Al-Imama From the point of view of Ali Ben – Hussein al –Masoudi (d346H)

This study investigated Al-Masoudi’s viewpoint of Al-Imama (Leadership) establishment and its development from the Caliphate of Abu Bakr Al-Seddeq in the 11 Hijri till the Caliphate of Al-Mutee Lilla, the Abbassid caliph in 346 Hijri. The study aimed at analyzing his two books “Murooj al-Dhahab & Ma’aden al-Jawhar” and Al-Tanbeeh wal-Ashraf” in order to understand his attitudes. Al-Masoudi, born in Iraq in 287 H. / 900 A.D. and dies in Egypt in 346 H. / 957 A.D., studied history and geography through journeys and travels. His Shiite attitudes are clear in his narration. Al-Masoudi depended in his methodology on arranging the subjects rather than the annual chronological history. His writings included historical, geographical, religious, and political issues including Al-Imama issue and the stand of the Islamic parties towards it. According to Al-Masoudi, Al-Imama is the political position that Al-Imam held in order to deal with the worldly and heavenly affairs of Muslims after the death of the Prophet (Peace be upon Him), and the nation should obey him. He adopted the Shiite concept of Al-Imama that emphasized the idea of text and will of the caliphate of Ali Ben Abi Taleb. The Shiite distinguished al-Imam with this name for its religious impact that granted him legitimacy and infallibility. He also emphasized the stand of Abu Bakr who refused to be called the Caliph of God saying that he was the Caliph of God’s Messenger. He also mentioned the title “Amir al-Moumineen” that was first introduced by the Caliph Omar Ben al-Khattab instead of the title “the Caliphate of God’s Messenger” emphasizing at the same time the political and religious duties of this position. He also refused the issue of granting the pledge of allegiance to two imams at the same time saying that the Messenger had demanded that the group rebelling against the imam should be killed. Al-Masoudi adopted the Shiite concept of the caliphate issue and emphasized the Murje’a concept of Quraish caliphate, but he rejected the attitude of al-Khawarej towards the caliphate. He also showed that the pledge of allegiance was granting the imam with complete obedience in all conditions good or bad provided that the imam should carry out the concepts of God’s Book and the Messenger’s Method. He also referred to the forms of the pledge and its historical development. The pledge, he said, consisted of two forms: the pledge of the elite carried out by the members of the elite class, and the public pledge carried out by the whole nation. During the Rashideen age, the ceremonies of the Pledge were carried out in Al-Madena only but it expanded to all the Islamic states when the Umayads took over. The states position towards the Pledge was clarified when Mecca, al-Medina and Iraq refused to grant the Pledge to the Umayads while the people of Syria refused to grant the Pledge to the Abbasids. Al-Masoudi also refused the Umayad idea when Muaweya created the regency as a constitution in the caliphate establishment that became a tradition for peaceful authority transference during the Umayad and Abbasid eras. The study also referred to Al-Masoudi’s position of the issue of the consultative council. He said that the desire of Omar Ben Al-Khattab to deliver the Caliphate to Othman Ben Affan and the role of Abdul-rahman Ben Awf who withdrew from the competition in favor for Othman was no more than a conspiracy to remove Ali from the scene and to deny the role of Al-Bait (the family of the Messenger)in leading the nation. Al-Masoudi discussed the qualities of al-Imam represented by infallibility, faith, knowledge, jurisprudence, bravery, and generosity in addition to belonging to Quraish dynasty. He emphasized the fact that Ali enjoyed the qualities that qualified him for Caliphate. Al-Masoudi emphasized the historical concept of the Ordeal that occurred in the struggle for authority ranging from the Othman Ordeal in the year 35 H., al-Jamal Ordeal, 36 H., Seffeen Ordeal, 37-40 H. and the Ordeal of Al-Ameen and Al-Ma’moun 194-198 H. Al-Masoudi also supported the Shiite movements against the Umayads and the Abbasids demanding for their legitimate rights in the caliphate. He denounced the measures of the authority in suppressing the rights of the Alawis and Talibians in demanding their rights. But he praised the attitudes of Omar Ben Abdul-Azeez and Al-Mamoun for their friendly position with al-Mu’tazela. He also emphasized the innocence of Ali from the blood of Othman who was murdered in his house. He said that Ali defended the Caliph and sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Husein to defend the Caliph. He also denounced the trio-party of al-Jamal (Aysheh, Talha, and Al-Zubair) for their rebellion against the legitimate Imam (Ali) stating Al’s position who was against the war. He also dealt with the conflict between Ali and Muawiya and held the latter responsible directly for the bloodshed while praising the position of Al-Hasan who abdicated the caliphate peacefully for Muawiya. He also denounced al-Khawarej whom he held responsible for Ali’s murder. He criticized the Umayad policy in suppressing Abdula ben al-Zubair movement during his conflict with the Umayad authority in 63 H. Although al-Masoudi denounced the Abbasid for taking over the Caliphate after overthrowing the Umayads, he affirmed the legitimacy of Al-Ma’moun. At the same time, he held the Caliph Al-Ameen responsible for the struggle that occurred because he violated the oath with his brother when he attempted to deprive him from the regency. This explains the stand of Al-Masoudi in support of Al-Ma’moun against Al-Ameen during the conflict.