However we kept our composure until Allah fulfilled our...

However we kept our composure until Allah fulfilled our prayer by taking away his soul. Concerning his case, we had informed a few of our close associates (mawali) during his time and ordered them to reveal it to the intimates among our adherents. . .

There is no excuse for any of our followers to doubt the statements of our confidantes (thuqatuna), because we reveal these statements to them." [^11] This document shows clearly that Ibn Hilal had died, but that in spite of the Imam's strong criticism of him, the second Saf’ir could not completely eliminate the danger he had stirred up for his office.

Al-Kashshi reports that a group of people remained firm in their loyalty towards Ibn Hilal and doubted the authenticity of the above pronouncement[^12]. In fact the loyalty of this body to Ibn Hilal was mainly based not upon his inward spiritual faith, but upon his external and personal mystic acts. According to the Imamite doctrine, the worship of Allah is invalid without the recognition of and obedience to the Imams[^13].

Hence the mystic acts of Ibn Hilal were invalid, because he refused to recognise the second Saf’ir , who had been installed by the Imam himself.

According to al‑Tusi, the influence of Ibn Hilal continued until the time of the third safar, Ibn Ruh, who circulated another Tawqi' on the authority of the Imam against Ibn Hilal[^14]: "Although there are those among the Imamites who do not understand how such a great and pious man could have been excommunicated, what is piety if it please Allah to transform good deeds into sins?

Al‑Dihqan [^15] was also a pious man in the service of the Imam, yet Allah eventually changed his faith into impiety because of his arrogance. This also happened to Ibn Hilal" [^16] In fact it is hard to attribute this Tawqi'to the time of the third Saf’ir , Ibn Ruh 305‑326/917‑937), because during that time there is no trace of the influence of Ibn Hilal's claim upon the Imamites.

It is most likely that Ibn Ruh circulated this pronouncement against Ibn Hilal on the order of the second Saf’ir while he was still working as an agent beneath him, expecially if one bears in mind that Ibn Hilal died in 267/880, a long time before Ibn Ruh held the sifara. It would appear that Ibn Hilal's challenge had vanished before the death of the second Saf’ir in 305/917. B) al‑Bilali According to al‑Tusi, a second opponent to Abu Ja’far's claim to the sifara was Abu Tahir Muhammad b. ‘Ali b.

Bilal, who was commonly called al‑Bilali[^17].