Secret vs Public Appointment
The next two articles of our Abu al-Khattab: Babhood series will focus on the historicity of the concept of Babhood, vis a vis sifara (Safeerhood), as explicated in part 1.
Today, we shall focus on investigating how a safeer of the 12th Imam (ajf) was appointed, in comparison to the Babs of Imam al-Sadiq (as).
So without further ado
Let us begin!
--
A) EXPLOITING SECRECY
The death of Imam al-Sadiq in 765 CE initiated an era of marked absence of the six holy Imams after him undertook, away from the Shi'a.
These absences were characterized by imprisonment or high-level surveillance by Abbasid authorities to ensure the Imams are not engaging in secret activities related to leading the Shi'a.
The very nature of secrecy in the Imams' movement led unknown characters, without known public merit, to claim secret communication with the Imams.
In other words,
Because the Imam's movement is now highly secretive - the Imam's intermediaries to the Shi'a, the intermediaries who receive his secret orders, must necessarily be of unknown reputation.
Our Imams say:
(Al-Kafi)
"If you are able not to be known, then do so. What does it matter to you if people do not praise you? And what does it matter if you are hated by people, so long as you are praised by God, Blessed and Exalted."
إن قدرتم أن لا تعرفوا فافعلوا وما عليك أن لم يثن الناس عليك وما عليك أن تكون مذموما عند الناس إذا كنت محمودا عند الله تبارك وتعالى
Knowing this about this period of Imamate,
We can expect to see individuals with no reputation among the Shi'a claiming that the Imams bestowed them very grand positions and station.
A personality by the name of Ali ibn Suwayd says:
(Al-Kafi)
"I wrote a letter to Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā (al-Kadhim) while he was in prison, asking him about his condition and about many matters. The reply was withheld from me for months; then he replied to me with an answer, and this is a copy of it."
عن علي بن سويد قال: كتبت إلى أبي الحسن موسى (عليه السلام) وهو في الحبس كتابا أسأله عن حاله وعن مسائل كثيرة فاحتبسالجواب علي أشهر ثم أجابني بجواب هذه نسخته
The most obvious question now is:
How exactly did Ali ibn Suwayd slip a letter to Imam al-Kadhim, while he was imprisoned?
How did he get passed Abbasid guards and spies?
The assumption is that Ali ibn Suwayd arranged with an insider in Abbasid security, whom he trusts to be a sincere Shi'i, to faithfully transmit his letter to the Imam and the Imam's letter back to him.
This trust in Abbasid employees is already an issue,
What if these sympathetic prison officials are not in fact, secretly Shi'a, but rather Abbasid plants whose purpose is to control the Shi'a?
If the Imam is imprisoned, the Abbasids can simply:
(1) Encourage prison officials to act sympathetic to the Imam & the Shi'a
(2) Offer to secretly transmit letters to and from the Imam
(3) Write letters, falsely using Imam al-Kadhim's name, to the Shi'a - ordering them to adhere to commandments that favor the Abbasid agenda
This is not a theory, this is something that Harun al-Rashid (the caliph who persecuted Imam al-Kadhim) had in fact done to mislead the Shi'a.
We can observe the following report in which Harun al-Rashid appointed a governor in Kufa whose purpose was to lavishly spend money on the Shi'a, so they can trust them and he can infiltrate them:
(Maqatil al-Talibiyeen)
"Then al-Rashīd summoned one of his associates known as Ibn al-Kurdiyya, whose name was Yaḥyā ibn Khālid, and said to him: “I have appointed you over the estates in Kūfa. Go to them and take charge of their administration. Make it appear that you are a Shiʿi, and distribute money among the Shiʿa until you obtain information about Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā.”
So this Ibn al-Kurdiyya went and did what he had been ordered. He began lavishly giving money to the Shiʿa and distributing it among them, without asking them anything."
ثم إن الرشيد دعا برجل من أصحابه يقال له: ابن الكردية، واسمه يحيى بن خالد فقال له: قد وليتك الضياع بالكوفة، فامض إليهاوتول العمل بها، وأظهر أنك تتشيع، وفرّق الأموال في الشيعة حتى تقف على خبر أحمد بن عيسى.
فمضى ابن الكردية هذا ففعل ما أمر به، وجعل يفيض الأموال في الشيعة ويفرقها عليهم ولا يسألهم عن شيء
What is clear now,
The idea of secret communication with the Imam while he is imprisoned or high surveillance is already extremely problematic.
It presumes full, unquenching faith in Abbasid officials.
If Ali ibn Suwayd's letter transmitted from Imam al-Kadhim's place of imprisonment truly came from there,
It becomes very suspicious when Imam al-Kadhim describes Ali in the following way:
"As for what follows: you are a man whom God has placed you in a special rank with Al Muhammad.
He has preserved through you the affection for what He entrusted you with of His religion, and for what He divinely inspired you with of right guidance, and for the insight He granted you into the affairs of your religion—by your preferring them and by your referring matters back to them."
أما بعد فإنك أمرؤ أنزلك الله من آل محمد بمنزلة خاصة وحفظ مودة ما استرعاك من دينه وما ألهمك من رشدك وبصرك من أمر دينكبتفضيلك إياهم وبردك الأمور إليهم
This secret letter attributed to Imam al-Kadhim positions Ali ibn Suwayd as:
- Someone with a special rank from Al Muhammad
- Entrusts him with preserving the Shi'i religion
- Divinely inspires him with guidance
- Positions him as having special insight on Shi'ism
But what, exactly, do we know about Ali ibn Suwayd’s station aside from his words?
Absolutely nothing.
His contemporaries make no mention of his supposedly such high station, he doesn’t appear to have had a leading position among the Shi’a.
There is no report of the Shi’a describing him as one of the Imams’ deputies whom they transmit queries to, or money.
Nothing.
Knowing this,
The biggest source of suspicion is when Imam al-Kadhim’s supposed letter to Ali ibn Suwayd says:
“Do not say, regarding what has reached you about us and been attributed to us, ‘This is false,’ even if you know from us something contrary to it. For you do not know why we said it, nor in what sense we described it.
Believe what we have informed you of, and do not divulge what we have entrusted you to keep secret of our report.
ولا تقل لما بلغك عنا ونسب إلينا هذا باطل وإن كنت تعرف منا خلافه فإنك لا تدري لما قلناه؟ وعلى أي وجه وصفناه؟ آمن بما أخبرك ولا تفشما استكتمناك من خبرك.
It is likely Ali ibn Suwayd was a prolific claimant of secret communication with Imam al-Kadhim.
Doubt of an Abbasid origin to these “secret letters” was the logical reaction of the Shi’a,
Particularly since they seem to have contained orders and words contradicting those of Imam al-Kadhim when he was present among the Shi’a.
Hence:
“(Accept these letters), even if you know from us something contrary to it”
So the solution to these doubtful Shi’a, who noticed such discrepancy?
Accept the attribution and content of these letters, out of pure faith:
“Do not say, regarding what has reached you about us and been attributed to us, ‘This is false,’ even if you know from us something contrary to it. For you do not know why we said it, nor in what sense we described it.”
The letter goes on to explicitly denounce the Shi’a doubting the attribution & content of these prison letters as “weak-minded Shi’a”, to diminish the effect of their words:
“I have seen fit to explain to you what you asked me about, out of fear that confusion might enter upon the weak-minded among our Shiʿa because of their ignorance.”
رأيت أن أفسر لك ما سألتني عنه مخافة أن يدخل الحيرة على ضعفاء شيعتنا من قبل جهالتهم
All in all,
We do not endeavor to claim Ali ibn Suwayd (may Allah have mercy on him) was an Abbasid agent.
In fact, we accept him as a companion of Imam al-Kadhim (as) who faithfully transmitted the Imam’s words while he was in captivity.
We do so out of principle of Husn al-Dhan (assuming the best in the character of Shi’a).
What we do hope to shine on is the problems such “secret letters” posed,
And eventually juxtapose them with the appointment of Abu al-Khattab.
B) AN UNEASY TRUST
The time of Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari were especially problematic to the Shi’i laity.
It is reported that the imprisonment conditions of the Imams were as follows:
(‘Uyun al-Mu’jizat)
“Those assigned to (to the Imam) did not leave the door of the place in which he was confined, night or day.
The guards would be dismissed and others appointed in their place, after the charge was renewed to them to keep watch over him and to devote themselves to remaining at his door.”
إن الموكلين به لا يفارقون باب الموضع الذي حبس فيه بالليل والنهار، وكان يُعزَل الموكلون ويولّى آخرون بعد أن تجدّد عليهم الوصية بحفظهوالتوفّر على ملازمة بابه
This would mean that communication with the imprisoned Imam necessitates trust in the Abbasid officials keeping guard of him.
As elaborated above, this is a very problematic notion.
It does not help that the Shi’a were barred from interacting with these Imams publicly (particularly Imam al-Askari):
(Al-Khara’ij)
Narrated ʿAlī ibn Jaʿfar al-Ḥalabī, who said:
‘We gathered at Samarra, and lay in wait for Abū Muḥammad (Imam al-Askari) on the day he would ride out. Then a signed letter came forth from him saying:
Let no one greet me with salām, nor point to me with his hand, nor gesture—any of you—for you would not be safe yourselves.’”
.[٣٨] ومنها ما روي عن علي بن جعفر الحلبي قال: «اجتمعنا بالعسكر، وترصدنا لأبي محمد يوم ركوبه، فخرج توقيعه: ألا لا يسلمن عليّأحد ولا يشير إلي بيده ولا يومئ أحدكم فإنكم لا تأمنون على أنفسكم
This would mean that the only point of contact the Shi’a could ever have with Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari was through written communication.
These letters could not possibly be sent directly to the Imams’ place of imprisonment -
Rather, they are entrusted to individuals who claim to have access to Abbasid guards of our Imams who are sympathetic to Shi’ism.
They would hand the Abbasid guards letters from the Shi’a - with expectation that the guards hand it to the Imam, and return the Imam’s response from them.
The effectiveness of this maneuveur, of course, 100% lies on the true faith and honesty of the Abbasid guards.
The Shi’a were doubtful of this approach, because often times - they would receive letters from the imprisoned Imams that had different handwritings.
To demonstrate -
One of such claimants to insider access in Abbasid prisons (and hence, communication with the Imam) was a man by the name of Ahmad ibn Ishaq.
In addressing the Shi’a’s qualms about the different handwritings that emerge from the Imam’s letters,
Ahmad ibn Ishaq claims that sympathetic Abbasid guards in fact allowed him to meet Imam al-Askari directly and ask him about this:
(Al-Kafi)
“Ahmad ibn Ishaq said:
I entered upon Abu Muhammad (al-Askari) and asked him to write something so that I could look at his handwriting and recognize it when it arrived. He said: ‘Yes.’
Then he said: ‘O Ahmad, the handwriting will differ for you between a thick pen and a fine pen, so do not doubt.’””
“أحمد بن إسحاق قال: دخلت إلى أبي محمد عليه السلام فسألته أن يكتب لأنظر إلى خطه فأعرفه إذا ورد، فقال: نعم ثم قال: يا أحمد إنالخط سيختلف عليك ما بين القلم الغليظ والقلم الدقيق فلا تشكن”
In a nutshell:
Ahmad ibn Ishaq’s message to the Shi’a:
Do not doubt.
The difference in the Imam’s handwritings is because sometimes he would use a thick pen, sometimes a fine pen.
This kind of justification to Shi’i doubters was absolutely necessary.
Because if these letters were not from the Imam, they would cause outrage from the Shi’a -
Particularly since,
Ahmad ibn Ishaq’s letters from our Imams are supposed to have granted him exclusive deputization in collecting khums from the Shi’a and transferring it to the Imam.
The problem is that Ahmad ibn Ishaq seemingly displayed extreme, ostentatious wealth - which could not be explained in any way, but khums.
In the following hadith:
Ahmad ibn Ishaq explains that Imam al-Askari personally bequeathed him - and two of his allies, Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Amri and and Ali al-Hamdani, 30,000 gold dinars.
The Imam is said to have bequeathed them this amount as a personal gift.
(Manaqib Ibn Abi Shahr Ashoob)
Abu ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd, Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq al-Ashʿarī, and ʿAlī ibn Jaʿfar al-Hamdānī entered upon Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (Imam al-Hadi)
Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq complained to him about a debt he owed.
Imam al-Hadi said: “O Abū ʿAmr” - and he was his (money collecting) agent - “give him thirty thousand dinars, and to ʿAlī ibn Jaʿfar thirty thousand dinars, and take for yourself thirty thousand dinars.”
This is a miracle that none but kings are capable of, and we have never heard of a gift like this.”
دخل أبو عمر عثمان بن سعيد وأحمد بن إسحاق الأشعري وعلي بن جعفر الهمداني على أبى الحسن العسكري فشكا إليه أحمد بنإسحاق دينا عليه فقال: يا أبا عمرو - وكان وكيله - ادفع إليه ثلاثين ألف دينار والى علي بن جعفر ثلاثين ألف دينار وخذ أنت ثلاثين ألفدينار. فهذه معجزة لا يقدر عليها إلا الملوك وما سمعنا بمثل هذا العطاء.
Thus,
If someone suspects Ahmad ibn Ishaq stole khums for his own benefit.
Ahmad can simply claim:
Yes this is khums money, but the Imam took the money and gave me a portion (as large as 30,000 dinars) - as a personal gift for myself.
Again,
The problem is that this is an unverifiable act attributed to the Imam that supposes the narrator had access to sympathetic Abbasid guards.
This leaves Ahmad’s opponents two unsettling trains of thought:
- Ahmad has no access to Abbasid insiders of secret Shi’i persuasion. He is simply stealing our money
Or
- Ahmad is infiltrating us, by Abbasid order
Regardless of opposition,
Ahmad ibn Ishaq seems to have gained a following among the Shi’a during the times of Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari.
When Imam al-Askari (as) died, it seems that Ahmad ibn Ishaq endeavored to elevate one of his allies mentioned in the above hadith with whom he had clear shared financial interest:
Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Amri
The following narration is highly illuminating in that regard:
(Al-Tusi’s Ghayba)
Narrated Abdullah ibn Ja’far:
“We performed the Hajj in some years after the passing of Abu Muhammad (Imam Hasan al-Askari). I entered upon Ahmad ibn Ishaq in the City of Peace (Samarra) and saw Abu Amr with him.
I said: ‘This sheikh’—and I pointed to Ahmad ibn Ishaq—‘he is trustworthy and reliable according to us.
He (Ahmad) has narrated to us regarding you (Uthman) many things, and I recounted for him what we mentioned about the virtue of Abu Amr (Uthman ibn Sa’id) and his standing.
I said: ‘You are now among those whose words and honesty are not in doubt, so I ask you by the right of God and by the right of the two Imams who trusted you:
Have you seen the son of Abi Muhammad, who is the Master of the Age (the Mahdi)?
He wept, then said: ‘On the condition that you tell no one about this while I am alive.’
I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘I have seen him, peace be upon him, and his neck was like this’—meaning it was thick, well-formed, and complete.
I said: ‘And his name?’ He said: ‘You have been forbidden from this.’”
حججنا في بعض السنين بعد مضي أبي محمد عليه السلام فدخلت على أحمد بن إسحاق بمدينة السلام فرأيت أبا عمرو عنده، فقلت: إنهذا الشيخ- وأشرت إلى أحمد بن إسحاق-وهو عندنا الثقة المرضي، حدثنا فيك بكيت وكيت، واقتصصت عليه ما تقدم يعني ما ذكرناه عنهمن فضل أبي عمرو ومحله، وقلت: أنت الآن ممن لا يشك في قوله وصدقه فأسألك بحق الله وبحق الامامين اللذين وثقاك هل رأيت ابن أبيمحمد الذي هو صاحب الزمان عليه السلام؟ فبكى، ثم قال:على أن لا تخبر بذلك أحدا وأنا حي؟قلت: نعم. قال: قد رأيته عليه السلام وعنقههكذا- يريد أنها أغلظ الرقاب حسنا وتماما–. قلت: فالاسم؟ قال: نهيتم عن
هذا
This narration reveals so many details:
- “You are now among those whose words and honesty are not in doubt”
This tells us that Uthman ibn Sa’id personal character was not a known fact among the Shi’a when Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari were alive.
These two holy Imams never said anything, to the Shi’a laity, attesting that Uthman ibn Sa’id was a man whose (1) words and (2) honesty were undoubtable.
If the Imams said anything regarding Uthman, they did so privately to a limited number of people.
In all other respects, Uthman was an unknown character to the Shi’a before the ghayba.
His words and honesty were considered doubtable, just like any other normal Shi’i.
- This sheikh’—and I pointed to Ahmad ibn Ishaq—‘he is trustworthy and reliable according to us. He (Ahmad) has narrated to us regarding you (Uthman) many things, and I recounted for him what we mentioned about the virtue of Abu Amr (Uthman ibn Sa’id) and his standing.
The narrator is saying that, at a time span that is approximated to a “some years after the passing of Abu Muhammad (Imam Hasan al-Askari)”,
Ahmad ibn Ishaq began preaching that Uthman ibn Sa’id was a thiqa (trustworthy trustee) of Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari.
Before Ahmad ibn Ishaq began preaching a number of years after the death of Imam al-Askari, Uthman was a completely unknown character to the narrator.
Ahmad ibn Ishaq is the one who elevated him:
“I said: ‘This sheikh’—and I pointed to Ahmad ibn Ishaq—‘he is trustworthy and reliable according to us.
He (Ahmad) has narrated to us regarding you (Uthman) many things.”
The narrator being unaware of Uthman ibn Sa’id character before Ahmad ibn Ishaq’s proselytization efforts is a telling sign.
It reflects what Ahmad ibn Hilal, an opponent of the Safeerhood of the son of Uthman ibn Sa’id, Muhammad ibn Uthman al-Amri, said about the latter safeer:
(Al-Ghayba of al-Tusi)
“Abu ʿAli ibn Hammām said:
Ahmad ibn Hilāl was among the companions of Abu Muhammad (peace be upon him). Then the Shiʿa agreed upon the agency (representation) of Muhammad ibn ʿUthmān—may God be pleased with him—by the explicit designation of al-Hasan (peace be upon him) during his lifetime
And when Hasan al-Askari (a.s) passed away, the Shia said to Ibn Hilal, “The community is with him. Will you not accept the leadership of Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Uthman and refer to him, when the Imam, whose obedience is obligatory, has clearly assigned him in a nass as his representative?”
He said, “I have not heard the Imam mention him as his representative.
ال أبو علي بن همام كان أحمد بن هلال من أصحاب أبي محمد عليه السلام فاجتمعت الشيعة على وكالة محمد بن عثمان رضي الله عنهبنص الحسن عليه السلام في حياته ولما مضى الحسن عليه السلام قالت الشيعة الجماعة له: ألا تقبل أمر أبي جعفر محمد بن عثمان وترجعإليه وقد نص عليه الإمام المفترض الطاعة؟فقال لهم: لم أسمعه ينص عليه بالوكالة
Ahmad ibn Hilal continues saying:
“if I were certain that Abu Ja’far were the representative of the Master of the Age, I would not defy him.”
The followers of Muhammad ibn Uthman said said: “If you have not heard, others have.”
Ahmad ibn Hilal replied: “You follow what you have heard.”
فأما أن أقطع أن أباجعفر وكيل صاحب الزمان فلا أجسر عليه. فقالوا: قد سمعه غيرك. فقال: أنتم وما سمعتم.
In summary,
There is a pattern where followers of a safeer claimant would always claim a consensus to support their claim.
Followers of the claimant Ibn Nusayr would say:
“There was a clear nass (divine designation) appointing Ibn Nusayr as the deputy of the Mahdi. The Shi’a were in consensus of this, anyone saying otherwise is a deviant”
Followers of Muhammad ibn Uthman said to Ahmad ibn Hilal:
“There was a clear nass (divine designation) appointing Muhammad ibn Uthman as the deputy of the Mahdi. The Shi’a were in consensus of this, anyone saying otherwise is a deviant”
In a perfectly reasonable response to this, Ahmad ibn Hilal said regarding Muhammad ibn Uthman:
“I have not heard the Imam mention (Muhammad) as his representative.”
Ahmad knew that whole premise of al-Askari (as) appointing the deputy of his son, al-Mahdi (as), will be secret and done in isolation from most Shi’a.
The appointment will always be secret, because the regular Shi’i cannot go to Imam al-Askari while he is living under 24/7 Abbasid surveillance and ask him themselves.
Any supposed meeting with the Imam would presume collaboration with sympathetic Abbasids, which is a doubtable concept.
Nor can the Shi’a go to Imam al-Mahdi’s house and ask the Imam himself on whether or not a deputy was appointed.
For Ahmad to reject Muhammad ibn Uthman because he “did not hear the Imam mentioning Muhammad as his representative”,
He is highlighting the impossible conundrum of communicating with Imam al-Askari through Abbasid intermediaries:
If Uthman secretly communicated with Imam al-Askari through Abbasid guards, no one can verify this but Muhammad ibn Uthman and very close companions who may have accomoanied him.
If Ahmad secretly communicated with Imam al-Askari through Abbasid guards, no one can verify this but Ahmad and very close companions.
For this reason,
Muhammad ibn Uthman’s followers responded to Ahmad ibn Hilal’s rejection by saying:
The followers of Muhammad ibn Uthman responded to Ahmad saying: “If you have not heard (the designation of Muhammad), others have.”
Ahmad responded:
Ahmad ibn Hilal replied: “You follow what you have heard.”
This reveals the true nature of safeerhood.
Its validity lies on the testimony of select people, whereas the testimony of most Shi’a is unnecessary.
Hence:
“If you have not heard (the designation of Muhammad), others have.” “
It is a concept that anyone, such as Ahmad, could reject by simply stating that they did not hear the Hidden Imam appointing a safeer to such a position.
There is no objective proof for it, such as personal verification by ascertaining the matter from the Imam himself.
- Have you seen the son of Abi Muhammad, who is the Master of the Age (the Mahdi)?(Uthman ibn Sa’id) wept, then said: ‘On the condition that you tell no one about this while I am alive.’
It is very interesting that Uthman ibn Sa’id stipulates the condition of him affirming to the narrator that he’s seen the hidden Mahdi is:
“On the condition that you tell no one about this while I am alive.’
It would suggest that meeting and seeing the Mahdi was not a focal point for Uthman’s dawah(proselytization campaign).
Considering that the narrator is forbidden from informing anyone, which would include Shi’a, that Uthman met the Mahdi.
Claiming to see the Mahdi regularly opens door for much scrutiny among the Shi’a,
They would ask for direct proof (i.e, let us meet the Mahdi, let him provide us a miracle, etc).
So it is best for any deputy to claim highly limited direct contact with the Mahdi, and instead:
Claim communication through the forms of letters, whose authenticity the deputy ascertains by comparing it to the handwritings of Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari.
In fact, one of the stories that emerged on Uthman’s appointment to deputization by Imam al-Askari states in a meeting where Uthman is present:
“Indeed, you will not see the Mahdi after today until he emerges from his ghayba. So accept whatever ʿUthmān says and submit to his authority.”
ألا وإنكم لاترونه من بعد يومكم هذا حتى يتم له عمر فاقبلوا من عثمان مايقوله وانتهوا إلى أمره
This supposes that Imam al-Mahdi’s ghayba began during Imam al-Askari’s life!
Neither the Shi’a nor Uthman will see him until he finishes his ghayba!
All in all,
The matter of safeerhood of the 12th Imam necessitates a great deal of faith, and a lot less evidence.
The biggest faith one places would be on the thiqat of Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari,
Because the whole concept of accepting secret communication with the Imam is contingent on the validity of these characters’ trustworthiness.
So let us investigate whether this is a feasible premise.
C) AL THIQA AL-MA’MUN
Recalling the above hadith about why the Shi’a believed in Uthman ibn Sa’id:
“He (Ahmad) has narrated to us regarding you (Uthman) many things, and I recounted for him what we mentioned about the virtue of Abu Amr (Uthman ibn Sa’id) and his standing.
I said: ‘You are now among those whose words and honesty are not in doubt, so I ask you by the right of God and by the right of the two Imams who trusted you”
It becomes clear that the Shi’a gained confidence in Uthman ibn Sa’id’s character and status, through the dawah of Ahmad ibn Ishaq.
Ahmad convinced the Shi’a that “two Imams trusted (Uthman)” - hence Uthman could be trusted in his claim to receive instructions from the 12th, Hidden Imam.
What did Ahmad tell the Shi’a to convince them that two Imams (al-Hadi and al-Askari) trusted Uthman?
(Al-Kafi, vol 1, page 330)
“Narrated Ahmad ibn Ishaq:
I asked him (Imam al-Hadi):
‘Whom do I emulate or from whom do I take? and whose words do I accept? ‘
So (Imam) he said:
Al-Amri is my Thiqa (trustworthy man).
So what he gives you on my behalf then his giving is truly on my behalf, and what he says to you on my behalf then his saying is truly on my behalf.
So listen to him and obey him, for he is al-Thiqa al-Mamun (the trustworthy trustee).
And Abu Ali also informed me that he had asked Aba Muhammad (al-Askari) عليه السلام about the same matter, so he said to him: al-Amri and his son are both Thiqa (trustworthy men of mine), so what they give to you on my behalf then their giving is truly on my behalf, and what they say to you on my behalf then their saying is truly on my behalf, so listen to them and obey them, for they are both Thiqatan Ma’munan (Two entrusted thiqas).”
عن أحمد بن إسحاق عن أبي الحسن عليه السلام قال: سألته وقلت: من أعامل؟ وعمن آخذ؟ وقول من أقبل؟ فقال: العمري ثقتي فما أدىإليك عنى فعني يؤدى، وما قال لك عنى فعني يقول، فاسمع له وأطع فإنه الثقة المأمون، قال: وسألت أبا محمد عليه السلام عن مثل ذلك فقال: العمري وابنه ثقتان فما أديا إليك عنى فعني يؤديان، وما قالا لك فعني يقولان، فاسمع لهما وأطعهما فإنهما الثقتان المأمونان
Ahmad ibn Ishaq claimed that Imams al-Hadi and al-Askari proclaimed Uthman ibn Sa’id to be:
"al-Thiqa al-Ma'mun" - meaning "the Imam's trustworthy man, entrusted with representing him in front of the Shi'a".
Twelver sources understand this designation to define Uthman ibn Sa’id as the safeer of Imams al-Hadi, al-Askari, and so by extension - the Twelfth Imam (ajf).
This poses a serious problem:
What do we make of Twelver personalities, accepted by the Shi’a to have held this designation, but later deviated?
In answering this case, we are led to the case of:
Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Bilal (al-Bilali).
In a hadith graded mu’tabar (authentic) by Shaykh Asif Mohseni, in (Mu’jam al-Ahadith al-Mu’tbara vol 1 p 179), states:
“1. [1/-] Rijal al-Kashshi: One of the Thiqat in Naysabur relayed to us that: There came out a signed rescript [Tawqi] from Abi Muhammad عليه السلام to Ishaq b. Ismail saying: O Ishaq b. Ismail … and O Ishaq – read this letter of ours to al-Bilali – may Allah be well pleased with him – for he is al-Thiqa al-Ma’mun, the one who recognizes what is incumbent on him …”
وقال الكشي: حكى بعض الثقات بنيسابور وذكر توقيعا طويلا من جملته: يا إسحاق اقرأ كتابنا علي البلالي، رضي الله عنه، فإنه الثقةالمأمون العارف بما يجب عليه”
In the report, we understand that Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Bilal was accepted by the Shi’a to have been described as “al-Thiqa al-Ma’mun” by Imam al-Askari (our trustee, entrusted with leading the Shi’a).
In addition to being al-Askari’s “Thiqa Ma’mun”, Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Bilal was reported by Shaykh al-Saduq to be one of the deputies who saw Imam al-Mahdi and witnessed his miracles.
(Sayyid Khoei’s Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol 17, p 333)
“What is apparent is that whom is meant by al-Bilali is Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Bilal.
And it seems he (Muhammad) is one meant by the al-Bilali in what Al-Saduq narrated from the deputies who saw Imam al-Mahdi, and witnessed his miracles.”
والظاهر أن المراد بالبلالي فيه، هو محمد بن علي بن بلال، كما أن الظاهر أنه المراد بالبلالي المعدود فيما رواه الصدوق - قدس سره - منالوكلاء الذين رأوا الحجة سلام الله عليه، ووقفوا على معجزاته
In fact, Sayyid Ibn Tawus describes him as one of the sufara and Babs of the 12th Imam (ajf).
(Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith by Sayyid Khoei, vol 17, page 332)
“Ibn Tawus said in Rabi’ al-Shi’a: Among the sufara’ present in the minor occultation (al-Ghayba al-Sughra),
And the well-known Babs (gates of the Imams) whom the Imamiyyah who believe in the Imamate of Al-Hasan bin Ali are:
Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Bilal”
قال ابن طاووس في ربيع الشيعة: من السفراء
الموجودين في الغيبة الصغرى، والأبواب المعروفين الذي لا يختلف الامامية
القائلون بإمامة الحسن بن علي فيهم: محمد بن علي بن بلال
Abu Tahir Al-Bilali’s exclusive access to and communication with Imam al-Mahdi (ajf) was so undisputed,
His status as al-Thiqa al-Ma’mun so indisputed,
That even the 3rd safeer (Husayn ibn Ruh al-Nawbakhti) differed to Abu Tahir for knowledge and showed subordinance to him:
(Al-Ghayba of al-Tusi)
“Shaykh Abu Al-Qasim Al-Husayn ibn Ruh, may God be pleased with him, told me that he said: Our companions differed in terms of Tafwid and other things - so I went to Abi Tahir ibn Bilal during his upright days, and informed him of our divide (regarding such topics).
Al-Husayn ibn Ruh said: He (Abi Tahir) was late to provide an answer, so I went away for a few days and came back to him.
Then he brought me a hadith he narrated from Abi Abdullah (al-Sadiq)..”
قال: حدثني الشيخ أبو القاسم الحسين بن روح رضي الله عنه قال: اختلف أصحابنا في التفويض وغيره، فمضيت إلى أبي طاهر بن بلال(3) في أيام استقامته فعرفته الخلاف، فقال: أخرني فأخرته أياما فعدت إليه فأخرج إلي حديثا باسناده إلى (4) أبي عبد الله عليه السلامقال:
The problem manifests itself now when Husayn ibn Ruh a decade or two from this incident now says:
(Al-Ghayba of al-Tusi, vol 1, page 432)
“We had (cursed and disassociated from al-Shalmaghani) in the same the way we were towards the likes of him who preceded him, such as al-Shari’i, al-Numayri, al-Hilali, al-Bilali and others.”
، ولعناه عليه لعائن الله - اتفقوا (4) زاد بن داود تترى - في الظاهر منا والباطن، في السر والجهر، وفي كل وقت وعلى كل حال، وعلى منشايعه وتابعه أو بلغه هذا القول منا وأقام على توليه بعده وأعلمهم - قال الصيمري: تولاكم الله (5). قال ابن ذكا: أعزكم الله - أنا من التوقي - وقال ابن داود: اعلم أننا من التوقي له. قال هارون: وأعلمهم أننا في التوقي - والمحاذرة منه. قال ابن داود وهارون: على مثل (ما كان) (6) من تقدمنا لنظرائه، قال الصيمري: على ما كنا عليه ممن تقدمه من نظرائه. وقال ابن ذكا: على ما كان عليه من (7) تقدمنا لنظرائه. اتفقوا - من الشريعي والنميري والهلالي والبلالي
Al-Husayn ibn Ruh curses the same Thiqa Ma’mun he differed to for knowledge and showed subordinance!
In that case,
The presence of different contenders of Safeerhood / Babhood in the time of the 12th Imam (ajf)
Each one of them claiming to have been secretly verified by previous Imams (al-Hadi, al-Askari) and having witnesses over this
Each one of them opposing each other’s claims of Safeerhood and claiming exclusivity in deputizing the Imams, whereas portraying other claimants as liars.
This sums up the sifara in the Ghayba period, as a time of secret appointments, a lot of faith, and little evidence.
So how exactly does this compare to Abu al-Khattab’s Babhood?
D) BETWEEN UTHMAN AND ABU AL-KHATTAB
- Uthman ibn Sa’id:
(Al-Ghayba of al-Tusi)
Abu Nasr Hibat Allah ibn Ahmad al-Kātib said:
“The signed letters (tawqīʿāt) of the Master of the Affair (the Mahdi) used to be transmitted to us through the ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd and his son Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān to his Shiʿa, and to the close companions of his father Abū Muḥammad (peace be upon him) conveying commands and prohibitions, and responses to whatever the Shiʿa asked about when they needed to inquire—written in the same handwriting that had appeared during the lifetime of al-Ḥasan (al-Askari).”
ن أبي نصر هبة اللَّه بن أحمد الکاتب قال:
«کانت توقيعات صاحب الأمرعليه السلام تخرج علي يدي عثمان ابن سعيد وابنه أبي جعفر محمد بن عثمان إلي شيعته، وخواص أبيه أبيمحمدعليه السلام بالأمر والنهي، والأجوبة عما تسأل الشيعة عنه إذا احتاجت الي سؤال فيه، بالخط الذي کان يخرج في حياة الحسن عليهالسلام
- Abu al-Khattab:
(Al-Kafi)
ʿAlī ibn ʿUqbah said:
“Abū al-Khaṭṭāb, before he became corrupt, used to carry questions for our companions to the Imam and come back with their answers.”
عن علي بن عقبة، قال: كان أبو الخطاب قبل أن يفسد، وهو يحمل المسائل لأصحابنا، ويجئ بجواباتها
- Comparison:
The first point of comparison between Abu al-Khattab and Uthman,
Is that Abu al-Khattab’s opponents affirm that he was entrusted to carry the Shia’s questions to Imam al-Sadiq and the Imam’s answers back to them.
They agree this was the occupation of Abu al-Khattab “until he became corrupt”.
Whereas for Uthman, most followers of Hasan al-Askari (as) did not believe in his Safeerhood.
When Imam al-Askari (as) died, 13 sects emerged. Twelve did not believe in Uthman, one believed in him (Uthman’s own movement).
Abu al-Khattab’s deputization, thus, carries more weight as it is verified by opponents -
Whereas Uthman’s claim is accepted only by his own believers.
The second point of comparison is numerical.
Imam al-Ridha in a hadith condemning Abu al-Khattab says:
(Rijal al-Kashi)
Imam al-Ridha said:
“Abū al-Khaṭṭāb had corrupted most of the people of Kūfa, and they would not pray the Maghrib (sunset prayer) until the twilight had completely disappeared. But that (delaying Maghrib) is only for the traveler, or the one in fear, or the person with an urgent need.”
* (99) * 50 - وروى أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن سعيد بن جناح عن بعض أصحابنا عن الرضا عليه السلام قال: ان أبا الخطاب قدكان أفسد عامة أهل الكوفة، وكانوا لا يصلون المغرب حتى يغيب الشفق وإنما ذلك للمسافر والخائف ولصاحب الحاجة.
Abu al-Khattab corrupted the majority of Kufan Shia!
How?
He did not do so, as an independent preacher.
Abu al-Khattab did so because before his “corruption”, he was the Imam’s clear Bab.
He was entrusted with carrying the Shia’s questions to the Imam, and Imam’s answers to them - right until “he became corrupt”.
ʿAlī ibn ʿUqbah said:
“Abū al-Khaṭṭāb, before he became corrupt, used to carry questions for our companions and come back with their answers.”
The Kufan Shi’a did not follow a new figure, they simply persisted in following Imam al-Sadiq’s clearly appointed deputy and did not take upon the Imam’s denunciation.
The saw Imam al-Sadiq’s condemnation of Abu al-Khattab as taqiyya.
In another hadith condemning Abu al-Khattab, Imam al-Kadhim affirms Abu al-Khattab was appointed to an administrative position over the Shi’a - but insists he was eventually deposed.
(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
Given that:
1 ) Abu al-Khattab’s appointment is indisputed
2 ) Most Kufan Shi’a followed him
3 ) The few Shi’a that did not follow him, they also accepted intermediary role between the Imam and Shi’a right until his “corruption”
Abu al-Khattab’s status was clearly established by Imam al-Sadiq over the Kufans, and is a historical fact.
Such that when he “deviated”, the Shi’a who did not follow him demanded Imam al-Sadiq establish over them a man to replace Abu al-Khattab’s status.
What was the status that Abu al-Khattab was appointed to before his “deviation and corruption” - that the Shi’a demanded a replacement for?
- A man the Shi’a can turn to for matters of religion
- A man Shi’a turn to for judgement
- A man the Shi’a listen to and blindly accept his narrations from the Imam (because he can never lie)
- A leader over the Shi’a
(Rijal al-Kashi)
“Nasr ibn al-Sabbah narrated, through the chain of Ibn Abi 'Umair, that when Abu al-Khattab deviated and became corrupt –
The Shia went to Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) and said: "Establish for us a man whom we can turn to for the matters of our religion and the judgments we need." He replied: "You do not need that. Whenever any of you has a need, come to me, listen to what I say, and then leave."
They insisted, and he said: "I have established over you al-Mufaddal. Listen to him and accept his narrations from us, for he does not speak about Allah and myself except with the truth."
However, things turned against him, and they accused him and his companions, saying: "His companions do not pray, they drink wine, they are the companions of pidgeons, they raid caravans. Al-Mufaddal, on the other hand, brings them close and draws them near."
وحكى نصر بن الصباح: عن ابن أبي عمير بأسناده أن الشيعة حين أحدث أبو الخطاب ما أحدث: خرجوا إلى أبي عبد الله عليه السلامفقالوا أقم لنا رجلا نفزع إليه في أمر ديننا وما نحتاج إليه من الاحكام؟ قال: لا تحتاجون إلى ذلك متى ما احتاج أحدكم عرج إلي وسمعمني وينصرف، فقالوا: لابد:
فقال: قد أقمت عليكم المفضل اسمعوا منه وأقبلوا عنه، فإنه لا يقول على الله وعلي الا الحق، فلم يأت عليه كثير شئ حتى شنعوا عليه وعلىأصحابه، وقالوا:
أصحابه لا يصلون ويشربون النبيذ وهم أصحاب الحمام ويقطعون الطريق، والمفضل يقربهم ويدنيهم.
The “replacement” of Abu al-Khattab was Mufaddal, conveniently also a follower of Abu al-Khattab, but did not die with him.
Now,
We have established Abu al-Khattab’s status as a historical fact corroborated by his opponents - and believed by the majority of Kufan Shi’a in his time.
His status (before his “corruption” and subsequent denunciation) could be verified by anyone visiting Imam al-Sadiq.
This is why he was indisputable.
What about Uthman ibn Sa’id, though?
Al-Nu’mani (student of Kulayni who lived through al-Ghayba al-Sughra & Kubra says:
(Nu’mani’s al-Ghayba, vol 1, page 157)
“These hadiths are indicative of what has become of the conditions of the sects affiliated with Shi’ism who opposed the upright minority following the Imamate of al-Khalaf ibn al-Hasan al-Askari (peace be upon him), because the majority of them (Shi’a) say:
Where is he? And how would this be? How long will he be absent? How long does this live?
His ghayba has been for more than eighty years bow, some of them say that he is dead, and some of them deny his birth and deny his existence with one, and mock those who believe in him, and among them are those who exclude the period and extend the period, and do not see that God is in his ability, his authority, his past and his management, able to extend Imam al-Mahdi’s lifetime..”
وهذه الأحاديث دالة على ما قد آلت إليه أحوال الطوائف المنتسبة إلى التشيع ممن خالف الشرذمة المستقيمة على إمامة الخلف بن الحسن بنعلي (عليه السلام)، لأن الجمهور منهم من يقول في الخلف: أين هو؟ وأنى يكون هذا؟ وإلى متى يغيب؟ وكم يعيش هذا؟ وله الآن نيفوثمانون سنة، فمنهم من يذهب إلى أنه ميت، ومنهم من ينكر ولادته ويجحد وجوده بواحدة، ويستهزئ بالمصدق به، ومنهم من يستبعد المدةويستطيل الأمد، ولا يرى أن الله في قدرته، ونافذ سلطانه، وماضي أمره وتدبيره، قادر على أن يمد لوليه في العمر كأفضل ما مده
The Shi’a who believed in Twelver Shi’ism, in the form of the 4 sufara’, were a minority as late as the Ghayba al-Kubra period!
As attested by a living contemporary from that time, al-Nu’mani - author of the famed book on the 12th Imam’s Ghayba.
All in all,
There is an enormous juxtaposition that exists between the public and verifiable appointment of Abu al-Khattab
And the secret appointment of Uthman ibn Sa’id.
E) CONCLUSION
There are many ahadith in our corpus, from Imams al-Baqir, al-Sadiq - and others, that affirm the existence of Twelve Imams.
We submit to, and believe in these ahadith completely.
We believe in 14 infallibles: 1 prophet, Sayyida Fatima, and 12 Imams.
We believe the infallibles are one - so it does not matter for example, if we have very few ahadith from:
Imam al-Hasan, Sayyida Fatima, Imam al-Hadi, al-Askari, and Imam al-Mahdi.
It does not reduce their validity in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, there are many false claimants of Safeerhood from the latter three Imams, which makes deriving ahadith from them difficult -
But that does not matter, because we have ahadith from Imams before them and all Imams are equal in station.
Not believing in the 4 sufara’ does not affect the Imamate, position, and status of all 12 imams (including Imam al-Mahdi), because this belief is “established”.
There are many ahadith by previous Imams that clearly establish Twelve Imams. That is undoubtable, to me.
As for our belief in the 4 sufara’ of Imam al-Mahdi, we believe it out of faith.
We can’t prove their appointment objectively, but we accept it because they attributed their appointment to the Imam and we give them Husn al-Dhan.
Yet however,
This article was necessary to establish that Abu al-Khattab’s appointment and station was a historical reality, and exceeds the bounds of mere faith.
Thus, it is something mandatory to believe in - as not doing so puts one at risk of kufr in the Imams.
As Imam Ali said regarding a predecessor Bab to Abu al-Khattab:
(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
I hope this was beneficial
Wasalaam
John Andaluso
