The Ascent and the Political Stance of Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya after Karbala

Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya, the third son of ‘Alī b. Abī ？ālib, is a name that appears in the chaotic period between the event of Karbala and the demise of ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Zubayr. While there seems to be a general agreement on the character of Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya, there are contradicting views on his role during this period of history. Al-Mukhtār al-Thaqafī, who also emerged as a leader during this period, is known to have appropriated the name of Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya to call the Kufans to arms, identifying Ibn al-？anafiyya as the Mahdi; in fact, al-Mukhtār was probably the first in history to utilize this label with such a connotation. The accounts given about Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya seem to suggest both that he supported this movement, at least in a very subtle way, and censured it to the degree of condemning it. This inconsistency of his political stance arising from different narrations has caused many historians to judge him with little sympathy and understanding. From what can be gathered from the scant information we have on him prior to the above mentioned period, his political views and practical stance can be described as passive resistance, where a person stands his ground without actually resorting to violence, especially against fellow Muslims. He appears to have promoted that the pledge given to a caliph should not be broken without serious cause and he seems to have believed that opposing views are of value only as long as they are nonviolent and reasonably within the generally accepted set of beliefs. It has therefore baffled the historians as to why and how his name was used by al-Mukhtār during his rebellious movement and that it continued to be glorified among later ultra-heterodox factions. This article attempts to understand why Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya rose to the forefront in this period, it seeks to clarify his political stance, and to determine the consistency of his relationship with the movement of al-Mukhtār, within the context of a range of accounts that could be interpreted quite differently. Through evaluation of these historical accounts and partially looking into the narrators and the names that are seen in these accounts, the article comes to the conclusion that a reasonable and consistent explanation of his behavior could be ascertained for this historical period. It is important to note that Mu？ammad b. al-？anafiyya became only highly visible as a figure with his political stance at this specific period of his life, after Karbala, at a time when not just the ‘Alīds, but most of Banū Hāshim were traumatized.