ARCHITECTS of CIVILISATION – July 2014

IMAM Ja‛far al-Ṣādiq and the AHL al-BAYT

Karim Douglas Crow

Ja‘far al-ṢĀDIQ (83–148 H / 702–776655) was a prominent spokesman in Madinah of

the Banū Hāshim – descendents of the Ahl al-Bayt or Family of God’s Messenger

Muḥammad(Ṣ) – during the eighth century CE / first-half of the second century Hijrah.

During his lifetime the Umayyad dynasty was vanquished by the ‘Abbāsid revolution

in 132 / 750. Ja‘far received his honorific title “ṣādiq truthsayer” because of his

veracity in narrating traditions, or perhaps due to his predictions reportedly verified by

later events. He boasted of double maternal descent from the first Caliph Abū Bakr al-

Ṣiddīq(r.ḍ.) through his mother Umm Farwah bint al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr,

and through her mother Asmā′ bint ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr, affirming “Abū Bakr

bore me twice.” Ja‘far reportedly declared: “I am not hoping for anything through the

intercession of ‘Alī (on Judgement Day) save that I hope the same through the

intercession of Abū Bakr.” Ṣādiq was esteemed among majority Sunnī Muslims as a

paragon of exemplary wisdom, particularly among the Ṣūfīs who revered his

reputation for spiritual initiation and for esoteric elucidation (ta′wīl) of the Qur′an.

As the direct descendent of the Prophet Muḥammad(Ṣ) al-Ṣādiq is also venerated as the

sixth spiritual-chief or imām of the Imāmīyah (Twelver Shi‘ah), or fifth imam of the

Ismā‘īlīyah Shi‘ah, both of whose doctrines he clearly helped establish. The Ja‘farī

legal school of the Imāmīyah is named after him; while the latter trace their imamate

through his first-born son Ismā‘īl b. Ja‘far and Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl. Ṣādiq was

intimately involved in the rival religious, intellectual and political trends of his era,

interacting directly with leading figures representing a wide spectrum of intellectual

trends and political factions. He was visited in his home by the great Kufan faqīh Abū

Ḥanīfah, and by the leading Madinan scholar Mālik b. Anas who praised his religious

probity. He was summoned to Iraq for several audiences with the first two ‘Abbāsid

caliphs Abū l-‘Abbās al-Saffāḥ and Abū Ja‘far al-Manṣūr, and he maintained strained

relations with caliph al-Manṣūr (rg. 136–158 H) who monitored Ja‘far for suspected

political ambitions. Ṣādiq was further linked with occult disciplines of letter-number

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

2

sciences (‘ilm al-ḥurūf or jafr), prognostication (fāl), and with the science of alchemy

as the reputed master of Jābir b. Ḥayyān [Latin: Geber]. Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq therefore served

over the centuries as a symbol of unity among Muslims of differing persuasions, being

respected and admired by most doctrinal schools, and deemed “unparalleled among

his peers.””

Many controversial questions obstruct a proper understanding of his historical person

obscuring his position on important issues. Conflicting images of al-Ṣādiq were built

up over centuries – Sunnī…Shī‘ah…Ṣūfī – each one offering a selective portrait of his

activity and teachings. Robert Gleaves observes: “The variety of uses to which Ja‘far

al-Ṣādeq’s name has been put, and the ideas and teachings which have been attributed

to him, are significant not only because they establish him as an important figure in

the history of early Islamic thought, but also because they demonstrate the malleability

of his legacy. ... It is the manner in which his contribution has been recast and, at

times, re-invented that enables him to be employed by writers in the different Islamic

sciences as integral to their development.”1 Thereby Ṣādiq became the object of

sectarian appropriation and polemic debate between rival streams of Islamic

experience, with the intra-Muslim controversies over his true convictions rooted in the

acrimonious dispute which occurred between the senior Companions of the Prophet.2

Ahl al-Bayt. From the earliest period certain descendents of Prophet Muḥammad’s

Family (Āl Muḥammad or Ahl al-Bayt) have played a significant role in the elaboration

of Islamic religious disciplines and spirituality. To better apprehend Ṣādiq’s attitude

towards the early Muslim community, the history of this Family must be borne in

mind. After the slaying in Kufah in 40 /661 of the Prophet’s first cousin and son-in-

law the fourth caliph ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, followed by the abdication of ‘Alī’s eldest son

al-Ḥasan in 41, ruling power was transferred to Syria by Mu‘āwiyah b. Abī Sufyān—

victor of the bitter civil war who became the second caliph from the Umayyad clan of

Quraysh. Close supporters of Ahl al-Bayt associated with ‘Alī were then hunted down

and persecuted by governing authorities who instituted public cursing of ‘Alī from

1 Robert Gleaves, “JA‘FAR AL-ṢĀDEQ,” Encyclopædia Iranica, at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/.

2 Consult Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate (Cambridge

University Press, 1997), for a detailed account of the first four Caliphs and civil war, with judicious

handling of sources and assessment of texts. Most Muslims today remain unaware of these events.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

3

pulpits across the empire. Ḥasan b. ‘Alī then adopted a policy of accommodation

towards Umayyad rule, yet he died of poison in 50 H thereby facilitating Mu‘āwiyah’s

appointment of his son Yazīd to succeed him as the caliph in Damascus. ‘Alī’s

younger son al-Ḥusayn now pursued an activist stand by seeking to rebel against

caliph Yazīd—but his small band of relatives and close retainers were massacred by

Umayyad troops in the infamous incident at Karbalā′ nearby Kufah in 61 H.

Ḥusayn’s single surviving son was Ṣādiq’s grandfather ‘Alī ZAYN al-‘ĀBIDĪN (b. 38–d.

9944 /658–712) who maintained the accommodationist stance of al-Ḥasan toward

Umayyad power, as did Ṣādiq’s father Muḥammad al-BĀQIR (b. 58–d. ca. 111155) who

attracted a circle of devoted pupils to his person and elaborated the legal and

theological basis of a distinct school of Islamic practice. Following Bāqir’s death in

Madinah, Ṣādiq’s younger brother (from the same mother Umm Farwah) ‘AbdAllāh

DUQDUQ was interrogated by the Umayyad governor of Madinah Khālid b. ‘Abd al-

Malik b. al-Ḥārith (served 114–118 H), accused of inciting people to follow his brother

Ja‘far as an imām, and was slain by poison.3 It was around this time that Ṣādiq

arranged the marriage of his favored eldest son Ismā‘īl (d. ca. 136) to Umm Ibrāhīm al-

Makhzūmīyah,4 the daughter of the next Umayyad governor of Madinah Ibrāhīm b.

Hishām al-Makhzūmī (who was the maternal uncle of Umayyad caliph Hishām b.

‘Abd al-Malik)—probably in order to smooth good relations with the ruling power.

Activist attempts to seize power aimed against the Umayyad dynasty sought to

channel the energy and direction of strong religio–political opposition which included

various wings of the Shī‘ah movement. Muḥammad al-Bāqir’s younger half-brother

ZZaayydd b. ‘Alī (Ṣādiq’s paternal uncle) led a poorly coordinated uprising in Iraq in 122 H

which garnered wide sympathy yet was ruthlessly crushed, followed by the revolt of

Zayd’s son Yaḥyā (122–126) in the east; and then temporary success of the Ṭālibite

contender ‘AbdAllāh b. Mu‘āwiyah (127–130) in Iraq and Fars. Other candidates

within Banū Hāshim effectively harnessed the combination of Hāshimite legitimacy

with the powerful appeal of apocalyptic propaganda, notably Ṣādiq’s paternal cousins

the Ḥasanid ‘Alids. The ‘Abbāsid family also sought leadership and patiently

3 Ibn Qutaybah, al-Ma‘ārif, ed. ‘Ukāshah, p. 215; Abū l-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyīn, ed. A.

Ṣaqr, p. 159. Taking all data into consideration, one might place Duqduq’s death in ca. 116 H. 4 Muṣ‘ab al-Zubayrī, Nasab Quraysh, ed. Lévi-Provençal, p. 63. Umm Ibrāhīm’s mother and maternal

grandmother were descended from Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb & caliph ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb respectively.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

4

engineered an underground revolution in the name of the Prophet’s Family which

ultimately succeeded in toppling the Syrian regime. During these tumultuous events of

transition from Umayyad to ‘Abbāsid rule Ṣādiq managed to avoid arrest,

imprisonment or execution at the hands of ruling powers, while the advent of ‘Abbāsid

power offered him greater opportunity to expand his teaching activity and guide his

growing circles of pupils until his death in his home in Madinah in 148 / 765.

Intense rivalries divided the various wings of the Banū Hāshim. The prominent

Ḥasanid ‘AbdAllāh al-MMaaḥḥḍḍ (grandson of al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī, thus paternal cousin of Ṣādiq)

groomed his eldest son Muḥammad to serve as the Mahdī, who claimed the aura of the

legendary al-Nafs al-Zakīyah ‘The Pure Soul’ destined to inaugurate just rule. At the

famous assembly convened by the Banū Hāshim at al-Abwā′ between Madinah and

Mecca in 126 H – just six years before the fall of the Umayyads – al-Maḥḍ elicited

support from key leaders of Banū Hāshim for the political leadership of his son

Muḥammad against Umayyad rule, including from the prominent ‘Abbāsids Ibrāhīm

b. Muḥammad ‘al-Imām’ and his brother (the future caliph) Abū Ja‘far al-Manṣūr. Ṣādiq

initially boycotted this meeting, and when pressured to attend by his relatives he

refused to render allegiance to al-Maḥḍ’s son. Evidently aware of ‘Abbāsid

underground political activity, Ṣādiq foresaw their coming success in assuming the

reins of government, rather than his Ḥasanid cousins. At al-Abwā′ Ṣādiq uttered his

prediction that the self-proclaimed mahdī al-Nafs al-Zakīyah would be “slain at the

oiled stones” at the behest of al-Manṣūr – which later occurred in 145 H at the site of

the shiny lava outcropping on the edge of Madinah called the ‘oiled stones’, in al-Nafs

al-Zakīyah’s failed revolt against ‘Abbāsid rule.

Therefore Ṣādiq’s relations with his Ḥasanid cousins during the transition from

Umayyad to ‘Abbāsid rule was contentious, and he disputed bitterly with ‘AbdAllāh

al-Maḥḍ over who really possessed the rreelliiccss of the Prophet Muḥammad(Ṣ) – his

famed notched sword dhū l-fiqār,5 shield, staff, chain-mail armour, and war banner –

5 General Muslim tradition affirms that attached by a ring to the scabbard of the Prophet’s Sword was a

leather bag holding documents pertaining to the Prophet’s treaties and missives to tribes; see M. Ḥamīd

Allāh, Majmū‘at al-Wathā’iq al-Siyāsīyah (7th ed., Beirut: 2001) p. ج ; and e.g. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ §1370; al-

Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ §7300; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. Aḥmad M. Shākir (Cairo: 1949 ff.) v.1 §100, §119, §163.

‘Alī’s famed sword dhū l-fiqār was plausibly in the safekeeping of the Ḥusaynids during the 2nd

/8th

century; later the ‘Abbāsid caliphs claimed possession of this potent relic by manufacturing a facsimile to

be displayed in public as a symbol of their legitimacy. The so-called ‘Sword of the Prophet’ displayed

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

5

which both men claimed to possess as emblems of future victory at the hands of the

mahdī from Ahl al-Bayt who will “arise with the sword” (al-qā′im bi-l-sayf). This

redeemer was viewed in eschatological terms as a ‘second Muḥammad’ expected to

execute vengeance against tyrannical usurpers and uplift the downtrodden faithful by

restoring the egalitarian justice originally instituted by the Prophet. Al-Maḥḍ accused

Ṣādiq of envy of Ḥasanid leadership, and of incapacity as a military leader by labelling

him merely a ‘book-worm’ (rajulun ṣuḥufī) due to his reputation for learning, and the

two men hotly disputed possession of the Prophet’s Sword. Ṣādiq insisted he

possessed the red leather case (al-jjaaffrr) containing documents of the Prophet and legal

maxims by ‘Alī.6 Keen rivalry between ‘Abdullāh al-Maḥḍ and Ṣādiq involved bids

for the allegiance of the Batrī Zaydīyah – activist partisans stemming from Zayd’s

revolt committed to overthrowing the Umayyads and installation of the legitimate rule

of Banū Hāshim. Once the ‘Abbāsids seized power with their military success in 132,

they resented their former allegiance paid to the Ḥasanids and sought to lay hands on

Muḥammad al-Nafs al-Zakīyah who had gone into hiding. In year 140 caliph al-

Manṣūr imprisoned al-Maḥḍ along with over a dozen members of his family to force

them to surrender al-Nafs al-Zakīyah—almost all these Ḥasanid nobles died in

detention in Iraq by severe abuse and their properties were confiscated by al-Manṣūr.

Normative Sunni Islam understood Community guidance after the Prophet to be

vouchsafed in the Qur’an and by authoritative religio-legal consensus of religious

experts (‘ulamā′); while the Shi‘ah generally held that valid guidance requires the

presence of a divinely appointed infallible chief from the Prophet’s Family who

authoritatively interprets the Qurʹan for his followers as the ‘decisive proof’ (ḥujjah).

The crucial issue frequently disputed by the majority Sunni community always

revolved around whether Ṣādiq himself really upheld the minority conviction that ‘Alī

was the explicitly designated successor to the Prophet whose succession was allegedly

thwarted by senior Companions, and whether the Ahl al-Bayt (confined to the Ḥusaynid

hereditary line of chiefs) should alone exercise legitimate temporal and spiritual

today in Topkapi Serai was appropriated by the Ottomans from the Ḥasanid Sharīfs of the Ḥijāz in the

early 16th century CE.

6 The existence of an archaic writing by ‘Alī consisting of legal maxims known as ṢṢaaḥḥīīffaatt aall--ffaarrāā ´́iiḍḍ (or

referred to as kitāb ‘Alī) is historically plausible; consult M. al-Quṣayr ‘Āmilī, Kitāb ‘Alī wa l-Tadwīn al-

Mubakkir li-l-Sunnat al-Nabawīyah (Tehran: 1996). Legendary traditions later magnified this into claims

of extra-scriptural texts, including religious scrolls and legendary relics of ancient prophets.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

6

leadership over the Muslims—namely the doctrine of the imāmate. This is reflected in

the general tendency of Sunni authorities from an early period to reject the validity of

almost all narrations assigned to Ṣādiq in Imāmī Ḥadīth. Therefore, the question of the

status of Ja‘far’s narrations should be considered involving their literary recording and

transmission over generations.

Transmission. Ṣādiq transmitted a limited number of narrations on the authority of

earlier Successors who were not his forebears (e.g. Muḥammad b. al-Munkadar,

‘UbaydAllāh b. Abī Rāfi‘, ‘Aṭā′ b. Abī Rabāḥ, Nāfi‘ mawlā ibn ‘Umar), evidenced in both

Sunni and occasionally Shi‘ah Ḥadīth. The most often cited prophetic ḥadīth is the

famous “long narration of the Pilgrimage” (ḥadīth al-ḥajj al-ṭawīl) on the isnād: ...al-

Ṣādiq { his Father { Jābir b. ‘AbdAllāh al-Ansārī { God’s Messenger Muḥammad(Ṣ),

included in five of the six Sunni canonical Ḥadīth collections and excerpted by Mālik

b. Anas in his al-Muwaṭṭa′. The leading Sunni traditionist critic of Basrah Yaḥyā b.

Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān (120–198) transmitted this famous narration directly on the authority of

Ṣādiq, whom he personally deemed reliable. On the whole, canonical Sunni Ḥadīth

citations of Ṣādiq’s narrations are sparse, reflecting their cautious attitude to his

reportage. The staunch Sunni tradent al-Bukhārī entirely excluded any narrations from

Ṣādiq in his Ṣaḥīḥ (although Ṣādiq is cited a few times in al-Bukhārī’s ethical compilation

al-Adab al-Mufrad); while Muslim’s Ṣaḥīḥ cited twenty-six isnāds [i.e. fourteen ḥadīth]

narrated through Ṣādiq.7 Early Mālikī and Ḥanafī jurisprudential works also contain

occasional narrations transmitted on the authority of Ṣādiq. Throughout the writings of

al-Shāfi‘ī, and more generally in the early Shāfi‘ī school tradition, Ṣādiq is

infrequently cited as an authority on certain matters pertaining to the early history of

Madinah and for a variety of legal topics. The best example of the Shāfi‘ī school’s

admitting narrations from Ṣādiq and Bāqir is the large Sunan work of al-Ḥāfiẓ al-

Bayhaqī.8

Nevertheless, major Sunni critics often stipulated that narrations through Ṣādiq’s

Family isnād contained defective links in their ‘chain-of-transmission’ (irsāl,

7 Consult the detailed study on Ṣādiq’s Sunni riwāyāt by Yasir Battikh, al-Imām Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq wa

Marwīyatuhu al-Ḥadīthīyah (Alexandria: Dār al-‘Ilm wa l-īmān, 2008). 8 Shafi‘i in his Kitab al-Umm cited a fair number of narrations from Ṣādiq, and more so in his qadīm

corpus – these latter citations are partly recoverable through al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Bayhaqī’s massive al-Sunan al-

Kubrā – see indices to the old Ḥaydarābād edition of 1936, s.v. Ja‘far b. Muḥammad.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

7

munqaṭi‘, or mawqūf) and are therefore better avoided. This methodological objection

was clearly intended to discredit and dispense with the mass of Shi‘ah Ḥadīth whose

doctrinal principles on the imamate and pejorative portrayal of motives and deeds of

certain leading Companions in the succession to the Prophet were anathema to Sunni

Muslims, and whose penchant for the naïve miraculous and supernatural aura invested

in their imāms was obviously unpalatable. Therefore Sunni traditionist critics were

anxious to establish that Ṣādiq upheld the legitimacy of Abū Bakr’s succession to the

Prophet by emphasizing his direct descent from Abū Bakr via his maternal lineage.

A revealing statement explaining general Sunni traditionalist antipathy to narrations

from Ṣādiq was reported by the Kufan tradent Yaḥyá b. ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥimmānī

(d. 228). Yaḥyá questioned his teacher and mentor the Kufan qāḍī Sharīk b. ‘AbdAllāh

al-Nakha‘ī (95–177) about why unspecified groups (aqwām) considered Ṣādiq to be

‘weak’ in his narrations, thus marginalizing or even boycotting his Ḥadīth. Sharīk was

an accomplished traditionist and faqīh who served as judge under the ‘Abbāsids first

in Wāsiṭ from 150 H on, then in Kufah under caliph al-Mahdī (rg. 158–169) who later

removed him from office for allegedly pro-‘Alid views.9 Yaḥyá probably consulted

Sharīk about Ṣādiq’s status as narrator of traditions sometime during the late 160s–

early 170s H while serving him in Kufah, i.e. about twenty to thirty years after the

death of Ṣādiq.10

I asked Sharīk: “(Why is it that) groups of people maintain Ja‘far b. Muḥammad

is weak in ḥadīth ?” Sharīk replied:

“I will tell you the situation. Ja‘far b. Muḥammad was a righteous man and a

GOD fearing Muslim. Then a group of foolish-ignorant persons [qawm juhhāl]

surrounded him frequenting his home and leaving his presence, and saying

“Ja‘far b. Muḥammad informed us.” They narrated traditions all of them

objectionable [munkarāt]—lies, forgeries imputed to Ja‘far!—in order to

exploit people to their own advantage and take their dirhams, and to this end

they brought forth all kinds of objectionable traditions. Thereupon the public

9 Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (Ḥaydarābād edition) vol. 4 §577 pp. 333–7; Māmqānī, Tanqīh al-Rijāl (Najaf: 1351) vol.

2a §5564 pp. 84–5. Sharīk’s doctrinal view on the rāshidūn caliphs reflect mainline proto-Sunnī views

held in Kufah of the mid-second century H; Imāmī Shi‘ah tradition deemed him to be Sunnī. 10

This conversation is preserved by al-Kashshī, Rijāl, recension by al-Ṭūsī, ed. Muṣṭafawī (Mashhad:

1970) §588 on pp. 324–5.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

8

[al-‘awāmm] heard these from them, and some were brought to ruin (by

accepting them), while others disclaimed them.

These (ignorami) were the likes of al-Mufaḍḍal b. ‘Umar and Bayān [b.

Sam‘ān] and ‘Amr al-Nabaṭī [sic., correct to ‘Ammār al-Sābāṭī] and others.

They stated that Ja‘far narrated to them that recognition of the imām suffices

to spare one from fasting and prayer; and that he narrated to them from his

father [Bāqir], from his grandfather [i.e. ‘Alī] who informed them about

(events that will occur) before the Resurrection; and that ‘Alī is iinn tthhee cclloouuddss

ffllyyiinngg wwiitthh tthhee wwiinndd, and that he used to speak after death, and moved as he

was being washed (for burial); and that (‘Alī) is ggoodd iinn hheeaavveenn while ggoodd oonn

eeaarrtthh is the imām—so these errant fools appointed a partner for GOD!

By GOD, Ja‘far never said anything like this at all! Ja‘far was more GOD

mindful and GOD revering than that. So when the people (narrating traditions)

heard these things, they deemed him ‘weak’ (and forsook transmitting his

narrations). If you had seen Ja‘far, you would have known that he was truly

unparalleled among his peers [wāḥid al-nās].”

Sharīk’s explanation for the mistrust and avoidance by second century proto-Sunnī

traditionists of Ḥadīth attributed to Ṣādiq being narrated within circles of Iraqi Shi‘ah

claiming to receive their doctrinal teachings, personal spiritual guidance, and

communal legal rulings directly from Ṣādiq, is persuasive at one level. It points to the

well-attested role of ‘exaggerators’ in his entourage who ascribed all manner of

supernatural abilities and super-knowledge to their imām (notably al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ju‘fī).

However, Sharīk’s explicit insistence that Ja‘far himself had nothing whatsoever to do

with extremist fantasies projected by unscrupulous individuals raises a pertinent

question: did Ṣādiq teach the mainstream Imāmī Shi‘ah their doctrinal, ethical and

legal ideas and practices – or are these abundant narrations assigned to al-Ṣādiq also

‘lies and forgeries’?

Teaching Activity. During his lifetime Islamic society experienced the

proliferation and creative elaboration of major knowledge disciplines ranging from

Ḥadīth collection, jurisprudence, grammar and linguistics, Qur′an exegesis, ethical-

spiritual teachings, circles of ascetic-mystic exponents, and growth of creedal or

theological speculation. These disciplines were at first not always distinct or separate,

and could be combined in various degrees within the expertise of a single individual.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

9

Thus, the leading Kufan traditionist Sufyān al-Thawrī was both a traditionist who

established his own body of legal praxis (madhhab), as well as an ascetic practitioner

who never married or lived in a home of his own. Sufyān’s interactions with Ṣādiq

were widely cited, e.g. when he upbraided Ja‘far for wearing fancy robes and

expensive perfume in contrast to Sufyān’s own ragged clothing advertising his

renunciation of worldly affairs. Ṣādiq admonished Sufyān in turn for ostentatiously

displaying his ascetic lifestyle, reminding him that fine clothing was suitably

appropriate for his own era and suggesting that deep knowledge (ma‘rifah) differed

from outward show of self-mortification.

The centre of gravity of Ṣādiq’s religious and intellectual activity integrated legal

instruction, ethical praxis, theological principles, and individual spiritual guidance.

Ṣādiq built upon his father’s work by inheriting a number of senior disciples from the

circle of Bāqir. Ṣādiq further built up important circles of his own younger generation

of pupils through whom he projected his legal, theological, and spiritual teachings.

These were overwhelmingly Iraqi partisans many of whom attached themselves

afterwards to Ṣādiq’s younger son and designated legatee Mūsā al-Kāẓim (b. 128, died

in detention in Baghdad in 183 under caliph al-Rashīd). Among Ja‘far’s many

prominent close associates were Zurārah b. A‘yan, a rationalist faqīh of Kufah and

theologian, and several of his brothers from the Āl A‘yan (descendants of an enslaved

Byzantine monk); Hishām b. Sālim al-Jawālīqī combined theological and legal

competency; while ‘Ammār b. Mūsā al-Sābāṭī was an esoteric initiate with clear legal

and theological interests, and an associate of al-Mufaḍḍal b. ‘Umar al-Ju‘fī.

Ṣādiq sought out and recruited specific individuals to his following, in expectation of

the possible utility and benefit they could provide in fortifying and extending his

circles of associates and in advancing the cause of his Family. An outstanding figure

was the theological genius Hishām b. al-Ḥakam (d. 179) who later spearheaded the

rationalist defence of imamate doctrine in famous disputations with Mu‘tazilite

opponents in the presence of caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd. Ṣādiq attracted important

scholars and thinkers from wider circles including a number of proto-Sunni

traditionists and jurists, grammarian–linguists and poets, as well as several ‘Abbāsid

government administrators and governors, conducting lively intellectual exchanges

with representatives from a variety of Muslim intellectual and doctrinal trends.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

10

Reputedly Ja‘far also held disputations with exponents of non-Muslim traditions –

Dayṣānī Gnostics, Manichaeans, natural scientists or pagan philosophers. These

disputations are presented in literary dialogues showing Ṣādiq successfully defending

Islamic doctrine from subtle rationalist criticisms levelled by opponents of Islam.

Ṣādiq made a definite distinction between an ideal ‘true polity’ versus conditions in

place under the reigning ‘false polity’ (dawlat al-ḥaqq vs. dawlat al-bāṭil), or a hoped

for ‘just order’ versus the prevailing conditions of ‘temporary-truce’ (dawlat al-‘adl

vs. dawlat al-hudnā). He deemed the reigning false polity to be “the abode of

precaution dār al-taqīyah” for his partisans, which obviated the duty of martial

struggle or Jihād that could only be undertaken under a just leader. Ṣādiq strongly

emphasized the need to exercise protective-precaution (taqīyah) with awareness of

prevailing expectations and attitudes upheld by the dominant community and powerful

governing class. Ṣādiq’s insistence that his followers observe protective precaution

had a double motive: to safeguard them from censure and punitive measures and to

deflect suspicion and baneful consequences directed toward himself and his extended

Family. He counselled his associates to:11

Conduct yourselves with the people in accordance with their

characters, while differing from them in their deeds (khālaqū l-nāsa bi-

akhlāqihim wa khālafūhum bi-a‘mālihim); for truly each man gets

what he earns, and on Resurrection Day he shall be in the company of

the one he loved. Do not induce people against yourselves nor against

us, and join in with the populace. Truly, we [the Ahl al-Bayt] have a

time and a rule which GOD shall bring about when HE wills.

Doctrine & Theology. According to his well-known instructions to the reputable

Kufan tradent Sulaymān b. Mihrān al-A‘mash (d. 147) listing fundamental ritual and

creedal obligations of religion (sharā′i‘ al-dīn, or wājibāt),12

Ṣādiq named Six primary

components of required faith-practice: Purity (e.g. ablution acts are properly repeated

oonnccee or twice, not thrice), Prayer, Zakāt, Fasting, Pilgrimage, and then Jihād. Next

he strongly emphasised walāyah or love and devotion to the Ahl al-Bayt, matched by

active dissociation (al-bara′ah) from their opponents. His privileging of Purity

11

al-Shaykh al-Mufīd, al-Amālī (Najaf: 1367 ق), pp. 15–17 §3, on p. 17. 12

This detailed instruction by Ṣādiq is found in Ibn Bābawayh, al-Khiṣāl, ed. al-Ghaffārī, pp. 603—610;

whence al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-Anwār (Beirut ed.) vol. 10 k. al-Iḥtijājāt, bāb 14, pp. 222–229.

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

11

(ṭaḥārah) and inclusion of Jihād are noteworthy. Repeated mention is made of

protective-precaution and the ‘abode of taqīyah’, the impeccability of prophets and

their legatees, and of temporary-marriage (both mut‘ah al-ḥajj & mut‘ah al-nisā′).

Basic doctrinal convictions are briefly listed: human deeds are accomplished through

divine fore-ordainment (khalq taqdīr). Faith (īmān) is superior to islām, and may

increase or diminish by means of good or bad deeds; it comprises acknowledgement in

the heart, confession by the tongue, and deeds of the limbs. Sinners remain muslim or

even immoral (fāsiq), but not people-of-faith (mu′min); while those with a

preponderance of demerit (termed mustaḍ‘if ) might find salvation dependent on God’s

wish or by intercession. The Qur′an is God’s SPEECH being “neither Creator nor

created.” Ṣādiq completes this creedal affirmation by listing major and minor sins:

the seven major sins are idolatry (shirk), slaying the innocent soul, breaking bonds of

blood kinship with parents, fleeing after the advance (of one’s army), sequestering the

property of orphans, consuming interest in financial transactions, and falsely

slandering married women. There follow more conventional sins of adultery,

pederasty, consuming prohibited food, etc.; and finally various blameworthy deeds

such as extravagant indulgence and wasteful consumption (al-isrāf wa l-tabdhīr).

Ṣādiq devoted considerable attention to explicating the role of FFaaiitthh in human

experience, its multiple hierarchical degrees and subtle function in higher human

cognitions. A significant aspect centred on Ja‘far’s teaching on the centrality of

Intelligence (‘aaqqll) for Faith. He conveyed seminal insights into aspects of the Divine

Names and Attributes, the Throne realm, celestial role of Angels, the Prophet’s bodily

ascension (mi‘rāj), the reality of Muḥammadan Light (al-nūr al-muḥammadī), and

purpose of the ‘ggrreeaatt aannggeell’ of the sanctified Spirit (al-rūḥ al-qudus). On inner

dynamics of prophecy and revelation Ja‘far specified a hierarchy of inspiration

ranging from: veridical dream, to clairvoyant audition, to conscious eye-witnessing by

the Prophet. The purified consciousness of God’s Intimate (walī, pl. awliyā′) is

receptive to inner promptings vouchsafed through auditory disclosures of angelic

inspiration (muḥaddaath) without an eye-witnessing, with innermost realizations

continually replenished yielding deepened understanding. This evidently reflects his

own experiential realization, and was influential for the emerging mystic doctrine of a

hierarchy of saints (e.g. al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’s teaching on the ‘seal of sainthood’, later

expanded by Ibn al-‘Arabī).

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

12

Throughout his numerous utterances Ṣādiq unfailingly invoked relevant Qur′an verses

illuminating his meaning and intent. These abundant explanatory citations were

offered incidental to treatment of major topics, and may constitute the closest

expression of his own inner-elucidation (ta′wīl) of the Qur′an as preserved mainly in

Imāmī literature. There later appeared several major strands of exegesis assigned to

him within third and fourth century H Iraqi Ṣūfī circles purporting to convey a tafsīr

by Ja‘far, yet their connection to him are quite uncertain—notably the exegetical

remarks ascribed to Ṣādiq in the major Ḥaqā′iq al-Tafsīr by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-

Sulamī. Whether or not they actually derived from him, this body of teaching retains

great significance for mystic appropriation of the Qur′an.

The Legacy of Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq in Islamic civilisation is multi-levelled and extensive

touching many domains of thought and experience. His teachings were pressed into

service within a variety of doctrinal schools and intellectual disciplines seeking to

profit from his imposing reputation for wise guidance, religious acumen and shrewd

insight. Regarding the challenge of comprehending his ideas, Ṣādiq was cited as

stating: “Our discourse is difficult and painful to comprehend; none may endure it

save for a dispatched prophet, or an angel brought nigh, or a believer whose heart

God has tested for true-faith.” His intimate association with an astonishing breadth of

Islamic disciplines has rarely been matched, while his embrace by opposing schools is

the best testimony to his relevance for our era—when Muslims are divided against

each other in bloodshed and enmity. Despite the extensive literary records preserving

his teachings along with their related complexities, and the legendary accretions

clouding his historical actuality, an irreducible aura of elusiveness still clings to Ja‘far

which is not easy to dispel.

Selected Reading. A. General

Encyclopædia Iranica, “JA‘FAR AL-ṢĀDEQ, ABU ‘ABD-ALLĀH”. recent series of English

articles online, in six entries under : 1) ‘Life’ by Robert Gleaves; 2) ‘Teachings’ – Robert

Gleaves; 3) and Sufism – Hamid Algar; 4) and Esoteric Sciences – Daniel De Smet; 5) and

Herbal Medicine – Ahmad Kazemi Moussavi; 6) and Shi‘ite jurisprudence [forthcoming];

avaliable at http://www.iranicaonline.org/; also in print: vol. 14, Fasc. 4, pp. 349–366. See also:

“AL-BĀQER”, “ESMĀ‘ĪL b. JA‘FAR AL-ṢĀDEQ”, “MOFAŻŻAL al-JO‘FI”.

Moḥammad Abū Zahrā, al-Imām al-Ṣādīq: ḥayātuh wa-‘aṣruh, ārā′uh wa-fiqhuh (Cairo: 1964).

[noted Sunni legal scholar assesses various doctrinal and legal topics in comparative perspective; outdated]

JA‛FAR AL-ṢĀDIQ — Karim D. Crow

13

Asad Ḥaydar, al-Imām al-Ṣādīq wa l-Madhāhib al-Arba‘ah (Najaf: 1956; 2nd

ed. Beirut: 1969, in 3 vols.).

[see vol. 3 pp. 77–165 & 457–460: Ḥaydar critiqued Abū Zahrā’s book, showing its severe defects]

Shaykh Muḥammed al-Ḥusayn al-Muẓaffar, al-Imām al-Ṣādiq (3rd

pr., Beirut: 1978, two vols. in one).

translated by Jasim al-Rasheed, Imam Al-Sadiq (Qumm: Ansariyan Publications, 1998 /1408.

ISBN: 964-438-011-8). [gives the traditional Imāmī view, useful for non-Arabic readers] available at: http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam06_sadiq/imam_sadiq/index.htm

Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī (d. 329 H), al-Kāfī fī ‘Ilm al-Dīn, ed. ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghaffārī (3rd ed.,

Tehran: 1388, in 8 vols.). [early voluminous source of Imāmī narrations assigned to al-Ṣādīq]

B. Specific Studies

Ronald Paul Buckley, “Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq as a Source of Šhi‘i Traditions,” Islamic Quarterly 43/1

(1999) pp. 37–58. [casts serious doubt on genuineness of many Imāmī narrations]

Ronald Paul Buckley, “The Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, Abū’l-Khaṭṭāb and the Abbasids,” Der Islam, 79/1

(2002) pp. 118–140. [Ṣādīq’s political position towards ghulāt, and with caliph al-Manṣūr]

Toufic Fahd, “Djafr,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition, vol. 2 pp. 375–77.

Toufic Fahd, La divination arabe: Etudes religieuses, sociologiques et folkloriques sur le milieu natif

de l’islam (Leiden : Brill, 1966). [covers a variety of occult disciplines linked to Ṣādīq]

Robert Gleaves, “Between Hadith and Fiqh: The ‘Canonical’ Imāmī Collections of Akhbār” in

Islamic Law and Society vol. 8 no.3 (2001) pp. 350–382.

Paul Kraus, Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān: Contribution à l’historie des idées scientifiques dans l’islam, I: Le

corpus des écrits jābiriens (Mémoires de l’Institut d’Égypte 44, Cairo: 1942). + rpr. Jābir et la

science grecque (Paris : 1986). [important for association of al-Ṣādīq with Jābir’s alchemy]

Judith Loebenstein, “Miracles in Ši‘i Thought: A Case Study of the Miracles Attributed to Imām

Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq,” Arabica 50/2 (2003) pp. 199–244. [useful for comprehending legendary aspects]

C. Some Popular Writings ascribed to al-Ṣādiq

Tafsīr al-Qur’ān [manṣūb ilā l-Ṣādiq, in several versions]. See esp. the following studies :

Paul Nwyia, “Le Tafsir mystique attribué à Ğa‘far Ṣādiq: edition critique,” Mélanges de l’Université

St.-Joseph [Beirut] no. 43, 1967, pp. 179–230. [citations from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, Ḥaqāʹiq

al-Tafsīr : passages ascribed to Ṣādiq in early Sufi circles]

Gerhard Böwering, “Isnād, Ambiguity and the Qur’ān Commentary of Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq,” in Lynda

Clarke, ed., Shi‘ite Heritage: Essays on Classical and Modern Traditions (Binghampton, N.Y.:

2001). [establishes forced ascription of early Sufi taʹwīl to Ṣādiq in al-Sulamī’s Ḥaqāʹiq al-Tafsīr]

Ensieh Nasrollahi Zadeh, “The Qur’an Commentary Attributed to Imam Ja‘far Sadiq(a.s.): A Study of

its Dating and Interpretive Method,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK, 2003.

[on a separate Sufi commentary tradition ascribed to Ṣādiq]

Miṣbāḥ al-Sharī‘ah wa miftāḥ al-Ḥaqīqah (Beirut: 1980); trans. Muna Bilgrami as The Lantern of

the Path (Shaftesbury: 1989). [a popular Sufi composition in his name, in one hundred short topics]

Kitāb al-Tawḥīd [also known as Tawḥīd al-Mufaḍḍal] (Beirut: 2002); trans. Muhammad Ibrahim and

Abdullah Shahin as Tawheed al-Mufadhdhal: As Dictated by Imam Ja‘far As-Sadiq, (Qumm,

2004). [wisdom discourse from Ṣādiq to his disciple on divine Providence with ‘arguments from design’,

clearly modelled after earlier genre of Hellenic writings of late Neoplatonic inspiration]

Kitāb al-JJaaffrr. British Museum MS no. 426. + MSS. in Tehran, Mashhad, etc. [apocalyptic predictions

on the advent of the Mahdī using divinatory techniques and numerologic powers of Arabic letters]

Λ