Endnotes

1 The Tabaqat al-Zaydiyya al-Kubra (of Ibrahim b. al-Qasim b. al-Imam al-Mu’ayyad bi’llah al-Shahari, d. 1153/1740) records his birth year as either 1010/1601 or 1011/1603. See al-Shahari, Tabaqat (Am­man, 1421/2001), v.

2 Salah b. Ahmad al-Mu’ayyadi is recorded in the apparently anonymous pro-imamate history studied by Tritton and translated as The Rise of the Imam of Sanaa (published in Madras in 1925). The work was originally a PhD thesis at the University of Edinburgh (submitted 1917). In that work Mu’ayyadi is re­corded as being first resistant to Imam Qasim’s advances whilst governor of Zahir province (Tritton, The Rise of the Imam of Sanaa, p. 83); later, as part of the Imam’s military force against the Ottomans, Mu’ayyadi’s attack on Abü ^cArish is recorded, “Sunday 15th IV [15th Rabi^c II 1036/3rd January 1627], Salah ibn Ahmed el Muayyadi entered Abu Arish and the commandant hid himself in the castle. At the same time [the town of] Sabya submitted to the Imam and its chiefs and citizens joined his troops at Abu Arish. A week later they attacked the castle. Close under the walls they were safe from bullets while their marksmen kept the ramparts clear of defenders.

3 There is no indication why he left, it might possibly be due to shortages in personnel or supplies.

4 We could not determine the location of this place.

5 Al-Damadi, al-'Aqiq al-Yamani, fols. 475-476.

6 This is most likely a commentary on the famous grammatical work Sharh al-shawahid al-kubra by Badr al-Din al-'Ayni (d. 855/1451, which in turn comments on the Alfiyya of Ibn Malik, d. 672/1274).

7 This is most likely the Hidayat al-afkar ila ma'ani l-azhar of Sarim al-Din Ibrahim al-Wazir (d. 914/1508); itself a commentary on the famous Zaydi fiqh work Kitab al-azhar of Ahmad b. Yahya al-Murtada, d. 840/1432.

8 https://elibrary.mara.gov.om/en/imam-zaid-library/cultural-foundation-library/book/?id = 14467 (accessed 25 January 2021)

9 It is not clear whether ahl al-usul here refers to legal theorists (i.e. usul al-fiqh), or theologians (i.e. usul al-din), or some other group. In favour of “legal theorists” is the fact that they can be contrasted with ahl al-furu' in section [1.6] and that all the contrasts (mujtahids and X) are with primarily legal group­ings. In favour of theologians is that mutakallimun form a distinct group, and experts in legal theory would normally be considered mujtahids in any case.

10 'Adud al-Din al-'Iji, Sharh al-'Adud (Beirut, 1421/2000), p. 109.

11 Qur’an 17:23.

12 It might seem strange he does this, since Mu’ayyadi has [in 1.2] already refused to accept the notion that the ijma' constituency should consists of the mujtahids alone. The explanation for this is most like­ly that Mu’ayyadi is following closely the discussion in other usul texts: in particular the texts of the Mukhtasar of Ibn al-Hajib and the Minhaj of al-Baydawi, and the various commentaries on those texts.

13 The electronic copy of the manuscript available to us is unclear here. The reading al-salaf wa-l-khalaf is one possibility, and seems to fit. The faded script could also read “al-salaf wa-l-burhan”, which would mean that there is an ijma' from the early generations on this matter, and it is also demonstrated and backed up by logical proof.

14 Though, it should be noted, as it is in the commentary tradition, that the examples are from the early generations (sahdba, al-salaf etc.), and do not prove the on-going effectiveness of ijma' beyond those early generations.

15 Interestingly, in the parallel passages in the Mukhtasar al-muntaha and in the Minhaj al-wusul the term used is al-Shi'a; here it is replaced by al-Imamiyya (the Mukhtasar also reads “some of the Khawa^-j” rather than all of them as a group). Clearly, Mu’ayyadi has edited the citation from these Sunni sources so the Zaydis are not counted as amongst the denier of ijma'. See Ibn al-Hajib, Mukhtasar al-muntaha, p. 56; al-Baydawi, Minhaj al-wusul (Beirut, 1429/2008), p. 174.

16 Al-Haythami, Majma' al-zawa’id (Beirut, 1408/1988), v. 7, p. 221.

17 The report containing the word “mistake (khata’)” does not appear in the primary hadith sources.

18 Muslim al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut, 1424/2003), p. 970.

19 Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut, 1403/1983), v. 3, pp. 315-316.

20 Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut, 1401/1981), v. 8, p. 87.

21 Qur’an 4:115.

22 Qur’an 2:143.

In the Minhdj al-wusul (p. 176), al-Baydawi uses this disjuncture between God's declaration of the com­munity being virtuous and the individual's actions giving him moral probity for witnessing to discredit the verses as a theological issue around the creation of actions. Defending this verse's use as a support for ijma', al-Baydawi states that according to his theology, all the servant's actions (which gave him moral probity) are actually the actions of God, so there is no contradiction in the verse.

Qur’an 16:89.

Qur’an 4:59.

Qur’an 33:33.

Qur’an 42:23.

For different variants of this report see al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, v. 5, p. 329; Muslim al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim, p. 1200; al-Nasa’i, Khasd’is Amir al-mu’minin 'Ali b. Abi Tdlib (Qum, 1419/1998), p. 112; al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak 'ala l-sahihayn (Beirut, 1406/1986), v. 3, p. 109.

Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak, v. 2, p. 343; v. 3, p. 351; al-Haythami, Majma' al-zawd’id, v. 9, p. 168.

Al-Haythami, Majma' al-zawd’id, v. 9, p. 168 (with slightly different words). For Hitta see Madelung and Walker (eds. and trs.), Reaffirming the Imamate (London, 2021), p. 37, footnote n. 44.

Al-Haythami, Majma' al-zawd’id, v. 9, p. 174 (with slightly different words).

Al-Sharif al-Radi, Nahj al-baldgha (Qum, 1414/1993), pp. 119-120.

The simple phrase da'wd bdtila could mean the claim is weak because there is no evidence for the com­panion-based ijmd', or that companion-based ijmd' is not a proof. We argue for the first, because earlier Mu’ayyadi seems to have accepted the power of companion-based ijmd' to disprove opponents claims (see [2.3]).

Malik b. Anas, al-Muwatta’ (Beirut, 1406/1985), v. 2, p. 886; al-Bukhari, Sdhih al-Bukhdri, v. 9, pp. 79, 143.

Alternatively, Mu’ayyadi might be read as saying the report is weak because it contradicts reality (i.e. when a report contains a manifest untruth, it must be weak irrespective of its transmission chain).

Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad (Beirut, 1318/1900), v. 4, pp. 126-127; Ibn Maja al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Mdja (Beirut, n.d), v. 1, pp. 15-16.

Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, v. 5, p. 382.

^cAbd b. Humayd, al-Muntakhab min musnad 'Abd b. Humayd (Riyadh, 1423/2002), v. 2, p. 30.

This report is generally categorised as a weak report. See al-^cAjaluni, Kashf al-khafd’ wa-muzil al-iltibds (Beirut, 1408/1988), v. 1, p. 374.

Al-Amidi, al-Ihkdm (Beirut, 1402/1982), v. 2, pp. 95-103.

See n. 38.

Al-Haythami, Majma' al-zawd’id, v. 7, p. 235. Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, v. 5, p. 297.

Al-Haythami, Majma' al-zawd’id, v. 9, p. 114.

Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, v. 1, p. 179; v. 3, p. 32. ^cAdud al-Din al-^ciji, Sharh al-'Adud, p. 114.

Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-kubrd (Beirut, n.d), v. 10, p. 348.

Al-Baydawi, Minhdj al-wusul, p. 187.

49 Qur’an 48:18.

50 Abfl Dawfld al-Sijistani, Sunan Abi Dawüd (Beirut, 1410/1990), v. 2, p. 404.

51 For one such example see Malik b. Anas, al-Muwatta’, v. 2, p. 589.

52 Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, v. 4, p. 278.

53 Al-Baydawi, Minhaj al-wusül, p. 185.

54 Al-Baydawi, Minhaj al-wusül, p. 186.

55 Muslim al-Naysabflri, Sahih Muslim, v. 7, p. 95.

56 See al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-kubra, v. 10, p. 348.

57 See al-Baghawi, Sharh al-sunna (Beirut, 1403/1983), v. 9, pp. 99-100.

58 Al-Shafi'i, Kitab al-umm (Beirut, 1403/1983), v. 6, p. 113.

59 See Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, al-Mahsül (Beirut, 1412/1991), v. 4, p. 210.

60 Qur’an 4:115.

61 See Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, al-Mahsül, v. 4, p. 211.

62 For bay‘ al-murada see al-Nawawi, al-Majmü‘ (Cairo, 1344/1925), v. 11, p. 345.

63 Al-Baydawi, Minhaj al-wusül, p. 187.

64 Their argument is that there was no condemnation of Ibn Sirin when he pronounced this new, third, opinion; and if it had been forbidden for him to develop this third opinion, someone would have con­demned him for it. Al-Babarti, al-Rudüd wa-l-nuqüd (Riyadh, 1426/2005), v. 1, p. 577. Mu’ayyadi seems unmoved by this argument, and sticks the no-raf‘ (no nullification) condition for future opinions.

65 Qur’an 4:115.