Shia & Sunna: Why I don't believe

[WinterHold]

Salam Atlast

I did forget the verse:

"These who are God has cursed, and who God has cursed you will not for them a helper"

To discuss the translation, you translated as "kingdom". That is a valid translation as far the word goes itself. Indeed words have multiple meanings and often mulk in Quran can only be translated to kingdom.

However, I would say the word "Ulil-Amr" as well as the gist of the discussion, shows the proper translation is "the authority" regarding mulk in these sentences. The reason why amr was not used before, is as you know, amr can be translated as "affair"...so this would probably what is translated just like like mulk is translated into kingdom here. So in this way Amr and mulk become interchangeable and are synonyms and are talking about the same subject here.

Aside from that, is that the people saying "there are more guided then those who believe" who were given a portion of the book were obviously not claiming kingdom. They weren't claiming they had kingdom of Kings in the sense they have an army a palace and dominion of a country under them.

They rather were claiming to be authorities regarding guidance. So the gist of the discussion seems to start with this issue of authority. Do people claiming religious authority or given religious authority by their people have authority? This is the gist of the discussion. So Ulil-Amr is revealed in this context.

But aside from that, if you look at the verse after "Or do they envy the people for what God has given them out of his grace? So we gave the family of Abraham the book and wisdom and we gave them a great mulk"...it doesn't make sense that mulk here refers to something else then the topic at hand. And this is verified by the words "Ulil-Amr" which verifies the mulkan atheem is about the great authority they were given.

In this sense the gist of the discussion is not saying do they envy worldly kingdom. This is not the issue. What they were envying, was the divine authority given to certain people out of God's grace.

The talk before showed religious scholars of Bani-Israel were such that they wanted to be listened to and obeyed while they themselves would not properly listen to the truth and obey it. They rather were disobedient, and had they listened and said look upon us, ie. rather then you must listen to us and obey us type mentality, it would of been better. But here it's that they had to listen to the Prophets themselves and obey them, then they can be looked upon for guidance, but not given authority in the sense they must be listened to and obeyed.

And the Prophets were rejected due to the false mantle of leadership these people took and now were continuing to take to refute that Mohammad was a Guide and that his successors were bestowed with the authority.

Aside from that, is the emphasis "of them is who believed in it and of them is who turned away from it..." while worldly kingdom is not really something to believe in or disbelieve in regarding God's guidance, but rather is just something that is what it is. But rather it's the divine authority that the family of Abraham was given that, disbelieving in it was such that it merited hell, because it has clear signs and evidence for it, and reward lied in those who believed in it, and hence followed it.

The context of Ulil-Amr is not about government primarily. That his hinted to be part of the reason they were appointed, to govern disputes between people by justice, but that is not the sole reason.

The verses after show the issue of leading the community against oppressors, against their enemies, protecting them against hypocrites, is part of the reason of their authority and leadership.

But the verses before show it definitely is about primarily the authority of guidance, that which people must follow to be guided.  That is why it emphasizes on the authority of the family of Abraham.

And to refute that scholars have this authority, we see first it was said it's not for them to say "listen to us" (ie. you must obey us) but rather people can look upon them, and take whatever guidance they can from them, which is totally different then claiming people must obey them.

And then it talks about if these people have a share in the authority, but then people can claim, ok these people have no share, but religious scholars from this nation do. However, you see it then emphasizes that such authority is that which was given to the family of Abraham by God's grace. That such is the true authority, that obedience is linked to God truly through the likes of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. That Joseph was a true possessor of the authority.

And this fairly obvious to everyone because they were Prophets. Prophets as the verses after show, were all sent to be obeyed by God's permission.

The gist of the discussion then is about divine authority.  That is the context of the true authority.

Government by the people is important in absence of these people, but I believe Quran shows that democratic anarchy is the true philosophy of authority in absence of those who possess divine authority.

That we aren't going to say this person has authority over us but rather we are trusting you to implement the will of the people and the organization should be grass roots.

However in the case of those who possess the authority and are given the authority, society has to recognize them and submit.

And Atlas, I don't want to insult you, but I feel to be honest, people who don't acknowledge the verses regarding Auli-Mohammad in Quran, are taking the religion as a play thing.

To them this issue is like intellectual masturbation. They want to argue with the verses of God and his way of guidance, rather then submitting to those he who has linked to his rope, and linked to his path.

It's not a game, religion is not a game to be played with. Any ways, I will see your response to this, but if you don't bring anything new, I will move to other verses about the family of Mohammad like the wage verses.

Mystic, the longer your comment gets, the more your point gets lost. You wouldn't need all this explanation if the "point" was so obvious.
Don't get me wrong; gymnastics give your body lots of flexibility, they can also get you into the Olympic games. 

You are still jumping around the main question I asked you : Where the hell is "Ali & the family of Mohammed in these verses"?
You're either joking, playing blind, ignoring my question (which is very insulting if you ask me), or...IDK.

And please don't do these cheap table flipping tactics with me:

It's not a game, religion is not a game to be played with. Any ways, I will see your response to this, but if you don't bring anything new, I will move to other verses about the family of Mohammad like the wage verses.

Please tell this to yourself; I'm actually bored of you dodging the question I've been asking for about...two pages now?

Again Mystic: where the hell is the mention of the family of Mohammed?
Where are the 12 Imam's names, that you order me and the rest of humanity to obey??

Don't expect to get taken seriously when the information you claim DON'T EXIST.
Fine, I can understand an atheist not believing in the Quran, a Muslim not believing in Judaism, a Hindu not believing in Buddhism, but for a person, to try to enforce an information that doesn't exist in the holy book he claims it exists in on all of humanity? Mindblowing, right?

IDK..please don't dodge and waste your time writing gigantic comments, that represent big jumps around questions, in an infinite gymnastic game, that decorated the middle east for 1400 years.