The Imamate from “Fundamentals of Religion” to “Legal Politics”

The ancient and contemporary Islamic history provides lessons that indicate the extent of the harm that resulted from transferring the issue of the Imamate from the field of Islamic politics - or the interests sent by fundamentalist juristic expression - to the field of belief.

This transfer was the main reason for the political instability experienced by the first society in the era of the Companions after the death of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the consequent establishment of the science of controversy in the doctrine, or what is known as "theology".

Today, history repeats itself when the issue of governance was transferred from the field of legal politics to the field of belief, through the new load that the concept of governance took into consideration by Sayyid Qutb, and through the interpretation of Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi to the “four terms”, or through what Abu al-Hasan al-Nadawi called “the interpretation The political of Islam. " Therefore, returning the issue of the imamate or the political issue to its real scope and size is one of the entry points to the theory of reform.

Ibn Khaldun provides a social interpretation of the hadith of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, “The Imams from Quraysh,” and interprets it as an interpretation that takes it from the binding legal field to the field of legitimate politics. That is, the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, did not define a legal principle here that makes the Qur’an tribal affiliation a permanent and permanent condition for the leadership of Muslims, insofar as he was alerted to a principle that guarantees social legitimacy, and the necessary impediment to achieving the necessary political stability of the state, and this interpretation is consistent with the theory of nervousness that Ibn Khaldun adopted it mainly for the interpretation of the dynamics of Islamic history.

The provision of that impedance is necessary in the view of Ibn Khaldun, not only for the political system, but also for the religious vocation that the prophets brought, just as he sees that the religious vocation without nervousness does not take place, and that "every matter that everyone is held to must be nervous."

In the authentic hadith, “God sent no prophet except in his people’s prevention.” And if this is among the prophets - and they are the first to violate the returns - then what you think of others is that the habit does not violate the habit without being nervous. "

We are not concerned with the validity of that interpretation and its validity in explaining all stages of Islamic history, just as we do not stop with the theory of nervousness, as much as we are concerned with directing Ibn Khaldun for the aforementioned Hadith, a directive that made the issue of the Imamate a political issue of ijtihad, i.e. one of the subjects of legal policy, and not one of the topics of belief .

This guidance testifies to the distinction of a number of scholars between the actions of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, with the prophecy, his actions with the judiciary, his actions with the fatwas and his actions with the Imamate, and the fulfillment - in real terms - of this condition in the Imam - with the expansion of Islam and the multiplicity of its states and the separation of the apartment between them and the Arabian Peninsula - is difficult If not impossible.

It is inconceivable how the best religious, the most deserving of the Imamate, could be found in all congregations and in all ages. Therefore, it was first to consider the Quraysh - as a condition in the Imamate - as an assessment linked to consideration of interest and an issue of legitimate policy.

What further confirms this is that the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, did not appoint a successor after him, and that the decision to choose the caliphs was an order in which the Muslims worked hard, so the election mechanisms differed from one successor to another. Omar, may God be pleased with him, nominated in the meeting of the penthouse, our master Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him, to succeed the Prophet May God bless him and grant him peace, and the people of Medina accepted it.

As for our master Abu Bakr, he recommended the replacement of our master Omar, and he gathered people in the Prophet’s Mosque asking for their approval, stating that he did not pay close relatives and that he worked hard to choose the best one after him, so people accepted and pledged allegiance to our master Omar voluntarily.

The method of choosing the caliph is progressing step by step with our master Omar, where he established an electoral council before his death, consisting of six people who saw Omar as the most influential and acceptable people, and it is the council that delegated to our master Abdul Rahman bin Auf the matter of choosing the caliph, so he moved in people until he asked the convoys returning from Hajj and women are in their numbness, and it was found that people tend to our master Uthman, so the pledge of allegiance to Uthman, may God be pleased with him, was in a public assembly.

The same was the case for Ali, may God be pleased with him, where the companions of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him, and the people of the city went to him, saying: “People must be an imam, and today we find no one more worthy of this matter than you. I do not offer a precedent nor closer than the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace.” (History of al-Tabari).

Ali, may God be pleased with him, refused, but they insisted, and he said to them at that time: “In the mosque, my sale is not hidden and is only for the consent of the Muslims.” So the people met in the Prophet’s Mosque and pledged allegiance to all immigrants and supporters, and only a few companions abstained, but it does not affect In the validity of his succession or legitimacy, where the vast majority have consented and sold.

However, the events - which followed after that and took the form of a fierce war and ended with the killing of our master Ali, may God be pleased with him - were the reason for the transmission of thinking on the issue of the Imamate from the circle of legal policy to the circle of religious discussion, but rather the martyrdom of Ali, may God be pleased with him, can be considered a direct result of that transformation.

The Kharijites raised the slogan “There is no rule except God”, and based on that slogan, they atoned the two ruling parties (Ali and Muawiya) because they “ruled the people” and left “the rule of God”, thus the first issues on which the topic of “theology” was founded, which is the issue of “perpetrator” The Great ”, and the Great was at the beginning of it but the great“ Judgment other than God ”.

The Shiites were among the most established doctrines that established the transition to the issue of the Imamate from the circle of the “sent interest” to the “circle of the fundamentals of religion.” They decided that the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, must have stipulated who would succeed him, and that every new imam should be appointed with a text. former.

And if the Sunni thought had tried to return the issue of the Imamate to the branches, then it was not spared from the effect of that transfer; the Imamate remained with him at the level of classification included in the topics of the faith, as evidenced by its presence in the books of the origins in addition to the issues of names, attributes, destiny, prophethood and cramming .. etc.

As for the seriousness of that transfer and the spoils of that projection, it is sufficient for us to refer to the painful events that were known in the history of Islamic history, for the martyrdom of Ali, may God be pleased with him - which is considered a historical shift from the free Shura system of government to the overpowering regime - was caused by that interpretation of the issue of arbitration by the Kharijites That is, their thinking of the Imamate is in terms of belief and not in terms of legal policy.

The biggest rift in the nation’s intellectual and political unity from that day to today is due to the difference between the two teams in dealing with the issue of the Imamate: is it an origin of religion or a subsidiary issue?

And many of the disasters that our Islamic world has known in recent years, such as the struggle between the Islamic factions in Afghanistan, or sharp differences on the political issue, and about the position on the regimes and the way to deal with them, which separate the Islamic movements in some Islamic countries, and impede every step of unity and convergence between trends Islamism; all this testifies that the Islamic mind is governed by this way of thinking, that is, thinking about politics in the vocabulary of belief.

Writings such as “The correct saying that entering parliamentary assemblies contradicts monotheism” shows that transferring the political dispute to the dogmatic level may have a danger at the level of practical relations between the Islamic factions, especially if some perceive that the beliefs of others have been touched by a defect, or he believes that Out of Islam.