Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Deviated Repercussions of this Conjecture

First Wrong Result

According to this outlook, we cannot find any other justification for avoidance and unwillingness of Imam Ali (a.s.) to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.[224] There are actions of oppression and tyranny. House of only daughter of Prophet, Fatima was attacked and set afire and the flames consumed the door. All this was done directly by Caliphs themselves. The only conclusion that can be drawn is this: The base is wrong. In such circumstances, acknowledgment of Ali to Abu Bakr’s authority is a thing caused by conditions prevalent at that time. Therefore it is a natural outcome. Hence it is written as follows:

“Imam Ali (a.s.) refused to give allegiance for a short period. But his high conduct and demeanor and forgiving nature made him pay allegiance.”![225]

“Imam Ali’s (a.s.) only aim was to safeguard Islam, protect its entity and preserving unity.[226] Therefore he paid allegiance to Caliphs.”![227]

Or they write:

“The conduct and behavior of Ali and his sons with Caliphs was such that it took to itself to reflect as if acknowledgement and acceptance is mingled, mixed, molded.”![228]

“Ali for the sake of interests accepted rulership of two Caliphs.”![229]

“Ali refrained for a period after passing away of Prophet, afterwards he did Bay’at to Abu Bakr.”![230]

How can it be accepted at all that Ali should accept and acknowledge Abu Bakr’s Caliphate? A Caliphate that was framed against divine consent? A Caliphate that was usurped and taken by force, trick and tyranny? A Caliphate, which has trespassed on Quranic verses and trampled the command of God? A Caliphate, which came into being by overrunning clear instructions of the Prophet himself. So how can Ali accept such a Caliphate? An acceptance that originates from the heart! Yet, Ali did. This shows his foresight and how dear the interests of Islam were at his heart.

In this respect, it is written thus:

“Abu Bakr takes oath to the effect that loves the Prophet’s Ahle Bayt more than his own relatives. Further, he commits himself to follow the Prophet’s policy and his works. Then Ali tells him: The place to give allegiance is the Mosque tomorrow.”![231]

“He sees that one who has occupied the chair of power will exert efforts to make it stronger and extensive. Therefore he will try to extend the geography of Islam. So he paid the allegiance.”![232]

In other words to believe in this type of Bay’at is in contradiction to principles of Shia faith due to the following reason:

Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate are divine offices bestowed by God. They are inseparable from each other. Likewise, they cannot be transferred or delegated to others.

Whatever Imam Ali (a.s.) did in every befitting opportunity was to establish truth and prove the injustice done to him. By his campaign, he declared to people the illegitimacy, unlawfulness and invalidity of their Caliphate, which was his right and snatched away from him. Likewise, the unique and unparalleled campaign of Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet, demonstrates that they usurped the right of Ali to succeed the Prophet and Caliphate which was a legitimate right of Ali. On the other hand the tyrants did know that rulership and Caliphate is an absolute right of Ali vested to him by the Prophet at the commandment of God. So if Ali (a.s.) did not pay allegiance, their Caliphate would not attain legitimacy and will forever remain usurped.

Therefore they persisted with all force, tricks and tyranny they could. What history openly shows is this:

When Ali did not answer positively to their call to pay allegiance to their authority they set fire to the door of Zahra’s house and threatened to burn alive the dwellers - the progeny, the kith and kin of Prophet. Then an attack on the house was launched. At this stage they had to face Zahra’s defense. She took the lead to save Wilayat and Imamate of Ali. By all their brazen-facedness they pushed her aside. Then they took hold of Ali and dragged him to the Mosque. All the while a naked sword was drawn over his head - a constant threat accompanied him which could come true any moment. They tried to draw from him what was their desire (allegiance to Abu Bakr). Their design did not succeed because of presence of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter.

If the Imam had least desire to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or had he a least agreement with that group or for sake of any other reason had he any interest to benefit of the Ummah or Islam there was no sense in obstinacy he showed. The force and tyranny applied to him is enough to prove his unwillingness to accept Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. How could he agree for his right to be usurped and give acceptance to this?

All this goes to prove that:

Rulership is a right bestowed by God. As a result, it cannot be exchanged or given to others. It is irrevocable.

Such a thing would be to ignore divine decree and commit terrific atrocities; and yet they say:

“For the sake of interests of Muslims he transferred the right of leadership to others.”![233]

Second Wrong Result

After Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani[234] for the first time dwelled on such a type of thought in his article in a magazine of Egypt, Message of Islam, published by Darul Taqreeb[235] Muhammad Madani, principal of Islamic law college of Azhar and director of the said magazine, depending on contents of the article wrote an essay titled: ‘A great change in Al-Azhar University.’ He writes:

“This discourse clearly conveys that accusation of usurpation of Caliphate and that those who took the reins of power were usurpers, is baseless. It is far from Shia principles of faith. They too, like all Muslims, consider the basis rests at the satisfaction of masses.”![236]

The wrong result is not drawn directly from conjecture of separation between Imamate and rulership. But it is drawn on the basis of first result of this category of conjectures.

It is thus said:

“Satisfaction and Bay’at of Ali with Caliphs established that Ali did not regard their government illegitimate.”![237]

Creation of such a picture of Shia belief in the minds of followers of Caliph’s school could possibly be an effective step towards unity. But it must not be ignored that a right will have to be sacrificed for sake of unity. Unity cannot be turned into a slaughterhouse of reality. Negligence in facts and figures can only result in imaginative unity. Our next generation shall take this wrong belief:

“It is quite possible for Shias as they follow Ali and his sons to admit authenticity of Caliphate with a simultaneous belief in the position of Imamate.”![238]

On the basis of this separation comfort can be drawn that Ali occupied a befitting position. Although the office of Caliphate is separate from that of their Imamate but there is no reason for any anxiety because:

“Imam Ali (a.s.) practically enjoyed the office of Guardianship and Imamate among masses. The people brought to him their complaints against Caliphs. Caliphs too often used to consult him in matters which were difficult for them to solve. Ali was a supervisor over their actions and at the same time a guide to them…[239] ”![240]

So we must be happy that his Imamate is not denied to him or any tyranny done against him and no right of his is usurped.

Similarly we should accept that Caliphs were never deviated because their government was run under his supervision. Fatima’s house was attacked and set on fire. Consequently, Fatima met her martyrdom and Mohsin was miscarried. All this happened in order to make Ali accept this high position to supervise duties of Caliphs and to guide them. Caliphs wanted to protect Islam!

Thus it is said:

“If people at consultation of Imam make a man of their choice manage their affairs and administer Islamic government their guardian choose Islamic government, the things will go better under his watch and control at his divine authority.”![241]

Third Wrong Result

Does there remain any room for difference, dispute or a distance between Imam and Caliphs on the ground of what passed? So, is there any reason for quarrel between their followers?

The cardinal result that these unity-seekers are after is to show otherwise the relations between Imam and usurpers of his right of Caliphate. On a false basis, they try to establish that there lasted peace and understanding between them.

The thought of unity is turned into a real belief. The standard of real foundation and unity is ignored. According to this sort of thought, difference between Ali and Caliphs, in addition to contrast between beliefs of Shia and Sunni about Imamate and Caliphate is commented and changed ‘as if there existed understanding between the two.’[242] The readers will conclude the mistaken result.

For instance:

“What crime is greater than one that creates difference among Muslim Ummah while the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms.”![243]

Type C): Separation of Imamate from rulership in a frame of Great Imamate and Great Caliphate:

[244]

As it must have been observed so far, separation of Imamate from rulership (Caliphate) means complete independence from Wilayat (of infallible Imam). This is a wrong dimension, an erroneous angle, a mistaken outlook of some unity-seekers under a pretext of a suitable way to resolve.[245]

About these two offices, the vested or bestowed Guardianship and elected or selected Caliphate, much is said from this mistaken conjecture. Relations between these two offices and its heads is illustrated like this:

1 - These two offices: affairs and duties they have are totally different from each other. Therefore they are separate. There are not many common elements between them. They are independent of each other.

2 - There is a parallel link between these two positions independent of each other regardless of duties and obligations of each. As such, an understanding and comprehension exists between the two. The office holders (of these two positions) have no differences beyond mutual complaints.

Thus it is said:

“If opinions are exchanged in this regard it was baseless and not in a position of these two offices. In my opinion it is better not to call it a difference. It was only a complaint.”![246]

3 - The position of Wilayat with regard to status, dignity, responsibility, duties and obligations make the holder of this office very much important and far higher and more sacred than office of Caliphate. This theory is applied to position of Caliphate. So consequently, coming down to position of an elected Caliphate one who holds the status of Guardianship it is too low and too little for him and his dignity. Considering the higher status of Guardianship than Caliphate and taking in view Imam’s carelessness and paying no importance to government’s position it can be said that nothing was taken away from him by Caliphs!

4 - The position of Imam’s Guardianship was active throughout the period of three Caliphs. The responsibility that entailed this office for Ali was acceptable to Caliphs, so none of his rights was usurped. Caliphs’ government was also not a government formed by force. Caliphs had acknowledged and even depended on authority of Ali, of his knowledge in which he was the final point of reference.

If one looks at these criticisms made by deviated outlook this much will be concluded that the difficulties of such outlooks are the wrong and perverted conclusions about Imamate and Caliphate.

In short, Caliphate, which is a reality by divine decree, has been deleted from Shia belief and an elected Caliphate is inserted instead.

The corrupted ones’ claim is that the Imam was not the head of Caliphate. They tried their best to show Caliphate (i.e. rulership) of less value and importance. However this outlook is never accepted by Shia.

These unity-seekers have their own opinion about Caliphate of Infallible Imams. They have tried here to lift the handicaps towards acceptance. They want to consummate their earlier theory.

If it is revised, the office of Caliphate, which was completely a separate entity from office of Guardianship, now is divided into two branches:

Part A) The great Caliphate: They have brought it to the level or grade of great Guardianship of Ali.

Part B) The open Caliphate: (Caliphate in public view): This is the same elected Caliphate. As said earlier, in this conjecture this is the only branch of Caliphate separated from Imamate.

To describe these two branches, it is said:

“Depending on this theory, it can be said that Imam Ali (a.s.) like Joseph, the Prophet, during the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet in affairs of politics, law and economics had great Caliphate in addition to great Imamate. But someone else was clad in the cloak of Caliphate.”![247]

Particulars of this Oblique new thought about the Great Caliphate

First Particularity: The great Caliphate is higher than Caliphate, which is open to people. The reason: it is like a stationary millstone and a base. So it is a pivot of government. Therefore Ali had no desire for this open Caliphate.

Thus it is said:

“Ali was aware of this fact that if he accepts Caliphate there is none to undertake the ministry which is a harder and more difficult job. There was none to become the stationary stone of a hand mill; that is to become a pivot thereon to rotate affairs of government.”![248]

Second Particularity: The great Caliphate is more influential and efficacious than the apparent Caliphate. The reason: the Imam can interfere or issue orders in Caliphate wherever and whenever he deemed fit.

Third Particularity: The great Caliphate is active behind the curtain. Its dignity is beyond ordinary affairs. It has no direct link to government business.

In explanation of these particularities, such is expressed:

“Ali was like a pivot of Islamic government although apparently he was in the background. The cloak of Caliphate had covered some other body just like Prophet Joseph who commanded wherever he wanted.”![249]

“The great Imamate and great Caliphate of Ali demanded him to guide and give opinion in affairs of Caliphate, in administrative matters and in military advances. He left army movements to care of others.”![250]

One who designed this wrong conjecture after sketching such a picture of this great Caliphate claims that this position of Ali was active in the time of Caliphs. But the great Caliphate of his had begun immediately after passing away of Prophet.

It is again said that:

“Amirul Momineen (a.s.) immediately after passing away of Prophet took office of great Imamate and great Caliphate in background of apparent Caliphate. Some think that he was aloof and took shelter in the corner of his house. But it was not so.”![251]

“During the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet, he held great Caliphate in fields of politics, economics and law though someone else wore the gown of apparent Caliphate.”![252]

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.”![253]

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.”![254]

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!

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.”![255]

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.

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.[256] 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.”[257]

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.”[258]

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.”[259]

“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.”[260]

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?”[261]

“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.”[262]

“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.[263] 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.[264] 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.[265]

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.[266]

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.”[267]

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 guards of moral heritage were sidelined.[268] They had no say in affairs. Those at the helm of affairs were strangers to spirit of Islam.[269] They could only run the legislature apparent to the eyes. From this one can understand the fatal hit that hurt the body of Islam. It started the day politics were separated from faith.[270]

This was the greatest danger to Islamic world and to those who aspire expansion and advancement of Islam should rely on unification of politics and faith. These two are like spirit and body. The spirit and body, this pulp and shell should get together with each other. Islam has paid much care with regard to politics, rulership, holy war, political laws and preserving the heritage of Islam. If this is separated from this pulp, the pulp will rot while the shell will dry up…”[271]

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…”[272]

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.[272] 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.”[274]

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.”[275]

Second Batch: To show Rulership of less value than Imamate

Introduction

Now it is the turn to answer the second category of conjectures having had replied the conjecture of separation of Imamate from rulership. This conjecture too is in the same dimension with the same aim; that is to prove existence of good terms between the Imam and Caliphs.

This conjecture can be framed in the mold of following expressions:

“The office of Guardianship vested to Ali by God and Prophet according to texts and verses is so high that worldly offices and elected Caliphates before it are like polluted water with a putrid stench or a morsel that suffocates the throat or a worn out shoe or nasal liquid. It is so worthless and of such low value.”![276]

“He was in background the Prophet’s successor Waliullah (i.e. God’s friend) and Caliph of God. His dignity and status was so high as not to let him compete for worldly Caliphate.”![277]

“Ali was the successor of the Prophet according to Quranic verses and Prophet’s confirmations on several occasions. But his spirit was so high that he saw the office of Caliphate too little that he himself says: “Rulership over people to me is like polluted water with a putrid stench or like a morsel that suffocates the throat. Ali refrained from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr for a period. But his generous forgiving nature made him to pay allegiance.”![278]

In the last narration, it appears that the author of the article is prone to believe that Caliphate is separate from rulership. In accordance with this belief, he argues the worthlessness of Caliphate. He then stresses on this point that both (Caliphate and rulership) are undisputed rights of Ali. As he proceeds, he shows the worthlessness of this position before the high spirit of Ali. However in any case, it does not mean that Ali overlooked the crime of usurpation of his right or forgave the usurper, finally, there did not last peace between him and transgressors of his right.[279] It is an obvious fact that such a type of outlook towards rulership will result once more in wrong conclusions. Such as, he willingly paid allegiance to Caliphs!

A) Caliphs are shown as if they were not transgressors of Ali’s right, or they did not usurp Ali’s right to Caliphate.

B) Ali too did not carry any rancor against them.

C) He further says that peace and good terms lasted between the Imam and Caliphs.

“He wanted rulership to serve religion and establish justice. Otherwise he regarded rulership far lesser than the worth of his old worn-out shoes.”![280]

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[281] 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.”[282]

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.