As far as I studied and remember, there was no sign of explicit and unequivocal aggression in the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) as what we see in the lives of some of the other Imams (P.B.U.T.), such as Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.) during the reign of the Umayyad or Imam Mūsā b. Ja‘far (P.B.U.H.). And the reason is quite obvious, because if such an extreme move had been made at the beginning of the movement of the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.) in the third era of the four leading eras coincided with the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.), it would have impeded the great and important mission of the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.) from achieving its objective. At that time, the orchard of the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.), which Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) was responsible to care and water, was not strong. There were some saplings in this orchard which could not withstand severe hurricanes. As I mentioned at the beginning of this part, there was a small number of enthusiasts, Shi‘ites and followers of the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.) around Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and it was not a good idea to put this small group–which was responsible for [forming] the main Shi‘ite organization–at the risk of facing the enemy and exposing it to annihilation.
We can liken this era of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) to the early phase of the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) call to Islam in Mecca i.e. those years which even the call was not public. Perhaps the era of Imam Bāqir (P.B.U.H.) can be likened to the second phase of the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) call to Islam in Mecca when the call became public. And the subsequent eras can be likened to the subsequent phases of the call to Islam. That is why we see there was no direct confrontation at this era.
There is no doubt that if Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) had headed for this sharp remonstrance that we find in some words of Imam Ṣādiq, Imam Kāzim, and Imam Riḍā (P.B.U.T.), ‘Abdul Malik Marwān, who was at the height of his authority, would have easily dismantled the teachings of the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.) and as a result, they would have to start everything from the beginning. In fact, doing such thing was not rational and assertive. But in any case, signs or manifestations of remonstrating with the then regime can be seen among Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) words, which probably dated back to the last days of his noble life or the long duration of his Imamate.
Those manifestations and signs of remonstration appeared in many forms… One of the forms is stating the position of the Umayyad caliphs and their status in light of teachings regular religious instructions. There is a narration of Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.) saying, “The Umayyads let the people learn faith freely but they did not let them recognize blasphemy so that whenever the Umayyads led them to acts of blasphemy, they would not realize [what they were doing].”, In other words, the Umayyads would allow scholars, the people of religion, and also the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.), to talk about prayer, Hajj, Zakāt, fasting and worship as well as monotheism, prophethood, and Divine provisions. But they did not allow them discussing the concept of blasphemy, its manifestations, and examples in society and teaching them to the people. Because if they had taught these teachings of blasphemy, people undoubtedly would have found that the Umayyads were blasphemous, and what they were drawing the people’s attention to was indeed blasphemy. They would have found that ‘Abdul Malik and the rest of the caliphs of the Umayyads were the tyrants who stood against Allah and whosoever obeyed them would be indeed blasphemous as well. That is why they did not allow people to learn these concepts.
When we discuss about monotheism in the religion of Islam, an important part of our discourse is linked to understanding blasphemy and the blasphemous; what is an idol and who is an idolater?
The late ‘Allāma Majlisī (May Allah sanctify his soul) has a wonderful statement in Biḥār al-Anwār, volume 48, pages 96 to 97: “Indeed, the verses [of the Qur’an] on blasphemy are seemingly about idols but the real connotation refers to the caliphs of injustice who have involved themselves with the Imams of Right [over the Islamic government and the sovereignty over Muslim community] and self-appointed themselves in the Imams’ position.” In other words, associating anyone with the Imams of Right (P.B.U.T.) [in the Islamic government and the sovereignty over Muslim community] is like associating others with Allah because the Imams of Right (P.B.U.T.) are His representatives, they speak on behalf of Him, and because the caliphs of injustice have self-appointed themselves in the Imams’ (P.B.U.T.) place and claim the Imamate, they have become like those idols and whosoever obeys them is indeed a polytheist.
Of course, ‘Allāma Majlisī has an interesting explanation for this. After stating that all the verses of the Holy Qur’an are not specifically about the era of Prophet Muḥammad (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) rather they are valid and applicable in all the ages and times, he adds, “This applies to the folks who gave up the obedience of the Imams of Right (P.B.U.T.), and followed the imams of injustice because they have derogated from rational and narrative evidence and followed their passions, and deviated from the statutes [naṣṣ].”, For example, they ignored that ‘Abdul Malik could not be the ruler of the Muslims and their caliph. They ignored the obvious statutes and reasons mentioned in the narrations and followed their own passions. The people, who found life more tranquil and comfortable without remonstrating with the governor, went for this kind of life and followed the imams of injustice. In this regard, they were considered as blasphemous.
Hence, we see that if the Infallibles (P.B.U.T.) sought to demonstrate the true meaning of polytheism, there would be always a confrontation with the ruling caliphate. This is apparent in the life and words of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.).
We would find another example of such confrontations in the correspondence between Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and ‘Abdul Malik−the tyrannical Umayyad caliph. Two examples of them are referred here:
Once ‘Abdul Malik wrote a letter to Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) blaming the Imam for getting married to his freed bondswoman. The Imam (P.B.U.H.) had a bondwoman whom he set free and then married to her. ‘Abdul Malik wrote a letter and blamed the Imam (P.B.U.H.) for it. Of course, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) had done a humanitarian and Islamic act, for he set free a bondswoman and then gave her honor by choosing her as his wife. This was indeed very humanistic and interesting. However, the main aim of ‘Abdul Malik for writing this letter was to oppose the Imam (P.B.U.H.) and let the Imam (P.B.U.H.) know that he was also aware of the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) family issues, and hence it was an implicit threat made against the Imam (P.B.U.H.). Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) replied him in a letter and started it as: There is nothing wrong with it as the nobles have done so, too. Also, the Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) did so. Thus, there is no blame on me, “There is no blame on a Muslim man but rather the vileness of ignorance is to be blamed.” The Imam (P.B.U.H.) satirically and gently reminded ‘Abdul Malik of his ancestors (who were of disbelief and stubbornness) during the Age of Ignorance in Arabia. In other words, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) meant that ‘Abdul Malik was from a family of ignorance, pagan and the enemies of Allah and their blood flew in his veins; and if one was going to be embarrassed, it should have been for this very matter not for being married to a Muslim woman.
Once ‘Abdul Malik received the letter, Sulaymān−his second son−was present there and when the letter was read, Sulaymān felt the disparaging of the Imam (P.B.U.H.) just like his father. Thus, he turned to his father, saying, “O’ the Commander of the Faithful! Do you see how ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) takes pride in himself? That is, in this letter he has implied that his forefathers have all been believers and your forefathers have all been unbelievers and polytheists” He sought to incite his father to show a severe reaction. However, ‘Abdul Malik was wiser than his son and he did know that he should not get involved in such matters. Thus ‘Abdul Malik addressed his son as, “Do not say anything, my son! It is the words of Banī Hāshim that like a hammer break the rock in pieces (i.e. they have a strong and good reasoning).”
Another correspondence that took place between Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and ‘Abdul Malik was once ‘Abdul Malik learned that the Imam (P.B.U.H.) had the sword of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.). This was very important for ‘Abdul Malik because it was a memento of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) and a reason for ‘Abdul Malik to brag about. Moreover, it was a threat to the caliph as it would have brought the Imam (P.B.U.H.) to the attention of the people. For this very reason, he wrote to the Imam (P.B.U.H.) asking him to deliver the sword, and promised him to fulfill and grant whatsoever he wished!
The Imam (P.B.U.H.) refused his request. ‘Abdul Malik wrote another letter threatening to suspend the share of the Imam (P.B.U.H.) of Treasury House if the Imam (P.B.U.H.) did not send the sword. Thus the Imam (P.B.U.H.) replied, “But then, indeed Allah has assured the pious to save them from what they do not like and provide them with sustenance from ways they are not aware of–‘Indeed Allah does not like any ingrate traitor.’ Now see which one of us meets this verse.”
This tone was very harsh toward the caliph, since if this letter fell into the hands of any person, he would firstly know that the Imam (P.B.U.H.) did not consider himself traitor and ingrate. Secondly, no one would assume so about that great Imam (P.B.U.H.) who was indeed an honorable and decent man having grown up in the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.). In other words, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) meant that the caliph was a traitor and ingrate! To such extent, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) rebuked ‘Abdul Malik in return for his threat.
These were only two examples of Imam Sajjād’s (P.B.U.H.) confrontation with the Umayyad regime.
If we want to add another example, we should have a look at the poems, which are either quoted from Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) or quoted by the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) followers. These poems represent another kind of confrontation. Because if we even assume that the Imam (P.B.U.H.) did not confront the regime, his relatives and friends would confront it. Thus, this can be regarded as a confrontation of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.).
There are some poems of the Imam (P.B.U.H.) which are very satirical and revolutionary. The famous poem of al-Farazdaq is of this sort. Some historians and narrators have recounted the story of al-Farazdaq as summarized (in the following):
Before his caliphate, Hishām b. ‘Abdul Malik made a pilgrimage to Mecca. During circumambulating Ka‘ba, ‘Abdul Malik wanted to touch the Black Stone with the hand (as it is recommended to touch or kiss the Black Stone during circumambulating Ka‘ba) but the huge crowd and the great congestion prevented him from reaching it; in spite of repeated attempts−even though he was the son of the caliph and surrounded by the escorts, guards, and huge retinues, he could not reach the Black Stone and people were passing around him indifferently. This man, who was brought up with opulence and wealth, was not the one going among people and kiss the stone. Hence, when he lost his hope for touching the Black Stone, he went to a height overlooking the Sacred Mosque and sat in a corner waiting for the departure of the people. His companions were also sitting around him. In the meantime, a very dignified and graceful man with a delicate and heavenly face shone like the sun among the pilgrims and went to the Black Stone. People stepped aside and opened the way for him to the Black Stone. The man went to the stone, kissed it, and turned back to circumambulating Ka‘ba.
It was intolerable for Hishām b. ‘Abdul Malik to see people not only paying no attention to him as the son of the caliph but also pushing him away by kicking and punching him! While a man appeared all of sudden and kissed the stone tranquilly. He asked angrily, “Who is this man?” His retinue knew ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.), but in order not to upset Hishām b. ‘Abdul Malik, they did not say anything because they were well-aware of the existence of the hostility between the Umayyad and Banī Hāshim, considering it as a kind of insult to Hishām, they would rather not to say that this man whom people had so much love and respect for was the elder of the family whom Hishām deemed as his enemy. A poet named al-Farazdaq–who was fond of the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.)–was present there and felt their denial of ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.). Thus, he stepped forward, saying, “O’ Prince, would you let me introduce him to you?” Hishām said, “Go ahead.” Al-Farazdaq recited an ode which is still one of the most important odes of the poets of the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.). This splendid tribute to ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) started with this couplet:
This is the one whom [the land of] Baṭḥā knows his steps
And [the one whom] the (sacred) house, the sanctuary, and the area outside the sanctuary recognize.
[This means] if you do not know him, [I tell you] he is the one whom the land of Baṭḥā knows his steps, he is the one whom Zamzam [Well] and Ṣafā recognize. This is the [grand] son of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.). This is the son of the best of the people. In such a splendid ode, al-Farazdaq praised the Imam (P.B.U.H.) and mentioned his characteristics. The words pierced the heart of Hishām like a sword. As a result, Hishām despised and expelled al-Farazdaq [from his court]. ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn (P.B.U.H.) sent al-Farazdaq money but he did not accept and said, “I have recited this ode for Allah and [so] I do not accept your money.”
There are many of such confrontations between the companions of the Imam (P.B.U.H.) and the regime. Of which an example is the confrontation of Yaḥyā b. Umm al-Ṭuwayl and the regime. Of course, this is not part the poems.
Yaḥyā b. Umm al-Ṭuwayl was one of the youth with extreme valor and courage and loyal to the household of the Prophet (P.B.U.T.). He always went to Kūfa, brought people together and shouted, “O’ people [i.e. those who were following the Umayyads] I disbelieve you and would not accept you until you believe in Allah.” One can imply from his saying that he considered [such] people as infidels and would call them polytheist.
Such manifestations of confrontation are remarkable in the life of Imam Sajjād (P.B.U.H.) and his companions.
