Al-Shaykh al-Mufīd’s real name is Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Nu’man al-Baghdādī al-Karkhī. His kunya (i.e. the name by which an Arab is usually referred to and which refers to him as the father of someone, usually his eldest son) was Abū ‘Abd Allāh. During his lifetime he was given the nick-name (laqab) of Ibn al-Mu‘allim, the son of the teacher. The teacher (mu‘allim) par excellence to the Arabs was Aristotle and this nick-name may refer to al-Shaykh al-Mufīd’s great learning as being such that he could be regarded intellectually as if he were the son of Aristotle. The actual nick-name by which he was later known, al-Shaykh al-Mufīd, also refers to his great learning. Shaykh at this time meant “scholar” and Mufīd means “one who brings benefit”.

 

 He was born in the year 336/ 948 or 338/950 in ‘Ukbarā in Iraq.1 He was brought to Baghdād at a very early age. It was in Baghdād that he did most of his studying and teaching, hence he is called al-Baghdādī. The district of Karkh in Baghdād was inhabitated by a largely Shī‘ite population and it is there that al-Mufīd probably resided and did much of his teaching. Hence he is called al-Karkhī.2

 

 Al-Mufīd was a Shī‘ite of the Imāmī persuasion. The period during which he lived in Baghdād was a period in which Shī‘ite scholars enjoyed particular freedom and hence we see a blossoming of Shī‘ite scholarship in Baghdād, and in particular of Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholarship. The reason for this was that the dynasty which governed Baghdād, the Buwayhids, were very much inclined towards Shī‘ism. Originally from Daylam in Iran they had conquered Baghdād in 334/945. They were probably of the Zaydī Shī‘ite persuasion but the doctrines of the Imāmī-Shī‘ites suited them politically.3 Thus Imāmī-Shī‘ites were given opportunities to proclaim their doctrine in a way that had rarely occurred to them before.

__________

 

• 1.Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, (ed. Sprenger, reprint Mashhad, 1351 A.H.S) 314-5.
• 2.Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa-al-umam (Haiderabad, 1358 A.H.) VIII, II cited by M. McDermott, The Theology of al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (Beirut, 1978), 8.
• 3.On the Buwayhids, cf. C. Cahen “Būyids”, EI-2

 

The fact that al-Mufīd became the exponent of the Imāmī-Shī‘ite doctrine during his life and that his work al-Irshād (The Guidance) is concerned with the history of the twelve Imams of the Imāmī-Shī‘ites and their relationship with the other Shī‘ite sects, in addition to the good relationship which the Imāmī-Shī‘ites enjoyed with the Zaydī Buwayhids would seem to necessitate some description of the stage Shī‘ism had reached at this period.

 

There were at this time three main groupings of Shī‘ites: Imāmīs, Ismā‘īlīs and Zaydīs. The fundamental difference between the three groups lay in their conception of the Imamate. There were, also, differences in their legal doctrines. However, these differences were rather like the differences between the various schools of law outside Shī‘ism.

 

 The Ismā‘īlīs and Zaydīs were much closer and both much nearer to the kind of law practised in Iraq.4

The Imāmīs had a much more distinctive kind of law but some Zaydīs held legal views very similar to the Imāmīs.5

 

The Imāmīs and Ismā‘īlīs had similar beliefs about the nature of the Imamate. They believed that men could not function properly without leadership, and that in order for man to fulfill his religious duties and worship God it was necessary for him to have this leadership. At first God had provided this leadership through prophets who presented His revealed guidance to the world. These prophets, in order that the truth of God’s message be substantiated were protected from error. Whether a prophet was actually the ruler or not, he should, in fact, have been the ruler. The prophet was in a sense an Imam. The last of the prophets was Muḥammad and after Muḥammad God provided a series of Imams, who were protected from sin, to act as the custodians of faith for the world. The Imams were God’s testimony to the world which guaranteed the world’s continued existence. Without the Imams the world would cease to exist. The Imams were designated by God and this designation was made public by their predecessor. Thus the first Imam, ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muḥammad, was designated by Muḥammad and the Qur’ān. The second two Imams, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, the sons of ‘Alī, were each designated in turn. After al-Ḥusayn, they maintained that the Imamate went in the line of al-Ḥusayn. ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn designated his son, Muḥammad al-Bāqir, and the latter designated his son, Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq.

 

•  4. cf. I.K.A. Howard, “Mut‘a Marriage Reconsidered”, Journal of Semitic Studies (Spring, 1975), 90
• 5. Ibid., 88-9

 

It is after the Imamate of Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, the sixth Imam, that the major difference between Imāmīs and Ismā‘īlīs occurs. A group of Ja‘far’s followers maintained that he had designated his son, Ismā‘īl, to succeed him. This man was believed to have died but these supporters of the Imamate of Ismā‘īl divided into two groups: one maintaining that Ismā‘īl had not died and that he was the last Imam who was in hiding and would return at the end of time and a  second group that maintained that the Imamate had been passed on to Muḥammad, Ismā‘īl’s son. This latter group became the nucleus around which the Ismā‘īlīs formed. They traced the succession through Ismā‘īl.

(cf. Part II, 427)

 

 

This group had now gained political power in Egypt and posed a serious threat to the central Islamic world dominated by the Buwayhids.

 

 The Imāmīs favoured the view that Ja‘far had designated his son Mūsā to be the seventh Imam. With the death of Mūsā there was another serious split. There were several traditions in circulation that there would only be seven Imams and the seventh Imam would be the Imam who would return. A group, then, maintained that Mūsā had not died and he would return at the end of time. This group was known as al-Wāqifa, “those who stop”, and it still had a number of followers at the time of al-Mufīd. However, the main group of the Imāmīs maintained that there were in fact twelve Imams, son succeeding father after Mūsā: ‘Alī al-Riḍā, Muḥammad al-Jawād, ‘Alī al-Hādī, al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī and his son, the twelfth Imam. The traditions that the twelfth Imam was the last Imam who would go into occultation and return at the end of time are numerous. The Imāmīs hold that al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī kept the birth of his son secret and after al-Ḥasan’s death, in 260/873, the twelfth Imam remained in hiding, keeping in contact with his followers through four especially appointed emissaries. On the death of the fourth of these emissaries, in 329/940, the Imam sent an announcement that he was going into permanent hiding and would only return at the end of time. These two periods are called the Lesser Occultation and the Greater Occultation. The Imam, although absent from his community, was still present in the world and thus would ensure that his community would persevere their true faith.

 

The Zaydīs were a much more amorphous grouping than the other two groups. Initially their two principal doctrines appear to have been that the true Imam is only Imam when he declares himself to be so and comes out in open revolt against the authorities and secondly that this Imamate belongs to the Husaynid branch of the ‘Alid family. They seemed to have claimed these doctrines on the authority of Zayd b. ‘Alī, the brother of Muḥammad al-Baqīr, who led such a revolt after the death of his brother.

 

 Many of the Zaydīs seem to have accepted that Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, the first two caliphs, were genuinely Imams and some also accepted the early part of the Caliphate of ‘Uthmān. This attitude was formulated in the theological doctrine of the Imamate of the mafḍūl (the less excellent). It was agreed that ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib was al-afḍal (the most excellent) and therefore the most appropriate for the Imamate but it was conceded that the Imamate of the mafḍūl (the less excellent) could occur when the most excellent (al-afḍal) did not publically assert his right to the Imamate by armed revolt.7

 

This doctrine involved a reassessment of ‘Alī’s nomination by the Prophet. If ‘Alī’s nomination had been public and clear to all, then the legitimacy of the Imamates of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān could be gravely compromised. Thus, groups of the Zaydiyya maintained thal ‘Alī’s nomination by the Prophet had been a secret nomination (al-naṣṣ al-khafī) which had not been made public to all the faithful, as opposed to the doctrine of a public nomination (al-naṣṣ al-jafī).

 

 The revolutionary tendencies of the early Zaydī movement soon led many of them to abandon the doctrine that the Imamate only belonged to a man from the line of al-Ḥusayn, who came out in armed revolt. Many Zaydī revolts in the second century of the Islamic era were in support of claimants who came from the line of al-Ḥasan, and some even who were much less directly connected by family to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib.

 

 Included within the Zaydī movement was a group who had previously been supporters of Muḥammad al-Bāqir. After his death, they had become supporters of Zayd b. ‘Alī. This group, under the leadership of Abū al-Jārūd, was known as the Jārūdiyya. They have a much closer relationship with the Imāmī-Shī‘ites than the others. Their attitude to the Imamate was much closer to the Imāmī-Shī‘ites, as was their legal doctrine. What seems to have attracted them to the Zaydī movment was its emphasis on armed rebellion in favour of an ‘Alid claimant to the Imamate.8

 

 

Nonetheless their close relationship to Imāmī-Shī‘ite thought can be seen in the belief that some of them held that there would be an Imam who would go into occultation and return at the end of time.9

 

It is also claimed that some members of the Jārūdiyya were prepared to accept the twelve Imams of the Imāmī-Shī‘ites, but wanted some place to be found for Zayd within the Imamate.

 

•  7 cf. ‘Abd al-Jabbār al-Asadābādī, al-Mughnī (Cairo, 1965), XX, (ii) 184
• 8 W. Madelung, Der Imam al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm (Berlin, 1965), 47
• 9 cf. J. Hussain, “The Historical Background to the Occultation of the Twelfth Imam” (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinburgh. 1979), 36-38, citing traditions from ‘Abbad b. al-Ya‘qūb al-‘Aṣfarī, ‘Asl Abū Sa‘īd al-‘Aṣfarī, Uṣūl al-Arba‘mi’a, MS. Teheran University no. 262.

 

However, such doctrines as the Imamate of the mafḍūl (less excellent) soon led to a quietist tendency among some elements in the Zaydī movement. They found that this doctrine allowed them to have a close working relationship with the ‘Abbāsid caliphate. The Buwayhids, as noted earlier, were probably of Zaydī inclinations, at least at the time of their conquest of Baghdād. At one time early on they even considered deposing the ‘Abbāsid Caliph and setting up an ‘Alid Imam. However, this would have led to an extremely difficult situation with regard to the majority of their subjects who were non-Shī‘ite and accepted the ‘Abbāsid caliphate. The doctrine of the Imamate of the mafḍūl allowed them to work with the less excellent ‘Abbāsids. By encouraging Imāmī-Shī‘ism, whose Imam was in occultation and would not return until the end of time, they could encourage Shī‘ite aspirations without endangering their own political sovereignty. By the appointment of an ‘Alid Imam, they would have relegated themselves to much more subservient political status than they had by maintaining an ‘Abbāsid Caliph, whom they regarded, at best, as mafḍūl (less excellent.)

 

 The Buwayhids provided an atmosphere in Iraq and Iran, which enabled groups previously under some pressure from the authorities to flourish. This was particularly true for the various strands of Shī‘ism, with the exception of the Ismā‘īlīs with their dangerous threat to Iraq from their power base in Egypt. Another group which seems to have done well during this period was the Mu‘tazila, a theological school which laid great emphasis on the use of reason. They had been moving steadily towards a view of ‘Alī as the most excellent (al-afḍal) of the Companions of the Prophet and therefore a more favourable attitude towards Shī‘ism.

 

 It was in this atmosphere that al-Mufīd was born, was educated and lived his life. He was educated in Baghdād by leading Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholars and by leading members of the Mu‘tazila.10 Earlier Imāmī scholarship had not been able to present such a public voice. While there had been several Imāmī-Shī‘ite theologians before al-Mufīd who had used reason in theological speculation, al-Mufīd became the leader of a theological trend within Imāmī-Shī‘ism that f irmly established reason in Imāmī-Shī‘ite theological speculation.11

 

In fact, the vast bulk of earlier Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholarship had concerned the collection of traditions from the Imams. The first collections of traditions, collected either directly from the Imams or at second-hand, were known as uṣūl or sources. There were said to be four hundred such uṣūl.12

 

• 10 M. McDermott, op. cit. (9-13).
• 11 Ibid., 2-4.
• 12 Agha Buzurg al-Teheranī, al-Dhāri‘a ilā taṣānīf al-Shī‘a (Najaf, 1963-8,) II, 125-9

 

The next stage was to bring these collections into more systematic form according to subject matter. The most important of these systematic collections of traditions from the Imams was al-Kāfī. This vast collection of traditions was compiled by Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī, who died in 329/940. Al-Mufīd studied this work under another great traditionist, Ibn Qūlawayh, (died 368/978-79). 13

Al-Mufīd also studied traditions under the second great collector of traditions, Ibn Bābawayh, also known as al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, who died in 381/991-92.14

 

• 13 Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, 328.
• 14 Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, 305.

 

With the occultation of the twelfth Imam, leadership of the Imāmī-Shī‘ite community rested very much in the hands of the traditionists, who propagated the teaching of the Imams. Perhaps their greatest exponent during this period was Ibn Bābawayh. Al-Mufīd, with his great knowledge of traditions and his training in theoretical speculation, was able to cross the division between the two elements, the speculative theologians and the traditionists, and provide Imāmī-Shī‘ism with a synthesis which combined speculative theology with an intelligent use of traditions.

 

Such was the breadth of his learning that he became recognised as the leading scholar of the Imāmī-Shī‘ites.

 

Although the period was a much more favourable time for Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholars, it was not without friction between the Shī‘ites and their opponents. Two Shī‘ite festivals had been established. The commemoration of Ghadīr Khumm on 18th of the month of Dhū al-Ḥijja, and ‘Ashūrā’ on the 10th of the month of Muḥarram. These festivals were instituted by the Buwayhid Mu‘izz al-Dawla in 351/962. The Ghadīr Khumm festival commemorated the occasion on which the Prophet, when returning from the farewell Pligrimage, declared ‘Alī, to be the mawlā (master) of the people and commended him to them. This was taken by Shī‘ites to be an explicit designation of ‘Alī for the Imamate. ‘Ashūrā’ commemorated the martyrdom of al-Ḥusayn in Iraq. In retaliation of these two festivals, the Sunnīs instituted two rival festivals in 389/999 on the 26th of Dhū al-Ḥijja and 18th of Muḥarram, on which they celebrated respectively Abū Bakr’s stay in the cave with the Prophet during his emigration from Medina to Mecca, and the death of Muṣ‘ab b. al-Zubayr, who had defeated the rebel al-Mukhtār, who had risen in vengeance for the death of al-Ḥusayn. These festivals became a frequent source of violence between Shī‘ite and Sunnī partisans. There were several occasions on which serious violence occurred between the rival factions. On these occasions al-Mufīd was banished from the city of Baghdād because of disturbances but it does not appear that al Mufīd was in any way responsible for instigating these disturbances. Rather it appears that the Buwayhids, in order to preserve order and give an appearance of even-handed justice, felt it necessary to find a scape-goat among the Shī‘ites. Al-Mufīd was sufficiently important for them to pacify Sunnī sentiments. 

 

However, these banishments were short-lived.15 Al-Mufīd was a great Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholar in an era of great Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholars. His older contemporaries and teachers, Ibn Qūlawayh and Ibn Bābawayh have already been mentioned. He was, however, himself the teacher of two very great Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholars, the brothers, al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, (d.406/1015) and al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d.436/1044). Al-Raḍī, who in fact died before al-Mufīd, was a great writer and poet and the compiler of Nahj al-Balāgha, a collection of the speeches of ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib.16 Al-Murtaḍā followed and developed al-Mufīd’s work in speculative theology and must be regarded as one of the greatest Imāmī-Shī‘ite theologians.17 Another student of al-Mufīd who belongs to the ranks of the great Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholars was the traditionist, jurist and theologian and later leader of the Imāmī-Shī‘ite scholars, al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī.18

 

Al-Mufīd’s own literary output was enormous. He is credited with over two hundred works: many of these were short treatises of a polemical nature but he also wrote much lengthier works on the whole range of religious topics. Al-Mufīd died in the year 413/1022. A vast crowd attended his funeral and the funeral prayer for him was led by his former pupil al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā. He was at first buried in his own house but later moved to Kāẓimayn and buried alongside his former teacher, Ibn Qūlawayh.19

 

 Kitāb al-Irshād

 

 Kitāb al-Irshād was written by al-Mufīd before he was forty, as it is mentioned by Ibn al-Nadīm.20 It is written in answer to a request for guidance about the lives of the Imams “so that you may distinguish obscure errors and proved facts and you may rely on the truth in it with the sureness of one who has justice and true beliefs of religion.”

 

• 15 cf. M. McDermott, op. cit., 16-21.
• 16 Ibn Dāwud, al-Rijāl (Tehran.1342 A.H.S.) 307.
• 17 Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, 218-220.
• 18 Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, 285-288.
• 19 Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, 316.
• 20 Bayard Dodge (ed. And trans.), The Fihrist of ibn Nadīm (New York, 1970), I, 491. Ibn Nadim died in 380/990. Therefore, Kitāb al-Irshād must have been wntten before that date.

 

The book is really in two halves. The first deals with the first Imam, ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib and the second half deals with the other eleven Imams. The first half of the book is mainly concerned with the inter-Islamic polemic. Al-Mufīd attempts  to show that ‘Alī was the most excellent of the followers of the Prophet and was designated by the Prophet to be his successor. The main concentration of it, therefore, concerns ‘Alī’s great exploits during the Prophet’s life, the Prophet’s trust in and reliance upon ‘Alī and his designation of ‘Alī. In this part al-Mufīd uses several accounts from historians of the life of the Prophet, in particular versions of the work of Ibn Isḥāq (d.151/768) and al-Wāqidī (d. 208/823), which are not always acknowledged. After giving the accounts, al-Mufīd attempts to draw the appropriate conclusions from them. Thus, most of these accounts are followed by an analysis which attempts to demonstrate that ‘Alī must be the most excellent and therefore was the logical Imam after the Prophet. Many of these accounts concern ‘Alī’s bravery and heroism during the life of the Prophet when Islam was beset by so many dangers.

 

Another area, in addition to the military, where the leadership of an Imam was necessary, was in giving judgements in legal disputes. Al-Mufīd produces a collection of ‘Alī’s legal decisions which cover the time of the Prophet and the f irst three Caliphs. In some of these accounts there are Biblical reminiscences but al-Mufīd himself stresses the role of the legal knowledge of David. ‘Alī, he claims, has a similar knowledge.

 

He does not give a detailed account of the period in which ‘Alī ruled the Islamic Community. Rather at this point he relies on the speeches of ‘Alī. He includes a fairly wide selection of the speeches of ‘Alī and thus in Kitāb al-Irshād we have an earlier collection of the speeches of ‘Alī than that of al-Mufīd’s pupil, al-Raḍī’s Nahj al-Balāgha. There are many speeches similar to those included by al-Raḍī and some that al-Raḍī has not used. Al-Mufīd’s collection of speeches is more systematic than al-Raḍī’s. He begins with speeches of a more theological nature and then lets ‘Alī’s words comment on the events of his caliphate as they happen, in more or less chronological order. Al-Mufīd goes on to deal with the miracles attributed to ‘Alī. During the course of his presentation of the miracles, he takes great pains to argue against the rationalist tendency present in society, which denied miracles.

 

In the second half of the book al-Mufīd presents the other eleven Imams. These accounts are not full lives of the Imams but rather collections of traditions concerned with critical aspects of their Imamates. As such, this half of the book is much more concerned with the inter-Shī‘ite polemic of al-Mufīd’s own time. He is anxious to show his readers the Imāmī-Shī‘ite position on matters which were subjects of dispute to Shī‘ites of his own time.

 

The Imamates of al-Ḥasan and his brother al-Ḥusayn were generally accepted  by the Shī‘ites of his time so that there was no real argument within Shī‘ism concerning them. With regard to al-Ḥasan, al-Mufīd is mainly concerned to show the circumstances surrounding his abdication, which made that abdication inevitable, and that al-Ḥasan’s death was murder at the instigation of Mu‘āwiya. In the case of al-Ḥusayn his main interest is to give an account of the martyrdom. In choosing to use the account of Ibn al-Kalbī and not that of his teacher Ibn Bābawayh, al-Mufīd seems to be opposing tendencies within and outside the Imāmī-Shī‘ite community to exaggerate the historical circumstances of that martyrdom. In choosing the version of al-Kalbī he has opted for the one with the best historical pedigree, being derived, as it is in the main, from the tradition of Abū Mikhnaf.

 

The Imamate ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn was a period in which there was a contestant for that Imamate. Al-Mufīd omits the story, which is common in Imāmī-Shī‘ism, about the dispute between Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya and ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn over the Imamate and how that dispute was settled by the Black Stone of the Ka‘ba. Al-Mufīd dealt with it elsewhere in his works. He also refutes the doctrines of the Kaysāniyya, the group which upheld the Imamate of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, in another of his works. The reason for the absence of any detailed discussion of the Kaysāniyya and the Imamate of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya from this work would appear that, although these matters were of great significance in early Shī‘ism, they no longer had any relevance to Shī‘ism in the time of al-Mufīd. The main thrust of al-Mufīd’s arguments in favour of ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn is the Imāmī-Shī‘ite doctrine that there must always be an Imam and since, apart from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, there are no other claims made on behalf of any one else, it belongs to ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn. He maintained that this was also confirmed by the designation on his Imamate by his grandfather, and his position as the only surviving son of al-Ḥusayn. For the rest al-Mufīd is concerned to demonstrate his piety and merit.

 

In his account of the Imamate of Muḥammad al-Bāqir, al-Mufīd emphasises the latter’s great contribution to traditional knowledge. He particularly refers to the tradition reported by Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Anṣārī that he (Jābir) would live until he met a descendant of the Prophet who would split knowledge open. Al Mufīd also draws attention to certain documents which Muḥammad al-Bāqir inherited from the Prophet and Fāṭima. While the possession of such documents might well be regarded as one of the insignia of office, certainly of inherited wisdom, it is also maintained that these documents contained the actual names of the twelve Imams. In the course of this account al-Mufīd refers to the rebellion led by Muḥammad al-Bāqir’s brother Zayd b. ‘Alī. He is at pains to point out that Zayd’s revolution was carried out to secure the Imamate for Muḥammad’s   appointed successor, his son Ja‘far, and that the revolution was a spontaneous reaction by Zayd to humiliation which he received from the authorities. Al Mufīd’s version clearly belongs to the polemic between the Zaydīs and the Imāmī-Shī‘ite of his own time.

 

During the Imamate of Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, the Ḥasanid line began to emerge as contestants for the Imamate. Al-Mufīd recounts a report from Abū al-Faraj al Isfahānī’s Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn in which, at a meeting of the various branches of the Hāshimites, the claims of Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh to the title of the Mahdī were put forward. This claim Ja‘far rejected with the assertion that the time was not appropriate for the Imamate. The doctrine of the Mahdī, the rightly guided Imam who would bring justice to the Shī‘a and the world, was first attributed to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. The Kaysāniyya had claimed that he had not died but had gone into concealment and would bring justice to the world. The poet al-Sayyid al-Ḥimyarī had been a supporter of this belief. Al-Mufīd quotes a poem of his to show that he was converted to Ja‘far’s interpretation of this doctrine, namely that the Mahdī belonged to the line of Imams from ‘Alī through al-Ḥusayn and his descendants. One of their number would eventually go into concealment and return as the Mahdī to bring justice to the world.

 

This belief served to emphasise the quiescent policy of the Imāmī-Shī‘ites. Ja‘far’s reign was a particularly turbulent time for Shī‘ite rebellions against the ‘Umayyad authorities. The enthusiasm of some Shī‘ite elements and popular reaction against the ‘Umayyads was exhibited during Ja‘far’s own lifetime, in the rebellions of Zayd b. ‘Alī and ‘Abd Allāh b. Mu‘āwiya. In addition the ‘Abbāsid branch of the Hāshimites, using claims of succession through Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, brought about the overthrow of the ‘Umayyads. Even some of Ja‘far’s own sons, who were not to succeed him, seem to have dabbled in revolutionary Shī‘ism. Thus there is some evidence that Ismā‘īl, Ja‘far’s eldest son, was engaged in revolutionary activities.21 Al-Mufīd, himself, gives an account of some of the revolutionary activities undertaken by his son, Muḥammad. There are also reports of his second son, ‘Abd Allāh, who was not nominated by Ja‘far as his successor, taking part in Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh’s rebellion.22

 

 

• 21 cf. B. Lewis. The Origins of Ismā‘īlism (Cambridge, 1940), 39.
• 22 Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyin, (Cairo. 1949) 278. There is also a report that Mūsā took part with ‘Abd Allāh (227) but this seems unlikely.

Amid such turbulent conditions, Ja‘far’s own nomination to the Imamate by his father, Muḥammad al-Bāqir, takes on a new significance. Al-Mufīd pays particular attention to Ja‘far’s nomination by his father in a way that he had not done for the earlier Imams. For the latter, he had been content with general  statements of their nomination. In the case of Ja‘far and all the later Imams, he gives much more evidence from traditions by eye-witnesses of their nomination. Al-Mufīd also shows Ja‘far asserting that the weapons of the Prophet, the symbols of authority, which would be used in the ultimate revolution, were in the safe-keeping of true Imams, that is, himself and his successors. Ja‘far seems to have been compelled to make this assertion in response to claims that Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh had the Prophet’s sword.

Al-Mufīd also reports Ja‘far as maintaining that he had documents dictated by the Prophet to ‘Alī. Again possession of these documents served to strengthen his claims to the Imamate. The nature of such documents served to underline the doctrine of the Imam as teacher, interpreter and ultimate guide in religion.

 

 There were current in Shī‘ite circles traditions that there would be only seven Imams. These traditions were later to lead to serious divisions within the Shī‘ite movement. Some of Ja‘far’s supporters maintained that he nominated his eldest son Ismā‘īl and that Ismā‘īl was the seventh and last Imam. Al-Mufīd takes great trouble to demonstrate that Ja‘far did not nominate Ismā‘īl and that Ismā‘īl died during Ja‘far’s own lifetime. Despite this, the lsmā‘īlī branch of Shī‘ism developed, claiming that the Imamate belonged to the successors of Ismā‘īl.

 

The Imamate of Ja‘far’s successor Mūsā was a critical period for Imāmī-Shī‘ism. Such was the influence of the rumours about the seventh Imam being the Imam who would be the Mahdī that the ‘Abbāsid authorities kept a very close watch to see who would be designated as Ja‘far’s successor. As a result and in order to protect his successor, Ja‘far appears, at least publicly, not to have made it clear who his successor would be. Although al-Mufīd quotes a considerable number of traditions about Mūsā’s designation by Ja‘far, this designation seems to have been made secretly and the majority of the Shī‘a seem to have been uncertain who Ja‘far’s successor was. Al-Mufīd himself indicates that most of them, at first, followed Ja‘far’s second son ‘Abd Allāh. However, they found his knowledge inadequate and eventually came to uphold the Imamate of Mūsā.

 

Once the Imamate of Mūsā was clearly established among the majority of the Imāmī-Shī‘ites, the authorities paid increasing attention to his activities and eventually imprisoned him. The death of Mūsā is important to establish within the context of the inter-Shī‘ite polemic, for the tradition of the seventh Imam being the “awaited” Imam was fairly widespread. Al-Mufīd uses the account reported by Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī for this purpose. The account reveals that Mūsā’s body was publicly displayed so that people should have no doubt about his death. In the same context, Mūsā’s designation of his son ‘Alī al-Riḍā is of  importance.

 

The Imamate of ‘Alī al-Riḍā was a time of great Shī‘ite activity against the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Ma’mūn. During this time al-Mufīd shows ‘Alī al-Riḍā as the reluctant instrument of al-Ma’mūn’s attempt to reconcile the Shī‘ite community. Al-Ma’mūn, professing great respect for the family of ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, makes ‘Alī al-Riḍā his heir apparent. Then, later, he has ‘Alī al-Riḍā poisoned. The ordering of the court to wear green, another aspect of al-Ma’mūn’s policy, has absolutely nothing to do with Shī‘ism. ‘Alī al-Riḍā, when asked to lead the prayer by al-Ma’mūn, wears white, the colour traditionally associated with the family of the Prophet.

 

 The succession of ‘Alī al-Riḍā was another moment of critical importance to Imāmī-Shī‘ism. ‘Alī al-Riḍā left behind him only one son, Muḥammad al-Jawād, who was seven years old at the time of his death. As a result of this, several of his former supporters, now reverted to the idea that Mūsā was the awaited Imam who was in occultation and would return. To combat this, al-Mufīd quotes traditions of his nomination by his father. These traditions refer to Jesus having begun his mission while still a child. Al-Mufīd demonstrates that he was competent to be Imam although still a child by reporting his confrontation with one of the leading jurists of the time, Yaḥyā b. Aktham. In their discussion, Muḥammad al-Jawād shows himself to be not only conversant with jurisprudence but a much greater jurist then Yaḥyā b. Aktham. When reporting the death of Muḥammad al-Jawād, al-Mufīd refuses to accept reports of his murder. He, thus, shows himself to be in disagreement with his teacher, lbn Bābawayh, who maintains that all the Imams were murdered. In fact al-Mufīd only seems to accept the murders of ‘Alī, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, Mūsā and ‘Alī al-Riḍā.

 

With the death of Muḥammad al-Jawād, the Imamate passes to his son, ‘Alī al Hādī. From the time of ‘Alī al-Riḍā onwards, the Imams had been kept under very close observation by the ‘Abbāsids. This is particularly true of Imams ‘Alī al-Hādī and al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī, his son. The traditions reported by al-Mufīd give us some insight into the secret organisation built up by the Imāmī-Shī‘ites to escape ‘Abbāsid surveillance. The succession of al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī also presented the Imāmī-Shī‘ites community with some problems. For ‘Alī al-Hādī had had another son, Muḥammad, whom observers thought that he intended to appoint as his successor. However Muḥammad died before ‘Alī al-Hādī. The situation is actually compared to that which existed when it was thought that Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq would appoint Ismā‘īl as his successor.

 

The existence of the twelfth Imam is of crucial importance to Imāmī-Shī‘ism.

 

 Al-Mufīd maintains that he was born in 255/869. His birth was kept secret from the authorities and the child was sent to the Ḥijāz for safe-keeping. Al-Mufīd quotes traditions from men who claimed to have seen him there. The claims of Ja‘far, the brother of al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī, to be the Imam are rejected. It is suggested that Ja‘far was himself aware of the existence of the son of al-Ḥasan al-‘Askarī. Al-Mufīd also quotes some of the traditions in favour of there being twelve Imams. The ‘Abbāsid authorities were also aware of these traditions and took great care to try to detect the birth of the twelfth Imam. Al-Mufīd’s main concern, then, is to show the contact that the Imam maintained with the Imāmī Shī‘ite organisation. He finishes his account of this Imamate by enumerating the signs which will precede the return of the twelfth Imam.

 

He presents the background to these matters by selective use of historical material. As already mentioned, al-Mufīd used versions of the historians, Ibn Isḥāq and al-Wāqidī, for the life of ‘Alī.23 He also relies on material from Imāmī Shī‘ite traditional sources. He had a copy of Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī’s Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, written in the latter’s own hand. He seems to have material from this in his account of ‘Alī’s death and al-Ḥasan’s accession and abdication as well as of his death.

 

In these two cases, he quotes one of Abū al-Faraj’s sources, Abū Mikhnaf, rather than the book itself, but a comparison of the two texts seems to indicate that he took it directly from Abū al-Faraj. Other places where he seems to have used Abū al-Faraj, are at Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq’s meeting with the Hāshimites at al-Abwā’ near Medina (here he acknowledges the source), and also for the death of Mūsā al-Kāẓim as well as for some of the account about ‘Alī al-Rīḍā.

 

His historical account of the martyrdom of al-Ḥusayn, he attributes in the main to Ibn al-Kalbī and al-Madā‘inī. However, his principal source seems to have been al-Ṭabarī’s version of al-Kalbī,24 which he has given in a somewhat abbreviated form.

 

 

• 23 In fact on two occasions al-Mufīd cites Ibn Hishām’s Recension of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra. On both occasions the citation is not the same as the version we have of Ibn Hishām. In the main it seems likely that he used the version presented by al-Ṭabarī, though with additional material from Shī‘ite sources.
• 24 However, he does include some details not described in al-Ṭabarī’s version. He also Incorporates the arrival of ‘Ubayd Allāh into the account, which al-Ṭabarī gives as an alternative to Ibn al-Kalbī on the authority of ‘Umar b. Shabba.

 The other major source used by al-Mufīd is al-Kulaynī’s al-Kāfi. He had studied this under Ibn Qūlawayh and frequently he gives the full isnād (chain of authorities) from Ibn Qūlawayh and gives al-Kulaynī’s isnād. However,sometimes he cuts his own reference and the isnād to the last two authorities and sometimes he omits the isnād altogether.

 

 Another work which al-Mufīd mentions and commends to his readers is Kitāb al-Ghayba of al-Nu’mānī. This work is particularly concerned with the existence, occultation and signs for the return of the twelfth Imam and al-Mufīd probably made particular use of it in his chapter about that Imam.

 

Al-Mufīd also seems to have used a work by Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥasan al-‘Alawī a follower of ‘Alī al-Rīḍā.25

This work he received from al-Sharīf Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad. Although the latter was regarded as generally weak, he seems to have had an interest in genealogy 26 and al-Mufīd uses him for reports on this subject from the work of Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥasan. Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥasan is also used extensively by Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī in Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn. Al Mufīd reports traditions from several other teachers, about whom we know very little. Other authorities whom we know something of are Ibn al-Ji‘ābī, who was an expert in tradition, and the theologian Ṭāhir, the pupil of the Imāmī-Shī‘ite theologian Abū al-Jaysh, as well as Abū al-Jaysh himself.

 

• 25 Al-Ṭūsī, Fihrist, 360. Where It is mentioned that he has a work on the genealogy of the family of Abū Ṭālib. The link in the chain of authorities for this book back to Al-Ṭūsī is his grandson, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad whose name is given as Abū Muḥammad b. Akhī Ṭāhir (son of the brother of Ṭāhir).
• 26 Ibn Dāwud, al-Rijāl 443.

  

 The Translation

 

 

The text used for this translation is the reprint (Tehran 1377 A.H.) of the lithographed version edited by Kāẓim al-Mūsawī al-Miyāmiwī. In the translation, texts of letters and verses have been indented. Square brackets, [], have been used to separate the isnād, i.e. the chain of authorities, from the actual report. Ordinary brackets, (), have been used to identify persons who might otherwise be obscure, to give the meaning of words or phrases which may be a little unclear and sometimes to give the Arabic word in order to make clear what the translation refers to. Qur’ānic quotations have been referred to by giving the number of the sūra in Roman numerals and the number of the verse in ordinary numerals.

 

The chapter divisions have been given titles and some of the sections within the chapters have been joined together, or separated according to the logic of their contents. Sometimes a section has been given a title that is not given by al-Mufīd.

 

Mawlā, which is a rather difficult word to translate, depending very much on the context, has been usually translated “retainer”. This is a rather loose translation, but gives the general idea of the status of the people generally referred to by this designation in the text. Where the meaning is entirely different, it has been translated differently, but the word is given in brackets.

 

 The system of transliteration of Arabic used is that in general use in Britain. I have chosen to ignore the ḥamzat al-waṣl and have transliterated words as written and not as pronounced.

 

Following the translation is a biographical index which is designed to help identify the people referred to in the text. I would like to thank the Muḥammadi Trust for financing the publication of this work. In this connection, I would particularly like to thank Mr. Abbās Gokal and Wing-Commander Husain Qasim, the secretary of the Muḥammadi Trust. The latter has been a constant source of encouragement and help and I would like to thank him for his kindness and understanding. I am also extremely grateful to colleagues and friends, Dr. Jāsim Hussain and Dr. ‘Abd al-Raḥīm ‘Alī, who helped me check the translation. In this connection I would also like to thank Dr. Dona Straley, whose help has been of great value. Finally I must acknowledge the debt I owe to my wife, Louise, without whom I do not think this work would ever have been finished.

 

I. K. A. Howard University of Edinburgh.