Shia Islam’s Theological Stance on Terrorism


Seyed Mohammad Sadatinejad

Abstract

 

This paper seeks to explain how Shia Islam’s theological stances have prevented the formation and growth of extremism and violence and the spread of terrorism while blocking any attempt by extremists to extend the domain of blasphemy and jihadism to Muslims and carry out criminal and terrorist actions. Studies conducted within the framework of this research show that the Shia theological stances have not allowed the emergence of extremist thoughts and terrorist groups in Shia communities due to following the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad’s family, the institutionalization of wisdom, and the emergence of reformism in the contemporary period in fundamental issues like monotheism, prophethood, justice, imamate, resurrection, determinism and free will, intrinsic goodness and badness, and independent intellectual reasoning, as promoted by Ayatollah Morteza Motahari, Allame Tabatabaei, Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi Amoli, Imam Khomeini, and others. This approach has found its way into the principles of Shia fiqh (religious jurisprudence) and offered guidance to the society and the youth to prevent the emergence of terrorism among Shias and in Shia communities.

Keywords: Theology, Shia Islam, Terrorism, Extremism, Violence-seeking.

 

1. Introduction

The present paper aims to study the Shia Islam’s theological stances and see to what extent these theological stances have either facilitated or prevented the growth of extremism and terrorism. To that effect, we first study the background and history of Shia theology before going through the theological stances of Shias. Section 3 assesses Shia's stances before being able to reach a conclusion on the role of Shia theological stances in the growth or blocking of extremist and terrorist currents. The findings of this research, which are based on theology, precisely show which theological approaches are likely to facilitate extremism and terrorism in the Muslim world, and how these stances could offer an effective solution to countering extremism and terrorism in the Muslim world.

 

2. Islamic and Shia Theology: Foundation and Expansion

Theology discusses Islamic beliefs, explains them, argues them, and defends them. Shia theology engages all Shia sects and denominations (Jabraeili, 2010: 45-84; Shojaei, 2010: 17-18). In this paper, we are not supposed to discuss the theological stances of all Shia groups and sects. Therefore, we focus on the Twelver Shias. In the beginning, it is necessary to review the background and development of theology and the establishment of various theological groups, particularly during the early years following the revelation of Islam. Islamic theology has gone through various periods of history. During each period, political and social events transpiring in Islamic societies have influenced this branch of science and mutually theological groups have influenced the political and social events of Islamic societies. The first period of Islamic theology was when Koranic verses were revealed. In fact, the Koran itself was the initiator of theology and the revelation of Islam was the most significant factor in the development of Islamic theology (Motahari, 1998b: 453).

The revelation of Islam in a world dominated by a variety of religions, confessions, and thoughts gave rise to new tensions and questions for the followers of these religions. In addition to explaining Islamic beliefs, the Prophet Muhammad supported them against non-Muslim groups and religions and removed their doubts by offering logical proof. In Imam Ali’s words, people were following combined denominations and even fabricated religions. One group likened God to His creations while some others tampered with His name. There were also some who believed in non-God. Therefore, God saved humanity from ignorance through the Prophet Muhammad (Nahj al-Balagha; Sermon 1: 36). However, due to the emergence of divisions among Muslims after the Prophet’s death, numerous theological sects took shape. The first group of Muslims expressed the principles of beliefs citing Koranic verses or the prophet’s words. But, when differences emerged about the details and the meaning of the principles, they had to offer logical proof in addition to koranic citations and narratives (Theological Sects, 2017; Ibn Khaldoun, 1984: 463). Therefore, theology entered a modern era following the Prophet Muhammad’s departure.

Immediately after the Prophet’s death, some called into question the principle of prophethood. They were billed as an apostate. Divisions also emerged between Muhajirun and Ansar. Some of them had sworn allegiance to Imam Ali (AS) when he was successor-in-waiting to the Prophet Muhammad, but now they totally disclaimed the principle of imamate. Such differences raised questions and consequently, theological discussions started in Muslim societies. Imam Ali (AS) was making arrangements for the Muslim community to not deviate from true Islam. The foundations he laid at the time, later on, set the cornerstone for Shia theology. His ideas were promoted by other Shia imams, particularly Imam Baqer (AS) and Imam Sadeq (AS).

Among the first theological sects who were deviated from the right path were the Kharijites who emerged in the final years of Imam Ali’s governance. Of course, some do not recognize the Kharijites as a theological school of thought, but since their activity was based on some distorted theological principles and beliefs and moreover other theological schools of thought were established to counter them, it would be impossible to ignore them. They used to call into question the very principle of the Islamic government and promote extremist views among Muslims. Among their most significant theological stances was to consider any mortal sin as blasphemy. Based on such a self-styled principle, they killed many Muslims (Theological Sects, 2017; Shahrestani, 1971: 105-110). During the Seffeyn Battle, the Kharijites claimed that Imam Ali had committed a mortal sin by accepting arbitration and he was, therefore, guilty of blasphemy. They were, in fact, the first generation of the Takfiri current (Sadatinejad, 2016). Therefore, one may conclude that the Kharijites laid the foundation for terrorism in the Muslim world and their discourse cleared the way for the spread of terrorism in the Muslim world.

To counter the Kharijites’ extremism, another theological school of thought was established. This one considered mortal sinners as true believers. For this new group, one had to make a distinction between faith and deed. They were known as the Murjites whose theological school of thought was set up after the Umayyad dynasty came to power. The Umayyad rulers had established this school in order to justify their oppression and injustice. That blocked any way to combat oppression and injustice (Theological Sects, 2017; Boyer Noss, 1975: 749). The revolutionary movement spearheaded by Imam Hussein (AS), the third Shia imam, was a big movement to reform such deviated theological beliefs. In light of his knowledge of the social and political effects of his own movement, Imam Hussein (AS) stood against the Murjites that was targeting the very pillar of Islam. Imam Hussein’s uprising paved the way for more uprisings among Shias, the most significant of which was the one led by Zayd Shahid. However, after Zayd was martyred, the movement was deviated and followed theological thinking totally different from the Twelver Shiism (Theological Sects, 2017; Mashkoor, 1989: 42). The followers of this sect specifically believe that any brave, knowledgeable and ascetic Fatimid was an imam if he chooses to rise up (Shahrestani, 1971: 154). Apart from these two theological schools of thought, from the first year AH, the hackneyed issue which had given rise to the formation of the first theological sects was determinism and free will. That led to the establishment of the Qadariya and Jabariya schools of thought. Their bone of contention was the issue of determinism and free will. The Abbasids saw the culmination of discussions on faith and the emergence of small and large theological schools of thought. In the final years of the Umayyad dynasty in power and then during the Abbasid rule, the Mu’tazilite and Ash’arite schools emerged to continue Qadariya and Jabariya. However, they survived and grew into two major theological approaches for Sunnis.

Meanwhile, other Shia and Sunni sects established their own theological schools. We briefly review them, but it is out of the scope of this paper to go into the details of their thoughts. Karramiyya was a Sunni theological sect whose followers emerged in the first half of the 3rd century AH in the Muslim world. The sect was founded by Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Karram (Shahrestani, 1971: 107). Concurrently with Babak Khorramdin’s battles against the Abbasids in Iran, this sect appeared in Khorasan. The followers of Karramiyya considered God to be a body living in Heaven. They sought to prove God’s features and qualities physically. They also held deviant views on the issues of prophethood, imamate, impeccability, divine words, and other theological matters (Theological Sects, 2017).

Another Sunni sect was Maturidism, attributed to Abu Mansour al-Maturidi. The Maturidists were followers of Abu Hanifa in fiqh-related issues (unlike Ash’ariwho-followed Hanbalis). Sheikh Abu Mansur Maturidi had revised the Hanafi views to develop the self-styled true Sunni beliefs. These principles of belief were developed into a theological branch of science taught by the Sheikh at his Maturidist school in Samarkand. That was how Maturidi became the theologian at this school and served as the chief of Sunnis in Transoxania. The theologians of Tansoxania were later billed as Maturidist. Maturidism is opposite to Mu’tazilism and bears resemblance to Asharism. Compared with Asharism, Maturidism pays further attention to intellectual issues and that is why Maturidism may be described as the middle of Mu’tasilism and Asharism (Theological Sects, 2017; Rabbani Golpayegani, 1994: 53).

Among other theological Shia, there are sects including Zaydism (Zaidiyyah), Kaysanism, Ismailism, and Waqifism. Zaydism is a branch of Shiism following Zayd bin Ali bin al-Hussein. Zaydism emerged after the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (AS). After Zayd bin Ali died in Kufa (in the month of Muharram, 122 AH), his son Yahya became the harbinger of a fight with the Umayyads. Zaydism was very similar to Mu’tasilism. Unlike the Twelvers, the Zaydites did not believe in the impeccability of Shia imams and maintained that all sons of Imam Hassan (AS) and Imam Hussein (AS) were qualified to become imam (Theological Sects, 2017).

The Kaysanites were those who elected Muhammad bin Hanifa, who was Imam Ali’s son, as their leader after Imam Hussein’s martyrdom. The Ismailites emerged in the Muslim world in the second half of the 3rd century AH. They were based in Khuzestan, but they spread very quickly. That is why some historians refer to the 4th century AH as the Ismailite century.

The Ismailites cover all sects who had chosen Ismail, the eldest son of Imam Sadiq (AS), as their leader after the imam’s death. The Ismailites disavowed Imam Musa Kazim (AS). The Ismailites generated other branches like Mubarakiya, Qarmatiya, and Batiniya (Theological Sects, 2017).

Another group of Shias dissociated from the Twelvers after the martyrdom of Imam Musa Kazim (AS) and were later known as the Waqifists.

All of these sects favored theological thoughts which the Twelvers did not approve of.

We will now look into the most significant theological topics of Shiism before discussing the developments of the contemporary era when deviant thoughts that promoted terrorism and extremism in the Muslim world emerged.

 

3. Main Shia Theological Stances and Arguments

Islamic theology covers a variety of issues that have been subject to heated debate. Issues pertaining to monotheism, the impeccability of the Prophet Muhammad and the Shia imams, resurrection and prophethood, meeting with God on Judgment Day, hellfire, and the authenticity of hadiths have always made divisions between Islamic theological schools of thought. The deepest-rooted issue is determinism and free will. The Islamic community, which stepped into the practical thinking phase very soon, did not hesitate to bring up the issue of determinism and free will. Raising such an issue in the Muslim community was natural because it was a religious community and the Koran, which is the holy Muslim book, has frequently referred to divine determinism and free well as well as reward and punishment. Discussions about determinism and free will triggered debates on justice because there is a direct relationship between free will and justice on the one hand and determinism and disavowal of justice on the other. In other words, only in the event of free will, reward and punishment would make sense.

In such a context, another issue related to justice was intrinsic goodness and badness. Is everything intrinsically good or bad? Are honesty, confidence, charity and similar acts intrinsically good and recommended? Are lying, treason and the like intrinsically bad and prohibited? (Motahari, 2013: 18-19)

The next issue that emerged in Islamic theology pertained to independent intellectual reasoning. As we started talking about natural qualities, the role of intellect and intellectual independence in exploring these qualities was laid bare. The question here is to know whether intellect can independently perceive the goodness and badness of things or it would need the assistance and guidance of religion. Therefore, intrinsic goodness and badness are referred to as intellectual goodness and badness. Another issue highlighted in theology was monotheism. After intellect, intellectual independence, and intrinsic goodness and badness, the focus was shifted unto monotheism and God’s intentions. Another issue was about imamate and the Shias’ adherence to the supremacy of Shia imams (Motahari, 2013: 21-22).

Therefore, most theological issues related to the subject of this research revolve around six concepts: monotheism (blasphemy and faith), imamate and impeccability, determinism and free will, justice and theosophy, intrinsic and logical goodness and badness, and rationality. These issues are significant in this research because any deviation from the main theological discussions may prepare the ground for the spread of extremism and terrorism.

Shiism has its own definition of monotheism, justice, intellect, endurance, and theosophy. During the very early years of the revelation of Islam, there was a serious theological dispute between Qadariya and Jabariya and also between Mu’tazilism and Ash’arism among the Sunnis. The Shias had to react to such theological approaches. On the issue of justice, Shiism was in favor of Mu’tazilism; however, the definitions presented by Shiism and Mu’tazilism of theological concepts were different. In the Shia school of thought, free will could never be delegated as such delegation of authority would mean depriving God of his absolute authority and divinizing humanity. That would mean nothing but polytheism. Shia imams suggested the principle of “amrunbayn al-amrayn” (the middle way). The principle was precise as follows: La jabrva la tafvizbalamrunbayn al-amryan (neither determinism nor delegation of authority, but the middle way) (Motahari, 2013: 29).

As far as justice is concerned, Shias consider justice as one of their principles of belief that distinguish them from other theological sects. That is why justice is known as a pillar of religion for the Shias. They define justice without any prejudice to the meaning of the unity of divine acts or the unity of divine essence. Justice was juxtaposed with monotheism. In this school of thought, the genuineness of justice, intellect, human being’s freedom of action and the world order were proven without any prejudice to the unity of divine acts or essence. The human being’s free will was endorsed without justifying polytheism or calling into question the divine will or restricting humanity to divine determinism. Divine determinism was proven in the universe (Motahari, 2013: 29, 34). In the Shia theological school of thought, all tendencies were monotheistic. In other words, in monotheism and multiplication of qualities, Shias favored the unity of qualities. In such a context, the Shias were in agreement with the Mu’tazilites and opposed to the Ash’arites. There were also minor differences between the Shia and the Mu’tazilite definitions of monotheism. The Mu’tazalites believed in the separation of essence from qualities while the Shias believed in the unity of essence and qualities.

On the issue of the divine unity of acts, the Shias were on the side of the Ash’arites; however, the Shias did not deny the cause-effect system (Motahari, 2013: 29). For the Shias, the Mu’tazilites’ view of the divine unity of qualities was imperfect because although the Mu’tazilites did not believe in the qualities contradicting the essence, they failed to prove the sameness of qualities and essence. The Mu’tazilites favored the independence of essence from qualities. That is a big weakness in this school of thought. The Shias also believed that Ash’arites had failed to justify the concepts of justice, intellect, free will, and theosophy. The Ash’arites denied the cause-effect logic under the pretext of the divine unity of acts and they considered everything to have directly been originated from God without the interference of any condition and intermediary. Such belief goes contrary to the vastness and highness and all-encompassing nature of the divine essence of God (Motahari, 2013: 27). On imamate, the Shias had their own specific theological views. They never equalized those endowed with authority as governors (Motahari, 2013: 29-30). The Shias believe that the Prophet Muhammad was succeeded by imams who were his descendants. That is why most Shias derived their theological teachings from the Prophet’s House and that protected them against deviation and excess and defect.

On imamate, the Shias hold very clear views. They cite the Ghadir event to justify the Prophet Muhammad’s appointment of Ali as his successor. They also say that, based on Koranic texts and the prophet’s words, the 12 Shia imams were qualified to succeed the prophet. The Shia imams are impeccable and endowed with authority, which is a must for Islamic societies. The Shias believe that the 12th imam remains occult until he would make a second coming by the order of God. As long as the 12th imam remains occult, Shia jurisconsults are tasked with leading the Islamic society. That is why Shia jurisconsults have been presented with extended instructions inherited from the prophet to help protect them against any excess and defect. The Shias consider the rulers of the Muslim community as unjust rulers and they have therefore been in a constant fight with unjust rulers.

 

4. Shia Theological Stances against Terrorism and Extremism

Now we continue to discuss the impact of Shia theological stances on the Muslim community and the created currents and their impacts to realize how these theological beliefs block the growth and development of terrorism and extremist groups. One of the major factors in the fight against Takfiri currents, as the fourth generation of Salafism, created due to a negative diversion in the theological views of jihadist Salafists (Sadatinejad, 2016) has been the Shia theological approach. Unlike Ibn Timiyeh who theorized his views in a bid to revive the Hanbali denomination (Dinparast, 2005; Al-Batouti, 1994: 277) and Abdul-Wahab who reduced Salafism to Ibn Timiyeh’s views (Dinparast, 2005; Farasatkhah, 1998: 129), Shias have always sought to spread rightful beliefs in line with wisdom and a comprehensive and unified view of the entire Muslim world with all its sects and groups. Shias have always prevented any exploitation of differences against the unity of the Muslim world and Muslim groups. This issue was specifically spread and developed during the period of dynamism of Shia theological thoughts by Seyed Jamal, Morteza Motahari, Imam Khomeini, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

However, in the Sunni ranks, particularly in the contemporary era, the emergence of some deviated theological currents starting from Wahhabism cleared the way for the growth of al-Qaeda and Takfiri groups; a current which is doubtlessly faced with a serious legitimacy crisis in the Muslim world (Sadatinejad, 2016). The Shia theological approach prompted Shia groups to counter injustice and unjust groups without neglecting the conspiracy of authoritarian rulers and dictatorial powers. Shiism considers justice to be endowed with intrinsic goodness and badness, so it has always fought with oppression and oppressors. Shia uprisings have always favored Islamism and safeguarded Islamic values and the respect of the Islamic community. The history of Islam has witnessed numerous uprisings by Shia groups. The Alevites’ uprising against the Umayyad and Abbasid rules were aimed at change (Motahari, 2003: 13-14) without any diversion to excess and defect.

The main Shia figurehead in Islamic movements over the past 150 years has been Seyed Jamaluddin Asadabadi. Seyed Jamal’s movement was both intellectual and social. He watched out for the threats of extremist revisionism. Seyed Jamal had warned against the ignorance of Muslim masses, the infiltration of superstitious beliefs in the Muslims’ thoughts, division among Muslims under religious and non-religious pretexts, and the infiltration of Western colonialism (Motahari, 2003: 17-24). In his works and writings, Seyed Jamal granted credit to the intellect, proof, and argumentation. He maintained that Islam is the religion of knowledge, dignity, responsibility, and disavowal of humiliation and submission. Seyed Jamal also laid emphasis on Islamic monotheism and the fact that monotheism is not accepted without reaching certainty. He believed that intuitive monotheism would root out every wrong belief. He invited people to intuitive monotheism to highlight the value of intellect. In a paper, he defended Islam’s theory of determinism. He said this theory would cause no decadence, noting that it would even lead to progress and excellence (Motahari, 2003: 25-27; Vaseqi, 1976).

Therefore, Seyed Jamal’s thoughts led to the creation of a reformist Islamic movement in the contemporary era. The theological views of this movement were born out of Shia discourse. Sunni movements would have never been deviated had they followed Seyed Jamal and they would have been very fruitful for Sunni societies.

In the aftermath of Seyed Jamal’s anti-dictatorial and anti-colonial efforts, reformist Shia movements were formed in the form of fundamental movements. Such movements as the Tobacco Movement, Iraq’s Revolution, Constitutional Revolution, or Islamic Revolution were among fundamental movements that transpired the Shia world. The only Shia sect that was likely to follow in the footsteps of Wahhabism was Bahaism which was defeated by Shia scholars and people. Bahaism was initially fabricated in the 12th century AH under the title of Sheikhism led by a Shia cleric. He had won some followers by expressing new views about resurrection and imamate. Sheikh Ahmad Ehsaei was born in Hijaz in 1166 AH. He had studied in Iraq’s holy cities at Shia schools. Sheikh Ahmad did not believe in humanities learned from any source other than the impeccable and claimed that he owed his knowledge to the Prophet’s House.

Sheikh Ahmad was succeeded by Seyed Kazem Rashti. Sheikh Ahmad’s specific views led to the emergence of various groups like Karimkhaniya, Saqat al-Islamiya, Hojjat al-Islamiya, Ehqaqiya, and Baqiriya. Later on, Bahaism emerged (Baqeri, 2010), but it failed to win over the Shias.

In general, the Shia theological history may be examined during four periods: 1. The phase of Inception: It was during the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime. The followers and disciples of the Prophet Muhammad listed to his views about theological issues which were based on Koranic verses; 2. The phase of Subject Determination, Elucidation and Structuring: This phase covers the first six centuries of Islam, starting after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad until the early years of the 2nd century AH when Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq taught their views about theological issues. It also covers the 2nd and the 3rd centuries AH when theological issues were drafted in Shia books under five topics – imamate, disavowal, theological societies, justice, and monotheism. During the 3rd and 4th centuries, Shia theological topics were organized and Shia theology experts explained these issues in detail from a theological standpoint, and finally, in the 5th and 6th centuries, Shia theological discussions were structured; 3. The phase of Evolution, Explanation, and Summarization: It started in the 7th and 8th centuries and went into the 14th century; 4. The phase of Reformism and Dynamism: It starts in the 14th century and has since been continuing (Shojaei, 2010: 19). In the last phase, due to the Western cultural onslaught, theological science entered a new phase of dynamism and started to look for answers to questions posed by Western culture.

This period is marked by such senior figures as Ayatollah Motahari, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, and Ayatollah Sobhani (Shojaei, 2010: 18) and particularly the leaders of the Islamic Republic Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei. They accomplished their role as reformers while watching out for excess and defect. Owing to their vigilance and dynamism, they prevented any infiltration of extremism and terrorism into Shia theological philosophy. They underscored the significance of fraternity and strengthening unity among Muslims and within the Muslim community in a bid to prevent any emergence of extremist and terrorist approaches in the Shia population. The stances adopted by Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei against Israel in support of the Palestinian nation which is a Muslim, albeit Sunni, nation and advising against extremist and insolent moves against other Muslim groups are just part of this reformist view of Shia reformers.

Methodologically speaking, five different approaches have been followed up by Shia theology experts throughout different periods of history. Except for a brief period, all these periods saw a combination of traditional and rational approaches. Mutual support between tradition and rationale prevented any deviation into extremism and violence seeking by Shias. These five approaches are as follows:

  1. Rational and Traditional Theological Approach: It covers the era of the presence of Shia imams. Such works as Nahj al-Balagha and al-Kafi emerged in this period when theological issues were presented not in the form of a series of liturgical affairs but in the form of enlightening argumentation. This approach reached its culmination under Imam Ali, Imam Sadiq, and Imam Reza and continued up until Imam Mahdi’s occultation.
  2. Rational Approach: It was known in the 5th and 6th centuries and is marked by Sheikh Mofid and Sheikh Toosi.
  3. Theological-Philosophical Approach: It dates from the 7th century. Khajeh Nasir ad-Din Toosi was a figurehead of this approach. But the approach was initiated by the Nobakhtis.
  4. Theological Approach Dominated by Narratives: Allameh Majlesi (1111 AH) and Feiz Kashani (1092 AH) were the two representatives of this approach.
  5. Rational-Traditional-Philosophical Theological Approach: It started in the 14th century and has since been ongoing. It was initiated by Molla Sadra Shirazi, who lived in 1050 AH. In this approach, in addition to the rational, traditional and philosophical approaches, mystical fundamentals and concepts were also used while religion was reconciled with rationale. This approach came to bold relief in the contemporary era with Allameh Tabatabaei and his disciples like Morteza Motahari, Javadi Amoli, and Ayatollah Sobhani (Jabraeili, 2010: 59-65).

 

However, methodologically speaking, three different approaches are identified in Shia theology: 1. Scripturalism: adopted by Ali bin Abdullah, Koleini, Sheikh Sadouq, and Razioddin ibn Tavoos (Jabraeili, 2010: 93-145); 2. Intellectual Interpretation: adopted by Ibn Qobah Razi, Sheikh Mofid, Seyed Morteza, Abolfath Karajaki, Sheikh Toosi, and Abdol-Majid QazviniRazi (Jabraeili, 2010: 147-272); 3. Philosophical Wisdom (Jabraeili, 2010: 45-84): adopted by Abu Sahl Esmaeil Nobakhti, Abu Mohammad Nobakhti, Abuis’haq Ebrahim bin Nobakht and Kahjeh Nasir Toosi (Jabraeili, 2010: 272-350).

An important point to note is the difference between Shia and Sunni scripturalism in terms of thoughts and extent (Jabraeili, 2010: 113-115). Meantime, Shia rationalism is a school of thought emphasizing revelatory teachings as well as the role of rationale in learning. It respects rationale and considers it a tool of learning (Jabraeili, 2010: 63) and that is different from the Sunni interpretation of rationalism.

In Shiism, fiqh (religious jurisprudence), principles, and ijtihad have been affected by theology. In Shia fiqh, the principle of religious precepts’ compliance with interests and actual facts and the rule of adherence to rationale and religion and the role of rationale in ijtihad remained intact. However, an analogy was disavowed among Shias. This disavowal did not stem from the fact that non-Shia groups had accepted it. Rather, it was due to not referring to rationale as a religious reason in the precepts. There were two more reasons: first, analogy implies following suspicion and not rationale, and second, the basis for referring to analogy would be when Islamic principles do not suffice, and in this context, it would be ignorance of Islam (Motahari, 2013: 33). In Shia fiqh, such principles as justice, religious precepts’ compliance with interests and actual facts, the principle of rational goodness and badness, and the principle of rationalism are known as the foundation of Islamic fiqh. The issue of justice is purely theological. In addition to the scientific basis, it has taken up significance among the public. It has also found its way into the Shia fiqh as an influential factor. For instance, an imam and leader are required to be just, a judge is required to be just, witnesses subpoenaed to court are required to be just; collective and Friday prayers leaders are required to be just (Motahari, 2013: 34).

Therefore, in the Shia culture, theological stances and fiqh approach have been such that no deviant thought and extremism have been allowed to take shape. When the historical journey of Shia discourse and its social effects are studied, we never reach the situation that had been achieved in the non-Shia community. In Shia societies, we see nothing but growth, dynamism, and blossoming. Terrorism has never had any chance of growing.

 

5. Conclusion

In this paper, we examined the most significant theological and jurisprudential issues of Twelver Shiism. As far as theology is concerned, the six topics of monotheism, justice, determinism and free will, the effect of rationale, intrinsic and rational goodness and badness, and imamate were the main issues. We highlighted the theological stances of Shiism and it was made clear that the theological approach and stances of Shiism are the most perfect and the most comprehensive. Thanks to these stances, Shiism has been prevented from falling into the trap of excess and defect. The reason for such awareness has been its reliance on traditions and rationale and resort to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad’s House. Therefore, in Shiism, despite the emergence of some short-lived movements and deviant currents like Sheikhism, Bahaism, or the emergence of some other sects, Shia currents have never braced for extremism; rather, they have dynamically been seeking to fix negative points and extremist ground, and they have made efforts to move towards unity in the Muslim world with a view to preventing division, discrepancy, and dichotomy and ex-communication of non-Shia groups. There is historical, intellectual, theological, jurisprudential and political evidence to prove this Shia approach.

Unlike some Shia groups whose most significant and most effective theological approach has been the development of blasphemy and on such basis, they have moved towards extremism and terrorism to justify the killing of Muslims Shia groups have never moved in such a direction. In the past, polytheism and blasphemy were among individual beliefs among Salafist groups and they considered them to be like resorting to the prophet’s household, votive, seeking forgiveness and offering prayers to the dead. But the blasphemy and polytheism favored by modern Salafists – which is known as modern blasphemy – cover almost all aspects of social and civil life (Moradi, 2017: 4). However, Shia currents have never adopted such an approach. As far as jihad is concerned, Shiism has acted with prudence and sanctioned it only in self-defense. In Shiism, preliminary jihad is the continuation of self-defense, which would depend on the authorization of an impeccable imam or his special representative. Therefore, Shia currents have never moved to exploit the concept of jihad and they have only resorted to it to fight against unjust rulers and oppressors. Nonetheless, the Takfiri currents’ recent acts of violence in the name of jihad are by no means examples of jihad in Islam. They are rather examples of “fight or death on the diabolical path” (Sadatinejad, 2016).

Last but not least, Shia currents have adopted positions born out of wisdom vis-à-vis theological concepts and such notions as monotheism, justice, imamate, determinism and free will, impeccability, divine qualities, prophethood and resurrection due to their adherence to intellect and acknowledgement of intellectual proof and the principle of intrinsic goodness and badness and using wise methodologies alongside traditional methods. Such a rational approach, which is based on the teachings and school of the Prophet’s House, has always stressed out the juxtaposition of religion and rationale. As a result, Shia's currents have never been deviated to extremism, violence, terrorism, Takfirism, desecration and insulting others, development of blasphemy, and exploiting religious concepts like jihad and faith. They have followed the path of justice due to their adherence to a rational approach and traditional religious teachings.

References

Aalulbayt Global Infornation Center. (2004). Nahjul-balagha. Retrieved from http://www.balaghah.net/.

 

Al-Batouti, R. (1994). Salafism, Heresy or Religion (Trans. by H. Saberi). Mashhad: Astan-e Qods-e Razavi.

 

Alizadeh, A. (2010). Karramiya Sect’s Beliefs. Retrieved from

https://article.tebyan.net/146280/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%87-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%87.

 

Baqeri, A. A. (2010). Sheikhism Theological Views. Quarterly of Theological Teachings, 1(4), 35-58.

 

Boyer Noss, J. (1975). A History of the World’s Religions (Trans. by A. A. Hekmat). Tehran: Pirouz Pub.

 

Dinparast, M. (2005). Wahhabism Travel to Egypt. Zamaneh Magazine, 4)33(, 68-73.

 

Ebrahimnejad, M. (2017). Architect of Takfirism and Terrorism. Qom: Dar al-Alam Institute.

 

Enayat, H. (1993). Political Thought in Contemporary Islam (Translated by B. Khorramshahi). Tehran: Kharazmi.

 

Farasatkhah, M. (1998). Start of Modern Thinking. Tehran: Enteshar.

 

Ibn Khaldoun, H., & Ibn Mohammad, A. (1984). History of Ibn Khaldoun (Trans. by A. M. Ayati). Tehran: Institute for Human Sciences and Cultural Studies.

 

Jabraeili, M. S. (2010). Evolution of Shia Discourse; From Occultation to Khajeh Nasir Toosi. Tehran: Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought.

Jamali, J. (2011). Theoretical Model of Analyzing Extremism Using Theory of Constructivism. Afaq-e Amniat Magazine, 4(12), 145-170.

 

Mashkoor, M. J. (1989). Encyclopedia of Islamic Sects. Mashhad: Astan-e Qods Razavi.

 

Moradi, A. (2017). Fundamentals of Takfiri Jihadism in Sunnism and Its Criticism. Retrieved from https://mosalman.net/.

 

Motahari, M.  (2013). Divine Justice. Retrieved from http://book-free.blog.ir/post/1.

 

---------- (2003). Islamic Movements in Past Century (26th Ed.). Qom: Sadra.

 

---------- (1998a). Collection of Works, 3. Qom: Sadra.

 

---------- (1998b). Collection of Works, 14. Qom: Sadra.

 

Rabbani Golpayegani, A. (1994). Maturidism. Kayhane Andisheh Magazine, 53, 104-120..

 

Sadatinejad, S. M. (2016a). Takfiri Fiqh and International System. Asr-e Diplomacy Magazine, Retrieved from http://archive.asrdiplomacy.ir.

 

---------- (2016b). Wahhabism and Political and Religious Crisis and Its Impacts on Regional and International Relations. Asre Diplomacy Magazine, Retrieved from

http://archive.asrdiplomacy.ir.

 

---------- (2016c). Takfiri Heart Beats in Riyadh. Tehran: Jam-e Jam Pub.

 

---------- (2016d). Takfiri Currents and Exploiting Jihad in International Relations. 28th Scientific-Research Conference on Islamic Denominations, Retrieved from http://www.mazaheb.com/.

 

Shahrestani, M. A. (1971). Al-Melalva al-Nahl (1). Tehran: Eqbal Ed.

 

Shojaei Jashouqati, M. (2010). Criticism of Book on Shia Discourse Evolution, History of Theology or Theological History. Ketabe Mah-e Din, 157(37), 16-26.

 

Theological Sects. (2017).  Retrieved from Iranian Forum.

 

Vaseqi, S. (1976). Seyed Jamal ad-Din Hossein, Pioneer of Islamic Movements. Tehran: Payam.