A broad discussion regarding Imamate

Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success and aid: Imamate is one of the fundamentals of the religion, and the evidence for that is:
1 – It is a succession (khilāfah) to Prophethood, and Prophethood is, without dispute among the Muslims, one of the fundamentals of the religion; thus the succession follows it.
2 – The Caliphate and Imamate are by which the rites of Islam are upheld: the prayers, zakat, Hajj, and fasting are established thereby; jihād, legal punishments (ḥudūd), retribution (qiṣāṣ), repelling mutual injustice, giving each their due, securing the roads, and restraining corrupters are established thereby. Through them are collected spoils and charities, then distributed to those entitled. Through them knowledge is given life, the rulings of the Book and the Sunnah are upheld, judgment among people is made with equity, the word of Allah is exalted, the friends of Allah are honoured, and so on to the end of the many great public and private interests – religious and worldly – of the Muslims which are attached to it.
And this is the meaning of a “fundamental principle” (aṣl); rather, there is no meaning to “fundamental” other than this, or what is like it.
3 – The unanimous practice of the theological works (kutub kalāmiyyah) among all the sects of the Muslims is to mention Imamate among the issues of the fundamentals of the religion.
4 – All the sects of the Muslims who are Ahl al-Sunnah, with all their differing groups, and the Shīʿah, with all their differing groups – every sect among them pronounces misguidance and sinfulness upon everyone who does not agree with it in what it holds regarding the rulings of Imamate. This is the very character of the fundamentals of the religion.
All that we have mentioned of evidences is a conclusive proof for what we have said.
As for the statement of the scholars of the madhhab that “the difference over the question of whether [an issue] is definitive (qaṭʿiyyah) or conjectural (ẓanniyyah) renders it conjectural” – this is not general in its application. What is intended by it is what pertains to issues of the branches (furūʿ), for it is regarding those issues that it is said: “Every mujtahid is correct,” and the one who errs in them is not judged to be misguided or sinful.
The scholars of the madhhab have counted that statement as a principle among the juristic maxims of the madhhab; they did not intend it except in what concerns the rulings of fiqh.
Thus, from what we have mentioned it is established that Imamate and Caliphate are one of the definitive fundamentals of the religion.
This is the answer to the first question. As for the answer to the second question, we say:
The consensus of the People of the Household (peace be upon them) that Imamate is restricted to the two descendent lines (al-baṭnayn) is a definitive, known consensus, regarding which there is no doubt or uncertainty. That is for the following reasons:
1 – The general fame among the scholars of the Muslims – indeed, among the majority of their common folk – that they say this. It has been famous from them in the past and in the present, just as it has been famous from the Imāmiyyah that they affirm the Imamate of twelve designated Imams; and just as it has been famous from the groups of Ahl al-Sunnah that they affirm the Imamate of Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthmān, then ʿAlī.
2 – The statement of the Zaydiyyah that Imamate is restricted to the two descendent lines has become for them a distinguishing mark and sign by which they are known among the other Islamic schools. Thus, whatever has reached this level does not require further proof; for its widespread fame in past and present suffices in place of evidence and of searching for it.
Just as the statement of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the Imamate of Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then… and so on, does not admit of doubt due to its fame and spread; and likewise the statement of the Imāmiyyah regarding the Imamate of twelve designated Imams – so the statement of every group in this chapter is a statement almost reaching the level of what is known by necessity.
Whatever has attained such a degree of fame is definitive and necessary knowledge, and the one who casts doubt on it is like one who doubts that ẓuhr is four units (rakʿahs), and that maghrib is three, and so on; and like one who doubts that zakat is obligatory in camels, cattle, and sheep when each reaches its nisāb, and so on.
In matters so widely known as these, one does not say at all: “Prove their correctness by mass-transmitted (mutawātir) report from each one of the people of consensus”; rather, such a demand is only made in matters which have not become famous among the ummah.
If such doubting is allowed in this chapter, it would lead to the demolition of the foundations of the Sharīʿah. For it would then be said: “Bring us a mass-transmitted report from the entire ummah that ẓuhr is four rakʿahs, that bowing is done once and prostration twice in each rakʿah,” and so on. Indeed, the door of doubt would then be opened against the verses of the Qur’an themselves, so that every verse would require a mass-transmitted statement from the people of consensus affirming that it is Qur’an, otherwise – according to this doubter – it would be conjectural.
Thus, the doubting of one who doubts in such matters is not to be listened to nor answered; it is only a doubt arising from deficiency in intellect or deficiency in religion – and we seek refuge with Allah from both.
If we were to build on the analogy of the statement of this doubter, every verse in the Noble Book would be conjectural; and the statement that ẓuhr is four rakʿahs would be conjectural, as would the numbers of the rest of the prayers; and zakat on the three grazing livestock (al-sawā’im al-thalāth), maize, wheat, barley, dates, and grapes would not be definitive, due to the difficulty of a mass-transmitted report on that from each one of the people of consensus. And likewise the wording of the adhān and the iqāmah.
Indeed, even the statement that Muḥammad son of ʿAbd Allāh son of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) claimed Prophethood would then be conjectural, and that his father’s name is ʿAbdullāh and his grandfather’s name ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib would also be conjectural – since there is no definitive proof for that other than fame.
If it is said: But Allah, Exalted is He, said: “Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah” [al-Fatḥ:29].
We say: There is no proof that what is meant thereby is Muḥammad son of ʿAbdullāh son of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib – other than fame.
Now, it appears to me that this doubt has gained circulation among some of those who have taken a little learning, and so he ruled that there is no definitive proof that Imamate is restricted to the two descendent lines other than the consensus of the People of the Household (peace be upon them) on that; and that their consensus on that is conjectural, due to the lack of a mass-transmitted report from each individual among the People of the Household who are counted in the consensus.
I see that such a ruling arose from great heedlessness, or narrowness in scope, or deficiency in thought and understanding, or laxity in the religion and courting favour with corrupters.
Furthermore, the fame of the statement of the People of the Household (peace be upon them) regarding this matter – which has reached the level of necessity, or nearly so – is supported by prophetic texts which are mass-transmitted and well-known among all the sects of the Muslims, indicating that the family (ʿitrah) of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) are his successors, those who stand in his place, and those who fill the void the ummah would experience after his death (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace). Even if there were nothing of that except the well-known hadith of “al-Thaqalayn” (the Two Weighty Things), which has been narrated by the sects of the Muslims and which they have judged to be authentic – namely his saying (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace): “I am leaving among you, (I am leaving with you), that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah, and my progeny, the people of my household. Indeed, the All-Subtle, the All-Aware has informed me that they will never separate until they come to me at the Ḥawḍ (the Reservoir).” Then his (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) explanation of his Household in the well-known, widely-known ḥadīth of the Cloak (ḥadīth al-kisāʾ), which the groups of the ummah have narrated and agreed upon its authenticity.
And his saying (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) concerning ʿAlī (peace be upon him): “ʿAlī is to me as Hārūn was to Mūsā, except that there is no prophet after me,” and: “ʿAlī is with the truth, and the truth is with ʿAlī.”
How often has the ummah narrated from its Prophet (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) concerning the People of the Household in general, and concerning ʿAlī and the two Ḥasans (al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥussain, peace be upon them) in particular, what pertains to the characteristics of Imamate, the signs of leadership, and the virtues of honour, such as his saying (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace): “Put them forward and do not put yourselves ahead of them,” and: “I am at war with those who fight them, at peace with those who are at peace with them,” and other such reports whose mention has filled the horizons and whose record has overflowed the expanses of books.
Whoever wishes to know something of that, let him turn to Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār of our shaykh, the ḥujjah, the scholar of the age, Majd al-Dīn ibn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr al-Muʾayyidī – may Allah, Exalted is He, support him and raise his renown in this world and the Hereafter.
Or let him cast a glance into the book al-Shāfī, for its author has indeed brought therein the healing cure; or let him study al-Ghadīr, for it is an ocean, abundant in this chapter.
As for the bitterest adversary, who casts confusion upon himself, the evidences and clear insights avail him nothing. Long ago, the doubters in the Prophethood of Muḥammad (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) were not convinced by what they saw of the signs indicating his truthfulness, and they did not benefit from the overpowering miracles despite hearing and witnessing them. Likewise, the hypocrites in the time of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) did not benefit from that.
If it is said: “Show us that the widespread attribution to the People of the Household (peace be upon them) of restricting Imamate to the two descendent lines is like the fame of what you mentioned [before],”
I say: Those are the books of the fundamentals of religion among the Zaydiyyah; there is hardly a single one of them that does not mention this. Similarly, the fiqh books in the Book of Siyar, and likewise other works that have discussed this topic – such as many of the epistles of the Imams, the books of their missions and daʿwah, their poetry, and other things – and likewise the firmly grounded scholars who are present in this age.
And then there are the books of creed belonging to non-Zaydīs; when they speak about the schools, they mention in them that the doctrine of the Zaydiyyah, in Imamate, is the condition that the Imām must be from the descendants of al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them).
Moreover, among what opponents use as a pretext to turn people away from the People of the Household and their school is their saying and asserting that Imamate is only valid among them.
Yes, the People of the Household (peace be upon them) have positions that have become famous from them and are mass-transmitted; among them is this issue we are discussing.
Among them also is their statement that Allah, Exalted is He, is not seen in this world nor in the Hereafter.
Among them also is their statement that the morally responsible person (al-mukallaf) is free in his actions, not compelled in any of them, nor forced; that he brings them into existence by his own choice and will; and that he possesses a capacity (qudrah) by which he disposes as he wishes.
Among them also is their statement that whoever enters the Fire has entered it because of the evil of his deeds and the evil of his choice, and that he was only brought to it from his own side.
Among them also is their statement that the people of grave sins who die persistently committing them, without repentance, will abide forever in the Fire of Hell and never leave it.
And that there is no share in intercession and no portion of it for one who dies persisting in grave sins, unrepentant therefrom.
Among them also is their statement that the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Peace be upon him) is the best of the Companions absolutely, that he had the strongest claim to the Caliphate and was most deserving of it, and that those who preceded him into the Caliphate did so without right.
As for Ahl al-Sunnah, they too have doctrines by which they are known and with which they are recognized among all the schools; among them: their statement that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, will be seen on the Day of Resurrection.
And that the evil and good actions of the morally responsible person have occurred and come into existence by the will and decree of Allah, Exalted is He, and that He, Exalted is He, created them, not the servant.
And it is also well-known from the Ashʿarīs among them that they say: Allah, Exalted is He, is the One who created the actions of the servant, and that the servant has in them only “acquisition” (kasb).
Likewise, their statement that intercession on the Day of Resurrection is for the people of grave sins, and that the people of grave sins from among the monotheists of this ummah will not abide forever in the Fire, but will eventually be brought out of it, and so on.
It is also well-known from the Salafis that they declare domes built over the graves of Imams and righteous people to be unlawful, and that they prohibit seeking blessing by visiting them, and so on to the rest of what is famously attributed to them concerning graves.
The Muʿtazilah likewise have well-known doctrines by which they are recognized among the people of the schools.
The Imāmiyyah also have famous doctrines by which they are recognized among the people of the schools.
The Khawārij likewise have doctrines, among them: their evil opinion of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī (Peace be upon him), their evil opinion also of everyone who came after them in the Caliphate and governorship, and then their evil opinion of the Muslims.
Among them also is their statement that Imamate is valid in someone who is neither from Quraysh nor from the Hāshimites.
All of these well-known doctrines, which each group adheres to, distinguishes itself by, and is known through, have reached us by the same paths through which the following have reached us: our knowledge of the numbers of the rakʿahs [of prayer], the zakat-rates, the knowledge that the Qur’an has not been increased nor diminished, nor distorted nor altered, and that it is from Allah; that Muḥammad son of ʿAbdullāh son of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) is the Messenger of Allah; that he had Companions, one of whom was called ʿAlī, another ʿUmar, another Abū Bakr, and Salman, ʿAmmār, ʿUthmān, Ibn Masʿūd, and Abū Dharr.
And that he (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) had enemies who denied him: one of them called al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah al-Makhzūmī, another called Abū Jahl, another whose name was ʿUqbah ibn Abī Muʿīṭ, another whose name was Abū Sufyān, and that there occurred between him (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) and them a battle in a place called Badr, in which were killed among the idolaters ʿUtbah, Shaybah, al-Walīd ibn ʿUtbah, and so on.
In matters that are mass-transmitted like these, doubt is not accepted; one does not say regarding them: “Bring us proof of their correctness.” If doubt were accepted here, the doors of the knowledge that has come down to us in history would be shut; nothing would remain for us of it except conjecture and supposition, and then the proof of Allah would not be established over the servants, for conjecture avails nothing of the truth.
If doubt were accepted regarding the matter about which the questioner asked, doubt would then creep into the other doctrines of the People of the Household (peace be upon them) such as their negation of corporealism and anthropomorphism, their negation of compulsion (jabr), their negation of [the beatific] vision [of Allah], their position on intercession and eternal abiding [in the Fire], and their preference of ʿAlī (Peace be upon him).
Doubt would then also creep into the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunnah, the Muʿtazilah, and the Imāmiyyah, and so on to the end of what we have already mentioned. And no one who cites evidence could any longer cite a verse of the Qur’an as proof; for the doubter would say: “Prove to me its authenticity and its mass-transmission back to the Prophet (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) – first by a number of people in this age whose collusion upon a lie is impossible, and then likewise back to the Prophet (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace).” Or he would say: “Prove to me the consensus that it is a verse of the Qur’an from the mujtahids of the ummah in this age, by mass-transmission from each one of them until your judgment of its definitiveness is complete – or [likewise] from the mujtahids of the ummah in the age before, or the one before that.”
If it is said: There are mujtahid scholars from the People of the Household (peace be upon them) themselves who do not affirm that Imamate is restricted to the sons of the two grandsons [al-sibtayn], and they are many, scattered through the various Islamic schools – among them Ashʿarīs, among them Muʿtazilīs, and so on – and on that basis what you have mentioned of the consensus of the People of the Household on what you stated is not correct.
We say: It is true that among the People of the Household there are those whose creed follows the Ashʿarī school or the Muʿtazilī school, and so on; but there is no consideration given to the statement of such a person, and his dissent does not undermine the consensus of the People of the Household (peace be upon them). Rather, their consensus is established, realized, and must be taken into account, even if those who disagree with them from among those affiliated to other schools are numerous.
The proof for what we say is that one from the People of the Household who is as we have described has thereby become a follower, imitator, and adherent of someone else. So the one from them who imitates al-Ashʿarī, for example, is a follower of al-Ashʿarī, not one to be followed; he has no view or school of his own beyond that of al-Ashʿarī. In that case, the existence of such an imitator is the same as his non-existence; his statement and his school carry no weight, and have no value in the marketplace of schools.
It has been established in the books of uṣūl that the statement of the imitator (muqallid) is not taken into account in consensus, and that consensus is complete without him. They have said that the reality of consensus is: the agreement of the just mujtahids from the ummah of Muḥammad (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) in one age upon a matter, or the agreement of the just mujtahids from the People of the Household in one age upon a matter. And Allah, Exalted is He, has said: “Is then one who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or one who finds no guidance unless he himself is guided? What is [wrong] with you – how do you judge?” [Yūnus:35].
If it is said: The Imāmiyyah belong to none but the People of the Household; they do not affiliate themselves with the Muʿtazilah or the Ashʿarīs or others, so it would follow, based on what you have mentioned, that whoever from the People of the Household belongs to them, his statement must be counted when validating a consensus, and consensus would not be concluded except with him.
We say: As for our particular issue, they are in agreement that Imamate is restricted to the People of the Household, peace be upon them.
Yes, it is likely that this doubter, through heedlessness, imagined that the matter we are discussing is of the same kind as what is mentioned in the books of uṣūl, such as their statement: “The Companions were, in a given matter, between those who spoke and those who remained silent, and so that was a consensus,” and that such a consensus is conjectural; or like their statement that a consensus transmitted by solitary reports is conjectural. We have already explained sufficiently that this is not of that category; rather, it is among the necessary pieces of knowledge concerning the school of the People of the Household. Whoever knows the school of the People of the Household (peace be upon them) knows that they hold this position and affirm it as a matter of necessity.

Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2