The Twelver and Nuṣayrī sects are usually studied as separate phenomena, but for a moment in the 4th/10th century, they were mutual participants within a commonwealth of groups coming to terms with the absence of a visible Imam after the death of al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī in 260/874. In the first half of the 4th/10th century, the Nuṣayrīs were literally ‘twelvers’ in the sense that they acknowledged the Twelve Imams. The Twelver leaders, the Safīrs, wakīls, bābs or nuwwāb, were in the process of consolidating their authority as spokesmen for the Hidden Twelfth Imam, and as such they needed to gather a wide base of support to establish a new legitimacy for their crisis-ridden community. While the purely intellectual conception of bāb-hood has been studied, this paper investigates the practical political implications of spiritual authority among Twelvers and Nuṣayrīs. I argue that rather than being mutually exclusive intellectual traditions, the office of Safīr was developed in practical dialogue with various conceptions of spiritual authority current within the Shīʿī community of the time, including the Nuṣayrī bāb, and others. Published in 2007, the latest edition of the Nuṣayrī author Khaṣībī’s al-Hidāya al-kubrā includes a chapter that was missing from the 1986 edition, and it adds greatly to our understanding of this moment of cross-over between the Twelvers and Nuṣayrīs. This chapter demonstrates that Nuṣayrīs acknowledged the same Imams, and also the four safīrs as intermediaries for the hidden Imam. The Hidāya’s depiction of the wakīls, however, is careful to mark a distinction between them and the Nuṣayrī bābs as a different kind of authority, pertaining to the collection of tithes. When we examine Twelver sources like Ibn Bābūya’s Ikmāl al-dīn, we see, however, that the collection of tithes was becoming increasingly problematic. Ultimately, neither the Twelver nor the Nuṣayrī office of bāb survived. In particular, the Twelver scholar Nuʿmānī declared the ‘second Occultation’ of the 12th Imam thereby permanently rejecting any further claims of bāb-hood. While this rejection of the powerful intermediaries of the 12th Imam has been linked to the emergence of Būyid power and patronage onto the political stage, I will show that there are clear internal reasons for the rejection of bāb-hood, due to the problems of a series of divisive challenges to the Safīrs’ power, including from Khaṣībī himself, as well as ongoing scholarly disapproval of centralizing efforts that stem for the era of the manifest Imams.

This paper takes as its starting point the Kitāb ithbāt al-waṣiyya lil-imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib attributed to al-Masʿūdī. This attribution was deemed improbable by Charles Pellat and this view seems since to have held consensus. What I intend here is not primarily to revise Pellat’s verdict, rather to dwell on an intriguing aspect of tenth century Imāmism which this text and its attribution throws into relief. This is a certain dichotomy amongst prominent Imāmī authors in 10th century Baghdad and its Buwayhid environs. On the one hand, several of the era’s great polymaths, hailing from Buwayhid society’s effervescent intellectual scene, seem to have been Imāmīs, with al-Masʿūdī as well as al-Miskawayh and Ibn al-Nadīm being prominent examples. On the other hand, the writings which are usually considered to hold the reins of a distinct Imāmī identity at this time are those of muḥaddithūn such as Ibn Bābawayh and al-Kulaynī, whose work is considered by and large as representing a naïve, traditionalist Imāmism prior to its rapprochement with Muʿtazilī kalām and the ḥadīth criticism of the emerging Sunnī madhāhib. A picture thus emerges of an Imāmī thought which seems paradoxically to lag behind the erudition of some of its more intellectually prominent adherents. This state of affairs meanwhile draws attention to potential fault-lines in the academic study of this period; seldom do litterateurs like Masʿūdī feature prominently in studies of Shīʿī thought at this time, nor does views of Buwayhid ‘humanism’ long consider the Imāmī beliefs of many of its most noteworthy exemplars. At the root of this apparent dichotomy is the fact that different Imāmīs of this period were producing very different kinds of literature. In this regard the Kitāb ithbāt al-waṣiyya represents a tantalizing opportunity; here we have a text attributed to a great adīb which participates in the traditionalist discourse of the muḥaddithūn. If it is genuine it thus represents an arguably unique example of an author writing at both ends of the spectrum. What I shall therefore be asking is whether these different types of composition merely represent different choices of genre (be they determined by circumstantial factors or personal whim) or whether they enact real contradictions between competing systems of knowledge. In asking in these terms whether the book could have been written by Masʿūdī, I hope that this fascinating text may shed light on relations between knowledge production and sectarian identity in this period.

Following the capture of Baghdad by the Buyids in 945 CE, key (and contentious) public rituals such as ‘Ashuraʾ and Ghadīr Khumm, alongside equally important doctrinal Shīʿī thought represented by works such as the al-Kutub al-Arbaʾ – still recognized as the essential works of hadith in Shīʿī seminaries today – emerged to contribute to lasting Imami beliefs and practices. While this period of doctrinal solidification for Imami Shīʿī identity coincided with Buyid political strength, the question remains as to what kind of relationship existed between the Daylamī political authorities, who themselves hailed from Shīʿī backgrounds, and the emerging Twelver community, with a special focus on the city of Baghdad. Did the Buyids encourage Twelver sectarian identity? How did the Twelvers affect the political legitimacy of the Buyids? Methodologically, I hope to apply social network analysis to various factions in Baghdad and compare policies of the Buyids not only in regards to the Imami community but also to other Shīʿī groups, namely the Ismailis. In particular, I hope to explore whether the Ismaili and Twelver communities shared organizational strategies and if they adapted to the central political authorities in similar fashions. This can be explored through the Twelver wikāla network which collected tithes on behalf of the hidden imam during the minor ghayba, and through Fatimid Dawa’ structures. How did these two social structures interact with one another and the central authorities? While the minor ghayba officially ended four years before the Buyids entered Baghdad, the Twelver community may have still retained certain aspects of its organizational structure and preserved the transnational relations which solidified the wikāla network. Sources which will provide details on the politics and players involved will include Ibn Isfandiyār’s Tārikh-i Ṭabaristān, Ibn Miskawayh’s Tajarab al-Umam, Marʿashi’s Tārikh-i Ṭabaristān va Rūyān va Māzandarān; in addition to al-Shaykh al-Mufīd’s Kitāb al-Irshād, and al-Nuʿmanī’s al-Ghayba – the latter sources will provide more details on the Shīʿī community.

The Buyid era was decisive for the dramatic changes taking place in the central lands of Islam with the Imami community in Baghdad among the foremost to be strongly affected. Before the arrival of the Buyids, the Imamate departed into the realm of prophecy, leaving the Imami S̲h̲ias in Baghdad without legitimate political and religious authorities. Within decades, the Abbasids, persecutors of the Imamis, were shadows of their former selves and new Shia powers such as the Buyids heralded the so-called Shia century. In the past, Imamis in Baghdad dissimulated in order to avoid confrontation with their hostile enemies. However, in this new S̲h̲ia period, they practiced their faith openly and more opportunities became available for state ascendancy. In this new order, a political and social class came into prominence known as Ṭālibid Syndics. The members of this group were descendants of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib. The Buyids and Abbasids appointed these individuals as overseers of the Ṭālibid descendants. Also, these Ṭālibid Syndics served as principal representatives of the Imami community in the aftermath of post occultation. Although a few notable scholars have examined the role of Ṭālibid Syndics in the Buyid period, the subject has not been thoroughly explored due to very few sources and the obscurity of the Tālibid Syndic’s office in comparison to more significant political and social groups. However, the Syndics’ importance in research of these eras comes from their roles as deputies of a community grappling with profound shifts in the status quo. Exploring the lives and actions of Ṭālibid Syndics can bring a greater level of understanding on the transition of the Imami community throughout this formative era. The paper argues that the syndics were a new form of a leadership in the Shia community in Baghdad during this transformative era. The social and political positions they occupied allowed them ability to protect their community and the study will investigate this in detail. In this paper, I will be using chroniclers such as the 12th century Baghdadi chronicler Ibn al-Jawzī and the 13th century Syrian chronicler Ibn al-Athīr, the works of some of the Ṭālibid Syndics such as Al-Sharīf al-Murtadhā’s treatise on working with government and Ṭālibid genealogical works such Umdat al-Talib by the 14th century Ṭālibid genealogist Ibn ʿInaba.