6. The Final Correction
Just before he came to Toronto in 1998 for Muharram (1419), the learned scholar sent the following correction to the publishers of the Bio-Ethics Encyclopaedia:
( 118 )
Muhammad died in 632 C.E., having brought the
whole of Arabia under the Medina government.
However, although he had explicitly designated his
cousin and son-in-law, Ali, to succeed him, he had
left no written guidelines about the politica process",
This he had faxed to some members of our community in Toronto and had also mentioned in one of his speeches in Muharram 1419.
We have the following comments regarding the correction: Firetly, even his crrection si probelmatic. The learned scholar has tried to divide the succession into two: religious and political. On the issue of religious succession, he writes that the prophet explicitly designated Ali to succeed him. Then he immediately qualifies the explicit designation and ecludes politcal succession from the by wering "'he left no written guidelines on the political process." In the 4th speech of Muharram 1419, he says Yes, al-Ghadir is an explicit designation, it does not mean explicit instruction about the political process. No history supports that."
Since when did "written guidelines" became important in establishig Islamic teachings? Is not the entire structure of Islamic system based on spoken words: the Qur'an and the Sunnah? there is absolutely no "written" guidelines left by the prophet for anything at all, so why create a new cushion for the Sunnis in therir defence against the Shi'as by expecting a written" guidelines on the issue of caliphate? what about all the saying of the Prophet on the appointment
( 119 )
of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph?
Would the value of the Prophets's spoken" guideline be less than the "written? Is disobeying his "spoken" guideline less severe than his "written" guidelines? Almighty Allah says,
"O you who belive do not raise your voices over the vioce of the Prophet ... ." (49: 2)
If the learned scholar wanted to mention the story of Qirtas in which the Prophet asked for a pen and paper, then he should have written the whole story and pointed out the person responsible fo no betting the Prophet leave anything in wrting.
Secondly, the play words like "designation" and instruction" is disturbing. In Ghadir, the Prophet talks about his approaching death and then gets an acknowledgement from the Mulims abut thje level of his authority over them, and then he declares that "Whosoever's master am I, this Ali is his master,". Then he says that "I am leaving two things behind: the Book of Allah and my Progeny, as long as you hold fast to them both, you will not go astray." And then he instructs the companions to come and greet Imam Ali (as) by addressing him as the "Amir -- Leader". When you see the whole context of th event of Ghadir, is it not a clear instruction, designation, indication, inclination, appointment --- or what you would like to call it-- for the leadership of Imam Ali after the death of the Prophet?
To believe that the Prophet did not leave explicit instructions about his political successor gives semblance of legitimacy to the Sunni caliphate. If the
( 120 )
Prophet had not clearly said anything about this matter, then how can the Shi'as claim that Abu Bakr usurped the right of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)? Such a statement helps no one but Sunnis.
Thirdly, in light of the learned scholar's statement, one can say that Ali is the "Imam " (religious/spiritual successor) but ont the "Caliph" (political successor). I do not know what the learned scholar would say about the declaration of the Prophet in Da'wat Dhul "Ashira that Ali si "my successor --Khlifatt".
In Shi'a theology, as mentioned earlier, there is no defference between "imamate ... and "khilafat", The implication of thise two titles is simple : Ali in relation to the Prophet, is his khalifa and successor; and Ali, in relation to the ummah, is their Imam and leader. So defining "imamte" as a religious succession and "khilafat" as a political succession goes
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w)
Successor
khalifa
Ali
Imam
(leader)
Ummah
( 121 )
against the implications of "Imam and Khalifa". Ali is the Imam of the Muslim ummah in religious as well as political matters, and likewise Ali is the Khalifa of the Prophet in religious as well as political matters. Being wrongfully deprived of his political position does not diminish the reality of the truth. In the words of Sayyid al-Khu'i, "Not excising (the authority) does not prove non-existence of the wilatay."
Division of leadership into religious and political has actulally happened in the Sunni version of Muslim history, The first four caliphs assumed the political and described as "al-khilaftu r-rashida-- the rightly guided caliphate", After that, the caliphs assumed the political cadership but the religious leadership was assumed by others. In jurisprudence (fiqh), for exampl, the four Imams emerged as the leaders even while there were caliphs who ruled in their times. In theology. Abu l-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi emerged as the leaders. In spiritualism, various masters (and even some Shi'a Imams) were accepted as guides and leaders by Sufi orders.
The Shi'as did not subscribe to the division of leadership in political and religious realims; the Imams are their ultimate guides and lerders in all as pect of life : religious and political, legal and theological. Therefore Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (as) for example, is not just a legal guide for the Shi'as he is their ultimate leader in the fullest sense of the word, even if some dimensions of his leadershop was not manifest.
