Islam Is A Reformatory Ideology
منذ 3 سنوات
567
We can hardly expect the Prophet who won the struggle after twenty-three years full of sacrifice, misery, and trouble, to depart from this world leaving the ideology of Islam unguarded by not appointing for administration the best fitting person among his followers.
5. The risk which would be taken in leaving the establishment of the succeeding government to the choice of the people can be underscored by stating the following facts: From among the masses of inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, there were only a few scores of individuals who were capable of reading or writing. The masses of the people were totally uneducated. They joined Islam after the new faith had prevailed. As soon as they heard the news of the death of the Prophet, most of them rose in rebellion, and a great portion of the nation deserted the faith. The future of Islam was extremely darkened, and the true Muslims faced uncertainty.
The Prophet himself had foreseen this condition, and shortly before his death he declared:
It is inconceivable that the Prophet, under such circumstances, would not try to secure the best possible leadership for his young Muslim State before he departs from this world.
Chirri: The sincerity of many of the companions of the Prophet is beyond any reasonable doubt. It would only be fair to assume that men like Ali, Abu-Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Salman the Persian, Abu-Tharr and so many others from the immigrants and Madinites were genuine supporters of the cause of Islam. They had offered for its promotion many sacrifices for a long period of time. They were also well-educated in the Islamic teaching, and they were good students and disciples of the Prophet. The fact remained, the Shi-ites say, that the majority of the companions were not purified completely from their old clannish attachments.
Islam aimed at replacing the narrow bond of blood-relation by a general brotherhood and feeling of equality among the Muslims. But the period was too short for these people to forget the past and live up to the ideal teaching of their faith. The influence of tribal ties on their thinking was obvious. The conference which was held by the Madinites has shown a great deal of tribal prejudice. Their aim was to select one of the Madinites as a ruler and to prevent
Both sides overlooked the principle of equality and universal brotherhood which the Prophet endeavored to establish. None of them was looking for the fittest person in the Muslim community for the leadership in such a critical period. Had all of them been true adherents to the Islamic teaching. they would have searched their conscience and looked for the best possible leader, disregarding all regional and tribal ties. This important aspect was entirely forgotten or overlooked. Merely being a Meccan companion was good enough for the Meccans, and merely being a Madinite companion was good enough for the Madinites.
Suppose that they all were free of clannish prejudice. This does not mean that those companions were equally knowledgeable in Islam. Nor would it mean that the majority of them were wise enough to select the proper leadership for that critical period. There were many outstanding persons in the community, and probably the majority of the companions considered them all potential leaders. Their knowledge about these persons was limited, and none of them knew enough about them to select their best. Only the Prophet was able to classify them and choose the most fitting for leadership in that period.
The Muslims, however, were fortunate enough to select a man like Abu-Bakr. What would have happened if they had chosen a good companion but unfitting leader such as Uthman? It may have led to the destruction of the Muslim State. Foreseeing the forthcoming crises, the Prophet was expected to avoid the Muslims any such consequences by
Wilson: Granted that all the advanced points are logical, this may only prove the need for the appointment of a leader on the part of the Prophet. This, however, does not prove that the Prophet had actually appointed a successor. The argument is telling us that the Prophet was expected to provide the proper leadership for all the Muslims, and that he ought to have done what was expected. It does not tell us that he actually did so. There is a clear difference between what ought to be done and what actually was done.
Furthermore, if the argument is entirely sound, it does not tell us who was appointed by the Prophet. It might have been Ali or Abu-Bakr or anyone else.
Chirri: The Shi-ites say that the Prophet had actually appointed Ali to the high post, by declaring him the "Moula" (guardian) of the believers. While returning from his Valedictory Pilgrimage, the Prophet, according to many authentic hadiths (related statements), called the multitude of pilgrims who were accompanying him, to hear an important declaration. (This declaration was delivered at a place called "Ghadir Khamm."):
Following this, the Prophet announced the appointment of Ali for the high office. Such an appointment on his part requires a constitutional authority. Therefore, he reminded them of the fact that the Holy Qur'an vested in him this authority by declaring him the guardian of the believers:
Whoever I am his Moula, this Ali (He was holding Ali's hand) is his Moula.
O God, be friend his friend and cast out of Thy favor his enemy."
Wilson: If the Prophet had actually selected Ali for the leadership of the Muslims, he should have tried to prepare the Muslims, not only by words, but also by deeds for the acceptance of his decision. He should have made the atmosphere suitable for implementing such an important plan. Had the Prophet done anything of this sort?
The Muslim historians agree that when the Prophet was seriously ill, he sensed the approach of his death. At that time he ordered the Muslim army to leave Madina to the borders of Syria under the leadership of Usama, the son of Zeid. Abu-Bakr and Omar were ordered to leave with the army. Of the outstanding companions, only Ali was to stay in Madina.
While his condition was growing critical, the Prophet repeatedly urged the army to leave Madina. But Abu-Bakr, Omar, and many other companions remained in Madina, saying that they hate to leave while the Prophet is so ill. As a result, the whole army remained camping in the vicinity of the city until Abu-Bakr was elected after the death of the Prophet. To sum up:
The Prophet knew the approach of his death. He ordered the ambitious companions to take a long journey, and wanted Ali to stay beside him. Putting these together makes it obvious that the Prophet wanted Ali to take over after him, unchallenged .Wilson: The plan, however, did not materialize. Ali did not rule, Abu-Bakr did. He not only ruled, but also appointed Omar as his successor. Omar, in turn, indirectly appointed Uthman to succeed him. Shall we infer from this that the companions of the Prophet ignored the Prophet's order and disobeyed him deliberately?
Chirri: The answer is "no." If the will of the Prophet were to secure the leadership for Ali, and if he had made itTo think that they deliberately chose to disobey the Prophet in such an important matter does not seem to be logical. We owe it to the companions of the Prophet to think good of them and not to doubt their good intentions when they make a wrong decision. They were good Muslims, and the Holy Qur'an recommends that we pray God to forgive our brothers who preceded us in embracing the faith, let alone the companions who were the first Muslim community that ever existed in the world.
Our attitude now towards the issue ought to be far from being emotional. We ought not to weep over the spilled milk. Nothing can be retrieved by taking sides on the issue. Both Ali and Abu-Bakr died and met the Lord, and the time of the caliphate has entirely elapsed. Any discussion about it should be no more than a discussion of a certain period of the Islamic history. Such a discussion can be conducted by non-Muslims as well as by Muslims. The purpose of such a discussion is not to support a particular side, but to reach or form an impartial conclusion or opinion.
Holding a negative attitude towards either side would only generate hatred and division among the Muslims. This, no doubt, is a displeasure to Ali who gave up his claim and supported Abu-Bakr to avoid any division among the Muslims. To cause a division for the sake of Ali is to be kingly more than the king himself .
To have an unfriendly attitude towards scores of millions of Muslims because of their negative attitude towards three outstanding Muslims does not seem to be logical. Nor is it warranted by the teaching of Islam.
Wilson: The issue of the succession in ruling the Muslim State may have caused a good deal of dispute among the Muslims throughout the centuries, but it does not seem to be important enough to divide the Muslims into sects today. The whole issue seems to be political rather than religious. It may become religious when it causes the Muslims to dispute in the areas of the articles of the faith or the Islamic laws. Do the Sunnis and the Shi-ites disagree with each other in these religious areas? And is their disagreement in these areas related to their political views?
Chirri: There is no disagreement between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis on the articles of the faith. They all agree on the truthfulness of the Qur'an and the statements of the Prophet without any exception. Both sides derive their views and conclusions in the religious matters from these two important sources.There are, however, disagreements on some of the details of the Islamic laws. These disagreements are due, partly,
Some of the disagreements on the details of the Islamic rules are due to the following reasons:
1. Absence of specific instructions in both the Qur'an and the statements of the Prophet.2. Lack of clarity in some of these statements and the capability of being interpreted in more than one way.
3. The existence of two opposite statements, both attributed to the Prophet.
One of the examples of disagreement caused by difference in interpretation of the Holy Qur'an is the following:
All Muslims agree that ablution is a requirement for a sound prayer, and that ablution would be undone by intercourse. They disagree on whether mere physical contact between man and woman, such as shaking hands, would undo the ablution of both of them. The reason is the difference in interpreting the following verse:Some schools take the word "touch" literally and think that touch in any way would undo the ablution. Other schools understand from the word touch the intercourse.
Disagreements on the details of the Islamic rules exist not only between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis; they exist among the Sunnis themselves and among the Shi-ites them
Disagreement on the details of some of the Islamic rules did not cause the Muslims to be divided into sects. It, however, caused the formation of many schools of thoughts which are called "Mazhabs:", (Mazhab is a set of opinions or verdicts attributed to an outstanding imam who is considered, at least by his followers, as the prime authority in jurisprudence and Islamic law). Among these Mazhabs are the following living schools: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi-i, Hunbuli, Jaafari, and Zeidi.
All these schools rely, and draw on, the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Prophet. But the first four are called Sunni, and the last two are called Shi-i.
The difference between the Shi-ite and the Sunnite schools is not greater than the difference among the Sunnite schools themselves. The political affiliation, however, made the followers of the Sunni schools frown upon the Shi-ite schools, and vice versa.
Wilson: Your explanation shows that the difference between the two sides is very small and negligible. Some efforts should have been made by some scholars to bring the two sides together and to bring about a good understanding and reconciliation.
Chirri: Many efforts had been made throughout the history of Islam to heal the rift, but they did not meet a tan
Our age has a different spirit, and the caliphate was buried at the beginning of this century. What we need is to have a solemn thinking and a new evaluation of the whole matter .
Chirri: On the first of July, 1959, I met the late Sheikh AI-Azhar, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltute (may God bless his soul). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the problem of division between the followers of the various Islamic schools whose difference, until that time, was conceived as an outstanding problem in the Muslim world. I wanted to know his opinion about the Jaafari Mazhab to which he does not belong. I thought that a favorable attitude on his part toward this Mazhab might be a uniting point between the two sides, since most of the Shi-ites belong to the Jaafari school.
I asked him if he believes in the soundness of the Jaafari teaching and its equality to his own Mazhab. His answer was in the affirmative. Upon this, I requested him to state to
The declaration was the first of its kind in the history of Islam. It was issued as an answer to a question submitted to him, and announced on the sixth of July, 1959. The declaration was joyfully received in many Muslim countries.
The following is a translation of the declaration which was published in the Egyptian and Lebanese press(1):
His eminence answered (by setting forth the following points as an introduction to his verdict which is the last part of his answer):
________________________
(1) This is the translation of what appeared in Al-Kifah (a Lebanese newspaper), issue of July 8, 1959.
Sheikh Izzuddeen, the son of Abdulsalam said: The Muslims used to seek information about the Islamic laws, from any "alim" (Muslim Scholar) they happened to meet, regardless of the school to which he belonged. And such a way of obtaining information never was disapproved (by the Muslim Scholars) until these schools (the four appeared with their followers who became so bigoted that the follower of a Mazhab would follow his "imam" (leader) even if his opinion was supportable by no evidence. He followed him as if he were a messenger prophet. This is a shyness from the truth and soundness. it should not be accepted by the People of understanding.
2. The word "Shi-a," by which the followers of Ali (the son of Abu-Talib) are known, is derived from the word "Mushaya-ah" which means to follow. So the Shia of a person are his companions and followers. The name (Shi-a) has been given to many groups who disagree with Islam in many basic beliefs and laws. It is not permissible to fol
3. There are other groups related to "Ali," and they are his well-guided Shi-a who oppose and condemn the misguided ones. Of these good Shi-a is the group which is known by the name of "Jaafari" or "Imami Ithna Ashari."
4. This well-known group follows principles that are taken from the Book of God and the teaching of His Messenger which reached them through their imams in both fundamental belief and Islamic law. The difference between the Jaafari and Sunni schools is not greater than the difference among the Sunni schools themselves. They (the Jaafaris) believe in the fundamental principles of Islam as they are stated in the Glorious Qur'an and the certain teaching of the Prophet. They also believe in all the rules whose inclusion in the religion of Islam is self evident and whose recognition is required for being a Muslim and the denial of which excludes the person from Islam.5. The Mazhab of these Jaafari Shi-ites in the Islamic laws is completely recorded and well-known. It has its own books, conveyers (who related the statements of the Prophet and the imams) and the supporting evidence. The authors of these books and those from whom these authors had received the (hadiths) are well-known, and their scholarly and jurisprudential ranks are respected among the Muslim scholars.
1. Islam does not command any of its followers to follow a particular Islamic Mazhab. On the contrary, it establishes for every Muslim the right to follow, at the beginning, anyone of the correctly conveyed Mazhabs, whose verdicts are recorded in their respective books. It is permissible also for anyone that follows one of these schools to change to another one - any other schooland -he is not sinning by doing that.
2. The Jaafari school which is known as "the Mazhab of the Ithna-Ashari, Imami Shi-I" is a sound Mazhab. It is permissible to worship God according to its teaching, like the rest of the Sunni Mazhabs.
3. The Muslims ought to know this and get rid of their undue bigotry for particular Mazhabs. The religion of God and His law do not follow, nor are they bound to, a particular Mazhab. All (the founders of these Mazhabs) are Mujtahid (qualified to give verdict), reward-deserving from God, and acceptable to Him. It is permissible to the "non-Mujtahid" to follow them and to accord with their teaching, whether in devotions or transactions.
