 |
|
"Al‑Hasan said, `When I arrived at Baghdad I rented a house. Thereafter
an agent brought me clothes and money and entrusted them
to me. I said to him,"What is this?" He said to me, "It
is what you see." Then another one brought similar
goods, and a third one until they filled the house.
Afterwards Ahmad b. Ishaq (the assistant of the Saf’ir)
brought me all the goods he had. Thus I became confused.
But later I received a message from al‑Rajul (the Imam),
peace be upon him, ordering me to take the goods to
al‑`Askar (Samarra). . . When I arrived there I received
a message ordering me to bring the goods (to him). So I
loaded them in the baskets of the carriers. When I
reached the corridor of his house, I found a black slave
standing there. He asked me, "Are you al‑Hasan b.
al‑Nadr?" I said, "Yes." He replied, "Enter." So I
entered the house, and then I entered an apartment,
where I emptied the baskets of the carriers. . . There
was a curtain leading to another apartment. Someone
called me from behind it, "O al‑Hasan b. al‑Nadr, praise
Allah for His grace is upon you, and do not doubt, for
Satan would be pleased if you waver." Thereafter he sent
out two garments for me and said, "Take them, because
you will need them." So I took them and went out.' "
Sa'd al‑Ash'ari reports that al‑Hasan b. al‑Nadr departed and died in the
month of Ramadan, and the two garments were used as his
shroud(1).
This event was a clear proof to al‑Hasan, because both his name and his
doubts concerning the validity of the agents' activities
had been revealed to him. Moreover, according to Sa'd
al‑Ash`ari, the two garments which al‑Hasan had received
were a prediction of his death, which occurred a month
later. If one studies carefully the circumstances
surrounding al‑Hasan b. al‑Nadr from the time of his
decision to investigate the activities of the agents
until his death, one can surmise that the agents
arranged them so as to remove his doubts.
They would have done so because al‑Hasan b. al‑Nadr was prominent amongst
the Imamites of Qumm(2),
and his doubts might have affected the Imamites of his
area. So perhaps the agents of Qumm informed the Saf’ir
in Baghdad about his arrival there. This can be
understood from the act of Ahmad b. Ishaq and the other
agents who brought the clothes to al‑Hasan's house and
later sent him a letter ordering him to send the goods
to Samarra. There, it is reported, he met the Imam, who
confirmed for him the validity of the agent's
activities. One can discover from this example and many
others not quoted here(3)
the means used by the Saf’ir to remove the doubts and
confusion of the Imamites brought about by the
concealment of their Imam, and to make them obey his
instructions.
As has already been indicated the Saf’ir forbade his partisans to ask
about the name of the Imam. Perhaps, their silence along
with al`Askari's last will in which he bequeathed his
endowments to his mother and placed her in charge of his
affair without referring to his successor(4),
encouraged the authorities to believe that the Imamites
no longer had an Imam and, therefore, that any Imamite
activities were useless. In doing so the Saf’ir gained a
certain freedom to have communication with the Twelfth
Imam and his followers. This is illustrated by a
statement attributed to the Saf’ir:
"The caliph thinks that Abu Muhammad (al‑`Askari), peace be upon him,
died childless. Thus his estate was divided and given to
someone, who had no right in the estate but he (the
Twelfth Imam) kept quiet. These are his agents carrying
out their activities without being afraid that someone
would stop them for investigation. If the (Imam's) name
is identified, the (authorities) would start searching
for (his whereabouts). So, by Allah, do not ask about
his name.”(5)
The belief that al‑ `Askari had no successor was circulated among some
sunni scholars, such as Abu al‑Qasim al‑Balkhi (died
around 300/912). In his account of the Imamite doctrine,
he states, "In our time al‑Hasan b. `Ali died and had no
son. Therefore they (the Imamites) became confused(6).
Gradually this belief was so disseminated among the non‑Imamite circles
that leading sunni scholars such as Ibn Hazm (d.
456/1063) and al‑Shahristani (d. 548/1153) were
encouraged to view it as a matter of fact(7).
Later al-Dhahabi believed that al‑`Askari left a son
but he disappeared when he was nine years old or less in
265/878, when he entered a cellar (sardab) in Samarra
and was not seen again(8).
In other words the Twelfth Imam died during the lifetime of the first
Saf’ir. But al-Dhahabi is a later historian, since he
died in 748/1347. Moreover he does not give the source
of his narration, nor does he state explicitly how
al‑`Askari's son died even though he presents his
information concerning the concealment of the Twelfth
Imam in the list of people who died in 265/878 to give
the impression that he had passed away in that year. The
earliest report concerning the occultation of
al`Askari's son in the cellar is given by al‑Kanji, who
died in 08/1260, but he also does not mention the source
of his information(9).
It is therefore most likely that al‑Dhahabi based his report upon a
belief common among the Imamite masses, that the Twelfth
Imam had hidden himself in the cellar of his house. This
belief spread after the fifth/eleventh century and later
became popular among certain scholars, such as Ibn
Khaldun(10).
Moreover, several reports in the early Imamite sources refute
al-Dhahabi's narration and prove that the Twelfth Imam
was alive after 265/878. Al‑Tusi mentions that many of
the Imamites received written answers to their letters
from the Imam in the same handwriting as in the letters
they used to receive during the lifetime of the first
Saf’ir(11),
and al‑Saduq lists thirteen agents and forty‑six
ordinary Imamites from numerous cities who claimed to
have seen the Twelfth Imam both during and after the
time of the first Saf’ir(12).
From this it is clear that al‑Dhahabi's report is based on popular belief
rather than upon sound historical facts. So it would be
foolish to give credence to his claims concerning the
death and occultation of the Twelfth Imam.
5. The Opposition to the First Saf’ir
As has been noted the occultation of the Imam resulted in the gradual
expansion of the role of the Saf’ir. However it also
made it easier for a pretender to the deputyship
(al‑sifara or al‑niyaba) to practice his activities
among the Imamites at the expense of the Imam's rightful
representative. As we have seen, this was practiced
mainly throughout the period of the short occultation by
the extremists (al‑Ghulat).
That they were extremists is indicated by a number of factors. Firstly,
the claimant to the sifara believed in the incarnation
of God (hulul)(13).
Most of the claimants to the sifara from the time of
al‑Hasan al-Shari’i up until al‑Shalmaghani claimed
first that they were the agents of the Imam. Then when
the Imam excommunicated them, they called people on
their own account. Extremists had claimed to be the
Imam's representative even before the occultation of the
Twelfth Imam, but with a slight difference. The claimant
would first announce that he was the Gate (Bab) of the
Imam, and then claim that he was a prophet. Al‑Kashshi
mentions many extremists who did so, such as Muhammad b.
Furat, al‑Qasim al‑Yaqtini and Ali b. Haska(14).
The third factor indicating that the claimants were extremists is that
certain links existed between the extremists active
during the time of the tenth and eleventh Imams and the
claimants who lived during the time of the short
occultation. According to al‑Kashshi, Ali b. Haska was
the teacher of Muhammad b. Musa al‑Shari`i, al-Qasim
al‑ Yaqtini and al‑Hasan b. Muhammad b. Baba(15).
The last of these was a close follower of Muhammad b.
Nusayr, who led the extremists trend during the time of
the eleventh Imam, and then claimed that he was the
agent of the Twelfth Imam(16).
Morever, Ibn Nusayr was supported by some of Banu Furat,
the descendants of the extremist Muhammad b. Furat(17).
According to al‑Tusi, Abu Muhammad al‑Hasan al‑Shari`i'(18)
was the first to claim falsely to be the Imam's
representative during the short occultation, but the
Imamites cursed him and refused to accept him. Then the
Twelfth Imam issued a Tawqi; in which he excommunicated
al‑Shari`i and announced the falseness of his claim(19).
Although al-Shari’i did not achieve immediate success,
his following grew in strength and eventually he formed
a strong threat to the leadership of the second Saf’ir.
6. The Imam's Wikala During the Time of the First Saf’ir
The main problem facing any historian dealing with the period of the
short occultation is that most of the activities of the
Twelfth Imam and his representatives were carried out
underground. Perhaps for this reason, the Imamite
scholars such as al‑Kulayni, `Abd Allah b. Ja’far
al‑Himyari, Sa`d al‑Ash `ari and al‑Hasan b. Musa
al-Nawbakhti rarely mention the names of the Imam's
agents, or refer to their activities or links with each
other: however, they do refer to those of their
activities which did not attract the attention of the
authorities.
Therefore, the historical information concerning the underground
activities of the agents is to be found scattered
throughout the theological and heresiographical works
much more than in the histories. Because of the nature
of these works the historical information has taken on a
heresiographical form. In addition, both questions asked
by the Shi’ites and answers of the Twelfth Imam and his
Saf’irs were collected during his time, but
unfortunately, most of them have been lost.
Only a few are extant, especially in works dealing with the concealment
(Ghayba). For example the second Saf’ir Abu Ja’far
Muhammad b. `Uthman, collected the pronouncements of his
father, but his collection is not extant. However, many
anecdotes which assist us in discovering the links among
the Imam's agents and the nature of their activities
have been recorded.
6.1 Iraq: The Centre of the Wikala
After the death of the eleventh Imam, the first Saf’ir had not the
slightest reason to remain in Samarra, which was then
the capital and the headquarters of the troops of the
`Abbasid dynasty, which had opposed the Imams from the
very beginning. Perhaps for this reason, `Uthman b. Said
wanted to carry out the activities of the organization
beyond the surveillance of the authorities in the
capital. Therefore he moved to Baghdad, where he made
the area of alKarkh, which was inhabited by Shi’ites,
the centre for the leadership of the organization(20).
A part of `Uthman's prudent fear (al‑Taqiyya) was to evade the
investigation of the regime by not involving himself in
any open political or religious arguments. He also
disguised himself as a butter‑seller (samman) and, used
to bring money to the Imam in a butter‑sack.
Consequently he acquired the nickname al‑Zayyat or
al‑Samman(21).
Al‑Kashshi reports that his name was Hafs b. `Amr
al‑`Umari(22),
which may have been a pseudonym he used when he held
underground meetings with other agents.
It has been noted that the Twelfth Imam was sent by his father to Medina
in 259/873. However, the first Saf’ir made Baghdad the
centre of the organization. He followed the traditional
geographical divisions of the Islamic provinces in
organizing the underground political units (cells) of
the organization. Nevertheless he took into
consideration the size of each factional unit, the
distance of each area from the capital, and its
situation on the main roads.
According to al‑Kashshi, `Uthman b. Said was the head of the Wikala from
the time of the eleventh Imam, in the sense that all the
revenue sent by the adherents to the Imam through his
agents was given in the end to `Uthman, who in turn
handed it over to the Imam(23).
Many agents were situated below the Saf’ir in the ranks of the
organization in Baghdad and in the other cities of Iraq,
such as Hajiz b. Yazid al‑Washsha', Ahmad b. Ishaq
al‑Ash`ari and Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Ja`far al‑Qattan,
the last two of whom were the chief assistants of the
first Saf’ir.
Ahmad b. Ishaq was at first al‑ `Askari's agent for his endowments awqaa
in Qumm(24).
However, after the death of al‑ `Askari the sources
begin to refer to his activities in Baghdad as assistant
to `Uthman b. Said in the financial affairs of the
organization. AlKulayni reports that in 260/874 some
people from the east doubted the validity of the agents
after al‑ `Askari's death and for this reason they came
to Baghdad. Along with other agents Ahmad b. Ishaq
managed to remove their doubts(25).
The first Saf’ir may have summoned him from Qumm because he needed his
service in Iraq after al‑ `Askari's death. According to
Ibn Rustam al‑Tabari, Ahmad b. Ishaq continued his
career in the organization in Iraq until his death
during the time of the second Saf’ir(26).
Muhammad
al‑Qattan was the second agent of the Saf’ir in Baghdad.
In order to hide his activities he disguised himself as
a cotton dealer. The agents used to bring money and
letters to him hidden in cotton which he then took to
the Saf’ir(27).
(1)al‑Kafi, I, 517‑8, 522‑3.
(2)Al‑Kashshi gives his
statement as regards al‑Hasan b. al‑Nadr along
with his account of Abu Hamid al‑Maraghi. He
does not name explicitly the city which al‑Hasan
belonged to; Ikhtiyar, 535. According to
al‑Mustawfi Maragha is a large town, and was
formerly the capital of Azerbayjan; al‑Qazwini,
Nuzhat al Qulub, 88. However, there is evidence
to support the claim that al‑Hasan b. al Nadr
was a native of Qumm. Al‑Saduq reports that
al‑Hasan was from Qumm and listed him among the
people who saw the twelfth Imam; Kama’l, 442.
(3)Al‑Kulayni reports in his
account of the birth of the twelfth Imam sixteen
narrations, elucidating the activities of the
first Saf’ir with his followers. Most of these
narrations indicate that he practiced miracles
to persuade them that he was rightfully
appointed by the Imam; al-Kafi:, I, 514‑24,
narrations nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12‑17, 20, 21,
23, 28.
(4)al‑Fusul al‑`Ashra, 13.
(5)T. al-Ghayba, 157‑8,
al‑Kafi, I, 329‑30.
(6)Abd al‑Jabbar, al‑Mugni
(Cairo, 1963), II, 176; quoted from al‑Balkhi.
(7)Milal, 128; Fasl IV, 181,
however some later sunni scholars such as Abu Nu
`aym al‑Asfahini, `Abd al‑Wahhab al‑Sha`ram al‑Maliki,
al‑Kunji al‑Shafi'i and Sibt b. al‑Jawzi held
that al‑Hasan al‑`Askari had, in fact, left a
son. For full account of the later sunnite views
concerning the existence of the twelfth Imam,
see Sulayman al‑Qanduri, al‑Hanafi; Yanabi al‑Mawadda
(al Istana, n.d.), 451,471,491; Sadr al‑Din al‑Sadr,
op. cit., 65‑7.
(8)al‑Dhahabi, al‑`Ibar, II,
31.
(9)al‑Kanji, op. cit., 336‑7.
(10)Ibn Khaldun writes that
the twelfth Imam disappeared in a cellar in
Hilla. However, Hilla was established in
495/1101 by Banu Mazyad whereas the occultation
of the Imam, according to al‑Dhahabi took place
in 265/878. Thus it appears that Ibn Khaldun
also relied in his report on the popular belief;
al Muqaddima (Cairo, 1322), 157.
(11)Al‑Tusi states that the
second Saf’ir saw the twelfth Imam in Mecca
holding the drapes of the Ka`ba. According to
another report a certain Yusuf b. Ahmad al -Ja’fari
on his way to Syria in 309/921 saw the Imam (T.
al-Ghayba, 162, 166). For a full account of the
letters of the Imamites and their answers) by
the Imam, see T, al‑Ghayba, 184‑93; Muhammad al‑Sadr,
op. cit., 1, 403,430.
(13)Abu al‑Fida, al‑Mukhtasar,
II, 80‑I; al‑Kamil, VIII, 219‑20.
(14)Ikhtiyar, 518, 520, 555.
(16)According to al‑Tabrani (a
Nusayri writer), the Nusayriyya movement was
established by 'Ali b. Ahmad al‑Tarba'i, who
during the time of al‑`Askari gained thirty‑five
partisans in the village of Tarba' and other
followers in Ninawa near Hilla. Then he
attracted Muhammad b. Nusayr to his side. The
latter led the movement along with his student
al‑Husayn b. Harridan during the time of the
short occultation. In 336/947 the movement
became independent from the Imamites, and gave
more emphasis to the role ofthe Gate (Bab) than
the Imam himself; al‑Tabrani, Sabil Rah at al‑Arwah,
in Der Islam, XXVII (1946), 129‑31.
(18)Al‑Tusi mentions that
al‑Shari i was an adherent of the tenth Imam and
that he is not sure about his real name.
Al‑Kashshi mentions a certain Muhammad b. Musa
al‑Shari'i or al‑Sharif amongst the Ghulat
during the time of the tenth Imam. It is most
likely that he is the same person discussed by
al‑Tusi; Ikhtiyar, 521
(20)Javad ‘Ali, op. cit., in
Der Islam, XXV (1939), 203; In his account of
al‑Karkh district al‑Baghdadi states that many
places were inhabited by Rafidites (Shi`ites);
al‑Khatib, I, 81.
(24)al‑Qummi, Tarikhi Qumm,
211.
|
