Tajdeed

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I thank my dear friends Raza Rizvi & Muhammed al-Sharifi for helping me gather these quotes, references & arguments in regard to Shi’a Imamate and the theological belief that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib is Divinely appointed as the political leader. I acknowledge their great efforts and I acknowledge that they have helped me tremendously in my research. This article is a response to my former work, titled ‘The Imamate Doctrine between the Zaydi & Imami Schools’. My current research has led to a different conclusion regarding Shi’a Imamate theory.

Introduction

To analyse the matter of Shi’a Imamate between the varying Shi’a schools from the Imamiyya & the Zaydiyya, the main proofs from the Sunnah regarding the affair of Imam ʿAlī’s Divine designation to political authority are Hadiths; Ghadeer, Thaqalayn & Manzila. Naturally, these textual proofs from the Hadith literature will be examined to correctly understand their implications.

A key point to understand is that, this article will deal with the main concise points due to the clarity of the fundamental arguments. As a result, a thorough study of ‘Ilm al-Rijal (Biographies of Hadith Narrators) & chains of transmissions will not be explained in full detail.

In order to understand religious texts, it is essential to look at the righteous predecessors & how they understood & disseminated the doctrines, beliefs, practices & the evidences regarding these things. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the verdicts & views of the Ahlulbayt in order to understand the Shi’a doctrine of Imamate & Divine appointment.

Interpretations of the early Alid Imams (Ahlulbayt)

Imām Zayd, Imām Ḥasan al-Muthannā, and Imām Qāsim al-Rassī explain ḥadīth al-Ghadīr:

Imām ʿAlī was placed as a banner for the believers in case of differentiation, thus when the believers differentiate in matters of fiqh, creed, and warfare. Then, it is incumbent upon the believers to cling unto Amīr al-Muʾminīn al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib in supporting him, and in preferring his judgment. (Zayd ibn ʻAlī and ʻAzzān, 2001).

The inference of Hadiths Ghadeer, Thaqalayn & Manzila is that it is incumbent upon all Believers to hold on to ʿAlī, because it is proven that he is an Imam of guidance that will always be upon truth. From the text we see that supporting him and showing him walayah (alliance) is an absolute necessity, which is a religious obligation. Therefore, the implication of the Prophetic Hadith is that, Imam ʿAlī will never deviate, and he will always be upon guidance, which implies that Muslims need to recognise him as a religious authority.

In the Zaydi work, ‘Manāqib Amīr al-Muʾminīn’ by al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad b. Sulaimān al-Kūfī, it is is narrated from Muḥammad b. Manṣūr, from ʿAbād, from ʿAlī b. Hāshim, from his father, he said: In the presence of Zayd b. ʿAlī the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was mentioned: “Whomever I am his Mawla, then ʿAlī is his Mawla.” It was asked: “What did he mean by this?” He replied: “I heard Zayd say: He, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, placed him as a banner so that the party of Allāh (Ḥizb Allāh) would be known during times of division.” (Kūfī and Maḥmūdī, 1412).

The clear import of this reading is that there is no Divine appointment for a political role, otherwise political appointment would be mentioned explicitly by the Prophet stating that Allah has appointed ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib as your Amir, your Imam, your ruler and your authoritative leader who needs to be obeyed after me. In addition to this argument, the people asking about the import of this Prophetic report is an indication that the Muslims did not infer Divine political designation from the Hadith of Ghadeer.

Wilayah or Walayah?

In contrast to political Divine appointment, what we see is that ʿAlī was presented as a spiritual & religious authority of guidance, publicised to be the man of truth & a guide & exemplar for the rest of the Ummah. Evidently, this makes him the most superior from the Companions of the Prophet, especially due to the Prophet supplicating “O God ally with whoever ally’s himself with him & be an enemy to whoever becomes his enemy”. Once again, this statement is a clear indication that he will always be upon truth & that the Ummah are obliged to support him in his wars.

To add to this, in the important Zaydi work named, ‘Majmūʿ kutb wā Rasāʾil al-Imām al-Qāsim al-Rassī’, it is narrated, I inquired regarding the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “He whom I am his Mawlā, ʿAlī is his Mawlā and he whom I was his walī, ʿAlī is his walī.” He – al-Imām al-Qāsim al-Rassī – said: Its interpretation (taʿwīl) is that whomever supports me, let him be a supporter of ʿAlī. For, Mawlā in the language of the Arabs is “Naṣīr” supporter. (Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm and Jadabān, 2001).

A key point to mention is that the word aid or support in this Hadith comes from the Arabic word ‘Wala’, which is etymologically related to the Arabic word ‘Mawla’, which is an indication that the Wilayah in this text is actually Walayah, which means support, aid & assistance. The question arises, if this Hadith was a Divine designation, couldn’t the Prophet clearly propagate “you are to obey ʿAlī, like you obey me”, or he could have said “he is your Imam & Amir, like I am your Imam”.

As a result of this, Imam Zayd describes the event of Ghadeer, as ʿAlī being presented to the Ummah as the “banner of truth”. As a result of him being the banner of guidance & truth for the Ummah, they are obliged to aid him & support him in religious affairs & they should give religious precedence to him.

Nevertheless, evidently from the wording of the text of Ghadeer & the tafsir of the early Alid Imams, we clearly see that there is no Divine obligation of electing him as the political ruler after the Prophet. Thus, it is known that, when there is no clear religious text pertaining to obligations, the Muslims are ought to sort out their affairs via mutual consultation & counselling. The Qur’an says regarding this, “they conduct their affairs by mutual consultation”. (Surah 42:38).

Did Imam ʿAlī ever claim to be Divinely Appointed for Caliphate?

To re-emphasise this religious text for those who are confused due to what the mainstream Muslims have been debating for centuries from the sectarian Sunni & Imami Shia paradigms, this matter has been misunderstood & conflated from both sides.

The truth is a matter between two matters, which is that the Muslim body were supposed to give ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib precedence in political authority due to his clear precedence in being a spiritual leader, guide & banner of truth, but despite that the Ummah was not obligated to choose him as the temporal ruler because Allah & his Messenger did not compel the Muhajriin & the Ansar to do so! The evidence is a lack of explicit evidence from the texts. In fact, the lack of proof is seen more vividly when we historically see that the man himself, Imam ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib never claimed to be the political leader chosen by Allah. So, what did Imam ʿAlī actually claim then?

In the famous work ‘Ansab al-Ashraf’ by al-Baladhuri, there is a very interesting narration about the view & argument of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.The report is as follows: Ruh b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min narrated to me, from Abi ‘Uwana, from Khalid al-Hadha, from ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakra that ʿAlī came to them once and said:

“No one from this nation (ummah) has faced what I have faced. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) died and I was the worthiest of the people for this matter (the caliphate), but the people gave allegiance to Abu Bakr and he was succeeded by ‘Umar, so I gave allegiance to them and accepted and submitted. Then the people gave allegiance to ‘Uthman, so I gave him allegiance and submitted and accepted. And now they sway between myself and Mu’awiya?!”. (ʻAbbās, Baladhuri, 1979)

Here is a report from mainstream Sunni works that presents an intermediate narrative that makes mainstream Sunnis uncomfortable & mainstream Shia happy, but when assessed carefully it goes against the mainstream Imami Shi’a narrative as well.

The reason being is that we see that ʿAlī did not engage in an extreme religious dissimulation (taqiyya), rather what we see is that he argued for what he believed in. Interestingly, whilst arguing for the affair or political authority, ʿAlī is not claiming a Divine right to rule! Instead, he argues for a precedence and him having a greater right to rule the Muslim Ummah. If ʿAlī was Divinely chosen to rule and he is debating people about temporal rule & governance, then why doesn’t he make it easier & clearer and explicitly inform them that he is the special one chosen for this role by God himself? If he was Divinely chosen via the words of the Messenger of God, then why is he arguing in this way and saying that he has a greater right to rule?

It is useful to bring useful narrations from the ‘History of al-Tabari’. There are key two narrations which will be analysed. When Imam ʿAlī was sending Qays b. Sa’d b. ‘Ubada to Egypt as the governor, in his letter he wrote:

The Muslims then appointed two leaders as his deputies who were devout and acted according to the Book and the sunnah. They conducted themselves well and did not go against the sunnah. Almighty and Glorious Allah then took them also to Himself, and a governor succeeded them who introduced innovations, so the community found a way to talk against him, so they talked and then criticized and reviled him. (Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, 2015, P.177-178)

The chain of transmission mentioned by al-Tabari is from Hisham b. Muḥammad al-Kalbi-Abu Mikhnaf – Muḥammad b. Yusuf b. Thabit – Sahl b. Sa`d.

In this letter, Imam ʿAlī praises the rule of Abu Bakr & Omar, and he criticises the governing of Uthman b. ‘Affan. The reasoning is that Abu Bakr & Omar ruled justly whilst Uthman later innovated by engaging in nepotism. Historically, we see that with all the flaws & sins of Abu Bakr & Omar, they actually did rule well & they implemented the Qur’an, the Sunnah. (Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, 2015).

During the governance of Abu Bakr & Omar, affairs were conducted via Shūra (consultation). Most importantly, they were not kings who made their immediate family or sons their political successors. Essentially, a major difference between Monarchy & Caliphate is that Caliphate is run through the Shūra system, whereas Monarchist systems are totalitarian, despotic & tyrannical. Monarchy allows the ruler to enjoy complete power & absolute authority, which means that most historical “Caliphate” systems were merely nominal Caliphates, in reality they were oppressive, totalitarian kingdoms.

Taking all of these factors into account, how can Imam ʿAlī praise the first two Caliphs like this if they were usurpers who stole the Divinely given right of Imam ʿAlī & they were deceptive rulers who tread on the Divine command publicised on the Day of Ghadeer? The truth is that this positive view of ʿAlī is actually corroborated by established history as well because historically it is known that the Two Caliphs had good leadership.

In relation to historical reports undermining & contradicting the existence of any clear text (Naṣṣ) regarding political appointment, there is the letter of Qays b. Sa’d. In this letter, there is a strong response to Mu’awiya b. Abi Sufyan, in which Qays boldly states:

“Are you obliging me to renounce obedience to the most qualified of all people for the leadership, whose words are truest, whose actions are most rightly guided, and whose connections to the Messenger of God are closest?” (Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, 2015, P.182).

Once again, if there was any Divine text (Naṣṣ) pertaining to Divine appointment, then why is the Shi’a Companion, Qays b. Sa’d al-Ansari not mentioning a clear Divine appointment whilst engaging in political dispute? Wouldn’t it have been easier to debate the false claims of Mu’awiya through the clear proofs of the Qur’an & Sunnah? In fact, it was the perfect time because Qays b. Sa’d was aiming to establish the political authority of ʿAlī and he did this by reminding Mu’awiya of the unique virtues of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, so it would have been more coherent if he openly reminded him that Imam ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib was Divinely appointed for this central role. These sources imply that there was no Naṣṣ for political appointment, otherwise the Sahaba & most importantly the Ahl al-bayt would have known about it and they would have used in dire situations where they needed it the most.

Electing ʿAlī – Is ʿAlī the Most Virtuous?

In addition to these reports, according to Binyamin Abrahamov, the famous Zaydi Imam, al-Qāsim al-Rassī never openly claimed that Imam ʿAlī was explicitly appointed as the political ruler after the Prophet Muḥammad (Abrahamov, 1987). Although there are words attributed to al-Rassī which show that he endorsed a Divine appointment, there are words of his that are contrary to this Shi’a doctrine as well. The Zaydi theory of implicit appointment might have stemmed from these statements of al-Qāsim.

For instance, In the book ‘One Hundred & Eighty Issues of Imam al-Qāsim’, translated by Imam Rassi Society, on pages 17 to 19, al-Qāsim’s son asked him whether ʿAlī was appointed as the political leader or not with clear words, in response to this, al-Rassī replied by saying “it was a sufficient and defined allusion”. Again, he was asked if the Imamate of Amīr al-Muminīn was designated by the Messenger as a testament or did he say to him: “You are the Imam after me.” How was it exactly? He replied: The Messenger, Allah bless him and his family, used indications and pointed to him. This was sufficient and adequate [as a designation]. (Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm and Jadabān, 2001).

The answer of al-Qāsim al-Rassī suggests that the Prophet clearly alluded that ʿAlī was the most eligible for political authority after him, but he did not bind the Companions to elect him and give a pledge of allegiance (Abrahamov, 1987).

Besides, why would an indication be sufficient for a Divine appointment? If the decision of appointment was from God, it would have been transmitted clearly without any ambiguity.

Likewise, according to the translation of Imam Rassi Society, al-Qāsim b. Ibrahim b. al-Ismail b. Ibrahim b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib al-Rassī also says, “It is an obligation upon the people to giveʿAlī priority for the Imamate and prefer him. Giving precedence to other than him is giving the less virtuous precedence over the more virtuous (qaddama al-mafđuul ‘ala al-faađil).” (Ibn-Ibrāhīm al-Rassī and Wardānī, 1998).

From this statement, it can evidently be deduced that it is an obligation to give precedence to the most-deserving of the position, but once again, al-Rassī’s precise words are crucial to fully comprehend this matter of Shi’a Imamate. Through his choice of words, it can be seen that al-Rassī actually subtly admits that he is not appointed because if he was appointed, then he would already be the political leader & no one would need to give precedence. However, when someone says that precedence should be given then that seems to be a recommendation, not an obligation and this statement would be corroborated to the earlier mentioned statement attributed to al-Rassī, which was “it was a sufficient allusion”.

To clarify, if someone was already politically appointed as the ruler, then there wouldn’t be a need to give any precedence. Moreover, according to Islamic doctrine, those who intentionally reject Allah appointing an Imam will then be disbelievers deserving of hellfire due to rejecting the command of God, but from history we don’t see Imam ʿAlī excommunicating those who did not elect him as the political authority.

The Political Views of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib

In reaction to Divine appointment through Naṣṣ, what was the political method that ʿAlī believed in? In addition to these reports, in Nahj al-Balagha Part 2, Letter 6, Imam ʿAlī argues against Mu’awiya by saying, “Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shūra (selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah”. (Muḥammad Ibn Al-Ḥusayn Sharīf Al-Raḍī and ʻAlī Ibn Abī Ṭālib, Caliph, 2012)

If this letter is authentic, what we see is that Imam ʿAlī highlights the importance of Shūra & the consultation council for temporal rule & authority & he emphasises on the vote of the Muhajirin & the Ansar.

The Shūra Council

For those, who contend that Imam ʿAlī was being politically diplomatic or using the philosophy or premise of Mu’awiya to win the argument against him, it is said, how can there be any room for diplomacy when ʿAlī is arguing that the pleasure of Allah is upon the one who the Muhajriin & the Ansar elect? If this were the case, it would be a great lie upon Allah, which is the gravest sin & the greatest oppression one can do according to the Qur’an.

The truth is that the text of Ghadeer or Thaqalayn or Hadith al-Manzila did not appoint ʿAlī as the political ruler after the Prophet, instead these Prophetic statements showed the people that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib was the Imam of guidance, a banner for truth in case the Ummah split, the man who the Muslims are obliged to love, aid support & protect. Hadith al-Ghadeer demonstrates to the Muslims that the Ummah were to aid ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib the same way they aided & supported the Prophet of God. He is shown via the texts to be the closest to the Messenger, ʿAlī is to the Prophet Muḥammad, what Prophet Aaron was to the Prophet Moses.

Meaning, that he was the most superior, the most knowledgeable, the assistant, the brother who shared the same affair of propagating & upholding the Divine religion against all. Imam ʿAlī was shown to be the right-hand man or the vizier of the Messenger & the man who was left as a spiritual exemplar who would guide people to the truth, when the Messenger of God was absent. However, all of these virtues do not necessarily necessitate a Divine appointment for political rule, instead they show that he has a greater right to rule, hence why ʿAlī specifically used the right precise words whilst debating & arguing with others for his position, which is that he has a greater right to rule & he was the worthiest of all people.

Lack of Explicit, Binding Proof

That is why we see more statements of other early Alids, which highlights that Hadith al-Ghadeer does not denote a Divine appointment for political rule. It is undoubtedly a significant & special virtue for Imam ʿAlī, but it is not a Divine succession.

This particular report is probably the most precise narration that challenges the concept of Divine appointment. The argument made by al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan al-Sibt is essential for two reasons. Firstly, the argument made was very persuasive & most importantly, the argument is made from the great-grandson of Imam ʿAlī, he is al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna b. al-Ḥasan al-Sibt b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. It is said, Shababah ibn Siwar al Fizari informed us that — Fudayl ibn Marzuq said:

I heard al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan saying to a man who used to show excessive love to them, i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt, “If what you people are saying (about us) is considered to be a part of Allah’s Din, and our forefathers neither informed us about it nor encouraged us, then surely they have wronged us!”

The man said to him, “Did the Messenger of Allah not say to ʿAlī, ‘Whoever’s mawla I am, ʿAlī is his mawla?’” (Ibn ʻAsk̄ir and Badrān, 1399).

Al-Ḥasan responded and said, “By Allah! If, by that statement, he intended a position of leadership and authority, he would have clearly expressed it, just as he clearly expressed (the injunctions of) salah, Zakat, fasting in Ramadan, and Hajj. Similarly, he would have said, ‘O people! This (referring to ʿAlī) is your leader after me,’ for the Prophet wished well for everyone and was the most benign, considerate, and caring person. If it had been as you people are saying; that Allah and His Messenger chose ʿAlī for this matter after the Prophet; then ʿAlī would be guilty of having committed the biggest mistake and crime! Since it was, he that abandoned a command that the Messenger of Allah instructed him to carry out.” (Muḥammad Ibn Saʻd and Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, 2012)

To assess this reliable report, we see that the earliest of the early Alids, Ḥasan al-Muthanna, the son of al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī denies that his family claims to have Imams who are Divinely appointed as rulers. This argument is airtight because he cries, “how can we not know about this matter that you claim to know from Allah & His Messenger?”. In addition to this, he makes another strong argument which is that the evidences used to prove the Divine appointment are not explicit, instead they are speculative implicit indicators.

That is why he argues that we lack any explicit text from the Qur’an or Hadith which says that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib is the political ruler of the Ummah after the Prophet. Another key detail to bear in mind is that the Prophet never took a pledge of allegiance for Imam ʿAlī from the Muhajirin & the Ansar. So, if there was a clear Divine appointment for the Islamic government, then why didn’t the Prophet take allegiance for ʿAlī, like he did for himself.

If others claim that this pledge did take place, they are obliged to validate this great claim with clear definitive evidence that one cannot reject. It is evident that there is a lack of explicit textual evidence to prove this belief of political Divine designation. In contrast to this, the only claim that can easily be substantiated is that the Prophet clarified to the people who the best man is, and he successfully did this by comparing Imam ʿAlī to the Prophet Harun and binding the Ummah to support ʿAlī & ally with him unconditionally.

A Guide to the Ummah

The Prophet revealed the spiritual virtue & special guidance of his family by saying that the Qur’an & his Ahl al-bayt will always be together until Judgement Day, which means that the Ahlul-Kisa (ʿAlī, Fatima, al-Ḥasan & al-Ḥuseyn) will always be spiritual guides for the Ummah & they will never deviate or leave the Deen. (Al-Hādī ila’l-Ḥaqq, 2011, P.254-278). What this also means that the Ummah should take these religious leaders or spiritual exemplars as political rulers as well, but as mentioned, there is no clear evidence to suggest that there is any Divine obligation or command, which means that is a good recommendation.

The importance of this argument is seen clearer when one sees that historically, ʿAlī, Ḥasan & Ḥuseynclaimed to be the most fit for this position. Since, they made this claim against their opponents, why did they not make it easier & clearer by arguing that they are Divinely chosen for this task & those who reject it will lose guidance in this world & salvation in the Hereafter.

It can easily be concluded, that these texts (Nuṣooṣ) point towards a recommended part of the religion, which is to elect ʿAlī, Ḥasan & Ḥuseynas temporal, political Imams due to what the Messenger of God said & predicted about their spiritual virtues. Despite that, there is no Divine obligation and due to a lack of Divine compulsion, there isn’t a isn’t a sin or a wrath upon the ones who refrain from electing the most virtuous of the people

This is precisely why the three members of Ahlulbayt, never claimed to be Divinely appointed Imams over the Ummah. We know that such a fundamental matter cannot be built based on conjecture & speculation, hence why we need explicit evidence of these Imams claiming to be Divinely chosen political leaders, similar to how the Prophet like the Prophet Muḥammad clearly claimed to be a Divinely chosen leader, prophet & Messenger that is obligatorily to follow.

The truth is that, there is no historical proof that these Imams of Ahlulbayt ever claimed to be Divinely appointed for temporal authority. At most, there is only sectarian reports which make such claims and the reason why these reports are confined to the Hadith collections of some groups like the Shi’a Imamiyya is due to the Taqiyya narrative they advocate. In actuality, what this means is that they admit that publicly these Imams never claimed any Divine right for Imamate or Caliphate, instead they solely spread the exclusivist doctrine of Naṣṣ to their private circles.

The aim of this research is not to delve into the taqiyya narrative & the philosophical or epistemic issues with it but to make a brief point of comparison. The taqiyya narrative of the Imamiyya would equate to the Muslims lacking explicit evidence that historically speaking, Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh ever claimed Prophethood. At most they would maybe have secretive solitary reports of taqiyya, showing that Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh claimed prophethood secretly in a state of religious dissimulation due to the oppression of his Qurayshi relatives and clan members. The question is, how would this belief then be binding upon mankind for their guidance & salvation? Similarly, if this is the case for Shi’a Divine appointment, how are the varying Imami Shi’a doctrines of Imamate binding upon the Muslim Ummah?

To return back to the views of early Alids, in contrast to the mentioned argument of al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna, the Zaydi sources mention another report attributed to this Imam from the same exact narrator, but this report is generally used to oppose the initial narration attributed to al-Muthanna. Here, we argue that there is no contradiction between the two reports. On the contrary, they fit very well together. To present the second report attributed to al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna from Zaydi works:

In ‘Manāqib Amīr al-Muʾminīn’ by al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad b. Sulaimān al-Kūfī, it is narrated from Muḥammad b. Manṣūr, from ʿAbād b. Saʿīd b. Khathīm, from Fuḍayl b. Mazrūq, he said: I said to al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan: The Messenger of Allāh, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, said to ʿAlī: “Whomever I am his Mawla, then ʿAlī is his Mawla.” He replied: “Yes.” I asked: “What does he mean by that?” He said: “Allāh made him a banner for the religion, an infallible that does not lead astray.” (Kūfī and Maḥmūdī, 1412).

Now to go back to the previous report, we see that al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna criticises the Divine appointment narrative, but in that long report he does not seem to bring an alternative or correct reading of Hadith al-Ghadeer. However, in this Zaydi report, we see the alternative narrative which clarifies the correct import of the Prophetic sermon.

We see that although ʿAlī was not appointed as the political successor, he was shown to be the representative of the religion, because he was shown to be an Imam of guidance that will always be upon truth until the very end, thus the Believers are urged & obliged to ally themselves with ʿAlī & fight those who fight him.

Al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna clarifies that he is a banner that does not misguide or lead the Ummah astray because if the Prophet compares ʿAlī to Harun, & if the Prophet informed the Ummah that Ahlulbayt will always be alongside the Qur’an and he obligates the Ummah to ally, aid & support ʿAlī, then that means ʿAlī will always be upon truth & guidance until his death. This can easily mean that it is recommended to give him political authority, but once again it is not a sin to not choose him, it is rather an error of judgement. As a result, this is not a Divine appointment, but this is a Divine information & prophecy that Imam ʿAlī is an Imam of truth & guidance.

To bring further corroboration, Imam Zayd then said regarding Imams ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥuseyn in the same text: “Then, ʿAlī, may Allah bless him, was more entitled for guardianship over the people by Allah and His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. He was their imam after their Prophet.” (Zayd ibn ʻAlī and ʻAzzān, 2001).

This statement of Imam Zayd corroborates with our analysis, & other reports attributed to him. Most importantly, this understanding of Zayd is in line with what Imam ʿAlī argued for historically speaking.

In Sermon 73 of the famous work, ‘Nahjul balagah’, it is narrated that when the Consultative Council of Six made by Omar b. al-Khattab agreed to pledge their allegiance to `Uthman, al-Imam ʿAlī responded:

“You have certainly known that I am the most rightful of all others for the Caliphate. By Allah, so long as the affairs of Muslims remain intact and there is no oppression in it save on myself, I shall keep quiet seeking reward for it (from Allah) and keeping aloof from its attractions and allurements for which you aspire”. (Muḥammad Ibn Al-Ḥusayn Sharīf Al-Raḍī and ʻalī Ibn Abī Ṭālib, Caliph, 2012)

In this report, Imam ʿAlī claims that he is the most rightful to the political position and despite him being more worthy for this important affair, they are not giving him what he is truly deserving of, which is wrong but not a sin. Imam ʿAlī was most deserving of it due to the unmatched merits he was possessing. Since, ʿAlī was arguing with them extensively, it would have been the perfect opportunity to remind them that he is divinely chosen for this political position.

Did Imam ʿAlī Reject the Offer?

It can be vividly seen that, not only is Imam ʿAlī not claiming that he was Divinely appointed, he is also seen rejecting the offer of Caliphate or political rule & dominion when asked to be the political leader. Naturally, this was probably due to the people neglecting him & refraining from choosing him as their temporal ruler and then running back to him when they were in chaos & fitna.

It is reported that according to Ja`far b. `Abdallah al-Muḥammadi -`Amr b. Hammad and ʿAlī b. Ḥuseyn- Ḥuseyn-his father-‘Abd al-Malik b. Abi Sulayman al-Fazari-Salim b. Abi al-Ja’d al Ashja`- Muḥammad b. al-Hanafiyyah: I was with my father when `Uthman was killed. He got up and entered his house, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah came to him and said, “This man has been killed, and the people must have an imam. We know of no one at this time more suitable for this, of greater precedence in Islam, and of closer relationship to the Messenger of Allah than yourself.” He said, “Don’t do this. It’s better that I be a wazir than an amir.” They replied, “No, by Allah! We will go no farther until we have given allegiance to you.” He said, “It should be done in the mosque then. Allegiance must not be given secretly or without the approval of the Muslims.” (Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, 2015)

According to this report, it is proven that if Imam ʿAlī had a Divine right to govern the political affairs of the Ummah, then it would have been impermissible & sinful to reject this for even a moment.

The Authority of al-Ḥasan & al-Ḥuseyn

Nevertheless, to further examine the view of Imam Zayd, we see that he also argues that ʿAlī was more entitled to the temporal leadership. However, if he was Divinely appointed for political rule, then Zayd would argue that the affair of governing & temporal leadership is the Divine right of Imam ʿAlī due to the Prophet electing him for this great position on the Day of Ghadeer.
To add to the views of Zayd, he says: “The ones that had more authority over the people and were most entitled for guardianship were al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥuseyn. This is because they were the offspring and issue of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Al–Ḥasan was not better than al-Ḥuseyn except that he was the oldest of the offspring. The statement of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, concerning them was the same. Both of them were the offspring of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. They were the most deserving of it over the people and were over them by ʿAlī.” (Zayd ibn ʻAlī and ʻAzzān, 2001).

Once again, traditionally speaking, mainstream Shi’ism, be it Imamism, or current Orthodox Zaydism described as the Jarudi branch of the Zaydi school, argues that al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥuseynare Divinely designated political rulers because the Prophet supposedly said “these two are Imams whether sit or stand” & the second proof is Hadith al-Thaqalayn which includes al-Ḥasanayn alongside the Qur’an for guidance. However, the famous Shi’a Hadith of “whether they stand or sit” is completely absent from mainstream Muslim works that praise Ahlulbayt and relay their unique virtues like Ghadeer, Thaqalayn & Manzila.

The chain of this Shi’a Hadith is from ʿAlī ibn Ahmed ibn Muḥammad narrated to us saying― Muḥammad ibn Musa ibn Dawood al Daqqaq narrated to us saying― Ḥasan ibn Ahmed ibn al Layth narrated to us saying― Muḥammad ibn Humaid narrated to us saying―Yahya ibn Abi Bukayr narrated to us saying―Abu al ‘Ala al Khaffaf narrated to us from―Abu Sa’id ‘Aqis … “al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥuseyn are Imams, whether they stand up (to claim their right) or sit down (i.e. do not claim their right)”.

Therefore, if there was any Prophetic report or explicit Divine designation like this, then once again Zayd would use these clear religious texts from the Sunnah to establish their political Imamate. Rather, what Imam Zayd does is present the varying virtues of them, such as al-Ḥasanayn (lit. Two Ḥasans i.e Ḥasan & Ḥuseyn) having the most proximity to the Prophet based on blood-ties, & possibly other merits mentioned about them, such as them being the “Masters of the Youth of Paradise”.  (Khatib Al-Baghdadi, 2014)

Evidently, these texts do not qualify to be a Divine appointment and this is the reason why al-Ḥasan & al-Ḥuseynhistorically never claimed to be Divinely chosen political rulers imposed upon the Ummah, instead they argued that they have the most precedence for this political affair due to their unique guidance & specific virtues clarified to the Ummah by the Prophet Muḥammad, such as them being Masters of the inhabitants of paradise & them being together with the Qur’an until the Day of Judgement.

The evidence for this is in Tabari, when al-Imam al-Ḥuseynwas writing a letter to the people of Basra, where he said “We the Ahlul-Kisa are the authoritative guardians (awliya), the vicegerents (awsiya) and the inheritors (warithin) of the Prophet Muḥammad” (Ṭabarī and Howard, 1990, P.26).

In the same letter, al-Ḥuseynalso says that his household had more of a right over the political leadership than the people who occupied it. In the letter, he acknowledges that Abu Bakr & Omar ruled by what Allah revealed in the Book. Again, al-Imam al-Ḥuseyn doesn’t say they were Divinely chosen, but that they had a greater right to it due to their superior virtue. That is why he explains that they are the inheritors of the Divine message, it is because they are Imams of guidance. It could be argued that this letter suggests that al-Ḥuseyndid not acknowledge any Naṣṣ or direct appointment for the Ahlulbayt’s political Imamate.

Furthermore, Hadith al-Thaqalayn, similar to the reports about ʿAlī are an allusion that al-Ḥasnayan will always be upon guidance until the very end, which makes them spiritual exemplars for mankind. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for Imam Zayd to use the precise wording of “Ḥasan & Ḥuseynhad the most precedence for this political role”. As mentioned, the word choice of ‘precedence’ or the phrase, “they had more of a right” implies that this was not their Divine right.

To reiterate, what Imam Zayd b. ʿAlī said in the work ‘Kitâb Tathbît al-Wasiyya’, “Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, was taken in death. The most entitled of people in guardianship afterwards was Amîr al-Muminîn ʿAlī (as). Then Amîr al-Muminîn ʿAlī (as) was taken in death, and the most entitled of people in guardianship afterwards was Amîr al-Muminîn al-Ḥasan bin ʿAlī (as). Then Amîr al-Muminîn al-Ḥasan bin ʿAlī (as) was taken in death, and the most entitled of people in guardianship afterwards was Amîr al-Muminîn al-Ḥuseyn bin ʿAlī (as).” (Zayd ibn ʻAlī and ʻAzzān, 2001).

The Fabrications of the Shi’a Ghulat (Exaggerators)

The argument of Imam Zayd b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad also corroborates with the words of his brother, Omar al-Ashraf b. al-Sajjad b. al-Ḥuseynb. ʿAlī. It is narrated, “I asked Umar b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad and al-Ḥuseyn b.ʿAlī al-Sajjad the uncles of Ja’far Al-Sadiq:

Is there a member of the Ahl al-Bayt among you whose obedience is obligatory, he who knows him, knows him and you know him, and he who doesn’t know him dies the death of ignorance?

They said: No, this is not true and whoever says this about us (The Ahl al-Bayt) is a liar.

Then it was said to ‘Umar b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad: May Allāh have mercy on you, do you claim that this status (Imāmah) is a status you claim belonged to ʿAlī – as the Prophet willed it to him – after that it was to al-Ḥasan, after ʿAlī willed it to him. After that it was to al-Ḥuseyn, al-Hasan willed it to him. After that it belonged to ʿAlī b. al-Ḥuseyn, after al-Ḥuseyn willed it to him and after that it was to Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, after ʿAlī b. al-Ḥuseyn willed it to him.

Then ‘Umar b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad said: I swear by Allah my father had died and he did not designate anyone, may Allah curse them! They are only using our names [to push their lies].

Then, Fudayl said: This is the product of Khunays, afte that ‘Umar b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad said: Who is Khunays?

After that, Fudayl said: Al-Mu’allā b. Khunays.

In response to this, ‘Umar b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad said: Yes, Al-Mu’allā. By Allāh, I reflect for a lengthy period amazed by such people! Allāh took away their minds when Al-Mu’allā b. Khunays misguided them.” (Muḥammad Ibn Saʻd and Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, 2012)

In this report, not only does Omar b. ʿAlī al-Sajjad negate the idea of Divinely appointed Imams from Ahlulbayt going all the way to Ja’far al-Sadiq but he also rejects the belief that the Prophet appointed ʿAlī as his political successor. At best, what can be said is that ʿAlīwas a spiritual or religious successor the Prophet. Apparently, Hadith al-Ghadir, Thaqalayn or Manzila doesn’t specify any political designation for Imam ʿAlī or al-Ḥasanayn.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is obvious that the religious texts pertaining to the Prophetic Sunnah do not explicitly denote Imam ʿAlī’s Divine appointment for political authority. It can be seen from the verdicts of the Ahlulbayt that if such a thing existed, then the Prophet would have said it unequivocally in clear explicit terms. The reality is that the religious texts from the Hadiths that are used can have varying valid interpretations which conflict. More importantly, historically we understand that the Imams of Ahlulbayt never made such big claims, nor did they excommunicate those who did not appoint them, nor did they accuse them of major sin for not electing the Ahlulbayt.

Instead, Imams ʿAlī, Ḥasan & Ḥuseynargued that they had a greater right to political rule or Caliphate due to precedence & due to the unique & unparalleled virtues they possessed. Thus, Imam ʿAlī had a greater right to rule but it was not a Divinely given right, otherwise he would have explicitly mentioned it & called for it openly. Similar to how the Prophets called for their own Divinely given rights. So, the question arises, how can we speculate over such an important matter due to speculative implicit texts that could be dragged to different directions. Evidently, the evidences show us that the early Alids like al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna negated such a doctrine & they accused others of disseminating such a foreign doctrine.

• By Abul Hasan al-Gabikani al-Shadi al-Shaddadi al-Hadhabani -al-Kurdi

Bibliography

ʻAbbās, I. (1979) Al -Baladhuri: Ansab al-Ashraf. 4,1 Banu Abd-Shams Ihsan Abbas. Djamiyyat al-Mustashriqin al-Almaniyya. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Abī al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥasanī: al-Maṣābīḥ fī al-sīrah wa-al-tārīkh, Muʻassasat al-Imām Zayd

ibn ʻAlī al-Thaqāfīyah, 2002, P. 455-460

• Abrahamov, B., 1987. Al-Kāsim Ibn Ibrāhīm’s Theory of the Imamate. Arabica, 34(1),

pp.80-105.

Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (2015). The History of al-Ṭabarī Vol. 16. State University of New York Press.

Al-Ḥuseyn Sharīf al-Raḍī Muḥammad ibn et al. (2014) Nahjul-Balāgha = path of

eloquence. Newington, VA, U.S.A.: Yasin Publications.

Dakake, M., 2007. The charismatic community. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New

York Press, p.30-40, P.44-59, P.105-110, P.120-130, P.140-160

Hâdî Ilal Haqq, Abû’l-Huseyn Yahyâ b. Hüseyin. “Fî tathbîti’l-imâme”. Kitâbü’l-

muntehab wa yelîhi eydan kitâbu’l-funûn. San’a: Dârû’l Hikmeti’l-Yemaniyye,1414/1993.

• Hâdî ilal Haqq, Abû’l-Huseyn Yahyâ b. Hüseyin. “Kitâbü fîhi Ma’rifetullah”.  Mejmû‘ resâil al-Imam Hâdî-ilal Haqq al-Kawîm Yahyâ b. Huseyn. nşr. Abdullah b.

Muhammed al-Shazelî. Sa’de: Muessesetu’l-Imam Zayd b. Ali al-thaqâfiyye,

1421/2001.

• Hādī, Yahya b. al-Huseyn, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CLEAR EXPOSITION: A

COMMENTARY ON AL-HĀDI’S “THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE RELIGION”, 2011 The

Imam Rassi Society, P.44-56. P.110-130, P.145-170, P.205-223, P.254-275

Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, M. and Dhahabī, M., 1334. al-Mustadrak ʻalá al-Ṣaḥīḥayn fī al-

ḥadīth. Ḥaydarābād al-Dakkan: Maṭbaʻat Majlis Dāʼirat al-Maʻārif al-Niẓāmīyah, pp.130-135.

Ibn ʻAsk̄ir, A. and Badrān, ʻ., 1399. Tahdhīb taʼrīkh Dimashq al-kabīr. Bayrūt: Dār al-masīra, p.169.

Ibn-Ibrāhīm Al-Rassī, Q. and Wardānī, S., 1998. Tatb̲īt al-imāma. Bairūt: al-Ġadīr.

Khatib Al-Baghdadi, A.B.A.I. ’Ali (2014) Tarikh Baghdad. Al-Hakawati.

Kūfī, M. Suleiman and Maḥmūdī, M., 1412. Manāqib al-Imām Amīr al-Muʼminīn ʻAlī

ibn Abī Ṭālib, ʻalayhi al-salām. Qum: Majmaʻ Iḥyāʼ al-Thaqāfah al-Islāmīyah

Muḥammad Ibn Al-Ḥusayn Sharīf Al-Raḍī and ʻalī Ibn Abī Ṭālib, Caliph (2012). Nahj al-Balagha. London Alulbayt Foundation, [London] St Ives Westerham Press Under The Direction Of Addison Publications Ltd.

Muḥammad Ibn Saʻd and Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (2012). Kitab at-tabaqat al-kabir. Volume VI, The scholars of Kufa. London: Ta-Ha.

Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī, Salahi, M. and Nawawī, n.d. Sahih Muslim.

Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm and Jadabān, ʻ., 2001. Majmūʻ kutub wa-rasāʼil al-Imām al-Qāsim

ibn Ibrāhīm al-Rassī, 169-246 H. Ṣanʻāʼ: Dār al-Ḥikmah al-Yamānīyah.

• Qâsım b. İbrahim, Abû Muhammed b. İsmail al-Rassî al-Alawî. “al-Reddü ale’r-

Rawâfıd min Ehl’i-Ğuluw”.

Mejmû’ Kütüb ve resaili’l-İmam al-Qâsım b. İbrahim al-

Rassî. nşr. Abdülkerim Ahmed Cedban. San’a: Dârû’l Hikmeti’l-Yemaniyye,

1422/2002.

• Qâsım b. İbrahim, Abû Muhammed b. İsmâil al-Rassî al-Alawî. “al-Reddü ale’r-

Râfıda”.

• Qâsım b. İbrahim, Abû Muhammed b. İsmail al-Rassî al-Alawî. “Fusûlu’n fi’t-Tevhid”.

Mecmû’ Kütüb ve resâîli’l-İmam al-Qâsım b. İbrahim al-Rassî. nşr. Abdülkerim Ahmed

Cedban. San’a: Dârû’l Hikmeti’l-Yemaniyye, 1422/2002.

Sharīf al-Raḍī, M. and Jafery, M., 1996. Nahjul Balagha =. Elmhurst, N.Y.: Tahrike

Tarsile Quran, pp.169-173.

• Sharīf al-Raḍī, M., Muṭahharī, M. and Jibouri, Y., n.d. Nahjul Balagha =. pp.560-563.

Subkī, T., 1324. Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʻīyah al-kubrá. al-Qāhirah: al-Maṭbaʻah al-

Ḥusaynīyah, pp.165-176.

• Ṣadr, M. and Shaker, A., 1425. The emergence of Shiiʻsm and the shiites. Qom, Iran:

Imam Ali Foundation, pp. Introduction.

• Ṭabarī, M. and Howard, I., 1990. The caliphate of Yazid i b. Mu’awiyah. Albany: State

University of New York, p.26.

• Ṭabarī, M. and Mīlānī, ʻ., 2005. The glad tidings of Mustafa for the Shia of Murtazʼa.

Richmond Hill, ON: Shiabooks.ca, p.479.

Zayd ibn ʻAlī and ʻAzzān, M., 2001. Majmūʻ kutub wa-rasāʼil al-Imām Zayd ibn ʻAlī.

Ṣanʻāʼ: Dār al-Ḥikmah al-Yamānīyah.

• Zayd b. Ali. “Cevâbü Zeyd b. Ali alâ Vâsıl b. Atâ fi’l-İmâme”. Mecmû‘ kütüb ve resâîl

elİmamü’l-A’zam Emirü’l-mü’minin

Zeyd b. Ali b. Hüseyin b. Ali b. Ebî Talib. nşr.”İbrahim Yahyâ ed-Dersî el-Hamzî “. Sa’de: Merkez-i Ehli’l-Beyt li’d-Dirâsati’l-

İslâmiyye, 1422/2002.

• Zayd b. Ali. “Kitâbû’s- Safve”. Mecmû kütüb ve resâîl el-İmamü’l-A’zam Emirü’l-

mü’minin

Zayd b. Ali b. Hüseyin b. Ali b. Ebî Talib. nşr. “İbrahim Yahyâ ed-Dersî el-Hamzî “.

Sa’de: Merkez-i Ehli’l-Beyt li’d-Dirâsati’l-İslâmiyye, 1422/2002. Zeyd b. Ali. “Kitâbü

Tesbîti’l-imâme”.

• Zayd b. Ali. “Kitâbü Tesbîti’l-vasıyye”. Mecmû‘ kütüb ve resâîl el-İmamü’l-A‘zam amirü’lmü’minin Zeyd b. Ali b. Huseyin b. Ali b. Ebî Talib. nşr. “İbrahim Yahyâ ed-

Dersî elHamzî “. Sa’de: Merkez-i Ehli’l-Beyt li’d-Dirâsâti’l-İslâmiyye, 1422/2002.

• Zayd ibn ʻAli., 1992. Tafsir al-Shahid Zayd ibn ʻAli al-musamma bi-Tafsir Gharib al-

Qur’an. Ed. by Hasan M.T. al-Hakim. Beirut, al-Dar al-ʻĀlamiyah.

• Zayn al-ʻĀbidīn b. Al-Ḥusayn, ʻ. and Ṣadr, M., 1993. al-Ṣaḥīfah al-sajjādīya. Lubnān:

Muassasat al-Aʻlamī li-almaṭbūʻāt, pp.135-158.