bay’ah.

How is giving bayah (allegiance) a religious act?

I thought reciting shahada is the religious act and giving allegiance is a political act. No?

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

How is giving bayah (allegiance) a religious act?

I thought reciting shahada is the religious act and giving allegiance is a political act. No?

Giving bay’ah is a religious act if the terms of the bay’ah are religious in nature. In the first bay’ah of Aqabah, the people pledged to worship Allah without associating partners with Him, not to commit fornication, not to steal, not to murder, not to slander chaste women, and not to sin. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that if the people fulfilled this Bay’ah they would be guaranteed Paradise, and if not, then Allah will judge them.

Now in a bay’ah that is political, the consequences for breaking the bay’ah is some kind of Earthly punishment. If you break your bay’ah to the ruler for example, you are considered a rebel who is to be fought. But if you break a bay’ah that is purely religious, there is no such consequence. I think that should be obvious.

Among Sunni Muslims, a form of the purely religious bay’ah still continues, known as a bay’ah to a Sufi shaykh.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

We have bay'ah too... refer to Doa Ahad that Shias do every morning... for our Present Imam, Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام).

"...O Allah renew for him my covenant, pledge and allegiance on my neck in the morning of this day of mine and whatever days (of my life) I live. I shall never turn away from it nor let it ever vanish. O Allah appoint me among his helpers, aides, and his protectors. Those who hasten to fulfill his commands and obey his orders. Those who are his supporters and compete with each other to (fulfill) his intention and seek martyrdom in his presence.

O Allah! If death occurs between me and him (before the reappearance) (death) which you have made obligatory and decreed for your servants, then raise me from my grave, wrapped in my shroud, my sword unsheathed, my spear bared, answering the call of the caller in cities as well as deserts..."

And our bay'ah is religious.  Whenever it is concern Prophet and Ahlulbayt...it is religious.  Even though it maybe political issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, layman said:

We have bay'ah too... refer to Doa Ahad that Shias do every morning... for our Present Imam, Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام).

"...O Allah renew for him my covenant, pledge and allegiance on my neck in the morning of this day of mine and whatever days (of my life) I live. I shall never turn away from it nor let it ever vanish. O Allah appoint me among his helpers, aides, and his protectors. Those who hasten to fulfill his commands and obey his orders. Those who are his supporters and compete with each other to (fulfill) his intention and seek martyrdom in his presence.

O Allah! If death occurs between me and him (before the reappearance) (death) which you have made obligatory and decreed for your servants, then raise me from my grave, wrapped in my shroud, my sword unsheathed, my spear bared, answering the call of the caller in cities as well as deserts..."

And our bay'ah is religious.  Whenever it is concern Prophet and Ahlulbayt...it is religious.  Even though it maybe political issues.

Well the Sunnah method of giving bay’ah (for gentlemen) is to place your hand on the hand of the one you are giving bay’ah to. But I guess that’s just the ceremonial aspect of it.

The bay’ah you are describing is a purely political bay’ah. I wander how you reconcile your political allegiance to the absent Imam with your practical obedience to and even participation in a political system that doesn’t recognize his authority.

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

Well the Sunnah method of giving bay’ah (for gentlemen) is to place your hand on the hand of the one you are giving bay’ah to. But I guess that’s just the ceremonial aspect of it.

The bay’ah you are describing is a purely political bay’ah. I wander how you reconcile your political allegiance to the absent Imam with your practical obedience to and even participation in a political system that doesn’t recognize his authority.

Spiritually, we are connected to Prophet and all our Imams.  How, we are connected to our Imams, not subjected to public discussion.   All followers of Ahlulbayt are asked to refer to Quran and Ahlulbayt if they don't want to be led to astray.  Ahlulbayt are Ulil Amr...meaning guiding in our daily affairs.  

Quran says...Shakir 6:162] Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds;

Everything in life is for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)...including political.  How to link to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? it is through Nubuwwah and Imamah.  This is call following and abiding with the wilayat, and we are all servants of Allahbswt.  Whether you see physically or not, that is not the problem.  Spiritually we are connected to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Nubuwwah and Imamah.

I am sorry, we disagree with you interpretation of bay’ah.

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

Giving bay’ah is a religious act if the terms of the bay’ah are religious in nature. In the first bay’ah of Aqabah, the people pledged to worship Allah without associating partners with Him, not to commit fornication, not to steal, not to murder, not to slander chaste women, and not to sin. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that if the people fulfilled this Bay’ah they would be guaranteed Paradise, and if not, then Allah will judge them.

Now in a bay’ah that is political, the consequences for breaking the bay’ah is some kind of Earthly punishment. If you break your bay’ah to the ruler for example, you are considered a rebel who is to be fought. But if you break a bay’ah that is purely religious, there is no such consequence. I think that should be obvious.

Among Sunni Muslims, a form of the purely religious bay’ah still continues, known as a bay’ah to a Sufi shaykh.

Two questions and then I will be ready to provide my counter to your original argument:

1) Were all political actions undertaken by Muhammad (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) ever since he took the Chief position in Medina purely divine, mixed or purely secular?

2) Did the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) mission include establishing an Islamic State or did he just get lucky with the invitation from Khazraj+Aws?

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

Well that’s a purely subjective claim. This thread is for academic discussion.

Do you pray/ make salah?  Do you make salam to the Prophet?  Are we disconnected to the Prophet?

Shakir 4:59] 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.

 

And we obey Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasulullah and Ulil Amri ... AND WE DON'T have connection with them!!!!

All these are subjective claims?  Who are you to judge?

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

Do you pray/ make salah?  Do you make salam to the Prophet?  Are we disconnected to the Prophet?

Shakir 4:59] 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.

And we obey Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasulullah and Ulil Amri ... AND WE DON'T have connection with them!!!!

All these are subjective claims?  Who are you to judge?

My good layman, I recommend you leave this discussion to the big boys, Mahdavist and ShiaMan14. Because they are discussing on the point and not diverting to off topic.

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

1) Were all political actions undertaken by Muhammad (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) ever since he took the Chief position in Medina purely divine, mixed or purely secular?

Generally speaking, the activity you described was in his صلى الله عليه وسلم capacity of head of a political entity, and not in his capacity of Prophet. They were not divine. However, there are also certain exceptional instances in which Allah revealed a course of action for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Quote

2) Did the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) mission include establishing an Islamic State or did he just get lucky with the invitation from Khazraj+Aws?

No, it was never his purpose to establish a state or any kind of political entity. The fact that he became the head of a state was incidental, though part of the divine plan – everything that happens is part of the divine plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/7/2020 at 3:29 AM, Cherub786 said:

It seems we have reached an impasse in the discussion. I propose a simple step to help the discussion continue to flow constructively.

@Mahdavist @ShiaMan14

In my thesis I laid out my simple theory of succession:

Premise #1: the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was invited by the Ansar and not divinely-appointed to occupy the office of political authority among them, which he accepted

Premise #2: When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died it was this office of political authority he vacated and not the office of his Prophesy, which is sealed after him

Conclusion: Whoever succeeded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his office of political authority was therefore not meant to be divinely appointed, as the Prophet wasn’t, and could not succeed to the Prophet’s Prophesy which was sealed, but only wield those powers which the Prophet wielded as a political authority.

Now I invite your side to present a counter narrative which explains your theory in direct response to what I have just outlined. This will help me understand where your side is coming from precisely and will open new avenues for discussion on the points which are different regarding the basic structure of the succession argument.

Mission of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) mentioned in  Tafsir al tabri.

 يا بَنِي عَبْدِ المُطَّلِبِ, إنِّي والله ما أعْلَمُ شابا فِي العَرَبِ جَاءَ قَوْمَهُ بأفْضَلَ ممَّا جئْتُكُمْ بِهِ, إنّي قَدْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِخَيْرِ الدُّنْيَا والآخِرَةِ, وَقَدْ أمَرَنِي الله أنْ أدْعُوكُمْ إلَيْهِ, فَأيُّكُمْ يُؤَازِرُني عَلى هَذَا الأمْرِ, عَلى أنْ يَكُونَ أخِي" وكَذَا وكَذَا؟ 

O Sons of ‘Abdu ‘l-Muttalib! By Allah,I do not know of any young man among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the hereafter, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto it. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhhi) and kadha wa kadha,? . Tafsir al tabri (under the verse of warning)

Mission of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was to invite the people towards good of the world and hereafter by the command from Allah.People of Madina responded to the call of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and they gave him shelter and helped him (walladhina awaw wa nasaru)  to carry out his mission.

 Quran says “ if you obey him you will be guided (in the matter of world and hereafter)” 24:54

So the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was by default leader of the believers without any election in the matter of world and hereafter. it is his divine job to guide the people in the matter of world and hereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Lets see another verse:

الَّذِينَ إِن مَّكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَمَرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَنَهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ

22:41 Those when given authority in land establish (system of) salah, give charity and enjoin what is ma'ruf and forbid what is munkar

This verse is setting up the criteria of Islamic leadership. Also look at the verses commanding the justice (5:8). Knowledge is prerequisite for doing both. To judge by what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has revealed is also a prerequisite:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

5:47

Given these facts, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is by default a divinely appointed leader and so do the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام).

كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ

3:110 YOU ARE indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God. 

This "best community" is nothing but the chosen ones of God Almighty, the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). 

 

وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًا 

2:143 And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation that you may bear witness to the people and the Messenger may be a witness to you.

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ مِن قَبْلُ وَفِي هَذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ

22:78 

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

The Quran praises consultation as a means for Believers to determine their affairs. But first we need to see if the matter of Khilafah can be non-divinely appointed, if yes, then obviously consultation would be the best method for it.

The Qur'an also says to refer any disagreements/disputes to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is where we differ essentially. We refer to the ahadith (which you interpret differently) whereas you refer to consultation (although saqifah and the following ridda wars to me reflect a power grab more than a mutual consultation, but this is another topic).

This is why we won't agree on successorship. We are looking towards different references.

23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Now you claim that in the Quran the concept of Khilafah is always divinely appointed:

  1. can you present one such instance from the Quran?

  2. For the sake of argument, if all instances of Khilafah in Quran are divine appointments, is that sufficient to make a principle that Khilafah must necessarily be a divine appointment?

1. Let's take verse 30 of surah baqarah as an example.

2. I agree that it isn't necessarily a rule, but you are then presenting a form of khilafah which has no real precedence (ie the khilafa established through shura), and even here I think you have made khilafah fil ardh dependent on human approval whereas I don't see why it should be. I believe some of your own scholars have stated that every prophet was a khalifa, a position which I think makes good sense. 

23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

As for the example of Adam عليه السلام, I did answer before that it is the Khilafah of natural dominion, but dominion nonetheless, and furthermore, it is not necessarily Adam’s personal Khilafah, but Adam as representing man collectively, which possesses natural dominion on the Earth.

This is indeed an interpretation which goes in the direction of saying that man by definition is a khalifah on earth, but it's not really supporting your argument that seems to require political leadership as part of this khilafah.

23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

We Sunnis take our madhhab from the Quran and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Caliphs were never meant to be an independent source of the Religion. The exoteric Caliphate is for the purpose of leading, administering, and organizing the Muslims. 

If this was truly the case then the khulafa would have no religious significance at all which isn't really the case. The sunni madhaahib themselves were a later development and differ amongst each other - which one is on the sunnah? 

23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The political succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم does not carry any binding religious authority.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the very idea of a political 'succession' is problematic if this successor is a common man with no divine authority. The prophets leadership was binding and unquestionable. The implication of refusing an order of the prophet, even political, is very serious. 

This is why I have said that these were two different systems. Succession does not make sense if the status of the claimed 'successor' is completely different to the 'predecessor'. We then speak of a change in system.

23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did vacate such an office of political authority which he was not divinely appointed to

This works as long as you say that his khilafah fil ardh was independent of this position. 

23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Yet we have agreed that the office itself was not divine, does not carry binding religious authority, and that theoretically, the method of consultation is a valid means to determine who should occupy it after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

If we say political leadership in general is not divine and without binding authority then yes this is true. In the case of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) it isn't true because there is no selective obedience or authority. Is the best means consultation? Not if the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) has already appointed someone. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elite said:

Mission of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was to invite the people towards good of the world and hereafter

How does that equate to inviting the people to establish a state or to assign him the office of political authority?

Quote

People of Madina responded to the call of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and they gave him shelter and helped him (walladhina awaw wa nasaru)  to carry out his mission.

Did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم call upon them to believe in Allah and to believe in His Prophesy, and to help him in the cause of spreading that Message, or did he call them to assign him an office of political authority? The Ansar invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to take up a position of arbitrator among them of their own prerogative. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never asked them for political office.

Quote

So the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was by default leader of the believers without any election in the matter of world and hereafter. it is his divine job to guide the people in the matter of world and hereafter.

Guiding people in the matter of the world and the hereafter does not necessitate holding a formal office of political authority. In essence, you have used proofs that are vague and ambiguous (guiding people in their worldly affairs) to establish something specific (necessity of holding office of political authority).

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

كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ

3:110 YOU ARE indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God. 

This "best community" is nothing but the chosen ones of God Almighty, the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام).

What is the evidence for such a far-fetched interpretation? Ummah is vast, and Ahl al-Bayt is a specific group within the Ummah. In this verse, the term Ummah is used and not Ahl al-Bayt. So you are seriously distorting and misrepresenting the Words of Allah.

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

The Qur'an also says to refer any disagreements/disputes to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is where we differ essentially. We refer to the ahadith (which you interpret differently) whereas you refer to consultation (although saqifah and the following ridda wars to me reflect a power grab more than a mutual consultation, but this is another topic).

But do you acknowledge the fact that Allah has enjoined consultation? And it is understood that consultation is in those matters which are discretionary and not statutory. Since you have already acknowledged that the political succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not divine, therefore it falls into the discretionary matters, and the Quran enjoins consultation to determine a course of action in the sphere of discretionary matters. There is indeed a dispute, and so following the formula of referring back to Allah we get this concept of consultation (Surah 42:38).

Quote

2. I agree that it isn't necessarily a rule, but you are then presenting a form of khilafah which has no real precedence (ie the khilafa established through shura), and even here I think you have made khilafah fil ardh dependent on human approval whereas I don't see why it should be. I believe some of your own scholars have stated that every prophet was a khalifa, a position which I think makes good sense. 

My precedent is the fact that the Prophet’s own khilafah fil-ard was established through shura of the Ansar. That is the first premise of my thesis.

Khilafah fil-Ard is dominion in the land that is representative of Allah’s happiness. So don’t imagine we consider the tawaghit and oppressive, evil, non-Muslim rulers as possessing khilafat fil-Ard. They possess power in the land, but it is not referred to as Khilafah, because Khilafah connotes a connection to Allah.

Nonetheless, the most pious and innocent Believer cannot be described as a Khalifah fil-Ard if he does not possess dominion in the land either. Let me give you an example: having wealth can be a blessing for a Believer if he uses that wealth for good, spending it in the cause of Allah. Allah is the One Who ultimately blessed a Believer with wealth, though it is not divinely appointed wealth because the Believer acquired it through asbab, such as hard work, etc. Sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه was one such Believer who possessed wealth so we will describe him as being blessed by Allah and having the position of Ghani (wealthy).

Now there could be another Believer, righteous in the Sight of Allah, but unlike sayyidina Uthman, he is poor. Suppose he is even deserving of having wealth but due to oppression, theft, or some other circumstance he remains dirt poor. According to you, can he be described as “Ghani” or rich?

In the same way, Khilafat fil-Ard is indeed a blessing from Allah, but just because someone is deserving of it doesn’t mean he is a Khalifah fil-Ard until and unless he possess dominion in the land. Just as it makes no sense to say someone who is dirt poor is rich when he has no money, it makes no sense to say someone is Khalifah in the Earth if he doesn’t possess dominion and power in the land.

As for some scholars saying every Prophet was a Khalifah, I’m not sure which scholars you are speaking of, and I’m not sure in what sense they meant by Khalifah. Were they speaking of Khilafat fil-Ard, or the esoteric Khilafah which is something else? It is evident that most Prophets did not possess Khilafat fil-Ard and so how can they be described as Khalifah in that sense? There is only one Prophet in the Quran who has specifically been named as Khalifah in the Earth (King David), perhaps because he is a well known example, though in the exceptional and rare category, of a Prophet who possessed Earthly dominion and power. Vast majority of Prophets never possessed it.

Quote

1. Let's take verse 30 of surah baqarah as an example.

This is indeed an interpretation which goes in the direction of saying that man by definition is a khalifah on earth, but it's not really supporting your argument that seems to require political leadership as part of this khilafah.

Man is Khalifah in the Earth in the collective sense, not in his individual capacity. Mankind collectively dominate this planet, we are at the top of the animal kingdom, so we are the king of the animal kingdom. Adam specifically as an individual must also have possessed this natural dominion over everyone on the planet if you insist that he is the Khalifah of Allah on Earth in his individual capacity. But you haven’t really answered my earlier argument that Adam is never specifically named as Khalifah, or why the Angels questioned Allah that the Khalifah He was placing on the Earth will cause corruption and spill blood when Adam, in his individual capacity, didn’t cause corruption or ever spill blood.

Furthermore, when we speak of divine appointment, as in mansus min Allah, that is not necessarily identical to Allah saying He is making or placing a Khalifah or giving Khilafah to a Khalifah. Mansus min Allah is from the legislative perspective, whereas giving Khilafah is a takwini matter. You side in this debate has frequently made the error of using proofs which speak of Allah granting something in the takwini sense to prove the concept of divine appointment in the legislative sense.

Quote

If this was truly the case then the khulafa would have no religious significance at all which isn't really the case. The sunni madhaahib themselves were a later development and differ amongst each other - which one is on the sunnah? 

What do you mean by religious significance? Let me return to my parable of the blessing of wealth. If you can understand the parable of wealth, maybe you can understand the concept of Khilafah. Having money in it of itself does not carry any religious significance. But there is a scenario in which Allah blesses someone with wealth, so that he is able to spend it in Allah’s path – building mosques, orphanages, facilitating da’wah activity, etc. Likewise, we regard Khilafah fil-Ard as a blessing of Allah – that is it’s religious significance, just like the blessing of being rich. The religious significance of our Rightly-Guided Caliphs is that having the blessing of Caliphate, they were able to facilitate the cause of the Religion. But Caliphate itself is not religiously significant just as money by itself is not religiously significant.

But if by religious significance you mean that there is a divine authority like the divine authority of Prophesy, able to legislate into the Religion, we do not believe in such an institution. Remember, Sunni Caliphate is not the equivalent of the Catholic papacy or the Shi’ite Imamate. It is not a religious authority in its essence, for us the religious authority is the Prophet and the Scripture.

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

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the very idea of a political 'succession' is problematic if this successor is a common man with no divine authority. The prophets leadership was binding and unquestionable. The implication of refusing an order of the prophet, even political, is very serious. 

Refusing the order of any legitimate political authority – Prophet or otherwise – is a serious offence. The Quran enjoins obedience to those who possess offices of authority. Even the earlier Scriptures and Prophets emphatically enjoined obedience to the kings and rulers who rule in a secular sense. The only difference is, obedience to rulers in the secular sense is conditional and not absolute or unrestricted. It is conditional to not being in contravention to the obedience to the Divine Law.

Quote

This is why I have said that these were two different systems. Succession does not make sense if the status of the claimed 'successor' is completely different to the 'predecessor'. We then speak of a change in system.

Quote

 

 

The successor is succeeding the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his political capacity only. The successor is obviously not a Prophet. Of course, it is natural that the one who is succeeding to political authority over Muslims ought to be a righteous man personally, and more importantly, ought to rule in accordance with the Divine Law, but how does it follow that the successor must be something like a Prophet himself?

Quote

This works as long as you say that his khilafah fil ardh was independent of this position. 

I don’t know what you mean by this. The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم Khilafat fil-Ard was his political position that he vacated upon passing away from this world.

Quote

If we say political leadership in general is not divine and without binding authority then yes this is true. In the case of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) it isn't true because there is no selective obedience or authority. Is the best means consultation? Not if the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) has already appointed someone. 

Let me put it this way, the Prophet’s political authority was only binding because the Prophet could never conceivably act contrary to the Divine Law of his own Prophesy. But when acting strictly in his capacity of political authority, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could be questioned – I already gave the example of sayyidina Salman رضى الله عنه and the suggestion of digging the trenches, no one has of yet answered that. Sayyidina Salman رضى الله عنه clearly understood the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed two capacities – Prophet and ruler, and that they were separate, one being unquestionable, and the other being questionable. By questionable I do not mean defiable, because even an ordinary Muslim ruler possessing legitimate political authority cannot be defied unless he clearly commands something that is contrary to the Divine Law, and as I already explained, the Prophet commanding something contrary to the Divine Law is impossible.

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

Ummah is vast, and Ahl al-Bayt is a specific group within the Ummah. In this verse, the term Ummah is used and not Ahl al-Bayt. So you are seriously distorting and misrepresenting the Words of Allah.

Your miserable allegations doesn't effect me at all my dear. Lets first see Ummah in the same chapter:

وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ

What is ummah here? Vast or a specific group of people? Mukhatab here in this verse are believers. So this is an example of Ummah within Ummah, which is the ummatan wasatan, khayra ummatan, we know them as Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)

وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًا 

It is very clear that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is witness on those mentioned in 22:78

4 hours ago, Cool said:

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ مِن قَبْلُ وَفِي هَذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ

22:78 

Now coming to other chapter:

إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ كَانَ أُمَّةً قَانِتًا لِلّهِ حَنِيفًا وَلَمْ يَكُ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

16:120

 Prophet Ibrahim alone is mentioned as ummat here. 

Lesson for you here is that "ummat" some times means "Leader" and hence it targets leading figures. I don't really need to go into lengthy debate. Understand the "isharah" or just ignore it. Its upto you.

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

We Sunnis take our madhhab from the Quran and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Caliphs were never meant to be an independent source of the Religion. 

:D What about sunnah of shekhain?  Which is something other than the Quran & Sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

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

Proof? How do you derive ahl al-Bayt from an Ayah which doesn't explicitly mention them?

We have interpretation from the ones we know as "Rasikhoona fil ilm". We have their ahadith with us. And what has been showed to you (verses of Quran) is authentic & sufficient evidence alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cool said:

:D What about sunnah of shekhain?  Which is something other than the Quran & Sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

It is not something separate or additional to the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:

فَعَلَيْهِ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ عَضُّوا عَلَيْهَا بِالنَّوَاجِذِ

So upon him is my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, Mahdis. Bite on to it [singular] with the molars”

The grammatical structure indicates that it is a single Sunnah, and not separate or additional to the Prophet’s Sunnah, as the word عليها has the singular pronoun suffix and not عليهما which has the dual pronoun suffix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cool said:

We have interpretation from the ones we know as "Rasikhoona fil ilm". We have their ahadith with us. And what has been showed to you (verses of Quran) is authentic & sufficient evidence alone. 

Fallacy of circular reasoning and argumentum ad verecundiam. Is there any indication within the text of the Quran itself, preferably within the Ayah (3:104) itself which decisively defines Ummah as referring exclusively to the Ahl al-Bayt? Furthermore, your sect claims that Ahl al-Bayt refers exclusively to twelve Imams, what is the proof for that claim too?

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

Is there any indication within the text of the Quran itself, preferably within the Ayah (3:104) itself which decisively defines Ummah as referring exclusively to the Ahl al-Bayt?

First of all decide that whether 3:104 is mentioning an ummah within ummah or not? Then we can move ahead.

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

Furthermore, your sect claims that Ahl al-Bayt refers exclusively to twelve Imams, what is the proof for that claim too?

Ummm, as long as you continue to try to contaminate the "Ahlul Kisa" by including "Ummahat ul Mo'mineen" & Banu Abbas in them, I can't help you at all. 

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...