By Shaykh ‘Ali Ḥusayn Ya’qūb
Translated by: Sayyid Burair Abbas – Edited and Footnoted by: Muhammad Jaffer
Abstract
This article[1] treats a contention raised regarding the Imamate of Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā ibn Ja’far al-Kāẓim (a) following the death of his father, Imām Abū ‘Abdillāh Ja’far ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (a), in the context of the purported confusion experienced by Hishām ibn Sālim al-Jawālīqī,[2] one of the companions of Imam al-Ṣādiq, regarding the Imam’s successor. This purported confusion is often used by critics to question the foundation of the theory of Divine Imamate, and we will examine this contention in detail in the ensuing discussion.
Among anthropological studies charting the development of religious beliefs of various factions, dissertations have emerged exploring the credal tenets of the Shi’a and most specifically the Imamate. Some of these studies are not devoid of ideological biases, while others may reflect assumptions arising out of detachment from or denial of the metaphysical dimension.[3] As a result, some of these studies seem to have conspiratorial undertones to justify what they cannot deny, offering interpretations that may appear outwardly rational and natural.
Within this context, in recent years, a doubt has resurfaced about the Imamate of Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā ibn Ja’far al-Kāẓim (a) following the death of his father, Imam Abū ‘Abdillāh Ja’far ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (a). The raising of this contention was intended specifically to ignite doubt about the very essence of the Divine Imamate, as will be clarified later. Bearing this in mind, it is imperative to explore this contention’s fallacies while demonstrating the rational interpretation of events as predicated upon the belief in Divine Imamate.
The Importance of Researching the Imamate
The term Imamate within the terminology of theology refers to the general leadership in both religious and worldly affairs. This concept is unanimously accepted by many Islamic sects as obligatory. However, the dispute among them arises in certain points, such as the qualities of the Imam, the conditions for his appointment, the authority responsible for appointing him, and so on. This has naturally led to disagreements in identifying the Imam, and history informs us that the dispute over the Imamate led to bloody conflict. As al-Shahrastānī noted: “The greatest disagreement amidst the Muslim ummah is that over Imamate; for no sword has been unsheathed in Islam over a religious tenet in any era as much as it has over Imamate…”[4]
Despite the inherent practical importance of the issue of Imamate in general, what we uphold specifically as Twelver Shi’ites renders it a significance beyond what it implies for other Muslims. For us, the Imam is specifically appointed by God, serving as a divinely designated successor and promulgator of His religion. Through the Imam, God protects His servants from deviation and misguidance, which necessitates the Imam’s infallibility, perfection, and divine providence. This is why we refer to Imamate within our creed as “Divine Imamate” (al-imāmah al-ilāhiyyah).[5]
The Historical Context of the Contention
The attempt to extirpate the divine aspect from the Imamate of the Twelve Successors of Prophet Muḥammad (s) is not a recent phenomenon. In fact the contention being raised here is from precisely this genus: an attempt to undermine the belief in Divine Imamate by discussing the confusion or disagreement among some Shī’ah regarding the identity of the Imām.
In the 4th century AH, Shaykh al-Ṣadūq reported the Zaydiyyah saying: “If the Messenger of Allāh had informed his Ummah of the names of the Twelve Imāms, why did they then stray to the right and left and fall into such great confusion?”[6]
He also reported them as saying: “If the report of the Twelve Imāms were true, people would not have doubted the Imamate after al-Ṣādiq Ja’far ibn Muhammad (a). Yet, some Shi’a followed ‘Abdullāh (al-Afṭaḥ), others followed Ismā’īl, and others were confused. To the extent that some Shi’a even tested ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Ṣādiq, and when they did not find what they were seeking, they left saying, ‘Where should we go? To the Murji’ah? To the Qadariyyah? Or to the Ḥarūriyyah?'” It is reported that Mūsa ibn Ja’far (a) heard this and said to them: “Not to the Murji’ah, nor to the Qadariyyah, nor to the Ḥarūriyyah, but to me.” Consider how many angles invalidate the doctrine of twelve appointed Imāms: one is ‘Abdullāh al-Afṭaḥ’s claim to Imamate, another is the Shiites’ inclination toward this individual, the third is their confusion after testing him, and the fourth is their failure to recognize that their Imam was Mūsā ibn Ja’far until he had to summon them to himself after their jurist (al-Afṭaḥ) had perished. [7]
In the 5th century AH, the Mu’tazilite scholar al-Hākim al-Jushamī raised this objection against the Shī’ah in his book ‘Uyūn al-Masā’il, stating: “Among the clearest evidence against the validity of their claim of the divine appointment of the Twelve Imāms is their disagreement upon the death of every Imām.”[8]
In the 6th century AH, the Ash’arite scholar Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī echoed this objection in his work Al-Muḥaṣṣal, saying: “Among the clearest evidence against the validity of their claim of the divine appointment of the Twelve Imāms is their disagreement upon the death of every Imām.”[9]
In our current era, this doubt has been revived by some contemporary Salafis, some Orientalists, and even some individuals who are nominally affiliated with Shi’ism. I say “nominally” because they do not accept the principle of Divine Imamate which is the cornerstone of Twelver Shī’ite belief. Instead, they adhere to what they term the theory of ‘Ulamā al-Abrār (Theory of the Righteous Scholars).[10] Our scholars have addressed this contention during every period in which it had reared its unsightly head. However, since the argument itself was not widespread among opponents, the level of dissemination of its refutation was proportionally limited. Therefore, we find it in the writings of only prominent scholars like al-Ṣadūq and al-Khwājah Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, for example.[11] However, given the contemporary widespread dissemination of this doubt, the exigency to discuss and refute it has expanded.
Fundamental Predicates of the Investigation: Defining Operational Terms
Linguistic Meaning of Imamate (al-lughah)
This refers to the object of emulation and imitation. In Tāj al-‘Arūs, it is said: “The Imām is anyone by whom a group of people are led, whether it be a chief or someone else, and whether they are on the straight path or are misguided.” al-Jawharī has said: “The Imām is the one who is followed.”[12]
Technical Meaning of Imāmah within Theology (al-iṣṭilāh)
This denotes general leadership in matters of religion and worldly affairs.
Divine Imāmah (al-imāmah al-ilāhiyyah)
It denotes general leadership in matters of religion and worldly affairs, obligatory in every era. Its wielder is appointed by God and he is characterized by certain attributes such as infallibility (al-‘iṣmah), superior knowledge (al-a’lamiyyah), and ontological superiority (al-afḍaliyyah).
Before delving into the research, it is beneficial to present two preliminary points that contribute to a better understanding of our belief in Divine Imamate.
The Nature of Doctrinal Evidence
The issue of Imamate—its theoretical understanding and its credal instantiation in the Twelve Imams—is one of Imamite Shī’ism’s necessary dogmas. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin by discussing what is used as evidence in doctrinal principles through three points:
First: Evidence Must Necessitate Conviction
Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī in his book Miṣbāḥ Al-Uṣūl states:
As for conjecture (ẓann) related to doctrinal principles, there should be no doubt that it is impermissible to rely on conjecture in matters that must be known rationally, such as recognizing the Creator, or religiously, such as acknowledging bodily resurrection. This is because conjecture does not qualify as conviction, nor does it constitute moving from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge… Therefore, in the context of proving a doctrinal principle, it is not valid to rely on evidence unless it renders certainty.[13]
Second: The Two Paths to Certain Knowledge of Specific Imāmah
What will provide us with conviction from the corpus of evidence? The most important sources to mention here are hyper-corroborated/mass-transmitted reports (mutawātir) and reports accompanied by contextual indicators of certainty (al-maḥfūf bi al-qarā’in).
As for mutawātir reports, Shahīd Sayyid Muḥammad Bāqir al-Ṣadr defines them as:
The agreement of a large body of narrators on a matter in such a way that their collusion on falsehood is impossible due to their extensive number.[14]
A narration could be mutawātir in its wording (lafẓī), such as the Ḥadīth of Thaqalayn, or in its meaning (ma’nawī), such as the judicial expertise or bravery of Amīr al-Mu’minīn (a). It is not necessary for a mutawātir report to have authentic chains of transmission, although achieving tawātur with reliable chains is more expeditious. This is because the certainty derived from tawātur relies on the accumulation of probabilities (tarākum al-iḥtimālāt), and the probabilistic value is not exclusive to trustworthy narrators—although trustworthy narrators do have a higher probabilistic value of veracity in this regard.
Secondly, a report may not be mutawātir, but it may be accompanied by contextual indicators (qarā’in) that lead to intellectual confidence (al-iṭmi’nān) or approximate conviction (al-ẓann al-mutākhim li al-‘ilm) about its content.[15] Anyone who denies the possibility of attaining this type of confidence through such indicators is either obstinate or argumentative, as expressed by Shaykh al-Islam Al-Bahā’ī.[16]
An Overview of the Methods for Recognizing the Imam
After conceding the theological principle of Divine Imamate, the identity of the appointed Imam is narrowed down from the pool of potential candidates through rational premises granted by acknowledging Divine Imamate itself.[17] However, after a certain point one cannot narrow down the candidates further except by additional clarification from God’s representative. Since the Imam is characterized by infallibility, which can only be guaranteed by God Almighty, recognition of the Imam must ultimately be determined through God and His appointment. Furthermore, since Imamate, like Prophethood, is a divinely elected position, reason dictates that it should be accompanied by a miracle to disclose it. Those whose Imamate has been established previously have informed us of signs that, like miracles, reveal the validity or invalidity of someone’s claim to Imamate.
In any case, the methods for recognizing the Imam can be summarized as follows:
I. Explicit Naming and Indirect Alluding
This refers to whatever clarifies God’s appointment on the tongue of God’s Prophet (saw) or his successor. The most evident form of declaration regarding Imamate is the naming of the Imam or a reference to him. This has occurred in various ways:
1. Alluding to Them Without Explicitly Naming Them
The most prominent example of this is what is known as the Texts of the Twelve (nuṣūṣ al-ithnā ‘ashar) which are disseminated throughout the traditions of both Sunni and Shī’ah sources, and even in the traditions of the People of the Book. Among these texts is the narration of Jābir ibn Samurah, which has been narrated in various sources and through numerous chains of transmission, to the extent that it is said to be mutawātir.[18]
For example, it is recorded in Musnad Ibn al-Ja’d:
“’Alī narrated to us, from Zuhayr, from Ziyād ibn Khaythamah, from al-Aswad ibn Sa’īd al-Hamdānī, who heard Jābir ibn Samurah say: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say: “There will be twelve successors after me, all from Quraysh.” Then I returned to my home, and they asked, “What will happen after that?” He said, “Then there will be chaos (al-haraj).[19]
Another example is the hadith of Ibn Mas’ūd, which has been narrated in several Sunni books with chains that have been favorably appraised by several scholars. It is recorded in Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal as follows:
“Ḥasan ibn Mūsā narrated to us, from Hammād ibn Zayd, from al-Mujāhid, from al-Sha’bī, from Masrūq, who said: ‘We were sitting with ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd while he was teaching us the Qur’ān. A man asked him, “O ‘Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, did you ask the Messenger of Allah how many caliphs this Ummah will have?” ‘Abdullah replied, “No one has asked me about this since I came to Iraq except you.” We did ask the Messenger of Allah, and he said, ‘Twelve, like the number of the chiefs of the tribes of Israel.’[20]
Among these is what is found in the Old Testament of the Bible, where it is stated:
As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation (Genesis 17:20).[21] [22]
It is noteworthy what Ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned regarding the impact of this text from the Bible on Jews who convert to Islam. He said:
Many Jews, when they embrace Islam, become Shi’a because they see in the Torah the mention of the Twelve, and they assume that these (Imams of Ahl al-Bayt) must be the same ones.[23]
2. Naming Some Imams Explicitly while Alluding to the Others
Some narrations name ‘Alī (a) and indicate that the rest will be from his descendants. Others name him along with al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (a) and indicate that the rest will be from the descendants of al-Ḥusayn (a). Some name the present Imam—such as al-Bāqir (a)—and indicate that the rest will be from his descendants. Some also explicitly mention the number [twelve].
An example of these texts is the authentic ḥadīth narrated by al-Kulaynī from ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ‘Umayr, from Sa’īd ibn Ghazwān, from Abū Baṣīr, from Abū Ja’far (a):
There will be nine Imāms after Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī (a), the ninth of whom will be their Qā’im.[24]
3. The Imam’s Explicit Naming or Alluding to His Direct Successor
For example, Abū Ja’far al-Bāqir (a) naming Abū ‘Abdullāh al-Ṣādiq (a) or alluding towards him. An example of this is the authentic ḥadīth narrated by al-Kulaynī from several of our companions, from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad from ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥakam, from ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mughīrah from al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Mukhtār, who said:
Tablets were issued from Abū al-Ḥasan (a) to us in Baṣrah, on which it was written: ‘My covenant is with my eldest son. So-and-so is to be given such-and-such, and so-and-so is not to be given anything until I come to you or until God decrees death for me. Indeed, God does what He wills.[25]
4. The Explicit Naming of All Twelve Imams (a), from Amīr Al-Mu’minīn (‘Alī) to the Awaited Mahdi (aj)
The most prominent example of this is the Ḥadīth of the Tablet, which has been narrated through multiple chains of transmission to the extent Shaykh al-Sadābādī has said: “There are two well-known chains for this: one from Sunni narrations and the other from Shi’a narrations. As for the Imami Shī’ah narrations, then the most agreed-upon narration is the Hadith of the Tablet.”[26]
Shaykh al-Karājukī has said: “Among these is the famous and well-known Hadith of the Tablet, which the Imami Shī’ah have unanimously accepted without disagreement.”[27]
In concordance with these various categories of narrations, a group of our scholars has explicitly stated that the appointment of the Imams of the Ahlulbāyt is mutawātir. Sadīd al-Dīn al-Ḥimmaṣī thus states: “The discussion on proving the Imamate of the remaining Imāms to complete the twelve is based on three methods. One of those paths is the mutawātir reports from the Shi’a, passed down from one generation to another, that the Prophet (a) appointed his successor, who in turn appointed his successor, and so on until the completion of the twelve Imāms. The second path are mass-transmitted reports that Amīr al-Mu’minīn Imām ‘Alī (a) designated those who would come after him; finally, there are the reports that each Imām appointed the one who would come after him, culminating in Imām al-Mahdi(aj).[28]
II. Identification of Signs
Another means to recognize the Imām (a) is by identifying the signs that must be present in him. We discern these signs from those about whom we have already established as having a connection to divine revelation, such as via prophethood or successorship.
Among the narrations in this regard is what Al-Ṣadūq narrated through a seemingly reliable chain:
Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Isḥāq al-Tāliqānī narrated to us, saying: Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī informed us, saying: ‘Ali ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Faḍḍāl narrated to us, from his father, from Abu al-Ḥasan ‘Ali ibn Mūsa al-Riḍa(a), who said: ‘The Imām has signs: he is the most knowledgeable of people, the wisest of people, the most pious of people, the most forbearing of people, the bravest of people, the most generous of people, and the most devout of people. He is born circumcised, purified, and he can see behind him as he sees in front of him. He casts no shadow… [29]
There are also narrations that indicate the Imam’s possession of inherited relics from the Ahl al-Bayt such as the weapon of the Messenger of Allah and the Muṣhaf of Fāṭimah,[30] among other things. By using these signs as the means of identification, the Imam whose obedience is obligatory can be determined or at least brought closer to identification.
III. Manifestation of a Miracle
This method is established through rational evidence just as it is employed to recognize a true prophet. It is not limited to one form; it includes revealing what is hidden in the hearts, causing inanimate objects to speak, and other miraculous acts.[31]
An example of this is the ḥadīth narrated by al-Kulaynī through a reliable chain:
Here is the full translation of the text into English:
Muḥammad ibn Yahya, from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, from Ibn Maḥbūb, from ‘Alī ibn Ri’āb, from both Abū ‘Ubaydah and Zurārah, from Abū Ja’far (a), who said: When al-Ḥusayn was killed, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah sent a message to ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn (a), and he met with him privately. He said to him: ‘O son of my brother, you know that the Messenger of Allah entrusted the will and the leadership (Imamate) to Amīr al-Mu’minīn ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib(a), and then to al-Ḥasan, and then to al-Ḥusayn (a). Your father was killed and his spirit was prayed upon, yet he did not make a will. I am your uncle, and I am the equal of your father. I am older and have been around longer than you, so I have more right to the leadership and your father’s will than you. Do not dispute with me regarding the will and the Imamate, and do not argue with me.’
‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn (a) replied: ‘O my uncle, fear Allāh and do not claim what is not your right. I advise you not to be among the ignorant. If you wish to know this (affair of Imamate), let us go to the Black Stone (al-ḥajar al-aswad) and seek judgment from it. We will ask it about this.’ Abū Ja’far (a) said: This conversation between them took place in Makkah, so they both went until they reached the Black Stone. ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn (a) said to Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah: ‘You begin. Pray to Allāh, ask Him to make the stone speak, then ask your question.’ Muḥammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah prayed, asking Allah for the stone to speak, but the stone did not answer. ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn (a) said: ‘O my uncle, if you were truly the one appointed for the will and the Imamate, the stone would have responded to you.’
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah said: ‘Now, you pray to Allāh, O my nephew, and ask Him.’ Thereafter ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn (a) prayed to Allāh, asking for what he desired. Then he said: ‘I ask You by the One who has placed the covenant of the Prophets, the covenant of their inheritors, and the covenant of all mankind upon you, that You tell us who is the rightful successor and Imam after al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī (a).’ The stone began to move, almost shifting from its place, and then Allāh caused it to speak with a clear Arabic tongue. It said: ‘O Allāh, the will and Imāmah after al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Ali (a) is to ‘Ali ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib, and the son of Faṭimah, daughter of the Messenger of Allah.’ Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah turned away, accepting the Imāmah of ‘Ali ibn al-Ḥusayn (a).[32][33]
Presentation and Refutation of the Objection [34]
Al-Kulaynī narrated from Muḥammad ibn Yahya, from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Isā, from Abu Yahya al-Wāsiṭī from Hishām ibn Sālim, who said:
We were in Medina after the death of Imām Ja’far al-Ṣādiq—my companion Ṣāhib al-Ṭāq and I—while the people had gathered around ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja’far, believing that he was the successor after his father. My companion and I entered his gathering wherein people were present. This was because they had narrated from Abu ‘Abdillāh that he said: “The authority remains with the eldest, as long as he has no defect (in religion).” Thus, we entered to ask him about what we used to ask his father. We asked him about the obligation of zakāt and in what amount it becomes due. He replied: “Out of two hundred (dirhams), five.” We then asked: “And how about out of one hundred?” He said: “Two and a half dirhams.” We exclaimed: “By Allah! Even the Murji’ah do not say this!”[35]
He then raised his hands toward the sky and said: “By Allāh, I do not know what the Murji’ah say.” Thus we left his presence lost and confused, not knowing where to turn. Abū Ja’far al-Aḥwal and I sat in one of the alleys of Medina, crying and bewildered, unsure of our direction or whom to seek. We said: “Should we turn to the Murji’ah? To the Qadariyyah? To the Zaydites? To the Mu’tazilah? To the Khawārij?”[36]
As we were in this state, I saw an elderly man whom I did not recognize, gesturing toward me with his hand. I feared that he was one of Abū Ja’far al-Manṣūr’s spies—since there were informants in Medina watching for those whom the followers of Ja’far [al-Ṣādiq] would agree upon, so they could be executed. I was afraid that he was one of them, so I told al-Aḥwal: “Step aside, for I fear for myself and for you. He is after me, not you. Step away so you do not perish or bring harm upon yourself.”[37]
Al-Aḥwal moved away a little, and I followed the old man, thinking that I would not be able to escape him. I kept following him, resigning myself to death, until he led me to the door of Abū al-Ḥasan [Mūsā ibn Ja’far]. Then he left me and walked away. A servant at the door said to me: “Enter may Allāh have mercy on you.”
So, I entered, and there was Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā, who, before I could even speak, said:
“Neither to the Murji’ah, nor to the Qadariyyah, nor to the Zaydites, nor to the Mu’tazilah, nor to the Khawarij—come to me, come to me!” I said: “May I be your ransom! Has your father passed?” He replied: “Yes.” I asked: “Did he pass away in death?”[38]
He said: “Yes.” I asked: “Then who is our guide after him?” He replied: “If Allāh wills to guide you, He will guide you.” I said: “May I be your ransom! ‘Abdullāh claims that he is the leader after his father!” He replied: “Abdullāh wants that Allāh not be worshipped.” I asked: “May I be your ransom! Then who is our guide after him?”
He said: “If Allāh wills to guide you, He will guide you.”I asked again: “May I be your ransom! Are you the one?” He replied: “No, I do not say that.”
I thought to myself: “I have not found the right way to phrase my question.” Then I asked: “May I be your ransom! Do you have an Imām over you?” He said: “No.”
At that moment, something profound entered my heart—something only Allāh knows—a sense of awe and reverence greater than what I had felt in the presence of his father.
I then said: “May I be your ransom! May I ask you about what I used to ask your father?”
He said: “Ask, and you shall be informed. But do not disclose it; if you reveal it, it will lead to slaughter.” I then asked him, and I found him to be an endless sea of knowledge.
I then said: “May I be your ransom! Your followers and the followers of your father are lost. Should I convey the truth to them and call them to you, even though you have bound me to secrecy?”
He replied: “If you find someone who shows understanding, then inform him and take an oath of secrecy from him. If they should disclose it, it will lead to slaughter.” Then he gestured with his hand toward his throat.
So, I left his presence and met Abū Ja’far al-Aḥwal, who asked me, “What news do you bring?” I replied, “(I bring) guidance.” Then I told him the story. Later, we met al-Fuḍayl and Abū Baṣīr, who also went to see him, heard his words, questioned him, and affirmed his Imamate. Then we encountered people in groups. Everyone who entered his presence accepted him, except for a faction led by ‘Ammār (al-Sābāṭī) and his followers. Meanwhile ‘Abdullāh [ibn Ja’far] was left with only a small number of supporters.[39]
When he noticed this, he asked, “What has happened to the people?” He was told, “Hishām has turned them away from you.” Hishām said: “They set up men in Medina to beat me.”[40]
The Origin of the Objection
The contention laid out based on this narration is as follows: the mentioned narration affirms that Hishām, Mu’min al-Ṭāq, al-Fuḍayl, and Abū Baṣīr—despite being prominent companions and students of Imām al-Sādiq—were unaware of who would succeed him. It is inconceivable that those closest to the Imam would be ignorant of his designated successor if—as the Imamites purport—the Imamate was divinely appointed in advance. Given the sensitivity and gravity of the issue, their lack of knowledge indicates that there was no prior designation, thus undermining the doctrine of divinely ordained Imamate.
Response to the Objection
Upon examining the objection, we can see that it rests on several premises. Understanding the bases of these will clarify the validity or weakness of the objection.
First Premise: The Authenticity of the Incident
The incident has been narrated through six chains that trace back to Abū Yaḥyā al-Wāsiṭī, Ibn Abī ‘Umayr, and al-Ḥasan al-Wāsiṭī, all quoting Hishām ibn Sālim. However, there are differences and variations in the texts of these chains.
– al-Kulaynī narrated it in al-Kāfī through Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā, from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā, from Abū Yaḥyā al-Wāsiṭī, from Hishām ibn Sālim.[41]
– al-Kashshī narrated it in Rijāl al-Kashshī through Ja’far ibn Muḥammad, who said: “al-Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Nu’mān narrated to me from Abū Yaḥyā, from Hishām ibn Sālim.”[42]
– al-Ṣaffār recorded it in Baṣā’ir al-Darajāt through al-Haytham al-Nahdī, from Ismā’īl ibn Sahl, from Ibn Abī ‘Umayr, from Hishām ibn Sālim.[43]
– ‘Alī ibn Bābawayh narrated it in Al-Imāmah wa al-Tabṣirah through ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ‘Umayr, from Hishām ibn Sālim.[44]
– al-Ṭabarī al-Ṣaghīr cited it in Dalā’il al-Imāmah through Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Hibat Allāh, from al-Ṣadūq, from his father ‘Alī ibn Bābawayh (mentioned above), from Sa’d ibn ‘Abdillāh, from Ya’qūb ibn Yazīd, from Muḥammad ibn Abī ‘Umayr, from Hishām ibn Sālim.[45]
– al-Ṣaffār, in another chain in Baṣā’ir al-Darajāt, narrated it through Ya’qūb ibn Yazīd, from Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād al-Mīthamī, from al-Ḥasan al-Wāsiṭī, from Hishām ibn Sālim.[46]
These multiple chains and their variations require careful analysis to assess the reliability and implications of the incident, as these chains are not free from weakness.
Abū Yaḥyā al-Wāsiṭī appears in the chains of both al-Kulaynī and al-Kashshī. Al-Najāshī described him in his biography, stating: “Some of our scholars said: He was not entirely reliable in ḥadīth.”[47]
Additionally, Ibn al-Ghaḍā’irī stated: “Sometimes we recognize his narrations, and sometimes we reject them. His ḥadīth can be used as supporting evidence but not independently.”[48]
Ismā’īl ibn Sahl appears in the first chain of al-Ṣaffār, and al-Najāshī said about him: “Our scholars considered him weak.”[49]
As for al-Ḥasan al-Wāsiṭī, who appears in the second chain of al-Ṣaffār, he is unknown, with no mention in hadith or biographical books except in this context and another instance in Kamāl al-Dīn.[50] It is possible that the name was miswritten and actually refers to a known and reliable narrator, such as Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Wāsiṭī.
In the chain of al-Ṭabarī al-Ṣaghīr, the name ‘Alī ibn Hibatillāh appears. Al-Ṭabarī later clarifies in Dalā’il al-Imāmah that his full name is Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Hibatillāh ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Rā’iq al-Mawṣilī.[51] The only known person with this name is mentioned by Ibn Shahrāshūb in his al-Fihrist, who describes him as “a great, pious, and trustworthy memorizer.”[52]
However, this individual lived after or was a contemporary of Shaykh al-Ṭūsī[53], which fits the assumed era of al-Ṭabarī al-Ṣaghīr. The issue arises because his narration from al-Ṣadūq without an intermediary would only be valid if he had lived an exceptionally long life. Moreover, al-Ṭabarī himself remains unknown, which prevents the chain from being considered reliable.
The chain through ‘Alī ibn Bābawayh is free from these biographical issues. However, scholars have debated the reliability of the transmitted manuscript of al-Imamāh wa al-Tabṣirah, raising questions about the certainty of attributing the narration to the book or to Ibn Bābawayh himself. Some may plausibly argue that the convergence of six different chains lends credibility to the incident, despite the discussed weaknesses. However, others counter that inconsistencies within the chain of Ibn Abī ‘Umayr—narrated by both al-Ṣaffār and Ibn Bābawayh—raise further concerns because of the following variances:
– In al-Ṣaffār’s first narration and al-Ṭabarī al-Ṣaghīr’s version, the messenger of Imam al-Kāẓim to Hishām was a young boy under five years old. However, in Abū Yaḥyā’s narration, the messenger was an old man, while in Ibn Bābawayh’s narration, there was no messenger at all—Imam al-Kāẓim (as) instead called Hishām directly.
– In Abū Yaḥyā al-Wāsiṭī’s version, the incident involved Hishām and Mu’min al-Ṭāq. However, Mu’min al-Ṭāq is entirely absent in the chains of Ibn Abī ‘Umayr and al-Ḥasan al-Wāsiṭī.
– The detailed question-and-answer exchanges between Hishām and the Imām between Abū Yaḥyā’s chain and the version in Ibn Bābawayh’s narration of Ibn Abī ‘Umayr’s chain are in conformity, except it differs from what appears in Ibn Abī ‘Umayr’s chain as transmitted by Al-Ṣaffār, and both also differ from the narration recorded by Al-Ṭabarī.
– Additionally, the location where Hishām expressed his confusion—saying, “To the Murji’ah? To the Qadariyyah?”—varies between narrations:
– In Abū Yaḥyā’s chain, it occurs in one of Medina’s alleyways.
– In Ibn Abī ‘Umayr’s and al-Ḥasan al-Wāsiṭī’s chains, it happens at the grave of the Prophet (as per al-Ṣaffār and Al-Ṭabarī Al-Ṣaghīr).
– In Ibn Bābawayh’s narration, it happens inside the Prophet’s Mosque, facing Imam al-Kāẓim (as).
These discrepancies suggest inconsistencies in the transmission of the event. However, some may argue that such inconsistencies in chains are expected due to the inherent flaws in transmission. While these discrepancies prevent us from accepting the finer details with certainty, they do not necessarily negate the core incident itself.
Despite these issues, the event is well-known and widely cited beyond these six narrations. It appears in historical books, sectarian debates, and theological discussions, often without being denied or refuted. Even Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, who was discussing this very objection in Kamāl al-Dīn[54] did not reject or challenge the occurrence of the event—despite having every reason to do so. This widespread acceptance lends weight to the likelihood that some version of the incident did indeed happen. Regardless of whether the incident is fully authentic, it is well-established that uncertainty regarding Imāmah emerged after the martyrdom of Imām al-Ṣādiq (a)—even beyond just Hishām and his companions.
Second Premise: The Fallacy of the Alleged Conclusion
The questioner is fallacious when he jumps from stating that the companions did not immediately recognize Imam Kāẓim as successor to dismantling the institution of Divine Imamate. As previously mentioned in our introduction, the ways of knowing the identity of the Imam are not limited to explicit textual proof. These methods, according to their nature, imply a difference in how quickly one can recognize the Imam and how easily it can be done. These methods were employed by the close companions as well, with no evidence to suggest otherwise. The recognition of the Imām’s identity is not restricted to explicit texts about him. These methods, by their nature, imply that there is a difference in how quickly and easily one can recognize the Imām; they were established for the close companions and others, and there is no evidence suggesting the necessity of immediately recognizing the next Imam by all the prior Imam’s close companions.
Of course, recognizing all the close companions of the Imam before he assumes the responsibilities of the Imamate may be expected in normal situations when no circumstances hinder it. However, it should be expected to be somewhat limited when the Imam faces critical security conditions that threaten his life or the life of his followers. This is what happened to some of the Imams from the family of the Prophet, as they were at risk of being killed and most especially for Imam Al-Kāẓim (a).
The Circumstances of Imām Al-Kāẓim’s Imāmate
Regarding the period when Imam Al-Kāẓim (a) took over the Imamate after the martyrdom of Imam al-Ṣādiq (a), he faced immense security pressure due to the ‘Abbasid authority’s attempts to eliminate the rightful caliph, whose existence posed a psychological challenge to those who had usurped the caliphate. They had seized it while knowing to whom belonged the right of the caliphate and that the family of Muḥammad (s) occupied a central and essential role in this right, which led the usurpers to anticipate the return of this right to its original owners at any moment.
This led the ‘Abbasid leadership to plot the murder of the Imams, and thus Imams al-Ṣādiq and al-Kāẓim (a) had to take preventative measures. After the martyrdom of Imām al-Ṣādiq (a), the ‘Abbasid caliph Abū Ja’far al- Manṣūr explicitly ordered the assassination of the following Imam, but Imam Al-Ṣādiq (a) had already taken measures to prevent this from happening.[55]
Al-Kulaynī, in his book, narrates through his chain of transmission from Abū Ayyūb, who said after discussing the passing of Imam Al-Ṣādiq (a): “He told me: ‘Write down,’ and I wrote. He then said: ‘Write that he bequeathed to one specific person,’ and I wrote it down. He then told me that the will was made to five people, one of them being the Abū Ja’far Al-Manṣūr, along with Muḥammad bin Sulaymān (Manṣūr’s governor over Medina), ‘Abdullāh (al-Afṭaḥ), Mūsā (bin Ja’far), and Ḥamīdah (al-Barbariyyah).”[56]
He narrated through another chain of narration similar to this, except that it mentioned: “He bequeathed to Abū Ja’far al-Manṣūr, ‘Abdullāh, Mūsā, Muḥammad bin Ja’far, and a slave of Abū ‘Abdillāh.” He said: “Abū Ja’far al-Manṣūr (la) said: ‘There is no way to kill these people.'”[57]
Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī also alluded to this incident in a narration recorded by Ibn Shahrāshūb:
“Dāwūd bin Kathīr al-Raqqi said: ‘A Bedouin came to Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī and asked him for news.’ He said: ‘The death of Ja’far Al-Ṣādiq occurred,’ and he gasped and fainted. When he regained consciousness, he said: ‘Did he bequeath to anyone?’ He replied: ‘Yes, he bequeathed to his son ‘Abdullāh, Mūsā, and Abū Ja’far al-Manṣūr.’ Abū Hamza laughed and said: ‘Praise be to Allāh who guided us to the rightly guided one, made clear the deficiency of the elder, alluded to the younger, and concealed a great matter.’ He was asked about his statement, and he replied: “He revealed the flaws of the elder (son) and alluded to the younger (son) by his addition of him to his brother.[58] Meanwhile the legatee was concealed for al-Manṣūr because if he asked about it, it would have been said: ‘You (al-Manṣūr) are one of them.'”[59]
This was also pointed out by the same narration that was used to raise the confusion, as Imām al-Kāẓim (a) said in it: “Ask and you will be informed, but do not spread it; for if you spread it, it will lead to slaughter.”
The reasons for dissimulation (al-taqiyyah) during the times of the Imams are clear, and their features are apparent for those who study their lives and understand the circumstances of their times. Numerous evidences for this exist,[60] including regarding our Imām al-Kāẓim (as), as narrated in some authenticated chains about combining two and three sets of seven circumambulations. Al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsi narrated in al-Tahdhīb with his chain of narrators from Safwān and Ibn Abī Naṣr who said:
“We asked him (al-Riḍā) about the act of combining the ṭawāf in two and three sets.” He replied: “No it is only seven circumambulations and then you do two rak’ahs.” And he said: “My father used to perform the ṭawāf with Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm and combine them, but this was due to the situation of dissimulation.”[61]
He also narrated with his chain from Ibn Abī Naṣr, who said: “A man asked Abū al-Ḥasan (al-Riḍā) (a) about a man who combined all sets of circumambulation in ṭawāf.” He replied: “No, it is seven and two rak’ahs, and Abū al-Ḥasan (al-Kāẓim) combined it because he was performing the ṭawāf with Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm due to dissimulation.”[62]
Other Objections
1. Why did the Ḥadīth of the Tablet not prevent confusion?
Answer: The reason why the general dissemination of texts indicating the next Imam was restricted also applies, even more so, to texts that explicitly mention all the Imams, such as the Ḥadīth of the Tablet and the Ḥadīth of al-Khiḍr, among others. Yes, there were multiple chains of transmission for these aḥādīth but their multiplicity did not mean that they reached all close associates, let alone all Shī’ah. The Shī’ah were aware that these hadiths contained secrets that should not be widely broadcasted. This is why, in some narrations of the Ḥadīth of the Tablet, Abū Baṣīr is reported to have said:
“If you hear only this hadith in your lifetime, it would be sufficient for you. So, safeguard it and do not disclose it except to its rightful people.”[63]
2. How can the Imamite claim of the mutawātir nature of the designation of their Imams be reconciled with the confusion experienced by some of their narrators?
Answer: There is no necessary connection between tawātur (mass transmission) and the awareness of all narrators or followers regarding the mutawātir text. Tawātur only requires that an adequate number of narrators exist to establish intellectual confidence. This number could be met by as few as ten people, while other companions still remain ignorant of the text. A strong example is the incident involving Abū al-Ṭufayl and Zayd ibn Arqam. Abū al-Ṭufayl was unaware of the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr despite the fact that its transmission reached a level of tawātur greater than any other hadith in Islamic tradition. He only learned about it when he heard Amīr al-Mu’minīn Imām ‘Ali(a) invoke it in the gathering at al-Rahbah.[64] If such a widely transmitted hadith remained unknown to some Companions, then it is not surprising that a hadith of lesser tawātur would also remain unknown, especially considering the previously mentioned circumstances surrounding Ahl al-Bayt (a).
3. Does this mean that if someone died in their state of confusion, they would have died the death of ignorance (mītah jāhiliyyah)?
Answer: Based on the principle that punishment without clear guidance is unjust (qubḥ al-‘iqāb bi lā bayān), and considered the credal texts, anyone who sincerely strives to find the truth but dies while still in confusion is excused. Among these texts is a report from al-Kulaynī with an authentic chain of transmission from Ya‘qūb ibn Shu‘ayb, who said:
“I asked Ja‘far Al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘If something happens to the Imam, what should people do?’ He replied: ‘Where is the saying of Allāh: (It is not appropriate for the believers to go forth all together; why does not a party from each of them go forth to gain understanding in religion and to warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware?) [Qur’an 9:122].’ Then he said: ‘They are excused as long as they are in the process of searching, and those who are awaiting their return are also excused until their companions return to them.’”[65]
Another narration, considered reliable in some chains, states that ‘Abd al-A‘lā asked Imam Ja‘far Al-Ṣādiq (a) about the common Sunni belief that the Prophet (s) said:
“Whoever dies without an Imam dies a death of ignorance.”
Abu ‘Abdillāh replied: “By Allah, that is true.”
‘Abd al-A‘lā then asked: “If an Imam dies while a man is in Khurasān and does not know who his successor is, is he excused?”
Abu ‘Abdullāh responded: “No, he is not excused. If the Imam dies, the responsibility of recognizing his successor falls upon those in the same city as him. As for those who are distant, it becomes their duty to seek out the new Imam once the news reaches them.
“Indeed, Allah, the Almighty, says: But why does not a group from every section of them go forth so that they may gain understanding in religion and warn their people when they return to them so that they may beware? [Qur’an 9:122].”
He was asked: “A group set out, but some of them perished before reaching their destination and gaining knowledge. What is their status?”
He replied: “Indeed, Allah also says: And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant toward Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward is already incumbent upon Allah. [Qur’an 4:100].”[66]
Conclusion
Ultimately, upon careful examination of the nature of the discussed objection, its weakness becomes evident in light of the proofs of Imamate, their various types, and the historical circumstances surrounding the appearance of the Imams—especially considering the oppression of unjust rulers, the complexities surrounding the Imams’ martyrdoms, and the transition of Imamate from one to the next by divine decree.
This objection only gains traction when one is divorced from these historical realities, unaware of the relevant texts, and assumes unnecessary conditions, requirements, and constraints—none of which are supported by reason or scripture. In fact, such assumptions may contradict well-established historical facts and authentic narrations, such as the mistaken belief that the designation of all the Imams was publicly announced and widely known. Perhaps an in-depth study of Imāmate, its designation, characteristics, and historical context would also help dispel similar misconceptions. I ask God for ease in pursuing such research—whether in full or in part—in the coming days, by His grace and generosity, for He is the Most Generous and Benevolent.
Footnotes
[1] The original article can be accessed here (Telegram required): https://t.me/almarhooom/805
[2] TN: Hishām b. Sālim (d. 183 AH) was one of the foremost Imamite jurists, tradents, and theologians in the 2nd century AH. His name occurs in the chains of approximately 663 narrations in the Shi’ite ḥadīth corpus. He is highly appraised in rijālī works and is considered a companion of Imam al-Sādiq and Imam al-Kāẓim. There are some controversies regarding some of his early theological views which appear to suggest anthropomorphism, although this has been reconciled by modern scholars (for advanced readers see here: https://Shi’a.urd.ac.ir/article_109585.html?lang=en).
[3] TN: Consider for example the theses presented by Dr. Hossein Modarressi and Edmund Hayes in their respective works “Crisis and Consolidation” and “Agents of the Hidden Imam,” which specifically emerge from the Western Orientalist lens. In the Arabic context, Aḥmad al-Kātib has also risen as a prominent critic of the traditional Twelver understanding of Imamate.
[4] al-Milal wa al-Naḥl, v.1, pg.24. https://shamela.ws/book/11812/22#p1
[5] TN: The theological underpinnings regarding Divine Imamate are outside of the scope of this article; English readers may refer to Shaykh Misbah Yazdi’s book entitled Theological Instructions Lessons 36-39 and Al-Bāb al-Ḥādī ‘Ashar’s section on Imamate for a primer on this topic.
[6] Kamāl al-Dīn, v.1, pg. 68 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/27045/1/68
[7] Kamāl al-Dīn, v.1, pg.74 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/27045/1/74
[8] ‘Uyūn al-Masaîl fi Uṣūl, pg.83 https://archive.org/details/20210121_20210121_1059/page/n82/mode/1up
[9] Muḥaṣṣal Afkār al-Mutaqaddimīn wa al-Muta’akhkhirīn, pg. 244 https://www.quranicthought.com/wp-content/themes/pgt/assets/pdf__/viewer.html?file=https://www.quranicthought.com/wp-content/uploads/post_attachments/5c50664b01724.pdf#page=245
[10] TN: There are several proponents of this view in Shī’ite circles, including the likes of Dr. Mohsen Kadivar in his work al-Qirā’ah al-Mansiyyah, Aḥmad al-Kātib in his various Youtube videos and articles, and Dr. ‘Alī Sharī’atī in his Tashayyu’-i-Alawī ve Tashayyu’-i-Safavī. There are also modern English-speaking figures that have begun propagating this ideology to the youth, including Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri on his site al-Islaah.
[11] TN: The author refers here to the arguments of our earlier theologians against the Zaydites. This is because the theory of ‘Ulamā Abrār is simply a regurgitation of the Zaydite position regarding the Imamate, as they predicate the office upon being of descent from Sayyidah Fāṭimah (as), asceticism, knowledge, and uprisal by the sword. In doing so, they refute that the Imam must be infallible, superlatively knowledgeable, and supported by explicit appointment. This bears remarkable semblance with the ‘Ulamā Abrār theory that is trumpeted today. For more advanced readers, we recommend the Arabic work of Shaykh Aḥmad Salmān on this topic entitled, Wahm al-Qirā’ah al-Mansiyyah.
[12] Tāj al-‘Arūs, v. 16, pg. 33 http://Shi’aonlinelibrary.com/
[13] Miṣbaḥ al-Uṣūl, v.1, pg.74 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11540/1/274
[14] Būḥūth fi ‘Ilm al-Uṣūl, v.4, 327 https://ito.lib.eShi’a.ir/80151/4/327
[15] TN: In his book titled Ḥujjiyah al-Ḥadīth, Dr. Haidar Hobbollah discusses several of these contextual indicators that can render certainty for solitary reports. These include factors such as: a) the lack of perceived motive for fabrication, b) established practice of Muslims on the basis of the narration, c) multiplicity and variety of sources for the narration, d) reliability of the chain of narrators, e) lack of contradictory narrations, f) corroboration with the Qurān and rationality, among others.
[16] Zubdat al-Uṣūl, v.1, pg.90 https://ar.lib.eShi’a.ir/12750/1/90
[17] TN: For instance, the office of Imamate and the leadership it imposes demands that its candidate not be ignorant of religious knowledge, immoral, or deficient. These are minimum intellectual requirements that can be derived by properly understanding the doctrine of Divine Imamate.
[18] TN: An extensive investigation into the various chains of this narration and its hypercorroboration (tawātur) has been published in Arabic in three articles by Shaykh Safā al-Dīn al-Khazrajī and can be found here: https://nosos.net/%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-2/
[19] Consider the Sunni sources of this narration as below: Musnad ibn Ja’ād, v.1, pg.390. https://shamela.ws/book/4407/2484
Musnad Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal, v.34, pg.401. https://shamela.ws/book/25794/17176
Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, v.9, h:329 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7222
Saḥīḥ al-Muslim, Book 33, h: 8 https://sunnah.com/muslim:1821d
Sunan Ibn Dāwud, Book 38 https://sunnah.com/abudawud/38
Sunan al-Tirmidhī, v.4, pg. 501 https://shamela.ws/book/1435/3850
Among the Shi’a books for this narration:
Kītab al-Ghaybah li al-Nu’mānī, pg. 103 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15220/1/103
al-Amālī li al-Ṣadūq, v.1, pg. 386 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15033/1/386
[20] Musnad Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal, v.1, pg.406 https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/6/3665/
Musnad al-Bazzār, v.5, pg. 320 https://maknoon.org/ai/view.php?bk=05_bzmb&p=320
Musnad ibn Abī Ya’lā, v.8, pg.444 https://shamela.ws/book/12520/5050
Kītab al-Ghaybah li al-Nu’mānī, pg. 117 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15220/1/117
al-Amālī li al-Ṣadūq, pg. 386 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15033/1/386
[21] Holy Bible, Genesis 17:20 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017%3A20&version=NIV
Kītab al-Ghaybah li al-Nu’mānī, pg.108 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15220/1/108
[22] TN: This is often taken as a reference to the Twelve Ishmaelite princes who are mentioned by name in the Bible. Even though it may not be a direct allusion to the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, it nonetheless demonstrates that the motif of twelve successors is highly germane and oft-repeated in religious prophecy. Since religious history repeats itself, this can easily serve as a contextual indicator (qarīnah) regarding the veracity of the prophecy of Twelve Imams.
[23] Minhāj al-Sunnah, v.8, pg. 241 https://shamela.ws/book/927/4073
[24] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg. 533 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/533
[25] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg. 313 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/313
[26] al-Muqni’ fi al-Imāmah, 149-150 https://archive.org/details/almoamltv_gmail_20161128_1530/page/n149/mode/1up
[27] al-Istibṣār, pg.114 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/27479/1/114
[28] Al-Munqidh min al-Taqlīd, v.2, pg.369 https://ar.lib.eShi’a.ir/71443/2/369
[29] al-Khiṣāl, v.2, pg.527-528 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15339/2/527
[30] For example: See the chapters on What the Imams Inherit from the Prophets (a), and the chapter on What the Imams have of the Weaponry and Belongings of the Messenger of Allah (s), and The Chapter Stating that the Example of the Weaponry of the Messenger of Allah (s) is Like the Example of the Ark Among Banū Isrāîl, from the book Al-Ḥujjah in Al-Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 232 onwards. https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/232
[31] TN: Approximately 2600 such narrations of varying levels of authenticity have been complied in Shaykh Hāshim al-Baḥrānī’s Madīnah al-Ma’ājiz.
[32] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.348 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/348
[33] TN: Al-Kulaynī has narrated this tradition with two authenticated chains in his al-Kāfī. It is also germane to note that the prominent companion Abū Khālid al-Kābulī is recorded to have been confused about the 4th Imam’s identity until Imam Sajjad (as) proved his Imamate by hidden knowledge of al-Kābulī’s birth name (for more details, see his entry in Ikhtiyār Ma’rifat al-Rijāl).
[34] TN: I would highly encourage readers to peruse brother Ammar Muslim’s points on this narration, which can be found in his article here: https://shiiticstudies.com/2022/01/22/how-to-know-your-imam-pt-i/
[35] TN: The Shī’ah were able to ascertain that ‘Abdullāh was not an Imam by this answer because in the Ja’farī school of thought, zakāt is not paid on gold that weighs less than 20 mithqāl (200 dirhams). Therefore, the companions immediately detected ‘Abdullāh’s ignorance of jurisprudence by this question.
The rhetorical exclamation regarding ‘Abdullāh not knowing the Murji’ite stance appears to be a snide tongue-in-cheek remark of Hishām that ‘Abdullāh does not even know the group with which he was known to be affiliated. This is because in al-Irshad, Al-Mufid documents Abdullah’s Murji’ite penchant:
وكان متّهماً في الخلاف على أبيه في الاعتقاد، ويقال أنه يخالط الحشويّة ويميل الى مذهب المرجئة، ولذلك لم تكن منزلته عند أبيه كمنزلة غيره من ولده في الإكرام
[36] TN: It appears that this statement is somewhat embellished, as it seems very unlikely that Hishām as a theologian would have been confused enough to consider following these fallacious theological groups. This narration appears to be heavily stylized (it is characterized in al-Kāfī under the chapter of recognizing a true and false claimant of Imamate), and therefore I do not consider it far-fetched that Hishām’s degree of confusion was accentuated for the sake of creating psychological impression.
[37] TN: Hishām was extremely petrified that he was on the brink of death when approached by Imam al-Kāẓim’s informant, suspecting he was a government spy. This is likely best explained by the fact that he had just exposed the inadequacy of al-Afṭaḥ in the open, who appears to have been the Abbasid regime’s favored candidate for the Imamate (especially since people were entering into his dwelling without restriction). As such, Hishām sought to distance himself from Mu’min al-Ṭāq since he perceived only himself as responsible for stirring up trouble.
[38] TN: It appears that this is a polemic against the Nāwūsiyyah, a heretical group that believed Imam al-Sādiq was still alive.
[39] TN: This ‘Ammār al-Sābāṭī returned to belief in Imam al-Kāẓim (as) and he is authenticated by most rijalists. The case of al-Afṭaḥ’s Imamate was weak and he quickly lost all supporters. Furthermore, ‘Abdullāh al-Afṭaḥ did not live for more than approximately seventy days after Imam al-Sādiq (as), and did not have any male offspring; in light of this, the Fathites eventually all reverted back to the Imamate of al-Kāẓim (as).
[40] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.351 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/351
[41] Ibid.
[42] Rijāl al-Kashī, v 1, pg. 282-283 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/10241/1/282
[43] Baṣa’ir al-Darājāt, v.1, pg.250-251 https://ar.lib.eShi’a.ir/86650/1/250
[44] al-Imamāh wal Tabṣirah, pg.82-83 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/70349/1/82
[45] Dalâil al-Imamāh, 323-324 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15165/1/323
[46] Baṣa’ir al-Darājāt, v.1, pg.251-252 https://ar.lib.eShi’a.ir/86650/1/251
[47] Rijāl al-Najāshī, pg.192 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/14028/1/192
[48] Khulāṣah al-Aqwāl, pg.389 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/14022/1/389
[49] Rijāl al-Najāshī, pg.28-29 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/14028/1/28
[50] Kamāl al-Dīn, v.1, pg.141 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/27045/1/141
[51] Dalâil al-Imamāh, pg.376 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15165/1/376
[52] al-Fihrist al-Rāzī, pg.76 https://ito.lib.eShi’a.ir/80389/1/76
[53] “He (rh) says in the introduction to his book: ‘I said, if Allah were to delay my time (of death) and fulfill my hopes, I would add to it what I have of the names of the Shī’ah scholars and their authors who lived after the time of Shaykh Abu Ja’far [al-Ṣadūq] and who were contemporaneous with him.’
Al-Fihrist, Ibn Bābawayh al-Rāzī, ‘Alī ibn ‘UbaydAllāh.” https://ito.lib.eShi’a.ir/80389/1/31
[54] Kamāl al-Dīn, v.1, pg.104 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/27045/1/104
[55] TN: This is mentioned in a narration by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī in his al-Ghaybah, wherein Abū Ayyūb al-Khūzī reports that when news of Imam al-Sādiq’s martyrdom reached al-Manṣūr, he commanded that his legatee should be summarily beheaded. However, he reneged on this command when he discovered that his name was also mentioned in the Imam’s final testament.
[56] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.310 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/310
[57] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.310-11 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/310
[58] TN: A famous narration in al-Kāfī is recorded from Imam al-Sādiq (as) that states the Imamate generally transfers to the eldest son, unless he has a deficiency in religion. Therefore, by coupling the elder ‘Abdullāh al-Afṭaḥ with his younger brother Imam al-Kāẓim in his testament, the insightful Shī’ite would immediately realize that the elder son had a defect in his religious knowledge.
[59] Manāqib Aal Abī Ṭālib, v.3, pg.434 https://ar.lib.eShi’a.ir/16066/3/434
[60] TN: Yet another example of the extreme taqiyyah at the time of Imam al-Kāẓim were his multiple ambiguous nicknames mentioned in the narrations such as “the righteous servant (‘abd al-ṣālih), “the master” (al-sayyid), “the man” (al-rajul), and the scholar (al-‘ālim).
[61] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, v.5, pg.115 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/10083/5/115
[62] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, v.5, pg.116 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/10083/5/116
[63] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.528 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/528
Kitāb al-Ghaybah li al-Nu’mānī, pg.66 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/15220/1/66
[64] Sunan al-Kubrā, al-Nisāī, v.7, pg.442 http://lib.efatwa.ir/42095/7/442
[65] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.378 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/378
[66] al-Kāfī, v.1, pg.378-379 https://lib.eShi’a.ir/11005/1/378
Sayyid Burair Abbas is a SAP consultant by profession & an independent reader & researcher in Islamic studies with a particular focus in Shi’i tradition. His areas of interest are in both ‘Aqliyāt and Naqliyāt which primarily pertain to “Practicality of Religion”, relevant to contemporary issues.
