Khilafah and Imamah- not contradictory concepts (2)

     

In the part (1) of this article, we have seen that most of the religious disagreements between Sunni and Shiite Schools of Thoughts are relating to ‘Different’ views; they are not relating to ‘Contradictory’ religious views. The conflicts relating to ‘Different’ views may be resolved by accepting right of each school of thoughts to have Different view based on Quran and Sunnah. As far as ‘Contradictory’ views and conflicts relating to them are concerned, they are a few and may be resolved by the intelligentsia belonging to both sides.

We have also seen in part (1) that concepts of khilafah and Imamah are two ‘Different’ concepts- not contradictory concepts- held by the Sunni and the Shiite; though mode of appointment of Imam and caliph is the main conflicting  aspect of the two concepts. The issue of appointment of Imam and caliph would be discussed in the succeeding lines, with a view to find out points of convergence between the two concepts.

It needs to be clarified from the outset that the concepts of appointment of caliph and Imam, described in the succeeding lines, are necessarily based on the historical facts, not necessarily based on religious views held by the Sunni and the Shiite. In other words, we will base our discussion on historical facts which may be or may not be reflected in the religious views held by the both groups- Sunni and Shiite. In my view, the historical facts approach is the best way to have access to the original tenors of the concept of appointment caliph and Imam.

 In view of Sunni Schools of Thought, a caliph is to be appointed by the people; whereas, in view of Shiite Schools of Thought, an Imam is to be appointed by Divinity. Similarly, in view of Shiite Schools of Thoughts, an Imam acts under Divine guidance and guides people under Divine guidance. Actually these both views- relating to Divine appointment and guidance of Imam- are inter-related and may be discussed as one issue.

Regarding Divine appointment of Imam, the first thing which needs to be understood is the way such Divine appointment may be made.

We have already seen in the article ‘Wahi, Intuition and their Implications’ that Allah communicates with His creatures through ‘wahi’; wahi is initiated by an angel. Al-shura-52 states “We made “wahi” to you  [Muhammad (saw)] an Angel with Our command”. From this verse, it appears that sending down an angel with Allah’s message is called ‘wahi’. It has also been seen in the same article that prophetic ‘wahi’ is always carried by Gabriel (a.s) whereas non-prophetic ‘wahi’ may be carried by an angel other than Gabriel (a.s). We have also seen in the same article that devils from jinn and human beings can also make ‘wahi’ to other humans. Therefore followers need to differentiate between Satanic wahi and Allah’s wahi.

Among the various forms of non-prophetic wahi are coming of an idea in the recipient’s mind; hearing an hidden voice; seeing visuals of  a past, present or future event-which cannot be seen by other people around; seeing something written which cannot be seen by other people around etc. All these non-prophetic forms of ‘wahi’ are developed/ carried through an angel. But all forms of non-prophetic wahi are open to be affected by devils which can affect such non-prophetic wahi with Satanic wahi generated by these devils.

We have also seen in the article ‘wahi, Intuition and their Implications’  that prophetic ‘wahi’ is to be compulsorily complied with by the followers; whereas non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is NOT to be compulsorily complied with by the followers. Non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is actually for personal guidance of the recipient, and may be complied with by the followers only if such non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is in line with the prevailing Shariah. This difference between applicability of prophetic and non-prophetic wahi is understandable due to the fact that recipients of non-prophetic wahi are not as much protected in their actions and sayings by Allah as recipients of prophetic wahi are. Therefore non-prophetic wahi can be complied with only if such ‘wahi’ is in line with prevailing Shariah which has been revealed to the personalities which are most protected in their actions and sayings by Allah as against recipients of non-prophetic ‘wahi’ which is exposed to be affected by ‘wahi’ from devils from jinn and human beings.

From the foregoing, we may draw a conclusion that an Imam may be recipient of non-prophetic wahi, and it is through non-prophetic wahi that Imam acts under Divine guidance. Every Shiite faction believes that our Nabi (s.a.w.w) is the last of ‘Nabis’; it implies that no Imam receives prophetic wahi- a prophetic wahi is a wahi which declares the recipient as a Nabi. If an Imam receives a non-prophetic wahi, it needs to be appreciated that non-prophetic wahi is for personal guidance of the recipient and it has to be in line with the Shariah i.e. Quran and Sunnah. It needs not to emphasize that Imam-ate is spiritual and worldly leadership; in other words, an Imam must have all  such knowledge which must prove his actions and sayings as in consonance with Quran and Sunnah; he must have such character and conduct which should earn him spiritual and worldly leadership. The non-prophetic wahi received by him helps him in acquiring the knowledge, character and conduct required to put him at the place of worldly and spiritual leadership. In other words, it is not that status of Imam-ate is conferred by Divinity on a person directly; rather more appropriately, it is the bundle of responsibilities which is conferred on a person by Divinity so that he may achieve the status of an Imam through acquiring spiritual and worldly knowledge and through developing required character and conduct. Imam-ate is not 'wahbi'; it is cultivable but it is cultivable  under Divine guidance. At a time, there may be more than one persons receiving Divine guidance which  helps  them in  acquiring required knowledge and qualities on basis of which any one of them would be acknowledged as Imam.

The history shows that the Shiite people have been acknowledging a person as an Imam who, in their view, was more suitable to be acknowledged as Imam in terms of social conduct, qualities and knowledge as against some other competitor. Thus we see that many Shiite people acknowledged Hazrat Zaid (a.s) as Imam as against Imam al-Baqir who is acknowledged as Imam by ‘Ithna Ashariyya’ faction (though both personalities are ahle bait’s descendants). Similarly many Shiite people acknowledged Imam Ismael as Imam as against Imam Musa Kazim who is acknowledged as Imam by ‘Ithna Ashariyyah’ faction (though both personalities are  ahle bait’s descendants).

In the light of the foregoing, we may find out some points of convergence in concepts of ‘Khilafah and Imamah’ with particular reference of appointment of Imam and ‘khaleefah’, and Divine guidance of Imam, and see how far these points converge or diverse.

The first point of convergence may be found in respect of non-prophetic wahi received by Imam. The non-prophetic wahi in the form of an idea coming in human mind; hearing an hidden voice; seeing visuals of  a past, present or future events-which cannot be seen by other people around; seeing something written which cannot be seen by other people around etc. is not an idea repugnant to Sunni Schools of Thoughts. All these forms of Divine guidance are acknowledged by Sunni Schools of Thoughts; though they may not be named as non-prophetic wahi. It is not important what name is given by Sunni Schools of Thoughts to these forms of non-prophetic wahi; it is enough if all these forms are considered as various forms of Divine guidance. All high statured ‘Aulia Allah’ are believed to be blessed with availing these forms of Divine guidance. Therefore the concept of Divine guidance nourished by Shiite regarding an Imam, and by Sunni regarding  ‘Aulia-Allah’ is the same.

The second point of convergence is that such Divine guidance is to be acknowledged subject to the Shariah i.e. Quran and Sunnah.  As both Sunni and Shiite believe that Divine guidance should be in consonance with Quran and Sunnah, we may conclude that both Sunni and Shiite are in agreement regarding the concept of Divine guidance.

The most crucial point is the third one- whether or not an interpretation of Shariah adopted by an Imam may be questioned and declared as repugnant to or deviated from the Shariah. In this regard, it may be appreciated that an Imam is supposed to be a worldly and spiritual leader. Blessed with Divine guidance, he is supposed to be able to justify all his actions and sayings in the light of Shariah; if he is a person who cannot present such justifications for his actions and sayings, he would definitely not be acknowledged as Imam by the majority of Muslim people. If we see through the history, we find that all persons (who were descendants of ahle bait) and who were considered as Imams by the Shiite community were highly regarded by all Sunni Muslims as well due to their piety, knowledge and strength of character.  All Muslims- Shiite and Sunni- considered that all these personalities were capable of justifying their deeds in the light of Shariah; though the Sunni do not believe that views held by Shiite are the views held by the concerned Imams. Briefly speaking, an Imam of Muslims would be only a person of such a piety and knowledge that would convince the people of rightness of his deeds. In other words, an Imam would be a person who would be able to justify his interpretations of shariah in the light of Shariah. In other words, this point pertains to the time when Imam would be among the people- at that time it would be seen whether a person claimed to be an Imam is able to justify his deeds in the light of shariah or not; it is premature to make this point a point of conflict in the present age. However, in Sunni's view, people may differ with the caliph's view point in the light of shariah.

The fourth point is that an Imam would be only a descendant of ahle bait. I believe that if a person is blessed with Divine guidance; if he is able to justify his deeds in the light of shariah; if he is able to command Muslims’ loyalty and faith in his piety and knowledge, Sunni Muslims would not hesitate in acknowledging his ‘Imamah’ and ‘khilafah’, even if Shiite would believe that such person is the only eligible person for Imamah, being a descendant of ahle bait. Similarly, if no descendant of ahle bait  is capable of developing all these qualities mentioned above, Muslims would not acknowledge any descendant of ahle bait  as Imam or ‘Khaleefah’, notwithstanding what faith the Shiite community have. This point also pertains to the time when claimant of Imam would be among the people; it is again pre-mature to make this point a point of conflict in the present age. 
We may conclude that 'Imamah' and 'Khilafah' are Different but not Contradictory concepts; therefore Shiite and Sunni may live with both these concepts simultaneously. 

Khilafah and Imamah- not contradictory concepts (1)

  

We have already seen in article ‘Differentiation between Sectarianism, Grouping, and Unity in Islam’ that grouping and sectarianism are two different things; grouping is allowed in Islam whereas sectarianism is not permissible in Islam. The Quran is Allah's Words; as such Quran has multi-layered meanings. Therefore different meanings of Quran may be exacted, and all such different meanings may be adopted, if such meanings are not contradictory to each other. To hold different views based on Quran is called ‘grouping’ which is permissible in Islam; but to have contradictory views is called ‘sectarianism’ which is not allowed in Islam. It has also been explained how ‘Different views/interests’ are something different from ‘Contradictory views/interests’. Two views are different views, if any one of the two may be adopted without negating or accepting the other one. Two views are contradictory views, if any one  of the two may NOT be   adopted without negating the other. For instance, A says Z is dead; and B says Z is alive; these two views are contradictory because a person may not adopt any one of the two without negating the other view. Similarly, suppose, A says Z is sick; B says Z is on leave; these two views are different views because a person may adopt any one of the two views without negating the other one. 

It has also been observed that almost all religious conflicts/disagreement are relating to Different views, not relating to Contradictory views which are only a few. It means all disagreements/conflicts among various Muslim segments may be diluted by accepting right of all segments to adopt Different views relating to any issue, keeping in view the fact that Quranic words, being Allah’s Words and as such having most comprehensive  meanings, have multi-layered meanings; all such Different meanings may be adopted, if they are not contradictory mutually. The Contradictory views, which are a few, may also be diluted by intellectuals through intellectual exercises undertaken for the purpose. I believe that many religious views which are considered as contradictory among various Muslim segments are actually not contradictory; rather such seemingly ‘Contradictory’ views are actually ‘Different’ views, and as such may be adopted without negating or accepting the other ones.

The concepts of ‘khilafah’ and  ‘Imamah’ are  also such religious concepts which are usually considered as contradictory but are actually only different concepts. As ‘different’ concepts, any one of these two concepts may be adopted, without negating or accepting the other concept. The controversy shrouded around these two concepts is the corner stone from where almost all conflicting views nourished by Sunni and Shiite Schools of Thoughts emerge. In other words, taking these two concepts as Contradictory concepts- whereas they are not ‘Contradictory’; they are only ‘Different’- is the basis of disagreements/conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Schools of Thoughts.

Let us elaborate this point in the succeeding lines.

‘Khilafah’ is a Sunni concept of political system in which caliph/ the ruler is appointed by the people through consultation, and, in return, caliph/ the ruler rules the state through consultation with the people; but the caliph is not bound to go along the advice tendered by the people. The people are supposed to obey the caliph/ the ruler. However the caliph is not allowed to violate Islamic injunctions; in such eventuality the people can disobey the caliph/ the ruler.

 ‘Imamah’ is a Shiite concept of spiritual and woldly leadership according to which an ‘Imam’ is to be appointed by Divinity; people have no role in appointment of ‘Imam’. The ‘Imam’ receives guidance from Divinity as such people are supposed to obey Imam. The Imam can consult the people but is not bound to go along the advice given by the people. 

Imam is different from a Nabi in the sense that a Nabi comes with new shariah, or comes with rectified form of previous shariah, or comes with  extended/added form of previous shariah (plz see my article "Qadyaniat' and Ibn e Arbi's Mis-understood Concept of 'Nabuwwat"). On the other hand, an Imam does not come with new shariah or rectified shariah or extended shariah; however he can only interpret the shariah revealed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w). It may be appreciated there is difference between 'Shariah' and 'Interpretations to Shariah'.  Shariah is only Quran and Sunnah; all other sources of Islamic Law (i.e. Ijmah; Qiyas; Ijtihaad; Customs etc.) are Interpretations to Shariah. 

When a Nabi (coming before our Nabi (s.a.w.w) interpreted previous Shariah, such an interpretation became extended Shariah; it no longer remained interpretation to previous Shariah. The reason is obvious; a Nabi is sent to be followed by the people compulsorily; his Interpretations to Shariah are also to be followed by the people compulsorily. Because Interpretations to Shariah are not to be followed by the people compulsorily, a Nabi's Interpretations to Shariah, when made, become extended Shariah; such Interpretations no longer remain Interpretations to Shariah. It is debatable whether or not people may deviate from an Imam's interpretations to shariah. However it may be appreciated that an Imam may deviate from interpretation put forth by another Imam. For instance, the issue was-  whatsoever circumstances are- whether an Imam could accept authority of a ruler who was not an Imam. Imam Hassan (a.s) reconciled with Muawiya's regime and accepted his authority; whereas Ali (a.s) did not accepted Muawiya's authority. But Imam Hussain (a.s) defied the same regime which was under Muawiya's son i.e. Yazeed. But again Imam Zain-ul-abadeen (a.s) [who was son of Imam Hussain (a.s)] reconciled  with the same regime under Yazeed. I mean each of these three Imams (along with his followers) opted  his own interpretation regarding the same issue, deviating from the interpretation put forth by the previous Imam. In other words, the sanctity given to interpretation done by a Nabi is not attached to the interpretation made by an Imam; the interpretation done by a Nabi under 'wahi' is converted into extended Shariah which cannot be deviated by any person. Therefore the concept of Divine guidance attached with an Imam should not be confused with concept of prophetic 'wahi' attached with a Nabi. The concept of Divine guidance may be more appropriately categorized as 'non-prophetic wahi' which is sent to a person for his personal guidance (for details plz see my article "Wahi, Intuition and their Implications". It is due to non-prophetic wahi received by an Imam that he acts under Divine guidance and, in turn, guides his people. 

We can see that the main conflicting point in the two concepts is relating to appointment of caliph and Imam; caliph is appointed by the people, whereas Imam is appointed by Divinity. But what is to be appreciated is that a caliph is essentially a ruler (a political office); whereas an Imam is not essentially a ruler (a political office). According to Shiite concept, preferably an Imam should be the ruler as well; but if Imam does not happen to be a ruler, the status of his Imam-ate is not affected and he still remains an Imam. Thus we see  after Imam Hassan (a.s), no Imam of ‘Ithna ashariyyah’ happened to be a ruler; but  each of them is still acknowledged as Imam. During whole  period in which Imams of ‘ Ithna ashariyyah’ were not rulers themselves, they accepted non-Shiite rulers as caliphs. After occultation of twelfth Imam, Shiite have been obeying rulers (which are obviously not Imams). This fact that caliph is essentially a ruler but Imam is not essentially a ruler leads us to believe that ‘khilafah’ and ‘Imamah’ are two ‘Different’ offices/concepts. Both offices may exist together in view of a person; it means the both concepts may exist together in view of a person. In other words, these two concepts are not ‘Contradictory’ which may not exist together in view of a person; these concepts are ‘Different’ concepts which may exist together in view of a person who may adopt any one of the two concepts without negating or accepting the other one.

We may conclude that the conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Schools of Thoughts are not rooted in the contradictory religious beliefs; though they are propagated as rooted in the contradictory religious belief systems. Almost all disagreements/ conflicts found between Shiite and Sunni Schools of Thoughts are related to ‘Different’ views; all such conflicts may be resolved by accepting right of each school of thought to adopt- out of two ‘Different’ views- any one view without negating or accepting the other one. The Quranic words, being Allah’s Words, may have multi-layered meanings; it is justifiable, if various groups adopt different meanings, provided such meanings are not contradictory mutually and not contradictory to Quran. The ‘Contradictory’ views nourished by Shiite and Sunni Schools of Thoughts are a few and may be resolved by intellectuals from each side. The major contributors to Sunni-Shiite conflicts are not religious views; they are negative attitudes adopted by ‘ulema’ from each side. Such conflicts may be suppressed by imparting such training and education to ‘ulema’ which could enhance  sense of toleration among the ‘ulema’. One method to raise toleration among ‘ulema’ may be to educate students of religious studies in the same ‘madarassa’ without discrimination of School of Thought they belong to. When students from various Schools of Thoughts would be put together to obtain religious teachings of their respective creeds, they would get opportunities to generate discussions about different views held by different creeds, and in this way they would become able to know the fallacy of their own views and real grounds of ‘Different and Contradictory’ views held by them. In this way, the religious students would grow more tolerating (continued).