Rewriting Babhood
Our article today represents our second post focused on the historicity of the concept of Babhood.
The mainstream belief is that Imam al-Mahdi entered the Major Occultation in 941 CE and did not directly appoint any more deputies to represent him to the Shi’a.
The problem is that, despite overwhelming evidence of their existence, appointment, and nature of their task -
The Shi’i texts appear very hazy to the average reader on the exact title of these deputies.
We will investigate whether this vagueness was a spontaneous phenomenon, caused by mere scholarly negligence?
Or was it a result of systematic manipulation and rewriting the memory of Babhood in the Shi’i conscience, for socio-political purposes?
So without further ado
Let us begin!
—
A) STRANGE VARIATIONS
Shaykh Muhammad Hadi al-Yusufi is one of the most prominent historical researchers in the Hawza of Najaf.
Shaykh al-Yusufi authored an eight-volume book on Islamic history, entitled Mawsu’at al-Tarikh al-Islami موسوعة التاريخ الاسلامي.
In it, he makes light of many aspects of Shi’i and Islamic history - including the Ghayba al-Sughra period.
In the chapter where he speaks of the state of Shi’a after the death of Imam al-Askari (as),
He cites a hadith where a Shi’i seeks to discover who the true Imam is after Imam al-Askari - so he could pay khums to him.
The Shi’i sends an emissary to discern the matter for him.
The emissary went forth to Ja’far ibn Ali al-Hadi (the brother of Imam al-Askari and his legal heir),
To assess the validity of his claim to Imamate and hence, worthiness of khums - but was not convinced.
Disgruntled with his lack of success to find the new Imam,
The emissary was then was directed to a figure known as the Bab -
Who relayed to the emissary he is the only true and appointed trustee of Imam al-Askari’s wealth.
Knowing this -
The hadith Shaykh Yusufi cites has three known variations.
1 ) The first variation which is from Shaykh Yusufi’s copy of al-Kafi:
(Mawsu’at al-Tarikh al-Islami, from al-Kafi)
“So he sent a man from among his companions, whose kunya was Abū Ṭālib, with a letter to Sāmarrāʾ.
He arrived there and went to Jaʿfar, and asked him for a proof, but he was unable to provide one.
He was then directed to Bab, so he went to him and delivered the letter.
A reply came out to him saying: “May God reward you for your master (Imam Askari), for he has died; and he has willed the money that was directed to him to a trustworthy person, to deal with it in whatever manner he sees fit.”
فبعث رجلاً من أصحابه يكنّى أبا طالب بكتاب معه إلى سامرّاء ! فوردها وصار إلى جعفر وسأله عن برهان فلم يتهيّأ له ! فدُل على البابفصار إليه وأنفذ الكتاب ، فخرج إليه الجواب : آجرك اللََّه في صاحبك فقد مات ، وأوصى بالمال الذي كان معه إلى ثقة ليعمل فيه بما يحب (١) .
While it is not known if the emissary ended up believing in the Bab’s claim,
Shaykh al-Yusufi discerns the identity of the Bab’s identity as the following:
(Mawsu’at al-Tarikh al-Islami)
“Thus it appears in this report that mention is made of “al-Bāb” without naming this Bab explicitly.
Perhaps this is because he was well known—that he was Shaykh ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-ʿAmrī al-Asadī, the Bab of al-Hādi, and thereafter of al-ʿAskarī and then of his son al-Mahdī in Sāmarrāʾ.”
كذا جاء في هذا الخبر ذكر « الباب » بلا تسمية له ، ولعلّه
لمعلوميته أنه الشيخ عثمان بن سعيد العَمري الأسدي باب الهادي عليه السلام ، ومن قِبل العسكري له ثمّ لابنه المهدي عليهما السلام فيسامرّاء .
Shaykh Yusufi’s copy of al-Kafi definitely describes a figure by the title of the Bab.
He defines the Bab as none but:
Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Amri
2 ) The second variation of the same hadith is from a different copy of al-Kafi.
In this version, the Bab is not a person - but the physical door of a deputy (presumably Uthman ibn Sa’id)’s house.
The emissary knocks the door of the deputy’s house and then “delivers” the letter to the “companion” -
Thus, the word “Bab” here cannot refer to a person, but only a physical door:
“So he sent a man known as Abū Ṭālib. He arrived at al-ʿAskar (Sāmarrāʾ) with a letter, went to Jaʿfar, and asked him for a proof. He replied: “That is not possible at this time.”
Then he went to the door and delivered the letter to our companions.
A reply came out to him:
“May God reward you for your master (Imam Askari), for he has died; and he entrusted the money that was with him to a trustworthy person, to deal with it as he sees fit.”
And his letter was answered.”
19 - علي بن محمد، عن الحسن بن عيسى العريضي أبي محمد قال: لما مضى أبو محمد عليه السلام ورد رجل من أهل مصر بمال إلىمكة للناحية، فاختلف عليه فقال:
بعض الناس: إن أبا محمد عليه السلام مضى من غير خلف والخلف جعفر وقال بعضهم:
مضى أبو محمد عن خلف، فبعث رجل يكنى بأبي طالب فورد العسكر ومعه كتاب، فصار إلى جعفر وسأله عن برهان، فقال، لا يتهيأ في هذاالوقت، فصار إلى الباب وأنفذ الكتاب إلى أصحابنا فخرج إليه: أجرك الله في صاحبك، فقد مات وأوصى بالمال الذي كان معه إلى ثقة ليعملفيه بما يحب وأجيب عن كتابه
3 ) The third variation of the hadith is from al-Irshad by Shaykh al-Mufid.
Al-Irshad is a comparatively later source - written during Al-Ghayba al-Kubra, whereas Al-Kafi was written during Al-Ghayba al-Sughra.
In this version, Bab is again not a person - but the physical door of a deputy.
Not just any deputy, but the deputy is explicitly described by the narrator as a Safeer:
“So he sent a man known as Abū Ṭālib to al-ʿAskar to investigate the matter and its authenticity, carrying with him a letter. The man went to Jaʿfar and asked him for a proof. Jaʿfar said to him: “It is not possible for me at this time.” Then the man went to the door and delivered the letter to our associates who were designated with Safeerhood.
A reply came out to him: “May God reward you for your companion, for he has died; and he entrusted the money that was with him to a trustworthy person to act with it as he wishes.” His letter was answered, and the matter turned out as he had been told.
فبعث رجلا يكنى أبو طالب إلى العسكر يبحث عن الامر وصحته ومعه كتاب، فصار الرجل إلى جعفر وسأله عن برهان، فقال له جعفر: لايتهيأ لي في هذا الوقت، فصار الرجل إلى الباب وأنفذ الكتاب إلى أصحابنا الموسومين بالسفارة، فخرج إليه: آجرك الله في صاحبك، فقدمات وأوصى بالمال الذي كان معه إلى ثقة يعمل فيه بما يحب وأجيب عن كتابه وكان الامر كما قيل له.
Three different variations:
- The first variation refers to the Bab, as the title of the Imam’s spiritual deputy. It means “The spiritual gate / door to the Imam”
- The second variation refers to “Bab” as a separate, physical door of the deputy who is not given a title
- The third variation refers to “Bab” as a separate, physical door of the deputy who is titled as a “Safeer”
Given the fact that the title Bab is dead in mainstream Twelver Shi’ism and the word Safeer extremely popular,
It would be logical to read the variations of the hadith as following a sequence of events as follow:
- The title of the Imam’s spiritual deputy was original “Bab” - as reflected in 1st variant
- Scholars attempted to remove traces of the title “Bab” and change its meaning - as reflected in 2nd variant
- Scholars ultimately put forth a replacement to “Bab”, with an alternative and less controversial replacement: Safeer. - As reflected in 3rd variant.
Logic alone, however, cannot prove manipulation of the text in the way we are proposing.
So what, exactly, happened here?
B) THE BAB OF ALLAH
To ascertain whether manipulative alteration was practiced in the previous hadith,
Let us first look at this hadith is narrated by Imam al-Baqir from Imam Ali:
(Rijal al-Kashi)
“Imam Ali said: "O Abu Dharr, indeed Salman is the Bab of Allah on Earth.
Whoever recognizes him is a believer, and whoever denies him is an unbeliever. Indeed, Salman is one of us, Ahlulbayt”
فقال أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام): يا با ذر إن سلمان لو حدثك بما يعلم لقلت: رحم الله قاتل سلمان يا با ذر إن سلمان باب الله في الأرض،من عرفه كان مؤمنا، ومن أنكره كان كافرا، وإن سلمان منا أهل البيت
Salman is the Bab of Allah on earth.
How exactly is he the Bab (gate) of Allah, if he is not a prophet or Imam?
Imam al-Baqir explains to Zurara ibn A’yan, that Allah would often speak about Himself - but in fact refer to the Imams:
(Tafsif al-Ayyashi)
“Narrated Zurara:
I asked Imam al-Baqir about the saying of God, Mighty and Majestic:
“They (wrong-doers) did not wrong Us, but rather they were wronging themselves.”
The Imam said:
God is greater, more mighty, more majestic, and more inviolable than to be wronged by the creation.
Rather, Allah joined us with Himself, so He made wronging us equal to wronging Him, and our authority (wilaya) to be His authority.
عن زرارة ، عن أبي جعفر صلوات الله عليه قال : سألته عن قول الله عز و جل { و ما ظَلَمُونا و لكِنْ كانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ }
قال : إن الله أعظم و أعز و أجل و أمنع من أن يظلم ، و لكنه خلطنا بنفسه ، فجعل ظلمنا ظلمه ، و ولايتنا ولايته
Hence, we have narrations from our Imams like:
“Narrated Abu al-Jarud, from Abu Abd Allah, peace be upon him, concerning the the verse: :
“Can there be another god that exists simultaneously with Allah?”
The Imam said: This means an imam of guidance together with an imam of misguidance in a single age.”
عن أبي الجارود، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) في قوله تعالى: * (ءاله مع الله) * - الآية، قال: أي إمام هدى مع إمام ضلال في قرن واحد
Hence,
Allah, in the batin of Quranic verses, is the Imam.
Thus,
When Salman is being described as the Bab of Allah -
It means he is the Bab of the Imam:
The Imam’s spiritual deputy who represents him infallibly in word and action.
How can we apply this concept now to our hadith of the previous section?
C) MANIPULATION OR COINCIDENCE?
Upon the death of the third “safeer” of Imam al-Mahdi, al-Husayn ibn Ruh al-Nawbakhti,
The pursuers of power and wealth rushed to quickly occupy his seat and establish themselves to the Shi’a.
One such claimant was Muhammad ibn Ali al-Bazufari (or al-Nazufari) - seemingly from a family of Abbasid beaurucrats, like al-Nawbakhti, with a reputation of Shi’i sympathy.
Al-Bazufari seems to have spread the claim that Al-Husayn ibn Ruh appointed him so widely and successfully - until the people of Kirman received news from Iraq saying:
“(Al-Husayn ibn Ruh) had died and did not appoint anyone to take his place in issuing the tawqi‘at (i.e, writing the Mahdi’s words in their handwriting). “
No one was appointed by Husayn ibn Ruh? This is a complete and utter disaster for the Shi’a.
They would be thinking questions, such as:
Have we entered al-Ghayba al-Kubra? What does this period entail for our communication with the Qa’im?
Luckily for the people of Kirman, Al-Bazufari had a ready answer from the words of Imam al-Sadiq:
Al-Bazufari was questioned about this, and he claimed - may he be cursed - that (Babhood) became a matter of personal revelation, and he argued this using the report of al-Sadiq, peace be upon him:
“If God wills to manifest the matter of the Qa’im affair, He conceals the Qaim’s Babs.”
Al-Bazufari claimed that al-Husayn ibn Ruh not appointing a successor meant that:
“The Qaim’s spiritual deputies, named explicitly by Imam al-Sadiq as his “Babs”, will now operate in a concealed way.
Their identities would be concealed from the public.
The Babs operating in this fashion is a sign that the events preceding the Qa’im’s rise have now begun.”
Al-Bazufari claimed he is one of such concealed Babs, in Imam al-Sadiq’s hadith, and seemed to have gained traction until another piece of news reached Kirman from Iraq:
“it then reached us that the bequest (of deputyship) from al-Nawbakhti passed to al-Sammari,and that this was the one to whom the bequest was made excluding al-Bazufari. And God knows best.”
The news were clear:
The new Bab is not al-Bazufari, it is Ali ibn Muhammad al-Samarri.
(Uyun al-Mu’jizat from the Najaf manuscript)
“Abu Imran said that Abu al-Qasim (may God be pleased with them both) said that he has now passed away, and that the news reached us in Kirman that he appointed Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Ali al-Bazufari (may God be pleased with him).
Today the news reached us in Kirman that he had died and did not appoint anyone to take his place in issuing the tawqi‘at (i.e, writing the Mahdi’s words in their handwriting).
Al-Bazufari was questioned about this, and he claimed - may he be cursed - that (Babhood) became a matter of personal revelation, and he argued this using the report of al-Sadiq, peace be upon him:
“If God wills to manifest the matter of the Qa’im affair, He conceals the Qaim’s Babs.”
Abu al-Qasim said that it then reached us that the bequest from al-Nawbakhti passed to al-Sammari, and that this was the one to whom the bequest was made - excluding al-Bazufari (may God be pleased with him). And God knows best.”
- وقرأت من خطّ نسب إلى أبي عمران الكرماني تلميذ أبي القاسم عليّ بن أحمد الكوفي الموسوي (رضي الله عنه)، أنّه سمع أبا القاسم(رضي الله عنه) يذكر: إنّ التوقيعات تخرج على يد عثمان بن عمرو العمري ـ وكان السّفير بين صاحب الزّمان وبين الشّيعة ـ وأنّه أوصى بعدوفاته إلى ابنه أبي جعفر محمّد بن عثمان (رضي الله عنه)، فقام مقام أبيه، وكان أبو القاسم الحسين بن روح النّوبختي كاتبه، أوصى إليهفي وقت وفاته، وكان أبو القاسم (رضي الله عنه) عنه السّفير كذلك، وقال أبو عمران: قال أبو القاسم رضي الله عنهما، ثمّ أنّه الان توفي،وبلغنا الخبر بكرمان: أنّه أوصى إلى أبي جعفر محمّد بن عليّ النّزوفري (رضي الله عنه)، فعلى أيدي هؤلاء تخرج التّوقيعات، واليوم بلغناالخبر بكرمان: أنّه توفى ولم يوص إلى من يقوم مقامه في إخراج التّوقيعات، فقيل له في ذلك فزعم (لع) من أن يوحى، واحتجّ بخبر الصّادقعليه السلام: «إذا أراد الله أن يظهر أمره عليه السلام ستر أبوابه». قال أبو القاسم: ثمّ بلغنا أنّ الوصيّة من النّوبختي صارت إلى السمّريوهذا الّذي أبي الوصيّة دون النزوفري (رضي الله عنه)، والله العالم.
Knowing that al-Bazufari claimed the hadith of Imam al-Sadiq applied to him:
“If God wills to manifest the matter of the Qa’im affair, He conceals the Qaim’s Babs.”
It is interesting to us when Ali ibn Muhammad al-Samarri, the rival to Bazufari’s claim of Babhood,
Is reported to have used the same hadith on his deathbed.
In the book al-Muqana’ by Shaykh Ubayd Allah al-Suddabadi (a 5th century AH Twelver scholar),
The incident of Samarri’s deathbed is reported as follows:
(Al-Muqana’, page 146):
“The Shiʿa used to differ to Samarri him and would turn to him.
When death came upon him, those of the remaining elders of the Shiʿa gathered around him and said to him, “Tell who will succeed you after you.”
But he did not answer them.
When they persisted in speaking to him and repeated it time after time, he said to them, “I have not been commanded to appoint anyone, and after me there is no Bab to which one may turn.”
And he reminded them of the transmitted report from the Imams (peace be upon them):
“When God, exalted is He, wills to manifest the Master of the Affair (the Qa’im), He conceals his Babs.
So they (Shi’a elders) acknowledged the report and its soundness.
وكانت الشيعة تختلف اليه وتقصده، فلما حضرته الوفاة اجتمع اليه من كان بقي من شيوخ الشيعة وقالوا له: عرفنا من لنا بعدك، فلم يجبهمعن كلامهم، فلما طال خطابهم وتكرر مرة بعد ثانية قال لهم: ما أمرت بشيء وليس بعدي باب يقصد
وذكرّهم الخبر المأثور عن الائمة عليهم السلام ان الله تعالى اذا اراد إظهار صاحب الامر ستر ابوابه
فاعترفوا بالخبر وصحته
When the Shi’a elders (i.e, high ranking clerics) went to al-Samarri to ask about his successor,
He said:
“I have not been commanded to appoint anyone, and after me there is no Bab to which one may turn.”
This means that Babhood was not merely a title of veneration, it was an appointed position recognized by the “sufara” - such as al-Samarri - themselves.
Since there will be no appointed Babs after him, al-Samarri explained the alternative to the Shi’i clergy through this hadith:
And he reminded them of the transmitted report from the Imams (peace be upon them):
“When God, exalted is He, wills to manifest the Master of the Affair (the Qa’im), He conceals his Babs.”
This is the same hadith of Imam al-Sadiq used by al-Bazufari.
Al-Samarri is confirming the validity of the hadith used by Bazufari and is essentially telling the Shi’i clergy:
There are no more Babs appointed publicly (i.e, through purported letters from the Mahdi to the Shi’i townspeople).
Babs will now become concealed and operate secretly, until the Mahdi’s rise.
How did the Shi’i clergy respond to this hadith?
“So they (Shi’a elders) acknowledged the report and its soundness.”
The Holy sufara’ of Imam al-Mahdi accepted the concept of Babhood, described themselves using it, and the Shi’i clergy affirmed it!
Clearly,
Babhood was a much more prominent feature in mainstream Shi’ism before al-Ghayba al-Kubra.
But what happened?
How could this concept lose its title (Babhood, replaced by “safeer”) and overall importance?
This change could happen when matters such as the whole hadith of al-Samarri above elucidating Babhood on his deathbed,
is reduced to one sentence in major hadith compilations focused on the Occultation of Imam Mahdi, like al-Tusi’s Ghayba:
“We returned to al-Samarri while he was breathing his last breaths, and it was said to him, “Who is your appointed successor after you?”
He replied, “God has a command that He will bring to completion and decree.”
This was the last statement that was heard from him—may God be pleased with him and grant him His pleasure.”
عدنا إليه وهو يجود بنفسه، فقيل له: من وصيك من بعدك؟ فقال: لله أمر هو بالغه وقضى فهذا آخر كلام سمع منه رضي الله عنه وأرضاه.
There is a clear and vivid attempt of removing al-Samarri’s inferences to Babhood in entirety.
Active alteration with an agenda, which would suggest the same alteration happened in the hadith referring to Uthman ibn Sa’id’s Babhood in Section B.
It is to cover the fact that Babhood is a concept affirmed to by Imams al-Baqir and al-Sadiq in the previous ahadith,
Whereas no such mention is made of Safeerhood by our Imams.
And to cover the idea that Babs could still theoretically exist, despite the Major Occultation!
Perhaps, it is under this premise of “concealed Babhood” that certain figures post-Major Occultation were accepted as “safeer of the Mahdi” by some clergy,
But nothing specific is known about their claims to Safeerhood.
We know for one that Shaykh al-Saduq's nephew Shaykh Muntajab al-Deen seemed to believe there were living sufara' of the Twelfth Imam, well into the times of Shaykh al-Mufid and al-Tusi (i.e, the late 900s CE):
"Sheikh Al-Muntajab Al-Din in his Fihrist states:
'The trustworthy Sheikh Abu Al-Faraj Al-Mudhaffar bin Ali bin Al-Husayn Al-Hamdani: he is reliable and notable, and he is one of the sufara' of Imam Al-Mahdi (peace be upon him).
He met Sheikh Al-Mufid, Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Nu'man Al-Harithi Al-Baghdadi, and attended the lectures of Sayyid Al-Murtada and the blessed Sheikh Abu Ja'far Al-Tusi."
الشيخ منتجب الدين في فهرسته: " الشيخ الثقة أبو الفرج المظفر بن علي بن الحسين الحمداني: ثقة، عين، وهو من سفراء الامام صاحبالزمان عليه السلام، أدرك الشيخ المفيد أبا عبد الله محمد بن محمد بن النعمان الحارثي البغدادي، وجلس مجلس درس السيد المرتضىوالشيخ الموفق أبي جعفر الطوسي، وقرأ على المفيد ولم يقرا عليهما، أخبرنا الوالد عن والده، عنه. مؤلفاته منها: كتاب الغيبة، كتاب السنة،كتاب الزهري في الاخبار، كتاب المنهاج. كتاب الفرائض ".
Another scholar:
"Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ismail: Al-Muhammadi, reliable, virtuous, pious, and a safeer of the 12th Imam (peace be upon him), as stated by Sheikh Al-Muntajab Al-Din."
علي بن محمد بن إسماعيل: المحمدي، ثقة، فاضل، دين، سفير الإمام (ع) قاله الشيخ منتجب الدين
Perhaps, the most blatant and well known contradiction to the idea of there not being deputies of the 12th Imam after al-Samarri is the following letter recorded al-Ihtijaj by al-Tabrasi.
Al-Tabrasi mentions the existence of a Nahiya Muqdasa (holy office of the Twelfth Imam), with a branch located in Hijaz (i.e, around Mecca and Medina).
If there were a central holy office, with different branches in different regions of the Muslim world - then it means there continued to be deputies of the Twelfth Imam in 410 AH (whereas al-Samarri, the 4th safeer, died in 329 AH).
The transmitter of the letter claimed he received directly from Imam al-Mahdi’s office, meaning he probably saw himself as a concealed Bab.
(Al-Ihtijaj)
"A letter was mentioned that arrived from al-Nahiya al-Muqadassa, may God protect and guard it, during the remaining days of Safar in the year 410 AH. It was addressed to Sheikh Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Nu'man, may God sanctify his soul and illuminate his grave. Its transmitter stated that he received it from one of Imam Mahdi's office in Hijaz. It is for the righteous brother and the wise guardian, Sheikh Al-Mufid Abu Abdullah."
7 - الإحتجاج: ذكر كتاب ورد من الناحية المقدسة حرسها الله ورعاها في أيام بقيت من صفر سنة عشر وأربعمائة على الشيخ أبي عبد اللهمحمد بن محمد بن النعمان قدس الله روحه ونور ضريحه، ذكر موصله أنه تحمله من ناحية متصلة بالحجاز نسخته:
للأخ السديد، والولي الرشيد، الشيخ المفيد أبي عبد الله
D) THE OPPONENTS SPEAK
Al-Husayn ibn Ruh mentions a salutatory prayer for the elite of the Imam who are entrusted with the Shi’a.
The prayer says:
(Tusi’s Tahdheeb al-Ahkam, vol 6, p 116)
“Peace be upon you, O Fulan son of Fulan.
I bear witness you are Bab al-Mawla (Bab of the Imam). You represented him and acted for him faithfully.
Never did you disobey him. You excercised your position dedicated only to him, and preceded others in your loyalty to him.
I come to you, aware of the truth of which you are upon - and that you did not betray (the Imam) in representing him and being his safeer.
Peace be upon you, for you are a Bab of wide knowledge. How trustworthy you are of a safeer.
How able you are of a thiqa.
I bear witness that Allah chose you with his Light, until you viewed the person (Imam) - and represented him, and acted for him faithfully.
Then you return and begin with sending peace (salām) upon the Messenger of God until (you reach) the Master of the Age.
Then you say:
‘I have come to you (O Bab) sincerely professing the oneness of God, showing loyalty to His guardians, and disavowal of His enemies and of those who opposed you, O Hujja (representative) of the Lord.
Through you is my turning toward the Imams, and through them is my seeking nearness to God.’
Then you make your supplication and ask God for whatever you love; it will be answered, God Almighty willing.”
اَلسَّلامُ عَلَيْكَ يا فُلانَ بْنَ فُلان وتذكر اسم صاحب القبر واسم أبيه وتقول:اَشْهَدُ اَنَّكَ بابُ الْمَوْلى اَدَّيْتَ عَنْهُ وَاَدَّيْتَ اِلَيْهِ ما خالَفْتَهُ وَلا خالَفْتَ عَلَيْهِ،قُمْتَ خاصّاً وَانْصَرَفْتَ سابِقاً جِئْتُكَ عارِفاً بِالْحَقِّ الَّذي اَنْتَ عَلَيْهِ، واَنَّكَ ما خُنْتَ في التَّأدِيَةِ وَالسَّفارَةِ، اَلسَّلامُ عَلَيْكَ مِنْ باب ما اَوْسَعَكَ وَمِنْسَفير ما آمَنَكَ وَمِنْ ثِقَة ما اَمْكَنَكَ، اَشْهَدُ اَنَّ اللهَ اخْتَصَّكَ بِنُورِهِ حَتّى عايَنْتَ الشَّخْصَ فَاَدَّيْتَ عَنْهُ وَاَدَّيْتَ اِلَيْهِ، ثمّ ترجع فتبتدئ بالسّلام علىرسول الله الى صاحب الزمان ثمّ تقول: جِئْتُكَ مُخْلِصاً بِتَوْحيدِ اللهِ وَمُوالاةِ اَوْلِيائِهِ وَالْبَراءَةِ مِنْ اَعْدآئِهِمْ وَمِنَ الّذينَ خالَفُوكَ يا حُجَّةَ الْمَوْلى وَبِكَاِلَيْهِمْ تَوَجُّهي وَبِهِمْ اِلىَ اللهِ تَوَسُّلي. ثمّ تدعُووتسأل الله ما تُحِبّ تجب ان شاء الله تعالى
As I mention in part 1 of my Babhood article, regarding the Nawbakhti’s ziyara above:
“The elite of the Imam in the prayer is known as “Bab al-Mawla”.
This is the title the Shi’a must call him, to distinguish him from other deputies.
Hence, Husayn ibn Ruh says:
“I bear witness you are Bab al-Mawla (Bab of the Imam)”
It is the only portion of the prayer, where the worshipper declares his belief in a title, through bearing witness that the elite is the Bab of the Imam.”
The evidence that this is the title Husayn ibn Ruh and his predecessors had their Shi’a address them can be corroborated by Sunni historical sources:
Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan, speaking of al-Husayn ibn Ruh:
“The Imāmī Shiʿa fabricated stories about him and claimed that he possessed miracles and revelations, and they claimed that in his time he was the “Bab” to the Awaited One, and that he enjoyed great prestige in Baghdad. And knowledge of the reality is with God.”
الحسين بن روح بن بحر أبو القاسم أحد رؤساء الشيعة في خلافة المقتدر وله وقائع في ذلك مع الوزراء ثم قبض عليه وسجن في المطمورةوكان السبب في ذلك بياض في الأصل ومات سنة 326 وقد افترى له الشيعة الإمامية حكايات وزعموا أن له كرامات وكشفات وزعموا أنهكان في زمانه الباب إلى المنتظر وانه كان كثير الجلالة في بغداد والعلم عند الله
Al-Dhahabi on Husayn ibn Ruh:
“The Bab, the chief of the Imāmiyya, and one of the Babs to the Master of the Age, the Awaited One”
وقال الذهبي في سيره:15/222: (الباب ، كبير الإمامية ، ومن كان أحد الأبواب إلى صاحب الزمان المنتظر
Ibn al-Athir:
“in the events of the year 305 AH:
“In it, in Jumādā al-Ūlā, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān al-ʿAmrī, the head of the Imāmiyya, died. He used to claim that he was the Bab to the Awaited Imam, and he appointed Abū al-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn b. Rūḥ as his successor.”
قال ابن الأثير في حوادث 305 فيها في جمادى الأولى مات أبو جعفر محمد بن عثمان العمري رئيس الامامية وكان يدعي انه الباب إلىالإمام المنتظر وأوصى إلى أبي القاسم الحسين بن روح
E) HISTORICAL CLAIMS OF BABHOOD
The historicity of Babhood can be further inferred from Shi’i claimants to the position:
How many people have claimed the position of Babhood compared to Safeerhood?
The idea is that if many people claimed Safeerhood throughout history (falsely or not), it would show that the concept has a historical basis.
If there is no historical evidence for the concept before al-Ghayba al-Kubra, then the term is a later clerical manufacturing and the true label of the Imam’s spiritual deputy is Bab.
Let us start in demonstrating this concept by first mentioning Husayn ibn Ruh’s estranged deputy Shalmaghani.
Shalmaghani claimed that he was the Bab of Husayn ibn Ruh:
Narrated Abū ʿAlī Muḥammad ibn Hammām, that Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Shalmaghānī was never a “Bab” to Abū al-Qāsim, nor a channel to him, nor did Abū al-Qāsim appoint him to anything of that sort in any manner or for any reason
أخبرنا جماعة، عن أبي محمد هارون بن موسي، عن أبي علي محمد بن همام أن محمد بن علي الشلمغاني لم يکن قط بابا إلي أبيالقاسم، و لا طريقا له و لا نصبه أبو القاسم بشيء من ذلک علي وجه و لا سبب و من قال بذلک فقد أبطل و إنما کان
Shalmaghani claimed Babhood from Husayn ibn Ruh under the following notion:
(Tibb al-A’imma)
Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Armanī was a Bab to al-Mufaḍḍal ibn ʿUmar, and al-Mufaḍḍal was a Bab to Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him).
محمد بن يحيى الأرمني كان بابا للمفضل ابن عمر و كان المفضل بابا لأبي عبد الله الصادق عليه السلام
The demonstrated notion is that Imam al-Sadiq had a Bab called Mufaddal ibn Umar
And Mufaddal had his own trusted deputy, representing him completely in word and action, his Bab called Muhammad al-Armani.
In the same way, Shalmaghani claimed to be Bab of Husayn ibn Ruh, in belief that Husayn ibn Ruh is Bab of Imam al-Mahdi.
Thus, the concept of Babhood is affirmed by Husayn ibn Ruh’s contemporaries such as Shalmaghani.
Going back a little further back to the times of Ali al-Hadi, we have the following claim affirming Babhood:
“Sahl ibn Ziyād al-Ādamī narrated to us. He said: One of our companions wrote to Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (peace be upon him):
“May I be your ransom, my master. ʿAlī ibn Ḥiskah claims that he is among your followers, that you are the First, the Eternal, and that he is your Bab and your prophet, whom you commanded to call people to that.
He claims obligation of the leople’s ma’rifa of you and those who are in the same position as Ibn Ḥiskah in what he claims regarding Babhood and prophethood.”*
7- عنه قال: حدثني الحسين بن الحسن بن بندار القمي قال: حدثنا سهل بن زياد الآدمي. قال: كتب بعض اصحابنا الى ابي الحسنالعسكري (عليه السلام) جعلت فداك يا سيدي ان علي بن حسكة يدعي انه من اوليائك و انك أنت الأول القديم و أنّه بابك و نبيك أمرته انيدعو إلى ذلك،
..
معرفتك و معرفة من كان في مثل حال ابن حسكة فيما يدعي من البابية و النبوة،
When we go all the way back to Imam al-Baqir’s era -
Highly established figures in Shi’i society (such as Mughira) clearly claimed Babhood:
“Al-Mughīra ibn Saʿīd, Bayān ibn Samʿān, Bazīʿ, and Ṣāʾid had set themselves up as prophets, claimed that the family of Muḥammad were creators, and alleged that they themselves were the Imam’s Babs.”
وكان المغيرة بن سعيد وبيان بن سمعان وبزيع وصائد قد نصبوا أنفسهم أنبياء، وآل محمد صلى الله عليه خالقين، وزعموا أنهم أبواب
As for Safeerhood,
There is not a single person throughout history in our Imams’ times who claimed the title of Safeer.
The only claims are about Babhood.
This shows that Babhood is a historical concept, in addition to it being affirmed in our Imams’ ahadith -
In contradistinction to Safeerhood, which has no hadith nor historical evidence.
Thus,
We can assess that that the vagueness of Babhood in Shi’i literature is not a spontaneous phenomenon.
It is a result of systematic manipulation, censorship and active tampering to rewrite the memory of Babhood in the Shi’i conscience
I hope this was beneficial
Wasalaam
John Andaluso
