49. EVIDENCE OF REASON:
The writer says that the resort to reason is due to the lack of tradition or a fraud in tradition. Well, then what is the way to reach the truth if reason is rejected? What is heard might be wrong; what is said might be commentitious; what is told could be deceptive; well, then to what alternative should one resort to as a dernier one? In every dispute, reason has often stood powerful and strong. But on what reason the writer is not willing to entertain a reason is astonishing enough.
In any case, supposing there is any deviation in a tradition this would not amount to say that every tradition is invalid. What is false would not be so impetus as to nullify the fact. If in a bundle one thing happens to be short, it would not mean that the whole bundle is missing. Likewise, if an argument lames it can not be said that reason can not pace. In a human life hearing or oral evidences have a great influence? It is from this hearing that one garners knowledge, collects acquaintance with sciences, treasures information and holds it as a rod for aid. It is an irrefragable fact that in every age the market of false and fraud has had been flourishing, very much profitable, very much prolific. Still no one has denied the value of oral communications. A general consensus has approved oral evidences and oral proofs. This too can not be denied that every thing does not undergo the load of reason as, it is only accustomed to the yoke of proof that should be audible.
Besides, things pertaining belief or a faith like the prophet hood of the prophets, and the Imamate of the Imams, or the Day of Judgment, or the Next world one should create certitude in them. Else any proof, any evidence, any testimony would not help because it is not in their range to create a belief. If a narrator has narrated and the source of his story is only one it should be attested by the standard of that only source and should be an argumentally established one. Else, such narration can not be trusted.
After this prelude we go back again to the issue of OHEEBAT (absence) of the Imam and his Imam hood. To trust we need the source of the stories or the narration that surround this subject to be trustworthy and reliable. Who can be more so than the very person of the Prophet himself? If what we hear does not convince us we revert to reason. What is wrong in it?
If he says all the news and the hidings and the narration are fabricated ones, deprived of reality and brefet of truth, from the side of Bani Ommiya and Bani Abbas, that is, by their courts and courtiers, to obnubilate the real status of the Imams and to solidate their own stations, that is, to propagate after than realities and spread a mist so that the mentalities could not visualize farther it could serve a fortress to them necessary for their safety. No one denies this. Yes, it was so; and, indeed, such they worked. But to what end? All such fabricated stories, false narration, fake sayings, flame words, and feigned traditions are distinguished. Therefore, they are sifted from the real and authentic ones, as grains from dust. Besides, the narrators too who were hired for this mission are pretty much discredited into their biographies and they are no more credible in the science of HADITH (tradition). They are discarded. When distinction is drawn between the truth and the false it is not a problem to ascertain the correct one from the wrong. The credibility of the traditions that pertain the Imamat established. This subject is a vast one, which opens wider avenues of discussion before us. The enemy of the Shia has in every age taken stand against them. The writer says that the narration and traditions are all false and fabricated ones. If so, why the enemy at every time and in every era of a caliph whether he be from BANI OMM’YA or he be from BANI ABBAS? Why were the people restricted from telling and hearing the traditions (that is the Prophet’s words) that mirrored the real station of the Imams and reflected their tributes? They are lies. Why care? Why be afraid of lies? A lie lives shorter than truth. A lie is always lame. A lie can not form a dread. The BANI OMM’YAS and BANI ABBAS even imprisoned those who only narrated what they had heard from the Prophet (SAW) about any of the twelve Imams. They confiscated the belongings of those persons. We just ask WHY? The writer is claiming that the traditions were a fraud. Volumes are written about the atrocities of the caliphs because of the traditions which the scholars spoken or wrote and the poets sang all in the praise of the Prophet’s Household - the Imams. Even the Sunni authorities, like BUKHARI has written in his book SAHEEH about Imam Sadiq (AS), he first curses them who had restricted the narration of such traditions. He says: “God curse them for turning down the truth.” Abu Hanifa, a student of Imam Sadiq (AS) too admits the greatness of the truth surrounding the Prophet’s Household, the AHLUL BAIT. But all this is a lie to the writer. We leave him to BUKHARI.
50. REALITY OF REASON OR AUDIENCE:
Reality of reason, as the writer says, is it preferable over the reality of hearing? This is a question well drawn and it can be well answered. The subject of IMAMAT is like that of prophet hood and the conditions surrounding a prophet. To prove a general Imam hood, that is, the need for an Imam and the conditions of Imam; reason is enough to prove it. Had the issue of IMAMAT been one of those that remained out of the premises conception and reason, not independent enough to have say in it, the hearing of the proof would suffice like that of the Prophet’s (SAW) teachings. What the Prophet (SAW) has advocated or instructed is in itself a ground for the reason to be taken in account. The condition that an Imam should have immunity from any wrong doings, that is, ESMAT, and for his appointment people have no part; it is reasonable. On the other hand, what is heard form the Prophet (SAW) in this regard is also a proof- a ground to establish the truth. What the Prophet (SAW) said and what we heard from him is alike with reason sufficient to establish the truth.
Reason can not accept what one accepts by hearing. For some items only hearing of the proof is essential. For example, the existence of an Imam, the benefits, the blessings that ensue there from can not be proved by reason; they can be established only by audible evidence. This is also applied to the prophet hood.
With regards to a particular Imam, the previous one introduces the coming one, that is his successor - exactly the same as the prophets did. Jesus (AS) foretold the prophet hood of Mohammed (SAW). The predecessor informs the people as to whom his successor is. The testament of one prophet or imam to the prophet-hood or the Imam hood of the coming one is a proof to establish the truth of that prophet or the Imam. To explain here we should say that a miracle is a proof for the prophet. Almost all the prophets were blest with this power to perform miracles by the Greatness of God. The first Prophet can not establish the truth unless he should show or comply with the demands to show a miracle. God has sent His Prophet with the power to perform miracles because a miracle can not be denied, and it establishes the truth of his being a prophet. A miracle is a proof that of reason and that of hearing. The miracle can be seen by those who are there and can not be witnessed by those who are somewhere else. Here to them only the narration, the hearing is proof authentic enough to establish the truth. The Quran is the only miracle, which does not demand any hearing proof because of its eternality. It is the perfection of Islam and its rules and its morals.
The Imamat of the first Imam. A text that of Divine establishes its truth. It is the Prophet (SAW) who should establish the Imamate of the Imam he is appointing. The Prophet’s word here is authority because h is God’s command through the Prophet’s word.
Imam too performs miracle. The proof of Imamate is his miracle or the Prophet’s appointment or word. Since the Imam is appointed by the Prophet (SAW) by the command of God is the proof of his truth.
In other words it is upon the Prophet (SAW) to establish the Imamate whom he has introduced under God’s order. Supposingly the proofs, which are forwarded by the Prophet, were not available to us or they become doubtful or various interpretations had made it dubious, then the one man to turn to would have been Ali Bin Abi Taleb. As there being no one other than him referred to or mentioned by the Prophet. Since the man in guardian is one, the benefit of doubt can not be availed by any one else. It was one man, as told by the Prophet (SAW), instructed and specified by him. Here the truth goes to the favor of Ali Bin Abi Taleb because there was no one second to him.
An Imam appointed by God through His Prophet is infallible and immune from sin. He should act as a leader, guide, and guardian of the people in all their religious, social, political and social spheres. Ali Bin Abi Taleb was a Divine Imam immune from sin, infallible and impeccable. There was other than himself that such a claim was made.
As for the twelfth Imam, the earth should have God’s representative, ‘HUJJAT’, that is, the Authority, the witness. In no age can the earth remain without one. The claim of Imamate is made to him alone. So he stands as the Imam whether present or absent. The others who made the claim proved themselves liars. In the denial of Imamate we deny justice to God. It is the demand of justice, as reason dictates that God should keep His Authority in the world. If evil grows and is not checked then it could be attributed to God and that is absolutely unreasonable.
51. STANDARD OF MERCY “LOTF”
The writer has discussed in length this subject. The main theme is the dispute which has argued both Asha’ira and Motazila, what it goes to good and evil and which rejects one (Asha’ira) and confirms the other who is Motizala.
We have repeatedly said that Shiasm is an independent school, its originality is that of Islam, it is not influenced by any extraneous thoughts or any exotic ideas, it is strictly in line coherent, congruous, and concurring with the teachings of the Impeccable and Infallible Imams. In logical issues, arguments have included the standard of LOTF (MERCY OR GRACE). The Shia has followed and benefited from the Holy Quran. The gist of belief, the theme of faith, the kernel of trust lies with the holy persons of the Imams in the Shia school of thought. This is very close to reason that the ITEZAL sect might have extracted many things from Shiasm, and depended on Shia thought. Their leaders could have been the pupils of our Imams.
‘LOTF’, or GRACE with the GHEEBAT (absence) of the twelfth Imam is mostly rejected by the Sunnis. The writer has reiterated the reply from the Shia sources. We suffice on that.
The occultation of the twelfth Imam is a thing in itself an independent subject, already foretold by the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself. Ah Bin Abi Taleb too has referred to it. Shia and Sunni traditionists have both mentioned it. Jaber too has said that the absence of the twelfth Imam is a grace (LOTF). The Prophet (SAW) said: “By him who has sent me with the Message, they will be illuminated by his light, and they will benefit from his guardianship, as people benefit from the sun from behind the clouds.”
To deny every ‘LOTF’ (Grace or mercy) of the existence of the absent Imam, and to deny its influence, that is, the graceful or merciful one, in the era of his absence (GHEEBAT) does not fall in line with reason. The grace, mercy or the ‘LOYF’ exists, as it is contemporary with the existence of the Imam whether he be present or absent from touch or sight. If not so, then for humans what is the usefulness of him - a Divine choice - obliged by Divine will to remain in hiding. God does not do a thing, which is vain and void of sense, or short of benefit, or lame in advantage. Whatever proceeds from the wish or will of God bears fruit to mankind. Fecundity is His intention; prolific to His design; grace and mercy his degree; and LOTF His Imam the hidden Imam is an absolute personification of His mercy. It is through ‘LOTF’ that the Imam should be appointed by God and designated through the Prophet (SAW). Imam is in GHEEBAT, that is, he is absent; but the mercy is current - the snows of the Himalayas are far from sight, but the Ganges flows down to the Bay of Bengal. In Bengal, the Himalaya peaks are not visible nor are they in other regions; but the Ganges flows, irrigating vast patches of land throughout the Northern Belt to the East. Since we do not see the snows of the Himalayas should we deny the existence of the Ganges river as well? If it is not a mercy, then Mahdi is not an Imam. It is his Imamate that makes him graceful to man. It is the scent of a flower that gives it worth. Flowers made of paper could be more elegant; but they have no grace of odor and no LOTF of fragrance. Tosi says: “The Imam’s existence is LOTF, his action LOTF.” Ali Bin Abi Taleb says: “Else, the proofs of God will be void and vain will be His signs.” An Imam whether present or absent is a ‘grace’, a ‘mercy’, a ‘LOTF’ of God because he is His sign, guardian of His religion, holds His office and was chosen by Rim. The Imam who can carry out or execute the office of Imam hood also imparts the GRACE of God. To deny him the GRACE is to deny him the Imamate. It is not possible that, a Prophet can not guide or influence the people. The mercy of his prophet hood can not be denied, because of its essentiality with prophet hood, and its being in consistence with the office of prophet hood. To appoint an Imam is God’s mercy, and mercy from God is His obligation towards His servants and creatures.
God has appointed the son of Imam Hasan Askari as the Imam. If we deny it, it tantamount to say that God has abstained from bestowing mercy upon us in the period of GHEEBAT. To say so is to deny God. It is by His Mercy that we have an Imam. His GHEEBAT (absence) does not reject the reality whatever hails from God - is LOTF; the 12th Imam is LOTF and his GHEEBAT is LOTF because it is God’s order.
52. ISMAT (INFALLIBILITY) of 12TH IMAM:
The writer has claimed that due to his research, he has come to the following conclusions; that the theory of “Esmat” or immunity from sin has come about and even grown deeper as time has passed, because of the distance between the people and the Imams. He uses IBN BABWAY and Mofeed as his witnesses.
A belief remains stable throughout the passage of time. Everything else along with time diminishes changes and even vanishes. A true religion does not undergo this element. A true religion remains original. The present day belief of the Shia is consistent with the past. The flow of ages has not decreased nor increased it. That the Shia in the earlier ages did not believe in the ‘ESMAT’; is a statement groundless and unfounded. As they grew distant from the Imams they believed in their ‘ESMAT’. In the words, the factor of this belief is the distance. This way of thinking is utterly ignorant. The Shias have always held the same belief. He has preserved what the school of Imamate or in particular, the school of Imam Jafer Sadiq (AS) has given to him. His belongings are of a known origin and of a trustworthy brand. Likewise the belief of Shaikh Mofeed was not a new one. The narration, traditions, and interpretations of the Quranic verses have been used as his base. What SADOOQ says in ‘AYUN’, is not of his invention. What a Moslem knows generally, he has collected in ‘AYUN’ We do not see a thing of non-existence changing its guise to something of existence. What Shiasm has said is only the echo of what the Prophet (SAW) had uttered or the Imams had told. The issue of ESMAT. The immunity from sin, is no exception to this rule. Sadooq has repudiated the idea. But from his tongue a great many lies are being born. The Prophet’s sayings of THAQALAIN (two heavy things), and his words “ALI is WITH TRUTH AND TRUTH WITH ALI”, “ALI is WITH THE QURAN AND THE QURAN WITH ALI” all these and several other ones have elucidly expound and enlarged the comprehension and the very gist of ESMAT. The writer asks as to why the Shia paid or pay heed to these words of the Prophet (SAW). Or why they draw a meaning out of the sayings of the prophet or recite the Quran and try to understand it? Why isn’t the writer prepared to conceive that without ESMAT, there can be no Imam or prophet? ESMAT is fundamental and it is the condition that qualities the imam for Imam hood. No one has this except those chosen ones. Then, no one is a prophet or imam except the chosen ones.
53. A COLLECTIVE REJECTION TO THE CALIPHATE OF ABUBAKR:
As for ‘IJMA’, or ‘agreement’, the writer says at the end of ESMAT. The Shia Imamia regard this method as being void and null because of the pressure of an Imam amidst the people. The writer adds that the Shia have chosen to disregard the consensus (IJMA) of Sunnis who did the same to give a legitimacy to the caliphate of Abubakr.
Let us explain here that it had no bearing on the caliphate of Abubakr at all. An Imam should enter into consensus (IJMA); else, he has no validity. To give value or credit or authenticity to an ‘IJMA’ in which the Imam might not have participated is wrong and not valid.
Next, Abubakr did not carry any consensus. He became caliph on the strength of terror, and tyranny. People were forced td acknowledge his authority. Is it a consensus? So; why wasn’t that consensus present with Ali Bin Abi Taleb? Why didn’t the men of importance among the Bani Hashem, not surrender to his authority? But the writer still calls it a consensus ‘IJMA’. If IJMA (consensus) was the way or a salutary ground that gives validity to the caliphates; why didn’t Omar go through it? No ‘IJMA’ (consensus) took place; however Omar became caliph. The criterion can not be conceived? They advocate and they act differently. Othman as well came to power through a committee of six men appointed by Omar. Where had the ‘IJMA’ gone? They act as though public opinion means something to them. However what is obvious, is that they did not care at all about the ‘IJMA’ or consensus, that is the public opinion. The obvious and apparent evidence points out that three men came to power in three different ways. One, with a so called ‘IJMA’ (consensus), another, no consensus at all- just by force, the third, by a pre appointed six men committee. Mawiya too openly made his resurgence to the caliph of his time, Ali. He was a dictator - he cared for neither law nor rule, no power limited him. Where was the ‘IJMA’ consensus now? The writer ignores that the ‘IJMA’ was scalped, and changed to meet their demands. The writer knows well that those rulers and caliphs had no popular backing nor a publish support. The ‘IJMA’ then was a slogan, a protect, and no more. If a real ‘IJMA’, or in our acquainted term, a referendum were to be launched they would see who would succeed and who would lose. Caliphs such as Abu Bakr, Othman and Mawiya were put into power by a few people who were motivated by their own interests. They met and agreed; they designed, decided and acted - there always hung a veil and they named this secrecy as a referendum ‘IJMA’. Tyranny stood at hand to come to their aid.
54. ABOUT “IJMA” AGAIN MISTAKES:
The writer says that in order to invalidate the authority of Abu Bakr the Shia subjected the ‘IJMA’ to the participation of an infallible Imam. It was a reality that any ‘IJMA’ or referendum could lose authencity if the Imam did not participate in it. If ‘IJMA’ is their ground why was Ah absent in that ‘IJMA’? There were many besides Ali who did not know of such an ‘IJMA’ at all. The Imam was not referred to; he was not asked at all; his opinion was never sought; in fact, it was kept an arcanum from him. Then what referendum or “IJMA” was it !?! This is a trick, misleading the public under the name of ‘EJMA’. The result is always deceiving because the IJMA is deceiving. In truth, in reality, in fact, can the writer tell us that Abu Bakr reached power on the strength of public opinion - EJMA? If so, why was it that in the EJMA many were not present? Ali’s opinion was not important? Was he not one among Muslims; was it not important what he said? His opinion was never sought. So, this was not an ‘EJMA’. Let them seek for some other name. This ‘EJMA’ with a design preplanned and a malefic motive worked out into long concealed implacability. Acrimony was from its very foundation, and from the very beginning it was invalid, vague, void, and null nothing beyond a show. But the name still stood ‘EJMA’. The Prophet’s (SAW) corpse was still fresh in the ground. It was only Ali (AS) busy and occupied in his funeral, and they in their plan and feigned ‘EJMA’. It originated, as we said earlier, in order to save face. The Prophet (SAW) died. They left his side and hurried to SAQIFA. ABUBAKR was declared there as caliph. None knew except some who held contradicting motives adversary intentions and inimical designs. To this the writer has given the name of ‘EJMA’. The course of Islam was changed while the body of the Prophet (SAW) still on the ground was not yet buried. People were astonished. Force was used and terror was applied in order to silence them and obtain their acceptance. They conceived of plan in order to give them legitimacy. They decided to brand it with the mark of ‘EJMA’. A saying from the Prophet (SAW) too imputed; “My nation does not gather over wrong nor go astray.” If this was the ground of legitimacy, then what was the legitimacy for Omar, Othman, Mawiya and several others becoming caliphs? Why was the EJMA not practicable there or why did they not resort to it? No answer.
0%
Author: Ayatullah Lutfullah Safi Gulpaygani
