Appearance
The Deprivation of Non-Infallibles from the Divine Covenant
The shortcomings of the aforementioned claim can be understood by examining the proofs offered by the Imāmiyya regarding the exclusion of oppressors—whether their oppression occurred in the past, present, or future—from the divine covenant. The Imāmiyya emphasize the necessity of the Imām’s infallibility, and their arguments are presented here:
Based on the principle of appropriateness between the ruling and the subject, it is the practice of wise individuals not to entrust important and sensitive responsibilities to those with bad records. It would be unreasonable to place significant spiritual and moral positions, such as prophethood, messengership, or leadership of the people (if Imāma in the verse under discussion refers to leadership), into the hands of individuals with a history of wrongdoing. Therefore, it is inconceivable that God, the All-Wise, would entrust such elevated positions to those with bad pasts.
On this basis, if a polytheist or idol-worshipper repents and becomes a Muslim, they may be forgiven, but they are not deemed fit to lead the Islamic society. At most, they will be treated like other Muslims. The verse “Say to those who disbelieve, if they cease, what is past will be forgiven them” [8:38] and the ḥadīth “Islam wipes out what came before it”(59) imply the forgiveness of past sins but do not suggest that such individuals are qualified for sensitive religious leadership positions. Thus, the reasoning presented by the author of Kashf al-Asrār(60) is incomplete.
This argument can be understood as a rational proof based on practical wisdom or a consideration grounded in reason, highlighting that past transgressions disqualify individuals from holding positions of spiritual and moral authority, even if they have repented.
The second proof presented by the Imāmiyya is a verbal one. The statement “My covenant does not extend to the oppressors” [2:124] is absolute, meaning that God’s covenant never reaches an oppressor, regardless of whether that person continues in their oppression or repents from it.
Some exegetes, such as Amīn al-Islām Ṭabarsī, have interpreted this absoluteness to mean that the verse applies to individuals during their time as polytheists, disbelievers, or oppressors.(61) Since God’s covenant cannot reach an oppressor, it follows that this person will never be eligible for Imāma, even if they later repent and become virtuous. The key criterion is not limited to the individual’s current state at the time of repentance, but rather the fact that they were, at any point, an oppressor.
This verbal proof is comprehensive and encompasses the individual during their engagement in wrongdoing. The meaning of the verse is that a person who is currently, or has previously been, a polytheist, disbeliever, or oppressor is not eligible for God’s covenant of Imāma, whether or not they later repent, unless there is some external contextual evidence indicating an exception to this rule.
One of the key elements in understanding the content of a text, especially in theological discussion, is observing the appropriateness between the question and the answer. This is because, at times, the specifics of a question can clarify the answer, and vice versa. In some instances, both the question and answer function like two premises leading to a singular conclusion. Therefore, considering a question without its corresponding answer, or an answer without its question, results in incomplete understanding and perception.
Regarding the denotation of the verse under discussion as it pertains to the infallibility of the Imām, there is an approximation that ʿAllāmahṬabāṭabāʾī (may his soul be sanctified) narrates from some of his teachers. Before delving into that approximation, it is important to reflect on its historical context and consider the responses of some Sunni exegetes. Afterward, we will analyze what has been presented in al-Mīzān.
A. The central axis of the verse’s meaning is that God’s covenant—whether it pertains to prophethood, messengership, or Imāma, in whichever sense they are explained—does not reach the oppressor, regardless of how oppression is interpreted.
B. A common critique of this interpretation is that the verse only negates the competence of someone who is an actual oppressor at the time of their appointment, but it does not apply to someone who has repented and become just, even if they were an oppressor in the past.
C. This critique has been countered by the argument that the word “min” in “and from my descendants” [2:124] is used for division. Thus, Abraham’s (a.s.) request was for a portion of his descendants, not for all of them. These descendants can be divided into four categories:
Someone who was just throughout their entire life.
Someone who was oppressive at the time of Imāma, regardless of whether they were just or oppressive during the rest of their life.
Someone who was just for part of their life and oppressive for another part.
Someone who was just for part of their life, and in another part, either just or oppressive (which is inconsequential in this context).
Considering these possibilities:
The first assumption leads to a mismatch between Abraham’s question and God’s response.
The second assumption implies a lack of knowledge on Abraham’s part, which is impossible for someone of his status.
The third assumption results in the conclusion that someone who was oppressive during any part of their life cannot become an Imām.
The fourth assumption either leads to the same conclusion as the third or it becomes a flawed assumption.
Thus, the objection argues that the verse’s intent is to negate the competence of someone who has been oppressive at any point in their life. This interpretation takes precedence over the apparent meaning of the derivative form of the word, which some argue applies only to the current state of engagement and not to past actions.
D. Shihāb al-Dīn Sayyid Maḥmūd Ālūsī Baghdādī (d. 1270 AH), who famously began writing his well-known exegesis Rūḥ al-Maʿānī fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm wa-l-Sabʿ al-Mathānī after an extraordinary dream (as he claims) on the 16th of Shaʿbān in the year 1252 AH at the age of 34, addresses this objection in his critique:
The argument is based on interpreting the word “covenant” as broader than the specific prophethood and Imāma being discussed, which makes proving it difficult. The explicit statement of some, such as Jaṣṣāṣ, is not a sufficient basis to obligate everyone to this interpretation.
After considering this point, the response is that Imāma in its more general sense was requested for some of Abraham’s descendants without specifying their justice or oppression, and the verse provided its response with the clarification that was previously mentioned. Additionally, even if the first assumption is accepted, it has been addressed in that same context.
It is possible to accept the third assumption, which can be explained as follows: This assumption has two parts: One is that, the individual was oppressive before attaining Imāma, but at the time of being appointed to Imāma, they repented completely and became fully just. The other is that the individual was oppressive before Imāma, and while they refrained from oppression at the time of appointment, they did not possess the faculty of justice because they had not truly repented. In the case of the first part, there would be no issue with the inclusion of Abraham’s (a.s.) request regarding this type of descendant. However, in the case of the second part, where the individual has refrained from oppression but has not repented or demonstrated full justice, the verse’s response is that Imāma does not extend to this category of people.
The two sheikhs and ʿUthmān do not belong to the latter category (those who refrained from oppression without achieving true justice), but rather hold the highest rank of the former category. This means that after their period of oppression, they repented and became completely just.(62) Then, Ālūsī turned to the issue of the usage of derivatives in language, distinguishing between their real and metaphorical meanings.
What had been confusedly categorized and answered incorrectly two centuries ago has now been refined and clarified by some of the teachers of ʿAllāmahṬabāṭabāʾī (may his soul be sanctified). They have substantiated the correct understanding, which can be s_umma_rized as follows: The use of the correspondence between the question and answer in understanding this issue is a form of verbal deduction. The explanation and application of this principle to the subject under discussion is as follows:
Abraham (a.s.) requested Imāma for some of his descendants. God accepted certain parts of his request, while He did not accept others. In addressing these two outcomes, it is clear that Abraham’s descendants can be categorized into four conceivable groups:
a) Those who have been wicked and oppressive throughout their lives.
b) Those who have been just and infallible throughout their lives.
c) Those who were initially oppressive, but later repented and became just.
d) Those who were initially just, but later disobeyed and became corrupt and oppressive.
To determine which group or groups are referred to by the phrase “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers” [2:124], it is first necessary to clarify Abraham’s (a.s.) request in “and from my descendants.” As an infallible prophet, one of Abraham’s defining traits was his firm disavowal and aversion to oppressors, as expressed in “Indeed, we are disassociated from you” [60:4]. Given this, it is certain that Abraham did not seek Imāma for the oppressors among his descendants. Therefore, his request for the position of Imāma could not have included the first and fourth groups mentioned. These groups are completely outside the scope of Abraham’s noble request.
On this basis, the phrase “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers” [2:124] is a response to Abraham’s request for Imāma for the remaining individuals, specifically the second and third groups. Since the term “oppressor” truthfully applies to the individuals in the third group—those who were initially oppressive but later repented—the meaning of the verse indicates the unsuitability of this group for Imāma. The result is that Abraham’s request was only answered regarding the second group, those who have been just and infallible throughout their entire lives.(63)
Reminder: Abraham’s (a.s.) supplication was not, and cannot be, beneficial for individuals with a history of wrongdoing. In a similar manner, intercession in the Hereafter has specific criteria, which eliminates the vain hopes of some and negates the baseless arrogance of others.(64)