A Doubtful Estrangement
The disassociation (bara’ah براءة) from Abu al-Khattab is considered to have been one of the most controversial moments in the Imamate of al-Sadiq (as).
This is because association with Abu al-Khattab was not a personal choice left to Shi’a to ascertain with their personal judgdement.
Rather,
This was an association Imam al-Sadiq had obligated on all Shi’a and enshrined in his decision to order them to have tawalla for Abu al-Khattab.
(Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 418)
“I was sitting, and Abu al-Hasan - Musa [al-Kadhim - passed by and with him a sheep.
So I told him: O boy, what exactly is your father [Imam al-Sadiq] doing?
He orders of something and then prohibits us from it.
He ordered us to have tawalla for Abu al-Khattab, then he ordered us to curse and disassociate from him?”
كنت قاعدا فمر أبو الحسن موسى (عليه السلام) ومعه بهمة قال: قلت: يا غلام ما ترى ما يصنع أبوك، يأمرنا بالشيء ثم ينهانا عنه، أمرناأننتولى أبا الخطاب ثم أمرنا أن نلعنه ونتبرء منه؟
According to Sayyid al-Khoei, the definition of tawalla here acts as a verb for the world wilayah.
(Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol 15, page 271)
“Imam al-Sadiq ordered (the Shi’a) to have wilayah for Abu al-Khattab, then ordered his disassociation.”
وفيها: أن أبا الخطاب قد أمر الصادق عليه السلام بولايته، ثم أمر بالبراءة منه
When Imam al-Sadiq ordered the Shi’a to observe wilayah for Abu al-Khattab,
‘Wilayah’ in this context can be summed up as an order given by Imam al-Sadiq to the Shi’a to associate with and obey a companion.
It is not a generic advice of love to a fellow Shi’i;
Imam al-Kadhim reveals the order of wilayah shown above as:
An appointment of Abu al-Khattab to an administrative position over the Shi’a:
(Rijal al-Kashi)
"A man asked Aba al-Hasan [al-Kadhim] عليه السلام and said: How did it happen that Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said about Abi al-Khattab what he said about him at first [in commissioning him] and then came the command to disassociate from him? So he said to him: Is it only for Abi Abdillah عليه السلام to appoint but not to depose!”
233] رجال الكشي: محمد بن مسعود، عن علي بن الحسن، عن معمر بن خلاد قال: قال أبو الحسن عليه السلام: إن أبا الخطاب أفسد أهلالكوفة فصاروا لا يصلون المغرب حتى يغيب الشفق و لم يكن ذلك إنما ذاك للمسافر و صاحب العلة، و قال: إن رجلا سأل أبا الحسن عليهالسلام فقال: كيف قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام في أبي الخطاب ما قال ثم جاءت البراءة منه؟ فقال له: أكان لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنيستعمل و ليس له أن يعزل
The idea that Imam al-Sadiq had appointed Abu al-Khattab to a position of religious deputyship is now an agreeable talking point - as confirmed by the Imam.
But, then, why exactly is Imam al-Sadiq deposing him disagreeable, to us?
“Is it only for Abi Abdillah عليه السلام to appoint but not to depose!”
We shall investigate why we suspect these words of the holy Imam are taqiyya, in our article today.
So without further ado
Let us begin!
A) DISASSOCIATION UPON HEARSAY
The Khattabi movement was a highly conspicuous facet of Kufan Shi’i society in the 750s CE.
Incurring enmity from the Abbasid state, Zaydi rebel leaders, and from detractors within Imam al-Sadiq’s movement itself -
Many rumors were conjured to disrepute the Khattabiya with aim to attack them in qualities such as religious piety and devotion to the Imam.
Yet, people who knew the Khattabiya closely saw a completely different side to them.
Mufaddal’s letter to Imam al-Sadiq makes light of this fact:
(Mukhtasar al-Basa’ir)
“You (Mufaddal) wrote to me speaking about about a people whom I know, whose conduct and state you had admired,
And that you were reported certain matters regarding them that would disrepute them, which I disliked upon hearing.
Yet you have seen from them nothing but good guidance, piety, and humility.”
كتبت تذكر أن قوما أنا أعرفهم كان أعجبك نحوهم وشأنهم وأنك أبلغت عنهم أمورا تروى عنهم (1) كرهتها لهم، ولم تر منهم إلا هديا حسنا،وورعا وتخشعا
Imam al-Sadiq above is quoting a letter from Mufaddal in which he describes the hostile state that the Khattabiya were placed under by their enemies:
“(Mufaddal was) reported certain matters regarding the Khattabiya that would disrepute them, which (Imam al-Sadiq) disliked upon hearing.”
Regardless of said rumors, however:
Mufaddal saw from the Khattabiya “nothing but good guidance, piety, and humility.”
Mufaddal saw nothing but “a conduct and state he had admired.”
Other Shi’i contemporaries to the Khattabiya made the same observation, as revealed in the following hadith:
(Rijal al-Kashi)
Narrated Hārūn ibn Khārijah:
“I and my brother Murād were with Abū ʿAbd Allāh (al-Sadiq). Murād said to him: ‘May I be your ransom, the mosque has become empty.’
The Imam said: ‘Because of what?’
Murad replied: ‘Because of those who were killed’ - meaning, the companions of Abū al-Khaṭṭāb.
Murad said: ‘I noted the Imam subsequently bent down toward the ground for a while, then raised his head and said:
‘No. The people claimed that they do not pray.”
554 - علي بن محمد القتيبي، قال: حدثنا الفضل بن شاذان، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن سنان، عن هارون بن خارجة قال: كنت أنا ومراد أخيعند أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فقال له مراد: جعلت فداك خف المسجد قال: ومم ذلك؟ قال: بهؤلاء الذين
قتلوا يعني أصحاب أبي الخطاب، قال: فأكب على الأرض مليا ثم رفع رأسه فقال كلا زعم القوم انهم لا يصلون
The followers of Imam al-Sadiq noted such immense piety from the followers of Abu al-Khattab -
They noted such great dedication to upholding prayer at the mosque, that when Abu al-Khattab died -
The following happened:
“The mosque had become empty”
While the Shi’a noted Abu al-Khattab and his companions upholding prayer - although at different prayer times from Sunnis (i.e, postponing Maghrib until the stars align) -
Sunnis did not understand the nuances of Khattabi prayer.
Since Sunnis did not see the Khattabiya praying at the mosque when they (Sunnis) would pray,
They caricatured the Khattabiya as being religious heretics who absconded prayer.
As Imam al-Sadiq states:
“The people (i.e, Sunnis) claimed that they do not pray.”
What is fascinating is that in Imam al-Sadiq’s attempt to disassociate from the Khattabiya -
He disregarded the Shi’i observation of Khattabi religious piety, and took the Sunni perspective:
“No. The people claimed that they do not pray.”
The Imam denied the mosque of Kufa became empty due to the demise of Abu al-Khattab and his companions.
Why?
Because the people claim they do not pray.
Is it logical for the Imam to deny a Shi’i companion’s piety, because of what people say - instead of surefire knowledge?
Definitely not.
Imam al-Sadiq explains in the following ahadith:
(Basa’ir al-Darajat)
Ahmad ibn Muhammad, from Ibn Sinān, from Dāwūd ibn Farqad, who said that he heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) say:
“We are a Household such that when we know good in someone, the sayings of men do not remove that person’s standing with regards to us.”
2) 36 - بصائر الدرجات: أحمد بن محمد عن ابن سنان عن داود بن فرقد أنه سمع أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) يقول: أنا أهل بيت إذا علمنامن أحد خيرا لم تزل ذلك عنه منا أقاويل الرجال. (3)
(Basa’ir al-Darajat)
Ibn Yazīd, from Muhammad ibn Sinān, from someone who mentioned it, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him), who said:
“We were with Imam al-Sadiq when a man from Ahl al-Kanāsa spoke ill of one of our companions.
The turned his face away from him.
Then he hinted a second time, whereupon Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) said:
‘If I were to perform tawalla for a man and then disassociate from him merely because of what people say, then how wretched I would be?.’”
37 - بصائر الدرجات: ابن يزيد عن محمد بن سنان عمن ذكره عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال:
كنا عنده فتناول رجل من أهل الكناسة رجلا من أصحابنا قال: فصد وجهه (4) عنه، قال: ثم غمز الثانية (5) فقال أبو عبد الله (عليهالسلام): إن كنت إنما أتولى الرجل وأبرأ منهم بأقاويل الناس فبئست
(Basa’ir al-Darajat)
Narrated ʿAlī ibn Ḥanẓala, who said:
“While I was with Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him), a man entered and disparaged some of the Shiʿa. Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) turned his face away from him. Then Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) turned his face back again.
The man thought that Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) had not understood, so he repeated his words.
Then Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) grasped his beard with his left hand until I thought it would remain in his hand, and he said:
‘If I were to perform tawalla for a man and then disassociate from him merely because of what people report about them, I do not deserve to be called an Imam.”
9) عن علي بن حنظلة (10) قال: بينا أنا عند أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) إذ دخل رجل فغمز أناسا من الشيعة فأعرض عنه أبو عبد الله(عليهالسلام) بوجهه قال: ثم أقبل أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام) بوجهه
أن أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) لم يفهم، فأعاد الكلام.
فتناول أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام) بيده اليسرى لحيته حتى ظننت أنها ستبقى في يده ثم قال: إن كنت أنا أتولى الرجل وأبرأ منهم على مايبلغني عنهم لبئست النسبة (1) نسبتي. (2
Therefore,
When Imam al-Sadiq performed the following regarding Abu al-Khattab:
“He ordered us to have tawalla for Abu al-Khattab, then he ordered us to curse and disassociate from him?”
And justifies his action based on “what people say”, instead of concrete facts:
“No. The people claimed that they do not pray.”
We must necessarily reject the Imam’s disassociation and view it as taqiyya.
Why?
Because the Imam considers himself to be wretched, if he truly disassociates from Abu al-Khattab - simply based on what people say:
‘If I were to perform tawalla for a man and then disassociate from him merely because of what people say, then how wretched I would be?.’”
The Imam says he is not worthy of being called an Imam if he performs such a thing:
‘If I were to perform tawalla for a man and then disassociate from him merely because of what people report about them, I do not deserve to be called an Imam.”
Hence,
We cannot accept Imam al-Sadiq’s disassociation from Abu al-Khattab to be true, unless we are to reject Imam al-Sadiq himself as Imam.
B) SIMILAR CASE STUDIES
It is not simply Sunnis and Zaydis who manufactured rumors about Abu al-Khattab.
The Shi’i opponents of Abu al-Khattab were also involved in this process,
Their condemnations are recorded in the books of ‘Ilm al-Rijal (biographical, opinion-based evaluations of Shi’i personalities).
Yet, can we take these condemnations at face value?
The praise or condemnation of the Shi’a does not define a character, in the eyes of our Imam.
The case of Umar ibn Shajara is the best example of this:
(Al-Ikhtisas)
“I was with ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn al-Mukhtār and Saʿd ibn Luqmān, along with ʿUmar ibn Shajara al-Kindī, in the presence of Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him).
Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) said: ‘Who is this?’
They said to him: ‘ʿUmar ibn Shajara,’ and we praised him, mentioning his condition, his piety, his love for his brothers, and his generosity and kindness toward them.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) said to them:
‘I see that you have no real knowledge of people. I am satisfied with merely a glance at a man, to discern his true nature.
Indeed, this one is among the most vile of people, or among the worst of people.’
And ʿUmar later, after, did not leave a forbidden act except that he performed it”.
كنت أنا وعبد الواحد بن المختار وسعد بن لقمان (6) ومعهما (7) عمر بن شجرةالكندي عند أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) فقال أبو عبد الله(عليه السلام): من هذا؟ فقالا له: عمر بن شجرة، وأثنينا عليه وذكرنا من حاله وورعه وحبه لإخوانه وبذله وصنيعه إليهم.
فقال لهما أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام): ما أرى لكما علما بالناس، إني لاكتفي من الرجل باللحظة، إن ذا من أخبث الناس أو من شر الناس،قال: فكان عمر بعد
ما نزع عن محرم (1) الله ركبه
Despite the Shi’a attesting to Umar ibn Shajara following respects:
- Piety
- Love for his Shi’i brethren
- Generosity and kindness towards the Shi’a
Imam al-Sadiq told the Shi’a:
“I see that you have no real knowledge of people. I am satisfied with merely a glance at a man, to discern his true nature.
Indeed, this one is among the most vile of people, or among the worst of people.”
What happened after Imam al-Sadiq exposed Umar?
And ʿUmar later, after, did not leave a forbidden act except that he performed it”.
Thus, the Imam’s assessment was correct and the Shi’a wrong.
However,
It is worth mentioning that at times - the incorrect assessment of the Shi’a about a Shi’i personality, is derived from the answers of the Imam himself.
There would be jealous Shi’a, who would caricature their opponents and spread vile rumors against them.
Imam al-Ridha clarifies regarding Hisham ibn al-Hakam, the prominent mutakallim (i.e, man permitted by our Imams to engage in debate):
(Rijal al-Kashi, vol 2, page 547)
“Imam al-Ridha said:
Hisham was an earnest slave (of Allah) however he was harmed by his companions out of envy from him”
6 - حدثنا حمدويه وإبراهيم ابنا نصير، قالا: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى، قال: حدثني زحل عمر بن عبد العزيز بن أبي بشار، عن سليمان بنجعفر الجعفري، قال: سألت أبا الحسن الرضا عليه السلام عن هشام بن الحكم؟ قال، فقال لي: رحمه الله كان عبدا ناصحا أوذي من قبلأصحابه حسدا منهم له.
One of the rumors spread by Hisham’s enemies was that his engagement in public debates, led to the Abbasids catching attention to the activities of Imam al-Kadhim (as) and eventually murdering him.
Imam al-Ridha confirmed their rumors, out of taqiyya from these enemies of Hisham.
However, even after doing so, he ordered the Shi’a to uphold wilayah to Hisham:
(Rijal al-Kashi)
Mūsā ibn al-Raqī said to Abū al-Ḥasan the Second (al-Ridha): May I be your ransom, it has been reported from you by al-Mashriqī and Abū al-Aswad that they asked you about Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam, and you said: “He is astray and misleading, a partner in the blood of Abū al-Ḥasan.” So what do you say about him, my master- should we perform tawalla to him?
The Imam said: Yes.
He repeated it to him - Should we show tawalla to him? - seeking to confirm the Imam’s answer.
The Imam said: Yes, observe wilayah to him; yes, observe wilayah to him to him. When I tell you something, then act upon it, and do not seek to contend or argue with it. Go out now and say to them: “He has ordered me to observe wilayah to Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam.”
Then al-Mashriqī said to us in his presence, while he was listening: Did I not tell you that this has been his view regarding Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam on more than one occasion?
58 - عنه عن حمدوية بن نصير قال: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى العبيدي، قال:
حدثني جعفر بن عيسى، قال: قال موسى بن الرقي لأبي الحسن الثاني عليه السلام: جعلت فداك، روى عنك المشرقي وأبو الأسود أنهاسألاك عن هشام بن الحكم، فقلت ضال مضل شرك في دم أبي الحسن، فما تقول فيه يا سيدي نتولاه؟
قال: نعم، فأعاد عليه نتولاه على جهة الاستقطاع قال: نعم تولوه، نعم تولوه إذا قلت لك فاعمل به ولا تريد أن تغالب به. اخرج الان فقل لهم: قدأمرني بولاية هشام بن الحكم، فقال المشرقي لنا بين يديه وهو يسمع: ألم أخبرتكم أن هذا رأيه في هشام بن الحكم غير مرة
The same is shown in the case of Imam al-Jawad’s companions Muhammad ibn Sinan and Safwan ibn Yahya.
Their enemies would spread vile rumors against their character.
This led Imam al-Jawad to curse Safwan and Muhammad, under the justification of them opposing his command.
Yet,
In the year after - Imam al-Jawad, ordered the Shi’a to uphold wilayah for Safwan and Muhammad.
(Rijal al-Kashi)
“Narrated Muhammad ibn Isma'il ibn Buzay':
Imam al-Jawad used to instruct me to curse Safwan ibn Yahya and Muhammad ibn Sinan.
He said: "They opposed my command."
When the following year arrived:
Imam al-Jawad said to Muhammad ibn Sahl al-Bahrani: 'Have wilayah (love, association, and following for) Safwan ibn Yahya and Muhammad ibn Sinan. Indeed, I am pleased with them”
- " حدثني محمد بن قولويه، قال: حدثني سعد، عن أحمد بن هلال، عن
محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع، أن أبا جعفر عليه السلام كان يخبرني بلعن صفوان
ابن يحيى، ومحمد بن سنان، فقال: إنهما خالفا أمري، وقال: فلما كان من قابل،
قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام لمحمد بن سهل البحراني: تول صفوان بن يحيى،
ومحمد بن سنان، فقد رضيت عنهما ".
Why did Imam al-Jawad curse Safwan and Muhammad?
The Imam stated it is because:
“They opposed my command”
However, the following year, the Imam ordered people to perform wilayah (association and obedience to Safwan and Muhammad).
How could the Imam trust disobedient characters like Safwan and Muhammad to be the recipients of the Shia’s obedience?
Could they not deviate the people, given their tendencies to oppose the Imam’s command?
The following hadith reveals the truth of the matter:
(Rijal al-Kashi)
“Narrated Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Dawood al-Qumi:
I heard Imam al-Jawad mentioning the goodness of Safwan ibn Yahya and Muhammad ibn Sinan.
The Imam said: "May Allah be pleased with both of them as I am pleased with them. They never opposed me at any time.
This is after what has been reported about them that I have heard from our associates."
1 - " حدثني محمد بن قولويه، قال: حدثني سعد بن عبد الله، قال: حدثني أبو جعفر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن رجل، عن علي بنالحسين بن داود القمي، قال: سمعت أبا جعفر الثاني عليه السلام يذكر صفوان بن يحيى، ومحمد ابن سنان بخير، وقال: رضي الله عنهمابرضائي عنهما، لا (فما) خالفاني قط، هذا بعد ما جاء عنه فيهما ما قد سمعته من أصحابنا
The Imam ordered the Shi’a to perform wilayah to Safwan and Muhammad, after cursing them, for an important reason:
“They never opposed me at any time”
Wilayah could never be ordered for characters who could possibly disobey the Imam.
Any condemnation for the recipients of the Imam’s wilayah must necessarily be taqiyya.
Thus,
When Abu al-Khattab’s wilayah was ordered by Imam al-Sadiq - and then the Imam ordered the Shi’a to disassociate from him,
The disassociation must necessarily be viewed as a product of taqiyya and not a literal fact.
Because the Imam would not appoint someone to lead the Shi’a religiously and obligate them to associate and obey him, if they have tendencies to disobey or apostate.
Imam al-Sadiq says:
(Al-Ikhtisas)
ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Faḍl al-Hashimi, who said:
Abu ʿAbd Allah (peace be upon him) said to me:
“O ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Faḍl, indeed God - Blessed and Exalted is He - created us from the light of His عظمتِه (majesty), fashioned us by His mercy, and created your spirits from us. Thus we belong to you, and you yearn toward us.
By God, if the people of the East and the West were to exert themselves to add a single man to our Shiʿa or to remove a single man from them, they would not be able to do so.
They are indeed recorded with us by their names, the names of their fathers, their clans, and their lineages.
O ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Faḍl, if I wished, I would show you your name in our register.”
He said: Then he called for a scroll and unrolled it, and I found it white, with no trace of writing on it. I said: “O son of the Messenger of God, I see no trace of writing on it.” He said: Then he passed his hand over it, and I found it written, and I found my name at the bottom of it. So I prostrated to God in gratitude.
39 - الاختصاص: محمد بن علي عن ابن المتوكل عن علي بن إبراهيم عن اليقطيني عن أبي أحمد الأزدي (5) عن عبد الله بن الفضلالهاشمي قال: قال لي أبو عبد الله(عليه السلام): يا عبد الله بن الفضل إن الله تبارك وتعالى خلقنا من نور عظمته وصنعنا برحمته وخلقأرواحكم منا فنحن نحن إليكم وأنتم تحنون إلينا، والله لو جهد أهل المشرق والمغرب أن يزيدوا في شيعتنا رجلا أو ينقصوا منهم رجلا ماقدروا على ذلك، وإنهم لمكتوبون عندنا بأسمائهم وأسماء
آبائهم وعشائرهم وأنسابهم، يا عبد الله بن
يا عبد الله بن الفضل ولو شئت لأريتك اسمك في صحيفتنا، قال: ثم دعا بصحيفة فنشرها فوجدتها بيضاء ليس فيها أثر الكتابة فقلت: ياابن رسول الله ما أرى فيها أثر الكتابة قال: فمسح يده عليها فوجدتها مكتوبة ووجدت في أسفلها اسمي فسجدت لله شكرا
For the Imam to order the Shi’a to uphold the wilayah of a certain man,
The Imam would have definitely check the scrolls of Kitab Ali, to make sure if this man will truly remain a Shi’i for the rest of his life.
This is because the true Shi’a are “are indeed recorded with us by their names, the names of their fathers, their clans, and their lineages”.
This means Abu al-Khattab’s wilayah is not something that can be revoked, it is not something that can appointed and then deposed:
“Is it only for Abi Abdillah عليه السلام to appoint but not to depose!”
I hope this was beneficial
Wasalaam
John Andaluso
