Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:35:05.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Zaydī Views on the Companions of the Prophet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Etan Kohlberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the Zaydiyya and the growth of Zaydī thought, law, and doctrine have become increasingly well known as a result of studies by R. Strothmann, E. Griffini, C. van Arendonk, W. Madelung, and others. As Madelung has convincingly shown in his book on al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm, Zaydī doctrine, which initially differed appreciably from that of the Mu'tazila on many issues, eventually adopted all of the principal tenets of Mu'tazilism. At the same time, the various Zaydī branches retained the essential Shī'ī belief in an Imām descended from ‘Alī and Fāṭima. Yet the Zaydī doctrine of the imāmate differs from the doctrine of Imāmī (or Twelver) Shī'ism in some important respects: the Zaydī Imām is not infallible, sinless, and omniscient, and, according to the Batrī Zaydīs, he need not even always be the most excellent person of his generation. Most Zaydīs maintained instead that the Imām had to prove his leadership by fighting for the faith (jihād). The Imāmī claim that all the Imāms had been personally designated by God and His Prophet was restricted by the Zaydīs to ‘Alī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 91 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Das Staatsrecht der Zaiditen, Strassburg, 1912Google Scholar; Kultus der Zaiditen, Strassburg, 1912Google Scholar; ‘Die Literatur der Zaiditen’, Der Islam, 1, 1910, 354–68, 11, 1911, 49–78Google Scholar; ‘Das Problem der literarischen Persönlichkeit Zaid b. 'Alī’, Der Islam, XIII, 1923, 1–52.Google Scholar

2 Corpus juris di Zaid b. ‘Alī, Milano, 1919.Google Scholar

3 De opkomst van het Zaidietische Imamaat in Yemen, Leiden, 1919.Google Scholar

4 Der Imam al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm und die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen, Berlin, 1965.Google Scholar

5 Most Zaydī doctors maintain, however, that ‘Alī, al-mḤasan, and al-Ḥusayn were endowed with infallibility. Cf. below, p. 98.

6 On whom cf. Strothmann, , Das Staatsrecht der ZaiditenGoogle Scholar, 31 ff.; Madelung, op. cit., index.

7 This theory, often referred to as imāmat al-mafḍūl, was adopted by some pro-Shī'ī Mu'tazilīs. See, e.g., al-Nāshi, ' al-Akbar, , Masā'il al-imāmaGoogle Scholar, in van Ess, J., Frühe mu'tazilitische Hāresiographie, Beirut, 1971, 56–8.Google Scholar

8 For further details see Strothmann, Staatsrecht, 63 ff.

9 ImāmĪ Shī'ī theories on the subject are dealt with in The attitude of the Imāmī Shī'īs to the Companions of the Prophet, unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1971. Sunnī and Mu'tazilī views on the Companions are discussed in the first two chapters; the present article is an elaboration of the second appendix of that thesis.

10 Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd (d. after 972/1564), Nuzhat al-abṣār, BM MS Or. 3850, fol. 164a.

11 Al-Nāshi' al-Akbar, in van Ess, , op. cit., 44.Google Scholar

12 ibid., 67 (where al-Karābīsī is erroneously identified as the Mu'tazilī Walīd b. Abān al-Karābīsī; see van Ess's explanation, p. 52 of the German section); cf. al-Ash'ari, , Maqālāt al-islāmiyyīn, ed. Ritter, H., Istanbul, 1929–33, 457.Google Scholar

13 cf. al-Ash'ari, , al-Ibāna ‘an uṣūi al-diyāna, Cairo, 1348/1929–1930, 73 (wa-kulluhum min ahl al-ijtihād).Google Scholar

14 ‘Abd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Najrī (d. 877/1472), Mirqāt al-anẓār, Leiden MS Or. 6355, fol. 130a.

15 ibid. For an Imāmī account of. al-Murtaḍā, al-Sharīf, al-Shāfī fī ‘l-imāma, Tehran, 1884, 100.Google Scholar

16 Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fol. 167b; of. Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn Mānakdīm (d. 425/1034), Sharḥ al-uṣūl al-khamsa (erroneously attributed to Mānakdīm's teacher ‘Abd al-Jabbār), ed. ‘Abd al-Karīm ‘Uthrnān, Cairo, 1965, 763. Ḥamīdān b. Yaḥyā (fl. seventh/thirteenth century), who opposed the strong Mu'tazilī influence on Zaydi doctrine (see Madelung, op. cit., 218 ff.), rejects the application of the theory of ijtihād to the Companions. See his Kitāb al-taṣrīḥ, BM MS Or. 3727, fols. 114a–115a.

17 Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fols. 164b, 171a; al-Najrī, op. cit., fol. 130b, quoting the Mu'tazilī Abū ‘l-Ḥusayn al-Khayyāṭ (d. 319/931). Al-Khayyāṭ is also reported to have justified the action of the Companions in passing over ‘Alī and electing others instead. See al-Murtaḍā, Ibn, Kitāb ṭabaqāt al-mu'tazila, ed. Diwald-Wilzer, S., Wiesbaden, 1961, p. 86.Google Scholar

18 Al-Najrī, op. cit., fol. 130b (where this view is attributed to a group of Zaydīs known as al-muḥaqqiqūn ‘those who seek to establish the truth by critical investigation’).

19 Takūnu li-aṣḥābī ba'dī zalla tughfaru lahum li-sābiqatihim ma'ī (Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fol. 165a). For this tradition see also al-Ṭabarī, Muḥibb al-Dīn, al-Riyāḍ al-naḍira fī manāqib al-'ashara, Cairo, 1372/1952–1953, i, 21–2Google Scholar; al-Hindī, al-Muttaqī, Kanz td-'ummāl, Ḥaydarābād, 1364–85/1944–1945–1965–1966, XII, 155Google Scholar (on the authority of ‘Alī).

20 Ḥamīdān b. Yaḥyā, al–Muntaza' al-awwal min aqwāl al-a'imma, BM MS Or. 3727, fol. 75b, quoting from the Kitāb dhamm al-ahwā' wa ‘l-wwhūm by al-Qāsim b. ‘Alī al-'Ayyānī (d. 393/1003) (on whom cf. Madelung, op. cit., 194–5).

21 Yaḥyā b. Hāshim al-Hadawī al-Ṣa'dī, Najāt al-ṭālib, BM MS Or. 3727, fois. 4a–5b. This tradition is very popular in Imāmī literature. See, e.g., al-Barqī, , Kitāb al-rijāl, ed. al-Mūsawī, Kāẓim, al-Mayāmawī, , Tehran, 1963, 63–6Google Scholar; Aḥmad b. Abī Ṭālib al-Ṭabarsī, , al-Iḥtijāj, Najaf, 1350/1931–1932, 48–51Google Scholar, cited by al-Majlisī, Muḥammad Bāqir, Biḥār al-anwār, [Persia,] 1305–15/1887–1888–1897–1898, VIII, 38–40Google Scholar; ‘al-Qazwīnī, Abd al-Jalīl, Kitāb al-naqḍ, ed. Urmawī, Jalāl al-Dīn Ḥusaynī, Tehran, 1952, 655–64Google Scholar; al-Bayyāḍī, al-Ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm, India Office Library, MS, 1, 471, fols. 204b–205a. The list of the twelve Companions in the various sources is not always identical.

22 Al-Hadawi al-Ṣa'dī, op. cit., fol. 6a. Cf. also al-Hādī Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn (d. 298/911), Kitāb tathbīt al-imāma, BM MS Or. 3727, fol. 164a–b; al-Manṣūr Ḥasan b. Badr al-Dīn Muḥammad (d. 669/1271 or 670/1272), Kitāb anwār al-yaqīn fī imāmat amīr al-mu'minīn, BM MS Or. 3868, fol. 156b.

23 Aḥmad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Jundārī, Simṭ al-jumān, Leiden MS Or. 6637 (unpaginated).

24 This view was reportedly held by the Imām al-Mu'ayyad bi-'llāh (d. 411/1020) and others. In fact, most Zaydīs refused to regard Abū Bakr and ‘Umar as guilty of fisq (ibid.); these Zaydīs are known as al-Ṣāliḥiyya. See Mānakdīm, , op. cit., 761.Google Scholar

25 This minority view is attributed to the Imām Abū ‘l-Fatḥ al-Daylamī (lived fifth/eleventh century), al-Mutawakkil Aḥmad b. Sulaymān (d. 566/1170), and others (al-Jundārī, op. cit.).

26 Al-Manṣūr Ḥasan b. Badr al-Dīn, op. cit., fol. 163b.

27 ibid., fol. 164a. Many of these accusations are set out in great detail in Imāmī polemical writings.

28 See al-Nāshi' al-Akbar, in van Ess, , op. cit., 42Google Scholar; al-Nawbakhti, , Firaq al-shī'a, ed. Ritter, H., Istanbul, 1931, 48Google Scholar; al-Ash'arī, , Maqālāt al-islāmiyyīn, 66–7.Google Scholar Among Zaydī Imāms, al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm (d. 246/860), who was the real founder of Zaydī dogmatics, was sharply critical of the first caliphs and the other Companions of the Saqīfa, but tried to avoid giving his views a definitive form in the shape of a dogma (see Strothmann, , Staatsrecht, 38).Google Scholar No such doubts beset al-Qāsim's grandson, the Imām al-Hādī Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn: he condemned Abū Bakr and ‘Umar and declared them to be unbelievers who deserved the death penalty (see van Arendonk, , op. cit., 254Google Scholar; cf. Madelung, , op. cit., 167).Google Scholar

29 Al-Hadawī al-Ṣa'dī, op. cit., fol. 3a–b, quoting from al-Shāfī by al-Manṣūr bi-'llāh ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥamza (d. 614/1217).

30 The claim that al-Mughīra played a central part in laying the groundwork for the usurpation seems to be specifically Zaydī. The Imāmīs, too, attribute to al-Mughīra a variety of anti-'Alid actions (cf., e.g., al-Majlisī, , op. cit., VIII, 56–7)Google Scholar; but in discussing the usurpation itself they usually mention Abū ‘Ubayda b. al-Jarrāḥ as the main collaborator with Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. Cf. in general H. Lammens, ‘Le “Triumvirat” Bakr, Aboû, ‘Omar et Aboû ‘Obaida1’, MFO, Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth IV, 1910, 113–44.Google Scholar

31 AI-Najrī, op. cit., fol. 131a, whence Madelung, , op. cit., 45Google Scholar; al-Maqbalī, Ṣāliḥ b. Mahdī, al-'Alam al-shāmikh fī īthār al-ḥaqq ‘alā ‘l-ābā wa ‘l-mashāyikh, Cairo, 1328/1910, 326Google Scholar; cf. also Strothmann, , Slaatsrecht, p. 39Google Scholar, n. 1. But see the report about al-Uṭrūsh, , below, p. 98.Google Scholar A list of erroneous decisions and harmful innovations ascribed to the three caliphs by the Imāmīs and by some Mu'tazilīs is reproduced in various Zaydī texts. A description and an analysis of some of these decisions and innovations are given by van Ess, J. in Das Kitāb an-Nakṯ des Naẓẓām und seine Rezeption im Kitāb al-Futyā des āḥiẓ, Göttingen, 1972, 22–47.Google Scholar

32 Al-Najrī, loc. cit. Cf. the exposition of this view by ‘Abd al-Jabbār in his al-Mughnī, XX, iiGoogle Scholar, ed. ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm Maḥmūd and Sulaymān Dunyā, Cairo, c. 1966, 84–92. The Zaydī Ibn al-Murtaḍā (quoted by al-Najrī, op. cit., fol. 131b) disagrees, however, with ‘Abd al-Jabbār's claim that since it is impossible to know man's innermost thoughts, a person may be considered as having repented even when there is no conclusive evidence to that effect. According to Ibn al-Murtaḍā, a definite error (al-khaṭa' al-maqṭū' bihi) can be rectified only by a clear repentance. Since external, apparent actions (ẓāhir) are the basis of all worship, repentance, too, must be regarded as having taken place when there are external proofs for its existence. The implication from Ibn al-Murtaḍā's argument is that no distinction can be drawn between what a man says and what he believes.

33 Al-Najrī, op. cit., fol. 131a.

34 al-Akbar, Al-Nāshi', op. cit., 44Google Scholar; al-Nawbakhtī, , op. cit., 9Google Scholar; al-Najrī, loc. cit. Cf. in general van Arendonk, , op. cit., 73Google Scholar; Madelung, , op. cit., 62.Google Scholar

35 Al-Nājrī, op. cit., fols. 131b–132a.

36 ibid. These and similar points are also discussed in al-Murtaḍā, Ibn, Ṭabaqāt al-mu'tazila, 23–4Google Scholar; Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh ibu ‘Aqīl, al-Naṣā'ih al-kāfiya li-man yatawallā Mu'āwiya, ed. Khursān, Muḥammad Riḍā, Najaf, 1966, 20Google Scholar; Abī, Ibn ‘l-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ nahj al-balāgha, ed. Abū, Muḥammad ‘l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, Cairo, 1959–1964, v, 130–1.Google Scholar Cf. also al-Jāḥiẓ, , Risāla fī ‘l-ḥakamaynGoogle Scholar, ed. Ch. Pellat, , al-Machriq, LII, 4–5, 1958, 448Google Scholar; Wellhausen, J., The Arab kingdom and its fall, repr., Beirut, 1963, 121–2Google Scholar; the article ‘Ziyād b. Abīhi’ by H. Lammens, in El, first ed. It is not surprising that the Zaydīs, who generally accepted the Mu'tazilī doctrine of free will, should accuse Mu'āwiya of adhering to deterministic beliefs.

37 Details of the Sunnī doctrine may be found in the following sources: (a) Shāfi'īs: al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn, al-Sayf al-maslūl, LeidenGoogle Scholar MS Or. 2412, fol. 85b; al-Dhahabī, , Kitāb al-kabā'ir, ed. Muḥammad, ‘al-Razzāq, AbdḤamza, Mecca, 1355/1936–1937, 260–4Google Scholar; al-Haytamī, Ibn Ḥajar, al-Ṣawā'iq al-muḥriqa, ed. ‘al-Wahhāb, Abd ‘Abd al-Laṭif, Cairo, 1375/1955–1956, 256Google Scholar; al-Maḥallī, , al-Badr al-ṭāli’, Būlāq, 1285/1868–1869, 11, 139Google Scholar; (b) Ḥanafīs: Muḥammad Amīn ibn ‘Ābidīn, Radd al-muḥtār, quoted by al-Mūsawī, Sharaf al-Dīn in his al-Fuṣūl al-muhimma, Najaf, c. 1964, 35Google Scholar; Elder, E. E., A commentary on the creed of Islam, New York, 1950, 153–4Google Scholar; (c) Mālikīs: al-Shāṭibī, , al-I'tiṣām, Cairo, 1913–1914, 11, 261–2Google Scholar; (d) Ḥanbalīs: Ya'lā, Ibn Abī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥanābila, ed. al-Fīqī, Muḥammad Ḥāmid, Cairo, 1952, 1, 30, 245, 311Google Scholar; al-Jawzī, Ibn, Manāqib al-imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, ed. Khānjī, Muḥammad Amīn, Cairo, 1930, 130Google Scholar; Abī Bakr, Ibn, al-Tamhīd wa ‘l-bayān, ed. Zāyid, Maḥmūd Y., Beirut, 1964, 171Google Scholar; Taymiyya, Ibn, al-Ṣārim al-maslūl, Ḥaydarābād, 1322/1904–1905, 572.Google Scholar

38 cf. Goldziher, , ‘Spottnamen der ersten Clialifen bei den Schi'iten’, WZKM, xv, 1901, 321–34Google Scholar (= Gesammelte Schriften, IV, 295–308).Google Scholar

39 The discussion is quoted in full in Abī, Ibn ‘l-Ḥadīd, op. cit., xx, 10–35Google Scholar; ‘Alī Khān ibn Ma'ṣūm, al-Darajāt al-rafī'a, ed. Muḥammad Ṣādiq Baḥr al-'Ulūm. Najaf, 1382/1962–3, 12–28. Cf. also ‘Aqīl, Ibn, op. cit., 8–19.Google Scholar

40 Ḥamīdān b. Yaḥyā, Kitāb al-taṣrīḥ, fol. 113a, whence al-Hadawī al-Ṣa'dī, op. cit. fols. 25a–26b.

41 Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fol. 161b.

42 ibid., fols. 162b–163b, 168a.

43 ibid., fol. 164a.

44 He is not generally liked by the later Zaydī authors. Cf. Madelung, , op. cit., 154–9.Google Scholar

45 Al-Subkī, op. cit., fol. 85a; al-Jawzī, Ibn, Tadhkirat ulī ‘l-baṣā'ir fī ma'rifat al-kabā'ir, Princeton MS, Garrett collection, 1896, fol. 169a–b.Google Scholar

46 Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fol. 168a. The story seems rather suspect in view of al-Hādī's known hostility towards the leading Companions (of. above, p. 94, n. 28).

47 See Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad ibn al-Wazīr (d. 914/1508), al-Falak al-dawwār, BM MS Or. 3850, fol. 26a.

48 cf. Madelung, , op. cit., 68–9.Google Scholar

49 ibid., 49–50.

50 Inna mithla hādhā ‘l-'ilm lā yu'tharu illā ‘anhumā wa-'an amthālihimā (Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fol. 169b). It is to be noted, however, that al-Uṭrūsh is rather anti-Mu'tazilī and often close to Imāmī doctrine (cf. Madelung, op. cit., 159 ff.). According to al-Manṣūr bi-'llāh, the Companions are the most excellent of the community after the ahl al-bayt (Ibn Ḥumayd, op. cit., fol. 171a).

51 al-Jushamī, Al-Ḥākim, Kitāb sharḥ ‘uyūn al-masā'ilGoogle Scholar, Leiden MS Or. 2584, fol. 31b. The acceptance of this transmission hinges at least on a tacit acknowledgement of the Sunnī principle that all Companions are persons of high morals (‘udūl). The majority of Zaydī scholars accept that principle, with the reservation that it does not apply to those Companions whose sinfulness has become apparent, such as those who fought against ‘Alī and did not repent. See Ibn al-Wazīr, op. cit., fol. 70a; cf. al-Maqbalī, , op. cit., 307.Google Scholar

52 Al-Najrī, op. cit., fol. 133b.

53 ‘Alī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn are also said to be the most excellent among the Companions (afḍal al-ṣaḥāba) (Mānakdīm, , op. cit., 767).Google Scholar The claim, attributed to some Mu'tazilī authors, that ten of the most renowned Companions (known as al-'ashara al-mubashsharūn) were also infallible, is rejected by the later Zaydiyya as dubious (fīhi naẓar) (al-Najrī, op. cit., fols. 133b–134a).