Verse 4:59 - A challenge to Sunnism

[Mystic]

The word "god" has two meanings in every language. It has a meaning that which is worshipped, and that what is worthy of worship.

"Authority" "Leader" likewise, has two different meanings. For example, the Quran state the unjust would not be made leaders. At other times, it talks about God making leaders who call to the fire like the Pharaoh.

In a sense, Pharaoh was an authority, in the sense he was obeyed and followed and taken as authority. In the same way Jesus is a god, in the sense people take him as a god. In another sense, Pharaoh was not an authority or leader, in the same way Jesus is not a god.

When we come across the verse 4:59, we obviously have to ask, in what sense of authority is the verse intending.

If it's intending all those have authority in the sense, people take them as authorities, then you will have many authorities. For example, if you were a transformer, both Optimus Prime and Megatron would be authorities, and per this verse you must obey them both.

In this sense, both Mauwiya and Ali ibn Abi Talib would be authorities and leaders even while fighting each other. Obviously you cannot obey both of them.

Now if it means in the sense of ought to be followed, ought to be obeyed, having true authority over you....what is the criteria of such authority?

A person maybe a good just and wise, but how would the people know that?

If God appoints a leader, obviously, such authority would stem from God's authority.

In absence of such a leader, I would think, that no person can have authority, but instead government should be formed to implement the will of the masses, and not make the masses subject to the will of a leader.

In this sense, government shouldn't have authority but should be seen as a job in implementing the will of the masses.

In light of this logic, isn't it suggestive that then the Ulil-Amr if this verse is truly revealed by God, are divinely appointed authorities in the same way as Prophets?

[Rayaan]

Interesting how you didn't quote that verse of the Quran in your entire post. But, that's okay, I'll do it.

Surah 4:59:

"O believers! Obey Allah and obey His Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger. if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end."

Those who are invested with authority ("ulu al-amr"), in the context of this particular verse, does not refer to anyone who is obeyed as a leader by others. Why? Because there are two conditions, which is that they have to be believers and they should be obedient to Allah and His messenger. The Quran does mention other leaders of that time like the Pharaoh, for example, but those leaders were not "amongst us" because they were not believers nor obedient to Allah and His messenger per the verse that I quoted above. Therefore, a leader like the Pharaoh does not fall under the type of authority that is suggested in that particular verse.

Some leaders are praised in the Quran and other leaders are rebuked (especially those who tried to avert people from Islam). The Pharaoh falls under the latter.

See the following tafseer (exegis) of Surah 4:59 that explains the same thing:

Those invested with authority (ulu al-amr) include all those entrusted with directing Muslims in matters of common concern. Hence, persons 'invested with authority' include the intellectual and political leaders of the community, as well as administrative officials, judges of the courts, tribal chiefs and regional representatives. In all these capacities, those 'invested with authority' are entitled to obedience, and it is improper for Muslims to cause dislocation in their collective life by engaging in strife and conflict with them. This obedience is contingent, however, on two conditions: first, that these men should be believers; and second, that they should themselves be obedient to God and the Prophet (peace be on him). These two conditions are not only clearly mentioned in this verse they have also been elucidated at length by the Prophet (peace be on him) and can be found in the Hadith. Let us consider, for example, the following traditions: A Muslim is obliged to heed and to obey an order whether he likes it or not, as long as he is not ordered to carry out an act of disobedience to God (ma'siyah). When ordered to carry out an act of disobedience-to God he need neither heed nor obey.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.p...=89&nto=92


This was not a challenge to Sunnism at all.

[Rayaan]

By the way, please do not call out a member in the title of your threads as well as in the OP if possible. Instead, shoot a PM if you really want a specific member to reply.

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

[Minimalist]

[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.

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? 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?

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. In light of this, what is the criteria of authority if secular authority is rejected in presence of a Prophet for example.

[Minimalist]

3. If the position of secular authority was annulled by divinely appointed leaders

Why is it that the "king" who won ended up claiming that he was divinely appointed?

Ever give that any thought? We went through this shit in the West.


The fucking French had the right idea.

[Mystic]

3. If the position of secular authority was annulled by divinely appointed leaders

Why is it that the "king" who won ended up claiming that he was divinely appointed?

Ever give that any thought? We went through this shit in the West.


The fucking French had the right idea.

There is many hadiths about obeying a ruler even if he is unjust and has a satanic heart. Some hadiths say to just disobey him in matters that involve disobeying God.

The Bible similar teaches to obey rulers and that kings should be obeyed.

However Shiism rejected authority that doesn't stem from God's authority. In fact all religious, spiritual, secular, judicial authorities that are not sanctioned by God were referred to as the "Taghut" in Shia hadiths. The Taghut concept is in the Quran, which states, the disbelievers guardians and authorities are the Taghut, while believers disbelieve in it.

[Minimalist]

However Shiism rejected authority that doesn't stem from God's authority.

Now if you can produce actual evidence that such a god exists you'll be all set, won't you?

(P.S. - Don't tell me about the quran. I'm not interested in superstition.)

[Mystic]

What I'm trying to say, is the Shiism rejected the Caliphs authority, and hence came with an early concept that unjust rulers and rulers with no sanction from God, have no authority. Sunnism on the other hand catered the needs of the rulers, and hence interpreted hadiths about successors, 12 successors, and ulil-Amr in Quran, to be referring to what people took as power.

The Shias wanting divine justice, believed, that God never sanction submission to authorities while more knowledgeable, just, wise, and pious humans existed who virtues were manifested by God.

[Minimalist]

What I'm trying to say, is the Shiism rejected the Caliphs authority

All those people are DEAD. There is no caliphate. Yet, Sunni's and Shi'ites continue to blow each other up over an issue that can never be resolved. Do you begin to see why I and many others think you are all out of your fucking minds?