Did The Zaydis Truly Divide into Jarudiyya, Salihiyya, and Batriyya?
Introduction
I have long been astonished, as I read books dealing with the conditions and divisions of the Islamic sects, by the lack of scholarly method in judging opinions, and by the injustice and distortion in quoting texts — the exaggeration and sensationalism when discussing the principles and branches of these schools of thought. This is despite God Almighty’s command:
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for God, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear God; indeed, God is Acquainted with what you do.” (Qur’an 5:8)
Often, among those authors, one finds hostility toward certain Muslim sects, the violation of their rights, and the presentation of their ideas in a distorted and disfigured form that contradicts reality.
At other times, I have observed the absurdity and intellectual shallowness involved in the invention of sects, creeds, and supposed heresies—simply to fill out the “seventy-three sects” schema! It makes one certain that such authors faced one of two bitter choices:
Either they deliberately fabricated lies and concocted reports to harm their opponents—knowing full well that all those opponents belong to the same ummah and face the same qiblah—thus applying to themselves God’s saying:
“And those who harm believing men and believing women undeservedly have certainly borne upon themselves a slander and manifest sin.” (Qur’an 33:58)
Or else, they were driven by personal or political animosities, in harmony with the policies of the oppressive regimes of their times—regimes that waged war on ʿAlawī Shiʿism and on those who called for resisting tyranny and rising against unjust rulers,(1) namely the Zaydīs and the Muʿtazilites.
Meanwhile, those writers represented the school of servility and submission—justifying the injustices of tyrants by invoking the doctrine of predestination (jabr),(2) claiming that both good and evil are wholly from God and that humans have no agency in them.
I thus wished to respond to some of the aggression of these writers, and to demonstrate the magnitude of their confusion and blind imitation of earlier authors who had written on sects and creeds. I do so specifically regarding the Zaydī school, and to refute their claim that Zaydism split into multiple sects—among them the so-called Jārūdiyyah—to whom they ascribed dangerously contradictory doctrines, including the takfīr (excommunication) of the Companions and their revilement.
Yet anyone who examines the extensive corpus of Zaydī and ʿItrah (Prophetic family) literature knows the falsity of this accusation and that it contradicts the conduct of the Zaydī Imams of the Prophet’s household, peace be upon them all—from the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, to al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, peace be upon them, to ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn, and his son, the great Imam Zayd the Martyr, peace be upon them all, and those who followed them. Their statements on this matter will be cited later, God willing.
Had these writers expended even minimal effort to research Zaydī works, or consulted any of the writings of the pure ʿItrah (the Prophet’s household) with piety and honesty, refraining from falsehood, they would have realized the baselessness of what they ascribed to this noble school—one that faithfully upheld God’s command and the Prophet’s injunction to honor and love his family.
Instead, they contented themselves with uncritical imitation of those who preceded them, transmitting without fidelity, or quoting from the works of those notorious among all Muslim sects for their heresy and apostasy from religion. And God Almighty is the One who grants aid!
The State’s Hostility toward the Zaydiyyah and Muʿtazilah, and Its Patronage of the Ashʿarī and Hanbalī Schools
The erudite scholar Sayyid Hasan al-Saqaf (may God exalt his rank) said in his valuable commentary on al-Ibanah by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari:
“If we understand the intellectual, social, and political environment in which the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, and especially the Ahl al-Hadith, lived — and the orientations of the rulers of the Abbasid state during that century — we can then grasp the secret and reason behind this fierce and unjustified attack that al-Ash‘ari launched against the Mu‘tazilites!
For the Ahl al-Hadith used to transmit the saying of Mujahid in his interpretation of al-maqām al-maḥmūd (the Praised Station) as referring to the Prophet’s sitting (on the Throne).
Al-Dhahabi mentioned in his book al-‘Uluw, describing their condition in that era:‘Among those who issued fatwas in that time affirming that this narration should be accepted without objection — meaning the narration of Mujahid — were Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the compiler of the Sunan, Ibrahim al-Harbi, and many others. Ibn Ahmad (the son of Imam Ahmad) said, following Mujahid’s statement: “I denounce everyone who rejects this hadith; such a person, to me, is evil and suspect. I heard this from a group of scholars and never saw a hadith scholar deny it. In our view, only the Jahmites reject it… I heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say: this narration has been received and accepted by the scholars.”’”
As for the political climate, al-Dhahabi relates in Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ (12/34) in the biography of al-Mutawakkil, the Abbasid caliph:
“[In the year 234 A.H.] al-Mutawakkil openly upheld the Sunnah, forbade the doctrine of the createdness of the Qur’an, and wrote to all provinces commanding this. He summoned the hadith scholars to Samarra, rewarded them generously, and they narrated traditions about the vision of God and the divine attributes.”
Al-Suyuti writes in Tārīkh al-Khulafā’ (1/346):
“[He showed inclination toward the Sunnah, supported its adherents, abolished the inquisition (miḥnah), and wrote to all regions announcing this in the year 234 A.H. He summoned the hadith scholars to Samarra, honored them with abundant gifts, and ordered them to narrate hadiths about the divine attributes and the beatific vision.
Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah sat in the Rusafah Mosque, and about thirty thousand people gathered around him. His brother ‘Uthman sat in the Mansur Mosque, and likewise about thirty thousand assembled there. People’s prayers for al-Mutawakkil multiplied, and they went to great lengths in praising and glorifying him.”]
Al-Dhahabi also says in Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ (12/35):
“[In the year 236 A.H.] al-Mutawakkil demolished the tomb of al-Husayn, may God be pleased with him. Al-Basami composed verses on this, among them:
They grieved that they had not shared in killing him,
so they pursued his remains and destroyed them.Al-Mutawakkil was characterized by hostility (nasb) and deviation. He demolished that site and the surrounding houses, ordered the land to be plowed and cultivated, and forbade people from visiting it.”
— End of al-Dhahabi’s words.
Thus, the actions of this anthropomorphist and pro-Umayyad caliph marked a dangerous turning point in the thought of Ahl al-Sunnah:
a turning that encouraged the destruction of transcendence (tanzīh), the suppression of love for the Prophet’s Household — peace and God’s blessings be upon them — and hostility toward those who upheld transcendence and divine justice, whether they were from Ahl al-Sunnah, the Mu‘tazilites, or others.
This same development occurred again under al-Qādir Billāh, the Abbasid caliph, in 408 A.H., as can be seen by anyone consulting the historical chronicles and biographical works.
To demonstrate this briefly, Ibn al-Jawzi says in al-Muntaẓam (15/125) under the events of the year 408 A.H.:
“[According to Hibat Allah ibn al-Hasan al-Tabari:] In the year 408 A.H., the Commander of the Faithful al-Qādir Billāh demanded that the Hanafi jurists who were Mu‘tazilites recant; they publicly renounced and disavowed Mu‘tazilism …]”
Ibn Kathir writes in his al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah (12/6):
“[In the year 408 A.H.] al-Qādir Billāh required the Mu‘tazilite jurists to repent; they declared their withdrawal and renounced Mu‘tazilism, Shi‘ism, and all doctrines contrary to Islam.”
Notice his wording:
‘They were made to sign statements to that effect, and it was decreed that if they ever relapsed, they would be punished with exemplary chastisement and penalties to deter others. Mahmud ibn Sebuktekin carried out the Caliph’s command in his territories in Khurasan and elsewhere, killing the Mu‘tazilites, the Rafidites, the Isma‘ilis, the Qaramita, the Jahmites, and the anthropomorphists.’
(The mention of the Qaramita and anthropomorphists is an addition unrelated to the matter.)‘He crucified, imprisoned, and banished them, ordered them to be cursed from the pulpits, and expelled all sects of innovators from their lands. This became an established custom in Islam.’
— End of Ibn Kathir’s account.
Ibn al-Athir records a similar account, though in briefer form, in al-Kamil (9/305).
Thus, what al-Mutawakkil initiated became the prevailing current among the Hanbalites and those who styled themselves as Ahl al-Hadith.
— End of al-Saqaf’s words.
Among the reports illustrating this is what al-Dhahabi narrates in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, in the biography of Ibn al-Saqa, the hadith scholar and imam, Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman al-Wasiti, who died in 373 A.H.:
“It so happened that he dictated the Hadith of the Bird (Hadith al-Tayr), but the people could not bear it; they rose against him, expelled him, and even washed the place where he had been sitting. So he withdrew to his house and ceased narrating hadith to anyone from Wasit.”
Reflect, then, on how merely narrating a hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)—one affirming ‘Ali’s virtue and his promised place in Paradise—became the cause of public outrage, denunciation, and social boycott against him.
This took place in Iraq, the very cradle of Shi‘ism!
Such was the sectarian and political atmosphere prevailing in that era—one that encouraged the rise of pro-Umayyad hostility (nusb), enmity toward the doctrine of divine transcendence (tanzīh) and its upholders of rational justice, and the hurling of every insult and grave accusation against them, just as the authors of the sectarian heresiographies (books of al-milal wa’n-nihal) had done.
The Compilers of Works on Sects and Doctrine labeled the Zaydis as ‘Muʿtazila’ in order to evade recognizing them as adherents of the Ahl al-Bayt.
This was so that they might avoid the embarrassment that could result from being challenged with verses and hadiths concerning the virtues of the Prophet’s family (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), which they themselves acknowledge as authentic. For the very same theological doctrines they criticize the Mu‘tazilites or the Qadariyya for are, in fact, the very beliefs held by the Zaydis. Indeed, as those knowledgeable in these matters are aware, there is hardly any notable difference between some Mu‘tazilites and the Zaydis, except in the matter of the Imamate (leadership).
Abu al-Husayn al-Malṭī al-Shāfi‘ī even said, in his book Al-Tanbīh wa’l-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Ahwāʾ wa’l-Bidaʿ (p. 35):
“The fourth group among the Zaydis are the Mu‘tazilites of Baghdad. They hold the same views as the Ja‘fariyya — that is, Ja‘far ibn Mubashshir al-Thaqafī, Ja‘far ibn Ḥarb al-Hamadānī, and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Iskāfī. These are the leading figures of the Mu‘tazilites of Baghdad, and they are Zaydis.”
Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the fact that the very leaders of the Mu‘tazilites themselves were affiliated with the Zaydi movement and took pride in this association, as we shall see. They even pledged allegiance to, and joined in uprisings with, the Zaydi Imams who rose up against the tyrannical and oppressive rulers — the Umayyads and the Abbasids.
This occurred, for instance, when they rose with Imām Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd Allāh in Basra — an event mentioned by ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, as will be discussed — and when they supported Imām Idrīs in Morocco, as will also be shown.
Before all of these, they had already joined in the uprising of the great Imām Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), which further contributed to the confusion among the authors of the Books on Sects and Creeds (al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal). As a result, some of the students and teachers of the Mu‘tazilites who rose up alongside a Zaydi Imām (peace be upon him) came to be classified as belonging to the Zaydi sects — as happened with the Batriyya and others, as will be mentioned later.
Examples of the Sectarian Prejudice of the Compilers of the Books on Sects and Creeds (al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal), and Their Fabrications against the Imams and the Zaydi School
ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī said in his notorious book Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (“The Difference Between the Sects”), at the end of the chapter titled “On Knowing the Rulings Concerning the Enemies of Religion” (p. 220)(3):
“As for dealings with them [that is, the Muʿtazilites and the Qadariyya] in buying and selling, the ruling of the Sunnis is that such transactions are like partnership contracts between Muslims living on the frontier and the people of war — even though killing them is permissible! It is not allowed for a Muslim, according to the sound view of al-Shāfiʿī, to sell them a copy of the Qur’an or a Muslim slave. The companions of al-Shāfiʿī differed on the ruling regarding the Qadari Muʿtazilites who have departed from the truth: some said that their ruling is like that of the Magians — and according to this opinion, jizyah (tribute) may be taken from them; others said that their ruling is that of apostates — and in this case, jizyah is not to be taken from them, rather they are to be asked to repent, and if they do not, then it is obligatory upon the Muslims to kill them!!”
I do not know what went wrong in al-Baghdādī’s mind! I had tried before to find some excuse for him — but the ignorant person is his own worst enemy! It seems that he was struck with a fever similar to the one that afflicted his teacher’s teacher, except that it did not kill him(4)!
And I return to say: al-Bukhārī narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (hadith no. 5752):
“If a man says to his brother, ‘O disbeliever (kāfir),’ then one of them has incurred it.”
He, therefore, is more deserving of the charge he hurled at others — by the very wording of the hadith. And what al-Baghdādī attributed to al-Shāfiʿī and his school, namely that they declared the Muʿtazilites disbelievers, is an utter falsehood — a complete fabrication that exists only in the minds of those sick souls addicted to slander!
For his own Imām, al-Shāfiʿī, was himself a student of one of those very Qadari Shiʿites whom al-Baghdādī condemns, and he held him in the highest esteem and respect. That teacher was Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaḥyā al-Aslamī al-Madanī.
Al-Rabīʿ said(5):
“When al-Shāfiʿī said, ‘Narrated to us by one whom I do not suspect,’ he meant Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yaḥyā.”
His adherence to the doctrine of Qadar (divine decree) and Muʿtazilite theology is well-known. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said:
“They abandoned his narrations; he was a Qadari, a Muʿtazilī.”
And al-Bukhārī also said:
“He believed in Qadar and was a Jahmī.”(6)
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad narrated from his father:
“He was a Qadari, a Jahmī — all kinds of heresy were in him; people abandoned his narrations.”(7)
Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh said:
“I never saw anyone rely upon Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yaḥyā as al-Shāfiʿī did.”(8)(9)
Al-Ḥākim said:
“Al-Shāfiʿī studied under the two foremost scholars of truth — Muslim ibn Khālid(10) and Ibn Abī Yaḥyā.”
And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr stated in his al-Tamhīd:
“The scholars unanimously criticized Ibn Abī Yaḥyā — except for al-Shāfiʿī.”
So how could the student of such a teacher — one whom he referred to with the words, ‘Narrated to me by one whom I do not suspect’ — possibly have regarded the Qadariyya and the Muʿtazila as unbelievers, forbidden to pray behind, whose women could be enslaved, whose blood could be shed, and from whom jizyah might be taken?!
As another example of the bias of such authors, al-Baghdādī — this so-called “Imām”! — claimed that there was consensus among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah that “the earth is stationary and motionless, and that any movement it exhibits is merely accidental” (Al-Farq, p. 198). I do not understand how there could be a consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah on such a matter, nor why he would list it as one of the pillars of their creed!
He also claimed that there was consensus among them that “the earth is flat and finite in all directions,” as found in the same source (p. 198). If that is the case, then most Sunnis today must be impostors upon their own school, for they have rejected one of its alleged “pillars” by affirming that the earth is spherical and in motion! According to al-Baghdādī’s reasoning, a true Sunni could not be a genuine Sunni unless he professed these absurd dogmas! Indeed, God’s creation is full of wonders.
And the examples of their prejudice are endless — but what we have cited here suffices.
Acknowledgment by the Scholars of the Bias of the Authors of the Books on Sects and Creeds (al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal)
Know that whoever examines those books in general will find within them such bias and slander that it makes one’s skin shudder. You find in them extreme prejudice against the very people about whom they write — even when the beliefs of those groups are truer and more firmly grounded in evidence than those held by the authors and their own sects.
The cause of this, in most cases, is sectarian fanaticism, which drives these writers either
- to lie and exaggerate, fabricating new “sects” and ascribing to them things they never said, or
- to quote their enemies — even when those enemies were open apostates and libertines who respected neither religion nor truth, did not regard anything as sacred, and saw no harm in lying.
A prime example of this is Ibn al-Rāwandī, the apostate whom the Muʿtazilites and indeed all the sects unanimously declared an unbeliever — and this was acknowledged even by the Ashʿarites and the fair-minded among Ahl al-Sunnah.
Al-ʿAllāmah al-Kawtharī described the state of such writers in the introduction to Al-Tabsīr (p. 5):
“Among the scholars who authored works on sects and creeds (al-milal wa’l-niḥal), despite their differing approaches and motives, are some who based their attributions of doctrines to others upon the books of their opponents — opponents who were far removed from fairness.
A scholar who is truly cautious in his religion does not ascribe a belief to any sect or individual unless he finds it explicitly stated in the authentic works of those being refuted, or in the reliable books of trustworthy scholars who are careful in reporting opinions.
Nor should anyone charge a group with holding a belief unless that belief follows from their statements with a clear and necessary implication, and unless they themselves have not disavowed that implication.”
He also said, in the introduction to Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī:
“Many beliefs are ascribed to the sects which are not found in their own books — either through invention and forced inference, or by quoting unreliable adversaries — as happens frequently with ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī in his Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq and Al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal, and also with Ibn Ḥazm in his Al-Fiṣal.”
As we have indicated, the reason for this distortion lies in the reliance of the authors of such sectarian works — especially ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, whose statements were later copied by others — upon Ibn al-Rāwandī the heretic, whose book Faḍīḥat al-Muʿtazila (“The Scandal of the Muʿtazilites”) was a malicious attack upon them, despite his own apostasy acknowledged by the entire Muslim community.
Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, in his debates with the scholars of Transoxiana (Ahl Mā Warāʾ al-Nahr), remarked on this in the tenth discussion when speaking of al-Shahrastānī’s book Al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal:
“This is a book in which he claims to have recorded the doctrines of the learned; however, it cannot be relied upon, for he derived his accounts of the Islamic sects from the book called Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq by the teacher Abū Manṣūr al-Baghdādī.
This teacher was extremely prejudiced against his opponents and rarely represented their doctrines correctly.
Since al-Shahrastānī transmitted the descriptions of the Islamic sects from that book, the result was distortion in his transmission of their beliefs.”
Indeed, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī followed in the footsteps of Ibn al-Rāwandī the heretic, the author of Faḍīḥat al-Muʿtazila, as Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Khayyāṭ explained in his book Al-Intiṣār, written in refutation of that same apostate.
And what applies to al-Shahrastānī’s book (d. 548 AH) applies equally to Al-Tabsīr fī al-Dīn wa-Tamyīz al-Firqa al-Nājiyah ʿan al-Firaq al-Hālikīn by Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Isfarāʾīnī (d. 471 AH), who was ʿAbd al-Qāhir’s son-in-law. In his book, he simply copied his father-in-law’s work — line for line, word for word!
Al-ʿAllāmah al-Zāhid al-Kawtharī, the Ḥanafī scholar, refuted their bias in classifying the Zaydis among the Rāfiḍah (extreme Shiʿa). He wrote:
“Imām Zayd never disavowed the two Shaykhs (Abū Bakr and ʿUmar); rather, he deemed what the Companions did to be in the public interest, and he did not speak ill of them. Whoever understands otherwise is not one of his followers, even if he falsely claims affiliation with him.
It is therefore improper to count all Zaydis among the Rāfiḍah, for their Imām was among the farthest of God’s creation from such extremism; in fact, it was the Rāfiḍah themselves who rejected him.”
(Al-Kawtharī’s commentary on Al-Tabsīr, p. 24.)
Another reason for the distortions found in the books on sects and creeds is that their authors often followed the Ḥashwiyya, the anthropomorphists, and the anti–Ahl al-Bayt extremists (nawāṣib) in some of their views — as did Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Malṭī al-Shāfiʿī(11), the first person to author a work on sects and innovations, Al-Tanbīh wa’l-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Ahwāʾ wa’l-Bidaʿ.
In that book, he followed the example of Al-Istiqāmah by Abū ʿĀṣim Khushaysh ibn Aṣram al-Nasāʾī, a well-known nāsibī and ḥashwī, and also of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, the famous anthropomorphist exegete who claimed that God possessed flesh and blood when interpreting the mutashābihāt (ambiguous verses).
Al-Kawtharī criticized him for classifying the Zaydis among the Rāfiḍah, saying:
“The label ‘Rāfiḍah’ applies only to certain small extremist factions among the Zaydis, as is well known. Therefore, using that title to include all Zaydis is incorrect.”
(Introduction to Al-Tanbīh wa’l-Radd.)
Refutation of the Idea that the Zaydi School is Divided into Several Sects
At the outset, it is necessary to establish an idea for every reader and researcher—especially for those who are unfamiliar with Zaydism and have not read its books or the writings of its Imams—namely, that the Zaydis, their Imams, and their followers do not regard themselves as a sect or faction. Their ascription to Imam Zayd and their name “Zaydi” is one of affiliation and allegiance, rather than restriction and isolation, as is the case with many other schools and sects.
That is to say: they follow him in affirming the foundational principles that he clarified, codified, called people to, and strove for.
Imam ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan said:
“The knowledge between us and the people is ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib; and the knowledge between us and the Shīʿa is Zayd ibn ʿAlī.”
These principles are what Imam al-Qāsim al-Rassī (peace be upon him) called “The Five Principles (al-uṣūl al-khamsa)”, while some later Imams referred to them as “The Thirty Principles” or “The Thirty Issues”, in which they explained and expanded upon those five foundations.
Anyone who examines their works will clearly observe that these “principles” are matters agreed upon throughout the history and writings of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt—both early and later ones—even though the Zaydi school is a madhhab of independent reasoning (ijtihād) and rejection of blind imitation (taqlīd), and a school that does not confine its followers to a limited set of books or authorities of the past.
These five principles are the ones clarified by Imam al-Qāsim al-Rassī (peace be upon him), who said (12):
“Whoever does not know from the religion of Islam these five foundational principles is astray and ignorant:
The first of them: that God, Exalted is He, is One, there is nothing like unto Him. Rather, He is the Creator of all things. He perceives sight, but sight does not perceive Him, and He is the Subtle, the All-Aware.
The second of the principles: that God, Exalted is He, is Just and never unjust. He does not burden a soul beyond its capacity, nor does He punish it except for its own sin. He has not prevented anyone from obeying Him—rather, He has commanded it—and He has not compelled anyone to disobey Him—rather, He has forbidden it.
The third of the principles: that God, Exalted is He, is true to His promise and His threat. He rewards for a particle’s weight of good and requites for a particle’s weight of evil. Whoever He admits to reward shall abide therein forever, just as whoever He consigns to punishment that never ceases shall remain therein eternally.
The fourth of the principles: that the Glorious Qur’an is a decisive exposition and a straight path—there is no contradiction or inconsistency within it—and that the Sunnah of the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family) is that which has mention and meaning in the Qur’an.
The fifth of the principles: that the circulation of wealth in trade and profit, during times when divine rulings are suspended, and the property of widows, orphans, the blind, the crippled, and all the weak is plundered, is not lawful or permissible, unlike in the times of rulers of justice and beneficence who uphold the limits set by the Merciful.” (13)
Accordingly, whoever agrees with them regarding these principles and believes in them is Zaydi, and whoever opposes them in any one of them has left the bounds of Zaydism.
There is no other “circle” or division within Zaydism—there is no Jārūdī, as will be explained later, nor Batrī, nor Sulaymānī, nor Jarīrī, nor Ṣāliḥī, nor Kaysānī, nor any of the other designations imagined by Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Malṭī, al-Baghdādī, and others!
Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq, Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Qāsim al-Rassī (peace be upon them), said:
“These principles are what we worship God through; whoever adheres to them is our brother and our ally.
We call to them whoever responds to us, and we respond to whoever calls us to them.
This is our religion and our creed.
The pure ones from the Family of Muḥammad are our leaders.
Whoever agrees with us is our friend; and whoever differs from us, we argue with him by the decisive verses of the Book of God, and we refer him to what is agreed upon from the Sunnah of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family.
If he accepts that, he shall have what we have and bear what we bear.
We love every rightly guided one who preceded us, and our conduct with our ally and our foe is the conduct of our Prophet.
God is our Lord, Muḥammad is our Prophet, the Qur’an is our guide, Islam is our religion, death is our destiny, resurrection will unite us, the Day of Judgment is our appointment, and the judgment of God will decide between us.
Whoever acknowledges what we acknowledge, his loyalty and brotherhood are due; and whoever insists on opposing the truth and contending with sincerity—God is his reckoner, the One in charge of his affair, and the Judge between us and him. And He is the best of judges.” (14)
Examples of fictitious sects invented by the authors of books on sects and creeds (al-Milal wa al-Nihal) and attributed to the Zaydis
In order to complete the number they had fixed for the seventy-three sects, you find them inventing sects that have no existence in reality. I do not know where they would have placed the sects that emerged after the time of those compilers—such as the Bahā’ī and Qādiyānī sects, and others!!
Examples of these fabricated sects are many (15), among them:
The “Sulaymāniyyah” or “Jarīriyyah” sect:
This is one of the most important sects they invented for the Zaydis. Yet we do not know: can any respectable sect have two names—sometimes called the “Jarīriyyah” and other times the “Sulaymāniyyah”? Were they unable to choose one name, even just to identify themselves?!
The invention of such a sect is an indication of the degree of ignorance or bad faith of those who fabricated it, made it a “sect,” and then attributed it to the Zaydis!! The evidence for this is as follows:
Who is Sulaymān ibn Jarīr, to whom this sect is attributed?
Ibn Ḥajar mentioned him in Lisān al-Mīzān, quoting his biography from ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī. They attributed him to the Shīʿa and the Zaydis! Al-Iṣfahānī said in Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn (p. 325): “He was one of the mutakallimūn (theologians) of the Zaydī Batriyya, and among their leading figures.”
Al-Iṣfahānī, in Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, in several reports—and Aḥmad ibn Sahl al-Rāzī in Akhbār Fakh—both attribute to him that he was the one who undertook the assassination of Imām Idrīs ibn ʿAbd Allāh by poison, at the time of his appearance in the Maghrib. They also attributed that act to a man who used to disguise himself in Jewish dress, as is also mentioned in al-Shāfī (1/240) by Imām ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamza.
What they have mentioned about his being behind the killing of the Imām is not unlikely, and that he only pretended to follow the ʿAdliyya for some purpose of his own. Thus Abū al-Faraj’s statement that he was one of the Batriyya was mere imitation of others. At the very least, the man was suspicious.
Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (peace be upon him) refuted him in a book entitled Refutation of Sulaymān ibn Jarīr, in which he said: “He is among those who claim knowledge, but he is of the Mujbira (determinists).” His issues and opinions clearly show that he followed neither the doctrine of the Zaydī ʿitra nor that of the ʿAdliyya!
So how can someone accused of killing an Imām of the Zaydis—someone who wrote works on jabr (determinism) and refutations of the people of ʿadl (divine justice), whether Zaydis or Muʿtazilites)—and against whom Zaydī Imāms authored refutations, be made the leader of a sect attributed to the Zaydis?! The absurdities of these Mujbira never end—whether of al-Baghdādī or this Sulaymān himself!
The “Muḥammadiyya” sect:
Although their alleged leader is one of the well-known and virtuous Imāms among the Zaydis, they called the group the “Muḥammadiyya.” Most of the compilers of the Books on Sects and Creeds counted it among the sects of the Rāfiḍa (Imāmiyya), and at times went even further—placing it among the extremist sects that went out of the fold of Islam—following ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī.
As stated in al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, in the chapter “Mention of the Imāmiyya among the Rāfiḍa” (p. 34):
“These are the ones who await Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib. They do not believe in his killing or death, and claim that he is in the mountain of Ḥājir, in the region of Najd, until he is commanded to come forth… When Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī was killed in Medina, the Mughīriyya split into two factions: one acknowledged his killing… while another group continued to follow al-Mughīra ibn Saʿīd al-ʿIjlī. These claimed that the one killed by the troops of ʿĪsā ibn Mūsā in Medina was not Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh. This group is called the ‘Muḥammadiyya,’ for their awaiting Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan. Jābir ibn Yazīd al-Juʿfī held this belief.”
In the same book, it seems that the compiler either forgot that he had already mentioned this same sect under the chapter of the “Rāfiḍa Imāmiyya,” or he intentionally repeated it for his own purposes. He mentioned it again under a new name in the chapter “Mention of the Mughīriyya among the Extremists, and Their Departure from the Community of Muslim Sects” (p. 145), and he described the same beliefs—only adding to them doctrines such as anthropomorphism, the prophethood of al-Mughīra al-ʿIjlī, and other fabrications. He even later included these Muḥammadiyya once more among the Janāḥiyya sect of extremists (16)—while al-Mughīra ibn Saʿīd al-ʿIjlī, whom he made one of their leaders, is considered a liar abandoned by all sects.
Meanwhile, his student and son-in-law quotes him, adds to it, and makes this sect one of the Jārūdiyya, separating it from the Zaydis according to his claim, saying:
“A group of the Jārūdiyya claimed that the awaited Imām is Muḥammad (17) ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and they say that he neither died nor was killed.” (18)
Where are those who made such a claim regarding Imām Muḥammad? What are their books from which you transmitted their beliefs? How did you obtain such detailed knowledge of their doctrine, when so much time separates the first inventors of this idea—al-Ashʿarī and ʿAbd al-Qāhir—from this imaginary sect?!
A discussion of the Ṣāliḥiyya and the Batriyya, and that they are not among the sects of the Zaydis
The Ṣāliḥiyya — it is said that it is one of the sects of the Zaydis, and it is attributed to al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy (19). Some of the later Zaydi Imāms mention it when enumerating the various opinions concerning the imamate of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him), under the topic of imamate, as in al-Iṣbāḥ ʿalā al-Miṣbāḥ and other works.
However, the Ṣāliḥiyya are not mentioned at all in the books of the early Zaydi Imāms, such as al-Qāsim, al-Hādī, and his two sons (peace be upon them).
All who have transmitted information about this group agree that they held the view of the legitimacy of the imamate of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, without condemning them as mistaken, and that they suspended judgment (tawaqquf) regarding ʿUthmān. It is also reported from them that they allowed the imamate to be open to any person from among the people—just as some of the Muʿtazila said!
On this basis, whoever has classified this group as one of the Zaydi sects is clearly mistaken. Mere similarity or agreement in some fundamental principles does not entail identity. As we have said, the Muʿtazila share with the Zaydis most of the essential doctrinal foundations, and indeed the men of the Muʿtazila were often the fuel for the revolutions of the Zaydi Imāms.
Though they did not, in theory, profess belief in the imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt, in practice they pledged allegiance to most of the Zaydi Imāms in Iraq and Khurāsān.
ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī said in al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (p. 146):
“As for Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan, a few men and his Muʿtazilite followers deceived him, promising him support against the army of al-Manṣūr. But when the two armies met… Ibrāhīm was killed, the Muʿtazila fled, and their misfortune befell him.”
It is also related that the judge ʿAbd al-Jabbār pledged allegiance to Imām Mānkadīm, and that most of the followers of Imām Idrīs (peace be upon him) in the Maghrib were Muʿtazilites (20).
We have already quoted Abū al-Ḥasan al-Malṭī al-Shāfiʿī, who called the Muʿtazilites of Baghdad “Zaydis.” Likewise, the Muʿtazila themselves did not agree upon a single position regarding whether the Commander of the Faithful should be placed after Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. This overlap became a cause of confusion between the Zaydis and the Muʿtazila, and a reason why some Muʿtazilite shaykhs and their followers—who had gone out in revolt alongside Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) and other revolutionary Imāms—were included among the “Zaydi sects.”
Nashwān al-Ḥimyarī said in his book al-Ḥūr al-ʿĪn:
“It is plainly clear, beyond doubt, that Zayd ibn ʿAlī is mentioned among the theologians when theologians are mentioned, and among the ascetics when the ascetics are mentioned, and among the brave and those skilled in governance and politics. He was the most excellent of the Prophet’s family, because he shared with them in all noble qualities and was distinguished from them by virtues they did not share. Among these was his distinction in the science of kalām (theology), which is the most noble of sciences, the path to salvation, and the knowledge by which no other knowledge avails without it. He excelled in it and became renowned among the elite and the common people alike.
Abū ʿUthmān ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ described him in Ṣanʿat al-Kalām, praising and testifying to his supreme mastery of it; likewise Jaʿfar ibn Ḥārith in his book al-Diyāna, and many of the Muʿtazilites of Baghdad—such as Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Iskāfī and others—who attribute themselves to him in their writings and say: ‘We are Zaydis.’
And that alone should suffice: the fact that the Muʿtazila attributed themselves to him—though they usually look down upon others as the angels of heaven look down upon the people of earth, so to speak—were it not for the manifest excellence of his knowledge, his brilliance, and his precedence over all others in virtue, they would never have followed him.”
The editor of al-Risālah al-Nāṣiḥah bi’l-Adillah al-Wāḍiḥah, commenting on the statement of Imām al-Manṣūr bi’llāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamza (peace be upon him), “the Zaydi Ṣāliḥiyya,” said:
“As for the Imām’s use of the term ‘Zaydi’ for the Ṣāliḥiyya, it is no proof that they were Zaydis. In fact, his mentioning them among those who denied the imamate of the Commander of the Faithful after the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) shows that they were not Zaydis.
It may be that he referred to them by the label by which they called themselves, and his statement ‘May God cast them far away’ indicates this. Furthermore, none of the Zaydi Imāms are known to have held their views, so their attribution to the Zaydis is nullified by their departure from the teachings of the Imāms.
You also find him—he being the Imām of the Zaydis (peace be upon him)—refuting them, exposing the falsity of their statements, and clarifying their misguidance. Whoever reads his words in al-Shāfī, explaining who the true Zaydi is and what his belief entails, and also his book al-Kāshif li’l-Ishkāl fī al-Farq bayn al-Tashayyuʿ wa’l-Iʿtizāl within the collected works of Sayyid Ḥumaydān, will know the truth of what we have said…
This sect and others like it, which were falsely attributed to Zaydism while holding views contrary to it, have vanished entirely—and indeed, they may never have truly existed at all.”
This is a clear statement proving that this group was not of the Zaydis but of the Muʿtazila. In my opinion, moreover, it was not even a distinct sect; rather, it was the classification made by those who divided the followers of every Muʿtazilite scholar into separate “sects,” claiming that each faction declared the others disbelievers. They did this to make them appear as splintered and deviant groups, thus discrediting them and driving people away from them—especially when they followed it up with statements such as:
“As for the seventy-third sect—it is Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jamāʿa. They are all united upon a single doctrine… none of the differences among them involve declaring one another sinful or misguided; they are the saved sect.” (21)
This is nothing but deception, meant to make people believe that they alone form the single united group (22), in contrast to all other sects—thereby implying that they alone deserve to be followed, and that their members are the only ones saved!
Finally, what we have said and demonstrated—that the Ṣāliḥiyya are among the Muʿtazila and not the Zaydis, for the reasons we have explained—applies equally to the Batriyya, the followers of Kathīr al-Nawwā, known as al-Abtar (23). They agreed with the Ṣāliḥiyya in doctrine and in all reported views, though they were less well known and less frequently mentioned. It is clear that they, too, were never truly a “sect.” Abū Ḥanīfa is said to have been associated with them. And God is the Guide!
The Jārūdiyya
Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir
Sayyid ʿAbd al-Salām al-Wajīh said in his book Aʿlām al-Muʾallifīn al-Zaydiyya (“Biographical Dictionary of Zaydi Authors”) in his entry on him:
“Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir al-Hamdānī al-Kūfī, the blind ascetic, known by his kunya Abū al-Jārūd, was one of the leading figures of the Zaydis. The Jārūdiyya branch of the Zaydis is named after him.
He was one of the students, supporters, and pledge-givers (bayʿa-holders) of Imām Zayd (peace be upon him). He was known for his firmness in upholding the truth and for transmitting narrations from Imām Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him).
Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Isḥāq al-Baghdādī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAlawī, al-Ardabīlī, al-Mizzī, and the authors of al-Ṭabaqāt and al-Jadāwil all counted him among those who narrated from Imām Zayd (peace be upon him).
He was a scholar, a traditionist, an exegete, and a mujahid (fighter in God’s cause). There are many reports about him. The Imāmiyya (Twelver Shīʿa) went to extremes in attacking and disparaging him, and they falsely attributed to their Imāms statements concerning him that are untrue. Likewise, the Hashwiyya (the anthropomorphist literalists) also showed hostility toward him, attributing to him the so-called ‘Jārūdiyya’ and making it a sect among the Zaydis.”
It appears that he left no independent authored works of his own.
In al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa’l-Matrūkīn (“The Weak and Abandoned Narrators”) by Ibn al-Jawzī (no. 1305), it is written:
“Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir Abū al-Jārūd al-Thaqafī al-Kūfī — he narrated from Abū al-Ṭufayl and al-Aʿmash. Aḥmad and al-Nasāʾī said: ‘He is abandoned in ḥadīth.’
Yaḥyā [ibn Maʿīn] said: ‘A liar, the enemy of God, not worth a single coin.’
Ibn Ḥibbān said: ‘He was a Rāfiḍī who fabricated ḥadīths.’”
Just look at this bias!
In Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (no. 2070), al-Mizzī writes:
“Al-Nawbakhtī said in his book Maqālāt al-Shīʿa (‘The Doctrines of the Shīʿa’), in the section on the ten sects of the Zaydis:
‘The Jārūdiyya among them — who are the followers of Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir — say that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) was the best of creation after the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and that he was the most entitled to authority over all people. They dissociated themselves from Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (may God be pleased with them), and they held that the imamate is restricted to the descendants of Fāṭima (peace be upon her), and that it belongs to whoever among them rises up calling to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet — and that it is obligatory upon us to support and aid him, in accordance with the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family):
“Whoever hears our call, the call of the People of the House, and does not respond, God will throw him on his face into the Fire.”Some of them also believe in the rajʿa (return of the Imāms after death) and permit mutʿa (temporary marriage).’”
An enumeration of the views attributed to the Jārūdiyya in the books on sects and creeds (al-Milal wa al-Niḥal)
Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Malṭī — the first to write in this field — said in his book al-Tanbīh wa’l-Radd (“Admonition and Refutation”):
“The people of misguidance, the Rāfiḍa, are eighteen sects who call themselves Imāmiyya. I shall mention them, God willing, in order: … The eleventh sect are the Jārūdiyya. They are between the extremists (ghulāt) and the transmigrationists (tanāsukhiyya). They do not openly profess extremism, but they say that God, Mighty and Exalted, is Light, and that the souls of the Imāms and prophets are generated from that Light. They incline toward the doctrine of transmigration (tanāsukh), though they do not explicitly say that souls move from one human body to another…”
—and so on, to the end of his nonsense!!
Some accusations do not harm the one accused — they only expose the accuser!
I do not know — perhaps he confused them with the Ḥulūliyya (those who believe in divine indwelling) or the Tanāsukhiyya (those who believe in reincarnation)? Or perhaps he deliberately sought to malign anyone connected with the Prophet’s Household (Āl al-Bayt), following in the footsteps of his teacher Khushaysh.
In al-Farq bayn al-Firaq by ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (p. 23), he said regarding the Jārūdiyya:
“They are the followers of the one known as Abū al-Jārūd. They claimed that the Prophet designated ʿAlī’s imamate by description, not by name. They also claimed that the Companions became unbelievers for failing to give allegiance to ʿAlī. They further said that al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī was the Imām after ʿAlī, and that his brother al-Ḥusayn was the Imām after al-Ḥasan.
The Jārūdiyya then split into two factions concerning this order:
One faction said that ʿAlī appointed his son al-Ḥasan as Imām after him, and al-Ḥasan in turn appointed his brother al-Ḥusayn after him; thereafter the imamate became a matter of consultation (shūrā) among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. Whichever one of them rose up, drew his sword, called people to his faith, and was learned and pious — he is the Imām.
The second faction claimed that the Prophet himself appointed al-Ḥasan after ʿAlī, and al-Ḥusayn after al-Ḥasan.
After this, the Jārūdiyya split again over the awaited Imām (al-imām al-muntaẓar). Some of them did not specify anyone in particular as the awaited one, but said: every descendant of al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn who rises with the sword and calls to his faith is the Imām.”
Upon the book of ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī relied most of those who came after him — such as Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Isfarāʾīnī, Ibn Ḥazm, al-Shahrastānī, al-Maqrīzī, and others. Therefore, responding to him is tantamount to responding to them all.
A critical examination of how the authors of the classical works on sects and doctrines portrayed the Jārūdiyya
Know that whoever has written about the Jārūdiyya from outside the Zaydi tradition has mixed truth with falsehood, and their intention in doing so was to malign the Zaydis. Most of the accusations they hurled at the Jārūdiyya and used to denounce them were things that none of the Zaydi Imāms ever said at all, let alone any genuine Zaydi group.
For example: the claim that Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, or any of the Companions were disbelievers — this has never been said by any Zaydi Imām whatsoever. Most of the Imāms held a position of suspension (tawaqquf) between considering them morally errant (fāsiq) or worthy of commendation (tarḍiya). As for takfīr (declaring them unbelievers), not a single Zaydi Imām ever went so far.
The reason is simple: the Zaydis affirm for the Commander of the Faithful (ʿAlī, peace be upon him) only an inferential or reasoned textual designation (naṣṣ istidlālī), not an explicit or categorical one (naṣṣ ḍarūrī). Therefore, disagreement over this does not entail disbelief. On this point there is complete consensus among them. To claim an explicit and categorical designation in the Prophet’s report about ʿAlī (peace be upon him and his family) is contrary to reason and perception.
Imām al-Manṣūr bi’llāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamza (peace be upon him), explaining the Zaydi position regarding those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) in the imamate (24), said:
“Those who advanced before ʿAlī (peace be upon him) are among the events that took place after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), whose actors erred in doing so. We do not know the extent of that error’s punishment with God Almighty, for a great sin may be lessened according to the greatness of its doer and the precedence of his good deeds — as we know that people of honor are pardoned for slips and lapses, and forgiven for prior transgressions, unlike those who have no right or standing.
Those who advanced before ʿAlī (peace be upon him) were among the greatest of people in their relation to the Messenger after his Household (peace be upon them), the most devoted in following his example. They were his closest companions and his best supporters — among them were his friends and helpers, his backbone and defense — and they deserve respect.
Yet they undertook something for which they had no authorization and no proof of permissibility. If God pardons them, then pardon is most fitting for them, and they are most worthy of it; and if He punishes them, then your Lord is not unjust to His servants.”
This is a decisive text, silencing the polemical hashwiyya (anthropomorphist literalists) and nawāṣib (enemies of the Prophet’s family), and clearly defining the Zaydi position.
As for the claim that the Jārūdiyya permitted temporary marriage (mutʿa), it is false. It is well known among all scholars that the Zaydis, in general, reject mutʿa. How, then, could a Zaydi branch approve of it when the Zaydi Imāms unanimously prohibit it?
Although mutʿa is not among the fundamentals of religion but rather a juridical issue, and one cannot declare its proponents unbelievers, those who uphold it are the Imāmiyya Ithnā ʿAshariyya (Twelver Shīʿa), not the Zaydis. The Imāms of the Prophet’s Household have long refuted those who permitted it.
Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq al-Mubīn (peace be upon him) spoke harshly of it and of those who made it lawful, in his book al-Aḥkām (which is published, praise be to God). Whoever wishes to verify the matter should consult it.
As for what they claimed — that the Jārūdiyya believed in the return (rajʿa) — Imām al-Manṣūr bi’llāh said in his book al-ʿAqd al-Thamīn:
“As for what [the Imāmiyya] have adopted concerning rajʿa, it has no proof, and it is not permissible for a Muslim to believe it.”
So how could the Zaydis regard rajʿa as a belief no Muslim may hold, and yet those who claim affiliation with the Zaydis affirm it? This is clear evidence of the falsehood of those who fabricated this accusation against them. And God is their reckoner.
Moreover, the Zaydis do not curse or revile the Companions or anyone else. Their conduct follows the example of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿAlī) and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) in how they dealt with their opponents.
Since this is the most common pretext used by adversaries — who accuse the Zaydis of being “Jārūdiyya” in the sense of being revilers or denigrators — know that the Zaydis hold cursing and abuse to be impermissible for anyone, let alone for the Companions of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) (25).
Their manners reflect those of their righteous ancestors — avoiding insult, slander, and prying into the faults of the Companions or others. We have already cited the statement of Imām ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamza (peace be upon him) concerning those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful.
He (peace be upon him) also said (26):
“No one can truthfully claim that any of our pious predecessors (peace be upon them) ever disparaged or insulted the Companions (may God be pleased with them). Rather, they believed that before the innovations, the Companions were the best of God’s creation after Muḥammad, ʿAlī, and their two sons (may God’s blessings be upon them and upon the pure among their family).
They said: They erred by advancing before ʿAlī (peace be upon him), committing thereby a sin whose measure is known only to God. None is free from error except God Himself — ‘And Adam disobeyed his Lord and went astray’ (Qurʾān 20:121).
If God holds them accountable, it is for a sin they committed; and if He forgives them, He is most worthy of forgiveness. They deserve pardon in view of their praiseworthy past deeds.”
And al-ʿAllāmah al-Yamānī said in al-Badr al-Munīr (p. 417):
“It has not been reported that al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī or al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) ever uttered a single vulgar word despite all they endured — and so too were their descendants, generation after generation.”
The Jārūdiyya in the Zaydi books
Imām al-Manṣūr bi’llāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamza (peace be upon him) (d. 614 AH) said about the Zaydis in his book al-ʿAqīd al-Thamīn:
“The Zaydis are those who trace their affiliation to him [i.e., to Imām Zayd, peace be upon him] and follow his path. Among them are the (Ṣāliḥiyya), who are affiliated with al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy; the (Batriyya); and the (Jārūdiyya). Explaining their details at length would take much time. They are, in reality, the Imāms of guidance (peace be upon them) and their followers among the scholars of Islam. They were distinguished by the name Zaydi because of their doctrinal affiliation with Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them both).”
It appears that when the Imām discussed and listed the sects attributed to the Zaydis, he mentioned these three groups. Later, however, he excluded two of them — the Ṣāliḥiyya and the Batriyya — from being among the Shīʿa sects at all, let alone part of the Zaydis, based on what had reached him regarding their beliefs, as we have explained earlier.
He later clarified this in another passage, saying:
“They are three groups: the Batriyya, the Ṣāliḥiyya, and the Jārūdiyya. Most of them are the Jārūdiyya, and they are the people of truth among them, while the others have erred in certain points of belief.”
This is confirmed by what Sayyid Imām Ḥumaydān ibn Yaḥyā said in his Majmūʿ:
“The true Zaydis are the Jārūdiyya, and it is not known that any of the Imāms (peace be upon them), after Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), was anything other than Jārūdī.”
That is, according to the views transmitted about these groups, the correct position is that of the Jārūdiyya. Abū al-Jārūd was one of the greatest students and warriors who stood alongside Imām Zayd in his uprising. His name became well known because of his prominent role in the Imām’s revolution, serving as one of his envoys.
However, he himself was not one of the Zaydi Imāms, and the Zaydis do not affirm the imamate of anyone who is not from the Hāshimite line. Thus, his status among the Zaydis is similar to that of al-Ashʿarī (27) among the Shāfiʿīs and Mālikīs.
Although Abū al-Jārūd did not leave behind any known written works in theology or other fields — and it appears that he did not compose any books at all — he did transmit the tafsīr (Qurʾānic commentary) of Imām al-Bāqir (peace be upon him), though none of it has reached us.
Therefore, what has been transmitted as the belief of the group called the Jārūdiyya is in fact the same as the general creed of the Zaydis.
In this sense, describing the Zaydis as Jārūdiyya, as some Imāms have done, is entirely accurate.
Conclusion
It becomes evident from what has preceded that the Jārūdiyya—though opponents have tried to make the name into an insult—was merely a designation used by some, both outside and within the Zaydi community, to refer to the general, well-established doctrines of the Zaydis themselves.
As for the things falsely attributed to them—such as reviling the Companions, declaring them disbelievers, approving of temporary marriage (mutʿa), and similar accusations—these are in fact no more than attempts to impute such notions to the Zaydi school as a whole, and there is no basis for such attributions.
The Zaydi Imāms’ teachings are perfectly clear regarding these issues that others have ascribed to them with hostility. Their prohibition of taqiyya (religious dissimulation) in matters of creed is as well known as fire upon a mountain.
Their books are now published and widely available—praise be to God. Whoever truly wishes to know the truth and the path of God Almighty should read and study for himself, and not make the authors of the Books on Sects and Creeds (al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal) the intermediaries between him and the truth.
The Ahl al-Bayt and the Zaydis are not in a position to be accused; they are far above that. Our only purpose in this study has been to dispel certain misconceptions held by the general public and by researchers who have relied on the Books on Sects and Creeds to understand the Zaydis.
Completed by the grace of God Almighty
21 Shaʿbān 1431 AH
The humble servant,
Aws al-Kawtharī
Footnotes
1) Most of these writers — and the most biased among them — include:
- Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324 AH), author of al-Maqālāt and other works;
- Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Malṭī (d. 377 AH), author of al-Tanbīh wa’l-Radd;
- ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 429 AH), author of al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, the most famous among these books; and
- Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Isfarāʾīnī (d. 471 AH), author of al-Tabṣīr, who was al-Baghdādī’s son-in-law.
All of them lived during the third, fourth, and fifth Islamic centuries, when authority and influence rested with the Hashwiyya and Nawāṣib among the Ahl al-Ḥadīth — that is, the Ashʿarites and Hashwiyya, as will be discussed later.
Those who came after them and wrote about sects and doctrines merely copied what these earlier authors had written, just as al-Shahrastānī (d. 548 AH) did in his work al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal.
2) Indeed, you find that some writers on sects and creeds openly and shamelessly proclaim the vile doctrine of jabr (absolute predestination) — a belief that justifies the tyranny and debauchery of oppressors.
Among such examples is the statement of ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Tamīmī in al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (p. 165), under the heading “Concerning the Ḥimāriyya among the Qadariyya and the Explanation of Their Departure from the Muslim Community”:
“They further claimed that wine is not an act of God Almighty, but the act of the wine-seller, since God does not perform what leads to sin!!”
Look at this astonishing condemnation — as if he had never heard the word of God, the Exalted:
‘Say: Indeed, God does not command indecency. Do you say about God that which you do not know?’
(Qurʾān 7:28)
Truly, the saying is confirmed:
“If you feel no shame, then do as you please.”
3) Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 220.
4) Al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, in Sharḥ al-Uṣūl al-Khamsah (p. 174), mentioned that his own teacher, Abū al-Qāsim ibn Sahlawayh, was nicknamed “the Killer of al-Ashʿarī” — saying: “He was so called because he debated al-Ashʿarī on a matter, and al-Ashʿarī was defeated and fell ill with fever as a result.”
5) As recorded in the biography of Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yaḥyā in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl and Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (1/37).
6-7) Same source as above.
8) He was a Zaydī. The distinguished Yemeni historian and scholar of the Zaydis, Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Abī al-Rijāl (d. 1092 AH), wrote in his Muṭlaʿ al-Budūr wa-Majmaʿ al-Buḥūr: “Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaḥyā, the scholar and muḥaddith, was the Imām of the ʿAdliyya and the proof of the people of hadith — the teacher of Imām al-Shāfiʿī (may Allah have mercy on him) — and he was among the scholars of the Zaydis.”
9) Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (1/37).
10) In Lisān al-Mīzān (no. 8491), in the biography of Muslim ibn Khālid, it is mentioned: “Al-Sājī said: He made many mistakes and held the belief in Qadar.”
11) In fact, the correct view is that the author himself — Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Malṭī al-Shāfiʿī — was among the ḥashwiyya and nawāṣib. He was deeply hostile toward the theologians (munazzihah), Ahl al-Bayt, and the Zaydis (peace be upon them all), as is evident from his book. His imitation of Khushaysh ibn Aṣram, the ḥashwī nāsibī author of the notorious Al-Istiqāmah, and of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, the anthropomorphist who spoke of God as having flesh and blood in his exegesis of the Qur’an’s ambiguous verses, reflects a preexisting confusion in his thought — a fact to which al-Kawtharī himself also pointed in his introduction to Al-Tanbīh wa’l-Radd.
12) From his book (peace be upon him) titled Al-Uṣūl al-Khamsa (“The Five Principles”).
13) Here it is also worth mentioning the doctrine of “the station between two stations” (al-manzilah bayna al-manzilatayn)—that is, the one who commits a grave sin is neither called a believer nor a disbeliever, but occupies an intermediate state between the two, and is thus called fāsiq (a sinner). This is also among their beliefs.
14) Majmūʿ al-Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (Collected Works of Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq), page 271.
15) Among the strangest of those sects is the Maʿdūmiyya sect, allegedly of the Muʿtazila, which was invented by ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī al-Tamīmī while he was discussing another sect that he himself had previously fabricated and named the Khayyāṭiyya.
As he says in al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (p. 107):
“The Muʿtazila differed regarding whether the nonexistent (al-maʿdūm) can be called a ‘thing’ (shayʾ)… and others among the Muʿtazila claimed that the nonexistent is a thing… and those Khayyāṭiyya were called the Maʿdūmiyya.”
Just look, for God’s sake, how from those minor philosophical and verbal disputes among the pupils of the very same scholar, he fabricated an entire sect and named it the Maʿdūmiyya! He then went on to count it among the seventy-two sects destined for the Fire!!
Yet in reality, they were merely students of knowledge—disciples debating a single issue—and in fact, they were not even truly in disagreement over it. Meanwhile, among the followers of al-Baghdādī’s own school of thought, there exist far greater disputes—over fundamental doctrines (uṣūl) and the attributes of God—than the question of whether nonexistence is something or not.
Despite that, he called them all “Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jamāʿa,” arguing that anything which does not entail declaring one’s opponent sinful (fāsiq) cannot properly be called a disagreement.
So why this contradiction?!
16) Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, Dār Ibn Ḥazm edition, page 149.
17) He is Imām Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, peace be upon them all, known as al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (“the Pure Soul”). He rose up in the year 145 AH, at the beginning of Rajab. He went to Mecca, where he was pledged allegiance by all the members of the Prophet’s family (peace be upon them) of his time—from among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. Not one of them refrained from pledging allegiance to him. He was also supported by the scholars of his time from among the Zaydis, the Muʿtazilites, and other jurists of the Muslim community.
He sent his deputies to various regions and provinces, and he was addressed as Amīr al-Muʾminīn (Commander of the Faithful)—the first from the Prophet’s family after ʿAlī (peace be upon him) to be addressed by this title. The ʿAbbāsids were thrown into great turmoil because of him and sent against him a massive army. He fought valiantly until he fell as a martyr—may God have mercy on him.
Imām ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamza said in al-Shāfī:
“He fought with the sword, striking as his grandfather ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace and blessings be upon him) struck. When his companions fled from him, he said: ‘O God, they have been unable to bear Your command and to strive alongside the son of Your Prophet; therefore, release them from their pledge to me.’ Then he turned back upon the people with only a few of his companions—those of insight and from his household—and fought until he was killed in the very place where his grandfather, the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), had foretold that he would be slain, within the sacred precinct of the purified city [Medina].”
Abū al-Faraj narrated with his chain from ʿĪsā ibn Zayd (peace be upon them both) that he said:
“If God were to reveal to Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that He would send a prophet after him, it would have been Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan.”
This is the statement of ʿĪsā ibn Zayd, one of the great Imāms of the Zaydis. Both Imām Mālik ibn Anas and Abū Ḥanīfa issued fatwas supporting the uprising of Imām Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh and his brother Ibrāhīm, who rose in Basra.
In Hidāyat al-Rāghibīn ilā Madhhab al-ʿItrah al-Ṭāhirīn by Sayyid al-Hādī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Wazīr (peace be upon them), it is reported that [Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Nafs al-Zakiyya] gave a sermon from the pulpit of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), saying:
“By God, Zayd ibn ʿAlī revived what had perished of the traditions of the Messengers, and set upright the pillar of religion when it had bent. We shall follow none but his path and draw light only from his light. Zayd is the Imām of the Imāms, and the first who called to God after al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them).”
Among his works is a book entitled al-Siyar (“The Conducts”).
From this, you can clearly see the audacity and falsehood of those who fabricated for this martyred Imām a separate sect outside the framework of Zaydism, and who falsely attributed to him what they did. God Almighty is their reckoner.
See Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn (p. 172), al-Tuḥaf Sharḥ al-Zulaf (p. 31), Ṭabaqāt al-Zaydiyya, and Aʿlām al-Muʾallifīn al-Zaydiyya (p. 436).
18) Al-Tabṣīr fī al-Dīn by Shahfūr ibn Ṭāhir, page 24.
19) Al-ʿAllāmah al-Kawtharī al-Ḥanafī said in his biography of him:
“He was a Kūfan, from Thawr Hamdān, one of the eminent scholars. Al-Bukhārī (in al-Adab al-Mufrad) and Muslim, as well as the compilers of the Sunan, narrated from him. He died in the year 169 AH. The majority [of scholars] regard him as trustworthy. The Ṣāliḥiyya among the Zaydis are attributed to him.”
And in Maʿrifat al-Thiqāt (p. 297) it is stated:
“He was reliable, firm in transmission, and devout in worship. He inclined toward the Shīʿa and was skilled in jurisprudence. However, Ibn al-Mubārak bore some resentment toward him on account of his Shīʿī tendencies and did not narrate anything from him.”
Ibn al-Mubārak lost out by doing so — and al-Ḥasan was not harmed in the least by the fact that he did not narrate from him!
20) As usual, their opponents sought the support of the ruling power rather than relying on wisdom and reason. In the year 179 AH, Harthama ibn Aʿyān, after the poisoning and martyrdom of Imām Idrīs ibn ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him),
“commanded that all the Shīʿa in every region [of North Africa] be killed, tortured, and burned — so that not a single person, whether innocent or ill, was pointed out without being seized and subjected to every kind of torture.”This is related in Akhbār Fakhkh by Aḥmad ibn Sahl al-Rāzī (d. 315 AH).
21) Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, page 21, Dār Ibn Ḥazm edition.
22) And this is a false claim. Look at the biographical entries of Abū Ḥanīfa in the books of biography, and see how they reviled him, declared him an unbeliever, and said that “no one more calamitous to Islam was ever born.” Likewise, see the entry of al-Ashʿarī and how they disparaged him. Consider also how Ibn Ḥanbal declared unbelievers those who said that the Qur’an was created or even suspended judgment on the issue—while these were, in fact, the majority of the Ashʿarīs and Māturīdīs among Ahl al-Sunna … and so on.
23) Ibn Ḥibbān said, as cited in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ by Ibn al-Jawzī:
“He was extreme in Shīʿism—excessively so.”
Ibn ʿAdī said the same in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb.
Al-Dhahabī said about him in al-Kāshif:
“A staunch Shīʿī, harshly criticized and deemed weak.”
24) Al-Majmūʿ al-Manṣūrī (Part 2, Section 1, p. 449).
25) Although the Zaydis do not hold cursing, reviling, or insulting to be permissible — their path in this regard being that of their pious forebears — this does not mean remaining silent about injustice, apostasy, or grave wrongdoing that some of the Companions committed, as is explicitly stated in the authentic ḥadīths of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, particularly those concerning the Pond of al-Kawthar (al-Ḥawḍ).
Among them is the narration in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (no. 6582):
“Men from among my Companions will indeed come to me at the Pond, until I recognize them; then they will be taken away from me. So I will say: ‘My Companions!’ But it will be said to me: ‘You do not know what they did after you.’”
And Muslim narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (no. 2304):
The Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: “Men from among those who accompanied me will come to me at the Pond. When I see them and they are brought before me, they will be taken away from me. So I will say, ‘O Lord, my Companions! my Companions!’ But it will be said to me, ‘You do not know what they did after you.’”
Al-Ṭabarī (may God have mercy on him) said:
“As for those who followed the Sunnah and the community — namely, the Zaydis — they adhered to the Word of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger in all their affairs. They mentioned the Companions of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), each according to his deeds; they neither exaggerated in describing their actions nor concealed any of them out of fear.”And indeed, the best of matters is the middle way! So reflect upon this.
26) Al-Majmūʿ al-Manṣūrī (Part 2, Section 1, p. 450).
27) With a difference in comparison, of course — for al-Ashʿarī was a hashwī (an anthropomorphist literalist), so he deserves neither affection nor honor.