Ayaths 4:59 & 5:67 (Debate excerpts: Sunni vs Ismaili)

[Guest]

The below is the excerpt of debate that took place at an ismaili yahoo website . <p>The first post or appended below is the explanation from br Jalaledin on the Nizari Ismaili perspective.<p>I shall post Akberally or muslim first response as a second post:<p>Do sunnis have expanation of what ayth 4:59 or 5:67 means. You decide!<br>______<br>Asalaam Alaikum, Akbarally:<p>Thank you for your response. If you will go back to my very first post, I first quoted<br>Sura 4 v 59 about the essential need in Islam for a Religious Authority <p>or, "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."<p>Sura 5 v 67 is a follow up question to the issue of Religious Authority.<p>or, "O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith."<p>These are not two separate unrelated issues from my perspective and I do not have to accept your approach of addressing each one separately. But if you insist on that,<br>then please first address the issue of Religious Authority, then ask yourself <br>if the Prophet's mission was fulfilled, without such a religious authority:<p>I have also tried to establish whether our different interpretations are based on a contextual basis. For example, did Sura 4 v 59 apply only during the Prophet's life time? Does Sura 5 v 67 (70) apply only to the Prophet's life time.<p>If the answer to this question is Yes, then you are suggesting that the Holy Quran's message is one that only has a historical context. If the answer is "no", then we can agree that certain suras have eternal validity.<p>So, without firing off any more volleys, lets address these three issues:<p>1. How do we interpret the verses of the Holy Quran? <br>a) Literally, <br>b) historically<br>c) allegorically<br>d) metaphorically<br>e) spiritually<p>2) Is there a religious authority that we can both turn to to resolve our differences?<br>It would seem to me that your answer is no. In which case, why do you insist on protesting the principles and beliefs of the Ismaili Tariqa since there is no<br>religious authority to prevent the Imams of the Ismailis to practice their tariqa<br>as they interpret Islam?<p>My response to this question is clear. There were two religious authorities established. The Caliphate and the Imamat. The Caliphate was dissolved, the Imamat remains.<p>3) Was the Prophet's mission really fulfilled without establishing such a <br>religious authority for future generations of Muslims. Did he not anticipate divisions. If the Holy Quran addresses the issue in Sura 4 v 59 "if you differ in anything"<br>and asks Muslims to refer it to God and the Apostle, then why do you not refer your issues to Allah and the Apostle? Can we refer anything to the Apostle in present time? Is not the Nur i Muhammad the Noor of Allah?<p>For us Ismailis, the answer is clear. The Imamat is the seat of the Noor of Allah.<br>We know we can resolve our differences there. Unfortunately, the religious<br>authority of the Imamat is as yet not universally accepted.<p>This brings us back to Sura Noor. All these Suras are inter-related from the Ismaili perspective and are not time-bound but have eternal significance. That is how we understand the eternal message.<p>We also accept the fact that certain issues addressed by the Holy Quran, such <br>as women's rights, the penal code etc. are "time-bound". Hence the need for<br>a religious authority to interpret the Faith.<p>Love and light,<p>Jalaledin<p>NOTE: <br>Akberaly or Muslim First response follows next.<br>

[Guest]

This post deals with the response from Akberally or Muslim First to the above position.<p>Pls note: This is the only response from Akberally on the matter of ayaths 4:59 and 5:67. <br>_________<br>As salaam alaikum, Jalaledin<p>If you wish to take 5:67 and 4:59 together, to prove the Religious Authority, I have no objection to it.<p>Today, I have to update my website and respond to the surfers of my site...<p>Insha'Allah, will respond tomorrow your first and second letter as one mail...<p>I have also a few mails from this Net from others to respond May be tomorrow...<p>May Allah Guide you to HIS DEEN...<p>Ma salaam<p>Akbarally<br>____<br>That was the extent of his response! He never followed up or explained what those verses means or to the questions posed by br Jalaledin. <p>More to follow.....

[Guest]

So, akberally or muslim first or anajmi,<p>Your answer, had you chosen to respond, to both ayas 4:59 and 5:67 are the hadeeths or the Sahih Hadeeths. <p>The Religious Authority as referred to in 4:59, per you, is the Sahih Hadeeth and, What the prophet was sent to procalim, as per 5:67, are again the sahih hadeeths.<p>Is it any wonder your DUCK MADZAB is duck soup! It - the sunni-wahabi madzab is the most corrupted deen in history based "entirely" on fabricated hadeeths which you feel everybody should follow. Tell you what - Go jump in the lake with your sahihs!<br>

[Guest]

Well, that is the problem with the Ismailis. You do not want to read or understand anybody else's answers. You have your own answers for every question that you ask and then you want everyone to believe that your answers are the right ones. This is what the living Imam has done to you.<p>Maybe the ayahs that you quote refer to an Imam. But do we have to accept an Imam who gambles, who drinks, who was a british raj pet, who was a shoplifter. Well, if the sunni madzab is corrupted what do you call a madzab led by such an Imam. I shudder to think.<p>Let me give you an example of how the sahih hadiths were compiled and the intentions of the people who compiled them. When searching for the prophets traditions, the authors came across a man who claimed to have heard the prophet first hand. When they came close to this man they saw him call a goat towards him by pretending that he had something in his hand. As soon as the goat came close this man grabbed the goat. The authors of the traditions refused to take the word of such a man and put it in the prophets traditions. Such were the standards of the people that you curse. These people had a clean intention and they may have made mistakes and Inshallah these will be forgiven. But look at you. You will never be able to claim that following the living Imam was a mistake on the day of judgement. And on that day, you won't even find a lake to jump into.

[Guest]

You did not know what the ayaths 4:59 & 5:67 referred to back when you showed up for dawa'h at the yahoo ismailism site and, even now you do not know what they mean. <p>If religious authority as in 4:59 means the hadeeths and, as per 5:67 the mission of the prophet was to proclaim these hadeeths then, say it! This is the fact of your madzab and haddeths are the lock, stock & barrel of your deen and as I said before this would make Sunni Islam the most CORRUPT & FABRICATED madzab in the history of mankind.<p>This DUCK TEST of yours and the DUCK WALK is rotten down to its gut. I say SHOOT the duck.

[Guest]

Gee.. Brother Akberally must have sure skinned your goat sometime. Everyone you see seems to you to be Akberally. Can you direct me to the site where he put his boot in your backside. I need to learn a few things from him for people to be able to see me everywhere. I don't know what the religious authority in 4:59 means. A drunk Imam, a gambling Imam or the Hadeeths. Well, what would you prefer?<p>for 5:67, one needs to be completely drunk to imagine that the prophets mission was to establish Aga Khan as the Imam. No wonder the Aga Khan was able to imagine it.

[Guest]

The DUCK i.e. Sunni Islam of hadeeths is SHOT DEAD! Still no idea what those verses mean, do you? For a sunni-wahabi, they mean, as I said twice, your corrupt & fabricated hadeeths (basis of your creed). <p>There is no one other than you and your deduded lot that believes that the Ismaili Imam or the previous Imams were drunkards, gambler, thieves or womanizers. It is a move born of desperation. <p>I guess a deen that is based on hadeeths that slanders the prophet would seek to slander his progeny as well. You must think you are impressing me or the readers with your "personality attacks" in every thread. <p>If you have got nothing to say in context to the thread then shut up. Or, copy & paste from your site called most merciful.com. A deen(creed) that knows no morality or mercy calls his associated website the most merciful.<br>

[Guest]

Now now hafeez, and you are calling me desperate.<p>Ismailis have always said that numbers do not matter. So even if I am the only one that believes the living Imam is all that, does it make it false?? Say no and you've been had, say yes and you've been had.

[Guest]

muslim first aka akberally, et al,<p>Anything to add to the above explanation of the two verses. Or, are you still updating your website and responding to the deluge of mails. We'll conclude that those verses represent the sahih hadeeths for you and your co-followers.<p>For those who do not know, this chap also wrote a book called 'From Abraham to the Aga Khan - The House of Abraham', where he, as the name of the book suggests extolled the H.H. the Aga Khan as Imam-e-muslimeen. Later, after his expulsion from the community for blasphemy, he claimed that he was CO-ERCED to write the book.

[Guest]

Now this is what the Ismailis have perfected. Avoid questions you cannot answer by diverting attention, blaming tom to be dick and dick to be harry

[Guest]

And, I forgot to add, refusing to read answers that do not agree with your point of view.