| BACK | NEXT |
1) The leadership of the Imams of Ahlu'l-bayt (descendants of the Prophet) has never been one of the centres of influence and power that are transmitted through inheritance, from father to son, with the full support of the ruling regime, as was the case, in the leadership of Fatimid caliphs and the 'Abbasids; but it has always won the good will of its wider popular bases, on the grounds of their intellectual and spiritual conviction about the worth of the Imamate for the leadership of Islam.
2) These popular bases have existed since the dawn of Islam and became wider during the times of the two Imams, al-Baqir and as-Sadiq (peace be upon them). The school that these two Imams led within the boundaries of these bases formed a very wide trend that stretched all all over the world of Islam, bringing together hundreds of jurists (fuqaha') theologians (mutakallimun) and commentators (mufassirun) on the Qur'an and the learned in the different branches of Islamic and human sciences that were predominant in those times, to the extent that al-Hasan son of 'Ali al-Washsha said, "I went into al-Kufah Mosque and found nine hundred sheikhs all of them were saying, 'Ja'far son of Muhammad related to us . . .'"
3) This school and what it represented of popular bases from Islamic society, had certain conditions which it believed in and abode by, in the appointment of the Imam and his suitability for the role because it believed that an individual cannot be appointed as Imam unless he is the most learned among the agnostic of his time.
4) That both this school and its popular bases were ready to give sacrifices, for the sake of their belief in the Imamate, since the latter was considered, in the opinion of the concomitant leadership, as a hostile line, even from an intellectual point of view. This was the reason that led the authorities to carry out several campaigns of purging and torture to the extent that many people were either killed or were put into prisons, while hundreds of them died in the darkness of the cells. This meant that those who believed in the Imamate were ready to pay a lot, and the only instigation they had was their nearness to Allah.
5) The Imams these bases yielded to were not isolated
from them, only when the authorities prosecuted them or
sent them into exile. This is what we come to know
through the narrators who related to us the events of
each one among the twelve Imams, and on the one hand from
what has been copied from the letters that they sent to
their contemporaries and the trips that they took, and on
the other hand from representatives that they dispatched
to the different corners of the Islamic world, as well as
the frequent visits that the Shi' ahs used to pay to
their Imams in the holy city of Medina, when they went to
the sacred lands for the performance of the holy rites of
hajj.
All of these factors show an uninterrupted interaction
between the Imam and his popular bases, that stretched
over the different parts of the world of Islam, with all
their different classes including the learned as well as
the others.
6) That the caliphate which was contemporary with the
Imams (peace be upon them) used to consider their
spiritual leadership as a great threat against its
existence and its destiny. Because of that it deployed
all of its efforts for the sake of disintegrating that
leadership and bore a lot of negativism in that respect,
sometimes appearing under the guise of cruelty and
transgression when its security was at stake. The
campaigns of persecution and victimization w ere a
permanent event with respect to the Imam, in spite of
what that left behind of sadness and disgust among the
Muslims and their supporters from the different classes
of society.
If we take these six points into consideration knowing
that they are all historical facts, it leaves no room for
doubt, and we come out with the following result: That
the phenomenon of the early Imamate was a fact and not an
illusion. Because the Imam who emerges while still young
and declares openly that he is the spiritual and the
intellectual leader of the Muslim community as a whole,
and whom that wide trend pledges its loyalty, must surely
be in possession of a remarkable, let alone a very wide
knowledge and agnosis and a very wide horizon as well as
a proficiency in jurisdiction, exegesis and the articles
of faith, otherwise the popular bases would not be
convinced of his spiritual leadership. We should also
bear in mind the fact that the Imams took certain
positions that made the interaction with their bases
possible and threw different lights on their way of life
and personality.
Do you think then that a young child who declares his
Imamate (spiritual leadership) and hoists out of it a
flag for Islam, with the full knowledge of the masses
among his popular bases who believe in him and are
prepared to sacrifice their lives and security without
taking the trouble to discover his condition, or without
being incited by the phenomenon of the early Imamate to
inquire about the validity of the situation and the
establishment of the worth of this young Imam?
Now supposing that people did not attempt to assess the
situation , would it then be possible that after days,
months or even years, the whole affair would go unnoticed
without its truth coming to the surface, although there
has been a natural and constant interaction between the
young Imam and the rest of the people? Is it rational
that the worth of a young child's way of thinking and
knowledge would not be obvious after this long
interaction?
Therefore, if we assume that the popular bases of the
Imams of Ahlu'l-bayt (descendants of the Prophet)
were not able to discover the truth of the matter, why
did the existing caliphate keep silent and did not
attempt to find out, if it were for its benefit?
Nothing could have been easier for the authorities
then if the Imam had been a child, quite immature in his
education and way of thinking, the normal case in all
children.
No plan would have been more successful than to
present this child to his supporters (the Shi'ah) and
others and prove to them that he was not fit for the
Imamate and the intellectual and spiritual leadership.
If it is indeed difficult to convince people of a man
in his forties or fifties, already in possession of a
great deal of education for the role of the Imamate,
there can be no difficulty in convincing them of the
incapacity of an ordinary child for the same role, in the
sense that the Shi'ah know, regardless of his
intelligence and awareness.
All this would have been possible and easier than the
complicated means of suppression and recklessness which
the authorities resorted to in these times.
The only explanation for the caliphate's hesitation in
playing this card, is that it realized that the early
Imamate was a real phenomenon and not an invented idea.
The truth is that it had realized the fact after it had
attempted to play that card but failed. History relates
to us many of these attempts and their failure, while it
does not mention at all the occurrence of a situation in
which the phenomenon of early Imamate was put into
question, where the Imam was confronted with difficulties
or complications which surpassed his ability or shook
people's trust in him.
This is what we mean when we said earlier that the
early Imamate is a real phenomenon in the life of Ahlu'l-bayt
(descendants of the Prophet), moreover this phenomenon
has similar roots and situations in the Divine heritage
that stretched over all the messages and the Divine
leadership. It is enough to cite one example of an early
leadership of Ahlu'l-bayt (peace be upon them) in
the case of Yahya (peace be upon him) when Allah said: .
"O Yahya take the Book with strength,"
and We have given him wisdom when he was young. (Qur'an, 19:12)
Now that the early leadership has been proved as an existing and real phenomenon in Ahlu'l-bayt's life there is no more objection to the leadership of al- Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) nor to his succession to his father while very young.
| BACK | NEXT |