shia imamah doctrine

7/28/2019 Shia IMAMAH Doctrine

1/50

AL-ISTIQMAH vol.1 no.1M. Taha Karaan

The Qurn and Immah

The Qurn and Immah

There is no gainsaying that of all differences that exist between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shah, the issue of Immah is by far the most serious. It is in factquite within the limits of reason and logic to say that the question of Immah isthe root of all Sunn-Sh differences; all other differences will upon closerscrutiny be found to result from the difference that exists on that central point.Therefore, no person or organisation who is serious about bringing Shs andSunns closer to one another can afford to ignore the doctrine of Immah. Allendeavours aimed at removing the barriers that separate the Ahl as-Sunnahfrom the Shah must start from this point. Starting from anywhere else would besimilar to treating the symptoms, and not the cause, of a disease. For a while thesymptoms might disappear, only to be reactivated at a later stage by the

dormant cause. Likewise, attempting to solve Sunn-Sh differences from anyperspective other than that of its root, Immah, might for the immediatemoment create the impression of removing obstacles to Muslim unity. In realitythose very same obstacles will return as soon as the euphoria at the creation ofthat unity subsides.As Muslims we are obliged to refer the differences that exist amongst us to Allhand His Rasl. In this series of articles we refer the doctrine of Immah to theQurn, with the purpose of ascertaining whether this doctrine as conceived ofand believed in by the Ithn Ashar (or Jafar) Shah is justified by Divine

Revelation or not.

The Doctrine of ImmahBefore going any further it would be well-advised, for the benefit of those whomay not be fully aware of what the Immah of the Shah means, to expandsomewhat upon the detail of the issue. Once the reader has a proper focus ofwhat Immah means to the Shah, and what its position in the belief structure ofthe Shah is, we will continue with our discussion of that doctrine in the light ofthe Qurn.


2/50

Essentially, Immah is about leadership of the Ummah after the demise ofRaslullh sallallhu alayhi wasallam. The Shah believe that just as Allh chose

Muhammad sallallhu alayhi wasallam as His Messenger to mankind, he choseand appointed a line of twelve men to succeed him as the leaders of the Ummahin all matters, spiritual as well as temporal. The first of these leaders, or Immsas they are called, was Al ibn Ab Tlib radiyallhu anhu. He was succeeded byhis eldest son Hasan, and he by his brother Husayn. After Husayn the Immahcontinued in his progeny until the year 260AH, when the twelfth Imm, a child offive, disappeared upon the death of his father. He is believed to be the AwaitedMahd who will return from occultation to establish justice upon the earth. Tothese twelve men from amongst the family of Raslullh sallallhu alayhi

wasallam alone belongs the right to assume leadership of the Ummah. There aretwo aspects to Immah that need to be looked at with attention. The first is thenature of the appointment of the Imms, and the second is the nature of theiroffice.

The nature of the appointment of the Twelve ImmsAs far as the nature of their appointment is concerned, it is a matter ofconsensus amongst the Shah that the right of their twelve Imms to lead theUmmah was bestowed by Allh Tal Himself. No distinction is made between

the appointment of Muhammad sallallhu alayhi wasallam as the Messenger ofAllh and the appointment of the twelve Imms as his successors. Underscoringthis vital aspect of Immah, Allmah Muhammad Husayn l Kshif al-Ghit, whowas the most prominent Sh lim of Najaf in Iraq during the seventies, writes inhis book Asl ash-Shah wa-Usluh:

Immah is a divine station, just like Nubuwwah. Just as Allh chooseswhomsoever He wants to for Nubuwwah and Rislah ... similarly, for Immahtoo, He selects whomsoever He wishes.1

It is interesting to note that the book from which this statement is drawn waswritten for the express purpose of correcting contemporary misconceptionsabout the Shah. Since Immah is then for all practical purposes on exactly thesame plane as Nubuwwah and Rislah, consistency would dictate that therejection of Immah be censured with the same severity as the rejection ofNubuwwah and Rislah. If rejection of the Nubuwwah of Muhammad sallallhualayhi wasallam cast the likes of Ab Jahl and Ab Lahab outside the fold of


3/50

Islm, then it is only logical to expect that rejection of the Immah of Al ibn AbTlib radiyallhu anhu should cast the likes of Ab Bakr, Umar and the rest of

the Sahbah radiyallhu anhum out of the fold of Islm. For one who views theproblem from this perspective it thus comes as no surprise to find the Shahnarrating from their Imms that "all the people became murtadd after the deathof Raslullh, except three."2 , since it is consistent with the principle thatequates Immah with Nubuwwah in the sense that each of them is a positionappointed by Allh.What is surprising is the opinion the Shah of today express about the Ahl as-Sunnah in general. One would expect them to say about the Ahl as-Sunnah asthey have said about the Sahbah: that they are unbelievers, out of the fold of

Islm. After all, there are many non-Muslims who believe in the oneness of Allh,but do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad sallallhu alayhiwasallam, and for that reason we all regard them as unbelievers. If Immah isthen a "divine station, like Nubuwwah", Sunns who do not believe in theImmah of the Twelve Imms must also be unbelievers. There have been manyulam of the Shah in the past who have displayed consistency in this regardand declared all those who deny the Immah of the Twelve Imms - like the Ahlas-Sunnah - unbelievers. For example, Ibn Bbawayh al-Qumm (died 381AH),the author of one of the four canonical hadth collections of the Shah, Man L

Yahduruh al-Faqh, states in the treatise he compiled on the creed of the Shah:

It is our belief about one who rejects the Immah of Amr al-Muminn(Sayyidun Al) and the Imms after him that he is the same as one who rejectsthe Nubuwwah of the Ambiy.It is our belief concerning a person who accepts (the Immah of) Amr al-Muminn but rejects any one of the Imms after him, that he is similar to onewho believes in all the Ambiy but rejects the Nubuwwah of Muhammadsallallhu alayhi wasallam. The Nab sallallhu alayhi wasallam said: "The Imms

after me are twelve. The first is Amr al-Muminn Al ibn Ab Tlib and the last isthe Qim (the Mahd). Obedience to them is obedience to me, and disobedienceto them is disobedience to me. Thus, whoever rejects one of them has rejectedme."Whoever wrongfully claims the Immah is an accursed oppressor. Whoeverplaces the Immah in anyone besides its rightful repositories is an accursedoppressor. The Nab sallallhu alayhi wasallam said: "Whoever shall deny Al hisImmah after me has denied my Nubuwwah, and whoever denies me my


4/50

Nubuwwah has denied Allh His divinity." Imm Jafar as-Sdiq said: "Whoeverdoubts the kufr of our enemies is himself a kfir."3

His student Shaykh Mufd (died 413AH) writes:There is consensus amongst the Immiyyah (the Ithn Ashar or Jafar Shah)that whoever denies the Immah of anyone of the Imms, and denies the duty ofobedience to them that Allh has decreed, that such a person is a kfir,misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in Hell.4

The prolific Ab Jafar at-Ts, called Shaykh at-Tifah, (died 460AH), who is theauthor of two of the four canonical hadth collections, has the following to say:

Rejection of Immah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr.5

The mujaddid of Shism in the eighth century after the Hijrah, Ibn Mutahhar al-Hill (died 726AH) expresses similar sentiments in the following terms:

Immah is a universal grace (lutf mm) while Nubuwwah is a special grace (lutfkhss), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a livingNab, while the same is not true for the Imm. To reject the universal grace is

worse than to reject the special grace.6

This is the opinion held by four of the most eminent classical scholars of theShah, and if seen from the angle of consistency, it is a commendable positionindeed. Yet, if one has to ask the Shah of today (especially recent converts toShism) whether they believe Sunns are Muslims are not, they will respond withsurprise, and might even appear grieved at such a question. As far as recentconverts to Shism are concerned, this is to be expected, since it is in theinterest of any propaganda scheme that certain facts be kept secret from

neophytes. However those who are more knowledgeable about thetechnicalities of Shism will know that in the eyes of the Shah a distinction ismade between a Muslim and a Mumin. All those who profess Islm outwardlyare Muslims: Sunns, Zayds, Mutazils, and all other sects. A Mumin, however,is only he who believes in the Twelve Imms. By this clever ruse the fuqah ofthe Shah kill several birds with one stone. By accepting all other sects asMuslims they protect themselves against the ridiculousness of casting out of thefold of Islm over 90% of its adherents, and the same men who carried the


5/50

banner of Islm to all corners of the world. At the same time they avoid theantagonism of Sunns and others, which facilitates proselytisation for them. On

the other hand, by the subtle measure of distinguishing Muslim from Muminthey effectively excommunicate their opponents. Muslims are those to whomthe laws of Islm apply in this world. It is therefore permissible to intermarrywith them, to pray behind them, to eat what they slaughter, etc., while Muminsare those to whom salvation in the hereafter belongs exclusively, and thatdepends upon belief in the Twelve Imms. This distinction between Muslim andMumin can be found throughout classical Sh literature. The seventh centuryfaqh, Yahy ibn Sad al-Hill (died 690AH), for example writes in his manual onfiqh, al-Jmi lish-Shari:

It is correct for a Muslim to make an endowment (waqf) upon Muslims. Muslimsare those who utter the two shahdahs, and their children. But if a person makessomething waqf upon the Muminn, it will be exclusively for the Immiyyah whobelieve in the Immah of the Twelve Imms.7

Eight centuries later, exactly the same view is propounded by Ayatullh al-Khumayn. In his own manual of fiqh, Tahrr al-Waslah, he states:

If a person makes a waqf upon the Muslims it will be for all those who confessthe two shahdahs ... If an Imm makes a waqf upon the Muminn it will berestricted to the Ithn Ashariyyah.8

Some amongst the contemporary spokesmen for Shism, like Kshif al-Ghit,have realised that even this ruse is not sufficiently subtle. He thus devisedanother terminology. He speaks of being a Mumin in the special sense, and ofbeing a Mumin in the general sense. Whoever believes in Immah is regarded asa Mumin in the special sense, while those who do not believe in it are regarded

as being Mumin in the general sense, as a result of which all the temporal lawsof Islm are applicable to him. The result of this difference, he says, will becomeapparent on the Day of Judgement, in the degrees of Divine proximity andhonour that will be bestowed upon the believers in Immah.9To us this reveals much more than what the author intended. It reveals to usthat when the Shah say they regard Sunns as Muslims, it is in strict reference toworldly matters. In eschatological matters, matters of the hereafter, Sunns whodo not believe in the Immah of the Twelve Imms are just like Jews, Christians,


6/50

Buddhists, Hindus or any other rejectors of the Nubuwwah of Raslullhsallallhu alayhi wasallam. The only reason for saying that Sunns are Muslims is

expedience and convenience. Without professing such an opinion the Shahwould have had to retreat into seclusion and bear ostracism from the rest of theMuslim world. This reason is given by Sayyid Abdullh Shubbar (died 1232AH) inhis commentary of az-Ziyrat al-Jmiah, the comprehensive du read at thegraves of the Imms. At the point where the ziyrah reads:

Whoever denies you is a kfir,

he comments upon it, saying:

There are many narrations that indicate that the opponents are kfir. Todocument all of them would require a separate book. Reconciling suchnarrations with that which is known about the Imms, viz. that they used to live,eat and socialise with them, leads to the conclusion that they (the opponents)are kfir, and that they will dwell in Hell forever, but that in this world the lawsof Islm are applied to them as a gesture of mercy and beneficence to the TrueDenomination (the Shah), since it is impossible to avoid them.10

The nature of the office of the Imms

On this point it would be sufficient to say that the Shah bestow upon theirImms all the perfections and accomplishments of the Ambiy, and even more.It would be impossible to document here all the narrations that deal with thestatus of the Imms, but it might be just as informative to quote the chaptersunder which they have been documented in a source that is described as a"veritable encyclopaedia of the knowledge of the Imms": Bihr al-Anwr ofAllmah Muhammad Bqir al-Majlis (died 1111AH), widely reputed to be thegreatest and most influential Sh scholar of the Safawid era. During his lifetimehe occupied the office of Shaykh al-Islm in Isfahan, capital of the Safawids, and

even to this day his works are indispensable to the Sh clergy as well as their laypublic. We quote here the name of the chapter, as well as the number ofnarrations he documents in each chapter:

1. The Imms possess more knowledge than the Ambiy (13 narrations)112. The Imms are superior to the Ambiy and the entire creation. The Covenantof the Imms was taken from them (the Ambiy), the Malikah and the entirecreation. The (major prophets called) ulul-Azm (Nh, Ibrhm, Ms and Is )


7/50

attained the status of ulul-Azm on account of loving the Imms. (88narrations)12

3. The dus of the Ambiy were answered because they invoked thewaslah of the Imms. (16 narrations)134. The Imms can bring the dead back to life. They can cure blindness andleprosy. They possess all the miracles of the Ambiy (4 narrations)145. Nothing of the knowledge of Heaven, Earth, Jannah and Jahannam is hiddenfrom them. The Kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth was shown to them. Theyknow all that happened and that will happen upto the Day of Resurrection. (22narrations)156. The Imms know the truth of a person's faith or hypocrisy. They possess a

book that contains the names of the inmates of Jannah, the names of theirsupporters and their enemies. (40 narrations)16

The titles of these chapters create quite a vivid impression of the narratedmaterial upon which the Shah base their faith. The office of Immah can thusbe seen to incorporate more than just the political leadership of the Ummah.The Imms are more than just heads of state with a divine right to rule. They arethe repositories of every branch of knowledge and perfection possessed by theAmbiy. The existence of the world depends upon their presence. They are the

intermediaries upon whose intercession acceptance of the prayers of even theAmbiy depends. Their office is one that combines political, religious, scientific,cosmological and metaphysical supremacy over the entire creation. From thisone can understand the reason for al-Khumayn's statement in the book al-Hukmat al-Islmiyyah, upon which rests the entire philosophy of his revolution:

It is of the undeniable tenets of our faith that our Imms possess a status withAllh that neither Angel nor Messenger can aspire to.17

After this introduction to the concept of Immah, the nature of the appointmentof the Imms, and the nature of their office, we pose the question: Is belief insuch a concept justified and upheld by the Qurn? Surely a belief of suchmomentousness, an article of faith with such far reaching consequences, thatsupercedes even belief in the Ambiy, must be rooted in the Qurn, the bookwhich was revealed by Allh


8/50

as an explanation of all things, a guide, a mercy, and glad tidings to the Muslims.

(an-Nahl:89)

It is with the purpose of answering this question that this series of articles iswritten.

To be continued.________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1.Asl ash-Shah wa-Usluh p. 58 (Mussasat al-Alam, Beirut)2.al-Kf vol. 8 (Rawdat al-Kf) p. 167 (Dr al-Adw, Beirut, 1992)3.Rislat al-Itiqd pp. 111-114, quoted by al-Majlis: Bihr al-Anwr

vol. 27 p. 62 (Dr al-Kutub al-Islmiyyah, Tehran, 1387)4.al-Masil, quoted in Bihr al-Anwr vol. 8 p. 3665.Talkhs ash-Shf vol. 4 p. 131 (Dr al-Kutub al-Islmiyyah, Qum,

3rd ed. 1394)6. al-Alfayn p. 3 (al-Maktabah al-Haydariyyah, Najaf, 3rd ed. 1388)7.al-Jmi lish-Shari p. 371 (Muassasat Sayyid ash-Shuhad

al-Ilmiyyah, Qum, 1405)8.Tahrr al-Waslah vol. 2 p. 72 (Muassasat Ismliyn, Qum 1408)9. Asl ash-Shah wa-Usluh pp. 58-5910. al-Anwr al-Lmiah Sharh az-Ziyrat al-Jmiah p. 176 (Muassasat

al-Bithah, Mashhad, 1st ed. 1457)11. Bihr al-Anwr vol. 26 pp. 194-20012. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 267-31813. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 319-33214. ibid. vol. 27 pp. 29-31

15. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 109-10716. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 117-13217. al-Hukmat al-Islmiyyah p. 52 (Ministry of Guidance, Iran. )the Ambiy and the entire creation. The Covenant of the Imms was taken fromthem


9/50

AL-ISTIQMAH vol.1 no.2

The Qurn and Immah

The Qurn and Immah (2)

Immah and Nubuwwah in the QurnIn this article we investigate the Qurnic foundations of the Shite concept of

Immah. By analysis of the usage of the word imm and its plural form aimmahin the Qurn we will investigate whether the Qurn provides any basis for thedoctrine of Immah as formulated in Shite theology.In limiting our investigation to the Qurn, it is not our contention that theSunnah is inconsequential in issues of doctrine. Instead, it is out of the convictionthat a doctrinal issue like Immah, which Shite theology places aboveNubuwwah, must find textual support from the Qurn. After all, the"secondary" issue of Nubuwwah finds more than ample support in the pages ofthe Qurn. No one, after reading the clear and unambiguous Qurnic texts

wherein Allh makes mention of His Messengers and Prophets, their status,

86And each (of them) we favoured above all the worlds. (al-Anm : 86)

their stories,

9

And has there come to you the story of Ms? (Th : 9)

69And recite to them the story of Ibrhm. (ash-Shuar : 69)

3We relate unto you you the most beatiful of stories. (Ysuf : 3)


10/50

the explicit mention of their names,

83

84 85 86

Such was the argument we gave Ibrhm against his people. We raise in degreewhomsoever We will, and your Lord is Wise, All-Knowing. We gave him Ishqand Yaqb; each of them We guided. And before that, We guided Nh, andamong his (Ibrhm's) progeny (We guided) Dwd, and Sulaymn, and Ayyb,and Ysuf, and Ms, and Hrn; thus do We reward those who good. And (Weguided) Zakariyy, and Yahy, and Is, and Ilys; all of them of the Righteous.And Isml, and Alyasa, and Ynus, and Lt; each of them We favoured aboveall the worlds. (al-Anm : 83-86)

and the importance of belief in them as an integral part of faith in Islm,

136And whoever denies Allh, His Messengers, His Books and the Last Day hasclearly gone astray. (an-Nis : 136)

can reasonably doubt that the Qurn supports, or rather enjoins, belief inNubuwwah. The question now is: Does the same hold true for Immah? If

Immah is superior to Nubuwwah, as the theology of the Ithn Ashar Shahteaches, it would be only reasonable to expect that the Qurn would deal inequally explicit terms with Immah; and if not, that at least a clear, unambiguouspicture what Immah is and who the Imms are, would be drawn by the Qurn.

A bookThe word imm recurs 7 times in the Qurn, while its plural form, aimmah,appears 5 times.In 3 of these cases it refers explicitly to a book:


11/50

And before it was the Book of Ms, a guide and a mercy. (Hd : 17)

And before it was the Book of Ms, a guide and a mercy. (al-Ahqf : 12)

12Verily, we will restore the dead to life, and we write that which they sent forth,and that which they left behind; and of everything we have taken account in a

Clear Book. (Ysn : 12)

The champions of kufrIn another 2 cases it refers to the champions of kufr:

12 Fight the leaders of kufr. (at-Tawbah : 12)

41And We made them leaders who call towards the Fire. (al-Qasas : 41)

A roadOne reference is to a clearly discernible road:

79

And verily, the two (cities) lie next to a clear road. (alHijr : 79)

Leadership of the IsraelitesIn the remaining six places where the word is used, it is used in terms of its literalmeaning, i.e. leadership. In Srah al-Ambiy it is stated:


12/50

69 70

71 72

73

We said: O fire, be cool and (a means of ) safety unto Ibrhm. And they plannedagainst him; but We made them the greater losers. And We delivered him andLt to the land which We blessed for the nations. And We gave him Ishq, and

Yaqb as an additional gift; and all of them We made righteous men. And Wemade them leaders who guide by Our command; and We revealed to them thedoing of good, the establishment of prayer and the giving of alms. And they weremen who served Us. (al-Ambiy : 69-73)

In this extract, which had to be extended somewhat in order that the reader maysee the full context in which the word aimmah is used, one clearly sees itsassociation with the function of the Ambiy as the leaders of men, who guidethem towards Allh. This unequivocal identification of aimmah as Ambiy leads

us to conclude that the reference in Srah as-Sajdah too, is to the Ambiy, andnot to any other category of men:

23 24

Indeed, We gave Ms the Book, so be not in doubt about meeting him; and Wemade it a (source of) guidance for the Children of Isrl. And We made fromamongst them leaders who guided by Our command, when they persevered.And they had full certainty in Our signs. (as-Sajdah : 23-24)

Even if the scope of aimmah in this verse were to be extended to include peopleother than the Ambiy, there is nothing to justify its identification with theelaborate doctrine of Immah as conceived of by the Shah.In a third verse Allh speaks of His plans for the oppressed Israelites in Egypt:


13/50

5

And We wished to be gracious to those who were oppressed in the land, and tomake them leaders, and to make them heirs. (al-Qasas : 5)

In order to see who the word aimmah refers to in this verse one only has to lookat the persons in whom this divine wish came to fulfilment. It was primarily inNab Ms and the other prophet-kings of Ban Isrl like Nab Dwd and NabSulaymn alayhimus salm that the leadership referred to in this verse, came tobe vested. If at times they were ruled by men other than the Ambiy, the statusof those leaders was never seen to be superior to the rank of the Ambiy.Verses like the above three, apart from dealing specifically with the Ambiy ofBan Isrl, are not in the least indicative of the existence of a rank like that ofImmah as conceived of by the Shah.

Leadership of the piousThere remain three places where the word imm is mentioned in the Qurn. Inone of these three places Allh speaks of the prayer of His exemplaryworshippers:

74

(They are) those who say: Our Lord, grant us the coolness of (our) eyes in ourwives and children, and make us leaders of the pious. (al-Furqn : 74)

This verse speaks of normal people who do not belong to a special class like theAmbiy, asking Allh to make them imms, in the sense of paragons of virtue,

whose example others would strive to emulate. It is very obvious that it cannotrefer to a group of "divinely appointed Imms", for the reason that the Imms'elevation to the rank of Immah is not on account of their prayers. Since theirappointment, like that of the Ambiy, is supposedly divine in origin, it notattainable by any amount of exertion or devotion.It is interesting to note that this verse proved to be so unpalatable to certain ofthe early Shah that they declared it to have been corrupted. The following


14/50

narration appears in the tafsr of Al ibn Ibrhm al-Qumm, the teacher of AbJafar al-Kulayn:

It was read to Ab Abdillh (i.e. Imm Jafar as-Sdiq):

And make us leaders of the pious.

He said: 'It would be an enormous thing for them to ask Allh to make themImms of the pious.' [The Sh concept of an Imm is intended, of course, sincethe Imms are appointed, and no one can become an Imm by praying for it.]Someone enquired: 'How was it then revealed, O son of Raslullh?'

He replied: 'It was revealed:

...and make for us leaders from amongst the pious.1

This narration, documented in a tafsr of great repute amongst the early tafsrsof the Shah, (a tafsr, in fact, that is described by its twentieth century editor asbeing "in reality the commentary of the Imms al-Bqir and as-Sdiq",2 and eachone of whose narrators is regarded as reliable and credible by Sh hadthexperts3, which vouches for its authenticity by Sh standards) obviates the need

for further discussion around the meaning of the word Imm as it appears in thisyah.

On the Day of JudgementIn Srah al-Isr Allh Tal says:

The day when we will call all people by their leaders. (al-Isr : 71)

The Imm spoken of in this yah is recognised by the mufassirn of the Ahl as-Sunnah as either the book of deeds or the prophet to whose Ummah the personbelonged. The first meaning is preferred by Ibn Kathr,4 who mentions in supportof his preference the yt where the word Imm was used in the sense of a book(see above). This meaning is further supported by the rest of the yah:

71


15/50

So those who are given their book in their right hand will read their books.

The second meaning also finds ample support in the Qurn. In another yahAllh says:

41How will it be when We bring forth from every Ummah a witness, and bring you(O Muhammad) as a witness over these? (an-Nis:41)

From the way in which the position of the Nab sallallhu alayhi wasallam is

compared to the position of the "witnesses" of the other Ummahs we can onlyconclude that the reference is to the Ambiy. It therefore follows that thoseUmmahs will be called by the names of their Ambiy. Calling the Ummahs of thepast by the names of the Ambiy who were sent to them is further a commonthing in both the Qurn and the Sunnah. The d, for example, are commonlyreferred to as "the people of Hd", just like Ban Isrl are called "the people ofMs". Identifying the Imm mentioned in the yah under discussion with theAmbiy is therefore warranted by both the Qurn and the Sunnah.As for the claim of the Shah that it refers to the Twelve Imms,5 this claim not

only lacks Qurnic support, it also curtails the general scope of the yah. Thelack of Qurnic support is evident from the above discussion on the usage of theword Imm in the Qurn. The restriction of the general scope of the yah arisesfrom the chronological disparity between the times when the Twelve Immslived, and the periods during which previous Ummahs flourished. If we say thatall Ummahs will be called by the names of the Twelve Imms, then what aboutthe Ummahs that existed before them? By whose name will they be called? Afterall, the yah says that all people will be called by their leaders.In addition, when for argument's sake we do assume that the reference is to the

the Twelve Imms, we are left with a somewhat incongruous situation.Sayyidun Al, the first of the Twelve Imms, died in the year 40. His sonSayyidun Hasan died nine years later, in 49. If Sayyidun Al is the Imm for thepeople of his time, Sayyidun Hasan is left with only those people who wereborn during his nine years. All the other people of his time who were alive duringhis father's time will form part of his father's group, and not his. The tenure ofthe 3rd Imm lasted for 22 years; the 4th for 34 years; the 5th for 19 years; the6th for 34 years; the 7th for 35 years; the 8th for 20 years; the 9th for 17 years;the 10th for 34 years; and the 11th for only 6 years. Suddenly, with the 12th


16/50

Imm, the Awaited Mahd, we have a tenure of Immah that has been runningfor over 1200 years. The group that will supposedly be called by the name of the

11th Imm, for example, will only include people that were born during hisImmah that ran from 254 up to 260, while the numbers of those who will becalled by the name of the 12th Imm will be practically incalculable.Compare this incongruous scenario with the much more orderly and Qurnicsystem of having the various Ummahs called by the names of their Ambiy onthe Day of Qiymah, and the absurdity of using the 71st yah of Srah al-Isr tosubstantiate the doctrine of Immah as conceived of by the Shah will be fullyexposed. There can be no question that the word Imm in this yah does notrefer to the Twelve Imms.

To be continued.________________________________________________________________

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.Tafsr (Al ibn Ibrhm) al-Qumm vol.1 p. 10 (ed. Sayyid Tayyib al-Msaw, 2ndedition, Kitbfarosh Allmeh, Qum 1968)2.ibid., editor's introduction.

3.Ab Tlib at-Tajll at-Tabrz: Mujam ath-Thiqt p. 224 (Muassasat an-Nashr al-Islm, Qum 1404AH). In this book the author has compiled a list of all reliablehadth narrators of the Shah. One of his sources is the tafsr of al-Qumm. In thethird chapter of this book he gives a list of the narrators upon whom al-Qummhas relied in narrating the material contained in his tafsr, quoting al-Qumm'sstatement in the introduction to his book, that "we will mention and informabout that which reached us, which our mentors and reliable narrators havenarrated". He then quotes the author of Wasil ash-Shah who states that "Alibn Ibrhm al-Qumm has testified that his tafsr is narrated from the Imms by

reliable narrators." (Wasil vol. 3 p. 524)4.Tafsr Ibn Kathr vol. 3 p. 52 (Maktabah Dr at-Turth, Cairo n.d.)5.In the first volume of al-Kf this yah is used thrice in relation to the Imms.


17/50

The Immah of Ibrhm alayhis salm

):124(

And (remember) when Ibrhm was tested by his Lord with certain words

(commands), and he fulfilled them. (Allh) said: I will make you an Imm to

mankind. (Ibrhm said): And also from my offspring. (Allh) said: My

Covenant will not be attained by the Unjust. (al-Baqarah:124)

This yah is probably the most frequently cited proof for the Sh doctrine of

Immah. There are several angles to their approprition of the yah in support of

their belief. Our foremost concern here is with the meaning and connotation of the

word imm as it appears here. Further on we will also examine the issue of the

offspring of Ibrhm.

Isolation

As far as the connotation of the word imm is concerned, we first need to recall

that none of the other usages of the word imm in the Qurn supports the

existence of a divinely ordained rank distinct from and superior to the rank of

Nubuwwah and Rislah. We have seen it used to denote a book, or a record of

deeds. We have seen it used in the sense of a clearly discernible road. We found it

at places to refer to the champions of Kufr. At times it indicated leadership of thepious, but that leadership we found to be incompatible with the Sh concept of

Immah, since it is of an acquired nature, and not divinely ordained. We also

found it to refer to the Ambiy of Ban Isrl, in which case it is a reference to the

Ambiy's function of leadership and guidance of their people, and certainly not a

rank apart from and higher than that of Nubuwwah.

Therefore, when we look at the Sh claim that the Immah of Ibrhm mentioned

in this yah is the same as the Immah they ascribe to their Twelve Imms, we


18/50

have to treat it as an isolated argument that is unsupported by instances where the

word imm is used in the Qurn. This isolation in which the argument finds itself

is in itself a most potent argument against the Sh claim, since any cardinalarticle of faith (which is what the Shah believe Immah to be) obviously

deserves much more than a single reference in isolation. Compare this with the

way in which reference is made to other cardinal articles of faith: Tawhd,

Rislah, Malikah, life after death etc. Reference to issues like these are so

frequent and abundant that they may well be looked upon as major themes of the

Qurn, and therefore undeniable tenets of faith. Does a single isolated reference,

the connotation of which is thereupon highly debatable, constitute adequate

grounds for believing that the Qurn upholds and teaches the existence of therank of Immah, distinct from and superior to that of Nubuwwah and Rislah?

Connotation

After this preliminary discussion we now turn to the meaning of the word imm

as used in the context of this yah. According to a Sh tradition Sayyidun

Ibrhm was already a Nab when Allh told him He would make him an Imm

for people. It thus follows that Immah has to be a status separate fromNubuwwah as well as superior to it. The narration goes:

Zayd ash-Shahhm says: I heard Ab Abdillh (i.e. Imm Jafar as-Sdiq)

saying: "Verily Allh made Ibrhm an Abd (slave) before He made him a Nab.

And verily Allh made him a Nab before He made him a Rasl. And verily Allh

made him a Rasl before He made him a Khall (friend). And verily Allh made

him an Khall before He made him an Imm.1

This manner of regarding the Immah of Sayyidun Ibrhm alayhis salm

creates several questions. Firstly, if it as as the Shah claim, that his appointment

as Imm superceded in excellence all his other distinctions, then why is it that

nowhere else in the Qurn is he referred to as "Imm"? We find that Allh speaks

of him as Nab and Siddq:


19/50

):41(And make mention in the Book of Ibrhm. Verily he was a Siddq (truthful)

and a Nab. (Maryam:41)

We find mention the sterling qualities he possessed:

):75(

Verily Ibrhm was forbearing, compassionate and given to look to Allh.

(Hd:75)

):120-122(

Ibrhm was indeed an Ummah, devoutly obedient to Allh and true in faith.

He was not of the Mushrikn. He was grateful for (Allhs) favours. We chose

him and guided him to a straight way. And We gave him good in this world,

and he will be, in the Hereafter, of the Righteous.(an-Nahl:120-122)

):45-47(

And commemorate Our servants Ibrhm, Ishq and Yaqb, possessors of

power and vision. Verily We selected them for a special pupose: (to proclaim)

the message of the Hereafter. And verily, they were of the Elect and the Good.

(Sd:45-47)


20/50

Nowhere in the Qurn is there to be found any reference to Sayyidun Ibrhm

alayhis salm as Imm. Another question which poses itself here is that if

Sayyidun Ibrhm alayhis salm became an Imm only after he had alreadybeen a Nab, a Rasl and a Khall, who was the Imm for the time that he was not

yet given that status? Sh tradition is very emphatic that the earth cannot exist

without an Imm; in al-Kfthere is an independent chapter under The earth can

never be void of a Hujjah (Imm).2 If there lived during the time that Sayyidun

Ibrhm alayhis salm was successively an Abd, Nab, Rasl and Khall,

someone who was superior in rank to him, why is it that the Qurn is completely

silent about that person? The same may be said about all the other supposed

Imms in history. The Qurn is completely silent about their existence.Whenever mentioned is made in the Qurn of Imms in the sense of leadership

and guidance towards Allh it is with reference to the Ambiy. There is no

mention at all of Imms other than the Ambiy. This clearly means that in the

terminology of the Qurn the term Imm does not denote a rank distinct from

and superior to Nubuwwah. Rather it indicates the major function of the

Ambiy, which is to guide mankind towards Allh. The Qurn itself is

unequivocal about that. After mentioning by name eighteen of the Ambiy, Allh

says:

)88:(

That is the guidance with which Allh guides whomsoever of His servants He

chooses. (al-Anm:88)

Then Allh goes on to say:

):90(

Those are the men whom Allh has guided, so follow you their guidance. (al-

Anm:90)


21/50

The Qurn recognises no divinely appointed guides for humanity other than the

Ambiy. Therefore, when we notice the Ambiy being referred to in the Qurn as

Imms we are compelled to read therein the fact that guidance of mankind wastheir prime duty, and not that they were Imms in addition to being Ambiy, or

that there could be Imms who were not Ambiy. This also is the meaning of

the Immah of Ibrhm alayhis salm.

There is, however, a very special reason why the Qurn makes particular mention

of his Immah. Sayyidun Ibrhm, amongst all the Ambiy, was that Nab who is

recognised as the father of the worlds major religions. Islm, shares with Judaism

and Christianity the collective name of the Abrahamic faiths. Even Hinduism, it

is claimed, reveres the personality of Sayyidun Ibrhm, though distortedly asBrahma. There is probably no other Nab of antiquity whose influence over

mankind has been as huge as that of Sayyidun Ibrhm alayhis salm. It comes

therefore as no surprise that when the time dawned for Islm to supplant all other

religions, it was the pure religion of Ibrhm that Allh ordered His final and

beloved messenger Sayyidun Muhammad sallallhu alayhi wa-lih wasallam

to emulate:

):123(

Then We revealed to you (O Muhammad): Follow the religion of Ibrhm, the

True in Faith. (an-Nahl:123)

The Offspring of Ibrhm

Sayyidun Ibrhm pleaded with Allh to extend the Immah which Allh

promised him, to his progeny after him. Since the Twelve Imms of the Shah are

also of the offspring of Sayyidun Ibrhm, they claim the yah as proof of their

Immah. Since we have already demonstrated that the Immah of Sayyidun

Ibrhm is for all practical purposes synonimous with his Nubuwwah, we

maintain here too, that the extension of that promise meant the gift of Nubuwwah

to men from amongst his progeny, and as such it was realised in the elevation of


22/50

Isml, Ishq, Yaqb, Ysuf, Ms, Hrn, Dwd, Sulaymn, Ilys, Yahy,

Is and finally Muhammad alayhimus salm to the rank of Ambiy. Extension

of the divine promise is warranted by the Qurn only upto this extent. TheQurn does not mention anything beyond that. This is borne out by the following

verse:

):27(

And We ordained amongst his progeny Prophethood and Revelation. (al-

Ankabt:27)

The fact that no mention is made of Immah as a gift extended to his progeny

shows that there is no such a thing in the Qurn as Immah. The gift that Allh

extended to the offspring of Sayyidun Ibrhm alayhis salm was Nubuwwah

and Wahy. The names of the recipients of this gift have been expressly mentioned

in a number of places in the Qurn. In Srah al-Anm, for example, Allh says:

. . ):83-86(

Such was the argument we gave Ibrhm against his people. We raise indegree whomsoever We will, and your Lord is Wise, All-Knowing. We gave

him Ishq and Yaqb; each of them We guided. And before that, We guided

Nh, and among his (Ibrhm's) progeny (We guided) Dwd, and Sulaymn,and Ayyb, and Ysuf, and Ms, and Hrn; thus do We reward those who

good. And (We guided) Zakariyy, and Yahy, and Is, and Ilys; all of themof the Righteous. And Isml, and Alyasa, and Ynus, and Lt; each of them

We favoured above all the worlds. (al-Anm : 83-86)


23/50

Finally, it must be remebered that this gift of Nubuwwah and came to an end inSayyidun Muhammad Raslullhsallallhu alayhi wa-lih wasallam.

):40(

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of

Allh and the Seal of the Prophets. (al-Ahzb: 40)

This unequivocal identification of the gift and its recipients proves once again

that the word imm in the yah quoted at the start of this artice refers to nothing

other than Nubuwwah, and does not in the least provide grounds for belief in

Immah as conceived of by the Shah.

_________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. al-Kf (Usl) vol. 1 p. 230 (Dr al-Adw, Beirut 1992)

2. ibid. vol. 1 p. 233


24/50

The yah ofWilyah

):55(

YourWal is only Allh, His Messenger, and the believers who establish salh and give

zakh, and they bow down. (al-Midah:55)

Meaning and context

This verse is called the yah ofWilyah due to the appearance of the word wal

in it. The word wilyah may have one of two meanings. The one meaning is

authority. The wal would then be the possessor of authority. The Shah have

arbitrarily latched on to this meaning, seeking thereby to prove the Immah of

Al. By coupling this meaning of the term to the narrations which we will discuss

in due coursethe gist of which is that Sayyidun Al once gave his ring to a

beggar whilst in the state of ruk, and that the yah was revealed on that

occasionthey draw the conclusion that the only legitimate authority in the

Muslim community is that of Allh, His Messenger and the Imm. Any other kind

of authority, like that of Ab Bakr, Umar and Uthmn for example, is then

illegitimate and contradicts the Qurn.

The other meaning of wilyah, which in this sense might also appear as

walyah, is a relationship of affection, attachment and solidarity in which each

individual becomes the friend and protector of the other. In this sense the walisthen that person or entity whom you regard as your friend, your ally, the one

with whom you associate, who can be counted upon to protect you and defend

your rights. In this sense it stands opposed to terms such as enemy, foe and

adversary.

In order to see which of these two meanings apply to the yah, one needs to

look at the context in which it stands. The yah of Wilyah is the 55th yah of


25/50

Srah al-Midah. For us to get the complete picture of the context in which it

stands, we need to go back a few yt. In yah no. 51 Allh Tal says:

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as yourawliy (plural ofwal).

They are theawliy of one another. Whoever amongst you takes them as hisawliy is one of

them. Verily Allh does not guide the unjust people.

It can be seen from this yah that Allh Tal is definitely not speaking of

wilyah in the sense of authority. What is being spoken of here is taking non-

Muslims as allies, friends and protectors. When Allh then says in yah 55 that

your true walis only Allh, His Messenger and the Believers it is clear that it is

the relationship of wilyah, and not wilyah in the sense of authority, that is

meant.

This meaning ofwilyah is repeated again in yah 57:

O you who believe, do not take as yourawliy those who take your religion for a mockery

and fun from amongst those who received the Scripture before you, and from amongst the

disbelievers.

In light of the fact that in the preceding as well as successive yt wilyah is used

in the sense of the relationship we have described earlier, it is unacceptable to


26/50

claim that in this yah in the middle it has been used in the sense of authority.

The meaning of the yah of Wilyah is therefore that a Muslims allegiance

should be only to Allh, His Rasl and the Believers. Of the exclusive and pre-emptive right to authority which the Shah seek to read into it, the yah does

not speak at all.

This is further corroborated by an authentic narration documented by Ibn Jarr

at-Tabar and others that yah 51 was revealed in connection with Ubdah ibn

Smit and Abdullh ibn Ubayy, both of whom had wilyah relationships with

the Jews of Madnah.Ubdah came to Raslullh and announced that he was

severing all ties of wilyah with them, while Abdullh ibn Ubayy insisted onkeeping ties with them, saying that he feared a turnabout of circumstances. It

was then that the 55th yah of Srah al-Midah was revealed. 1

Narrations

The main grounds for forcing the yah out of its context has to be the narrations

that exist, according to which it was revealed when Sayyidun Al gave hisring to a beggar whilst in the position of ruk. In the following we will

investigate the authenticity of those narrations. It must be remembered, as a

principle, that untruthfulness in narrating hadth was a very real phenomenon in

the early centuries of Islm, the result of which has been that a lot of spurious,

unauthentic material was brought into circulation. Much of this material was

later included into hadth collections by compilers who were motivated more by

a desire to document a largely oral tradition, than to separate authentic from

unauthentic material. Whoever thereafter wishes to utilise the material thuscompiled will first have to ascertain the authenticity of the material he wishes to

quote. By failing to first prove the authenticity of ones quoted material, the

entire argument which is based upon that material is rendered useless.

After this very important introductory remark, we now launch into a study of

the available material. We will first look at what has been narrated from some of


27/50

the Tbin, and thereafter at what has been narrated with chains of narration

that go right back to the Sahbah.

1. Narrations from Sahbah

The sources at our disposal contain narrations of the supposed incident whose

sanads (chains of narration) go back to four different Sahbah. They are:

1. Sayyidun Abdullh ibn Abbs

2. Sayyidun Ammr ibn Ysir

3. Sayyidun Al ibn Ab Tlib himself.

4. Sayyidun Ab Rfi

1.1 Abdullh ibn Abbs

1.1.1 There are at least three separate sanads from Ibn Abbs in which this storyis recounted. The first is recorded by Ab Bakr ibn Mardawayh in his Tafsrand

al-Whid in his book Asbb an-Nuzl. Ibn Mardawayhs Tafsrhas not survived,

but al-Whids book has been published a number of times, and it is known

from as-Suyts ad-Durr al-Manthr2 that these two sources have at least the

last portion of their isnds in common. This last portion is as follows:

Muhammad ibn Marwn Muhammad ibn as-Sib Ab Slih IbnAbbs3

This isnd is one of the most famous chains of forgery. Each one of the three

narrators before Ibn Abbs was a notorious liar. Ab Slih, whose name was

Bdhm or Bdhn, was described as a liar by his own student Isml ibn Ab

Khlid.4


28/50

The next narrator, Muhammad ibn as-Sib al-Kalb, was one of the most

notorious liars of Kfah. His biography in al-Mizzs Tahdhb al-Kamlis filled with

statements of the ulam of his time who denounced him as an extremelyunreliable reporter, and even a blatant liar.5 Two of the statements in his

biography are of particular interest here. The one is a statement by his kinsman

Ab Janb al-Kalb who records Ab Slih as saying that he never read any tafsr

to Muhammad ibn as-Sib. The second is a admission of guilt narrated from al-

Kalb by Imm Sufyn ath-Thawr wherein al-Kalb says, Whatever tafsr I

narrated from Ab Slih is untrue. Do not narrate it from me.

The third person in this isndis Muhammad ibn Marwn, who is also knownas as-Sudd as-Saghr (the younger Sudd). In him we have another notorious

forger whose mendacity was exposed by both his contemporaries and the

ulam who came after him.6 This particular chain of narration (as-Sudd as-

Saghral-KalbAb Slih) became so infamous amongst the ulam that it was

given the epithet Silsilat al-Kadhib (the Chain of Mendacity).7

1.1.2 The second isndfrom Ibn Abbs is also documented in the Tafsrof IbnMardawayh. It runs through ad-Dahhk ibn Muzhim from Ibn Abbs. The weak

point in this isnd lies in the fact that ad-Dahhk never met Ibn Abbs, leave

alone narrate from him.8 In the book al-Jarh wat-Tadlby Ibn Ab Htim ar-Rz

there is a narration which throws some light upon the link ad-DahhkIbn

Abbs. Ibn Ab Htim narrates with an authentic isndfrom Abd al-Malik ibn

Ab Maysarah that he asked ad-Dahhk: Did you personally hear anything from

Ibn Abbs? Ad-Dahhk replied in the negative. Abd al-Malik then asked him:

So this which you narrate (from him), from whom did you take it? Ad-Dahhk

replied: From this one and that one.9

This shows that ad-Dahhk was not very careful about the persons from

whom he received the material he later transmitted from Ibn Abbs. Having

been a contemporary of Muhammad ibn as-Sib al-Kalb, it is not at all

improbable that he might have heard the story of the beggar from him.


29/50

1.1.3 The third isnd Ibn Abbs goes through the famous mufassir Mujhidibn Jabr from Ibn Abbs. It is narrated by Abd ar-Razzq as-Sann in his Tafsr.

He narrates it from Abd al-Wahhb ibn Mujhid, who narrates it from his father

Mujhid. Abd al-Wahhb ibn Mujhid is described by the rijlcritics as matrk,

which implies that his unreliability is a matter of consensus amongst them.10

Imm Sufyn ath-Thawr described him as a liar.11 There is even doubt about

whether he ever heard hadth from his father.11

An alternative narration from Ibn Abbs

From the above it can be seen that not one of the various narrations from Ibn

Abbs is authentic. In addition to their spuriousness they also contradict

another more reliable report from Ibn Abbs on the tafsr of this yah. This

report is documented in the Tafsr of Ibn Jarr, who narrates it with his isnd

from the Tafsrof Al ibn Ab Talhah. According to this report Ibn Abbs was of

the opinion that the words and those who believe, who establish salh and givezakh, and they bow downin the yah refer to all Muslims in general.12 This

interpretation by Ibn Abbs is not only in harmony with the meaning ofwilyah

as outlined above, it also agrees with the use of the plural form ( those who

believe) in the yah.

1.2 Ammr ibn Ysir

The hadth featuring Sayyidun Ammr ibn Ysir as its narrator is recorded in

al-Mujam al-Awsat of at-Tabrn. This book has been only partially published;

out of a total of 10 volumes we are in possession of only 3. However, we do have

an idea of the state of its isnd from Abul Hasan al-Haythams Majma az-

Zawid13 as well as as-Suyts Lubb an-Nuql.14 Both of them state

unequivocally that the isnd of this hadth consists of a string of unknown

persons. With an isnd such as this the possibility is always strong that the


30/50

names appearing in it never belonged to real persons; that they are fictitious

names invented by some or other hadth forger. This is then the reason why the

critics are unable to trace them as hadth narrators.

1.3 Al ibn Ab Tlib

The hadth with Sayyidun Al ibn Ab Tlib as its narrator was contained in

the Tafsrof Ibn Mardawayh, a source which, to the best of our knowledge, no

longer exists. However, Hfiz Ibn Kathr in his Tafsr has stated that this

narration, like that of Ammr and Ab Rfi, is unreliable due to the weaknessof their isnds and the fact that their narrators are unknown.15 The fact that

amongst all hadth sources it is only in the relatively late Tafsrof Ibn Mardawayh

(died 410 AH) that this narration appears, is a further indication of its

spuriousness.

1.4 Ab Rfi

This narration too, is recorded by Ibn Mardawayh. Fortunately it is also recorded

by at-Tabrn in his work al-Mujam al-Kabr,16 so unlike the previous case, we

are in a position to conduct a first-hand investigation into its isnd. Before going

into that it must first be noted that this narration differs from all of the above

versions in that it does not recount the story of the beggar. It only speaks of

Raslullh waking up from his sleep and reciting this yah. Thereafter he tells

Ab Rfi that there will come a people who will fight Al, and that it will be

incumbent upon people to fight them. In ad-Durr al-Manthr17

, where it is statedas being recorded by Ibn Mardawayh, at-Tabrn as well as Ab Nuaym, there is

an addition which goes that after reciting the yah Raslullh said: Praise be

to Allh who completed His favour for Al. This addition must be from the book

of either Ibn Mardawayh or Ab Nuaym, since it does not appear in al-Mujam

al-Kabr. It is neither in Hilyat al-Awliy of Ab Nuaym, so it must be from

another of his works which is not available to us.


31/50

The isnd in al-Mujam al-Kabr is not free from serious defects. Its second

narrator, Yahy ibn al-Hasan ibn Furt,18 is totally unknown, while its fourth

narrator, Muhammad ibn Ubaydillh, is regarded as unreliable by the vastmajority of critics. For example, Ab Htim describes him as daf al-hadth,

munkar al-hadth jiddan, and Ibn Man says about him laysa bi-shay.19 Ibn

Ad declares that he narrates completely uncorroborated material.20

From the above it can be seen that none of the narrations from Sahbah that

may be adduced as evidence that the yah ofWilyah refers to Sayyidun Al, is

authentic. Sh writers often quote material of this kind from Sunn sources,

seeking to mislead their uninformed Sunn readership by the amount of sourcesthey are able to produce. A general principle that must be kept in mind with

regard to such attempts at deception is that any narration is only as good as its

chain of narration. Any material quoted must therefore first be authenticated

before it can be used to substantiate any argument.

In the next issue:Narrations from the Tbin

_____________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Tafsr Ibn Kathrvol. 2 p. 68 (Maktabah Dr at-Turth, Cairo n.d.)2. ad-Durr al-Manthrvol. 2 p. 293 (Maktabah yatullh al-Marash an-Najaf,

Qum,1404( 3. al-Whid,Asbb an-Nuzlno. 397 (ed. Kaml Basyn Zaghll, Dr al-Kutub al-

Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1411/1991)4. Ab Jafar al-Uqayl, ad-Duaf al-Kabrvol. 1 p. 165 (ed. Dr. Abd al-Mut al-

Qalaj, , Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1404/1984)


32/50

5. al-Mizz, Tahdhb al-Kaml vol. 25 pp. 246-253 (ed. Dr. Bashshr AwwdMarf, Muassasat ar-Rislah, Beirut 1413/1992)

6. Tahdhb al-Kamlvol. 26 pp. 392-3947. as-Suyt, Tadrb ar-Rwvol. 1 p. 181 (ed. Abd al-Wahhb Abd al-Latf, al-

Maktabah al-Ilmiyyah, Madnah 2nd edition 1392/1972)8. Tafsr Ibn Kathrvol. 2 p. 719. Ibn Ab Htim, al-Jarh wat-Tadlvol. 4 tarjamah no. 2024 (Dirat al-Marif

al-Uthmniyyah, Hyderabad, Deccan 1371/1952)10. Ibn Hajar, Taqrb at-Tahdhb no. 4263 (ed. Muhammad Awwmah, Dr ar-

Rashd, Halab 1412/1992)11. Tahdhb al-Kamlvol. 18 p. 517

12. Ibn Jarr at-Tabar, Jmi al-Bayn vol. 6 p. 186 (Dr al-Marifah, Beirut1400/1980)

13. al-Haytham, Majma az-Zawidvol. 7 p. 17 (Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirutn.d.)

14. as-Suyt, Lubb an-Nuql, printed below Tafsr al-Jallayn, p. 337 (ed.Marwn Sawr, Dr al-Hadth, Cairo n.d.)

15. Tafsr Ibn Kathrvol. 2 p. 7116. al-Mujam al-Kabr vol. 1 pp. 320-321 (ed. Hamd Abd al-Majd as-Salaf,

Wizrat al-Awqf, Iraq, 2nd edition)

17. as-Suyt, ad-Durr al-Manthrvol. 2 p. 29418. al-Haytham, Majma az-Zawidvol. 9 p. 13419. Tahdhb al-Kamlvol. 26 p. 3720. Ibn Ad, al-Kmilvol. 6 p. 114 (Dr al-Fikr, Beirut 2nd ed. 1405/1985)


33/50

2. Narrations from Tbin

Besides the previously discussed narrations from Sahbah, the sources provideus with reports from four of the Tbin in which mention is made of the incident

of the beggar. Below we discuss these four reports. Before actually looking at

them we need to take cognisance of the following principle: Narrations such as

these, which terminate at the Tbin, but speak of incidents which allegedly

happened during the time of Raslullh must be treated with care. The reason

for that is that the Tbi who narrates something which he claims happened

during the time of Raslullh did not actually witness the incident. The only

way he could have knowledge of it is by someone informing him. The crucialquestion is: Who is his informant? To some people the logical answer to this

question is that the Tbin were informed by the Sahbah, for the simple reason

that the Tbin were the students of the Sahbah. However, this is an

oversimplification. It is a fact that the Tbin were informed of incidents from

the time of Raslullh by their teachers the Sahbah. But it is equally true that

the phenomenon of hadth forgery made its appearance during that same early

stage, when the adherents of the various unorthodox sectarian groupings, like

the Khawrij and the extremist Shah were seeking to legitimate their doctrinesby bringing into circulation hadth material which they projected back to the

time of Raslullh . Traditions of this kind are then later taken up by

unsuspecting orthodox narrators who transmit it, often without naming of their

sources.1 In this way spurious material finds its way into orthodox literature.

2.1 Utbah ibn Ab Hakm

The first narration is that of Utbah ibn Ab Hakm which is documented in the

Tafsrof Ibn Kathr from its original source, the Tafsrof Ibn Ab Htim.2 Utbah

says: They (those who believe, who establish salh and give zakh, and they

bow down) are the Believers and Al ibn Ab Tlib.

Utbah gives a double meaning to the phrase in italics. He understands it to

refer to the Believers in general, in harmony with the context. At the same time


34/50

he also understands it to refer specifically to Sayyidun Al. The only reason

for him reading that specific meaning into the yah must be the fact that he had

heard of the incident of the beggar. Otherwise the text by itself does not supportthat deduction. So now the question is: From whom did he hear it? From a

Sahb, or from someone else? He himself doesnt state the identity of his

source.

Utbahs source could not have been a Sahb, since he himself is not a Tbi

in the strict sense of the word. He lived during the time of the younger

generation of Tbin, like Sulaymn al-Amash, but did not get to meet any of

the Sahbah.3

All the sources from whom he transmitted hadth were of theTbin, and some of them were his own contemporaries.4 One of his

contemporaries was the notorious forger Muhammad ibn as-Sib al-Kalb whose

role in the forgery of the hadth narrated from Ibn Abbs has already been

discussed. It is therefore not wholly inconceivable that Utbah ibn Ab Hakm

received his information about the incident of the beggar also from al-Kalb, and

if not from him then from some other equally untrustworthy source.

2.2 Salamah ibn Kuhayl

Salamah ibn Kuhayl was a Tbi from Kfah who had met none of the Sahbah

except Jundub ibn Abdillh and Ab Juhayfah.5 The vast majority of his teachers

were of the elder and middle generation of the Tbin. His saying was also

recorded in the Tafsr of Ibn Ab Htim from where it was reproduced and

preserved by Ibn Kathr.6 He too, recalls the incident of the beggar as the cause

of revelation for this yah.

Since this is once again a report by a person who did not actually witness the

incident, a similar line of reasoning is applicable to it as to the previous case.

However, aside from asking questions about who Salamahs source for this

information could have been, it is of particular interest to us to note that

according to the Shrijlcritics, Salamah ibn Kuhayl waspersona non grata. Ab

Amr al-Kashsh, the prime rijlcritic of the Shah, narrates from the 5th Imm


35/50

Muhammad al-Bqir that Salamah ibn Kuhayl, amongst others, was responsible

for misleading alot of people, and that he is of those about whom Allh has said

in the Qurn: There are some people who say: We believe in Allh and the Last

Day, but (in reality) they do not believe.7 With their Imm himself having

condemned Salamah ibn Kuhayl as a hypocrite who is guilty of leading people

away from the truth, we fail to understand how the Shah can venture to make

an argument out of his statement.

2.3 as-Sudd

The third report which recalls the incident of the beggar comes from Isml ibn

Abd ar-Rahmn as-Sudd, a contemporary of Salamah ibn Kuhayl who also lived

in Kfah. His statement is recorded in the Tafsrof Ibn Jarr at-Tabar.8 He says:

Thereafter (i.e. after the preceding yt) Allh informs them who they should

have wilyah with, saying: Your wal is only Allh, His Messenger and the

Believers who establish salh and give zakh, and they bow down. This refers to

all Believers, but a beggar passed by Al ibn Ab Tlib while he was in ruk in

the masjid, so he gave him his ring.

As-Sudd is of the opinion that the yah is not specific, that it applies in

general to all Believers. However, he does mention the incident of the beggar,

and states it here almost as an afterthought. He is influenced by two things.

Firstly he is influenced by the context in which the yah appears. The context

definitely provides no grounds for restricting the meaning of the yah to any

particular incident or person, and that is what causes him to say that the scope

of the yah is general so as to include all Believers. On the other hand he is alsoinfluenced by a report which reached him about the incident of the beggar. Our

quest is to investigate with what degree of authenticity that report was handed

down to him.

We know that at the time when as-Sudd lived there were many reliable

hadth narrators from amongst the elder and middle generations of the Tbin

alive, but we also know that there were also numerous notorious forgers and


36/50

liars, who for the sake of propagating their heresies, resorted to forgery and

invented history. For the critic it is thus not simply as easy as to accept whatever

is narrated, but to investigate.

As-Sudd did not personally witness the incident, nor was he ever in contact

with anyone who could have witnessed it. His informant therefore had to be

another person. He himself does not state the name of his informant, nor of the

eye witness from who the informant received the report. The failure of all of

these personsUtbah ibn Ab Hakm, Salamah ibn Kuhayl and as-Suddto

mention the names of their sources points strongly to the fact that the whole

incident was nothing more than hearsay, more of a rumour than anauthenticated report. It was brought into circulation by an unscrupulous person

whose identity has remained a mystery. Thereafter it was circulated by word of

mouth, with some commentators mentioning the incident but refraining from

naming their sources, and other less scrupulous persons projecting it right back

to the Sahbah. Not a single one of the various chains of narrations fulifil the

requirements of authenticity.

2.4 Mujhid ibn Jabr

We earlier discussed the narration transmitted from Mujhid by his son Abd al-

Wahhb. That narration was on the authority of Ibn Abbs. In the Tafsrof Ibn

Jarr at-Tabar there is another narration from Mujhid in which mention of the

story of the beggar is made.9 The statement appears there as Mujhids own,

and not as his narration from Ibn Abbs. However, the person who narrates

from him, namely Ghlib ibn Ubaydillh, is regarded as extremely unreliable by

the rijl critics. His unreliability, like that of Abd al-Wahhb ibn Mujhid, is a

matter of consensus amongst the ulam. Ab Htim describes him as matrk

al-hadth, munkar al-hadth(one upon whose extreme unreliability there is

consensus, an unreliable narrator of uncorroborated reports); ad-Draqutn says


37/50

simply matrk(technically meaning that he is extremely unreliable by

consensus); and Ibn Man says laysa bi-thiqah(he is not reliable).10

At this some point some readers might get the impression that the rijlcritics

condemned these narrators as unreliable only because they narrate material

which is unpalatable to them. To this we might reply by saying that this is the

response of one who has no knowledge of the methodology of the muhaddithn

in criticising narrators. Having here seen quotations from the rijlcritics on a few

narrators who all happen to narrate the same hadth, the mind of the non-adept

could be expected to jump to the generalisation that it is only because these

narrators narrate material favourable to Shism that they have been censured.The tendency to generalise in this way would be even stronger if considered that

in this critical examination the person might be the destruction of something

which he had once thought to be an incontrovertible argument. Such persons

would be well-advised to read up on the methodology ofjarh and tadl.

That is the first part of our response. The second part is that this particular

person, Ghlib ibn Ubaydillh, does not only narrate this one saying of Mujhid.

He is known to have transmitted other material as well. In Ibn Hajars work Lisnal-Mzn there is a hadth which he narrates, the text of which is that Raslullh

gave Muwiyah an arrow and told him: Keep this until you meet me in

Jannah. The hadth is squarely denounced as a forgery. This condemnation of

his hadth is definitely not result of prejudice based on the type of hadth which

he transmits. That much even the Shah will agree to. It was simply on account

of the persons unreliability and untrustworthiness, which is, as we have already

said, a matter of consensus between the muhaddithn. If anyone feels that

Ghlib ibn Ubaydillh has been unfairly dealt with by the rijl critics merelybecause he narrated something in support of Sayyidun Als pre-emptive right

to the khilfah, let him ask himself if he would would feel the same about the

fact that that same Ghlib narrates this hadth about Raslullh telling

Muwiyah to keep the arrow until he meets him again in Jannah. An honest

response to this question is sure to reveal where the real prejudice lies.


38/50

Alternative narrations from the TbinThe above four narrations are not the only ones that have come down to us from

the Tbin. They are contradicted by another, much better known narration that

has reached us from a person no less in status that Imm Muhammad al-Bqir,

who is regarded by the Shah as their 5th Imm. This narration is documented in

at-Tbars Tafsr. It runs as follows:

HanndAbdah [ibn Sulaymn]Abd al-Malik [ibn Ab Sulaymn]Ab

Jafar [i.e. Imm Muhammad al-Bqir]: Abd al-Malik says: I asked Ab Jafar

about this yah, Your wal is only Allh, His Messenger and those who

believe, who establish salh and give zakh, and they bow down.We asked:

Who is meant by those who believe? He said: Those who believe. We

said: A report reached us that that this yah was revealed in connection

with Al ibn Ab Tlib. He said: Al is one of those who believe.11

This narration shows that the incident of the beggar had become quite popular,

despite the fact that none of its narrators is able to produce a chain of narrators

that is free from serious defects. It had become so popular, in fact, that Abd al-

Malik ibn Ab Sulaymnwho is recognised by the Shah as a Tbi who

narrates from Imm Muhammad al-Bqir12thought to refer the matter to the

Imm himself. The Imm made it clear to him that the yah refers to all Believers

in general. When told about the claim that it refers specifically to Sayyidun Alibn Ab Tlib , the Imm makes is clear that Sayyidun Al is neither the

specific subject of the yah, nor is he excluded from it, since he too, is a believer

amongst the Believers. He mentions nothing at all in confirmation of the incident

of the beggar.

To the Sh mind, so used to thinking of the illustrious members of the Ahl al-

Bayt in the despicable terms of taqiyyah, the Imm might well have been


39/50

covering up the truth. But to any person who truly loves and respects the

Family of Raslullh this is an honest and straightforward answer. Only an

anxious and prejudiced mind would care to read into it meaning that is notthere.

Conclusion

From this discussion we may draw the following conclusions:

The context of the yah is general, and gives no cause for believing it to referto any specific person.

The incident of the beggar is recorded in reports narrated from four differentSahbah. Not a single one of those four reports is free from serious defects inthe chains of narration. They are further contradicted by other narrationswhich are more reliable.

Narrations from the Tbin suffer from a common defect, in that the names ofthe sources who relate the incident are not disclosed. Some of them suffer

from the further defect of untrustworthy narrators. They are contradicted by areport in which Imm Muhammad al-Bqir himself attests to the fact that theyah is general and unrestricted in meaning.

With this being the state of the historicity of the incident of the beggar, there is

no way in which it could ever be claimed, with confidence and in full honesty,

that the 55th yah of Srah al-Mida was revealed in respect of Sayyidun Al

ibn Ab Tlib .

_________________________________________________________

REFERENCES


40/50

1. See Ibn Hajar, Lisn al-Mzn (introduction) vol. 1 p. 21 (Dr al-Fikr, Beirut1408/1988)2. Tafsr Ibn Kathrvol. 2 p. 713. See his tarjama in Taqrb at-Tahdhb, no. 4427, where he is counted as

belonging to the 6th tabaqah. Compare with Ibn Hajars definition of the 6thtabaqah in the introduction, p. 75

4. Tahdhb al-Kamlvol. 19 p. 3005. Al ibn al-Madn, Kitb al-Ilal, cited by Dr. Bashsr Awwd Marf in a

footnote to Tahdhb al-Kamlvol. 11 p. 317

6. Tafsr Ibn Kathrvol. 2 p. 717. Rijl al-Kashsh, cited by Muhammad ibn Al al-Ardabl, Jmi ar-Ruwtvol. 1

p. 373 (Dr al-Adw, Beirut 1403/1983)8. Jmi al-Bayn vol. 6 p. 1869. ibid.10. Lisn al-Mzn vol. p. (Dr al-Fikr, Beirut )11.Jmi al-Bayn vol. 6 p. 18612.Jmi ar-Ruwtvol. 1 p. 519 no. 4187


41/50

The fundamental point of divergence between the Shah and the Ahl as-

Sunnah is the concept of the Immah. Since Immah is in a very real sense the

essence of Shism, and is regarded by the Shah as a cardinal point of faithon the same level as belief in Allh, in Prophethood and in the Hereafter, one

would expect it to be as firmly rooted in the Qurn as those other tenets of

faith. It is therefore of vital importance to the Sh propagandist to prove that

the Qurn does expound the Sh belief of Immah. To lend further

credibility to their arguments they draw from Sunn works on tafsr and

hadth. The articles in this series debunk the myth that the Qurn supports

the Sh concept of Immah, and critically examines the material from Sunn

works which Sh propagandists use in support of their arguments.

The Verse of Tablgh

):67(

O Messenger! Convey that which was revealed to you from your Lord. If you

will not do so, you would not have conveyed His message. And Allh

protects you from the people. Verily Allh does not guide the people who

transgress. (al-Midah:67)

This verse is calledAyat at-Tablgh (the Verse of Conveyance) on account of the

word balligh (the imperative form of the verb ballagha i.e. to convey) in it. The

ahdth which have come down to us, which state the circumstances of its

revelation, may be divided into four categories:


42/50

(1) ahdth which state that the yah was revealed during a military

expedition, when a bedouin Arab crept up on Raslullh and tried to kill

him with his own sword

(2) ahdth which speak of Raslullh dispensing with the services of guards

after the revelation of the yah

(3) a hadth which states that his uncle Abbs used to be amongst those who

guarded him until the revelation of the yah

(4) ahdth which state that his uncle Ab Tlib used to send someone with

him to guard him wherever he went, until the revelation of the yah1

The first three categories do not contradict one another. They may all be

speaking of the same thing, the only difference between them being that each of

the three of them deals with a specific aspect of the revelation of the yah. The

ahdth of the first category speak of the place and the incident of the bedouin;

those of the second category inform us what steps Raslullh took after the

revelation of the yah; while the solitary narration in the third category informsus that his uncle Abbs used to be amongst those who used to guard him.

It is only with the fourth category that a problem is encountered. The ahdth

of first three categories all concur on the fact that the yah was revealed after

the Hijrah. However, the introduction of the name of Ab Tlib into the

circumstances of revelation places it well before the Hijrah. So here we have a

contradiction. Closer inspection of the isnds of the two narrations in question

reveals problems with the reliability of some of their narrators. We may thusconclude that this version is unacceptable, firstly on account of the fact that it

contradicts more authentic material, and secondly because it has been handed

down to us through unreliable chains of transmission.


43/50

The above is a very brief synopsis of the narrated material surrounding the 67thyah of Srah al-Midah which is to be found in the well-known works on tafsr.

Our intention in presenting this synopsis is to give the reader a general overview

of the narrations contained in the major sources of tafsr, and especially narrated

tafsr (at-tafsr bil-mathr). This has the advantage of demonstrating to the

objective observer the incongruity of narrations Sh propagandists have been

known to latch on to in their mission to convince the Ahl as-Sunnah that the

Quran does in fact speak of the Immah of Sayyidun Al ibn Tlib, and this

claim is borne out by the mufassirn of the Ahl as-Sunnah themselves.

In Sh propagandist works we encounter another category of narrated

material, other than the four we have mentioned here. In this fifth category of

narrated material we find the revelation of the yah being linked to the stopover

at Ghadr Khumm on the return journey to Madnah after the Hajjat al-Wad.

The narration in question is quite simple and straightforward:

This yah was revealed on the day of Ghadr Khumm in connection with Al

ibn Ab Tlib.

The Sh propagandist is ingenious. Being an expert in the art of

misrepresentation, he presents this narration to the unsuspecting Sunn public as

if it is the only material which exists on the revelation of the yah. He knows that

mostif not allof his listeners or readers are laymen who first of all do notknow any Arabic, and secondly, if they do, they do not have access to the books

on tafsr. Being thus assured that they will never discover his dishonesty in

concealing the existence of alternative material on the issue, he goes ahead to

convince his listener or reader that the quotation which he has supplied him

with is the unadulterated truth. He emphasises the fact that he has taken this

quotation not from a Sh source, but from a Sunn one. The Sunn


44/50

reader/listener is thus left with the impression that what he is getting is the

truth, since it comes, in a manner of speaking, from the horses mouth.

The brief narration given above is documented in the bookAsbb an-Nuzlby

Abul-Hasan al-Whid.2 Al-Whid narrates most of the material in his book with

their complete isnds. Therefore, quoting material from al-Whid without

stating the nature of the isnd on the authority of which he has quoted is

basically an act of deception. It is relatively easy to deceive the public with such

quotations, since they lack a proper understanding of the nature of quotation by

isnd. The lay person looks only to the author of the book, and not to the chain

of narrators on whose authority the author narrates. To deceive him is thereforequite simple.

To understand exactly how illogical this approach is we need to compare it

with a parallel case. Let us assume we have a book on science. This book quotes

the theory of an earlier scientist about the invalidity of whose theories there

exists consensus amongst the experts in the field. Note that the author of the

book merely quotes that theory; he does not lend his own weight to it by

defending or supporting it. The question now is: can we take this particulartheory and ascribe it to the author of the book, and omit any reference to the

fact that he is merely quoting, and not supporting it? We very obviously cannot

do so, and if we do so we will be dishonest.

Similarly, quoting from al-Whid without mentioning that he narrates it on

the authority of a chain of narrators, and without proving the authenticity of the

chain of narrators is also dishonest. When we encounter a quotation from al-

Whid the first question we need to ask ourselves is: is it narrated with an

authentic chain of narration? This question can only be answered by referring

back to the original book. In the book Asbb Nuzl al-Qurn this is what we

find:


45/50

::

::::

.

We can see that this statement which is ascribed here to Sayyidun Ab Sad al-Khudr, is narrated via a chain of narration which runs as follows:

al-WhidMuhammad ibn Al as-SaffrHasan ibn Ahmad al-Makhlad

Muhammad ibn Hamdn ibn KhlidMuhammad ibn Ibrhm al-Hulwn

Hasan ibn Hammd, SajjdahAl ibn bisal-Amash and Abul-Jahhf

Atiyyah (ibn Sad alAwf)Ab Sad al-Khudr...

Thus, the statement al-Whid narrates from Ab Sad al-Khudr is extremely

elliptical, since it completely omits any reference to the fact that what al-Whid

narrates is narrated on the authority of the nine persons who stand between

himself and Ab Sad. Only when the reliability of these nine persons is proven

may we with confidence say that al-Whid narrates from Ab Sad al-Khudr.

Critical scrutiny of the isnd reveals the following flaws:

1. Al ibn Abis: This narrator lived in Kfah during the latter half of the

second century AH. There is consensus amongst the rijlcritics that he was

an unreliable transmitter.3 His unreliability stems from the fact that the

material transmitted by him was for the greater part uncorroborated or


46/50

contradictory to more reliable versions. In the case of this particular

narration he has transmitted a hadth of which no trace can be found

anywhere else. Since his own reliability is already seriously questionable,we cannot by any objective standards place confidence in the lone

narration of one such as he. Ibn Hibbn sums up the reason for dismissing

him as a hadth transmitter in the following words: Mistakes of his in

transmitting hadth were so serious that he deserved to be abandoned (as

a narrator). Ab Zurah ar-Rz states: He is munkar al-hadth (meaning

that he transmits uncorroborated material, or material which contradicts

more reliable versions); he transmits uncorroborated ahdth on the

authority of reliable narrators.3

2. Atiyyah al-Awf: Atiyyah al-Awf appears in the isnd as the person who

narrates from Ab Sad al-Khudr. He lived and was active as a hadth

transmitter in Kfah, where he died in 111AH or 127 AH. He transmitted

hadth from figures amongst the Sahbah such as Ibn Umar , Ibn Abbs

, Zayd ibn Arqam

and Ab Sad al-Khudr

. The muhaddithn havecalled his reliability as a narrator into question, especially when he

narrates from Ab Sad. This is on account of the habit termed tadls ash-

shuykh by the muhaddithn. His practise of this habit is explained by Ibn

Hibbn in his Kitb al-Majrhn in the following words:

He heard some ahdth from Ab Sad al-Khudr. When Ab Sad died he

sat with (the Sh mufassir) al-Kalb and listened to his stories. Thus whenal-Kalb used to say Raslullh said... he used to memorise it. He now

gave al-Kalb the kunyah Ab Sad and started narrating from him.

When it was asked Who narrated this to you? he used to say, Ab

Sad. The people would think that he meant Ab Said al-Khudr, when

in reality it was al-Kalb. It is therefore not allowed to use him as an

authority or to write his ahdth, except if it is in the sense of

amazement.4


47/50

This is then the state of the narration which Sh propagandists so brazenlythrust in the faces of their Sunn readers or listeners.

There is another narration which holds connection with this one. It was

originally documented in the tafsr of Ab Bakr Ibn Mardawayh (died 410 AH),

but his tafsr is no longer extant. It has been preserved, albeit without isnd, by

as-Suyt in his book ad-Durr al-Manthr.5 The text of this narration runs as

follows:

::.

Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn Masd that he said: In the time of

Raslullh we used to read: O messenger, convey what has been

revealed to you from your Lord that Al is the Master of the Believers; If you

do not do so, you would not have conveyed His message. And Allh protects

you from the people...

This narration, as can be clearly seen, has come down to us stripped of its chain

of narration. The chain of narration is usually regarded as the chief indicator of

authenticity. However, it is not the only indicator. In the absence of the isnd,

which would have pinpointed the exact person responsible for this blatant

forgery, we still have the significant fact that this narration assails the sanctity of

the Qurn. This addition to the wording of the yah is not to be found amongstany of the qirt (variant readings) of the Qurn, neither the mutawtir

readings nor the shdhdh ones. In fact, it can be found nowhere except in a

single, lone narration preserved without isnd in a work of the fifth century. The

work of Ibn Mardawayh is in no way free from narrations by the extremists of

the Shah. We have earlier seen, in the case of Atiyyah al-Awf, how Sh

narrations crept into Sunn compilations as early as in the days of the Tbin.

Classical Sh works like the tafsrs of Al ibn Ibrhm al-Qumm and Furt ibn


48/50

Ibrhm al-Kf, the Kitb al-Qirt of Ahmad ibn Muhammad as-Sayyr, al-

Ihtijjby Ahmad ibn Al at-Tabars, the book al-Manqib by Ibn Shahrshb and

the book Kashf al-Yaqn by Ibn Tws all contain narrations which state that thename of Al was mentioned in this yah, but they (meaning the Sahbah )

removed it from there.6 It is therefore not at all inconceivable that this narration

found its way into the tafsr of Ibn Mardawayh through an isnd going back to its

Sh originator.

Shism and Srah

But let us now look at the issue from a different angle. Let us for a moment

assume that the name of Sayyidun Al was in fact mentioned in this yah,

and the matter which Allh ordered Raslullh to convey to the Ummah was

Sayyidun Als immah, an issue so important that failure to convey it would be

tantamount to complete failure. This scenario fits snugly into the Sh picture of

the Srah of Raslullh . There is a stark difference between the Shah and the

Ahl as-Sunnah in the way either of them conceives of the Sirh, or life history, of

Raslullh . It is the contrast between failure and sucess.

To the Ahl as-Sunnah, the mission of Muhammad was a successful one, the

most successful mission of any messenger of Allh. And nowhere is his success

reflected more clearly than in his followers. He succeeded in establishing Islm

upon earth, and Imn in the hearts of his followers. His followers were of such a

caliber that they earned praise from Allh Himself, in the Qurn, the Tawrt as

well as the Injl. Therefore, when Allh says to His Messenger, Convey, and I will

protect you against the people, it is impossible that those people could be thesame people who stand so highly praised in the Holy Scriptures. The people

against whom Allh promised to protect him could therefore have been none

but the unbelievers.

To the Shah, on the other hand, the Srah of Raslullh is incessantly

clouded by fear, doubt and suspicion. Raslullh is constantly having to cajole

and blandish his followers in fear that they might openly turn against him. With


49/50

the exception of a minute group of persons consisting of his daughter, her

husband, their two infant sons and three or four others, he cannot trust anyone.

His wives, their fathers, the husbands of his other daughters, his closest friends,his scribes, his military commandersall of them are tainted with hypocrisy, and

eagerly await the moment of his death to usurp power. In short, two decades of

tireless effort has brought him nothing but a handf

shia imamah doctrine

Documents