CHAPTER SIX

CHAPTER SIX
THE IMAMATE ACCORDING TO THE SHIAS

 Sheikh Muhammad Hasan Âl Kâshif Al Ghitâ’ explains that "the Imamate is a divine office like that of the Prophethood. Just as Allah chooses whomever He pleases for the Prophethood, He chooses whomever He pleases for the Imamate, and He commands His Prophet to designate his successor."1 The Shias believe that Allah appointed `Alî and his sons to the Imamate2 and say Abû Bakr seized the caliphate after the death of the Prophet. Abû Bakr was succeeded by `Umar and then by `Uthmân. The Shias say these three men denied the rights of `Alî and his descendants, and usurped the caliphate due to him. According to some of them, whoever believes that these three legitimately ruled the Muslims is defiantly disobedient or disbeliever according to others. For example, Al-Majlisî says that "The Twelve-Imam Shias agree that whoever denies the Imamate of any of the [Twelve] Imams and rejects showing obedience to what Allah obligated
------------------------------------------
1 Âl Kâshif, Asl Ash-Shî`ah wa Usûluhâ, p. 58; Khomeini, Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 39.
2 Al-Kulaynî, Usûl Al-Kâfî,1:287.
57
(concerning their Imamate), is a disbeliever who will abide eternally in the Hellfire."
Al-Kulaynî believes disobedience to `Alî is (an act of) disbelief and that to accept the leadership of someone other than `Alî is (an act of) polytheism.3

Qur’anic Support for the Imamate was "Distorted"
Some Shias claim that there was evidence for the Imamate of `Alî in the Qur’ân. They hold the belief that the Companions removed this from the text because it mentioned `Alî by name, and designated him successor to the Prophet. One of such verses is 5:67: "O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord [in the matter of `Alî], and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message."
The Shias say that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah said to `Alî, "Had I not conveyed what I had been ordered to covey about your succession (Imamate), my deeds would have been in vain."4
It appears that Khomeini also believed these words were removed from the Qur’ân, since he said, "We believe that the Prophet appointed his successor, and he already did.
Had he not done so, he would not have conveyed His Message."5 He also believed that Allah had prescribed in the Qur’ân to obey the Imams. He quotes the Qur’ân, {"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among
----------------------------------------
3 Al-Kulaynî, Usûl Al-Kâfî, 1:45, 52; see also Al-Majlisî, Bihâr Al-Anwâr, 23:390.
4 Al-Huaizi, Tafsîr Nûr Ath-Thaqalayn, 1:653.
5 Khomeini, Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, pp. 19, 23.
58  
you…"}6 Yet, how can we obey someone who is hiding in a cave in Samara? Could a reasonable person buy some fish which is still in water?

Reviewing the Claim of Designating the Imams
The belief that the designation of `Alî7 and his descendants as successors to the Prophet is mentioned in the Qur’ân raises other difficulties:
1. Allah commanded the Muslims to consult one another as He said describing the believers, {"…and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves…"}8 The Caliphate is, undoubtedly, an affair of the Muslims, and neither the Qur’ân nor the Sunnah provides any text to say who was to succeed the Prophet.
Ash-Sharîf Al-Murtadâ confirms this in the book Nahjul-Balâghah. He writes that `Alî said to Mu`âwiyah, "Consultation is the right of the Muhâjirûn and the Ansâr  if they gather and appoint a man to be (Imam), then that is what is pleasing to Allah."9 This indicates that whatever pleases the Muhâjirûn and the Ansâr will please Allah as well.
`Alî then asked Mu`âwiyah to swear allegiance to him and told him, "The people who swore allegiance to Abû Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmân, are those who swore allegiance to
---------------------------------------
6 Ibid. 24.
7 Khomeini says, "Allah had spoken to the Prophet in a revelation and told him who was to succeed him and what he was to do; the Prophet did as he was told and appointed `Alî, Commander of the Faithful Believers, as Caliph. (Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 43.)
8 Qur’ân, 42:38.
9 Al-Murtadâ, Nahjul-Balâghah, 3:8.
59
me as well."10 This proves that `Alî recognized the legality of the Caliphate of Abû Bakr, and of `Umar, since they had been chosen by the majority.
2. `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib swore allegiance to the three Caliphs who preceded him.
Everyone agrees about this although the Shias say he initially opposed them. `Alî's oath of allegiance to Abû Bakr, `Umar and `Uthmân is evidence against those who say they support his claim.
As illustrated before, Sheikh Âl Kâshif Al-Ghitâ’ said, "When `Alî saw that Abû Bakr and `Umar were making a supreme effort to spread the Word of Allah. He saw that they were preparing armies and sending them out in the service of Allah. They were not arrogant and not despotic. So, `Alî swore allegiance to them, and submitted himself to their authority."
Even the annotator of Nahjul-Balâghah said that `Alî acknowledged that Abû Bakr was a better choice for the post of Caliphate, for he said when he made his oath of allegiance to Abû Bakr, "In our view, Abû Bakr is the most deserving person to this office. He was the companion (of the Prophet) in the Cave,11 we know his status, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) appointed him to lead the people in prayer while the Prophet was still alive."12
Al-Majlisî and Al-Kulaynî say that whoever believes that Abû Bakr and `Umar were legitimate successors of the Prophet is a disbeliever. So, what do they say about `Alî,
-------------------------------------------
10 Ibid., 3:7; Al-Mufîd, Al-Irshâd, 31.
11 This refers to his remaining in Mecca with the Prophet after all the Muslims had emigrated, and of his accompanying the Prophet as he emigrated and hiding with him in a cave in the hills above Mecca while Quraysh searched for them far and wide.
12 `Abdul-Hamîd Ibn Hibatul-Lâh Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abul-Hadîd, Sharh Nahjul-Balâghah, 1:132.
60
who raised his right hand and swore to obey their leadership? Do they not consider `Alî to be infallible and far above cowardice?

`Alî's Oath to Abû Bakr and `Umar is Irrefutable Proof
The Shia scholars have busily tried to explain their way out of `Alî's oaths to Abû Bakr and `Umar.

The most important of their excuses are:
First excuse: `Alî made these oaths out of fear that otherwise, Islam would be lost.
The response to this is that Islam at the time of Abû Bakr and `Umar was in its golden age and had spread to Bukhara13 in the East along the length of the North African cost to the West.
Second excuse: `Alî made these oaths only to show agreement while he hid his displeasure with their leadership in his heart. This claim is even more unpleasant than the first since it depicts `Alî as a two-faced, cowering, muddled man, who says what he does not believe. This cannot convince anyone who knows about `Alî's courage and bravery, and his powerful commitment to truth. Al-Murtadâ narrated many accounts in Nahjul-Balâghah confirming this. `Alî said, "I am from a people who never fear the blame of the blamers as long as Allah's Sake is concerned."14
If his oath was only as empty words, why was he a minister to the three caliphs during the twenty-five years of their caliphates? It is hard to believe that he maintained this ruse throughout such a long period. Was his giving his daughter in marriage to `Umar also
------------------------------------------
13 A city of southern Uzbekistan west of Samarkand. It is one of the oldest cultural and trade centers of Asia and was capital of the former emirate of Bukhara from the 16th to the 19th century. [trans.]
14 Al-Murtadâ, Nahjul-Balâghah, p. 159.
61
part of this deception? Was his naming three of his sons Abû Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmân also part of it?
`Alî was one of the most courageous people in history. The Sunnis believe that it is gravely insulting to say that he acted against his conscience out of fear. Can the Shias really love `Alî and still accuse him of such a thing?
Further, `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib rejected the Caliphate when it was offered to him, saying, "Pass me by and choose another, for it is better that I be a minister to you, than a prince over you."15 Besides, when they made the oath to him after `Uthmân's murder he said,
"By Allah, I had no desire for the Caliphate, and no ambition to power, but you have called me to it and forced it upon me."16
Judging from these reports, it does not seem that `Alî considered he had been appointed to the Imamate by the text of the Qur’ân. If this was so, how could he has said, "Pass me by and choose another" and, "By Allah, I had no desire for the Caliphate?" How could he have sworn allegiance to Abû Bakr and `Umar and `Uthmân? This would have been in defiance of the divine text, had it existed and a manifest contradiction to the hadîth of Ghadîr Khumm17, if authentic.
Everyone acknowledges that Al-Hasan renounced the Imamate in favor of Mu`âwiyah.
The Prophet predicted this when he said, 'Verily, this son of mine is a chief [sayyid], and
--------------------------------------
15 Ibid. 181-182.
16 Ibid. 222. 17 The word ghadîr is the Arabic equivalent of "brook"; it is the name of a place between Mecca and Medina where there is a brook. (trans.)
62
Allah will make peace between two great groups of Muslims through him."18 The question remains, why did Al-Hasan renounce the Caliphate in favor of Mu`âwiyah?
The story is commonly told in the Shia books. These also mention that Sulaymân Ibn Surad  an impor tant supporter of `Alî  used to insult Al-Hasan for this and said to him, "Peace be upon you, "humiliator of the believers’ (mudhil al-mu’minîn) instead of Commander of the Faithful (amîr al-mu’minîn).
Criticizing Al-Hasan for his abdication to Mu`âwiyah contradicts the Shia doctrine of the infallibility of the Imams. The Shias consider the words and deeds of their Imams as binding to people to follow. Controversy over the succession seems to have been closed with `Alî's swearing allegiance to the three Caliphs and Al-Hasan's abdication to Mu`âwiyah. The alleged divine appointment of the Imam should have been settled by the willingness of `Alî and Al-Hasan to acknowledge and follow the leadership of another. Why then must the Shias insist upon something that their Imams have renounced?

A Nation that Passed Away
What is the use of talking about the Caliphate and arguing about it? What is the use of returning again to a discussion of an issue that is long dead? Can there be any good reason for us to continue to live in the shadow of these events today, to root around in the past in search of something that could not benefit us now? Is it reasonable for us to spend our time arguing about who was the most worthy of the caliphate, while all of them are long dead? Is
----------------------------------------
18 Al-Bukhârî and others; Nâsrud-Dîn Al-Albânî, Irwâ’ Al-Ghalîl (Quenching Thirst), hadith No. 1597. The Arabic word sayyid is used today as an honorific title for the direct descendants of the Prophet. The original meaning of the word is "master" or "lord". [trans.]
63
it possible for us to turn back the pages of history and give the reins of power to those the Shias wish would have ruled? Is their harping on these things not really a provocation of the devil. Satan only hopes to smash the unity of the Muslims, to rip the Islamic community apart, and to incite even more dissension and discord.
If the Shias truly seek the unity of the Muslims and the revival of its former glory, they should abandon these divisive claims, which are not more than memories. Will they never desist from their annual display of theatrics at `Âshûrâ’ (the tenth of Muharram), which agitates the hearts of the members of our nation and set them one against the other, year after year? They resurrect old hatreds and animosities, and vainly return to settle old accounts!

Truth was with `Alî and his Opponents were Wrong
As for the conflict between `Alî and Mu`âwiyah, the Sunnis agree that `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib was correct to fight for his right. Mu`âwiyah, his supporters, and those who fought beside him, were wrong to challenge `Alî.
We challenge the Shias to come up with a single Sunni book that says `Alî was wrong and the caliphate should rightly have gone to Mu`âwiyah. We are ready to provide lists of hundreds of books by the Sunni scholars all declaring that Mu`âwiyah was wrong to rebel against the Commander of the Faithful, `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib. The Shias are unjustified in calling the Sunnis conspirators (nawâsib).19 The epitaph is based on the
-------------------------------------------
19 This is what the Shias call the Sunnis, whom they claim conspired against the House of the Prophet. Ni`matul-Lâh Al-Jazâ’irî mentions that the Shias regard the "nawâsib" as disbelievers, and impure, according to the consensus of the Twelve-Imam Shia scholars. He goes further saying that [the nawâsib] are worse than the Jews and the Christians, and that one of their
64
belief that the Sunnis supported Mu`âwiyah against `Alî. They also call the Sunnis "Umayyads." These are injustices they will be called to account for on the Day of Judgment.

The First Conflict was Political
The conflict between `Alî and Mu`âwiyah was purely political, yet afterwards it began to take the form of doctrinal deviations. The Shias finally formed an independent sect and split themselves away from the main body of the Muslims. They developed their own approaches to the study of the principles and branches of the Sharî`ah, Fiqh, Creed, and rules of inheritance.
However, was the conflict between `Alî and Mu`âwiyah about these things? Or Did both parties share a single belief they both had taken from the Prophet? Mu`âwiyah, in fact, insisted to pursue the murderers of `Uthmân, but `Alî believed that caution and deliberation were necessary to diffuse a potentially explosive situation that took the shape of a dissension. `Alî's opinion was, certainly, the correct approach, and those who differed with him were mistaken. In this account, related by the Shia sources, `Alî explains:
"When we first encountered the Syrians20 it was clear that Islam was our common faith.
We had not exceeded them at all, neither in faith in Allah nor in belief in His characteristics is their "preference of other men than `Alî for the Imamate (i.e., the caliphate)"; (see Al-Anwâr An-Nu`mâniyyah, 2:207-207).
----------------------------------------
20 Mu`âwiyah’s forces; he was at the time governor of Syria [trans].
65
Messenger, and they had not exceeded us either. We only differed about the avenging of the blood of `Uthmân.”21
-------------------------------------------
21 Al-Murtadâ, Nahjul-Balâghah, 3:114.