Ismaili.NET - Heritage F.I.E.L.D.

IMAMATE – DIVINE INSTITUTION
By: Mumtaz Ali Tajddin S. Ali
mumtaztajddin@yahoo.com

NASKH AND MANSUKH VERSES IN THE KORAN

It deserves needful notice that one who studies the Koran, he must have some knowledge of its abrogated verses – it is in sooth a pivotal point. Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. 1505) writes in Al-Itqan fi Ulume- al-Quran that a judge once claimed before Hazrat Ali that he was firmly rooted in knowledge of the Koran. Hazrat Ali asked him, “Do you know which Koranic verses have been abrogated?” The judge replied, “No!” Hazrat Ali told, “You have ruined yourself and others.”

The word naskh means changing or removing as it is said in Arabic naskhatish shams-azzil, meaning the sun removed the shade or nasakhat al-ruhu athar al-qawmi idha adamat meaning the mind obliterated traces of the nation. The word naskh is also used in the law to denote “an order canceling the other order.” It appears that once the law given for a people for a particular occasion was changed with the need of time or improved to pave a way for further progress. In Koranic term, the word naskh means the substitution of a law by another one, so as to bring a matter to its probable maximum level. Naskh refers to the fresh injunction to replace the old one, and the old or former injunction that had been changed or removed is called mansukh or the rejected law. There are multiple Koranic verses which had been changed for better understanding, known as mansukh, and the new verses taking its place, are known as naskh or tejweel (transfer). Both words naskh and mansukh are derived from the same root, which means according to Mu’jam al-Lughah (Beirut, 1960, 5:446-7), “abrogating any written material with another piece” (nasakha al-shay bi al-shay).

The Koranic verses revealed in gradual process in Mecca and Medina for 23 years, 2 months and 21 days to guide the Muslims in temporal and spiritual matters. The fundamental beliefs of commonwealth Islam however remained unchanged and unaltered, while the temporal matters had been changed on certain occasions. The Koran says: “Whatever verses We abrogate (naskh) or cause thee to forget (aw nunsiha), We will bring a better one than it, or one like it” (2:106). Mustansir Mir writes in Dictionary of Quranic Terms and Concepts (London, 1987) that, “The abrogation pertains to legal and practical matter only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief.” It means that once the Muslims were exhorted by the Koran on certain matters, they required explicit guidance on the same matter after some time, so that the guidance must be afresh as per the time.
The sources indicate that there had been about 500 naskh Koranic verses. Later, Jalaluddin Suyuti in his Itqan (1:23) confirms only 21 naskh verses. Shah Waliullah Mohadees (d. 1762) gives its figure five only in Fauz al-Kabir. Ibn al-Ataiqi (d. 1386) claimed its figure to 231 verses. Dr. Saleh Subhi, an Egyptian scholar recently claimed that there are not more than ten abrogated verses in the Koran.

When the Islam spread beyond the bounds of Arabian lands, the new converted Muslims professed different culture, traditions and languages; and they felt certain modifications in laws as it was designed in Arbo-Islamic culture, and ultimately it gave rise of multifarious interpretations of the Koranic verses. The Koran says, “We have sent it down as an Arabic Koran in order that you may learn wisdom” (12:2). It ostensibly suggests that the Koran was revealed for the Arabic knowing people.

The Koranic language in its vocabulary, idiom, style and syntax is the language of the Prophet’s milieu, familiar to the pre-Islamic Arabs and understood by them. It also reflects their intellectual, religious, social and material achievements. Although the Koran was addressed to all the Arabs, since its primary discourse was aimed at the Quraish of Mecca, it reflects the Quraishi dialect. The Arabs were so proud of their language that they used to call non-Arabs as ajami (dumb).

The Arabic language however sustains a variety of meanings since a single phase in the speech of the Arabs conveys a wide range of interpretation because of metaphors that allow for variations of meaning and symbolic expressions that point to a variety of object. In brief, Arabic is a subtle and sinuous language. It is thus possible to interpret each verse and each report in accord with what the interpreter wants. This is the main reason that Prof. Taha Hussain of Al-Azhar University writes in Glory of the Quran (p. 236) that, “As the time passes, the more need in the Islamic laws are felt to be changed, and it also means that the concept of naskh (alteration) still exists in Islam.”

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHARIAH AND DIN

There is a great measure difference between the Shariah and Din which must be pointedly known. The basic ordinances of the Din (religion) shall remain unchanged, such as the Unity of God, the Prophets, Angels, Heaven and Hell, the Day of the Judgment etc. The Prophets guided these fundamental beliefs to mankind. For exhorting these basic beliefs, the Prophets formulated laws in accordance with the time, which we call the Shariah. As we change clothes according to the climate, and in the same vein the Shariah was formed diversely in different regions. The Shariah is a dynamic law, which changes its form due to the need of time, but the Din (religion) is unchangeable. The laws of the Shariah were collected and codified by different jurists about 150 years after Prophet’s death.

The time was changed thereafter when the Islam also spread in various countries, who have nothing to do with the Arabian customs. There were countless literary skirmish and debate about the Shariah, resulting birth of different views, groups and sects in commonwealth Islam.
Shariah is an Arabic term used to designate Islamic law. It originally referred to a path trodden by camels to a water source, a course to the watering place or resort of drinkers. Hence, it means the clear path or the highway to be followed.

The word shari’a occurs once in the Koran: “We have set you on a shari’a (way) of command, so follow it.” (45:18). The cognate shir’a is also used once, “To each We have appointed a shir’a (way) and minhaj” (path) (5:48). The verb shar’a occurs twice, once with God as subject, “He has laid down for you as religion that which He enjoined also on Noah” (shara’a lakum min al-din) (42:13) and once in relation to rebels, “Or do they have companions who have laid down for them as religion that which God did not permit” (shara’u lahum min al-din) (7:163). The word shara’i (pl. of shariah) was used in the Prophet’s time for the essentials of Islam. When the word shariah is used, one immediately calls to mind the beliefs of Islam, and the external decrees comprising forms of worship, rules of behavior and civil and criminal laws. Bediuzzaman Said Nuri (1877-1960) writes in his Risale-Nur Kulliyat (Istanbul, 1909) that, “Ninety-nine percent of Shariah in the Koran is about ethics, worship, hereafter and virtue. Only one percent of it is about politics.”

The words din (religion) and shariah are applied as correlative terms, while in reality they are distinct. Din is concerned with the basic and fundamental issues, such as the unity of God, the Prophet-hood and the concept of hereafter. The shariah is the external observations of religion and is applicable to Muslims alone. The shariah is not opposed to modern law as long as it restores man’s dignity and does not go against any fundamental moral values of Islam. The law has to take social circumstances and the philosophy working behind the law into account. The shariah is the wider circle; it embraces in its orbit all human actions. The shariah is not perennially sound source of guidance. It is so transitory that some of its schools, such as those of Imam Sufian Savri and Imam Auzai have disappeared.

Fyzee writes in A Modern Approach to Islam (Bombay, 1963, p. 87) that, “Shariah embraces both law and religion. Religion is based upon spiritual experience; law is based upon the will of the community as expressed by its legislature, or any other law-making authority. Religion is unchangeable in its innermost kernel. If shariah is the name given to this duality, then one of the forces constantly pulls in the other direction. The cognition of God is a mystery and man is forever pursuing it. In this pursuit, all men of faith regardless of their particular religions are equal. But laws differ from country to country, from time to time.

They must ever seek to conform to the changing pattern of society. The law of the Arabs cannot be applied to the Eskimos; and the laws of the Bushmen of Australia are unsuitable for the fertile basin of Uttar Pradesh. Laws are like metals in the crucible of time and circumstances; they melt, they gradually solidify into different shapes; they re-melt and assume diverse forms. This process of evolution is conterminous with human society. Nothing is static except that which is dead and lifeless. Law can never be static.” He also writes, “Therefore, to me it is clear, that we cannot go back to the Koran, we have to go forward with it. I wish to understand the Koran as it was understood by the Arabs of the time of the Prophet only to reinterpret it and apply it to my condition of life and to believe in it, so far as it appeals to me as a 20th century man. I cannot be called upon to live in the desert, to traverse it on camel back, to eat locusts, to indulge in vendetta, to wear a beard and a cloak, and to cultivate a pseudo-Arab mentality. I must distinguish between poetic truth and factual truth. I must distinguish the husk and the kernel of religion, between law and legend. I am bound to understand and accept the message of Islam as a modern man, and not as one who lived centuries ago. I respect authority, but cannot accept it without how (bila kayfa) in the matter of conscience” (Ibid. p. 94).

INSTITUTION OF THE IMAMATE

After the demise of the Holy Prophet, the Khatim al-anbiya (seal of the prophets), the cycle of prophecy (da’irat an-nubuwwa) was closed. Within a century of the Prophet’s death in 632, the Muslim empire stretched from the boarders of China to the Atlantic, from France to the outskirts of India, and from the Caspian Sea to the Sahara desert.

God did not thenceforth make world void of the timely guidance. For the Sunni church, the guide was the revealed Book. For the others, the exoteric laws, though accepted, was not enough and feasible. For those who became known as the Shi’ites, the guide of divine wisdom (hikma ilahiyya) was the infallible Imam. Had the Imam’s spiritual authority been recognized, the Muslims were received divine guidance in same breath with the change of time. The Imam is the Wali Allah and the closing of the prophetical cycle heralded the opening of another, i.e., the da’irat al-walaya.

Thus, the rightful Imams will be witness of their faithful followers and the unjust will accordingly testify for their followers. One should therefore hold fast to the rightful Imam for the benefit of his soul, because those who are unjust Imams will not be able to intercede for their followers’ actions. The Koran says: "None shall have the power of intercession, but such who has received permission (or promise) from (God), the Most Glorious" (19:87) and also: "And those whom they call upon besides Him have no authority for intercession, except he who bears witness of the truth and they (people) know (that)" (43:86). The Imam is the mazhar (epiphany) of God on earth as the electric bulb is a device of manifestation of electricity, which itself is invisible. The bulb plays role of the Imam’s body.

Hence, the Imam is held to be manifestation of the divine light, which is omnipresent on earth. The Imam is the Proof of God (Hujjat Allah) to mankind and the Sign of God (Ayat Allah) on earth. Hazrat Ali is reported to have said: "God has no greater sign than me" (Bihar al-Anwar, 23:206). The Imam is the successor of the Prophet and the Vicar of God on earth. Obedience to him is obligatory. Imam Jafar Sadik said: "We are the ones to whom God has made obedience obligatory. The people will not prosper unless they recognized us and the people will not be excused if they are ignorant to us. He who has recognized us is a believer and he who has denied us is an unbeliever, and he who has neither recognized nor denied us is in error unless he returns to the right guidance which God has made obligatory for him. And if he dies in a state of error, God will do with him what He wishes" vide, al-Kafi (Tehran, 1959, 1st vol., p. 187) by Kulayni (d. 940).

The ever-presence of an Imam is imperative and indispensable. The Koranic verse, “If you should quarrel about anything, refer it to God and the Messenger” (4:59). It necessitates presence of an Imam physically after the Prophet, so that the believers may refer to him what they have quarreled about. Shaikh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022) writes in Awa’il al-maqalat (Tabriz, 1951, p. 35) that, “The Imams take the place of the prophets in enforcing judgments, seeing to the execution of the legal penalties, safeguarding the law and educating mankind.”
In addition, the Koran says, “And if when they had done injustice to themselves, they had but come to you and asked God’s forgiveness, and the Prophet had (also) asked forgiveness for them. Surely, they would have found God Forgiving, Merciful.” (4:64). It indicates that when God commanded the people to have recourse to the Prophet for the forgiveness of their sins and ask for forgiveness through him. Does this not emphasize necessity of a spiritual guide for the forgiveness and should it not be living and present in the world forever?

We will discuss below few illustrations emanating timely guidance in early Islam:-
Urwa narrates that once Zubayr quarreled with a man from the Ansar because of a natural mountainous stream at al-Harra. The Prophet said, “O’Zubayr! Irrigate your land and then let the water flow to your neighbor.” The Ansar said, “O’Apostle of God! This is because Zubayr is your cousin?” The Prophet’s face became red in displeasure and said, “O’Zubayr! Irrigate your land and then withhold the water till it fills the land up to the walls and then let it flow to your neighbor.” So the Prophet enabled Zubayr to take his full right after the Ansar provoked his anger. The Prophet however, previously given an order that was in favor of both of them (Bukhari, 6:109). On this occasion, the Koranic verse revealed: “But no! By your Lord! They do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge in all disputes between them” (4:65).

Sahl bin Sa’d reports, “The people of Quba fought with each other to such extent that they threw stones at one another. When the Prophet was informed, he asked Sahl bin Sa’d to come along to restore peace among them. (Bukhari, 1:371). The same narrator reports, “There arose some differences among the people of Banu Umru bin Awf. The Prophet visited them with some of his Companions to settle the dispute.” (Ibid. 1:370)
Anas bin Malik reports to have been requested by some people that his meeting with Abdullah bin Ubai, a traitor could produce some better impression upon him. Thus the Prophet left to meet him on his ass and some Muslims accompanied him on foot. When the Prophet reached there, Abdullah bin Ubai scornfully said, “Keep away, your ass has troubled me with its smell.” An Ansari replied, “By God, his ass is more fragrant that you are.” One person supported Ubai and thus exchange of abuse started between the two, leading the clash with date-sticks, hands and shoes. On that juncture, the Divine verse was occasioned: “If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel, you make peace between them.” (49:9)

Another incident reported from Usama as reproduced by Bukhari which puts that an exchange of bad language took place between the polytheists, Jews and the Muslims. But the Prophet pacified the matter before it could develop into exchange of blows etc. Anas bin Malik reports, “There was a long drawn conflict between two tribes of Aws and Khazraj right from the days of ignorance. When the Prophet came into contact with them, they forgot all their differences and God put in their hearts love for each other. After sometimes, people of both the tribes were sitting together at the same place. Once, a person from the Aws tribe recited a couplet ridiculing the Khazraj tribe. One person from the Khazraj tribe paid him in the same coin by reciting a couplet ridiculing the Aws tribe. Hence an exchange of such couplets started from both sides leading to their swords drawn for bloodshed. It was immediately informed to the Prophet and the Koranic verse revealed to him and he rushed to the spot with his shin uncovered and called out: “Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished and driven together to hell.” (3:11).

It affords an outline that the above incidents were trifle, negligible or of any other nature, but the Muslims were never deprived of the Divine guidance. The most momentous question here arises, who will navigate Islamic ship loaded with multifarious issues/problems of the Muslim world in this modern age?
Besides, the Koran says: “And God is not going to chastise them while you are, O’ Muhammad among them” (8:33). It is the universal belief of all the Muslims that the followers of the Prophet are not going to be doomed with extirpation as was the case with the followers of other prophets. They attribute two reasons for this privileged protection; first that the Prophet was the last of the prophets and if his followers were to be doomed to destruction, there would be no other apostle to raise another nation of believers. And secondly, the Prophet was a mercy to the whole world. But on reading the above Koranic verse, one comes to the conclusion that the privilege is restricted only to the life time of the Prophet as it reads: “While you are among them.” The Prophet is admittedly not among us at present, then why we still enjoy the privilege? The reply of which is rationally found in the Prophet’s hadith, “Search me in my offspring” (Ihfuzani fi vuludi), vide Nisai, 5:213).

The Koran also says in another verse: “And had there not been God averting some people’s (doom) by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which God’s name is much remembered” (22:40). This verse makes it clear that there always exists in this world an infallible one through whose inherent auspiciousness this world exists. This infallible one is no other than the Prophet’s progeny. Ibn Hajar writes, “Inasmuch as the Prophet was a security for the inhabitants of this earth, the people of his house (ahl al-bayt) are likewise the securities.” This is further corroborated by the hadith, “Were the world to be bereft of the Imam for but an instant, it would be convulsed with all its inhabitants.” It means that the existence of a living Imam in every age is necessary and indispensable.

The Koran says: “O ye! Who believe, obey God and obey the Apostle and those among you invested with authority” (4:59). It is an undoubted fact that every apostle is sent to be obeyed by his people as is obvious from the following verse: “And We never sent an apostle but he who ought to be obeyed by God’s permission” (4:64). Inasmuch as the extent of the obedience is not restricted, the last verse should be treated as an injunction for an absolute and complete obedience. The question arises as to the identity of these persons who are described “Invested with authority.”

Everyone knows the Prophet, but who are the “Invested with authority?” To be brief, the commentators are agreed that the expression “Those invested with authority” either means the Imams or the ruling princes of the time. The second alternative is obviously incorrect. The ruling prince is certainly not an infallible person. To solve the question, we have a tradition from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, who relates that when the verse (4:59) was revealed, he asked the Prophet, “We know God and His Prophet, but who are these persons invested with authority?” The Prophet said, “Ali and his descendants are invested with authority.” In sum, the Imam of every age is the hujjatullah (Sign of God), the noorullah (Light of God) and mazhar (Epiphany) of God. He is mansus (designated), ma’sum (infallible) and afdal an-na’s (the best of the mankind).

The Prophet brought the law to guide the men, and after him the Koranic revelation ceased and men are left with a law, which corresponds to the exoteric aspect of the revelation. There then must emerge those who can interpret inner meaning of the law and the esoteric content of the revelation. In Islam, the door of prophecy closed with the Prophet. He was both the exoteric and esoteric source of the revelation, but in his function as revealer of Divine legislation he represented the exoteric aspect. After him there must be those who inherited his esoteric function and whose duty is to expound inner dimension of the Divine law.

Just as the function of prophecy, in as much as it concerns the bringing of Divine legislation, is called nabuwat, so is the function of interpreting its inner meaning to men and preserving a link with the source of revelation called walayah in Shi’ism. The Imam who fulfils the function of walayah is the sustainer of the religious law and the guarantee of its continuation. The Prophet brought a Divine law and then himself left the world. There are thus times when the world was without a prophet. But the Imam is always present. The earth cannot be devoid of the presence of the Imam, whose duty is to interpret the religious science and the law to men, especially their esoteric meaning, and to guide men in the spiritual life.

According to Illal al-Sharaiya (pp. 123-4), once Jabir bin Yazid al-Jufi asked Imam Muhammad Bakir about the need of the Prophet and the Imam. He said, “The world remains righteous. That is because Allah, the Great and Almighty, does not punish the people of the earth as long as the Prophet or Imam is among them. Allah said, “Allah does not punish them as long as you (the Prophet) are among them.” The Prophet said, “The stars are safety for the people of the sky, and the members (Imams) of my family are safety for the people of the earth. If the stars went away, what the people of the sky hate would hit them. If the members of my house went away, what the people of the earth hate would afflict them. Through them the country is prosperous. Through them rain comes down from the sky. Through them the blessings of the earth comes forth. Through them the people of sins are given time and are not punished and tortured quickly.” (cf. The Life of Imam Mohammad al-Baqir (Tehran, 1999, pp. 184-5, by Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi)

According to the Koran, “How will it be then when We bring from every nation a witness and bring you as a witness against those?” (4:41). While commenting, Qurtubi (d. 1273) quotes a tradition in his Al-Jami liAhkam al-Koran” on the authority of al-Khalil bin Ahmad that the Prophet once came among the Banu Zafar and sat upon the rock there. With him were Ibn Masud, Mu’adh and other Companions. He ordered a reciter to recite, and when the reciter reached this verse (4:41), the Messenger of God wept until his cheeks were wet, and said, “My Lord, this is for those in whose midst I am now, how will it be then for those whom I have not seen?”

We just go back when the death of the Prophet took place. There was a courtyard or assembly hall (saqeefa), about six miles from Medina, belonging to Banu Sa’d. Upon the death of the Prophet, the people of Medina, numbering about 300 to 325 had assembled at Saqeefa Banu Sa’d to choose their leader. There was not a single man from Banu Hasham. Abu Bakr and Umar rushed the spot during the time when the people were about to take oath of allegiance from Abu Ubaida as their Caliph. The proceeding stopped and a hot debate started among them. When the swords were about to unshield, Umar asked Abu Bakr to raise his hand, and took his bayt, then it was followed by Abu Ubaida and the rest of the people. Thus Abu Bakr was elected. Shaykh Ali Abdur Rafiq writes in Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm (Cairo, 1925, p. 20) that, “The Prophet’s mission was merely to announce the Shariat without reference to the government and the executive power. The government of Abu Bakr and the Rashidi after him was not a religious government.”

Abu Abdullah al-Shi’i (whose untitled work translated by Madelung and Paul Walker as Affirming the Imamate, London, 2021, p. 38) that, “When the Apostle of God departed this world, the majority of his community turned to their heels, just as the past communities had done after (the death of) their prophets. As Ibn Abbas said, “God has not sent a prophet and then taken him away but that after him occurred a conflict from which hell was filled.” “God said: “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger before whom there were other messengers; so if he dies or is killed, will you turn on your heels? He who turns on his heels harms God not at all. God rewards those who show gratitude.” (Koran, 3:144). The idea of assigning the leadership to one of the already-leading clans may have been quite unpopular, a possibility supported by Caliph Umar’s statement to Ibn Abbas, “The people do not like having the Prophethood and Caliphate combined in the Banu Hasham.” (Tabari, 1st vol., p. 2769)

If election was the only solution left to find a Caliph for the Muslims, one may well ask, “Does the Koran or Shariah justify such electoral norm?” If not, then this election could well be signified being the first breach of the Koran and Shariah soon after the death of the Prophet. God says, “No believing men and women have any choice in a matter after God and His Prophet have decided an affair (for them). Whoever disobeys God and His Prophet, he surely strays off to manifest error.” (33:36). In short, Saqeefa was one of the most dramatic events in Islamic history and was a causative factor to infirm an early infantile and nascent brick of the Islam. In nutshell, Abu Bakr was elected by 300 to 325 Muslims in Saqeefa out of the thirty thousand Muslims in Medina during the demise of the Prophet. The Sunni Imam Shafi writes in Al-Abidi, Imta’ al-Asma (9th vol., p. 82) that, “There were 60,000 Muslims; 30,000 in them were in Medina and other 30,000 Muslims were in other places.” It means that Abu Bakr did not get major votes during his election. This is the reason that Nukhai (670-717) wrote that the Ansar of Medina declared, “We will not swear allegiance to anyone but Ali.”

Lesley Hazleton writes in After the Prophet (New York, 2010, p. 32) that, “If there was a single person who seemed destined to be Muhammad’s successor, it was Ali, his first cousin and the man whose name the Shia were to take their own. They were and are the followers of Ali, or in Arabic, Shiat Ali – Shia, for short.”

APT - FITTING & TIMELY GUIDANCE IN ISLAM

The Islamic theology began as soon as the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, which synchronized with an increase in the number of Muslims there and elsewhere. Within the short space of ten years from that time, almost all the passages with which future theology has been concerned, had been revealed by God. The early Muslims led simple lives and their needs were few, the laws of Islam also were extremely simple. In many cases, the prohibition was introduced gradually. Beginning with a recommendation, it ended in an injunction as in the use of wine. The following passages indicate the manner in which recommendation eventually merged into prohibition.
In first stage, the Koran said, “They ask you about wine and gambling. Say: In these there is great harm and also profit, but their harm far outweighs their profits.” (2:219)

In second stage, the Koran said, “O’ Believers! Do not approach prayer when you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying?” (4:43)
In third stage, the Koran said, “O’ Believers! Wine, gambling, sacrificing on stone alters and diving arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so shun them that you may be successful.” (5:90).
It expressively infers that the last verse (5:90) must be regarded an applicable Koranic message in every age. Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah also said, “My Farmans are regular. Follow my last Farman.” (Hyderabad, 26th February, 1900). In a message of 1955, the Imam also said that during his 70 years of the Imamate, he has changed his farmans for 70 times.

SHARIAH IS ALTERABLE/CHANGEABLE

Shariah is a law, and law is by its very nature subject to change. The din, a heart of religion, on the other hand, is unchangeable at any rate, the belief in God is an unalterable ideal, a perennial quest. “If two such divergent forces are made to live together” says Fyzee, “there will be a clash” (Ibid. p. 88). In view of Abdur Rahman in Shari’ah the Islamic Law (London, 1984, p. 5), “Every Muslim who is capable and qualified to give a sound opinion on matters of Shari’ah, is entitled to interpret the law of Allah when such interpretation becomes necessary. In this case Islamic policy is a democracy. But where an explicit command of Allah or His Prophet already exists, no Muslim leader or legislature or any religious scholar can form an independent judgment; not even all the Muslims of the world put together have any right to make the least alteration in it.”

If the essence of religion remains stable, then changes in the forms of Shariah is not harmful. In case the Shariah remains unchangeable under any condition, the religion becomes difficult. It is well known fact that Caliph Umar abolished certain laws of shariah, which had been enforced during the Prophet’s period. Some of these laws were based on the Koranic commandments, but Umar changed them on the ground that these were no longer serving purpose for which they were prescribed. S. Mahmassani writes in his Falsafat al-Tashri fi al-Islam (tr. Farhat J. Ziadeh, Leiden, 1961, p. 110) that, “The caliphate of Umar was rampant with many conquests and dynamic changes. Consequently, new situations arose and old customs changed. No wonder these changes were followed by changes in some of the fatwas and rules which had prevailed in the era of the Prophet or the caliph Abu Bakr. The caliph Umar faced the new situations firmly and resolutely and did not shrink from overruling old interpretations of the texts, if the shar’i policy or the interests of the Muslims made that imperative.”

Caliph Umar had to make changes in the Islamic shariah according to the situation. Its few examples are given below.

The Koran made provision for the spending of alms: “The alms are only for the poor and the needy and those who collect them and for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of God and the wayfarer, a duty imposed by God” (9:60). The phrase “Those whose hearts are to be reconciled” were the group of waverers whom the Prophet included among the recipients of the proceeds of alms to win them over for Islam on account of their weak faith or in order to avoid their mischief or because of the high esteem in which they were held by their tribe (vide Ibn Hammam’s Fath al-Qadir: Sharh al-Hidayah, Cairo, 1315 A.H., 2:14-15). In spite of this expressed Koranic text, Caliph Umar discontinued payment to this group. According to Nawawi, he said, “We do not pay anyone anything for embracing Islam. He who wishes to believe, let him believe; and he who chooses to remain infidel, let him do so” (al-Majmu: Sharh al-Muhadhab, Cairo, 1344 A.H., 6:197).

If a person repudiated his wife three times in one sitting, this was regarded in the days of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and the first part of Umar’s caliphate, as the equivalent of one declaration only. Yet Umar ordered that the triple declaration in one sitting be taken literally, i.e. be considered equivalent to three separate declarations, which make the repudiation irrevocable. The reason was that Umar noticed that the people were using the declaration lightly and irresponsibly, hence, he wanted to punish this laxity and deter them from restoring to this bad habit.

The slave mothers (ummahat al-awlad) were those slave girls who gave birth to children as a result of intercourse with their masters. Their sale was permissible during the days of the Prophet and Abu Bakr. Umar, however prohibited their sale saying, “Our blood has been mixed with their blood” (vide Falsafat al-Tashri fi al-Islam, p. 112).

The punishment for theft according to the Koran is the cutting off of the thief’s hand: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands” (5:38). The Prophet endorsed this rule in word and deed. Umar, however, suspended this punishment in the Year of Famine because of necessity and in order that people may keep alive.

The Koran (24:2) had laid down the punishment of a hundred stripes to be administered to the fornicator, not bound by a true marriage. To this the Prophet added the penalty of exile for one year. However, when Umar exiled Rabia bin Umayya bin Khalaf and latter renounced Islam in favor of Christianity. Hence, Umar said, “I shall never send anyone to exile again” (vide Razi’s Mafatih al-Ghayb, 8:217). His suspension of the rule was motivated by his desire to make sure that no Muslims would desert to the enemy.

The disciplinary or correctional punishment (al-tazir), which a ruler metes out for the commission of an offense for which no specific punishment is provided in the shariah. The Prophet however said, “No punishment should exceed ten lashes of the whip except where the offense is one which God has specifically provided punishment for.” Despite this tradition, Umar is reported to have meted out a punishment of one hundred lashes of the whip for a person who faked the seal of the treasury (vide Suyuti’s Jami Saghir, 2:951).

The aqilat al-diyah or means the kinsmen who pay blood money. It is generally known that blood money is, as a matter of law, payable by the aqilah in certain circumstances. In the days of the Prophet, the aqilah was the tribe of the offender. The situation changed, in the days of Umar who organized armies and set up registers of soldiers. Since the loyalty under the new regime shifted from the tribe to the members of the organized phalanxes, Umar ordered that the blood money be the liability of the latter, contrary to what had been the case in the days of the Prophet.

On the conquest of Syria, caliph Umar was confronted with the problem of distributing the land. The practice of the Prophet was to divide the land of a conquered area among the soldiers with the single exception of the land at Khaibar, in the distribution of which he had deviated from the settled practice by leaving it in the hands of the original Jewish owners in return for a rent. Umar determined to leave the lands in the hands of the original owners.

The Koran does not speak of any punishment for the man who drinks wine, but there are hadith showing that the Prophet inflicted punishment in such cases. This punishment seems to have been of a very mild type. It however appears that punishment was inflicted only in cases when a man was intoxicated. Thus, it is related that a certain person called Nuaiman or Ibn Nuaiman was brought to the Prophet in a state of intoxication, and it distressed the Prophet, so he ordered those who were in the house to give him a beating, and he was beaten with shoes and sticks (Bukhari, 86:4). Another incident is related in which the person who had drunk wine was beaten with hands and with shoes and with thaub or garments (Ibid. 86:5). Such remained the practice in the time of the Prophet and that of Abu Bakr, and for some time in the reign of Umar, who then introduced flogging, giving forty stripes, raising the punishment to eighty stripes, it is added, when people behaved inordinately (atau) and transgressed fasaqu or limits (Ibid. 51:5).

Caliph Umar permitted remarriage of women whose husbands were unheard or remained unknown for a period of four years in place of the condition of information of their death. Besides, there was no any prescribed law against the person who practiced Halala (The person who becomes temporary husband of the divorced woman). Caliph Umar imposed rule of stoning to death for him. Yet there was no any rule for the unmarried adulterer. Caliph Umar fixed exile for it, then suspended the law.

It implies emphatically that the outdated thought concluded in the old traditions can no longer a little sense in all ages, therefore the shariah is subject to change in view of the situation and circumstances. According to Ijtihad Masail (Lahore, 1999, p. 21) by Maulana Mohammad Jafar Phulwari, “Just ponder pointedly that few years after the time of the Prophet, there floated necessity of changes in the Shariah. Why there is no need in the period and places of the last thirteen hundred years for alteration in the Shariah?” Specifically, in the Sunni Muslims, there is multitude spice of the Shariah ordinances in their different sects that it seems the original face of the Shariah has been defaced. Hazrat Ali said, “It is the Shariah which appeals the intellect, otherwise it not the Shariah which does not touch the reason.” (aql bsharah sharah baql)

IMAM HOLDS AUTHORITY TO CHANGE SHARIAH

Within this outer shariah there exists an inner shariah, known as tariqah. The shariah is concerned with the observance of the outward manifestations of religion, whilst tariqah concerns inward vision of divine power (mushahadat ar-rububiyya). Every rite not informed by the spirit of reality is valueless, and every spirit of reality not restrained by the law is incomplete. The shariah exists to regulate mankind, whilst the tariqah makes us to know the dispositions of God.

The shariah exists for the service of God, whilst the tariqah exists for contemplation of Him. The shariah exists for obeying what He had ordained, whilst the tariqah concerns witnessing and understanding the order He had decreed. The one is outer, the other inner.
Sheikh Mahmud Sabestari (1288-1340) writes in Gulshan-i-Raz (comp. 1311) that,
Shariat ra shaar-i-khish sajad, Tariqat ra wisar-i-khish sajad
“He makes the Shariah his upper garment, but makes the Tariqah his inner garment.”

It evinces that the shariah is subject to change in view of the situation and circumstances as Caliph Umar had done it. If Caliph Umar can make changes, then the legitimate Imam in the descent of Hazrat Ali bin Abu Talib governs absolute authority to make changes in case of need to make the law of the shariah fresh, workable, compatible, applicable and potential in all the times.
Allama Majalisi (1628-1699) writes in Bihar al-Anwar (Tehran, 1972, 13th vol., p. 152) the Prophet as saying on the authority of Ibn Babuyas’ Thawab al-A’mal that, “There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur’an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. Their mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance.”

The rudiments of the concept of the Imamate had been introduced by Hazrat Ali in his speeches and Imam Hussain in his correspondence with the Shi’ites of Kufa and Basra. Soon after the event of Karbala, the political situation was changed in Islamic states, therefore, Imam Zayn al-Abidin confined his religious activities to Medina. The adherents of the Imam however spread in all Islamic regions.

The Imamate of Imam Muhammad al-Bakir (713-733) and Imam Jafar Sadik (733-765) coincided with turbulent period politically in the Islamic states. With the advent of the Greek philosophy in the Arabian territories, multiple thought of schools and sects emerged in Islam due to different interpretations. The Companions of the Prophet were also no longer alive, who had treasured in their memories the knowledge they had acquired from Ahl al-Bayt. It was a peak time to impart the followers the doctrine of the Imamate and the philosophical aspect of the tenets of Islam. Kashshshi writes in Marifat Akhbar al-Rijal (p. 28) that, “Before the Imamate of Muhammad al-Bakir, the Shi’ites knew nothing what was lawful and unlawful except what they learnt from the people; until Imam Muhammad al-Bakir became the Imam. He taught and explained to them the knowledge and they began to exhort other people from whom they were previously learning.” Imam Muhammad Bakir said, “Verily, the knowledge which was sent down with Adam did not return back [to God]. The knowledge is inherited and ‘Ali was the Knower of this community. Verily, no Knower among us dies unless someone of his family knows the like of his knowledge or what God wills of it.” (Usul al-Kafi, ch. 32, hadith no. 2)

In explaining the institution of the Imamate, Imam Jafar Sadik made repeatedly declarations in unequivocal terms and proclaimed that, “The Imamate is a covenant between God and mankind, and recognition of the Imam is the absolute duty of every believer” (al-Kafi, 1:318). He further said, “Whoever dies without having known and acknowledged the Imam of his time dies as an infidel” (Ibid. 1:462), “The Imams are the proofs of God (hujjatullah) on earth and their words are the words of God and their commands are the commands of God. Obedience to them is obedience to God, and disobedience to them is disobedience to God. In all their decisions they are inspired by God, and they are in absolute authority. It is to them, therefore, that God has ordained obedience” (Ibid., pp. 214-220).

Imam Jafar Sadik goes on to declare that, “The Imam of the time is the witness for the people and he is the gate to God (Bab Allah), and the road (sabil) to Him, and the guide thereto (dalil), and the repository of His knowledge, and the interpreter of His revelations. The Imam of his time is a pillar of God’s unity (tawhid). The Imams are those from whom God has removed all impurity and made them indispensably pure; they are possessed of irrefutable arguments (dala’il); and they are for the protection of the people of this earth just as the stars are for the inhabitants of the heavens. They may be likened in this community to the Ark of Noah: he who boards it obtains salvation and reaches the gate of repentance.” (Ibid. 1:207). In another tradition, “God delegated to the Imams spiritual ruler-ship over the whole world, which must always have such a leader and guide. Even if only two men were left upon the face of the earth, one of them would be an Imam, so much would his guidance be needed” (Ibid., pp. 205,207,304).

Imam Jafar Sadik also said, “Verily, God never leaves the earth without a Knower (‘Alim). If it were so, the truth would never be known from falsehood.” (Usul al-Kafi, Kitab al-Hujjah, Chapter 5, Hadith No. 5).
Imam Muiz (952-975) said in a speech he delivered on the day of fast-breaking in Cairo that, “O’ People, God has chosen a Messenger and Imams. He had made them superior and favored them. He has accepted them as the guides to His creatures. He sent down His revelation upon them, and made them speak with His wisdom. They are like luminous stars: If one of them sets, another one shinning, glittering and fully radiant with illuminate. It is out of mercy upon those who are guided and preferred life to come to the present life. It is in retribution to him who cries lies and turns his back, and who favors the present life, and in retaliation against him who deviates from the path of guidance. God accepts from no one his deeds or his offerings, his admonition or his pursuit, except through them. He must surrender to their command, and acknowledge their bounty and their Imamate. He must surrender to them in obedience, follow their guidance and seek mercy from their part. May God bless them all” (Ar-Risala f’l Imama, compiled before 408/1017 by Abu’l Fawaris Ahmed ibn Yaqub (d. 413/1022); translated by Dr. Sami Nasib Makarem, New York, 1977, pp. 44-5)

Imam Hakim (966-1021) delivered his first speech from the pulpit of a mosque in Cairo on 386/996 that, “O’ People, surely God has made us superior by the word of Imamate. He has eternalized it in us, so that it may last until the day of doom. The one of us received it from the other and the son inherits it from the father. This is the bounty of God, He gives it to whomever He wishes, and God is of bounty abounding.” (Ibid. p. 44)

The Qiyamat-i qubra or qaim al-qiyama was a famous occasion commemorated in Alamut on 17th Ramdan, 559/August 8, 1164. The term qiyama literally means, rising of the dead, and allegorically, it implies an idea denoting the rising to the next spiritual stage, and qiyamat-i qubra (great resurrection) means an attainment of the highest degree when a man becomes free from the ties of external laws, whom he shackles and transfigures into spiritual substance, which rejoins its divine sources.

Rashiduddin writes in Jamiut Tawarikh (comp. in 1310) that, "On 17th Ramdan of the year 559, Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (1162-1166) ordered the people of his territories, whom he had caused to be present in Alamut at that time, to gather together in those public prayers grounds at the foot of Alamut.” On this occasion, the Imam in his sermon announced that he had relieved the Ismailis from the gravity of the Shariah. According to Dabistan al-Mazahib (comp. in 1653), the Imam also declared that, “Whatever are the rituals and customs of the Shariah, today I make you free from its rigidity because this is a period of the resurrection.”

Mir Khvand writes in the Rawzatu Safa that a prominent person, Maulana Yousuf Shah heard from a certain scribe that, “I visited the Alamut where I saw a written couplet on the front wall that: Bar dast gile’ sharah ba taide’ izadi, makhdum rozgar Ali zikr hi Salam (“With God’s help, the load of the Shariah has been removed by the Lord Ala Zikrihi’s Salam.”)

Writing on qiyama, W. Ivanow says in Alamut and Lamasar (Tehran, 1960 p. 29) that, "It is quite possible that the period of about 75 years, from the installation of Hasan-i Sabbah in Alamut, a period of continuous hard struggle, have so much matured their spirits that they could be regarded as quite fit to discard the usual external forms of worship, and carry on by their internal spiritual discipline." The qiyama also represented an attempt by an Imam to give an interpretation to the Shariah abreast the times. The Imam, henceforward, had begun to stress the spirituality and the inner meaning of the religious commandments. It was a major step to relieve the followers from the bond of the outdated Shariah.
Imam Mustransir billah II (1463-1475) said, “If a man does not recognize the Imam of the Time, does not accept him as such, treats his orders as already contained in the plain commandments of the Shariah, ascertains from the ordinary theologians, the indications of the Koran and the various hadiths concerning the institution of Imamate, and if he acts according to the theologians’ opinion, all his pious acts will be fruitless and his troubles useless, - he will finally go to hell. This is because the correct meaning of the Koran and hadiths is only with the Imam. The Prophet himself said that whoever accepted his progeny and the Book of God as his guidance would never be lost. The expression “my progeny” refers to the Imam according to the words of the Koran (3:30).Thus they have remained under the control of those ordinary theologians, worshipping and exercising piety blindly, according to what they have been ordered, because that piety based on customary practice was the religion of their parents, just as at the time of idolatry before Islam. The learned, however, know that the world cannot be without an Imam even for a moment, because if it is, the earth with its population will instantly perish.” (Pandiyat-i Jawanmardi, tr. by W. Ivanow, Holland, 1953, pp. 30-31).

Imam Hasan Ali Shah (1817-1881) said, “The people who tread on the path of Haqiqat will be entitled for our intercession. Its example is that if there are vessels made of gold as well as of copper and clay, then who would prefer vessels of clay by forsaking vessels of gold? Likewise, other religions are the vessels of clay, whereas your true path is magnificent like the gold.” (Bombay, 28th June, 1859).
Qassim Ali Jairazbhoy brought forth, Muhammad – A Mercy to all the Nation (New Delhi, 1937). In its Forward (pp. 11-15), Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah wrote, “By the institution of the Ulu’l Amr – who can be interpreted as Imam and Caliph – and by placing obedience to Ulu’l Amr immediately after that to God and Prophet, he ensured that the Faith would ever remain living, extending, developing with science, knowledge, art, and industry” (p. 14)…. “If rightly, the Muslims have kept till now to the forms of prayer and fasting as practiced at the time of the Prophet, it should not be forgotten that it is not the forms of prayer and fasting that have been commanded, but the facts, and we are entitled to adjust the forms to the facts of life as circumstances changed. It is the same Prophet, who advises his followers ever to remain Ibnu’l Waqt (i.e. children of the time and period in which they were on earth), and it must be the natural ambition of every Muslim to practice and represent his Faith according to the standard of the Waqt or space-time.” (p. 15)

Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah (1885-1957) said, “But as you see, it is an unbelievable, also proven incorrect that Koran exclusively was sufficient, this outlook also is not authentic. As the period shifts from time to time, some new technologies emerge. New incidents are surfacing. Different challenges are raised in multifarious times. Even the world keeps changing. How was the world thousand years ago? How it is today? And how it will be shifted after few years? The major changes take place frequently, and that is why it is imperative to have an Ever-Living Imam in every age, who may guide, what to pursue amidst changing circumstances. He guides what are compulsory and essential according to time. My farman in this era is distinct, and after few years would be else. The entire world will be flux of time. It is obligatory to pursue Imam’s farman, who is present in every age. The farman changes with pace of time. You will never be deceived by others if you conceive all about it.” (Mundra, Kutchh, 22nd Nov., 1903). The Imam also said that, “Books and written words are not enough as guidance in religion, for guidance ought to be according to change of time and therefore it would be found that a living prophet in every period had come on earth to guide people.”

On 10th May, 1950, Princess Fatemeh (1928-1987), the half-sister of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahelavi (1919-1980), the emperor of Persia wedded with an American doctor, Winscent lee Hilliyer (1924-1999) of California under the Muslim law at Iran’s embassy in Paris, in which Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah played a role of superlative degree. Their marriage created an important religious issue because Islam allows a man to marry a woman of Ahel Kitab (people of the revealed Books) and she also can adhere to her religion, also a Muslim woman is restricted to marry out of her religion. On that juncture, Hilliyer needed to embrace Islam at first. Kadar Bengay’bit, the pesh imam (one who leads prayer in mosque) of Paris however forbade Hilliyer to embrace Islam, arguing that it is complicated and lengthy process to make him a Muslim. One who is desirous to marry Muslim woman with ordinary reason, the marriage cannot be solemnized.

Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah declined the fatwa (verdict) of the pesh-imam and said, “One who is a Muslim, its right and privilege is in my hand to ask him whether he is a Muslim or not. If he replies in affirmative, I will accept his commitment; because I believe what is in one’s heart is virtually only known to God.
It indicates that when one confesses that he believes in One God and Muhammad is His Prophet, means he has recited the Kalima, then he has right to claim being a Muslim. His faith must not be challenged.” Eventually, the pesh-imam of the Paris acceded and when the Hilliyer recited the above commitment, he was admitted in Islam. Hence, his marriage was actualized and the Imam signed as his witness.

Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah came in Karachi on 4th February, 1950 and offered Fatiha in the mausoleum of Quid-e-Azam, the founder of Pakistan. The Imam pointed out at the sheet of cloth on the grave, wherein few Arabic words were written. He asked the government officer, “What is written on it?” He said, “It is a Koranic verse (61:3), which reads: “Nasrunillah wa fatehun qarib” (Help from God and a near victory) The Imam said, “Instead of this verse, another verse (48:1) of the Koran will be timely and befitting, “Inna fathana laka fataham mubina” (Verily, We have given you a manifest victory)

Hearing it, the listeners were highly astonished and admitted that it was correct. Immediately the Koranic verse as prescribed by the Imam was replaced.
Even today, this verse is engraved on a marble plaque in the mausoleum. Hazrat Ali had said, “I am a speaking (natiq) Koran and this (book) is a silent (sa’mit) Koran” (Ana quran natiq wa haza quran sa’mit). Being a speaking Koran, the Imam suggested to write a befitting Koranic verse. Mahmoud Ayoub writes in his Approaches to the History of Interpretation of the Quran (edited by Andrew Rippin, Oxford, 1988) that, “Inasmuch as the Imams possess the true and limitless meaning of the Quran, they keep alive the sacred Book as a moral and spiritual guide. They are the speaking (natiq) Quran, while the Quran after the death of Muhammad remains the silent (sa’mit) Quran.” Mawlana Hazar Imam said in an Interview that, “You see, my mission is situated on three levels. Firstly, religious: it concerns a symbolic exegesis of the Qur’an: interpreting the Divine Word, the adapting the needs of each community to the time; refashioning the law, constantly and relentlessly…Our religion is esoteric, you understand. It is a perpetual initiation.” (Jeune Afrique Interview, 15th October 1967)
Mawlana Hazar Imam also said, “First, let me remind you, that after for all murids of the Imam, whether they are from Central Asia, from India, from Pakistan, from Western World, the fundamental principle is the recognition of the Imam of the Time. It is he who interprets the faith, it is he who guides the jamat in the interpretation of its faith at any time during its lifetime.” (Moscow, 29th January, 1995)
On another occasion, the Imam also said, “Since 1957, it has been my objective to retrieve from our history and strengthen, by present day endeavors, the magnificent Shia Imami Ismaili identity and its inter-relationships with other Muslim schools of interpretation, thought, and practice of the faith. I feel that, at this juncture in the jamat’s history, when different traditions are beginning to converge, it is particularly important to bring forward those aspects of faith and practice, including diverse forms of devotional expression that are rooted in the Shia Ismaili Tariqah of Islam as interpreted by the Imam of the Time.” (Aiglemont, 13th December, 2008)
IMAMS ARE THE RASIKHUN FI’L ILM

The Koran (3:7) says: “And none knows it’s (Koran) interpretation, save only God and those firmly grounded in knowledge (rasikhun fi’l ilm).” Maulana Farman Ali writes in his Tafsir that Anas bin Malik related that they asked the Prophet, who are the Rasikhun fi’l Ilm? The Prophet said. “Whose hands prefer virtue, whose bellies don’t receive unlawful morsel, whose tongues are true with pure hearts?” These qualities certainly were never seen in other except the Prophet and the Imams. Imam Jafar Sadik said, “We are the people obedience to whom God has made obligatory, and we are the rasikhun fi’l ilm (steeped in knowledge affirm)” (Kitab al-Burhan fi Tafsir al-Koran (1:21). According to al-Safi fi Tafsir kalam Allah al-wafi (1:21), once Imam Jafar Sadik said, “We are the rasikhun fi’l ilm, and we know the tawil of the Koran.”

Paul E. Walker writes in Master of the Age (London, 2007, p. 1) that, “In the doctrine of classical Islam denoting the supreme leadership of the Muslim community, had major importance for all legal and theological schools and the various sectarian positions. Each vigorously supported the continuing need for, in nearly all cases, a single, properly chosen successor to the Prophet Muhammad, who could maintain among them the governing functions, religious as well as political, that he had formerly performed.”

The Secret of Ana’l Haqq (Lahore, 1976, p. 110) quoted a wise saw that, “Speak to men to the extent of their understandings” (Tukkalli mun nasa ala qadr uqulihim).
A’an khudawinde’ ke’ dararze’ wajud, har zaman khudra bakshish wa namuz (Rumi)
‘That Divine Light Whose existence is in this world. He dwells in every age according to the condition of the world.”
Dar baghe’ shariate’ payambar, kasi nist juz Al’in dahaqan (Pir Nasir Khusaro)
“In the garden of the Prophet’s Shariah, none one but his family are the gardeners.”
Murshid essa lonni’e, jo jag bich khushia batalav’e,
Pahel’e gam tukar’e dha tal’e, pichh’e rab duar samjav’e (Sultan Bahu)
“Adore such one as your murshid (Imam), who directs (way to) happiness in the world.

First, he wards off your food-affliction, then exhorts the door leading to God.”
Patal tanni sudhaj janne, sohi dhanni a’awiya,
Pruthavi’na jenne’ bandaj bandiya, sohi nar a’wi’ne betha (ginan)
“That very Lord has come who is well steeped (with the secret of the) nethermost region. That Lord has tied grips of the earth has come apparently.”
“The characteristic feature of the Ismailism is that its Imam is ‘living,” “present.” Other Shiite groups, such as the Daudi Bhoras and the Ithnaasharis believe in a “hidden” Imam.

A further characteristic of the Ismailism is the two sets of doctrine – the esoteric (batin) and the plain (zahir). The Imam has full knowledge of the esoteric doctrine.” (British Journal of Sociology, 27th vol., No. 4, December, 1976 by P.B. Clark) Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah said in his Memoirs of Aga Khan (London, 1954, p. 187) that, “Our religion is our religion, you either believe in it or you do not. You can leave a faith but you cannot, if you do not accept its tenets, remain within it and claim to “reform” it. You can abandon those tenets, but you cannot try to change them and still protest that you belong to the particular sect that holds it.” “But I don’t want to hear accusation ever from anybody about who is a Muslim or who is not, because only Allah has right to judge. So we should not become involved in theological discussions and when others get involved in theological discussion, we should tell them that Quran (109:6) says lakum dinukum wa liya din” (To you is your religion, and to me, my religion). (Mawlana Hazar Imam, Rawalpindi, 23rd March, 1983).

The Prominent Mystic Poets of Punjab (New Delhi, 1994, pp. 101-2) quotes Bulleh Shah as saying, “The liars have occupied the mosques. The cheaters have captured the temples. Where does the true lover go? Better to leave them alone.”

Mawlana Hazar Imam’s Interview
ELLE: Comment feriez-vous si par aventure les Ismailis étaient persécutés?

L'AGA KHAN: C'est un problème délicat. Je préfère ne pas répondre. Une autorité spirituelle doit alors agir sans se faire reconnaître.
Translation
ELLE: How would you do if ever Ismailis were persecuted?
AGA KHAN: It is a delicate problem. I prefer not to reply. A spiritual authority has then to act without being known (discretely)

Wednesday, 1969, August 20, Elle - Mystere de l'Aga Khan

Lastly, it is to be added that in the last decades of 20th century, many Muslim countries declared themselves as “Islamic State” and as an evidence thereof, enforced the Shariah laws in their countries. It led too much discussion about two things: one, the concept of Islamic State and two the nature of the Shariah laws. Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer writes in Islam: Challenges in 21st Century (New Delhi, 2003, pp. 123-4) that, “The very term “Islamic State” is a modern term. It has nothing to do with Quranic or Hadith terminology. While the Quran does not mention any form of governance, hadith refers to what is called Khilafa or popularly known as Khilafat. The loose governing structure which came into existence after the death of the Prophet was termed “Khilafat-i-Rashida in the history of Sunni Islam. The Shiah, on the other hand, while not accepting the concept of Khilafa, developed the institution of Imamah. While the Sunni doctrine of Khilafa meant a successor to the Prophet had to be elected through the institution of bay’ah (pledge of loyalty), the Shiah doctrine upheld the institution of Imamah through appointment by the Holy Prophet, and not by election. Thus the doctrine of Khilafa became a central to Sunni Islam; that of Imamah became integral part of Shiah Islam. But nowhere, we find the term “Islamic State” which is a modern political construction in the post-colonial world.”

There are irrepressible ulema (priests) in Islamic church, who use to distort, deface and violate messages of God and the Prophet for their personal gains, resulting misguidance to the Muslims. God identifies them as follows: “Those who conceal any part of the Book (Koran) that God has revealed, and thus make a little price thereby, they eat nothing but fire into their bellies.” (2:174).

Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah said, “Fortunately, the Koran has itself made this task easy, for it contains a number of verses which declare that Allah speaks to man in allegory and parable. Thus the Koran leaves the door open for all kinds of possibilities of interpretation so that no one interpreter can accuse another of being non-Muslim. A felicitous effect if this fundamental principle of Islam that the Koran is constantly open to allegorical interpretation has been that our Holy Book has been able to guide and illuminate the thought of believers, century after century, in accordance with the conditions and limitations of intellectual apperception imposed by external influences in the world., It leads also to a greater charity among Muslims, for since there can be no cut-and-dried interpretations, all schools of thought can unite in the prayer that the Almighty in His infinite mercy may forgive any mistaken interpretation of the Faith whose cause is ignorance or misunderstanding.” (Islam the Religion of My Ancestors, Karachi, 1954, pp. 7-8).

[][][][][][][][][][][][]

Karachi: Oct., 2022