|
3. The Imamite Learned Men's Attitude Towards the Second Occultation
As has already been indicated, during the period of the short occultation
(260-329/874-941) more than two generations of Imamites
were brought up under the careful supervision of the
agents and with the teachings of the Imamite narrators
(al-Muhaddith`un),in order that the new generation would
recognize that religious authority derives from indirect
communication with the hidden Imam, via his four
Saf’irs.
Their arguments and instructions concerning the hidden Imam were based
mainly on the traditions attributed to the previous
eleven Imams before the year 260/874, including the
traditions narrated by al- `Asfari. Although the
Imamites split into fifteen groups and held different
views concerning the successor of al-`Askari at the time
of the first Saf’ir,the teaching and the underground
activities of the second Saf’irmet with success.
His followers (al-Imamiyya al-Qat'iyya) carried out intensive propaganda
to prove the existence of the Twelfth Imam and the
necessity for his occultation without specifying the
date of his reappearance: "concerning the release from
suffering (i.e. the rise of the Imam) it is in the hand
of Allah and those who try to fix certain times for it
are liars."
(1)
Thus the teachings and doctrine of the followers of the second Saf’ir
dominated Imamite circles, whereas the other groups
disappeared. During the time of the third and the fourth
Saf’irswe find the new generation of Imamites more
obedient to the Saf’irs and willing to accept their
statements as the statements of the Twelfth Imam. They
were all the more willing because, as we have noted, all
the pronouncements (Tawqi`at) issued to the four
Saf’irsand attributed to the Twelfth Imam were written
in the same handwriting and in the same style(2).
The identical handwriting explains the consensus among the Imamites to be
obedient to the last pronouncement of the fourth
Saf’ir,by which the first occultation came to an end and
the second began.
There is evidence that when the last pronouncement of the Twelfth Imam
proclaimed the end of direct communication with the
fourth Saf’ir,the agents ceased their underground
activities and in particular refrained from collecting
the khums. In other words the Imamite underground
organization (al-Wikala),which had been established
during the time of al-Sadiq (d. 148/765), was dissolved
by that pronouncement.
Henceforth anyone claiming to be the Saf’ir of the Imam was considered an
unbeliever and imposter. For this reason the Imamites
cursed Muhammad b. Ahmad b. `Uthman al-Umari, known as
Abu Bakr al-Baghdgdi, the nephew of the second
Saf’ir,when he claimed that he was the Saf’ir of the
Twelfth Imam(3).
Al-Tusi gives an example of how the agents refrained
from collecting' the khums:
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid al-Qummi came to Basra as the
representative of his father and the group (i.e. the
agents in Qumm). The Imamites questioned him concerning
rumours that he was the deputy of the Imam. But he
denied them, saying: "I have no right in this matter" So
they offered him money as a test, but he rejected it and
said, "It is forbidden for me to take it, because I have
no right in this matter (i.e. the deputyship of the
Imam), and I have never made such a claim."(4)
Perhaps these two examples are a further evidence that the theory of the
occultation of the Twelfth Imam was not "the creation of
politicians" to further their own ends. In fact, there
were some people motivated by political and worldly
aspirations, such as al-Shalmaghani and Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, whose followers held that they were the
Saf’irsof the hidden Imam. However, the Imamites totally
rejected their claim(5).
The agents' decision to end their activities led the Imamite narrators
(al-Muhaddithun, al-Ruwat) to the belief that since no
new Saf’ir had been appointed, the second occultation
which they called the "period of trial and confusion"
had begun. They supported their conclusion with
traditions attributed to the previous Imams indicating
that al-Qa’im would have two forms of occultation before
his rising, one of them being short and the other long.
Al-Nu`mani may have been the first scholar to give this
particular interpretation to existing traditions. After
quoting nine traditions predicting the two forms of
Ghaybas and attributed to al-Sadiq on the authority of
seven of his disciples(6),
al-Nu`mani comments:
“The authenticity of these traditions mentioning that al-Qa’im has two
occultations has been proved - Praise be to Allah. For
by bringing about the occultation He has authenticated
the statements of the Imams.
As for the first occultation, it is that during which there were Saf’irs
between the Imam and the people, safars who had been
appointed by the Imam and who carried out their
activities while living amongst the people... This is
the short occultation, whose days have come to an end
and whose period has passed away.
The second occultation is the one during which the Saf’irs and the
mediators have been removed for a purpose intended by
Allah and planned for in the creation. In other words,
throughout this period testing, examination, trial,
sifting and purification will be the lot of those who
claimed (to be Imamites), just as is stated in the
Qur'an: It is not (the purpose) of Allah to leave you in
your present state till He shall separate the wicked
from the good. And it is not (the purpose of) Allah to
let you know the unseen. (Al-Imran III,179). . . This
explains our statement that the Imam has two
occultations and that we are living in the second”.(7)
Al-Nu'mani's interpretation of the two Ghaybas became the foundation for
most explanations put forward by the Imamite jurists
from the time of al-Saduq (d. 381/991) in Kamal al-Din
wa-Tamam al-Nima and al-Khazzaz al-Razi al-Qummi (d.
381/991) in Kifayat al-Athar fi al-Nusus ala al-A'imma
al-Ithna `Ashar through the period of al-Majlisi
(d.1111/1700) in Bihar al-Anwar.
However, a contemporary scholar, Sachedina, writes as follows:
“It is plausible to maintain that the division of the Ghayba into short,
and long is the innovation of the Imamite jurists. In
support of this division, traditions were either
invented or interpreted to accommodate the situation as
it appeared to them”.(8)
But Sachedina's hypothesis does not bear scrutiny, because the belief in
two Ghaybas did not come newly into being after the
death of the fourth Saf’ir in 329/941, nor was it
invented by al-Nu'mani and those scholars who followed
his footsteps, such as al-Saduq, al-Khazzaz, al-Mufid
(d. 413/1022) and al-Tusi (d. 460/1067). They merely
clarified the consistency between the two concealments
of the Twelfth Imam and the traditions predicting their
occurrence(9).
From the historical viewpoint there are several reports which reveal that
the traditions speaking about two concealments already
existed prior to the year 329/941 when the second
occultation began and that they were used by the Waqifa
and the Imamites.
The Waqifa who stopped at the seventh Imam Musa al-Kazim (d. 183/799)
contending that he was al-Qa’im al-Mahdi,had narrated
these traditions. Among the Waqifite narrators is Abu
Muhammad `Ali b. Ahmad al-`Alawi, who wrote a book in
support of Waqifite doctrine called Fi Nusrat al-Waqifa.
He mentions this tradition attributed to al-Sadiq:
“The Sahib al-Amr (i.e. al-Qa’im) will have two occultations, one of
which will be longer than the other. Finally people will
say that he has died and others will say that he has
been killed. Only a few of his followers will continue
to support his Imamate, and no one will know his
whereabouts and his affairs except his servant”.(10)
As we have previousely seen, one group of the Imamites held that the
eleventh Imam had not died in 260/874, but had merely
disappeared and would return and be recognized, only to
disappear again before finally rising as al-Qa’im(11).
According to al-Nawbakhti (d. ca. 310/922) this group based its claim on
the generally accepted narration which states that
al-Qa’im will have two concealments(12).
Agha Buzurg reports that such traditions were included
by al-Hasan b. Mahbub al-Zarrad in Kitab al-Mashyakha,(13)
and by al-Fadl b. Shadhan (d. 260/873) in Kitab
al-Ghayba,(14)
but these works are not extant. Fortunately, al-Kulayni,
who lived during the short occultation, has included
three of these traditions in al-Kafi. According to one
of these traditions, al-Sadiq said:
“Al-Qa’im will have two concealments, one of them short and the other
long. In the first only his intimate partisans will know
his whereabouts, while in the second only his close
associates will know his whereabouts.”(15)
These traditions predicting the two concealments of the Twelfth Imam
which are reported by al-Hasan b. Mahbub, al-Fadl b.
Shadhan and al-Kulayni were not invented by the Imamite
narrators as is Sachedina's belief. On the contrary,
such traditions were the main reason why Imamite
scholars like Ibn Qubba(16)
and al-Nu`mani put forward the claim that the Twelfth
Imam was al-Qa’im al-Mahdi,since they applied them to
the historical circumstances which accompanied the
career of the Twelfth Imam from 260/874 until the
discontinuation of his direct communication with his
followers after the death of his fourth Saf’ir in
329/941. Thus al-Nu'mani, after narrating such
traditions, states,
“Considering the large number of traditions predicting the concealment
transmitted through the centuries, if the concealment
had not occurred the very principle of the Imama would
be invalid. However by its occurrence Allah the Exalted
has proved the authenticity of the Imams' warnings about
the occultation and the correctness of their belief in
it which they held generation after generation. In so
doing, Allah obliged the Shi’a to accept it”(17).
4. The Attitude of the Ordinary Imamites towards the Second Occultation
Despite the fact that the Imamite narrators like al-Nu`mani accepted the
second occultation of the Twelfth Imam and contented
themselves with the traditions going back to before
260/874 which predicted its occurrence, the vast
majority of the ordinary Imamites disagreed with them.
They argued that if the Imam was born in 256/870, he was
73 years old by the end of the first occultation in
329/941, and this accords with the life span of a normal
person. They concluded that he had probably died, since
death is the natural end for a person living to such an
age. Al-Nu`mani describes the confusion among the
Imamite populace as follows:
“The majority of the Imamites asked regarding the successor of al-Hasan,
"Where is he?", "How could this happen?", "For how long
will he be concealed?" and "How much longer will he
live, since he is now about 73 years old?" Some of them
believed that he was dead. Other groups denied his birth
or even his existence, and mocked those who believed in
him. Some merely found it difficult to accept the
prolongation of his concealment because they could not
imagine that it was within the power of God. . . to
prolong the age of His wali (i.e. the Imam) . . . and
cause him to reappear afterwards” .(18)
According to al-Nu`mani the bulk of these groups abandoned their belief
in the hidden Imam. In fact those who continued to hold
a firm belief irrhis Imamate were a small minority
belonging to the circles of narrators, like Ibn Qubba
and al-Nu`mani himself, who based their belief on the
traditions of the Imams.(19)
Many scholars shared the perplexity of the Imamite masses over the
prolonged occultation of the Twelfth Imam. According to
Ibn al-Nadim, Abu Sahl Isma`il b. `Ali al-Nawbakhti was
the first to hold the opinion that the Twelfth Imam had
died during his occultation, that his son had succeeded
him, and that the Imama would continue in his progeny
until Allah resurrected the Twelfth Imam.(20)
The attribution of this statement to Abu Sahl may be sound, because in
his defence and vindication of the concealment of the
Imam written around the year 290/902, he does not expect
the concealment to last beyond the life span of an
ordinary person. He writes,
“Until the present time there has been one of his hidden and reliable
adherents, who claims that he is the Imam's Gate (Bab)
and the intermediary for his commands and orders to his
followers. The period of the occultation (of the Imam)
has not become so prolonged that it is exceptional and
beyond the length of the concealments of those who went
into concealment before him”.(21)
Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. Ahmad b. `Ali
al-Salt al-Qummi was another Imamite scholar baffled by
the discontinuation of direct communication with the
Imam because of his prolonged occultation. Thus he went
along with a philosopher from Bukhara in doubting the
Imam's existence.(22)
(1)al-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj, II,
283.
(2)Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr,
Bahth Hawla al-Mahdi, 69-70.
(5)Incidents recorded by Ibn
Taghri Bardi indicate that the adherents of al-
Shalmaghani continued their underground
activities until the year 341/952, when the
`Abbasids discovered their cells. For a full
account, see Nujum, III,307-8.
(6)The disciples of al-Sadiq
who narrated these traditions on his authority
were Ishaq b. `Amman al-Sayrafi, Ibrahim b. `Amr
al-Kannas% Hisham b. Salim, al-Mufaddil b. `Umar,
Hazim b. Habib, Abu Basir and Muhammad b.
Muslim; N. al-Ghayba,90-1.
(8)Sachedina, op. cit.,125
(10)al-`Alawi, Fi Nusrat al-
Waqifa,quoted in T. al-Ghayba,44.
(13)Buzurg, al-Dhari`a,
XXI,69.
(14)Quoted in the T.
al-Ghayba,274.
(19)N. al-Ghayba,99; Ibn Qubba
quoted in Kama’l,112.
(20)Ibn al-Nadim, op.
cit.,225.
(21)Abu Sahl al-Nawbakhti,
Kitab al-Tanbih,quoted in Kama’l,3.
|
