Doctrines of Justice and Imamate
According to the Shi'ah belief, one of the principles of the Islamic Faith is that of human freedom and responsibility and Divine justice with regard to the prescription of duties and the recompense and retribution on the basis of the deeds performed out of free will. The Shi'ah also believe in the setting up of a just system of the distribution of wealth, equal opportunities of employment and respect for the rights of all individuals.
The Shi'ah deduced the principle of justice from the fundamentals of Islam and wanted it to be observed both by the rulers and the ruled. But the rulers gradually propagated the philosophy of predestination. They wanted the people to believe that all their misfortunes were the outcome of a preordained fate, to which they had no alternative but to submit patiently. These rulers insisted that the people should exercise no free will, should make no efforts to change the existing situation and should not feel any responsibility towards the social events.
Further, the rulers maintained that their own actions should be interpreted on the basis of a sort of ijtihad. In other words it should be conceded that they had a right to have their own private opinions and could not be blamed even if they were wrong.
The Shi'ah strongly opposed this attitude. They declared that according to the teachings of Islam man was a responsible being who could exercise his will, that society was a product of human determination, and that changes in history could be brought about by the efforts of resolute and purposive men.
At the same time they put forward definite criteria of ijtihad so that every selfish and irresponsible opinion might not be termed as such.
Doctrine of Imamate
With regard to the Imamate and headship of the ummah the Shi'ah believe that:
Firstly, the head and the ruler of the Muslims should be a person, whose individual and social life may be the best model of the Islamic way of life. Not only his Muslim followers should be able to accept him as an object of imitation, but even the non Muslims may find in him and his leadership the best example of Muslim conduct.
Secondly, if it is known that Allah or His Prophet has designated a person to be the leader of the Muslims, he will automatically be given preference over all others. Our being obedient to Allah and His Prophet necessitates that we must not accept any Imam in the presence of one designated by them. There can be no doubt that to know the worth and capability of an individual there is no source more reliable than Allah and His Prophet.
Evil consequences of the infringement of this doctrine
(a) The violation of this doctrine culminated in the total collapse of the Islamic system of government. Gradually it took on the colour of hereditary despotism. In the name of Islam, paganism, egotism and feudalism of the Roman and Sasanid emperors were revived in a new form. Injustice and chaos prevailed and all round human development, freedom of thought, equitable distribution of wealth and the selection of competent persons for the administration of public affairs came to an end.
Lady Fatimah tuz Zehra (P), daughter of the holy Prophet in her last public address delivered before the Muhajirs and Ansar women, said:
"I wonder what characteristic of Ali displeased the people that they ceased to support him. By Allah! They did not like his sharp sword, his steady steps, and his strictness in the implementation of the Divine commandments. But by Allah! they themselves are the losers. People never suffered injustice under Ali. He always took them to the spring of justice and knowledge, and slaked their thirst".
Then she made the following forecast:
"What they have done is like a pregnant she camel. Wait till it delivers. Then you will draw from it a bowl of blood and deadly poison instead of milk. That is how the doers undergo a terrible loss and the coming generations reap the unlucky fruit of what their predecessors sowed. Rest assured that commotion and turmoil will overtake you. I warn you that you will be confronted with sword, coercion, chaos and despotic tyranny. Your property will be carried off as booty and your people will be threshed like ripe corn". [55]
(b) Muslims lost competent authority on Islamic knowledge
Those, who were the interpreters of revelation and the exponents of Islamic knowledge, were cast aside, while what the companions of the Prophet had learnt from him was limited. For a long time the caliphs did not pay attention to the recording of hadith. They even discouraged that.
With the expansion of the sphere of Islamic influence the needs and the problems of the society increased. In these circumstances there was the need of a reliable source fully aware of the spirit of the Qur'an to impart knowledge like the Prophet himself on a scale commensurate with the expansion of the Muslim world. Especially the need of a source above all suspicion of selfishness and serving the cause of any evil power was strongly felt.
Though such a source actually existed, unfortunately the Muslim society could not be benefited by it. On the other hand, the evil rulers, with a view to advance their own selfish ends, employed some prominent scholars and heavily bribed them out of public treasury to fabricate traditions in their interests and against those of their rivals. This false propaganda was rampant during the time of the Umayyads.
Anyhow, the Shi'ah never forgot the doctrine of Imamate, nor did they accept the validity of the evil governments. They continued to be guided by the traditions of the imams, for they knew that the Prophet had said:
"I am leaving two precious things with you: the Book of Allah (Qur'an) and my Progeny (Ahl al Payt). They will not be separated from each other". And that is no wonder, because an ideological school and its leader are not separable. Without a suitable leader there can be no certainty of its continuance.
Back to the main discussion
What we have said so far makes it clear that the Shi'ah do not believe in anything additional to the fundamentals of Islam and its teachings. In actual fact they are the upholders of true Islamic principles and advocates of a right and just government. It is significant that in their most serious clashes with the rulers of the time, these very objectives were always conspicuous. Let us mention a few instances: Ibn Ziyad said: "Ibn Aqeel, you are a bad man. The people of this city were living calmly. There was no disunity. You came here and provoked discord. You are instigating one group against another".
Muslim Ibn Aqeel said:
"No, that's not true. The people here believe that your father killed many pious and freedom loving persons out of them, and caused the blood to flow. He revived the traditions of Khusrow and Caesar. I have come to invite the people to justice and to the commandments of Allah". Ibn Ziyad said:
"Do you think you have a claim on this government?" Muslim said: "It's not a question of thinking. We're sure". [56]
During the imamate of Imam Husayn (P), Mu'awiyah received certain reports about him. He wrote a letter to him, warning him against creating trouble. In reply Imam Husayn (P) wrote a detailed letter to Mu'awiyah, enumerating many of his (Mu'awiyah's) crimes, including the killing of those who opposed his tyranny, and the innovations he had introduced in the religion. In the end Imam Husayn (P) wrote:
"You ordered your assignee (Ibn Sumayyah) to kill those who adhered to the religion of Ali, and he carried out your orders. You know well that the religion of Ali is the same as that of the Prophet. It is because of your using the name of this very religion that you are occupying your present position. You say that I should not create trouble. But I do not find any trouble bigger than your government. In these circumstances I think the best thing I can do is to fight against you". (al Imamah wal Siyasah vol. 1 p. 190)
Zayd ibn Arqam was shocked at the criminal treatment which was being meted out to the Prophet's family by the Umayyads. Once addressing the close associates of ibn Ziyad, he said:
"You people are no better than slaves. You killed the son of Fatimah and made Ibn Marjanah your ruler. He kills the pious, and he has enslaved you. You submit to humiliation. What an unlucky lot you are !" (Tabari)
In the course of all these encounters there was a talk of injustice, humiliation, slavery, manslaughter, trampling of the rights, and also of religious injunctions, rightful government and the supremacy (walayat) of the Holy Family. All this talk is purely Islamic.
It wants to defend only what is right and just, for that is what Islam connotes. In a wider sense it wants but to defend men and his humanity.
All these events took place before the insurrection of the Iranians against the Umayyads and their rallying round the Holy family. Hence the notion that Shia'ism is an Iranian invention is only fantastic. It is either a selfish distortion of history or a biased exaggeration of the Iranian role in the big changes in the history of Islam.
Historical investigation shows that the Iranians opposed the Umayyad government because of its injustice, tyranny and undue discrimination against the non Arab Muslims
The inception of the Safawid government in Iran and its wars with the Ottomans in the early 10th century also have nothing to do with the beginning and development of Shia'ism. The events and the movements of the early Islamic years and the philosophical and scholastic studies of the Shi'ah preceded the Safawids by centuries. Hence how can it be imagined that they had any hand in the development of Shia'ism?
