|
Placing the Hands on One Another, Testimony for the Wilayat As an example for the contradictions in his fiqh methodology, I would like to mention the following:
He considers the saying of: “I testify that Ali is the Wali of Allah” while reciting the Iqama as causing a great deal of harm; he says the following in its regard: “I find no benefit for the Shara`a to incorporate a new element in the obligatory prayer, in the introduction thereto, or in its rituals, because this may lead to many harms.”[1] We do not know why he does not remove it from the athan as well, for it is one of the introductions to the prayers as his statement indicates. Counting what invalidates the prayers, he then continues to say, “To deliberately say `aman’ is precautionary, though it may be valid especially if the intention behind saying it is to supplicate.”[2] Then he considers putting the right hand on the left, or vice versa, during the prayers to be nullification as a precaution, especially if it is meant to be part of the prayers, although a stronger consideration is that it does not invalidate it when it is not meant to be part of it and in the absence of a Shara`a rule in this regard, especially if it is meant to be submission to Allah.”[3]
He then has no evidence for the nullification
of prayers when the hands are placed as described above, nor by articulating
“aman” on purpose, for the whole issue to him is only a precaution, and
precaution, according to him, implies inclination to authorization. Nay! He
has no objection to the pronouncement of “aman” even if it is
not meant to be a supplication due to the presence, in his
estimation, of validity, and so is the case with putting the hands during it
as described above with the intention of its not being part of the prayers. What is noteworthy here is that he did not record any reservation in this regard. He does not consider it as leading to many harms. He is reserved about the third statement in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith), considering it as falling in the same category, although putting the right hand on the left, or vice versa, and the pronouncement of “aman” are both, like the above, elements introduced into an obligation, namely the daily prayers, not in something highly commendable and optional. This element has entered into the prayers itself, not in something regarded as part thereof, although such a possibility is very weak. Why should there be such a reservation regarding the third statement of the Shahada?! Is it because of mere possibility? Is he not himself waging a fierce battle against all the scholars who advocate the necessity of precaution even when it comes to obligatory injunctions[4]?! Perhaps what we have indicated of allusion spares the reader any details with regard to his stand regarding two issues: one is linked to Ali (A.S.) and the other to putting the right hand on the left, or vice versa. It is linked to a party that aims at firming everything except the line and the methodology of Ali (A.S.)! We wish, having seen how he advocates, that if testimony for the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) in both the athan and the iqama causes a lot of harm, he would not seek violent means to achieve his objective if he acts upon the principle whereby he reached the conclusion that smoking is prohibitive and harmful, deriving it from the verse wherein the Almighty says, “... and their sin is greater than their benefit” (Qur’an, 2:219). He found it palatable to interpret “sin” as meaning “harm” without any linguistic evidence... He did not like to interpret “benefit” as meaning “reward” although neither is preferred over the other. Having said so, we do not wish to remind this individual of his pledges to make all his verdicts earning the endorsement of the sect’s scholars, yet we have found no endorsement whatsoever for his precautionary verdict wherein he prefers leaving out testimony for Ali (A.S.) in both the iqama and the athan, neither from early scholars nor from the latest, having widely researched the views of more than a hundred scholars, may Allah be pleased with them all. Let him name one single scholar who advocates that it is a precaution to prefer leaving out the testimony for the wali (A.S.) in both the iqama and the athan without the intention of making it part thereof. [1]Al-Mas_’il al-Fiqhiyya, Vol. 2, p. 123 (1996 edition). [2]Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 92 (fifth edition). [3]Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 91-92 (fifth edition). [4]Refer to Al-Murshid, Vol. 3 & 4, p. 263.
|