The Sabais had now come out into the open with complete fanfare. They dropped the old apologetic posture and paraded their fictitious wares with aggressive flamboyance. They tore away the diplomatic veil they had donned in the past to camouflage their hideous intentions because they were too scared of Hadhrat Ali to be caught with their trousers down: it would be even more true to say that their sulking posture was motivated more by diplomacy than by fear. It goes to their credit that they never under-estimated Hadhrat Ali. In fact, they were deeply impressed by his shrewdness and readiness to act. They knew down in their hearts that if they expressed their bogus beliefs publicly, he would wipe them out root and branch and give them out root and branch and give them a spanking they would never forget. A Shia historian records that the first not of transgression about the exaggerated powers of Hadhrat Ali was played by the Sabais during his own reign: it was obviously an exercise in negative innovation which is quite inconsistent with the hallowed traditions of reporting and positive transmission of information. Once Hadhrat Ali happened to meet a bunch of people who were eating during daytime in Ramadham. He asked them if they were travellers or patients.

Sabais: We are neither travelers not patients

Hadhrat Ali: Are you from among the people of the Book or are you non-

Muslims.

Sabais: No, we are not from among the people of the Book.

Hadhrat Ali: Then why are you eating during daytime in the month of fasting?

Sabais: You are you.

In this way the Sabais were pointing to his Godliness. He told them to repent and gave them to repent and gave them some time for repentance. He elicited from them the promise that they would convey their repentance to him within a certain span of time. But these rascals clung to their spurious faith. Hadhrat Ali lumped them together in a pit and fumigated them. He warned them to back out of their rickety convictions, otherwise they would be burned alive. But when they persisted in their deviation, they were consigned to the flames. At that occasion he recited the verse:

(When I detected something indecent, I kindled the fire and called for Qanbar).

He himself was present when they were being broiled in the leaping flames and he stayed there till they were charred to cinders and ashes. They went into hiding or under cover for about a year and put the lid on this episode but Abdullah bin Saba suddenly jumped into action after the death of Hadhrat Ali. As has already been pin-pointed, he was a jew who paraded himself as a Muslim. Those who pledged at his hand and yielded to the flotsam and jetsam of his jumbled and scrambled beliefs are know as Sabais. They openly denied the death of Hadhrat Ali.

NauBakhti, who is the earliest authority on the genesis and evolution of Shia sects, supports this view:

"After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, his followers who believed in his leadership as part of divine obligation, split into three sects. One sect believed that Hadhrat Ali had neither been murdered nor had he died, nor would he be ever murdered or die. He will drive the Arabs with his rod and fell the entire world with justice and equity when it is choked with tyranny and oppression. It is the first sect in the Muslim community which cooked up the concept of legacy and banked on exaggeration and distortion as propaganda ploys. This sect is known as the Sabai sect and its adherents were the followers Abdullah bin Saba. He is the first man who grinned at Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthman and other companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and dissociated himself from them and he claimed that his acts carried the sanction and support of Hadhrat Ali. When Hadhrat Ali was apprised of the situation, he asked him about it but he came out with a blunt confession. He ordered him to be executed. But the people vociferously protested against it and told Hadhrat Ali that he had ordered the execution of a person whose heart spilled over with the love of his children, who took pride in his friendship and who had de-linked himself with his enemies. Therefore he deported him to Madain.

A scholarly off-shoot of the companions of Hadhrat Ali has stated that Avdullah bin Saba was a jew who had donned the cloak of Islam, pretended to love Hadhrat Ali and during his Jewish period he held similar belief about Hadhrat Ali that he was the executor of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The same Jew propagated first of all the obligatory nature of Hadhrat Ali’s Imamat, dissociated himself from his enemies and waged war against his opponents. That is why those who are against the Shias believe that Shiaism is derived from Judalism. When the news of Hadhrat Ali’s death was conveyed to Abdullah bin Saba in Madain, his instant reaction was categorical denial. He said to the messenger: You are lying. I will not believe it even if you bring to me his brain wrapped in seventy covers and offer seventy reliable persons as witnesses not has he been murdered because he can not die until he is the lord of the entire earth.

Other people, who are directly or indirectly concerned with recording the genesis and evolution of Shia sects, hold similar opinions. It is immaterial whether they are Sunnis or Shias as there exists a broad consensus between them. This point has been established in the preceding pages with special reference to books written by Shia scholars.

The reappearance of Sabaism after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali and the ’ben trovato’ beliefs it projected and propagated, has also been dealt with at length by the Sunni scholars. Abdul Qadir Baghdadi in his "Al-Firq bayn-ul-Firq" Ash-‘ari in "Maqalt-ul-lslamiyyin. Razi in "iraqadat Firq-ul- Muslimin wal Mushrikin" Asfraini in "Tabsir" Shahristani in "Al-Milar Wan Nihl", Ibn Haxm Zahiri in ‘Al Fasl". Abdul Hassan Balti in "At-Tanbih" Jirjani in "At-Tafrifat: and Maqrizi in "Khatat" have made reference to them.

All of these historians have expressed that after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, Abdullah bin Saba returned from the place where he had lived as an exile. On his return he spelled out his specific beliefs about Hadhrat Ali. Asfraini writes:

"Hadhrat Ali was scared of incinerating the rest of the Sabais on account of the Syrian opposition. Besides a rift had developed between his friends and companions on the issue. Ibn Saba persisted in belief that the man who had been murdered was not Hadhrat Ali".

Shahristani also supports him: "Abduullah bin Saba articulated his specific beliefs after of Hadhrat Ali and his party thronged around him on the vasis of these beliefs"

Hadhrat Hassan followed in the tracks of his father and waged a war against his thoughts and beliefs. The Shia writer Ibn abi al-Hadid writes:

"Abdullah bin Saba appeared after the death of Hadhrat Ali. He was, in fact a Jew but wore the badge of Islam. His followers are called "Sabais". These people believed that Hadhrat Ali had not died but he was still alive among the skies. The thunder is his voice and the lightening is his glitter. Whenever they heard the clap, they uttered

(Peace on you, O Amir-ul-Mominin!)

These cruel people talked of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in extremely unrefined and indecorous language, accused him of baseless motives and publicly claimed that he had suppressed ninety percent of the divine revelation. The Sabai belief about the revelation has been discarded by Hassan bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah in a letter in which he mentions "Arja". The contents of this letter have been communicated by Sulaiman bin abi Shaikh through Haitham bin Muawiyyah, Abdul Aziz bin Abban and Abdul Wahid bin Aiman Makki. Makki relates that he was with Hassan bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Hanifayyah when he was dictating the letter. He dictated that, according to the Sabais, they had been blessed with a revelation which the people had rejected, that they had been blessed with knowledge which was hidden from other people. These lousy people believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had suppressed ninety percent of the divine revelation, though if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had really suppressed revelation, he would have blotted out the verses relating to the wife of Hadhrat Zayd or he would have suppressed the contents of the following verse:

(Do you desire the willing support of your wives?)

Hadhrat Hassan could not wage war against them in the style of his father. On the contrary the Sabais enjoyed great latitude during his tenure and spread the message of friction and disunity without much restraint. They intensified their efforts to inject the poison of dissension into the veins of the Muslim body. Whin the Shias were disenchanted with Hadhrat Ali, they fell an easy prey to the Sabai conspiracy. Some of them felt inclined towards Hadhrat Muawiyyah and some of them joined the Kharijis. Hadhrat Hassan had almost lost his grip over them. These developments have been sketched out by Mufid, Urbili, Majlisi etc. in their respective books. They have reerred to Hadhrat Muawiyyah’s advance towards Iraq:

"Hadhrat Muawiyyah marched towards Iraq to secure a point of vantage, but when he reached Jasr Manbaj, Hadhrat Hassan also moved into action. He sent a message to his officials to make preparation for a confrontation and also asked the people to come out in the name of Jehad. The people felt that the call of Jehad was too heavy a burden for them to carry. But some of them responded to the call the and an assortment of people joined him. Some of them were his shias and the shias of his father. Others believed that war must by waged against Hadhrat Muqwiyyah at any cost. There were still others who relished mischief as well as the spoils of war. Some of them were the victims of skepticism, others of fanaticism. They were the willing slaves of their chedftains and were the least attached to their faith. He set out witch these people until he arrived in Hamam Umr. Then passing through Dir Ka’ab, they camped at Sabat in the low-lying area of Qantarhah. They spent the night there. In the morning he tried to test the loyalty of his companions to discriminate between friends and foes and to wage a purposive and better-conducted war with Hadhrat Muawiyyah and the Syrians. He commanded all of them to rally at a specific spot. When they had assembled, he addressed them:

By God! I believe that by the grace of Allah I am a person with the best motives and intentions as I bear malice towards none, nor do I intend to entertain evil towards anyone in future. Remember, it is always better to express you dislikes while remaining within the party than expressing them while you are split and splintered. Keep it in mind, my friends, that I desire your welfare even better that your own selves. Therefore you should neither oppose me nor contradict my opinion. May God forgive us all, and may He enable you to seek His love and pleasure"!

They looked with amazement at one another when they heard his address and gave vent to wild speculation: What do you think are Hadhrat Hassan’s intentions? They concluded: By God! We guess that he intends to negotiate with Muawiyyah and hand over the affairs of Khilafat to him. They added: these people will turn infidels if he does so. Then they attacked his tent, looted his goods and even pulled the prayer mat from under him. Abdur Rahman bin Avdullah bin Jaal Azdi assaulted him, whisked away the shawl from his shoulders. He sat down shawlless on the ground, the sword dangling from his neck, them called for his horse. But his Shias and special companions surrounded him on all sides and protected those he wanted to punish. He told the people to call Rabi and Himlan. When they came, they pushed the people away and he set out on his journey again. He was accompanied by a number of other people as well. When he passed through Muslims Sabat, Jarrah bin Sanan of the Asad tribe attacked him. He held the bride of his horse. He carried a long pointed missle in his hand. He said: God is great! O Hassan, you have committed infidelity as your father had done before you. Then he inflicted a blow on his thigh with a spear. The spear tore thorough the tight and penetrated down to the bone. Hadhrat Hassan grappled with him and both of them tumbled to the ground. Meanwhile one of the Shias of Hassan leapt towards them. His name was Abdullah bin Khatal Tai. He snatched the spear from Jarrah’s hand and jabbed it into his belly. An other man Zibiyyan bin Ammarah also pounced at him and chopped off his nose. He died instantly. The other man with him was also caught and kille. Hadhrat Hassan was brought to Madain on a cot, and he stayed at the residence of Saad bin Masud Thaqafi who officially represented the Amir-ul-Mo-minin in Madain. Hadhrat Hassan had also retained him in the same office. In Madain he devoted his attention towards his treatment. Meanwhile a number of chieftains secretly wrote to Muawiyyah that they were ready to pledge to him. They strongly persuaded him to come to them. They assured him that they would either had over Hadhrat Hassan to him as soon as he reached there or kill him. Hadhrat Hassan also came to know about their secret plan. He received a letter from Hadhrat Qays bin Saad. He had dispatched him to Abdullah bin Abbas on his return from Kufah to meet Hadhrat Muawiyyah and to prevail upon him to keep off Iraq. He had also appointed him the leader of the party and told him that in case of his martyrdom Qays bin Saad would act as the leader. Qays informed him in the letter that they had invited Muawiyyah to a settlement called Hububiyyah. On the other side Hadhrat Muawiyyah sent for Ubaidullah bin Abbas. He fixed a sum of one million dirham as surety. Half of the amount was to be shelled out immediately while the remaining half would be paid in Kufah. Ubaid Ullah moved towards Muawiyya’s army with his special companions during the night. When the people found their leader off the scene, Hadhrat Qais bin Saad led the prayers and acted on his behalf. Hadhrat Hassan realized that the people were determined to humiliate him. He felt that they had switched their loyalties. They ridiculed him as a result of the twist in their motives, accuse him of infidelity, looted his property and legitimized his murder. Most of the people around him were mischief—mongers. They were all out to harm and humiliate him. His own Shias and the Shias of his father were too few to put up a meaningful and effective resistance to the Syrian on-slaught. Hadhrat Muawiyyah dispatched a letter of conciliation to him. He also mentioned in his letter the letters of his companions in which they had expressed their intention of either handing him over or killing him. He offered a package of terms and conditions to bring about a reconciliation, and to agree to these terms was what the times clearly dictated, but Hadhrat Hassan did not trust him and mistook his gesture of sincerity for and ill-conceived pretense, though, on account of the treachery and disloyalty of his companions, the best course for him was to accept his offer of conciliation. I have already stressed the fact that his companions were a bunch of rogues. They were scoundrels and seemed determined to install some one else as their Amir in his place. Most ho them wanted to spill his blood and hand him over to his adversaries. His own cousin was also against him and he wanted to degrade him and pass him over to his opponents. The majority of his companions were inclined towards earthly benefits and rewards and had grown indifferent towards the punishments of the next world. However, Hadhrat Hassan secured the trust and confidence of Hadhrat Muawiyyah. He raise all the objections that could possibly be raised. One of the conditions was that the Amir-ul-Mominin will not be persecuted. During prayers he will not be condemend; the Shias of Ali will not be maltreated and justice will be done to everyone. Hadhrat Muawiyyah accepted all the terms and pledged to fulfil them

Ibn abi al-Hadid adds: When Hadhrat Hassan decided to leave Madain, he addressed the people: You have pledged to me that you will be reconciled to those with whom I am reconciled and you will fight those with whom I fight. By God! At this moment I bear no malice towards any member of my community whether he lives in the east or in the west. You dislike grouping, peace and reconciliation but these are better that rift, fear, spite and enmity which you appear to relish. My father Hadhrat Ali used to say that we should not look down upon the leadership to Muawiyyah because if we discard him, it will be like the irreversible chipping of heads off the shoulders that carry them.

Then he climbed down the pulpit. The people said to him: You have uttered these words because you want to resign and dish out the Khilafat to Hadhrat Muawiyyah. Therefore they flared up, rejected his contention, looted the goods, snatched away his shawl and pounced upon the slave maid who was with him and they splintered into different groups. One group clearly played his tunes while the majority of people supplied the discordant notes. He said:

(O Allah! I need your help)

He ordered the people to march and they marched away. Somebody brought his horse to him and he jumped on it. Some of his friends surrounded him but the others protected him and the march continued. Sanan bin Jarah Asadi accompanied him to Muzlim Sabat and stayed with him. He came closer to him and spoke to him in rather confidential tones. Then he struck his spear at his thigh with such force that it almost touched the bone. He became unconscious and his friends caught him, trying to excel on another.

Shia historian have elucidated that the people who had forced Hadhrat Hassan, looted his property and wounded him, belonged to Sabat Madian, the spot to which Hadhrat Ale had Exiled Abdullah bin Saba. They were deeply impressed by the views and beliefs of Ibn Saba and were actively engaged in their dissemination and publicity. They also included Mukhrtar bin abi Ubaid Thaqafi, a victim of Sabaism, who subsequently gained immense reputation and became the self-styled spokesman of the views preached by the dissembling jew, Ibn Saba. The historian have mentioned that when Hassan ibn Ali landed in Madain in wounded state, Mukhtar knew the whole state of affairs. Mukhtar asked him: do you need wealthy and status? He inquired: how is it possible? Mukhtar replied: you should arest Hussain ibn Ali and dispatch him to Muawiyyah as a prisoner. Hadhrat Hassan replied: may God disgrace you and curse your words! Do you expect me to betray the grandson of the Messenger of Allah?

When Hadhrat Hassan perceived that the Sabai threat had acquired ominous proportions, his own Shias were degrading and humiliating him and human blood was spilling all over, he found reconciliation the only way out of the intractable situation. The Shia historian Yaqubi relates that Hadhrat Hassan had lost a large quantity of blood when he was brought to Madain. The malady had taken a serious turn. The people had left him. Hadhrat Muawiyyah came to Iraq and took over the rein of Khilafat. When Hadhrat Hassan realized that he didn’t have the strength to fight and his friends had deserted him and wee absolutely unwilling to collide with him, he patched up with Hadhrat Muawiyyah. He ascended the pulpit, praise d the Lord and then addressed the people: you were rewarded with God’s blessing on account of our ancestors but you shed one another’s blood on account of our descendants. Therefore I have patched up with Hadhrat Muawiyyah and handed over the Khilafat to him and I can’t say whether it is a test of you faith or a source of benefit for a limited period.

Hadhrat Hassan went even a step further. He not only handed over the Khilafat to Hadhrat Muawiyyah, but also pledged fealty at his hand alongwith his brothers and commanders of the army as Kashi has reported from Jafar bin Baqir:

"Muawiyyah wrote to Hadhrat Hassan: you, Hadhrat Hussain and the companions of Ali should come to see me. Thus when they came to Syria, Qays bin Saad bin Ubadah Ansari was also with them. Hadgrat Muqwiyyah gave them permission to enter. He had already churned up an address for the occasion. Muawiyyah said to handed over the Khilafat to him and I can’t say whether it is a test of your faith or a source of benefit for a limited period"

Hadhrat Hassan went even a step further. He not only handed over the Khilafat to Hdhrat Muawiyyah, but also pledged fealty at his hand alongwith his brothers and commanders of the army as Kashi has reported from Jafar bin Baqir:

"Muawiyyah wrote to Hadhrat Hassan: you, Hadhrat Hussain and the companions of Ali should come to see me. Thus when they came to syria, Qays bin Saad bin Ubadah Ansari was also with them. Hadhrat Muawiyyah gave them permission to enter. He had already churned up an address for the occasion. Muawiyyah said to Hassan: come and pledge to me. Hadhrat Hassan pleedged at his hand. Then he asked Hadhrat Hussain: get up and pledge to him. He also stood up and pledged at his hand. Then he addressed Qays: come and pledge to him. He looked towards Hadhrat Hussain for Orders. He said: pledge at his hand because he (Hadhrat Hassan) is my lmam".

These facts have been endorsed by the fanatic Shia Majlisi in his book "Jila-ul Uyyun: written in persian langrage; Among the Shia Mugaddithin Abbas Qummi has mentioned them in his "Muntah-il-Amal": it is also written in Persian. Ibn abi al Hadid, too, has recorded it in his book "Sharh Nahf-ul-Balaghah".

Some other Shia sects sprang out of this episode. Nau Bakhti observes that when Hadhrat Muawiyyah, they made him the butt of their spiteful criticism, backed out of their belief in his Imamat and affirmed their faith in the will of the people, but the rest of his companions supported his claim to Imamat till his martydom. When he had withdrawn himself from a confrontation with Muawiyyah and had landed in Muzlim Sabat, Jarah bim Sanan attacked him. He held the bridle of his horse in his hand and shouted: God is great! O Hassan! you have committed infidelity – as you father had done before you, and then he inglicted such a heavy blow on his thigh with a spear that his thigh bone was fractured. Hadhrat Hassan also gummed on to him until both of them slumped on the ground. The people pounced at Jarah and squashed him under their feet. They brought Hadhrat Hassan to Madina but the spear-wound was a constatn source of pain and torture. He restrained his anger and bore the pain and greif with fortitude caused by his own followers until he died by the end of Safar in 47 A.H. at the age of forty five years and six mounts. Some of the scholars opine that he was born during Ramadhan in 3 A.H. and the tenure of his Khilafat streteched over six years and five months.

After the patch-up a group of Shias still supported his stand. Therefore, riding on his band-wagon, they also pledged fealty at the hand of Hadhrat Muawiyyah and never wavered in their loyalty and sincerity toward him from 41 A.H. to 60 A.H. The most prominent among this group of Shias were the children of Hadhrat Ali, the children of his children and his wives, Hadhrat Hussain, Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah, Abdullah bin Abbas, the sons of ‘Aqil and Jafar’ and other distinguished Hashmis who shared and identity of beliefs with the general ren of Muslims and the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They believed that no one should be charged with infidelity and apostasy, that they should make a practical demonstration of unity and solidarity, that hey should paper over their differences and avoid collision and confrontation, that they should strengthen the bonds of mutual love and affection and establish inter-marital relations as has been copiously illustrated in the preceding pages.

One of the groups had detached itself from Hadhrat Hussan and Hussain and affirmed its faith in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah. This group came to be subsequently know as Kaisaniyyah. Hadhrat Hassan’s pacification with Hadhrat Muawiyyah reinforced its strength and stature. The views and beliefs of this sect resembled those of the Sabsais. It evolved with remarkable rapidity and it expanded beyond the expectations and calculations of the people and it provided both encouragement and nourishment to other Shia sects which directly hatched out of its womb as will be explained later on in greater detail. Nau Bakhti include it among those sects which sprang up after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali and he regards it as one of the sects which flourished during Hadhrat Hassan’s tenure. Nau Bakhti believes that the group who clung to his Imamat after the martydom of Hadhrat Ali split into three sects: (1) Sabaiyyah (2) the sect who believed in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanigiyyah because on the day of Basrah he, instead of his other brothers, held his father’s flag. This sect was known as Kaisaniyyah. The source of its nomen-clature is that the chief of the sect was Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid Thaqafi and his surname was Kaisan. He demanded revenge for the blood of Hadhrat Hussain bin Ali and put to sword a number of Hussain’s killers and he claimed that he had simply carried out the orders of Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah who obviously was the Imam after his father. Mukhtar was called Kaisan because it was the name of his chief of police whose patronym was Abu Umrah. He praised Mukhtar in both words and deeds beyond all human expectation. He used to assert that Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah was the executor of Hadhrat Ali bin abi Talib and he was also the Imam. Mukhtar was his convenor and administrator. He declared that Ali’s predecessor Claiphs, the residents of Jamal and the residents of Safin were all infidels. He also declared that Gabriel brought him the revelation from Allah but they could not see him. Some scholars have reported that Kaisan was the name of one of Hadhrat Ali’s slaves whom he had released from bondage. He had provoked him to spill Hussain’s bllood and identified his killers. He was also his confidant, adviser and ruler.

Shahristani has also endorsed the point. He observes that those who believed in a clear specification of Imamat adopted a different course of action after the martydom of Hadhrat Ali. Some of them openly suggested that there existed a clear indication about the Imamt of Hadhrat Ali’s son Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah. These people were called Kaisaniyyah. Those who did not believe in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanigiyyah affirmed that the Imamat was restricted to Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain alone. Qadhi Noman Shi’i supports this view. People, however, differ about his identity. It is not absolutely clear whether he belonged to the Fatmi sect or the Ithna Ashriyyah. The opionion of the scholars on the issue is clearly divided. Some of them think

(He is out Imam and executor after Hadhrat Ali. They think that Hassan and Hussain are mutes.)

(Then, relying on exaggeration and mis-statement they propose that he did not die, and he is present in "Sab-i-Ridhwa."

(He is among the lions he is deputed to supervise and he declares that he receives his subsistence form them)

Among the Sunnis Baghadadi in "Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq." Ashari in "Maqalat-il- Islamiyyin", Malti in "At-Tanbih", Tazi in "Itiqadat Firq-ul-Muslimiyyin wal Mushrikin", Isfraini in "At-Tabsir", Ibn Khuldun Ibn Hazan in "al-Fasl" and Mirqrizi etc. have referred to the Kaisaniyyah sect of Shias.

At the juncture of conciliation between Hadhrat Hassan and Hadhrat Muawiyyah one of the sects had absolutely discarded Shiaism and never subsequently included themselves among the Shias. Nau Bakhti observes that when Hadhrat Hassan and Muawiyyah committed themselves to patch-up and Hadhrat Hassan accepted the goods dispatched to him by Hadhrat Hassan accepted the goods dispatched to him by Hadgrat Muawiyyah, thes people started lambasting him. They opposed him, damned his Imamat and concurred with the opinion of the populace.

Sabaism had spread most shabbily during this period. A Shia historian acknowledges its wide-spread impact. He observes that this worst innovation first permeated among some of the Iraqis like an epidemic. He has also enumerated the factors that contributed to its wide-ranging influence and in this he has relied on the authority of Ibn abi al-Hadid. They were people of limited vision. Therefore it was not unexpected of them to be over-impressed by the miracles performed by Hadhrat Ali and to be led astray. They easily formed the belief that the divine essence had been injected into Hadhrat Ali. It is generally said that they had heard from their forefathers the God often penetrated the mortal frame of His prophets. Therefore they held a similar belief about Hadhrat Ali. It is also possible that this view was deliberately propagated by some atheists who wanted to inject their atheistic beliefs into the flesh and soul of Islam.

Shias during the period of Hadhrat Hussain:

After the death of Hadhrat Hassan, the Shias flocked round his brother Hadhrat Hussain. The most stupendous event and the most glorious episode that occurred during his tenure was his rebellion against Yazid. Yaqubi, one of the extermist Shias, observes that when Yazid was appointed Caliph after the death of his father, he wrote to Walid bin Uqbah bin abi Sufiyyan, the governor of Madina, to secure the pledge of Hussain bin Ali. When Walid pressured Hadhrat Hussain to pledge fealty to Yazid, he left for Makkah where he stayed for a few days. Meanwhile the citizens of Iraq dispatched a number of letters to him which assumed the from of an unbroken series of messages. The last letter he received was from Hani’ bin abi Hani’ and Said bin Abdullah Khithami. The letter is reproduced below:

"We begin with the name of Allah! To Hussain bin Ali from his Muslim Shias. You should come immediately. Everyone is waiting for you. They do not acknowledge any body else as their Imam. Therefore you should come as soon as possible".

Another Shia historian Masudi writes:

"When Hadhrat Muawiyyah died, the residents of Kufah dispatched innumerable letters to Hadhrat Hussain bin Ali that they had disciplined themselves to take the oath of allegiance at his hand. They wrote: We would prefer to die than to pledge fealty at the hand of some on else. That is why we do not participate in the Friday and congregational prayers". Another letter contained the following message:

"The gardens are jush green and the fruits have ripened. Therefore you can come whenever you like. The army awaits your arrival".

When the letters piled up and the Kufi demand turned into an insistent refrain, Hadhrat Hussain sent Muslim bin ‘Aqil lbin abi Talib to Kufah. He also dispatched a letter to the residents of Kufah and told them that the letter was a prelude to his visit. When Muslim arrived in Kufah, the people swarmed round him and pledged fealty to him. They gave their word of honour that they would extend their maximum help and co-operation to Hadhrat Hussain".

Mufid adds:

"All the Kufis pledged to Muslim while crying and the number of these people exceeded eighteen thousand".

After a few days Hadhrat Hussain received a letter from Muslim:

"One lac people are ready to pledge at your hand. Therefore don’t delay".

Hadhrat Hussain set out towards kufah after receiving the letter. But Hadhrat Abbas called on him. Hadhrat ibn Abbas was a spring of the Banu Hashim, he was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Hadhrat Ali, he was an experienced man and had a better grasp of the psychic make-up of the Shias of his times, as has been attested by Masudi: Hadhrat ibn Abbas said to him: "O my cousin! I have come to know that you intend to visit Iraq. Don’t you know that these people are traitors? They are inviting you to fight but you shouldn’t make haste. If you want to fight with this tyrant and do not like to stay in Makkah, you should better go to Yemen. It is off the main route and you’ll also find a number of helpers and supporters there. Stay there and seek the good will of the people. From there you should write to citizens of Iraq out their Amir. If they have the power to extradite him and there is no one to oppose you, then you are welcome to go there. I don’t rule out their treachery. If they don’t act up to your wishes, then you should stay put and await divine verdict. The place is riddled with castles and valleys. Hadhrat Hussain replied: O my cousin! I know you are my will-wisher and sympathizer. But Muslims bin ‘Aqui has sent me a letter in his own hand that all the people there are agreed to take the oath of allegiance at my hand. Therefore I have decided to visit them. Ibn Abbas explained: I know these people to the roots of their hair. I have tried and tested them. What they did to your father and brother is not hidden form you. They will conspire against you in complicity with their Amir and pack you off straight to martydom—Ah! how truly Ibn Abbas had spoken! How sympathetic was he towards Hadhrat Hussain and how well-informed about the designs of the Kufis! – If you march in this direction, and Ibn Ziyyad comes to know about your departure, he will mobilize his army and seek an open confrontation with you. The people who have dashed off letters to you will turn into your implacable enemies. If you don’t agree to my proposal and are determined to leave for Kufah, then, for God’s sake, don’t take your wife and children along. By God! I apprehend that you may be martyrred as Hadhrat Uthman was martyrred and his wife and children remained passive spectators".

These were the explicit words of Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas and the amount of prestige he enjoyed in the eyes of Hadhrat Ali is no secret. Mufid comments: "Amir-ul-Mominin dined with Hadhrat Hassan one night, with Hadhrat Hussain the next night and with Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas the night after.

He constantly suffered at the hands of the Shias who spared no opportunity to humiliate him. They tortured him so much that he was forced to confess: I wish Muawiyyah could exchange you with his men as dinar are exchanged with dirham. He should take ten of you and give me one of his men in exchange.

Abu Bakr Hisham also endorsed the views of Hadhrat Ibn Abbas that the Shias were dishonest and traitorous. Therefore he should not fall into their trap. According to Masudi Abu Bakr bin Harith bin Hisham called on Hadhrat Hussain and said to him: O my cousin! I like to sympathize with you but I don’t know how to express my sympathies! Hadhrat Hussain replied: Abu Bakr! You are one of those who cold not be labeled dishonest or insincere. Therefore you are welcome to express your views. Abu Bakr said: your father was among the early Muslims who had embraced Islam. After entering the fold of Islam, he left behind a pleasant and favorable impression. He always launched a tempestuous attack (on the enemy). People attached great expectations to him and had evolved a consensus around him. When he marched towards Muawiyyah, every one had supported him except the Syrians. Even otherwise he enjoyed a better status than Muawiyyah but in spite of all this the people degraded and disgraced him. They were reluctant to wage Jehad; greed and lechery overpowered them. They not only prickled and annoyed him but also opposed him tooth and nail until he quaffed the cup of martyrdom. Then the treatment they extended to your elder brother after the death of your father is not hidden from you either. You are a direct witness to these happenings and yet you are ready to ho to them who opposed your father and brother. You want to fight against the residents of Syria and Iraq and the person who wields greater power than you and who is fully laced with arms. People fear him more and expect more form him. If come to know that you have set out towards them, they will bribe the people with wealth and goods. People are creatures of flesh. Those who have promised to help and support you will turn against you. Those who seem to love you at present are the ones who will insult you later. Therefore fear God and don’t go there.

Hadhrat Hussain replied: O, my cousin! May god bless you! Your opinion has come the hard way. Whatever God has decided, must be implemented.

Abu Bakr said: O Abu Abdullah! We except reward from Allah. Then Abu Bakr, Harith bin Khalid bin ‘As bin Hisham Mukhzuma called on the governor of Makkah. They were reciting the verse

(There are so many advisers who are disobeyed and the one who can guess hidden things equates advice with trash and bilge).

I reproduce below the whole episode from books written by Shia scholar and historians to expose the treachery and cowardice of the Shias. Masudi remarks that the news of Muslim’s arrival in Kufah had been passed on to Yazid also. He appointed Ubaidullah bin Ziyyad the governor of Kufah. Ubaidullah marched form Basrah at a hurricane speed and arrived in Kufah soon after noon. When he sneaked into Kufah, he was wearing a black tiara which covered up his face. He was riding a mule. People were expecting the arrival of Hadhat Hussain. When Ibn Ziyyad saluted the people, they responded with slogans of welcome until he reached the palace. Noman bin Bashir was also inside the palace. He sat down near him and then turned his attention towards him. He asked: O son of the Messenger of Allah! what is your command? Why have you preferred my city to others? Ibn Ziyyad replied: you have been too much in the dark and then he drew aside the cover from his face. He recognized him and opened the gate. People exclaimed: he is Ibn Marjana. And then they threw pebbles at him. He ignored them and entered the palace. When Muslim heard the news of his arrival, he hid himself in the house of Hani’ bin Urwah Muradi. Ziyyad sent Muhammad bin Ashath bin Qais to fetch Hani’. When he was brought to Ziyyad, he asked him about Muslim, but he gave a blank reply. When Ibn Ziyyad spoke to him a little bluntly and ruthlessly’ Hani’ said" I am under obligation to your father Ziyyad and I would like to pay it back. Would you like a piece of good advice? Ibn Ziyyad adked: What is that? Hani’ replied: pack up your wealth and goods and make a straight dive for Syria along with your family and children before any harm comes to you: Now the right has arrived: one who has a better claim to rule than you has arrived. On hearing this, Ibn Ziyyad said: bring him closer to me. When he was brought closer, he applied the stick he was holding in his hand on his face with such force that his nose snapped and he receive a wound on his forehead. The flesh on his face flaked off and he borke the stick on his head and face. Hani’ tried to snatch a policeman’s swordbut someone pushed him and widened the distance between him and the sword. Hani’s companions kicked up a roar at the door, clamouring the death of their companion. Ibn Ziyyad threatened them and locked up Hani’ in a side-room. He sent out Qadhi Shrakh to tell the people that Hani’ had not been murdered Consequently, they left for their homes. When Muslim came to know that Ziyyad had maltreated Hani, he came out with the slogan "Ya Mansur" which was immediately taken up by the residents of Kufa and eighteen thousand people instantly rallied to his call. Muslim also marched towards Ibn Ziyyad but his companions locked him up inside the place. By evening not even a hundred people were left with him. When he realized that the people were slipping away, he moved towards the carved gate He had hardly reached the gate that he was left which only three companions; and when he came out of the gate, not a single man accompanied him. He was in a real quandary. He did not know where to go. There was no one to guide him. He climbed down his horse and roamed through the streets of Kufah in a state of utter stupe-faction. He was absolutely in a fix as he was stranded. He kept on walking until he reached the house of the slave-maid of Ashath bin Qais. He asked for water and she gave him some water to drink. When she asked him what had happened, he reeled off to her the entire gamut of events. She suddenly softened towards him and provided him shelter where he could hide himself. When his son came home, he found out that he was hiding there. Next morning he conveyed the news to Muhammad bin Ashath who conveyed it to Ibn Ziyyad. Ziyyad murdered him. He also murdered Hani’ bin Marwah when he was calling out the children of Murad for hilp. He was the chieftain of the tribe. When he rode on his horse, four thousands armoured people and eight thousands footmen accompanied him. If his enemy Banu Kandah had responded to his call, the number of his armoured companions would have risen to twenty thousands. But all of them displayed nauseating cowardice and chicken-heartedness and failed to heed the call of their leader.

Meeting with Hur in Qadsiyyah:

When Hadhrat Hussain arrived in Qadisiyyah, he happened to meet Hur Yazid Yamimi who asked him: O grandson of the Messenger! Where are you heading? He replied: I am heading towards this city. Hur informed him that Muslim had been martyred. He also gave him details of his torture and agony Muslim had suffered at the hands of the Kufis and the functionaries of the stated. He advised him to return as Kufa hardly held any hope of better prospects of him. He found Hur’s advice reasonable and pragmatic and decided to retrace his steps. But Muslims’ brother, out of righteous anger, became intransigent and swore not to return until they avenged the murder of his brother or received martyrdom in the process. Hadhrat Hussain replied there was hardly any point in living after they had all died.

Hadhrat Hussain’s address:

Under the circumstances, he gathered all the people and addressed them:

"O people! I have received horrifying news. Muslims bin Aqil, Hani’ bin ‘Urwah and Abdullah bin Yaqtar have embraced martyrdom. Our Shias have betrayed and humiliated us. Therefore any one who likes to leave us is welcome to do so. I’ll not be offended in the least".

When people heard his words, they started slinking on the right and on the left until, within a short span of time, only those people remained who had set off from Madinah with him. Those who had joined him on the way disappeared into thin air. Only a sprinkling of these people held on to the hem of his companionship. He had consciously uttered these words to off-set the false expectations of a party of Baddus who had joined his raks simply to live in clover in a town whose citizens obeyed the Imam unconditionally. Thus they looked forward to Kufah as veritable paradise where they would laze and roll away their time in utter luxury. They were the least inclined to face the ordeal of a rough and ready life. Hadhrat Hussain did not like to keep them in the dark by letting them in on the true nature of his sojourn.

Umor bin Loxan:

When the morning came, he commanded his companions to take their animals to water. The animal drank to their bladder’s content and they set out on their journey. When they reached Batn-i-‘Aqbah, they encamped there. He met Umro bin Lozan, a chief of Banu Akrimah. He asked him: which way are you heading? Hadhrat Hussain replied: I am heading towards Kufah. The chief said: I make you swear by God that you should go back. You are not going to Kufah but you are going to face the points of spears and the blades of swords. If these people, who have dashed off letters to you, side with you during the battle and furnish you with arms and weapons, it’ll be in the fitness of things for you to go there. But as things stand, the situation is replete with danger and your visit will be most inexpedient. He replied: O God’s creature! I am not unaware of it either but no one can prevail over divine plans.

Departure towards Kufah:

Then he marched towards Kufah. On the way he chanced to meet a person who informed him about the betrayal and cowardice of the Kufis and told him bluntly that he did not have a single supporter and helper. He added that in-stead of helping him, the Kufis might turn against him.

When the armed forces of Kufah intercepted him, he realized that the actual situation clashed with the promises of help and the assurances of support with which their letters were cluttered and clogged. They had taken a complete volte face. He asked one of his companions to bring him the two bags containing their letters. He brought the bags and poured out their contents right in front of them.

At Karbala:

The Kufis disowned both the letters and the messages. He continued the march till he landed in Karbala. When massive armies rallied against Hadhrat Hussain, he was convinced that there was no shelter for him. He raised his hands for prayer: O Allah! arbitrate between us and this nation who had invited us to help us but who have waged war against us.

Hadhrat Hussain fought bravely and spiritedly until he quaffed the cup of martyrdom. The people who fought against him on the battlefield or who put him to martyrdom were all Kufis. There was not a single Syrian who had taken part in the fray.

The Shia historian Yaqubi—who, in the opinion of Well-hausen, was highly fanatic and extremely partisan—mentions that when the Kufis martyed him, they plundered his goods and belongings and escorted the ladies to Kufah. When the ladies entered Kufa, the women of that town came out of their houses screaming and beating there chests. Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain remarked: if they are mourning for us, then who has murdered us? I would like reproduce here the words of the German historian Well-hausen, who has a soft corner for the Shias:

"The populace in Kufah did not want to help the Government, but inspite of their disinclination to help, they did not join the ranks of the enemy. Even those people who had dispatched letters to Hadhrat Hussain, sworn their loyalty and sincerity, kept away during the hour of trial and did not extend the hand of cooperation towards him. The maximum that they did for him was to watch the grue-some spectacle of his martyrdom from a distance and shed crocodile tears over the gory out-come. People who stayed with him till the end could be counted on fingers: for instance, Abu Thamamah Saidi, the treasurer of the public exchequer, Ibn Aosjah etc fought beside them on the battle field. Some of them had joined them on the way, and there were others who had supported them till the last hour out of a feeling of human sanctity, though they had neither any links with them nor did they happen to be among their Shias. The historian have especially under-scored the discrepancy between the followers who did not flutter a feather (in support of the Imam) and the non-followers who went the whole hog to help him and put his followers to shame. More painful is the fact that not only the Quraish but the Ansar as well had drawn themselves away from Hadhrat Hussain. When he left Madinah, not one of them accompanied him. Among the Shias of Kufah, very few people actively supported him. The 63 A.H. revolution was not caused Ali’s progeny and Hadhart Ali bin Hussain had no link with it at all. The people who came out against these insincere and lily-livered rulers were the overt enemies of Shias and had served the Umayyids as their most humble servants. It means the war was not waged out of religious considerations.

Baghdadi observes: The Rafidihis of Kufah are notorious for their meanness and treachery. These two flaws have become almost proverbial. It is generally stated: "Abkhil min Kufi" (that person even beats the Kufis in spite) and "Aghdar min Kufi" (that person is even more treacherous than the Kufis).

Three treacheries of the Kufis:

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, they submitted allegiance to his son Hadhrat Hassan, but when he set off to fight against Hadhrat Muawiyyah, they betrayed him at Sabat Madain. Sana J’afi forced him down his horse with a spear-blow at his thigh. This episode was one of the reasons which compelled Hadhrat Hassan to patch up with Hadgrat Muawiy-yah.

The second treachery was that they scribbled letters to Hadhrat Hussain bin Ali and invited him to visit Kufah. Their express purpose was to seek his support against Yazid bin Muwaiyyah. He was deceived by their overt intentions and set out towards them. When he landed in Karbala, the Kufis betrayed him and, instead of supporting him, they supported Ubaidullah bin Ziyyad. The result was that Hadhrat Hussain and his kinsmen died on the sunbaked sand of Karbala in a state of abject misery and utter helplessness. The fourth person they played the hoax on was Yazid bin Ali bin Hussain bin abi Talib. They supported him against Yousaf bin Umar, but snapped out of their allegiance to him, and in the thick of battle, handed over Yazid bin Ali to his enemy who put him to death.

These were the Shias! the Shias of Ali, Hussan and Hussain and this is the treatment they had extended to their Imams and forefathers. I have deliberately discussed it at length because Shiaism underwent a radical change after this accident. The change related to the new complexion they put on the hoodwink the people. Previously, it was a purely political group: but now it donned a religion mask. They had actually supported Hadhrat Ali and his progeny against Hadhrat Muawiyyah and Banu Umayyah. Wellhausen has clearly stated in reference to the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain and the subsequent revenge taken by Mukhtar that Shiaism at that time dressed itself in new robes in Kufah. It had its roots in Iraq and was restricted to political alignments only. At first there was no distinction between the elite and the non-elite and they stood in the same row though the elite acted as their leaders. But when dangers surrounded them on all sides, they turned over a new leaf and softened their attitude as a result of the persuasion of Amwis in Syria. Then their services were utilized against the Shia movements and this was the time when they detached themselves from the Shia of Ali which resulted in a further circumscription of the Shia objectives. Later on, Shiaism graduated towards its tranformation as a religious group though they had a standing political dispute with the leading members of various tribes. After the martyrdom of distinguished people, it transformed itself into a specific movement. The helpersand supporters of Sulaiman bin Sard were against the movement of the distinguished personages of different tribes. Mukhtar was, of course, the first person who parasitically instilled new life into the movement. He included the Mawalis in the movement as well. Their inclusion was relatively easier on account of their inclination towards religious matters. They also virtually ignored national and communal prejudice though the Arabs still practised it. Similarly, these people (the Mawalis) disliked those who harboured any malice against the Arab chieftains.

When the association of the Shias grew deeper with these insurgents, they were stripped of their Arab and national identity. Though the basis of their association was Islam it was not early Islam but and entirely different brand.

Now Shiaism started assimilating alien views and beliefs. Besides, it split up into different groups and sects. Each person who entertained malice against Islam drew his nourishment from Shiaism. Thus Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Hindus, who were keen to intromit their views into the speculative framework of Islam, relied on the crutches of Shiaism. Besides, people who wanted to stabilize their particular religion and rebel against their incompetent rulers, found solace in the seductive innovations of Shiaism. All of them utilized their spurious love of the house of Ali as a label for the completion of their nefarious interests. The Jews injected the concept of return of resurrection into the body-frame of Shiaism and the Shias had declared the fire of hell unlawful for their community. And if any Shia was thrown into hell, he would stay there only for a few days. They actually parrotted out the views of the Jews who believed that they would stay in the flames of hell only for a few days. Under the influence of Christian beliefs they held that Imam enjoyed with Him. Imam is the converging point of divine and non-divine attributes. Prophethood is interminable. A Prophet is the receptacle of divinity. He develops an inalienable union with the God-head and their separation becomes impossible. Shiaism also encouraged and publicized the concepts cherished by Brahmins, philosophers and pre-Islamic Zorostrians became the raison d,tre of Shiasim. Some of the Persians also put on the mask of Shiaism and revved up their activities against Banu Umayyah. The fact was that they loathed the Arab rule and wanted to strengthen their own rule.

Maqrizi observes that the Persians had an edge over all other nations. They over-estimated themselves at least in their own eyes. This is attested by the fact that they attached to themselves meliorative epithets while they conferred on others pejorative labels. They strongly believed in the master-slave dichotomy, reserving the first half of the polarity for themselves and distributing freely the second half among the people of the world. When the Arabs defeated them, though ironically, the regarded them the least dangerous, it had a devastating impact on Persians and they magnified their humiliation beyond all proportion. Therefore on various occasions, they floated the balloon of their conspiracy against Islam but each time the Muslims, by the grace of God, pricked it and it burst in the mid air scattering hapazardly its synthetic shards. When they had been frequently frustrated in direct and overt confrontations, they found it more effective and convenient to rely on indirect and underhand strategies. Therefore, some of them slipped into Islamic garbs and under the pretext of love of the Ahl-i-Bait and by openly stressing the innocence of Hadhrat Ali, they attached the Shias towards themselves and ultimately derailed them by taking them through different routes.

I have already stated ho the Shias humiliated and disgraced those whom the apparently professed to love. Now I propose to take up the issue of their allignments and differences. The Shias splintered into three sects after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain as has been mentioned by Nau Bakhti. The details of these sects are as follows:

Kaisaniyyah:

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain a group of his friends and supporters was simply dazed by the whirl of circumstances. They had witnessed two precedents one after the other. The first precedent was established by the conduct of Hadhrat Hussain. Both of them held the stature of Imams for them. Therefore they were at a loss to evaluate their conduct. On the one hand was Hadhrat Hassan who, inspite of the overwhelming number of his companions, had refused to battle with Hadhrat Muawiyyah and offered him the reins of power on a platter; on the other hand was Hadhrat Hussain who, inspite of the heavy odds against him, had refused to knuckle under and preferred to resist the force of tyranny and oppression. Hadhrat Hussain clearly knew that the forces of Yazid out-numbered his men but he did not bend under their numerical pressure and embraced martyrdom along with his companions on the battle field. He obviously preferred the chess board of war to the negotiation table of humiliating peace. If Hadhrat Hassan was justified in his stand, the conduct of Hadhrat Hussain was unjustified either as he felt more crippled and handicapped compared with his brother. And if Hadhrat Hussian’s action was justified it would automatically invalidate the action of Hadhrat Hassan. on account of this fundamental complication, the Imamat of the two brothers because suspect in their eyes. Some of them squirmed out of the commitment to their Imamat and started piping the tunes called out by other people. But the rest of Hadhrat Hussain’s companions clung to their faith in his Imamt as they had done in the past.

After Hadhrat Hussain, these people split into three gorups. One of the groups believed in the Imamat of the thesis that after Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain there wan nobody who could be closer to Amir-ul-Mominin than Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah as Hadhrat Hussain was more entitled to the Imamat after the death of Hadhrat Hassan, Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah is most deserving of the Imamat. Thus he is our Imam.

The second group believes that Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah is Imam Mehdi, and Hadhrat Ali has predicted about him. No one among the Ahl-i-Bait can either oppose him or deny his Imamat nor can he draw his sword out of the sheath without his permission and then handed over the Khilafat to him in the same way. Similarly, Hadhrat Hussain’s war with Yazid also carried his sanction. If Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain had acted without a green signal form him, they would have been derailed and destroyed because any one who opposed Muhammad bin Haniyyah was an ingidel and a disbeliever. It was Muhammad who had appointed Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid as the governor of Iraq and Syria and ordered him to avenge the blood of hussain by killing his murderes, and to dig them out form their hiding places. He also name him "Kaisan" on account of his intelligence and his followers are called Mukhtariyyah or Kaisaniyyah.

I have earlier stated that Kaisaniyyah came into the limelight after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali and later on acquired the label of Mukhtariyyah. A number of Shia off-shoots and sub-group sprang out of Kaisaniyyah: for example, Karabiyyah, Harbiyyah, Razarmiyyah, Bayaniyyah, Rawindiyyah, Abul-Mulammiyyah, Hasmiyyah, Haritiyyah and many other sects.

The common denominator among these sects is the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah and the net-work of beliefs churned out by Abdullah bin Saba. All these sects believe in back-biting, resurrection and transmigration. One of their poyes says:

(The Imams of Quraish are the supporters of right: they are fout and all of them are of equal stature)

(One of them is Hadhrat Ali, and the three are his sons who are grandsons of the Messenger of Allah and all the people know them)

(One of the grandsons is a paragon of virtue and piety and the other disappeared at Karbala)

(and the third grandson will not die until he leads the armies with a flag fluttering in front)

(They have vanished into the lap of luxury (Ridhwal) and will remain invisible for a certain period. They have honey and water at their dispsoal)

Baghadadi in his book "Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq" has answered these verses. A Kaisani poet says:

(O people! Go to the man who lives the valley of Ridhwa, visit his house and pay homage to him)

(Can any damage be done to this group from our sides who made him the ruler and conferred on him the title of Khalifah and imam)?

(They waged war with all the residents of the earth on his account though he lives at a distance of seventy years of travel)

(He lives in seclusion in the heart of the valley of Ridhwa and the angels chat him up)

(Ibn Khaula has not tasted death nor has the earth hidden his bones)

(On account of his virtues, he is furnished with the best residence and company, and his companions treat him with tremendous regard). Baghdadi has retaliated in the language.

(You have wasted a whole life span waiting for a person whose bones are hidden in the earth)

(There is not a single Imam in the valley of Ridhwa whom the angels chat up)

(He has neither honey nor water at his disposal, nor any other syrup that could substitute for food)

(The son of Khaula tasted death as his father had tasted it)

(If social superiority and religious piety were the guarantee of an eternal life, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) would be blessed with immortality.)

It is noteworthy that Imamat had been transferred to Banu Abbas from Kaisaniyyah. Some of its sects believed that the Imamat had passed on to Muhammad bin Ali bin Abbas from Abu Hashim bin Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah, from him to his son Ibrahim, form Ibrahim to Abul Abbas and form Abdul Abbas to Abu J’afar Mansur who was the founder of the Abbasiyyah dynasty.

Of all the Shia sects, the sect of Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid Thaqafi enjoyed the best reputation and attached the largest number of followers. It gained the widest circulation because it came out with the unequivocal call to avenge the blood of Hadhrat Hussain. Kashi has reported in his book "Rijal" through Muhammad bin Masud, Ibn abi Ali Khiza’, Khalid bin Yazid Umri and Hassan bin Zaid, It is attributed to Umar bin Ali that Mukhtar dispatched twenty thousands dinar to Ali bin Hussain which he accepted and repaired his own house and the house of ‘Aqil bin abi Talib that were in a delpidated condition. Later, he sent him forty thousands dinar which he declined to accept because he had by that time articulated his beliefs.

Mukhtar was the person who persuaded people to acknowledge the Imamat of Muhammad bin Haniyyah. Those who responded to his invitation were called Mukhtariyyah or Kaisaniyyah, by virtue of which the surname of "kaisan" was appended to his name. Some people suggest that the surname Kaisan was conferred on him on him by Maula bin abi Talib. He prompted him to avenge the murder of Hussain and he also identified the murderers to facilitate his vengeance. He was his confidant but also had an edge over him. Whenever he came to know that an enemy of Hussain was hiding in some house, he would rush to the place, raze it to the ground and kill all the living things in it. The dilapidated houses of Kufah were reduced to a shambles by him. As a matter of fact, he acquired the status of proverbial figure among the Kufis. Whenever they found someone in a state of misery and penury, they at once imputed it to the evil act of Abu Umrah. A poet wrote:

(He is the devil. You can’t except anything good form him. H will provoke you to rebellion but he will not dole out even a crumb of food.)

Wellhausen has given maximum space to him in his book. I would like to reproduce below his words to piece together a picture of Mukhtar which the German orientalist has drawn so pains-takingly.

"It is generally stated about Mukhtar that he is a magician (Tabri Vol. 2, P. 730), that he is anti-Christ (Tabri, P. 686). He is generally dubbed as a liar. All these epithets were showered on him not because he was a self-styled spokesman of Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah, but because he claimed himself to be a prophet thought he had done it only surreptitiously. But some of his acts clearly betrayed his intentions and reflected his prophetic pretensions. When he spoke, he gave the impression as if he was sitting in the presence of the Lord and knew the hidden secrets of the universe. His linguistic versatility and eloquence also helped in the projection of his image as an extraordinary person. His main object was to impress the people and he achieved a reasonable measure of success objective, but the majority of people who were impressed by his objective, but the majority of people who were impressed by his rhetoric and tactics generally belonged to the illiterate masses or were know for their stupidity. However, as his reputation increased, the strategies of the Muslims grew more subtle and comprehensive to beat him at his own game. And when he was finally defeated, the whole world turned against him, and after his murder his memories fell prey to the arrows of convention and ritual. In the initial phase he was condemned alright but no attempt was made to disfigure him. But in the later phase a regular campaign of character-assassination was launched against him which created a distorted impression of his personality on the minds of the future generations: The attempt at disfigurement was motivated mainly by spite and jealousy. Dozy in his book "Maqallh fi Tarikh-ul-Islam" has also relied on these traditions. It was he who had ordered the flight of white pigeons. He had also invented the concept of "Bada" about God to justify his whimsical sides form one religion to the other and stripped his followers of any right to criticise his religious jumps and shuffles. Tabri’s account has played a considerable role in his projections along these lines.

If we want an answer to the question whether he was a genuine prophet or an imposter, we’ll have to first established the fact whether he was sincere or in-sincere in his efforts. It seems he used prophethood as an instrument or his socio-political elevation and the same argument is applicable to the modus vivendi adopted by Muhammad. It should also be kept in mind that islam is a political religion and each Muslims prophet is justified in elevating his political status. But even more pernicious and dangerous is the fact that he camouflaged himself behind an imaginary personality and nothing was know about him or perhaps no attempt was made to probe into his reality. Therefore it is certain that there was come flaw in his sincerity, on this count at least. It is another story that the circumstances did not permit him to rely on a specific appellation but packaged himself in abstract terms as the nucleus of truth. Mukhrat had derived his beliefs from Sabaism, an innovatory sect (designed mainly to scoop away the concrete form the foundation of Islam). Sabaism held tremendous appeal especially for the elite of various tribes, and under its influence, the Shias had adopted an obscene and aggressive posture against the Sunnis which brought into the limelight Shia-Sunni differences. Sabaism is also known as Kaisaniyyah. Kaisan was simultaneously the chief of Mawalis and Sabais which obviously leads one to the conclusion that Mawalis and the Shias were one and the same (P. 623, 1.14; P. 651, 1.2).

Banking on this conclusion, some people are inclined to believe that Shiasm has its religious roots in Iran because majority of Kufh Mawalis hailed form Iran. Dozy writes in his book (ff. 20) that the Shias are in fact a Persian sect. This clearly explains the difference between Arabic and Persian genus. The Arabs love freedom and independence; the Persians love slavishness and humility. The election of a Caliph after the Prophet was something unexpected for them which they found extremely gritty to swallow or digest. They believed only in the law of inheritance as it was compatible with their servile outlook. It was, therefore, part of their conviction that as long as Muhammad lived, none on his sons could replace him. Hadhrat Ali also favoured his appointment as Caliph. Therefore it was essential that Khilafat should circulate only among Ali’s also favoured his appointment as Caliph. Therefore it was essential that Khilafat should circulate only among Ali’s progeny as part of an inviolate heritage. That is why they declared all the Caliphs, with the solitary exception of Hadhrat Ali, as usurpers and openly expressed that their obedience was not binding on them. Their belief was strengthened by the fact that they disliked the overlordship of the Arabs and their eyes were rivetted on the wealth and oppulence of their cheifs. They were also used to the rule of those who had sprung out of the backs of their secular lords. Thus they transferred their notion of honour and prestige to Ali and his progeny. Therefore it was their greatest obligation to prescribe absolute submission to any Imam who happened to be an Alvi sprig. A mere discharge of this obligation could render a man immune to all sin and evil, without any qualm of compunction. The Imam, in fact, was all that they cared for. He was God in the garb of man. This blind attachment and indifference to one’s duties and obligations was the foundation of their religion.

Muller has also expressed similar views in the relevant book (Vol. 1, P. 327) with the addition that the Persians were deeply and extensively influenced by Hindu views on account of their centuries old association with one another. As a result of this influence, they believed that the king was the light of the divine soul which is transferred from kings to their successors who are in the direct line of lineage.

It is beyond doubt that Shia views and beliefs have close affinity with the views and beliefs of Iranis but to suggest that the former have branched out of the latter is an exercise in building sandcastles and lacks the ballast of reality.

The other beliefs held by these people are recorded at length in other books bearing on the issue. Here the beliefs are discussed keeping in view the constraints of space and the restraints of relevance. Since these issues have a built-in propensity to slide out of hand, every effort relatively larger space to this Shia group and its ring leader because it is a legacy of Sabaism. The Shias who appeared on the scene later derived their views and beliefs from this nucleus sect. Consequently, true Shiaism started melting away and the early Shias were on the wane. They soon went out of circulation because they could not cosmeticize their wares. The progeny of Ali and Banu Hashim topped the list of the genuine Shias who were receding fast into the limbo of oblivious. The Sabai views were no invested with sufficient strength to elbow them out, and had overtly aggressive designs towards all the genuine Shias. But the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain dampened their devilish enthusiasm by creating a soft corner in the hearts of people for Hadhrat Ali and his children. Those who demanded revenge for the blood of Hussain felt a sense of deep frustration. Their blood simply boiled when they reflected on the murder of Hussain. They wanted to dismantle the entire administrative structure that carried the stigma of Hussain’s blood. Some of them denigrated everything that was even remotely connected with the Government; they openly condemned and fluted their beliefs and edicts. When these people realized that the rulers respected Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the wives of the Prophet, they disaffiliated themselves from them and started lambasting the pious personalities. They did not condemn them out of principle or because they had any difference of opinion with them. It was out of sheer stubbornness and a sense of deep-rooted indignation that they declaimed any statement or slogan that rose from the pulpit because, in their purblindness, they equated the voice of the priest with the voice of the administrators. It is indeed a reflection of their radicalism that had seeped into their hearts and minds as a consequence of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain. Therefore Allama Zahadi and Ibn Taimiy have stated that all the early Muslims shared on unqualified convergence of opinion on the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. Even the Shias of Ale held the same conviction. Ibn Batah attributes it to his Shaikh who is more popularly known as Abul Abbas bin Masruq (the tradition is filtered through Muhammad bin Hamid, Jaria, Suffiyan and Abduallh bin Ziyyad bin Haider that Abu Ishaq Sabi’i came to Kufah. Shimr bin Atiyyah persuaded us to call on him. When we went over to see him, he said to us: when I left Kufa, there was not a single person who doubted the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. Now when I arrived here, I have found people talking against them. By God! I fail to guess what are they talking about!

Zamura quotes Said bin Hassan who is reported to have heard from Layth bin Salim: I have lived in the period of early Shias and I know from my experience that they did not prefer anyone to Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar in status.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (through Suffiyan bin ‘Uyyinah and Khalid bin Salmah) attributes it to Masruq who reportedly laid special stress on the love and status of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar and raised it to the level of a tradition. It should be noted that Hadhrat Masruq is considered one of the distinguished Kufi successors of the companions of the Propher (peace be upon him). Hadhrat Taus has also endorsed him. Hadhrat Masud, too, expresses similar views. It was obviously binding on the early Shias to show respect to these pious personages because Ali’s words have come down to us with unbroken continuity that Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Umar are the most superior persons in the Muslim Ummah after the Prophet (peace be upon him). This tradition is frequently and repeatedly attributes to him, and as a stamp of its certification, it exits in eighty authentic versions.

Imam Bokhari has supported it in his "Sahih" with special reference to his Hadith "Ba-Tariq Hamadaniyyin" (the people who were Hadhrat Ali’s closest associates). Rather, he himself often expresses:

(If I am serving as a porter at any one of the gates of Paradise, I would tell the Hamadains to enter Paradise sagely and fearlessly). Imam Bokhari attributes a tradition to Suffiyan Thauri who is a Hamadiani and he has ascribed it to Muhammad bin Haniyyah. He said: I asked my father who was the vest person after the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Hadhrat Ali: don’t you know my son!

Muhammad: No, I don’t.

Hadhrat Ali: Abu Bakr is the best man.

Muhammad: And who after him?

Hadhrat Ali: after him, Hadhrat Umar.

Since it was a person to-person dialogue between Hadhrat Ali and his son, it would not be fair to assume that Hadhrat Ali was dissimulating at that time and trying to hide his true feelings in the interest of expediency. And then the reporter also happens to be his own son who proclaimed it form the pulpit to obviate the possibility of any skeptical reaction to the truth of its contents. Hadhrat Ali himself openly stated that if any person was brought before him who declared him superior to Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar he would flog him the way he flogged a back—biter and a transgressor.

Muhibbuddin Khatib has noted in the margin of "Al-Muntaqa" that it provides a chronological line of demarcation to isolate early Shiaism from later Shiaism. Abu Ishaq Sab’i was a distinguished scholar of Kufah. He was born during the Caliphate of Hadhrat Uthman and three years before his martyrdom. He died in 127 A.H. He was only a child during Hadhrat Ali’s tenure as Caliph. He himself says that his father lifted him and he saw Hadhrat Ali delivering the sermon. At that time both his head and beard were grey. If we ever find out the exact date he left Kufah, we could come closer to what actually happened in that period in which the Shias of Kufag were Alvis and, like their Imam, believed unconditionally in the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. We would also come to know when did the Shias actually oppose Hadhrat Ali on this issue: It is very strange that both the Khwarjis and the Abbasis clung to the old belief and honoured their commitment with Hadhrat Ali but the Shais in the very first century disobeyed their own Imam by raising their promises in the last days of Abu Ishaq Sabi’i.

The change brought a radical shift in Shia beliefs. At first they had challenged only the peripheral issues. But now they questioned the very basis of their beliefs on account of their hatred of the rulers and the administrators. In their fury they identified the beliefs with those of the administrators. They forgot that the convictions were divinely oriented while the rulers had their human flaws and short-comings and their weaknesses did not nullify the validity of the convictions. But men do get disoriented and slide off the rails in a state of anger. And the Shias were no exception the worst aspect of their detracking was that they raised a mere prejudice into a philosophy which could neither by substantiated by convention nor bolstered by logic. They became so splenetic that they started denigrating the Quran, which is the main bulwark of the faithful against the rampancy of evil, and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which is an explanation and clarification of the Quranic injunctions.

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain, the Shias fell a frequent prey to al sorts of obscenities and vulgarities which often assault a faithless community or a group of people who consciously and wilfully opt for the evil way. The early Shias felt chessed off by their evil practices and tried to raise barricades against the proliferation of their devilish views but their efforts proved futile. However, when they realized that the Shias had reached a point of no return and were absolutely disinclined to give up their sinful way of life, they bade farewel to Shiaism. Their decision to give a parting kick to Shiaism was not an emotional decision. It was a gall-out of their conviction that the Shias could not wriggle out of the quagmire of corruption into which they had suck on account of greed and lechery. When Mukhtar had settled himself comfortably at the steering – wheel of the Honda Accord of Shiaism, Ibrahim refused to join him as an accomplice in dismantling the fundamentals of Islam. This refusal has been attested to by Wellhausen, the distinguished German orientalist. Ibrahim bin Ashtar was the head of the Nakha off-shoot of the Mizhif tirbe. He was a shred and highly opinionative person. Like his father, he was a sincere admirer of Hadhrat Ali. He had good relations with Muhammad bin Haniyyah, though he did not like the brand of Shiaism that was in vogue in those days. He neither associated himself with Sulaiman Sard nor did he display any interests in Mukhtar’s improvisations. The other people also failed to rope him in. At last he received a letter from Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah in which he had been asked unequivocally to acknowledge the personality of Mukhtar bin Ubaid. But what really terrified him was the fact that Ibn Hanifiyyah had used the by-name "Mehdi" in his letter, though, as far as he knew, he had never attached any extra epithet or label to his orighinal name. This unexpected change led him belief that the letter had been forged. But the messengers who had brought the letter confirmed its genuineness. Later Mukhtar himself attested to its authenticity. However, two persons attracted his attention, presumably for their own safety. They were ‘Amir bin Sharahil Shobi—reporter, Jurist and Muhaddith and his father Sharahil. He drew Amir aside and asked him about the reliability of the witnesses who had attested to the authenticity of the letter. Amir told him that they were among the distinguished people of Egypt and Arabia, and therefore they were generally considered trustworthy and dependable. In view of the reputation they enjoyed, they could not have possibly doctored the evidence. (Tabri 612/2). Ibn Ashtar asked them to write down their names. He consequently wrote a brief review bearing on these events. When he was convinced about the unadulterated contents of the letter, he extended it the honour it deserved and reserved himself for the service of Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid.

But when Mukhtar took a somerasult and dabbled unashamedly in the propagation of his latent Sabai views, which lambasted the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and preached open enmity against the Prophetic views and way of life, people twirled their whiskers against him. They condemned him for his heretic and blasphemous ideas. They accused him of usurpation of power. They said that he had installed himself into the highest executive seat without the consent and command of Ibn Hanigiyyah and he and his Sabaism had introduced an innovation into the body-politic of Islam which was mainly designed to debunk and disown their illustrious and pious forefathers.

These elderly people took control of the important centres of Kufah. They dumped Mukhtar into the palace and disconnected him with the world outside. He tried to bamboozle them with a cleverly devised plan. He suggested that two independent delegations should be dispatched to Ibn Haniyyah for investigating the state affairs. One would represent him and the other delegation would represent them. The delegates would find out whether Ibn Haniyyah had extended his support to him or not. But his plan did not materialize and he failed to pull a rabbit out of his magic bag.

Wellhausen adds: "Mukhtar was at the zenith of power, but the pits of destruction also lay before him. The old Arab Shias did not trust him. That is why they had disposed him and quarantined him from power".

The details are sufficient to establish a profile of the changes that appeared in the conduct of the early Shias and their later manifestation. After the change, Shiaism was trimmed down to a set of obscene and vulgar exercises as it was drained of its galvanizing spirit. They believed that the white pigeons were angels. They also held strange beliefs about prophethood and the unknown. A new wave of dissension hit the Shias after the murder of Mukhtar. One of the sects came out with the proposal that Ali bin Hussain was their Imam. He had two patronyms: one was Abu Muhammad and the other was Abu Badr, which was relatively more popular. This sect clung to their faith in his Imamat till his death in 94 A.H. in the month of Muharram. He was fifty years old when he died. He was born in 39 A.H. His mother was known as Salafah but was called Jahan Shah before she acquired the status of a slave-maid. She was the daughter of Yazdjard bin Shahr yar bin Kisra Abr Wiz bin Hurmuz. Yazdjard was the last king of Iran.

Another sect believed that after Hadhrat Hussain the chain of Imamat borke down. There were only three Imams whom they mentioned by their names. They were appointed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and acted as his executors. They followed him one after the other and their ovedience was binding on every one. But they did not specify any one as their successor. Still another sect believed that after Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain. They shared the Imamat among themselves as it was specified for them only. Any one of them who invites the people to follow him their Imam and it is binding on them to obey him. He acts on behalf of Hadhrat Ali. Therefore it is a divine obligation of the people to acknowledge him as their leader. Any one who opposes him is an infidel. And any one who claims himself to be an Imam and them disappears within the walls of his house is also an infidel, and any one who obeys him and acknowledges his Imamt is an infidel too.

Some other Shia sects:

Besides, there are number of other Shia sects. Some of them are of the opinion that the portfolio of Imamt is held by the children of Hadhrat Hassan. Other sects entertain other views. Some of them believe that the chain of prophethood continues after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and they do not hesitate either to ascribe partners to God, as Ibn Hazm has stated in his book "Fasl".

The Shias who believe in the continuation of prophethood after the Prophet (peace be upon him) are further subdivided into many sects. One of these sects is known as Gharabiyyah. It is their conviction that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had the same resemblance with Hadhrat Ali as a crow (gharab) has with another crow. God had actually sent down Bavriel with the revelation to Hadhrat Ali but by mistake he brought it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). One of these groups believes that Hadhrat Ali is a prophet. An other group believes that Hadhrat Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Ali bin Hussain, Muhammad bin Ali, Jafar bin Munammad, Musa bin Jafar, Ail bin Musa, Muhammad bin Ali, Hassan bin Muhammad and Imam Muntazir bin Hassan were all prophets.

Qaramatah:

One of the Shia sects is convinced only of the prophethood of Muhammad bin Ismail bin Jafar: it is called Qaramtah. Another sect believes in the prophethood of Hadhrat Ali and his three sons Hassan, Hussain and Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah. This sect is an off-shoot of Kaisaniyyah. Mukhtar was also on the verge of staking out his claim to prophethood. He decked out his kiosk with many inconceivable wares and scared the people to their roots by palming off bogus revelations. Quite a few of the damned Shia groups, who believed in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah, were his ardent followers.

One of the sects expressed its belief in the prophethood of Mughirah bin Said. Another sect believe in the prophethood of Mansur Ajli and they often repeated the Quranic verse:

(If they see a piece falling from the sky). It was also known as ‘Kasf’.

There are other Shia sects who believe that divinity is a limited company or a corporate organization with many partners of equal status. On the top of the list are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba Humairi (may God curse him) who had the audacity and the impudence to express in front of Hadhrat Ali: "you are Him". He asked: Who? The rogues replied: We mean to say that you are Allah. He was terribly indignant when he heard their outrageous words and he hurled them alive into the raging fire. When they were being thrown into the fire, thy were saying: we are convinced now that you are Allah because it is only Allah Who punishes by fire. Hadhrat Ali recited a verse bearing on the episode:

(When I realized that it was an absolutely wicked thing, I had the fire lighted and called for Qanbar. Qambar was the name of his slave. He gripped them one by one and dumped them into the fire. Hadhrat Ali’s companions behaved towards him in the same way as the companions of Jesus had behaved towards him. This sect had a wide circulation. A large number of Shias are attached to it, and it has survived down to the present days of sophisticated technology and intellectual enlightenment, and it openly flaunts its beliefs. Ishaq bin Muhammad Nakhfi Ahmar Kufi belonged to this sect. He was one of its prominent members. He has also written a book called "Al-Sirat" on the beliefs of the sect. Bhinki and Fiyyaz have refuted his claims in their books. These rascals used to say that Hadhrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the messenger of Hadhrat Ali. One of the Shia sects is called Muhammdiyyah who believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Allah. an other sect believes that Hadhrat Adam was God, and all the prophets down to Hadhrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), who followed him, were all Gods. Similarity Hadhrat Ali was also a God. Hadhrat Hassan, Hadhrat Hussain, Muhammad bin Ali, Jafar bin Muhammad were Gods too. Then they kept off these blasphemies and apostasies for a while but the Shia sect Khtabiyyah, during the period of Isa bin Musa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas believed that Jafar is God. Thus numerous parties of these Shias came out of their houses in the early part of the day, wearing Ihram and gathered in Azrawaridiyyah and proclaimed in loud accents

(welcome Jafar! Welcome Jafar).

Ibn Ayyash etc say that they were watching the spectacle when Isa bin Musa went up to him and picked up a fight with him. He also retaliated violently and made a massive massacre of them. Then another sect declared that Muhammad bin Ismail bin Jafar bin Muhammad was God. Qaramtah held on to this belief. Some of the adherents of this views also believed in the divinity of Abu Said Hassan bin Behram Jabai and after him in the divinity of his sons. Some of them believed that Abul Qasim Najar was God. He was popularly known as Mansur and he resided in Yemen and Balad Hamadan. A number of other people ascribed divinity to the highest executive ofice of the State. On eof the sects professed the divinity of Abu Khatab Muhammad bin abi Zainab Maual bani Asad. This group had a numerical edge over many other sects and its adherents ran into thousands. They believed in his divinity as well as the divinity of Jafar bin Muhammad but the former was superior God. They also claimed that all the sons of Hadhrat Hassan are the sons and darlings of God and are still alive in the skies. Another sect transformed Momar, the wheat-seller into a God-head. Momar was one of the companions of Abul Khatab.

One of the sects believed in the divinity of Hassan bin Mansur Hallaj, the cotton-ginner. He was hanged during the period of Muqtadir through the efforts of Wazir bin Hamid bin Abbas. Another sect attributes divine essence to Muhammad bin Ali bin Shalmaghani Katib. He was murdered in Baghdad during the tenure of Razi. They believed in women-swapping. Another sect conferred divinity on Shabash who was buried alive in Basrah. Still another sect vests Abu Muslim Siraj with divine attributes. A third sect attributes divine qualities to squint-eyed, short-statured Miqna. He tried to avenge the murder of Abu Muslim. His name was Hashim and he was executed during the tenure of Mansur. A public proclamation was made about his murder and Mansur himself murdered himand his companions.

The Ranudiyyah sect affirmed the divinity of Abu Jafa Mansur. An other sect worshipped Abdullah bin Kharb Kundi Kufi as God. The followers of this sect believed in the transmigration of souls. Nineteen prayers were obligatory for them. Each prayer was divided into fifteen units (Rakat). When one of the ‘Sifriyyah Mutakalimin’ held a discussion with him and explained to him the fundamentals of Islamic faith, he re-embraced Islam and bade farewell to his former beliefs and convictions. He conveyed the fact of his conversion to is companions as well and expressed his unqualified penitence in their presence. All of his companions turned against him. They not only dissociated themselves from him but also launched a vicious campaign against him. Then they elected Abdullah bin Mu’awiyyah bin Abdullah bin Jafar bin abi Talib as their Imam. Abdullah bin Kharb remained a loyal adherent to Islam and to the Safri faith as long as he lived. His party has survived the vagaries of change and is known by the label of Hizbiyyah. Nasriyyah is one of the Sabai sects which believes in the divinity of Hadhrat Ali. The adherents of this sect are sttled in Syria and Jordan and are especially concentrated in the city of Tabriyyah. They believe that people who curse and malign Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah and Hassan and Hussain are devils in human guise. They believe that Abdu Rahman bin Maljim Kuradi, the murderer of Hadhrat Ali—though Hadhrat Ali himslef had cursed him—will be the most superior person in the next world because he had severed the divine soul from the constricting blutches of the flesh. This belief is sheer lunacy and unpardonable perversity. All people who try to flout divine injuctions and indulge in such irrational frenzies should fear the wrath of God because the punishment he inflicts on disobedient and arrogant humans can neither be contained not cured even by their most ingenious remedies. Even the cleverest man is helpless against a divine calamity.

All of these sects which specialize in holding and relishing anti-Islamic beliefs and convictions which it categorically denies and negates. As a matter of fact, their beliefs are a set of negations. They are framed in express violation of the positive injunctions of Islam. Some of the Sufis hold the beliefs that the injunctions of Sharia no longer apply to a person who develops an intimate association with God. Others add that he is coupled with God and is inalienably linked with him. I have heard that there is a person in Naishapur known by the patronym of Au Said and Abul Khair. Some-time he wears woollen clothes and sometimes he dresses himself in silk togs which men are forbidden to wear. Sometimes he offers one thousand rakat in one day and sometimes he even refuses to offer the obligatory prayer. His conduct is a clear—cut violation of Islamic prescriptions and regulations. Islam is not a capricious religion nor does it permit any whimsical indulgence. None of its adherents can play a blind man’s buff with its fundamentals and interpret its basic principles to suit the fluctuations of his erratic temper. A true Muslim does not play ducks and drakes with his faith. He is simply over-awed by its splendour and sublimity and he can not even imagine trivializing it or interpreting it in the hazy glow of his swinging moods. For him it is a source of immediate consolation as well as eventual salvation. Therefore anyone who values his moods more than the rules of the faith is not its true adherent. As a matter of fact, by catering to his misguided moods, he works against its essential spirit which calls for unquallfied obedience and unmodified loyalty.

Ashari, Baghdadi, Malti, and Asfraini etc have also mentioned a number of Shia sects in their books. Most of these sects germinated during the period of Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain who is generally known by the name of Zain-ul-Abidin.

Shias after Ali bin Hussain:

Ali bin Hussain remained loyal to Banu Ummayyah rulers and lost the sympathies of all those in Makka and Madinah who had any plans to oppose these rulers.

Zaidiyyah:

Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain left a large progeny behind him. One of them was Muhammad known by the patronym of Abu Jafar Baqir. One of his sons was called Zaid and another carried the name Umar. There was a difference of opinion among the Shias about Muhammad bin Ali and Zaid bin Ali. Some of them expressed allegiance to Muhammad while others declared adherence to Zaid. One of the Shia historians observes: Zaidiyyah believe in the Imamat of Hadhrat Ali, his son Hassan and his brother Hussain. After him they believe in the Imamat of his son, Zain-ul-Abidin and his son Zaid bin Ali and their sect is known by his name. He invited the people in Kufah to express allegiance to him as their Imam. He was murdered and guillotined to Kinasah. After Zaid’s martyrdom, his followers elected his son Yahya as their Imam who was murdered at Jozfan on his way to Khorasan. He had expressed the desire that after his death Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassan Sabt should be appointed their Caliph but he was put to death in Hijaz. He had willed the appointment of his brother Ibrahim as Caliph after him. He declared his Imamat in Basra with the support of Isa bin Zaid but the armed forces of Mansur challenged them and ultimately executed both of them to death. The Zaidiyyah also believed that Yahya’s brother Isa was entitled to Imamat after him and therefore they transferred the Imamat to his children. Some others believed that Idris was entitled to Imamat after the death of his brother Muhammad bin Abdullah. But he escaped towards the west where he eventually died. After him his son Idris took up the gauntlet and laid the foundation of the city of Fas. Some of his sons became the rulers of the west. One of his sons had the distinction of ascending the royal throne of Tabristan as king. His brother Muhammad also shared the regal distinction. Then Nasir Al-Hurush in Dilam succeeded them and a large number of people expressed their allegiance to him. Nau Bakhti writes:

"Zaidiyyah was split into two groups; a strong group and a weak group. The followers of the weak group were known as Ajiliyyah. Those were the companions of Harun Said Ajli. One of these Sects is called Behtriyyah. This sect was headed by Kathir Nava’, Hassan bin Salih bin Hi, Salim bin abi Hifsah, Hukm bin Utaibah, Salmah bin Kusail and Abdul Miqdam Thabit Hadad. They invited the people to acknowledge the over lordship of Hadhrat Ali and then muddled it with that of Abu Bakr and Umar. The people generally considered it superior to all other sects because its adherents believe in the superiority to all other sects because its adherents believe in the superiority of Hadhrat Ali and they also profess the leadership of Hadhrat Abu Bakr. They negate Hadhrat Uthman, Talhe and Zubair. They think that they should support each one of Ali’s children and they regard it as an inalienable part of their conviction. They cling to the belief that Imamt circulates only among the children of Hadhrat Ali even if any one of them surrenders or forgoes his right to rule, it goes not mean the termination of his rule. All children of Ali have equal status in their eyes irrespective of the womb that has engendered them.

The stronger sect of Zaidiyyah is steered by Abul Jarud, Abu Khalid Wasti, Fudhail Rasan and Mansur bin abi Al-Aswad. The Zaidiyyah sent which is known by the designation Hussainiyyah believes that any member of the progeny of Muhammad (peace be upon him) who invites people to obey God, deserves to be obeyed by the people. But Hadhrat Ali was the Imam par excellence. Hadhrat Hussain was the Imam when he defied the powers of oppression and when he had dissociated himself from Muawiyyah till the incidence of his martyrdom. Zaid bin Hassan, who had been murdered in Kufah, was also the Imam. His mother was Um Wald. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan was also the Imam. His mother was Hind bint abi Ubaidah bin Abdullah bin Zima bin Aswad bin Mutlib bin Asad bin Uzabin Qasi. In fact, any one of the progeny of Muhammad (peace be upon him) who invites people to obey God is an Imam.

Shahrastani has commented on different Shia sects and the difference of opinion and belief that characterize them. He remarks that Zaidiyyah are the followers of Hadhrat Zaid bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali. These people confine Imamt only to the children of Fatima and do not extend its range to other people. They believe that any Fatimi who is learned, pious, brave and magnanimous and desires Imamat is an Imam and deserves to be obeyed whether he belongs to Hassan's progeny or to Hussain’s. One of its sects believes in the leadership of Imam Muhammad and Imam Ibrahim. Both of the were the sons of Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hussain. They rebelled during the tenure of Mansur but were executed. Any one of them who possessed these attributes could claim. Imamat as his right. Zaid bin Ali availed himself of every opportunity to roll in knowledge to strengthen his claim. He received massive shots of knowledge and scholarship form Wasil bin Ata who was the leader of Motazilah and who held the belief that his grandfather, Hadhrat Ali, was swayed more by sentiment than logic in the battles that were waged between the people of Jamal and those of Syria. One of the groups was obviously in the wrong though the extent of its error can not be determined with unerring accuracy. Thus Zaid also learned Itizal from Wasil and all of his companions turned into Motizills. It was also part of their faith that the Imamat of the less superior was also legally binding on the people inspite of the Imamat of the more superior. Through Hadhrat Ali was themost venerated among the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), he had entrusted the Khilafat to Hadhrat Abu Bakr as a measure of expediency and though his compromise he quashed a budding rebellion and satisfied the growing anxiety of the people. He elected Hadhrat Abu Bakr as the Caliph because the dust of the wars fought during the Prophetic era had not yet settled and the sword of Hadhrat Ali had not yet dried up. It was still coated with the blood of Quraish infidels. The hearts of people, therefore, were ovens of revenge and furnaces of vegeance. Thus, if Hadhrat Ali was elected the Caliph, the people would not have inclined towards him from the depths of their hearts and would not have extended him their unqualified allegiance. It was therefore the dictate of expediency and wisdom that the burden of trust should be handed over to a person who was well known for his clemency, affection, faith and deep association with the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore when the Prophet (peace be upon him), during his fatal illness, wanted to entrust the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to a person who is notorious for his short temper. It means that the people did not like Hadhrat Umar to become Amir-ul-Momini on account of the violence of his temperament and the severe and unbending treatment of his enemies. But there was a consensus of opinion among them on the choice of Hadhrat Abu Bakr as their leader.

Similarly, when both the Imams are present, the less superior and the more superior, people are supposed to obey the orders of the latter. When the Shias of Kufah came to know that he did not express his dissociation with the Shaikhain, they beat him black and blue till he died. On this count, the label of Rafidha was conferred on him. A debate was also held between him and his brother Muhammad Baqir because he had accepted the discipleship of Wasil bin Ata’ who put the entire blame on Hadhrat Ali for waging a war against oppressors and persecutors. He challenged the concept of fate against the conviction of the Ahl-i-Bait and declared rebellion and speculation obligatory for consolidating the position of an Imam. He even went to the extent of saying that on the basis of his faith his father did not deserve to be an Imam because he had neither rebelled against the existing conditions nor had he come out with an explicit manifesto or programme stamping the validity of his Imamat.

When Zaid bin Ali was murdered, Yahya bin Zaid came out with his claim to Imamat and left for Kharasan. It should be kept in mind that Zaid bin Ali had been executed at Kinasah, a place in Kufah and Hisham bin Abdul Malik was the one who had put him to death, while the Amir of Jazijan had ordered the execution of Yahya bin Zaid in his own town, located in Kharasan. Imam Muhammad was murdered by Isa bin Maham in Madinah and Imam Ibrahim was murdered in Basrah. Both of them had been executed on the orders of Mansur. The Zaidiyyah sect kept on drifting in a whirpool of instability as it had lost stabilizing edge through the murder of its distinguished leaders. Then Nasir Atrush appeared in Khorasan. He was hounded all over the country by the murderers but he went underground. Then he left for Dilam and Jabal where he invite people to embrace the faith preached and practised by Zaid bin Ali. People rallied round him and the Zaidiyyah brand of Islamic religion flourished almost unhampered in this area. Their Imams appeared successively and provided religious guidance to the people. They opposed their cousins in the formulation and interpretation of day-to-day matters relating to the Islamic faith. Later on , a large number of its followers backed out of their commitment to the Imamat of the less superior people and, like the Imamiyyah, they slipped into a lambasting criticism of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). On the basis of their attitude towards the Prophet and his companions, they are divided into three types.

The sects of Salihiyyah and Behtriyyah shared the same set of religions convictions.

Jarudiyyah Sect:

This sect comprised the friends and companions of Abul Jarud. The adherents of this sect believe that the specification issued by the Prophet (peace be upon him) about Hadhrat Ali was a qualified specification. It did not spell out the name clearly and left the designation deliberately ambiguous. Therefore, Hadhrat Ali was entitled to Imamat after him but the people displayed deplorable impercipienc in grasping the significance of this obvious lack of specification and failed to estimate the proper worth of Hadhrat Ali. Exercising their rights, the elevated Hadhrat Abu Bakr to the office of the Khalifah. Thus they turned infidels by virtue of their blindness and recalcitrance. Abul Jarud’s belief is a clear violation of the beliefs held by his Imam Zaid bin Ali who did not believe in the specification.

There is a difference of opinion among the adherents of the Jarudiyyah sect about the continuity or discontinuity of Imamat. Some of them believe in the continuity of Imamat form Hadhrat Ali down to Hadhrat Hassan, Hadhrat Hussain, Ali bin Hussain Zain-ul-Abidin, and to Zaid bin Ali. They hold the view that the Imamat further continued down to Imam Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hussain. Those who believe in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Abdullah are also divided in their opinion. Some of them propose that he was not executed and is still alive. He will rebel against the existent system of exploitative values and fill the earth with justice and equity. There are others who openly subscribe to the fact of his death and they extend the Imamat down to Muhammad bin Qasim bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali. He was imprisoned during the tenure of Motasim who incarcerated him within the precincts of his house where he eventually died.

Some of them are inclined towards the Imamat of Yahya bin Umar of Kufah. He protested against the status quo and invited the people in his campaign of purgation and restoration of the true Islamic order of values. A large number of people swarmed round him in response to his call for the purification of the stinking elements that had infected the entire social structure. But Yahya was beheaded during the period of Mustain and his chopped head was offered to Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Zahir on a platter. An Alvi poet has versified about it.

(I have murdered the most distinguished person among those who are accustomed to riding. Now I have come to you and I insist on a mild conversation).

(It is extremely annoying form me that I am meeting you under circumstances when there is no sword-blade stuck between us)

It may be recalled that murdered man was Yahya bin Umar bin Yahya bin Hussain Zaid bin Ali. Abul Jarud was called Sarhub and Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali Baqar had given him this name. Sarhub is the blind devil who lives in the sea. Qadhi Noman had referred to the Zaidiyyah sect in some of his verses

(The Zaidiyyah sect has expressed a statement which is not liked by the people)

(They have announced that any one of the children of Hussain bin Ali and Hassan bin Ali who invites people to march forward with the sword in his hand is the Imam and one who does not do so is not an Imam)

(And any one of them who goes into hiding is also not an Imam)

(According to their self-arranged priorities they obeyed Zaid and placed their services unconditionally at his disposal)

(But when Zaid was executed and Hussain claimed Imamt, these people sided with him)

(When Yahya bin Zaid Tahir appeared on the scene, they obeyed him, and after him they elected Muhammad as their ruler)

(Muhammad is in fact Muhammad bin Abdullah who was one of the children of Hadhrat Hassan but all of them had been executed)

(They are regarded by them as their Imams and after them those who stand for the nation are also the Imams)

(All other people except them are the subject and are of equal status as members of the same nation).

Shias of Kufah:

Before I wind up the discussion of their various sects, I would like to pinpoint the chronic cowardice and degradation of the Shais of Kufah. The Shias have fabricated a number of traditions about Kufah and attributed them to Hadhrat Ali. One of the traditions is:

"O Kufah! I can anticipate that you will be pulled and stretched as leather is pulled and stretched for tanning. You will be the centre of calamities and the battlefield of accidents and catastrophes. But I know that any rebel who approaches you with evil intentions, God will either make him face some calamity or he will become the target of a murderer’s shot.

According to another tradition, he is presumed to have expressed:

Seventy thousands people will be raised from Kufah on the doomsday. Their faces will be shining like the moon. He added: This is our town, our street and the residence of our Shias.

Another tradition is imputed to Jafar bin Muhammad:

O Allah! you should throw arrows at him who throws arrows at it and show enmity towards him who shows enmity towards it. Still an other traditions runs:

"It is a land which loves us and whom we love also"

Given below are the words of two great Shia Imams. Masudi has recorded that when Zaid bin Ali bin Hussain—who was executed either in 121 or 122 A.H.—consulted his brother to visit Kufah, he advised him to keep away from Kufah because its residents were traitors and crooks. He reminded him that his grandfather Hadhrat Ali received martyrdom there, his uncle Hadhrat Hassan was attacked with a spear and his father was executed, and it was in Kufah and its surroundings that they were cursed and maligned.

The second statement has been recorded by Mufid. He has commented in reference. To Zaid bin Zli that any nation who holds in disfavour kthe blade of the sword ultimately humiliated. When he reached Kufah, its residents thronged around him and they kept on badgering him until they elicited from him the promise to wage war. But they broke the promise and handed him over to his enemies. They murdered him and hung him on the cross for four years. But none of the Kufis either resented it or helped him with the hand or the tongue.

This is an accont of Zaidiyyah and of the people who were aligned with these sects

Some Other sects:

There are some other sects in addition to the Zaidiyyah sect which gave birth to many other groups and branches. One of these sects believe in the Imamat of Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan Mithna bin Ali bin abi Talib who was martyred by his oppontnts. They credited him with the status of Imam Mehdi. They believe that he is still alive and is residing on a mountain called Almiyyah. This mountain is located on the way to Makkah and Najd. On the way to Makkah it functions as a barrier. It is a huge mountain and he lives inside it and he will stay here until he rebels against the prevailing system. The Prophet (peace be upon him) has stated the name of Mahdi resembles my name and his patronym resembles my patronym. His brother Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin Hassan launched a movement in Basrah to invite people to acknowledge his Imamat. He achieved extraordinary success in his mission. But Mansur dispatched his army to take him to task. He gave a good account of himself on the battlefield but ultimately succumbed to death after fighting a number of battles with the armed forces of Mansur. Mughirah bin Said has stated that when Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali died and he gave vent to his views, the Shia companions of Abu Abdullah Jafar bin Muhammad expressed their disaffiliation with him, gave up his obedience and were known there-after as Rafidhis. He had conferred the new designation on them and hten he appointed one of the companions of Mughirah bin Said as the Imam, and he justified his act as the implementation of the will of Hussain by Ali and Ali bin Hussain. He added that it was also the will of Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali. Therefore he would be recognized and obeyed as the Imam till the appearance of Imam Mehdi. But the Shias denied the Imamat of Abu Abdullah Jafar bin Muhammad and explained that after the death of Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali, the children of Ali bin abi Talib were no longer entitled to Imamat, it would circulate among the children of Mughirah bin Said till the re-emergence of Imam Mehdi. In their opinion Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassa is the Mehdi who is alive. He neither died nor had he been martyred. This sect is known as Mughiriyyah on account of its affiliation with Mughirah. Mughirah went a step further and declared that he was a messenger and a prophet and Gabriel visited him with divine revelation. When Khalid bin Qisri asked him about it, he confirmed the rumour and also invited him to acknowledge his prophethood. Khalid advised him to recant his heretic opinion but he bluntly refused to switch over. So Khalid had him hanged. He also claimed to raise the dead. He believed in the transmigration of souls and his followers still practise that belief.

One of the Shia sects believes that the Imamat belongs by right to Muhammad Baqir bin Ali Zain-ul-Abidin. He succeeds his father as Imam and there is specific indication of his Imamat adequately backed by the words of his own father.

In 114 A.H. Shias trussed around Jafar after the death of his father Muhammad Baqir. The majority of the people clung to his Imamat and never doubted his authenticity as Imam but some of them pulled their muscles the other way round and disacknowledged his Imamat. Nau Bakhti has stated that some of the people remained steady as far as the Imamat of Hadhrat Ali, Hassan and Hussain was concerned and did not back out of their submission to them. After them they acknowledged the Imamat of Baqir Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussain. With the exception of a fraction of people, all the others never flickered in their loyalty to him as their undisputed Imam. They heard Umar bin Siyyah saying that once he asked Abu Jafar to explicate an issue which he did to his satisfaction. The next year he asked him to explain the same problem again but he came out with a diametrically opposite reply. He said to him: Your present explanation contradicts your earlier explanation. He replied: sometimes I practise dissimulation and mask my true intentions and himd my inner feelings, i.e., sometimes I adopt ‘Taqiyyah’ as a mode of expediency. The explanation did not satisfy him and he grew skeptical about the genuineness of his personality as well as his Imamat. He therefore recounted the whole episode to Muhammad bin Qays to quell his nagging suspicions. He said: God knows my question was motivated by my earnest desire to act in accordance with the injunctions of my faith. When he knew my interrogation was based on sincerity, he ahs no justification to exercise Taqiyyah. Qays replied: It is possible somebody among the audience compelled him to exercise dissimulation. He explained: No, it is not true because on both occasions when I asked about the issue, there was no one else except the two of us. It seems it went completely out of his mind that I had asked his opinion about the same issue last year. He therefore backed out of his belief in his Imamat and justified his act of reversal by the explanation that a person who issued incorrect and illogical edicts could no possibly be designated an Imam. Similarly a person whose explication clashed with divine injunctions and were motivated by expediency or dissimulation could hardly be vested with the in-signia of an Imam. Also any one who muffled himself in insular wraps, went into hibernation and shuttered up his doors to blodk motivated by expediency or dissimulation could hardly be vested with the in-signia of an Imam. Also any one who muffled himself in insular wraps, went into hibernation and shuttered up his doors to block public contact did not fulfil the requirements which transform ordinary human beings into Imams. It was the fundamental obligation of an Imam to affirm unequivocally the divine unity, encourage the articulation of truth and crush and quash the expression of falsehood.

Shias during the period of Jafar bin Baqir:

The period of Imam Jafar witnessed the completion and finalization of the process of transformation of Shia convictions. It was the era of total revolution as it had gripped almost every Shia within its tentacles. The revolution had set in after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Imam Hussain through the instrumentality of the Sabais of the Sabais who served as the revolutionary vanguard in completely brain-washing the Shias. The Sabais clinched their victory ninety years after the origin of their fake religion and sixty years after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Imam Hussain. They succeeded isolating and derailing a party of Muslims as far as the larger chunk of their faith was concerned and in attaching to it the permanent tag of and independent sect who had the audacity to impute their makeshift brand of religion to Hadhrat Ali and his children. It is strange and puzzling that inspite of the inherent disparities of a fundamental nature among the various sects of Shias, they have tried to trim down their amorphous in-consistencies to a tenuous consistency by making them spring from the personality of Hadhrat Ali and his progeny. But the apparently innocuous puzzle has been deliberately and pervesely engineered to pile up confusion on confusion and to make their religion look like and intricate puzzle. They provoked the Sabais to indulge in fissiparous practices, wage wars against the rulers and revolt against them by fanning the flames of sedition and murder. Their overt acts of rebellion presented only the tip of the ice-berg and did not include the covert conspiracies which they hatched to snuff out the unadulterated splendour of Islam. They also excluded their intellectual perversities which they had developed under the infectious impact of alien ideologies were spun out by the nations who had been vanquished by the Muslims and were smouldering under the wounds of disgrace and humiliation. The Jews were against the Muslims because they had received a severe battering a their hands. Besides, the remnants of ancients cultures and civilizations who took pride in their rapidly dwindling glory also threw in the towel to the Muslims. Therefore it was their dire need in order to disrupt the system of law and order and create a chaotic situation in the country. They wanted to patch up an articulate assembly of people to denigrate the entire administrative machinery, to oppose the beliefs and convictions held by the ruling class and to stigmatize the steps they took to glorify Islam. As a result of these visible and invisible conspiracies, Shiaism was cast into an absolutely novel mould. The Shias divorced themselves from the rulers and forged an identity of their own in the form of a permanent group which consciously cultivated and propagated a clash with the mores and priorities floated and sanctified by the ruling community. A tradition attributed to Imam Jafar is an endorsement of their perverse mode of speculation. He declared as part of their manifesto that the would adopt all the rules which were against the interests of the masses and discard all the regulations which served their interests. Somebody asked him: what would by you verdict if the rule is derived from Quarn and Sunnah by two Jurists: which of the two traditions would you accept if one is in favour of the masses and the other slashes with their interests?

Imam Jafa: It is better to adopt the rule that works against the interests of the

masses

Questioner: What if both the traditions serve their interests?

Imam Jafar: When we’ll have to find out which way the masses, the rulers and

their judges are inclined so that we may discard it and act on the

other options.

When matters come to such a pass, the emergence of differences is inevitable. In these circumstances people can afford to discard Quarn and Sunnah but they can ill-afford to plug their rifts and cleavages. Since the Sabai views were self-concocted, they were not even remotely linked with Islam. But since these vies sprang from sources which prided in their direct affiliation with Hadhrat Ali, it was binding on them to acknowledge and practice these convictions. They also welcomed them for the reason that they clashed with the beliefs held by the common rut of people.

Now the Shias had shed away the mask of reserve and diplomacy, and emboldened by their numerical strength and the shot of new serum they had received into their silted veins, they came out with an unbridled expression of their real convictions. They no longer felt the strain of old constraints and they openly started recasting their beliefs in the light of Sabai views and ideas. Since they had completely gone off their rocker, they invented new problems and imputed them to their Imams to authenticate their spuriousness. They wanted to shape up a new religion with its own set of rules and regulations to draw it as far apart as possible from the religion introduced by the holy Prophet (peace be upon him). He had invited mankind to acknowledge the authenticity and divinity of his religion, which his companions had readily accepted as a token and proof of their unqualified faith in the personality of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They not only adopted it themselves but propagated its pure and all-embracing message among other people as well. It was part of their commitment to spread the golden words and sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to the near and remote corners of the world. Shiaism was based on the statements and practices of the people and they never bothered about the fact whether these people had actually issued those statements and performed those acts which they had the impudence to attribute to them. For them the act of attribution is more important than the truthfulness of the attribution. They derive consolation from the presumption that the words and statements have been attributed to the Imams. They are simply swept away by the intensity of their self-generated rhetoric and do not worry about their compatibility or incompatibility with the emotional and psychic frame of the figures to which they ascribe these views. If they are inconsistent with the hallowed personalities of the Imams, they impute them to the inescapable necessity of dissimulation (Taqiyyah), and if they are in conflict with Quranic injunctions, they do not condemn their own views but blame them on the mutilated nature of the Quarn. They accuse the reporters of distortion and apostasy and affirm the unreliability of Quran and Sunnah. That is why the good people among them had warned the children of Hadhrat Ali that the people who did not tire of boasting their love for them, were in fact liars of the first water. A tradition is attributed to Jafar bin Baqir, the sixth innocent Imam of the Shia:

"Those who claim to love us are in fact our worst enemies"

He added: We, the Ahl-i-Bait, are the truth-tellers: But we are not immune against the liars who may attribute lies to us and pass on these lies to the people as authentic statements made by us. Through the utterance of these lies, they may suspend our credibility. The holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was the greatest among the truthtellers but Musailmah used to impute fake statement to him. After the Messenger of Allah Hadhrat Ali was the greatest truth-teller among human beings, but Abdullah bin Saba—may God curse him—imputed lies to him. Mukhtar was a source of constant torture for Abu Abdullah Hussain bin Ali. Then he mentioned Abu Abdullah Harith Shami and Banan and added that he placed many fibs at the door of Ali bin Hussain. Then he referred to Mughirah bin Said, Bazi, Sari, Abul Khatab, Momar, Bashar Ashari, Hamzah Yazidi and Saib Nahdi. They were among his friends and companions but the showered curses on them because they inputed lies to them. He added: We are not immune against liars. May God protect us against their evil and pack them off to hell.

It is attributed to his grandson Ali Radha who is the eighth innocent Imam in the eyes of the Shias. He said that Banan imputed lies to Ali bin Hussain, May God send him to hell! Mughirah bin Said imputed lies to Ibn Jafar: May God send him to hell! Muhammad bin Bashr imputed lies to Ibn Hassan Ali bin Musa Radhi: May God send him to hell! Abul Khatab imputed lies to Abu Abdullah: May God send him to hell! And Muhammad bin Farat is the one who imputes lies to me.

Abu Jafar Muhmmad Baqir is reported to have said: "May Allah curse Banan! He used to impute lies to my father. I affirm that my father was a pious man".

The Imams of the Ahl-i-Bait had probed into the real identity of these liars. They had served their links with them and pressed upon their followers to eschew their company and gatherings because they acted not only against the fundamental essence of Islam which condemns in the strongest terms all kinds of lying and backbiting. Kashi has reported from Jafar: once the name of Jafar bin Waqid came up before him during a chat. Abdul Khatab and a number of other friends were also mentioned. He used to visit him and he was the one who remarked about him "He is God on earth and in the skies and he is also the Imam". When Abu Jafar heard these words, he replied; "No, by God, it’s not true. From now onward you will never find me and him in the same place together. These people are even worse than Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and disbelievers. By God! The glory of Allah has never diminished to the level to which they have tried to lower it. Referring to Hadhrat Uzair they claim that what the Jews expressed about him had penetrated down to his heart and God had deleted his name from the list of prophets. I swear if Christ had acknowledged and lapped the remarks of the Christians about him, God would have turned him into a deaf creature. Similarly if I had been swept off my feet by the over-flattering views of the Kufis about me, the earth would have squeezed me in its grasp. I am a creature and slave of God and I exercise no authority over the good and evil consequences of any act.

Muhammad bin Masud, Ali bin Muhammad, Muhammad bin Ahamd bin Yahya have reported through Muhammad bin Isa, Zikriyyah, Ibn Makan, Qasim Sairifi: I have heard Abu Abdullah saying that some people believe I am their Imam. By God! I ma not their Imam. May God curse them! Whenever I make a statement, they contradict me and put on it an entirely different complexion. I act as Imam only for the person who obeys me.

Inspite of all these reservations and qualifications, all the sincere efforts to pull the Shias out of their religions quamire did not materialize and the Shias moved up and up on the scale of conspiracies, mischiefs and revolts, because there was no dearth of liars in the era who, out of pretentious love, validated the bogus claims of Abu Khatab, Abu Basir Muradi, Zararah bin Ain, Javir Jafi, Mughirah bin Said, Hashamain and Abu Jarud. Therefore the Shias splintered into many groups on account of the irreconcilable diversity of their views and speculation and even exceeded the Sabis in the irrational extremism of their convictions. Some of them clung to the Sabai views like cheap gum and preferred conservatism to radicalism. A Shia historian has atteated to the intractable situation in these words:

Under the incogneial circumstance that marked the appearance of the Zaidiyyah sect, it was not possible for Imam Jafar Sadiq to carry out a disputation with them. He did not relish disputations and was scared. If the agents and spies of the kings of his era. They had spread their net all over the country. Inspite of his unpublicized movements, Mansur had somehow managed to make him attend his court. He said: God may kill me if I don’t kill you. Are you trying to create dissension in my country? Imam Sadiq replied: By God! I haven’t done any thing nor do I have such intentions. If you have received any news of this kind, it must have been communicated to you by a reporter.

People who initially differed with Imam Jafar and criticized him during his life have been pointed out by Nau Bakhti:

There is an other group of the companions of Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali who had acknowledged the Imamat of Abu Abdullah Jafar bin Muhammad and remained loyal to him throughout his life. But there were also a few among them who refused to acknowledge him Imamat. Their refusal was triggered by the fact that Imam Jafar had anticipated the Imamat of his son Ismail after him. But when he died during his life, they grew skeptical of his Imamat. They accused him of hoisting on them a pure fib. They bolstered their skepticism with the logic that he could not have articulated a lie if hi were a genuine Imam. In their eyes, the lie about his son had nulified his Imamt. The Imam does not tell lies nor does he utter anything that does not come pat to his utterance, that is, there is no incompatibility between articulation and action in the case of an Imam. His explanation to cover up the unfulfilled prediction further strengthened their suspicions. He explained that the unrealization of his Imamat was the result of some divine confusion which divested them to their faith in the omniscience of God and they openly denied the very concept of Bada’ and divine backtracking. To hold such views about the Lord was rather a disservice to divine over-lordship and instead they subscribed to the views of the Behtiyyah sect and adopted the beliefs of Sulaiman bin Hurair. On the concept of Bada’, Sulaiman had the opportunity to impress upon his followers that the Imams of the Rafidhis had invented a set of two beliefs to cover up their lies: One was the concept of Taqiyyah and the other was the concept of Bada. Both concepts were cleverly devised strategies to muzzle the truth permanently and to tantalize and puzzle their followers. Presumably, as these people suggested, the Imams were the victims of a feeling of insecurity. They felt that exposure of thuth would result in the loss of a large number of their followers and the fabrication of the twin lies helped them in keeping a tight grip over their gullible companions.

The notion of Baba’ was sparked by a feeling of self-aggrandizement. When the Imams elevated their knowledge to the level of Prophetic knowledge, they had to invent supporting evidence to justify the equation. The Imams claimed that they possessed knowledge about the coming events. When their predicions about the future came true, they at once took the credit and attributed the preknolwledge of the happenings to their special relationship with God, a status that was on par with that of the Prophets. But if the events did not follow the predicted course, they squirmed out of the embarrassing predicament by relegating the unexpected occurrence to predestination. Thus they explained them away through the concept of Bada’.

The concept of Taqiyyah is also the result of a similar dillay—dallying with religion and divine injuctions. When the Shias probed their Imams about with is lawful and what is forbidden in their religion, the Imams answered their questions to the best of their knowledge and ability. The Shias memorized all the answers and preserved them for furture reference. But the Imams themselves had not been dished out in the course of a single but spread over many years. Besides the contextual factors also varied. Thus the same question on different occasions elicited a contra-dictory response from these Imams; some times they issued identical explanations for different problems. When the Shias realized the pervasive contradiction and inconsistency in the explanations of the Imams, they had recourse to their Imams and asked them to throw some light on their explanatory ramblings. The Imamas wriggled out of an embarrassing situation by cashing in on the notion of Taqiyyah. And it was their privilege to answer them as they pleased because they knew best what was in store for them. They always kept their interests in view and the answers they designed for them actually catered to their interests and were motivated by the demands of expeidency. Whatever they did was in their interests and were motivated by the demands of expeidency. Whatever they did was in their interest and was motivated by the demands of expediency. Whatever they did was motivated by the demands of expediency. Whatever they did was in the interest of their survival, and the strategies they evolved to resist inimical forces were backed by the feeling of love and concern they had for their followers and admirers.

They played ball so cleverly and meticulously that it was virtually impossible for their Shias to sift truth from false-hood and to bring their erring Imams to account. On account of these camouflaged somer-saults one of the groups of Abu Jafar’s companions switched its loyalties to Sulaiman bin Jarir and discarded the Imamat of Jafar.

The claim of two persons during the period of Jafar

Two other members of the Ahl-i-Bait claimed Imamat during the period of Jafar. One of them was Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassan bin Ali. His mother was Fatima bint Hussain bin Ali. He used to claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had engendered him twice. The Shia writer Asfahani is of the opinion that Abdullah bin Hassan was a Shaikh of Banu Hashim and held a distinguished position among his tri besmen. He was a paragon of virtue, knowledge and magnanimity.

The other claimant was Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan whose by-name was Nafs-i-Zakiyyah. Asfahani observes:

Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan was the most superior person among his Ahl-i-Bait. He was also the eldest among them. He enjoyed the highest status by virtue of his knowledge and memorization of Quran, his interpretation of religion, his bravery, generosity and the other positive virtues. On accont of his qualities of head and heart no one had any doubts about his being the Imam Mahdi. The rumor generally went the rounds among the masses that he was infact the (promised) Imam Mahdi. All members of the tribe took the oath of allegiance at his hand i.e., the children of Abi Talib, the children of Abbas and the other members of the tribe of Bani Hashim.

Kulaini in his book "Kafi" has also referred to the claim of these two persons during the period of Imam Jafar. He adds that they had also invited Jafar to acknowledge their Imamt. According to Kulaini, Abdullah bin Hassan called on Jafar bin Baqir and said to him:

"You know I am older that you in years. In your community there are people even older than me but God has invested you with exceptional status and prestige. I have come to you because I completely rely on your virtue. I know all of your followers will support me if you decide to extend your acknowledgement to me. And then not even a couple of persons, whether they are Quraishis or non-Quraishis, will dare oppose me. But he replied: you'll find the others more compliant then me. You should not except much from me, (mainly on two counts). First, I have plans to move into the jungle (to live like a recluse) and secondly I intned to to on the pilgrimage (Hajj) which involves tremendous labour and effort. Therefore you should go to someone else and place your demand before him. Don't tell any one about your visit to me. Abdullah said: the necks of the people are deflected towards you. If you accept my demand, no one else would dare oppose it. In this way you'll be spared the ordeal of war and nothing will be done that displease you or goes against your grain. Meanwhile a throng of people clustered round him and our dialogue was disrupted. But my father asked: what is it that you were saying. He replied: God willing, I'll see you tomorrow. He asked: Wouldn't we talk on the lines I like. He replied: yes, it will be conducted on the pattern you prefer. Abu Abdullah said: O my cousin! I seek God's protection and advise you to withdraw from your apparently intractable position. I apprehend danger for you. The dialogue continued between them until it assumed a form none of them had visualized before. He asked: On what basis Hadhrat Hussain had a better claim over Hadhrat Hassan? Imam Jafar replied: May God have mercy on Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain! Why have you skidded into a reference to them? I have raised this issue purposively. If Hadhrat Hussain had been just, the most becoming act on his part would have been to hand over Imamat to the eldest son of Hadhrat Hassan. On hearing this my father pulled at his shawl in a state of anger and stood up. Abu Abdullah also positioned himself behind him snappily and he said: Let me tell you that I heard from your uncle that you will fight with your brother. If you obey me, you'll reap a good reward. I swear by the most sacred Power who is the only and the real creator, who is benevolent and merciful, who is the most superior in the entire universe, I prefer to sacrifice myself and my children and the one in my family I love most over you. I perfer no one else over you. Therefore please don't let this enter your head that I am trying to deceive you. But inspite of hearing all this, my father left in a state of anger and sorrow.

Then Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan came and informed that his father and uncles had been murdered (Abu Jafar has murdered them). Hassan bin Jafar, Taba Taba, Ali bin Ibrahim, Sulaiman bin Daud, bin Hassan and Abdullah bin Daud had escaped death. At this juncture Muhammad bin Abdullah appeared on the scene and invited people to pledge fealty to him. I was the third person to pledge at his hand. People huddled round him in innumerable clusters and took the oath of allegiance at his hand. No member of the Quraish tribe, whether he was a native or a refugee, had resisted the pledge at his hand. Isa bin Zaid bin Ali Hussain who was Muhammad's chief adviser and an officer in the armed forces advised him to send some of the people to his relatives to secure their pledge. He added: if you invite them mildly, they will not pledge at your hand. You should be a little harsh with them. (It would be better) if you hand over the matter to me. Muhammad replied: I delegate full power to you and you can do with them as you please.

He said: First send your men to the chief and eldest member i.e., Imam J'afar Sadiq. When you treat him harshly, people will understand that you will also treat them the way you have treated Abu Abdullah (Imam J'afar Sadiq). Musa said that after a while Muhammad and Isa called on the Imam and told him to swear allegiance to Muhammad. They explained: This will guarantee the security of your life. He addressed Muhammad in these words: Have you created a new prophethood after the death of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him)? He replied: I have not created a new prophethood but you will have to swear allegiance to protect your own life as well as the lives of your children, and you will also be spared the bother of fighting. Hadhrat J'afar explained. I don't want to fight anyone nor do I have the strength to fight. Whatever I had to say I have already conveyed to your father. I tried to scare him of the dangers that surround him but people in power do not scare easily. O my cousin! Pick up the young people for this purpose and leave out the elderly ones. Muhammad said: There is not much difference between you and me in terms of years. He repled: I expect nothing from you nor do I have any intention to fight with you. Actually I intend to leave the city and settle down in a jungle (to lead the life of a reculse) but I find it extremely burden-some to leave here. My family members repeatedly asked me to go out of this place in search of my livelihood but my old age is the real bottle-neck. For God's sake have pity on me! Leave me alone and spare me the torture of your excesses. Muhammad said: O Abu Abdullah! Mansur Daqanqi is dead (and now it is the period of my rule). He replied: What would you do with me even though he is dead? He said: I like to enchance your prestige. The Imam replied: But your intention will be frustrated. I sewar by God that Mansur Dawanqi is not dead. His death is like sleep i.e., the rumour of his death is a false rumour. Muhammad insisted: By God! you will have to pledge at my hand. It is up to you whether you do it willingly or by force. But no body will praise you if you do it under presure. When he forcefully refused (to take the oath of allegiance) he ordered him to be imprisoned. Isa bin Zaid explained: The prison cell is in disarray. We can't lock it properly. I fear he might run away from the prison house. On hearing this he burst into a laugh and said: do you really want to put me behind the bars? He replied: yes! I swear by the Power that conferred prophethood on Muhammad (peace be upon him) and blessed us with honour, I'll throw you into the jug and treat you harshly. Isa said: He may be imprisoned in Makhba'. At present it is the strongest prison house. He responded: what I utter at this moment will be confirmed:-

Isa bin Zaid growled: if you say a word now, I'll simply batter your mouth. Abu Abdullah said: I can imagine that you are looking for holes to hide yourself (in the war to be). You are not one of those who are missed and glorified by the future generation for performing feats of valour on the battlefield. You are such a lily-livered fellow that if someone just claps behind you, you will take to your heels like a fast-running camel. Muhammad felt cheesed off by his refusal. He had him imprisoned and left standing instructions that he should not be spared any torture. He retaliated: By God! I see you coming out of Siddah Ashj'a into the Batan valley and you have been attacked by a rider who carries a spear in his hand. He is half white and half black and is riding a horse with a white forehead. He will strike you with the spear but it will not harm you. Then you will strike the brain of the gorse with your spear andhe will crumble down on the ground. Then another man will attack you. He will emerge from the street of Al-i-abi Ammar Diilin. He will have two twined tresses and dense moustaches. By God! He will be your murderer. May God have no mercy on his rotten bones! Muhammad said: O Abu Abdullah! you have made an error of calculation. Then Saraqi bin Salakh Hant slapped on Abu Abdullah's back and locked him up in the cell, and confiscated his goods and the goods of his relatives who had not supported his rebellious act

These are the details of rift, cleavage and dissension which appeared among the Shias during the period of J'afar bin Baqir and split them into different groups and sects.

Shias after J'afar:

The death of J'afar in 148 A.H. created a deep fissure in the Shia community. The Shias split into many groups and sects. Nau Bakhti is the fist Shia writer who has expressed his views about the genesis of Shia sects. He is of the opinion that after the death of Abu Abdullah J'afar bin Muhammad the Shias branched off into six sects -- He was buried in the same grave in Baqi in which his father and his grand father had been buried. His mother is Um Firoh bint Qasim bin Muhammad bin abi Bakr and her mother is Asma bint Abdur Rahman bin abi Bakr. The details of the six sects mentioned by Nau Bakhti are as follows:

1. Na-vusiyyah:

   The adherents of this sect believe that J'afar bin Muhammad is alive. He never died and will not die until he firse reppears and rules over the people. He is also the Imam Mehdi. They claim on the basis of his own words that even if his head is hurled at them from a mountain, they should not confirm it because he is one of their companions. He also said: If somebody informs you that he has nursed me during my illness and that he was present at the time of my death and that he gave me the bath and wrapped me in the coffin, even then you should not confirm it because I am your companion with the sword. This sect is known as Navusiyyah. It is named after the leader of the sect who was a resident of Basrah and whose surname was An-Navus.

   Some of them believe that what had appeared was not J'afar but some one else in the image of J'afar. A group of the Sabais also joined this sect. They claimed that J'afar was thoroughly steeped in the intricacies and mysteries of religious knowledge. When some one asked the members of the sect about their conception of the Qur'an and about other peripheral issues relating to their faith, they replied that they held the same opinion as was held by Imam J'afar Sadiq. They in fact followed him blindly. It clearly proves that Shias had divided into various groups and sects during the life of Imam J'afar Sadiq.

2. Simtiyyah or Shamitiyyah:

   The second sect is called Simtiyyah or Shamitiyyah. The followers of this sect believe that after the death of Imam J'afar his son Muhammad bin J'afar holds the port-folio of Imamat. Imam J'afar had expressed his will about him when he was still a child. He often claimed that his son resembled his father Muhammed Baqir and his grandfther, the Messenger of Allah. These people acknowledge the Imamat of Muhammad bin J'afar and after him that of his son. It derives its name from its association with Yahya bin abi as-Samit or abi ash-Shamit.

   It is note worthy that this Muhammad bin J'afar made his appearance during Mamun's reign and invited the people to pledge at his hand. The residents of Madinah took the oath of allegiance at his hand. The residents of Madinah took the oath of allegiance at his hand in his capacity as Amir-ul-Mominin. A number of battles were fought between his army and the army of Mamun. The armed forces of Mamun were commanded by Harun bin Musayyh. Then Harun dispatched a brigade which surrounded him on all sides. It was almost an invulnerable spot and access to it was extremely difficult. The siege continued for three days. When their rations and water zeroed out, his companions scattered away in all directions. He sought amnesty for his companions and Harun readily agreed. Mufid has stated that, like the Zaidiyyah sect, they believed in rebellion with the sword. This is one of the reasons that a number of adherents of the Zaidiyyah Jarudiyyah sect were also converted to this sect.

3. Fathiyyah:

   Kashi says that the followers of this sect believe in the Imamat of Abdullah bin J'afar bin Muhammad. The person after whom it is named had a clumsy head. According to an other version he had bent feet. The third explanation is that it was called Fathiyyah on account of its association with Abdullah bin Fatih, a Kufi chieftain. Most of the scholars and jurists of this group believed in his Imamat, but when they were handed down the tradition from their Imams that the Imamat would be transferred to the eldest son of an Imam on his death, they fell prey to doubts and suspicions. Abdullah himsellf died seventy days after the death of his father and with the exception of very few people, most of them believed in the Imamat of Abul Hassan Musa. They now clung to the belief that the Imamat would be distributed among the two brothers.

   Nau Bakhti, the Shia writer, believes that a large number of Shia scholars and jurists were inclined towards this sect. They had no doubts whatsoever about the Imamat of Muhammad bin J'afar and they were convinced that it would pass down to his children as part of their inheritance, but when Abdullah died, he did not leave any son behind to claim Imamat.

   Mufid writes that after Ismail, Abdullah bin J'afar was the eldest among his brothers but his father preferred other brothers over him. One of the charges levelled against him was that he did not see eye to eye with his father. It is also stated that he had relations with Hashwiyyah and was also inclined towards Marhaba. When he claimed Imamat after the death of his father, he based his claim on the fact that he was the eldest among the brothers. Therefore one group among the companions of Abu Abdullah pledged at his hand, but later on when they discovered that his claim was propped on fragile crutches and the claim of Abul Hassan was based on stronger arguments, they backed out of his Imamat and acknowledged Abul Hassan as their Imam. Only a limited group of his followers remained loyal to him through the spate of fluctuations that marked his career. The sect that believed in the Imamat of Abdullah bin J'afar was known by the appellation of Fathiyyah. Urbili has mentioned them in "Kashf-ul-Ghummah". This sect is also called Amariyyah as Ashari has discribed in his "Maqalat-I-Islamiyyin". This designation originated in its association with a person named Amar. It is noteworthy that according to the Shia Imams--who are innocent in their eyes -- Imamat is the right of the eldest son. Kulaini writes:

   "It is attributed to Abu Abdullah that the eldest son is chosen Imam if he has no defect or flaw".

   On the basis of this tradition he claimed Imamat for himself. He bolstered his claim with the argument that he was the eldest among his brothers. That is why a bunch of Abu Abdullah's companions had endorsed his claim with the argument that he was the eldest among his brothers. That is why a bunch of Abu Abdullah's companions had endorsed his claim and declared their allegiance to him. But one fails to understand why they suddenly backed out of their commitment though he was free of any defect or flaw. They, of course, stress the fact that his beliefs conflicted with the beliefs of his father. An other point to be noted here is J'afars son Muhammad also denied the Imamat of his father and opposed his views and beliefs as has been stated by Tabrisi and Mufid.

4. Fourth Sect:

This sect subscribed to the Imamat of Musa bin J'afar and denied the Imamat of Abdullah. He staunchly believed that his father held erroneous and flawed convictions. A detailed account of this sect will be found in reference to Musa Kazim.

6. Ismailiyyah Sect:

The fifth and sixth sects are jointly called Ismailiyyah. First I shall reproduce the opinions of Shia writers about this sect. Nau Bakhti entertains the notion that according to one Shia sect Ismail bin J'afar is entitled to Imamat after the death of his father J'afar bin Muhammad. They came out with a categorical denial that Ismail had died during the life of his father. They believe that his father had only staged a dress rehearsal of his death as he was scared of him. So he very cunningly and diplomatically made him invisible. They hold the opinion that Ismail will not die until he rules over the world and leads the entire mankind as their Imam. He is also the Imam Qaim because his fater had hinted at his Imamat. He made it binding on every one to acknowledge his Imamat and spelled out clearly that he would be his successor and whatever the Imam says is based on truth. And when his death was revealed, we at once grasped the truth of his statement that he was the living Imam and had not died. This sect carries the exclusive tag of Ismailiyyah.

It is further divided into a number of other sects. I will only make a brief survey of these sects to highlight their salient features. Mufid has mentioned under the heading "Abu Abdullah's children, their number, names and an account of their lives" that Ismail was the eldest among his brothers. Abu Abdullah loved him deeply. A group of his companions was convinced of his succession on account of his age, and the inclination of his father towards him. He also held him in deep affection. But he died at Ariz during the life of his father. From there, the people carried his dead body over their heads and brought it to Madinag where he was buried at Baqi.

It is reported that Abu Abdullah made a lot of hue and cry over his death and gave people the impression as if the world had come to its end. He advanced towards the hearse without his shoes and sheet of cloth and ordered the hearse to be placed on the ground many times before the burial. He repeatedly uncovered his face and gazed at it again and again. He did so consciously because he wanted to assure the people who believed in his Imamat that he had actually died. In this way he wanted to quell their doubts in his own life time. Those who held the belief that Ismail would replace his father after his death as Imam, back - tracked in their belief after the confirmation of his death. Only a few of them still tagged on to the conviction that he had not died but was still alive. These people were only remotely linked with his father and were not considered among his close associates and companions.

When Sadiq died, one of the groups felt inclined to believe in the death of Musa bin J'afar. The people rather split into two groups. One of the groups squirmed out of its belief that Musa bin J'afar was alive. They inducted his son Muhammad bin Ismail into Imamat. They believed that his father was the Imam and after his death his son had a better claim to Imamat than his brother. The other group remained unshaken in its belief that Ismail was alive. These people can be counted on one's fingers and it is extremely difficult to find now even a single survivor of this group. Both these groups bear the tag Ismailiyyah. The central prop of their faith is the continuous and uninterrupted circulation of Imamat among his children as part of their heritage.

The other Shia books, e.g., "Sharah Ibn abi al-Hadid", Ayyan-ush-Shia" and "Ash-Shia fit Tarikh" also endorse this belief. Among the Sunni scholars Ashari Baghdadi, Asfraini, Razi, and Shahristani etc. have also mentioned it. Ibn Khaldun observes:

Ismailiyyah sect believes in the Imamat of Ismail. He substantiates this statement with the help of a specification made by his father, though he had expired before his father. But this specification restricts the Imamat to his children as is established by the example of Harun and Musa. The adherents of Ismailiyyah sect believe that Imamat was transferred from Ismail to his son Muhammed Maktum and he is the first of the hidden Imams. It is part of their conviction that Imams occasionally slip under cover when they are not accorded the requisite quantum of hoour and recognition and are temporarily replaced by their claimants as a make-shift justification of their presence. But when they are publicly recognized and honoured, they appear along with their claimants. They believe that after Imam Maktum Imamat passed on to J'afar Sadiq and from him it slipped into the hands of Muhammad Habib who was the last of the hidden Imams. He was succeeded by his son Abdullah Mehdi whose presence was first formally publicized by Abu Abdullah Shi'i in Katamah and the people swarmed around him to pledge at his hand. Then he brought him out of Sajlamasah and he was corwned king of Qairwan and the West. Later, his son was made the king of Egypt. This fact is recorded in the book of history. Since they acknowledge the Imamat of Ismail, they are known by the epithet Ismailiyyah. They are also known as Batiniyyah on account of their affiliation with the hidden or veiled Imam, and on account of their heresy they are also called heretics. The articles of their faith represent a blend of primitivism and modernism: By the end of fifth century Hassan bin Muhammad Sabah invited people to follow the Ismailliyyah Imams. He captured a number of forts and castles in Syria and Iraq, but when calamity clipped his over-grown wings, his forts were divided among the Kings of Turkey and Iraq.

Shahristani ovserves that, according to Ismailiyyah, Ismail succeeded J'afar as Imam. There is a specification to this effect arrived at through mutual consensus. But there is a difference of opinion among them about his death. Whether he died during the life of his father or not is a moot point. Some of them are of the opinion that Isamil had not actually died. His death was publicized only as an act of dissimulation to bamboozle Banu Abbas. The governor of Mansur in Madinah was made a witness to Ismail's death. Others believe that he had died but the specification is irreversible: it can not be wreched back. Therefore, according to the specification, Imamat will circulate only among his children and will not be claimed by any one outside his family. According to them Muhammad bin Ismail was the Imam after his father Ismail. This sect is called Mubarkiyyah. Again some of them believe in the discontinuity of Imamat after Muhammad and believe that he will reappear after his disappearance, while others extend the chain of Imamat of those who appeared after them.

Shahristani has reproduced the Shia arguments in support of Ismail's Imamat. Ismail bin J'afar was the eldest son of his father. There was an explicit indication of his Imamat. As long as his mother lived, Imam Sadiq neither married an other lady nor any slave girl. He acted on the Prophetic Sunnah because the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not marry any other lady during the life of Hadhrat Khadijah. Hadhrat Ali also followed the same precedent as he did not enter into any other marital alliance during the presence of Hadhrat Fatima. The difference of opinion relating to his death during the life of his father has already been pointed out. Some people believed that his death was a cinch and the "Nas" or specification transferred the Imamat especially to his children, as on account of the specification of Musa, Imamat had been transferred to the children of Harun because Harun had died during the life of his brother Hadhrat Musa. Since "Nas" is irreversible, the Imamat passed down to his children and remained confined to the members of his family. And the application of "Bada" to the clause of specification sounds absolutely impossible because an Imam singles out only that son among his children about whose Imamat he has heard from his forefathers. It is obvious that Imamat can not be determined on the basis of doubt and ignorance. It presupposes definite knowledge and authentic information on the part of the Imam who comes out with the specific anticipation.

Some of them were of the opinion that Ismail had not died but his death was paraded as a diplomatic charade so that no one would think of his murder. There are many arguments in support of this statement. One of the arguments is that Ismail's younger brother Muhammad (he was his brother from the mother side) came over to the bed on which he was sleeping. He pushed aside the sheet with which he had covered himself. He looked at ismail who had opened his eyes. Muhammad got the jitters and came running to his father and said to him: "my brother is alive! my brother is alive". On hearing this J'afar siad that the children of the Messenger of Allah always ended up that way; but he has also raised eyebrows at the desirability of witnesses to testify the death of Ismail. When the news was conveyed to Mansur that Ismail bin J'afar had been spotted in Basrah and he had prayed for a cripple whose healthy was immediately restored, he sent a message to Sadiq confirming that Ismail was alive. the testimony of the administrators of Madina aslo supported the view that he had not died.

Shias believe that after Ismail, Imamat passed on to his son Muhammad who is the seventh Imam. His Imamat completed the round of seven Imams of the Shias and triggered a new round of invisible Imams. These Imams visited the towns secretly and their visible agents propagated on their behalf. It is their conviction that the world has never been stripped of the existence of a living Imam as it is consistent with its very genesis and development. Whether the Imam is visible or invisible, his signs and the persons who implement these signs must be made apparent. It means that a form of "transparent secrecty" must govern the conduct of an Imam. It is also of their faith that the Imams revolve around the number seven, as there are seven days in a week, seven skies and seven constellations. The injunctions of Naqaba revolve around the number twelve. That is why Imamiyyah grew skeptical about the absolute number of the agents of Imams. Mehdi will appear after the invisible Imams. The Shias believe that any one who dies without recognizing the Imam of his times dies in fact the death of ignorance. Similarly if some one dies without the band of his Imam round his neck also dies the death of ignorance. The most popular epithet is the conviction of its adherents that each external appearance has an internal correlative, each visible act has an invisible motive and each divine injunction is matched by a corresponding interpretation which manifests itself in the form of a concrete exemplification. The members of this sect are also known by the titles of Qiramtah, Mazdkiyyah and Mulhidiyyah though they have never admitted the relevance of these titles to their system of belief. They pride in calling themselves Ismailiyyah because it distinguishes them from other sects -- but their modern successors relinquished their tactics. Hassan bin Sabah could not satisfactorily contradict the objections of his detractors. He sought the help of the people for the accomplishment of his mission and locked himslef up in his fort. But on his way to the fort he died in Shaban 483 A.H. He had migrated towards the region of his Imam and had imbibed from him the art of converting people to their brand of religion. On his return he impressed upon the people the necessity of determing the place and position of the true Imam. He added that their sect differed from other sects on the basis of a unique set of priorities and their Imam was unique because he was not the Imam of other people and exclusively belonged to them.

Qiramtah:

Ismailiyyah gave birth to a number of sects of which Qiramtah is the most famous. This sect is affiliated to Hamadan Ashat who was popularly known as Qarmat because he was short-statured and had very small feet and he walked with short steps (Such a person is called Qirmat is Arabic language). This man appeared on the soil of Kufah in 264 A.H. His religion spread in Iraq. Mudathir Matuq appeared in Syria while Abu Said Janab was propagating his views in Bahrin. He and his sons ruled over a sprawling kingdom until they clashed with the armies of Abbasi Caliphs and captured the territories of Baghdad, Syria, Egypt and Hijaz, and their agents spread out in large numbers in different parts of the territory.

A party of the people accepted their invitation.they were impressed by their knowledge of the heart and the mind. Their psychological approach to religion was fairly developed and they explicated the injunctions of Islam and Sharia in the light of their inner illumination. They shuffled the injunctions of Sharia out of their charted course and clamped highly capricious interpretations on them. They were not only themselves out of foucs, but also defocussed those who followed them.

There are other statements also bearing on the appearance and nomenclature of this sects. According to Witwat he appeared in Kufah in 278 A.H. during the caliphate of Motamid. His eyes were deep red on account of which he was awarded the epithet Qirmitiyyah. Since this word was rather uneasy to articulate, they clipped its extra syllables and chiselled it down to a disyllabic structure Qirmat. Then he mentions his vicious teaching and ugly innovations. He adds that Moaz Farimi and the commander of his armed forces Jauhar had fought many bloody battles with Qiramtah in 362 A.H.

Ibn Khalkan writes that Qirmatah is ascribed to Qirmat who lived in Kufah. He was affiliated to a religious cult that was more notorious for its devilish practices than it was famous for its saintly indulgences. He appeared during the Caliphate of Motazid in 281 A.H. According to an other tradition he appeared in 278 A.H.

Abul Fida' hods the opinion that he appeared in the same year (278 A.H.) in Kufah, and the man he invited to acknowledge his religion was a Shaikh who pretended to be ill in a settlement of Kufah. One of the residents of that area who was popularly known as Kirmitiyyah on account of the redness of his eyes, as Kirmitiyyah is the Nabati word to designate this ophthalmic condition, invited him to his residence. When the Shaikh recuperated from his illness, he was also known by the name of the person who had provided him shelter and treated his illness. Then out of purely abbreviational considerations he came to be called as Qirmat. He attracted a number of stupid and irrational villagers towards his perverse brand of religion who turned into his zealous supporters without much thought.

I am not concerned with the issue whether the person who extended the invitation to Qiramatah was Qirmat himself or someone else who ahd acquired tha same identity and functioned as his surrogate. I am concerned only with the date of appearance of this sect in order to determine its appearance or non-appearance during the period of the Imams of Ahl-i-Bait. As already stated, there are a number of conflicting versions about the time of their appearance. But the most probable conclusion seems to be that they appeared in 278 A.H. after the termination of the period of Imams and during the Sifra period.

In the opinion of Ashari, Qiramatah believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) specified the Imamat of Hadhrat Ali; he specified the Imamat of his son Hadhrat Hassan who indicated the succession of his brother Hadhrat Hussain. He specified Ali bin Hussain as his successor who predicted the Imamat of his son Muhammad bin Ali. He specified his son Jafar as the Imam after him who reserved Imamat for his son Ismail who passed it on to his son Ismail who passed it onto his son Muhammad. They also believe that Muhammad bin Ismail is still alive and he will not die until he rules over the entire earth as its undisputed king. In their eyes he is also the Mehdi about whom there exists an unequivocal specification. They have tried to reason out their stand on the basis of the precedents set by their forefathers who had clearly spelled out that the seventh Imam would be the "Qaim" Imam.

Another important off-shoot of Qiramtah is the Mubarikiyyah sect which gave birth to many other sects. Three of these sect out-matched others in public esteem and recognition.

1. Agha Khaniyyah or Nazadiyyah sect which follows Agha Khan

2. Bohra sect which is also known as Mustaliyyah.

3. Sulaimaniyyah sect.

Each one of these sects has its own permanent set of beliefs and convictions. Some of them hold identical opinions while others hold diametrically opposed opinions. I have compiled a separate book in which I have discussed the historical background and evolutionary divergence of these sects. I have also discussed a length the principles on which they have raised the structure of their views and convictions in order to relate their quantum of deviation to the essence of its matrix. I have critically reviewed the opinions and comments of orientalists as well as of Egyptian, Ismaili, Suri and Hindi writers bearing on the topic. I have conducted a thorough psot mortem on the maimed and mangled bodies of their gaping mistakes, and outrageous historical and conceptul lapses. The book is replete with oven-fresh information on the real beliefs of these sects. Some of this information is culled form their old books but the information is filtered through the strainer of a rare sensitivity and understanding which is absolutely necessary for the balancing act on interpretation. Both the original and the published materials have been tapped to enhance the value of my research. I have pointed out objectively and unmalicioulsy the bloomers made by great personages in the fieldand pricked the bubble of their false reputations by underscoring their obvious lapses and thus proving the evanesence of their frame. Evne the topranking scholars who claim to be experts on the vies and beliefs of the Ismailiyyah sect and regard themselves as its undisputed care-takers have committed grave errors of perception and interpretation. Since I have devoted an independent book to the rankling issue, I would like to eschew further discussion on the subject and confine myself to quoting excerpts form the books by Shia and Sunni writers who have written on the genesis and evoultion of Shia sects.

Duruzi Sect:

This sect derives from the Ismailiyyah sect and shares many of its basic beliefs. It sprang up during the priod of Fatimi Caliph Hakim who had taken over as the governor of Egypt in 390 A.H. after the death of his father. At that time he was only eleven years old. The murder of one of his chief opponents in 390 A.H. lent stability to his otherwise doddering regime.

His disloyal and fair-weather companions tried to capitalize on his lack experience and other pursuits of the flesh, including his penchant for culinary feats. The people who surrounded him like a halo and pretended to sanctify even his most outrageous acts, were in fact the atheistic claimants of the Ismailis who had been especially send by the Persians and the Zoroastrians to keep tabs on the inexperienced and debauch king. He was completely under their influence and they kept up the façade of his divinity with great ingenuity and packaged him in highly consmeticized colous. Of these atheists, those in the vanguard were Hamzah bin Ali Ahmad Zozni, Muhammad bin Ismail Durzi, Hassan bin Haidrah Farghani and an other person known by the title of Ukhram or Ajda.

These people had reached a point of no return in their deviation from religion. The historians suggest that a systematic campaign for the affirmation and acknowledgement of Hakim's divinity was lauched in the beginning of 408 A.H., and it was the most fundamental article of their faith. Duruzia were sworn to offer the following prayer:

"I believe in Allah. My creator is Hakim who is superior and sublime. He is the lord of the east and weat. He is the God of origins. He has created beings with and without speech. He possesses perfect shape on account of his inner light. He lives in the highest sphere and is seated on Empyrean heights. Then he descended and came closer. I have faith in him and I have to return to him. For him is this world and the next world and his is both the appearance and the reality"

"I also believe the Prophets who were men of determinaltion and who possessed inner illumination, who are the englightened souls and God's blessings are decked out around them. I aslo believe in the eight angels who carry God's throne. I also believe in all the restrictive clauses of my faith. I acknowledge whatever comes to me from my master, whenter it is a positive posture or a negative gesture. I now only blieve in it but also act on it. I have entrusted my self, life, property my inner self and outer self to my master, and I pledge that I will wage Jehad in the way of the master both verbally and practically, psychologically and physically, with my self, property, children and with whatever else I possess. And my confession is withnessed by whatever appeared in the east and by whatever died in the west.

"My covenant control and guides my self and my sould and I make this statement in a state of complete sanity. I also confess at this juncture that nobody has forced me to do so nor am I a hypocrite. My withness is my master. He guides those who follow him and punishes those who disobey him and turn apostate i.e., Hamzah bin Ali Ahmad who set the sun of beginning into motion and made the cloud of blessing burst. I dissociate myself from all the old and new religious and convictions and affirm faith only in the commads of my master Hakim and I'll never assign any partner to him and I'll worship him alone".

They also believed in transmigratin an metempsychosis. When someone dies, his suld is transferred into the body of a newborn. Similarly invisibility and resurrection are also crucial ingredients of their faith. It means that Hakim disappeared as part of divine preordination and will reppear near Kaaba. This is a common denominatior among the various Shia sects. Ibn Taimiya observes: "Duruzis are the followers of Hashtkin Duruzi who was one of the slave-lords of Hakim whom he had despatched to the people Tim-Ullah bin Thalbah. He invited them to acknowledge Hakim's divinity. They addressed Hakim as Alam and swore by his name. They also belong to the Ismailiyyah sect. They believe that Muhammad bin Isamil had nullified the Sharia of Muhammad bin Abdullah. They outrival all the extremist sects in the outrageousness of their infidelity. They deny the basic Islamic sanctites and disacknowledge the accountability of the next world. They also belong to Qiramtah and Batiniyyah and exceed even the Jews, the Christians and the disbelievers of Arabia in the pervasiveness of their infidelity. They admire Aristotle and other philosophers of his vintage and they are also deeple cast in the Zoroastrian dye. They express their Shiaism not as a matter of faith but only as a tactical measure to create rift among the Muslims.

Shaikh-ul-Islam condemns their heretic views and underscores the Muslims consensus in their joint condemnation. Any one who doubts their infidelity is in fact himself an infidel. They are even worse than the people of the Book. They are outright infidels and are completely out of balance. It is prohibited to dine with them. Their women can be converted into slaves and their goods can be confiscated. They are infidels and apostates. They are not even allowed to repent because their repentance is unacceptable. Wherever they are caught, they should be immediately executed and they should be cursed and maligned. It is also unlawful to employ them as watch-keepers, gate-keepers and as body-gurads. It is equally permissible to murder their saints and scholars so that they may not misguide other people. It is prophibited to sleep with them in their houses, to be friendly with them, to keep their company and to participate in their burials, and it is prohibited for the Muslim rulers to violate Quranic injunctions about them.

These were the sects that came into existence during the period of Jafar bin Baqir and drew their nourishment form the general climate of opinion. They express a difference of opinion with other Shias inspite of their heritage of Sabai views:

Shia Sects during the period of Musa Kazim:

People who believed in the Imamat of Musa bin Jafar split into various groups during his life and after his death. Nau Bakhti says: People who followed Musa bin Jafar had no difference of opinion about his Imamat. They stuck to their belief in him even though he had been arrested and imprisoned twice. But after his second term of imprisoned twice. But after his second term of imprisonment they developed doubts about his Imamat and lauched a questioning campaign about his credentials as Imam. He had died in Harun's prison and those who believed in his Imamat disbanded into five factions. It happened in 183 A.H.

One of these factions is of the opinion that he died as a captive of Sindi bin Shahak. Yahya bin Khalid Barmiki sent him some poisoned grapes and dates and he died as a result of eating them. And after Musa, Ali bin Musa Radha is the Imam. This sect is called Qatiyyah because it holds a definite and irrefutable belief in the death of Musa bin Jafar and after him in the Imamat of his son Ali. Their belief is absolute and definitive andis not marked by any streak of doubts and suspicion.

The second faction believes that Musa bin Jafar did not actually die: he is still alive, and he will not go off the hook until he rules over the entire world and relieves it of the burden of oppression and inequity. They also believe that Musa is also Mahdi. He had come out of the prison cell in broad daylight but no body could spot him out nor did any one know about his where-abouts. The king and his companins claimed in sheer deseration that he had pegged out while he was languishing in jail. In this way they hoisted a lie on the innocent people. The fact was that he had gone under cover and become invisible to the people. They have also related a number of traditions which ar attributed to his father. For example, he stated that Musa is eternally present. He confirmed the news that even if he hurls his head from a mountain, you should not believe in it because he is the standing Imam. This faction is also called Muswiyyah on account of its perennial vigil for Musa bin Jafar. Its other designation is Mufadhilah on account of its affiliation with the name of its chief Mufdhil bin Umar who enjoyed an enviable status among them. They are also known as Manturiyyah. This designation derives from the fact that when they articulated their specific beliefs, some of the people told them that they were "Kalab Mamturah" i.e., the dogs who had been thoroughly drenched by rain. Since their views were extremely disgraceful, they were adorned with the ugly title. The other explanation is that people avoided their company and snubbed them openly on account of their dirty and swinish beliefs and turned them away like dogs drenched in rain. Ibn Hazm has mentioned them in "Al-Fasl".

They are of the views that Musa is the standing Imam and he is dead and until he reappears, no one can lay any claim to Imamat. He will re-emerge as "Qaim" Imam. They also believe that he has been resurrected after his death but he is leading a veiled existence. He is still alive and actively though invisibily engaged in acts of piety. His companions not only perceive him but also hold meetings with him. They have reported a number of traditions from his father which confrim that he is "Qaim" because he will rise after his death.

The third faction holds on to the opinion that he has popped off and that he is also the "Qaim" Imam. They add that he resembles Christ and has not been resurrected as yet. However, he will be resurrected on the day of judgement and redeem the world full of oppression and injustice. His father had expressed that he resembled Christ and he would die at the hands of the children of Abbas. And he was murdered by them.

The fourth faction is not sure whether he is dead or alive as there are a number of traditions which attest to the fact that he is the "Qaim" Imam and the promised Mehdi. Thus they think it is sheer bad manners to contradict all these traditions. Since they believe in the validity of the traditions about his forefathers, they also don not like to show aversion ore revulsion to the traditions about him because these traditions are explicit, popular and continuous. Therefore their contradictions flouts all rules of propriety and decency. Death is inevitable and God does whatever He chooses to do. Therefore they would like to suspend their judgement as far as acknowledgement of his life and death is concerned. They also believed in his Imamat and they genuinely desired to sort out fiction from reality and compare his claim with the cliam of the person who pretended to be the active Imam i.e. Ali bin Musa Radha. If his Imamat was valid as was his father's and it was established on the basis of arguments that he had acknowledged his Imamat as well as the death of his father, they would believe him. It was not possible to trust the traditions of his companions. The issue needed further proof and justification.

Similarly Razi in "Itiqadat Firq al-Muslimin wal Mushrikin", Ashari in "Maqalat-ul-Islamiyyin" Maltin in "at-Tabsir", Isfraini in "At-Tabsir", Baghdadi in "Al-Friq Bain-ul-Friq", Mufid in "Al-Irshad" and Shahristani "al-Milal wan Nihal" Have made reference to it.

This fifth sect is "Bashriyyah". Nau Bakhti says that they are the companions of Muhammad bin Bashir who was the lord of Banu Asad in Kufah. This sect believes that Musa bin Jafar has not shuffled off this mortal coil. He had not been imprisoned either. He is alive, invisible, eternal and he is also the Mehdi. When he was about to disappear, he appointed Muhammad bin Bashir as his Caliph and made him his executor. He entrusted all the affairs to him and appointed him as his preceptor. It obviously means that Muhammad bin Bashir is the Imam after him. Muhammad bin Bashir at the time of his death proposed his son Sami bin Muhammad bin Bashir to be his successor. Thus he is the Imam after him and it is binding on the Ummah to obey him till the reappearance of Musa. The people are expected to discharge their financial obligations towards him and seed God's pleasure through him as he is the bonafide Imam. They believe that Ali bin Musa and other self-styled Imams among his children had a tainted birth. They have negated their credentials and called them infidels on account of their false and unjust claims to Imamat. People who subscribe to their Imamat are also infidels and it is lawful to approptiate their Imamat are also infidels and it is lawful to appropriate their lives and properties. They also believe that God has prescribed only five prayers and fasting during Ramadhan. They deny Zakat, pilgrimage and other obligatory acts. They think it is lawful to marry women who have been declared unlawful by the Quran and the Sunnah and they possess a soft corner for homo-sexual and lesbian practices, and they bolster their perverse belief with the help of the following Quranic verse which is a further illustration of their perversity

(Or He blesses them with both sons and daughters) 42:50 Besides they are convinced of the inevitability of transmigration and in their opinion all the Imams are in fact physical extensions of the same body who are involved in a continuous process of transferrence from one corporeal fram to another. Therefore it is binding on every one to respect and obey them. Whatever they proposed or desired is in fact intended for the consumption of Sami bin Muhammad and his legal successors.

Kashi observed in his "Rijal" in reference to Muhammad bin Bashir that when Abul Hassan gave up the ghost and a period of stasis followed, Muhammad bin Bashir appeared on the scene to fill up the vacuum. He had a great reputation for legerdemain. He behaved like a chameleon and was adept in varying his poses to suit the exigencies of the occasion or the nuances of the moment. He staked out the claim that Imamat had ceased with the appearance of Musa bin Jafar. He was an entity of flesh and bone. Every body could see him and had access to him. But he could change himself instantly. To the enlightened and pious people he appeared as a man overflowing with piety but to the prejudiced and the impious he appeared as an embodiment of flesh. The folds and layers of secrecy intervened between the entrie universe and his personality and he became impenetrable to the physical range of the human eye. That is, though he is eternally present, people can not perceive him as a physical entity as they used to do in the past.

This Muhammad bin Bashir was one onf the lords of Banu Asad in Kufah. His companions cherish the notion that Musa bin Jafar has not hopped the twig, and he was not clapped behind the bars either but he simply disappeared and went under cover. He is also the Imam Mahdi. At the time of his disappearance he nominated Muhammad bin Bashir as his successor. He formally made him his executor also. He gave him his ring, his knowledge and whatever else his people were in need of. He entrusted all the affairs to him, religious as well as wordly matters and made him his preceptor. It means that after him Imam Muhammad bin Bashir is the bona fide Imam. Those who profess the Imamat of others are infidels in their eyes and for them their goods and belongings are lawful. It is part of their conviction that only those who express allegiance to Muhammad are the genuine followers; the others are a breed of bogus pretenders. Muhammad is the creator and he enters into the body of each one of his followers. He is nobody's father nor is he any one's son and he is hidden among the folds and layers of secrecy. In addition to this sect, Mukhsimah, Aliyawiyyah and the companions of Abul Khatab believe that any one who professes allegiance to the children of Muhammad (peace be upon him) professes a false allegiance. They go even further and declare that he professes false allegiance to God also and indulges in a while articulation of lies. And these are the Jews and the Christians who are the addressees of the following Quranic verse:

(The Jews and the Christians claim that they are the sons and darlings of God. Then why does He punish you on account of your misdeeds? You are of course like other human beings among His creatures)

Muhammad, according to Khitabiyyah religion, and Ali, according to Aliyawiyyah religion, are also among the people who have been created by God but actually their claim is false because they believe that Muhammad and Ali are the creators who have neither been engendered by any one nor have they engendered any one.

Muhammad bin Bashir's murder:

Besides being a trickster he was also one of those who believed in the discontinuity of Imamat after Ali bin Musa. He believed in Musa's divinity and claimed himself to be a prophet. He made an effigy of Abul Hassan and dressed it in silk robes. He guilded it with the help of medicines and sculpted it in such a manner that it looked like a living replica of the dead man. It was a folding effigy. When he wanted to display his sleight-of-hand, he filled it with the air in his mouth. When the statue was fully blown, it resembled a living human being. He told his companions that Abul Hassan was staying with him and if they wanted to have a glimpse of him as well to confirm that he was his prophet, they could visit him and see him at his residence. When the people visited him at his house, he folded the statue before he called them in. Then he would ask them if they spotted anyone else except him and themselves. Later he asked them to slip out while he hid himself behind the curtain. Then he placed the statue before them and pushed aside the curtains. They found themselves face to face with a living human being who perfectly resembled Abul Hassan. The resemblance was so perfect that their sense of familiarity was not outraged. He also came over from behind the curtain, stood beside them and assured them through his magical tricks that they were coversing in whispers with Abul Hassan himself. Then he gestured them to leave. Before they went too far away, he hung a curtain between himself and the statue and when they looked back, they found nothing. He knew many magical tricks and people were simply swept away by his ingenuity. He kept on dabbling in his tricks until the news reached the Caliph of the times. Probably it was the reign of Harun or his immediate successor. The Caliph wanted to put him to death but he said: O Amir-ul-Mominin! don't kill me because I can make a number of things for you which the kings are quite fond of. The king released him. Frist of all, he set the pails of the well in order and placed mercury between the planks. He filled the pails with water and the planks with mercury. When the mercury travelled from the planks towards the pails, they ecpanded in girth even when there was no one to supervise the process. In this way water easily reached the garden. It pleased the king immensely. Besides, he made a number of other things as well. He tried to vie with God by creating paradise. The Caliph welcomed him and elevated his stature. But one day the planks came apart and the mercury spilled out of them which crippled the entire system. Thus his house of cards collapsed and his tricks were exposed to his utter consternation.

During the same period, two of his cousins also staked out their claim for Imamat. One of them was Hussain bin Ali bin Hassan bin Hassan Mithna bin Hassan bin Ali. His mother was Zainab bint Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassan bin Ali. He claimed Imamat during the reign of the Abbasi Caliph Abu Musa Hadi who also happened to be the grandson of Abu Jafar Mansur.

Yahya, Sulaiman, Idris (sons of Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassan), Abdullah Hassan Aftan, Ibrahim bin Ismail Taba Taba, Umar bin Hassan bin Ali bin Hassan bin Hussain, Abdullah bin Jafar bin Muhammad, Abdullah bin Jafar bin Baqir, Abdullah and Umar (who were the sons of Ishaq bin Hassan bin Ali Zain-ul-Abidin) had pledged at his hand as their Imam.

Asfahani states that with the exception of Hassan bin Jafar bin Hassan Mithna, all the Talibin had pledged fealty at his hand. He did not force him into allegiance because he had offered his apologies. Besides, Musa bin Jafar bin Muhammad who is the seventh Imam of the Shias-also declined to swear allegiance to him. Uniza Qasbani writes: I saw that late in the evening Musa bin Jafar came over to see Hussain of Fiskh. He knealed before him and said to him: Since I lag behind others in my pledge, I would like it very much if I am set free. Hussain kept his head low for a long time and did not utter a word. Then a raised his head and said: you are at liberty.

Kulaini in his 'Kafi' has related in the context of this episode on the authority of Abdullah bin Mufdhil Maula Abdullah bin Jafar bin abi Talib that when Hussain bin Ali had revolted in Fiskh and besieged Madinah, he invited Musa bin Jafar to pledge fealty at his hand. He called on him and said to him: O my cousin! don't torture me the way your cousin had tortured Abu Abdullah so that I may not react in a way I have never intended to react, the way Abu Abdullah had reacted though he had absolutely no intention to do so. Hussain replied: I have only placed my proposal before you. You can accept it if you like, and if you don't like it, I'll not force you into it.

The other man, who came out with his claim to Imamat, was Yahya bin Abdullah bin Hassan al-Mithna. Kulaini has also mentioned him:

He wrote in his invitation to Musa bin Jafar: tell me who are the people who, inspite of your disgraceful attitude, have come to me because they are sincerely interested in the propagation of God's religion. I have kept my invitation under cover as your father had kept it under cover. You over-publicized and over-exposed yourself though you have fulfilled none of the promises (you made to the people). You misguided them and I am warning you against it. God Himself has warned people against the pursuit of selfish ends. Abul Hassan Musa bin Jafar wrote back: you say that I have created disaffection against you among the people because I covet your Imamat. I warn you against the wrath of the Caliph and request you to obey him. I also ask you very humbly that you should seek protection for yourself before you are driven into a tight corner and find no outlet to escape, except the mild attitude ot the Caliph through divine intercession. May God keep him alive and he may allow you to live in peace and security and spare you on account of your geneological link with the Prophet (peace be upon him).

It is believed that Harun Rashid took him along when he returned to Madinah after the performance of Umrah, and he was still in his personal custody when he left for the pilgrimage. And when he returned through Basrah, he handed him over to Sadi bin Shahak as his prisoner and he died in Baghdad on 25 Rajab 183 A.H. during imprisonment. At the time of his death , he was fifty-four or fifty-five years of age and he was buried in the Quraish graveyard.

Shias during the period of Ali bin Musa Radha:

Ali bin Musa Radha was the father-in-law of Mamun's daughter. After his death, the shias who clustered round him, were divided in their opinions. One sect among them believed that after him his brother Ahmad bin Musa bin Jafar was the Imam because he had specified his Imamat. They believed that both brothers were bonafide Imams and, as a result of their conviction, they acknowledged Ali bin Musa as the Imam.

One of these sects was known as Muhaddithah. They had faith in the sanctity of hadith, and therefore, out of conviction, they acknowledged the Imamat of Musa bin Jafar. After him, they conferred Imamat on Ali bin Musa. The fact is that they had no firm faith in Shiaism. They adopted it only out of pretense and diplomacy. Therefore when Ali bin Musa died, they conveniently switched back to their former belief which was a hotch-potch of superstition and expediency.

Another sect was Zaidiyyah which comprised people with greater conviction and insight. They pledged at the hand of Ali bin Musa when Mamun had publicly acclaimed him as a pious man. They pledged at his hand only as a formality and as a show of false loyalty because inwardly they held on to their own beliefs. For a period of time they persisted in their pretense and expressed their loyalty to him, but, as soon as he died, they returned to their old convictions.

Another sect is of the opinion that Ali bin Musa his son Muhammad bin Ali Is the acknowledged Imam. In his presence no one else was entitled to Imamat. There were some other sects also which expressed allegiance to a group of Talibin who had claimed Imamat during the period of Radha and invited people to endorse their claim. Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin Hassan Mithna bin Hassan bin abi Talib, who was popularly known as Ibn Taba Taba, also belonged to this sect. Besides Muhammad him Yahya bin Yahya bin Zaid bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali, Muhammad bin Jafar (Ali Radha's uncle), Ibrahim bin Musa bin Jafar (Ali Radha's brother) and Hussain bin Hassan bin Ali bin bin Ali Zain-ul-Abidin etc also boasted of their adherence to the sect.

Asfahani in his "Maqatil-ut-Talibin" and Masudi in his "Muruj-uz-Zahb"hani in his "Maqatil-ut-Talibin" and Masudi in his "Muruj-uz-Zahb" have mentioned all of these sects, their beliefs, their revolt against Mamun, their capture of some towns and areas, and their confrontations on the battlefield with the Abbasi armies. I will give a brief account of the revolt of Alvis and their claim to Imamat basing it chiefly on Masudi's observations.

In 199 A.H. Abu As-Saraya Sari bin Mansur revolted in Iraq. He gathered a large number of people about him and carried substantial weight in the eyes of his opponents. Ibn Taba Taba had also extended his support to him. In Madinah Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin Daud bin Hassan bin Hassan bin Ali had revolted and in Basrah his example was paralelled by Ali bin Muhammad bin Jafar bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Hassan bin Ali and he was supported by Zaid bin Musa bin Jafar bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali and they captured Basrah as a result of their successful revolt.

Ibn Taba Taba died the same year. After his death Abu As-Saraya came all out with his support for Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Yahya bin Zaid bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali. The same year in Yemen (119 A.H.) Ibrahim bin Musa bin Jafar bin Muhammad bin Ali Hassan bin Ali appeared while during the tenure of Mamun Muhammad bin Jafar bin Muhammad bin Ali Hussain appeared in the suburbs of Makkah and Hijaz. It happened in 200 A.H. He invited people to express their allegiance to him. The Shia sect Sibtiyyah reinforced his invitation and acknowledged his Imamat. Later they themselves split into a number of sects. They only varied in the degree of their transgression and followed essentially the course charted by Imamiyyah. I have referred to the number of Talibin who appeared during the reign of Banu Abbas in my book "Al-Maqalat fi Usul ad-Deyanat' and "Akhbar-uz-Zaman." It is also stated that Muhammad bin Jafar extended Ibn Taba Taba's invitation to the people in the initial stages, especially during his period of bloom, but after the death of Ibn Taba Taba he stuck out his own claim to Imamat and became the self-styled Amir-ul-Mominin. There is not a single person among the children of Muhammad (peace be upon him) except this Muhammad bin Jafar who acquired the label of Amir-ul-Mominin. He was called "silk" on account of his physical charm and attraction. Ibn Aftas also appeared in Madinah during the reign of Mamun. In the beginning he invited people to embrace the Imamat of Taba Taba but after his death he changed the gear and invited people to embrace his own Imamat. Then he left for Makkah and contacted people when they were at Mina. Daud bin Isa bin Musa Hashmi was Amir-ul-Hajj in that year. Daud took to his heels when he heard the news of his arrival. People left for Urfah and from there they left for Muzdilfah. At that time they were without an Imam. Ibn Aftas visited Mukaf during the night and from there he made a dash for Muzdilfah. Since the people were still without Imam, he led the prayers and they prayed behind him. Then he left for Mina. He offered a sacrifice there. He then entered Makka and disrobed the house of Allah (Bait-Ullah) leaving only the white cover untouched.

It is worth mentioning that Mamun had appointed Ali bin Musa as his heir-apparent. Mufid has stated that Mamun had deputed two of his ministers Hassan bin Sahl and Fadhal bin Sahal to place before Ali bin Musa his offer to appoint him as his successor. But Ali declined the offer. However he finally accepted it on the repeated insistence of the ministers. Mamun was immensely pleased. On thursday Fadhal bin Sahl came out of the court and announced to the people outside Mamun's decision to appoint Ali bin Musa as the heir apparent who had also conferred on him the epithet Radha. He added that Mamun had ordered them to wear green dress and come to the court on the following thursday to take the oath of allegiance at his hand, and to collect their annual stipends. Thus on the stipulated day, the officers, the courtiers and the justice etc came to the court wearing green robes and settled down in their seats. Mamun also took his seat. Two giant-size pillows were placed for Radha and they were almost adjoined to Harun's seat. Redha was ensconced against the two pillows in his green apparel. He was wearing a turban on his head and a sword dangled at his hand first of all the persons. Then the people followed suit and swore allegiance to him. The speakers and the poets then showered praises on Radha. Mamun asked him to stand up and address the people. Radha first praised the Lord and then stressed his claim over them. He emphasised mutual rights that existed between him and the people. If they fulfilled their rights and discharged their obligations, he would also respond by fulfilling his rights and discharging his obligations. And he asserted that his claim was justified on account of his link with holy Prophet (peace be upon him). Mamun ordered his name to be engraved on the coins. Ishaq bin Musa bin Jafar spliced him to the daughter of his uncle Ishaq bin Muhammad. He was appointed Amri-ul-Hajj the same year and sermons were delivered in every town to highlight the fact of Radha's succession. But he died during the life of Mamun before he could take over the reins of Khilafat.

Mamun tried to conceal his death for twenty four hours. Then he sent for Muhammad bin Jafar Sadiq and a party of the progeny of Ali Talib who were present on the occasion. When they reached there, he informed them about the death of Radha. While delivering the news of his death he broke into a torrent of tears and expressed immeasurabled grief. Then he led them to Radha's corpse which was in perfect condition. Mamun addressed the dead body and said: O my brother, it is excruciating for me to see you in this state. I expected to kick the bucked before you but God's will prevails over our wishes. Then on Mamun's orders he was given the final bath and wrapped in a coffin after performing the necessary rites. Mamun also gave the funeral his shoulder and accompained it to the spot where he lies buried today. This spot is known as Dar Hamid bin Qahtibah which is actually called the settlement of Sanabad at Nau Qan in Tus. The graves of Harun Rashid and Abul Hassan are also located in this area.

As far as I know Ali bin Musa Radha left behind him only Imam Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali. At the time of his father's death he was only seven years and some months old. It should be noted that he died in Safar 203 A.H. when he entered the fifty-five years ofhis life. His mother was Um-ul-Banin.

Shias during the period of Muhammad bin Ali:

A serious rift came to surface among the Shias about the Imamat of Radha's son Muhammad bin Ali who was known by the title of Jawad or Taqi, because he had not entered the age of puberty at the time of his father's death, as is already stated. They drew themselves away from him and insisted that puberty was a necessary pre-requisite of Imamat. If God had commanded us to obey an adolescent, He would have also ordered the adolescent to obey His injunctions. Just as it is unlawful to declare a non-adult as "Mukallaf", similarly he is not legally empowered to arbitrate among people. He can not grasp the subtleties and intricacies involved in the solution of problems; he is not fully conversant with religious injunctions and the rules and regulations of Sharia. The Sharia introduced by the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) which is the basic need of the Ummah till the arrival of the doomsday is obviously beyond the range of an adolescent's comprehension. If a non-adolescent can handle these complicated and sensitive issues, then we can also excpet a child who is in his cradle and swings to the rhythms and melodies of nursery rhymes, to show an awareness of these issues and to suggest solutions to dis-entangle their knots. But it all sounds absurd because adolescence is not the same things as non-adolescence and a child can not rationally be expected to behave like a grown-up person. The perceptions and reflections of the former do not operate at the same wave lengts as those of the latter.

People who are convinced of the Imamat of Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali differ on the state of his knowledge during the non-adolescent phase. Some of them suggested that only a scholar could claim himself to be an Imam. Abu Jafar was a non-adult. His father had died. Therefore they wondered how he had imbibed the knowledge he laid calim to. They countered their cat-like curiosity with the suggestion that it was not necessary for him to have acquired his knowledge from his father because he was only four years old when his father was taken to Khorasan and a child of his age obviously lacks the capability to grasp the minor and major issues of his faith. Therefore, at the time of his puberty, God injected into him knowledge of problems and issues through various channels: for example inspiration and prophecy, true dreams, dialogue with the angles etc. All these channels of information are established through convention and it is not proper to refute or contradict them.

There were still others who subscribed to the view that the right to Imamat was exclusively his. It is established by the confirmation of his Imamat before the age of puberty. The pre-adolescent confirmation carried the divine guarantee that he would receive the necessary knowledge at the time of his induction into the age of adolescence. Since the chain of revelation has been snapped after the death of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and this belief is supported by the consensus of the entire Ummah, therefore information alone is no solution to the immensity of the problem. Revelation is a consequence of reflection on the reality of things and not of the mere accumulation of factual information. Facts go only part of the way and they do not touch the strings of the heart and the spirit. Though inspiration has priority over information no one can learn the rules and injunctions of Sharia through inspiration. One who has a reflective disposition is blessed with an enlightened heart, possesses sound reason, and has an active mind, will obviously fail to grasp religious problems and issues if he has not been properly indoctrinated into them. Through reasons and rationality alone he can not arrive at the conclusion that the noon prayer has four, the evening prayer has three and predawn prayer has two obligatory units (rakt). These problems can not be solved through the perfection of reason and the instrumentality of reflection because they belong to the realm of instruction and information. Thus it sounds absurd that these problems can be discovered through the agency of revelation. Therefore I affirm that Abu had received the necessary knowledge at the time of his adolescence as part of the heritage that had come down to him in the form of books and relevant guide lines. Some Shia sects believe that the Imam is innocent and his surmises and guesses possess the stature of rules and regulations. He is immune to the lapses and errors of ordinary human beings on account of his ectraordinary status. But the stand of these Shias only reflected their helpessness because there was no other way to justify the acceptable level of instruction of their non-adolescent Imam.

There are still others who believe that the Imam is adult by definition even if he is physically a minor because he embodies the justification of divine presence. He can also imbibe knowledge through inspiration, reason, angelic discourse etc. Thus Abu Jafar received knowledge through these channels. His forefathers had acquired knowledge through similar sources because they were also the embodiments of divine justification on earth. They have specifically mentioned the name of Hadhrat Yahya bin Zikriyyah. God had blessed him with knowledge during his childhood. They also quote Isa bin Miriyam and the child who had verbally intervened in the affair between Yousaf and the king's wife. They cite the example of Sulaiman bin Daud as well that God had blessed him with the power to understand and resolve complicated issues without the crutches of acquired knowledge. They intend to prove that God conferred special status on them even though they were not adolescents in the eyes of people.

Muhammad bin Ali was born in Madinah in 195 A.H. and died in Baghdad in 220 A.H. It means he left the world at a very young age of twenty five. His mother was Nobiyyah though she was popularly known as Samibah and he was married to Um-ul-Fadhl, Mamun's daughter, which means out of the two sisters one was married to the father and the other to the son.

During his period a Hussaini also came out with his claim to Imamat. He was Muhammad bin Qasim bin Ali bin Umar bin Ali Zain-ul-Abidin bin Hussain bin Ali bin abi Talib. According to Masudi, a large crowd of people leaped towards him to pledge fealty at his hand. On account of the flesh of his popularity Abdullah bin Zahir kidnapped him and produced him before Motasim who imprisoned him in a big house that was built in a garden of "Sur man Ra'i". Some people believe that he was prisoned. Others believe that some of the Taliqani Shias wangled their appointment as gardeners in that garden. They used ropes as ladders, broke into the house and dragged him out. They kidnapped him and what followed is wrapped in mystery. A large number of followers of Zaidiyyah sect are also convinced of his Imamat. This happened in 322 A.H. Many of them believe that he is not dead but alive and he is a regular recipient of the divine bounty and when he revolts again, he will relieve the world of tyranny and oppression and fill it with justice and equity. He is also the Mehdi of the Ummat. The majority of people who hold these beliefs are settled in the suburbs of Kufah, and the hills of Tabristan and Dilam as well as in Kharasan.

Shias during the period of Ali bin Muhammad:

When Muhammad bin Ali died, he left behind two sons, Ali and Musa. According to the Shias the elder son was not more than eight years old. Their father deputed Abdullah bin Masawar to look after their wealth and property till they acquired the age of puberty. There is a difference of opinion among the Shias about their Imamat. Some of them believe in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Ali while others acknowledge Musa bin Muhammad as their Imam.

Nasiriyyah Sect:

A shia sect emerged during the life of Abul Hassan Ali bin Muhamad Hadi which believed in the prophethood of Muhammad bin Nasir Numeri. The adherents of the sect claimed that he had been appointed by Abul Hassan Askri as the prophet. They believe in the transmigration of souls and ascribed divinity to Abul Hassan. This sect permitted marriages among persos who were not allowed to marry one another by law i.e., it conferred legal sanctity on unlawful marriages; it legalized wedding among spouses and encouraged homosexual marriages. It stressed especially that God had not forbidden these marital alliances. In this way they attached divine sanctity to what had been declared illegal by religious convention. Muhammad bin Musa bin Hassan bin Farat was one of the special associates of Numeri. When Numeri was asked on his deathbed to designate his successor, he had mentioned the name of Ahmad but the people could not discover the identity of the man named by him. On this issue the spilt into three groups: One of the groups believed that Ahmad actually meant his own son; the second group held that it stood for Ahmad bin Musa bin Hassan bin Farat; the third sect believed that the reference pointed towards Ahmad bin abi al-Hussain Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Bashir bin Zaid. Their difference assumed a serious form and they could not forge a consensus on the issue. Since they upheld the prophethood of Abu Muhammad, therefore they are also known by the label of Numeriyyah or Hasiriyyah.

Shahristani has commented on the beliefs of the Nasiriyyah sect in his book "Milal". It is part of their belief that God manifests Himself in the form of different individuals. Since no one excels Hadhrat Ali after the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and no one is superior to him barring the Prophet (peace be upon him) and after him his children are the indisputed embodiments of excellence, therefore God manifested and articulated Himself through them and supported them through the vagaries of their temporal existence. This is the reason they clamp divinity on them and acknowledge Hadhrat Ali as God because he enjoyed the divine support and the secrets of the unknown were revealed to him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) decided only in the light of external evidence and God alone possessed knowledge of the internal evidence. That is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) waged wars against the disbelievers while Hadhrat Ali fought agaist the hypocrities. They also compared Hadhrat Ali to Christ and added that they would have come out with a stupendous statement about him if they could get rid of the apprehension that people would ascribe to him what they had ascribed to Jesus Christ. The shias also regarted Hadhrat Ali as a partner in Prophethood. According to them the Prophet had predicted that one of them could fight with the hypocrities on the issue of interpretation as he had fought with the disbelievers on the issue of revelation and he was the one who had patches on his shoes. He had learnt the art of interpretation, fighting with the hypocrities, conversing with the Jins and uprooting the Khyber gate and he possessed this knowledge not on the basis of his physical strength. It is, in fact, a proof of his divinity. His extraordinary courage and his superior knowledge are a proof of the fact that God manifested Himself through him. He created with his hand and spoke with his tongue. The Shias add that Hadhrat Ali was present even before the creation of the earth and the heavens. According to him he was standing in the shade on the right side of God's canopy. He praised the Lord and the angels also praised God in response to his overture. Therefore these shades are a reality and are lighted up with divine radiance. The light is an inseparable part of Hadhrat Ali and will not leave him whether he is in this world or the next world. He further adds that the one he is praising is radiant like the light. It means there is no difference between the two forms of radiance. The only difference is that the first light is the cause and the second light its consequence. The Nasiriyyah sect is inclined to believe that he is a part of divinity whild the Ishaqiyyah sect is inclined to believe that he is a partner in prophethood.

Razi thinks that the adherents of this shia sect are settled in the suburbs of Halab and Syria. The fact is that this sect was not only confined to Razi's times but is still found in Suriyyah and Turkey and is known by the title of Alwiyyah.

The Nasiriyyah sect sticks to the belief that Muhammad bin Nasir Numeri did not claim to be a prophet; he only served as the gateway to the Imamat of Hassan Askari, the eleventh innocent Imam of the Shias. they also believe that Abu Yaqub Ishaq bin Muhammad Nakhfi had a tussle with him and it is he who had staked out his claim as the gateway to Hassan Askari.

The gist of the discussion is that these people believe in the divinity of Ali and it is their conviction that the Messenger of Allah was in fact the messenger of Hadhrat Ali. Their conviction is based on the authority of Jabir bin Yazid Jofi: Hadhrat Ali dispatched him on a mission. When he arrived at his destination, he found Hadhrat Ali seated in a chiar flooded with the radiance. Sayyid Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sitting on his right ans Sayyid Salman (Hadhrat Salman Farisi) was sitting on his left. When Jabir looked at his back, his eyes were greeted by the same sight; and when he looked at his right and lifted his eyes towards the sky, he found the angels praising him and prostrating before him. They have composed a separate Quran for themselves:

After the above verses they frame a number of verses which celebrate the omnipotence and omniscence of Hadhrat Ali.

I withness that no one is to be worshipped except Ali bin abi Talib. There is no intermediary except Sayyid Muhammad and he is his most intimate associate. There is no gateway except Sayyid Salman Farisi and he is the ideal of their reflection *The Sacred Five (Panjtan Pak) are the greatest angels. Sayyid and Shaikh Hussain spread religion in all the regions of the world. His opinion is therefore to be rated above the opinion of everyone else. I witness that the shape who appeared in the robe of flesh and spread light and radiance all around and who alone is to be worshipped, he is Ali bin abi Talib. His power can not be defined; his glory can not be confined; his intelligence cannot be circumscribed; he can not be perceived with the naked eye. I witness that I am Nasiri by virtue of my faith, Jandibi by virtue of my opinion and views, Jinbilani by virtue of articulation, Maimuni by virtue of religion, Jalli by virtue of articulation, Maimuni by virtue of Fiqh. I am the expression of what he concealed and the manifestation presence of Ali bin abi Talib, the form in which he emberged from Ain-i-Shams'. He controls all living beings. He is under Shiran holding a sword in his hand. The angels are at his back and Sayyid Salman is in front of him. Water is gushing out of his feet. Sayyid Muhammad is shouting repeatedly: O people! He is Ali bin abi Talib, your lord and master. Recognize him, and pay your respects to him and sign paeons of praise to him. He is your creator and sustainer. O my community! don't deny him. You are my witness that this is my faith and belief. This is what I trust and this is what sustains me and when I die, I'll die as an adherent to the belief that Ali bin abi Talib is alive and will never die. He controls fate and predestination. Each one of our organs, the ear, the eye, the heart etc will be questioned about him.

And there are also a number of other absurdities and perversities which they have incorporated in their Quran. Ali bin Muhammad died in Rajab in 254 A.H. at Sur Man Rai with the help of Yahya bin Aksam. Thus he along with his mother was confined to this spot.

A number of other Alvis also proclaimed Imamat during his period and many Shias and members of Ali's family had pledged fealty at their hands. The most noteworthy among them is Yahya bin Umar bin Hussain bin Zaid bin Ali Zain-ul-Abidin. He had seized the territory of Kufah and its suburbs but when he was murdered during the tenure of Mustain, the Abbasi Caliph, many poets composed elegies composed over the death of Yahya excelled the number of elegies written over the murder of other people during the Abbasi period. Ibn Athir has endorsed Asfahani's cliam in his book "Al-Kamil". Similarly, Hassan bin Zaid bin Muhammad bin Ismail bin Hassan Mithna also publicized his Imamat during this period. He appeared in Tabristan and after a spate of battles he managed to capture Tabristan and Jirjan. Hussain bin Muhammad bin Hamzah bin Abdullah bin Hussain bin Ali also drummed out his cliam to Imamat in 251 A.H.

Shias during the period of Hassan bin Ali Askari:

The Shias chipped away into various factions after the death of Abul Hassan bin Ali Hadi. One of these factions believed in the Imamat of his son Muhammad who had died at Sur Man Rai during the life of his father. But the Shias believe that he is still alive and his death was only at illusion. They bolster their claim with the argument that his father had vaguely indicated his Imamat after him. Since the Imam can neither lie nor rely on Bada', it is evident that Muhammad had only visibly died; invisibly he was still alive. His father had made him vanish on account of fear. He is also the "Qaim" Mehdi. The views they hold about Muhammad are exactly the ones held by the followers of Ismail bin Jafar about him.

The interesting aspect of the whole episode is that Muhammad, whose patronym is Abu Jafar, is the executor of his father and is also the calipah after him. This is the run-of-the-mill belief of the Shias about him. But when he died during the life of his father and before he became the Imam, the Shias fell into suspicion about his Imamat and the Imamat of his father. In order to quell their doubts his father Abul Hassan Hadi explained that God had fallen into Bada' about Abu Muhammad after Abu Jafar which he could not anticipate as a similar Bada had materialized about Musa after Ismail. I still stick to what I said even though the worshippers of falsehood do not like it. My son Abu Muhammad is my successor after me. He possesses knowledge of all that he needs. He is also in possession of the instrument of Imamat.

Another faction believes in the Imamat of Jafar bin Ali-although the Shias generally remember him by the title of Jafar the liar. The adherents of this sect believe that after the death of Muhammad his fater had indicated his succession as Imam. They believed in his Imamat because it had been authenticated by his own father. Thus they discarded the Imamat of his brother Muhammad. They interpret the indication of Muhammad's Imamat by him only as a defensive gesture as the Imam in fact is Jafar bin Ali.

Still another section believes in the Imamat of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari bin Ali. Mufid writes that after Abu Jafar his son Abul Hassan Ali bin Muhammad was the natural heir to Imamat because he possessed all the attributes in the maximum degree of excellence which rendered him the most suitable for the highest spiritual office. None of his brothers could cliam to approach the heights scaled by his father. Besides there was a clear specification about his Imamat and his father had in fact indicated his Khilafat. He died on friday in 260 A.H. while he was born in Madinah in the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal 232 A.H. He was buried in his own in his own house at Sur Man Rai. His fatherd was also buried there. His mother was known by the name of Haditha and he was only twenty eight at the inopportune time of his death. Nau Bakhti remarks that his mother is simultaneoulsy known as Isfahan and Salil. Sometimes she is called by other epithetsw as well. Thus the confusion about her real name is quite obvious though there is perhaps no confusion about the identity of the person. Abu Isa bin Mutawakkil led his funeral prayer. During his period of Imamat Motiz was king for a few months. He was followed by Mohtadi who ruled for eleven months and twenty eight days. He was succeeded by Ahmad Motamid Ali Allah bin Jafar who ruled the roost for twenty years and eleven months.

A number of Alvis professed Imamat during his tenure, among whom Ali bin Zaid bin Hussain Alvi is particularly note-worthy. The other claimants are mentioned by Asfahani in "Maqatil-it-Talibin" and Masudi in "Muruj-uz-Zahb". All the Sunni historians have mentioned them too.

Shias after Askari's death:

Hassan Askari had not left any off-spring behind to claim succession. Therefore, as Nau Bakhti writes, when he left the world, he did not leave behind any living token of his identity. Therefore his heritage was parcelled pre-requisite for Imamat is the presence of a male off-spring and the specification made by the incumbent Imam about his successor who is supposed to superivse his funeral rites and other affairs related to his final disposal. The difference of opinion appeared among the Shias in the absence of any indication by the former Imam and the indication of course could not possibly be made in the absence of successors, as the prediction of succession can be made only when there is someone to succeed. Thus the Shias relied on absurd interpretations because after the death of their eleventh Imam they were in the midst of a moral and spiritual after his death. Besides, their fragmentation also betrayed the extend of their deviation from the origins of their faith and it clearly stressed the triumph of greed and selfishness over principles and convictions. The Shia divided into fourteen factions. Their views and beliefs are given below:

The first faction believes that Hassan bin Ali is still alive. He had not died but simply disappeared. He is also the Qaim' Imam. He can never die because he is apparently without an issue and the world can not survive without the presence of an Imam.

The sceond sect gives credit to the notion that Hassan bin Ali had actully died, but he was resurrected after his death and he is the Imam Mahdi. According to a tradition the word "Qaim" means that he will rise again after his death and he will rise in his own person because he has no issue of his own. Since Imamat is preserved for the children of an Imam, and his is without a child nor has he specified any one else as his successor, therefore he is the "Qaim" Imam and it is beyond all doubt.

The third sect gives credence to the surmise that Hassan bin Ali passed away and was replaced by his brother Jafar as Imam whose succession he himself had indicated. When it was brought to their notice that throughout their life Hassan and Jafar were at daggers drawn, and the malicious treatment he had extended to his brother was also an open secret as well as the war of succession that ensued after his death, the nomination of Jafar as Imam appeared rahter dubious and contrary to rational expectations. Their answer is that all these squabbles and wrangles were only superficial and the shell of their inner unity could possibly be cracked by the hammer-blows of outer dissension. Ali bin Tahir Khazaz was the person who strengthened Jafar's Imamat and proved the king-pin in channelizing the sympathies of the people towards him. He was quick on the uptake and possessed the gift of the gab. Both these qualities helped him in launching a campaign of sustained publicity for his Imam. Besides he won the cooperation and active support of the sister of Faris bin Hatim bin Mahwiyyah Qazwini.

The fourth sect cherishes the notion that Jafar is the Imam after Hassan and the Imamat is transferred to him from his father and not from Hassan. Hassan was a fake claimant because the genuine Imam does not die until he has specified his successor, and he is also survived by a son to stake out his claim to Imamat. No one can claim to be an Imam who is not survived by a son in the visible and physical sense. Similarly after Hassan and Hussain, two brothers cannot put up their claims to Imamat as has been reportedly stated by Jafar. Only one of the brothers is the genuine Imam and the Imamat of the other brother must be rooted in cooked-up-credentials.

The fifth sect is inclined toward the Imamat of Hassan's brother, Muhammad bin Ali. They foster the idea that the claims of both Hassan and Jafar to Imamat were bogus. Jafar was notorious for his immoral practices. He publicly encouraged evil and made no effort to keep himself away from perverse acts. He never tried to cloak his sins but publicized them maximally to satisfy his exhibitionistic inclinations. A man like him could not be accepted as a reliable witness even in the fraud of a dirham, not to talk of his reliablity as the standing Imam of the Prophet (peace be upon him). As far as Hassan is concerned, his bonafides are invalidated by the fact that he was not survived by a son.

The sixth sect is wedded to the belief that Hassan bin Ali and a son named Muhammad who was born many years before the death of Hassan but remained invisible. He slipped under cover because he was scared of Jafar.

The seventh sect holds on to the conviction that this son of Hassan was born eight months after his death and those who claim that he was born during his life are liars. Their claim is absolutely bogus because if the child was born during his life, he had no need to conceal his identity out of fear or a feeling of insecurity. The general consensus also supports the views that at the time of his death he was without a son, and if there had been one, his identity could not be concealed. However, the fact of pregnancy was generally confirmed. On top of all, it enjoyed royal endorsement. That is why his heritage remained undivided. The child was born eight months after his death and named Muhammad according to his will. He is also the invisible Imam Muhammad.

The eighth sect holds the belief that Hassan had no son. They have conducted thorough investigation into the whole affair and come out with the conclusion that they have not been able to find any trace of the identity of his son. They further justify their stand that if they presume Hassan had no visible son but had an invisible son, then they will have to lend credibility to similar claims relating to all the dead people. They will have acknowledge that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was also blessed with an invisible son who was a prophet and an apostle, that Abdullah bin Jafar bin Muhammad had also left behind an invisible son who was a prophet and an apostle, that Abdullah bin Jafar bin Muhammad had also left behind an invisible son, that Abul Hassan Radha had given ot posterity three sons in addition to Abu Jafar, out of whom one was entitled to Imamat. It is a confirmed fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had left behind no male issue at the time of his death. Similarly it is a confirmed fact that God had not blessed Abdullah bin Jafar with any male off-spring and Radha also did not have four sons. As far as the fact of pregnancy is concerned, it is true that one of his slave maids was pregnant. He had predicted that she would give birth to a male child. It was not proper that an Imam should die without leaving behind a male heir as it negates the concept of Imamat and invalidates divine presence.

Those who believe in the pre-presence of the child tell them that they are denying something of which they are actually convinced. Then they accuse them of even a greater irrational twist in their reasoning i.e., they believe in the fact of prgnancy but deny the birth of the child. If their investigations have led to a denial of fact of delivery, the investigations of the adherents of this sect have equally led to a denial of the fact of pregnancy. They seem to conclude that if there was no birth, there was no conception either. Therefore they believe that their claim is based on sounder reasoning. The fact of delivery explains the reality better than the fact of pregnancy, because if the child is born, though invisibily, during the course of time, he might render himself visible while pregnancy is at best only an abstraction and conception does not always culminate in the birth of a child. Possibilities of abortion or miscarriage can not be elimnated either. Besides a conception does not last indefinitely; its maximum span is nine months. And it is endorsed both by biological evidence and the precepts of the Imams. Therefore they reject the thesis of the adherents of this sect and claim that it is based only on a series of adsurdities. Members of the ninth sect believe that it is true that Hassan bin Ali, his father, his grandfather and other ancestors all died. Just as the news of his death is incontrovertibly established, similarly the fact that Hassan died without a successor is equally firmly established. Thus the earth is without an Imam today and it is barren of specific divine presence which is manifested through the embodiment of the Imam. But God, Almighty as He is, can appoint any one among the children of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as Imam and revitalize the dead land with a fresh does of His essence, just as He appointed Muhammed (peace be upon him) as the last prophet even though the chain of prophethood had snapped.

The tenth sect believes that Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali had slipped his cable during the life of his father and according to his father's will he was the bonafide Imam; but he had specified the Imamat of a child named Nafis who had served him mostly loyally when he was alive. The child, after his death, had transferred the tag of Imamat to Jafar the invisible Imam are unlawful.

The eleventh sect believe that the entire affair is wrapped in doubt and suspicion. They are not sure about the identity of the Imam and they are fumbling in the dark on account oflack of definite information. Though they believe that the earth can not be emptied of the presence of an Imam, they are uncertain about the identity of the contemporary Imam. Therefore they have decided to wait till the picture becames more clear.

The twelfth sect eschews the articulation of opinions and views expressed by others sects as it amounts to a distortion of reality. They however believe that the earth can at no time be drained of the presence of an Imam. If the Imam is not there, the earth can explode into flames and fly into smithereens. But it is not fair that they should trace the presence of an Imam who is hidden among flods and layers and discuss the intangible issues of his identity and nomenclature as well as spy on his location. For them all efforts and discussions to trace and establish the presence of the invisible Imam are unlawful.

The supporters of the thirteenth sect believe in fact that Hassan bin Ali had turned up his toes. He was the Imam after his fater and after him Jafar bin Ali is the Imam just as Musa bin Jafar succeeded Abdullah bin Jafar as Imam. According to convention, after the death of the Imam, Imamat is transferred to his eldest son. On the authority of Sadiq it is established that no two brothers could claim Imamat after Hassan and Hussain. This is the only authentic tradition. All other traditions are fake and seem to be the invention of perverse imagination. This concept is not operative when the real son of the incumbent Imam is present. In this case Imamat is not transferred to his brother but circulates among his children in adherence to the hierarchical priciple. But when the Imam hands in his checks, them Imamat is trasferred to his brother in pursuance of the concept of necessity. These are the meanings with which the members of the sects have robed the skeletal tradition expressed by Imam Jafar Sadiq.

Similarly they believe in the tradition that only an Imam gives the final bath to a dead Imam. Therefore they acknowledge that Musa gave the bath to Jafar bin Muhammad. They claim that Abdullah had ordered him to give him the bath because he was the Imam after him. They are adherents of the Fathiyyah sect which legalizes the Imamat of two brothers. It is possible only when the elder brother dies without a male issue. In the light of this interpretation and on the basis of the law of necessity they have acknowledged the Imamat of Jafar bin Ali.

In the opinion of the fourteenth sect Muhammad is the Imam after him, and he is also the "Muntazar". However it is equally true that he has also paid the debt to nature but he will reappear after his death, wield the sword and transform the tyranny-ridden world into a cradle of justice and equity.

These are the well-known Shia sects whose beliefs I have discussed in the light of Shia literature. References to Sunni literature are adduced, not to support the argument, but only as a quantitative factor to add to the massive evidence furnished by the books of Shia scholars. The Sunni experts on Shia sects have mentioned a number of other Shia sects in addition to the ones described above. For example, Biyaniyyah, Jinahiyyah, Rizamiyyah Miqniyyah, Hilmaniyyah, Hilabiyyah, Izafirah etc but I don't like to delve into them first because these sects are now non-existent and secondly because they are not recorded in the Shia books. I'll not touch upon them to block the objection that these factions are unheard of and have not been mentioned in the books by Shia writers, that their names are self-fabricated to serve the purpose of ridicule and invective. These designations are without their corresponding designates and reflect only the prejudice of those who have coined these labels. None of the historians has referred to them to validate their authenticity. The relevant Shia writers have not mentioned them either. For instance, Shaikh Abu Muahmmad Hassan bin Musa Nau Bakhti who belongs to the fourth century and who is considered to be an authority on the genesis of Shia sects, has not pointed out these sects anywhere in his book.

The sect that remains to be discussed is the Ithna Ashriyyah or Jafriyyah or Imamiyyah, though it has been incidentally referred to in the context of the fourteen sects which came into existence after the death of Hassan Askari: But this sect enjoys a special status in the eyes of the Shias as compared to other sects and the detailed discussion has been conducted mainly to highlight the views and beliefs of this sect. When the word Shia is used in its asbolute sense the mind is instantly switched on to this sect. This is the reason I have decided to devote a separate chapter to this beliefs of this sect, its history, its relationship with Sabaism and the fake views and beliefs of other extremist and fanatic Shia sects which have filtered into its fundamental corpus and disfigured its original complexion. The chapter will also include the sects which have mushroomed out of it and added to pot-pourri of beliefs and convictions which have reduced Shiaism to an amorphous heterogeneity of scrambled opinions and prejudices. A reference will be make to these off-shoots because they still hover over the Shia horizon and carry a weight of their own.

Only a bird-eye view is enough to convince the reader of the massive Sabai infilterations into its basic frame-work of beliefs and convictions. Besides it has received heavy doses of Zoroastrian, Christian, Hindu, Babylonian and other beliefs which have muddled up its real complextion. Another factor that links the splintered Shia factions is their inalienable belief in return or resurrection, invisibility, overlordship, dissociation or dis-affiliation from those who do not share their bogus beliefs and acknowledgement of beliefs embodied in the old Testament because these views had been endorsed and disseminated by Abdullah bin Saba and the bunch of rascals who followed him, and thereby stressed their validity and authenticity as indispensable tenets of the doctored faith.