BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Taqrib: A Study of Attempts at Sunni-Shia Rapprochement in History

 

The idea of bringing the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia closer to one another has enjoyed much popularity in South Africa in the past two decades since the success of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Actually, the idea of bridging the gorge that separate the Ahlus Sunnah from the Shia is much older than the Revolution. The banner of Taqrib (which literally means “to bring close”) has been raised at various stages in history by individuals, organisations, and even governments. In this study, the various endeavours towards the realisation of this goal of Taqrib are identified and an attempt is made to explore the reasons why not one of those endeavours has ever met with success. In the first three or four articles, we look at Taqrib endeavours before the twentieth century. Later articles in this series will look at collective as well as individual ventures in the twentieth century, In Sha Allah.

 

Attempts at Taqrib in History[1]

 

Baghdad in the 5th/11th century

The earliest attempts to achieve harmony between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia seem to have been made in Baghdad during the 5^th century after the Hijrah (the 11th century CE). The western quarter of Karkh in Baghdad was almost exclusively populated by the Shia, and ever since the Shia Buyid Dynasty from Daylam came into political ascendancy in 334 AH/946CE and reduced the Abbasid Khalifah to a titular head of state, the Shia population of Baghdad felt encouraged to make their presence felt. In 351 AH/962 CE graffiti cursing the Sahabah appeared on the walls of Baghdad. In 352 AH/963 CE overt encouragement from the Buyid ruler Mu’izz al Dawlah allowed them to organise, for the first time in the history of Baghdad, if not the whole Muslim world, mourning processions on the 10th of Muharram.[2] Processions like these would almost invariably lead to confrontation between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia, since the emotional frenzy of such processions would propel the Shia to publicly curse and execrate those amongst the Sahabah whom they considered the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt. The Ahlus Sunnah, infuriated by such vile treatment of the memory of the Sahabah, would respond physically. The like of these processions can be seen up to the present day in Pakistan, with consequences that do not differ much from the results of the Baghdad processions of the Middle Ages.

The next century witnessed no change. The Shia continued to vent their hatred of the Sahabah by publicly uttering curses upon them—something the Sunnis refused to tolerate. However, there was one noteworthy development. The violence that ensued from such provocations would sometimes be followed with agreements to maintain the peace. Ibn Kathir writes on the events of the year 439 AH/1047 CE:

 

Violence occurred between the Rawafid (the Shia) and the Ahlus Sunnah, in which many lives were lost.[3]

 

Three years later, in 442 AH/1050 CE:

 

The Rawafid and the Ahlus Sunnah made peace in Baghdad, and all of them visited the graves of ‘Ali and Hussain. In Karkh, they (the Shia) invoked Allah’s pleasure and mercy upon the Sahabah and made Salah in the Masjids of the Ahlus Sunnah. There was a spirit of friendliness and amicability between the two groups.[4]

 

However, one cannot blame historians like al Dhahabi and Ibn Kathir for suspecting Taqiyyah on the part of the Shia, because not long thereafter, they reverted to their old habit of execrating the Sahabah. The very next year, in 443 AH/1051 CE, the Shia in Baghdad erected structures upon which they wrote:

 

Muhammad and ‘Ali are the best of humanity. Whoever accepts has shown gratefulness. Whoever rejects is an unbeliever.[5]

 

Once again violence ensued. In 488 AH/1095 CE, Ibn Kathir records another endeavour to establish harmony between the two groups.[6] Yet once again, when Baghdad was occupied and the Khalifah imprisoned by the Shia Arsalan al Basasiri a mere two years later, it was the Shia of Karkh who aided him and fought in his ranks.[7]

In none of these early attempts to effect harmony between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia in Baghdad do we find mention of the name of any of the eminent ‘Ulama’ of either group, which creates the impression that the parties to the agreements were of the common people. This considerably diminishes the value of such incidents as endeavours towards Taqrib. Furthermore, they do not seem to have been agreements to resolve theological or historical differences. The most that can be said is that they were agreements by common people to live together in harmony and not to provoke one another.

Upon further reflection, even if agreements like these could be read as efforts to bring the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia closer to one another, their success was bound to be sabotaged by one decisive factor: fickleness on the part of the Shia. In each of the three cases mentioned above, the brittle peace was shattered by the Shia themselves reverting to exactly what they had pledged not to do. It is then only logical for us to assume, as did al Dhahabi and Ibn Kathir, that the promises they gave were given in Taqiyyah.

 

Abu Jafar al Tusi (385 AH/995 CE – 460 AH/1068 CE)

Certain writers[8] speak of the Shia scholar Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Tusi (d. 460 AH/1068 CE) as “the first person to have attempted to bring the Shia intellectually and psychologically closer to the major body of the Muslims”. The only basis for this supposition is the fact that in his Hadith collections Tahdhib al Ahkam and al Istibsar (two of the four canonical Hadith compilations of the Shia) al Tusi is found to narrate material in the isnads of which Sunni narrators appear.

Yet, however praiseworthy or open-minded this enterprise may seem, scrutiny reveals it to be the result not of any noble intentions, but rather of a chronic lack of consistency and exactness. His Shia critics[9] complain that in his theoretical works like his book al ‘Uddah in usul a-fiqh, he stipulates it as a condition of acceptance that the narrator must be an Imami Shia, but when it comes to the practical application of that theory, he is found to be extremely inconsistent. A number of Shia scholars, like Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi[10], Hashim al Bahrani[11] and Yusuf al  Bahrani[12] have levelled accusations of negligence and carelessness against al Tusi. The claim that Abu Jafar al Tusi was the forerunner in the field of Taqrib is therefore a baseless one.

 

Abu ‘Ali al Tabarsi (d. 548 AH/1153 CE)

Another opinion[13] points to the Shia Mufassir Abu ‘Ali al Fadl ibn al Hassan al Tabarsi as the pioneer of Taqrib. The reason adduced for this view is that in his Tafsir, Majma’ al Bayan, he quotes Sunni authorities like Hassan al Basri, Qatadah, al Dahhak and al Suddi, profusely, and he is careful to avoid any display of extremist tendencies found in Shia Tafasir (like those of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi or al ‘Ayyashi). It is this feature of his Tafsir that led to its publication in Cairo under the auspices of the Dar al Taqrib.

Majma’ al Bayan, in this respect, is not unique amongst the Tafasir of the Shia. A hundred years earlier, Abu Jafar al Tusi wrote a Tafsir on similar lines, called al Tibyan. Al Tabarsi was strongly influenced by this work. Accordingly, he writes in the introduction to Majma’ al Bayan:

 

It (al Tibyan) is the book from which the light of truth is drawn, upon which the freshness of veracity appears. It is the model whose light I will follow and upon whose footsteps I will tread.[14]

 

Even in a Tafsir as recent as al Tabataba’i’s Tafsir al Mizan, we find evidence of this connection between al Tibyan and Majma’ al Bayan. Al Tabataba’i’s reference to al Tibyan is very minimal. A contemporary study of al Mizan ascribes it to the fact that the author has referred extensively to Majma’ al Bayan, which has to a large extent incorporated al Tusi’s Tafsir, and even surpasses it in linguistic discussion.[15]

Since Majma’ al Bayan is then for all practical purposes nothing more than a replica of al Tusi’s Tafsir, whatever applies to al Tibyan is applicable to Majma’ al Bayan too. About al Tibyan Sayed Radi al Din Ibn Tawus (d. 656 AH/1258 CE) states as early as in the seventh century, in his book Sa’d al Su’ud:

 

I will mention what my grandfather has stated in al Tibyan, which Taqiyyah forced him to confine himself to…[16]

 

There is none better than Ibn Tawus to inform us about the true nature of al Tibyan. Apart from being of the leading Shia scholars of his day, he was also the grandson of the author, as is evident from the above quotation. Al Tusi was the father of his mother’s mother.[17] Mirza Hussain al Nuri (d. 1320 AH/1902 CE) can therefore rightfully remark:

 

He (Ibn Tawus) is better acquainted with what he says, for reasons that are fully clear to all who are aware of his position.[18]

 

Furthermore, a closer look at al Tusi’s al Tibyan or al Tabarsi’s Majma’ al Bayan will soon reveal the reason for saying that these two books were written on the basis of Taqiyyah. Mirza Hussain al Nuri sums up the situation as follows:

 

It is clear to him who looks attentively into the book al Tibyan that the author’s style of writing in it is very much one of cajoling and going along with the opponents. You see him confining himself to the interpretations of Hassan (al Basri), Qatadah, al Dahhak, al Suddi, Ibn Jurayj, al Jubba’i, al Zajjaj and Ibn Zaid, while he mentions nothing at all from any of the Shia Mufassirin. He fails to quote narrations from any of the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam, except in a few places where they are most probably quoted by the opponents as well.[19]

 

It is indeed a cause for concern when a Shia known to hold the view that the mere narration of a Sunni is unacceptable (narration here meaning the transmission of the opinion of another) even though he may be narrating from one of the infallible Imams, when such a Shia writes a Tafsir, fills it with the opinions (opinions, mind you, and not narrations) of Sunni authorities and practically ignores what his own Imams have to say on the interpretation of the Qur’an. Even if we wanted to believe that he merely intended to accommodate the views of others, and not to deceive, this assumption is immediately overruled by the fact that he practically excludes the legacy of his own Imams in Tafsir. Thus, since the available evidence indicates that these two books were written on the basis of Taqiyyah, we are compelled to dismiss the opinion that regards Majma’ al Bayan of Abu ‘Ali al Tabarsi as a pioneering effort in the field of Taqrib.

Even if it is argued that Majma’ al Bayan, unlike its model, does include narrations from the Imams of the Shia, that would make very slight difference to the situation, since what is quoted therein from the Imams is far outweighed by what is quoted from Sunni sources. The author of Lu’lu’at al Bahrayn describes this imbalance as follows:

 

(Majma’ al Bayan) is a good tafsir, inclusive of all subjects, such as language, syntax, etymology, meaning and revelation, except that most of the narrated material in it is from the Mufassirin of the ‘Ammah (the Ahlus Sunnah). He doesn’t quote the Tafsir of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam, except in a few cases from the Tafasir of al ‘Ayyashi and ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi.[20]

 

Egypt in the 10th/16th century

During the lifetime of Jalal al Din al Suyuti (d. 911 AH/1505 CE), there appeared in Cairo a Shia whose purpose, it seems, was to spread Shia propaganda. He appears to have targeted the ruling military elite, and managed to raise the question of the superiority of ‘Ali and make it a subject for discussion and debate.[21] In a discussion with al Suyuti, he advocated the rejection of the Sunnah if it is in apparent contradiction to the Qur’an. It is after this discussion that al Suyuti wrote his treatise Miftah al Jannat fi l-I’tisam bi l-Sunnah in which he upholds the position of the Sunnah as a valid source of law.[22]

Though this incident is not strictly an endeavour of Taqrib, it reflects that which many may perceive as the true motive behind Shia agitation for Taqrib. There are two significant features in the venture of this unknown person that holds consistent with most Taqrib endeavours: one, overemphasis on the status of the Ahlul Bayt, especially ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in relation to the rest of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum; and two, the attempt to create disillusionment with the prophetic Sunnah as contained in Sunni Hadith literature.

The Ahlus Sunnah respect and revere both the Sahabah and the Ahlul Bayt, while the Shia revere the Ahlul Bayt (a certain section of the Ahlul Bayt, at least) and malign the Sahabah. In many endeavours of Taqrib there has been evidence of a proclivity to exploit the common factor of reverence for the Ahlul Bayt, while the factor of difference, which is respect for the Sahabah, is always carefully “avoided”. Clearly, nothing positive could be expected as long as the real bone of contention is ignored. This is one of the reasons for the charge that in Shia circles Taqrib has never meant anything more than winning over the Ahlus Sunnah to the Shia camp.

After the Qur’an, the Sunnah is the foundation upon which the faith and practice of the Ahlus Sunnah is built. At the same time, it is also the point of divergence between the Shia and the Ahlus Sunnah. What this means is that while the two groups may for all practical purposes have the Qur’an in common, each of them has its own version of the Sunnah. To the Shia, the Sunnah is only that which derives from their Imams, while to the Ahlus Sunnah everything narrated from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is part of the Sunnah, as long as the narrators are trustworthy. To the Shia, the legacy which the Ahlus Sunnah perceive to be the Sunnah is in fact the result of the deliberate corruption of a generation of faithless Sahabah. Sunni belief in issues such as the virtue of the Sahabah and the legitimacy of the Righteous Caliphate are all rooted in the Sunnah. Therefore, it would be to the advantage of anyone who wishes to draw the Ahlus Sunnah into the fold of Shi’ism to first remove the obstacle of the Sunnah.

 

Nadir Shah and the Najaf Conference (1156 AH/1743 CE)

In 1135 AH/1722 CE, the Ghilzai Afghans from Qandahar invaded Safavid Iran and laid siege to the capital of Isfahan. On 17 October, Shah Sultan Hussain capitulated to Mahmud, the Afghan leader, and two and a half centuries of rule by the Safavid Dynasty (during which time they succeeded in transforming Iran into a Shia country) effectively came to an end. Afghan rule, however, was not destined to last very long. In 1138 AH/1726 CE, Nadir Quli Beg Afshar, a particularly capable military commander acting on behalf of Tahmasp II, a Safavid claimant to the throne, drove the Afghans out of Iran. A few years later, he deposed the Shah and replaced him with his eight-year-old son, ‘Abbas III. In 1152 AH/1740 CE, he executed both Tahmasp II and ‘Abbas III and ascended the throne himself as Nadir Shah.

During the 240 years of Safavid rule, a remarkable change had taken place in the population of Iran. Before the Safavid conquest at the beginning of the 16^th century CE, the vast majority of the people of Iran were Sunnis. Shah Ismail, the first of the Safavids, was a fanatic Shia who ruthlessly forced Shi’ism down the throats of the people of Iran. Under the threat of death, and left leaderless by the execution and expulsion of their ‘Ulama’, the people had no option but to comply.

After Ismail’s death the propagation of Shi’ism and violent suppression of Sunnism was taken further by succeeding Safavid monarchs, assisted by the Shia scholars who migrated to Iran from Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. By the time Nadir Shah, himself a Shia, came to power in Iran, Shi’ism was well established, and the Shia scholars, who had benefited enough from Safavid appointments and concessions to organise itself into a powerful hierocracy, were firmly entrenched.

But outside Iran, Nadir Shah had to deal with neighbours who were predominantly Sunni. To the east was the Moghul Empire in India and the Afghans; to the north were the Sunni Uzbeks, while to the west an even more formidable enemy loomed: the Ottoman Empire, whose position as the guardians of the Caliphate, and thus of the Sunni world, made them a constant threat not only to Nadir Shah, but even to his Safavid predecessors. It was senseless to attempt to vanquish the Ottomans by the sword; the Safavids had tried and failed. Nadir Shah would employ other means.

The one factor which persistently provoked the antagonism of Iran’s Sunni neighbours was the practice in Iran of unbridled Shi’ism. The idiosyncratic elements contained in its theory of Imamah create a chasm between Shi’ism and Sunnism that was essentially unbridgeable, while on a more mundane level, the ritualistic cursing of the Sahabah in general and the first three khalifas in particular—that by that time had grown into a very common feature of the Iranian social scene—constantly added fuel to a fire already raging with the hostility generated by two and a half centuries of active suppression and violent persecution of the Ahlus Sunnah by the Safavids. Even during the latter period, when the Safavid monarchy came to lose many aspects of its erstwhile vitality, its persecution of the Ahlus Sunnah continued unabatedly.[23] It was this very same factor that prompted the Afghan invasion by which the Safavid Dynasty was finally brought to an end. Nadir Shah, able statesman that he was, realised this only too well. He knew that for Iran to co-exist amicably with its neighbours would be practically impossible for as long as Iranians continued to practice Shi’ism as taught by the Shia scholars. It was therefore in the interest of Iran, Nadir reckoned, that Shi’ism itself be reformed and stripped of all such elements that made it unacceptable to Iran’s Sunni neighbours. Hamid Algar writes:

 

Nadir Shah first adumbrated his proposed reforms at the gathering he convened at the plain of Mughan on the occasion of his self-elevation to the throne in 1148 AH/1736 CE. He declared that his exercise of rule would require abandonment by the Shia of the practices traditionally most offensive to Sunni sentiments: the ceremonial vilification of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, as well as other Companions of the Prophet, and rejection of the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs. Purged of these excrescences, Shi’ism was henceforth to be known as the Jafari mazhab, both to efface the connotation of sectarianism the word Shia invariably carried and to facilitate the absorption of the reformed school into the main body of Islam as a fifth Sunni mazhab. [The declaration stated:] “This Shia mazhab, which is contrary to that of our noble forebears, must be abandoned. Since, however, his excellency the Imam Jafar ibn Muhammad al Sadiq, upon whom be peace, is a true Imam [Imam ba haqq] let the Iranians follow the path of that excellent one in the branches of the Law [furu’at shar’iyyah].”[24]

 

After the declaration at the plain of Mughan he dispatched his Mullabashi (chief mulla), Mulla ‘Ali Akbar Taliqani, to Istanbul for further discussion of the matter with the Ottoman ‘Ulama’. Nadir’s demand for the recognition of the Jafari mazhab included the erection of a fifth maqam at the Ka’bah, the four existing ones being representative of the four Sunni schools. He further sought the privilege, along with Egypt and Syria, to appoint an amir al Hajj, and demanded that Iranians pilgrims were to have the same status and protection as other Muslims.[25] The Ottoman ‘Ulama’, aware that the changes Nadir proposed were supported by no mandatory authority other than the coercive power of the state and that the Shia scholars were not in favour of any such reformation (the previous Mullabashi, Abu al Hassan, was strangled to death on Nadir’s orders when his privately expressed dissatisfaction at the king’s policies were relayed to the latter by a spy, while large numbers of Iranian ‘Ulama’ left Iran and took refuge in the Iraqi shrine towns of Najaf and Karbala’), refused the recognition Nadir sought. Only on one point did they readily agree, and that was the abandonment of the public cursing of the Sahabah.

In 1156 AH/1743 CE, Nadir marched to Iraq, taking with him a large group of ‘Ulama’ from his domains in Transoxiana, Afghanistan and Iran under the leadership of Mulla ‘Ali Akbar. There he visited the shrines of the Shia Imams as well as that of Imam Abu Hanifah. He arranged a meeting at Najaf with the Sunni ‘Ulama’ of Iraq with the collaboration of Ahmed Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad. Upon Nadir’s request, the Pasha deputed Sheikh ‘Abdullah al Suwaidi, the Hanafi Qadi of the city to preside over the meeting. This Sheikh would later document the proceedings of this conference in a book entitled al Hujaj al Qat’iyyah.

Al Suwaidi’s first meeting with Mulla ‘Ali Akbar Taliqani was in private and was somewhat prolonged. The Mulla would present Qur’anic verses and traditions that support the right of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the Caliphate and the Sheikh would rebut them with answers that were on the whole more rational than textual. The reason for this, he says, is that any evidence of this nature would invariably be called into question by the other party and would cause to the entire discussion to go on inconclusively. At the end, he asks the Mulla about the Shia position on the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and receives the answer that all of them with the exception of five were renegades. He then contrasts this position with the marriage of Umm Kulthum to Sayyidina ‘Umar, and Sayyidina ‘Ali’s acceptance of spoils of war (in this case, the mother of his son Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah) from a war waged by Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and the Mulla is able to respond with answers that are at best melancholy![26]

When the general assembly of Sunni and Shia scholars finally met around the grave of Sayyidina ‘Ali, Mulla ‘Ali Akbar seems to have been in quite a hurry to accede to the demands of Haji Khawajah, the Sunni Qadi of Bukhara. Four items were raised by Haji Khawajah. To the first two—the vilification of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and the declaration that almost all the Sahabah were kafir and murtad—Mulla ‘Ali Akbar replied that they have been abandoned since the beginning of Nadir Shah’s rule. To the objection on the practice of the mut’ah marriage, he responded by saying that such marriages were contracted “only by idiots”. Haji Khawajah’s fourth issue—denying the legitimacy of the Caliphate of the first three khalifas—was followed by Mulla ‘Ali Akbar’s promise that in future the Shia would give satisfaction to their Sunni brethren.[27] Upon Haji Khawajah’s interrogation he declares Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthman and only then ‘Ali, to have been the highest personalities after the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and states that this is the rightful order of succession to the Caliphate. He even goes as far as to say that their creed is that of Abu al Hassan al Ash’ari.[28]

The next a document was drawn up in which the Shia scholars acknowledged the aberrance of the beliefs introduced by Ismail and recognised the legitimacy of the first three khalifas. The Sunnis in turn recognised this reformed Twelver Shi’ism as the fifth mazhab. “This first pan-Islamic document of modern times,” says Arjomand, “bearing the signatures of fifty-six religious dignitaries, was then signed and sealed by the Mufti of Baghdad, who thus bestowed upon it the Ottoman Sultan’s implicit recognition.”[29]

Thereafter the following decree by Nadir Shah was promulgated. (The text as given here is from the English translation of al Suwaidi’s al Hujaj al Qat’iyyah.)

 

Royal Decree

First, I trust myself to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Be it known that Shah Ismail Safawi appeared in the year 906 [AD 1500]. He gathered some ignorant people around himself. In order to obtain the base world and attain its sensuous desires, he instigated faction and mischief among the people. He invented the practice of swearing at the Sheikhayn (which was later turned into a sect called Shia). Thus, he sowed very grave discord among Muslims. He caused the flags of hypocrisy and aggression to fly. So much so that, while disbelievers are leading a life of comfort free from anxieties, Muslims are molesting one another.

It is for this reason that when all of you, from the oldest to the youngest ones, wanted to make me the Shah in the meeting held at the Mughan Square, you stated you would cease from all the wrong beliefs and inane words that had settled in Iran since the time Shah Ismail if I accepted this request of yours. You promised that you would believe and express with your tongues that the four Caliphs are rightful and true, which was the Mazhab of your virtuous grandfathers and which has therefore been our blessed tradition, and that you would stop censuring and speaking ill of them and love all the four.

And now, in order to emphasise this auspicious performance, I have studied the matter by asking distinguished scholars and highly devout persons. As all of them have unanimously stated, since the day our Prophet (may Allah send salutations upon him, his family, and all Companions) called (people) to the way of Haqq, each of the four Caliphs radiya Llahu ‘anhum, who were the Sahabah Rashidin, sacrificed their lives and property, left their wives, children, and uncles, and tolerated all sorts of abusive terms, vilifications, and arrows for the promulgation of the manifest din. On account of this, they were honoured with the special companionship of our master, Hadrat the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It was on account of this, again, that they attained the praise and laud expressed in the noble verse purporting, “The eminent ones of the Muhajirin and the Ansar…”.

After the master of good passed away, Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, his companion in the cave, was appointed the first Khalifah by a unanimous vote of the notables of the noble Companions, who were the managers of the matters among the Muslims. After him, appointed by the Khalifah and approved by the noble Companions, Hadrat ‘Umar al Faruq radiya Llahu ‘anhu became the Khalifah; and after him ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, Dhu al Nurayn radiya Llahu ‘anhu, out of six candidates (nominated by Hadrat ‘Umar), was voted into the office of caliphate unanimously; and after him Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the lion of Allah, the aim of those who seek someone (to guide them), the treasure of bewildering values, became the Khalifah. During their caliphates, all of these Caliphs were in harmony with one another and were beyond the blemish of any sort of disagreement among themselves. They were in brotherly terms and unity with one another. Every one of them protected the Islamic countries against polytheism and the malice of the polytheists. After these four Caliphs, Muslims preserved their unity in matters concerning belief.

As times and situations changed, the Islamic scholars had some differing inferences in matters pertaining to fast, Hajj, Zakat and other types of worships; yet no fault or deficiency or decay or slackness took place in the principles of belief or in loving the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and his Companions or in regarding them all as true Muslims. All the Islamic countries retained this pure and clean quality until the emergence of Shah Ismail. Fortunately, owing to your common sense and the guidance of your pure hearts, you have ceased from such practices as swearing at the noble Companions and being Shi’ites, which were invented afterwards. You have embellished your hearts with love for the four Caliphs who are the four main pillars of the Islamic palace. I therefore promise to report these five covenants to the Islamic Padishah, who is as high as the heavens, the sultan of lands and seas, the servant of the Haramayn Sharifayn (the two blessed cities Makkah and Madinah), the earth’s second Dhu al Qarnayn, our brother, and the Sultan of Byzantine Greek lands. Let us accomplish this concern in a manner concordant with our wishes. May what we have written here, with the help of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, be realised very soon!

Now, in order to reinforce this auspicious endeavour, the ‘Allam-i-’Ulama’ (Mulla ‘Ali Akbar) the head Mulla, and our other scholars have written a memorial. They have thus torn apart all the curtains of doubt. It has been realised that all these slanders, heresies and discordances were born from the fitnah (mischief, instigation) invented by Shah Ismail. Before him, Muslims of all times, especially those in the early days of Islam, held one common belief, one way of thought. Therefore, with the help of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and the inspiration He has endowed our hearts with, we have come to this noble and exalted decision. From the arising of Islam till the emergence of Shah Ismail, all Muslims regarded the Khulafa’ Rashidin as rightful and true Caliphs. They knew that they became Caliphs rightfully. They avoided reviling and speaking ill of them. Orators and great preachers would tell about the goodnesses, merits, and superiorities of these Caliphs in their speeches and discourses. Whenever they were to pronounce their blessed names, they would add the expression radiya allahu ‘anhum (may Allah be pleased with them). I have ordered Mirza Muhammad ‘Ali, a profound scholar and the essence of the superior to promulgate the Ferman-i-humayun of ours in all the cities of Iran, so that my people will hear it and accept it! Disobeying or opposing it shall incur the torment of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and the wrath of the Emperor. Be it known so.[30]

 

This declaration, despite certain glaring anachronisms and inaccuracies, is evidence of what Nadir Shah was trying to achieve by reforming Iranian Shi’ism. Much has been written about the motives behind his projected reforms. It has been claimed that his motives were purely political and not inspired by conviction. The lack of any real resistance on the part of the Shia scholars and the apparent over-eagerness and haste with which they conceded to every demand of the Sunni participants in the conference at Najaf—to the extent of accepting the Sunni order of superiority between the four khalifas and even the ‘aqidah of al Ash’ari—clearly indicates that they were acting under coercion. But even if that is true, there is one important aspect to the Najaf Conference that cannot be ignored. By convening this conference, Nadir Shah afforded the scholars of the Shia an excellent opportunity to clear the air between themselves and the Ahlus Sunnah. Instead of sincerely attempting to achieve a lasting solution to the Shia-Sunni problem, they resorted to Taqiyyah and bided their time to do away with Nadir himself.

Many writers wrongly speak of Nadir Shah as having “banned Shi’ism” or “prohibited Shi’ism” in Iran. From what we are able to gather, he intended merely to rid Shi’ism of what Hamid Algar calls “excrescences”, unnatural outgrowths that rendered the assimilation of Twelver Shi’ism within the larger body of Islam impossible.

The traditional doctrine of divinely appointed Imams, together with the peculiar attitudes that result from it, like the denial of the legitimacy of the first three khalifas and all other rulers, appears to have received Nadir’s special attention. Instead of this concept he proposed an Imamah similar to the Imamah of Abu Hanifah, for example. The Iranians, he declared, should henceforth follow Imam Jafar al Sadiq in matters of law, and their mazhab was to be known as the Jafari mazhab. Evidently, this proved to be too much for the Shia. It meant to them the abandonment of the very essence of Shi’ism: its Imamology. A Shi’ism stripped of the eccentricities that arise on account of its belief in a divinely ordained Imamah was unacceptable. Shi’ism did not differ from Sunnism merely in matters of law, and Imam Jafar al Sadiq could never be put on the same level as Abu Hanifah or Malik. Shi’ism could not merely be a Jafari mazhab, a fifth school of law along with the four others. The revulsion the Shia felt for Nadir’s reformist endeavours incidentally casts ample light on the contemporary claim that Twelver Shi’ism is no more than the Jafari mazhab which Sunnis must accept as a fifth mazhab. It was after all Nadir Shah who first coined the term “Jafari mazhab” and because of it he was disowned by the Shia.

Another issue about which Nadir was quite emphatic was the ritualistic cursing of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. This heinous practice was the first feature of Twelver Shi’ism that was introduced to Iran by the Safavids, even before the introduction of Shia Fiqh. The Iranians were not prepared to desist from this practice and when Nadir imposed upon it a punishment as heavy as “his household shall be taken prisoner, his property shall be confiscated and he shall be killed”,[31] it became clear that either they or he had to be dispensed with.

There was a third feature to Nadir Shah’s reformist strategy that earned him the resentment of the Iranians; and that was his constant identification of Shah Ismail Safawi as the one responsible for the introduction of “heresy” into Iran. Shah Ismail, despite his crimes against the Iranian people that history is a witness to, is up to the present day regarded as a hero by the Iranians. This is largely on account of the fact that it was he who introduced Shi’ism to Iran on a large scale and thereby gave Iran a character of its own, distinct from the rest of the Muslim world. Nadir’s constant vilification of Shah Ismail was therefore bound to bring him the disapproval of the Iranian people.

The inevitable occurred in the year 1160 AH/1747 CE. A group of his generals, incited by the Shia scholars who were alarmed at what they perceived to be Nadir’s abandonment of Shi’ism, assassinated the Shah, and with him the Mullabashi ‘Ali Akbar. His nephew and immediate successor, ‘Adil Shah, cited Nadir’s abandonment of Shi’ism as a cause of his assassination.[32]

Nadir Shah’s attempts to achieve harmony between the Shia and the Ahlus Sunnah revealed a very crucial aspect of the Shi’ism that had taken root in Iran since Safavid times. The reluctance and unwillingness of the Shia scholars to participate in his reformation of Shi’ism, as well as certain developments within the Shia world immediately after his murder (like the Usuli-Akhbari controversy, which is a subject for future discussion) proved the impossibility of assimilating Shi’ism with mainstream Sunni Islam. Algar writes:

 

The religious policies of Nadir Shah and Karim Khan Zand both served, in their differing ways, to emphasise the permanence and autonomy of Shi’ism in Iranian soil. From the firm roots it had struck, Shi’ism continued to put forth numerous branches; and it became apparent that the Shi’ism of Iran, far from being a mazhab capable of assimilation with Sunni Islam, contained within itself a variety of mazhabs.[33]

 

NEXT⇒ Attempts at Taqrib in the twentieth century

---

[1] While this article is largely drawn from the book Mas’alat al Taqrib bayna Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Shia by Dr. Nasir al Diya’i, other sources have also been consulted.

[2] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah, 6/259, Dar al Rayyan, Cairo, 1988.

[3] Al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah, 12/56, Maktab al Ma’arif, Beirut 1980.

[4] Ibid., Ibn al Jawzi: al Muntazam, 8/145; al Dhahabi: al ‘Ibar, 3/199.

[5] Ibn al Jawzi: al Muntazam, 8/149; Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah, 12/62.

[6] Ibn al Jawzi: al Muntazam, 9/89, Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah, 12/149.

[7] Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 9/401-402.

[8] Abu Zahrah: al Imam al Sadiq, 453.

[9] Rasa’il Abi al Ma’ali, cited in al Imam al Sadiq, 451.

[10] Ibid., 449.

[11] Tanbihat al Adib fi Rijal al Tahdhib, cited by Yusuf al Bahrani in Lu’lu’at al Bahrayn, 65.

[12] Yusuf al Bahrani: Lu’lu’at al Bahrayn, 297-298.

[13] Mahmud Basyuni Fawdah: al Tabarsi mufassiran, 10.

[14] Majma’ al Bayan, 1/10.

[15] ‘Ali al Awsi: al Tabataba’i wa Manhajuhu fi Tafsirihi al Mizan, 65-66, Munazzamat al I’lam al Islami, Tehran, 1985.

[16] Sa’d al Su’ud cited in Mirza Hussain al Nuri al Tabarsi: Fasl al Khitab, 17.

[17] Lu’lu’at al Bahrayn, 237.

[18] Fasl al Khitab, 17.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Lu’lu’at al Bahrayn, 347. [It is also not wholly inconceivable, if one takes into consideration the development of Tafsir amongst the Shia, that al Tabarsi’s reason for including so much Sunni material into his Tafsir was the lack of Shia material of a similar standard. In the Sunni and Mu’tazili traditions, Tafsir was by that time (the 6th century AH) a well-established discipline with various specialised fields, while the Tafasir of al Qummi and al ‘Ayyashi (which along with al Tusi’s al Tibyan forms the bulk of al Tabarsi’s Shia source material) were basically narrations from the Imams, and therefore represent only a branch of the discipline of Tafsir. Moreover, narrations impugning the integrity of the Qur’an abound in these two sources, which places a serious question mark over their own reliability as sources for the interpretation of the Qur’an. In any event, this issue merits further research.]

[21] Al Habl al Wathiq fi Nusrat al Siddiq, an article included in al Suyuti’s al Hawi li al Fatawi, 1/326.

[22] Ibid., 1/331.

[23] Hamid Algar: Religious Forces in 18th and l9th century Iran in The Cambridge History of Iran, 7/706.

[24] Ibid., 706-707.

[25] Peter Avery: Nadir Shah and the Afsharid Legacy in CHOI, 7/36.

[26] ‘Abdullah al Suwaidi: al Hujaj al Qat’iyyah, English translation published by Waqf lkhlas Publications: Documents of the Right Word, 11-46.

[27] Hamid Algar: Religious Forces in 18th and 19th century Iran in CHOI, 7/708-709.

[28] Documents of the Right Word, 49.

[29] S.A.Arjomand: The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam, 216.

[30] Documents of the Right Word, 52-55.

[31] Ibid., 52.

[32] The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam, 216-217.

[33] Hamid Algar: Religious Forces in 18th and 19th century Iran, 710.