And if it is said: What if such qualities are found in two men—one following the Zaydi school and the other the Imami school—whom should we follow and imitate? We say to him: This does not occur, and if it were to occur, a clear distinction would emerge—either a designation (naṣṣ) from a preceding Imam, or something that becomes evident in his knowledge, just as it did with the Commander of the Faithful on the day of Nahrawān when he said: “By Allah, they did not cross the river, nor will they; and by Allah, not ten of you will be killed, nor will ten of them survive.” Or something may appear in one of them indicating that following him is impermissible—such as the Zaydi stance on the use of ijtihād and qiyās in revealed rulings and religious obligations, from which it is known they are not Imams. I do not intend by this Zayd b. ʿAlī and those like him, for they did not exhibit what is rejected nor did they claim to be Imams; they simply called to the Book and to the chosen one from the family of Muḥammad—and this is a call to truth.
As for his statement: “How can Allah appoint as a witness someone who has not seen the people, nor commanded them, nor forbidden them?”—it is said to him: The meaning of “witness” according to your opponents is not what you think. But if you blame the Imamis for saying that someone whose face they have not seen and whose person they do not know can hold such a status—then tell us who, from among the ʿitrah today, is the Imam who is a witness. If he admits he does not know, he falls into the same thing he criticizes and is bound by what he charges against his opponents. If he says: It is so-and-so, we say: We have not seen his face nor known his person—so how can he be our Imam and witness over us? If he says: Though you do not know him, he exists and is known to some, known to those who know him and unknown to those who do not—we say: By Allah, do you think that the Muʿtazilah, Khawārij, Murjiʾah, or Imamis have heard of this man or even considered him? If he says: That does not harm him or us, for the cause is the dominance of oppressors and lack of supporters—we say: You have just stepped into what you condemned and have defeated your own argument from the very point you thought to defeat your opponents. And how close this occultation is to that of the Imamis—except that you are unjust in your comparison.
Then it is said: You have spoken much about jihad, enjoining good and forbidding evil, to the point where you implied that whoever does not rise up is in the wrong. So what about your own Imams and scholars? Why have they not risen up? Why have they remained in their homes and limited themselves to belief in the doctrine alone? And if he speaks a single word, the Imamis will meet him with the same. Then he is told gently and calmly: This thing you criticized the Imamis for, denounced them publicly over, attacked their Imams for, and used to advance the argument of your entire book—you have now embraced it, relied upon its validity, and used it as your own argument. And praise be to Allah who guided us to His religion.
Then he is told: Inform us—is there today among the ʿitrah someone fit for Imamate? He must say: Yes. Then it is said to him: But isn’t his Imamate only valid if there is designation (naṣṣ), as the Imamis claim? And does he have a miraculous proof by which we can know he is an Imam? And his case with you is not like that of one chosen by the people of decision and consultation. If he says: Yes, his case is not like that, then we say: So how do we come to know him? If they say: He is known by the consensus of the ʿitrah—we say: How would they reach consensus on him? If he is Imami, the Zaydis will not accept him, and if he is Zaydi, the Imamis will not accept him. If he says: The Imamis are not to be considered in this matter, we say: The Zaydis are of two kinds—Muʿtazilah and non-Muʿtazilah. If he says: The non-Muʿtazilah are not considered, we say: The Muʿtazilah are two types—those who use reasoning in rulings and those who consider ijtihād to be misguidance. If he says: We do not consider those who deny ijtihād, we say: Then from those who affirm ijtihād, one will be the best, and from those who deny it, one will be the best, and they disown each other. So whom do we follow? And how do we know who is right—just the one you and your followers point to? If he says: By examining their principles, we say: If disagreement continues and the matter becomes unclear, how shall we act? How shall we reconcile this with the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “I leave among you that which, if you hold to it, you will never go astray: the Book of Allah and my ʿitrah, the People of my House”? And the proof from the ʿitrah cannot be known except after examining their principles, determining that all their views are correct, and that whoever differs from them is wrong. If this is the case, then their path is like that of any scholar. So what is this unique quality of the ʿitrah? Show us and clarify it fully, so we may know what distinguishes a scholar from the ʿitrah from a scholar outside the ʿitrah.
Commentary #20
وإن قال: فإن اجتمع ذلك في رجلين وكان أحدهما ممن يذهب إلى مذهب الزيدية والآخر إلى مذهب الإمامية، بمن يقتدى منهما ولمن يتبع؟ قلنا له: هذا لا يتفق، فإن اتفق فرق بينهما دلالة واضحة، إما نص من إمام تقدمه، وإما شيء يظهر في علمه، كما ظهر في أمير المؤمنين يوم النهر حين قال: "والله ما عبروا النهر ولا يعبروا، والله ما يُقتل منكم عشرة ولا ينجو منهم عشرة"، وإما أن يظهر من أحدهما مذهب يدل على أن الاقتداء به لا يجوز، كما ظهر من علم الزيدية القول بالاجتهاد والقياس في الفرائض السمعية والأحكام، فيُعلم بهذا أنهم غير أئمة. ولست أريد بهذا القول زيد بن علي وأشباهه، لأن أولئك لم يظهروا ما يُنكر، ولا ادعوا أنهم أئمة، وإنما دعوا إلى الكتاب والرضا من آل محمد، وهذه دعوة حق.
وأما قوله: "كيف يتخذه الله شهيداً على من لم يرهم ولا أمرهم ولا نهاهم"، فيقال له: ليس معنى الشهيد عند خصومك ما تذهب إليه، ولكن إن عبت الإمامية بأن من لم يُر وجهه ولا عُرف شخصه لا يكون بالمحل الذي يدعونه له، فأخبرنا عنك من الإمام الشهيد من العترة في هذا الوقت؟ فإن ذكر أنه لا يعرفه، دخل فيما عاب، ولزمه ما قدر أنه يلزم خصومه. فإن قال: هو فلان، قلنا له: فنحن لم نر وجهه ولا عرفنا شخصه، فكيف يكون إماماً لنا وشهيداً علينا؟! فإن قال: إنكم وإن لم تعرفوه، فهو موجود الشخص، معروف، علمه من علمه وجهله من جهله، قلنا: سألناك بالله، هل تظن أن المعتزلة والخوارج والمرجئة والإمامية تعرف هذا الرجل أو سمعت به أو خطر ذكره ببالها؟ فإن قال: هذا ما لا يضره ولا يضرنا، لأن السبب في ذلك إنما هو غلبة الظالمين على الدار وقلة الأعوان والأنصار، قلت له: لقد دخلت فيما عبت، وحججت نفسك من حيث قدرت أنك تحاج خصومك، وما أقرب هذه الغيبة من غيبة الإمامية، غير أنكم لا تنصفون.
ثم يقال: قد أكثرت في ذكر الجهاد ووصف الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، حتى أوهمت أن من لم يخرج فليس بمحق، فما بال أئمتك والعلماء من أهل مذهبك لا يخرجون؟ وما لهم قد لزموا منازلهم واقتصروا على اعتقاد المذهب فقط؟ فإن نطق بحرف، فتقابله الإمامية بمثله. ثم قيل له برفق ولين: هذا الذي عبته على الإمامية، وهتفت بهم من أجله، وشنعت به على أئمتهم بسببه، وتوصلت بذكره إلى ما ضمنته كتابك، قد دخلت فيه وملت إلى صحته، وعولت عند الاحتجاج عليه، والحمد لله الذي هدانا لدينه.
ثم يقال له: أخبرنا هل في العترة اليوم من يصلح للإمامة؟ فلا بد من أن يقول: نعم. فيقال له: أفليست إمامته لا تصح إلا بالنص على ما تقوله الإمامية؟ ولا معه دليل معجز يعلم به أنه إمام؟ وليس سبيله عندكم سبيل من يجتمع أهل الحل والعقد من الأمة فيتشاورون في أمره، ثم يختارونه ويبايعونه؟ فإذا قال: نعم، قيل له: فكيف السبيل إلى معرفته؟ فإن قالوا: يُعرف بإجماع العترة عليه، قلنا لهم: كيف تجتمع عليه؟ فإن كان إمامياً لم ترض به الزيدية، وإن كان زيدياً لم ترض به الإمامية. فإن قال: لا يُعتبر بالإمامية في مثل هذا، قيل له: فالزيدية على قسمين: قسم معتزلة، وقسم مثبتة. فإن قال: لا يُعتبر بالمثبتة في مثل هذا، قيل له: فالمعتزلة قسمان: قسم يجتهد في الأحكام بآرائه، وقسم يعتقد أن الاجتهاد ضلال. فإن قال: لا يُعتبر بمن نفى الاجتهاد، قيل له: فإن بقي - ممن يرى الاجتهاد - منهم أفضلهم، وبقي - ممن يبطل الاجتهاد - منهم أفضلهم، ويبرأ بعضهم من بعض، بمن نتمسك؟ وكيف نعلم المحق منهما؟ أهو من تؤمي أنت وأصحابك إليه دون غيره؟ فإن قال: بالنظر في الأصول، قلنا: فإن طال الاختلاف واشتبه الأمر، كيف نصنع؟ وبماذا نتخلص من قول النبي صلى الله عليه وآله: "إني تارك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم به لن تضلوا: كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي"؟ والحجة من عترته لا يمكن أحداً أن يعرفه إلا بعد النظر في الأصول، والوقوف على أن مذاهبه كلها صواب، وعلى أن من خالفه فقد أخطأ، وإذا كان هكذا، فسبيله وسبيل كل قائل من أهل العلم سبيل واحد. فما تلك الخاصة التي هي للعترة؟ دلنا عليها وبيِّن لنا جميعها، لنعلم أن بين العالم من العترة وبين العالم من غير العترة فرقاً وفصلاً.
And if it is said: What if such qualities are found in two men—one following the Zaydi school and the other the Imami school—whom should we follow and imitate? We say to him: This does not occur, and if it were to occur, a clear distinction would emerge—either a designation (naṣṣ) from a preceding Imam, or something that becomes evident in his knowledge, just as it did with the Commander of the Faithful on the day of Nahrawān when he said: “By Allah, they did not cross the river, nor will they; and by Allah, not ten of you will be killed, nor will ten of them survive.” Or something may appear in one of them indicating that following him is impermissible—such as the Zaydi stance on the use of ijtihād and qiyās in revealed rulings and religious obligations, from which it is known they are not Imams. I do not intend by this Zayd b. ʿAlī and those like him, for they did not exhibit what is rejected nor did they claim to be Imams; they simply called to the Book and to the chosen one from the family of Muḥammad—and this is a call to truth.
As for his statement: “How can Allah appoint as a witness someone who has not seen the people, nor commanded them, nor forbidden them?”—it is said to him: The meaning of “witness” according to your opponents is not what you think. But if you blame the Imamis for saying that someone whose face they have not seen and whose person they do not know can hold such a status—then tell us who, from among the ʿitrah today, is the Imam who is a witness. If he admits he does not know, he falls into the same thing he criticizes and is bound by what he charges against his opponents. If he says: It is so-and-so, we say: We have not seen his face nor known his person—so how can he be our Imam and witness over us? If he says: Though you do not know him, he exists and is known to some, known to those who know him and unknown to those who do not—we say: By Allah, do you think that the Muʿtazilah, Khawārij, Murjiʾah, or Imamis have heard of this man or even considered him? If he says: That does not harm him or us, for the cause is the dominance of oppressors and lack of supporters—we say: You have just stepped into what you condemned and have defeated your own argument from the very point you thought to defeat your opponents. And how close this occultation is to that of the Imamis—except that you are unjust in your comparison.
Then it is said: You have spoken much about jihad, enjoining good and forbidding evil, to the point where you implied that whoever does not rise up is in the wrong. So what about your own Imams and scholars? Why have they not risen up? Why have they remained in their homes and limited themselves to belief in the doctrine alone? And if he speaks a single word, the Imamis will meet him with the same. Then he is told gently and calmly: This thing you criticized the Imamis for, denounced them publicly over, attacked their Imams for, and used to advance the argument of your entire book—you have now embraced it, relied upon its validity, and used it as your own argument. And praise be to Allah who guided us to His religion.
Then he is told: Inform us—is there today among the ʿitrah someone fit for Imamate? He must say: Yes. Then it is said to him: But isn’t his Imamate only valid if there is designation (naṣṣ), as the Imamis claim? And does he have a miraculous proof by which we can know he is an Imam? And his case with you is not like that of one chosen by the people of decision and consultation. If he says: Yes, his case is not like that, then we say: So how do we come to know him? If they say: He is known by the consensus of the ʿitrah—we say: How would they reach consensus on him? If he is Imami, the Zaydis will not accept him, and if he is Zaydi, the Imamis will not accept him. If he says: The Imamis are not to be considered in this matter, we say: The Zaydis are of two kinds—Muʿtazilah and non-Muʿtazilah. If he says: The non-Muʿtazilah are not considered, we say: The Muʿtazilah are two types—those who use reasoning in rulings and those who consider ijtihād to be misguidance. If he says: We do not consider those who deny ijtihād, we say: Then from those who affirm ijtihād, one will be the best, and from those who deny it, one will be the best, and they disown each other. So whom do we follow? And how do we know who is right—just the one you and your followers point to? If he says: By examining their principles, we say: If disagreement continues and the matter becomes unclear, how shall we act? How shall we reconcile this with the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “I leave among you that which, if you hold to it, you will never go astray: the Book of Allah and my ʿitrah, the People of my House”? And the proof from the ʿitrah cannot be known except after examining their principles, determining that all their views are correct, and that whoever differs from them is wrong. If this is the case, then their path is like that of any scholar. So what is this unique quality of the ʿitrah? Show us and clarify it fully, so we may know what distinguishes a scholar from the ʿitrah from a scholar outside the ʿitrah.