by Mansoureh Tajik for the Saker Blog
Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim, “In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
In Part I (See here) of the topic, the Islamic Republic of Iran was referenced as a contemporary example that has explicitly admitted and earnestly strived to incorporate God’s Wilayat (Protecting Guardianship) and His Words within the framework of Shi’a Islam into its system of governance and to firmly guard this position at all costs. The Iranian nation has done this formally, transparently, and unapologetically. This journey has been an upstream swim by the Iranian people in roaring and turbulent waters of a global sociopolitical river that runs openly, defiantly, and proudly downwards on gravitational forces of almost any sort of wilayat, even sleazy and worthless ones, in wanton disregard of Wilayat of God.
In Part II (See here), general and specific meanings of the term wilayat were discussed briefly. Examples from Quran were referenced regarding God’s direct Wilayat over people as well as a delegated form of Wilayat in which God empowers and gives authority to His Prophets (Peace be upon them all) to govern people’s affairs and the society of the believers in accordance with His Words. What happens both structurally and functionally after the last Prophet of God Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Allihi Wasallam) with that Wilayat in the form of continued Imamat according to Shi’a Muslims is where we will continue the discussion.
Shi’a believes Ali Ibn Abitalib (Allayhu-Salaam) was the rightful successor and Imam who should have continued the protective guardianship and the governance of Muslim believers after the Prophet (SAWAW). I think it is necessary to state clearly once again that I am not writing these essays merely for their historical, religious, and socio-cultural significance. Yes, these are significant events from the stated perspectives for me and other Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni), and perhaps for a few others. But I also believe these events and their reverberations have had real, measureable, and immense moral, geopolitical, and security ramifications for populations and people of our world today, right now, and will continue to have critical impacts on global affairs, power jockeying, and alliance formation into the future. A deeper understanding of this subject gives us the necessary knowledge and skills to recognize and grab onto a robust anchor instead of clutching at straws in the very turbulent waters before and ahead of us.
Original Bifurcation and Sunni-Shi’a Division
When exploring Imamat in Shi’a, it is inevitable that we address and clarify a major bifurcation that occurred from the outset after the passing of the Prophet (SAWAW); hence I will take us on another relatively quick historical detour before returning to the essay’s designated roads.
It is helpful to bear in mind two key aspects in the hours when the Prophet (SAWAW) had just passed away: 1) Naturally, this was one of the greatest “shock and awe” moments for the Muslim Ummah in general and for those who were very close to this great Prophet of God (SAWAW) in particular. The majority in the general population as well was at its most vulnerable emotional state; 2) Among the most significant rituals in Muslim traditions are those relating to the rituals of burial of the loved ones, a brother or a sister in religion, or significant figures. To be physically present during those events is considered very important. To be absent is even more noteworthy.
Right when Ali Ibn Abitalib, the household of the Prophet (SAWAW), and many of the Prophet’s closest companions were performing the ritual ablution and covering and preparing the body for burial, and in the midst of everything, a coalition consisting of exactly 2+1 persons went missing from the scene. Unbeknownst to others at the scene, the 2+1 had gone to another location called Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah where a group of Ansar (original residents of Medina Muslims during Hijra) had been gathered by a fellow by the name of Sa’ad Ibn Ibadah to decide the leadership of their group. The 2+1 who were considered part of the Muhajir group (those Muslims who had migrated from Mecca to Medina) rushed over there in order to obtain bay’at, or vote of support, or “consensus,” for their own positions as successors to the Prophet (SAWAW) without having been given any mandate and power of representation by anyone else from the Muhajirs, Ansar, or any other Muslim group.
A bit more about the make-up of this coalition of 2+1: One person was Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s father in-law and a significant companion of the Prophet (SAWAW). In that speedy gathering in Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah and while the Prophet’s body was being prepared for burial, Abu Bakr acquired the position of the first khalifah after the Prophet (SAWAW). The other person was Omar Ibn Khattab, also the Prophet’s father in-law and a significant companion and was later appointed by Abu Bakr as the second khalifah to succeed him. The third one (i.e. the “+1” of the trio) was Abu Ubaydih Jarrah, who played a significant role in extracting bay’at for Abu Bakr’s position as khalifah and acquired prominent positions during Abu Bakr’s and Omar’s rules. He died of plague while Omar was still the khalifah otherwise he would have become the third khalifah.
As anticipated, with khilafat also comes the control of the Baytul-Mal. If I were to demonstrate for you the significance of Baytul-Mal, I would ask you to imagine a federal reserve, a department of finance, and an internal revenue service of a nation were all to be integrated into one department and for the key to be given to the one in charge. To put it more concisely, Baytul-Mal deals with all significant material wealthy and natural resources, financial matters, spoils of war, etc. of the Muslim Ummah.
Although the most comprehensive and the most reliable narrations and discussions with respect to Imamat are preserved in Shi’a sources and I am of course writing these essays from the perspective of a Shi’a Muslim, I am opting to take a careful look at the account of these significant events and explore the records not from Shi’a sources but from the sources that the Sunni consider their most reliable and significant ones just for this specific segment. Regretfully, notable portions of these records have been censored and great many parts have been distorted but we can still find in them some hidden gems here and there when we explore the records in their entirety.
As a side note, methods like triangulation of similar records, comparative textual analyses from different sources, and pattern identification regarding modified and/or eliminated segments from one source but preserved in other sources in a methodical and systematic way are excellent techniques to discover angles and directions of distortions and make them azhar u minashams, “More Evident than the Sun” for those who may wish to dig in a bit deeper.
In any case, I would like to reference three books that occupy high prominence among Sunni sources. They are Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Tariq ar-Rusol wa al-Muluk (also known as TariqTabari). Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of hadith that contains sayings, teachings, and accounts of Prophet Muhammad’s (SAWAW) life. It was compiled by Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 AD). Similarly, Sahih Muslim is a collection of hadith compiled by Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi (822-875 AD). The two Sahih collections form what is called the Sahihain –the Two Sahihs, the two corrections in which major filtration and modifications of narratives occurred— and they are considered by Sunni Muslims as two of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah, or tradition, of the Prophet (SAWAW).
With regards to the events surrounding the Prophet’s passing and Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah, they narrate and repeat more or less similar accounts. For the sake of brevity, I have translated a relevant segment only from Tarikh Al-Tabari here but I recommend exploring other records as well to those who are curious and interested. Tarikh Al-Tabari states:
Right then [i.e. when people were preparing for the burial of the Prophet (SAWAW)], Ansar had gathered at Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah for bay’at, or vote of support, with Sa’ad Ibn Ibadah. Abu Bakr found out and along with Omar and Abu Ubaydih Jarrah went to them and said, ‘What do you want?’
They said, “A ruler from us and a ruler from you.”
Abu Bakr said, “The rulers from us and the ministers from you.” Then he added, “I prefer one of these two for you [pointing to] Omar and Abu Ubaydih Jarrah. A group had come to the Prophet and asked him to send them a trustworthy chief. And he sent Abu Ubaydih Jarrah with them. [So,]I prefer him for you.”
At this moment, Omar stood up and said, “Who would be satisfied to leave behind the one whom the Prophet has put forward?” He said this and extended his hand for Bay’at to Abu Bakr. Others followed suit. And the Ansar, or some of the Ansar, said, “We do not do Bay’at except with Ali [Ibn Abitalib].”
Ziad Ibn Kalib says Omar Ibn Khattab went to Ali’s house where Talhih, Zubair, and others of Muhajirs had gathered and said, “If you do not come out for Bay’at, I will set fire on the house.” [1]
Although the last paragraph appears in Tariq Tabari exactly where it is quoted here, it seems to refer to a gathering of a significant number of the companions of the Prophet (SAWAW) in Imam Ali (AS) and Fatimah Zahra’s (SA) house in protest to what had happened sometimes later. Nevertheless, I translated the segment exactly as it appears in the copy that I have. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim report more or less similar scenarios but the part in bold is missing from Sahih al-Bukhari but clearly stated in Tariq Tabari. So, I would like to bring another segment from Sahih al-Bukhari about that event, which is an excerpt from the narration of a long lecture by Omar Ibn Khattab many years later toward the end of his life as khilafah as he was recalling and retelling the events of Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah. It reads:
Omar then said, “…The argument went on and got louder. So much so that I feared there would be a division. I then said, ‘O Abu Bakr, extend your hand.’ He extended his hand and I did Bay’at with him. And the Muhajirs, too, did their Bay’at with him. [Note: there were no Muhajir there except for the 2+1 and there is absolutely no record that they were chosen as representatives for the Muhajirs.] Then, the Ansar did their Bay’at with them. We assailed Sa’ad Ibn Ibadah who had nominated himself for khilafah. Someone from Ansar shouted, ‘You are killing Sa’ad Ibn Ibadah!’ I said, ‘God kills Sa’ad Ibn Ibadah!’”
Omar continued, “By God, for us, no other work more critical than doing Bay’at with Abu Bakr had happened. We feared that if we had left those people right then and if we did not do the Bay’at right then, they would pick a man from among themselves. So, we would end up either doing Bay’at with them against our will or we would fight them which would have led to ruins. From now on, however, if anyone without consulting with Muslims does Bay’at, neither the one with whom there was a Bay’at should be followed, nor the one who has done the Bay’at has any legitimacy. They both must be killed.”[2]
In other words, do as we tell you not as we did back then. Omar Ibn Khattab seems to present what happened in Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah as a one-time-emergency event because they had to do that in a rush at that time to obtain khilafat or it would have gone to someone else and they would not have stood for it and would have fought it and there would have been division, war, and ruins among the Ummah. It is quite heartwarming. However, now that they reached their goals of khilafat, if anyone else emulated the trio’s method, both sides of the bay’at must be killed. Would it be too cynical to call this a double standard?
Claims Regarding Ijma’ and Companionship by the Sunni
Perhaps the two most standard response/reasons Sunni communities and scholars offer regarding the legitimacy of Abu Bakr and then Omar Ibn Khattab in succeeding the Prophet (SAWAW) as khalifas have been: 1) It was based on ijma’, or consensus, or an agreement of the majority; 2) Abu Bakr and Omar were close companions of the Prophet (SAWAW), therefore, their positions as two khalifah to succeed the Prophet (SAWAW) were rightful and quite legitimate. That is, piety by association.
With respect to ijma’, or consensus or majority vote of support, the reliable records and evidence do not corroborate that claim. In fact, months following the event of Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah, the choices for tools and mechanisms by which to obtain support (in cases of resistance) of notable figures included putting swords on people’s necks, breaking doors and dragging people through the streets to take them for Bay’at, burning down house doors and entering by force, and sending people to exile. Do our Muslim brothers believe that if they censored and distorted their own records of what actually happened nobody else was keeping any records? Also, isn’t God the Greatest Witness to all of our intentions and deeds, be they hidden or evident to the public?
The Shi’a’s record is replete with examples of mechanisms and tools by which the ijma’ of Ummah was obtained and has continued to be obtained for centuries. We have significant “witnesses” buried in unknown locations (in the case of Sayyidata Nisa al-Alamin, Fatimah Zahra Salamullah Alayha) and in Najaf, Karbala, Kazmain, Samara, Damascus, Mashad, Qom, and elsewhere that will testify in the Day of Judgment about the creative ways the ijma’ was initially obtained and how those fine traditions of obtaining ijma’ led to the killing eleven Imams and the “Disappearance” of our 12th Imam (AS).
It is quite saddening and disheartening for us to observe that such traditions of obtaining ijma’ have been kept active and alive to present time. Modern day examples include but are not limited to the ISIS obtaining ijma’ in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere; Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS) of Al-Saud obtaining ijma’ from Khashoggi and reaching a marvelous ijma’ with Saad Hariri when he was called to Saudi Arabia a while back; MBS reaching imaja’ with other princes in Saudi royal court, and daily extraction of ijma’ in Yemen.
The ijma’ reached in Egypt, I think, serves as another sobering contemporary example. From July 3rd to 5th in 2013, General Adel Fattah el-Sisi, then the Defense Minister of Egypt, led a particularly bloody and successful coup d’etat against the democratically elected president, Muhammad Morsi. The grand mufti of Al-Azhar Mosque, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb was immediately seen to shake hands (do Bay’at) with el-Sisi and express his support for the new head of state just when the streets of Cairo and elsewhere were still the scenes of ongoing slaughter. Al-Azhar is regarded by many Sunni Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere in the world as one of the most influential religious institutions that serves as a reference, an important source for fatwa, and many religious questions in modern day. Some semblance of objection against violence, brutality, and transgression of the military to obtain ijma’ from the population was expected. In any case, we leave the questions of ijma’ be since these are not the focus of our discussion.
With respect to claims of companionship of the Prophet (SAWAW) as a solid qualification to succeed him, I am quite familiar with writings and speeches by very well-known and active Sunni scholars and thinkers who have stated that for Shi’a to claim that Abu Bakr and Omar were not qualified to succeed the Prophet (SAWAW) as khalifah is tantamount to a “vote of no confidence” about the Prophet (SAWAW). That is, it is like saying he failed to guide his own closest allies and companions. I seek refuge in God!
These claims are in direct conflict with teachings of Quran and it indicates that those who make such statements demonstrate a deficiency in the most rudimentary understanding of Quran. Based on the teachings of Quran, belief in God, Taqwa, or piety, purity, fear of God, and being mindful of God’s boundaries, fiqh, or deep understanding of Islam and Quran, good deeds, qualities as rightful successor to the Prophet of God, and salvation are not gained through kinship, friendship, companionship, osmosis, or whatever else exogenous to the person’s own true inner beliefs and intentions and his/her actual deeds in the Right Path and obedience to God and His prophets. Quran gives us ample examples in this regard. I would like to review some of them here:
Two brothers, sons of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him), Cane (Qaabil) and Able (Haabil), were born and raised in the household of this prophet of God (peace be upon him). Yet, one brother disobeyed God and committed a deadly sin, wrongfully killing his own innocent brother. When presenting the story of Cane and Able, does Quran attribute the transgression of Cane to a failing by God’s prophet, Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to guide him properly? Does God say, “Adam, you failed to guide your own son therefore you have failed as a prophet?!” No. Quran reports:
“His ego provoked him into killing his brother. And thus, he became a loser.” Chapter 5 (Al Maa’idah), Verse 30.
Related to another great prophet of God, Prophet Noah (peace be upon him), his wife and son did not make it to the Arc of salvation as a consequence of their unrighteous beliefs and deeds. One of them was Prophet Noah’s (peace by upon him) most intimate companion and the other was his own flesh and blood born and raised in the household of this great Prophet of God. When Quran tells us the story of Noah (peace be upon him) and the drowning of his son and wife, does God censure Noah for having failed to guide his own wife and son? Does Quran give Noah (peace be upon him) a vote of “no confidence” as a prophet of God? No. Quran reports:
“It was said, ‘O Noah, disembark with peace and blessings from us upon you and generations that will come from those with you. As for the others, we will let them enjoy temporarily then afflict them with painful retribution.’” Chapter 11 (Hood), Verse 48.
The wife of Prophet Lot (peace be upon him), too, lived as part of the household of a prophet of God but refused to be guided and joined ranks with the society of morally, ethically, and sexually corrupt non-believers engaged in acts of homosexuality and other sexual deviances. Was there also a “no confidence” vote in Quran for this great prophet of God and a failure to guide his own wife? No. Quran reports:
“God cites as examples of disbelievers the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under two of our righteous servants but they [the wives] betrayed them. Consequently, they [the prophets] could not protect their wives at all from God. The wives were told, ‘Enter the hellfire along with the others.’” Chapter 66 (Al-Tahreem), Verse 10.
Just to put another nail in the coffin of mere companionship and association as reasons for either salvation or condemnation, we read in Quran the story of Asiya (peace be upon her), the wife of Egyptian Pharaoh. She was in the company of one of the most wretched and cursed characters reported in Quran. Yet, she is praised in Quran as a true believer:
“And God cites as an example of the believers the wife of Pharaoh. She said, “My Lord, build an abode for me in paradise and save me from Pharaoh and his evil work. Save me from the wicked people.” Chapter 66 (Al-Tahreem), Verse 11.
Favoritism, nepotism, associations, genetics, tribalism, personal connections, and what have you might have some currency in ways and means of non-believers or idol worshipers but it is not the way of true believers of God. And it is certainly not part of the teachings of Quran. If someone was so blessed as to be among the companions of the Prophet (SAWAW), it only means that s/he had that much more responsibility to obey him, honor the pledges s/he made to him, and remain absolutely true to his teachings which are the teachings of Quran. Her/his questioning in the Day of Judgment, too, will be that much more severe. By no means is that companionship by itself is any sort of carte blanche to justify or excuse future wrongful conducts or disobedience of God and His Prophet or breaking one’s pledge. The Sunni brothers (May God have Mercy on their souls and on ours, too), especially the scholars had better rationalize the events using a different venue and provide an alternative line of reasoning based on the teachings of Quran.
Tragically for all Muslims, what we observe in Saqifeh Bani Sa’idah and thereafter is not just a series of conflicts and a major division among the Ummah over the rightful successor of the Prophet (SAWAW) and other important matters. More critically, those events set a dangerous precedent in accepting the successor to the Prophet (SAWAW) not as someone who was decidedly assigned by him to the position of Wilayat and Imamat under a direct order from God because he was the most righteous, pious, knowledgeable and infallible imam similar in all aspects to the Prophet (SAWAW) himself and in lockstep with him but based on some arbitrary and capricious criteria and mechanisms that have condemned the Ummah to what we observe today. Again, we seek refuge in God! End of detour.
Imamat: Word Root and General Definition
We begin this section by exploring the term imamat. It is a derivative of tri-literal root word hamza mīm mīm which means “to turn to or intend for something with special and significant attention.”[3] This meaning is preserved in all derivatives of the word. The word umm, or mother, the word imam, or leader and guide, the word ummah, or a nation or a people, and the word āmmīn, or trustworthy, are all derived from this same root word. They all carry within them the original meaning along with unique nuances associated with each specific term depending on the context in which the term is used.
An umm, a mother, turns to and intends for caretaking of her child with special and significant attention. This “turning to, intending to care with special and significant attention” is out of a deeply-rooted wilayat taqwini, natural and instinctive protecting guardianship, as well as a wilayat tashri’i, a delegated and authorized guardianship which is anchored in trust, responsibility, and commitment to ward off harm and to provide care and safety for the child in order to provide proper growth and development of body, mind, and soul. In return, a child, too, turns to his mother with special and significant attention and follows her every move because he knows instinctively that his very existence, survival, and development depend on her. So, out of laws of taqwin, he has accepted his mom’s wilayat. As he grows up, matures, and gains a better understanding of the world around him, he reaches a deep realization that the “do’s” and “don’ts” dispensed by his umm (i.e. his mother) –the laws of tashri’— that he did not like or understand at the time had been necessary, helpful, and beneficial for his overall survival and development.
I have used the example of umm, or mother, and child here just as an illustration of reciprocity and mutual “turning to with special attention” that is inherent in the root word, hamza mīm mīm. Any element or phenomenon that turns this reciprocal wilayat and umm-child relationship into a forced and antagonistic connection can no longer actualize the full potential of the mother for guardianship or the child for his development. It taints and corrupts the relationship. The consequence of a selfish, self-serving, ignorant, and negligent umm is often severe setbacks in the growth and development of the child. Ultimately, this is a labor of love.
I would like us to carry the overall spirit of this meaning in a hierarchy of a complex social strata like those related to imams and ummah, the other two terms that are derivatives of hamza mīm mīm. Just as wilayat could fall within either a constructive province or a destructive one (as it was explained in the previous essay), so too imamat could fall in either a sound realm or a faulty terrain. Indeed, people could turn to imams who would lead them to a Never Never Land where the leadership of immaturity rules the society of peter pan followers refusing to grow up culturally, spiritually, mentally, and what have you. Modern examples of this abound and the readers do not have to look too hard to find some fine examples.
Conversely, there could be imams that lead carefully, wisely, piously, and selflessly their ummah in the path of deeply just cultural, social, and spiritual growth and development. These are the types in which we are interested and to whom we “turn to or intend for with special and significant attention” because they, in turn, “turn to, or intend for us, the ummah, with special and significant attention”.
Imamat of Prophets of God and Its Continuation Beginning with Imam Ali
In Quran, the term imam has been used twelve times (seven times in singular form and five times in plural form). Examples of Verses in which God refers to His Prophets’ as Imams are:
“And when Ibrahim was put to test by his God with the Words and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘Indeed, I Am the One Who establishes you an Imam for the people.’” Surah 2 (Baqara), Verse 124.
“And We bestowed on him Issac and Yaqub in addition. And We made all of them righteous. And We established them as Imams who guide by Our command. And We inspired them doing of the good deeds and the establishment of the prayers and giving of Zakah and they were worshipers for Us.” Surah 21 (Anbiaa), Verse 72-73.
According to Shi’a Muslims, while Prophet Muhammad (SAWAW) was the last Prophet of God and Quran the Final and Complete Book from God, the position of rightful Imamat as determined by God did not end with the passing of the Prophet (SAWAW) and the Muslims were not left without an infallible guardian and leader. Not only that but also Prophet Muhammad (SAWAW) clearly declared the Imamat of Imam Ali (AS) during his return from his last Hajj pilgrimage known as Hajjatul Wida, or the Hajj of Farewell in Ghadir Khumm. There is a consensus among all Shi’a scholars that prior to the announcement, Verse 67, Chapter 5 (Surah Maidah) had been revealed to the Prophet (SAWAW):
“O Messenger! Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord and if you do not do so, then you have not conveyed His Message. And God will protect you from the people. Indeed, God does not guide the people who disbelieve.”
Shortly after the revelation of that verse, according to a well-known narration called Hadith al-Ghadir, Prophet Muhammad (SAWAW) gathered all pilgrims , delivered a dialectical lecture in the midst of which he raised Imam Ali’s (AS) hand and said, “Anyone for whom I am the Wali, then this Ali is his Wali.”
Late Allameh Amini, one of the most well-known Shi’a scholars and the author of the most comprehensive book regarding the Imamat of Imam Ali (AS) titled Al-Ghadir (11 Volumes), in the 1st volume of the book[4], he has referenced narrations from 110 of the Prophet’s Companions (Shi’a and Sunni), 84 of the Taabe’in (Shi’a and Sunni), and 360 of Muslim scholars (Shi’a and Sunni) from 2nd through 14th Century (Hijrah) all reporting this hadith very clearly and irrefutably. Below is a translation of a segment of one of the narrations regarding the event of Ghadir in the book that is from the Sunni sources:
<blockquote> With the Prophet of God we headed out [of Mecca] until we settled in Ghadir Khum. The caller on the Prophet’s order called for all people to gather. When we had all gathered, he [the Prophet] said, “Am I not to you better guardian than yourselves?” We said, “Yes, you are, O, the Messenger of God.” He said, “Am I not to you better guardians than your mothers?” We said, “Yes, you are, O, the Messenger of God.” He said, “Am I not to you better guardians than your fathers?” We said, “Yes, you are, O, the Messenger of God.” And with these sorts of questions, he repeated his precedence and we all affirmed and confessed. Then he said, “Anyone over whom I am a Mowla [Guardian], then Ali will be his Mowla. O, God, Love the one who loves Ali and Consider enemy the one who is his enemy.” Then, Omar Ibn Khattab said, “Pleasant be to you today O son of Abitalib that you have realized today while you are the Wali and Guardian of every believer.”[Pages 46-47] </blockquote>
Despite my best efforts to present the topic in three essays, I failed to do so. I will still need to cover some evidence and explain records from Imam Ali’s Imamat, the succession by other eleven Imams, the Wilayat and Imamat of our 12th Imam, and finally the Wilayat Faqih. It is a chain reaction and any missing step is likely to mess up the final product. Please bear with me a bit more. To be continued, Go Willing.
References
[1] Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari (224-301 HQ). “Tariq al-Rusol wa al-Muluk [The History of the Prophet and the Kings].” Farsi Translation, Abulqasem Payandeh. 6th Edition, Vol. 4, Pages 1326-1342. Asatir Publishing, Tehran.
[2] Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari (194-256 HQ). “Al-Jamia’ Al-Sahih.” Arabic and Farsi Trans. Vol. 7, Chapter 31, Hadith # 6830, Pages 234-235. Sheykh ul-Islam Ahmad Jam Publishing.
[3] Mostafavi H. (1385). “Al-Tahqiq fi Kalemat il-Quran il-Karim [Investigation into the terms in the Quran Al-Karim].” An Encyclopedia of Arabic terms. 1st Edition, Vol. 1. The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guide, Tehran, 1368.
[4] Amini A (1281-1341 HS). “Al-Ghadir Fi Kitab al-Sunnah wal-Adab.” 2nd Edition, Vol. 1. Farsi Trans. Published by Center for Printing and Publication of Ba’that Publishing, Tehran, Iran.
Very interesting and insightfull…i reckon that sometimes i got lost…i am anyway determined to better understand…Thank you.
It can all be boiled down to, Sunnis, pretty much made up the prophet’s heir while the Shia believe in the continuation of his bloodline
Thank you for this great effort to reveal the truth and show true Islam as against the caricature that is being portrayed today by both enemies from within and without.
Waiting anxiously for the next part, Jazakallahu Khairan.
A good article laying out the essential concepts of Shia Twelver Islam. I happen to believe that this is the true and genuine expression of Islam, from what I have learned and researched for myself.
(That is not to say that I accept Islam-I do not as a faithful Orthodox Christian. But, I do believe that this Shia Islam is the authentic belief of Islam as handed down from Muhammad)
And at the heart of this true Islamic conception, the Hidden Imam;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqITaMLi4T4
The void which is the comment section of Ms. Tajik’s articles speaks volumes about how effective anti-Islamic propaganda has been in killing any and all interest in Islamic ideology. I guess ISIS didn’t really help matters much either. And the fact that the recognition for Iranian bravery and the defeat of ISIS all went to Russia, did not do much to arouse interest in Iranian ideology or to bring attention to the Iranian plight and cause.
As far as the people of the world are concerned, Iran and ISIS are the same thing. Pffft..what am I saying, Iran is much, much worse. And even when someone does comment here, they go out of their way to ensure that everyone knows they do not follow or believe in Islam. How noble of you, Vladimir. Best not be mistaken for a Muslim, eh? Hah
Jamshyd
Welcome to the AngloZionist political correctness set standard of reasoning and conformity. God, Holy Scriptures who need those when the Western value have already established what is and what is not, in their world economy is the alfa and omega, whether you have to annihilate the Aboriginal or destroy a whole continent to achieve this matters not.
Just do whatever you have to do to make yourself great and when it is the appointed time you will be laid to rest and who cares whatever happens after that, any attempt to oppose this then you deserve to be killed. The new normal in the world of today dictated by law of the stomach and base instinct.
I drew a distinction precisely because I am not spiritually indifferent but rather ardent in my beliefs. I can assure you that particularly in areas where the West has become degenerate in (personal and social morality), you will find me fully in agreement with those who hold to these same traditions within Islam;
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/568227677956618139/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/636203884854907448/
When I find someone right, I often note it. When I see something wrong, I am (depending on the circumstances) willing to point that out too.
I’m certain you’d rather deal with my perspective than that of someone indifferent or an Ecumenist-because when it comes down to it, they believe in very little indeed.
I’m sure you’re right, Vladimir.
I cannot find any fault in Orthodox Christian doctrine. It is the truth, and it is compatible with my understanding of the world, by which I mean that I can easily use the language and terminology of the Christian faith to communicate spiritual truths, as I can with the Islamic and the Zoroastrian terminology. But I can also see that Buddhism, Jainism, Mexican Nagualism، and Amazonian shamanism are also expressions of the same truths.
I’ll be frank, I never studied an ancient religious doctrine that I didn’t like or could not relate to. They are all based on the same premises. And the main premise is that there is another world out there; a non-material world.
There are many ways to get a glimpse of the other world. Fasting, meditation and the ingestion of hallucinogenic plants are three concrete traditional methods that people have used since time immemorial. And there are many other ways.
There are many ignorant people out there who believe that science negates the existence of God, the spirit, the other world, the whole shebang. They are wrong.
Modern scienctific thinking says that out there in the world there is a massive flow of electromagnetic energy. The range of frequencies of these electromagnetic waves are unlimited in both directions. Out of this infinite spectrum of energy, our organic equipment is only sensitive to a certain band. The rest goes right over our heads, so to speak.
But even within the human band, we only perceive a very narrow section, which is composed of what we perceive as seven colors. So, simply put, we can only see things which are in the realm of those seven colors. An infinitesimally small part of the whole.
So, the entirety of the electromagnetic energy which is out there is constantly blasting our eyes. Our eyes filter out most of it, but they transform a part of that electromagnetic energy into electrical impulses, which are sent to the brain. The brain analyses the incoming data and again skims a good deal of it, which includes whatever we are unfamiliar with, the unknown, and projects the rest, like a movie projector, inside our brain. The part which gets projected is all the things which we are familiar with.
Thus, first of all, what we believe we see all around us, is actually not outside of us at all, but is a neurological projection inside our brains. And second, what we see is only things that we are familiar with, which is what gives us the illusory impression that what we see is all there is to the world, and even worse that we know everything there is to know.
So, the world we see around us is not the real world. It is merely an ape’s interpretation of sensory data. The real world is the “other world” which religions have been alluding to for millenia.
When we die, we will be thrown into that other world, and we will no longer have our ape companion to filter out most of the data and make sense of the chaos. The chaos will be so intense that it will dissolve our total being in an instant.
So, what is life? Life is a small preparatory area that we have been gifted with to make ourselves ready for our inevitable meeting with infinity. It is possible to survive that meeting, and not be dissolved by it. A life of discipline and wisdom is what can help us to overcome that first encounter with what’s out there. After that, it is a whole new struggle for survival, all over again. There is no limit to how long we can potentially hold on to our consciousness and individuality. We can join with that vastness out there and ride it forever.
Such a shame that people waste their short years in this world in pursuit of absolute nonsense.
Vladimir, your religion is a true path to salvation. Stick with it, study it carefully, and do not let any temptation lead you astray, mate.
Moderator: Many thanks, Jamshyd!
I read this elsewhere, merely sharing –
Belief and non-belief belong to the same family.
There is no difference between the two. Their bodies are different, but not their soul.
He who has to seek Truth must, therefore, be aware of both. If one is a well the other is a ditch.
Both are all right for falling into, but he who has to move on, must take the middle path, for the mind becomes liberated only after being freed from both.
He and only he who is neither a theist nor an atheist,
neither a believer nor a non-believer, can undertake a journey to Truth.
……………………………………………………
Somebody had asked an old sage, “Is there such an advice as no one has ever given ?
Is there such an instruction as no good teacher has as yet imparted ?”
The sage said, “Yes, certainly there is. Indeed, there is an instruction which has never been imparted and an advice which has never been given before.”
The man began to ask, “Sir, can you tell me what it is ?”
The sage simply laughed and said, “It is not an object. Nor is it any thought.”
Truth cannot be taught through any word.
Know that which can be taught through the medium of words is not Truth.
Truth can be known but cannot be communicated.
In order to know it we have to become worldless, silent and void.
How can that which can be known in void, be uttered through words.
William C. Chittick, in his book about Rumi, “The Sufi Path of Love”, states that:
Rumi has nothing but pity and disdain for those who look at the world around and within themselves and do not understand that what they are seeing is a veil over reality. The world is a dream, a prison, a trap, foam thrown up from the ocean, dust kicked up by a passing horse. But it is not what it appears to be.
“If everything that appears to us were just as it appears, the Prophet, who was endowed with such penetrating vision, both illuminated and illuminating, would never have cried out, “Oh Lord, show us things as they are!”” -Rumi
He goes on to say: Rumi draws a fundamental distinction between “form” (surat) and “meaning” (ma`na). Form is a thing’s outward appearance, meaning its inward and unseen reality. “Form is shadow, meaning the Sun.” -Rumi
“Know that the outward form passes away, but the World of Meaning remains forever.”
“How long will you make love with the shape of the jug? Leave aside the jug’s shape: Go, seek water!”
“Having seen the form, you are unaware of the meaning. If you are wise, pick out the pearl from the shell.”
The Prophet said, “Behold the form of the heavens and the earth, and through this form draw benefit from that Universal Meaning. For you see the changes wrought by the Wheel of Heaven, the rains of the clouds in season, summer and winter, and the changes of Time. You see that everything is in its place and in accordance with wisdom. After all, how does this inanimate cloud know that it must send down rain in season? You see the earth, how it nurtures plants and makes one into ten. Well, Someone does this. See Him by means of this world, and take replenishment from Him. Just as you take replenishment from the meaning of the human reality through the body, take replenishment from the meaning of the world through the world’s form.”
“The earth has the external shape of dust, but inside are the luminous Attributes of God. Its outward has fallen into war with its inward; its inward is like a pearl and its outward a stone. Its outward says, “I am this and no more.” Its inward says, “Look well, before and behind!””
“Its outward denies, saying, “The inward is nothing.” The inward says, “We will show you. Wait!”
“The unbeliever’s argument is only this: “I see no home but this outward.””
“Day and night, the Sea keeps on churning the foam. You behold the foam but not the Sea, how strange!”
“Everyone has turned his face toward some direction, but the saints have turned in the direction without directions.”
“In the direction without directions all is spring; any other direction holds nothing but the cold of December.”
“He appears to be still and in movement, but He is neither this nor that; He manifests Himself in place, but in truth He has no place.”
“You are from place, but your origin is No-place: Close down this shop and open up that shop!”
“How long will you give signs? Silence! For that Origin of signs has no sign.”
“Colorlessness is the root of colors, picturelessness the root of pictures, wordlessness the root of words and the mine the root of coins, so behold!”
“Thousands of colors have come from the Vat, which transcends blue and white.”
“Form comes into existence from the Formless, just as smoke is born from fire.” -Rumi
He continues: Rumi often discerns between form and meaning in terms of “existence” (hasti, wujud) and “nonexistence” (nisti, ‘adam). This pairing of terms is more complicated than many others, since each of the two words may refer either to form or to meaning, depending upon the context. From one point of view, we see this world as an existent thing. Hence form is existence, while meaning is formless and nonexistent. But if we look carefully, we see that this form or “existence” is but dust upon the wind. Compared to the ocean, the foam may truly be called “nonexistent.” So from a second point of view, God and meaning are existence, while form and the world are nonexistence. Rumi often contrasts these two points of view in the same verses, and at other times he refers to one point of view or the other.
“This world of nonexistence appears as existent things, and that world of Existence is exceedingly hidden.”
“We and our existences are nonexistences. Thou art Absolute Existence showing Thyself as perishable things.”
“We are all lions, but lions on a banner: We keep on leaping because of the wind.” -Rumi
—
The above is one of the best English translations/elucidations of Rumi’s ideas that I have been able to find. It is only just adequate to convey the message.
So, what we take to be the outward world is actually a phantom projection; it is form, it is non-existence. To find real meaning we must turn inward, to the abstract and formless, which is what really exists out there.
The language of the spirit, of the abstract, of formlessness, is silence. Our human languages can bring a person up to this threshold, which is like a doorway to the spirit. But to take the next step places one in the realm of silent knowledge, knowledge without words.
Just like forms, words represent meaning. The words themselves are not the meaning, neither do the words create the meaning. The meaning was always there; words are simply mental pointers to the meaning. But words are very limited in the scope of meaning which they can convey.
By contemplating how meaning can exist without words, how knowledge can exist without language, one will be putting oneself on the threshold of silent knowledge, which is knowledge of the spirit, which is like an intuitive direct knowledge of things. The knowledge of meanings, not forms.
The real form of God is unimaginable as said in the Vedas and there is no question of seeing or talking or touching the God. The Gita also says that nobody can know God (Mam tu the Veda Na kashchana). Such unimaginable God cannot be said to have a form and cannot even be said to be formless. The Creator is beyond the creation, which is a four-dimensional network of space and time made up of with matter and energy.The creation contains both formless items like space, energy and air and also items with form like water, earth etc. If you say that God has form or that He is formless, then God becomes a part of the creation and not beyond the creation. The the Veda says that no item in the creation including the pure awareness or life energy is God (Neti Neti…)🙏🙏
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti
—————
Off topic.
Please take any further discussion on this subject to the MFC.
The Moderator.
thanks. im looking forward to reading this series…. be sure to put context when necessary since you are diving into all twelve imams and how and why they are infallible and what have they done since. like the event of shia split. date. and how would the friends of ali who are with him, approve of the shia sect/split. ok maybe i dont ask the correct question. i hope you dont take this as a ridicule.
and then tell how would you answer for sunni respected scholar criticism of shia.. i have seen how you answer some critics above.
From the Shia perspective, the Shia did not split from the Sunni. It was the other way around. The schism was over the Imamate versus the Caliphate. The Shia view the Imamate as the original righteous path, whereas the Caliphate was a schismatic heresy. The Shia view of the Imamate is similar to the concept of the divine right of kings.
Thus, from the Shia perspective, the Shia are practicing the original message of Islam as delivered to humanity by the Prophet and his Family (the Ahl-al Bayt). This is why the Umayyads wanted to completely exterminate the Shia off the face of the earth. That is why there is such great significance attached to the Battle of Karbala, the aftermath of which continues to felt today in the conflict between the Axis of Resistance against the Zionist-Wahhabi Adversary.
Essentially, the Shia are traditionalists for whom Tradition is paramount over Scripture as it is divinely ordained, as with the Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Theravada Buddhists. For the Sunni, Scripture is paramount and Tradition is not divinely ordained. In this regard, the Sunni are similar to Protestants.