The Most Prominent Zaidi Sects

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The Most Prominent Zaidi Sects

 

1. The Jarudiyyah

Named after Abu al Jarud Ziyad ibn al Mundhir al Kufi al Hamadhani, or al Thaqafi, or al Nahdi. Weaker reports suggest: Ziyad ibn Munqidh al ‘Abdi or Ziyad ibn Abi Ziyad.

Ibn al Nadim described him saying:

 

من علماء الزيدية أبو الجارود ويكنى أبا النجم زياد بن منذر العبدي يقال إن جعفر بن محمد بن علي عليهم السلام سئل عنه فقال ما فعل أبو الجارود أرجأ بعد ما أولى أما إنه لا يموت إلا بها ثم قال عن أبي الجارود لعنه الله فإنه أعمى القلب أعمى البصر وقال فيه محمد بن سنان أبو الجارود لم يمت حتى شرب المسكر وتولى الكافرين

Among the scholars of the Zaidis, Abu al Jarud, who is also called Abu al Najm Ziyad ibn Mundhir al ‘Abdi.

It is said that Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali rahimahumu Llah was asked about him, and he said, “What happened to Abu al Jarud? He procrastinated after having been supportive; indeed, he will not die except by it.”

Then he said about Abu al Jarud, “May Allah curse him, for he is blind in heart, blind in sight.”

Muhammad ibn Sinan said about him, “Abu al Jarud did not die until he drank intoxicants and supported the disbelievers.”[1]

 

He died in the year 150 AH, or 160 AH in a weaker report.

Despite this astonishing confusion about his name, his agnomen, his title, his lineage, and also the date of his death, Imam al Baqir Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah called him: Sarhub, which he explained means a blind devil that lives in the sea. Abu al Jarud had companions and followers, among whom were Fadl al Rumman and Abu Khalid al Wasiti.

The Jarudiyyah claimed that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam indicated ‘Ali through description and gesture without naming and specifying him and he was the Imam after him. The people fell short because they did not recognise the description. They did not ask for the described one, but rather they appointed Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu by their choice, thereby disbelieving.[2] This led Sheikh al Mufid to classify the Jarudiyyah among the extremist Shia, aligning them with the Imamiyyah.[3]

Imam Yahya ibn Hamzah (d. 749 AH) described them as ‘specifically distinguished among the Zaidi factions for faulting and deeming the Companions as corrupt’. Some among them were reported to have declared some Companions as disbelievers; and Allah is sufficient against them in what they claim and believe and He is watching over them. This statement is not attributed to any of the prominent Ahlul Bayt, their scholars, or their Imams. Overall, this matter is clear and without doubt, we disassociate ourselves before Allah from this statement and our responsibility is only to present the argument and explain the reasoning. Whoever is guided, it is for himself. And that is what is expected of us. There is a saying of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

 

إذا ظهرت البدع ولم يظهر العالم علمه فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين ولا يقبل الله له صرفا ولا عدلا

When innovations appear and a scholar does not reveal his knowledge, the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people will be upon him. Moreover, Allah will not accept any obligatory or optional acts from him.[4]

 

He concludes by saying:

 

واعلم أنه ليس أحد من فرق الزيدية أطول لسانا ولا أكثر تصريحا بالسوء في حق الصحابة من هذه الفرقة

And know that no group among the Zaidis speaks more disparagingly and more explicitly ill of the Companions than this sect.[5]

 

Al Damaghani mentioned that this statement contradicts the statement of Zaid ibn ‘Ali; however, he alone realised this,  stating:

Few now are those who hold this view among them. What is apparent now from their statements is their neutrality concerning the two Sheikhs.

(This contradicts the reality) while believing that the Imam after the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is ‘Ali. They made a mistake in their approach to him, a mistake that does not definitively constitute sin, which is why they hesitated in their stance. They said, “We only hesitated about them because the text regarding ‘Ali was not clear, like saying: ‘He is the Khalifah after me over my nation and he stands in my place,’ and the like. Instead, it was said: ‘He is my Wasi, the judge of my religion, and the one who surrenders my affairs to my Lord. He is to me like Harun was to Musa, except that there is no prophet after me. Whoever I am his master, then ‘Ali is his master. Hassan and Hussain are Imams whether they stand or sit and their father is better than them,’[6] and similar things from which it is deduced by reasoning that the intended meaning is the Caliphate. So, because this was not understood explicitly, it was not right to condemn; for we admit that they might have understood from these evidences something other than the Caliphate, as those who opposed them later on understood.

The second point is that those who narrated these ahadith believed in the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, which indicates that they understood that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not intend the Caliphate by them.

The third is that the Companions, as a group, agreed on this. And to find fault with all of them would be a grave difficulty; because it would undermine trust in the Shari’ah, since they are the ones who transmitted it to the Ummah.

The fourth reason is that several ahadith state that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are among the people of Paradise and that the people of Badr have been forgiven and they could do as they wished. The sayings of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cannot be turned around and these ahadith could well be authentic, so not passing judgement on them is safer and disparaging them is dangerous.

The fifth reason is that ‘Ali, being the rightful person, has not been reported by anyone to have cursed them, disowned them, or stated that they were of the disbelievers or of the people of Hell. Rather, it has been narrated that he prayed for them, thanked them for their efforts in Islam, supported them in their matter, strived with them with himself, his opinion, and his tongue, and pledged allegiance to them and supported them.

The Zaidis said: Therefore, we are hesitant about their situation and believe that they are among the virtuous Companions who committed a sin in the matter of leadership; Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best about their situation in it, and we say: ‘That was a nation that has passed, it will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.’[7]

They claim that this method is the method of all the Alawites like Zayn al ‘Abidin, ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan, and their children, and it is the method of the pious Shia.[8]

A group of the Jarudiyyah claimed that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, known as Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah, is alive, was not killed, and will not die until he fills the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression, and they waited for him—as a group of the Mughiriyyah did—and denied his killing.[9] Another group among them claimed that the one described with these characteristics is Yahya ibn ‘Umar ibn Yahya ibn al Hussain ibn Zaid ibn ‘Ali,[10] while a third group claimed that the one referred to with these characteristics is Muhammad ibn al Qasim ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain[11] (Sahib al Taliqan[12]), and they differ in rulings and biographies, so some of them claim that the knowledge of the descendants of Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma is like the knowledge of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, so they naturally and necessarily acquire knowledge before learning, while some claim that knowledge is common among them and others, and it is permissible to take from them and from others among the general populace.[13]

 

2. The Sulaimaniyyah or Jaririyyah

The Sulaimaniyyah or Jaririyyah, attributed to Sulaiman ibn Jarir, argue that the Caliphate is a matter of consultation, that it is valid if agreed upon by two of the best among the Muslims, and that it can be valid in a less qualified person, although the more qualified is better in all respects. They affirm that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the leader after the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but they also confirmed the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as a rightful decision made by the Ummah, albeit the Ummah erred in their pledge to them, an error that does not warrant the label of disbelief, nor of transgression, hence they strayed from what was more suitable.

This sect disavowed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu due to the incidents he [allegedly] caused and they declared him a disbeliever for that. Similarly, they declared ‘Aisha, Zubair, and Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as disbelievers for their initiation of the battle against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They also criticised the Rafidah for their belief in Bada’, which is when they show a statement suggesting they will gain power and ascendancy, but when things do not turn out as they professed, they say: “Allah has manifested His will differently.” They also speak of Taqiyyah[14], which is to say something and when told that it is not true or when its falsehood is revealed, they say, “We said it or did it out of Taqiyyah.”[15]

 

3. The Batriyyah

The Batriyyah are the companions of Kathir al Nawwa’, nicknamed al Abtar. They were so named for their practice of not reciting the Bismillah aloud between the Surahs. It is said that when Sulaiman ibn Jarir denied the evidence for ‘Ali, al Mughirah ibn Sa’id called him al Abtar. They are also known as the Salihiyyah, after al Hassan ibn Salih ibn Hayy al Hamadhani (d. 169 AH). They differ from the Jarudiyyah as mentioned by Imam Yahya ibn Hamzah and disagree with them on the method of Imamah being contract and choice.[16]

They believed that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the best of people after the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the most deserving of Imamah. They argue that the pledges of allegiance to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were not mistakes; because ‘Ali let them take charge, consenting and delegating the matter willingly and relinquishing his right cheerfully, so we are content and submit to what he submitted to, seeing no other way permissible, as they do not acknowledge ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Imamah except when he was pledged to.

As for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they are reserved in their opinion about him and his killers, not advancing excommunications against them, despite reports that al Hassan ibn Salih disavowed ‘Uthman following the events he was criticised for.[17]

Al Mahdi Ahmed ibn Yahya al Murtada (d. 840 AH) said:

 

وخالف متأخروهم هاتين الفرقتين حيث أثبتوا إمامة علي عليه السلام بالنص القطعي الخفي وخطؤوا المشايخ لمخالفته وتوقفوا في تفسيقهم واختلفوا في جواز الترضي عنهم

Their later followers opposed these two groups by affirming ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Imamah through a definitive unclear text, faulting the elders for opposing him, hesitating in declaring them corrupt, and differing on the permissibility of announcing pleasure upon them.[18]

 

These are the famous Zaidi sects that arose in the second century of the Hijrah. All their followers agree on the superiority of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu over others after the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. But they differ—to varying degrees among themselves—in their judgments against those who preceded him from the Rightly Guided Khalifas, opposing their Imam, Zaid ibn ‘Ali rahimahu Llah . However, the Salihiyyah or Batriyyah are closer to what Zaid ibn ‘Ali rahimahu Llah was upon, and to some extent, the Jaririyyah as well, as Yahya ibn al Hussain stated in his al Tabaqat:

 

فالذي كان من قبل أي من قبل المئتين هم الصالحية والجريرية وهو الذي كان عليه مذهب زيد بن علي وأما سائر الفرق فإنما حدث بعد ذلك وخالفت زيد بن علي في أصوله وفروعه ولم يوافقوه إلا في الترر اليسير

What was before—i.e. before the second century—were the Salihiyyah and the Jaririyyah, they conformed to the doctrine of Zaid ibn ‘Ali. As for the other sects, they emerged later and differed from Zaid ibn ‘Ali in primary and secondary aspects, and only agreed with him in very few aspects.

 

Then he said:

 

إلى هنا انتهى ذكر الزيدية الذين كانوا على المذهب الأول وهو مذهب زيد بن علي

This concludes the mention of the Zaidis who were upon the original doctrine, which is the doctrine of Zaid ibn ‘Ali.[19]

 

NEXT⇒ The Zaidis of Gilan and Deylam 

---

[1] Al Fihrist, pg. 226-227, al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/159,162.

[2] Awa’il al Maqalat al Islamiyyin, pg. 84; Masa’il al Imamah, pg. 42; Maqalat al Islamiyyin, pg. 66; Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 155; al Jawharah al Khalisah; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 97; al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/157,159; Tawdih al Masa’il al ‘Aqliyyah; al Mustatab, Muqaddamat Ibn Khaldun, 2/534; al Khutat al Maqriziyyah, 2/352.

[3] Awa’il al Maqalat al Islamiyyin, pg. 40, quoting from the book Mas’alat al Taqrib bayn Ahlus Sunnah wa al Shia, 1/162.

[4] I did not find it with this wording in the reliable books of the Ahlus Sunnah.

[5] Al Risalah al Wazi’ah, pg. 33.

[6] He is my Wasi, the judge of my religion, and the one who surrenders my affairs to my Lord: Al Albani mentions this during a narration and comments, “The hadith is a fabrication.” (Al Silsilah al Da’ifah, 10/436.) He is to me like Harun was to Musa: The hadith is documented by both al Bukhari and Muslim. Whoever I am his mawla, then ‘Ali is his mawla: Al Albani quotes it in Sahih al Jami’ wa Ziyadatuhu, 1/53.

[7] Surah al Baqarah: 141.

[8] Al Jawharah al Khalisah.

[9] Masa’il al Imamah, pg. 46; Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 6/218; al Ansab fi Maddah al Jarudiyyah, 2/160; al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/159.

[10] Al Fasl, 4/179; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 97.

[11] Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 151; Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 10/192; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 97; al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/159.

[12] A city close to Fazrin. (Mujam al Buldan.) Probably, in current Afghanistan.

[13] Al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/159.

[14] Taqiyyah: To conceal the truth and display to people other than what they believe. (This definition is according to the Shia.) (Al Mujam al Wasit, waqiya.)

[15] Maqalat al Islamiyyin, pg. 68; al Jawharah al Khalisah; Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 155; al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/159-160; al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 16; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 97; al Khutat al Maqriziyyah, 2/352.

[16] Al Risalah al Wazi’ah, pg. 33.

[17] Masa’il al Imamah, pg. 44; Maqalat al Islamiyyin, pg. 68; Sharh al Risalah, pg. 155; al Jawharah; al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/161; al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 16; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 23-24, 97-98; al Khutat al Maqriziyyah, 2/532.

[18] Masa’il al Imamah, pg. 43; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 24.

[19] Al Milal wa al Nihal, pg. 40, al Mustatab, Tabaqat al Zaidiyyah al Sughra, tablet 2.