The Clear Explanation of the Relationship Between Yemen’s Zaydism and Jarudiyya
Introduction
In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
All praise is due to God, and peace and blessings be upon the noblest of Prophets and Messengers—our master Muhammad, the trustworthy and final Messenger—and upon his pure and immaculate family, the ships of salvation and the signs of guidance; and may God’s pleasure be upon the pious Companions and those who followed them in goodness and excellence until the Day of Judgment.
Indeed, there is nothing more severe than injustice—and no form of injustice is more insidious than deception, which is itself a branch of injustice—especially when committed by someone who has devoted his pen to matters related to the Muhammadan Sharīʿah, in its principles and its branches. We ask God to protect us and you from destruction and from misguidance, for “God does not will injustice for the worlds” (Āl ʿImrān: 183).
We have come across a topic whose sword is drawn against the people of truth and of Muhammadan, ʿAlawī, Fāṭimī, Ḥasanī, and Ḥusaynī adherence—aimed at repelling them, deceiving others about them, their beliefs, their followers, and their method of understanding and establishing doctrine.
The topic concerns the Jarūdī sect and its relationship to Zaydism, in terms of affiliation, attribution, influence, and imitation.
Many in our era, as well as some before us, have confused Zaydism—particularly the Zaydism of Yemen—with Jarūdism, especially after the emergence of the Jaʿfarī Rāfiḍī (Twelver Shiʿa) sect, which gained strength through political states and found followers in Yemen.
Since many researchers today are only familiar—due to widespread exposure—with the Jaʿfarī sect among the Shiʿa, they have ended up conflating them with other Shiʿa groups. Thus, they came to view all Shiʿa alike, through the lens of rejection (rafḍ) and insulting or disassociating from the Companions.
By my life, this is an unjust perspective and a faulty measure—one resorted to only by those lacking precision and insight among scholars and researchers.
Otherwise, what connection does the upright, praiseworthy Zaydī school—may God elevate its rank and the rank of its followers—have with rejectionism (rafḍ), insulting the Companions, or false accusations? God is the One whose help is sought.
They say: “The Jarūdiyya are part of the Zaydiyya, and it is well known that the Jarūdiyya hold the belief of insulting the Companions.”
We reply: How did it appear to you, O scholars, that the Zaydīs of Yemen are among such people?!
This, then, is the introduction and preface to the topic of this treatise, which we ask God to grant understanding of to the people of knowledge and its students, and that He make its students guides to those mired in ignorance and partisanship—so that they may remove some of the mistaken conceptions surrounding this important issue.
This is especially necessary in our age, when the specter of “rejectionism” and the spread of its doctrines have become a psychological burden and concern among the Sunni Salafi community.
Yet we believe that a sound structure cannot be undermined by the sting of a mosquito.
And now, it is time to begin the essence of the study, which we have divided into three sections:
- First Section: A definition of Jarūdism and the doctrines attributed to it.
- Second Section: A definition of Jarūdism as condemned by the Zaydīs and Jarūdism as praised among them.
- Third Section: The true affiliation and attribution of the Zaydīs—its foundation and its source.
We begin, relying upon God Almighty.
Definition of Jarūdism and the Doctrines Attributed to It
The scholars of transmission (ahl al-naql) are agreed that Jarūdism (al-Jārūdiyyah) is attributed to Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir al-ʿAbdī al-Hamdānī, who was blind.
He lived during the time of, associated with, and supported Imām Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him).
He was the Imām’s envoy to Abū Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān ibn Thābit, the founder of the (Ḥanafī) school of law,[1] and one of those who proclaimed the slogan of Imām Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) from the minarets of Kufa, calling for righteousness and the victory of truth and its people.[2]
He used to narrate and transmit reports about the Imām (peace be upon him) during his travels, his lessons, and even on the battlefield; he was his close companion and constant attendant—at a time when many eminent scholars did not respond to the Imām’s call, nor did many of the memorisers of ḥadīth devote themselves to his knowledge—whether out of ascetic caution or hesitation regarding the Imām’s circumstances. God alone knows their state and their excuse for not answering his comprehensive call.
Indeed, Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir also transmitted widely from Imām al-Bāqir Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), and likewise narrated from Imām Shaybat al-Ḥamd ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him).
The Doctrines Attributed to Abū al-Jārūd and to the Jarūdiyyah Sect
Here, my brother—may God bless you—know that there are doctrines attributed to the Jarūdiyyah as a sect and a group, and there are doctrines attributed directly to Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir himself, and there is an important difference in this attribution.
It is well known that followers may hold beliefs not actually held by the person to whom they attribute themselves or by the one whose name they bear.
This is exactly like those who absolve Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal of the doctrines of the claimants of “Salafism” and the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah—as the Ashʿarīs and others often state.
Similarly, the Zaydīs absolve Imām Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon him) of the doctrines of the Jaʿfarīs (Twelver Shiʿa), which they have turned into their own religion.
In the same way, opponents of the Zaydīs accuse them—wrongly—of holding doctrines that differ from those of their Imām Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him).
Therefore, it is necessary to note that the doctrines attributed to the Jarūdiyyah sect are not necessarily the actual doctrines of Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir, for his followers may have added to or subtracted from his teachings. He cannot be held responsible for all of their claims.
Below, we will mention the doctrines recorded in Islamic books and sources—both those attributed to the Jarūdiyyah sect and those attributed to Abū al-Jārūd himself. Among them are the following:
A. They said that Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir professed “rejection” (rafḍ):
- Al-Dhahabī said of Abū al-Jārūd: “A Rāfiḍī (rejecter), accused (of extremism); he had followers who are the Jarūdiyyah.” [3]
- Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said: “A Rāfiḍī.” [4]
- Abū Ḥātim said: “He was a Rāfiḍī.” [5]
- Ibn ʿAdī said: “He is counted among the extremists of Kufa.” [6]
B. They said: Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir held the belief of declaring the Shaykhs (the early Caliphs) unbelievers, and that Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was designated as Imām by description, not by name.
By this statement they refer to what Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī mentioned in Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, being the first to clearly record this doctrine as attributed to the Jarūdiyyah—though without a direct attribution to Abū al-Jārūd himself. He said:
“Among them are the Jarūdiyyah, the followers of Abū al-Jārūd. They were called ‘Jarūdiyyah’ because they adopted the opinion of Abū al-Jārūd.
They claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him) designated ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as Imām by description, not by explicit name; thus, he was the Imām after him.
They also claim that the people went astray and became disbelievers because they failed to follow him after the Messenger (peace be upon him).
After ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan was the Imām, and after al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn was the Imām.” [7]
However, al-Nawbakhtī, in his Firaq al-Shīʿa—the earliest author to discuss the Jarūdiyyah as an Islamic sect—did not mention the issue of “designation by name or description” as part of their doctrine or that of Abū al-Jārūd. He said:
“A group among them are called the Jarūdiyyah.
They affirmed the superiority of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) and held that no one else could occupy his rank.
They claimed that whoever deprived ʿAlī of this position was an unbeliever, and that the Ummah disbelieved and went astray by not giving him the pledge of allegiance.
They placed the Imamate after him in al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), then in al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him), and after that the Imamate became a consultative matter (shūrā) among their descendants;
whoever among them emerged deserving of the Imamate, he would be the Imām.” [8]
Indeed, these two authors—al-Nawbakhtī and al-Ashʿarī—are, as far as we have found, the first to have formulated and recorded this doctrine regarding Abū al-Jārūd and his followers in this specific manner.
The later scholars of transmission, such as al-Baghdādī, al-Shahrastānī, and others, followed them in this, even reproducing these very same passages in their own works.
C. They said: The Jarūdiyyah believed in the occultation (ghaybah) of Imām Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh “al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah.”
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī said:
“A group claimed that Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan did not die, and that he will reappear and prevail.”
This was also reported by others. [9]
D. They said: The Jarūdiyyah believed in the occultation of Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim al-Ṭālaqānī.
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī said:
“Another group claimed that Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim, the master of Ṭālaqān, is alive and has not died; he will appear and triumph.”
This, too, was transmitted by others. [10]
E. They said: The Jarūdiyyah believed in the occultation of Imām Yaḥyā ibn ʿUmar, the leader of Kufa.
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī said:
“A group said the same regarding Yaḥyā ibn ʿUmar, the master of Kufa.”
This, likewise, was transmitted by others. [11]
F. They said: The Jarūdiyyah held a belief close to reincarnation, and that the souls of the Imams were generated from the Light of God, Mighty and Exalted.
Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Malṭī al-Shāfiʿī said:
“The eleventh sect are the Jarūdiyyah.
They stand between the ghulāt (extremists) and the tanāsukhiyyah (believers in transmigration of souls).
They do not openly profess extremism, but they say: ‘God, Mighty and Exalted, is Light, and the souls of the Imams and Prophets are generated from that Light.’
They incline toward the doctrine of transmigration (tanāsukh), yet they do not say that the soul passes from the body of a human into the body of a non-human.
Rather, they say that the soul moves from the body of an evil human being to the body of a human who suffers pain and illness—so that it may be tormented therein for a time because of the evil and corruption it committed.
Then it is transferred to the body of a blessed person, to enjoy comfort therein for as long as it had remained in the first body.
They claim that this process is called al-kawr (the cycle).
Thus, one soul may be punished or confined within an aged, sick, or infirm body, or it may be blessed within the body of a young, handsome, and delighted person.” [12]
G. They said: The Jarūdiyyah held the belief in rajʿah (the return of the Imams to life) and permitted temporary marriage (mutʿah).
Al-Mizzī said:
“Some of them believe in rajʿah and permit mutʿah (temporary marriage).” [13]
Indeed, whoever reflects on these doctrines attributed to the Jarūdiyyah—as one of the Zaydī sects—will clearly see the strength of what we stated earlier: that there is no necessity to attach every belief of the followers of Abū al-Jārūd to Abū al-Jārūd himself.
Later adherents may have introduced innovations that he himself did not profess.
We mention this so that the general public is not misled, and so that those who are knowledgeable do not attribute all these views to Abū al-Jārūd merely because of the connection of name and following.
For example, the beliefs concerning al-Ṭālaqānī, Yaḥyā ibn ʿUmar, and the doctrine of transmigration clearly arose after the time of Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir al-Hamdānī.
Furthermore, this is not the place for a detailed discussion and examination of these doctrines, their theological implications, or the accuracy of their attribution—for in some of them there are clear exaggerations, such as the claim about the transmigration of souls mentioned by al-Malṭī al-Shāfiʿī, as well as the claim regarding mutʿah, which is repugnant and far-fetched.
Rather, the purpose here is to clarify the relationship between the Zaydīs of Yemen and the Jarūdiyyah, as mentioned in the books of sects (milal wa-niḥal) and biographies (tarājim).
Hence, any researcher reading these lines must carefully consider that—
even if Yemeni Zaydīs are described as Jarūdī—one must ask:
Which Jarūdiyyah among these various Jarūdiyyah sects do the people of Yemen actually follow?
And do the Zaydīs of Yemen have their own definition and characteristics of Jarūdiyyah that differ from what has been reported?
It may well be that the Zaydīs of Yemen do not identify the Jarūdiyyah according to any of these definitions, and thus people have confused one group for another, failing to understand the true meaning of Jarūdiyyah—and therefore have misjudged the Zaydīs from the very outset!
This matter, with God’s permission, we shall address in detail in the second section to follow.
A definition of Jarūdism as condemned by the Zaydīs and Jarūdism as praised among them
In this section, with God’s permission, we will discuss the view of the Yemeni Zaydīs toward the Jarūdiyyah, and what exactly they mean when they use the term Jarūdiyyah in their writings and speech.
The Zaydī view in Yemen regarding the Jarūdiyyah has differed depending on the beliefs attributed to the Jarūdiyyah as a sect—beliefs mentioned in both Sunni and Shiʿi sources written by the authors of works on sects and doctrines (al-milal wa-al-niḥal).
Thus, you find that some Zaydīs praise the Jarūdiyyah, regarding them as a group that does not curse the Companions and that upholds the authentic Fāṭimid Zaydī doctrines held by the Zaydīs of Yemen.
At the same time, others criticize the Jarūdiyyah, viewing them as a sect that declares the Companions disbelievers and strays from the original Fāṭimid Zaydī creed.
It is therefore important here to understand how the Zaydīs themselves view the Jarūdiyyah, taking into account the most prominent opinions attributed to them.
Hence, we divide the discussion into two parts:
Part One: The View of the Yemeni Zaydīs Toward the Praiseworthy Jarūdiyyah
We find that the first[14] among the Imams of the Prophet’s family (Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them) —as far as we have been able to ascertain—to speak about the Jarūdiyyah as a distinct branch within Zaydism was Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) in the 7th century AH (13th century CE).
He said:
“The true Zaydiyyah are the Jarūdiyyah, and we know of no Imām (peace be upon them) after Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) who was not a Jarūdī.
The most authentic and reliable reports transmitted from the early generations affirm what we have said—namely, withholding judgment (tawaqquf)—based on synthesis and careful reasoning.
Although some of the Jarūdiyyah were known for criticizing and insulting (the Companions), this represents only the view of certain individuals among them.” [15]
From this statement, we can draw five observations, each dependent on the one before it.
First Observation:
Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) was among those who held the doctrine of tawaqquf (suspending judgment) regarding the early caliphs (al-mashāyikh)—meaning that he neither cursed nor insulted them.
He stated that this was the well-known attitude of Imām ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) and of his two sons al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them).
He said (peace be upon him), in response to a question about the precedence of the caliphs over the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī (peace be upon him):
“In our view, the Companions are the most virtuous of people after the Imāms (peace be upon them) before they committed innovations (iḥdāth).
After such innovations occurred, we have our Imāms to whom we refer in matters of religion; we advance where they advanced and refrain where they refrained.
Those Imāms are ʿAlī and his two sons (peace be upon them).
When innovations occurred against them, our anger was on their behalf.
And we have never known any of them to have cursed, insulted, or reviled any of the Companions, neither during their lifetimes nor after their deaths.” [16]
Second Observation:
Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) regarded Jarūdiyyah as a term of praise, and he attributed it to the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) who came after Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) up until his own time.
He also clarified the stance of this Jarūdiyyah—the one he praised—toward the Companions, saying:
“The most authentic reports transmitted from the early generations confirm what we have said—meaning tawaqquf (suspending judgment)—based on synthesis and careful reasoning.”
This means that those early generations whom the Imām described as Jarūdiyyah were people of tawaqquf, who neither declared the Companions unbelievers nor sinners, unlike what is commonly reported about the Jarūdiyyah.
However, there are those who lack diligence in examining the intentions of the Imāms. Such a person might say:
“Look! This Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh praises the Jarūdiyyah and attributes all the Zaydī Imāms to them—this proves that the Zaydī Imāms are among those who declare the Companions disbelievers or sinners!”
It is precisely this misconception that prompted us to write this humble treatise.
Indeed, Imām ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) spoke of the Jarūdiyyah as a term of commendation—in the sense of resembling the belief of the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)—specifically regarding their position of tawaqquf (refraining from insulting or cursing the Companions).
This view is well known from the Imām himself.
Moreover, the Jarūdiyyah are also known for saying that Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was appointed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) through a hidden or implicit designation (al-naṣṣ al-khafī), not an explicit one (al-naṣṣ al-jalī)—as the scholars of the Sunnī tradition recorded in their works, describing their belief that the Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed the Commander of the Faithful by description rather than by name.
Though some later scholars developed from this a belief in takfīr (declaring unbelief) or tafsīq (declaring sinfulness) of the early caliphs, this is more fitting to those who claim the doctrine of explicit designation (naṣṣ jalī)—as held by the Imāmiyyah (Twelver Shīʿa)—than to the original Jarūdiyyah.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah stated:
“Just as among the Shīʿa who believe in the designation (naṣṣ) of ʿAlī, there are those who affirm explicit designation (al-naṣṣ al-jalī)—as the Imāmiyyah do—and there are those who affirm hidden designation (al-naṣṣ al-khafī)—as the Jarūdiyyah among the Zaydiyyah do.” [17]
This belief in hidden designation is precisely what suits the Jarūdiyyah, given that they are known to believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed the Commander of the Faithful by description, not by name.
Such a view necessarily entails naṣṣ khafī (implicit designation), not naṣṣ jalī (explicit designation).
In my view, those who attributed to the Jarūdiyyah a belief in explicit designation (naṣṣ jalī) did so only because of their association with the ideas of takfīr and tafsīq of the early caliphs, since such views are logically consistent with the doctrine of naṣṣ jalī held by the Imāmiyyah.
Third Observation:
Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) himself believed in the hidden designation (al-naṣṣ al-khafī) of the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī (peace be upon him).
Given this, and considering that he praised the Jarūdiyyah for their stance of tawaqquf, it is more likely that what he intended by his praise of the Jarūdiyyah was the group who held to the belief in hidden designation, not the Jarūdiyyah known for the explicit designation according to the Imāmiyyah doctrine.
As the historian al-ʿAllāmah Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn said:
“The Jarūdiyyah agree with the Rāfiḍah (Imāmiyyah) in affirming explicit designation (naṣṣ jalī) for ʿAlī, and they show hostility toward the Companions (may God be pleased with them).” [18]
Fourth Observation:
The conclusion from the previous observations, dear seeker of truth, is that the noble and moderate Jarūdiyyah—the group praised by the Imāms of the Zaydiyyah—are those who believe in the hidden designation (al-naṣṣ al-khafī) and who uphold tawaqquf (suspending judgment) and refrain from insulting the Companions.
As for the Jarūdiyyah who actually revile the early caliphs (al-mashāyikh) and engage in cursing, they represent a faction that does not reflect the Zaydiyyah of Yemen nor the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
At most, they represent only themselves in this matter.
For this reason, we find Imām al-Mahdī Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Murtadā (peace be upon him) clarifying this distinction—and confirming the soundness of our interpretation of the issue—when he said:
“The later Jarūdiyyah differ from the two earlier sects in that they affirm the Imamate of ʿAlī through a definitive hidden designation (al-naṣṣ al-khafī al-qaṭʿī).
They considered the early caliphs mistaken for opposing this, but they did not declare them sinful (fussāq), and they differed regarding whether it was permissible to invoke God’s pleasure upon them (al-tarḍiyah ʿanhum).” [19]
The historian Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn said after quoting this statement:
“Upon this view the majority of the later Zaydīs have come to rely, and none of them adopted the doctrine of the early Jarūdiyyah except for Imām Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān.” [20]
The contemporary scholar Muḥammad ʿIzzān likewise stated:
“Most of the contemporary Zaydī seminaries favor the position of tawaqquf (suspension of judgment), as a result of differing narrations and divergent scholarly assessments.” [21]
Indeed!
This, then, is the Jarūdiyyah that Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) intended in his earlier statement, and also in his saying:
“As mentioned at the beginning of this treatise, the Zaydiyyah are divided into three groups: the Batariyyah, the Ṣāliḥiyyah, and the Jarūdiyyah.
Most of them are Jarūdiyyah, and they are the people of truth among them, while the others have erred in some beliefs.” [22]
Thus, the Imām (peace be upon him) intended only the Jarūdiyyah who follow the example of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)—even though the name of their sect became known from one of the Shiʿa of the Ahl al-Bayt, namely Abū al-Jārūd al-ʿAbdī.
But there is no contention over names so long as the branch follows its root—and the root is the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and allegiance to them.
We will elaborate on this, God willing, in the third section.
And this final point carries a valuable lesson for those who have branded the Zaydiyyah—past and present—as people of cursing and insult—using the flimsy pretext of “Jarūdiyyah.”
Fifth Observation:
Notice that Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) indicates that the Jarūdiyyah who engage in takfīr (declaring others unbelievers) or tafsīq (declaring others sinners) represent a personal opinion, not a firm or well-known doctrine of the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
He attributed such views only to certain individuals among the Jarūdiyyah—the so-called “investigators” or muḥaṣṣilīn—and by doing so, he implicitly affirmed the opposite as true for the authentic Jarūdiyyah.
This is clear from his own words:
“Even though criticism and insult have appeared from some among the Jarūdiyyah, this is merely the opinion of certain investigators among them.”
Reflect on this carefully, and you will find it exactly as we have explained.
Part Two: The View of the Yemeni Zaydīs Toward the Condemned Jarūdiyyah
Here again, we find that the collective statements of the Imāms and scholars of the Zaydiyyah regarding the condemned Jarūdiyyah can be summarized in a few key points.
The most prominent among them are:
- Their belief in explicit designation (al-naṣṣ al-jalī), which agrees with the doctrine of the Imāmiyyah (Twelver Shīʿa); and
- Their declaration of disbelief or sinfulness (takfīr wa-tafsīq) of those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī (peace be upon him).
These points are well known in their writings, books, and treatises, and thus we need not reproduce them in full here.
However, we will refer to a few of them briefly and direct the reader to the Zaydī sources for further reference. [23]
Imām Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Murtaḍā (peace be upon him) said:
“The Jarūdiyyah are named after Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir al-ʿAbdī.
They affirmed the designation (naṣṣ) of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) by description and not by explicit name, and they declared disbelievers those who opposed that designation.” [24]
However, takfīr (declaring disbelief) is condemned among the Zaydiyyah and is not part of their creed.
What is well known of their doctrine is tawaqquf (suspending judgment).
Some of the Imāms even went further and invoked God’s pleasure upon the early caliphs, while still considering them mistaken and acknowledging the precedence of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him).
Therefore, this form of Jarūdiyyah—according to the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), whether among the Zaydiyyah of Yemen or elsewhere—is not the praiseworthy Jarūdiyyah.
So take heed, may God bless your knowledge and understanding, and distinguish between the two Jarūdiyyahs—for gold is not like silver.
As for the issue of explicit and hidden designation (al-naṣṣ al-jalī wa-al-khafī), our study of the matter according to the Zaydī school shows that the difference between them is merely verbal, not substantive.
The real divergence arose only when takfīr and tafsīq were added to the doctrine—since those who adopted these extremes tended also to hold to explicit designation (naṣṣ jalī).
A detailed discussion of this topic would take us beyond the scope and purpose of this treatise.
We return, then, to the main point:
The doctrine of explicit designation (naṣṣ jalī)—when accompanied by takfīr and tafsīq—is not necessarily the belief of the Imāms of the Zaydiyyah who spoke of designation.
Hence, one cannot accurately label anyone a Jarūdī merely for holding the view of explicit designation.
The true affiliation and attribution of the Zaydīs—its foundation and its source
Here, the reader and seeker of truth must understand that the Zaydiyyah, in their affiliation and following, do not follow the Shiʿa of the Ahl al-Bayt or their individual opinions and ijtihād (independent reasoning) apart from the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
Rather, the very foundation of their adherence is the following of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)—the noble descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.
Their identity and pride of belonging (iʿtizāʾ) are rooted in this ʿAlawī, Fāṭimid lineage, in obedience to the saying of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him):
“I am leaving among you two things which, if you hold fast to them, you will never go astray after me: the Book of God and my progeny, the people of my household.
The All-Subtle, All-Aware has informed me that these two shall never separate until they come to me at the Pond (of Kawthar).”
And such has always been the state of the ʿItrah (the Prophet’s Household)—in the past and in the present—up to this very day:
they affiliate themselves only with the Ahl al-Bayt, both in name and in following.
Now, if it is said:
“We find that Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) said:
‘The true Zaydiyyah are the Jarūdiyyah, and we know of no Imām (peace be upon them) after Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) who was not Jarūdī.’
This appears to be a clear attribution by the Zaydiyyah to Abū al-Jārūd ibn al-Mundhir al-ʿAbdī al-Hamdānī, which seems to contradict your previous argument.”
We respond:
Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh (peace be upon him) was addressing the public, speaking in the language commonly understood among them, and using terminology familiar to them—since they knew of the Zaydiyyah only through the classifications found in the books of sects and denominations (al-milal wa-al-niḥal).
To such audiences, the only Zaydī groups known were:
the Jarūdiyyah, the Ṣāliḥiyyah, the Jarīriyyah, the ʿAjaliyyah, and other such names spread in the works of the Sunnī scholars—later transmitted by some of the Shiʿī authors and scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt in their own writings.
Thus, the Imām’s intent—by saying “The Zaydiyyah are the Jarūdiyyah”—was essentially this:
“Even if you, the general public, know of no Zaydī sects other than these, then understand that among the groups you recognize, the one that most agrees with our position is the Jarūdiyyah.
So, yes—we are Jarūdī in the sense in which you use the term, and according to what you know of Zaydī divisions.”
Then the Imām distinguished between the types of Jarūdiyyah, explaining that the true ones are those who maintain tawaqquf (suspending judgment)—not those who practice takfīr (excommunication) or tafsīq (condemnation).
This was his way of correcting their misconception about Zaydiyyah.
In other words, his intended meaning was:
“The Jarūdiyyah are the group closest to us—apart from their position on cursing and insulting (the early caliphs).
We are Zaydī Jarūdiyyah in the sense that we do not insult or approve of such behavior.”
This meaning is clear to anyone who reflects carefully.
Otherwise, the affiliation of Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh (peace be upon him)—and the foundation of his creed—was not based on following or imitating Abū al-Jārūd al-Hamdānī, but rather on following the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), the noble descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.
The words of Abū al-Jārūd held no authoritative weight in comparison to the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
For God commanded us to follow the Ahl al-Bayt, not any of their followers.
Indeed, you find that Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh (peace be upon him), when listing the renowned figures of the Zaydiyyah among the Shiʿa, did not even mention Abū al-Jārūd.
He said:
“Among the well-known men of the Zaydiyyah are al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy and his brother ʿAlī ibn Ṣāliḥ.” [25]
He then listed other figures, yet Abū al-Jārūd was not among them.
Had the Imām truly intended, by his earlier statement, to declare a real affiliation or sectarian attribution to Abū al-Jārūd, his numerous writings—which are extensive—would not have omitted his name.
This same reasoning applies to the Zaydīs of Yemen in general:
they do not cite the words or actions of Abū al-Jārūd as proof, but rather those of the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) and their recorded teachings.
All this, dear researcher, stands as solid proof of our point in this treatise:
that the Zaydiyyah of Yemen are not followers nor affiliates of the Jarūdiyyah as described in the books of al-milal wa-al-niḥal, where the term is attributed to Abū al-Jārūd Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir.
Unfortunately, however, some persist in denying this truth, insisting that “the Zaydiyyah of Yemen are Jarūdiyyah,” clinging to ambiguous phrases from Imām al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh (peace be upon him) without understanding his intent—using this as a pretext to drive people away from the Zaydiyyah and from their tolerant view of Islamic law in general, and their respectful attitude toward the Companions in particular.
For example, Shaykh Muqbil al-Wādiʿī once said:
“Who divided the people of Yemen into Jarūdiyyah, Sulaymāniyyah, and Ṣāliḥiyyah?
All three of these sects exist in Yemen, and those who established them were the extremists of Shiʿism.”
To this, ʿAllāmah Badr al-Dīn ibn Amīr al-Dīn (peace be upon him) responded:
“This is a clear falsehood against the people of Yemen.
They affiliate only with the Book of God, the Sunnah, and the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
Their books of creed testify that they follow none of the founders of these sects—just as the Ashʿarīs follow al-Ashʿarī, or the Wahhābīs follow Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.
And if some happen to agree with the views of Abū al-Jārūd, they are called Jarūdī only in name, not because they follow him—since they do not consider him their Imām.
Their true Imāms are the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
The clearest proof of this is their constant reference to the sayings of the Ahl al-Bayt, their use of their arguments, and their study of their books.
Therefore, the words of Muqbil are misleading and deceptive.
Whoever doubts this should read their books.
… He concluded: ‘This is confusion and distortion, for the figures mentioned are not authoritative in the creed of the Zaydiyyah in Yemen, and there is no need for argument about them in this context.’” [26]
Indeed, the truth is that there is no reason for argument or contention in this matter.
The Zaydiyyah, their books, Imāms, scholars, and followers all declare:
“We follow the Ahl al-Bayt and their teachings.”
While their opponents—fond of distortion—say:
“You follow Abū al-Jārūd.”
And that is truly astonishing.
Yes—having said what we have said about Abū al-Jārūd, it is only right to clarify that he was in fact a trustworthy transmitter (muḥaddith thiqah), reliable, and a loyal supporter of the Imāms of the descendants of Fāṭimah (peace be upon them).
He does not hold a low status among the Zaydiyyah of Yemen or among the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt, but rather stands like other prominent figures of Zaydism, such as al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy, Abū Khālid al-Wāsiṭī, Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr al-Murādī, and others among the notable scholars of the school.
And if it is true that Abū al-Jārūd was reported to have insulted or excommunicated those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him), then such statements are not binding upon him as a follower of the Ahl al-Bayt, since it is established that the Ahl al-Bayt themselves did not hold such views.
Hence, that would be his personal opinion, and we are not bound by it.
Our allegiance and following are for the lords of the Ahl al-Bayt—the lesser weighty trust (al-thaql al-aṣghar) on earth.
This is evident from our condition and that of our companions among the Zaydiyyah in general—whether in Yemen, the Hijaz, Kufa, Jilan, Daylam, or Ṭabaristān.
And all praise is due to God, Lord of the worlds.
Conclusion
With this and what has preceded, we conclude our treatise on the relationship between the Zaydiyyah of Yemen and the Jarūdiyyah, drawing the reader’s attention to the statement of Imām ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him), who said:
“The standard (ʿalam) between us and this Ummah is ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib;
and the standard between us and the Shīʿah is Zayd ibn ʿAlī.
Whoever follows him is truly Shīʿī, and whoever does not follow him is not of the Shīʿah.” [27]
And his son, the Pure Soul (al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah), Imām Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him), said:
“By God, indeed Zayd ibn ʿAlī revived what had been effaced of the traditions of the Messengers;
he straightened the pillar of religion when it had bent.
We shall follow none but his path,
and take light only from his light.
Truly, Zayd is the Imām of the Imāms.” [28]
And Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) said:
“Praise be to God! I hold fast to the Household of Prophethood,
the source of the Message,
the place where revelation descended,
the mine of knowledge, and the people of remembrance (ahl al-dhikr).
Through them the Most Merciful is known in His Oneness;
in their house the Qur’an and the Criterion were revealed;
with them lies the true interpretation and the clear explanation.
By the keys of their speech every tongue has been given expression.
The Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) urged adherence to them, saying:
‘I leave among you two weighty things; they shall never separate until they return to me at the Pond: the Book of God and my progeny, the people of my household. Their likeness among you is that of Noah’s Ark—whoever embarks upon it is saved, and whoever turns away from it perishes and is lost.’
Thus, by God’s grace, they have become for me the keys of guidance and the lamps of darkness.
Were we to search the East and the West of the earth, we would find none in honor like them.
So I follow their footsteps, imitate their example, speak with their words, profess their creed, and model my actions upon theirs.” [29]
Indeed! None of these Imāms—at any time or in any circumstance—were ever proudly affiliated or attributed themselves to Abū al-Jārūd or to any other of the Shiʿa of the Ahl al-Bayt, to the exclusion of their own noble forefathers from the descendants of Fāṭimah (peace be upon her).
And may God’s blessings and peace be upon our master Muḥammad, the trustworthy Prophet,
and upon his pure and immaculate household.
Written by: al-Sharīf Abū al-Ḥasan al-Rassī — may God forgive him, his parents, and all the believers.
Friday, 10th of Rabīʿ al-Thānī, 1431 AH.
Footnotes
[1] Al-Maṣābīḥ, p. 401.
[2] Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, p. 128.
[3] Al-Kāshif, vol. 1, p. 413.
[4] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, p. 221.
[5] Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 3, p. 333.
[6] Al-Kāmil fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, vol. 3, p. 190.
[7] Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, p. 67.
[8] Firaq al-Shīʿa, p. 21.
[9] Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, p. 67; Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 23; Al-Faṣl fī al-Milal wa-al-Niḥal, vol. 4, p. 137.
[10] Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, p. 67; Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 23.
[11] Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, p. 67; Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 23.
[12] Al-Tanbīh wa-al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Ahwāʾ wa-al-Bidaʿ, p. 23.
[13] Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 9, p. 520; Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 137.
[14] By this we mean in detail, not merely by reference.
Otherwise, Imām Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān did allude to the doctrine of Abū al-Jārūd—that of declaring disbelievers those who opposed the naṣṣ—in his book Ḥaqāʾiq al-Maʿrifah.
Likewise, the author of Al-Muḥīṭ bi-al-Imāmah also mentioned it, as we have heard, though we have not personally examined it.
These scholars preceded the era of Imām ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him).
[15] Majmūʿ al-Sayyid Ḥumaydān, p. 319.
[16] Al-Majmūʿ al-Manṣūrī, vol. 2, part 2, p. 352.
[17] Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 4, p. 271.
[18] Al-Mustaṭāb (manuscript).
[19] Al-Miʿrāj ilā Kashf Asrār al-Minhāj (manuscript); Al-Mustaṭāb (manuscript).
[20] I was unable to verify whether this statement is a continuation of Imām al-Mahdī’s words or belongs to the historian Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn; in any case, its intended meaning is clear.
[21] Al-Ṣaḥābah ʿinda al-Zaydiyyah; also Al-Majmūʿ al-Manṣūrī, vol. 2, part 2, p. 469.
[23] See: Al-Īḍāḥ Sharḥ al-Miṣbāḥ, p. 302; Al-Miʿrāj ilā Kashf Asrār al-Minhāj (manuscript); Bulūgh al-Arab wa-Kunūz al-Dhahab; Al-Dirārī al-Muḍīʾah al-Muwaṣṣilah ilā al-Fuṣūl al-Luʾluʾiyyah, and others.
[24] Introduction to Al-Baḥr al-Zakhkhār, p. 40.
[25] Al-Shāfī, vol. 1, p. 449.
[26] Taḥrīr al-Afkār.
[27] Al-Kāshif al-Amīn ʿan Jawāhir al-ʿAqd al-Thamīn.
[28] Taysīr al-Maṭālib fī Amālī Abī Ṭālib, p. 265.
[29] Collected Works and Letters of Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq, from his letter to the scholars of Ṣanʿāʾ.