• Post on Facebook
  • Twitter
  • pdf
  • Print version
  • save

The Exceptions of the Broadness of the Religious Leadership and the Problem in it

|   |   times read : 13
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

The Exceptions of the Broadness of the Religious Leadership and the Problem in it:

He made an exception of the broadness of the leadership saying, “Yes, they have not permitted them in the time of the absence in certain matters that they knew they did not need. These include the jihad of the calling that needs a ruler, armies and princes, etc. They knew that they could not do it. Otherwise, the state of the justice would have appeared just like Sadek (P) said, “If I had the same number of these sheep, and they were 40, I would have come out.”([1])

“In general, the matter is clear with no evidence needed.”([2])

In my opinion, it is problematic to conclude this exception from the narrations. If there were any obstacle, it would be ruling without preparation. In this respect, hopefully, there will be further detail in the coming deliberation. Otherwise, jihad, even the initial one to call for Islam, eradicating sedition and obstacles against the spread of religion is delegated to the scholars who have met the conditions of the deputyship in the time of absence. The permission here is not restricted to Imams in particular. The narrations stipulated the permission of the just Imams who are the infallible Imams when they are present and their deputies in the time of absence. The Imam is never restricted to the infallible. Primarily, this was meant to stop waging war with the unjust rulers. This is found in the narration of Bashir citing Abi Abdullah (P). He said, “I told him, “I had a dream that I said to you, “Fighting with someone other than the Imam required to be obeyed is not allowed just like the [consuming] carcasses, blood, and pork.” You answered, “Yes, this is true.” Abu Abdullah said, “Yes, this is true.””([3]) Al-Rida (P) said in his letter to Ma’moun, “Jihad is a must with a just Imam.”([4]) He said in Al-Jawaher, “Yet in some paths and others, there is insufficiency, in initial jihad, with the deputy of the Imam in the time of absence. He must not be in charge. In “Al-Riadh” there is a negation of being aware of any disagreement. He talks about the explicit wording in “Montaha” and the straight-forwarded-ness in “Ghaniya”. “Ahmad” was the exception at first. He said, “There is an apparent unanimity, in addition to what I have heard of texts that take into consideration the presence of the Imam. However, if there is awrittenunanimity. If not, it would be possible to discuss the broadness of the scholar’s leadership in the time of the absence with the support of most of the jihad evidence.”([5])

In my opinion, this notion is not evident in texts or words of the companions based on the above-mentioned. Contrastively, what is there is the opposite of the claim.Such unanimity is baseless. “Montaha” states, “Jihad may be initiated to call for Islam. It may also be for defense lest an enemy would attack Muslims. The first is only permissible with the permission of the just Imam and who follows the Imam’s order. The second must be absolute. Ahmad said, “The first is a must with every just or unjust person.”([6])

The Selected Opinion:

In any case, we are not going to discuss the evidence mentioned by the writer of Al-Jawaher to the leadership and implications. We have expressed our selected opinion in the matter. We have proven such in the practical religious thesis. We have said that, in the time of the absence, the broad leadership of the scholar who meets the conditions is evident.

We said that there is evidence of such leadership to the deputy of the Imam, in case of absence. This same evidence exists for the necessity to have the Imam himself. This is the rule of logic or reasonable persons to have an Imam and someone to refer to in order to preserve the country and regulate the religious and worldly matters of people. Imam Ali (P) spoke of this necessity, “There must be a prince who is just or unjust to people. The believer would be under his command. The unbeliever would entertain himself, too. Allah would dictate terms under this rule. The prince would collect the return and fight the enemy. The ways would be saferwith him. The strong would deprive the weak person of his right by coercion. The benevolent would rest, and the unjust would be relieved of.” With this truism being evident, Allah must dictate it. The scholar who knows divine law and who is capable of deduction from the sources of legislation and taking from them has a high degree of integrity and self-restraint against selfish lusts. He must also be austere and in harmony with Allah’s will. He would live having Allah “appearing”in his being [annihilation of the ego] and manifesting divine behavior.

This logical or reasonable judgement is assured and guided to by the narration of Ibn Shathan by our Imam Al-Rida (P) in a tradition he says, “If he said why they shouldknow the messengers, acknowledge them and obey them, he would be told, “This is because their creation and their words did not fulfill their interests. The Creator is sublime and no one can see Him. People are weaker and more incompetent to be able to perceive His omnipresence. This is why there must have been an infallible person between Him and people. He would convey them his order, reprimand, and ethics. He further tells them what is beneficial and what removes the harm. When people were created, they were not enabled to know what they needed to benefit and push away the harm. If they were not supposed to know and obey Him, the prophet would not have been to grant them benefit or bridge a gap of need. This proof would have been useless and with no benefit and advantage. This is not a quality of the Wise [Creator] who has perfected everything He created.

If he asks, “Why did he assign rulers and called for their obedience?”

You can say, “There are many causes. One cause is that when creatures were asked to obey orders as it was corrupt for them to do so, that would not be asserted and respected unless a custodian would be entrusted to do so to prevent them from violating and breaching what they were asked not to do. That is because, if it were not this way, no one would have left his lust and advantageif it were detrimental to others. Thus, this trustee would be responsible to stop the corruption and establish punishments and rules.

These [examples] include that we cannot find a party or sect that has lived and survived without a trustee and chief for the matters of religion and the world. The wisdom of the Wise dictates that creatures should not be left for what he knows they must have and for what they cannot stand without. This way, they would fight His enemy and divide their return. He would pray their Friday prayer and the group prayer (Jama’a) and stop the oppressor.

These also include that if they had no entrusted and honest Imam to protect and contain them, the sect would be annihilated. Also, the religion would be lost. The Sunnah and the rules would have been changed. The heretics would have added to the religion. The atheists would have decreased from it and forged matters to Muslims. We have found creatures to be lacking and needy without perfection. They are also different with different desires. They go to different places. If Allah had not entrusted trustee to preserve what the Prophet (P) had come with, they would have been gone corrupt as illustrated. This would have led to the changes in the laws, Sunnahs, rules, and belief. It also would have entailed the corruption of all people.”([7])




([1]) There is a narration in (Bihar Anwar: 28/313) citing the Book of Saqifah for Jawhari and the Battle of Siffin for Nasr Ibn Muzahem and others citing Imam Ali (P), he said, “If I had forty willful among them I would have struggled against the people.” Kulaini narrated with a citation of Sudair Sairafi. He said, “I came into Abi Abdullah (P) and said, “By Allay, how could you not revolt?” He said, “Why Sudair.” I answered, “You have so many followers and Shia and supporters.” He spoke until he said, “He looked at a boy tending some goats. He said, “By Allah Sudair, if I had Shia with the same number of these goats I would not have stopped myself from revolting. Sudair said, “I passed by the goats and counted them. They were 17.”” Usul Kafi: Section 2. The Book of Belief and Disbelief, Chapter: Scarcity of Believers, Section 4.

([2]) Jawaher Kalam: 21/394-397.

([3]) Wasail Shia: 11/32, Chapters of Jihad against the Enemy, Chapter 12, Section 1.

([4]) Wasail Shia: 11/32, Chapters of Jihad against the Enemy, Chapter 1, Section: 24.

([5]) Jawaher Kaam: 21/13.

([6]) Montaha: 2/899.

([7]) Subul Salam: 31-33.