In this part of the article titled “Evidences for Imam Ali’s Guardianship”, we shall discuss about the concept of Shura (i.e. consensus) in relation to leadership issues.
A Comment about Shura
Out of what is mentioned, it became clear to us that the caliphate, in the perspective of the Shiah, is according to Allah’s will and choice, and determination by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a) through a revelation revealed to him. this claim is quietly in line with the philosophy of Islam in all its rulings and legislations, as Allah, the Glorified, is He Who “…createth whatever He willeth and (also) chooseth too; it is not theirs to choose.”
And since Allah, the Glorified, willed that the Ummah of Muhammad be the best community that has been raised up for mankind, so it should have a leader who is wise, sagacious, knowledgeable, powerful, valiant, pious, ascetic, and having the highest level of faith. All these traits can never be enjoyed but by the one chosen by Allah, the Glorious and the Mighty, distinguishing him with special characteristics qualifying him for the post of leadership and headship. The Almighty Allah said: “Allah chooseth from the angels messengers, and (also) from mankind. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Seer”.
The executors have been chosen by Allah exactly as in the case of the prophets. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a) said in this respect: “For every prophet, there is an executor (wasi), and my executor is Ali ibn Abi Talib. In another hadith, he (s.a.w.a) said: I am the seal of the prophets and Ali is the seal of the executors. On this basis, the Shiah submitted totally to Allah and His Messenger, with no one left among them claiming caliphate for himself or coveting it, neither through text (nass) nor through election: first, because the divine text negates the election and shura (council), and secondly due to the fact that the divine text was made by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and benediction be upon him and his Progeny) upon particular and specific persons by their names, so as no transgressor could lift a hand against it, and otherwise he would be considered a debauchee and an apostate.
While the caliphate from the perspective of Ahl al-Sunnah is through election and council (shura). In this way, they opened a door that couldn’t be closed before anyone, arousing the greediness of all, far and near, and bad and good for it, till it was handed over from Quraysh to the slaves, then to the Mamalik and lastly to the Turkish and Moguls.
Thereat, all the values and conditions they stipulated to be possessed by the caliph, have been neglected since anyone other than the Infallible was merely a human being full of passions and instincts, who as soon as attaining power, feels uncertain of being converted and turned to be worse than he was. And Islamic history is replete with much evidence confirming our claim.
Some readers may think that I am exaggerating, and I ask them to go through the history of the Umayyads with the Abbasids and others, to realize that who called himself Amir al-Muminin used to show openly the habit of imbibing wine, frolic with the apes, clothing them with gold. And that the so-called (Amir al-Muminin) used to clothe his bondmaid his clothes to lead Muslims in prayers. Why do we occupy our minds in talking about those whom the Muslims judged to be representing only the mordacious kings, not the (real) caliphate, as referred to by the traditions narrated by them, which is the utterance of the Messenger (s.a.w.a)?
“Verily successorship after me shall last for thirty years, after which it will be only a mordacious rule”. This point is out of the scope of our discussion, and anyone desiring to have information about that is asked to refer to Tarikh al-Tabari, Tarikh Ibn al-Athir, Tarikh Abi al-Fid and Tarikh Ibn Qutaybah, and others.
That which I intended to say was to demonstrate the disadvantages of the election, and futility of the theory from its foundation, as against the one whom we elect today we may harbour malice, and it, will be manifested for us that we were mistaken and have gone wrong in the election. This is exactly like the case of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf when he chose Uthman ibn Affan for the post of the caliphate, after which he felt so regretful, but that was of no use for the Ummah after putting it in trouble. When a reputable Companion belonging to the first vanguard like Uthman, breaches the covenant he gave to Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, and when the latter, though being a companion of fame among the predecessors, being unable to choose properly, it would be impossible then to any sane man to be satisfied with this barren theory that produced nothing but turmoil, instability and bloodshed.
And while swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr being a slip Allah protected Muslims against its evil, as described by Umar ibn al-Khattab, with a large number of Companions opposing and renouncing it, and when allegiance to Ali ibn Abi Talib being sworn publicly with the presence of some Companions violating the allegiance, leading to eruption of the Battles of al-Jamal, Siffin and al-Nahrawan, in which innocent people were killed, how would wise men be pleased then, with that rule which was put to test and exorbitantly failed from the beginning, being mischief for the Muslims. This fact is more ascertained when knowing that those who believe in the principle of shura (consensus), elect the caliph having no authorization after that to substitute or depose him. The Muslims tried their best to depose Uthman, but he disdained, saying: “I never take off a garment Allah has clothed me with.”
That which increases even our aversion to this theory, being what is seen nowadays in the civilized democracy-claiming Western countries, in regard to electing the Head of State, with various parties struggling, bargaining and competing for attaining to power at any cost, spending for this purpose billions of money allocated for publicity in all its means. Further huge potentials and resources are being squandered at the cost of the oppressed among the people who badly need them. As soon as any of them assumes the headship, sympathy overwhelms him, making him designate his supporters, party members, friends and relatives in the posts of ministers, high-ranking responsibilities, and significant positions in administration, leaving the others busy in the activities of the opposition throughout his reign period, upon which it is agreed too.
In this way, they would create problems and obstacles for him, doing their utmost to disgrace and topple him, entailing thus a heavy loss for the downtrodden people. Consequently, many humane values were devaluated and numerous Satanic depravities were elevated with the titles of freedom and democracy, and under bombastic slogans, in a way that sodomy was practised as a lawful and legitimate act, and adultery turned to be progress and advancement as a substitute for marriage, about which you can say what you like.
How great is the Shias’ belief in holding that successorship (Khilafah) being one of the principles of religion, and what sublime is their belief that this post be according to the Will and choice of Allah, the Exalted? It is really an apposite saying and sensible opinion, admitted by reason (‘Aql) and with which the conscience is pleased, being supported by texts from the Quran and (Prophetic) Sunnah, coercing the tyrants, dominants, kings and sovereigns, imparting upon the society tranquillity and stability.
NOTES:
___________________________________
1. Qur’an 28:68.
2. Qur’an 22:75.
3. Ta’rikh Ibn ‘Asakir al-Shafi’i, Vol. 3, p. 5; Manqib al-Khwrazmi, p. 42; Yanbi’ al-mawaddah, p. 79.
4. Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah, Vol. 2, p. 3, on the authority of al-Daylami, Manqib al-Khwrazmi and Dhakh’ir al-‘Uqbah.
5. The number was reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim, while the number and names were reported by the author of Yanbi’ al-Mawaddah, Vol. 3, p. 99.
