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. 774 AH / 1372 CE) - in “The Beginning and the End” - quoted the hadith imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d.235 AH / 849 CE) as saying: “The most correct isnad is all al-Zuhri (d. 124 AH / 743 CE) on the authority of Ali ibn al-Husayn on the authority of his father on the authority of his grandfather.” 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 to the fore, and his [older brother Muhammad] al-Baqir (d. 114 AH / 733 CE), and 'Uruh 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 that 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 of which it is inevitable and indispensable for it, and I am aware of my Lord.

Various tributaries

Abu al-Fath al-Shahristani (d. 548 AH / 1153 CE) - in ‘The Mullah and the Bees’ - says that Zaid “wanted to acquire the principles (= beliefs) and branches (= jurisprudence) in order to acquire knowledge, so he studied in the fundamentals of Wasel bin Ataa (d.131 AH / 750 CE) ) ... 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 quotes: “On the authority of Zaid bin Ali, he said: Abu Bakr (Al-Siddiq d. 13 AH / 635 CE) - may God be pleased with him - was the imam of the thankful, then he recited:“ God will reward the thankful. ”Then he said: The innocence of Abu Bakr is the innocence of 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 to them. Therefore, before and after his martyrdom, he remained numbered among the imams of Islam who were 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.

A respectable position

, as Imam al-Shafi’i (d.204 AH / 820 CE) narrated from him with his chain of narrators in several chapters of his book “Musnad al-Shafi’i”, including the hadith: “And every manna is forbidden.”

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? He said: He will be free from him until he repents.

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. 303 AH / 915 CE) in ‘Musnad Ali 'and Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH / 886 CE).

The commentators of the hadith and the commentators 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. 671 AH / 1272 CE), and Ibn Katheer 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 established after that of the loss of the value of the shura and the waste of the nation’s sovereignty, so that Hasan 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 him from 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 dominated and monopolized 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 revolutionary path that preceded him in 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, as 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 removing the 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) defines for us by saying in his book 'Articles of the Islamists': “However, they (= Zaydis) disagreed with them) = The Twelvers) in two things: One of them is that they claim that Ali took over (= supported) Abu Bakr and Omar over the authenticity 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 proven 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.” Abu Bakr and Umar took over [with that] Abu Bakr and Omar, and saw the departure from the imams of oppression.

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 position to 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 called it “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 the most severe of what I say - what you mentioned [of the Imamate] - I was more entitled to the authority of the Messenger of God of 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-Mullal 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. "



defended and

soothed the fire of sedition and perfumed the hearts of the public were among the interests of the Imam Zaid's political jurisprudence.

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 close, 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 seeking revenge as it is, so the hearts would not incline towards him all inclination and not be driven to him. 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


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 conflict 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 scholars of the Ummah 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 his 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 him to." 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. Entrusted to God Almighty, who is alone in the knowledge of what is in the hearts.

A renewed approach and

proceeding from 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, then 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 matter than you .. He said: Do not do it, for I am a minister is 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 of 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, with his grandfather Ali at the forefront.

Thus it becomes clear that the imperative of Zaid's doctrine is that there is no infallibility for anyone after the Messenger of God. However, the Zaydis, after Zaid, said of the infallibility of four of the 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 Zaid, 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 of 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. 458 AH / 1067 CE), which he narrated with his chain of transmission, that “Zaid bin Ali bin Ali bin Ali bin Abi Talib said: As for me, if I were the place of Abu Bakr, I would have ruled by what Abu 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 Musawiyya (= Twelvers) in matters of origins, and most Zaydis - after that - tended to say the imamate of al-Mafdoul, and the Companions challenged the Imamate.”

Raging controversy

after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein bin Ali Al-Bayt lived in the city and they would not leave it

Their men accepted knowledge in order to attain and communicate, and devoted - in politics - to the doctrine of peace and forbidding the revolution against the Umayyads, and these peace exchanged them with similar peace, and they did not reach them badly in most cases, which is confirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah - in 'Majmoo' al-Fatwas - by saying: “Banu Marwan - At all - they did not kill any of the Bani Hashem - neither the Ali family nor the Al-Abbas family - except Zaid bin Ali ... and his son Yahya (d. 125 AH / 744 AD). "

That pacifism was in its days the approach of most Muslim scholars who decided - after the failure of the revolutions of the second half of the first Hijri / seventh century AD - the choice of patience over the oppression of the princes of oppression, as the success of the revolution was impossible by standards of strength and deterrence, as the Umayyad rulers were not shy about eradicating their opponents.

But the important feature here is that this vision was realistic, not initial.

In this context;

Zaid - a young man in his early thirties, nearly - and his brother Muhammad al-Baqir, held many discussions due to the isolation of the people of the house from politics and revolution, and their reluctance to engage in public affairs and its requirements, including the thorny revolution when its conditions and conditions were met.

Al-Shahristani relays one of those discussions to us, saying that “debates took place between him (= Zaid) and his brother Al-Baqir Muhammad bin Ali ... in that he was a student of Wasel bin Ataa and quotes knowledge from those who permit the mistake of his grandfather (= Ali bin Abi Talib) in the fight against the Nakhtin (=) The treacherous) and the Qasitin (= the unjust) ..., and since it was a condition of leaving (= revolution) a condition for the imam to be an imam, until he said to him one day: According to your doctrine [then] your father (= Zayn al-Abidin) is not an imam, so he never left. On the Umayyads !!

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 he refused (Zaid) except for what he was determined to demand of 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 transgressed against them.

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.

He used to 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 his messenger’s responsibility, to fulfill my sale and to fight my enemy and to advise you in secret and openly? If he said: Yes, he wiped his hand on his hand, 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 through a will or the infallibility of the Imam of the revolution or his guiding power, as we see another clever compromise in its clauses between the demands of the "Sunnis" and the vision of the "Shiites".

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, regardless of their positions and locations.

It also appears 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 household."

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, where he defends 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 with his 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 security. 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 Kufis - due to his correct position 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 fighting 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 AD), 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 Abdul Malik, and the appointment of a new caliph in his place, his nephew Al-Walid bin Yazid (d.126 AH / 745AD), who provoked the nation’s resentment against him. When he violated the prohibitions of God and disdained religion. "

According to Al-Dhahabi in 'History of Islam'.

لم يختلف مصير ثورة يحيى في خراسان عما لقيته نظيرتها بالعراق، رغم أنه -كما يقول الذهبي في ‘السِّيَر‘- بلغ من الظَّفَر أنه "كاد أن يملِك" البلاد هناك بعد "حروب شديدة وزحوف"، إلا أن ميزان القوة خذل يحيى -كما صنع مع أبيه- حين تناقص عدد أنصاره إلى "سبعين رجلا" فقط؛ حسب ابن الأثير.

وقد واصل والي خراسان الأموي نصر بن سيار (ت 131هـ/750م) قتاله للثائرين عليه، حتى "أصاب يحيى بن زيد سهم في صدغه فقتله.. وصُلبت جثته بجُوزْجان" التي تقع اليوم شمالي أفغانستان.

ورغم هزيمة يحيى عسكريا؛ فإننا نجد في موقف العامة بعد مقتل يحيى دلالات عميقة بشأن الدعم الشعبي الكبير لهذه الثورة حتى بعد فشلها، ذلك أنه "ما وُلد -إذْ ذاك- وَلَدٌ بخراسان من العرب والأعيان إلا سُمِّي يحيى"؛ وفقا للذهبي الذي يخبرنا بأنه بعد انتصار قائد ثورة العباسيين بخراسان أبي مسلم الخراساني (ت 137هـ/755م) طالب "بديوان بني أمية (= سجلّ مقاتليهم) فجعل يتصفح أسماء قتلة يحيى ومن سار.. لقتاله، فمن كان [منهم] حيا قتله".
بريق مستمر
عزّز استشهادُ زيد وابنه يحيى لدى الكثيرين وجاهةَ مقولة أخيه الباقر وابن أخيه جعفر الصادق الذي حذّره من إطلاق ثورته، كما نصح ابنَه يحيى لاحقا بالتخلي عن مواصلة الثورة. 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.

والموصَى إليهما بقيادة الثورة هما: محمد بن عبد الله بن الحسن المعروف بالنفس الزكية (ت 145هـ/763م) وأخوه إبراهيم بن عبد الله (ت 145هـ/763م)، اللذان انخرطا في النشاط السري الساعي لتقويض الدولة الأموية، وهو نشاط كان مشتركا بين مجموعة من الهاشميين بفرعيْهم العلوي والعباسي، وإن كان الجهد الأكبر فيه يبدو أنه كان للعباسيين حسبما يُفهم من مقوله جعفر الصادق: "إنا لا نخوض في الأمر حتى يتلاعب به هذا وأولاده، وأشار إلى المنصور (أبي جعفر ت 158هـ/776م)"؛ حسبما يرويه الشهرستاني.

ثم أطلق الرجلان العلويان بعد سقوط الأمويين وقيام الدولة العباسية ثورتهما -في كل من المدينة والبصرة- على نظام ابن عمهما الخليفة الهاشمي المنصور، وذلك بأن أعلنا إمامة النفس الزكية فـ"بويع له في الآفاق"؛ وفقا للإمام الأشعري في ‘مقالات الإسلاميين‘. ويفيدنا الطبري بأنه كان ضمن مبايعيه "جماعة كثيرة من الفقهاء وأهل العلم".

تمهيد حاسم
على أن النص الذي أوردناه أعلاه عن جعفر الصادق -متنبئا فيه بوصول العباسيين إلى السلطة قبل العلويين- يلفت الأذهان إلى الإسهام الظرفي الكبير الذي قدمته ثورة زيد وابنه يحيى للثورة العباسية، بعد ركود هيمن طوال أربعة عقود على المشهد السياسي العام فيما يتعلق بالثورات ذات المنحى الإصلاحي وخاصة تلك المدعومة من العلماء.

ومما يؤيد ذلك أن الدعوة العباسية حين انطلقت سراًّ -مع بداية القرن الثاني الهجري/الثامن الميلادي- أمر مخططوها كلّ من دعا لنصرتهم "أن يدعوَ إلى الرضا من آل محمد ﷺ ولا يسمي أحدا" بعينه من الهاشميين؛ وفقا للذهبي في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘. وظل الصف الهاشمي موحَّدا إلى ما بعد نجاح الثورة وقيام الدولة، فـ"كان المنصورُ أولَ من أوقع الفتنة بين العباسيين والعلويين، وكانوا قبل شيئًا واحدًا"؛ حسب السيوطي في ‘تاريخ الخلفاء‘.

ولعل هذا الربط الظرفي -بين الانطلاقة الميدانية لثورة العباسيين سنة 129هـ/748م وما تمهّد لهم من مناخ ثوري متأجج حصل بفضل زخم ثورة زيد وابنه- هو ما قصد الإشارةَ إليه عَرَضاً الإمامُ المعتزلي القاضي عبد الجبار الهمذاني (ت 415هـ/1025م) حين تطرق -في ‘تثبيت دلائل النبوة‘- إلى ذكر هذه الثورة.

فقد قرن الهمذاني -في سياق واحد- اندلاعَ ثورة العباسيين "بصنيع الوليد بن يزيد بن عبد الملك وما أتى من شرب الخمور والمجاهرة بذلك، فأثار بنو العباس ودعاتُهم أهلَ خراسان بذلك، فقدم بنو العباس على أمر مُمهَّد وجندٍ مُجنَّد". كما ربط المقريزي بين أحداث ثورة زيد ونهاية الدولة الأموية، فقال إنه "بعد قتل زيد انتقض ملك بني أمية وتلاشى إلى أن أزالهم الله تعالى ببني العباس"!!

دعم علمائي
كان لمعظم علماء أهل السنّة موقف سلبيّ انتقادي من تصرفات أمراء بني أمية، رغم ما كان لدولتهم من فتوح كبيرة نشرت الدين مشرقا ومغربا، وما عاشه المسلمون من وحدة جامعة.

ولعل خير معبِّر عن تلك المواقف الانتقادية ما نقله الطبري عن الإمام التابعي سعيد بن جبير (ت 95هـ/715م) من تحريض لنظرائه من العلماء في ثورتهم مع ابن الأشعث: "قاتلوهم ولا تأثَّموا (= تتحرجوا) من قتالهم -بنية ويقين- على آثامهم، قاتلوهم على جورهم في الحكم، وتجبّرهم في الدين، واستذلالهم الضعفاء، وإماتتهم الصلاة"!!

وكذلك قول عامر الشَّعْبي (ت 106هـ/725م) فيهم بالمناسبة نفسها: "يا أهل الإسلام، قاتلوهم ولا يأخذكم حرج من قتالهم، فَوَالله ما أعلم قوما على بسيط الأرض أعملَ بظلم، ولا أجْوَرَ منهم في الحكم، فليكن بهم البدار"!!

ومما زاد حدَّةَ هذه الانتقادات أن أمراء بني أمية لم يعدموا من علماء السلاطين من يقلل لهم من شأن انحرافاتهم في الحكم، بل إن بعضهم منحهم العصمة من المساءلة الأخروية عليها؛ فالذهبي يحكي -في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘- أنّ يزيد بن عبد الملك (ت 105هـ/724م) لما تولى الخلافة سنة 101هـ/720م "قال: سيروا بسيرة عمر بن عبد العزيز (ت 101هـ/720م)..، فأُتِي بأربعين شيخاً فشهدوا له: ما على الخلفاء حساب ولا عذاب"!!

وفي سياق هذا التذمر الجامح من الحكم الأموي تتنزّل مواقف علماء كُثُر (فقهاء ومحدثين) وفِرَق عديدة دعموا ثورة زيد بن علي وابنه يحيى، ثمّ وصيهما على ثورتهما محمد النفس الزكية وأخيه إبراهيم.

وفي هذا الدعم ما يؤكد أن هذه الثورات نالت قبولا لدى العلماء من كل الفرق، ولم تكن ثورات طائفية أو مذهبية، بل كانت ثورة الأمة والجماعة المسلمة ضد جور الحكام الأمويين، وبالتالي كانت ثورته من نمط ثورات الحسين وابن الزبير وابن الأشعث وغيرهم، متحررة من أي انحياز طافي "فلم يكن قتاله على قاعدة من قواعد الإمامة التي يقولها الرافضة"؛ وفقا لابن تيمية في ‘منهاج السُّنة‘.

كان الإمام أبو حنيفة (ت 150هـ/768م) في طليعة الفقهاء المناصرين لهذه الثورة بالفتوى والمال؛ وفي ذلك يقول الإمام أبو بكر الجصّاص الحنفي (ت 370هـ/981م) في تفسيره ‘أحكام القرآن‘: "وقضيته (= أبو حنيفة) في أمر زيد بن علي مشهورة، وفي حمْله المال إليه وفتياه الناس سرًّا في وجوب نصرته والقتال معه…، وكان مذهبه مشهورا في قتال الظلمة وأئمة الجور".

ثم يضيف الجصّاص أن مذهب أبي حنيفة الثوري هذا "إنما أنكره عليه أغمار أصحاب الحديث الذين بهم فُقد الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر حتى تغلب الظالمون على أمور الإسلام"!!

وهو ما نجد تأكيده أيضا -بعبارات متطابقة- عند الزمخشريّ الحنفي والفخر الرازي الشافعي في تفسيريْهما عند قوله تعالى: ﴿لا ينالُ عهدي الظالمين﴾؛ يقول الزمخشري في ‘الكشاف‘: "وكان أبو حنيفة رحمه اللَّه يفتي سراً بوجوب نصرة زيد بن عليّ.. وحمْل المال إليه والخروج معه على اللص المتغلب المتسمَّى بالإمام والخليفة".

تفهم وتحفظ
ويبدو أن مقتل زيد لم يجعل أبا حنيفة يتخلى عن ميراثه الثوري؛ إذ يروي الزمخشري أنه "قالت له امرأة: أشرت على ابني بالخروج مع إبراهيم ومحمد ابنيْ عبد اللَّه بن الحسن حتى قُتل! فقال: ليتني مكانَ ابنِكِ"!! وقد نال أبا حنيفة -بسبب موقفه الثوري هذا- الأذى الشديد من المنصور العباسي حتى "قيل إنه قتله بالسمّ لكونه أفتى بالخروج عليه"؛ طبقا للسيوطيّ في ‘تاريخ الخلفاء‘.

ولا ريب أن في موقف أبي حنيفة وغيره من أئمة الفقهاء ما يدحض مقولة أن "أهل السُّنّة" كانوا في وادٍ وأهل البيت في وادٍ آخر؛ بل إنه يمكن القول إنّ جُلّ من ساند زيداً هم من فقهاء التيار الذي تبلور أكثر لاحقا وعُرف بـ"أهل السُّنّة"، بخلاف بعض "الشيعة" ممن عارضوه فسمّاهم "الرافضة". ولذا كانت ثورة الإمام زيد لحظةَ مفاصلةٍ بين صفوف الشيعة أنفسهم، إذ "مِنْ زمن خروج زيد افترقت الشيعة إلى: رافضة وزيدية"؛ طبقا لابن تيمية في ‘منهاج السنة‘.

واقتداءً بصنيع أولئك الفقهاء؛ آزرت طائفة من المحدِّثين زيدا في ثورته، فدعمَه الإمام التابعي منصورُ بن المُعْتمِر (ت 133هـ/752م) الذي يصفه الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر‘- بأنه "الحافظ، الثبْت، القدوة..، أحد الأعلام..، كان من أوعية العلم، صاحب إتقان وتألُّه (= عبادة) وخير". وكان منصور هذا مع مكانته العلمية جنديا منتظما في المؤسسة العسكرية الأموية "فكان إذا دارت نوبته لبس ثيابه وذهب فحَرَسَ.. في الرباط"!!

ثم يحدثنا الذهبي عن مساهمة منصور -وهو العالم ذو الخلفية العسكرية النظامية- في حشد العلماء لثورة زيد؛ فيقول: "كان منصور بن المعتمر يأتي زبيد بن الحارث (اليامي التابعي ت 122هـ/741م).. يريده على الخروج أيام زيد بن علي".

ولما اتهم بعضُ العلماء منصورَ بن المعتمر بالتشيع؛ علّق الذهبيّ على ذلك مدافعا عنه: "قلتُ: تشيُّعُه حُبٌّ وولاءٌ فقط" لآل البيت وليس فيه طعن في الصحابة. ونقل عن أئمة أهل الجرح والتعديل أنه كان أوثق أهل الكوفة.

كما تعدد ثناء العلماء -في عصر زيد وبعده- على ثورة زيد لرفع المظالم وإقامة العدل، حتى إن الإمام ابن تيمية قال -في ‘منهاج السُّنة‘- إن زيداً "لما صُلب كانت العُبّاد تأتي إلى خشبته بالليل فيتعبدون عندها"!!

وهذا الإمام الذهبيّ -مع تسجيله تحفظه على الثورة من حيث ظنية أسبابها وواقع مآلاتها- يصف في كتبه زيداً بـ"الشهيد" مرات عديدة، بل إنه تفهَّم قصْدَه بثورته من جهة الأهداف والغاية، فقال معلقا عليها: "قلتُ: خرج متأوِّلا، وقُتل شهيدا، وليته لم يخرج"!!