The development of shiite political thought from shura to wilayat al-faqih
|
|  Yüklə 0.82 Mb.
|
REFERENCES
CHAPTER THREE: CRITIQUE OF THE TRADITIONAL (TEXTUAL) EVIDENCE
We do not need to discuss the Quranic citations or the numerous Hadiths that discuss the Mahdi or the Qa’im without specifying the identity of the person. This is because the aim of our study is not the total denial of the appearance of Mahdi in the future. It is rather aimed at saying that a person called Muhammad bin Hassan Askari has not been born and is yet to exist. Consequently, the verses or the Hadiths would not establish the birth of such a man, or his existence despite the possibility of discussing the import of the glorious verses on the subject. As for the narrations on the occultation (al-Ghaybah) and the occult, they are not discussing any particular occult (person). And they did not mention the name of Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, as they did not point to his special occultation. So it cannot stand as evidence on the occultation of the Hujjah (Mahdi), son of Hassan, for he has not yet been born nor did he go into occultation. These narrations are not discussing a matter before it takes place, so that that can be seen as miraculous and evidence on the validity of the occultation, as Sheikh Saduq has said. There is, in such narrations nothing that maintains what the theologians claimed. This is because it did not contain the mention of anything before it happens, as Sheikh Tusi has stated. There was no any predetermined anterior mention (of this) from the Knower of the Unseen. That is because the narrations existed before, and they mention some other people who were existing in reality, and Mahdism was claimed for them; they disappeared in the valleys, on mountains and in prisons, like Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan (Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah) and Imam Musa Kadhim (peace be upon him). It so happened that during their absence their followers became scattered and divided and confused. Their supporters fabricated such narrations from reality and for specific purposes, especially the Waqifite Shiites, those who strongly believe in the Mahdism of Imam Kadhim. But when Rashid arrested him, they claimed that he was in occultation. When the Imam died they refused to acknowledge his death, but rather claimed that he fled from the prison, and had gone in to his major Occultation, during which he will not be seen They considered the period of his detention, as the minor Occultation, the major occultation was longer than the minor one, as it extends to infinity. The Waqifites did borrow the traditions on the occultation from the Mahdism movements before them, and applied them on Imam Kadhim. If we may pause on the narration mentioned by Nu’mani on the occultation, in which he says: “ If no other tradition has been reported except this one, it would suffice.” We would find that it mentions the death, murder and disappearance of a previously well-known and existing Imam. While he (Nu’mani) needs to establish the existence of Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari from the onset, so that he will be able to attribute such acts to him subsequently. The theologians (Mutakallimun) were in the beginning (the third century of Hijrah), attempting to establish the validity of the assumption of the existence of the twelfth Imam son of Hassan, and were not discussing the ‘Mahdi and Mahdism’, as they were in need of establishing first, the throne and then the one to sit on it. But the crisis that they faced after their claim of the existence of the ‘son of Hassan’ was: the non-appearance of the Imam to perform the duties of Imamate. This led them to search in the old Shiite heritage, like that of Kissanites and Waqifites, so also seeking for anyway out of the crisis and the perplexity. They found in the old traditions on Mahdism, the best solution for coming out of the crisis of non-appearance, as well as new evidence on establishing the assumption of the existence of the son of Hassan at the same time. Due to this the theory that was concerned with establishing the existence of the twelfth Imam developed into the belief in Mahdism. The discussion revolved around the existence of the Imam Mahdi, the Hujjah, son Hassan Askari’, due to the vacuum left by the absence and non-appearance (of the Imam). The conclusion from this is that the person assumed to be the Imam who cannot be seen, is the Mahdi, who will go into occultation, and that the cause of his non-appearance was the occultation! Even if it is valid to argue on the basis of such reports for the Mahdism of well-known earlier Imams, those who disappeared in the prisons or in the valleys or other parts of the world, it would not be possible to argue on the basis of it for the validity of the assumption on the existence of the son of Hassan. That was because the companions of Imam Hassan Askari, and who differed a lot on the issue doubted his existence. The process of arguing on the basis of it for the ‘Mahdism of son of Hassan’ needed first to establish his existence and prove it, before anything is said on his Imamate, Madism, occultation, and e.t.c. The argument on the basis of occultation in order to prove the existence (of the son of Hassan) without establishing that in the beginning, resembles the argument to prove the existence of water in a container by saying: “Water has no smell and no color, and we cannot smell anything nor see any color in the container, there fore, there is water inside it.” If that is not possible except after the establishment of some kind of fluid in the container then we cannot say that:’ This fluid has neither color nor smell, therefore it is water’. The process of establishing the existence of the son of Hassan similarly, will require firstly to prove his existence, Imamate and Mahdism, then his occultation can be established, not the other way round i.e. when the unknown and the non-existing and occultation were taken as evidence to prove the existence, Imamate and Mahdism of a person still being searched for and being discussed. Therefore, it is not, in truth, possible to argue on the basis of the general ambiguous and weak traditions of the occultation’ in order to establish the existence of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari. Some theorists on occultation have attempted to argue on the basis of a tradition of the two occultations, the minor and the major, to establish the validity of the ‘theory of the existence of the son of Hassan’. The report on the two occultations itself however is not historically proved. There is no evidence on it, except the subject of ‘special deputation’, which was claimed by some personalities. It has not been established from them at that time. The Shiites that maintained the existence of the son of Hassan differ among themselves on the validity of the claim of this person or that, of being a special deputy, having been claimed by about twenty (20) persons, most of them were among the extremists. From this the limit separating the two occultations, the minor and the major was an illusory limit, not established historically. It is to be noted that the argument on the basis of the two occultations was started by Nu’mani in the middle of the fourth century of Hijrah, after the expiry of the period of ‘Special deputies). None of the preceding writers on ‘occultation’ point to it. They only pointed to one occultation. Sayyid Murtada Alam al-Huda and Sheikh Tusi did admit, while discussing the causes of occultation, that it is necessary to first investigate the subject of the existence and Imamate of’ the son of Hassan Askari’ before discussing the occultation and its causes. (1) They said: “ For anyone who doubts the Imamate of the son of Hassan, it is necessary to discuss with him the text on his Imamate, and to exert efforts in establishing it. It is not possible to discuss the cause of the occultation if doubts remain regarding it (the Imamate). This is because it is not right to discuss the branch (secondary issue) until after perfectly establishing the (primary) principles.” (2)
This late evidence the theologians started employing after more than half a century of confusion and perplexity, i.e. in the fourth century of Hijrah. There was no trace of it in the third century among the Imamate Shiites, as Sheikh Ali bin Babawaih Saduq did not mention it in his book: ‘Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah min al-Hayrah’, just as Nubakhti did not point to it in ‘Firaq al-Shi’ah’, nor did Sa’ad bin Abdullah Ash’ari al-Qummi in his ‘al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq’. That is because the Twelver-Imam theory came to the doctrine of the Imamate in the fourth century, after it has been extended to the end to time, without any limit regarding the number, similar to the case with the Isma’ilites and Zaydites, because of its being parallel to the theory of Shura and an alternative to it. So as long as there are Muslims who need a state and an Imam, it was forbidden for them to resort to Shura and elections as the Imamate theory maintains. It is inevitable that Allah appoints for them an infallible Imam through traditions and texts. Then why should the number be limited to twelve only? For this reason, the Imamate Shiites did not mention any specific number of Imams, and even those who believe in the existence of Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, did not maintain that he was the seal (last) of the Imams. We see Nubakhti saying in his book-‘Firaq al-Shi’ah’: “The Imamate will continue in the progeny of the twelfth Imam till the day of Resurrection.” (See the reference: The sect that believe in the existence of a son for Askari). Many reports mentioned by Saffar in ‘Basair al-Darajat’ Kulayni in ‘Al-Kafi’, Himyari in ‘Qurb al-Isnad’, Iyashi in his Tafsir, Mufid in ‘Al-Irshad’ and Hur al-Amili in ‘Ithbat al-Huda’ and so on and so forth, pointed that, since the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Imams did not know of any predetermined list of Imams, nor did they know of their Imamate or the Imamate of the succeeding Imams after them except just before their death, talkless of the Shiites or the Imamate Shiites themselves, who used to get confused and differ among themselves after the death of any Imam. They used to seek from every Imam to appoint the succeeding Imam after him, and to name him in clear terms, so as not to die without knowing the new Imam. Saffar reports in ‘Basa’ir al-Darajat’ (3) in the chapter on, ‘The Imams know the ones to whom they give their will (of the Imamate) before their death through what Allah bestowed on them (of knowledge)’, a tradition from Imam Sadiq in which he says: “No scholar dies until Allah shows him the one to whom he will give the will”. Kulayni in ‘Al-Kafi’ reported it also. (4) He also reports from him (peace be upon him): “The Imam will not die till he knows the one after him and then he offers him his will.” This shows that the Imams themselves have no knowledge of the names of those to succeed them or the existence of a predetermined list with their names. Saffar, Saduq and Kulayni have gone beyond this and they reported from Abu Abdullah who said: “ The succeeding Imam knows of his Imamate and takes over in the last minute of the life of the last Imam.”(5) As a result of that many questions are raised regarding the life of Ahl al-Bayt, namely: ‘How does the Imam know of his Imamate, if his father died away from him in another city?’ ‘How can he know that he is the Imam if he gave his will to a group, or if he did not give a will at all?’ ‘How can the people know the Imam, especially if brothers claim the Imamate, and each one of them claim to have received the will, as it has happened to a number of Imams historically?’ Kulayni reported a tradition from one of the Alawites, namely ‘Isa bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali bin Abi Talib, who said I said to Abu Abdullah: “If something-may Allah not show that to me---happened (death) to you, whom should I emulate?” He said: He pointed to his son Musa. I said: “ If something happened to Musa, whom should I emulate? He said: “ His son”. I then said: “If something happened to his son, and left an elder brother and a small son, whom should I emulate?” He replied: “His son’ He then added, “ In this manner perpetually.” I said: “If I did not know him nor do I know his place?” He said: “You will say: ‘O Allah I give my loyalty to any of your evidences (Imams) remaining from the children of the past Imam’, that will suffice you, Allah willing.” (6) This tradition shows that there was no any predetermined list of names of the Imams, and the lack of knowledge of the Alawite and Imamate Shiite like ‘Isa bin Abdullah’ of that (list), and the possibility of his being perplexed and ignorant further confirms this. If the list exists before, the Imam would have pointed to it. Due to the ambiguity of the identity of the subsequent Imams in the sight of the majority Shiites and Imamate among them, they used to always ask the Imams on the necessary steps to be taken when one of the Imams dies. Kulayni and Ibn Babawaih and Iyashi transmit a tradition from Yaqub bin Shu’aib from Abu Abdullah, who said: ‘I said to him: “ If something happen to the Imam, what should the people do?” He said: “They will be like the saying of Allah: “Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware (of evil). I said: “What is their position?” He said: “They will be excused as long as they were searching. Those who were waiting for them will be excused, till the return of their people.” (7) There is yet another similar narration from Zurarah bin A’yun who experienced this problem, and he died just before the death of Imam Sadiq, he was not aware of the new Imam. So he placed the Quran on his chest and said: “O Allah, I testify that I affirm whom this Book states to be the Imam”. (8) Zurarah was one of the greatest students of the two Imams Baqir and Sadiq, but he did not know the one to succeed Imam Sadiq. He therefore sent his son ‘Ubaidullah to Madinah, so as to find out the new Imam. He (Zurarah) died before the return of his son to him, without his knowing who was going to be the Imam! (9) A number of reports mentioned by Kulayni in ‘Al-Kafi’ (10), Mufid in ‘Al-Irshad’ (11) and Tusi, in ‘Al-Ghaybah’ (12) state that: “Imam Hadi gave his will in the beginning to his son Sayyid Muhammad, but he died during the lifetime of his father. So the Imam gave his will to Imam Hassan and said to him: “Allah has changed His will (bada) regarding Muhammad as He changed His will regarding Isma’il. O my son, thank Allah as He has decreed on you a matter, or a favor.” If the reports on a previously prepared list of the names of twelve Imams were sound and existed before, why didn’t the Imamate Shiites, who differed and were confused by the death of Imam Hassan Askari (without an issue), know of it? The Imamate scholars of Hadith and historians also did not point to it in the third century of Hijrah? The Twelver-Imam Theory was never stable in the Imamate Shiites minds till the middle of the fourth century of Hijrah …. when Sheikh Muhammad bin Ali Saduq expressed his doubt on limiting the Imams to only twelve (12). He said: “We are only bound religiously to confess the existence of twelve Imams, and also to believe what the twelfth will say after him.” (13) Al-Kaf’ami in ‘Al-Misbah’ has reported from Imam Rida (peace be upon him) the following dua (supplication) on the Sahib al-Zaman: “O Allah bless the rulers of his time and the Imams after him.” (14) Saduq has reported a number of traditions on the likelihood of the extension of the Imamate beyond twelve and not limiting it to that. Among such narrations was a report from Imam Amir Al- Muminin (peace be upon him) on the confusion of the situation after the Qa'im and that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has taken a covenant from him: ‘Not to tell anyone of that except Hassan and Hussain, and that he said: "Do not ask me of what will happen after that, as my beloved has taken a covenant from me, that I will not tell anyone except my family.” (15) Tusi has reported in Al-Ghaybah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to Ali: “O Ali there would be twelve Imams after me, and after them, there will be twelve Mahdis. You are O Ali the first of the twelve Imams…. Then there will come after him, twelve Mahdis.” (16) When the idea of limiting the number of Imams evolved, after the claim on the existence and occultation of Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, the Imamate Shiites were about to differ among themselves on limiting their number to either twelve or thirteen, as some reports emerged at that time saying: The number of the Imams is thirteen. Kulayni has reported it in ‘Al-Kafi’. (17) If was found in the book that appeared at that time, which was attributed to Salim bin Qays al-Hilali. One of these reports says that: ‘The Prophet has said to Amir al-Muminin (Ali)’: “You and twelve of you children are Imams of the truth.” This is what made Hibatullah bin Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Katib, the grandson of Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Uthman al-Umari, who was involved in theology (Kalam), to write a book on the Imamate, and mention in it that the Imams are thirteen and add to the well known list the name of Zayd bin Ali, as Al-Najashi said in his ‘Rijal’. The Shiite historian, Mas'udi (d. 345 A.H) has mentioned in his ‘Al-Tanbih wa al-Ishraf’: “ The origin of the statement limiting the number of the Imams to twelve, was what Salim bin Qays al-Hilali mentioned in his book.” (18) The book of Salim has appeared in the beginning of the fourth century of Hijrah, and it contained the list of names of the twelve Imams, on which he said: “It was known since the time of the Messenger of Allah, and that he was the one who announced it before. The emergence of this book has led to the inception of the sect of Twelver-Imam in the fourth century of Hijrah. The reporters then started fabricating reports bit by bit. Kulayni did not mention in ‘Al-Kafi’ except 17 reports. Saduq then came fifty years after him, to increase it to little over thirty reports. Then came his student, Khazzaz to make it 200 reports.
Kulayni, Nu'mani and Saduq depended in their statement on the Twelver-Imam theory, on the book of Salim, which was described by Nu'mani as one of the essential sources referred to and relied upon by the Shiites. The common populace among the Shiites at that time, however, were doubting the fabrication and concoction of the book of Salim, and that was due to its being reported through ‘Muhammad bin Ali al-Sirafi Abu Saminah’, the well known liar and ‘Ahmad bin Hilal al-‘Ibrata’i’ the cursed extremist. Abu al-Ghada’iri has said: “Our people used to say: ‘Salim is an unknown person, not mentioned (by scholars). The book was fabricated, there is no doubt about that, and there are signs to confirm what we said.” (19) Sheikh Mufid considered the book of Salim as weak and said: “It is not reliable, and acting on most part of it, is not permissible. I t contained (a lot of) concoctions and deception. It is better for a religious person to keep away from acting on all that is in it. The most of it is unreliable, and its reports should not be emulated. One should go to the scholars, regarding the traditions contained in it, so as to be cleared on the right therein, and the wrong.” (Mufid: ‘Awa’il al – Maqalat’, and ‘Sharh’ I’tiqadat al-Saduq’). (20) Mufid criticized Saduq for transmitting the book and dependence on it, and attributed that to the method of Saduq in reporting. He said of him: “He is treading the path of the scholars of Hadith, who act on the apparent meanings of words and avoid other considerations. This opinion harms its owner in his religion, and standing by it prevents him from having insight in religion.” (21) Hence the Zaydites opposed the Imamate Shiites, saying: “The report that indicate that the Imams are twelve is a statement initiated by the Imamate Shiites lately, and they produced in that regard many false traditions.” They supported their view by the divisions among the Shiites, after the death of every Imam, which resulted in a number of sects; and their lack of knowledge of the (next) Imam after the (present) Imam; and the occurrence of ‘bada’ (change of will) in the case of Isma’il and Muhammad bin Ali; and the claim of Abdullah Aftah on the Imamate and the response of the Shiites to that; and their subsequent perplexity after his tribulation; their lack of knowledge on Kadhim till the time he called them to himself; the death of the jurist Zurarah bin A’yun without the knowledge of the Imam. (22) Saduq has transmitted their allegations against the Imamate Shiism, in inventing the Twelver-Imam theory of late. However, he did not deny the allegation, nor refute it. He only justified that by saying: “The Imamate Shiites did not say that: “The entire Shiites including Zurarah, knew the twelve Imams.” When he became aware of the position of Zurarah and the impossibility of his not knowing any tradition of this sort, being the greatest of the disciples of the two Imams, Baqir and Sadiq, he changed his mind on what he said. He therefore, saw the likelihood of Zurarah’s knowledge of the tradition and his hiding it, due to Taqiyyah. He later abandoned this probability and said, ‘Kadhim has sought from his Lord to bestow him (knowledge) due to his ignorance of the Imam, because anyone who doubts him (the Imam) is not in the fold of Allah’s religion.” (23) This contradicts the claim of Khazzaz in ‘Kifayat al-Athar’and Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’ on the popularity of the traditions on twelve Imams, related through the Shiites, and establishes that it is not in any way authentic in the earlier generation, especially in the eras of the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as it was not having any impact or influence. Moreso that Tusi did not mention the classical Shiite books, which he claimed to have discussed the ‘twelve Imam’ theory. Khazzaz had tried to avoid discussing the later allegation of fabrication. He attempted to deny the allegation of fabrication on the part of the companions and their followers and the Ahl al-Bayt (24). The allegation was not made against the companions and the Ahl al-bayt, but only against some later reporters, who fabricated the book of Salim in the period of confusion and perplexity, like ‘Abu Saminah’ ‘Al-Ibrata’i’ and ‘Ali bin Ibrahim al-Qummi’.
That is it. The majority of the traditions that limit the number of Imams to twelve, so also all the traditions reported in the Sunni sources in particular did not mention the names of the Imams or Caliphs or Princes in details. The Sunni traditions did not limit them to twelve, it only pointed to the occurrence of ‘Haraj’-killings after the twelfth Caliph, as was in the report of Tusi from Jabir bin Samrah. (25) It also discussed the triumph of religion or of the followers of the religion, till the advent of twelve Caliphs. (26) If we accept the theory ofFathite Imamate Shiites, who did not put as a condition, vertical inheritance of the Imamate, Imam Hassan Askari will be the twelfth Imam after admitting the Imamate of Abdullah Aftah bin Sadiq,and after accepting the Imamate of Zayd bin Ali believed to be the Imam by a section of Imamate Shiites. Therefore arguing on the basis of the traditions of Twelver-Imam Shiites which are general, vague and weak traditions, without the existence of any intellectual evidence on the birth of Muhammad bin Hassan Askari is a kind of assumption, conjecture and guess, devoid of any precise intellectual argument.
|