Questions:

1. What is the relationship between the obedience of Allah, the obedience of the Messenger and that of ulu’l-amr?

2. Who are “those in authority” (ulu’l-amr)?

3. What is the connotation of the clause “from among you”?

4. Why are “those in authority” not mentioned in the last sentence: “then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah…”?

The exegetes selected for this study are:

Ibn Kathir

Allamah Tabataba'I

Sayyid Maududi

Go To: Our Conclusions

IBN KATHIR:

(Actual text from 'Abridged' English volume 3, pages 92-95)

Allah said: (O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.)
Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah, (Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority)" was revealed about `Abdullah bin Hudhafah bin Qays bin `Adi, who the Messenger of Allah sent on a military expedition.'' This statement was collected by the Group, with the exception of Ibn Majah At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan, Gharib''. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ali said, "The Messenger of Allah sent a troop under the command of a man from Al-Ansar. When they left, he became angry with them for some reason and said to them, `Has not the Messenger of Allah commanded you to obey me' They said, `Yes.' He said, `Collect some wood,' and then he started a fire with the wood, saying, `I command you to enter the fire.' The people almost entered the fire, but a young man among them said, ‘You only ran away from the Fire to Allah's Messenger. Therefore, do not rush until you go back to Allah's Messenger, and if he commands you to enter it, then enter it.’ When they went back to Allah's Messenger, they told him what had happened, and the Messenger said, (Had you entered it, you would never have departed from it. Obedience is only in righteousness.)'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs.

Abu Dawud recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The Muslim is required to hear and obey in that which he likes and dislikes, unless he was commanded to sin. When he is commanded with sin, then there is no hearing or obeying.) This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. `Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "We gave our pledge to Allah's Messenger to hear and obey (our leaders), while active and otherwise, in times of ease and times of difficulty, even if we were deprived of our due shares, and to not dispute this matter (leadership) with its rightful people. The Prophet said, (Except when you witness clear Kufr about which you have clear proof from Allah.)'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. Another Hadith narrated by Anas states that the Messenger of Allah said, (Hear and obey (your leaders), even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisin, is made your chief.) Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Umm Al-Husayn said that she heard the Messenger of Allah giving a speech during the Farewell Hajj, in which he said; (Even if a slave was appointed over you, and he rules you with Allah's Book, then listen to him and obey him.) Muslim recorded this Hadith. In another narration with Muslim, the Prophet said, (Even if an Ethiopian slave, whose nose was mutilated...)

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my commander, obeys me, and whoever disobeys my commander, disobeys me.) This is why Allah said, (Obey Allah), adhere to His Book, (and obey the Messenger), adhere to his Sunnah, (And those of you who are in authority) in the obedience to Allah which they command you, not what constitutes disobedience of Allah, for there is no obedience to anyone in disobedience to Allah, as we mentioned in the authentic Hadith, (Obedience is only in righteousness.)

Allah said, ((And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger).
Mujahid and several others among the Salaf said that the Ayah means, "(Refer) to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.'' This is a command from Allah that whatever areas the people dispute about, whether major or minor areas of the religion, they are required to refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah for judgment concerning these disputes. In another Ayah, Allah said, (And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah). Therefore, whatever the Book and Sunnah decide and testify to the truth of, then it, is the plain truth. What is beyond truth, save falsehood This is why Allah said, (if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day.) meaning, refer the disputes and conflicts that arise between you to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment.

Allah's statement, (if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. ) indicates that those who do not refer to the Book and Sunnah for judgment in their disputes, are not believers in Allah or the Last Day. Allah said, (That is better) meaning, referring to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes is better, (and more suitable for final determination.) meaning, "Has a better end and destination,'' as As-Suddi and several others have stated while Mujahid said, "Carries a better reward.''

ALLAMAH TABATABA'I

(Actual text from al-Mizan, English volume 8, pages 276-296)

Qur’an: O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you:

After calling the people to worship Allah alone, and do good to various groups of believers, and condemning those who cast aspersions on this idea or prevent others from Allah’s way (see preceding verses), the talk again turns to the basic theme from a different angle, from which grow up other branches. It leads to reinforcing the foundation of Islamic society, as it exhorts and urges the believers to preserve their unity and to remove every type of dispute or discord by referring it to Allah and His Messenger.

Undoubtedly, the sentence, “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”, paves the way for the next order to refer all quarrels to Allah and His Messenger, although the sentence is in fact the basis of all divine laws and shari’ah. It is obvious from the order, then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, which emanates from this origin; then the speech repeatedly turns to the same theme, as it goes on saying, Have you not observed those who think that they believe in what has been revealed to you…; then again says: And We did not send any Messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s permission; Then says: But no! by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them,…

There should be no doubt whatsoever that when Allah tells us to obey Him, it means that we must obey Him in all the realities and laws, which He sent to us through His Messenger. As for His Messenger, his orders emanate from either of his two lawful authorities: First: His legislative authority based on divine revelation other than the Qur’an. By this authority, he teaches the people details of what is mentioned in general terms in the Qur’an, and explains all the related matters. Allah says: and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to them what has been revealed to them (16:44). Second: What he, in his wisdom, decides in administrative and judicial matters by the authority given to him by God. Allah says: …that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught (shown) you; (4:105). It is the opinion with which he used to judge between people according to the laid down judicial laws; and it is the decision he used to take in important affairs. Allah had told him to consult the people seeking their advice: and take counsel with them in the affair; but when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah (3:159). Thus the people would participate in consultation; but the decision would be of the Prophet alone.

The above discourse shows that the Messenger’s obedience has a connotation distinct from Allah’s obedience, although the Messenger’s obedience is in reality the obedience of Allah Himself, because it is Allah who has obliged the people to obey the Messenger, as He said: And We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s permission. People have to obey the Messenger in what he explains by divine revelation and in what he decides and orders by his divine wisdom.

It is this variation of connotation, which has necessitated repetition of the order of obedience: “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”. (And Allah knows better) This repetition, however, is not for emphasis, as the exegetes have opined. Had the intention been on emphasis, it would have been more appropriate not to repeat; it would have been more to the point to say obey Allah and the Messenger, as it would have implied that obedience of the Messenger is one with the obedience of Allah; after all, not every repetition shows emphasis.

However, the ulu ‘l-amr (those vested with authority) – whoever they might be – do not have the privilege of revelation; they decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their opinion and order must be obeyed just like the prophet’s opinion and order. That is the reason why Allah has not mentioned them when He orders the believers to refer their disputes to Allah and the Messenger. He says: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day. The people thus ordered are the believers, because the verse begins with the address, “O you who believe!” and the quarrel mentioned here must be an internal dispute among the believers. We cannot suppose that the believers would quarrel with those who are vested with authority when they are obligated to obey them. So this quarrel must be among the believers themselves, and it cannot be in matters of orders issued by those vested with authority; rather it has to be about identification of Allah's command in a particular affair, as may be inferred from the next verses which condemn those who resort to the judgment of taghut (infidels) preferring it to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger. A believer must resort in such matters to the religious laws laid down in the Qur’an and the sunnah; and both the Qur’an and the sunnah are final proofs in all affairs, for him who has the ability to understand the law from them. When the ulu 'I-amr say that this is what the Qur’an and the sunnah say on this matter, all argument has to stop. When they talk, theirs is the final word, because the verse makes their obedience compulsory without any restriction or condition; and finally every affair returns to the Book of Allah and the sunnah.

It shows that the people with authority - whoever they might be - have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur’an or the sunnah. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose to order people to refer their dispute to the Qur’an and the sunnah, to Allah and the Messenger, as may be inferred from the verse 33:36: And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to have any choice in their affair when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying. Allah decides by giving a law; His Messenger decides by elaborating a divine law, giving an order or pronouncing a judgment. As for the persons vested with authority, they have the power, in executive matters, to decide according to their discretion, and in judicial and general matters, to bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger.

In short, as the ulu l-amr have no power of legislation, nor do they have any order other than that which Allah and His Messenger have given in the Qur’an and the sunnah, Allah did not mention them again in connection with referral of disputes, when He said: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. Thus Allah's obedience is in one category and that of the Messenger and those vested with authority, in another. That is why Allah has said: "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you".

Undoubtedly, the obedience, ordered by the words, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger", is general, without any condition or restriction. It proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary to Allah's actual order or prohibition. Otherwise, making his obedience compulsory would be a contradiction in terms on the part of Allah; far be it from His sublime presence. It necessarily follows that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was ma'sum (infallible), sinless, free from error.

The same argument applies in case of the persons vested with authority. But the presence of al-‘ismah (sinlessness) in the Messenger is independently established by proofs from the reason and the Qur’an and the sunnah, without depending on this verse. Apparently, it is not the case with the people vested with authority. Someone therefore could imagine that it was not necessary for these people of authority to be ma’sum, sinless, and that the verse could be explained even without believing in their 'ismah.

The argument could be put forward as follows: "This verse ordains a law aimed at the well-being of the ummah, which would protect the Muslim society from internal discord and disunity. It aims at nothing more than what is found in other nations and societies. They give one of their leaders authority to manage their affairs; they pledge to obey him, and his orders are carried out. But they know that he may sometimes contravene the law or err in his judgment. So, when it is clearly known that he was going against the law, he is not obeyed; rather, his error is pointed out to him. But when there is only a possibility - without certainty that he might be wrong, his orders are obeyed and implemented although in fact he might have decided erroneously. Yet that mistake is tolerated for the sake of maintaining the society's unity, which is more important and would compensate for such mistakes and errors."

"The case of ulu ‘l-amr (those vested with authority) mentioned in this verse is not different from other worldly leaders in their authority. Allah has ordered the believers to obey them. If they give an order contrary to the Qur’an or the sunnah, it would be invalid and would not be obeyed; the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w. a.) has said: 'No creature is obeyed in disobedience of the Creator.’ This meaning has been narrated by the Shi'ahs and Sunnis both, and also the generality of the verse proves it. If the ulu 'I-amr commit a mistake, and it is definitely known to be a mistake, it would be changed to conform with the Qur’an and the sunnah; but if there is no certainty of mistake, the order would be carried out as if there was no mistake. It would not do any harm to obey such an order and implement it even if in reality it was wrong, because the preservation of the ummah's unity and continuance of its power and prestige would compensate for such contravention of the actual divine law. It would not be unlike the established dictum of the Principles of Jurisprudence that the decisions derived from apparent proofs of jurisprudence are binding on man even if they are not in accordance with the actual divine order, although the divine order would not be changed by that man-made decision; and the contrariness would be compensated by underlying good of society."

"In short, it is compulsory to obey the ulu'l-amr, even if they are not sinless, and could commit mistakes and even debauchery. They shall not be obeyed if they indulge in debauchery; they shall be returned to the Qur’an and the sunnah when it is known that they had deviated from them, but in all other cases, their orders shall be obeyed and their decisions enforced. There is no harm in implementing an order which does not visibly go against actual divine law (even if in reality it does) for the sake of preserving Islamic unity and for the well-being of the Muslim nation."

COMMENT: If you ponder on what was written earlier, you will realize that this fallacy has no leg to stand on. It is possible to use this 'argument' for restricting the generality of the verse in case of debauchery, by putting forward the above-quoted Prophet's tradition, "No creature is obeyed in disobedience of the Creator", or some Qur'anic verses of the same import, e.g., "Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency" (7:28); and other similar verses. Likewise, comparable cases may be quoted for religious obligatory-ness of obeying orders which are apparently binding, like obedience of the commanders of expeditions who were appointed by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), the governors he sent to various places like Mecca or Yemen, or who were left in charge of Medina when he himself went out. Another is the authoritative nature of mujtahids ruling for his followers, and so on.

But all this cannot restrict the generality of the verses in any way. Correctness of a theory is one thing, and it being proved by apparent meaning of a Qur'anic verse is quite another.

The verse proves obligatory-ness of these ulu l-amr's obedience, without putting any restriction or condition, without attaching any proviso. Nor is there any other Qur'anic verse to limit its generality. In short, there is nothing to show that the order "and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you", implies, 'obey those vested with authority from among you as long as they do not order you to commit a sin or until you are not sure that they are in wrong; but if they tell you to commit a sin, you are not obliged to obey them, and if you are sure of their mistake then correct them by directing their attention to the Qur'an and the sunnah. Certainly the Qur'an's wording does not support this meaning.

Also we should not forget that when ordering people to obey their parents, Allah has said: "And We have enjoined on man goodness to his parents, and if they contend with you that you should associate (others) with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them . . ." (29:8). It should be noted that parents' obedience is much less important [and is restricted to their off-spring]; yet Allah has attached to it such a clear and unambiguous proviso. How is it that He did not attach any such condition in the verse of obedience which deals with a fundamental religious principles, and on which depends the felicity of mankind?

Moreover, the verse has joined the Messenger and "those vested with authority" in this order; and mentions both under one obedience: "Obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you"; and the Messenger cannot order sin nor can he issue a wrong judgment. If it were possible for the ulu'l-amr to be wrong in an order or a judgment, it was highly essential to put suitable restriction on this order as far as the ulu'l-amr were concerned. Thus the only way out is to interpret this verse in its general sense without any condition or restriction. This in its turn proves that the ulu l-amr were ma'sum, sinless in the same way as the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was without any difference.

al-Amr in the phrase, ulu’l-amr the religious or temporal affairs of the believers who have been addressed in this verse; as is supported by the verse, and take counsel with them in the affair (3:159), or as is said in praise of the pious, and their system is to take counsel among themselves (42:38). Although it may possibly be taken to mean order, which is opposite of prohibition, but it will be a far-fetched interpretation.

This word is qualified with the phrase, from among you. Obviously it is an adverbial phrase of place. That is, the ulu’l-amr will be raised from among you. It is similar to the words of Allah, He it is who raised among the Meccans a Messenger from among themselves (62:2); or the prayer of lbrahim, Our Lord! and raise up in them a Messenger from among themselves (2:129); or the divine words, if there come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My communications ... (7:35). This explanation leaves no room for the mistaken thought (expressed by someone) that "from among you" indicates that those vested with authority would be normal people like us, as they would be one of us, i.e., mere believers without having the distinction of divine 'ismah (protection from sins and errors).

Ulu’l-amr, being a plural noun, shows that there must be a number of those vested with authority, and it is correct without any doubt, but obviously it is possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time. Thus all of them taken together will be collectively entitled to the believers' obedience, as we say, 'Pray your compulsory prayers and obey your superiors and elders.'

Strangely enough, ar-Razi has objected to this idea, saying "it would mean using a plural for singular and that is contrary to a word's apparent usage." It seems he had forgotten that such usage is very common in literature, and the Qur'an itself is full of such verses. For example, So do not yield to the rejecters (68:8); So do not follow the unbelievers (25:52); surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men (33:67); and do not obey the bidding of the extravagant ones (26:151); Maintain the prayers (2:238); and make yourself gentle to the believers (15:88) and various other verses containing positive and negative statements, and having declarative as well as exclamatory sense.

It would be against the apparent meaning of a word if a plural were used for only a single individual; but it is not against apparent meaning if it is used for a group of individuals, in a way that it turns into a series of numerous orders. For example, we say, 'Honor the scholars of your town'; meaning: Honor this scholar, and honor that scholar, and so on.

Another suggestion: Ulu’l-amr, who are entitled to unconditional obedience, may be a group - and may thus be referred to with plural sense. It may be an association of many persons each individual counted as a possessor of authority, inasmuch as he has influence over people and his words are obeyed. For example - army commanders, scholars, rulers and community elders. The author of al-Manar has suggested that this refers to ahlu Thalli wa l-'aqd (those who tie and untie; i.e., people having influence and authority), who are trusted by the ummah; including scholars, military commanders, leaders in fields of commerce, industry and agriculture, as well as trade-unionists, political leaders, and chief editors of influential newspapers. This is what we mean when we say that ulu’l-amr means people of influence and authority. It is a collective body of the leaders of the ummah.

COMMENT: The problem is that the complete verse cannot be explained in the light of this suggestion.

As you have seen, the verse proves the sinlessness of the ulu’l-amr; and even those who support the above suggestion, have to admit that the verse confirms their sinlessness.

The question arises: Who among this body of influential persons is sinless? Is each of its members sinless, so that the collective body could be called sinless? Because a group is but the sum total of the individuals. But it is evident that there never was in this ummah, even for a single day, a group of influential people who had authority to jointly manage the Muslim's affairs and whose every member was sinless and free from error. Obviously, it is impossible for Allah to order us to obey a group, which had never existed in reality.

Or does it mean that sinlessness, a real attribute, exists in that collective body as an adjective exists in its qualified noun? Although each individual member may commit sins, and in common with all other human beings can indulge in polytheism and disobedience, and although the opinion he forms may be erroneous or may lead to sin and straying, but when the said body collectively reaches at a decision it remains safe from mistakes and errors because the collective body is sinless. But this too is impossible. How can a real attribute, that is, sinlessness, exist in an abstract idea, i.e., the collective body? A real attribute cannot stand in a mentally posited idea.

Or, does it mean that sinlessness of this body is attributable neither to its individual members nor to the collective body? That it only signifies that Allah protects this body in a way it does not order any sin, nor does it arrive at a mistaken decision. Its case is not different from a mutawatir information which is protected from falsity, although none of its narrators or informants is sinless, nor is this, freedom from falsity attributed to the chain of narrators when looked at as a composite group. All that it means is that a habit has been formed which prevents falsehood from seeping in that information. In other words, Allah protects a mutawdtir information from infiltration of falsehood. In the same way, opinion of ulu’l-amr is protected from mistakes and errors, although neither the collective body nor its individual members are free from sin and mistake. Nor do they have any special quality or attribute. It is nevertheless safe from falsehood and error, like a mutawatir tradition. This is what sinlessness of ulu’l-amr means. The verse only shows that their opinion is never confused; it is always right and in conformity with the Qur’an and the sunnah. It is a special divine providence for this ummah; and it has been narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said: "My ummah will not unite on error."

COMMENT: As for this tradition, it is totally irrelevant to this subject. Even if it is accepted as correct, it only says that the ummah will not unite on error. It does not say that people of influence and authority from among the ummah would not join hands on error. Ummah has its own meaning, and ahlu Thalli wa 'l-aqd has another; there is no evidence that the former means the latter. Moreover the tradition does not say that whatever they unanimously decided would be free from error; it rather says that they would not be united on error - and the two propositions are not the same.

The tradition accordingly would mean as follows: Never will the entire ummah unite on error concerning any matter; there will always be among them those who would be on right guidance - either all or some of them, at least the sinless one. It will correspond with the verses and traditions showing that Islam - the religion of truth, would never disappear from the earth, would continue upto the Day of Resurrection. Allah says: ... therefore if these disbelieve in it, We have (already) entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it (6:89); And He made it a word to continue in his posterity (43:28); Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian (15:9); Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One (41:42). There are many verses having the same connotation.

Also this is not a specialty of the ummah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), because the correct traditions prove otherwise. Look at the traditions narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) through various chains of narrators which describe the division of the Jews into seventy-one sects, of the Christians into seventy-two and of the Muslims into seventy-three sects, all of which would go to hell except one. We have quoted it in the "Traditions" under the verse, And hold fast by the cord of Allah all together ... (3:103).

In short, there is no need to further discuss this tradition, because, even if its chain of narrators be free from defects, it has no relevance to the subject under discussion. We should look at the meaning of sinlessness as applied to the influential people of authority from this ummah, if it is they who are referred to as "those vested with authority from among you".

What is the genesis of 'ismah (sinlessness) of the influential people of authority among the Muslims? What makes their opinion free from error? This body of influential people, which manages the public affairs, is not something unique for the Muslim ummah. There are found in every big and small nation, and even in the tribes and clans, a number of people who have prestige and influence in their society; and who exercise power and have authority over public affairs. Look into the histories of the ancient people as well as the present nations; you will find countless instances where the people of influence and power unanimously agreed on a course of action about some very important matter and their plan was carried out. Later events sometimes showed the decision was correct; at other times it proved wrong. There is, of course, greater chance of mistake in individual decision than in a collective one; yet there is no guarantee that a decision jointly arrived at after thorough debate and discussion will never be wrong. History and our own experience provide ample proof for it.

Now, if collective decisions of influential and powerful leaders of Muslim ummah are always free from mistakes and errors, we will have to find for it a cause other than the normal ones; it will have to be something supernatural and miraculous. If so, then it would be a manifest miracle reserved for this ummah, which would strengthen their power, defend their land and protect them from all types of mischief that could endanger their unity, In short, such a cause would be a divinely given miracle parallel to the Glorious Qur’an, and it would live as long as the Qur’an lives; it would have the same relation to the practical life of the ummah as the Qur’an has to its intellectual one. In that case, it was necessary for the Qur’an to describe its boundary and area; Allah would have mentioned it as one of His special graces for this ummah, as He has done with reference to the Qur’an and Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). Also, He should have explained to this group its collective responsibilities as He has done in connection with His Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Likewise, the Prophet should have given detailed instructions to his ummah concerning this extra-ordinary group, and more particularly to his companions; after all, they were the people who became ahlu Thalli wa 'l-aqd after him and took the control of the ummah in their hands. The Prophet should have explained about this band, which is supposed to be vested with authority, what was its reality? What was its boundary? How wide was the area of its jurisdiction? Would there be a single body to rule over the whole Muslim ummah in all public affairs? Or would there be separate bodies of ulu’l-amr in different Muslim societies to rule over their lives, honor and properties?

Also, it was incumbent on the Muslims - and especially the companions - to pay more attention to it. They should have asked questions and gone into its details. They had asked about things which had no importance compared to this basic matter; they had asked about crescent, the things to be spent and war booty, as Allah has mentioned: They ask you about crescents [2:189]; They ask you as to what they should spend [2:215]; They ask you about spoils of war [8: 11]

So why did they never ask about it? Or was it that they had asked but it was manipulated by people and hidden from us? But this meaning was not against the desire of the majority of the ummah (which follows the same system) so that we could think that they neglected and discarded it until it was completely forgotten!

Also it should inevitably have been quoted during the disputes and strifes, which had repeatedly erupted after the Prophet's death. What happened to this 'reality' that it was never quoted or referred to in their argumentations and polemics, while the narrators have transmitted all their arguments word by word? Why is it not found in any speech or letter? Why did the early exegetes among the companions and their disciples not know it until it was 'discovered' by a handful of later writers like ar-Razi and some who came after him?

Even ar-Razi has objected to this view after mentioning it. He says that it is against the composite consensus; the phrase, ulu’l-amr has been explained in not more than four ways: The rightly-guided caliphs, commanders of expeditions, religious scholars and sinless Imams. This fifth explanation goes against the above composite consensus. Then he has replied that this new explanation is in fact based on the third meaning [i.e., religious scholars]. In this way he has destroyed all that he himself had built. It is now clear that things were not like that at all; nobody ever thought it was a noble and unique divine gift to the clique of influential and powerful 'leaders' of the Muslims, which would constitute a great miracle of Islam.

Or do they want to say that this freedom from error did not emanate from any supernatural cause? Rather, Islam had generally trained its followers so nicely, basing its teachings on such balanced principles, that it was bound to produce this result that the people of power and influence among this ummah, because of this training, make no mistake in their collectively arrived at decisions and do not err in the opinions they form.

First of all, this supposition is wrong because it goes against the common sense. Perception of a whole is the sum total of the perception of its components. When each of them is liable to be wrong, the whole group cannot be safe from error and mistake.

Secondly, if the opinion of the group of influential persons is always correct and free from error, and if this extra-ordinary feature is based upon such invincible cause, then it should never fail in producing the desired result. Then what else was the cause of all this falsehood, disturbance and mischief, which has overfilled the Muslim world?

There were countless gatherings after the Prophet's death, in which influential and powerful leaders of the Muslims collectively decided whatever they thought correct, and followed what in their opinion was the right path; but all this led them to nowhere; they went on blundering into far-reaching errors; their attempts to bring happiness to the Muslims increased only the ummah's misfortune and unhappiness. The society, which was based on religion, turned soon after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) into an imperialism - oppressive and destructive. Let scholars make in-depth study of the disturbances and mischief that raised their head, since the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) departed from this world; and have a look at what followed. On every page of Islamic history they will find blood spilled, honors defiled, properties looted, religious laws ignored and divinely ordained punishments nullified. Let them look for its origin and discover its roots. Was there any effective cause other than the opinions formed and decisions taken by the powerful and influential leaders, which they had yoked the ummah with?

So this is the position of the most important pillar on which they want to build the structure of Islam! This is the effect of the 'opinion' of influential and powerful leaders who, they tell us, are referred to by the words, ulu’l-amr (those vested with authority), and who, according to them, are free from error in their opinion!

Those who believe that ulu’l-amr refers to the people of influence and power, have no escape from admitting that those people were not sinless, not free from mistakes and errors. That the ulu’l-amr, like all other people could be right in some cases and wrong in the others. But inasmuch as theirs was a distinguished group, experienced in public affairs, the ratio of their mistakes was much smaller. Allah has made their obedience compulsory. Although they could at times be wrong, but Allah has granted indulgence to such mistakes, keeping in view the overwhelming good emanating from their management of affairs. If they issue an order or give a ruling which contravenes the Qur’an and the sunnah, and that order or ruling happens to be congruous with the good of the ummah - even if it reinterprets a religious law contrary to what was hitherto done, or changes it to bring it into line with the demands of time or inclinations of the ummah of conditions of the modem world - this new verdict will be followed, and religion will recognize it as good. Why? Because religion only aims at society's happiness and advancement. This attitude is clearly seen in the way the Islamic governments behaved in the early days of Islam as well as later on. Whenever a law prevalent in the Prophet's days was changed or any system established by him discarded, the only reason given was that that law or system was in conflict with one or another right of the ummah; and that the good of the nation demanded that a new law should be enforced and a new system established which would satisfy people's aspirations for blessings of life. A scholar (Ahmad al-Amin in Fajru 'l-Islam) has openly written that a caliph has full authority to act contrary to explicit religious laws if he thinks it to be in the best interest of the ummah.

Accordingly, the Muslim nation would not be any different from other civilized societies inasmuch as they all have an elected body which decides the laws of the society keeping in view the demands of the situation at a given time.

This opinion, as you see, is held by those who think that religion is a social system presented in the garb of religion. It is governed by the same factors, which govern other human societies leading them on the path of evolution step by step. Islam was a high ideal, which was perfectly suitable for those who lived during and near the days of the Prophet. And Islam, according to them, is only a link in the chain of human civilization - and the time has left it behind. One should not study it except in the way the archaeologists look at the artifacts from the earth.

We have nothing to discuss about the verse: obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, with the persons holding the above-mentioned view. That view is based on a theory which would adversely affect all fundamentals of religion and the whole system established by the Prophet's traditions, including the basic gnosis and belief, moral values and rules of jurisprudence. If we look in this light at all that was done by the companions in the days of the Prophet and during his last illness; at the disputes and the strife they caused; at the changes they made in some laws and systems established by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); at the happenings in the days of Mu'awiyah and the caliphs who followed him, the Umayyads, then the `Abbasids and then the later ones - and all things resemble one another - we shall arrive at a stunning conclusion.

A most astonishing view has been expressed about this verse by a writer, who has opined, "The verse, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, does not imply any of the things said by the exegetes - divided as they are among themselves:

"First, because the obligation of ulu'I-amr's obedience whoever they might be does not prove that they have any distinction or superiority over others. We are also obliged by religion to obey unjust oppressive rulers when there is no alternative, for the sake of warding off their evil, and those unjust rulers can never be superior to us in the sight of Allah.”

"Second, because the order given in the verse is not unlike other religious commands which can be implemented only when its object is available. For example, it is obligatory to spend on poor, and forbidden to help oppressors; but it is not obligatory for us to create a poor or an oppressor in order that we could spend on him or resist from helping him, respectively."

COMMENT: The fallacy of these two 'reasons’ is transparent. Add to it his supposition that ulu’l-amr in the verse means rulers and kings, unsoundness of which has already been shown.

As for his first reason, he seems oblivious to the fact that the Qur'an is full of verses forbidding obedience of the unjust, the oppressors and the unbelievers. It was impossible for Allah to order us to obey them, after all that prohibition; and then to go a step further and join their obedience with His and the Messenger's obedience. If that obedience were allowed for the sake of one's safety, Allah would have used words like 'permission', etc., as He has done in one place: except when you guard yourself against them for fear of them (3:28). Not that He should clearly make their obedience compulsory, which would lead to all types of horrible results.

As for the second reason, it is based on the same assumption as the first one. However, if it is supposed that their obedience was made obligatory because they had a special status in religion, then they would be sinless, as explained earlier. And it is impossible for Allah to oblige us to obey someone who did not exist or who was rarely found - and this too in a verse which contained the most fundamental aspect of religious good, a factor without which the equilibrium of Islamic society could not be maintained. You have seen that the ummah needs ulu’l-amr for the same reason it needs the Messenger for, that is, for guarding and managing the affairs of the ummah. We had talked on it when discussing about the decisive and ambiguous verses. Now we return to our original topic.

It is now clear that it would be meaningless to interpret the phrase: those vested with authority from among you, as 'the people having influence and power' (whatever meaning we give to this latter phrase). The only meaning now possible is: Those individuals from among the ummah who are sinless, free from error and mistake in their words and deeds, whose obedience has been made obligatory. The only way to recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His own words or through His Prophet. This explanation corresponds with what has been narrated from the lmams of Ahlu l-bayt that it is they.

As for the claim that ulu’l-amr refers to the rightly guided caliphs, commanders of expeditions or religious scholars whose opinions and words are followed, it is rebutted on two counts:

First: The verse proves their sinlessness, and undoubtedly, none of these three groups was or is sinless – except what a group of Muslims believes about the right of 'Ali (a.s.)’

Second: All these interpretations are just claims without any evidence.

Objections have been raised against the explanation that the phrase refers to the sinless lmams of Ahlu l-bayt (a.s.):

First Objection: In case this meaning were correct, it was necessary for Allah and the Messenger to clearly identify them [to the ummah]; and if it were done, no two persons would have disputed about them after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.).

Reply: It is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an and the sunnah, like the verses of Guardianship, Purity and others; and the traditions like that of the Ark (The parable of my Ahlu l-bayt is like the parable of Noah's Ark; whoever boarded it was saved, and whoever stayed away from it was drowned); and that of the Two Precious Things (Surely I am leaving among you two precious [or weighty] things, the Book of Allah and my offspring who are my Ahlu l-bayt; as long as you would hold fast to both of them you would never go astray after me.). These have been quoted in the discourse on "Decisive and Ambiguous Verses" in the third [Arabic] volume [Eng. vol.5, pp.46-93]. There are also traditions about the ulu’l-amr, narrated through Shia and Sunni chains, some of which will be given under "Traditions".

Second Objection: Their obedience is conditional to their identification, because an order to obey them without recognizing them would be a command to do the impossible. As their obedience is conditional, this verse cannot apply to them because it is unconditional.

Reply: This objection bounces back to the objector. Every obedience [even of the people of influence and power] is conditional to their recognition. The only difference is that we may recognize the people of influence and power by ourselves without referring it to Allah and His Messenger, while a sinless Imam can be identified only through an introducer. However the condition of recognition is equally present in both cases; so both should be contrary to the verse.

The fact is that although identification is counted as a condition, it is not like other conditions. It only means that when one is obliged to do something, he has to recognize the object of obligation and its other concomitants; but the obligation does not depend on it. If recognition were like other basic conditions which affect the obligation itself, like 'ability' for hajj or existence of water for wudu', then nobody would be obliged to do anything at all.

Third Objection: We are unable, these days, to reach a sinless Imam and learn knowledge and religion from him. Therefore, he cannot be the ulu’l-amr whose obedience is obligatory for the urnmah, because there is no way to have any contact with him.

Reply: This problem is created by the ummah itself, not by Allah or the Messenger. The ummah opted for wrong ways and was untrue to itself. Thus the responsibility and obligation to obedience stays unchanged. Suppose a nation killed its prophet. Can they claim that now they were unable to obey him because he was no more? Moreover, the objection may be directed to the objector himself, because nowadays there is not a single ummah in Islam in which the people of influence and power from among themselves could enforce what they would decide for it.

Fourth Objection: Allah says, then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. If ulu’l-amr means a sinless Imam, it was necessary to say, 'refer it to the lmam'.

Reply: Its reply has already been given in the Commentary; and it shows that it actually means referring to the Imam.

Fifth Objection: The believers in a sinless Imam say that his obedience rescues the ummah from darkness of strife and evil of disagreement. But evidently the verse ordains a law related to quarrel - in spite of the existence of Imam and obedience of the ummah It points to disagreement among the ulu’l-amr themselves in reaching at a decision about some event or occurrence. But according to those who believe so, it is not possible to quarrel or dispute in presence of a sinless Imam, because in their views he is like the Messenger (s.a.w.a.). Accordingly, this sentence would be without any purpose or benefit.

Reply: Its reply too is clear from the preceding Commentary. The quarrel mentioned in the verse refers to the believers' disagreement concerning rules of the Qur’an and the sunnah, not concerning executive orders issued by the lmam in various events and happenings. It was mentioned earlier that no one has any right to legislate a law other than Allah and His Messenger. If the quarreling parties are capable of inferring its law from the Qur'an and the sunnah, they have the right to do so, or they could ask the lmam about it, because he is free from error in his opinion. But if they are unable to infer it, then the only way is to ask the Imam. It is just like the days of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) when his contemporaries had the option of inferring the law from the Qur'an (if they could) or asking the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) about it; but in case they could not infer it, the only remedy was to ask him (s.a.w.a.).

As the verse shows, the ulu’l-amr are just like the Messenger in the obligation of their obedience. As for the believers' quarrel, the verse describes the procedure to be adopted, and it makes no difference whether the Messenger be present (as the following verses show) or absent (as the unrestrictedness of the verse proves). The order to refer the matter to Allah and the Messenger is, therefore, confined to the dispute among the believers themselves, as is shown by the word "if you quarrel"; it should be noted that Allah has not said, if those vested with authority quarrel; nor has He said, if they quarrel. The matter will be referred, in the presence of the Messenger, by asking him the relevant law or inferring it from the Qur'an and the sunnah (for those who have the ability to do so); and in his absence, the question is to be asked of the Imam, or its reply inferred as described above. Obviously, the sentence, then if you quarrel about any thing . . . is not without purpose or benefit, as the objector had claimed.

All this proves that the word, ulu’l-amr, in this verse refers to some men from among the ummah, each of whom is similar to the Messenger in two aspects: He too is free from sin and mistake, and his obedience too is obligatory and compulsory. However, we do not say that the phrase, ulu’l-amr, does not have a wider connotation according to language, or that it may not be used in a more general way if one wants to. But meaning of a word is one thing, and applying it to appropriate objects is another. For example, meaning of messenger is general, and it is used in the same meaning in this verse; yet the intended personality is of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.).

QUR'AN: then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. . .

It branches out from the restriction understood from the context. The preceding sentence, obey Allah and obey the Messenger. . ., makes obedience of Allah and the Messenger compulsory. This obedience is in the sphere of religion, which ensures erasure of every possible dispute and guarantees fulfillment of every possible need. It leaves nothing uncared for, and no referral is required to any one other than Allah and His Messenger. The sentence, thus, implies: obey Allah and do not obey taghut. This is the implied restriction, which we have mentioned above.

The speech is addressed to the believers. It shows that the 'quarrel' refers to their dispute among themselves, and not to any putative quarrel between them and the ulu’l-amr, or to any supposed dispute among the ulu’l-amr themselves. It is because the former, i.e., quarrel among the believers and the ulu’l-amr, goes against the obligation of their obedience, and the latter, i.e., dispute among the ulu’l-amr themselves, does not conform with the obligation of their obedience [which shows that they are always right] because in dispute one party is surely wrong. Moreover, this idea is not in accord with the verse, as it is addressed to the believers; Allah says: "then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it . . .".

The word, 'thing', is general and could possibly include all decisions and orders given by Allah, His Messenger and ulu’l-amr; yet the next words, "refer it to Allah and the Messenger", show that the verse speaks about quarrel in something outside the direct responsibility of the ulu’l-amr. They have full authority and control over executive matters which come within the area of their wilayah (=guardianship; mastership), like their order to join an expedition, to fight or to make peace, and so on. The order to refer a matter to Allah and the Messenger does not cover such things, because people are obliged to obey the ulu’l-amr in these things. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. The verse somewhat explicitly shows that no one has any right to manipulate any religious law explained by Allah and His Messenger, and ulu’l-amr and others all are equal in this respect.

The proviso, "if you believe in Allah and the last day", puts utmost emphasis to this order, and indicates that its contravention emanates from defect in belief. The order has a direct connection with faith, its contravention would show that although the person concerned pretended to believe in Allah and His Messenger, disbelief was hidden in his heart; and this is hypocrisy, as the following verses prove.

This is better and very good in the end. The indicative, 'this', points either to referring the matter in dispute or to obeying Allah, His Messenger and those vested with authority. "at-Ta'wil” ( translated here as "in the end") refers to the underlying good on which the order is based and which is realized when the order is carried out, Its meaning has been explained in the third volume (Arabic, fifth English), under the verse, "seeking to give it (their own) interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah" (3:7).

Summary: (al-Mizan, English volume 8, pages 276-296)

Qur’an: "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you"

The sentence “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”, is in fact the basis of all divine laws and the shari’ah. To obey Allah means to obey Him in all the realities and the laws He sent to us through His Messenger. To obey the Messenger means to obey his orders which emanate from his legislative authority based on divine revelation and what he, in his wisdom and what Allah has taught him, decides in administrative and judicial matters.

There is a suggestion in the verse by the repetition of the word ‘obey’ that the Messenger’s obedience is distinct from Allah’s obedience, although his obedience is in reality the obedience of Allah Himself because it is Allah who has obliged us to obey the Messenger.

The ulu’l-amr do not have the privilege of revelation; they decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their opinion and order must be obeyed just like the Prophet’s opinion and order. This shows that they have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur’an or the sunnah and that is why they are not mentioned when the believers are ordered to refer their disputes to Allah and His Messenger. Allah decides by giving a law; His Messenger decides by elaborating a divine law; the ulu’l-amr simply bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger.

The sentence “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you” shows that Allah’s obedience is in one category and that of the Messenger and those vested with authority, in another. The obedience ordered in this verse is general without any condition or restriction. This proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary to Allah’s actual order or prohibition. It necessarily follows that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was ma'sum (infallible), sinless, free from error.

Moreover, the verse has joined the Messenger and "those vested with authority" in this order; and mentions both under ‘one’ obedience: "Obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you"; and the Messenger cannot order sin nor can he issue a wrong judgment. If it were possible for the ulu'l-amr to be wrong in an order or a judgment, it was highly essential to put suitable restriction on this order as far as the ulu'l-amr were concerned. Thus the only way out is to interpret this verse in its general sense without any condition or restriction. This in its turn proves that the ulu l-amr were also sinless in the same way as the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was without any difference.

This word “ulu’l-amr” is qualified with the phrase, “from among you”. Obviously it is an adverbial phrase of place. That is, the ulu’l-amr will be raised from among you. It is similar to the words of Allah in 62:2, 2:129 and 7:35. It would therefore be meaningless to interpret the phrase: those vested with authority from among you, as 'the people having influence and power' (whatever meaning we give to this latter phrase). The only meaning now possible is: Those individuals from among the ummah who are sinless, free from error and mistake in their words and deeds, whose obedience has been made obligatory. The only way to recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His words or through His Prophet. This explanation corresponds with what has been narrated from the Imams of Ahlu l-bayt that it is they.

As for the claim that ulu’l-amr refers to the rightly guided caliphs, commanders of expeditions or religious scholars whose opinions and words are followed, it is rebutted on two counts:

First: The verse proves their sinlessness, and undoubtedly, none of these three groups was or is sinless – except what a group of Muslims believes about the right of 'Ali (a.s.)’

Second: All these interpretations are just claims without any evidence.

Ulu’l-amr, being a plural noun, shows that there must be a number of those vested with authority, and it is correct without any doubt, but obviously it is possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time.

Qur’an: "Then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger…"

The obedience mentioned in the preceding sentence is in the sphere of religion, which ensures erasure of every possible dispute and guarantees fulfillment of every possible need and no referral is required to any one other than Allah and His Messenger. The sentence, thus, implies: obey Allah and do not obey taghut. This is the implied restriction.

The speech is addressed to the believers. It shows that the 'quarrel' refers to their dispute among themselves. The word, 'thing', is general and could possibly include all decisions and orders given by Allah, His Messenger and ulu’l-amr; yet the next words, "refer it to Allah and the Messenger", show that the verse speaks about quarrel in something outside the direct responsibility of the ulu’l-amr. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. The verse somewhat explicitly shows that no one has any right to manipulate any religious law explained by Allah and His Messenger, and ulu’l-amr and others all are equal in this respect.

The proviso, "if you believe in Allah and the last day", puts utmost emphasis to this order which has a direct connection with faith and its contravention would indicate that disbelief was hidden in someone’s heart; and this is hypocrisy, as the following verses prove.

“This is better and very good in the end”. The indicative, 'this', points either to referring the matter in dispute or to obeying Allah, His Messenger and those vested with authority. "at-Ta'wil” (translated here as "in the end") refers to the underlying good on which the order is based and which is realized when the order is carried out.

SAYYID MAUDUDI

(Actual text from English volume 2, pages 133-135)

This verse is the cornerstone of the entire religious, social and political structure of Islam, and the very first clause of the constitution of an Islamic state. It lays down the following principles as permanent guidelines:

1. In the Islamic order of life, God alone is the focus of loyalty and obedience. A Muslim is the servant of God before anything else, and obedience and loyalty to God constitute the center and axis of both the individual and collective life of a Muslim. Other claims to loyalty and obedience are acceptable only insofar as they remain secondary and subservient, and do not compete with those owed to God. All loyalties, which may tend to challenge the primacy of man’s loyalty to God, must be rejected. This has been expressed by the Prophet (peace be on him) in the following words: ‘There may be no obedience to any creature in disobedience to the Creator.’ (Muslim, ‘Iman’, 37; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 472 – Ed.)

2. Another basic principle of the Islamic order of life is obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him). No Prophet, of course, is entitled to obedience in his own right. Obedience to the Prophets, however, is the only practical way of obeying God. Since there are the only authentic means by which He communicates His injunctions and ordinances to men. Hence, we can obey God only if we obey a Prophet. Independent obedience to God is not acceptable, and to turn one’s back on the Prophets amounts to rebellion against God. The following tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him) explains this: ‘Whoever obeyed me, indeed obeyed God; and whoever disobeyed me, disobeyed God.’ (Bukhari, ‘Jihad’ , 109; ‘I ‘tisam’, 2; Muslim, ‘Amarah’, 32, 33; Nasa’1, ‘Bay ‘ah’, 27; etc. – Ed.) We shall see this explained in more detail a little further on in the Qur’an.

3. In the Islamic order of life, Muslims are further required to obey fellow Muslims in authority. This obedience follows, and is subordinate to, obedience to God and the Prophet (peace be upon him). 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 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 id 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 upon him).

These two conditions are not only clearly mentioned in this verse they have also been elucidated at length by the Prophet (peace be upon 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.”

“There is no obedience in sin; obedience is only in what is good (ma’ruf).”

“There will be rulers over you, some of whose actions you will consider good and others abominable. Whoever disapproves of their abominable acts will be acquitted of all blame, and whoever resents them he too will remain secure (from all blame); not so one who approves and follows them in their abominable acts.” They (i.e. the Companions) asked: ‘Should we not fight against them?’ The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No, not as long as they continue to pray.”

This means that their abandonment of Prayer will be a clear sign of their having forsaken obedience to God and the Prophet (peace be upon him). Thereafter it becomes proper to fight against them. In another tradition, the Prophet (pbuh) says:

“Your worst leaders are those whom you hate and who hate you; whom you curse and who curse you.” We asked: ‘O Messenger of God! Should we not rise against them?’ The Prophet (pbuh) said: “No, not as long as they establish Prayer among you: not as long as they establish prayer among you.”

In this tradition, the position is further clarified. The earlier tradition could have created the impression that it was not permissible to revolt against rulers as long as they observed their Prayers privately. But the latter tradition makes it clear that what is really meant by “praying” is the establishment of the system of congregational Prayers in the collective life of the Muslims. This means that it is by no means sufficient that the rulers continue observing their Prayers; it is also necessary that the system run by them should at least be concerned with the establishment of Prayer. The concern with prayer is a definite indication that the government is essentially an Islamic one. But if no concern for establishing prayer is noticed, it shows that the government has drifted far away from Islam making it permissible to overthrow it. The same principle is also enunciated by the Prophet (pbuh) in another tradition, in which the narrator says: “The Prophet (pbuh) also made a pledge not to rise against our rulers unless we see them involved in open disbelief, so that we have definite evidence against them to lay before God” (Bukhari and Muslim).

4. In an Islamic order, the injunctions of God and the way of the Prophet (pbuh) constitute the basic law and paramount authority in all matters. Whenever there is any dispute among Muslims or between the rulers and the ruled, the matter should be referred to the Qur’an and the Sunnah and all concerned should accept with sincerity whatever judgment results. In fact, willingness to take the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger as the common point of reference, and to treat the judgment of the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the last word on all matters, is a central characteristic, which distinguishes an Islamic system from un-Islamic ones.

Some people question the principle that we should refer everything to the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). They wonder how we can possibly do so when there are numerous practical questions involved, for example, rules and regulations relating to municipal administration, the management of railways and postal services and so on which are not treated at all in these sources. This doubt arises, however, from a misapprehension about Islam. The basic difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that whereas the latter feels free to do as he wishes, the basic characteristic of a Muslim is that he always looks to God and to His Prophet for guidance, and where such guidance is available, a Muslim is bound by it. On the other hand, it is also quite important to remember that when no specific guidance is available, a Muslim feels free to exercise his discretion because the silence of the Law indicates that God Himself has deliberately granted man the freedom to make his decision.

Since the Qur’an is not merely a legal code, but also seeks to instruct, educate, admonish and exhort, the earlier sentence, which enunciates a legal principle, is followed by another, which explains it underlying purpose and wisdom. Two things are laid down: First, that faithful adherence to the above four principles is a necessary requirement of faith. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim and yet disregards the principles of Islam involves himself in gross self-contradiction. Second, the well being of Muslims lies in basing their lives on those principles. This alone can keep them on the straight path in this life, and will lead to their salvation in the Next.

It is significant that this admonition follows immediately after the section, which embodies comments about the moral and religious condition of the Jews. Thus the Muslims were subtly directed to draw a lesson from the depths to which the Jews had sunk, as a result of their deviation from the fundamental principles of true faith just mentioned. Any community that turns its back upon the Book of God and the guidance of His Prophets, that willingly follows rulers and leaders who are heedless of God and His Prophets, and that obeys its religious and political authorities blindly without seeking authority for their actions either in the Book of God or in the practice of the Prophets, will inevitably fall into the same evil and corruption as the Israelites.

OUR CONCLUSIONS:

Ibn Kathir, first tries to explain the circumstances of the revelation of this verse by quoting a tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas which does not even conform to the nature of the verse. We have seen that the obedience ordered by Allah in this verse is unconditional and is in the sphere of religion. Based on this argument, the tradition itself proves that `Abdullah bin Hudhafah bin Qays bin `Adi cannot be one of the ulu'l-amr. We are not trying to reject that tradition, nor are we saying that commanders sent by the Messenger on military expeditions should not be obeyed. All we are saying is that the verse is clearly referring to the unconditional obedience of the Messenger and those vested with authority in their opinions and decisions pertaining to religious affairs of the Muslims. Allamah Tabataba’I proves that the Messenger and those vested with authority have to be protected by Allah from errors and mistakes if their obedience is unconditional. We have also seen in Tabataba'I's tafseer that whenever Allah orders the obedience of those who are not free from errors and mistakes, a conditional clause is attached to that order. (See verse 29:8)

Ibn Kathir then quotes some sayings of the Messenger in which ‘conditional’ obedience has been mentioned. These sayings, as one can deduce, have no connection with the verse under study. No one can dispute the fact that the Messenger would never order an unconditional obedience, in the sphere of religion, of those who are capable of committing errors and mistakes. The particular tradition he quotes of the Messenger, “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my amir (leader, person in authority), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my amir, disobeys me” is an example of a case which may be quoted for 'religious obligation' of obeying orders like obedience of the commanders of expeditions who were appointed by the Messenger, the governors who were sent to various places, or of those who were left in charge in Medina when the Messenger himself went out. The verse under study and its wordings actually proves the obligation to obey the ulu'l-amr without any restriction or condition.

In his explanation of the sentence, “and those of you who are in authority”, he says that the obedience here is to Allah in that which they (those in authority) command you and not in that which constitutes disobedience to Allah. But the Qur'anic wordings does not support this meaning because the obedience mentioned in the verse is without any restriction or condition. As a matter of fact, the famous tradition of the Prophet that Kathir mentions, “there is no obedience to anyone in disobedience to Allah” underscores Tabataba'I's argument that the obedience of the ulu’l-amr ordered by Allah cannot be the obedience of those who will ask you to do things in disobedience to Allah. This further proves that the ulu’l-amr have to be protected by Allah from erring in order to make their decisions and opinions in conformity with that of the Messenger and Allah.

Ibn Kathir says that the sentence “if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger” means refer to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger. But unlike Tabataba’I's tafseer work, we have not seen Ibn Kathir explain the true connotation of this sentence. Tabataba’I explains that the sentence "refer to Allah and the Messenger" actually shows that it is confined to religious laws only and does not cover those matters that the ulu'l-amr order like military expeditions, etc; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. Ibn Kathir also says that the sentence "if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day" indicates that those who do not refer to the Book and Sunnah for judgment in their disputes, are not believers in Allah or the last Day. This leaves us to wonder what happens in a sutuation where believers are not capable to extract the law from the Qur'an and the sunnah. Is it because they have defect in their belief? And what was the purpose of mentioning the obedience of the ulu'l-amr in the first sentence of the verse? As a matter of fact, the sentence "if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day" proves that contravention (infringement) of the order springs from disbelief and not that disbelief results from contravention of the order. Tabataba'I's statement that the disputes of the believers are actually referred to the ulu'l-amr in the absence of the Messenger and in such a case where believers are not able to refer to the Qur'an and the sunnah, definately makes more sense. Some exegetes are under the impression that the quarrel mentioned here is between the believers and those vested with authority or between the ulu'l-amr themselves and Tabataba'I shows that this is a clear misunderstanding.

What we have seen from Ibn Kathir’s tafseer of verse 4:59 is that there has been too much dependence on extraneous sources as if the verse cannot explain itself. The connotation of some of the traditions he has quoted is hardly connected with the verse under study. Also, the significance and the nature of the obedience ordered by Allah has not been explained. In addition, Ibn Kathir has not brought to light the true personality and characteristics of the ulu’l-amr (those vested with authority) whose obedience has been made unconditional and joined with the obedience of the Messenger.

Allamah Tabataba'I's exposition of verse 4:59 is unprecedented in comparison with the other exegetes. He initially discusses the two lawful authorities of the Messenger in the light of the Qur’an and shows how this probably necessitated the repetition of the word ‘obey’ in the verse under study. We agree that since it is Allah who has unconditionally commanded the people to obey the Messenger, therefore the Messenger’s obedience in reality is the same as Allah’s obedience. In addition, since the verse has joined the obedience of the Messenger with that of the ulu’l-amr, therefore the obedience of the ulu’l-amr is the same as that of the Messenger.

Tabataba’I then proceeds to tackle the most frequently asked question arising from this verse - who are the ulu’l-amr? The verse actually reveals the attributes and characteristics of those vested with authority by the nature of the command to obey them. We have seen that Ibn Kathir and Sayyid Maududi are supposing that the ulu’l-amr could be ordinary Muslim rulers or leaders who have been elected or appointed to rule over the Muslims and manage their affairs. Tabataba’I argues that the ulu’l-amr have to be free from sins and errors because of the ‘unconditional’ obedience ordered by Allah. He gives a good example of a conditional obedience ordered by Allah in verse 29:8 where the possibility of misguidance exists: {And We have enjoined on man goodness (obedience) to his parents, and if they contend with you that you should associate (others) with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them . . .}; in other words, if the ulu’l-amr were ordinary believers, unprotected from errors and sins, (as suggested by these and other exegetes), then it would be necessary to follow the sentence “and those vested with authority” with a condition like in verse 29:8 quoted above. The use of the plural noun “Ulu’l-amr” which means a number of those, vested with authority, is also addressed by Tabataba’I who agrees with this meaning but he says that it is also possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time.

Tabataba’I further discusses the ‘ismah (sinlessness) of the Messenger and the ulu’l-amr. In short, he argues that the unconditional obedience ordered by Allah “obey the Messenger” proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary to that of Allah. Likewise, the unconditional obedience ordered by Allah “and (obey) those vested with authority” proves that the ulu’l-amr cannot bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger contrary to the actual decisions of Allah and His Messenger. Based on these and other arguments made by Tabataba’I, it is very clear that the ulu’l-amr cannot be ordinary believers and that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) and the ulu’l-amr are sinless and free from error. One cannot reject Tabataba’I’s statement that the only way to recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His words or through His Prophet and that this explanation corresponds with what has been narrated from the Imams of Ahlu l-bayt that it is they. Tabataba’I also deals with the objections raised against the explanation that the ulu’l-amr refers to the sinless Imams of Ahlu’l-bayt (a.s.).

Towards the end of his tafseer work, he explains why the ulu’l-amr are not mentioned in the sentence “refer to Allah and His Messenger”. This sentence probably led Ibn Kathir and Sayyid Maududi to believe that the ul’l-amr could be ordinary leaders since they have not been mentioned. In the preceding explanation of the sentence “obey the Messenger and those in authority” Tabataba’I states that the ulu’l-amr , unlike the Messenger of Allah, do not have the authority to legislate new laws and their duty is to bring to light, based on their knowledge of the Qur'an and the sunnah, the decisions of Allah and the Messenger in all the affairs of the believers. From this understanding, the sentence "then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger…" shows that the verse speaks about disputes in something outside the jurisdiction of the ulu’l-amr. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. However, if the quarrelling parties are not capable of inferring the law from the Qur’an and the sunnah, and in the absence of the Messenger, then the only way is to ask the one who is vested with authority because he is free from error in his opinion.

As a final conclusion, what we can draw from Tabataba’I’s tafseer of verse 4:59 is that the wilayah of the Messenger of Allah, which in essence is the wilayah of Allah Himself, as discussed in our previous studies of verses 5:3 and 5:55, becomes complete only through the wilayah (management of affairs) of the ulu’l-amr, those vested with authority. The management of the affairs of the ummah is an important facet of divine guidance and it is a requirement even in the absence of the Messenger. Therefore, such a wilayah cannot be carried out by ordinary believers who don’t have the attribute of divine ‘ismah i.e. protection from sins and errors. It follows that the ulu'l-amr have to be divinely appointed and that the verse 5:67 (discussed previously) points to the appointment of Ali Ibn Ab-Talib as the waliyy of Allah after the Messenger.

Sayyid Maududi, makes a comment in the beginning that the verse under discussion forms the foundation of an Islamic State and he lists down four principles and discusses them based on his understanding of the verse. He later concludes that the well being of the Muslims lies in faithful adherence to these principles. There is no doubt, and as Tabataba’I also mentions, that the talk of the verse leads to reinforcing the foundation of Islamic society as it commands obedience to Allah, the Messenger and those vested with authority and urges the believers to remove any dispute by referring it to Allah and the Messenger.

In his discussion of the four principles, Maududi quotes a number of traditions of the Messenger (peace be upon him). For example, in his discussion of the first principle, i.e. “obedience to the Allah”, he mentions this saying of the Prophet: “There may be no obedience to any creature in disobedience to the Creator.” What we construe from this saying is that Allah would not order the obedience of those who in turn will say or do things that would contradict the commands of Allah. This particular tradition actually rejects Maududi’s statement that the ulu’l-amr are not infallible. The other sayings of the Prophet talk about conditional obedience and hence not related to the verse.

As far as obedience to Allah and the Messenger is concerned, we agree that whoever obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah. In reality, Allah is only obeyed when the Messenger and those vested with authority are obeyed as is evident from the verse. We can also add here (based on the study of verse 5:55) that therefore, Allah’s obedience, just like His wilayyah, becomes complete only through the Messenger and the Messenger’s obedience becomes complete through the obedience of the ulu’l-amr. Further, the verse shows that the Messenger’s obedience is joined with that of the ulu’l-amr but distinct from Allah’s obedience. Tabataba’I explains this relationship very well based on the two kinds of authorities that Allah has bestowed upon His honored Messenger. (Refer to Tabataba’I’s exegesis)

Maududi then talks about the third principle, i.e. “obedience to those vested with authority”. He says that obedience to them is contingent on certain conditions (because they are not infallible). We don’t concur with him because no one has the authority to attach conditions when the order by Allah to obey them is ‘unconditional’. According to Maududi, those vested with authority include intellectual and political leaders of the community, as well as administrative officials, judges, etc and all such persons are not infallible. Maududi’s misunderstanding of who are the ulu’l-amr has led him to say: “when no specific guidance is available, a Muslim feels free to exercise his discretion because the silence of the Law indicates that God Himself has deliberately granted man the freedom to make his decision” This statement is not acceptable because first it clearly contradicts the wordings of the verse under study. Second, the uncondtional order to obey those vested with authority proves that guidance has been made available in all affairs of the Muslims as long as the believers refer to such authority.

In short, we recognize the approach Sayyid Maududi has taken in his discourse of the conditions of a perfect Islamic Society but he has not addressed the various aspects of the verse. We have seen from Tabataba’I’s tafseer how Allah sets the stage for the next sentence from the first; in other words, the quarrels (in legislative matters) of the believers are actually referred to the ulu’l-amr in the absence of the Messenger and in the case where believers cannot refer their disputes to the Qur'an and the sunnah. Also, it would be against the decorum of the Qur’an to disregard the Messenger’s legislative responsibilities while he is still in duty. The other problem with Maududi’s discussion is that he has assumed certain conditions for the ulu’l-amr (according to his definition of the term) and it leaves us with the impression that Allah was oblivious of the actual characteristics of the ulu’l-amr. This obviously cannot be the case with Allah and therefore, his description of the nature of the ulu’l-amr is not acceptable.

Back To Top