Tashyid al-Mata'in: A Scholarly Analysis Refuting the Claim of Legitimacy of the First Caliphs (5) (Criticisms and the Imamate)
Foundations of Entitlement to the Imamate in Twelver Shiʿi Thought: The Role of the Concept of Maṭāʿin in Critiquing the Legitimacy of Non-Designated Caliphs
Article Abstract
This article elucidates the foundations of entitlement to the Imamate in Twelver Shiʿi theology, with emphasis on the three fundamental principles of infallibility, divinely bestowed knowledge, and divine designation. It then analyzes the concept of maṭāʿin as an indicator for assessing the failure of claimants to a non-designated caliphate to fulfill these conditions. Drawing on the views of the late Sayyid Muḥammad Qulī in his book Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, the article shows that Shiʿi scholars, after establishing prophethood, systematically critiqued the legitimacy of the first caliphs by relying on the three conditions of the Imamate. Within this framework, maṭāʿin are not merely historical criticisms; rather, they are a rational and theological instrument for proving the unfitness of those who attained the caliphate through domination (taghallub) or human consensus. Referring also to the view of Sayyid al-Murtaḍā and drawing on sources of opponents, the article demonstrates that this approach can establish the illegitimacy of non-designated rulers even according to the intra-confessional criteria of Ahl al-Sunnah. Ultimately, maṭāʿin, as an argumentative pillar in the Shiʿi theological system, play an effective role in affirming the truth of the Imamate of Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (ʿa).
Keywords: Imamate, entitlement, infallibility, divine knowledge, divine designation, maṭāʿin, domination, consensus, Shiʿi theology, Sayyid Muḥammad Qulī, Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin.
Introduction
One of the most central discussions in the doctrinal system of Twelver Shiʿism is the question of the Imamate as the continuation of the prophetic mission and the leadership of the Islamic community after the passing of the Noble Prophet (ṣ). In explaining this grave office, Shiʿi scholars have always emphasized three necessary and inseparable characteristics for the Imam: infallibility from every sin and error, divinely bestowed knowledge of all teachings and rulings, and divine appointment and designation by God Almighty, communicated by the Prophet (ṣ). These conditions form the basis of the Shiʿi belief in the “entitlement” to the Imamate and stand in opposition to views founded on “domination” and “consensus” in appointing the leader of the Islamic community.
Alongside establishing these conditions for the divinely appointed Imam, the concept of “matāʿin” (grounds for criticism) holds a special place in Shi‘i theology. When “criticisms of the caliphs” or “challenging rulers” are discussed, the intention is not merely to state historical criticisms; rather, the principal aim is to demonstrate the absence of the conditions for deserving the Imamate in persons who attained the caliphate without a divine designation and through domination or non-normative consensus. Presenting such criticisms in Shi‘i theological works is, in fact, an argument for these individuals’ unfitness to assume the position of the Prophet’s (PBUH) vicegerency and the guidance of the Muslim community.
Elucidating the Pillars of Eligibility for the Imamate in Shi‘i Theology
1. Foundations of eligibility for the Imamate in Shi‘i theology: Shi‘i scholars, relying on rational and transmitted proofs, maintain that the Imamate is a divine office and a continuation of prophethood. Therefore, the holder of this office must possess qualities that enable him to fulfill the role of guiding and infallibly leading the Muslim community. These necessary qualities are as follows:
- - Infallibility: The Imam must be protected from every minor and major sin, whether intentional or unintentional, so that his words and deeds may serve as proof for the community and remain immune from every deviation. This quality guarantees the community’s trust in its leader and obedience to him in all religious and worldly matters.
- God-given and divine knowledge: The Imam must have complete knowledge of all divine teachings, religious rulings, and the interests of the community. This knowledge is a divine gift, conveyed to the Imam through revelation or inspiration, and renders him independent of recourse to others in the matter of guidance.
- Divine designation and appointment (naṣṣ): Since the Imamate is a divine office, the designation of the Imam must likewise take place by God Almighty and through the Noble Prophet (PBUH). Belief in naṣṣ stands opposed to theories founded on election or human consensus in determining the leader and emphasizes the divine legitimacy of the Imamate.
The Concept of Matāʿin: A Criterion for Assessing Eligibility for the Imamate
2. The concept of matāʿin as an indicator of the absence of eligibility for the Imamate: At the beginning of the book “Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin,” the late Sayyid Muhammad Qulī, in eloquent language, emphasizes the established method of Shi‘i scholars in explaining the conditions of eligibility for the Imamate after proving the prophethood of the Prophet (PBUH). He explicitly states that the Imamate is a divine right, founded on inherent merit and divine designation, rather than merely on domination and force or consensus. This key statement clearly elucidates the place of the discussion of matāʿin within the Shi‘i intellectual framework.
The presentation of objections in Shi‘i theological works is, in fact, the provision of evidence for the absence of the three conditions of eligibility in those who wrongfully occupied the seat of the caliphate. These objections are not merely superficial criticisms; rather, they constitute decisive proofs of these individuals’ lack of infallibility, comprehensive divine knowledge, and divine designation. Through a careful examination of history and narrations, Shi‘i scholars have shown that the conduct and statements of these rulers were contrary to the necessary characteristics of an Imam; therefore, they lacked divine legitimacy to lead the Muslim community.
Negating Non-Divine Foundations for Determining the Imamate: Refuting the Approaches of Domination and Consensus
3. Rejection of the approaches of domination and consensus in determining the Imamate: Opposed to the foundation of eligibility for the Imamate are views based on “domination” (attaining power through force and conquest) and “consensus” (selecting a leader through human agreement). Shi‘i theology, relying on rational and transmitted proofs, regards these approaches as invalid for determining the Imam and leader of the Islamic community. The Imamate is a divine office whose appointment is made solely by God, the Exalted; therefore, neither domination and force nor consensus can serve as a basis for its legitimacy.
The exposition of the three conditions for eligibility for the Imamate—namely infallibility, knowledge, and divine designation—in Shi‘i theology provides a clear framework for understanding the status and importance of the concept of objections. In this view, objections are not merely historical criticisms; rather, they are evidence of the absence of these necessary conditions in the claimants to an undesignated caliphate, thereby establishing their lack of legitimacy from the perspective of Shi‘i theology. The remainder of this article will examine instances of such objections and their role in explaining the Shi‘i view concerning the question of the Imamate.
Explaining the Concept of Objections in Demonstrating the Ineligibility of Those Not Explicitly Designated
The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, after explaining the conditions for eligibility for the Imamate, addresses the central role of the concept of “objections” in demonstrating the absence of these conditions in anyone other than the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali (peace be upon him). He states: “Thereafter, by relying on Qur’anic verses, Prophetic hadiths, and the reports and statements of the Companions, they establish that all the aforementioned conditions were united in the very being of the gatherer of virtues, His Eminence the Commander of the Faithful, the Imam of the God-fearing, the leader of the religion, the successor of the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him.” (Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, vol. 1)
This statement indicates that, after establishing the general conditions of the Imamate, Shiite scholars, relying on religious texts and historical evidence, demonstrate the realization of all these conditions in the sacred person of Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him). Infallibility, superior knowledge, and explicit designation by Almighty God are qualities that are fully united in the incomparable personality of that noble Imam.
In Shiite theological texts, the discussion of “mata'in” examines and critiques the characteristics and actions of certain figures from early Islamic history who played a role in the matter of Imamate and caliphate. The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli states in this regard: “Thereafter, they seek to prove the absence of the three conditions in three individuals. By proving the absence of these conditions, they show that these three conditions do not exist in those three individuals. This effort to prove the absence of the three conditions in those three individuals is called ‘mata'in.’”
According to this precise statement by the author of Tashyid al-Mata'in, “mata'in” means establishing the absence of the three conditions of the Imamate—infallibility, superior knowledge, and divine appointment—in three individuals, namely the first three caliphs. This definition clearly reveals the nature and purpose of raising the discussion of mata'in in Shiite theology.
Establishing the Caliphs’ Immorality: An Approach Beyond the Absence of Infallibility in Critiquing Eligibility for the Imamate
The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Musavi, in his book Tashyid al-Mata'in, examines the conditions necessary for the Imamate and demonstrates that these conditions were absent in the first three caliphs. He states: “Thereafter, they seek to prove the absence of the three conditions in three individuals, and this is called ‘mata'in.’ Most of it is established in such a way as to entail a ruling that those three individuals were immoral, so that, according to the principles of the Sunnis, who deny that infallibility is a condition of the Imamate, their lack of eligibility for the Imamate may also be established.”
This approach reflects the precise strategy adopted by Shiite scholars in critiquing the caliphs’ eligibility for the Imamate. In this method, the absence of the fundamental conditions of the Imamate—such as infallibility, superior knowledge, and divine appointment—is first established in the first three caliphs through reliance on authoritative Islamic sources. Then, with documented evidence, their immorality is established.
A noteworthy point in this strategy is its conformity with the theological principles of Ahl al-Sunnah. Given that Ahl al-Sunnah do not regard infallibility as a necessary condition for the Imamate, establishing the sinful conduct of the caliphs is presented as a decisive impediment to assuming religious offices and leadership of the Islamic community. In other words, even according to Sunni views, a sinful person is not qualified for the Imamate. Therefore, this dual approach has been designed to demonstrate, both from the Shiʿi and Sunni perspectives, in a reasoned and conclusive manner, the lack of qualification of the three caliphs for the Imamate.
By drawing on principles shared among the Islamic schools and citing sources accepted by both parties, this method intelligently establishes the caliphs’ lack of qualification for the Imamate and demonstrates the scholarly depth and precision of Shiʿi scholars in theological discussions.
Critique of the Caliphs’ Qualification for the Imamate: The Argumentative Approach of Shiʿi Scholars in Establishing the Absence of the Conditions of Imamate
In support of this argumentative method, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Musawi Kinturi, in the book «Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin li-Kashf al-Ḍaghāʾin», cites Sayyid Murtada ʿAlam al-Huda’s «al-Shāfī fī al-Imāmah». In this work, Sayyid Murtada considers the method of critique (ṭarīqat al-ṭaʿn) for establishing the lack of qualification of others for the Imamate to be clear and trusted by earlier Shiʿi scholars. He notes that, in criticizing Abu Bakr’s qualification for the Imamate, in addition to the absence of infallibility, his deficiency in many religious sciences has also been cited; this argument is stronger.
Sayyid Murtada then refers to the numerous benefits of this method of critique:
- 1. Refuting belief in the absolute justice of the Companions: Ahl al-Sunnah believe that all the Companions are just. Establishing the sinful and immoral conduct of some Companions from Sunni books invalidates this belief.
2. Weakening reliance on the consensus of the Companions: Ahl al-Sunnah base the validity of Abu Bakr’s caliphate on the consensus of the Companions. Establishing the grounds for criticism of some Companions weakens this argument.
3. Critiquing the extension of verses praising the Muhājirūn and Anṣār to all the Companions: Ahl al-Sunnah extend the verses praising the Muhājirūn and Anṣār to all the Companions. Establishing the sinful conduct and even the unbelief of some Companions invalidates this extension.
4. Rejecting fabricated hadiths concerning the virtues of the Companions: Umayyad and Marwanid partisans narrated many hadiths about the virtues of the Companions, from which it follows that all the Companions must be accepted as truthful and their actions must not be criticized. Establishing the sinful conduct, immorality, and reprehensible acts of some Companions reveals the invalidity of these hadiths.
According to the view of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli and the quotation from Sayyid al-Murtada, the concept of “mata'in” (grounds of criticism) in Shi'a thought is not merely the presentation of historical weaknesses or superficial criticisms of the early rulers. Rather, it is a reasoned and systematic approach aimed at establishing the absence, in anyone other than Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (peace be upon him), of the necessary conditions of Imamate—namely infallibility, knowledge, and divine designation. This approach seeks to negate the legitimacy of usurping caliphate and affirm the entitlement to Imamate of the divinely appointed Imam; even on the basis of the theological premises of the opponents, it demonstrates their lack of qualification to lead the Muslim community.
Instances of Mata'in and Their Effect on Revoking Legitimacy
Continuing the discussion of the importance of mata'in, we examine some of their instances and their effect on revoking the legitimacy of rulers who were not divinely designated. In part of his book, Dehlavi had attempted to justify the possible errors of the early rulers by claiming that committing ten to twelve errors over a lifetime is a sign of a person's greatness, and that even making this number of errors daily in managing a household may be overlooked.
In response to this lax view, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli emphasizes the essential point that some errors are not ordinary errors and entail grave consequences such as unbelief. Referring to the crime of “the assault on Fatimah’s house, peace be upon her” and “the harming of the Prophet’s only daughter (peace and blessings be upon him and his family),” he states: “This is an error such that, if someone commits it, whatever he does thereafter is an error.” For committing such immense wrongs removes a person from the sphere of faith and renders all his subsequent acts devoid of validity.
The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli further cites a report from Izalat al-Khafa by Shah Wali Allah Dehlavi (the father of Abd al-Aziz Dehlavi), in which Salman al-Farsi tells Umar: “If you spend one dirham of the Muslims’ property in a place other than its proper one, then you are no longer the Prophet’s caliph; you are a king.” Sayyid Muhammad Quli then concludes decisively: “And if, by spending less than one dirham unlawfully, a caliph loses his qualification for the caliphate, then how could the issuance of 10–12 acts that are among the gravest of major sins and the most heinous of enormities not remove his eligibility for Imamate?” This powerful argument shows that even a small error in disposing of public funds calls the legitimacy of the caliphate into question, let alone the commission of major sins and heinous acts.
The late Muhammad Quli then refers to one of Abu Bakr’s conspicuous errors, for which no defense can be imagined: “Among Abu Bakr’s errors, which Shi'a scholars mention at the beginning of their mata'in against him, is that although he himself would at times acknowledge the truth (on some occasions Abu Bakr would acknowledge the truth and speak the truth), he would say: ‘I am not a caliph (I am not a caliph), but rather I am a khalifah.’” He repeated this matter frequently: “I am not a caliph; I am a khalifah.”
In support of this point, he cites the book "Kanz al-‘Ummāl": «قال ابن الاعرابی روی اعرابی جاء الی ابی بکر فقال انت خلیفة رسول الله صلی الله علیه و آله قال لا. فقال فما انت؟ قال أنا خالفه بعده.» This report relates that a Bedouin addressed Abu Bakr, saying: “Are you the successor of the Messenger of God?” Abu Bakr replied: “No.” The Bedouin asked: “Then who are you?” Abu Bakr said: “I am khālifah after him, meaning I am sitting” (that is, “I sat in this place”). The late Muhammad Quli, emphasizing this admission by Abu Bakr, regards it as his confession that the title “Successor of the Messenger of God” was false when applied to himself.
He then points to a contradiction in Abu Bakr’s conduct: «و در نامه ها که به اطراف فرستاده، نوشت "من ابی بکر خلیفة رسول الله" (وقتی نامه می نوشت خودش را با این لقب معرفی می کرد).» This clear contradiction shows that Abu Bakr, in his words, admitted his lack of fitness for the office of caliphate; yet in practice and in official correspondence, he introduced himself with the title “Successor of the Messenger of God.” From the Shi‘i perspective, this inconsistency in conduct is another reason for his lack of honesty and fitness to assume the office of Imamate.
Conclusion
An examination of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dihlawi’s views in justifying the conduct of the first rulers, and the firm, reasoned responses of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, shows that the concept of “maṭā‘in” in Shi‘i thought plays a fundamental role in explaining why no one other than the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali (peace be upon him), was entitled to the caliphate. Maṭā‘in are not merely accounts of historical errors; rather, they are evidence of the absence in these individuals of the necessary conditions of Imamate: infallibility, divinely bestowed knowledge, and divine designation. Appeals to grave and undeniable errors, implicit admissions of unfitness, and contradictions in conduct are all employed to establish this claim. Thus, Shi‘i thought, relying on the principles of entitlement to the Imamate and criticizing the conduct of non-designated claimants, affirms the legitimacy of the divine and immediate Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him).
Bibliography
- Tashyīd al-Maṭā‘in, Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri Lakhnawi; Izālat al-Khafā ‘an Khilāfat al-Khulafā, Shah Wali Allah Dihlawi; Kanz al-‘Ummāl fī Sunan al-Aqwāl wa al-Af‘āl, ‘Ala’ al-Din ‘Ali ibn Husam al-Din al-Muttaqi al-Hindi; al-Shāfī fī al-Imāmah, Sayyid Murtada ‘Alam al-Huda.
Author: Hamed Sarem
Related articles
Farvardin 9, 1404 AP
Fortifying the Critiques: A Scholarly Analysis Refuting the Claim of the Legitimacy of the First Caliphs (3) (The Inseparability of Imamate and Historical Critiques)Author: Hamed Sarem
Comments
No comments yet.
