CHAPTER
5
The
Imamate
The institution of Imamate is a
historical one; it no longer exists although the system, in its hereditary
form, still continues among the Shia sects where Imams trace their ancestry
back through Imam Ali to the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him). For the
Ibadhis the institution is essential if we are to implement Islamic laws as laid
down in the Holy Qur'an and in the Traditions of the Holy messenger. There
are attempts to revive the system, but it is
doubtful they will ever succeed in view of the separatist tendencies of some
fanatical sects which reject any efforts to unify Muslims of various schools.
Islamic unity is a pre-requisite for the institution to function effectively.
The reason why it broke down is partly due to the formation of dozens of
sects each promoting its own religious doctrines some of which were
hostile to the Caliphate. The Ibadhis’ views on the establishment of the institution
are at variance with those held by some other sects. For the Ibadhis,
an Imam must have the following qualifications: -
“The Imam must be a mature male of
outstanding intelligence. He must not be blind, deaf
senile, nor lack limbs which would prevent him from
taking part in the obligation of war (jihad) … He must not
be mad, feeble minded, nor should he be envious,
cowardly, mean, a liar, nor a man
who fails to keep promises and agreements, nor indeed
possess any other characteristic that causes concern.
He must be a man of great learning, for without learning
and perception how could he carry out his duties and
interpret the laws, and ensure that his subordinates do”.
In other
words an Imam must be healthy, God-fearing and well versed in Islamic
law. (Dr. Isam Al-Rawas p.104).
So the Ibadhi’s ideas of Imam differ
from those of some other Islamic schools. We cannot find such a person if
the institution is hereditary, the less so if he is expected actively to
participate in jihad wars and at the same time be an
impartial judge of legal disputes that arise among the Muslims in their daily
lives. So the following questions arise: -
Must an
Imam be a Quraishi or an Elected one?
The first four successors to the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) were Quraishis and so were Umayyad and
Abbasid rulers who succeeded them.
The first two were nominated by their predecessors before their deaths, while the latter two were appointed by
Shura (i.e. consultation) with leading members of the Quraishi tribe. The
Umayyad and Abbasid rulers who succeeded them were usurpers who took
over the leadership initially by force and then passed it over to their
offspring by inheritance. There are several of the Prophet’s hadiths on this
issue but let us take only one of them narrated by both Al-Tirmidhi and Imam
Ahmad: -
“Sovereignty is (invested) in the
Qureishis, administration of justice in the Medinites and
(privilege of) making calls for prayers in the Habeshis”.
The
inference to be drawn from the hadith is that it gives the Quraishis preference
to the Imamate; it does not necessarily prove that the appointments
of other than Quraishis to the office would not be legitimate.
The same is true of appointment of judges from Medina and of callers for prayers
from among the Habeshis. The hadith is nowhere fully implemented today.
The Ibadhis favour appointment of
Imams by Shura as was done in the case of the latter two of the rightly –
guided Khalifas (الخلفاء الراشدين). The choice of Imam should be done by
consultation among religious scholars including tribal leaders in order to
give added weight to his authority when he comes to power. This method should
ensure that the candidate possesses the requisite attributes outlined above.
The first Ibadhi Imam was appointed in
Hadhramut in the year 129 H (747 CE); he was Abdullah bin Yahya
Al-Kindi. This was followed by another appointment, five years later, of
Julanda bin Masoud Al-Ma’awaly as Imam of Oman (l34 H). The third Imam
was elected in Maghrib in North Africa and the choice fell on Abu-l-
Khattab in 140 H. These appointments were made in co-ordination with the
Ibadhi headquarters in Basra under the leadership of Abu Ubaida Muslim bin Abi
Karima Al Tamimi, student and successor to Jabir bin Zayd, the
spiritual founder of Ibadhism.
The establishment of these imamates took place at a time when the Umayyad
rule was collapsing and before the Abbasid dynasty was in full control
of the State. The Ibadhis had been waiting for such an opportunity and when
it presented itself they grabbed it. They have however been criticized
for allowing an establishment of three Imamates at about the same period,
and we should reply that the Quraishis themselves at one time maintained
three Khalifates: the Umayyad dynasty ruling in Spain, the Abassid
family ruling from Baghdad and the Fatimids in Egypt and other parts of
North Africa. The Fatimids were Ismailis who founded the city of Cairo and
built the Al Azhar mosque which became a famous center of learning.
Should
Muslims revolt against a tyrant Imam?
The Ibadhis do not encourage revolts
against their Imams to avoid bloodshed. It is justifiable only as a
last resort and in extreme circumstances. The history of Ibadhi
Imamate in Oman speaks for itself as following list shows:-
|
From the above picture one can see that
none of Ibadhi Imams was assassinated. The first and the last
Imams were killed by Abbasid aggressors. The others died naturally or
were deposed as a result of pressure from the people. Their rule extended
over a total period of about 150 years. This is in contrast with the Umayyad
rulers when seven of them were murdered, and during the Abbasid reign
the same number of rulers were also killed and three others were
tortured and blinded under savage conditions. And yet some so-called
Islamic scholars and historians have the impudence to say that Ibadhis are
Khawarij who are terrorists and shedders of blood. According to Dr. Amr Khalifa
Ennami (Ibadhiyah, p.33), Abdullah
bin Yahya Al-Kindi, the first Ibadhi Imam of Hadhramawt and Yemen, in
the second century H, in his letter of commission to his Governor,
Abd Al-Rahman bin Muhammad issued the following directions:-
“We do not
block people’s way and murder them on sight without
inviting them first to realize the truth. But we invite
them to the truth. He who accepts it enjoys all the rights
that the Muslims enjoy, and is subject to all their obligations.
He who denies the truth and fights us, we fight him and
ask God to give us support against him”.
Abdullah
bin Yahya further writes:-
“This is
our policy. We do not punish the innocent for the guilty,
the good for the evil, the woman for the man, or the young for
the old. We do not slay people on sight without calling
them to the truth, and making it clear to them”. (p.34).
He
continues:-
“… …He
who fights us, we fight him back, and inspect his property
in order to return it to its owners ... ... No booty or captives
should be taken from the people of the Qiblah (i.e. Muslims), for they are not
like polytheists whose property is to be despoiled and their women and
children to be taken captives. But the people of Qiblah are
two parties of which one summons to what is right, holding
fast to it, and the other summons to injustice and persists in
it”. (p.34).
Dr. Amr further explains that the
above statements describe Ibadhi policy throughout their history,
whereas the policy of murdering opponents without previous warning was the
distinguishing mark of the Azraqis all times. It was also one of the main
issues which made the Ibadhis oppose the Azraqis and other extreme Kharijites
such as the Najdat and Sufriyah (p.28 – 30). And it
should be added that the murdering of opponents was not just the
distinguishing mark of the extreme Khawarij but also of the Umayyad. Abbasid and Fatimid rulers.
When Imam Abdullah bin Yahya Al Kindy
wrote that letter to his Govemor he must have had in mind the
atrocious activities of the notorious Al Hajjaj who had been the Governor of
Basra during the reign of Umayyad ruler Abdul Malik bin Marwan (65 – 86
H.) and lived up to the reign of his son Al Walid (86 – 96H.). According to
Jalaluddin Assuyuti, in the year 74 H, Al-Hajjaj went to Medina and harassed
its people there and looked down upon the surviving Sahabas like anas, Jabir
bin Abdullah and Sahl bin Sa’ad Al Sa’ady and sealed (stamped) them on their
necks and hands, thus humiliating them (p.190). Assuyuti further reports
(p.199) that among the prominent people who died during the reign of Al Walid
bin Abdul Malik was:-
سعيد بن
جبير (الذي مات) شهيدا, قتله الحجاج لعنة الله
“Said
bin Jubair (who died a martyr) was killed by Al Hajjaj, may Allah damn him”.
After the year 81 H. Al Hajjaj sent
several military expeditions to subjugate the people of Oman and, humiliate its
people. So Abdullah bin Yahya Al-Kindy did not want his governor to behave like
Al-Hajjaj, the tyrant. Those were the kind of rulers who were terrorizing the
Muslim population, and the Ibadhis were one of the groups which were fighting
against them to establish a just and true Islamic society.
Having said all that, it is worth
remembering what has been started before that although the ibadhis consider the
system of Imamate as essential in an Islamic society in order to implement
Islamic sharia, for the majority of Muslims the institution has for all intents
and purposes fallen into disuse. The subject has been brought up for discussion
simply to defend the Ibadhi stand on the system because other writers have
raised it without explaining the reasons behind it so that non-Ibadhi readers are
left wandering in the wild with biased views against the madh-hab.
Ian Skeet who stayed in Oman for two
years from 1966 to 1968 in his book, Muscat & Oman, The End of an Era, made
the following comments on the Ibadhi Imamate (p.92).
“Ibadhi
philosophy contains elements of democracy, although in practice it has turned
out conservatively traditional to the point of being reactionary. Ibadhis
believe for instance, in the election of the Imam by the whole community that
he should rule with the advice and consent of his people and that, if he
loses popular support, he may be deposed. Ibadhis differ from most other
Islamic communities, who have Imams or Caliphs within their system, in their
belief that it is not necessary to have an uninterrupted succession of rulers; if
there is no suitable candidate, then the office can remain vacant”.
The
history of Ibadhi Imams as summarized above in the Table of imams in this
chapter bears witness to Ian Skeet’s comments on the system.
>>>>>>
(To be Continued)
Reference:
Ibadhism, The Cinderella of Islam, by Soud H. Al Ma'awaly, pg: 50-56
No comments:
Post a Comment