Shi'ism and Its Types During the Early Centuries

Introduction

This is the first part, entitled "Gunneh-ha-ye mukhtalif-a Tashayyu'wa awamil-e gustarish-e an," from the author's study on the history of Shiism in Iran until the Safavid era, Ta'rikh-a Tashayyu' dar iran, az aghaz ta qarn-e dahum-e hijri (Qum: Intisharat-a Ansariyan, 1375/ [^1996])Preface:

The literal meaning of shi 'ah is follower and supporter, and only when accompanied by a qualifier that does it signify the followers of a certain person. During the days when the word was used only in its common literal sense it was usually used along with the names of Ali (a), 'Uthman or Mu'awiyah. Hence there would be the "shi'ah of Ali," the "shi'ah of Uthman" and the "shiah of Mu'awiyah."

After some time the word shi'ah came to be used specifically as a term for the followers of Imam Ali ( a) and during this period the article "al' in the word "al-shiah" clearly denoted the followers of the Ahl al-Bayt ('a). It is difficult to determine the exact time since when the term al-shi'ah acquired currency as a name for the followers of Imam Ali ('a).

[^1] Perhaps the letter written, on the occasion martyrdom of Imam Hasan ('a), by the Shi'is of Kufah under the lead of Sulayman ibn Surad as a message of condolence to Imam Husayn ('a) is the earliest documented instance of its use as a term. Ya'qubi has cited the text of this letter. In it the Sh'is of Kufah wrote:

How great is [the calamity] which has struck this ummah in general ('ammah), you, and the Shi'ah in particular (khassah)! [^2] Here, one may as well note the use of the word 'ammah as a kind of term used in opposition to khassah as the term for the Shi'ah.

Another point which is important for understanding the development of the term shi'ah is to know whom it excluded. In other words, who were those who stood in contradistinction to the Shiah of Ali. There is indisputable evidence provided by older and recent research that there existed two distinct factions during the era of the Messenger of God (s).

The first consisted of the Quraysh who were not on good terms with the Banu Hashim since before the advent of Islam. The second faction was that of the supporters of Ali consisting of the Hashimis and their supporters from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar, such as Abu Dharr, Ammar, Miqdad and Salman. Al-Farsi concedes the existence of these two factions before the episode of Saqifah. [^3] The extent of their political differences, which had religious roots from the very beginning, increased with time.

For instance, some of the Companions from the very early days did not recognize a role for the Prophet's Sunnah by the side of the Qur'an. This belief was the important characteristic of the Qurayshi faction. Denial of the religious authority of the Prophet's prescriptions and prohibition on the writing and narration of hadith are clearly visible elements in the stance of the leaders of this faction right from the Prophet's days.

Without doubt one can say that the Companions of the Prophet (s) formed two different groups from this angle: those who believed in the necessity of following the Prophet (s) in all aspects and those who did not consider it obligatory to follow the Prophet (s) in matters relating to government and political affairs.

The pre-Islamic influence of the Quraysh, along with other factors, led the latter group to acquire power. A little later when Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf laid down the condition that he would deliver the office of the caliphate to the candidate who would follow the practice (sirah) of the Shaykhayn (i.e. Abu Bakr and 'Umar) and Imam Ali insisted that he would base his policy only on the Qur'an, the sirah of the Prophet and his own judgements (ijtihad) it was obvious that the religious difference was gradually expanding.

Until the time when Umar was in the office of the caliphate, the generality of people, excepting the followers of Imam Ali, followed the decrees (fatwa) of the State, not attaching much significance to the difference that existed at that time between the practice of the Prophet (s) and that of others.

But when Uthman, besides allegations of political and financial misdemeanor, was accused of acts that were considered to be religiously deviant (bid'ah) and he was challenged by a large number of Companions, the problem arose as to whom the people should regard as a competent religious authority. In other words, whom were they to emulate? If we note that it were the opponents of the Qurayshi faction who led the movement against Uthman, we can understand better the connection between differences on political and religious issues.

'Uthman was killed at the end of 35 H./656 and Ali assumed the duties of caliphate. Now the leader of the anti-Qurayshi faction, who incidentally had no role in the revolt against Uthman and whose counsel went unheeded by the extremists, had assumed the office of the caliphate. From the very beginning, Syria, which led one wing of the Qurayshi faction, did not recognize his caliphate.

Other leaders of the Qurayshi faction were Talhah and Zubayr who were also disgruntled with the rule of Imam Ali ('a). They made Basrah their base and as a consequence of this rebellion the Imam was compelled to shift his capital to Kufah. In Madinah itself a number of Companions, albeit very small, refused to give allegiance to the Imam. They were the neutralists' (Qa'idin).

Aside from political issues, an important problem was the clarification of religious issues concerning controversial matters especially in relation to emergent issues. It was for this reason that two political and, as a consequence, religious factions emerged. There were those who accepted Imam Ali's religious authority and considered it a religious obligation to follow him; they were those who were not acceptable to the Uthmanid party now represented by Syria and Basrah.

The second group consisted of those who were not prepared to accept the Imam's rule and opposed him with the motive of avenging Uthman's death. All that which went into forming the attitudes of the opponents, acquiring a more developed form in the course of time, came to be called the Uthmani creed. This creed stood in contrast to the Alawid faction to which the term Shiah came to be applied shortly afterwards.

During the developments of the period of the Imam's caliphate, a group became the followers and supporters of Imam M and gradually came to be called al-Shi'ah or Shi'is. As against them a group of people became partisans of Uthman and the Uthmanid faction and they came to be known as al-'Uthmaniyyah or 'Uthmanis. For this reason the Uthmaniyyah became the name for the religious approach that opposed Shiism. In the course of time it came to represent the religion of the common people who took their religious beliefs and practices from the Umayyad rulers. The Umayyads considered themselves as the continuation of the earlier caliphs and considered Imam Ali ('a) as standing in contradistinction to them.

During this period, the term shi'ah generally stood in contrast to the term 'Uthmaniyyah. However, the term shi'ah was not used in a univocal sense in all its applications. Among the "Shiis" there were those who were named so merely because they were against 'Uthman and supported the Imam as the legitimate caliph.

Many of them also accepted the preceding caliphs and, as will be seen, they too were called Shi'is' by extremist Uthmanis. However, among these undifferentiated Shiis there were those who considered the Imamate as the sole right of Imam Ali ('a) as someone who had been appointed by the Prophet (s) to that office which they viewed as vested with a kind of Divine right. They did not consider it necessary to refrain from cooperating with the earlier caliphs, for the Imam himself had maintained silence in those circumstances for the sake of Islam, as was repeatedly pointed out by him.

In the course of their support of the Uthmani creed, the Umayyads basically did not recognize the caliphate of Imam Ali ('a), and they propagated this notion throughout the greater part of Muslim society. However, this attitude did not find many supporters in Iraq, with the exception of Basrah. On the contrary, whenever there arose any opportunity the Iraqis would display, on the political scene, their belief in the right of the Alawids.

Beside the Shi'i and the 'Uthmani tendencies, there was a third one which related to the so-called Qa'idin, and Nashi' Akbar considers them as consisting of two groups with two different tendencies. According to him, one of them were the Hulaysiyyah, who believed that one should withdraw into political seclusion during tines of social turmoil (fitnah).

They considered both the warring groups as misguided and destined for hell, and considered keeping aloof (qu'ud) from war as piety (din) and entry into it as fitnah.' Abd Allah ibn Umar, Muhammad ibn Muslimah and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas belonged to this group. The second group of the Qa'idin was that of the "Mu'tazilah" who believed that one of the two warring groups was in the right but it could not be clearly identified.

Abu Musa Ash'ari, Abu Said Khudri and Abu Mas'ud Ansari belonged to this group. According to Nashi' Akbar, they were the ones who were known as Mu'tazilah, and later on Wasil ibn Ata' and Amr ibn Ubayd had a similar attitude regarding Talhah and Zubayr. [^4] An important concept employed by these two groups in their analysis of the state of affairs was that of fttnah, and they believed that during times of fitnah "it is better for one to be among those who get killed rather than being one of the killers." [^5]

The Hijaz did not take sides in the conflict between the pro-Alid and pro-Umayyad parties, but it staged a movement which may be called "the movement of the Companion's descendants" (abna' al-sahabah).