The Ruling on Abu Bakr and His Authority According to the Zaydis
Question:
What is the ruling on Abu Bakr’s assumption of authority and his claim to leadership? Was there an explicit designation (nass) for ʿAli regarding the Imamate? Did Abu Bakr know of this designation or not? Does this designation prove ʿAli’s Imamate in a way that leaves no room for doubt, such that Abu Bakr would have been obligated to follow it? Is the indication of this text toward ʿAli’s Imamate definitive (qatʿī) or speculative (ẓannī)?
If it is definitive, then what is the ruling on one who opposes a text that is definitively established and definitively indicative, issued by the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)? If the indication of the text is not definitive, then if its indication of ʿAli’s Imamate is only speculative, can there be any definitive proof for the Imamate of someone else? And if there is no definitive proof for ʿAli’s Imamate nor for the Imamate of anyone else, then how can Imamate be considered one of the foundations of religion—something obligatory for the legally responsible person (mukallaf) to believe—when there is no definitive proof for it?
Furthermore, if it is claimed that the indication is definitive for us but not definitive for Abu Bakr and those around him, how can that be? How could Abu Bakr—who is assumed to have heard the evidence for ʿAli’s Imamate—not have recognized its definitive meaning, yet over time it somehow became definitive for us?
Answer:
This question, in much of it, falls outside the intended scope of the original ten issues and related matters, as it largely revolves around discussing the Zaydi position regarding Abu Bakr.
We say: The Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) is the Imam after the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) by a definitive proof, through which the messages were conveyed and by which the religion and divine favor were completed. Thus, the matter is definitive from the standpoint of the Prophet’s intent and his conveying it to the Ummah.
Abu Bakr then opposed this and advanced himself ahead of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him). Therefore, we dissociate ourselves from his precedence, and the Zaydi Imams—from the first to the last—have declared his action mistaken.
We then consider the ruling on Abu Bakr as a person after establishing our dissociation from his act and our allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful. His state must be one of three possibilities: either he was a denier, an interpreter (acting on interpretation), or ignorant.
We found that someone like Abu Bakr could not have been ignorant of the meaning of the report of Ghadir regarding the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful, so we dismiss that possibility. As for whether he acted based on interpretation—believing it permissible to oppose for the sake of some perceived public interest, or perhaps due to ʿAli’s young age (as some reports mention), or thinking that the Arabs would not accept ʿAli’s leadership due to those he had killed among them—thus considering it expedient to assume the caliphate himself—these are explanations found in some works. However, they are weak justifications that cannot stand against a definitive text. This was stated by Imam Majd al-Dīn al-Mu’ayyadī.
Then we consider whether they were outright deniers of the text of Ghadir. Such people would, by consensus, leave Islam and enter disbelief. However, this raises a difficulty: the Commander of the Faithful and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn did not treat them as disbelieving deniers. It has not been authentically transmitted that they cursed or insulted them.
Thus, the Zaydis chose to follow the example of the Commander of the Faithful, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn—since the event occurred in their time—and refrained from cursing them or expanding discussion regarding their personal judgment and status. This is because it is established that the Commander of the Faithful did not curse them nor treat them as disbelievers.
Imam ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) said regarding those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful:
“The Companions, in our view, are the best after the Imams (peace be upon them) before their innovations. After the innovations, we have Imams to whom we refer in our religious matters. We advance where they advanced and refrain where they refrained. They are ʿAli and his two sons (peace be upon them). The event occurred against them, and our anger is for them. We do not know of any of them having insulted, cursed, or reviled any of the Companions—neither during their lifetimes nor after their deaths.”
[al-Majmūʿ al-Manṣūrī]
Yes—this concerns those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful.
In summary: The Zaydis, while refraining from issuing a definitive judgment such as declaring disbelief (takfīr) or grave sin (tafsīq), unanimously—both early and later authorities—agree on dissociating from their precedence over the Commander of the Faithful and affirm that they were mistaken in that. They affirm that the Imam after the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is the Commander of the Faithful, then al-Ḥasan, then al-Ḥusayn, and then whoever rises and calls to leadership from among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.
They also hold that the Imamate of those who preceded the Commander of the Faithful is invalid, though they were rulers in their times—correct in some matters and mistaken in others.
With this, the answer has been given from beginning to end.
It remains to point out an issue mentioned previously in this treatise: a proof that is definitively established and definitively indicative in itself does not become speculative merely because people disagree in deriving its meaning. The existence of God, for example, is definitively established through rational proofs, even though it is based on reasoning rather than necessity, and disagreement among believers and atheists does not make that proof speculative.
Likewise, the report of Ghadir is definitive in its indication of affirming the authority of the Commander of the Faithful. The fact that it is subject to interpretation—especially regarding the word mawlā—does not render its core meaning speculative. Rather, the report is complete in its indication; differences arise from human understanding, acceptance, and rejection.
Such a report—upon even minimal reflection—should not leave a seeker confused about its indication of the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful. However, fanaticism, obstinacy, and blind devotion to sectarian authorities have blinded and deafened many—God protect us.
May God grant you success.
O Allah, send prayers and peace upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad
Translation of Ustadh Kadhim Al Zaydi (May Allah reward him)