Prerequisite Four: Fount of Guidance

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Prerequisite Four

Fount of Guidance

 

The Doctrine of Imamah

The fourth and the last condition mentioned by us for perennial Nubuwwah was that the Prophet should be the centre of affections and source of guidance to his followers. Like the Oneness of Allah, the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the sole expositor of divine laws and commands. Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal has correctly explained the cultural value of the finality of Nubuwwah in Islam in one of his articles on Qadianism in which he says:

 

Muslims are naturally extraordinarily sensitive to those movements which pose a threat to their unity; for Islamic unity derives its strength from the finality of the Prophet…

We believe that Islam as a religion was revealed by Allah but Islam as a society or community owes its existence to the personality of the holy Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[1]

 

Let us now take the belief and doctrines of Imamah held by the Shia as given in Usul al Kafi.

The imam, according to their belief, is a successor to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed by Allah. In that capacity, he is infallible, endowed with a divine gift of impeccability, and has to be obeyed by all in religious as well as temporal matters. He is equal in dignity or rather excels the Ambiyaʼ. Divine judgement of manʼs faith depends on the Imams, for they are the source of religious certainty. The world cannot last without an Imam and it is incumbent on every faithful to acknowledge his leadership. Therefore, he is to be obeyed like the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

The Imams have the authority to declare anything permissible or impermissible for they are divinely protected against error or sin. One who has faith in an Imam would attain salvation even if he were a sinner and wrongdoer. The Imams are equal in dignity to the last Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but higher than all other Ambiyaʼ of Allah; they possess the knowledge of what was and what will be, that is, the past, present, and future. The deeds of all creatures of Allah are presented every day before the Imams, who are continually visited by the angels. They experience mi’raj (ascension) every Thursday while a new scripture is sent down to them each year on the Night of Decree. They possess authority over death and can grant whatever of this world or the Hereafter they like on whomsoever they are pleased to confer.^[2]

The significance of this concept of Imamah has been construed even by non-Muslim writers as making the Imams “partakers of the divine nature.”^[3]

The inference drawn by another European writer, W. Ivanow is:

 

With the light of Imamah continually flowing into the world, the institute of prophetship, or apostleship, occupied only an auxiliary position.^[4]

 

Phillip K. Hitti has also correctly assessed the implications of Imamah for he says:

 

The founder of Islam made a revelation, the Koran, the intermediary between God and man; the Shia made the intermediary a person, the imam. To “I believe in Allah the one God” and “I believe in the revelation of the Koran, which is uncreated from eternity,” the Shiʼites now added a new article of faith: “I believe that the Imam especially chosen by Allah as the bearer of a part of the divine being is the leader to salvation.”^[5]

 

Iranian Influence

This exaggerated view of Imamah which goes beyond racial and lineal chauvinism to raise the Imams to the position of divinity, reflects the ancient creed of Iran in the divine origin of kings. In the pre-Islamic Iran, religious and temporal authority used to be exercised by particular tribes. It was concentrated in the region of Media in the ancient past; after Zoroastrianism consolidated its hold on the country; religious leadership came to be held by the al Mughan tribe.

The Iranians believed that the priestly class was the shadow of Allah on earth, created for the service of gods and, therefore, the ruler of the country should also be from their flesh and blood. In the estimation of the Iranians, the ruler was the incarnation of Allah and it was his prerogative to officiate as chief priest at the fire-alter.

The motive behind acceptance of Shiʼism by the Iranians and the peculiar concept of Imamah held by them has been thus explained by an eminent Egyptian scholar, Dr. Ahmed Amin, in Duha al Islam:

 

وتشيع قوم من الفرس خاصة لأنهم مرنوا أيام الحكم الفارسي على تعظيم البيت المالك وتقديسه وكأن دم الملوك ليس من جنس دم الشعب فلما دخلوا في الإسلام نظروا إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نظرة كسروية ونظروا إلى أهل بيته نظرتهم إلى البيت المالك فإذا مات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأحق الناس بالخلافة أهل بيته

A great majority of the Iranians were led to the faith in Shiʼism because they were accustomed to attribute divinity to their monarchs. They believed that the blood running in the veins of their rulers was different from that percolating in the body of a common man. Therefore, when they embraced Islam, they viewed the holy Prophet in the same light as they were attuned to treat their sovereigns. Thus, they associated divinity to the Prophetʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household like the members of old imperial families. When the Prophet bid farewell to the world, they were instinctively convinced that only the Prophetʼs kin could become his successors.^[6]

 

Faith in al Imam al Ghaʼib

The culminating point of this exaggerated concept of Imamah, attributing it with a substance of Nubuwwah and frequently with divine attributes, is the belief in the twelfth concealed Imam or al Imam al Ghaʼib. His birth and subsequent concealment and then guidance of the faithful to the end of time transcends the law of physical existence on this earth. In accordance with their beliefs, the twelfth Imam, Muhammad, withdrew to a cave in the town of Surra Man Raʼa, ten days before the death of his father, the eleventh Imam, Hasan al ‘Askari. It is believed that he is still alive and will reappear in the last days as the Mahdi or “Director” to rule over the whole world.^[7]

It is also held by the Ithna ‘Ashari or Twelver sect of the Shia that initially the last Imam maintained contact with his followers and guided them from his cave. After a time, he went into total concealment and nobody can have access to him until he decides to reappear.^[8]

 

Ayatollah Khomeiniʼs Views About the Imams

Lest somebody may think that these incredulous dogmas were held by the people before the dawn of enlightenment, but now the informed and educated persons, particularly after the Islamic Revolution, must have changed their views, we give here an extract from Ayatollah Khomeiniʼs al Hukumat al Islamiyyah. He says:

 

فإن للأئمة مقاما محمودا ودرجة سامية وخلافة تكوينية تخضع لولايتها وسيطرتها جميع ذرات هذا الكون وإن من ضرورات مذهبنا أن لأئمتنا مقاما لا يبلغه ملك مقرب ولا نبي مرسل وبموجب ما لدينا من الروايات والأحاديث فإن الرسول الأعظم صلى الله عليه وسلم والأئمة كانوا قبل هذا العالم أنوارا فجعلهم الله بعرشه محدقين وجعل لهم من المنزلة والزلفى ما لا يعلمه إلا الله

The Imam occupies the glorious station, the supreme place and wields such a delegated authority of genesis that everything in this universe submits to his surpassing glory. In accordance with the accepted tenets of our religion, neither any angel of the highest rank nor anyone sent as a messenger can attain the sublime position of an Imam. As related from our ahadith, the Great Messenger and the Imams existed before the creation of this cosmic order in the form of light, encircling the Throne of Allah and enjoying such propinquity to Him as known only to Allah.^[9]

 

Ayatollah Khomeini entertains belief in the al Imam al Ghaʼib like all other theologians of the Ithna ‘Ashari sect. Although more than a thousand years have passed since his concealment, the Imam may reappear, according to Ayatollah Khomeini, after a lapse of another thousand years.

 

A Beatific Vision of Shah Wali Allah

These polytheistic beliefs about the Imam bring to reason the beatific vision of Shah Wali Allah in which he claims to have seen the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and asked him about the Shia sect. The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is stated to have told him that the misbelief inherent in its creed could be understood by the term Imam.

Shah Wali Allah further says:

 

After his descent from his spiritual transport, he gave thought to the matter and came to understand how the belief in the impeccability of the Imam, unquestioning obedience to him in his reception and revelations—the distinctive features of the Ambiyaʼ of Allah—amounted to the denial of the finality of the last Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[10]

 

The Glorious Lamp of Heaven

The Messenger of Islam salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam deserves not merely our submission to his commands but much more than that. Every believer has to cultivate an affection and devotion and an emotional and spiritual attachment to him that overpasses the love of oneʼs own life, progeny, and property. Next to Allah, the ardour for the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam should be more intense than the regard for any human being, be he one of the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household, a scholar of religion, or a saint perfect of soul. The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is like the glorious lamp of heaven while all others—his Companions, kinsmen, the reformers and the juro-consultants, the revolutionaries and the conquerors—bear resemblance to starry hosts made radiant by the sun.

 

Eulogistic Poetry

The doctrine of Imamah is at odds with the nurturing of tender feeling for the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. A logical result of the reliance on Imamah as an article of faith has been that Shia writers have failed to produce good biographies of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or odes in his praise. Their rhymes lamenting the martyrdom of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and panegyric poems in the honour of the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household do express exquisite expressions of the heart and can be classed as paintings with the gift of speech, but when it comes to the eulogium of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself, their compositions betrays the lack of poetʼs inner most feelings issuing in rhythmic language.

They have failed to produce any poet indicting laudatory verses comparable to even Amir Manaʼi, Altaf Hussain Hali, Muhsin Karkorwi, Muhammad Iqbal, or Zafar ‘Ali Khan, let alone in the calibre of al Qudsi and al Jami. The reason of their failure is not far to seek.

The writer of these lines had thrown light on this issue in one of his works entitled Darya Kabul se Darya Yarmuk Tak. It would not be out of place to reproduce those observations here.

 

The revered Imams of the Messengerʼs progeny have always been very like lighthouses of guidance in the surrounding sea of darkness. No Muslim true to his faith can have the least doubt about it. But we feel that the immoderate emotional attachment and extravagance of the Shia in the adoration of the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household has overcome their intellect and conscience.

In our opinion, this superabundance of affection for the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household has weakened their regard and ardour for the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself, although it should have been the ruling passion of every Muslim. For the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam kin are honoured by us because of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself, he deserves our devotion more than anybody else. It seems that a part of the love and regard which was due to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has got itself surreptitiously transferred to his household.

The eulogistical poetry of Iran versified in the later period lacks intensity of passion and exquisite felicity that immortalises the feelings of love for the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The panegyric poems in honour of the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household and verses lamenting the martyrdom of Hussain and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as well as those describing the hardship undergone by them, breathe a spirit of tenderness. This difference in the painting of innermost passion can be seen everywhere in Shia poetry. For instance, if we compare the elegies of Anis and Dabir with eulogistical rhymes composed by them or their contemporary poets, we would see a marked difference between the two. The one would seem to be a genuine work of art while the other an attempt at mimicry. This holds good, more or less, for the biographies of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his household.

We have noticed the effect of this attitude in other spheres also. The Iranians have a greater regard for the shrines than the Masjids and more intense longing of paying a visit to Najaf and Karbala and similar other holy places than performing Hajj or undertaking a journey to the two sacred Masajid.

This attitude of our Shia brothers might be a reaction to the failure of certain overzealous Sunni scholars who sometimes fail to acknowledge the service of or do not pay the honour due to the household of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. But this turn of mind is something more than a mere reaction. Their intense passion of love, ardent regard, and devotional leanings seem to be encircling the spiritual centre of the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household and their intemperate glorification of Imamah is capable of holding it up as the rival of Nubuwwah, attributing the characteristics of the latter to the former. If it comes to that course, the entire life-pattern of its votaries would be woven round an emotional centre which might come up to vie with the attachment to the leader and last of the Ambiyaʼ.^[11]

 

Approbation or Denunciation

The incredulous beliefs of the Shia and their exaggerated ideas presenting the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household as supernatural beings, sometimes making the Aʼimmah partakers of divinity, help to portray them as characters with contradictory morals and behaviour. They present them—including ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was known for his valour, spirit, and determination—as men lacking boldness, courage of conviction, losing their nerves in speaking out what they considered to be correct and right, procrastinating always, and taking recourse to dissimulative as masters in the art of disguising their creeds, not at all in an apologetic way, but considering it as an act of merit and means of gaining propinquity to Allah.^[12]

They are sometimes stated to have concealed the truth and teachings of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when with a little courage or no great danger to their own person, they had the opportunity of winning the support of the people. The biographical accounts of the Aʼimmah written by the Shia present them as strategists and intriguers, spearheads of underground movements like the Free Masons and Ikhwan al Safa.^[13]

Their writings fail to stir up courage and ambition, fortitude and venturesome spirit for the cause of Islam which always appeared at the darkest hour of Muslim history and turned the tables on its adversaries.^[14]

Iqbal has correctly listed the sterling features of such godly souls in a couplet which says:

 

The freehanded austere beats Dara and Sikandar,

Whose poverty smacks of spirituality and valour.

Mark of a courageous man is valour and truthfulness.

For lions of Allah know not how to be heartless.^[15]

 

Character of ‘Ali and his Progeny

The Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household, his nearest kin, particularly ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his descendants were men of great respect. Unlike descendants of other religious leaders, they never tried to take advantage of the love and regard of the people because of their relationship to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Let alone deriving worldly benefit, they disdained to claim any kind of privileged position or miraculous powers as were attributed to them later on.

Historical and biographical literatures concerning these sons of Islam enumerate numerous examples of their restraint, simplicity, dignity, and indifference to worldly things. They were a class by themselves entirely different from those belonging to priesthood among the followers of other religions, living on the labour of others. A few instances of their lives will illustrate their character.

Once, Hasan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was on an errand of making purchases. He asked a price of a certain article which was told by the shop-keeper. Thereafter, somehow the shop-keeper came to know that he was the grandson of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He reduced the price as a concession to him but Hasan radiya Llahu ‘anhu left the shop without purchasing the wanted article. He said later on that he did not want any concession to be made for him.

Juwayriyah ibn Asmaʼ, the personal attendant of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah, who is also known by the name Zayn al ‘Abidin, relates that the latter never availed himself for any concession even equivalent to a dirham because of his kinship to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[16] Whenever ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah went on a journey, he never allowed people to know his name and affiliation. On being asked the reason for it, he replied, “I do not want that I be benefited by them while I am unable to do so.”^[17]

The descendants of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had inherited the courage and fortitude of their forefathers who had always staked their lives in defence of what they considered to be true and right and had set a glowing example of self-sacrifice for a nobler cause. Zaid ibn ‘Ali (the son of Zayn al ‘Abidin) attempted a rising in 122 AH/740 CE against Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik, the Umayyad Khalifah—who was the most powerful ruler of his day—who in turn carried a larger imperial army against Zaid rahimahu Llah in several battles, and ultimately had him crucified.^[18]

Muhammad, a great-grandson of Hasan, whose lofty standard of virtue had obtained for him the name of al Nafs al Zakiyyah, or ʼthe Pure Soulʼ, raised the banner of revolt against the Abbasid Khalifah Mansur in Madinah in Rajab 145 AH/September 762 CE, while his brother Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah gave battle to the troops sent against him at Basrah in Dhu al Hijjah 145 AH/March 763 CE.

Al Imam Malik rahimahu Llah and al Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah, the founders of the two important and popular juristic schools of Sunni jurisprudence, sided with Muhammad and Ibrahim by urging their followers to take an oath of fealty to them and also offered financial assistance for their cause. The struggle of the two brothers closed with a heroic fight and the death of Muhammad at Ahjar al Zayt near Madinah on 15 Ramadan 145 AH/15 March 763 CE. Al Imam Malik and al Imam Abu Hanifah had to undergo severe hardships by incurring the displeasure of Khalifah Mansur.^[19]

These insurrections speak volumes of the courage and intrepidity of the progeny of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu but few and far between occurrences of this nature tend to show that the descendants of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had, by and large, arrived at the conclusion that there was no need to raise a revolt against the well-established Abbasid Caliphate, holding sway of a greater part of Asia and Africa, since it maintained law and order, promoting learning and arts and trying to enforce commandment of Islam as law of the land, they did not want to fan the fire of disorder and lawlessness against the Muslims. They desired no personal gain at the cost of the vast majority of their co-religionists. Instead, they devoted their energies to the spiritual upliftment and religious guidance of the Muslims, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as procrastination or dissimulation as implied by imputing Taqiyyah to them.

The author has made an appraisal of the valuable services rendered to Islam by the illustrious progeny of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his Saviours of Islamic Spirit. It will bear repetition here.

 

Although crass materialism had captured the soul of the ruling classes during the Umayyad (also Abbasid) period, the masses had still not forsaken the moral values and the deep-seated deference for Islamic teachings. The regard for moral worth and tenets of Islam was due mainly to those scholars of impeccable worth and ability who were held in high esteem by the masses for their moral and spiritual excellence, selflessness, piety, sagacity and beneficence. Outside the governmental circles these persons wielded tremendous influence over the people which acted as the corrective force and saved the masses from falling prey to the pulls of worldly temptations.

The person most respected and loved during the period was ‘Ali Ibn Husain (Zayn al ‘Abidin). In the simple, pure and saintly life led by him, ‘Ali Ibn Husain had no peer. Once Hisham Ibn ‘Abdul Malik, the crown prince, came to the Ka’aba for tawaf (circumambulation) but owing to the huge gathering he could not reach the Hajr-i-Aswad. He, therefore, sat down to wait till he could get a chance to kiss it. In the meantime ‘Ali Ibn Husain arrived and the people at once cleared the way for him to make the tawaf and kiss Hajr-i-Aswad. Everyone present in the Ka’aba received ‘Ali Ibn Husain with the utmost deference. At last Hisham, pretending as if he did not know ‘Ali Ibn Husain, asked who he was. The poet Farzdaq, who happened to be present on the occasion, instantaneously composed an introductory ode for ‘Ali ibn Husain. It is alleged that certain additions were made to this famous ode later on, but it is still regarded as a masterpiece of Arabic poetry. It opened with the verse:

Pebbles and paths of Mecca affirm his virtue,

The House of God knows him well as the environs do.

Other highly reputed religious scholars of outstanding piety during the Umayyad period were Hasan al Muthanna, his son ‘Abdullah al Muhadh, Salim ibn Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Sa’eed ibn Musayib and ‘Urwah ibn Zubair. Complete detachment from the ruling circles of their day, immaculate selflessness, unswerving truthfulness, the readiness to serve and make any sacrifice for the cause of religion, erudition and moral worth had made each of these persons an ideal of Islamic piety.

The demoralisation that had set in owing to the frisky conduct of the ruling elite was undoubtedly on the increase but moral influence wielded by these persons on the masses was not without a salutary effect; their pure and simple life was a standing reproach to the unprincipled worldliness of the rulers, which made people think of reforming their intemperate life.^[20]

 

Contradictory Images of the Early Islamic Era

What was the standard set by the earliest Islamic Era? What was the result? How were the character and morals of the people moulded under the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam guidance? Were these men different from national leaders, founders of kingdoms, and persons aspiring for personal aggrandisement? What was their attitude to their kin? Did the posterity of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam try to take advantage of its kinship to their great forefathers? How did these persons, particularly those belonging to the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam household, conduct themselves towards one another? What was the conduct of those who held wide and absolute power over a vast empire in that era? Did they indulge in pleasure and how did they behave with those committed to their care? What is the verdict of history in this regard? How far the claim about incorruptibility of the Scripture, which forms the bedrock and buttress of this religion, is correct? Was it really protected against all mutilations, accretions, and alterations?

The answers to these questions portray two contradictory pictures of Islam. One of it is that presented by the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah (the followers of the Qurʼan and Sunnah) and the other is painted by the doctrines and tenets of the Imamiyyah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers). These portraits are not only diverse but also antithetical and contradictory.

Now anyone endowed with reason, sense of justice, and knowledge of history can easily decide which one of the two versions is correct. Which one of the two depictions befits a religion revealed as a mercy to the world which claims that its teachings are practicable in any age and region? It is a religion which announces that its Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the most successful among all the Ambiyaʼ of Allah and the era of its Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the most blessed period of its history. It was the era, it claims, of which the entire humanity can be proud; for in the dark and dingy annals of the world with nothing but accounts of self-aggrandisement, wars for personal gains, struggles for power and prestige, and taking advantage of oneʼs victorious exploits, this was the only period when we find self-abnegating and truthful individuals all working for the common mark.

Those were the times which bear testimony to what the Khalifah ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz had thus given expression:

 

إن محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما بعث هاديا ولم يبعث جابيا

Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent as a guide of humanity and not as a collector of revenues.

 

But the picture of Islam that emerges through the creed and portrayal of events by the Shia induces every intelligent and educated man to ask that if the call to Islam could not make any lasting impact on the people addressed by its founder and all of his followers, barring four persons, became apostates just after his death, how can its claim to purify morals and behaviour of man be accepted? How can it claim to raise man from his baser instincts to the sublime stage of humanness? Let us suppose that a missionary of Islam is inviting people to accept Islam in a Western or any other non-Muslim country. A man, who has gone through the Shia literature, interrupts him to ask:

 

How can you invite others to Islam when its Prophet had no more than four or five believers in him after labouring for twenty-three long years? The vast majority recanted its faith!

 

What answer could be given to the man raising these objections?

 

The Shia Creed of Ayatollah Khomeini

When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gave a call for Islamic revolution and established the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran by overthrowing the Pahlavi monarchy a few years back, it was expected that in order to make his call more appealing and acceptable for all the Muslims, he would not open the door of Shia-Sunni controversy—at least he would not reopen it if he was unable to close the chapter.

It was hoped that if he did not publicly renounce those Shia tenets which were as much a stumbling block in the way of Islamic unity as in spreading the message of Islam, for reason of political expediency, he would at least not reiterate them publicly.

A man of his deep scholarship was expected to see the hand of Islamʼs enemy who had cleverly exploited the injured pride of Iranians by the loss of their empire to the Arabs for sowing seeds of dissension among the Muslims. With his astounding victory over the Emperor and a powerful fighting machine to back him, it would have not been difficult for him to announce that the Muslims should now open a new chapter of friendship and amity for making Islam strong and powerful as well as for reforming the Muslim society of its ills, by forgetting the painful past. This was expected of him to make the future of Islam bright and also for inviting others to accept the truth of Islam.^[21]

But these hopes were belied. He started publishing his Shia views through his works and articles. In his work entitled al Hukumat al Islamiyyah Wilayat al Faqih, he describes the Aʼimmah and Imamah in a way that elevates them to the stage of divinity; he makes them out as superior to every prophet and angel; he pleads that the universe has been subordinated to them in its origin and creation.^[22]

Similarly, in Kashf al Asrar, written by him in Persian, he does not merely criticise but reviles and denounces and uses coarsely insulting language for the Sahabah, especially for the first three Khalifas, befitting the most wicked and vicious conspirers.^[23]

Both these, his propagation of the Shia creed and imprecations of the Sahabah, are being publicised simultaneously on a wide scale through his works, for these are not his private epistles meant for his followers alone.

 

Followers of Ayatollah Khomeini

The view of Ayatollah Khomeini in regard to Imamah and the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Sahabah is no secret. His works are being published widely both within and outside Iran. His pleadings for the Shia faith: the danger his views posed to Islamʼs fundamental creed of Tawhid, the oneness of Allah; attributions of prophetic characteristics to the Aʼimmah; and more than these, the invectives showered by him on the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Sahabah—who were held in the highest regard and whose era was held as the ideal period of the Islamic or rather world history—were expected to alienate at least those subscribing to the faith of the Ahlus Sunnah. It was hoped that his activities would undermine his claim as the leader of an Islamic revolution and founder of a truly Islamic form of government. However, it is disheartening to see that a section of Muslims, projecting itself as the standard-bearers of Islamic thought and as the reviver of Islamic glory, have accepted Ayatollah Khomeini as the “Promised Guide”; it has lavished its affection and regard for him and is not prepared to condone even a word uttered in his criticism. This attitude leads to a two-fold conclusion.

 

Significance of Creed in Islam

First, the criterion devised by certain persons for approbation and disapprobation of anything is not that it should conform to the Qurʼan and the Sunnah or the practice or creed of our honoured precursors, but that it leads to the establishment of an Islamic government, wresting of power for Islam, posing a challenge to any western power, or creating difficulties for Western supremacy. This is what certain persons have come round to regard as the qualification for an ideal leader.

Secondly, fundamental Islamic creed is being taken lightly by our modern educated class. This is a dangerous development, sufficient to disturb all well-meaning believers. The dividing line between the movements launched by political leaders and the divine call given by the Ambiyaʼ of Allah is nothing but the creed propagated by the latter.^[24] The Ambiyaʼ are never prepared to make any compromise at the cost of their creed. Their criterion for acceptance or rejection of any proposition is how far it is compatible with their creed. If the Muslims have been able to preserve their religion unadulterated, in its original form, despite their numerous weaknesses, it has been on account of their sensitiveness and zeal for maintaining it in its purest form. The scholars of Islam, those charged with the protection and interpretations of its doctrines, have refused to be cowed down by the most tyrant and powerful rulers.

They have never played safe nor kept mum whenever they have found any Islamic tenet being misconstrued by the kings and emperors, let alone accepting any non-conformist view for their own benefit or for the good of the Muslim masses. The fortitude found by Ahmed ibn Hambal (d. 241 AH/856 CE) in facing the persecutions of Khalifah Maʼmun and Mu’tasim, the two most powerful emperors of his time, on the question of the Qurʼanʼs creation^[25] and the way Sheikh Ahmed Mujaddid Alf Thani (d. 1034 AH/1624 CE) continued to struggle against the Emperor Akbarʼs claims of Islamʼs supersession by his eclectic religion of Din Ilahi and the Emperorʼs divine right of final say in all religious matters, until the Mughals were forced to change their policy^[26], are but two examples that need to be cited here.

The history of Islam offers innumerable shining examples of its votaries acting on the dictums, “Be truthful to the face of a tyrant ruler” and “there is no obedience to created beings involving disobedience to the Creator”. The tempter in this regard is often a tyrant ruler, occasionally the public opinion, at times fame and popularity, and not infrequently success in life; while experience tells us that it is the latter ones which are hardest to withstand.

The teachings and the creed of Islam are really like a river which never changes its course nor does it go dry. Political powers, occasional revolutions, rise and fall of governments, movements and forces come and go. If the river is flowing in the right direction, they pose no danger; but if the creed is distorted, it means that the river has changed its course or its water has been contaminated. Thus, no mission, call, or movement to make any country strong and powerful or to reform any society of its ills can ever be acceptable if its creed is not sound, seamless. This is essential for the stability of this religion and maintaining the vigour of its followers. This is why the servants and scholars of Islam, who have to safeguard the Shari’ah and the Sunnah, cannot avoid taking steps apparently unpleasant to certain persons.

 

The Secret of Khomeiniʼs Success

The reasons for the popularity of Ayatollah Khomeini are more than one. His success against the Shah and a peculiar type of revolution in the Iranian society; the failure of America, the greatest world power to face his challenge; the fire and passion of Iranian youths for self-sacrifice; the unsatisfactory state of affairs, religion, and moral shortcomings apparent in several Arab and Muslim countries; the dissatisfaction of the Muslim youth in the Indo-Pak sub-continent owing to the conditions prevalent in their own countries; and their readiness to accept whatever is presented to them in the name of Islam, are some of the factors that have won the same popular regard for Ayatollah Khomeini as was once enjoyed by Kamal Ataturk in India and Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Arab world.

There are also some heads of states in a few Muslim countries that were admired by their people even though they openly deny the validity of the Hadith and the Sunnah, at times make fun of these, endeavour to make their countries culturally part of the West, and are known sympathisers of communism. Ayatollah Khomeini, however, got ahead of all such leaders because of his religious appeal. He is held in the highest regard by some who would not listen to any argument even if it aims at an appraisal of Ayatollah Khomeiniʼs actions in the light of accepted creed, the Qurʼan, or the Sunnah; they simply cannot tolerate any adverse criticism of Ayatollah Khomeini. The way things are shaping is extremely dangerous for the future of Islam and the preservation of its spirit; this brings to mind a pithy remark by Khalifah ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who said:

(There are those) who run after every rattler.

 

رَبَّنَا لَا تُزِغْ قُلُوبَنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا وَهَبْ لَنَا مِنْ لَّدُنْكَ رَحْمَةً ۚ  إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْوَهَّابُ

Our Lord, let not our hearts deviate after You have guided us and grant us from Yourself mercy. Indeed, You are the Bestower.^[27]

 

 

---

^[1] Sherwani, Latif Ahmed (ed.): Harf Iqbal, pg. 122, 136, Lahore, 1947.

^[2] Usul al Kafi, pg. 103-259.

^[3] Thomas Patrick Hughes: Dictionary of Islam, pg. 574, London, 1885.

^[4] H.A.R. Gibbs and J.H. Kramers: Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, pg. 166, Leiden, 1953.

^[5] History of the Arabs, pg. 248.

^[6] Duha al Islam, vol. 3 pg. 209, Egypt, 1952.

^[7] Usul al Kafi, pg. 202, 207.

^[8] Al Nuri al Tabarsi: Al Ihtijaj, pg. 230, Tehran, 1302 AH.

^[9] Ayatollah Khomeini: Al Hukumat al Islamiyyah, pg. 52.

^[10] Shah Wali Allah: Al Durr al Thamin fi Mubashshirat al Nabi al Amin, pg. 504, Matba’ Ahmedi, Delhi.

^[11] Darya Kabul se Darya Yarmuk Tak, pg. 104-106, Lucknow, 1978.

^[12] Al Imam Jafar al Sadiq is stated to have told his disciple Salman, “O Salman! He among you is the most honoured before Allah who uses Taqiyyah the most in concealing the faith and he is the most demeaned who publishes it.” Al Imam al Baqir is reported to have said, “He is dearest to me who is most pious, versed in jurisprudence, and hides away our tenets.” (Usul al Kafi, pg. 485-486.) Shia scholars even assert that nine-tenths of their faith consists of Taqiyyah and one who does not practice it has no faith at all. (Usul al Kafi, pg. 483.)

^[13] Ikhwan al Safa (Brethren of Purity) was a secret society during the Abbasid period. It was an interesting eclectic school of popular philosophy. The Ikhwan formed not only a philosophical but also a religious-political association with ultra Shia, probably Ismaili, views and were opposed to the existing political order, which they evidently aimed to overthrow by undermining the popular intellectual system and religious beliefs. Hence, arises the obscurity surrounding their activities and membership. Baghdad was their centre in the fourth century AH. They held meetings in privacy and no outsider was allowed to participate in them. A collection of their epistles and the names of writers were kept secret. Mu’tazilah and others sympathetic to their way of thought used to make out copies and smuggle them into other Islamic countries. These letters were published from Leipzig in 1883, from Bombay in 1886, and from Egypt in 1889. (For details, see History of the Arabs, pg. 372-373, 401).

^[14] A detailed account of these revivalist movements will be found in the authorʼs Saviours of Islamic Spirit, vols. 1-3.

^[15] Bal Jibril.

^[16] Ibn Kathir: Al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah, vol. 9 pg. 106.

^[17] Ibn Khallikan: Wafayat al A’yan, vol. 2 pg. 434.

^[18] The incident is mentioned by historians like Ibn Jarir al Tabari, Ibn al Athir, and Ibn Kathir.

^[19] Al Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah had also supported the revolt of Zaid ibn ‘Ali. Sayed Manazir Ahsanʼs Imam Abu Hanifah ki Siyasi Zindagi gives a detailed account of these events.

^[20] Saviours of Islamic Spirit, vol. 1 pg. 16-17, Lucknow, 1983.

^[21] The reason is that Islam cannot be presented as a saving principle for mankind if out of more than a hundred-thousand Companions stated to be present on the occasion of the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam final pilgrimage, only four of them remained wedded to the faith after the Messengerʼs salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, and if the Qurʼan was totally mutilated and the real faith was kept secret by the Aʼimmah as claimed in Usul al Kafi, Fasl al Khitab, and Kashf al Asrar.

^[22] Al Hukumat al Islamiyyah, pg. 52.

^[23] Kashf al Asrar, pg. 113-114.

^[24] See the authorʼs Dastuur Hayat, Lucknow, 1978.

^[25] See Saviours of Islamic Spirit, vol. 1 pg. 67-86.

^[26] See Saviours of Islamic Spirit, vol. 3, Lucknow, 1983.

^[27] Surah Al ‘Imran: 8.