Verse 4:59 - A challenge to Sunnism

[Tonus]

We will be amending that rule into the Forum Guidelines shortly.

And by "amending the rules" he really means...

[Mystic]

I don't know if the Sunni and Shia conflict was pointless. I think there is a lot of lesson to be learned from it.

Who should have authority now and be in the leadership position as in who ought to be followed? Perhaps if we believe divinely appointed guides don't exist, then absence of that....a democracy should be formed with no authority but rather a government that implements the will of the people.

There is no democracy now as of the moment. There is only republics. Republics have elected leaders but the leaders are there to rule and decide and lead, not to implement the will of the masses.

Perhaps humanity has a duty to understand morality objectively and instead of following charismatic leaders, instead, only set government as a job to implement the will of the masses that should be in line with objective morality.

I think there is a lot to learn. When I play Assassin's creed, it makes me question also, what is true authority. Assassin's didn't obey any government and also didn't care what the masses believed. Were they wrong?

I think there is a lot to learn from the conflict.

[Minimalist]

What's the end game? Are you planning to resurrect the caliphate?

Are both sides committed to the extermination of the other in order to prove the point?

How much blood are you prepared to shed for this rather pointless point?

[Mystic]

Justice and ideas about it are not pointless. Blood for the sake of establishing justice or decreasing injustice, are not worthless.

If humanity has to go through many ideas (like communism etc) before they get it right, then so be it. At the end, there will hopefully be a generation that does get it right, but it will only be when logic, rationality, and justice, tip the balance, of ignorance, foolishness, and oppression.

[Rayaan]

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

[Minimalist]

Justice and ideas about it are not pointless. Blood for the sake of establishing justice or decreasing injustice, are not worthless.

You sound like a nut.

[Mystic]

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.

The Messenger of Allaah said: "Whoever disapproves of something done by his ruler then he should be patient, for whoever disobeys the ruler even a little will die as those who died in the Pre-Islaamic Period of Ignorance (i.e. as rebellious Sinners)." (Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim)

Sahih Muslim Hadith Hadith 4554
Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu anhu) narrated in a long hadeeth that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said,
"There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans." He (Hudhaifah) asked, "What should I do O Messenger of Allaah if I reach that?" He replied, "You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey."

Sahih Muslim Hadith
Hadith 4524 Narrated by AbuHurayrah
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: It is obligatory for you to listen to the ruler and obey him in adversity and prosperity, in pleasure and displeasure, and even when another person is given (rather undue) preference over you.

Sahih Muslim Hadith
Hadith 4551 Narrated by Alqamah ibn Wa'il al-Hadrami
It has been narrated on the authority of Alqamah ibn Wa'il al-Hadrami who learnt the tradition from his father. The latter said: Salamah ibn Yazid al-Ju'afi asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): Prophet of Allah, what do you think if we have rulers who rule over us and demand that we discharge our obligations towards them, but they (themselves) do not discharge their own responsibilities towards us? What do you order us to do? The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) avoided giving any answer. Salamah asked him again. He (again) avoided giving any answer. Then he asked again--it was the second time or the third time-- when Ash'ath ibn Qays (find that the Holy Prophet was being unnecessarily pressed for answer) pulled him aside and said: Listen to them and obey them, for on them will be their burden and on you will be your burden.

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.

So Sunnis all believe Talut is a Prophet?

What if they in position to authority by manipulate the masses or manipulating enough people to support them?

What do you mean by their successors? I think you meant predecessors?

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.

Ok Imam Ali and Mauwiya fought against one another. Who has to be obeyed while they fought against one another?

What is the criteria of authority here?

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.

Do you what the term Messiah comes from? It comes from a ritual that signifies being a king by divine right.

By your logic, Jesus was not the Messiah. Also have you read in Quran how the family of Ibrahim were given the kingdom. Those verses are not too behind the Ulil-Amr. In fact, the discussion of the Taghut vs Auli Ibrahim's kingdom, leads into Ulil-Amr and then continues back to discuss Taghut. It also discusses referring all judgements to God. I wonder how Sunnis read into this. Are they at all connected?

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).

Ok let's do proper logic here.

Taghut is said to be what are the guardians/authorities of the disbelievers. Am I right?

Quran says not to obey disbelievers, friends of Devils, as well as unjust, and wasters (musrifeen).

The Quran also states leadership is only bestowed upon the just. Was the King that killed Yahya just?

Why are you just criticizing the Sunni view of leadership, though? Do you think that the Shia view of leadership is more rational or better for some reason?

Yes Shiite view of leadership is the only rational possibility of leadership in my view. If there is going to be authorities that we have to obey, then they must just, wise, and lead us with insight, and this has to be a guarantee.

In absence of such leaders, we have to reject all authority, but organize society. This is done by setting up government to implement the will of the masses instead of subjecting the masses to the will of a leader or a group of leaders.

What lessons do you draw of the verses about Talut? Why was he chosen and instead God didn't teach the people to chose their own leader? Why was the proof of his authority not the appointment of the Prophet (ie. people can lie about who is in authority) but inheriting from the family of Moses and Aeron which would have tranquility for the people? What is this tranquility? Have you read Shiites hadiths about this verse?

[Minimalist]

More justice?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013082...SO000.html

BAGHDAD (AP) - A suicide bomber attacked a park in northern Baghdad crowded by cafe- and restaurant-goers Friday night, the bloodiest attack in a day of violence that killed at least 36 people across the country, authorities said.

Attacks have been on the rise in Iraq since a deadly security crackdown in April on a Sunni protest camp. More than 3,000 people have been killed in violence during the past few months, raising fears Iraq could see a new round of widespread sectarian bloodshed similar to that which brought the country to the edge of civil war in 2006 and 2007.

Remember, we aren't there to stop it this time.

[إسرافيل]

The great Imam Sayedina Ali (May Allah honor his face) took bayah at the hands of the three Khulafa Rashedin who preceded him (Sayedina Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman may Allah be pleased with them). This is a proof against the perverted Shiites that the Khulafa Rashedin are the legitimate leaders of the Muslim ummah after the beloved Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) passed away.

The Shiites claimed that Imam Sayedina Ali (May Allah honor his face) was acting under taqiyya (subterfuge) - God forbid - and that outwardly he professed allegiance to the three Khulafa Rashedin who preceded him, but in his heart he harbored enmity and malice toward them. This is a wicked slander against the Lion of Allah, Imam Sayedina Ali (May Allah honor his face). The Shiites claim love and respect for Imam Sayedina Ali (May Allah honor his face), but the reality is that they slander him openly and degrade his noble character.

The Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "There shall arise seventy-three sects in my ummah, all of them will burn in Hell except one sect" The companions asked, "Who are they, O Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? He replied, "They are those who are upon that which I and my companions are upon (Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama'ah)

[Minimalist]

I doubt you are going to find many people who give a rat's ass what any of them said.

How many bodies are you prepared to pile up for your cause?