Adventures in Islamic Cyberspace

The somewhat rhetorical question posed by an online muslim:

It has been a long time since I discussed this issue, but I always like my views challenged! I still hold onto the view that the Caliphate is a matter that is know by necessity in Islam sort of like Hajj and Salah. I also hold that there is consensus among the companions and the scholars of Islam on this.

Do you think this is the case or do you think that the evidence in support is vague at best?

The answer:

There are two things which separated: Caliphate and Imamate.

Imamate is Divine Right. Caliphate is merely the legislative body of any Islamic state and can be demonstrated in a Monarchy or a Democracy or even a Marxist regime. It only represents a legislative body or group of leaders or even a dictator under which one is either forced or agrees to be led due to matters of citizenship within a state. The "Caliphate" was taken immediately after the death of the prophet by those who did not possess Divine Right and hence, it turned sour on each "monarch" one after the other in succession during the "physical" and "non occulted" tenure of the twelve Imams/Ahl Bayt.

Imamate is a whole other ball park and for the Shia (the actual surviving members of the Ahl Bayt like Sayyed Nasrallah or Khameini or any other black hatted Shia figure), they assume possession of it and it cannot be assumed by any other. It is the case that all Shia know that even if others do not believe it is in their possession, it still does and if the actual Caliphate (which ideally would embody both things, legislative and spiritual guidance) could or should exist in the future they will remain claiming it until the Mahdi arrives and settles the situation. In that case (as it is reflected in the Iranian constitution) all laws, democracies, dictatorships would immediately dissolve/disappear and each and every muslim would have to know who their Imam was so that they could be counted the way they hoped to be previously. If a person is following an Imam who was in error then it is a problem for both the follower and the leader. The onus is not merely on the believer who may have suffered oppression and social pressure to conform to leaders not of their choosing but also and to a much more major extent, the actual Imam who insisted others ought to follow them (sometimes even in fear of their life if they didn't follow a "caliph" which is not an "Imam"). Although there are Shia Imams who are living, they are fallible to various degrees. A Marja is an living "Imam" who is as close as it comes to being free from error and worthy of being "emulated". When one refers to an actual Imam of the sort which is a claimant to Imamate, we are talking about the twelve Imams whom I am sure you all are familiar with and because the actual Khalifate is disintegrated into two things (caliphate and Imamate), a claimant will remain a claimant until such a time as justice is reestablished (the justice which was either purposely or inadvertently usurped at the event horizon of the prophet's death).

The origin of this problem is with the Ottoman, Abbasid, and Omayyed empires in which several if not all the Caliphs forced the citizens to "pledge allegiance" or suffer the death penalty or other forms of marginalization if they didn't "tow" the political line of any given Caliph. This continues to this day in many Arab states even if it is in a more subtle form. Saudi Arabia being the best model for discussion about that sort of thing.

In Iran and in all of Shia Islamic practice, a person is never coerced to "pledge allegiance" to anyone. A person selects a marja to follow if they feel they need one (they aren't even compelled to have one if they feel they can answer their own legal questions to their own satisfaction). An Iranian for instance may "pledge allegiance" to the spiritual guidance of a non Iranian scholar like Sistani in Iraq or heck, if I was a man and a marja, an American Scholar (although this is a seriously unlikely event). The point is, the allegiance is to a school of thought and legal jurisprudence which may be liberal to conservative rather than an allegiance to a person's "country" or nationality. Literally, it is an allegiance to the best form of truth per your own judgement.

Your question however i.e. it is an 'article' of faith to "know" your local caliphate and caliph...well not necessarily. What you need to know is who your Imam is and in the case of a Shia, the Imams are all dead (except for the occulted Mahdi) and the Marja's are simply legal scholars "for the times" who answer questions based both on their knowledge of "what the actual twelve Imams said" and what they can gather from a very long history of having studied exhaustively the texts surrounding the precedents in Islam and Islamic history.

The Shia view of the Mahdi is divided into two camps basically. Those who believe the Mahdi is present in all our affairs and is witness to events and those who believe the Mahdi is "somewhere else" and not in contact in any way, shape or form. Those who possess other knowledges (the highest ranking Shia scholars) may or may not make people privy to that information. That is an unknown and I'm sure, a much debated part of the argument. A consensus on that issue however is not required. The only consensus that any muslim be they Sunni or Shia need in that regard is to know that there is a Mahdi who is returning to establish justice.

Your other question, whether or not there is a consensus...well sure there is. There is a Shia consensus that is cohesive and does not vary within the Shia group and there are multiple consensi in the Sunni groups which number anywhere from four to six at this time. Those consensi are not in agreement and therefore you will find the answer to those questions depending on what it is you actually hope to know or want to know or insist on knowing or as is usually the case with those who don't like to know things, what you already BELIEVE or have been taught by your family, society and "sect" members. In other words, if you already suffer a bias it is usually the case that you will continue on with whatever it is you have now.

And (another poster, redacted), I think you are partially right and partially wrong. There is a unified theory of Sunni Islam and that is the denial of any of this and hence they are "non Shia" and cohesiveness thus far has been generated from that particular stance rather than an actual stance on the Who's Who of Islamic history.

(Yet another poster, a non muslim, redacted to protect the innocent who asked whether the Khalifate was established during the time of the revelation or after the revelation of the Quran), the Khalifa was established in the Quran because the line of prophethood ended with Mohamed and therefore, previous prophets who were Hanifas (Abraham, SA) were both Imams and Khalifas as well as prophets in their own right. It appears to me that a new class of things was instituted by Allah because Allah never leaves his religion untended but of course, the Khalifas are not prophets and of course, Allah would not be sending any more "prophets" which are clearly defined as having a text, a pedigree, access to future events (prophecy) and a clear relationship to Allah which is more or less, direct. In other words, a Khalifa cannot exist to change anything that happened previously but only exists to support what has already been revealed by the last prophet. It can be said that the Twelve Imams did have access to hidden knowledges but not as a result of a direct hotline to Allah via the angel Gibril. The cited Hanifa (Abraham, SA) was both as he was a messenger (had an actual law with its associated abrogations of past laws and texts) AND he was an Imam (scholar, teacher, locuter and in possession of certain types of hidden information) for his generation. Both Imams and Messengers must have genetic linkages to the entire line of prophethood. It is literally a "pedigree" and as such there are weak pedigrees and strong ones. The strongest pedigree is that of the Ahl Bayt. To understand the importance of the "household" of a prophet and the associated "priesthoods" you can compare the Ahl Bayt of Isa (SA, Jesus Christ) which was exactly ONE person IF ANY: Miriam (pbuh). His priesthood was composed of the twelve apostles but I have little doubt his companions were several more. The issue of his household and the household of the prophets was literally taken away from the Hebrew priesthood and their prophets which were remaining. In the Quran there are only three that I know of at that time and that would be Zakariya (the father of Yehye i.e. St. John the Baptist, pbuh, who was subsequently murdered) and Yehye himself (pbuh) who was also murdered by the Hebrews (rabbis, et.al.) and Miriam's (the Virgin Mary that is) father Imran, pbuh (unknown destiny but if anyone knows about this they could enlighten me about it). It is logical then to read the Bible stories in which the authors ascribe a "father" to Isa as being Yusef (pbuh) as completely a fabrication because Isa (SA) was created like Adam (SA) from "no sperm" and hence, unless he fathered any children (not mentioned in any text anywhere) his Ahl Bayt was concluded right there and then and the Hebrews were incensed to be excluded. In most Bibles they authored a pedigree in which Isa, SA is a descendent of Dawood and he isn't one unless you consider the maternal line. And in my opinion that is why Jews do exactly this in terms of establishing "citizenship" in Israel i.e. based on their matrilineal descent from the Hebrews. It's all they were left with in terms of being included until such a time as the Quran was revealed and they were openly advited to reestablish their covenant with Allah but many of them refused. Many of them didn't too. They became muslims you know. We had to come from somewhere!

I'll tell you what is interesting...this same sort of "Imamate" actually was established in the time of Musa and Harun (pbut). If you refer to an Old Testament, you will discover something very interesting about the "priesthood" of Aaron (Harun). It is dealt with in great detail including the fact that the editors of the Old Testament in later times accused Harun of forcing the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf whereas the Quran clarifies his position in that another person suggested the foul idolatry and Harun feared splitting the Israelites into two "camps" or if you will, "sects" and "went along with it" until the reappearance of Musa (from the mount) but was against the action in his heart much like Ali ibn Abi Taleb (pbuh) "went along" with this usurped Caliphate physically but not in his heart where he remained a vocal advocate of the travesty of justice until the day he was assassinated by one of his own men who started doubting his advocacy of the truth due to the need to once again "acquiesce" to the power of an oppressor (Muaw'wiya). It is literally a repeat of the same old story between the Sunnis and the Shia and hence confirms one reported hadith in which a questioner asked the prophet if the muslims would suffer all the same catastrophes as the Israelites did and he answered "yes".

Furthermore, you should question those here who claim they are actually Sunni to define what they mean when they use the interchangable but split words Caliphate and Imamate. Hopefully they can provide clear answers for you.

Secondly, when it comes to Imamship and Marjas...the notion of being an Imam is based on the fact that there is a consensus between all Shia Imams regarding Imamate and hence, all Shia sholars "should" be basing all modern decisions on modern laws using their knowledge of the original infallible twelve Imams with their true pedigrees (which are also unanimously agreed upon). So, to make a long explanation even longer, an Imam is a stand in for the time being (in its modern usage) and there ought be NO claim to infallibility by a marja (and they don't claim such things). Their claim is only "as close as you can get" to things which have disappeared. As well, the Marjas that are followed are followed by huge segments of the Shia population for the most part and only vary in the sense that some of them are more liberal (Fadhallah) and some are more conservative (Sistani and Khameini). A follower is not allowed to change marjas until the marja is dead and even then, if they remain in that fellowship then they must not ask further questions of their legal jurisprudence issues. They must be entirely satisfied because a dead Marja is no longer able to address modern principles of justice as they arise. It is understood that Marja's are legally and spiritually culpable for mistakes in their "reading" and "interpretions" as it applies to the law of practice. It is a serious position in Islam and not one that just any old fella will do. All Shia know this and abide by it if they are knowledgable and have been taught the proper hierarchy of belief and the necessary leadership that it entails in times post prophethood in which the prophet (Mohamed, SA) cannot be asked a single thing.

Furthermore, to comment on (redacted post of a Sunni-Sufi fellow) posting of a well meaning article called "Let's all be friends" well...I think that sort of thing is backed by good intentions but it is the same old bandaid. It doesn't cure anything but the symptoms and does not address the cause which in reality is leadership. And clearly, the wound is such a wound that it hemmorrhages now and then and until modern times so a bandaid just isn't going to be good enough in my opinion. Actual knowledge is needed by all muslims regarding leadership issues and post haste.

I do believe however that it is possible to love a Shia even if you aren't one and make that love the type that is honest and friendly. To listen and to learn. I listen and learn from Sunnis all the time....no one has a monopoly on historical information but the case is, leadership in Islam is a Divine thing and as a Divine thing it is given by the Divine Leader Allah. It cannot be changed or substituted for something else and it is clear to me if not to others just yet that the Shia leaders are flexing their muscle.

Ahmadinijad (and the Shia Imams which support his leadership in various ways because I have no idea whether or not Ahmadinijad is even a scholar let alone a Sayyed like Nasrallah or Sistani and hence he is an average Shia guy who knows alot and has his ducks in a row when it comes to the Who's Who of Islamic history) is the first muslim leader to address the United Nations general assembly. No one else has ever bothered to do that...I suppose fearing all sorts of things. It is exactly that steadfastness that wins wars without using guns and counters threats without being threatening but being inviting. It is directly related to the troops under Ali ibn Abi Taleb (pbuh) when they were faced with dying of thirst after being prevented from drinking at the Euphrates river on their way to battle Mu'awiya. Those troops were advised to go to the river and drink (it was their human right to quench their thirst prior to the ensuing battles which were scheduled in those days and followed a type of policy and procedure manual). They were told that if Mu'awiyah's forces prevented them from taking their human rights of drinking that they should SLAY them. It is also directly related to the Sura known as "The Necessities" which is a statement about human rights. It is exactly that right that Iran is addresssing now at the UN and that is the human right to clean nuclear energy, progress and scientific enquiry and access to the river of knowledge (Kawther). It is also true that Ali ibn Abi Taleb always 'invited' his oppressors and enemies like Mu'awiya back into the fold of Islam. It wasn't until they repeatedly refused that he went to war with them and only at the urging of the oppressed muslims. It is always under duress that true muslims fight wars for such things. Afterall, if a Shia leader knows they have the Divine Right on their side, there is no war to be fought for something they already know is in their possession. Fighting for a Caliphate however...well that is the question. Some might even say that is what is going on in Iraq..that it is more about politics than spiritual issues. I think if you read what Ahmadinijad said however, you will recognize that the Shia leaders believe that the times are changing and in a very big way. It is the time in which the waiting is coming to a close and justice (and hence, the Mahdi's return) is approaching. I personally feel that is very Good News and the kind of News that all people be they muslim or not, need right now. It is hopeful and it is optimistic and shouldn't be regarded as a means of achieving superiority over anyone.

People are always trying to find fault with things. Non muslims try to find fault with muslims and muslims try to find fault with each other. What is needed is actual analysis of the real issues and some honesty plus some serious leadership and steadfastness on the part of those with certainty as opposed to those with only "faith" in Islam.