Ayatull\u0101h Ja\u02bffar Sub\u1e25\u0101n\u012b<\/strong><\/p>\n For a long time, theories have been developed to explain the appearance of the Sh\u012b\u02bfa. Many of the theories were devised by non-Sh\u012b\u02bfa scholars or even anti-Sh\u012b\u02bfa polemicists, and as a result, are largely baseless. As documented history reveals, the Sh\u012b\u02bfa is nothing more or less than Islam as taught by the Prophet and his Household. The Sh\u012b\u02bfa, in this sense, have their roots in the Prophet\u2019s lifetime, when he called those who supported \u02bfAl\u012b his \u2018sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u2019 (lit. \u2018followers\u2019). These people, who believed that \u02bfAl\u012b was the true successor of the Prophet, were some of his Companions. This Chapter is intended to clarify the truth about the appearance of Sh\u012b\u02bfa.<\/p>\n There are many theories about the appearance of Sh\u012b\u02bfa that are completely baseless. Some believe, for instance, that Sh\u012b\u02bfa appeared as a result of political conflicts in the first-century hijr\u012b<\/em>. Others have concluded that Sh\u012b\u02bfa appeared as a result of theological debates, as did some other Islamic sects. These claims are made because they believe that Shi\u2019ism is something other than Islam itself that only appeared after the Prophet\u2019s demise. Therefore, they look for its root causes and attempt to devise theories to explain its appearance.<\/p>\n All of these theorists, however, ignore the fact that Shi\u2019ism is nothing other than Islam as taught by the Prophet\u2019s Household and that, in this sense, it appeared during the Prophet\u2019s own lifetime. Even at that time, \u02bfAl\u012b had some supporters and followers who were called his\u00a0sh\u012b\u02bfa\u00a0<\/em>and who followed \u02bfAl\u012b as a result of the Prophet\u2019s praise of him. Thus, these people loved \u02bfAl\u012b and took him as their leader and model of good conduct after the Prophet. That is why we may claim that the Prophet was the first person to sow the seeds of Shi\u2019ism, to ask people to follow \u02bfAl\u012b and to call his followers Sh\u012b\u02bfa.<\/p>\n There are forty\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0bearing witness to the fact that the followers of \u02bfAl\u012b are called his\u00a0sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>. We will consider some of these traditions, which are all taken from Sunn\u012b sources. J\u0101bir b. \u02bfAbd All\u0101h reports that once \u02bfAl\u012b came when J\u0101bir was with the Prophet. On seeing \u02bfAl\u012b, the Prophet said, pointing to \u02bfAl\u012b, \u2018By Him in whose hand is my soul, this man and his\u00a0sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u00a0will be saved on the Day of Judgment!\u2019 Then he recited the verse: \u2018Indeed those who have faith and do righteous deeds \u2013 it is they who are the best of creatures.\u2019 (Q98:7). For this reason, whenever \u02bfAl\u012b came to the Prophet\u2019s Companions, they would say to one another, \u2018there comes the best of creatures\u2019 (al-Durr al-Manth\u016br<\/em>\u00a06\/589). Ibn \u02bfAbb\u0101s reports that when the above verse was revealed to the Prophet, he said to \u02bfAl\u012b, \u2018this verse refers to you and your followers who will be pleased with God and God will be please with you on the Day of Judgment\u2019 (al-Durr al-Manth\u016br<\/em>\u00a06\/589). Ibn \u1e24ajar al-Haytham\u012b reports in\u00a0al-\u1e62aw\u0101\u02bfiq<\/em>\u00a0that Umm Salama said, \u2018One night when the Prophet was at my home, his daughter suddenly entered, followed by \u02bfAl\u012b. The Prophet said: \u2018\u02bfAl\u012b, you and your followers will be in paradise. You and your\u00a0sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u00a0will be in paradise\u2019 (161). Ibn Ath\u012br reports that once the Prophet once said to \u02bfAl\u012b: \u2018You will be received by God while you are pleased with God and He is pleased with you, but your enemies will go before God while they are angry and their hands are chained to their necks\u2019 (4\/16). Zamakhshar\u012b reports in\u00a0Rab\u012b\u02bf al-Abr\u0101r<\/em>\u00a0that the Prophet once said to \u02bfAl\u012b: \u2018On the Day of Judgment, I will seek help from All\u0101h, you from me, your descendants from you and your followers from your descendants\u2019 (808). According to Mughzil\u012b, in\u00a0Man\u0101qib \u02bfAl\u012b b. Ab\u012b \u1e6c\u0101lib<\/em>, the Prophet once asked \u02bfAl\u012b: \u2018Will you not be pleased to be in paradise with me, while \u1e24asan, \u1e24usayn and our other descendants are standing behind us and our followers are standing on both sides?\u2019 (Sawa\u2018iq<\/em>, 161). He also quotes Anas b. M\u0101lik who reports that the Prophet once declared, \u2018Seventy thousands of my followers will enter paradise without being questioned\u2019 and then looked at \u02bfAl\u012b and added, \u2018They will be your followers and you will be their the Imam\u2019 (293).<\/p>\n All of these\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0demonstrate that there were some people in the Prophet\u2019s days that were called the\u00a0sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u00a0of \u02bfAl\u012b and who were promised paradise by the Prophet. They also make it clear that the word \u2018sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u2019 was used by the Prophet himself to describe \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s followers who took as their path nothing more or less than the Prophet\u2019s Islam, which they believed could be best followed by following the example \u02bfAl\u012b. Therefore, we can say with certainty that Shi\u2019ism was neither the fruit of political conflicts at Saq\u012bfah nor a result of theological debates. Rather, they were a group of people who believed that \u02bfAl\u012b was second to the Prophet in piety and personal conduct and maintained this belief after the Prophet\u2019s death, gradually multiplying into a large sect.<\/p>\n Study the annals of history reveals that the term \u2018sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u2019, both during the Prophet\u2019s life and after that, was used to denote the followers of Imam \u02bfAl\u012b. Some examples of this usage follow. Mas\u02bf\u016bd\u012b (d. 345\/956), describing events after the Prophet, writes: \u2018When people\u2019s vows of allegiance (bay\u02bfa<\/em>) to Ab\u016b Bakr were completed, \u02bfAl\u012b and a number of his Sh\u012b\u02bfa withdrew to his home\u2019 (121). Nawbakht\u012b (d. 313\/925) similarly notes that \u2018the Sh\u012b\u02bfa were followers of \u02bfAl\u012b b. Ab\u012b \u1e6c\u0101lib who was known by this name during the Prophet\u2019s life and after. Everybody described the Sh\u012b\u02bfa as people who ignored other leaders and would only listen to \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019 (15). Ab\u016b al-\u1e24asan Ash\u02bfar\u012b says: \u2018The reason why they were called Shi\u2019ism was that they followed \u02bfAl\u012b and preferred him over other Prophet\u2019s Companions\u2019 (1\/65). According to Shahrist\u0101n\u012b: \u2018Sh\u012b\u02bfa refers to those who followed \u02bfAl\u012b exclusively and admitted his Imamate and succession because of the Prophet\u2019s words about him\u2019 (1\/131). Ibn \u1e24azm argues that \u2018whoever believes that \u02bfAl\u012b is the best Muslim after the Prophet and the best candidate for leading Muslims and that his descendants are also the best leaders of Muslims is called a Sh\u012b\u02bfa. Sh\u012b\u02bfa may disagree over other matters, but not on this, and if anyone rejects this fundamental belief, they will not be called Sh\u012b\u02bfa (2\/113). As all these statements show, there was a group of people who were called Sh\u012b\u02bfa by the Prophet both in his days and later. People simply followed the model of the Prophet in calling them Sh\u012b\u02bfa.<\/p>\n In light of the above, the defining characteristic of Shi\u2019ism is following \u02bfAl\u012b after the Prophet in terms of religious and political leadership. With all the Prophet\u2019s words regarding Sh\u012b\u02bfa and the\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0that demonstrate that the Sh\u012b\u02bfa had their origin in the Prophet\u2019s own days, there is no need to contrive baseless theories to account for their existence. We may need to look for the origins of some Islamic sects, such as Sunnism, which was the fruit of following the Caliphs, or such as Mu\u02bftazilism and Ash\u02bfarism, which resulted from theological debates in the 2nd<\/sup>\/8th<\/sup>\u00a0and 3rd<\/sup>\/9th<\/sup>\u00a0centuries. Unlike these sects, Shi\u2019ism was not a new thing that appeared after the Prophet\u2019s death as a result of theological conflicts, such as to require an investigation into its origins. Shi\u2019ism is different from the other sects and is nothing other than the original Islam that was introduced by the Prophet, plus the fact that after him, his Household is the only authority to follow and obey.<\/p>\n As Mu\u1e25ammad Kurd \u02bfAl\u012b writes in\u00a0Khu\u1e6d\u0101\u1e6d al-Sh\u0101m<\/em>: \u2018there were some Companions of the Prophet who were well-known for their close friendship with \u02bfAl\u012b in the Prophet\u2019s lifetime, such as Salm\u0101n al-F\u0101ris\u012b, Ab\u016b Dharr al-Ghif\u0101r\u012b, \u02bfAmm\u0101r b. Y\u0101sir, \u1e24udhayfa b. Yam\u0101n, Khuzayma b. Th\u0101bit (also known as Dhu al-Shah\u0101datayn), Ab\u016b Ayy\u016bb al-An\u1e63\u0101r\u012b, Kh\u0101lid b. Sa\u02bf\u012bd and Qays b. Sa\u02bfd b. \u02bfUb\u0101da. He quotes Salm\u0101n al-F\u0101ris\u012b as saying: \u2018We took the pledge of allegiance to Mu\u1e25ammad for two reasons: the good of the Muslims and following \u02bfAl\u012b.\u2019 Also Ab\u016b Sa\u02bf\u012bd al-Khudr\u012b says, again according to Kurd \u02bfAl\u012b: \u2018the Prophet ordered the people to take care of five obligations. They took four and left the fifth. The four things that they took care of were prayer,\u00a0zak\u0101t<\/em>, fasting and \u1e24ajj, and the fifth, which they ignored, was the\u00a0wil\u0101ya\u00a0<\/em>of \u02bfAl\u012b b. Ab\u012b \u1e6c\u0101lib.\u2019 Upon asking whether the\u00a0wil\u0101ya\u00a0<\/em>of \u02bfAl\u012b was truly an obligation, Khudr\u012b replied that it was as obligatory as the other four (Kurd \u02bfAl\u012b, 5\/251).<\/p>\n A number of historians have composed books on the character of some of the Companions and the Successors. What follows is a brief survey of some of these books.<\/p>\n Sayyid \u02bfAl\u012b Khan Madan\u012b (d. 1120\/1708) wrote a book entitled\u00a0al-Daraj\u0101t al-R\u0101f\u012b\u02bfa f\u012b \u1e6caqab\u0101t al-Sh\u012b\u02bfa al-Im\u0101miyya<\/em>. The first chapter of this book covers the Sh\u012b\u02bfa of the Ban\u016b H\u0101shim and the second the non-Ban\u016b H\u0101shim, introducing twenty-three and forty-six Companions respectively. He then introduces the Sh\u012b\u02bfa amongst the Successors.<\/p>\n Mu\u1e25ammad \u1e24usayn K\u0101shif al-Ghi\u1e6d\u0101\u02be (1294\u20131373\/1877\u20131954) introduces some of the close companions of \u02bfAl\u012b in\u00a0A\u1e63l al-Sh\u012b\u02bfa wa U\u1e63\u016blih\u0101<\/em>\u00a0For example, he names Ab\u016b Dharr Al-Ghif\u0101r\u012b, Miqd\u0101d b. Aswad al-Kind\u012b, \u02bfAmm\u0101r b. Y\u0101sir, Khuzayma Dh\u016b al-Sha\u1e25ad<\/em>atayn b. Tayh\u0101n, K\u1e25udhayfa b. Yam\u0101n, Zubayr, Fa\u1e0dl b. \u02bfAbb\u0101s and his brother, \u02bfAbd All\u0101h, H\u0101shim b. \u02bfUtba al-Mirq\u0101l, Ab\u016b Ayy\u016bb al-An\u1e63\u0101r\u012b, Ab\u0101n b. Sa\u02bf\u012bd b. al-\u02bf\u0100\u1e63, Kh\u0101lid b. Sa\u02bf\u012bd b. al-\u02bf\u0100\u1e63, Ubayy b. Ka\u02bfb, Anas b. al-\u1e24irth, and many others.<\/p>\n Sayyid \u02bfAbd al-\u1e24usayn Sharaf al-D\u012bn identifies 200 persons as the first Sh\u012b\u02bfa in Islamic history in his\u00a0al-Fu\u1e63\u016bl al-Muhimma f\u012b Ta\u02bel\u012bf al-Umma\u00a0<\/em>(179-90). In a similar way, Dr. A\u1e25mad al-W\u0101\u02beil\u012b identifies, in\u00a0Huwiyyat al-Tashayyu\u02bf<\/em>, 130 of the Prophet\u2019s Companions who were also the close followers of \u02bfAl\u012b and concludes that it would have been impossible for such a great number of people to love and follow \u02bfAl\u012b so intimately without the Prophet\u2019s permission (34). I have likewise introduced some of Sh\u012b\u02bfa pioneers and have investigated their lives and reasons for belonging to Sh\u012b\u02bfa in a book entitled\u00a0Islamic Personalities<\/em>. (For more information, see also al-Ist\u012b\u02bf\u0101b f\u012b Ma\u02bfrifat al-A\u1e63\u1e25\u0101b by Ibn \u02bfAbd al-Birr (d. 456\/1063), Usud al-Gh\u0101ba f\u012b Ma\u02bfrifat al-\u1e62a\u1e25\u0101ba by Ibn Ath\u012br and al-I\u1e63\u0101ba f\u012b Tamy\u012bz al-\u1e62a\u1e25\u0101ba by Ibn \u1e24ajar al-\u02bfAsqal\u0101n\u012b (d. 852\/1448). )<\/p>\n As we have already explained, there are various unsupported theories about the appearance and origin of Shi\u2019ism, all of which take Shi\u2019ism to be something other than Islam, and which therefore look for its origins and causes with this assumption in mind. We have already stressed the point that Shi\u2019ism is nothing other than the original Islam, but we are going to consider some of the theories propounded in more detail below:<\/p>\n The first theory to be scrutinized here consists in the claim that Shi\u2019ism was the fruit of the gathering at Saq\u012bfa. According to this theory, the Medinans met at Saq\u012bfa after the Prophet\u2019s death to choose a successor from amongst themselves. Ab\u016b Bakr, \u02bfUmar and Ab\u016b \u02bf\u02bfUbayda came to the meeting and things ended up in favor of Ab\u016b Bakr. The Medinans were made up of two tribes, the Aws and Khazraj, who could not agree on a Caliph. The Aws feared that Sa\u02bfd b. \u02bfUbada would be chosen and this would give the upper hand to the Khazraj. Thus the Aws took the side of Ab\u016b Bakr, who left Saq\u012bfa along with \u02bfUmar and Ab\u016b \u02bfUbayda for the mosque. There they asked people to support Ab\u016b Bakr, and all this was happening while Imam \u02bfAl\u012b was washing the Prophet\u2019s body to prepare it for burial. \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s friends and followers were annoyed with the events of Saq\u012bfa and withdrew to \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s home in protest while some others began publicly protesting for the same reason. In view of this, some believe that Shi\u2019ism emerged as the result of the gathering at Saq\u012bfa.<\/p>\n This way of reasoning is thoroughly unacceptable because, as \u1e6cabar\u012b and others suggest, Shi\u2019ism could not have been formed in the span of a single day, rather the Sh\u012b\u02bfa must have held these sort of beliefs and attitudes towards \u02bfAl\u012b for a long time earlier.<\/p>\n According to \u1e6cabar\u012b, after the decision at Saq\u012bfa, \u02bfUmar went to \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s home while \u1e6cal\u1e25a, Zubayr and a number of Meccans were inside. \u02bfUmar called out, \u2018I swear by God I will put this house to fire if you do not come out and give a pledge of allegiance to Ab\u016b Bakr.\u2019 Zubayr came out while brandishing his sword but, being very angry, his feet slipped and some people snatched his sword (T\u0101r\u012bkh<\/em>, 2\/443).<\/p>\n According to Ya\u02bfq\u016bb\u012b, a number of Meccans, including \u02bfAbb\u0101s b. \u02bfAbd al-MutT\u0101lib, Fa\u1e0dl b. \u02bfAbb\u0101s, Zubayr, Kh\u0101lid b. Sa\u02bf\u012bd b. al-\u02bf\u0100\u1e63, Miqd\u0101d b. \u02bfAmr, Salm\u0101n al-F\u0101ris\u012b, Ab\u016b Dharr, \u02bfAmm\u0101r b. Y\u0101sir, Bar\u0101\u02be b. \u02bf\u0100zib, and Ubayy b. Ka\u02bfb, were with \u02bfAl\u012b (2\/103).<\/p>\n Zubayr b. Bakk\u0101r points out in his\u00a0Muwaffaqiyy\u0101t<\/em>\u00a0that most Meccans and leaders of Medinans were certain that \u02bfAl\u012b was the rightful Caliph so much so that after the allegiance (bay\u02bfa<\/em>) ceremony was over, some Medinans regretted it, scolded one another and decided to be allied with \u02bfAl\u012b, but he did not accept their offer.<\/p>\n As Ibn Ab\u012b al-\u1e24ad\u012bd writes in his\u00a0Shar\u1e25 al-Nahj al-Bal\u0101gha<\/em>: On returning to Medina, Ab\u016b Dharr (who was out of Medina when Saq\u012bfa happened) reacted to the event by saying to people, \u2018Did you follow your own whims and forget about the Prophet\u2019s kin? Had you left the matter to the Prophet\u2019s kin, there would have been no disagreements about allegiance\u2019 (43). Salm\u0101n al-F\u0101ris\u012b also commented, \u2018You chose the most senior in age but lost the mine of knowledge and perfection; if you had taken the latter, not even two of you would have disagreed on succession and you would have easily picked yourselves the sweet fruit of Caliphate\u2019 (44).<\/p>\n Such objections and protests, only a few of which have been recorded in history, could not have been suddenly created in a single day or as the result of a single meeting. Rather, they imply that the love of \u02bfAl\u012b was deeply rooted in the hearts of those people who strongly believed in him, and this is the true reason why they protested against the decision of Saq\u012bfa. It was impossible for such people to express their love of \u02bfAl\u012b at a time when his rival was in power without having kept that love for a while before that. Their support for \u02bfAl\u012b was based on their view of his personality and built upon the Prophet\u2019s words about him.<\/p>\n The second theory regarding the formation of Shi\u2019ism is based on the activities of a Jewish convert to Islam named \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. Saba\u02be. According to this theory, this man, who was converted to Islam in Yemen during the reign of \u02bfUthm\u0101n, traveled to different parts of the Muslim territory of that time, especially Damascus, Kufa, Basra, and Egypt, and proclaimed that the Prophet would come back as did Jesus and that \u02bfAl\u012b was the Prophet\u2019s successor since every prophet has a successor. He also claimed that \u02bfUthm\u0101n had usurped \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s right to leadership and therefore people should fight against \u02bfUthm\u0101n to make sure justice is done. \u02bfAbd All\u0101h managed to attract some Muslims such as Ab\u016b Dharr, \u02bfAmm\u0101r, Mu\u1e25ammad b. \u1e24udhayfa, \u02bfAbd al-Ra\u1e25m\u0101n b. \u02bfUdays, Mu\u1e25ammad b. Ab\u012b Bakr, \u1e62a\u1e63a\u02bf b. \u1e62aw\u1e25\u0101n al-\u02bfAbd\u012b and M\u0101lik al-\u02bf\u0100shtar, with whom he surrounded \u02bfUthm\u0101n\u2019s house. The supporters of this claim about Shi\u2019ism believe that the sect was formed by b. Saba\u02be and his followers after the murder of \u02bfUthm\u0101n.<\/p>\n This claim, which can hardly be called a theory, finds its origin with Sayf b. \u02bfUmar al-Tam\u012bm\u012b, who was a notorious liar, as recorded by \u1e6cabar\u012b\u2019s history (3\/378). A glance at the reporters of the document created by Tam\u012bm\u012b reveals that the narrators of the alleged\u00a0\u1e25ad\u012bth\u00a0<\/em>are not reliable at all. \u1e6cabar\u012b starts his report by referring to a man named al-Sirr\u012b, who reports via Shu\u2018ayb from Sayf b. \u02bfUmar. Al-Sirr\u012b was probably either: 1) Al-Sirr\u012b b. Ism\u0101\u02bf\u012bl Hamad\u0101n\u012b, who is called a liar by Ya\u1e25y\u0101 b. Sa\u02bf\u012bd and considered a reporter of baseless a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0by others (M\u012bz\u0101n al-I\u02bftid\u0101l,<\/em>\u00a02\/117); or 2) Al-Sirr\u012b b. \u02bf\u0100\u1e63im b. Sahl Hamad\u0101n\u012b, who has been described as a liar and a forger of\u00a0\u1e25ad\u012bth\u00a0<\/em>(M\u012bz\u0101n al-I\u02bftid\u0101l<\/em>, 2\/117;\u00a0Lis\u0101n al-M\u012bz\u0101n<\/em>, 3\/12). Shu\u2018ayb refers to Shu\u02bfayb b. Ibr\u0101h\u012bm al-K\u016bf\u012b who, as Dhahab\u012b explains, was the reporter of Sayf b. \u02bfUmar\u2019s\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0and otherwise an unknown person (M\u012bz\u0101n<\/em>, 2\/275;\u00a0Lis\u0101n<\/em>, 3\/145). Ibn \u1e24ibb\u0101n argues that Sayf b. \u02bfUmar ascribed fabricated\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0to truthful and honest people. He simply fabricated\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0and was even suspected of disbelief; According to Ibn \u02bfUdayy, Sayf\u2019s traditions were all unknown and nobody believed him. Ibn Mu\u02bf\u012bn designates Sayf\u2019s\u00a0a\u1e25\u0101d\u012bth<\/em>\u00a0as weakly supported and of suspect content. Suy\u016b\u1e6d\u012b calls Sayf a fabricator (M\u012bz\u0101n<\/em>, 1\/438;\u00a0Tahdh\u012bb al-Tahdh\u012bb<\/em>, 4\/295).<\/p>\n So much for this report\u2019s authenticity! Would it be wise to rely solely on an unverified\u00a0\u1e25ad\u012bth\u00a0<\/em>reported by \u1e6cabar\u012b and believe that Shi\u2019ism was created by such a person as \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. Saba\u02be? Unfortunately, a number of historians have relied on this tradition without scrutinizing its authenticity and have attributed the Siege of \u02bfUthm\u0101n\u2019s Residence and the Battle of the Camel to Ibn Saba\u02be (Ibn Kath\u012br, 7\/246; Dhahabi, 2\/139). Recent historians have even made a greater mistake, ascribing the appearance of Shi\u2019ism to Ibn Saba\u02be (R\u0101shid Ri\u1e0d\u0101, 4). A\u1e25mad Am\u012bn, in\u00a0Fajr al-Islam<\/em>, has claimed more strongly than anybody else that Ibn Saba\u02be is responsible for the appearance of Shi\u2019ism, a claim that has similarly been mistakenly made by some other Egyptian and Syrian authors.<\/p>\n There are, however, questions that we would do well to ask of this account. Would it be wise to admit that a Jewish convert, who had converted to Islam during the caliphate of \u02bfUthm\u0101n, was able to deceive the leading Meccans and Medinans into revolting against the Caliph and murdering him in his own house and that nobody stopped him? Those who have studied the biography of \u02bfUthm\u0101n know very well that the invasion against his house was the outcome of his thirteen-year reign as Caliph when he dismissed all Meccans and Medinans from their posts, replaced them with members of his own Umayyad clan, and unfairly distributed the public treasury\u2019s wealth among his relatives. He also appointed Umayyads and Tulaq\u0101\u02be<\/em> (\u1e6culaq\u0101\u02be: Lit. \u2018those who were freed\u2019 \u2013 referring to the Meccans who remained polytheists until the final capture of Mecca by the Muslims in the year 8\/629, whereat they were taken, prisoner. However, the Prophet granted them a general amnesty with the words: \u2018Go! For you are freed (\u1e6dulaq\u0101\u02be)!\u2019 Most of them then converted to Islam. Henceforth, these late converts were known by this title and were generally and informally seen as less committed to the Islamic project than earlier converts to the cause) as governors of cities and regions. These included, among others, Wal\u012bd b. \u02bfUqba (Governor of Kufa), Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya b. Ab\u012b Sufy\u0101n (Governor of Syria), \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. Sa\u02bfd Ab\u012b Sar\u1e25 (Governor of Egypt) and \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. \u02bf\u0100mir b. Kar\u012bz (Governor of Basra). Even when people heavily complained against \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. \u02bfUqba, \u02bfUthm\u0101n replaced him with Sa\u02bf\u012bd b. al-\u02bf\u0100\u1e63, who was yet another member of the Umayyad clan. Thus, all the regions were ruled by Umayyads and\u00a0\u1e6culaq\u0101\u02be\u00a0<\/em>who were relatives of \u02bfUthm\u0101n. It was due to such misconduct that the Egyptians and Iraqis revolted against and killed him, not because of the propaganda of a new and virtually unknown convert to Islam.<\/p>\n A careful study of the history of the third Caliph\u2019s life reveals that \u02bfUthm\u0101n never tolerated ant objections or protests but rather silenced the protesters by beating or banishing them. For instance, \u02bfUthm\u0101n sent Ab\u016b Dharr al-Ghif\u0101r\u012b into exile and beat \u02bfAmm\u0101r b. Y\u0101sir so severely that one of his ribs was broken. In view of such a situation, would it be reasonable to think that while \u02bfUthm\u0101n enjoyed such powerful and loyal governors a convert could freely move around in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria and encourage people to rise up against the Caliph without the governors reacting to this?<\/p>\n The whole situation would seem even stranger if we believed that claim that some leading Meccan and Medinan figures were tricked into following Ibn Saba\u02be, who was a new convert. This is why some scholars have taken Ibn Saba\u02be, as described by \u1e6cabar\u012b, to be a fictitious figure created by poets, one like those found in the story of Layla and Majnun.<\/p>\n We do not intend to claim here that there was no such person as \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. Saba\u02be or that he was not without his faults, since he has been condemned and cursed in Sh\u012b\u02bf\u012b sources as well (see for instance Kashsh\u012b,\u00a0Rij\u0101l<\/em>, 48; \u1e6c\u016bs\u012b,\u00a0Rij\u0101l<\/em>, 76; \u1e24ill\u012b,\u00a0Khul\u0101\u1e63a<\/em>, 236). Rather, we would suggest that it is impossible for a Jewish convert to Islam to gather an army of the Prophet\u2019s Companions, deceive them into revolting against \u02bfUthm\u0101n and simply claim to help \u02bfAl\u012b become Caliph. We might rather conjecture that the whole story was forged by anti-Sh\u012b\u02bfa persons during Umayyad and Abbasid reigns as a pretext to persecute the Sh\u012b\u02bfa.<\/p>\n Scholars who have investigated the possible fictitious origin of the person named \u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. Saba\u02be include Dr. \u1e6caha \u1e24usayn in his\u00a0Fitnat al-Kubr\u0101<\/em>\u00a0(104) and Am\u012bn\u012b in\u00a0Al-Ghad\u012br<\/em>. Furthermore, from a Sunn\u012b perspective, this would go against the Companions\u2019 infallibility, which is one of their central tenets. How could such great Companions have been deceived by this new convert and goaded into rebelling against the Caliph?<\/p>\n While the close followers of \u02bfAl\u012b were almost all \u02bfAdn\u0101n\u012b and Qa\u1e25\u1e6d\u0101n\u012b Arabs, some orientalists have suggested that Shi\u2019ism was produced by Persian converts. These orientalists argue that since Persia had a hereditary monarchy before Islam, Persians applied the same principle to Islam after they converted and took \u02bfAl\u012b and his descendants as the inheritors of the Prophet. Based on this system, every Imam was the inheritor of the previous Imam\u2019s leadership.<\/p>\n Responding to this claim, I would firstly like to point to the fact that in previous ages, prophethood was apparently inherited. The Qur\u2019an says: \u2018Or do they envy the people for what All\u0101h has given them out of His grace? We have certainly given the progeny of Abraham the Book and wisdom, and We have given them a great sovereignty\u2019 (Q4:54). When Abraham was made An Imam, he asked God to make his descendants\u00a0the Imam<\/em>s also, which was accepted by God on the condition that they are good and just people. God says: \u2018And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them, He said, \u201cI am making you the Imam of mankind.\u201d Sa\u02bf\u012bd he, \u201cAnd from among my descendants?\u201d He said, \u201cMy pledge does not extend to the unjust.\u201d\u2019 (Q2:124). In fact, all the Prophets\u2019 successors were from their descendants. This system was also practiced in the pagan Arab community of the Prophet\u2019s time, where tribes did not disintegrate on the death of their leaders because they were succeeded by strangers. The system of hereditary leadership, therefore, was not peculiar to Persians but similarly applied in other communities. Thus, if this hereditary system had been the cause of Persians\u2019 inclination towards Sh\u012b\u02bfa, the same interest would have appeared in other communities.<\/p>\n The second point is that, as mentioned earlier, Shi\u2019ism was born in Medina during the Prophet\u2019s lifetime and before many Persians even converted to Islam. When Imam \u02bfAl\u012b became Caliph, he had to lead three battles against different groups with an army mostly comprised of Arabs drawn from Yemen and Hijaz. History tells us that the pillars of \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s army were from the tribes of Quraysh, Aws, Khazraj and Yemeni tribes such as Madhhij, Hamd\u0101n, \u1e6cayy\u02be, Kinda, Tam\u012bm, and Mu\u1e0darr. His army commanders were such purely Arab people as \u02bfAmm\u0101r b. Y\u0101sir, H\u0101shim al-Mirq\u0101l, M\u0101lik al-\u02bf\u0100shtar, \u1e62a\u02bf\u1e63a\u02bf b. \u1e62aw\u1e25\u0101n, Zayd b. \u1e62aw\u1e25\u0101n and the like. It was with their assistance that Imam \u02bfAl\u012b combatted the various rebellions he faced; Persians were never a considerable presence in \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s army. Moreover, the Sh\u012b\u02bfa are not only Persians: many Arabs are also Sh\u012b\u02bfa.<\/p>\n Whereas orientalist Reinhart Dozy proposed the idea of a Persian origin for Shi\u2019ism, many other orientalists have rejected this suggestion and stressed its Arab character; Wellhausen notes: \u2018all Iraqis, especially the residents of Kufa, were Sh\u012b\u02bfa during the reign of Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya, and so were their tribal leaders\u2019 (al-Khaw\u0101rij wa al-Sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>, 113). Meanwhile, Goldziher writes: \u2018it would be wrong to think that Shi\u2019ism was the brainchild of Persians. This would be a misinterpretation of history because all Alawite movements started in Arabia\u2019 (al-\u02bfAq\u012bda wa al-Shar\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>, 204). According to Adam Mitz: \u2018Shi\u2019ism was never a Persian reaction against the influence of Islam. Most of Arabia, including Mecca, Sanaa, Oman, \u1e24ijr and Sa\u02bfda, was full of Sh\u012b\u02bfa, while Persians, except the residents of Qumm, were mostly Sunn\u012b. I\u1e63fah\u0101n\u012bs even went to the point of considering Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya a prophet\u2019 (al-\u1e24a\u1e0d\u0101ra al-Isl\u0101miyya<\/em>, 102).<\/p>\n In addition to the above orientalists, two Egyptian authors have also supported the fact that Shi\u2019ism was not a Persian phenomenon; A\u1e25mad Am\u012bn, who is usually hostile to Shi\u2019ism, notes in\u00a0Fajr al-Islam<\/em>: \u2018Shi\u2019ism started before Persians were converted to Islam, but Sh\u012b\u02bfa acquired a new hue by incorporating some Persian elements\u2019 (176). Whereas Am\u012bn\u2019s first sentence is right, his second sentence is not, because the only meaning of Sh\u012b\u02bfa is the acceptance of the original Islam and following all teachings of the Prophet. Shaykh Mu\u1e25ammad Ab\u016b Za\u1e25r\u0101\u02be similarly believes that Shi\u2019ism is not a Persian phenomenon but that Persians acquired it from Arabs. Some scholars who supported the Prophet\u2019s Household and were persecuted by the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers fled to the regions of Fars and Khorasan and propagated Shi\u2019ism there, especially before the end of the Umayyad dynasty and after the followers of Zayd b. \u02bfAl\u012b fled to Persia (al-Jund\u012b, 545).<\/p>\n There are also other clear factors that indicate Shi\u2019ism was not born in Persia. Many of the greatest Sunn\u012b scholars of the early Islamic centuries, such as Bukh\u0101r\u012b, Muslim, Tirmidh\u012b, Nas\u0101\u02be\u012b, Ibn M\u0101ja, H\u0101kim N\u012bs\u0101b\u016bri, Bayhaq\u012b and others were ethnically Persian. In fact, Persians were mostly converted to Sunn\u012b Islam at first and, except for some scattered groups, remained staunchly Sunn\u012b for centuries. Shi\u2019ism was introduced into Iran through the migration of the Arab Ash\u02bfar\u012b tribe to Qumm and Kashan around the end of the first\/seventh century, while Islam had been introduced in the year 17\/636. All of these arguments prove that Shi\u2019ism can be considered as a sect originating not in Persia but in Arabia and was never anything more or less than the original and authentic Islam of the Prophet.<\/p>\n Earlier in this chapter, we noted that the hereditary nature of the Imamate was one of the reasons that led orientalists to argue that Shi\u2019ism was originally a Persian phenomenon, despite the fact that Sunn\u012b Caliphate after the murder of \u02bfUthm\u0101n was also of a hereditary nature for several centuries thereafter. When Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya II died in 64\/684, the Marwanid Dynasty took over and remained in power until 132\/749, with power being transferred along hereditary lines. The Marwanid Umayyads were followed by the Abbasids, who followed a similar logic of hereditary succession until 656\/1258, when they were overthrown by the Mongol ruler, Hulagu. The Ottomans, who held sway until the modern era, likewise passed power to their own descendants. Therefore, the hereditary nature of the Imamate does not necessarily imply a Persian origin for Shi\u2019ism. And, if indeed the Persians believed that the Imamate belonged to Imam \u02bfAl\u012b and his descendants, then this was because of the form of succession that existed in prophethood, where there was a sort of hereditary logic, though not in the conventional sense; for instance, a younger brother would become the Imam while there existed an older brother, as was the case with the Imam M\u016bs\u0101 b. Ja\u02bffar \u2013 he became the Imam after the death of his father, even though he had an older brother named \u02bfAbd All\u0101h.<\/p>\n Those who claim that Shi\u2019ism was originally a Persian phenomenon must be unaware of the religious history of Iran before the 10th<\/sup>\/16th<\/sup> Century. Before the advent of the Safavid Dynasty, Shi\u2019ism in Iran was prevalent in but a few cities such as Rayy, Qumm, Kashan, and Sabzevar. It was only from the early 10th<\/sup>\/16th<\/sup>\u00a0century that Shi\u2019ism spread across Iran. Muqaddasi, in\u00a0A\u1e25san al-Taq\u0101s\u012bm<\/em>\u00a0(in the year 375\/985), describes the human geography of Iran as follows:<\/p>\n Khorasan belongs to the\u00a0Mu\u02bftazila<\/em> and Sh\u012b\u02bfa, but the followers of Ab\u016b \u1e24an\u012bfa make up the majority there, except in Chach, where the majority are Shafi\u02bf\u012b. In Rihab, (Today a region in Azerbaijan, but this name once applied to most of Armenia as well. ) all have a good religion but follow Ibn \u1e24anbal. Most residents of Arbeel and the western mountains of Iran are also \u1e24anbal\u012b. In Rayy, the \u1e24anaf\u012bs are in the majority, although there are also many \u1e24anbal\u012bs. The residents of Qumm are Sh\u012b\u02bfa, but those of Dinavar follow Sufy\u0101n al-Thawr\u012b. Khuzestan enjoys a multitude of different sects. Most of Ahwaz, Ramhormoz, and Dawraq follow Ibn \u1e24anbal, but there are also many \u1e24anaf\u012bs and M\u0101lik\u012bs in Ahwaz. Most residents of Fars follow Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya. Most people in Kerman are Shafi\u02bf\u012b and in Sindh, there are many followers of the four Sunn\u012b schools. The inhabitants of Multan are Sh\u012b\u02bfa, for they recite the words \u2018\u1e25ayya \u02bfal\u0101 khayr al-\u02bfamal<\/em>\u2019 (\u2018Hurry to the best of deeds!\u2019) and recite the words of the\u00a0iq\u0101ma<\/em>\u00a0before prayers, but there are many \u1e24anaf\u012b scholars in its villages. (119)<\/p>\n Ibn Ba\u1e6d\u1e6d\u016b\u1e6da, the famous traveler, provides us with an informative anecdote about the religious customs of Iraqis and Persians. Ibn Ba\u1e6d\u1e6d\u016b\u1e6da reports that the ruler of Iraq, Khud\u0101banda (r. 1304\u20131316), became friends with a r\u0101fi\u1e0d\u012b<\/em>\u00a0scholar, who encouraged him to convert to Islam. As a result, his army accepted Islam as their religion, too. This\u00a0r\u0101fi\u1e0d\u012b<\/em>\u00a0scholar made Shi\u2019ism so attractive that Khud\u0101banda encouraged his subjects to convert to Shi\u2019ism too. While some cities accepted his order, the people of Baghdad answered: \u2018We will not hear nor obey,\u2019 and threatened his envoy. The response of the cities of Shiraz and Isfahan was the same as that of Baghdad (219-20).<\/p>\n According to Q\u0101\u1e0d\u012b Ayy\u0101dh, in his preface to\u00a0Tart\u012bb al-Mad\u0101rik<\/em>, the Imam M\u0101lik\u2019s religious beliefs entered Khorasan and went beyond Iraq through Ya\u1e25y\u0101 b. Ya\u1e25y\u0101 al-Tam\u012bm\u012b and others, and for several years M\u0101lik\u012b the Imams issued fatwas there. Thereafter, the M\u0101lik\u012b persuasion spread to Qazvin and some mountainous parts of Iran such as Hamadan and Kermanshah, where most residents were followers of either the \u1e24anaf\u012b or Shafi\u02bf\u012b schools (1\/53). Renowned orientalist Carl Brockelmann goes on to explain that when the Safavid Shah, Ism\u0101\u02bf\u012bl I, captured Tabriz, one-third of this city\u2019s population were Sh\u012b\u02bfa and two-thirds were Sunn\u012b (1\/140).<\/p>\n Ibn Ath\u012br presents an account in\u00a0al-K\u0101mil f\u012b al-T\u0101r\u012bkh<\/em>\u00a0that further helps to undermine the alleged Persian origin of Shi\u2019ism. According to him, when Sultan Ma\u1e25m\u016bd, contrary to the actions of his father, who had destroyed the mausoleum of Imam al-Ri\u1e0d\u0101, rebuilt the monument, the residents of Tus persecuted its pilgrims. Ma\u1e25m\u016bd apparently dreamt of Imam \u02bfAl\u012b asking him: \u2018how long is this situation going to continue?\u2019 In this way, the Sultan found out that Imam \u02bfAl\u012b was unhappy with the destruction of his descendant\u2019s tomb (5\/139).<\/p>\n Further proof that Sunn\u012b Islam predominated in Iran before the Safavids is the account of what transpired between the Abbasid Caliph Ma\u02bem\u016bn and his chief justice, Ya\u1e25y\u0101 b. Aktham. When the former decided to write a book on the vices of Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya, Ibn Aktham discouraged him by reminding him that the residents of Khorasan would not tolerate such words about their Caliph (Bayhaq\u012b, 1\/108).<\/p>\n By now, it must be clear that the theory of the Persian origins of Shi\u2019ism, like the other two theories, lacks any firm basis and that Shi\u2019ism only became widespread in Iran many centuries after its appearance in Hijaz and Iraq.<\/p>\n The fourth idea about the appearance of Shi\u2019ism we will consider is the claim that it emerged as a result of the Battle of the Camel. This idea is based on a misinterpretation of Ibn al-Nad\u012bm\u2019s words. He writes in his\u00a0Fihrist<\/em>: \u2018when \u02bfAl\u012b prepared to fight against \u1e6cal\u1e25a and Zubayr in order to return them to the path of All\u0101h, \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s followers were called Sh\u012b\u02bfa and the Imam himself called them his \u2018partisans\u2019 (sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>), \u2018elect\u2019 (a\u1e63fiy\u0101\u02be<\/em>),\u2019 \u2018allies\u2019 (awliy\u0101\u02be<\/em>), \u2018Shur\u1e6dat al-Kham\u012bs<\/em>,\u2019 and sometimes \u2018companions\u2019 (a\u1e63\u1e25\u0101b<\/em>)\u2019 (263). Wellhausen, influenced by this report, claims that Muslims were divided into two parties after the murder of \u02bfUthm\u0101n: the party of \u02bfAl\u012b and that of Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya, and because a party is called \u2018sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u2019 in Arabic, the Party of \u02bfAl\u012b were arrayed against the Party of Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya. Then, when Mu\u02bf\u0101wiya\u2019s control covered most of the Islamic territories, the word \u2018sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u2019 came to be solely associated with the followers of \u02bfAl\u012b.<\/p>\n Criticizing Wellhausen\u2019s theory, it is worth noting here that, most of the four groups mentioned (above) by Ibn al-Nad\u012bm consisted of faithful Companions of the Prophet such as Salm\u0101n al-F\u0101ris\u012b, Miqd\u0101d al-Kind\u012b, Ab\u016b Dharr al-Ghif\u0101r\u012b, \u02bfAmm\u0101r b. Y\u0101sir, Ab\u016b \u02bfUmra, Ab\u016b Sa\u02bf\u012bd al-Khudr\u012b, and J\u0101bir b. \u02bfAbd All\u0101h al-An\u1e63\u0101r\u012b. Far from having converted to Shi\u2019ism at the Battle of the Camel, these men had followed and obeyed \u02bfAl\u012b since the early days of Islam; we might say that it was during the Battle of the Camel that the existence of the Sh\u012b\u02bfa became clearly visible, whereby the true Sh\u012b\u02bfa were fully prepared to sacrifice their own lives and achieve martyrdom fighting for \u02bfAl\u012b. But not all of \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s troops were shared the conviction of those mentioned above: some of them only thought \u02bfAl\u012b was the Fourth Caliph. In general, the Sh\u012b\u02bfa experienced more freedom and fewer restrictions in the period of \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s rule, as they were subject to intense persecution after \u02bfAl\u012b was martyred.<\/p>\n The fifth theory has it that Shi\u2019ism first appeared at the Battle of \u1e62iff\u012bn. On one side were \u02bfAl\u012b and his followers, who supported him according to the teachings of the Qur\u2019an and the Prophet\u2019s tradition and were called his \u2018sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/em>\u2019, while on the other side were the rebels who had revolted against \u02bfAl\u012b and came to be called \u2018khaw\u0101rij<\/em>\u2019 (Fayy\u0101\u1e0d, 37). This rather tenuous theory is based on a misreading of a few sentences in \u1e6cabar\u012b\u2019s\u00a0T\u0101r\u012bkh<\/em>, which actually demonstrate that the Sh\u012b\u02bfa existed before the Battle of \u1e62iff\u012bn: \u2018When \u02bfAl\u012b entered Kufa and the Khaw\u0101rij left him and his Sh\u012b\u02bfa joined him, they said: \u201cWe owe you a second oath of allegiance: we are friends of your friends and enemies of your enemies\u201d\u2019 (4\/46). The clause \u2018his Sh\u012b\u02bfa joined him\u2019 suggests that Sh\u012b\u02bfa denoted \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s followers who supported him even prior to the Battle of \u1e62iff\u012bn and merely stressed their support during that battle.<\/p>\n There are two other theories about the appearance of Shi\u2019ism which are barely worthy of consideration. One is that Shi\u2019ism was the result of the Buyid Dynasty\u2019s patronage, while the second has it that Shi\u2019ism was the product of the Safavid Dynasty in Iran. The first theory must be rejected since the Buyid dynasty ruled from Baghdad in the 4th<\/sup>\/10th<\/sup>\u00a0and 5th<\/sup>\/11th<\/sup>\u00a0centuries, while Shi\u2019ism is definitely known to have appeared long before that, both in the realms of politics and of religious beliefs. The second theory, too, should be easily refuted because, as everyone knows, the Safavids were helped by Sh\u012b\u02bfa, and not the other way round.<\/p>\n Shia Islam (5): \u02bfAl\u012b\u2019s leadership<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nChapter 6: Baseless theories about the origins of the Sh\u012b\u02bfa<\/h1>\n
Shi\u2019ism as described by historians<\/h2>\n
The Forerunners of the Sh\u012b\u02bfa in the Time of the Prophet<\/h2>\n
Theories about the Origins of Shi\u2019ism<\/h2>\n
Shi\u2019ism originated at Saq\u012bfa<\/h4>\n
\u02bfAbd All\u0101h b. Saba\u02be<\/h4>\n
The Persian Connection<\/h4>\n
How orientalists reject this theory<\/h4>\n
The hereditary nature of caliphate<\/h4>\n
A glance at the human geography of Iran after the spread of Islam<\/h4>\n
The Battle of the Camel<\/h4>\n
The Battle of \u1e62iff\u012bn<\/h4>\n