The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency And the Political Authority in Islam

The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency And the Political Authority in Islam13%

The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency And the Political Authority in Islam Author:
Translator: A Group of Scholars
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Debates and Replies
ISBN: 964-438-091-6

The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency And the Political Authority in Islam
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 35 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 26804 / Download: 4242
Size Size Size
The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency And the Political Authority in Islam

The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency And the Political Authority in Islam

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
ISBN: 964-438-091-6
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought


1

2

3

Part 2 - Chapter 1- The Tribal Root

The Impermissibility to Combine Caliphate and Prophesy

A. the Clans of Quraish

The Quraish consist of twenty five clans.[1] The best and the most honorable clan is the sons of Hashim­bn­Abd Menaf.[2] They are directly followed by the sons of Abdul­Muttelib­bn­Abd Menaf,... Al­Harith­bn­Abd Menaf,..., Umaya­bn­Abd Shams­bn­Abd Menaf and Nawfel­bn­Abd Menaf respectively. The Hashemites are the celebrities of Quraish. They succeeded their father in management. They are named ‘Al­Mujebbirun - The healers’. They are regarded as the foremost in holding peace treaties with the kings of that time. Hashim held a peace treaty with the kings of Syria. Abd Shams held an alike one with Nejashi, the king of Abyssinia. Nawfel held an alike one with the kings of Persia. Abdul­Muttelib held an alike one with the kings of Himyer; Yemen. According to such treaties, people of Quraish could settle in various areas of this world. For the high standing and the mastery of the Hashemites upon the Arabs, they were called ‘Aqdahun­Nedhar - Cups of Gold.’[3]

B. the Political Form

The Quraishi clans concluded a political form respecting distributing positions, such as the leadership, the pennon, the assemblies, watering the pilgrimages, hosting the guests... etc. This form was the furthest thing the clans could achieve. They, as a whole, were convinced that that had been too satisfactory to abuse any one's rights. The political positions are estimated as the fate of those clans that it is none's benefit to alter or change, since it is impossible to recognize the consequences of such attempts of altering or changing. It might, at least, result in losing what had been achieved. The entire clans, in addition, were pleased to such a form that arranged the affairs of the pilgrimage and the Holy House. Gradually these positions and missions became a significance of a political belief and a heritage of the forefathers. It became impermissible for any to stand against such missions.

C. Endeavors for Shaking the Form

In the years of starvation, Hashim was the only individual who committed himself to providing food to people. He was named the master of Bat'ha. His food­tables were spread in times of amenity and distress. He was wont to host the guests and the passersby and secure the troubled.[4] Umaya­bn­Abd Shams feared and envied him. He failed in imitating Hashim; therefore, the other Quraishi people criticized and imputed dishonor to him. Hashim rejected his challenge to argue about the more honorable of them. Owing to Umaya's insistence, he accepted it. They agreed that the loser should undergo fifty she­camels and banished. As the arbiter ruled of Hashim's being more honorable, fifty she­camels of Umaya were slaughtered and he was deported to Syria. This was the first seed of hostility between the sons of Hashim and those of Umaya. It seems that the motive beyond Umaya's challenge was his envying Hashim and the apprehension that he would be a serious danger against the political form according to which the sons of Abd Shams had been the leaders. Furthermore, He might have realized that the fame of Hashim would shake the form as a whole and would, as a result, cause people to follow him.[5]

D. the Augury of Prophesy

In Mecca, it was commonly spread that soon there would be a prophet to be assigned by God, and that he would be a successor of Abd Menaf. Abu­Sufian was one of those who believed in this foretelling and worked depending on it. He established distinguishable relations with Abdullah­bn­Abis­Salt. According to his conception, Abu­Sufian was certain that the intended prophet should cancel the political form - of the Quraishi clans, the leadership of which was in his hand. Hence, this prophet would be forming the most hazardous factor against the sons of Umaya. After a long period of panic and suffering, he could have a term of tranquillity since he believed that the prophet would be a successor of Abd Menaf, and there was none, from among the successors of Abd Menaf, fitter than him in undergoing such a mission.[6] On that account, he should certainly be the very one intended.

E. the Declaration of Prophesy

Mohammed, the successor of Hashim, declared his being the anticipated prophet whom had been favored by God for leading the Arabs and the mankind to the right path. He declared that the evidence of his prophesy had been God's words. A little group of eloquent individuals and those who were harshly treated in this world, followed Mohammed.

F. the Hashimites' Guarding Mohammed

With all their forces, the Hashemites embraced Mohammed. The leaders of Quraish threatened that they would kill him. In fact, they spread a rumor of Mohammed's being killed. Abu­Talib gathered the Hashemite men and gave each a hard bar. Walking with the sons of Hashim and his, Abu­Talib raised his voice at the people of Quraish: “O people of Quraish! Do you realize what I am to do?” “No, we do not.” they answered. Abu­Talib ordered his people to show what they were keeping in their hands. Each showed the hard bar he had. Abu­Talib commented: “By God I swear, if you kill him - Mohammed - I will never keep any of you alive unless we both are terminated.” Accordingly, people of Quraish were defeated. Abu­Jahal countered the largest share of that defeat.[7]

G. Not for the Favor of the Pagans, It Was Envy, and Preserving the Political Form

Led by Abu­Sufian, the other clans of Quraish exerted all their efforts for the sake of facing Mohammed. Nevertheless, they could not intercept him. For countering the importunity and the rejection of the Hashemites, the clans of Quraish unanimously agreed on the following decisions:

1. Issuing a total boycott against the Hashemites. The Quraishi clans, including Teim and Edi, ostracized the Hashemites. They restricted them in the Cols of Abu­Talib for three continuous years. The Hashemites, during that period, had to have from the leaves of the trees due to the starvation they suffered. Their children, likewise, had to suck the sands due to their thirstiness. This is an indisputable fact that is as clear as sunlight. Neither Mohammed nor did the Hashemites submit to the Quraishi people. Finally, God refuted the trickeries of the Quraishi people and leaders. After a three year boycott, the blockade proved its failure.

2. As they realized that Mohammed would soon immigrate to Yathrib, where he could find supporters and could establish a base for his advocacy, the clans of Quraish decided unanimously to kill him. They selected a man from each tribe so that they would strike him together that his blood would be distributed among the entire tribes equally. The purpose beyond such a cabal was obliging the Hashemites to miss out any opportunity to revenge Mohammed. They believed that Mohammed would achieve his goals and, in sequence, divest them from their leadership and authority, if he reached in Yathrib.

They applied this cabal so accurately, but they were astonished when they found Ali­bn­Abi­Talib sleeping in Mohammed's bed. The leaders of Mecca became so perturbed that they offered big prizes as a remuneration for those who would be able to capture Mohammed, alive or dead.

In the other side, Mohammed, his companion and the guide were pushing their way to Yathrib in safe, by God's will. This is an indiscussible fact that is as clear as sunlight.[8]

H. Not for the Favor of the Pagans, the Wars Were Due to Envy and Preserving the Political Form

Neither the Quraishi clans led by the Umayids, nor were the Hashemites, Mohammed and his group despondent from achieving triumph against the adversary party. The Arabs were three parties; one was supporting people of Quraish and their joint commandment. The other, even few, was supporting Mohammed. The third was waiting for the outcome for supporting the victorious. In Badr and Uhud, wars broke up between the two parties. A third war broke out when the leadership of the Quraishis raised armies and allied the Jews forming the multipartite army. They advanced towards Al­Madina, the Prophet's capital. Precisely, these multipartite armies failed. A while later, the Quraishi were surprised by the armies of God in Mecca, their capital. Hence, the leaders of Quraish were submitted and they had to embrace Islam. Owing to this submission, the entire Arabs were dominated by the Prophet's government and, consequently, they embraced Islam in groups.

I. the Hashemite Prophesy is An Inescapable Fate

Sparing no single sort of rejection and resistance, the clans of Quraish, led by the Umayids, opposed the religion established by Mohammed, the Hashemite. Apart from their loyalty to their pagans, the main reason beyond this resistance was their abhorrence that a Hashemite would be the one to whom this religion had been revealed. They disliked the Hashemites’ leadership. The shade of the old political form was another motive towards their resisting this advocacy.

Finally, Abu­Sufian was surprised by God's soldiers on the doorsteps of Mecca. Al­Abbas detains him so that he should see God's soldiers with his own eyes. “I have never seen such a domination alike of which is not existed neither at Khosrow, Caesar nor the Romans.” expresses Abu­Sufian.[9] Before the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), Abu­Sufian is dragged by Al­Abbas. “O Abu­Sufian! Woe is you! Is it not the appropriate time to realize that there is no god but Allah?” the Prophet addresses at him. “I do conceive that Allah would not affect me in any sort if there was another god besides Him.” answers Abu­Sufian. “O Abu­Sufian!” the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) reasks, “Is it not the proper time to realize that I am the messenger of God?” “Regarding this, my soul, by God, cannot receive it completely!” admits Abu­Sufian. Al­Abbas shouts: “Woe is you, Abu­Sufian! Declare your being Muslim and admit that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is surely the messenger of Allah, lest you shall be beheaded.” Only after mentioning beheading, surrounding and hopelessness, Abu­Sufian declares his being Muslim for nothing other than saving his soul. He was gazing at the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) surprisingly when he said to himself: “By which weapon did this man overcome?” God, informed His Apostle of Abu­Sufian's wonderment; therefore, he came to him and said: “By Allah I overcame.”[10]

Thus and so, the Quraishi clans realized the following facts:

The Hashemite prophesy is an inescapable and determined fate.

They, as clans, had no role, at all, in this preference. They would never agree upon this option if only they had any role in the operation.

The prophesy is a one time phenomenon.

No single clan of Quraish will be catching or joined to the Hashemites.

The political form was not only shaken, but also was it completely blasted.

Hence, the Quraishi clans worked furtively for occluding this (Hashemite) advancement towards governing the royalty besides the prophesy, the matter which results in gaining the integrity as a whole.

J. the most enthusiast clan towards occluding the Hashemite advancement

The clans of Quraish, altogether, believed that the Hashemite prophesy had certainly shook the political form of distributing roles of celebrity among them in an unprecedented form. Saving the Al­Muttelib­bn­Abd Menaf who supported the Hashemites, the Quraishi clans, as a whole, rejected this Hashemite prophesy. The Umayids, however, were the most enthusiast and denying against this Hashemite advancement. They did their best for the sake of intercepting the Hashemite from joining headship to the divine prophesy. The following are some of the reasons beyond such an enthusiastic situation:

1. Before Islam, the Umayids were engaged in considerable hostility, enmity and envy against the Hashemites.

2. Owing to the Hashemites' prophesy, the Umayids lost the headship they had enjoyed.

3. It was the Hashemites who killed the chiefs of the Umayids. Utbeh, Al­Waleed and Sheibeh were killed by Hamzeh, Ali and Ubeidullah. In addition to their abhorrence, the Umayids bore malice to the Hashemites. The amount of this malice is evidently reflected by Hind, Muawiya’s mother and Abu­Sufian’s wife. Being not sufficed by killing Hamzeh, she corrupted his celibate corpse. On account of the victory and the expansion of Mohammed's prophesy, besides the Umayids retardation to join Islam and their long and famous history in antagonizing, they could not have any opportunity to declare their plan of intercepting the Hashemites from gaining the authority, beside the prophesy, of this nation.

K. The Preeminent Trend

The notion of the unacceptability for the Hashemites to join headship to prophesy became the preeminent trend, although it was stable only in the hidden because of the presence of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), the dominion of legality and the unification of the Prophet's virtuous companions. As soon as any of these three factors is missed, the legality will be shaken and the virtuous companions will be (the like of a single white hair in a black bull's skin) as Muawiya describes. The authority, then, will be the prevailing's.

L. The Immaculate Kinship is the Statutory Base of Caliphate

The following is the argument of the three Muhajirs - immigrants to Yathrib - in the Saqeefa of Bani­Sa'ideh:

Abu­Bakr stated: “We are the Prophet's clan while you are his supporters. Thus, you are our supporters in this religion.”

Omar stated: “Two swords cannot be put in the same sheath. Nay, by God. The Arab shall never accept your being the leaders while the Prophet is another clan's. The Arab should never select but those from whom the prophesy came forth. The evident argument and the manifest evidence is ours against our opposers. Who dare to litigate with us about the authority and the heritage of Mohammed while we are his backers and people? None but the wrong, the sinful or the involved in a disaster may do so.”[11]

The Ansar - the supporters; people of Yathrib who supported the Prophet and his followers - shouted in one voice: “We shall select none other than Ali.” Ali, however, was absent. Some of the Ansar shouted: “We shall select none other than Ali.”[12]

Without any respite, the matter of Mohammed's succession became in the hands of As­Siddiq, Abu­Bakr. As he was called for declaring his fealty to Abu­Bakr, Ali stated: “I am the most rightful in this affair. I am not to submit to your leadership. It is you whom are to be submitted to my leadership. You seized it from the Ansar claiming of the Prophet's kinship. Now, you intend to seize it from the Prophet's household coercively?! Have you not argued before the Ansar that you are more rightful in holding this affair of leadership due to your relation to the Prophet? And they complied to your claim and gave it to you. Now, I do provide the very same argument before you; we are the most rightful in enjoying the Prophet's authority and heritage in and after his life.. etc.”

M. The Rebellion and the Dissipation of the Preeminent Trend

Bed­ridden, Omar were engaged in planning for the future of Mohammed's nation. Evading no single face, he stated: “Had Abu­Ubeideh, Me'ath­bn­Jabal, Khalid­bn­Al­Waleed or Salim the slave of Abu­Hutheifeh been alive, I would have nominated as my successor.

Salim is a non­Arab slave whose lineage is unknown. Me'ath is one of the Ansar whom were not permitted to have the authority in the meeting of Saqeefa. Khalid is from Bani­Makhzum. He is a ten class companion since he immigrated in the period between the Hudeibiyeh peace treaty and the conquest of Mecca.

Once, in his reign, Omar argued bn­Abbas: “O bn­Abbas! Do you realize the reason beyond your people's neglecting your nominating for managing the Islamic state?” Evading the anticipated consequences, bn­Abbas escaped from the answer. “Well, Amirul­Mu’minin! If I ignore the answer, you are definitely in full awareness of it.” commented bn­Abbas. “Your people disliked the matter that you would have the prophesy and the authority altogether and then, you would have been unjust to them. People of Quraish selected for themselves. Indeed, they succeeded as they opted for the right one.” expressed Omar. “O Amirul­Mu’minin!” bn­Abbas worded, “May I speak provided that you shall not be irate?” “Yes, you may.” permitted Omar. bn­Abbas signified: “Regarding your saying (People of Quraish selected for themselves. Indeed, they succeeded as they opted for the right one.), they would have been right absolutely and without litigant if only they had clung to what God had opted for. Regarding your saying: (Your people disliked the matter that you would have the prophesy and the authority altogether.), God, the Exalted, described a people who disliked; saying: (That is because they hated what Allah revealed, so he rendered their deeds null.)” “Far it is, bn­Abbas!” replied Omar, “I have been informed of some news about you, but I do not like to discipline you about so that your status would not be lessened.” bn­Abbas answered: “O Amirul­Mu’minin! My status at you must not have been lessened in case these news were true, otherwise, I am one of those who obviated the ill deeds from approaching towards their entities.” Omar said: “Well, I was informed of your claim that the general authority had been taken away from you, Mohammed's clan, due to envy, aggression and injustice.” “Respecting the injustice,” responded bn­Abbas, “it had been realized by the level­headed, as well as the ill­minded. Respecting envy, Adam was envied, and we are his envied sons.” “Far it is. Far it is.” expressed Omar, “Your hearts, sons of Hashim, are filled in with an immovable envy.” bn­Abbas answered: “Slow down, Amirul­Mu’minin! Do you impute such a description to hearts that God has (kept away uncleanness from them and purified them a thorough purification?)”[13]

The event recorded by Al­Mas'udi in his Muroujut - Theheb, regarding the conversation of Omar and bn­Abbas, does reveal the intellectual rebellion and the disclosure of the preeminent trend which was hidden during the Prophet's lifetime before the foundation of the caliphate. The following is a literal quotation of this narrative:

The literal quotation of this narrative

bn­Abbas related: I responded Omar's summon. I was before him when he addressed at me: “O bn­Abbas! The governor of Hims has just died. He was one of the rare virtuous people. Except for the matter I have against you, I do regard you with those rare virtuous ones. Do you accept my offer to be the governor of Hims?” “I will not work for you unless you tell of the matter you have against me.” I said unto him. “What for are you asking so?” asked Omar. “I do desire to know it. I will be cautious if it is a real thing, and if not, I will realize that I do not have it. Then, I will accept your offer. I noticed you have hardly asked for a matter with respite.” I answered. Omar expressed: “O bn­Abbas! I anticipate that I will face my fatal chance while you are keeping your position, then you may call people to select you as the new leader. I noticed the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had neglected assigning you, his household, in any position.” “Yes, by God. I noticed so, too. Do you realize the reason?” I wondered. “I do not know exactly. Was it for the reason that he had been too cautious to give you official positions to which you are certainly authorized, or was it for that he anticipated that you would be elected for the leadership because of your relation to him? Only then, blame would fall. Inevitably, blame shall fall. That is it. What do you see now?” commented Omar. “I see I should not accept this position.” I said. “What for?” questioned Omar. “I shall be a permanent mote in your eyes as long as you bear this opinion...”

Even after his decease, Omar, the excessively careful for the Muslims' interests, must be sure that the Hashemites shall never be having dominion over people, and shall never be ruling Mohammed's nation.

In general, the saying of the abomination of the Hashemites' joining headship to prophesy was changed into a preeminent trend. This trend could find a ground to show and impose itself as a common conception adopted by the authorities and the priority of people. It is considered as the ultimate way against the Hashemite injustice and the apt course that enables the Quraishi clans to enjoy headship respectively as a compensation to be undergone by the authorities of the Hashemite prophesy. As Al­Faruq describes: “This conception is one of the appearances of the divine discrimination of Quraish. By inducing Abu­Sufian to the ruling regime, giving him the right to dispose in the alms he had levied, nominating Yazeed, his son, as the commander of the army of Syria and nominating Muawiya, his other son, as a commander and, then, as the governor of Syria; all these procedures resulted in the formation of a factual alliance between the ruling regime and the ‘released.’ Both parties have the same access to intercept the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy. This alliance eradicated the opposition and worked seriously for rehearsing the conception of the impermissibility of the Hashemites’ joining headship to prophesy.

Thus, the Prophet's immaculate household, besides their having been completely deposed and blocked, lost every thing including the privilege of honorability granted by the political form according to which Mecca was ruled before Islam. This seems clear in Al­Faruq's saying to bn­Abbas: “By God, we did not refer to you due to need, but we disliked you to object against the matter on which people agreed unanimously. That would cause them, as well as you, suffer catastrophic consequences.”

The degree of humiliating the Prophet's progeny attained such a great level that even Abdullah­bn­Az­Zubeir menaced to put the Hashemites' houses on fire with their inhabitants. Without the intercession of some virtuous individuals, this would have happened.

This proposes that every clan among those who imposed a blockade on the Hashemites in the Cols of Abu­Talib for three continuous years, and participated in the congregational cabal of assassination against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), became in a state better than that enjoyed by the Hashemites themselves. Likewise, every individual of such clans became more rightful in coming to power than the Hashemites. Headship and authority is practically licit for every one except the Hashemites. All these procedures were taken for one goal only; occluding the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy. Is the reward of goodness ought but goodness?!

N. Statutory Ground of Intercepting the Hashemites from Joining Headship to Prophesy Conception

Totally, the conception is uncivilized. It is completely contradictory to the divine texts and the political regulations derived from the divine beliefs. The Prophet David, was inherited by Solomon, his son. Both joined headship to prophesy. None objected against the prophets and their progenies who had been gifted judiciary, prophesy and divine manuscripts. Privilege is in God's hand. Caliphate is a religious and, in the first place, mundane position. A Caliph is the prophet's representative. Stating arguments and setting forth rules that are completely methodological processes, are the main missions of prophets.

It is effortlessly probationary for the aware of the basic components of the Islamic political strategy, to recognize that the conception of intercepting the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy has entirely blasted that strategy, as being divine, and has totally extricated its constituents. It is also proved that the conception involved has practically changed it into an ordinary positive strategy that is different from others in the political form only. Moreover, the leadership of the state became a prey obtained exclusively by the prevailing whoever he was. After achieving prevalence, that one occupies the Prophet's chair (reed mat, in fact), attires the cloak of Islam and, hence, becomes the new caliph. In case any one of the ‘released’ who fought against Islam as much as possible till he was surrounded and had to show his being Muslim to save his soul, prevails, he will openly impose his orders upon the Muhajir who participated in every battle supporting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Similarly, God's representative who is, according to divine regulations and texts, the president of the Islamic state will become an ordinary citizen under the authority of such a ‘released’. Thus, for the sake of seeking justice of the other clans and intercepting the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy or, in other words, reviving the old political form of distributing missions in a new dress, the illiterate ruled and the learned's mouth was shut up.

As the old political form distributed missions among the clans, the new one, when applied, ranted such clans to come to power in turn and, in the same time, to share positions of headship. Regarding the divine regulations appertained to the Islamic political strategy, they were reckoned with other irrelevant topics since they were unfitting the political form established before Islam.

O. Effects of Practicing the Conception of Intercepting the Hashemites from Joining Headship to Prophesy

The First Effect

The first effect was the total disappearance of the discrimination between those who fought against Islam and those who fought for its sake till triumph was achieved. From the political side, the two categories are Muslims of the same credit. Consequently, the all shall be in the same Paradise. The Hashemite individual, in a like manner, who was occluded in Cols of Abu­Talib for three years, is not different from that previously polytheist who imposed this blockade upon him since he declared his being Muslim!! Islam does erase what precedes it! Had Hamzeh been alive again, he should have been as same as Wahshi - his killer. This is from the practical political side. The killer and his victim are enjoying the very same rank. The Muhajir and the ‘released’ are enjoying the very same rank, too. The same is said about the illiterate and the most learned. Supposing this illiterate predominates, it shall be politically obligatory upon that most learned to obey and comply to. This is not regularly; on the assumption there is a most learned Hashemite, like Ali­bn­Abi­Talib, to compete with an Ansari with a less degree of knowledge, the latter will certainly be preferred. This is evident from Al­Faruq's following saying: “Had Me'ath­bn­Jabal or Khalid­bn­Al­Waleed been alive, I would have nominated as the caliph.” This was said with the presence of Ali­bn­Abi­Talib! Besides the battle of Uhud, Khalid fought against Islam in many positions, while Ali fought for the sake of Islam in all of its positions. Nonetheless, Khalid is preferred. Al­Faruq, also would have opted for Salim, the slave of Abu­Hutheifeh, if only he had been alive. He would have made this non­Arab slave the chief of Ali­bn­Abi­Talib who is “the master of Omar, Abu­Ubeideh and every male and female believer,” as Al­Faruq himself had declaratorily confessed.

The Second Effect

The second effect was seeding and sheltering the unceasing discrepancy. As long as there is no discrimination between the Muhajir and the ‘released’ or the killer and his victim, and it is rightful for every one to take in Islam according to his idiosyncratic elucidation, this will result in the existence of various sources of jurisconsultance, notions and independent impressions. Hence, every party claims of being the right, and takes a path not taken by others. With the absence of a leading jurisconsult, whose judgments are followed by the all considering it as juristic doubtless evidences, the seed of discrepancies was planted in a fertile land. Supposing Ali and one of the ‘released’ judge in a certain issue, the receiver of these two judgments will be having the full prerogative to opt for any. This is by the reason that practically they, Ali and the ‘released’, are indiscriminately Muslims of the same rank. They both shall be in the same Paradise. So, both are Sahaba. Practically also, there is no statutory preference for Ali's judgment; how, then, is it to make preference between the equal, or how is it to make a distinction between the completely alike? In the same manner, to take any of the two pieces of gold that are having the very same size, shape, amount and value, is practically acceptable. Making any discrimination is a cautioned matter. The harmony involved is external, while the discrepancy is developing under that exterior. Sooner or later, this discrepancy will certainly be grown into a fatal malignancy that shall tear the unification of this nation and pull them out of their frame into mystery and the unknown.

The Third Effect

The third effect was excluding the Hashemites particularly from coming to power. This meant that there was no obstacle at all against any Muslim to have the leadership of the Islamic state, provided that this position could be attained by any means including the illegal. This gives the opportunity to come to power using any methods if it becomes liable to subject people. A condition that forms an obstruction against this process is the belongness to the Hashemites, whom were exclusively granted with prophesy. So, they are fully sufficed with prophesy.

This general privilege turned the avarice for authority into a horrible nightmare and an irksome approach that made the nation lose their decision and settlement, and an experimental program for all those who looked forward to coming to power. Owing to such a privilege, the constitutional political strategy of the Islamic state became off. Regarding discerning this new ruler's lineage, knowledgeability, beliefs or preference to Islam; these matters became a second class affairs that are practically valueless and no­good since the predominating ruler has already prevailed, and the prevailed's satisfaction is a matter of an idiosyncratic interest.

Thus, what should prevent Yazeed, the notorious lascivious, from being the head of the state since he is the son of Muawiya, the former chief? What should prevent Al­Hussein­bn­Ali­bn­Abi­Talib who is, according to categorical divine texts, (the master of the youth of the Paradise,) (the dweller of the Paradise,) (the Prophet's basil) and (the constitutional Imam of this nation), from being an ordinary citizen in Yazeed's state? Both, Al­Hussein and Yazeed are Muslims of the same rank that shall be in the Paradise. Yazeed, the murderer, and Al­Hussein, the victim, will both be in the same Paradise. Both are Sahabi!! Those who criticize this notion are miscreants whom should be neither shared in food or drink nor offered the funeral Prayer when they perish!!

The Fourth Effect

The fourth effect is confusedness. The good has been confused with the bad, the right with the wrong, the sweet with the bitter. The precedent became as same rank as the tardy, the attacker as same rank as the absconder, the killer as same rank as his victim and the supporter of Islam as same rank as the antagonist. They all embraced Islam and saw or were seen by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family); therefore, the all are Sahaba, the all are in the Paradise.

The virtuous ones hid themselves in the numerous provinces of the state and became “the like of a single white hair in a black bull's skin”, as Muawiya describes. The Islamic political strategy collapsed. The preferred became tardy and the tardy preferred. (And Allah's is the end of affairs.)

Below the Zero Point

So far our discussion has been of the acceptance and non-acceptance of acts of worship and good and positive deeds of non-Muslims, and in other words the above discussion was about what is above the zero point; the discussion was whether their good deeds cause them to ascend or not.

Now let us see what is the state of what is below the zero point, that is, what happens to the sins and evil deeds of non-Muslims. Are they all alike from the aspect of our discussion, or is there a difference?

In addition, in these actions that are evil and bring a person down, is there a difference between Muslims and non-Muslims, and similarly between Shī`as and non-Shī`as? Does a Muslim, and especially a Shī`a Muslim, have a sort of protection with regard to such actions, or not?

In the preceding matter, it became clear that God only punishes people when they commit wrong deeds out of culpability (taqŝīr), that is, when they do so deliberately and with knowledge, not out of incapacity (quŝūr). Previously, we translated and explained the verse of Qur’ān from which Scholars of the principles of jurisprudence derive the rule that says “It is evil to punish one without having explained his or her duty.”

Now, to clarify the situation of non-Muslims with respect to actions that fall below the zero point and to study their punishment and retribution for the evil deeds they commit, we have no choice but to broach another issue that is touched upon in Islāmic sciences and is rooted in the Noble Qur’ān; and that is the issue of “incapacity” and “powerlessness” (isti°`āf). Here, we begin our discussion under this heading.

The Incapable and the Powerless

The scholars of Islām make use of two terms; they say that some people are “powerless” (musta°ď`afīn) or are “awaiting the command of God” (murjawn li-`amrillāh). “Powerless” refers to the unfortunate and unable; “those awaiting the command of God” denotes people whose affairs and status are to be regarded as being with God and in His hands; God Himself shall deal with them as His wisdom and mercy dictate. Both terms have been taken from the Qur’ān.

In Sūratul Nisā, verses 97- 99, we read:

    إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفٌّاهُمُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ ظٌالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قٌالُوا فِيمَ كُنتُمْ قٌالُوا كُنٌّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الأَرْضِ قٌالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللٌّهِ وٌاسِعَةً فَتُهٌاجِرُوا فِيهٌا فَأُوْلٌـئِكَ مَأْوٌاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسٌاءَتْ مَصِيرًا إِلاَّ الْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجٌالِ وَالنِّسٌاءِ وَالْوِلْدٌانِ لاٌ يَسْتَطِيعُونَ حِيلَةً وَلاٌ يَهْتَدُونَ سَبِيلاً فَأُوْلٌـئِكَ عَسَى اللٌّهُ أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُمْ وَكٌانَ اللٌّهُ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا

“And those whose souls the Angels take while they are oppressive to themselves; they say, ‘What state were you in?’ They say, ‘We were weak in the land.’ They say, ‘Was not God’s earth wide, that you may migrate in it?’ So the abode of those people is Hell, and evil an abode it is, except the powerless among the men, women, and children who neither have access to any means nor are guided to any way; so perhaps God may pardon them, and God is Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Pardoning.”

In the first verse, mention is made of the interrogation of some people by the Divine appointees (in the grave). The Angels ask them, “What state were you in, in the world?” They forward the excuse: “We were unfortunate, our means were inadequate (and we were unable change our state).” The Angels will say, “You were not powerless, since God’s earth was spacious and you could have migrated from your homeland and gone to an area where you had greater opportunity; thus you are culpable and deserving of punishment.”

In the second verse, the state of some people is mentioned who are truly powerless; whether they be men, women, or children. These are people who had no means and no way out.

In the third verse, the Qur’ān gives tidings and hope that God may show forgiveness towards the second group.

In his commentary of the Qur’ān, al-Mīzān, our most esteemed teacher, `Allāmah Ťabā’ťabā’ī , has this to say regarding these very verses: “God considers ignorance of religion and every form of preventing the establishment of the signs of religion to be oppression, and Divine forgiveness does not encompass this.

However, an exception has been made for the powerless who did not have the ability to move and change the environment. The exception has been mentioned in such a way that it is not exclusive to when powerlessness takes this form.

Just as it is possible for the source of powerlessness to be an inability to change the environment, it is possible for it to be because a person’s mind is not aware of the truth, and thus remains deprived of the truth.”1

Many traditions have been narrated in which those people who, for various reasons have remained incapable, have been counted among the “powerless.”2

In verse 106 of Sūratul Tawbah (9), God says:

    وَ ءٌاخِرُونَ مُرْجُونَ لِأَمْرِ اللٌّهِ إِمٌّا يُعَذِّبُهُمْ وَ إِمٌَا يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَ اللٌّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

“And others who are awaiting the command of God, He will either punish them or He will forgive them; and God is Knowing, Wise.”

The term murjawn li-`amrillāh (those awaiting God’s command) has been taken from this verse.

It has been narrated that Imām Muhammad Ibn `Alī al-Bāqir (as) said about this verse:

“Verily there was a people in the early era of Islām who were once polytheists and committed grave misdeeds; they killed Hamzah and Ja`far and people like them from among the Muslims. Later, they became Muslims, abandoning polytheism for monotheism, but faith did not find its way into their hearts for them to be counted among the believers and become deserving of Heaven, while at the same time they had forsaken denial and obstinacy, which was the cause of their being (deserving of) punishment. They were neither believers, nor unbelievers and deniers; these then are the murjawn li-`amrillāh, whose affair is referred to God.”3

In another tradition, it has been narrated that Ĥumrān Ibn A`yan said, “I asked Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as) about the powerless.” He replied, “They are neither of the believers nor of the unbelievers; they are the ones whose affair is referred to God’s command.”4

Though the purport of the verse regarding those whose affair is referred to God’s command is that one should say only that their affair is with God, still, from the tone of the verse regarding the powerless, a hint of Divine forgiveness and pardon can be deduced.

What is understood in total is that those people who in some way were incapable and are not blameworthy, will not be punished by God.

In al-Kāfī, there is a tradition from Hamzah Ibn Ťayyār who narrated that Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as) said:

“People are of six groups, and in the end are of three groups: the party of faith, the party of unbelief, and the party of deviation. These groups come into being from God’s promise and warning regarding Heaven and Hell. (That is, people are divided into these groups according to their standing with respect to these promises and warnings.) Those six groups are the believers, the unbelievers, the powerless, those referred to God’s command, those who confess their sin and have mixed good deeds with evil deeds, and the people of the heights (a`rāf).”5

Also in al-Kāfī, it is narrated from Zurārah that he said: “I visited Imām Muhammad Ibn `Alī al-Bāqir (as) with my brother Ĥumrān, or with my other brother Bukahīr. I said to the Imām, ‘We measure people with a measuring tape: Whoever is a Shī`a like ourselves, whether among the descendants of `Alī or otherwise, we forge a bond of friendship with him (as a Muslim and one who will achieve salvation), and whoever is opposed to our creed, we dissociate from him (as a misguided person and one who will not achieve salvation).’”

The Imām said, “Zurārah! God’s word is more truthful than yours; if what you say is correct, then what about God’s words where He says, ‘Except the powerless among the men, women, and children who find no way out nor find a path?’ What about those who are referred to God’s command? What about those regarding whom God says, ‘They mixed good deeds and other, evil deeds?’ What happened to the people of the heights? Who, then, are the ones whose hearts are to be inclined?”

Ĥammād , in his narration of this event from Zurārah , narrates that he said, “At this point the Imām and I began to argue. Both of us raised our voices, such that those outside the house heard us.”

Jamāl Ibn Darrāj narrates from Zurārah in this event that the Imām said, “Zurārah! [God has made it] incumbent upon Himself that He take the misguided (not the unbelievers and deniers) to Heaven.”6

Also in al-Kāfī it is narrated from Imām Mūsā Ibn Ja`far al-Kādhim (as) that he said: “`Alī (as) is a gate among the gates of guidance; whoever enters from this gate is a believer, and whoever exits from it is a unbeliever; and one who neither enters from it nor exits from it is among the party whose affair is referred to God.”

In this tradition, the Imām clearly mentions a party who are neither among the people of faith, submission, and salvation, nor among the people of denial and annihilation.7

Also in al-Kāfī, it is narrated from Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as):

    لَوْ أَنَّ الْعِبٌادَ إِذٌا جَهَلُوا وَقَفُوا وَلو لَمَْ يَجْحَدُوا، لَمْ يَكْفُرُوا

“If only people, when they are ignorant, pause and don’t reject, they will not be unbelievers.”8

If one ponders upon the traditions which have come down from the pure Imāms (as) and most of which have been collected in the sections “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah” and “Kitāb al-Īmān wa al-Kufr” in al-Kāfī, he or she will realize that the Imām’s (as) position was that whatever [punishment] befalls a person is because truth was presented to him or her, and he or she showed prejudice or obstinacy towards it, or at the very least was in a position where he or she should have researched and searched, but didn’t do so.

And as for people who, out of incapacity of understanding and perception, or because of other reasons, are in a position where they are not in denial or negligent in researching, they are not counted among the deniers and adversaries. They are counted among the powerless and those referred to God’s command. And it is understood from the traditions that the pure Imams (as) view many people to be of this category.

In al-Kāfī, in the section “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah,” Shaykh Kulaynī narrates several traditions to the effect that:

    كُلُّ مَنْ دٌانَ اللٌّهَ عَزَّ وَّجَلَّ بِعِبٌادَةِ يَجْهَدْ فِيهٌا نَفْسَهُ وَلاٌ إِمٌامَ لَهُ مِنَ اللٌّهِ فَسَعْيِهِ غَيْرَ مَقْبُولٍ

“Whoever obeys God with an act of worship in which he exhausts himself, but doesn’t have an Imām appointed by God, his effort is not accepted.”9

Or that:

    لاٌ يَقْبَلَ اللٌّهُ أَعْمٌالَ الْعِبٌادَ إِلاَّ بِمَعْرِفَتِهِ

“God does not accept the actions of His servants without recognition of him (the Imām).”10

At the same time, in that same “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah” of al-Kāfī it is narrated from Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as):

     مَنْ عَرَفَنٌا كٌانَ مُؤْمِناً، وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَنٌا كٌانَ كٌافِراً، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْنٌا وَلَمْ يَنْكِرْنٌا كٌانَ ضٌالاً حَتَّى رجع إِلـى الْهُدى الَّذِي افْتَرَضَ اللٌّهُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ طٌاعَتِنٌا، فَإِنْ يَمُتْ عَلى ضَلاٌلَتِهِ يَفْعَلُ اللٌّهُ مٌا يَشٌاءُ

“Whoever recognizes us is a believer, and whoever denies us is an unbeliever, and whoever neither recognizes nor denies us is misguided until he or she returns to the guidance of our obedience which God enjoined upon him or her. So if he or she dies in the state of misguidedness, God shall do what He pleases.”11

Muhammad Ibn Muslim says: “I was with Imām as-Ŝādiq (as). I was seated to his left, and Zurārah to his right. Abū Baŝir entered and asked, “What do you say about a person who has doubts about God?” The Imam replied, “He is a unbeliever.” “What do you say about a person who has doubts about the Messenger of God?” “He is an unbeliever.” At this point the Imām turned towards Zurārah and said, “Verily, such a person is a unbeliever if he or she denies and shows obstinacy.”12

Also in al-Kāfī, Kulaynī narrates that Hāshim Ibn al-Barīd (Ŝāhib al-Barīd) said: “Muhammad Ibn Muslim, Abul Khaťťāb, and I were together in one place. Abul Khaťťāb asked, “What is your belief regarding one who doesn’t know the affair of Imāmate?” I said, “In my view he or she is a unbeliever.” Abul Khaťťāb said, “As long as the evidence is not complete for him or her, he or she is not a unbeliever; if the evidence is complete and still he or she doesn’t recognize it, then he or she is a unbeliever.” Muhammad Ibn Muslim said, “Glory be to God! If he or she doesn’t recognize the Imām and doesn’t show obstinacy or denial, how can he or she be considered an unbeliever? No, one who doesn’t know, if he doesn’t show denial, is not an unbeliever.” Thus, the three of us had three opposing beliefs.

“When the Ĥajj season came, I went for Ĥajj and went to Imām as-Ŝādiq (as). I told him of the discussion between the three of us and asked the Imam his view. The Imām replied, “I will reply to this question when the other two are also present. I and the three of you shall meet tonight in Minā near the middle Jamarah.”

“That night, the three of us went there. The Imām, leaning on a cushion, began questioning us.”

“What do you say about the servants, womenfolk, and members of your own families? Do they not bear witness to the unity of God?”

I replied, “Yes.”

“Do they not bear witness to the prophecy of the Messenger?”

“Yes.”

“Do they recognize the Imāmate and wilāyah (Divinely-appointed authority) like yourselves?”

“No.”

“So what is their position in your view?”

“My view is that whoever does not recognize the Imām is an unbeliever.”

“Glory be to God! Haven’t you seen the people of the streets and markets? Haven’t you seen the water-bearers?”

“Yes, I have seen and I see them.”

“Do they not pray? Do they not fast? Do they not perform Ĥajj? Do they not bear witness to the unity of God and the prophethood of the Messenger?”

“Yes.”

“Well, do they recognize the Imām as you do?”

“No.”

“So what is their condition?”

“My view is that whoever doesn’t recognize the Imām is a unbeliever.”

“Glory be to God! Do you not see the state of the Ka’bah and the circumambulation of these people? Don’t you see how the people of Yemen cling to the curtains of the Ka’bah?”

“Yes.”

“Don’t they profess monotheism and believe in the Messenger? Don’t they pray, fast, and perform Ĥajj?”

“Yes.”

“Well, do they recognize the Imām as you do?”

“No.”

“What is your belief about them?”

“In my view, whoever doesn’t recognize the Imām is an unbeliever.”

“Glory be to God! This belief is the belief of the Khārijites.”

At that point the Imām said, “Now, do you wish me to inform you of the truth?”

Hāshim, who in the words of the late Faydh al-Kāshānī , knew that the Imām’s view was in opposition to his own belief, said, “No.”

The Imām said, “It is very bad for you to say something of your own accord that you have not heard from us.”

Hāshim later said to the others: “I presumed that the Imām affirmed the view of Muhammad Ibn Muslim and wished to bring us to his view.”13

In al-Kāfī, after this tradition, Shaykh Kulaynī narrates the well-known tradition of the discussion of Zurārah with Imām Muhammad Ibn `Alī al-Bāqir (as) in this regard, which is a detailed discussion.

In al-Kāfī at the end of “Kitāb al-Īmān wa al-Kufr,” there is a chapter entitled, “No action causes harm with belief, and no action brings benefit with unbelief.”14

But the traditions that have come under this heading do not affirm this heading. The following tradition is among them:

Ya`qūb Ibn Shu`ayb said, I asked Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as):

    هَلْ لِأَحَدٍ عَلى مَا عَمِلَ ثَوٌابٌ عَلى اللٌّهِ مُوْجِبٌ إِلاَّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ؟ قَالَ: لاَ

“Does anyone aside from the believers have a definite reward from God?” He replied, “No.”15

The purport of this tradition is that God has given a promise of reward to none but the believers, and without doubt He will fulfil His promise. However, aside from the believers, God has not given any promise for Him to have to fulfil of necessity. And since He has not given any promise, it is up to Him Himself to reward or not to reward.

With this explanation, the Imām wishes to convey that the non-Believers are counted with the powerless and those whose affair is referred to God’s command in terms of whether God will reward them or not; it must be said that their affair is with God, for Him to reward or not to.

At the end of this chapter of al-Kāfī there are some traditions which we will mention later under the heading, “The Sins of Muslims.”

Of course, the relevant traditions are not limited to those mentioned here; there are other traditions as well. Our deduction from all of these traditions is what we have mentioned above. If someone deduces something else and doesn’t affirm our view, he or she may explain his or her view with its evidence, and perhaps we can benefit from it as well.

From the View of the Islāmic Sages

Islāmic philosophers have discussed this issue in a different way, but the conclusion they have reached in the end corresponds with what we have deduced from the verses and traditions.

Avicenna (Ibn Sīna) says: “People are divided into three groups in terms of soundness of body or physical beauty: one group is at the stage of perfection in soundness or beauty, another is at the extreme of ugliness or illness. Both of these groups are in a minority.

The group that forms the majority are the people who in the middle in terms of health and beauty; neither are they absolutely sound or healthy, nor do they, like the deformed, suffer from deformities or permanent sickness; neither are they extremely beautiful, nor ugly.”

“Similarly, from the spiritual point of view, people fall into the same categories; one group is in love with truth, and another is its stubborn enemy.

The third group consists of those in the middle; and they are the majority, who are neither in love with truth like the first group, nor its enemies like the second. These are people who have not reached the truth, but if they were shown the truth, they wouldn’t refuse to accept it.”

In other words, from the Islāmic perspective and from a jurisprudential viewpoint, they are not Muslims, but in real terms, they are Muslims. That is, they are submissive to truth and have no stubbornness toward it.

Avicenna says, after this division:

    وَاسْتَوْسَعَ رَحْمَةُ اللٌّهِ

“Believe God’s mercy to be encompassing.”16

In the discussions of good and evil of al-Asfār, Mullah Ŝadrā mentions this point as an objection: “How do you say that good overcomes evil even though, when we look at the human being, which is the noblest creation, we see that most people are caught in evil deeds in terms of their practice, and stuck in unsound beliefs and compound ignorance in terms of their beliefs?

And evil deeds and false beliefs destroy their position on the Day of Judgement, making them worthy of perdition. Thus, the final outcome of humanity, which is the best of creation, is wretchedness and misfortune.”

Mullāh Ŝadrā , in answering this objection, points to the words of Ibn Sīnā and says: “In the next life, people are the same as they are in this life in terms of their soundness and felicity.

Just as the extremely sound and exceedingly beautiful, and likewise the very ill and exceptionally ugly, are a minority in this world, while the majority is in the middle and is relatively sound, so too in the next world the perfect, who in the words of the Qur’ān are al-Sābiqūn, or “the foremost ones,” and similarly the wretched, who in the words of the Qur’ān are Aŝhāb al-Shimāl, or “the people of the left,” are few, and the majority consists of average people, whom the Qur’ān calls Aŝhāb al-Yamīn, or “the people of the right.”

After this, Mullāh Ŝadrāā says:

    فلأهل الرحمة والسلامة غلبة في النشأتين

“Thus, the people of mercy and soundness are predominant in both worlds.”

One of the latter sages, perhaps the late Āqaā Muhammad Ridhā Qumshi’ī, has some unique verses of poetry about the vastness of the Lord’s mercy. In these verses, he reflects the belief of the sages, and rather the broadness of the `Ārifs’ (mystics’) stand. He says:

    مِنْ رَحْمَة بَدَا وَ إِلَــى رَحْمَةٍ يَؤُلُ,, آن خدای دان همه مقبول و نامقبول

    این است سرعشق که حیران کند عقول, از رحمت آمدند و به رحمت روند خلق

    این شرک عارضی بوچ و عارضی یزول , خلقان همه به فطرت توحید زاده ند

    با عشق پرده در، چه کند عقل بوالفضول , گوید خرد که سر حقیقت نهفته دار

    این نقطه گه صعود نماید گهی نزول ,یک نقطه دان حکایت ما کان و ما یکون

    گر خوانیم ظلوم و گر خوانیم جهول , جز من کمر به عهد امانت نبست کس

Consider all to be Gods’, accepted and non-accepted,

From mercy it commenced and to mercy it will return.

From mercy the created ones came, and to mercy they go,

This is the secret of love, which baffles the intellect.

All of creation was born with the innateness of Divine Unity,

This polytheism is incidental, and the incidental subsides.

Says wisdom: Keep hidden the secret of truth;

What will the prying intellect do with love, which pulls aside the curtains?

Consider the story of what was and what will be to be a dot,

This dot sometimes ascends and sometimes descends.

None but I strove to keep the trusts,

Whether you call me oppressive or call me ignorant.

The discussion of the sages pertains to the minor premise of an argument, not the major premise. The sages don’t discuss what the criterion of a good deed or the criterion of a deed’s acceptance are; their discussion is about the human being, about the idea that relatively speaking, in practice, the majority of people to differing extents are good, remain good, die good, and will be resurrected good.

What the sages wish to say is that although those who are blessed to accept the religion of Islām are in a minority, the individuals who possess fiťrah (innate) Islām and will be resurrected with innate Islām are in a majority.

In the belief of the supporters of this view, what has come in the Qur’ān about the Prophets interceding for those whose religion they approve of is in reference to the innate religion, and not the acquired religion, which, through incapacity, they haven’t reached, but towards which they show no obstinacy.

Notes

1. al-Mīzān, Volume 5, Page 51

2. Refer to al-Mīzān, Volume 5, Page 56-61, “Discussion of the Traditions”

3. al-Mīzān, Volume 9, Page 406, from al-Kāfī

4. al-Mīzān, Volume 9, Page 407, from Tafsīr al-`Ayyāshī

5. al-Kāfī, Volume 2, “Kitab al-Imān wa al-Kufr,” section “A`nāf al-Nās,” Page 381 (Ākhūndī print)

6. Ibid., Page 382. The last sentence of the tradition is:

    حَقاًّ عَلـى اللٌّهِ أَنْ يُدْخِلَ الضُّلاٌّلَ الْجَنَّةَ

    translated as above. But in some texts, it is as follows:

    حَقاًّ عَلـى اللٌّهِ أَنْ لاٌ يُدْخِلَ الضُّلاٌّلَ الْجَنَّةَ

    which would mean that the Imam (as) changed his opinion and accepted the view of Zurārah. Obviously, this isn’t correct, but based on this reading another meaning is possible, which is that the Imam (as) may have intended that these people will not be punished, but they will also not go to Heaven.

7. Ibid., Page 388

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., Volume 1, Page 183

10. Ibid., Page 203

11. Ibid., Page 187

12. Ibid., Page 399

13. Ibid., Volume 2, chapter on deviation (Dhalāl), Page 401

14. Ibid., Volume 2, Page 463

15. Ibid., Volume 2, Page 464

16. al-Ishārāt, towards the end of the seventh section (nama)

Below the Zero Point

So far our discussion has been of the acceptance and non-acceptance of acts of worship and good and positive deeds of non-Muslims, and in other words the above discussion was about what is above the zero point; the discussion was whether their good deeds cause them to ascend or not.

Now let us see what is the state of what is below the zero point, that is, what happens to the sins and evil deeds of non-Muslims. Are they all alike from the aspect of our discussion, or is there a difference?

In addition, in these actions that are evil and bring a person down, is there a difference between Muslims and non-Muslims, and similarly between Shī`as and non-Shī`as? Does a Muslim, and especially a Shī`a Muslim, have a sort of protection with regard to such actions, or not?

In the preceding matter, it became clear that God only punishes people when they commit wrong deeds out of culpability (taqŝīr), that is, when they do so deliberately and with knowledge, not out of incapacity (quŝūr). Previously, we translated and explained the verse of Qur’ān from which Scholars of the principles of jurisprudence derive the rule that says “It is evil to punish one without having explained his or her duty.”

Now, to clarify the situation of non-Muslims with respect to actions that fall below the zero point and to study their punishment and retribution for the evil deeds they commit, we have no choice but to broach another issue that is touched upon in Islāmic sciences and is rooted in the Noble Qur’ān; and that is the issue of “incapacity” and “powerlessness” (isti°`āf). Here, we begin our discussion under this heading.

The Incapable and the Powerless

The scholars of Islām make use of two terms; they say that some people are “powerless” (musta°ď`afīn) or are “awaiting the command of God” (murjawn li-`amrillāh). “Powerless” refers to the unfortunate and unable; “those awaiting the command of God” denotes people whose affairs and status are to be regarded as being with God and in His hands; God Himself shall deal with them as His wisdom and mercy dictate. Both terms have been taken from the Qur’ān.

In Sūratul Nisā, verses 97- 99, we read:

    إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفٌّاهُمُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ ظٌالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قٌالُوا فِيمَ كُنتُمْ قٌالُوا كُنٌّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الأَرْضِ قٌالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللٌّهِ وٌاسِعَةً فَتُهٌاجِرُوا فِيهٌا فَأُوْلٌـئِكَ مَأْوٌاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسٌاءَتْ مَصِيرًا إِلاَّ الْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجٌالِ وَالنِّسٌاءِ وَالْوِلْدٌانِ لاٌ يَسْتَطِيعُونَ حِيلَةً وَلاٌ يَهْتَدُونَ سَبِيلاً فَأُوْلٌـئِكَ عَسَى اللٌّهُ أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُمْ وَكٌانَ اللٌّهُ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا

“And those whose souls the Angels take while they are oppressive to themselves; they say, ‘What state were you in?’ They say, ‘We were weak in the land.’ They say, ‘Was not God’s earth wide, that you may migrate in it?’ So the abode of those people is Hell, and evil an abode it is, except the powerless among the men, women, and children who neither have access to any means nor are guided to any way; so perhaps God may pardon them, and God is Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Pardoning.”

In the first verse, mention is made of the interrogation of some people by the Divine appointees (in the grave). The Angels ask them, “What state were you in, in the world?” They forward the excuse: “We were unfortunate, our means were inadequate (and we were unable change our state).” The Angels will say, “You were not powerless, since God’s earth was spacious and you could have migrated from your homeland and gone to an area where you had greater opportunity; thus you are culpable and deserving of punishment.”

In the second verse, the state of some people is mentioned who are truly powerless; whether they be men, women, or children. These are people who had no means and no way out.

In the third verse, the Qur’ān gives tidings and hope that God may show forgiveness towards the second group.

In his commentary of the Qur’ān, al-Mīzān, our most esteemed teacher, `Allāmah Ťabā’ťabā’ī , has this to say regarding these very verses: “God considers ignorance of religion and every form of preventing the establishment of the signs of religion to be oppression, and Divine forgiveness does not encompass this.

However, an exception has been made for the powerless who did not have the ability to move and change the environment. The exception has been mentioned in such a way that it is not exclusive to when powerlessness takes this form.

Just as it is possible for the source of powerlessness to be an inability to change the environment, it is possible for it to be because a person’s mind is not aware of the truth, and thus remains deprived of the truth.”1

Many traditions have been narrated in which those people who, for various reasons have remained incapable, have been counted among the “powerless.”2

In verse 106 of Sūratul Tawbah (9), God says:

    وَ ءٌاخِرُونَ مُرْجُونَ لِأَمْرِ اللٌّهِ إِمٌّا يُعَذِّبُهُمْ وَ إِمٌَا يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَ اللٌّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

“And others who are awaiting the command of God, He will either punish them or He will forgive them; and God is Knowing, Wise.”

The term murjawn li-`amrillāh (those awaiting God’s command) has been taken from this verse.

It has been narrated that Imām Muhammad Ibn `Alī al-Bāqir (as) said about this verse:

“Verily there was a people in the early era of Islām who were once polytheists and committed grave misdeeds; they killed Hamzah and Ja`far and people like them from among the Muslims. Later, they became Muslims, abandoning polytheism for monotheism, but faith did not find its way into their hearts for them to be counted among the believers and become deserving of Heaven, while at the same time they had forsaken denial and obstinacy, which was the cause of their being (deserving of) punishment. They were neither believers, nor unbelievers and deniers; these then are the murjawn li-`amrillāh, whose affair is referred to God.”3

In another tradition, it has been narrated that Ĥumrān Ibn A`yan said, “I asked Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as) about the powerless.” He replied, “They are neither of the believers nor of the unbelievers; they are the ones whose affair is referred to God’s command.”4

Though the purport of the verse regarding those whose affair is referred to God’s command is that one should say only that their affair is with God, still, from the tone of the verse regarding the powerless, a hint of Divine forgiveness and pardon can be deduced.

What is understood in total is that those people who in some way were incapable and are not blameworthy, will not be punished by God.

In al-Kāfī, there is a tradition from Hamzah Ibn Ťayyār who narrated that Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as) said:

“People are of six groups, and in the end are of three groups: the party of faith, the party of unbelief, and the party of deviation. These groups come into being from God’s promise and warning regarding Heaven and Hell. (That is, people are divided into these groups according to their standing with respect to these promises and warnings.) Those six groups are the believers, the unbelievers, the powerless, those referred to God’s command, those who confess their sin and have mixed good deeds with evil deeds, and the people of the heights (a`rāf).”5

Also in al-Kāfī, it is narrated from Zurārah that he said: “I visited Imām Muhammad Ibn `Alī al-Bāqir (as) with my brother Ĥumrān, or with my other brother Bukahīr. I said to the Imām, ‘We measure people with a measuring tape: Whoever is a Shī`a like ourselves, whether among the descendants of `Alī or otherwise, we forge a bond of friendship with him (as a Muslim and one who will achieve salvation), and whoever is opposed to our creed, we dissociate from him (as a misguided person and one who will not achieve salvation).’”

The Imām said, “Zurārah! God’s word is more truthful than yours; if what you say is correct, then what about God’s words where He says, ‘Except the powerless among the men, women, and children who find no way out nor find a path?’ What about those who are referred to God’s command? What about those regarding whom God says, ‘They mixed good deeds and other, evil deeds?’ What happened to the people of the heights? Who, then, are the ones whose hearts are to be inclined?”

Ĥammād , in his narration of this event from Zurārah , narrates that he said, “At this point the Imām and I began to argue. Both of us raised our voices, such that those outside the house heard us.”

Jamāl Ibn Darrāj narrates from Zurārah in this event that the Imām said, “Zurārah! [God has made it] incumbent upon Himself that He take the misguided (not the unbelievers and deniers) to Heaven.”6

Also in al-Kāfī it is narrated from Imām Mūsā Ibn Ja`far al-Kādhim (as) that he said: “`Alī (as) is a gate among the gates of guidance; whoever enters from this gate is a believer, and whoever exits from it is a unbeliever; and one who neither enters from it nor exits from it is among the party whose affair is referred to God.”

In this tradition, the Imām clearly mentions a party who are neither among the people of faith, submission, and salvation, nor among the people of denial and annihilation.7

Also in al-Kāfī, it is narrated from Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as):

    لَوْ أَنَّ الْعِبٌادَ إِذٌا جَهَلُوا وَقَفُوا وَلو لَمَْ يَجْحَدُوا، لَمْ يَكْفُرُوا

“If only people, when they are ignorant, pause and don’t reject, they will not be unbelievers.”8

If one ponders upon the traditions which have come down from the pure Imāms (as) and most of which have been collected in the sections “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah” and “Kitāb al-Īmān wa al-Kufr” in al-Kāfī, he or she will realize that the Imām’s (as) position was that whatever [punishment] befalls a person is because truth was presented to him or her, and he or she showed prejudice or obstinacy towards it, or at the very least was in a position where he or she should have researched and searched, but didn’t do so.

And as for people who, out of incapacity of understanding and perception, or because of other reasons, are in a position where they are not in denial or negligent in researching, they are not counted among the deniers and adversaries. They are counted among the powerless and those referred to God’s command. And it is understood from the traditions that the pure Imams (as) view many people to be of this category.

In al-Kāfī, in the section “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah,” Shaykh Kulaynī narrates several traditions to the effect that:

    كُلُّ مَنْ دٌانَ اللٌّهَ عَزَّ وَّجَلَّ بِعِبٌادَةِ يَجْهَدْ فِيهٌا نَفْسَهُ وَلاٌ إِمٌامَ لَهُ مِنَ اللٌّهِ فَسَعْيِهِ غَيْرَ مَقْبُولٍ

“Whoever obeys God with an act of worship in which he exhausts himself, but doesn’t have an Imām appointed by God, his effort is not accepted.”9

Or that:

    لاٌ يَقْبَلَ اللٌّهُ أَعْمٌالَ الْعِبٌادَ إِلاَّ بِمَعْرِفَتِهِ

“God does not accept the actions of His servants without recognition of him (the Imām).”10

At the same time, in that same “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah” of al-Kāfī it is narrated from Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as):

     مَنْ عَرَفَنٌا كٌانَ مُؤْمِناً، وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَنٌا كٌانَ كٌافِراً، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْنٌا وَلَمْ يَنْكِرْنٌا كٌانَ ضٌالاً حَتَّى رجع إِلـى الْهُدى الَّذِي افْتَرَضَ اللٌّهُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ طٌاعَتِنٌا، فَإِنْ يَمُتْ عَلى ضَلاٌلَتِهِ يَفْعَلُ اللٌّهُ مٌا يَشٌاءُ

“Whoever recognizes us is a believer, and whoever denies us is an unbeliever, and whoever neither recognizes nor denies us is misguided until he or she returns to the guidance of our obedience which God enjoined upon him or her. So if he or she dies in the state of misguidedness, God shall do what He pleases.”11

Muhammad Ibn Muslim says: “I was with Imām as-Ŝādiq (as). I was seated to his left, and Zurārah to his right. Abū Baŝir entered and asked, “What do you say about a person who has doubts about God?” The Imam replied, “He is a unbeliever.” “What do you say about a person who has doubts about the Messenger of God?” “He is an unbeliever.” At this point the Imām turned towards Zurārah and said, “Verily, such a person is a unbeliever if he or she denies and shows obstinacy.”12

Also in al-Kāfī, Kulaynī narrates that Hāshim Ibn al-Barīd (Ŝāhib al-Barīd) said: “Muhammad Ibn Muslim, Abul Khaťťāb, and I were together in one place. Abul Khaťťāb asked, “What is your belief regarding one who doesn’t know the affair of Imāmate?” I said, “In my view he or she is a unbeliever.” Abul Khaťťāb said, “As long as the evidence is not complete for him or her, he or she is not a unbeliever; if the evidence is complete and still he or she doesn’t recognize it, then he or she is a unbeliever.” Muhammad Ibn Muslim said, “Glory be to God! If he or she doesn’t recognize the Imām and doesn’t show obstinacy or denial, how can he or she be considered an unbeliever? No, one who doesn’t know, if he doesn’t show denial, is not an unbeliever.” Thus, the three of us had three opposing beliefs.

“When the Ĥajj season came, I went for Ĥajj and went to Imām as-Ŝādiq (as). I told him of the discussion between the three of us and asked the Imam his view. The Imām replied, “I will reply to this question when the other two are also present. I and the three of you shall meet tonight in Minā near the middle Jamarah.”

“That night, the three of us went there. The Imām, leaning on a cushion, began questioning us.”

“What do you say about the servants, womenfolk, and members of your own families? Do they not bear witness to the unity of God?”

I replied, “Yes.”

“Do they not bear witness to the prophecy of the Messenger?”

“Yes.”

“Do they recognize the Imāmate and wilāyah (Divinely-appointed authority) like yourselves?”

“No.”

“So what is their position in your view?”

“My view is that whoever does not recognize the Imām is an unbeliever.”

“Glory be to God! Haven’t you seen the people of the streets and markets? Haven’t you seen the water-bearers?”

“Yes, I have seen and I see them.”

“Do they not pray? Do they not fast? Do they not perform Ĥajj? Do they not bear witness to the unity of God and the prophethood of the Messenger?”

“Yes.”

“Well, do they recognize the Imām as you do?”

“No.”

“So what is their condition?”

“My view is that whoever doesn’t recognize the Imām is a unbeliever.”

“Glory be to God! Do you not see the state of the Ka’bah and the circumambulation of these people? Don’t you see how the people of Yemen cling to the curtains of the Ka’bah?”

“Yes.”

“Don’t they profess monotheism and believe in the Messenger? Don’t they pray, fast, and perform Ĥajj?”

“Yes.”

“Well, do they recognize the Imām as you do?”

“No.”

“What is your belief about them?”

“In my view, whoever doesn’t recognize the Imām is an unbeliever.”

“Glory be to God! This belief is the belief of the Khārijites.”

At that point the Imām said, “Now, do you wish me to inform you of the truth?”

Hāshim, who in the words of the late Faydh al-Kāshānī , knew that the Imām’s view was in opposition to his own belief, said, “No.”

The Imām said, “It is very bad for you to say something of your own accord that you have not heard from us.”

Hāshim later said to the others: “I presumed that the Imām affirmed the view of Muhammad Ibn Muslim and wished to bring us to his view.”13

In al-Kāfī, after this tradition, Shaykh Kulaynī narrates the well-known tradition of the discussion of Zurārah with Imām Muhammad Ibn `Alī al-Bāqir (as) in this regard, which is a detailed discussion.

In al-Kāfī at the end of “Kitāb al-Īmān wa al-Kufr,” there is a chapter entitled, “No action causes harm with belief, and no action brings benefit with unbelief.”14

But the traditions that have come under this heading do not affirm this heading. The following tradition is among them:

Ya`qūb Ibn Shu`ayb said, I asked Imām Ja`far Ibn Muhammad as-Ŝādiq (as):

    هَلْ لِأَحَدٍ عَلى مَا عَمِلَ ثَوٌابٌ عَلى اللٌّهِ مُوْجِبٌ إِلاَّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ؟ قَالَ: لاَ

“Does anyone aside from the believers have a definite reward from God?” He replied, “No.”15

The purport of this tradition is that God has given a promise of reward to none but the believers, and without doubt He will fulfil His promise. However, aside from the believers, God has not given any promise for Him to have to fulfil of necessity. And since He has not given any promise, it is up to Him Himself to reward or not to reward.

With this explanation, the Imām wishes to convey that the non-Believers are counted with the powerless and those whose affair is referred to God’s command in terms of whether God will reward them or not; it must be said that their affair is with God, for Him to reward or not to.

At the end of this chapter of al-Kāfī there are some traditions which we will mention later under the heading, “The Sins of Muslims.”

Of course, the relevant traditions are not limited to those mentioned here; there are other traditions as well. Our deduction from all of these traditions is what we have mentioned above. If someone deduces something else and doesn’t affirm our view, he or she may explain his or her view with its evidence, and perhaps we can benefit from it as well.

From the View of the Islāmic Sages

Islāmic philosophers have discussed this issue in a different way, but the conclusion they have reached in the end corresponds with what we have deduced from the verses and traditions.

Avicenna (Ibn Sīna) says: “People are divided into three groups in terms of soundness of body or physical beauty: one group is at the stage of perfection in soundness or beauty, another is at the extreme of ugliness or illness. Both of these groups are in a minority.

The group that forms the majority are the people who in the middle in terms of health and beauty; neither are they absolutely sound or healthy, nor do they, like the deformed, suffer from deformities or permanent sickness; neither are they extremely beautiful, nor ugly.”

“Similarly, from the spiritual point of view, people fall into the same categories; one group is in love with truth, and another is its stubborn enemy.

The third group consists of those in the middle; and they are the majority, who are neither in love with truth like the first group, nor its enemies like the second. These are people who have not reached the truth, but if they were shown the truth, they wouldn’t refuse to accept it.”

In other words, from the Islāmic perspective and from a jurisprudential viewpoint, they are not Muslims, but in real terms, they are Muslims. That is, they are submissive to truth and have no stubbornness toward it.

Avicenna says, after this division:

    وَاسْتَوْسَعَ رَحْمَةُ اللٌّهِ

“Believe God’s mercy to be encompassing.”16

In the discussions of good and evil of al-Asfār, Mullah Ŝadrā mentions this point as an objection: “How do you say that good overcomes evil even though, when we look at the human being, which is the noblest creation, we see that most people are caught in evil deeds in terms of their practice, and stuck in unsound beliefs and compound ignorance in terms of their beliefs?

And evil deeds and false beliefs destroy their position on the Day of Judgement, making them worthy of perdition. Thus, the final outcome of humanity, which is the best of creation, is wretchedness and misfortune.”

Mullāh Ŝadrā , in answering this objection, points to the words of Ibn Sīnā and says: “In the next life, people are the same as they are in this life in terms of their soundness and felicity.

Just as the extremely sound and exceedingly beautiful, and likewise the very ill and exceptionally ugly, are a minority in this world, while the majority is in the middle and is relatively sound, so too in the next world the perfect, who in the words of the Qur’ān are al-Sābiqūn, or “the foremost ones,” and similarly the wretched, who in the words of the Qur’ān are Aŝhāb al-Shimāl, or “the people of the left,” are few, and the majority consists of average people, whom the Qur’ān calls Aŝhāb al-Yamīn, or “the people of the right.”

After this, Mullāh Ŝadrāā says:

    فلأهل الرحمة والسلامة غلبة في النشأتين

“Thus, the people of mercy and soundness are predominant in both worlds.”

One of the latter sages, perhaps the late Āqaā Muhammad Ridhā Qumshi’ī, has some unique verses of poetry about the vastness of the Lord’s mercy. In these verses, he reflects the belief of the sages, and rather the broadness of the `Ārifs’ (mystics’) stand. He says:

    مِنْ رَحْمَة بَدَا وَ إِلَــى رَحْمَةٍ يَؤُلُ,, آن خدای دان همه مقبول و نامقبول

    این است سرعشق که حیران کند عقول, از رحمت آمدند و به رحمت روند خلق

    این شرک عارضی بوچ و عارضی یزول , خلقان همه به فطرت توحید زاده ند

    با عشق پرده در، چه کند عقل بوالفضول , گوید خرد که سر حقیقت نهفته دار

    این نقطه گه صعود نماید گهی نزول ,یک نقطه دان حکایت ما کان و ما یکون

    گر خوانیم ظلوم و گر خوانیم جهول , جز من کمر به عهد امانت نبست کس

Consider all to be Gods’, accepted and non-accepted,

From mercy it commenced and to mercy it will return.

From mercy the created ones came, and to mercy they go,

This is the secret of love, which baffles the intellect.

All of creation was born with the innateness of Divine Unity,

This polytheism is incidental, and the incidental subsides.

Says wisdom: Keep hidden the secret of truth;

What will the prying intellect do with love, which pulls aside the curtains?

Consider the story of what was and what will be to be a dot,

This dot sometimes ascends and sometimes descends.

None but I strove to keep the trusts,

Whether you call me oppressive or call me ignorant.

The discussion of the sages pertains to the minor premise of an argument, not the major premise. The sages don’t discuss what the criterion of a good deed or the criterion of a deed’s acceptance are; their discussion is about the human being, about the idea that relatively speaking, in practice, the majority of people to differing extents are good, remain good, die good, and will be resurrected good.

What the sages wish to say is that although those who are blessed to accept the religion of Islām are in a minority, the individuals who possess fiťrah (innate) Islām and will be resurrected with innate Islām are in a majority.

In the belief of the supporters of this view, what has come in the Qur’ān about the Prophets interceding for those whose religion they approve of is in reference to the innate religion, and not the acquired religion, which, through incapacity, they haven’t reached, but towards which they show no obstinacy.

Notes

1. al-Mīzān, Volume 5, Page 51

2. Refer to al-Mīzān, Volume 5, Page 56-61, “Discussion of the Traditions”

3. al-Mīzān, Volume 9, Page 406, from al-Kāfī

4. al-Mīzān, Volume 9, Page 407, from Tafsīr al-`Ayyāshī

5. al-Kāfī, Volume 2, “Kitab al-Imān wa al-Kufr,” section “A`nāf al-Nās,” Page 381 (Ākhūndī print)

6. Ibid., Page 382. The last sentence of the tradition is:

    حَقاًّ عَلـى اللٌّهِ أَنْ يُدْخِلَ الضُّلاٌّلَ الْجَنَّةَ

    translated as above. But in some texts, it is as follows:

    حَقاًّ عَلـى اللٌّهِ أَنْ لاٌ يُدْخِلَ الضُّلاٌّلَ الْجَنَّةَ

    which would mean that the Imam (as) changed his opinion and accepted the view of Zurārah. Obviously, this isn’t correct, but based on this reading another meaning is possible, which is that the Imam (as) may have intended that these people will not be punished, but they will also not go to Heaven.

7. Ibid., Page 388

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., Volume 1, Page 183

10. Ibid., Page 203

11. Ibid., Page 187

12. Ibid., Page 399

13. Ibid., Volume 2, chapter on deviation (Dhalāl), Page 401

14. Ibid., Volume 2, Page 463

15. Ibid., Volume 2, Page 464

16. al-Ishārāt, towards the end of the seventh section (nama)


7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23