On the Diversity and Confusion Surrounding Early Imāmī Doctrine
A group of prominent early Shīʿīs—those counted among the leading companions of the Banner-bearers from the descendants of al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them)—such as Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī, Abān b. Taghlib, Abū Ḥamzah al-Thumālī, and others—have not been conclusively shown to have been upon the Imāmī (Twelver) path at all; indeed, the evidence points to the contrary. And the greater issue here is this: not only does the evidence fail to establish that the Imāmīs at large followed the leading figures from the progeny of al-Ḥusayn—who are said to be their Imāms—but even those major figures are not successors to earlier predecessors among the leading companions of the Banner-bearers from the House of al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them). Reflect on this.
Then consider also that not every Imāmī is “Mufīdī,” nor is every “Mufīdī” (follower of al-Mufīd’s theology) an Imāmī. This is because the early usage of the term “Imāmiyya” was not consistent or well-defined. One might be labeled an Imāmī while being entirely innocent of the doctrines associated with the school of al-Mufīd; or one might be labeled an Imāmī despite belonging to the extremist Rāfiḍah—indeed, even to the most extreme of them, such as the Khaṭṭābiyya.
Among those called “Imāmīs” were also the ʿAdliyya, who rejected the notions of explicit texts designating the Banner-bearers from the progeny of al-Ḥusayn, and rejected infallibility, and rejected knowledge of the unseen, and rejected the doctrine of badā’. They regarded those figures instead as righteous scholars who may be correct or mistaken, who practice ijtihād and analogy, though they did incline strongly toward loving them—alongside loving their brothers and cousins. Because of this strong affection, the “Imāmiyya” became mixed with them, due to the fact that these groups transmitted ḥadīth from them. From that mixture their reputation as “Imāmīs” became widespread, although the reality is otherwise. This topic we will devote a separate study to, God-willing.
Otherwise, al-Shahīd al-Thānī and others have testified that many of the companions of their so-called Imāms did not believe in their infallibility—let alone in designated texts. Thus, the use of the term “Imāmiyya” in the early centuries does not automatically imply that a man actually held such doctrines; originally, the term became the ancestry from which the later “Mufīdī” school emerged. Yet to claim this without proof is to attempt the impossible—scraping thorn-trees, as the saying goes.
How can such a claim stand, when the Qummīs held that al-Mufīd and his Baghdādī followers were deviants from Imāmī thought—while the Qummīs themselves were the very pillars of the Imāmī madhhab! And how can it stand when al-Mufīd and the Baghdādīs in turn considered the Qummīs to be Muqaṣṣira, anthropomorphists, and holders of corrupted doctrines? And how can it stand when there were also the Hishāmīs, the Yūnusīs, and the Nīshābūrīs, all counted among the Imāmiyya—yet all of them cut off prayer behind one another in the time of the Imāms, and each group forbade giving charity to the others!
What then after this of the divergences among the Imāmiyya regarding the entirety of doctrine after the Eleventh (Imām)? And what of the further divergences regarding their whole doctrinal system after the Twelfth? And perhaps some researchers may not even consider the Wāqifa to be Imāmīs, nor the Muḥammadiyya!
Thus it is no wonder that the researcher comes to know that not every Imāmī is Mufīdī, nor is every Mufīdī an Imāmī. And this is the greatest of separations—one that none can resolve for them except the possessor of the Twelfth miracle. Yet how could they attain him, or his predecessor? And every one of the disagreements we have cited rests on their claim of following the Twelfth or his forefathers!
May God grant you success.
O God, send your blessings and peace upon Muḥammad and upon the family of Muḥammad