|
This issue has always been much in attention. The prophet hood was still in
its start and the Revelations had started coming down, this issue too made its
appearance as a matter of no less magnitude. There is a story of a man who
approached the Prophet and told him that he would embrace his faith on one
condition and that was that he becomes leader after the Prophet (SAW). The
Prophet (SAW) rejected the man.
In the meantime, it is true that in the current of some great events of historical
significance the religions view of Shiasm sometimes used to palpitate and
sometimes the Islamic rays have had so glared through the prism that its
reflection has astonished the viewers and captured their attention.
It is a historical fact that governments came to power, which were quite
incompetent and not fit for the leadership. Although bad they were imposed on
the people because they facilated the ground which became easily accessible for
the leadership.
Leadership thus obtained they ruled over the people. People were
helpless. They could do nothing beyond disdaining and cursing them. The
governments in spite of the power could not rule over the dominion of hearts.
In the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW) nobody dared to show his true identity.
As there was no opposition openly, the underground movements took root.
What they could not accept was the leadership of Ali (AS), announced time and
again by the Prophet. Secret plots were concocted. The Prophet himself was to
be assassinated.
After the death of the Prophet (SAW) what was underground became open.
The Prophet was no more to be feared; but his house and its members were
there. The opposition had a plan, and they proceeded with it. Now the front was
the very house of the Prophet (SAW).
Whoever was a member, friend or sym-
pathizer to the Holy Prophet's household was to be crushed, so that their
opposition should gain ground. Thus the division became wider and the
opposition reached every house, if that house was a friend of the Prophet's
house. Those who were supporters of the Prophet's household were called Shia.
In other words, those who adhered to the Prophet's household or remained in
his camp became Shia. Wherever a Shia be, he had to confront this opposition.
The only daughter of the Prophet (SAW), Zahra, was not excluded. They
came to her house and tortured her and showed the people that they could go to
that extreme and beyond. Thereafter the events took their course. Some of the
followers of the Prophet went astray and a split was now the rule. This deviation
from the original course became a school and whoever adhered to it became a
Sunni.
And a Sunni was to oppose a Shia who remained in the line of the
Prophet (SAW) which was under the protection of his household. Although
such was the case however face to face confrontation was very prudent by
avoided in the time of Abu Bakr and also in the regime of Omar. What did the
people do? The legality or the legitimacy of the government a mattered to some,
which others remained indifferent.
Some people rather enjoyed the opportunity
as they affiliated themselves to the ruling junta. There were also three who
considered the issue as finished and settled. But a few among them, like Omar,
never considered themselves safe and secure, because the legitimacy of their
rule was under question by some.
As long as doubt existed the danger too
existed that the people might return to the original track. Therefore Omar
adopted very calculated policies in which to keep Ali (AS) at a distance from
power. So, Omar wrote a plan, which introduced the proposal of a six men
committee. Othaman carried out the plan. As a result Ali once again stayed
away from power. In the meantime, this occasioned for the people to recall the
words of the Prophet (SAW) about Ali (AS) when he had introduced him as the
one who would succeed him.
An outpour of memory excited the passions in
such an effective way that they, the people, showed and expressed their
disappointment as they saw the deviation from the track of the Prophet (SAW)
was getting wider.
The hatred and abhorrence towards Othaman was in such an
abundance that Muslims could not restrain their anger and anguish. The huge
fire, which had erupted, was fueled by the irregularities and injustice of
Othaman himself.
The original Islam was in need of the rightful successor of the
Prophet. As there was no other than Ali, huge crowds of Muslims gathered
around to support him. After twenty-five years of straying off the right path,
people were once again shown the correct path.
Ali (AS) and a holy war under
his command was considered by Muslims a great honor. Allegiance to him was
pledged and his succession to the Prophet's place was celebrated. Shiasm
considers nothing wrong with this, but quite the contrary, this was done in
compliance with logic and reason.
This is a fact that the faith of the Shia was never forgotten. The hearts of the
people have always hung to the Prophet's household. They were victims and
deprived of their right. People gave their support as the occasion arose and the
opportunity invited. Poets have narrated this faith. Farazdog is a good example
of one of these poets whose famous laudation addresses Husham telling him as
to who Imam Zainulabedeen was. Mosa Bin Naseer was the governor of Africa.
He had a slave by the name of Tariq. Tariq conquered Spain. Eventhough they
held offices in the government of Bani Ommiya, they were Shia. Because of his
being a Shia, Tariq's properties were confiscated and he himself was dismissed,
regardless of his services.
The Shia belief had penetrated even into Mawiya's
family. Mawiya's grandson, Yazid, was a Shia. He openly accused his father
and grandfather and announced his allegiance to Ali and other members of the
Prophet's House. Likewise was the situation in the Bani Abbas dynasty.
It is the Truth and the originality that the Shia faith has survived throughout
ages in spite of the ups and downs that has disturbed it and posed as a threat to
its holder.
From the political aspect, any Shia was restricted from holding any
office in the government. The tyrant and cruel rulers of the Bani Abbas dynasty
like Mansoor, Haroon and Mamun had knowledge of Shiasm, however contrary
to their knowledge they crushed the Shia thought in order to obtain and keep
their power.
Going down the line of the Bani Abbas dynasty we see another ruler,
Muntasar, who held the Shia thought. Again, another by the name of Naser; he
too was Shia. At Samerre (Iraq), the place of disappearance of Mehdi (AS), the
twelfth Imam, had been entrusted to and was repaired by Naser. There are
narration from Shia sources, which say that Naser was Shia and regarded
himself as a deputy of the twelfth Imam, Mehdi (AS). The Shia faith is Islam.
Neither greed corrupted nor ambition has polluted it. They did not desert the
Prophet. When he was no more the tradition of THADALAIN goaded them to
the Prophet's household - the Imams, twelve in succession. Nothing was added
there to; nothing was reduced there from.
It was the same in the Prophet's
lifetime and remained the same throughout the fourteen centuries. What had
history to do with it? They attribute it to history. What we do understand is that
the Shia faith has been the cause for uprisings, movements either open or
underground ones, revolts, and revolutions.
The Shia faith has always stood
against tyrants. It is quite contrary to what some think and say. Of course, there
who think such are men of no knowledge or little information. They do not
know; and those who know conceal; but history knows and tells and does not
conceal.
There were Shia governments. In Egypt, Dialama, North Africa, Iran,
and Iraq. The upraising of the Safavis was an event caused by Shiasm. All these
dominions were under Shia rule. There were the events that the Shia faith
caused; and not the other way around.
C. Sunnism and its sectarian term against Shiasm after the lifetime of the
Prophet:
The analysis of the writer in his book in this chapter is such as to indicate that
Shiasm as well as Sonnism were political forms and that they gradually took the
status of a religions support which was necessary to their political ends. Failure
of Shiasm in political avenues, the writer attributes to the lack of a corres-
ponding ideology.
In this respect, that is, the ideology we would like to correct
the writer because he has made himself free to tell what is not a reality.
The Shia was opposed to accepting the successor to the Prophet who had
been wrongly appointed. This is itself a political dimension. This very policy
and the reason for this policy resulted in the division; this division, in fact,
stretches to the difference of belief in leadership.
To make it short, a new belief
came into existence against the belief of a divinely fixed or established
Imamate. As a result, the real followers of Islam or the adherents to real Islam
were cornered into taking the guise of a group or a party or a sect under the
name of Shia to oppose the politics by listing and leaning to a particular quarter.
But why is this fact deliberately overlooked?
The policy the Shia as a political
group introduced after that undesired division for the administration of society
was itself a real Islamic ideology. It is untrue to say that Shia lacked an
ideology. They had one; this was a religion, a faith, a belief before it took a
political tint. It was so rich that it provided shade to politics. Politicians were
against this belief. So, their effort was to create a group so as to face the belief
of Shia.
They gave to that adversary group a religion form. What was the most
valuable treasure to them, was the caliphate, which they had already snatched
from its rightful owner and had diverted it in their own direction.
In order to
keep it they spent money, dissipated their tactics in creating terror among the
people and purchasing the silence of those whose voice was a threat to them. To
hold the administration of society in their hands as long as possible; this was the
fundamental of their politics.
It is quite simple that a group by the name of
Sunni would have never been invented had the Shia not opposed the point
where they had departed from. The only element of opposition with Shiasm is
the politics.
On the other hand, it was they who did not have an ideology. Had they one
they would have announced it or introduced it. In that confused hour of time
they only captured the moment without announcing what their ideology was.
They could have at least prevented an armed conflict between the religions
rivalry groups for the safety of Islam. There was no interest of any ideology at
their hearts except to capture the opportunity. Later on which ideology did they
follow? The writer is mistaken. The people had already long ago accepted Ali
(AS) as the successor to the Prophet (SAW) at Ghadir, however this decision
had not been respected by the rivalry group (Sunniasm).
The ideology they had
was, Yes, that of terror and fear which stood as the base of their government.
Why has the writer forgotten the sword of Omar? Abubakr was nominated at
SAQIFA. Later, Omar started sauntering, loitering and roaming about in the
streets with a naked sword in hand calling the people to yield to the authority of
Abu Bakr or choose to taste the blade. People were dumb founded. Such a force
and violence was their ideology.
He continued his rampage through the streets
until he approached the house of Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet
(SAW), demanding Ali's surrender to Abu Bakr's authority. Ali (AS) retrained
from doing that.
He was tortured and dishonored at his door; and taken away by
force to the mosque in order to acknowledge Abu Bakr's caliphate. At the end
of his life on the verge of death he wrote a will.
Abu Bakr was rarely in his
senses, he wrote the names of Othaman and Omar leaving it a guess as to which
are of the two was to succeed him. When he came to his senses he was asked as
to whom he actually meant. In reply he confirmed both. He died. Omar
succeeded him. No one pointed out that "the man is uttering nonsense" or "The
pain has overtaken him." A man who has lost his senses can not make a will.
But when Prophet (SAW) wanted to write down his will they did not allow him
by refraining to give him pen and paper. In the progress of all these events we
do not see any fixed ideology. Omar came to power without any rival and any
opposition. Omar too appointed a committee of six men.
Till here there seems
to be no ideology or any respect to the public opinion. Only after Othaman had
been killed did the people rush to Ali's house and yield to his authority and
acknowledge him as caliph.
This they did with their own will, as there was no
force, no compulsion and no violence. From the view point of Shia Ali (AS) had
been the caliph since the moment the Prophet had died.
Regardless to what they have written in their books the fact is that the people
were compelled to accept whom the caliph had appointed in advance. Therefore,
the Sunni people had no ideology in their government. Even to this day of ours
one of their scholars says that Islam has no specific method in appointing a
ruler.
D. The Factor of Religious difference by dividing Islam (Muslims) into
two sects Shia and Sunni:
Love to govern and to attain pomp and ostentation is the prime factor. They
pondered and saw nothing would avail them nor would they avail a thing if they
left things go as they were in the preaching and the teachings of the Prophet. In
his lifetime they should plough so as to harvest after his death: Ambition held
them together and the secrecy of intentions brought a confederation between
them. They contrived a plan.
What the Prophet says or orders or permits or
prohibits should not constitute a binding upon them nor should it have a bearing
on what they wished. Such a line suited the trend and fitted to the taste. So a
thought void of the Prophet's teachings should be pushed ahead side by side
along the Prophet's line, a banner, a slogan, a title that could deceive much and
do nothing was a necessity to push the thought ahead.
"The book of God is
enough for us", this they chose and adopted as their mission. The name of God
and the name of His book served as a tool. They turned it in whatever direction
the need was. The screw was tightened and loosened. Whatever direction it
turned, the banner stood a justification for it.
In other words, so to say, it
actually served as a fortification for them where they were quite safe. They
obeyed and disobeyed the Prophet; they accepted and rejected the Prophet; they
believed and disbelieved in the Prophet; they were the Prophet's friends and
also his enemies.
Such was the banner and such was the use they drew out of it.
It was through this means that they invalidated the sayings of the Prophet. Thus
they were preparing for the great event which was yet to come. They put it to
test when the Prophet (SAW) in his last days demanded a pen and paper to write
down his will. They said; "Pain has overtaken him.
The Book of God is enough
for us." According to some narration they said; "The man is uttering nonsense."
So, by this slogan they stood up against the Prophet. We need not go into long
discussion. It is quite obvious that their lust for power was the prime factor of
the division in Islam. It is true, it was the Prophet (SAW) who gave the name of
Shia to the followers of Ali (AS). But this did not create nor did it cause a
division. The presence of close friends of Ali (AS) like Salman, Abuzar,
Migdad had no part in creating a sect by the name of Shia. When the Prophet
called the followers of Ali (AS) by the name of Shia he meant it for all. His
desire was that all should be Shia. All should follow Ali (AS). It is not even
forcibly convincing that the Prophet himself should divide his own nation. If we
reflect back we see the division actually took place and came into being the
moment the Prophet died. Who was to govern? Who was to succeed? This was
the issue.
This issue was a long awaited one; and long anticipated; and some
had toiled hard for it. Although the Prophet (SAW) had introduced Ali (AS) as
his successor, yet they were still hopeful to steal it. At the cost of division
among Muslims they attained their goal.
If at all we ignore this division and find a justification for it, we can not
overlook a factor, which did play a part. Some of the Muslims held a view
which justified their disobedience the Prophet or to discard his orders. They did
not regard the sayings or the instructions of the Prophet (SAW) as Divine
revelations. As such, according to them, there was no binding.
The Book of God
they sufficed on and they saw no need for the Prophet's (SAW) words. They
regarded themselves in the same level of that of the Prophet (SAW) in
conceiving the Quranic text. So why should they remain in the very same line
prescribed by the Prophet (SAW)?
Whatever they thought necessary with
reports to their personal interest or that of a group stood in preference to the
Prophet's words. With such a view, the instructions of the Prophet (SAW)
became to them amendable in accordance with the time, place, circumstance or
the condition. In the administration of Society the word of the Prophet to them
was not final nor did it constitute an obligation upon them to its obedience. The
lawful and the unlawful to them were not a divine legislation.
Likewise, the
issue of the caliphate too was in the same category. Although the Prophet had
appointed his successor, they felt they were not obliged to accept his choice
because they wrongfully thought it had no validity of a divine revelation.
Therefore, to oppose him was lawful. Such was their reason and such was their
belief; and such they have even proved. They changed the whole cause
immediately after the Prophet's death by appointing their own man as the
caliph. They had said that for the administration of a society it was not prudent
to have one as the caliph even though he should be the Prophet's candidate or
appointed by him.
They can go against his choice... On the other hand, in
several matters they insisted that the Prophet's instructions should be carried out
strictly. But, with regards to the caliphate they did quite the opposite. This
shows that personal interests mattered to them much. There is another instance
where they openly disobeyed the Prophet (SAW).
The Prophet (SAW) had
appointed Asama as the commander in chief, however they refaced to accept
him as their chief. They gave themselves the right to either obey the Prophet or
to disobey him. They did both. They obeyed him and also disobeyed him. When
the Prophet's orders were contrary to their interests, they did not obey him.
Now we ask; who was the opposing group? Followers of Ali. They believed
in the Prophet's words.
What the Prophet said was a divine word to them. In
this respect their point was this verse of the Quran: "And he does not utter upon
lust; but it is a Revelation that he is vested with." This argument sounds
reasonable.
So they regarded the Prophet's (SAW) word a binding upon them
because of its being a Divine Revelation. This Quranic verse too is put forward
in support of their thought: "What is brought to you by the Prophet, take it, and
what he prohibits you refrain from it." Therefore, the orders of the Prophet, to
them, were to be obeyed and followed. They believed that every instruction of
the Prophet (SAW) was and is valid and can not be ignored. This group of
believers was also called 'people of the text'.
They also believed that the
interpretation was beyond their understanding. To them the caliphate of Ali
(AS) and his guardianship over the Muslims was a thing desired by God. They
depended upon this Quranic Verse in support to their belief: "O, Messenger!
Announce what has descended to you from your Such is a brief sketch of the
start of the division. It can be well noticed that the name of 'AHL SUNNAT'
people of tradition) to those ones who actually did not adhere to it is not fair.
The more deserving ones to this name are those who saw incumbent upon them
to stick to the Quran and the tradition of the Prophet (SAW). They are Shia.
Some clamored "The Book of God is enough to us"; and some maintained that
in addition to the Book of God the Prophet's instructions too are necessary. For
the sake of one we can not forego the other. In the absence of either, one falls
short of the other.
Anyway, these two thoughts are fundamental ones. The belief of the Shia
rests on the second one. "The Book of God is enough" is a thought that rejects
the dimension of what the Prophet said and did. And this thought resulted in the
division of Muslims. Well, in exploring this thought "The Book of God is
enough" we come across disagreement among some of this very school.
There
are some that openly campaigned against the Prophet's word and his text so far
as Ali was concerned. Some insisted that in politics or in the political field there
was no necessity to follow the Prophet. Some on some occasions resorted to the
Prophet's tradition because they well knew that the thought "The Book of God
is enough" was bleak and barren that it could not hold long. Little by little it
dawned that the thought "The Book of God is enough" was void of a sense.
It
was only an approval to invalidate the divine legislation. In the beginning this
slogan worked well to their advantage. In deceiving the people who generally
were illiterate and not well informed, this thought went a great deal of length. It
was under this pretext that they prevented the Prophet (SAW) from writing
down his will.
And, they stood against those who used to say that the Prophet's
decree was essential for the office of caliphate by saying that only a Quranic
text could determine such an issue. So, the events of GRADEER as well as that
of YUM AL-DAAR were both overlooked.
As time went on, experience told
them that the affairs could not be ruled or administered without the backing of
the Prophet's traditions; they resorted to interpretation. This paved the way for
them to deduce from the Divine Decrees and the Prophet's words as the demand
suggested or as the need stood. They justified; they interpreted; and they
expounded God's laws; and had it been possible they would have even
questioned the very text of the Holy Quran.
|
|