The subject of intercession is inextricable to the question of sovereignty. The capacity to pardon a sinner signifies the ability to enact an exception, a departure from the normal rule. The sovereign, remember, at least according to the Schmittian notion, is he who enacts the exception. The role of an intercessor in this process can cause some tension. To be sure, an intercessor only serves as a petitioner who mediates between a sinner and the sovereign decision maker. But what is one to make of an intercessor whose petitions are never refused, whose status allows him to have all his requests for an exception approved? Does that in any way compromise the sovereignty of the sovereign? These questions were central to Isma''il''s discussion on intercession. He was most troubled by the tendency of the masses to associate sovereign powers with human intercessors such as pious saints and prophets. The way they understood the idea of intercession, he contended, confused the exceptionality of divine sovereignty with the intercessory authority of non-divine entities.

He saw intercession as one of the principal arenas that threatened the radical alterity of divine sovereignty. In the discussion that follows, analyzing the coherence of Isma''il''s argument according to traditional Islamic theology is less among my concerns. Rather, what primarily interests me is the language in which he delivered his argument. What kinds of symbols, metaphors, and images populated his discourse? What political postures and desires might we discern from this seemingly theological discussion? What does his mode of argumentation reveal about his social imaginary? These are some of the questions that occupy me in what follows. Isma''il''s discourse on intercession, consistent with his larger argument in Taqwiyat al-iman, sought to radically undercut the authority of intermediaries and non-divine entities, including the Prophet, in the realm of salvation and redemption. To describe in Schmittian terms, Isma''il argued that it was only God who possessed the sovereign power to grant the exception of forgiveness and salvation to a sinner who would otherwise, according to the normal rule, be destined for hell. In formulating his argument, Isma''il presented a number of prophetic reports in which the Prophet himself emphasized his fallibility and vulnerability as a human being. For instance, in one such narration, the Prophet said, "By God! Even though I am God''s messenger, I have no idea what will be done to me or to you [in the afterworld].

" On another occasion, the Prophet assembled his family members and declared to them: "save yourselves from hell-fire. I will be of no help you in God''s [court of accountability]." The Prophet, Isma''il argued, was acutely concerned that his followers not divinize him with superhuman qualities and thus undercut God''s absolute sovereignty. Moreover, Isma''il also argued that the aura and majesty of the Prophet depended not on any extraordinary salvific capacities, but on the perfection of his humanity. In other words, it is the paradigmatic example of his unwavering submission to divine sovereignty that made the Prophet extraordinary. In cementing this argument, Isma''il adduced an array of verses from the Qur''an in which God instructs the Prophet to declare his incapacity to harm or benefit his community in the afterlife. For example, "Say: It is not in my power to cause you harm or to bring you to right conduct. Say: No one can deliver me from God (If I were to disobey him), nor should I find refuge except in him.

" In his commentary on this verse, Isma''il exhorted his readers to take note of the Prophet''s keenness to establish his servitude for the divine. This he puctuated to prevent his community from transgressing the limits of his own authority. Isma''il ventriloquized the Prophet''s position as follows: "Do not transgress the limits by thinking that our intermediary is extremely majestic and our intercessor very beloved (hamara wakil zabardast aur hamara shafi'' bara mabub) so that we can do whatever we so wish and he will save us from God''s punishment. Even I (the Prophet) tremble before God and do not seek anyone else as my refuge." Isma''il continued, "From this verse it becomes apparent what misguided transgressors these Indian Muslim masses are who forget the sovereignty of the divine in their reliance on saints and holy figures. The master of prophethood (sarkar-i risalat) himself used to fear God day and night and find solace in nothing other than His mercy. Then who are these commoners to be following a different path." Isma''il also propounded a number of other verses that emphatically underscore the absoluteness of divine sovereignty while criticizing the role of intermediaries in the salvific realm.

For example, these included, "They serve, besides God, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with God." Say: "Do you indeed inform God of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth? Glory to Him! And far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!"Also, "Who is it in whose hands is the governance of all things, who protects (all), but is not protected (of any)? (Answer) if you can." At the same time that Isma''il vigorously advanced his argument for limiting the scope of prophetic intercession, he faced a formidable conundrum: contrary to his theological project, traditional sources of Muslim normativity, including the Qur''an, contain several references that in fact affirm a normative role for human intercessors in the domain of salvation. For instance, some such moments in the Qur''an include verses like: "On that day shall no intercession avail except of him whom the Beneficent God allows and whose word He is pleased with" and "intercession will not avail aught with Him save of him whom He permits", are some among several other such verses in the Qur''an that have historically been regarded as substantiating the doctrine of prophetic intercession. Confronted with this obstacle, Isma''il was presented with the challenge of devising a hermeneutical strategy that might advance his argument for the exclusivity of absolute divine sovereignty while also honoring the normative permission offered to non-divine intercessors in traditional Islamic sources. (Excerpted from chapter 5).