{"id":6521,"date":"2024-07-10T07:43:26","date_gmt":"2024-07-10T07:43:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/al-mawrid.org\/questions-en\/2024\/07\/10\/the-basis-of-imamat-in-the-quran\/"},"modified":"2024-07-10T13:18:45","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T13:18:45","slug":"the-basis-of-imamat-in-the-quran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/al-mawrid.org\/questions-en\/the-basis-of-imamat-in-the-quran\/","title":{"rendered":"The Basis Of Imamat In The Quran"},"content":{"rendered":"
Question<\/h3>\n
Please refer to “Sura Nisa Aya 59 (004.059) which reads:<\/p>\n
YUSUFALI<\/strong>: <\/div>\n
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.”<\/div>\n
My question pertains to the above-mentioned sura. The translation is Yousuf Ali’s. I have seen your take on this Sura, in which you have categorically rejected the Shia\u2019s interpretation that the Shia\u2019s claim that \u2018the men of authority\u2019 are their Imams and their masoomiat<\/em> (infallibility) is proven here. You reason that the Shia interpretation is not according the Qur\u2019an. You further add that if the \u2018men of authority\u2019 were maasoom<\/em> and were to be followed like the Prophet (pbuh), then \u201cif ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger…\u201d part would not have followed the \u2018men of authority\u2019 part. What I do not understand that how does the latter part negate the Shia interpretation. It can be said that \u2018men of authority\u2019 are the Imams and in case of any dispute the Imams also refer back to Qur\u2019an and Sunnah to pass their judgments. I know that what you claim about this aya<\/em> can also be true but at the same time the Shia claim also holds promise. At best all that can be said that this aya<\/em> does not prove for certain the Shia claim, however it does provide a basis for their validity of their Imams; which is exactly your point of view: that all the ahadith<\/em>\/riwayaat<\/em> must have a basis in Qur\u2019an.<\/div>\n
Answer<\/h3>\n
Please let me start with commenting on the conclusion you made in your question before giving you a more technical answer about the verse. <\/p>\n
You wrote:<\/div>\n
“At best all that can be said that this aya<\/em> does not prove for certain the Shia claim, however it does provide a basis for their validity of their Imams; which is exactly your point of view: that all the ahadith<\/em>\/riwayaat<\/em> must have a basis in Qur\u2019an.”<\/div>\n
I don’t see the above statement to be a self-consistent one. If the verse of the Qur’an does not establish an understanding that relates to our faith, then how we can say that it provides the basis for it? What kind of base this is that (as you wrote) does not even provide any certainty about the concept? <\/div>\n
My dear brother, if we want to lower our expectations of the book that is supposed to be Mizaan and Furqan (measure and separator for truth) to this level, then we can find basis of almost any sectarian belief in the Qur’an. This is exactly what all the sects of Islam and also those who claimed prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are and were doing. They first decide what their faith is, then they try to find a verse of the Qur’an that can be interpreted as such. This is not the way that we are supposed to learn from the Qur’an. We are supposed to be led by the Qur’an not to lead the Qur’an towards our opinions.<\/div>\n
It is beyond my understanding that why the Qur’an needs to be (supposedly) so brief, vague, complicated and implicit about what is supposed to be one of the most important aspects of faith (that is, belief in infallible Imams after the prophet – pbuh). If this verse is supposed to be the basis for such a fundamental theory then in what way the Qur’an claims to have clearly separated truth from the false (2:256)?. To say that the verse you referred to provides the basis for such a fundamental theory, not only degrades the Qur’an but also puts the whole God’s guidance under question.<\/div>\n
Now let me make some technical comments about the verse:<\/div>\n
1. Expressions always have a clear and a default meaning. We are only allowed to change this meaning when there is a strong evidence for it. Ulil Amr<\/em> Minkum, simply means “Those in Charge Among You”. This is very crystal clear. To say that this can be only one meaning and another meaning could be Divinely Appointed Infallible Imams simply means to refuse the default and appear meaning of the verse and to assume a very distant and specific meaning for it. This needs a strong evidence in the verse itself and I can not see such evidence. In fact the very point that Ulil Amr<\/em> are not included as points of reference at the end of the verse backs up its default and clear meaning. So as soon as you agree that the verse can be interpreted in its apparent meaning, you need to do that and to accept that meaning, unless you can bring a strong evidence to suggest that the verse cannot be interpreted as it appears.<\/div>\n
2. You wrote ” in case of any dispute the Imams also refer back to Qur\u2019an and Sunnah to pass their judgments”. I’m afraid this is not what the verse is saying. The verse says: “In case YOU had any dispute about something (YOU) refer it to the Qur’an and the Prophet (pbuh).” YOU in the verse cannot mean Ulil Amr<\/em>. It can only mean those people who were instructed to follow God, the Prophet (pbuh) and the Ulil Amr<\/em>. It may include Ulil Amr<\/em> as well but it cannot be only Ulil Amr<\/em>. If the verse wanted to give the meaning that you suggested, it had to say “In case you had any dispute about something THEY (i.e. Ulil Amr<\/em>) should refer it to the Qur’an and the Prophet (pbuh).”. <\/div>\n
3. If Ulil Amr<\/em> in the verse referred to infallible Imams, then when it says at the end of the verse that in case of dispute you need to refer to God and the Prophet (pbuh) it would have added Ulil Amr<\/em> as well. In other words it would have said: “and if you disputed in anything then refer it to God and the prophet and the Ulil Amr<\/em>“. It does not say that, simply because other than God and (with His protection) the Prophet (pbuh), no other infallible source was available or was going to be made available. <\/div>\n
4. Look at verse 83 of the same Sura. It says instead of spreading any news related to security or fear, they should have referred it to the Prophet (pbuh) and those in charge. If we consider Ulil Amr<\/em> to mean Imams that come after the Prophet (pbuh) then what the relevance of this verse was to its primary addressee, that is, the companions? Also, does this mean that at the time of an ‘infallible’ Imam, if there comes a news about security or fear, instead of referring it to the head of the army or other people in charge, we need to keep it secret and only reveal it to the infallible Imam? Is this even practical?<\/div>\n
5. Similar to the above, just imagine what could the primary addressees of this verse possibly understand from it if Ulil Amr<\/em> meant infallible Imams to come after the Prophet (pbuh). Please note that according to the theory of Imamah<\/em>, the Prophet (pbuh) himself was an Imam, so by definition of this theory the Prophet (pbuh) himself was one of the Ulil Amr<\/em>. So the verse according to this theory would have the following meaning for its primary addressees: “Obey God and obey the Prophet and THOSE in charge of affairs (that again means the Prophet – pbuh – only as he was the only Imam of his time”! <\/div>\n
6. If Ulil Amr<\/em> meant an infallible Imam (who according to the theory of Imamah<\/em> can only be one individual at any time) then instead of plural, it should have been singular. It is plural because it simply refers to any one in charge of affairs, which obviously can be more than one person at any time. <\/div>\n
7. Obviously following Imams who are divinely appointed and infallible would be a fundamental part of the religion. In that case why only this verse is supposedly referring to this important concept? There are numerous verses of the Qur’an where the instruction is to follow God and the Prophet (pbuh) – 3:32, 3:132, 4:69, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 8:46, 24:54, 47:33, 58:13, 64:12 – why following Ulil Amr<\/em> is not included in any of these to establish the foundation of the theory of Imamah<\/em>? <\/div>\n
8. In Nahjulbalaghah<\/em>, a book that is believed by our Shia brothers to contain authentic sermons, letters and statements by Ali (ra), there is a letter to Maalik al-Ashtar, the governer of Ali (ra) for Egypt. This is letter number 53. The letter contains instructions and advice to Maalik al-Ashtar. Part of the letter reads as follows:<\/div>\n
“When you are faced with problems which you cannot solve or with a difficult situation from which you cannot escape or when uncertain and doubtful circumstances confuse and perplex you, then turn to Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) because Allah has thus ordered those whom He wants to guide. The way to turn to Allah is to act diligently according to the clear and explicit orders given in His Holy Book and to the turn to the Holy Prophet (s) means to follow those of his orders about which there is no doubt and ambiguity and which have been generally accepted to be correctly recorded.”<\/div>\n