| 1. What is Wilãyat?
"Wilãyat," derived from wilã', means
power, authority or a right of certain kind. In Shí'a
theology, "wilãyat" is the authority invested in
the Prophet and the Ahlul Bayt as representatives of
Almighty Allãh on this earth.
According to the late Murtaza Mutahhari, wilãyat
has four dimensions:
The right of love and devotion (wilã'-e muhabbat):
This right places the Muslims under the obligation of
loving the Ahlul Bayt.
The authority in spiritual guidance (wilã'-e
imãmat): This reflects the power and authority of
the Ahlul Bayt in guiding their followers in spiritual
matters.
The authority in socio-political guidance (wilã'-e
zi'ãmat): This dimension of wilãyat
reflects the right that the Ahlul Bayt have to lead
the Muslims in social and political aspects of life.
The authority of the universal nature (wilã'-e
tasarruf): This dimension reflects universal power
over the entire universe that the Prophet and Ahlul
Bayt have been vested with by the grace of Almighty
Allãh.[91]
Using this division of wilãyat's dimensions, I
would like to point out the areas of agreement and
disagreement among the various Muslim groups.
The First Dimension: The Right of Love
All Muslims unanimously accept the first dimension of
wilãyat of Ahlul Bayt. Loving the Ahlul Bayt is
one of the "dharûriyyãt ad-dín, the essential
parts of the Islamic faith." The inclusion of salawãt[92]
in the daily ritual prayers is a sufficient proof of
this. See the famous anti-Shí'a books like as-Sawã'iqu
'l-Muhriqa of Ibn Hajar al-Makki and Tuhfa-e
Ithnã-'Ashariyya of Shah 'Abdul 'Aziz Dehlawi, and
you will realize that the Sunni polemicists labour
painfully to explain that they are against the Shí'a
people but not against the Shí'a Imams for they know
that loving the Ahlul Bayt is an essential part of
Islamic faith.
Love for the Ahlul Bayt is enshrined in verse 42:23
that we have already discussed in the last chapter. Here
I shall just quote one more hadíth from the Sunni
sources. Imam 'Ali said, "By Allãh the One who has spilt
the grain and created the soul, verily the Prophet (a.s.)
has promised that none shall love me but the believer
and none shall hate me but the hypocrite."[93]
Actually Jãbir bin 'Abdullãh al-Ansãri and Abu Sa'íd al-Khudari,
the two famous companions of the Prophet, used to say:
"We did not identify the hypocrites but by their hatred
for 'Ali."[94]
It is a common view of Shí'a scholars that whoever
rejects one of the dharûriyyãt ad-dín, then he is
no longer considered a member of the Islamic faith.[95]
It is also based on this principle that the Khawãrij and
the Nawãsib (i.e., those who express hatred or enimosity
towards the Ahlul Bayt) are considered as non-Muslims by
Shí'a jurists.[96]
The Second Dimension: The Spiritual Guidance
The second dimension of the wilãyat is a
commonly held belief of the Shí'as as well as majority
of the Sunnis who belong to Sufi orders. Nothing
reflects this more than the interpretation given by
Maulawi Salãmat 'Ali, a Sunni scholar of India, to the
hadíth of Ghadir. He writes in at-Tabsira, "The
Ahlu 's-Sunnah do not doubt the Imamate of Amíru 'l-Mu'minín
['Ali]; and that is indeed the essence of faith. It is,
however, necessary that the import of the ahãdíth of
Ghadír be the spiritual Imamate and not [the political]
khilãfat. This is the meaning derived from the
statements of the Ahlu 's-Sunnah and the scholars of
Sufism, and, consequently, the allegiance of all the
[Sufi] orders reach Amíru 'l-Mu'minín 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib
and through him they are connected to the Messenger."[97]
Other than the Naqshbandi order, all Sufis trace the
chain of their spiritual masters back to the Imams of
the Ahlul Bayt, ending with Imam 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib as
the spiritual authority par excellence after the
Prophet.[98] The Naqsbandi
order traces its spiritual leadership back to Imam
Ja'far as-Sãdiq and then follows the line through his
mother to Mohammad bin Abi Bakr and then to Abu Bakr.
This diversion from Imam as-Sãdiq to Abu Bakr is,
however, not valid because Mohammad bin Abi Bakr was
raised from a very young age by Imam 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib
who married Mohammad's mother, Asmã' bint Umays, after
Abu Bakr's death. The only spiritual master that
Mohammad bin Abi Bakr knew was Imam 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib (a.s.).
The Third & Fourth Dimensions: Socio-Political &
Universal Authority
The third and fourth dimensions of wilãyat are
unique Shí'í beliefs, and they are considered as part of
the "dharûriyyãt al-madhhab, the essential parts
of Shí'a sect." It is the common view of our scholars
that anyone who rejects one of the dharûriyyãt al-madhhab,
is not considered a member of the Shí'a sect.
It is important to note that whenever the Shí'as use
the term "Imãmate" or "Imãm", it encompasses all the
four dimensions of wilãyat. It excludes neither
the spiritual and universal authority nor the social and
political leadership.[99]
In this sense, the Shí'í term "Imãmate" or "Imãm" is
more comprehensive than the Sunni term "khilãfat" or "khalifa".
In books dealing with the Shí'a-Sunni debate of the
leadership after the Prophet, the focus is more on the
socio-political leadership but not in the sense of
denying the spiritual and universal authority of the
Imam. So while reading or discussing the issue of
succession of Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.), one should not
lose the universal import of the status of an Imam from
the Shí'a point of view.
2. The Universal Wilãyat
It seems necessary to explain the fourth dimension of
the wilãyat in more detail for the benefit of the
readers.
The fourth dimension is the universal authority that
the Prophet and the Ahlul Bayt have been vested with by
the Almighty Allãh. It is an authority that makes it
possible for the wali to exercise his power over
everything that exists. In the words of Ayatullah al-Khumayni,
"It is a vicegerency pertaining to the whole of
creation, by virtue of which all the atoms in the
universe humble themselves before the holder of
authority."[100]
This authority of the chosen servants of Allãh is
totally dependent on His discretion and power. It should
not be seen in the horizonal form but in the vertical
form vis-à-vis the power of Almighty Allãh. As long as
we maintain the vertical hierarchy of the power, we have
safeguarded the tawhíd (unity and oneness) of
Allãh.
For example, all Muslims believe that it is Allãh who
gives life and death to the people. The Qur'ãn itself
says,
"Allãh takes the souls at the time of their death."
(39:42)
But at the same time, the Qur'ãn also attributes
death to the angels by saying,
"Say: It is the angel of death (who is given charge
of you) who shall cause you to die." (32:11)
If you place the imports of these two verses
side-by-side (i.e., horizontal form), then you are
guilty of shirk, polytheism; but if you place
them in the vertical form (with the power of the angels
beneath and dependent upon the power of Allãh), then you
have safeguarded the tawhid.
Similarly, if we place the power and authority of
the Prophets and the Imams in the vertical form (with
the conviction that their power is beneath and dependent
upon the power of Allãh), then we have safeguarded the
tawhíd as well as the status of the chosen
servants of Allãh.
The Qur'ãn gives various examples of the persons who
had been given the authority on the universe.
1. Describing the powers that Allãh,
subhãnahu wa ta'ãla, had given to Prophet 'Isa bin
Maryam (a.s.), the Qur'ãn quotes him as follows:
"I make out of the clay the form of a bird, then I
breathe into it and it becomes a [real, living,
flying] bird with Allãh's permission;
I heal the blind and the leprous;
and I bring the dead back to life with Allãh's
permission;
and I inform you of what you are eating and what
you store in your houses..." (3:48)
2. Describing the powers given to Prophet
Sulaymãn, the Qur'ãn says:
"Then We made the wind subservient to him; it blew
by his command gently to wherever he desired.
And (We also made subservient to him) the jinn:
each (of them as) builder and diver, and others
fettered in chains.
This is Our gift, therefore give freely or
withhold, without reckoning. Most surely he had a
nearness to Us and an excellent resort."
(38:36-40) also (21:81-82)
3. Describing the power of Ãsif bin Barkhiya,
the vizier of Prophet Sulaymãn, the Qur'ãn describes the
scene of the moments before the Queen of Sheba and her
entourage came to visit him:
"He (Sulaymãn) said, 'O Chiefs! which one of you
can bring to me her (i.e., Queen of Sheba's) throne
before they come to me in submission.'
One audacious among the jinn said, 'I will bring it
to you before you rise from your place; and most
surely I am strong and trustworthy for it.'
(But) one who had the knowledge of some of the Book
said, 'I will bring it to you in the twinkling of an
eye.' Then when he saw it (i.e., the throne) settled
beside him, he said, 'This is the grace of my Lord
that He may try me whether I am grateful or
ungrateful...'" (27:38-40)
In these three examples from the Qur'ãn, we see that
Almighty Allãh had blessed some of his chosen servants
with the power to breathe life to a shape of an animal,
to bring the dead back to life, to cure the blind and
the leprous, to subjugate the jinn for their work, to
bring an item from far away in the twinkling of an eye,
etc. These examples are sufficient to show that such
powers can be given and have been given by Allãh to
those whom He likes. It is this power that is referred
to in Shí'a theology as "al-wilãyah at-takwíniyya
- the power over the universe or the universal
authority."
Allãh has given various ranks to the prophets and
messengers (2:253 ; (17:55) , and all Muslims are
unanimous in believing that the Prophet of Islam,
Mohammad al-Mustafa, is higher in rank than all the
prophets and messengers.[101]
All prophets and messengers had come to prepare their
societies for the acceptance of the final and universal
Messenger of God, Mohammad (s.a.w.). If prophets like
Sulaymãn, Dãwud, 'Isa, and Musa, and also Sulaymãn's
vizier, Ãsif, were blessed with powers over the nature,
then it follows by necessity that Prophet Mohammad must
have been blessed with greater power over the universe.
Two examples have been clearly mentioned in the Qur'ãn.
The ability of the Prophet of Islam to travel into space
and beyond with his human body ( 17:1 ; 53:5-18 ), and
the parting of the moon by pointing towards it with his
finger ( 54:1 ).[102]
Imam 'Ali and the other Imams of Ahlul Bayt are
believed by the Shí'as to be higher in rank than all
prophets and messengers except the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.).[103]
It follows as a necessity that they also have the powers
that the Prophet had been blessed with by Almighty Allãh.
At this point, I will only refer to one verse from
the holy Qur'ãn on this issue. During the early days in
Mecca, when the idol worshippers were rejecting the
claim of the Prophet, Allãh revealed a verse to console
him by saying:
"And those who disbelieve say, 'You are not a
messenger.' Say, 'Allãh is sufficient as a witness
(between me and you) and the one who has knowledge of
the Book.'" (13:43)
Prophet Mohammad is being consoled that it doesn't
matter if the idolaters do not believe in your claim; it
is sufficent that Allãh and 'the one who has knowledge
of the Book' are witnesses to the truth of your claim.
Whom is Allãh referring to as a witness to the truth of
the Prophet's claim? Who is this person 'who has
knowledge of the Book'? According to Shí'í reports,
supported by Sunni sources, it refers to 'Ali bin Abí
Tãlib.[104] There was
definitely no one among the companions of the Prophet
who could claim that he had more knowledge about Islam
than 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib.
How does the description "having knowledge of the
Book" prove the universal authority for 'Ali? If you
recall, Ãsif Barkhiya, Sulaymãn's vizier, had so much
power over nature that he could bring the throne of the
Queen of Sheba before the "twinkling of an eye". Ãsif
has been described as someone who had "'ilmun min
al-kitãb - knowledge of a portion of the Book,"
not "the knowledge of the entire Book." In comparison to
this, Imam 'Ali has been described by Allãh as someone
who had "'ilmu 'l-kitãb - knowledge of the Book,"
not just a portion of the Book. Therefore, it is not
difficult to conclude that the power of Imam 'Ali over
nature must be many degrees greater than that of Ãsif
Barkhiya who brought the throne from far away before the
"twinkling of an eye".
Again, as an important reminder, I must state that
this belief is to be held in the vertical form vis-à-vis
the power of Almighty Allãh, and only in that format can
we preserve the concept of tawhíd in which Allãh
is the Absolute Power and source of all power. It is to
remind us of the total dependency of the chosen ones
upon Allãh's will and power that He commands the Prophet
to say, "I do not control any benefit or harm for
myself except as Allãh pleases." (7:188) This is not
a denial of having power; it is affirmation of the
belief that whatever power he has is according to the
wish and pleasure of Almighty Allãh.
3. Wilãyat: Spiritual vs Political
The learned scholar's article in the Bio-Ethics
Encyclopaedia (in which he wrote that the Prophet
Mohammad "had left no explicit instruction regarding
succession to his religious-political authority")
generated heated discussion among the community. The
responses that the learned scholar wrote to the
community and the comments he subsequently made in the majlises of Muharram 1419 at Toronto, portray the
confusion about the concept of wilãyat.
(a) "Spiritual Only, Not Political"
First the learned scholar claimed that the wilãyat
of the Prophet and the Imams was only spiritual and not
political. He said:
"By the way, the Prophet (s.a.w.) was never
recognized as the political leader. No, that is not
correct at all. He was recognized as Rasululah, the
envoy of God, the Messenger of Allãh (s.t.). There was
no politics, there was no political language attached
to it. It isn't that what the moderns are telling us;
the way Iran is telling us time and again that the
Prophet was a political leader. No. He was recognized
fundamentally and essentially as a prophet of God.[105]
"Task of prophethood was to lead the society to
perfection. And that perfection could not be done
individually - it had to be done as members of the
community, the ummah. Ummah means a community under
the Prophet as prophet, not a political leader.
"Now we know why 'man kuntu mawlahu fa hadha 'Aliyun
mawlahu' meant something very very important. The
Prophet (s.a.w.) could have said, 'man kuntu
khalifa fa hadha khalifa'. He could have said,
'man kuntu hakiman fa hadha hakiman.' He is not
using any of the terminology that we would use in the
normal political sense of carrying on the authority of
the political leader...
"Look at the word chosen by Allãh (s.t.) for
guidance. After all the Prophet is 'ma yantiqu 'anil
hawaa in huwa illa wahyun yuhaa.' He is given
instructions. 'Mawla': what does the word 'mawla'
mean? Allãh (s.t.) says in the Qur'ãn 'wal kafirun
laysa lahum mawla.' The disbeliever has no
mawla. They don't have a mawla - they don't
have a protector, they don't have a patron, they don't
have somebody who cares for them. This is the meaning
of mawla..."[106]
The learned scholar says that nubuwwat did not
include political leadership, and that the word mawla
used by the Prophet in Ghadir did not mean khalifa
(political successor) or hãkim (ruler). In other
words, he is excluding the third dimension of wilãyat
from the term "mawla" and restricting it to the second
dimension (i.e., spiritual guidance). In his attempt to
convince his audience, he makes up hypothetical and
grammatically incorrect Arabic sentences which make no
sense. For example, the sentence "man kuntu [lahu]
khalifa fa hadha [lahu] khalifa - for whomsoever I
am his successor, this is his successor." Was the
Prophet "khalifa-successor" of any one from the
audience? Of course, not; and that is why he did not use
the term "khalifa" in the hadíth of Ghadir.
As discussed in one of the previous chapters, to
understand the meaning of "mawla" as used by the
Prophet for Imam 'Ali, one does not have to go far. Just
ponder upon the question he asked the Muslims before
presenting 'Ali as their "mawla": he asked them,
"Do I not have more authority over you then you have
over yourselves? A lastu awla bi kum min anfusi kum?"[107]
When they replied by saying, "Certainly, O Messenger of
Allãh," then he said, "Man kuntu mawlahu fa hadha 'Aliyun
mawlahu - Of whomsoever I am the master, this 'Ali
is his master." Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.) is surely
talking about a master who has more authority (awla)
over the people than they have over themselves, and that
includes authority in political matters also. And,
therefore, there was no need for the Prophet to say,
'Man kuntu ['alayhi] hãkiman, fa hadha ['alayhi] hãkiman.'
The learned scholar continues his talk:
"The Prophet (s.a.w.) when he introduces Imam
'Ali's authority in the community, what does he say?
'Man kuntu mawlahu fa hadha 'Aliyun mawlahu.'
What he means is that 'whoever regards me as a perfect
example to be followed to the ultimate goal of
salvation, 'Ali is the man who should be followed.'
The question was of obedience. Mawla, one who
should be obeyed, one who should not be disregarded.
In that sense, Allãh is Mawla. Allãh is the
Mawla of deen, that path on which you
cannot afford to disobey Allãh (s.w.t.)..."[108]
Is this following and obedience restricted to
spiritual matters and does it not include
social-political issues?
The Hadíth of 'Abdullãh bin Mas'ûd
In order to prove his point that the declaration of
Ghadir was not explicit enough to convey the meaning of
"khilãfat" in the sense of political succession, the
learned scholar says:
"The Prophet never forced. After he returned to
Medina from Ghadir; one night he was home with
'Abdullah bin Mas'ud. He tells 'Abdullah that the
messenger has come and wants me to go; that I have
received the news of my death. 'Abdullah says, by
the way this is after Ghadir, 'Appoint a
successor.' Yes, this exactly what he said. 'Why don't
you appoint Abu Bakr?' The Prophet shakes his head and
says, no. He mentions one after the other. (I don't
know about the value of this hadith; Shaykh Mufid
mentions it and I am mentioning it on the authority of
Shaykh Mufid. I am not here to examine and judge how
authentic is the hadith. But I am telling you it
reflects the situation in the community. If it is
authentic, it reflects the situation in the
community...[109])
'Abdullah's hadith goes; and the Prophet is asking,
'What shall I do?' 'Abdullah says, 'Why don't you
appoint 'Umar; why don't you appoint 'Uthman?' And
finally, 'Abdullah says, 'Why don't you appoint 'Ali?'
And the Prophet says, and he is weak by this time, 'O
I wish, they would obey. I wish they would obey.'"[110]
First, this conversation between the Prophet and 'Abdullãh
ibn Mas'úd did not take place in Medina after the
declaration of Ghadir as the learned scholar wants the
audience to believe ("by the way, this is after Ghadir").
In the beginning of his narration, 'Abdullãh says, "We
went out with the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.) the night
of the delegation of jinn until we [reached and] stayed
at 'Ula." 'Ula is a place where the Prophet had stopped
on his way to Tabûk.[111]
Secondly, the event related to the delegation of jinn
occurred when the Prophet was on his way to Tabûk in the
year 9 A.H.[112] And the
event of Ghadir Khumm took place in 10 A.H.
Thirdly, according to the methodology of the Western
scholars, would not the sequence in the names suggested
by 'Abdullãh ibn Mas'ûd itself be an indication that
this 'hadíth' was a later fabrication? Why is the
Western scholarship so quick in rejecting the ahãdíth
quoted by the Shí'as that have the names of the Imams in
proper sequence but not treat such hadíth of the Sunnis
with equal scepticism? I know an easy response will be
that "I said that 'I don't know the value of the hadíth...'"
My only question is: Why confuse the people and create
doubt in the explicitness of the Prophet's declaration
in Ghadir by quoting such a hadíth irresponsibly?
Then on such a flimsy basis, the learned scholar
concludes by saying:
"So apparently, there was a big question of the
religious role that the Prophet (s.a.w.) was playing
in the community. The community saw itself
organized under the leadership of the Prophet (s.a.w.).
When he was gone, someone had to replace him in the
same position-in the same authority. And this is where
today we are still searching for the
interpretation."
Al-hamdu lil lãh, the true followers of the
Prophet understood the real interpretation in Ghadír
Khumm itself; and may Almighty Allãh help those who are
still searching for the true interpretation of the term
"mawla" and the status of "wali-ul-lãh".
The Meaning of "Imamate"
In the same speech, the learned scholar further
explains the meaning of Imamate by saying:
"The belief system says anybody who had any right
to claim obedience after the Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.)
is 'Ali bin Abi Talib. That is the meaning of Imamate;
it is nothing more than that. You open any book of
kalãm, you will find theologians describing Imam
'Ali as having the right to become mutã',
obeyed, one should be obeyed by the people. Why should
he be obeyed? Because he is exactly sitting in the
place of the Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.)...
"Imam 'Ali was the Imam from the day the Prophet
Mohammad closed his eyes. Regardless whether he became
a khalifa or not. How can he become an Imam without
becoming a khalifa, without sitting on the throne?
That was not the requirement. Because the obedience
was to the position of Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.)."
In order to defend his writing in the Bio Ethics
Encyclopaedia, the learned scholar has divided
"imamate" and "khilãfat" into two different realms: "imãmate"
becomes a spiritual position while "khilãfat" becomes a
political position. He says, "Imamate is nothing more
than that", and even boldly asks the audience to "open
any book of kalãm [theology]..."
Well, we opened the books of kalãm from
different eras and found the statement of the learned
scholar to be against the mainstream Shi'a belief on the
meaning and scope of "imãmate".
Shaykh Mufid (d. 413 A.H./1022 C.E.) defines an
"Imam" as follows: "The Imam is the person who has the
comprehensive leadership in religious as well as
worldly matters as the successor of the Prophet (a.s.)."[113]
'Allãma Hilli (d. 726 A.H./1325 C.E.) defines
"Imamate" as follows: "The Imamate is a universal
authority (riyãsa) in the things of religion
and of the world belonging to some person and
derived from (niyãba) the Prophet."[114]
'Abdu 'r-Razzãq Lãhíji (d. 1072 A.H.) defines
"Imamate" as follows: "Know that Imamate is an authority
over all those who are of legal age in worldly as
well as religious matter based on successorship of the
Prophet."[115]
'Allãmah Tabãtabã'í (d. 1401 A.H. / 1981) writes,
"Thus the imamate and religious leadership in Islam may
be studied from three different perspectives: from the
perspective of Islamic government, of Islamic sciences
and injunctions, and of leadership and innovative
guidance in the spiritual life. Shí'ism believes that
since Islamic society is in dire need of guidance in
each of these three aspects, the person who occupies the
function of giving that guidance and is the leader of
the community in these areas of religious concern must
be appointed by God and the Prophet."[116]
Even Murtaza Mutahhari states that when the Shí'as use
the term "Imam", it does not only reflect the spiritual
guidance and leadership, it includes the social and
political leadership also.[117]
As you can see, all these theologians and prominent
scholars of the Shí'a faith unanimously define Imamate
as a position that combines the spiritual/religious
leadership as well as the socio-political/wordly
leadership. For a Shí'a, 'Ali is the first Imam as well
as the first khalifa of the Prophet. A Shí'a would never
say that 'Ali is the first Imam but not the khalifa
bila fasl (immediate successor) of the Prophet. The
difference between Shí'as and the Sunnis is not about
the spiritual leadership; it is on the socio-political
leadership immediately after the Prophet. As
mentioned earlier, the view that the Ahlul Bayt were
"spiritual guides only but not political leaders" is a
belief found among the Sunnis in general and the Sufis
in particular.[118]
(b) "Political Also"
Then in the 6th speech of Muharram 1419,
the learned scholar, in a way, contradicts his above
statement. He says:
"...The fact remains that the Qur'àn conceived the
Prophet to be the leader of an ummah, an
ummah that was religious, social and political. In
other words, it was civil, moral community that was
being guided by a person, who had some kind of
comprehensive authority, which was not conceivable at
that time even, by the Arab tribes. That was also the
difficulty during Ghadir. When Ghadir happened, one of
the challenging dimensions of Ghadir was an
introduction of the Qur'anic concept of leadership.
Wilayah means that kind of leadership, which
combines the civil and moral authority in one person.
That means there is no separation of power. This is no
church and state as such, rather the civil and moral
authority combines in the person who holds the office
of the wilayah. What was new about it? The new thing
about it was this that in the Arab culture, the Arabs
were never used to see a young person assuming the
leadership. In Arab culture it was impossible for a
thirty year old young man to become a leader because
the Arabs believed that an older person has to become
a leader..."[119]
Again in the 8th speech, the learned scholar says:
"The whole question is 'Is Islam a political system
or it's a religious system?' There are two opinions
about it. Many scholars are fighting the battle,
including Ayatullah Khui, Ayatullah Mutahhari,
Ayatullah Khumayni, in Egypt, al-Ashmaawi, al-Jaabiri
in Morocco...For me there is a very important issue
involved here. If we say that Islam is not a political
system, and Islam is simply a religion that is
concerned with moving humanity towards self-perfection
and prepare humanity for the hereafter, then we are
denying a very major role played by the Prophet in the
establishment of the ummah itself...
"Nine-tenth of Islam is mu'amalat, how you
deal with each other, how you conduct your affairs in
this world because whatever you do in this world has
an implication for the aakhirat. Now in that kind of
religion, to say that Islam is simply a religion
without any social system is to deny the fact of
wilayah. By the way, if you remember my lecture on
the fifth night because wilayah means moral,
civil authority that can lead you to your ultimate
goal of creation, and 'ultimate goal of creation' is
not only knowing what is five times a day prayers,
fasting, but knowing how to live as human beings in a
society. Otherwise there would not be civil authority,
the Prophet could just be what we call an-nabi
ar-ruhi..."[120]
This is indeed true. Why then did the learned scholar
say in the 2nd speech, "The Prophet was never
recognized as the political leader"? It is good that he
made it clear that the Prophet was not only a religious
leader, he was also a political leader. After WWI, there
was an intense debate in Egypt on Westernization versus
Islam, and some intellectuals, influenced by Western
ideas, tried to secularize Islam by restricting khilãfat
to spiritual issues and separting it from the ummah's
political system. 'Ali 'Abdu 'r-Rãziq wrote al-Islam
wa Usûlu 'l-Hukm (1925) proposing the complete
separation of religion and state in Islam.[121]
Similar ideas are resurfacing lately in the writings of
some Muslim intellectuals influenced by the
liberal/secular ideas of the West.
4. Do Najaf & Qum Have Different Views on The Role of
the Imams?
Then in the 9th speech, the learned
scholar again dwells upon the spiritual vs
political role of the Prophet and the Imams. And now
surprisingly he claims that even great scholars of Qum
and Najaf have different views. He says:
"...Najaf and Qum are divided on the whole debate
about the Prophet's political role. Najaf as one of
the most important centres of Shi'a learning, and Qum,
now the most important centre of Shi'a learning have
maintained two different views about the role of the
Imam...Najaf has maintained a conservative attitude to
the role of the Imam. They believe that
religion has a moral function, an ethical function but
not a political one, including Ayatullah Khui, whose
opinions are well stated. He does not believe that the
wilayah of Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) has
any need for manifesting itself politically because
the Imam remains the Imam as a spiritual, moral,
ethical leader regardless whether people pay
allegiance to him or not. That opinion was for the
first time contested by Ayatullah Khumayni himself."[122]
The learned scholar wants to leave the impression in
the minds of his listeners that even the 'ulama
of Qum and Najaf had different opinions concerning the
role of the Imam in the sense that Najaf confines it to
a spiritual realm whereas Qum expands it to encompass a
political sphere as well.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Shí'a 'ulamã'
of Najaf (exemplified by the late al-Khu'i) and Qum
(exemplified by the late al-Khumayni) have identical
views about the wilãyat of the Prophet and the
Imams. The difference between them is not about the
wilãyat of the Imams, it is about the extent of the
wilãyat-e faqih, the authority of a
jurist. Moreover, on the issue of wilãyat-e faqih,
the division is not between Qum and Najaf; there are 'ulamã'
on both sides of the issue in Qum as well as in Najaf.
As discussed earlier, all four dimensions of wilãyat
for the Prophet and the Imams are among the
dharûriyyãt al-madhhab (the essentials of Shí'a
faith), so how could such great leaders of the Shí'a
world have differences on them?
As for the views of the late Ayatullah al-Khumayni on
the wilãyat of the Prophet and his Ahlul Bayt, I
quote from his lecture on wilãyat-e faqíh. He
says:
"To prove that government and authority belong to
the Imam is not to imply that the Imam has no
spiritual status. The Imam does indeed possess certain
spiritual dimensions that are unconnected with his
function as ruler. The spiritual status of the Imam is
the universal divine viceregency that is sometimes
mentioned by the Imams (peace be upon them). It is a
viceregency pertaining to the whole of creation, by
virtue of which all the atoms in the universe humble
themselves before the holder of authority. It is one
of the essential beliefs of our Shí'i school that no
one can attain the spiritual status of the Imams, not
even the cherubim or the prophets. In fact, according
to the traditions that have been handed down to us,
the Most Noble Messenger and the Imams existed before
the creation of the world in the form of lights
situated beneath the divine throne; they were superior
to other men even in the sperm from which they grew
and in their physical composition. Their exalted
station is limited only by the divine will, as
indicated by the saying of Jibra'il recorded in the
traditions on the mi'rãj: 'Were I to draw
closer by as much as the breadth of a finger, surely I
would burn.'"[123]
Ayatullah al-Khumayni, while affirming the political
leadership of the Prophet and the Imams, does not deny
or "de-mystify" their universal wilãyat.
Coming to the views of the late Ayatullah al-Khu'i on
the wilãyat of the Prophet and the Ahlul Bayt, I
quote from the transcripe of his lectures in which he
says:
"As for the first type of wilãyat [takviniya,
universal], obviously there is no doubt in their
authority over the entire creation as is clear from
the ahãdíth because they are the link in creation,
through them [continues] the existence, and they are
reason for creation [of the universe]; if it had not
been for them, Allãh would not have created the people
altogether, the people have been created for them,
through them the people exist, and they are the means
of the pouring forth [of the Divine grace].
"Actually, they have the universal authority just
below that of the Creator Himself; this authority [of
theirs] is like the authority of Almighty Allãh on the
creation, however, it is weaker compared to the
authority of Almighty Allãh on the creation."[124]
Then al-Khû'í also talks about the civil/political
authority of the Prophet and the Imams, and says,
"As for the second dimension of their legislative
wilãyat (at-tashrí'iyya) in the sense that they
possess the authority to independently administer the
properties and the lives of the people-obviously,
there is no dispute on their authority of this
kind...This is proven from well attested ahãdíth, and
in the farewell sermon [the Prophet said], 'Whomsoever's
master I am, this 'Ali is his master. Do I not have
more authority over the believers than they have
themselves?' They said, 'Yes.'..."[125]
Ayatullãh al-Khû'í, while affirming the universal
wilãyat of the Prophet and the Imams, does not deny
their political authority. Actually, he goes further to
say that,
"And the presumption that the history is contrary
to that [in the sense that the Imams did not
historically exercise their political authority]...is
invalid."
Thus he concludes,
"So not exercising [the authority in the historical
sense] does not prove the non-existence of the
authority as is obvious."[126]
In essence, the two great jurists of the contemporary
Shí'a world representing Qum and Najaf have identical
views about the wilãyat of the Imams of Ahlul
Bayt (a.s.). They both believe in all dimensions of
wilãyat -spiritual, socio-political, and universal-
of the Prophet and the Imams. The difference that
existed between the two was only on the limits of the
authority of a faqih (mujtahid, jurist) during
the Occultation of the Present Imam (a.s.). How could
the learned scholar, who has written The Just Ruler
on the authority of the jurist, not know the difference
between wilãyat of the Imams (unanimously
accepted by the Shí'a jurists) and the wilãyat of
the faqíh (with dispute over its limits among the
Shí'a jurists)?
5. Is Not Wilãyat Part of the Faith?
Referring to the controversy surrounding his article
in the Bio Ethics Encyclopeadia, the learned
scholar made the following comment in his 4th
speech of Muharram 1419:
"How can such a thing divide the community when it
is such a trivial part, and it is not even part of the
faith."
Referring to the event of Ghadír Khumm, he says:
"That historical event: what does it have any
connection with our belief system? So if I said in my
article that the Prophet (s.a.w.) did not leave any
explicit instruction about his successor, am I
treading the path which is dangerous to the survival
of the religion of the Ahlul Bayt? Or am exercising my
right as a researcher to see what the documents say?"
Is the issue of wilãyat and imamate a "trivial
part" and "not even part of the faith"?
As we have explained earlier in this chapter, in
Islam there is a term called "dharûriy, pl.
dharûriyyãt" which refers to those issues that are
essential parts of our religion. The "dharûriyyãt"
are divided into two: "dharûriyyãt ad-dín - the
essential parts of the Islamic faith" and "dharûriyyãt
al-madhhab - the essential parts of the Shí'a sect".
It is a common view of our scholars that whoever rejects
one of the dharûriyyãt ad-dín, then he is no
longer considered a member of the Islamic faith; and
whoever rejects one of the dharûriyyãt al-madhhab,
then he is no longer considered a member of the Shí'a
Ithnã-'Ashari sect.
What is the status of the belief in the wilãyat
of the Ahlul Bayt: is it one of the dharûriyyãt
or not? While discussing the status of the Muslims who
are not Shí'a, Ayatullãh al-Khu'i has defined wilãyat
(in the sense of love for the Ahlul Bayt) as one of the
dharûriyyãt ad-dín, and wilãyat (in the
sense of khilãfat and political leadership) as one of
the dharûriyyãt al-madhhab. The late Ayatullah
says:
"The dimension of wilãyat that is essential
[for dín] is the wilãyat in the meaning
of love and devotion, and they [the Sunnis] do not
deny it in this sense rather they actually express
their love for the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)...
"Of course, the wilãyat in the meaning of
succession (khilãfat) is one of the essential parts of
the madhhab [of Shí'ism], but not from the
essential parts of the dín."[127]
So according to Ayatullah al-Khu'i, the wilãyat
and imãmate in the meaning of succession (khilãfat)
is an essential part (dharûriy) of Shí'ism;
anyone who rejects this dimension of the wilãyat
would not be considered as a Shí'a. He would still be a
Muslim but not a Shí'a.
As for the question that by denying the explicitness
of the appointment of Imam 'Ali (a.s.), is the learned
scholar "treading the path which is dangerous to the
survival of the religion of the Ahlul Bayt?"
Well, the religion of the Ahlul Bayt will surely
survive because it has an Imam protecting it even though
he is in Occultation; but such statements will surely
weaken the faith of our common people and youths in the
explicit wilãyat of the Imams. You have to see
where such a statement will lead: it minimises the wrong
done against the Ahlul Bayt and it gives a semblance of
legitimacy to Sunni view of khilãfat. A Sunni would
extend this argument further that since the Prophet had
not made things clear enough, the companions did what
they thought was best for Islam! A Shi'a who had
attended speeches of the learned scholar was saying that
'what is the problem if we believe that 'Ali is the
first Imam (in the spiritual sense) and the fourth
caliph (in the socio-political sense)!' With such
friends we do not need an enemy.
6. The Final Correction
Just before he came to Toronto in 1998 for Muharram
(1419), the learned scholar sent the following
correction to the publishers of the Bio-Ethics
Encyclopaedia:
"Mohammad died in 632 C.E., having brought the
whole of Arabia under the Medina government. However,
although he had explicitly designated his cousin and
son-in-law, 'Ali, to succeed him, he had left no
written guidelines about the political process."
This he had faxed to some members of our community in
Toronto and had also mentioned in one of his speeches in
Muharram 1419.
We have the following comments regarding the
correction: Firstly, even his correction is problematic.
The learned scholar has tried to divide the succession
into two: religious and political. On the issue of
religious succession, he writes that the Prophet
explicitly designated 'Ali to succeed him. Then he
immediately qualifies the explicit designation and
excludes political succession from it by writing, "he
left no written guidelines on the political process." In
the 4th speech of Muharram 1419, he says:
"Yes, al-Ghadir is an explicit designation, it
does not mean explicit instruction about the
political process. No history supports that."
Since when did "written guidelines" become important
in establishing Islamic teachings? Is not the entire
structure of Islamic system based on spoken words: the
Qur'ãn and the sunnah? There is absolutely no "written"
guidelines left by the Prophet for anything at all, so
why create a new cushion for the Sunnis in their defence
against the Shí'as by expecting a "written" guideline on
the issue of caliphate? What about all the sayings of
the Prophet on the appointment of Imam 'Ali bin Abi
Tãlib (a.s.) as his caliph?
Would the value of the Prophet's "spoken" guidelines
be less than the "written" guidelines? Is disobeying his
"spoken" guidelines less severe than his "written"
guidelines? Almighty Allãh says,
"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices over
the voice of the Prophet..." (49:2)
If the learned scholar wanted to mention the story of
Qirtãs in which the Prophet asked for a pen and paper,
then he should have written the whole story and pointed
out the person responsible for not letting the Prophet
leave anything in writing.
Secondly, the play with words like "designation" and
"instruction" is disturbing. In Ghadír, the Prophet
talks about his approaching death and then gets an
acknowledgement from the Muslims about the level of his
authority over them, and then he declares that "Whosoever's
master am I, this 'Ali is master." Then he says that "I
am leaving two things behind: the Book of Allãh and my
Progeny, as long as you hold fast to them both, you will
not go astray." And then he instructs the companions to
come and greet Imam 'Ali (a.s.) by addressing him as the
"Amir - Leader". When you see the whole context of the
event of Ghadir, is it not a clear instruction,
designation, indication, inclination, appointment -or
what you would like to call it- for the leadership of
Imam 'Ali after the death of the Prophet?
To believe that the Prophet did not leave explicit
instructions about his political successor gives
semblance of legitimacy to the Sunni caliphate. If the
Prophet had not clearly said anything about this matter,
then how can the Shí'as claim that Sunni caliphs usurped
the right of 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib (a.s.)? Such a statement
helps no one but the Sunnis.
Thirdly, in light of the learned scholar's statement,
one can say that 'Ali is the "Imam" (religious/spiritual
successor) but not the "Caliph" (political successor)! I
do not know what the learned scholar would say about the
declaration of the Prophet in Da'wat Dhul 'Ashira that
'Ali is "my successor - khalifati".
In Shi'a theology, as mentioned earlier, there is no
difference between "imamate" and "khilafat". The
implication of these two titles is simple: 'Ali, in
relation to the Prophet, is his khalifa and successor;
and 'Ali, in relation to the ummah, is their Imam and
leader. So defining "imamate" as a religious succession
and "khilafat" as a political succession goes against
the implications of "Imam" and "Khalifa". 'Ali is the
Imam of the Muslim ummah in religious as well as
political matters, and likewise 'Ali is the Khalifa of
the Prophet in religious as well as political matters.
Being wrongfully deprived of his political position does
not diminish the reality of the truth. In the words of
Sayyid al-Khû'í, "Not exercising [the authority] does
not prove non-existence of the wilãyat."
Division of leadership into religious and political
has actually happened in the Sunni version of Muslim
history. The first four caliphs assumed the political
and the religious leadership which is why that era is
described as "al-khilãfatu 'r-rãshida - the
rightly guided caliphate". After that, the caliphs
assumed the political leadership but the religious
leadership was assumed by others. In jurisprudence (fiqh),
for example, the four Imams emerged as the leaders even
while there were caliphs who ruled in their times. In
theology, Abu 'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Mansûr al-Mãturidi
emerged as the leader. In spiritualism, various masters
(and even some Shí'a Imams) were accepted as guides and
leaders by Sufi orders.
The Shí'as did not subscribe to the division of
leadership in political and religious realms; the Imams
are their ultimate guides and leaders in all spheres of
life: religious and political, legal and theological.
Therefore, Imam Ja'far as-Sãdiq (a.s.) for example, is
not just a legal guide for the Shí'as, he is their
ultimate leader in the fullest sense of the word, even
if some dimensions of his leadership was not manifest.
* * *
[91] See, Murtaza
Mutahhari, Wilãyah: the Station of the Master (Walã' hã
wa wilãyat hã), tr. Yahya Cooper, Tehran: World
Organisation for Islamic Services, 1982.
[Also see Master and
Mastership]
[92] Salãwãt means
praying for Allãh's blessings on Prophet Mohammad and
his Ahlul Bayt. This is included in the daily ritual
prayers by all Muslims.
[93] An authentic and
sahíh hadíth narrated by an-Nasã'í, Khasã'is Amiri 'l-Mu'minín
'Ali bin Abi Tãlib (Beirut: Daru 'l-Kitãb, 1987) p.
101-102; the annotator, al-Athari, has given many more
quotations like Sahíh of Muslim, Sahíh of at-Tirmidhi,
and others.
[94] Narrated by Ahmad
bin Hanbal and at-Tirmidhi, both in the section of al-manãqib,
as quoted in Muhibbu 'd-Dín at-Tabari, Dhakhã'iru 'l-'Uqba
fi Manãqib Dhawi 'l-Qurba, ed. Akram al-Bushi (Jeddah:
Maktabatu 's-Sahãba, 1995) p. 165.
[95] On the rejection
of the dharûriyyãt, see al-Majlisi, "Risãlah fi 'l-I'tiqãdãt,"
Manãhiju 'l-Haqq wa 'n-Najãt, ed. Sayyid Hasan Bani Tabã
(Qum: Markaz-e Ãthãr Shí'a, 1372 solar AH) p. 308-309;
Sayyid Mohammad Kãdhim al-Yazdi, al-'Urwatu 'l-Wuthqa
(Tehran: Dãr al-Kutub al-Islamiyya, 1392) p. 24.
[96] As-Sadûq,
I'tiqãdãtu 'l-Imãmiyya, p. 94; in its English
translation, The Shi'ite Creed, see p. 85. Also see any
standard text on Shí'a jurisprudence in the section on "najãsãt"
under "kãfir".
[97] As quoted by the
late 'Allãmah Mir Hãmid Husayn al-Musawi who then
refutes it to prove the universal Imamate of Imam 'Ali
through hadíth of Ghadír. See al-Milãni, Nafahãtu 'l-Azhar
fi Khulãsati 'Abaqãti 'l-Anwãr, vol. 9 (Beirut: Dãru 'l-Mu'arrikhi
'l-'Arabi, 1995) p. 311.
[98] Sayyid Hussain
Nasr, "Shí'ism and Sufism," p. 103.
[99] See Mutahhari,
Wilãyah, p. 72; also see Mutahhari's Imãmat wa Rahbari,
p. 163 as quoted by our teacher Sayyid Muhsin al-Kharrãzi,
Bidãyatu 'l-Ma'ãrifi 'l-Ilãhiyya vol. 2, p. 12-16.
[100] The full
quotation will come later on in this chapter.
[101] As-Sadûq,
I'tiqãdãt, p. 92-93; in its English translation, The
Shi'ite Creed, p. 84-85; al-Majlisi, "Risãla fi 'l-I'tiqãdãt,"
p. 310.
[102] On parting of
the moon, see in Shí'a sources, at-Tabrasi, Majma'u 'l-Bayãn,
vol. 5, p. 186; at-Tabãtabã'í, al-Mizãn fi Tafsíri 'l-Qur'ãn,
vol. 19, p. 60-72 who also refutes the objections raised
by the materialist minded Muslims who like to interpret
all such verses in metaphorical sense. In Sunni sources,
see al-Fakhr ar-Rãzi, at-Tafsíru 'l-Kabír, vol. 15, p.
26; as-Suyûti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthûr, vol. 6, p. 133;
Mawdûdi, Tafhímu 'l-Qur'ãn, vol. 5, p. 230-231.
[103] As-Sadûq,
I'tiqãdãt, p. 92-93; in its English translation, The
Shi'ite Creed, p. 84-85; al-Majlisi, "Risãla fi 'l-I'tiqãdãt,"
p. 310.
[104] Among Sunni
references, see Ibn al-Maghãzili ash-Shãfi'í, Manãqib
al-Imam 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib, p. 313 (hadíth # 358); as-Suyûti,
ad-Durru 'l-Manthûr, vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.)
p. 669; al-Qandûzi, Yanãbí'u 'l-Muwaddah (Beirut:,
1390/1970) p. 121. For further references, see ash-Shahíd
at-Tustari, Ihqãqu 'l-Haqq, vol. 3, p. 280, vol. 14, p.
362-365, vol. 20, p. 75-77. For a critical review of the
counter reports cited by some Sunni scholars, see at-Tabãtabã'í,
al-Mizãn, vol. 11, p. 423-428.
[105] This is again
an example of saying one thing in his academic work and
saying something else when talking to the Shí'a
community. Dr. Sachedina, as mentioned earlier, has
written in Islamic Messianism that Islam began as a
political movement and later on acquired religious
emphasis; now he is saying that the Prophet was
recognized fundamentally as a prophet of God and was
never recognized as a political leader.
[106] Dr. Sachedina's
2nd speech of Muharram 1419 in Toronto. He has
inadvertently quoted the Qur'ãnic verse incorrectly, it
is not 'wal kãfirun laysa lahum mawla', it is 'wa anna
'l-kãfirín la mawla lahum.' (47:11)
[107] This question
of the Prophet is based on the verse 33:6 of the Qur'ãn.
[108] 2nd speech in
Toronto, Muharram 1419.
[109] Although this
sentence is cushioned in "if it is authentic" escape
clause, it creates more questions: During the last days
of Ramadhãn 1418, Dr. Sachedina made the following
declaration on the Internet: "I am taking this
opportunity to state in the most ABSOLUTE terms that not
only do I believe in the unequivocal authenticity of the
event of al-Ghadir..., I believe that the statement by
the Prophet 'Everyone whose master I am, also has 'Ali
as a master,' to be the explicit designation of the Imam
'Ali to the office of the Leadership of Muslim
Community, as upheld by the Twelver Shí'a faith." Then
less than four months later, in Muharram 1419, he makes
such statements that cast doubt in the explicitness of
the declaration of Ghadir Khumm.
[110] The 2nd speech
of Muharram 1419 at Toronto.
[111] At-Turayhi, al-Majma'u
'l-Bahrayn, ed. Mahmûd 'Ãdil, vol. 3 (Tehran: Daftar-e
Nashr-e Farhang-e Islami, 1408) p. 242.
[112] Al-Mufíd, Ãmãli,
vol. 13 (Musannafãt Shaykh al-Mufíd) p. 35.
[113] Al-Mufid, an-Nukatu
'l-I'tiqãdiyya in vol. 10 of Musannafãt ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
(Qum: Mu'assasa Ãli 'l-Bayt, 1413 AH) p. 39.
[114] Al-Hilli, al-Bãbu
'l-Hãdi 'Ashar [Qum: Nashr Nawid, 1368 AH solar] p. 184;
also see its English translation A Treatise on the
Principles of Shí'ite Thought, tr. William Miller
(London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1958) p. 62.
[115] Lahíji, Sarmãya-e
Imãn (Qum: Intishãrãt-e az-Zahra, 1372 AH solar) p. 107.
[116] Tabãtabã'í,
Shí'a Islam, tr. Nasr (Qum: Ansariyan, 1989) p. 173.
[117] Mutahhari,
Wilãya, p. 72.
[118] See p. 90-91.
[119] In the 6th
speech in Muharram 1419 at Toronto.
[120] In the 8th
speech in Muharram 1419 at Toronto.
[121] On 'Abdu 'r-Rãziq's
book and al-Bakhit's reponse to it, see Hourani, Arabic
Thought, pp. 184-192; on Rashid Radha's response, see
Kerr, Islamic Reform, pp. 179-185.
[122] The 9th speech
in Muharram 1419 in Toronto.
[123] Khomeini, Islam
and Revolution, tr. Hamid Algar (Berkeley: Mizan Press,
1981) p. 64-65.
[124] At-Tawhidi,
Mohammad 'Ali, Misbãhu 'l-Faqãhah, vol. 5 (Qum:
Intishãrat-e Wijdani, 1368 A.H. solar) p. 35.
[125] Ibid, p. 38-39.
[126] Ibid, p. 39.
[127] Al-Gharawi,
Mirza 'Ali, at-Tanqíh fi Sharhi 'l-'Urwati 'l-Wuthqa,
vol. 2 (Qum: Dar al-Hadi, 1410 AH) p. 86. |