Jaʿfar al-Sadiq: Difference between revisions

'''Jaʿfar al-Sadiq''', Abu ʿAbd-Allah, the sixth [[imam]] of the Imami Shiʿites. He was the eldest son of Imam [[Muhammad al-Baqir]] and, on the side of his mother, Omm Farwa, a descendent of Abu Bakr by four generations.<ref>Tabari, III/IV, p. 2509; Yaʿqubi, II, p. 458; Ebn Qotayba, p. 215.</ref> He spent most of his life in Medina, where he built up a circle of followers primarily as a theologian, [[Hadith]] transmitter, and jurist (faqih).

Imam Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s life spanned the latter half of the [[Umayyad]] dynasty ruling from Damascus, which was marked by various rebellions (mainly by Shiʿite movements), the rise of the ʿAbbasids (a movement that drew on Shiʿite themes), and the establishment of the [[ʿAbbasid]] [[caliphate]] in Baghdad. Throughout this period, he appears to have maintained the politically quietist stance of his father, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir. Whether the revolt of Imam al-Baqir’s half-brother Zayd b. ʿAli in 122/740 was during Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s imamate or that of his father depends on which of the various dates for the latter’s death is taken. It is clear, however, that Jaʿfar al-Sadiq did not wish to be associated with the revolt and, according to a number of reports Shaikh Mofid <ref>Ershad II, pp. 174-75</ref> condemned the uprising, since he believed that the rebellion would be counter-productive and ultimately harmful to the true community of believers (i.e., the Shiʿites). Similarly, he refused to be involved in the ʿAbbasid uprising and offered no support even after the ʿAbbasids gained power in 132/750. His motives for this refusal were grounded in his belief that he alone was the [[imam]], having been designated as such by the preceding imam, his father. This belief was founded on the doctrine of nass (clear designation) of the incumbent imam of his successor. Nass was in turn based on the notion that the incumbent imam was protected from error by God ([[Isma|‘Isma]] “inerrency”). Therefore, the incumbent imam’s designation was, in effect, a revealing of God’s will for the future leadership of the Shiʿites. Some, particularly the followers of Zayd (the [[Zaydiyah]]), did not recognize this doctrine and branched off to form their own distinct Shiʿite tradition, with quite different notions of the functions of an imam.

Apart from those traditions that record the explicit designation of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq as imam by his father, there is also a bundle of historical accounts of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq acting as [[Muhammad al-Baqir]]’s traveling companion. Such stories reinforce the closeness of the father-son relationship and further secure Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s imamate in the face of Zaydi attack. In particular, there is the story of Imam al-Baqir being summoned to Damascus by Hesham b. ʿAbd-al-Malek (r. 724-43) after besting Nafeʿ in debate over the powers of Imam [[ʿAli ibn Abi Talib|ʿAli b. Abi Taleb]] (q.v.). Jaʿfar al-Sadiq accompanied his father on this journey.<ref>for an account of the debate and its aftermath, see Qomi, II, pp. 246-86</ref> Such explicit confrontations with the ruling power were, however, rare for both of them. Just as he had refused to be involved in the uprisings of Zayd or the ʿAbbasids against Umayyad rule, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq offered no support to the uprising of his own cousin Muhammad b. ʿAbd-Allah b. Hasan, called al-Nafs al-Zakiya (the Pure Soul) and referred to as al-Mahdi <ref>Ebn al-Teqtaqa, pp. 132-33</ref>, in 145/762 against the ʿAbbasids after they had gained power in Baghdad.

According to most sources, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq died in 148/765 <ref>e.g., Masʿudi, IV, pp. 132-33</ref>, supposedly poisoned by the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Mansur. He had designated Abu Muhammad Esmaʿil (q.v.), his eldest son by his first wife, Fatima, as the next imam, but Esmaʿil had predeceased him. Some claimed that Esmaʿil had not died, but was in hiding; others claimed that Esmaʿil’s son, Muhammad, should be the next imam. Both of these groups went on to form the [[Isma’ili|Ismaʿiliyah]] (q.v.) Shiʿite.<ref>Daftary, pp. 93-99</ref> Others claimed that after Esmaʿil, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq had designated his second eldest son ʿAbd-Allah al-Aftaḥ as the next imam. The majority, though, supported the imamate of Musa al-Kazem, son of Hamida (or Homayda, a Berber slave) and Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, as the imam. It was this line which went to form the [[Twelver]] (imami) Shiʿite, which has predominated in Persia since the 16th century.<ref>Daftary, pp. 93-99; ʿAmeli, IV/2, p. 80</ref>

The manner in which these doctrines are expressed by Jaʿfar al-Sadiq in the collections are sufficiently vague for them to be cited both by later orthodox imamis and by more extremist Shiʿites. For example, a report of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, transmitted through Mofazzal b. ʿOmar and found in the standard imami Hadith collections, claims for the imams all human knowledge: “We have knowledge of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms, and the explanation of all that is on the Tablets.” When asked if this was all of knowledge (al-ʿelm), he replied, “This is not knowledge. Knowledge is that which happens day after day, and hour after hour”.<ref>Kolayni, 1994, I, pp. 224-25</ref> From such a statement it is not clear whether the imam has both knowledge of the past scriptures and of worldly events, or only the former. The extremists (and indeed some more daring imami theologians) interpret the statement as meaning that the imam has both types of knowledge, and hence as further supporting evidence for the divinational knowledge of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq found in the pseudographical literature mentioned above. More conservative imamis interpret Jaʿfar al-Sadiq as stating that whilst they have knowledge of past scriptures, they do not have knowledge of future events.

Despite Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s emphasis on the imam’s supreme legal authority in the imami sources, there are also hints at a more devolved system of legal authority. Most famous amongst Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s saying in this regard is known as the Maqbula of ʿOmar b. Hanzala. Ebn Hanzala was a disciple of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and is cited in the esnads as relating a number of sayings from his master, and through intermediaries from Imam al-Baqir. In the Maqbula, Ebn Hanzala asks how legal disputes within the community should be solved, and whether one should take such cases to the ruler (sultan) and his judges. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies in the negative, indicating that he considered at least the Umayyad and ʿAbbasid caliphates illegitimate. He describes the state apparatus as taghut (an idol or demon) in the Maqbula and says that those who take their disputes to the rulers and their judges get only soht.<ref>unlawful decision; Ebn Babawayh, Man la yahḏoroho al-faqih III, p. 3</ref> This is a common motif in subsequent imami juridical literature, as most jurists considered any state not led by the imam himself to be illegitimate, citing the Maqbula (amongst other reports from the imams) as evidence of this. In place of the state system, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq appears to recommend an informal, and unofficial system of justice for the Shiʿite community. The disputants, he claims, should turn to “those who relate our [i.e., the imams’] Hadiths.” The reason for this is that the imams have “made such a one a judge (hakem) over you.” Subsequent questions within the report prompt Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to list the means whereby a believer might choose between apparently equally qualified Hadith transmitters.<ref>see, for example, Tusi, VI, p. 218</ref> The report itself has been variously interpreted by subsequent imami scholars. Some considered it to confer general legal (and for some, political) authority upon the scholars after the occultation (ghayba) of the twelfth imam. Others considered Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to be referring solely to Hadith transmitters and not to the ʿolamaʾ in general. Whichever interpretation one favors, however, it is clear that the ultimate legal authority of the imam, in this case Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, is to be tempered through his appointment of judges of the people in his place. While the imam has optimum community legal authority, he also may, when the need arises, appoint certain persons to act as judges in his stead. Whether this delegation applies only to the time of the imams’ presence, and whether it refers to all scholars or just one subset of the ʿolamaʾ was the subject of much subsequent debate amongst the imamiya. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s words may have enabled the imamiya to develop an internal means of dispute resolution (and therefore avoid involvement in the judicial system of the ruling state). They did not, however, describe this alternative system in detail. That task was left to subsequent imami thinkers.

*ʿAbd-al-ʿAziz Sayyed-al-Ahl, Jaʿfar b. Muhammad, Beirut, 1954.

*Moḥsen al-Amin Ḥosayni ʿAmeli, Aʿyān al-šiʿa, ed. Hasan al-Amin, Beirut, 1962, IV/2, pp. 29-79.

*Abu’l-Hasan ʿAlī b. Esmāʿīl Ašʿarī, Ketab maqālāt al-eslāmīyīn wa eḵtelāf al-moṣellīn, ed. Helmut Ritter, Cairo, 2000.

*Abu’l-Hasan ʿAli Masʿudi, Moruj al-ḏahab wa maʿāden al-jawhar, ed. Charles Pellat, 7 vols., Beirut, 1962-79; tr. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille as Les prairies d’or, rev. and corrected by Charles Pellat, 3 vols., Paris, 1965.

*ʿAli b. Ebrāhim Qomi, Tafsir al-Qomi, Najaf, 1387/1967.

*Abu’l-Fatḥ Muhammad b. ʿAbd-al-Karim Shahrastani, Ketab al-melal wa’l-neḥal, ed. William Cureton, Leipzig, 1928; tr. Theodore Haarbrücker as Religionsparthien und Philosophen-Schulen, 2 vols. in 1, Hildesheim, 1969; tr. Afżal-al-Din Ṣadr Torka Eṣfahāni, ed. Sayyed Muhammad-Reżā Jalāli Nāʾini, Tehran, 1956.