A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4
Deviated Side-effects of This Conjecture
First Wrong Result
As you may have realized some seekers of Islamic unity have divided followers of all Islamic sects into religious discussions irrespective of beliefs, commandments, principles and branches. They have done so for sake of preserving Muslim sanctity. They have displayed principles such as to comprise arguments – absolute and final ones and common and combined ones among Islamic faiths. It has been declared such:
“Root of religion means the established facts, strong realities, absolute decided elements and common issues of religion.”![1]
“Principles are same comprehensive ones on which all Muslims have agreed.”![2]
Consequently, branches were mentioned as matters that had become separated from this absolute principle, which were final and common and a sign of distinction of differences between Islamic faiths.
To say it more clearly: unity-seekers distinguish branches and separate them from principles on the ground that viewpoints differ in branches while in principles, viewpoint of all Muslims is coherent and consistent. It is thus said:
“Principles and sum of beliefs is nearly final and common among faiths. Mostly side and branch issues cause difference because each sect has its own view.”![3]
“Matters subject to differences are side issues.”![4]
On the other hand there exists no doubt at all that the prime issue of difference in Islamic Ummah is Imamate and Caliphate of Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet. In this regard it is said:
“The issue of Imamate and Caliphate heads issues of differences among Muslims. Most differences – those of belief and jurisprudence, originate therefrom. None of these two fundamentals, Imamate and Caliphate, has
[1] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 28
[2] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine,
Issues 9 and 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 15.
[3] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 270
[4] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 191
had ever been a subject of common agreement between Muslims. In the era of the Prophet, it did not attain a level of serious consideration. In case it had been at that level it has lost importance by now.”![1]
Therefore the thought of seeking unity has pushed this issue into side branch or at the margin because it creates difference among Muslims. As a result, it has been treated as a branch or side issue and as such it assumes particularities significant to subsidiary or subordinate matters. They are:
A – “Branch issues which often are a source of differences should not be set in the middle of Islamic fundamentals or principles nor should they be treated such as to befog main issues.”![2]
B – “Muslims are at difference with one another only in little and branch issues. Such issues do not form the main spirit of Islam. In fact, they originate from wrong conclusions and various viewpoints of scholars or jurisprudents.”![3]
C – “Side issues and non-principles are objects of differences which should be resolved by scientific methods and exchange of views. If they could not be solved, do not let them dominate your mind and create fresh disputes among you. Islam does not deny difference in views. But the difference is natural and it is not supported by proof or reasoning.”![4]
Second Wrong Result
As could be gathered from preceding narrations, unity-seekers have brought belief in Imamate and Guardianship of Infallible Ahle Bayt down to a branch level. They have utilized the excuse of preserving unity in the Ummah. All arguments relating to faith under the title of principle or fundamental and essentialities of religion would have to face this basic objection to the effect that there exist differences between School of Infallible Ahle Bayt and School of Caliphs. The differences are deep and rooted. Therefore founders of unity-seeking concept suggest a brief knowledge of these handy matters for solution of this problem. The extent, they say is enough that could provide information to people of common understanding.[5] Besides, it must comprise branches. Consequently, the matter turns to rest at personal conclusion of a jurisprudential merit. They say:
[1] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 272
[2] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 135
[3] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 176
[4] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pgs. 199-200
[5] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in
Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 210
“A brief knowledge of this fundamental belief at the level of common understanding suffices. A detailed knowledge of it is not desired.”![1]
“Accordingly we must know and even acknowledge that most religious matters are of personal conclusion of jurisprudence. The matters of need or those of necessity are common ones. For example: God is attributed with attributes of perfection, beauty and glory. Quran too mentions it. But when details are dealt with, question too arises accordingly. For example, the attribute or quality – is it the very self or added thereto? Or intention (i.e. the will) as to whether it is a quality of an action or quality of self? This issue is in the range of jurisprudence. The laity cannot understand it totally. There is also no need for them to understand.”![2]
As for this conjecture, all discussions under these fundamental beliefs that go beyond common borders in glittering titles do not comprise principles because of their being within category of subsidiary character. It can be said in more clear words:
As far as this outlook goes, all deviated and wrong beliefs of Islamic sects in the chapters of monotheism and prophethood and...encompassed by jurisprudence are beyond the circle of deviation and crookedness! And stand in need of justification!
Because all these beliefs are absolute and beyond common understanding!
Third Wrong Result
Division of religious arguments that have taken place in beliefs and commandments is to preserve Muslim sanctity.[3] This causes exit of important arguments such as Imamate and Guardianship of Infallible Ahle Bayt from category of prime matters of religion and become a subsidiary matter of less care. However it goes even farther, embracing issues, which were main ones in the sphere of branches.[4]
[1] Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 210
[2] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 92
[3] Refer: Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 83-84 & Pgs. 92-93
[4] As it has been pointed out: Monotheism is the self of God.
Prophethood is from the principles of Islam – the common ones. No one
can deny it. In a detailed discussion it is said that in the next word
God is seen. Whether can He be seen or not? This is a branch. According
to texts about possibility of seeing God many arguments have been
launched. This must be regarded a subsidiary matter.
Consequently, wrong conception gives shape to shifting of issues from main to branch and from the foundation to a side, irrespective of beliefs or commandments. It is said that:
“Religious matters are in two categories. One is the final and decided one. The other one is not final. The final and decided matters are those, which must be as wholesome, of unanimous agreement of all Muslims. We have other matters in religion that are not of much transparency. Or they might have been previously. But by the passage of time, lost importance and became ground of difference between Muslims. All issues pertaining to belief, jurisprudence and practice are common between two sects (Shia and Sunni).[1] But branches of it are the ground of difference. We shall deal what exists in the domain of jurisprudence; all issues are not final.”![2]
“Jurisprudence has an immediate bearing on issues of theory. Its authority and validity runs in issues that are outside essentialities and final say of Islam…”![3]
“If we accept that religion consists of two series of issues. One is final, which does not carry any difference because there cannot exist any difference in it. Difference in these matters will make one to be regarded a deserter of religion. The other series of this is not a part of final matters and absolute essentiality. This is among theoretical issues. This is liable to create difference and arguments. There are various proofs and grounds in it. The method to reach to knowledge in the subject matters of this series is same as already mentioned. All ways end at conclusions of jurisprudent. As such, we must know and acknowledge that there are many issues in religion that lie in domain of
[1] In fact, he says: About Imamate and Guardianship of Ahle Bayt
(a.s.) this much is mutually agreed upon that religion of Islam dwells
on politics too. The rest of the matters such as the very Imamate and
Guardianship of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) are subject to differences. Therefore
they are branches and liable to personal conclusion of jurisprudents.
“Yes, we confirm this policy. I go even so farther as to believe this
issue as totally among the essentialities of faith and common elements
of all Islamic faiths. But as to the method of appointing a ruler as an
Imam, or a Caliph is dispute among Islamic schools. Likewise, what
qualities he should have, is a matter of dispute.” (Muhammad Waizzaada
Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 106)
[2] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 83
[3] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 101
jurisprudence….”![1]
Fourth Wrong Result
When religious issues (related to belief or jurisprudence) are divided into two categories, principles and branches, the branch issues yield to jurisprudents’ ruling. When this formula is accepted, it should also be accepted that each branch consists of its own peculiarities or special effects related to differences of rulings among jurisprudents. And they are:
1 – This Difference must be acknowledged:
“Religious issues are divided into absolute and final ones on one hand and on the other in issues that are otherwise i.e. not final. Issues of the first category do not yield to differences. In other words, no difference can creep therein. But issues of second category are subjected to difference. In other words, they undergo differences. Sometimes, we have no way but to tolerate differences.”![2]
“Differences in non-principle issues are tolerable within framework of reason and proof. This difference is harmless. It is to a certain extent unavoidable because every jurisprudent has his own opinion in matters of jurisprudence.”![3]
2 – This Difference in Religion is neither rejected nor blamed:
“There are issues perhaps never raised in early Islamic period, or if at all raised, they were limited and unclear. As centuries passed, clerics and scholars paid much care and attention to issues. Their findings brought in differences. Such differences are outcome of scholars’ research, therefore cannot be called differences. It cannot be blamed on either.”![4]
3 – This Difference is desirable and useful:
“Difference in any faith neither decays nor vanishes. So no saying goes about a difference when several faiths exist. It has a root in conclusions of jurisprudents. As many viewpoints as many differences. Islam acknowledges different thoughts or views; if thoughts be useful, so much better.”![5]
[1] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 92
[2] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 84
[3] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 134
[4] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 93
[5] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 128
4 – This Difference is not Harmful, it solves difficulty:
“There are many differences in Islamic faiths in fields of jurisprudence and speech. These differences originate from difference in views of jurisprudents and they do not contradict basic principles of Islam. Hence they do not carry any harm but they occasionally solve difficulties also.”![1]
5 – This Difference is Good – there is nothing wrong in it:
“Efforts should be made to open door of jurisprudence in all faiths of Islam. Thus ruling of jurisprudents will be established by support of reason and proof in all aspects in branches as well as fundamental. The rulings can rescue matters from going under disputes and the Ummah going into disintegration. There remains only a difference in view which is not harmful but rather advantageous…”![2]
[1] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 271
[2] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 136-137