Imam Zaid Al-Hashemi .. revolted against the Umayyads, they crucified him for four years, paved the way for the success of the Abbasids, and established a jurisprudence that adopts the “continuous revolution.”

A closer look at the men of the “Ahl al-Bayt” and their ideas and principles that they carried and strive to embody in reality; It is an integral part of any serious effort that seeks to learn an important reading of Islam in its early sources, before readings proliferate, delusions overlap and passions quarrel.

Also, looking into the biographies of the early “Ahl al-Bayt” men enables us to understand the causes of the fragmentation that later afflicted the ummah, because of their relationships with a very complex triangle whose ribs consist of: the ruling systems, the masses of the ummah’s scholars, and public opinion in it.

Among these great men is Imam Zaid bin Ali al-Hashemi (d. 122 AH / 741 CE), who we devote this article to standing on his experience in dealing with this vital triangle; They monitored his stance on public affairs, both jointly and clashing, highlighting his relationship with scholars of his time as discipleship and dialogue, and comparing his political ideas with the principles and ideas of his time that were comparable to them.

Moreover, these lines seek – in the meantime – to understand the contexts of the movement of events in the days of Zaid and his contribution to them, given that we see that this contribution still serves as a model for inspiring the people of our time as they enter the fields of practical legitimate politics. Zaid theoretically constructed his political project from a vision that combines flexible realism and an aspiring idealism to suit everyone, and that his side is conciliation in choosing the appropriate revolutionary geography.

What concerns us – in this respect – is the position of Imam Zayd’s personality in the ummah, not in the faction, and in public affairs, not in private matters. As for the issue of “Zaydism”, it is a scholarly group and a doctrinal doctrine that has another place.

Special upbringing
Zaid bin Ali was born in the year 80 AH / 700 AD and grew up in the house of an imamate in knowledge and integrity in religion. His father is Ali – known as Zain al-Abidin (d. 94 AH / 714 CE) – bin al-Husayn (d.61 AH / 682 CE) bin Ali bin Abi Talib (d. 40 AH / 661 CE).

Zaid did not complete his fourteenth year until he was traumatized by the death of his father Zain al-Abidin, who was famous for being one of the vessels of knowledge and imams of asceticism and worship, until Imam al-Dhahabi (d. Devout. “

Ibn Katheer (d. The Prophet ﷺ. Then he mentioned some accounts that indicate his close relationship with the scholars of his time among the followers.

Zaid took the knowledge – as al-Dhahabi says in al-Sirah – “on the authority of a group whose father Zain al-Abidin comes at the fore, and his [older brother Muhammad] al-Baqir (d. 114 AH / 733 CE), and Oruh ibn al-Zubayr (d. 94 AH / 714 CE)” who was one of the jurists of Medina The Seven Big Prophetic.

From these imams, Zaid derived his knowledge and obtained his solid scientific formation. This is the outcome from which the historian al-Faqih al-Maqrizi (d.845 AH / 1441 CE) relates from him, when he narrates – in ‘Sermons and Consideration’ – that Zaid once addressed his revolutionary followers with him, saying: “By God, I did not go out and did not stand this until I read the Qur’an and mastered the obligatory duties. And she has tightened the law and etiquette, and knew interpretation as well as known the revelation .., and what the nation needs in her religion is what she must and cannot be indispensable for, and I am aware of my Lord.

Various tributaries
Abu al-Fath al-Shahristani (d. ) … the head of the Mu’tazila and their head …, so he quoted him to retire, and all of his companions became Mu’tazilites. “
Al-Maqrizi states that the Zaydis “agree with the Mu’tazilites in all of their origins except in the issue of the imamate, and the doctrine of Zaid bin Ali was taken on the authority of Wasel bin Ataa.”

This diversity in the cognitive reception and the multiplicity of the outlet made him fused with all the spectrums of the scientific community and engaged in public affairs without isolation, and also led to the maturation of his positive attitude towards the Companions and the predecessors, and the balance in his mediation between the groups and groups that were still in the process of crystallization and distinction.

Therefore, Al-Dhahabi quoted saying: “On the authority of Zaid bin Ali, he said: Abu Bakr (Al-Siddiq d. 13 AH / 635 AD) – may God be pleased with him – was the imam of the thankful. Then he recited:“ God will reward the thankful. Ali”.

According to Imam Ibn Taymiyah (d . 728 AH / 1328 AD) At ‘curriculum year Allenboah’- The extremists of the followers of al – Bayt excommunicate some of their imams, “They are the Sunnis whom Almtolon to Abu Bakr and Omar Kzad bin Ali bin Al – Hussein and his ilk from the descendants of Fatima (d . 11 AH / 633 AD).

Therefore, Zayd al-Alam was not separated from the masses of Islamic scholars at that time, and the group affiliated with him called “Zaydism” had not yet emerged with its beliefs and origins that were later known, and therefore he remained – before and after his martyrdom – numbered among the imams of Islam who are united to their imamate, which is what qualified him. Because his revolution won the support of all jurists, hadiths and commentators alike, and he relied on his scientific views even the imams of sects and scholars of hadiths.

Respected status
, as Imam al-Shafi’i (d.204 AH / 820 CE) narrated on him with his chain of narrators in several chapters of his book “Musnad al-Shafi’i”, including the hadith: “And every one of Mina is devastated.” Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH / 855 CE) narrated from him in many places of his books: “The Musnad” and “The Virtues of the Companions”, including what he narrated with his chain of transmission that one of them asked Zaid bin Ali on the authority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Omar al-Faruq (d.23 AH / 645 CE). He said: Take control of them, he said: I said: How do you say about one who disavows them?

Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated from him in his book “Al-Musannaf” and the owners of the four books of the Sunan; According to Imam al-Mazzi (d. 742 AH / 1341 CE) who says – in ‘Tahdheeb al-Kamal’ – that Zaid was narrated by Abu Dawud (d.275 AH / 888 CE), al-Tirmidhi (d.279 AH / 892 CE), and al-Nasa’i (d. Ali ‘and Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH / 886 CE).

The commentators and commentators of the hadith have frequently mentioned the opinions of Zaid bin Ali of jurisprudence and his sayings on the faces of the Qur’an readings. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH / 1448 CE) quoted him frequently in Fath al-Bari, and the same did before him in their commentaries al-Zamakhshari al-Mu’tazili (d.538 AH / 1143 CE), Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi al-Shafi’i (d. 606 AH / 1209 CE), and al-Qurtubi al-Maliki (d. D. 671 AH / 1272 AD), and Ibn Kathir al-Shafi’i.

As for Imam Zaid’s scholarly classifications, It is worth remembering that he died – at the age of forty-two – before the era of codification and authorization, but the “Kitab al-Majmoo ‘” which included many of his scientific views is attributed to him, although it is more likely that it was compiled long after his death by some of his students, as happened with many From the scientific heritage of other great imams.
The context of the formation in
order to understand the motives for Zaid’s revolution against the Umayyad state. We should first realize that he was born in Madinah, whose people and symbols – among the Companions, their sons and senior followers – forced the Umayyads to pledge allegiance to Yazid bin Muawiyah (d.665 AH / 685 AD), as “his father made him his crown prince and the people forced him to do so.” According to the phrase of Imam al-Suyuti (d.911 AH / 1505 CE) in the ‘History of the Caliphs’.

One of the details of that was that Muawiyah wrote to his governor over Medina Marwan bin Al-Hakam (d.65 AH / 686 CE) to take the pledge of allegiance to his young son Yazid. So Marwan gathered the leaders of the people of Medina and addressed them, saying: “The Commander of the Faithful saw that his son swear to more than you, the Sunnah of Abu Bakr And Omar! Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Bakr al-Siddiq (d. 53 AH / 674 CE) stood up and said: “Rather, the Sunnah of Khosrau and Caesar, Abu Bakr and Omar did not place it in their children, nor in any of their household !!”

Then Muawiyah went himself to Medina and took the pledge of allegiance to his son Yazid without the consent of the people, so Ibn Abi Bakr protested against him, saying, as Al-Suyuti narrated: “You, by God, have wooed me and we all of you (= we left you) in the matter of your son to God, and by God we do not do, and God will turn back this matter. Shura in the Muslims, or let us separate it with a stem !!

The shura was therefore a central value strongly present in the collective mind of the Companions and the followers, and therefore they were all angered by the actions of Muawiyah and saw in it a founding precedent for what was subsequently established in terms of the loss of the value of the shura and the waste of the nation’s sovereignty, so that Hassan al-Basri (d.110 AH / 729 CE) later commented on the inheritance. Muawiyah al-Hakam to his son, so he said: “For that reason these [princes] pledged allegiance to their sons, and if not for that, it would have been a shura until the Day of Resurrection !!”

One of the results of Muawiya’s move was that the mandate of Yazid alienated from him the hearts of the righteous, so Hussain bin Ali went out against him in Iraq in the year 60 AH / 681 CE, and the people of Medina themselves launched the Hura Revolution in the year 63 AH / 684 CE, and Abdullah bin Al-Zubair (d. 73 AH / 693 CE) announced his assumption. The caliphate in Makkah Al-Mukarramah, and then a massive revolt launched by hundreds of Iraqi scholars led by the military commander Abdul Rahman bin Al-Ash’ath Al-Kindi (d. 84 AH / 704 AD), and its events continued between the years 81-83AH / 701-703AD.
A disgruntled generation
There is no doubt that these political fluctuations and the successive revolutions against the Umayyads for nearly a quarter of a century affected the new generations at that time, such as the generation of Imam Zaid, whose birth coincided with the outbreak of the last of which was the revolution of the jurists and Ibn al-Ash’ath.

Thus, the new generation inherited the resentment of the patriarchs generation from the companions and the great followers of the Umayyads, and their actions and their monopoly over the position of the caliphate, especially since the most important demands of the revolutionaries were summarized in: returning to the shura in the inauguration of the caliphs, and the participation of people in choosing the governors of the regions.

In light of the repercussions of these events that continued to simmer under the surface, after the Umayyad power machine was able to subject it to pressure and control for about four decades; The revolution of Zaid bin Ali came in the year 122 AH / 741 CE under the rule of Hisham bin Abd al-Malik (d. 125 AH / 744 CE). Imam Zaid positioned his project between the failed and previous revolutionary path of those revolutions, and the second successful revolutionary path that followed him, which was carried out by the Abbasids.

The truth is that Zaida himself included his revolution in the context of these overwhelming revolutions. He said, according to what was narrated by Abd al-Qaher al-Jarjani (d. 429 AH / 1039 CE) in “The difference between the divisions”: “Rather, I went out against the Umayyads who fought my grandfather Hussein, and raided the city on the Day of the Free Day, and threw the house of God with a catapult and fire” in their fight against Ibn al-Zubayr.

Therefore, Imam Zayd’s revolution – in its motives, method, and even results – was an extension of previous revolutions. As we will see, the same demands were raised, represented in the necessity of: adopting shura as a mechanism to gain power, respecting the will of Muslim public opinion  in choosing caliphs and governors, and establishing justice by eliminating grievances against people.

A theoretical foundation:
Zaydi verbal ideas differ from their counterparts among all Shiite sects – especially the Twelver Shiites – in two important issues, which Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH / 936 CE) identifies for us by saying in his book ‘Articles of the Islamists’: = The Twelvers) in two things: One of them is that they claim that Ali took over (= supported) Abu Bakr and Omar over the validity and delivered their pledge of allegiance, and the other is that they do not prove the infallibility of the Ahl al-Bayt group as it is proved by [their] those. ”

On the position of Zaid towards Abu Bakr, Omar and the general companions: Al-Ash’ari says: “Zaid bin Ali used to favor Ali bin Abi Talib over the rest of the companions of the Messenger of God.

This position of Zaid on Abu Bakr and Umar on what he is commended for At the height of his battle with the Umayyads and his need for the Ahl al-Bayt Shiites, he declared to them his great stance towards them, and he did not use the “pious” with them to win them to his side, so when he heard some of them stabbing Abu Bakr and Umar, he disobeyed them, and they turned away from him and said to them: “You rejected me!” So they were called the Rafidah.

And in the narration of Ibn al-Atheer (d. 630 AH / 1233 CE) – in al-Kamil – that a group of Shiite leaders came to Zaid and said: May God have mercy on you, what do you say about Abu Bakr and Umar? My house says there is nothing but good, and what I say most – about what you mentioned [from the Imamate] – I was more entitled to the authority of the Messenger of God from all people, so they pushed us from it and did not reach it to us with them as infidels, and they were gone, so they were fair in the people and acted according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Al-Shahristani clarifies – in ‘Al-Milal wa Al-Nahl’ – Zaid’s opinion about who is in charge of the caliphate in general. He says that “one of his doctrine was the permissibility of leading the mufdoul when the best was standing. He said: Ali bin Abi Talib – may God be pleased with him – was the best of the Companions, but the caliphate was delegated to Abu Bakr for a benefit they saw, and a religious rule sponsored her, whoever inhabits Naara (= enmity) sedition. And good hearts of common people. “

The
reformists defended and soothed the fire of sedition and perfumed the hearts of the common people were among the interests of the considerate in the political jurisprudence of Imam Zayd; It is not permissible to ignore the opinion of the public and the people’s consent, and here it is consistent with the policy of his grandfather Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who refused – as will be mentioned – to take over the caliphate without an open pledge of allegiance from the people, in which shura is embodied in freedom and transparency.

If Zaid permits the imamate of the preferred with the presence of the virtuous or the better, then he does not see the infallibility of anyone after the Messenger of God, and he sees the centrality of the nation’s decision and the right of the believers to choose, even if they choose the preferred, and he cites for that an example by his grandfather Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was not chosen by the ummah after the death of The Prophet, but rather installed him as a caliph after the passing of the three caliphs after him.

Zaid explains – according to al-Shahristani’s narration – that his grandfather Ali did not assume the caliphate at the moment of the Prophet’s death. He says, “The era of wars that took place in the days of the prophethood was soon, and the sword of the Commander of the Faithful was Ali – upon him be peace – from the blood of the polytheists from the Quraysh has not yet dried up, and the resentments in the hearts of the people were from asking for revenge as it is, so the hearts were not inclined towards it all inclination and not driven to it. The necks are completely submissive, and the interest was to do this for those who were known to be lenient, courteous, advanced in age, preceded by Islam, and near the Messenger of God.

This text reveals to us the main principles of Zaid relating to the conduct of public affairs. Here he believes in the priority of people’s satisfaction in the terms of the inauguration of the ruler. Hence, it can be said that Zaid’s theory of “permissibility to lead the mufdid with the existence of the virtuous” was a common word and a point of convergence between a number of conflicting currents on the issue of the succession.

This consensual vision
and Zaid’s consensual theory is a historical precedent establishing its counterparts from the conciliatory views that later combined the attitudes of most of the nation with decisive compromise positions presented by their owners on major methodological issues. As Imam Al-Shafi’i did with his brilliant reconciliation between the two schools of opinion and influence in jurisprudence, and Imam al-Ash’ari with his successful combination of scholars of theology and people of hadith in beliefs, and Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH / 1111 CE) with his historical reconciliation between jurists and Sufis in education and behavior.

Thus, Zaid presented a practical solution to the crisis of the historical dispute over the imamate between the Alawite movement (later Shiites) and other great people of all the Companions (the Sunnis later) to overcome the polarization that was dividing the people at that time, and thus also guaranteed Zaid everyone’s support for his revolution, even if it was the result of his attempt. It seems that it was reflected in the beginning of the crystallization of the emergence of what he called “the Rafidah”, as has been said previously.

The most important of those currents – which Zaid wanted to unify under the banner of his revolution with his conciliatory statement – are three: The first is a trend that rejects the mandate of Abu Bakr and Omar and believes that the imamate is due to Ali and his sons and not others, with a text and a commandment from the Prophet. The second is a movement that believes Abu Bakr is entitled, but some of them stated that there is a text on it as well. And the third is another team that considers the choice and the shura, whether it results with Abu Bakr or Ali.

Zayd bin Ali was – in practical terms – closer to the group that says Shura is a path to the caliphate, even if he disagreed with them in favoring Ali over others. This does not affect the practical reality much, as it is therefore closer to the theoretical dispute, especially since Imam Al-Ghazali summarized – in his book ‘The Economy in the Belief’ – the position of the majority of the Ummah’s scholars that the order of preference among the four caliphs is in terms of the outward appearance and not the reality of the matter, because That “means that its place with God Almighty in the Hereafter is superior, and this is an unseen that only God and His Messenger will see if He tells it to him.” Al-Ghazali’s saying brings us closer to Imam Zayd’s position on the caliphate.

So Zaid tried with his idea to unite the different groups around a historical issue that should not distract them from confronting the challenges of their sad reality. He distinguished brilliantly between the “political criterion” in the issue of the imamate / caliphate, which is based on the choice and election of people even if they came with the favored at the expense of the virtuous, and the “religious criterion”, which is a matter of personal preference in which people have nothing to do with the ruling, but rather they have no power over it because it is his command. It is entrusted to God Almighty who is alone in knowing what is in the hearts.

A renewed approach,
building on that as well; We can say that Zaid’s approach to governance and the state is similar to that of his grandfather Ali bin Abi Talib, may God be pleased with him, who believed in the necessity of a public pledge of allegiance from the believers to the ruler. Therefore, he refused to assume the caliphate without their voluntary public pledge, and he did not claim for himself infallibility or a prophetic will.

Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH / 922 CE) narrates in his history on the authority of Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib – known as Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya (d.81 AH / 701 CE) – saying: “I was with my father when Uthman (d. 35 AH / 656 CE) was killed, may God be pleased with him, so he got up and entered His house came to him, and the companions of the Messenger of God came to him, and they said: This man was killed, and people must have an imam, and today we do not find anyone more deserving of this than you .. He said: Do not do it, for I am a minister better than being a prince, so they said: No By God, we do not do people until we pledge allegiance to you. He said: In the mosque, my sale is not a hidden [matter], and it is only with the approval of the Muslims. “

All this shows the extent of the originality of Imam Zaid’s doctrine and its adherence to the approach of the greatest companions in the Shura Council, at the forefront of whom is his grandfather Ali. Thus it becomes clear that the imperative of Zaid’s doctrine is that there is no infallibility for anyone after the Messenger of God, but the Zaydis, after Zaid, said of the infallibility of four imams of Ahl al-Bayt: Ali, Fatimah, and al-Hasan (d. 49 AH / 670 CE), and al-Husayn, and at the same time they maintained the approach of Zayd, who rebelled against tyranny. Founders of the trend of “continuous revolution” in Islamic history.

Therefore, Zaid said that the caliph – even if he was not preferred, but was the best – must be chosen with the consent of the people, and if he kept this choice within the circle of those who are qualified for the caliphate from the children and grandchildren of Fatima, may God be pleased with her, but there is no difference in his opinion between the descendants of Hassan and Hussein, that is. The difference, which was multiplied due to the tendencies in which the Shiites divided between Husaynis and Husaynis, and in which there were even many trends even within each of the two groups.

Zayd bin Ali dwells on his closeness to the curriculum of the Companions and Taabi’een. It agrees with Abu Bakr’s ruling on the inheritance of the “Fadak” region, whose case arose between the Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Fatima al-Zahra, the grandmother of Imam Zaid. As Ibn Katheer quotes – in ‘The Beginning and the End’ – on the authority of al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi (d. Be early in your ransom. “

But the Zaidi doctrine itself fragmented later and multiplied its statements, until its companions no longer permitted the leadership of the preferred, and some of them began to challenge the succession of Abu Bakr and Omar, as other Shiite sects do. Al-Shahristani noticed that by saying: “They disagreed with their (= Zaydi) cousins ​​from the Musawiyyah (= the Twelvers) in matters of origins, and most Zaydis – after that – tended to say the imamate of al-Mafdoul, and the Companions challenged the Imamate.”

جدل محتدم
بعد استشهاد الحسين بن علي عاش آل البيت في المدينةِ لا يخرجون منها؛ فأقبل رجالاتهم على العلمِ تحصيلا وتوصيلا، وجنحوا -في السياسة- إلى مذهب السلم ومنابذة الثورة على الأمويين، وبادلهم هؤلاء السِّلْم بسِلْم مماثلة فلم يصلوا إليهم بسوء في أغلب الأحيان، وهو ما يؤكده ابن تيمية -في ‘مجموع الفتاوى‘- بقوله: “بنو مروان -على الإطلاق- لم يقتلوا أحدا من بني هاشم -لا آل علي ولا آل العباس- إلا زيد بن علي.. وابنه يحيى (ت 125هـ/744م)”.

وكانت تلك السلمية أيامها منهجَ جُلّ علماء المسلمين الذين ارتأوا -بعد إخفاق ثورات النصف الثاني من القرن الأول الهجري/السابع الميلادي- خيارَ الصبر على ظلم أمراء الجور، إذْ كان نجاح الثورة مستحيلاً بمعايير القوة والردع، فقد كان الحكام الأمويون لا يستنكفون عن استئصال خصومهم. لكن الملمح المهم هنا هو أنّ تلك الرؤية كانت واقعية وليست مبدئية.

وفي هذا السياق؛ جرت بين زيدٍ -وهو شاب في مطلع الثلاثينيات من عمره تقريبا- وأخيه محمد الباقر نقاشاتٌ كثيرة بسبب انعزال أهل البيت عن السياسة والثورة، وتنكُّبهم خوض غمار الشأن العام ومتطلباته، بما في ذلك الثورة ذات الشوكة متى توفرت شروطها وتهيأت ظروفها.

وينقل لنا الشهرستاني طرفا من تلك المناقشات فيقول إنه “جرت بينه (= زيد) وبين أخيه الباقر محمد بن علي مناظرات… من حيث كان يتتلمذ لواصل بن عطاء ويقتبس العلم ممن يُجوِّز الخطأ على جَدِّه (= عليّ بن أبي طالب) في قتال الناكثين (= الغادرين) والقاسِطين (= الجائرين)…، ومن حيث إنه كان يشترط الخروج (= الثورة) شرطا في كون الإمام إماما؛ حتى قال له يوما: على مقتضى مذهبك [فإن] والدك (= زين العابدين) ليس بإمام، فإنه لم يخرج قَطُّ” على بني أمية!!

And we understand from these discussions that al-Baqir was not convinced of the position of his brother Zaid, who is inclined to the revolution, especially since he found only supporters of the family of al-Bayt from the people of Kufa in Iraq, and they had multiple precedents for luring the men of the family of al-Bayt into an armed confrontation with the Umayyad rulers, then abandoning them. In critical stages of the course of the revolution!

The historian Al-Masoudi (d. 346 AH / 957 AD) mentions – in ‘Murooj al-Dhahab’ – that Zaid consulted his brother al-Baqir in his reliance on the Kufis. And with it, your father Al-Hussein (= his grandfather) was killed, so [Zaid] refused except for what he was determined to demand the right.

Revolutionary contents The
historians al-Tabari and Ibn al-Atheer preserved for us – in their histories – the form of allegiance that Zaid took from his followers and supporters of his revolution. According to Ibn al-Atheer, its text was: “We invite you to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet – 3 – and to fight the oppressors, to defend the weak, to give to the disenfranchised, to divide this affair between his family equally , to respond to grievances, and to support the people of the household; do you follow on that?”

Thus, we see that the terms of the pledge were profoundly significant and included what could be described as the “revolution program”, and the contents of this program were the call to arbitrate the Book of God Almighty and the Sunnah of His Prophet by activating the major colleges that it included, such as justice, shura, freedom and equality, and stopping the tyranny of oppressive rulers who were pledged allegiance. People have a hatred, so do not be free of the religious and political blame, defending the rights of the weak and deprived classes that include all sects, and supporting the household over those who are wronged.

This is also confirmed by his other conversations with the hesitant followers of his followers, such as his saying to those of them who asked him about the reason for his fighting against the Umayyad rulers: “These are unjust to me, you and themselves, but we invite you to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet and to the Sunnah to live, and to innovation to be quenched; if you answer us, you will be happy. Do not you, I am not an agent. “

The text of the pledge was accompanied by a personal affirmation of the pledges involved in the revolution. Then he would ask everyone who pledged allegiance to him: “Do you follow him on that?” So if they said: Yes, put his hand on his hand, then say: You have to God’s covenant and his covenant and his responsibility and the responsibility of his Messenger, to destroy my sale and to fight my enemy and to advise you in secret and in public? Then he said: O Allah, bear witness! In respect of those covenants, Zaid rejected the statements of those who doubted the seriousness of their owners, and kept answering these skeptics, saying: “They pledged allegiance to me, and the pledge of allegiance took place in my neck and their necks!”

What is striking here is the absence of any claim to entitlement to the caliphate by a will or the infallibility of the imam of the revolution or his guiding power, as we see another clever compromise in its terms between the demands of the “Sunnis” and the “Shiite” vision Zaid pledged two simultaneous things: raising the banner of seeking revenge for the blood of Alawites to attract their supporters, and declaring his intention to remove the grievances of the illiterate people in order to gain the support of all those affected by their policies, whatever their positions and positions.

It also seems that the part related to the family of the house in the pledge of allegiance was directed at the supporters of his nephew, Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq (d.148 AH / 766 CE), who refused to go out with him or pledge allegiance to him because of their fear of the oppression of the Umayyads, as if he was telling them that this revolution came to set the record straight. Especially since Zaida until that moment “the Shiites were impersonating him (= supporting him)” and revering him; According to Ibn Taymiyyah in ‘Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah’.

Therefore, we find Zaid reminding these Shiites of his location and location in Quraish. If the Quraysh were the most honorable of the Arabs, then the Ahl al-Bayt are the most honorable of the Quraysh, and he was at the forefront of the men of this noble family, as “he was one of the most distinguished and scholarly people of the house.” As Ibn Taymiyyah says, who continues, saying, “When Zaid bin Ali bin Al Hussein came out in the Caliphate of Hisham – and asked for the matter for himself – he was one of those who took charge of Abu Bakr and Omar.”

Al-Dhahabi conveys to us – in the ‘biography’ – Jaafar al-Sadiq’s description of Zaid’s position in the household, as he defended him in front of his fanatical haters: “By God, he read us the book of God, and understood us in the religion of God, and brought us to the womb.

There is no doubt that this is another asset in Imam Zaid’s political consensus that strengthens the possibility of the convergence of currents around him: “Ahl al-Sunnah” as a subordinate imam whose majesty and stature, and “Shiites” in general through his affiliation with the noble house, and “Mu’tazila” due to his strong relationship with the founder of their sect, Wasel bin Ataa and the “Kharijites” when they resorted to the sword like them to bring about the desired political change.
A creeping crowd
on this solid ground politically and morally; Zaid Hashd proceeded to pledge allegiance to his revolutionary project “until his office (= the fighters’ register) counted fifteen thousand men, so he stayed in Kufa for a period of ten months … of which there were about two months in Basra.” According to Al Tabari.

Imam Zaid was compelled to hasten the zero hour – which was Fatih Safar in the year 122 AH / 741 CE – from the agreed date for fear of exposure to the Umayyad intelligence apparatus . Then he “ordered his companions to prepare and prepare … and his matter spread among the people.”

Thus, the battles of the revolution began, and its first rounds were in favor of Zaid and his camp, whereby they “made their horses unconnected to his horses” due to the strength and daring of his fighters; According to Ibn al-Atheer. However, the abandonment of most of the Kufists – as a result of his corrective stance on the succession of Abu Bakr and Umar al-Faruq – made him lose as a result of the war, especially since he did not abide by the pledge of pledge of allegiance to his soldiers, except for “two hundred and eighteen men” who fought with him to the end.

Zaid continued to fight with those with him until he was martyred by an arrow that hit him and crucified the governor of Iraq, Yusuf bin Omar al-Thaqafi (d. 127 AH / 746 CE), his body was later on the outskirts of Kufa, “then it was lowered after four years of being crucified.” According to al-Safadi (d. 764 AH / 1363 CE) in al-Wafi Balufiyat.

After the death of Zaid, His son, Yahya, followed the path of his father, continuing his revolt against the Umayyads, but from another land and in the midst of a new popular incubator; His father’s supporters were able to hide him from the eyes of the Umayyad authority that lurked over him everywhere. “When the Talab dwelt (= searching for him), he walked in a group from Zaydiyya to Khurasan.” As narrated by Ibn al-Atheer in al-Kamil.

A resumed revolution and
in the Khorasan region, Yahya bin Zaid resumed his father’s revolution; So he was able – after a period of calm with the Umayyads – to regroup the ranks of his father’s supporters, so he attracted people to the pledge of allegiance, “and a large group gathered over him.” According to al-Shahristani.

Then Yahya announced the revolution in the year 125 AH / 744 CE, taking advantage of the disturbances associated with the change of the Umayyad regime with the death of Caliph Hisham bin Abd al-Malik, and the appointment of a new caliph in his place, his nephew al-Walid bin Yazid (d.126 AH / 745 CE), who provoked the nation’s resentment against him. When he violated the prohibitions of God and disdained religion. ” According to Al-Dhahabi in the ‘History of Islam’.

The fate of Yahya’s revolution in Khorasan was not different from that of its counterpart in Iraq, although – as Al-Dhahabi says in Al-Sirah – it reached from Al-Dafar that he “almost owned” the country there after “severe wars and repulsions,” yet the balance of power failed Yahya – as he made With his father – when the number of his supporters decreased to only “seventy men”; According to Ibn al-Atheer.

The Umayyad governor of Khorasan, Nasr bin Sayyar (d.131 AH / 750 CE), continued his fight against the rebels, until “Yahya bin Zaid hit an arrow in his temple, killing him … and his body was crucified in Jouzjan,” which is located today in northern Afghanistan.

Despite Yahya’s defeat militarily; We find in the public’s position after Yahya’s death profound indications regarding the great popular support for this revolution even after its failure, because “no child was born in Khurasan from the Arabs and notables but was named Yahya”. According to al-Dhahabi, who tells us that after the victory of the leader of the Abbasid revolution in Khurasan, Abu Muslim al-Khorasani (d. 137 AH / 755 CE) called for “the Diwan of Umayyah (= the record of their fighters), so he went through the names of Yahya’s killers and whoever walked … to fight him, so whoever [of them] was alive killed him.”
Continuous sparkle The
martyrdom of Zaid and his son Yahya reinforced to many the validity of the saying of his brother Al-Baqir and his nephew Jaafar Al-Sadiq, who warned him against launching his revolution, and also advised his son Yahya later to give up the continuation of the revolution.

وقد علَّل الصادق نصيحته تلك للرجلين -حسبما ذكره الشهرستاني في ‘المِلَل والنِّحَل‘- بأنّ “بني أمية يتطاولون على الناس حتى لو طاولتهم الجبال لطالوا عليها، وهم يستشعرون بغض أهل البيت، ولا يجوز أن يخرج واحدٌ من أهل البيت حتى يأذن الله تعالى بزوال ملكهم”.

ورغم إخفاق الثورة الزيدية وما تلاه من إحباط لدى معظم أنصارها؛ فإن المسار الثوري لم يفقد بريقه لدى جزء كبير من أنصاره، بل باتت الثورة على الحكام الجائرين مبدأ أصيلاً عند كثير من معاصري زيد وخاصة بعض رجالات آل البيت، بعد أن أوصى يحيى بن زيد بقيادة الثورة من بعده إلى اثنين من أبناء عمه، فـ”فوَّض الأمر بعده إلى محمد وإبراهيم الإماميْن”؛ وفقا للشهرستاني.

Those who were recommended to lead the revolution are: Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al-Hassan, known as the pure soul (d. 145 AH / 763 AD) and his brother Ibrahim bin Abdullah (d. 145 AH / 763 AD), who were involved in the secret activity seeking to undermine the Umayyad state, an activity that was shared by a group of The Hashemites with their Alawite and Abbasid branches.

However, that revolutionary activity remained the greatest effort in it of the Abbasids after the reluctance of most of the Alawites to the revolutionary approach, and as is understood from Jaafar al-Sadiq’s statement: “We do not go into the matter until this one and his children manipulate him, and he referred to al-Mansur (Abu Jaafar d. 158 AH / 776 CE) “; According to al-Shahristani.

Then the two Alawite men, after the fall of the Umayyads and the establishment of the Abbasid state, launched their revolution – in both Medina and Basra – against the regime of their cousin, the Hashemite caliph, Al-Mansur, by declaring the imamate of the pure soul in a “pledge to him in the horizons.” According to Imam Al-Ash’ari in ‘Articles of the Islamists’. Al-Tabari tells us that he was among his allegiance to “a large group of jurists and scholars.”

A decisive introduction
that the text we cited above about Ja`far al-Sadiq – predicting the Abbasids’ coming to power before the Alawites – draws minds to the great circumstantial and catalytic contribution made by the revolution of Zayd and his son Yahya, which accelerated the events of the Abbasid revolution after four decades of stagnation dominated the public political scene With regard to reform-oriented revolutions, especially those supported by scholars.

What confirms this is that when the Abbasid call was secretly launched – at the beginning of the second century AH / eighth century CE – its planners instructed all who called for their victory “to call for approval from the family of Muhammad ﷺ and not name anyone” in particular among the Hashemites; According to al-Dhahabi in ‘History of Islam’

The Hashemite class remained united until after the success of the Abbasid revolution and the establishment of its state, so “Al-Mansour was the first to cause strife between the Abbasids and Alawites, and they were before one thing.” According to Al-Suyuti in the History of the Caliphs.

Perhaps this circumstantial connection – between the field launch of the Abbasid revolution in the year 129 AH / 748 CE and the flaring revolutionary climate that took place thanks to the momentum of the revolution of Zaid and his son – is what he intended to refer to in an accidental way by Imam al-Mu’tazili al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar al-Hamdhani (d.415 AH / 1025 CE) when he addressed – in ‘Evidence of Prophecy’ – to mention this revolution

Al-Hamdhani century – in one context – the outbreak of the Abbasid revolution “with the work of Al-Walid bin Yazid bin Abdul-Malik and what came from drinking alcohol and publicly speaking about that, so the Banu al-Abbas and called them the people of Khurasan with this, so the Banu al-Abbas came to an order and a recruited man.” Al-Maqrizi also linked the events of the Zaid revolution with the end of the Umayyad state, saying that “after Zayd was killed, the king of the Umayyads was revoked and disappeared until God Almighty removed them with the Banu Abbas !!”

Scholarly support
Most of the scholars of the Sunnis had a negative and critical attitude towards the actions of the Umayyad princes, despite the great conquests of their state that spread the religion in the East and the West, and the unity of the Muslims that Muslims lived through.

Perhaps the best expression of these critical positions is what al-Tabari quoted from Imam al-Tabi’i Saeed bin Jubayr (d. 95 AH / 715 CE) of incitement to his counterparts among the scholars in their revolution with Ibn al-Ash’ath: “Fight them and do not blame them (= embarrass themselves) from their fighting – with faith and conviction – over their sins,” Fight them for their unfairness in judgment, their arrogance in religion, their weak and weak, and let them die in prayer !!

Likewise, Amer Al-Sha’bi (d. 106 AH / 725 AD) said about them on the same occasion: “Oh people of Islam, fight them, and no embarrassment will take you from their fight. By God, I do not know people on a simple land I do injustice, and there is no more injustice than them in ruling, so let them have the righteousness.”

What added to the severity of these criticisms was that the princes of the Umayyads did not execute the scholars of the sultans who underestimated the significance of their deviations in the rule, but that some of them granted them infallibility from the eschatological accountability for them. Al-Dhahabi tells – in the ‘History of Islam’ – that Yazid bin Abd al-Malik (d. 105 AH / 724 CE), when he took over the caliphate in the year 101 AH / 720 CE, said: They should follow the biography of Omar bin Abdul Aziz (d. 101 AH / 720 CE) .. So he brought forty sheikhs and they witnessed him. : The caliphs have no reckoning and no torment !!

In the context of this unbridled discontent with the Umayyad rule, the positions of many scholars (jurists and modernists) and many groups supported the revolution of Zaid bin Ali and his son Yahya, and then their guardian over their revolution, Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiya and his brother Ibrahim.

This support confirms that these revolutions were accepted by scholars from all groups, and they were not sectarian or sectarian revolutions, but rather the revolution of the Ummah and the Muslim community against the injustice of the Umayyad rulers, and therefore his revolution was of the pattern of the revolutions of Hussein, Ibn al-Zubayr, Ibn al-Ash’ath and others, free from any Tafi’s bias, “his fight was not based on one of the rules of the Imamate that the Rafidah say.” According to Ibn Taymiyyah in ‘Minhaj al-Sunnah’.

Imam Abu Hanifa (d.150 AH / 768 CE) was at the forefront of the jurists who supported this revolution through fatwas and money because he was among the category of merchant scholars . In this regard, Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Hanafi (d. 370 AH / 981 CE) says in his interpretation of “Ahkam al-Qur’an”: “And his case (= Abu Hanifa) in the matter of Zaid bin Ali is famous, and in his carrying money to him and his fatwas to the people secretly in the necessity of his victory and fighting with him …, and it was His doctrine is well-known in the fight against darkness and imams of oppression. “

Al-Jassas then adds that this revolutionary doctrine of Abu Hanifa “was only denied by the hearts of the proponents of the hadith who lost the command to good and forbid what is evil until the oppressors prevailed over the matters of Islam !!” !!

This is also confirmed – in identical terms – by al-Zamakhshari al-Hanafi and al-Fakhr al-Razi al-Shafi’i in their interpretations when the Almighty says: “He shall not attain my covenant with the oppressors.” Al-Zamakhshari says in al-Kashf: “Abu Hanifa, may God have mercy on him, secretly issued a fatwa that Zaid bin Ali should be victorious … and he carried money to him and went out with him against the overpowering thief called the Imam and Caliph.”

Understanding and conservatism,
and it seems that the killing of Zaid did not make Abu Hanifa give up his revolutionary legacy. Al-Zamakhshari narrates that, “A woman said to him: I advised my son to go out with Ibrahim and Muhammad, the two sons of Abdullah bin Al-Hassan, until he was killed! Abu Hanifa, because of his revolutionary position, was severely harmed by al-Mansur al-Abbas. According to al-Suyuti in the ‘History of the Caliphs’.

There is no doubt that the position of Abu Hanifa and other imams of jurists refutes the statement that “the Sunnis” were in a valley and the Ahl al-Bayt in another valley. In fact, it can be said that most of those who supported Zaid were scholars of the movement that crystallized more later and was known as “Sunnis”, unlike some “Shiites” who opposed him and called them “the Rafidah.” Therefore, Imam Zaid’s revolution was a watershed moment among the Shiites themselves, as “from the time of Zaid’s departure, the Shiites separated into: Rafidah and Zaydis.” According to Ibn Taymiyyah in ‘Minhaj al-Sunna’.

And, following the example of those jurists, A group of hadith scholars supported Zaid in his revolution, so Imam al-Tabi’i (d. 133 AH / 752 CE) supported him, which al-Dhahabi describes – in ‘the biography’ – as: “Al-Hafiz, the validity, the example .., one of the flags .., was one of the vessels of knowledge, the author Mastery and deification (= worship) and goodness. ” Mansour, with his scientific standing, was a regular soldier in the Umayyad military establishment, “so if his shift took place, he would wear his clothes and go and guard … in Rabat !!”

Al-Dhahabi then talks to us about the contribution of Mansour – a scientist with a regular military background – in mobilizing scholars for the Zayd revolution. He said: “Mansur bin Al-Mu’tamer used to come to Zabid bin Al-Harith (Al-Yami Al-Tabi’i d. 122 AH / 741 AD) .. He wanted him to leave during the days of Zaid bin Ali.”

And when some scholars accused Mansour bin Al-Mu’tamer of Shiism Al-Dhahabi commented on that, defending him: “I said: His Shi’ism is with love and loyalty only” to the family of al-Bayt, and there is no challenge to the Companions. And it was narrated that the imams of the people of al-Jarrah and al-Ta’idil were the most trusted people of Kufa.

The scholars praised Zaid – in the era of Zaid and after – for the revolution of Zaid to lift grievances and establish justice, so that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said – in the ‘Approach of the Sunnah’ – that Zaid “when he was crucified, worshipers would come to his camp at night and worship there !!”

And this golden Imam – while recording his reservations about the revolution in terms of its suspicion of its causes and the reality of its outcome – describes Zaid in his books as a “martyr” many times, but he understood his intention in his revolution in terms of goals and objectives, so he commented on it: “I said: He went out as an interpreter, and he was killed as a martyr. I wish he had not come out !!