To this point Islam has been spoken of in somewhat general terms and without inquiry into what it was that gave it its unique identity during the classical period, an identity that persists to this day. To speak of a “religion” is to speak of many things—a system of beliefs or an accepted complex of ritual, for example. But when one looks at how a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim regards himself and his coreligionists, it is the sense of community that asserts itself at every turn: Bene Yisrael, ekklesia, and umma all speak, each in its own context, of a powerful sense of group solidarity.
The effect of God’s earlier revelations was, as Muhammad understood very well, the creation of communities, most notably the “Peoples of the Book,” the Jews and Christians. The Arabs, now in possession of a “clear Arabic Quran” (Quran 16:103), had become just such a community (umma). But even during Muhammad’s lifetime, his community achieved such a remarkable degree of political success that it had become in effect a state—a responsibility faced by Judaism and Christianity only at a considerably more advanced stage of their development. Thus Muhammad was not simply God’s envoy; he was also, for much of his later life, judge, spiritual guide, and military and political leader, first of a community, then of a city-state, and finally of a burgeoning empire.
Islam is, on the testimony of the Quran itself, a successor community to those other peoples who had gone before it. They had had their Messengers and they too had been given the benefit of God’s Book.
Remember We gave to Moses the Book and sent after him many an apostle; and to Jesus son of Mary We gave clear evidence of the truth, reinforcing him with divine grace. Even so, when a messenger brought to you what did not suit your mood, you turned haughty, and called some impostors and some others you slew.
And they say: “Our hearts are enfolded in covers.” In fact, God has cursed them in their unbelief; and only a little do they believe. (Quran 2:87–88)
How many of the followers of the Books having once known the truth desire in their heart to turn you into infidels again, even after the truth has become clear to them! But you forbear and overlook till God fulfill His plan; and God has power over all things.
Fulfill your devotional obligations and pay the alms-tithe. And what you send ahead of good you will find with God, for He sees all that you do.
And they say: “None will go to Paradise but the Jews and the Christians,” but this is only wishful thinking. Say: “Bring the proof, if you are truthful.”
Only he who surrenders to God with all his heart and also does good, will find reward with his Lord and have no regret and fear.
The Jews say, “The Christians are not right,” and the Christians say, “The Jews are in the wrong,” yet both recite the Scriptures. And this is what the unread had said too. God alone will judge between them in their differences on the Day of Reckoning. (Quran 2:109–113)
The first of those people to have been given Scripture were the Jews.
Men belonged to a single community; and God sent them Messengers to give them happy tidings and warnings and sent the Book with them containing the truth to judge between them in matters of dispute; but only those who received it differed after receiving clear proofs, on account of waywardness among them. Then God by His dispensation showed those who believed the way to the truth about which they were differing; for God shows whom He pleases the path that is straight. (Quran 2:213)
The Muslim commentators on the Quran were not sure about the duration of the period when “the people were one community.” But the Book that was sent down and to whom it was given and why was the matter of no dispute.
… God means that the Book, that is, the Torah, should decide between the people on matters on which they disagreed. God has assigned the decision to the Book and established it and not the Prophets and the Apostles as the decisive criterion between the people, since whenever one of the Prophets or Apostles had to bring down a judgment, he did it on the basis of the indications which are contained in the Book which is sent down by God….
God’s words “they disagreed concerning it” mean that they disagreed concerning the Book that God had sent down, that is, the Torah. His word “those to whom it had been given” refers to the Jews of the Children of Israel. They are the ones who had been given the Torah and its knowledge…. Thus God proclaims that the Jews of the Children of Israel disobeyed the Book, the Torah, and they disagreed concerning it in spite of the knowledge which it contains. In so doing they deliberately disobeyed God since they violated His command and the decision of His Book.
“Then God showed those who believed the way to the truth …” means that God granted success to those who are believing, that is, those who support belief in (the one) God and His Apostle, Muhammad, and who put their trust in him and are convinced that his message, about which the previous recipients of the Book had earlier disagreed, comes from God. The disunity in which God left these people alone, while rightly guiding and helping to the truth those who believe in Muhammad, refers to (Friday as) the “day of gathering” (for worship). Although this day had been enjoined on them [that is, the Jews] as an obligation just as it had been enjoined on us, they deviated from it and changed (their day of worship) to the Sabbath. The Prophet has said: Although we are the last, we surpass (the others in obedience to God’s commands), even though the Book was given to them before it was given to us, and so we possessed it after they did. God has rightly guided us even to this day, on matters on which they disagreed. The Jews have taken (as their day of worship) the day following (Friday) and the Christians have taken the day after that.
Concerning the matters about which the people disagreed, Ibn Zayd is reported to have said, according to Yunus ibn Abd A‘la, that God’s words “then God showed those who believed the way to the truth” mean that (He led the believers) to Islam. The people disagreed concerning prayer. Some prayed facing toward the East while others faced toward Jerusalem. Then God led us to the right direction of prayer toward Mecca. Also the people disagreed concerning fasting. Some fasted at certain times of the day while others fasted at certain times of the night. Then God led us to the right times for fasting. Also the people disagreed concerning the day of congregational worship. While the Jews chose the Sabbath, the Christians took Sunday; then God led us to the right day (on Friday). Also the people disagreed about Abraham. The Jews considered him a Jew and the Christians considered him a Christian. Then God freed him from such suspicions and demonstrated that he was a hanif who was surrendered to God, and that he also was not to be classed among the heathen, as some maintained, who claimed that he had been one of the unbelievers. Finally, the people also disagreed about Jesus. The Jews considered him to be the victim of a lie, while the Christians considered him to be a god. Thereupon God led us to the truth concerning him. (Tabari, Commentary, ad loc.)
We sent down the Torah which contains guidance and light; in accordance with which the prophets, who had surrendered themselves [or became muslims], gave instructions to the Jews, as did the rabbis and the priests, for they were the custodians and witnesses of God’s writ. (Quran 5:44)
This is one of the central Quranic texts explaining the position of the Jews with respect to God’s revelation, and as such it receives full treatment at the hands of the commentators.
“… the prophets who had surrendered themselves”: Submission [that is, islam] is an attribute which is used in praise of the prophets generally and not as a distinguishing characteristic (of the Jewish prophets), just as is the case with attributes one uses in reference to the Eternal One. The use of this attribute (with reference to the biblical prophets) shows that the Jews are far from acknowledging Islam, which is the (true) religion of the prophets in both ancient and modern times, and that Judaism is remote from acknowledging this. God’s words, “the prophets, who had surrendered themselves, gave judgment against those who were Jewish” emphasizes this in a forceful manner.
“As did the masters (of the Law) and the rabbis”: This refers to the ascetics and the learned men among the descendants of Aaron, who remained faithful to the ways of the prophets and have remained aloof from the religion of the Jews.
“Following the portion of God’s Book that had been entrusted to them”: The portion of God’s Book that the prophets had instructed the rabbis and masters (of the Law) to preserve was the Torah. That is, the prophets had ordered them to preserve the Torah from change and distortion. (Zamakhshari ad loc.)
The Christians too had been in Muslims’ eyes unfaithful to God’s word.
O People of the Book, do not be fanatical in your faith, and say nothing but the truth about God. The Messiah who is Jesus, son of Mary, was only an Apostle of God, and a command of His which He sent to Mary, as a mercy from Him. So believe in God and His apostles, and do not call him “Three.” Refrain from this for your own good; for God is only one God, and far from His glory is it to beget a son. (Quran 4:171)
Once again Zamakhshari provides the proper exegetical perspective.
“Do not be fanatical in your faith”: The Jews went too far in that they degraded the position of Christ in regarding him as an illegitimate child (of Mary). And the Christians went too far in that they unduly elevated him in considering him a god.
“His word”: Jesus is designated as “the word of God” and as “a word from Him” (Sura 3:39) because he alone originated through the word and command of God rather than through a father and a sperm. For this reason he is also designated as “the spirit of God” (Sura 66:12) and “a spirit from Him,” since Jesus was a spirit-endowed man who originated without any element from a spirit-endowed man, such as the sperm that is discharged from an earthly father. He was created by a new act of creation by God whose power is unlimited.
The word “Three” (in this verse) is the predicate of an understood subject. If one accepts the Christian view that God exists in one substance with three divine persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and if one accepts the opinion that the person of the Father represents God’s being, the person of the Son represents His knowledge, and the person of the Holy Spirit represents His life, then one must supply the subject (of the clause) as follows: “God is three(fold).” Otherwise, one must supply the subject thus: “The gods are three.” According to the evidence of the Quran, the Christians maintain that God, Christ and Mary are three gods, and that Christ is the child of God by Mary, as God says (in the Quran): “O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to men: ‘Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God’?” (Sura 5:116 or “The Christians say: ‘The Messiah is the Son of God’” (Sura 9:30). Moreover, it is well known that the Christians maintain that in Jesus are (combined) a divine nature derived from his Father and a human nature derived from his mother. God’s words (in this verse) “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God,” are also explained on the basis of such an interpretation (of the Christians). These words confirm (the Christian view) that Jesus was a child of Mary, that he had with her the usual relationship between children and their mothers, and that his relationship to God was that he was His Messenger and that he became a living being through God’s command and a new act of creation without a father. At the same time these words exclude (the Christian view) that Jesus had with God the usual relationship between sons and their fathers. (Zamakhshari ad loc.)
Christianity had three centuries to brace for the shock of finding itself the part proprietor of a Christian Roman Empire. Islam was from its inception both a religious and a political association. As we have seen in chapter 2 above, in 622 C.E. he accepted an invitation to leave his native Mecca, where he was the charismatic leader of a small conventicle of believers, and to emigrate to Medina as the ruler of a faction-ridden community of Arabs and Jews. This was a crucial period in Muhammad’s life, and the years following his “migration” (hijra; Eng., Hegira) were spent in trying to forge some kind of community (umma) in accordance with his religious principles and the political realities of the situation. The first umma at Medina was not yet a fully Islamic association—both Jews and pagan Arabs were included—but as Muhammad’s political fortunes began to prosper, religious considerations came to the fore. The Jewish tribes of Medina were purged from the coalition, and the pagans were dragged willy-nilly into it; the umma became a community of believers who accepted the dominion of Allah and both the Prophethood and the leadership of Muhammad.
These were not artificial associations. Muhammad’s role as a Prophet (nabi) within a community that he himself had summoned into being necessarily included the functions of legislator, executive, and military commander of the umma. God’s revelations continued to spill from his lips. Now, however, they were not only threats and warnings to nonbelievers, but more often legislative enactments regulating community life, and particularly the relations of one Muslim with another.
For its community model, the Quran cites, but does not use, the example of the Jews and Christians, both of whom constituted defined and already existing religious communities, corporate bodies of believers in possession of an authentic revelation. But how these communities were governed or what political or social institutions they possessed, the Quran does not explain. Indeed, the Book offers no systematic or extended discussion of the new community of Muslims whose birth it was chartering. But the notion of community nonetheless occurs often there, sometimes in the context of the Muslims’ treatment of each other, sometimes in their distancing themselves from those other older communities of the “Peoples of the Book.”
O believers, if you follow what some of the People of the Book say, it will turn you into unbelievers even after you have come to belief.
And how can you disbelieve? To you are being recited the messages of God, and His Prophet is among you. And whosoever holds fast to God shall verily be guided to the path that is straight.
O believers, fear God as He should be feared, and do not die except as those submitting to him. Hold on firmly together to the rope of God, and be not divided among yourselves, and remember the favors God bestowed on you when you were one another’s foe and He reconciled your hearts, and you turned into brethren through His grace. You had stood on the edge of the pit of fire and He saved you from it, thus revealing to you His clear signs, that you might perchance find the right way.
So let there be one community among you who may call to the good, enjoin what is esteemed and forbid what is odious. They are those who will be successful.
So be not like those who became disunited and differed among themselves after clear proofs had come to them. For them is great suffering….
These are the commandments of God We recite to you verily; God does not wish injustice to the creatures of the world. For to God belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth, and to God do all things return. Of all the communities raised among men, you are the best, enjoining the good, forbidding the wrong, and believing in God. If the people of the Book had come to believe, it would have been better for them; but only some believe, and transgressors are many. (Quran 3: 100–110)
The foolish will now ask and say: “What has made the faithful turn away from the direction toward which they used to pray?” Say, “To God belongs the East and the West. He guides who so wills to the path that is straight.” We have made you a middle community that you act as witness over man, and the Prophet as witness over you. (Quran 2:142–143)
The Quranic notion of Islam as a “central” or “middle” community elicited considerable reflection from the medieval commentators.
I regard the word “middle” in this context as signifying the mean between two extremes. God described the Muslims as a people of the middle path because of their middle position in religion. They are neither people of excess like the Christians who went to extremes in their monastic practices as well as in what they said concerning Jesus, nor are they people of deficiency like the Jews, who altered the Book of God, killed their prophets, gave the lie to their Lord, and rejected faith in Him. Rather they are people of the middle path and of balance in their religion. God characterized them as people of the middle path because the things which God loves most are those of the middle position. (Tabari, Commentary, ad loc.)
The word “middle” or “in the middle” was originally a designation for a position with equal distances on each side. Then it came to refer to certain praiseworthy attributes of character because these lie (in the middle) between extremes of excess and exaggeration on both sides. Thus, generosity lies between wastefulness and stinginess and boldness between foolhardy recklessness and cowardice. The word is now also applied to a person who possesses such characteristics…. From the words of God in this verse one can (also) draw the conclusion that consensus is a valid authority (in questions of faith), since if that on which Muslims are agreed were delusion, then a gap would be created in their integrity (and thus they would not stand in the middle). (Baydawi ad loc.)
Islam is a universal community, it is clear from the Quran and Muhammad’s own preaching, but it is also true that Muhammad was an Arab sent to preach God’s message in the first instance to Arabs. The Arabs were not a “chosen people” the way the Israelites understood themselves to be, but Arabic was in some sense God’s “chosen language.” A number of verses in the Muslim Scripture lay emphasis on the fact that this is an Arabic Quran. The language is in fact such an important element in interpreting the Book, and particularly in understanding its legal prescriptions, that the jurist al-Shafi‘i (d. 820 C.E.) devoted considerable space to it in his Treatise on the Roots of Jurisprudence, and his reflections cast an interesting light on the tension between cultural Arabism and religious Islam.
Someone said: There are in the Quran Arabic and foreign words.
Shafi‘i replied: The Quran indicates that there is no portion of the Book of God that is not in the Arab tongue. He who expressed such an opinion [namely, that there are foreign words in the Quran] … perhaps meant that there are certain particular words which are not understood by some Arabs.
Of all tongues that of the Arabs is the richest and most extensive in vocabulary. Do we know any man except a Prophet who apprehended all of it? However, no portion of it escapes everyone, so that there is always someone who knows it. Knowledge of this tongue is to the Arabs what knowledge of the tradition of the Prophet is to the jurists: We know of no one who possesses a knowledge of all the tradition of the Prophet without missing a portion of it. So if the knowledge of all the scholars is gathered together, the entire tradition of the Prophet would be known. However, if the knowledge of each scholar is taken separately, each might be found lacking in some portion of it, yet what each may lack can be found among the others….
In like manner is the (knowledge of the) tongue of the Arabs by the scholars and the public. No part of it will be missed by all of them, nor should it be sought from other people; for no one can learn this tongue save that he has learned it from the Arabs, nor can anyone be as fluent in it as they unless he has followed them in the way they learned it. He who has learned it from them should be regarded as one of the people of that tongue….
Someone may ask: What is the proof that the Book of God was communicated in a pure Arabic tongue, unmixed with others?
Shafi‘i replied: The proof is to be found in the Book of God itself, for God said:
“We never sent a Messenger save in the tongue of his people.” (Quran 14: 4)
But if someone says: Each of the Messengers before Muhammad was sent to his own people, while Muhammad was sent to all mankind. This may mean either that Muhammad was sent with the tongue of his people and that all others must learn his tongue—or whatever they can learn of it—or that Muhammad was sent with the tongues of all mankind. Is there any evidence that he was sent with the tongue of his own people rather than with foreign tongues?
Shafi‘i replied: Since tongues vary so much that different people cannot understand one another, some must adopt the language of others. And preference must be given to the tongues that others adopt. The people who are fit to receive such a preference are those whose tongue is their Prophet’s tongue. It is not permissible—but God knows best—for the people of the Prophet’s tongue to become the followers of peoples whose tongues are other than that of the Prophet even in a single letter; but rather all other people should follow his tongue, and all people of earlier religions should follow his religion. For God has declared this in more than one communication of His Book:
“Truly, it is the revelation of the Lord of the worlds, brought down by the Faithful Spirit, upon your heart, that you may be one of those who warn, in a clear Arabic tongue.” (Quran 26:192–195)
And He also said:
“Thus have We sent it down as an Arabic Law.” (Quran 13:37)
And He said:
“And so we have revealed to you an Arabic Quran in order that you may warn the Mother of the Towns and the people of its vicinity.” (Quran 42:5)
The “Mother of the Towns” is Mecca, the city of the Prophet and of his people. Thus God mentioned them in His Book as a special people and included them among those who were warned as a whole, and decreed that they were to be warned in their native tongue, the tongue of the Prophet’s people in particular.
It is obligatory upon every Muslim to learn the Arab tongue to the utmost of his power in order to be able to profess through it that “there is no god but the God and Muhammad is His servant and Apostle,” and to recite in it the Book of God.
Shafi‘i finally returns to his lawyer’s point.
The reason I began to explain why the Quran was communicated in the Arab tongue rather than in another, is that no one who understands clearly the total meanings of the (legal) knowledge of the Book of God would be ignorant of the extent of that tongue and of the various meanings of its words…. Doubts that appear to one who is ignorant (of the Arab tongue) will disappear from him who knows it…. Calling the attention of the public to the fact that the Quran was communicated in the Arab tongue in particular is advice to all Muslims. This advice is a duty imposed on them which must not be put aside and is the attainment of a supererogatory act of goodness which no one will neglect. (Shafi‘i, Treatise) [SHAFI‘I 1961: 88–94]
In Muhammad’s own day membership in the community of Muslims might be understood simply as including anyone who acknowledged the unity of God and the Quran as the Word of God, and who performed the ritual acts prescribed in the so-called Five Pillars described below. Those grounds had soon to be extended to a detailed affirmation of the teachings of the Quran, as broadened and explained by the various “sayings” or “Prophetic traditions” attributed to Muhammad himself. But the process of enlargement did not end there; it soon came to embrace the notion of “consensus,” the agreement of Muslims on certain points of belief and practice, even without the authority of a Quranic text or a “Prophetic tradition” to support it (see chapter 5 below).
The validity of “consensus” as an operative element in Islam was argued in what became the classic statement of the position, Shafi‘i’s already cited Treatise on the Roots of Jurisprudence. In the following passage an anonymous questioner is willing to concede the binding nature of the Quran and the “Prophetic traditions,” but requests further proof on the matter of “consensus.”
What is your proof for following what people have agreed upon, where there is no command in a text from God [that is, in the Quran], or related from the Prophet? Would you assert what others have held, that consensus can never occur except on a firm “tradition,” even though it may not have been related [that is, even if it has not reached us in the form of a “Prophetic tradition”]?
I told him (said Shafi‘i): As to what they agreed upon and say that it has (also) been related from the Prophet, let us hope that it is (accepted) as they say. However, as for what is not related [that is, there is no specific Prophetic tradition on the matter], it may be that it was actually said by the Messenger of God, or it may be otherwise. It is not, however, permissible to attribute sayings to him (without grounds), for one is only permitted to relate what one has heard, and it is not permitted to relate anything one fancies, in which there may be things (the Prophet) did not say.
Therefore we hold to what they held to, following them. We know that if these were practices of the Messenger, they would not be remote to the generality of Muslims, even though they are remote to the few; and we know that the generality of Muslims will not agree on what is contradictory to the customary practice of the Messenger of God, or on an error, please God.
If it is asked, is there anything to indicate or prove that? we reply: Sufyan informs us on the authority of Abd al-Malik ibn Umayr from Abd al-Rahman the son of Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, from his father, that the Messenger of God said, “God prospers a servant who listens to what I say, remembers it, pays attention to it, and passes it on. Often one may transmit insight who himself is not perspicacious, and often he transmits it to one with more insight than he. There are three things which cannot be resented by the heart of a Muslim: sincerity of action for God, good advice to the Muslims, and keeping close to the community of the Muslims….”
It was asked, what is the meaning of the Prophet’s command to keep close to the community?
I said: There is but one meaning to it…. Since the community of the Muslims is scattered in different countries, one could not keep close to the physical community whose members were scattered, and besides, they were found together with Muslims and unbelievers, with pious men and sinners. Thus it could not mean a physical “closeness” since that was not possible, and because physical nearness would in itself effect nothing, so that there is no meaning in “keeping close to the community” except in agreeing with them in what they make lawful and forbidden, and obedience in both these matters. He who maintains what the community of the Muslims maintains is keeping close to the community, and he who deviates from what the community of the Muslims maintains deviates from that community to which he is commanded to remain close. Error arises in separation. In the community there can be no total error concerning the meaning of the Book, of the Prophetic tradition, or of analogical reasoning, please God. (Shafi‘i, Treatise) [SHAFI‘I 1961: 285–287]
Much the same point is made in this ninth-century statement of belief from Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 C.E.), whose views on the nature of orthodoxy and heresy we shall see again below. Ibn Hanbal may have differed from the somewhat older Shafi‘i on important points of the law, but he was as convinced as Shafi‘i that the essential truth of the community lay in its adherence to the “tradition.”
This “creed” begins, then, with what is, in effect, a conservative’s plea for unity, for adherence to that same “tradition and the collectivity” (sunna wa al-jama‘a) from which the so-called Sunnis took their name.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: The principles of “the tradition” for us are holding fast to the practice of the Companions of the Messenger of God and seeking guidance from that; and abandoning innovation, for every innovation is an error. Also, abandoning quarrels and not consorting with people who do as they please and leaving off strife and contentiousness in religion. “The tradition” to us means the footsteps of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and give him peace, and “the tradition” explains the meaning of the Quran and is the indication of the Quran. There is no use of logical analogies in “the tradition,” or coining of similitudes or perception by use of reason or inclination. It is only following, and giving up one’s own inclinations.
The statement then grows more specific, and we have before us a ninth-century theological agenda: points of belief that had already been debated to the point of orthodoxy and heresy.
A part of the essential “tradition,” such that if one leaves aside any part of it, not accepting and believing it, he cannot be considered as being of the “People of Tradition,” is belief in the predestination of good and bad, and the affirmation of the Prophetic traditions about it and belief in them, not saying “Why?” or “How?” but simply affirming them and believing them. If anyone does not know the explanation of these Prophetic traditions or his intelligence does not apprehend them, it is still sufficient, and his sentence is that he shall believe in them and submit to their authority, such as the Prophetic traditions (affirming predestination), and those that the beatific vision is possible, all in their entirety. And even if he turns away from hearing about this, or feels dislike at hearing about it, still he must believe in it, and must not contradict a single letter of it, or any other Prophetic tradition transmitted by dependable narrators. No one should dispute, or speculate about it, or recognize any contention about it, for speaking about predestination and the beatific vision and the (nature of the) Quran and other matters established by the Prophetic traditions is disapproved of and to be avoided. Whoever speaks of them, if he criticizes “the tradition,” is not one of the “People of the Tradition” until he abandons contention and submits and believes in “the tradition.”
A number of specifics follow in turn: the Quran as the uncreated Word of God, the vision of God on the “Day of Resurrection,” the reality of the details of the Final Judgment, the coming of the False Messiah and then the return of Jesus, who will “slay him at the Lydda Gate” of Jerusalem. And finally there is an article on the nature of faith.
Faith is word and act, and increases and decreases, as is stated in the Prophetic traditions. “The most perfect of believers in faith is the best of them in morality.” Also, “He who leaves off the ritual prayers has rejected God,” and there is no act which, when neglected, occasions infidelity except the ritual prayers. Whoever quits them is an infidel, and God makes killing him lawful. (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Creed) [WILLIAMS 1971: 28–30]
Shafi‘i’s view soon became the orthodox one in Islam, particularly among those Muslims like Ahmad ibn Hanbal who identified themselves as “People of the Tradition (sunna) and the Collectivity,” and whom we call simply “Sunnis.” But as Ibn Hanbal stated, “The principles of ‘the tradition’ (sunna) for us are holding fast to the practice of the Companions of the Messenger of God and seeking guidance from that….” There were those among the Muslims, notably the “Partisans (shi‘a) of Ali,” generically called “Shi‘ites,” who preferred not to go the way of the “Companions of the Messenger of God,” particularly since these latter had elected first Abu Bakr and then Umar and Uthman to lead the community instead of the one on whom the divine and prophetic choice had obviously fallen, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, about whom more will be said below. This is the way the case is argued by the Shi‘ite scholar Ibn Babuya (d. 991 C.E.), beginning with the Quran itself.
Every verse in the Quran which begins with the expression, “O you who believe” refers necessarily to Ali ibn Abi Talib as their leader and prince and the most noble among them. And every verse which directs the way to Paradise applies to the Prophet or to the Imams [that is, Ali and his designated successors], the blessings of God be upon them and all their partisans and followers…. These (Imams) are immune from sin and error…. They may be likened in this community to the Ark of Noah; he who boards it attains salvation or reaches the Gate of Repentance. (Ibn Babuya) [WILLIAMS 1971: 39–40]
The Shi‘ite was not, then, willing to grant infallibility to the “collectivity” in the manner of al-Shafi‘i. The community had, in fact, already erred, or at least part of it allowed itself to be carried into error on the issue of the Imamate (see below). The issue is stated clearly in a Shi‘ite creed of the thirteenth century.
The Imam [that is, the head of the community; the officer called “Caliph” by the Sunni Muslims] cannot be elected by the community. He is the absolute ruler, who imposes his final judgment upon his followers. The principle of “consensus” in accepting certain religious laws and practices is completely false. If one were to accept this principle, he should regard Muhammad as not a real Prophet, because all of the people to whom he first addressed himself, or at least the majority of them, did not at first recognize him as such…. Only the Imam, appointed by God, is infallible, but the community obviously cannot be considered as infallible….
The community became split and fell into disagreements after the death of the Prophet, thus taking the way of error. This was chiefly due to their reluctance to follow “the Household” [that is, Ali and his descendants]. Only a small group among the Muslims remained faithful to the commandments and the will of the Prophet, suffering for this reason at the hand of different oppressors….
One who follows the religion of his ancestors by “the tradition,” without having ascertained for himself whether it is correct or wrong, is not right. He should know and act in accordance with the Quran and “the tradition” as taught by the Imams of the family of the Apostle….
Religion and faith are to be found only in Shi‘ism (along with true) following of the tradition of the Prophet…. The Prophet predicted the splitting up of the Islamic community into seventy-three sects after his death; and of these only one brings salvation. It is the one which follows the Prophet and his descendants (through the house of Ali), who are the Ark of Noah, giving religious salvation. (A Shi‘ite Creed) [WILLIAMS 1971: 40–41]
The split between Sunni and Shi‘ite was only one of a number of fissures that opened within the Muslim community even in the first century of its existence. Some were, like Shi‘ism, the result of differing views on such fundamental political questions as “Who is a Muslim?” or “Who shall rule the community?” Others were more theological in their orientation, though not without political implication, like the questions of free will and predetermination that troubled the early community.
Opinions might differ, but there were differences of substance and importance even among those varying opinions. Muslims came to recognize in practice and in theory a juridical distinction between “unbelief” (kufr), the rejection of one of the basic teachings of Islam, and so disqualification as a Muslim, and “heretical innovation” (bida‘), the introduction of some belief or practice unsupported by Islamic teaching or custom as described in the Prophetic traditions. In matters of doubt an authoritative judicial opinion could be solicited, as the Caliph Mustazhir (1094–1118 C.E.) did of the jurist-theologian Ghazali on the subject of certain radical Shi‘ite groups. Ghazali carefully builds a legal case for their exclusion from the Muslim community, with all the political consequences of such a judgment.
Their declarations fall into two categories, one of which makes it necessary to declare they are in error, are astray and are guilty of innovation, the other of which makes it necessary to declare that they are unbelievers and (the community) must be cleansed of them.
What constitutes for Ghazali the heretical innovation of the group in question is a set of standard Shi‘ite beliefs on the legitimacy and nature of leadership in the Islamic community, questions that will be reviewed below. Ghazali proceeds with the matter of innovation.
With regard to the first category (of beliefs) which makes it necessary to declare that they are in error, are astray and are guilty of innovation, it is where we encounter those unlearned folk who believe that the leadership (of the community) belongs by right to the immediate family of the Prophet, and that he who should rightly have it in our day is their Pretender [that is, the contemporary descendant of Ali who laid claim to the office]. Their claim is that in the first (Muslim) century the one who should have rightfully had it was Ali [the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad], may God be pleased with him, but that he was wrongly deprived of it…. Nevertheless, they do not believe that it is lawful to shed our blood [that is, the Sunni Muslims who have a different view of the leadership question], nor do they believe that we are in unbelief. What they do believe about us [and, Ghazali might have added, we about them] is that we are iniquitous folk whose minds have erroneously slipped from comprehension of the truth, or that we have turned aside from their leader out of obstinacy and a spirit of contention. It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person in this category nor to give judgment that he is in unbelief because he says such things…. Judgment should be confined to the declaration that such a one has (merely) gone astray, for he does not express belief in any of the erroneous teachings of their sect … concerning certain theological beliefs and matters of resurrection and the Judgment. With regard to all such matters they express no beliefs other than those we express ourselves.
For the Sunnis, the “people of tradition and the collectivity,” the notion of a consensus of the Muslim community was an important one. Does not, then, the Shi‘ites’ violation of the universal consensus on the question of the early leaders of Islam qualify them as unbelievers?
But someone might ask: But do you not declare them in unbelief because of what they say about the office of community leader in the first years (of Islam), how it belonged by right to Ali and not to Abu Bakr and those who succeeded him, but he was wrongly deprived of it, for in this they go contrary to the consensus of Muslims? Our answer is that we do not deny the dangerous nature of this opposition to the consensus, and for that reason we go beyond charging them with being in undisguised error … and charge them with leading others astray, causing heresy and introducing innovation, but we do not go so far as declaring them in unbelief. This is because it is not clear to us that one who goes contrary to the consensus is an unbeliever. Indeed, there is a difference of opinion among Muslims as to whether the proof of a doctrine can rest on consensus alone.
The objection is pushed a step farther by Ghazali. Some Shi‘ites were not content to say merely that Ali had been wrongfully passed over for the leadership on four successive occasions; they went on to denigrate those first four “Successors of the Prophet,” men who in the Sunni tradition were called “the Rightly Guided Caliphs.”
If someone should ask: Then if someone were to say plainly that Abu Bakr and Umar were in unbelief, ought he to be considered the same as one who calls any other of the Muslim chiefs or judges or leaders who came after them an unbeliever? Yes, we do so teach. To charge Abu Bakr or Umar with unbelief is not different from charging unbelief to any of the leaders or judges of the community, nor, indeed, to any individual who professes Islam, save in two regards. First, it would also be going against and contradicting consensus, though, indeed, one who charges them with unbelief because of some perplexity might not even be contradicting reliable consensus. The second is that there are many traditions from the Prophet passed down concerning the two of them, according to which they were promised Paradise, are eulogized, have judgments expressed as to the soundness of their religion and the steadfastness of their convictions and declaring that they have precedence over the rest of humanity. If these traditions from the Prophet have reached the ears of those who make the charge (of unbelief against Abu Bakr and Umar), and in spite of it he expresses his belief they they are in unbelief, then he himself is an unbeliever, not because he accused them of unbelief, but because he is giving the lie to the Apostle of God, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace, and by general consent anyone who treats any word of his sayings as a lie is an unbeliever.
Ghazali now comes to the rock-bottom issue: Who is a Muslim and who is not? What must one believe to be reckoned a member of the community, secure against all attempts to read such a one out of the community?
Let us suppose someone asks: What is your teaching with regard to someone who declares a fellow Muslim to be in unbelief, is such a one an unbeliever or not? Our answer is: If such a one is aware that this (fellow Muslim whom he has accused of unbelief) believes in the divine Oneness, had confident trust in the Apostle, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace, and held other proper doctrines, then whensoever he declares him an unbeliever with respect to these doctrines, he is himself an unbeliever, since he is expressing an opinion that the true religion is unbelief and is untrue. On the other hand, if he thinks (erroneously) that a fellow Muslim believes that the Apostle was false, or that he denies the Creator, or is a dualist, or some such other that necessarily involves one in unbelief, and so, relying on this opinion, declares him to be in unbelief, then he is in error with respect to his opinion of this person but right in declaring that anyone who so believes is in unbelief.
Ignorance, Ghazali explains, of anything beyond the two propositions in the simple profession of faith does not affect one’s position as a Muslim.
It is not a condition of a man’s religion that he knows the state of belief of every Muslim or the unbelief of every unbeliever. Indeed, there is no one person who can be imagined who, if we did not know about him, would affect our religious standing. More, if a person believes in God and His Apostle, diligently performs his acts of worship, and yet had not heard of the names of Abu Bakr and Umar, in fact dies before ever hearing of them, he would nevertheless die a Muslim, for belief in what is told about them is not among the pillars of religion, such that any mistake with respect to what must or must not be attributed to them would necessarily strip one of his religion.
What makes this group of Shi‘ites infidels, then, is that they have read the Sunni Muslims out of the religion of Islam, and this despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Ghazali constructs that “obvious evidence” into a small Muslim creed.
They believe that we (Sunnis) are in disbelief, so that it is lawful to plunder our property and shed our blood. This necessarily leads to their being declared to be unbelievers. This is unavoidable since they know that we believe that the world has a Maker, Who is One, Powerful, Knowing, Willing, Speaking, Hearing and Seeing; Who has no one like Him; that His Apostle is Muhammad ibn Abdullah, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace, who spoke the truth in all that he told about the resurrection and the Judgment, and about Paradise and Hell. These are the doctrines which are pivotal for sound religion. (Ghazali, On the Disgraceful Doctrines of the Esoteric Sects 8.1) [JEFFERY 1962: 255–260]
Muhammad had no more appointed a successor to himself than Jesus had. In the case of Christianity, immediate eschatological expectations made that seem a natural course of events, but there is no trace of such expectations in Islam, and the umma undertook to guarantee its own political survival by choosing someone to lead its members. They reverted to a type of tribal selection, and the choice of the senior Muslims was designated as “Successor (khalifa; Eng., Caliph) of the Messenger of God.” The word first appears in the Quran in a passage describing the fall of the angels.
Remember, when the Lord said to the angels: “I have to place a deputy on the earth.” They said: “Will you place one there who would create disorder and shed blood, while we intone Your litanies and sanctify Your name?” And God said: “I know what you do not know.” (Quran 2:30; emphasis added)
This dialogue reported between God and the angels refers to God’s creation of Adam, but the Arabic word used in 2:30, and here translated as “deputy” or “viceroy” is khalifa, the same word employed by the early Muslims to designate Muhammad’s successor as the head of the Islamic community. The same word appears again in the Quran, here in connection with the king and prophet David, where it presents an even more apposite context for the later Islamic office.
And We said to him: O David, we have made you a trustee (khalifa) on the earth, so judge between men equitably and do not follow your lust lest it should lead you astray from the way of God. (Quran 38:26)
There was no question of there being another prophet after Muhammad, and neither in his Life nor in the other traditions attributed to him is there anything to suggest that Muhammad appointed a member of the community as his political “viceroy.” But a “successor” or Caliph there was, though the question of who should hold this office was a matter of controversy. The historian Tabari (d. 923 C.E.) gives an account of what occurred in Medina immediately after the Prophet’s death.
Hisham ibn Muhammad told me on the authority of Abu Mikhnaf, who said: Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Umra, the Helper [that is, a Medinese convert] told me:
When the Prophet of God, may God bless him and save him, died, the (Medinese) Helpers assembled on the porch of the Banu Sa‘ida and said, “Let us give this authority, after Muhammad, upon him be peace, to Sa‘d ibn Ubada.” Sa‘d, who was ill, was brought before them, and after they had assembled, Sa‘d said to his son (or one of his nephews), “Because of my illness I cannot speak in a manner that all the people will be able to hear my words. Therefore, listen to what I will tell you and then repeat it to them so that they may hear it.” Then he spoke, and the man memorized his words and spoke in a loud voice so that the others could hear.
He said … “O company of Helpers! You have precedence in religion and merit in Islam possessed by no other Arab tribe. Muhammad remained for more than ten years (here in Medina) among his people, summoning them to worship the Merciful One and to abandon false gods and idols. But among his own people (in Mecca) only a few men believed in him, and they were not able to protect the Prophet of God or glorify his religion nor to defend themselves against the injustice which beset them. It is for that reason that God conferred merit on you and brought honor to you and marked you for His grace…. And when God caused him to die, he was content and pleased with you. Therefore keep this authority for yourselves alone, for it is yours against all others.”
They all responded, “Your judgment is sound and your words are true. We shall adhere to what you say and we shall confer this authority on you. You satisfy us and you will satisfy the true believer.” Then they discussed it among themselves, and some of their number said: “What if the (Meccan) Migrants from among the Quraysh refuse and say, “We are the Migrants and the first Companions of the Prophet of God; we are his own clan and his friends. Why then do you argue with us over the succession of his authority?” Some of them said, “If that turns out to be the case, we should reply to them, ‘Then let there be a commander from us and a commander from you. And know that we shall never be content with less than that.’” Sa‘d ibn Ubada, when he heard this, said, “This is the beginning of weakness.”
News of this meeting reached Umar, and he went to the house of the Prophet, may God bless and save him. He sent for Abu Bakr, who was in the Prophet’s house with Ali ibn Abi Talib preparing the body of the Prophet for burial. He sent asking Abu Bakr to come to him, and Abu Bakr sent a message replying that he was busy. Then Umar sent saying that something had happened which made his presence necessary, and he went to him and said, “Have you not heard that the Helpers have gathered in the porch of the Banu Sa‘ida? They wish to confer the leadership on Sa‘d ibn Ubada….”
They [that is, Umar and Abu Bakr] hurried to the Helpers, and on their way they met Abu Ubayda ibn Jarrah. The three of them went on together and they met Asim ibn Adi and Uwaym ibn Sa‘ida, who both said to them: “Go back, for what you want will not take place.” They replied, “We will not go back,” and they came to the meeting.
Umar ibn al-Khattab said: We came to the meeting, and I had prepared a speech which I wished to make to them. We reached them, and I was about to begin my speech when Abu Bakr said to me, “Gently! Let me speak first, and then afterwards you say whatever it is you wish.” Abu Bakr then spoke and Umar said, “He said everything I wanted to say and more.”
Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman said: Abu Bakr began. He praised God and then he said, “God sent Muhammad as a Prophet to His creation and as a witness to His community that they might worship God and God alone…. It was an enormous act for the Arabs to abandon the religion of their fathers. God singled out the first Migrants of his people by allowing them to recognize the truth and believe in him. They consoled him and shared in his suffering at the cruel hands of his people when the Quraysh rejected them and all were against them and reviled them…. They were the first in the land to worship God and to believe in God and the Prophet. They were his friends and his clan and the best entitled of all men to this authority after him. Only a wrongdoer would dispute this with them.
“And as for you, O company of Helpers, no one can deny your merit in the faith or your great preeminence in Islam…. (But) we are the rulers and you the viziers. We shall not act against your counsel, nor shall we decide things without you.” …
Abu Bakr said, “Here is Umar and here is Abu Ubayda. Swear allegiance to whomever of them you choose.” The two of them then objected, “No, by God, we will not accept this authority above you, for you are the most deserving among the Migrants and the second of the two who were in the cave (Quran 19:40) and the deputy (khalifa) of the Prophet of God in prayer, and prayer is the best part of the religion of the Muslims. Who would then be fit to take precedence of you or to accept this authority before you? Give us your hand so that we may swear allegiance to you.”
And when they went forward to swear allegiance to him [that is, Abu Bakr], Bashir ibn Sa‘d went ahead of them and swore allegiance to him … and when the (Medinese) tribe of Aws saw what Bashir ibn Sa‘d had done … they came to Abu Bakr and they too swore allegiance to him. (Tabari, Annals 1.1837–1844)
Thus the Muslim community seems to have taken its initial successful steps in the direction of establishing a first non-Prophetic ruler of the community, the “Caliph” or “Successor of the Prophet.” If the Quran itself gave little or no guidance on this new office in Islam, there were soon circulating Prophetic traditions on the nature and qualifications for the office of Caliph, or the Imam, “he who stands before,” as he is more frequently called in theoretical discussions. The philosopher-historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406 C.E.) explains the difference between the two terms.
The Caliphate substitutes for the Lawgiver (Muhammad) in as much as it serves, like him, to preserve the religion and to exercise political leadership of the world. The institution is called “the Caliphate” or “the Imamate.” The person in charge is called “Caliph” or “Imam.” …
The name “Imam” is derived from the comparison with the leader of prayer [also called an imam] since he is followed and taken as a model like the prayer-leader. Therefore the institution is called “the Great Imamate.” The name “Caliph” is given to the leader because he “represents” the Prophet in Islam. One uses “Caliph” alone or “Caliph of the Messenger of God.” There is some difference of opinion on the use of “Caliph of God.” Some consider the expression permissible as derived from the general “Caliphate” of all the descendants of Adam … [based on the Quranic verses cited above]. But in general it is not considered permissible to use the expression since the Quranic verses quoted have no (specific) reference to it.
Ibn Khaldun then reflects briefly on the circumstances under which the office arose.
The position of Imam is a necessary one. The consensus of the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation shows that the Imamate is necessary according to the religious law. At the death of the Prophet the men around him proceeded to render the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and to entrust him with the supervision of their affairs. And so it was with all subsequent periods. In no period were the people left in a state of anarchy. This was so by general consensus, which proves that the position of Imam is a necessary one. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.24) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:388–389]
The Caliphate had thus come into existence by “the consensus of the men around Muhammad,” and the Caliph was, in fact, the chief executive of the umma. He appointed and removed political subordinates. He decided military strategy and was commander (amir) of the armies of Islam. He was the chief justice and principal fiscal officer of the new regime. Most of the Caliph’s military, judicial, and fiscal responsibilities were soon delegated to others, however; the community was actually a number of armies on the march far from the centers of power, and though decisions might be made in the name of the Caliph, they were increasingly made by others.
The Caliph and his delegates might decide, but they could not or did not legislate. They now had the closed and completed Quran, and they could not add to that text, which, like Jewish law, addressed itself in great detail to matters of personal status but was mute on the political governance of what was rapidly becoming an immense empire. The Caliph and his delegates resorted instead to a great many devices to shape their purpose: tribal practices, local customs, pragmatic necessities, and, to some extent, whatever precedents the practice of the Prophet suggested to them. There is no suggestion, on the other hand, that the Caliph regarded himself or was regarded by others as the possessor of special spiritual powers. He was the head of the umma, and though the umma was based entirely on a shared acceptance of Islam, the Caliph was not a religious leader but the leader of a religious community.
With the rise of the Shi‘ite movement—never quite politically powerful enough to seize the rulership in Islam but sufficiently potent in its propaganda and ideology to constantly threaten it—the rest of the “Sunni” community, so called because they supported “tradition (sunna) and the commonality.” were forced to reexamine and defend their own positions on the nature of sovereignty in Islam. The issue raised by the Shi‘at Ali was who should rule the community. The Sunnis were willing to accept the verdict of history as reflected in the choices of that “whole first generation” of Muhammad’s contemporaries and their immediate successors. The Shi‘ites argued against history in asserting the preeminence of Ali, but in so doing they were forced, to one degree or another, to attack the consensual wisdom of the “Companions of the Prophet” from whom all the Prophetic sunna ultimately derived.
The polemic of the Shi‘ite movement forced the Sunni Muslim community to reexamine its own, highly pragmatic premises, and here one of them, the essayist al-Jahiz (d. 886 C.E.), easily converts necessity into a virtue.
… If we were to be asked, which is better for the community, to choose its own leader or guide, or for the Prophet to have chosen him for us? Had the Prophet chosen him, that would of course have been preferable to the community’s own choice, but since he did not, it is well for it that he left the choice in its own hands…. Had God laid down the procedure for the nomination of the Imam in a detailed formula with its own precise directions and clear signs, that would indeed have been a blessing, for we know that everything done by God is better. But since He did not make specific provision (for the office), it is preferable for us to have been left in our present situation. How can anyone oblige or constrain God to establish an Imam according to a formula simply because in your view such a solution would be more advantageous and less troublesome, and better calculated to avoid error and problems? (Jahiz, The Uthmanis 278–279)
This was the view of most historians, the Shi‘ites of course excepted, but at least one Prophetic tradition took no chances and put the choice of a successor directly in the Prophet’s mouth.
Aisha reported that during his illness God’s Messenger said to her: “Call me Abu Bakr your father, as well as your brother, so that I may write a document, for I fear that someone may desire to succeed me and that one may say ‘It is I,’ whereas God and the believers will have no one but Abu Bakr.” Muslim transmitted this tradition. (Baghawi, Mishkat al-Masabih 26.30.1)
And again, with even more extended foresight:
Jabir reported God’s Messenger as saying, “Last night a good man had a vision in which Abu Bakr seemed to be joined to God’s Messenger, Umar to Abu Bakr, and Uthman to Umar.” Jabir said: When we got up and left God’s Messenger we said that the good man was God’s Messenger and that their being joined together meant that they were the rulers over the matter with which God had sent His Prophet. (Baghawi, Mishkat al-Masabih 26.34.3)
We return to Jahiz:
The Imam may be established in three different ways: first, as we have described [that is, following the overthrow of a usurper], or in the circumstances in which the Muslims put Uthman ibn Affan [Caliph 644–656 C.E.] in power, after Umar [Caliph 634–644 C.E.] had designated (a council of) six person of comparable worth and they in turn had elected one of their number…. A third possibility is the situation that prevailed when the community made Abu Bakr Caliph [Caliph 632–634 C.E.]; the circumstances were different from those of Uthman’s election, since the Prophet had not appointed a council as Umar did…. In Abu Bakr’s case the community did not compare the respective merits of the Emigrants or announce the reasons for the superiority of the person elected; for they were Muslims who had known each other intimately for 23 years …, so that Abu Bakr’s merits were immediately obvious to them; on the Prophet’s death they had no need to form an opinion, since they already knew. (Jahiz, The Uthmanis 270–271)
The developed Shi‘ite view on this obviously crucial matter of the selection of the Imam or Caliph of the Muslim community is presented in the theological handbook called The Eleventh Chapter written by the Shi‘ite scholar al-Hilli (d. 1326 C.E.), with a commentary by another later author with the same name. The thesis is set out in the section devoted generally to the Imamate. In the passage immediately preceding, Hilli had demonstrated that the Imam had of necessity to be immune to sin. He then continues:
The Third Proposition: It is necessary that the Imam should be designated for the Imamate since immunity to sin is a matter of the heart which is discerned by no one save God Most High. Thus the designation must be made by one who knows that the Imam has the immunity to sin necessary for the office, or else some miracle must be worked through him to prove his truthfulness.
[Commentary] This refers to the method of appointing the Imam. Agreement had been reached that in appointing the Imam the designation can be made by God and His Prophet, or by a previous Imam in an independent way [that is, without the consent of the people]. The disagreement concerns only whether or not the Imam’s appointment can be effected in any way other than by designation. Our fellow Imamites (Shi‘ites) deny that absolutely, and hold that there is no way except by designation. For, as we have explained, immunity to sin is a necessary condition of the Imamate, and immunity to sin is a hidden matter, and no one is informed of it except God. In such circumstances, then, no one knows in whom it might be found unless He who knows the unseen makes it known. And that occurs in two ways: first, by making it known to someone else immune to sin, such as the Prophet, and then this latter tells us of the Imam’s immunity to sin, and of his appointment; and second, by the appearance of miracles worked through his [the Imam presumptive’s] power to prove his truthfulness in claiming the Imamate.
The Sunnis, on the other hand, say that whenever the community acknowledges anyone as its chief, and is convinced of his ability for the Imamate, and his power increases in the regions of Islam, he becomes the Imam…. But the truth is contrary to this for two reasons: first, the Imamate is a “Caliphate” [or “succession”] from God and His Messenger and so it cannot be acquired except by the word of them both; and second, the establishment of the Imamate by acknowledging someone as chief and by the latter’s claim to the office would result in conflict because of the probability that each faction would acknowledge a different Imam. (Hilli, The Eleventh Chapter 186–188)
If, on the Shi‘ite view, the Imam must be “designated” rather than simply “acknowledged,” that must have occurred in the case of the very first of them, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Fifth Proposition of that same section of Hilli’s work takes up that much-disputed question.
The Fifth Proposition: The Imam after the Messenger of God is Ali ibn Abi Talib: First, because of his designation, which has been handed down in a number of distinct lines of Prophetic traditions; and second, because he is the best of his generation, by the word of the Most High … ; and third, because it is necessary for the Imam to be immune from sin, and there is no one among those who claim the office who is so immune except Ali, as all agree; and fourth, because he was the most knowledgeable (about Islam), since the Companions consulted him about their problems … ; and fifth, because he is more ascetic than any one else, so that he divorced the world three times.
The first point is critical here, since the Shi‘ite proposition of the Prophet’s designation of Ali was confronted with the undeniable historical reality that the Muslim community was in fact ruled by three other men—Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman—before its choice fell upon Ali. This is how Hilli’s commentator deals with the problem.
[Commentary] There are differing opinions regarding the appointment of the Imam. Some claim that after the Messenger of God the Imam was Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib because he was his heir. And most Muslims affirm that he was Abu Bakr because the people chose him. And the Shi‘ites maintain that he was Ali ibn Abi Talib because of the designation which came down directly from God and His Messenger to him, and that is the truth. And the author [that is, Hilli] has proved Ali’s right in several ways: first, that unbroken tradition of the very words of the Prophet which the Shi‘ites quote regarding the right of Ali, and from which certitude can be elicited, namely, “Greet him as the chief of the believers” and “You are the successor after me,” and other words which prove what we intended, to wit, that he is the Imam. (Hilli, The Eleventh Chapter, 191–192)
To view the Shi‘ite claims from the Sunni side of the Islamic community, we can turn to the popular theological manual by the Sunni scholar al-Nasafi (d. 1114 C.E.).
The objection may be raised that it is related of the Prophet, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace, that he once said to Ali, with whom may God be pleased: “You are to me the same as Aaron was to Moses—on both of whom be blessings and peace—save that there will be no prophet after me.” Now as the deputyship of Aaron admitted no possibility of substitution, so (the Shi‘ites claim) is the case here (between Muhammad and Ali).
The Sunni response in this instance is not to deny that the Prophet made the statement but to invoke the circumstances under which it was pronounced.
The reply is that the Prophet’s honoring him was not in the way you [that is, the Shi‘ites] take it, for (it is common knowledge that) the Prophet, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace, appointed Ali as his deputy over Medina while he went out on one of his raids, and as a result the evilly-disposed said: “Look, the Prophet has turned his back upon him and confined him to the house.” This grieved Ali so the Prophet said to him: “You are to me the same as Aaron was to Moses.” Another indication (that their interpretation is false) is the fact that Aaron died before Moses, so it would only be sound if he had said: “You are to me the same as Joshua son of Nun,” for Joshua was the real successor to Moses.
This was one of the contentions of the moderate Shi‘a who looked upon Ali as the designated and so the only legitimate successor to Muhammad. There were others, however, who would have put Ali above or beside Muhammad in the ranks of the Messengers.
One group of the Rafidites [that is, one of the radical Shi‘ite sects] teaches that the revelations (brought by Gabriel) were meant for Ali, with whom may God be pleased, but that Gabriel, on whom be peace, made a mistake. Another group of them teaches that Ali was associated with Muhammad in the prophetic office. All these are disbelievers for they disavow both the text of the Quran and the consensus of the community, for God has said: “Muhammad is God’s Messenger” (Quran 48:29). Some of them teach that Ali was more learned than the Apostle of God and is in the position (with regard to him) that al-Khidr held to Moses [that is, the mysterious figure who serves Moses as mentor in Quran 18:66–83]. The answer to this is that saying of the Prophet which shows such knowledge as Ali had was from the teaching of the Prophet (who said): “I am the city of learning and Ali is its gate.”
Another indication (of the unsoundness of their teaching) is the fact that Ali was a Saint but the Apostle of God was a Prophet, and a Prophet ranks higher than a Saint. As for al-Khidr, on whom be peace, he had direct knowledge (of things divine) for God said: “… whom We taught knowledge such as We have” (Quran 18:66). He means there inspired knowledge, but even so Moses was superior to him since he had a body of religious Law and a Book, and he who has a religious Law and a Book is superior. A case in point is that of David and Solomon, where David is superior.
Another group of them teaches that there never is a time when there is no Prophet on earth, and that this prophetic office came by inheritance to Ali, with whom may God be pleased, and his progeny, so that anyone who does not regard obedience to him (and his progeny) as an incumbent duty is in unbelief. The truly orthodox people [that is, the Sunnis] teach that there is no Prophet after our Prophet, for this is proved by God’s words “and seal of the Prophets” (Quran 33:40). It is related on the authority of Abu Yusuf that the Prophet said: “If a pretender to prophecy comes forward laying claim to the prophetic office, should anyone demand from him proof (of his mission), he [the one who requested proof] would thereby show himself to be in unbelief, for he would have disavowed the text of Scripture.” The same is true of anyone who has doubts about him, for one demands a proof in order to make clear what is true from what is false, but if anyone lays claim to the prophetic office after Muhammad, upon whom be blessing and peace, his claim cannot be other than false.” (Nasafi, The Sea of Discourse on Theology) [JEFFERY 1962: 445–446]
A more detailed version of how the Shi‘ites explained the events surrounding the designation of Ali as Imam is provided by al-Majlisi (d. 1700 C.E.). Although he comes late in the tradition, he reproduces a standard Shi‘ite contextual exegesis of the Quranic passage in question.
When the ceremonies of the (farewell) pilgrimage were completed, the Prophet, attended by Ali and the Muslims, left Mecca for Medina. On reaching the Pool of Khum he halted, although that place had never before been a stopping place for caravans, because it had neither water nor pasturage. The reason for encampment in such a place (on this occasion) was that illustrious verses of the Quran came powerfully upon him, enjoining him to establish Ali as his successor. He had previously received communications to the same effect, but not expressly appointing the time for Ali’s inauguration, which, therefore, he had deferred lest opposition be excited and some forsake the faith. This was the message from the Most High in Sura 5:67:
“O Messenger, publish what has been sent down to you from your Lord, for if you do not, then you have not delivered His message. God will protect you from men; surely God guides not unbelieving people.”
Being thus peremptorily commanded to appoint Ali his successor, and threatened with penalty if he delayed when God had become his surety, the Prophet therefore halted in this unusual place, and the Muslims dismounted around him. As the day was very hot, he ordered them to take shelter under some thorn trees. Having ordered all the camel-saddles to be piled up for a pulpit or rostrum, he commanded his herald to summon the people around him. When all the people were assembled he mounted the pulpit of saddles, and calling to him the Commander of the Believers [that is, Ali], he placed him on his right side. Muhammad now rendered thanksgiving to God, and then made an eloquent address to the people, in which he foretold his own death, and said: “I have been called to the gate of God, and the time is near when I shall depart to God, be concealed from you, and bid farewell to this vain world. I leave among you the Book of God, to which if you adhere, you will never go astray. And I leave with you the members of my family, who cannot be separated from the Book of God until both join me at the fountain of al-Kawthar.”
He then demanded, “Am I not dearer to you than your own lives?” and was answered by the people in the affirmative. He then took the hands of Ali and raised them so high that the white (of his shirt) appeared and said, “Whoever receives me as his master (or ally), then to him Ali is the same. O Lord, befriend every friend of Ali, and be the enemy of all his enemies; help those who aid him and abandon all who desert him.”
It was now nearly noon, and the hottest part of the day. The Prophet and the Muslims made the noon prayer, after which he went to his tent, beside which he ordered a tent pitched for the Commander of the Believers. When Ali was rested Muhammad commanded the Muslims to wait upon Ali, congratulate him on his accession to the Imamate, and salute him as the Commander. All this was done by both men and women, none appearing more joyful at the inauguration of Ali than did Umar. (Majlisi) [WILLIAMS 1971: 63–64]
At the death of Ali by an assassin’s hand in 661 C.E. the fortunes of his descendants and of the “party” that had grown up around them seemed uncertain. Ali’s eldest son Hasan appeared little inclined to enter the deadly game of politics, and when Ali’s rival Mu‘awiya of the wealthy and powerful Banu Umayya—Uthman too had been a member, and Abu Sufyan was their leader during the Prophet’s days in Mecca—was declared Caliph in Jerusalem in 661 C.E., Hasan allowed himself to be persuaded to abdicate his claim in favor of the Umayyad. He died in an easeful retirement in Medina in 669 C.E., possibly poisoned, as the Shi‘ites claimed, and the responsibility for the Alids’ fortunes fell upon his brother Husayn.
Nothing is heard of Husayn during the relatively long reign of Mu‘awiya (661–680 C.E.), but when the Caliph died and contrived to have his son Yazid declared his successor, Husayn publicly refused to acknowledge him. He had some support among the Shi‘a of Kufa and allowed himself to be persuaded to set out, accompanied by only a few troops and encumbered by the women and children of his family, across the steppe to lead the anti-Umayyad insurrection in Iraq. The Umayyads were aware he was on his way and Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad, the governor of Iraq, dispatched a force under the somewhat reluctant Umar ibn Sa‘d to intercept him. The fateful encounter occurred at a place called Karbala on the Euphrates north of Kufa. The date was the 10th of the month of Muharram, forever thereafter a Shi‘ite holy day (see chapter 6 below).
Husayn continued and the vanguard of Ubaydallah’s cavalry met him. When he saw them he turned aside toward Karbala. He positioned himself with his rear against reeds and grass so that he would have to fight from only one direction. Then he stopped and put up his tents. His followers were forty-five horsemen and a hundred foot soldiers….
Then Umar ibn Sa‘d fought against him. All Husayn’s followers were killed, among whom were more than ten young men from his family. An arrow came and struck his baby son while he had him in his lap. He began to wipe the blood from him, saying, “O God! Judge between us and a people who asked us to come so that they might help us and then killed us.” He called for a striped cloak, tore it and put it on. He took out his sword and fought until he was killed. A man of the tribe of Madhhij killed him and cut off his head. He took it to Ubaydallah….
Ubaydallah sent him to (the Caliph) Yazid ibn Mu‘awiya, and with him he sent the head. He put Husayn’s head in front of him. With him was Abu Barzah al-Aslami [a Companion of the Prophet]. Yazid began to poke at the mouth with a cane…. Abu Barzah cried out to him, “Take your cane away. How often have I seen the Messenger of God kiss that mouth!”
Umar ibn Sa‘d had sent Husayn’s womenfolk and family to Ubaydallah. The only male member of the “People of the House” of Husayn ibn Ali who had survived was his son Ali who had been sick and had rested with the women. Ubaydallah ordered him to be killed but (Husayn’s sister) Zaynab threw herself on him and said, “By God! He will not be killed until you first kill me.” Ubaydallah had pity on her and refrained from killing the young lad. He equipped them for a journey and sent them to Yazid.
When they came to Yazid, he gathered together the Syrians who used to attend him. When the Syrians came to him and congratulated him on his victory, one of them, who was blue-eyed with a fair complexion, said, as he looked at one of their young women, “Commander of the Faithful, give that one to me.” Zaynab said, “No, by God! There is no such honor possible for you or for him unless he leaves the religion of God.” The blue-eyed man repeated his request but Yazid said to him, “Desist from this.” (Tabari, Annals 2.216) [TABARI 1990: 75–76]
This is the rather spare account offered by the historian Tabari, himself a Shi‘ite, and it is immediately followed by a great many pages of alternative accounts. Most of them supply additional emotional details, like this one on the immediate aftermath of Husayn’s death, derived from Abu Mikhna, who had gotten it from an eyewitness.
I looked at those women. As they passed (the slaughtered) Husayn and the members of his family and his sons, they shrieked and tore at their faces. I turned my horse toward them. I had never seen a sight of women more beautiful than the sight I saw of those woman…. Among the things that I will never forget: I will never forget the words of Zaynab, the daughter of Fatima, as she passed the prostrate body of her brother Husayn. She was saying, “O Muhammad! O Muhammad! May the angels of heaven bless you. Here is Husayn in the open, stained with blood and with limbs torn off. O Muhammad! Your daughters are prisoners, your progeny are killed, and the east wind blows dust over them.” By God! She made every enemy and friend weep. (Tabari, Annals 2.370) [TABARI 1990: 164]
Or again, with even more pathetic detail:
I was with Yazid ibn Mu‘awiya in Damascus when Zahr ibn Qays arrived…. “O Commander of the Faithful, I bring good news of God’s victory and support. Husayn ibn Ali came against us with eighteen men of his House and sixty of his Shi‘a. We went out to meet them and asked them to surrender…. They chose to fight rather than surrender. We attacked them as the sun rose and surrounded them on every side. Eventually our swords took their toll of the heads of the people; they began to flee without having any refuge; they sought refuge from us on the hills and in the hollows as doves seek refuge from a hawk. By God! Commander of the Faithful, it was only a time for the slaughtering of animals, or for a man to take his siesta before we had come upon the last of them. There were their naked bodies, their bloodstained clothes, their faces thrown in the dust. The sun burst down on them; the wind scattered dust over them; their visitors in this deserted place were eagles and vultures. (Tabari, Annals 2.374–375) [TABARI 1990: 169]
It is apparent that already by the time of Tabari the slaughter of Husayn and his family—his son Ali was the only male survivor—had caught the popular imagination. The Shi‘ites had unwittingly been provided with the first and still the most preeminent martyr to their cause (see chapter 6 below).
The expression “people of the house” occurs three times in the Quran, but one instance in particular caught the attention of the later Muslim commentators. In Sura 33 there are a number of admonitions apparently addressed to the wives or “women” of the Prophet, and in this context Quran 33:33 reads:
And God only wishes to remove all abominations from you, O people of the house, and purify you thoroughly. (Quran 33:33)
What ostensibly refers to the Prophet’s wives may have quite another point of reference, however. In early Islamic and pre-Islamic times the preeminent “People of the House” were the Quraysh—“house” is understood to refer, as it does in every instance in the Quran, to the Meccan Ka‘ba. If this was the original meaning of the verse, it was soon overwhelmed by another, quite political understanding of it: the “house” in question was Muhammad’s own family, and the “People of the House” were Ali’s family or, more precisely, Ali, Fatima, and their children, Hasan and Husayn. Prophetic sayings soon began to collect around this verse, most notably the “tradition of the cloak”: when this verse was revealed, Muhammad took his cloak, spread it over Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn, and said, “O God, these are the people of my house whom I have chosen; take the pollution from them and purify them thoroughly.” Thus the offspring of Ali and Fatima began to be regarded as constituting a divinely chosen and divinely blessed “Holy Family” of Islam.
The origins of this type of interpretation of Quran 33:33 go back to early Umayyad times and reflect the contest for the Caliphate between Ali and the House of Umayya that began with the murder of Uthman and the subsequent struggle between Ali and Mu‘awiya. The decisive defeat and death of Ali’s son Husayn at Umayyad hands at Karbala in Iraq (680 C.E.), along with the passive attitude of Husayn’s own son Ali, called Zayn al-Abidin (d. 712 C.E.), and his grandson, Muhammad al-Baqir (d. 731 C.E.), kept Alid expectations at a low level during most of the Umayyad era. But there were stirrings, though in a somewhat different direction. A rebel named Mukhtar had attempted to raise the banner of Alid legitimacy, not, however, in the name of Hasan’s or Husayn’s sons, but in support of another of Ali’s offspring, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, “son of the Hanafite woman.” Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya died sometime around 700 C.E. or shortly thereafter. Later the story circulated that he was “the Mahdi”—he was the first Muslim to be given that messianic title—and that he had not died but simply disappeared on a hill near Medina called Jabal Radwa.
Nothing came of these early attempts at insurrection against the Caliphate, now under the apparently firm control of the House of Umayya, but a new claim had been lodged, and it finally came to term in 749 C.E. when rebels in eastern Iran collected support around Abu al-Abbas, a descendant of the Prophet’s paternal uncle. The revolt was successful: in 749 C.E. the last Umayyad was toppled and Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah assumed the Caliphate.
Abu al-Abbas was not an Alid nor did he claim to be. His proof of legitimacy lay elsewhere, in the testimony that Ibn al-Hanafiyya’s son, and Ali’s grandson, Abu Hashim (whom the Umayyads had under detention in Damascus) had “bequeathed” his claim to the office to the father of Abu al-Abbas. This legacy eventually passed to Abu al-Abbas himself, who thus ruled as the legitimate Alid “heir.” There were far more legitimate Alids abroad in the mid-eighth century, of course, and one of them, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, surnamed “the Pure Soul,” began to assert himself in Medina at the time of Mansur (r. 754–775 C.E.). Muhammad ibn Abdullah was not a newcomer to the political stage. His father, himself a grandson of Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, had already put him forward as the Mahdi, the savior of Islam. After the death of al-Walid II in 744, when the Umayyad dynasty was clearly tottering to its ruin, Muhammad ibn Abdullah’s father asked other family members to swear allegiance to his son before the Ka‘ba in Mecca in the course of the annual pilgrimage. It was done and, the story went on, among those who took the oath were Abu al-Abbas and his brother al-Mansur.
True or not, there was no place for “the Pure Soul” in the political plans of either Abu al-Abbas or Mansur, and at the accession of the latter in 754 C.E. Muhammad ibn Abdullah refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new Caliph. Mansur reacted with force, first by arresting any members of the family he could lay hold of and then by sending an army into the Hijaz, the heart of whatever support Muhammad ibn Abdullah possessed. In a battle about Medina in December of 762 C.E. the great-grandson of Hasan ibn Ali was slain and his Medinese followers routed.
In an exchange of letters between Mansur and Muhammad ibn Abdullah before their fatal confrontation, the Alid claims to the rule of the community are spelled out in new detail; in consequence, so is Mansur’s shifting of the legitimist grounds for his own house. “Our father Ali was the heir (of the Prophet) and the Imam; how could you inherit his title while his descendants are still alive?” Muhammad argued. “We are descended from the Prophet’s … daughter Fatima in Islam.” This of course ruled out the Abbasids’ appeal to an inheritance from Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya who was obviously not a “Fatimid.” To which Mansur pointedly replied that it was not Fatima who grounded the Abbasids’ claim but the Prophet’s uncle himself, al-Abbas. “God has not given to women the same status he has given to (paternal) uncles and to fathers…. For he gave the uncle equal status with the father.”
What was first put forward by Mansur became the official doctrine of the Abbasid house under Mansur’s son al-Mahdi (r. 775–785 C.E.). The new revisionist version of Abbasid claims is explicitly set out in an anonymous treatise called “Reports of the Abbasid Regime, together with Reports of Abbas and His Sons.”
The organization of the Abbasid Shi‘a originated in Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya…. This went on until the time of al-Mahdi. Al-Mahdi bade them, however, to establish the Imamate on al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, telling them that the imama belonged to Abbas, the prophet’s paternal uncle … since he was the most worthy of all men to succeed him and was his nearest kinsman. (Akhbar al-dawla al-abbasiyya 165–166)
In the view of the Sunni community the Muslim “partisans” par excellence were the Shi‘ites. It was not, however, the latter’s partisanship for Ali, a revered figure for all Muslims, that made them suspect in Sunni eyes, but rather their rejection of what was understood to be a community consensus, as the Sunni philosopher and historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406 C.E.) explains in his Prolegomenon to History.
Ali is the one whom Muhammad appointed (as head of the community). The Shi‘ites transmit texts (of Prophetic traditions) in support of this belief, which they interpret so as to suit their tenets. The authorities on the Prophetic tradition and the transmitters of the religious law do not know these texts. Most of them are supposititious, or some of their transmitters are suspect, or their true interpretation is very different from the wicked interpretation that the Shi‘a give them. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.25) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:403]
Though the Shi‘ites agreed on the general principle of the Imamate—that it was, for example, a spiritual office passing by designation from Ali through the line of his descendants—they eventually fell into schismatic disputes on who precisely was the designated heir. By the fourteenth century Ibn Khaldun could look back and trace an elaborately sectarian Shi‘ite heresiography. The first issue to divide them was the matter of the Caliphs who preceded Ali, the other three among the four “Rightly Directed Ones” (rashidun), as the Sunnis called them. The Umayyad Uthman (r. 644–656 C.E.) was totally unacceptable, but what of Abu Bakr and Umar? Were they usurpers or simply inferior tenants of the office?
Some Shi‘a hold the opinion that those texts [that is, the texts supporting Ali’s claim to the Imamate] prove both the personal appointment of Ali and the fact that the Imamate is transmitted from him to his successors. They [that is, this group of Shi‘ites] are the Imamites. They renounce the two shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) because they did not give precedence to Ali and did not render an oath of allegiance to him, as required by the texts quoted. The Imamites do not take the Imamates of Abu Bakr and Umar seriously. But we do not want to bother with transmitting the slanderous things said about Abu Bakr and Umar by Imamite extremists. They are objectionable in our opinion and (should be) in theirs.
Other Shi‘ites say that these proofs require the appointment of Ali not in person but in so far as his qualities are concerned. They say that people commit an error when they do not give the qualities their proper place. They are the Zaydi (Shi‘a). They do not renounce the two shaykhs Abu Bakr and Umar. They do take their Imamates seriously, but they say that Ali was superior to them. They permit an inferior person to be the Imam, even though a superior person may be alive at the same time.
Then there is the far more divisive question of the legitimate succession among Ali’s descendants. Here too the Imamite and the Zaydi Shi‘a differ.
The Shi‘a differ in opinion concerning the succession to the Caliphate after Ali. Some have it passed on through the descendants of Fatima [one of Ali’s wives and the daughter of Muhammad] in succession, through testamentary designation…. They are called “Imamites,” with reference to their statement that knowledge of the Imam and the fact of his being appointed are an article of faith. That is their fundamental tenet.
Others consider the descendants of Fatima the (proper) successors to the Imamate, but through the selection of an Imam from among the Shi‘a. The conditions governing the selection of that Imam are that he have knowledge, be ascetic, generous and brave, and that he go out to make propaganda for his Imamate. They who believe this are “Zaydis,” so named after the founder of the sect, Zayd son of Ali son of Husayn, the grandson of Muhammad. He [that is, Zayd; d. 740 C.E.] had a dispute with his brother Muhammad al-Baqir [d. 731 C.E.] concerning the condition that the Imam had to come out openly. Al-Baqir charged him with implying that, in the way Zayd looked at it, their father Ali Zayn al-Abidin [d. ca. 712 C.E.] would not be an Imam because he had not come out openly and had made no preparation to do so…. When the Imamites discussed the question of the Imamates of the two shaykhs Abu Bakr and Umar with Zayd, and noticed that he admitted their Imamates, they disavowed him and did not make him one of the Imams. On account of this they are called “Rafidites” or “Disavowers.” …
There are also Shi‘a sects that are called “Extremists.” They transgress the bounds of reason and the faith of Islam when they speak of the divinity of the Imams. They either assume that the Imam is a human being with divine qualities, or they assume that he is God in human incarnation. This is a dogma of incarnation that agrees with the Christian tenets regarding Jesus…. Some Shi‘a extremists say that the perfection of the Imam is possessed by nobody else. When he dies his spirit passes over to another Imam, so that this perfection may be in him. This is the doctrine of metempsychosis. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.26) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:404–405]
Ibn Khaldun continues with his exposition of Shi‘ism.
Some Shi‘a extremists stop (waqafa) with one of the Imams and do not continue (the succession). They stop with the Imam whom they consider to have been appointed last. They who believe this are the “Waqifites.” Some of them say that the Imam is alive and did not die.
This general typology of “Waqifite” Shi‘ites brings Ibn Khaldun to an important feature of developed Shi‘ism, the doctrine of the “Hidden Imam.”
The extremist Imamites, in particular the Twelvers, hold a similar opinion. They think that the twelfth of their Imams, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Askari, to whom they give the epithet of “The Mahdi,” entered the cellar of their house in al-Hilla (in Iraq) and was “removed” [or “concealed”] when he was imprisoned there with his mother. He has remained there “removed” [since sometime after 874 C.E.]. He will come forth at the end of time and will fill the world with justice. The Twelver Shi‘a refer in this connection to the Prophetic tradition found in the collection of al-Tirmidhi regarding the Mahdi.
That tradition reads:
The world will not be destroyed until the Arabs are ruled by a man from my family, whose name shall tally with my name.
The text of Ibn Khaldun continues:
The Twelver Shi‘ites are still expecting him to this day. Therefore they call him “the Expected One.” Each night after the evening prayer they bring a mount and stand at the entrance to the cellar [where the Mahdi was “removed”]. They call his name and ask him to come forth openly. They do so until the stars are out. Then they disperse and postpone the matter to the following night. They have continued the custom to this time. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.26) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1: 406–408]
This is the account of a Sunni historian. If we return to the beginning of the process, we can understand somewhat better what gave rise to this position, which became normative among the great majority of Shi‘ites.
The Shi‘ites were the party of both hope and despair in the Islamic community: a hope that the Prophet’s message would establish God’s justice on earth, and despair that the community as presently constituted could achieve that goal. “As presently constituted” meant governance by the illegitimate Caliphs rather than the Imams, the divinely designated, divinely inspired, and divinely guided descendants of Ali.
Those Imams had little ground for hope in the ninth century. As we shall soon see, there had been a major schism in the Shi‘a over the succession to the Imamate among the sons of Ja‘far al-Sadiq (d. 765 C.E.), and even the main body of the movement, those moderates called “Imamites” who supported the line from Ja‘far’s son Musa al-Kazim (d. 800 C.E.), must have grown despondent when the eleventh in that succession, Hasan al-Askari, died in 874 C.E., persecuted by the Sunni authorities, apparently without issue. A number of different views were put forward as a result, among them that there was indeed an infant son but that he had been kept in concealment because of the danger and difficulty of the times. The Shi‘ite authority al-Nawbakhti, writing in the beginning of the tenth century, describes what came to be the majority opinion among Shi‘ites.
We have conformed to the past tradition and have affirmed the Imamate of al-Askari and accept that he is dead. We concede that he had a successor, who is his own son and the Imam after him until he appears and proclaims his authority, as his ancestors had done before him. God allowed this to happen because the authority belongs to Him and He can do all that He wills and He can command as He wishes concerning his [that is, the Imam’s] appearance and his concealment. It is just as the Commander of the Faithful (Ali) said: “O God, you will not leave the earth devoid of a Proof of Your own for mankind, be they manifest and well known, or hidden and protected, lest Your Proof and Your signs are annulled.”
This then is what we have been commanded to do and we have received reliable reports on this subject from the past Imams. It is improper for the slaves of God to discuss divine affairs and pass judgment without having knowledge and to seek out what has been concealed from them. It is also unlawful to mention his [that is, the concealed Imam’s] name or ask his whereabouts until such times as God decides. This is so because if he, peace be upon him, is protected, fearful and in concealment, it is by God’s protection. It is not up to us to seek for reasons for what God does…. The reason is that if what is concealed were revealed and made known to us, then his and our blood would be shed. Therefore, on this concealment, and the silence about it, depends the safety and preservation of our lives. (Nawbakhti, The Sects of the Shi‘a 92) [SACHEDINA 1981: 50]
Nawbakhti wrote during the concealment of the Imam, when there was some expectation that he might indeed emerge from it in some ordinary political sense and assert his claim. But as time passed there was no appearance, and at the end of a normal life span, when the hidden Imam could no longer be thought to be alive in any purely human sense, some adjustment in thinking had to be made. What it was is apparent in al-Mufid (d. 1022 C.E.), another Shi‘ite authority, writing a century after Nawbakhti.
When al-Askari died, his adherents were divided into fourteen factions, as reported by al-Nawbakhti, may God be pleased with him. The majority among them affirm the Imamate of his son, al-Qa’im al-Muntazar [The Awaited Redresser of Wrongs, a messianic title]. They assert his birth and attest his (formal) designation by his father. They believe that he was someone named after the Prophet and that he is the Mahdi of the People. They believe that he will have two forms of concealment, one longer than the other. The first concealment will be the shorter, and duringit the Imam will have deputies and mediators. They relate on the authority of some of their leaders that al-Askari had made him [that is, his son and successor] known to them and shown them his person…. They believe that the Master of the Command is living and has not died, nor will he die, even if he remains for a thousand years, until he fills the world with equity and justice, as it is now filled with tyranny and injustice; and that at the time of his reappearance he will be young and strong in (the frame of) a man of some thirty years. They prove this with reference to his miracles and take these as some proofs and signs (of his existence). (al-Mufid, Ten Chapters on the Concealment) [SACHEDINA 1981: 58]
In the developed form of this tradition, the young son of al-Askari went into concealment, perhaps at his father’s death in 874 C.E., perhaps even earlier. During that interval the community—that is, the faithful Shi‘ite remnant—was under the charge of four agents, as the theologian Nu‘mani (d. 970 C.E.) explains.
As to the first concealment, it is that occultation in which there were the mediators between the Imam and the people, carrying out (the orders of the Imam), having been designated by him, and living among the people. These are eminent persons and leaders from whose hands have emanated cures derived from the knowledge and recondite wisdom which they possessed, and the answers to all the questions which were put to them about the problems and difficulties (of religion). This is the Short Concealment, the days of which have come to an end and whose time has gone by. (Nu‘mani, The Book of the Concealment 91) [SACHEDINA 1981: 85–86]
The last of these four agents died in 941 C.E. and then there began the Complete Concealment, which will end only with the eschatological appearance, or better, the reappearance of the Mahdi Imam. And until that occurs, the direction of the community rests, as it came to be understood, in the hands of the Shi‘ite jurists. The return of the Mahdi-Imam must once have been a vivid expectation among the Shi‘ites, but as occurred among the Jews regarding the Messiah, and among the Christians on the Second Coming of Christ, so too the Shi‘ites relaxed the immediacy of the event into the indefinite future, as is summed up in the tradition attributed to the fifth Imam, Muhammad al-Baqir (d. 732 C.E.). He was asked about a saying of Ali that the Shi‘ites’ time of trial would last seventy years, and his response both explains the delay and counsels, and so many had before and after, that “no man can know the day or the hour.”
God Most High had set a time to seventy years. But when (Ali’s son) Husayn was killed (at Karbala in 680 C.E.), God’s wrath on the inhabitants of the earth became more severe and that period was postponed up to a hundred and forty years. We had informed you about this, but you revealed the secret. Now God has delayed (the appearance of the Mahdi) for a further period for which He has neither fixed a time nor has He informed us about it, since “God blots and establishes whatsoever He will; and with Him is the essence of the Book.” (Tusi, The Book of the Concealment 263) [SACHEDINA 1981: 152–153].
But despite the advice not to concern itself with such matters, the unanimous Shi‘ite tradition knows at least the day and the month of the return of the Hidden Imam: the Mahdi will return on the anniversary of Husayn’s martyrdom on the tenth day of the month of Muharram (see chapter 6).
Ibn Khaldun had ended his account with a passing reference to the ritual of awaiting, at al-Hilla in Iraq, the return of the Hidden Imam to the very house from which he had originally gone into “occultation.” We have an eyewitness report of the same ceremony from the traveler Ibn Battuta written ca. 1355 C.E.
Near the principal bazaar of [al-Hilla] there is a mosque, over the door of which a silk curtain is suspended. They call this the “Sanctuary of the Master of the Age.” It is one of their customs that every evening a hundred of the townsmen come out, carrying arms and with drawn swords in their hands, and go to the governor of the city after the afternoon prayer; they receive from him a horse or mule, saddled and bridled, and [with this they go in procession] beating drums and playing fifes and trumpets in front of this animal … and so they come to the Sanctuary of the Master of the Age. Then they stand at the door and say, “In the name of God, O Master of the Age, in the name of God come forth! Corruption is abroad and tyranny is rife! This is the hour for thy advent, that by thee God may divide the True from the False.” They continue to call in this way, sounding the trumpets and drums and fifes, until the hour of the sunset prayer. For they assert that Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Askari entered this mosque and disappeared from sight in it, and that he will emerge from it since he is, in their view, the “Expected Imam.” (Ibn Battuta, Travels) [ibn battuta 1959–1962: 325]
Disappointed by history, the Shi‘ites eventually turned to Gnosticism. They became the purveyors of a hidden wisdom (hikma), a kind of particularist and underground sunna transmitted, generation after generation, by infallible Imams of the Alid house or by their delegates. In fully developed Shi‘ism, which found its most lasting base by connecting itself with Persian nationalism, the entire range of Gnostic ideas is on display: the exaltation of wisdom (hikma) over science (ilm); a view of historical events as reflection of cosmic reality; and a concealed (batin) as opposed to an “open” (zahir) interpretation of Scripture. As we shall see in chapters 7 and 8 below, it was simply a matter of time before Shi‘ite Gnosticism found its siblings within Sufism and philosophy.
There were many branches of Shi‘ites, as Ibn Khaldun describes in detail, but the two most important of them, in terms of the numbers of adherents they could command and the political power they could from time to time wield, were the Imamites called “Twelvers”—the term came to be almost synonymous with “Imamite”—and another group called either Isma‘ilis or “Seveners.” Ibn Khaldun explains:
The Imamites consider the following as successors to the Imamate after Ali [d. 661 C.E.] … by designation as heirs: Ali’s son Hasan [d. 669 C.E.], that latter’s brother Husayn [d. 680 C.E.], Husayn’s son Ali Zayn al-Abidin [d. 712 C.E.], the latter’s son Muhammad al-Baqir [d. 731 C.E.], and his son Ja‘far al-Sadiq [d. 765 C.E.]. From there on they split into two sects. One of them considers Ja‘far’s son Isma‘il [d. 760 C.E.] as Ja‘far’s successor to the Imamate. They recognize Isma‘il as their Imam and they are called Isma‘ilis. The other group considers Ja‘far’s other son, Musa al-Kazim [d. 799 C.E.], as Ja‘far’s successor in the Imamate. They are the Twelvers because they stop the succession with the twelfth Imam [that is, Muhammad al-Mahdi, mentioned above]. They say that he remains “removed” until the end of time.
That the Shi‘ite “designation” was an indelible one and signaled, like the Christians’ laying on of episcopal hands, the transmission of an irrevocable spiritual gift is clear from what follows.
The Isma‘ilis say that the Imam Isma‘il became Imam because his father Ja‘far designated him to be his successor. Isma‘il died before his father, but according to the Isma‘ilis the fact that he was designated by his father as his successor means that the Imamate should continue among his successors…. As they say, Isma‘il’s successor as Imam was his son Muhammad the Concealed One. He is the first of the Hidden Imams. According to the Isma‘ilis, an Imam who has no power goes into hiding. His missionaries remain in the open, however, in order to establish proof (of the Hidden Imam’s existence) among mankind.
The Isma‘ili Imam did not, however, recede into some remote metaphysical outback. Sometime about 900 C.E. a certain Ubaydallah appeared in North Africa and convinced enough people that he was the great-grandson of Muhammad “the Concealed One” to carry him to power and his successors to rule over Muslim North Africa and Egypt under the dynastic name of Fatimids. Ibn Khaldun wryly concludes:
The Isma‘ilis are called such with reference to their recognition of the Imamate of Isma‘il. They are also called “Esotericists” (batiniyya) with reference to their speaking about the batin, that is, the hidden, Imam. They are also called “heretics” because of the heretical character of their beliefs. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.25) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:412–413]
Ibn Khaldun’s “Esotericists”—the title al-batiniyya might equally well be translated “Gnostics”—were a subdivision of the Shi‘ite movement who, unlike the main body of the Shi‘ah in the Middle Ages, had a political program for overthrowing the Sunni Caliph and replacing him with a revolutionary Mahdi-Imam. They were not successful, but they had access to and put to effective use the entire Gnostic apparatus of cosmic history, in which the Shi‘ite Imams became the Gnostic Aeons; a secret revelation of the “realities” that lay hidden in the concealed (batin) rather than the evident sense of Scripture; an Imam-guide who possessed an infallible and authoritative magisterium (ta‘lim); and an initiated elite that formed, in the Isma‘ili case, the core of an elaborate political underground. At their headquarters in Cairo, a city that the Isma‘ili Fatimids founded in 969 C.E., agents were instructed in the Isma‘ili gnosis and program, and were sent forth with the “call” of the Mahdi-Imam to cells and cadres that had been set up in the caliphal lands in Iraq and Iran.
For the Isma‘ilis, the Imam was not a political corollary of a religious system but an integral part of the religious system itself. In the famous Shi‘ite tradition already cited, Muhammad, upon his return from his “ascension” to the highest heavens where the truths of creation were revealed to him, cast his mantle over his daughter Fatima and his grandsons Hasan and Husayn and so signified the transmission of those same truths to his Fatimid-Alid descendants. Thus it was the Imam and he alone who held, at least in theory—every Sufi and philosopher from the twelfth century onward claimed the same privilege—the key to ta’wil, the allegorical exegesis of Scripture that penetrated the surface meaning to the Truths beneath.
The intellectual defense of Sunnism against this claim was undertaken by al-Ghazali in a series of tracts that mounted a frontal attack on “the Gnostics” and their infallible Imams. But the issue appears in all its complexity in a more personal statement, his Deliverer from Error, which describes his own investigation of the competing claims upon the faith of the Muslim. Faith tied to simple acceptance on the authority of others was insufficient for Ghazali; it could be shaken by the conflicting claims put forward by different parties and sects within Islam and by the equally strong adherence to their own faith by the Christians and Jews. Unless he was prepared to lapse into an agnostic skepticism, as Ghazali was not, there had to be some other way for the seeker after truth.
The attraction of “authoritative instruction” in an age of growing skepticism was undeniable, and Ghazali could reply that if such were the answer, then it was far preferable to accept the infallible teaching of the Prophet than the doctrine of some derivative Imam, whose teachings in any event turned out to be some debased form of Greek philosophy, “some trifling details from the philosophy of Pythagoras.” But neither can really cure the malady: it is part of the human condition to doubt and to disagree, and on the rational level the only solution is not to throw oneself on the authority of another but to work out an answer with patience and intelligence, an answer based equally on the Quran and the principles of right reason. The solution is, in short, Ghazali’s own rigorous version of an Islamic theology (see chapter 8 below).
By the eleventh century, amid the rising tide of Isma‘ilism, Sunni Muslim jurists had come to a consensus on their understanding of the Caliphate, and the lawyer Mawardi (d. 1058 C.E.) was able to lay out the duties of the office and the qualifications of its tenants with all the clarity typical of a closed issue. It was closed in another sense as well: Mawardi was writing at almost precisely the point when the actual office of Caliph had lost most of its real powers to quite another official, the Sultan (see below).
God, whose power be glorified, has instituted a chief of the community as a successor to Prophethood and to protect the community and assume the guidance of its affairs. Thus the Imamate is a principle on which stand the bases of the religious community and by which the general welfare is regulated, so that the common good is assured by it. Hence rules pertaining to the Imamate take precedence over any other rules of government…. The Imamate is placed on earth to succeed the Prophet in the duties of defending Religion and governing the World, and it is a religious obligation to give allegiance to that person who performs those duties….
Thus the obligatory nature of the Imamate is established, and it is an obligation performed for all by a few, like fighting in a Holy War, or the study of the religious sciences, and if no one is exercising it, then there emerge two groups from the people: the first being those who should choose an Imam from the community, and the second those who are fitted to be the Imam, of whom one will be invested with the Imamate. As for those of the community who do not belong to either of those two categories, there is no crime or sin if they do not choose an Imam. As to those two categories of people, each of them must possess the necessary qualifications. Those relating to the electors are three:
1. Justice in all its characteristics.
2. Knowledge sufficient to recognize who is worthy to be Imam by virtue of the necessary qualifications.
3. Judgment and wisdom to conclude by choosing the best person, who will best and most knowledgeably direct the general welfare.
As for those persons fitted for the Imamate, the conditions related to them are seven:
1. Justice in all its characteristics.
2. Knowledge requisite for independent judgment about revealed and legal matters.
3. Soundness of the senses in hearing, sight and speech, in a degree to accord with their normal functioning.
4. Soundness of the members from any defect that would prevent freedom of movement and agility.
5. Judgment conducive to the governing of subjects and administering matters of general welfare.
6. Courage and bravery to protect Muslim territory and wage the Holy War against the enemy.
7. Pedigree: he must be of the tribe of the Quraysh, since there has come down an explicit statement on this, and the consensus has agreed. There is no need of taking account of Dirar ibn Amr, who stood alone when he declared that anyone could be eligible. The Prophet said: “The Quraysh have precedence, so do not go before them,” and there is no pretext for any disagreement, when we have this clear statement delivered to us, and no word that one can raise against it.
There is some further discussion of the manner of electing an Imam/Caliph, but as a matter of fact the Caliphate had been an inherited office within two families, the Umayyads and the Abbasids, uninterruptedly from 661 C.E. to the time of Mawardi’s writing, a reality that is briefly averted to and approved.
If the Imamate has been conferred through the designation by the previous Imam of his successor, the consensus is that this is lawful because Abu Bakr designated Umar and Umar designated the electors of his successors. (Mawardi, The Ordinances of Government) [WILLIAMS 1971: 84–86]
As the guardian and transmitter of the Apostolic tradition, the Christian bishop had enormous spiritual powers over his community, and the bishops of Rome claimed that in their case those same powers extended over the entire flock of Christ. But no Christian “overseer” ever possessed the plenitude of what Ibn Khaldun called “the royal power” and “the religious power” that he attributed to the office of the Caliph. As Ibn Khaldun explains, the Caliph held both of the “two swords” of temporal and spiritual authority in his single hand.
It has become clear that to be Caliph in reality means acting as a substitute for the Lawgiver (Muhammad) with regard to the preservation of the religion and the political leadership of the world. The Lawgiver was concerned with both things, with religion in his capacity as the person commanded to transmit the duties imposed by the religious laws to the people and to cause them to act in accordance with them, and with worldly political leadership in his capacity as the person in charge of the (public) interests of human civilization. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.29) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:448]
We can observe the early Caliphs acting in exactly this fashion. In his brief tenure of the office (632–634 C.E.) Abu Bakr bade his fellow Muslims take up arms against those who sought to withdraw from the community at the death of the Prophet. Immediately after him Umar (634–644 C.E.) began to set in place many of the long-term institutions of the young Islamic state.
Abu Ja‘far said: Umar was the first to fix and write the date (according to the Muslim era), according to what al-Harith told me, having heard it from Ibn Sa‘d, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Umar in the year 16 (A.H.) in the month of First Rabi‘ (March 637 C.E.). And I have already mentioned the reason for writing this and how the affair was. Umar, may God be pleased with him, was the first to date letters and seal them with clay. And he was the first to gather people before a prayer-leader to pray special prayers with them at night in the month of Ramadan, and he wrote concerning this to the provinces and commanded them to do likewise.
The most far-reaching of these measures of Umar was his exercising the “royal power” and establishing the first instruments of state to regulate the affairs of a rapidly expanding Islamic empire.
I heard from al-Harith, who heard from Ibn Sa‘d, who heard from Muhammad ibn Umar, who heard from A‘idh ibn Yahya, on the authority of Abu’l-Huwayrith, on the authority of Jubayr ibn al-Huwayrith ibn Nuqayd, that Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, consulted the Muslims concerning the drawing up of registers, and Ali ibn Abi Talib said to him, “Share out every year whatever property has accumulated to you and do not retain anything.” Uthman ibn Affan said, “I see much property, which suffices for all the people and which cannot be counted until you distinguish between those who have taken (from it) and those who have not. I do not like things to be in disorder.” Al-Walid ibn Hisham ibn al-Mughira said to him, “O Commander of the Faithful, I have been to Syria and seen their kings, and they drew up a register and formed a legion. You should draw up a register and form a legion.”
What was in question here was a list of pensioners, a register or diwan of those to whom the spoils of the new Islamic conquests would be distributed in order. Those spoils were now considerable, which explains the controversy about precedence that followed.
Umar summoned Aqil ibn Abi Talib and Makhrama ibn Nawfal and Jubayr ibn Mut’im, who were genealogical experts of the tribe of Quraysh, and he said to them, “Write down the people according to their ranks!” And they wrote, beginning with the Banu Hashim [that is, Muhammad’s own family], then after Abu Bakr and his family and then Umar and his family, that is, following the order of succession to the Caliphate. When Umar looked at it he said, “I wish to God it were as you have written, but rather begin with the kin of the Prophet of God, may God bless and save him, and then continue in order of nearness to him until you place Umar where God has placed him.”
I heard from al-Harith … from … from Usama ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather, who said: I was present with Umar ibn al-Khattab, when the writing (of the ranking order) was shown to him, with the Banu Taym after the Banu Hashim and the Banu Adi after the Banu Taym. And I heard him say, “Put Umar in his proper place.” … And the Banu Adi [that is, Umar’s kin] came to Umar and said, “You are the successor of the Prophet of God!” And he answered, “Rather I am the successor of Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr was the successor of the Prophet of God.” And they objected, “Why do you not put yourself where these people [that is, the genealogists] have ranked you?” And Umar said, “Well done, O Banu Adi! Do you want to feed off me? Do you want me to sacrifice my honor to you? No, by God, not until your turn comes, even though the register closes with you and you are written as the last among the people.”
“I have two masters (Muhammad and Abu Bakr) who followed a certain path (Umar continued), and if I forsake them, I shall be forsaken in turn. Whatever bounty we have gotten in this world, and whatever reward we expect from God in the next world for our good deeds, is from Muhammad alone. He is our nobility, and his kin are the noblest of the Arabs; and as for the rest, they rank in order of their nearness to him. Indeed, the Arabs are ennobled with the Prophet of God, and perhaps some of them have many ancestors in common with him. As for us, it is clear that our genealogical lines coincide, and there are few ancestors that we do not share going right back to Adam. But for all that, I tell you, by God, if the non-Arabs come with deeds, and we come without them, on the Day of Judgment they will be nearer to Muhammad than we. Let no man take pride in his ancestry, but let him do God’s work, and if any man’s deeds fall short, his pedigree will not help him.” (Tabari, Annals 1.2750–2752)
The “royal” or secular powers of the Caliph do not directly concern us here, and they were in any event “delegated” to other, more powerful figures in Islamic history, ministers who rose to dominate a Caliph or generals who simply cowed him. These de facto rulers of the Islamic commonwealth were generally known as “Sultans” and were even more often former Turkish war-lords to whom the Caliphs owed the safety of their own house and the protection of the “Abode of Islam.” The Caliph could only hope that the Sultan who lorded it over his own narrow base of operations around Baghdad might be Sunni and sympathetic and capable of controlling his own troops, as they often in fact were. It fell then to the Islamic lawyers to convert this rather naked usurpation of power into a form of “delegation” and make theory of a necessity. Thus Ibn Jama‘a (d. 1335 C.E.).
The Imam of the Muslims has the right to delegate authority over any region, country, area or province to whoever is able to hold general authority there, because necessity demands it—not least in a far country…. If it is to be a general delegation of power, such as is customary for sultans and kings in our own time, it is lawful for the delegate then to appoint judges and governors and rule the armies, with full disposition of the wealth from all quarters, but not to have anything to do with a region over which he is not delegated, because his is a particular government. The same qualifications apply to the delegate ruler when the Imam selects him that would apply to his own office, except that of Qurayshi descent, because he is standing in the Imam’s place.
If a king attains power by usurpation and force in a (Muslim) country, then the Caliph should delegate the affairs of that place to him, in order to call him to obedience and avoid a split with him, lest there be disunity and the staff of the community be broken. In this way usurpation becomes legitimate government, issuing effective orders. (Ibn Jama‘a, Statutes) [WILLIAMS 1971: 91–92]
Ibn Khaldun, who knew well enough how to speak like a lawyer, here chooses to write like a historian.
When royal authority is firmly established in one particular family and tribe supporting the dynasty, and when that family claims all royal authority for itself and keeps the rest of the family away from it, and when the children of that family succeed to the royal authority in turn, by appointment, then it often happens that their wazirs [that is, their ministers] and entourage gain power over the throne. This occurs most often when a little child or a weak member of the family is appointed successor by his father and made ruler by his creatures and servants. It becomes clear that he is unable to fulfill the functions of ruler. Therefore they are fulfilled by his guardian, one of his father’s wazirs, someone from his entourage, one of his clients, or a member of his tribe. That person gives the impression that he is guarding the power of the (child ruler) for him. Eventually it becomes clear that he exercises the control, and he uses the fact as a tool to achieve royal authority. He keeps the child away from his people. He accustoms him to the pleasures of his life of luxury and gives him every opportunity to indulge in them. He causes him to forget to look at government affairs. Eventually he gains full control over him. He accustoms the child ruler to believe that the ruler’s share in royal authority consists merely in sitting on the throne, shaking hands, being addressed as “Sire” and sitting with the women in the seclusion of the harem. All exercise of actual executive power, and the personal handling and supervision of matters that concern the ruler, such as inspection of the army, finances, and defense of the border regions, are believed to belong to the wazir. He defers to him in all these things. Eventually, the wazir definitely adopts the coloring of the leader, of the man in control. The royal authority comes to be his. He reserves it for his family and his children after him. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.19) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:377–378]
The Muslim’s agreeably tolerant attitude of suspending judgment on the moral conduct of one’s neighbor (see below) had some extremely disagreeable political implications that were, in fact, the chief point in the discussions of the Caliphate. Postponement of judgment, as it was called, effectively removed the religious and moral issue from the political life of the Islamic empire. Its acceptance marked another stage in the secularization of the Caliphate, whose tenants could no longer be challenged on the grounds of their personal morality. The predestination argument led in the same direction—de facto was in fact de Deo. The predestination versus free will argument eventually drifted off in another direction, into the metaphysical thicket of atoms, accidents, and “acquisition.” But the “postponement” thesis held because it represented some kind of ill-shaped Muslim consensus that custom and the community were more important than tossing dead sinners into hell and live ones out of office or out of the community.
To return to the religious powers of this primary political authority in Islam, they are described in brief by Ibn Khaldun.
It should be known that all the religious functions of the religious law, such as (leadership of) prayer, the office of judge, the office of mufti, the Holy War, and market supervision fall under the “Great Imamate,” which is the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a kind of great main-spring and comprehensive basis, and all these functions are branches of it and fall under it because of the wide scope of the Caliphate, its active interest in all conditions of the Muslim community, both religious and worldly, and its general power to execute the religious laws relative to both (religious and worldly affairs). (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 3.29) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 1:449]
What Ibn Khaldun saw as powers, the lawyer Ibn Jama‘a (d. 1333 C.E.) saw as the Caliph’s duties, though both men were writing in an age when the holders of that office had little capacity for either exercising their powers or effectively fulfilling their duties.
As for the ten duties of the ruler to the subjects, the first is to protect the Muslim heritage and defend it, whether in every region, if he is Caliph, or in his own country if he is delegated over it, and to struggle against idolators and put down rebels….
The second is to guard the religion in its principles and beliefs, and put down innovation and heretics and encourage the religious sciences and the study of the Law, venerate learning and religious scholars and raise places from which the light of Islam may shine….
The third is to uphold the rites of Islam, such as the obligation of prayer and the congregational prayers and the call to prayer and performance of it, and the sermons and leadership of the prayers, and the matter of the fast and the feasts, and keeping the calendar, and the pilgrimage; and part of the last is facilitating the pilgrimage from all the districts, and keeping the roads clear and giving people security on the way and appointing people to look after them.
The fourth is to make the final decisions on court cases and sentences, by appointing governors and judges, so as to reduce contentiousness….
The fifth is to wage the Holy War himself and with his armies at least once a year….
The sixth is to apply the punishments imposed by the Law, and make no distinction when doing so between the powerful and the weak….
The seventh is to collect the alms tax and the tribute from those who are to pay it [that is, the People of the Book] and the booty and the land tax, and to use it as the Law stipulates….
The eighth is to supervise pious and family foundations, keep bridges and roads in good repair and make smooth the ways of welfare.
The ninth is to supervise the division and distribution of booty….
The tenth is justice in the ruler in all his affairs. (Ibn Jama‘a, Statutes) [WILLIAMS 1971: 93–94]
The Caliph, it is clear, was the executor of the religious law and, unlike Muhammad whose “successor” he was, neither the maker of new laws nor the interpreter of the old. The earliest Caliphs may have exercised some of those religious functions in fact. They certainly led prayers when their personal security permitted it, conducted military campaigns, and acted as judges for the community. But rather quickly in that rapidly expanding empire others did them in the Caliph’s stead: ministers, bureaucrats, and specialists, like the “mufti” on Ibn Khaldun’s list—literally, “one capable of pronouncing a fatwa,” that is, a legal opinion which, if it was not binding, certainly constituted a legal precedent.
The paradox of a ruler who possessed no direct religious powers governing a community whose common bond was the acceptance of Islam found its palliative in the growth of a body of Islamic Law that, from the ninth century onward, the Caliphs had to accept as normative. The Law was administered, as Muslim affairs had been from the beginning, by a judge or qadi who was a caliphal appointee, and so an agent of government; but the actual control of the Law, its codification and subsequent modification, was in the hands of a body of jurisprudents known collectively as “the learned” or ulama.
However they viewed it, the work of the jurisprudents had the effect of fashioning an answer to the question of what precisely constituted a Muslim. The Quran had provided the broad answer, the worship of one unique God, surely, and a salutary fear of the imminence of the Last Judgment; in the meantime the Muslim was commended to the practice of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. It remained for the lawyers, working on the great body of Prophetic tradition, to supply the modalities and details.
It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas that a delegation of (the tribe of) Abd al-Qays came to the Messenger of God, may peace be upon him, and said: Messenger of God, truly ours is a tribe of (the clan) Rabi‘a and there stand between you and us the unbelievers of Mudar and we find no freedom to come to you except in the Sacred Month. Direct us to an act which we should ourselves perform and invite those who live beside us (to perform). Upon this the Prophet remarked: I command you four things and prohibit to you four acts. (The prescribed acts are): Faith in God, and then he explained it for them and said: Testifying the fact that there is no god but the God, that Muhammad is the Messenger of God, establishment of prayer, payment of the alms-tax, and that you pay one-fifth of the booty fallen to your lot. And I prohibit you to use the round gourd, wine jars, wooden pots, or skins for wine. (Muslim, Sahih 1.7.22)
The prohibition against gourds, wine jars, wooden pots, and skins for wine may have been directed against a particular penchant of the Abd al-Qays for drinking. They had no role in the sequel, in any event. What was much more important, at least as far as the bedouin tribes outside Mecca were concerned, was the alms-tax, as this tradition from the era just following upon the death of the Prophet reveals.
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayra that when the Messenger of God, may peace be upon him, breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his Caliph after him, those among the Arabs who wanted to become apostates apostatized. Umar ibn al-Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people when the Messenger of God declared: “I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but the God….” Upon this Abu Bakr said: By God, I would definitely fight against him who separated prayer from the alms-tax, for it [that is, the alms-tax] is the obligation upon the rich. By God, I would even fight against them to secure the hobbling cord which they used to give to the Messenger of God (as alms-tax) but now they have withheld it. Umar ibn al-Khattab remarked: By God, I found nothing but the fact that God opened the heart of Abu Bakr for fighting (against those who refused to pay the alms-tax) and I fully recognized that (his stand) was right. (Muslim, Sahih 1.9.29)
Adherence to Islam, as is already clear from the Quran, was more than a simple profession of faith in God and His Prophet; it also required acts: the ritual acts of prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage (see chapter 6 below), and the social and political act of paying the alms-tax. Fasting and the pilgrimage do not occur as part of the obligations mentioned in the traditions cited above, but they are certainly prescribed in the Quran, at 2:183, for example, and 2:196–197, and they are included in this summary tradition setting out the five Pillars of Islam.
It is narrated on the authority of Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of God, peace be upon him said: (The superstructure of) Islam is raised on five (pillars): testifying that there is no god but the God, that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, and the establishment of prayer, payment of the alms-tax, pilgrimage to the House (of God at Mecca), and the fast of (the month of) Ramadan. (Muslim, Sahih 1.6.20)
The theologians and lawyers occasionally attempted to fashion a basic list of Muslim beliefs, perhaps on the model of Christianity, but for most Muslims Islam remained a matter of moral and social behavior rather than the acceptance of dogma.
From Abu Hurayra, with whom may God be pleased, who said: Said the Apostle of God, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace: “Do not envy one another; do not vie with one another; do not hate one another; do not be at variance with one another; and do not undercut one another in trading, but be servants of God, brothers. A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim. He does not oppress him, nor does he forsake him, nor deceive him nor despise him. God-fearing piety is here,” he said pointing to his breast. “It is enough evil for a man that he should despise his brother Muslim. The blood, property and honor of every Muslim is inviolable to a fellow Muslim.” Muslim relates this tradition. (Nawawi, The Forty Traditions, no. 35) [JEFFERY 1962: 157]
From Abu Hurayra, with whom may God be pleased, who said: Said the Apostle of God, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace: “In truth God, may He be exalted, has said: ‘Whoever acts with enmity toward a friend of Mine, against him will I declare war. No servant of Mine draws near to Me with anything I like more than that which I have laid upon him as an incumbent duty, and a true servant of Mine will continue drawing near to Me with supererogatory acts of worship so that I may love him. Then when I am living with him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he takes things, his foot with which he walks. If he asks of Me, I will surely give him, and if he takes refuge with Me, I will surely give him refuge.’” (Nawawi, The Forty Traditions, no. 38) [JEFFERY 1962: 158–159]
One of the Pillars of Islam and so an obligation binding upon every Muslim, was the paying of a statutory alms-tithe. The complex subject of tithing, how much, to whom, from whom, and for what purpose, is discussed at length in Muslim law books, but there are two Prophetic traditions in al-Nawawi’s summary collection that look at alms not in their legal aspect but as a function of the virtue of charity.
From Abu Dharr, with whom may God be pleased, who said that some from among the Companions of the Apostle of God, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace, said to the Prophet, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace: “O Apostle of God, the rich take off all the rewards. They say prayers just as we do, they fast just as we do, but they can give in charity out of the superabundance of their wealth (and so surpass us in storing up merit).” He said: “Has not God appointed for you that you should give in charitable alms? Truly, in every ejaculation ‘Glory be to God!’ there is such an alms, in every ‘God is the greatest!’, in every ‘Praise be to God!’, in every ‘Hallelujah!’, in every bidding what is right and forbidding the doing of what is wrong; even when one of you has sex with his wife, there is an alms in that.” They said: “O Apostle of God, (do you mean to say that) when one of us satisfies his desires (with his wife), there will be a reward for that?” He answered: “What do you think? Had He put it among the things forbidden, it would have been sinful for one, so when He put it among the allowable things, there was a reward for it also.” Muslim relates this tradition. (Nawawi, The Forty Traditions, no. 25) [JEFFERY 1962: 153]
From Abu Hurayra, with whom may God be pleased, who said: Said the Apostle of God, upon whom be God’s blessing and peace: “An alms is due each day that the sun rises from every finger-joint of all the people. If you straighten out some trouble between two individuals, that is an alms. If you help a man with his beast, mounting him thereon or hoisting up onto it his luggage, that is an alms. A good work is an alms. In every step you take in walking to prayer there is an alms. Whenever you remove something harmful from the path, that is an alms.” Al-Bukhari and Muslim both relate this tradition. (Nawawi, The Forty Traditions, no. 26) [JEFFERY 1962: 153]
As we have already seen in chapter 2 above, the Quran itself had given Muslims license to resort to force against their oppressors, and even, in Quran 2:217, to employ violence during one of the “sacred months” when the “Truce of God” was universally recognized to prevail. The point is clear: it was permissible to fight for God’s cause, even in previously banned time, on the principle of a higher good’s being served. It was a taking of sides, and the test was a profession of faith in the Lord God of all.
It is reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of God said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no God but the God, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf, except for the right, and his affairs rest with God. (Muslim, Sahih 1.9.30)
So reads an early tradition reported of Muhammad, justifying the militant quality of his calling—“I have been commanded”—and the test that qualifies one for membership in and protection of the community of Muslims. In this version that test has but a single article, belief in the one true God. However, the same authority is immediately invoked to report another, which adds a second clause.
It is reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra that he heard the Messenger of God say: I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify the fact that there is no god but the God, and believe (in me) that I am the Messenger (from the Lord), and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with God. (Muslim, Sahih, 1.9.31)
Islam was an activist faith, as the Prophet had demonstrated in both his words and deeds, and the theme of “striving on the path of God” runs throughout the Quran. In some instances the “striving” was a personal one against sin or toward perfection; in others the context was social or communal—in short, as part of a “Holy War” in the quite literal sense of armed combat, what came to be called jihad.
Thus there came into being another candidate for inclusion among the basic prescriptions of Islam, the “striving in the path of God” commanded to Muhammad and, in fact, to all Muslims. The following tradition reported after the Prophet’s death appears to reflect some kind of debate in the community on just how widely that obligation extended. In this tradition at least, war in God’s name is quite explicitly denied parity with the other Pillars of Islam.
It is reported on the authority of Ta’us that a man said to Abdullah ibn Umar: Why don’t you carry out a military expedition? Upon which he replied: I heard the messenger of God, may peace be upon him, say: In truth Islam is founded on five (pillars): testifying that there is no god but the God, establishment of prayer, payment of the alms-tax, the fast of Ramadan, and pilgrimage to the House. (Muslim, Sahih 1.6.21)
Whether or not jihad was formally one of the Pillars—and the lawyers continued to debate the question—militancy on behalf of the cause of Islam, or better, of God, was a fundamental duty, as the Quran itself leaves no doubt.
Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors. And fight those wheresoever you find them, and expel them from the place they had turned you out from. Oppression is worse than killing. Do not fight them by the Holy Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers. But if they desist, God is forgiving and kind.
Fight them until sedition comes to an end, and the Law of God (prevails). If they desist, then cease to be hostile, except against those who oppress. (Quran 2:190–193)
Enjoined on you is fighting, and this you abhor. You may dislike a thing, yet it may be good for you; or a thing may haply please you but may be bad for you. Only God has knowledge, and you do not know. (Quran 2:216)
Those who barter the life of this world for the next should fight in the way of God. And We shall bestow on who fights in the way of God, whether he is killed or is victorious, a glorious reward.
What has come upon you that you fight not in the cause of God and for the oppressed, men, women and children, who pray, “Get us out of this city, O Lord, whose people are oppressors; so send us a friend by Your will, and send us a helper.”
Those who believe fight in the way of God; and those who do not fight only for the powers of evil; so you should fight the allies of Satan. Surely the stratagem of Satan is ineffective. (Quran 4:74–76)
The Holy War or jihad was fought against unbelievers living in the “Abode of War,” that is, the territories outside the political control of the Muslim community. But within the “Abode of Islam” itself lived others who did not accept either the Quran or the Prophet yet were not heathens or polytheists. These were the “People of the Book,” the “Scriptuaries” who practiced Judaism, Christianity, and, it will appear, Zoroastrianism. They were not required to embrace Islam; the proof-text is this verse of the Quran.
There is no compulsion in matters of faith. Distinct now is the way of guidance from error. He who turns away from the forces of evil and believes in God, will surely hold fast to a handle that is strong and unbreakable, for God hears all and knows every thing. (Quran 2:256)
The interpretation of this famous verse was fairly standard, despite a great deal of uncertainty about the circumstances of its revelation.
Wahidi (d. 1076 C.E.) relates on the authority of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, who related on the authority of Ibn Abbas: When the children of a woman of the Helpers [that is, early Medinese converts to Islam] all died in infancy, she vowed that if a child were to live, she would bring it up as a Jew. Thus when the Jewish tribe of al-Nadir was evicted from Medina, there were among them sons of the Helpers. The Helpers said, “O Messenger of God, what will become of our children?” Thus God sent down this (above cited) verse. Sa‘id ibn Jubayr said: “Therefore whoever wished to join them did so and whoever wished to join them did so likewise.” According to Mujahid, this (same) verse was sent down concerning a man who had a black male servant called Subayh. The man wished to compel his servant to enter Islam. Al-Suddi said that the verse was sent down concerning a man of the Helpers known as Abu al-Husayn who had two sons. One day merchants from Syria came to Medina to sell oil. The sons of Abu al-Husayn came to the merchants, who converted them to Christianity. They then went to Syria with the merchants. When Abu al-Husayn knew this, he came to the Prophet and asked: “Shall I pursue them?” God then sent down “There is no compulsion in religion.” The Messenger of God said: “May God banish them! They are the first two who rejected faith.” Mujahid said: “This was before the Messenger of God was commanded to fight against the People of the Book. God’s saying ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was abrogated and he was commanded to fight against the People of the Book in the Sura ‘Repentance’ (9:29).” …
According to other traditions, the verse was revealed in reference to the People of the Book, who should not be compelled to enter Islam so long as they pay the tribute. The verse is, therefore, not abrogated (by 9:29). Tabari (d. 923 C.E.) relates on the authority of Qatada: “Arab society was compelled to enter Islam because they were an unlettered community, having no book which they knew. Thus nothing other than Islam was accepted from them. The People of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the (tribute of the) poll-tax or the land-tax.” …
Razi (d. 1209 C.E.) … comments: “This (verse) means that God did not rest the matter of faith on compulsion or coercion but rather based it on free will and the ability to choose…. This is what is intended here when God made clear the proofs of the Divine Unity. He said that there is no longer any excuse for a rejecter of faith to persist in his rejection. That he should be forced to accept faith is not lawful in this world, which is a world of trial. For coercion and compulsion in the matter of faith is the annulment of the meaning of trial and test.” [AYOUB 1984: 252–254]