Imamate in Islam
Imamate means the very pinnacle of the optimum reality required for administering the society in contrast to various types of society administrations that originate from human weaknesses, lust, haughtiness, and acquisitiveness. Islam provides man with the procedure and prescription of Imamate; that is to say, a human being should have a heart replete and overflowed with the grace of Divine guidance, know and understand religious knowledge–that is, to realize the right path–have the power in [pursuing] practical actions–“O John! Take hold of the Book with might”–and his soul, wishes, and personal life should be of no importance to him; however, other people’s life and happiness should be of utter importance to him, like that which Amīr al-Mu’minīn (P.B.U.H.) practically showed in the period of less than five years of his ḥukūma. You see that the short period of less than five years of Amīr al-Mu’minīn’s (P.B.U.H.) ḥukūma is still shining on and remaining [radiant] throughout centuries as a paradigm, a role model, and that which the humanity will never forget. This is outcome of the lesson, meaning, and interpretation of Ghadīr.
(2002/03/03)
The term Imamate–which in principle means leadership–is more applied to a particular referent of the term in the Islamic culture, and that is leadership in social aspects; whether intellectual or political. Wherever in the Qur’an that the derivatives of the term Imāmat–such as Imām and A’imma–are used, they concern this particular meaning, that is, leadership of the umma; [either] intellectual leadership, political leadership or both of them. After the demise of the prophet (P.B.U.H & H.H.) and upon the Muslims’ intellectual and political schism, which resulted in the division of the followers of Islam into several sects, [and] since the political leadership of the umma consisted of the main point of difference and the term Imāmat and Imām acquired an especial destiny, it was used as “political leadership” more than any other concept and the other meanings were gradually overshadowed by this meaning; so that, when in the second century A.H. theological schools of Islam were created one after another and various Islamic tendencies were formed as specific demarcated ideologies and schools, one of the significant issues of these school included Imamate, which meant political leadership. In this issue, the qualifications and features of the Imam–that is, the ruler and governor of the society–were usually talked about and each group expressed their own opinion and discourse in this regard.
In Shi‘ism, which according to its followers is the most authentic intellectual trend of Islam, Imamate is taken as this same meaning and the theory of that school about the Imam is summarized as follows: the Imam and political leader of the Muslim community has to be appointed by Allah and introduced by the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.); he should be the intellectual leader, the interpreter of the Qur’an, and should be aware of all the mysteries and intricacies of religion. He should also be immaculate and free from any defect and creational and dispositional shortcomings and should have been born through a pure and chaste lineage, and so on and so forth. And thus, Imamate, which in the convention of the Muslims of the first and second centuries [A.H.] was a political leader, in the convention particular to the Shi‘ites, included the concept of an intellectual and moral leader besides being a political leader, as well.
When the Shi‘ites recognized someone as an Imam, they would expect of him not only the administration of the social affairs but also the intellectual guidance, religious education, and moral purification, too. If, however, he was not able to fulfill these duties, they would not know him as the “Rightful Imam” and would not be content with good political management, political power-wielding, chivalry, conquests–which in others’ view are regarded as sufficient standards.
According to the Shi‘ite’s impression of the concept of Imamate, the Imam of a community is the very dominating authority who justifies and guides the collective movement and the individual character of that community’s people and is at the same time both a teacher of religion and ethics and a commander of their life and efforts. With this definition, the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) is also an Imam; that is because he holds the intellectual and political leadership of the community that he himself has founded. After the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.), the community needs an Imam who can be his successor–Caliph–and can bear the burden of his responsibilities–including the political leadership. And the Shi‘ites believe that this succession, as the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) has asserted, belongs to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib (P.B.U.H.) and then to the Infallible Imams (P.B.U.T.) of that household. (For details and arguments, one should refer to the related books.)
It is worth mentioning that the intermingling of the three concepts, “political leadership”, “religious education”, and “spiritual purification” in the Caliphate and rule of Islam–as the Imamate and rule of Islam are regarded as possessing three aspects and dimensions; which is rightly stated by some of the outstanding thinkers of this time–results from the fact that Islam has principally not separated these three aspects from one another and has been presented to man as a program [consisting] of these three aspects. Therefore, leadership of the umma is interpreted as the leadership in these three aspects; and it is for this very widespread meaning of Imamate that the Shi‘ites believe that the Imam is to be appointed by Allah.
The result is that, contrary to the superficial view of those who have assumed “Imamate” to be something vis-a-vis “caliphate” and ḥukūma (rule) and have considered it to be simply a spiritual, mental, and intellectual position, in Shi‘ite culture, Imam is the “leader of the umma”; both in worldly affairs, handling people’s life, and the political and social administration of society (as head of state), and spiritual teaching and guidance, solving the intellectual problems, and elucidation of the ideology of Islam (as an ideologue).
This obvious point is so absent from the minds of most believers of Imamate that mentioning some examples of hundreds of the Qur’anic and ḥadīth evidences does not sound superfluous.
There is a detailed ḥadīth related from Imam ‘Alī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā (P.B.U.H.) in Kitāb al-Ḥujja of Al-Kāfī on the virtue and qualifications of Imamate and description of the Imam, consisting of meaningful and interesting features; some of which are: reins of religion, order of Muslims, soundness of this world, and honor of the believers, the status of the prophets, the heritage of the successors, the representation of Allah, the deputy to the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.). It says about the Imam: the increaser of the public wealth, executor and protector of Divine laws and limits, Allah’s trustee among people, a luminous flame on lofty heights, a guide to the Allah’s path, defender of Divine sanctum, [source of] anger for the hypocrites, demolisher of the foundations of unbelievers, conveyor of honor to the righteous, proficient and deft in statesmanship, well-versed in politics, ready to obey Divine commands, ready to receive Allah’s commands, well-wisher of servants of Allah, and safeguard of Allah’s religion.
In another narration from Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.), it is asserted that, “All the virtues and all the responsibilities of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) is possessed by ‘Alī (P.B.U.H.) and other Imams (P.B.U.T.), too.”
In another tradition, the necessity of obeying the awṣīyā’ (the successors to the Prophet [P.B.U.H & H.H.]) is reminded and then it is explained that the awṣīyā’ are those whom the Qur’an has referred to as uli al-amr (those vested with authority).
Hundreds of scattered narrations in different chapters of various books have evidently regarded the concept of Imam and Imamate in the Shi‘ite culture as “statesmanship” and “administration of the affairs of the Muslim umma” and introduced the Imams (P.B.U.T.) as the true state authorities (holder of government), so that it does not leave room for any doubt for the fair researcher that claim of Imamate by the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (P.B.U.T.), apart from the intellectual and spiritual status, is exactly a claim of the right to govern, as well; and their all-pervasive invitation to a politico-military struggle for taking over the ḥukūma.
If someone imagines that the nine and eight Imams (P.B.U.T.) from Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) up to Imam ‘Askarī (P.B.U.H.) had been only dealing with religious rulings and religious knowledge and had not engaged in political struggle befitting their time, they have certainly not have sufficient deliberation on the life of these noble figures. As it is clearly implied from the conditions of those noble figures and the meaning of Imamate in Islam and the philosophy that the Shi‘ites maintain for Imamate, they would not accept other than this at all and it is not compatible, either. Even if we did not have a clear evidence for the struggle of the Imams (P.B.U.T.), we should have believed that we did not know, that we have not been informed, and those noble figures have indeed struggled. It is not plausible that we know the meaning of Imamate as it is common in the Islamic culture–and not only in the Shi‘ite culture–and believe in it and at the same time accept that the Imams (P.B.U.T.) have remained at home and stood by with folded arms and have merely been pleased that they had been explaining the ordinances of the Qur’an and Islamic knowledge and having had no political struggle; such a thing is not true at all. Of course, when we say that the Imams (P.B.U.T.) used to struggle, we should also know that struggle at any time is in a specific form. Sometime, struggle is carried out through cultural, scientific, and political work or organizing groups and forming organizations, and sometimes by blood-shedding, martial activities, and open combats; at any time struggle is in a [specific] way.
1987/31/07
Some may express doubt that how the Imams (P.B.U.T.) fought for overtaking the ḥukūma, whereas they knew by their Divine knowledge that they would not take over the ḥukūma. Well, it is obvious that the life of the Imams (P.B.U.T.) showed that they could not take over the ḥukūma and establish the Islamic state and community as they desired and as it was their duty. But why did the Imams (P.B.U.T.) did so despite the fact that they knew this and were aware of it through Divine inspiration? In response to this idea, we should say that knowing that they would not reach their goal would not prevent them from doing their duty. Look at the life of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.). The holy Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) knew that he would be defeated in the battle of Uḥud. He knew that those whom he had assigned at the hillock would not stay on and would come down the hill by greed for the spoils. The day when the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) went to Ṭā’if in order to guide the Banī Thaqīf and took refuge in the people of Ṭā’if from the evil of the people of Mecca, he knew that the people of Ṭā’if would welcome him with stones. They stoned him so much that his leg got injured and bleeding and he was forced to leave. The Imams (P.B.U.T.) all knew this. Amīr al-Mu’minīn (P.B.U.H.) knew that he would be martyred on the twenty first of Ramadan; yet, a little while before the month of Ramadan, he set up a large camp outside Kūfa to go on fighting against Mu‘āwīya. If his knowledge caused him not to act according to normal routine, why did he set up this camp? Why did he launch a military campaign? Why did he take the people outside Kūfa and keep them waiting? What was the use? That the Imams (P.B.U.T.) knew that they would not take over the ḥukūma should not have prevented them from doing their best. They should endeavor and struggle like the one who does not know and is not informed of what would happen; they should do all the things of a person who does not know what is going to happen. 1985/12/04
