| Part ofa series on Shia Islam |
|---|
 |
 Shia Islam portal |
InZaydi Islam, theimamate (Arabic:إمامة,romanized: imama) is the supremepolitical and religious leadership position. In common to otherShi'a sects, it is reserved forAlids, i.e. descendants ofMuhammad viaAli ibn Abi Talib andFatimah. Unlike theTwelver orIsma'ili imamate, however, it was not hereditary and could be claimed by any qualified Alid; nor were its holders ascribed semi-divine attributes of infallibility and miracle-working. Necessary qualifications were a grounding inIslamic jurisprudence and a public call to allegiance, usually in the form of leadership of an uprising against unlawful authority. In practice, this meant that there could be several Zaydi imams at the same time, even in the same region, or none at all. This resulted in the unique concept of a 'restricted' imamate, for holders of political power who did not meet the scholarly credentials. Moreover, the personal nature of the imamate for a long time prevented the rise of persistent institutions, rendering the Zaydi states established inYemen andTabaristan unstable. As a result, the imamate often came to be passed down in hereditary fashion, especially as theImams of Yemen abandoned Zaydi doctrines forSunni ones in the 18th century.
Zaydism is a branch ofShi'a Islam established by the followers ofZayd ibn Ali (a great-grandson ofAli ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law ofMuhammad and fourth caliph), who in 740 launched anunsuccessful revolt against theUmayyad Caliphate, in which he died.[1] The revolt failed in large part due to lack of support by theKufan Shi'a, who were divided over the thorny question of the legitimacy of the first threeRashidun caliphs—i.e., those who ruled before Ali ibn Abi Talib—Abu Bakr,Umar, andUthman; the more radical Shi'a rejected them as usurpers, while the more moderate ones accepted them as legitimate imams (leaders) since Ali himself had pledged allegiance to them.[2] Zayd's support for the moderate position cost him many followers, who instead followed his nephew,Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 765). This event separated the Zaydis from the "Imami" variants of Shi'ism (theTwelvers andIsma'ilis) who followed al-Sadiq and his successors.[1]
In Zaydi doctrine, unlike the Imami Shi'a, the imamate is not hereditary, nor is the imam a quasi-divine figure, without sin, possessed of infallibility (ismah), and capable of performing miracles.[3] Likewise, Zaydi doctrine rejects core Imami doctrines like theoccultation of imams,esoteric interpretations inQuranic exegesis, or the doctrine of dissimulation of one's beliefs (taqiyya).[4] Apart from the emphasis on the imamate and its restriction to Ali's descendants, the Zaydi position, especially in modern times, is close to mainstreamSunnism, and Zaydism is sometimes considered as the fifth Sunni school (madhhab).[4] While the Imamis considered Sunnis as infidels, their early imams werepolitically quietist, accepting the rule of the Umayyad and later theAbbasid Caliphate. The Zaydis on the other hand adopted a more moderate religious position closer to Sunni beliefs, but were political radicals, with rebellion against illegitimate Umayyad and Abbasid authority becoming a core Zaydi tenet.[1] As a result, the Zaydis backed a succession of legitimistAlid revolts: the rebellion ofAbd Allah ibn Mu'awiya (744–747/8), theuprising ofMuhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (762–763), theuprising ofal-Husayn ibn Ali al-Abid (786), theDaylam revolt ofYahya ibn Abdallah (792), the revolt ofIbn Tabataba inIraq (814–815) and ofMuhammad ibn al-Qasim inTalaqan (834), and ofYahya ibn Umar inKufa (864).[5]
These revolts were unsuccessful, proving that a direct confrontation with the caliphal government in the central lands of Islam was doomed to failure.[6] The first successful Zaydi regime was indeed established inMorocco, at the westernmost extremity of the Islamic world, byIdris ibn Abdallah, who fled the suppression of the 786 uprising.[6] During the 9th century, Zaydi missionary efforts gained ground in two other peripheral regions of the Islamic world: the mountains of northernYemen, and the mountains ofTabaristan, Daylam, andGilan on the southern shores of theCaspian Sea.[5] AZaydi emirate was established in Tabaristan in 864, which survived as a regional power until the 12th century. The last remnants of the Caspian Zaydis ruledLahijan and converted to Twelver Shi'ism in 1526/7.[7][8] In Yemen, a Zaydi state was established in 897 atSaada, which remains the heartland of Yemeni Zaydism to the present day; a series of ZaydiImams of Yemen ruled much of the highlands ofUpper Yemen in the medieval and early modern period, even though their rule was contested and interrupted by foreign imperial powers, most notably theOttoman Empire.[9] In the 17th century, the ZaydiQasimi State evicted the Ottomans and came to rule all of Yemen,[10] but to bolster their own power, the imams gradually moved away from Hadawi Zaydism and adopted doctrines that brought them nearer to Sunni practice and legitimated their hereditary, monarchical rule.[11]
Early Zaydis were divided in two camps, the moderateBatriyya, that was closer to proto-Sunnism and prevailed in the 8th century, and the more radicalJarudiyya, which leaned far more towards early Shi'a doctrines, and eventually became the dominant strain by the 9th century.[12][13] In common with all Shi'a groups, the Batriyya held that Ali was the rightful successor to Muhammad, being "the most excellent of men" after the Prophet himself. At the same time, unlike the other Shi'a groups, they held that since Ali had consented to obey them, Abu Bakr and Umar were rightful leaders, while Uthman was so for the first half of his reign, prior to his attempts to raise his own, Umayyad clan over all others.[2][14] From this, the Batriyya accepted that imams did not have to be the most excellent member of theMuslim community,[12] as was the case in theBasran school ofMu'tazilism[15] and inKhariji doctrine.[16] The Jarudiyya on the other hand followed the Imami Shi'a in rejecting the first three caliphs as illegitimate and usurpers of Ali's rightful place, holding that he and his sonsHasan (d. 670) andHusayn (d. 680) had been explicitly designated as successors of Muhammad.[12][2][17]
The designation of Ali, Hasan, and Husayn makes them unique among Zaydi imams, although two different traditions exist: one holds that all three were explicitly designated as his successors by Muhammad, while another that they each appointed one another in turn.[18] After the death of Husayn, eligibility for the imamate was left open to any qualified member of theHusaynid andHasanid lines, although some Zaydi scholars until the 10th century extended eligibility to all Talibids (the descendants of Ali's father,Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib).[12][5] A prospective imam had to be of sound body and mind so that he could rule, have an upright personal character, live a life of piety and probity, and have an extensive knowledge ofIslamic jurisprudence and religious matters that qualified him as amujtahid, up to and including the authorship of original works.[12][19] A list of fourteen attributes was eventually established that qualified a candidate for the imamate.[20]
Qualifications alone were not enough, however; while Zaydi doctrine affirmed the establishment of an imam at all times as an obligation incumbent upon the Muslim community, the imamate could not be passed by contract, election or designation, but had to be claimed by issuing a 'call' or 'summons' (da'wa) which had to be made via public pronouncement to 'rise up' (khuruj)—the terms 'rising' (qiyama) or 'emergence' (zuhur) are also used—to which all true Muslims had to respond by declaring their allegiance.[12][21] In practice the latter meant an armed rebellion, hence a minimum number of armed support (nusrah) was specified and fixed at 313 followers, based on the number of Muhammad's followers at theBattle of Badr.[22] Crucially, theda'wa was not contingent upon the popularity of the candidate or a general consensus of the Muslims; the prospective imam was compelled to rise by God, and his success depended on God alone.[21] In more practical terms, leadership of a successful uprising against a tyrannical oppressor was proof of the imam's political and military abilities.[23] On the other hand, it was expected that the "most excellent" candidate could be imam, hence if another, more excellent one, were to arise, the incumbent imam would be bound to surrender authority to him. Likewise, any moral transgressions or loss of the qualifying attributes rendered the legitimacy of the imamate void.[12]
The historianNajam Haider sums up the Zaydi imamate as follows: "a qualified candidate earned followers through his scholarly and personal qualities and seized power through his military prowess. The ideal Zaydī Imām was both a 'man of the pen' and a 'man of the sword'."[24] Unlike the Imami Shi'a, who consider their imams to be religious leaders first and foremost, vested with infallibility on matters of doctrine,[25] the political aspects of the imamate were uniquely central to the Zaydi conception of the office: the Zaydi imams were recognized merely as knowledgeable individuals, whose judgment was potentially fallible and represented a "best guess" at God's will, and not inherently superior to the rulings of other Zaydi scholars. Only the collective consensus of the Hasanids and Husaynids could unequivocally establish the correctness or not of doctrinal issues.[23]
In practice, the intensely personal nature of the Zaydi imamate, bound as it was with the charisma and abilities of the individual imam, ran contrary to the creation of a long-lasting, institutionalized Zaydi statehood: the succession was never regulated, often resulting in the proclamations of several rival candidates; the judicial authority was vested in the imam and could not be delegated, precluding the emergence of a bureaucracy, offices like a chief judge (qadi), or even a uniform legal code, as every imam had the right to interpret the law at will; and even the military support an imam enjoyed was voluntarily provided by his followers, instead of relying on an organized army.[26] HistorianBernard Haykel emphasizes the transient and ephemeral nature of Zaydi political structures, ascribing it to their "oppositional quality": the Zaydis were most effective when focused against an enemy they could fight.[27] Governing an extensive and diverse realm, such as the Qasimi State that emerged in Yemen during the 17th century, required different methods. This contributed, according to Haykel, to the Qasimi State's progressive Sunnification, which allowed the creation of more permanent offices and institutions, forming a judicial and court bureaucracy along the lines long established in non-Zaydi Muslim states—indeed, often taken over from the previous Ottoman administration.[28] Crucially, this process also provided an alternative means of legitimacy for its rulers, who by and large lacked the necessary qualities prescribed in Zaydi doctrine and relied almost exclusively on dynastic legitimacy and military might, couched in Sunni legal formulas that prohibited rebellion.[29]
Furthermore, while the imam was held to be unique across the Muslim community, this was not always so in practice: apart from succession disputes, the existence of widely separated Zaydi states in Yemen and northern Iran sometimes led to the existence of two distinct imams at the same time. While they often recognized each other's legitimacy, this was an exception that was not reflected in doctrine.[12] Likewise, the required high standard of erudition on jurisprudence disqualified many actual Alid potentates from the imamate, even though they might already hold secular power. As a result, the intermediate rank of a 'restricted' imam (muhtasib) or 'summoner' (da'i) was used, denoting a ruler seen as legitimate by the Zaydis and charged with governing and defending the community, but with limited authority compared to full imams (sabiqun,lit. 'precursors'), who could levy taxes, mete out punishments, and even conduct offensive war.[12][5] Haider notes that the uniquely Zaydi concept of a 'restricted' imam is another indication of the centrality of political considerations, as "the Zaydı̄ Imāmate was predicated on the exercise of political authority", while the knowledge-focused requirements could be delegated via the consultation of qualified religious scholars.[30] The term appeared very early on, as several early Zaydi rulers in Tabaristan were mere 'summoners', while later Zaydi Alids in northern Iran simply adopted the generic and entirely secular title ofemir (amir).[31] It was in Yemen, however, that the concept of the 'restricted' imamate was systematized,[12] as many of the later Qasimi rulers lacked the qualifications for the full imamate.[32] As a result of all these controversies, there never was a definitive list of commonly accepted Zaydi imams, even to this day.[12]
There is a wide array of domestic opponents to Houthi rule in Yemen, ranging from the conservative SunniIslah Party to the secular socialistSouthern Movement to theradical Islamists ofAl Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and, since 2014, theIslamic State – Yemen Province.[33][34][35]
TheImams of Yemen constitute one line of Zaidi imams.
A timeline indicating Zaidi Imams in the early period amongst other Shia Imams as listed inAl-Masaabeeh fee As-Seerah by Ahmad bin Ibrahim is as follows:[citation needed]
Islam topics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
