Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Man who founded Pakistan, was a Twelver Shiite

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, known as the founder of Pakistan and revered as Quaid-e-Azam (the Great Leader), played a pivotal role in the creation of a separate nation for Muslims in South Asia. His political acumen, legal expertise, and steadfast leadership transformed him into a symbol of Muslim unity and nationalism. However, his religious identity has been a subject of debate and speculation, particularly concerning whether he was a Twelver Shia Muslim.

---

Early Life and Religious Background

Born as Mahomedali Jinnahbhai on December 25, 1876, in Karachi, Jinnah hailed from a Khoja family of Ismaili Shia Muslim origin. The Khojas are a sect within the Nizari Ismaili branch of Shia Islam. Jinnah's early religious affiliations were rooted in this community. However, in 1901, he distanced himself from the Ismaili sect, a move that has led to various interpretations of his subsequent religious identity. Wikipedia

---

Transition to Twelver Shia Islam

After his departure from the Ismaili community, Jinnah's religious practices and affiliations became more aligned with the Twelver Shia tradition. This transition is documented through personal accounts and legal records. For instance, in 1936, Jinnah married Ruttie Bai, a Parsi woman, in a ceremony conducted according to Shia rites, with Jinnah represented by a Shia scholar. Furthermore, during his funeral in 1948, Shia rituals were observed, and prominent Shia figures were present, indicating his adherence to Twelver Shia practices.

---

Public Stance on Sectarian Identity

Despite his personal religious practices, Jinnah maintained a public stance of religious neutrality. He often responded to questions about his sect by stating, "Was Muhammad the Prophet a Shia or a Sunni?" This rhetorical question underscored his belief in a unified Muslim identity that transcended sectarian divisions. His approach was reflective of his broader vision for Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims, irrespective of their sectarian affiliations.

---

Legal Proceedings and Religious Identity

The question of Jinnah's religious identity was brought to the forefront during legal proceedings after his death. In 1948, his sister, Fatima Jinnah, filed a petition in the Sindh High Court to have his will executed under Shia inheritance law, describing him as a "Shia Khoja Mohamedan." This affidavit was supported by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. However, in 1970, a legal challenge was raised by Hussain Ali Ganji Walji, who claimed Jinnah had converted to Sunni Islam. The court rejected this claim in 1976, effectively acknowledging Jinnah's Shia identity. Yet, in 1984, a high court bench reversed this decision, stating that Jinnah was "definitely not a Shia," suggesting he was Sunni. This legal back-and-forth reflects the complexities and ambiguities surrounding Jinnah's religious identity.

---

Jinnah's Legacy and Religious Identity

Regardless of his personal religious beliefs, Jinnah's legacy is characterized by his advocacy for a secular state where religious identity would not define citizenship or rights. His vision for Pakistan was one where Muslims of all sects could coexist peacefully, and where the state would not impose religious orthodoxy. This inclusive approach has been a cornerstone of Pakistan's founding principles.

---

Conclusion

Muhammad Ali Jinnah's religious identity, particularly his affiliation with Twelver Shia Islam, has been a topic of historical inquiry and debate. While personal and legal records suggest his alignment with the Twelver Shia tradition, Jinnah's public life was marked by a commitment to religious unity and secular governance. His ability to navigate and transcend sectarian divisions in both his personal and political life underscores his vision for a pluralistic and inclusive Pakistan.

What did Imam Malik Ibn Anas say about Shiites?

Imam Malik ibn Anas, a foundational figure in Islamic jurisprudence and the founder of the Maliki school of thought, is often regarded as a bridge between early Islamic scholarship and the later Sunni tradition. His views on various theological and jurisprudential matters have been subjects of extensive study. Among the areas of interest is his stance towards the Shiite community, particularly the followers of Imam Ali and his descendants.

Imam Malik's Relationship with Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq

One of the most notable aspects of Imam Malik's interactions with the Shiite community is his relationship with Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, the sixth Shia Imam. Historical records indicate that Imam Malik studied under Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq in Medina. Imam Malik is reported to have spoken highly of Imam Ja'far, describing him as "among the pious scholars who fear Allah" . This acknowledgment highlights a mutual respect between the two scholars, despite their differing theological orientations.

Furthermore, Imam Malik's Muwatta, one of the earliest and most respected collections of hadith and Islamic jurisprudence, includes narrations from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq. This inclusion signifies a recognition of Imam Ja'far's scholarly contributions and his standing within the broader Islamic scholarly community.

Imam Malik's Views on the Companions of the Prophet

Imam Malik's perspectives on the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also provide insight into his stance towards the Shiite community. It is documented that Imam Malik held the first three caliphs—Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman—in high regard, considering them to be the rightful successors of the Prophet. This view aligns with the Sunni tradition, which generally recognizes the legitimacy of these caliphs.

However, Imam Malik's emphasis on the companions did not extend to a blanket endorsement of all their actions. For instance, he reportedly criticized certain companions for their conduct during specific events, indicating a nuanced approach to their legacy. This balanced perspective suggests that while Imam Malik upheld the status of the companions, he was not uncritical of their actions, a stance that resonates with the Shiite emphasis on justice and accountability.

Imam Malik's Jurisprudential Approach

In his jurisprudential methodology, Imam Malik emphasized the practices of the people of Medina as a primary source of legal precedent. This approach was grounded in the belief that the practices of the Medinan community reflected the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions. While this methodology was widely accepted in Sunni jurisprudence, it sometimes led to differences with other Islamic traditions, including the Shiite school of thought, which places significant emphasis on the teachings and practices of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet's family).

Despite these differences, Imam Malik's jurisprudential works were studied and respected by scholars across the Islamic world, including those from the Shiite tradition. His emphasis on the importance of scholarly inquiry and adherence to the principles of Islamic law found common ground with the Shiite commitment to rigorous scholarship and the pursuit of justice.

Imam Malik's Legacy and the Shiite Perspective

From a Shiite perspective, Imam Malik is often viewed as a respected scholar who, despite theological differences, contributed significantly to Islamic jurisprudence. His recognition of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq's scholarship and his nuanced views on the companions of the Prophet are seen as indicative of a scholarly approach that valued knowledge and justice over sectarian divisions.

However, differences in theological beliefs, particularly regarding the succession of leadership after the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), remain points of divergence between the Sunni and Shiite traditions. While Imam Malik upheld the legitimacy of the first three caliphs, the Shiite tradition holds that leadership should have remained within the Prophet's family, specifically with Imam Ali and his descendants.

Conclusion

Imam Malik ibn Anas's views on the Shiite community reflect a complex interplay of respect, scholarly engagement, and theological divergence. His acknowledgment of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq's scholarship and his balanced perspectives on the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) indicate a commitment to knowledge and justice. While differences in theological beliefs persist, Imam Malik's legacy continues to be a subject of study and respect across both Sunni and Shiite traditions.

Fatawa of Muslim Scholars on Khomeini: A Critical Perspective

The legacy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the architect of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains a subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars worldwide. His political and theological innovations, particularly the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), have elicited a spectrum of responses—from staunch support within Iran to vehement opposition from various Islamic scholars and institutions globally. This article delves into the critical fatwas (Islamic legal opinions) issued by prominent Muslim scholars regarding Khomeini's ideologies and actions, examining the theological and political dimensions of their objections.

1. The Doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih

At the heart of Khomeini's political philosophy lies the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih, which posits that a qualified Islamic jurist should hold supreme authority over the state in the absence of the infallible Imam. Khomeini's assertion that this jurist could wield both religious and political power was revolutionary and controversial. Critics argue that this doctrine deviates from traditional Islamic governance, where political authority is not concentrated in the hands of a single jurist. The implementation of this theory led to the establishment of a theocratic regime in Iran, consolidating power under the Supreme Leader and sidelining other religious authorities.

2. Theological Controversies and Blasphemous Claims

Several of Khomeini's statements have been deemed blasphemous by his critics. Notably, he claimed that all prophets, including Prophet Muhammad, had failed to establish justice, a task he attributed to the awaited Mahdi. Such assertions challenge the fundamental Islamic belief in the infallibility and success of the prophets' missions. Additionally, Khomeini's elevation of the Shiite Imams above all angels and messengers contradicts mainstream Islamic teachings, which uphold the unique status of the prophets.

3. Fatwas Condemning Khomeini

In response to Khomeini's controversial views, numerous Islamic scholars issued fatwas condemning his ideologies:

• Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari: A leading Shiite cleric, Shariatmadari opposed Khomeini's doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih, advocating for a more consultative form of governance. His dissent led to significant political repression, including threats to his life and the suppression of his followers.

• Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim: He issued a fatwa declaring Khomeini's ideas as heretical and a deviation from authentic Islam, emphasizing the importance of adhering to traditional Islamic jurisprudence.

• International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS): This organization, representing Sunni scholars worldwide, has consistently criticized Khomeini's political theories, viewing them as innovations (bid'ah) that undermine the Islamic principle of consultation (shura) in governance.

4. The Fatwa Against Salman Rushdie

In 1989, Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of British author Salman Rushdie, following the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses, which Khomeini deemed blasphemous. This fatwa sparked widespread international condemnation and highlighted the tension between freedom of expression and religious sensitivities. While some clerics supported Khomeini's decree, many scholars, including Ayatollah Montazeri, Khomeini's former successor, criticized the fatwa, arguing that it contradicted Islamic principles of justice and due process.

5. Legacy and Ongoing Debates

The theological and political implications of Khomeini's doctrines continue to influence Islamic thought. His supporters view him as a reformer who sought to revive Islamic governance, while his detractors see him as a figure who introduced divisive innovations into Islamic tradition. The ongoing debates reflect the broader struggle within the Muslim world between traditionalist and reformist interpretations of Islam.

6. Conclusion

The fatwas condemning Khomeini's ideologies underscore a significant rift within the Muslim scholarly community regarding the intersection of religion and politics. While Khomeini's supporters argue that his theories offer a path to an Islamic state, critics contend that his innovations have led to theological deviations and political authoritarianism. The diverse perspectives on Khomeini's legacy highlight the complexities of interpreting Islamic principles in the modern world and the enduring quest for a governance model that aligns with Islamic values.

---

References:

• "Fataawaa of Muslim Scholars on Khomeini" – Islaam.org.uk

• "Fataawaa of Muslim Scholars on Khomeini" – SunnahOnline.com

• "Ayatollah Khomeini Never Read Salman Rushdie's Book" – The New Yorker

• "A Fundamental Fight" – Vanity Fair

• "Rushdie Fatwa" – Wired

• "Hussein-Ali Montazeri" – Wikipedia

• "Mohammad Sadeq Rouhani" – Wikipedia

• "Mohammad Fazel Lankarani" – Wikipedia

Imam Al-Albani's Stance on Ayatollah Khomeini: A Scholarly Perspective

Introduction

The discourse surrounding the religious standing of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has been a subject of significant debate among Islamic scholars. One prominent figure in this discussion is Imam Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, a renowned 20th-century Islamic scholar known for his contributions to hadith sciences and his firm stance on Islamic creed. Imam al-Albani's views on Khomeini's theological positions have been a point of contention, particularly concerning accusations of heresy and disbelief.

Imam Al-Albani's Critique of Khomeini

Imam al-Albani's critical perspective on Khomeini stems from the latter's theological assertions, which al-Albani deemed to be in direct contradiction with core Islamic principles. A significant point of contention was Khomeini's elevation of the Shiite Imams to a status superior to that of the Prophets and Messengers. In his book Islamic Government, Khomeini states:

"The Imam has a praised station, a supreme rank, and universal sovereignty to which authority and command submit all the atoms of this universe. And of the imperatives of our religion is that our Imams occupy a praised station which is accessible by neither a close angel nor a sent prophet..."

Imam al-Albani viewed such statements as clear indications of heresy, as they attribute divine-like qualities to human figures, thereby undermining the exclusive sovereignty of Allah.

Theological Implications of Khomeini's Views

Khomeini's assertion that the teachings of the Imams are equivalent to the teachings of the Quran further compounded the concerns raised by Imam al-Albani. He claimed that the teachings of the Imams are timeless and applicable to all generations, a stance that al-Albani and other scholars considered to be a form of idolatry. By equating human teachings with the divine revelation of the Quran, Khomeini's views were seen as a direct challenge to the fundamental tenet of monotheism in Islam.

Al-Albani's Fatwa on Khomeini

In response to these theological deviations, Imam al-Albani issued a fatwa declaring Khomeini's beliefs as kufr (disbelief). He argued that Khomeini's views were not merely doctrinal differences but represented a fundamental departure from the core beliefs of Islam. Imam al-Albani emphasized that such beliefs, if held sincerely, place an individual outside the fold of Islam, regardless of outward religious practices.

The Role of Takfir in Islamic Jurisprudence

The concept of takfir, declaring someone a disbeliever, is a serious matter in Islamic jurisprudence. Imam al-Albani's declaration was not made lightly; it was based on a thorough examination of Khomeini's writings and public statements. According to al-Albani, the act of declaring someone a disbeliever is justified when their beliefs contradict essential Islamic doctrines, such as the oneness of Allah and the finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH).

Scholarly Consensus and Divergence

While Imam al-Albani's fatwa reflects a stringent interpretation of Islamic creed, it is important to note that not all scholars agree with his assessment. Some argue that Khomeini's views were influenced by his Shiite background and should be understood within that context. Others contend that Khomeini's political actions and leadership should be evaluated separately from his theological beliefs.

Conclusion

Imam al-Albani's stance on Ayatollah Khomeini highlights the complexities and sensitivities involved in Islamic theological discourse. His fatwa serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the core principles of Islam and the necessity of scholarly vigilance in safeguarding the faith from beliefs that may lead to its distortion. As with all theological matters, it is crucial for scholars and followers alike to approach such issues with knowledge, understanding, and respect for the diversity of interpretations within the Islamic tradition.

What did Ibn Taimiyyah say about Shiites?

Among the towering figures of medieval Islamic scholarship, Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328 CE) stands out as a theologian, jurist, and polemicist whose writings have had a lasting influence on Islamic thought—particularly within Sunni Islam. While his contributions to Islamic jurisprudence, theology, and reform movements are widely recognized, one of the more controversial and discussed aspects of his legacy is his critique of Shiism.

Ibn Taymiyyah lived during a time of great political fragmentation and theological debate. His views on the Shiites, especially the Twelver (Imami) and Ismaili sects, were shaped by both doctrinal disagreement and the socio-political realities of his time. His writings, especially in works like Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, reflect a harsh polemic against Shiite doctrines and practices, which he saw as diverging significantly from what he believed to be the authentic teachings of Islam.

Historical Context: Sectarian Tensions

To understand Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance on the Shiites, it is important to appreciate the historical context in which he lived. The Islamic world in the 13th and 14th centuries was marked by Mongol invasions, the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad (1258), and the rise of various dynasties with differing religious affiliations. Shiite groups had established political authority in several regions, most notably the Fatimids (Ismailis) in Egypt and the Buyids (Twelvers) in Persia.

Additionally, Ibn Taymiyyah was deeply influenced by the political threat of the Mongol rulers, many of whom claimed to be Muslim but were seen by Ibn Taymiyyah as not implementing Islamic law properly. Some Shiite scholars and groups were aligned with or supported the Mongols, which further shaped his suspicion and condemnation of Shiism as both a religious and political deviation from Sunni orthodoxy.

Minhāj al-Sunnah: Ibn Taymiyyah’s Major Refutation of Shiism

Ibn Taymiyyah’s most comprehensive work on Shiism is Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (The Way of the Prophetic Sunnah), written as a rebuttal to the Shiite scholar al-‘Allāmah al-Hilli and his book Minhāj al-Karāmah. This treatise systematically critiques Shiite theology, history, and methodology. The work is extensive and touches on a wide range of issues, from the concept of Imamate to the status of the Prophet’s companions.

1. Rejection of the Imamate Doctrine

Central to Shiite theology is the belief in the Imamate—that leadership after the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was divinely designated for Ali ibn Abi Talib and his descendants. Ibn Taymiyyah strongly rejected this notion, arguing that it had no basis in the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah. He maintained that the leadership of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman was legitimate and rightly guided.

He saw the Shiite insistence on Ali’s exclusive right to rule as a political innovation (bid‘ah) that later evolved into a theological doctrine. To Ibn Taymiyyah, the early Muslim community accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr and the other caliphs through consensus (ijmā‘), which he considered a core principle of Sunni legitimacy.

2. Defense of the Companions

Ibn Taymiyyah vigorously defended the integrity and righteousness of the Sahabah (companions of the Prophet), whom Shiite narratives often criticized—especially figures like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Aisha. In contrast to Shiite traditions that portrayed some companions as usurpers or hypocrites, Ibn Taymiyyah held that all the companions should be honored and respected, citing numerous Qur'anic verses in their favor.

He considered reviling the companions to be not only a moral offense but also a theological error that undermined the transmission of Islamic knowledge and the foundations of Islamic law. In his view, without trust in the companions, the credibility of the Sunnah collapses.

3. Criticism of Shiite Hadith Sources

Ibn Taymiyyah was highly skeptical of Shiite hadith collections, such as those found in Al-Kāfī by Al-Kulayni. He criticized the methods of transmission and the reliability of narrators in Shiite chains of narration (isnāds). According to him, many of the hadiths used to support Shiite beliefs were either fabricated or weak, especially those that elevate the status of the Imams to near-prophetic levels.

In Minhāj al-Sunnah, he also challenges the Shiite notion of the Infallibility (‘Ismah) of the Imams, arguing that only the Prophet was divinely protected from error, and to claim such purity for others was both un-Islamic and unsupported by revelation.

4. Rituals and Innovations

Ibn Taymiyyah took issue with certain Shiite religious practices, such as the commemoration of Ashura, the self-flagellation rituals, and the visitation of tombs of the Imams. He considered many of these practices as bid‘ah (innovations) that had no basis in the early Islamic tradition and that promoted superstition and division among Muslims.

For Ibn Taymiyyah, tawhid (the oneness of God) was a fundamental pillar that he believed was compromised by excessive veneration of religious figures—even revered Imams like Ali, Hussain, or Ja‘far al-Sadiq.

Tone and Purpose of His Critique

It is important to note that while Ibn Taymiyyah’s tone is often polemical and harsh, particularly in Minhāj al-Sunnah, his goal was not merely to insult but to defend what he saw as authentic Islam. He believed that Shiism had introduced foreign elements into Islam, influenced by Persian, philosophical, and sometimes even heretical sources. He saw his work as a religious and intellectual defense of Sunni orthodoxy.

That said, his writings have been used—sometimes selectively—by later polemicists and extremist groups to justify sectarian hostility. Modern scholars caution that while Ibn Taymiyyah was undoubtedly critical of Shiite doctrines, his views must be situated within the intellectual and political context of his time rather than used to fuel contemporary conflicts.

Modern Legacy and Controversy

Ibn Taymiyyah’s critique of Shiism has had a long afterlife. His works were revived and popularized by later Islamic reformers such as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and have influenced Salafi interpretations of Islam. His rejection of Shiite theology has been cited in both scholarly debates and sectarian polemics, particularly in regions where Sunni-Shiite tensions are high.

However, many modern scholars, both Sunni and Shiite, have called for greater inter-sectarian understanding and a more nuanced reading of historical figures like Ibn Taymiyyah. While he remains a deeply respected figure in Sunni thought, there is recognition that repeating medieval polemics in the modern age without context can exacerbate division rather than promote clarity or reform.

Conclusion: A Contested Legacy

Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings on Shiites reflect his deep commitment to what he saw as the purity and unity of Islamic belief and practice. His critiques were grounded in theological and historical arguments and shaped by the socio-political pressures of his time. While his works remain influential and are studied widely across the Muslim world, they also continue to spark debate—both for their intellectual rigor and for their role in sectarian discourse.

To truly understand Ibn Taymiyyah’s legacy on this subject is to engage not only with his criticisms but also with the historical forces that drove them—and to reflect on how those ideas are interpreted today.

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and His View of Shiites as Non-Muslims

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi (994–1064 CE), a prominent Andalusian Muslim scholar, is a significant figure in Islamic thought. Known for his contributions to jurisprudence (fiqh), theology (kalam), and hadith studies, Ibn Hazm’s work has been influential across many areas of Islamic scholarship. One of his more controversial stances was his opinion on the Shi'a sect within Islam, specifically his assertion that Shiites, or the followers of the Shi’a branch of Islam, were not true Muslims. This view, which he articulated in his works, particularly Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal (The Book of the Division of the Sects, Opinions, and Heresies), has sparked intense debates among scholars and remains a point of contention in the history of Islamic thought.

Ibn Hazm’s arguments regarding the Shi'a are rooted in his interpretation of Islamic orthodoxy and his strict approach to religious practices and beliefs. To understand why he considered Shiites to be outside the fold of Islam, it is essential to explore the historical context, his theological methodology, and his reasoning behind such a contentious stance.

The Historical Context of Ibn Hazm’s Era

Ibn Hazm lived during a period of significant political and theological fragmentation within the Islamic world. Spain, or Al-Andalus, where he was based, was under the rule of the Umayyads, a dynasty that had seen its power wane and was eventually replaced by smaller taifa kingdoms. The broader Muslim world was also experiencing major divisions, particularly between the Sunni and Shi’a sects.

The Shi'a and Sunni split has its origins in the early history of Islam, beginning with the dispute over the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad after his death in 632 CE. Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet’s companion, Abu Bakr, was the rightful successor, whereas Shi'a Muslims argue that leadership should have passed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. This theological and political disagreement led to the formation of two distinct sects, with Shi’a Islam emphasizing the unique authority of the Prophet’s family, known as the Ahl al-Bayt, and their role in interpreting the divine law.

By Ibn Hazm’s time, the divide between Sunni and Shi’a had deepened, and various sects within both Sunni and Shi’a communities had emerged. In Al-Andalus, Sunni orthodoxy was dominant, and Shi’a communities were often seen as heretical or even subversive by some Sunni scholars. This division was not just a theological dispute; it also had political ramifications, with the Shi’a often associated with rival dynasties or movements that challenged Sunni authority.

Ibn Hazm’s Methodology: Literalism and Textual Authority

Ibn Hazm is often regarded as one of the most prominent proponents of the Zahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, which advocates for a literal and strict interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith (the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad). Unlike other Sunni schools of thought, the Zahiri school rejects the use of qiyas (analogy) and istihsan (juridical preference) in favor of a more literalist approach to Islamic law.

Ibn Hazm’s textual literalism extended to his understanding of Islamic creed (aqeedah) as well. He believed that the most reliable way to understand Islam was to adhere closely to the texts of the Qur'an and Hadith, while rejecting any innovations (bid'ah) that were not explicitly supported by these sources. This approach led him to take a hardline stance on many theological issues, including the legitimacy of Shi’a beliefs.

In his work Al-Fisal, Ibn Hazm categorizes different sects and heresies that emerged in the Islamic world, and he devotes significant attention to the Shi’a. He criticized their beliefs, accusing them of distorting the true teachings of Islam, and argued that their views were not in accordance with the Qur'an and Hadith. In his view, the Shi’a made several theological innovations that placed them outside the boundaries of Islam as defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet).

Ibn Hazm’s Critique of Shi’ism

One of Ibn Hazm’s main criticisms of the Shi’a was their belief in the divine appointment of Ali and his descendants as the rightful leaders of the Muslim community. The Shi’a claim that the Prophet Muhammad explicitly designated Ali as his successor at Ghadir Khumm, a controversial event that is interpreted differently by Sunnis and Shi’as. Ibn Hazm rejected this interpretation, arguing that there was no clear textual evidence from the Qur'an or Hadith to support the idea that the Prophet Muhammad intended Ali to be his successor. According to Ibn Hazm, such beliefs were a clear deviation from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and therefore, he saw them as an innovation that invalidated the Shi’a as true Muslims.

Furthermore, Ibn Hazm disagreed with the Shi’a view of the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet). The Shi’a emphasize the special, divinely ordained status of the Prophet’s family, particularly Ali, his wife Fatimah, and their descendants. Ibn Hazm, however, did not accept this elevation of the Ahl al-Bayt and believed that such beliefs were an exaggeration. For Ibn Hazm, the Qur'an does not grant any special, exclusive status to the family of the Prophet, and he considered the Shi’a veneration of the Ahl al-Bayt to be a form of innovation and deviation from true Islamic practice.

Ibn Hazm also criticized the Shi’a’s belief in the concept of Imamate, which holds that the Imam, or leader, must be divinely appointed and infallible. The Shi’a believe that the Imam is not just a political leader but also a religious guide who has the authority to interpret the Qur'an and Hadith. Ibn Hazm rejected the idea of an infallible Imam, arguing that it was incompatible with the teachings of Islam. He emphasized the principle that no human being, regardless of their lineage or status, could possess such infallibility. In his view, the notion of an infallible Imam was an innovation that had no basis in the Qur'an or the Sunnah.

Ibn Hazm’s Conclusion: Shiites as Non-Muslims

In light of his theological criticisms, Ibn Hazm concluded that the Shi’a were not true Muslims. He argued that their beliefs diverged so significantly from the orthodox Sunni understanding of Islam that they could not be considered part of the same religious community. According to Ibn Hazm, the Shi’a had introduced heretical ideas that were contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and thus, they were outside the fold of Islam.

Ibn Hazm’s position was not universally accepted by all Sunni scholars. While his views on the Shi’a were harsh, other scholars, including those from the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of Sunni theology, were more open to recognizing the Shi’a as fellow Muslims, despite their theological differences. In the centuries following Ibn Hazm’s death, debates over the status of the Shi’a continued, with some scholars adopting a more ecumenical approach, while others maintained a hardline stance similar to Ibn Hazm’s.

The Legacy of Ibn Hazm’s View on Shiism

Ibn Hazm’s view of the Shi’a as non-Muslims remains a subject of significant debate in Islamic scholarship. His strict interpretation of Islamic orthodoxy has influenced many Sunni scholars, particularly those who adhere to the Zahiri school. However, his views also sparked counter-arguments from scholars who advocated for a more inclusive approach to the diverse sects within Islam.

The question of whether the Shi’a are considered non-Muslim is still a point of contention in some Islamic communities, especially in the modern political context. In some parts of the Muslim world, particularly in Sunni-majority countries, Ibn Hazm’s harsh critique of the Shi’a has had lasting repercussions, contributing to sectarian tensions. However, in other parts of the world, particularly in Shi’a-majority countries such as Iran, the theological and political divide remains significant, but the idea of excluding the Shi’a from the broader Muslim community has become less common.

Conclusion

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi’s view that Shiites were not true Muslims reflects his strict interpretation of Islamic orthodoxy and his commitment to a literalist reading of the Qur'an and Hadith. His criticism of Shi’a beliefs, particularly regarding the Imamate, the Ahl al-Bayt, and the succession of Ali, marked a major point of theological divergence between Sunni and Shi’a Islam. While his views have been influential in certain Sunni circles, they also sparked significant debate and remain a contentious issue in Islamic theology. Understanding Ibn Hazm’s position on the Shi’a provides important insight into the historical and theological divisions within Islam, divisions that continue to shape the Muslim world today.

Khutoot Al Areedah: An Exposition and Refutation of the Sources of Shi'ism by Muhibbudin Al-Khatib

In the history of Islamic thought, the intellectual debates between Sunni and Shia scholars have been extensive, with both sects having their respective interpretations of Islamic doctrine, history, and practice. One notable contribution to the Sunni-Shia discourse is Khutoot Al-Areedah (translated as “The Lines of Clarity” or “The Clear Lines”), a significant work written by the Sunni scholar Muhibbudin Al-Khatib. This book stands as a critical examination and refutation of the sources and foundations of Shia Islam, particularly focusing on the doctrinal and historical claims made by Shia scholars and proponents of the Shia school of thought.

Al-Khatib’s work reflects a deep engagement with the religious and theological disputes between Sunni and Shia Islam, aiming to offer a rebuttal to what he viewed as problematic or divergent interpretations and practices within Shiaism. Khutoot Al-Areedah is part of a larger body of work by Sunni scholars that seeks to clarify the Sunni position while critiquing the positions of their Shia counterparts. In this article, we will provide a comprehensive exposition of Al-Khatib’s Khutoot Al-Areedah, highlighting its key arguments, its intellectual context, and the methods used by Al-Khatib to challenge the foundations of Shia thought.

Muhibbudin Al-Khatib: An Introduction

Muhibbudin Al-Khatib was a renowned Islamic scholar and theologian from the 12th century who made significant contributions to Islamic jurisprudence, theology, and exegesis. His work as a scholar involved the defense of Sunni orthodoxy against various theological and sectarian challenges, including those posed by Shia Islam. Al-Khatib’s approach in his works is typically characterized by a logical, structured argumentation that is rooted in traditional Sunni theology, with an emphasis on the classical Sunni understanding of the Prophet Muhammad's family, the caliphate, and other religious practices.

Al-Khatib’s critique of Shia Islam, as reflected in Khutoot Al-Areedah, focuses on refuting the theological and historical claims made by Shia scholars. The book is considered a significant part of the Sunni intellectual tradition, especially in the context of the ongoing debates over the legitimacy of Shia beliefs regarding the succession to the Prophet Muhammad, the concept of Imamate, and the authority of the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet).

The Context of Khutoot Al-Areedah

Khutoot Al-Areedah was written at a time when sectarian divisions within Islam were already well-established. The division between Sunnis and Shias had emerged early in Islamic history, primarily due to disagreements over the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad after his death. Sunnis and Shias differed in their understanding of the caliphate and leadership, with Sunnis believing in the legitimacy of the first four caliphs and Shias asserting that Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, was the rightful successor.

This early split laid the groundwork for theological differences that would continue to shape Islamic discourse for centuries. Over time, the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam became more pronounced, with the Shia school of thought developing its distinct doctrines, including the belief in the divinely designated leadership of the Imams and the importance of the family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt).

In this context, Al-Khatib’s Khutoot Al-Areedah can be seen as part of a broader intellectual effort to reinforce Sunni orthodoxy and counter what he perceived as the theological and historical distortions within Shia thought. The work provides a comprehensive response to the major issues at the heart of the Sunni-Shia divide, including the legitimacy of the Imamate, the status of Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, and the role of religious authority in Islam.

Key Arguments and Critiques in Khutoot Al-Areedah

1. The Question of Leadership: The Caliphate versus the Imamate

At the core of the Sunni-Shia divide is the question of who should have succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as the leader of the Muslim community. Sunnis believe that the Prophet’s companions, starting with Abu Bakr, the first caliph, were rightfully chosen to lead the Muslim ummah (community) after his death. Shias, on the other hand, hold that leadership should have passed directly to Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, based on divine designation.

Al-Khatib’s Khutoot Al-Areedah addresses this dispute by emphasizing the Sunni perspective on the caliphate. He argues that there is no clear, unambiguous evidence from the Qur'an or the sayings of the Prophet (Hadith) that explicitly designates Ali as the sole successor. He also criticizes the Shia claim that the Prophet’s family (Ahl al-Bayt) was divinely appointed to lead the Muslim community, arguing that such a claim lacks a solid foundation in Islamic texts. Al-Khatib stresses that the Prophet’s companions were divinely inspired to choose the caliphs through consensus (Ijma‘), which is a core principle in Sunni Islamic political theory.

Al-Khatib also critiques the Shia notion of the Imamate, which holds that the Imams, as divinely appointed leaders, possess infallibility and are spiritual and political guides for the Muslim community. According to Al-Khatib, this idea of an infallible leadership after the Prophet is an innovation that was not part of the early Islamic tradition. He argues that the notion of a divinely appointed, infallible leader goes against the foundational principles of Islamic governance as understood by the Prophet and his companions.

2. The Status of Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt

Shia Islam places great emphasis on the sanctity and authority of Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, the family of the Prophet. The Shia belief holds that the family of the Prophet is spiritually superior to others and that they possess divine knowledge and authority.

Al-Khatib acknowledges the high status of the Ahl al-Bayt, but he argues that the veneration of Ali and his family should not be taken to the extreme of elevating them to a position of divinity or infallibility. In Khutoot Al-Areedah, Al-Khatib asserts that while Ali was a revered figure and a close companion of the Prophet, the notion that he was divinely chosen to be the leader of the Muslim community is not supported by Islamic tradition. He emphasizes that the Prophet's teachings, particularly in the Hadith, do not support the Shia view that the Ahl al-Bayt should hold a special, exclusive position of leadership within the Muslim community.

3. The Doctrine of Mahdism and the Hidden Imam

Another central Shia belief critiqued by Al-Khatib is the doctrine of the Mahdi, the prophesied savior who is expected to return at the end of times to establish justice and righteousness. In Shia Islam, the Mahdi is believed to be the twelfth Imam, who is currently in occultation and will one day reappear.

Al-Khatib challenges this belief in the occultation and return of the Imam, arguing that such a concept is an unsubstantiated innovation that departs from mainstream Islamic teachings. He contends that there is no authentic evidence in the Qur'an or Hadith to support the idea of a hidden Imam, and he views it as a theological construct introduced by later Shia scholars.

Methodology and Rhetorical Approach

Al-Khatib’s methodology in Khutoot Al-Areedah is rooted in traditional Sunni scholarship. He uses the Qur'an, Hadith, and the consensus of early Islamic scholars as his primary sources of authority. Al-Khatib employs a rational and systematic approach, often engaging with Shia texts and refuting their interpretations by presenting alternative readings of the same sources. He also draws on historical narratives to support his critique of the Shia conception of early Islamic leadership.

The rhetorical approach in the book is one of intellectual engagement rather than polemicism. Al-Khatib is careful to engage with the Shia positions directly, analyzing their theological foundations and highlighting what he sees as flaws in their reasoning. His work is an attempt to clarify the Sunni understanding of Islam and its traditions while challenging what he believes to be misinterpretations and innovations within Shia thought.

Conclusion

Khutoot Al-Areedah by Muhibbudin Al-Khatib is a significant contribution to the intellectual history of Sunni-Shia debates. Through this work, Al-Khatib seeks to defend Sunni orthodoxy by critically examining and refuting key aspects of Shia theology, particularly the concepts of the Imamate, the divine status of the Ahl al-Bayt, and the doctrine of the Mahdi. While the work is primarily aimed at a Sunni audience, it also serves as an important source for understanding the historical and theological foundations of the Sunni-Shia divide. Al-Khatib’s rational, systematic approach reflects the intellectual rigor of traditional Sunni scholarship and offers valuable insights into the complex theological landscape of early Islamic history.

Resource:

Khutoot Al Areedah: An Exposition and Refutation of the Sources of Shi'ism by Muhibbudin Al-Khatib

Khomeinism: A Critical Examination by Said Hawaa

Khomeinism is a term that refers to the ideological and political thought associated with the leadership and legacy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a distinctive and influential framework that blends Shi’a Islam with political governance, shaping not only Iran's domestic policies but also its stance on international issues. Khomeinism is also closely linked to the rise of theocratic rule in Iran and the broader ideological revolution that occurred in 1979 with the overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy. While Khomeinism is widely acknowledged for its role in reshaping Iran, its impact extends to the broader Muslim world and even beyond, influencing various movements that seek to combine religion with political authority.

In this article, we will explore Said Hawaa's analysis of Khomeinism, a critical perspective that delves into the origins, concepts, and ramifications of this political and religious ideology. Through Hawaa's lens, we gain an understanding of Khomeinism's theological underpinnings, its real-world applications, and the challenges it presents to political and religious dynamics both within Iran and globally.

The Rise of Khomeinism

Before exploring the nuances of Khomeinism itself, it is essential to understand the context in which it emerged. Ayatollah Khomeini’s ideological framework grew out of his opposition to the Pahlavi monarchy and the secularization policies implemented by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah’s regime sought to modernize Iran along Western lines, sidelining Islamic tradition and leading to widespread resentment among many Iranians, particularly the religious establishment.

Khomeini’s critique of the Shah and his support for a revolution based on Islamic principles were central to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which resulted in the toppling of the monarchy and the establishment of an Islamic Republic. At the heart of Khomeini’s ideology was the concept of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which argued for the central role of an Islamic scholar or jurist in governing society.

For Khomeini, the authority of the Islamic jurist was rooted in the teachings of Shi’a Islam, particularly the concept of divine guidance and the necessity of an Islamic government to ensure justice, morality, and spiritual leadership. His concept of Velayat-e Faqih challenged the notion of a separation between religion and politics and became the cornerstone of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Said Hawaa's Perspective on Khomeinism

Said Hawaa, a scholar and critic of the intersection of religion and politics, provides a critical examination of Khomeinism in his writings. Hawaa’s analysis is focused on both the theoretical underpinnings and the practical consequences of Khomeini’s ideology, especially in terms of its impact on governance, the role of religion in politics, and its broader ideological appeal.

Hawaa identifies several key elements that characterize Khomeinism:

1. The Concept of Islamic Governance

Central to Khomeinism is the idea that an Islamic government, led by religious scholars, is not only desirable but necessary for the well-being of society. This theory of governance, embodied in the concept of Velayat-e Faqih, asserts that since God’s law (Shari’a) is the ultimate guiding principle for human conduct, it follows that the interpretation and enforcement of this law must be under the authority of a jurist or faqih who is equipped with the religious and intellectual training to apply it.

While Khomeini’s call for an Islamic government was rooted in Shi’a theology, Hawaa argues that the concept of Velayat-e Faqih is inherently totalitarian. By granting ultimate political power to the religious leader or jurist, it reduces the role of other political actors, including secular institutions and the public, in determining the direction of the country. Hawaa suggests that the system envisioned by Khomeini undermines the possibility of democratic governance and individual freedoms, creating a model of governance where religious authority dominates every facet of political life.

2. The Role of the Clergy

Khomeinism is also marked by the powerful role of the clergy in the governance of Iran. Under Khomeini’s vision, the clerics are not just spiritual leaders but also political authorities who govern in the name of Islam. This is in stark contrast to the secularization efforts of previous Iranian regimes, which sought to separate religious authority from the state.

Hawaa points out that the fusion of religious and political power in Khomeinism leads to a system where dissent, both political and religious, is stifled. The clergy, as the ruling class, are not only responsible for interpreting Islamic law but also for enforcing it. In such a system, Hawaa argues, there is little room for pluralism or competing interpretations of Islam. Those who challenge the state’s religious interpretation of Shari’a are often marginalized, imprisoned, or executed.

3. Revolutionary Zeal and the Idea of Martyrdom

Khomeinism places great emphasis on revolutionary zeal, which Hawaa interprets as an attempt to mobilize the masses in support of an authoritarian regime. For Khomeini, revolution was not just about political change but about reasserting the Islamic values that had been lost under Western influence. The 1979 revolution was presented not only as a political victory but as a moral and spiritual triumph, one that would bring Iran back into alignment with Islamic teachings.

Central to this revolutionary fervor is the notion of martyrdom, which plays a significant role in Khomeinism. In the Khomeini-led regime, the idea of sacrifice for the cause of Islam was exalted, and martyrdom became a central theme in political mobilization. Hawaa critiques this focus on martyrdom, arguing that it encourages the glorification of violence and the suppression of dissent. By framing political and social resistance in terms of religious duty and martyrdom, Khomeinism places extraordinary pressure on individuals to conform to state policies and ideologies.

4. Anti-Western Sentiment and the Crusade Against Secularism

One of the defining features of Khomeinism is its virulent anti-Western sentiment. Khomeini presented the West, particularly the United States, as the principal enemy of Islam and a corrupting influence on the Muslim world. This anti-Western rhetoric played a crucial role in shaping the identity of the Islamic Republic of Iran and was used to justify the revolutionary actions of the new regime, including the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Hawaa critiques Khomeinism’s rigid opposition to Western values, arguing that it creates an atmosphere of intellectual stagnation and inhibits constructive engagement with global political and economic developments. While Hawaa acknowledges the importance of resisting colonialism and imperialism, he warns that the uncompromising stance taken by Khomeini towards the West also isolates Iran from the international community, limiting opportunities for progress and collaboration.

5. The Legacy of Khomeinism

Khomeinism has had lasting effects on Iran and the broader Muslim world. Under Khomeini, Iran became the model for theocratic governance, and the principles of Velayat-e Faqih have continued to guide the country’s political system. Theocratic governance in Iran has led to numerous challenges, including tensions between religious authorities and secularists, human rights abuses, and political repression.

However, Khomeinism’s impact has not been confined to Iran. The idea of an Islamic government rooted in religious law has influenced various movements across the Middle East and North Africa, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. These groups, while differing in their specific interpretations of Khomeinism, share a commitment to the idea of an Islamic state and often adopt similar methods of political and military resistance against perceived enemies of Islam.

Conclusion: A Complex and Controversial Ideology

Said Hawaa’s critical analysis of Khomeinism reveals the complexities and contradictions within Khomeini’s vision of Islamic governance. While Khomeinism was a revolutionary ideology that sought to return Iran to its religious roots and resist Western hegemony, it has also been a source of significant political and social challenges. The system that Khomeini established in Iran—marked by the dominance of the clergy, authoritarian governance, and the suppression of dissent—remains highly controversial.

Hawaa’s critique offers a sobering perspective on the implications of Khomeinism, emphasizing the authoritarian tendencies that arise when religious authority is conflated with political power. As Iran continues to navigate its path in the 21st century, the legacy of Khomeinism remains a powerful and divisive force, shaping not only Iranian society but also the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

The Twelth Imam of the Shiite Muslims is Jewish Matrilineally

The Twelfth Imam, also known as Muhammad al-Mahdi in Shia Islam, is one of the most fascinating and enigmatic figures in religious and eschatological discourse. His prophesied role as the savior of humanity and the restorer of justice has inspired centuries of devotion, speculation, and scholarship. Beyond his theological significance, the intricate and multicultural genealogy attributed to him offers a profound narrative that ties together some of the most significant civilizations and religious traditions in human history. Let us explore this remarkable character—his lineage and the broader implications of his heritage—to better understand how he might resonate as a unifying figure across religious and cultural divides.

The Maternal Lineage: Jewish and Roman Roots

According to Shia tradition, the mother of the Twelfth Imam was Narjis (or Nargis) Khatun, a figure of considerable intrigue and mystery. Some accounts describe her as a Roman princess, tracing her paternal lineage to the Byzantine imperial family, possibly even to a Roman emperor. This connection symbolizes a bridge to the Greco-Roman world, a civilization foundational to Western culture and thought. Additionally, an even more striking claim emerges in certain Islamic traditions that Narjis was maternally descended from Saint Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus Christ and a foundational figure in Christianity.

If this maternal descent is accepted, the Twelfth Imam can be regarded as having Jewish ancestry through Narjis. In Jewish tradition, one’s Jewish identity is matrilineal; that is, it is determined by the mother. This criterion would make the Twelfth Imam Jewish under rabbinical law, even if he himself does not adhere to the Jewish faith. Judaism holds that a person retains their Jewish identity regardless of their personal beliefs or religious practices. This connection is deeply significant, as it could situate the Twelfth Imam as a figure of interest within Jewish messianic expectations.

Moreover, the Roman link through Narjis’ paternal ancestry adds another dimension. Rome’s profound historical and spiritual influence—as the seat of both imperial power and later, the center of Western Christianity—imbues this lineage with symbolic weight. In Narjis, we find an intersection of Jewish, Christian, and Roman identities, creating a unique maternal heritage for the Twelfth Imam.

The Paternal Lineage: Arab and Persian Nobility

On his father’s side, the Twelfth Imam’s lineage is rooted in the family of the Prophet Muhammad. His father, Hasan al-Askari, was the eleventh Shia Imam and a direct descendant of the Prophet through Imam Hussein. This connection places the Twelfth Imam firmly within the Arab and Islamic tradition. The Prophet Muhammad’s family, known as the Ahl al-Bayt, holds a central position in Islamic theology, particularly in Shia Islam, where they are venerated as exemplars of piety and leadership.

Adding to this illustrious heritage is the reported marriage of Imam Hussein to Shahrbanu, a daughter of Yazdegerd III, the last emperor of the Sassanid Persian dynasty. This union symbolically and genealogically unites the Arab and Persian worlds, two civilizations with deep historical and cultural ties but also a history of rivalry. Through this paternal lineage, the Twelfth Imam embodies a synthesis of Arab and Persian identities, standing as a bridge between these two great cultures.

A Genealogical Convergence of Civilizations

The Twelfth Imam’s ancestry thus represents a remarkable convergence of four major civilizations and religious traditions: Jewish, Roman, Arab, and Persian. Each of these lineages carries profound symbolic significance:

1. Jewish Heritage: Through his maternal lineage, the Twelfth Imam can be seen as connected to the Jewish tradition. This connection raises the question of whether he could be seen as the Moshiach (Messiah) awaited in Judaism, a figure prophesied to restore Israel and bring about an era of global peace.

2. Roman Heritage: The Roman lineage through Narjis ties the Twelfth Imam to Western civilization and Christianity. This connection invites speculation on whether he might resonate with Christian expectations of the Second Coming of Christ.

3. Arab Heritage: His paternal descent from the Prophet Muhammad situates him as a central figure in Islamic eschatology. In Shia Islam, he is the Mahdi, the guided one who will emerge to establish justice and equity on earth.

4. Persian Heritage: The Persian lineage through Shahrbanu connects the Twelfth Imam to Zoroastrianism and its messianic figure, the Saoshyant, who is prophesied to bring about the final renovation of the world.

A Universal Savior?

Given this unique ancestral composition, the Twelfth Imam stands as a figure of profound potential for unity across religious and cultural boundaries. His Jewish heritage could make him a point of interest for Jews awaiting the Moshiach. His Roman lineage connects him to the heart of Western civilization and Christianity, where the anticipation of the return of Christ remains central. His Arab and Persian heritage solidify his role in Islamic and Zoroastrian eschatology, respectively.

This convergence of identities raises an intriguing question: Could the Twelfth Imam simultaneously claim the roles of Moshiach, Christ, and Saoshyant? Each of these figures is associated with the restoration of justice, peace, and divine order, albeit within their respective religious frameworks. If the Twelfth Imam were to present himself as fulfilling these roles, he could potentially serve as a unifying figure, transcending the historical and theological divides that separate these traditions.

Theological and Eschatological Implications

The possibility of the Twelfth Imam being recognized across multiple religious traditions raises complex theological questions. For instance, how would his claims be received by adherents of these faiths, each of which has its own distinct expectations for their savior figure? Could such a figure reconcile the doctrinal differences between these religions, or would his claims exacerbate tensions?

In Judaism, the Messiah is expected to be a human leader who restores Israel and brings peace to the world. Christianity’s Christ is both divine and human, whose Second Coming heralds the final judgment and the establishment of God’s kingdom. In Islam, the Mahdi is a divinely guided leader who restores justice but operates within an Islamic framework. Zoroastrianism’s Saoshyant is a world-renovator who leads humanity in the final battle against evil. Reconciling these differing eschatological visions would require a figure of extraordinary charisma and wisdom.

Conclusion

The Twelfth Imam’s genealogical heritage positions him as a unique and compelling figure in the annals of religious and cultural history. His maternal descent from Jewish and Roman lineages, combined with his paternal Arab and Persian ancestry, creates a symbolic union of some of the most influential civilizations and traditions. This extraordinary lineage, coupled with his prophesied role as a universal savior, invites profound speculation about his potential to bridge divides and fulfill the messianic hopes of multiple faiths.

While the ultimate realization of these possibilities remains within the realm of eschatological speculation, the Twelfth Imam’s story offers a powerful narrative of unity and interconnectedness. In a world often divided by religious and cultural differences, the idea of a figure who embodies the shared heritage and hopes of humanity is both intriguing and inspiring.

Khomeinisme oleh Said Hawwa

Said Hawwa (1935–1989) adalah seorang ulama terkemuka dari Syria dan anggota penting dalam gerakan Ikhwanul Muslimin di negara tersebut. Beliau dikenali kerana penentangannya terhadap rejim Ba'ath pimpinan Hafez al-Assad dan sumbangannya dalam pemikiran Islam kontemporari. Salah satu karya penting beliau ialah buku yang mengkritik ajaran dan ideologi Khomeinisme, yang merupakan interpretasi Syiah yang dipromosikan oleh Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini selepas Revolusi Iran 1979.

en.wikipedia.org

Latar Belakang Said Hawwa

Said Hawwa dilahirkan di Hama, Syria, dan mendapat pendidikan dalam bidang Syariah di Universiti Damascus. Beliau aktif dalam gerakan Ikhwanul Muslimin dan terlibat dalam penentangan terhadap rejim Ba'ath yang sekular dan otoritarian. Sebagai seorang ulama Hanafi, beliau menulis banyak buku yang membincangkan prinsip organisasi Islam, latihan spiritual bagi aktivis Muslim, serta isu-isu tafsir, fiqh, dan akidah dalam Islam.

en.wikipedia.org

Khomeinisme dan Revolusi Iran

Khomeinisme merujuk kepada idea dan amalan politik serta keagamaan yang dikaitkan dengan Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, pemimpin Revolusi Iran 1979. Revolusi ini menggulingkan monarki Pahlavi dan menubuhkan sebuah republik teokratik berdasarkan interpretasi Syiah Twelver. Khomeini memperkenalkan konsep Wilayat al-Faqih, yang menekankan bahawa ulama memiliki autoriti politik dan keagamaan tertinggi dalam ketiadaan Imam Mahdi.

en.wikipedia.org

Kritikan Said Hawwa terhadap Khomeinisme

Dalam bukunya yang bertajuk "Khomeinisme: Menyingkap Tabir Kepalsuan Akidah dan Ideologi", Said Hawwa mengkritik keras ajaran Khomeini. Beliau menuduh Khomeini menyimpang dalam beberapa aspek utama akidah Islam, antaranya:

1. Konsep Imamah yang Melampau: Khomeini menekankan konsep Imamah dengan cara yang dianggap melampaui batas oleh Hawwa. Menurut Hawwa, penekanan berlebihan terhadap kepimpinan Imam dalam Syiah Twelver boleh membawa kepada pengagungan individu yang tidak sesuai dengan ajaran Islam yang sebenar.

2. Penyelewengan Terhadap Al-Quran: Hawwa menuduh bahawa terdapat elemen dalam ajaran Khomeini yang menyatakan bahawa Al-Quran telah diselewengkan atau tidak lengkap, satu pandangan yang ditolak oleh majoriti ulama Sunni.

3. Sikap Terhadap Sahabat Rasulullah SAW: Khomeini dan pengikutnya didakwa merendahkan martabat para sahabat Nabi Muhammad SAW, yang dianggap sebagai tokoh penting dalam tradisi Sunni.

4. Penentangan Terhadap Ijma' Ulama: Hawwa menuduh Khomeini menolak konsensus ulama (ijma'), yang merupakan salah satu sumber utama hukum dalam Islam Sunni.

5. Penghalalan Nikah Mut'ah: Khomeini menghalalkan nikah mut'ah (perkahwinan sementara), yang dianggap haram oleh majoriti ulama Sunni.

Hawwa berpendapat bahawa ajaran-ajaran ini bukan sahaja menyimpang dari ajaran Islam yang sebenar tetapi juga berpotensi menyesatkan umat Islam di seluruh dunia.

goodreads.com

Implikasi Khomeinisme terhadap Dunia Islam

Khomeinisme bukan sahaja merupakan sebuah doktrin keagamaan tetapi juga sebuah gerakan politik yang berusaha menyebarkan pengaruh Iran di dunia Islam. Selepas Revolusi Iran, terdapat usaha untuk mengekspor revolusi tersebut ke negara-negara lain, yang menimbulkan kebimbangan di kalangan negara-negara Sunni. Hawwa melihat ini sebagai ancaman terhadap kesatuan dan kestabilan dunia Islam, terutama di negara-negara dengan populasi Syiah yang signifikan.

Reaksi Dunia Sunni terhadap Khomeinisme

Kritikan Hawwa terhadap Khomeinisme mencerminkan kebimbangan yang lebih luas di kalangan ulama dan intelektual Sunni. Banyak yang melihat Khomeinisme sebagai usaha untuk mengubah struktur politik dan keagamaan tradisional di negara-negara Muslim. Sebagai contoh, konsep Wilayat al-Faqih yang diperkenalkan oleh Khomeini dianggap bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip politik Sunni yang menekankan pemisahan antara autoriti keagamaan dan politik.

Kesimpulan

Kritikan Said Hawwa terhadap Khomeinisme menyoroti perbezaan mendalam antara interpretasi Sunni dan Syiah terhadap Islam. Beliau menekankan pentingnya berpegang kepada ajaran Islam yang murni dan berhati-hati terhadap ideologi yang berpotensi menyesatkan. Buku beliau berfungsi sebagai peringatan kepada umat Islam untuk sentiasa kritis dan waspada terhadap ajaran yang mungkin menyimpang dari jalan yang benar.

Melalui analisis kritis terhadap Khomeinisme, Said Hawwa memberikan pandangan yang mendalam tentang bagaimana ideologi keagamaan dapat mempengaruhi dinamika politik dan sosial dalam dunia Islam. Karya beliau tetap relevan dalam memahami ketegangan sektarian dan perdebatan teologi yang berlanjutan hingga hari ini.

Rujukan:

Khomeinisme oleh Said Hawwa