This is premise 4 of an argument I did for Quran. This where I will be putting evidence for it.
Shiites would love to understand 42:23 because they adamantly love Ahlulbayt (a). However, there is no Shiite Tafsir nor Sunni nor Sufi nor anything, that properly understands it.
When understood the possibility, it becomes obvious, it is what is meant.
So the first case is to contextualize 42:23. My claim, without magic influencing us, Shiite scholars or some of their tafsirs, would've included this meaning as a possible meaning.
The meaning is the reward is an accusation from disbelievers and God is saying what is that from your perspective but this and that. For example, in 25:57 is saying that which you accuse Mohammad (s) of seeking selfish reward in terms of control, fame, leadership, moral landscaping society, culturally building to what he wishes, etc, from the viewpoint he is false, what would that be but a path to God (ie. Mohammad (s) and his Mastership) from the viewpoint he is true.
Ibrahim (a) had leadership, Prophethood, and Message conveying, all in his offspring. A person can say, the person is greedy regarding making a monarchy in his kin.
In the case of Mohammad (s), they accused him when he performed miracles of inheriting sorcery "this is not but a sorcery inherited"
They can further accuse him, of wanting this knowledge and power to remain in his offspring through Fatima (a).
In this sense, it connected the kin of Mohammad (s) with Mohammad (s) in terms of selfish reward but then also turned it around and said really since obedience is to God and we obey them to obey God, and worship is of God and we desire them to for God's light, and all the commands are from God, and all the wisdom is from God they teach, and Quran compliments them and proves them, what really is this selfish reward you see from viewpoint he is false from authority and mastership and moral control and kingship and right to rule but to love them and recognize who they are. It then further emphasizes "and whoever earns goodness, we increase him in it's beauty", meaning they are the means of being good and loving them is faith and goodness.
What is sad is while our hadiths have Imam Reda (a) arguing this meaning, none of our tafsirs have this as the meaning.
These are not the only two verses about the reward and it's through out Quran, about past Prophets and to now, because they all get accused.
The Shiites ignored the meaning "follow those who don't ask you a reward and they themselves are guided", while was it far worse is the meaning attributed by Sunnis.
If you look up the definition of the word love particularly here, it's the type that is human to human and includes affection, and hence, cannot be towards abstract concept or relationship.
Not only was Quryashi kinship meaning then far off, it was impossible by the very definition of the word love here.
The Ahmadi Messenger I believe made it to mean "closeness" but again, it can't be towards a relationship and suppose we say the closeness is God himself or something cheesy like that, not only is not addressing their accusation, but God doesn't get affection or compassion from us.
God is above us having affection for him our type of love is that of honoring him, desiring him, wanting him, exalting him, respecting him, but it doesn't include affection of humans to humans to one another, he is far exalted from requiring us to feel for it that way, to have compassion for it doesn't make sense.
That said, I'm not too familiar with the word affection in English, but the word Arabic, the word love here, it's a type that you feel for them as in you have deep sense of compassion and care.
We can love God but we can't "care" about God in the sense of affection, we can care about it in the sense of importance.
That said, in Chapter 6, the reward is emphasized to be but a reminder to the worlds. In there especially, the fact Prophets had chosen ones in their offspring, forefather, brothers, and were distinguished is emphasized, again, pointing to the fact, reward includes the claim that Mohammad (s) might be greedily seeking to put a monarchy.
That said, I believe the verse in itself is clear when you see it from start to end. There is even bigger contexualization in the Surah itself that is not about Mohammad (s) Walayah or Ali (a) or their offspring through Fatima (a) daughter of Mohammad (s), but really it's about God's Walayah which he has a unique form of it that no one else does with creation.
Their Welayah is lesser form, and hence, God is saying in 42:23, that it's not obeying Mohammad (s), it's about God's religion and obeying God, and Mohammad (s) is to be loved and recognized, but it's not about him or his family really, it's about God.
This is the context with whole Surah.
Why I believe it's magic that keeps people from seeing this, is because (1) Sunnis are not that stubborn to Quran, if they saw this possibility, most would accept it. (2) Shiite scholars of the past to present don't see this as a possibility while it brings a unity of all reward verses whether about past Messengers or Mohammad (s) together in a way that makes it clear and obvious, that chosen kinsfolk is the family of the reminder/Mohammad (s).
This is just one example. I understand people will say other factors, but I will show more examples.
Shiites would love to understand 42:23 because they adamantly love Ahlulbayt (a). However, there is no Shiite Tafsir nor Sunni nor Sufi nor anything, that properly understands it.
When understood the possibility, it becomes obvious, it is what is meant.
So the first case is to contextualize 42:23. My claim, without magic influencing us, Shiite scholars or some of their tafsirs, would've included this meaning as a possible meaning.
The meaning is the reward is an accusation from disbelievers and God is saying what is that from your perspective but this and that. For example, in 25:57 is saying that which you accuse Mohammad (s) of seeking selfish reward in terms of control, fame, leadership, moral landscaping society, culturally building to what he wishes, etc, from the viewpoint he is false, what would that be but a path to God (ie. Mohammad (s) and his Mastership) from the viewpoint he is true.
Ibrahim (a) had leadership, Prophethood, and Message conveying, all in his offspring. A person can say, the person is greedy regarding making a monarchy in his kin.
In the case of Mohammad (s), they accused him when he performed miracles of inheriting sorcery "this is not but a sorcery inherited"
They can further accuse him, of wanting this knowledge and power to remain in his offspring through Fatima (a).
In this sense, it connected the kin of Mohammad (s) with Mohammad (s) in terms of selfish reward but then also turned it around and said really since obedience is to God and we obey them to obey God, and worship is of God and we desire them to for God's light, and all the commands are from God, and all the wisdom is from God they teach, and Quran compliments them and proves them, what really is this selfish reward you see from viewpoint he is false from authority and mastership and moral control and kingship and right to rule but to love them and recognize who they are. It then further emphasizes "and whoever earns goodness, we increase him in it's beauty", meaning they are the means of being good and loving them is faith and goodness.
What is sad is while our hadiths have Imam Reda (a) arguing this meaning, none of our tafsirs have this as the meaning.
These are not the only two verses about the reward and it's through out Quran, about past Prophets and to now, because they all get accused.
The Shiites ignored the meaning "follow those who don't ask you a reward and they themselves are guided", while was it far worse is the meaning attributed by Sunnis.
If you look up the definition of the word love particularly here, it's the type that is human to human and includes affection, and hence, cannot be towards abstract concept or relationship.
Not only was Quryashi kinship meaning then far off, it was impossible by the very definition of the word love here.
The Ahmadi Messenger I believe made it to mean "closeness" but again, it can't be towards a relationship and suppose we say the closeness is God himself or something cheesy like that, not only is not addressing their accusation, but God doesn't get affection or compassion from us.
God is above us having affection for him our type of love is that of honoring him, desiring him, wanting him, exalting him, respecting him, but it doesn't include affection of humans to humans to one another, he is far exalted from requiring us to feel for it that way, to have compassion for it doesn't make sense.
That said, I'm not too familiar with the word affection in English, but the word Arabic, the word love here, it's a type that you feel for them as in you have deep sense of compassion and care.
We can love God but we can't "care" about God in the sense of affection, we can care about it in the sense of importance.
That said, in Chapter 6, the reward is emphasized to be but a reminder to the worlds. In there especially, the fact Prophets had chosen ones in their offspring, forefather, brothers, and were distinguished is emphasized, again, pointing to the fact, reward includes the claim that Mohammad (s) might be greedily seeking to put a monarchy.
That said, I believe the verse in itself is clear when you see it from start to end. There is even bigger contexualization in the Surah itself that is not about Mohammad (s) Walayah or Ali (a) or their offspring through Fatima (a) daughter of Mohammad (s), but really it's about God's Walayah which he has a unique form of it that no one else does with creation.
Their Welayah is lesser form, and hence, God is saying in 42:23, that it's not obeying Mohammad (s), it's about God's religion and obeying God, and Mohammad (s) is to be loved and recognized, but it's not about him or his family really, it's about God.
This is the context with whole Surah.
Why I believe it's magic that keeps people from seeing this, is because (1) Sunnis are not that stubborn to Quran, if they saw this possibility, most would accept it. (2) Shiite scholars of the past to present don't see this as a possibility while it brings a unity of all reward verses whether about past Messengers or Mohammad (s) together in a way that makes it clear and obvious, that chosen kinsfolk is the family of the reminder/Mohammad (s).
This is just one example. I understand people will say other factors, but I will show more examples.
