Discourse 5: Alterations In Beliefs Of Shia Ja’fari Twelve Imamite Faith

This chapter contains three subjects:

– First Deviation: With regard to relation between Imamate and rulership.

– Second Deviation: Deletion of Imamate from principles of religion.

– Third Deviation: To seek distance from enemies of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt.

This item is avoided from Shia teachings.

First Alteration: Imamate And Rulership


As has become evident the ground of Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt forms and frames differences between beliefs of followers of Ahlul Bayt and Caliphs in addition to right of succession of Infallible Ahlul Bayt, which was hijacked at Saqifah Bani Saada. This Saqifah is the spot wherefrom start all troubles, agonies, tyranny, terror and so forth against the Imams, the offspring of Prophet. For instance, one is attack on the house of the only daughter of Prophet. This attack gave strength to pillars of later tyranny that was in store for Prophet’s family. As such, the differences too attain depth between two schools, Shia and Sunni, which cannot be denied.

Existence of such a wide crevice could appear to those who invite towards Islamic unity, as a setback. To remove this setback, in their mind, no stone should be left unturned.

We witness a unique thought and an odd idea towards separating the position of Imamate of Ahlul Bayt from office of rulership. They claim that worldly position or any office is worthless and too little for dignity of an Imam.

As a result of these misunderstandings they think that Imam Ali (‘a) was on good terms with Caliphs. We shall deal with this conjecture in a systematic manner in this chapter.

With regard to deviation of relation of Imamate and rulership our discussion is as follows:

First batch: There are three kinds of separations between Imamate and rulership.

Type A)

Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the sense of setting aside Caliphate and considering it out of argument.

Type B)

Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the sense of Caliphate being independent of Imamate.

Type C)

Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the frame of ‘Great Imamate’ and ‘Great Caliphate’.

Second batch: to show rulership in little value or worth before Imamate.

First Batch: Three Types Of Separations Between Imamate And Rulership

Introductory Conjecture

“Difference between issue of Caliphate and that of Imamate is one of strong pillars. Of course each one justifies it in one way or another.”!1

This conjecture is expressed in the following thought:

Type A)

Separation of Imamate from Rulership in the sense of setting aside Caliphate and considering it out of discussion:

“Muslims today are in no need to discuss about past Caliphate. The thing that we must stress thereon and prove is this: The Prophet had set Members of his Household at the level of Quran and oracles for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims even today stand in need of them. The issue of Caliphate or rulership does not matter here…”!2

“We already differ with Sunni sect in issue of Caliphate. Now presently Caliphate does not exist. Therefore, there should not be any ground to quarrel. But the thing that is useful to us is aspect of Wilayat. In other words, the authority of learning or knowledge and their being final oracle or source of religious issues to refer. The position of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt still exists. Their fountain still gushes.”!3

“The Prophet in his time held the office of the oracle of Muslims. Then he (the Prophet) appointed Imam Ali (‘a) as the final authority of knowledge and his inheritor after his death. The Prophet acquainted people with the names of all twelve Imams as his heirs.”!4

“It is very much interesting that people feel pity at the issue of Caliphate and its getting shifted. But nobody laments nor does he feel sorry for our having been deprived of benefits of knowledge of Ali and his sons –heirs of the Prophet. The shifting of Caliphate severed for us the link of Guardianship.”!5

“Commonly all people in their various categories and capacities – speakers of congregations, speak on subject of Caliphate snatched away at Saqifah.”!6

“When Shaykh Attar refers to Lord Ali, he mentions him from the angle of Guardianship.7 Likewise, Maulana too mentions him in the same angle and adds: This Caliphate, a matter of dispute for you, is not important. The status and position that Imam Ali (‘a) held in the scope of knowledge is far greater one. The link of soul that he enjoyed is more important. Ali himself did not pay any importance to Caliphate.”!8

Type B)

Separation of Imamate from Rulership in the sense of Caliphate being independent of Imamate:

“Imamate and Caliphate are two separate entities quite different from each other but coherent. The best way of peace is: to recognize or acknowledge the Caliph as a trustee and a guard over treasures of earth and Imam over treasures of divine knowledge through the Prophet.”9

In this outlook deviation with regard to link between Imamate and Caliphate starts thus:

“As a matter of fact, there is no difference between the two. These two offices since the beginning until the end are at congruity with each other. Therefore, in Shia dictionary, Imamate has never been against Caliphate.

As such, an understanding or co-ordination is possible between the two to the extent to acknowledge one (Caliphate) as a trustee of earthly treasures and the other (Imam) as a trustee of divine and Prophet’s knowledge.”!10

Because: “Caliphate of righteous Caliphs is a position other than Imamate.”!11

As a result:

“The issue of Caliphate and Imamate are two issues separate from each other but with a caliber of co-ordination with each other.”!12

In fact, it could be summed up as:

The outcome of this claim to separate Imamate and Caliphate from each other. Imamate is considered at a station other than Caliphate and Caliphate occupies a place other than Imamate.

Thus, it is said:

“The subject of Imamate from the outlook of the strong verses of Quran is separate from rulership.”!13

“The late Allamah Simnani14 writes in Islam magazine: ‘Imamate and Caliphate are actually two issues. Caliphs had accepted and acknowledged Imamate of Imam Ali (‘a). Ali too had accepted their Caliphate. He used to say: You rule but I will solve the difficulties. They had agreed to this. Particularly the Second Caliph had sincerely accepted this proposal of Ali.15These are the ways we can follow.”!16

At this wrong belief it is said:

“Imam Ali (‘a), with the high spirit he had, went far and far, beyond and beyond Caliphate.”!17

“Imam Ali (‘a), in fact, was far beyond above elected Caliphate.”18

“Imam Ali (‘a) has openly and frankly stated: I have no rivalry with you in an elected Caliphate. He enjoyed a far more important spiritual position and distinction; that is Guardianship of Muslims. Besides, he was an Imam and father of Imams. Imamate was his lot. Besides, the most close and intimate relation and link he enjoyed with the Prophet.”!19

“There is another duty among duties of Imamate and Guardianship which is far important than Caliphate. That duty is to preserve and safeguard treasures of knowledge of the Prophet and to transfer it honestly and correctly to scholars, people and clerics.”!20

“Another example of the activity of the office of Wilayat and Imamate of Ali in the era of Caliphs, we clearly see how high and important it is than the elected office.”!21

“The Guardianship and heritage of divine information vested with him by God goes far beyond elected Caliphate.”!22

Deviated Repercussions Of This Conjecture

First Wrong Result

According to this outlook, we cannot find any other justification for avoidance and unwillingness of Imam Ali (‘a) to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.23 There are actions of oppression and tyranny. House of only daughter of Prophet, Fatima was attacked and set afire and the flames consumed the door. All this was done directly by Caliphs themselves. The only conclusion that can be drawn is this: The base is wrong. In such circumstances, acknowledgment of Ali to Abu Bakr’s authority is a thing caused by conditions prevalent at that time. Therefore it is a natural outcome. Hence it is written as follows:

“Imam Ali (‘a) refused to give allegiance for a short period. But his high conduct and demeanor and forgiving nature made him pay allegiance.”!24

“Imam Ali’s (‘a) only aim was to safeguard Islam, protect its entity and preserving unity.25Therefore he paid allegiance to Caliphs.”!26

Or they write:

“The conduct and behavior of Ali and his sons with Caliphs was such that it took to itself to reflect as if acknowledgement and acceptance is mingled, mixed, molded.”!27

“Ali for the sake of interests accepted rulership of two Caliphs.”!28

“Ali refrained for a period after passing away of Prophet, afterwards he did Bay’at to Abu Bakr.”!29

How can it be accepted at all that Ali should accept and acknowledge Abu Bakr’s Caliphate? A Caliphate that was framed against divine consent? A Caliphate that was usurped and taken by force, trick and tyranny? A Caliphate, which has trespassed on Quranic verses and trampled the command of God? A Caliphate, which came into being by overrunning clear instructions of the Prophet himself. So how can Ali accept such a Caliphate? An acceptance that originates from the heart! Yet, Ali did. This shows his foresight and how dear the interests of Islam were at his heart.

In this respect, it is written thus:

“Abu Bakr takes oath to the effect that loves the Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt more than his own relatives. Further, he commits himself to follow the Prophet’s policy and his works. Then Ali tells him: The place to give allegiance is the Mosque tomorrow.”!30

“He sees that one who has occupied the chair of power will exert efforts to make it stronger and extensive. Therefore he will try to extend the geography of Islam. So he paid the allegiance.”!31

In other words to believe in this type of Bay’at is in contradiction to principles of Shia faith due to the following reason:

Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate are divine offices bestowed by God. They are inseparable from each other. Likewise, they cannot be transferred or delegated to others.

Whatever Imam Ali (‘a) did in every befitting opportunity was to establish truth and prove the injustice done to him. By his campaign, he declared to people the illegitimacy, unlawfulness and invalidity of their Caliphate, which was his right and snatched away from him. Likewise, the unique and unparalleled campaign of Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet, demonstrates that they usurped the right of Ali to succeed the Prophet and Caliphate which was a legitimate right of Ali. On the other hand the tyrants did know that rulership and Caliphate is an absolute right of Ali vested to him by the Prophet at the commandment of God. So if Ali (‘a) did not pay allegiance, their Caliphate would not attain legitimacy and will forever remain usurped.

Therefore, they persisted with all force, tricks and tyranny they could. What history openly shows is this:

When Ali did not answer positively to their call to pay allegiance to their authority they set fire to the door of Zahra’s house and threatened to burn alive the dwellers – the progeny, the kith and kin of Prophet. Then an attack on the house was launched. At this stage they had to face Zahra’s defense. She took the lead to save Wilayat and Imamate of Ali. By all their brazen-facedness they pushed her aside. Then they took hold of Ali and dragged him to the Mosque. All the while a naked sword was drawn over his head – a constant threat accompanied him which could come true any moment. They tried to draw from him what was their desire (allegiance to Abu Bakr). Their design did not succeed because of presence of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter.

If the Imam had least desire to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or had he a least agreement with that group or for sake of any other reason had he any interest to benefit of the Ummah or Islam there was no sense in obstinacy he showed. The force and tyranny applied to him is enough to prove his unwillingness to accept Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. How could he agree for his right to be usurped and give acceptance to this?

All this goes to prove that:

Rulership is a right bestowed by God. As a result, it cannot be exchanged or given to others. It is irrevocable.

Such a thing would be to ignore divine decree and commit terrific atrocities; and yet they say:

“For the sake of interests of Muslims he transferred the right of leadership to others.”!32

Second Wrong Result

After Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani33 for the first time dwelled on such a type of thought in his article in a magazine of Egypt, Message of Islam, published by Darul Taqreeb34 Muhammad Madani, principal of Islamic law college of Azhar and director of the said magazine, depending on contents of the article wrote an essay titled: ‘A great change in Al-Azhar University.’ He writes:

“This discourse clearly conveys that accusation of usurpation of Caliphate and that those who took the reins of power were usurpers, is baseless. It is far from Shia principles of faith. They too, like all Muslims, consider the basis rests at the satisfaction of masses.”!35

The wrong result is not drawn directly from conjecture of separation between Imamate and rulership. But it is drawn on the basis of first result of this category of conjectures.

It is thus said:

“Satisfaction and Bay’at of Ali with Caliphs established that Ali did not regard their government illegitimate.”!36

Creation of such a picture of Shia belief in the minds of followers of Caliph’s school could possibly be an effective step towards unity. But it must not be ignored that a right will have to be sacrificed for sake of unity. Unity cannot be turned into a slaughterhouse of reality. Negligence in facts and figures can only result in imaginative unity. Our next generation shall take this wrong belief:

“It is quite possible for Shias as they follow Ali and his sons to admit authenticity of Caliphate with a simultaneous belief in the position of Imamate.”!37

On the basis of this separation comfort can be drawn that Ali occupied a befitting position. Although the office of Caliphate is separate from that of their Imamate but there is no reason for any anxiety because:

“Imam Ali (‘a) practically enjoyed the office of Guardianship and Imamate among masses. The people brought to him their complaints against Caliphs. Caliphs too often used to consult him in matters which were difficult for them to solve. Ali was a supervisor over their actions and at the same time a guide to them…38”!39

So we must be happy that his Imamate is not denied to him or any tyranny done against him and no right of his is usurped.

Similarly we should accept that Caliphs were never deviated because their government was run under his supervision. Fatima’s house was attacked and set on fire. Consequently, Fatima met her martyrdom and Mohsin was miscarried. All this happened in order to make Ali accept this high position to supervise duties of Caliphs and to guide them. Caliphs wanted to protect Islam!

Thus it is said:

“If people at consultation of Imam make a man of their choice manage their affairs and administer Islamic government their guardian choose Islamic government, the things will go better under his watch and control at his divine authority.”!40

Third Wrong Result

Does there remain any room for difference, dispute or a distance between Imam and Caliphs on the ground of what passed? So, is there any reason for quarrel between their followers?

The cardinal result that these unity-seekers are after is to show otherwise the relations between Imam and usurpers of his right of Caliphate. On a false basis, they try to establish that there lasted peace and understanding between them.

The thought of unity is turned into a real belief. The standard of real foundation and unity is ignored. According to this sort of thought, difference between Ali and Caliphs, in addition to contrast between beliefs of Shia and Sunni about Imamate and Caliphate is commented and changed ‘as if there existed understanding between the two.’41 The readers will conclude the mistaken result.

For instance:

“What crime is greater than one that creates difference among Muslim Ummah while the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms.”!42

Type C)

Separation of Imamate from rulership in a frame of Great Imamate and Great Caliphate:43

As it must have been observed so far, separation of Imamate from rulership (Caliphate) means complete independence from Wilayat (of infallible Imam). This is a wrong dimension, an erroneous angle, a mistaken outlook of some unity-seekers under a pretext of a suitable way to resolve.44

About these two offices, the vested or bestowed Guardianship and elected or selected Caliphate, much is said from this mistaken conjecture. Relations between these two offices and its heads is illustrated like this:

1 – These two offices: affairs and duties they have are totally different from each other. Therefore, they are separate. There are not many common elements between them. They are independent of each other.

2 – There is a parallel link between these two positions independent of each other regardless of duties and obligations of each. As such, an understanding and comprehension exists between the two. The office holders (of these two positions) have no differences beyond mutual complaints.

Thus, it is said:

“If opinions are exchanged in this regard it was baseless and not in a position of these two offices. In my opinion it is better not to call it a difference. It was only a complaint.”!45

3 – The position of Wilayat with regard to status, dignity, responsibility, duties and obligations make the holder of this office very much important and far higher and more sacred than office of Caliphate. This theory is applied to position of Caliphate. So consequently, coming down to position of an elected Caliphate one who holds the status of Guardianship it is too low and too little for him and his dignity. Considering the higher status of Guardianship than Caliphate and taking in view Imam’s carelessness and paying no importance to government’s position it can be said that nothing was taken away from him by Caliphs!

4 – The position of Imam’s Guardianship was active throughout the period of three Caliphs. The responsibility that entailed this office for Ali was acceptable to Caliphs, so none of his rights was usurped. Caliphs’ government was also not a government formed by force. Caliphs had acknowledged and even depended on authority of Ali, of his knowledge in which he was the final point of reference.

If one looks at these criticisms made by deviated outlook this much will be concluded that the difficulties of such outlooks are the wrong and perverted conclusions about Imamate and Caliphate.

In short, Caliphate, which is a reality by divine decree, has been deleted from Shia belief and an elected Caliphate is inserted instead.

The corrupted ones’ claim is that the Imam was not the head of Caliphate. They tried their best to show Caliphate (i.e. rulership) of less value and importance. However, this outlook is never accepted by Shia.

These unity-seekers have their own opinion about Caliphate of Infallible Imams. They have tried here to lift the handicaps towards acceptance. They want to consummate their earlier theory.

If it is revised, the office of Caliphate, which was completely a separate entity from office of Guardianship, now is divided into two branches:

Part A) The great Caliphate: They have brought it to the level or grade of great Guardianship of Ali.

Part B) The open Caliphate: (Caliphate in public view): This is the same elected Caliphate. As said earlier, in this conjecture this is the only branch of Caliphate separated from Imamate.

To describe these two branches, it is said:

“Depending on this theory, it can be said that Imam Ali (‘a) like Joseph, the Prophet, during the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet in affairs of politics, law and economics had great Caliphat in addition to great Imamate. But someone else was clad in the cloak of Caliphate.”!46

Particulars Of This Oblique New Thought About The Great Caliphate

First Particularity: The great Caliphate is higher than Caliphate, which is open to people. The reason: it is like a stationary millstone and a base. So it is a pivot of government. Therefore, Ali had no desire for this open Caliphate.

Thus it is said:

“Ali was aware of this fact that if he accepts Caliphate there is none to undertake the ministry which is a harder and more difficult job. There was none to become the stationary stone of a hand mill; that is to become a pivot thereon to rotate affairs of government.”!47

Second Particularity: The great Caliphate is more influential and efficacious than the apparent Caliphate. The reason: the Imam can interfere or issue orders in Caliphate wherever and whenever he deemed fit.

Third Particularity: The great Caliphate is active behind the curtain. Its dignity is beyond ordinary affairs. It has no direct link to government business.

In explanation of these particularities, such is expressed:

“Ali was like a pivot of Islamic government although apparently he was in the background. The cloak of Caliphate had covered some other body just like Prophet Joseph who commanded wherever he wanted.”!48

“The great Imamate and great Caliphate of Ali demanded him to guide and give opinion in affairs of Caliphate, in administrative matters and in military advances. He left army movements to care of others.”!49

One who designed this wrong conjecture after sketching such a picture of this great Caliphate claims that this position of Ali was active in the time of Caliphs. But the great Caliphate of his had begun immediately after passing away of Prophet.

It is again said that:

“Amirul Momineen (‘a) immediately after passing away of Prophet took office of great Imamate and great Caliphate in background of apparent Caliphate. Some think that he was aloof and took shelter in the corner of his house. But it was not so.”!50

“During the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet, he held great Caliphate in fields of politics, economics and law though someone else wore the gown of apparent Caliphate.”!51

Deviated Repercussions Of This Conjecture

First Wrong Result

Since the great Caliphate of Ali was active immediately after passing away of Prophet throughout the period of Caliphate, which was in appearance, so no right of his was usurped or confiscated.

Thus it is said:

“Imam Ali (‘a) besides the five years he was physically in the scene he had great Imamate and great Caliphate all over the period of thirty years since passing away of Prophet.”!52

Second Wrong Result

Considering differences between great Caliphate and Caliphate, visible to the people, it is not usurpation – that is the actions committed by those (other than Ali) who took over Caliphate. So their government was not illegitimate.

Third Wrong Result

That the holder of great Caliphate acknowledged Caliphate held by other, which was visible to people, is a natural and normal thing.

In this respect, they say:

“After a short period he did Bay’at for the sake of unity, peace, calm and safety of Islam.”!53

Consequently the invalid and illegitimate Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar is being shown as lawful, valid and under supervision of Ali. A Caliphate (as though) approved and accepted by Ali!


Whatever you read up to here was a report of claim coined in a new thought of unity-seekers. This new thought was erroneous and wrong in addition to dimension which too was wrong and deviated.

The writer of the article has tried to reason and give evidence in order to establish the validity of his theory that the great Caliphate was active throughout the period in which others had worn the gown of Caliphate. They are as follows:

“The great Caliphate of Imam Ali (‘a) during a period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet – we shall revise...

Guiding Caliphs in political, economical, legal and judicial affairs and keeping them from going astray.

Appointing his own persons in key posts.”!54

Then the writer explains ways and proceeds of his great Caliphate giving details about consultations of Caliphs with him. He further adds and explains the part he and his companions had in government and military advances.

We would like to remark here that we shall deal with all these points in the second and third chapters of second volume in detail.

The claim that his great Caliphate was active during the period of twenty-five years of Caliphs is nothing but an exaggeration far from reality and remote from facts. It is against history.

Here we draw your attention to a short criticism of the conjecture of Caliphate being separate from Imamate and Wilayat.

Criticism And Opinion

Guardianship And Imamate Is Inseparable From Apparent Caliphate

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this respect:

“There is another theory against all we have said so far. Shia scholars agree unanimously on it. The theory goes to say: Imamate is a guardianship bestowed by God to Imam. To make it more clear: Imamate is a position similar to prophethood. It is neither selected nor elected. It is chosen or appointed by God Himself. The holder of this position, the Imam, is chosen and appointed by God.

Therefore, Imamate is extension of Message brought down to people by Prophet. A Prophet is a founder of divine legislation over the earth. Imam is a guard of this legislation and guard of Message. Imam goes parallel with the Prophet except in getting revelation, which is the only distinction of Prophet. The Imam too is distinguished with qualifications and qualities necessary to a Prophet. He must be unique in knowledge and well conversed with principles, fundamentals, branches, decrees, rules, etc. An Imam too must be protected from committing any mistakes, big or small.55 The office of Imamate in Shia school is extension of duties, which are Prophet’s responsibility. Imam performs all duties of a Prophet. The obligations that bind a Prophet are transferred to the Imam.”56

As such if rulership is within the ambit of prophethood of a prophet and this office is established in the entity of prophet, then it cannot be separated from the entity of an Infallible Imam also. Therefore it cannot belong to other than the person of Imam. Since Imamate is the extension of prophethood, rulership too comes within the range of Imam’s responsibilities as it was the case with the Prophet. Therefore it is unreasonable to think of separation between office of Imamate and rulership.

We follow this discussion from the angle of knowing minutely the duties of a Prophet:

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes under the heading: Whether government is possible without an Infallible Imam – if it is a divine right:

“There is no doubt that one of the duties of prophets and one of the branches of their Guardianship is their government and their command over people. The government which in reality and originally belongs to God and delegated to Prophet and then to men of God, is a government framed and formed by justice, divine regulations and virtue of God’s commands.

In Bani Israel Prophets Dawood and Sulaiman had such a divine rightful government by God’s decree. The right and just government is that which is established by God’s orders; not on conjectures, fancies or guess, which is always accompanied with surmise and suspicion. So it is often associated with lust, desire, aspiration and greed. It is absolutely impossible to administer such a government unless the administrator has extensive knowledge in all sciences and fields relative and necessary, such as punishments and particularities of a ruling. He should be cold and calm, able to overcome his own anguish and anger. He must be able to control his personal greed, selfishness, lust and pleasure. In short, only a man with such qualities can be an infallible Imam. The Prophet according to Quranic verse was a ruler, commander and governor of Muslims. He was their politician, judge and arbitrator. If all verses descended in this regard are scrutinized, it will come to light that the Prophet was an absolute undisputed ruler, an arbitrator and a judge of Muslim Ummah. He was a rightful politician too. When we pay visit in a form of pilgrimage to Imam in his shrine we read in the text of pilgrim devotions (Ziarat Jame Kabeera) – “…politicians of the people.” The Imam performs the duties of the Prophet. The Imam performs the job of government and judiciary. He stands parallel to the Prophet. As we pointed above, he must be having the same qualities, the Prophet had. All rules, commandments and details of religion must be known to him. Similarly, he must be infallible like the Prophet, far from faults, remote from wrongs, pure and purged of sins. If Imam wants to administer his government in a different way, there will be no issue of Caliphate or succeeding the Prophet. It will be a government like other governments. It is obvious that the Imam whom God appoints is to fill the gap created by the death of Prophet. The Prophet ruled on the basis of divine laws. He did not commit mistake or go astray in applying laws of God whatever subject or case might have been. Therefore, his government was in fact the mirror of this Quranic verse: “And rule among the people with truth and do not obey the (personal) lust.” Now passing away of Prophet has created a vacuum that cannot be filled by anyone who has no knowledge of all the rules. Their ignorance in the events of any problem pushed them here and there to beg for a solution. What an agony it is when no goal obtained, he takes shelter in his own conjecture. Therefore, the file of their life is full of mistakes, errors, wrongs and faults; all dangerous and harmful. How to fill such a deep crack and crevice; and who is to fill it? He must be of highest spirit in position; a copy of the Prophet – having knowledge of each branch and side of Islam, He must be able to solve difficulties and problems without making mistakes. It is quite apparent that ordinary persons cannot fill the gap nor can they continue the Message brought down by the Prophet. Therefore it is here the presence of an Infallible Imam becomes necessary and a need to tread the path of the Prophet. Imam is a need to be in place of the Prophet to carry out his duties and make restrictions and prohibitions prescribed by God and conveyed by Prophet.”57

Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari in this respect writes:

“Prophethood itself is a reality containing thousands of issues. The presence of Prophet suffices people from having anyone else to govern them. Imamate in Shia school entails prophethood. However it is higher than prophethood. It is such a fact we have accepted. As long as the Prophet exists, there is no saying as to who should be the ruler. The reason is the Prophet enjoys a status beyond people. Likewise, as long as Imam exists, there is no question of who must be the ruler. In Shia school, Imamate is a phenomenon and stretched entity of prophethood at its highest grades.”58

“From Shia outlook, the issue of rulership in the period of Imam is like rulership in the time of the Prophet. In other words, it is an exception. With the supposition of existence or presence of Imam in consideration of the extent of Shia belief; the issue of rulership also becomes a branch issue – depending on other issues.”59


There is another criticism with regard to inadvertency towards standard, sincerity and originality of this thought. Distance has been taken from spirit of Islam and its social teaching; because:

“Separation between these two positions actually is a sort of Christianity on tongues of those who share this theory. This is a deviated constitution of Christianity of today, which says: I hand over affairs of Caesar to Caesar himself. This is not an Islamic constitution. All its regulations and laws reflect one system overall compressing all material and moral aspects sufficient to cater to needs of human beings in social, conduct and character, political and economical fields.

The constitution of Islam and its root frames the regulations of human policy, which is to administer Islamic social affairs. The station of moral leadership cannot be separated from government and political rule. Some among open-minded ones in the past and present consider it as a necessity to divide or separate the two, i.e. Caliphs and Infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet as it is the only way of unity between Shia and Sunni. The government must be the lot of Caliphs and moral leadership on the part of Infallible Ahlul Bayt. By this way alone, dispute lasting a thousand and four hundred years can be brought to an end. By so doing Muslims can stand against the imperialism of East and West with strength and unity.

But this very thought is a mistake. The sum of this unity is constituted by a wrong consideration, which rather reflects a kind of Christianity or secularism. Why at all should we separate these two offices, which is against Quranic verse? Why at all, should it be divided like sacrificed meat?”60

“The Holy Quran clearly says about Prophet Lut and Prophet Joseph: We gave to them rulership and command. About Prophet Dawood, Quran says: We gave him judgment and power of arbitration. About Prophet Sulaiman the Holy Quran narrates his government. Likewise, about Talut too talks of his government and that he had other distinctions. Therefore it shows that divine prophets are founders of divine governments on the earth and executors of divine authority.”61

“There is no denying the fact that the Prophet, besides being a ruler of masses was ruler of people also. He was a spiritual leader as well as a moral guide. There are verses of Quran, texts of Islam and historical evidences that narrate that the Prophet laid the foundation of Islamic government. He took the responsibility of all affairs as a real ruler does. Islam obtained expansion at…teaching of constitution of monotheism and legislating laws at the invitation for holy war and extensive military training among masses in addition to teachings laws particular to Jihad.

The training of defense was made common among the people. Besides, personal physical participation of the Prophet in twenty-seven battles and appointment of captains and brigadiers for fifty-five brigades showed the government’s face. In addition to this, it went as far as to establish that the Prophet’s call was not only spiritual. Likewise, his leadership was not only confined to convey divine decrees or religious messages through advices, admonishments or preaching. His orders were obeyed because of his capacity of a ruler and commander-in-chief of the army. In doing thus he safeguarded his Ummah from harm of enemies and protected the Message and Book of God from all perversions and deviations. He stood security to execute divine laws in a human society.62 The financial system of Islam is the most obvious evidence to prove that Islam is a complete and consummate model to run a society. The system was complete and nothing was short in it. Every core and corner of human field in a society has not escaped the care and attention of the system. It attended and answered all human needs that a society could possibly have. The way this system has chosen to attain this goal is to enjoin people to do what is good, i.e. to bind themselves to good. Similarly to avoid doing bad, being hurtful to self and others is prohibited. All laws and regulations the Prophet established show a thorough and a deep study of society. Then the Prophet laid its foundation which swiftly took root in society.63 Apart from being political head of government, the Prophet was a spokesman of divine or heavenly laws and a commentator expounding and explaining contents of Quranic verses. In short, he was a coach for God’s words and a teacher to teach the Book of God.64

The Prophet in his life held these two positions (i.e. head of the government and conveyor of Divine Message.) After passing away of Prophet, a vacancy arose for position of the Prophet. As such, the Islamic society needed one to fill the position of Prophet to carry out duties related with this position.

Now the question is to see who is qualified to take over the charge. Who has those qualities to occupy the two vacant offices?

It is quite clear and hence conceivable that the job of preaching to the people and guidance of masses to acquaint them with Divine laws; as to what is allowed and what prohibited and to encourage the society to high morals and demeanor befitting human beings can only be undertaken by those who are safeguarded from sins, protected from faults and are themselves infallible. They can control their own self. Besides, knowledge of everything rests with them. An absolute leader of the people cannot be otherwise. His conduct and character, his words and deeds become a model for masses to follow. Such a one must be pious without a margin of sin, forgetfulness, fault or error. We call this quality Ismat; that is infallibility. At the same time, he must have knowledge of every science. This is impossible unless God has vested his bosom with His knowledge.65

In brief, leader of Islamic society should be well versed with fundamentals, principles, branches and side rules and constitution of Faith. Otherwise he cannot be a divine spokesman over the earth and leader from God to His creatures. He cannot be, likewise, an absolute guide without being infallible.”66

Another Criticism

There is another point, which should not be far from sight. These conjectures are harmful to the extent of irretrievability to framework of Shia belief. However, they put the next generation into doubt with regard to separation of right from wrong. From another aspect, it encourages propaganda of a thought, which can be named ‘separation of faith from politics’.

“Islam is a compendious and complete constitution consisting of all aspects of human life – the open and hidden ones. Islam has brought a new system with a new thought. As it is a school of moral and civilization at the same time, it is a social and political system. Islam gives meaning to matter, makes the hidden apparent and obvious, frames the next world in this world, houses the essence in a shell and preserves seed in a pod. Deviation of Caliphate and rulership from its original track is tantamount to make Caliphate a pod without a seed or a shell without kernel…

So it was at this point that politics were separated from piety or being bound to a religion. As a result, those who were heirs of Islam and guards of moral heritage were sidelined.67 They had no say in affairs. Those at the helm of affairs were strangers to spirit of Islam.68 They could only run the legislature apparent to the eyes. From this one can understand the fatal hit that hurt the body of Islam. It started the day politics were separated from faith.69

This was the greatest danger to Islamic world and to those who aspire expansion and advancement of Islam should rely on unification of politics and faith. These two are like spirit and body. The spirit and body, this pulp and shell should get together with each other. Islam has paid much care with regard to politics, rulership, holy war, political laws and preserving the heritage of Islam. If this is separated from this pulp, the pulp will rot while the shell will dry up…”70

The Result

“The issue of Imamate from the aspect of leadership and rulership is such: Now presently there exists an infallible exactly like the person of the Prophet. The Prophet, at the behest by God, has introduced and identified to us his successor. His successor is above the level of ordinary people. As far as qualities and qualifications are concerned he is exceptional like the Prophet. Therefore in this case there is no question of consultation, election or committee.

In the days of the Prophet, there was nothing of these words such as: the Prophet is only a Messenger. Divine revelation descends on him. Responsibility of government rests with a consulting committee. People should vote whether the Prophet must be the ruler or someone else. In fact, the people had some other trend in their thought. In spite of being a Prophet and being above level of a human and having a link with unseen world of revelation nobody raised this question of an executive of the government. Now too (after his death) there is no necessity for such words. The Prophet had twelve successors. In their existence, there remains no ground for election, consultation and selection.

Having had an infallible one, with knowledge of everything, who does not mistake; rather no possibility of error can be attributed to him, should we go after an ordinary man?

The position of Ali’s Imamate was in the sense we said above that Ali was already an Imam in the sense of the word. So naturally all by itself leadership or administration of the government too will have to be his lot. The Prophet had issued statements in this regard. The Prophet described Ali’s position because the other position (Imamate) was his…”71


“Imamate is a pillar of Shia belief. A branch of Imamate is rulership. When an Imam is present, i.e. in existence of an infallible Imam the right of rulership goes to no one as it was with the Prophet. In the time of his existence, no one had the right to run the government. The Prophet, at the command of God, had appointed Ali for Imamate. Rulership is joined to Imamate. The necessity of Imamate is administration also.72 In some instances, the Prophet appointed Ali to administration on the basis and standard of Imamate. The base he held was Imamate but he said: He (Ali) is the Imam after me.”73


“Imamate among Shia is regarded above rulership. Rulership becomes one of the affairs of Imamate. The explanation of Islam, the decrees and its rulings occupy a level, which must be Infallible. It cannot be otherwise.

We say one of the functions of the Prophet was rulership. Rulership not from the side of people nor was it a people’s right to give him rulership. This rulership was one, which God had bestowed on him. The reason was that the Prophet was above human beings. In other words, he was a teacher of divine laws and rules besides his link with the unseen world. He had rulership over the people. Among Shias, there is another issue. If that issue is established, rulership itself will be established. We believe a position entailing that of prophethood. In existence and presence of that position, rulership is itself contained therein.

Likewise, when the Prophet was present, question of rulership was contained within. As such when an Imam exists, of course at the level Shias stress on, the question of rulership is clear and a settled one.”74

Second Batch: To Show Rulership Of Less Value Than Imamate


Now it is the turn to answer the second category of conjectures having had replied the conjecture of separation of Imamate from rulership. This conjecture too is in the same dimension with the same aim; that is to prove existence of good terms between the Imam and Caliphs.

This conjecture can be framed in the mold of following expressions:

“The office of Guardianship vested to Ali by God and Prophet according to texts and verses is so high that worldly offices and elected Caliphates before it are like polluted water with a putrid stench or a morsel that suffocates the throat or a worn out shoe or nasal liquid. It is so worthless and of such low value.”!75

“He was in background the Prophet’s successor Waliullah (i.e. God’s friend) and Caliph of God. His dignity and status was so high as not to let him compete for worldly Caliphate.”!76

“Ali was the successor of the Prophet according to Quranic verses and Prophet’s confirmations on several occasions. But his spirit was so high that he saw the office of Caliphate too little that he himself says: “Rulership over people to me is like polluted water with a putrid stench or like a morsel that suffocates the throat. Ali refrained from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr for a period. But his generous forgiving nature made him to pay allegiance.”!77

In the last narration, it appears that the author of the article is prone to believe that Caliphate is separate from rulership. In accordance with this belief, he argues the worthlessness of Caliphate. He then stresses on this point that both (Caliphate and rulership) are undisputed rights of Ali. As he proceeds, he shows the worthlessness of this position before the high spirit of Ali. However in any case, it does not mean that Ali overlooked the crime of usurpation of his right or forgave the usurper, finally, there did not last peace between him and transgressors of his right.78 It is an obvious fact that such a type of outlook towards rulership will result once more in wrong conclusions. Such as, he willingly paid allegiance to Caliphs!

A) Caliphs are shown as if they were not transgressors of Ali’s right, or they did not usurp Ali’s right to Caliphate.

B) Ali too did not carry any rancor against them.

C) He further says that peace and good terms lasted between the Imam and Caliphs.

“He wanted rulership to serve religion and establish justice. Otherwise he regarded rulership far lesser than the worth of his old worn-out shoes.”!79

Criticism And Analysis

As could be noted:

“He has brought down Imamate to rulership and administration either deliberately or unintentionally. It should not be forgotten that such a discussion results in scientific negligence, which cannot be accepted besides its entailing corruption in drawing conclusions. The outcome can be only an imaginative unity. The statement says that Imamate and Wilayat are two aspects – one moral and the other rulership. Then assertions are made that the first one cannot be usurped80 while the second is not so important. In the narration of the word of Ali, a word is changed; that is Guardianship instead of rulership. Intentionally it is changed to create a short cut towards unity.”81

Another point that should be made here is:

Caliphate and rulership are positions given by God. This furnishes a suitable ground for guidance and perfection and prosperity of this world and the next. It drives the society towards resurrection. Such a type of rulership cannot be worthless for Ali. If it be so, it means: Ali paid little or no attention to his duties because it is coherent with the position God has installed Ali in.

The office of Guardianship does not necessarily depend on rulership, which too must be in possession. The Imam under responsibility of Guardianship discharges his duty of guidance to people. But the fact should be noted that rulership provides an easier ground to achieve the goal of Guardianship to the extent of perfection that is expected by the appearance of the present Imam.

Rulership, which they usurped from Ali, was on the ground of their denial of Imamate and Wilayat of Ali. This denial gives birth to a denial that stretches in the whole Ummah and totally forgets its turning away from the Imam who is a door of guidance and resurrection in the next world.

The world from the viewpoint of Ali is worthless. Likewise is rulership that aims world. Sunnis have said thus about Caliphate. Rulership gives meaning to Ali when he can serve the truth and justice and enable him to eradicate wrong.

In other words, Caliphate and rulership lose their attraction to Ali when they serve selfish motives or go astray from God’s will. Throughout the period of three Caliphs, this type of rulership had imprinted a sketch in the minds of people.

In fact they took rulership for granted to hoard worldly and material gain.

It was exactly on this wrong outlook that the Ummah got tired of injustice and partialities of Uthman. They saw no way but to turn to Ali. So they returned to Ali.

They returned not because Ali was the person whom the Prophet had introduced as one appointed by God to the leadership of Islamic society. They returned because Ali was selected by companions who wanted to establish justice. This clearly shows that they had already forgotten the divine verse for Ali’s leadership.

The government, which Ali was called upon to form was a display of Ali’s wisdom in executing divine orders. At the same time, the previous three regimes also were a demonstration of their denial of Ali’s right of Guardianship and Imamate and usurpation of his rights.

Therefore it is clear that rulership founded on such base has no value to Ali. However Ali exerted his efforts and tried repeatedly to take back his usurped right. This was silenced by an attack on Fatima’s house, the only daughter of the Prophet.

Second Alteration: Removing Imamate From Principles Of Faith And Making It A Fundamental Of School


Pay attention to this objection:

“…Difference in Imamate is not a difference in principle of faith. Since our childhood, we are taught that principles of faith are three and fundamentals of school are two. Principles of faith are separate from fundamentals of school.”!82

One of the mode of dividing which has no root in Islamic teachings but today it is commonly used – separation of arguments of belief in principles of faith and fundamentals of school or in terms of unity-seekers – separation in real issues (common ones) and the side ones (i.e. those of Ijtihaad).

It so seems that this way of dividing might have originated in thought of Islamic unity. Or it should have much utility and usefulness in this path. Depending on this order discussion of Imamate has been discarded from comprising main and basic issues of Islam while, on the other hand the subject of Imamate constitutes the ground for difference between two schools – that of the Prophet’s House and that of Caliphs. It is brought down to a side matter. Therefore the different views in this regard becomeIjtihaads, i.e. personal opinions based on personal conclusions. As such, it is by itself in the margin – not in the contents, beyond frontiers of principle which are common among Islamic sects.

So it is said:

“Islamic Caliphate comes among common principles because it carries rulership. Therefore politics is among pillars of Islam. As a result there needs to be an executive or administrator. But the discussion takes a detailed length to the effect to make it a branch subject not to be treated as incoherent with the principle…

For instance, Shia and Sunni differ from each other on application of the term. They had disputes on this issue as to whom should be applied the term of Caliph. This shows real Caliphate and politics as an entity that stands by itself. It is an outstanding issue; an element of its own independent base. Strange it is that who should take charge of Caliphate must be a side discussion, a branch argument!”83

“Some narrations about Guardianship are in the same trend and sense which are particular to Shia. Yet, Guardianship in that sense becomes a side matter pertaining to belief.”!84

“In my view those who today say that there is no politics or rulership are more astrayed than those who deny immediate succession of Ali to Caliphate.”!85

Unity-seekers by posing such divisions can very easily set aside a far margin to this discussion of Imamate, which is the main and most important difference of belief among sects of Islam. Their pretext is – a principle of faith, of Ijtihaad or a branch issue and so forth.

So it is said:

“The other issues wherein runs difference among religions are among principles. Every school has a fundamental for itself.”86

However in each sect such side belief, not the basic ones, that have no relation with fundamental issues of Islam, can be found.

Thus it is said:

“The subject of supreme leadership of Muslims was the element that gave blow in the beginning to body of Islam. It hurt the united rows of Islam. Since this was among the second grade of issues, it did not create controversy with unity of principle and purpose. The difference exited therein was hurtful to unity of Muslims.”87

In other words, Imamate against the principle of faith is only a branch of belief. Therefore it is on this ground that Islam does not acknowledge it as a valid principle!

On the other side, this type of division (or dividing) displays all Islamic sects in basic issues and joint principles of faith of Islam; and makes all to benefit by the link with the root of Islam!88

In this way another step is taken towards unity.

So it is said:

“What Islam regards valid among principle and branches89 one should believe therein. He is a Muslim. Those principles are three: Monotheism, Prophethood and Day of Resurrection…

So Imamate is not from principles of Islam. It is from principles of Shia faith, He who denies this, if he believes in three said principles, (Monotheism, Prophethood and Resurrection) is a Muslim but not Shia.90”!91

“Imamate is from fundamentals of school, not from principles of faith. Denial of this principle does not become a reason for the denier to be treated out of Islam…”!92

In one comprehensive glance it can be said:

After the last commentary on separation of Imamate and Caliphate:

“Commentary of second kind towards co-ordination and nearness in the most important matter of difference Imamate; Muhammad Jawad Mughnia has written an essay on it. He says Imamate is not from principles of Islam. It is the base of Shia faith and its essentiality, which returns to principles.”!93

Criticism And Analysis

The body and structure of Islam is in discussion. Its teachings can be divided into two entities – the lower structure and the above structure. In this division, some teachings of faith including obligations or duties and those of beliefs in relation to all teachings of conduct or of belief housed in the lower structure. These are called basics of Islam or basis of faith in narrations of infallible Ahlul Bayt. The sense of this is totally other than the common description as principles of faith.

On this basis, that batch of teachings of faith is called base or principle of faith. The root or construction of Islam rests on that. Not because outer belief – even its contents – is common with Islamic sects, are called principles of faith.

On the basis of what we said, Shia believes that Imamate is part of principles and pillars of faith. In faith of Islam the element of Imamate is the fundamental of the foundation.

Here we quote some writings of Shia scholars:

“The reality of a thing is its own base and root. Its structure is built on it – i.e. on its base and on its own root. Therefore principle of faith is that on which faith is built or stands thereon. Such it is to believe in Imamate; Quran and traditions support this.”94

“Imamate and leadership of religion in Shia school is a part of principle from view of essentiality of belief. It stands in the row of Monotheism, Prophethood and Day of Judgment.”95

“When we Shias want to describe principles of faith on the basis of religion we count it as a part of principle.”96

“We believe that Imamate is one of the principles. Faith without belief in it is incomplete.”97

“No doubt that the only way to reach true elements of knowledge (science of knowledge) is to dive into contents of religion to obtain pearls of knowledge the Prophet has pointed to us.

It is only when we understand the directions of the Prophet regarding adherence to Imamate, which is viewed by the Prophet as an important pillar of the very structure itself. The Prophet goes even further. He says one must know his Imam in his lifetime. If one died without recognizing the Imam during his lifetime, it is as if he died in ignorance (pagan’s death).

That is, such a person has not understood the reality of monotheism, revelation and prophethood of the prophets and is not blessed by heavenly guidance of Quran and his life had not been Islamic and Quranic even though he might have believed in all true beliefs and had been imbued with all distinctive qualities and no matter how punctual he might have been in his life in discharging religious obligations such as prayers, fasting, Hajj, Zakat, fighting Jihad, has always attended mosque etc.”98

“The outcome is that: Belief in Guardianship and Imamate of Ali and other infallible Imams (his sons) is a backbone and worth bestowing element to all other principles of faith as well as character, conduct and deeds. Without that, faith with all its heads and titles has no divine validity nor is it of any value before God. It is like a zero which gets no value although several thousands zeros might stand in a row. A number must accompany a zero to get the value. Else, nobody will count zeros. Unless belief and deeds follow the fundamental of Imamate in the track of the Guardianship of Infallible Ahlul Bayt, God does not pay any heed nor do they get a place with him. Everything is gone without any return.”99

“This dividing line, which is a standard one, keeps belief in Guardianship and Imamate in a row with principles of faith. Some have erroneously concluded that: Belief in Imamate and Wilayat of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) is not among necessities of Islam. The belief in Islam is possible without that. On the other hand the holy verses prove other than this.

Therefore the subject of Guardianship is more obligatory and necessary than other obligations. It is more important before God than all duties. There is a point worth considering here. Among the five pillars: prayers, fasting, Zakat, Hajj and Guardianship only in four, excuse is justifiable. In four pillars excuse is accepted by God. The Prophet (the lawmaker) has given margin. For instance, in journeys prayers become short; likewise, fasting is avoided in sickness too. Zakat is not obligatory if one is financially not well off. Hajj is not binding if one is financially unable to do. But Guardianship of infallible Ahlul Bayt (‘a) is in no way exempted. It is a duty whatever conditions or circumstances be there one is bound to obey Imam and recognize him and be in his service. In their times, we shall be resurrected.”100

Third Alteration: Aim Of Eschewing Shia Teachings

Third Alteration: Aim Of Eschewing Shia Teachings101


In Islamic literature, Baraat (i.e. seeking distance from the enemies of Infallible Ahlul Bayt) is side by side with Tawalla (i.e. being friends with friends of Ahlul Bayt). It is in the row of Imamate and Wilayat of Ahlul Bayt (‘a).

Baraat from enemies of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) stands side by side with Guardianship. These two depend on each other. It is a need and necessity. Tawalla is in meaning of belief in Imamate and Guardianship of Ahlul Bayt (‘a). It is a basic pillar of piety. It contains very important and great substance in it. In the issue of Baraat, to be religious or faithful cannot be possible without this.

The foundation and root of Tabarra is: To entertain no good terms at heart although at tongue you may agree with them. Who are they? They are deviated, perverted and astray in relation to Ahlul Bayt of Prophet – adversaries of them. In conversation to show you are displeased with them. In deed and action to be distant with them or to seek distance from their customs, meetings, taste and religion.

By existing or in presence of such a fundamental in faith how can it be said with regard to Godly figures or those who are so close to God and loved by God that they had friendly differences or had intimate conduct. How can they be friendly though in differences or intimate with enemies of religion of God?102 On the ground that a ranking implacability the Godly men do not have we cannot set aside or repudiate totally Baraat which is one of the pillars and fundamentals. It is not a personal matter or on personal interest. It is a God’s command, which should be obeyed as His other obligations. In Baraat, there is no selfish motive nor are there any personal tendencies. This obligation is based on divine decree. Its pivot is enmity and love with religion of God. We cannot be friendly with enemies of God. Likewise, we cannot be enemies with friends of God.

Baraat in no way is like worldly love and hatred. It is neither material nor personal. It cannot be compared with human psychological conditions, which occur daily in life of individuals.

It is only an effort to invalidate this fundamental of Baraat by using unsuitable words. As it is said, the word of truth is established by what is not true. Anyway, this fundamental is based on God’s order. From the other side, being a religious one is possible by knowing the guidance. To attain guidance compulsorily one should know the astray too. One should know those who created innovations in religion.

It is also necessary to know what those innovations in religion are. Then only can we separate faith from that which is not faith.

If we want to attain correct faith, to get a correct way of worship to God, we should know enemies of faith. We must know their role in deviating people from religion. And we should convey our knowledge in this regard to others too.

In fact it is necessary to know the astray-going and perversions from real faith. To know leaders of misguidance is necessary. Then we must introduce them to Islamic society. By so doing we can rescue ourselves from going wrong. We can be aloof from them, which is necessary.

Designing such discussions is a need towards researching knowledge of religion and understanding Islamic truths. It cannot be called as an insult, an abuse or foul language. This has been made an excuse so that an advantage could be drawn therefrom and which is to close such discussions once and for all. The results of such discussion are beneficial. They want to deprive others of it.

A question that arises in the mind is that:

Unity-seekers have stepped far beyond frontiers of political unity. Practically they have plunged into Sunni beliefs. They have done this for sake of Islamic Unity; and they are moving fast in that direction. Now what are those conjectures left for them to convey or propagate that they try to delete and rescind this fundamental of Baraat from Shia teachings?

In reply it can be said:

So far whatever is said toward trend of knowledge and civilization for creating Islamic unity and put before criticism and analysis and evaluation, five main pivots can be found in the thought and view of extremists among unity-seekers. And these five pivots in the end either directly or indirectly contradict fundamentals of Baraat. These five pivots are:

A – Taking Benefit Of A Deviated Thought, Silence, An Excuse To Maintain Islamic Demeanor?

It is thus said that:

“Is it possible to insult sanctities of one milliard Muslims and at the same time claim unity of Islam?”!103

“No logic gives way nor allows reason in our being free to insult heads of Sunni sect using our public media and taking into service writers and speakers.

If we aim for oneness and unity of hearts we must abolish our practice from radio, television, meetings and gatherings and pulpits; whatever from these platforms is said and which wounds and injures feelings of Sunnis. Such a thing should be prohibited.”!104

“To make insults, to be brazen faced and to fabricate statements or traditions which later can be attributed to the Prophet in vilification of leaders of Islam and breach sanctities of Islamic personalities respected by a milliard Muslims – is it a principle of Shia faith?”!105

“Scolding, abusing and using foul language against those who have a position of respect and reverence among Muslims is against decorum and demeanor. It is an undesired, impolite and an indecent act and Imams of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) have prohibited it.”!106

B – To Show Differences Between Ali And Caliphs As Friendly

They say:

“Whatever passed in the early of days of Islam and whatever passed after passing away of Prophet between Ali and reputed companions (of the Prophet) it was certainly kind of friendly differences…”107

“What I oppose is …changing in a statement, friendly differences that existed between Hazrat Ali (‘a) and companions of Prophet into inimical differences.”!108

C – Denial Of Enmity In A Sense Of Blame, To Show Relations Were Intimate Between Ali And Caliph

Thus it is said:

“If be it compelling that our outer and inner phases should be different and our account in relation to early days of Islam is not clear before ourselves and God and we wish to stress on unity for the sake of interests and we think as if there existed enmity between Ali and Caliphs, we achieve nothing…”!109

“As far as it concerns Ali and the three Caliphs particularly to Ali, he never behaved with his competitors inimically.”!110

“Our elders and leaders, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not enemies of each other.”!111

D – To Show Rulership Worthless From Ali’s Viewpoint

They say:

“Ali regarded power (executive) far below a worn-out shoe; on this score he cannot harbor avarice against Muslims.”!112

“Ali was so high that he could not entertain hatred against any on account of an unworthy matter.”!113

“The spirit of Ali was so high that he could not yield to hate a Muslim on ground of a worldly position.”!114

E – Mending The Method Of Shia Propaganda

They say:

“Our difficulty is in the method of our propaganda. The method that we have to describe Shiaism is in the first place a curse to Caliphs and companions. Therefore we can never make any progress”!115

Closing Reminder

Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi writes:

“We know since the Ummah attributed by Islam and Quran, faces a joint enemy who wants to destroy the very foundation of religion reason dictates that the whole Ummah together with Shia and Sunni should campaign united in one row to defend existence of religion and themselves.

However this does not necessitate Shias to withdraw issue of Tawalla and Baraat. These two fundamentals are like life and death of Islam with Shias. It does not mean showing leniency to adversaries. At the stage of argument and research, or at the stage of preaching and propaganda in public meetings and common medias, or in position of teaching in educational centre and training of children and youths it must be maintained that belief of the other side should be respected. Unity must be preserved from getting injured. True belief could be kept untold. These are the stations where frankness and openness in speech could prove hurtful. Hence could be refrained. The next generation regarding the belief will remain in suspect and surmise.”116

“Very seriously, we must be mindful and closely advertent of Satan to not mislead us. There might appear many titles such as unity, co-ordination, respect to Islamic brotherhood and so forth. To take up common issues and leave singular elements, which are attractive of appearance but should not spoil the glitter of the pearl of our faith. Special care should be taken to see that pillars of faith among young generation might not be shaken or even destroyed. The matter of political unity may not be turned into a unity of beliefs. And by sorting, they could easily project the real, original and correct Islam in two wings – Shia and Sunni – in the minds of plain-hearted people who have no real information in the field. And both those wings are not real and although they would introduce to them as correct and original Islam of true and right path. Ultimately and consequently, the two main pillars of Baraat and Tawalla will fade out and decay totally. As such, the real Islam of Prophet Muhammad will vanish from the minds of Shias. Islam will fall down when these basic pillars have fallen. The eternal life of man will be exchanged at a very low cost that is the expansion of Islam and a long stretch of its government and political advances. All this is only fancy and imagination.”117

  • 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 218.
  • 2. Ibid. Article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Hindrances’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 256.
  • 3. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 18.
  • 4. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 14.
  • 5. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 19.
  • 6. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 19.
  • 7. Inner guardianship.
  • 8. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 20.
  • 9. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 217; Narrators of his outlook: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 23; Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 76, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.
  • 10. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pgs. 218-223.
  • 11. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 219.
  • 12. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.
  • 13. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 158.
  • 14. Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani.
  • 15. The above analysis is also explained as follows: The authority in learning and knowledge of Imam Ali was already known and recognized by Caliphs and they had accepted it. (Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16)
  • 16. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 20.
  • 17. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Preface to the 2nd Edition), Pg. 10.
  • 18. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 20.
  • 19. Ibid. Vol. 5, Pg. 22.
  • 20. Ibid. Vol. 6, Pg. 16.
  • 21. Ibid. Vol. 7, Pg. 14.
  • 22. Ibid. Vol. 7, Pg. 18.
  • 23. The correct Bayyat is one that is given with willingness and desire of the person. Else, it is only a handshake. Or it can be named as an outer show. The acknowledgement of Ali took six months to take place. And it took place under hatred and application of force. It was actually a handshake. (Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah Pg. 116)
    For better and wider comprehension of Bayyat and conditions that surrounded it, refer to Chap. 1 of Vol. 4 of this book.
  • 24. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 20.
  • 25. On the basis of Shia Belief the foundation of Islam is Imamate and Wilayat.
  • 26. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Preface to the 3rd Edition, Pg. 11.
  • 27. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163.
  • 28. Ibid. 5 Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 167.
  • 29. Ibid. 5 Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163.
  • 30. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 22.
  • 31. Ibid. Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pg. 14-15.
  • 32. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pg. 15.
  • 33. It is interesting that in the explanation of his outlook it is said: “He claims that there are religious proofs to support this separation!” (Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 216).
  • 34. This article by Muhammad Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi has been translated and the contents are approved by him. In this writing we shall deal with the translator’s extensive thought by way of completion of the above outlook.
  • 35. Muhammad Madani: Article quoted in book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 90.
  • 36. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176.
  • 37. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 222.
  • 38. We shall answer this objection separately.
  • 39. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 25.
  • 40. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18.
  • 41. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Translation of article, ‘Imamate and Caliphate’ by Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Pg. 218.
  • 42. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 219
  • 43. Refer: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 63-78.
  • 44. Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 255 onwards.
  • 45. Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 257-258.
  • 46. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, (1st Edition 1380) Vol. 1, Pg. 63.
  • 47. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 72.
  • 48. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 74.
  • 49. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 67.
  • 50. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 64.
  • 51. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 63.
  • 52. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 78.
  • 53. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 70.
  • 54. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 64.
  • 55. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pg. 20.
  • 56. Ibid. Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pg. 3.
  • 57. Ibid. Pg. 142- 146.
  • 58. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 162-163.
  • 59. Ibid. Pg. 147.
  • 60. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pgs. 102-103.
  • 61. Ibid. Pg. 96.
  • 62. In other words, the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (S) and the Imamate of His Eminence Ali (‘a) have been always together as power of executive and the position of their Wilayat cannot be separated from the power of executive.
  • 63. Ibid. Pgs. 94-97.
  • 64. Ibid. Pgs. 94-97.
  • 65. Ibid. Pgs. 94-97.
  • 66. Ibid. Pg. 98.
  • 67. Imams (‘a).
  • 68. Usurpers of caliphate.
  • 69. Since Saqifah.
  • 70. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 31-32.
  • 71. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 80-81.
  • 72. That is rulership is included among the duties of the Imams.
  • 73. Ibid. Pg. 81.
  • 74. Ibid. Pgs. 112-113.
  • 75. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 8.
  • 76. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 12.
  • 77. Ibid. Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 20.
  • 78. He who entertains this outlook has termed the bitterness as a enmity Ali had against the Caliph. This term is not suitable concerning the personality of Ali. Bitterness is possible to have, but he could not be implacable because it is not a good quality. (We shall dwell on this subject in more detail).
  • 79. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue no. 26 Khordad 1379.
  • 80. It should not be forgotten that this is occasion for denial.
  • 81. Dr. Jawad Muhaddaseen: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue 8, Bahman 1379.
  • 82. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat (Message of Unity), Pg. 258.
  • 83. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring & Summer 80, Pgs. 12, 13, 18.
  • 84. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 18.
  • 85. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 15.
  • 86. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat (Call for Unity), Pg. 27.
  • 87. Muhammad Moheet Tabatabai: Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi wa Beedaari-e-Mashriq-e-Zameen (Awakening of Eastern land), Pg. 169.
  • 88. To get acquainted with other Islamic faiths refer to the book The lost Truth by Shaykh Mostasim Sayyid Ahmad. He has written this (above named) book after having been guided to the right faith of Shia 12 Imami.
  • 89. The essential branches of faith are – on which all Islamic faiths agree – obligation for performing prayers, fasting, Hajj and illegality of marriage with mother, sister and so on. (Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects).)
  • 90. With reference to discussion about principles of faith and Islam it cannot be used to justify marginalization of Imamate.
  • 91. Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ (Essentialities of faith and religion) quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects). This translation is quoted from the article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Obstacles’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Pgs. 224-225).
  • 92. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias by Shaykh Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ (Essentialities of faith and religion) quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects)
  • 93. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 204.
  • 94. Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Muzaffar: Dalailus Sidq (Proofs of Truth), Vol. 2, Pg. 29.
  • 95. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pg. 3.
  • 96. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 45.
  • 97. Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Reza Muzaffar: Aqaid al-Imamiyah (Faith of Shia Islam), Pg. 93.
  • 98. Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 131-132.
  • 99. Ibid. Pgs. 146-147.
  • 100. Dr. Hadi Ghandhari: Aathaar-e-Itiqaad Ba Imam-e-Zamaan (Signs of Belief in the present Imam) Pgs. 11-13.
  • 101. Note: The contents in the above introduction are taken from two valuable books: 1. Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge) by Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi and 2. Marefat-e-Imam-e-Asr (a.t.f.s.), (Knowing the Imam of the Age) by Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Bani Hashimi.
  • 102. Hatred and enmity is not a good quality for believers but it is not so towards enemies of faith.
  • 103. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.
  • 104. Ibid. Interview published in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pgs. 62-64.
  • 105. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 8, Bahman 1379.
  • 106. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat (Message of Unity), Pg. 274.
  • 107. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.
  • 108. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.
  • 109. Ibid. Interview published in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pg. 62.
  • 110. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.
  • 111. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.
  • 112. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.
  • 113. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22.
  • 114. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition) Pg. 11.
  • 115. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 26.
  • 116. Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 154-158.
  • 117. Ibid. Pg. 157.