A brief history of early Shī’īsm

Introduction

The exact nature of early Shī‘īsm prior to the ‘Abbāsid revolution and even during the early ‘Abbāsid period is obscure according to the various early written sources. Some of the history of this period is projected back by one or other branches of later Shī‘īsm to justify their version of early early Shī‘ī history. This problem is further compounded by the fact that there are almost no extant Shī‘ī works from before the 4th/ 10th century.

However, the various (and often otherwise unrelated) early Shī‘ī groups shared a number of common features. These features included the esteem in which the family of the Prophet was held, the idea of a charismatic Imām from the Prophet’s clan, Banū Hāshim and that ‘Alī was the Prophet’s legitimate successor.There was considerable difference amongst the various early Shī‘ī groups on the nature of the Imām’s authority, his knowledge, the precise number of Imāms, and the method of his selection. Doctrinal terms such as ahl al-bayt (members of the household of Prophet), Imāma (religious leadership) , ghayba (messianic occultation), and raj’a (return of a messianic personality) were fairly fluid during the formative period.

The Ghulaat

In addition, there existed during the Umayyad period a number of groups which were retrospectively labelled as ghulāt (exaggerators/extremists) as they held beliefs which were deemed unorthodox by the Ithnā ‘Ashariyya. Such beliefs included the divinity/prophetic status of the Imāms, allegorical interpretations of the Quran, possession of secret knowledge, and the rejection of religious observances. Momen argues that the term ghulāt was used post-Ja‘far S̩ādiq to describe beliefs that were once common among the early Shī‘a. By labelling these beliefs as ghuluww (exaggeration in religion), they were retrospectively (and incorrectly) claiming that such beliefs had never been from the mainstream.[4]

Early uprisings

During Umayyad rule there were several failed uprisings by the early Shī‘a. These early revolts seem to be more motivated by political considerations (i.e. the removal of Umayyad rule) than religious ones, although the religious motive cannot be entirely ruled out. Infact, the two considerations were enmeshed in this early period. These early revolts included those of Ḥusayn ibn Abī Tālib (d. 61/680), Mukhtār al-Thaqifī (d. 68/687), Zayd ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥusayn (d. 122/740) and ‘Abdallāh ibn Mu‘āwiya (d. 129/746).

‘Abdullah b. Saba and the origin of a core Shia doctrine

Regarding the origin of the belief that ‘Alī should have rightfully succeeded the Prophet, Muslim heresiographers mention that ‘Abdullah b. Saba’ was the first person to declare that ‘Alī was the was̩ī of the Prophet, and he would curse Abū Bakr and Umar.

In Shi’i religious thought a wasī is a successor who received divinely inspired spiritual authority from his predecessor.  ‘Alī was the first wasī (via the Prophet) and the Imāmate was then transferred to his (and Fāt̩ima’s) descendants. Each subsequent Imam, under divine guidance, designated his successor.

Although some orientalists have questioned whether the concept of was̩ī can be attributed to Ibn Saba’, given that both early Sunnī and Shī‘ī heresiographers concur on this point, there is a strong likelihood that Ibn Saba’ was the first to declare ‘Alī as the Prophet’s heir. When ‘Alī became caliph, he had many of Ibn Saba’s followers executed but this small group called the Sabaa’iyyah went underground. When ‘Alī died, Ibn Saba’ claimed that he hadn’t really died but was in the clouds. They further claimed that the thunder is his voice and the lightening is his whip. and he would return one day to establish justice.

Al-Nawbakhtī, a famous Shī‘a scholar, writes while discussing the followers of Ibn Sabaʼ: "Ibn Saba’ the one who cursed Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān and the Ṣaḥābah, absolving himself from them. He would say that ʿAlī has ordered him to do this". (Firaq al-Shīʿah page 44.) 

This belief in the Imama of ‘Alī, which originated from a Yemeni Jew became the foundation of what later became known as Shiasm.

The revolt of Mukhtār al-Thaqifī

It was during the revolt of Mukhtār al-Thaqifī (d. 67/687) that the rejection of the caliphate of Abū Bakr and (and that of subsequent caliphs – except ‘Alī) emerged as a doctrine. His revolt began as a call for vengeance against the killers of Ḥusayn b. Abī Tālib but quickly developed into a broader theology. Central to the revolt of Mukhtār al-Thaqifī was his claim that Muh̩ammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (d. 81/700), who was the half-brother of Ḥusayn, was the legitimate leader of the Muslims. due to his ‘Alid lineage.Mukhtār referred to Muh̩ammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya as the Mahdī and the was̩ī ibn al-was̩ī.¹ Muh̩ammad b. Ḥanafiyya was said to have received charismatic spiritual authority from his father ‘Alī b. Abī Tālib who in turn received spiritual authority from the Prophet. Mukhtar would pay people to fabricate h̩adīth and he killed Muhummad ibn Amaar ibn Yaasir for refusing to fabricate hadith. (Bukhari in Al-Tareekh al-Sagheer). Muh̩ammad b. Ḥanafiyya played no part in Mukhtār’s revolt. Nor did he approve of his novel religious concepts, spending his entire time in Madina far away from the turmoil of Kufa.

The Kaysāniyya

Many of the ideas of Mukhtār continued after his death by a group called the Kaysāniyya² . The term Kaysāniyya refers a number of different groups that emerged following the revolt of Mukhtār al-Thaqafī.[14] Rejecting the caliphates of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, they recognised four Imams; ‘Alī b. Abī Tālib, Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, and Muh̩ammad b. Ḥanafiyya³.

On what basis did the Kaysāniyya reject the first three caliphs in favour of ‘Alī. Kohlberg argues that doctrine of was̩iyya (sacred bequest to a divinely appointed heir) given to ‘Alī by the Prophet was in circulation at the time of Mukhtār, if not earlier⁴. Hence we can infer that the Kaysāniyya held that ‘Alī was the divinely appointed successor to the Prophet and as a corollary, Abū Bakr was a usurper⁵. Al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (d. unknown) wrote at tract called Kitāb al Irjā’ in approximately in 73/693 in which he condemned those who opposed Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. He referred to this group, who were the followers of Mukhtār as the Sabaʾiyya. The Sabaʾiyya however predate Mukhtār.⁶Thus it appears that the followers of Mukhtār were initially known as the Saba’’iyya and the appellation ‘Kaysāniyya’ came later on.

Given that Mukhtār’s revolt began in 66/685, the belief that the Prophet designated ‘Alī as his successor originated in the first half of the first century. The Kaysāniyya accounted for the majority of the multiple early Shī’ī groups until the ‘Abbāsid revolution. From the episode of Mukhtār and the Kaysāniyya we can infer that belief in the explicit and divine designation (nas̩s̩) of an Imām by his predecessor, made its appearance in the first century of Islam. This was later refined into a fully formed doctrine by the late second century. The concept of nas̩s̩ was often invoked by a number of proto-Shī‘ī groups leading to competing claims to the Imāmate

Further developments in Shia belief

By the end of the first century the ahadith al-Ghadīr Khumm and Kisā were being utilised to further bolster the claim that ‘Alī had the sole right to succeed the Prophet based upon designation from the Prophet.[23] The early Shī’a al-Kumayt b. Zayd al- Asadī (d. 126 /743) wrote in his poem Hās̲h̲imiyyāt that Abū Bakr was as a usurper who had denied ‘Alī his divine right to succeed the Prophet⁷.[24] This divine right, he argued, was predicated on the h̩adīth of al-Ghadīr Khumm. See this brief piece on the hadith of Kisā and al-Ghadīr Khumm.

Upon the death of Muh̩ammad b. Hanafiyya, some of the Kaysāniyya believed that he had gone in to messianic occultation (ghayba) and would return (raja’a) to fill the earth with justice. These two concepts were too be later adopted by Imāmi Shī‘as. The majority of the Kaysāniyya however believed that the Imāmate had been transferred, by divine designation to Abū Hāshim, the son of Muh̩ammad b. Ḥanafiyya. Thus the line of the first six Imams (‘Alī, Ḥusayn, Ḥasan, ‘Alī, Muhammad and Ja‘far) which the Ithnā ‘Ashariyya and the Ismā‘īlīs consider as being divinely appointed, was not the view of the early proto-Shī‘a.

Upon Abū Hāshim’s death, the majority of his followers, known as the Hāshimiyya believed that he had appointed his ‘Abbāsid relative, Muh̩ammad b. ‘Alī b. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbās as his successor. The ‘Abbāsids thus inherited a Shī’ī movement, and used these Shī’ī sentiments to agitate against and finally overthrow the Umayyads.

Multiplicity of Shia groups

Not all the early Shī’a rejected the caliphates of Abū Bakr and Umar. Zayd b. ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn, who launched an unsuccessful revolt against the caliph al-Hishām in 122/740 refused to condemn the caliphates of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, despite holding that the ‘Alī was the most suitable candidate to succeed the Prophet. He also rejected the position that ‘Alī had been explicitly designated by the Prophet.

We can see from this brief history that during the Umayyad period, the descendants of Ḥusayn ibn Abī Ṭālib were not unanimously afforded a special status by the early Shī‘a over and above other members of Banū Hāshim, and in fact some of the Ḥusaynids did not claim religious leadership (Imāmate) for themselves⁸. Furthermore the early Shī‘a supported a number of revolts led by individuals who were not from the Husaynid branch of Banū Hāshim. These included Zayd ibn ‘Alī ibn Husayn, (whose followers were later to become known as the Zaydis) and ‘Abdullah ibn Mu‘āwiya (d. 129/746), who was a descendant of ‘Alī’s brother Ja‘far ibn Abī Ṭālib. Zayds’ revolt was not supported by his Ḥusaynid half-brother Muh̩ammad al Bāqir.

The doctrine of Imamate

Having discussed the Kaysāniyya and briefly the Zaydīs, I now turn to the descendants of Ḥusayn who were to be posthumously recognised as the infallible Imams. It was during the lifetime of Ja’far al-S̩ādiq (known as the sixth Imām) the Imāmi doctrine took shape. This doctrine was based upon several principles.

Hishām b. al- Ḥakam and the origins of the Imamate theory

Although some claim that Ja’far al-S̩ādiq formulated the Imamate theory, Kohlberg and Madelung attribute the Imāmate theory to Hishām b. al- Ḥakam (d. 179/795-6). Hishām al-Ḥakam was contemporary of Ja‘far al-S̩ādiq and Mūsā al-Kāẓim. He died in hiding from Hārūn al-Rashīd after the latter had ordered his arrest. He held controversial views on a number of creedal issues, including; God had a three-dimensional body, God did not know about an event prior to its occurrence, and that the Quran had been distorted. Although he had a number of students, the later adoption by Ithnā ‘Ashariyya of Mu‘tazila theology meant that his school of thought died out.

Madelung states that the Imāmate theory necessitated that, by accepting Abū Bakr’s caliphate, the majority of Companions apostatised. The Imāmate doctrine, which was formulated in the era of (but not by) Ja’far al-S̩ādiq, distinguished the Imāmī Shī’īs from their Sunnī counterparts. Many early Sunnis were sympathetic to the ‘Alids and a number of prominent early Sunnis supported ‘Alid revolts. However the doctrine of the Imāmate was specific to proto-Shī‘as.The Imāmate theory remained largely unchanged until mid-fourth/tenth century, when following the death of Ḥasan al-al-’Askarī (d. 874) (the eleventh Imām), a new doctrine gradually emerged; limiting the Imams to twelve, the twelfth being the Mahdī who had entered into a state of ghayba and would reappear (raj’a) before the end of time. This doctrine which distinguished the Ithnā ‘‘Ashariyya from other early Shī’ī groups crystallised around 300/912.

The emergence of the Ismā’īlīs

It was during the period of the minor occultation (260/874 -329/ 941), that another Imāmi Shī’ī group, the Ismā’īlīs made their presence felt¹¹. Their origin goes back to the period after the sixth Imām, Ja’far al- S̩ādiq (d 148 / 765) whose death led to a dispute among his followers regarding his rightful successor. The group that became known later as the Ismā’īlīs held that Ja’far’s grandson Muh̩ammad b. Ismā’īl was the rightful successor to Ja’far. Muhammad b. Ismā’īl (d. 180/795), who was the seventh Imām had not died, but had disappeared and would return sometime in the near future as the Mahdī¹². The Ismā’īlīs managed to capitalise on the confusion that followed the death of the eleventh Imām, and by 900 had followers throughout the Muslim world. n 286/899, a permanent split occurred amongst the Ismā‘īlīs. The Fāṭimids considered that their leader (‘Alī or Sa’īd, also known as ‘Abdullah al-Mahdī) was the living Mahdī. The Qarāmiṭa rejected this and continue affirm the ghayba of Muhammad b. Ismā‘īl and awaited his return.

According to the Ismā’īlīs, the Prophet Muh̩ammad explained the esoteric aspects of Islam to his was̩ī, ‘Alī who was then succeeded by the first Imām, H̩asān In terms of succession to the Prophet, the Ismā’īlīs recognised ‘Alī, followed by the Ḥasan, Ḥusayn and the descendants of the latter up to Muh̩ammad b. Ismā’īl b. Ja’far. As with their Ithnā ‘Ashariyya counterparts, they rejected all of the caliphs of Islam with the obvious exception of ‘Alī. For a brief overview of Ismā’īlī political theory see The Shī‘ī view on leadership.

Notes:

1. Linguistically a Was̩ī is a person who receives a legacy via a Will. In this context a was̩ī is a successor who received spiritual authority via nas̩s̩ ↩︎
2. The name of the group is derived from Abū ʿAmra Kaysān who was the leader of the mawālī under Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd al-Thaqafī. ↩︎
3. Some of the Kaysāniyya held that Muh̩ammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya was designated as an Imām by ‘Alī, others argued that it was Ḥusayn who designated him. ↩︎
4. The active participle ‘waṣī’ means a divinely appointed executor / heir. ↩︎
5. Kaysān accused the first three caliphs of apostasy ↩︎
6. The Sabaʾiyya are named after ‘Abdullah b. Saba’ who was active during the caliphate of ‘Uthmān and ‘Alī. A number of doctrines are attributed to him including; ‘Alī was the was̩ī of the Prophet, disparagement of the first two caliphs, denial of ‘Alī’s death and belief in his messianic return. ↩︎
7. According to Horovitz, this poem was written between 96 and 99 AH ↩︎
8. Halm argues that the neither Ja‘far nor his father or grandfather were recognised as Imāms during their lifetime ↩︎
9. Transfer of Imāmate to successor by explicit designation ↩︎
10. As stated earlier, the idea that the Prophet explicitly designated ‘Alī as his political and religious heir was in circulation in the first half of the first century ↩︎
11. Haider argues that the period 795- 864 is ‘shrouded in mystery’ as far as the Ismā‘īlīs are concerned ↩︎
12. The first Imām being Ḥusayn and not ‘Alī. ↩︎

References

Al-Qāḍī. W, ‘The Development of the Term Ghulāt in Muslim Literature with Special Reference to the Kaysāniyya’, in Shi’ism, ed. by Etan Kohlberg (Routledge, 2016)

Anthony, Sean W., “Ghulāt (extremist Shīʿīs)”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE

Etan Kohlberg, ‘Some Imami Shi’i Views on the Sahaba.’, in Belief and Law in Imami Shi’ism, ed. by Etan Kohlberg (Variorum, 1991),

Farhad Daftary, A History of Shi’i Islam, (London: I.B Tauris in association with The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2013), Heinz Halm, Shi’ism, (Columbia University Press, 2004),

Josef van Ess, ‘The Beginnings of Islamic Theology’, in The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Philosophy, Science, and Theology in the Middle Ages—September 1973, ed. by John Emery Murdoch and Edith Dudley Sylla (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

Lewinstein, Keith, “ʿAbdallāh b. Sabaʾ”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE,

Madelung, W., “His̲h̲ām b. al-Ḥakam”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.

Madelung, W., “Kaysāniyya”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.

Madelung, W.. “Ismāʿīliyya.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.

Maria Massi Dakake, The Charismatic Community: Shi’ite Identity in Early Islam, (SUNY Press, 2007)

Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shiʻi Islam, The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shiʻism (1985)

Najam Haider, Shi’i Islam : An Introduction, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014),

Najam Haider, The Origins of the Shī‘a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kūfa (2011)

Sean Anthony, The Caliph and the Heretic: Ibn Sabaʾ and the Origins of Shīʿism, (2011)

Van Ess, J., “al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.

William F Tucker, Mahdis and Millenarians: Shiite Extremists in Early Muslim Iraq, (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

William Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy & Theology, (1962),