Ali's claim of Imamate

Reposted

---

Since you sent me those statements from the Imams (as) regrading the nature of Imam Ali's (as) appointment, how come he never used it and told Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) to claim that he had more right to it? Was it to keep unity within the ummah? Are the systems of Imamate and Caliphate two different systems of governance? We see that Prophets (as) are Imams, but not all Prophets (as) are rulers. Talut (as) was a ruler, but not an Imam. There is no doubt that Imam Ali (as) was the successor and Imam after the Prophet (s.a.w.), but does this equate to rulership? Perhaps this is where I may be getting a bit convoluted. JazakAllah brother for having patience and answering my questions.

Walakam as Salaam

---

Imam Ali’s (as) attitude towards the first three caliphs is well known. As to why he didn’t forward his claim to imamate, you should read about the circumstances that he encountered. The books of history testify to the fact that Abu Bakr and Umar actually sought to force their way into Muslim leadership. Umar took the soldiers of the tribe of Banu Aslam and went to the house of Faatima (as) in which were Ali, az-Zubayr, Ammar, and others. He demanded that Ali and co. come out to pledge allegiance threatening to burn the house down. When it was said to him that Faatima, al-Hasan and al-Hussein (as) were in the house, he declared “I don’t care.” Now, this was done knowing the ayat of the Qur’an {“I ask thee for no reward except for love for my kin”} and the numerous ahadith in which the Prophet, pbuh, declared that he is at war with whoever is at war with his Ahl al-Bayt, to hold fast to the Qur’an and Ahl al-Bayt, he is angry with whomever Faatima is angry with, and so forth. Despite the clear ayat of the Qur’aan and the numerous ahadith, they still saw fit to bombard the house and threaten to burn it with the Ahl al-Bayt inside! Do you think that such attitude would be submit after being reminded of Hadith al-Ghadeer, Hadith al-Manzila, etc.?! That is why the Zaydis maintain that ‘Ali did not pledge allegiance to the caliphs and if he did, it was done with the threat of force. Such pledge would be invalid anyway because according to Islamic Law, a pledge taken under duress is invalid. For this incident, please refer to the following books of history: Taarikh at-Tabari (which has been translated into English), Taarikh Ibn Athir, Ansaab al-Ashraf by al-Balaadhuri and Taarikh al-Ya’quubi.

According to the Nahj al-Balaagha, which Zaydis also hold to be authentic, Imam Ali (as) lamented the fact that he did not have supporters to fight for his right. He also stated that since many of the Muslims at that time were new to the faith, such civil war and bloodshed could annihilate the fledging community. Therefore, Imam Ali (as) wisely chose the path of patience.

Originally, Imamate and Caliphate were one system. Both terms refer to the leadership and succession of the Prophet, pbuh. The Prophet, pbuh, used the word caliph, mawla and wali to refer to ‘Ali (as). To my knowledge he never used ‘imam’ however, the word imam has come to denote leadership in Islamic Theology. The Prophet, pbuh, did use the term imam to refer to Imams al-Hasan and al-al-Hussein (as) in the well-known hadith ((These two are imams, whether sitting or standing. But their father is greater than them)). After Imam al-hasan was forced to relinquish the caliphate, he nevertheless remained ‘imam.’ As we explained in our book, ‘Imamate’ cannot be relinquished because one must fit all of the characteristics mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah, to be considered Imam.

Not all Prophets (as) were imams.

As to whether Imam Ali (as) was a ruler or imam, he was designated as the one who was to hold temporal and spiritual authority after the Prophet, pbuh, just as Harun (as) was to Musa (as). Even though he didn’t occupy the seat of caliphal authority for more than twenty years, this does not disqualify him from his designation as caliph, wali, mawla or imam. This is because, the Prophet, pbuh, designated him as such. Whether he occupied the temporal position immediately after the Prophet is immaterial. Similarly, Imam al-Hussein’s (as) failure to occupy the caliphate does not disqualify him as imam. This is because he was designated as such by the Prophet, pbuh.

Hope this clears matters up.

And Allah knows best!

IRS