by Rasul Ja'fariyan This is the first part, entitled "Gunneh-ha-ye mukhtalif-a Tashayyu'wa awamil-e gustarish-e an," from the author's study on the history of Shiism in Iran until the Safavid era, Ta'rikh-a Tashayyu' dar iran, az aghaz ta qarn-e dahum-e hijri (Qum: Intisharat-a Ansariyan, 1375/ [1996])Preface:
The literal meaning of shi 'ah is follower and supporter, and only when accompanied by a qualifier that does it signify the followers of a certain person. During the days when the word was used only in its common literal sense it was usually used along with the names of Ali (a), 'Uthman or Mu'awiyah. Hence there would be the "shi'ah of Ali," the "shi'ah of Uthman" and the "shiah of Mu'awiyah." After some time the word shi'ah came to be used specifically as a term for the followers of Imam Ali ( a) and during this period the article "al' in the word "al-shiah" clearly denoted the followers of the Ahl al-Bayt ('a). It is difficult to determine the exact time since when the term al-shi'ah acquired currency as a name for the followers of Imam Ali ('a). [1] Perhaps the letter written, on the occasion martyrdom of Imam Hasan ('a), by the Shi'is of Kufah under the lead of Sulayman ibn Surad as a message of condolence to Imam Husayn ('a) is the earliest documented instance of its use as a term. Ya'qubi has cited the text of this letter. In it the Sh'is of Kufah wrote:
How great is [the calamity] which has struck this ummah in general ('ammah), you, and the Shi'ah in particular (khassah)! [2]
Here, one may as well note the use of the word 'ammah as a kind of term used in opposition to khassah as the term for the Shi'ah.
Another point which is important for understanding the development of the term shi'ah is to know whom it excluded. In other words, who were those who stood in contradistinction to the Shiah of Ali. There is indisputable evidence provided by older and recent research that there existed two distinct factions during the era of the Messenger of God (s). The first consisted of the Quraysh who were not on good terms with the Banu Hashim since before the advent of Islam. The second faction was that of the supporters of Ali consisting of the Hashimis and their supporters from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar, such as Abu Dharr, Ammar, Miqdad and Salman. Al-Farsi concedes the existence of these two factions before the episode of Saqifah. [3] The extent of their political differences, which had religious roots from the very beginning, increased with time. For instance, some of the Companions from the very early days did not recognize a role for the Prophet's Sunnah by the side of the Qur'an. This belief was the important characteristic of the Qurayshi faction. Denial of the religious authority of the Prophet's prescriptions and prohibition on the writing and narration of hadith are clearly visible elements in the stance of the leaders of this faction right from the Prophet's days. Without doubt one can say that the Companions of the Prophet (s) formed two different groups from this angle: those who believed in the necessity of following the Prophet (s) in all aspects and those who did not consider it obligatory to follow the Prophet (s) in matters relating to government and political affairs. The pre-Islamic influence of the Quraysh, along with other factors, led the latter group to acquire power. A little later when Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf laid down the condition that he would deliver the office of the caliphate to the candidate who would follow the practice (sirah) of the Shaykhayn (i.e. Abu Bakr and 'Umar) and Imam Ali insisted that he would base his policy only on the Qur'an, the sirah of the Prophet and his own judgements (ijtihad) it was obvious that the religious difference was gradually expanding.
Until the time when Umar was in the office of the caliphate, the generality of people, excepting the followers of Imam Ali, followed the decrees (fatwa) of the State, not attaching much significance to the difference that existed at that time between the practice of the Prophet (s) and that of others. But when Uthman, besides allegations of political and financial misdemeanor, was accused of acts that were considered to be religiously deviant (bid'ah) and he was challenged by a large number of Companions, the problem arose as to whom the people should regard as a competent religious authority. In other words, whom were they to emulate? If we note that it were the opponents of the Qurayshi faction who led the movement against Uthman, we can understand better the connection between differences on political and religious issues.
'Uthman was killed at the end of 35 H./656 and Ali assumed the duties of caliphate. Now the leader of the anti-Qurayshi faction, who incidentally had no role in the revolt against Uthman and whose counsel went unheeded by the extremists, had assumed the office of the caliphate. From the very beginning, Syria, which led one wing of the Qurayshi faction, did not recognize his caliphate. Other leaders of the Qurayshi faction were Talhah and Zubayr who were also disgruntled with the rule of Imam Ali ('a). They made Basrah their base and as a consequence of this rebellion the Imam was compelled to shift his capital to Kufah. In Madinah itself a number of Companions, albeit very small, refused to give allegiance to the Imam. They were the neutralists' (Qa'idin).
Aside from political issues, an important problem was the clarification of religious issues concerning controversial matters especially in relation to emergent issues. It was for this reason that two political and, as a consequence, religious factions emerged. There were those who accepted Imam Ali's religious authority and considered it a religious obligation to follow him; they were those who were not acceptable to the Uthmanid party now represented by Syria and Basrah. The second group consisted of those who were not prepared to accept the Imam's rule and opposed him with the motive of avenging Uthman's death. All that which went into forming the attitudes of the opponents, acquiring a more developed form in the course of time, came to be called the Uthmani creed. This creed stood in contrast to the Alawid faction to which the term Shiah came to be applied shortly afterwards. During the developments of the period of the Imam's caliphate, a group became the followers and supporters of Imam M and gradually came to be called al-Shi'ah or Shi'is. As against them a group of people became partisans of Uthman and the Uthmanid faction and they came to be known as al-'Uthmaniyyah or 'Uthmanis. For this reason the Uthmaniyyah became the name for the religious approach that opposed Shiism. In the course of time it came to represent the religion of the common people who took their religious beliefs and practices from the Umayyad rulers. The Umayyads considered themselves as the continuation of the earlier caliphs and considered Imam Ali ('a) as standing in contradistinction to them.
During this period, the term shi'ah generally stood in contrast to the term 'Uthmaniyyah. However, the term shi'ah was not used in a univocal sense in all its applications. Among the "Shiis" there were those who were named so merely because they were against 'Uthman and supported the Imam as the legitimate caliph. Many of them also accepted the preceding caliphs and, as will be seen, they too were called Shi'is' by extremist Uthmanis. However, among these undifferentiated Shiis there were those who considered the Imamate as the sole right of Imam Ali ('a) as someone who had been appointed by the Prophet (s) to that office which they viewed as vested with a kind of Divine right. They did not consider it necessary to refrain from cooperating with the earlier caliphs, for the Imam himself had maintained silence in those circumstances for the sake of Islam, as was repeatedly pointed out by him.
In the course of their support of the Uthmani creed, the Umayyads basically did not recognize the caliphate of Imam Ali ('a), and they propagated this notion throughout the greater part of Muslim society. However, this attitude did not find many supporters in Iraq, with the exception of Basrah. On the contrary, whenever there arose any opportunity the Iraqis would display, on the political scene, their belief in the right of the Alawids.
Beside the Shi'i and the 'Uthmani tendencies, there was a third one which related to the so-called Qa'idin, and Nashi' Akbar considers them as consisting of two groups with two different tendencies. According to him, one of them were the Hulaysiyyah, who believed that one should withdraw into political seclusion during tines of social turmoil (fitnah). They considered both the warring groups as misguided and destined for hell, and considered keeping aloof (qu'ud) from war as piety (din) and entry into it as fitnah.' Abd Allah ibn Umar, Muhammad ibn Muslimah and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas belonged to this group. The second group of the Qa'idin was that of the "Mu'tazilah" who believed that one of the two warring groups was in the right but it could not be clearly identified. Abu Musa Ash'ari, Abu Said Khudri and Abu Mas'ud Ansari belonged to this group. According to Nashi' Akbar, they were the ones who were known as Mu'tazilah, and later on Wasil ibn Ata' and Amr ibn Ubayd had a similar attitude regarding Talhah and Zubayr. [4] An important concept employed by these two groups in their analysis of the state of affairs was that of fttnah, and they believed that during times of fitnah "it is better for one to be among those who get killed rather than being one of the killers." [5] The Hijaz did not take sides in the conflict between the pro-Alid and pro-Umayyad parties, but it staged a movement which may be called "the movement of the Companion's descendants" (abna' al-sahabah).
Iraqi Shi ism:
With attention to what has been stated it may be said that in the early Islamic centuries the term Shi'ism (tashayyu') had a wider meaning than is current today. That which is called tashayyu' today would be referred to in the old jargon of the Uthmanis as Rafd.' In that period the term Shi ah in its general use was applied to those who preferred Imam Ali ('a) to Uthman. In addition those who preferred him to the other two caliphs or basically believed in his Imamate and that of his descendants were also called Shiah.' In the sense of a general tendency a Shi'ah' was someone who preferred Imam 'Ali to the other caliphs, while a Rafidi' was someone who rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar and believed in the Imamate of Imam 'Ali ('a) as something ordained by God. Shiism' in the above sense of a general tendency may be called Iraqi Shi'ism.'
From the Sunni viewpoint, giving preference to Imam Ali ('a) over Uthman has been considered a heretical belief (bid'ah). [6] Some extreme Sunnis are even of the view that such a preference of the Imam over Uthman is rafd. Hence they have said, Someone who says, "Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali and then Uthman" (in a descending order or merit) is a rafidi or a heretic (mubtadi). [7] The people of Kufah were Shi'ah as they accepted this descending order of merit for the caliphs (Ahl al-Kufah yaqulun: Abu Bakr wa 'Umar wa 'Ali).[8] It was said about the people of Wasit that they were Shi'ah (kana 'ammatu ahl a-Wasit yatashayyi'un). [9] It is stated in Masail al-Imamah that the Ahl al-Hadith from among the Kufans, such as Waki' ibn Jarrah and Fadl ibn Dukayn, were Shi'is' because they believed in Ali's merit over Uthman and considered Ali's caliphate to be legitimate (Yaz'amuna anna afdal al-nas bad al-Nabi [s] Abu Bakr thummah 'Umar thumma 'Ali, thumma 'Uthman, yuqaddimuna Aliyan 'ala 'Uthman wa hadha tashayyu' ashab al-hadith min al-Kufiyyin wa yuthbituna imamata 'Ali). As against this viewpoint was that of the Ahl al-Hadith of Basrah who preferred Uthman to Imam Ali, followed by the rest of the participants of the council (shura) constituted by 'Umar (afdal al-ummah bad al-Nabi [s] Abu Bakr, thumma 'Umar thumma 'Uthman, thumma 'Ali, thumma yasuwwuna bayna baqiyyat al-shura). This was the case at a time when the leading scholars (mashayiq) of Ahl al-Hadith at Baghdad basically did not accept the caliphate of Imam Ali ('a) (wa amma mashayikh: ashab al-hadith min al-Baghdaiyyin fa innahum la yuthbituna imamata 'Ali; minhum Ibn Main wa Abu Khaythamah, wa Muhammad ibn Hanbal, kanu yahdhifuna Aliyan min al-imamah wa yaz'amuna anna wilayatahu kanat ftnah).[10] Another witness is that of Yahya ibn Main, one of the prominent figures of the Ahl al-Hadith during the 3rd/9th century: He is cited as having said: "I say: Abu Bakr, Umar, then Uthman." [11] Ahmad ibn Hanbal was somewhat moderate and he would say "We do not find fault with someone who considers Ali as the fourth caliph" (la nu'ibu man rabba'a bi Ali). [12] In this regard there were many who were opposed to Ahmad ibn Hanba1. [13] It appears that towards the end of his life Ahmad ibn Hanbal had become firmer in his belief in the legitimacy of the caliphate of Ali ('a) as the fourth caliph, and accordingly he would say that someone who did hot consider Ali as the fourth caliph was more is error than an. ass (man lam yurabbi' bi Aliyin fa-huwa adallu min himari ahlih).[14] Someone who found fault with Mu'awiyah and Amr ibn As was presumed to be a rafidi. [15] Ahmad ibn Hanbal was told about someone who preferred Ali ('a) to Abu Bakr and Umar. He disapproved of such a belief and said, "I fear that he might be a rafidi" (Akhsha an yakuna rafidiyan).[16] Ahmad ibn Hanbal's son says, "I asked my father as to who the rafidis were. He replied, It is someone who abuses and curses Abu Bakr and Umar (al-ladhi yashtumu wa yasubbu Aba Bakrin wa 'Umar).' " [17] In connection with the meaning of rafd one may refer to the forgeries that have been attributed to the Prophet (s) concerning the rawafid. [18]
An important term that must be considered for explanation of a significant part of Shi'i inclinations during this period is that of "Iraqi Shi'is." This name applies to those who despite their Shii inclinations and their narration of the virtues and merits (fada'il) of the Ahl al-Bayt and hostility towards the Umayyads-and later on towards the Abbasids-do not belong to any of the Shi'i sects, including Zaydi, Imami and the Isma'ili sects. Certainly individuals of this type could be Mutazilites, but this name does not describe all of them and it might be said that there were those who were Iraqi Shi'is' without being Mu'tazilis. In view of the large number of this type of persons among Iraqi traditionists (muhaddithin) it must be said that this is an acceptable name for them which solves the problem of explaining the religious tendency of this type of individuals. In any case, it should be noted that while referring to Shiism of Kufah, or basically to that of Iraq, it must be made clear whether the individual or tendency concerned is of the type associated with mere preference (tafdil) for Imam Ali ('a) over Uthman or that of Shi'ism in its doctrinal Imami sense. There were many in Kufah who were Shi'is only in the former sense and were very attached to the Ahl al-Bayt and many of them were narrators of the fada'il of Imam Ali and other figures of the Ahl al-Bayt. These persons must not considered Sunnis in its technical sense although many of them considered the first two caliphs to have been legitimate. In other words, their narrations must be studied with attention to their strong Shi'i inclinations. Naturally; the Uthmaniyyah, who were the progenitors of the later Sunnis, had a character different from that of this group and they were not on good terms with one another. It is for this reason that in rijal works of the Ahl al-Hadith and the Hanbalis the allegation of tashayyu', in the sense of narration of the fada'il of the Ahl al-Bayt, is considered one of the marks of discredit (qadh). They are "Iraqi Shiis" whose names are not mentioned in Shii works of rijal. Nevertheless, many of these persons have been considered trustworthy (thiqah) narrators by staunch Hanbalis and writers belonging to Ahl al-Hadith. For instance, concerning Dawud ibn Abi Awf, who has been considered a thiqah narrator by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Yahya ibn Main, it has been said: "He is a Shii, and most of what he narrates is concerning the fada'il of the Ahl al-Bayt" (Shi'i, 'ammatu ma yarwihi fi fadi'il Ahl al-Bayt). Thereafter Dhahabi cites an example of his narrations which is a hadith of the Prophet (s) addressed to Ali ('a):
..... O Ibn Abi Talib, indeed you and your shi'ah shall be in paradise.
Following this hadith is a statement against the rafidis attributed to the Prophet (s). [19]
Examples of the phrases and statements concerning Shi'is and cited by al-Dhahabi from experts of rijal of early centuries will serve to elucidate the use of the terms shi'ah and rafidi during that era. These expressions become harsher in accordance with the higher degree of the Shi'i tendency of the individual concerned. The expressions cited here are from Dhahabi's Mizan al-i.'tidal and are cited with the related volume and page number.
Concerning 'Ubayd Allah ibn Musa, who was also one of al-Bukhari's teachers (mashayikh), it is said: "a fiery Shii" (kana Shi'i mutaharriqa) (iii, 16).
About Adi ibn Thabit it is said, "An extremist Shii, an extremist rafidi" (Shi'i mufrit, rafidiyun ghali) (iii, 62).
About Ali' ibn Salih al Taymi al-Kufi: "A mellowed Shii" (kana min 'atq al-shi'ah) (iii, 101).
Concerning Ala' ibn Abi al-Abbas it is said: "An extreme Shii" (Shi'i ghali) (iii, 102).
Concerning Ali ibn Thabit al-Jazari it is said: "He was one of the confirmed Shi'is, but does not go to the extremes" (kana min man yaskunu fi tashyyu'ihi wa la yaghlu) (iii, 116).
Concerning Ali ibn Musa al-Simsar it is said: "In him are Shi'i leanings tending towards rafd" (fihi tashayyu' yafdi ila al-rafd) (iii, 158).
Concerning Ali ibn Hashim ibn Burayd it is said: "He was extreme in his Shii leanings" (kana mufritan fi al-tashayyu) (iii, 160).
About Amr ibn Shamir al-Jufi it is said: "a rafidi who reviles the Companions" (rafidiyyun yashtammu al-sahabah) (iii, 368).
About Isa ibn Qirtas it is said, "He was one of the extremists in rafd' (kana min al-ghulat fi al-rafd) (iii, 322).
About Isa ibn Mihran al-Musta'tif it is said, "a rafidi, a monstrous liar, fiery in his rafd, was one of tile devils of the