true, Imām should have been younger since the maximum age of maturity was fifteen necessitated by the current situation.
Although such kinds of reports are recorded in various sources, there exists many a proof of hand which denies them. First, the renowned historians have recorded Imām’s birth in 38, based on which Imām had been twenty-three years of age in the course of Karbalā event. Secondly, it had by not means been ignored by the expert historians, from the very beginning they contradicted the common narration the genuineness of which had been confirmed and come into question however.
Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar Wāqidī, a distinguished narrator of the Sunnis, subsequent to a quotation from Imām Sādiq (a) as saying “‘Alī Ibn Husayn (a) departed in 58” added that this utterance vindicated that while 23 or 24, Imām Sadjdjād (a) had been with his father in Karbalā and those describing him under age are wrong. Imām was seriously ill in Karbalā; therefore, he was not able to participate in the war. How could he ever be immature whereas his son, Abū Dja‘far Muhammad Ibn ‘Alī Bāqir, had met Djābir Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Ansārī and quoted hadiths from him. Djābir had passed away in 78 A.H.
Thirdly, the way of Imām Sadjdjād’s behaving towards ‘Ubayd Allāh Ibn Ziyād and even Yazīd Ibn Abī Sufyān corroborates that he had been old enough and to discuss his maturity or immaturity in Karbalā looked in vain. The scene set for his delivering sermons on the pulpit, in its turn, stemmed from his age as well. Such a ground could have never been prepared by Yazīd for an individual whose maturity was open to question.
Fourthly, with a glance at numerous narrations about Imām Bāqir’s birth in historical books, it can be observed that he had been present in Karbalā as a four-year old boy. No one has declared it untrue. If assenting these reports, there is no alternative but admitting the common narration with a two-year-or-so discrepancy.
Three versions that certain figures like Biyhaqī have recorded telling Imām’s date of birth (33, 36 and 38) are not unconnected to that mentioned above. The former was reported by Ibn ‘Asākir. Zuhrī also has confirmed
 ‘Alī Ibn al-Husayn, Sayyid Dja‘far Shahīdī, pp. 32, 33
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p.222; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XVII, p.256; Kashf al-ghumma, vol.II, p.191. Not only can Djābir’s demise be a cogent reason for Imām Bāqir’s birth before the event of Karbalā, although it weakens the probability of his birth after Karbalā. Waqidī’s reasoning has been the report of Imām Bāqir’s birth not his visit with Djābir.
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XVII, p.230
that ‘Alī Ibn Husayn was beside his father in Karbalā at the age of twenty-three.
Another controversial issue the analysis where of would bear fruitful results is the accurate name and pedigree of Imām Sadjdjād’s mother. Regretfully, after all extensive studies that a number of writers have done in this respect, it is not still definite. The notion that his mother had been one of Sassanids princesses was recently denied lest the anti-Shi‘ite Muslims as a consequence judge that the spread of Shi‘ism in Iran had been due to the association of Imām’s lineage with the Sassanids through Yazdgard III’s daughter who has been alleged to be Imām Sadjdjād’s mother. Professor Shahīdī, in his foregoing book, has cited and criticized most of these narrations. Further, there are few quotations suggesting that she be “Umm Walad” (a bondswoman whose husband was not a bondsman). In spite of all controversies about the reports or their incompatibility with the reports of the contests and so forth, the genuine narration is definitively worthy and is mentioned in the Shi‘ites books belonging to the ancient times such as Waq‘a Siffīn, Tārīkh Ya‘qūbī and Basā’ir al-Daradjāt, all written in the third century. A hadith also has been quoted from Imām Sādiq(a) in Kāfīas reported by Qādī Nu‘mān in the fourth century as well. Acknowledging that there does exist skepticism, we shall examine the illusory link between this issue and the spread of Shi‘ism properly later.
Consistent with what the Shi‘ites hadith-narrators have narrated, Imām Sadjdjād (a) is the successor of his father, Husayn Ibn ‘Alī (a). These are narrated by Shiykh Kulaynī in Kāfī and Shiykh Hurr ‘Āmilī in Ithbāt al-Hudāt, etc. It can also be detected from the Prophet’s hadiths naming the Shi‘ites Imāms. Heedless of it, approving Imām Sadjdjād (a) in Shi‘ites community as well as his Imāma throughout history is an original proof itself. The one and the only mistrust at that critical point prevailing a small number of Ahl al-Bayt’s supporters was Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya’s Imamate which will be discussed in berries later. As specified by Shi‘ites hadiths, the Prophet’s sword, armor and so on should be with Imāms and their being with Imām Sadjdjād was validated even in Sunnites books. The time at which Imām Sadjdjād lived was a special period that all religious values were exposed to the Umayya distortin and Medina residents, one of the religious centers, were all compelled to swear allegiance to Yazīd like his slaves. Islamic commandments had turned into a plaything for people
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq. p.231
 al-Kāfī, vol.II, p.369
 Sharh al-akhbār, vol.III, p.266
 See a concise paper about the relation between Shī‘ism and Iran, Isfahān, 1365.
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.I, pp.486, 488
such as Ibn Ziyād, Hadjdjādj and ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwān. In Hadjdjādj’s view, ‘Abd al-Malik was superior to Allāh’s Messenger (s)! Unlike Islamic narrations, he extorted “Djizya” (poll-tax) from Muslims and with a slight calumny he handed over them to the executioners.
In the shadow of such rule it was
inevitable that the less people’s religious training was
elevated, the more disvalues were revived. Under those
circumstances, Imām Sadjdjād (a) was only a
worshipper and his most socially penetrating impact on
establishing a link between people and Allāh was solely
through Du‘ā (prayer). So influential a characteristic had
he that people were enamored of him. A large number of
knowledge-seekers were the narrators of his hadiths and
availed themselves of his overflowing spring emanated from
the Prophet and ‘Alī’s boundless body of knowledge.
Describing Imām’s personality, Muhammad
Ibn Sa‘d, Sunnites historian and scholar, had said,
In his thesis about the reliability of
this unique narration, Shāfi‘ī had written,
Although Ibn Shahāb Zuhrī was
from the Umayya kins and regardless of the dispute existing
between the Umayya and Shi‘ite Muslims, he was among
the scholars at Imām Sadjdjād’s time. Getting
zealously the most out of Imām’s presence, he had praised
him in many sentences. In a letter written by Imām, Zuhrī
was advised to reconsider his position as an instrument for
the Umayya sovereignty.
Once he was reproached by Imām Sadjdjād for his
insultation to ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib (s);
however, he was his narrator and his narrations have been
recorded in various books.
Additionally he was enamored with Imām Sadjdjād’s
worshipping and purity. As reported,
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd,Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.XV, p. 274
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p.222
 Tuhaf al-‘Uqūl, p. 200
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.IV, p. 102
 For instance see Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol. VIII, p. 172; Hilyat al-awliyā’, Vol.III, p. 86; Kashf al-ghumma, vol.II, p. 103
 Hilyat al-awliyā’, vol.III, p. 135
He was quoted as saying,
His commendation for Imām Sadjdjād
(a) was to the extent that some of the Marwānids told him,
Abū Hāzim, another hadith-narrator, had
It is quoted from Djāhi¨ as stating, “Concerning ‘Alī Ibn Husayn’s characteristic, the Shi‘ite Muslims, schismatics, the Khāridjites were all unanimous and not a single one of those was sceptical about his superiority over others”.
As it will be discerned later, the most decisive reason for Imām’s popularity with the people was his eloquent sentences within the framework of supplication engrossing people.
Sa‘īd Ibn Musayyib, an eminent
hadith-narrator, described Imām Sadjdjād (a),
During his lifetime, Imām was called “‘Alī al-Khayr” (example of goodness), “‘Alī al-Aqharr (outstanding ‘Alī) and “‘Alī al-‘Ābid” (Worshipper). At that time Mālik Ibn Anas was of this belief that there existed no one like Imām Sadjdjād in the Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt.
Ibn Abi l-Hadīd had said,
On account of Imām’s too many prostrations as well as of which mark on his forehead he was called “Dhi l-Thafanāt” (the Owner of Calluses).
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p. 214
 Zayn al-Ābidīn, Sayyid al-Ahl, p. 43
 Sharh al-akhbār, vol. III, p. 258
 Tadhkirat al-khawās, p. 186; Kashf al-ghumma, vol.II, p. 80
 ‘Umdat al-tālib, p. 193
 Hilyat al-awliyā’, vol.III, p. 141; Kashf al-ghumma, Vol.II, p. 80; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. XVII, p. 236; Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol.VII, p. 305; Siyar a‘lām al-nubalā’, vol.IV, p. 391
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.XV, p. 273
 Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol.VII, p. 305
 Ibid. Vol.I, p. 27
 Mu‘djam al-udabā’,, vol.XI, p. 103
Also, Ibn Hibbān had described Imām
Abū Zuhra also said,
Reportedly, when Imām made ablution
before prayer, he was noticed with a pale complexion.
After being inquired for the reason, he replied,
It is recounted that at prayer time
Imām began shivering while turning pale. In his answer
to the question for its ground, he stated,
Heeded to nothing while he was engaged in performing prayers. Once his child broke his arm. He was crying severely. An orthopedist was called to set the bone. Later, after finding the child with his arm hung from his neck, Imām realized the happening after all.
Zamakhsharī has narrated that when ‘Alī Ibn Husayn immersed his arm to make ablution, ثم رفع رأسه الى السماء والقمر والكواكب، ثم جعل يفكّر في خلقها حتي أصبح وأذن المؤدن ويده في الماء “He raised his head staring at the sky, the moon and stars and pondering over as long as morning appeared and the Mu’adhdhin started calling to prayer while his arm was still in water.”
When his servant was questioned about him, she said, “Never ever did I take him food during the day nor did I prepare bed for him at nights.” It is narrated that while he was busy with his prayers, a snake approached him. The snake crept along through Imām’s two feet but not a slight move or change of complexion was noticed.
In giving alms and aiding the underprivileged he was proverbial. It was after his martyrdom when it revealed that a hundred families had been living
 al-thiqāt, vol.V, p. 160
 al-imām al-Sādiq, p. 22
 Sifat al-safwa, vol.II, p. 55; Nūr al-absār, p. 127; Tabaqāt al-kubrā, Vol.V, p. 216; al-Ithāf, p. 136; al-Fusūl al-muhimma, p. 201, al-‘Iqd al-farīd, Vol.III, p. 114
 Sharh al-akhbār, vol.III, p. 258
 Ibid. vol.III, p. 263
 Rabi‘ al-abrār, vol.III, pp. 160, 163
 A’immatunā, vol.I, p. 263, Manāqib Ibn Shahr Āshūb, vol.II, p. 255
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.X, p. 159
on his alms and charity. Imām Bāqir (a) has been quoted as saying that his father, Imām Sadjdjād (a), had been carrying food on his back at dead of night for the destitute stressing that charity at night-time mitigates Allāh’s wrath. People’s affection for him beggared description. Narratedly, the Qur’ān reciters under on conditions set out to Mecca unless Imām Sadjdjād came and one thousand people on horseback followed him.
Sumptuously dressed, he left home but promptly returned and asked to bring his previous robe pointing out, “As though I am not ‘Alī Ibn Husayn.” While he was passing the streets in Medina on horseback, not once did he ever warn “let me through” in view of the fact that he believed that the route was communal and he was never entitled to outrun. His son, Imām Bāqir, was cited as saying, “My father sacrificed his properties entirely for Allāh’s sake twice”.
At the moment of breathing his last, Muhammad Ibn Usāma Ibn Zayd was beside him. Muhammad was shedding tears when Imām asked the why.
“I am 15000 dhms in debt”, responded Muhammad.
“Do not agitate yourself, I pay it”, Imām stated.
All of these mentioned points look a drop from the ocean of Imām Sadjdjād’s virtues.
On the last day of the event of Karbalā the Shi‘ites’s political and ideological position was in a tragic situation both qualitatively and quantitatively. Kūfa which had always been considered the center of Shi‘ites tendencies had turned into a base for suppressing them. All the vertical
 Hilyat al-awliyā’, Vol.III, p. 136; Kashf al-ghumma, Vol.II, pp. 78; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, Vol.XVII, p. 238.
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. XVII, p. 238
 Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, p. 117
 Makārim al-Akhlāq, p. 58; Wasā’il al-shī‘a, vol.II, p. 364; It is also narrated that he occasionally wore impressive dress lest people might assume that he acted contrary to what Allāh had ordered, قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنْ الرِّزْقِ. “Say, who has prohibited the embellishment of Allāh which he has brought forth for these servants?” See Tafsīr al-ayyāshī, vol.II, p. 15, the second hadith; Mustadrak al-wasā’il, vol.III, p.203
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. XVII, p. 246
 Ibid. vol.XVII, p. 238
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XVII, p. 239; Sharh al-akhbār, vol.III, pp. 261-262 (His name is mentioned Zayd Ibn Usāma Ibn Zayd in the second one)
Shi‘ite Muslims of Imām Husayn having been either in Medina, or in Mecca or those from Kūfa who could flourish to join Imām were martyred in Karbalā. Although there were some living in Kūfa, they could in no way express themselves under the appalling circumstances exercised by Ibn Ziyād. Karbalā was as a matter of fact a debacle for the Shi‘ite Muslims psychologically. What was seemingly publicized was that the Shi‘ite Muslims could no longer raise their heads aloft. A group of Ahl al-Bayt headed by Imām Husayn had achieved martyrdom and the only remainng son from Imām Husayn and Fātima’s issue was no one but Imām Sadjdjād who was not famed at that time. Imām Husayn’s eldest son, ‘Alī Akbar, haf also been martyred in particular. Imām Sadjdjād’s life in Medina and being distant from Iraq did never allow opportunities to be provided for him to lead the Shi‘ite Muslims in Kūfa.
In such a status which Shi‘ites basis was determinedly targeted. Imām Sadjdjād had to resume from Zero and absorb people towards Ahl al-Bayt, Imām could successfully reach many achievements, however.
The achievements have been verified in history. Imām Sadjdjād could not only breath new life into the Shi‘ite Muslims but also lay the foundations for both Imām Bāqir’s and Imām Sādiq’s future activities. It has been evidenced by history that he, during his thirty-four-year activity, extricated the Shi‘ite Muslims from the thorniest periods of their lives, the period which had nothing save Shi‘ite Muslims’ suppression by the Umayya and Ibn Zubayr. Hadjdjādj’s twenty-year sovereignty in Iraq together with ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwān’s dominance of the thorough Islamic realm had concentrated on suppressing the Shi‘ite Muslims and somewhere else suppressing other Umayyads opponents including Khāridjites and such insurgents as ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ash‘ath. Hearing the term of Shi‘ites was far more irritating than the term of disbeliever for Hadjdjādj.
During these years, two Shi‘ites movements were waged in Iraq either of which-despite the temporary victory of one-was defeated. Subsequently the Shi‘ite Muslims were with all might put under the threat of murder, torture and imprisonment by the Umayya. The penitents one of the movements was that of Tawwābīn led by Sulaymān Ibn Surad Khuzā‘ī with a small number of the renowned Shi‘ite Muslims of Kūfa that we already discussed. It is alleged that Tawwābīn had yielded to ‘Alī Ibn Husayn’s Imāma. We could
 Dirāsāt wa Buhūth fi l-tārīkh wa l-islām, Vol.I, p.61 (lst edition) the paper of al-imām Sadjdjād Bā‘ith al-islām min djadīd
 See Imām Bāqir’s remarks in Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Vol.XI, p.44; al-imām al-Sādiq of Abū Zuhra, pp.111-112
 Tashayyu‘ dar masīr tārīkh, p.286
find no proof for the allegation in primary sources. What is worth consideration is that as a rule Tawwābīn had been set to entrust Imāma to Ahl al-Bayt if succeeded and naturally there existed no one from Fātima’s issue but ‘Alī Ibn Husayn (a). Not a report has been traced in history whether they were precisely of this opinion or not. It appears that no specific political relation between Imām Sadjdjād and Tawwābīn had been established. Nevertheless, whatever had given Shi‘ites spirit to the movement was the active participation of the notable Shi‘ite Muslims of Kūfa as well as its sentimental nature, that is, repenting for not defending Husayn Ibn ‘Alī and getting martyred as the only way for the acceptance of their repentance. Nowhere of the movement was the name of Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya mentioned.
Their poletical blunder was assessing not the status quo, abandoning Kūfa and leaving himself to the accidents. Believing that the leader of the movement was incapable of estimating military and political issues, not only Mukhtār did by no means collaborate but he also hindered a number of Shi‘ite Muslims to back the movement.
Imām Sadjdjād’s association with the second movement, namely Mukhtār’s movement was as vague as the former one. Such a connection bore numerous troubles both form the viewpoints of politics and ideology. It was said that after attaining support from the Shi‘ite Muslims in Kūfa, Mukhtār pleaded to ‘Alī Ibn Husayn (a) for cooperation but Imām showed no delight. By taking Imām’s abiding policy into account, the standing adopted looked reasonable. Later than the event in Karbalā, Imām had well perceived that reviving such a dead community through securing the leadership was beyond the bounds of practicability, Besides, implicating in another political movement with the presence of external powers might have preceded many a peril which was not worth risking at all. By this reason, the entity of Imām’s movement throughout his Imamate elucidated that his was never merely a political one though in many cases secession from politics exactly denoted a certain political activity.
And the ideological aspect of the adventure commenced when Mukhtār asked for Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya’s assistance and advocacy. He consented but not officially. From then on, it was rumored that Ibn Hanafiyya’s Imamate was accepted amongst the Iraqi Shi‘ite Muslims. Although this notion was not corroborated, later when a sect named the Kīssanids was founded, the story began from the time of Mukhtār.
With the infiltration of the Exaggerators’ theories into the Shi‘ites nation in Kūfa, Mukhtār also was subject to accusation later. It was rumored that Mukhtār had played an influential role in emerging the Exaggerators. Based
 Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, p.126
on noncount justifications, referring to which does not seem convenient here and have been discussed elsewhere, all of these issues even that a sect named the Kīssanids believed in Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya’s Imamate and Mahdavitism are open to doubt. Notwithstanding, regarding Imām Sadjdjād’s position-taking against the Exaggerators there is evidence available. It was the predominant deviation among Iraqi Shi‘ite Muslims which compelled Imām to refrain from taking a transparent stance and setting up a direct link with them.
Imām Sadjdjād (a) addressed a group of Iraqis saying,
Somewhere else, [أحبونا حبَّ الإسلام ولا تحبُّونا حبَّ الأصنام[2 “Adore us for the sake of Islam but never idolatize us.”
Abū Khālid Kābulī had recounted that he had heard
Imām Sadjdjād (a) saying,
In accordance with Shi‘ites sources, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya was on no accounts a misled one and had assented Imām Sadjdjād’s Imāma. In order as a consequence to verify that Ibn Hanafiyya had indeed introduced himself as an Imām a few questions would be posed and solutions would be presumed that he had taken this action with the aid of Imām to keep Imām away although no historical proof supports such an assumption.
What merits to be borne in mind is that it beggars belief
that Imām Sadjdjād (a) had uttered such words about
Especially, when Mukhtār had sent ‘Ubayd Allāh’s head
to him, he had averred,
 Hilyat al-awliyā’, Vol.III, p.136
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, Vol.XVII, p.242
 Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, p.102; Tabaqāt al-kubrā, Vol.V, p.214; Nasab Quraysh, Mus‘ab Zubayrī, p.58
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, Vol.V, p.213
 Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, p.127
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, Vol.V, p.285
 Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, Ibid. p.128
“Insult not Mukhtār for he has killed our assassins, has had our orphans marry and has allotted properties to us when in trouble.”
And in an answer to the question of Mukhtār’s son, he described his position about Mukhtār as positive.
As discussed before, Mukhtār’s movement did not politically last long and was suppressed by Ibn Zubayr followers in 67 AH. However, it had an impact on stimulating and perpetuating Shi‘ites emotions in Kūfa and on motivating Mawālī to take part in political activities.
Due to the aforesaid deviation and even unlike Ibn Hanafiyya’s possible wish, some were ambivalent whom to choose as an Imām. Qāsim Ibn ‘Awf, one of Imām Sadjdjād’s disciples, who had initially been hesitant whether to choose ‘Alī Ibn Husayn or Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya ultimately joined Imām Sadjdjād as confessed by himeslf. According to Kashshī, Abū Hamza Thumālī and Farāt Ibn Ahnaf had been among his disciples. Although Sa‘īd Ibn Musayyib was controversial to be among them, he had apparently been ruling in accordance with the Sunnism. In Ridjāl, Kashshī has treated Sa‘īd’s position as disentanglement from Hadjdjādj. His veneration for Imām, at all events, is without a shadow of a doubt and availing himself of Imām’s presence scientifically and ethically is confirmed. But he did not attend Imām’s funeral ceremony and as a result was objected to.
Aside from these individuals, there had been a number deemed steadfast Shi‘ite Muslims on the report of Shi‘ites sources. At the starting-point there had been only few with Imām such as Sa‘īd Ibn Djubayr, Sa‘īd Ibn Musayyib, Muhammad Ibn Djubayr Ibn Mut‘im, Yahyā Ibn Umm al-Tawīl and Abū Khālid al-Kābulī. The number of Imām Sadjdjād’s disciples was said 173 by Shiykh al-Tā’ifa.
Anyhow Imām could vastly contribute to Shi‘ism eternity and its dissemination. His style in Islamic jurisprudence domain was narrating the Holy Prophet’s hadiths through ‘Alī (a). Only were these hadiths authentic
 Ibid. p. 126
 Ibid. p. 124
 Ibid. p. 124
 Ibid. p. 124
 Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl. p. 116
 Ibid. p. 115; In another narration, they are ntroduced three, ارتد الناس بعد قتل الحسين ثلاثة, يحيى بن ام الطويل، ابو خالد الكابلي، جبير بن مطعم، ثم ان الناس لحقوا وكثروا... “After Husayn’s murder all people apostatized but three, Yahyā Ibn Umm al-Tawīl, Abū Khālid al-Kābulī and Djubayr Ibn Mut‘im. People joined them then…” see also Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, p. 123
 Ridjāl al-Tūsī, pp. 81-102
in Shi‘ite Muslims’ sight. By the same token, Shi‘ites managed to take his first strides in Islamic jurisprudence averse to the existing deviations; nontheless, the main phase thereof procrastinated.
While calling for prayer (Adhān), Imām Sadjdjād inserted the sentence of, حيّ علي خيرالعمل “Hasten to practice good deeds.”
When objections raised, he stated that Adhān had been that form since the inception. Seceding from Iraqi deviations culminated in maintaining the doctrinal bases of Shi‘ism against deviations. In spite of Imām’s serious endeavor, which, of course, led to the perpetual Shi‘ism, Medina could never ever be disposed to Shi‘ites growth in the light of its deviations created from the Early Islamic Era as well as its incitement against Shites. Imām Sadjdjād himself had asserted that their vertical devotees both in Mecca and Medina had not exceeded twenty people. Many lived in Iraq who were their enthusiasts, however.
Imām’s ever-first encounter with the Umayya rulers after Karbalā event was with ‘Ubayd Allāh Ibn Ziyād. Ibn Ziyād asked his name.
Imām replied, “This is ‘Alī”.
“Did Allāh kill not ‘Alī Ibn Husayn?” Ibn Ziyād asked surprisingly.
“I had a brother whom people killed”, responded Imām.
“But Allāh did kill him”, Ibn Ziyād added.
Imām Sadjdjād stated, .اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا
Concluding to murder Imām, Ibn Ziyād was heroicly stopped by Zaynab (a).
Yazīd also met him in Damascus and reproached him. In an excellent sermon, Imām introduced himself and his family addressing the audience in the mosque. People who had for a long time been ignorantly influenced by the Umayya propagation and were not in the slightest acquainted with the Prophet’s household became awakened somewhat by his sermon. Yazīd had to interrupt Imām, demagogically imputed the wickedness to Ibn Ziyād and respectfully saw off ‘Alī Ibn Husayn along with other captives of Karbalā to
 al-Musannaf, Ibn Abī Shayba, vol.I, p. 215 (published in India).
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p. 104; Bihār, vol. XXXXVI, p. 143; al-Ghārāt, p. 573
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p. 231 (published by ‘Izz al-dīn); Nasab Quraysh of Mus‘ab Zubayrī, p. 58
 al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.V, p. 131
Medina. Among the noteworthy points in Imām’s sermon was that he introduced his father, his family and himself as the Prophet’s descendants whereas both Mu‘āwiya and the Umayya have been constantly striving to inroduce them ‘Alī’s descendants not the Holy Prophet’s.
A while after the event in Karbalā, revolting against the Umayya, the people of Medina organized the riot of Harra, moreover. The leadership of the riot lay with ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Han¨ala, Aliyas Ghasīl al-Malā’ika whose character was anti-Umayyads and anti-Yazīd and whose life style was non-Islamic. Imām Sadjdjād’s as well as others’ position from the Hāshimites was not positive; consequently, they abandoned the town with a number of their families. In Imām’s view, the aforementioned movement had not merely a Shi‘ites nature but was absolutely in line with Ibn Zubayr’s intent, someone who had been among those occasioning the war of Djamal. Since Imām’s any standing as a Shi‘ites leader could precede the riskiest consequence for the Shi‘ite Muslims, he did not involve himself.
Besides, when people had expelled the Umayyads, Imām’s manliness entailed to give asylum to Marwān Ibn Hakam’s wife at his request. Tabarī has written that Imām’s old friendship with Marwān accounted for Imām’s action. It is in actual fact a barefaced lie. At that age and under those circumstances that his father and forefather had been in conflict with this reign, Imām’s intimacy with Marwān as the most wretched element among the Umayyads was out of the question in a real sense of word. Marwān was the one who from the outset of securing allegiance in Medina had coerced the governor to either force Imām Husayn to swear allegiance or take his life. Imām’s reaction was a sportsmanlike answer to the Umayyads’ foulness so that history could compare the conducts.
After Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba, Aliyas Musraf suppressed the movement of Medina people and committed the greatest atrocities during the Umayya age, he acted moderately towards ‘Alī Ibn Husayn due to his absence in the movement. Muslim secured allegiance from people in a way that they know themselves Yazīd’s slaves; not withstanding, securing allegiance from ‘Alī Ibn Husayn was quite normal. Prior to Imām’s entry, Muslim was cursing Imām and his forebear. But on Imām’s arrival, he behaved calmly.
When Muslim was asked for his change
subsequent to Imām’s departure, he responded,
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, Vol.V, p. 245; al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p. 208
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.III, p. 259; Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p. 215; Kashf al-ghumma, vol.II, p. 107; Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, Vol.II, p. 25
 Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, pp. 70, 71
Heedless of the fact that Imām’s position-taking ought to be interpreted by considering the political state, military oppositions and the establishment of organizations, it had been the current situation which necessitated any Imām’s responsibility at any juncture. Every politically rational man is cognizant that the approaches adopted vary in various situations. As examined history evidences how Imām Sadjdjād(a) reserved and proliferated Shi‘ism for the future activites.
As far as the relations between the ‘Alawites and the Umayya were concerned, Imām was vehemently suspected by them and as Imām’s slight movement could bare negative outcomes, he naturally believed that action-taking was not worth. One of the most significant religious-political principles by using which Imām spent his political life was Taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation). It shielded the Shi‘ite Muslims’ lives throughout history as pointed out by Imām over and over. Yet, in order to undermine the Shi‘ite Muslims, a group, not in need of manipulating it, denied it strongly although it had been straightforwardly stipulated in Holy Qur’ān. The Sunnis on account of being in power required not Taqiyya and only for accusing the Shi‘ite Muslims did they delete it from among the incontrovertible Islamic and Fiqhī commandments.
In a hadith, Imām Sadjdjād
has stated that anyone not enjoining good and forbidding
evil is like one who has set the divine Book aside and
turned his back on it unless he follows Taqiyya. He was
asked what Taqiyya was. He answered,
Believing in Taqiyya as a Qur’ānic principle was in terms of Islamic jurisprudence accentuated more by Imāms who had to practice it. Imām Sadjdjād who lived an exceedingly difficult life had no other alternative but Taqiyya. It was fundamentally Taqiyya which safeguarded Shi‘ism at that time, what of which Khāridjites, the extremists, did not avail themselves and as a result were struck hard. Narratedly, meeting Imām, someone asked him how he spent his life.
Imām responded, “We pass the time among our people as Israelites were among the Pharaoh’s people. They kill our children and take our women as bondwomen. People get nearer to our foes by insulting our lord. If Quraysh prides itself on having Muhammad before other Arabs and if Arabs consider themselves superior to non-Arabs for having Muhammad (s) and they have approved such a virtue for Arabs and Quraysh, we, Ahl al-Bayt, should be proud of ourselves before Quraysh because Muhammad has been from
 The unseen knowledge is consistent with the duty mentioned not separated from it.
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p. 214; Hilyat al-awliyā’, vol.III, p. 140
among us. Yet, they usurped our rights and this is the way our time goes by”.
The narrator added that Imām was speaking in a way that only those nearby be able to hear him.
Overall, Imām’s lenience with the Umayya provided a free life in Medina for Imām and less was he center of attention on the part of the opponents. Furthermore it manifested Imām’s scientific dimention in reserving the religion. The great admiration made by a Sunnites scholar about him is a proof. Were Imām involved in politics, no one could describe this aspect of Imām’s character.
When the community was deviated, the spirit of comfort-loving and worldliness prevailed, it was confined by political, ethical and social corruption and when there was no opening to breathe politically, Imām Sadjdjād could partially express his beliefs throgh prayer and reactivate the nation to pay heed to insight and worship. Although, seemingly, the main aim within the prayers had been insight and worship, in regard with the phrases it can be claimed that people could have perceived the political concepts between the lines.
Al-Sahīfa al-Sadjdjādiyya including more than fifty prayers is only a part of Imām Sadjdjād’s compiled prayers. The number of the collections inclusive of his prayers is six with the above mentioned one. The prayers inside some of them exceed 180. These prayers had been used by the Sunnis in addition to the Shi‘ite Muslims, so it can be inferred how influential they had been at that time. Among all Shi‘ites Imāms, Imām Sadjdjād (a) is more famous for his prayers.
Within the prayers there is a phrase repeatedly used and rarely can a prayer be found excluding it. It is, صلوات بر محمد وآل محمد “Peace be to Muhammad and his progeny.”
Basically it is an indication of genuine prayers. Once naming a baby ‘Alī was decried and the Umayya could execute nothing without insulting ‘Alī (a), observing such a phrase appeared virtuous.
 al-Dharī‘a, vol.XV, pp. 18-21
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p. 192; vol.VI, pp. 178-186; vol.V, p. 113
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XIII, p. 220; Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.I, p. 184
Such phrases as, [محمد وآله الطيبين الطاهرين الاخيار الانجبين[1 “Muhammad and his decent, clean, chosen and honored descendants.”
Imām’s insistence on uniting Muhammad and his descendants was what Allāh had emphasized and it is of utmost importance for expressing Shi‘ites beliefs. Previous to narrating contents of some of his prayers it looks proper to refer to a hadith on consolidating the link between Muhammad and his Household.
Imām Sadjdjād has stated, “It is incumbent upon a learned to say Salawāt to Allāh’s Prophet. Allāh has joined us to him as well. If anyone say Salawāt for the Prophet but excludes us, not only does he make it imperfect but also he disobeys Allāh.“ The union of Muhammad and his Household can substantially affect people’s stance on the Holy Prophet’s household.
The issue of Imamate is one of the central religious-political contents of al-Sahīfa. The concept of Imāma as a Shi‘ites concept depicts the divine aspects of infallibility along with profiting from the prophets’ body of knowledge in general and that of the holy Prophet in particular in addition to its superiority over caliphate and leadership.
We show some examples,
اللّهم انّ هذا المقام لخلفائك وأصفيائك وموضع أمنائك في الدّرجة الّتي اختصصتهم بها قد ابتزوها… حتى عاد صفوتك وخلفائك مغلوبين، مقهورين مبتزّين … أللهم العن أعدائهم من الاوّلين والاخرين ومن رضي بفعالهم وأشياعهم وأتباعهم
“O Allāh! Caliphate does solely belong to Thy caliphs, the chosen from creatures. The position Thou had assigned for Thy Trustee in sublime ranks was usurped by others… until Thy caliphs and chosen ones were vanquished by the oppressors and their rights were disregarded. O my Lord! Thy malediction be upon their enemies from the beginning to the end, upon those gratified with this oppression and upon their followers.”
 al-sahīfat al-Sadjdjādiyya, prayer 6, item 24
 Tārīkh Djurdjān, p. 188
 Tārīkh Djurdjān, prayer 47, item 56
 Ibid. prayer 48, items 9-10
وصلّ على خيرتك اللّهم من خلقك محمّد وعترته الصّفوةّ من بريّتك الطّاهرين واجعلنا لهم سامعين ومطيعين كما أمرت اللهّم اجعلنی من أهل التّوحيد والايمان بك والتّصديق برسولک والائمة الّذين حتمت طاعتهم.
“O Lord! Bless the best creature of all, Muhammad, and his chosen kinfolks. Make us obedient to them as Thou have commanded. O Lord! Make me one of the believers of the Prophet and Imāms, those whose obedience Thou have ordered.”
اللّهم انّك ايّدت دينك في كلّ أوان بامام أقمته علماَ لعبادك ومناراً في بلادك بعد ان وصلت حبله بحبلك وجعلته الذّريعة الي رضوانك وافترضت طاعته وحذرت معصيته وأمرت بامتثال أوامره والانتهاء الي نهيه وأن لا يتقدّمه متقدّم ولا يتأخّر عنه متأخّر فهو عصمة للائذين وكهف المؤمنين وعروة المتمسكين وبهاء العالمين …. وأقم به كتابك وحدودك وشرائعك وسنن رسولك صلواتك اللّه عليه واله وأحي به ما أماته الظّالمون من معالم دينك وأجل به صداء الجور عن طريقتك وابن به الضّراء من سبيلك وأزل به النّاکبين عن صراطك وأمحق به بغاة قصدك عوجاَ … واجعلنا له سامعين مطيعين.
“O Lord! At any time Thou have appointed an Imām as a flag and a guidance lamp for Thy servants on the earth. Through establishing a direct link between Thyself and him, choosing him a way far drawing Thy gratification, enjoining all to obey his commands and prohibiting all from disobeying him, Thou did approve Thy religion. He is an Imām over whom no one has priority and from whom no one has the right to separate. An Imām for whom Thou have arranged a secure place for approaching Thee is he. Thou have bestowed firm faith on him who resorts Thy leading and favor and bestowed a highest honor in the world as he is a refuge for the believers… O Lord! Safeguard Thy book, Islamic limits, religious laws and Thy Prophet’s Sunna by him, revive any of Thy religious tenets which the oppressor dissolved by him and obliterate any corruption or deviation in Thy straight path by him. Obviate the dangers in Thy way by him, make us obedient to him and successful in satisfying him.”
It can be evidently inferred from the sentences above that Imām’s determination had been disseminating Shi‘ites beliefs through the concept of Imāma as the most crucial in Shi‘ism. Similar contents admiring Ahl al-Bayt from Nahdj al-Balāgha had been presented in the discussion about Imām ‘Alī’s caliphate.
As referred to the domain of the prayers is incredredibly vast and contains other aims such as devotional, intellectual and political. Brining an intellectual example would be appropriate here. Irbilī recounted that while Imām Sadjdjād was in the Prophet’s mosque in Medina he noticed that a group having a doctrinal discussion likened Allāh to his creature. Imām who
 Tārīkh Djurdjān. prayer 34
 Ibid. prayer 47
was incensed, stood up, went to the Prophet’s grave and began praying from which the content of negating comparison could be deduced. Shedding tears he was praying,
الهي قد بدت قدرتك ولم تبد هيئتك فجهلوك وقدّروك بالتقدير على غير ما انت به فشبّهوك وأنا بريء يا الهي من الذّين بالتّشبيه طلبوك …
“O my Allāh! Thy might is revealed. They do not appreciate Thee. They ordain despite what Thou have foreordained. They compare Thee with mankind while I loathe it. O my Allāh! Who are those who seek Thee with comparison?”
One of the Imām’s actions at different times was to make people acquainted with the Prophet’s Household about whom all the rights and virtues were specified in Qur’ān and Sunna. In Damascus the Umayya introduced themselves the Holy Prophet’s Household as in Hidjāz some of the Prophet’s wives did so. Since his wives died one after another and left no child, the existence of Ahl al-Bayt was rendered null and void. And now no one but Fātima’s offspring was remained. Making them known was requisite especially in as much as the incidents after the Prophet’s departure had had them keep silent in political scenes. Imām Sadjdjād introduced the household when he was taken to Damascus and it was in his famous sermon as confirmed by a number of historical records.
In this regard, we present a narration.
و أتي بحرم رسول اللّه صلى الله عليه وآله حتي دخلوا مدينة دمشق من باب يقال له «توماء»، ثم أتي بهم حتى وقفوا علي درج باب المسجد حيث يقام السبي واذا الشيخ قد أقبل حتى دنا منهم وقال, الحمد لله الذي قتلكم وأهلككم وأراح الرجال من سطوتكم وأمكن أميرالمؤمنين منكم. فقال له علي بن الحسين, يا شيخ! هل قرأت القرآن؟ قال: نعم قد قرأته، قال: فعرفت هذه الاية: قل لاأسئلكم اجراً الا المودّة في القربى؟ قال الشيخ: نعم. فقال علي بن الحسين: فنحن القربى يا شيخ، قال: هل قرأت في سورة بني اسرائيل: وآت ذا القربي حقه؟ قال الشيخ: قد قرأت ذلك، فقال علي: نحن القربى يا شيخ. وهل قرأت هذه الاية Īواعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فان لله خمسه وللرسول ولذي القربى، قال الشيخ: قد قرأت ذلك، فقال علي: فنحن ذو القربى يا شيخ. ولكن هل قرأت هذه الايه: انما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيراً، قال الشيخ: قد قرأت ذلك. قال علي: فنحن اهل البيت الذي خصنا بآية الطهارة. فبقي الشيخ ساعة ساكتاً نادماً علي ما تكلّمه؛ ثم رفع رأسه الي السماء وقال: اللهم اني تائب اليك في ما تكلمته ومن بعض هولاء القوم، اللهم اني أبرء اليك من عدّو محمد وآل محمد.
The Prophet’s Household were brought. They were entered Damascus through a door called “Tūmā’’” They stood by the mosque door with other captives.
An old man approached them and said, “I offer my appreciation to Allāh who killed you and let people relieve and Amīr al-Mu’minīn Yazīd overcame you”.
 Kashf al-ghumma, vol.II, p. 89
 al-Futūh, vol.V, pp. 242-243
‘Alī Ibn Husayn asked him, “Man, have you ever recited Qur’ān?” “Sure, I have” the old man answered.
“Have you ever seen the verse of Say, I do not ask of you any reward for it (my mission) but love for my near relatives”, Imām asked.
“Yes, I have”, said he.
‘Alī Ibn Husayn added, “Those near relatives are we, man”. Imām asked again. “How about the verse in Banī-Isrā’īl Sūra “Give the rights of the relatives?”
“Yes”, he answered.
“We are those relatives”, stated Imām. “Have you ever read the verse of ‘And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allāh and for the Apostle and for the near of the kin’ “, asked ‘Alī Ibn Husayn.
The man answered, “Yes”.
“How about this verse, man? Allāh only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying”, asked Imām.
“Yes, I have read it”, he said.
“These people of the house are we”. ‘Alī Ibn Husayn added.
The man ashamed of whatever he had produced kept silent for a while. Then he rose his head up to the sky and said, “O My Allāh! I repent of what I have said and of the grudge I have born them. I loathe the enemies of Muhammad and his progeny”.
Imām Sadjdjād’s lamentation as well as his real worship within the frame of these prayers was an instructive lesson for the present corrupted community wherein Islam was disdained by the Umayya. His lamentation was also for the harrowing event of Karbalā.
Imām had stated, “Although doubtful about his death, Jacob wept for Joseph so hard that his eyes turned blind. How can I not help weeping while sixteen people from the Prophet’s Household were martyred in front of my very eyes.” His lamentation did automatically make people conscious of the event in Karbalā though he himself recounted the details of the event, moreover.
One of Imām’s activities, both religious and political, was his heed to a class who had been under socially vehement pressure from the caliph II’s
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XVII, p. 239
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, pp. 196, 212, (published by ‘Izz al-dīn)
tenure onward particularly during the Umayyads’ term and had been the most underprivileged group in the Islamic community in early centuries. The bondsmen and bondswomen whether Iranian, Roman, Egyptian or Sudanese suffering the most laborious tasks were humiliated by their masters.
Like Amīr al-Mu’minīn (a), Imām Sadjdjād (a) absorbed a number of Iraqi Mawālī (freed slaves) through his Islamic conduct and attempted to upgrade the social reputation of this class. Once Imām freed a bondswoman and married her, in order to censure her, ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwān reproached him for this marriage, Imām refereed to the verse of,
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ.
“Allāh’s Messenger is a good model for you.”
Concerning the Prophet’s approach about Safiyya. He also pointed out the marriage of the Prophet’s cousin with Zayd Ibn Hāritha. Accordingly, he breathed new life into Prophet’s dead tradition afresh.
Sayyid al-Ahl has written that although Imām never needed slaves, he purchased them regularly only for the purpose of their releasing. Reportedly, some one hundred thousand slaves were freed by Imām. Discerning Imām’s intention, the slaves exposed themselves to him to be purchased. Since Imām Sadjdjād had been purchasing them day in and day out, a large group was formed in Medina like an army including male and female slaves being all Imām’s Mawālī.
Narrated by ‘Allama Amīnī, at the end of each fasting month of
Ramadān, Imām Sadjdjād freed twenty slaves. He
has added that never did he keep a slave more than a
year and even after setting free he granted some
properties to them.
During that period they personally got well acquainted
with Imām Sadjdjād’s extensive knowledge, ethics
and piety and their affection for him was as a
consequence natural. Some time a bondwoman with a bowl
of water was pouring water on Imām’s hands. All of a
sudden it dropped down, knocked Imām on the face and
injured him. As soon as Imām took a look at her, she
said, والكاظمين الغيط
“Those restraining their anger.” Imām said, “I
restrained my anger”. والعافين عن الناس
“Those forgiving people.” ,added she. “I forgave you”,
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p. 24; al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.V, p. 140
 Zayn al-Ābidīn, Sayyid al-Ahl, pp. 7, 47
 A‘yān al-shī‘a, vol.IV, p. 468 (First Edition)
 Āl Imrān, 134
 Sharh al-akhbār, vol.III, p. 260
On stepping out of the mosque, Imām Sadjdjād (a) was insulted by someone. When Imām’s Mawālī invaded him, Imām hindered them and stated, “What has remained unrevealed about us is more than what he expresses”. The man became ashamed after all and was pardoned by Imām generously.
Now once again Imām’s magnanimity is mentioned. It is worth recounting a story.
‘Abd Allāh Ibn Muhammad
Ibn ‘Umar had narrated, “Hishām Ibn Ismā‘īl, an
Umayya governor in Medina had ignored the neighbors’ rights
and had begun annoying us specifically ‘Alī Ibn Husayn. When
he was deposed, Walīd commanded to expose him to the public
so that any one willing could take revenge on him. Hishām
confessed that he scared no one that much but ‘Alī Ibn
Husayn. While being hung from the Marwān bulwark, he
requested his friends not to utter an insulting word when
Imām Sadjdjād passed by. As soon as noticing Imām
going, Hishām yelled out,
Aside from Imām Sadjdjād there existed two ‘Abbāsids and ‘Alawites figures who cooperated in political and collective activities. One was Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya, ‘Alī’s son, and the other was ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib whose fame was thanks to the narrations quoted from the Prophet notably dealing with interpretation. Not Fātima’s son however, he was deemed high-ranking by the Shi‘ite Muslims due to his elderliness among the other ‘Alawites as the leader of political Shi‘ite Muslims, propounding Ahl al-Bayt’s leadership politically. Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya had been eminent and focus of Imām ‘Alī’s attention in the course of wars at that Imām’s term. The flag of Imām’s army in the war of Djamal was held aloft by Ibn Hanafiyya. His own analysis was that both Imām Hasan and Imām Husayn were Imām ‘Alī’s eyes and he was his hand and it was hand which ought to protect the eyes.
 Kashf al-ghumma, vol.II, p. 101; al-Ithāf, pp. 137, 138; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. XVII, p. 243
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.VI, p. 526; Sharh al-akhbār, vol.III, p. 260
 Hudjdjatī, Muhammad Bāqir, Si Maqālih dar tārīkh tafsīr wa nahw. (three papers n history of Interpretation and Syntax), from p. 27 on (Tehran, 1360)
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.I, p. 243
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.XI, p. 28. He had been one of the bravest in the Hāshimites; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XV, p. 285
Indicating the positions of these three
brothers, Imām ‘Alī had state,
Imām enlightened them why the flag was given to Ibn Hanafiyya. It had been for the protection of the Prophet’s descendants. That he had not been from the Fātimids was an excuse for Ibn Zubayr to humiliate him later although never did it affect the Shi‘ite Muslims.
No one doubts that he had been one of the most steadfast Shi‘ite Muslims as his actions had verified the fact; nevertheless, no evidence could ever be located from the historical sources about his claim for leadership, though others might take advantage of him, even found a sect and believe his Mahdavitism. Many individuals including a few Shi‘ites Imāms had had the same affliction too. Ibn Hanafiyya was the narrator of the hadiths which could lead people more towards the Holy Prophet’s Household.
He has been quoted as saying,
The devotees of the Household were many whereas the loyal to the verse of, .قُلْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي “Say, If you love Allāh, then follow me” were few.
Owing to this fact Imām Sadjdjād had stated, ما بمكة والمدينة عشرون رجلا يحبن “Our Faithful Shi‘ite Muslims do not exceed twenty both in Mecca and Medina.”
The number of the political enthusiasts was great, however.
When addressing him, Ibn Hanafiyya’s
followers usually said,
More threatening of Ibn Zubayr’s two adversaries namely, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya and Mukhtār was Ibn Hanafiyya. The whys and the wherefores were one, Mukhtār had risen up in Kūfa under his banner and the other was that the leadership of some part f Shi‘ites movement apparently had been undertaken by him. Ibn Zubayr who had determinedly bent his efforts to smear their reputation banned reciting blessing to the Holy Prophet (s) for 40 weeks.
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, p. 245
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IX, p. 111
 Ibid. vol.IV, p. 63
 Ibid. vol.IV, p. 105
 Ibid. vol.IV, p. 105
 al-Futūh, vol.VI, pp. 239, 240.
Being asked for its reason, he said, [ان له أهيل سوء فان ذكر مدّوا أعناقهم لذكره[1 “His family is small. Whenever he is commemorated, all members of this family will say we are in this family.”
He had made more offensive remarks in this respect as well like, بيت سوء لا أول لهم ولا أخر “The sinister house for which there is neither beginning nor end.”
It aroused Ibn ‘Abbās’s anger acutely banished by Ibn Zubayr to Tā’if. Ibn Zubayr himself had made a confession that it had been 40 years he bore this family a grudge. He was the one who incited his father to betray Ahl al-Bayt and stand against Imām ‘Alī (a) in Djamal.
Concerning him Imām ‘Alī had stated,
As narrated by Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, the only stimulater of ‘Āyisha had also been ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Zubayr according to Ibn ‘Umar. It was not unreasonable why she felt affection for him after his father and the Prophet.
These was a testimony that how great was the grudge Ibn Zubayr bore the ‘Alawites, Although his archenemy was the Umayyads, neverever did he leave the Hāshimites relieved. Since the Hāshimites naturally swore no allegiance to him, he emancipated Ibn Hanafiyya, Ibn ‘Abbās together with 24 people from among the Hāshimites in the entrance to the well of Zamzam. Mukhtār’s envoys succeeded to release them in an ambush attack with their bare hands. Ibn Zubayr’s determination had been to burn them to death. When ‘Urwa Ibn Zubayr, famous for narrating the Prophet’s hadiths, was objected in this regard, he reacted as saying that it had been done for the purpose of maintaining Muslim solidarity and it had been what the caliph II had adopted against those who opposed to swearing allegiance to Abū Bakr.
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.IV, p. 29.
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.IV, p. 62; pp. 127, 129; al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.V, p. 161.
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.XX, p. 128.
 Ibid, vol.IV, p. 62; vol. XX, p. 148.
 Ibid, vol.XX, p. 102
 Ibid, vol. XX, p. 107
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol. XX, p. 110
 Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p. 261; They were 17 in another narration; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XX, pp. 123, 124
Even he had accumulated logs to set fire to their houses. Nevertheless, Ibn Zubayr had not the audacity to do so in view of the fact that a majority of his followers had turned to him merely due to the Umayyads oppression and as a matter of fact they would rather be with a corrupt man than be with a more corrupt one and on no accounts would they allow him.
Time after time in his sermons, Ibn Zubayr cavilled Imām ‘Alī (a) and made Ibn Hanafiyya raise an objection. Consequently, verbal dispute flared up between them. It resulted in Ibn Hanafiyya’s expulsion which was followed by Ibn ‘Abbās’s protest. Seeking advantage by exploiting this dispute, ‘Abd al-Malik wrote to Ibn Hanafiyya inviting him to Damascus. Ibn ‘Abbās admiring Ibn Hanafiyya’s character requested ‘Abd al-Malik to make allowances for him. He accepted his demand, hence Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya betook himself to Damascus. Anyone who passed by him on the way talked about his uprising. His features had become proverbial. ‘Abd al-Malik who predicted his menace informed Ibn Hanafiyya while en route that he should swear allegiance to him if coming to Damascus. Declining his proposal, he switched his way to Mecca again and resided in Abū Tālib mountain-pass with a group of his Kūfiyān friends. The conflicts between him and Ibn Zubayr reignited and sparked off his expulsion to Tā’if. Meanwhile Ibn ‘Abbās was expelled from Mecca to Tā’if too; therefore, both began propagating against Ibn Zubayr together. It was where Ibn ‘Abbās passed away in 68 and Ibn Hanafiyya said prayer for him.
The final phases of Ibn Hanafiyya’s life remained vague. Some people known as followers of the Kissānīds claimed that he had been alive and living on Radwā mount. In accordance with Ibn A‘tham, he left Tā’if with 40 Shi‘ite Muslims to Radwā mount and disappeared without trace. His going to Radwā mount was mentioned by Ya‘qūbī as well. From Sayyid Himyarī’s poems, once a believer of the Kīssanids, a belief in Ibn Hanafiyya’s Mahdavitism and his disappearance from sight can be inferred.
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol. XX, p. 147; Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p. 86
 Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.XX, p. 128
 Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p. 262
 al-Futūh, vol.VI, p. 252
 al-Futūh, vol.VI, pp. 240-253
 Ibid, vol.VI, p. 253
 Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p. 262
Alluding to the Prophet’s hadith on Mahdavitism, “His name is like that of mine and his nickname also resembles that of mine”, he had composed,
نحلتمـاه والمهدي من بعدي
تضمنه بطيبة بطـن لحــد
بشعب بيـن أنمـار وأسد
يفوز بكنيتي واسمي لاني
يغيّب عنهم حتى يقولوا
سنين وأشهر برضوى
“He will be in a grace that I have bestowed him with my name and nickname. He will be the leader after me. He will disappear while people say he has gone to his last resting-place. For years and months he will be invisible in the valley among the lions and leopards and on Radwā mount.”
The lines below belong to Kuthayyir ‘Azza about Kissānīds tenets,
ولاة الحق أربعـة سـواء
هم الاسباط ليس بهم خفاء
وسبط غيّبتـه كربـلاء
يقود الخيل يقدمه اللـواء
برضوي عنده عسل وماء
ألا ان الائمة مـن قريش
علي والثلاثه مـن بنيـه
فسبط، سبط ايمـان وبر
وسبط لا يذوق الموت حتى
تغيب لا يري فيهم زمانـا
“Be informed that Imāms from Quraysh and the owners of rights are four, ‘Alī and his three sons. These are his sons not anyone else. A son of his was the example of faith and goodness while his another son was removed in Karbalā. The other one who has not yet tasted death in order to lead cavalrymen having a standard at the front is disappeared from view on Radwā mount with honey and water.”
Some considered Mukhtār as the founder of the Kīssanids which might have been named after one of Imām ‘Alī’s slaves called Kissānīds. Other reasons have been presented for its denomination in various books related to different sects and religions. No scientific research has ever been done yet, but some are of this belief that the Kīssanids have been wholly fabricated by narrators.
 al-Aghānī, vol.VII, p. 234, It is reported that later Sayyid Himyarī changed his beliefs and became Imām Sādiq’s disciple and composed,
تجعفرت باسم الله والله اكبر وأيقنت بالله يعفو ويغفر
“In the name of Allāh, the Great, I became Dja‘far’s follower while certain of Allāh’s forgiveness” Although some expressed doubt about his conversion from the Kīssānids, al-Aghānī, vol.VII, pp. 231, 235, 241-242
 al-Milal wa l-nihal, vol.I, pp. 133, 134; Sharh al-akhbār, vol.III. P. 297
 al-Milal wa l-nihal, vol.I, p. 131.
 Madhāhib Ibtada‘athā al-siyāsia fi l-tārīkh, ‘Abd al-wāhid al-Ansārī, published in Beirut 1973; Qāmūs al-ridjāl, p. 452
As a number believed that Ibn Hanafiyya had shared in foundation of such a sect, the ‘Abbāsids tried from the outset to secure power through ‘Alī’s succession, thus they declared a proportion for Ibn Hanafiyya. In order to justify their caliphate, they announced that the Prophet’s authority transferred to ‘Alī then to Imām Hasan and Husayn and entrusted to Ibn Hanafiyya by Imām Husayn (a). After being transferred to Ibn Hanafiyya’s son, Abū Hāshim, it was devolved to Muhammad Ibn ‘Alī Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abbās subsequent to Abū Hāshim’s death.
Connecting these two issues reveals that the Kīssanids sect had been beneficial to the ‘Abbāsids so that it could transfer the caliphate this way to their lineage. Later on, that way went disadvantageous to the ‘Abbāsids. Accordingly, they decided to legitimize their caliphate with recourse to ‘Abbās and proving his inheritance from the Prophet.
‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abbās, another distinguished member of the Hāshimites, was among Ibn Zubayr’s unyielding opponents in Mecca. Yazīd, when alive, had held him in high esteem for his opposition against Ibn Zubayr owing to the fact that he had imagined he could use this opportunity in favor of himself.
In response to his letter, touching upon Imām Husayn’s and ‘Abd al-Muttalib’s offspring’s murders, Ibn ‘Abbās reproved him as saying, لا أباًلك ! أنسيت قتلك الحسين وفتيان عبدالمطلب، مصابيح الدجي الذين غادرهم جنودك مصرعين في صعيد واحد مرملين بالدماء مسلوبين بالعراء غيرمكفنين … “O fatherless! Have I forgotten Husyan’s murder and ‘Abd al-Muttalib’s youths who were lights in darkness, those whom your troops left while shrouded in their blood and stripped off they had been fallen on the ground?”
And about his father he added,
Yazīd in his answer accused Ibn ‘Abbās of being an accomplice of ‘Uthmān’s assassins. In return, Ibn ‘Abbās said that the main culprit had been his father, Mu‘āwiya, because he had delayed his assistance until ‘Uthmān was dead.
Like Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya, in Ibn ‘Abbās’s opinion caliphate had been changed terribly from Prophethood and caliphate into monarchism. He
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.VII, pp. 149, 150
 al-Hayāt al-siyāsiyya li l-Imām al-Ridā, from p. 37 on
 Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol.II, pp. 248, 250; the letter is fully in al-Ma‘rifat wa l-tārīkh, by Fasawī, vol.I, pp. 531-533
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.IV, p. 18
 al-Futūh, vol.VI, p. 238
advised people to keep as far away from both Ibn Zubayr and the Umayyads as possible, for they both drive them toward Hell.
Quite compatible was the position adopted by Ibn ‘Abbās about the events in Mecca during Ibn Zubayr’s time with that of Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya. Ibn ‘Abbās mainly backed Ibn Hanafiyya and every now and then they both got into argument with Ibn Zubayr over diverse issues. One of their most considerable arguments was when Ibn Zubayr set Ibn ‘Abbās against the people abiding by caliph II in the issue of “temporary marriage ban” by accusing him on the pulpit of believing in “temporary marriage”. Ibn ‘Abbās stood up all at once and declared that his belief in temporary marriage was based on what the Holy Prophet had prescribed and if he (Ibn Zubayr) had doubted, he could have asked his mother.
Ibn ‘Abbās’s oposition culminated in his expulsion from Mecca. Banished to Tā’if, under no circumstances did he relinquish his struggle.
About Ibn Zubayr he told people, بقي أقوام يطلبون الدنيا بعمل الاخرة ويلبسون جلود الضأن تحتها قلوب الذئاب … ليظن الناس أنهم من الزاهدين “Those who are remained are seeking worldly life and are wolves in sheep’s clothing to pretend they are ascetic people.”
It caused Ibn Zubayr to write to him taking him to task. Notwithstanding, Ibn ‘Abbās, an eminent figure, never abstained from answering him reproachfully.
Ibn Hanafiyya said prayer for ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abbās who passed away in 68 in Tā’if and announced, اليوم مات رباني هذه الامة رحمه الله تعالي “Today a divine person from among this nation died. May Allāh bless him.”
Up to that time and even after a long while, there was no strife amongst the Hāshimites. As observed afterwards, conflict between the ‘Abbāsids and the Tālibites triggered off and developed so gradually that the Tālibites were deemed the ‘Abbāsids’ archenemies at Mansūr’s time and were under their heaviest pressure.
Whatsoever had been narrated regarding the Hāshimites after ‘Abd al-Malik’s sovereignty shows that he had adopted the policy of condescension and had written to Hadjdjādj to avoid streaming the blood of ‘Abd al-Muttalib’s descendants. Since Abū Sufyān’s family had lost their power this
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.V, p. 196
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha of Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol. XX, pp. 134, 148
 See al-Ziwādj al-muwaqqat fi l-islām "Al-Mut‘a", pp. 99, 103 by Kitāb Muslim, vol.IV, p. 133; Nasb al-rāya, vol.III, p. 180; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol. XX, p. 130
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XX, pp. 125, 126
way. In the meantime, until Zayd Ibn ‘Alī’s uprising in 122 there had been no openly political activity on the part of the Hāshimites except what had been said vaguely about the ‘Abbāssid’s.
 al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.V, p. 149