Imamzada: Difference between revisions

In Mafatih al-janan (p. 562), the best known contemporary manual of Shiʿite devotions, Shaykh ʿAbbas Qomi (d. 1319 /1940) rhapsodically describes Imamzadas as “sites where divine favor and blessing occur, where mercy and grace descend; they are a refuge for the distressed, a shelter for the despondent, a haven for the oppressed, and a place of consolation for weary hearts, and will ever remain so until resurrection.” This listing of functions corresponds, no doubt, to the actual experience of Shiʿite believers in Persia, and it is therefore remarkable that no general injunction to visit Imamzadas has been attributed to any of the Twelve Imams. There are, however, traditions concerning some of the most frequented Imamzadas, which might be taken to imply the general advisability of the practice. Thus, Imam [[Jaʿfar al-Sadeq]] is said to have foretold the death and burial at Qom of Fatima Maʿsuma, daughter of Imam [[Musa al-Kazem]] and to have promised paradise to all who should visit her tomb; Imams [[ʿAli al-Reza]] and [[Muhammad al-Taqi]] also placed great emphasis on the meritoriousness of such pilgrimage (Majlesi, Behar CII, pp. 265-67; idem, Tohfa, pp. 418-20; Qomi, p. 562). Furthermore, when [[Imam ʿAli al-Naqi]] (or [[Imam Hasan al-ʿAskari]], according to Majlesi in Behar CII, p. 269) was informed by an inhabitant of Ray that he had just returned from a pilgrimage to the shrine of [[Imam Hussain]] at [[Karbala]], he told him that he might equally well have visited the tomb of Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAzim (q.v.), a descendant of [[Imam Hasan]] in the fourth generation, at Ray, thus saving himself the hardships of travel, an indication that considerations of distance might make it permissible to substitute an Imamzada for the shrine of an [[Imam]] as a goal of pilgrimage (Majlesi, Tohfa, p. 421; Qomī, p. 565). This is confirmed by a recommendation from [[Imam Musa al-Kazem]] that those unable to visit the tombs of the Imams should make pilgrimage to “the righteous among our followers,” a term that may be taken to include descendants of the Imams, in order to gain the same merit (Majlesi, Tohfa, p. 422).

What is certain is that from the 5th/11th century onward, Shiʿite scholars granted recognition to pilgrimage to Imamzadas as a valid form of devotion. Thus, Shaikh Mofid (d. 413/1022) composed a text ([[ziara]]) for recitation at the tombs of descendants of the imams, the wording of which suggests the devotional purpose of all such pilgrimage: “I have come to you as a pilgrim (zaʾeran), entrusting you with my needs, as I entrust to you my religion, the outcome of my deeds, and all of my hopes until the end of my allotted span” (cited by Majlesi, Behar CII, p. 272, from the Mesbah al-zaʾer wa janah al-mosafer of Sayyed ‘Ali b. Tawus, d. 664/1265).

Majlesi’s role in the matter of Imamzada visitation was that of a codifier or at most an elaborator. After warning against the danger of false Imamzadas, he specifies that the descendant of an Imam to whom pilgrimage is contemplated should be of known moral probity and correct belief; excluded, therefore, would be individuals such as Jaʿfar al-Kadhdhab, a brother of [[Imam Hasan al-ʿAskari]] who laid claim to the [[imamate]], descendants of [[Imam Hasan]] who rose up in his name without authorization, and, by definition, all Zaydi sayyeds (Beḥār CII, pp. 273-75). No set text exists for recitation at an Imamzada; if the scholars have composed one for a specific shrine, that may be recited, failing which whatever prayer or recitation is made at the tomb of any believer will be entirely appropriate. If it is desired to accord the descendants of the Imams some special status, words may be used that enumerate their virtues and permit the believer to seek their [[intercession]] and that of their ancestors, for “to venerate them is to venerate the Imams” (Majlesi, Behar CII, p. 277; Tohfa, p. 421). To these various prescriptions Shaikh ʿAbbas Qomi (p. 562) adds that the devotee should acquaint himself with whatever is known of the life and pronouncements of the descendant of the Imam before embarking on pilgrimage to him.

By the 6th/12th century at the latest, pilgrimage to Imamzadas, as well as to shrines of the Imams, had become so integral a part of Shiʿite devotional life that it attracted the attention of Sunnite polemicists, who accused the Shiʿites of being “tomb worshippers” (gurparast) and of elevating such pilgrimage over the hajj. To this, the response was given that the adornment of the Kaʿba and of the Prophet’s mosque in Medina justified similar care being lavished on the shrines of the Imams and their descendants; that kissing the threshold of the shrines represented a mode of approaching God; and that at least some of the Imamzadas, notably those in Qom and Qazvin, were visited by [[Hanafites]] and [[Shafiʿites]] as well as by Shiʿites (Qazvini, pp. 576, 588-89). Comparable reproaches were made by Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328) with his characteristic acerbity; he accused the Shiʿites of falling into polytheism (sherk) through the veneration of their shrines (I, pp. 130-31).

It was but natural that such polemics should resurface when the Safavids imposed the profession of [[Shiʿism]] on most of Persia. The degree to which the cult of the Imamzada was promoted by rulers and religious scholars of the [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids Safavid] period should not, however, be exaggerated. Most of the more important shrines had already existed for several centuries before the Safavid accession to power; such was the case with the tombs of Fatima Maʿsuma (Qomī, pp. 191 ff.); Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAzim and Sayyed Hamza, a son of Imam Musa al-Kazem, at Ray; Sultan-’Ali, a son of [[Imam Muhammad al-Baqer]], near Kashan; Abu ʿAbd-Allah Hussain, a son of [[Imam ‘Ali al-Riza]] at Qazvin; Fazl and Solayman, both sons of Imam Musa al-Kazem, at Ava near Sava; Qasim b. Musa al-Kazem at Shusha, a village near Hella in Iraq (Qazvini, p. 588; Yaqut, Boldan, Beirut, III, p. 372); and Ahmad, popularly known as Shah(-e) Cheraq, another son of Imam Musa al-Kazem, in Shiraz (Ebn Battuta, I, p. 212). Further Imamzadas were no doubt established, and certain cases of misidentification occurred: the tomb in Qazvin of the Sufi Ahmad Gazali (d. 520/1126) was transformed into the Imamzada Ahmad (Lambton, p. 1170) and that of a certain Abu Hamed Tabrizi near Sorkhab became erroneously known as an Imamzada (Ebn al-Karbalai, I, p. 176). There is, however, no reason to assume that a wholesale and deliberate appropriation of Sufi or other tombs took place. The great Safavid scholar, Molla Muhammad-Baqer Majlesi (d. 1111/1700), despite the indiscriminate fervor often attributed to him, warned against the automatic validation of every tomb reputed to be an Imamzada (Tohfa, p. 421; he cast doubt specifically on the tombs of ‘Ali b. Jaʿfar and Muḥammad b. Musa in Qom).

Most important, the notion that the Safavids, drawing on precedents in Shiʿite tradition, sought to emphasize pilgrimage to shrines of the Imams and Imamzadas to the detriment of the hajj (as suggested by, for example, Amir Arjomand, pp. 168-70) must be regarded as untenable. Traditions such as that attributed to Imam Jaʿfar al-Sadeq which extols the soil of Karbala as superior to the Kaʿba are anomalous (Ebn Qawlawayh, p. 267). Moreover, the repeated efforts of the Ottomans to restrict and isolate the flow of Persian pilgrims to Mecca (hojjaj) through their territories themselves bear witness to the tenacity with which Persian Shiʿites of the Safavid period sought to fulfill the obligation of hajj despite the dangers they frequently faced (Faroqhi, pp. 127, 134-39).