Invalidité de la croyance kaisaniyya.

Besides, the Shia narrate that a conversation took place between him and Ali Ibne Husain (a.s) with respect to him being worthy of Imamate and they both invoked a rock to issue a verdict and the rock testified to the Imamate of Ali Ibne Husain (a.s). This humbled Muhammad Ibne Hanafiyyah and he submitted to the position to his nephew and professed belief in his Imamate.

Narration of the testimony of Hajar Aswad for Imam Sajjad (a.s) is quite well known among the Imamiyah. There was a dispute between Muhammad bin Hanafiya and Imam Zainul Abideen (a.s) over Imamate. Muhammad claimed that after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s), the Imamate has been entrusted to him. Imam Sajjad (a.s) also argued with him on the basis of the verse: “…and the possessors of relationships are nearer to each other…” (8:75) Interpretation of this verse is in favor of Imamate of Imam Sajjad (a.s) and his descendants. Then Imam Sajjad (a.s) said: I argue with you through Hajar Aswad [and leave the judgment to it]. Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah asked: How can you argue with me through a stone, which can neither hear nor reply? Imam (a.s) reminded him that Hajar Aswad can adjudge between them; so they agreed on going to the Kaaba to decide (the matter) by the Black Stone. Imam Zainul Abideen (a.s) said to Muhammad Hanafiyyah: Go ahead and speak to Hajar Aswad. Muhammad came forward and stood besides Hajar Aswad and spoke to it, then he fell silent, but Hajar Aswad did not reply. Then Ali bin Husain (a.s) came forward and placed his hand on Hajar Aswad and then supplicated: “O Allah, I ask You by Your name written on the canvas of glory.” The Imam supplicated and said: “O Allah, make this stone speak.” Then he addressed Hajar Aswad: “I call you in the name of one who has reposed the covenants of people in you and made you the testimony of those who come to you, I adjure you to inform to whom Imamate and successorship of the Messenger of Allah (s) belongs?”

After this statement of Imam (a.s) Hajar Aswad moved in such way as if it was alive and by the command and power of Allah started speaking and said: O Muhammad, accept the Imamate of Ali bin Husain (a.s). After this event Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah withdrew his claim and accepted the Imamate of Imam Zainul Abideen (a.s). Secondly, Shia narrated an inordinate number (Mutawatir) of traditions from his father and his grandfather explicitly naming Ali Ibne Husain for Imamate. These traditions are present in our books and we will not lengthen the book by presenting them here.

Thirdly, there are narrations recorded from the Messenger of Allah (s) by the Ahle Sunnat as well as the Chosen Congregation (Shia) carrying explicit words with regard to the Twelve Imams and anyone who believes in their Imamate, is certain of the demise of Muhammad Ibne Hanafiyyah and the continuation of Imamate to the Master of the Age (a.s).

Fourthly, this sect has become extinct. Not in our time, nor before us for a very long time, a believer of this creed has existed. If it were a true faith, its extinction would have been impossible.

Objection: How can their extinction be known and why is it not possible that in faraway lands, such as islands and corners of the earth, there may be nations believing in this creed, just as it is possible that there may be people believing in the word of Hasan that someone who commits a major sin is a hypocrite. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the followers of this path no longer exist. It would have been possible if Muslims were few in the world with scant number of scholars, whereas Islam has spread and scholars are in abundance. So how can that be known? Reply: This assertion leads to the impossibility of discerning the consensus of the Ummah on any principle or idea, as it is always convenient to say that perchance there is someone in some remote periphery of the earth who disagrees with this. It follows that there might be someone in faraway parts of the earth, who says that eating hailstones does not violate a fast and that it is permissible for a fasting person to eat until sunrise; for the first was the view of Abu Talha Ansari and the second that of Huzaifah and Amash. Likewise, there are many other rulings of jurisprudence on which the companions and companions of companions (Tabiin) disagreed, and then later on disagreements disappeared and the Ummah united on a different view. Therefore, it is worthy to doubt that and mistrust any consensus on any question that has previously been a subject of disagreement.

This is the argument of a person who says that consensus cannot be discerned and as this question is not exclusive to our subject, there is no reason we should go into its details here. We know that the Ansar demanded caliphate and the Muhajireen turned them away and then Ansar submitted to the idea of the Muhajireen, according to the opponent. If someone should argue that Caliphate is possible for the Ansar, for a disagreement has occurred on this matter, and perchance there is someone in the peripheries of the earth who believes in this, whatever the opponent says in response to him, is our same answer here.

If they ask that since consensus is a valid proof for you only when the infallible is included, how would you know that his opinion is included amongst the opinion of the Ummah? We will answer that as Imam is one of the scholars of the Ummah, his opinion must be included amongst the opinions of scholars, for he cannot be a loner and manifesting infidelity, because that is not permissible for him. Therefore, his view has to be one of the views, even if we may not know which one is the Imam’s.

When we consider the views of the Ummah and find some scholars disagreeing, if we know them and their birth and location, we will not honor their views, for we know the Imam is not one of them. And if we doubt a scholar’s ancestry, the question will not be of consensus. Therefore, we considered the views of scholars of the Ummah, and do not find anyone amongst them advancing this idea, which is the faith of Kaisaniyya or Waqifa. And if by supposition we find one or two instances, we know their location and birth, and do not heed their word and consider the views of remainders, amongst whom we are certain that the Infallible is present. Therefore, this problem is solved by this explanation and its weakness is demonstrated.