A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4

Deviated Repercussion of These Conjectures[1]

First Wrong Result

Caliphate is not a Monopoly of Amirul Momineen (a.s.)![2]

So they have said:

“Conditions laid down in Islam for head of affairs (Wali-e-Amr) are briefed in this sentence. The most suitable and befitting person for the post of a ruler must be selected.”![3]

“The infallible Imams have two positions. Most important of all is they are guides, leaders and authorities from God. They are chosen ones to interpret and explain God’s rulings, decrees and what descended on the Prophet.

The other one is rulership and Guardianship. It is compulsory upon the Ummah to pay allegiance to and obey them. Since they are superior in knowledge than all others, people must choose and obey them.”![4]

“In this fact there is no doubt that Ali was the most deserving person to succeed the Prophet. Neither Shia nor Sunni have any doubt in this regard.”![5]

“The person of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) was more deserving than others for rulership. It is not in the sense that Caliphate is his belonging nor in the sense that Caliphate is prohibited for others. But the sense here is eligibility and the qualities – in which he stands first and above all.”![6]

Second Wrong Result

Caliph cannot be Exclusively Ali after the Prophet

[1] Attention in this regard shows why unity-seekers place their real idea in the argument of Imamate and Caliphate (elected government).
[2] Roots of this perverted outlook can be found in the conjecture of ‘Obtained Imamate’ in writings of people like Dr. Ali Shariati.
[3] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 97
[4] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 124
[5] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381
[6] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 146

They say:

“Rulership and Caliphate in the sense of administration, as it is said, is his (Ali’s) right. Inspite of his acceptance it is prohibited to others. However it is not such an important post.

Rather Caliphate and rulership is among his (Ali’s) positions. When he is not present or he did not become Caliph another one can be made a candidate or can be appointed.”![1]

“In such a case the second obligation becomes mandatory. The formation of Caliphate at consensus of Muhajireen and Ansaar becomes final and legitimate.”![2]

Third Wrong Result

Usurpation of Ali’s Caliphate is no more in Question!

It is said:

“Although he (Ali) rightfully considered himself more suitable and deserving, he did not consider others’ Caliphate infidelity or usurpation.”![3]

Fourth Wrong Result

Caliphate of Caliphs is not illegitimate!

Such is said:

“In selecting the Caliph through consultation, companions of Prophet maintained rules of God and carried out Islamic regulations.”![4]

“After passing away of Prophet immediately, companions of Prophet thought about Caliphate and formed a government of religion. Thus Caliphate of Caliphs came into being.”![5]

[1] Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 125
[2] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 176
[3] Sayyid Abul Fazl Barqayi: Preface to the book Sharaha-e-Ittehaad (Roads to Unity), Pg. D
[4] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam),Vol. 1, Pg. 112
[5] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Article quoted in the book Deen-O-Hukumat (Religion and Rulership), Pg. 545

Warning:

Propagation of these Conjectures in the Name of Open-mindedness

The attraction of the name of election of the people and its resemblance to Western democracy – the foregone conjectures have found a place in attention of open-minded persons of the society.

Such is said:

“In accordance with sense and contents of Quranic verses and traditions and according to words of Ali himself (which are in plenty) the owner of rulership and the executors are people themselves. Islamic government is a democratic or public government.”![1]

“The appointment or dismissal of an Imam or head of government must take place with choice and consultation of people…!”

According to clear texts, repeated statements and practice of Prophet and other four personages of the cloak, government of Muslims is government of people themselves. It is formed by their consultation. So the Sunni brothers will have no objection.”![2]

Relation of Imamate and Caliphate from Shia Viewpoint

Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari writes in this respect:

“…an issue in the chapter of Imamate is government. In other words, what is the status of government after the Prophet?

Is it on shoulders of people; and is it for people themselves to appoint a government for themselves or is it on the Prophet? Whether he appointed a ruler when he is no more?

Since recently, they design the issue in a way that it strikes to mind the idea of Sunni sect to the effect that it appears normal and naturally common.

The wrong framing of the issue:

They frame the subject in a way as if we have a problem by name of government. We want to see in the name of government as to what is the government in the view of Islam?...[3]

[1] Engineer Mahdi Bazargan: Besat-O-Idiolozy (Proclamation and Ideology), Pg. 115
[2] Ibid. Besat-O-Idiolozy (Proclamation and Ideology), Pg. 148
[3] Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 67

If we pose Imamate in a plain way at the level of a government and say, it means government, we shall see the attraction exceeds what Sunni say and goes beyond what Shias say…[1]

We should not commit such a mistake to imagine a government at the very name of Imamate. As a result the issue, let it be however plain, this branch that has come into being should not lace it. This might occur to us as to who should take over the charge of government. He who wants to be a governor should he be superior to all others? Probably he who becomes a governor could be relatively superior and not absolutely. This is because we have treated this issue as of little importance. This is a mistake.

Today this mistake is often repeated.

As Imamate is mentioned, our mind goes to the meaning of government. Government is a branch – a very little side of Imamate.[2]

We say there is some other issue among Shias. If we fix that issue, the question of government too is settled. We believe in a position or office, which is immediately after prophethood or its subordination. In the presence or existence of that office, the issue of government comes into its fold. In other words issue of government is encompassed in existence of Prophet. Similarly in the presence of Imam – in the sense, which Shia says – the issue of government is itself in existence.[3]

The subject of Imamate itself entails prophethood. But it does not mean that its position is far below something close to prophethood – in its similarity. The great prophets in addition to their prophethood they had this office of Imamate too.[4]

Imamate is a phenomenon of prophethood exactly to the level of prophethood at its highest grades. It is such among Shias.[5]

Prophethood itself is an entity wherein exist thousands of things. The Prophet’s existence makes Muslims needless of a ruler because he is the ruler. Government was one of the affairs of prophethood…[6]

[1] Ibid. Pg. 69
[2] Ibid. Pgs. 70-71
[3] Ibid. Pg. 113
[4] Ibid. Pg. 186
[5] Ibid. Pg. 163
[6] Ibid. Pg. 162

But it was not bestowed upon him by the people. This was a right given him by God, because he was a superior human being.

Since he was the interpreter of God’s commandments and a moral link with the unseen world he had rulership too over the people…[1]

When we accept such a fact there arises no question of a ruler as long as the Prophet exists. He has a dimension beyond a human being. Likewise, as long as exists the Imam there arises no question as to who is to rule…[2]

From Shia viewpoint, question of government is same as it was in lifetime of Prophet. He has an exceptional government.

As the question of government does not rise in lifetime of Prophet, so it is in lifetime of Imam. The meaning of Imam as it is in belief of Shia, rescinds the issue of government. The issue of government is a branch issue and a dependent one…[3]

Therefore we must not regard issue of Imamate simple. We should not treat it as a worldly position.

Among Shias, Imamate is a living issue. In presence of Imam, there is no room for other as in the case of lifetime of Prophet.

And the Prophet had appointed Ali for Imamate. He who is Imam necessarily governs too. The Prophet has mentioned ‘rulership’ in addition to ‘he is the Imam after me.’”[4]

He writes under the heading: ‘In presence of infallible there is no room for selection’ thus:

“The subject of Imamate with regard to leadership and government is: Now like the days of Prophet there exists an infallible. The Prophet had appointed his successor who was not to the level of other persons because his level was too high. And with regard to his capabilities and standards he was exceptional like the Prophet himself. Therefore there arises no question of consultation and selection.

In the days of the Prophet, no one said that the Prophet was a Messenger and a recipient of divine revelation. So the government must be framed by consultation. People should come and cast their opinion whether to  

[1] Ibid. Pg. 112
[2] Ibid. Pg. 163
[3] Ibid. Pg. 147
[4] Ibid. Pg. 81

select someone else or the Prophet himself for the post of ruler. But people thought that the Prophet is above ordinary persons and that he has links with the world of revelation. Now after the Prophet there is no place for these sayings. But one thing is undeniable. Having had an infallible person purged from mistakes and perfect in earthly and heavenly knowledge, should we go to another one instead?

Besides, Ali was an Imam. So the worldly post of leadership too will be his lot all by itself. The Prophet has explained this aspect too. The Prophet referred this position to Ali because Ali had the other position also.”[1]

[1] Ibid. Pg. 80