CHAPTER TWO:

PHILOSOPHICAL FACTORS FOR THE INCEPTION OF MAHDISM THEORY

            If we undertake a historical study of what happened to the Imamate Shiites after the death of Imam Hassan Askari in the year 260 A.H., and have a cursory look on the rational evidence presented by the group which believe in the existence of a hidden son for the Imam, and that he was the Imam after him and the Awaited Mahdi, if we do this, we would discover the theoretical and doctrinal crisis experienced by that group of the Imamate Shiites. That crisis led the Imamate being inherited vertically and non-permissibility of its transfer to a brother or cousin. This forced the group to either compromise this condition or accepting the cessation of the Imamate after the death of Askari without a successor, as was apparent from his life, or to suppose the existence of a son for him in secret, despite his non-declaration of that, or announcing it. It led them also to interprete this ambiguity and concealment by means of taqiyyah (insinuation) and fear of the authorities, despite the non-existence of any pointers that warrant that.

            The historical narration accepted and transmitted by all historians and theologians from the Twelver- Imam Shiites says: Imam Askari died without leaving behind an apparent son, and he left a will (regarding his wealth) in favour of his mother called ‘Hadith’. This is what led his brother Ja’far bin Ali to claim the Imamate after him and to call the Imamate Shiites to follow him as a successor to him. Similarly, they followed Imam Musa bin Ja’far after the death of his elder brother Abdullah Aftah, who became the Imam for a period of time after Imam Sadiq. He did not have any issue, through whom the Imamate should continue.

            Nubakhti, Ash’ari al-Qummi and Mufid say that: ‘Most of the Imamate Shiites answered the call of Ja’far and were near about agreeing on his Imamate’. (1)

            That was because the common populace of the Shiites did not know anyone among the children of Hadi, except Ja’far, nor did they see any son for Imam Askari. This is what the report of Abu Al-Adyan al-Basri, the messenger of Imam Askari to the people of the cities, - being the last person to bid farewell to the Imam - confirms. He says: ‘Askari did not tell him the name of his successor, but he gave him some signs for recognizing and identifying him’. He also says that: ‘He returned to Samirra’i on the day Imam Askari died. He saw then Ja’far and the general Shiite populace surrounding him, on their forefront was Uthman bin Sa’id Al-Umari. The Shiites were saying their condolences and at the same time congratulating him (Ja’far). Abu Al-‘Adyan also (according to the report) went to him and gave his condolence and congratulated him as one of the people. As he said: ‘A delegation of the Shiites from Qum came on that day to Samirra’i and asked of Imam Hassan they were informed of his death. They then said: To whom should we give our condolence? The people pointed to Ja’far. They said ‘Salam’ to him and passed their condolence and congratulated him. (2)

            This is what the report of Sinan Al-Mausili also confirms. The report mentions the arrival of a delegation under the leadership of Abu Abbas Muhammad bin Ja’far al-Himyari al-Qummi in Samirra’i after the death of Imam Askari. They inquired about him and his heir. The response of the people to them was that his heir was Ja’far bin Ali. It would not be enough that his Imamate was rejected only on the basis of his lack of knowledge of the Unseen. (3)

            Based on that, Ja’far sent to the people of Qum, which was a Shiite stronghold then –calling them to himself, and informing them that he is the leader (Qayyim) after his brother. The people of Qum gathered around their Sheikh—Ahmad bin Ishaq and discussed the issue. They in the end decided to send a delegation to him to discuss with him and to ask him some questions, they used to ask his forefathers before and so as to confirm his claim. (This is) as was said by Khusaibi in ‘Al-Hidaya al-Kubra’ (4) and Saduq in ‘Ikmal al-Din’ (5) and Tabrisi in ‘Al-Ihtijaj,(6) and Sadr in Al-Ghaybah al-Sughra. (7)

            This shows that the people of Qum did not know of the existence of a son for Imam Askari, nor did they know the identity of the new Imam previously, and there was nothing to prevent them from accepting the Imamate of Ja’far bin Ali. That is, they were not strictly conforming to the rule of vertical inheritance in the Imamate, and they saw the Imamate of others as permissible.

            The main obstacle that prevented some of the Shiites from accepting the Imamate of Ja’far was the doubtful old principle that rejects the Imamate of two brothers after Hassan and Hussain. This was raised by the Qum delegation before Ja’far bin Ali, in the course of the dialogue. He responded: “Allah has changed his will (bada) in that” as Khusaibi says in ‘Al-Hidayah al-Kubra’. (8)

            Some of the narrations transmitted by Saduq and Tusi say that: ‘The Qum delegation demanded from Ja’far, to disclose the amount of money, they were carrying and the various owners, miraculously, as his brother Askari used to do. Ja’far rejected that demand and claimed and suspected the delegation of lying on his brother. He denied attributing the knowledge of the Unseen to him. (9)

            Some reports attempt to suspect Ja’far of disobedience (fisq), drinking wine ignorance, and disregarding prayer. (10) That was in order to invalidate his claim to the Imamate. The general Shiites did not consider such allegations, and did not raise the question of knowledge of the Unseen. They did give their condolence to him and congratulated him on the Imamate.

            The main problem with some of them was the issue of having two brothers as Imams. Tusi has capitalized on it in the process of arguing against the Imamate of Ja’far, and the theory that Hassan had a son. He claimed that there is no difference on this point among the Imamate Shiites. (11)

            This problem did explode in the ranks of Imamate Shiites for the first time after the death of Imam Abdullah Aftah bin Ja’far Sadiq, whose Imamate was agreed by the Shiite fuqaha and scholars, but he died without a son. This led the Imamate Shiites to a crisis and divided them into three sects. Among them were those who held to the principle-- ‘the Imamate not being in two brothers’ and were forced to assume the existence of an illusory son for Abdullah, whose name is said to be Muhammad and he is hidden, but will appear in the future. Among them were those who went beyond that principle and permitted for himself to shift (the Imamate) to the brother, if the previous Imam has no son. They, as a result of this, accepted the Imamate of Musa bin Ja’far after his brother Abdullah Aftah. Among them were those who change their minds as regards the Imamate of Aftah, and concluded from his not having a son, that he was not an Imam. Therefore they stroke his name off the roll of Imams.

            This same problem was repeated again when Imam Hassan Askari died without an issue. This led the Imamate Shiites to differ on the issue of succession, that eventually led to the emergence of a number of sects: Among them were those who accepted both the brothers as Imams, and so they believed in the Imamate of Ja’far bin Ali, after his brother Hassan; among them were those who had second thought on the Imamate of Askari and said that:  “Believing in the Imamate of Hassan was a mistake and an error, it is incumbent on us to change our minds on it, to the belief in the Imamate of Ja’far. As Hassan has died without an issue, it became clear and valid to us that he wrongly claimed Imamate. This is because an Imam, according to our consensus will not die till he leaves behind a clear successor, who is well-known, to whom he will pass his will and establish him in the position of the Imamate. Imamate is not valid in two brothers, after Hassan and Hussain…. The true Imam is inevitably Ja’far, through the will of his father to him.” Nubakhti in ‘Firaq al-Shi’ah (12) and Ash’ari in ‘Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq’ (13) also reported similar narrations.

            Among them were those who insisted on the Imamate of Hassan, and held onto that principle of the invalidity of the Imamate of two brothers (after Hassan and Hussain). This group turned into different sects: Of them were those who believed in the Mahdism and occultation of Askari; among them were those who claimed his return to life after death; among them were those who believed in the interval (between Imam and Imam); among them were those who were confused and could not take a position and they said: It has not been confirmed to us that Hassan had a son (a successor) whose affairs were hidden to us. We will not take any stand, and hold onto the first (Imam) till the time when another one become clear to us. We would hold onto this, and we will not deny or dispute the Imamate of Abu Muhammad or his death. We would not say that he returned to life after his death, as we cannot be sure of the Imamate of the children of someone, other than him. There was no conflict of opinion among the Shiites on that. The Imamate of an Imam cannot be established except through a clear will from his father to him. (14)

            Among them were those who found themselves forced to assume the existence of a hidden son for Imam Askari and to claim that he is the Imam after him and the Awaited Mahdi? They interpreted his apparent nomination by his father during his lifetime, and the lack of a will to him and non-apprarance after him and his occultation. They interpreted all this in terms of taqiyyah (insinuation) and the fear of the enemies.

            The main motive behind this statement is the strict adherence to the rule of vertical inheritance and the non-permissibility of the Imamate being transferred to two brothers after Hassan and Hussain. Despite the fact that it is a very weak statement, and not all the Shiites have agreed on it at that time, contrary to what was claimed by Tusi two hundred years afterwards, the theologians who adhered to it, made it the cornerstone in the process of arguing for the existence of a son for Imam Hassan Askari. They have woven it and the remaining philosophical issues that necessitate infallibility of the Imam or necessitate text in the Ahl al-Bayt, into strong evidence!

            We have demonstrated in the first chapter, statements of the theologians and historians who argued rationally on the existence and birth of Muhammad bin Hassan Askari. Their evidence depends on the theory of infallibility, text and vertical inheritance of the Imamate. In reality however, their evidence depends entirely on the last principle,i.e. vertical inheritance, that is because many of the Fathite Imamate Shiites, who agree with them on the belief in infallibility and text and who believe also in the Imamate of Hassan Askari, did not find themselves forced into believing in the existence of a son for him in hiding, contrary to what is apparent. They believed instead, in the Imamate of his brother Ja’far bin Ali Hadi, because they did not believe strongly in the necessity of the Imamate being inherited vertically only, and the invalidity of two brothers being Imams.

            Hence the rational evidence is more of a philosophical assumption, free of any historical reality. That was evident from the dependence of some theologians on the tradition of Rida which says: “ The owner of this affair will not die till he sees his son, who will succeed him) after him”, in order to establish the existence of the son of Imam Askari, as Sheikh Tusi has reported in ‘Al-Ghaybah.’ (15)

            Despite the possibility of arguing with the same tradition to refute the Imamate of Askari, as a section of the Shiites have done, those who changed their minds as regards his Imamate and held onto the non-existence of a son for his brother, in whom the Imamate will continue, as evidence on the invalidity of his Imamate, just as the Musawite Shiites changed their minds in the middle of the second century of Hijrah regarding the Imamate of Abdullah Aftah, because he did not have any issue, and they stroke his name off the list of the Imams. (16) That sect of the Shiites considered the change of mind on the Imamate of Askari and believing in that of Ja’far directly after his father Hadi, lighter than assuming an illusory son for Askari.

            What is strange is that Sayyid Murtada ‘Alam al-Huda suspects those who believe in the existence of a son for Imam Abdullah Aftah, of resorting, to fabricating an illusory personality, essentially, so as to emerge from perplexity and an impasse. (17) He however, practiced the same thing in the process of assuming the existence of a son for Hassan Askari, necessarily, so as to emerge from perplexity and confusion that has swept the Imamate Shiites in the middle of the third century of Hijrah.

            It is necessary after this to point to the fact that, claiming the process of theoretical argument on the existence of a son for Hassan Askari as rational argument is an oversight and a metaphor, otherwise, it is far from being a rational argument, as it depends on a number of transmitted texts, some of them were reported by single reporters that need to be established as regards the meanings and the chains of their narration, like the statement: ‘Vertical inheritance and the impermissibility of the transfer of the Imamate to two brothers after Hassan and Hussain’. Due to this Sheikh Saduq in his ‘Ikmal al-Din’ admitted and said: “The claim of the occultation of Sahib al-Zaman is based on the statement on the Imamate of his fore-fathers. And this is a legal and not a purely rational argument. (18)

            This means that discussing any premise, of the long premises of the rational argument, like the necessity of infallibility in the Imam; the necessity of text on him from Allah; establishment of the Imamate in the members of the Prophet’s household and its being confined to the house of Hussain; and the way of its transfer from one Imam to another; and the claims of the remaining Imams, who claimed the Imamate and Mahdism, like Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah and his son, Abu Hashim, Zayd bin Ali, Muhammad bin Abdullah Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, Isma’il bin Ja’far and his children , Abdullah Aftah, and Muhammad bin Ali Hadi and so on, of minute details in the Divine Imamate theory from the beginning to the end, till the death of Imam Hassan Askari, discussing any of such premises will obstruct the way leading to the assumption of the existence of a son for Hassan Askari.

            Due to this, establishing the existence of Imam Mahdi Muhammad bin Hassan Askari in a rational manner for the rest of the people, or the rest of the Muslims, or for the remaining Shiite sects, or even for the rest of the Imamate sects that did not agree with the principle of vertical inheritance, became difficult or impossible. Because of this the Twelver-Imam theologians avoided discussing with other people, establishing the personality of the son of Hassan, except after the acceptance of the previous long traditional premises and believing in each and every one of them.

            Abdul Rahman bin Qubbah al-Razi has said in refuting Ali bin Ahmad bin Bashshar: “ Do not discuss a secondary (Far) issue the primary principle of which has not been established. This man (the son of Hassan), the existence of whom you deny, his right would only be established after his father. There is no meaning in abandoning the perusal of the right of his father and going onto discussing with you his existence. If the right of his father has been established, and that has necessarily been established at the same time, as you have admitted. If the right of his father has been invalidated, the matter will be as you were saying, and we have invalidated it. (19)

            Sayyid Murtada has said: The occultation is a branch of the fundamental principles; if they are valid the discussion on occultation will be simple and clear as it rests on them. And if (such principles) are invalid the discussion on the occultation will be difficult and impossible. (20)

            Even though accepting the Imamate of Hassan Askari will not necessarily lead to the acceptance of the existence of a son for him, the belief in that is based on the necessity of the continuation of the divine Imamate till the day of Resurrection, and on the necessity of inheriting it vertically. And this is just an illusory assumption and conjecture not based on knowledge.

            It is for this reason that Sheikh Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi says in his book: ‘Al-Mahdi: Al-Thaurah al-Kubra: “The philosophical argument can establish universal general issues, but it cannot pinpoint on a man outside and establish his existence.”(21)

REFERENCES

1. Firaq al-Shi’ah, P. 98, Al-Maqalat, p. 110, Al-Fusul al-Mukhtarah, p. 259

2. Saduq: Ikmal al Din, p. 475

3. Saduq: Ikmal al Din, PP. 476-479 Al-Rawandi: Al-Kharayij wa al-Jarayih, p. 164. Al-Sadr: Al-Ghaybah al-Sughra, p. 323

4. p. 391

5. p. 475

6. vol. 2, p. 279

7. p. 391

8. Sadr, pp. 383-391

9. Ikmal al-Din, p. 476, Sadr: Al-Ghaybah al-Sughra p. 316

10. Khusaibi, al-Hidaya al-Kubra, p. 391, Saduq: Ikmal al-Din p. 479

11. Al-Ghaybah, p. 135

12. p. 8

13. pp. 107-110

14. Nubakhti: Firaq al-Sh’iah pp. 105-107, Ash’ari al-Qummi, Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq p. 115 Mufid: Ikmal al-Din, p. 230 Al-Hur al-amili: Ithbat al-huda vol. 3 p. 477

15. p. 133, p. 135

16. Nubakhti: Firaq al-Shiah. Ash’ari: al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq p. 110

17. Al-Shafi. P. 184

18. Ikmal al-Din: p. 63

19. Saduq: Ikmal al-Din, p. 54

20. Murtada: Risalah fi al-Ghaybah. P. 2

21. Mahdi: Inqilab Bazrak. P. 213