Some consider the guardianship of the Ullama (clergy) not...

Some consider the guardianship of the Ullama (clergy) not fixed because they do not think that there is enough proof. Is’haq Bin Yaqob says that the uncertainty could run into events, as well as certain things which could not be determined. The deputies of the Imam had a general responsibility. They had no intention to collect money. The writer is accusing a group of good people without feeling the least moral responsibility. The guardianship of the jurisprudents is absolutely necessary.

Whether some believe it or not, their being representatives of the Imam they all agree that on some matters no one other than a jurisprudent can have guardianship. To command the people towards virtue, to restrict the people from evil is the responsibility of a jurisprudent. But the actions of a jurisprudent are regarded as final and to be honored. The governments and their power or authority over the people is a thing religiously illegal. Therefore, the governments are regarded as tyrants.

In this description all governments are alike whether Buyids, Safavids or Kachars. The writer thinks that the text of the tradition as told by Is’haq Bin Yaqob was deviated in later days. We tell him he is wrong. The versions might differ in words but the text remains the same.

One thing which waives off the writer’s wrong conception is; In the text, there is a word in Arabic, “Alaikum” or “upon them” which makes no sense in the age of total occultation (Ghaybat) of the Imam, because there is no link, no Nawab, nor deputy, and therefore no link with the Imam. This pronoun ‘Alaikum’ better suits the days of short Ghaybat. We suggest that it should be translated as ‘upon you’.

The writer has not attended these little things because of his over happiness in having gained something more important. Such examples abound. The translation of Bihar has rendered the word ‘Rowaat’ into jurisprudents, while such does not exist in the writings of Majusi. This is in the days of Kachar. The word “Rowaat” is not in the Arabic text of Bihar because it was not necessary.

The writer now takes this and uses it as a weapon in which to accuse the Shia writes in interpreting the traditions as time fits. Our readers can judge for themselves whether to come to such a conclusion is just or unjust. Previous…