If we took a cursory glance at the history of world’s civilisations and religions, we would find that the advent of polytheism was due to a personality cult and a feeling of excessive devotion. We are, however, not interested at this moment to discuss, in detail, the evolution of polytheism and its developed outlines.

Primarily, it was well known that shirk had started in the period between Adam and Noah. This was caused by the show of extreme affection towards certain godly people. Therefore, the five major deities whose names were – Wod, Swah, Yaooq, Yaghoos and Nasr, were actually very pious, God fearing, well respected and much-loved people, whose separation, after their death was so shocking for the masses that they decided to keep alive their memories by devising certain ways.

Meanwhile, Satan produced figurines of these people for the populace, and they were overjoyed with this demonstration. This gave their devotion and desires a sense of satisfaction and relief. Originally, these statuettes were kept out in the open, but with the start of winter those were moved inside the houses, this practice continued for a long time and when the new generations emerged with passage of time, this practice moulded into idol worshipping, as they had seen their forefathers sitting with respect in front of these shapes without knowing the reasons of this respect by their elders.

Gradually, these idolaters started imagining these figurines to be their helpers and intercessor with God. As time passed the statues of Prophets and their deputies were added to the collection. During the time of Prophet Muhammad’s emergence, Arabia was engulfed with idolatry and the capital of this practice was Makkah and the House of God, where at least three hundred and sixty idols were placed, which belonged to different tribes, and some were kept as symbols of protection for journeys to the far-off lands, in pursuit of trade.

These people were not devoid of the concept of God. They had a vague imprint of Tawhid on their minds. The Qur’an substantiated this view: If you asked them who had created Heavens and the earth, they would certainly answer - God. They used this practice of idolatry as a vehicle to seek intercession of God through these statues. The Qur’an also validated this view:

وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِندَ اللَّهِ

“They worship those, other than God, who cannot offer any benefit or loss; they say that they are our intercessors in front of God” (10:18).

At another place, the same view was presented in another way. Those who had adopted others as their providers in place of God, said that they only praised them so that they might make them closer to God. These facts disclosed that self-appointed intercessors and recommended acts were not useful in the presence of God. Such mediators had to be approved by God. That was why God had commanded us to seek His approved intermediaries.

People’s Attitude Towards Saintly People

After studying the history of world religions, we reached the conclusion that people were always in the habit of exaggerating the capabilities of their elders after indulging in their extreme love. That was the reason, which made the Jews and Christians to declare Prophet Ozair and Jesus as sons of God respectively. Precisely for this reason Allah had reprimanded them in the Qur’an by saying:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ

“O, the people of Book; do not exaggerate in your religion” (5:77).

The same attitude was also adopted for Prophet Muhammad (S). The people made inappropriate suggestions about him. Therefore, many individuals declared him god, while others absolutely refused his Prophethood, whilst some ignorant Muslims, who affirmed his witness by reciting Kalima, treated him as an ordinary sinful man like themselves. There were extremely small numbers of people who were on the balanced course.

The same attitude was adopted for the progeny of the Prophet i.e. about Imams. Many people refused to accept their Imamate and Caliphate, when some scaled Amir Al-Mu’minin down to the fourth position, and some considered him out of Islamic folds, while others lifted him to the station of divinity. They claimed that he was god, who appeared sometimes as Muhammad, and on other occasions materialized as Ali in human form and he only claimed himself as the servant of God just to test people in their faith, but in fact he was nothing but god himself.

Abul Khatab Muhammad Ibn Abi Zainab and his companions considered four persons as god. These were Ali, Fatimah and the respected Hasanain. They denied the divinity of Prophet Muhammad (S). However, Mokhammasa believed in the divinity of five individuals. They said that first divine was Muhammad, then his divinity was transferred to Ali, then to Fatimah and then finally to Hasan and Husayn. They also believed that Salman Farsi was also a Prophet appointed by Muhammad. They considered abandoning of the prayers and indulging into prohibitions was good, and believed in the transmigration of soul.

Similarly, the follower of Muhammad Ibn Bashir considered Muhammad as a deity and treated him as the manifestation of:

لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ

“He begets not, nor is He begotten”. (112:3)

They considered that his divinity was transferable to the rest of Imams by virtue of transmigration.

Moghira Ibn Saeed Sayad Nehdi, Harrus Shami, Faras Ibn Hatam Qozvaini, Ibn abi Zarqa, Hasan Ibn Muhammad Ibn Baba Al-Qummi, Muhammad Abri, Muhammad Ibn Bashir and Mansur Hallaj all of them were the perpetrators of this evil design and contradictors of Islamic Shariah. The Imams had said much about them. They labelled these individuals as infidels and a degree worse than the Jews and Christians.

These realities made it clear that excessive approach was damaging from both angles, and the best route was the middle route, as suggested by Imam Ali in Nahj al-Balagha: “In these matters, the middle of the road approach is prescribed for you, and that was the behaviour of the Prophet as well.”

Condemnation Of Ghalis By The Imams

Imams of Ahl al-Bayt had condemned those who possessed extreme views about them. It was reported in Ihtijaj al-Tabrasi from Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) that Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) had said: “Do not exceed us from the limits of adoration of God, and then claim whatever you desire about our credentials within these confines. Beware; do not exaggerate about us like Christians, as I am fed up with the Ghalis. “

Ibn Maskan reported from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a), who said: “God will curse all those who say things about us, which we do not claim about ourselves. May God curse them who take us out of the worship and adoration of God, who is our Creator and to whom we have to return and who holds our existence. “

Ibn Baseer narrated that Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) had told him: “Abu Muhammad show your disgust for those people those who think that we are god”. I replied – “I am disgusted with such people”. Imam then said: “Express your dismay for those who presumed about us that we were Prophets”. I replied, “I am fed up with those who hold such views”.

It was reported in Kitab Ayun Al-Akhbar of Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) that once Mamoon asked him that he had been informed that some people exaggerated about Imam. Imam replied to him on the authority of his elders that Imam Ali had narrated from the Prophet: “Do not elevate me from my rightful place, because God has made me his servant before appointing me his Prophet, as God said:

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِّي مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ

“It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's” (3:79).

After quoting this Qur’anic Verse, the author continued with the statement of Imam Ali (‘a), which affirmed: “Regarding me two kinds of people will be razed without any fault of mine, those who exceed in my love and the others who surpass in my animosity. I declare my revulsion in front of God against those people who inflate me beyond my status, similar to Jesus who detested his followers.”

He then said: We are sickened with anyone who suggested divinity for the Prophets and Imams in this life and the hereafter.”

It was reported from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a), who said: “A least act that results in the loss of faith is to sit with a Ghali and listen to his chit chat and then approve his point of view, because my forefathers have told me that they were informed by the Prophet who said: There are two groups in Ummah, who have no share in Islam, they are Ghalis and Qudrias.”

Types Of Exaggerations

Allama Al-Majlisi mentioned various types of Ghuloo or exaggeration in the 7th Volume of Bihar Al-Anwar. He said: “You must know how Ghuloo can be associated with the Prophets and Imams. According to them, they should be accepted as God. They should make them partners with God in creation and divinity. They would say that God has personified in them. God was forged with them. They possessed the knowledge of the unseen without Godly revelations or aspiration. They considered Imams as Prophets. They say that their souls moved within each other. They also said that their appreciation freed us from the worship of God, while fear of committing sin was diminished.

It would be infidelity and shirk to associate with any one of the above-mentioned conditions. It would be a reason to be excommunicated from the religion.

This view was supplemented by Qur’anic Verses and very strong logical arguments. It was therefore, important to realise that our Imams had shown their disgust against such people and threatened them with life. If anyone listened to a statement that was in opposition to the above-mentioned conditions then after labelling it as a design of Ghalis, they should reject it.

The Beliefs Of Mofaweza

There were a few ignorant claimants of love for Imams, who had some seeds of Ghuloo, and had the passion to address Imams of Ahl al-Bayt as a deity. However, due to strong reprimand of the Imams and apparent obligation to the Shariah laws, they could not openly label them as gods. Yet, internally they spoke of Imams with those attributes, which were solely reserved for God. They developed a view similar to the Jews that after creating Muhammad and his progeny, God had handed over the charge of creation, demise, resurrection, sustenance, making of clouds and provision of rains, healing the sick and remaining management of running the Universe to them.

This corrupt ideology in the religious legal terms was called - Tafweez, which literally meant to handover. This view was basically another form of Ghuloo or exaggeration. Its legal repercussions were no less than for the Ghalis. A minor difference between the two was that Ghalis openly denies God while the Mofawweza apparently accepted God. These types of people were present in the life times of Imams. This was why they had strongly criticised and rejected them.

Rebuttals Of Mofawezza Thoughts Is Essential

There were several reasons for rebutting the Mofawweza’s ideology. The first and the foremost reason was that that they claimed Muhammad and Aali Muhammad were God, when they had all the attributes and signs of having been created. No right-minded person could accept the divinity of those who appeared to be created like other human beings.

Secondly, sects like Ghalis have vanished today from the face of the earth. The Mofawweza however, were present everywhere, especially in our country.

Thirdly, an open invitation to the divinity of Imams was so alien that people could not be attracted to it, but Tafweez was so attractive that those people who are basically inclined to exaggeration were prone to accepting it. Consequently, even one person of this hideous ideology, if present anywhere could influence multitude of simple-minded individuals. This view was now spreading among our people like a contagious disease, and some wicked mullahs were sprinkling oil on this fire. In order to offset their teachings, we have submitted a detailed rebuttal of their thoughts.

Imam’s Attitude To Mofawweza

It was reported from Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) that he said: “Anyone who believed that God was the architect of our deeds and He would then punish us, is an advocate of Jabr (compulsion), and the one who assumed that God had handed over the acts of creation, death and other divine responsibilities to Muhammad and his progeny was an exponent of Tafweez. The believer in Jabr was an infidel and believer in Tafweez was a mushrik”.

Husayn Ibn Khalid had quoted a lengthy tradition from Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a), who had said: “O, the son of Khalid, the reports that pointed towards us regarding Jabr and Tashbeh (assigning) were the inventions of Ghalis, who lessened the majesty of God. Therefore, anyone who befriends them, in fact hates us and the one who detests them certainly loves us.

The one who blended with them was severed from us and whoever mingled with us was split from them. Anyone who was callous to them was kind to us. Whoever, revered them despised us and whosoever affronted them respected us. The one who conforms to them denied us, and the one who denied them conformed to us. O, son of Khalid, it is important for our Shi’as that they do not take any one of them as their friend or an aide.”

Mofawweza Are Another Branch Of Ghalia Sect

It was just possible that a short-sighted person might say, that in the last report only Ghalis were condemned by the Imam, and this should not in any way be considered the censure of Mofawweza. To clear the ground, it could be said that their absolute exaggeration was veiled, so it remained hidden from many people’s thoughts.

Although, majority of these people were weak and fragile, in their belief, some of them were very staunch. Tafweez was also a component of this mechanism. In other words, there were several types of Ghalis and Mofawweza.

Shaykh Al-Mufid wrote in Sherh al-Aqaid, “Mofawweza are another branch of the Ghalia sect, with a difference that they do not consider Imams as eternal, and consider them as a created being.

Shaykh Fadhlulla Noori Sheerazi wrote in the margin of Awaelul Maqalat a book written by Shaykh Al-Mufid that Mofawweza was another faction of Ghalis. Some other great scholars have the same opinion on this subject.

It was reported by Yasir, an attendant of Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a), that he asked the Imam about his opinion regarding Tafweez. Imam replied: “God has entrusted his Prophet to deliver the message of his religion and then commanded people to accept what the Prophet is delivering and refrain from what he has proscribed. However, creation of life and death, provision of sustenance and its deliverance are kept under His control. He declared this position in the Qur’an:

قُلْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَائِكُم مَّن يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ قُلِ اللَّهُ يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهَ

“Say: Is there of your partners (whom ye ascribe unto Allah) one that produceth Creation and then reproduceth it? Say: Allah produceth Creation, then reproduceth it” (10:34).

God was well above the idea of companionship that they associated him with.

Shaykh Kishee narrated on the authority of his own sources that Hajar Ibn Zaida and Aamir Ibn Khodaa went to see Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) and told him that a certain person had claimed that the Imams organized people’s sustenance. Imam replied: “By God no one schedules anyone’s sustenance other than God. God also arranges our own provisions.”

He continued by saying that he had been concerned about the provision of his own family, and he was worried. However, when he realized that these were absolute arrangements of God, he relaxed.

May God curse these people for the wrong concepts they have adopted for their religion.

Tafweez In The Light Of Qur’an

There were several Verses in the Qur’an, which clearly mentioned that creation (of life and death), provision of sustenance, resurrection and healing the sick were divine acts and they belonged to God alone. He had not transferred these tasks to any one else among his creatures, either temporarily or permanently. We have quoted few Verses from the Qur’an as an illustration.

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اعْبُدُوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ وَالَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ

“O mankind! worship your Lord, Who hath created you and those before you, so that ye may ward off (evil)” (2:21).

الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ فِرَاشًا وَالسَّمَاءَ بِنَاءً وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَخْرَجَ بِهِ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ رِزْقًا لَّكُمْ فَلَا تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ أَندَادًا وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“Who made the earth a resting place for you and the heaven a canopy and (Who) sends down rain from the cloud then brings forth with it subsistence for you of the fruits; therefore do not set up rivals to Allah while you know” (2:22).

اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ ثُمَّ رَزَقَكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَائِكُم مَّن يَفْعَلُ مِن ذَٰلِكُم مِّن شَيْءٍ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

“Allah is He Who created you, then gave you sustenance, then He causes you to die, then brings you to life. Is there any of your associate-gods who does aught of it? Glory be to Him, and exalted be He above what they associate (with Him)” (30:40).

Allama Al-Majlisi said in respect of this Verse that it provided us with the understanding that creation, death, resurrection and provision of sustenance was only possible for God and its mention for someone else was prohibited.

أَمْ جَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ خَلَقُوا كَخَلْقِهِ فَتَشَابَهَ الْخَلْقُ عَلَيْهِمْ قُلِ اللَّهُ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ الْوَاحِدُ الْقَهَّارُ

“... Or have they set up with Allah associates who have created creation like His, so that what is created became confused to them? Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Supreme” (13:16).

اللَّهُ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ وَفَرِحُوا بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَمَا الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا فِي الْآخِرَةِ إِلَّا مَتَاعٌ

“Allah amplifies and straitens the means of subsistence for whom He pleases” (13:26).

وَإِذَا مَرِضْتُ فَهُوَ يَشْفِينِ

“And when I fall ill, (only) He relieves me from sickness” (26:80).

قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ تُؤْتِي الْمُلْكَ مَن تَشَاءُ وَتَنزِعُ الْمُلْكَ مِمَّن تَشَاءُ وَتُعِزُّ مَن تَشَاءُ وَتُذِلُّ مَن تَشَاءُ بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ‎

“Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest in Thine hand is the good; surety, Thou hast power over all things” (3:26).

قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَمَن يُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَيُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ فَقُلْ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ

“Say (O Prophet): Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs? They will soon say; Allah. Say; will ye not then show piety (to Him)?” (10:31).

Entrust In Religious Affairs

There were several kinds of power delegations. Allama Al-Majlisi mentioned up to seven types in Bihar al-Anwar, out of which two were very significant i.e. delegation of power in Divine management and secondly, in religious affairs.

The first kind of delegation was absolutely impossible. This was the sole responsibility of God. Therefore, those who said that issues relating to life and death, provision of sustenance, health and illness and resurrection were handed over to the Imams, were totally wrong. However, the other type, which did not undertake the development of religious code and how setting up of its laws was concerned, was handed over to the Prophets and Imams, so that they could provide a true explanation of each of its articles and subclasses and make arrangements for its protection.

The provision of rationalization was also left to the will of the Prophets, as they could pick and choose, where elucidation was required and where it was unnecessary. Also, they could choose the moment when a decision had to be made on the basis of apparent laws of the constitution or they would use their own knowledge.

There were several narrations in the Islamic literature that suggested that this kind of delegation was permissible for the Prophet of Islam and the Imams. In Kitab Kashf al-Ghumma it was reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Jaber Ansari that the Prophet of God said, “God had created earth and the heavens and then called them to submit to His commands. They replied in affirmative for my Prophethood. Ali’s Wilayat was then presented to them and they accepted it too. God then called for the entire creation (in its spiritual form) and handed over the implementation of their religious requirements to us. So, successful are those who obeyed us and cursed are those who defied us. We are the measure of God’s permissible (Halal) and offensives (Haram).”

It was narrated in Usool al-Kafi from Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a), who said: “God had edified the Prophet on His affection and finally honoured him by saying; you are sitting at the pinnacle of morality. He then handed over his constitution of religion (deen) to him and commanded His subjects:

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

“…And whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil)…” (59:7).

The Prophet then handed over this task to Ali. O, our Shi’as you have submitted to this decree but rest of the Ummah has declined”.

Rebuttal Of A Weak Argument Provided For Permanent And Temporary Delegation

Those followers of Tafweez, who were careful about their fault and sanctions of the learned people, including strong rejections from the Imams, had devised an argument to justify their erratic beliefs by dividing Tafweez into two classes - permanent and non-permanent.

They then argued that delegation of powers to Muhammad and Aali Muhammad should not be considered in a manner, which made God redundant in His affairs, but there was no harm if we said that all those divine acts were in essence, performed by God, but Muhammad and his progeny acted as an instrument to achieve this i.e. the exposition of creation, life and death and sustenance was done through them, under the explicit will of God. Therefore, to say that they created, made people to die and re-create with the permission of God was a Tafweez, which was not illicit. Such an entrustment of divine power was called temporary or non-permanent handover.

This argument, due to certain reasons was unacceptable. If we accepted this logic then no infidel would ever qualify for his infidelity. The Qur’an stated that when these idol worshippers were asked as to why they worshipped idols instead of God, they said:

وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ

“... And (as for) those who take guardians besides Him, (saying), We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah”. (39:3)

See how clearly the infidels were negating their divinity and appointing them only as route for intercession with God, but God and his Messenger did not accept their account.

Several traditions had been mentioned that legitimised Tafweez in religious context, and the same traditions also pointed out to the illegality of Tafweez for other religious codes. This comparison made it clear that those aspects for which religious Tafweez was permissible, was unlawful for similar mundane matters.

Therefore, in religious matters, if the delegation of power was permanent and it was in person, in such a way that the Prophet of God and the guided Imams made the legal codes on their own and then preached it, while God was kept out of the context, then the prohibition of Tafweez in the religious framework would also mean the same that had been given in this explanation.

But if in the religious matters, Tafweez stood for God to make rules and regulations, as law making was His discipline, and the elucidation of its high points was the responsibility of the Prophets and Imams, then in comparison to this the Tafweez, which was illegal in the mundane affairs would also stand for non-permanent delegation of powers, which would make the deception of permanent Tafweez more apparent in a manner that had been explained earlier.

If the two branches of Tafweez had any real difference as their advocates thought, then it was essential that Imams explained it. Whereas, rejecting the concept that prohibited Tafweez was such a criminal offence, as it made God redundant, had to be avoided.

If we assumed that the Imams performed all these acts with the permission of God and it was true, then its mention was not made in those Ahadith. Instead, its overall rejection was clearly stated. This shows that all kind of Tafweez was prohibited.

The explanation was needless, because such a description was only essential when we had two kinds of narrations available that were equal par excellence, and then some of those justified Tafweez, while the others negated it. Under those conditions, there was a reason for such an explanation, as some arrangements were needed to reconcile the facts where permanent delegation of divine power was mentioned.

We would have argued for it to be a non-permanent delegation, and where it was negated, it would have been permanent divine entrustment. However, there was no such conflict available in the narrations regarding delegation of heavenly powers, therefore, such a supposition of permanent or temporary entrustment of godly powers was meaningless.

If, however, we found such a contradiction, then for the sake of the rules of justice those narrations would be preferred that contradicted entrusting divine powers, because they were in apparent unison with the Qur’an, as the tasks involving creation, life and death, provision of sustenance and resurrection were mentioned as God’s practical attributes. It was an accepted practice that anything that contradicted Qur’an was improper.

There were some narrations that prohibited even the temporary delegation of godly powers. It was narrated from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) who said: “Those who believe that we create with the permission of God are also infidels”1.

On the basis of these realities, all high-ranking scholars disallowed the temporary delegation of divine powers. Allama Al-Majlisi, wrote in Bihar Al-Anwar: Although, temporary delegation of power was logically possible, it was prohibited in the light of strong reports from the Imams. Again, this was such a view, whose credibility was not certain.

So far, we were concerned that there was no authentic Hadith available in support of this view. The same author wrote in his Risala al-Itiqadiyah: “You must not believe that Imams had created this Universe with the explicit permission of God, since we were advised through authentic Ahadith not to embrace such views”. Barsi had mentioned some narrations in this context, which were weak and unreliable.

True Shi’a Concept Of Tafweez

There was a time when the followers used to present their acts and beliefs in front of the Imams for correction and sought their opinion against their conduct. Therefore, those practices that were approved by the Imams were retained and the rest abandoned.

There were several reports to supplement this practice in the history books, but today people had made the religion and laws of Shariah as a playing tool, and they threw it in any direction like a tennis ball to justify their ends. No one strove to know what was the decision of divine law in that respect, which was the sign of an honourable practicing Muslim.

However, the nature of people was so disoriented that if a senior religious clerk made a decision on a given issue, then people immediately start to decline it with their own irrational suggestions. If those who belonged to religious foundation adopted such approach on the basis of a judicial guess, then it would not be an astonishing thing. Unfortunately, this conduct was also prevalent among those whose religious foundation was on Qur’an and declarations of Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a).

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said that if any one wanted to be a person of exquisite faith, then it was desirable for him if he said that his behaviour in all acts was what Muhammad and Aali Muhammad had demonstrated. This congruency with Imams may be in those deeds that were apparent or those, which were kept secret, or about those which had reached him or those that had not reached him.

Our twelfth Imam had also shed some light on the topic under present consideration. It was mentioned in Ihtijaj al-Tabrasi that during the minor occultation of Imam, when Abu Ja’far was his representative, disagreement erupted among Shi’a community on the issues related to the creation (of the Universe) and the provision of sustenance to the people through Muhammad and Aali Muhammad. One of a senior member of this disputing community suggested that the matter should be referred to Imam for clarification through his deputy Abu Ja’far.

Everyone agreed to this suggestion. Therefore, a question was prepared and handed over to Abu Ja’far. After a while, the reply with Imam’s authentication reached them in the following format: “In the name of God very gracious and merciful, God was the creator of body frames and the provider of sustenance to His subjects. He neither possessed body nor incarnated in any form. There was none that could resemble Him. He was all seeing and all hearing. Imams requested Him, so He created, they appealed for sustenance and He provided. In order to honour His Servants, He never rejected their plea”.

After the clarification of Imam Zaman, it became absolutely plain that to believe that God had granted the Imams power to execute divine acts, such as creation or the provision of sustenance or that God performed these tasks through them - these were utterly wrong. On the other hand; to say that they could not intervene in any of the divine acts, such as intercession for the qualified sinners was to lower their status with God.

Over-indulgence and diminution were both dangerous concepts, so far as Muhammad and Aali Muhammad are concerned, we have to find a moderate course to succeed in both worlds. The clarifying note of Imam, which cited that Imams were intermediaries between God and His creature, and could intercede with God and He did not refuse their requests, identified this middle route.

Methodology Of Seeking Help From God

There were two qualified methods to approach God.

- Appeal for health, sustenance, longer life and children should be directly made to God, supplemented through the names of the Prophet and his Holy Progeny.

- Address the Prophet and his progeny and ask them to get the following requests granted from God. However direct rapprochement with the Prophet or Imams, avoiding God was not permissible in any sense, as it appears like Tafweez.

It was useful to state the reasons that became the root cause of Tafweez. A careful study of this subject revealed that it was those miracles that happened through them on different occasions, just as reviving someone from death or healing a gravely sick person etc. Persons of limited intellectual capability inferred from these miracles that God had passed on this right to them, and now they are doing this job as a responsibility.

Miracle Is An Act Of God

It should be realised that whatever happens during a miracle, was not the work of Prophet or Imam, instead it was an act of God. Miracle was therefore, defined as follows: Miracle was an act of God, which came into view in the hands of a Prophet or Imam to prove the legitimacy of the person.

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) had said: “When poverty and hunger emerged with Amir Al-Mu’minin, it showed that a person who had such attributes could be shared with other deprived people, then miracles could not be the proceed of such a person. This proved that the originator of miracles was God, who had no resemblance in any attribute with His creatures. This was not the act of a man, who shared his limitation with other dispossessed people”.

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq said: “Miracle was a special sign of God that was initiated through the hands of Prophets and Imams, to prove the legitimacy of the candid and fallacy of the swindlers”. This definition was in accordance with an episode that was mentioned in Al-Anwar An-Nu’maniyah. It was said that a man saw Amir Al-Mu’minin breaking a dry piece of barley bread by holding it under his knee. He was astonished and asked Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) if it was not the same wrist, which deracinated the main gate of Khyber. Imam replied: “Yes it was, but I had pulled up the main door of Khyber fort by the strength of God and not with my personal power”.

On the basis of these narrations, the great scholars have insisted that the true originator of a miracle was God, but as it was seen to be carried out by the Prophets and Imam, it was metaphorically called the act of its performing person.

God revealed the Qur’an, since it was revealed on Prophet Muhammad (S), it was symbolically called the Miracle of Muhammad. God doused the fire of Nimrod, but its apparent show was at the hands of Abraham, that was why it was referred to be as Abraham’s miracle. Similarly, there were several other examples, including the miracles of Prophets David, Saleh, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

Allama Al-Majlisi said: “Any one who believes that miracle is the creation of the Prophets or Imams, then there was no doubt in the infidelity of such a person”. Shaykh Al-Mufid said that a miracle was the work of God. There were several other Ulama who have approved the same definition of miracle.

If we said that the departments of Creation, provision of Sustenance, Resurrection and other Divine acts were not handed over to the Prophets and Imams. we did not mean to say that they were incapable of performing these tasks, even with explicit permission of God, so that we might need miracles to prove their capability. We say that the position of these great people was way beyond this supposition. They could perform all these tasks at the opportune of a miracle, but the objection was that God had not appointed them to perform these acts as a duty. There is colossal difference between performing an act as one time miracle and doing it as a fulltime job.

Clearance Of Some Doubts

First Doubt

Major argument that was presented by the advocates of Tafweez was a sermon, which was alleged to be the work of Imam Ali. It was claimed that he said, “I am the creator of clouds, I am the one who brought forth springs and lakes and make water to flow through canals. I clad the trees with green pigment. I am the one who had spread the Earth and raised the firmaments. I am the one who would resurrect the faithful from their graves. I am the one who had sent the Prophets and Messengers. I had created the Universe and other dimensions. I had ignited the Sun, and brought forth the day from it. I had created the stars and made the ships to move in the Sea. I am the creator of shapes in the uterus of mothers and developed muscles and flesh on their bones. I am the one who resurrects and provides sustenance to the living. I am all hearing and all seeing. I am responsible for Noah to board his ship and I am the saviour of Abraham from the fire.”

In our response to this sermon, we would like to say that reliance on this Khutba was inappropriate for various reasons.

This sermon was groundless on the basis of narration and established critical norms, and it had nothing to do with Imam Ali (‘a), since it was not found in any of our authentic religious books, especially in Nahj al-Balagha. However, this was found in a book like Kokabi Durri, which was full of baseless accounts.

The author of Kokabi Durri had sourced it from the papers of an unknown person called Khawaja Dahdar. That is why major researchers and scholars had denounced many other writings similar to this projection. Allama Al-Majlisi wrote on page 365 of the seventh volume of Bihar ul Anwar: “Sermons like Khutba Al-Bayan and many others like this were the work of Ghalis, and those were not found in any other source except their books”.

A similar verdict was provided by Muhaqqiq Khoi in Minhajul Braa, Abul Qasim Al-Qummi in Jamea Al-Shatat and this humble commentator in his various writings. Shaykh Muhammad Ali Rabbani wrote in his book Tofha Imamia Fi Haqiqate Mazhabus Shi’a: “Some people claimed that Amir Al-Mu’minin was the Creator, who had fashioned us with the permission of God. This was absolutely wrong. There were several Verses of the Qur’an and prophetic traditions that rejected such a claim. It was also said that Imam had made a comment in one of his sermons that he had created heavens and the earth. It was completely false”.

Someone might have added this sentence in his work deliberately at a later date. Allama Muhammad Sibtain Sarsavi, who wrote a preface of ninety-two pages on Kokabe Durri and tried to suggest alternative explanations of this sermon, which according to me was a useless exercise, before proving the authenticity of something that, was associated with Imam.

Ignoring the roots of its occurrence, if we critically examined the contents of this sermon then a person of mediocre understanding would immediately conclude that this sermon was not the work of Imam Ali (‘a), because every great author, who may be a poet or a prose writer had a specific diction that made him notable among the other authors. If we structurally examined this writing then we could say with utmost certainty that this sermon was not the work of Imam Ali (‘a), as it did not resemble any of his work that was reported in Nahj al-Balagha and the other sources. One of the attributes of his speech or writing was that its contents were full of the secrets of Tawhid, but this sermon had demolished the very foundation of the Unity of God.

When many great thinkers of Egypt had made it plain that if Nahj al-Balagha was not available to them, then the chapter of Tawhid would not have opened on them. Whatever, is reported in Qur’an regarding the Majesty of God was imitated for Imam Ali in this sermon, which was in direct conflict with God.

Even with great reluctance, if we accepted the contents of this sermon to be true, still the concept of Tafweez could not be proven. In this case, we have to develop an alternative explanation that should not be in conflict with the Qur’an. Since Muhammad and Aali Muhammad were the objective reason for the creation of this Universe, therefore, they could claim metaphorically that they were the source of everything that existed today in the Cosmos.

Apart from Nahj al-Balagha, there were several other clarifications of Imam Ali that contradicted this sermon. We shall make a brief quote to one such report. Meaning of La ilaha illa Allah - was that there was no guide other than God. All the Creatures of Heavens and the Earth were called upon to stand as witness to the fact that there was no Creator other than God, nor there was any one else beyond Him who could be a provider and sustainer of this Cosmos, nor there was anyone else who could have been worshipped. There was no one in place of Him, who could enhance or impair nor there was anyone else, other than Him, who was sufficient for His subjects, nor there was anyone else to change the order of events. All virtues were within His domain, and God was Gracious, He was the provider of resources to this world.

I would appeal to the intellect of fair-minded readers to tell, if the subscriber of these views could be an author of the Sermon of Al-Bayan?

Second Doubt

It was narrated in various books by Jamhour Ibn Al-Hakam, who said: “I saw Imam Ali Ibn Husayn suddenly flying, after developing wings. He returned after a time lapse, and told me that he had seen Ja’far Tayyar in the heavens. I asked him, if he could climb up the heavens? He replied how it could be difficult for a person to climb something that is made by him. We are the residents of Throne and the Chair”.

Rebuttal

This was a fake narration because the identity of its narrator could not be established through entire, Islamic literary channels. Therefore, such forged narrations could not be used to determine the principles of a religion, when it could not be used to justify ordinary religious practices. If they were questioned on the Day of Judgement to ratify the status of this narration, then what would be their answer, when there was no trace of such a narration in any authentic book of Hadith?

Third Doubt

In the third volume of Nahj al-Balagha, it was mentioned that Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) had said: We are the creatures of God and people were our creation. This was said to show that Imams were the creators of things.

Rebuttal

This translation of the text was explicitly wrong. It was evident if the translation was incorrect then its deductions would also be erroneous. The real translation was: “Our creation was only for God, and rest of the creation was through our rationale”. The purpose of this statement was to show that we were the real reason of creation – illati ghaee mumkinat, just as it was mentioned in a Hadith Qudsi, “Lo laka lama khalqattal aflak” I would not have created heavens and the earth, if you (O, Prophet) were not there.

It had been also mentioned in the Qur’an regarding Moses:

وَاصْطَنَعْتُكَ لِنَفْسِي

“[O Moses] I have created you especially for Myself” (20:41).

This meant that the creation of Moses was the prime cause, and his Ummah was a secondary reason. That is why the heading of the second sentence was altered. It was not = Wannasa bada sanaena, but it was - wa an-nasa bada sanaelana. This ‘L’ (ponounced as Lam) was present in Lana and was called Lam of Aljeya and Sababya. This gave meaning to the text that has been mentioned above.

Mufti Muhammad Abdahu of Egypt understood the following meanings of this phrase: “We are indebted to the grace and poise of God, and the people are in return to us”. These meanings did not in any way support the cause of Mofawweza.

Fourth Doubt

A narration was reported from Miqdad Ibn Aswad in some books, which stated: “One day my master Ali asked me to bring his sword. I presented him his sword. He placed the sword on his knees and started rising towards the heavens. I kept on watching him, until he disappeared from my sight.

He returned from his journey around Dhuhur time, while blood was dripping from his sword. I asked him where he had gone. He replied that in the heights there was a dispute between two groups and I made decision between them. I asked my Master if the matters of the heavens were also under his jurisdiction? He replied: “Aswad I am the sign of God in heavens and the earth. No Angel can move an inch from its place without my permission in the heavens”.

Rebuttal

Due to certain reasons this narration was not acceptable as an argument for Tafweez.

The chain of narration of this report was not available, so we could not say anything about the authenticity of this tradition. Also, there was no mention of this tradition in authentic books. Otherwise, researchers would not have ignored it.

If we put this report to the sword of criticism, we would find that this narration was completely false, because its negation was contained within its subject matter. It was contrary to the high status of the Angels, which was highlighted by the Qur’an and general consensus of Muslim Ummah. There was no question of a dispute between this group and the one that culminated in blood shed. It was beyond consideration, because God had said about the Angels that they were respected servants of God, who did not disobey His commands or deny His orders. Moreover, Angels were a spiritual creation and the presence of blood was against all norms.

It was also contained in this report that Angels could not move from one place to the other without Amir Al-Mu’minin ’s permission. This view was also against established Qur’anic and Prophetic norms. The Qur’an also referred to some angelic quotes: “O, Prophet we do not descend but with the permission of God, with whom our station or movement was appended”. The background to this revelation was that once the Prophet asked Gabriel, why he did not visit him more often. Gabriel replied that God controlled his movement.

Similarly, it was mentioned in Surah Al-Qadr:

تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ فِيهَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِم مِّن كُلِّ أَمْرٍ

“Angels and the spirit descend during the night of Qadr (ascertainment) with the consent of God” (97:4).

We have now provided two statements to the readers. They can now make up their own mind about the rights and wrongs of this narration.

There was a supplication of Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin, in Sahifa Kamila, in the praise of Angels. Imam said in that supplication: “O, God send your blessing on those Angels that I have not referred, nor I know much about them about what sort of standing they enjoy in your presence, nor do I know the nature of their tasks”. These were the phrases from a book whose authenticity was beyond doubt.

Imam accepted that there were some Angels whose status and he did not know their duties. However, the narration under discussion, whose falseness we wanted to prove stated that Angels could not move without the permission of Imam. Allama Sayyid Ali Khan wrote in Riazul Salikeen: “Anyone else, other than God, did not know the information about Angels in totality”. This statement was also supplemented by the Qur’an.

Fifth Doubt

It was narrated from Qambar (a helper of Imam Ali) that he once went to the house of Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a), and asked his whereabouts from the housemaid Fizza. She replied that he had gone to a place called Barooj. Qambar said that he asked her what he was doing in Barooj? She replied that he went there to distribute sustenance, determine the ages of species, create new species, resurrect and eradicate people, while allocating honour and discredit to some individuals.

Qambar felt in his heart that he would complain to the Imam about the thoughts of this miserable lady. While, this discussion was in progress Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) appeared and asked me about the ongoing discussion with Fizza. I briefed him about the conversation. Imam asked me if I was not in agreement with what she said. I replied in affirmative. Amir Al-Mu’minin recited something at that moment and touched my eyes with his hand. Qambar says that he immediately saw the Universe leaning in obedience before the honourable Imam, just like a piece of almond lying in front of a person, and I saw other type of the creatures as well.

Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) then said: We have created all kind of creatures that live within, under and in between the heavens. Imam then put his hand at his eyes again, and everything disappeared from his eyes.

Rebuttal

This was totally unreliable narration, which had a broken chain of reference. It was beyond the measures and standards of the judgement about a Hadith. Moreover, it was not mentioned in any of the authentic books of Hadith.

If we ignored its weakness on the chain of reference, the subject matter that is contained in this narration was a proof of its falseness, similar to the Sermon of Al-Bayan, because its contents clashed with Qur’an, and Imams have specifically mentioned that if there was a quotation that was in opposition to the Qur’an then it must be rejected.

Qur’an said that God had created the mortals of heavens and the space underneath it, and this narration said that it was Ali who did all this creation. It was now up to the faithful to decide, which of the two explanations could be correct.

One must keep in mind that this matter related to the principles of the faith, and people of erudition knew that in such themes, the Qur’anic Verses took precedence over all other confirmations. Such ridiculous narrations had no place in this connection.

Sixth Doubt

It was mentioned in the Qur’an:

وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ رَمَىٰ

“... And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but (it was) Allah (that) threw”. (8:17)

This Qur’anic Verse suggested that act of Prophet was also an act of God. Therefore, whatever they did, it became a Godly act. Therefore, Tafweez was proven.

Rebuttal

The use of this Qur’anic Verse to prove Tafweez was wrong on two counts.

Firstly, if this Verse provided a licence for Tafweez for the Prophet, then it must provide the same right to all of those people who accompanied the Prophet in that battle, because Qur’an said:

فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ

“So, you did not slay them (the infidels), but it was Allah Who slew them” (8:17).

Both parts of the Verse had the same texture.

This Verse was referred to at a station of miracle. This happened during a battle with the infidels and the Prophet picked a handful of pebbles and threw it at the enemy. These pebbles struck the enemy combatants on their faces and they were blinded. At this juncture, this Qur’anic Verse was revealed:

وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ رَمَىٰ

“... And thou (Muhammad), threwest not when thou didst throw, but (it was) Allah (that) threw” (8:17).

This was done to remind the Prophet that while apparently it was Prophet who had thrown the pebbles, but to make those stones reach the faces of the enemy, was God’s job. Mohaddas Mohsin Faiz Kashani wrote: “God has approved the throwing of missiles by the Prophet; because he was seen to be doing that and negated the rest as its effect that was beyond human control. This was produced by Him. It was as if the pebbles were thrown by the God Himself and not the Prophet.

Similarly, the companions were advised not to be proud on the killing of the infidels though it was their sword that slashed their bodies, but the induction of fear in their hearts, and the help of the Angels was done by God. This statement was very similar to the Qur’anic Verse of Surah At-Tawbah, which stated:

أَفَرَأَيْتُم مَّا تَحْرُثُونَ

“See ye the seed that ye sow in the ground?” (56:63).

أَأَنتُمْ تَزْرَعُونَهُ أَمْ نَحْنُ الزَّارِعُونَ

“Is it ye that cause it to grow, or are We the Cause?” (56:64).

This proved that the above quotation has nothing to do with Tafweez”.

Seventh Doubt

God said:

فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ

“Blessed, is the God who is best of the creators” (23:14).

It was concluded from this Verse that there were persons other than God, who also create.

Rebuttal

The inference in favour of Tafweez from this Verse was not proper on four counts.

Firstly, this Verse was in line with Arabic language tradition. It was customary for Arabs that when they had to express quality of someone’s craftsmanship, they always employed plural article with the specialists of that trade, along with the word ‘Ahsan’ to give him precedence of all others, for Example, Ahsanul Tajireen, Ahsanul Najjareen, Khairul Khubbazeen, even though these so-called specialists might not exist at all. The same was true for Ahsanul Khaliqeen, in the above Qur’anic Verse.

Secondly, Khalaq was also used for technology. It was just possible that the Verse might be saying that as there were all kind of craftsmen in a community and God was the best among all other experts in any field.

Thirdly, the word Khalaq was also used in Arabic language for estimation or deduction. Readers could refer to Qamoos and Al-Munjid. This would then mean that God was the best planner and estimator of things. This had nothing to do with Tafweez.

Fourthly, Tafsir al-Saafi quoted a narration from Aaimma, with reference to this Verse. It was stated that the term Khaliq (Creator) was used metaphorically for some creatures as well. Those created beings who were figuratively called creators were Jesus, the Angels who performed their allocated task in the wombs of mothers during pregnancy and Samiri - the magician, who made a golden calf for the Israelites.

This meant that the Verse would hold its apparent sense without proposing Imams being the creators. In fact, this explanation denounced the very concept of other creators. If these people (Muhammad and Aali Muhammad) were creating things with the subtle approval of God, therefore and when the word creator could be used for the three entities mentioned above, then it would be proper in the same context that the Ahl al-Bayt were also the creators. However, when no such statement was made by them at any this juncture, then it would be out of place to impose such titles on them.

Eighth Doubt

It was evident from various Qur’anic Verses and numerous Ahadith that God had appointed Angels for various appointed tasks; such as creation, provision of sustenance and even life and death. It being an integral part of our faith that Angels were subservient to Imams, therefore, if servants could perform such tasks, then what was the limitation for the Masters?

It was just possible that the labour force for accomplishing these tasks might be the Angels and the holy progeny were their leaders and God was above them all, very similar to mundane hierarchy in the state establishment. What was wrong to have such a view in relation to the religious kingdom?

Rebuttal

Since this matter dealt with the fundamental principles of the religion then it required absolute proof or perfect reasoning to establish it among the followers. Naturally, in these matters conjectures did not count an iota nor probabilities added up to any positive result. There were several things that might be possible, but to deny those was essential. For example, what was logically wrong to not prostrate and worship the last of the prophets and his holy progeny? However, according to the sacred Shariah, neither prostration nor worship was allowed for anyone other than God. The same was true in the problem under consideration.

Several Qur’anic Verses and numerous prophetic traditions repudiated this concept. We, on the other hand, could go to this limit and say that if there was no clear verdict on this issue available in the Qur’an, even then there was no hesitation in us to reject this twisted faith. Notably, negating a concept did not require a proof, whilst a claim, especially when it was related to the principles of faith, required tentative proof of its validity.

It was claimed that such a concept had no malevolence or iniquity attached to it. We would agree that this postulation was excellent to attract people’s attention and then to rob them of their true faith. However, people of intellect knew that this speech was devoid of reality.

It was important to consider the phrase “What wrong results from this concept”? Then we asked them, what did they mean from this word “wrong”? If they meant that running of the universe was not affected by this belief, then they should know that it was true - not because their proposition was factual, but it was God, who managed this Universe. However, if it pointed to any religious iniquity then it was definitely present because it was an accusation levelled at Muhammad and Aali Muhammad, which was against many clear Qur’anic verdicts.

To compare a spiritual domain with mundane state management model was fundamentally wrong according to our religious code. Real task of the Prophets and Imams was to establish and implement religious system and not to make and invent laws, except they could make recommendations to God, which were not abandoned by the Lord.

It had been mentioned earlier that God had no ministerial assistance. His person was well above these mundane concepts. Amir Al-Mu’minin said in Dua al-Yashtasheer (This word was derived from Mushwera, which meant to consult), “God is the one who manages the Universe, without consulting with any of his creatures”. God says in Qur’an:

فَلَا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ

“Invent not similitudes for Allah” (16:74).

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) said that anyone who designed examples for God was a Mushrik.

This statement that if Angels could be appointed to do these tasks, what was the difficulty then for Muhammad and Aali Muhammad to take on these responsibilities, when they were superior to the Angels, was a farce communication. It was full of ignorance because no one claimed that Imams, if appointed could not do this job, when they were best of God’s creatures.

The question was not the suitability of Imams, but it was related to the command and will of God. As believers, we - the faithful, had to accept God’s verdict and then abide by it.

Ninth Doubt

There were a few entreaties of greetings that contained sentences, which substantiated Tafweez, just as in Ziarat al-Rajabiya. We would like to say in reply to this accusation that keeping aside the authenticity of such salutations, the Tafweez that was mentioned in those greetings was a request in religious matters that had already been discussed, and it was also substantiated by the text of those Ziarats. This intervention stood for supplying better reward on the Day of Judgement by way of their grand intercession.

Tenth Doubt

It was mentioned in certain reports from Imams, who said: “Keep us below the station of God and then say whatever you want to say about us, you will never be able to gauge our majesty”.

This showed that we could say that whatever we desired for Muhammad and Aali Muhammad other than Divinity was agreeable. This narration also revealed that we could not exaggerate about them, since the limits of their attributes are not fathomable.

Rebuttal

This was a singular report. As it had been mentioned on various occasions, we could not rely on such reports for the fundamental doctrine of the faith, because singular reports could take us to the level of possibility, which could not be relied upon. In the field of faith; knowledge and assurance were essential, which was obtained either from Qur’anic Verses or from repetitive narrations. This was also the view of all Islamic schools.

We would say that the interpreters had deduced those meanings from the report that were not associated with the text. It meant the phrase - keep us below the majesty of God, also meant - do not associate us with the attributes of God. We have shown through different Qur’anic Verses that Creation, Life and Death and Sustenance all belonged to God alone. Therefore, it was not right to associate Imams with such titles.

If we followed the interpretation of the opposition and agreed to keep Imams below the status of God and then claimed any rank for them, would our antagonists agree if we called Imams as Prophets and Messengers, or favoured them over Prophet Muhammad? Naturally, no one will support this suggestion. If it was true then the statement could be only be factual to the extent of general praise and desist from recommending Godly attributes for them.

It was true that we would not able to glorify God, the Prophet and Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, to the level they deserved. We know that the status of Imam was as towering, among the populace as a star in the heavens, but it does not mean that we could not differentiate between the limits of God, the Prophethood and Imamate. Otherwise, the knowledge of God’s attributes and the features of Prophethood would become meaningless.

Also, where does the knowledge of a few attributes of the Person of God, the Prophethood and Imamate tells us that we have known the true depth of their personality and they have now become restricted? On the other hand, we at least would be sure that we were not including anyone else in the attributes that are reserved for God, and were not incorporating non-Prophets with the Prophets. If on the other hand we included Imam in the attributes that were reserved for God and the Prophet, then Ghuloo (exaggeration) would certainly be committed.

The same principle would indeed apply for the Prophets as well. What an illogical statement had been made by them that one should avoid the station of Divinity for the holy progeny and then call them anything. This was overstatement; and the concept of Tafweez is another branch of exaggeration as argued in the beginning of this discussion.

Therefore, these facts proved that the basis of this statement “Then say whatever you want” had not stayed with its roots, but it had become specific. After avoiding these facts and then to argue with the alleged phrase was as illogical as the idea of believing that all the Islamic sects were salvaged after siding with the Prophetic statement: “Qulu la ilaha illa Allah tuflihu” (Say there is no god but God, you will be saved). An impractical person could say that performance of the religious rites was no more required after saying - la ilaha illa Allah.

Eleventh Doubt

If the concept of Tafweez was wrong because it led to shirk (to associate others with God), then no one could escape this state of affairs, because we all accept that Angels were definitely involved in carrying out those duties. It was not fair that if Muhammad and Aali Muhammad perform those tasks then it became shirk, but if the Angels executed those obligations; then it was acceptable.

Rebuttal

This misgiving could be answered in several ways.

Sometimes any two acts that were very similar to each other, could produce two different results - one that was carried out with the permission of God became appreciative, while the other could be deemed as shirk.

It was narrated in various reports that those who follow leaders of evil instead of guided Imams, were mushriks, and the others who followed Ma’sumin Imams were Unitarian and godly people, even though the apparent action of obedience was exactly the same in both instances because both leaders were non-God.

This difference was created by the fact that obedience of Ma’sumin Imams was ordained by God and the other rulers were without this certification. The same logic was applicable to our problem of Tafweez. It was proven that Angels were appointed to do those tasks but Imams were not asked to do those things. Therefore, those who followed this route are committing shirk.

Twelfth Doubt And Its Rebuttal

In various commentaries of Surah Inn Anzalna, it was stated that Angels, during the night of Qadr came to the presence of Imam of his time with various commandments and informed the Imam of the entire happenings of the year to follow. This showed that the management of the earth was carried out under supervision of the Imam, otherwise the arrival of Angels would become a meaningless gesture. The authentic answer to this problem was provided by Allama Al-Majlisi is as follows.

“Angels do not come to the Imams for the reason that they have to play the role of an advisor or a manager to God, in running the administration of the Universe, but it is done to enhance the image of His viceroy or caliph on the earth; otherwise, God alone is the master of the Universe.”

A similar explanation was also provided by the authors of Miratul Anwar and Mishkatul Asrar. These were those doubts that were created by the advocates of Tafweez, and we have provided adequate rebuttal of their twists and turns.

The signs and symbols of Ghalats and Mofawweza that were provided by the author of this booklet were alleged by the two groups to be incorrect and deficient, due to the inadequacy and paucity of the Grand Masters of Qom. We could only say in its explanation that it was not a formula that every Ghali or Mofawweza must have those signs and symbols, but the author’s view was based on the conditions prevailing at the occasion of writing of his booklet in Qom. The change of space and time could result in different observations.

Shaikhees, who were the perfect artefact of Mofawweza - their guru, Shaykh Hissae had claimed that the great masters of Najjaf were less informed and little exposed, while he possessed complete knowledge of the secret heavenly code. The same was true in Pakistan, where the followers of Shaikhees did not feel ashamed in insulting the great scholars of their time; just to acquire more monetary benefits for their selves.

• 1. Shurhal Khutba by Al-Kadhim Rishte Shaikhi.