Imam ʿAli and St. Peter as Wasis in Shiʿism and Potential Parallels with Orthodox Ecclesiology

Sixteenth-century Safavid miniature entitled, Muhammad Designating ʿAli His First Successor at Ghadir Khumm (Image credit: Teaching the Middle East)

Shiʿi Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad designated his cousin and son-in-law ʿAli ibn Abi Talib to succeed him as leader of the Muslim community, or umma. Shortly before his death in 632, while on his way back from the Farewell Pilgrimage, Muhammad halted his caravan between the holy cities of Mecca and Medina at a place called Ghadir Khumm. The Prophet then asked for a platform to be raised so that he could address what was perhaps a hundred thousand pilgrims. The day is also remembered in some hadiths as having been punishingly hot, even by desert standards, helping to add a greater sense of urgency and importance to what Muhammad was about to say. At one point, the Prophet asked ʿAli to join him on the makeshift platform. Muhammad then told the crowd that God was his mawla and that he himself was the Muslims’ mawla. He then raised ʿAli’s arm and declared, “For Whomever I am his maula [master], Ali is also his maula. O God, befriend the friend of Ali and be the enemy of his enemy.”

The above quote, which is found at times in slightly different forms throughout the hadith literature, is taken from The Prophet’s Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib by Hassan Abbas. Now Abbas chooses to translate the Arabic term maula (or mawla) as master, which seems fair given the context. For Muhammad then told the thousands of pilgrims, “I leave among you two weighty things: The book of God, and members of my Ahl al-Bayt [family]. Therefore, be careful how you treat the two after me. The two shall never separate from each other until they return to me by the pool [of kawthar in the heaven].” Abbas points out that even Sahih Muslim, one of the most important Sunni collections of hadith, says that the phrase Ahl al-Bayt refers to ʿAli, his wife and Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, and their sons Hasan and Husayn.

It is also worth noting that while Sunni Muslims accept the historicity of Ghadir Khumm, they do not believe that the episode had anything to do with the question of the Prophet’s successor. Instead, Sunnis usually interpret the term mawla in this scenario to mean “friend,” and believe that Muhammad simply intended to reassert his support for ʿAli during a time when part of the community had turned against his cousin. The Shiʿa, on the other hand, interpret Ghadir Khumm as Muhammad’s clear designation of ʿAli as his khalifa (caliph), or successor, and wasi, or legatee, and see the episode as having monumental importance for Islam. In fact, the Shiʿa even mark the event each year with the celebration of Eid al-Ghadir. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Shiʿa do not believe ʿAli to have succeeded Muhammad in his prophethood, since, like all Muslims, they believe Muhammad to be the “Seal of the Prophets” (Q 33:40). Instead, ʿAli is seen as the first in a line of imams, for the Shiʿa believe that the authority of Ahl al-Bayt did not end with the martyrdom of ʿAli, but was passed on through his descendants, i.e., the imams.

Of course, there are several Shiʿi Muslim sects, and this means several competing claims of succession. Nizari Ismaʿilis, for instance, have an ongoing line of imams that includes the current Aga Khan, Prince Shah Karim al-Husseini, as the 49th imam. However, most of the Shiʿa are Twelvers, and as the name suggests, they believe there to have been twelve imams, beginning with ʿAli and ending with Muhammad al-Mahdi, who according to tradition, has been in a state of occultation since the ninth century. For Shiʿi Muslims such as Nizari Ismaʿilis and Twelvers, imams are also believed to be sinless and infallible. Imams are guiding lights on earth, intended to lead the umma in proper belief and conduct. Moreover, according to Shiʿism, every prophet had their own wasi, and Jesus, whom Muslims count as a prophet, was no exception, as it is said that the Apostle Peter was his.

Personally, I find it quite interesting that Peter is not only mentioned by name in the Shiʿi tradition—he is usually referred to as Shamʿun al-Safa, or Simon the Pure, in the hadith and elsewhere—but that he is also portrayed as Jesus’s head apostle and leader of the Christian community, or Church, following Jesus. Of course, I imagine that when most people, at least in the West, hear about the Shiʿi imamate, with its succession and infallibility, the pope, whom Roman Catholics believe to be the successor of Peter and infallible within certain parameters, will likely come to mind. However, the Shiʿa associated ʿAli’s role with that of Peter’s very early on in Islamic history: many centuries before the First Vatican Council proclaimed papal infallibility a dogma. Moreover, Shiʿism’s early encounters with Christianity were usually with the Christian East, where the strong Petrine traditions associated with the bishop of Rome were far less prevalent than they were in the Christian West. Perhaps then Peter’s place in Shiʿism is partly a reflection of the New Testament itself.

The Calling of the Apostles Peter and Andrew by Duccio (Image credit: Wikimedia Commons)

In the Bible, Peter clearly has a special role in his apostolic ministry. Moreover, the most important text linked to Peter’s preeminence among the apostles is found in the Gospel of Matthew. After Peter’s confession of faith in him as the Messiah and Son of God, Jesus says,

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matt. 13:16-19).

In fact, even in the Book of Acts, Peter is portrayed as the leader of the apostles.

All this got me thinking about the Orthodox Church’s tradition and its hierarchy’s connection to Peter and even potential parallels with the Shiʿi imamate. Now, unlike the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church is not centred around a single episcopal see and its line of successors, but instead, Orthodoxy views all its bishops as equal successors of the apostles. While some may argue that this is the result of the Great Schism of 1054, the tradition of seeing apostolic succession equally present in all the bishops has patristic precedent and was arguably exemplified by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Having said that, even in Orthodoxy, some bishops are more equal than others, e.g., the patriarchs.

Yet, while the Orthodox Church still maintains a see believed to have been founded by Peter, along with Paul, i.e., the Patriarchate of Antioch, it is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who is usually acknowledged as the leader of the Orthodox Church (shhh don’t tell Moscow) and given the title of “First Among Equals.” Interestingly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate also has a connection to Peter as well, since it is believed to be one of the episcopal sees founded by Peter’s brother, and the first-called of the apostles, Andrew. While I have not personally heard anyone argue for the Ecumenical Patriarch’s primacy based on Andrew’s relationship with Peter, it does remind me a bit of the Shiʿi concept of blood related wasis, and even of the early history of the imamate specifically, where Husayn is said to have inherited his position as imam from his brother Hasan.

While the ecclesiology of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is, of course, rather different than that of the Shiʿi understanding of the imamate, e.g., Constantinople makes no claims of infallibility, and I must admit that the Catholic papacy is closer to Shiʿism on this subject than Orthodoxy is, the Ecumenical Patriarch has still exercised for centuries an important, though at times disputed, leadership role in the Orthodox Church. In truth, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has shown himself, especially recently, as arguably the Orthodox Church’s unquestionable spiritual and administrative head. For example, Bartholomew, despite the protests of the Moscow Patriarchate, granted the Orthodox Church of Ukraine autocephaly a few years ago, and this spring, he was even able to heal the over half-century old division between the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the rest of Orthodoxy.

Nevertheless, it is a fascinating thing that Shiʿism should see Peter as Jesus’s wasi. That the hadith singled Peter out from among the apostles is perhaps worth meditating on, especially for us Orthodox Christians who sometimes forget the importance of Peter because of our disagreements with Rome on the subject. In fact, the Shiʿi tradition can perhaps not only help remind us of the unique position bestowed upon Peter by Jesus but also of the importance of holy succession and even of the need for a clear spiritual head.