The development of shiite political thought from shura to wilayat al-faqih

Muhammad bin Jafar Sadiq (Al-Dibaj) who appeared in Makkah in the year 200 A.H., claimed that he was the Awaited Mahdi. He declared himself as the Caliph of the Muslims and took oath of allegiance from them, and was called the Leader of the faithful. (23)

            Therefore, we can say that the theory of Mahdism meant, emergence, revolt,… and was never specific in a particular person.The theory of occultation used to evolve whenever any awaited Imam fails or dies without achieving his goals.

            The only exceptional case, which was contrary to the above- mentioned rule at that time, was the theory of the Mahdism of ‘Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Jafar Sadiq’. This person was not born at all and did not exist. Some of the Fathite Shiites invented a story of his existence in secret, after the death of his father Abdullah Aftah, who was believed by those Shiites to be the Imam after his father Sadiq. Those Shiites were shocked when Aftah died without an issue to succeed him in the Imamate. They believed in the necessity of the continuation of the Imamate in the children and the grand children (of the Imam), i.e. being inherited vertically. Due to this they could not shift to the belief in the Imamate of the brother of Abdullah, Musa bin Jafar. They therefore invented the idea of the existence of a son for him in secret: They said that: “His name corresponds to the famous Prophetic Hadith: His name is my name, the name of his father is the name of my father.” (24)

            It cannot be ruled out that some people of vested interest and hypocrites from among the companions of the Imams might have fabricated this illusory story of the myth of the awaited Mahdi-Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Sadiq, so as to benefit from that financially, and claim being his deputy and receive money on his behalf. The stories on the existence of that illusory Mahdi were widespread in Yemen. And that he will appear, and fill the earth with justice and equity after it has filled with injustice and tyranny.

THE MAHDISM OF KADHIM

            With the Abbasid revolution and its deviation from its goals of reform and the spread of corruption in their rule, it was only natural that their opponents gathered around any great personality from the Ahl al-Bayt, i.e. Imam Musa bin Ja’far Kadhim (peace be upon him) who was a symbol of piety, knowledge and devotion. The hope of his emergence and appearance (as the Mahdi) grew. In this way there were a lot of reports on the Mahdism of Imam Kadhim, and the belief that he was the Qa’im from the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Some of the Shiites went on reporting some narrations from Sadiq that: “It was inevitable that my son is the Qa’im (Mahdi) of this Ummah, and the Owner of the sword”. And “Musa is the Qa’im, and this is inevitable from Allah”. “Even if his head will roll to you from the mountains you should not believe, for he is the Qa’im” “The name of the Qa’im is the iron (knife) of the barber.” “As if I am seeing the black banner with a green patch on it lowered over the head of this person sitting” and the rest of such reports that lack consensus!

            When Rashid arrested Imam Kadhim, many of the Shiites considered that as the first or minor Occultation. When he killed him and threw his pure body on the bridge in Baghdad, they refused accepting that or believing it, and they said, ‘It was an Abbasid drama’ and they said also that: ‘Imam Kadhim has gone into his second Occultation, and that he fled from the prison and he was alive and did not and will not die till he controls the East and the West of the world, and fill the whole of it with justice as it was filled with injustice, and that he was the Qa’im and the Mahdi.” (25)

            Most of the children of the Imam claimed the same thing, so also most of his close companions like Al-Mufaddal bin Umar, Dawud al-Ruqa, Daris al-Kinani, Abu Basir, A’yun bin Abdul Rahman bin A’yun, Hadid al-Sabati and Hassan bin Qiyyama al-Sirafi. Ali bin Abi Hamiza wrote a book on the occultation. Similarly Ali bin Umar al- A’raj wrote another book on that.

            Those Shiites were known as the Waqifites i.e. those who accepted the Imamate of Imam Kadhim, and refused faith in Ali bin Musa Rida.

            Dawud al-Ruqa hesitated in admitting the Imamate of Rida, based on those agreed reports, which limited Mahdism to Kadhim and say that: “The seventh of us, is our Qa’im.” Imam Rida said to him, “The hope of the rising (appearance) of Kadhim depends on the will of Allah and it was not inevitable.” (26)

            The Waqifites continued in their faith in the Mahdism and the occultation of Imam Kadhim for a long time. But they decreased in number with the passage of time, till the death of the theory and the extinction of those who believe in it, especially when Imam Rida confirmed the death of his father and said to them: “Allah’s evidence on His creation will be only through the Imam that is alive, and is well-known. Glory be to Allah. The Messenger of Allah died and Musa bin Ja’far did not die? Yes, by Allah he has died, and his wealth has been distributed and his slavegirls have been married.” He suspected those who claim that he did not die, of lying and said: “They are disbelievers in what Allah the Exalted has revealed on Muhammad (peace be upon him). If Allah exalted were to extend the lifespan of anyone due to the need of the creation to him, He would have extended the lifespan of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).” (27)

THE MAHDISM OF MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM

            In the beginning of the third (3^rd) century of Hijrah, in the year 219 A.H and during the days of the Caliphate of Mu’tasim, an Alawite rebellion took place in ‘Taliqan’ under the leadership of Muhammad bin Qasim. Mu’tasim however defeated and arrested him and carried him to Baghdad, detaining him in his place. He was able to run away and fled. The people differed on his affairs. Some of them said that: ‘He has died or fled’. Some of the Shiites said that: ‘He is alive and he will reappear and he is the Mahdi of this Ummah’. (28)

            Another Alawite Imam, namely, Yahya bin Umar marched out from Kufah in the days of Musta’in. He directed Hussain bin Isma’il to him, and he killed him. But some of his companions did not accept the news that he was defeated, and said that: ‘He was not killed, he only hid himself, and went into occultation, and that he was the Mahdi and the Qa’im, who will reappear another time’. (29)

            The Imamate Shiites differed among themselves in the middle of the third century of Hijrah on the identity of the Awaited Imam Mahdi. A section of them said that: He is Muhammad bin Ali Hadi, who died suddenly in Dajil. They believed in his occultation, like that of Isma’il bin Ja’far. They did not believe his death. Another section of them claimed that Imam Hassan Askari was the Mahdi. A third section of them believed in the existence and the Mahdism of a son for him (Askari) in secret, namely, Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari. Yet others said that: ‘He (the Mahdi) is not specified, and that he will be one of the members of the Ahl al- Bayt, not by appointment, and that he will be born and will appear in future.” (30)

            At last, two Shiite historians contemporaneous to the death of Imam Askari mentioned that: ‘A sect from the followers of the Imam said: “Hassan bin Ali has died, a confirmed death, and the Imamate has ceased till the time when Allah will raise a Qa’im from the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him) that have passed away. If He wills, He raises another person other than him, but from his forefathers. That is because the raising of the Qa’im and the appearance of the Mahdi is inevitable. The appearance of the Mahdi is on Allah. The reports came on the basis of that, so also sound narrations and a consensus of the Ummah. It is not possible to invalidate that. This is due to the fact that, the death of Hassan bin Ali has been confirmed, as his not leaving an issue has also been confirmed. So the Imamate has ceased, as he has no issue. Since it is not possible except in the children  (of the Imam). It cannot go to the uncle or cousin or brother after Hassan and Hussain. The Imamate has thus ceased till the raising of the Qa’im from among them. If he appears and emerges (as the Mahdi) (his affairs) will continue till the Hour of judgment. (31)

            All these several and conflicting claims of Mahdism movements express and show the ambiguity and vagueness of the concept of Imam Mahdi, and the likelihood of his being any of the Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. That is the one who will appear with the sword, and establish the state and rule of truth. All the Shiite sects believed that he is from this Hashimite family, or that house of Alawites or Fatimide or Hassanite or Hussainite or Musawite house. And that he is this or that person. If the identity of the Mahdi has been determined before, , since the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) or the time of the previous eleven Imams, the Muslims would not have differed, nor would the Shiites, nor the Imamate Shiites, not the supporters of Imam Hassan Askari in determining the identity of the Mahdi. Some of them would not have believed ‘Imam Hassan Askari’ himself to be the Mahdi.

            We conclude from all these that: The identity of the Mahdi was vague and not specific or determined in the time of Ahl al-Bayt. That the belief of his being the son of Hassan Askari evolved after supposing his existence in secret, and in an attempt to explain his absence from sight, and the non announcement of his birth by his father, on the basis of considering occultation as (an essential) attribute of the Mahdi.

1. 
   Saduq: Ikmal al-Din, p. 183
   
2. 
   Kulayni: Al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 536
   
3. 
   ibid. Vol. 1 p. 341, Numani: Al-Ghaybah p. 187
   
4. 
   Saduq: Ikamal al-Din, p. 35
   
5. 
   ibid. p. 189
   
6. 
   ibid. p. 263
   
7. 
   Al-Kafi. Vol. 1 p. 341, Saduq: Ikmal al-Din, p. 370
   
8. 
   Saduq: Ikmal al-Din, p. 373
   
9. 
   Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shi’ah,p. 22, Saad bin Abdullah al-Ashari al-Qummi: Al-Maqalat was al-Firaq . p. 20 Al-Kashi: Marifah al-Naqilin an al-A’imah al-Sadiqin. P. 101
   
10. 
    Nubakhti: Firaq al- Shiah p. 34 al-Ashari: Al-Maqalat. P. 27
    
11. 
    Al- Shafi, p. 184
    
12. 
    Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shiah. P. 34, al- Ashari: Al-Maqalat
    
13. 
    as in 12
    
14. 
    Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shiah . p. 35, Al-Ashari: Al-Maqalat p. 35
    
15. 
    Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shiah. P. 62, Al-Ashari: Al-Maqalat. P. 76
    
16. 
    Al-Isfirayini: Al-Farq bain al-Firaq. P. 60
    
17. 
    Kulayni: Raudah Al-Kafi. P. 245
    
18. 
    Kulayni: Al-Kafi : Al-Raudah. P. 290
    
19. 
    Nubakhti: op. cit. p. 67
    
20. 
    ibid., Al-Ashari. P. 79
    
21. 
    Al-Kashi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifah al-Rijal
    
22. 
    Nubakhti p. 68, Al-Ashari, p. 80
    
23. 
    As in 22
    
24. 
    Al-Ashari p. 88
    
25. 
    Nubakhti, p. 80, Al-Ashari, p. 89
    
26. 
    Al-Nuri al-Tabrisi Khatimah Mustadrak Wasait al-Shiah vol. 3 p. 595
    
27. 
    Al-Kashi: Ma’rifat al-Rijal. P. 379
    
28. 
    Al-Isfahani: Maqatil al-Talibiyyin p. 577 Al-Isfirayini: Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq p. 31
    
29. 
    Al-Kamil of Ibn Al-Athir, vol. 7,p. 43, Muruj al-Dhahab of Mas’udi, vol. 4, p. 147
    
30. 
    See Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shi’ah ,m p. 93,96,98 and 105, Al-Ashari al-Qummi: Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq,p.101, 106, 107,108.
    
31. 
    Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shiah, p105, Al-Ashari: Al-Maqalat. P. 108
    

            The historical narration accepted and transmitted by all historians and theologians from the Twelver- Imam Shiites says: Imam Askari died without leaving behind an apparent son, and he left a will (regarding his wealth) in favour of his mother called ‘Hadith’. This is what led his brother Ja’far bin Ali to claim the Imamate after him and to call the Imamate Shiites to follow him as a successor to him. Similarly, they followed Imam Musa bin Ja’far after the death of his elder brother Abdullah Aftah, who became the Imam for a period of time after Imam Sadiq. He did not have any issue, through whom the Imamate should continue.

            Nubakhti, Ash’ari al-Qummi and Mufid say that: ‘Most of the Imamate Shiites answered the call of Ja’far and were near about agreeing on his Imamate’. (1)

            That was because the common populace of the Shiites did not know anyone among the children of Hadi, except Ja’far, nor did they see any son for Imam Askari. This is what the report of Abu Al-Adyan al-Basri, the messenger of Imam Askari to the people of the cities, - being the last person to bid farewell to the Imam - confirms. He says: ‘Askari did not tell him the name of his successor, but he gave him some signs for recognizing and identifying him’. He also says that: ‘He returned to Samirra’i on the day Imam Askari died. He saw then Ja’far and the general Shiite populace surrounding him, on their forefront was Uthman bin Sa’id Al-Umari. The Shiites were saying their condolences and at the same time congratulating him (Ja’far). Abu Al-‘Adyan also (according to the report) went to him and gave his condolence and congratulated him as one of the people. As he said: ‘A delegation of the Shiites from Qum came on that day to Samirra’i and asked of Imam Hassan they were informed of his death. They then said: To whom should we give our condolence? The people pointed to Ja’far. They said ‘Salam’ to him and passed their condolence and congratulated him. (2)

            This is what the report of Sinan Al-Mausili also confirms. The report mentions the arrival of a delegation under the leadership of Abu Abbas Muhammad bin Ja’far al-Himyari al-Qummi in Samirra’i after the death of Imam Askari. They inquired about him and his heir. The response of the people to them was that his heir was Ja’far bin Ali. It would not be enough that his Imamate was rejected only on the basis of his lack of knowledge of the Unseen. (3)

            Based on that, Ja’far sent to the people of Qum, which was a Shiite stronghold then –calling them to himself, and informing them that he is the leader (Qayyim) after his brother. The people of Qum gathered around their Sheikh—Ahmad bin Ishaq and discussed the issue. They in the end decided to send a delegation to him to discuss with him and to ask him some questions, they used to ask his forefathers before and so as to confirm his claim. (This is) as was said by Khusaibi in ‘Al-Hidaya al-Kubra’ (4) and Saduq in ‘Ikmal al-Din’ (5) and Tabrisi in ‘Al-Ihtijaj,(6) and Sadr in Al-Ghaybah al-Sughra. (7)

            This shows that the people of Qum did not know of the existence of a son for Imam Askari, nor did they know the identity of the new Imam previously, and there was nothing to prevent them from accepting the Imamate of Ja’far bin Ali. That is, they were not strictly conforming to the rule of vertical inheritance in the Imamate, and they saw the Imamate of others as permissible.

            The main obstacle that prevented some of the Shiites from accepting the Imamate of Ja’far was the doubtful old principle that rejects the Imamate of two brothers after Hassan and Hussain. This was raised by the Qum delegation before Ja’far bin Ali, in the course of the dialogue. He responded: “Allah has changed his will (bada) in that” as Khusaibi says in ‘Al-Hidayah al-Kubra’. (8)

            Some of the narrations transmitted by Saduq and Tusi say that: ‘The Qum delegation demanded from Ja’far, to disclose the amount of money, they were carrying and the various owners, miraculously, as his brother Askari used to do. Ja’far rejected that demand and claimed and suspected the delegation of lying on his brother. He denied attributing the knowledge of the Unseen to him. (9)

            Some reports attempt to suspect Ja’far of disobedience (fisq), drinking wine ignorance, and disregarding prayer. (10) That was in order to invalidate his claim to the Imamate. The general Shiites did not consider such allegations, and did not raise the question of knowledge of the Unseen. They did give their condolence to him and congratulated him on the Imamate.

            The main problem with some of them was the issue of having two brothers as Imams. Tusi has capitalized on it in the process of arguing against the Imamate of Ja’far, and the theory that Hassan had a son. He claimed that there is no difference on this point among the Imamate Shiites. (11)

            This problem did explode in the ranks of Imamate Shiites for the first time after the death of Imam Abdullah Aftah bin Ja’far Sadiq, whose Imamate was agreed by the Shiite fuqaha and scholars, but he died without a son. This led the Imamate Shiites to a crisis and divided them into three sects. Among them were those who held to the principle-- ‘the Imamate not being in two brothers’ and were forced to assume the existence of an illusory son for Abdullah, whose name is said to be Muhammad and he is hidden, but will appear in the future. Among them were those who went beyond that principle and permitted for himself to shift (the Imamate) to the brother, if the previous Imam has no son. They, as a result of this, accepted the Imamate of Musa bin Ja’far after his brother Abdullah Aftah. Among them were those who change their minds as regards the Imamate of Aftah, and concluded from his not having a son, that he was not an Imam. Therefore they stroke his name off the roll of Imams.

            This same problem was repeated again when Imam Hassan Askari died without an issue. This led the Imamate Shiites to differ on the issue of succession, that eventually led to the emergence of a number of sects: Among them were those who accepted both the brothers as Imams, and so they believed in the Imamate of Ja’far bin Ali, after his brother Hassan; among them were those who had second thought on the Imamate of Askari and said that:  “Believing in the Imamate of Hassan was a mistake and an error, it is incumbent on us to change our minds on it, to the belief in the Imamate of Ja’far. As Hassan has died without an issue, it became clear and valid to us that he wrongly claimed Imamate. This is because an Imam, according to our consensus will not die till he leaves behind a clear successor, who is well-known, to whom he will pass his will and establish him in the position of the Imamate. Imamate is not valid in two brothers, after Hassan and Hussain…. The true Imam is inevitably Ja’far, through the will of his father to him.” Nubakhti in ‘Firaq al-Shi’ah (12) and Ash’ari in ‘Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq’ (13) also reported similar narrations.

            Among them were those who insisted on the Imamate of Hassan, and held onto that principle of the invalidity of the Imamate of two brothers (after Hassan and Hussain). This group turned into different sects: Of them were those who believed in the Mahdism and occultation of Askari; among them were those who claimed his return to life after death; among them were those who believed in the interval (between Imam and Imam); among them were those who were confused and could not take a position and they said: It has not been confirmed to us that Hassan had a son (a successor) whose affairs were hidden to us. We will not take any stand, and hold onto the first (Imam) till the time when another one become clear to us. We would hold onto this, and we will not deny or dispute the Imamate of Abu Muhammad or his death. We would not say that he returned to life after his death, as we cannot be sure of the Imamate of the children of someone, other than him. There was no conflict of opinion among the Shiites on that. The Imamate of an Imam cannot be established except through a clear will from his father to him. (14)

            Among them were those who found themselves forced to assume the existence of a hidden son for Imam Askari and to claim that he is the Imam after him and the Awaited Mahdi? They interpreted his apparent nomination by his father during his lifetime, and the lack of a will to him and non-apprarance after him and his occultation. They interpreted all this in terms of taqiyyah (insinuation) and the fear of the enemies.

            The main motive behind this statement is the strict adherence to the rule of vertical inheritance and the non-permissibility of the Imamate being transferred to two brothers after Hassan and Hussain. Despite the fact that it is a very weak statement, and not all the Shiites have agreed on it at that time, contrary to what was claimed by Tusi two hundred years afterwards, the theologians who adhered to it, made it the cornerstone in the process of arguing for the existence of a son for Imam Hassan Askari. They have woven it and the remaining philosophical issues that necessitate infallibility of the Imam or necessitate text in the Ahl al-Bayt, into strong evidence!

            We have demonstrated in the first chapter, statements of the theologians and historians who argued rationally on the existence and birth of Muhammad bin Hassan Askari. Their evidence depends on the theory of infallibility, text and vertical inheritance of the Imamate. In reality however, their evidence depends entirely on the last principle,i.e. vertical inheritance, that is because many of the Fathite Imamate Shiites, who agree with them on the belief in infallibility and text and who believe also in the Imamate of Hassan Askari, did not find themselves forced into believing in the existence of a son for him in hiding, contrary to what is apparent. They believed instead, in the Imamate of his brother Ja’far bin Ali Hadi, because they did not believe strongly in the necessity of the Imamate being inherited vertically only, and the invalidity of two brothers being Imams.

            Hence the rational evidence is more of a philosophical assumption, free of any historical reality. That was evident from the dependence of some theologians on the tradition of Rida which says: “ The owner of this affair will not die till he sees his son, who will succeed him) after him”, in order to establish the existence of the son of Imam Askari, as Sheikh Tusi has reported in ‘Al-Ghaybah.’ (15)

            Despite the possibility of arguing with the same tradition to refute the Imamate of Askari, as a section of the Shiites have done, those who changed their minds as regards his Imamate and held onto the non-existence of a son for his brother, in whom the Imamate will continue, as evidence on the invalidity of his Imamate, just as the Musawite Shiites changed their minds in the middle of the second century of Hijrah regarding the Imamate of Abdullah Aftah, because he did not have any issue, and they stroke his name off the list of the Imams. (16) That sect of the Shiites considered the change of mind on the Imamate of Askari and believing in that of Ja’far directly after his father Hadi, lighter than assuming an illusory son for Askari.

            What is strange is that Sayyid Murtada ‘Alam al-Huda suspects those who believe in the existence of a son for Imam Abdullah Aftah, of resorting, to fabricating an illusory personality, essentially, so as to emerge from perplexity and an impasse. (17) He however, practiced the same thing in the process of assuming the existence of a son for Hassan Askari, necessarily, so as to emerge from perplexity and confusion that has swept the Imamate Shiites in the middle of the third century of Hijrah.

            It is necessary after this to point to the fact that, claiming the process of theoretical argument on the existence of a son for Hassan Askari as rational argument is an oversight and a metaphor, otherwise, it is far from being a rational argument, as it depends on a number of transmitted texts, some of them were reported by single reporters that need to be established as regards the meanings and the chains of their narration, like the statement: ‘Vertical inheritance and the impermissibility of the transfer of the Imamate to two brothers after Hassan and Hussain’. Due to this Sheikh Saduq in his ‘Ikmal al-Din’ admitted and said: “The claim of the occultation of Sahib al-Zaman is based on the statement on the Imamate of his fore-fathers. And this is a legal and not a purely rational argument. (18)

            This means that discussing any premise, of the long premises of the rational argument, like the necessity of infallibility in the Imam; the necessity of text on him from Allah; establishment of the Imamate in the members of the Prophet’s household and its being confined to the house of Hussain; and the way of its transfer from one Imam to another; and the claims of the remaining Imams, who claimed the Imamate and Mahdism, like Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah and his son, Abu Hashim, Zayd bin Ali, Muhammad bin Abdullah Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, Isma’il bin Ja’far and his children , Abdullah Aftah, and Muhammad bin Ali Hadi and so on, of minute details in the Divine Imamate theory from the beginning to the end, till the death of Imam Hassan Askari, discussing any of such premises will obstruct the way leading to the assumption of the existence of a son for Hassan Askari.

            Due to this, establishing the existence of Imam Mahdi Muhammad bin Hassan Askari in a rational manner for the rest of the people, or the rest of the Muslims, or for the remaining Shiite sects, or even for the rest of the Imamate sects that did not agree with the principle of vertical inheritance, became difficult or impossible. Because of this the Twelver-Imam theologians avoided discussing with other people, establishing the personality of the son of Hassan, except after the acceptance of the previous long traditional premises and believing in each and every one of them.

            Abdul Rahman bin Qubbah al-Razi has said in refuting Ali bin Ahmad bin Bashshar: “ Do not discuss a secondary (Far) issue the primary principle of which has not been established. This man (the son of Hassan), the existence of whom you deny, his right would only be established after his father. There is no meaning in abandoning the perusal of the right of his father and going onto discussing with you his existence. If the right of his father has been established, and that has necessarily been established at the same time, as you have admitted. If the right of his father has been invalidated, the matter will be as you were saying, and we have invalidated it. (19)

            Sayyid Murtada has said: The occultation is a branch of the fundamental principles; if they are valid the discussion on occultation will be simple and clear as it rests on them. And if (such principles) are invalid the discussion on the occultation will be difficult and impossible. (20)

            Even though accepting the Imamate of Hassan Askari will not necessarily lead to the acceptance of the existence of a son for him, the belief in that is based on the necessity of the continuation of the divine Imamate till the day of Resurrection, and on the necessity of inheriting it vertically. And this is just an illusory assumption and conjecture not based on knowledge.

            It is for this reason that Sheikh Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi says in his book: ‘Al-Mahdi: Al-Thaurah al-Kubra: “The philosophical argument can establish universal general issues, but it cannot pinpoint on a man outside and establish his existence.”(21)