Preface

By: Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

for the First and Second Editions In His Exalted Name I have read this book with care and attention and found it a collection compiled with a motive emanated from an ardent belief in the fundamentals of Shia school, which is the only clear manifestation of Islam. The great deal of constancy and research is much appreciable, which is further espoused with truth, sincerity and openness in dealing with the doubts by way of evaluation and review. Furthermore, it rises from staunch love and affection to defend the sanctity of divinely ordained authority of Ahle Bayt of Prophet, peace be on them. Regretfully it is being witnessed that there are individuals having long been fed at the widespread table of the Prophet’s Ahle Bayt who are under mandate of reason and religion to strengthen the foundation of the school of those sacred rays of divine throne. However, they have no regard to the bread they have grown upon. They have weakened, rather ruined the very pillars of Shia school disguised as if adhering to truth and defending the sanctity of Islamic unity which is only a deceptive show and a polite blow. Tabarra; that is distancing oneself from enemies of the Prophet’s Ahle Bayt and despising them is one of the two keystones of religion. They have created a question mark against it. They claim that it is against Quran and tradition. Sometimes according to them, the office of Imamate is a separate entity independent from Caliphate. Sometime in principles of belief also they have created a base and a branch. They introduce belief in Imamate as a branch, as a subsidiary thing liable to personal jurisprudence. As such, it does not constitute any obligation on the part of the person in event of his denial. Sometimes the words and deeds of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.), in his dealings with Caliphs is a ground to them to justify their allegation that Ali was totally in agreement with their Caliphate. It seems that they have not heard the painful cries of that oppressed Imam that used to come out of his aching heart as he says: “When Allah took the Prophet (to himself) a group of men went back on their tracks. The ways (of misguidance) ruined them and they placed trust in deceitful intriguers, showed consideration to other than kinsmen, abandoned the kin whom they had been ordered to love and shifted the building from its strong foundation and built it in other than its (proper) place. They are the source of every shortcoming and the door of gropers in the dark. They were moving to and fro in amazement and lay intoxicated in the way of the people of the Pharaohs. They were either bent on this world and taking support on it or away from faith and removed from it.” (Nahjul Balagha, Faid, Sermon 150 End of Part Two) Attention to it is a matter of absolute necessity. Research about a true religion is the most essential element of life for Islamic society. A tangible proof of its salubrity and originality of being from divine should be brought home to people. The minds of young generation should be enlightened with regard to its principles and fundamentals as well as to defend the precincts of its sanctity. This does not mean sedition among groups or creating differences in thoughts of people. It is a matter of regret that there are individuals who refrain from discussing facts about religion and analyzing issues pertaining to beliefs and its literature. Their excuse is to preserve unity. Those who discuss and debate such matters perhaps are accused of sedition causing disunity and creating crevices in a concrete block of unity. It seems that this fact has escaped their sight. Unity appreciated by reason and religion – and at the same time a sacred one – is unity that should be framed over the pivot of truth rotating around truth. Otherwise it will be a unity at wrong (supposing if it comes into being). It will be unholy unity resulting in nothing but loss, havoc and emptiness. It is natural first to know the truth. Then people should be invited towards unity based on truth. This needs to undergo a discussion and all-sided research in religion to find out what is there after truth except losing the way and going astray.[1] Now the present collection which is an output of a year-long labor of a group of learned, believer youths and committed persons; to do justice to it, one should say honestly that it has originated from faith and a staunch love towards the most sacred position of divinely authorized Guardianship (Wilayat) of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) and Ahle Bayt of Prophet. Peace be upon them all. Those who are acquainted with the task of writing books know that constancy in discourses and in scattered writings of speculators is not easy. Grouping and collecting the doubted data from spoken words and writings and then their orderly arrangement and classification, then to make it coherent is not an easy job. Obvious it is as to what could be the corrupt aftermaths begotten by a doubtful belief. They have not allowed this to escape without replying. In this regard, they have made full use of books of great scholars of religion and faith. Considering all this, one should honestly acknowledge the difficulty and labor involved in it. One cannot undergo this burden unless one is blessed with moral impetus and love to defend the true faith. Therefore all who love Shia faith, particularly the youths, will read this collection with interest in order to know how conjectures and allegations are spread which should not go without answering. In the end, I beseech the Lord to bless the author and his colleagues with prosperity in both the worlds and bestow upon him bounty of service to religion in future also. 1-10-80 (9th Shawwal 1422) Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi By the Grace of the Almighty, this valuable book: A Victim Lost in Saqifah[2] is being published for the second time, revised and with additional data on some parts of original text. After reading the additional matter, I realized that it was necessary for the original text as it completes it. I hope for continuation of such a service to religion on the part of the author by the grace of God. 12-8-83 (18th Ramadan al-Mubarak 1425) Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

p: 1

FIRST INTRODUCTION

Fundamentals of Evaluation and Criticism of Writings on Islamic Unity First Introduction:

Necessity of thought for Islamic unity We are impelled to notice a particular sort of religious thinking named ‘revival’ as we go back a recent century and look into schools of Islamic thought. These days revivalism is a term applied to opinions and views of many Muslims thinkers. Most of us are acquainted with this term without having full knowledge of it. If we want to simply describe this term on the basis of existing writings in this field, we must say that contemporary tendency of thought among Muslims aims at revival of religious system, which they consider either of these two: Comprehension of faith or practice of faith. Revivalists consider revivalism a necessity towards preserving religion in this new world. As such, it could be said that all religious revivalists in the beginning intellectually endeavor leaning on the belief that religion is workable in present society. It can attend or mend basic human difficulties, of whatever depth it be, in various dimensions. Therefore we can depend on it or desire it since it is a need. But how?! An immediate question that strikes the mind is how to prove it in practice and display worth and capability. The real issue, from this stage onward, for this category of new thinkers of religion shall be to reply this query: How it is possible to raise the issue of faith once more in these days of competition that has gripped human thought? Besides, how to face other schools fraught with consummate ability and respond to all other important ones of the day in a useful analysis. And this is the need. Hence it is befitting to say that the most important efforts of new religious thinkers can be summed up in one sentence – in the present age, religion renovated by themselves is returned to appear on the social stage in a status of a powerful and energetic school. Thought of Islamic unity is related to the same category of revivalist thoughts. Such can be understood from what in brief is told about the endeavors of revivalists. Therefore it has always been the point of focus of those who desire to tread the path of revival in a way to provide a variety to the outlook. This group of revivalists is mindful of the extent of influence of faith in individual and social life. Dispute and the fight of religious people and coming into being of divisions among Muslims has become a cause to move towards Islamic unity. This practical revival guarantees a kind of revisal in fundamentals of Muslim thought or in the outlook of Islamic theory towards creating a change in social relations of Muslims. It depends upon the activity of a revivalist as to its kind towards achieving Islamic unity whether by means of a social or cultural movement. Fundamentals of its theory shall differ accordingly. Basically, a revivalist is a political and social activist. However he is also an intellectual and cultural activist. He spends his revivalist life in changing the beliefs of individuals of the society by way of presenting theatrical views and spreading them among public. Of course a seeker of unity too can adjust himself among various subjects of this group and at the same time exert his efforts in society through propaganda activities.

p: 2

Introduction to Applications of Two Tendencies by way of Criticism and Narration

Under this heading, we shall dwell on indications drawn with a motive of creating Islamic unity. However it has become a ground for serious criticism because of the standards of evaluation output.[1] It is of such a nature that we cannot see any religious origin in it; nor could it be turned into a religious thought. However in a particular period of time they might have shown a very good ability towards creating Islamic unity. We shall introduce each of these indications. We shall treat the analysis done by religious scholars as source pertaining to second tendency. These analyses are collected here to show correct outlooks and to scrutinize insincere writings.

Footnote

[1] As our aim in this writing is identification of all types of conjectures that are being spread and to warn about them we have presented the actual quotations that mention those conjectures so that readers may gain complete information about them. It is also important to remember that acceptance of any of these propagated views is related to a type of acceptance of all other conjectures, so we must not be careless of any of these things. (The arrangement of Criticism and Scrutiny of these conjectures is done according to this relationship).

p: 7

Introduction

Keeping Quiet and Prohibiting Difference-Creating Activities

Introduction It is perhaps the most simple and at the same time, most insincere method of creating Islamic unity. It is completely based on narrations mentioned in the first tendency. It advocates restriction from difference- producing analyses and maintaining silence. Now at this advanced stage, the secrets are recommended not be told. Hence it is said: “Now, as it is said that these are secrets of progeny of Muhammad, then they must be kept confidential and not revealed.”[1] Obviously, unity gained by negligence of knowledge will be imaginary unity. Furthermore, the outcome can well be judged if the steps, already suggested, are to be taken on road to Islamic unity such as: “In controversial issues we should view afresh and anew. We should find new ways of friendship. We should give no room to new differences.”![2] “Many differences in our time are groundless. As such, many differences should be forgotten and ignored. We should revise the method of debating issues or arguments.”![3] “We must not dig graves under the sun in order to bring to life what is dead and buried.”![4] “The subject matters that carry differences should not be discussed too openly in meetings or gatherings held under the title of ‘unity’.![5] “What we say in this article can be summarized as: Muslims must not speak about differences that existed among their own leaders fourteen centuries ago: and more undesireable it is to speak about differences that have happened later and are constant and current.”![6] “Narration of any matter that might hurt our Sunni brothers is prohibited.”![7] “…There are certain matters which must be taken into consideration by broadcasting stations, television and media collectively. Besides, writers and speakers also must delete such matters, particularly about the Fatimid period in gatherings. Then alone unity is possible. Whatever, it could be, if it hurts the feelings of our Sunni brothers it must be avoided in our public gatherings and should not be mentioned at all. I can prove that whatever is being published in books and newspapers and told over the pulpits in religious gatherings and over TV and Radio is sufficient to injure the feelings of our Sunni brothers. Hence it is prohibited.”![8] “We Muslims are not allowed to behave in a way that could endanger Ummah’s unity: To protect a part of the Ummah or Faith – no matter if that Faith happens to belong to Ahle Bayt of Prophet – we cannot injure unity as a whole.”![9] “From the viewpoint of religious obligation anything that weakens Islam and strengthens infidelity or hurts Islamic unity, as a whole, is prohibited. It is obvious that consequent to such speeches there will not remain any unity in the Islamic front. As such, Islam will become weak against infidelity.”![10]

p: 8

Criticism and Analysis

Ustad Ali Iraqchi Hamadani has discussed in detail in his book, Sad Dars Az Bahas-e-Imamat the captioned topic. We have summarized them below retaining the original points: “Perhaps before a discussion on Imamate takes place it comes to mind that in this age when Muslims are facing such terrible enemies, are such discussions beneficial or not? Because the nature of this subject of Imamate is such that it necessarily renews differences, which are cornerstones laid immediately after the demise of Prophet. Various animosities and several bloodsheds have occurred since then. Because of these differences, the real enemy is neglected….as the unity of Muslims is most important necessity and discussions on Imamate cause disunity, for the sake of safeguarding unity, it is prudent to keep quiet...[because] the its harm is less than the harm of disunity which gives room to foreign influence.”[1] In reply to this objection the following questions may be posed: “Is unity and integration useful in every subject and matter? Or subjects differ in this respect? There is no doubt that any subject if it happens to be useful or reasonable for an Ummah, co-ordination and co-operation becomes necessary for its achievement. On the contrary, any subject of no benefit – its availability is not only unnecessary but even harmful– Therefore elegance of the word ‘unity’ should not deceive us. As such, we must keep in view the aim prior to unity. Besides, Quran too approves unity if it be for truth and considers it harmful if it be in a wrong direction. Furthermore, it recommends having unity if it be for God’s sake. But it prohibits unity for the sake of wrong and falsehood.”[2] “Consequently, according to reason and Quran every man is obliged to judge the matter first. If it is correct and right he may extend his hand of unity towards a group. If it is otherwise he must refrain from it. As such, unity is necessary and desirable. However the aim must become transparent ahead of unity. Truth will cast a shadow over unity. Now to arrive at the truth, there is no way other than a debate or discussion which is not workable in a friendly atmosphere.”[3] If we desire that the difference that appeared among Muslims immediately after the Prophet’s passing away should disappear and vanish, we must search for a ground to pluck it from its root. “We ought to know the events as to what they were; or persons as to who they were? Either events or persons are causes of difference after the Prophet. As a result, when we lay hands upon them we must draw a line between them and Islam. In other words, we must separate them from Islam. The reality of Islam will be obtained. Then we must be united to preserve this reality. It goes without saying that the issue of Imamate and leadership became the cause of difference. After the Prophet’s passing away, a group claimed this position and therefrom sprung the difference. So prior to unity, a debate is necessary into this subject in order to reach truth so that unity could be based on truth and reality. Otherwise such a unity would be useless and impossible.”[4] “Now this objection arises that: Whether it is good and sensible to be truthful about anything in any age or not? Most probably it might be said that to maintain silence is dictated by reason when telling the truth and narrating facts brings unwanted consequences. Such undesired aftermath must be avoided. Religiously too our infallible Imams have recommended dissimulation in cases when truth becomes a cause of mischief.[5] Therefore we should choose a way of protecting truth and safeguarding reality so that truth may not be totally sacrificed. The very prestige and entity of Muslims may not be destroyed. Instead of such discussions, we must try to make Muslims come closer. For the sake of protecting a greater reality we may overlook this.”[6] In reply we say: “Subjects and instances must be scrutinized case by case. If truth be useful, it is good to speak. Else, one must resort to silence.[7] But it should be understood that Imamate is a very beneficial subject. No harm comes from it. Of course it depends on the way it is dealt so as to not end in a fracas or foul-mouthing.”[8] When one aims to reach truth through a debate or discussion, the trend will be logic, reason, proof and never abuse or inflexibility. Such a type of argument carries no corruption except benefits to a great extent.”[9] “In short, discussion about Imamate in an atmosphere away from childish bigotry and remote from abuses and vilifications has had been beneficial in every age and in the present age also.”[10] “Some short-sighted people imagine that since Shias believe Ali as immediate successor of Prophet and Sunnis believe Abu Bakr to be the immediate successor of the Prophet etc., so if Shias do not refer to the issue of succession of Prophet and show respect and affection towards the three Caliphs who preceded Ali this difference will be completely removed. Muslim all over the world could be united and become a power worth consideration! These people don’t know that if supposing such a thing ever took place, the enemy will seek some other way to ignite differences.” Well, to reach a tangible result we have a suggestion. You separate Shia population from Muslims. Do all other sects of Muslims have unity among themselves although they share the same belief with regard to Caliphate? No. They are not united. Their respective governments too are not united with one another. Their nations too, although under the banner of Islam, are not in one row of Islam. The gap of disunity is more pronounced there.”[11] “In fact the great block on way of unity is imperialism and imperialists who have been active in every age in fomenting differences and keeping alive disunity.”[12] “Can these pains be assuaged by our silence regarding the right of Ali and his sons? While it is that all these differences, mischiefs and bloodshed have been there only because the Shia society is loyal and devoted to the right of Ahle Bayt of Prophet and they do not entertain any friendly feelings towards their enemies. See how far has injustice gone! To what extent is this ignorance?! The body of Islam and Muslims is weakened due to shortage of blood which is the source of life in both the worlds (this and the next). God and His Prophet have pointed out this. All Muslim sects have narrated it. In other words, it is to be in line with Ali and his infallible sons. We must seek their embrace to invigorate Islam and Muslims. We cannot act like those in the guise of open-mindedness and waste this minimum blood resulting in collapse of Islam, only for the sake of unity and attaining power and pomposity.”[13] Those who claim unity desire Shias to give up their particular beliefs. Of course they are after their own interests. However they ignore the fact that the enemy will anyway persist in his task through some other means so that differences remain. “In any case, the issue of Imamate if argued on basis of reason and evidence; will result in unity not disintegration.”[14] “Because in this discussion, we shall cover beliefs particular to each of the two parties referring to original Islamic sources that is Quran and authentic traditions; unveil truth and bring to fore the divine rope of rescue. Then all will together hold the hand of unity under the rich shadow of truth. The glory and greatness gone long ago will be regained by crushing foreign enemies and their associates by means of oneness and sacrifice. Indeed, such a unity will be a living one and deep-rooted.”[15] This type of discussion will give ground to: “To discover reasons of difference through perfect scrutiny. Then to draw a line between right and wrong. Thus to know and recognize enemies who inserted the wrong into right by deception and cheating so that we can boycott them and those with them and discover Islam – pure, pristine, real and original – that the Prophet brought to us and introduced for our practice. Such an association that will come into being will be with knowledge and learning. Unity that will be gained will be fruitful among Muslims and fatal to outsiders and adversaries. In such a case, the enemy will be deprived of excuse of differences of belief and other excuses would also become ineffective. Because the enemy aims to gain from ignorance of people and thereby to obtain power over them and create disunity. Knowledge and awareness are strong walls to prevent the enemy from advancing his influence on Muslims. And discussion on Imamate leads to awareness, knowledge, exposing of realities and truth.”[16]

p: 9

Invitation to Silence as Open-mindedness

Invitation to Silence as Open-mindedness We are invited to keep quiet and historical research and analysis is banned. All this is done under the mask of open-mindedness. Likewise, this statement: “So what for are present differences between Shia and Sunni? Does it concern election,[27] which took place 1380 years ago? The scrutiny of the things is made such as to make it invalid or of no worldly advantage to you and me. Of course it is advantageous only in the next world when we die. It is so to say, if we carry the love of Ali in our hearts – whose right was usurped in Saqifah – after death we will enter heaven. While those who support the other candidates will go to Hell…”[28]At a single instance they have shown Shiaism in form of historical loves and hatreds…while it has a value for our life of today and tomorrow or an effect on our opinions.”![29] It seems such type of viewpoint is a reflection of a deviated outlook about Imamate.[30] That Wilayat is being compared to rulership and all discussions about Imamate are confined to this environment. It is expressed that: “Usurping the Caliphate immediately after passing away of Prophet that took place in such a way is an obvious and an open tyranny and atrocity against reality and truth. A person who was the self and shadow of the Prophet was deprived of power and office of administration. As a result, Islam was deprived of the bounty of such a person. However whatever it was; did happen. To recover the right to whomever it concerns is impossible. To talk about it is now a hue and cry.”[31] In their camp Caliphate is regarded only a worldly office, that is an executive of an administration. In other school, it is seen through quite a different angle, which is: “They only consider Imamate to be in sense of leadership of society. They say that the Prophet had installed Ali to succeed him for leadership and guidance. And Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman came inopportune.” Shias are of the same caliber and there are two other issues also. [Absolute religious point of reference and total divine Guardianship]. Either they have no belief in this or they are silent in this regard. There are also those who acknowledge the second stage. However they have not reached the third.”[32] Ustad Ja’far Subhani replies: “The issue of Imamate or leadership of Muslims depends on the nature of argument. If the argument is framed: Who occupied the social and political office of Imamate and administered after the Prophet? This becomes a historical question. After fourteen centuries, it would not interest the youth of present generation. Besides, it has nothing to teach or provide any useful information. To know that person was a matter of necessity in its age. The passage of time has made this issue lose dignity and importance. If the trend of argument is changed, the issue will take the real entity to itself. In this issue, there are two things. The political and social leadership of Islamic society after Prophet and besides this there is another thing, which is authority in religion, its principles and its branches. The question is who it is to administer this school after Prophet? Who are and must be those to show or explain to the masses God’s commandments – what is allowed and what not and so forth. They must be of such a caliber that their word and actions must stand an authority, an absolute – unshakeable and unalterable one until the last Day. What they said and what they did must serve as a model to man. Therefore from this stage the argument bears sense and carries weight. It becomes needful to know the personage and personality of the Imam. The nature of this issue is such that it becomes a part of life. As such, nobody can ignore or overlook it. To know the Imam as to who and what he should be becomes obligatory because it is a part of religion.”[33] “In Shia view the Imam holds the office, which is continuity of message and extension of Prophethood. A matter of such an import should not be argued. It is an issue full of life. It is obligatory to know this station of Imam. Otherwise it will remain inconclusive…”[34]

p: 11

Invitation to Keep Quiet as Mark of Sympathy

Invitation to Keep Quiet as Mark of Sympathy There is another suspect in the margin of this very tendency, which makes silence obligatory. That is: “Occupation in differences has kept the youth from reaching truth and basic principles of Islam. The spirit of faith is taken away from the people leaving them with the name of religion only.[35] Ustad Mutahhari writes while describing this type of outlook: “The present generation of our current age is fed up of faith and less interested in Islam as a result of discussion about Caliphate, Imamate and unpleasant events that took place and its repetition. They are already suffering by spiritual chaos. Such discussions could have had desired consequences in the past. They could even have diverted attention from one branch to another. However in present times bringing it back to memory weakens thoughts with regard to structure and its root. We see in other schools they always try to hide the ugly part of their history. But on the contrary, we Muslims try to keep it alive on narration and rather magnify it more than its actual bulk. We cannot concur with the above opinion. We do acknowledge that criticism of history if it be narration alone or a reflection of events, the effect that will be exercised will be same as above. If the glorious side of history should be sketched and ugly or shameful part of it overlooked, it will be deviation of history rather than criticism or analysis. Supposing if it were customary to forget, neglect or avoid disgraceful and ugly parts of history, what its aftermath will be with regard to issues that concern the very gist of Islam. What will be the fate of the issue relating to leadership of Islamic society? To ignore such an issue tantamount to ignoring the prosperity of Muslims. Besides, if the rights of some persons had been trespassed or taken away by force and those persons happened to be of dignity and decorum; what will be the case if historical facts are overlooked? It will be nothing but called verbal and written support of oppression.”[36]

p: 12

Invitation to Keep Quiet for Confidentiality

Invitation to Keep Quiet for Confidentiality Invitation towards silence on part of unity-seekers and their insistence to avoid arguments that create differences is continuation of their same thoughts with same aim but in a different form. We can see this if we are mindful of the extent of its influence. This change is a tricky one. It invites to not argue issues that create differences, particularly Saqifah and attack on the house where divine revelation descended, confiscation of Fadak and martyrdom of Zahra. This time their pretext is quite different and charming too; that is secrets should not be disclosed or made public.[37] Where would this end? In a long run its end will be deviation and denial of realities, which will be totally forgotten because of no argument whatsoever about it. Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi writes in this respect: “Secrets of the Prophet’s Ahle Bayt were of two categories: one: They themselves were insistent to not disclose them. They revealed them only to their close companions. Generally everyone had neither capacity nor ability to accept or bear them. The second category consists of secrets by necessity of dissimulation and conditions of time and place. However it was not throughout history. As such, the season for keeping secret has already passed. Therefore ignorance about those realities will entail deprivation of bounties and benefits of true religion. Zahra herself has pointed out in her address to chiefs of Migrants and Helpers the mandate that rests upon their lot to convey realities to coming generations and make them aware of truth.”[38]

p: 13

Introduction

Criticism and Analysis

Criticism and Analysis Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari writes concerning the erroneous results of Islamic Unity: “The second fault is: by raising these issues what would be the status of Islamic unity? The thing that befell Muslims was that their glory was snatched away from them. They were belittled and brought under domination of other non-Muslim nations. Imperialism, new or old, utilizes this tool towards igniting old differences. This has served as a good tool all over Islamic countries without exception. For imperialism is, in the name of religion, showing sympathy for Islam but aiming to enlarge the gulf and deepen rancor among Muslims themselves. Does it not suffice whatever we have suffered and endured through this way? Should we go on again? Will not raising such designs result in helping the aims of Imperialism? The answer is: Unity and co-ordination forms the most essential need of Muslims. However the old rankling rancor is mother-pain of Muslims; now it is contagion in the world of Islam. The enemy too benefits from it always. It seems that the accuser has mistaken the sense of Islamic unity. Islamic sects must overlook principles of their respective beliefs for the sake of unity. This was not the conception of Islamic unity among clerics and scholars of faith and open-mindedness a century ago. In other words, it means to accept joint material of belief among sects and to set aside the very particulars of their own belief. Such a thing is neither reasonable nor practicable. How is it possible to ask followers of a faith to ignore or give up certain principles, which are in belief or practice, in his view constitutes a part of text of Islam? That is for the sake of unity of Islam and Muslims he should turn a blind eye at a portion from the whole of Islam in the name of Islam? There are several other ways to make people committed to a religious principle. The most natural one is reason and logic. People cannot be made faithful by means of request or in the name of interests nor can they be stripped of faith. We ourselves are Shia. We are proud to be followers of Ahle Bayt of Prophet. We do not consider a least thing, whether be it an appreciable or undesired, worthy of transaction against interests. We do not entertain any request from any in this regard. Likewise, we do not expect from others also to give up a principle among principles of their belief for sake of Islamic unity. To accept common elements of belief and to repudiate particulars of a sect is a kind of transgression on absolute consensus.[1] Moreover, it is not a true Islamic product. In any case, particulars of any sect among sects of Islam are parts of Islamic text. There cannot be Islam if it happens to be devoid of these distinctions and specifications. In usual terms, it is a difference in one party and in one single front. Unity of a party demands that all individuals be at equity with regard to ideology, thought, way and vogue with the exception of personal matters. Nevertheless, unity of a front means something different. All parties and groups, no matter however different in their taste, ideology, customs and norms must stand in one row against their common enemy because of combined elements common among them. It is obvious that arranging a row against enemy does not contradict with defending objectives and criticizing objectives of other brothers or inviting to their own objectives by associates of the same front. However inviting to or supporting Islamic unity cannot bar the truth. Things that provoke bigotry or old rancor must not take place. Scientific discussion has an immediate bearing on reason and not on sympathy and feelings.”[2]

p: 15

Introduction

Introduction

Deviation in Principles and Branches of Faith

Introduction As we all know, one of the aims of unity of Islam is to avoid clashes, disputes, wars and bloodshed between Muslims. Every Muslim is safe under Islamic civil regulations according to Islamic legislation. Life and property of a Muslim comes at the top of this civil law. On the other hand differences in belief have been ground for destroying sanctity of ones life and property throughout history. Proponents of Islamic unity desire to have a word about sectarian differences among Muslims. Their end is that these differences may not hurt individuals because of their being Muslims. As a result, any excuse for any kind of separation among Muslims could be repudiated. Therefore they usually say: “…all of them (Muslims) are together in basic beliefs. In other words, beliefs which have bearing on one’s being a Muslim. The difference that lies in certain matters is not to the extent to deny one’s being a Muslim, but it is an adherence to a particular faith.”![1] “What we mean is that unity or proximity with one another should push Islamic faiths to be together on those conditions that are subject to being a Muslim. All are Muslims. The difference among them is not a fundamental one. It is a marginal one which does not rescind one’s Islam.”![2] “Issues of difference existing in between are not of a category that could qualify one to blame the other of infidelity. The difference lies outside the principle and foundation. Therefore it is not a reason to say that these faiths have fundamental differences with each other.”![3] “In this way they should seek real truth, fact and knowledge. As far as they can, they should settle their disputes by reason and proof. Thus they can reach mutual agreement on any issues of difference. What good it would yield to reserve for himself what he likes and to be a cause of dread for others? On the other hand difference in branches is not harmful nor does it push them out of the circle of Islam.”![4]

p: 23

Criticism and Analysis

Criticism and Analysis Declarations such as these towards gaining political unity are acceptable. Perhaps they may prove strong enough to achieve the aim. However in view of the highly exalted station of Imamate in Islam and Shia belief, they are bereft of originality and sincerity of thought. We rather make divisions between teachings of Islam and principles of Islam and religion instead of maintaining Islamic principles and religious fundamentals. This is the important point overlooked that results in this outlook. The negligence is: We do not distinguish between worldly jurisprudence and fate of human beings in the next world. Against the above division, unity-seekers have erroneously divided the principle (the common belief) and branches (the belief on personal make out) into two batches: 1 – The basic faith: i.e. common among all sects. It constitutes the basic principle of Islam. This gives the identity of being a Muslim. 2 – Branches of faith: i.e. beliefs particular to its relative faiths or sects. They are independent from fundamentals of Islam. They have no bearing on limits of Islam.[2] Hence it is said: “Principles means pillars on which rests the entity of a Muslim. If one rejects all of them or a part of it, he is no more a Muslim.”![3] “Branches are same issues that revert to the principle irrespective of views.”![4] “The meaning of branches is not only the side commandments but it also means issues stretched out of the basic principle in both dimensions prior and after the commands and beliefs. In beliefs too we have a principle and a branch.”![5] Here rises a question: When we can attain the goal without injuring the quality of thought and attain knowledge of all beliefs by personal conclusion why should we stick to unpleasant ideas or thoughts? Besides, according to real teachings of religion in this respect, which is agreeable to both sects, political unity too can be attained.[6] Descriptions about principles of faith and its standards; we make appear as brief knowledge is sufficient because principle is a scale agreed by all sects. As such, Islamic sects have no difference at all in principles and fundamentals of faith. Their religious differences, considering these narrations, consist of beliefs as a whole except common subjects related to branches! It is thus said: “Data mentioned in Quran and traditions; that is the principles Muslims had accepted and in the time of the Prophet too all Muslims were in agreement.”![7] “By the common sum of principle we mean final principle of Islam acceptable to all Muslims. They are proved and established by Quran and traditions which Muslims have necessarily accepted.”![8] “In this respect also we must go after deeds[9] of a category, a necessity of Islam and which are acknowledged by all faiths as an obligatory mandate in Quran and traditions. As in principles of belief, here too standard of acceptance of these actions is agreement of all upon it.”![10] “Muslim unity rests on the pivot of basic Islamic principles and all Muslims agree upon it.”![11] “The difference of Muslims does not lie in issues of jurisprudence alone. It runs partly in side beliefs too. Besides, it also exists in common principles.”![12] Because of this narrow-mindedness, like the Muslims are excused in their differences about contents of common subjects they are also excused about belief in Imamate![13] Rather it is said that their faith will not be harmed because of not having such beliefs.[14] Whether a claim like this: “A brief knowledge about principles and belief in it to the extent of common understanding is sufficient. Not in sense of comprehension that embraces principles in detail. It suffices to form a standard of being a Muslim and a ground for Islamic unity. Belief in this principle runs to the extent of a common understanding to all.”![15] Is there something that goes beyond testimony of oneness of God and prophethood? The above element creates confusion. Beyond necessary knowledge of principles which is a combination of subjects and general comprehension all arguments are side and branch ones. As a result they rest on personal conclusions! Therefore: “Muslims in matter of branches should allow each other to have different beliefs.”[16]

p: 24

Conclusion

Conclusion What are principles of religion and how they are specified and fixed, is in itself a debate. And what kind of denial it is with regard to principles that results in exit from jurisprudential obligations leaving only an outward appearance of Islam in this world? This constitutes another debate that the standards that fix principles of religion have no part. It enjoys special calculations particular to itself. In other words, conditions and standards of exit from the borders of being a Muslim and from the circle of outer Islam has no bearing on the main or branches of argument of Imamate in Islam. Therefore from religious viewpoint belief such as Imamate can be a principle and a cornerstone of Islam as well. But an open denial of it based on any interests could cause exit from borders of being a Muslim in this world. It is never allowed to create a new description for principles and branches of religion and belief and introduce self-made standards for religious base wherein the station of Imamate is shifted to a lower grade; all this for sake of preserving the outcome of fake and feeble facade of Islam. Therefore in accordance with sagacious religious decree an open denial of Imamate and Wilayat of infallible Imams will not qualify one to be discarded as a Muslim had he adhered to testimony of oneness of God and the testimony of prophethood. Although Imamate is the basic element of faith yet the testimony of monotheism and prophethood holds one from going out of the circle of Islam[1] unless he has enmity to Infallible Imams or he denies both testimonies, i.e. monotheism and prophethood. Therefore it does not befit necessary to consider contents of belief in field of monotheism, prophethood and resurrection as branches. As a result contents could be considered as personal conclusion and wrong beliefs of Sunni sect could be justified.[2] It is not necessary to discard Imamate from category of principles of religion and make it a branch discussion.[3]

p: 27

Reminder

Reminder “Ayatullah Kashiful Ghita says with regard to Imamate, which is the only basic cardinal difference between Shia and Sunni sects: [1] Shias regard Imamate a principle among principles of religion at the level of monotheism and prophethood. Further, their belief goes to extent that Imamate too, like prophethood is choice of God. Imam is chosen and appointed by God and Prophet. Ummah has no choice in appointment of a prophet and it is out of its reach and choice. But our Sunni brothers do not treat this issue as a principle of religion. They have lowered and downgraded it to a political issue that can be accommodated by consensus or election which has no bearing on principles or branches of faith. Yet, inspite of that… Do you find a Shia pronouncing infidelity of one who has no belief in Imamate? Never!... On the basis of this: Acknowledgement of Imamate or its denial has nothing to do with Islamic society and relative commandments. The blood and properties (of both sects) is respectable and liable to protection…”[2]

Footnote

[1] [The root of all differences, i.e. those of belief, behavior and jurisprudence, etc. go back to this fundamental difference.]

p: 28

First Wrong Result

As you may have realized some seekers of Islamic unity have divided followers of all Islamic sects into religious discussions irrespective of beliefs, commandments, principles and branches. They have done so for sake of preserving Muslim sanctity. They have displayed principles such as to comprise arguments – absolute and final ones and common and combined ones among Islamic faiths. It has been declared such: “Root of religion means the established facts, strong realities, absolute decided elements and common issues of religion.”![1] “Principles are same comprehensive ones on which all Muslims have agreed.”![2] Consequently, branches were mentioned as matters that had become separated from this absolute principle, which were final and common and a sign of distinction of differences between Islamic faiths. To say it more clearly: unity-seekers distinguish branches and separate them from principles on the ground that viewpoints differ in branches while in principles, viewpoint of all Muslims is coherent and consistent. It is thus said: “Principles and sum of beliefs is nearly final and common among faiths. Mostly side and branch issues cause difference because each sect has its own view.”![3] “Matters subject to differences are side issues.”![4] On the other hand there exists no doubt at all that the prime issue of difference in Islamic Ummah is Imamate and Caliphate of Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet. In this regard it is said: “The issue of Imamate and Caliphate heads issues of differences among Muslims. Most differences – those of belief and jurisprudence, originate therefrom. None of these two fundamentals, Imamate and Caliphate, has had ever been a subject of common agreement between Muslims. In the era of the Prophet, it did not attain a level of serious consideration. In case it had been at that level it has lost importance by now.”![5] Therefore the thought of seeking unity has pushed this issue into side branch or at the margin because it creates difference among Muslims. As a result, it has been treated as a branch or side issue and as such it assumes particularities significant to subsidiary or subordinate matters. They are: A – “Branch issues which often are a source of differences should not be set in the middle of Islamic fundamentals or principles nor should they be treated such as to befog main issues.”![6] B – “Muslims are at difference with one another only in little and branch issues. Such issues do not form the main spirit of Islam. In fact, they originate from wrong conclusions and various viewpoints of scholars or jurisprudents.”![7] C – “Side issues and non-principles are objects of differences which should be resolved by scientific methods and exchange of views. If they could not be solved, do not let them dominate your mind and create fresh disputes among you. Islam does not deny difference in views. But the difference is natural and it is not supported by proof or reasoning.”![8]

p: 29

Second Wrong Result

As could be gathered from preceding narrations, unity-seekers have brought belief in Imamate and Guardianship of Infallible Ahle Bayt down to a branch level. They have utilized the excuse of preserving unity in the Ummah. All arguments relating to faith under the title of principle or fundamental and essentialities of religion would have to face this basic objection to the effect that there exist differences between School of Infallible Ahle Bayt and School of Caliphs. The differences are deep and rooted. Therefore founders of unity-seeking concept suggest a brief knowledge of these handy matters for solution of this problem. The extent, they say is enough that could provide information to people of common understanding.[1] Besides, it must comprise branches. Consequently, the matter turns to rest at personal conclusion of a jurisprudential merit. They say:

“A brief knowledge of this fundamental belief at the level of common understanding suffices. A detailed knowledge of it is not desired.”![2] “Accordingly we must know and even acknowledge that most religious matters are of personal conclusion of jurisprudence. The matters of need or those of necessity are common ones. For example: God is attributed with attributes of perfection, beauty and glory. Quran too mentions it. But when details are dealt with, question too arises accordingly. For example, the attribute or quality – is it the very self or added thereto? Or intention (i.e. the will) as to whether it is a quality of an action or quality of self? This issue is in the range of jurisprudence. The laity cannot understand it totally. There is also no need for them to understand.”![3] As for this conjecture, all discussions under these fundamental beliefs that go beyond common borders in glittering titles do not comprise principles because of their being within category of subsidiary character. It can be said in more clear words: As far as this outlook goes, all deviated and wrong beliefs of Islamic sects in the chapters of monotheism and prophethood and...encompassed by jurisprudence are beyond the circle of deviation and crookedness! And stand in need of justification! Because all these beliefs are absolute and beyond common understanding!

p: 30

Third Wrong Result

Third Wrong Result Division of religious arguments that have taken place in beliefs and commandments is to preserve Muslim sanctity.[1] This causes exit of important arguments such as Imamate and Guardianship of Infallible Ahle Bayt from category of prime matters of religion and become a subsidiary matter of less care. However it goes even farther, embracing issues, which were main ones in the sphere of branches.[2] Consequently, wrong conception gives shape to shifting of issues from main to branch and from the foundation to a side, irrespective of beliefs or commandments. It is said that: “Religious matters are in two categories. One is the final and decided one. The other one is not final. The final and decided matters are those, which must be as wholesome, of unanimous agreement of all Muslims. We have other matters in religion that are not of much transparency. Or they might have been previously. But by the passage of time, lost importance and became ground of difference between Muslims. All issues pertaining to belief, jurisprudence and practice are common between two sects (Shia and Sunni).[3] But branches of it are the ground of difference. We shall deal what exists in the domain of jurisprudence; all issues are not final.”![4] “Jurisprudence has an immediate bearing on issues of theory. Its authority and validity runs in issues that are outside essentialities and final say of Islam…”![5] “If we accept that religion consists of two series of issues. One is final, which does not carry any difference because there cannot exist any difference in it. Difference in these matters will make one to be regarded a deserter of religion. The other series of this is not a part of final matters and absolute essentiality. This is among theoretical issues. This is liable to create difference and arguments. There are various proofs and grounds in it. The method to reach to knowledge in the subject matters of this series is same as already mentioned. All ways end at conclusions of jurisprudent. As such, we must know and acknowledge that there are many issues in religion that lie in domain of jurisprudence….”![6]

p: 31

Fourth Wrong Result

When religious issues (related to belief or jurisprudence) are divided into two categories, principles and branches, the branch issues yield to jurisprudents’ ruling. When this formula is accepted, it should also be accepted that each branch consists of its own peculiarities or special effects related to differences of rulings among jurisprudents. And they are

p: 32

This Difference in Religion is neither rejected nor blamed

This Difference is not Harmful, it solves difficulty

4 – This Difference is not Harmful, it solves difficulty: “There are many differences in Islamic faiths in fields of jurisprudence and speech. These differences originate from difference in views of jurisprudents and they do not contradict basic principles of Islam. Hence they do not carry any harm but they occasionally solve difficulties also.”![1]

Footnote

[1] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 271

First alternation Imamate and Rulership

Introduction As has become evident the ground of Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate of Prophet’s Ahle Bayt forms and frames differences between beliefs of followers of Ahle Bayt and Caliphs in addition to right of succession of Infallible Ahle Bayt, which was hijacked at Saqifah Bani Saada. This Saqifah is the spot wherefrom start all troubles, agonies, tyranny, terror and so forth against the Imams, the offspring of Prophet. For instance, one is attack on the house of the only daughter of Prophet. This attack gave strength to pillars of later tyranny that was in store for Prophet’s family. As such, the differences too attain depth between two schools, Shia and Sunni, which cannot be denied. Existence of such a wide crevice could appear to those who invite towards Islamic unity, as a setback. To remove this setback, in their mind, no stone should be left unturned. We witness a unique thought and an odd idea towards separating the position of Imamate of Ahle Bayt from office of rulership. They claim that worldly position or any office is worthless and too little for dignity of an Imam. As a result of these misunderstandings they think that Imam Ali (a.s.) was on good terms with Caliphs. We shall deal with this conjecture in a systematic manner in this chapter. With regard to deviation of relation of Imamate and rulership our discussion is as follows: First batch: There are three kinds of separations between Imamate and rulership.

p: 46

Introductory conjecture

“Difference between issue of Caliphate and that of Imamate is one of strong pillars. Of course each one justifies it in one way or another.”![1] This conjecture is expressed in the following thought:

Type A) Separation of Imamate from Rulership in the sense of setting aside Caliphate and considering it out of discussion: “Muslims today are in no need to discuss about past Caliphate. The thing that we must stress thereon and prove is this: The Prophet had set Members of his Household at the level of Quran and oracles for Muslims. Therefore Muslims even today stand in need of them. The issue of Caliphate or rulership does not matter here…”![2] “We already differ with Sunni sect in issue of Caliphate. Now presently Caliphate does not exist. Therefore there should not be any ground to quarrel. But the thing that is useful to us is aspect of Wilayat. In other words, the authority of learning or knowledge and their being final oracle or source of religious issues to refer. The position of Prophet’s Ahle Bayt still exists. Their fountain still gushes.”![3] “The Prophet in his time held the office of the oracle of Muslims. Then he (the Prophet) appointed Imam Ali (a.s.) as the final authority of knowledge and his inheritor after his death. The Prophet acquainted people with the names of all twelve Imams as his heirs.”![4] “It is very much interesting that people feel pity at the issue of Caliphate and its getting shifted. But nobody laments nor does he feel sorry for our (92) having been deprived of benefits of knowledge of Ali and his sons –heirs of the Prophet. The shifting of Caliphate severed for us the link of Guardianship.”![5] “Commonly all people in their various categories and capacities – speakers of congregations, speak on subject of Caliphate snatched away at Saqifah.”![6] “When Shaykh Attar refers to Lord Ali, he mentions him from the angle of Guardianship.[7] Likewise, Maulana too mentions him in the same angle and adds: This Caliphate, a matter of dispute for you, is not important. The status and position that Imam Ali (a.s.) held in the scope of knowledge is far greater one. The link of soul that he enjoyed is more important. Ali himself did not pay any importance to Caliphate.”![8]

p: 47

Deviated Repercussions of this Conjecture

Deviated Repercussions of this Conjecture

First Wrong Result Since the great Caliphate of Ali was active immediately after passing away of Prophet throughout the period of Caliphate, which was in appearance, so no right of his was usurped or confiscated. Thus it is said: “Imam Ali (a.s.) besides the five years he was physically in the scene he had great Imamate and great Caliphate all over the period of thirty years since passing away of Prophet.”![1]

Second Wrong Result Considering differences between great Caliphate and Caliphate, visible to the people, it is not usurpation – that is the actions committed by those (other than Ali) who took over Caliphate. So their government was not illegitimate.

Third Wrong Result That the holder of great Caliphate acknowledged Caliphate held by other, which was visible to people, is a natural and normal thing. In this respect, they say: “After a short period he did Bay’at for the sake of unity, peace, calm and safety of Islam.”![2] Consequently the invalid and illegitimate Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar is being shown as lawful, valid and under supervision of Ali. A Caliphate (as though) approved and accepted by Ali!

p: 57

Reminder

Reminder Whatever you read up to here was a report of claim coined in a new thought of unity-seekers. This new thought was erroneous and wrong in addition to dimension which too was wrong and deviated. The writer of the article has tried to reason and give evidence in order to establish the validity of his theory that the great Caliphate was active throughout the period in which others had worn the gown of Caliphate. They are as follows: “The great Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s.) during a period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet – we shall revise... Guiding Caliphs in political, economical, legal and judicial affairs and keeping them from going astray. Appointing his own persons in key posts.”![1] Then the writer explains ways and proceeds of his great Caliphate giving details about consultations of Caliphs with him. He further adds and explains the part he and his companions had in government and military advances. We would like to remark here that we shall deal with all these points in the second and third chapters of second volume in detail. The claim that his great Caliphate was active during the period of twenty-five years of Caliphs is nothing but an exaggeration far from reality and remote from facts. It is against history. Here we draw your attention to a short criticism of the conjecture of Caliphate being separate from Imamate and Wilayat.

p: 58

Criticism and Opinion Guardianship and Imamate is inseparable from apparent Caliphate

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this respect: “There is another theory against all we have said so far. Shia scholars agree unanimously on it. The theory goes to say: Imamate is a guardianship bestowed by God to Imam. To make it more clear: Imamate is a position similar to prophethood. It is neither selected nor elected. It is chosen or appointed by God Himself. The holder of this position, the Imam, is chosen and appointed by God. Therefore Imamate is extension of Message brought down to people by Prophet. A Prophet is a founder of divine legislation over the earth. Imam is a guard of this legislation and guard of Message. Imam goes parallel with the Prophet except in getting revelation, which is the only distinction of Prophet. The Imam too is distinguished with qualifications and qualities necessary to a Prophet. He must be unique in knowledge and well conversed with principles, fundamentals, branches, decrees, rules, etc. An Imam too must be protected from committing any mistakes, big or small.[1] The office of Imamate in Shia school is extension of duties, which are Prophet’s responsibility. Imam performs all duties of a Prophet. The obligations that bind a Prophet are transferred to the Imam.”[2] As such if rulership is within the ambit of prophethood of a prophet and this office is established in the entity of prophet, then it cannot be separated from the entity of an Infallible Imam also. Therefore it cannot belong to other than the person of Imam. Since Imamate is the extension of prophethood, rulership too comes within the range of Imam’s responsibilities as it was the case with the Prophet. Therefore it is unreasonable to think of separation between office of Imamate and rulership. We follow this discussion from the angle of knowing minutely the duties of a Prophet: Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes under the heading: Whether government is possible without an Infallible Imam – if it is a divine right: “There is no doubt that one of the duties of prophets and one of the branches of their Guardianship is their government and their command over people. The government which in reality and originally belongs to God and delegated to Prophet and then to men of God, is a government framed and formed by justice, divine regulations and virtue of God’s commands. In Bani Israel Prophets Dawood and Sulaiman had such a divine rightful government by God’s decree. The right and just government is that which is established by God’s orders; not on conjectures, fancies or guess, which is always accompanied with surmise and suspicion. So it is often associated with lust, desire, aspiration and greed. It is absolutely impossible to administer such a government unless the administrator has extensive knowledge in all sciences and fields relative and necessary, such as punishments and particularities of a ruling. He should be cold and calm, able to overcome his own anguish and anger. He must be able to control his personal greed, selfishness, lust and pleasure. In short, only a man with such qualities can be an infallible Imam. The Prophet according to Quranic verse was a ruler, commander and governor of Muslims. He was their politician, judge and arbitrator. If all verses descended in this regard are scrutinized, it will come to light that the Prophet was an absolute undisputed ruler, an arbitrator and a judge of Muslim Ummah. He was a rightful politician too. When we pay visit in a form of pilgrimage to Imam in his shrine we read in the text of pilgrim devotions (Ziarat Jame Kabeera) – “…politicians of the people.” The Imam performs the duties of the Prophet. The Imam performs the job of government and judiciary. He stands parallel to the Prophet. As we pointed above, he must be having the same qualities, the Prophet had. All rules, commandments and details of religion must be known to him. Similarly, he must be infallible like the Prophet, far from faults, remote from wrongs, pure and purged of sins. If Imam wants to administer his government in a different way, there will be no issue of Caliphate or succeeding the Prophet. It will be a government like other governments. It is obvious that the Imam whom God appoints is to fill the gap created by the death of Prophet. The Prophet ruled on the basis of divine laws. He did not commit mistake or go astray in applying laws of God whatever subject or case might have been. Therefore his government was in fact the mirror of this Quranic verse: “And rule among the people with truth and do not obey the (personal) lust.” Now passing away of Prophet has created a vacuum that cannot be filled by anyone who has no knowledge of all the rules. Their ignorance in the events of any problem pushed them here and there to beg for a solution. What an agony it is when no goal obtained, he takes shelter in his own conjecture. Therefore the file of their life is full of mistakes, errors, wrongs and faults; all dangerous and harmful. How to fill such a deep crack and crevice; and who is to fill it? He must be of highest spirit in position; a copy of the Prophet – having knowledge of each branch and side of Islam, He must be able to solve difficulties and problems without making mistakes. It is quite apparent that ordinary persons cannot fill the gap nor can they continue the Message brought down by the Prophet. Therefore it is here the presence of an Infallible Imam becomes necessary and a need to tread the path of the Prophet. Imam is a need to be in place of the Prophet to carry out his duties and make restrictions and prohibitions prescribed by God and conveyed by Prophet.”[4] Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari in this respect writes: “Prophethood itself is a reality containing thousands of issues. The presence of Prophet suffices people from having anyone else to govern them. Imamate in Shia school entails prophethood. However it is higher than prophethood. It is such a fact we have accepted. As long as the Prophet exists, there is no saying as to who should be the ruler. The reason is the Prophet enjoys a status beyond people. Likewise, as long as Imam exists, there is no question of who must be the ruler. In Shia school, Imamate is a phenomenon and stretched entity of prophethood at its highest grades.”[5] “From Shia outlook, the issue of rulership in the period of Imam is like rulership in the time of the Prophet. In other words, it is an exception. With the supposition of existence or presence of Imam in consideration of the extent of Shia belief; the issue of rulership also becomes a branch issue – depending on other issues.”[6]

p: 59

Reminder

There is another criticism with regard to inadvertency towards standard, sincerity and originality of this thought. Distance has been taken from spirit of Islam and its social teaching; because: “Separation between these two positions actually is a sort of Christianity on tongues of those who share this theory. This is a deviated constitution of Christianity of today, which says: I hand over affairs of Caesar to Caesar himself. This is not an Islamic constitution. All its regulations and laws reflect one system overall compressing all material and moral aspects sufficient to cater to needs of human beings in social, conduct and character, political and economical fields. The constitution of Islam and its root frames the regulations of human policy, which is to administer Islamic social affairs. The station of moral leadership cannot be separated from government and political rule. Some among open-minded ones in the past and present consider it as a necessity to divide or separate the two, i.e. Caliphs and Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet as it is the only way of unity between Shia and Sunni. The government must be the lot of Caliphs and moral leadership on the part of Infallible Ahle Bayt. By this way alone, dispute lasting a thousand and four hundred years can be brought to an end. By so doing Muslims can stand against the imperialism of East and West with strength and unity. But this very thought is a mistake. The sum of this unity is constituted by a wrong consideration, which rather reflects a kind of Christianity or secularism. Why at all should we separate these two offices, which is against Quranic verse? Why at all, should it be divided like sacrificed meat?”[1] “The Holy Quran clearly says about Prophet Lut and Prophet Joseph: We gave to them rulership and command. About Prophet Dawood, Quran says: We gave him judgment and power of arbitration. About Prophet Sulaiman the Holy Quran narrates his government. Likewise, about Talut too talks of his government and that he had other distinctions. Therefore it shows that divine prophets are founders of divine governments on the earth and executors of divine authority.”[2] “There is no denying the fact that the Prophet, besides being a ruler of masses was ruler of people also. He was a spiritual leader as well as a moral guide. There are verses of Quran, texts of Islam and historical evidences that narrate that the Prophet laid the foundation of Islamic government. He took the responsibility of all affairs as a real ruler does. Islam obtained expansion at…teaching of constitution of monotheism and legislating laws at the invitation for holy war and extensive military training among masses in addition to teachings laws particular to Jihad. The training of defense was made common among the people. Besides, personal physical participation of the Prophet in twenty-seven battles and appointment of captains and brigadiers for fifty-five brigades showed the government’s face. In addition to this, it went as far as to establish that the Prophet’s call was not only spiritual. Likewise, his leadership was not only confined to convey divine decrees or religious messages through advices, admonishments or preaching. His orders were obeyed because of his capacity of a ruler and commander-in-chief of the army. In doing thus he safeguarded his Ummah from harm of enemies and protected the Message and Book of God from all perversions and deviations. He stood security to execute divine laws in a human society.[3] The financial system of Islam is the most obvious evidence to prove that Islam is a complete and consummate model to run a society. The system was complete and nothing was short in it. Every core and corner of human field in a society has not escaped the care and attention of the system. It attended and answered all human needs that a society could possibly have. The way this system has chosen to attain this goal is to enjoin people to do what is good, i.e. to bind themselves to good. Similarly to avoid doing bad, being hurtful to self and others is prohibited. All laws and regulations the Prophet established show a thorough and a deep study of society. Then the Prophet laid its foundation which swiftly took root in society.[4] Apart from being political head of government, the Prophet was a spokesman of divine or heavenly laws and a commentator expounding and explaining contents of Quranic verses. In short, he was a coach for God’s words and a teacher to teach the Book of God.[5] The Prophet in his life held these two positions (i.e. head of the government and conveyor of Divine Message.) After passing away of Prophet, a vacancy arose for position of the Prophet. As such, the Islamic society needed one to fill the position of Prophet to carry out duties related with this position. Now the question is to see who is qualified to take over the charge. Who has those qualities to occupy the two vacant offices? It is quite clear and hence conceivable that the job of preaching to the people and guidance of masses to acquaint them with Divine laws; as to what is allowed and what prohibited and to encourage the society to high morals and demeanor befitting human beings can only be undertaken by those who are safeguarded from sins, protected from faults and are themselves infallible. They can control their own self. Besides, knowledge of everything rests with them. An absolute leader of the people cannot be otherwise. His conduct and character, his words and deeds become a model for masses to follow. Such a one must be pious without a margin of sin, forgetfulness, fault or error. We call this quality Ismat; that is infallibility. At the same time, he must have knowledge of every science. This is impossible unless God has vested his bosom with His knowledge.[6] In brief, leader of Islamic society should be well versed with fundamentals, principles, branches and side rules and constitution of Faith. Otherwise he cannot be a divine spokesman over the earth and leader from God to His creatures. He cannot be, likewise, an absolute guide without being infallible.”[7]

p: 60

Another Criticism

There is another point, which should not be far from sight. These conjectures are harmful to the extent of irretrievability to framework of Shia belief. However they put the next generation into doubt with regard to separation of right from wrong. From another aspect, it encourages propaganda of a thought, which can be named ‘separation of faith from politics’. “Islam is a compendious and complete constitution consisting of all aspects of human life – the open and hidden ones. Islam has brought a new system with a new thought. As it is a school of moral and civilization at the same time, it is a social and political system. Islam gives meaning to matter, makes the hidden apparent and obvious, frames the next world in this world, houses the essence in a shell and preserves seed in a pod. Deviation of Caliphate and rulership from its original track is tantamount to make Caliphate a pod without a seed or a shell without kernel… So it was at this point that politics were separated from piety or being bound to a religion. As a result, those who were heirs of Islam and

p: 61

The Result

“The issue of Imamate from the aspect of leadership and rulership is such: Now presently there exists an infallible exactly like the person of the Prophet. The Prophet, at the behest by God, has introduced and identified to us his successor. His successor is above the level of ordinary people. As far as qualities and qualifications are concerned he is exceptional like the Prophet. Therefore in this case there is no question of consultation, election or committee. In the days of the Prophet, there was nothing of these words such as: the Prophet is only a Messenger. Divine revelation descends on him. Responsibility of government rests with a consulting committee. People should vote whether the Prophet must be the ruler or someone else. In fact, the people had some other trend in their thought. In spite of being a Prophet and being above level of a human and having a link with unseen world of revelation nobody raised this question of an executive of the government. Now too (after his death) there is no necessity for such words. The Prophet had twelve successors. In their existence, there remains no ground for election, consultation and selection. Having had an infallible one, with knowledge of everything, who does not mistake; rather no possibility of error can be attributed to him, should we go after an ordinary man? The position of Ali’s Imamate was in the sense we said above that Ali was already an Imam in the sense of the word. So naturally all by itself leadership or administration of the government too will have to be his lot. The Prophet had issued statements in this regard. The Prophet described Ali’s position because the other position (Imamate) was his…”[1] Because: “Imamate is a pillar of Shia belief. A branch of Imamate is rulership. When an Imam is present, i.e. in existence of an infallible Imam the right of rulership goes to no one as it was with the Prophet. In the time of his existence, no one had the right to run the government. The Prophet, at the command of God, had appointed Ali for Imamate. Rulership is joined to Imamate. The necessity of Imamate is administration also.[2] In some instances, the Prophet appointed Ali to administration on the basis and standard of Imamate. The base he held was Imamate but he said: He (Ali) is the Imam after me.”[3] Therefore: “Imamate among Shia is regarded above rulership. Rulership becomes one of the affairs of Imamate. The explanation of Islam, the decrees and its rulings occupy a level, which must be Infallible. It cannot be otherwise. We say one of the functions of the Prophet was rulership. Rulership not from the side of people nor was it a people’s right to give him rulership. This rulership was one, which God had bestowed on him. The reason was that the Prophet was above human beings. In other words, he was a teacher of divine laws and rules besides his link with the unseen world. He had rulership over the people. Among Shias, there is another issue. If that issue is established, rulership itself will be established. We believe a position entailing that of prophethood. In existence and presence of that position, rulership is itself contained therein. Likewise, when the Prophet was present, question of rulership was contained within. As such when an Imam exists, of course at the level Shias stress on, the question of rulership is clear and a settled one.”[4]

p: 62

Introduction

Criticism and Analysis

As could be noted: “He has brought down Imamate to rulership and administration either deliberately or unintentionally. It should not be forgotten that such a discussion results in scientific negligence, which cannot be accepted besides its entailing corruption in drawing conclusions. The outcome can be only an imaginative unity. The statement says that Imamate and Wilayat are two aspects – one moral and the other rulership. Then assertions are made that the first one cannot be usurped[1] while the second is not so important. In the narration of the word of Ali, a word is changed; that is Guardianship instead of rulership. Intentionally it is changed to create a short cut towards unity.”[2] Another point that should be made here is: Caliphate and rulership are positions given by God. This furnishes a suitable ground for guidance and perfection and prosperity of this world and the next. It drives the society towards resurrection. Such a type of rulership cannot be worthless for Ali. If it be so, it means: Ali paid little or no attention to his duties because it is coherent with the position God has installed Ali in. The office of Guardianship does not necessarily depend on rulership, which too must be in possession. The Imam under responsibility of Guardianship discharges his duty of guidance to people. But the fact should be noted that rulership provides an easier ground to achieve the goal of Guardianship to the extent of perfection that is expected by the appearance of the present Imam. Rulership, which they usurped from Ali, was on the ground of their denial of Imamate and Wilayat of Ali. This denial gives birth to a denial that stretches in the whole Ummah and totally forgets its turning away from the Imam who is a door of guidance and resurrection in the next world. The world from the viewpoint of Ali is worthless. Likewise is rulership that aims world. Sunnis have said thus about Caliphate. Rulership gives meaning to Ali when he can serve the truth and justice and enable him to eradicate wrong. In other words, Caliphate and rulership lose their attraction to Ali when they serve selfish motives or go astray from God’s will. Throughout the period of three Caliphs, this type of rulership had imprinted a sketch in the minds of people. In fact they took rulership for granted to hoard worldly and material gain. It was exactly on this wrong outlook that the Ummah got tired of injustice and partialities of Uthman. They saw no way but to turn to Ali. So they returned to Ali. They returned not because Ali was the person whom the Prophet had introduced as one appointed by God to the leadership of Islamic society. They returned because Ali was selected by companions who wanted to establish justice. This clearly shows that they had already forgotten the divine verse for Ali’s leadership. The government, which Ali was called upon to form was a display of Ali’s wisdom in executing divine orders. At the same time, the previous three regimes also were a demonstration of their denial of Ali’s right of Guardianship and Imamate and usurpation of his rights. Therefore it is clear that rulership founded on such base has no value to Ali. However Ali exerted his efforts and tried repeatedly to take back his usurped right. This was silenced by an attack on Fatima’s house, the only daughter of the Prophet.

p: 64

Introduction

Criticism and Analysis

The body and structure of Islam is in discussion. Its teachings can be divided into two entities – the lower structure and the above structure. In this division, some teachings of faith including obligations or duties and those of beliefs in relation to all teachings of conduct or of belief housed in the lower structure. These are called basics of Islam or basis of faith in narrations of infallible Ahle Bayt. The sense of this is totally other than the common description as principles of faith. On this basis, that batch of teachings of faith is called base or principle of faith. The root or construction of Islam rests on that. Not because outer belief – even its contents – is common with Islamic sects, are called principles of faith. On the basis of what we said, Shia believes that Imamate is part of principles and pillars of faith. In faith of Islam the element of Imamate is the fundamental of the foundation. Here we quote some writings of Shia scholars: “The reality of a thing is its own base and root. Its structure is built on it – i.e. on its base and on its own root. Therefore principle of faith is that on which faith is built or stands thereon. Such it is to believe in Imamate; Quran and traditions support this.”[1] “Imamate and leadership of religion in Shia school is a part of principle from view of essentiality of belief. It stands in the row of Monotheism, Prophethood and Day of Judgment.”[2] “When we Shias want to describe principles of faith on the basis of religion we count it as a part of principle.”[3] “We believe that Imamate is one of the principles. Faith without belief in it is incomplete.”[4] “No doubt that the only way to reach true elements of knowledge (science of knowledge) is to dive into contents of religion to obtain pearls of knowledge the Prophet has pointed to us. It is only when we understand the directions of the Prophet regarding adherence to Imamate, which is viewed by the Prophet as an important pillar of the very structure itself. The Prophet goes even further. He says one must know his Imam in his lifetime. If one died without recognizing the Imam during his lifetime, it is as if he died in ignorance (pagan’s death). That is, such a person has not understood the reality of monotheism, revelation and prophethood of the prophets and is not blessed by heavenly guidance of Quran and his life had not been Islamic and Quranic even though he might have believed in all true beliefs and had been imbued with all distinctive qualities and no matter how punctual he might have been in his life in discharging religious obligations such as prayers, fasting, Hajj, Zakat, fighting Jihad, has always attended mosque etc.”[5] “The outcome is that: Belief in Guardianship and Imamate of Ali and other infallible Imams (his sons) is a backbone and worth bestowing element to all other principles of faith as well as character, conduct and deeds. Without that, faith with all its heads and titles has no divine validity nor is it of any value before God. It is like a zero which gets no value although several thousands zeros might stand in a row. A number must accompany a zero to get the value. Else, nobody will count zeros. Unless belief and deeds follow the fundamental of Imamate in the track of the Guardianship of Infallible Ahle Bayt, God does not pay any heed nor do they get a place with him. Everything is gone without any return.”[6] “This dividing line, which is a standard one, keeps belief in Guardianship and Imamate in a row with principles of faith. Some have erroneously concluded that: Belief in Imamate and Wilayat of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) is not among necessities of Islam. The belief in Islam is possible without that. On the other hand the holy verses prove other than this. Therefore the subject of Guardianship is more obligatory and necessary than other obligations. It is more important before God than all duties. There is a point worth considering here. Among the five pillars: prayers, fasting, Zakat, Hajj and Guardianship only in four, excuse is justifiable. In four pillars excuse is accepted by God. The Prophet (the lawmaker) has given margin. For instance, in journeys prayers become short; likewise, fasting is avoided in sickness too. Zakat is not obligatory if one is financially not well off. Hajj is not binding if one is financially unable to do. But Guardianship of infallible Ahle Bayt (a.s.) is in no way exempted. It is a duty whatever conditions or circumstances be there one is bound to obey Imam and recognize him and be in his service. In their times, we shall be resurrected.”[7]

p: 67

Introduction

A question that arises in the mind is that:

Unity-seekers have stepped far beyond frontiers of political unity. Practically they have plunged into Sunni beliefs. They have done this for sake of Islamic Unity; and they are moving fast in that direction. Now what are those conjectures left for them to convey or propagate that they try to delete and rescind this fundamental of Baraat from Shia teachings? In reply it can be said: So far whatever is said toward trend of knowledge and civilization for creating Islamic unity and put before criticism and analysis and evaluation, five main pivots can be found in the thought and view of extremists among unity-seekers. And these five pivots in the end either directly or indirectly contradict fundamentals of Baraat. These five pivots are:

A – Taking benefit of a deviated thought, silence, an excuse to maintain Islamic demeanor? It is thus said that: “Is it possible to insult sanctities of one milliard Muslims and at the same time claim unity of Islam?”![1] “No logic gives way nor allows reason in our being free to insult heads of Sunni sect using our public media and taking into service writers and speakers. If we aim for oneness and unity of hearts we must abolish our practice from radio, television, meetings and gatherings and pulpits; whatever from these platforms is said and which wounds and injures feelings of Sunnis. Such a thing should be prohibited.”![2] “To make insults, to be brazen faced and to fabricate statements or traditions which later can be attributed to the Prophet in vilification of leaders of Islam and breach sanctities of Islamic personalities respected by a milliard Muslims – is it a principle of Shia faith?”![3] “Scolding, abusing and using foul language against those who have a position of respect and reverence among Muslims is against decorum and demeanor. It is an undesired, impolite and an indecent act and Imams of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) have prohibited it.”![4]

p: 69

Closing Reminder

Closing Reminder Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi writes: “We know since the Ummah attributed by Islam and Quran, faces a joint enemy who wants to destroy the very foundation of religion reason dictates that the whole Ummah together with Shia and Sunni should campaign united in one row to defend existence of religion and themselves. However this does not necessitate Shias to withdraw issue of Tawalla and Baraat. These two fundamentals are like life and death of Islam with Shias. It does not mean showing leniency to adversaries. At the stage of argument and research, or at the stage of preaching and propaganda in public meetings and common medias, or in position of teaching in educational centre and training of children and youths it must be maintained that belief of the other side should be respected. Unity must be preserved from getting injured. True belief could be kept untold. These are the stations where frankness and openness in speech could prove hurtful. Hence could be refrained. The next generation regarding the belief will remain in suspect and surmise.”[1] “Very seriously, we must be mindful and closely advertent of Satan to not mislead us. There might appear many titles such as unity, co-ordination, respect to Islamic brotherhood and so forth. To take up common issues and leave singular elements, which are attractive of appearance but should not spoil the glitter of the pearl of our faith. Special care should be taken to see that pillars of faith among young generation might not be shaken or even destroyed. The matter of political unity may not be turned into a unity of beliefs. And by sorting, they could easily project the real, original and correct Islam in two wings – Shia and Sunni – in the minds of plain-hearted people who have no real information in the field. And both those wings are not real and although they would introduce to them as correct and original Islam of true and right path. Ultimately and consequently, the two main pillars of Baraat and Tawalla will fade out and decay totally. As such, the real Islam of Prophet Muhammad will vanish from the minds of Shias. Islam will fall down when these basic pillars have fallen. The eternal life of man will be exchanged at a very low cost that is the expansion of Islam and a long stretch of its government and political advances. All this is only fancy and imagination.”[2]

p: 71

Introduction

Criticism and Analysis

A walk into the park of thought of this group of continuing ‘Imamate and Caliphate’ and then a comparison of it with institute of Sunni thought[1] in this subject takes us to elements common in the outlooks of unity-seekers and Sunni beliefs[2] which are as follows:

First Conjecture: Imamate and Guardianship in Islam are only for the sake of Rulership! In this respect, they say: “In the pure and noble faith of Islam the subject of Imamate is not regarded as a part of the business to impart duties of administration, government, political and social affairs in the administration.”![3] “Imamate is the same authority and the run of political affairs of Islamic Ummah.”![4] “In Islam Imam means head of the government. His duties are repeatedly mentioned.”![5] “The dispute between Shia and Sunni which has been continuing since centuries is on the issue of rulership.”![6] “The holder of order (or the head) and the Islamic ruler means the executors of these two verses of Quran which is the duty on the part of Islamic governor… If the Islamic Governor executes an Islamic order, the title ‘the head of affairs’ (Wali-e-Amr) can be applied to him.”![7] “The executor of Islamic rules is called ‘head of affairs (Wali-e-Amr).”![8]

Second Conjecture: Rulership in Islam is an Elected post! They say: “The choice of appointing the ruler after passing away of Prophet is in the hands of people. It is not even in the hand of the Prophet.”![9] “The choice of the ruler is an acknowledged right of the Ummah.”![10] “To select an Imam is a special right of the people.”![11] “The chief executive of Muslims is electoral. The qualities of this post are specified in Quran. Muslim in each term should select one according to these specifications.”![12] “To select ‘the head of affairs’ (Wali-e-Amr) is a fixed right of the people. According to specifications, his duties are subsidiary. It remains as long as Quran exists.”![13] “To maintain a Quranic government is a responsibility on all Muslims. The ruler of Muslims is selected among them with opinion of masses.”![14] “The issue of Caliphate is a national issue. To fix a ruler is in the hands of the people.”![15] “The public opinion in an Islamic government is a basic element for appointing the ruler.”![16] “People have a right to appoint a person who possesses conditions befitting a ruler to the post of a guardian and vest him with rulership.”![17]

p: 73

First Wrong Result

Third Wrong Result

Fourth Wrong Result

Caliphate of Caliphs is not illegitimate! Such is said: “In selecting the Caliph through consultation, companions of Prophet maintained rules of God and carried out Islamic regulations.”![1] “After passing away of Prophet immediately, companions of Prophet thought about Caliphate and formed a government of religion. Thus Caliphate of Caliphs came into being.”![2]

Footnote

[1] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam),Vol. 1, Pg. 112

[2] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Article quoted in the book Deen-O-Hukumat (Religion and Rulership), Pg. 545

The wrong framing of the issue

They frame the subject in a way as if we have a problem by name of government. We want to see in the name of government as to what is the government in the view of Islam?...[1] If we pose Imamate in a plain way at the level of a government and say, it means government, we shall see the attraction exceeds what Sunni say and goes beyond what Shias say…[2] We should not commit such a mistake to imagine a government at the very name of Imamate. As a result the issue, let it be however plain, this branch that has come into being should not lace it. This might occur to us as to who should take over the charge of government. He who wants to be a governor should he be superior to all others? Probably he who becomes a governor could be relatively superior and not absolutely. This is because we have treated this issue as of little importance. This is a mistake. Today this mistake is often repeated. As Imamate is mentioned, our mind goes to the meaning of government. Government is a branch – a very little side of Imamate.[3] We say there is some other issue among Shias. If we fix that issue, the question of government too is settled. We believe in a position or office, which is immediately after prophethood or its subordination. In the presence or existence of that office, the issue of government comes into its fold. In other words issue of government is encompassed in existence of Prophet. Similarly in the presence of Imam – in the sense, which Shia says – the issue of government is itself in existence.[4] The subject of Imamate itself entails prophethood. But it does not mean that its position is far below something close to prophethood – in its similarity. The great prophets in addition to their prophethood they had this office of Imamate too.[5] Imamate is a phenomenon of prophethood exactly to the level of prophethood at its highest grades. It is such among Shias.[6] Prophethood itself is an entity wherein exist thousands of things. The Prophet’s existence makes Muslims needless of a ruler because he is the ruler. Government was one of the affairs of prophethood…[7] But it was not bestowed upon him by the people. This was a right given him by God, because he was a superior human being. Since he was the interpreter of God’s commandments and a moral link with the unseen world he had rulership too over the people…[8] When we accept such a fact there arises no question of a ruler as long as the Prophet exists. He has a dimension beyond a human being. Likewise, as long as exists the Imam there arises no question as to who is to rule…[9] From Shia viewpoint, question of government is same as it was in lifetime of Prophet. He has an exceptional government. As the question of government does not rise in lifetime of Prophet, so it is in lifetime of Imam. The meaning of Imam as it is in belief of Shia, rescinds the issue of government. The issue of government is a branch issue and a dependent one…[10] Therefore we must not regard issue of Imamate simple. We should not treat it as a worldly position. Among Shias, Imamate is a living issue. In presence of Imam, there is no room for other as in the case of lifetime of Prophet. And the Prophet had appointed Ali for Imamate. He who is Imam necessarily governs too. The Prophet has mentioned ‘rulership’ in addition to ‘he is the Imam after me.’”[11] He writes under the heading: ‘In presence of infallible there is no room for selection’ thus: “The subject of Imamate with regard to leadership and government is: Now like the days of Prophet there exists an infallible. The Prophet had appointed his successor who was not to the level of other persons because his level was too high. And with regard to his capabilities and standards he was exceptional like the Prophet himself. Therefore there arises no question of consultation and selection. In the days of the Prophet, no one said that the Prophet was a Messenger and a recipient of divine revelation. So the government must be framed by consultation. People should come and cast their opinion whether to select someone else or the Prophet himself for the post of ruler. But people thought that the Prophet is above ordinary persons and that he has links with the world of revelation. Now after the Prophet there is no place for these sayings. But one thing is undeniable. Having had an infallible person purged from mistakes and perfect in earthly and heavenly knowledge, should we go to another one instead? Besides, Ali was an Imam. So the worldly post of leadership too will be his lot all by itself. The Prophet has explained this aspect too. The Prophet referred this position to Ali because Ali had the other position also.”[12]

p: 81

Introduction

Reminder

Reminder The point in explanation of Ali’s activities of belief and knowledge should be paid attention to is: The real identity of Imam’s activities lies in his endeavors towards wiping out dust of deviation and wreckage from original face of Islamic teachings and propaganda of Islamic fundamentals. There is no doubt how he tried to renew the real entity of faith. This becomes clearer when anti-Islamic movements of Caliphs are sketched in detail. If we magnify the limited activities of Imam, it will result rather in giving a misleading picture to the people. Whatever he did must be kept against whatever Caliphs did. Then only can be understood Imam’s services to Islam. Caliphs damaged Islam and its teachings. Imam Ali (a.s.) mended the damage. The scope is wider. It embraces military, economical, cultural, social and political spheres. The work of Ali cannot be conceived without a comparison with the work of previous three Caliphs. We add here what is said: “Since the revolution which Islam brought was a revolution of faith and culture, it did not depend on aimed campaign. After demise of Prophet, Imam (Ali) occupied himself in this said activity, which was of utmost importance and priority. This he did to provide a thorough and consummate answer to objections and attacks (in sphere of belief) of the scholars of newly conquered countries. Further, to be able to cater to the queries of lawyers and jurisprudents. Far beyond this, to provide a stock of teachings that could be embraced without hesitation in countries that had accepted Islam as their faith. So in the fronts of law, belief, principles, Islamic cultural issues, jurisprudence and other issues he was well equipped with the needed sources.”[1] “After Prophet’s passing away Imam Ali (a.s.) throughout the span of three Caliphs because of his God-bestowed sagacity, intelligence and ministry he had been a pivot of Islamic revolution. He engaged himself in giving guidance to people and Caliphs at the same time.”[2] He [Imam Ali (a.s.)] fulfilled the task of highest degree of honest consultant of Caliphs in all grounds, political and military. He had physical presence in the arena. As far as he could he held the people and Caliphs from going astray, becoming disobedient to divine rulings, deviating from standards established by Prophet, going corrupted, treacherous and sinful by advising and enjoining good and restraining from evil.”[3]

p: 95

Introduction

Criticism and Scrutiny

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this regard: “Sunni scholars and researchers have written explanations of Nahjul Balagha. They have scrutinized the statements of Imam Ali (a.s.) about Caliphate one after another. They have derived this conclusion from the whole data: The aim of Imam from his statements is to show his eligibility, ability, quality and qualification for Caliphate without any gap from the Prophet. With regard to relationship: the Imam enjoyed very close ties with Prophet. With regard to learning and knowledge, the Imam was superior to all. With regard to principles of justice, information and principles of policies and politics: the Imam had no peer. Likewise in matters of running a country also he was above all companions of Prophet. For this reason, he was the befitting candidate for Caliphate. Because elders of the Ummah had decided to choose good instead of best. So they selected other than him; an inferior. Therefore Imam pointed out the tyranny that took place in this respect. He had a right to say that he was more suitable and befitting for the job. The right which the Imam refers to goes thus: Since the day the Prophet passed away my right was taken away from me. And I was deprived of my own right. This is not a religious right that should have been given to him by head of religion. But it is meant to be a natural right, which binds each one to not give priority to an inferior when there is a superior. In other words, in the presence of a better choice it must not go to an inferior. The affairs or a task should rest on shoulders of one who is more able and befitting one. Whenever if the opposite happens, that is inspite of presence of one with more qualifications, abilities and knowledge he is ignored and another one with less abilities and more ignorance is chosen, it will be a natural right of his to complain about the tyranny done to him…”[1] This matter is regarded as a research but it is not more than a thought. We cannot translate all words of the Imam into his personal ability. And such a personal decorum of Imam cannot be a pivot of harsh attacks on Caliphs. Whenever the problem of leadership in Islam should be solved by means of referendum, consultation or negotiation, one who surpasses in all qualities the others and yet is ignored and not elected he cannot regard himself as a rightful one or the post is his right. To withdraw to him is a tyranny. He cannot attack bitterly those who have taken his place. But such is not the case. We do not see such a tone in Imam’s speeches. He considers himself the true rightful one to belong to the post. He regards it a tyranny in him if he were to withdraw from the arena. He considers Quraish tyrants to him and trespassers and transgressors on his rights, can such harsh words be justified because of his self-decorum? It is never correct to represent the criticism of Caliphate of Caliphs as his personal demeanor. These words of the Imam go a great deal to prove that Caliphate was his established right. The Imam regarded deviation in behavior towards him as deviation in truth. Such a firmness in his belief towards Caliphate cannot be but by the text of Quran or a divine decree. Else, there is no other reason, which could make one sure and certain to such an extent. Such interpretations cannot be translated into a priority. Those who interpret statements of Imam in this way are judging in advance. Their belief rests in elected Caliphate, which is a setback to them to evaluate words of Imam.”[2] Taking into consideration such harsh criticism of Imam to Caliphs, which was right of Imam and rightful to him – a right vested to him directly from God, can we accept that: “The Imam had not abused Caliphs in a fashion common among masses, but on the contrary, he had on many occasions even praised them.”![3] Such vague and hallow claims cannot be encouraging factors to eradicate the principle of Baraat and put into practice praising Caliphs?

p: 98

Introduction

Scrutiny and Criticism

Such an attitude tries to give to the plot of hypocrite emigrants[1] in Saqifah Bani

Saada a reactionary feature committed in relation to second priority about Islamic Caliphate. By so doing they could provide and furnish to Abu Bakr a religious ground to the rulership he captured. It was on the basis of this theory all these things took place after disobedience of society from Caliphate of Ali, in addition to absence of social grounds for establishment of Alawi government. In other words, it took place after effectiveness and getting legitimacy of the second. To justify this perverted idea we must first acknowledge the gathering of Ansaar in Saqifah as a most distinguished factor[2] that wipes out and eliminates conditions necessary to establishment of Alawi government. They say thus: “The initiators in this matter are Ansaar. They (Helpers) without pre-knowledge or any consultation gathered in Saqifah Saad Bani Saada. In that gathering no one mentioned the name of Ali or Bani Hashim.”![3] “In the meeting name of Ali or Bani Hashim was not mentioned. The matter of Quranic verse or text that confirms Caliphate of Ali was overlooked and ignored which was first priority and even ground for second priority was prepared.”![4] Then to pretend that Emigrants present in Saqifah did not have any plan to lay hand upon Caliphate. They witnessed the ground that was made to usurp the right of Ali – that is Caliphate. They witnessed that Helpers and Emigrants extended validity and legality to election of Caliph. Here the second priority got accomplished. They took step for a legitimate endeavor to push Abu Bakr to the seat of Caliphate. They say thus: “Paying allegiance to Abu Bakr was not a pre-prepared plot as they say or claim.”![5] Yes, in this oblique thinking the Caliph and his supporters were introduced as believers and committed to religious rulings and regulations and to Islamic teachings. They were obedient to first priority – that is they were believers in Holy Text and divine decree about appointment of Caliph prior to the meeting. They got the news of meeting in Saqifah Bani Saada. There the gathering became opposed to Caliphate of Ali. Besides, there was no pre-prepared ground necessary to get hold of Caliphate of category of the first priority. He participated because of his corruption to religion and his obligation to faith. It was a gathering of mischief and corruption. He acted upon God’s rulings and Islamic teachings and on the second priority. As such, Abu Bakr was chosen to Caliphate. They say: “Abu Bakr with his past had a position among companions of Prophet that people went to him when they turned away from Ali.”![6] Therefore the designer of this wrong thinking believes: “Ali was deprived of grounds available to Abu Bakr.”![7] On this perverted outlook, it must be said: Proceedings of Abu Bakr and his supporters were not a tyranny to Ali. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate too was not illegitimate nor was it usurpation. It took place after second priority become effective! Thus it is said: “Inspite of the conditions Ali has accepted its validity.”![8] “Certainly this priority was in effect after passing away of Prophet. Ali finally agreed and paid allegiance to Caliphs. He sincerely co-operated with them.”![9] “Ali paid allegiance to Abu Bakr by his will. There was no compulsion upon him. He co-operated with him in all events. Later he continued the same with Umar. He had also praised the two.”![10]

p: 100

Unanswered Questions

Designers of this theory (believers of second priority in Caliphate) invite all unity-seekers to: “Follow the same broad outlook; and for its evidences search in Quran or tradition, or within lines of history.”![2] Therefore at the end of this analysis all scholars and researchers are invited to find out scientific and committed answers to the queries as hereunder. The answers are applied to outcome of above theory. In fact, if the second priority in Caliphate be a religious factor or that of faith or Islamic one; and Caliphate takes shape in event of that getting activated, Caliphate becomes legitimate. From the other side, we believe that both Ali and Zahra were infallible and sincerely obedient to God. So: Question 1: What was the reason in attacking Zahra’s house by the gang of Abu Bakr? Why the sanctity of Zahra’s privacy was trespassed and transgressed? Question 2: What was the reason in the attack on the person of Zahra and hitting and beating her physically which resulted in her miscarriage ending in the martyrdom of Mohsin? Question 3: What was the reason in tying rope around the neck of Ali and dragging him by force to the mosque? Question 4: What was the reason in Ali’s firm and strong refusal to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr? Question 5: What was the reason in Ali’s invitation to Muhajireen and Ansaar for an armed uprising against Abu Bakr? Question 6: What was the reason of bloody defense of Zahra in the matter of extracting Ali’s allegiance for Abu Bakr? Question 7: What was the reason for such heavy wrath and anguish of Zahra against the Caliph and his associates? Question 8: What was the reason in the early and untimely death of Zahra in the early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate? Question 9: What was the reason in Zahra being buried at night? What was the reason for Caliph and his colleagues not participating in burial ceremonies? We leave the judgment to you; and find the conclusions yourself with the help of impartiality, sagacity and true information and justice. We want all interested readers to answer these questions based on historical documents from Shia and Sunni sources. We invite them to refer to the following sources: Calamities of Zahra (Vol. 2) by Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili. The Agonies of Zahra translation of the above book by Muhammad Sepehri Attack on Fatima’s house by Shaykh Abdul Zahra Mahdi The Manifest proof of Zahra’s martyrdom by Ustad Ja’far Subhani Disappointment in Fire translation of the above book by Sayyid Abdul Hasan Imrani Darkness of Fatima Zahra by Shaykh Abdul Kareem Aqeeli Mohsin bin Fatima Zahra by Shaykh Abdul Mohsin Qataifi Where is Justice? Mohsin son of the Chief of Believers by Wafiq Saad Amali Pains of Fatima by Shaykh Abdullah Nasir Burning of Fatima’s house by Shaykh Husain Ghaib Gholami Fire on the House of Revelation by Sayyid Muhammad Husain Sajjad House on fire by Masoodpur Aghayee What happened to Fatima’s house? by Sayyid Abdul Hasan Husaini Martyrdom of my Mother Zahra by Ghulam Reza Ali Khan

p: 101

Addendum Solution of Shia to Create Islamic unity

One of the questions that arises after criticism and analysis of theories of Islamic unity is the query about a sincere solution and action towards unity between Muslims of the world. Particularly what is claimed by the movement in way of Islamic unity together with belief in refusing legitimacy of Caliphs’ government and showing it as usurpation. This generally seems impossible. They say: “This group if it wants insistence on first priority to attain unity, generally it seems impossible.”![1] Therefore this addendum is written in such a circumstance taking into consideration necessity of preserving every faith’s position and refraining from disturbance to fundamentals of each faith of Islam. It has always had been ground of confirmation on part of those who wear the glitter of Islamic unity: The aim by writing this short addendum is to remind about two points: It seems that attention to these points was a key to arguments relating to closeness. It has made the theory designers of unity needless from coining so many other issues to maintain original discipline and sincerity in this intellectual awakening. So we are hopeful that these two reminders will come under the care of those who exert efforts for Islamic unity particularly those who to achieve this aim see themselves lenient towards beliefs and fundamentals of Shiaism.

p: 102