Chapter 5: Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, The Enlightened Messianic Activist, The Shi’ite Insurrection as Political Reaction, Reparation and Revenge

In order to explain the transformation that Islam went through since the rise of Shi’ism, Muslim and non-Muslim historians point to two factors derived from the same cause: the political struggle for the Caliphate. The first factor was the political influence of the oligarchy which transformed itself into a timocratic power, a state in which political power increases with the amount of property one owns, through the support of the triumphant majority. The second factor was the political will of a marginalized minority which became a medium of resistance.

Depending on the personal inclinations of previous researchers, they argue in favor of one of these two factors. For us, both factors are two aspects of the same cause. For Western research scholars, it is not always easy to accept the idea that in Islam, the relationship between the religion and politics is much closer than it is in the West between the Church and State. It is even more difficult for them to accept that, in Shi’ism, religion and politics are two aspects of the orthodox development of the same doctrine, rather than parallel or separate tendencies that revolve around the same sphere but without any effective connection between them.

“Recent studies,” says Bausani, “distinguish more between a political Shi’ism, which included the purely political partisans of ‘Ali and his family…, a religious Shi’ism, which included activists impregnated with Gnostic ideas, who were based mostly in Kufah, in Mesopotamia, and whose main representative … was the politico-religious agitator al-Mukhtar who took over Kufah in 685-686. He preached Messianic doctrines and started some very interesting customs like the cult of the vacant throne and so forth” (112-113). As a result of these events, some Orientalists attempted to establish a clear distinction between an “extremist” political Shi’ism, a “moderate” religious Shi’ism, and an “intermediate” Shi’ism. This latter, which shares both political and religious aspects, is at times “extremist” and at others “moderate” according to Bausani’s definition of Twelver Shi’ism. It comes as no surprise that, centuries after the birth of Shi’ism, Orientalists seeking support for the “democratic” orientation of Abu Bakr would use this inappropriate division to supposedly distinguish between a political Shi’ism and a religious Shi’ism.1

The origin and early development of Shi’ite Islam is, to a great extent, a history of divisions, dissensions, and internal quarrels relating to the problem of succession. A considerable number of movements, some of which went from partial or relative dissidence [inshi’ab] to outright rupture [fitnah], were drawn into the center of this great storm as a result of the violence perpetrated by the political and religious authorities. It must be mentioned, however, that while some of these groups may have reached the state of sects [furaq] in the Christian sense of the world, in our view, even this barrier between differences does not produce clear-cut division. On the contrary, under this umbrella, many branches flourished, some longer-lived than others, which developed alongside Shi’ism without breaking the tie, as weak as it may have been, with the Islamic trunk from which they were born.2

In truth, the development of sects - that is, groups which diverge on the basis of important beliefs or practices - is the result of the closer ties established between Shi’ism and the surrounding esoteric traditions. The divergence and conflict between the distinct groups is related to the reaction towards an ocean of doctrinal wealth. The Isma’iliyyah,3 for example, have a doctrine which, in many respects, makes them the heirs of the Sabian tradition of Harran which, as is known, was the depository of Hermetic and neo-Pythagorean doctrines combined with elements from Hindu occultism and Gnosis.4 These Sabeans must not be confused with the Sabaeans or Mandaeans from southern of Iraq and Persia.5

One of the common mistakes made in relation to Shi’ah Islam is the attempt to compare it with the various schisms found in Christianity. Shi’ism is often portrayed as a schismatic coextension of dissident groups organized in small cells or brotherhoods driven by an uncompromising parochial spirit. The concept of inshi’ab [division] in the Islamic religion must not be confused with that of fitnah, definitive division and irreparable rupture. In fact, Shi’ism suffered no “division” [inshi’ab] or rupture [fitnah] during the Imamate of the first three Imams: ‘Ali, Hasan, and Husayn.

After the death of Husayn, however, the majority of Shi’ites placed their trust in ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-’Abidin,6 while a minority, known as al-Kaysaniyyah, believed that the right to succession belonged to Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyyah. He was the third son of ‘Ali, but not through Fatimah. As a result, he cannot be considered a descendant of the Prophet.7 Despite this fact, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyyah was proclaimed by his partisans as the Fourth Imam and the promised Mahdi. During the time he sought refuge in the mountains of Rawdah, which form a cordillera in Madinah, Mukhtar al-Thaqafi served as his “representative.”8 It was believed that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyyah would come down one day and appear as the rightly-guided and long-awaited Messiah.

In accordance with Shi’ite thought, the Mahdi is a man motivated by God who is also a military chief and a warrior. Even if the followers of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi gave an extremist character to the eschatological idea of the Hidden Imam, the Islamic figure of the Messiah as restorer of revealed religion is not an invention of Mukhtar or a Christian influence. The Mahdi is a spiritual synthesis of all revealed forms and not a mere uniform syncretism. It is a concept that is expressed in all its dimensions and depth in many ahadith of the Prophet as well as many traditions of the Imams.9

In synthesis, we can say that after the death of Imam Zayn al-’Abidin, the majority of Shi’ites accepted Muhammad al-Baqir as the Fifth Imam, despite the fact that a minority followed his brother Zayd al-Shahid, who were known from that moment on as Zaydis.10 Imam Muhammad al-Baqir was succeeded by his son Ja’far al-Sadiq the Sixth Imam and, after his death, his son Musa al-Kazim was recognized as the Seventh Imam. Nevertheless, an opposition group insisted that the successor of the Sixth Imam was his elder son Isma’il who had died when his father was still alive.11

This group split from the Shi’ite majority and became known as the Isma’ilis. Others, instead, preferred ‘Abdullah al-Aftah and some even chose Muhammad, both sons of the Sixth Imam. Still, there were even those who considered Ja’far al-Sadiq as the Last Imam and were convinced that none would succeed him. Likewise, after the martyrdom of Imam Musa al-Kazim, the majority followed his son ‘Ali al-Rida as the Eighth Imam. But there were those who refused to recognize any Imam after al-Kazim and came to constitute the brotherhood of the Waqifiyyah.12 From the Eighth to the Twelfth Imam, considered by the Shi’ite majority as the Awaited Mahdi, no important division [inshi’ab] took place within Shi’ism.

However it occurred, what is important to retain here is that, since its origins, Shi’ite Islam represents, more than a spiritual and political rebellion against illegitimate authority, a movement of “awakening,” like that of Sufism in the Sunni world. It was not a reformist movement in the Christian sense, like the one that took place in Europe during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Shi’ite Islam represents an integral restoration of Muhammadan theosophy and metaphysics through the application and practice of all the teachings of the Holy Imams, who linked the outer meanings of the text to the inner meanings of the divine word.

The root cause for the development of Shi’ism is utterly alien from worldly affairs. The source of Shi’ism is not a simple heresy or a political disagreement. Shi’ite Islam springs from a metaphysical reality, a process of epiphany which establishes a new logophonic manifestation of Prophethood. Shi’ism, as the Islam of ‘Ali and the Ahl Al-Bayt, is the temporal and earthly pillar of the eternal and celestial reality of the wilayah. The wilayah, the spiritual guidance of the Imams, is a manifestation of Prophethood.

The wilayah is an inner or occult reality which is found in potential and action within the same Prophethood. The wilayah is a manifestation of Prophethood that is revealed in a new way. The wilayah is not the renovation of the anterior Qur’anic revelation but its closure. The wilayah is an unveiling of the esoteric and metaphysical truths found in the Qur’an.

While the Prophet sealed the age of formal revelation, by means of the divine concession of the wilayah and the Imamate to his descendants, a new age of profound “revelations” was opened.13Just as the pleroma of the Twelve Imams represents the fullness of the Muhammadan Reality, their teachings and doctrines are flashes from the sole Muhammadan Light, the logophonic effusions and manifestations of the Qur’anic revelation: its perfect synthesis and exact formulation.

Finally, in order for there to be a living branch from the Islamic trunk, a favorable doctrinal terrain was required, a spiritual identity with its own characteristics which were qualitatively different from the other ideological options of its age. With such an understanding, the historical appearance of Shi’ism seems to be completely inevitable. Without its presence, of course, the history of Islam and the world would have totally changed. In our judgement, any attempt to reduce the historical development of Shi’ism to a mere political problem related to the succession or to some insurgent elements is misguided at best. This applies to figures as fictitious as ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’, the Yemenite of Jewish extraction, and as real and historical as Mukhtar al-Thaqafi.

Abd Allah Ibn Saba’ and Mukhtar al-Thaqafi are presented by Alessandro Bausani as “extremists” [ghulat]14 and precursors of a political Shi’ism. Muslim and non-Muslim specialists have long disputed which one deserves the inappropriate title of “founder of Shi’ite Islam.” The Italian Orientalist briefly refers to ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’ as an exalted personality, an ex-Jewish Yemenite who deified ‘Ali during his lifetime. The feeble historical foundation surrounding someone considered to be no less than the “founder of Shi’ite Islam” should have led Bausani and other contemporary Orientalists to infer that they were dealing with a fictitious character or an insignificant individual whose existence had not even been faithfully documented by the annals of time.

It is shocking to learn, nonetheless, that the refusal to recognize Shi’ism as a historical and meta-historical reality profoundly rooted since the dawn of Islam has led certain Orientalists to discard the strongest evidence in favor of the weakest. In reality, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’ is a literary character, a fabrication of Sayf Ibn ‘Umar al-Zindiq [the Atheist or Dualist], a famous falsifier of ahadith or prophetic traditions.15 The absence of any convincing evidence to support the existence of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’, partnered with the constantly contradictory and nebulous character of his life, convinced some Shi’ite scholars long ago that they were facing the figure of an imposter. Despite this body of bona fide doubts, it took longer than expected for this fact to be confirmed. In fact, it took no less than one thousand years before a perspicacious research scholar, the erudite Shi’ite ‘Allamah Sayyid Murtada al-’Askari, shed light on this somber subject. For many centuries, the detractors of Shi’ism used the tale of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’ as a pretext to deny its purely Islamic origin and to corrupt its genuine Muhammadan connection. They have stubbornly presented Shi’ism as the creation of an ex-Jew, thence as the political scheme of an upstart Muslim convert. As a result, the figure of the “convert” in the Muslim world continues to be the center around which all suspicions converge, whether reasonable or groundless.16

Along with ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’, Mukhtar al-Thaqafi is often cited as one of the persons directly responsible for the creation of Shi’ism. He appeared as the inspiration for an armed resistance that took place in the year 40 of the Hijrah, during the regime of Mu’awiyyah. The revolutionary movement was directed against the Caliph and the powerful governors of the Ummayad clan who were all considered, without exception, as preachers of moral perdition and religious innovation. During the period of the first three khulafa’ al-rashidun [rightly-guided Caliphs] - Abu Bakr, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab and ‘Uthman - between the years 632 and 656, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib and his followers were subjected to a considerable degree of political coercion which relaxed temporarily when ‘Ali acceded to the Caliphate. After the death of ‘Ali, however, the persecution of the Shi’ites became increasingly intense and intolerable under the Ummayad regime.17

With the proclamation of Mu’awiyyah as the Caliph in Jerusalem in the year 660, the Caliphate was moved to Damascus and acquired an entirely different character than the one it possessed during the rule of the four rightly-guided Caliphs.18 The defining characteristics of Mu’awiyyah’s rule were nepotism and tyranny. The Caliph turned into a “king” [malik] who governed as an absolute sovereign in the manner of the Persian and Byzantine emperors.19 With the death of Mu’awiyyah, he was succeeded by his son Yazid [680-683], described by historians as a degenerate drunkard.20 Successive uprisings against him broke out through all of Arabia, inspired and encouraged by the Shi’ites who despised the moral and spiritual decadence of the Umayyads. The Shi’ite revolts multiplied throughout the Umayyad Caliphate. The political reaction and righteous revenge for the death of Husayn, the youngest son of ‘Ali and Fatimah, occurred in Karbala during the reign of Yazid. The revolution was led on behalf of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyyah, whom we have already mentioned, and its goal was accomplished by Mukhtar al-Thaqafi of Kufah in the year 685. It was in Kufah, one of the holiest cities in Islam, that the various esoteric and political branches of Shi’ism appeared. Fond of the old Christianizing formula of the Orientalists, Hitti affirms that “the blood of Husayn, and the blood of his father, was the seed of the Shi’ite Church.”21

The unequal efforts of the distinct Shi’ite groups against the Umayyad regime, each distinct in nature, meaning, purpose and reach, definitively did nothing but lead the insurgents to disaster, to merciless, heartless, and relentless repression and to brutal martyrdom. But, despite these vagaries, they are not movements undeserving of attention. They have their place, which is not at all negligible, in the course of the historical evolution of the Shi’ism we attempt to trace. In short, Mukhtar al-Thaqafi lived in a period of difficult transition in the history of Shi’ism. As we have mentioned, it was, to a great extent, a time of violent dissent and disputes. Bribery and political crimes were routinely used by the Umayyad regime to suppress its opponents. As a result, the division of Shi’ite Islam into distinct parties or factions, each one following ‘Ali and some of his descendants, became an instrument of political struggle and the sole means of liberation and hope for the oppressed.

It was then, during those dark days of despotism, that Mukhtar al-Thaqafi appeared on the scene, transforming himself into one of the most active combatants and one of the most outstanding and ingenious revolutionaries of his time. It goes without saying that Mukhtar al-Thaqafi was Shi’ite, and probably forcibly so. In the religious and social framework of his time, he was also a messianic revolutionary, illuminated by Gnostic ideas. In line with the goals and aspirations of his political program, he accomplished his mission to kill ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyyad and, in so doing, he avenged the death of the Third Imam, Husayn al-Sibt al-Asghar, the youngest grandson of the Prophet. The personality and character of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi aroused a great deal of controversy in the early history of Shi’ite Islam.

Some sources present him as an ambitious adventurer and a faithful follower of the political authority of Ahl Al-Bayt. For others, he was an enlightened being who was almost raised to the rank of a prophet by his contemporaries. Although he never made such a claim himself, he did indicate directly and indirectly, as we will see shortly, that his actions were inspired by the angel of revelation. After overcoming some initial hurdles, Mukhtar’s personal success was great and long-lasting. He finished his days with praise and acclaim, recognized as one of the bravest heroes and one of the most efficient military leaders of Shi’ism. He was the implacable avenger of Husayn, the standard of the tawwabun [penitents] who consolidated the aspirations of this revolutionary Shi’ite movement whose appearance was motivated by the tragedy of Karbala.22 The tawwabun or penitents constituted the first avenging movement of Karbala. However, as soon as Mukhtar al-Thaqafi appeared on the scene, the tawwabun were assimilated, and perhaps rightfully so, into his brand of revolutionary Messianism.

Regardless of the reason behind Mukhtar’s popularity, the question of his religious commitment coincides with the establishment of an initiatory hierarchy which is distinct from the Shi’ite structure. Since Shi’ite thought was already sufficiently delineated, we must say without hesitation that his divergent approach did not arouse much sympathy among the Shi’ites. The cause for such aversion is to be found in an accidental slip related to Imam Hasan.

During his conflict with Mu’awiyyah, the Imam sought asylum in Mada’in, in the house of the governor Sa’d Ibn Mas’ud who was Mukhtar’s uncle. Unexpectedly and inexplicably, Mukhtar suggested to his uncle that he should turn in Imam Hasan to the Umayyad Caliph, who was searching for him. He told his uncle that he could subjugate the deposed Caliph and declare that “The treaty made with Hasan is null and void. It is under my feet.” Obviously, the governor emphatically rejected the treacherous suggestion made by his nephew. From this incident, we can only lament Mukhtar’s political blunder which did not go unnoticed by the Shi’ites. They unanimously and severely reproached him for being so inconsiderate and disloyal towards the first son of ‘Ali and the oldest grandson of the Prophet.23

Further on, in an isolated and equally accidental incident, he regained the confidence and the appreciation of the Shi’ites. This occurred when he refused to appear before Ziyyad Ibn Abih, the Governor of Kufah, to testify against Hujr Ibn ‘Adi, the leader of the one of the Shi’ite rebellions to overthrow the tyrant. It seems that, from that moment onwards, Mukhtar adopted a position that was increasingly favorable towards the Shi’ite cause. At the same time, his revolutionary rhetoric acquired an undeniable messianic character which occasionally resembled revelation. Mukhtar was a man who possessed psychological qualities in line with his strong and unusually esoteric religious mentality. He quickly converted himself into a spontaneous orator. His rhetoric was smooth and eloquent. It overflowed with obscure reflections and periphrastic expressions, which gave it a poetic flow which superficially resembled the revealed word. His speeches gave the impression that they came from an inspired source. It was for this reason that Mukhtar often alleged that his spirit was illuminated by Gabriel, the Angel of Revelation, who, in an ineffable and mysterious way, warned him of the unexpected.

Mukhtar’s ingenious rhetorical slips had a tremendous influence on his followers and convinced them of the appearance of the Awaited Mahdi, identified with Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyyah, who was coming to restore order and justice. Due to this deep-rooted Shi’ite conviction, he was considered by his followers as the “Representative of the Mahdi,” namely, a delegate of the third son of Imam ‘Ali. This is the manner in which he was recognized and allowed himself to be addressed. In the years 685 and 686, he established a Shi’ite-oriented government in Kufah.24 This was the first time this was done since the time of Imam ‘Ali when he finally received his much-delayed turn to occupy the Caliphate and to fully assume the supreme role he had inherited from the Prophet.

It must be remembered, however, that similar excesses on the part of Mukhtar caused, if not serious religious worries, at least considerable annoyance to the ruling religious authorities. His influence was great in the genesis of one sect, the Mukhtariyyah, but did not shake the foundation of Imami Gnosis. Although Mukhtar’s ideas were not free from doctrinal errors, they did not radically alter the esoteric concept of the Hidden Imam which is the real touchstone of all Shi’ite thought: past, present, and future.25 The repercussion of his ideas was sufficient to inspire the partial development of an erroneous path which, in its true sense, was nothing more than a stubbornness to maintain ideas which were contrary to those espoused by the majority of Shi’ites.

In fairness, the interesting and eventful life of this unique man brought him the opportunity to regain the sympathy of the Shi’ites. As we have said, avenging the death of Husayn, the martyr of Karbala, was the mission that was thrust upon Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, as well as Sulayman Ibn Surad, leader of the tawwabun. The target of this vengeance was ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyyad, considered unanimously among Shi’ites to be the direct instigator and the main executor in the death of Imam Husayn and his family. And here is one of those interesting facts that mark the lives of the chosen ones; the martyr Maytham al-Tammar, one of the closest companions of Imam ‘Ali and one of the saints of Islam who is highly venerated by Sufis, was imprisoned as a political prisoner by ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyyad on charges of conspiring against the Umayyad regime. Destiny would have it that Mukhtar was also in the same prison. It is there that Maytham predicted that, once he was released, he would fulfill his mission of avenging Husayn which is, after all, exactly what happened.26

We have focused our attention on Mukhtar for the purpose of clearing up some common confusion related to the creation of the Party of ‘Ali. We wish to take advantage of this opportunity to clarify another error. Bausani says that Mukhtar took over Kufah and preached messianic doctrines and starting very interesting customs like the cult of the vacant throne. While this is true, it is not the complete truth. As “interesting” as this custom may be to Bausani - perhaps due to its symbolism - we must point out that Mukhtar never introduced “a cult of the vacant throne.” As Dozy explains, the idea of the throne was simply an ingenious ruse that this clever and brilliant strategist contrived to incite his army to battle. He had the idea of purchasing an old armchair that he had re-upholstered with a fine and expensive silk, converting it into the famous “vacant throne” of ‘Ali. This unusual inducement brought forth its desired fruit. Ibrahim, the commander of Mukhtar’s troops, fought in an unusually brave and heroic fashion and killed ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyyad with his own sword. In the minds of the Shi’ite soldiers the supposed throne of ‘Ali truly acquired a highly symbolic value. Mukhtar had told them at the beginning of the battle that the throne would represent for them what the Ark of the Covenant represented to the Children of Israel.

As serious as the political events that coincide with the start of Shi’ism were, they cannot be considered a sufficient reason for its historical appearance. It is certain that Abu Bakr’s assumption of the Caliphate of the Islamic Community instead of ‘Ali, the coerced resignation of Hasan and the martyrdom of Husayn, the division of the Islamic world into various groups as a result of the bloody raids and forays of Mu’awiyyah and Yazid - the founders of the Umayyad dynasty - forced Muslims, Gnostics included, to take sides. However, the reason for which they were fighting goes well beyond what today is qualified as “political.”

Not all of the political insurrections which took place in the name of Shi’ism reflected the complex reality of the Imamate and what it represents metaphysically. Likewise, the development of the esoteric doctrine and thought of Shi’ism in Islam should not be linked to the appearance of the word “Shi’ite” or “Shi’ism.” These terms simply designate a particular “party” or a “group” of Muslims.27 As Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr observes, one thing is the meaning of the term, and the other is the distinct doctrine it designates. To say that the Shi’ites are a “party” of legitimistic minority Muslims merely expresses one aspect of the term.

In the time of the Prophet, as can be seen in many ahadith, there are references to the “Shi’ah of ‘Ali” and the “Shi’ah of Ahl Al-Bayt”28 In Arabic, Shi’ah means “partisans,” “adepts,” or “followers” of someone.29 As a result, it is said that Shi’ites are those who are partisans of Imam ‘Ali and his descendants. They are those who consider that the fulfillment of the sunnah of the Prophet demands the complete and obligatory observance of all of its dispositions and rulings. This evidently, and most importantly, includes the designation [nass] made by the Prophet of Imam ‘Ali as his successor [khalifah].

• 1. Editor’s Note: This current which seeks to split Shi’ism into fractions has even spread among Muslim scholars. Sachedina holds that Shi’ism was a political movement which acquired religious undertones (Islamic Messianism, 5). Jafri recognizes the division between political Shi’ism and religious Shi’ism (97) as does Rasul Ja’fariyan who speaks of three forms of Shi’ism: political, creedal and Iraqi. The truth of the matter, however, is that “Shi’ism was a religious movement that also encompassed social and political aspects of society” (Rizvi, Chapter 1).
• 2. Editor’s Note: The author’s attitude is all-encompassing, eager to embrace, and stresses the common ground of tawhid on which all Muslims stand. This can be contrasted with Tijani’s attitude which seeks more to splinter than to soothe, even rejecting the close legal, theological, philosophical and political ties which bind Twelvers, Seveners and Zaydis: “Our discussion does not invoke the other sects as Isma’iliyyah and Zaydiyyah, as we believe in their being like other sects in not adhering to Hadith al-thaqalayn, and their belief in ‘Ali’s imamah after the Messenger of Allah is of no use” (The Shi’ah, 331, Note 1). This attitude also ignores the similarities between Sunnism, Sufism, and Shi’ism.
  As M.G.S. Hodgson explains, “in its whole piety Sunni Islam can be called half-Shi’ite” (4). Similarly, Nasr observes that “In certain areas of the Islamic world…one meets among Sufis certain groups as devoted to the Shi’ite Imams, especially ‘Ali and Husayn, as any Shi’ite could be, yet completely Sunni in their practice of the law [madhhab]” (Sufi Essays, 107). In reality, these so-called “half-Shi’ites” are neither one thing nor the other, but rather “seekers of the straight path.”
• 3. Editor’s Note: The Isma’iliyyah are known as Seveners as they follow Seven Imams, the first six Shi’ite Imams and Isma’il as the seventh.
• 4. Editor’s Note: Some Isma’iliyyah adapted the Qarmathian syncretistic catechism to other forms of monotheism, to Harranian paganism, and even to Mazdeism (Massignon, 60). As ‘Allamah Tabataba’i notes, “The Isma’ilis have a philosophy in many ways similar to that of the Sabaeans [star worshippers] combined with elements of Hindu gnosis” (Shi’ite Islam, 78).
• 5. Editor’s Note: As Netton explains, “The Sabeans were a pagan sect who, according to some, had cleverly identified themselves with the Sabi’un of the Qur’an to avoid persecution” (15). Harran, in what is now southeastern Turkey, was the home of the star worshipping Sabeans with their transcendent philosophy. The Sabeans of Harran must not be confused with the Sabaeans who lived in what is today Yemen and who founded colonies in Ethiopia and Eritrea. As for the Mandaeans, they are members of an ancient Gnostic sect surviving in southern Iraq and which used the Aramaic language in their writings.
• 6. Editor’s Note: Zayn al-’Abidin is responsible for one of the great masterpieces of Shi’ite supplications, al-Sahifah al-sajadiyyah, rendered beautifully into English by William Chittick as The Psalms of Islam.
• 7. Author’s Note: He was the fruit of the marriage between the Imam and a woman from the Hanafi tribe, rather than from the Prophet’s daughter.
• 8. Editor’s Note: We must remember that, despite his accomplishments, Mukhtar al-Thaqafi did not recognize the Imam of his Age. If prophets and Imams are infallible, ordinary human beings like Mukhtar are far from perfect. Although Mukhtar did a great deal of good and will always be remembered for avenging the death of al-Husayn he was misguided in many matters, including following Muhammad Ibn al-Hanifiyyah as the Mahdi. As followers of the Twelve Imams, Shi’ite Muslims have always opposed and denounced all fabricators of false traditions, even when those traditions are favorable to their cause. Shi’ite muhadithun reject Mukhtar as an authority on the basis that he became an extremist. For the sake of historical accuracy, it is important to show human beings with their vices and virtues. The author does not present a romantic, idealized version of Mukhtar: he shows him warts and all.
• 9. Editor’s Note: For more English-language books on the Mahdi, consult Shaykh al-Mufid’s Kitab al-irshad, Sachedina’s Islamic Messianism; An Inquiry Concerning al-Mahdi by Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Discussions Concerning al-Mahdi by Ayatullah Lutfullah Safi al-Gulpaygani.
• 10. Editor’s Note: The Zaydis are followers of Zayd Ibn ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn, the son of the Fourth Imam, who led a revolt against the Ummayads and was killed in 738. Initially, the Zaydis held that the true Imam was the Husaynid Imam who rose up in revolt. Many of the Zaydis accepted the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some even accepted the early part of ‘Uthman’s. This attitude forms part of the theological doctrine of the Imamate of the mafdul [the less excellent]. It was agreed that ‘Ali was al-afdal [the most excellent] but conceded that the Imamate of the less excellent could occur when the most excellent did not publicly assert his right to the Imamate by armed revolt. For more on the beliefs of the Zaydis, see Howard’s “Introduction” to Shaykh al-Mufid Kitab al-Irshad (xxiii-xxv) and ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s Shi’ite Islam (76-77).
• 11. Editor’s Note: Although the sources differ on the subject, Isma’il may not have been qualified for the Imamate for several reasons: firstly, because his father Imam al-Sadiq had appointed Musa as his successor, and secondly, because Isma’il passed away before his father. The Imamate is not a system of royalty or inheritance. It is a matter of divine pre-ordinance, a covenant from Allah. In any event, the Sixth Imam did not designate his eldest son to be his successor, nor did it cause a great doctrinal or theological problem among the Shi’ah.
• 12. Editor’s Note: The Waqifites were those who held that Musa was the Imam who would return as the Madhi.
• 13. Editor’s Note: The belief in post-prophetic guidance is not exclusively Shi’ite. It is related in Sunni traditions that the Messenger of Allah said, “Surely Messengership and Prophethood are terminated, so there will be no messenger or prophet after me except mubashshirat” (Tirmidhi). He also stated that: “There is nothing to come of Prophethood except mubashshirat.” People asked, “What are they?” The Holy Prophet replied, “True visions” and these were declared by the Holy Prophet to be one forty-sixth of Prophethood (Bukhari).
• 14. Editor’s Note: Ghulat, plural of ghali, is an Arabic term deriving from the verb ghala which means “to exaggerate or exceed the proper bounds.” The verbal noun is ghuluw and means “exaggeration.” The ghulat or extremists are sects which deify ‘Ali. In Iran, they are known as the Ahl al-Haqq [people of the truth], ‘Ali Ilahis [‘Ali worshippers]: in Iraq they are called Shabak, Bajwan, Sarliyya, Kkaiyya, and Ibrahimiyyah. In Syria, they are known as Nusayris or ‘Alawis. In Turkey, they are called Bektashis, Kizilbash (Alevis), Takhtajis and Çepnis. The Shaykhis are also a modern ghulat group. They are followers of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i (d. 1830) who taught that the infallible fourteen are the cause of the universe, in whose hands are the life and death and the livelihood of humanity. According to Moosa, al-Ahsa’i seems to justify this belief by explaining that God is too transcendent to operate the universe by Himself and therefore deputized the infallible fourteen to operate the universe on his behalf (109). If this is correct, the Shaykhis resemble the mufawwidah [the delegators]. As Fyzze explains,
  The mufawwidah are those who believe that God created the Prophet and ‘Ali and then ceased to function. Thereafter, it was these two who arranged everything in the world. They create and sustain and destroy; Allah has nothing to do with these things. (141).
  When examining the Shaykhis, it is important to differentiate between the Baha’i-controlled group from the original teachings of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i. As far as Shi’ism is concerned, there is no doubt that the Imams are the Lords of Existence. What happens with Ahmad al-Ahsa’i is that he developed entirely esoteric doctrines and many have understood him literally without understanding that the ideas he was expressing were metaphysical rather than philosophical or theological.
  For Gnostics, the role of the Imams is viewed cosmically. There is no doubt that the Babis and Baha’is have misinterpreted this role in an extreme fashion, the first in an esoteric way, and the latter in a literal way, distorting the doctrines of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i. The Universal Legislator is the one who initiates a cycle and brings it to its end. He does not destroy the world in a physical sense but in a historical one. He closes one cycle and commences a second. The Imams closed the cycle of prophecy only to initiate the cycle of the wilayah. Imam Mahdi will come to close the cycle of wilayah of the Prophet Muhammad.
  If Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i said that the Imams controlled the universe, he said so in the sense of prophetic hadith which states that without an Imam, the world would be destroyed and would not last a single second. There are also other Sunni and Shi’ite traditions regarding Imam ‘Ali making it clear that the Imam is center or heart of the world without whom the world would stop to exist. There is also the hadith which states that when Imam Mahdi returns, reason would leave the world and humanity would degenerate into destruction. The work of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i need to be re-examined from a Twelver Shi’ite perspective. This is the only way his scholarship can be saved from Babi-Baha’i interpretations which have distorted his original doctrines.
  As for the ghulat, they are of different ethnic origins, speak different languages and are divided into different denominations. They share the common belief in the apotheosis of ‘Ali and in a trinity of God, Muhammad and ‘Ali or, as among the Nusayris, of ‘Ali, Muhammad and Salman al-Farisi. They practice holy communion and public or private confession. According to Moosa Matti, “their religion is a syncretism of extreme Shi’ite, pagan, and Christian beliefs, and they fall outside the pale of orthodox Islam” (418). In fact, “some of the beliefs of the ghulat have a greater affinity with ancient astral cults and Christianity than with Islam” (ix).
  The Prophet Muhammad prophesized their appearance when he told ‘Ali: “In one respect, you are like Jesus. The Jews went so far in hating him that they turned hostile towards him and calumniated his mother and the Christians loved him too much that they elevated him to an undeserved status.” On another occasion, he told him that “I fear some sects of my community will say of you what the Christians said of Jesus” (Nisaburi 1/112-13) and “‘Ali, if it was not for the fact that I am concerned that some factions will say of you what the Christians say of Jesus, son of Mary, I would say of you today words such as (after them) you would never pass a gathering of men without them taking the soil from your feet” (Mufid, 79).
  Imam ‘Ali warned against the extremists, saying that “Two groups will fall into perdition: The extremist who adore me unduly; and the enemies whose animosity leads them to calumniate me.” The nasibis are those who hate ‘Ali bitterly; the ghulat are those who literally adore him. The Imams who followed ‘Ali condemned the extremists in the harshest terms (Rayshani).
  Despite its deficiencies, Matti’s Extremist Shi’ites is one of the only scholarly books on extremist Shi’ites available in English. Regrettably, the author makes some ludicrous claims; namely:
  1) asserting that when the muezzins in Iran call the people to prayer they cry out ‘Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Khomeini is Rahbar, Khomeini is Rahbar’ (Allah is Most Great; Allah is Most Great! Khomeini is the religious guide) thus placing Khomeini before the testimony of faith that ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’ (99);
  2) claiming that the Shi’ites of Iran believe that ‘Ali is close to being a God (xxiii);
  3) asserting that Sunnism represents Islamic orthodoxy (421);
  4) and, finally,
  5) categorizing the ghulat as heterodox as opposed to heretical (418).
  It should also be noted that the term ghulat has different connotations depending on who uses it. In Sunni sources, even moderate figures are seen as ghulat.
• 15. Editor’s Note: As Nasr explains, “The zanadiqah [sing. zindiq] are identified specifically in Islamic history with Manichaeans, but the word is also used more generally … to mean unbeliever and heretic” (A Shi’ite Anthology, 65, note 125). Saif Ibn ‘Umar al-Tamimi is categorically discredited by ‘Allamah Murtaza ‘Askari in his ‘Abdullah Ibn Saba’ and Other Myths, 3rd. ed. trans. M.J. Muqaddas, Tehran: Islamic Thought Foundation, 1995. Sukaynah bint Husayn, who died shortly after the tragedy of Karbala, was also transformed into a literary character by story-tellers and is now exploited by feminist writers like Fatimah Mernessi (192-94).
• 16. Editor’s Note: Héctor Abu Dharr Manzolillo’s article “Los ‘conversos’ en países con minorías musulmanas” [“Muslim ‘Converts’ in Countries where Muslims are a Minority”] addresses this issue with eloquence.
• 17. Editor’s Note: As Jafri explains, “Mu’awiyyah seems to have been trying to destroy, at the slightest pretext, those of ‘Ali’s followers who could not be bought or intimidated into submission” (167). In short, the history of Shi’ism is written with the blood of martyrs.
• 18. Editor’s Note: Rather than ‘Umar, the “abomination of desolation” (Daniel 9/27; Matthew, 24/15; Mark 13/14) might more appropriately refer to Mu’awiyyah’s coronation as Caliph.
• 19. Editor’s Note: At the beginning of the reign of ‘Uthman when the Ummayads occupied prominent positions, Abu Sufyan said, “O Children of Ummayyah! Now that this kingdom has come to you, play with it as the children play with a ball, and pass it from one to another in your clan. We are not sure whether there is a paradise or hell, but this kingdom is a reality.” (al-Isti’ab by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 4, 1679) In Sharh Ibn Abi Hadid, the last sentence is quoted as follows: “By him in whose name Abu Sufyan swears, there is neither punishment nor reckoning, neither Garden nor Fire, neither Resurrection nor Day of Judgment!” (9/53) Then Abu Sufyan went to Uhud and kicked at the grave of Hamzah [the uncle of the Prophet who was martyred in the Battle of Uhud in fighting against Abu Sufyan] and said, “O Abu Ya’la! See that the kingdom which you fought against has finally come back to us.” (Sharh Ibn Abi Hadid, 16/136).
  When Mu’awiyyah took over the Caliphate, he said, “I did not fight you to pray, fast, and pay charity, but rather to be your leader and control you” (Tadhkirat al-khawas, Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi, 191-194; Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, in his Sirah; Abu Nu’aym; al-Suddi and al-Sha’bi). There are numerous instances where Mu’awiyyah is recorded as saying, in reference to himself, “I am the first king in Islam” (Jafri, 154). When Yazid became Caliph, he said, “Hashimite played with the throne, but no revelation was revealed, nor was there a true message” (History of al-Tabari, Arabic, 13/2174; Tadhkirat al-khawas; Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi 261). The Caliph Mansur defiantly declared: “Only I am the authority of God upon His earth” (Jafri 280; Tabari, Tarikh III, 426). The Turkish Sultans described themselves as the “Shadows of God on Earth.”
• 20. Editor’s Note: Yazid, son of Mu’awiyyah, son of Abu Sufyan ruled from 60 A.H. to 64 A.H. His army sacked Madinah in 63 A.H., killing 17,000 Muslims, and leaving 1,000 Muslim women pregnant as the result of rape. Thereafter, his army marched on Makkah, destroying one of the walls of the Holy Ka’bah and setting it on fire (Dar al-Tawhid, 139). He enacted the wholesale massacre of the Prophet’s Family at Karbala in which Husayn, the second son of ‘Ali and Fatimah, was martyred along with his faithful band of 72 followers. Only ‘Ali, the son of Husayn, was providentially spared, due to illness.
• 21. Editor’s Note: See P. K. Hitti, History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present 10th ed. (London 1970), 191.
• 22. Editor’s Note: The very name, “the Place of Suffering” or “Land of Anguish,” is indicative of the tragedy that befell there.
• 23. Editor’s Note: For a more complete understanding of the circumstances that led Imam Hasan to make a treaty with Mua’wiyyah, see ‘Abbas Ahmad al-Bostani’s Pour une lecture correcte de l’imam al-Hassan et de son traité de réconciliation avec Mu’âwieh. For an overview of the quietist as opposed to activist approach to politics in Shi’ite Islam, see my “Strategic Compromise in Islam.”
• 24. Editor’s Note: It is important to remember that Imam Zayn al-’Abidin did not respond positively to the call of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi to rise up against the Umayyads. The Imam was fully aware that opposition forces could not succeed in tearing down Umayyad rule and deemed that any participation in such activities would lead to the extermination of the real bearers of the divine message on earth: he himself and the Ahl Al-Bayt. As a result, the Imam distanced himself from any and all movements which might draw the attention of the authorities. For more on the subject, see: Imam Zayn al-’Abidin. Qum: al-Balagh Foundation, 1994, 49-50. Surprisingly, another book by al-Balagh claims that the Imam supported the revolutionaries. While he did sympathize with the resistance and pray for Allah’s mercy on Mukhtar, this should not be interpreted as support. The book also claims that the Imam’s supplications “are a clear expression of his political and ideological opposition to the rulers of the time.” See: Ahlul Bayt: Their Status, Manner and Course. Qum: al-Balagh Foundation, 1992, 148. This view, which is an echo of Padwick’s comments on the Sahifat al-khamisa, give a false impression of the work. As Chittick clarifies: “Though the Imam makes a number of allusions to the injustice suffered by his family and the fact that their rightful heritage has been usurped, no one can call this a major theme of the Sahifah” (xx).
• 25. Editor’s Note: The belief in the Invisible Imam is at the heart of Shi’ite Islam.
• 26. While in prison, Maytham told Mukhtar: “You will escape and you will rebel to avenge the blood of Husayn, peace be upon him. Then you will kill this man who is going to kill us” (Mufid).
• 27. Editor’s Note: The term Ahl Al-Sunnah wa al-jama’ah appeared for the first time during the time of Mu’awiyyah. During the rule of ‘Ali, the Islamic Empire was divided into two parts: the part controlled by Imam ‘Ali, and the part controlled by Mu’awiyyah. After the martyrdom of Imam ‘Ali, Mu’awiyyah assumed control over the entire community. That year was proclaimed “the year of the jama’ah” or “the year of the majority of the community.” The term Ahl Al-Sunnah wa al-jama’ah appears in its complete form during the peace treaty between Mu’awiyyah and Imam Hasan Ibn ‘Ali. The term was chosen to differentiate the followers of Mu’awiyyah, the Ahl Al-Sunnah, from the followers of the Prophet’s family, the Ahl Al-Bayt. The term sunni is an abbreviated form of Ahl Al-Sunnah wa al-jama’ah. The early Muslims were also known as Shi’ites (followers): the shi’ah of ‘Ali, the shi’ah of Mua’wiyyah, and so forth. See Ja’fariyan’s “Shi’ism and its Types during the Early Centuries.”
• 28. Editor’s Note: The Messenger of Allah said, “Glad tiding O ‘Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shi’ah will be in Paradise” (Sunni References: Fada’il al-sahabah, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v. 2, 655; Hilyatul awliyya’, by Abu Nu’aym, v. 4, 329; Tarikh, by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, v. 12, 289; al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani; Majma’ al-zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v. 10, 21-22; al-Darqutni, who said, “This tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities;” al-sawa’iq al-muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, ch.11, section 1, 247; al-Durr al-manthur, Suyuti, vol. VI, 379).
  The Messenger of Allah said the following about ‘Ali: “I swear by Him who holds my life in His hands, this person and his partisans [shi’ah] will have salvation on the Day of Judgment” (Suyuti).
  The Messenger of Allah said, “‘Ali and his Shi’ah are the successful ones” (Mufid 25, Muwaffaq). The Prophet said to ‘Ali: “I, you, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn were created of the same clay, and our partisans [the Shi’ites] were created from the remainder of that clay” (Nisaburi 101-02; Muhammad Ibn Abi al-Qasim al-Tabari 20, 24, 96).
  In another tradition, the Most Noble Messenger says that: “I am a tree whose main branch is Fatimah, whose pollen is ‘Ali, whose fruit is al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and whose leaves are the Shi’ites and lovers of my community” (Ibn Ibrahim, 222; Muhammad Ibn Abi al-Qasim al-Tabari 40, 63).
  The Messenger of Allah said, “Seventy thousands of my community will enter Heaven without any reckoning and punishment against them.” Then he turned to ‘Ali and said, “They are your Shi’ah and you are their Imam” (Mufid, 26).
  The Messenger of Allah said, “‘Ali, the first four (men) to enter heaven are myself, you, al-Hasan and al-Husayn. Our progeny [will come] behind us and our loved ones will be behind our progeny. To our right and left will be our Shi’ah” (Mufid, 26; al-Manaqib by Ahmad; al-Tabarani, as quoted in al-Sawa’iq al-muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, ch. 11, section 1, 246).
  The Messenger of Allah said, “O ‘Ali! [On the Day of Judgment] you and your Shi’ah will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and there will come to Him your enemies angry and stiff-necked” (al-Tabarani, on the authority of Imam ‘Ali, al-Sawa’iq al-muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, ch. 11, section 1, 236).
  The Messenger of Allah said, “O ‘Ali! On the Day of Judgment, I shall resort to Allah and you will resort to me and your children will resort to you and the Shi’ah will resort to them. Then you will see where they carry us [to Paradise]” (Rab al-abrar by al-Zamakhshari).
  Ibn ‘Abbas narrated: When the verse “Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation” (Qur’an 98:7) was revealed, the Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: “They are you and your Shi’ah.” He continued: “O ‘Ali! [On the Day of Judgment] you and your Shi’ah will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up.” ‘Ali said, “Who are my enemies?” The Prophet replied: “He who disassociates himself from you and curses you. And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-’arsh on the Day of Resurrection.” ‘Ali asked: “Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?” He replied: “Your Shi’ah, O ‘Ali, and those who love you” (al-Hafiz Jamal al-Din al-Dharandi, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas; al-Sawa’iq al-muhriqah by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, 246-247).
  On the basis of this evidence, we can safely conclude that “Shi’ism existed in the lifetime of the Prophet as a nascent movement” (Moosa, 95). However, while there are discernable Shi’ite elements during the lifetime of the Prophet, “the hard-and-fast divisions of later centuries are not discernible in the earlier period. There were Sunni elements with definite Shi’ite tendencies, and there were Shi’ite contacts with Sunni elements both intellectually and socially” (Nasr Sufi Essays, 106-107).
• 29. Editor’s Note: The word Shi’ite derives from the Arabic verb shaya’a, meaning “to adhere to; to support a common cause; to be a partisan of it.”