Page 134 - Arabian Studies (V)

124 Arabian Studies V
of ZaidI law’, Abr-Nahrain, Leiden, 1962, ii, 39, says, ‘In their reasoning
and critical attitude to traditions the early ZaidI imams arc strikingly
similar to the early Hanafites. Like the Hanafite school too, the Zaidiyyah
became less and less critical of traditions and made a restrained use of
‘reason*.’ Broadly speaking the exercise of the law is hereditary in the
Prophet’s house both before and after Islam, his ancestors acting as
hakams or arbiters. That they should exercise the right of independent
judgement in Islam deriving their authority from Muhammad seems a
natural evolution. The Imam al-Hadi in following only three sources of
law, Qur’an, the collectively reported Traditions of the Prophet and
reason, is obviously taking a Mu‘tazili attitude.
An old proverb, Ahl al-bayt adra bi-ma Ji 'l-bayt (The people of the
house know best what is in the house), was cited to me as expressing the
hereditary nature of law reposited in the Prophet’s House, but the proverb
itself has no special application to it.
82. Perhaps because the famous third/ninth century theologian al-
Ash‘ari left Mu‘tazilism for orthodoxy and followed the Shafi‘i school.
83. By ‘opinion* (madhhab) Zubayrl means ijtihadat al-Imam Yah yd
wa-’l-Imam Ahmad, yastanbitii-hd min kutub al-fiqh, the independent
judgement of Imams Yahya and Ahmad which the Imams elicit from the law
books. Imam Yahya’s views have been published by Qadi ‘Abdullah b.
‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Shammahi, Si rat al-'arifin ila idrak ikhtiyarat Amir
al-Mu’minin, San‘a’, 1356/1937-8, printed at Matba'at al-Ma‘arif.
It is all very well for Zubayrl to make these complaints, but, from a
practical viewpoint, when there is a conflict of views, it must be that of the
Imam as head of state and the judiciary which prevails.
Qasim Ghalib notes in his edition, p.26, that judgement is made in
accordance with the Imam’s opinion alone and it is only read in accordance
with the Imam’s opinion. He states that Sayyidah Arwa bt. Ahmad al-Sulayhi
: (of the Fatimi Tayyibi group considered heretical by Zaydis and Shafi‘is)
made many waqfs to students of 7/m (religious knowledge) but her waqf deeds
did not specify to what school they should belong. He accuses al-Hasan (cf
i para. 3b) of allotting special stipends to those who read al-madhhab al-
Hadam, the school (opinions) of al-Hadi only, which he paid from the
; waqfs not of his own ancestors but established by others.
I 84. The commonly used lawbook in Mutawakkilite Yemen was Sharh al-
Azhdr, a commentary upon which had been printed in Cairo in 1328/1910,
but a commentary by Muh. al-Shawkani, al-Sayl al-Jarrar al-mutadaffiq
‘ala Hada’iq, al-azhdr, was printed in Cairo in 1970. Qadi Isma‘Il al-
i
Akwa‘ informs me that this volume upset the Zaydl ,ulamdt because many
views were contrary to theirs. K. al-Azhar JJ fiqh al-A ’ immat al-Athar, the
basic text of al-Mahdi Ahmad b. Yahya al-Murtada (9th/14th century)
was printed in Beirut in 1972. The Sharh is described as containing the
views of the four Sunni schools, Shafi‘1, Maliki, etc., but also of various
Zaydl legal authorities, some of them not necessarily even well known. The
Imam as mujtahid can select whatever view he thinks appropriate from
■
these because ‘basic Zaydism is the fundamentals/roots (<al-Zaydiyyah al-
asliyyah al-usul)\ and the branches (furuf) i.e. the systematic elaboration