Did Allah Exclude the Imams from Authority as an Act of Grace?
A Critical Refutation of TwelverShia.net
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/02/allah-excluded-the-imams-from-having-authority-out-of-grace/
TwelverShia.net claims that Shia Muslims believe Imamah is a divine grace, yet also believe Allah deliberately prevented the Imams from ruling because He wanted corruption, unlawful sexual relations and unjust government to occur under their enemies.
The article then concludes:
“Truly, the Shia faith makes no sense.”
But this argument is built upon a false title, a distorted translation, confusion between divine permission and divine approval, misrepresentation of Shia theology and selective quotation from Muhammad Asif Muhsini.
The quoted narrations actually say that authority rightfully belonged to Ahl al-Bayt, but their enemies pushed them away from that right and committed oppression.
That is not “Allah excluding the Imams from authority out of grace.”
It is human beings usurping the authority that Allah had assigned to Ahl al-Bayt.
1. The article’s title is not found anywhere in the narration
The title claims:
“Allah excluded the Imams from having authority out of grace.”
But neither narration says:
That excluding the Imams was a grace;
that the Imams were unfit to govern;
that Allah preferred their enemies;
or that the rightful authority did not belong to Ahl al-Bayt.
The narration begins with the exact opposite declaration:
Arabic:
عَنْ الْفُضَيْلِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ أَوْ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَامُ حِينَ قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: لِمَنْ كَانَ الْأَمْرُ بَعْدَهُ؟
فَقَالَ: لَنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ.
قُلْتُ: فَكَيْفَ صَارَ فِي غَيْرِكُمْ؟
قَالَ: إِنَّكَ قَدْ سَأَلْتَ فَافْهَمِ الْجَوَابَ، إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى لَمَّا عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ يُفْسَدُ فِي الْأَرْضِ، وَتُنْكَحُ الْفُرُوجُ الْحَرَامُ، وَيُحْكَمُ بِغَيْرِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى، أَرَادَ أَنْ يَلِيَ ذَلِكَ غَيْرُنَا.
English:
Al-Fudayl ibn Yasar said:
“I asked Imam al-Baqir or Imam al-Sadiq a.s: ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away, to whom did the authority belong after him?’
He replied:
‘To us, the Ahl al-Bayt.’
I asked:
‘Then how did it pass to others?’
He replied:
‘You have asked, so understand the answer. When Allah, Blessed and Exalted, knew that corruption would occur on earth, unlawful sexual relations would take place and judgement would be made according to other than what Allah had revealed, He willed that others—not us—should be responsible for that.’”
Reference:
Shaykh al-Saduq, ‘Ilal al-Shara’i‘, vol. 1, pp. 153–154, chapter 122, report 14.
Also reproduced in Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 29, p. 442, report 35.
The first answer is unambiguous:
لَنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ
“The authority belonged to us, the Ahl al-Bayt.”
Therefore, the narration affirms the rightful authority of Ahl al-Bayt. It does not say that Allah excluded them from having legitimate authority.
The question is not:
“Why did Allah refuse to appoint Ahl al-Bayt?”
The question is:
“If the authority belonged to Ahl al-Bayt, how did other people acquire the outward government?”
TwelverShia.net changed a narration explaining the usurpation of rightful authority into a denial of that authority.
2. The article mistranslates “Allah knew” as “Allah wished”
The authenticated version says:
لَمَّا عَلِمَ
“When He knew.”
The article’s introduction claims:
“Allah wished for corruption to happen.”
But the narration does not say that Allah loved, desired or approved corruption.
It says:
لَمَّا عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ يُفْسَدُ فِي الْأَرْضِ
“When Allah knew that corruption would occur on earth.”
Knowledge is not approval.
Allah knowing that people will commit murder does not mean Allah loves murder.
Allah knowing that people will commit adultery does not mean Allah commands adultery.
Allah knowing that rulers will judge against revelation does not mean He considers such government legitimate.
The article silently replaces:
“Allah knew that people would commit corruption”
with:
“Allah wanted and approved corruption.”
That is a serious distortion of the Arabic text.
3. The fuller narration explicitly says that the enemies usurped the right of Ahl al-Bayt
Shaykh al-Tusi transmits the fuller wording:
Arabic:
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قُولَوَيْهِ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْحَسَنِ عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَاتِمٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مُوسَى، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي نَجْرَانَ وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُمَرَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ جَمِيعًا، عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنِ الْفُضَيْلِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، قَالَ:
قُلْتُ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ: لِمَنْ كَانَ الْأَمْرُ حِينَ قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ؟
قَالَ: لَنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ.
فَقُلْتُ: فَكَيْفَ صَارَ فِي تَيْمٍ وَعَدِيٍّ؟
قَالَ: إِنَّكَ سَأَلْتَ فَافْهَمِ الْجَوَابَ، إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى لَمَّا كَتَبَ أَنْ يُفْسَدَ فِي الْأَرْضِ، وَتُنْكَحَ الْفُرُوجُ الْحَرَامُ، وَيُحْكَمَ بِغَيْرِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ، خَلَّى بَيْنَ أَعْدَائِنَا وَبَيْنَ مُرَادِهِمْ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا، حَتَّى دَفَعُونَا عَنْ حَقِّنَا، وَجَرَى الظُّلْمُ عَلَى أَيْدِيهِمْ دُونَنَا.
English:
Al-Fudayl ibn Yasar said:
“I asked Imam al-Sadiq a.s: ‘To whom did authority belong when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away?’
He replied:
‘To us, the Ahl al-Bayt.’
I asked:
‘Then how did it pass to Taym and Adi?’
He replied:
‘You have asked, so understand the answer. When it had been decreed that corruption would occur on earth, unlawful sexual relations would take place and judgement would be made according to other than what Allah revealed, He allowed our enemies to pursue their worldly objective until they pushed us away from our right, and oppression occurred through their hands rather than ours.’”
Reference:
Shaykh al-Tusi, al-Amali, p. 226, report 395/45.
The decisive words are:
خَلَّى بَيْنَ أَعْدَائِنَا وَبَيْنَ مُرَادِهِمْ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا
“He allowed our enemies to pursue their worldly objective.”
حَتَّى دَفَعُونَا عَنْ حَقِّنَا
“Until they pushed us away from our right.”
وَجَرَى الظُّلْمُ عَلَى أَيْدِيهِمْ دُونَنَا
“Oppression occurred through their hands rather than ours.”
Who pushed Ahl al-Bayt away?
The narration says:
أَعْدَاؤُنَا
“Our enemies.”
What did they push Ahl al-Bayt away from?
حَقِّنَا
“Our right.”
What occurred through their actions?
الظُّلْمُ
“Oppression.”
This is not a narration saying that Allah graciously protected the Imams from authority.
It is a narration condemning their enemies for pursuing worldly power, usurping the right of Ahl al-Bayt and becoming responsible for the oppression that followed.
The article has reversed the meaning of the narration.
4. Divine permission does not mean divine approval
The direct Shia Arabic response to this objection explains that the polemicist has confused:
الْإِرَادَةُ التَّشْرِيعِيَّةُ
Allah’s legislative will: what Allah commands, loves and approves.
With:
الْإِرَادَةُ التَّكْوِينِيَّةُ
Allah’s creational will or permission: what Allah allows to occur in a world where human beings possess choice.
Allah legislatively commanded obedience to the divinely appointed guides. His knowledge that people would disobey that command is a separate matter.
The direct Arabic Shia response states that the objection:
خَلَطَ بَيْنَ التَّشْرِيعِ وَالتَّكْوِينِ
“Confused legislation with creation.”
It explains that Allah commanded adherence to the appointed Imams, while His knowledge that people would refuse to obey them did not transform their refusal into a legitimate or divinely approved act.
A simple example makes the distinction clear:
Allah commanded Iblis to bow to Adam.
Iblis refused.
Allah allowed Iblis to exercise his choice.
Does that mean Allah approved Iblis’s refusal?
Obviously not.
Likewise, Allah commanded people to obey His appointed authorities. People were not turned into mindless machines. They retained the ability to obey or disobey.
Their disobedience occurred within Allah’s creation, but it remained morally evil and contrary to His command.
5. Sunni theology recognises exactly the same distinction
This is not a strange Shia invention.
Ibn Taymiyyah explains:
لَفْظُ الْإِرَادَةِ مُجْمَلٌ لَهُ مَعْنَيَانِ: فَيُقْصَدُ بِهِ الْمَشِيئَةُ لِمَا خَلَقَهُ، وَيُقْصَدُ بِهِ الْمَحَبَّةُ وَالرِّضَا لِمَا أَمَرَ بِهِ.
“The term ‘will’ has two meanings: it may mean the creational will concerning what He creates, and it may mean love and approval concerning what He commands.”
Reference:
Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, discussion on whether Allah wills the sins of His creation.
He further explains that Allah does not love corruption, approve disbelief or command indecency.
Therefore, even according to Sunni theology:
Something may occur by Allah’s creational permission without being loved, approved or legislatively commanded by Allah.
TwelverShia.net attacks the Shia narration by denying a distinction that its own Sunni theologians openly teach.
6. The Qur’an says Allah does not love corruption
Allah says:
وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْفَسَادَ
“Allah does not love corruption.”
Qur’an 2:205.
Allah also says:
قُلْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاءِ
“Say: Allah does not command indecency.”
Qur’an 7:28.
Therefore, the narration cannot mean that Allah morally desired corruption, unlawful sexual relations and unjust government.
Its meaning must be understood consistently with the Qur’an:
Allah knew that people would freely choose corruption.
He did not forcibly prevent every sinful political choice.
He allowed the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt to pursue worldly power.
They pushed Ahl al-Bayt away from their right.
The oppression was attributed to their hands—not to the Imams and not to Allah’s legislative command.
7. Imamah as divine grace does not mean forced political obedience
The article argues:
“If Imamah is a grace, why did Allah not force the Imams into political control?”
This misunderstands the theological meaning of lutf.
Shia theology defines divine grace as something that brings human beings closer to obedience and further from sin without destroying their free will.
A Shia theological explanation states:
لَيْسَ اللُّطْفُ الْإِلَهِيُّ عِلَّةً تَامَّةً تُجْبِرُ الْمُكَلَّفِينَ عَلَى فِعْلِ الطَّاعَةِ وَتَرْكِ الْمَعْصِيَةِ.
“Divine grace is not a complete cause that compels responsible people to obey and abandon sin.”
It continues that grace is encouragement and guidance; if people reject it through their own evil choice, they deprive themselves of its benefits.
Therefore:
Allah’s grace was to appoint, identify and provide the rightful guide.
The people’s obligation was to obey that guide.
Allah was not required to remove human freedom and physically compel everyone to obey.
Compelled obedience would no longer be meaningful obedience.
8. The famous Shia principle answers the objection directly
Shia theologians state:
وُجُودُهُ لُطْفٌ، وَتَصَرُّفُهُ لُطْفٌ آخَرُ، وَعَدَمُهُ مِنَّا.
“His existence is a grace, his exercise of authority is another grace, and its absence is because of us.”
The Imam’s existence, appointment, knowledge and guidance constitute one divine grace.
His unrestricted ability to govern society constitutes an additional grace.
When people support the Imam, society receives both forms of grace.
When people threaten, abandon, imprison, poison, murder or politically overpower the Imam, they deprive themselves of the second benefit.
The failure is therefore not Allah’s failure to provide guidance.
It is society’s failure to accept the guidance that Allah provided.
This is exactly like prophethood:
Sending a prophet is divine grace.
The prophet’s ability to reform an entire state is an additional benefit.
If people reject or murder the prophet, their rejection does not prove that prophethood was unnecessary.
9. Prophets were also rejected, persecuted and killed
The article assumes:
“If a person is divinely appointed, Allah must guarantee that he will obtain political government.”
But the Qur’an says:
أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنْفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ، فَفَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ
“Whenever a messenger came to you with what your souls did not desire, you became arrogant: some you denied and others you killed.”
Qur’an 2:87.
Were those prophets not divinely appointed because people killed them?
Was their prophethood false because their enemies acquired outward power?
Was divine grace disproved because society refused to benefit from it?
Obviously not.
Divine appointment establishes legitimate authority.
It does not guarantee that every rebellious society will voluntarily surrender political power to the person appointed by Allah.
10. The Prophet ﷺ himself lacked political government in Mecca
Allah reminds the believers:
وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ أَنْتُمْ قَلِيلٌ مُسْتَضْعَفُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ، تَخَافُونَ أَنْ يَتَخَطَّفَكُمُ النَّاسُ
“Remember when you were few and oppressed in the land, fearing that people might seize you.”
Qur’an 8:26.
For years, the Prophet ﷺ was divinely appointed but did not control Mecca.
The Quraysh possessed outward authority.
They persecuted the Prophet, tortured his followers and forced the Muslims to migrate.
Would TwelverShia.net argue:
“Prophethood makes no sense because Allah appointed Muhammad ﷺ but allowed Abu Jahl and the Quraysh to control Mecca”?
The answer is obvious.
The Prophet’s lack of political control in Mecca did not invalidate his divine appointment.
It proved the rebellion and injustice of the people who refused him.
The same distinction applies to the Imams.
11. “The Imams never ruled” is historically false
TwelverShia.net says in capital letters that the Imams:
“NEVER ruled and NEVER received positions of authority.”
This is factually false even according to Sunni history.
Imam Ali a.s ruled for approximately four years and nine months.
Sunni calculations of the thirty years of Prophetic caliphate explicitly include Imam Ali’s period of government.
Imam Hasan a.s was then acknowledged as caliph and ruled for approximately six months.
Sunni scholars count Imam Hasan’s six months as completing the thirty years of Prophetic or rightly guided caliphate.
Therefore, at least the first and second Imams exercised actual political authority.
The correct Shia claim is not:
“No Imam ever ruled.”
The claim is:
The Imams possessed legitimate divine authority, but most were denied unrestricted political government by hostile rulers and societies.
12. Muhammad Asif Muhsini was selectively quoted
TwelverShia.net quotes this sentence from Muhammad Asif Muhsini:
وَلَعَلَّ سَائِلًا يَسْأَلُ: لِمَ أَعْجَزَ اللَّهُ عَلِيًّا عَنْ أَخْذِ الْخِلَافَةِ وَلَمْ يُوَفِّقْهُ لَهَا كَمَا وَفَّقَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ لِإِبْلَاغِ الرِّسَالَةِ؟
وَيُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُجَابَ عَنْهُ بِمَا فِي رِوَايَةِ الْفُضَيْلِ وَصَحِيحَتِهِ بِتَوْجِيهٍ عِلْمِيٍّ مَعْقُولٍ تَرَكْنَاهُ مَخَافَةَ إِطَالَةِ الْكَلَامِ.
“A questioner may ask: Why did Allah not enable Ali to obtain the caliphate as He enabled the Prophet to deliver the message? This may be answered through al-Fudayl’s narration and its authentic version by a reasonable scholarly explanation that we have omitted to avoid prolonging the discussion.”
The article then claims that Muhsini authenticated its interpretation.
But it omits Muhsini’s opening conclusion on the same page:
الْعِلَّةُ الرَّئِيسِيَّةُ هِيَ الْعَجْزُ.
“The principal cause was lack of power.”
Muhsini did not say that Imam Ali lacked legitimacy.
He said Imam Ali lacked the military and political ability to recover the authority that people had seized.
Muhsini then lists reasons people abandoned Imam Ali:
Their difference from him in religion, thought, knowledge and piety;
their hatred because Imam Ali had killed their relatives in the Prophet’s battles;
Imam Ali’s strict commitment to religious law against people’s desires;
and his refusal to distribute public wealth preferentially to tribal chiefs and elites.
This is not:
“Allah graciously excluded Ali because he should not rule.”
It is:
“People rejected Ali because they opposed his justice, religious commitment and political principles.”
13. Muhsini explicitly calls the earlier rulers usurpers
On the very next page, Muhsini titles the discussion:
شِكَايَةُ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَمَّنْ تَقَدَّمَهُ مِنَ الْمُتَغَلِّبِينَ الْغَاصِبِينَ
“The complaint of the Commander of the Faithful concerning those overpowering usurpers who preceded him.”
Muhsini further states that if Imam Ali had possessed the power to recover the government, he would have done so.
TwelverShia.net quotes Muhsini as though he believed that Allah kindly protected Imam Ali from political authority.
But Muhsini’s actual discussion says:
The main cause was lack of power.
The people abandoned Imam Ali.
The preceding rulers were overpowering usurpers.
Imam Ali would have recovered the authority if he had possessed sufficient power.
The article has quoted one question while hiding the author’s answer and surrounding conclusions.
14. Muhsini did not authenticate both reports equally
Muhsini discusses a chapter containing fifty-five reports and says that only a small number are reliable, specifically mentioning reports 23, 32 and 35.
Report 35 is the ‘Ilal al-Shara’i‘ version:
لَمَّا عَلِمَ
“When Allah knew.”
Report 34 is the longer al-Amali version quoted by TwelverShia.net.
Muhsini refers to:
رِوَايَةِ الْفُضَيْلِ وَصَحِيحَتِهِ
“Al-Fudayl’s narration and its authentic version.”
This wording distinguishes the general report from its authenticated version.
Therefore, the article’s statement that Muhsini simply authenticated everything it quoted is inaccurate. His explicit reliability designation applies to report 35.
Nevertheless, even the authentic report supports the Shia argument, because it begins:
لَنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ
“The authority belonged to us, the Ahl al-Bayt.”
15. What the narration actually means
The narration answers one question:
“If authority rightfully belonged to Ahl al-Bayt, why did other people obtain the outward government?”
Its answer is:
Allah appointed and commanded obedience to Ahl al-Bayt.
Allah knew that people would freely choose corruption and unjust government.
Allah did not remove human freedom and compel them to obey.
Their enemies pursued worldly power.
They pushed Ahl al-Bayt away from their right.
The resulting oppression was committed through the hands of those enemies.
The Imams were therefore not responsible for the corruption of governments that denied them authority.
This is fully consistent with the Qur’an, free will, moral responsibility and the Shia doctrine of divine grace.
Final Verdict
TwelverShia.net’s argument fails for the following reasons:
First:
The narration explicitly says authority belonged to Ahl al-Bayt:
لَنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ
“To us, the Ahl al-Bayt.”
Second:
The authentic wording says Allah knew corruption would occur. It does not say Allah loved or approved corruption.
Third:
The fuller narration says the enemies pursued worldly power, pushed Ahl al-Bayt away from their right and committed oppression.
Fourth:
The article confuses Allah’s legislative command with His creational permission—a distinction recognised by both Shia and Sunni theologians.
Fifth:
Imamah as grace means that Allah provides and identifies the rightful guide. It does not mean that Allah destroys human freedom and forcibly compels political obedience.
Sixth:
Prophets were also rejected, persecuted and killed. Their lack of outward power did not invalidate their divine appointment.
Seventh:
The claim that the Imams never ruled is false. Imam Ali ruled for approximately four years and nine months, and Imam Hasan ruled for approximately six months.
Eighth:
Muhammad Asif Muhsini says the main cause was lack of power, lists the reasons people rejected Imam Ali and calls the preceding rulers overpowering usurpers.
The article’s title says:
“Allah excluded the Imams from authority out of grace.”
The narration actually says:
Authority belonged to Ahl al-Bayt.
Their enemies pushed them away from their right.
Oppression occurred through the enemies’ hands.
That is not a contradiction in Shia theology.
It is a condemnation of those who rejected the divine guidance and deprived society of the justice of Ahl al-Bayt.
Did Allah Prevent the Imams from Ruling?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...