On Restricting the Imama to the Descendants of Ali and Fatima

The question of restricting the imāma to the descendants of ʿAlī and Fāṭima (peace be upon them) is a matter of ijtihād. Neither the Qurʾān nor any authentic prophetic report explicitly imposes this restriction. What exists are interpretations of early scholars who responded to the political and social realities of their time. Such opinions may be respected as ijtihād, but they are not binding on later generations.

The well-respected Zaydī scholar al-Murtaḍā Zayd al-Maḥaṭwarī (d. 1437 AH), in his treatise Ḥawl Ḥaṣr al-Khilāfa fī al-Baṭnayn (“On Restricting the Caliphate to the Two Descendants”), explained that Imām Yaḥyā al-Hādī (d. 298 AH) limited the imāma to the Prophet’s descendants most likely as a practical measure to curb tribal rivalry, not as a permanent obligation upon the entire Ummah. He also cited the eminent Zaydī scholar Nashwān al-Ḥimyārī (d. 573 AH), who, drawing on Qurʾān 49:13, declared that imāma belongs to the most righteous and knowledgeable—Arab or non-Arab—because God has made nobility dependent on taqwā, not lineage.

That said, the restriction was not without benefits. As al-Maḥaṭwarī observed, it likely helped contain tribal rivalry. It also yielded other benefits that worked to preserve and transmit the religion. By tying imāma to the Prophet’s descendants, the Zaydīs were able to safeguard authentic teaching, ensuring that Islam’s transmission remained anchored in a living tradition of the Ahl al-Bayt rather than bent to the agendas of ruling dynasties. Under the Umayyads, who often reshaped doctrine, jurisprudence, and even forged traditions for their benefit and to secure power, the Zaydī insistence on an imām from the Prophet’s line—leading in open resistance to injustice—preserved the integrity of the faith through struggle rather than submission. In this way, Zaydīs distinguished themselves from communities that, under pressure, resorted to taqiyya or saw their teachings absorbed by oppressive states.

Recognising these benefits, however, does not alter the fact that the issue remains one of ijtihād. The Zaydī scholar Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī al-Wazīr (1353–1435 AH) clearly stated that what earlier scholars deemed valid in their context may not apply in ours. Indeed, Muslims are not obligated to follow their ijtihād blindly.

Earlier Zaydī authorities also reflected this openness. A narration from Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā (d. 247 AH) in Jāmiʿ al-Kāfī shows that he allowed imāma for other Hāshimites beyond the descendants of Fāṭima if they called to justice and secured the people’s support. Similarly, al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy (d. 168 AH) recognised eligibility beyond the ʿAlids. Ibn Abī ’l-Ḥadīd (d. 656 AH), in his Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāgha, remarked: “Some of the Zaydiyya permit the imāma in persons who are not Fāṭimid (descendants of Fāṭima) from among the children of ʿAlī—and this is considered one of their irregular sayings.” What he dismissed as “irregular” in fact demonstrates that Zaydī thought has never been monolithic on this issue.

This broader understanding has continued into modern times. On the 24th of Rabīʿ al-Thānī 1411 AH (November 12, 1990 CE), a group of leading Zaydī scholars issued a public declaration titled A Sharīʿa Statement for the Scholars of Yemen. They affirmed that “the general authority (al-wilāya al-ʿāmma) is the right of any Muslim who is qualified and whom the Ummah chooses.” The statement was signed by prominent figures including Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Shāmī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Manṣūr (d. 1423 AH), Ḥamūd b. ʿAbbās al-Muʾayyad (d. 1436 AH), and Qāsim b. Muḥammad al-Kabsī (d. 1438 AH), and was later published in Yemeni newspapers such as al-Umma, the organ of the al-Ḥaqq Party, issue (26) dated 19 Rabīʿ al-Thānī 1413 AH (October 15, 1992 CE).