نشریه امامت پژوهی
پیاپی 7 (پاییز 1391)

Imamate of the Infallible Leaders (PBUT) may be proved in two ways: according to the Holy Quran and through authentic Hadiths The Lovingkindness Verse and Hadiths quoted to interpret the verse clearly prove Imamate and universal wilayah of the Household (PBUT). The present writing discusses this verse and Hadiths quoted by Sunni Muhaddithun and presents its main points along four axes: 1- Household (who are the Household?), 2- relevant hadiths, 3- [disproving] suspicions made by the opponents, 4- implication of Imamate by the verse. The present writing studies the interpretation of the Lovingkindness on the basis of Sunni resources.

Intercession has been always of a certain sense in mentality of Muslim scholars in spite of differences between their schools and theological inclinations, and in this sense, there has been no obstacle to it in the otherworld. In the 14th Century (AH), in scientific society of the Egyptian Sunnis, Muhammad Abdoh said that intercession in the above sense cannot be realized in the otherworld, and Hadiths concerning intercession are ambiguous. He introduces a new sense for the intercession in the otherworld which is useful only for one who makes intercession. This new interpretation has been followed by some critiques made by some Muslim scholars. Since the above critiques concern the “impossibility” intended by Abdoh and no discussion has been made concerning ambiguity of Hadiths and his point that intercession is useful only for one who makes intercession, these two claims are, here, criticized on the basis of Hadiths in Sahih of Bukhari as the most authentic Sunni resource of Hadiths and conflict between Abdoh’s view and Hadiths in the above book will be shown.

The present article tries to show that no correspondence may be made between phenomenological approaches on the one hand and historicist approaches and positivist reports made of history on the other. In this way, it has made a case study of Imamate. The claim posed by Mircha Eliade that a consistent approach may be adopted has been studied and criticized as well.

Imamate is a Divine station which no human is able to know its essence and understand it. Some people, however, have some suspicions since they have not correctly known the idea of Imamate in Shi’i thinking. Such suspicions originate from wrong understanding of hadiths and verses on the one hand and the fact that they have compared this Divine station with human positions. One of such suspicions concerns function and the role played by democracy and counsel in appointing Imam. Proponents of these two theories have claimed that Imamate and democracy are not consistent- since they have confused the meaning of Imamate and government and adopted the same meaning for the two. For Imamate and government have been always manifestation of intervention and participation of people in political power. In the present article, the author will at first discuss democracy and counsel and their kinds; then analyzing the two, he will criticize them.

Appointment of Imam by God- the Exalted- and issuance of a stipulation for it by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is one of the challenging and controversial issues among Muslims. After explaining the verbal and technical meanings of stipulation (nas), the present article goes to explain and describe place of stipulation in appointment of Imam and validity or invalidity of other ways according to Islamic sects. Mu’tazalis have accepted the opinion of people of “dissolution and agreement” in appointment of Imam and stipulation made by the previous Imam (other than the Holy Prophet (PBUH)) to appoint new Imam. In addition to ways accepted by Mu’tazalis, people of hadith and Ash’aris have mentioned “force and constraint” as a way to appoint Imam. Imamis are of the opinion that the only legitimate way to appoint Imam is stipulation; and, to prove their opinion they appeal to rational and transmitted arguments.

Unlike what many people think, there is no single and inclusive approach to the scientific place of Infallible Imams (PBUT) adopted by Sunni scholars. Though the dominant approach adopted by many of them confirms the above idea. For example, the scientific place of Imam Jawad, Imam Hadi, and Imam 'Askari (PBUT) was for the first time, criticized by Fakhr Razi in the 6th Century and then Ibn Taymiyah Harrani Continued to criticize their scientific place. Mention has been made to this critical approach in few works such as 'Abaqat al-anwar; this approach, for whatever reason, has not be discussed in detail. In the present writing, this critical approach has been studied and attempts have been made to clarify its argumentative elements; and, without referring to written heritage of Imamis and even based on written heritage of Sunnis, it has been shown that arguments posed for this approach are not firm.

In the present writing, a section of Maktab dar Farayand Takamol (School in the Process of Evolution) will be discussed. The subject of this section is a historical analysis of “Shi’is’ opinion concerning necessity of armed revolt by Imams (PBUT)” and some aspects of “belief in Mahdism in the Shi’’i socity”; and, finally the impacts exerted by these points in evolution of “Shi’is’ Imamology” has been concluded (or indirectly induced). In the present writing, points such as non-correspondence between arguments posed and claims made in the book will be studied; through rereading pieces of evidence provided in the footnotes of a section of the book (pp. 33-43 concerning Imamate of Imam Muhammad Baqer (PBUH)), it will be shown that these pieces of evidence do not justify the claims posed in the book. Then, all methodological errors in putting the book in writing will be separately discussed.