Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (1935-1980) was born in al-Kazimiya, Iraq, to the prominent Sadr family, which originated from Jabal Amel in Lebanon. In 1945, he moved to the holy city of Najaf, where al-Sadr would spend the rest of his life. He was a child prodigy who, at 10, was delivering lectures on Islamic history. At eleven, he was a student of logic. He wrote a book refuting materialistic philosophy when he was 24. Al-Sadr completed his religious studies at religious seminaries under Ayatollah al-Khoei and Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim, and began teaching at the age of 25.
Imamah
Some modern scholars view Shi’ism as an accidental manifestation in Islamic society. They see the Shi’a as a part of the main chorus of the Islamic community as a result of the events which took place with the passing of time and of specific social developments, which in turn led to the formation of a special sectarian attitude within this larger body, and then gradually expanded into a sect.
Some modern scholars view Shi’ism as an accidental manifestation in Islamic society.
Having assumed this fact, these scholars disagree as to the actual events and developments which led to the growth of this manifestation and to the birth of this sect. Some assume that the supposed political activities of ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’ formed the basis for the formation of the Shi’a.
Others, however, attribute the appearance of Shi’ism to the khilafah of Imam Ali, prayers and peace be upon him, and to the political and social position which was established during that era, according to the events which took place. While others assume that the appearance of the Shi’a was hidden in events which occurred later than this in the historical process of Islamic society.
What has encouraged many of these scholars to the assumption and the belief that Shi’ism was an accidental manifestation in Islamic society is, in my opinion, the fact that the Shi’a in the early times only constituted a small part of the whole Islamic community. This fact has given them the impression that non-Shi’ism was the original foundation of Islamic society, and that Shi’ism was an accidental and exceptional manifestation, whose causes must lie in the development of the parties opposed to the situation of the day.
However, it is hardly logical to define principles or exceptions, or bases and deviations, according to the largeness or comparative fewness of numbers. It is erroneous to consider non-Shi’ism as the basis according to its large numbers, and to consider Shi’ism as a deviant, accidental manifestation, because this disagrees with the fundamental nature of doctrinal divisions.
We have often found a particular doctrinal division within the development of a single religion founded upon the basis of some difference in the definition of the tenets of that religion, without there being two equal doctrinal divisions according to numbers. Yet they may be equal according to their purity of origin and equally expressive of the religion, while differing as regards its basic character. Thus, it is not in any way permissible for us to construct our conceptions of the internal doctrinal divisions within Islam, of the Shi’a and others, according to numerical strength.
Similarly, it is not permissible for us to link the birth of the Shi’a presentation of Islam in the development of Islam with the birth of the word ‘Shi’a’ or ‘Shi’ism’ (al-Tashayyu’) as a technical term or a special name for a clearly defined group of Muslims. The birth of technical terms is one matter, and the growth of conventions and presentations is quite another.
Even if we did not find the word ‘Shi’a’ in the normal language used during the lifetime of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family and grant him peace, or after his death, this would not mean that the Shi’a presentation of Islam and its attitudes did not exist. It is in this spirit that we must deal with the question of Shi’ism (al-Tashayyu’) and the Shi’a, and answer the two following questions: a) how did Shi’ism come into existence, and b) how did the Shi’a appear?
It is in this spirit that we must deal with the question of Shi’ism (al-Tashayyu’) and the Shi’a
As for the first question, we can regard Shi’ism as a natural consequence of Islam, and as a representation of the presentation of Islam which it was obliged to attain if it was to protect its healthy growth. We can, in fact, infer a logical inference to this presentation of Islam from the faith which the Prophet commanded, according to the nature of its formation and the conditions which surrounded it.
The Prophet was assuming the leadership of a revolutionary faith, and inducing radical transformations of the customs, structures and concepts of society. The path for such a task of transformation was obviously not a short one, but was rather protracted because of the vast spiritual divisions between jahiliyyah and Islam. The faith which the Prophet practised had to begin with the jahili man and raise him to new institutions, thus converting him into an Islamic man who could carry the new light, and uproot the trunk and roots of jahiliyyah from his heart and mind.
And the Great Leader made astonishing headway in the task of transformation in a very short time, but this task of transformation needed to continue on its way even after the death of the Prophet, who knew that his death was near sometime before it actually occurred and he disclosed this openly in ‘The Pilgrimage of Farewell’ (Hajjat al-Wada); so his death was not unexpected.
This means that the Prophet had ample time to contemplate the future of the faith after his demise, even if we disregard the factors of contact with the Unseen and the Divine protection for Islam stemming from revelation. In light of this, we can see that the Prophet had three possible paths before him to ensure the proper consequences for the future of the faith.
The Prophet was assuming the leadership of a revolutionary faith, and inducing radical transformations of the customs, structures and concepts of society
In the end, the necessity of insight in guiding our actions is more pertinent in the current tech-driven era. The evidence and reasoning presented in this essay demonstrate that technology’s pervasive influence is eroding our abilities to think deeply, reflect meaningfully, and reason effectively. It is imperative that we recognize the importance of insight and take proactive steps to cultivate it. By doing so, individuals can navigate the complexities of life more effectively, making decisions that are guided by deep knowledge and awareness, ultimately leading to more fulfilling outcomes. The future of our ability to think critically and make informed decisions depends on our capacity to balance technological engagement with the cultivation of insight.
Recent posts
Search by date
Writers Panel | A Simple Thought | Obituaries | Ziarat Ashura | Islamic Calendar | Facebook
