|
The cautious attitude of the authorities towards the Imamites continued
during the short Imamate of the eleventh Imam, al-Hasan
al-`Askari (254-60/868-74). He was put under
house-arrest and his movements were restricted, since he
was obliged to present himself at the palace of the
caliph in Samarra every Monday and Thursday(1).
Despite these restrictions, al- `Askari managed to communicate with his
agents by secret means(2).
It appears that the continuation of the rebellion of the
`Alids, who extended their penetration into new areas,
was behind the restriction of the Imam's movements.
According to al-Tusi, the caliph al-Muhtadi arrested
some Imamites in 255/869, accusing them of the
assassination of `Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-`Abbasi, who
had been murdered by the rebels in Kufa. Al-`Askari was
also arrested, but was set free soon after the death of
the caliph, al-Muhtadi(3).
Despite the fact that the eleventh Imam managed to carry out his
activities without the knowledge of the authorities
until his death in 260/874,(4)
the policy of housearrest, which had been imposed upon
the Imams by the caliph al-Ma’mun and had been
continued until the time of al-`Askari, seems to have
led him to search for a method by which he could prevent
`Abbasid surveillance being imposed on his son, the
Twelfth Imam, so that he could disguise his identity and
carry on his activities in secret(5).
6. Conclusion
From the death of al-Husayn onward, the Imams of the Shi'a followed a
more or less passive policy towards the ruling caliphs,
but this did not indicate their acceptance of the rights
of the Umayyads and then the `Abbasids to the caliphate.
Rather they believed that, since these families had come
to power through natural means, their downfall would
also be according to the will of Allah, that He would
indicate their imminent downfall to them and assist them
in carrying out His will when the appropriate time had
arrived. Towards this end they were always prepared to
rise and take their rightful position, because any Imam
could be ordained by Allah as al-Qa’im al-Mahdi This can
be noted in the statement of Imam `Ali b. Abi Talib,
"Allah will choose the Mahdi, whom He wants, from among us, the People of
the House."(6)
Thus al-Sadiq, who was strong and capable of leading an uprising might
have risen against the caliph if his followers had
adhered to his instructions, but schisms appeared
amongst their ranks and the Imam's aspirations came to
naught. A considerable body among al-Sadiq's followers
were not satisfied with his political methods, and cut
themselves off from him in order to struggle for power
without his interference.
This was manifested in the emergence of the Zaydites and the Isma'ilis,
who put forward a new interpretation of the traditions
(Ahadith) concerning al-Qa’im al-Mahdi and his rising
and used it in their struggle for power. This can be
seen in the Zaydite and Isma’ili revolts between the
years 145-296/762-908, which ended with the
establishment of an Isma`ili state and the installation
of an Imam with the title al-Mahdi.
The Imams, however, denied the claim of any `Alid who claimed that he was
al-Qa’im al-Mahdi promised by the Prophet, but they
sympathised with some ‘Alid rebels who were loyal to
them. This might encourage us to assume that the Imams
had two methods designed to help them reach power. The
first was the scholarly, cultural and religious
activities which they fostered amongst the people
without openly involving themselves in any political
activities. Secondly, they secretly supported some
Shi’ite rebels who were loyal to them, hoping that they
would hand the power over to them after their success.
The military activities of the various Shi’ite groups confused the
`Abbasids and led them to believe that the Imamite Imams
were behind them or at least that the result of their
intellectual activities would be militant action.
Therefore the `Abbasid authorities forced the Imams to
reside in the capital from the year 202/817 under
housearrest.
This policy was imposed upon the Imams al-Riďa, al-Jawad, al-Hadi, and
al-`Askari, and led them to develop the underground
system of their organisation (al-Wikala) so that it
could function under these difficult conditions. At the
same time this critical situation forced the eleventh
Imam, al-`Askari, to search for a method by which he
could prevent `Abbasid surveillance being imposed upon
his son, later to be the Twelfth Imam, so as to enable
him to disguise his identity and carry on his activities
beyond the careful watch of the authorities.
Chapter 3:The Imamites’ Views concerning the Concealed Imam and His Birth
1. The Schisms Amongst the Adherents of al-Hasan al 'Askari After His
Death.
1.1 Introduction
The Imamate during the life of the last six Imams of the Twelver Imamites
(al-Imamiyya al-Ithna ‘ashariyya) was distinguised by
the many splits which occurred after the death of each
Imam, who was considered by the Imamites as one of the
twelve Imams, over the recognition of his successor. In
spite of these repeated schisms, after a hard struggle
each Imam was able to maintain the obedience of the
majority of the followers of the previous Imam(7).
Al-Hasan b. `Ali al-`Askari was born in 232/845 and died in 260/874.
According to some later Shi’ite sources, he was poisoned
through the instigation of the `Abbasid caliph,
al-Mu`tamid(8).
During the six years of his Imamate, al-`Askari lived in hiding and
prudent fear because of the restrictions imposed upon
him by his being surrounded by the spies of al-Mu'tamid.
This was the reason for his lack of open contact with
the mass of his followers. Only the elite of his
adherents were able to communicate with him personally(9).
The same sources report that in the year 260/874 the eleventh Imam became
ill. As soon as news of his sickness reached
al-Mu’tamid, he dispatched five of his special servants
to al-`Askari house, ordering them to keep close watch
on him.
Thereafter the caliph sent physicians and the Qadi al-Qudat in the
company of ten men whom he considered trustworthy, to
al-`Askari's house to remain with him and observe his
condition and the situation within his home at all
times. Al-`Askari's malady became worse and he passed
away on 8th Rabi` I 260/1st January 874.
Al-Mu'tamid dispatched Abu `Isa b. al-Mutawakkil to say the prayer for
the dead over the body of al-`Askari. After this rite
was completed al-`Askari was buried within the confines
of his house in Sirr Man Ra'a (Samarra), next to his
father(10).
According to the early Imamite sources al-`Askari did not leave a
publicly acknowledged son, nor did he determine upon or
install his successor openly(11).
As al-Mufid says, the Imamites were suffering oppression
at the hand of the `Abbasids, while the caliph,
al-Mu’tamid, was searching for al-`Askari's son and
trying to arrest him by any means possible. Moreover,
the views of the Imamite Shi’a about him were being
circulated, and it was becoming known that they were
waiting for him to rise. For this reason al-`Askari had
not revealed his son during his lifetime, not even to
the greater portion of his own adherents(12).
Because the Imamites were distinguished from other Islamic denominatons
by the principle of the designation of the Imam by his
predecessor they seem to have found themselves in a
critical situation after their Imam's death, since he
had not designated his successor openly. Therefore the
Imamite jurists had recourse to the traditions of the
Prophet and his progeny to determine who was to be the
Twelfth Imam.
They found many traditions to support their various claims. Amongst them
were transmissions which stated that an Imam could not
die without seeing his offspring who would succeed him;
that the world cannot be without a Proof(13);
that the Imamate cannot pass to two brothers after
al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and that it will be occupied by
one of the progeny of `Ali b. al-Husayn(14);
that the Imam knows who will succeed him and does not
die until he gives his testament to his successor(15);
and that the Imamate should belong to the eldest son of
the preceding Imam(16).
These traditions seem to have been adopted by the greater portion of the
Imamites, and their interpretation of these traditions
led to various viewpoints, which in turn led to new
divisions amongst the Imamites.
Sa`d al-Qummi counted fifteen schisms, whereas al-Nawbakhti and al-Mufid
enumerated them as fourteen. Al-Mas`udi thinks that
there were twenty sects, while al-Shahristani counts
only eleven(17).
Nevertheless a study of the claims of these factions
reveals that there were apparently only five major
schisms. However, each of these became further split
over the theological and traditional arguments employed
to support their claims. At any rate it seems important
to set down the major claims of these schisms in order
to achieve a clear conception of the Imamites at that
time.
1.2 Schism I: the Waqifa at al-`Askari
What brought the people of this faction together was their claim that the
eleventh Imam, al-`Askari, was al-Qa’im al-Mahdi
although they differed as to how he became al-Qa’im.
i)The first faction of this schism deemed that al- `Askari had not died,
but had gone into occultation(18).
They based their assumption on the traditions reported
from the previous Imams, which said that an Imam could
not die without having a publicly acknowledged son to
succeed him, because the world cannot be without a Proof(19).
While the people were not obliged to accept the Imamate
of those who were now laying claim to it, they should
acknowledge the Imamate of al`Askari whose Imamate had
been confirmed by the testament of the former Imam. They
also maintained that they had a tradition which said
that al-Qa’im had two occultations. Therefore, since
al-`Askari had not left a publicly acknowleged son and
since the earth cannot remain for an hour without a
Proof, it was right to claim that he had not died but
was hidden, and that he was truly al-Qa’im. This was his
first occultation, after which he would rise again.
Then, when his rising became known, he would conceal
himself once more in his second occultation(20).
In their discussions with their opponents, they tried to distinguish
themselves from the Imamites who had stopped at the
seventh Imam, Musa al-Kazim (183/799), claiming he was
al-Qa’im al-Mahdi, by faulting them for stopping at
al-Kazim. They pointed out that he had died and left his
successor, `Ali al-Riďa (202/817) as well as other sons,
while al-`Askari had obviously passed away and left no
heir(21).
ii) The second faction of the Waqifa at al-`Askari believed that he had
died, but was then raised to life, and was al-Qa’im
al-Mahdi Basically, the members of this faction
established their doctrine on a transmission from Imam
Ja`far al-Sa'diq, who said that al-Qa’im was called
al-Qa’im because he would "rise" again after his death.
They stated that it was certain that al-`Askari had died
without leaving a successor and without designating
anyone as his legatee.
Thus there was no doubt about his being al-Qa’im, nor about his being
alive after death, although he concealed himself for
fear of his foes. They supported their theories with a
saying of Imam `Ali b. Abi Talib, contained in his
advice to his follower Kumayl b. Ziyad, "O Allah, indeed
You do not leave the earth without a Qaim with proof
from You, whether manifest or hidden, for then Your
proofs and Your signs would be invalidated."(22)
On the basis of `Ali's words they concluded that
al-`Askari was absent and hidden, but that he would rise
to fill the earth with peace and justice after it had
been filled with tyranny(23).
iii)Al-Waqifa al-la Adriyya also stopped at al-`Askari. They deemed that
he had died and had been the Imam. Although the earth
could not be without a Proof from Allah, they were not
sure who had succeeded al-`Askari, his son or his
brother. Therefore they stopped at the Imamate of
al-`Askari, and decided to make no decision until the
matter became clear to them(24).
Unfortunately, the contemporary sources do not mention
anyone as representing the three factions of al-Waqifa
at al-`Askari. However, from the doctrine of the first
faction of the Waqifa, it seems that its partisans lived
in places which were far from Samarra, the city of the
Imam. Since they were not present at the moment of his
death, they tended to believe that he had not in fact
died, but was al-Qa’im al-Mahdi.
(2)Manaqib, IV, 427-8; Bihar,
L, 283-4.
(3)T. al-Ghayba, 147, 226;
Bihar, L, 303; Tabari, III, 1709
(5)This will be discussed in
greater detail in the next chapter
(8)The reports of the early
Shi’ite authors like al-Kulayni, Sa`d al-Qummi
and al-Mufid did not reveal any external cause
for al-`Askari's death ( al-Kafi, I, 509; Q.
Maqalat, 101-2, al-Irshad, 377, 383, 389; al-Mufid,
al-Muqni`a fi al-Fiqh (Iran, 1274), 72-5; and
his Tashih I`tiqadat al-Imamiyya (Tabriz, 1371),
63,) but the later Shi’ite authors followed al-Tabari,
who claimed that the Imam was poisoned or
killed. He based this assumption on a tradition
whose chain of transmitters related to al-Sadiq,
who said "None of us die naturally, but are
killed or martyred." (al-Tabarsi, Ilam al-Wara,
349; Muhammad b. Ja’far al Tabari, Dala'il al-Imama
(Najaf, 1369), 223, Ibn Shahr Ashub, Manaqib,
IV,421; Bihar, L, 236-8, 335, Muhammad al-Sadr,
Tarikh al-Ghayba al-Sughra (Beirut, 1972),
230-4).
(9)Ibn Shahr Ashnb, Manaqib,
III; 533; Ithbat, 262; Subhi, Nazariyyat al-Imaina
(Cairo, 1969), 394.
(10)Al-Kulayni and al-Mufid
report the same chain of transmitters for their
information about al-`Askari's death (al-Kafi,
I, 503-5; al-Irshad, 381-2, 389). Al-Nawbakhti
agrees with Sad al-Qummi that Abu `Isa prayed `Askari's
body (N. Firaq, 79; Q. Maqalat, 102). But Sad
dates al-`Askari's death in Rabi` II, which
agrees with al-Mas`udi's report (Ithbat, 248).
Al Kulayni's report seems to be more reliable
that the latter, since it adds several
supporting reports.
(11)N. Firaq, 79; Q. Maqalat,
102.
(12)al-Irshad, 389-90; Kama’l
(Tehran 1378/1958), I, 101.
(13)Al-Barqi and al-Kulayni
mention many traditions with different chains of
transmitters asserting that the world cannot be
without a Proof (Hujja); al Barqi, al-Mahasin
(Tehran, 1370/1950), 92, 234-6; al-Kafi, I,
178-80, 514; see also Dala'il, 229-30; Ahmad b.
`Ali al-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj (Najaf, 1966), II,
48-9, 78.
(14)al-Kafi, I, 285-6; al-Ghayba,
146.
(15)al-Kafi, I, 285-6; al-Ghayba,
146.
(17)Because of the way al-Shahristani
classifies his information on these schisms, it
seems that his study is based on the works of
al-Nawbakhti and al-Ash`ari. Al Nawbakhti
deemed the Imamite sub-divisions to be as many
as fourteen, although his work in its present
form counts only thirteen. Fortunately al Mufid,
who discusses the various factions on the
authority of al-Nawbakhti, mentions the
fourteenth faction, which is missing from al-Nawbakhti's
work. Al-Mas`udi does not give any details on
the splits. Later al-Nawbakhti's work became
more circulated than Sa`d al-Qummi's work,
because the latter contains opinions on the
occultation which contrast with the official
opinion of the later Imamites from the
fifth/eleventh century onwards; al-Qummi's book
was gradually withdrawn from these circles; N.
Firaq, 79; al-FUsul al-Mukhtara, 258-60; Muruj,
VIII, 50, Milal, 130-1.
(19)al-Kafi, I, 178-80, 514.
(20)Q. Maqalat, 106; N. Firaq,
78-80; Milal, 129.
(22)al-Kaji, I, 178; al-Sharif
al-Radi (ed.), Nahj al-Bahagha (Beirut, 1967),
497; N Firaq, 80-1.
|
