The Social and Political Conditions

Speaking of and writing about Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) sīra (life history) is very difficult because people’s familiarity with this noble Imam (P.B.U.H.) is not very well-grounded. Most of the hagiographers and analysts assume that this honorable Imam (P.B.U.H.) sat in a corner, performed prayers and had nothing to do with politics. Some historians and biographers have stated this explicitly and the perception of those who have not explicitly asserted so–of the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)–is nothing but this as well. This can be found significantly in the titles given to and comments made about the Imam (P.B.U.H.) as: Some people dubbed this honorable person “ill” even though his illness only lasted a few days after the incident of ‘Āshūrā and did not last long. It is obvious everyone may get sick some days of their lifetime and truly, the illness of the Imam (P.B.U.H.) was made at Allah’s discretion in order that the Imam (P.B.U.H.) not only could be exempt from the duty to defend and fight in the cause of Allah on that day but he could also carry the burden of trust and Imamate, and survive thirty-four or thirty-five years after his father, and pass the most difficult era of the Shi‘ite Imamate. When you look at the story of the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.), you would find various interesting events–like our other Imams’ (P.B.U.T.)–yet if you gather all these, you would not be able to have Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) sīra. Literally, the sīra of anybody becomes clear if we know their general attitude and opinion and then look at the minor events of their lives. If we find those attitudes and opinions, those minor events would find meaning as well; however, if they are not found or are misapprehended, those minor events become meaningless or frequently misunderstood. This is not exclusive to Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) or other Infallibles (P.B.U.T.) rather the principle applies in the lives of all.
As for Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.), the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) letter to Muḥammad b. Shahāb Zuhrī is an example of an event in the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) life. This is a letter from someone who is related to the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.) and was a well-known scholar in his time. In this regard, there can be some comments: This letter can be a part of a vast and wide fundamental struggle. This can be a simple forbidding wrong or it can be the protest of a person against another person just like many of protests which historically have happened between two or more personalities. Such an event cannot be understood on its own and apart from the rest of the events of that era. I insist on the issue that if we study minor events apart from the general positioning in the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) life, the biography of Imam (P.B.U.H.) would not be understood; indeed, it is important to know his general positioning.
Our first discussion is about the general positioning of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) in life. I will address and explain this with some evidence from his words and life as well as a general impression of the Infallibles’ (P.B.U.T.) lives.
In our opinion, right after the peace treaty of Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) which was signed in 40 A.H. / 661 C.E., the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.) did not accept to sit at home and just explain the Divine laws as they understood. Rather, from the very beginning of signing peace treaty, the plan of all the Imams (P.B.U.T.) was to make preparations in order to establish the Islamic rule of their choice in a manner that was intended and we can see this clearly in the life and sayings of Imam Mujtabā (P.B.U.H.). From this perspective, what Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) did was very profound and fundamental. … Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) lived ten years in the same conditions. In the meantime, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) gathered and trained some people who with their martyrdom and oppositional remarks stood against Mu‘āwīya’s regime and consequently weakened it.
After that, it came the turn of Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.). That honorable Imam (P.B.U.H.) followed the same way in Medina, Mecca, or elsewhere until Mu‘āwīya passed away and the incident of Karbalā happened. Although the incident of Karbalā was a very positive and fruitful uprising for the future of Islam, it put off the objective which Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) and Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) were seeking because it terrified people, led to the martyrdom of the closed companions of Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) and Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) and dominated the enemy [of the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.)] over the Islamic state (even though this would have normally happened). If the uprising of Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) had not happened in this way, it is assumed that after him and in the near future there would have been the possibility of a movement which would have handed the government over to the Shi‘ites. Of course, this does not mean that the uprising of Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) should not have occurred but the conditions in which the uprising of Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) happened were in a way that the uprising had to be done at that time and there is no doubt in this. However, if those conditions had not existed and Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) had not been martyred, Imam Ḥasan’s (P.B.U.H.) intended future would have been more likely to take place in a little while.
… The Imams (P.B.U.T.) followed this line and goal and always sought to form an Islamic government. In fact, the responsibility of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) began from the very moment that Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) got martyred in Karbalā and Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) was taken captive while he was very sick. If up to that day it had been supposed that Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) and Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) were going to shape such future, Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)–from that time on–was assumed to rise for the matter and so did the Imams (P.B.U.T.) after that honorable Imam (P.B.U.H.).
Therefore, we should look for this general goal and main policy of the whole life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.). Moreover, we are well-aware that Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) sought to achieve the same goals which Imam Ḥasan (P.B.U.H.) and Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) were following.
Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) began his Imamate on ‘Āshūrā in 60 A.H. / 680 C.E. and was poisoned and martyred in 95 A.H. / 714 C.E. During this time, that honorable Imam (P.B.U.H.) followed the same goal. Now with such insight, we pursue every detail of Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) conducts, what steps he took, what tactics he used and what successes he achieved. All the statements of the Imam, all his deeds, all his supplications, all his invocations and psalms, which are gathered in Ṣaḥīfat al-Sajjādīyya, all of these should be interpreted according to the same general outline; and so the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) attitudes and position-takings during his Imamate were:
His position against ‘Ubaydullāh b. Zīyād and Yazīd which was very courageous and selfless.
His position against Muslim b. ‘Uqba who in the third year of the reign of Yazīd destroyed Medina by Yazīd’s command and plundered people’s property. In this situation, the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) position was very soft and gentle.
The Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) position in confronting with ‘Abdul Malik b. Marwān–the strongest and intelligent Umayyad caliph–was sometimes severe and sometimes gentle.
The Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) confronting with ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul ‘Azīz.
The Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) encounter with his companions and friends as well as his recommendations to his friends.
The Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) encounter with the official scholars or those scholars who were dependent in the tyrant regime.
All these positions and encounters should be carefully examined. And in my opinion, paying attention to the general outline would reveal appropriate and clear meaning to all the details and the incidents. And if we look at the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) through this goal, we would find an honorable person who made his best endeavors to achieve this goal–which is to establish Divine rule on earth and actualize Islam. This honorable person benefited from the best means and enormously moved forward the Islamic nation which was sinking into segregation and fragmentation after the incident of ‘Āshūrā. Like all of our Imams (P.B.U.T.), he completed a great mission and authentic responsibility (we will refer to it in detail later) and observed politics, courage, precision and meticulousness in deeds and actions; and like all the prophets and great men of history, he left this world, after thirty-five years of tireless striving and fulfilling his mission, holding his head high and entrusted his mission to the next Imam–i.e. Imam Bāqir (P.B.U.H.).
The handing on Imamate to Imam Bāqir (P.B.U.H.) and the great mission of the establishment of Divine rule on earth are clearly addressed in the narrations. In a narration, it is mentioned that once Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) gathered his sons together, then pointed to Muḥammad b. ‘Alī–i.e. Imam Bāqir (P.B.U.H.), and said, “Pick this chest, take this weapon; this is the trust [put] in your hands,” and when they opened the chest, there were the Holy Qur’an and the book.
Perhaps that weapon symbolizes the revolutionary leadership and that book is a symbol of Islamic thought and ideology; and the Imam (P.B.U.H.) had given them to the next Imam, bade farewell to this world before Allah and the informed people, and left the world with comfort, calm conscience, and honor; this is the general picture of the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.).
In the first era–that of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)–the work begins with enormous difficulty. The incident of Karbalā violently shook the foundations of not only Shi‘ism but also the totality of the world of Islam. Murder, persecution, torture, and oppression were not unprecedented matters, but slaying the grandson of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.), taking the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) family captive, parading them through towns, putting the [holy] head of the beloved [son] of (Lady) Zahrā (P.B.U.H.) on a spear–there were still people who had seen the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) kissing those lips and the mouth–were events that stunned the world of Islam. No one could believe his eyes.
The following poem–attributed to Lady Zaynab (P.B.U.H.)–alludes to the same point: “O’ you who are part of my heart, I could not imagine the affairs would be decreed in this way”, It is what all people think, too. Suddenly it was felt that there was a complete change in the course of actions. There was more severity than expected. Inconceivable things became conceivable and actualized. The whole world of Islam faced severe intimidation except for Kūfa–this being in the first place because of the Penitents, (Tawwābīn), and then because of Mukhtār. Besides, the horror that had filled Medina and other places as an aftermath of the [tragic] incident of Karbalā and was unprecedented in the world of Islam had overshadowed even Mecca, although ‘Abdullāh Zubayr had also staged a revolt.
The intellectual state, the moral decadence, and the political corruption are additional factors [characterizing the period in question]. Most eminent men were busy satisfying their worldly desires that the government agents had facilitated for them. A prominent figure–Muḥammad b. Shahāb Zuhrī, a once disciple of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)–became attached to the [ruling] regime. Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) well-known letter to Muḥammad b. Shahāb Zuhrī–cited in Tuḥaf al-‘Uqūl and other sources–[indeed] addresses [the course of] history. It indicates the bonds binding the eminent personalities to the regime. There has been many a man like Muḥammad b. Shahāb.
The late Majlisī quotes Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s words–but in his Biḥār al-Anwār he names Jābir (most probably he meant Jābir b. ‘Abdullāh) to have been the first one who quoted Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)–as saying, “We do not know what to do with people. When we narrate the words of the Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) as we have heard them, they laugh.”, He then mentions an event: ‘The Imam (P.B.U.H.) quoted a tradition for a group of people. Someone in the group mocked it, and did not accept it.” Then he adds Sa‘d b. Musayyab and Zuhrī were among the deviants. Here−I should say that–I do not accept his opinion concerning Sa‘d b. Musayyab. There is evidence showing that he was a companion of Imam (Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)). But he is right with regard to Zuhrī and others. Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd then counts a great number of the eminent personalities of that period who had deviated from (following) the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.).
… People’s religion had to be put right; people’s moralities had to be put right. People had to step out of this whirlpool of corruption. The spiritual orientation, the very core and principle spirit of religion, had to be revived in the society.
That is why you see “asceticism” in its full form in Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) life and words: “Surely, the sign of the ascetics is that they renounce the world …”, This is the manner by which a detailed lecture begins although it contains a reference to the aim (it will be following throughout). (Another similar wise saying is), “I would rather the food remaining in this bowl–this material world–be given to the people worthy of it. Paradise is the only price for your lives; so do not sell it for anything other than this.”, Most words of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) center on asceticism and (religious) knowledge but clad in supplications because, as we said before, the suffocation and unfavorable conditions of the time did not allow Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) to speak to the people openly and clearly. The (ruling) regime did not allow it, and people did not desire it either.
Basically, that society was incompetent and ruined, and would have to be reconstructed. This was how Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) life was spent–a 34-35 span from the year 61 A.H. /681 C.E. through the year 95 A.H. / 714 C.E. “After the event of ‘Āshūrā,” Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.) said, “people became apostates”. He continued, “Later, people, i.e. Muslims joined and increased (in number).”, and as we see it was really the case. In the time of Imam Bāqir (P.B.U.H.) the situation differed–and I will make a mention of it–due to the 35-year-long struggles of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.).
Some people assume that if Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) sought to resist against the regime of Umayyad, he should have raised the flag of opposition or, for example, joined Mukhtār or Abdullāh b. Ḥanḍala or even led them declaring armed resistance publicly. However, we understand by looking at the circumstances of Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) era that this thought is wrong with regard to the goal of the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.).
If the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.) and among them–Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.)–had done such public and negative moves, surly nothing of Shi‘ism would have remained or no ground or opportunity would have been left for the continuation and growth of the school of the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.), Wilāya and Imamate at the next era would all have been destroyed and perished. That is for this very reason that we see that Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) did not cooperate in the case of Mukhtār even though some narrations assert that there had been a secret link between them. However, undoubtedly, there could not have been any public link between the two, so it was said in some accounts that Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) disparaged Mukhtār, and such an issue seems normal in terms of dissimulation so that the enemy could not feel there had been any link between them. Surely if Mukhtār had emerged victorious, he would have handed over the government to the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.); but in case he had faced defeat while there was an apparent and public link between him and Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.), the resentment would have been definitively directed toward Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and the Shi‘ites of Medina; and the Shi‘ism would have been all uprooted. That is why there had been no overt link between Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and Mukhtār.
It is mentioned in a narration when Muslim b. ‘Uqba entered Medina in the incident of al-Ḥarra, no one had doubts that the very first person falling victim to ‘Uqba’s retribution would have been ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.); nonetheless, Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) acted so wisely and cautiously that the Imam (P.B.U.H.) could keep away such calamity from himself; and unsurprisingly, he remained the main pivot of Shi‘ism.
There are narrations in some books−including Biḥār al-Anwār−telling of the groveling humbleness of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) before Muslim b. ‘Uqba, but these narrations are absolutely false accounts for the following reasons:
First, these narrations are not based on any true chain of transmission.
Second, there are other narrations which rebut them in terms of content.
There are many narrations on the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) meeting with Muslim b. ‘Uqba, none of which are similar but we accept and logically admit some of those narrations which are more in line with the Imams’ (P.B.U.T.) manner and approach. If we admit them, other [false] narrations will be rejected and I have no doubt that those narrations are false.
Although we do not accept these narrations attributing such acts to the Imam (P.B.U.H.), there is no doubt that the Imam (P.B.U.H.) had never been hostile toward Muslim b. ‘Uqba, because any hostile action would have led to the murder of the Imam (P.B.U.H.) and would be a great loss for the uprising of Imam Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) which should be continued by Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.). That is why the Imam (P.B.U.H.) survived and–as we read in the narration from Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.)–people gradually joined and increased in number. It was under such difficult, adverse and unsustainable circumstances that Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) began his Imamate.
At that time, the regime of ‘Abdul Malik–governed during most of the Imamate of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) amounting to thirty-something years–monitored and kept an eye on the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and used some spies who reported the smallest details of Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) life–even his domestic and private matters.