In the many schools of thought that defined Imami Shiʿism throughout its history of development and transformation, the question of the Imama represented a doctrinally solid distinction that, in addition to other legal points and social arrangements, placed the Imami community apart from other groups. But the Imama debate is primarily a response to historical circumstances, with theology being used to justify, interpret and filter recorded accounts.

The interaction between historical narrative and religious dicta has long been noted by scholars of Islamic history. Whether one decides to read early reports as unverifiable products of the sectarian milieu or as containing a kernel of historical fact, these reports seem to have become a matter of consensus by the time they were included in the classical works of Islamic historiography. Disagreement was more about certain elements within them or about their interpretation; for a parabolic reading of the material proved useful for both Shiʿi and Sunni narratives. Therefore, it can be said that these classical works are similar in their formal and teleological framework: they are both ‘sectarian’ and ‘non-sectarian’ inasmuch as readers are willing to exploit their latent potential to promote a particular agenda. This complexity underlies the assumption that ‘multiple orthodoxies’ are represented in Islamic historiography.

The intense historical component in the Imama theological debate reflects the above observation. Nevertheless, it also allows us to consider the various theological structures, superimposed on the body of acceptable reports, as a prism that analyses the historiographical material into as many colours as the theologian needs in order to present his narrative. This chapter and the following one, therefore, do not seek to add a ‘dome’ of historical thought besides others (ḥadīth, adab, ḥikma and siyāsa); rather, they attempt to demonstrate how the handling of material originating from various domes can prove a much more efficient strategy in the hands of theologians who are unwilling to break with the supernarratives set down in the plethora of acceptable reports.