The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam
Chapter 10: The Imamate of Ja'far as-Sadiq
The sixth Imam, Abu 'Abd Allah Ja'far, the eldest son of Muhammad
al-Baqir, was born in Medina either in 80/690 700 or 83/703-704.[^1] On
his father's side Ja'far was of course a Husaynid descendant of the
Prophet, and like his father he had a doubly strong relationship to
'Ali, since Muhammad al-Baqir was an 'Alid on both his father's and his
mother's sides.[^2]
On his mother's side Ja'far was the great-great-grandson of Abu
Bakr,[^3] and thus he was the first among the Ahl al-Bayt who combined
in his person descent from Abu Bakr as well as from 'Ali. His mother Umm
Farwa was the daughter of Al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr.[^4] Qasim
married the daughter of his uncle 'Abd ar-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, and thus
Umm Farwa was the great-granddaughter of Abu Bakr on both the father's
and the mother's sides.
For the first fourteen years of his life Ja'far was brought up under
the guardianship of his grandfather Zayn al-'Abidin. He observed the
latter's acts of charity, his love for long series of prostrations and
prayers, and his withdrawal from politics. At the same time, Ja'far
noticed his grandfather's claims to the Imamate and his efforts, though
meagre and limited, to collect around himself some devoted followers who
resisted the popular appeal of the Imamate of Muhammad b. al- Hanafiya
and then the latter's son, Abu Hashim. Ja'far also saw the respect with
which Zayn al-'Abidin was held by the famous lawyers and scholars of
Medina and elsewhere.[^5] In his mother's house young Ja'far saw his
maternal grandfather, Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, considered by the
people of Medina as one of the most erudite and esteemed traditionists
of his time.[^6]
Outside the family the childhood of Ja'far coincided with a rapidly
growing interest in Medina in the acquiring of knowledge of Prophetic
traditions and of seeking explanations of the Qur'anic verses. His
boyhood also witnessed the culmination of Umayyad power, the final
establishment of their administrative imperium, a period of peace and
plenty, but hardly of religious fervour, as will be elaborated below. It
seems probable that an environmental background of this kind in the life
of a boy of fourteen may have influenced his thinking and personality,
giving his future work a certain direction.
With the death of Zayn al-'Abidin, Ja'far entered his early manhood and
spent about twenty-three years under his father Muhammad al-Baqir. In
all these years not only did Ja'far see his father's efforts to
establish himself as the Imam of the House of the Prophet, but as the
eldest son he participated in these activities. When Al-Baqir died,
Ja'far was thirty-seven or thirty-four years old and was destined to
live for a period of at least twenty-eight years as the head of the
Shi'a following the elder line of the Husaynid Imams-a period longer
than any other Imam of the House attained.[^7]
Ja'far's fame for religious learning was great, greater than that of
his father or of any other Twelver Imam except for 'Ali b. Abi Talib
himself. Perhaps the earliest historical reference presenting Ja'far as
one of the most respected and highly esteemed personalities of his
epoch, and as having profound knowledge and learning, is Ya'qubi's
statement that it was customary for scholars who related anything from
him to say: “The Learned One informed us.”[^8] Even the famous jurist of
Medina, the Imam Malik b. Anas, is reported to have said, when quoting
Ja'far's traditions: “The Thiqa (truthful) Ja'far b. Muhammad himself
told me that …”[^9] Similar compliments for Ja'far are attributed to the
Imam Abu Hanifa,[^10] who is also reported to have been his pupil
Shahrastani said of Ja'far:
“His knowledge was great in religion and culture, he was fully informed
in philosophy, he attained great piety in the world, and he abstained
entirely from lusts. He lived in Medina long enough to greatly profit
the sect that followed him, and to give his friends the advantage of the
hidden sciences. On his father's side he was connected with the tree of
prophecy, and on his mother's side with Abu Bakr.”[^11]
The Imamate of Ja'far as-Sadiq saw the most crucial period of Islamic
history, both in political and in doctrinal spheres. It coincided with
many epoch-making events, violent movements, the natural results of
various undercurrent activities and revolutionary attempts, and above
all the compromising attitude between the Ahl al-Hadith and the
Muri'ites in their efforts to standardize a corpus of doctrine for the
synthesis of the Muslim community, or Jama'a. The very existence of this
many-sided and complex situation facilitated the rise of Ja'far's
Imamate to a prominence not previously attained by the Imamates of his
father and grandfather. Thus the fundamental point to be investigated is
how the Imamate of Ja'far attained so great a prominence, as attested to
by the testimony of Shi'i as well as Sunni sources, after having been
reduced to an insignificant following by the abandonment of the line of
the quiescent Imams by the majority of the Shi'is, who had been
persuaded to join the extremist and revolutionary factions.
The answer to this question, however, cannot be found without examining
a series of events and their ultimate results-the results which appeared
in the success of the 'Abbasid house and the subsequent repudiation and
frustration of the Shi'i cause. As Moscati has observed, after their
success the 'Abbasids joined hands with the rest of the Muslims and
pushed the Shi'is, on whose strength they had risen to power, into the
role of an opposition.[^12] It is not possible, nor would it be
desirable, to go into the details of all those events of far-reaching
consequences which took place before and during the Imamate of Ja'far
and, as we have tentatively assumed above, made it crucial.
Nevertheless, a broad outline and brief survey is necessary.
When the Umayyad's autocratic rule and their libertine way of life
frustrated the expectations of Muslims, especially after the massacre at
Karbala, many Muslims conceived the idea of Al-Mahdi; a leader they
considered as directly guided by God. Though the use of the term Mahdi
became the chief characteristic of the Shi'is, it had a great appeal
among non Shi'is as well. The first to be proclaimed as the Mahdi was
'Ali's third son Muhammad,[^13] born of a Hanafite woman.
The mass acre of Husayn,[^14] the only surviving grandson of the
Prophet, at Karbala, the destruction of the Ka'ba, the siege of Medina
and the misfortunes inflicted on the pro 'Alid Kufans were sufficient
grounds for a Mahdi uprising, though vengeance for “the blood of the Son
of the Prophet” was the main cry.[^15] The reluctance of Husayn's
surviving son Zayn al-'Abidin to involve himself in political adventures
caused the restless Kufan sympathizers of the House to seek the moral
support of any other member of 'Alid descent. Thus, in the beginning it
was perhaps not the personality of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya which
impressed the Kufans, but rather the basic need for a figurehead in
whose name the movement could be launched. In fact, even Muhammad b. al-
Hanafiya had always been reluctant to claim the role of the Mahdi for
himself.[^16]
Mukhtar understood the situation only too well and made full use of it.
He gathered the Kufan Shi'is in his house and declared:
“Al-Mahdi Muhammad b. 'Ali, the son of the Wasi; sent me to you as his
trusted man, minister, and chosen supporter, and as his commander. He
ordered me to fight against the blasphemers and claim vengeance for the
blood of the people of his House, the excellent ones.”[^17]
It is interesting to note that the emphasis is placed not on Muhammad
b. al-Hanafiya, but on the “Mahdi” and on the “son of the Wasi” Ibn
al-Hanafiya in fact may have agreed to Mukhtar's suggestions, when the
latter said, “Your silence is your agreement,” but nevertheless
maintained an uncommitted attitude. In any case, Mukhtar might have so
understood Ibn al-Hanafiya's behaviour, as he interpreted it before the
people of Kufa.
Mukhtar's propaganda for Ibn al-Hanafiya's Mahdism gained the
unqualified support of the great majority of the Shi'is, comprising both
the Arabs and a large number of Persian mawali living in Kufa, who, as
we have already seen, had by this time outnumbered the former. These
mawali, who formed the backbone of Mukhtar's movement, called themselves
shi'at al-Mahdi (the party of Al-Mahdi), Shi'at Al-Muhammad (the party
of the Family of Muhammad), or the shi'at al-Haqq (the party of
Truth).[^18] Consequently, a sect in its own right, considerably well
organized, active, and equipped with ideas of different extractions,
emerged with the name of the Kaysaniya, named after either the kunya of
Mukhtar himself or the highly controversial figure of Abu 'Amra Kaysan,
the mawla of Mukhtar.[^19]
Though Mukhtar's rule was soon ended by his being killed with the
majority of his followers, Kaysanism, introduced by his followers to
various provinces, became too widespread to be eradicated. These
sectarians, some of whom lived as far away as Khurasan, continued to
recognize Ibn al-Hanafiya as their Imam-Mahdi and to revere him to an
extravagant degree. After his death in 81/700-701,[^20] the extremists
of the sect believed in his concealment (ghayba) and return (raj'a),
while the majority accepted the eldest of his sons, Abu Hashim 'Abd
Allah, as the new Imam directly appointed by him.[^21] The former group
was represented by three notable poets, Abu'l-Tufayl 'Amir b. Wa'ila,
Kuthayyir, and Sayyid al-Himyari ;[^22] the last of these later became a
follower of Ja'far as-Sadiq.
Kashshi records an interesting story about two men from the entourage
of Ja'far as-Sadiq, As-Sarraj and Hammad b. 'Isa, who were known to
believe that Muhammad b. al- Hanafiya was still alive. Ja'far reproached
them and pointed out that Ibn al-Hanafiya was seen being buried, and his
property had been divided and his widow had re-married.[^23]
Nevertheless, the doctrine of “return” from that time became one of the
chief characteristics of most branches of the Shi'is.
The messianic expectations of the Kaysanites, however, influenced a
great number of the Muslims, Shi'is as well as non-Shi'is. Mahdism in
fact became a common vehicle for the expression of the general feelings
of the epoch, and was used as an effective instrument for political
adventures.
There was a widespread dissatisfaction of both a political and a social
nature which had many causes The Arabs of Iraq were opposed to the
hegemony of the Syrians. The non-Arab mawali resented the high-handed
treatment meted out to them by the Arab ruling class, and the increasing
number of Arabs entitled to the allowances must have added to the
burdens imposed on the subject and conquered peoples. Because of the
omnipresence of religion in every sphere of life, the social ferment and
opposition against the existing regime were expressed in religious
terms. General discontent, however, was not directed against the legal
and religious foundations of the Islamic state as such.[^24] The laws
contained in the Qur'an and the Sunna were the Word of God and the
example of the Prophet under divine inspiration, and so they could not
be wrong. But the rulers who applied these 1-aws, and whose duty it was
to maintain and administer justice, were responsible for distorting or
neglecting the commands of God and the custom of the Prophet. Thus the
hope for liberation and a change in the political and social system
meant not the abolition of the existing legal basis and the introduction
of another law, but the faithful application of the divine rules.^25
Thus anti-Umayyad propaganda found expression mainly, and perhaps
spontaneously, in religious terms. “The main concern of the Umayyads,”
as Schacht remarks, “was not with religion and religious law, but with
political administration, and here they represented the organizing,
centralising, and increasingly bureaucratic tendency of an orderly
administration. They were interested in questions of religious policy
and theology insofar as these had a bearing on loyalty to
themselves.”[^26] To this another observation may be added. The close
proximity in time of Umayyad rule with that of Muhammad and the Rashidun
caliphs and the vast difference between their respective ways of life
made the Muslims watch with shock and concern the personal lives,
conduct, and behaviour of the Umayyads, addicted to wine-bibbing and
singing-girls. Thus, with emphasis placed on their impiety and
ungodliness, the Umayyads were regarded as usurpers, who deprived the
family of the Prophet of their rights and inflicted untold wrongs upon
them.[^27] The sack of Medina and the burning of the Ka'ba were also a
black spot on the record of the dynasty.[^28]
These observations by the Muslims led them to decry the Umayyads and
depict their rule as an epoch of tyranny (zulm), at the same time
placing before the eyes of the masses a hope for liberation. The victory
of justice being understood as one of faith over impiety, it could be
achieved only by divine sanction and under a God-inspired leader. Thus
rather naturally the majority believed that this leader, Al-Mahdi,
should be a man descended from the Prophet, or at least a member of his
family, the Ahl al-Bayt. At the same time it should be particularly
noted that the Messianic idea did not imply a mere passive waiting for
salvation or spiritual guidance, a policy distinctly adopted by the
legitimist line of the Imams: Ja'far and his predecessors. The concept
of Yihad, which required every believer to expose his life and property
in the cause of religion, did not allow for such a passive attitude.
The first 'Alid of the Husaynid line who rose against the tyranny of
the Umayyads was Zayd, the second son of Zayn al-'Abidin. After the
death of Zayn al-'Abidin, when his eldest son Al-Baqir, who became the
legitimate Imam of the house, strictly followed his father's quiescent
policy and restricted himself to the claims of religious leadership,
Zayd proclaimed the principle of establishing good and prohibiting evil
by force if necessary. Zayd preached that if an Imam wanted to be
recognized, he should claim his rights sword in hand. It was, in fact,
an expression of the deeply felt feelings not only of the Shi'is of
Kufa, but also of the majority of Medinese, which Zayd understood only
too well.
Thus many followers of Zayn al-'Abidin left Al-Baqir and went over to Zayd. They were joined by a considerable number of those of the Shi'is who had previously upheld the Imamate of Ibn al-Hanafiya and Abu Hashim, but the moderate views of Zayd's followers could not be reconciled with the extremist doctrines of the Kaysanites. At the same time, Zayd, by adhering to Wasil b. 'Ata' and his doctrines, gained the whole-hearted support of the Mu'tazilites, and his acceptance of the legitimacy of the first two caliphs earned him the full sympathy of the traditionist circles. These combinations reveal two fundamental points. Firstly, Zayd and his close followers rejected the ideas prevailing among other Shi'i groups. Zayd and his followers wanted no quiescent or hidden Imams, like Al- Baqir and Ibn al-Hanafiya.
The Imam, in their eyes, although he had to be a descendant of 'Ali and
Fatima, yet could not claim allegiance unless he asserted his Imamate
publicly. Secondly, Zayd realized the fact that in order to run for the
caliphate, he must have the main body of Muslim opinion behind him, and
must, therefore, accept the main body of Islamic traditions. Thus he
expressed this attitude by declaring his acceptance of Abu Bakr and
'Umar as legally elected caliphs. At the same time, he maintained the
Shi'I belief that 'Ali was superior; nevertheless, he accepted the
“Imamate of the Inferior” (Mafdul), that is, of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, as
permissible in order to secure certain temporary advantages.[^29]
After the death of Al-Baqir, Ja'far maintained his father's policy
towards Zayd and his movement and remained a rather passive spectator.
Being the uncle of Ja'far, Zayd had the superior position and Ja'far
could not dare to deny his merits outwardly. It does not mean, however,
that Ja'far did not have a close group of his own followers whom he
inherited from his father and who resisted the Zaydite viewpoint
Moreover, the concession to non-Shi'is 'given by Zayd, especially his
emphasis on the rights of the first two caliphs, raised objections and
ultimately caused many zealous Shi'is to abandon him. They revoked their
oath and transferred their allegiance to Ja'far.[^30]
According to one tradition Zayd said to the deserters: “You have
abandoned me (rafadtumuni)” and zealous Shi'is have since been called
Rafida.[^31] A party of Kufan Shi'is went to Medina and informed Ja'far
of Zayd's ideas and activities. Maintaining his regard for his uncle,
Ja'far simply said, “Zayd was the best of us and our master.”[^32]
Zayd's revolt took place in Safar 122/December 740 and was
unsuccessful. He himself was killed, and many of his followers were
massacred.[^33] The Caliph Hisham then commanded that all eminent
Talibis should publicly dissociate themselves from the insurrection and
condemn its leader.[^34] Among them were 'Abd Allah b. Mu'awiya and 'Abd
Allah al-Mahd,^35 but the name of Ja'far as-Sadiq is nowhere
mentioned. It shows that Ja'far must have shown himself distinctly and
categorically opposed to the movements of the activist members of the
family. It also recalls the time of Ja'far's grandfather, Zayn
al-'Abidin, in the reign of Yazid, when, after the suppression of the
Medinese revolt, all of Banu Hashim were forced to swear allegiance and
declare themselves slaves of the Caliph, while Zayn al-'Abidin was
exempted.[^36] Now Ja'far was spared in a similar situation, which
indicates the continuity of the same policy in the legitimist line.
Zayd's son Yahya, however, continued his father's activities and
managed to reach Khurasan in order to win the sympathies of the Kufan
Shi'is, whom Al-Hajjaj and other Umayyad viceroys of Iraq had exiled to
that distant province. But in 125/743, after three years' futile
efforts, Yahya met the same fate as his father.[^37] Zayd's movement, in
fact, was unable to captivate the hearts of the activist groups because
he did not claim to be the Mahdi-an idea which had become so dear to the
Shi'i masses. Moreover, his moderate policy eventually deprived him of
the popular support of the Shi'is. Yet his revolt left a very deep mark
upon the development of the whole Shi'i movement. Numerous learned men
of Kufa, among them the great jurists Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man and Sufyan
ath-Thawri, the traditionist Al-A'mash, the Qadi of Mada'in Hilal b.
Hubab, and others, along with other leaders from other cities, supported
or at least sympathized with his cause.[^38]
The movement of Zayd, however, though it ended in failure, paved the
way for other claimants and offered ready ground for a more effective
revolt. His and his son's deaths, which created a vacuum for active
leadership, enhanced the prospects of two of their relatives and
hitherto rivals: Ja'far as-Sadiq and Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya. Since
the former adhered to the quiescent policy of his father and
grandfather, he was not inclined to make a bid for the leadership of an
active movement with political implication.
Here we should note that the whole of Shi'ism at this stage was divided
into three doctrinal groups. Firstly, there were the extremist and
messianic groups originating from the Kaysanites; secondly, there was
the moderate group which emerged from the teachings of Zayd and was
backed by the Mu'tazilites and the traditionists of Medina and Kufa; and
finally, the third group was under the personal influence of Ja'far
as-Sadiq, who had been quietly propounding and expressing his own views
and theories about the Imam and his function, which had neither
Messianic pretensions nor Zaydite conciliatory moderation, as we shall
see later.
Thus there remained only Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya, from the House of
the Prophet, who could attract both the Zaydites and the pro-Shi'i
Mu'tazilites as well as a number of extremists on account of his
Messianic claims. Though the actual revolt of An-Nafs az-Zakiya took
place long after, in the sequence of events it would be in order to note
that his Messianic movement in fact originates at this point.
Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya was designated from his childhood for the
role of Al-Mahdi by his father 'Abd Allah b. al-Hasan al-Muthanna b.
al-Hasan b. 'Ali b. Abi Talib, known as Al-Mahd. A grandson of Hasan b.
'Ali b. Abi Talib, Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah was renowned as one of the
most virtuous men of his time and was famous for his religious learning
and eloquence.[^39] When he reached manhood 'Abd Allah spared no efforts
to extol the expected destiny of his son. A tradition from the Prophet
on the authority of 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud was circulated, in which the
Prophet is reported to have said:
“Even if there remains for the world but one single day, God will
extend it until He sends a man from the people of my House, whose name
will he the same as mine, and the name of his father will be that of my
father. He will fill the earth with equity and justice, just as it now
is filled with tyranny and oppression.”[^40]
As this tradition could also be applied to Muhammad al- Mahdi, the son
of Manstir,[^41] another tradition was produced to assure the role of
the Deliverer to An-Nafs az-Zakiya: “On the authority of Umm Salima, who
reported; 'I heard the Apostle of God say, Al-Mahdi will be from the
descent of Fitima.'”[^42]
The candidature of An-Nafs az-Zakiya for the position of the Mahdi was
supported not only by his close relatives, but also by the extremist
Al-Mughira b. Sa'id al-Ijli.[^43] He had a reputation for being an
extremist Shi'i, and Ja'far as-Sadiq repeatedly warned his followers not
to accept Mughira's traditions.'[^44]
Even after Al-Mughira was executed, his followers remained faithful to
An-Nafs az-Zakiya.[^45] Besides, a number of moderate traditionists as
well as the Mu'tazilites, led by 'Amr b. 'Ubayd and Wasil b. 'Ata',[^46]
recognized the young 'Alid as the most suitable person to take the place
vacated by Zayd and Yahya.^47
After the death of Al-Walid b. Yazid, however, when the Umayyad dynasty
was apparently disintegrating and the revolt of 'Abd' Allah b. Mu'awiya
had gained a certain success in Khurasan, 'Abd Allah al-Mahd, along with
other partisans of the 'Alid cause, decided to act.[^48] During a
pilgrimage to Mecca, 'Abd Allah al-Mahd invited his relatives and
followers to take the oath of allegiance to his son. That was done first
in the Haram of Mecca and again at Al-Abwa, in the neighbourhood of
Medina.[^49] According to Abu'l-Faraj,[^50] among those who took the
oath were the three 'Abbasid brothers Ibrahim al-Imam, Abu'l-Abbas
as-Saffah and Aba Ja'far al-Mansur (b. Muhammad b. 'Ali b. 'Abd Allah b.
al-Abbas) as well as other members of the 'Abbasid house. There is no
confirmation of this report that all these Abbasids took part in the
ceremony at Al-Abwa Only the name of Aba Ja'far al-Mansur is given by
some other historians.[^51]
This latter report seems acceptable as Al-Mansur in his youth was a
Mu'tazihte[^52] and a companion of 'Amr b. 'Ubayd,[^53] who probably
induced him to pay homage to An-Nafs az-Zakiya. The only opposition from
the Hashimites to An-Nafs az-Zakiya at Al-Abwa is reported to have come
from Ja'far as-Sadiq's side,[^54] for he considered himself the only
rightful person for the function of the Imamate, and was against any
military organization.
However, in spite of An-Nafs az-Zakiya's popularity, neither he nor his
father acted with sufficient energy, and they allowed the 'Abbasids to
take the initiative. Both the father and the son were but passive
spectators' to the great upheaval and downfall of the Umayyad dynasty.
Indeed, all the necessary elements for a successful revolution were
present, and it was only a matter of strike and action. Whoever could
strike first would gain the prize.
Ideas as to who should and who should not be regarded as the Ahl
al-Bayt were no doubt much confused at this time. Every claimant in
'Ali's family and their supporters and followers spread different
theories to justify their own claims One group of the Shi'is held that
after 'Ali only the sons through Fatima had the right to the heritage of
the Prophet as the “family of the Prophet”, and among them, since Husayn
succeeded Hasan by the latter's expressed will, all rights were
transferred to Husayn and his posterity to the exclusion of the Hasanid
branch. This group, which we are referring to as the legitimist faction
of the Shi'a, though it never ceased to make its existence felt, was
undoubtedly reduced to a small minority at this particular time, after
the Tawwabun movement. others believed that any descendant of 'Ali and
Fatima, whether from the line of Husayn or Hasan, was entitled to the
leadership of the community. In this group come the followers of Zayd
and An-Nafs az-Zakiya. The third and major group of the Shi'a in this
transitional period, the Kaysanites, included also 'Ali's progeny by
other women, in particular Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya and after him his son
Abu Hashim. These distinctions were largely understood and observed by
the more theoretical and legalistically-minded people in Medina and
Kufa. The mass of the people, however, full of hatred, discontent, and
the feeling of being suppressed by the Umayyad aristocracy, were ready
to swarm around any member of the revered clan of the Talibis who could
liberate them from their sufferings.
Swayed by these feelings, therefore, a large part of the local
population of Kufa, especially of the lower classes, were prepared to
range themselves with any anti-Umayyad movement. Such was the support
given to the dubious claims of 'Abd Allah b. Mu'awiya,[^55] a
great-grandson of 'Ali's elder brother Ja'far b. Abi Talib. Tabari
mentions that the majority of his supporters consisted of the slaves and
commoners of Kufa and the villagers of the Sawad.[^56] After an
unsuccessful rising in Kufa, Ibn Mu'awiya managed to reach Persia and
controlled a large area there until he was assassinated, probably by Aba
Muslim.[^57] It might be accepted that Ibn Mu'awiya attained success in
Persia by connecting himself with the Kaysaniya through the claim that
he was the emissary of Aba Hashim. Ibn Mu'awiya's propaganda in
Khurasan, however, made the task easier for a more vigorous leader to
organize a successful revolt.
After all the preceding movements and revolts, the time was now ripe
for a successful rising which was not, in fact, in favour of an 'Alid;
but rather for the 'Abbasids, who had for some time been plotting in the
background and watching for their opportunity. 'Ali b. 'Abd Allah b.
al-'Abbas b. 'Abd al- Muttalib was the first person of the Abbasid house
to nourish political ambitions, but had nothing tangible to support him
from a legal point of view. His grandfather Al-'Abbas, the uncle of the
Prophet, had never claimed the caliphate for himself Moreover, his being
a late convert to Islam and his opportunistic policy[^58] had marred his
reputation among the Muslims. 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas too, though renowned
for his learning, had no political a8pirations and always championed the
cause of 'Ali b. Abi Talib.[^59] He was 'Ali's governor in Basra and
also his personal representative attached to the arbiter Abu Musa
al-Ash'arl.[^60] It is possible that 'Ali b. 'Abd Allah might have been
inspired by certain rights based on old tribal customs. The Meccan clan
of Priest-Sayyids included all the descendants of 'Abd al-Muttalib, and
so, from the viewpoint of legitimism, their claims were better than
those of the Banu Umayya, which were based mainly on political factors.
The Umayyads on their part endeavoured to prove that the whole clan of
the Banu 'Abd Manaf were the ruling house of the Quraysh.[^61]
Nevertheless, even if 'Abbas, once the custodian of the Ka'ba, and his
progeny had as strong a claim to supreme leadership as 'Ali b. Abi
Talib, the 'Abbasids had neglected it for too long. Moreover, the fact
that 'Ali was one of the earliest converts to Islam, while 'Abbas
tarried until the conquest of Mecca, was detrimental to the position of
the 'Abbasids within the Muslim community. Then, the Shi'is had
accustomed themselves to the idea that the rights to the caliphate
belonged to the 'Alids. Obviously, therefore, it was not possible for
the 'Abbasids to claim the caliphate directly.
'Ali b. 'Abd Allah saw an opportunity, in inducing Abu Hashim, the son
and successor of Ibn al-Hanafiya, who had no son and was a lonely person
under the detention of the Umayyads in Damascus, to bequeath to the
'Abbasids his rights to the Imamate. He instructed his youthful son
Muhammad to gain the Imam's favour and confidence. After some time, the
Caliph Sulayman b. 'Abd al-Malik allowed Abu Hashim to return home. On
his way to the Hijaz, it issaid that he was poisoned, either at the
instigation of the Caliph Sulayman or by Muhammad on his own
account.[^62]
He died at Humayma, the headquarters of the 'Abbasids, where he stayed
as the latter's guest. Before his death he made Muhammad b. 'Ali his
legatee and gave him letters addressed to Shi'i circles in
Khurasan.[^63] In this way Muhammad became Imam and was recognized by
the majority of the Hashimiya sect, and thus “the 'Abbasids inherited
the party and organization of Abu Hashim, along with his claims.”[^64]
Though the 'Abbasid movement was first organized and directed from
Kufa, it seems that the 'Abbasids were not very sure of the Kufans, due
to the latters' pro-'Alid sympathies, and so were afraid that the Iraqis
would be unwilling to accept their claims to the Imamate. Although many
of the Hashimiya sectarians recognized the validity of the 'Abbasids'
claims, some of them refused to accept the transfer of the Imamate from
the 'Alids to another branch of the Hashimites. This was particularly
characteristic of the attitude of the Kufans, whose pro-'Alid sympathies
were very strong. Some Shi'is believed that Abu Hashim was not dead, but
had concealed himself, and that he was Al-Mahdi. Others admitted that he
had died, but had appointed his brother 'Ali to the Imamate, which then
passed from father to son in the same line.[^65]
On the other hand, Khurasan was still largely a virgin land insofar as
sectarian conflicts were concerned. The majority of the so-called Shi'is
in that distant country were not so much interested in the differences
between the various branches of the Ahl al-Bayt, but they were ready to
follow any leader from the House of the Prophet against the
Umayyads.[^66] Still, Abu Muslim, the chief organizer of the movement,
though appointed by Ibrahim,[^67] the head of the 'Abbasid family,
claimed to be acting on behalf of an Imam from the Ahl al- Bayt who had
not yet been chosen or designated. In this way he gained the support of
many who would not have been ready to support him had they known that
the Imam from the family of Hashim would in fact be from the family of
Al-'Abbas.[^68] The support given by the followers of Al-Mukhtar may
strengthen this assumption.
However, Ibrahim was arrested by the orders of the Caliph Marwan b.
Muhammad, brought to Damascus, and subsequently dispatched to Harran and
imprisoned, where he died either of plague or-as the 'Abbasids
assert-was put to death at the Caliph's command.[^69] According to
Ibrahim's instructions, his brother Abu'1-'Abbas, in the company of a
third brother, Abu Ja'far 'Abd Allah, and fourteen other members of the
family, left Al-Humayma and reached Kufa.[^70] In Kufa the local
representative of the 'Abbasids was Abu Salama Hafs, a Kaysanite
follower of Abu Hashim. At this critical moment Abu Salama is reported
to have thought of breaking his allegiance to the 'Abbasids since he
felt bound by loyalty to Imam Ibrahim, but not to his brothers.[^71] He
lodged the 'Abbasid fugitives in a house and tried to conceal their
whereabouts from the Khurasanian leaders in Kufa.[^72]
According to what Jahshiyari and Tabari report, when the news of the
death of Ibrahim al-Imam reached Kufa, Abu Salama “on the suggestion and
advice of some other Shi'is of Kufa, intended to establish the Imamate
of the 'Alids,”[^73] and accordingly he wrote letters to Ja'far
as-Sadiq, 'Abd Allah al- Mahd, and 'Umar b. 'Ali Zayn al-'Abidin, asking
each one of them in turn to come to Kufa in person and he would support
their claims to the Imamate.
The messenger was ordered first to contact Ja'far, and only if he
refused, then to go to 'Abd Allah, and in case of his refusal, to 'Umar
b. 'Ali. When the messenger, however, presented the letter first to
Ja'far, the latter called for a lamp, burned the letter, and said to the
messenger, “Tell your master what you have seen.”[^74] Mas'udi tells the
story in a different colour, saying: “When the 'Abbasid leader Ibrahim
al-Imam was killed by Marwan II, Abu Salama feared that this would mean
the failure of their undertaking, and he attempted therefore to induce
Ja'far as Sadiq, and in case he refused, then 'Abd Allah and lastly
'Umar b. 'Ali, to come to him in person and to openly declare his claims
to the Imamate.”[^75]
The same story asserts that 'Abd Allah al-Mahd accepted the offer and
was only too delighted to receive the help of Abu Salama. Ja'far
as-Sadiq, in all the sources which have recorded this story, is reported
to have severely warned 'Abd Allah “not to indulge and endanger his and
his son's life in this game of power and treachery, as Abu Salama is not
our Shi'a and the Khurasanians are not our followers.” 'Abd Allah
bitingly retorted, “You are jealous of me and my son.”[^76] If this
conversation is true it would throw light on Ja'far's extremely cautious
policy of keeping entirely out of politics. As for Abu Salama, Moscati
points out that in his wavering attitude “one can perhaps see a
consequence of the deliberate ambiguity about the rights of the 'House
of the Prophet', put into circulation by the revolutionary
propaganda.”[^77]
The events in Kufa moved quickly in favour of the 'Abbasids. Their
presence or concealment[^78] in Kufa was betrayed through one Abu Jahm
to Abu Humayd, who, with other Khurasanian chiefs encamped in the
vicinity of Kufa, came and at once paid homage to Abu'l-'Abbas[^79] as
the Imam and Caliph, compelling Abu Salama to comply.[^80]
Immediately after, Abu'l-'Abbas, together with hi8 supporters, went to
the mosque where he made his inaugural speech. In this speech he named
himself as-Saffah (the Bloodshedder) and identified the glory of God
with his own interests and those of his house. He named “the Abbasids as
the Ahl al-Bayt from whom uncleanness was removed”, and denied that the
'Alids were more worthy of the caliphate.[^81] As-Saffah's address was
followed by a speech from his uncle, Da'ud b. 'Ali, who emphasized that
the rights of the 'Abbasids were legally inherited and there were but
two legal caliphs in Islam: 'Ali b. Abi Talib and As-Saffah. He added
that the caliphate would remain in the hands of the 'Abbasids until they
passed it over to 'Isa b. Maryam (Jesus).[^82]
The accession of Abu'l-'Abbas was followed immediately by the first
breach with the extremist Shi'is. The testament of Abu Hashim was of the
utmost importance to the 'Abbasids, for at the onset of their propaganda
it allowed them to take over the sectarian circles in Persia and so
establish the nucleus of their own religio-political party. Once the aim
was achieved, the 'Abbasids, on their own accession to the caliphate,
justified their rights by different arguments, without even mentioning
Abu Hashim's name. Now they found it necessary to allow the memory of
the bequest to pass into oblivion, for its connections with Shi'i
extremism were too strong and could be dangerous or embarrassing.
The first task, therefore, before As-Saffah was to break the alliance
with the extremists and to remove those who supported the cause
basically on that sectarian ground. Thus the first who had to pay with
his life was Abu Salama, either on account of his strong connections
with the extremist Shi'is or because of his alleged pro-'Alid leanings
and his offer of support for their bid for the caliphate. The second
reason cannot be completely ignored as an immediate cause of his
assassination. There seems no difficulty in accepting that, at first,
knowing nothing about Abu Salama's recent pro'-Alid activities, the
'Abbasids called him by. the title Wazir Al Rasul Allah,[^83] but as
soon as As-Saffah came to know about his fickleness he successfully
arranged for his assassination. This is what both Tabari and Mas'udi
clearly describe as the reason for Aba Salama's assassination.[^84]
Nevertheless, this immediate cause was coupled with As-Saffah's policy
to get rid of revolutionary sectarians, of whom Abu Salama was the most
powerful leader.
As-Saffah's rule lasted for four years, during which period the 'Alids
in Medina, “disorganized by the frustration of their hopes”,[^85] kept
quiet and affairs remained stationary. But when Mansur assumed the
caliphate in 136/753, the 'Alids, embittered by the usurpation of their
rights by the house of 'Abbas, began to voice their complaints. On the
other hand, except for the shi'at Bani 'Abbas, who regarded As-Saffah
not only as Caliph and Imam but also as the Mahdi, the Shi'I masses were
also dissatisfied; and this popular dissatisfaction, which became
manifest even during As-Saffah's rule,[^86] grew with the accession of
Al-Mansur. They felt that the expected Kingdom of Righteousness had not
materialised: one evil rule had been replaced by another.
Thus, at the accession of Mansur, Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya, who had
long been coveting the role of Al-Mahdi, refused to take the oath of
allegiance to him and started his Messianic propaganda. This angered
Mansur, and in 140/758 he decided to compel An-Nafs az-Zakiya and his
brother Ibrahim to pay him homage. He ordered the arrest of 'Abd Allah
al-Mahd and many other 'Alids; of the thirteen arrested, some were
cruelly scourged to try to force them to disclose the hiding place of
the other fugitives, but in vain.[^87]
It is important to note that though An-Nafs az-Zakiya tried to gain
support in many parts of the Muslim population,[^88] it was chiefly the
people of the Hijaz, rather than Kufa, who enthusiastically responded to
his appeal, and with few exceptions, swore the oath of allegiance to
him.[^89] The traditionist circles of Medina wholeheartedly supported
and upheld his cause; Malik b. Anas declared that the oath sworn to the
'Abbasids was no longer binding as it had been taken under
compulsion.[^90] The Zaydites and Mu'tazilites of Kufa and Basra were
also ready to help him.[^91] In Ramadan 145/December 762, however, a
fierce battle was engaged and resulted in the utter defeat of the
Medinese and in the death of An-Nafs az-Zakiya while fighting the
'Abbasid army. The experience and death of An-Nafs az-Zakiya resulted in
many traditions, some of them attributed to Ja'far as-Sadiq, who was
said to have foreseen the fate of An-Nafs az-Zakiya.[^92]
An-Nafs az-Zakiya's abortive uprising was followed by another by his
brother Ibrahim in Basra, where he was collecting supporters for the
former. The Zaydite and Mu'tazilite circles of Kufa and Basra supported
Ibrahim in a body.[^93]
The jurists of Ku fa-Abu Hanifa, Sufyan al-Thawri, Mas'ud b. Kudam, and
many others-wrote letters to Ibrahim inviting him to their city or
backed him by issuing legal decisions (fatawa) favouring his cause.[^94]
With a force of 15,000 men Ibrahim left Basra for Kufa to join his Kufan
sympathisers, but was encountered by the 'Abbasid army at Bakhamra,
which resulted in Ibrahim's death.[^95]
This was the end of 'Alid risings of any consequence and of Messianic
hopes aspired to by them or placed in them. Some of An-Nafs az-Zakiya's
followers then found an outlet for their hopes in certain supernatural
ideas. They regarded him as the Mahdi and refused to accept the fact of
his death, asserting that orly a devil in human form had been killed in
his stead, while he was concealed in a mountain in Najd.[^96] The
failure of Ibrahim's revolt also practically marked the end of the
Medinese desire to establish a caliphate of their own choice. The long
cherished hopes of the Shi'is, especially those of activists and
extremists, were frustrated.
All these events and circumstances, however, form the background
against which the Imamate of Ja'far happened to fall. Rut before we try
to examine his position and his standpoint in this religio-political
setting, there remains still another vital aspect to be elaborated.
We have seen that the great Hashimite party of the Umayyad era was now
split into 'Alids and 'Abbasids. So the struggle assumed a new form. It
was no longer a deadly struggle between “a usurping dynasty” and a
legitimist opposition, but rather between the two factions of Banu
Hashim, each claiming legitimist rights for itself with the total
exclusion of the other: the descendants of the Prophet's uncle and the
descendants of the Prophet's cousin and daughter, 'Ali and Fatima. And
to further complicate the situation, the house of 'Ali was itself
divided into three factions: the line of Husayn; the line of Ibn
al-Hanafiya; and the line of Hasan, which emerged later. Thus the house
of
'Abbas was on one side, and the house of 'Ali, divided into three
groups, was on the other.
The first 'Abbasid caliph, As-Saffah, fully anticipated this situation
and from the very first moment of his caliphate began the task of
justifying the rights of his house on legitimist grounds, as is evident
from his inaugural speech discussed above. In this way he laid down the
foundation of his family's policy in the forthcoming struggle t6
repudiate the claims of the house of 'Ali. But, owing to the fact that
during the short lived reign of As-Saffah the 'Alids themselves could
not come out with any serious or visible opposition, things remained
rather confused and stationary.
It was Mansur who had to face the most threatening opposition from the
'Alids to the newly established authority of his house. Thus in order to
save, strengthen, and consolidate his caliphate, Mansur concentrated his
efforts on two basic and fundamental objectives. The first was to
justify the rights of his house on legal and religious grounds. This
logically implied the repudiation of the claims of the 'Alids through
legal argumentation. The second was to gain for his caliphate the
acceptance of the Muslim Jama'a.
This required the severance of all relations and connections with all
revolutionary and extremist groups and organizations. Mansur realized
only too well that Kaysanite Shi'ism, Rawandite extremism,[^97]
revolutionaries of Abu Muslim's following (who held beliefs which
comprised a mixture of Kaysanite Shi'ism and Mazdakism), or the Shi'at
of 'Abbasiya, could not serve as the religious basis for the 'Abbasid
caliphate. Repudiating all of the above groups, Mansur approached the
traditionist circles (Ahl al-Hadith), which he recognized as the
representative section of the Muslim community and the exponents of 'the
Jama'a. It would be in order if we consider this aspect later and
examine first his endeavour to vindicate the rights of his house to the
caliphate.
The best and probably the most authentic and relevant documentary
evidence in this connection is an exchange of letters between Mansur and
his most serious 'Alid rival, Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya. In order to
understand Mansur's method of argumentation and his approach to the
problem it is necessary to first consider An-Nafs az-Zakiya's letter to
him. It reads:
“Our father 'Ali was the Wasi and the Imam. How is it that you
appropriate his inheritance while we are still alive? You know that
there is no one among the Hashimites who himself has points of
excellence and honour comparable to our past and present, our descent
and our cause … We are the children of Fatima, the daughter of 'Amr, at
the time of paganism, whereas you are not; we are the children of the
Prophet's daughter Fatima at the time of Islam, and you are not.
And I happen to be the golden medium in the line of descent amongst Banu
Hashim, and the best of them all as regards parentage. No Persian did I
have for a mother and no slave-girls were on the maternal side of my
ancestors…[^98] I was twice-born from the loins of Muhammad the Prophet
… amongst my grandfathers I have the highly esteemed in Paradise and the
least tormented in Hell; I am therefore the son of the best of the
excellent people. 'As for the amnesty you have given me, may I ask what
kind of amnesty it is? Is it the same that you gave to Ibn Hubayra or to
your uncle 'Abd Allah b. 'Ali or the one that was given to Abu Muslim
?”[^99]
It is clear from this letter that first of all An-Nafs az-Zakiya claims
his rights on the basis that his ancestor 'Ali b. Abu Talib was the Wasi
and the Imam, and then he strengthens this by emphasizing the
circumstance of his birth from both his father's and his mother's sides:
sharaf from the father's side and dignity from the mother's side. At the
end he alludes to the treacherous nature of the 'Abbasids. It is
particularly interesting to note that in spite of his reference to 'Ali
as the Wasi and the Imam, and to Fatimid descent,[^100] the Hijaz was
unanimous in supporting the cause of An-Nafs az-Zakiya.
It would be most revealing to see how Mansur argued against the claims
of his 'Alid rival and how he justified his own rights to the supreme
leadership of the community. Mansur replied to An-Nafs az-Zakiya in this
way:
“I received your letter. You know that our greatest honour in the times
of ignorance, namely the dispensing of water for the pilgrims and the
guardianship of the well of Zamzam, become the privilege of 'Abbas alone
among all his brothers. Your father ['Ali] litigated concerning this
privilege with us' but 'Umar has given judgement in our favour so that
we have never ceased to be in possession of this honour in the times of
the Jahiliya as well as in those of Islam…
“Most of your pride is based on descent from the mother's side,[^101]
which would only deceive the uncouth and the common. God has not made
the women like uncles, fathers, fathers-in-law and the responsible
relatives… As for your claim that you are the son of the Apostle of God,
Almighty God has rejected such a claim when he said, 'Muhammad is not
the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of God and the Seal
of the Prophets.'[^102] But you are the children of the daughter. Verily
it is a close relationship, but she is a woman who can inherit but
cannot become an Imam. How on earth then could the Imamate be inherited
through her?… You know that after the death of the Prophet no son of
'Abd al-Muttalib remained alive other than Al-'Abbas, and that 'Abbas
inherited his rights as the uncle of the Prophet. Then more than one of
the Banu Hashim sought the caliphate, but none attained it except the
descendants of 'Abbas, and so the Siqaya and the inheritance of the
Prophet, as well as the caliphate, belong to him and his progeny, and
will remain in their possession. For 'Abbas was heir and legatee to
every honour and virtue that ever existed in the times of the Jahiliya
and of Islam.”[^103]
This letter is a most important document for our understanding of the
line of argument which Mansur adopted against his 'Alid rivals. If we
analyse the contents of the letter the following points will be evident.
Firstly, he resorted to the customary law of the Arabs according to
which when the lather dies, the paternal uncle takes his place.
Secondly, he placed special stress on 'Umar's ruling in favour of 'Abbas
thus emphasizing the second caliph's authority in the same way as the
Ashab al-Hadith. Thirdly, 'Abbas, as the uncle, had better claims to the
heritage of the Prophet than 'Ali did as a cousin and son-in-law.
Fourthly, he rejected any claim through Fatima, which was a great
prerogative for commanding respect among the Shi'is in particular and
among the Muslims in general. Finally, the 'Alids, due to the weakness
of their legal claim, coupled with their lack of energy, successively
failed in their attempts to procure the caliphate for themselves, while
the progeny of 'Abbas attained it due to their better claims, coupled
with competence and ability. It is also very important to note that both
An- Nafs az-Zakiya and Mansur go back for their arguments of rights to
the Jahiliya period and consider the prerogative of that time honourable
and applicable to the Islamic era.
It is, however, evident from the support given to the risings of
An-Nafs az-Zakiya and his brother Ibrahim, which took place after this
correspondence, by the Ahl al-Hadith (whether of Murjite brand or
otherwise) that they were not impressed by the arguments of Mansur for
the alleged rights of 'Abbas; they continued to assert that the only
just candidates to the Imamate were the 'Alids. We have pointed out that
when An-Nafs az-Zakiya rose in rebellion, Malik b. Anas declared that
the oath of allegiance taken by the inhabitants of Medina to the
'Abbasids was unlawful, as it had been enforced under duress.Similarly,
during the revolt of Ibrahim b. 'Abd Allah, Abu Hanifa, Sufyan
ath-Thawri, Al-A'mash and other Ku fan jurists and Ahl al-Hadith gave
their most emphatic support and encouragement to those who wished to
participate in insurrection.[^104]
After the reconquest of Medina and the suppression of the revolt of
Ibrahim, Mansur ordered Malik b. Anas to be flogged, and considered Abu
Hanifa as an enemy so dangerous that he imprisoned him until his
death.[^105] Apart from these few strong and rather irreconcilable
personalities who actively opposed him and were to be severely punished,
Mansur did not attack the traditionists as such. On the contrary, he
regarded them as the basic element on which he could establish the
foundation of a theocratic state, headed by the Khalifat Allah, the
vice-regent of God, obedience to whom was an absolute religious duty (
fard ).[^106] Thus, for example, when Mansur said in a sermon “Only I am
the authority of God upon His earth,”[^107] he was not announcing
himself merely as a defender of religion or its protector. He identified
his interest with the faith of Islam and treated the will of God as
synonymous with his own aims.
Gradually, however, whether because of the fact that no powerful member
of the 'Alid house was ready to lead a rising, or due to Mansur's
successful policy of blandishment or coercion, most of the Ahl al-Hadith
and jurists of Medina and Kufa came to be reconciled with the caliphate.
Eventually, willingly or unwillingly, they abandoned the 'Alid cause and
ranged themselves obediently under Mansur's orders.
Now, keeping in view this religio-political setting of events, we are
better able to examine the re-emergence of the legitimist Imamate of the
Husaynid line under the leadership of Ja'far as-Sadiq, and the role
played by him in the midst of these circumstances. By an analysis of all
that has been brought out above, one major and fundamental point is
certain. All the successive claimants of the 'Alid house based their
claims on the principle that they were the rightful Imams due to their
virtues and circumstances of birth, and that the Imamate and the
caliphate cannot be separated:
therefore it is exclusively their legitimist right as well as their
religious duty to take the caliphate back from the usurpers, whether
Umayyad or 'Abbasid. In other words, they thought it the function of the
rightful Imam to run the caliphal administration, which is meant to
establish the rule of justice and equality, and thus it is necessary for
an Imam to be a caliph. This principle was accepted by the
representative groups of the Muslim Jama'a-Mu'tazilites, Murjites, Ahl
al-Hadith and the jurists of Medina and Kufa-which is evident from the
wholehearted support given by them to the 'Alid claimants and to their
risings. On the other hand, the 'Abbasids too held the same view that
the Imamate and the caliphate are inseparable, and a rightful Imam alone
has the right to command the caliphal authority. But at the same time
they disputed and rejected the claims of the 'Alids for this office and
asserted that only they themselves were the legitimist Imam-caliphs.
Ultimately Mansur, however, succeeded in crushing the 'Alids and gaining
the submission of the representative groups of the Jama'a.
This meant the complete collapse and defeat of the 'Alid claims to the
Imamate, since, as they held, the Imamate was bound up with the
caliphate, which they had failed to procure for themselves. This
critical situation, however, required a fresh interpretation and
elucidation of the whole concept of the Imamate.
It was at this point that the Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq emerged with his
comprehensive interpretation of the function of the Imamate. He differed
categorically from the hitherto dominating view that an Imam should be
a caliph as well, and put forward the idea of dividing the Imamate and
the caliphate into two separate institutions until such time as God
would make an Imam victorious. This Imam, who must be a descendant of
the Prophet through 'Ali and Fatima, derives his exclusive authority,
not by political claims but by Nass, that is, explicit designation by
the previous Imam, and he inherits the special knowledge of religion
coming down in the family from generation to generation. Thus the sphere
and domain of this Imam is chiefly religious leadership and the
spiritual guidance of the community, not the temporal power.
We shall see in detail in the following chapter how Ja'far elaborated
this theory of the Imamate and the nature and function of an Imam. But
let us make it clear here that Ja'far was by no means the originator of
this theory of the Imamate. We have already pointed out that the idea of
a legitimist Imam inspired with special knowledge had already been
adopted by Zayn al-'Abidin, and then it was further advanced by Muhammad
al-Baqir. It was, however, the time and circumstances which provided
Ja'far with a most suitable and propitious opportunity to elaborate and
explain the ideas propounded by his father and grandfather. This great
opportunity therefore made Ja'far's Imamate crucial.
Before we close this chapter, two more points are to be noted in
passing. One is the question whether Ja'far, by presenting the theory
pertaining to his own and his father's Imamates, thought of establishing
a sect, group, or party of his own, separated from the rest of the
Muslims, or whether he wanted his Imamate with the above-mentioned
prerogatives to be accepted and acknowledged by the whole body of the
Muslim. The audience of Ja'far and the wide range of people whom he
addressed and tried to convince is a sufficient proof that Ja'far
himself did not intend to establish a separate sect which alone should
follow his doctrine of the Imamate. But in the event, only those who had
already a background of Shi'i inclination of one sort or another
accepted Ja'far's doctrine of the Imamate and ultimately became a
section of the Muslim community distinguishable from the rest of it.
The second point is that the doctrine of the Imamate and the function
of the Imam elaborated by Ja'far at this stage provided a basic
authority for the later Twelver theologians and theorists to explain and
solve many problems of the pre-Ja'far period. This was done by applying
Ja'far's theory of the Imamate to the actions of the Imams of the House
who came before him, for example, 'Ali's acceptance of the first three
caliphs, the abdication of Hasan, the inactive attitude of Husayn and
the quiescent policies of Zayn al-'Abidin and Muhammad al-Baqir. All
these questions were solved in accordance with Ja'far's explanation that
it is not necessary for a rightful Imam to combine the temporal power in
his person or even claim the political authority–the caliphate–if the
circumstances did not allow him to do so. On the other hand, it can also
be said that Ja'far's theory of the Imamate was in fact a natural
corollary of his family's past history and experience.
[^1]: For the former date, see Ya'qubi, Ta'rikh, II, p. 381; Ibn Khallikan, I. p.327; Ibn al-Jawzi; Safwa, II, p. 93; 'Amili, A'yan, IV, p. 54; Muhammad b. Talha, Matalib al-Su'ul, p. 89. For the latter, see Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p. 219; Sa'd al-Ash'ari, Maqalat, p. 79; Kulayni, Kufi; p. 193; Majlisi, Tadhkirat al-A'imma p. 139. It is difficult to choose between these two dates, but the former is probably correct, since Ibn Khallikan and others record his birth in the 'Amm al-Juhaf the year of the flood in Mecca, which according to Tabari, II, p. 1040, occurred in 80/699-700.
[^2]: Ibn Sa'd, V, p. 320; Ya'qubi, II, p. 320; Qadi Nu'man, Sharh al-Akhbar, MS. fol. 32a.
[^3]: Ibn Khallikan, I, p. 327; Qadi Nu'man, loc. cit.
[^4]: Tabari, III, p. 2509; Ya'qubi, II, p. 381; Sa'd al-Ash'ari, Maqalat, p. 79; Ibn Khallikan, loc. cit.; Kulayni, Kufi, p. 194; 'Amili; A'yan, IV, p. 452
[^5]: See Ibn Sa'd, V, p. 216; Ibn 'Imad, Shadharat, I, p. 104; Ya'qubi, III, p. 46; Kashshi, Rijal, pp. 7-79; Abu Nu'aym, Hilya, III, p. 135
[^6]: Ibn Sa'd, V, pp. 189 ff; Tabari, II, p. 1183; Ibn Imad, Shadharat, I, p. 62
[^7]: See Kulayni, Kafi; p. 193. His Imamate would have been of twenty-eight years' duration based on a birth date of 83/703-704; if 80/699-700 is accepted, his period in the Imamate would be thirty- one years.
[^8]: Ya'qubi, II, p. 381
[^9]: Qadi Nu'man, Sharh al-Akhbar, MS. Fo1. 42a
[^10]: ibid., fo1. 39a
[^11]: Shahrastani, Milal, I, p. 166
[^12]: S. Moscati, “Per Una Storia De la'Antica Si'a,” RSO, 1955, p. 251
[^13]: B. Lewis, The Origins of Isma'ilism, p.25
[^14]: Husayn was also called “al-Mahdi; son of al-Mahdi', but this as yet had no messianic implications. See Tabari, II, p. 46
[^15]: Baladhuri, V, p. 218; also see Tabari, II, pp. 606 f., 633
[^16]: See Ibn Sa'd, V, p. 94
[^17]: Baladhuri, loc. cit.
[^18]: Tabari, II, pp. 672-710; Baladhuri, V, p. 253. For the other titles which they were given, see Tabari, II, p. 691; Baladhuri; loc. cit.
[^19]: For the name Kaysaniya there are a number of suggestions, and the person of Aba 'Amra Kaysan has also been a great historical problem. For various suggestions and possibilities see Shahrastani, Milal, I, p. 147; Baghdadi, Farq, p. 26; Baladhuri, V, p.229; B. Lewis, The Origins of Isma'ilism, p.27
[^20]: Ibn Sa'd, V, p.115
[^21]: Ibn Khaldun, 'Ibar, III, p.172. Thus Aba Hashim became recognized as the official head of this branch of the Shi'a; see De Goeje, “Al-Baladhuri Ansab”, ZDMG, 1884, p.394
[^22]: See the verse of Kuthayyir in Aghani; IX, p.14, and the eulogy of Ibn al-Hanafiya by Al-Sayyid al-Himyari in Aghani; VII, p.227
[^23]: Kashshi, Rijal, p.314
[^24]: W.Ivanow, “Early Shi'ite Movements”, JBBRAS, 1939, p.3
[^26]: Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, p.23
[^27]: Mubarrad, Kamil, I, p.710
[^28]: Jahiz. Rasa'il, “Kitab Fadl Bani Hashim”, p.99; “Risala fi Bani Umayya”, p.66. Also see the commentary on the Qur'anic verse XVII, 50 in the tafsir works.
[^29]: See Montgomery Watt, “Shi'ism Under the Ummayyads”, JRAS, 1960, pp.169 f.
[^30]: Tabari, II, p.1700
[^31]: Tabari, loc. cit. For the use and meaning of the word Rafidi see Montgomery Watt, “The Rafidites”, Oriens, XVI (1963), p.116
[^32]: Tabari, loc. cit.
[^33]: Tabari, II, p.1709; Abul-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.140 f.
[^34]: Jahiz Bayan, I, p.311-312
[^36]: Mubarrad, Kamil, I, p. 260
[^37]: See Tabari, II, p.1774; Abul-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.152 ff.
[^38]: Abul-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.145 ff.
[^39]: See Jahiz,, Bayan, I, p.353; Abul-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.233 ff.
[^40]: Abu Da'ud, Sunan, II, p.135
[^41]: See Aghani, XII, p.85
[^42]: Aba Da'ud, Sunan, II, p.135; Ibn Maja, Sunan, II, p.269
[^43]: Sa'd al-Ash'ari, Maqalat, pp.74, 77; Nawbakhti, Firaq, p.59
[^44]: Sa'd al-Ash'ari, Maqalat, p.77; Nawbakhti, Firaq, p.43
[^45]: Nawbakhti, Firaq, p.52; Baghdadi, Farq, pp.36 ff.; Sa'd al- Ash'ari, Maqalat, p.74
[^46]: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.209 f., 292 ff.
[^48]: Tabari, III, pp.143 ff.; Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.206, 253
[^49]: Tabari, III, p.52; Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.209, 256. For Al-Abwa, see Yaqut, Mu'jam al-Buldan, I, p.79. According to another report, this homage was paid at Suwayqa; See Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.293 ff.; E11 article 'Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah”
[^50]: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil pp.208,253, 178
[^51]: See, for example, Tabari III, p. 152
[^52]: Tabari, III, pp.143, 152; EI1 article “Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah”
[^53]: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, p. 209
[^54]: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.207 f, 254 ff; EI1 article “Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah”
[^55]: See Aghani, XII, pp. 213 ff; Tabari, II, pp. 1879, 1881; Montgomery Watt, “Shi'ism Under the Umayyads”, p.170
[^56]: Tabari, II, pp. 1881, 1883, 1887
[^57]: See Montgomery Watt, “Shi'ism Under the Umayyads”,p. 170
[^58]: See Montgomery Watt, EI2 article “Abbas b. 'Abd al-Muttalib”
[^59]: Kashshi, Rijal, pp. 56 f.
[^60]: See Kashshi Rijal, pp. 57 ff; Veccia Vaglieri, EI2 article “Abd Allah b. 'Abbas”
[^61]: Mubarrad, Kamil, I, p. 180
[^62]: See Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, p.126; Kamil V, pp. 32-9 S. Moscati, “Testamento di Abu Hashim”, RSO, XXVII (1952), pp. 24-8
[^63]: Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.238; Abu'l-Faraj, loc. cit.; Kamil loc. Cit; Moscati, loc. cit; Bernard Lewis, EI2 article 'Hashimiya”
[^64]: Lewis, EI2 articles “Hashimiya” and ” 'Abbasid”?
[^65]: See Nawbakhti, Firaq, pp. 28-29; Nashwan al-Himyari; Hurr al-Ayn, pp. 159-60
[^66]: For the readiness of the Khurasanians to follow any branch of the Ahl al-Bayt, see Ibn Qutayba, 'Uyun al-Akhbar, I, p. 204; Yaqut, Mu'jam al-Buldan, II, p.352
[^67]: Aba Muslim was adopted by Ibrahim as a member of the Ahlal-Bayt; see Tabari, II, pp.1937, '949. For Aba Muslim himself, see Ibn Khallikan, III, pp. '45-55; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.239; Ibn Qutayba, Ma'ani, p.145; Dinawari, p.337; Tabari II, pp.1949 f., '987 ff; R. N. Frye, “The Role of Abu Muslim”, Muslim World, January 1947
[^68]: See Wellhausen, Arab Kingdom, pp.492-566; Lewis, EI2 article “Abbasids”
[^69]: See Tabari III, pp.25 ff., 42 ff., Dinawari; p.357; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p. 244
[^70]: Tabari, III, p.27; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.253
[^71]: Jahshiyari, Al-Wuzara' wa'l-Kuttab, p.83; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.253; Ibn Khallikan, III, pp.148 f; Tabari, III, pp.27 f.; Ya'qubi, II, pp. 345, 449
[^72]: Mas'udi, loc. cit.; Tabari, loc. cit; Wellhausen, Arab Kingdom, p.544; S. Moscati, EI2 article “Abu Salama”
[^73]: Jahshiyari; Al-Wuzara' wa'l-Kuttab, p.86; Tabari; III, p.27
[^74]: Jahshiyari, loc. cit.; Ibn Tiqtaqa, Al-Fakhri P. 109
[^75]: Mas'udi Muruj, III, p.253 f.
[^76]: See Ya'qubi loc. cit.; Mas'udi; loc. cit.; Jahshiyari, loc. cit
[^77]: S. Moscati, EI2 article “Aba Salama”
[^78]: Ya'qubi, II, p.345, gives the period of concealment as two months; Tabari III, p.27, makes it forty day Other sources do not mention the precise period.
[^79]: See Lewis, EI2 article ”'Abbisids”
[^80]: Tabari, III, pp.28 ff.; Jahshiyari Al-Wuzara', pp.86 ff.; Ya'qabi II, pp.245 f; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, pp.255 f.
[^81]: Tabari, III, pp. 29 ff Ya'qubi, II, p.350, says Abu'l-'Abbas did not speak at all because of fever. Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.255 gives only a summary of the speech in two lines.
[^82]: The speech of Da'ud is widely recorded, esp. Tabari, III, pp.31 ff; Ya'qubi, II, p.350. Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.256 again only summarizes the main points.
[^83]: See Tabari, III, pp.60 f.; Ya'qubi, II, pp.352 f.; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.270; Ibn Khallikan, II, p. 196
[^84]: See Tabari; III, pp. 58 ff; Mas'udi, loc. cit.
[^85]: Lewis, EI2 article ”'Abbasids”
[^86]: See Tabari, III, pp.75 f., 85; Maqrizi an-Niza', p.52
[^87]: Ya'qubi, II, p.369; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.295; Tabari, III, pp.151 ff.
[^88]: See Tabari, III, pp.149 ff.
[^89]: Tabari, III, p.199; Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.277 ff.
[^90]: Tabari, III, p.200
[^91]: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.291 ff.
[^92]: Tabari, III, pp.248, 252, 254; Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.248, 271; Shahrastani, Milal, I, p. 156
[^93]: Tabari, III, pp.291-300. For the names and details see Abu'l- Faraj, Maqatil, pp.360 f., 365 ff.
[^94]: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, pp.365 ff.
[^95]: ibid., pp. 344 ff.
[^96]: Baghdadi, Farq, pp.36 ff., 148; Sa'd al-Ash'ari, Maqatil, p.76
[^97]: The name Rawindiya is given to the sect which held that Aba Hashim bequeathed the Imamate to Muhammad b. 'Ali (the 'Abbasid). See Lewis, Origins of Isma'ilism, p.28
[^98]: Mansur himself was a son of a slave-girl, and perhaps it was because of this that, though he was older than As-Saffah, Ibrahim al-Imam did not appoint him as his successor.
[^99]: Mubarrad, Kamil, IV, pp. 114 f; Tabari, III, pp.209 ff.; Ibn Tiqtaqa, AI-Fakhri; pp.225 ff
[^100]: Tabari, III, p.189
[^101]: i.e., Fatima, the mother of Abu Talib; Fatima, the mother of 'Ali; Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet; Fatima bint al-Husayn, the mother of 'Abd Allah al-Mahd; and finally Hind bint Abi 'Ubayda, a descendant of 'Abd al-Muttalib, the mother of An-Nafs az-Zakiya. See Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, p.202. Mansur belittled this “descent through women”, being himself a son of a slave-girl.
[^102]: Qur'an, XXXIII, 40
[^103]: Tabari, III, pp.211 ff; Mubarrad, Kamil IV, pp. 116 ff.
[^104]: Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ta'rikh Baghdad, XIII, p.380; Abu'l- Faraj, Maqatil, pp.366 ff., 365 ff.
[^105]: Khatib al-Baghdadi; Ta'rikh Baghdad, XIII, p.422; Shahrastani, Milal, I, p.158. Abu'l-Faraj (Maqatil, pp.367, 368) asserts that Abu Hanifa was poisoned at the orders of the Caliph.
[^106]: Tabari, III, p.426. See Arnold, The Caliphate, p. 51. This principle was also stressed by the later 'Abbasid caliphs; see Tabari, III, p.1565
[^107]: Tabari, III, p.426