A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4

Discourse Three To Make Difference Between Two Schools So Light As To Appear Depthless

Introduction

This is one of the ideas since the beginning of unity in question, which still can be seen in a scattered thought. It is to show differences between school of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) and that of Caliphs at a very low level.

If difference between beliefs of two schools be wider and deeper, to bring followers of these schools closer becomes very difficult. Therefore it is in the interest of unity-seekers to display this gulf of difference as too narrow as far as their claim is concerned.

If we appoint one as a neutral judge and assign him to study beliefs of both schools and then give his judgment or opinion. Without doubt, his reply will be that differences in beliefs of Shia and Sunnis are much wider and deeper than what claimers of Islamic Unity pretend.

Although topics of the subjects of discussion between two beliefs are common, its contents differ very much. To depend on common topics would produce only fictitious unity. Because the following discussions that are publicized have the same titles but have a vast difference between them.

Just take a look at the books:

Be With the Truthful Ones, Ask Those who Know and other work of Dr. Muhammad Tejani. He has written these books after having had been guided to Shia School. This will rightly prove what we have stated above.

Tendency towards unity, in any case, is bereft of originality and truth. It might be having strength and salubrity in its early stage. Even then it is said:

“We find out at a careful scrutiny that around eighty five or ninety percent of matters concerning belief, jurisprudence and moral are common among all faiths. Therefore we must persist on these common principles with adherence, since they result in unity of Muslims.”![1]

[1] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 151

“The fact is that schools are having common principles.”![1]

“Islamic sects are common in jurisprudence, principle, speech, conduct, tradition and Islamic culture.”![2]

“Principle and approximately total absolute beliefs are common and final among schools. The branch issues mostly are causes of difference because each aims at a particular view.”![3]

“…followers of schools since the second century have a record. They have jurisprudence and speech. They are bound to a divine legislation. They do not differ from one another as far as principle is concerned. They differ only in branch issues.”![4]

“We Muslims also have the same story. All have one God, one Prophet, one Book and one prayer direction. Other mandates such as prayers, fasting, Hajj and so forth run the same in all sects. Since we have no knowledge of others we become the butt of wrong allegations about one another.”![5]

“One thousand three hundred and ninety odd years have elapsed since the initial call of Islam. Six hundred and fifty million Muslims exist among three milliard people over this globe. Although elements of difference in belief have separated them from one another, yet we do not see any basic difference in faith or religion among them. A Chinese Muslim, an Indonesian one, or a Muslim from Tatar or an Arab or an Irani – all are together under a belt of one faith and one religion.”![6]

“If Sunnis get acquainted with their Shia brothers and likewise Shias with their Sunni brothers, it will dawn upon them that the difference between them is not a basic one. The conjecture that exists in one’s mentality regarding the other is nothing but a product of false  

[1] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring , Summer 80, Pg. 13
[2] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 235
[3] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 270
[4] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring , Summer 80, Pg. 12
[5] Abdul Kareem Bi-Azaar Shirazi: Islam Aaine Hambastigi (Islam, the Constitution of Solidarity), Pg. 11
[6] Muhammad Moheet Tabatabai: Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi wa Beedaari-e-Mashriq-e-Zameen (Awakening of Eastern land), Pg. 168

assumptions.”![1]

“Islamic legislation is not a product of any fanciful imagination. It stands on a fixed principle. There does not exist any Muslim from any sect of Islam who might differ with another Muslim. If there is a difference, it is in the branch of the principle not in the very principle itself…”![2]

“Those who are in agreement with regard to God, religion, Prophet, prayer direction and Quran, which are foundation stones of faith, must be mindful of principle that is the pillar of their own faith. They should regard it as an unshakable factor of unity, solidarity and integration.”![3]

Dissemination of such foul and fake thoughts in the first place will harm and hit the body of Shiaism and the base of its belief. Consequently, the original and real face of this school will fade into oblivion.

In this way the monopoly of guidance that lies in following Ahle Bayt of infallibility and purity (a.s.) will be defeated and the most important pillar of Shia school will be demolished.

Today we ignore Imamate of Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet while we dwell on belief of two schools. This we do to protect or seek unity. It is quite clear where we will end. The propagation of such thoughts will carry us to an undesired and unwanted wilderness.[4]

As for Imamate and its position in Islam, we would like to dwell upon it since it has been criticized.

We refer here to views of scholars who themselves are fast pro-Islamic unity in its true sense.

One will realize, after a scrutiny of this analysis, that Imamate is a great difference between two schools. This difference has become a cause for differences in all discussions of belief entailing there to difference between teachings of two schools.

[1] Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Qummi: Article quoted in Islam Aaine Hambastigi, Pg. 138
[2] Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article quoted in Islam Aaine Hambastigi, Pg. 103
[3] Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article: ‘Wahdat Dar Nahjul Balagha’ (Unity in Nahjul Balagha) quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Book of Unity) Pg. 120
[4] Refer: Dr. Abdul Kareem Saroosh: ‘Civil & Religious Constitution’, Pgs. 169-182. From his speech delivered in Unity Conference, Tehran University, 1367

A school that believes in Imamate of Prophet’s Ahle Bayt will naturally grasp all elements and factors of belief and its data or literature from them – the infallible one. Similarly a school which has no belief in their Imamate has nothing to do with them. To gain Islamic information the school will refer to sources other than them.

Difference in belief in Imamate itself can be like a lighthouse that guides the way in dreadful oceans. In all subjects such as conduct, jurisprudence and belief between the School of Caliphs and that of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) through the scale of Imamate, truth and facts can well be sketched.

Criticism and Analysis

Shias believe:

“Imamate is a principle that gives a special distinction to Imamiyah sect. This sect is distinguished from all other sects of Muslims for this very reason. This difference has made Shiaism prominent among the rest of sects.”[1]

In this regard, Ustad Mutahhari writes:

“The issue of Imamate is too important to us, Shias. Nevertheless, to other sects of Islam it is not so important. The sense Shias draws from Imamate varies with that which other sects draw. This is the reason.[2] Indeed, there are some dimensions common to both schools. Nevertheless, there is a certain dimension particular to Shia belief. This particularity of issue of Imamate makes it an element of top priority to Shias.

When we Shias want to mention principles of faith we say: Monotheism, Prophethood, Justice, Imamate and Day of Judgment.

We regard Imamate a part of religion. The Sunnis also acknowledge something of a sort of Imamate. They do not basically deny Imamate, but Imamate they acknowledge is something else in a different form.  

[1] Shaikh Muhammad Husain Kashiful Ghita: Asl-e-Shia Wa Usoolaha (Fundamental of Shia and its principle), Pg. 107
[2] Sunnis do acknowledge leadership and Imamate in some cases. But the attributes of Imam are different from those of Shia belief. As for some conceptions of Imamate they altogether deny. It is not that they differ from Shias in qualities of Imam. The difference runs in the gist of Imamate besides the qualifications of the Imam. Imamate means (to them) leadership of a society. Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 46-47

Moreover, that form, according to them, is not a part of religion. It is only a branch factor of faith. However we have difference in this issue of Imamate. For the Sunni sect Imamate is one thing else while to Shias something else. How it is that Imamate stands as a part of principle for Shia sect while it is a branch to Sunnis? The reason runs the same as referred to. In Shia sect, it is quite different from what it is with the Sunnis.”[1]

“If the issue of Imamate could have ended at the frontier of political leadership of society after Prophet we too would have shifted it to branches of faith and never elevated it to grade of principle. Shias acknowledge Imamate and do not stand on that extent nor do they suffice at that. Ali was one of the Prophet’s associates. Others were too – Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Salman and Abu Zar. Ali was superior to all, above all, more in knowledge, in piety, in eligibility.[2] The Prophet had already nominated him. Shias do not stop at this. They argue two other issues. The Sunni sect never acknowledges anyone as far as these two issues are concerned. It is not that they accept these couple of issues and reject Ali to be attributed with them.

One: Imamate in a sense of final and absolute religious authority to be referred to. The Prophet was the conveyor of divine Revelation. People used to refer to him when they stood in need of knowledge about any aspect of Islam. They used to inquire from the Prophet what they could not or did not find in Quran. Here is a point worth considering. The commandment, legislations, the data that Islam wanted to convey, is it all same as mentioned in Quran and told by the Prophet? This is not the case. Time did not allow the Prophet to convey everything to the people. Ali was the Prophet’s successor. The Prophet conveyed to Ali all that ought to be said and conveyed. He taught Ali to the extent to make him his like. He molded Ali into an extraordinary scholar. He made him by his teachings such as not to make mistake in his sayings and to not say what is not from God. Therefore the Prophet introduced Ali and declared:

[1] Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 45-46.
“As a matter of fact it should be said: Sunnis from the very base reject Imamate that exists in view of Shias. They do not question its conditions and its very core is subject to denial.” (Ibid.) Pgs. 117-118
[2] [This much suffices: Negligence about appointment and divine text (Nass) has repercussions which we can also see today.]

O, People! Whatever religious issues you want to know, when I am no more, you ask my successor and successors.

As a matter of fact, here Imamate becomes something like an expertise of Islam. Expertise from the divine side; and the Imams means those who know Islam and are experts therein. In other words, they are persons who have attained all sciences of Islam from the Prophet. The method they learnt from the Prophet is so concealed, unseen and a secret one that it is unknown to us. Islamic knowledge was first transferred from the Prophet to Ali. And from Ali it sought the bosoms of subsequent Imams one after the other. As such in all periods of the Imams, Islamic knowledge or source was one and the same – infallible, without any deviation or error.”[1]

“In Imamate in the first place is the issue of succession to the Prophet.[2] This naturally entails the office of explanation of faith or religion excluding revelation. It was the person of the Prophet to whom revelation used to descend. Message and revelation ended after Prophet’s passing away. The content or gist of Imamate runs thus: Divine instructions or teachings are such that none can insert therein his personal opinion nor can he build up on his own taste. These instructions and teachings were vested in the person of the Prophet. People were convinced that whatever of religious problems they ask; the answer is true as they used to receive from the Prophet. They knew that the answer was not based on personal opinion of the Prophet. Therefore there was not at all possibility of any error or mistake. Therefore the teachings remain the same without any change, addition or reduction. It never happened that the instructions might have been amended or corrected on the next day because the previous day the Prophet had forgotten to tell something or told erroneously. Indeed we do not say such a thing about the person of the Prophet. We told this by way of explanation. The Prophet passed away. The question that arises is: Whether after the Prophet there existed a person like him to perform the office of absolute point of reference to comment, explain and expound divine religious commandments? Indeed, there did exist one to take over this office and perform the duty the Prophet used to discharge. But there is only one difference. What the Prophet conveyed and expounded, his source was Divine Revelation. And when the Imam or Imams discharged the same job, their source was the Prophet himself. The Prophet was based on revelation and the Imams, on  

[1] Ibid. Pgs. 50-52
[2] [Of course after the subjects of Wilayat and Imamate.]

the Prophet. The Prophet taught them. How the Prophet did so we cannot understand. A glimpse of it appears in the words of Imam Ali (a.s.) when he says: ‘The Prophet opened a door of knowledge to me. At the opening of that door one thousand doors got opened.’ We cannot explain how the Prophet received knowledge from God nor can we understand the type of spiritual relation between Prophet and Ali. The Prophet taught the facts only to Ali and not to others.”[1]

“Islam is a wholesome, consummate and magnificent religion and Imamate is its spirit. How can we say whether it reaches the extent Quran narrates about its principle and perfection? Or to the extent of the Prophet’s words while explaining it and which the Sunnis too have referred? Whatever was Islam, whether is it the same? Indeed, the call of Islam was completed to the Prophet. However the question is whether Islam was wholly conveyed? Is there not such a probability that Islam might have descended after the Prophet? As such, there could be many issues, which were not told because of lack of need or lack of demand of time. They might have been held in reserve to be told at a proper time. Therefore the stock of such issues could have been in the custody of knowledge of Ali. And Ali should have been supposed to convey to the masses.”[2]

“The Sunni sect does not acknowledge such a position to any. They do not accept such a type of Imamate at all nor do they accept existence of Imam. It is not such that they refuse Ali as an Imam and accept Abu Bakr instead. No. They do not accept the office of Imam. Sunnis refuse such a status to all – Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and other companions of Prophet.

The theme of the argument runs in this sense that revelation descended on the person of the Prophet only and nobody else. We too do not say that revelation descended on Imams. It was the Prophet who conveyed Islam to humanity. God told the Prophet what He wanted to be told of Islam. There is nothing either partly or little or more that remains untold. Sunnis further go to say that whatever the Prophet said, constitutes Islam.

There are issues about which the Prophet has not spoken even to his companions. About such issues, they (Sunnis) are confused and entangled in a puzzle. A thing not spoken is a quandary to them. They depend on  

[1] Ibid. Pgs. 71-73
[2] Ibid. Pg. 75

precedent. They judge or decide upon comparing a similar case if it occurred in the past. Imam Ali (a.s.) has criticized this practice of comparison. In Nahjul Balagha, he says that such a practice means that God has sent an incomplete religion that you have to substitute by the system of comparison. Shia logic is: Whatever God revealed to the Prophet was full and complete. He did not keep anything short. The Prophet too conveyed the same in the same measure to the people. He too did not keep anything less or short. Besides delivering the message to the people he told all the commandments and instructions to his special pupil and enjoined him to convey it to the people.”[1]

“It is here that we differentiate the duty of Shias and Sunnis in matter of explaining and understanding religion.”[2]

In accordance with this fundamental Shia belief in Imamate, Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi has written:

“We differ with them in all things – in principle of religion and in its branches as well, that is right from monotheism down to the branches.

In two issues we have a deep and salient difference with Sunni sect. One runs in principles of religion and the other in its branches. As far as principles of faith are concerned our difference is in Imamate, which is a fundamental item to us.

We believe that Imamate holds in its fold foundation of all religious recognition and information. Therefore the difference with Sunni sect is that of sky from earth. We deem that belief in monotheism, prophethood and Day of Judgment will be of no avail if there is no belief in Imamate.

In other words, Imamate is a pillar and foundation of religion. If this item be deleted, our faith will be incomplete and our religious bases will be in want and will result in no good to us. Without Imamate, branches of faith will be wrong and principles will be of no worth; neither will its recognition be of any value.”[3]

[1] Ibid. Pgs. 52-54
[2] Ibid. Pg. 76
[We shall dwell later in the subsequent chapters on the claim of those who separated from the school of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) under the pretext of their having an excuse. It will be useful in the course of discussion to remember the publicized sources.]
[3] Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi. Booklet: Guidance (Quoted portion from his speech on 21/11/79. Commentary of Verse 41, Surah Anfaal Pgs. 10-11)

“Sunnis claim that Imamate has no role in faith; and that Ali too had no part in religious issues.

Faith consists of monotheism, prophethood and Resurrection day.

This is what the Prophet introduced to humankind. Finally, the matters are vested to the Ummah. The aspect of government is upto the Ummah to decide or to handle as deems fit.

They consider Imamate as rulership and social leadership, which the people themselves can manage or run.

Thus Ali has no role in Faith. This belief stands quite opposite to our point of belief.

We say that Ali has the real and main role in Faith. The message of prophethood depends on Ali’s Imamate. Had there not been Imamate of Ali, the message would not have progressed.

As such, distance between them and us is to the extent of the sky from the earth.

We say that without Ali, Islam would be no more. They say Islam exists without Ali also.

What is a shell to its kernel such is the relation of Ali with Islam. Islam loses its spirit if there not be Ali. But they say the opposite; that is Islam exists with its spirit without Ali. So the gulf between us and them is too wide and large.”[1]

Even though for the sake of creating unity it may be claimed:

“To know the Imam is not a subject but it is an adherence. It is the way to get acquainted with religious commandments. It is not like belief in God and resurrection so as to be subjective.”[2]

[1] Ibid. Pgs. 12-13
[2] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pg. 176