Zaidism

A sect attributed to Imam Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They are as al Nadim described in his book, al Fihrist:

الزيدية الذين قالوا بإمامة زيد بن علي عليه السلام ثم قالوا بعده بالإمامة لولد فاطمة كائنا من كان بعد أن يكون عنده شروط الإمامة

The Zaidiyyah [Zaidis] are those who advocated the Imamah of Zaid ibn ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. They then supported the Imamah of the descendants of Fatimah, whoever they may be, provided they possess the qualifications for Imamah.[1]

Imam al Mahdi ibn Yahya al Murtada described them in al Milal wa al Nihal saying:

فالزيدية منسوبون إلى زيد بن علي عليه السلام لقولهم جميعا بإمامته وإن لم يكونوا على مذهبه في مسائل الفرع وهي تخالف الشافعية والحنفية في ذلك لأنهم إنما نسبوا إلى أبي حنيفة والشافعي لمتابعتهم إياهما في الفروع

The Zaidiyyah are attributed to Zaid ibn ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam due to their unanimous support of his Imamah, even if they do not follow his school in jurisprudential issues. They differ from the Shafi’iyyah and Hanafiyyah in this regard, as they are only attributed to Abu Hanifah and al Shafi’i owing to following them in jurisprudential matters.[2]

Ahmed ibn ‘Abdullah al Jindari mentioned them in his book al Rahiq describing them as:

اسم مطلق على أئمة الآل ومن تابعهم في العدل والتوحيد والقول بإمامة زيد بن علي ووجوب الخروج على الظلمة

A name given to the Imams of the household: and those who follow them in justice, monotheism, the belief in the Imamah of Zaid ibn ‘Ali, and the necessity of rising against the oppressors.[3]

As for Sheikh al Mufid, he described them by saying:

وأما الزيدية فهم القائلون بإمامة أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب والحسن والحسين وزيد بن علي عليهم السلام وبإمامة كل فاطمي دعا إلى نفسه وهو على ظاهر العدالة ومن أهل العلم والشجاعة وكانت بيعته على تجريد السيف للجهاد

The Zaidis are those who advocate the Imamah of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, al Hassan, al Hussain, and Zaid ibn ‘Ali ‘alayhim al Salam and the Imamah of every Fatimid who calls to himself while being visibly just, knowledgeable, and brave, with his call to allegiance based on unsheathing the sword for Jihad.[4]

Zaidism is one of the three Shia sects: Zaidiyyah, Ithna ‘Ashariyyah [Twelver] (Jafariyyah), and Ismailiyyah (Imamiyyah Batiniyyah). From amongst them, Zaidism is considered the most moderate and closest to the Sunni doctrine. This is because Zaidis do not believe in the concepts held by the Jafariyyah, such as the infallibility of the Twelve Imams, the doctrine of Bada’ (the belief that Allah only learns of things after they occur), Taqiyyah (dissimulation), and Mut’ah (temporary marriage). Initially, Zaidism was in line with the practices of the righteous predecessors, focusing solely on the rulings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, except that it differed from the Sunni community in two respects as narrated:

Firstly: Its inclination, in creed, towards I’tizal[5], following Zaid ibn ‘Ali, who—it is claimed—adopted this from Wasil ibn ‘Ata’, the head of the Mu’tazilah[6], when they met during Zaid ibn ‘Ali’s scholarly journey to Basrah. Some say that it occurred in Madinah. This led to debates with his brother, al Baqir Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, due to their close relationship. The contention was not because Zaid became a Mu’tazili, as I’tizal had spread among some of their family, rather because he adopted views from those who accepted the possibility of error in their grandfather’s (‘Ali ibn Abi Talib) decisions in the battles against the defectors, the unjust, and the rebels. This was based on Wasil ibn ‘Ata’s belief that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not certain of being right in his wars against the Sahabah in the Battle of the Camel and the people of Syria, suggesting that one of the sides was mistaken, without specifying which. Furthermore, Zaid differed in his views on predestination from those of his ancestors, just as he stipulated rebellion to be a condition for someone to be considered an Imam. Al Baqir pointed out to him, “According to your principle, your father was not an Imam because he never rebelled nor sought to rebel.”[7]

The Zaidi doctrine requires an Imam to rebel at the time of his declaration of Imamah, as its founder, Zaid ibn ‘Ali, did. He is quoted as saying:

من شهر سيفه ودعا إلى كتاب ربه وسنة نبيه وجرى على أحكامه وعرف بذلك فذلك الإمام الذي لا تسعنا وإياكم جهالته فأما عبد جالس في بيته مرخ عليه ستره مغلق عليه بابه يجري عليه أحكام الظالمين لا يأمر بالمعروف ولا ينهي عن المنكر فأنى يكون ذلك إماما مفروضة طاعته

Whoever unsheathes his sword, calls to the Book of his Lord, the Sunnah of his Prophet, acts according to their judgments, and is known for that, then he is the Imam who neither we nor you can afford to ignore. But as for a man who sits in his house, his door shut, living under the judgments of the oppressors, neither commanding good nor forbidding evil, cannot be an Imam whose obedience is obligatory.[8]

The other matter is: The Imamah, which is the focal point of concern for all Shia sects, their primary preoccupation, and the axis of their political beliefs. Zaid ibn ‘Ali believed that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the most entitled to it after the death of the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, due to his position and close relationship both as a relative and son-in-law. This view is shared by all Shia sects, which state:

إن عليا عليه السلام كان أولى بمقام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعده وأحقهم بالإمامة والقيام بالأمر في أمته وأجمعوا على ذلك

‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam was most worthy of succeeding the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and was the most entitled to the Imamah and to lead the affairs of his Ummah. And they unanimously agree on this.[9]

Despite this, Zaid saw it as permissible for a less qualified person to take the position of Imamah, even if it be in the presence of a more qualified person[10], as he explicitly stated:

كان علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه أفضل الصحابة إلا أن الخلافة فوضت إلى أبي بكر لمصلحة رأوها وقاعدة دينية راعوها من تسكين ثائرة الفتنة وتطييب قلوب العامة فإن عهد الحروب التي جرب في أيام النبوة كان قريبا وسيف أمير المؤمنين علي من دماء المشركين من قريش وغيرهم لم يجف والضغائن في صدور القوم من طلب الثأر كما هي فما كانت القلوب تميل إليه كل الميل ولا تنقاد له الرقاب كل الانقياد فكانت المصلحة أن يكون القائم بهذا الشأن من عرفوه باللين والتؤدة والتقدم بالسن والسبق في الإسلام والقرب من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ألا ترى أنه أي أبا بكر لما أراد في مرضه الذي مات فيه تقليد الأمر عمر بن الخطاب زعق الناس وقالوا لقد وليت علينا فظا غليظا فما كانوا يرضون بأمير المؤمنين عمر بن الخطاب لشدته وصلابته وغلظه في الدين وفظاظته على الأعداء حتى سكنهم أبو بكر بقوله لو سألني ربي لقلت وليت عليهم خيرهم

‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the best among the Companions, but the Caliphate was entrusted to Abu Bakr because they saw it as beneficial, and they followed this religious principle to calm the storm of discord and to appease the hearts of the masses. The era of wars that occurred during the days of Prophethood were still recent and the sword of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, was not yet dry from the blood of the idolaters from Quraysh and others. The grudges in the hearts of the people for seeking revenge were still present, so the hearts were not completely inclined towards him nor were necks fully submissive. It was deemed beneficial that the one who takes this role should be known for his gentleness, calmness, advanced age, precedence in Islam, and closeness to the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Do you not see that when Abu Bakr, during the illness he passed away from, intended to delegate the authority to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, the people protested, saying, “You have appointed over us a harsh, hard man.” They were not pleased with the Commander of the Faithful ‘Umar ibn al Khattab due to his harshness, firmness, and strictness in religion and his severity towards the enemies, until Abu Bakr reassured them by saying: “If my Lord questions me, I will say, ‘I appointed over them the best among them.’”[11]

Zaid ibn ‘Ali believed that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more entitled to the Caliphate after the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and had more right to it than the Khalifas who preceded him, despite these Khalifas being adherents to the Messenger’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam way of life, pious, and just in their own conduct and towards their community. It is only natural that Zaid also believed that he was more deserving of the Caliphate than the Umayyad Khalifas, who had turned the Caliphate into a hereditary monarchy. Although he did not explicitly state this belief in his declaration outlining the reasons for his rebellion against Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik, the underlying sentiment of Zaid’s desire to assume the Caliphate and his efforts to attain his goal were undoubtedly apparent to Hisham, given his experience in control over state affairs. He therefore became suspicious of Zaid and perceived him as a threat to his reign.

Consequently, Hisham instructed his governor in Madinah, Khalid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn al Harith (or according to some sources, Ibrahim ibn Hisham), to monitor Zaid’s movements, as noted in historical records. The governor was to track Zaid’s actions and possibly to provoke him by encouraging some of his relatives to dispute a shared inheritance with him. Hisham was also aware of Zaid’s trip to Iraq with some relatives during the governorship of Khalid ibn ‘Abdullah al Qasri, who had permitted their journey. Therefore, when Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al Thaqafi became the governor of Iraq, he sought to identify those who had accompanied Zaid and the permissions they had obtained, in a lengthy affair recounted by al Tabari in his al Tarikh.

He then wrote a letter with this information to Hisham. The governor of Madinah then used it as an opportunity to harass Zaid, thereby distracting him from his pursuit of the Caliphate. Zaid ibn ‘Ali was compelled to approach Hisham to complain about his governor. Each time he submitted a petition for permission to meet with Hisham, he was denied entry and was instructed to return to his commander with the note, “Go back to your leader.” Zaid declared, “By Allah, I will never return to Khalid. I am not asking for money, but I am a man with a grievance.” Eventually, after a long time, he was granted permission to meet.

When he appeared before Hisham, he found no place to sit, so he sat where the assembly ended and said, “O Commander of the Faithful, no one is too great for the piety of Allah, and no one is too small for it.”[12]

Hisham then said to him, “I have heard, O Zaid, that you mention the Caliphate and desire it, yet you are not eligible as you are the son of a slave.” [His mother was Sindiyyah, who al Mukhtar al Thaqafi had gifted to his father.]

Zaid replied, “You, O Commander of the Faithful, deserve an answer.”

He said, “Speak,” and Zaid said, “No one is closer to Allah or holds a higher status in His sight than a prophet He has sent. Ismail was the son of a slave woman, and his brother was the son of a free woman, like you. Yet, Allah chose him and from him came the best of mankind.”

Hisham then said, “Leave!”

Zaid replied, “I will leave, and you will only see me where you dislike.”[13]

In another narration:

قال هشام لزيد بن علي بلغني عنك كذا فقال ليس بصحيح قال قد صح عندي قال أحلف لك قال لا أصدقك قال إن الله لا يرفع من قدر من حلف له بالله فلم يصدق قال اخرج عني قال إذا لن تراني إلا حيث تكره

Hisham said to Zaid ibn ‘Ali, “I have heard such and such about you,” to which Zaid replied, “It is not true.”

Hisham said, “It is true to me.”

Zaid said, “I swear to you.”

Hisham replied, “I don’t believe you.”

Zaid said, “Allah does not elevate anyone who swears by Him and is not believed.”

Hisham then said, “Leave my presence!”

Zaid replied, “Then you will only see me where you dislike.”[14]

Then it was known of Zaid ibn ‘Ali that he went to Kufah and announced his rebellion against Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik. When his companions gathered to fight Yusuf ibn ‘Umar, the governor of Iraq, he addressed them and instructed them to follow the example of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu in war. They said to him, “We have heard your speech. What is your opinion about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar?”

He replied, “May Allah have mercy on them and forgive them. What else can I say about them? They accompanied the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the best manner, migrated with him, and strived in Allah’s cause rightfully. I have never heard anyone from my family disown them or speak anything but good of them.”

They said, “So, why then do you seek to avenge the blood of your family and redress their grievances except if the two of them snatched your authority, grabbing it from your hands, and placing people on your backs to fight you all until this day?”

He replied, “The harshest thing I can say about what you mentioned is that we were more entitled to the rule of Allah’s Messenger than all the people, and that the people gave them preference over us and pushed us away from it; but according to us, that did not qualify as Kufr. They were granted authority, then acted justly among the people, and practiced upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah.”

They said, “Then how did the Umayyads wrong you if Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did not wrong you? Why do you call to fight against the Umayyads if they are not unjust to you? Because these people only followed the precedent of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.”

He replied, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are not like these people, and these people are unjust to me, to you, and to themselves. We only invite you to act according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet, to revive the Sunnah, to extinguish innovations, and to reject and banish the oppressors among the Umayyads. If you respond to us, you will be blessed, and if you refuse, you will lose, and I am not a guardian over you.”

They said, “Disavow them (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), otherwise we will reject you!”

He exclaimed, “Allah is the greatest! My father told me that the Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali, ‘There will be people who claim to love us, known by their epithet. If you meet them, kill them, for they are polytheists.’ Go away, for you are the rejecters [al Rawafid].”[15]

This is reported in the book of divorce from the book of rulings by Imam al Hadi Yahya ibn al Hussain, narrated through his chain from his father and uncles Muhammad and Hassan, from their father al Qasim, from his father, from his grandfather Ibrahim ibn al Hassan, from his father, from his grandfather Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib rahimahumu Llah from the Messenger, that he said:

يا علي يكون في آخر الزمان قوم لهم نبز يعرفون به يقال لهم الرافضة فإذا أدركتهم فاقتلهم قتلهم الله فإنهم مشركون

O ‘Ali, at the end of times, there will be people, they are known by an epithet, referred to as the Rafidah. So, if you encounter them, kill them; may Allah destroy them, for they are indeed polytheists.”[16]

They parted ways with Zaid and deceived him. From then on, they were known as the Rafidah.

‘Isa ibn Yusuf said:

جاءت الرافضة زيدا فقالوا له تبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر حتى ننصرك قال بل أتولاهما قالوا إذا نرفضك فمن ثم قيل لهم الرافضة

The Rafidah came to Zaid and said to him, “Disavow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, so we can support you.”

He replied, “Rather, I associate myself with both of them.”

They said, “Then we reject you!”

Hence, they were called the Rafidah.[17]

Al Muqbili reported the following: Imam Zaid ibn ‘Ali said:

الرافضة حربي وحرب أبي في الدنيا والآخرة مرقت الرافضة علينا كما مرقت الخوارج على علي

The Rafidah are my enemies and my father’s enemies in this world and the Hereafter. The Rafidah have rebelled against us as the Khawarij rebelled against ‘Ali.[18]

In Rasa’il al ‘Adl wa al Tawhid by Imam al Hadi Yahya ibn al Hussain, it is mentioned:

فلما كان فعلهم على ما ذكرنا سماهم حينئذ زيد روافض ورفع يديه فقال اللهم اجعل لعنتك ولعنة آبائي وأجدادي ولعنتي على هؤلاء الذين رفضوني وخرجوا من بيعتي كما رفض أهل حرورا علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام حتى حاربوه

When their action was as described, Zaid called them Rawafid (rejecters) and raised his hands, saying, “O Allah, let Your curse, the curse of my fathers and forefathers, and my curse be upon those who rejected me and withdrew from my allegiance as the people of Harura’ (the Khawarij) rejected and fought against ‘Ali.”[19]

The Zaidis, however, agreed with his statement and fought alongside him.[20] They adhered to his belief regarding the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma), and faced his opponent until he was martyred in Kunasah of Kufah on the second day of Safar in the year 122 AH/738 CE, may Allah have mercy on him.

This is the creed of Zaid ibn ‘Ali rahimahu Llah regarding the two Sheikhs, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, which he declared openly and clearly, for he truly feared Allah and was intensely aware of Him, even though it was within his means.

If a worldly man were to appease these dissenters who wanted to coerce him into following their whims by joining them in disparaging Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma even under the guise of Taqiyyah as the Imamiyyah do, it would be to win them over to his side to support and assist him in achieving his goal of rebelling against Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik. However, he refused and rejected their request, preferring to adhere to the truth that must be followed, even if it displeases all humanity, in seeking the pleasure of Allah. This is because he could not deviate from the path followed by his father, Zayn al ‘Abidin ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah, and before him, his father and then his grandfather, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum in their sincere love for Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah said:

يا معشر أهل العراق يا معشر أهل الكوفة أحبونا حب الإسلام ولا ترفعونا فوق حقنا

O people of Iraq, O people of Kufah, love us with the love of Islam and do not elevate us above our status.

And in another narration:

أحبونا حب الإسلام لله عز وجل فإنه ما برح بنا حبكم حتى صار علينا عارا

Love us for the sake of Allah, the Majestic and Almighty, because your love has become a burden upon us, turning into disgrace.[21]

And in one of the narrations, he added:

بما كنتم تنالون من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى أبغضتمونا إلى الناس

Because of what you claim against the Companions of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, you have made us detestable to people.

It is reported in Hilyat al Auliya’ by Abu Nuaim with his chain of transmission from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah, that some people from Iraq spoke ill of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum. After they finished, ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah asked them, “Are you the early emigrants who were driven out of their homes and wealth, seeking bounty from Allah and His pleasure, and supporting Allah and His messenger? These are the truthful.”

They said, “No.”

He said: “Are you those who provided a home and faith before them, loving those who migrated to them, without finding any desire in their hearts for what they were given, preferring others over themselves even if they were in need, and whoever is protected from the greed of his soul, they are the successful?”

They said, “No.”

He said, “Then you have clearly disowned being from either of these two groups.”

He then affirmed, “As for me, I testify that you are not from those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said, ‘And those who came after them say: Our Lord, forgive us and our brethren who preceded us in faith, and put not in our hearts any resentment towards those who believe. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful.’[22] Get out, may Allah deal with you.”[23]

And in another narration: “Leave me, may Allah not bless you nor bring your homes closer; you mock Islam, and you are not of its people.”[24]

This is because ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah was knowledgeable about the authentic hadith agreed upon, which prohibits cursing the Companions of the Messenger Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, narrated by Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

لا تسبوا أصحابي فوالذي نفسي بيده لو أن أحدكم أنفق مثل أحد ذهبا ما أدرك مد أحدهم ولا نصيفه

Do not curse my Companions, for by the One Who controls my life, if one of you spent gold equivalent to Mount Uhud, he would not reach a mudd of theirs, not even half of it.[25]

As well as:

الله الله في أصحابي لا تتخذوهم غرضا بعدي من أحبهم فبحبي أحبهم ومن أبغضهم فببغضي أبغضهم ومن آذاهم فقد آذاني ومن آذاني فقد آذى الله ومن آذى الله فيوشك أن يأخذه

Fear Allah, fear Allah, regarding my Companions; do not make them a target after me. Whoever loves them, it is on account of his love for me that he loves them, and whoever hates them, it is on account of his hatred for me that he hates them; and whoever harms them has harmed me and whoever harms me has harmed Allah; and whoever harms Allah, it is imminent that He will seize him.[26]

And his saying:

إذا رأيتم الذين يسبون أصحابي فقولوا لعنة الله على شركم

If you see those who insult my Companions, say: May the curse of Allah be upon your evil.[27]

This is because the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum were true to their covenant with Allah; they did not change it, and the praise of Allah for them did not change as mentioned by the scholar ‘Ali Zayn al ‘Abidin ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Sheikh ‘Abdullah al ‘Aydarus in his response to Hassan ibn al Imam al Qasim ibn Muhammad:

وعلمه جل وعلا لم يتحول جهلا لَهُۥ مَا بَيۡنَ أَيۡدِينَا وَمَا خَلۡفَنَا وَمَا بَيۡنَ ذَٰلِكَۚ وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيّٗا نعتقد أن من وعدهم الله به في كتابه الحكيم في عمله السابق القديم من الرضوان في جنات النعيم الشامل لأولهم وآخرهم وأنصارهم ومهاجريهم حيث يقول وبقوله يهتدي المهتدون وَٱلسَّٰبِقُونَ ٱلۡأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُهَٰجِرِينَ وَٱلۡأَنصَارِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحۡسَٰنٖ رَّضِيَ ٱللَّهُ عَنۡهُمۡ وَرَضُواْ عَنۡهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمۡ جَنَّٰتٖ تَجۡرِي تَحۡتَهَا ٱلۡأَنۡهَٰرُ خَٰلِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَبَدٗاۚ ذَٰلِكَ ٱلۡفَوۡزُ ٱلۡعَظِيمُ واقع لا محالة من القطع بالاستحالة أن يكون لم يعلم منهم التعاون على الإثم والعدوان والمخالفة لما أخبر به سيد ولد عدنان والنبذ لعهد من وعده ليظهره على الدين كله

His knowledge—exalted and lofty is He—did not turn to ignorance; to Him belongs what is before us and what is behind us and what is in between and your Lord was not forgetful. And we believe that what Allah promised them in His Wise Book is in His eternal knowledge of happiness in the gardens of bliss encompassing the first of them and the last, their Ansar and Muhajirin, where it says, and by His saying the guided ones are guided: And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.[28] This is inevitably true. It is impossible that He did not know about them cooperating in sin and aggression, opposing what the master of the children of ‘Adnan informed, and renouncing the covenant of whom He promised to manifest it over all religions.[29]

Then the Zaidi sects were divided into many groups; al Shatibi mentioned that they were three: the Jarudiyyah, the Sulaimaniyyah, and the Batriyyah.

Imam Yahya ibn Hamzah mentioned in al Risalah al Wazi’ah, pg. 33, that they are five groups: the Jarudiyyah, the Salihiyyah, the Batriyyah, the ‘Aqbiyyah, and the Sabahiyyah.

Al Mahdi Ahmed ibn Yahya al Murtada mentioned that they, i.e., the Zaidis, ended up being six: the Jarudiyyah, the Batriyyah, the Salihiyyah, and the Jaririyyah, and then the later Jarudiyyah split into the Muttarrifiyyah, the Hussainiyyah, and the Mukhtari’ah.[30]

NEXT⇒ The Most Prominent Zaidi Sects

[1] Al Fihrist, pg. 226.

[2] Al Milal wa al Nihal, pg. 96.

[3] Al Rahiq, pg. 16.

[4] Awa’il al Maqalat, pg. 4.

[5] Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in his book, Minhaj al Sunnah [1/70], that the Mu’tazilah did not criticise the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They are actually in agreement on affirming the Caliphate of these three. However, regarding preference, the majority of them preferred Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma while some of the later Mu’tazilah abstained from showing preference and a few favoured ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, highlighting differences and similarities between them and the Zaidis in terms of monotheism, justice, Imamah, and preference.

[6] Imam al Mahdi Ahmed ibn Yahya al Murtada mentioned in his book Tabaqat al Mu’tazilah, pg. 33, that Wasil entered Madinah and stayed with Ibrahim ibn Yahya, leading Zaid ibn ‘Ali, his son Yahya ibn Zaid, ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan, his brothers, Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlan, and Abu ‘Abbad al Fayni to meet him. Jafar ibn Muhammad al Sadiq told his companions to join him in meeting Wasil, where they found Zaid ibn ‘Ali and his companions. Jafar said, “Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, clear signs, warnings, and miracles, as stated in the Qur’an, ‘And relatives are more entitled [to inheritance] from Allah.’ (Surah al Anfal). We are the family of the Messenger of Allah and closest to him. O Wasil, you bring a matter that divides the word and attacks the Imams. I invite you to repentance.” Wasil responded, praising Allah’s justice and generosity, implying that Jafar and the Imams were preoccupied with worldly love. Zaid ibn ‘Ali remained silent, prompting Jafar to reprimand him for not following the truth, leading to their separation.

This narrative is detailed in the book Fadl al I’tizal wa Tabaqat al Mu’tazilah wa Mubayanatuhum Sa’ir al Mukhalifin, pg. 35, (The Virtue of I’tizal and the Classes of the Mu’tazilah and Their Differences with Other Opponents) of Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar ibn Ahmed, a leading Mu’tazili who died in 415 AH, as narrated by al Hakim and others, with Allah knowing best its authenticity.

Ibn Yazdad stated, “Zaid ibn ‘Ali did not differ from the Mu’tazilah except in minor issues.”

As for Imam Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al Wazir, it has been narrated by the author of al Milal wa al Nihal, that Zaid studied under Wasil ibn ‘Ata’. He said, “What Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Karim ibn Abi Bakr, known as al Shahrastani, wrote in his book, al Milal wa al Nihal, about Zaid ibn ‘Ali rahimahuma Llah adopting the Mu’tazili doctrine from Wasil ibn ‘Ata’ as a follower and the debates between him and his brother al Baqir rahimahuma Llah about this is undoubtedly false and probably among the lies fabricated by the Rawafid.”

[7] Al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/156; Tabaqat Al Mu’tazilah, pg. 33; Muqaddamat Ibn Khaldun, 2/529.

[8] Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 188.

[9] Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 154.

[10] Al Fasl fi al Milal wa al Ahwa’ wa al Nihal, 4/163.

[11] Al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/155.

[12] Tarikh al Tabari, 7/165; Muruj al Dhahab, 3/218.

[13] Tarikh al Tabari, 7/165; Muruj al Dhahab, 3/218; Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 189; Ibn al Athir: al Kamil, 5/84.

[14] Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 5/391.

[15] Tarikh al Tabari, 7/181; Sharh Risalat al Hur al ‘In, pg. 184-185; al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 101; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 9/330. I found no basis for it in the reliable Hadith books.

[16] Note: Some parts of the narrative have been rendered in various forms before. I found no original basis for them in the reliable Hadith books.

[17] Tarikh al Tabari, 7/160-173, 180-191; Muruj al Dhahab, 3/218; al Kamil, 5/84-89; al Hada’iq al Wardiyyah, 1/143.

[18] Al ‘Ilm al Shamikh, pg. 108.

[19] Rasa’il al ‘Adl wa al Tawhid, 2/76.

[20] Siyar A’lam an-Nubala’, 5/390; Tahdhib al Kamal, 10/95; Minhaj al Sunnah, 1/35, 39; Maqatil al Talibiyyin, 92-106.

[21] Hilyat al Auliya’, 3/137.

[22] Surah al Hashr: 10.

[23] Hilyat al Auliya’, 3/137; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 9/107.

[24] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 9/107.

[25] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3673; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2540 and 2541.

[26] Al Albani declared it da’if in al Silsilah al Da’ifah, 6/403, Hadith: 1901.

[27] Al Albani declared it da’if jiddan in al Jami’ al Saghir wa Ziyadatuhu, 1/153, Hadith: 1536.

[28] Surah al Tawbah: 100.

[29] Al Mashru’ al Rawi, 2/489.

[30] Al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 96.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents