INQUIRY 19 to 21
|
|
INQUIRY 19 to 21 |
|
Wilson: Now it is about time to discuss the important issue of Immortality. The Old Testament is not clear on the subject of the Hereafter. The Jews, therefore, do not emphasize life after death. The New Testament has dealt with the subject and spoken clearly of the Hereafter; con-sequently, the Christians, in general, subscribe to the be-lief in the Hereafter. I know that the Holy Qur’an confirms this doctrine, but I would like to know if it is considered one of the articles of the faith of Islam.
Chirri: The Doctrine of Resurrection is an important article of the Islamic faith. The book of Islam declares that the human race shall cease to exist on this planet, and that on a certain day, appointed by God and known only to Him, every human being will be brought back to life again and required to give an account for what he had done during his lifetime. Every individual will receive on that day a reward or punishment according to his good or bad deed:
“Everyone on it (the Earth) passes away, and there endures forever the might of your Lord, the Lord of Glory and Honor.” 55:26-27
“And they used to say: When we die and become dust and bones, shall we then be raised? Say: The ancients and those of later times will surely be gathered together for the appointed hour of a known day.” 56:47-50
Wilson: The concept of the Hereafter is very remote from the area of our human experience. It is not easy to conceive that a person who died physically will continue to live spiritually or that he will live later, long after he died. Science, though not able to disprove the possibility of life after death, is not able to give any support to such a concept.
Chirri: Although the concept of the Hereafter is beyond the area of our human experience, it does seem to be logi-cal. To be consistent, we have to subscribe to this doctrine. We believe in God and His justice. The Just God, Who is All Powerful, is not expected to leave a good doer without a reward, nor should we expect Him to leave an oppressor unpunished. Millions and millions of good doers, oppress-ed and persecuted, lived and died without being compen-sated. Millions and millions of wrong doers, persecutors, murderers, and tyrants lived and died without being pena-lized in this world. The Just God Who is All-Powerful, should not let such wrong doers escape His punishment, nor should He leave the good doers uncompensated. There must be another world in which there will be an ample time for implementing the heavenly justice.
The Holy Qur’an bases the necessity of the Hereafter on the concept of the heavenly justice:
“On that day (the Day of Judgment) men will come forth as scattered individuals, so that they may be shown their works.
“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” 99:6-8
Wilson: Your argument in support of the doctrine of the Hereafter falls short of its ultimate goal. It is a good argu-ment, but all it amounts to is that we should expect a future world in which God rewards the good doer and penalizes the wrong doer; but it does not prove that our expectation will materialize. There is a great difference between what ought to be and what will be. Our purpose is not only to show the need for a future world, but to prove, also, that that world will become a reality.
Chirri: The existence of the future world cannot be proven by a direct and tangible evidence. It is beyond the area of our perception and experience. It is a future unre-lated naturally to our present, nor is it linked with it through a familiar cause. Tangible and direct evidence on such a future is absent, but indirect evidence on that future is available.
The prophets of God had forecast the future world, and we may rely on their information. The evidence of the truthfulness of those prophets is the indirect evidence on the Hereafter. We may rely on the statements of a prophet such as Mohammad, because his prophethood is supported by a tangible evidence. A prophet does not mislead the people, nor would he misinform them, We have to accept his state-ments on the future as well as on the present. To accept his prophethood and doubt his information is inconsistent.
Wilson: How important is this article of the faith in Islam from the Qur’anic point of view?
Chirri: In many passages from the Holy Qur’an, the belief in the Hereafter is placed next to the belief in God. This shows that the belief in the Hereafter is more im-portant than any other article of the Islamic faith after the belief in God:
“Surely those who believe (in Islam) and those who are Jews, and the Christians. . ., whoever believes in God and the Hereafter and does good, they have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them nor shall they grieve.” 2:62
“They believe in God and the Hereafter, and they enjoin good and forbid evil and vie one with another in the good deeds. And those are among the righteous.” 3: 114
Wilson: Mohammad has informed mankind of the Here-after. His information is clear and positive. Jesus, before him, advanced some information on the subject. Moses seems to have been completely silent on the issue. This raises a question: The absence of information on the subject in the books of Moses is puzzling. If the doctrine of Resur-rection is so important, it should have been revealed to Moses, as well as to Mohammad and Jesus.
Chirri: The absence of any statement on the subject in the books of Moses does not mean that God did not reveal to him any information on the Hereafter, nor should it prove that Moses never informed his people of a future life. The five books of Moses probably had undergone some changes and deletions. The Holy Qur’an informs us that Moses had spoken of the Hereafter:
“And he who believed (in the message of Moses) said: (addressing the Opponents of Moses) O My people, follow me. I will guide you to the right way. O My people, the life of this world is but a (passing) enjoyment, and the Hereafter; that is the abode to settle.” 40:38-39
“And Moses chose of his people seventy men for Our appointed time, and when they were seized with violent quaking, he said: My Lord! If Thou hadst willed, Thou hadst destroyed them long be-fore, and me with them. Wilt Thou destroy us for that which the ignorant among us did? It is but Thy trial (of us). . . Thou art our Protecting Guar-dian, therefore, forgive us and have mercy on us, Thou art the Best of all who show forgiveness, and ordain for us in this world that which is good, and in the Hereafter (that which is good), Lo! We have turned unto Thee.” 7:155-156
The Holy Qur’an informs us also that the Prophet Abraham had spoken clearly of the Hereafter, and that he prayed to God to show him how He revives the dead:
“And when Abraham said: My Lord, show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease.” 2: 260.
Wilson: You have stated that Islam teaches that every human being, on an appointed day known only to God, will be brought back to life. That day is the Day of Judgment. Now, may I ask about the long time which separates our life in this world from the Hereafter? Does man continue to live, in some form, after he dies until the Day of Judgment of does his life come to a complete extinction by death? Is there a clear Qur’anic statement on our life or extinction, subsequent to our death and prior to our resurrection?
Chirri: The human soul, according to the Islamic teaching, will not be extinguished by death. It shall continue to live throughout the long period which separates our phy-sical death from our resurrection, and such a life is required for resurrection.
We cannot conceive man’s resurrection if his life is entirely terminated by death. Resurrection means bringing the dead person back to life. If life entirely ceases to exist after death, there will be no way to bring back to life the same person. There would be two existences: one before death, and the other on the Day of Judgment. The two existences would be separated by a complete non-existence. The second existence could not be the same as the first one. There would be two persons, not one. The second one, at best, would be similar to the first, and never the same.
Resurrection of the same person, therefore, cannot be realized unless the life of the human being continues in some form after his death. Otherwise, the newly created one on the Day of Judgment would be other than the person whose life came to extinction by death. And the very pur-pose of resurrection will not be served if human life will not continue after death.
The purpose of the Hereafter is to reward the good doer and to punish the wrong doer. If man will cease entirely to exist after his death, he will not be able to receive any re-ward or punishment. The newly created person on the Day of Judgment will not be the same person who lived before. He will deserve neither a reward nor a punishment, becau-se he is not the same one who lived before, nor did he do any good or bad.
Thus, we ought to understand from all the Qur’anic passages, pertaining to the Hereafter, that man will continue to live a spiritual life until the Day of Judgment. The Holy Qur’an, however, is explicit on this point:
“And speak not of those who are slain in the way of God as dead.
“Nay, (they are) alive, but you perceive not.” 2:154.
“And think not of those who are killed in the way of God as dead.
“Nay, they are alive being provided sustenance from their Lord. Rejoicing in what God has given them out of His grace, and they rejoice for the sake of those who (being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that they have no fear, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice for the favor of God and His grace, and that God wastes not the reward of the believers.” 3:168-170.
Wilson: Those who subscribe to the doctrine of the Hereafter differ on an important point: some of them be-lieve that life in the Hereafter would be only spiritual, while others believe that human life on the Day of Resurrection will be physical as well as spiritual. What does Islam teach in regard to this matter?
Chirri: The teaching of Islam is very clear on this point. Man will be brought back to life on the Day of Judgment physically as well as spiritually. A human being is not only a spiritual being. Re-creation of a real man requires both body and soul; otherwise, he would be a sort of an angel rather than a human being.
There is another reason to expect both physical and spiritual resurrection:
The very concept of resurrection cannot be realized without reconstruction of the human body. Since man will Continue to live spiritually after his death, his resurrection cannot mean re-creation of his spirit because his spirit did not die. Thus, the spiritual life alone in the Hereafter cannot be called resurrection because it does not add anything to the life of the individual which has continued in its spiritual form. Resurrection can only be realized by re-creation. This means reconstruction of the disintegrated body and reuniting it with the soul which still exists. The language of the Qur’an is very clear on this point and does not accept any different interpretation :
“And the call is issued, then lo! from their graves they will hasten on to their Lord. They will say: O woe to us! Who has raised us up from our sleeping place? This is what the Beneficent promised, and the messengers told the truth. It is but a single cry, then lo! They are all brought forth.” 36:51-53
“So, turn away from them. On the day when the Inviter invites them to a hard task-their eyes cast down, they will go forth from their graves as if they were scattered locusts, hastening to the Inviter. The disbelievers will say: This is a hard day.” 54:6-8
Wilson: The concept of the physical resurrection has its own difficulties: Suppose a cannibal ate a human body. The eaten body would be integrated with the body of its eater. If the body is resurrected on the Day of Judgment, it would not be possible to judge whether the body belongs to the eater or the eaten. Suppose a human body were eaten by a bird or an animal. The eaten body would be integrated with the body of its eater. What will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment? Is it the bird and the animal or the human body?
Chirri: No food would be entirely integrated with the body of its eater, and resurrection does not require the existence of all the elements of the body. As long as the substance or some of the substance of the body remains unintegrated with the body of the eater, the reconstruction of the respective body would be possible.
Furthermore, God Who has power over everything can distinguish between the original parts of the body of the eater and what was integrated with it from the other body. He is able to separate them and to reconstruct two separate bodies. Suppose the separation is impossible, God is able to create a body from different elements other than the lost one and unite the newly created body with the human soul on the Day of Judgment.
Wilson: Some religions teach that the human soul is simple and indivisible, and some philosophers subscribe to these ideas. Does Islam teach the same or does it have a different teaching in regard to this?
Chirri: The Qur’an is silent on these points. It does not confirm nor deny the simplicity or the indivisibility or the immutability of the human soul. Nor does it state that the human soul is a substance or that it is non-physical or phy-sical. It is completely silent on all of these aspects, and it actually dismisses all these questions. They are beyond the human knowledge, and the answer to any of these questions will not serve a religious purpose. From the Holy Qur’an:
“And they ask thee about the (human) soul. Say: The soul proceeds from my Lord’s command, and of knowledge you are given but little.” 17:85
Wilson: Some religions teach that the human soul after death may occupy a body of a newly born child or it may occupy a living body of some animal. Does Islam subscribe to any concept of reincarnation or transmigration?
Chirri: The Holy Qur’an clearly denies the concepts of reincarnation and transmigration. The human soul, leaving the body at the time of death, will not be allowed to re-live in this world in any form. From the Holy Qur’an:
“Until death overtakes one of them, he says: My Lord, send me back, that I may do good with that which I left. By no means! It is but a word that he speaks. And behind them is a barrier, until the day they will be raised.” 23:99-100
Thus, the Holy Qur’an states that the human soul will not live twice on this Earth, so it will not be allowed to occupy another living body, human or non-human.
The observable facts support this teaching. If the human souls are to occupy new human bodies, there would be no increase in population, because a human soul can occupy only one body. The population of the world was about one billion in the last century. Now we have about five billions. How can we account for the increase of four billions if no new souls are created?
As a matter of fact, if the concept of reincarnation is a reality, the number of the population should not go above two persons, because at the beginning there were only the two human souls of Adam and Eve.
Wilson: Both Christianity and Judaism preach the Ten Commandments which were revealed to Moses and recorded in the Old Testament. Does Islam have any commandments, and are they the same or similar?
Chirri: The Ten Commandments are only a portion of the Qur’anic commandments.
Islam commands its followers to avoid many things. Some of them are prohibited because they contradict some of the doctrines in which a Moslem is supposed to believe. Some of them are prohibited because they are immoral or unethical or unhealthy or because they represent disobe-dience to the devotional duties. These prohibitions may be regarded as Islamic commandments, the violation of which may constitute a major sin, A Muslim is prohibited:
1. To ascribe to God a partner or associate:
“Associate not any other god with the Almighty, lest thou sit down despised forsaken.” 17:22
2. To deny revelation of God to His prophets,
3. To deny any of the prophets who are recognized by the Qur’an, such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and Noah. The denial of the revelation or any of the recognized prophets is a denial of Islam.
4. To feel safe in opposition to God:
“Are they secure against the plan of God? But none feels secure against the plan of God except the losing people.” 7:99
5. To lose hope in mercy of God:
“...And despair not of the mercy of God. Surely none despairs of the mercy of God except the disbelieving people.” 12:87
6. To swear in the name of God falsely:
“Hast thou not seen those who take for friends a people with whom God is wrathful? They are nei-ther of you nor of them, and they swear falsely, while they know. God has prepared for them a severe chastisement. Evil indeed is what they do!” 58:14-15
7. To break a covenant deliberately:
“And fulfill the covenant of God when you have made a covenant, and break not the oaths after making them fast, and you have, indeed, made God your surety. Surely God knows what you do.” 16:91
8. To kill a human being premeditatively:
“And slay not the soul which God has forbid-den except for the just cause. . . .” 17:33
“Your lives and properties are sacred and inviolable amongst you, until you appear before your Lord. . . .” said the Prophet.
9. To be traitor to the right cause of one’s own nation.
10. To help defeat it militarily by retreating at the battle-field when the nation is defending itself against aggression:
“And whose turns his back to them (the aggres-sors) on that day (of fight), unless maneuvering for battle or turning to join a company, he indeed in-curs God’s wrath and his refuge is hell, and an evil destination it is.” 8:16
11. To steal.
12. To cheat in measuring or weighing in selling or pur-chasing:
“Woe to the cheaters. Who when they take the measure (of their dues) from the people, take it fully, and when they measure out to others or weigh out for them they give less than is due.” 83:1-3
13. To use an orphan’s fund in a way that is not in his interest:
“And draw not nigh to the orphan’s fund, except in a goodly way, till he attains his maturity, and fulfill the covenant; surely the covenant will be inquired to!” 17:34
14. To insult one’s own parent:
“And thy Lord has decreed that ye worship none but Him, and do good to the parents. If one of them or both of them reach old age with thee, say not “Fie” to them, nor chide them, and speak to them kind words. And lower to them the wing of humility of mercy. and say: My Lord, have mercy on them as they brought me up (when I was) little.” 17:23-24
15. To commit adultery:
“And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an obscenity. And evil is the way.” 17:32
16. To scandalize people, specially women:
“Those who love to see that scandal should circulate concerning the believers, will have a grie-vous chastisement in this world and the Hereafter, and God knows, while you know not.” 24:19
“Those who scandalize virtuous, believing women (who are) careless, cursed are they in this world and the Hereafter.”
“Theirs will be an awful doom, on the day when their tongues, their hands, and their feet testify against them as to what they used to do. On that day God will pay them their just dues, and they will know that God is the Manifest Truth.” 24:23-25
17. To spy on others for no purpose of protecting your nation or yourself.
18. To backbite others, exposing to those who do not know, some shameful doing:
“. . . And spy not nor backbite each other. . .” 49: 12
19. To gamble.
20. To drink intoxicants:
“O you who believe, intoxicants and games of chance. . . are only an abomination, the devil’s work; so shun it, that you may succeed. The devil desires only to create enmity and hatred among you by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to prevent you from the remembrance of God and from prayer. So will you obey this prohibi-tion?” 5:93-94
21. To eat pork or any swine’s products.
22. To eat or drink blood. (This does not include trans-fusion of blood for necessity.)
23. To eat meat of an animal that dies by itself, or the meat of an animal on which the name of other than God is invoked when it is slain:
“He has forbidden you only what dies of itself, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which (a name) other than the name of God is invoked (when it is slaughtered) . . .” 2: 173
24. To lie deliberately or testify falsely or falsify the word of God willingly:
“Only they forge lies who believe not in the messages of God, and they are the liars.” 16:105
25. To conceal a testimony when called to testify in a litigation:
“. . .And conceal not testimony. And whoever conceals it, his heart is surely sinful. And God knows what you do.” 2:283
26. To deliberately hinder a good cause.
27. To spread hatred by conveying to a person a bad word about him spoken by another person:
“And obey not any mean swearer, defamer, going about with slander, hinderer of good, trans-gressing beyond the limits, sinful, ignoble, besid-es all that, notoriously mischievous. . .” 68:10-13
28. To violate the terms of a dead man’s will:
“Then whoever changes it (the will) after he heard it, the sin of it is only upon those who change it. Surely God is Hearing, Knowing.” 2:181
29. To oppress the people.
30. To aid an oppressor .
“... And let not hatred of a people because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque incite you to make aggression. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and aggression. Surely God is severe in requiting (evil).” 5:9
31. To be proud, looking down on the people:
“And turn not thy cheek in scorn towards people, nor go about in the land in insolence. Surely God loves not any self -conceited boaster.” 31: 18
32. To be envious, wishing People ill:
“Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn, From the evil of things created, . . . And from the evil of the envious when he envies.” 113
33. To antagonize a relative for no right cause:
“Will you be making mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship if you come to power?” 47:22
34. To neglect any of the five daily prayers.
35. To break fasting in the days of Ramadan without a legitimate excuse.
36. To withhold the “Zakah” which is the share of the poor in the self-supporting person’s wealth.
37. To neglect the duty of pilgrimage to Mecca which has to be done once in a life-time by every person who is physically and financially able to make it.
38. To neglect the duty of advising the people to do good and avoid evil when such an advice is needed and likely to be effective.
The last five are regarded as major sins, because the prayer, fasting, paying Zakah, making pilgrimage and en-joining good and prohibiting evil are Qur’anic duties.
Wilson: The teaching of Islam seems to be very clear in most of its aspects. None of its doctrines is ambiguous enough to cause a split or dispute among the Muslims. Nevertheless, the Muslims are divided into more than one group. There are the two well-known groups: the Sunni and the Shi-a, and each of the two divisions contains a number of subdivisions. I know that division among the Muslims is not as acute as it is among the Christians. I understand that both Sunni and Shi-a often pray together in one Mosque and that there are no marital barriers between them. No Muslim is required to change his (her) affiliation with his respective group in order to marry a person from another group. But the fact remains that there is division and that there is more than one group.
The split does not seem to be justifiable. However, it took place, and I would like to know the reasons which led to that split.
Chirri: The split among the Muslims may not be charac-terized as religious. There is some difference on the details of some of the Islamic rules, and this is only a difference in interpretation of some of the Qur’anic words or the Pro-phet’s statements. This has led to the establishment of var-ious schools of thought. Fundamentally, the difference is political; and the germ of it began immediately after the death of the Prophet.
It is a well-known fact that Islam concerns itself with both spiritual and worldly aspects of man’s life. The Pro-phet founded a Muslim state of which he was the head. He administered all religious, political and social affairs. He never showed his companions any sign of separation bet-ween religion and state. The well-being of the community and the prevalence of justice among its members are, in his teaching, as important as the devotional work which is required of the individual.
The integration of secular and spiritual affairs in the Muslim state at the time of the Prophet was so crystal clear that no Muslim at the time of the Prophet doubted the need for the establishment and continuity of a Muslim government. Thus, when the Prophet died, in 632, no question was raised about the need for a succeeding ruler. They all agreed on this, but they disagreed on who is to rule.
While Ali, the cousin of the Prophet, and some of the Hashimites (clan of the Prophet) were busy with the holy funeral, some of the Muslims were gathering at a place, called “Saqifat Bani-Sa-idah” to select a new leader.
The Muslim community of Madina, the capital of the Muslim state, was comprised of the natives of Madina and those who immigrated to Madina. Most of those immigrants (who are called Muhajireen) were from Mecca. The natives of Madina were composed of two tribes, namely “Khazraj” and “Ous.” These natives were called “Al-Anssar” (the Helpers). There was some rivalry between the immigrants and the natives of Madina. There was, also, a rivalry bet-ween the two Madinite tribes.
The conferees who were gathering to select a successor were mostly Madinites, and they were aiming at choosing one of them for the high office. Sa’ad Ben Abadah, the chief of the Khazrajites was the hopeful one.
The news of the conference reached Abu-Bakr, Omar, and others from the immigrants. They hurriedly went to the conference to prevent the Madinites from implementing their scheme. In debating with the Madinites, they offered the following argument:
The Prophet was a Meccan, and the Meccans are his relatives. Therefore, only a Meccan should succeed him.
By virtue of the mutual jealousy among the Madinites, the Ousites deserted Sa’ad Ben Abadah and leaned towards the Meccans. Abu-Bakr was nominated immediately and the majority of the conferees pledged to him their loyalty. And so did most of the Muslims, immigrants and Madi-nites. Thus Abu-Bakr became the first “Kalif” (successor) in the history of Islam.
By this, the issue between the Madinites and the immi-grants was settled forever; and since then no one from the Madinites ever contended for the right of succession. But the issue was far from being settled among the Meccans themselves.
Ali, as we advanced, was preoccupied with the funeral of the Prophet. He was not consulted in this important matter. He and many others believed that he was not only the proper one to succeed the Prophet, but also the Pro-phet’s nominee and appointee. He thought that they made a fast deal and manipulated the election. Abu-Bakr and his group had defeated the Madinites by arguing that the Mec-cans are the relatives of the Prophet. If relationship to the Prophet should entitle any Meccan to succeed him, Ali should be the first one to be offered the job. He is the Prophet’s first cousin and son-in-law.
Ali refused to join the supporters of Abu-Bakr and held out for several months. He finally joined the majority and pledged his loyalty to the new government. The situation of the Muslim State was too serious to allow a man, such as Ali, to cause any division in the Muslim community. Most of the Muslims outside Madina and Mecca rose in rebellion against the Madinite government, and a good portion of them disjoined themselves from Islam. The very existence of Islam was in danger. Ali is too pious to take advantage of the difficulty of the Muslim government and too intellectual to worry about some Islamic instructions when the very existence of Islam is at stake. He, therefore, not only joined the supporters of Abu-Bakrbut also took an active part in defending the state against the attacks of the rebellious elements.
When Ali gave up his claim and supported the govern-ment, the division among the Muslims disappeared. It re-mained in a dormant state for two decades during which Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman consecutively ruled the Muslim state. Ali was elected after the death of Uthman; and by his rise to power the issue of his rightfulness to be the first Kalif of the Prophet was awakened.
Ali was the most controversial personality among the companions of the Prophet. He was so magnanimous in the eyes of many pious Muslims that they believed that the succession to the Prophet was his exclusive right. He, at the same time, was bitterly opposed by many elements, and he had to fight three bloody rebellions during his short reign.
The reign of Ali continued for less than five years, and it ended by his assassination. Subsequently, his most ambi-tious adversary, Muawyah, rose to power. This man ruled the Muslims in a manner entirely different from that by which the four good Kalifs administered the Muslim State. He continued in power about two decades, ruling the people by sword and bribery, and the followers of Ali were sub-jected to humiliation and persecution during his reign. He transformed the Muslim government from a republic form to a rule of dynasty. His dynasty, the Umayads, continued in government for seventy years after his death.
The political sympathizers of Ali during this period acquired the title of Shi-a which means, follower (of Ali).
The Umayad reign was ended in 750 A.D. by the rise of the Abbasides (descendants of Abbas, one of the uncles of the Prophet and Ali) to power. The Abbasides became the new dynasty which ruled the Muslim state for several hundred years during which the majority of the Muslims were named Sunni to distinguish them from the Shi-a. Thus, the Muslims were divided into Sunnites and Shi-ites.
Wilson: What are the opinions which are maintained by the Sunnites and the Shi-ites in regard to the issue of succession?
Chirri: THE SUNNITES MAINTAIN that Abu-Bakr was a legal Kalif; that the three good Kalifs who ruled consecutively after him, namely: Omar, Uthman and Ali were also legal Kalifs; that the Prophet never nominated anyone to succeed him; and that he left the matter of succession to his companions to exercise their right in choosing their own ruler.
The four Kalifs, however, were chosen by various me-thods: Abu-Bakr was elected by the Muslims of Madina. Omar was appointed by Abu-Bakr. Uthman was elected by the majority of only six persons whom Omar, before he died, had chosen as qualified for the high office: Ali, Uthman, Sa’ad, Zubair, Talhah, and Abdul-Rahman. No one besides them was allowed to elect or to be elected. The majority of these six had the right to choose the Kalif. The hopeful ones among these six were only two: Ali and Uthman. Ali did not have the support of any of the five except Zubair, and Uthman won the election.
Ali, however, was elected after the death of Uthman by the overwhelming majority of the Muslims.
THE SHI-ITES MAINTAIN that Ali was not only the most proper person to succeed the Prophet, but was also his nominee for the high office. They believe that the Prophet actually appointed Ali as his successor, and that Ali himself had the right to appoint his own successor.
Both views command respect, and both have arguments that command respect.
Wilson: Since the views of each party have been out-lined, now I would like you to state clearly the best argu-ments for each side. And let us start with the Sunnite argument.
Chirri: THE FIRST ARGUMENT FOR THE SUNNI-TES was introduced, as you may recall, by the immigrants against the Madinites at the conference which was conclu-ded by selecting Abu-Bakr as Kalif. The argument states that the Meccans are the relatives of the Prophet, and that the successor of the Prophet should be one of his relatives.
Wilson: The same argument can be, and actually was, used against the Sunnis in favor of the Shi-is. If blood-relation is to be taken as a foundation for the establishment of a Muslim government, Ali should be the successor, because he was by far closer than Abu-Bakr to the Pro-phet. He was his first cousin and his son-in-law.
Chirri: In addition to this, relationship to the Prophet cannot be a suitable base for the legality of a Muslim government. We know that Islam stands firmly and clearly against aristocracy and all inherited social privileges. The Muslims pride themselves upon the fact that there are no classes in Islam, and that all people from any nation or family are equal in the eyes of God. The Holy Qur’an declares the following:
“O mankind, certainly We created you from a male and a female and made you nations and clans, that you may recognize one another. Surely the Most noble among you in the eyes of God is the most righteous of you.” 49:13
The Prophet himself declared:
“. . . Certainly God has done away with the boastfulness of pre-Islamic society and its pride upon the ancestors. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non Arab. (Nor is there any supe-riority for a non-Arab over an Arab. ) Certainly the most noble of you in the eyes of God is the most pious of you.”
The very concept of preference of a “Qureshite” (Meccan) or a Hashimite over the rest of the people is in contrast with the spirit of equality upon which the Muslims pride themselves. It means that God discriminates and favors certain families or clans above the rest of mankind. We, therefore, have no choice but to disregard any concept of discrimination and favoritism of this sort and consider it entirely alien to Islam. For this, the argument of relationship should be entirely disregarded.
THE SECOND ARGUMENT FOR THE SUNNIS can be stated as follows: Islam respects and sanctifies the natural rights of every individual. The political freedom is one of these sacred rights. Every individual has the right to share in administering public affairs of his community, either directly or indirectly by authorizing and electing someone to represent him in such an administration. No one can be legally ruled against his will, and no man’s freedom should be curtailed without his own permission. The establishment of any legal government can be achie-ved through the authorization of the individuals and by their own selection.
Abu-Bakr was elected by the majority of the compan-ions of the Prophet. They elected him by their own choice and through the exercise of their natural right. His govern-ment, therefore, was legal and democratic.
Wilson: This argument seems to be very sound and based on the recognition of what we now call “inalienable rights.” Now let us turn to the arguments of the Shi-ites.
Chirri: The Shi-ite as well as the Sunnite agree that a legal government can be established through election of the populace. The political freedom and the right of the individual in choosing his own government are recognized by all Muslims, including the Shi-ite. The Shi-ite, however, views (and the Sunnite does not deny) that election by populace is not the only way through which a legal govern-ment can be established. Omar was appointed by Abu-Bakr as his successor, and Uthman was elected by the majority of only six persons, and both are regarded by the Sunnites as legal Kalifs.
A RESPECTABLE ARGUMENT FOR THE SHI-ITE CAN BE INTRODUCED by stating the following points:
1. Man’s freedom can be legally curtailed and restricted by one of the two following ways:
a. It may be restricted by his own permission and authorizing his elected government to inact rules that may limit his freedom or lead him to give up some of his rights.
b. It may be restricted and curtailed by the Creator of the individual Who gave him his freedom and natural rights. He may impose on His servants rules which could curtail their freedom for their own interest. No one knows exactly what is good for him, but God knows what is good for us at present and in the future. We owe our freedom, our rights and our very existence to His generosity. If He chooses for us any type of government, that government will be legal.
2. A government established by a Divine appointment was possible at the time of the Prophet:
The Prophet, according to the Holy Qur’an, has the jurisdiction to appoint and select for the Muslims a suc-ceeding government. The Holy Qur’an vests, in him the authority to choose for the Muslims whatever is in their interests. He is the guardian of the Muslims, and he has the right to administer their public affairs more than they have the right to do it on their own:
“The Prophet has the right over the believers more than they have the right over their own selves. . . .” 33:6
The decision of the Prophet in all affairs of the Muslim State is binding on all Muslims. They have no right to reverse it or change it. From the Holy Qur’an:
“And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when God and His Messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affairs; and who-ever is rebellious to God and His Messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.” 33:36
Thus, when the Prophet appoints or nominates a suc-cessor to rule the Muslim State after him, his choice is to be followed and his decision is binding.
3. Since there were two legitimate ways to establish a succeeding government, the Prophet, the Shi-ite may con-tend, was expected to choose and appoint his successor and not to leave such an important matter to the Muslim community. Leaving it to the Muslim community in such an early stage of development could have been fraught with dangers.
The Muslim government was based on a set of refor-matory principles aimed at changing people’s belief and their way of life by introducing a new ideology which was accepted reluctantly by their majority.
To explain this: The government may be based on certain concepts and principles prevalent in the society and desirable to the majority of the people. The establishment of such a government should be left to the people and their choice. Such a government may have plans and programs, but none of its plans or programs would be legal unless it meets the approval of the majority. The people themselves are the highest authority to judge those plans and programs. Such a government can exist and remain in office legally only by the support of the majority, and it may legally fall when it is deprived of that support.
There is another type of government which is based on a set of reformatory principles aiming at changing the condition of the people and reforming their beliefs and characters.
Such principles are usually unpopular and undesirable to the people. The principles are usually introduced by an individual or a minority of people who are dissatisfied with the old ideology to which the majority subscribes. To apply the new ideology and make it work, a government based on the same principles must be established. The duty of such a government is to put the new ideology at work and to try to guard it against any possible danger.
Such a government is actually a government of mino-rity, and it usually rises to power without being accepted by the majority. If such a government is to leave office, it is expected to appoint its successor and not to leave the establishment of the succeeding government to a free elec-tion.
To illustrate this: Suppose that a Capitalistic minority succeeds in taking over the government in a country where the Communistic system is established and genuinely ac-cepted. When such a government replaces the old system by its own, it would be expected to try to perpetuate its ideology. What would be the duty of such a minority govern-ment when it is about to leave office?
Under the circumstances, the government would not be expected to leave the establishment of the next government to a free election. Since the new system is imposed on, or reluctantly accepted by the majority, a free election may lead to the destruction of the new system. When people are allowed to choose freely the government they desire, they would elect only the admirers of the old system. (The same will be true if a Communistic minority takes over the go-vernment of a Capitalistic country.)
The duty of the government, therefore, is to guard the new system and to trust and appoint only the most sincere supporter of its ideology as a head of the succeeding gover-nment.
The appointment of successors should continue until the new ideology is genuinely accepted by the people and its continuity is reasonably secured. The continuity of the new ideology can be secured only when it becomes a natural way of life to the community. This may not be accom-plished until the ideology is received by the following generations as a part of their heritage.
Suppose the new system is seemingly adopted by the community in general and that the people have been con-verted to the new ideology. The duty of the government is still to be cautious and to take no risk that may jeopardize its achievement. The government will be duty-bound to trust in the administration of the state only those whose sincerity and efficiency are beyond any doubt. To leave the matter of establishment of a new government to the choice of the majority is to take a risk. A free election may bring to office the best or the worst. A wise guardian of a new ideology does not take such a risk at an early stage of development.
4. The religion of Islam introduced a new ideology which was unpopular in the Arabian society. The new ideo-logy aimed at changing people’s belief and way of life. The idols which were endeared and worshipped by the people were to be destroyed. Only the One God, the Creator of the universe, is to be worshipped. The stubborn and the proud Arabs are to kneel and prostrate for God many times a day. The low desires of adultery, murder, plunder, gambling and drinking are no longer legitimate ways of life. Lawlessness and anarchy are to be replaced by discipline and order. Selfishness and hatred are to be replaced by the hard and unselfish work and sacrifice for the welfare of the commu-nity. A portion of every man’s wealth is to be paid for sup-porting the poor and the programs which the government undertakes for improvement of the people’s condition. The right side is to be supported and followed against the wrong side, even if it is your own relatives.
None of these reformatory principles were desirable to the society to which Islam was introduced. These princi-ples were vehemently opposed by the overwhelming ma-jority. The struggle was finally won by Islam only after a great deal of tears and blood.
We can hardly expect the Prophet who won the struggle after twenty-three years full of sacrifice, misery, and trouble, to depart from this world leaving the ideology of Islam unguarded by not appointing for administration the best fitting person among his followers.
5. The risk which would be taken in leaving the establishment of the succeeding government to the choice of the people can be underscored by stating the following facts: From among the masses of inhabitants of the Ara-bian peninsula, there were only a few scores of individuals who were capable of reading or writing. The masses of the people were totally uneducated. They joined Islam after the new faith had prevailed. As soon as they heard the news of the death of the Prophet, most of them rose in rebellion, and a great portion of the nation deserted the faith. The future of Islam was extremely darkened, and the true Muslims faced uncertainty.
The Prophet himself had foreseen this condition, and shortly before his death he declared:
“The faith-testing crises are closing in like pie-ces of a dark night. . .”
It is inconceivable that the Prophet, under such circum-stances, would not try to secure the best possible leader-ship for his young Muslim State before he departs from this world.
Wilson: Granted that all these points are right, they do not necessarily lead to the drawn conclusion. It is true that the majority of the Muslims outside Madina were not de-pendable and sincere in their adoption of Islam. But the companions of the Prophet who supported the cause of Islam and offered so many sacrifices for its promotion were dependable and sincere. They accompanied the Pro-phet for years and became well-educated in the faith of Islam. The Prophet may have left the establishment of the succeeding government to these people. They belonged to the new ideology. They were its genuine supporters. There was no risk in trusting them.
Chirri: The sincerity of many of the companions of the Prophet is beyond any reasonable doubt. It would only be fair to assume that men like Ali, Abu-Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Salman the Persian, Abu-Tharr and so many others from the immigrants and Madinites were genuine supporters of the cause of Islam. They had offered for its promotion many sacrifices for a long period of time. They were also well-educated in the Islamic teaching, and they were good students and disciples of the Prophet. The fact remained, the Shi-ites say, that the majority of the companions were not purified completely from their old clannish attachments.
Islam aimed at replacing the narrow bond of blood-relation by a general brotherhood and feeling of equality among the Muslims. But the period was too short for these people to forget the past and live up to the ideal teaching of their faith. The influence of tribal ties on their thinking was obvious. The conference which was held by the Madi-nites has shown a great deal of tribal prejudice. Their aim was to select one of the Madinites as a ruler and to prevent the Meccans from assuming the leadership. The Meccans, on the other hand, were determined to keep the leadership of the state in their hand.
Both sides overlooked the principle of equality and universal brotherhood which the Prophet endeavored to establish. None of them was looking for the fittest person in the Muslim community for the leadership in such a cri-tical period. Had all of them been true adherents to the Is-lamic teaching. they would have searched their conscience and looked for the best possible leader, disregarding all regional and tribal ties. This important aspect was entirely forgotten or overlooked. Merely being a Meccan compan-ion was good enough for the Meccans, and merely being a Madinite companion was good enough for the Madinites.
Suppose that they all were free of clannish prejudice. This does not mean that those companions were equally knowledgeable in Islam. Nor would it mean that the majo-rity of them were wise enough to select the proper leader-ship for that critical period. There were many outstanding persons in the community, and probably the majority of the companions considered them all potential leaders. Their knowledge about these persons was limited, and none of them knew enough about them to select their best. Only the Prophet was able to classify them and choose the most fitting for leadership in that period.
The Muslims, however, were fortunate enough to select a man like Abu-Bakr. What would have happened if they had chosen a good companion but unfitting leader such as Uthman? It may have led to the destruction of the Muslim State. Foreseeing the forthcoming crises, the Prophet was expected to avoid the Muslims any such consequences by selecting the best leader to succeed him in the dangerous period.
Wilson: Granted that all the advanced points are logical, this may only prove the need for the appointment of a leader on the part of the Prophet. This, however, does not prove that the Prophet had actually appointed a successor. The argument is telling us that the Prophet was expected to provide the proper leadership for all the Muslims, and that he ought to have done what was expected. It does not tell us that he actually did so. There is a clear difference between what ought to be done and what actually was done.
Furthermore, if the argument is entirely sound, it does not tell us who was appointed by the Prophet. It might have been Ali or Abu-Bakr or anyone else.
Chirri: The Shi-ites say that the Prophet had actually appointed Ali to the high post, by declaring him the “Moula” (guardian) of the believers. While returning from his Vale-dictory Pilgrimage, the Prophet, according to many authen-tic hadiths (related statements), called the multitude of pilgrims who were accompanying him, to hear an important declaration. (This declaration was delivered at a place called “Ghadir Khamm.”):
“O People,” the Prophet exclaimed, “The time is drawing nigh when I receive a Divine call to which I will respond(by departing from this world); I shall be questioned, and ye will be questioned. What will be your answer?” The multitude replied: We bear witness that you have conveyed the message (of God) and endeavored (in His way) and that your endeavor was sincere, unselfish. The Prophet said: “Is it not true that you bear witness that there is no god but the Almighty; that Moham-mad is His servant and messenger; that His para-dise is a reality; that His hell is reality; that death is right; that resurrection after death is truth; that the Day of Judgment is truth; and that God shall bring back to life those who are in the graves?”
The multitude replied: Yea, we bear witness unto that.
The Prophet said: “O God, bear witness.”
Following this, the Prophet announced the appointment of Ali for the high office. Such an appointment on his part requires a constitutional authority. Therefore, he reminded them of the fact that the Holy Qur’an vested in him this authority by declaring him the guardian of the believers:
“O people,” he said, “God is my ‘Moula’ (guardian), and I am the Moula of the believers, and I have the right over the believers more than they have the right over their own selves.
Whoever I am his Moula, this Ali (He was holding Ali’s hand) is his Moula.
O God, be friend his friend and cast out of Thy favor his enemy.”
Wilson: If the Prophet had actually selected Ali for the leadership of the Muslims, he should have tried to prepare the Muslims, not only by words, but also by deeds for the acceptance of his decision. He should have made the at-mosphere suitable for implementing such an important plan. Had the Prophet done anything of this sort?
Chirri: The Prophet, say the Shi-ites, not only appoint-ed Ali by words but also tried to secure this position for him by deed.
The Muslim historians agree that when the Prophet was seriously ill, he sensed the approach of his death. At that time he ordered the Muslim army to leave Madina to the borders of Syria under the leadership of Usama, the son of Zeid. Abu-Bakr and Omar were ordered to leave with the army. Of the outstanding companions, only Ali was to stay in Madina.
While his condition was growing critical, the Prophet repeatedly urged the army to leave Madina. But Abu-Bakr, Omar, and many other companions remained in Madina, saying that they hate to leave while the Prophet is so ill. As a result, the whole army remained camping in the vicinity of the city until Abu-Bakr was elected after the death of the Prophet. To sum up:
The Prophet knew the approach of his death. He ordered the ambitious companions to take a long journey, and want-ed Ali to stay beside him. Putting these together makes it obvious that the Prophet wanted Ali to take over after him, unchallenged .
Wilson: The plan, however, did not materialize. Ali did not rule, Abu-Bakr did. He not only ruled, but also appointed Omar as his successor. Omar, in turn, indirectly appointed Uthman to succeed him. Shall we infer from this that the companions of the Prophet ignored the Prophet’s order and disobeyed him deliberately?
Chirri: The answer is “no.” If the will of the Prophet were to secure the leadership for Ali, and if he had made it clear to his companions, we ought to assume that the com-panions had unwittingly underestimated the seriousness of the matter. They thought that the leadership is only a tem-poral issue, in which they have the choice to follow the Prophet’s recommendation or to make their own decision. As a result, they chose to decide for themselves.
To think that they deliberately chose to disobey the Prophet in such an important matter does not seem to be logical. We owe it to the companions of the Prophet to thi-nk good of them and not to doubt their good intentions when they make a wrong decision. They were good Mus-lims, and the Holy Qur’an recommends that we pray God to forgive our brothers who preceded us in embracing the faith, let alone the companions who were the first Muslim community that ever existed in the world.
Our attitude now towards the issue ought to be far from being emotional. We ought not to weep over the spilled milk. Nothing can be retrieved by taking sides on the issue. Both Ali and Abu-Bakr died and met the Lord, and the time of the caliphate has entirely elapsed. Any discussion about it should be no more than a discussion of a certain period of the Islamic history. Such a discussion can be conducted by non-Muslims as well as by Muslims. The purpose of such a discussion is not to support a particular side, but to reach or form an impartial conclusion or opinion.
Holding a negative attitude towards either side would only generate hatred and division among the Muslims. This, no doubt, is a displeasure to Ali who gave up his claim and supported Abu-Bakr to avoid any division among the Mus-lims. To cause a division for the sake of Ali is to be kingly more than the king himself .
The Sunnis, on the other hand, have no right to be disturbed by the attitude of the Shi-ites towards the first three Kalifs. Nothing in the Islamic teaching prohibits a negative attitude towards any of the three. The legality of their rule is not an article of the faith, and their rightfulness is a political, and not a religious, issue. In such a political issue, every Muslim has the right to form his own opinion without violating any Islamic instruction.
To have an unfriendly attitude towards scores of millions of Muslims because of their negative attitude towards three outstanding Muslims does not seem to be logical. Nor is it warranted by the teaching of Islam.
Wilson: The issue of the succession in ruling the Muslim State may have caused a good deal of dispute among the Muslims throughout the centuries, but it does not seem to be important enough to divide the Muslims into sects today. The whole issue seems to be political rather than religious. It may become religious when it causes the Muslims to dispute in the areas of the articles of the faith or the Islamic laws. Do the Sunnis and the Shi-ites disagree with each other in these religious areas? And is their disagreement in these areas related to their political views?
Chirri: There is no disagreement between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis on the articles of the faith. They all agree on the truthfulness of the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet without any exception. Both sides derive their views and conclusions in the religious matters from these two important sources.
There are, however, disagreements on some of the details of the Islamic laws. These disagreements are due, partly, to the difference in understanding and interpreting some of the verses of the Holy Qur’an and some of the statements of the Prophet.
Some of the disagreements on the details of the Islamic rules are due to the following reasons:
1. Absence of specific instructions in both the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet.
2. Lack of clarity in some of these statements and the capability of being interpreted in more than one way.
3. The existence of two opposite statements, both attri-buted to the Prophet.
One of the examples of disagreement caused by diffe-rence in interpretation of the Holy Qur’an is the following:
All Muslims agree that ablution is a requirement for a sound prayer, and that ablution would be undone by inter-course. They disagree on whether mere physical contact between man and woman, such as shaking hands, would undo the ablution of both of them. The reason is the dif-ference in interpreting the following verse:
“And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the toilet, or ye have touched women, and ye find no water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces. . . .” 4:43
Some schools take the word “touch” literally and think that touch in any way would undo the ablution. Other schools understand from the word touch the intercourse.
Disagreements on the details of the Islamic rules exist not only between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis; they exist among the Sunnis themselves and among the Shi-ites them-selves. With little exceptions, there is not any Shi-a’s view or verdict that disagrees with all the Sunnis’ views, and there is not any Sunni’s view that is opposed to all Shi-ites’ views. You can almost pick up any Sunni’s verdict or inter-pretation, and you are bound to find the same view shared by some Shi-ites; and vice versa.
Disagreement on the details of some of the Islamic rules did not cause the Muslims to be divided into sects. It, how-ever, caused the formation of many schools of thoughts which are called “Mazhabs:”, (Mazhab is a set of opinions or verdicts attributed to an outstanding imam who is consi-dered, at least by his followers, as the prime authority in jurisprudence and Islamic law). Among these Mazhabs are the following living schools: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi-i, Hun-buli, Jaafari, and Zeidi.
All these schools rely, and draw on, the Qur’an and the hadiths of the Prophet. But the first four are called Sunni, and the last two are called Shi-i.
The difference between the Shi-ite and the Sunnite schools is not greater than the difference among the Sunnite schools themselves. The political affiliation, however, made the followers of the Sunni schools frown upon the Shi-ite schools, and vice versa.
Wilson: Your explanation shows that the difference bet-ween the two sides is very small and negligible. Some efforts should have been made by some scholars to bring the two sides together and to bring about a good under-standing and reconciliation.
Chirri: Many efforts had been made throughout the history of Islam to heal the rift, but they did not meet a tan-gible success. The failure may be attributed to many fac-tors. Among them are: the intolerant spirit of the ages; the presence of tyrant kalifs who sought the support of one side by persecution of another side which holds unfavorable opinion towards them; and the wrong approach to the issue.
Our age has a different spirit, and the caliphate was buried at the beginning of this century. What we need is to have a solemn thinking and a new evaluation of the whole matter .
Wilson: I heard that you travelled to the Middle East and met the late Sheikh EI-Azhar in 1959 and tried to iron out the difference between the two sides. I would like you to tell me more about this important event.
Chirri: On the first of July, 1959, I met the late Sheikh AI-Azhar, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltute (may God bless his soul). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the problem of division between the followers of the various Islamic schools whose difference, until that time, was con-ceived as an outstanding problem in the Muslim world. I wanted to know his opinion about the Jaafari Mazhab to which he does not belong. I thought that a favorable attitude on his part toward this Mazhab might be a uniting point between the two sides, since most of the Shi-ites belong to the Jaafari school.
I asked him if he believes in the soundness of the Jaafari teaching and its equality to his own Mazhab. His answer was in the affirmative. Upon this, I requested him to state to the Muslim World his view on the important issue, in a clear verdict. A declaration of equality between the Jaafari and the Sunni Mazhabs from Sheikh Al-Azhar would, to my estimation, be a sound solution to the problem, at least in theory. Such a declaration, I told him, would bring the Sunni side to moderation because you are their highest au-thority. And the Shi-ites will rejoice at such a declaration. The Shi-ites do not seek privilege or superiority. All what they seek is equality.
The declaration was the first of its kind in the history of Islam. It was issued as an answer to a question submitted to him, and announced on the sixth of July, 1959. The decla-ration was joyfully received in many Muslim countries.
The following is a translation of the declaration which was published in the Egyptian and Lebanese press([1]):
His eminence (Sheikh Al-Azhar, Sheikh Mah-moud Shaltute) was asked: Some people view that in order to have religiously sound devotions and transactions, the Muslim has to follow one of the four known (Islamic) Mazhabs: Hanafi, Shafi-i, Hunbuli, and Maliki. This excludes the two Shi-i Mazhabs: Imami (Jaafari) and Zeidi. Do you agree with this view without qualification and advise the Muslims not to follow the Ithna-Ashari Imami (Jaafari) school for example?
His eminence answered (by setting forth the following points as an introduction to his verdict which is the last part of his answer):
1. It is permissible to the “non-Mujtahid” (the one who is not qualified to give his own opinion or verdict in the Islamic law) to follow the opinion of any of the “Olama” (Muslim scholars), whose knowledge and piety are believed, provided such an opinion reaches its follower in a correct and nearly certain way, directly or indirectly. We shou-ld not be concerned with a view expressed in some books which claims that (he four Mazhabs are the only ones to follow or that it is not permissible for a person to change from one Mazhab to another.
Sheikh Izzuddeen, the son of Abdulsalam said: The Muslims used to seek information about the Islamic laws, from any “alim” (Muslim Scholar) they happened to meet, regardless of the school to which he belonged. And such a way of obtaining information never was disapproved (by the Mus-lim Scholars) until these schools (the four appea-red with their followers who became so bigoted that the follower of a Mazhab would follow his “imam” (leader) even if his opinion was support-able by no evidence. He followed him as if he were a messenger prophet. This is a shyness from the truth and soundness. it should not be accepted by the People of understanding.
2. The word “Shi-a,” by which the followers of Ali (the son of Abu-Talib) are known, is derived from the word “Mushaya-ah” which means to follow. So the Shia of a person are his companions and followers. The name (Shi-a) has been given to many groups who disagree with Islam in many basic beliefs and laws. It is not permissible to fol-low the teaching of such groups because they are out of the circle of Islam.
3. There are other groups related to “Ali,” and they are his well-guided Shi-a who oppose and condemn the misguided ones. Of these good Shi-a is the group which is known by the name of “Jaafari” or “Imami Ithna Ashari.”
4. This well-known group follows principles that are taken from the Book of God and the teaching of His Messenger which reached them through their imams in both fundamental belief and Islamic law. The difference between the Jaafari and Sunni schools is not greater than the difference among the Sunni schools themselves. They (the Jaafaris) belie-ve in the fundamental principles of Islam as they are stated in the Glorious Qur’an and the certain teaching of the Prophet. They also believe in all the rules whose inclusion in the religion of Islam is self evident and whose recognition is required for being a Muslim and the denial of which excludes the person from Islam.
5. The Mazhab of these Jaafari Shi-ites in the Islamic laws is completely recorded and well-known. It has its own books, conveyers (who related the statements of the Prophet and the imams) and the supporting evidence. The authors of these books and those from whom these authors had received the (hadiths) are well-known, and their scholarly and jurisprudential ranks are respe-cted among the Muslim scholars.
From this explanation, it becomes evident that:
1. Islam does not command any of its followers to follow a particular Islamic Mazhab. On the contrary, it establishes for every Muslim the right to follow, at the beginning, anyone of the correctly conveyed Mazhabs, whose verdicts are recorded in their respective books. It is permissible also for anyone that follows one of these schools to change to another one - any other schooland - he is not sinning by doing that.
2. The Jaafari school which is known as “the Mazhab of the Ithna-Ashari, Imami Shi-I” is a sound Mazhab. It is permissible to worship God according to its teaching, like the rest of the Sunni Mazhabs.
3. The Muslims ought to know this and get rid of their undue bigotry for particular Mazhabs. The religion of God and His law do not follow, nor are they bound to, a particular Mazhab. All (the founders of these Mazhabs) are Mujtahid (qualified to give verdict), reward-deserving from God, and acceptable to Him. It is permissible to the “non-Mujtahid” to follow them and to accord with their teaching, whether in devotions or transactions.
[1] This is the translation of what appeared in Al-Kifah (a Lebanese newspaper), issue of July 8, 1959.
