A Shocking Decision
Sometime in 816 CE – year 200 in the Hijri calendar of Islam
– the seventh Abbasid Caliph al-Mamun made a very strange decision. If
near-contemporary historical narratives are to be believed, he offered his throne – and
thus power over lands from India to Morocco – to the leader of his fiercest
opponents, the
Shi’a. It was a breathtakingly audacious decision – so audacious that it
failed almost immediately. The eighth infallible Imam of the Shi’a, ‘Ali bin Musa al-Rida,
was not interested. Al-Mamun had to
recalibrate, and he did so by nominating Ali al-Rida as his successor. The Imam
demurred again, but this time the Caliph was adamant: The Imam must accept or
he and his family would suffer. Imam Ali al-Rida’s family was no stranger to
suffering. Almost all of his ancestors – direct descendants to the Prophet
himself – had been persecuted, many martyred or
imprisoned. His own father, the seventh Imam Musa al-Kadhim, had
perished as a prisoner of al-Mamun’s father, the famous Harun al-Rashid of A
Thousand and One Nights. Whatever the reasons, Ali al-Rida acquiesced, and on
the 27th day of Ramadan in 201 AH (April 18, 817 CE), he was
proclaimed “wali ‘ahd al-muslimin” – the designated successor to the 31-year
old al-Mamun. Coins
were soon minted asserting this new designation – the standard way of
declaring authority – and the traditional black flags of the Abbasids were
replaced by the green flags of the Shi’a Imams. A little more than a year
later, the Imam was dead. Al-Mamun would rule for another fifteen years.
The Historical Preamble
This strange chapter in Muslim history – so central to the
Shi’a and so little known among the non-Shi’a Muslims – began long before the
events of 201 and 202 AH. It could be said to have begun when, after the death
of the Prophet of Islam in 632, some Muslims disputed the succession, asserting
that the new title of “amir al-mu’minin” –
Commander of the Faithful – should go to the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi-Talib.
Twenty-four years later, it did, but by then the rift had festered, and upon
Ali’s death in 661 CE, resulted in Islam’s most fundamental sectarian split,
with the supporters of Ali’s cause – the Shi’a, or partisans, of Ali – and the
rest, termed Sunni, heading into centuries of hot-and-cold conflict.
Or perhaps one could say that it all began in 743 CE, when
the death of the powerful ruler Hisham bin Abdul
Malik threw the ruling Umayyad dynasty of
Islam into utter disarray. It was not a situation conducive to ruling an empire
that stretched from the Guadalquivir in Spain to the borderlands of India. As
Caliphs came and went quickly in Damascus, rebellions broke out all over, but
nowhere more dangerously than in the northeastern part of the empire in what is
now called Central Asia. This region had a long and storied history of revolts
and insurrections going back centuries, and had been a hotbed
of esoteric faiths – some militant, others peaceful – for millennia. It is
said that Zoroaster
himself was from this region. Now it became the center of a Shi’a rebellion
against their hated enemies, the Umayyads. Not one but several such rebellions
broke out in Central Asia as well as Persia, which already had a significant
Shi’a presence. The obvious leaders for these rebellions were the direct
descendants of Ali b. Abi Talib, but they were not the ones who succeeded.
Instead, a clan descended form al-‘Abbas, an
uncle of the Prophet, took up – some would say hijacked – the Shi’a cause,
using an almost certainly fabricated story of a grandson of Ali having, on his
deathbed, secretly designated the Abbasid clan as his successors. The Abbasids
were able to harness not only Shi’a discontent but also the simmering
frustrations of the non-Arab populations of Persia and Central Asia, who
resented Arab domination of their ancient cultures. Led by the Abbasid clan and
fueled by a charismatic figure, Abu Muslim of Khurasan, the
so-called Abbasid
Revolution had slowly been gathering force in the Khurasan province of
Central Asia for several decades. Now, in a matter of three years from 747 to
750, flying the black
flag of the Khurasanis, its armies routed the Umayyads across the whole
empire except Spain, and took over the rule of the great Muslim empire, thus
ending the third civil war – the Third Fitnah – of early
Islam. Ever vigilant and supremely ruthless, one of the first things the new
rulers did was to destroy the power of Abu Muslim and the Shi’a. The former was
executed in 755 and his army that had led the Abbasid Revolt disbanded. And so,
once again, the Shi’a fell into their familiar cycle of persecution and
rebellion, this time with their erstwhile champions as the antagonists.
Though Harun al-Rashid has the romance of the Arabian
Nights, it is the reign of his son, Abdullah al-Mamun that is
generally regarded as the peak of the great Islamicate
civilization. But al-Mamun did not come to it easily. Succession generally
being a hazardous matter in empires, the Abbasid Caliphs often
designated two successors to follow them in a specific order – trying to
ensure that the second successor would bide his time instead of fighting
immediately for power. Harun al-Rashid was extra-careful: He
designated three successors from among his sons. Under the influence of his
favorite wife, Zubaydah
– an Arab – he chose Muhammad
al-Amin has his first successor and al-Mamun – six months older than
al-Amin but born of a Persian mother – second. The third designee, al-Rashid’s
son al-Qasim, given the title al-Mu’tamin, never made it to caliph and has
disappeared from history. As was the custom, each of the successors was given
part of the empire to govern. Crucially, al-Mamun was given the governorship of
Central Asia, the cradle of the Abbasid Revolution, and many before it. It did
not disappoint.
In 808 CE, a revolt broke out in
Central Asia and Harun al-Rashid himself found it necessary to travel there
to quell the revolt, with al-Mamun accompanying him. But, upon reaching the
area around Tus in modern
northeastern Iran, he fell ill and died on 24 March, 809. He was buried in the
small village of Sanabad, which was to play an important role in the history of
al-Mamun’s audacious move.
The Choice
Crucially, the rebels Harun al-Rashid had gone to quell did
surrender – to al-Mamun. Meanwhile, al-Amin, who had remained in Baghdad, took
power as designated by his father. Almost immediately, he sought to change the
succession by removing his brothers from it and adding in his sons, who were
still children. Predictably, al-Mamun revolted, initiating the Fourth Fitna of Islam.
The empire remained divided until his largely Khurasani forces took Baghdad
again in 813 and al-Amin was
summarily executed. Al-Mamun became Caliph at that point but, perhaps wary
of Arab power in Baghdad, chose to rule from the ancient city of Merv in
Khurasan – the origin of his ancestors’ revolution. Thus, it was to Merv that, in early 816 CE, he summoned Imam
Ali al-Rida. The decision to offer him the throne had probably been made in
815, and there must have been some understanding for the Imam, who lived in Madinah in modern Saudi Arabia,
to travel two thousand miles to Merv. He arrived sometime in late 816, and was
proclaimed the successor to al-Mamun in March 817.
By this time, it was becoming untenable for al-Mamun to rule
from afar. His designated governor in Baghdad had been overthrown and a
rebellious faction of troops had taken control. In the spring of 818, the
Caliph set off for Baghdad. A character who played a central role in all these
affairs was the Grand Vizier, al-Fadl bin Sahl. So
much did al-Mamun trust him that he had been made head of the civil
administration and commander of the army. He has thus gone down in history with
his title, Dhul-Riyasatayn – the holder of two commands. There is some
indication that he influenced
al-Mamun’s decision to appoint Ali al-Rida, though the evidence is far from
clear. What is clear is that he died in mysterious circumstances in the town of
Sarakhs while accompanying
al-Mamun on his march to Baghdad. Son of a Zoroastrian convert, he had become
quite unpopular among the established elite in Baghdad, and rumors were
fomented about al-Fadl conspiring to bring the Shi’a to power or to
re-establish Zoroastrian rule in Persia and Central Asia. Some have speculated that he
was killed by al-Mamun because of this unpopularity, and possibly because the
appointment of Ali al-Rida had, by then, become a liability for al-Mamun and he
blamed al-Fadl. Whatever the truth of that, it is significant that a few months
later, when the Caliph’s entourage was resting near Sanabad – the burial place
of Harun al-Rashid – Imam Ali b. Musa al-Rida also fell ill and died. In one of
history’s great ironies, he was buried in the same tomb as Harun al-Rashid, his
father’s nemesis. Today, that village has grown into Iran’s second largest
city, Mashhad – the place of martyrdom – a central pilgrimage site for the
Shi’a faithful who believe firmly that the eighth Imam was poisoned by the man
who had just appointed him his successor. Thus closed one of the most
remarkable chapters in Muslim history.
A Piece of History
Apart from reports in (often unreliable) contemporary
history texts, the only concrete testament to this episode are the coins
al-Mamun minted declaring Ali al-Rida as his successor. Today, these coins are
quite hard to find. Fortunately, I was able to add one to my collection last
month. For an 1,100-year old object, it has survived very well – perhaps buried
in a horde by a careful saver or given as payment to a Viking trader.
Most of the text on the coin is fairly standard for Abbasid
coinage, but some parts are interesting:
On the obverse, below the standard shahadah “There is
no god but Allah, unique, He has no associate”, we see the word al-mashriq
– “the East”. This refers to the fact that, when the coin was issued, al-Mamun
was ruling from the eastern province of Khurasan.
Also on the obverse, the inner margin says: bism allah
duriba hadha’l-dirham bi-muhammadiyya sana ithnatayn wa mi‘atayn, “in the
name of God this dirham was struck in Muhammadiyyah (in) the year two and two
hundred”. The 202 AH year corresponds to the announcement of Imam al-Rida’s
nomination. Al-Muhammadiya was the name the Abbasids gave to the ancient city of Rayy
near modern Teheran in Iran. The name referred to the third Abbasid Caliph,
Muhammad al-Mahdi, who was al-Mamun’s grandfather. The outer margins on both
sides quote verse 33 from the 9th chapter of the Qur’an, al-Tawbah,
which states: muhammad rasul allah arsalahu bi’l-huda wa din al-haqq
li-yuzhirahu ‘ala al-din kullihi wa law kariha al-mushrikun, “Muhammad is the messenger of God who sent him
with guidance and the religion of truth that he might make it supreme over all
other religions, even though the polytheists may detest it” (the obverse only
has a part of this). This famous line was first added to the Islamic coinage by
the Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik
when he reformed
Islamic coinage in 696 CE – possibly as a jab to the Christian Byzantines. At
the bottom of the field on the reverse, we see the word dhu’l-riyasatayn,
“holder of two commands”, referring to al-Mamun’s powerful prime minister,
al-Fadl bin Sahl.
But the key inscription is in the center of the reverse
field, reading: lillah / muhammad rasul allah / al-ma’mun khalifat allah /
mimma amara bihi al-amir al-rida / wali ‘ahd al-muslimin ‘ali ibn musa / ibn
‘ali ibn abi talib, “for God, Muhammad is the messenger of God, al-Ma’mun
is the Caliph of Allah, among the things ordered by the Prince al-Rida,
Recipient of the Oath of the Muslims ‘Ali ibn Musa ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib”.
Several things are notable here. First, al-Mamun is named on the coin as the
“Caliph (deputy) of Allah”, which was not the universal practice – most early
Abbasid coins are anonymous. Perhaps, using the name was thought to lend more
significance to the statement. Second, Imam al-Rida is cited both by his title
(al-Rida) and name, but referred to as “the Prince” (al-amir), not as the Imam.
Third, the lineage of Imam al-Rida is specified by naming his father, Imam Musa
al-Kadhim, and then ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib, the first Imam. The clear implication
is that Imam al-Rida had the right to rule because he was the direct descendant
of ‘Ali – a nod to the Shi’a.
Explanations and Speculations
Why did al-Mamun go through this cruel farce? There are many
theories, all of which are plausible. Not surprisingly, there is a gulf between
Shi’a and Sunni opinion on this, though the vast majority of ordinary Sunni
Muslims today are unaware of the event. The mainstream Shi’a belief is that
Imam al-Rida was killed on al-Mamun’s orders, and that the entire gambit was a
political move by the Caliph to break the Shi’a resistance to Abbasid tyranny. Within
this general framework, there are several different views. The first – and the simplest
- is that al-Mamun drew the Imam to his side so he could be assassinated at an
opportune time. The fact that he died in Sanabad and was buried in Harun
al-Rashid’s tomb would seem to support the idea of a planned assassination.
Another view is that al-Mamun wanted to get the Imam out of his power-base in Madinah
and curtail his ability to organize his followers into any sort of movement
that could trouble the Caliph. A related idea is that, by co-opting Imam
al-Rida into the Abbasid political structure, al-Mamun was trying to undermine
his legitimacy among Shi’a true believers. There is a report that al-Mamun tried
to humiliate the Imam by staging a debate between him and his doctrinal adversaries
(including non-Muslims), but the attempt failed because of the Imam’s brilliant
arguments. This increased al-Mamun’s fear that the Imam could still become the
center of a revolt, and he decided that assassination was the only way out. A
lot of detailed
stories – apocryphal or otherwise – have become attached to
these events within Shi’a
sacred history.
Most mainstream Sunni historians such as Ibn Kathir and Ibn
al-Jawzi have dismissed the entire assassination theory, and have seen al-Mamun’s
move as a well-meaning – though still self-serving – attempt to bring together
the Shi’a and Sunni factions, thereby solving the perpetual problem of Shi’a revolts.
Historians from al-Tabari
and Ibn Kathir through Ibn Khaldun to Madelung and Crone have investigated
this unique event in Muslim history. One interesting and quite plausible
narrative that one can construct from the various sources (including Shi’a ones)
revolves around the Prime Minister, al-Fadl bin Sahl. It has been argued
convincingly that al-Fadl was deeply involved in the scheme to nominate Imam
al-Rida. Indeed, it may have been his idea all along. There is much debate about
his motives: Some see it as a move to strengthen al-Mamun’s position by
nullifying the Shi’a opposition; others – especially at the time – saw it as a
conspiracy by a crypto-Shi’a al-Fadl to hand over the empire to the Shi’a, or
even as a way to reinstate Zoroastrian rule, since al-Fadl was a convert from
that faith. Whatever the truth of the matter, we know two things. First, the
appointment of Imam al-Rida as the Caliph’s successor was received very poorly
by the powerful Arab elite in Baghdad, who saw it as a big loss of their power.
They rebelled and overthrew al-Mamun’s governor, al-Hasan bin Sahl, who
happened to be the Prime Minister’s brother, and replaced him with an Abbasid
figure. For al-Mamun a thousand miles away in Merv, this was a calamity, and it
precipitated his return to Baghdad. Second, we know that al-Fadl suddenly decided
to retire from his prime ministership to, as might be said today, “spend more
time with his family”. Of course, this did not come to pass because he died
during the march back to Baghdad, quite possibly assassinated on al-Mamun’s
orders. It is quite plausible that this fall from grace – and from life – was because
al-Mamun blamed al-Fadl for his new troubles. This same problem made it
impossible for him to show up in Baghdad with Imam al-Rida – hence the need for
a second assassination. An excellent and detailed analysis of the historical
sources and narratives surrounding all these events is provided by Buyukkara, though
his conclusion is that al-Mamun acted with benign intentions.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the remarkable story of
the Caliph and the Imam remains one of the strangest, most mysterious, and most
tragic events in the long and complicated history of Islam. Twelve centuries
have passed since these events transpired, but for millions of Shi’a around the
world, they are refreshed in memory as thousands upon thousands of the faithful
make pilgrimage to the sacred city of Mashhad to pay their respects to the Imam
who was briefly designated for secular monarchy.
Today – 11 Dhul-Qa’da in the Islamic calendar, is his
birthday.
