Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter 5: Scholastic Study of Imamat

With a view to make clear the basis of the arguments which the Shi'ah scholars advance in support of their conception of Imamat and to show what others say in this respect, we deem it fit to reproduce with some explanatory remarks a passage written by Khwaja Nasiruddin Tusi. This passage is very precise and the Shi'ah and the Sunni scholars alike have been commenting on it since it was written.

You must have heard the name of a book, Tajrid, written by Khwaja Nasiruddin. A part of this book deals with logic and is called the logic of Tajrid. Another part of it deals with scholastic theology and discusses such questions as Monotheism, Prophethood, Imamat, the Hereafter etc. The tone of that section which discusses Monotheism is rather philosophical for in this section Khwaja Nasiruddin has followed the style of the philosophers. A commentary on both the parts of this book has been written by Allama Hilli, whose name also must be familiar to you. He was not only one of the greatest Shi'ah jurists but also one of the greatest jurists of Islam. In logic, scholastic theology, philosophy, mathematics etc, he was a pupil of Khwaja Nasiruddin. He learned jurisprudence from Muhaqqiq Hilli, the author of Sharaya, who was also one of the most distinguished Shi'ah jurists. Allama Hilli and Khwaja Nasiruddin are counted among the most talented scholars. Khwaja Nasiruddin is considered to be one of the world class mathematicians also. Recently newspapers have announced that some parts of the moon have been named after certain Iranian mathematicians, such as Umar Khayyam, Ibn Sina and Khwaja Nasiruddin, who centuries ago advanced some very sound theories about the moon. There is no doubt that Allama Hilli is a genius in his own field, that is jurisprudence. He is the author of many books, including one in two volumes named Tazkiratul Fuqaha. When one studies this book, one marvels at the mastery of its author.

Muhammad Qazwini says that when he was in Tehran he used to attend the lectures of Mirza Ashtiyani. Later when he went to Europe, and had a chance to meet several European scholars who were specialists in their subjects, he felt that Mirza Ashtiyani was a specialist in the real sense of the word.

The Tazkiratul Fuqaha is a book that deals not only with Shi'ah jurisprudence, but in regard to every rule of law it also mentions the opinion of the Sunni schools founded by the four Sunni Imams, namely Abu Hanifah, Shafi'i, Malik and Ahmad bin Hambal, as well as the verdicts of the most prominent jurists preceding the formation of these four Sunni schools. Dealing with every question, it says that Abu Hanifah says so, Shafi'i says so and we the Shi'ites hold such and such opinion. Sometimes he refutes an opinion. Sometimes, for example, he says that Shafi'i first said so and then changed his opinion and said so.

Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Qummi used to say that when it was decided to publish the Tazkirah, an expert of every Sunni school was called. These experts were astonished to find that Allama Hilli knew more than what they themselves knew about the teachings of their schools. Such an extraordinary man Allama Hilli was!

He compiled a commentary on the Tajrid. That part of it which deals with logic is known as al Jawharun Nazid. It is one of the best books on logic. The scholastic part of the book is named Kashful Murad and is now known by the name of Sharhut Tajrid. Both the parts of Allama Hilli's commentary on the Tajrid are quite brief in expression. That is why they have again been commented upon subsequently and explanatory notes written on them. Perhaps no book in the Muslim world ever attracted so much attention of the scholars as the Tajrid. This book has been refuted by some and supported by others. No other book has been furnished with so many commentaries and annotations as this book. The reason is that when Khwaja Nasiruddin wants to describe a question from the Shi'ah point of view, he touches it only briefly. In most cases he hurriedly refers to it and then passes away. In the concluding part of the book he has described the question of Imamat in a manner that has been approved by all Shi'ah scholars, and hence from his description of the question it is easy to understand how the Shi'ah scholars think about this subject.

The book which I have at my disposal at present is Mulla Ali Qushchi's commentary on the Tajrid. Mulla Ali Qushchi is an eminent Sunni scholar. Naturally he puts forward the Sunni point of view and in most cases refutes that of Khwaja Nasiruddin. Thus in this book the Sunni view has been reflected side by side with the view of Khwaja which of course is the Shi'ah view.

Definition of Imamat

The first thing to be mentioned about Imamat is its definition, about which there is no difference of opinion. It is said that Imamat is the general charge of the religious as well as the secular affairs.

Khwaja Nasiruddin uses a scholastic expression and says that the Imam is a Divine favour (Lutf). What he means is that like Prophethood the question of Imamat is also beyond human control. Hence an Imam cannot be selected by a human decision. Like a Prophet he is to be appointed by Divine ordinance. The only difference is that the Prophet has a direct contact with Allah, whereas an Imam is appointed by the Prophet on receiving Divine instructions.

Rational Argument of the Shi'ah

In this connection Khwaja Nasiruddin does not put forward more than one sentence. Anyhow the basis of the explanation given by the Shi'ah scholars is the same as mentioned by us earlier. They first advance a historical argument and say if Imam Ali's Imamat is proved, that of the other Imams' can be based on the authority of a declaration made by the preceding Imam. The Shi'ah scholars say that they know that Islam is the final religion and that it would not be followed by any other religion.

It is the most comprehensive religion and a complete code of human life. Then they put a question and ask whether the account of the Holy Prophet's life shows that he got enough opportunity to impart all the teachings of Islam to the people in general. When we study Islamic history we find that during the 23 years of his Prophethood he did not get such an opportunity. Although he did not miss any chance which he could avail of and taught

many things to the people, yet in view of his special circumstances and his preoccupations in Makkah and Medina, it is certain that a period of 23 years was not enough for him to pronounce all the laws of Islam to all the people. At the same time it was also not possible for him to give in complete information about such a perfect religion. Therefore there must be one or more persons among the companions of the Holy Prophet who might have obtained complete knowledge of Islam from him and be in a position to explain the teachings of Islam after his demise exactly in the same manner as he himself would do, with the only difference that he received Divine revelation direct, whereas they were to acquire this knowledge through him.

The Shi'ah scholars say that the Sunnis do not acknowledge the existence of any person to whom all questions regarding Islam could be referred, which means that they regarded Islam as imperfect. That is the reason why they had to resort to the theory of analogy, which they have put forward because they say that in the case of the questions which have not been provided for in the Sunnah, they have no alternative but to compare one question with another and to depend on hypothetical similarities for the purpose of deducing rules of law. The Shi'ah naturally do not share such a view. Imam Ali in Nahjul Balagha has denounced such a view and so have all other Imams.

Imam Ali says: "Has Allah revealed an incomplete religion?" (Sermon 18). Does it need private judgement to complete? All the Imams have emphatically said that there is no question of Islam being imperfect and incomplete, and therefore no rule of law can be based on a personal opinion, a private judgement or conjecture.

There is a chapter in al-Kafi which is entitled: "There is nothing Permitted or Forbidden that is not provided in the Qur'an or the Sunnah". At least the general principles covering every rule of law, have been provided. All that is to be done is to apply these principles to the particular cases. That is what is meant by ijtihad from the Shi'ah point of view. In other words, there is an adequate number of general laws in Islam, and the mujtahid (jurist) has only to provide details in their light. In contrast the theory of analogy implies that the number of the general laws is inadequate and therefore rules of law must be deduced on a hypothetical basis.

The Shi'ah scholars say that both the Shi'ah and the Sunnis admit that during the 23 years of his Prophethood the Holy Prophet could not make known to the people all the rules of Islam even in a general manner. The Sunnis say that the Holy Prophet left the matter as it was and departed this life. But the Shi'ah hold that it was not so. In order to complete his mission he selected certain persons who were inviolable and made known all the truths of Islam to the first one of them, namely Imam Ali. All these persons were fully equipped and competent to answer any question put to them. Imam Ali often said that he would answer any question put to him regarding Islam.

Imam Means An Expert in Religious Matters

Let us now explain this point in modern language. The Shi'ah scholars say that those who deny the existence of Imams with all their characteristics, in reality belittle Islam. An expert invariably accompanies a technical

equipment when it is sent somewhere. When a country like America or the Soviet Union dispatches a technical equipment like a phantom or a combat aircraft to a country the people of which are not conversant with that equipment, it always sends some experts also along with it. Of course in the case of such simple arms as the textiles experts are not required. Now what do you think about Islam which has come from Allah? Do you consider it to be a simple thing for which no experts are required or regard it as a complex equipment which when issued, is always accompanied by technical experts who train people at the receiving end till they become conversant with it.

An Imam means an expert in religious affairs - a real expert who does not make a mistake and does not fall into any error. The Holy Prophet brought Islam to the people. It was necessary that at least for some time Divine experts should be present among the people to acquaint them with it. The Holy Prophet appointed a competent person to undertake this responsibility. The Shi'ah scholars call this appointment a Divine favour, for it was beneficial for humanity. As humanity must proceed towards Allah, His benevolence requires that He should show His favour to it. Just as Prophethood is a Divine favour, similarly Imamat also is a Divine favour. This may be called a rational proof of Imamat, a cardinal principle of the Shi'ah creed.

Infallibility

Here the question of infallibility arises. The Shi'ah believe that an Imam is the custodian and protector of Islamic law. It is through him only that people can know Islam.[7] The Shi'ah believe that an Imam is as infallible as the Holy Prophet, whose infallibility is beyond all doubts. If we know for certain that the Holy Prophet has made a particular statement, we can never doubt its veracity. We can never say that the Holy Prophet has made a mistake. It is unimaginable that one sent by Allah for the guidance of the people needing guidance would ever make a mistake or commit a sin. A Prophet cannot disobey Allah knowingly and intentionally. For example, if Allah wants a Prophet to convey a certain message to the people, the Prophet cannot change it on the plea that it does not suit his personal interest. To do so would be against the very nature of Prophethood. If it is admitted that Imamat is something supplementary to Prophethood for the purpose of expounding religion, then it becomes certain that the existence of an Imam is a must, and that an Imam is infallible for the same reason for which a Prophet is infallible. If somebody says that the infallibility of an Imam is not so essential, because if an Imam makes a mistake, it is possible that some other person brings the mistakes to his notice, we would say that in that case that other person would again require somebody else to keep a watch on him, and so on. At the final end we would certainly need a protector of Islamic law who may be infallible. Further, should an Imam do something wrong, it would be the duty of others to guide him aright, while the people's duty is to follow him, not to guide him. These two things are not consistent with each other.

Divine Designation

The question of infallibility leads us to the question of Divine designation. The Shi'ah scholars say that Imamat is a favour of Allah, and as such it must exist. As this favour entails infallibility, an Imam must necessarily be infallible and for this very reason should be Divinely designated, for it is beyond the power of the people to determine who is infallible. As the people cannot choose a Prophet, they cannot choose an Imam

also. As a Prophet is appointed by Allah, similarly an Imam is also appointed by Him. The only difference is that a Prophet is recognized by means of the signs which he shows and the miracles which he works, whereas an Imam is introduced by the Prophet. That is what we meant by designation. An Imam is to be designated by the Prophet and not appointed by the choice of the people. Thus the Shi'ah scholars have advanced from the question of infallibility to that of designation. Now the fourth step is the Imamat of Ali.

Khwaja Nasiruddin says that infallibility and designation are the two characteristics which are applicable to Imam Ali only. There is no difference of opinion about the fact that the Holy Prophet did not designate any other person. It is not that we say that the Holy Prophet designated Imam Ali and others say that he designated someone else. In fact the question is whether he did or did not designate anybody. If he did, the designated person can be none but Imam Ali. All that we say is that the Holy Prophet must have designated someone to be an Imam after him, and if so, he cannot have designated anyone else, for no counter claim exists. The Sunnis deny the very designation. Even the caliphs did not claim to have been designated by the Holy Prophet. Their followers also make no such claim. Therefore this is not the point at issue.

The same is true of infallibility. Neither the caliphs claimed to be infallible, nor do their followers say that they were infallible. In contrast, the caliphs expressly confessed that they made mistakes. As we have already pointed out, according to the Sunni point of view the question of Imamat is exclusively tantamount to that of the administration of government. As such according to them the question of infallibility does not arise. The Sunnis believe that although the caliphs were not infallible and made many mistakes, they were irreproachable to the humanly possible extent and were quite fit to lead prayers. The Sunnis do not claim that the caliphs held any position higher than this. They report, as affirmed by Mulla Ali Qushchi, that Abu Bakr used to say that he had a Devil which seized him occasionally. He asked the people to guide him aright if they found him going astray. Umar on many occasions, some say on 70 occasions, admitted that he would have been ruined if there had not been Ali. It is not a disputable point between the Shi'ah and the Sunnis that he said so many a time. On numerous occasions it so happened that he issued a wrong order and Imam Ali pointed out his mistake which he admitted. As such neither the caliphs ever claimed that they were infallible, nor do others claim that they were so.

If the question of Imamat is considered from this high level, that is the level of Divine favour, infallibility and Divine ordination, nobody other than

Imam Ali can claim to be on this level. This is the scholastic form of the question, and in this case we begin from the top. We have said that as Prophethood is indispensable and at the same time a Divine favour, so should be Imamat also. Now let us see whether in actual practice also it is so, and whether the Holy Prophet has or has not designated Imam Ali. For this purpose let us look into the texts.

In this connection there is one more point worth mentioning. The question is why we should after all adopt a scholastic method and should begin from the top. Why should we not begin from the bottom, and discuss the position as it actually exists? The scholastic theologians begin from the top and then gradually come down to the position as it exists on the ground. But in this case the question arises what we have to do with such points as to whether Imamat is a Divine favour, and if so, an Imam should naturally be infallible and designated. These should actually amount to prescribing a duty for Allah. Therefore we should better go after what actually exists. If it is proved that the Holy Prophet has made a designation, that is enough for us. It is not necessary to prove rationally that Imamat is a Divine favour and that an Imam must be infallible and designated. Let us see what arguments the Shi'ah have in this connection. It may be noted in this connection that the Sunnis either do not accept that such texts exist or interpret them differently. In many cases they do not deny the reports totally, but allege that they are isolated reports, not continuous or mutawatir.

Prophetic Texts Relating to Imamat of Imam Ali

Once the Holy Prophet addressing his companions said: "Greet Ali and address him as "Commander of the Faithful". He said so on the occasion of Ghadir, but somehow or other this sentence is reported separately from the event of Ghadir. The Sunnis do not accept this report as continuous one but the Shi'ah scholars have proved that it is so. The Tajrid does not make any further comment on this tradition which it describes as reliable though disconnected in its chain of transmission. Mulla Ali Qushchi says that this tradition cannot be accepted as continuous, and that it must be an isolated one, for it has been quoted only by some, not all. The books like the 'Abaqat and al-Ghadir have concentrated their efforts on proving that all the reports relating to Imam Ali's Imamat are continuous and mutawatir. In these two books, especially in al-Ghadir the transmitters of the tradition of Ghadir in every generation till the 14th century have been enumerated. It names more than 60 companions of the Holy Prophet who have reported this tradition. It is interesting to note that all these names have been collected from the Sunni books. Similarly this book mentions the transmitters of this tradition from among the successors of the companions. All these approximately belong to the first century. Then in the same way it names the transmitters of this tradition in every generation and every century. A special feature of al-Ghadir is that it has cited literary sources also in support of this tradition. While 'Abaqat and other books have only mentioned the names of those persons who transmitted it in each age and century. The poets in every age reflect the main ideas current among the people during that age. Had it been true that the event of Ghadir was invented in the fourth century, it would not have been mentioned in the verses composed by the poets of the first, the

second and the third centuries. In every century we find that the question of Ghadir is a part of the literature of that century. Then how can we deny this tradition from historical point of view? We often go after men of letters to ascertain whether a subject existed over history. If it is found that many men of letters have referred to it in each century, it becomes certain that the idea has existed during their times. The author of the 'Abaqat has devoted a whole book to one single tradition and has critically examined all its transmitters. Seeing what a gorgeous bouquet he has arranged, one is filled with wonder.

There is another tradition which the Holy Prophet is reported to have pronounced addressing Imam Ali. He is reported to have said: "You will be the Caliph after me."

Besides these two there are several other such traditions too.

Sirah Ibn Hisham is a book written in the second century. Ibn Hisham himself probably belonged to the third century, but this book was originally written by Ibn Ishaq, who lived in the second century. It was later summarized by Ibn Hisham in whose authorship it has come down to us. This book which is considered to be reliable by the Sunnis, recounts two events which have not been mentioned by the Tajrid. Anyhow, the events are relevant and as such we reproduce them here.

The Event of the Day of Warning

One of these events relates to the Day of warning, a name taken from the Qur'anic verse revealed in the early days of Islam: "Warn your close relatives" (Surah ash-Shu'ara 26:214).

Till then the Holy Prophet had not begun to propagate Islam openly. As we know, at that time Imam Ali was still a boy, and lived in the Holy Prophet's house. That is itself an event. The Holy Prophet asked Imam Ali to arrange some food and invite the descendants of Hashim and Abdul Muttalib to it. Imam Ali prepared a meal of meat and arranged some milk as a dessert. After the guests had taken food, the Holy Prophet said: "I am a Prophet of Allah, raised by Him as such. If you accept what I say, you will be happy in this world and the Hereafter." As soon as the Holy Prophet's uncle, Abu Lahab heard these words, he was enraged, and said: "Have you invited us to tell us all this nonsense?" Abu Lahab raised so much hue and cry that the meeting ended in a fiasco.

The Holy Prophet asked Imam Ali to arrange another meeting. Imam Ali himself says that the number of the persons who attended the second meeting was more or less forty. The Prophet said to the audience: "Whosoever of you accepts my call first, he will be my legatee, vizir and successor." He made this announcement several times, but nobody responded. At last Imam Ali rose from his place and accepted the offer. The Holy Prophet said: "You will be my legatee, vizir and caliph after me."

Meeting of the Head of a Tribe With the Holy Prophet

This is another event found in the Sirah Ibn Hisham. It is still more significant. The Holy Prophet was still in Makkah. The Quraysh were not allowing him to propagate Islam. The situation was very tense. Anyhow, during the sacred months[8] the Quraysh stopped harassing the Holy Prophet or at least did not harass him to the extent of inflicting any bodily injury,

although even during these months they did not allow him to pursue any activity connected with the propagation of Islam. Anyhow the Holy Prophet always took advantage of this temporary truce. He called upon various tribes who assembled at the 'Ukaz fair and at Arafat, (The pre-Islamic Arabs also performed Hajj, although they had their own style of it.) and invited them to Islam. While the Holy Prophet went round the tribes, Abu Lahab chased him, and contradicted and belied him. The head of a tribe was very shrewd. He talked with the Holy Prophet for a little while and they said to his people: "Had this man been of my tribe, I would have devoured the Arabs with his help." What he meant was that the Holy Prophet was so multi-talented that with his help all the Arabs could be subdued. Then that man turned to the Holy Prophet and said: "I and my people are ready to have faith in you provided you give us your word to appoint me or one of my people to be your successor." The Holy Prophet said: "It is not up to me to say who would succeed me. It is with Allah." This is an event mentioned in the books of the Sunnis.

The Tradition of Ghadir and Its Continuity

Another argument of the Shi'ah is the tradition of Ghadir. Khwaja Nasiruddin says that the Tradition of Ghadir is mutawatir. Mutawatir is a technical term. A tradition may either be mutawatir (continuous) or khabar wahid (isolated). An isolated tradition does not mean that it has been reported only by one person. It is a tradition which has not been reported in a convincing way. It is immaterial whether it has been reported by one person or by ten. For example, somebody says that he has heard such and such report from the radio. You think that he is right, but you still want to see what others say. If the report is confirmed by someone else, you are a little more convinced. When you see that many others say the same thing, you become sure that there is no chance that all of them may be telling a lie. The number of the reporters of a continuous tradition must be so large that there should be no possibility of their conspiring. In the above example it is possible that ten persons conspire to say that they have heard the particular report from the radio. Even 200 persons may combine. But there are cases in which there is no such possibility. For example, you go to South Africa and find a person saying that the radio has broadcast such and such report. Then you go to East Africa and again find some persons reporting the same thing. Then you go to West Africa and the same story is repeated. In this case you cannot say that all these persons have conspired to tell a lie. This is called tawatur or continuity. The Shi'ah claim that the tradition (hadith) of Ghadir has been reported by so many people that any conspiracy is out of question. For example in the case of the tradition of Ghadir we cannot say that 40 companions of the Holy Prophet had conspired to tell a lie, especially when we see that many of them were hostile to Imam Ali, or at least were not friendly with him. Had these reporters been of the type of Salman, Abuzar and Miqdad, who dearly loved and followed Imam Ali, it would have been possible to suspect that because of their excessive attachment to Imam Ali they combined to invent a story. The people like Qushchi allege that this tradition is an isolated report, but the Shi'ah say emphatically that it is continuous. According to this tradition, the Holy Prophet addressing the

audience, said: "Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have?"[9] All said: "Yes, you have." Then he said: "This Ali is the master of him, whose master I am". The Holy Prophet wanted to affirm that Ali was as superior to others as he himself was.

There is another tradition, which is also continuous according to Khwaja Nasiruddin, but Mulla Ali Qushchi says that it is isolated, although even he does not deny its substance. Regarding this tradition also scholars like Mir Hamid Husayn, the author of the 'Abaqat and Allama Amini, the author of al-Ghadir have paid much attention. Mir Hamid Husayn has devoted one full book to it. This tradition is known as the tradition of Manzilat. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said to Imam Ali: "In relation to me you occupy the same position as Harun occupied in relation to Musa with the exception that there will be on prophet after me." The Holy Prophet said that when he was proceeding for the Tabuk operation, which was only a campaign, not a battle. It took place after the Battle of Mu'tah, which was the last battle fought by the Arabs against the Romans during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. This battle took place to the east of Medina. Istambul (Constantinople) was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Syria was also under the Romans. Brisk preparations were going on there to launch an attack against Medina. The Holy Prophet deemed it advisable to take troops up to the border of the Romans and he successfully accomplished that mission.[10]

The Holy Prophet, as the politicians put it, wanted to make a show of his power. The Muslims went up to the Roman border and then came back. In this expedition the Holy Prophet did not take Imam Ali with him. He left Ali as his successor in Medina. The Shi'ah scholars say that this action of the Holy Prophet shows that he knew that fighting was not going to take place. Naturally Imam Ali did not like the idea of being left behind. As he felt dejected, he said to the Holy Prophet: "Would you not take me with you? Do you leave me here with the women and the children?" The Holy Prophet said: "Do you not like to occupy the same position in relation to me as Harun occupied in relation to Musa, except that there would be no prophet after me?" The Holy Prophet meant to say that what ever relationship Harun bore to Musa, Imam Ali bore to him with the exception of Prophethood. Now let us refer to the Qur'an to find out what relationship existed between Harun and Musa. We find that the Quran reports that in the beginning of his mission Musa asked Allah:

"My Lord! Relieve my mind and ease my task for me; and elaborate my tongue, so that they may understand my saying. Appoint for me a Vazir from my folk, Harun, my brother. Strengthen my back with him. And let him share my task, so that we glorify you much, and much remember you." (Surah TaHa, 20:34).

The word Vazir is derived from the root, Vizr which means a burden or a responsibility. A Vazir is the person who relieves the burden of his master and shares his responsibility. Later this word, came into use in the sense of the minister of a king.

Hence, Prophet Musa asked Allah to appoint a person to help him and share his task. For this purpose he suggested the name of Harun.

At another place in the Qur'an we see that Prophet Musa says to Harun: "Harun, take my place among my people." (Surah al-A'raf, 7:142 ).

Thus we find that according to the Qur'an Harun was Musa's Vazir, his chief supporter, his partner in his task and his successor among his people. That was the relationship between Prophet Musa and Harun and the same should be the relationship between the Holy Prophet and Imam Ali. Had the Holy Prophet not said, "Except that there would be no prophet after me", We could say that the Holy Prophet had some particular likeness in mind, but when he excluded Prophethood, it became clear that this relationship existed in all other fields (of course social, not physical). It appears as if the Holy Prophet wanted to say to Imam Ali: You occupy the same position in relation to me as Harun occupied in relation to Musa in all Divinely appointed fields.

The answer which the Sunnis give to this argument is that they could accept this tradition, if it had been continuous, but it is an isolated one. But as we said earlier, the scholars like Mir Hamid Husayn have proved in their books that this tradition is continuous.

Question and Answer

Question: The impression which I have gathered from the foregoing discussion is that there exists to a certain extent a frontier between Imamat and the administration of government. You have (Ayatullah Mutahhari) said that Imamat involves certain duties and functions, and the administration of government is only one of them. I do not know what the other duties are which do not imply administration in any way. What so far we know of Islam shows that there is no frontier between this world and the Hereafter or between this worldly and the next worldly activities. The deeds relating to the Hereafter have a bearing on this worldly life and the deeds relating to this world are meant to improve and perfect social life and to help establishing a just system of government. We see that the Quran puts forward as a model the life of those whose devotional acts were directed to improving this worldly life and establishing just administration. It attaches greatest importance to Jihad. We find that all the efforts and the life style of the Imams were directed to regaining their right of rulership and administering the government. In this respect there was no difference between those who made open struggle and those who organized their campaign secretly in their prison or their hiding places. I am not aware of any duties other than the administration of government which can justify the institution of Imamat, for it is the administration of government alone which can justify all the activities relating to Imamat.

Answer: The question of frontier has been raised by you only. I never used this word and I do not think that it is proper to use it. As I have said the Shi'ah believe that the level of Imamat is higher than that of the government, which is only one of its functions., Another function which is of a higher level is the duty of an Imam to expound and explain Islam. Furthermore, an Imam is the infallible authority on religious laws. We say that one of the functions of the Holy Prophet was the administration of government. But the right to administer government was not given to him by the people. It was a right given to him by Allah, by virtue of his being superior to all other

men. In other words the Holy Prophet ruled because he was the expounder of the Divine laws and had a spiritual contact with the hidden world. I never wanted to say that there was a frontier between this world and the Hereafter, nor did I mean to set apart the functions of an Imam and a ruler. I did not say that an Imam looks after those affairs of the people which relate to the Hereafter and a ruler looks after those affairs of the people which relate to this world. If I had said so, your criticism would have been justified. The Shi'ah have a theory. If it is proved, the question of rulership, is automatically settled.

We believe that Imamat is next to Prophethood. As in the presence of a Prophet, the question of the rulership of anybody else does not arise, similarly in the presence of an Imam also this question does not arise. The question of the form of government in the modern sense arises only when we suppose that no Imam exists or when the Imam is in occultation as the position is during our times. Otherwise in the presence of an Imam of that level in which the Shi'ah believe, the position is quite clear.

Question: Which of the two reports according to Sunnis is isolated, the report relating to the Ghadir al-Khum or the report which you have quoted and according to which the Holy Prophet has said: "Greet Ali; he is your Amir"?

Answer: Perhaps even the Sunnis cannot deny the continuity of that part of the tradition of Ghadir which says: "Ali is the master of him whose master I am", although Mulla Ali Qushchi says that even this part is an isolated report.

Anyhow it has been reported by so many traditionalists that it is not possible to deny it.[11] A very large number of persons have even reported the first part of this tradition, which says: "Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have." The Shi'ah believe this part of the tradition also to be continuous. But as far as the other tradition: "Greet Ali and address him as the Commander of the Faithful" , is concerned, the Sunnis do not at all admit that it is a continuous report. Perhaps we also cannot prove that it is continuous. Anyhow that makes no difference. From our point of view the continuity of the following tradition, which is of basic importance, is obvious: The Holy Prophet said: 'Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have? The people said: "Yes, you have." Then the Holy Prophet said: "This Ali is the master of him, whose master I am. My God! be friendly to him who is friendly to Ali and be hostile to him who is hostile to Ali."

Furthermore, the Sunni scholars are not unanimous as to whether this tradition is continuous or isolated. Some say it is isolated and others admit that it is continuous, but say that it does not mean what the Shi'ah claim. The Holy Prophet has only said: "Whoever is my friend, let him be Ali's friend also." We say that it does not make sense that the Holy Prophet assembled people at Ghadir al-Khum only to ask them to make friends with Imam Ali, especially in view of the fact that he also added: "Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have." It also may be noted that the word Mawla is not used in the sense of friend.

Question: Was the verse: "This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour to you, and have chosen Islam for you as religion" revealed after the event of Ghadir al-Khum?

Answer: No, it was revealed at Ghadir al-Khum.

3. Concerning the Prophet's Other Miracles

Synopsis: Miracles established through logical proof; an examination of the documents used as evidence by those who deny those miracles; the annunciation of the prophethood of Muhammad in the Torah and the Gospel; the conversion of many Jews and Christians to Islam, which is the absolute proof that demonstrates the truthfulness of this annunciation; the Prophet's miracles, even more worthy of belief than the miracles performed by the past prophets.

No well-informed scholar will doubt that the Qur'an is the greatest miracle that the Prophet of Islam produced. This means that it is the greatest miracle worked by all the prophets and messengers. In the preceding discussion, we have mentioned some of these from the standpoint of their miraculous nature, and have clarified the superiority of the Book of God over all these miracles. However, we wish to reiterate here that the miracles of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) were not limited to the Qur'an; rather, he matched them in his ability to work miracles while, at the same time, distinguishing himself from the rest of them with the miracle of the Exalted Book. The evidence of this lies in two points.

First, [there are] the traditions reported among Muslims through uninterrupted transmission, which establish that the Prophet worked other miracles. Muslims of all doctrines and sects have compiled numerous books [on the subject] that any person interested in the subject can refer to. These reports are superior in two respects to those compiled by the people of the Book regarding their own prophets.

The first is the closeness of the period: Any report that is close to the event is easier to believe than later reports. The second is the large number of transmitters. The Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) who witnessed his miracles were far more numerous than the Jews and Christians who reported the miracles of their own prophets. The followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) during his lifetime could be counted on the fingers; therefore, the reports of his miracles must have originated with these few believers. Hence, if the reports concerning the miracles of Moses and Jesus have any claim to universal acceptance through uninterrupted transmission, so do, to a greater extent, the reports concerning the miracles of the Prophet of Islam. But, as we have just explained, the reports on the miracles of the earlier prophets are not confirmed to have been transmitted without interruption in the succeeding periods; hence, the claim is invalid.

Moreover, the Prophet of Islam confirmed many of the miracles of earlier prophets, and then claimed that he was superior to all of them, and that the line of prophets ended with him. This claim necessitates that his miracles should be more extraordinary than those that occurred before him, for it would be unreasonable for anyone to claim superiority over others while confessing that he is inferior to them in some of the attributes of perfection. Does it stand to reason for someone to claim that he is the most learned of all physicians, and, at the same time, concede that some of the other physicians are able to cure a disease that he is unable to cure? Reason rules against this. It is because of this that we see that most of the false prophets denied that miracles could occur. They repudiated all the miracles of past prophets and endeavored to explain away the verses which mention the occurrence of miracles, lest the people ask them for something similar, and their incapacity would thereby be exposed. Some ignorant persons and those who mislead simple folk have written that the verses of the Qur'an include things which deny any miracle for the great Prophet except the Qur'an. They maintain that the Qur'an is his only miracle to the exclusion of any other, and that it is the only proof of his prophethood. We shall now turn to the verses they have quoted as proof and discuss their arguments; then we shall point out their error.

One of these verses is [what] God says:

Naught hinders Us from sending signs [al-ayat] save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel - a clear portent- but they did wrong in respect to her. We send not divine signs, save to warn (Qur’an 17:59).

The above passage, they assert, shows clearly that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) did not bring any divine sign except the Qur'an. The reason for not sending other signs is that the earliest of bygone communities [to which prophets were sent] denied the divine signs that were sent to them.

The response is as follows.

The signs which the verse repudiates, and which were denied by the earlier communities, were only the divine signs that the communities demanded from their prophets. Therefore, the verse simply indicates that the Prophet did not comply with the unbelievers in producing the divine signs they specified. It does not deny that he did not perform any miracles at all. That the signs intended here are only those which were demanded is indicated by the following.

First, the word ayat is the plural of aya, meaning "a sign." The word in the [Arabic] verse is the definite plural, preceded by the definite article al- (the). There are three possible meanings of the word in its present context. One is the generic meaning that would apply to every sign. This would entail that the verse denies the occurrence of any sign that confirms a prophet's claim. The corollary is that sending a prophet is futile, for there is no benefit in sending him without a clear proof of his veracity. In other words, to impose on people the obligation to acknowledge him creates a situation whereby the people have been asked to perform a duty of which they are not capable. Another possible meaning is that the term refers to all the signs, and this is also erroneous, for the confirmation of a prophet's veracity could be achieved by any divine sign. It does not require all the signs. Besides, those who demanded the signs did not ask him to produce all of them; hence, there is no point in ascribing this meaning to the verse. Evidently, the prohibited signs mentioned in this verse are certain divine miracles that are known.

Second, if the denial expressed by the doubtful were a good reason to prevent the sending of divine signs, it would have, likewise, been a good reason to prevent the sending of the Qur'an as well, for there is no sense in excepting the Qur'an, of all di­ vine signs, from this obstruction. We have already explained that the Qur'an is the most important miracle brought by any prophet, and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) challenged all the communities with it in order to prove his prophethood as long as there remain days and nights. This also conveys to us that the prohibited signs were only a particular kind of signs, and not divine signs in general.

Third, the verse states that the reason for not sending the divine signs was that such signs were denied to the earlier communities. This amounts to explaining the absence of a thing by the presence of an obstacle. It is evident that a justification based on the existence of an obstacle is not rationally acceptable except if the cause necessitating the existence of that thing is present. An intelligent person, for example, would find it inappropriate to explain that a piece of wood is not damp, when the fact is that there is no fire around it to make it bum. This is self evident, and is not open to doubt. Therefore, to justify the absence of divine signs on the ground of the denials, it would be imperative that something existed that required sending them. The thing which required sending them could have been the divine wisdom of guiding human beings and leading them toward their happiness. In this case, the people's request for signs from the Prophet must have exceeded the number required to provide the proof [of his claim to divine office]. However, if divine wisdom were the thing that required sending signs, then they would have inevitably been sent. This is because nothing can prevent divine wisdom from effecting what it wants, because it is unthinkable that the All-Wise would choose to do something that would contradict His wisdom, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of denial. Besides, if the denials of past communities were admissible as an obstacle preventing divine wisdom from sending the signs, they would have also been admissible as obstacles to sending the Prophet. This and its opposite premises are necessarily false, and a contradiction of what is obligatory. Hence, it remains that the thing requiring the signs to be sent is the demand of the people. Those who demand divine signs inevitably require things that exceed the [number of] signs necessary for establishing the proof. This is to say that it is incumbent on God to send whatever signs are necessary to establish the proof, but any signs in excess of those must not be sent by God, neither of His own accord nor in compliance with the demand of the doubters. It is true, however, that it would not be impossible for Him to do that if circumstances deemed it necessary to establish the proof a second or a third time, or if it were necessary to respond to what the people demanded.

Accordingly, the demand for signs must have been made by some people after the proof had been established for them with the necessary signs, and after they had denied them. Moreover, denials by past communities were the reasons for not sending the signs demanded by those communities, because a further denial of the demanded signs would have made it necessary to send down punishment on those who deny. [But God could not do this], for He had guaranteed, as a favor for His Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), and out of respect for his status, to remove worldly punishment from those communities. Thus, God, the Exalted, says, "But God would not punish them while you were with them" (Qur’an 8:33).

That the denial of the demanded divine signs necessitates the punishment of those who deny it is because of the following: The initial signs are solely for the purpose of proving the prophethood of the prophet, and as such, denying them would not lead to more than the eternal punishment due them for denying the prophet. But signs demanded by the people reflect the disputatiousness and obduracy of those who demand them. This is because if they were after the truth, they would have believed the first sign, for it is sufficient proof. Moreover, their demand signifies that they committed themselves to believing in the prophet if the latter were to respond to the demand. Thus, if they were to deny the demanded miracle, they would have mocked the prophet and the truth toward which he had called them, as well as the signs that they had demanded. It is for this reason that God calls these types of signs "the signs of warning," as He does at the end of the verse under discussion. Otherwise, there is no sense in including all divine signs in the category of warning signs when some of them are mercy for mankind, and guidance and a light for their path.

One of the things that indicate to us that the prohibited signs are the signs of warning is the context of this verse and its narrative. In the preceding verse, God, the Exalted, says:

There is not a township [i.e., a community] that We shall not destroy before the Day of Resurrection, or punish with dire punishment. That is set forth in the Book [of Our decrees] (Qur’an 17:58).

The verse also mentions that the divine sign [the she-camel] is in connection with the Thamud, following which a punishment was inflicted upon them. Their story is mentioned in sura 26, entitled "al-Shu'ara"' (The Poets). However, this verse ends with God's reminder: "We send not the signs save to warn."

All these contextual factors demonstrate that the signs which were withheld were those which had been demanded, and which would have entailed the descent of divine retribution. If we examine the Qur'an sufficiently, it will become so evident to us as to admit no doubt, that the unbelievers of Mecca at times asked for divine retribution to be sent down on them, and on others. They asked for signs which had brought down divine punishment on past communities for demanding, then denying, them. The first type [of signs] includes [the following]:

And when they said, "O God! If this be indeed the truth from You, then rain down stones on us or bring on us some painful doom!" But God would not punish them while you [O, Muhammad] were with them, nor will He punish them while they seek forgiveness (Qur’an 8:32-33). Say, "Have you thought, when this doom comes to you as a raid by night, or in the [busy] day, What is there of it that the guilty ones desire to hasten?" (Qur’an 10:50). And if We delay for them the doom until a reckoned time, they will surely say, "What withholds it?" (Qur’an 11:8). They bid you hasten the doom [of God]. And if a term had not been appointed, the doom would assuredly have come to them [before now]. And verily it will come upon them suddenly when they perceive not (Qur’an 29:53).

As for the other type, it includes [the following]:

And when a sign comes to them, they say, "We will not believe till we are given that which God's messengers are given." God knows best with whom to place His message. Humiliation from God and heavy punishment will smite the guilty for their scheming (Qur’an 6:21). But when there came to them the Truth from Our presence, they said, "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses of old? They say, "Two magics [the Torah and the Qur'an] that support each other"; and they say, "Lo! In both we are disbelievers" (Qur’an 28:48).

What indicates to us that it was their rejection of demanded divine signs, like those which had earned, for earlier communities, God's retribution, is [the following]:

Those before them plotted, so God struck at the foundations of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them from above them, and the doom came on them whence they knew not (Qur’an 16:26). Those before them denied, and so the doom came on them whence they knew not (Qur’an 39:25).

Those are only a few examples of the numerous indications in the Qur'an concerning what we have said. Moreover, the exegesis of the verse under consideration [17:59], both by Shi’ite and Sunni commentators, supports what we have construed from its apparent sense. In this regard, the following tradition is related on the authority of the Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him):

Some people asked Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) to produce a sign. Gabriel came down and said: "Verily, God says, 'Nothing hinders Us from sending signs save that the folk of old denied them' [Qur’an 17:59]. And if We were to send to the Quraysh a sign and they were not to believe in it, then We would have destroyed them. It is for this reason that We have delayed sending signs to your people."1

Another tradition is reported on the authority of lbn 'Abbas, who said:

The people of Mecca asked the Prophet to change [Mount] Safa into gold, and to move away the hills for them so that they could cultivate the land. Thus, he was told [through revelation]: "If you so desire, We shall give them respite for a time [and] perhaps some of them will choose [to believe]; and if you so desire, We shall give them what they want, but if they were to disbelieve, they shall be doomed as were those before them." The Prophet said, "Rather give them time." Thus God, the Exalted, revealed, "Nothing hinders Us from sending signs save that the folk of old denied them . ." [Qur’an 17:59].2

There are other traditions on this subject that can be referred to in the books of traditions and in the exegesis of Tabari.

Other verses that have been used to deny the Prophet any other miracle besides the Qur'an include [the following]:

And they say: "We will not put faith in you till you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us; or you have a garden of date-palms and grapes and cause rivers to gush forth therein abundantly; or you cause the heaven to fall upon us piecemeal, as you have pretended, or bring God and angels as a warrant; or you have a house of gold; or you ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in your ascension till you bring down for us a letter that we can read." Say [O, Muhammad]: "Glorified is my Lord! Am I naught save mortal messenger?" (Qur’an 17:90-93)

The conclusion which the opponents [of our view] have drawn from these verses is that the unbelievers asked the Prophet to work a miracle which would testify to the truthfulness of his prophethood; but he refused, and admitted his inability, claiming for himself only that he was a mortal sent to them as a messenger. Hence, the verses indicate that the working of miracles was denied him.

The response is as follows:

First, we have already explained to the reader, in our response to the preceding arguments, the circumstances of the demanded signs. The miracles that the unbelievers asked the Prophet to perform were undoubtedly demanded signs, and the unbelievers were predisposed to be obstinate in denying the truth. This is indicated by two things:

l. They had made their acceptance of the Prophet's call conditional upon one of those things that they were demanding. Had they not been obstinate in denying the truth, they would have been satisfied with any divine sign that proved his truthfulness. There was no other reason for them to demand these things specifically to the exclusion of other divine signs.

2. Regarding their saying, "Or you ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in your ascension till you bring down for us a letter that we can read," what is the point of the stipulation to bring down a letter? Is not ascending to heaven a sufficient sign in itself of his veracity? Or is there not in these vain desires clear evidence of their obstinacy against the truth?

Second, some of the things demanded by the unbelievers in the verses above were impossible [demands] and others were no proof of the truthfulness of a claim to prophethood. Even if it were incumbent on the Prophet (peace be upon him) to acquiesce in their demands, these would not have been the kinds of miracles for him to perform.

To make this clear, there were six things that the Meccan unbelievers demanded from the Prophet in these verses; three of them were impossible, and three, though not impossible, had no connection with establishing the truthfulness of a claim to prophethood.

The first of the three inconceivable things was causing heaven to fall upon them piecemeal. This would entail the destruction of the Earth and the death of its inhabitants. Such a thing would occur only at the end of time. The Prophet had informed them about this, as is evident from their saying, "As you have asserted." The falling of heaven on the Earth is mentioned in several places in the Qur'an, as in God's saying:

When the heaven is split asunder (Qur’an 84: 1); when the heaven is cleft asunder (Qur’an 82: 1). If We will, We can make the earth swallow them or cause obliteration from the sky to fall on them (Qur’an 34:9).

What makes this inconceivable is that its occurrence before its appointed time is incompatible with the survival of mankind and the guidance toward their perfection that wisdom has determined. It is impossible for the All-Wise to act in a way that is incompatible with His wisdom.

The second inconceivable thing demanded by the disbelievers was that the Prophet should bring God so that they meet Him and see Him. This is indeed impossible, for God cannot be seen with the eyes; otherwise, He would be limited in certain ways, and He would have color and countenance, and all this is inconceivable for God. The third inconceivable thing was to bring down a letter from God. What made this impossible was that they wanted a letter sent down that was handwritten by God, and not one that could be created and brought into being. This may be inferred from the fact that if they had meant a letter sent down through any means possible, there was no reasonable ground for demanding that it should come from heaven. An earthly letter would have served the purpose just as well as a heavenly one. There is no doubt that what they demanded was impossible because it would have required that God should possess a body with limbs. Exalted is God from all this, Sublime and Supreme.

The other three things, although possible, had no bearing on the truthfulness of the claim to be a prophet. This is because causing a spring to gush forth from the Earth, or owning a garden of date-palms and grapes and abundant rivers, or owning a house of gold-these things have no connection with the claim to be a prophet. Many people have one of them, yet they are not prophets. Indeed, some people have all three of them, yet they are not necessarily believers, let alone prophets. Since these things have no bearing on the claim of prophethood, and do not prove its veracity, producing them in the context of proving this veracity would be a futile act that a wise prophet would not perform.

Some individuals may delude themselves into believing that these three things do not prove the veracity of a prophet only when they are realized through conventional and familiar means. But if they are realized through extraordinary means, then there would be no doubt that they are divine signs, which confirm the truthfulness of a prophethood.

The response to this is as follows. In itself, this is correct. But the unbelievers wanted these things even through the conventional means, for they found it inconceivable that a divine messenger should be poor and without possessions:

And they say, "If only this Qur'an had been revealed to some great man of the two towns [Mecca and Ta'if] (Qur’an 43:31).

Consequently, they asked that the Prophet be a wealthy person. What indicates this is that they qualified their demand by asking that the garden and the house of gold should belong exclusively to the Prophet. Had they truly wanted these things to serve as miracles, then there would have been no valid reason for this condition; rather, there was no reason for them to demand the garden and the house, for it would have been sufficient to produce a single grape or a little bit of gold.

As for the unbelievers saying, "Till you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us," there is no evidence in it that they were asking for the spring for them, and not for the Prophet, but simply that they were asking him to make it gush forth for their sake. The difference between the two senses is clear. Moreover, the Prophet did not admit to them his inability to perform the miracle, as those [who subscribe to the view under discussion] have imagined erroneously. Rather, what he made clear to them by saying, "Glorified is my Lord" is that God is above any incapacity; that He is capable of anything possible; that He is above being seen or encountered; that

He is above being commanded to do something that the unbelievers demanded; and that the Prophet was a human being commanded by God, the Exalted, to whom alone belong all the commands-and He does what He wishes and commands what He wills.

Another verse employed by those who deny that the Prophet performed any miracle other than the Qur'an is God's saying:

And they will say, "If only a sign were sent down upon him from his Lord!" Then say [O Muhammad]: "The unseen belongs to God. So wait! Lo, I am waiting with you" (Qur’an 10:20).

What they deduced from the verse is that the unbelievers demanded a divine sign from the Prophet, and that he did not mention any miracles of his. Instead, he replied to them that the unseen belongs to God. This proves that he did not have any miracle except what he had brought in the Qur'an.

A number of other verses are close to this in meaning. They include God's saying:

Those who disbelieve say, "If only some sign were sent down upon him from His Lord!" You are a warner only, and for every community a guide (Qur’an 13:7). They say, "Why has no sign been sent down upon him from His Lord?" Say, "Lo! God is able to send down a sign." But most of them know not (Qur’an 6:37).

The response to this is as follows.

First, as we said above, these unbelievers and others like them were not asking the Prophet to produce divine signs that would establish his truthfulness. They, rather, asked him to produce special signs. This is clarified in many places of the Qur'an. Thus, for instance, God, the Exalted, says:

They say, "Why has not an angel been sent down to them?" (Qur’an 6:8). And they say: "O you to whom the Reminder is revealed; lo! you are indeed a madman! Why bring you not angels to us, if you are of the truthful?" (Qur’an 15:6-7); And they say: "What ails this messenger [of God] that he eats food and walks in the markets? Why is not an angel sent down to him, to be a warner with him, or [why is not] a treasure thrown down unto him, or why has he not a paradise from whence to eat?" And the evildoers say, "You are but following a man bewitched" (Qur’an 25:7-8).

We already noted that signs should not be produced on demand. Moreover, the unbelievers wanted only the signs they were demanding. What indicates this to us is the fact that, had they wanted the Prophet to produce just any sign that proved his veracity, he would have certainly responded by pointing to the Qur'an, by which he indeed challenged them in many of its passages. What is, in reality, clear from the verses used as evidence by the opponents [of miracles other than the Qur'an], and from similar other verses, are the following two points:

1. The challenge of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) to all people was made specifically with the Qur'an [and not with any] of his other miracles. This had to be so, as we explained above, because the everlasting prophethood requires the eternal miracle, and this can only be the Qur'an, for none of his other miracles could be expected to possess continuity.

2. The working of miracles was not the Prophet's own choice. He was only a messenger, subject in this matter to the permission of God, the Exalted. Accordingly, the demand of the disbelievers had no role in this matter. This applies to other prophets as well. The following revelations by God, the Exalted, point to this fact:

It was not [given] to any messenger that he should bring a sign, save by God's leave. For everything, there is a time prescribed (Qur’an 13:38). And it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a sign, save by God's leave, but when God's commandment comes [the cause] is judged aright, and the followers of vanity will then be lost (Qur’an 40:78).

Second, the Qur'an also contains verses which indicate that miracles issued from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Among these are God's saying:

The hour drew nigh and the moon was split in twain. And if they behold a sign (aya), they turn away and say, "Prolonged illusion" (Qur’an 54: 1-2). And when a sign (aya) comes to them, they say, "We will not believe till we are given that which God's messengers are given" (Qur’an 6: 124).

Several things indicate to us that aya here means a miraculous sign [rather than a Qur'anic verse].3 The [first verse] speaks of seeing the aya. Had the reference been to the verses of the Qur'an, the correct expression would have been "hearing" it. "Seeing" the aya is, moreover, conjoined with the splitting of the moon. Finally, [the second verse] ascribes to the aya the act of "coming" to them, rather than of "descending," or any of the other expressions [used from the Qur'anic revelation]. In fact, their words "prolonged illusion" are evidence of miracles repeatedly performed by the Prophet. Consequently, if we were to concede that the previous verses deny his performance of miracles, then the denial applies only to the time when these verses were revealed. It cannot possibly apply to any subsequent period.

The summary of what has been said above is as follows:

1. There is no evidence, in any of the verses of the Qur'an, that would deny the occurrence of other miracles besides the Qur'an. On the contrary, a number of verses contain evidence that proves the occurrence of other miracles, which the opponents [of this view] allege to have been denied by the Qur'an.

2. Producing a miracle was not something which the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) could decide of his own free will. It was in the hands of God, the Glorified.

3. When a claim to prophethood is made, what is needed is a miracle which proves the claim and on which its verification depends. Any miracle which exceeds this purpose is not incumbent upon God to manifest, nor should the Prophet respond if one were demanded.

4. Any miracle which entails doom and torment for the community is forbidden for that community. It must not be performed in response to a demand from the community, regardless of whether that was [made] by all or some of its members.

5. The lasting miracle of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), by which he challenged all the communities until the Day of Resurrection, is the revealed Book of God. As for his other miracles, they are not lasting, no matter how numerous they were. In this respect they share the characteristics of miracles [performed] by the earlier prophets.

The Annunciation of Muhammad's Prophethood in the Torah and the Gospel

The Qur'an states in a number of its verses that Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) announced the good tidings of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) and that this annunciation was mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. God, the Exalted, says in regard to this:

I shall prescribe it [my mercy] for those who follow the Messenger, the u nlettered Prophet, whom they will find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, enjoining on them that which is right and forbidding them that which is wrong (Qur’an 7: 157). And . Jesus, son of Mary, said, "O, Children of Israel, lo! I am the messenger of God to you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who comes after me, whose name is Ahmad"4 (Qur’an 61:6).

Hence, many Jews and Christians, during and after Muhammad's lifetime, believed in his prophethood. This is conclusive evidence that this annunciation still existed in the texts of the two ancient scriptures at the time of his message. Had they not been there, the Jews and Christians would have possessed sufficient proof to deny the Qur'an's claim and to reject the Prophet's call, and they would have rejected him vehemently. The fact that so many of them embraced Islam and believed the Prophet's call, during and after his time, is indisputable evidence that the text of the annunciation was still preserved at that time. Accordingly, faith in Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) necessitated faith in Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny), without requiring any miracle to establish his veracity.

However, a miracle was necessary [to establish his veracity] for other communities that did not believe in Moses and Jesus and their revelations. It has been established earlier that the Noble Qur'an is the lasting miracle and the divine proof of the truthfulness of the Prophet and the veracity of his mission. Moreover, his numerous other miracles, which have been related by uninterrupted transmission, are more worthy of belief than the miracles performed by the other prophets who preceded him.

Notes

1. Hashim b. Sulayman al-Bahrani, Kitab al-Burhanfi Tafsir al-Qur'an, ed. Mahmud b.Ja'far al-Musawi al-Zarandi, 4 vols. (Tehran: Chapkhane Aftab, n.d.) vol. 2, p. 424.

2. Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 15, p. 74

3. The word aya serves both meanings.-Trans.

4. Ahmad (the Most Praised One) is an alternative name for the Prophet Muhammad.­Trans.