"First Command: Obey Allah
Second Command: Obey the Messenger
Third Command: And the holders of authority from amongst you."
Arshad,
There is no "third command" used in the verse. The Ulul-Amr are joined in obedience to the Prophet by the conjunction "wa". "Obey the prophet and (wa) the Ulu'l-Amr."
You are trying to insert words where there are none.
Next, conditional obedience was put on the ulil-amr, that is, if you dispute in any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Now why would Allah say this unless it is in regards to the ulil-amr??
The verse does not say dispute the Ulu'l-Amr. You are reading that interpretation into the verse itself. Allah is saying that if the believers differ then to refer back to God and HIs Messenger.
Please read 4:49 in context with 4:63 - "If they had only REFERRED IT to the Messenger and the Ulu'l-Amr among them..."
Clearly, one must refer disputes to the Ulu'l-Amr. If this is not the case then after the Prophet's departure from this world, you have no one to refer to!
There are others who read it in this manner, in fact many who have read it - I have never heard it in this fashion and this is the first time I've ever seen the logic you use in this ayah
The "others" you refer to are Sunni commentators. Sunnis make up the majority. If you think that consensus (ijma) of the majority is what determines correct interpretation in the eyes of God, then you are gravely mistaken as such a stance is not supported by the Quran in any way.
You see, they all agree on this ayah.
Regarding verse 3:7 there are two readings of this and you only refer to the Sunni reading (not universally Sunni, because some of them did not read it like that).
According to the way you guys read 3:7 "And no one knows its ta'wil except God", the ta'wil (inner meaning) of the Quran is not known by anyone. You must think about the implications of this reading because then even the Prophet does not know the ta'wil of the Qur'an which was revealed through him. It also means that humankind will never have access to the Qur'ans ta'wili meaning.
However, there is an alternate reading which is equally legitimate and I will post on this later in a new thread.
"First Command: Obey Allah
Second Command: Obey the Messenger
Third Command: And the holders of authority from amongst you."
Arshad,
There is no "third command" used in the verse. The Ulul-Amr are joined in obedience to the Prophet by the conjunction "wa". "Obey the prophet and (wa) the Ulu'l-Amr."
You are trying to insert words where there are none.
Next, conditional obedience was put on the ulil-amr, that is, if you dispute in any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Now why would Allah say this unless it is in regards to the ulil-amr??
The verse does not say dispute the Ulu'l-Amr. You are reading that interpretation into the verse itself. Allah is saying that if the believers differ then to refer back to God and HIs Messenger.
Please read 4:49 in context with 4:63 - "If they had only REFERRED IT to the Messenger and the Ulu'l-Amr among them..."
Clearly, one must refer disputes to the Ulu'l-Amr. If this is not the case then after the Prophet's departure from this world, you have no one to refer to!
There are others who read it in this manner, in fact many who have read it - I have never heard it in this fashion and this is the first time I've ever seen the logic you use in this ayah
The "others" you refer to are Sunni commentators. Sunnis make up the majority. If you think that consensus (ijma) of the majority is what determines correct interpretation in the eyes of God, then you are gravely mistaken as such a stance is not supported by the Quran in any way.
You see, they all agree on this ayah.
Regarding verse 3:7 there are two readings of this and you only refer to the Sunni reading (not universally Sunni, because some of them did not read it like that).
According to the way you guys read 3:7 "And no one knows its ta'wil except God", the ta'wil (inner meaning) of the Quran is not known by anyone. You must think about the implications of this reading because then even the Prophet does not know the ta'wil of the Qur'an which was revealed through him. It also means that humankind will never have access to the Qur'ans ta'wili meaning.
However, there is an alternate reading which is equally legitimate and I will post on this later in a new thread.
kandani,
I am not inserting any words into the verse, I am also showing an 'alternate' reading as well. I say that emphasis is not given to ulil-amr by through the omission of "obey" in front of them. Why did the verse not say "Obey Allah Obey the Messenger and Obey the holders of Authority from amongst you" ?
Secondly, what is there to dispute with, hypothetically saying that I agree with your logic of the first part of the verse? Why did Allah not say, 'refer it back to Allah and the Messenger AND the holders of authority from amongst you' if there is a dispute in any matter? Why were they not included if they hold the same rank as the Messenger? Remember, I had said that if the ulil-amr are in conjunction with the Messenger (who by default follows Allah), then they are to be followed.
Sura 4:59 --- “O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those who hold authority [from] amongst you.....
Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) interpret this verse that the Uli al-amr are the Imams from the family of Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his progeny)...
The verse continues as follows:
“If you differ about anything, then refer it to God and His Messenger if you are [truly] believers in God and the Hereafter. That is better and more seemly in the end.”
In reply to this verse, Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) uses another Quranic verse 4:83
“If they had only referred it to the Messenger and those who had authority among them, then those among them who can derive knowledge would have known it.”
Using this verse Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) maintains that obedience to Imam is incumbent as God made them the people of knowledge and enabled them to extract that knowledge.
Al-Tabari has a tradition from one of the earliest exegetes, Mujahid (d.c. 100/718)...”When Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(as) was asked about verse verse `Obey God, obey the Messenger and those who hold authority amongst you [ uli al-amr ]]` he responded by giving a long survey of Quranic allusions to the Imams saying (4:51):
“Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Book believing in sorcery and evil [saying] to the unbelievers that they are better guided than those who believe.”
Explaining this verse, he said that such people claim that the leaders who err and those who urge people to hell fire are better guided than the family of Prophet Mohammad (asa). Using another verse he says, ` they are those whom God has cursed and those whom God will curse, you will find [that they] have no helper` (4:52).
Sura (4:58)- `Lo, Allah has commanded you that you restore deposits to their owners....` Kudavan Imam Mohammad al-Baqir (Peace be upon him and his progeny) says that it was the Imams who were meant and it was they who have to hand over to their successors `the special books`, `the special knowledge` (ilm) and `the weapons of the Prophet`. They are the truthful ones referred to in the Quran (9:119) as well as the believers (9:105). God has made the Imams , according to Imam Mohammad Al-Baqi (as) interpretation of verse 2:143, an umma wasat so that they will be God’s witness to His creatures. His definition of ` a great kingdom conferred upon the family of Ibrahim (4:54) is that God made from among them leaders whose obedience was equal to the obedience of God and whose disobedience was equal to the disobedience of God. How, argues Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (as), could people accept this position for the family of Ibrahim and deny it to the family of Prophet Mohammad?
Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) added, “ The Imams are the chosen ones and are named as those who submitted not only in the Quran but also in the earlier scriptures. Since they have been endowed with knowledge from God, the Imams have the clear signs of God in their hearts, and since they are the ahl al-dhikr, namely the people of the Message, it is they who should be questioned about its interpretation. Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (Peace be upon him and his progeny) continues, `The Prophet was a warner to his people while in every age there is an Imam to guide his people about what the Prophet brought. The first of these guides after the Prophet was `Ali and then his awsiya his heirs, after him. Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (as) then added another Quranic verse (3:5)-`And no one knows its interpretation except God and those firmly rooted in ilm [knowledge].`[i/] Commenting on this verse, Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (as) said that the Messenger was the best of those firmly rooted in knowledge. God taught him regarding all that was revealed to him and how to interpret it. Thereafter, it is the Imams who know all the interpretations of the Quran. The Imams are, according to Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (as) interpretation of verse 35:32, the chosen servants of God who have been given the Quran as an inheritance:
“Then We gave the scripture as an inheritance to those whom We chose among our worshippers. But among our worshippers. But among them are some who wrong themselves and some who follow the mid-road while some outstrip [others] through good deeds by Allah’s leave. That is the great favour.”
Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) maintains that not only is obedience to the Imam incumbent upon the believers, but that LOVE for them is a duty enjoined upon the worshippers according to verse 42:22
“Say, I do not ask for any reward except LOVE for the relations ............”
Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (Peace be upon him and his progeny) said that the Imams are the light of God ( nur Allah) mentioned in various verses of the Quran such as 64:8
“And believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Light that We have send down.”
Another such verse is 57:28
“O ye who believe! Fear God and believe in His Apostle and He bestow upon you a double portion of His mercy; He will provide for you a light by which ye shall walk.....”
Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) said, `The Imams are the light which guides men along the path of righteousness. They illuminate the hearts of the believers in whom the Imam’s light is brighter than the resplendent sunlight shining during the day. Interpreting another verse of the Quran 6:122-“Is he who was dead and We raised him unto light and set for him a light whereby he walks among the people, similar to him who is in utter darkness from which there is no way out....” Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) said that `the dead` means those who did not know anything; `the light whereby one walks among people` means the Imam who guides and `those in darkness from which there is no way out` means those who do not know the imam.
Emphasising the hereditary character of the Imamate, Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (as) said that it remained in the progeny of the Imams. Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(as) here interpreting Sura 33:6- -“Those related by blood are nearer to one another in the book of God.” .” He furtherer explains that this verse was revealed especially with regard to the children of Imam Al-Husayn(Peace be upon him and his progeny). Another such verse describing the Imam`s succession is 43:28-`And He made it a word to continue in his posterity that they may return.`
Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny) also puts forward the concept of isma (infallibility) of the imam, his divine protection from sin and error. He bases this on interpretation of the Quranic verse 33:33
“And God only wishes to remove uncleanliness from you, O People of the House (ahl- al-bayt) and to purify you thoroughtly.”
((((((((((((Some Sunni scholars also accept that this verse was revealed for Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and Al-Husayn.)))))))))Page—Sixty Nine..
Many of these Quranic verses interpreted by Kudavan Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (as) imply the intercessional powers of the Imam. One of them is 17:71 “on the day when we shall call all men with their Imam....” Commenting on this verse, Imam Mohammad Al-Baqir (as) said that, when it was revealed, the Muslims asked the Messenger whether he was not the Imam for all the people. The Prophet replied that he was the Messenger of Allah for all people, but after him there would be the imams from his family who would be oppressed rather than accepted. However, those who loved the Imams, followed them and believed in them, were indeed from him ( the Prophet) and would meet him (in Paradise), while those who oppressed them and called them liars were not from him and would be disowned by him.
Basing himself on the Quran, Kudavan Mohammad Al-Baqir(as) undoubtedly views the imamate as one of the duties imposed by God upon the believer. In fact, walaya or imama is the most important duty. He considers it to be the major pillar of Islam and the pivot around which all other pillars revolve. Furthermore, Kudavan Mohammad Al-Baqir (Peace be upon him and his progeny) added, “The Imams are the protectors or guardians of the believers and obedience to them is an obligatory duty. They are the people of Message to whom the Book that is the Quran is given as an inheritance. Thus they are the interpreters of that Message, and since they are the ones firmly rooted in knowledge, it is they who should be asked about its interpretation. People envy the Imams because they are the recipients of God’s favour and because of the light and wisdom that has been bestowed upon them. Being God’s witnesses over His creatures, they are therefore the ones who should guide others.”
The Imams are pure and protected from sin and error and they are the light of God by which people may walk and be guided aright, so love for them was made incumbent upon the believers. On the day of Resurrection, all people would be called by their Imams. Thus it is evident that Imam Al-Baqir(Peace be upon him and his progeny), propounding his theory of the imamate, not only maintained its hereditary and divine character, but also its necessity in this world for the sake of providing true knowledge and guidance.
Reference: Page: 63-70....Book: "Early Shi`i Thought" `The Teachings of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir(as)......Author: Arzina R. Lalani---2000
"First Command: Obey Allah
Second Command: Obey the Messenger
Third Command: And the holders of authority from amongst you."
Arshad,
There is no "third command" used in the verse. The Ulul-Amr are joined in obedience to the Prophet by the conjunction "wa". "Obey the prophet and (wa) the Ulu'l-Amr."
You are trying to insert words where there are none.
Next, conditional obedience was put on the ulil-amr, that is, if you dispute in any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Now why would Allah say this unless it is in regards to the ulil-amr??
The verse does not say dispute the Ulu'l-Amr. You are reading that interpretation into the verse itself. Allah is saying that if the believers differ then to refer back to God and HIs Messenger.
Please read 4:49 in context with 4:63 - "If they had only REFERRED IT to the Messenger and the Ulu'l-Amr among them..."
Clearly, one must refer disputes to the Ulu'l-Amr. If this is not the case then after the Prophet's departure from this world, you have no one to refer to!
There are others who read it in this manner, in fact many who have read it - I have never heard it in this fashion and this is the first time I've ever seen the logic you use in this ayah
The "others" you refer to are Sunni commentators. Sunnis make up the majority. If you think that consensus (ijma) of the majority is what determines correct interpretation in the eyes of God, then you are gravely mistaken as such a stance is not supported by the Quran in any way.
You see, they all agree on this ayah.
Regarding verse 3:7 there are two readings of this and you only refer to the Sunni reading (not universally Sunni, because some of them did not read it like that).
According to the way you guys read 3:7 "And no one knows its ta'wil except God", the ta'wil (inner meaning) of the Quran is not known by anyone. You must think about the implications of this reading because then even the Prophet does not know the ta'wil of the Qur'an which was revealed through him. It also means that humankind will never have access to the Qur'ans ta'wili meaning.
However, there is an alternate reading which is equally legitimate and I will post on this later in a new thread.
kandani,
I am not inserting any words into the verse, I am also showing an 'alternate' reading as well. I say that emphasis is not given to ulil-amr by through the omission of "obey" in front of them. Why did the verse not say "Obey Allah Obey the Messenger and Obey the holders of Authority from amongst you" ?
Secondly, what is there to dispute with, hypothetically saying that I agree with your logic of the first part of the verse? Why did Allah not say, 'refer it back to Allah and the Messenger AND the holders of authority from amongst you' if there is a dispute in any matter? Why were they not included if they hold the same rank as the Messenger? Remember, I had said that if the ulil-amr are in conjunction with the Messenger (who by default follows Allah), then they are to be followed.
You really don't get it do you?
You're doing what you claim others didn't do..i.e. add words.
the quran says
Obey Allah, Obey the Apostle, and the holders of authority from amongst you.
There are no 3 OBEYS...yet you've repeatedly inserted the word OBEY to fit with what your interpretation is.
Seems like you know Allah's intent.
"O ye, mud, mixed with mud, and never rising above mud, and with face covered with mud, ye, whose nature is mud, who are born and living in mud, what can you understand in the world of purity? ..." (Ivanow)
What does not suit you, you simply sweep it under the carpet - isn't that naive if one is seeking truth?....
The highest honor is that the Prophet of Islam chose Hazrat Ali to be his brother and when he commanded every muslims to become brother unto one another, he held Ali's hand and said..."this is my brother".....
The Prophet said to the tribe of Wolai-ah, "you must change your attitude or I shall send to you a man who is from me, to punish you severely.."....people present asked the Prophet.."who is this man you are going to send to them"? the Prophet replied..."the man who is patching the sole of my shoes"....the people looked around and saw Ali (AS) patching the sole of the Prophet's shoes....there are atleast 6 Sunni references on this one...
People like you suffer from a mental blockade...you are applying your crippled logic....seems like the poison pumped into your head is taking its toll and making your brain dysfunctional and unreceptive....
Let me ask, did the Prophet come to preach Sunnism? so then where did you get guys get this name "SUNNI" from?...you are only interested in causing offence and mudslinging...grow up ! you are making a fool of yourself...you have been trying to put words in our mouths all along...you seem least interested to educate yourself.....you are sailing in murky waters.
You will not be able to use your Muawiyan tactics here....that is the vile and wicked practice reminiscent of Abi Sufyan's cult..
If your extremist mullahs have given you distorted and fabricated leads to make derogatory accusations, then you are merely insulting Allah by not using your own mental faculties properly...let me assure you that WE are NOT in need of any certificates from sick people like you to certify the authenticity of our Islam or our Olil Amr....
Also go back and ask your fanatic and sick mullahs to tell you which TWO wives of the Prophet were threatened by Allah in the Quran in Sura al Tahreem?
And if they are disohonest pal then go and refer to the Tafseeral Kabir of Imam Fakrudin al Razi who is one of your pioneering scholars of Quran)...Now tell me are you sick people willing to issue a fatwa against Allah for having threatened two wives of the Prophet for breach of Trust....do you want me to name them?
OR ask the sick and fanatic mullahs if they have a fatwa against the quran itself as they have been lavishing freely against others?
Now go and search your own books and you will find that Caliph Umar has claimed that during the times of the Prophet they used to recite ayat al rajm in which the divine command was to stone adulterers but he said, this ayat has been dropped from the Text compiled....so then was he alleging that the quran text you are waving today at all, is incomplete? let me know !
Then go and search in your books pal and you will fin that Caliph Umar had left a copy of his quran compilation with his daughter who later on claimed that she had left it under the bed and a GOAT ate some parchments.....
Then go and search in your most authentic hadith books and you will find that Caliph Umar claimed that Sura al Ahazab was double the size than it is now presently to be found in your texts...so tell us then what happened to the rest? Then go and check what Bibi Aeisha has siad about the verse of SUCKLING of the child (five or Ten sucklings) which is NOT to be found now in your texts.....do you want me to go on?
So if you have been programmed by your mullahs to make false accusations towards others because of the baggage of guilt that you all have been carrying through history then be honest enough and say so...
"Next, what I see in the above verse is THREE commands, however, TWO of them are unconditional commands, ie OBEY Allah and OBEY the Messenger, whereas those who hold authority are CONDITIONAL as Allah does not give emphasis on the ulil-amr. This is what I personally gather from it. If you have a problem with this then point out in the grammar of the Arabic language that this CANNOT be the interpretation of the ayah. Therefore, the ayah is not confined to solely your interpretation, and I believe many have taken on the view I have proposed.. "
Where is the third command? The verse commands twice (the word "obey" appears twice not three times).
Arshad, please show where the command to obey the Ulu'l-Amr is conditional? (Also note that the latter part does not contain the words "among yourselves" after "if you differ in anyting").
In fact, the same command to obey the Prophet is used for the Ulul Amr. Now you know the command to obey the Prophet is unconditional. Allah did not use a separate command (a third "obey") for the Ulu'l-Amr. This simply means that the obedience to the Ulu'l-Amr is also unconditional just like the Prophet.
Despite what you read into the verse, there is no single verse of the Qur'an which allows us to dispute with the Ulul-Amr. The latter part of 4:59 refers to the believers differing about something. And the later verse 4:63 tells us to refer disputes to the Messenger and the Ulu'l-Amr.
Yes we are here to have a proper discussion. But it can be difficult when people simply ignore what a Quranic verse states and read into it what they want it to mean.
Of course, you have every right to your interpretation but that does not guarantee its correctness.
55:1. ((Allah)) Most Gracious!
2. It is He Who has taught the Qur'an.
Yes, Allah teaches the Qur'an. But does Allah teach every person directly through Himself?
Other Quranic verses clearly stipulate that it is the Prophet who teaches the Book to the people. The Quran being easy to understand is conditional upon the Qur'an being taught by the Teacher.
“And We have sent down unto you [Muhammad] the Reminder; that you may explain to men what is sent down for them, and that they may reflect.”
- Holy Quran 16:44
I don't believe in reading and learning everything on my own, as Allah says to ask people who know if you do not. Therefore, in the same way, if you are confused about a matter, you should ask people who are well versed and learned in these matters specific to the Qur'an.
So then, Arshad, who are the "people who know" in the highest rank of knowledge?
kandani,
First Command: Obey Allah
Second Command: Obey the Messenger
Third Command: And the holders of authority from amongst you.
Emphasis, ie "OBEY" was put on Allah and the Messenger, not on the ulil-amr. Obedience to Allah and the Messenger were unconditional in this sense.
Next, conditional obedience was put on the ulil-amr, that is, if you dispute in any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Now why would Allah say this unless it is in regards to the ulil-amr??
There are others who read it in this manner, in fact many who have read it - I have never heard it in this fashion and this is the first time I've ever seen the logic you use in this ayah.
I never said that the way I interpreted the verse was the correct way, I said it was my opinion. I also said that you understand the verse differently, and others may agree with your logic, however I would have never thought of reading the verse like you have.
Finally, I never said that you could not approach those highest in rank, if you are referring to the Imam, for understanding parts of the Qur'an. However, if I personally have a question in regards to an ayah of Qur'an, I simply cannot approach the Imam.
Shams, I use the translation used by Yusuf Ali because it is widely used, and people have said that he has been fair to the expression in respect to the context, as well as the Arabic language itself. Also, some argue that he was Shi'a as he was born into a Bohra family. Also, I never came to disprove you, I respect your opinion, and agree that we should have a pluralistic view of the various personal interpretations. However I was simply providing mine, given that pardesi had asked me of my personal beliefs. I don't know where accusing of heresy and wrongdoing came about, because I never accused you of anything, rather I was giving my own opinion. In terms of accusing of heresy and wrongdoing, you should try to approach znanwalla to do the same. I don't know why you did not say anything when all I hear from that user is profanity with respect to all interpretations and understanding of Islam beside their own.
pardesi wrote:
3:7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) they are the foundation of the Book others are allegorical But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical seeking discord and searching for its hidden meanings but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the Book the whole of it is from our Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Is it possible that when the task of inserting special characters and punctuations was taken up some commas and periods and punctuation marks were misplaced thereby altering the context and meaning of a particular verse? Let us insert a “pause” at the end of bolded sentence above. This will make the “s” in the next word “say” a capital letter. Remember the punctuations and special characters are man made and were not in the original Quran that was written on parchments and even in the early edition collected in Abu Bakr/Umar’s time and therefore the placements can be questioned. Don’t read too much into my hypothetical observation. It will create another never ending debate and we are not even near the end of the first one yet. Besides, I am not very good in Arabic language so my whole approach above could be wrong. I am just trying to prove to you that there is a need of a teacher who can teach the meanings of Quran and then it is up to us to contemplate and try to understand.
pardesi, it is well known that in Arabic, that the word "wa" is used often to start a sentence, similar to how you start a sentence with a capital letter in the english language.
Let us see how the translators have translated the ayah:
Yusuf Ali:
3:7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Palmer:
He it is who has revealed to thee the Book, of which there are some verses that are decisive, they are the mother 1 of the Book; and others ambiguous; but as for those in whose hearts is perversity, they follow what is ambiguous, and do crave for sedition, craving for (their own) interpretation of it; but none know the interpretation of it except God. But those who are well grounded in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; it is all from our Lord; but none will remember save those who possess minds.
Picthall:
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.
Rodwell:
He it is who hath sent down to thee "the Book." Some of its signs are of themselves perspicuous;--these are the basis 4 of the Book--and others are figurative. But they whose hearts are given to err, follow its figures, craving discord, craving an interpretation; yet none knoweth its interpretation but God. And the stable in knowledge say, "We believe in it: it is all from our Lord." But none will bear this in mind, save men endued with understanding.
You see, they all agree on this ayah.
A plausible explanation for not saying: "Obey Allah, obey the Apostle and Obey the holders of authority from amongst you." although it is not needed, could be because of the fact you presented earlier in this thread. Just like Allah uses We/Ours etc. to Glorify Himself or for His Own Majesty, He may not use a single command for both Himself and the Prophet, so instead He distinguishes between the two. Secondly, by using one command for only Himself and one command for both the Prophet and the Ulu'l-Amr, it could be that He is reminding us that He is above all else. I'm not sure if this is the actual case of course, I'm just reasoning it out for you.
Another point is that, if obeying the Ulu'l-Amr was conditional, then why would Allah mention that at all? That would suggest that the Ulu'l-Amr are fallible...so why would Allah tell us to obey the Ulu'l-Amr if we were to have disputes with them? It just doesn't seem logical at all.
Using 4:63 in the same context, Allah DOES mention that "had we referred it to the Messenger or the Ulu'l-Amr among them.."..so why would He mention to refer it to them in this verse when, according to you, he doesn't want us to refer it to them in 4:49?[/b]
"...55:1. ((Allah)) Most Gracious!
2. It is He Who has taught the Qur'an....."
Taught whom? HE taught the Prophet thro' HIS own scribes (the angels) and what has the Prophet told us?
AHADITH ON THE KHAWARIJ WHICH THE SCHOLARS CONSIDER
IT TO APPLY TO THE WAHHABIS
These ahadith are cited in the Six Books of authentic traditions for the most part. They have been collated for the most part from the following two books written in refutation of the Wahhabi heresy:
al-Sayyid al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Alawi al-Haddad: Misbah al-anam wa jala' al-zalam fi radd shubah al-bid`i al-Najdi al-lati adalla biha al- `awamm ["The Lamp of Creatures and the Illumination of Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator From Najd by Which He Had Misled the Common People"] published 1325H.
al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni al-Dahlan (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam in the Hijaz region of the Ottoman state: Khulasat al-kalam fi bayan umara' al-balad al-haram ["The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Holy Sanctuary"] (A History of the Wahhabi Fitna in Najd and the Hijaz) p. 234-236.
The Prophet said, Peace be upon him:
1. "They [Khawarij = those outside] transferred the Qur'anic verses meant to refer to unbelievers and made them refer to believers."
2. "What I most fear in my community is a man who interprets verses of the Qur'an out of context."
3. "The confusion [fitna] comes from there (and he pointed to the East = Najd in present-day Eastern Saudi Arabia)."
4. "A people that recite Qur'an will come out of the East, but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through the religion (of Islam) like the arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its course. Their sign is that they shave (their heads)."
5. "There will be in my Community a dissent and a faction, a people with excellent words and vile deeds. They will read Qur'an, but their faith does not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its original course. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation.
They summon to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it.
6. "A people will come out at the end of times, immature, foolish and corrupt. They will hold the discourse of the best of creation and recite Qur'an, but it will not go past their throats. They will passes through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry.
7. "The apex of disbelief is towards the East [Najd]. Pride and arrogance is found among the people of the horse and the camel [Bedouin Arabs]."
8. "Harshness and dryness of heart are in the East [Najd], and true belief is among the people of Hijaz."
9 "O Allah, bless our Syria and our Yemen!" They said: "Ya Rasulallah, and our Najd!" He didn't reply. He blessed Syria and Yemen twice more.
They asked him to bless Najd twice more but he didn't reply. The third time he said: "There [in Najd] are the earthquakes and the dissensions, and through it will dawn the epoch [or horn] of shaytan."
10. A version has, "The two epochs [or horns] of shaytan." Some scholars have said that the dual referred to Musaylima the Arch-liar and to Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.
11. Some versions continue with the words: "And in it [Najd] is the consuming disease," i.e. death.
12. Some books of history mention the following version in the chapters devoted to the battles against the Banu Hanifa:
13b. When `Ali killed the Khawarij, someone said: "Praise be to Allah Who has brought them down and relieved us from them." Ali replied: "Verily, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, some of them are still in the loins of men and they have not been born yet, and the last of them will fight on the side of the Antichrist."
14. "A people that recite the Qur'an will come out of the East, but it will not go past their throats. Every time a generation of them is cut down another one will come until the last one finds itself on the side of the Antichrist."
15. "There will be a huge confusion within my Community. There will not remain one house of the Arabs except that confusion will enter it. Those who die because of it are in the fire. The harm of the tongue in it will be greater than that of the sword."
16. "There will be a dissension (in which people will be) deaf, dumb and blind (this means they will be blind and not see the true issue nor listen to the voice of truth): whoever tries to control it, the dissension will control him."
17. "A shaytan will appear in Najd by whose dissension the Arabian island will quake."
18. On the authority of al-`Abbas: "A man will come out of the Wadi Abu Hanifah [in Najd] (whose appearance is) like a bull that lunges against its yoke. There will be much slaughter and killing in his time. They will make the possessions of Muslims lawful for themselves and for trade among themselves. They will make the lives of Muslims lawful for themselves and for boasting among themselves. In that confusion the despised and the lowly will attain positions of power. Their idle desires will keep company with them the way a dog keeps company with its master."
19. On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Verily in the wake of this time of mine comes a people who will recite Qur'an but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters alone.
20. "There will be towards the end of time a people who will say to you what neither you nor your forebears ever heard before. Beware of them lest they misguide you and bring you confusion."
21. "They will pass through Islam like an arrow passes through its quarry.
22. "They are the dogs of the people of Hell."
23. "They recite Qur'an and consider it in their favor but it is against them."
24. "Some people will be standing and calling at the gates of hell; whoever responds to their call, their will throw him into the Fire. They will be from our own people [i.e. Arabs] and will speak our language [Arabic]. Should you live to see them, stick to the main body (jama`a) of the Muslims and their leader. (If there is no main body and no leader,) isolate yourself from all these sects, even if you have to eat from the roots of trees until death overcomes you while you are in that state."
26. "Just before the Hour there will be many liars." Jabir ibn Samurah said: "Be on your guard against them."
28. "There will be Dajjals and liars among my Community. They will tell you something new, which neither you nor your forefathers have heard.
Be on your guard against them and do not let them lead you astray."
29. "The time of the Dajjal will be years of confusion. People will believe a liar, and disbelieve one who tells the truth. People will distrust one who is trustworthy, and trust one who is treacherous; and the ruwaybidha will have a say." Someone asked: "Who are they?" He said: "Those who rebel against Allah and will have a say in general affairs."
30. "If the leadership is entrusted to those unfit for it, expect the Hour."
31. "You will see the barefoot ones, the naked, the destitute, the shepherds and camelherds take pride in building tall structures in abundance."
32. "One of the signs of the change of religion is the affectation of eloquence by the rabble and their betaking to palaces in big cities."
Jamil Effendi al-Zahawi's al-Fajr al-sadiq fi al-radd `ala munkiri al-tawassul wa al-khawariq
"The True Dawn: A Refutation of Those Who Deny The Validity of Using Means to God and the Miracles of Saints"
kandani wrote:
Where is the third command? The verse commands twice (the word "obey" appears twice not three times).
Arshad, please show where the command to obey the Ulu'l-Amr is conditional? (Also note that the latter part does not contain the words "among yourselves" after "if you differ in anyting").
In fact, the same command to obey the Prophet is used for the Ulul Amr. Now you know the command to obey the Prophet is unconditional. Allah did not use a separate command (a third "obey") for the Ulu'l-Amr. This simply means that the obedience to the Ulu'l-Amr is also unconditional just like the Prophet.
Despite what you read into the verse, there is no single verse of the Qur'an which allows us to dispute with the Ulul-Amr. The latter part of 4:59 refers to the believers differing about something. And the later verse 4:63 tells us to refer disputes to the Messenger and the Ulu'l-Amr.
Yes we are here to have a proper discussion. But it can be difficult when people simply ignore what a Quranic verse states and read into it what they want it to mean.
Of course, you have every right to your interpretation but that does not guarantee its correctness.
Yes, Allah teaches the Qur'an. But does Allah teach every person directly through Himself?
Other Quranic verses clearly stipulate that it is the Prophet who teaches the Book to the people. The Quran being easy to understand is conditional upon the Qur'an being taught by the Teacher.
“And We have sent down unto you [Muhammad] the Reminder; that you may explain to men what is sent down for them, and that they may reflect.”
- Holy Quran 16:44
So then, Arshad, who are the "people who know" in the highest rank of knowledge?
kandani,
First Command: Obey Allah
Second Command: Obey the Messenger
Third Command: And the holders of authority from amongst you.
Emphasis, ie "OBEY" was put on Allah and the Messenger, not on the ulil-amr. Obedience to Allah and the Messenger were unconditional in this sense.
Next, conditional obedience was put on the ulil-amr, that is, if you dispute in any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Now why would Allah say this unless it is in regards to the ulil-amr??
There are others who read it in this manner, in fact many who have read it - I have never heard it in this fashion and this is the first time I've ever seen the logic you use in this ayah.
I never said that the way I interpreted the verse was the correct way, I said it was my opinion. I also said that you understand the verse differently, and others may agree with your logic, however I would have never thought of reading the verse like you have.
Finally, I never said that you could not approach those highest in rank, if you are referring to the Imam, for understanding parts of the Qur'an. However, if I personally have a question in regards to an ayah of Qur'an, I simply cannot approach the Imam.
Shams, I use the translation used by Yusuf Ali because it is widely used, and people have said that he has been fair to the expression in respect to the context, as well as the Arabic language itself. Also, some argue that he was Shi'a as he was born into a Bohra family. Also, I never came to disprove you, I respect your opinion, and agree that we should have a pluralistic view of the various personal interpretations. However I was simply providing mine, given that pardesi had asked me of my personal beliefs. I don't know where accusing of heresy and wrongdoing came about, because I never accused you of anything, rather I was giving my own opinion. In terms of accusing of heresy and wrongdoing, you should try to approach znanwalla to do the same. I don't know why you did not say anything when all I hear from that user is profanity with respect to all interpretations and understanding of Islam beside their own.
pardesi wrote:
3:7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) they are the foundation of the Book others are allegorical But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical seeking discord and searching for its hidden meanings but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the Book the whole of it is from our Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Is it possible that when the task of inserting special characters and punctuations was taken up some commas and periods and punctuation marks were misplaced thereby altering the context and meaning of a particular verse? Let us insert a “pause” at the end of bolded sentence above. This will make the “s” in the next word “say” a capital letter. Remember the punctuations and special characters are man made and were not in the original Quran that was written on parchments and even in the early edition collected in Abu Bakr/Umar’s time and therefore the placements can be questioned. Don’t read too much into my hypothetical observation. It will create another never ending debate and we are not even near the end of the first one yet. Besides, I am not very good in Arabic language so my whole approach above could be wrong. I am just trying to prove to you that there is a need of a teacher who can teach the meanings of Quran and then it is up to us to contemplate and try to understand.
pardesi, it is well known that in Arabic, that the word "wa" is used often to start a sentence, similar to how you start a sentence with a capital letter in the english language.
Let us see how the translators have translated the ayah:
Yusuf Ali:
3:7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Palmer:
He it is who has revealed to thee the Book, of which there are some verses that are decisive, they are the mother 1 of the Book; and others ambiguous; but as for those in whose hearts is perversity, they follow what is ambiguous, and do crave for sedition, craving for (their own) interpretation of it; but none know the interpretation of it except God. But those who are well grounded in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; it is all from our Lord; but none will remember save those who possess minds.
Picthall:
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.
Rodwell:
He it is who hath sent down to thee "the Book." Some of its signs are of themselves perspicuous;--these are the basis 4 of the Book--and others are figurative. But they whose hearts are given to err, follow its figures, craving discord, craving an interpretation; yet none knoweth its interpretation but God. And the stable in knowledge say, "We believe in it: it is all from our Lord." But none will bear this in mind, save men endued with understanding.
You see, they all agree on this ayah.
A plausible explanation for not saying: "Obey Allah, obey the Apostle and Obey the holders of authority from amongst you." although it is not needed, could be because of the fact you presented earlier in this thread. Just like Allah uses We/Ours etc. to Glorify Himself or for His Own Majesty, He may not use a single command for both Himself and the Prophet, so instead He distinguishes between the two. Secondly, by using one command for only Himself and one command for both the Prophet and the Ulu'l-Amr, it could be that He is reminding us that He is above all else. I'm not sure if this is the actual case of course, I'm just reasoning it out for you.
Another point is that, if obeying the Ulu'l-Amr was conditional, then why would Allah mention that at all? That would suggest that the Ulu'l-Amr are fallible...so why would Allah tell us to obey the Ulu'l-Amr if we were to have disputes with them? It just doesn't seem logical at all.
Using 4:63 in the same context, Allah DOES mention that "had we referred it to the Messenger or the Ulu'l-Amr among them.."..so why would He mention to refer it to them in this verse when, according to you, he doesn't want us to refer it to them in 4:49?[/b]
Thanks for the response. That does seem logical to support your argument. However, using this logic you can refer to other verses which refer to Allah and the Messenger in a single command.
For example, in 9:63, it does not refer to obedience but rather opposition to them. "Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, is the Fire of Hell?- wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace." Using your rationale the verses which refer to obedience to Allah and His Messenger should have only been referred to Allah only to remind us that He is above all else. However, we know that "He who obeys the Apostle, obeys God.."(4:80)
But even if we say this, my question still remains...that is, what is there to dispute with? I'm not targeting you specifically for the response.
Looking at the verse again, it can either mean you can dispute who the ulil-amr are, or what they say, otherwise the verse would have stopped at "Obey Allah Obey the Apostle and Those vested with authority".
"O ye, mud, mixed with mud, and never rising above mud, and with face covered with mud, ye, whose nature is mud, who are born and living in mud, what can you understand in the world of purity? ..." (Ivanow)
What does not suit you, you simply sweep it under the carpet - isn't that naive if one is seeking truth?....
The highest honor is that the Prophet of Islam chose Hazrat Ali to be his brother and when he commanded every muslims to become brother unto one another, he held Ali's hand and said..."this is my brother".....
The Prophet said to the tribe of Wolai-ah, "you must change your attitude or I shall send to you a man who is from me, to punish you severely.."....people present asked the Prophet.."who is this man you are going to send to them"? the Prophet replied..."the man who is patching the sole of my shoes"....the people looked around and saw Ali (AS) patching the sole of the Prophet's shoes....there are atleast 6 Sunni references on this one...
People like you suffer from a mental blockade...you are applying your crippled logic....seems like the poison pumped into your head is taking its toll and making your brain dysfunctional and unreceptive....
Let me ask, did the Prophet come to preach Sunnism? so then where did you get guys get this name "SUNNI" from?...you are only interested in causing offence and mudslinging...grow up ! you are making a fool of yourself...you have been trying to put words in our mouths all along...you seem least interested to educate yourself.....you are sailing in murky waters.
You will not be able to use your Muawiyan tactics here....that is the vile and wicked practice reminiscent of Abi Sufyan's cult..
If your extremist mullahs have given you distorted and fabricated leads to make derogatory accusations, then you are merely insulting Allah by not using your own mental faculties properly...let me assure you that WE are NOT in need of any certificates from sick people like you to certify the authenticity of our Islam or our Olil Amr....
Also go back and ask your fanatic and sick mullahs to tell you which TWO wives of the Prophet were threatened by Allah in the Quran in Sura al Tahreem?
And if they are disohonest pal then go and refer to the Tafseeral Kabir of Imam Fakrudin al Razi who is one of your pioneering scholars of Quran)...Now tell me are you sick people willing to issue a fatwa against Allah for having threatened two wives of the Prophet for breach of Trust....do you want me to name them?
OR ask the sick and fanatic mullahs if they have a fatwa against the quran itself as they have been lavishing freely against others?
Now go and search your own books and you will find that Caliph Umar has claimed that during the times of the Prophet they used to recite ayat al rajm in which the divine command was to stone adulterers but he said, this ayat has been dropped from the Text compiled....so then was he alleging that the quran text you are waving today at all, is incomplete? let me know !
Then go and search in your books pal and you will fin that Caliph Umar had left a copy of his quran compilation with his daughter who later on claimed that she had left it under the bed and a GOAT ate some parchments.....
Then go and search in your most authentic hadith books and you will find that Caliph Umar claimed that Sura al Ahazab was double the size than it is now presently to be found in your texts...so tell us then what happened to the rest? Then go and check what Bibi Aeisha has siad about the verse of SUCKLING of the child (five or Ten sucklings) which is NOT to be found now in your texts.....do you want me to go on?
So if you have been programmed by your mullahs to make false accusations towards others because of the baggage of guilt that you all have been carrying through history then be honest enough and say so...
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue...
-Maxim of Ali
Thanks for the response. That does seem logical to support your argument. However, using this logic you can refer to other verses which refer to Allah and the Messenger in a single command.
For example, in 9:63, it does not refer to obedience but rather opposition to them. "Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, is the Fire of Hell?- wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace." Using your rationale the verses which refer to obedience to Allah and His Messenger should have only been referred to Allah only to remind us that He is above all else. However, we know that "He who obeys the Apostle, obeys God.."(4:80)
But even if we say this, my question still remains...that is, what is there to dispute with? I'm not targeting you specifically for the response.
Looking at the verse again, it can either mean you can dispute who the ulil-amr are, or what they say, otherwise the verse would have stopped at "Obey Allah Obey the Apostle and Those vested with authority".
But again, as I said before, why would Allah mention to obey them at all if we were to dispute against them? That's a contradiction in itself if you think about it...why would Allah tell us to refer to sources which we will dispute with? He could have just said Obey Allah, Obey the Apostle period. Thus, I stand with the interpretation that obedience to the Ulil Amr is just as mandatory as obedience to the Prophet and there is nothing conditional about that command.
If you read what kandani said earlier that because the Prophet was present during that time, the mention to refer disputes to the Ulil Amr was not necessary..but after the Prophet, it is indeed the Ulil Amr to whom we can refer our disputes to.
"...A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue..."-Maxim of Ali
That exactly is our opinion about you, judging by your wayward arguments with some of the best contributors in this forum...I find that your tongue is dialecting perpetually like that of a Hypocrite who has no idea whatsoever about the institution of Olil Amr because the ones they followed, have gone on vacation with their virgin pearls and you are now waving your flags at all and sundry in sheer frustration....can anyone argue effectively using flawed documents or narrations? so now who is a fool?
Now you cannot compare wasps versus caterpillars...nor can you make sweeping generalizations lumping them all together...that would be foolishness but then I suppose all "good' muslims are just that ! otherwise why would Islam be in turbulent waters? it is because of people like you whose texts are faulty and judgment impaired due to eating too much goats and chickens.
The Imam is the successor of the Prophet and the Vicar of God on earth. Obedience to him is obligatory.
STARTLING CONFESSIONS
November 29th, 2007
STARTLING CONFESSIONS
Let us examine the personal confessions of some of the most ancient and foremost “Imams” (’Canonical’ authorities) who narrated History, Hadith (Prophetic sayings and traditions), laid down Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) and did Tafseer (explanation) of the Quran.
IMAM RAZI’S HORRIBLE CONFESSION:
Most Muslims have heard of one of the most ancient and famous Tafseer-e-Kabeer (The Great Exposition of the Quran) by Imam Fakhruddin Razi.
This Tafseer is one of the tops being followed by our Mullahs till this day.
After writing his 300 volumes, ‘the great and authoritative’ Imam confesses: “All my intellectual and supposedly logical statements in the explanation of the Quran turned out to be lame.
All the explanations of the Quran done by the so-called Imams (Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibne Kathir, Bukhari, Muslim etc) are misguided and misleading. All of us were the tools of Satan. Our souls were polluted by our physical desires. All our endeavors and works of this world promise to bring upon us nothing but eternal humiliation, torture and doom.”
Hadith-Ul-Quran by Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi, 1954 edition, Pg 190.
IMAM TABARI’S STRANGE CONFESSION:
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.” So, Tabari wrote nothing but hearsay. Mazhabi Dastanain Aur Un Ki Haqeeqat by Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalwi, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi
Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) popularly called “The Mother of All Histories” is the first ever “History of Islam” written by ‘Imam’ Tabari (839-923 CE) at the junction of the third and fourth century AH. He died in 310 AH, three centuries after the exalted Prophet. What were his sources? Not a scrap of paper! “He told me this who heard it from him who heard it from her and she heard it from so and so,” and so on.
By compiling his 13 Volume History and his 30 Volume Exposition of the Quran under royal patronage, Tabari became the Super Imam. The later historians until this day have persisted in following the trails of the Super Imam. Imam Zahri Wa Imam Tabari, Tasweer Ka Doosra Rukh by Muhaddith-ul-‘Asr Jaame’-ul-‘Uloom Hazrat Allama Tamanna Imadi Phulwari, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi
IMAM IBN KATHIR’S CONFESSION: “Had Ibn Jareer Tabari not recorded the strange reports, I would never have done so.” Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Khilaafat-e-Mu’awiya-o-Yazeed, Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi
IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL’S CHASTISEMENT: The sincere Islamic scholar of the 20th century, Allama Shibli Na’mani, on page 27 Vol 1 of his Seeratun Nabi has given a startling quote of the ancient Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH), “Three kinds of books are absolutely unfounded, Maghazi, Malahem and Tafseer.” (The Prophet’s Battles, Dreams & Prophecies and Expositions of the Quran.)
HISTORIAN IBN KHALDOON’S THRASHING: “The Muslim historians have made a mockery of history by filling it with fabrications and senseless lies.”
Muqaddama Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon. [Ibn Khaldoon then himself makes a mockery of history. Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal points out that there is nothing worth reading in his book but the preface, Muqaddama. Dr. Shabbir respectfully agrees.]
SHAH ABDUL AZIZ’S CRITIQUE: “Several pages of Ibn Khaldoon’s History have been deliberately removed since the earliest times. These pages had questioned the most critical juncture of Islamic history, that is, the Emirate of Yazeed and the Fiction of Karbala. Even the modern editions admit in the side-notes and foot-notes that those pages have been mysteriously missing from the ancient original book.” Khilaafat-e-Mu’awiya-o-Yazeed, by Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi
SHAH WALIULLAH’S CHASTISEMENT: “Imam Jalaluddin Sayyuti’s Tarikh-ul-Khulafa is the prime example of how our Historians, Muhaddithin and Mufassirin, each have played like Haatib-il-Lail (The man who collects firewood at night not knowing which piece is good and which one is bad).” Hujjatullah-il-Baalighah
IMAM RAGHIB’S PROTEST: Tabari, Waqidi, Mas’oodi, Sayyuti wrote any reports they heard from anyone. Moreover, figures such as Abu Mukhnif, Lut bin Yahya and Muhammad bin Saaeb Kalbi never existed. The civil wars within Islam during the times of Hazraat Ali, Mu’awiya and Yazeed have been made up under these fictitious names (Mukhnif, Lut $ Kalbi). These names have been concocted and the narratives in their names have all been invented by one man, the Zoroastrian “Imam” Tabari bin Rustam (not Tabari bin Yazeed). Think and reflect: If civil wars of such intensity were taking place within early Islam, how could Muslims continue to expand their benevolent rule in nearly half the known world of the time? Ajaaib-it-Tareekh by Yaqoot Hamdi.
So first offer your comments on this extra ordinary confessions !
znanwalla wrote:"...A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue..."-Maxim of Ali
That exactly is our opinion about you, judging by your wayward arguments with some of the best contributors in this forum...I find that your tongue is dialecting perpetually like that of a Hypocrite who has no idea whatsoever about the institution of Olil Amr because the ones they followed, have gone on vacation with their virgin pearls and you are now waving your flags at all and sundry in sheer frustration....can anyone argue effectively using flawed documents or narrations? so now who is a fool?
Now you cannot compare wasps versus caterpillars...nor can you make sweeping generalizations lumping them all together...that would be foolishness but then I suppose all "good' muslims are just that ! otherwise why would Islam be in turbulent waters? it is because of people like you whose texts are faulty and judgment impaired due to eating too much goats and chickens.
The Imam is the successor of the Prophet and the Vicar of God on earth. Obedience to him is obligatory.
STARTLING CONFESSIONS
November 29th, 2007
STARTLING CONFESSIONS
Let us examine the personal confessions of some of the most ancient and foremost “Imams” (’Canonical’ authorities) who narrated History, Hadith (Prophetic sayings and traditions), laid down Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) and did Tafseer (explanation) of the Quran.
IMAM RAZI’S HORRIBLE CONFESSION:
Most Muslims have heard of one of the most ancient and famous Tafseer-e-Kabeer (The Great Exposition of the Quran) by Imam Fakhruddin Razi.
This Tafseer is one of the tops being followed by our Mullahs till this day.
After writing his 300 volumes, ‘the great and authoritative’ Imam confesses: “All my intellectual and supposedly logical statements in the explanation of the Quran turned out to be lame.
All the explanations of the Quran done by the so-called Imams (Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibne Kathir, Bukhari, Muslim etc) are misguided and misleading. All of us were the tools of Satan. Our souls were polluted by our physical desires. All our endeavors and works of this world promise to bring upon us nothing but eternal humiliation, torture and doom.”
Hadith-Ul-Quran by Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi, 1954 edition, Pg 190.
IMAM TABARI’S STRANGE CONFESSION:
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.” So, Tabari wrote nothing but hearsay. Mazhabi Dastanain Aur Un Ki Haqeeqat by Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalwi, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi
Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) popularly called “The Mother of All Histories” is the first ever “History of Islam” written by ‘Imam’ Tabari (839-923 CE) at the junction of the third and fourth century AH. He died in 310 AH, three centuries after the exalted Prophet. What were his sources? Not a scrap of paper! “He told me this who heard it from him who heard it from her and she heard it from so and so,” and so on.
By compiling his 13 Volume History and his 30 Volume Exposition of the Quran under royal patronage, Tabari became the Super Imam. The later historians until this day have persisted in following the trails of the Super Imam. Imam Zahri Wa Imam Tabari, Tasweer Ka Doosra Rukh by Muhaddith-ul-‘Asr Jaame’-ul-‘Uloom Hazrat Allama Tamanna Imadi Phulwari, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi
IMAM IBN KATHIR’S CONFESSION: “Had Ibn Jareer Tabari not recorded the strange reports, I would never have done so.” Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Khilaafat-e-Mu’awiya-o-Yazeed, Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi
IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL’S CHASTISEMENT: The sincere Islamic scholar of the 20th century, Allama Shibli Na’mani, on page 27 Vol 1 of his Seeratun Nabi has given a startling quote of the ancient Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH), “Three kinds of books are absolutely unfounded, Maghazi, Malahem and Tafseer.” (The Prophet’s Battles, Dreams & Prophecies and Expositions of the Quran.)
HISTORIAN IBN KHALDOON’S THRASHING: “The Muslim historians have made a mockery of history by filling it with fabrications and senseless lies.”
Muqaddama Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon. [Ibn Khaldoon then himself makes a mockery of history. Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal points out that there is nothing worth reading in his book but the preface, Muqaddama. Dr. Shabbir respectfully agrees.]
SHAH ABDUL AZIZ’S CRITIQUE: “Several pages of Ibn Khaldoon’s History have been deliberately removed since the earliest times. These pages had questioned the most critical juncture of Islamic history, that is, the Emirate of Yazeed and the Fiction of Karbala. Even the modern editions admit in the side-notes and foot-notes that those pages have been mysteriously missing from the ancient original book.” Khilaafat-e-Mu’awiya-o-Yazeed, by Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi
SHAH WALIULLAH’S CHASTISEMENT: “Imam Jalaluddin Sayyuti’s Tarikh-ul-Khulafa is the prime example of how our Historians, Muhaddithin and Mufassirin, each have played like Haatib-il-Lail (The man who collects firewood at night not knowing which piece is good and which one is bad).” Hujjatullah-il-Baalighah
IMAM RAGHIB’S PROTEST: Tabari, Waqidi, Mas’oodi, Sayyuti wrote any reports they heard from anyone. Moreover, figures such as Abu Mukhnif, Lut bin Yahya and Muhammad bin Saaeb Kalbi never existed. The civil wars within Islam during the times of Hazraat Ali, Mu’awiya and Yazeed have been made up under these fictitious names (Mukhnif, Lut $ Kalbi). These names have been concocted and the narratives in their names have all been invented by one man, the Zoroastrian “Imam” Tabari bin Rustam (not Tabari bin Yazeed). Think and reflect: If civil wars of such intensity were taking place within early Islam, how could Muslims continue to expand their benevolent rule in nearly half the known world of the time? Ajaaib-it-Tareekh by Yaqoot Hamdi.
So first offer your comments on this extra ordinary confessions !
I never have any clue what you are talking about, and if I do, I have no clue how what you say has anything to do with what anyone is talking about.
Thanks for the response. That does seem logical to support your argument. However, using this logic you can refer to other verses which refer to Allah and the Messenger in a single command.
For example, in 9:63, it does not refer to obedience but rather opposition to them. "Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, is the Fire of Hell?- wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace." Using your rationale the verses which refer to obedience to Allah and His Messenger should have only been referred to Allah only to remind us that He is above all else. However, we know that "He who obeys the Apostle, obeys God.."(4:80)
But even if we say this, my question still remains...that is, what is there to dispute with? I'm not targeting you specifically for the response.
Looking at the verse again, it can either mean you can dispute who the ulil-amr are, or what they say, otherwise the verse would have stopped at "Obey Allah Obey the Apostle and Those vested with authority".
But again, as I said before, why would Allah mention to obey them at all if we were to dispute against them? That's a contradiction in itself if you think about it...why would Allah tell us to refer to sources which we will dispute with? He could have just said Obey Allah, Obey the Apostle period. Thus, I stand with the interpretation that obedience to the Ulil Amr is just as mandatory as obedience to the Prophet and there is nothing conditional about that command.
If you read what kandani said earlier that because the Prophet was present during that time, the mention to refer disputes to the Ulil Amr was not necessary..but after the Prophet, it is indeed the Ulil Amr to whom we can refer our disputes to.
If you read 4:59 is it not a conditional sentence?
"...Obey Allah Obey the Messenger and those vested with authority amongst you. And if ye dispute in any matter, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger..."
This is similar to the conditional sentence being used in 31:14-15
14. And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal.15. "But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."
Are you saying that the above is not conditional as well?
Finally, I want to ask, what is there to dispute with in 4:59?
arshad1988 wrote:
Finally, I want to ask, what is there to dispute with in 4:59?
Aarif,
As for Shias in general (and Ismailis in particular), there is nothing to dispute in this verse. You are commanded (required) to Obey, period. Your understanding of this verse is obvioiusly influenced by those who do not consider the Ahle-Bayt as the rightful leaders and successors of the Prophet even though it is proven from Quran itself that the Ahle-Bayt was purified of all impurities so they could receive the "knowledge" and made infallible in the sense that they would never do wrong let alone going against the commands of Allah. So for us the need to dispute with the Ahle-Bayt is unthinkable. You yourself said that you follow the teachings of the Ahle Bayt, may I ask once again how you follow their teachings? And on which of their teachings you have disputed and not followed? And who do you consider as YOUR ulil-amr?
For one to be able to dispute with Ulil-Amr, one must find the Ulil-Amr in contempt. And if your yardstick is the Quran then you already know and understand the Quran. This puts you over and above the Ulil-Amr in your understanding of Quran by which you are able to judge if the Ulil-Amr has actually disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. In this case there is no need for the Ulil-Amr to be put in the office, especially for you.
The Ulil-Amr you want to dispute with are your secular leaders with whom you are at liberty to either agree or disagree. In all matters the knowledge was transferred from the Prophet to Ali, the Ulil-Amr after the Prophet, and therefore their decisions and guidance will always be in light of Quran according to their times. And since the knowledge was not bestowed upon us by the Prophet we have no other choice but to follow those who were given this knowledge and charged with authority. They have the Prophet’s authority. “Obey Allah (the AUTHORITY), and Obey the Apostle (the authorized) and those charged with AUTHORITY (the authorized)…. “ The emphasis is on "obeying" the authority and the authorized. What is this “authority” that Allah is talking about? And who is authorized? In Quran Allah says that if Allah and His Apostle have decided upon a matter then the momin men and momina women have no say over those affairs whatsoever. So when Allah and His Apostle have appointed the Ulil-Amr, how do you dispute with them in light of the above? That would put you out of the fold of Islam, wouldn’t it?
The verse you quoted about obedience to parents does not help you in this argument. Totally out of context here, again!
I would like to see the tafsirs of scholars who have said that it is allowed to dispute with the “Ulil-Amr” in context of this verse and also what is their definition of “Ulil-Amr”.
For example, in 9:63, it does not refer to obedience but rather opposition to them. "Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, is the Fire of Hell?- wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace."
Either my mind is not working right today or you are totally off track here. Here is what I found in Maududi's transliteration.
[9:62] They swear by Allah to please you, while it is Allah and His Messenger whose pleasure they should seek if they truly believe.
[9:63] Are they not aware that Hell Fire awaits whosoever opposes Allah and His Messenger, and in it he shall abide? That surely is the great humiliation.
[9:64] The hypocrites are afraid lest a surah should be revealed concerning them intimating to the believers what lay hidden in their hearts.72 Tell them (O Prophet): "Continue your mockery if you will. Allah will surely bring to light all that whose disclosure you dread."
*72 The hypocrites were afraid that their secret plans would be disclosed in the Qur'an to their great discomfiture. Though they did not believe that the Holy Prophet was a Messenger of Allah, they were convinced from their experience of the last nine years or so that he possessed some supernatural powers by which he learnt their hidden secrets, and revealed these through the Qur'an (which according to them was written by himself).
pardesi wrote:
As for Shias in general (and Ismailis in particular), there is nothing to dispute in this verse. You are commanded (required) to Obey, period. Your understanding of this verse is obvioiusly influenced by those who do not consider the Ahle-Bayt as the rightful leaders and successors of the Prophet even though it is proven from Quran itself that the Ahle-Bayt was purified of all impurities so they could receive the "knowledge" and made infallible in the sense that they would never do wrong let alone going against the commands of Allah. So for us the need to dispute with the Ahle-Bayt is unthinkable...
The verse you quoted about obedience to parents does not help you in this argument. Totally out of context here, again!
...Either my mind is not working right today or you are totally off track here...Opposition? Opposition against who? The Ulil-Amr?
4:59. Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo ateeAAoo Allaha waateeAAoo alrrasoola waolee al-amri minkum fa-in tanazaAAtum fee shay-in faruddoohu ila Allahi waalrrasooli in kuntum tu/minoona biAllahi waalyawmi al-akhiri thalika khayrun waahsanu ta/weelan
4:59. O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.
The word "fa" as bolded above is a conjucntion as you probably already know. The function of a conjunction is to link one part of a sentence to the other.
What is there to link?
1)Obey Allah obey the Messenger and those vested with authority
with
2)ye dispute with any matter refer it back to Allah the Messenger
"fa" joins the two.
The use of "fa" necessarily means it had to do with what was immediately just said. So then what is there to dispute with if Allah says to refer it back to Himself and the Prophet if any dispute arises? I'm not sure if you answered this in your last post, but are you saying that ulil-amr include both religious and secular leaders?
As for the other part of my reply, I was just trying to illustrate something, it had nothing to do with the content, but illustrating the same logic rizwan had used. No point in trying to explain that all over.
Is this a common belief of majority of Ummah or merely your own conclusion? We are going in circles around 4:59. Show me the consensus of your ulema that Ulil Amr can be disputed. Please use the tafsir literature but before you do that please give me the definition of Ulil-Amr?
I also asked if you have a dispute with the Ulil-Amr how would you refer it to Allah and His Apostle? If you read my previous posts thoroughly I did try to answer your questions but you have either disregarded them or simply overlooked them.
You asked:
"... are you saying that ulil-amr include both religious and secular leaders?"
Depends upon how you approach this question. For Ismailis there is only One. Although in Ismaili tariqa Ulil-Amr's responsibility is to guide you to the right path which you or the outsiders have no idea about, he does guide us in secular matters with a system of institutions in place. We are free to avail those facilities if we feel we could benefit from them. We are not forced to however. He asks us to be loyal to the country we live in, live ethically, honestly and generously, be kind to the less fortunate, be good and helpful to neighbors and be productive among other things. In religious matters, he is the absolute authority and those who question this authority are free to find guidance elsewhere.
Verse 43, Sura 13
"And those who disbelieve say 'you are not a Messenger' say to them, 'sufficient is Allah as the witness between me and you, and so is he who possesses knowledge of the Book."
According to commentators, the phrase "whosoever has the knowledge of the Book" alludes to Hadrat Ali.
If you look at the history, there have been times when the Ulil Amr has held both offices, secular and religious. Starting with Hz. Ali and also during the times of the Fatimids. In today's times the Ulil-Amr (Imam) does not have rulership over masses but for the followers he is Supreme in both matters.
If you tell us who is your Ulil Amr it will really help us understand where you are coming from. In your opinion do you think Ulil-Amr includes both secular and religious leader(s)? If yes, who and how and if not then again who and how?
If Imam Ali was the Olil Amr as per the Prophet then for the
Sh'ias there can be no doubt who the Olil Amr is? Now I am not
sure what the orphans would do? it is not my business, so to speak !
Ali vs. truth (right path):
===========================
In some versions of the Tradition of Ghadir Khum there is an extra sentence that is he (Prophet) (PBUH&HF) said:
Wa dara al-haqq maahu haithu dar, literally: And the truth (the
right path) turns with him (i.e. Ali) wherever way he turns.
Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, under the
commentary of al-Bismilah
Similarly in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, it is narrated that:
The Messenger of God said: O God, have Thy Mercy on Ali. O God,
make the right and the truth with Ali in all situations.
Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p297
In Arabic, linguistically, the wording (balagha) could play tricks on the
listener. Logically, truth is absolute and not variable. A person, relative
to the truth, could be variable in action.
In this case, the person (i.e. Imam Ali) is placed as the absolute fixed
axes around which the event is taking place; such that, if anything changes in the person's decision, the event is the thing that will change its track - truth in this case!!!
Since, such change is not logically reasonable
due to the absolute nature of truth, then one can conclude that the two are
married and are inseparable. Hence, Ali (AS) stands for truth at all
times.
Thus the saying of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) is a metaphoric way to stress
Alis importance and attachment to the truth (right path) such that
Ali (AS) and the right path are indistinguishable.
Whereas, if we put in the reverse order (i.e. Ali turns with truth) it
would leave room, theoretically, for Ali to make other possible turns, by
virtue of Ali being the moving object. This would sound weaker, and would
imply the nature of a non-infallible person.
Allah's order to Prophet for announcement of appointment of Ali, [5:3] which was about completeness of religion makes him and his pure descendants the Olil Amr !
And so many today are following the fallible persons despite knowing that they should not !
===============================================
The chains (asnad) of narrations of Ghadir Khum
===============================================
The importance of the tradition of Ghadir Khum in history is reflected in
its widespread documentation and mentioned by the multitude of
personalities over the centuries.
Although, some trivialized, only listed
the occurrence among the historical events without giving it a thought, or
discussed the matter in a mixture of emotional judgments, none could deny the authenticity of these narrations.
The essence of what the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) delivered on the day of Ghadir was not disputed among any, even if they disagreed on its interpretation, for reasons obvious to the alert.
Let us look at the lists of some of the Sunni traditions, commentators, and
historians who have documented the tradition of Ghadir Khum in
chronological order:
==============================================================
Sunni Traditionists who mentioned the Tradition of Ghadir Khum
==============================================================
1. Mohammed Ibn Idris al-Shafii (Imam al-Shafii, d. 204) per
al-Nihayah by Ibn al-Athir
2. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (Imam al-Hanbali, d. 241), in Masnad and al-Manaqib
3. Ibn Majah (d. 273), in Sunan Ibn Majah
4. al-Tirmidhi (d. 279), in Sahih al-Tirmidhi
5. al-Nisai (d. 303), in al-Khasais
6. Abu-Yala al-Mousilli (d. 307), in al-Masnad
7. al-Baghawi (d. 317), in al-Sunan
8. al-Doolabi (d. 320), in al-Kuna wal Asmaa
9. al-Tahawi (d. 321), in Mushkil al-Athar
10. al-Hakim (d. 405), in al-Mustadrak
11. Ibn al-Maghazili al-Shafii (d. 483), in al-Manaqib
12. Muhammad al-Ghazzali (d. 505), in Sirrul `Alamayn
13. Ibn Mindah al-Asbahani (d. 512), in his book
14. al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi (d. 568), in al-Manaqib and Maqtal al-Imam
al-Sibt
15. Abul Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597), in Manaqib
16. al-Ganji al-Shafii (d. 658), in Kifayat al-Talib
17. Muhib al-Din al-Tabari (d. 694), in al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah and
Dhakhair al-Aqabi
18. al-Hamawainy (d. 722), in Faraid al-Samdtin
19. al-Dhahabi (d. 748), in al-Talkhis
20. al-Khatib al-Tabrizi (d. 8th century), in Mishkat al-Masabih
21. al-Haythami (d. 807), in Majma al-Zawaid
22. al-Jazri (d. 830), in Asna al-Matalib
23. Abul Abbas al-Qastalani (d. 923), in al-Mawahib al-Ladaniya
24. al-Muttaqi al-Hindi (d. 975), in Kanz al-Ummal
25. Abdul Haqq al-Dihlawi, in Sharh al-Mishkat
26. al-Hurawi al-Qari (d. 1014), in al-Muraqat fi Sharh al-Mishkat
27. Taj al-Din al-Manawi (d. 1031), in Kunooz al-Haqaiq fi Hadith
Khair al-Khalaiq and Faidh al-Qadir
28. al-Shaikhani al-Qadiri, in al-Siratul Sawi fi Manaqib Aal al-Nabi
29. Ba Kathir al-Makki (d. 1047), in Wasilatul Amal fi Manaqib al-Aal
30. Abu-Abdullah al-Zarqani al-Maliki (d. 1122), in Sharh al-Mawahib
31. Ibn Hamzah al-Dimashqi al-Hanafi, in al-Bayan wal Taarif
and many others.
=====================================================
Sunni Commentators of Quran who mentioned Ghadir Khum
=====================================================
The following Sunni commentators mentioned that one or some or all of
the mentioned verses of Quran (such as [5:67] which was about the Allah's order to Prophet for announcement of appointment of Ali, [5:3] which was about completeness of religion, and [70:1] which was about the curse of a person who became angry at the Prophet for this announcement) were reported to have been revealed in the event of Ghadir Khum:
1. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310), in Tafsir al-Bayan
2. al-Jassas (d. 370), in Ahkam al-Quran
3. al-Hafiz Abu Nuaym (d. 430), in Asbab al-Nuzool
4. al-Thalabi (d. 427 or 437), in Tafsir al-Thalabi
5. al-Wahidi (d. 468), in Asbab al-Nuzool
6. al-Qurtubi (d. 568), in Tafsir Jamiul Hukam al-Quran
7. al-Fakhr al-Razi (d. 606), in al-Tafsir al-Kabir
8. al-Khazin Baghdadi (d. 741), in Tafsir al-Khazin
9. al-Nisaboori (8th century), in Tafsir al-Nisaboori
10. Ibn Kathir (d. 774), in his Tafsir (complete version) under the verse
5:3 (It is ommitted in coincise version!) narrated from Ibn Mardawayh.
11. al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti (d. 910), in his Tafsir
12. al-Khatib al-Sharbini, in his Tafsir
13. Abu al-Saud al-Hanafi (d. 972), in his Tafsir
14. al-Aloosi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270), in his Tafsir
and many others.
===========================================================
Sunni Historians who mentioned the Tradition of Ghadir Khum
===========================================================
1. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276), in Maarif and Imamah wal Siyasah
2. al-Baladhuri (d. 279), in Ansab al-ashraf
3. Ibn Zawlaq al-Laithi al-Misri (d. 287), in his book
4. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310), in an exclussive book Kitabul Wilayah
5. al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463), in Tarikh Baghdad
6. Ibn Abd al-Bar (d. 463), in al-Istiab
7. al-Shahristani (d. 548), in al-Milal wal Nihal
8. Ibn Asakir (d. 571), in Tarikh Ibn Asakir and Yaqoot al-Hamawi
9. Ibn al-Athir (d. 630), in Usd al-Ghabah
10. Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654), in Tadhkirat Khawas al-Ummah
11. Ibn Abi al-Hadid (d. 656), in Sharh Nahjul Balagha
12. Ibn Khalkan (d. 681), in Tarikh Ibn Khalkan
13. Abul Fida (d. 732), in his Tarikh
14. al-Dhahabi (d. 748) , in Tadhkirat al-Huffadh
15. al-Yafii (d. 768), in Miraat al-Jinan
16. Ibn al-Shaikh al-Balawi, in Alef Baa
17. Ibn Kathir (d. 774), in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah
18. Ibn Khaldoon (d. 808), in al-Muqaddimah
19. al-Nuwairi (d. ~833), in Nihayat al-Irab fi Finoon al-Adab
20. al-Maqrizi (d.
Please note the "Fa" is a conditional conjunction and it is not the same as the "Wa" ("and").
I now want to take you through my logic in understanding the verse.
"O ye who believe. Obey Allah Obey the Messenger and those vested with authority amongst you. And if ye dispute in any matter, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger..."
1. The verse is addressed to the mu'mins or the believers (Ye who believe).
2. The mu'mins are commanded to obey God, obey the Messenger and the Ulu'l-Amr.
3. One command is used to order obedience to the Prophet and the Ulu'l-Amr. Therefore the level and nature of their authority is the same.
4. The Ulu'l-Amr are said to be "among you" (min kum) which means the Ulu'l-Amr are in the presence or midst of the mu'mins.
5. "If you differ/dispute in any thing": this refers to the mu'mins disputing anything among themselves. It does not say "if you dispute a matter with the Ulu'l-Amr."
6. Disputing a matter with the Ulu'l-Amr is illogical because if one has been told to obey the Ulu'l-Amr there can be no question of disputing their decisions. So if the Ulu;l-Amr rule one way and the mu'min does not agree, the mu'min must still obey the Ulu'l-Amr based on the first part of the verse.
7. You say that the Ulu'l-Amr's commands must be judged against the Qur'an. The one who performs this judgment of the Ulu'l-Amr can only be a person whose knowledge and authority supercedes that of the Ulu'l-amr. But Allah has not given this rank to any of the mu'mins - so nobody has the right or mandate to "test" the Ulu'l-Amr's commands against the Quran and conclude about it.
8. The following verses in the same chapter tells us to refer disputes to the Messenger and the Ulu'l-amr. Therefore this backs up my interpretation of 4:59 that one cannot dispute the Ulu'l-Amr.
Arshad, I leave you with the following questions:
a. The Qur'an speaks of the Ulu'l-Amr. Who are they?
b. Who chooses the Ulu'l-Amr?
c. Who are the Ulu'l-Amr today (the verse says "among you") which means the Ulu'l-Amr must be present at all times or the verse is false.
Is this a common belief of majority of Ummah or merely your own conclusion? We are going in circles around 4:59. Show me the consensus of your ulema that Ulil Amr can be disputed. Please use the tafsir literature but before you do that please give me the definition of Ulil-Amr?
This is solely my conclusion, I did not refer to any ulema, only Qur'an based on the above logic. My definition of ulil-amr is exactly what I have been referring to, ie 'those vested with authority'
Please note the "Fa" is a conditional conjunction and it is not the same as the "Wa" ("and").
What do you mean by 'conditional conjunction'? Also, please show me where else in the Qur'an this 'conditional conjunction' has occurred with 'fa.'
kandani wrote:
5. "If you differ/dispute in any thing": this refers to the mu'mins disputing anything among themselves. It does not say "if you dispute a matter with the Ulu'l-Amr."
Before, you tell me I am inserting verses when I quoted Yusuf Ali's translation, saying I inserted "among yourselves," when clearly this is the interpretation you take on...
Now, you say that disputing with Ulil-amr is illogical because one has been told to obey them and there can be no question of disputing their decisions. Then why did Allah not say in the same verse where He talks about disputing 'among yourselves' to refer it also to the Ulil-amr? There is some ambiguity in interpreting this, one could go either way.
The ulil-amr is plural, hence the verse 4:83 you speak of, are in my opinion ulil-amr which are in conjunction with Allah and His Messenger.
We could go on and on about this, dragging it on, but in the end there is not point as you interpret it differently than I do. Pardesi is right, we have been going on in circles with this verse...
Then who are WE/US/OURS ? Who are those upon whom Allah has bestowed HIS favours? and who are the Sirat?
The Holy Prophet said:
"My Ahl ul Bayt are like the ark of Nuh. Whosoever sails on it is safe, and whosoever holds back shall perish."
Nubuwwah and imamah, jointly or separately, are the most perfect guidance unto the light of Allah.
If the Almighty has not left the organs of man's body without the guidance of the mind, how is it possible that Almighty God could leave millions of His creatures without an IMAM to guide and solve their problems arising out of doubts and conflicts? Should not our common sense accept this fact?
but then I suppose common sense isn't so common amongst the "good' muslims !
There should be an entity whose cognitive self becomes the focus of light. Such entities have been pointed out clearly in Ahzab: 33 and Ali Imran: 61 as the first and the foremost in receiving the light of existence in the arc of descent and the-last in the arc of ascent.
In the realm of creation they are the best entities or "points" in which the light of creation manifested itself originally. In the realm of legislation and guidance too they are the best models.
Then who are WE/US/OURS ? Who are those upon whom Allah has bestowed HIS favours? and who are the Sirat?
Go ask any Arabic-speaking individual, irrespective of what religion they belong to, what they interpret when they understand from the Arabic when they hear "We/Us/Ours", it has nothing to do with plurality of individuals.
On the other hand, you contradict your own self, as in another thread you refer to the Imam as Allah Himself, so then how can there be any other Being Allah is referring to besides Himself when you quote "We/Us/Ours"
Those who created their own texts and called it the quran will never have the courage to give the correct interpretation.....the argument that God is giving himself respect is senseless because when God refers to Himself as just "I" is He then disrespecting Himself....does God have to use We/US/OURS to give Himself respect? what nonsense ?
You haven't answered the question who are the ones on whom Allah bestowed HIS favours? who are these men? and why did Allah bestow favours on them? and why is Allah commanded us all to pray that HE guies us to "their" path ? why are you unable to explain or answer?
Hakim Nishaburi in "Al-Mustadrak", 149/3 and Ibn Hajar in "Sawaiq", 140 have related Ibn `Abbas as quoting the Prophet (s) as saying:
"The stars are the source of the earth and the members of my Household are the source of the "ummah" (people)."
Another tradition refers to the same: "The stars are the refuge for the dwellers of the heavens and my "ahl al-bayt" are the refuge for the "ummah" ("Kanz al-A'mal fi Sunan al-Aqwal wal-Af`al" 116/6).
Another tradition has said: "the stars are the refuge for the dwellers of the skies. So if the stars are destroyed, the dwellers of the skies will also be destroyed. The members of my Household are the refuge for the dwellers of the earth.
If they are destroyed, the dwellers of the earth also be destroyed" (Muhib Tabari in "Zakhair al-`Uqba", 17/1 and `Ali bin Sultan Muhammad Qari in "Mirqat al-Mafatih" 610/5, Egypt, 1339 A.H.).
Would you then not believe your own Prophet? if not then why would you want to even believe that he brought you the quran? that would be hypocrisy !
A man asked a question to Abu Ja'far [al-Baqir], to which he said: No one can claim to have all of the Qur'an, including its manifest aspect and hidden aspects, except the inheritors [the 'awsiya, the Imams]. (As-Saffar al-Qummi Basa'ir 4:193
Al-Baqir said: I do not see anybody in this ummah who has all possession of all of the Qur'an except the inheritors. (As-Saffar al-Qummi Basa'ir 4:193
If Ismaili Islam is truly a bad and hateful religion, miscreants like would not have to go all over the internet and tell everybody how bad and how hateful we are....
So it is clear that they are doing this because Ismaili Islam is a very attractive faith with the Imams of the Ah al Bayt by their side and with them and this is the favour of Allah to them of Sirat ul Mustaqeem ! Al Hamdu !
"...On the other hand, you contradict your own self, as in another thread you refer to the Imam as Allah Himself..."
Please show me exactly what I have said....don't just offer a twisted version of what I have actually said ?
"Guide us to the right path.....the path of those upon whom THOU has bestowed favours...." who are they ? don't try to jump out from answering this question....who are they? who are these WE/US/OURS?
Allah is referring to some men....not to your Texts !
If the traditions of the Prophet are good enough for you, then why is there divergence and differences of opinion in your Namaz or salat alone among the four schools of thought each claiming to be authentic in its own right?
Also show me where in the Quran Allah talks of "Namaz"?
Namaz is a persian tradition or ritual ! Allah mentions Salat and "keep up the prayer"? so whose tradition do you follow? Prophet's ? or the persians and the Zorastrians ?
The four schools of thought (i.e. Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali and Shafe'i) among the Ahlul Sunnah came into existence well over a century after the death of the Prophet.
The question is, to which school of thought did the Khulafa-e-Rashideen belong? ...can you tell us !
OR Did the mere fact that their election, nomination and selection by a few individuals automatically make them Mujtahids?
If this is the case, then why didn't the other khalifas also become the Mujtahids? and why were they not also called Khulafa e Rashideen?
"The foundation of the Sh'ia belief (including that of the Asnasheris and the Ismailis) is known as "qa'ida yi madhab" and which is
( according to their belief - not the Sunni belief) that since Allah cannot be recognized EXCEPT through their IMAM, the relationship of the IMAM to ALLAH in respect of Guidance is like that between a name and what it names.....
Ordinary people use the same word both for the name and the named !
If the "ahl i urf" can do so why can't others also do the same? what is good for the goose is also good for the gander !
If people call Akbar, as "Akbar" and both his spoken and written name is "Akbar", then why don't you explain to us the reason for this practice ? is it wrong?
Conversely if people call you Akbar when speaking to you and Maherally when writing to you does this mean there are two different entities or beings ? isn't it the same Akbar? show me the duality?
And so if anyone uses the name of Allah as Ali simply because Ali according to them is a guide to Allah, how can anyone make accusations of the type some of you make....how does the rules of philologist or customary practice get breached?
If you can call Allah as Ar Rahman ! Ar - Rahim ! why can't others call him Ali ? and if we or they are wrong then you too are wrong and so is everyone else ! doesn't Allah allow muslims to call HIm by any of HIS beautiful name?
What is the meaning of Ali? "The Most HIGH" ! is Allah the Most High? Yes ! HE is ! so is he "Ali" then? Yes because HE is the Most High - it is HIS attribute !.....so where is the shirk?..."
So give me the answers then smart guy ? what is the context I have used? I have jammed your gears and so the best you could do is twist the truth of what I said !
The Koran says, "Seek help through patience and prayer" (2:45).
It implies that the patience and prayer are the sources to seek the Divine help.
The Koran further says, "Our Lord! Get us out of this town whose inhabitants are tyrants, and appoint for us from You a guardian, and appoint for us from You a helper" (4:75).
Hence, the Ismailis seek the Divine help through the channel of Ali, who is present in the world as an Imam.
The Koran says, "And to God belong the beautiful names, so call on Him by them" (7:180).
In its interpretation, Ali bin Abu Talib said, "I am the beautiful name by which God has commanded people to call on Him."
(Kawkab-i Durri, 3:29).
According to the report of Abul Hamra, it is mentioned in Hilyatul Awliya that the Prophet said,
"When I was carried by night to the heaven, I saw written on the leg of the Throne: I (God) planted the paradise of Eden . Muhammad is the best of My creation. I helped him through Ali" (Ibid. 2:53).
It is further mentioned on the authority of Abu Dhar Ghafari that the Prophet said, "Indeed God has given power to this religion through Ali, and I am from him and about him is revealed in the verse (11:17), "Is he then (like unto him) who has a clear proof from his Lord" (Ibid. 2:145).
In sum, the Shi'ite sects believe that the Divine help can be sought through the agency of the Imamate, which is apparent in the world in the progeny of the Prophet.