Differences between the branches of Zaydism

wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi!

Thank you for your question! As a point of advice, I would advise you to not take information from Wikipedia as truth. This is because anyone can contribute to it, and the information can be true or false.

As to your first question, it's rather complicated to mention these groups because not all of them can be called a sub-sect or branch. This is because many of these groups are not separate groups per se but rather a methodology of approaching the primary sources of Islam. Let me cite some passages from the Zaydi encyclopaedia Al-Bahr az-Zakhkhaar:

The Zaydis are attributed to Zayd bin Ali (as) and their madhhab agrees upon the preference of 'Ali and his deserving of Imamate. It also agrees to its relegation to the two grandsons and the deserving of it by virtue and seeking and not simple inheritance. Such person is obligated to come out against oppressors. They adhere to Tawheed, Divine Justice (al-Adl) and the Divine Threat (al-wa'id).

So the author gives the general description of Zaydis and their agreed and original beliefs. Then he went into the division into the Jaarudiya and Batriya. He said that the Jaarudiya believed in the explicit appointment of Ali (as) by description and not designation. They are also said to believe that those who opposed him (as) disbelieved. They believed in the Imamates of al-Hasan (as) and al-Hussein (as) as well as their descendants who call to themselves with knowledge and unparalleled virtue. The Batriya are said to believe in the Imamate of consultation and the one who is lesser than best (al-Mafduul). Therefore, they accept the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar although they say that Ali (as) was best.

There are problems with some of the information regarding these and other groups. I'll repost what I wrote in another post.

---

The following is mentioned in the book Zaydiyya: Qirâ`at fîl-Mashru'u wa Bahth al-Makûnât by ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hamîd ad-dîn:

The Jârûdiya is attributed to Abu Jârûd (d. 150 or 160 AH)…Regarding the Suleimâniyya, they are attributed to Suleimân bin Jarîr....

The book goes on to say that there are contradictions regarding some of the origins, beliefs, and attributions of these groups. Therefore, one cannot say exactly what these groups believe and what their supposed founders actually believed and taught. As an example, it says:

The Batriyya are attributed to Suleimân bin Jarîr upon one opinion. Others attribute another opinion to him. Regarding the Suleimâniyya, they are attributed to Suleimân bin Jarîr. The Sâlihiyya and the Batriyya are numbered together as one sect. It poses the following problems attributing to them from these perspectives. If the Batriya are attributed to Suleimân bin Jarîr, this would make them and the Suleimâniyya attributed to the same person!

Regarding the Jârûdiyya, it says:

Whatever the case, because of the hostility against the Jârûdiyya, one cannot find any traces of them after the 2nd century. One can almost not find anyone who attributes themselves to them. Similarly, after the 2nd century, one cannot find amongst the Zaydis anyone who attributes themselves to this group or say anything similar to what they said.

So, one cannot say with surety what they said or believed.

---

It is for these reasons that we don't delve into the beliefs and ideas of these groups. It is also for this reason that we attempt to highlight our proofs from the Quran, Sunnah and early imams (as) and not from statements of Abu Jaruud, Suleiman bin Jariir, or others. Because of this, we cannot be called Jaarudiya, Batriya or Suleimaniya.

As for the other names such as Qasimiya, Hadawiya, etc., as we said, these names have to do with approaches to and methodologies of fiqh. Differences are minor and do not contribute to the founding of a new madhhab or sub-sect.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Thank you for your question! The differences in fiqh can be attributed to many things. It can be differences in an imam's methodology in derivation. It can also be differences in sources. In his Al-Ahkaam, Imam al-Hadi (as) attributes differences among the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to negligence or confusion. The idea is that there should be no differences if the source of knowledge is the same. However, as experience tells us, there may be various interpretations of the same command. Since, technically, the purpose of the imam is to transmit the madhhab of his ancestors, that would entail that there be no differences between them.

There is one view that there are no differences in fiqh in terms of halaal and haraam because if Allah appoints the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to be followed, they cannot differ in halaal and haraam as this would be a contradiction akin to contradiction in the Quran. This view says that any perceived differences between the imams are due to errors in transmission and not the imams' views themselves. One example is the issue of the permissibly or impermissibility of marrying women from Ahl al-Kitaab. There are narrations from the imams that seemingly support both views; however, upon examination, the view that it is permissible can easily be attributed to errors in interpretation or mistakes in transmission. So any seeming differences and contradiction of views must be explained and/or scrutinised.

This is a very interesting topic that needs to be discussed more. InshaAllah, we hope to address it in more detail in our introduction to our forthcoming translation of Al-Ahkaam.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Thank you for your question! Yes. We are at the beginning of this project; however, because we are involved with so many other long term projects simultaneously, its difficult to say when we will finish any of them.

And Allah knows best!

IRS