A Critique of the Book 'The School in the Process of Evolution' — Part Thirteen

In the Name of God
A Critique of the Book "The School in the Process of Evolution"
Part Thirteen

In previous installments of this critique, it was argued that Mr. Modarresi, by selectively choosing narrations and presenting them in distorted or incomplete form, has constructed his own mental agenda regarding the trajectory of Imami Shia history. It was also noted that many of the documents he presented were either fabricated from Isra'iliyyat (Judeo-Christian apocrypha inserted into Islamic tradition), or had no external existence at all — being purely the product of the author's imagination, shaped by his particular ideological views. He has constructed a history of Imami Shia from the ground up that is not grounded in historical or narrative evidence, but is rather a predetermined analysis for which he has sought to manufacture documentation and narrations. By this method, anyone could construct a story and fabricate historical documents and narrations to support it.

Among the distortions propped up by fabricated evidence in his book are the theories attributed to Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Qibba al-Razi, a Shia theologian of the late third century AH. On page 216 of his book, Modarresi describes Ibn Qibba as the head of the Shia community in his time, and in a footnote cites several rijal (biographical) works to substantiate this claim. Among these, he references al-Shahrastani's Milal wa Nihal and writes: "Also al-Shahrastani's Milal, 1:225, which lists his name among the great early figures of the Shia."

If readers consult this book, they will find that al-Shahrastani says no such thing. What al-Shahrastani actually presents, under the heading of Shia figures and authors, begins with the hadith transmitters of the Zaydiyya, then moves to the figures of the Shia sects — beginning with "Salim ibn Abi Ja'd" and ending with "Harith al-A'war" (18 persons total) — and Ibn Qibba's name does not appear among them. He then lists ten Shia book authors, beginning with "Hisham ibn al-Hakam" and ending with "Yahya al-Rawandi," with Ibn Qibba appearing eighth on this list. Shahrastani's description of him reads:

"Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Qibba al-Razi, one of the Imami theologians; he was originally a Mu'tazilite and later joined the Imamiyya. His works include Kitab al-Insaf, Kitab al-Mustathbat, and Kitab al-Ta'rid 'ala al-Zaydiyya."

That is the entirety of what Shahrastani says about Ibn Qibba. He not only fails to list him among the great early figures of the Shia, but places him among Shia book authors — eighth out of ten — without the slightest comment about his scholarly, jurisprudential, or biographical standing.

As for Ibn al-Nadim's Fihrist, Ibn Qibba receives barely half a line: "Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Qibba was among the skilled Shia theologians."

Al-Najashi's Rijal praises him as a powerful and sound theologian (p. 375).

In al-Nawbakhti's Firaq al-Shi'a — written by a contemporary of Ibn Qibba — there is no mention of Ibn Qibba at all, despite Nawbakhti listing all the major figures and leaders of the Shia.

All available historical documents and reliable rijal narrations consistently define Ibn Qibba as a rationalist Shia writer who broke from the Mu'tazila and joined the Imamiyya, and whose surviving treatises engage in rational defense of the principles of the Imamate against Mu'tazilite and Zaydi criticisms.

Yet Modarresi, in order to advance his thesis, first falsely characterizes Ibn Qibba as the head of the Shia organization, fabricating documents to impose this view on the reader. He then distorts Ibn Qibba's actual words by omitting his central position on the Imamate and his opposition to extremist (ghulat) sects, and presents Ibn Qibba as though he believed the Imams possessed no knowledge of the unseen, were not infallible, were merely righteous men who recited the Quran.

From these two distortions, Modarresi's readers are left with the impression that Ibn Qibba — a doctrinal leader of the third and fourth centuries, contemporary with the Minor Occultation of Imam al-Mahdi — believed the Imamate to be devoid of supernatural knowledge, non-infallible, and equivalent to an ordinary person.

Modarresi devotes pages 215 through 302 — roughly 87 pages — to elaborating Ibn Qibba's supposed views. Setting aside the preface and indices, the book is 328 pages; this means 26% of the book, more than one quarter, is dedicated to Ibn Qibba. He reproduces the Arabic texts of three treatises by Ibn Qibba without Persian translation, and extracts three additional texts from Shaykh Saduq's Kamal al-Din using the Persian translation by Ali Akbar Ghaffari.

In our view, the deliberate omission of the Persian translation — despite Modarresi himself acknowledging that these three treatises were drawn from the Persian translation in Kamal al-Din — serves a specific purpose: readers would immediately see that much of what Ibn Qibba actually says contradicts Modarresi's thesis. None of Modarresi's particular theories appear in these treatises. Only his Persian commentary, which contradicts the actual texts, accompanies them. We demonstrate this below.

Modarresi's analysis of Ibn Qibba's response in "Naqd Kitab al-Ishhad" (a rebuttal against the Zaydiyya) reads: "Unlike what the ghulat claimed, the pure Imams were merely outstanding, pious scholars knowledgeable in religious law, and were not aware of the unseen — for that is the exclusive domain of God. Whoever believes anyone other than God has knowledge of the unseen is a polytheist; whoever says God changes His decision due to changing circumstances is an unbeliever."

What Modarresi is attempting here is to substantiate his syncretist thesis — which treats belief in the Imams' knowledge of the unseen and in divine bada' (alteration of divine will) as polytheism. In previous installments, we thoroughly defined and explained both "the Imam's knowledge of the unseen" and bada', and noted that Modarresi himself is well aware of these definitions — he simply conflates the Shia understanding of these concepts with the ghulat's distorted versions, without any evidence or documentation, treating both with the same brush in order to advance his thesis of eliminating the Imamate. For an Imam who has no miracles, no heavenly knowledge, is not infallible, does not struggle for truth, is unaware of the treachery of those around him, and has done nothing fundamental to improve the fate of his people — what distinguishes him from an ordinary person, and what purpose does he serve?

A lion without mane, tail, and belly — who has seen such a thing?
Has God ever created such a lion?
(Rumi)

But despite all the cleverness Modarresi has brought to presenting his thesis — omitting the Persian text, highlighting selective passages of Ibn Qibba, attaching false analysis — even within the very documents he himself presents, there is strong evidence against his position:

A. In the Arabic text of Ibn Qibba's response to Ibn Bishar (p. 256 of Maktab dar Farayand-e Takamol, lines 7–8, and also in Kamal al-Din p. 111):

"Wa naqulu ya Aba al-Hasan hadaka Allah, hadha hujjat Allah 'ala al-jinn wa al-ins"
"O Abu al-Hasan (Ibn Bishar) — may God guide you — this Imam of the Age is God's proof over jinn and mankind."

Ibn Qibba holds that the Imam of the Age is God's proof among both jinn and humans. Can anyone be a proof and Imam among the jinn without possessing knowledge of the unseen by God's permission? Being a hujja over the jinn necessarily requires supernatural knowledge and heavenly gifts by divine permission — just as the Prophet Solomon possessed such abilities, as described in the Quran.

B. In the Arabic text of Ibn Qibba's response to the Mu'tazila (p. 244 of Modarresi's book; Kamal al-Din p. 120), Ibn Qibba enumerates the qualities of the Imam:

"The Imam is one who:

1. Is obeyed when he commands.
2. Has no hand above his (i.e., has power and mastery over all earthly and heavenly knowledge).
3. Does not err or make mistakes (is infallible).
4. Is knowledgeable, so as to enlighten the ignorant.
5. Is just.
6. Judges by truth.
7. Distinguishes divine rulings from satanic ones.
8. Whose name has been introduced by the Prophet on behalf of the All-Knowing God.
9. Is appointed by explicit divine designation (mansus min 'ind Allah)."

These are Ibn Qibba's own words, in the very documents Modarresi presents — followed by Ibn Qibba himself demonstrating that these qualities are realized in the Imam.

C. Ibn Qibba, in responding to Mu'tazilite objections, devotes two full pages (pp. 245–246 in Modarresi's book; pp. 123–124 in Kamal al-Din) to an extensive discussion of the miraculous power possessed not only by the Imam of the Age but by all Imams from Ali (a.s.) to the last Imam, affirming that each possesses the capacity for miracles by God's permission — both potentially and in actuality.

D. In his response to Kitab al-Ishhad by Abu Zayd al-'Alawi (pp. 187–188 in Kamal al-Din; p. 266 in Modarresi's book), Ibn Qibba writes:

"With reliance on God I say: the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are clear proof of the correctness of the Imami position, for he said: 'I leave among you two things; if you hold fast to them you will never go astray — the Book of God, and my 'itra, my Household.' This indicates that the proof after him is not the non-Arabs or other Arab tribes, but his 'itra, his own Household... If we hold fast to one who is never separate from the Book of God, we will not go astray. It is the very essence of reason that the Imam must be a scholar of the Quran and its guardian — distinguishing the abrogating from the abrogated, the specific from the general, the obligatory from the recommended, the clear from the ambiguous — so that everything is placed in the position God appointed for it, nothing advanced that should be delayed and nothing delayed that should be advanced. He must know all religious knowledge so that in matters of dispute among the community and disagreement in interpreting the Book and Sunna, recourse to him is possible. If he lacks any knowledge of the Book of God, he cannot be relied upon; in that case, he cannot be the guardian of the Quran, one cannot be safe from his error, and he may place the abrogating in place of the abrogated, the clear in place of the ambiguous, the recommended in place of the obligatory — and innumerable other errors. In that case the Imam and any ordinary person would be equal. Since this conclusion is invalid, the Imami position is correct: the Imam and Proof is one who is comprehensive in knowledge and religion, infallible, and a trustee over the Book of God."

And on page 239, Ibn Qibba says: "The Imam must be designated by explicit text from the preceding Imam, and must possess knowledge of the lawful and the unlawful."

Readers can see clearly that Ibn Qibba, across these few short treatises, holds a specific and robust doctrine of the Imamate, which may be summarized as follows:

The Imams are inheritors of prophetic knowledge, their names announced by the Prophet and introduced to the people on God's behalf. They are God's proof over the world of jinn and humanity. No hand is above theirs. They are infallible, free from error and mistake. They possess knowledge of both the manifest and the unseen by God's permission. They are just and judge by truth. Miraculous power flows from their hands by God's permission, guiding the ignorant. Their command is obligatory obedience for all. They have knowledge of the Quran's inner meanings, its abrogation and revelation, its laws; they are immune from error in understanding the Quran. They are comprehensive in knowledge and religion, and infallible. They are chosen by God, not appointed by popular election. They recognize Satan and his schemes. They know the lawful and the unlawful. Their appointment is by explicit designation from the preceding Imam.

How far is this definition of the Imamate from Modarresi's version — which portrays the Imams as merely ordinary, pious scholars? And yet, regrettably, Modarresi attributes this deviant definition to Ibn Qibba himself, leveling a most grave false accusation against him.

Now, one crucial point to understand regarding Ibn Qibba's responses to the Zaydis: the Zaydis, in their polemics against Imami Shia, habitually accused them of holding ghulat beliefs, using these accusations to pressure Ibn Qibba into retreating from his convictions. One such accusation was that Ibn Qibba and the Imamis believed the Imams' knowledge of the unseen was equivalent to God's own knowledge of the unseen.

Before turning to Ibn Qibba's response, a brief word on the ghulat and mufawwida:

The ghulat were extremist groups who made wildly excessive claims about the Imams, and all their sects were cursed, condemned, and rejected by the Imams themselves. Al-Shahrastani in Milal wa Nihal identifies four core tenets of their beliefs: tashbih (anthropomorphism), bada' (divine repentance/change of mind), raj'a (return), and tanasukh (metempsychosis). Some among them held that the Prophet and Ali were God. Some held only Ali to be God. Some considered Ali eternal. Some held Ali and the Prophet to be co-partners in prophethood. Some claimed Gabriel took the divine message from Ali and mistakenly gave it to the Prophet — and therefore bore enmity toward Gabriel. Some said the divine spirit was equally present in all five members of the Ahl al-Kisa (Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn), making all of them God. Some attributed hands, feet, and fingers to God. Some held that God performs acts and later repents of them (bada') — as with the three Caliphs, who they claimed God came to regret creating. Some held that prayer consists only of two rak'at at night and two by day. Many attributed human-like characteristics to God, and some believed God was incarnate in all human beings. Muhammad Jawad Shakur, in Shi'a wa Firaq-ha-ye Islami, lists 131 ghulat sects up to the fourth century. Sa'd ibn 'Abdallah al-Ash'ari al-Qummi in Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq discusses dozens of ghulat groups in detail — noting that some among them even deified Salman al-Farisi, making the Prophet and Ali his servants.

Al-Shahrastani lists the ghulat sects across different regions of the Islamic world. He credits the Kamiliyya sect with spreading the doctrine of tanasukh (transmigration of souls). All historians record the Imams' cursing and rejection of the ghulat, who have always been despised by true Shia. In Ibn Qibba's time, the Zaydis sought to link Imami Shia with the ghulat in order to discredit them — and so Ibn Qibba refuted them, categorically rejecting the ghulat conception of the Imamate, of God, and of the unseen. But he never denied that the infallible Imams possessed knowledge of the unseen by God's permission, or that they could manifest extraordinary gifts by divine leave.

As we have seen, Ibn Qibba explicitly affirms the miraculous and charismatic power of the Imams in these very treatises — and Modarresi himself reproduces the Arabic text, deliberately omitting the Persian translation so readers will remain unaware of it.

Bada', in the ghulat sense, means God repenting of His own acts. And the "knowledge of the unseen" they attribute to Imams means that because the Imams are God, they share in God's own omniscience. This false ghulat belief was constantly imputed to Imami Shia as a slander — and so Ibn Qibba responds to the Zaydi scholar: "How much you speak of knowledge of the unseen! (i.e., you accuse the Imams of possessing the divine omniscience that the ghulat believe in.) The unseen — this unseen — none but God knows. And we have told you and your companions that the proof of a claim is understanding and knowledge; if you have something comparable, produce it. If you have nothing but slander, libel, and the wholesale condemnation of the Imamiyya based on the words of some among the ghulat, the matter is quite simple."

Elsewhere he states: "The author of the book (the Zaydi) has narrated confused tales about the Imamiyya and pretended they represent the views of all of them, and that all of them believe in bada'. Whoever says God has acquired a new opinion and new knowledge is a kafir, and whoever attributes knowledge of the unseen to the Imams has committed kufr toward God and, in our view, has left Islam."

Ibn Qibba's definition of bada' is thus clearly specified: it refers to the false belief of the ghulat — a belief that all the Imams opposed, cursed, and rejected. And as noted, the "knowledge of the unseen" he condemns is the ghulat belief that Ali or the Prophet are God, possessing divine omniscience and having created all knowledge. What Modarresi deliberately omits is the nature of the accusation the Zaydis were making — attributing to the Imamiyya the ghulati definitions of bada' and the unseen — which Ibn Qibba refutes. And every sincere Shia likewise rejects these ghulat fabrications.

Footnotes (translated):

1. The personality of Ibn Qibba was discussed in issue no. 12 of this critique.
2. Milal wa Nihal of Shahrastani, translated by Sayyid Muhammad Rida Jalali Na'ini.
3. Page 227; this statement is also repeated on page 263.
4. The Ithnaniyya sect.
5. The Azdariyya.
6. The Azaliyya.
7. The Ishaqiyya.
8. The Ashab al-Zaygh.
9. The Ashab al-Kisa'.
10. The A'datiyyan.
11. The Bada'iyya.
12. The Bid'iyya.
13. The Jawaribiyya.
14. The Hululiyya.
15. This book, pp. 169–186.
16. Maqalat al-Firaq, p. 130.
17. Milal wa Nihal, vol. 1, pp. 231–251.
18. Kamal al-Din, p. 231.
19. Page 279.