[this is a translation from shiyyat ka moqadimma]

HOW IS THE ORDER OF OBEYING IMAM BEING GIVEN IN QURAN?

One of the ahlusunnat scholar , allama mawardi , 450 hijri, writes

“shariat has handed over all the matters of deen to a particular person as is mentioned in quran

O YOU BELIEVERS, OBEY ALLAH AND OBEY THE PROPHET AND THE ONE WITH AUTHORITY OVER YOU

In this verse , the obedience of those has been fixed upon us by allah who have been appointed imam over us”

[al-ahkam ul sultaniq page 4 , printed Lahore]

and allama ibn-e-khaldoon writes

“the obedience of imam is a compulsion on people as allah has ordered to obey allah and obey prophet and those who have amr”

[moqaddima ibn-e-khaldoon volume 1,page 456 , printed by nafees academy Karachi]

the verse which has been mentioned by the two sunni scholars in which obedience of allah and that of prophet and oolil amr is made compulsory , is from the verse 59 of surat un nisa

now

the rift between shia and sunni has always been there as to

who are the oolil amr?

but even sunnis are not unanimous whether it means those in power or scholars as we will now explain

THE SHIA AND SUNNI POINT OF VIEW ABOUT OOLIL AMR:-

Shias have always maintained that oolil amr means AIMMAH OF AHLUBAIT , about whom the prophet said

“o people , I am leaving among you two valuable things the book of allah and my itrat ahlubait

they will never get separated till the day the come to me to the pond of kausar”

[the hadeeth is present with some minor differences in sahih muslim, tirmizi, masnad imam ahmad etc]

now that holy prophet has said that the two would not get separated till the day of qayamat so the aimmah of ahlubait are the one whose obedience is wajib

on the other hand sunnis TILL THIS VERY DATE, could not decide as to who are these whose obedience is compulsory

mufti shafi in his tafseer writes

“ibn-e-abbas , mojahid and hassan basri have said that OOLIL AMR stand for the scholars and fuqha as they are the NAIB OF HOLY PROPHET and the matter of religion is with them”

then writes

“one group of mofassirs in whom abu hurraira is present say that OOLIL AMR mean those who have power and running the affairs of state”

and then writes

“tafseer ibn kather and mazhari mentions both the categories of scholars and those who run the state as the matter of amr( nizam of amr in urdu) is associated with them”

[moaif-ul-quran volume 2 page 450]

and then explains the third view on page 452 as

“as per the above verse both are to be taken , and so as per this ayat in the matters of fiqh , the obedience of scholars , and in the matter of state , obedience of rulers is WAJIB”

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE TWO OOLIL AMR IN ONE TIME?

Now mufti shafi has written about the concept of two oolil amr in one time

But the point is when was this theory in vogue and has there been any time when this concept been considered as final

Or

Is it that it is just a concept present in books?

Because when we read books of history we find that scholars and rulers have had differences amongst them

And so interesting is the fact that

Accepting rulers and scholars as oolil amr has neither been accepted nor

There has been a consensus on any one person as oolil amr

And this is what has been explained by sunni scholars as well

For example

Mohammad amin minhas who is amir of tehreek fehem ul quran

Writes in one of his article about the failure of religious parties

And the 13th point which he gives is

“in the first part of surat nisa obedience to oolil amr is fixed which has been practically rejected for centuries , that is it has not been acted upon despite the fact that quran is perfect for all times and rejecting any of its orders and that too with this continuity which we are practically speaking for centuries , can never be a part of islam,

now it is a must for muslims that they should understand about oolil amr with clarity and obey them”

[monthy PAYAM Islamabad 1994]

CAN A RULER BE OOLIL AMR?

Mufti shafi may have written

“one group of mofassirs in whom abu hurraira is present say that OOLIL AMR mean those who have power and running the affairs of state”

but the problem had been that with the passage of time and keeping the fact in front that

when fathiq , cruel and those having bad character took the power of governance , the concept of considering them OOLIL AMR continued dying

though who so ever assumed the power , considered that after getting power he is now the oolil amr

but people were sick of their claims and had the right of asking if a person like yazeed can be oolil amr and can allah give the order of obeying him who is the killer of imam Hussein , the grandson of prophet….who attacked madina and in the event of harra killed sahaba and resulted in the the bad treatment of sahabia

can a person like abdul malik be oolil amr who was the guardian of hajjaj bin yousaf who was a cruel murderer of sahaba

[see tarikh al khulafa page 220 translation by iqbal ud deen ahmad , printed by nafees academy Karachi]

is it possible that allah orders us to obey waleed about whom if we read in tarikh ul kholafa , we are stunned

“waleed was a sinner , cruel , and habitual drinker , and decided that he would drink sitting on the roof of BAIT ULLAH ……even brother of waleed , suleman bin yazeed said “by god waleed is a habitual drinker , and merciless sinner” and zahbi says that he was drinker and fond of homosexuality ……ibn fadlullah in masalik writes that he was cruel , proud, jealous, pharaoh of his time , the most notorious of his time , on the day of judgment leading his nation towards hell, giving problems to people , having a death of worst type, mistreating quran(please correct the translation here , as I do not know ….the wordings are in urdu….quran ko neeza per uthane wala) ,and brave on doing sins”

[tarikh ul kholafa page 249,250]

can mansoor dawanqi be oolil amr who ordered the governor of medina to punish by whipping anyone who gets hold of ibn-e-harma , who was a drinker and poet …..

[tarikh kholafa page 268]

can people like haroon and amin be called olil amr who were fond of music and wine or even motawakil who was not only fond of wine but also had 4000 girls

[tarkih kholafa page 332]

can the rulers of today be called oolil amr when interestingly some muslim countries have been ruled even by women?

So the point is that

The concept of considering those in power was already a bookish concept and adding fuel to this fire had been the fact that the rulers had such a character

And if still sunnis consider these as their oolil amr , they should do it happily…….

Now we see if sunnis actually consider their scholars to be oolil amr

HAVE SUNNIES EVER ACCEPTED ANY OF SCHOLARS TO BE OOLIL AMR?

Mufti shafi may have claimed that scholars are oollilamr

But interesting is the fact that

There have been great scholars in sunnis but neither any one of them claimed to OOLIL AMR

Nor any of the sunnis claimed and accepted it for anyone

And that is what was pointed by mohammad amin minhas , which is already mentioned

Now

Why there is no consensus in sunnies about the oolil amr ?

And why is it that there ideas of OOLIL AMR met this fate?

First four caliphs , also called the GUIED CALIPHS by sunnis , in their time , the concept of OOLIL AMR being the caliph may have been there to a certain extent in their minds

But later one when the umaaids and Abbasids came , their bad character was a huge hurdle for sunnis , for declaring them as oolil amr

Now the problem was that ruler could not be called oolil amr as his character prohibited

And if it was said that scholars are the one who are oolil amr

So it was but natural that there would have been a clash between the two

And also

Every scholar would have got a license that his obedience is a must

And the biggest hurdle were

THE AIMMAH OF AHLUBAIT

Who were not only the greatest scholars but had the best of character

So it was not easy for any scholar to claim this title for him in their presence

And many other points which resulted in the claims to be only in the books

And could not gain ground in people

And the result was that

NEW CONCEPT OF IMAMAT WAS CREATED IN SUNNIS

As the concept of Shiite imamat was different then others in which there are 12 aimmah

and every one was the greatest scholar and his life was a practical demonstration of quran and sunnah of the prophet

But in sunnis those who claimed imamat were those who were having the worst of character

Now people had the right to know what should they do in such a scenario?

Should they dissolve their claim?

Or be silent?

So the rules which sunnies have mentioned have been explained in their book s like SHARH-E-AQAID-NASFI , in it is written

“if you make a sinner your imam willingly , you will be amongst his sins however he will become an imam and then it will not be allowed to stand against him.. and if he takes governance by force , he will be the sinner ,

however his obedience will be must , and standing against him HARAM”

AND THEN WRITES

“and if a women or slave or anyone having problem with his physique (disabled) or a non-mujtahid gets the rule,their obedience is compulsory so it is clear that BANI HASHIM OR BEING IN PROGENY OF HADRAT ALI OR BEING THE AFZAL MOST OR BEING INFALLIBE are not the conditions which have been imposed by shia

and

WA LA YA’ZAL-UL-IMAM BIL FISQ WAL JOOR

And imam cannot be dissolved of his status because of fisq and joor however

{please translate it ……………(balka mostahiq a’zal ho ga)}

and if imam sins whether kabeera or saghera or he is cruel on anyone , so because of this muslims should not dissolve him of his status as there is risk of fitna and blood shed

and as there is no condition for imam to be infallible , so dissolving him on the basis of sins is useless

and that is because of this reason that the people of salaf obeyed that cruel and sinners after the guided caliphs and even offered prayers of Friday and eid with them and considered standing against them bad

and bokhari and muslim have narrated from ibn-e-abbas that if someone observes a bad deed from his amir , he should bear it and who so ever will not bear it will be separated from the JOMAAT and die the death of the people of time of jahilliyat”

[tahzeeb ul aqaid, urdu translation ,sharh-e-aqaid-e-nasfi page 102

translation by molana najm ul ghani printed Karachi]

this discussion of imamat is from a famous and authentic book of sunnis

in the end of this , there is a hadeeth from ibne abbas

but our concept about such ahadeeth is that that such ahadeeth were created by the cruel rulers with the help of scholars whom were fed by them, to keep the innocent people silent

and if it is pondered upon then this is also possible that the hadeeth has been misquoted as it may mean that if a JUST RULER appoints a person during an expedition and he errs , so in that case the person who is going with him should wait for the return rather then getting separated

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHIA AND OTHER IS THE CLEAR MENTIONING OF OOLIL AMR

What makes shia prominent than others , rather gives strength to their believes is the fact that they have clear point of view about OOLIL AMR

And that is that these can only be those personalities who know the quran completely , are a replica of the SEERAT-E-RASOOL and they are iama ahlubait and these personalities were not unknown figures in their times and spent their live in homes only

And neither it is that people were not aware of their status in the world of knowledge,

Every one of them was the greatest scholar , most pious and god fearing in his time as is mentioned in the previous pages”

SOURCE:- [SHIAYYAT KA MOQADDIMA by Hussein al amini,Page 192 to page 202 , urdu]

Advertisements