Despite the theoretical agreements Muslims have with respect to the universalities of religion such as principles \[of religion] (uṣūl), beliefs (ʿaqāʾid), ethics (akhlāq), rulings (whether it is related to worship rituals or religious rulings, rites, punitive and judicial laws, political laws, and other Islamic aspects) – they however, differ in a secondary aspect of beliefs and specific details of commands and rules. \[These differences] divide them into different sects and factions.
For these disputes, two main axes can be observed: one, the axis of beliefs which is related to the science of scholastic theology (ʿilm al-kalām), and the other, the axis of rulings (aḥkām) - in its general application, which is related to the science of jurisprudence (fiqh). The most prominent example of a dispute in the first axis is the dispute between the ashʿarīs and the muʿtazilīs in the theological issues. An example of dispute in the second axis is the dispute between the four sects of Sunnism in issues of fiqh.
One of the famous disputes between the sects of Islam is the dispute between Shia and Sunni on the issue of Imamate. Shias (Imamiyah) consider Ali Ibn Abi Talib (upon whom be peace) to be the Imam after the departure of the noble Prophet (Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him and His Household), and the placeholder of that great man, as opposed to Sunnis who consider him to be the fourth caliph. In fact, the main characteristic of the Imami sect is its belief in the imamate of the twelve Imams, \[and their] possessing three characteristics: infallibility, God-given (Divine) knowledge, and assignation from the Exalted God.
Here, the question arises: is the core of this dispute related to beliefs or kalām (and the \[resulting] fiqhi disputes are secondary), or is this dispute simply a jurisprudential one?\[1] Or, is this a political dispute, much like the disputes that exist between two political parties over the election of \[their respective] candidates for office?
This issue – at least, from the Shia perspective – is an issue of theology and kalām, and \[thus] its jurisprudential and political dimensions are secondary. In other words, the Shia belief system has axes that are contingent upon and in coordination with each other. Imamate constitutes one of these axes, which – if eliminated – \[causes] the chain \[to] lose its coherence and completeness. In order to shed \[more] light on this matter, we must make a brief survey of the Shia belief system, so that we see the role of Imamate in this interwoven system, and \[understand] the reason behind the Shia \[putting so much] concern toward this issue, and the reason for its necessity.
The first axis of the Islamic belief system is belief in the existence of One God, and, in turn, the belief in His attributes of essence and action. In the Islamic worldview, the Exalted God – just as He is the creator and the granter of all the existing phenomena – is also the Lord and the administrator of them; no existing creature is outside the purview of His creatorship and Lordship. God, the Exalted, has not created anything in vain or without purpose. Rather, all of them have been created based on an ever-wise system; and all the beings that are in a horizontal or vertical chain, as vast as infinity, form a unitary, coordinated system that is governed by divine wisdom through the laws of causality.
From among the infinite divine creations, it is man that is known for having the characteristics of reason, awareness, resoluteness, and free will. Thus, \[man] will have two paths \[before him] – \[one,] toward eternal bliss, and \[another, toward] eternal punishment – and likewise, is subject to a special Lordship (in addition to the Lordship that includes the beings with no free will) referred to as legislative Lordship. Meaning, the need for a comprehensive divine Lordship with respect to man is that God makes available to him the means and preliminaries for journeying willingly (such as, knowledge of the aim, and the path for reaching it) so that it is possible \[for him to] determine his path with awareness. Thus, divine wisdom – by way of revealed teachings – is needed to compensate for the insufficiency of knowledge based on sense and reason.
Thus, the need for a system of revelation and prophethood becomes evident, as – if Almighty God had left human beings to their own accords, and did not teach them the correct path to reaching eternal bliss (by way of the prophets), He would be like a host who invites guests but does not give them the address of the meeting place!
The teachings of the prophets, with the passage of time, and \[with] the coming under influence of various forces, would become subject to changes and alterations both intentional and unintentional. This would reach a point where \[religion] would lose its substance; \[lose its capacity for] guidance and enlightenment. \[Thus,] there comes about the need for another prophet to be sent to revive the past teachings, and – in areas of necessity – add teachings to them, or \[even] replace previous teachings with new ones.
Here, the question is raised whether this \[historical] movement will continue for all eternity, or is it possible for there to be a complete sharīʿah that can remain immune from alterations without there being the need for another prophet? Islam’s answer is the latter; all Muslims are in agreement that Islam is the last divine sharīʿah, and that the Prophet of Islam is the last of the divine prophets. And the Glorious Qur’an – the original source of this shari’ah – has reached us uncontaminated and void of alterations, and it will remain as such.
However, the Glorious Qur’an has not expressed – in detail – all of the teachings needed by humanity, and the detailed expounding \[of these teachings] is the responsibility of the great Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon him and his Household), such as has been said: "\[We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances" (Surah an-Nahl, 16:44). Thus, it could be demonstrated \[from the verse] that the second source for understanding Islam is the sunnah. However, this source does not have the same immunity as the Qur’an; reliable witnesses from history have declared as much. The great Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon him and his Household) himself predicted that certain individuals would attribute actions to him which he did not do, and narrate words from him which he did not speak.
Thus, a new question is raised: what program does the divine Lordship put forth for meeting the needs \[of humanity] after the departure of the great Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him and his Household)? It is at this point where one can observe a missing link in the chain of the philosophy and beliefs system of the Sunnis. On the contrary, the Shia beliefs system, in place of this void shines an illuminated link which is Imamate. Meaning, after the great Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon him and his Household), the responsibility for the implementation of the commands and laws of Islam – and for the interpretation of the ambiguities and analogies of the Glorious Qur’an – has been placed upon the shoulders of \[the Imams;] those who possessed God-given (Divine) knowledge and the lofty status of infallibility; those who perform every role (including authority and government) and possess every characteristic of the great Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon him and his Household), save for prophethood. In other words: the divine Lordship, in its formative stages, necessitated the existence of such individuals within the ummah, and revelatory Lordship necessitates that one obeys them.
So the system of Imamate is, in essence, the continuation of the system of prophethood. The household of the great Prophet are the inheritors of \[what were] his obligations. Without possessing the status of prophethood, they preserved and implemented the \[ideals they] inherited from that great man. Moreover, they were appointed by almighty God to administrate the Islamic society, and govern and command over the ummah, however much the implementation of this system was only possible for a short period of time (just as it was with the prophets).
Thus, it is evident that the issue of Imamate is – at its core – a kalāmī issue, which therefore must be discussed as a question of beliefs, and not as merely a secondary jurisprudential issue or a political/historical issue.
\[1] Sharḥ al-Maqāṣīd, Vol. 2, p. 271.
* This article was presented at the Tashayyu Conference in Philadelphia, July 1993. The original Persian article can be found at: http://mesbahyazdi.org/farsi/?writen/articales/articales06.htm
Written by Admin
We are group of Shia students whose aim is to make reach the fact about real islam and answer the doubts raised against shiaism in mondern days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment