Are Zaydi's Muslim?

[Taalibul Islam]

Salaams all,

Zaydi Shiites disagree with the appointment of the first 3 Khulafa but do not go to the extremes in terms of what other Shiites do (cursing and slandering), correct me if I am wrong, but they also deny the concept of infallible imaams also. Does this mean they can be classed as Muslims?

Jazak Allah

[abu rayhan]

I'm also interested to know what the brother's asking.

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

From the little knowledge I have, I think Zaydis revile Muawiyah (RA) and speak ill of him. So I wonder how "Muslim" and speaking ill of Muawiyah (RA) go together.

[celt islam]

Salam Alaykum,

From the little knowledge I have, I think Zaydis revile Muawiyah (RA) and speak ill of him. So I wonder how "Muslim" and speaking ill of Muawiyah (RA) go together.

Sayyid Hossein Nasr wrote about zaydism here!

Chapter II: Divisions within Shiism: Zaydism and Its branches (pages 76 to 77) :

The Zaydis are the followers of Zayd al-Shahid, the son of Imam al-Sajjad. Zayd rebelled in 121/737 against the Umayyad caliph Hisham Abd al-Malik and a group paid allegiance to him. A battle ensued in Kufa between Zayd and the army of the caliph in which Zayd was killed.

The followers of Zayd regard him as the fifth Imam of the Household of the Prophet. After him his son, Yahya ibn Zayd, who rebelled against the caliph Walid ibn Yazid and was also killed, took his place. After Yahya, Muhammed ibn Abdallah and Ibrahim ibn Abdallah, who revolted against the Abbasid caliph Mansur al-Dawaniqi and were also killed, were chosen as Imams.

Henceforth for some time there was disorder in Zaydi ranks until Nasir al-Utrush, a descendant of the brother of Zayd, arose in Khurasan. Being pursued by the governmental authorities in that region, he fled to Mazandaran (Tabaristan) whose people had not as yet accepted Islam. After thirteen years of missionary activity in this region he brought a large number of people into the Zaydi branch of Islam. Then in the year 301/913 with their aid he conquered the region of Mazandaran, becoming himself Imam. For some time his descendants continued to rule as Imams in that area.

According to Zaydi belief any descendant of Fatimah (the daughter of the Prophet) who begins an uprising in name of defending the truth may become Imam if he is learned in the religious sciences, ethically pure, courageous and generous. Yet for some time after Utrush and his descendants there was no Imam who could bring about an insurrection with the sword until recently when, about sixty years ago, Imam Yahya revolted in the Yemen, which had been a part of the Ottoman Empire, made it independent, and began to rule there as Imam. His descendants continued to rule in that region as Imams until very recently.

At the beginning the Zaydis, like Zayd himself, considered the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, as their Imams. But after a while some of them began to delete the names of the first two caliphs from the list of Imams and placed Ali as the first Imam.

From what is known of Zaydi beliefs it can be said that in the principles of Islam (usul) they follow a path close to that of the Mutazilites, while in the branches of derivative institutions of the law (furu) they apply the jurisprudence of Abu Hanifah, the founder of one of the four Sunni schools of law. They also differ among themselves concerning certain problems.

[SA7]

The people who are called the Zaidiyyah are nothing more than Muslims who have held on to the correct sunnah and methodology, those who follow the community and also recognize the merit of the Prophet sullallahu 'alayhi wa salam's family and see no contradiction between following and taking knowledge from both. Those who are called the Zaydiyyah today are nothing more than the living embodiment of the true Muslims from the earliest generations.

The "Zaydiyyah" do not believe that the Prophet explicitly appointed Ali to be his successor. However, they recognize, as can be proven from many authentic ahadeeth, Ali 's merits and status among all of the sahaba, especially in terms of religious knowledge and jurisprudence. They do not speak ill of the sahaba and adopt a rationalist approach to them, recognizing them as humans, and praising their merits and seeking Allah's forgiveness for their own faults--not slandering them and dwelling on past issues instead of worrying about their own, like the rafidah do. They do not disconnect themselves from the historical reality of early Islam and the tremendous effort that the companions played, like the Ithna Ashariyya do. Many Zaydi scholars have hinted that the Ithna Ashariyya invented the explicit designation of Ali as caliph solely to justify their hatred of the sahaba . That being said, the "Zaydiyyah," believe that Ali was the most-learned in terms of religious knowledge and in the best position to inherit the leadership of the ummah--and there are many narrations that suggest this as well. This belief has been adopted by many scholars throughout the history of ahlul sunnah, Zaydi and non-Zaydi alike, and it is the only reasonable course to believe if one truly analyzes historical events and authentic ahadeeth.

There are also some issues of innovation that arose during the time of the three caliphs that the Zaydiyyah do not follow in terms of their fiqh, however, they do not disassociate from these khulafa rashidoon, as we cannot know the circumstances of their lives and the motivations behind their decision making, and pray that all Muslims will be forgiven by Allah , and believe that they had the best for the community in mind, regardless of if they do not follow these later developments.

Note that there are several streams of thought within the Zaydiyyah, and this has created a rich intellectual history, especially in terms of their scholars analyzing the early history of Islam--however, this is the more correct and historically well-founded opinion. Unfortunately there is very little information on the Zaydiyyah in English, and this has led to some extremely ignorant views being propagated about them. The Zaydiyyah have a deep and rich intellectual history and you cannot even come close to understanding it through any of the material available in English--which the vast majority of completely misrepresents or simplifies who the Zaydiyyah are and what they believe.

In terms of fiqh, the Zaydiyyah follow none other than the community and the guidance of the family of the Prophet (May Allah's peace and blessing be on them all). Their fiqh positions do not accord with any madhab more than any other, and some of their positions do not accord with any madhab, but all can be proven from authentic ahadeeth. Nor do they disassociate themselves from reality like the Ithna Ashariyya do--they do not recognize the descendants of the Prophet to be infallible--and they do not recognize that they had an inner group of students whom they transmitted special information to over others. The noble descendants of the Prophet including Ali ibn Hussein, Muhammad al-Baqir, Ja'far ibn Muhammad, and all of their sons and relatives, were nothing more than Muslims who strove to follow the sunnah. They received ahadeeth and transmitted to others, among their family and the generality of scholars, and they sought knowledge and had knowledge sought through them. They are recognized for their unique positions as descendants of the Prophet, their chains of learning, and their piety. Unlike the rafidah, who separate their history from reality, these imams of knowledge were a part of the scholarly community of their times and sought knowledge from other tabi'een, and also others came to seek knowledge from them. Unlike the rafidah, accepting these people as imams is not a component of iman, and believing that they are infallible is a lie and only serves to smear their character, piety, and striving to adhere to and disseminate the sunnah of rasool Allah . That being said, these scholars from the Prophet's family, due to the rational position of their lineage from Ali, and with the challenges in early Islam centered around the personality of Ali and his conception of the sunnah, were in a very good position to have an intimate understanding of the true sunnah of the Prophet.

By Allah if there is any true follower of Rasool Allah, you will find it in the fiqh and methodology of those who are known as the "Zaydiyyah," and alhmdulillahi rabbil alameen, their fiqh and its correctness can be proven from many authentic ahadeeth from the books of knowledge. While other Muslims are recognized as Muslims, complete in eman (unlike the rafidah who do not believe that all of the scholars of the early periods of Islam were Muslims, despite the fact that their imams took and transmitted knowledge from them), the Zaydiyyah (I would rather just call them Muslims, but unfortunately this name must be used to distinguish between methodologies today) believe that they possess the true fiqh, and that other madhahib, while possessing parts of the true fiqh, do not possess it in total. However, a disagreement in fiqh does not mean that one is not Muslim! A Muslim becomes a Muslim by virtue of attesting the shahada and following the pillars of Islam--however, following the fiqh of the Zaydiyyah is a rational necessity if one studies the narrations of the scholars of early Islam and they recognize their practice of Islam as conforming most to that of the sunnah of rasool Allah . However, not following the methology and jurisprudence of the Zaydiyyah does not mean that one is not a Muslim, like some other sects believe about their own conclusions. A Muslim is a Muslim, period, and this is the only possible position if one studies the attitude of the early scholars and the family of the Prophet, May Allah's ta'ala's peace and blessings be on them all. Ameen.

[SA7]

Salam Alaykum,

From the little knowledge I have, I think Zaydis revile Muawiyah (RA) and speak ill of him. So I wonder how "Muslim" and speaking ill of Muawiyah (RA) go together.

Wa aleykum assalaam wa rahmatullah. Since you are a "Hanafi," I will leave you with this narration from Abu Hanifa's Kitab al-Athar (page 124, English translation), you can investigate the history from here.

Muhammad said, "Abu Hanifah informed us from Hammad from Ibrahim that al-Aswad ibn Yazid accompanied Umar ibn al-Khattab for two years, both while traveling and while resident, and he did not see him saying qunut in Fajr until he left him. Ibrahim said, "The people of Kufa only learnt the qunut from Ali who said the qunut supplicating against Muawiya when he waged war on him. As for the people of Sham, they only learnt the qunut from Muawiya who said the qunut supplicating against Ali when he waged war on him."

عبد الرزاق عن هشيم عن حصين عن رجل سماه قال أحسبه قال : سعيد بن عبد الرحمن : (أن ابن عباس صلى الغداة فلم يقنت وقال ابن المجالد عن أبيه عن إبراهيم عن علقمة و الأسود قالا : ما قنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في شيء من الصلوات إلا إذا حارب، فإنه كان يقنت في الصلوات كلهن، ولا قنت أبو بكر ، ولا عمر، ولا عثمان حتى ماتوا، حتى لا قنت علي حتى حارب أهل الشام فكان يقنت في الصلوات كلهن، وكان معاوية يقنت أيضاً فيدعو كل واحد منهما على صاحبه

Did Rasool Allah not warn that Ammar ibn Yasar would be killed by a group inviting him to hell? Did Rasool Allah not say:

حدثنا محمد بن موسى الواسطي حدثنا المعلى بن عبد الرحمن حدثنا ابن أبي ذئب عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة وأبوهما خير منهما

Of course we should not talk beyond this, because Allah knows best, and we have our own struggles and issues, and Allahu Alim the ahlul bayt tried their hardest to reconcile the ummah and bring Muslims together and make peace with everyone, but your comment is very ignorant of history and this is all we can say! However, you are right, the Zaydiyyah have historically viewed Muawiyah as someone who rebelled against Ali , the just imam, during the Battle of Siffin. This is a historical fact--whatever further conclusions you wish to make from this point in how Muawiyah is to be viewed is up to you. Many of the Zaidiyyah do not revile any companions, even if they believe that some of them were in the wrong. Others pass no judgement on any of them at all and say Allahu Alim. While others adopt harder lines. However, none of them ignore history, despite their position on the matter. However, to say that Muawiya's actions weren't wrong ignores history and ignores the history of jurisprudence in ahlul sunnah. The discussions around the law of rebellion in classical Sunni fiqh revolve around the actions of Ali and his treatment towards Muawiyah's forces, and the vast majority of scholars who have written about this subject have explicitly said that Muawiya was rebelling against the just imam. Blood is not taken lightly! However, unlike the Rafidah, the Zaidiyyah recognize that Ali's sons, Hassan and Hussein, despite their great losses and tragedies between the Muslims, sought to reconcile with Muawiyah. As Muhammad al-Baqir said:

حَدَّثَنَا حَاتِمُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ يَحْيَى ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، أَنَّ الْحَسَنَ ، وَالْحُسَيْنَ : " كَانَا يَقْبَلَانِ جَوَائِزَ مُعَاوِيَةَ

They tried their best to unite the ummah under the true sunnah of Rasool Allah. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging history, Allah would expect us to know such obvious facts about the life Ali and his sons, the man who the hadith says, "Hassan and Hussein are the masters of the youth of jannah and their father would be better than them," but we have our own issues and we should not dwell on the history of others more than they need to be, just as Hassan and Hussein acknowledged facts and despite their great losses and division in the ummah still sought to hold the ummah together--but forgiveness for the blood of a man like Ali and his followers, from people Rasool Allah said would be inviting people to hell, Allahu Alim how someone can be content with such a man and his followers! And Allah knows best how a son cannot revile the man who made war against their father and the rightful imam and spilled the blood of people who Rasool Allah guaranteed paradise, even if he sought to unify the ummah! This is just the broadest outlines of the assault of Muawiyah and his followers on not only the Prophet and his family, but on the sunnah of Rasool Allah a wound that continues to this day! As Imam Nasai recorded:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ الأَوْدِيُّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ مَيْسَرَةَ بْنِ حَبِيبٍ، عَنِ الْمِنْهَالِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ كُنْتُ مَعَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ بِعَرَفَاتٍ فَقَالَ مَا لِي لاَ أَسْمَعُ النَّاسَ يُلَبُّونَ قُلْتُ يَخَافُونَ مِنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ ‏.‏ فَخَرَجَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ مِنْ فُسْطَاطِهِ فَقَالَ لَبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ لَبَّيْكَ فَإِنَّهُمْ قَدْ تَرَكُوا السُّنَّةَ مِنْ بُغْضِ عَلِيٍّ

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of many other issues centered around the personality of Ali in early Islamic history and Muawiyah stooping so low as to change the sunnah of Rasool Allah just to counter Ali and his followers, and this is evident to anyone who studies the books of the scholars of ahlul sunnah! Ali supplicated in qunut against Muawiyah, and Ali has been described as in a better position than the masters of the youth of jannah! However, Allah knows best and we must work at uniting the ummah like Ali and his family strove to do, but still while being realistic and acknowledging history, but not dwelling on it so much that it distracts us from our own faults and need to strive!

And Allah knows best!

[Zhulfiqar]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله

Brother SA7 are you perhaps Zaydiyyah since you state 'if there is any true follower of Rasool Allah, you will find it in the fiqh and methodology of those who are known as the "Zaydiyyah," ?

[SA7]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله

Brother SA7 are you perhaps Zaydiyyah since you state 'if there is any true follower of Rasool Allah, you will find it in the fiqh and methodology of those who are known as the "Zaydiyyah," ?

Wa aleykum assalaam wa rahmatullah. I am a Muslim and I try to hold tightly to the example of the Prophet and his family 'alayhim salaam! Alhmdulillah!

There is a famous story from a history book published in Yemen about the early history of Islam, called al-Masabih, by Ahmad ibn Ibrahim (may Allah ta'ala have mercy on him). During one rebellion of Muslims against rulers who did not enjoin the laws of Islam, an event happened.

He says:

Some people started shouting, "We are the Zaydis and the sons of Zaydis!" Their commander, a famous and just imam of the sunnah replied, "Allah have mercy on you! Is this word better than the word Islam? Say we are Muslims and the sons of Muslims!" I am not not a Zaydi, I am a Muslim, and I derive my understanding of Islam from the Prophet, as preserved through his family (May Allah's peace and blessings be upon them). Being Muslim and holding onto the sunnah of Nabi Muhammad sullallahu 'alayhi wa salaam is the only thing that will deliver us from hell! Alhmdulillah!

[Zhulfiqar]

Wa aleykum assalaam wa rahmatullah. I am a Muslim and I try to hold tightly to the example of the Prophet and his family 'alayhim salaam! Alhmdulillah!

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله

Yes I know alhamdulillah. Well may I know through which sources you're trying to follow what you claim to ? Is it through Sihah Sitta or books compiled by the followers of Imam Zaid (رحمة الله عليه) ?

[SA7]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله

Yes I know alhamdulillah. Well may I know through which sources you're trying to follow what you claim to ? Is it through Sihah Sitta or books compiled by the followers of Imam Zaid (رحمة الله عليه) ?

People who are called "Zaydiyyah," by others today compiled their own books with the juristic opinions and ahadeeth from the Prophet's family. There are many books of history, aqeedah, ahadeeth, seerah, all normal books, but focused on deriving these ideas from the family of the Prophet, because it is believed that through them the true sunnah and aqeedah has been preserved. However, not everything in Sunni sahih books is accepted, for many reasons that would differ on the basis of each issue! But these are matters of jurisprudence, not things that affect the heart of Islam and should not cause division because we are all Muslims! Fiqh and ahadeeth are taken from all scholars from the early community and many of their positions are extant in the Sunni madahib or articulated either partially or in-full among early fuqaha as preserved in early books of fiqh. It is not believed that Ali had any supernatural knowledge of the sunnah. He did not! The sunnah was known among all of the companions of the Prophet and they all had to strive to find ahadeeth of the Prophet. However, as Islam spread and continued, people tried to find what the sunnah was, and each person had their own conception of it and way of achieving it. This was compounded by things that the Zaidiyyah consider to be innovations from the Prophet's sunnah, holistic spreading of Islam and introduction of new concepts, and nefarious means to corrupt the true sunnah and introduce sedition into Islam. Through all of this, the Zaidiyyah believe that following the family of the Prophet can yield certainty in understanding and practicing the sunnah of rasool Allah, but this does not mean they do not accept the "Sunni" books or ahadeeth and juristic opinions of the early scholars insomuch as they serve to elucidate their own conception of the sunnah. All of these early jurists were Muslims and nothing else. "Zaydiyyah" just believe that out of this milieu that coalesced into ahlul sunnah that they practice the truest representation of the sunnah and have the most correct view of Islamic history.