Introduction: imamophilism and the Hijaz

It is known that veneration for the so-called ‘Twelve Shiʿi Imams’ spread among Sunni Muslims in the middle and early modern Islamic lands. Many studies have discussed this ‘imamophilism’ among Sunnis using various terms, and there has been renewed interest in this phenomenon as a part of ‘confessional ambiguity’.Footnote ¹ However, the intellectual relationships between these imamophilic Sunnis, their political activities, and their understanding of confessional identities have been unclear. Considering these questions, the Hijaz is particularly important in the fact that not only has it produced several imamophilic Sunnis but Hijazi Sunnis also played major roles in the theoretical development of Sunni imamophilism. However, cases of imamophilic Sunnis who either hailed from or were active in this region have often been overlooked in Western studies. Although Iranian researchers and Kazuo Morimoto have focused on such Hijazi Sunnis, their significance in the history of imamophilism has remained insufficiently explored.Footnote ²

This study examines two faḍāʾil (virtues) works on the Shiʿi Imams—Naẓm Durar al-Simṭayn fī Faḍāʾil al-Muṣṭafā wa-al-Murtaḍā wa-al-Batūl wa-al-Sibṭayn (Stringing of the pearls of the two necklaces on the virtues of the chosen, the approved, the chaste, and the two grandsons) and Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl ilā Maʿrifat Faḍl Āl al-Rasūl wa-al-Batūl (Ladders of attainment to the knowledge of the merits of the family of the messenger and the chaste)—by the Medinese Sunni scholar Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Zarandī (fl. AH 747/1346 CE). Faḍāʾil works on the imams are a type of literary genre that usually consists of traditions and Qur’anic exegeses concerning the imams; those composed by Sunni authors may be said to reflect Sunni imamophilism most strongly. This study explores Shams al-Dīn al-Zarandī’s understanding of the relationship between his Sunni identity and the Twelve Imams, and discusses the political aspects of his faḍāʾil writing and its influence on later imamophilic Sunnis. Regarding his works and family, Rasūl Jaʿfariyān has published a Persian article that provides important information on his family background and offers an overview of his writings.Footnote ³ However, it does not discuss in detail the points that the present study seeks to clarify, namely al-Zarandī’s confessional identity, his relationship with other imamophilic Sunni scholars, or the influence of his thought.

Before turning to Shams al-Dīn al-Zarandī, it is useful to begin with a brief overview of imamophilic Sunnis from the Hijaz and of those who traced their origins to the region. Studies have occasionally considered imamophilism a phenomenon that resulted from the Mongol invasion and the subsequent fall of the Sunni Caliphate in Baghdad, the ʿAbbasids, in 1258. There is little doubt that imamophilism exerted a significant influence on faḍāʾil literature, chronicles, travel writing, Sufism, philosophical writing, and the occult sciences from the late thirteenth century onwards; however, the view that its initial emergence was tied to the fall of a single dynasty remains questionable. As Marshall Hodgson and Angelika Hartmann have discussed pro-imam policies of the ʿAbbasid Caliph al-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāḥ (r. 1180–1225), and as Muḥammad-Taqī Dānishpazhūh has identified Yaḥyā b. Salāma al-Ḥaṣkafī (d. 551/1156–1157 or 553/1158) as the first imamophilic Sunni scholar, Sunni imamophilism clearly dates back to the twelfth century.Footnote ⁴ Moreover, the fact that the three caliphs following al-Nāṣir also undertook the restoration, visitation, and donation of decorative objects at the imams’ shrines—an aspect that has hitherto been entirely overlooked—suggests that the ʿAbbasid Caliphate itself may have played a more significant role in the spread of Sunni imamophilism than the Mongol invasion.Footnote ⁵

The first example of imamophilism among Hijazi Sunnis is al-Muwaffaq b. Aḥmad al-Makkī (d. 568/1172), nicknamed Akhṭab Khwārazm (the best preacher of Khwārazm), who likewise belongs to the twelfth century. Although his nisba, al-Makkī, means that he or his ancestors were from Mecca or active there, little is known about his life, except for his fame in Khwārazm, which was ruled by the Khwarazmshahs at that time. His Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfa (Virtues of Abū Ḥanīfa) indicates his affiliation with the Ḥanafī school.Footnote ⁶ He also compiled al-Manāqib (The virtues) on ʿAlī and Maqtal al-Ḥusayn (Martyrdom of al-Ḥusayn) on the killing of the third imam al-Ḥusayn, with the latter including traditions that highlight the Twelve Imams as a respectable group.Footnote ⁷ Concerning the next example, Shams al-Dīn al-Zarandī, we will provide a detailed discussion later in this study. Dhakhāʾir al-ʿUqbā fī Manāqib Dhawī al-Qurbā (Treasures of posterity on the virtues of the close relatives [of the Prophet]), which was written by Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī (d. 694/1295), the famous Meccan Shāfiʿī scholar, is worth mentioning here.Footnote ⁸ Although Dhakhāʾir al-ʿUqbā does not particularly deal with the Twelve Imams but rather generally discusses the kin of the Prophet, this work reflects Hijazi Sunnis’ interest in the ʿAlids.Footnote ⁹

The third example of imamophilic Hijazi Sunnis is Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Asfāqisī al-Ghazzī al-Makkī, or Ibn al-Ṣabbāgh (d. 855/1451), a Meccan Mālikī scholar who compiled al-Fuṣūl al-Muhimma fī Maʿrifat al-Aʾimma (Important chapters on the knowledge of the imams), a faḍāʾil work on the Twelve Imams. As clarified by Manṣūr Dādāshnizhād, this work is heavily based on Kashf al-Ghumma fī Maʿrifat al-Aʾimma (Dispelling of grief in the knowledge of the imams) of ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā al-Irbilī (d. 692/1293 or 693/1293–1294), a Shiʿi scholar who cites both Sunni and Shiʿi traditions in the work, although Ibn al-Ṣabbāgh never mentioned his dependence on Kashf al-Ghumma.Footnote ¹⁰ As the fourth example, ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Samhūdī (d. 911/1506) was a Shāfiʿī scholar born in Upper Egypt to a scholarly family of Ḥasanid descent. After settling in Medina, he occupied teaching and administrative positions at madrasas, and numerous scholars studied under him. His work Jawāhir al-ʿIqdayn fī Faḍl al-Sharafayn (Jewels of the two necklaces on the merits of the two kinds of nobility) discusses the merits of the ʿulamāʾ and the lineage of the family of the Prophet, including the traditions and accounts of the ‘eleven’ imams, excluding the twelfth.Footnote ¹¹ These examples indicates that the Hijaz is a key region in understanding Sunni imamophilism.

Shams al-Dīn al-Zarandī and his family

According to Jaʿfariyān, the first famous figure of the Zarandī family was Shams al-Dīn’s father, ʿIzz al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Zarandī (656/1258–712/1312–1313), who was a Shāfiʿī scholar. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) wrote that ʿIzz al-Dīn was born in Zarand in the Ray region (ʿamal al-Ray).Footnote ¹² Baghdadi historian Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (d. 723/1323) explained that ʿIzz al-Dīn arrived in Baghdad and became a faqīh (jurist) at the Mustanṣiriyya madrasa. After visiting the Hijaz and living in Mecca and Medina, he continued to travel from the Hijaz to Baghdad, Syria, and Egypt. ʿIzz al-Dīn was taught by Yūsuf b. Isḥāq al-Ṭabarī (d. 687/1288–1289), a member of the Ṭabarī family of Mecca, and conferred ijāzas (certificate of transmission) on Ibn al-Fuwaṭī and his sons in Baghdad and on the Syrian historian al-Birzālī (d. 739/1339) in 703/1303–1304 and 710/1310–1311 at the Prophet’s Mosque of Medina. ʿIzz al-Dīn left with an Iraqi ḥajj caravan bound for Baghdad and died on the way.Footnote ¹³

ʿIzz al-Dīn’s eldest son, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, was born in Medina in 693/1293–1294.Footnote ¹⁴ He also travelled with his father to Baghdad, Syria, and Egypt and learned from scholars in each region through his father’s network.Footnote ¹⁵ Historical sources provide details on his relationship with famous scholars from his childhood. Ibn Farḥūn (d. 769/1367), a Medinese historian who was the same age as Shams al-Dīn, wrote that they grew up together like real brothers (kuntu maʿhu ka-l-akhawayn al-mutarāḍiʿayn).Footnote ¹⁶ Al-Birzālī, who studied under ʿIzz al-Dīn, prepared a mashyakha (list of teachers) for Shams al-Dīn, which included 100 shaykhs.Footnote ¹⁷ Ibn Rāfiʿ al-Sallāmī (d. 774/1372), another Mamlūk historian, also saw him in Medina and Damascus.Footnote ¹⁸ Unlike their father, Shams al-Dīn and his brothers were described in biographical dictionaries as Ḥanafī scholars.

Shams al-Dīn left Medina and arrived in Shiraz in 745/1345—probably his last travel. At that time, Shiraz was the capital of the Injuids, a local dynasty that ruled the Fars region after the disintegration of the Ilkhanids. In 747/1346, Shams al-Dīn finished writing Naẓm Durar al-Simṭayn, a fadāʾil work on ʿAlī, Fāṭima, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn, and dedicated it to Abū Isḥāq, the last Injuid ruler (r. 1343–1357). In Shiraz, Shams al-Dīn wrote three other works. As also stated by the introduction to the Naẓm, Shams al-Dīn compiled a 40-hadith collection of advice to the Muslim ruler, Bughyat al-Murtāḥ ilā Ṭalab al-Arbāḥ (Desire of the man at ease for the pursuit of profits), for Abū Isḥāq before the Naẓm.Footnote ¹⁹ In 747/1346, the same year the Naẓm was completed, Shams al-Dīn wrote a history of the Prophet and the caliphs titled al-Iʿlām bi-Sīrat al-Nabī (Informing about the life of the Prophet).Footnote ²⁰ He compiled a faḍāʾil work on the Twelve Imams titled Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl, which mentions the Naẓm, and both works are cited in the Iʿlām.Footnote ²¹ Therefore, Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl may have also been completed in 747/1346.

Shirazi people welcoming Shams al-Dīn can be found in Shadd al-Izār (Girding the waistcloth), a biographical dictionary of Shiraz completed around 791/1389, according to which Shams al-Dīn, whose fame had spread throughout various cities and regions, arrived in Shiraz and taught his above-mentioned four works to a large number of grandees and notables (al-akābir wa-al-aʿyān).Footnote ²² He also supported the Shirazi people’s ḥajj to the Hijaz, possibly through his scholarly connections there. Shams al-Dīn’s exact date of death is unclear; the year written in Shadd al-Izār is incomplete, and the first and second digits are blank, that is, ‘the year of 700 … (sanat … wa-sabʿimiʿatin)’. Ibn Farḥūn stated that Shams al-Dīn died in 747/1346–1347 or 748/1347–1348,Footnote ²³ but because he himself taught his works, which he wrote in 747/1346, to many local figures, we can question the notion that he died in the same year or just one year after these works were completed. On the one hand, Ibn Ḥajar wrote the death dates mentioned by Ibn Farḥūn, but on the other hand, he considered that Shams al-Dīn died in ‘750 and some’.Footnote ²⁴ Therefore, it is not surprising for him to have survived after 750/1349.

Shams al-Dīn’s son and student also travelled widely and sought the patronage of rulers. His son, Majd al-Dīn, travelled to India to request patronage from the local ruler.Footnote ²⁵ The most famous and successful student of Shams al-Dīn, Majd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Fīrūzābādī al-Shīrāzī (d. 817/1415), was born in Shiraz in 729/1328–1329 and also travelled to various regions such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the Hijaz, Anatolia, and India, coming into contact with Bāyazīd I of the Ottoman Dynasty (r. 1389–1403), Shāh Manṣūr of the Muẓaffarids (r. 1391–1393), Timur (r. 1370–1405) and Sulṭān Aḥmad of the Jalāyirids (r. 1382–1410). He spent the last two decades of his life in Yemen as a chief-qāḍī under the Rasūrid rulers and died there.Footnote ²⁶ In both cases of Majd al-Dīn b. Shams al-Dīn and al-Fīrūzābādī, the reputation of the Zarandī family may have helped them build relationships with known figures in each region.

The Naẓm and rivalry with the Ḥammūyī family

To understand why and how Shams al-Dīn wrote faḍāʾil works in Injuid Shiraz, we must focus first on the Naẓm, in which he expressed his intention to write faḍāʾil. Shams al-Dīn begins his preface to the Naẓm with an emphasis on his Medinese origins, calling himself the hadith expert of Medina (al-muḥaddith bil-ḥaram al-sharīf al-nabawī) and mentioning his arrival in Shiraz from Medina, his birthplace (al-Madīna … allatī hiya masqaṭ raʾsī wa-mīlādī), leaving his children, brothers, and friends. After the dedication of Bughyat al-Murtāḥ to Abū Isḥāq, Shams al-Dīn decided to write the Naẓm again for him to magnify his noble deeds and to receive his compassion (taḍāʿuf makārimihi wa-tarāduf marāhimihi).Footnote ²⁷ This emphasis on his connection with Medina, the city of the Prophet, not only projects an image of him as a scholar deeply rooted in the heartland of Islam but also implies that he had intimate knowledge of the family of the Prophet.

Remarkably, the Naẓm is not only a faḍāʾil work on ʿAlī, Fāṭima, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn, but also a criticism of Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥammūyī’s (d. 722/1322) Farāʾid al-Simṭayn (Pearls of the two necklaces), a Sunni faḍāʾil work on the Twelve Shiʿi Imams written in Iraq or Iran. Shams al-Dīn authored the Naẓm by imitating the style of Farāʾid al-Simṭayn, as he himself wrote, ‘[I]n this work [i.e., the Naẓm] I followed the way (salaktu maslak) of al-shaykh al-imām al-ʿālim al-muḥaddith Ṣadr al-Dīn Abī Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Muʾayyad al-Ḥammūy[ī]’. For instance, like Ṣadr al-Dīn, he divided the work into two parts—al-simṭ al-awwal and al-simṭ al-thānī—but because Farāʾid al-Simṭayn includes traditions that are unknown in reliable hadith books (fī-hā bi-aḥādīth ghayr mashhūra wa-lā-maʿrūfa fī kutub al-ḥadīth al-muʿtamada), Shams al-Dīn excluded them from the Naẓm.Footnote ²⁸

Shams al-Dīn did not mention why he selected Farāʾid al-Simṭayn as the basis of his work despite issues with its reliability. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī was a famous Sufi and Shāfiʿī scholar who was known as an attendee at Ghazan Khān’s (r. 1295–1304) historic conversion to Islam in 694/1295. He is also known as the son of Saʿd al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Ḥammūyī (d. 649/1252 or 650/1253), a great thirteenth-century Sufi. Like his father and ʿIzz al-Dīn and Shams al-Dīn al-Zarandī, Ṣadr al-Dīn spent the majority of his life travelling.Footnote ²⁹ He was born in Āmul in 644/1246–1247 and studied in Māzandarān and Khorasan regions before arriving in Baghdad around 671/1273. He visited the Hijaz at least twice in 679–680/1281 and 694/1295 and Syria once in 695/1295–1296, where he met famous historians such as al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348) and al-Birzālī.Footnote ³⁰ After finishing Farāʾid al-Simṭayn in 716/1316,Footnote ³¹ and according to al-Dhahabī, Ṣadr al-Dīn died in Iraq or Khorasan.Footnote ³²

Farāʾid al-Simṭayn consists of about 600 traditions concerning ʿAlī, Fāṭima, and the other 11 imams. Each tradition was recorded along with a detailed chain of transmission from the Companions of the Prophet to the author, and these chains interestingly indicate that Ṣadr al-Dīn never learned traditions directly from his father.Footnote ³³ Like Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī who, as Marijan Molé noted, regards 12 as the number of the walīs (‘friends of God’, more accurately understood as bearers and transmitters of Muḥammad’s esoteric knowledge) from the community of the Prophet Muḥammad,Footnote ³⁴ Ṣadr al-Dīn also considers the Twelve Imams holders of walāya (position of walī). In the introduction to Farāʾid al-Simṭayn, he states that the seed of walāya is made to sprout by ʿAlī, nurtured by the imams, strengthened by the other walīs of God (awliyāʾ Allāh), and the Mahdī (saviour) brings it to the market.Footnote ³⁵ His use of such Sufi terminology suggests the influence of his father; however, since no further concrete discussion is found in this introduction and the work takes the form of a hadith collection, it is difficult to make a straightforward comparison between their views of the Twelve Imams.

Ṣadr al-Dīn’s chains of transmission indicate that Shiʿi scholars, especially those from Ḥilla, directly transmitted 62 traditions, approximately 10 per cent, to Ṣadr al-Dīn.Footnote ³⁶ Therefore, the point at which Shams al-Dīn considered the undependability of the Farāʾid al-Simṭayn may include Ṣadr al-Dīn’s adoption of the traditions from Shiʿis. Al-Dhahabī also criticised his chains of transmission, saying, ‘the man was someone gathering firewood at night’ (kāna al-rajul ḥāṭib layl).Footnote ³⁷

Despite his criticism of Ṣadr al-Dīn, Shams al-Dīn’s method of selecting traditions in the Naẓm is neither clear nor strictly exclusive to Sunni ones. While most of these traditions, which Shiʿis solely and directly transmitted to the author in Farāʾid al-Simṭayn, have been deleted, Shams al-Dīn continued to cite a long tradition from Ṣadr al-Dīn that the latter learned from Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Fikhār al-Mūsawī (d. 684/1285–1286), a well-known Shiʿi scholar from Ḥilla.Footnote ³⁸ This tradition explains the words inscribed on the eight gates of heaven and seven gates of hell, which were related by Jibraʾīl after the Prophet Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (ascension into heaven). According to this tradition, the inscriptions on each gate of heaven begin with ‘There is no deity but God, Muḥammad is the Messenger of God and ʿAlī is the Friend of God (ʿAlī walī Allāh)’, and the inscription of the fourth gate of hell reads ‘may God humiliate the man who disdains the people of the house or the House of the Prophet of God (adhalla Allāh man ahāna ahl al-bayt, bayt nabī Allāh)’. The fact that Shams al-Dīn cited the same tradition in Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl suggests that he placed importance on this tradition, clarifying the special position of ʿAlī and his family as God’s will.Footnote ³⁹

In the introduction to the Naẓm, Shams al-Dīn cited al-Shāfiʿī’s poem praising the family of the Prophet.Footnote ⁴⁰ He also omitted the chains of transmission and limited his sources mentioned in the work to famous Sunni scholars such as the authors of al-Kutub al-Sitta (the canonised six hadith collections of Sunnism),Footnote ⁴¹ Abū al-Shaykh Ibn Ḥayyān (d. 369/979),Footnote ⁴² al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405/1015),Footnote ⁴³ Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 430/1038),Footnote ⁴⁴ and Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066).Footnote ⁴⁵ Abū al-Shaykh Ibn Ḥayyān was a traditionist and historian from Isfahan whom later Sunni scholars considered reliable, although his confession is not explicitly mentioned in the sources.Footnote ⁴⁶ Al-Ḥākim is known as the author of the Mustadrak, the supplement of the two Ṣaḥīḥs. Abū Nuʿaym wrote the biographical dictionary of mystics, Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ (Ornament of God’s friends), which includes accounts of some Shiʿi Imams, that is, ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and the fourth to the sixth imams.Footnote ⁴⁷ Concurrently, Abū Nuʿaym compiled two other works indicating his Sunni affiliation: a faḍāʾil work on the Companions of the Prophet and a work of refutation against Shiʿism.Footnote ⁴⁸ Al-Bayhaqī is known as a famous Shāfiʿī hadith expert and the author of Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī.Footnote ⁴⁹ Although Farāʾid al-Simṭayn contains al-Shāfiʿī’s other poems and the names of the other above-mentioned Sunni scholars are also found in the long transmission chains there, Shams al-Dīn sought to depict the reverence for ʿAlī’s family as more authorised by Sunnism by selectively mentioning these sources.

Shams al-Dīn also quoted traditions from his or his father’s contemporaries, including Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277), Abū al-Yumn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAsākir al-Dimashqī (d. 686/1287), Sharaf al-Dīn al-Dimyāṭī (d. 705/1306), and Tāj al-Dīn ʿUmar b. ʿAlī al-Lakhmī al-Fākihī (d. 731/1331).Footnote ⁵⁰ Al-Dimashqī was a renowned Syrian hadith expert who was active in Mecca and Medina,Footnote ⁵¹ while the others worked in Syria or Egypt and travelled to the Hijaz.Footnote ⁵² Although Shams al-Dīn’s relationship with them remains unclear, he may have received opportunities to transmit material from them or to study with them during his time in Medina or in the course of his travels elsewhere. These quotations also could impress Shams al-Dīn’s extensive knowledge and held wide-ranging connections with scholars of distant places.

In the Naẓm, Shams al-Dīn seems to emphasise the criticism of Ṣadr al-Dīn’s work rather than clarify how the former understood the imams. As a next step, we must examine why he deemed it necessary to criticise Ṣadr al-Dīn before the Injuid ruler. He may have employed such criticism to establish himself as a more reliable religious authority than a renowned predecessor in the field of his forte. In addition, the Naẓm may have also been compiled under the rivalry with the Ḥammūyī family. Ṣadr al-Dīn’s grandson, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Hibat Allāh al-Ḥammūyī (d. after 750/1349–1350), wrote Murād al-Murīdīn, which focused on a biography of Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī and the Ḥammūyī family. According to the copyist’s note on the first folio of the only surviving and imperfect manuscript copied in 833/1430, this work was completed in Kirman and dedicated to the Muẓaffarid ruler Mubāriz al-Dīn Muḥammad (r. 1314–1359).Footnote ⁵³ If we accept this note as true, as Dānishpazhūh discussed, the year of this dedication must be between 1341 and 1359, that is, from the year of Mubāriz al-Dīn’s conquest of Kirman to his death.Footnote ⁵⁴ Unfortunately, I could not find any additional information about the connection between Ghiyāth al-Dīn and the Muẓaffarids in other sources. Because the main text of Murād al-Murīdīn mentions 746/1346 as the latest date, which was when Ghiyāth al-Dīn was in Herat, the completion must have occurred after that year.Footnote ⁵⁵ Ghiyāth al-Dīn met Ṣadr al-Dīn Salmān al-Kirmānī, the ‘chief-qāḍī’ (qāḍī al-quḍāt), and Ẓahīr al-Dīn Ḥusayn al-Ṭālibī in Bardsīr of Kirman when he lived there.Footnote ⁵⁶ While the period during which Giyāth al-Dīn lived in Kirman and the identity of these two scholars are unclear from the book, this chief-qāḍī’s nisba, al-Kirmānī, implies that he may have been a local religious authority in Kirman. These accounts concretely prove Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s immigration to Kirman and his connection with known personalities there.Footnote ⁵⁷

During the 1340s, the Injuid ruler Abū Isḥāq attempted to recover Kirman from the hands of Mubāriz al-Dīn. After Kirman fell in 1341, Abū Isḥāq made unsuccessful expeditions against the city until 1352, and this failure caused Mubāriz al-Dīn to counterattack, culminating in the capture and execution of Abū Isḥāq in 1357.Footnote ⁵⁸ Shams al-Dīn al-Zarandī’s criticism of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī may have resulted not only from the rivalry between the two scholarly families but also from the military conflict between the Injuid and the Muẓaffarid dynasties. By pointing out a fault in Ṣadr al-Dīn, whose grandson was connected with the religious authorities in Kirman, Shams al-Dīn indicated his superiority to Ṣadr al-Dīn and implied the advantage of Abū Isḥāq of Shiraz over Mubāriz al-Dīn of Kirman.

Methods of citation in Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl

Whereas the Naẓm deals only with ʿAlī and his close family, Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl includes the traditions regarding the Twelve Imams. This does not simply mean that Shams al-Dīn just extended the former’s subject in the latter; he also attempted to develop his description of the imams from a Sunni perspective.

In the introduction to the work, Shams al-Dīn again highlighted his credentials as the hadith expert of Medina and explained that, at the request of a sayyid, he decided to write about the virtues of the righteous imams (faḍāʾil al-aʾimma al-abrār) who were well acquainted with esoteric knowledge (al-ʿārifīn bi-khafāyā al-ʿulūm wa-al-asrār).Footnote ⁵⁹ After confirming that God conferred their special natures and obligated believers to respect them, Shams al-Dīn cited the exact same poem of al-Shāfiʿī that is mentioned in the Naẓm.

Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl consists of the sections on the Twelve Imams, and each section begins by mentioning the number of the imam. At the end of the work, Shams al-Dīn uses the phrase ‘the Twelve Imams’ (al-Aʾimma al-Ithnā ʿAshar).Footnote ⁶⁰ Therefore, he agreed with the framework of the 12 and regarded them as a single respectable group. Notably, the section devoted to ʿAlī is comparatively short, with only 35 of the 189 pages in the text of the printed book.Footnote ⁶¹ Meanwhile, in the earlier Sunni faḍāʾil works on the Twelve Imams, such as Maṭālib al-Saʾūl (Seeker’s pursuits) of Ibn Ṭalḥa (d. 652/1254), Tadhkirat al-Khawāṣṣ (Reminder for the elite) of Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 654/1256), Kifāyat al-Ṭālib (Sufficiency of the seeker) of al-Kanjī (d. 658/1260), and Farāʾid al-Simṭayn of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī, more than half of the total number of pages discuss ʿAlī.Footnote ⁶² Such a well-balanced composition was intentionally planned by Shams al-Dīn. In the second half of ʿAlī’s section, he argued that he had already written part of ʿAlī’s virtues and biography in the Naẓm and disliked repeating them.Footnote ⁶³ This clearly shows that his goal in Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl was to focus on the other 11 imams.

The similarity between Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl and the Naẓm lies in how sources are used. Shams al-Dīn again selectively mentioned famous Sunni references by omitting their isnāds (chain of transmission), such as Abū al-Shaykh al-Ḥayyān, Abū Nuʿaym, and al-Bayhaqī.Footnote ⁶⁴ He also highlighted the agreement among all great scholars regarding the respect for the House of the Prophet, such as the eponyms of four Sunni schools of Islamic law: Abū Ḥanīfa, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Aḥmad (ibn Ḥanbal).Footnote ⁶⁵ These Sunni authorities could help impress readers by emphasising that the veneration of the Twelve Imams was harmonious with Sunnism itself.

Notably, Shams al-Dīn cites traditions from Sufi works. He cited words from Shawāhid al-Taṣawwuf (Evidence of Sufism) by Maʿmar b. Aḥmad al-Iṣfahānī (d. 418/1027), which viewed the fourth imam, ʿAlī Zayn al-ʿAbidīn, as the first figure after ʿAlī from the House of the Prophet from whom the vestige of Sufism emerged.Footnote ⁶⁶ ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī (d. 481/1089), the author of the Sufi biographical dictionary, argued that Maʿmar b. ʿAbd Allāh was a great Sufi and Ḥanbalī Sunni scholar.Footnote ⁶⁷ The sixth imam, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, was also described as being well acquainted with Sufism by citing Maʿmar b. Aḥmad, Abū Bakr al-Farghānī (d. after 320/932), Tārīkh al-Ṣūfiyya (History of the Sufism) by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Nasawī (d. 396/1005–1006), and Abū al-Nuʿaym, who included the biography of al-Farghānī in Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ.Footnote ⁶⁸ Al-Nasawī (or al-Nasāʾī) was a Sufi and Shāfiʿī scholar who was active in Egypt and the Hijaz.Footnote ⁶⁹ Therefore, these Sufi figures and sources can be regarded as Sunni or as being endorsed by Sunni authorities.

As he stated in the introduction to Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl, Shams al-Dīn viewed the imams as holders of esoteric knowledge, but little information is available about Shams al-Dīn’s knowledge of Sufism or mysticism.Footnote ⁷⁰ In any case, mysticism is not the main subject of Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl, and Shams al-Dīn might refer to it as one among many kinds of knowledge that the imams had rather than express a strong interest in it.

Maintaining distance from Shiʿi ideas: the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory

Compared with the sections on ʿAlī up to the eighth imam, ʿAlī al-Riḍā (d. 203/818), few sources are mentioned in the later sections, probably because Shams al-Dīn did not regard sources on the later imams as sufficiently authoritative. Instead, he sought to justify Sunni imamophilism by highlighting his rejection of Shiʿi opinions. In the section on the ninth imam, one opinion is presented that the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Muʿtaṣim (r. 833–842) poisoned the imam. However, Shams al-Dīn identifies this as a Shiʿi opinion and denied it because this imam was alive until Mutawakkil’s reign (r. 847–861).Footnote ⁷¹ At the end of Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl, Shams al-Dīn mentions two Shiʿi works—al-Irshād (The guidance) of al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) and Kashf al-Ghumma of al-Irbilī—and writes that he did not read them despite attempting to find them.Footnote ⁷² However, because he cited one tradition from the latter, he can be said to have at least partly read it.Footnote ⁷³ Nevertheless, he emphasised that his veneration of the imams was not the same as that of the Shiʿis.

The most emphatic rejection of Shiʿi theory pertains to the mahdīship of the twelfth imam, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, which is one of the most important doctrines of Twelver Shiʿism. This doctrine states that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan entered a state of occultation (ghayba) and continues to live an extraordinarily long life extending until his return as the Mahdī at the end of time. Shams al-Dīn also wrote that the eleventh imam, al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, had three sons and three daughters, one of whom was ‘al-imām al-qāʾim Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-mahdī’.Footnote ⁷⁴ Because the word al-qāʾim (riser/the one who will arise) is also a nickname of the Mahdī, especially among Shiʿis,Footnote ⁷⁵ this statement is consistent with the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory. However, in his subsequent discussion of the twelfth imam, Shams al-Dīn himself considered this matter doubtful.

At the beginning of the section on Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, Shams al-Dīn described him as the one who united all the qualities of the Prophet and the other eleven imams:

After offering such praise for Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, he suddenly discussed his existence, expressing favourable attitude towards the notion that al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī might not have had a son at all. First, Shams al-Dīn introduced Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s occultation as a Shiʿi theory, arguing that he was, according to the Shiʿa, born in Sāmarrā in 255/869 and started occultation in 296/908–909 at age 41. However, Shams al-Dīn suggested that it was impossible for someone to live until that age without being noticed by others.Footnote ⁷⁷

Shams al-Dīn went on to state that most people (kathīr min al-nās) did not believe that al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī had a son because his brother, Jaʿfar b. ʿAlī, nicknamed ‘the liar’ (al-kadhdhāb) by Twelver Shiʿis, demanded inheritance of al-ʿAskarī’s property. Shams al-Dīn asserted that if al-ʿAskarī had a son, as maintained by Twelver Shiʿis, and if the occultation of this son began in 296/908–909, Jaʿfar al-Kadhdhāb could not have expressed such a demand. Even if Shiʿis argued that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan began occultation as a child before his father’s death, this idea is also invalid because, in Shiʿi imamate theory, a man cannot become an imam without proclaiming before the Muslim community and demonstrating miracles as proof of his trustworthiness (daʿwā amāma al-Umma wa-iẓhār al-muʿjizāt al-khāriqa li-al-ʿādāt al-dālla ʿalā ṣidqihi). Because Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan did not perform either, this means he was not the last imam.Footnote ⁷⁸ Nevertheless, such understanding of Twelver Shiʿism is inaccurate, and Shams al-Dīn ignored the designation (naṣṣ) theory of Twelver Shiʿis. Overall, Shams al-Dīn’s doubt over Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s existence and imamate does not seem consistent with his praise for him as the twelfth imam in the text just prior to this.

Consequently, doubt surrounding Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s existence and occultation led his mahdīship to be questioned. Shams al-Dīn explained that Twelver Shiʿis believed his return as the Mahdī from occultation based on the tradition that the Mahdī would be a man from the descendants of the Prophet, whose name is that of the Prophet and whose father’s name is also that of the father of the Prophet, ʿAbd Allāh, and that he would be alive until the end of time. Shams al-Dīn then wrote:

With respect to the Mahdī, Shams al-Dīn distinguished the opinions of Shiʿis from those of the majority (al-jumhūr), which in this context refers to Sunnis. In other words, Shams al-Dīn indicated that identifying Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan as the Mahdī was a question of demarcating between Sunnis and Shiʿis in imamophilism. Then, by quoting the traditions associated with the Prophet and ʿAlī, Shams al-Dīn highlighted the inconsistency between the features of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan and the descriptions of the Mahdī in those traditions:

Finally, Shams al-Dīn also denied Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s extraordinary longevity and emphasised again that only Shiʿis supported the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory, saying:

This suspicion regarding Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s existence and occultation as well as the denial of his longevity and return as the Mahdī are quite similar to the opinions of Sunni scholars against imamophilism, such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), even though they also reject the special authorities of the other Shiʿi imams.Footnote ⁸² Even if Shams al-Dīn doubted several aspects of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, from the fact that he described Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan as an imam and the eleventh imam’s son and agreed with the framework of the Twelve Imams, it is appropriate to think that he simply considered Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan as the last imam who was not the Mahdī and who died with neither occultation nor extraordinary longevity.

While Shams al-Dīn was interested in the Mahdī, he did not discuss other Shiʿi theories concerning the imams, such as their infallibility (ʿiṣma). Although the extent of his understanding of Shiʿism is uncertain, he plausibly regarded the rejection of the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory as a valuable means of theorising imamophilism inside a Sunnism frame. Considering that Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl was written as an extension of the Naẓm, this attempt was to differentiate it not only from Shiʿi ideas but also from the imamophilism presented by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī, who accepted the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory based on the Shiʿi traditions enumerating the names of the Twelve Imams, describing al-ʿAskarī’s son as the Mahdī and predicting his occultation.Footnote ⁸³ Shams al-Dīn considered Ṣadr al-Dīn’s understanding of the last imam too inclined towards Shiʿi doctrine and a deviation from correct Sunni belief.

Contextualising Shams al-Dīn: Sunni identity, methodology, and the Hijaz

How should Shams al-Dīn’s veneration of the Twelve Imams be positioned in the history of Sunni imamophilism? Shams al-Dīn was notably not the first imamophilic Sunni scholar who did not accept the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory while praising the other Shiʿi imams. About 150 years before the compilation of the Naẓm and Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl, the Ḥanbalī scholar ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Maḥmūd al-Junābadhī (d. 611/1215) wrote Maʿālim al-ʿItra al-Nabawiyya wa-Maʿārif Ahl al-Bayt al-Fāṭimiyya (Guideposts of the Prophetic family and the knowledge of the Fāṭimid Ahl al-Bayt), a faḍāʾil work on the eleven imams, excluding Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. The text of this lost work partly survived in Kashf al-Ghumma and indicates that al-Junābadhī stopped writing at the end of the section on al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī. Al-Junābadhī appears to reject Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s imamate or existence itself, without explaining his reasons.Footnote ⁸⁴ Therefore, it is appropriate to consider Shams al-Dīn as the first figure who theorised how to distinguish Sunni imamophilism from Shiʿism through the rejection of the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory.

Shams al-Dīn’s methodology—that is, selectively mentioning Sunni sources and rejecting certain Shiʿi theories—indicates the diversity of Sunni imamophilism or, more concretely, of ways to express Sunni identities in imamophilism. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī, for example, did not hesitate to use the traditions transmitted from Shiʿis if he considered them suitable and reliable. At the same time, in the introduction to Farāʾid al-Simṭayn, he showed his respect for all the Companions of the Prophet and caliphs, which can be regarded as an expression of his Sunni identity.Footnote ⁸⁵ Meanwhile, Shams al-Dīn’s avoidance of Shiʿi materials and clear rejection of certain Shiʿi theories play important roles in the Sunni justification for imamophilism. His work on the history of caliphs, the Iʿlām, might be the next step to this justification—an attempt to harmonise imamophilism with the history of Sunni Islamic sovereigns.

To put Shams al-Dīn’s Sunnitisation of imamophilism in the broader context, we should compare it to the case of Ibn Ṭalḥa, the thirteenth-century imamophilic Sunni scholar who also discussed several theories concerning the imams while remaining mindful of Shiʿi beliefs. His discussion of the Ghadīr Khumm tradition is another example of his rejection of certain Shiʿi theories, although he did not criticise Shiʿism by name. Regarding the famous phrase in this tradition, ‘For whomever I am his mawlā, ʿAlī is his mawlā’ (man kuntu mawlāhu, fa-ʿAlī mawlāhu), Ibn Ṭalḥa interpreted the meaning of mawlā as ‘supporter’ (al-nāṣir), unlike the Shiʿis’ adopted interpretation of ‘master to be obeyed’ (al-sayyid al-muṭāʿ) or the imam, establishing this tradition as the strongest proof of ʿAlī’s direct successorship to the Prophet Muḥammad and the unjustness of the first three caliphs. Through the ʿsupporter’ interpretation, Ibn Ṭalḥa could avoid harming their legitimacy.Footnote ⁸⁶

Concurrently, although Ibn Ṭalḥa agreed with the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory, his justification was completely different from the Shiʿi view. Twelver Shiʿis usually believe the traditions that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan was designated as the last imam and the Mahdī by God, the Prophet, and the other previous imams. In the case of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūyī, who accepted the reliability of such traditions, he simply cited them without providing any supplementary explanation. However, Ibn Ṭalḥa concurred with the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory not by relying on Shiʿi traditions but rather by evaluating the criteria for identifying a specific figure with the Mahdī. In short, Ibn Ṭalḥa maintained distance from Shiʿism through a ‘de-Shiʿitised affirmance’ for the theory, not by the denial of it.Footnote ⁸⁷ Although Shams al-Dīn and Ibn Ṭalḥa arrived at opposite conclusions, both attempted to harmonise their respect for the Twelve Imams with their Sunni identities in their own way.

After Shams al-Dīn’s death, his works on the imams written in Shiraz circulated around the region and returned to the Hijaz just like his student al-Fīrūzābādī arrived at Mecca and Medina after travelling around West Asia. Later imamophilic Sunnis, especially Hijazi Sunnis, regardless of whether their views on the Twelve Imams coincided with those of Shams al-Dīn, regarded his Naẓm and Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl as important Sunni faḍāʾil works by their predecessor. One of the most avid readers of Shams al-Dīn’s works was Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Ījī (fl. 820/1417–1418), the Shāfiʿī scholar and the author of Tawḍīḥ al-Dalāʾil ʿalā Tarjīḥ al-Faḍāʾil (Elucidation of the proofs for the superiority of the virtues), a faḍāʾil work on the Qur’an and the ʿAlids. While little is known about him, his family was influential in Shiraz, Īj of Shabānkāra, and the Hijaz, and he was in Nayrīz, a small city near Īj, in 820/1417–1418.Footnote ⁸⁸ Shihāb al-Dīn’s citation from Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī’s Dhakhāʾir al-ʿUqbā and Jalāl al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Khujandī (d. 802/1400)—‘the shaykh of Medina’ (shaykh al-ḥaram al-sharīf al-nabawī)—implies his connection with the Hijaz.Footnote ⁸⁹ As well as Dhakhāʾir al-ʿUqbā, the Naẓm is one of Shihāb al-Dīn’s main sources; he quotes it approximately 90 times.Footnote ⁹⁰ However, because Tawḍīḥ al-Dalāʾil predominantly focuses on ʿAlī, Shihāb al-Dīn does not opine on the later imams and the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory.Footnote ⁹¹

As I mentioned, Ibn al-Ṣabbāgh compiled al-Fuṣūl al-Muhimma using Kashf al-Ghumma as a main source. Therefore, this work inevitably includes traditions written in various Shiʿi works,Footnote ⁹² and also agrees with the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory. Although his method of writing faḍāʾil was completely different from that of Shams al-Dīn, he quoted al-Shāfiʿī’s poem that praises the House of the Prophet from the Naẓm at the beginning of the introduction to al-Fuṣūl al-Muhimma.Footnote ⁹³ In this introduction, Ibn al-Ṣabbāgh also mentioned the names of notable Sunni scholars such as al-Nasāʾī (d. 303/915), Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī, Abū ʿAlī Ibn al-Ḥaddād (d. 515/1122), al-Dhahabī, and Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1370) to highlight the Sunni authorisation for the veneration of the ʿAlids and the Twelve Imams.Footnote ⁹⁴ Thus, the Naẓm passage indicates that this work was regarded as one of the more famous and reliable Sunni sources for Ibn al-Ṣabbāgh himself and his Hijazi audience.

Al-Samhūdī’s view of the imams was much more influenced by Shams al-Dīn. The Naẓm and Maʿārij al-Wuṣūl were his main sources in the second and more important part of Jawāhir al-ʿIqdayn, in which he discusses the virtue (faḍl) of the House of the Prophet.Footnote ⁹⁵ Al-Samhūdī was heavily sceptical about Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s position. He called the eleven imams up to al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī ‘the Imams of the House of the Prophet’ (aʾimmat ahl al-bayt al-nabawī) and gathered traditions concerning their honourable deeds and sayings.Footnote ⁹⁶ This clear exclusion of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan was due to al-Samhūdī’s rejection of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s imamate. By citing Shams al-Dīn’s views on the Mahdī, al-Samhūdī also mentioned the possibility that al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī had no son, the difference between the name of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan’s father and that of the Prophet, and the unreasonableness of his imamate at just five years old.Footnote ⁹⁷ As opposed to Shams al-Dīn, who did not remove Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan from the category of the imams, al-Samhūdī held a much more severe attitude towards Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.

Rejection of the Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan-Mahdī theory persisted among imamophilic Sunnis in the sixteenth-century Ottoman empire. As discussed by Vefa Erginbaş, the Ottoman Sunni scholars Lāmiʿī Çelebi (d. 938/1532) and Muṣṭafā Cenābī (fl. late sixteenth century) also expressed their veneration of the Twelve Imams while denying the mahdīship of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.Footnote ⁹⁸ Despite being unclear as to whether Shams al-Dīn’s views directly affected these Ottoman Sunnis, it is crucial to recognise that he established an influential approach to reconcile Sunni identity with imamophilism by highlighting distinctions from Shiʿi ideas.