A Muslim Scholar Explores the History of Islam

Ibn Khaldūn (1332–1406) was one of the most learned people of his day and is credited as being one of the first scholars of sociology, demography, economics, and the philosophy of history. Born in North Africa, he received a traditional Muslim education in the Qur’an. At age twenty he began a career working for Muslim rulers in North Africa and Spain. He later became a professor in Egypt and even negotiated with the Mongol general Timur. His Prolegomenon to History is considered the first book on the philosophy of history. In this passage, he describes the Shi’ite view of succession after the death of Muhammad. In Islam, Sunnis such as Ibn Khaldūn often consider Shi’ites a heretical group.

It should be known that, linguistically, Shī’ah means “companions and followers.” In the customary usage of old and modern jurists and speculative theologians, the word is used for the followers and descendants of ‘Alī. The tenet on which they all agree is that the imamate is not a general (public) interest to be delegated to the Muslim nation for consideration and appointment of a person to fill it. (To the Shī’ah,) it is a pillar and fundamental article of Islam. No prophet is permitted to neglect it or to delegate (the appointment of an imam) to the Muslim nation. It is incumbent upon him to appoint an imam for the (Muslims). The imam cannot commit sins either great or small. ‘Alī is the one whom Muḥammad appointed. The (Shī’ah) transmit texts (of traditions) in support of (this belief), which they interpret so as to suit their tenets. The authorities on the Sunnah and the transmitters of the religious law do not know these texts. Most of them are supposititious, or some of their transmitters are suspect, or their (true) interpretation is very different from the wicked interpretation that (the Shī’ah) give to them. . . .

Another tradition of this sort is the following statement of (Muḥammad): “Your best judge is ‘Alī.” Imamate means exclusively the activity of judging in accordance with the divine laws. (The activity of) judging and being a judge is (what is) meant by “the people in authority” whom God requires us to obey in the verse of the Qur’ān: “Obey God, and obey the Messenger and the people in authority among you.” Therefore, ‘Alī and no other was arbitrator in the question of the imamate on the day of the Saqīfah.10

Another statement of this sort is the following statement by (Muḥammad): “He who renders the oath of allegiance to me upon his life is my legatee and the man who will be in charge of this authority here after me.” Only ‘Alī rendered the oath of allegiance to him (in this manner).

An implied (argument), according to the Shī’ah, is the fact that the Prophet sent ‘Alī to recite the sū rat al-Barā’ah11 at the festival (in Mecca) when it had (just) been revealed. He first sent Abū Bakr with it. Then it was revealed to Muḥammad that “a man from you,” — or: “. . . from your people” — “should transmit it.” Therefore, he sent ‘Alī to transmit it. As they say, this proves that ‘Alī. was preferred (by Muḥammad). Furthermore, it is not known that Muḥammad ever preferred anyone to ‘Alī, while he preferred Usāmah b. Zayd and ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ to both Abū Bakr and ‘Umar12 during two different raids. According to (the Shī’ah), all these things prove that ‘Alī and no one else was appointed (by Muḥammad) to the caliphate. However, some of the statements quoted are little known, and others require an interpretation very different from that which (the Shī’ah) give.

11 sūrat al-Barā’ah: Ninth chapter in the Qur’an, issued during a time of war.

Some (Shī’ah) hold the opinion that these texts prove both the personal appointment of ‘Alī and the fact that the imamate is transmitted from him to his successors. They are the Imāmīyah. They renounce the two shaykhs (Abū Bakr and ‘Umar), because they did not give precedence to ‘Alī and did not render the oath of allegiance to him, as required by the texts quoted. The Imāmīyah do not take the imamates (of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar) seriously. But we do not want to bother with transmitting the slanderous things said about (Abū Bakr and ‘Umar) by (Imāmīyah) extremists. They are objectionable in our opinion and (should be) in theirs. . . .

The Shī’ah differ in opinion concerning the succession to the caliphate after ‘Alī. Some have it passed on among the descendants of Fātimah13 in succession, through testamentary determination (naṣṣ). We shall mention that later on. They (who believe this) are called the Imāmīyah, with reference to their statement that knowledge of the imam and the fact of his being appointed are an article of the faith. That is their fundamental tenet. . . .

Some (Shī’ah) consider as successors to the imamate, after ‘Alī — or after his two sons, Muḥammad’s grandsons (al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn), though they disagree in this respect — (al-Ḥasan’s and al-Ḥusayn’s) brother, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīyah, and then the latter’s children. They are the Kaysānīyah, so named after Kaysān, a client of (‘Alī’s).

There are many differences among these sects which we have omitted here for the sake of brevity.

There are also (Shī’ah) sects that are called “Extremists” (ghulāh). They transgress the bounds of reason and the faith of Islam when they speak of the divinity of the imams. They either assume that the imam is a human being with divine qualities, or they assume that he is God in human incarnation. This is a dogma of incarnation that agrees with the Christian tenets concerning Jesus. ‘Alī himself had these (Shī’ah) who said such things about him burned to death. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīyah was very angry with al-Mukhtār b. Abī ‘Ubayd when he learned that al-Mukhtār had suggested something along these lines concerning him. He cursed and renounced al-Mukhtār openly. Ja‘far aṣ-Ṣā diq did the same thing with people about whom he had learned something of the sort.

Some (Shī’ah) extremists say that the perfection the imam possesses is possessed by nobody else. When he dies, his spirit passes over to another imam, so that this perfection may be in him. This is the doctrine of metempsychosis.

Some extremists stop (w — q — f) with one of the imams and do not go on. (They stop with the imam) whom they consider (to have been) appointed as the (last one). They (who believe this) are the Wāqifīyah. Some of them say that the (last imam) is alive and did not die, but is removed from the eyes of the people. As a proof for that (theory), they adduce the problem of al-Khiḍr.14 . . .

The extremist Imāmīyah, in particular the Twelvers, hold a similar opinion. They think that the twelfth of their imams, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī, to whom they give the epithet of al-Mahdī, entered the cellar of their house in al-Ḥillah and was “removed” when he was imprisoned (there) with his mother. He has remained there “removed.” He will come forth at the end of time and will fill the earth with justice. The Twelver Shī’ah refer in this connection to the tradition found in the collection of at-Tirmidhī regarding the Mahdī. The Twelver Shī’ah are still expecting him to this day. Therefore, they call him “the Expected One.” Each night after the evening prayer, they bring a mount and stand at the entrance to the cellar where (the Mahdī is “removed”). They call his name and ask him to come forth openly. They do so until all the stars are out. Then, they disperse and postpone the matter to the following night. They have continued that custom to this time.

Some of the Wāqifīyah say that the imam who died will return to actual life in this world. They adduce as a proof (for the possibility of this assumption) the story of the Seven Sleepers, the one about the person who passed by a village, and the one about the murdered Israelite who was beaten with the bones of the cow that (his people) had been ordered to slaughter, all of them stories included in the Qur’ān. They further adduce similar wonders that occurred in the manner of (prophetical) miracles. However, it is not right to use those things as proof for anything except where they properly apply.

READING AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS