Introduction
Imamate is a cornerstone of Shi’i belief, one of the pillars of faith, and it distinguishes a Shi’i from a Sunni.[1] According to Shi’i belief, an Imam is a male descendant of the Prophet, who is divinely appointed to lead mankind after the Prophet’s death.[2] Throughout the history of mankind there has been, in every age, an Imām, and in some cases Imamate was coupled with Prophethood. The existence of a living Imam is an existential necessity, as God would not leave mankind without spiritual guidance [3].The Imams possess certain superhuman qualities, such as immunity from sin and error, as well as perfect religious knowledge.[4]
An article of faith
Hence these qualities ensure that even with the end of Prophethood, mankind is not left without a guide to interpret the religion for them. The Shi‘as believe that the family of the Prophet has a particular status, over and above ordinary people in the issue of religio-political leadership. Hence only descendants of the Prophet could succeed him. Unlike in Sunnism, the issue of succession and political legitimacy to the Shi’i is an article of faith.
The nature of the Imam
However the issue of exactly whom from the family of the Prophet was to succeed him, the precise number of Imāms, and the nature of the Imām’s authority led to a number of differences amongst the Shias, which eventually crystallised into the three distinct schools of thought; Ithnā ‘Asharī, Zaydī and Ismā‘īlī. The succession would continue to pass down through the ahl al-bayt of ‘Alī. Thus Alī in turn designated his son Hasan as successor, with his second son Hussain being the third Imām. However in the early history of Shi’ism, various doctrines and grouping existed side by side. Doctrinal terms such as ahl al-bayt, Imāma [5], ghayba [6], and raj’a [7] were fairly fluid in the formative period of Shi’ism.
The Ithnā ‘Asharīs (Twelver Shia)
Origins of the Imamate theory
Although many historians claims that Muh̩ammad al Bāqir (d 114 / 733) the grandson of Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī and his son Ja‘far (d 148 / 765) formulated key Ithnā ‘Asharī doctrines and points of law, Kohlberg and Madelung rightly attribute the Imāmate theory to Hishām b. al- Ḥakam (d. 179/795-6) [8]. Hishām al-Ḥakam was contemporary of Ja‘far al-S̩ādiq and Mūsā al-Kāẓim. He died in hiding after the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd had ordered his arrest.
Hishām al-Ḥakam held controversial views on a number of creedal issues. These included the belief that God had a three-dimensional body, God did not know about an event prior to its occurrence, and that the Quran had been distorted. However the Ithnā ‘Ashariyya were to later embrace Mu‘tazila theology which diametrically opposed these views. This resulted in his school of thought dying out.
The twelve infallible Imams
According to the Ithnā ‘Asharī, the line of succession after Hussain was from father to son, culminating in the twelfth Imām who was also the Mahdī.[9] Only the current Imām could designate his successor. The fact that ‘Alī did not actually succeed the Prophet was a usurpation of his rightful authority. All the twelve Imams were sinless and infallible interpreters of God’s religion.[10] Thus the role of the Imām in Twelver Shi’ism was that of an infallible religious guide as opposed to a political leader. Furthermore the lack of political authority was immaterial to the issue of Imāmate. Imāmate depended on nas̩s̩ and inherited knowledge [11] and not on actual political authority. This view is diametrically opposed the Sunnī theory of leadership, in which the leader has no independent authority in religious matters.[12]
Crisis and consolidation
The death of the eleventh Imām, led to a doctrinal crisis, known as al-hayra. Who was to lead the community in the absence of the Imām? Eventually the issue was solved by the formulation of the doctrine of the two stage ghayba and raj’a of the twelfth Imām. Over time, Shi’i scholars gradually appropriated some of the functions of the hidden Imām.
The Ismā‘īlīs
Death of Ja‘far al S̩ādiq
The death of the sixth Imām, Ja‘far al S̩ādiq (d 148 / 765) led to a dispute among his followers regarding his rightful successor. The group that became known later as the Ismā‘īlīs (or Seveners) held that his son Ismā‘īl and his descendants were the rightful successors to Ja‘far. Ismā‘īl had not died, but had disappeared and would return sometime in the near future as the Mahdī.[13] The Ithnā ‘Asharīs on the other hand held that Ja‘far’s son Mūsā was his rightful successor.[14] However the early history of the Ismā‘īlīs (148 -264 /765-877), due to lack of sources, is shrouded in mystery.[15]
The Fatimid state
Like the Ithnā ‘Asharīs the Ismā‘īlīs hold that the Imām is the supreme, infallible religious guide and that mankind is in permanent need of such an Imām.[16] However, unlike the Ithnā ‘Asharīs, who after Ja’far as S̩ādiq took a quietist approach to politics, the Ismā‘īlīs were politically and militarily active. By the tenth century they were able to establish a Fāṭimid state in North Africa and hence in Egypt which lasted over two and a half centuries.[17] Thus in the Imāmate of the Ismā‘īlīs both religious and (real) political authority were incorporated. With political authority came the issue of political succession. Similar to their ‘Abbāsids counterparts, the Fāṭimids experienced a number of succession crises resulting in a number of splinter groups.
Succession Crisis
The death of the Fāṭimid Caliph Mustanṣir (d 487 / 1094) led to the first succession crisis. The caliphate passed on to his younger son Mustaʿlī, (d 495 / 1101) rather than his older son and heir apparent Nizār (d 488 /1095), who contested the accession. Nizār led an unsuccessful revolt, resulting in a permanent division between the Musta’līs who remained in power and the Nizārīs.[18] Under the leadership of Hasan-i S̩abbāh̩ (d 518 / 1124) the Nizārīs managed to establish small principalities in Iran and later Syria. This lasted until the Mongol invasion.[19]
Further splits
The K̲h̲ōdjas and Bohorās are two contemporary offshoots of the Nizārīs.[20] In 524 / 1130. A further split occurred amongst the ruling Musta’līs following the assassination of the Caliph Āmir (Mustaʿlī’s son). Al-Āmir left behind a baby son, Tayyib, whose fate following his father’s death remains unknown.[21] ‘Abd al Majīd, the cousin of the murdered Caliph Amīr, was officially designated the new Caliph. However, another group declared the Imāmate of Tayyib, and refused to recognise ‘Abd al Majīd. This group, which survives up to the present day, pronounced Tayyib to be in occultation.[22]
The Zaydis
Origins
The Zaydis arose after the revolt of their fourth Imām, Zayd b. ‘Alī (d.122 / 740), who was also the half-brother of Muh̩ammad al-Bāqir. Zayd b. ‘Alī was contacted by the Kūfans and promised support if he was to rise up against the Umayyads. Zayd’s refusal to condemn the first two Caliphs resulted in large portion of Kūfans abandoning his cause. Betrayed by the Kūfans, he met a similar fate to his grandfather Hussain b. ‘Alī.[23]
Zayd accepted of the validity of Abū Bakr’s and ‘Umar’s caliphates based upon the concept of “the acceptance of the Imāmate of the less worthy.”[24] This was in marked contrast to the Ithnā ‘Asharīs and Ismā‘īlīs, who condemned the first two caliphs as usurpers. In this sense, the Zaydīs were the closest of the Shi’i groups to the Sunnis.
The Batriyya and the Jarudiyya
In the early second century, Zaydī Shi’ism consisted of two doctrinal tendencies; the Batriyya and the Jarudiyya.[25] The former, like their founder, refused to condemn Abū Bakr and ‘Umar and suspended judgement over ‘Uthmān. Although ‘Alī was superior in their view, they accepted the Caliphate of the ‘less excellent’ and thus the legitimacy of the first two caliphs[26]. Some members of this group eventually merged with Kūfan Sunnīsm. The Jarudiyya represented a more radical Shi’i doctrine. They condemned the first three Caliphs, and believed in the divine designation of ‘Alī by the Prophet.[27]
Qualities of the Imam
Although some early Zaydis held that any descendant of Abū Tālib could be suitable for Imāmate, this was later replaced by belief in the divine designation of ‘Alī, Hasan and Hussain. After Hussain, the Imāmate could pass to any descendant of Hasan and Hussain, as long as they were prepared to launch an armed revolt. The Imām also had to have the requisite knowledge and piety although he was not considered to be sinless (maṣ‘ūm).[28]
A brief comparison
On the other hand, Ithnā ‘Asharīs and the Ismā‘īlis restricted the Imāmate to designated descendants of Hussain, and they considered all of the Imāms to be ma‘ṣūm. Another crucial difference was the importance of khurūj[29] in Zaydī thought. An Imām had to assert his claim by armed revolt and hence the Zaydis rejected the quietest claims to Imāmate attributed to Muh̩ammad al Bāqir.[30]
Finally, unlike the Ithnā ‘Asharīs and the Ismā‘īlīs, the Zaydīs rejected the concept of ghayba and the raj‘a of the hidden Imām [31]. In the eighth century, most Zaydīs were Batrī. By the ninth century, the Jārūdīs were dominant.[32]
Notes:
[1] Momen.
[2] Ibid. p. 153. Some early Shi’i groups accepted that any descendant from Abū Tālib could potentially be the Imām.
[3] Ibid. p. 159.
[4] Ibid. p. 155.
[5] Imāma refers to the office of Imām. The title ‘Imām’ used by the Shias in reference to the persons recognised by them as legitimate political and religious successors to the Prophet. ‘Alī b. Abī Tālib is considered to be the first Imām, followed particular descendants of his. Daftary, p. 517.
[6] Ghayba Lit., absence; the word has been used in a technical sense for the condition of anyone who has been withdrawn by God from the eyes of men and whose life during that period of occultation (called his ghayba) may be miraculously prolonged. Ibid. p. 516.
[7] Raj’a Lit., ‘return’; the word has been used in a technical sense to denote the return or reappearance of a messianic personality, specifically one considered as the Mahdī. Ibid. p. 520.
[8] Farhad Daftary, A History of Shi’i Islam, (London: I.B Tauris in association with The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2013), p. 44.; Kohlberg, p. 521.; Madelung, W., “His̲h̲ām b. al-Ḥakam”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
[9] Najam Iftikhar Haider, The Origins of the Shīʻa : Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century KūFa, (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 41.
[10] Vivienne Angeles, ”The Development of the Shi’a Concept of the Imamate”, in Islamic Political Thought and Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science (4 Vols), ed. by Abdullah Saeed (2011), pp. 305-18.
[11] Daftary, p. 54.
[12] Robert Crews, ‘Imamate’, in The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought, ed. by Richard Bulliet and David Cook (Princeton University Press, 2012). However Crone and Hinds postulate the idea of God’s Caliph. i.e. that the Caliph represented both religious and political authority.
[13] Madelung, W.. “Ismāʿīliyya.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
[14] Heinz Halm, The Shiites: A Short History, 2nd edn (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2007), pp. 160-1.
[15] ibid
[16] Madelung, W.. “Imāma.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
[17] Najam Iftikhar Haider, Shi’i Islam : An Introduction, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 43.
[18] Ibid. pp. 128-9. Gibb, H.A.R.. “Nizār b. al-Mustanṣir.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
[19] Halm, pp. 180-2.
[20] Nanji, Azim. “Nizāriyya.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
[21] Halm, p. 189. [22] Ibid. pp. 190-3.
[23] Daftary, pp. 145-6.
[24] Haider, p. 89.
[25] Daftary, p. 147.
[26] Ibid. p. 148.; Haider, p. 105.
[27] Daftary, pp. 148-9.
[28] Although they did consider ‘Alī, Hasan, and Husayn to be mas‘ūm .
[29] Revolution, revolt, rebellion
[30] Daftary, p. 150.
[31] Ibid. p. 130.
[32] Haider, p. 105.
