Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq Responds to the Imāmīs
egarding the seed of the doctrine of designation (waṣiyya) and the fabrication of attributing such designation by the Rāfiḍa—the forerunners of the Imāmīs—out of fear of the sharp swords of the Umayyads: Muʾmin al-Ṭāq, Zurāra ibn Aʿyan, Abū al-Ṣabbāḥ al-Kinānī, and others rejected the Great Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them). They withdrew from his pledge and from the disgrace of not pledging allegiance to one who sought it from them. Thus, they fabricated a “legal” justification—one without any real basis—to preserve their public image. At that point they claimed the doctrine of designation, asserting that the Imamate was a designation passed from Imam al-Ḥusayn to his son Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, then to his son al-Bāqir, then to his son al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon them).
This claim became a public stir at a sensitive time during the call of the Great Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them). Imam Zayd was moving among the households of the people of Kūfa, calling them and the rest of the Shīʿa to support him. Delegations began traveling to Medina, where the foremost scholar of the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) at that time was Imam al-Bāqir Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them). They sought his view on Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī’s claim to the Imamate and the opinion of his family regarding it. They said:
“O son of the Messenger of God, your brother Zayd is among us and he is asking us for allegiance—should we pledge allegiance to him?” Muḥammad replied: “Pledge allegiance to him, for today he is the best among us.”
(Majmūʿ Kutub wa-Rasāʾil al-Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq).
Is this report unique to the Zaydīs? Rather, al-Balādhurī also narrated it. In his History it states:
“Indeed, a group of them said to Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī before Zayd’s uprising: ‘Your brother Zayd is among us and people are pledging allegiance to him.’ He said: ‘Pledge allegiance to him, for today he is the best among us.’ When they arrived in Kūfa, they concealed from Zayd what they had heard from Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī, his brother.”
(Ansāb al-Ashrāf, 3/240).
It had become widely known within the ʿAlid household in general that Zayd (peace be upon him) would be killed and attain martyrdom. Reports to this effect were transmitted from Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya, from Imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, and from Imam al-Bāqir. However, religious obligation must be acted upon regardless of consideration for what lies in the future or what depends on foretelling future events. The duty of Imam Zayd was to call people and to establish the command of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong within the community. For this reason, Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) sensed that a group among the Shīʿa would betray his brother. He therefore warned his companions against the grave sin of failing to pledge allegiance to him, affirm his Imamate, and rise with him. He said to Jābir ibn Yazīd al-Juʿfī:
“Indeed my brother Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them both) will rise, and he will be killed, and he is upon the truth. Woe to the one who abandons him, woe to the one who fights him, and woe to the one who kills him.”
(Taysīr al-Maṭālib fī Amālī Abī Ṭālib, p. 165)
Is this report unique to the Zaydīs? Rather, it was also narrated by Abū Naṣr al-Bukhārī, the genealogist. He said:
“Sudayr al-Ṣayrafī said: I was with Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) when Zayd ibn ʿAlī entered. Abū Jaʿfar struck his shoulder and said: ‘This is the master of the Banū Hāshim. If he calls you, then answer him; and if he seeks your help, then support him.’”
(Sirr al-Silsila al-ʿAlawiyya, p. 57)
At that time—after several years of Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī’s moving among households and rallying people—and during which Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) passed away, the Rāfiḍa were a thorn in the side of Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī’s call, discouraging the Shīʿa from supporting him. This provoked the anger of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon him). When his cousin Imam Yaḥyā ibn Zayd was preparing to depart from Medina for Kūfa, al-Ṣādiq said to him:
“Convey my greetings to him and tell him: I ask God to grant you victory and preserve you, and not to show us anything disliked concerning you. And if I were to claim that I am an Imam over you, then I would be a polytheist.”
(Majmūʿ Kutub wa-Rasāʾil al-Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq, p. 59)
This was because a group among the Shīʿa also came to him seeking a way out of their pledge to Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him). Perhaps they hoped and expected that Imam Jaʿfar would confirm their claim against Zayd—a claim that Zayd had already refuted in Kūfa. At that time, Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī was sending witnesses to Medina to refute the reports and assertions of the Rāfiḍa concerning his nephew. Imam al-Ṣādiq’s response (peace be upon him) was the same as his father’s response to them.
The Zaydīs were not alone in reporting this stance regarding the Rāfiḍa and Imam al-Ṣādiq’s position toward them. Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī relates a report in which the predecessors of the Imāmīs said to Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī:
“The people became angry and then said: ‘Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad is more entitled to this matter than you.’ Then they left him and went to Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad in Medina. They entered upon him, greeted him, and said: ‘O son of the Messenger of God! We had pledged allegiance to your uncle Zayd ibn ʿAlī and intended to rise with him…’ Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad said: ‘…Fear God, your Lord. If you have pledged allegiance to my uncle Zayd ibn ʿAlī, then fulfill your pledge to him and uphold his right, for he is more entitled to this matter than anyone else—and than me.’”
(al-Futūḥ by Ibn Aʿtham, 8/298)
Ibn al-Athīr also said:
“A group came to Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq before Zayd’s uprising and informed him of Zayd’s pledge of allegiance. He said: ‘Pledge allegiance to him, for by God he is the best of us and our master.’ Then they returned and concealed that.”
(al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, 4/266)
And this mirrors his father’s response in his own time.
The Rāfiḍa—the predecessors of the Imāmīs—stirred up, in that period, a tribulation by which they tested Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him). It intensified during the Abbasid era, when their center of activity and influence was Kūfa, while the majority of Kūfa were Zaydīs. Because of this, reports would reach al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) claiming that he asserted the Imamate for himself and that he was the designated successor (waṣī). This angered him greatly. His brothers and cousins were keen for a clear statement to emerge from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) in order to expose the lies of the Rāfiḍa publicly.
Among what is narrated in this regard is the report of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mūsā, from his father Mūsā ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan: that he was performing ḥajj or ʿumra with his father ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan. When they passed by ʿIrq al-Ẓabya, they found Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad sitting in the shade of the pass. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan leaned on the side of the camel-litter and said:
“O Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad.” He replied: “At your service, O Abū Muḥammad. No—by the Lord of this Sacred House toward which I am heading—the matter is only what you already know, and the religion is only one. Indeed, lies are attributed to me in all that you hear.”
(Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā).
Moreover, from sources other than Zaydī ones, it is reported that Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) would dissociate himself from those who rejected and disavowed his uncle—among them one of their leading figures, Zurāra ibn Aʿyan and his household, as well as Muʾmin al-Ṭāq and others. Al-Dhahabī said:
“ʿAbbād ibn Yaʿqūb—who was a misguided Rāfiḍī, yet truthful (and this is rare)—said: ʿAmr ibn al-Qāsim informed us: I entered upon Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad while there were people from the Rāfiḍa with him. I said: ‘These people disavow your uncle Zayd.’ He said: ‘God disavows whoever disavows him. By God, he was the most learned among us in the Book of God, the most knowledgeable among us in the religion of God, and the most devoted among us to maintaining kinship; he left no one like him among us.’”
(Tārīkh al-Islām, 8/106)
Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) adopted clear positions toward Zurāra ibn Aʿyan, openly dissociating from him, cursing him, and declaring him a liar for his fabrications against him—especially since the early Imāmīs made Zurāra a central pillar of their doctrine. Thus, al-Kashshī—an Imāmī—narrated with his chain from Ibn Miskān, who said: I heard Zurāra say:
“May God have mercy on Abū Jaʿfar [i.e., al-Bāqir]; as for Jaʿfar, in my heart there is a curse upon him!” The editor notes this. I said to him: “What drove Zurāra to say this?” He said: “He was driven to it because Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) exposed his disgraces.”
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/356)
These are Imāmī sources themselves, as you see, regarding the severity of Imam al-Ṣādiq’s stance toward the early Rāfiḍa. Among this is what al-Kashshī narrated with his chain from ʿImrān al-Zaʿfarānī, who said:
I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) say to Abū Baṣīr—naming twelve men by their nicknames: “No one introduced into Islam what Zurāra introduced of innovations. May God curse him.” This is the statement of Abū ʿAbd Allāh.
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/365)
Al-Kashshī also narrated with his chain from his father, Kulayb al-Ṣaydāwī, that they were sitting together, with ʿAdhāfir al-Ṣayrafī and a number of their companions, along with Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him). Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) began—without mentioning Zurāra by name—and said:
“May God curse Zurāra, may God curse Zurāra, may God curse Zurāra,” three times.
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/365)
The doctrine of Zurāra and his companions regarding the Prophet’s family, and their fabrication of designations and special privileges attributed to them, was extremely dangerous. Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) described it in what al-Kashshī narrated with his chain from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥakam, from some of his associates, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him), who said:
“I entered upon him and he said: ‘When was the last time you saw Zurāra?’ I said: ‘I have not seen him for days.’ He said: ‘Do not concern yourself with him. If he falls ill, do not visit him; and if he dies, do not attend his funeral.’ I said—astonished at what he said—‘Zurāra?’ He said: ‘Yes, Zurāra. Zurāra is worse than the Jews and the Christians, and worse than one who says that God has a third of three.’”
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/381)
And from Maysar, who said: We were with Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) when a young maid passed along the side of the house carrying a flask on her neck, which she had overturned. Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) said:
“What fault is it of mine if God has overturned Zurāra’s heart just as this maid overturned this flask?”
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/381)
Zurāra only grew more obstinate at every stage. He would deceive people in Kūfa, even while the curse of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) against him was well known. With arrogance and contempt for them, he would say that this was merely a case of taqiyya (dissimulation). Through the transmission of Ibn Ḥajar, Ibn al-Sammāk relates:
“I set out for Mecca and met Zurāra ibn Aʿyan at al-Qādisiyya. He said to me: ‘I have a need to ask of you, and I hope to fulfill it through you,’ and he magnified it. I said: ‘What is it?’ He said: ‘When you meet Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad, convey my greetings to him and ask him to tell me whether I am among the people of Paradise or among the people of Hell.’ I denounced this request, but he said to me: ‘He knows that.’ He persisted until I agreed.
When I met Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad and informed him of what had occurred, he said: ‘He is among the people of Hell.’ Something about what he said troubled me, so I asked: ‘How did you know that?’ He replied: ‘Whoever claims about me that I know such things is among the people of Hell.’
When I returned, I met Zurāra ibn Aʿyan and he asked me what I had done regarding his request. I told him that he had said he was among the people of Hell. He said: ‘That was [measured] out for you, O ʿAbd Allāh, from the bag of lime.’ I said: ‘What is the bag of lime?’ He said: ‘He acted with you in taqiyya.’”
(Lisān al-Mīzān, 2/474)
This was openly acknowledged by Shaykh Niʿmat Allāh al-Jazāʾirī, one of the scholars of the Imāmīs. He said:
“Zurāra used to say to one whom the Imam issued a legal opinion contrary to Zurāra’s own ruling: ‘He only gave you that ruling from the bag of lime; rather, the ruling is what the Imam gave me.’”
(Kashf al-Asrār fī Sharḥ al-Istibṣār, 2/482)
Thus Zurāra lied against the Imam. You know that the Imāmīs are followers of Zurāra and those like him, not followers of al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), and that they have been cut off from direct connection with the Prophet’s family for twelve centuries.
This was not the case with Zurāra alone. Rather, it was the condition of the family of Banū Aʿyan, who sought dominance over people in Kūfa through this doctrine. Hence Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) said—as narrated by al-Kashshī with his chain from Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAbd al-Khāliq, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him):
“The Banū Aʿyan seek nothing but to gain the upper hand.”
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/364)
Likewise, Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) held similar stances toward the rest of the early Imāmīs, such as Muʾmin al-Ṭāq, Burayd ibn Muʿāwiya, and others. In this regard, al-Kashshī narrates with his chain from Abū al-Ṣabbāḥ, who said: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) say:
“O Abū al-Ṣabbāḥ, those who entrench themselves in their religions have perished—among them Zurāra, Burayd, Muḥammad ibn Muslim, and Ismāʿīl al-Juʿfī,” and he mentioned another whose name I did not retain.
(Rijāl al-Kashshī, 1/394)
With this I conclude, and in it there is a lesson for whoever wishes to take heed and examine himself carefully. Two premises, however, remain unfulfilled in the scholarly discussion:
First, that no proof from the Sacred Law has yet established the Imāmī claim regarding the designations (waṣāyā) and the Twelve-Imam textual proofs.
Second, that no proof has yet established that the leading figures among the descendants of al-Ḥusayn—the predecessors of the Imāmīs—ever claimed for themselves what the Rāfiḍa claim for them in terms of Imamate, inheritance, and exclusive designations.
If it is said: what, then, of this enormous mass of transmitted reports in the hands of the Imāmīs? We reply: it is dark, abandoned, and fabricated—just as the Imāmīs themselves allow such a judgment regarding the Sunni corpus amid thousands of conflicting narrations. Let them then accept the same judgment regarding their own tradition. Moreover, the Imāmīs themselves rejected roughly a thousand narrations concerning the alleged deficiency and distortion of the Qurʾān, deeming them fabricated or weak. Thus, the sheer quantity of their reports does not indicate truthfulness.
Likewise, some of their scholars ruled that of Biḥār al-Anwār, printed in more than one hundred volumes, less than five percent is sound. Such, then, is the state of Imāmī heritage in our view. This is a natural result when their foundation rests on reliance upon the books of deviants—something acknowledged by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī himself, who said:
“Many of the authors among our companions and the authors of the foundational works espouse corrupt doctrines, even though their books are relied upon.”
(al-Fihrist, p. 32)
So fear God—this knowledge is religion. Let a rational person consider carefully from whom he takes it.
As for Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him), he summarized the condition of the Imāmīs after the Occultation by saying:
“What separated Zayd and Jaʿfar was a group of people who had pledged allegiance to Zayd ibn ʿAlī. When they learned that the governor of Kūfa was seeking out those who had pledged to Zayd in order to punish them, they feared for themselves. So they withdrew from Zayd’s pledge and rejected him out of fear of this authority. Then they did not know what argument to use against those who blamed and reproached them for their action. So they claimed designation (waṣiyya) at that point, saying that the designation passed from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn to his son Muḥammad, and from Muḥammad to Jaʿfar, in order to deceive people. Thus they went astray and led many astray, deviating from the straight path. They followed their own desires, preferred this world over the Hereafter, and were followed in their claim by those who loved worldly survival and disliked striving in the path of God.
Then there came people after them who found words written in books and notebooks, and they adopted them without discernment or proof—indeed, they defied their own reason—and attributed their actions to the righteous among the descendants of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and them), just as the ḥashwiyya attributed their false reports and fabricated statements to the Messenger of God so that their falsehood might be established for those whom they exploited and reduced to servants and dependents, as God the Exalted said regarding their likes:
‘Then there came after them successors who inherited the Book, taking the fleeting gain of this lower world and saying: “We shall be forgiven.” And if a gain like it comes to them, they take it. Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them that they would not say about God except the truth, and they studied what was in it?’”
(Majmūʿ Kutub wa-Rasāʾil al-Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn, Kitāb Maʿrifat Allāh ʿAzz wa-Jall, p. 59)
Imam al-Ṣādiq thus affirmed what Imam al-Hādī Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) stated, as you have seen. The family of Muḥammad—the leaders among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn—share one doctrine and one belief. The saying of the Rāfiḍa is in no way the saying of al-Ṣādiq. Reflect carefully, and may you be guided.
May God’s blessings and peace be upon our master Muḥammad and upon his pure and noble family.
Written by al-Kāẓim al-Zaydī. May God forgive him, his parents, his descendants, and the believers. Amen.
Translation of Ustadh Kadhim Al Zaydi (May Allah reward him)