(August 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. There is many Sunni hadiths about obeying a ruler even if he is unjust and oppresses you and takes away your wealth or have hearts of devils etc...some say to disobey them in matters that you would have disobey God. But others don't even mention that criteria.
I don't know of any hadiths which say that if we have to obey a ruler even if he is unjust and oppresses us.
I am interested to see at least a single hadith like that.
(August 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 2. What is the definition of authority per Sunni view? It seems whoever got the military power was an authority. What is the criteria of having authority?
The answer to that depends on what type of authority you are referring to. There are two main types of authority, which are:
Religious authority and secular authority.
Regarding religious authority, which includes Imams and caliphs, are elected either by a council or chosen based on the wishes of their predecessor. Therefore, in Sunnism, unlike the Shia belief, the caliphs were not directly appointed by God. Sunnis believe that the only people that God Himself appointed as leaders are the Prophets. And everyone else - the Imams, leaders, caliphs, rashiduns, etc. - are elected by other Muslims or by their successors.
And you know how secular authority goes, right? Or do I really have to give you examples of secular authority?
(August 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: For example, from "believers" there was Mauwiya and Ali ibn Abi Talib...they both testified to Islam per Sunni view. They were both believers per Sunni view. And they were both taken as leaders from Sunni point of view. How does one get the station of authority per Sunnism? And how do you define it, in a way, you don't get authorities that fight one another?
Yes, they were both taken as leaders; they were both elected as Caliphs by the companions of the Prophet because they played an immense role in aiding Muslims during battles and during the most turbulent periods in Islamic history. That is, essentially, how they got their stations of authority. And you can learn more about them at the links below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muawiyah_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali
(August 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 3. If the position of secular authority was annulled by divinely appointed leaders...for example..Nabi Yahya and the King of his time, Yahya would hold authority while the King of his time, would be a fake authority.
The King was a secular authority while Yahya was believed to be a divinely appointed authority (since he was a Prophet). Neither of them were considered to be "fake authorities." They were both authorities, but just different kinds of authorities. The King was a human appointed authority and the Prophet was a divinely appointed authority. The King focused more on state and political issues and the Prophet focused more on the spiritual aspects of our existence.
(August 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: In light of this, what is the criteria of authority if secular authority is rejected in presence of a Prophet for example.
Secular authority doesn't have to be rejected just because of the presence of a Prophet. The two authorities can be obeyed at the same time unless there is a stark resistance or a contradiction between their rulings. The Muslims assigned a much higher level of authority to the Prophet, however, because divinely appointed authority is always greater than human appointed authority (from a believer's point of view, at least).
Why are you just criticizing the Sunni view of leadership, though? Do you think that the Shia view of leadership/Caliphate system is more rational or better for any reason?
