A History of the Muslim World to 1405

by Vernon O Egger

  Shi’ite Identities

  The new regime proved to be a profound disappointment to the pro-Alids. The Abbasid campaign had raised the hope that an inspired leader who combined both temporal and religious legitimacy would be installed as caliph. However, the leading Alids were not able to accept the terms on which leadership was offered to them by the Abbasids, and the new Abbasid caliph, al-Saffah (750–754), was hardly known outside his family. Some Alids were feted at court when the new dynasty established itself, but others rejected the new regime as illegitimate. Several of them revolted against the Abbasids. The most spectacular of the Alid revolts took place in 762–763, carried out by two brothers who were descendants of ‘Ali’s son Hasan. They planned simultaneous revolts against the newly established Abbasid court from Basra and Medina, but they failed to coordinate their efforts and both were killed. Many pro-Alids decided against outright revolts and instead began creating organizations to cultivate piety in an otherwise corrupt world; others recruited members into groups that were prepared to take over the leadership of the Muslim world when conditions were favorable. Thus, rather than resolving the demand of the pro-Alids, the Abbasid movement and revolution seem to have intensified the speculation and activity within such circles.

  The Early Alids and Abbasids

  The Ghulat and the Zaydis

  The middle decades of the eighth century witnessed a remarkable range of activities among the pro-Alids. On the one hand were the so-called ghulat, “those who exaggerate,” or “the extremists.” This term did not refer to a particular group, but rather to the members of numerous groups that championed the cause of individual Alids. They were lumped together under the label of “exaggerators” because of the claims for superhuman qualities that they made for their Alid leaders. Typically, they claimed that in some sense God had become incarnate in their leader, and many asserted that, through him, God was continuing to bring revelatory truths despite the insistence by the majority of Muslims that Muhammad was the last of the prophets. In order to give legitimacy to the successors of such great leaders, some of the ghulat began developing sophisticated theories of the transmigration of the soul, asserting that the former leader’s soul had taken residence in the new leader’s body. Others among the ghulat denied that ‘Ali had died.

  Often the term ghulat was applied to pro-Alids who substituted a reverence for their leader in the place of a concern for obeying the ritual requirements of Islam, such as the five daily prayers. When it is recalled that Muhammad was viewed by the majority of Muslims as a mortal who had been chosen for the divine purpose of bringing revelation and that ‘Ali’s supporters during his lifetime had typically claimed only the qualities of piety and wisdom for him, we can see why the ghulat were regarded by most Muslims as having exceeded sensible, and even acceptable, bounds.

  In contrast to the fervid speculations of the ghulat were the Zaydis. Zayd, a grandson of Husayn, led an abortive revolt against the Umayyads in 740. Zayd asserted that the legitimate caliph was the man who combined descent from either Hasan or Husayn with learning, piety, and the political will to challenge the existing state authorities. This uncomplicated and activist program appealed to many Muslims, and several Zaydi ministates were set up in the highlands of the Elburz and in Yemen in the decades after the Abbasid revolution. Zaydism rapidly became identified as an Alid challenge to Abbasid legitimacy. However, even though its Alid sympathies place it technically within the movement known as Shi‘ism, its aversion to speculative thought kept it from developing a doctrine of the leader’s unique spiritual role in the way that the majority of Shi‘ites did. Zaydis differ little from the Muslims who have come to be known as Sunnis except for their insistence that their leader be descended from Hasan or Husayn.

  The Husayni Alids

  When the term Shi‘ite is used today, it usually refers to a tradition that falls between the fervid speculations of the ghulat and the doctrinal simplicity of the Zaydis. To understand the origins of the major branches of modern Shi‘ism, we must turn to Medina, where, in the early eighth century, the descendants of Husayn were quietly developing a reputation for piety and spiritual leadership. Several generations of Husayn’s descendants lived in Medina, collecting the extra-Qur’anic sayings of Muhammad, as well as anecdotes about his life conveyed by his companions. These scholars responded to questions from pious individuals who inquired about the best way to live a holy life, and they wrote commentaries on the Qur’an.

  The Centrality of Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja‘far al-Sadiq

  The first of Husayn’s descendants was his son ‘Ali Zayn al-‘Abidin, a survivor of Karbala. He in turn had two sons who became better known than he was. One was Zayd, for whom Zaydism was named; and the other was Muhammad al-Baqir, one of the most highly respected of the religious scholars in the first third of the eighth century. He became the leader of the Husayni branch of the Alids about the year 713. Muhammad al-Baqir’s son Ja‘far al-Sadiq succeeded him as leader in 737 and became a major figure in the newly developing discipline of Islamic law. At the time of his death in 765, he was widely respected by Alids and non-Alids alike for his scholarship, wisdom, and generosity.

  During the half century of leadership by Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja‘far al-Sadiq, the self-conscious identity that we call Shi‘ism can perhaps be seen for the first time. Both men won universal respect for their learning and wisdom, even among those who had no interest in the nascent Shi‘ism of the day. Among a certain group of Alids, however, they were regarded as more than mere scholars of erudition and piety: They were spokesmen for God. With them, one of the most distinctive doctrines of Shi‘ism began to take shape, that of the Imam.

  The word imam in Arabic is a preposition that means “in front of” or “before.” It soon became widely used to designate the man who stands in front of the congregation in the mosque to lead the prayers, and this has been the typical meaning of imam among non-Shi‘ites. In villages, he is probably the most pious man or otherwise a respected personage, while in urban areas he has scholarly credentials as well as spiritual responsibilities. The members of the congregation, however, do not regard him as having anything like the spiritual authority that Shi‘ites invest in their supreme leader. In this book, Imam will be used to designate the man whom Shi‘ites view as their legitimate leader, and imam will denote the Sunni prayer leader.

  According to Shi‘ites, the prophetic age had come to an end with the Prophet Muhammad, but mankind was still in need of a divinely appointed and guided leader. The Prophet’s heirs, the Imams, would continue the prophetic role in every respect except that they would explain the existing scripture, rather than introduce a new one. Each Imam was infallible and sinless and was the rightful leader of the entire Umma. The caliph, therefore, was illegitimate and a usurper. Shi‘ites came to believe that the rejection or disobedience of any of the Imams was an act of infidelity and was a sin on the same level as the rejection of the Prophet. In later Shi‘ite ha-giography, ‘Ali, Hasan, Husayn, and ‘Ali Zayn al-‘Abidin were regarded as having been recognized as Imams during their lifetimes. While there is no doubt that all of these individuals were regarded as leaders and sources of wisdom, the evidence suggests that it was the followers of Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja‘far al-Sadiq who first constituted groups of disciples conscious of having an identity apart from other Muslims due to their allegiance to their Imam.

  To be regarded as a challenge to the caliph’s legitimacy, however, was clearly dangerous under either the Umayyads or the Abbasids. Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja‘far managed to inspire a devoted following without appearing to threaten the political authorities. They developed three ideas that became characteristic of subsequent Shi‘ite life and thought. First, they taught that an Imam was known by the fact that the previous Imam had designated him. This doctrine stood in sharp contrast to the Zaydi position, as well as to the belief that an Imam would simply be recognized by the quality of his teaching. Second, they confirmed that the Imam possessed spiritual
knowledge that was different in kind, not just in degree, from other religious scholars. Learned and pious scholars were certainly useful in a community, but an Imam was indispensable. He had access to knowledge about God that was unavailable from any other source. Third, they convinced their followers to develop the discipline needed to refrain from trying to seize political power, or acting in such a way as to bring scandal upon the community. They lived in dangerous times, and their followers had to act circumspectly.

  The achievement of Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja‘far al-Sadiq was to create a self-conscious identity for the Shi‘ite community and to make it possible for an individual to accept the authority of the Husayni Imams without engaging in a revolt against the government. Shi‘ites were convinced that it was God’s will that the Imam should also be caliph, but the majority recognized the political realities of the age. The Umayyads had been overthrown in 750, only to be replaced with another dynasty that did not represent the Alid line, but God would rectify that situation in His own good time. In the meantime, the Imam would be the channel that God would use to provide the spiritual guidance required for living the godly life.

  In 760, Ja‘far designated his son Isma‘il to be his successor upon his death, which he believed was imminent. Soon thereafter, however, the one who died was Isma‘il, not Ja‘far. The community was stunned. No one within Ja‘far’s circle could believe that he had named the “wrong” successor, but they also could not fathom the mystery of Isma‘il’s untimely death. No evidence exists that Ja‘far himself ever attempted another designation of a successor or sought to interpret the conundrum of his designated successor’s having predeceased him.

  At Ja‘far’s own death in 765, his followers had to decide on an Imam themselves. Dozens of different groups arose, distinguished from each other by their choice of Imam or by doctrinal differences. It would have been impossible at the time to know which sect would become the most influential, and it required more than a century for two of them to become dominant. One claimed that Isma‘il had in fact been the seventh Imam and that his son Muhammad was the Imam upon Ja‘far’s death. Because of their belief that Isma‘il was the seventh Imam, they have been known variously as Isma‘ilis and as Seveners. The other major group of Ja‘far’s disciples recognized Isma‘il’s brother Musa al-Kazim as the rightful Imam after Ja‘far. They came to be known as the Imamiya, or Imamis. As we shall see, they are even more widely known today as the ithna’ ‘ashari Shi‘ites, or Twelver Shi‘ites.

  The Imamis

  Our knowledge of the history of the Shi‘ites during the two centuries following the death of Ja‘far is remarkably limited. In part, this is a testimony to the perilous and secretive life that Shi‘ites usually had to follow, and in part it is due to the fact that many of the documents that we rely on from the period are hostile to Shi‘ites. At some point in their history, in fact, they developed the doctrine of taqiya, or religious dissimulation: When threatened with the loss of life or property and when no danger to Islam itself is involved, Shi‘ites are permitted to pretend to recant their faith. What is clear is that a bewildering variety of factions arose over the course of those two hundred years and that no one in that period could have predicted with confidence that the Imamis and the Isma‘ilis would eventually become the two dominant groups of Shi‘ites. As a rule, the Imamis followed Ja‘far’s dictum that a political challenge to the existing order would be counterproductive to their spiritual goals, and they were content to practice their faith in a world whose political order they despised.

  Their quietism did not allow them to escape the suspicions of some of the Abbasid caliphs. The caliph Harun al-Rashid (786–809) persecuted them and allegedly poisoned Ja‘far’s son Musa al-Kazim. During a civil war between the sons of Harun al-Rashid, however, the central authority became so weak that several Shi‘ite factions came out in open revolt in Iraq and in the Arabian Peninsula. Harun’s son al-Ma’-mun won the war in 813 and seems to have been keenly aware of the need to appeal to Shi‘ite sensibilities. When he claimed the caliphate in 813, he also claimed the title of Imam, a title all subsequent Abbasid caliphs would take.

  What al-Ma’mun meant to convey by his new designation is unclear, particularly in light of a stunning announcement that he made in 817. He had fought the civil war of 809–813 from his base in Merv and had not returned to Baghdad even after he claimed the titles of caliph and Imam. Now, in late 817, he surprised the empire by naming Musa al-Kazim’s son, the Imam ‘Ali al-Rida, his heir-apparent and son-in-law. His motive for doing so is still widely debated. What is clear, however, is that the rapidity of ‘Ali al-Rida’s rise to prominence was matched only by the suddenness of his decline. Soon after al-Ma’mun made his announcement, he began a march to Baghdad, which he had decided should be his capital after all. En route to the city, ‘Ali al-Rida died suddenly in Tus (modern Mashhad). Shi‘ites believe that he was poisoned, but cannot agree on who was responsible.

  The Imamis enjoyed a respite from persecution under al-Ma’mun and his successor, but in 847, the new Abbasid caliph initiated a period of intense repression against them that lasted for the next twenty-five years. In 874, Hasan al-‘Askari, the fifth Imam after Ja‘far al-Sadiq, died, apparently without a son. As had been the case when Ja‘far himself had died, the community was thrown into confusion. Numerous sects formed (some traditions assert as few as fourteen, but others name as many as twenty), and for several decades the Imamis were severely splintered.

  Under the leadership of a man named ‘Uthman al-‘Amri, however, a radically new doctrine provided the core for the unification of most of the Imami Shi‘ites. ‘Uthman claimed that Hasan al-‘Askari had been survived by a young son, who was now in hiding under God’s protection. That Hasan had a son was news to most of the faithful, but under the capable leadership of ‘Uthman and three of his successors, this belief became standard doctrine. The young boy was named Muhammad and acquired the title Muhammad al-Muntazar (“the looked-for,” or “the anticipated”). In practice, he was usually referred to as the “Hidden Imam.” ‘Uthman and his three successors claimed to be intermediaries between the Imam and his followers, bringing to the faithful the religious guidance granted by the Hidden Imam.

  In 941, however, the Imam sent word that he would no longer have a spokesman or intermediary, and Imami Shi‘ism entered upon a new phase of history. The period from 874 to 941 soon came to be known as the Lesser Concealment (or Occultation), and the period after 941 came to be known as the Greater Concealment—“greater” in the sense that, without an intermediary, the Imam was even more concealed than before. The Hidden Imam was recognized as the twelfth in a line of Imams that began with ‘Ali, and he was now designated as the Mahdi (as a result, he is sometimes referred to as Muhammad al-Mahdi as well as Muhammad al-Muntazar). From this time on, the Imamis have often been referred to as the Twelver Shi‘ites.

  The introduction of the doctrine of the Greater Concealment marked a surprising turn for a movement that had insisted on the need for constant spiritual guidance from an Imam. The Imami world view now became nostalgic and tragic, and Twelver Shi‘ites longed for the time when they had had direct access to spiritual truth. Nevertheless, Twelvers continued to believe that the twelfth Imam was in control of history. Because of the new understanding of him as both the last Imam and as the Mahdi, the task for the next period of their history was to understand how he continued to give guidance to his community and what his role in history was. We shall explore this topic in more detail in Part Two.

  The Isma‘ilis

  Both Isma‘ili and Sevener seem to have originated as derogatory terms for the followers of Muhammad ibn Isma‘il, but they have persisted because of their widespread use. The Isma‘ilis themselves designated their movement simply as “the mission.” We have no record of their activity between the death of Ja‘far in the middle of the eighth century and the last third of the ninth century, when they emerged from obscurity. From evidence that exists from the time
of their reemergence, it seems that they developed the doctrine that when Isma‘il’s son Muhammad appeared to die, he was instead hidden and protected by God. As the Mahdi/Imam, he was being prepared by God to return and bring justice and righteousness to the world at a time of God’s choosing. In the meantime, the Imam communicated with his followers through designated spokesmen. Thus, from the late eighth to the late ninth centuries, the period when the Imamis relied upon a present, visible Imam, the Isma‘ilis held a doctrine of a Hidden Imam.

  The Isma‘ilis also began to develop a theory of interpretation of the Qur’an that placed a premium on esoteric knowledge—that is, knowledge which, by virtue of its difficulty, was intended for a spiritual elite. We shall see that other Muslim groups also became preoccupied with esoterica during the same period, but the Isma‘ilis became its outstanding practitioners. At the heart of the system was a distinction between the outer (zahir) and the inner (batin) meaning of the Qur’an, the religious law, and the ritual aspects of Islam. Religious laws and ritual prescriptions, it was asserted, change with every prophet that God has sent, but God’s truths remain immutable and eternal. Thus, the revealed scriptures and the laws laid down therein must be understood as concealing a true, more spiritual meaning that is superior to their literal appearance. Only individuals with superior insight are able to interpret the hidden meanings.

  The zahir/batin polarity undergirds the exalted status of the Imam and of the religious hierarchy that came to characterize Isma‘ilism. The divinely guided, infallible Imam interpreted the true meaning of revelation to individuals who had proven their ability and integrity as bearers of the truth. Such intermediaries between the Imam and the ordinary proselyte became designated as a hujjas, or “proofs” of God’s presence. These representatives of the Imam taught the spiritual truths by means of allegorical interpretations to students who had committed themselves through a formal initiation into the serious work of the organization. The masses, meanwhile, continued to know only the zahir meaning. Isma‘ilis expected that, at the end of time, when the Imam returns as the Mahdi, he will abrogate the law of the Prophet. At that time, there will be no need for laws, because spiritual truth will be directly accessible to everyone.