The Shiite Apologetics
Question Twenty Three
Why do the Shiites consider that the successorship to the Prophet is decided by Gods command and introduced by the Prophet himself ?
Answer:
It is clear that the holy religion of Islam is a universal and eternal religion, that the Holy Prophet leads the people while he is alive and that after his demise the position of leadership should be entrusted to the worthiest person in the community of Muslims.
In regard to the issue as to whether the leader after the Holy Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, is appointed by God and introduced by the Prophet or whether he should be elected by the people, the Shiites believe the Prophet's successor is appointed by God, whereas the Sunnis believe that people should elect the leader to manage the affairs of the community.
Social Considerations Prove the Need for the Divine Nomination
The Shiite scholars have, in their books of creed, stated many reasons to support the belief that the successor to the Prophet should be appointed by God's command. What is important is that an analysis of the social circumstances in
the time of the Prophet clearly bears witness to the soundness of the Shiites view.
The foreign and domestic political status of the Islamic community at the time of the Holy Prophet required that the successor to the Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, be, through the Prophet himself, appointed by God, because the Islamic community was regularly threatened with destruction by a dangerous trio consisting of the Roman Empire, the Persian monarchy, and the domestic Hypocrites. It was also necessary that for the people's interest, the Prophet appoint the political leader in order to unite the people against the foreign enemies and stop the enemies' infiltration and domination, which the interior disputes, would strengthen.
Further Explanations
The Roman emperor, a dangerous side of the trio, about which the Prophet was preoccupied to the last days of his life, was located in the North of the Arabian Peninsula.
The first military encounter between Muslims and Christian army took place in Palestine in 8th year after Hijrah. In that war three of the Muslim army commanders: Ja`far al-Tayyar, Zayd Ibn Harithah, and `Abdullah ibn Rawah were killed and the war ended in a bitter defeat of the Islamic army. The Islamic armys retreat made Caesars army impudent, and there was the fear that they would attack the Islamic capital any moment. So in the 9th year after Hijrah, the holy Prophet, commanding a large and equipped army, headed for the border of Damascus. In this hard and painful expedition, the Islamic army managed to recover its prestige and to renew its political life.
A few days before his fatal illness, the Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, not being not fully contented with this partial victory, dispatched Usamah, the commander, and the Islamic army, to the borders of Damascus.
The second of the trio was Khosrow Parviz, the Iranian king, who, having received the Prophets letter got so angry that he contemptuously tore it to pieces, insolently dispelled the Prophets messenger and wrote a letter to his governor general in Yemen to arrest the Prophet and kill him if he refuses to surrender.
Although Khosrow Parviz died while the Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, was still alive, the question of the independence of Yemen, a colony of Iran for years, was a concern of the rulers of Iran, and the Iranian politicians could never, out of conceit and pride, bear the existence of a power in their neighborhood.
The third danger was that of the Hypocrites, who acted as the fifth column among Muslims, always committing crimes and sowing the seeds of discord to the extent that once they decided to assassinate the Prophet on his way from Tabuk to Medina. Some of them cherished the hope that after the Prophets death, the Islamic movement would come to an end and that they would all be relieved.[1]
The hypocrites destructive power was so great that the Holy Quran speaks about it in the following chapters: al-`Imran, al-Nisa, al-Maidah, al-Anfal, al-Tawbah, al-
[1] Derived from ayatullah Subhani's Foruq-e-Abadiyyat.
`Ankabut, al-Ahzab, Muhammad (a.s), al-Fath, al-Mujadilah, al-Hadid, al-Munafiqun, and al-Hashr.
With so many powerful enemies in ambush, would it have been right for the Prophet of Islam if he had not appointed a successor to the religious and political leadership of the newly-established community? The social calculations demanded that the Prophet appoint a leader to prevent any kind of discord after him and to ensure the Islamic unity by creating a firm, strong and defensive front. It is snot possible to prevent unpleasant happenings unless a leader is appointed (by the Prophet) so that no one after the Prophet's death could say that the Caliph should be one of them.
These social considerations lead us to confirm that the idea of the Prophet's appointing the leader to succeed him was correct.
Textual Evidence on the Prophets Clear Expression
It was because of this social background and other considerations that the holy Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, now and then set forth the issue of successorship from the very first days of his Prophetic mission to the last days of his noble life. He appointed his successor both at the beginning of his mission - in an assembly he had formed of his relatives to reveal his Prophecy to them - and towards the end of his life at Ghadir Khum when he was returning from the farewell pilgrimage, as well as other instances throughout his life. Three examples of the supporting texts as well as the source books of the Islamic scholars and the traditionists concerning the matter have been mentioned in chapter two of the present book.
With view of the afore-mentioned social conditions in the early days of Islam, and considering the Prophetic texts in regard to introducing and appointing `Ali (a.s), the Commander of the Faithful, as his successor, it becomes evident that the issue of appointing the Caliph by the Prophet is necessary and unavoidable.
