Mirza Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani (d.1930):
“Section: It has become clear from what we have mentioned that it is not permissible to pledge allegiance to anyone among the people, whether they are scholars or others, neither independently nor under the pretext of their deputation by the Imam (peace be upon him) during his occultation, for what we have previously stated that this is among his unique attributes and the necessities of his general leadership, absolute authority, and complete sovereignty, for his allegiance is the allegiance to Allah:
As it was mentioned in the Ghadir sermon and others, so whoever pledges allegiance to him has pledged allegiance to Allah, and whoever turns away from him has turned away from Allah.
The prohibition of this is further evidenced by what we have mentioned about it being among the unique attributes of the Imam and that matters of Sharia are determined solely by explicit text, as narrated in al-Biḥār and Mirʾāt al-Anwār from al-Mufaḍḍal ibn ʿUmar from al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) who said: "O Mufaḍḍal, every allegiance before the appearance of al-Qāʾim (peace be upon him) is an allegiance of disbelief, hypocrisy, and deception. May Allah curse the one who pledges it and the one to whom it is pledged," the narration.
And this, as you see, is explicit in the prohibition of pledging allegiance to anyone other than the Imam, without any distinction between whether the one pledged allegiance to is a jurist or not, and without any distinction between whether the allegiance is for himself or under the pretext of being a deputy of the Imam (peace be upon him).
What we have mentioned about the allegiance in the mentioned sense being a unique attribute of the Imam and a necessity of his general leadership, absolute authority, and the prohibition for others is supported by several points:
One: It was neither customary nor reported during the time of any of the Imams (peace be upon them) that allegiance was exchanged among their companions and other believers present at that time.
Two: It was not reported from them (peace be upon them) that they permitted allegiance to anyone else from among their companions as their deputies.
Three: It is not customary among scholars, nor in their books, nor is it reported in their etiquettes, states, or actions that it was customary among the believers from the time of the Imams (peace be upon them) to our time to pledge allegiance to anyone under the pretext that his allegiance is the allegiance of the Imam (peace be upon him).
Four: When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) wanted to take allegiance for the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) and saw that it was difficult for all the believers to shake hands with him, he ordered them to show the covenant and allegiance with their tongues and did not order them to shake hands with any of the righteous companions or their special ones as his deputies, despite it being possible. This hadith is mentioned in the book al-Iḥtijāj by Shaykh al-Ṭabarsī (may Allah have mercy on him); whoever desires it can seek it there.
Five: When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) conquered Mecca and took allegiance from men, believing women came to pledge allegiance to him. He said: "I do not shake hands with women," so he called for a cup of water, put his hand in it, then took it out and said: "Put your hands in this water, for it is the allegiance." This hadith and others with its content are mentioned in al-Kāfī, al-Burhān, and others. The aspect of support and evidence is that he (peace be upon him and his family) did not permit them to shake hands with a righteous woman from among the believers or with their male relatives from among the believers under the pretext that shaking hands with them is shaking hands with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) as his deputies.
Six: What was mentioned by al-Majlisī (may Allah have mercy on him) in al-Biḥār after mentioning the supplication for renewing the covenant and allegiance during the time of occultation, where he said: "I found in some old books after that to clap his right hand on his left," ended. So look at how they permitted clapping his hand on his hand and did not permit shaking hands with others.
Seven: What is in al-Iḥtijāj from our master al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) after mentioning the incident of Ghadir and the sermon of the bearer of glad tidings and the warning and taking allegiance for the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him), he said: "They continued the allegiance and shaking hands for three days, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) said whenever a group pledged allegiance: Praise be to Allah who has favored us over all the worlds." He (peace be upon him) said: "And shaking hands became a tradition and a practice, used by those who have no right to it," ended.
I say: From all that we have mentioned and others, it is conclusive that allegiance is a unique attribute of the Prophet and the Imam, and no one is allowed to undertake it except one whom the Prophet or the Imam has appointed as their deputy in this matter, so he would be an agent in this matter, like agency in other matters.
If you say: Based on the view of the general authority of the jurist, it can be said that jurists are the successors of the Imam (peace be upon him) and his deputies, so they are allowed to take allegiance from people as deputies of the Imam and people are allowed to pledge allegiance to them.
I say: Firstly, the general authority is not established for the jurist. Secondly, assuming the general authority is established, it is only in matters that are not unique to the Prophet and the Imam, and it has been shown from the narrations as proof and support, as we have mentioned, that allegiance is unique to them, so the general deputy has no deputation in this matter. This is similar to jihad, which is not permissible except during the presence of the Imam and with his permission, similar to the obligation of performing the Eid prayers under the Imam, and similar to their conduct in their eating, drinking, living, and dressing when their hands are open and their leadership is evident, following the conduct of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) as in several narrations that mentioning them would prolong the matter. And similar to the permissibility of preference while the family and children are in a state of need and distress, and similar to the non-disapproval of eating with the left hand and the like, which are unique to the Prophet and the Imam (peace be upon them).
And thirdly, assuming the non-establishment of uniqueness, we say that it is only permissible for the jurist to undertake what has been proven to be legitimate. The legitimacy of pledging allegiance to someone other than the infallible or his specific deputy ordered to take allegiance from people for the infallible is not established.
If you say: The legitimacy of this can be established by the verses indicating the preference of following and emulating the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) like His saying: "Say: If you love Allah, then follow me" and His saying: "Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example for him who hopes for Allah and the Last Day" and the like. The aspect of inference is that the verses indicate the goodness of following the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in his actions, and among his actions which were issued by the testimony of the verses and narrations is the allegiance of the believers and believing women, so it is recommended for them to emulate him in allegiance and shaking hands.
I say: Firstly, the indication of the mentioned verses on the obligation of emulation and following in all the actions issued by him or its desirability is not apparent as we have clarified in its place. Rather, it is apparent in the obligation of believing in him and complying with his orders and prohibitions. Detailed discussion in this regard would lead us away from the intended purpose.
And secondly, if it is assumed that their indication of the desirability of following absolutely is proven, we say: It only indicates the desirability of performing the act issued by him in the manner that it was issued by him, and that is impossible in what we are discussing because the allegiance issued in his time was restricted to shaking his noble hand or was by his command, just as the allegiance of Muslim ibn Aqil was by the command of our master al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him).
But in our time, the permissibility of allegiance in the form of shaking hands has no evidence; it is one of the forbidden innovations that cause curse and regret. And by this, the reason for the saying of our master al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) in the previous narration of al-Mufaḍḍal: "Every allegiance before the appearance of al-Qāʾim..." becomes clear.
From what we have mentioned, the corruption of what some Zanjanian scholars claimed in his book made for contract formulas, where he insisted on the desirability of pledging allegiance to jurists and invented a formula for the allegiance contract and discussed whether it is among the permissible or obligatory contracts. What indicates the corruption of his claim is what he admitted at the beginning of his speech that the allegiance contract and its formula is not mentioned in the books of any scholars from the early and later ones.
I say: Look, O wise and rational one, can it usually be imagined that all the scholars from the time of the infallible Imams to our time have overlooked a widespread matter named in the Glorious Quran and numerous narrations, and this matter is something that people are generally tasked with, either obligatorily or desirably, and none of them mentions it nor is it heard from them in their conversations and discussions, nor is it addressed in their gatherings and assemblies. Is this not but due to the clarity of the non-legitimacy of shaking hands in the form of allegiance except with the infallible or his specific deputy and their agreement on that to the extent that none of them mentioned it even as a possibility as is their habit in many jurisprudential matters. We ask Allah Almighty for protection from error and blunder in speech and action.
Since the book of this person is in Persian, we saw that we should mention the gist of his speech here in Arabic, so we say: He argued for the desirability of allegiance in this time and the like by His saying: "Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. Allah's hand is over their hands. So whoever breaks his pledge only breaks it to the detriment of himself, and whoever fulfills what he has covenanted with Allah - He will grant him a great reward." He said: It is known that what Allah has promised a great reward for and is equivalent to fulfilling the covenant with Allah is a strongly recommended act if not obligatory.
Then he said: The principle in every action and omission that is a prelude to obeying the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in his message is desirability.
Then he said after some speech: If desirability is established, then it is desirable for the Imam and his deputies based on the principle of generality.
This is the gist of his speech in proving his intention, and you are aware that such speech should not come from the learned scholars, for the noble verse only indicated the obligation to fulfill the allegiance given to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) and that whoever fulfills it will have a great reward and whoever breaks it has harmed himself and his evil knowledge, corrupt conscience, and bad intentions have surrounded him. It does not indicate the desirability of pledging allegiance to someone other than the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), so proving this person's intention with this verse is like extracting seeds from rocks.
As for the principle he mentioned, firstly, the desirability of what is necessary to obey the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) is a rational matter, not described with the legal desirability that has a reward and extra merit for the original action that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) commanded. It is like seeking water for purification. So proving the legal desirability by that is something even junior students would reject, let alone the senior scholars.
Secondly, obeying the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in his message and rulings does not depend on allegiance in the mentioned sense at all. Rather, it is an act like other acts, whose ruling must be taken from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). In every instance where his order or prohibition is proven, it is obligatory to comply and obey by action or omission. In every instance where his order or prohibition is not proven, if it is among the ordinary matters like eating, drinking, and other acts and customs, if the individual performs it without the intention of legislation, he has performed a permissible act, and if he performs it intending that it is from the Sharia obligatorily or desirably, it is a forbidden innovation, and what we are discussing is of this type because pledging allegiance to someone other than the Prophet and the Imam by way of shaking hands is not reported from them (peace be upon them) at all but rather the prohibition of it is reported, as you have known, so it is a forbidden innovation.
If you say: It is possible to perform this act with the hope of avoiding the prohibition of making religious innovations.
I say: Firstly, after we have established that this is among the unique attributes of the Prophet and the Imam and have shown the prohibition of this act from them (peace be upon them), there is no room for the hope of its desirability or the possibility of its acceptability.
Secondly, if we overlook all of that and assume no exclusivity and no prohibition, we say: The subject of the report of whoever is informed of the reward for an act and performs it hoping for that reward is that a hadith about the merit and reward of an act is narrated from them according to the common methods, and the believer performs it hoping for that reward in view of the report reaching him from them. If it was not actually issued by them, and the believer performs it with hope, Allah Almighty will grant him that reward out of grace and favor.
So we say to this person: Which weak hadith indicates the desirability of pledging allegiance to someone other than the Imam (peace be upon him)? Or which jurist has issued a fatwa on its desirability? Or which scholar has considered its desirability with the hope of reward, knowing that this person admitted at the beginning of his speech, as you have seen, that he did not come across any of the early or later scholars mentioning it. We ask Allah Almighty for protection from slips, by His grace and generosity.
As for the issue of the principle of commonality in obligation, we say with the help and support of Allah Almighty: The evidence indicates, rather it is among the necessities known to the followers of the Muhammadan religion (peace be upon him and his family), that his Sharia remains until the Day of Judgment, and all people from the time of his mission until the Day of Judgment are obligated to follow his Sharia, adhere to his orders, prohibitions, and rulings. This is the implication of his finality, and it is explicit in numerous verses of the Noble Book of Allah. However, there is no doubt that the rulings differ in their subjects and conditions, and in every incident, there is a ruling from Allah Almighty.
In summary, the rulings and actions issued by him (peace be upon him and his family) are divided into four categories:
First: What the evidence indicates is specific to his noble self, such as the obligation of the Witr prayer and what the jurists have mentioned in the book of marriage among his unique attributes (peace be upon him and his family).
Second: What the evidence indicates is shared among those present and absent, those who were in his time, and those who come after him, such as the obligation of the obligatory prayers, the desirability of the recommended prayers, the obligation of zakat and hajj, and other obligations and sunnahs, the prohibition of forbidden acts, and many rulings where the evidence indicates commonality among everyone.
Third: What the evidence indicates is specific to those present in his time, such as the obligation of jihad, the obligation of the Eid prayers, the obligation of Friday prayer individually, and others.
Fourth: What he ordered in an incident or context that suggests the exclusivity of that ruling to that particular context and the obligation pertaining specifically to those present at that time, as there is no evidence extending it to the absent and applying the ruling to other contexts, as in some rulings that were addressed to a specific man, for example, and extending it to others without evidence, and as in the matter of allegiance where the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) ordered those present. If we assume there is no evidence for its exclusivity to those present, and we overlook what we have mentioned of the evidence for exclusivity, the reference in this matter and similar ones is the principle of exemption, not the principle of commonality in obligation because the uncertain obligation is negated by the principle, both rationally and legally.
Therefore, relying on the principle of commonality in obligation, as stated by this person, is not valid as is clear to those of insight. Rather, it can be said that even if we accept the principle of commonality in such a context, it would not be sufficient to establish the desirability of allegiance in the form of shaking hands during the occultation because everything that has a role in directing the address must be present in the non-present at the time of the address to establish its direction towards him also by the principle of commonality according to the method of this person. This is not possible in what we are discussing because it is presumed that the obligation of allegiance is to those present with the Prophet and the successor (peace be upon them).
And this in the right of the absent, like the people of this time, for example, is nullified by the absence of the subject, so it is not possible to obligate them with that. Also, it does not establish their obligation for another reason, which is that the Prophet commanded those present in his time to shake hands in specific incidents and a specific time, so it does not establish the obligation of those present with that command after that time has passed and that incident has ended, let alone those who did not exist in his time.
This is because we have established in its place that fulfilling by a new command, and that commanding something at a specific time does not necessitate its obligation after that time has passed unless there is another evidence for it, and the assumption here is the absence of such evidence.
This person's view is further refuted by another point according to his method: that the evidence he provided, if valid, necessitates the obligation of pledging allegiance by shaking hands for all people in all times because the Prophet's (peace be upon him and his family) command was obligatory for those present, so according to the principle of commonality in obligation, as he claims, it necessitates the obligation for the absent and those not present in his time (peace be upon him and his family). And this person does not commit to that, as you have seen in his speech.” [Mikyāl al-Makārim, Volume 2, Page 272-280]
فصل وقد تبين مما ذكرنا عدم جواز مبايعة أحد من الناس، من العلماء وغيرهم لا بالاستقلال، ولا بعنوان نيابتهم عن الإمام (عليه السلام) في زمان غيبته لما قدمناه آنفا من أن ذلك من خصائصه ولوازم رياسته العامة وولايته المطلقة وسلطنته الكلية، فإن بيعته، بيعة الله:
- كما ورد في خطبة الغدير وغيرها، فمن بايعه فقد بايع الله تعالى، ومن تولى عنه
فقد تولى عن الله.
- ويدل على عدم جوازه مضافا إلى ما عرفت من كونه من خصائص الإمام، وكون أمور الشرع توقيفية ما روي في البحار (1) ومرآة الأنوار عن المفضل بن عمر عن الصادق (عليه السلام) أنه قال: يا مفضل كل بيعة قبل ظهور القائم (عليه السلام) فبيعة كفر ونفاق وخديعة، لعن الله المبايع بها (2) والمبايع له، الحديث.
وهذا كما ترى صريح في عدم جواز مبايعة غير الإمام، من غير فرق بين كون المبايع له فقيها أو غير فقيه ومن غير فرق بين أن تكون البيعة لنفسه أو بعنوان النيابة عن الإمام (عليه السلام).
ويؤيد ما ذكرنا من كون المبايعة بالمعنى المذكور من خصائص الإمام ولوازم رياسته العامة وولايته المطلقة وعدم جوازه لغيره أمور:
منها: إنه لم يعهد ولم ينقل في زمان أحد من الأئمة (عليهم السلام) تداول المبايعة بين أصحابهم وكذا سائر المؤمنين الموجودين في زمانهم.
ومنها: إنه لم يرد منهم (عليهم السلام) إذن في مبايعة غيرهم من أصحابهم بنيابتهم.
ومنها: عدم معهودية ذلك في ألسنة العلماء ولا في كتبهم ولم ينقل في آدابهم وأحوالهم وأفعالهم بل لم يكن معهودا في سائر المؤمنين من زمن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلى زماننا أن يبايعوا أحدا بعنوان أن بيعته بيعة الإمام (عليه السلام).
ومنها: إن رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) لما أراد أن يأخذ البيعة لأمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) ورأى أنه يعسر على جميع المؤمنين أن يصافقوه بيده أمرهم بإظهار العهد والبيعة بألسنتهم ولم يأمرهم بأن يصافقوا غيره من صالحي أصحابه وخواصهم نيابة عنه مع أنه كان ذلك ممكنا والحديث مذكور في كتاب الاحتجاج (3) للشيخ الطبرسي (رضي الله عنه) من أراده فليطلبه هناك.
ومنها: إنه لما فتح رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) مكة، وبايع الرجال جاءته المؤمنات لمبايعته، فقال:
إني لا أصافح النساء، فدعا بقدح من ماء، فأدخل يده ثم أخرجها فقال أدخلن أيديكن في هذا الماء، فهي البيعة. وهذا الحديث وغيره بمضمونه مذكور في الكافي والبرهان وغيرهما ووجه التأييد والاستشهاد أنه (صلى الله عليه وآله) لم يأذن لهن في مصافقة امرأة من المؤمنات الصالحات،
Allamah Agha Bozorg Tehrani (d. 1970):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV6epfD47Rk
ReplyDelete