Imam Zaid al-Hashimi.. revolted against the Umayyads, who crucified him for four years and paved the way for the success of the Abbasids and established a school of jurisprudence that adopted the “continuous revolution”

A closer look at the history of the men of “Ahl al-Bayt” and their ideas and principles that they carried and strived 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 springs, before the readings multiply, illusions overlap and passions quarrel.

Also, examining the translations of the early “Ahl al-Bayt” men enables us to understand the reasons for the fragmentation that afflicted the nation later on, because of their relations with a highly complex triangle whose sides consist of: the ruling regimes, the masses of the nation’s scholars, and the public opinion in it.

Among these great men is Imam Zaid bin Ali Al-Hashemi (d. 122 AH / 741 AD), whom we dedicate this article to examine his experience in dealing with this vital triangle;

Observing his position on public affairs in terms of participation and engagement, highlighting his relationship with the scholars of his time as a student and as an interlocutor, and comparing his political ideas with the principles and ideas that were common in his time.

Moreover, these lines seek - during that - to understand the contexts of the movement of events in the days of Zaid and his contribution to them, as we see that this contribution still serves as a model for inspiring the people of our time as they engage in the fields of practical legitimate politics;

Zaid constructed his political project theoretically from a vision that combines flexible realism and aspirational idealism to suit this project for everyone, even if he was not lucky in the comprehensive and careful preparation and selection of the appropriate revolutionary geography.

What concerns us - in this regard - is the position of the personality of Imam Zayd in the nation and not in the sect, and in the general matter, not in the private matter. As for the subject of "Zaydiyah" as a rhetorical sect and a jurisprudential doctrine, it has another station.

Special upbringing

Zaid bin Ali was born in the year 80 AH / 700 AD and grew up in a house of imams in knowledge and integrity in religion;

His father is Ali - known as Zain al-Abidin (died 94 AH / 714 AD) - bin Al Hussein (died 61 AH / 682 AD) bin Ali bin Abi Talib (died 40 AH / 661 AD).

Zaid did not complete his fourteenth year until he was devastated 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 devotion, until Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH / 1347 AD) said about him - in the 'Birth of the Flags of the Nobles' - that he was "a trustworthy, many hadith, high and lofty." pious".

And Ibn Katheer (d. 774 AH / 1372 AD) - in 'The Beginning and the End' - quoted Imam al-Muhaddith Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 AH / 849 AD) as saying: "The most correct of all chains of transmission is al-Zuhri (d. 124 AH / 743 AD) on the authority of Ali bin Al-Hussein on the authority of his father on the authority of his grandfather." The Prophet ﷺ.

Then he mentioned some narrations that indicate his close relationship with the Tabi’een scholars of his time.

Zaid took knowledge - as al-Dhahabi says in 'Al-Siyar' - "from a group led by his father Zain al-Abidin, his brother [the eldest Muhammad] al-Baqir (d. 114 AH / 733 AD), and Urwa bin al-Zubayr (d. 94 AH / 714 AD)" who was one of the jurists of Medina The Seven Great Prophets.

From these imams, Zaid derived his knowledge and obtained his solid scientific formation.

This is the outcome, which part of the details of which is reported by the historian al-Faqih al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH / 1441 AD), when he narrates - in the 'Prayers and Considerations' - that Zayd one day addressed his rebellious followers with him, saying: "By God, I did not come out and did not rise to this position until I read the Qur'an, and mastered the obligatory duties." I made the sunna and etiquette wise, and I knew the interpretation just as I knew the revelation.. and what the nation needs in its religion of what it is indispensable and indispensable for, and I am aware of the evidence from my Lord.”

Miscellaneous Tributaries

Abu al-Fath al-Shahristani (d. 548 AH / 1153 AD) - in 'Al-Milal wa al-Nahl' - says that Zaid "wanted to acquire the fundamentals (= beliefs) and the branches (= jurisprudence) in order to have knowledge. The head of the Mu'tazila and their leader.. So he quoted him as Mu'tazila, and all his companions became Mu'tazila.

Al-Maqrizi states that the Zaydis “consistent with the Mu’tazilites in all their origins, except in the issue of the Imamate, and the doctrine of Zaid bin Ali was taken from Wasil bin Ataa.”

This diversity in receiving knowledge and the multiplicity in the intake made him fused with all spectra of the scientific community and involved in public affairs not isolated. It also led to the maturation of his positive attitude towards the companions and predecessors, and balanced in his mediation between the groups and groups that were still in the process of crystallization and differentiation.

That is why Al-Dhahabi transmits, 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: “And God will reward the thankful”; then he said: The innocence of Abu Bakr is the innocence of On".

(d. 728 AH / 1328 AD) - in 'The Methodology of the Prophetic Sunnah' - says

that the fanatics of the followers of the "Ahl al-Bayt" declare some of their imams to be infidels, "and they are the Sunnis, including those who follow Abu Bakr and Omar as Zaid bin Ali bin Al-Hussein and his likes from the offspring of Fatima (d. 11 AH / 633 AD).

Therefore, Zayd, the scholar, was not separated from the masses of Islamic scholars at that time, and the group affiliated with him, called the “Zaydiyyeh,” had not yet emerged with its beliefs and principles by which it was known later, and so he remained - before and after his martyrdom - enumerated among the imams of Islam who agreed upon their imam, which is what he deserves. Because his revolution gained the support of both jurists, modernists and commentators alike, and he relied on his scientific views even imams of doctrines and modern masters.

A respectable position

. Imam al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH/820 AD) narrated from him hadiths in several chapters of his book 'Musnad al-Shafi'i', including the hadith:

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH/855 AD) narrated from him in many places in his two books: 'Al-Musnad' and 'Virtues of the Companions', including what he narrated with his chain of transmission that one of them asked Zaid bin Ali about Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and Omar Al-Faruq (d. 23 AH / 645 AD). He said: Take care of them. He said: I said: How do you say about someone who renounces them? He said: I absolve him until he repents.

It was also narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his book Al-Musannaf and the authors of the four books of Sunan;

According to Imam al-Mazi (d. 742 AH / 1341 AD), who says - in 'Tahdhib al-Kamal' - that Zaid "reported to him by Abu Dawood (d. 275 AH / 888 AD), Al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH / 892 AD), and Al-Nasa'i (d. 303 AH / 915 AD) in the 'Musnad. Ali', and Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH/886 AD)".

The commentators of hadith and commentators have mentioned more about Zaid bin Ali’s jurisprudential views and sayings regarding the readings of the Qur’an.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH / 1448 AD) quoted him a lot in 'Fath al-Bari', and so did before him in their interpretations by Al-Zamakhshari Al-Mu'tazili (d. 538 AH / 1143 AD),

(d. 606 AH / 1209 AD), and Al-Qurtubi Al-Maliki (d. 671 AH / 1272 AD), and Ibn Kathir al-Shafi’i.

As for Imam Zayd's scientific classifications;

It is worth noting that he died - when he was forty-two years old - before the era of codification and authorship, but "Kitab al-Majmoo" is attributed to him, which included many of his scientific opinions, although it is more likely that it was compiled some time after his death by some of his students, as happened with many From the scientific heritage of other great imams.

in order to understand the motives of Zayd’s revolt against the Umayyad state;

We must first realize that he was born in Medina, whose people and symbols - from the Companions and their sons and senior followers - were first forced by the Umayyads to pledge allegiance to Yazid bin Muawiyah (d. 64 AH / 685 AD), as "his father made him his crown prince and he forced people to do that";

According to the phrase of Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH / 1505 AD) in 'The History of the Caliphs'.

One of the details of this was that Muawiyah wrote to his governor of Medina, Marwan bin Al-Hakam (d. 65 AH / 686 AD) 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 decided to swear an oath by his son to increase you over you, according to the tradition of Abu Bakr.” Omar!

Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq (d. 53 AH / 674 AD) stood up and said: “Indeed, the tradition of Khosrau and Caesar, that Abu Bakr and Umar did not make it in their children, nor in any of their family members!!”

Then Muawiyah himself went to Madinah and took the pledge of allegiance to his son Yazid without the consent of the people, so Ibn Abi Bakr protested against him, saying, according to what Al-Suyuti narrated: “By God, I would have liked me and we both (= we left you) in the matter of your son to God, and by God we do not do, and by God you will want this matter.” Consultation among the Muslims, or we will divide it against you as a lump!

Shura was therefore a central value strongly present in the collective mind of the companions and followers, and therefore they were all angry at Muawiyah’s deed and saw in it a precedent that established what was established after that of the loss of the value of Shura and a waste of the sovereignty of the nation, so that the follower Imam Hassan al-Basri (d. 110 AH / 729 AD) later commented On Muawiyah bequeathing the ruling to his son, he said: “For that reason these [emirs] pledged allegiance to their sons, and if it were not for that, it would have been a consultation until the Day of Resurrection!!”

One of the results of Muawiyah’s move was that the state of Yazid alienated the hearts of the righteous from him, so Hussein bin Ali revolted against him in Iraq in the year 60 AH / 681 AD. The caliphate in Makkah Al-Mukarramah, followed by a massive revolution launched by hundreds of Iraqi scholars led by the military leader Abdul Rahman bin Al-Ash’ath Al-Kindi (d.

Undoubtedly, these political fluctuations

affected the new generations at the time, such as the generation of Imam Zayd, whose birth coincided with the outbreak of the last of them, the revolution of scholars and Ibn al-Ash’ath

Thus the new generation inherited the resentment of the generation of the fathers of the Companions and the great followers of the Umayyads, and the oppression of their actions and their monopolizing the position of the caliphate, especially that the most important demands of the revolutionaries were summarized in: a return to the shura in the appointment 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 rage beneath the surface, after the Umayyad power machine was able to subject it to pressure and control for nearly four decades;

The revolution of Zaid bin Ali in the year 122 AH / 741 AD came against the rule of Hisham bin Abd al-Malik (d. 125 AH / 744 AD), so Imam Zaid positioned his project between the failed revolutionary path that preceded him with those revolutions, and the second successful revolutionary path that followed him, which was implemented by the Abbasids.

The truth is that Zaid himself was the one who included his revolution in the context of those massive revolutions;

He said, as narrated by Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (d. 429 AH/1039 AD) in 'The Difference between the Sects': "I went out against the Umayyads who fought my grandfather al-Husayn, and they raided Medina on the Day of the Free, and threw the House of God with catapults and fire" in their fight against Ibn al-Zubayr.

Therefore, the revolution of Imam Zayd - in its motives, methodology and even its results - was an extension of the previous revolutions;

It raised - as we will see - the same demands represented in the necessity: the adoption of shura as a mechanism to gain power, respect for

 in choosing caliphs and governors, and the establishment of justice by lifting grievances against people.

Theoretical

Foundation = The Twelvers) in two things: one is that they claim that Ali took (= endorsed) Abu Bakr and Umar on the validity and handed over their pledge of allegiance, and the other is that they do not prove the infallibility of the group of Ahl al-Bayt as they prove [it].

And about Zaid’s position on Abu Bakr, Umar and all the Companions;

Al-Ash’ari says: “Zayd bin Ali used to prefer Ali bin Abi Talib over the rest of the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace.

Zaid's attitude towards Abu Bakr and Umar is praiseworthy.

At the height of his battle with the Umayyads and his need for the “Ahl al-Bayt” Shiites, he declared to them his exalted position for them, and he did not use “taqiyya” with them to win them to his side. Therefore, when he heard some of them criticize Abu Bakr and Omar, they slandered them, so they broke up with him and he said to them: “You rejected me!”

It was called the "rejectionist".

And in the narration of Ibn al-Atheer (d. 630 AH / 1233 AD) - 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 Omar? Zaid said: May God have mercy on them and forgive them, I did not hear any of the people of My house says about them nothing but good, and the most I say - in what you mentioned [of the Imamate] - is that we were more deserving of the authority of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, than all people, so they repelled us from him, and that did not reach us in disbelief.

Al-Shahristani explains - in 'Al-Milal wa al-Nahl' - Zaid's opinion about who will assume the caliphate in general;

He says that "it was from his doctrine that the imam of al-Mufaddal was permissible with the rise of the best, so he said: Ali bin Abi Talib - may God be pleased with him - was the best companions, except that the caliphate was delegated to Abu Bakr for a benefit they saw, and a religious rule they nurtured, from calming the light (= enmity) of sedition. and soften the hearts of the common people.

Moslehi defended,

calming the fire of sedition and softening the hearts of the common people were among the important interests in political jurisprudence according to Imam Zaid;

It is not permissible to ignore the opinion of the public and the people’s approval, and here it agrees with the policy of his grandfather, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who refused - as will follow - to assume the caliphate without a public pledge of allegiance from the people, in which the consultation is embodied freely and transparently.

If Zayd allows the imam of the favored with the presence of the virtuous or the best, then he does not see infallibility for anyone after the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, and sees the centrality of the nation’s decision and the right of the believers to choose, even if they choose the preferred, and he gives an example of that by his grandfather Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was not chosen by the nation after the death of The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, rather they appointed him a caliph after the passing of the three caliphs after him.

Zaid - according to what al-Shahristani relates about him - explains why his grandfather did not take over the caliphate at the moment of the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him;

He says, “The era of the wars that took place in the days of prophecy was close, and the sword of the Commander of the Faithful Ali - peace be upon him - for the blood of the polytheists of Quraysh has not yet dried up, and the grudges in the hearts of the people from seeking revenge as it is. The necks are all submissive, and the interest was to do this for those who were known for being gentle and courteous, advancing in age, being ahead of Islam, and being close to the Messenger of God, peace be upon him.”

This text reveals to us the most important principles of Zaid related to the handling of public affairs;

Here he believes in the primacy of people's satisfaction in the terms of the ruler's assumption of power.

Hence, it can be said that Zaid’s theory of “permissibility of the Imamate of al-Mufaddal with the presence of al-Fadil” was a common word and a meeting point between a number of conflicting currents on the issue of succession.

A consensual vision

and this consociational theory of Zayd is a historical precedent that establishes its counterparts from the conciliatory views that

presented by their owners on major methodological issues;

As did Imam Al-Shafi’i with his skillful reconciliation between the schools of opinion and impact in jurisprudence, Imam Al-Ash’ari with his successful combination of scholars of theology and the people of hadith in beliefs, and Imam Al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH / 1111 AD) with his historical reconciliation between jurists and mystics in education and behavior.

Thus, Zayd presented a practical solution to the crisis of the historical dispute over the Imamate between the Alawi movement (later Shiites) and other esteemed companions of all the Companions (later Sunnis) to overcome the polarization that was dividing the people at that time, and thus also ensured Zaid everyone's support for his revolution, even if it was the result of his attempt that It seems that it was reflected in the beginning of the crystallization of the emergence of those he called "the Rejectionists", as was previously said.

The most important of those currents - which Zaid wanted to unify under the banner of his revolution with his consensus statement - are three: the first of which is a current that rejects the mandate of Abu Bakr and Omar and sees that the Imamate is worthy of Ali and his sons without others, with a text and a will from the Prophet ﷺ;

The second is a current that sees the eligibility of Abu Bakr, and some of them even declared the existence of the text on it as well.

And the third is another group that sees choice and consultation, whether its result is with Abu Bakr or Ali.

From a practical point of view, Zaid bin Ali was closer to the group who advocated consultation as a path to the caliphate, even if he disagreed with them in favoring Ali over others.

This preference does not affect much in the practical reality, as it is therefore closer to the theoretical dispute, especially that Imam Al-Ghazali summarized - in his book “Al-Iqtisad fi Al-Itiqad” - the position of the majority of the nation’s scholars that the order of preference among the four caliphs is only in terms of appearance and not in fact, Because that “means that his position with God Almighty in the Hereafter is higher, and this is a mystery that only God and His Messenger can see if [God] makes it known.”

Al-Ghazali's statement brings us very close 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 facing the challenges of their sad reality;

He brilliantly differentiated between the “political criterion” in the issue of the Imamate/Caliphate, which is based on people’s choice and election, even if they bring the preferred over the virtuous, and the “religious criterion” which is a matter of personal preference that people have nothing to do with deciding, and indeed they have no power over it because it is his command. It is entrusted to God Almighty alone who is aware of what is in the hearts.

A renewed approach and

also proceeding from that;

We can say that Zaid’s approach to governance and the state is like that of his grandfather, Ali bin Abi Talib, may God be pleased with him, who believed in the necessity of the general pledge of allegiance from the believers to the ruler;

Therefore, he refused to assume the caliphate without their public voluntary pledge, and did not claim for himself the infallibility or prophetic will.

Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH / 922 AD) narrates in his history on the authority of Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib - known as Muhammad bin al-Hanafiya (d. 81 AH / 701 AD) - saying: “I was with my father when Uthman (died 35 AH / 656 AD) was killed, may God be pleased with him, so he got up and entered His house, so the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, came to him and said: This man has been killed, and people must have an imam, and today we do not find anyone more deserving of this matter than you. By God, we will not do anything until we pledge allegiance to you. He said: In the mosque, my pledge is not [a matter] hidden, and it is only with the consent of the Muslims.”

All this shows the extent of the authenticity of the doctrine of Imam Zayd and its adherence to the approach of the great Companions in the shura, led by his grandfather Ali.

Thus it becomes clear that the requirement of Zaid’s doctrine is that there is no infallibility for anyone after the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, but the Zaidis after Zayd said that four imams of “Ahl al-Bayt” are infallible: Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan (d. On tyranny, no matter how found the founders of the current "continuous revolution" in Islamic history.

That is why Zaid said that the caliph - even if he was not preferred, rather he was the best - must be chosen with the consent of the people, and if he kept this choice within the circle of those qualified for the caliphate from the children and grandchildren of Fatima, may God be pleased with her, but there is no difference to him between the offspring of Hassan and Hussein, that The distinction, which was numerous because of the inclinations in which the Shiites differentiate between Hussaini and Husayni, and even within each of the two groups.

Zaid bin Ali is very close to the platform of the Companions and the Followers.

It agrees with Abu Bakr's rule regarding the inheritance of the "Fadak" region, whose case arose between the Caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and Lady Fatimah al-Zahra, the grandmother of Imam Zayd.

Ibn Kathir quotes - in 'The Beginning and the End' - on the authority of Al-Hafiz Al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH / 1067 AD) what he narrated with his chain of transmission that "Zayd bin Ali bin Al-Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib said: As for me, if I were in the place of Abu Bakr, I would have judged by what Abu Bakr in your sacrifice."

But the Zaydi sect itself was later fragmented and its sayings became numerous, until its companions no longer permitted the Imamate of al-Mufdal, and some of them began to challenge the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, as other Shiite sects do.

Al-Shahristani noted that by saying: “They (= Zaydis) differed from their paternal uncles (= Twelvers) in matters of origins, and most of the Zaydis - after that - were disapproved of the belief in the Imamate of al-Mufdal, and they slandered the Companions with the stigmatization of the Imamiyya.

A heated debate

after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein bin Ali. The "people of the house" lived in the city and did not leave it;

So their men turned to knowledge in order to achieve and communicate, and in politics they resorted to the doctrine of peace and opposed the revolution against the Umayyads, and these people exchanged them for a similar peace, and they did not reach them badly most of the time. - Absolutely - they did not kill anyone from Bani Hashim - neither the family of Ali nor the family of Abbas - except Zaid bin Ali... and his son Yahya (d. 126 AH / 745 AD)".

And that peacefulness in its days was the approach of most Muslim scholars who, after the failure of the revolutions of the second half of the first century AH/seventh century AD, opted for the option of being patient with the oppression of the princes of oppression, as the success of the revolution was impossible by the standards of force and deterrence, as the Umayyad rulers did not hesitate to eradicate their opponents.

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

In this context;

There were many discussions between Zaid - a young man in his early thirties - and his brother Muhammad al-Baqir because of the people's isolation from politics and the revolution, and their reluctance to engage in public affairs and its requirements, including the thorny revolution when its conditions and conditions were created.

Al-Shahristani relates to us a part of those discussions, saying that “disputes took place between him (= Zaid) and his brother Al-Baqir Muhammad bin Ali… from where he was a student of Wasil bin Ata’ and he quotes knowledge from those who allow error on his grandfather (= Ali bin Abi Talib) in fighting the transgressors (= The treacherous) and the unjust (= the unjust)…, and since it was a condition of revolt (= revolution) as a condition for the imam to be an imam, until he said to him one day: According to the requirements of your doctrine [because] your father (= Zain al-Abidin) is not an imam, for he never came out.” On Bani Umayyah!!

We understand from these discussions that Al-Baqir was not convinced of the position of his brother Zaid inclined to revolution, especially since he did not find any of the popular nurseries for it except the supporters of “Ahl al-Bayt” from the people of Kufa in Iraq, and they have multiple precedents in luring the men of “Ahl al-Bayt” into armed confrontation with the Umayyad rulers. , Then abandoning them at the intervals of the revolution's path!

The historian Al-Masudi (d. 346 AH / 957 AD) mentions - in 'Mrouj al-Dhahab' - that Zayda consulted his brother al-Baqir in his dependence on the Kufics. And with it, your father al-Husayn (= his grandfather) was killed, but he [Zayd] refused except what he had resolved to demand the truth.”

Revolutionary implications

The two historians al-Tabari and Ibn al-Atheer - in their histories - preserved for us the form of the pledge of allegiance that Zaid took from his followers and supporters of his revolution;

Its text, according to Ibn al-Atheer, was: “We call you to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet - peace be upon him - and to fight the oppressors, to defend the weak,

, to repay grievances, and to support the people of the House; will you pledge allegiance to that?”

Thus, we see that the terms of the pledge of allegiance were profound, and included what could be described as the “program of the revolution.” The contents of this program were the call to arbitrate the Book of God Almighty and the Sunnah of His Prophet, peace be upon him, by activating what it included of major colleges such as justice, consultation, freedom and equality, and stopping the tyranny of the unjust rulers who were the pledge of allegiance. People are hated by people, so do not escape religious and political prejudices, defending the rights of the weak and disadvantaged classes that include all sects, and supporting the Ahl al-Bayt over those who oppress them.

This is also confirmed by his other addresses to his hesitant followers, such as his saying to those who asked him about the reason for his fight against the Umayyad rulers: “These are unjust to me, you, and themselves. You refused, so I am not an agent for you.”

The text of the pledge of allegiance was accompanied by a confirmed personal acknowledgment of the pledges of allegiance involved in the revolution;

He used to ask everyone who pledged allegiance to him: “Will you pledge allegiance to that? If they said: Yes, he put his hand on his hand, then he says: You have to pledge God’s covenant, covenant, and sanctification and edema of His Messenger, to fulfill my pledge, fight my enemy, and give advice in secret and in public?” If he said: Yes, he wiped his hand over his hand. Then he said: Oh God, bear witness!

Out of respect for those vows, Zaid rejected the statements of those who doubt the seriousness of their owners, and he kept answering these doubters, saying: "They have pledged allegiance to me, and the pledge of allegiance is required on my neck and their necks!"

What draws attention here is that the text of the pledge of allegiance is devoid of any claim to entitlement to the caliphate by will or the infallibility of the Imam of the revolution or his Mahdism.

Zaid pledged two simultaneous things: raising the banner of seeking revenge for the blood of the Alawites to attract their followers, and declaring his intention to remove the grievances of the Umayyads against the people to win the support of all those affected by their policies, regardless of their positions and positions.

It also appears that the part related to the "Ahl al-Bayt" in the pledge of allegiance was directed at the supporters of his nephew,

(d. 148 AH / 766 AD), 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 in order to set matters In her right, especially that Zaida until that moment "the Shiites were impersonating him (= supporting him)" and revered him;

According to Ibn Taymiyyah in 'Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawi'.

Therefore, we find Zayd reminding these Shiites of his place and his position in the Quraish;

If the Quraysh were the most honorable of the Arabs, then “Ahl al-Bayt” is the most honorable of Quraysh, and he is at the forefront of the men of this honorable family, as he “was one of the best of Ahl al-Bayt and their scholars”;

As Ibn Taymiyyah says, who recalls saying that "Zayd bin Ali bin Al-Hussein, when he came out in the caliphate of Hisham - and asked for the matter for himself - was among those who took care of Abu Bakr and Omar."

Al-Dhahabi conveys to us - in 'Al-Siyar' - Jafar al-Sadiq's description of Zaid's position in the "Ahl al-Bayt", where he says, defending him in front of his haters from the extremists: "By God, we recited the Book of God, and we understood in the religion of God, and brought us to the kinship, what he left us and we have the like of him!" !

There is no doubt that this is another asset in Imam Zayd’s political consensus that enhances the possibility of convergence of currents around him: “Ahl al-Sunnah” as a affiliated imam whose majesty and stature they have, and “Shiites” in general due to his belonging to the Noble House, and “Mu’tazila” because of his strong relationship with the founder of their sect, Wasil bin Ataa, and the "Khawarij" when he resorted to the sword like them to bring about the desired political change.

on this solid ground politically and morally;

Zaid proceeded to mobilize allegiance to his revolutionary project "until his office (= the fighters' register) counted fifteen thousand men, and he lived in Kufa for a few ten months... of which he was in Basra about two months";

According to al-Tabari.

Imam Zayd was forced to hasten the zero hour - which was Safar Fatih 122 AH / 741 AD - beyond its agreed date for fear of security exposure in front

, and then "ordered his companions to prepare and prepare... so his matter spread among the people."

So, the battles of the revolution started, and its first rounds were in favor of Zaid and his camp, so that "their horses did not stand firm for his horses" due to the strength and daring of his fighters.

According to Ibn al-Athir.

But most of the Kufics abandoned him - due to his corrective position to succeed Abu Bakr and Omar al-Faruq - made him lose as a result of the war, especially since only “two hundred and eighteen men” who fought with him to the end did not abide by the pledge of allegiance to him.

Zaid continued to fight with those with him until he was martyred with an arrow that hit him and crucified the governor of Iraq, Yusuf bin Omar Al-Thaqafi (d. 127 AH / 746 AD), his body later on the outskirts of Kufa "then it was taken down four years after his crucifixion";

According to Al-Safadi (d. 764 AH / 1363 AD) in 'Al-Wafi with Deaths'.

Following the martyrdom of Zaid;

His son Yahya followed his father's path, continuing his revolution 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 stalked him everywhere, “when the demand (= search for him) dwelt, he marched with a group of Zaidis to Khorasan”;

As narrated by Ibn al-Atheer in al-Kamil.

Resumed revolution

In the Khorasan region, Yahya bin Zaid resumed his father's revolution;

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 against him";

According to Shahristani.

And then Yahya announced the revolution in the year 125 AH / 744 AD, taking advantage of the turmoil accompanying the change of the Umayyad regime with the death of the Caliph Hisham bin Abdul Malik, and the installation of a new caliph in his place, his nephew Al-Walid bin Yazid (d. 126 AH / 745 AD), who provoked the nation’s resentment against him.” When he violated the sanctities of God and made light of religion.”

According to al-Dhahabi in the 'History of Islam'.

The fate of Yahya's revolution in Khorasan did not differ from that of its counterpart in Iraq, although - as al-Dhahabi says in 'Al-Sir' - he was so victorious that he "almost took possession" of the country there after "severe wars and creeps", but the balance of power failed Yahya - as he made With his father - when the number of his supporters decreased to "seventy men" only;

According to Ibn al-Athir.

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

Despite Yahya's military defeat,

We find in the public’s stance after Yahya’s killing deep indications about the great popular support for this revolution, even after its failure, because “no one was born - then - in Khorasan among the Arabs and notables except that he was named Yahya”;

According to al-Dhahabi, who tells us that after the victory of the leader of the Abbasid revolution in Khorasan, Abu Muslim al-Khorasani (d. 137 AH / 755 AD) he demanded “the court of the Umayyads (= the register of their fighters) so he began to browse the names of Yahya’s killers and those who walked… to fight him, whoever [of them] was alive killed him.”

The martyrdom of Zaid and his son Yahya reinforced the validity of the statement of his brother al-Baqir and his nephew Jaafar al-Sadiq, who warned him against launching his revolution, and later advised his son Yahya to abandon 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 "أهل 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.

على أن ذلك النشاط الثوري ظل الجهد الأكبر فيه من نصيب العباسيين بعد عزوف معظم العلويين عن النهج الثوري، وحسبما 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 والمحفِّز الذي قدمته ثورة زيد وابنه يحيى فسرّع حركة أحداث الثورة 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- أمَرَ 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 العباسية وقيام دولتها، 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 لكونه من فئة العلماء التجار؛ 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".

تفهّم وتحفّظ
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".

When some scholars accused Mansur bin al-Mu'tamir of being Shi'ite;

Al-Dhahabi commented on this in defense of him: “I said: His sect is only love and loyalty” to “Ahl al-Bayt” and there is no slander against the Companions.

It was reported from the imams of the people of Al-Jarh and Al-Ta’deel that he was the most reliable of the people of Kufa.

The scholars also praised - in the era of Zaid and after - on Zaid's revolution for lifting grievances and establishing justice, to the extent that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said - in 'Minhaj al-Sunnah' - that Zaid "when he was crucified, the worshipers would come to his stage at night and worship her!!"

And this golden imam - with his recording of his reservation about the revolution in terms of the speculative causes of its causes and the reality of its consequences - describes Zaid in his books as the "martyr" many times. His wish did not come out!!