Why Jafar al Sadiq?

Another question arises here, regarding the Imamiyyah’s selection of Jafar al Sadiq, from amongst the other 12 Imams, to represent the Imami School. Why is the school not attributed to his father Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Baqir for example, with regards to whom scholars of both parties are unanimous that he was more knowledgeable than his son Abu ‘Abdullah Jafar al Sadiq. They mention that his title, ‘al Baqir’ is derived from Baqara al Ilm, i.e. he split open knowledge and understood its origins and secrets.[1]

Regarding his brilliance and being distinguished from his peers, al Sheikh al Mufid (413 AH) states:

برز على جماعتهم بالفضل في العلم و الزهد و السؤدد وكان أنبههم ذكرا وأجلهم في العامة والخاصة و أعظهم قدرا ولم يظهر عن احد من ولد الحسن و الحسين من علم الدين و الآثار والسنة و علم القرآن والسيرة و فنون الآداب ما ظهر عن ابى جعفر

He stood out amongst his peers by virtue of his knowledge, asceticism and honour. He was most renowned and important among the masses and the elite’s discussions and of the highest status. The knowledge of Din, traditions, Sunnah, sciences of the Qur’an, biography of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the science of literature did not become prominent through any of the offspring of Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as much as it did through Abu Jafar.[2]

Dr. al Razinat Lalani,[3] in her study of Muhammad al Baqir’s personality, observed that the immense influence he had on the various branches of the Shia Fiqh (al Zaidi, Jafari, and Ismaili), was much more than his son Jafar al Sadiq. She says:

لم يقف تعليم الباقر و مساهمته عند هذا الحد ، ولكنهما تواصلا على يد ولده و خليفته جعفر الصادق ، وأصبحا في ظله من الفاعلية و التأثير لدرجة أن الاثني عشرية تسمى مدرستها الفقهية ﺑ «المذهب الجعفري». أما الفقه الإسماعيلي ألذي تقونن على يد القاضي النعمان بعد ذالك بأكثر من قرنين من الزمان ، فقد إعتمد على أحاديث منقولة عن الباقر والصادق بشكل أساسي . وقد إعتمد الفقه الزيدي كما سلفت الإشارة على الباقر الي حد كبير ، ولذالك لن نكون مبا لغين اذا ما ختمنا بالقول إن الباقر هو أبو الفقه الشيعي ، وإن تأثيره لايزال محسوسا في الدوائر الشيعية حتى يومنا هذا .

The teachings and contributions of al Baqir did not stop at this point. In fact, it continued through his son and successor Jafar al Sadiq and it became so effective and influential under his guidance that the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah named their Fiqhi school of thought as “Jafari School”. As for Ismaili Fiqh, which was legislated by al Qadi al No’man about two centuries later, he relied primarily on Ahadith narrated by al Baqir and al Sadiq. The Zaidi Fiqh also relied on al Baqir to a great extent as mentioned already. Therefore, we will not be exaggerating if we conclude by saying that al Baqir is the father of Shia Fiqh and his influence continues to be felt in all the Shia circles till today.[4]

She states in the commentary of some ancient Fiqhi compilations on Zaidi Fiqh:

ويظهِر ذالك اعتماد الفقه الزيدي على الباقر وهكذا تكون أصول الفقه الشيعي المستمدة من الباقر أقدم من تلك التي للفقه الزيدي ولذالك من الإنصاف القول إن الباقر هو المؤسس مذهب أهل البيت

ويضاف الى ذالك أنه إذا كان علينا الإعتراف بأولوية أدب الفقه الزيدي كما يضعها غولدزيهر فإن أولوية مساهمة الباقر في الفقه تبرز عندئذ في ضوء ما تقدم من المناقشة بوضوح ولو أنه ليس للباقر كتاب محدد في الفقه وليس هناك مبالغة في دور الباقر في الفقه إذ يبدو أن الفقه الزيدي ليس وحده الذي استمد منه بل هناك ايضا الفقهان الإسماعيلي و الاثناعشري الذان دوّنا كلاهما أحاديث كثيرة في الفقه مستمدة من الباقر ويعتبرانه بمنزلة الأب لفقهيهما وبما أن الفقه الزيدي الذي تم تصنيفه في اليمن في نهاية الأمر و الفقه الإسماعيلي المصنف في مصر و الفقه ألإثني عشري في بغداد و قم كلها تعود في أصلها إلى هذه الشخصية الواحدة فلايبقى هناك سوي مجال ضئيل للتشكيك في دوره المؤسس والريادي

This indicates to the Zaidi Fiqh’s dependence on al Baqir. Similarly, the principles of Shia Fiqh, derived from al Baqir, are older than that of the Zaidi Fiqh. Therefore it would be fair to say that al Baqir is the founder of the School of the Ahlul Bayt.

In addition to this, if we acknowledge the precedence of Zaidi Fiqh’s literature, as Goldziher put it, then the precedence of al Baqir’s contribution to fiqh becomes evident, in the light of what was discussed in detail. Even though al Baqir does not have a specific book in fiqh, his contribution to fiqh can never be exaggerated, because it is obvious that it is not only the Zaidi Fiqh that is derived from al Baqir. The Ismaili and the Ithna ‘Ashari both compiled a great number of Ahadith derived from al Baqir and they regard him as a father figure in their fiqh. Although the Zaidi Fiqh was, in the end, compiled in Yemen; the Ismaili Fiqh in Egypt, and the Ithna ‘Ashari Fiqh in Baghdad and Qum, in reality, they all return to the same personality. Thus, there is not a shadow of doubt with regards to al Baqir’s leadership and foundational role.[5]

The discussion here, as one can see, is concentrated on his influence on the Zaidi School, which is more than his influence on the Ithna ‘Ashari School. His greater presence in the Zaidi School compared to the Jafari School, despite him being one of the 12 infallible Imams according to the Jafaris, is an interesting fact. Perhaps some researcher would successfully conduct a comparative study about his influence in both the Schools, taking into consideration the differences and disharmony amongst the 3 Shia Schools in fundamental and subsidiary rulings, and in quoting from al Baqir and Jafar al Sadiq (details thereof will soon follow).

Why did the Imami Ithna ‘Ashari ignore Abu Jafar al Baqir, despite his distinction amongst the offspring of al Hassan and al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and select his son to name their school after him, while acknowledging the fact that Abu Jafar al Baqir is most knowledgeable amongst the offspring of al Hassan and al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma?

It may be said that the reason for the Imami Ithna ‘Ashari’s aversion from naming their school after al Baqir and opting for his son instead, is that al Baqir lived during the era of Taqiyyah, Kitman[6], restrictions, and deprivation; contrary to his son, for whom such things were attainable which were not possible for the father. However, few factors refute this.

Factors refuting al Baqir having practiced Taqiyyah

1. It is established in the Imami books that al Baqir used to issue Fatawa (religious edicts) without Taqiyyah contrary to his son Jafar al Sadiq. The Imamiyyah narrate Jafar al Sadiq’s statement to Abu Basir:

إن الشيعة أتوا أبي مسترشدين فأفتاهم بمُرِّ الحق وأتوني شكَاكا فأفتيتهم بالتقية

The Shia came to my father seeking council, so he gave them fatwa of the bitter truth and they came to me doubtful, so I gave them a fatwa of Taqiyyah.[7]

Al Wahid al Bahbahani and others attribute this to the fact that al Baqir would not practice Taqiyyah with the Ahlus Sunnah due to some reasons. Most important of them are:

What is understood from some Imami narrations that Taqiyyah was extremely weak during al Baqir’s era, due to Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah radiya Llahu ‘anhu constantly frequenting him; to such an extent that someone said, out of jealousy, that al Baqir would teach him, while Jabir and others were unable to speak in his presence.[8]
The Shia School was not prevalent and the Ahlus Sunnah had profuse differences in fatawa, the Ahlus Sunnah were preoccupied in intense internal sectarianism.
The Banu Umayyah and the Banu ‘Abbas were preoccupied in warfare. Because of this, Taqiyyah was lifted during this period. This preoccupation continued till the beginning of Jafar al Sadiq’s era. Then the Abbasid Empire became peaceful. Thereafter Taqiyyah became intense in the era of Abu Jafar al Mansur.[9]

2. The Imamiyyah narrate in their writings about al Baqir’s excessive debates with the opposition.[10] Amongst it is his debate with the people of his city; like his debate with Muhammad ibn al Munkadir[11] (Jurist of Madinah); his debate with the luminaries that arrived at the Holy Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mosque, like al Hassan al Basri[12] (leader of the people of Basrah in Din and Fiqh), Qatadah ibn Di’amah[13] (Jurist of Basrah), ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid[14] (leader of the Mu’tazilah sect in Basrah), Taus ibn Kaysan al Yamani[15] (Jurist of Makkah); his debate with a group of the Murji’ah sect (‘Amr ibn Dhurr al Qadi, ‘Abdullah ibn Qais al Masir and Salt ibn Bahram)[16]; his debate with some Shia sects like the Kaysaniyyah;[17] his debate with some of people who were affiliated to the ruling authority at that time like Salim—the freed slave of the Umayyad Khalifah, Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik.[18] In fact it is narrated that he debated with the Umayyad Khalifah, Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik, during Hajj in front of the people. Thus, how is that person going to adorn his face, who, after all this, claims that al Baqir lived during the time of Taqiyyah and Kitman?

Understanding the topic of Taqiyyah and its dimensions is very difficult, even for the senior leaders of the Imamiyyah, let alone others. It is sufficient to read what Ayatollah Muhammad Asif Muhsini[19] mentions about the strange circumstances surrounding the most important article of faith according to them, which is Imamah. He says in Mashr’ah:

واعلم أن قلة النص الخاص من الإمام السجاد على الإمام الباقر غير مستبعدة لقلة الشيعة و شدة التقية في زمانه وأما قلة النص على الصادق فهي عجيبة والإحتمال الأظهر عدم وصول الروايات المشتملة عليه إلينا والله أعلم

Know well that the scarcity of specific texts from al Imam al Sajjad for the Imamah of al Baqir is not farfetched, due to the scarcity of Shias and the intensity of Taqiyyah during his era. However, the scarcity of text for the Imamah of al Sadiq is strange. The most obvious reason could be that the narrations involving this did not reach us. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best.[20]

To use Taqiyyah as an excuse can neither remove any objection nor solve any dilemma like these, which Muhsini has spoken about. It is very far from what we will mention here.

How is this possible, whereas the Imamiyyah declare that the circumstances that were prevalent during al Baqir’s time, were not prevalent for any of the 12 Ithna ‘Ashari Imams. This is because the era of al Baqir coincided with signs of public discontent with the Umayyad Empire and the call from various regions to be free from them. Their misconduct with the Alawis was the greatest weapon of the opposition who aspired to rule, which prompted them to take a much milder stance with the Shia and their leaders than before.[21]

This confession reinforces what we have mentioned above.

3. The most important and reliable narrators who narrate the School from Jafar al Sadiq, are regarded by the Jafaris as the senior students of al Baqir, like Zurarah ibn A’yan, Ma’roof ibn Kharbudh, Fudayl ibn Yasar, Burayd ibn Muawiyah al ‘Ijli, Muhammad ibn Muslim al Ta’ifi, and Abu Basir al Asadi. The Imami scholars give them the title of Ashab al Ijma’[22]. These are besides those who hold importance in the School like Aban ibn Taghlib, Jabir al Ju’fi, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn No’man known as Mu’min al Taq, and Humran ibn A’yan, Bukayr ibn A’yan, Abu Hamzah al Thumali, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ajlan, etc.

What prompted these narrators to narrate such a meagre amount of knowledge, and even lesser amount of fiqh,[23] from al Baqir in comparison to what they narrate from his son, Jafar?

The fanatics, during the era of Jafar al Sadiq, found a greater opportunity to attribute lies upon him and his forefathers compared to the era of al Baqir. We do not have intricate comprehensive information about this matter, except what the scholars of sects have mentioned and some in their works that there were less extremist sects during the era of al Baqir as compared to his son al Sadiq.

However, the unique aspect about the companions of al Baqir is what the Imamiyyah narrate from Dharih al Muharibi[24] that Jafar al Sadiq said:

إن أبي نعم الأب رحمة الله عليه كان يقول لو أجد ثلاثة رهط أستودعهم العلم وهم أهل لذالك لحدّثت بما لا يحتاج فيه إلى نظر في حلال ولاحرام

Verily my father—what a wonderful father he was, may Allah have mercy on him—used to say, “If I find 3 worthy people who I can entrust knowledge upon, then I would narrate, regarding Halal and Haram, that would not require any contemplation.”

Al Raht refers to a group of 3 to 10 men. No woman included in it. When the word al Raht is subjoined with a number then it refers to a specific number of people, as mentioned by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:

وَكَانَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ تِسْعَةُ رَهْطٍ

and there were in the city, nine family heads.

In other words, nine men.

This implies that al Baqir was not confident with those whose narrations the Imamiyyah unanimously regard as authentic, due to which they give them the title of Ashab al Ijma’ and adhere to their Fiqhi narrations to such an extent that the their religious reference in contemporary times al Sheikh Jafar al Subhani said about them, “The object of giving them this name and not to others is to illustrate that the Fiqhi Ahadith, mostly end by them. It is as though Imami Fiqh is derived from them. If these people and their narrations have to be removed from the Fiqhi platform, then it would have no pillars to support it and its branches would not spread out.”[25]

Al Subhani mentioned this considering that they are common between al Baqir and al Sadiq. Doubt in their reliability and narrations do not eradicate or undermine al Baqir’s Fiqh from its foundation. In fact not even Jafari Fiqh. So beware.

4. It is not an accepted fact that Jafar al Sadiq was in a position which differed greatly from his father, to such an extent that it is claimed that those who spread his Fiqhi and narrative narrations throughout the world, numbered up to 4000 men.[26] Such a large number is not known for any of the best Jurists or narrators at present, let alone from the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum or the Tabi’in. None of them had narrators that reached this imaginary number.[27]

It is understood from the historical context of the period in which Jafar al Sadiq lived, that the ruling authority at that time ( the Umayyads then the Abbasids) displayed more apprehension towards Jafar al Sadiq than his father Muhammad al Baqir.[28] The Umayyad Empire was gripped with turmoil and discord and it feared for its demise and at best of times, for its fragmentation, as it anticipated an encompassing danger from afar, the exact perpetrators of which were unknown. In the end, there were fingers being pointed at people who had a presence in the Hashimite household.

Attesting to this is what is reported in Tarikh ibn Abi Khaythamah (d. 279 AH) and other books from Mus’ab al Zubairi (d. 236 AH) that he heard al Hafiz ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Darawardi al Madani (d. 186 AH) saying:

كان مالك بن أنس (١٧٩ ﻫ) لايروي عن جعفر بن محمد — رغم توثيقه و إجلاله— حتي يضمه الى آخر أؤلئك الرفعاء ثم يجعله بعده

Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH) would not narrate from Jafar ibn Muhammad, despite acknowledging his reliability and honour. He would place him after the last of the high ranking narrators.

Mus’ab al Zubairi further states:

لم يرو مالك عن جعفر بن محمد حتى ظهر أمر بني العباس

Malik rahimahu Llah did not narrate from Jafar ibn Muhammad until the Abbasid Empire became prominent.[29]

This shows Imam Malik’s caution in narrating from Jafar al Sadiq without adding other narrators with him. That is why he narrated very little from Jafar al Sadiq independently. Ibn Taymiyyah narrates that he only narrated 9 Ahadith[30] from Jafar al Sadiq in his Muwatta’. This refers to Marfu’ Ahadith (Hadith that is attributed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). However, when all Ahadith, Marfu’ and Mawquf (Hadith that is attributed to the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum) are considered, those that are reported in Muwatta’ from Jafar al Sadiq, then the number reaches to 13; which is still very little.

Although there was some ease during the Abbasid era, wherein Jafar al Sadiq lived; however, it was marred by apprehension also. As for al Saffah al ‘Abbasi, he was too busy consolidating his emerging empire, legalising his actions[31], and confronting the Umayyads by pursuing and fighting them,[32] instead of paying attention to the Banu Hashim,[33] let alone one of their Jurists who had receded to himself, narrating Ahadith and teaching Fiqh to his people in a land far from the raging conflicts which were taking place in Khurasan, Iraq, and Sham.[34]

Al Sheikh Muhammad Hassan al Muzaffar (d. 1375 AH) states:

اشتغل بنو العباس بتطهير الأرض من أمية و تأسيس الدولة الجديدة ، وانت تعلم بما يحتاجه الملك الغص من الزمن لتأسيسه و رسوخه ، فكان انصرافهم لبناء الملك وإحاطته شاغلا لهم برهط من الزمن عن شأن الصادق في بثه العلوم والمعارف وإن لم يتناسه السفاح ولكن لم يجد عنده ما يخشاه ، ولما جاء دور النصور ، وصفا الملك له ، ناصب العداء للصادق ، فكان يُضيق عليه مرة ، ويتغاضى عنه أخري

The Abbasids became preoccupied with cleansing the earth from the Umayyads and establishing the new empire. Everyone is aware how much time it takes in establishing and solidifying a fresh empire. Thus, their attention towards building and encircling the empire, preoccupied them, for a while, from the affairs of al Sadiq and his spreading of knowledge and cultural affairs. Although al Saffah was not oblivious of him; however, he did not find anything to fear about in him. When the era of al Mansur dawned and the empire became more stable, he started displaying enmity towards al Sadiq. At times he would restrict him while other times he would overlook.[35]

I have not come across a single authentic proof that confirms Jafar al Sadiq’s relocation, in this critical period, from Madinah to Iraq, in fact, to Hirah and Kufah specifically. Looking at the scale of the conflict, the discord and the pandemonium that was taking place, I do not think it is possible for an ‘Alawi Jurist, known for his dissociation from the Abbasids and their atrocities, to relocate to the capital of their empire and teach Fiqh and Hadith.[36]

As for Abu Jafar al Mansur, the second Abbasid Khlifah, he was none better than his brother al Saffah.[37] If he feared anyone threatening his rule, he would annihilate them. He was the first to create a difference between the offspring of al ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib and Abu Talib ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib. Hence, they would be called ‘Abbasi or Talibi, whereas before, they were all one. Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah, known as Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah,[38]revolted against him. Subsequently, he was killed at Ahjar al Zayt, a place close to Madinah. After him, his brother, Ibrahim rose up against him in Basrah and he was also killed. Al Mansur persecuted some scholars also who rose up against him or ordered others to rise up against him, by killing, lashing them, etc.[39]

As for the offspring of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, such incidents have been mentioned regarding their ordeal at the hands of Abu Jafar al Mansur,[40] that it disturbs the mind and causes pain to the heart.[41]

As for Jafar al Sadiq specifically, he was neither a difficult figure nor did he pose any prolonged danger to al Mansur, as the Imamiyyah usually portray. Al Mansur did not regard him as someone who was aspiring for his kingdom. Jafar al Sadiq stayed aloof from political life, disinterested in it and delving in its struggles. He was a jurist, worshipper, not a rebel or a leader of any political or revolutionary movement. His stance of caution from supporting and pledging allegiance to those who sought it from him, like his uncle Zaid during the Umayyad era and Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah during the Abbasid era and in Madinah where he resided, was sufficient to convince al Mansur, apparently, to adopt a peaceful and diplomatic approach with him, with a little bit of intimidation, harassment, and subduing.

Al Mansur’s summoning of Jafar al Sadiq to Baghdad, once or twice, indicates that he was apprehensive of him. He feared that Jafar al Sadiq might betray him—as he was the leader of the Hussainids in his time—through incitement from those who sought power or his followers, and call towards himself or to take revenge for his cousins, the Hassanids, who were killed unjustly.

Indicating to this situation is the quiet dialogue which is mentioned, that a fly sat on Abu Jafar al Mansur which he waved way. The fly kept on returning until he got annoyed. He said to Jafar al Sadiq in an interrogating way, “Why did Allah create the fly?”

He replied, “To disgrace the tyrants through it.”[42]

However, this reported dialogue was not as exaggerated as the Imamiyyah make it to be by filling their books of miracles and supernatural occurrences with it. Hence, Ayatollah Muhammad Asif Muhsini felt anxious about the Imami narrations which mention in detail what transpired between him and Abu Jafar al Mansur. He raised reasonable questions about it and while commenting on what al Majlisi reported in Bihar, he says:

و الشيء المهم هنا: هو إحضار المنصور الدوانيقي للإمام الصادق مكررا مريدا قتله بأي وجه كان ، ثم إنصرافه عنه مكررا ، إما لأجل مشاهدة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أو التنين أو لصرف الله تعالى غضبه و إيجاد الرقة في قلبه لأجل الدعاء الذي دعي به الصادق أو لأجل موعظة الإمام بذكر روايات الواردة في صلة الرحم أو بتذكير صبر أيوب و شكر سليمان و داود ومغفرة يوسف أو بموت الجاسوس الكاذب الحالف بالبرائة من الله أو بإلحاح الإمام و طلب العفو و الإخبار بموته عن قريب و حلفه مكررا أنه لم يرد الخروج عليه ولاخلافه وهكذا . وهذا أمر يتحير فيه المتأمل ، أما أولا فلأجل أن مثل هذا الصرف المكرر لم يتفق لأحد من الأئمة ، و إنما ذكروه في حق الصادق ، فهو غريب ، ولعله لم يتفق في حق الأنبياء الذين ذكروا في التاريخ ، وبعض الأنبياء مما فيه شبه ذالك لم يثبت بدليل معتبر

و ثانيا : بعيد من المنصور ـ مع ظلمه و فسقه وقساوة قلبه وحبه لمقامه ـ أن يعزم على قتله مرة بعد مرة ، وقد شاهد خارق العادة في كل مرة ، فتأمل

و ثالثا: مثل هذا الإعتذار والإلحاح لأجل حفظ الحياة والبقاء ، من مثل الإمام الصادق بعيد ، بل بعيد من عالم كبير بهذا السن و الشيخوخة ، وكيف يناسب هذا الخوف و الإلحاح مع ما وردفي بعض الروايات وغيرها من علمه بوقت موته ، وكيف يتلائم مع ما ورد من أمير المؤمنين من اعتقاده بالقدر ، وأن أهل الأرض لايضرون ما لم يرده أهل السماء ، وأنه ينهى قنبر عن حراسته ، وأنه لايحترس حتى في صفين و مباديت الحرب . وأسهل الطريق لرفع هذا التحير رد الروايات المذكورة ، فإنها غير معتبرة سندا ، والله العالم

The important fact here is the repeated summoning of Jafar al Sadiq by Abu Mansur al Dawaniqi to try and assassinate him in any possible manner and subsequently backtracking from it repeatedly due to various reasons; either because of a vision of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or a monster, or because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala removed his anger and placed mercy in his heart due to the supplication which al Sadiq made for him, or because of the Imam counselling him through narrations that encourage family ties, or by reminding him of the patience of Prophet Ayub ‘alayh al Salam, gratitude of Prophet Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam, Prophet Dawood ‘alayh al Salam, and the forgiveness of Prophet Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam, or because of the death of the lying spy who took an oath of innocence from Allah, or because of the insistence of Jafar al Sadiq, seeking forgiveness, informing him of his imminent death, and continuously taking oaths that he did not intend revolting against him or supporting anyone against him etc. This is something that baffles the mind of anyone that would ponder.

Firstly, because continuous calamities[43] like this never befall any of the other Imams. They only mention this with regards to Jafar al Sadiq, which is strange. Perhaps such calamities did not befall any of the Prophets that are mentioned in history. Although similar incidents are narrated regarding some of the Prophets; however, they are not established through any reliable proofs.

Secondly, it is farfetched that al Mansur, despite his tyranny, sin, hard-heartedness, and love for his position, would resolve to killing him time and again despite witnessing supernatural occurrences every time. Something to ponder about.

Thirdly, this type of apology and insistence to save one’s life is farfetched from someone of Jafar al Sadiq’s stature. In fact, it is farfetched from any senior scholar of that age. How is this fear and insistence possible whereas, according to some narrations, he had knowledge of his time of death? How does this fit in with Amir al Mu’minin’s (‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) reported faith in destiny, that the inhabitants of earth cannot harm anyone unless it is decreed by the One in the Heavens; that he prevented Qambar from being his security and he would not accept security even in Siffin and battlefields. The easiest way to remove this bewilderment is to reject these narrations as they are unreliable according to the chain of narrators. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is All Knowing.[44]

However, some books of history mention about Abu Jafar al Mansur, that he displayed unprecedented and unusual tolerance towards Jafar al Sadiq and the ‘Alawis. Perhaps he did this specifically, taking into consideration those factors that we mentioned before. When Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah was killed, then Hassan al Aftas[45] went into hiding. When Jafar al Sadiq went to Iraq and met al Mansur, he said to him, “O Amir al Mu’minin, do you intend giving the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam a hand (i.e. support)?”

He replied, “Yes, O Abu ‘Abdullah.”

Jafar al Sadiq said, “Then forgive al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Ali Zayn al ‘Abidin ibn al Hussain.”

Subsequently, he forgave him.[46]

Thus, between al Mansur’s leniency and tyranny, Jafar al Sadiq found an opportunity to teach Hadith in Madinah, which was not possible during the Umayyad era.

NEXT⇒ Jafar al Sadiq and the Four Imams

[1] Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/320; Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 1/123; al Wafi bi al Wafayat, 4/77; A’yan al Shia, 1/35.

[2] Al Irshad fi Ma’rifat Hujaj Allah ‘Ala al ‘Ibad, 2/157; al Fattal al Naysaburi: Rawdat al Wa’izin, pg. 202; al Irbili: Kashf al Ghummah, 2/335; ‘Abbas al Qummi: al Anwar al Bahiyyah, pg. 135; Muhsin al Amin: A’yan al Shia, 1/99; Jafar al Subhani: Adwa’ ‘Ala ‘Aqa’id al Shia al Imamiyyah, pg. 173.

[3] She was a member and researcher in the Institute of Ismaili Studies, specialist in Arab affairs and a PhD holder in Islamic Studies in the University of Edinburgh. Lectured in Hadith literature in the faculty of oriental studies in Cambridge University. Worked as a consultant in Arabic in the University of Dumontfort and lectured for many years in the Institute of Ismaili Studies, on the subject of ancient Shia studies.

[4] Al Fikr al Shia al Mubkir – Ta’alim al Imam Muhammad al Baqir, pg. 172.

[5] Ibid., pg. 165.

[6] Taqiyyah, according to the Shia, means to present outwardly something which is different from what one believes inwardly. They regard it as an act of worship.

[7] Tahdhib al Ahkam, 2/135.

[8] This is what the Imamiyyah claim. However, Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a Companion who acquired knowledge directly from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He is definitely a teacher of al Baqir and not his student, with no doubt in this. The Imamiyyah’s peculiarity in this chapter goes back to their belief that the 12 Imams receive knowledge directly from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. They are not like the rest of the creation who acquire knowledge through their teachers and travel for it.

[9] Al Bahbahani: Hashiyat Majma’ al Fa’idat wa al Burhan, pg. 374; al Najafi: Jawahir al Kalam, 9/363.

[10] Testimony to that is what the religious reference in contemporary times, Jafar al Subhani, said in al A’immah al Ithna ‘Ashar, pg. 108, “As for his debates with the opposition, narrate it, without any hesitation.”

[11] Al Kulayni: al Kafi, 5/73; al Tusi: Tahdhib al Ahkam, 6/325; Bihar al Anwar, 10/158; al Bahrani: ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, 19/302.

[12] Al Tabarsi: al Ihtijaj, 2/63; Bihar al Anwar, 24/232; al Bahrani: ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, 19/327.

[13] al Kulayni: al Kafi, 2/256; Bihar al Anwar, 10/154; al Bahrani: ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, 19/310.

[14] Al Mufid: al Irshad, 2/165; al Tabarsi: al Ihtijaj, 2/61,62; Ibn Shahr Ashub: Manaqib Al Abi Talib, 3/329.

[15] Al Tabarsi: al Ihtijaj, 2/64; al Rawandi: Qasas al Ambiya’, pg. 70; Bihar al Anwar, 11/241; al Bahrani: ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, 19/316.

[16] Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 143-144; Bihar al Anwar, 10/159-160.

[17] Ibn Shahr Ashub: Manaqib Al Abi Talib, 3/333; Bihar al Anwar, 10/158; al Bahrani: ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, 19/316.

[18] Al Tabarsi: al Ihtijaj, 2/64; Bihar al Anwar, 32/344; al Bahrani: ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, 19/330.

[19] Ayatollah or Ayatollah al ‘Uzma: Two religious titles used by the Ithna ‘Ashari Shia for that person who reaches the stage of Ijtihad in Islamic Jurisprudence according to the Jafari School.

[20] Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/166.

[21] Al Sayed Hashim Ma’roof al Hassani: Sirat al A’immat al Ithna ‘Ashar, 2/196.

[22] Al Kashshi states: (as narrated in Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal, 2/507) The group is unanimous on the ratification of these former companions of Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah and they follow them in Fiqh. They say: Most knowledgeable of the former scholars in Fiqh are six, i.e. Zurarah, Ma’roof ibn Kharrabudh, Burayd, Abu Basir al Asadi, Fudayl ibn Yasar, and Muhammad ibn Muslim al Ta’ifi. They further state that Zurarah is the most knowledgeable of the 6. Some mention Abu Basir al Muradi in place of Abu Basir al Asadi, he is Layth ibn al Bakhtari.

[23] Al Sheikh ‘Aziz Allah al ‘Utaridi—from the Imamiyyah —compiled narrations attributed to al Baqir from its origins in the Imami books, in 6 volumes under the title Musnad al Imam al Baqir. What is strange is that the subsidiary Fiqhi narrations (subsidiary Shar’i rulings with regards to peoples actions, acts of worship, and dealings) contained in these 6 volumes—overlooking its references and the validity of including them under Shar’i rulings—barely reach one or one and a half volumes. Ponder well. Meanwhile, the author himself compiled narrations attributed to al Sadiq in the same way. It reached up to 22 volumes. Those narrations which deal specifically with Fiqhi rulings, reached 9 volumes. Thus, ponder!

[24] This narrator requires elaboration with regards to his authenticity to remove the thought that he is one of those weak narrators whose narrations cannot be relied upon. Dharih al Muharibi is regarded as one of the companions of al Sadiq. Leader of the group, al Tusi has authenticated him in al Fihrist. Ghulam Rida ‘Irfaniyan has mentioned him in Mashayikh al Thiqat, pg. 107. Al Abtahi states in Tahdhib al Maqal 5/550, “Senior scholars of the Imamiyyah like al Kulayni, al Sheikh, al Saduq, al Mufid, etc., have narrated, through chains with reliable narrators, from Dharih ibn Muhammad al Muharibi who narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah, which contain valuable contents, to which we have alluded in Akhbar al Ruwat. They have narrated it from a large group of reliable luminaries, notable narrators, the people of Ijma’, those who narrate from reliable narrators only, and those who can be relied upon in narrations.”

Al Kalbasi states in Sama’ al Maqal 1/187, “Al Saduq reports in al Faqih authentically from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan who says: I came to Abu ‘Abdullah … till he said, “Dharih spoke the truth, and I spoke the truth that the Qur’an has an external and an internal. Who can tolerate what Dharih tolerates.” The indication to his loftiness is visible as it has been clearly stated in al Wasit.”

Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al ‘Amili states in al Tahrir al Tawusi, pg. 200, “In the Hadith, as one can observe, is an indication towards the high status of Dharih. Al Sheikh authenticated him al Fihrist.”

[25] Durus Mujizat fi ‘Ilmay al Rijal wa al Dirayat, pg. 51.

[26] Al Mufid states in al Irshad, 2/179, “People acquired so much knowledge from him that his fame spread far and wide. His name became well known in all regions. Scholars did not transmit from any of his household as much as they transmitted from him. None of the writers and narrators met and transmitted from any of the Ahlul Bayt as they narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah. Experts of Hadith compiled the names of authentic narrators that transmit from him, with their differences in opinion and statements; they reached up to 4000 men.”

[27] Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi discusses in Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 91-92, about Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi’s excessive names of narrators from the Imams. He says, “You will see that in the book of narrators, he mentions a large group of unknown people amongst the companions of Abu Jafar al Baqir and other pure Imams after him, without them being mentioned in any Hadith, whose numbers reach to more than 4000, without any criticism that they are unknown.”

[28] Dr. Hikmat ‘Ubaid al Khafaji—from the Imamiyyah—states in al Imam al Baqir Wa Atharuhu fi al Hadith, “Such circumstances were prevalent during al Baqir’s era that were not prevalent during the era of any of the other Imams of the Ahlul Bayt. His era coincided with the signs of resentment for the Umayyad Empire and emergence of the seeds of Abbasid revolution against them. As a result their leaders did not pay attention to what al Baqir was doing to spread the Fiqh of Ahlul Bayt.”

[29] Al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/337 (3^rd edition)

[30] Minhaj al Sunnat al Nabawiyyah, 7/531.

[31] Attesting to this is his stance with al Imam al Awza’i (Imam of the people of Sham at that time). Al Saffah asked him, “What do you say about the Umayyad’s killings?” Al Awza’i replied, while seeing the drawn sword in front of him, “Narrations have reached us from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that taking a Muslim’s blood is not permitted except for one of three reasons; adultery after marriage, apostasy after Islam, and life for a life.” He then asked, “O al Awza’i, what do you say about the Umayyad’s wealth?” Al Awza’i replied, “If it was unlawful for them then it is unlawful for you, if it was lawful for them then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will not make it lawful for you except with its rights.” (Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimishq, 35/211; Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/121-122)

[32] Al Sheikh ‘Abbas al Qummi (1359 AH) states in al Kuna wa al Alqab, 2/316, about his title ‘al Saffah’, “ It said that he was given the title of al Saffah (the slaughterer) because of his excessive killing of the Umayyad and other renegades. More likely, this title was given to him because of a sermon wherein he says about himself. “I have increased 100 dirhams in your stipend. So, be ready because I am a blasphemous butcher and a rebel.” (Refer to Tajarub al Umam of Ibn Miskawayh, 3/230) As for the Umayyads, the Abbasids pursued them in Hijaz, Sham, Kufah, Basrah, Ray, Khurasan, Hirah, and Wasit. They killed them in such a miserable way that it is unmatched. Whoever could escape ran away, not caring about anything. Whoever could hide hid away. Some asked al Saffah for amnesty which he granted. Some were incited by poets to be killed and subsequently killed in a worst possible way, like Sulaiman ibn Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik and his son. Al Saffah granted them amnesty through the intervention of his wife Umm Salamah. The poet, Sudayf ibn Maymun incited him to kill them. Thus, he killed all of them. (Refer to al Muhabbar of Ibn Habib, pg. 486)

Shibl ibn ‘Abdullah, the freed slave of the Banu Hashim came to al Saffah, who had gathered 80 people from the Umayyads (whom he had given amnesty) for a sizzling meal. He started to say poems about what had happened to al Hussain and Zaid radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. As a result, he ordered them to be smashed with poles. Thereafter a carpet was spread over them. Sitting on it, he called for the food to be brought while listening to some of their moaning. The all died. He then said to Shibl, “If only you asked me in your poem, I would have given you all their wealth and fixed all the slaves of Banu Hashim for you.” (Ibn Athir: al Kamil fi al Tarikh, 5/23; al Mubarrad: al Kamil, 4/7-8) Similarly, Sulaiman ibn Yazid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan was killed in Balba’ and his head was carried to al Saffah. (Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 7/128)

Dawood ibn ‘Ali was an executioner of the Umayyads. He used to gouge eyes, rip open stomachs, mutilate noses and cut out ears. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ali (al Saffah) used to crucify them, upside down, make them drink lime, aloe, ash, vinegar, and cut off hands and legs. Sulaiman ibn ‘Ali would behead people in Basrah. A group of Umayyads were brought before him. He ordered them to be killed, dragged by the legs and thrown onto the streets. Eventually they were eaten by dogs. (Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 7/131, 132, 156; Ibn Athir: al Kamil fi al Tarikh, 5/24)

In fact, the Abbasid went beyond what we mentioned above. They pursued the dead, exhumed graves, and pulled out corpses. Al Saffah ordered the graves of the Umayyads to be exhumed in Damascus. Hence, the graves of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Yazid ibn Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan were exhumed. He ordered to pursue the offspring of the Umayyad Khalifahs and others. They were captured. None escaped accept breast feeding babies and those that fled to Spain. They were killed at the River Futrus. (Ibn al Athir: al Kamil fi al Tarikh, 5/24.)

Al Mas’udi, from the Imamiyyah, narrates in Muruj al Dhahab, 3/207-208, about what happened to the remainder of the Umayyad Kings’ graves in detail. He narrates from al Haytham ibn ‘Adi al Ta’i who narrates from ‘Amr ibn Hani’ saying, “I went out with ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ali to exhume the Umayyad’s graves during the era of Abu al ‘Abbas al Saffah. We reached the grave of Hisham. We took him out. His body was intact with only the tip of the nose missing. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ali al Saffah lashed him 80 times and then burnt him. Then we took out Sulaiman from Dabiq. We only found his backbone, ribs, and his head. We burnt him. We did this to the other Umayyads. Their graves were in Qinnasrin. Then we proceeded to Damascus and exhumed al Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik. We did not find anything. We dug up the grave of ‘Abdul Malik. We only found some parts of the head. Then we dug up Yazid ibn Muawiyah. We only found one bone and we found a black line, as though it was made of ash, covering the length of the grave. Then we pursued their graves in all the cities and burnt whatever we found in them.

Let me be honest to the reader that often I stop and ponder over this incident and the one before it, trying to explain and justify it, but to no avail, obsessed with it. Sometimes the intellect—not Shari’ah—might permit the killing of seniors under the umbrella of ‘struggle over power’; or killing the juniors under the pretext of ‘securing the future of the kingdom’; or erasing of traces under the pretext of removing the remnants of the previous rule, but pulling out corpses, punishing, crucifying, and burning them is a heinous matter. No intellect, Shar’i or human, can agree with it.

[33] That is why Abu al Farj al Asfahani states in Maqatil al Talibiyin, pg. 162, in the biography of Abu ‘Abbas al Saffah, “I do not know of him killing anyone from them or treat any of his associates abhorrently. Muhammad and Ibrahim were afraid of him so they hid from him as there was some dialogue between him and their father regarding them.”

[34] Dr Muhammad Hussain al Saghir states in al Imam Jafar al Sadiq – Za’im Madrasat Ahlul Bayt, pg. 95, “Al Imam al Sadiq witnessed these revenge attacks which portrayed the theater of political life during al Saffah’s era, without interfering in its affairs, appearing in the presence of their leaders, or mixing with their heroes except what he was compelled upon,” till he says, “and with this he was able to avert any possibility of confrontation with al Saffah and his system; however, he was not sparred of careful surveillance.” He states on pg. 193, “at the same time we find that the Imam did not pledge allegiance to any ruler who was unjust in his rule or give any Shar’i attribute in any matter which was shrouded with the garb of Caliphate. All this is an indication of his Taqwa (fear of Allah) and restraint.”

I say: To claim that Jafar al Sadiq relocated from al Madinah al Munawwarah under these conditions, to teach Fiqh and Hadith to his Shia, if this does not indicate to giving a Shar’i attribute then what is it? Especially, when it is considered that Baghdad was not built and made the capital of the Abbasids except in the era of Abu Jafar al Mansur. Kufah was the locus of their Shia, and it was in the Masjid of Kufah that al Saffah delivered his famous speech. Yes, no war or dispute arose between al Saffah and the ‘Alawis; however, the desire of the Abbasids for kingship and al Saffah’s aspiration to establish his authority would negate—logically—any possibility of an Alawi jurist migrating to Kufah, which would upset their plans and attract the majority of Alawis therein to them in place of the Abbasids.

[35] Al Imam al Sadiq, 1/1188-189.

[36] Al Imam al Sadiq, 1/188 – 189.

[37] A unique incident is mentioned concerning this. The Umayyad poet ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdullah al ‘Abli was an outcast of the Abbasids. He fled to Suwayqah, a village near Madinah, where the family of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib resided. This was at the end of the Umayyad era and the beginning of the emergence of the Abbasid Empire. ‘Abdullah and al Hassan, the sons of Hassan ibn Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, met him in Suwayqah. ‘Abdullah requested him to recite some poetry, to which he obliged. Then he said to him, “recite some poetry mourning your nation.” Thus, he recited the following:

Umamah said when she saw my aversion from my precious bed,

And my lack of sleep on my bed and the slumber of my drowsy eyes,

“O my father, what is the matter?” I replied, “Worries stripped your father, so don’t get involved,

It stripped your father and imprisoned him out of embarrassment of the evil of being imprisoned

From the loss of family when sorrow struck, from the miserable event

Disaster struck without an arrowhead without faltering or relapsing.

It struck the souls with its stealth arrows whenever they needed life, it slipped away.

Their dead are, in various corners of the country strewn on the ground and not even buried.

A noble man who was struck, but his clothes of shame and disgrace did not get soiled,

While others fled, out of fear of retaliation he was noble, thus he did not perceive that.

How many crying eyes, they deceived amongst the sick and the miserable children?

If you remember them, you will not sleep out of the heat of the pain and you will not even sit.

They chant like the crying of a pigeon in gatherings of anxiety and mourning.

That is what has captured me, know well, so don’t ask me or else you will also moan.

Added to that are other matters in the country which I cannot rejoice about.

Tears overflowed from the casualties of Kuda and the dead of Kuthwah are not even buried.

The casualties of Wajj and Labah of Madinah were the best of souls.

In Zabiya there are buried souls as there are casualties in the river of Futrus.

My leaders were disgraced by those who loved me and disgrace stuck to their noses,

Their dead did not and will not forget nor will anyone else forget who lives after them.”

When he completed the poem, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Hassan cried. His uncle al Hassan ibn Hassan ibn Hassan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum asked him, “Are you crying over the Umayyads and you want what you want from the Abbasids?” He replied, “By Allah, O uncle, we stood up against the Umayyads as much as we did; however, the Abbasids have less fear of Allah than the Umayyads, and the evidence against the Abbasids is more damning than the Umayyads. Those people possessed such character, traits, and virtues which Abu Jafar does not. (Al Asfahani: al Aghani, 11/201; al Safdi: al Wafi bi al Wafayat, 17/200)

[38] He is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

[39] He imprisoned al Imam Abu Hanifah because he issued a fatwa to rebel against him with Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah). He used to correspond with his (Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah’s) brother, Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah—after his killing—who had managed to take control of large parts of Persia and Iraq. He sent the last 4000 dirhams that he possessed to assist him. He was imprisoned for that and subsequently passed away in prison. Some say that al Mansur killed him by poisoning him.

Al Imam Malik was lashed because he issued a fatwa for the permissibility of revolting with Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah against al Masur. He was betrayed about this fatwa to the governor, that oaths of allegiance to the Abbasids are void. He deduced this from a Hadith which Thabit al Ahnaf narrates that the Talaq (utterance of the words of divorce) of a forced person does not take place.

Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlan rahimahu Llah and ‘Abdul Hamid ibn Jafar rahimahu Llah were also tortured for revolting with Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah.

[40] Al Hafiz Ibn Kathir states in Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 112/350: A group of people from Hijaz had pledged allegiance for Caliphate to Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Hassan during the end of Marwan al Himar’s rule. He deposed Marwan. Abu Jafar al Mansur was one of the people that pledge allegiance. This was before the rule was transferred to the Abbasids. When the Caliphate was transferred to Abu Jafar al Mansur, then Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Hassan and his brother Ibrahim were gripped with fear. This is because he had a suspicion that they would revolt against him. What he feared, eventually materialised. They fled to various countries out of fear. They went to Yemen, then to India, and then they came to Madinah and hid there. Al Hassan ibn Zaid traced their hiding place so they moved to another place. He kept on tracing them till he tracked them. He created an opposition against them by al Mansur. Surprisingly, he was one of their followers. Al Mansur had made all efforts to capture them but he was unsuccessful. When he asked their father about their whereabouts, he took an oath and said that he does not know where they are. When al Mansur insisted upon ‘Abdullah to find his sons, he got angry and said, “By Allah, if they were under my feet then also I would not show them to you.” Al Mansur became angry and imprisoned him. He ordered that his slaves and wealth must be sold. He stayed in prison for 3 years. Al Mansur was advised to imprison the offspring of Hassan. Hence, he imprisoned all of them.

[41] They were chained from Rabadah by the command of Abu Jafar al Mansur. Then they were mounted on narrow carriages with chains and shackles. When al Mansur passed them in his carriage, ‘Abdullah ibn Hassan called out to him, “O Abu Jafar, by Allah, this not how we treated your prisoners on the Day of Badr.”

Al Mansur chased him away, spat on him, and went away. (Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 13/351-352) When they reached Iraq, they were imprisoned at Hashimiyyah. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was known as al Dibaj al Asfar (yellow brocade) because of his beauty, was brought before Abu Jafar al Mansur. He looked at him and said, “Are you al Dibaj al Asfar?” He replied, “Yes.” Al Mansur said, “By Allah, I will kill you in such a manner that I have never done to any of your family members before.” Then he ordered that a built pillar be emptied out. He was put inside and then they built over him while he was alive. (Tarikh al Tabari, 7/546; Maqatil al Talibiyin, pg. 181; Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 13/352)

It is mentioned that due to the lengthy imprisonment of al Hassan’s offspring, the shackle became lose. When they wanted to perform salah or sleep, they would take off the shackles. When they sensed anyone coming, they would put then on again. ‘Ali (al ‘Abid) ibn al Hassan (al Muthallath) ibn al Hassan (al Muthanna) ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum would not take the shackles off his legs. His uncle asked him, “Why don’t you take it off?” He replied, “By Allah, I will never take it off until myself and Abu Jafar stand before Allah and Allah asks him why he shackled me.” (Maqatil al Talibiyin, pg. 172-177)

[42] Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 6/264.

[43] He states in the footnote: One should not object that the various narrations does not necessitate the occurrence of various incidents; because at times, one incident is reported in many different words. The answer to this would be: Yes, it is correct; however, the established amount of rebuttals is sufficient for this objection.

[44] Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/169,170.

[45] He is Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

[46] Abu Nasr al Bukhari mentioned it in Sirr al Silsilat al ‘Alawiyyah, pg. 77, and then he states, “This is an overwhelming proof that al Sadiq is the son of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and ‘Ali and Muhammad, the sons of al Aftas were killed by al Ma’mun.”

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents