Imam and Shia

The first principal divisions of the Shía'h sect are the Ismá'ílians and the Imamites. The latter believe in twelve Imams, reckoning 'Alí as the first. The last of the twelve Abu'l-Qásim, is supposed to be alive still, though hidden in some secret place. He bears the name of Al-Mahdí, "the guided." It is expected that he will reappear at the second advent of Christ. They say that he was born near Baghdád in the year 258 A.H. He afterwards mysteriously disappeared. When he was born the words, "Say: 'truth is come and falsehood is vanished: Verily falsehood is a thing that vanisheth,'" (Súra xvii. 83) were found written on his right arm. When he came into the world, he pointed with his fingers to heaven, sneezed, and said: 'Praise be to God, the Lord of the world.' A person one day visited Imam Hasan 'Askarí (the eleventh Imam) and said: 'O son of the Prophet who will be Khalíf and Imam after thee?' He brought out a child and said: 'if thou hadst not found favour in the eyes of God, He would not have shown thee this child; his name is that of the Prophet, and so is his patronymic,' (Abu 'l-Qásim). The sect who believe Mahdí to be alive at present, say that he rules over cities in the far west, and he is even said to have children. God alone knows the truth.

The other large division, the Ismá'ílians, agree with the Imamites in all particulars save one. They hold that after Sádiq, the sixth Imam, commenced what is called the succession of the "concealed Imams." They believe that there never can be a time when there shall be no Imam, but that he is now in seclusion. This idea has given rise to all sorts of secret societies, and has paved the way for a mystical religion, which often lands its votaries in atheism.

The Ghair-i-Mahdí (literally "without Mahdí") are a small sect who believe that Al-Mahdí will not reappear. They say that one Syed Muhammad of Jeypore was the real Mahdí, the twelfth Imam, and that he has now gone never more to return. They venerate him as highly as they do the Prophet, and consider all other Musalmáns to be unbelievers. On the night called Lailat-ul-Qadr, in the month of Ramazán, they meet and repeat two rak'at prayers. After that act of devotion is over, they say: "God is Almighty, Muhammad is our Prophet, the Qurán and Mahdí are just and true. Imam Mahdí is come and gone. Whosoever disbelieves this is an infidel." They are a very fanatical sect.

There is another small community of Ghair-i-Mahdís called the Dá,irí, settled in the province of Mysore, who hold peculiar views on this point. About four hundred years ago, a man named Syed Ahmad collected some followers in the dominions of the Nizám of Hyderabad. He called himself the Imam Mahdí, and said that he was superior to any prophet. He and his disciples, being bitterly persecuted by the orthodox Musalmáns, fled to a village in the adjoining district of Mysore where their descendants, fifteen hundred in number, now reside. It is said that they do not intermarry with other Musalmáns. The usual Friday service in the mosque is ended by the leader saying: "Imam Mahdí came and went away," to which the people respond: "He who does not believe this is a Káfir" (infidel).

There are several Traditions which refer to the latter days. "When of time one day shall be left, God shall raise up a man from among my descendants, who shall fill the world with justice, just as before him the world was full of oppression." And again: "The world shall not come to an end till the king of the earth shall appear, who is a man of my family, and whose name is the same as mine." When Islám entered upon the tenth century of its existence, there was throughout Persia and India a millenarian movement. Men declared that the end was drawing near, and various persons arose who claimed to be Al-Mahdí. I have already mentioned two. Amongst others was Shaikh 'Aláí of Agra. (956 A.H.) Shaikh Mubarak, the father of Abu'l-Fazl—the Emperor Akbar's famous vizier, was a disciple of Shaikh 'Aláí and from him imbibed Mahdaví ideas. This brought upon him the wrath of the 'Ulamá who, however, were finally overcome by the free-thinking and heretical Emperor and his vizier. There never was a better ruler in India than Akbar, and never a more heretical one as far as orthodox Islám is concerned. The Emperor delighted in the controversies of the age. The Súfís and Mahdavís were in favour at Court. The orthodox 'Ulamá were treated with contempt. Akbar fully believed that the millennium had come. He started a new era, and a new religion called the 'Divine Faith.' There was toleration for all except the bigoted orthodox Muslims. Abu'l-Fazl and others like him, who professed to reflect Akbar's religious views, held that all religions contained truth. Thus:—

In this reign one Mír Sharíf was promoted to the rank of a Commander of a thousand, and to an appointment in Bengal. His chief merit in Akbar's eyes was that he taught the doctrine of the transmigration of souls and the close advent of the millennium. He was a disciple of Mahmúd of Busakhwán, the founder of the Nuqtawiah sect. As this is another offshoot of the Shía'hs I give a brief account of them here. Mahmúd lived in the reign of Timur and professed to be Al-Mahdí. He also called himself the Shakhs-i-Wáhíd—the Individual one. He used to quote the verse, "It may be that thy Lord will raise thee up to a glorious (mahmúd) station." (Súra xvii. 81). From this he argued that the body of man had been advancing in purity since the creation, and that on its reaching to a certain degree, one Mahmúd (glorious) would arise, and that then the dispensation of Muhammad would come to an end. He claimed to be the Mahmúd. He also taught the doctrine of transmigration, and that the beginning of everything was the Nuqtah-i-khák—earth atom. It is on this account that they are called the Nuqtawiah sect. They are also known by the names Mahmúdiah and Wáhídiah. Shah 'Abbás king of Persia expelled them from his dominions, but Akbar received the fugitives kindly and promoted some amongst them to high offices of State.

This Mahdaví movement, arising as it did out of the Shía'h doctrine of the Imamat, is a very striking fact. That imposters should arise and claim the name and office of Al-Mahdí is not to be wondered at, but that large bodies of men should follow them shows the unrest which dwelt in men's hearts, and how they longed for a personal leader and guide.

The whole of the Shía'h doctrine on this point seems to show that there is in the human heart a natural desire for some Mediator—some Word of the Father, who shall reveal Him to His children. At first sight it would seem, as if the doctrine of the Imamat might to some extent reconcile the thoughtful Shía'h to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and Mediation of Jesus Christ, to His office as the perfect revealer of God's will; and as our Guide in life; but alas! it is not so. The mystic lore connected with Shía'h doctrine has sapped the foundation of moral life and vigour. A system of religious reservation, too, is a fundamental part of the system in its mystical developments, whilst all Shía'hs may lawfully practise "takía," or religious compromise in their daily lives. It thus becomes impossible to place dependence on what a Shía'h may profess, as pious frauds are legalised by his system of religion. If he becomes a mystic, he looks upon the ceremonial and the moral law as restrictions imposed by an Almighty Power. The omission of the one is a sin almost, if not quite, as bad as a breach, of the other. The advent of Mahdí is the good time when all such restrictions shall be removed, when the utmost freedom shall be allowed. Thus the moral sense, in many cases, becomes deadened to an extent such as those who are not in daily contact with these people can hardly credit. The practice of "takía," religious compromise, and the legality of "muta'h" or temporary marriages, have done much to demoralise the Shía'h community. The following words of a recent author descriptive of the Shía'h system are in the main true, though they do not apply to each individual in that system:—

"There can be no stronger testimony of the corrupting power and the hard and hopeless bondage of the orthodox creed, than that men should escape from it into a system which established falsehood as the supreme law of conduct, and regarded the reduction of men to the level of swine as the goal of human existence."

The Mutazilites, or Seceders, were once an influential body. They do not exist as a separate sect now. An account of them will be given in the next chapter.

In the doctrine of the Imamat, common to all the offshoots of the Shía'h sect, is to be found the chief point of difference between the Sunní and the Shía'h, a difference so great that there is no danger of even a political union between these two great branches of Islám. I have already described, too, how the Shía'hs reject the Sunnat, though they do not reject Tradition. A good deal of ill-blood is still kept up by the recollection—a recollection kept alive by the annual recurrence of the Muharram fast—of the sad fate of 'Alí and his sons. The Sunnís are blamed for the work of their ancestors in the faith, whilst the Khalífs Abu Bakr, Omar, and Osmán are looked upon as usurpers. Not to them was committed the wonderful ray of light. In the possession of that alone can any one make good a claim to be the Imam, the Guide of the Believers. The terrible disorders of the early days of Islám can only be understood when we realise to some extent the passionate longing which men felt for a spiritual head—an Imam. It was thought to be impossible that Muhammad, the last—the seal—of the prophets should leave the Faithful without a guide, who would be the interpreter of the will of Allah.

We here make a slight digression to show that this feeling extends beyond the Shía'h sect, and is of some importance in its bearing upon the Eastern Question. Apart from the superhuman claims for the Imam, what he is as a ruler to the Shía'h, the Khalíf is to the Sunní—the supreme head in Church and State, the successor of the Prophet, the Conservator of Islám as made known in the Qurán, the Sunnat and the Ijmá' of the early Mujtahidín. To administer the laws, the administrator must have a divine sanction. Thus when the Ottoman ruler, Selim the First, conquered Egypt, (A.D. 1516) he sought and obtained, from an old descendant of the Baghdád Khalífs, the transfer of the title to himself, and in this way the Sultáns of Turkey became the Khalífs of Islám. Whether Mutawakal Billál, the last titular Khalíf of the house of 'Abbás, was right or wrong in thus transferring the title is not my purpose now to discuss. I only adduce the fact to show how it illustrates the feeling of the need of a Pontiff—a divinely appointed Ruler. Strictly speaking, according to Muhammadan law, the Sultáns are not Khalífs, for it is clearly laid down in the Traditions that the Khalíf (or the Imam) must be of the tribe of the Quraish, to which the Prophet himself belonged.

Ibn-i-Umr relates that the Prophet said:—"The Khalífs shall be in the Quraish tribe as long as there are two persons in it, one to rule and another to serve." "It is a necessary condition that the Khalíf should be of the Quraish tribe." Such quotations might be multiplied, and they tend to show that it is not at all incumbent on orthodox Sunnís, other than the Turks, to rush to the rescue of the Sultán, whilst to the Shía'hs he is little better than a heretic. Certainly they would never look upon him as an Imam, which personage is to them in the place of a Khalíf. In countries not under Turkish rule, the Khutbah, or prayer for the ruler, said on Fridays in the mosques, is said for the "ruler of the age," or for the Amír, or whatever happens to be the title of the head of the State. Of late years it has become more common in India to say it for the Sultán. This is not, strictly speaking, according to Muhammadan law, which declares that the Khutbah can only be said with the permission of the ruler, and as in India that ruler is the British Government, the prayers should be said for the Queen. Evidently the law never contemplated large bodies of Musalmáns residing anywhere but where the influence of the Khalíf extended.

In thus casting doubt on the legality of the claim made by Turkish Sultáns to the Khalifate of Islám, I do not deny that the Law of Islám requires that there should be a Khalíf. Unfortunately for Islám, there is nothing in its history parallel to the conflict of Pope and Emperor, of Church and State. "The action and re-action of these powerful and partially independent forces, their resistance to each other, and their ministry to each other, have been of incalculable value to the higher activity and life of Christendom." In Islám the Khalíf is both Pope and Emperor. Ibn Khaldoun states that the difference between the Khalíf and any other ruler is that the former rules according to divine, the latter according to human law. The Prophet in transmitting his sacred authority to the Khalífs, his successors, conveyed to them absolute powers. Khalífs can be assassinated, murdered, banished, but so long as they reign anything like constitutional liberty is impossible. It is a fatal mistake in European politics and an evil for Turkey to recognize the Sultán as the Khalíf of Islám, for, if he be such, Turkey can never take any step forward to newness of political life.