Ismail ibn Ja’far, part 10: Exoneration of Muhammad ibn Ismail


Note: Some websites disingenuously copy information / analysis listed without credit. Anything presented in my articles is fully original.



It was 795 CE and the secret police of Harun al-Rashid were on the doorsteps of Musa al-Kadhim in Medina.

The Imam was being accused of high treason, in relation to a complaint posed to Harun which detailed al-Kadhim’s khums collection activities.

Al-Kadhim’s wealth acquired from religious dues – as the informant told Harun – was vast enough to position al-Kadhim as an equal to the caliph. 

O Amir al-Mu’mineen, there are two caliphs on the earth. Musa ibn Ja’far in Medina receiving kharaj, and you in Iraq receiving kharaj

يا أمير المؤمنين، خليفتان في الأرض، موسى بن جعفر بالمدينة يجبى له الخراج، وأنت بالعراق يجبى لك الخراج

The caliph felt immediately threatened by the possibility of his Alawi cousin Musa ibn Ja’far (who had publicly displayed his loyalty to the caliph) secretly aiming to steal his throne. 

It was not long before al-Kadhim was clutched in the chains of the shurta and taken to Baghdad, where he served his final imprisonment under the supervision of al-Sindi ibn Shahak - the feared enforcer of Harun - and ultimately met his untimely death.

With that said – Musa al-Kadhim’s era reflects the first major splinter in Imamate among Shi’a of the Imamiyyah strain (who believe the Imam is appointed by divine designation [nass] from his father). 

Al-Kadhim had became the leader of most Imamites - after winning the support of the followers of his elder brother Abdullah. 

Not without further splits and great uncertainties, the Imamate of al-Kadhim and his progeny eventually stabilized in the hearts of most Shi’a and morphed into the denomination we know today as “al-Ithna ‘Ashariyya” (the Twelvers).

This gain of favor in hearts of Shi’a was undoubtedly greatly shaped by state support for Twelver scholars, not only by the Buyid dynasty which converted to the sect and took control of the Abbasid caliphate. 

But also through proponents of the Imams of Twelverism existing among viziers of past Abbasid caliphs.

To gain such favor among the caliphs and their proclaimed representatives (the Buyids), Twelver scholars must have clearly distinguished themselves from enemies of the state.

In the 900s CE, the state’s enemies were the Qarmatian denomination of the Imamiyyah who believed that Musa al-Kadhim was not the Imam of his time - but rather it was his nephew Muhammad ibn Ismail, who they believed was the Qa’im and Mahdi.

What could have been a better way for Twelver scholars to show their Abbasid patrons that they are in perpetual enmity to the Qarmatians and are not performing taqiyya?

Simple, present a report showing that their mutual hatred exists not simply to please the Buyids and their Abbasid titular overlords.

But due to a reason that hits a little close to home.

The report brings a revelation that man who exposed the activities of Musa ibn Ja’far to Harun was his nephew Muhammad ibn Ismail - out of pure greed and lust for dunya.

From then on, the link between Twelverism and Qarmatianism (proponents of Muhammad ibn Ismail) was forever destroyed.

While this report would have been safisfactory in easing Buyid fears of Twelver collaborationism with the Qarmatians and is today commonly cited by Twelvers as evidence of Muhammad ibn Ismail’s malicious character –

We will find in this article that report, in fact, offers more problems than solutions and ultimately we will aim to exonerate Muhammad ibn Ismail from the claim levied against him.

So without further adue,

Let’s find out how!

1 ) Three Contradictory Reports

An introspective research on the report of a man among Musa al-Kadhim’s elite reporting the Imam to Harun shows us that three different variations exist regarding the report - each pointing to a different perpetrator.

Respectively, these reports exhibit the following characteristics:

Culprit #1 - Muhammad ibn Ismail

Speaker - Ali ibn Ja’far al-Sadiq

Time and place - Medina, before Muhammad ibn Ismail leaves for Iraq

Result - Muhammad ibn Ismail dies before leaving Iraq, because the Imam asked Allah to take Muhammad’s life if he reports the Imam to Harun.

Thus, Muhammad’s guilt is firmly established in this variation.


(Al-Kafi, vol 1, page 485)

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Musa ibn al-Qasim al-Bajali from Ali ibn Ja‘far al-Sadiq who has said the following:

Muhammad ibn ’Isma‘il came to me when we were still in Makka after completing our ‘Umra in the month of Rajab. He said, “Uncle, I intend to go to Baghdad but I want to say farewell to my uncle, abu al-Hassan Musa ibn Ja‘far (a.s.) aand I would like that you also come with me.” I came with him to my brother and he was in his house in al-Hawba It was just after sun set. I knocked the door and my brother answered the door asking, “Who is it?” I replied, “It is Ali.” He said, “I am just coming.” He would do his Wudu very slowly. I said, “Be quick please.” He said, “I will be quick.” He came out wearing dyed clothe that he secured around his neck and sat down just below the door steps. I, Ali ibn Ja‘far leaned over him and kissed his head and said, “I have come for a matter to find out if you would agree then Allah may grant him success, if you would not agree then it is one of those mistake that we make.” He asked, “what is it?” I said, “This is the son of your brother. He wants to say farewell to you because he wants to go to Baghdad.” He said to me, “Call him.” I called him and he had kept some distance. He came close to him and kissed his head and said, “May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, please advise me.” 

The Imam (a.s.) said, “I advise you to be pious before Allah and spare my life.” He in answer said, “Whoever would have bad intentions towards you, may Allah have the same for him.” He continued to pray against those who would have bad intentions towards the Imam (a.s.). He them kiss the head of the Imam (a.s.) again and said, “Please advise me.” The Imam (a.s.) said, “I advise you to be pious before Allah and spare my life.” may or not.” He in answer said, “Whoever would have bad intentions towards you, may Allah have the same for him.” He kissed the head of the Imam (a.s.) and said, “Please advise me.” The Imam (a.s.) said, “I advise you to be pious before Allah and spare my life.” He prayed against those who would have bad intentions towards the Imam (a.s.) and moved away and I left along with him. My brother called me and said, “O Ali, wait where you are.” I waited and he went inside and then called me inside. I went inside and he gave me a bag with a hundred Dinars in it and said, “Tell your cousin to use it during his journey.” The narrator has said, “I secured the money in my dress and he gave me another hundred Dinar to give to him also and then he give me one more bag to give to him. I said, “May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, “When you are afraid of him so much then why do you give him all this money and why do you support him to against your own self?.” He said, “When I would maintain good relations with him and would cut off such relationships Allah will cut his life short.” Then he gave to me a pillow with three hundred pure Dirhams (units of money) in it and asked to give him also.” 

The narrator has said, “I then left and gave him the first one hundred and he became extremely happy and prayed for his uncle. I then gave him the other money and he became so happy that I thought he might not go to Baghdad any more. I then gave him all the Dirhams and he left for Baghdad. He greeted Harun as the Caliph and said, “I did not think that there can be two caliphs on earth at the same time. I also saw my uncle Musa ibn Ja‘far being greeted as the Caliph.” 

Harun sent him one hundred thousand Dirhams. 

He fell sick with Diphtheria or scrofulous and died before seeing or touching any of those money.”

وقد اعتمرنا عمرة رجب ونحن يومئذ بمكة، فقاليا عم إني أريد بغداد وقد أحببت أن أودع عمي أبا الحسن - يعني موسى بن جعفر عليهالسلام - وأحببت أن تذهب معي إليه، فخرجت معه نحو أخي وهو في داره التي بالحوبة وذلك بعد المغرب بقليل، فضربت الباب فأجابنيأخي..

Culprit #2 - Muhammad ibn Ja’far al-Sadiq

Speaker - Ali ibn Ja’far al-Sadiq

Time and place - Medina, after Muhammad ibn Ismail comes back from Iraq.

Muhammad ibn Ismail in this hadith is the one informing Ali ibn Ja’far the story of Muhammad ibn Ja’far betraying his brother Musa al-Kadhim to Harun.

Result - Muhammad ibn Ismail is alive after coming back from Iraq, meaning he cannot be the perpetrator mentioned in the previous hadith who dies as soon as he receives Harun’s money.

Yet, Muhammad ibn Ja’far is seen telling Harun the exact words which Muhammad ibn Ismail was alleged to have said in the previous report. 

The perpetrator here is thus established as Muhammad ibn Ja’far.


(‘Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha, vol 2, page 72)

7-2 Al-Hussein ibn Ibrahim ibn Ahmad ibn Hisham al-Mu’addib - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of Muhammad ibn Isa ibn Obayd, on the authority of Musa ibn Al-Qasim al-Bajali, on the authority of Ali ibn Ja’far (s), “Muhammad ibn Isma’il ibn Ja’far ibn Muhammad (Imam Kadhim’s brother) came to me and said, “Muhammad ibn Ja’far went to see Harun Ar-Rashid and greeted him as the Caliph. He then told him, ‘I did not think that there were two Caliphs on the Earth until I saw that they greet my brother Musa ibn Ja’far as the Caliph”

2 - حدثنا الحسين بن إبراهيم بن أحمد بن هشام المؤدب رضي الله عنه قالحدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيدعن موسى بن القاسم البجلي (2) عن علي بن جعفر قالجاءني محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر بن محمد وذكر ليان محمد بن جعفر دخلعلى هارون الرشيد فسلم عليه بالخلافة ثم قال لهما ظننت ان الأرض خليفتين حتى رأيت أخي موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام يسلم عليهبالخلافة وكان ممن سعى

Culprit #3 - Ali ibn Ismail

Speaker - Salih ibn ‘Attiya

Time and place - Medina, before Ali ibn Ismail leaves for Iraq.

In this report, it is Ali ibn Ismail whom the Imam urges not to go to the caliph and to spare his blood.

However, Ali ibn Ismail (wooed by the caliph’s vizier) still leaves with Harun regardless and betrays the Imam. 

Result - In this variation, Muhammad ibn Ismail is not the one whom Imam al-Kadhim asks not to spill his blood and avoid going to the Iraq with caliph.

Rather, Imam al-Kadhim himself sends Muhammad ibn Ismail to Iraq so as to financially incentivize his brother Ali to not betray the Imam to Harun.

Thus - Muhammad ibn Ismail is depicted here in a position of deputyship for al-Kadhim and trusted by him, hence giving him money. 

The only culprit in this version is Ali ibn Ismail. 


(‘Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha, vol 2, page 72)

Yahya ibn Khalid had asked Yahya ibn Abi Maryam, “Can you introduce one of the members of the household of Abi Talib who has worldly inclinations which I can fulfill?” 

He had answered, “Yes. I know someone with these traits. He is Ali ibn Isma’il ibn Ja’far.” 

Yahya sent someone after him and told him, “Inform me about the affairs of your uncle (Imam Kadhim), his followers, and the property that they bring for him.”

Ali ibn Isma’il said, “Yes. I know about him.” Then he started to expose the Imam’s secrets.

He (Ali ibn Ismail) said, “One instance of his extensive wealth is related to when he had bought a land called ‘Al-Yasirieh - when they brought the money, the seller said, “I do not want these coins. Give me other coins.” Then the Imam (s) ordered that the coins be returned to his treasury, and thirty-thousand Dinars of the same weight and type that the seller wanted be brought for him.


When (Harun) al-Rashid decided to return to Iraq, they informed Musa ibn Ja’far (s) that his nephew (Ali ibn Ismail) was planning to go to Iraq along with the Caliph. The Imam (s) called his new in and asked, “What is wrong with you? Why do you want to go with the caliph?” He said, “I have debts.: The Imam (s) said, “I will pay them back.” He said, “What about the expenses for my family?” The Imam (s) said, “Fine. I will pay for them.” However, Ali ibn Isma’il did not give up going with the Caliph. The Imam (s) sent him three hundred Dinars and four thousand Dirhams by means of his brother Muhammad (ibn Isma’il) and said

So use these for your travel expenses but do not make my children orphans.”

2 ) Deconstructing Fiction

We are now struck by blatantly different variations of the reports identifying the member of Imam al-Kadhim’s close elite who betrayed him. Yet, the details remain the same: just with a name change.

The scholars have noted this striking feature, with Sayyid al-Khoei finding the possibility of it extremely unlikely in that the same details repeat in the case of Muhammad and Ali ibn Ismail.

Based on a chain analysis of the two reports specifying their involvement –

Khoei deduces that the report showing Ali ibn Ismail to be the culprit is not correct while the report making Muhammad ibn Ismail the perpetrator is correct due it having an authentic chain.

(Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol 16, page 112)

“We have spoken in our entry on on Ali ibn Ismail ibn Jaafar ibn Muhammad, peace be upon them both, the transmission of this story (on betraying on al-Kadhim) on the authority of Al-Saduq, Shaykh Al-Mufid, Shaykh Al-Tusi, and Ibn Shahrashoub.

Their version of the report places the blame of the betrayal of al-Kadhim purely on Ali ibn Ismail, without Muhammad ibn Ismail, and it is extremely unlikely that the same details repeat themselves (towards these different figures).

Since the chain of the al-Kafi hadith (placing the guilt on Muhammad ibn Ismail) is authentic, it seems the report alleging Ali ibn Ismail’s involvement (in al-Kadhim’s imprisonment) is not correct.”

تقدم في علي بن إسماعيل بن جعفر بن محمد عليهما السلام نقل

هذه القصة، عن الصدوق والشيخ المفيد، والشيخ الطوسي، وابن شهرآشوب،

في حق علي بن إسماعيل، دون محمد بن إسماعيل، ومن البعيد جدا أن تكون

القصد متكررة، وبما إن طريق الكافي إلى نقل هذه القصة صحيح، فالظاهر أن

ما تقدم في علي بن إسماعيل ليس بصحيح

Another esteemed Twelver scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Tasaturi, notices the discrepancy in the reports.

However, he arrives to a different conclusion than Khoei - stating that historical evidence shows Muhammad ibn Ismail could not have been involved, so it’s likely that Ali ibn Ismail was the true culprit.

Because the one who reported al-Kadhim is seen in the report to have died in Harun’s time, before being able to spend any of Harun’s largesse. 

However, Shaykh Tasaturi says, Muhammad ibn Ismail survived until the time of al-Ma’mun (as the report of Mutazili scholar Ibn Abi al-Hadid, author of Sharh Nahj al-Balagha specifies).

(Qamus al-Rijal, vol 9, page 117)

This, and the Maqatil of Abi al-Faraj, the ‘Uyun of Ibn Babawayh, and al-Irshad of al-Mufid narrated the quest of “Ali” (ibn Ismail) - in the blood of al-Kadhim (peace be upon him), his uncle.

The reports suggest death of the seeker before he disposed of anything that Harun gave him in exchange for his endeavor and the reporting of Al-Kadhim (peace be upon him). They also suggest the culprit was given a large amount by al-Kadhim to stop him from reporting the Imam), to no avail –

Something which necessitated that the culprit’s life be cut short.

These (identical details) indicates that the true report is one of these two, while the other is a scribal error.

The possibility of the (al-Kafi hadith) being the scribal error is not far-fetched, because biographies suggest the survival of Muhammad ibn Ismail until the time of Al-Ma'mun.

Ibn Abi Al-Hadid said: ‘Al-Ma’mun found letters written by Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jaafar Al-Sadiq to the people of Al-Karkh and other works of Isfahan inviting them to himself’

Meanwhile, the report of al-Kafi states Muhammad ibn Ismail’s death during the time of Harun (not al-Ma’mun).”

هذا، ومقاتل أبي الفرج وعيون ابن بابويه وإرشاد المفيد روت سعي «علي» - أخي هذا - في دم الكاظم (عليه السلامعمه (1). واتحادمضمونهما في موت الساعي قبل أن يتصرف في شئ مما أعطاه هارون في مقابل سعايته وإعطاء الكاظم (عليه السلامله مبلغا كثيراحتى يوجب قصر عمره يدل على أن الأصل فيهما واحد والآخر وهمولا يبعد وهم هذا، ففي السير بقاء محمد بن إسماعيل - هذا - إلى زمانالمأمون.

قال ابن أبي الحديد: «ظفر المأمون بكتب كتبها محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر الصادق إلى أهل الكرخ وغيرهم من أعمال أصفهان يدعوهمفيها إلى نفسه» (2) والخبر تضمن موته في زمن هارونويؤيده اتحاده مع سابقه لو ثبت من رواية ابن نهيك عنه

Perhaps, the most telling sign of all is al-Saduq’s report in Uyun in which Ali ibn Ja’far did not witness the incident directly (as he does in the al-Kafi hadith which incriminates Muhammad ibn Ismail).

But rather, the alleged perpetrator himself gives a full collection of the betrayal to Ali ibn Ja’far, as committed by his uncle Muhammad ibn Ja’far.

Ali ibn Ja’far said:

 “Muhammad ibn Isma’il ibn Ja’far ibn Muhammad came to me and said, “Muhammad ibn Ja’far went to see Harun Ar-Rashid and greeted him as the Caliph”

So who did it exactly?

1 ) Either Ali ibn Ja’far witnessed the story of al-Kadhim’s betrayal at the hands of Muhammad ibn Ismail unfold with his own eyes. And as a result of this betrayal, Muhammad ibn Ismail died before coming back from Iraq


Muhammad ibn Ismail came back from Iraq and was the one who told his uncle Ali ibn Ja’far of al-Kadhim’s betrayal at the hands of Muhammad ibn Ja’far.

Thus, Muhammad could not have been the perpetrator because he did not die and lived to tell the story.

2 ) Either Muhammad ibn Ismail visited al-Kadhim, telling him he was going to visit visit the Caliph and was urged not to report the Imam.


Ali ibn Ismail visited al-Kadhim, telling him he was going to visit visit the Caliph and was urged not to report the Imam. 

In this case, Muhammad ibn Ismail’s visit to Iraq was ordered by the Imam himself to prevent his brother Ali from betraying the Imam. So Muhammad could not have been urged to avoid travelling Iraq.

With such contradictions, can we truly rule out any one of those figures?

3 ) The Unlikely Suspects

The first personalities whose susceptiblity to betraying the Imam we will analyze shall be Muhammad and Ali ibn Ismail. 

We are led to a hadith of Imam al-Sadiq which, at first glance, seems to incriminate them both.

(Rijal al-Kashi)

On the authority of Ali bin Jaafar, he said: I heard my brother Musa, peace be upon him, he said: 

My father (al-Sadiq) said to Abdullah, my brother: 

Take away your two nephews, for they have filled me with foolishness. Indeed, they are the communion of Satan - meaning

Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ja’far and Ali ibn Ismail.

Abdullah was (Ismail)’s brother from both his father and mother’s side.”

وروى موسى بن القاسم

البجلي، عن علي بن جعفر، قالسمعت أخي موسى عليه السلام، قالقال

أبي لعبد الله أخيإليك ابني أخيك فقد ملياني بالسفه فإنهما شرك شيطان، يعنى

محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر وعلي بن إسماعيل، وكان عبد الله أخاه لأبيه وأمه ".

When we take a closer look at the report, it is Imam al-Kadhim who narrates it from his father al-Sadiq.

Imam al-Kadhim was fully aware of the status of Muhammad and Ali ibn Ismail as “the communion of Satan” who filled Imam al-Sadiq with “foolishness”.

Yet, somehow Imam al-Kadhim appointed Ali ibn Ismail as a very close deputy - to the extent some of al-Kadhim’s letters to his followers were in Ali ibn Ismail’s handwriting.

“Nowfali added, “My father narrated that Musa ibn Ja’far (s) had entrusted some of his affairs to Ali ibn Isma’il. Even some of the letters of the Imam (s) to his followers were written in Ali ibn Isma’il’s handwriting.”

قال النوفليقال أبيوكان موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام يأمر لعلي بن إسماعيل ويثق به حتى ربما خرج الكتاب منه بعض شيعته بخطعلي بن إسماعيل

Only the closest deputies and sufara’ (gates) of our Imams, such as Uthman ibn Sa’id (first safeer of the 12th Twelver Imam), were given the privilege of writing the Imam’s letter in their own handwriting.

Could the Imam have entrusted such privilege and position of deputyship to a “satanic fool” like Ali ibn Ismail?

Definitely not. 

But what about Muhammad ibn Ismail?

We know that despite al-Sadiq’s epithet of him as a satanic fool, Muhammad ibn Ismail was still entrusted with money by al-Kadhim and seems to have been in a position of deputyship.

In fact, al-Sadiq had even personally bequeathed a portion of his wealth before his death to the ‘satanic fool’ Muhammad ibn Ismail.

A personal choice, which sharia does not obligate him to. It was something which he did not in front of the caliph (as al-Sadiq did with his other heirs when he announced his will), but to his al-Sadiq’s own family.

This was done perhaps to protect Muhammad ibn Ismail from the caliph who previously aimed to kill Muhammad’s father Ismail on more than one occasion.

(Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol 9, page 194)

“On the authority of Yunus ibn Ya’qub that Abu Abdullah (al- Sadiq) when he bequeathed - some of his family said to him: You have bequeathed more than a third.


He said: I did not. Rather, such-and-such remained of my one- third, and I bequeath it to Muhammad ibn Ismail

السلام عليه الله عبد أبا ان يعقوب بن يونس عن الوليد بن محمد عن الحسين بن علي قد ولكن فعلت ما :قال الثلث من بأكثر أوصيت قد انك:أهله بعض له قال أوصى لما إسماعيل ابن لمحمد وهو وكذا كذا ثلثي من بقي

(Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol 16, page 116)

Sayyid al-Khoei says:

Then this Muhammad ibn Ismail (ibn Ja’far al-Sadiq) - was alive during the time of al-Sadiq who had allocated him money in his wasiya (will)”

بشئ له أوصى وقد السلام، عليه الصادق زمان كان هذا، إسماعيل بن محمد إن ثم يونس عن الوليد، بن محمد عن الحسين، بن علي عنبإسناده، الشيخ رواه ماله، من منه وأقل بالثلث الوصية باب ،الجزء :التهذيب .يعقوب بن

Thus, it seems as that Ali and Muhammad ibn Ismail held close positions to the Imams - and a particular duty assigned to them by al-Sadiq, by which they served al-Kadhim.

To protect them, al-Sadiq termed the duo ‘the communion of Satan’. 

This makes it quite unlikely either of them betraying al-Kadhim.

With that said, only option left is Muhammad ibn Ja’far al-Sadiq.

Muhammad ibn Ja’far was the full brother of Musa al-Kadhim, whose life after Harun is very well documented.

Known as ‘al-Dibaj’ (the Handsome), Muhammad ibn Ja’far led a band of Zaydi  followers in revolt against the Abbasid state during the era of al-Ma’mun and died in 203 AH / 818 CE.

Outliving Harun, Muhammad ibn Ja’far could not have been the culprit responsible for reporting al-Kadhim and whom died shortly after receiving Harun’s money.

So the real question is now:

How did three similar reports on the subject emerge, each identifying a different culprit - with none of them being actually guilty?!

4 ) Manufacturing Fiction

Allama Majlisi, the most prominent muhadith in post-classical Twelver Shi’ism, notes the following observation about a hadith promoting Waqifi creed.

(Bihar al-Anwar, vol 51, page 40)

It is possible the Imam said ‘Fulan’ - but the Waqifa [interpretively] expressed that epithet as ‘Musa’”

أنه قال: " فلانا " كما سيأتي فعبر عنه الواقفية بموسى.

‘Fulan’ is “a placeholder name for a person, used when a name is not known”.

If what Allama Majlisi said is true, one cannot help but wonder if the original report on the individual who report Imam al-Kadhim identified that person only as ‘Fulan’ -

And Twelver and proto-Twelver clergy interpretively expressed ‘Fulan’ as different people to their agendas with regards to the Abbasid state.

When al-Ridha became crown prince of the Abbasid state, they would have disassociated from Muhammad ibn Ja’far (Zaydi enemy of the state) and identified him as the ‘Fulan’ who led to al-Kadhim’s imprisonment.

When the Ismaili Qarmatians rose, Twelver scholars would have aimed to erase the close position Ismail ibn Jafar’s children had with Musa al-Kadhim. Thus, both Ali and Muhammad ibn Ismail were identified as ‘Fulan’ of the hadith on separate occasions.

This would be, as mentioned in the introduction, a tactic by Twelver scholars to remove any suspicion by the Buyid rulers that they are in collaboration with the Qarmatians. 

There, of course, was more emphasis on Muhammad ibn Ismail being the culprit due to the centrality of his figure as the Qa’im (Mahdi) of the Qarmatian creed.

Hope this was a beneficial read for you all

May Allah bless you


John Andaluso