Исмаил ибн Жафар: Алтыншы шиит имамы

Sixth of the Isma'ili Shia Imams

Isma'il ibn Ja'far ( إسْماعِيل ٱبْن جَعْفَر ٱلْمُبَارَك) was the eldest son of Ja'far al Sadiq and the sixth Imam in Isma'ilism. He carried the epithet of al Mubarak, on the basis of which one of the earliest Isma'ili groups became designated as the Mubarakiyya. It seems likely that the Mubarakiyya, were originally supporters of Isma'il before acknowledging Muhammad ibn Isma'il as their Imam. At any rate, Mubarakiyya was thus one of the original names of the nascent Isma'iliyya, a term coined by later heresiographers. A faction of the Mubarakiyya later developed into the Fatimid Isma'ilis, upholding the continuity of the Imamate in the progeny of al Mubarak, acknowledging al Mubarak himself as their sixth Imam. This enumeration was subsequently retained by the various branches of the Isma'ili. A major crisis arose among the Shia after the death of Ja’far al Sadiq, who had five sons. Abd Allah al Aftah and Isma'il al Mubarak were the eldest sons by his first wife Fatima, a granddaughter of Hasan Ibn Ali. Al Mubarak was probably the second son of al Sadiq. The exact date and circumstances of al Mubarak's death also remain obscure. According to some Isma'ili authors, al Mubarak survived al Sadiq. Some sources, mainly Twelver texts, report that al Mubarak died during the lifetime of al Sadiq—but those same sources also report that al Mubarak was seen several days later in Basra, suggesting that he did not really die but was sent away out of Medina.

Isma'il ibn Ja'far ibn Muhammad al Mubarak's birth date is unknown, but apparently he was the second son of Ja'far al Sadiq, born between 80 and 83/699–702. His mother, Fatima bint al Husayn al Athram ibn al Hasan ibn Ali, was the first wife of al Sadiq. Her mother was Asma, daughter of Aqil ibn Abi Talib. The Sunni theologian Muhammad al Shahrastani writes in his Kitāb al Milal wa al Niḥal that during the lifetime of Fatima, al Sadiq never got another marriage like Muhammad with Khadija and Ali with Fatima. Al Mubarak was the full brother of Abd Allah al Aftah, the Imam of the Fathiyya (or Aftahiyya). The early life of al Mubarak is obscure except few fragmented records. He was alive in 133/751, when Dawud ibn Ali, the governor of Medina, executed Mu'alla ibn Khunays probably because of his agency on behalf of al Sadiq and his involvement in some revolutionary activities of Muhammad al Nafs al Zakiyya, al Sadiq, as soon as he heard the news of the execution of Mu'alla, went to the governor with his son al Mubarak and called him to account for this murder. The governor Dawud put the blame on his chief of shurta (the chief of his police force), al Sayrafi. According to the Twelver al Kashshi , al Sadiq directed al Mubarak to kill al Sayrafi, which he did. In Idris's report, al Sadiq then handed him over to al Mu'alla's associates and they killed him. Riyah ibn Uthman al Murri, the Abbasid governor in Medina burnt the house of Ahl al Bayt, and al Mubarak was decided to be killed. Ahmad ibn Ali al Najashi writes in his Kitāb al Rijāl, that al Mubarak was involved in a militant anti Abbasid plot in collaboration with several others, which included Bassam ibn Abdullah Sayrafi, a radical Shia engaged in money lending in Kufa. Bassam was brought out dead; Isma'il was spared probably due to his father's status. Muhammad Hasan al Muzaffar quotes al Sadiq as saying that, "Isma'il was planned two times for killing, but I prayed for his life, and God protected him." This association is one of several reported by the Twelver sources which caused al Sadiq to express his dissatisfaction with those radical Shias who were leading his son astray.

According to the majority of the available sources, al Sadiq had indeed designated al Mubarak by nass (divine decree) as his successor in Imamate. This fact was accepted as the formal act of nass required by Shia theory and was therefore a designation by an infallible Imam of the new Imam who would inherit the full powers of the Imamate. Al Mubarak was thus not only al Sadiq's choice but was God's choice as well. This designation, in fact, forms the basis of Isma'ili claims and which should have settled the question of al Sadiq's succession in due course. According to the Isma'ili tradition, when al Mubarak was seven years of age, al Sadiq declared his Imamate. He was separated from his other brothers and kept away from contact with the public. Al Sadiq himself undertook his education. As da'i Idris observes, this declaration was made secretly on the basis of taqiya. Only certain selected followers of al Sadiq knew this fact. Apparently, though, al Sadiq did not appoint another in place of al Mubarak and the theoretical argument by which he might have done so is, generally speaking, missing; although the later Twelver Shias claimed such a nass for Musa ibn Ja'far al Kazim, the younger half brother of al Mubarak, producing several hadiths to this effect. Twelver writers like al Nawbakhti (d. 922) admitted as much even a hundred years after the fact. After the death of al Sadiq a great confusion arose amongst his sons as each of his surviving sons claimed the Imamate but could not produce sufficient credentials, and so their followers melted away in a short period expect for two candidates: al Mubarak and al Kazim. Al Mubarak was some twenty five years older than his half brother al Kazim, who was born in 128/745–46 to a Berber slave girl. Various historians relate that "all" of the sons of al Sadiq contended for the position. In Kalām i Pīr, an Isma'ili work wrongly attributed to Nasir Khusraw , there is an account of this contest, which was again carried for decision to the Black Stone at Mecca, as had been done by Zayn al Abidin and Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyya. This time the decision was in favour of al Mubarak, after which al Kazim swears allegiance to him. Various reasons are given as an explanation for altering the nass al Sadiq had given to al Mubarak. That most frequently used by historians, mostly Sunni and Twelver, is that al Mubarak had been drinking, to which the Isma'ili could reply, that the Imam being infallible would know a truth concerning drinking beyond the zahir command to abstain from it. More likely, It deserves to note that some bombastic stories of al Mubarak's indulgence in drink and his alleged association with the extremists have been condemned by many historians. Mufaddal ibn Umar al Sayrafi however relates that al Sadiq, in view of his son's piety had already warned the people in Medina that, "Do not wrong Isma'il" (la tajafu Isma'ila). With regard to the Twelver Shia claims that al Mubarak had pre deceased al Sadiq, the Isma'ilis believe that al Sadiq observed taqiya (dissimulation) and gave a chance to his real successor to go underground so that their enemy, the Abbasids, did not pursue al Mubarak, and that his Imamate and his activities went un noticed. Thus al Kazim who was believed to be poisoned by the Abbasid Caliph Harun was in fact a veil (hijab) for al Mubarak. The Sunni historian Rashid al Din Hamadani wrote that some Isma'ilis believed that al Kazim willingly gave his life for the sake of his elder brother al Mubarak, the true Imam. The Isma'ilis further argued that the Imam being ma'sum (infallible) could not make an error of Judgement and therefore the first nass (designation) of al Sadiq was the correct one. Thus, this group accepted al Mubarak as their Imam and are known as Isma'iliyya or Isma'ilis.

Al Mubarak evidently had contacts with the activist Shias in his father's following, including al Mufaddal ibn Umar al Ju'fi. According to the historian al Maqrizi (d. 1442), al Mufaddal regarded al Sadiq as God, so the Imam repudiated him and publicly cursed him. Al Mubarak, who was reportedly involved in certain anti Abbasid plots, may also have collaborated with Abu al Khattab al Asadi, another activist Shia originally in the entourage of al Sadiq. Abu al Khattab had been active in the Shia group with al Sadiq, but the latter had to repudiate him openly, because of his extremist theological view, which he had endeavoured to enforce by militant means, though Abu al Khattab supposedly maintained that the repudiation was part of al Sadiq's technique at preserving his true nature. The Asrār also states that al Sadiq had to forbid al Mubarak to go to the school which Abu al Khattab had been conducting. Louis Massignon (d. 1962) has suggested that Abu al Khattab was the spiritual or adoptive father of al Mubarak, hence his kunya of Abu Isma'il. In this connection, he formulated a general hypothesis, contending that since the beginning of the second Islamic century, the expression anta minna Ahl al Bayt ('you are from the Prophet's family') purportedly used by Muhammad in reference to Salman the Persian, and as reported in a hadith, had acquired a ritual value indicating 'spiritual adoption' amongst the revolutionary Shias, for whom real family ties were established through spiritual parentage, adoption or initiation. Possible collaboration between al Mubarak and Abu al Khattab remains shrouded in obscurity, despite the fact that the Twelver sources, generally hostile to the Isma'ilis, identify the nascent Isma'ili with the early Khattabiyya; the later Isma'ilis regarded Abu al Khattab as a heretic and repudiated the Khattabiyya.

The Twelver Shia believe that al Sadiq revoked his first nass in favour of al Mubarak with radical Shias and made a second nass in favour of his son al Kazim. This newly contrived theory took its early nourishment among the people who lacked the concept of the Imamate. The Twelver scholar Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina confirms the problems inherent in the doctrine of bada: "It implied God's change of mind (bada) because of a new consideration, caused by the death of Isma'il. However, such connotations in the doctrine of bada (change of mind) raised serious questions about the nature of God's knowledge, and indirectly, about the ability of the Imams to prophesy future occurrences." Al Sadiq is also reported to have said: "Inlillah fi kullo shain bida illah Imamah" means, "Verily, God makes changes in everything except in the matter of Imam." This point merits further indication al Sadiq had no power to cancel, revoke or alter the first nass in favour of al Mubarak, and therefore, the tradition of change of nass carries no historicity. Al Nawbakhti writes in Kitāb Firaq al Shīʿa that, "Yet another version is that by appointing his son, Isma'il, as an Imam, al Sadiq thus resigned. Isma'il was therefore a real Imam, and after him, the Imamate has to pass to his son, Muhammad." Al Shahrastani writes in Kitāb al Milal wa al Niḥal that, "Designation (nass), however, cannot be withdrawn, and has the advantage that the Imamate remains in the descendants of the person designated, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, the Imam after Isma'il is Muhammad ibn Isma'il."

The Mubarakiyya claimed that, when al Mubarak was alive, he appointed his son Muhammad as his heir and sent his da'is to different regions to administer the oath in his name. Another proto Isma'ili group which is recorded by the sources deemed that al Sadiq, not al Mubarak, designated Muhammad ibn Isma'il as the seventh Imam, and he was the last Imam and the Mahdi who remained alive and would return as the Qa'im. This group is said to have formed the nucleus of the Qaramita sect which regarded Muhammad as their seventh and last Imam. Ja'far ibn Mansur al Yaman writes in Asrār al Nuṭaqāʾ that, "Both we and you admit the tradition that when Isma'il was about to die, he summoned his son and his followers, and handed over the Imamate to him, in their presence, under the supervision of his father [al Sadiq]. He entrusted the testimony concerning the position of his son to one of his ḥujjats [i. e. da'is], as did his forefather Ishmael (Isma'il) with regard to the person surnamed al Kabsh [], appointed before him. He made him the "veil" for his heir, to distract towards him the attention of the tyrants of the time. And al Sadiq presided over the assembly, as Jacob (Ya'qub) presided over the assembly of Joseph (Yusuf) when the latter was on his deathbed." The Mubarakiyya held that the right of the Imamate must pass from al Mubarak, the father, to Muhammad, the son, because the Imamate could not be transferred from brother to brother after the case of Imams al Hasan and al Husayn, the sons of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib: it can only go to [the Imam's] progeny. This was why they rejected the claims of al Kazim and other brothers of al Mubarak, as they did that of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyya, who, according to them, had falsely claimed the Imamate in rivalry with Ali ibn al Husayn Zayn al Abidin. At any rate, it is clear that the Mubarakiyya had come into existence in Isma'il's lifetime and they were originally his supporters. It may safely be assumed that Mubarakiyya was one of the original name of the nascent Isma'ilism, as well as the regional identifications of the followers of al Mubarak, who, on the whole, merged into the main fold of Isma'ilism in the time of Muhammad ibn Isma'il. Al Nawbakhti, who is best informed about this period, says that the group which supported Muhammad was called the Mubarakiyya after al Mubarak who was a client, or mawla, of Isma'il. Ivanov has shown that al Mubarak was the epithet of Isma'il himself, on the basis of some passages from the famous Isma'ili da'i of the 4th/10th century, Abu Ya'qub al Sijistani, as well as other sources.

The exact date and the circumstances of al Mubarak's death also remain unknown. According to the Isma'ili tradition, al Mubarak died in 158/775, and was buried at the Maqam al Imam in Salamiyah, a city located in Syria. However, non Isma'ili sources report that he died in Medina, and was buried in the Baqi cemetery there. The historians quote the tradition that al Mubarak had died during his father's lifetime, but the followers of al Mubarak refused to believe the rumours of his death. Al Shahrastani writes in Kitāb al Milal wa al Niḥal that, "Some of them [followers of Isma'il] say that he did not die, but that his father had declared that he had died to save him from the Abbasid caliphs; and that he had held a funeral assembly to which al Mansur's governor in Medina was made a witness." Hasan ibn Nuh al Bharuchi , an Indian Isma'ili author, relates visiting al Mubarak's grave in 904/1498. His grave was still there in 1302/1885, but it was later destroyed, along with other graves in the Baqi, by the Wahhabis. Many Isma'ili and non Isma'ili sources state that during al Mubarak's funeral procession al Sadiq attempted to show the face of his dead son to witnesses. Some of the same sources also indicate that al Mubarak was seen soon afterward in Basra, where he cured a paralytic in the market. Another group claimed that he did not die but went into occultation, that he would appear again and would be the promised Mahdi. These Imami Shias further believed that al Sadiq had announced al Mubarak's death merely as a ruse to protect him from the persecution of the Abbasids who were angered by his political activities. The Twelver heresiographers al Nawbakhti and al Qummi call the members of this group, who recognised al Mubarak as their Imam Mahdi, al Isma'iliyya al khalisa , while some later heresiographers such as al Shahrastani designate this group as "al Isma'iliyya al waqifa" which refers to those who stopped their line of Imams with al Mubarak. The Twelver theologian Muhammad al Mufid (d. 1022) records that in his time they were extremely rare and there was no knowledge of anyone from them who could be pointed out.

Besides Muhammad, al Mubarak had a son called Ali, who was born in 130/748 and a daughter, Fatima.