His Attack on the Concept of Imamate

Azam Tariq’s attack on the concept of Imamate

Kr-hcy.com states:

REMEMBER THAT IMAMATE IS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH WITH THE SHIAS AND ACCORDING TO THEIR BELIEF IMAM IS SINLESS LIKE THE PROPHET AND APPOINTED AND COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH. HAZRAT HUSAYN IS ONE OF THEIR (SHIA) TWELVE IMAMS. AS SUCH THE SHIAS USE THE TITLE OF “IMAM” FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN ALTHOUGH IN THE SIGHT OF SUNNI MUSLIMS, HE IS A SAHABI AND NOT A “SINLESS IMAM” APPOINTED AND COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH. WE DO NOT SUSCRIBE TO THE SHIA BELIEF OF IMAMATE.

Whilst Ahl’ul Sunnah may not ascribe to the concept of Imamate within their pillars it still forms a part of their aqeedah, and their Ulema have confirmed this fact in their books of aqaid. Both Sunni and Shi’a schools hold Imamate as a part of aqeedah. Rather the difference lies over the method of appointment.

Quoting Mulla Ali Qari’s book “Sharh Fiqh Akbar”, which sets out the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa, this is what we read in the Chapter “Masala Nusbul Imamah” (Issue of appointment of the Imam):

“It is the majority opinion that there is a duty to appoint an Imam. But there is a difference, as to whether this is Allah’s duty or whether this is incumbent on the public. The belief in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah and Muttazalites is that the duty to appoint an Imam is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public. In accordance with this belief, there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar ‘He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyyah’. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet’s funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented”

Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi)

Maulana Abdul Aziz Fehrawi expands on this matter yet further:

“The appointment of the Imam is compulsory, its foundation is based on the fact that Rasulullah (s) said whoever dies in a state where he has failed to recognise the Imam of his time…. who dies at a time when the Imam is present and fails to recognise him, or dies when no Imam exists (nevertheless), his death shall be the death of jahiliyyah (one belonging to the time of ignorance). We have a hadith in Sahih Muslim by Ibn Umar – whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of jahiliyya. In the tradition of Muslim we find these precise words “Whoever dies in state, having not had bayya over his neck shall die the death of one belonging to the time of jahiliyyah”.

al Nabraas Sharh al aqaid page 512

Incidentally the last sentence of this discourse on the Sunni concept of Imamate also shows the real reason why the modern-day Nasibi ulema oppose Imam Husayn (as) being called as such by the majority of Sunnis. Since imamate is linked here to the bayya, by calling him Imam Husayn (as) the Nasibis are aware of the fact that most Sunnis accept Imam Husayn (as) as their imam and rightful khalifa and not Yazeed. This is a perplexing phenomenon of which the Nasibis are aware, for Husayn (as) was not appointed by man, and could thus only have been appointed by Allah, as the Shias claim their Imams are. Yet such was the vindication of truth that he achieved over a demonic khalifa that Husayn (as) is accepted as the rightful Imam in the spiritual sense by the Sunni majority, and the khalifa of the time Yazeed is cursed. The Shia Imam embodying pure goodness fought against the Sunni imam embodying pure evil. Yet the Sunni majority to this day side with the Shia Imam. This is intolerable to the Nawasib.

These two references from classical Hanafi scholars confirm that the Imamate is a part of aqeedah and that:

• Man has the duty to appoint the Imam
• Failure to recognise the Imam leads to the individual dying a kaafir.

If an issue as the difference between dying a Momin or a kaafir has nothing to do with aqeedah then what on earth does?

The Shi’a, as Azam Tariq has (for a change) correctly said, believe that the Imam is appointed by Allah (swt) and is infallible. We have proven this belief from the Qur’an and Sunni sources in the article ‘The creed of the Shi’a’ available on this site. It is the difference in the two approaches that came to loggerheads at Karbala: the khalifa appointed by man – imam Yazeed, versus Allah’s appointed Imam Husayn (as). And the Sunni majority supports the Shia imam against their own imam. Sometimes whole populations oppose their leader over an issue of conscience and an intuitive understanding, deep down, as to who is right and who is wrong. We see this in the phenomenon of peace demonstrations by western civilians against the various wars that western governments have fought in their name. It is the same thing here with the Sunni majority’s attitude to Imam Husayn (as) and Yazeed. Azam Tariq cannot stand this as it destructures the whole edifice of Sunni Islam. We would like to end this section with a simple question to our brothers from Ahl’ul Sunnah:

‘Supporting which Imam at that time meant the difference between dying the death of jahiliyyah and attaining salvation, Yazeed or Husayn?’.

Azam Tariq has implied above that he cannot stand the fact that the Sunni majority say it is Imam Husayn (as) that they choose.

We pray that this question, in light of our analysis of Yazeed’s character, leads our Ahl’ul Sunnah brothers to understand the serious flaw that exists in believing that man NOT Allah (swt) decides on Imamate over a people. We saw what happens when a man rules. Yazeed was one of several similarly degenerate khalifas. But he embodied these degenerate traits to an unrivalled degree, This is what man’s appointment of khalifa means. This is why the Nasibis come up with the most ridiculous lies to hide his reality, for it is so scathing for the Sunni notion of khilafat. Not only scathing because Yazeed was so low, it is ten times more scathing because good was represented by an Imam of the Shia.