Assalaamo-Alaikum dear brothers and sisters!
Some people have probed into Islam superficially. They opined that Shiaism has come into existence by the flux of time, consequence by certain political and social incidents. Certain people have attributed the foundation of Shiaism to one, [Abdullah bin Saba], while others have iterated, that the political and social conditions, during Hazrath Ali's [as] regime, provided the base for the incipience of Shiaism.
In my view the opinion of these researchers is, that due to the paucity of Shias in the beginnings of Islam, Shiaism had no existence in a particular form. These researchers have fixed the abundance or paucity as a gauge, and considered the ways and pursuits of the majority as real, while that of the minority as temporary and secondary. Every sane person realises, that this gauge isn't correct and against the nature of the vision and convectional divisions.
At present we shall discuss about Shiaism and the Shias, and shall answer the following two questions in this context. 1, How Shiaism became manifest. 2, How Shias came into existence.
1, How Shiaism became manifest. In response to this question it will be replied, that Shiaism is a link which is connected with the existence of Islam and a natural outcome of it. Whoever recognises Islam and the Prophet [pbuh] thoroughly shall derive it from the very fact of the Prophet's [pbuh] guidance. The Prophet [pbuh] was a guide of such a sacred revolution, which had the efficacy of penetrating in all the phases of life, like light and air and which could transform the wild and ignorant people in a hale and orderly society.
This revolution originated by the divine programme to be carried under the patronage of his learned and superior guide, had the capability of spreading all over the world. This mission, though progressed under the guidance of the Prophet [pbuh], the period at his disposal was short hence and the progress too was very little, therefore it was urgent that after him, this revolution should have progressed under an able and worthy guide.
The Prophet's [pbuh] demise was not a sudden one; rather, he was aware of the time of his death quite earlier, since he proclaimed during his [Hajjat-ul-Widaa] meaning, last pilgrimage to Mecca, that he will not remain till the coming year, and therefore bid farewell to the people. He had so much time at his disposal, to think about the future of his mission, and to remove the possible impediments in its smooth progress.
This is the duty of every revolutionary guide, who happens to be wise and has faith in his revolution and fiducial to the cause, though he might not have any connection with God.
On this ground the Prophet [pbuh] could not, but follow on one of the following three assumptions for the safe guard of the future of his revolution.
THE FIRST ASSUMPTION!
It would be that the Prophet [pbuh] took upon himself the responsibility of Islam and the Muslims during his life time alone, and that their future was no matter of his concern. But such an assumption of the Prophet's [pbuh] attitude was a sheer impossibility for two reasons.
FIRST REASON!
It will be to believe compulsorily that this overlook or neglect on part of the Prophet [pbuh], about the future of Islam and the Muslims was not a source of peril to the Prophet hood of Islam, and that he himself did not have any apprehension of risk to the future of Islam and the Muslims. But obviously this belief is not at all acceptable, because anyone with the least of sense would understand, that had the Prophet [pbuh] left Islam and the Muslims unprotected or without a guardian, three great perils would be impending.
PERIL No 1.
The Muslim confronting the demise of such a religious guide, who did not confirm the government of the Islamic nation, its management and its organisation for the future, is so much perplexed by this circumstance that renders him incapable of thinking properly. It is for this reason that Hazrath Umar bin Khattab [ra] proclaimed: “Neither the Holy Prophet is dead, nor would he die ", Ref; Sharah Nehjul Balagha by Ibn-e-Abil Hadeed, volume 1, page 127. On the other hand, since the Muslims can't manage without a religious head, it is incumbent, that he selects a head immediately. This is but natural, that the selection can't be consistent with the Islamic spirit, particularly by such people who were still mentally weak and were conversant with the conditions and obligations binding the selection there of.
PERIL No 2.
Since the Muslim had not yet attained ripeness and mental maturity, and was not conscious of the Islamic spirit equal to the Prophet [pbuh], he could not carry on the Islamic government in accordance with its principals.
PERIL No 3.
A group which apparently called itself Muslim is actually hostile to Islam and wants to take advantage of any chance to efface Islam, and evidently by the demise of the Prophet [pbuh] and in the absence of a virtual successor, this was a precious opportunity for the enemies of Islam. We all know that Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra], conscious of his responsibility for Islam and the future of the Muslims appointed a successor to himself, and when he was criticised for taking a hurried by seizing the reins of the Islamic government into his hands, he responded that the people were not yet away from their primitive ignorance, and that he apprehended sedition at their hands after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh]. The question rises whether the Prophet [pbuh] had not that sense of responsibility which Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] had??? Was he not even so much thoughtful for Islam and the future of the Muslims as was Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra]
SECOND REASON!
That the Prophet [pbuh] did have the sense of responsibility, that if the future of Islam is neglected and no successor of his is appointed, the Muslims and Islam shall both be imperilled. But he wanted to protect Islam only till his life time and gain by it personally. Every sane person realises very well, that such a thing is not acceptable for the Prophet [pbuh]. Even if it is supposed, that he had no communion with God and was merely an exponent of a philosophy as others. Every founder of a school of thought has faith in his school, and takes care of its future and has an urge for the attainment of its perpetuity and progress.
Fortunately the history of the Prophet's [pbuh] life is a witness to the fact, about how much faith he had in his apostleship, and how much he had sacrificed for its progress. He was always mindful for Islam's future well-being. Example; before his demise he had ordered the Islamic troops to war under the command of Usama. When he was lying in his bed at the time of his demise and was having swoons intermittently, he repeatedly ordered for the mobilisation of Usama's army.
The Prophet [pbuh] who laid so much importance on a comparatively trivial matter as the war policy that even in the last moments of his life was so much thoughtful for it. Could it be in any way possible that he should be unmindful of the future of Islam, to leave unsettled a grave matter of succession for the benefit of the Islamic nation??? Supposing that the facts mentioned are overlooked and one particular event of the last moment of the Prophet's [pbuh] life is taken into consideration, even then it is fully ascertained that the Prophet [pbuh] was highly mindful for the future of Islam and the Muslims. The event to which we refer is unanimously admitted both by Shias and Sunnis.
The Prophet [pbuh] was lying on his death bed and was suffering from an ailment, which finally proved fatal. Some Muslims were surrounding his bed and one of them was Hazrath Umar bin Khattab [ra]. The Prophet [pbuh] said "Bring me a paper and an ink pot, that I may invite for you something, so that you may never be misled ". This order of the Prophet [pbuh] is a valid proof of the fact, that he was thoughtful for Islam and the future of the Muslims.
He deemed it necessary to perform such an act that after his death Muslims and Islam may be immune from the impending perils. Hence it is proved that this assumption is not acceptable.
THE SECOND ASSUMPTION!
If we say that the Prophet [pbuh] was thoughtful for the future of Islam and the Muslims, and had left the government and the Khilafath on the mutual consultation of the people, this argument too is not acceptable for various reasons.
FIRST REASON!
If this had been that case the Prophet [pbuh] would have explained to the Muslims about the democratic government and its salient features, and would have prepared the general public for the formation of such a government and would have them acquiesce to it, but what all sayings are ascribed to him are not eloquent about the government by consensus.
Apart from this the Muslims of the age of the Prophet [pbuh], had not even the faintest sketch of such a government in their minds. It is for this reason alone, that Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] did not entrust the Islamic government to the consensus after his demise, but he transferred it to Hazrath Umar [ra], and as a result the Muslims did not object to it, as the records of history depict.
Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was ill and ordered Hazrath Usmaan [ra] to write a testament for him. Hazrath Usmaan [ra] wrote the testament, that this is the Khalif of the Prophet [pbuh] of God, Hazrath Abu Bakar's [ra] testament to the Muslims: My salutes to you! After the praise and eulogy to God, I appoint Umar bin Khataab as your chief and leader. You should obey and follow him.
At the very nick of time Hazrath Abdurrahman bin Auf [ra] entered and after some bantering Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] said "I have appointed one of you as your leader, where as you all selfishly aspire for it for yourselves ". Ref: Tareekh Yaqubi, Volume 11.
This appointment of his successor by Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] refers to the fact, that for certain he had no conception about the government according to the will of the people, and conceived it as his right to appoint one to succeed him after his death. Therefore when the second Khalif was wounded, the people thronged on him restlessly, that he should make a will regarding his successor, and they had obviously no idea of the succession through consultation.
SECOND REASON!
If the Prophet [pbuh] had invested the government to the Islamic nation and its management to the will of the Muslims, it would have been binding for him to promulgate it in such a way, that the loftiness of the Islamic thought and spirit reached the heights, where the difficulties of the Prophet hood removed, would the Islamic government be carried out in such a way as was necessary???
But unfortunately the events ensuing the demise of the Prophet [pbuh] revealed, that the Muslims were not so much cultured, that the Khalif was even ignorant of the fact, that the land seized by the Muslims as the result of war, was to be distributed amongst the warriors in accordance with the religious law, or to be dedicated to the entire community to benefit by the common property.
Was that possible for a Prophet, who had predicted the victory of the Muslims, upon the emperors of Qaisar and Kisra to keep the Muslims unacquainted, with the religious law pertaining to the lands forfeited by victory???
THIRD REASON!
Islam is a complete religion and no religion is to follow it. This is the religion that will sway upon the entire world and shall, through its instruction and culture, lead the Islamic society to heights and progress. On the one had the shadow of the Prophet [pbuh] remained on the heads of the Muslims for only 10 years, and on the other hand it was not possible, that those savage and barbarous people could have been cultured in such a short time as to be proficient enough to acquire the responsibility of guidance on every aspect.
Therefore in accordance with the principals of every school of thought after the founder of the school, its members should carry on the mission progressively under the guidance of his successor, so that they could be worthy of guiding the school. Accidentally most of the contemporaries of the Prophet [pbuh] were yet the victims of orthodoxy and evil habits, and were not fully inculcated with the spirit of Islam.
The history is a witness to the fact, that the Islamic government finally transferred into hereditary kingdom, in which the men with pure hearts were guiltlessly murdered and most were deprived of their wealth and property. The Islamic commandments were no more than a play and Islam was prone to decline instead of gaining ascendancy. Why did this happen??? Only for the reason that some Muslims invented a mode of Islamic government and Khilafath after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh], a new mode altogether for which it was not at all a proper and suitable time.
Hence it will be remote from reason and justice to say, that the Prophet [pbuh] had accepted this form of government. Hence from whatever has been said it becomes clear, that the second assumption is not sensible and it is impossible to have been approved by the Prophet [pbuh].
THE THIRD ASSUMPTION!
This is to believe that the Prophet of Islam [pbuh] had ever been thoughtful for the future of Islam and the Muslims and had appointed a worthy person as his successor by the will of God, so that this successor could carry out the Islamic government after his demise on the dint of his able guidance and efficiency to ward off the confronting perils to Islam and the Muslim, and thus lead them towards progress.
This eminent personage would be necessarily such who ought to have been cultured under the shadow of the Prophet [pbuh], whose existence and life must have been amalgamated with the reality of Islam and with the life of the Prophet [pbuh], and whose soul must have been grafted with that of the Prophet [pbuh]. The history witnessed that such a person was none other than the legendary Hazrath Ali ibne Abi Taalib [as]. As a matter of fact Hazrath Ali [as] has said in Nehjul-Balaghah "The Prophet of God has nourished me by his side from my very infancy. He adopted me and made me sleep in his bed. The Prophet gave me the lesson excellences and ethics daily. In those days there was no Muslim apart from the Prophet himself, Khateejah and I ".
It has been tradition by ibne Abbas in Hulyat-ul-Auliya that the Prophet [pbuh] had tested Ali [as] for 70 things, which were not done in favour of any other person. Furthermore Hazrath Ali said "Whenever I questioned the Prophet [pbuh] he responded, and when I kept quiet he did himself address me ". Hazrath Umme Salama said "I swear in the name of God that Ali was closer to the Prophet than anybody else ".
It is the obligation of the mature reason that whosoever founds a school of thought and has some followers, if he happens to be faithful to and believing in that school, essentially cultures and educates an efficient person in his life time, and selects him for the guidance of his school and making him his successor and entrusting him the guidance, introduces him to the people so that the people may be led by him in perfect harmony without dissention, difference and decline.
This reasonable thing was performed by the Prophet [pbuh] in connection with Hazrath Ali [as]. During many events he made him his successor and a guide to the Muslims. For example: the tradition of the house (Hadees-ud-Daar), of 2 components (Hadees-us-Saqalain) of superiority and (Hadees-ul-Manzilath) of Ghadeer are a witness to this plea. Fortunately the history witnesseth that Hazrath Ali [as] was the only person who could be approached to solve the problems. The organisation of the Islamic Khilaafath, in spite of its extreme policy, was compelled to approach Hazrath Ali [as], but on the contrary Hazrath Ali [as] had no obligation of approaching others.
It is elucidated by these facts that Shiaism came to existence through Islam itself and the Prophet [pbuh] himself laid its auspicious foundation by the divine decree. The reason underlying it being the safeguard of Islam and the Muslims from decline and dissension, and the attainment of perfection and progress. Factually Shiaism is a natural and only issue of Islam, and it was but incumbent for Islam to give birth to it, because Shiaism is that very Islam which after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh] advanced on the path prescribed by the Prophet [pbuh] by the will of God.
HOW THE SHIA CAME INTO EXISTENCE!
We scrutinised into the circumstances responsible for the manifestation of Shiaism, and now the question we want to discuss is how the Shia came into existence, which led to the division of the Muslims into two groups namely Shias and Sunnis. When we look into the beginning of the advent of Islam we find, that the Muslims at that very time were divided into two groups with difference in belief and convictions. One group believed that in all such matters in, which the religious law is unequivocal and clear that particular commandment should be followed, and no enforcement of one's research and convenience should be stressed upon.
The other group believed that this way was to be limited only for the prayers and the mysterious problems and the research and convenience for the external affairs should be preferred even when the religious commandment is unequivocal. Since this point of view was based on the proclivities of man's wishes its followers increased in number, so much so that even the elder companions of the Prophet [pbuh] including persons like Hazrath Umar bin Khattaab [ra] joined this group. In innumerable cases they acted upon their own discretion and personal opinion overlooking the unequivocal commandments of the Prophet [pbuh], as in the case of the Treaty of Hudaibya they criticised on the Prophet [pbuh], annulled (Heya'ala-Kheril-Amal) from the Ezaan, (Hajje Tamatto) and (Mutat-un-Nesaa), temporary wedlock, were strictly forbidden. Ref: Sahih Muslim, volume 4.
It has been tradition by Ibne Abbas that when the Prophet [pbuh] asked the persons surrounding his death bed to bring him the ink and paper, that he may invite something that the people might not be misled in the future, Hazrath Umar [ra] using his discretion said that the Prophet [pbuh] was overcome by the malady, and that the Quran was sufficient for their guidance. There grew a difference of opinion amongst those who were present. Some asserted that the Prophet's [pbuh] order should be complied with and the ink and paper be provided, and some others supported Hazrath Umar [ra]. When the altercation and hot words ensued amidst them the Prophet [pbuh] ordered them to leave him alone. Ref: Sahih Bukhari, volume 3 and Sahih Muslim, volume 5.
These very incidents which have been related both by the Shias and the Sunnis are sufficient to mark the two beliefs diagonally opposite each other
ONE MORE INCIDENT TO MENTION!
When the Prophet [pbuh] made Usama the commander of the Islamic army certain companions using their discretion acted upon their opinion and refused to comply with the orders of Usama. In spite of being severely ill the Prophet [pbuh] emerged from his home and thus addressed the people: What am I hearing about the commander ship of Usama??? You people are not only criticising the commander ship of Usama but have even been criticising that of his father. By God! His father too was fit for command and so is his son.
By this incident as well it will be evident that some persons obeying the order of the Prophet [pbuh] accepted the command of Usama, and some followed their discretion and did not obey Usama. These very two controversial and different points of view and beliefs in the Muslim community resourced the difference in the Islamic Khilafath and the government. The first group accepted the Islamic Khilafath and government in the manner prescribed by the Prophet [pbuh], and acknowledged that very person as its leader and plenipotentiary whom the Prophet [pbuh] had appointed as the leader of the Muslims and their head. This group was nomenclature Shia.
Shia is a word of the Arabic language which means follower, ally and friend. Since this group was the friend, ally and follower of Hazrath Ali [as] in accordance with the Prophet's [pbuh] order was called Shia, because the Prophet [pbuh] had made Hazrath Ali [as] his successor and the leader of the Muslims, and had ordered the Muslims to follow him and remain his allies and friends.
The second group which used its discretion, even in spite of the vivid and unequivocal commandment of the Prophet [pbuh], and acted upon its opinion by dragging the Islamic government and Khilafath on such a path, which had not been directed by the Prophet [pbuh], since they considered it better and in accordance with their sweet will and against the system, which was founded by the Prophet [pbuh]. This group was called Sunni.
By this clarification it will be known that the Shia came into existence along with the sad demise of the Prophet [pbuh]. Its object was to acknowledge Hazrath Ali [as] as the Khalif of the Prophet [pbuh] and the leader of the Muslims in pursuance of the unequivocal order of the Prophet [pbuh], and criticise them, rather oppose them who wanted to install any other person on this eminent post. Hence those who opposed the Khilafath of Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] at that time, as listed in the books of both the Shias and the Sunnis, include Hazrath Salmaan (Persian) [ra], Hazrath Abu Zar [ra], Hazrath Miqdaad [ra] and Hazrath Ammar Yaasar [ra], who were reckoned among the best and true companions of the Prophet [pbuh].
Scholars and researchers have expressed different views concerning the birth of Shiaism and its first appearance. Others too have attempted to evaluate it by approaching it from the point of view of their respective ideological and intellectual predispositions. Some people believe that Shiaism arose after the death of the Messenger [pbuh] and that its defining essence took shape when his companions set about selecting his successor.
Thus the historian Al-Yaqubi writes:
A number of the migrants and the helpers refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakar, inclined as they were to favour Ali ibne Abi Talib. The following individuals; Abbas ibne Abdul Muttalib, Fazal ibne Abbas, Khalid ibne Saeed, Ammar ibne Yasir, Ubay ibne Kaab, Zubayr, Miqdaad, Salmaan, Abu Zarr, Bara'a etc, were part of this group.
Also the historian Al-Masudi writes:
Salmaa Al-Farsi was a Shia from the very outset and Ammar ibne Yasir was known as a Shia throughout his life. When Usman was selected as Khalifa, he remarked: " It is not the first time you have denied the Khilafath to the one receiving it ". Abu Zarr was similarly an outstanding proponent of Shiaism.
Another group of scholars place the emergence of Shiaism during the Khilafath of Hazrath Ali ibne Abi Talib [as], while others suggest that it began to take root towards the end of the Khilafath of Hazrath Usman [ra]. Still others regard Imaam Jaffar Al-Sadiq [as] as the founder of Shiaism. Some people again imagine Shiaism to be the result of a wish for revenge nurtured by the Iranians, so that its origins may be considered essentially political.
Then there are those who see in Shiaism a contingent phenomenon in Islamic society and history, without any strong presence or substance. They imagine it to have gradually expanded in the Islamic society as the result of certain social and political developments at a relatively advanced point in Islamic history.
There are even those who assert this segment of the Islamic Ummah to be the brainchild of an imaginary personality by the name of Abdullah ibne Saba, basing on this assumption all their judgements concerning Shiaism and concluding that Shiaism is nothing more than an anomaly.
Theories such as this amount to nothing more than obstinate calumnies, perpetrated to conceal the truth, or at the very best they spring from complete ignorance of the true culture of Shiaism and its rich heritage.
Dr. Taha Hussain, a well-known Egyptian and therefore Sunni scholar writes:
The fact that the historians make no mention of Ibne Al-Sawda-i.e, Abdullah Ibne Saba- being present at the battle of Safeen together with his followers proves at the very least, that the whole notion of a group of people led by him is a baseless fabrication. It is one of those inventions that acquired currency, when the conflict between the Shia and other Islamic groups intensified.
In order to underline their hostility, the enemies of the Shia tried to insert a Jewish element into the origins of their sect. If the story of Abdullah Ibne Saba had any basis in historical fact, his cunning and guile could not have failed to show itself at the battle of Safeen.
I can think of only one reason for his name not occurring in connection with the battle, that he was an entirely fictitious person, dreamed up by the enemies of the Shia in order to vilify them.
Similarly, Dr. Ali Al-Wardi, professor of history at Baghdad university, writes:
Did Ibne Saba actually exist or was he an imaginary personality??? For those who wish to study the social history of Islam and draw the appropriate conclusion, this is an extremely important question. It is claimed that Ibne Saba incited unrest, but no such person ever existed.
The whole story is reminiscent of the claim made by the Quresh at the beginning of the Prophet’s [pbuh] mission that he received his teachings from a Christian slave by the name of Jabr and based his preaching on the instruction he received from him.
Muhammad Kurd Ali, another Sunni scholar writes;
Some of the well-known companions who at the dawn of Islam followed Ali [as], became known as the Shia. What can be deduced from the written sources is that certain short sighted people regarded Shiaism as a collection of innovations and fabrications stitched together by a person known as Abdullah Ibne Saba or Ibne Al-Sawda.
However, there can be no doubt, that this view of things is pure superstition and fantasy, for this “Abdullah Ibne Saba “the Jew exists only in the world of imagination. Any attempt to link the origins of Shiaism to him must be regarded as a sign of pure ignorance.
In contrast to all the opinions reviewed so far, one group of Scholars believe Shiaism to have been first expounded by none other than the Prophet [pbuh] himself and that it was established in conformity with his command.
Hassan ibne Masi, Al-Nawbakhti and Sa'ad ibne Abdullah write:
The party of Ali ibne Abi Talib, was the first to emerge in the time of the Prophet [pbuh] and it becomes known as Shia-e-Ali. It was known that they favoured Ali for the leadership of the community and that they were his devoted companions. Miqdaad, Salmaan, Abu Zarr and Ammar belonged to this group, and they were the first to be called Shia. Use of the word Shia was not knew since it had been applied in the past to the followers of some Prophets such as Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and Eesa.
This view is confirmed by numerous Shia Scholars and there are many traditions to the effect that the Prophet [pbuh] applied the name Shia to the companions and followers of Ali [as]. When discussing the occasion for the revelation of this verse “Certainly those who believe in the only God and who do good deeds are in truth the best people in the world " (98:7).
Sunni exegetes (Mufassireen) and traditionists (Mohaddiseen) report Jabir ibne Abdullah to have said” One day I came to the presence of the Prophet [pbuh], Ali entered the room, causing the Prophet [pbuh] to remark “My brother has come, I swear by God that this man and his Shia (supporters/followers) will be among the saved on the day of resurrection ".
Al-Tabari, the well-known Sunni exegete and historian, also remarks in connection with the same verse, that the Prophet [pbuh] used the word Shia, when referring to the supporters and followers of Ali. There is then prophetic authority for designating the supporters and followers of Ali [as] as those who were particularly devoted to him were Shia.
We thus see that the word Shia is essentially coterminous with Islam itself, for the Prophet [pbuh] himself used it. If we sometimes use the designation Jafari Shiaism, this is on account of the exertions made by Imaam Jafar Al-sadiq to disseminate the culture of Islam and Shiaism. The struggles for power that were taking place in his lifetime afforded him a suitable opportunity to confront the political conditions of this environment. The various ideas that were gaining currency and the foreign elements such as analogical reasoning and preference that had entered Islamic jurisprudence caused him to embark on a program of reaching and reform.
Muhammad Fikri Abul-Nasr, a well-known Egyptian Sunni author, has the following to say with respect to the essence of Shiaism:
“ In its theological principles, Shiaism has nothing to do with Abul-Hassan Al- Ashari, and in its detailed legal provisions nothing to do with any of the four Sunni schools of law. For the school established Imaams of the Shia is more ancient, and therefore more reliable and more deserving to be followed than the other schools. All Muslims followed their school for the first three centuries of Islam. The Shia school of law is also more worth following because in it the gate of independent reasoning [Ijtehad] will remain open until resurrection, and because its formation was totally uninfluenced by political factors and struggles “.
Abul-Wafa Al-Ghunaymi Al-Taftazani, another Sunni scholar, says the following:
“ Numerous researchers of the past and the present, in both the east and the west, have expressed erroneous views concerning Shiaism. People then unquestioningly repeat these views, without producing the slightest evidence or proof. One of the reasons that has led to Shiaism being thus unjustly treated is that those who originate and spread such views are unacquainted with the books of the Shia themselves and rely exclusively on the writings of their enemies. Western imperialism has also played a role in this regard by constantly attempting to sow dissension among Shias and Sunnis and propagating unfair and controversial theses in the name of unfettered academic research “.
These remarks permit us to grasp well the depth of the distortion that has taken place, the extent of deviation from the truth, as well as the mentality of those who have been inspired by their own impure motives or influenced by political factors.
Instead of giving primacy to the interests of the Quran, Islam and the unifying Qiblah of all Muslims, they compete with each other in sowing dissension and causing disunity; Islam itself is sacrificed to their goals, and the common enemy of all Muslims profit.
It is essential to add the following point, that the designation Shia in the time of the Prophet [pbuh] did not apply to a group that was seeking to detach itself from the rest of the Muslims. It is simply that a certain number of Muslims in the time of the Prophet [pbuh] considered Hazrath Ali superior to all others in his knowledge of the truths of Islam and the values and aims of the Prophet’s [pbuh] mission.
They were profoundly attached to him on account of his lofty insight and vision, his link to the source of all perfection, and, in short, all his moral and spiritual qualities. He inspired them as a perfect specimen of humanity worthy of their imitation.
It is of course true that the Shia first appeared on the scene as a distinct group after the death of the most noble Prophet [pbuh], when the close companions of Hazrath Ali refused, in the wake of the meeting at Saqeefa, to swear allegiance to Hazrath Abu Bakar and proclaimed themselves as a party among the Muslims dedicated to defending the clear and unambiguous texts providing for the entrusting of rule over the Muslims to Hazrath Ali .
Rejecting the attempt made at Saqeefa to neutralise his claim and the resource that was had to the thesis of “the welfare of the Muslims “, they separated themselves from the majority and formed a group devoted to him.
In this group were to be found such outstanding companions as Ammar, Abu-Zarr, Miqdaad, Salmaan and ibne Abbas, whose sincerity, devotion and commitment had been praised by the Prophet [pbuh]. Thus he said of Ammar and his parents:
"Be patient and steadfast. O family of Yasir, for paradise is your destiny.” O Ammar, glad tidings be unto you, for the oppressors will kill you ".
The Prophet [pbuh] also proclaimed the kindness and Favour God had shown to four great personages:
" God has enjoined on me the love of four people, and informed me that he himself loves them ".
When the Prophet [pbuh] was asked who these four were, he replied:
" Ali (repeating the name three times), Abu-Zarr, Salmaan and Miqdaad ".
The Prophet [pbuh] spoke as follows of the sincerity and piety of Abu-Zarr:
" The blue sky has not sheltered, nor has the earth borne, one more honest than Abu-Zarr. He lives upon earth with the same ascetic detachment as Eesa the son of Maryam ".
Referring to the station in the hereafter of three persons, the Prophet [pbuh] said:
" Paradise longs for three persons and they are Ali, Yasir and Salmaan ".
The Prophet [pbuh] supplicated for ibne Abbas as follows:
"O God, teach him the science of interpreting the Qur'an, make him erudite in all things religious, and establish him as a believer".
These then were the devoted followers of Hazrath Ali , and were convinced that he should have been the immediate successor of the Prophet [pbuh] and that the Khilaafath was his indubitable right. That which was a matter dispute and disagreement after the death of the Prophet [pbuh] was the question of succession to the political leadership, not the Imaamath, which included the spiritual dimension of the Prophet's [pbuh] legacy. No one at Saqeefa had anything to say about choosing an Imaam, and the question was not even raised.
Was this because nobody had the least doubt concerning Hazrath Ali's supremacy in spiritual matters, or was it that because none of the claimants to the Khilaafath and the succession was qualified for Imaamath so no one laid claim to it??? The truth of the matter is unclear. For some time then there was no mention of Imaamath. But after the death of several of the Khalifs, the question gradually came to the fore, and some of the Khalifs, like Muavia, for all his lack of commitment for Islam, began calling themselves Imaam.
The topic discussed in works of theology is Imaam and Imaamath, while the terms used in books of history and the oral and written statements of Sunni Scholars are Khalif and Khilaafath. Hazrath Ali and his descendants, recognised as the leaders of the Shia, are however consistently referred to as Imaams. This reflects the Shia belief that strict and precise adherence to the criteria of religion, unswerving piety, and a whole series of other special qualities, must be present in the person of the Imaam.
One of the pupils of Imaam Jafar Al-Sadiq , Hisham ibne Hakam, wrote a book on the subject of Imaamath in which he set forth its theoretical bases. In addition to the office of Prophet hood, which comprised the responsibility for receiving and conveying revelation to mankind, the Prophet [pbuh] was the ruler of the Muslims, empowered over all their affairs. From the moment on that the Muslims established a collective existence; all the social affairs of the people were regulated by the Prophet [pbuh]: The appointment of governors, commanders and judges, the issuance of orders for war, the distribution of booty etc and so on.
He implemented divine commands and ordinances in accordance with the ruling function that was vested in him; it was the duty of the people to obey his commands and instructions. Ruler ship, the administration of society and the establishment of public order and security were thus part of this Prophetic function. Prophet Hood and spiritual leadership on the one hand and leadership and rule on the other, were both combined in a single divinely chosen person.
The dispute that occurred after the Prophet's [pbuh] death, related only to leadership and rule, so that those people who aspired to the position of rule after the Prophet [pbuh] never did not advance any claim of special communication with God or the receipt of revelation, nor did they present themselves as spiritual leaders or guides. Their whole idea was to seize the reins of power and administer the affairs of the Muslims, paying attention only to the need of preserving the unified society of Islam from disorder and discord by means of careful strategy and plan.
When the people swore allegiance to Hazrath Abu Bakar , after the death of the Prophet [pbuh], Abu-Ubeydah proposed to Hazrath Ali :
" Abandon this matter to Abu-Bakar, if you survive him, then you are worthy of the office of Khilafath than anyone else, for non can doubt your abundant faith, virtue and intelligence. Furthermore, you preceded others in your profession of Islam, and you enjoy the additional advantage of being related to the Prophet [pbuh], by Hood and by marriage ".
Hazrath Ali replied:
"O Migrants! I entreat you by God not to remove governance from the Household of the Prophet [pbuh], and to establish it in your house. Do not deprive the people of Muhammad's [pbuh] house of their station and office ".
Wassalaam!
17 Replies
5957 Views
April 23, 2017, 03:35:35 PM
