1
Discussions / Re: Shi'a Doctrine
« on: June 07, 2013, 02:24:52 PM »
Peace be upon all & Allah's mercy and blessings.
Dear Brothers Joseph, Irfan, Duster.
I reproduce one more article regarding 'Imamate in the Holy Quran" to enable a better understanding of the matter.
Quite a few people are asking for evidences in the Quran for aspects of the Imamate. I thought I'd post this note here :
The belief in angels is mentioned numerous times in the Quran. But do people really care about the angels? Do the scholars spend their time studying what little is known about the angels with the greatest attention? If Allah hadn't kept mentioning them, we might have forgotten about them lol. An exaggeration perhaps, but I think you see the point: the number of times something is mentioned is not equal to how important it is.
How many times minimum does something need to be mentioned in the Quran for it to be absolutely true, important, and something that must be followed? Once. I think I'm correct in saying the only time the Quran talks about how you must fast in the month of Ramadhaan is 2:183-187. Yet it is an important thing. Fasting itself may be mentioned repeatedly, but fasting in the month of Ramadhaan isn't.How many times does Imamate need to be mentioned in the Quran for it to be true, important, and necessary to follow? Once.
They ask you for proof of the Imamate. Then let us turn to the Quran first for proof, before we turn to the ahadeeth (narrations) and tareekh (history):
Translation of the Glorious Quran (by Shakir):
[4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Rasul) and those in authority (Ulil-Amr) from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
The obedience to Rasulullaah ("the Messenger (of God)") is equal to the obedience to Ulil-Amr ("the people of authority") as can be seen by the wording.
"ateeAAoo Allaha waateeAAoo arrasoola waolee al-amri minkum" = "obey the Messenger (Rasul) and those in authority (Ulil-Amr) from among you": Notice how the same "obey" that is used for Rasulullaah is also used for Ulil-Amr. This means that the Ulil-Amr must have the same authority as a leader and commander as the Rasululllaah or they wouldn't have the same level of obedience in this verse.
One of the reasons why we trust Rasulullah and we have to obey him is because his words are not his own; they are the words of God (69:40-47). He receives communications from the Lord Almighty. He is infallible. The same must apply to Ulil-Amr because they must be obeyed without condition. Since the verse equates the obedience to the Prophet to the obedience to the Ulil-Amr, one cannot disobey the Ulil-Amr.
Notice that the verse says "if you quarrel about anything, refer to Allah and the Messenger"; since we cannot disobey the Ulil-Amr, even when we quarrel with Ulil-Amr, they cannot be in the wrong.
So what does the Quran say about quarrelling with them? "refer to Allah and the Messenger". Why? The Ulil-Amr are right, but if a person does not believe in them, he or she refer to Allah and His "postman" - Rasulullaah. Why? Allah and Rasulullaah are the bringers of law and truth. The Ulil-Amr do not have this role. They do not reveal/bring/establish the law and truth. Anyway, since Rasulullaah is equated with Ulil-Amr, disputing with the Ulil-Amr is disputing with Rasulullaah.
But they must be obeyed, just like one obeys Rasulullaah; and they cannot be in the wrong. Thus, they only speak what Allah and Rasulullaah have brought. The Ulil-Amr only say what Allah and Rasulullaah say. This can only be true all the time if Ulil-Amr have all the knowledge of Rasulullaah. Otherwise, if they were asked a question and they were deficient in their knowledge, they would speak from their own opinion, and the verse would no longer be true! What happens if Rasulullaah dies and the Ulil-Amr remain? The Ulil-Amr are still present, and since they only speak what Allah and Ulil-Amr say, they must still be obeyed and followed. Therefore it would be a great wrong to even consider obeying and learning Islam from any other human being when the Ulil-Amr are present! How could we follow any other, regardless of whether they were a sahabi (companion of the Prophet) who was with the Prophet for decades or a scholar who studied for decades, when they, perfect sources, are present?
Look everywhere in the Quran where Allah asks they you to obey; He puts the condition that if they disobey Him, then this is what you do. For example, God tells us to obey our parents; but then He says if they disobey Him, then disobey them. The only obedience in the Quran where Allah does not warn you of disobedience is to Ulil-Amr. This indicates that Allah's opinion of them is that they would never disobey Him; which means they can never go against His commands. By not warning us of any disobedience from them, He is making it clear that they would never be disobedient in the face of the doubt and disbelief (in them) of many.
Why does Allah command us to obey Muhammed, peace and blessings be upon him and his Ahlulbayt? It's because he was chosen as Rasulullaah. Why was he chosen? Because he is the pure and because he is the greatest of men. Obedience to Rasulullah = obedience to Ulil-Amr, so that "waw" ("and") next to the word "Rasulullaah" means that all those qualities apply to Ulil-Amr. Allah has chosen those who are Ulil-Amr for their great qualities and for being the greatest of men.
In one verse, the Ulil-Amr are given nass (designation), authority, isma (infallibility), and ilm (knowledge). Let's give the Ulil-Amr a nickname. How about "Imams"? Oh wait, that sounds suspiciously like the Shia concept of Imamate. Plagiarism perhaps lol? Or maybe the same Author is behind this all.
Do you want Imamate to be clearly written out in clear, simple terms with what the role of Imamate is and the qualities that an Imam will possess? Too bad; it seems the Quran does not work like that. Want an example? Let's look at Salaat. Arguably one of the most important things in the whole religion of Islam. Even though it is mentioned all over the Quran, nowhere do the Majestic Words of the Creator give a passage that acts as a manual to Salaat. Instead in one chapter, we find just one verse that mentions the timings. When it comes to the number of rakaat per Salaat, not even a single verse! In-fact, ar-Rahmaan, subhanahu wa tala, does not give a clear method of how to perform Salaat! But, I thought Salaat was supposed to be important? Of course it is. It's very important. That's why it's mentioned in the Quran, Sunnah, and ahadeeth. Imamate is also a very important concept. It's mentioned a few times in the Quran with different words, such as walaya. But it's mentioned and that's enough.
"I asked Abu 'AbdAllaah (as-Sadiq)about the words of Allaah 'Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .' (4:59) "The Imam said, 'This was sent from the heavens about `Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain ' I then said, 'People say, "Why did He not specify Ali and his family by their names in the Book of Allaah ?' "The Imam said, 'Say to them, "The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah but He has not specified (the number of the Rak'ats) for them as being three or four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah. It did not say walk seven times around the Ka'ba. It was the Messenger of Allah who explained it for them...."
Source: al-Kulayni in his al-Kafi, volume 1, pages 286–288, hadeeth #1
Grading: al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (authentic) in his Mir'aat Al-`Uqool, volume 3, page 213
Some thoughts to conclude
Now before anyone replies saying "Tabatabaa'ee's arguments/commentary are weak/untrue", please think about why they are weak. I've seen quite a few people say this, yet they provided no reason as to why they think this. There are Sunni scholars who have agreed with various aspects of what has been written above. One example is ar-Razi who agreed that 4:59 makes Ulil-Amr infallible; (however he tried to make it out that the Ulil-Amr are the whole Ummah...which for a variety of reasons is a poor explanation. A simple example: the verse says the "those in authority _amongst you_" (ulil-amri minkum). I.e. there are certain people in the Ummah who are so-and-so. Not the whole Ummah. Razi's explanation contradicts the wording of the verse).
On another subject, if anyone were to bring something, such as a set of ahadeeth, which claim that the Ulil-Amr taught or behaved differently to the Prophet then either the Quran is wrong for equating the Prophet and Ulil-Amr in many ways, or this set of ahadeeth is. The answer is obvious. And vice versa. It does not matter how "authentic" a set of ahadeeth may be according to the science of rijaal or a set of scholars; if it contradicts the Quran, it is false. For example, if the Ulil-Amr say you cannot wipe on leather socks, and a set of ahadeeth say that various people said you can, then the latter is false because it has disagreed with the Ulil-Amr.
Allahumma salle alah Muhammedin wa Aale Muhammed.
"All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has guided us to this, never could we have found guidance, were it not that Allah had guided us!" | Quran, 007:043.
This note is mostly based on a lecture delivered by Ammar Nakshawani
Brothers have you all had the pleasure of listening to brother Ammar Nakhshwani and brother Hasanayn Rajabally on youtube. I would request you to hear him and benefit from the same and also grace me with your views and comments.
N.B: They have discussed at length various topics.
With warmest regards brothers,
Towards unity among all of mankind,
Arif ali Vakil
"And the pleasure of Allah (swt) is the greatest bliss."
Dear Brothers Joseph, Irfan, Duster.
I reproduce one more article regarding 'Imamate in the Holy Quran" to enable a better understanding of the matter.
Quite a few people are asking for evidences in the Quran for aspects of the Imamate. I thought I'd post this note here :
The belief in angels is mentioned numerous times in the Quran. But do people really care about the angels? Do the scholars spend their time studying what little is known about the angels with the greatest attention? If Allah hadn't kept mentioning them, we might have forgotten about them lol. An exaggeration perhaps, but I think you see the point: the number of times something is mentioned is not equal to how important it is.
How many times minimum does something need to be mentioned in the Quran for it to be absolutely true, important, and something that must be followed? Once. I think I'm correct in saying the only time the Quran talks about how you must fast in the month of Ramadhaan is 2:183-187. Yet it is an important thing. Fasting itself may be mentioned repeatedly, but fasting in the month of Ramadhaan isn't.How many times does Imamate need to be mentioned in the Quran for it to be true, important, and necessary to follow? Once.
They ask you for proof of the Imamate. Then let us turn to the Quran first for proof, before we turn to the ahadeeth (narrations) and tareekh (history):
Translation of the Glorious Quran (by Shakir):
[4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Rasul) and those in authority (Ulil-Amr) from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
The obedience to Rasulullaah ("the Messenger (of God)") is equal to the obedience to Ulil-Amr ("the people of authority") as can be seen by the wording.
"ateeAAoo Allaha waateeAAoo arrasoola waolee al-amri minkum" = "obey the Messenger (Rasul) and those in authority (Ulil-Amr) from among you": Notice how the same "obey" that is used for Rasulullaah is also used for Ulil-Amr. This means that the Ulil-Amr must have the same authority as a leader and commander as the Rasululllaah or they wouldn't have the same level of obedience in this verse.
One of the reasons why we trust Rasulullah and we have to obey him is because his words are not his own; they are the words of God (69:40-47). He receives communications from the Lord Almighty. He is infallible. The same must apply to Ulil-Amr because they must be obeyed without condition. Since the verse equates the obedience to the Prophet to the obedience to the Ulil-Amr, one cannot disobey the Ulil-Amr.
Notice that the verse says "if you quarrel about anything, refer to Allah and the Messenger"; since we cannot disobey the Ulil-Amr, even when we quarrel with Ulil-Amr, they cannot be in the wrong.
So what does the Quran say about quarrelling with them? "refer to Allah and the Messenger". Why? The Ulil-Amr are right, but if a person does not believe in them, he or she refer to Allah and His "postman" - Rasulullaah. Why? Allah and Rasulullaah are the bringers of law and truth. The Ulil-Amr do not have this role. They do not reveal/bring/establish the law and truth. Anyway, since Rasulullaah is equated with Ulil-Amr, disputing with the Ulil-Amr is disputing with Rasulullaah.
But they must be obeyed, just like one obeys Rasulullaah; and they cannot be in the wrong. Thus, they only speak what Allah and Rasulullaah have brought. The Ulil-Amr only say what Allah and Rasulullaah say. This can only be true all the time if Ulil-Amr have all the knowledge of Rasulullaah. Otherwise, if they were asked a question and they were deficient in their knowledge, they would speak from their own opinion, and the verse would no longer be true! What happens if Rasulullaah dies and the Ulil-Amr remain? The Ulil-Amr are still present, and since they only speak what Allah and Ulil-Amr say, they must still be obeyed and followed. Therefore it would be a great wrong to even consider obeying and learning Islam from any other human being when the Ulil-Amr are present! How could we follow any other, regardless of whether they were a sahabi (companion of the Prophet) who was with the Prophet for decades or a scholar who studied for decades, when they, perfect sources, are present?
Look everywhere in the Quran where Allah asks they you to obey; He puts the condition that if they disobey Him, then this is what you do. For example, God tells us to obey our parents; but then He says if they disobey Him, then disobey them. The only obedience in the Quran where Allah does not warn you of disobedience is to Ulil-Amr. This indicates that Allah's opinion of them is that they would never disobey Him; which means they can never go against His commands. By not warning us of any disobedience from them, He is making it clear that they would never be disobedient in the face of the doubt and disbelief (in them) of many.
Why does Allah command us to obey Muhammed, peace and blessings be upon him and his Ahlulbayt? It's because he was chosen as Rasulullaah. Why was he chosen? Because he is the pure and because he is the greatest of men. Obedience to Rasulullah = obedience to Ulil-Amr, so that "waw" ("and") next to the word "Rasulullaah" means that all those qualities apply to Ulil-Amr. Allah has chosen those who are Ulil-Amr for their great qualities and for being the greatest of men.
In one verse, the Ulil-Amr are given nass (designation), authority, isma (infallibility), and ilm (knowledge). Let's give the Ulil-Amr a nickname. How about "Imams"? Oh wait, that sounds suspiciously like the Shia concept of Imamate. Plagiarism perhaps lol? Or maybe the same Author is behind this all.
Do you want Imamate to be clearly written out in clear, simple terms with what the role of Imamate is and the qualities that an Imam will possess? Too bad; it seems the Quran does not work like that. Want an example? Let's look at Salaat. Arguably one of the most important things in the whole religion of Islam. Even though it is mentioned all over the Quran, nowhere do the Majestic Words of the Creator give a passage that acts as a manual to Salaat. Instead in one chapter, we find just one verse that mentions the timings. When it comes to the number of rakaat per Salaat, not even a single verse! In-fact, ar-Rahmaan, subhanahu wa tala, does not give a clear method of how to perform Salaat! But, I thought Salaat was supposed to be important? Of course it is. It's very important. That's why it's mentioned in the Quran, Sunnah, and ahadeeth. Imamate is also a very important concept. It's mentioned a few times in the Quran with different words, such as walaya. But it's mentioned and that's enough.
"I asked Abu 'AbdAllaah (as-Sadiq)about the words of Allaah 'Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .' (4:59) "The Imam said, 'This was sent from the heavens about `Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain ' I then said, 'People say, "Why did He not specify Ali and his family by their names in the Book of Allaah ?' "The Imam said, 'Say to them, "The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah but He has not specified (the number of the Rak'ats) for them as being three or four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah. It did not say walk seven times around the Ka'ba. It was the Messenger of Allah who explained it for them...."
Source: al-Kulayni in his al-Kafi, volume 1, pages 286–288, hadeeth #1
Grading: al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (authentic) in his Mir'aat Al-`Uqool, volume 3, page 213
Some thoughts to conclude
Now before anyone replies saying "Tabatabaa'ee's arguments/commentary are weak/untrue", please think about why they are weak. I've seen quite a few people say this, yet they provided no reason as to why they think this. There are Sunni scholars who have agreed with various aspects of what has been written above. One example is ar-Razi who agreed that 4:59 makes Ulil-Amr infallible; (however he tried to make it out that the Ulil-Amr are the whole Ummah...which for a variety of reasons is a poor explanation. A simple example: the verse says the "those in authority _amongst you_" (ulil-amri minkum). I.e. there are certain people in the Ummah who are so-and-so. Not the whole Ummah. Razi's explanation contradicts the wording of the verse).
On another subject, if anyone were to bring something, such as a set of ahadeeth, which claim that the Ulil-Amr taught or behaved differently to the Prophet then either the Quran is wrong for equating the Prophet and Ulil-Amr in many ways, or this set of ahadeeth is. The answer is obvious. And vice versa. It does not matter how "authentic" a set of ahadeeth may be according to the science of rijaal or a set of scholars; if it contradicts the Quran, it is false. For example, if the Ulil-Amr say you cannot wipe on leather socks, and a set of ahadeeth say that various people said you can, then the latter is false because it has disagreed with the Ulil-Amr.
Allahumma salle alah Muhammedin wa Aale Muhammed.
"All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has guided us to this, never could we have found guidance, were it not that Allah had guided us!" | Quran, 007:043.
This note is mostly based on a lecture delivered by Ammar Nakshawani
Brothers have you all had the pleasure of listening to brother Ammar Nakhshwani and brother Hasanayn Rajabally on youtube. I would request you to hear him and benefit from the same and also grace me with your views and comments.
N.B: They have discussed at length various topics.
With warmest regards brothers,
Towards unity among all of mankind,
Arif ali Vakil
"And the pleasure of Allah (swt) is the greatest bliss."