Are Sunnī and Shī‘ī always Clash?: An Examination of Ḥadīth

Studies in the Zaydī

Benny Afwadzi

Department of Islamic Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang,

Gajayana Street No. 50, Malang 65145, Indonesia

Keywords: ḥadīth, al-Ṣan‘ānī, Shī‘ī, unity, Zaydī

Abstract: In the Islamic world, Sunnī and Shī‘ī were the two sects that clashed between one to another, from the

discourse of theology until imāma and khilāfa. Sometimes, the clash of thought made a big conflict between

them, for example, Sunnī-Shī‘ī conflict in Sampang Madura, Indonesia since 2006 to 2012, and finally to

the expulsion of the Shī‘ī community of this region outside the Madura island. This problem must be solved

by the best solution, especially from their own Islamic text books. Based on that reality, I attempted to

examine the study of ḥadīth among the Zaydī Shī‘ī (Zaydiya) by focusing on Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl al-

Kaḥlānī al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thought. By analyzing the two main works of Ṣan‘ānī which discussed of the ḥadīths,

Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār and Subul al-Salā

m, and was analyzed with descriptive-analytical method, I found that in

the study of ḥadīth, based on al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thought, Zaydī sect opposed taqlīd, had a “free thought”, and was

not bound by school and ḥadīth literature of certain madhhab, both Sunnī and Shī‘ī. Zaydī relied on only

ḥadīths that were considered authentic (ṣaḥīḥ). The opinions of other scholars about isnād and matn of

ḥadīth were examined by Zaydī with own analysis, even against his madhhab. This characteristic of

thinking had a similarity to the way of thinking among Salafī or Wahhābī who was the strongest school

against the Shī‘ī movement. In addition, the Zaydīs works were clearly accepted and studied in Indonesia,

especially in pesantren, the biggest Islamic country with Sunnī ideology. I argued that the reality should be

brought to the reconciliation between Sunnī and Shī‘ī in Islamic world, then they would be united and there

would be no prolonged conflict between them.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the Islamic world, Sunnī and Shī‘ī are the two

sects that clash between one to another, from the

discourse of theology until imāma and khilāfa

(Afwadzi, 2014). According to the Sunnī

fundamentalist in recent times, the Shī‘ī community

seems like a “parasite” and the existence must be

eradicated. Shī‘ī is considered a destroyer of Islamic

teachings with some perceived perversions, such as

contract marriage (muṭ‘a), the doctrine of taqiyya,

self-mortification during the anniversary of the

Carbala (‘āshurā day), and infidel the Prophet’s

companions. The judgements to Shī‘ī community

sometimes cause a big conflict between them, for

example, Sunnī-Shī‘ī conflict in Sampang Madura,

Indonesia since 2006 to 2012, and finally to the

expulsion of the Shī‘ī community of this region

outside the Madura island (Afdillah, 2013; Anshori,

2014; Hilmy, 2015). For some Muslims in

Indonesia, Shī‘ī is also identified with torturers and

murderers as well as enemies of the Sunnī

community as attributed to Bashshār al-Assad’s

regime in Syria. They consider that the war in the

country as the war between Shī‘ī and Sunnī

(Burhanuddin, 2016; Hidcom, 2016; Ishaq, 2018).

The similar opinion is also attributed to the war

between Saudi Arabia with the Sunnī’s ideology

(Wahhābī) against Yemen (Ḥūthi) militants with

Shī

‘ī (Zaidiya) (Haq, 2017; Jurnal, 2017).

Actually, in Islamic theology, Shī‘ī madhhab is

not a single Islamic school. Shī‘ī is divided into

many groups, which do not have the same

understanding of the Islamic teachings. According to

al-Baghdādī (d. 429/1037), after the death of ‘Alī b.

Abī Ṭālib, the Shī‘ī madhhab can be classified into

four major classes, and then subdivided into smaller

groups. The four classes, mentioned by al-Baghdādī,

are Shī‘a Ghulāt, Shī‘a Kaysāniya, Shī‘a Zaydiya,

and Shī‘a Imāmiya (al-Baghdādī, n.d.). While in

Afwadzi, B.

Are Sunn

ı and Sh

ı‘

ı always Clash?: An Examination of ad

ıth Studies in the Zayd

ı.

DOI: 10.5220/0009925802350243

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 235-243

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

235

contemporary era, the Shī‘ī madhhab that still

known there are three sects, namely Shī‘a Zaydiya,

Ismā‘īliya, and Ithnā ‘Ashariya. As among Sunnī

scholars who have a different opinion, in Shī‘ī also

occur the same condition, even mutually disbelieve

(takfīr) between one to another. Among the many

Shī‘ī sects, there is a sect that has a close connection

with Sunnī madhhab. The sect is the Zaydī Shī‘ī

(Zaydiya) that refers to one of the descendants of

‘Alī who opposed the Umayyads militantly named

Zayd b. ‘Alī Zayn al-‘Ābidīn b. Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī b.

Abī Ṭālib (d. 122/740). The greatest Zaydī,

according to al-Baghdādī (n.d.), consists of three

groups, i.e. al-Jārūdiya, Sulaymāniya or Jarīriya, and

Butriya, even though their existence now is lost in

time and the information is only contained in books

on Islamic theology (al-Faḍīl, 1985).

According to Zaydī doctrine, ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib

(d. 40/661) is the most noble companion of the

Prophet, beyond Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddī

q (d. 13/634) and

‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644). Nonetheless, Zaydī

still recognizes the Caliphs of the two companions

of Prophet Muhammad. Zaydī sect receives Abū

Bakr and ‘Umar lawful as Muslim caliphs in Islamic

civilization. Based on the understanding, Zaydī

reluctant to blame the companions of the Prophet,

even more to berate and condemn them. According

to Zaydī doctrine, Taqiyya, the imām’s knowledge of

something unseen (ghayb), and the concept of raj‘a

are rejected. From some conceptions of the

teachings, it is seen that Zaydī is the Shī‘ī madhhab

which is understood to be more inclined to Sunnī

(Shihab, 2014).

One of the famous Zaydī Muslim scholar is

Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl al-Kaḥlānī al-Ṣan‘ānī, and

commonly known as Imām al-Ṣan‘ānī (d.

1182/1769). He was a Muslim scholar in the 17th

century from Yemen, which was a place to develop

Zaydī madhhab. In the Islamic history, the first

Zaydī dynasty in Yemen was spearheaded by al-

Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā

b. al-Ḥusayn (d.

298/911), the most important and most powerful

figure in Zaydī movement in 284/897 (al-‘Ulaymī,

1987). The existence of Zaydī community has been

continued in Yemen until the contemporary era, but

his follower is not the majority.

2 METHODS AND FOCUSES

This article analyzed ḥadīth thought among Zaydī

sect which was focused on Imām al-Ṣan‘ānī’s

thought with descriptive-analytical method. Al-

Ṣan‘ānī, as a modern scholar of ḥadīth (al-Siddieqy,

1973), was an appropriate representation to describe

the mindset of the Zaydī sect. The study explored

several aspects related to the method of authenticity

of ḥadīth and its interpretation which were the two

central aspects in the ḥadīth studies. The aspects of

ḥadīth’s authenticity and the interpretation of al-

Ṣan‘ānī were examined from two representative

books, i.e. Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār and Subul al-Salām.

Although both of them only the book of

explanations (sharḥ), but in these books were

written the great ideas of Imām al-Ṣan‘ānī. The

works of al-Ṣan‘ānī and Zaydī in general also helped

to construct his thinking.

The studies of the al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thought or his

work had been written by scholars, for instance, the

study of Aḥmad Muḥammad al-‘Ulaym

ī (1987) who

examined al-Ṣan‘ānī and his masterpiece Tawḍīḥ al-

Afkār, Nurliana (2006) who examined the method of

excavating the law (istinbāṭ al-ḥukm) al-Ṣan‘ānī in

Subul al-Salām, Ḥasan b. ‘Alī al-Qurashī (2008) that

examined the sincerity of al-Ṣan‘ānī in the field of

da‘wa, ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Ṣaghīr Aḥmad (2011)

who examined one of al-Ṣan‘ānī’s books concerning

uṣūl fiqh entitled Ijābah al-Sā’il, and Ahmad Bastari

(2016) that focused his study on the book of Subul

al-Salām as a commentary on the book of Bulūgh al-

Marām. Meanwhile, the studies of Shī‘ī madhhab in

general or Zaydī and others were very diverse, for

example, Sayyid Zayd al-Wazir (2014) who studied

the concept of treasures (māl) in the Zaydī

perspective, Muḥammad Abū Zahra (2005) who

examined the main figure of the Zaydī madhhab al-

Imām Zayd, Alī b. ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Faḍīl (1985)

that explored Zaydī in the theory and practice, M.

Quraish Shihab (2014) who expressed many of the

Ithnā ‘Asharī’s doctrines and the basis of the

argument to unite with the Sunnī madhhab, M.

Alfatih Suryadilaga (2009) that studied the concept

of science in the first ḥadīth collection of Ithnā

‘Asharī al-Kafī al-Kulaynī, Mohammad Reza

Himyari (2014) also studied the concept of reason in

al-Kafī, Zeid B. Smeer (2011) who examined the

criticism of Naṣīr al-Qifārī to ḥadīth of the Ithnā

‘Asharī and Maria Massi Dakake (2000) who

analyzed the doctrines among Shī‘a.

The purpose of this paper was conformable to the

spirit that was sounded by Quraish Shihab, i.e. to

unite between Sunnī and Shī‘ī, even though not in

the same format. Unification, according to Shihab,

did not mean the fusion of the teachings into one,

but approaches to be able to “shook hands” between

one madhhab and the other. Shihab (2014, p.259)

asserted after exploring the doctrines of Ithnā

‘Asharī

: “Ajakan yang dikumandangkan adalah

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

236

penyatuan dalam arti membiarkan mazhab-mazhab

Islam yang ada tumbuh berkembang, sambil

melakukan pendekatan agar kesemuannya dapat

bergandengan tangan, berjalan seiring, dan

bekerjasama meraih kejayaan bersama serta saling

menopang menghadapi musuh bersama” (The

sounded call was the union in the sense of allowing

existing Islamic schools of thought to grow, while

approaching so that all of them be able to join hands,

went together, and worked together to achieve the

glory and supported each other against the common

enemy).

Nevertheless, I realized that in essence, the

difference was the causes an attitude of hostility. If

the judging was only the difference, then “the hostile

fire would be easily ignited.” Therefore, a shifting

paradigm must be made, from the study of

differences to an examination of the equation. As

previously noted that Zaydī was the Shī‘ī sect that

closest to Sunnī, it was necessary in this article to

conduct a thorough study of the Zaydī’s thought, in

order to slightly merge the relationship between

Sunnī and Shī‘ī. Most works on Shī‘ī were more

focused on Ithnā ‘Asharī because in this period, the

word “Shī‘a” usually referred to the Ithnā ‘Asharī

Shī‘ī, and the sect had a unique doctrine in Islamic

doctrines. Although when this topic was examined

comprehensively, there was another Shī‘ī sect that

had great potential to build “madhhab ukhuwah”

which was often forgotten, i.e. Zaydī. It was the

contribution of this simple article expected to

academic and social context. I hoped the article

became an additional study of “al-taqrīb bayn al-

madhāhib” (closer between Islamic schools) that had

been focused to explore the Ithnā ‘Asharī doctrines.

3 THE BIOGRAPHY OF

AL-ṢAN‘ĀNĪ

The author of Subul al-Salām, a sharḥ book of

Bulūgh al-Marām, was a direct descendant of ‘Alī b.

Abī Ṭālib from al-Ḥasan, a figure who chosen to

make peace with Mu‘āwiyah b. Abī Sufyān (d.

60/680). Al-Shawkānī, (d. 1250/1834) who was also

the Zaydī Muslim scholar, informed the genealogy

of al-Ṣan‘ānī as follows: Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl b.

Ṣalāḥ b. Muḥammad b. ‘Alī b. Ḥifẓ al-Dīn b. Sharaf

al-Dīn b. Ṣalāḥ b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Mahdī b.

Muḥammad b. Idrīs b. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad

b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥamza b. Sulaymān b. Ḥamza b. al-

Ḥasan b. ‘Abd al-Ra

ḥmān b. Yaḥyā b. ‘Abd Allāh b.

al-Ḥusayn b. al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm b. Ismā’īl b.

Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib

(al-Shawkānī, n.d.). The family of al-Ṣan‘ānī was

known as the Amīr, so he was also titled as al-Amīr

al-Ṣan'ānī (al-‘Ulaymī, 1987).

The majority of Zaydī Muslim scholars were

descendants of the Ahl al-Bayt from al-Ḥasan, as

well as al-Ṣan‘ānī, and only a few of the descendants

of al-Ḥusayn. According to Abū Zahra (d.

1394/1974), this phenomena occurred because the

descendants of al-Ḥasan found the freedom

movement, the spirit of scholarship, and most

importantly the suitability of imāma (leadership) in

this madhhab. In the Imām

ī, as Zaydī’s closest sect

in Shī‘a, imāma was limited only to the descendants

of ‘Alī from al-Ḥusayn (Abū Zahra, 2005), while

Zaydī did not limit to al-Ḥusayn.

al-Ṣan‘ānī, as one of the great Islamic scholars of

the Zaydī sect, was born in a town called Kaḥlān, on

the eve of Friday in the middle of Jumādā al-Akhīr

in 1099/1688 (al-Shawkānī, n.d.; al-‘Ulaymī, 1987;

Ḥallāq, 1997) or another riwāya in 1059/1649

(Anonim, n.d.). Geographically, according google

map guide, Kaḥlān was a city located northwest of

the state capital of Yemen, Ṣan‘ā, which, when taken

in a car about four hours at a distance of 241 KM,

whereas with regular travel on foot took about three

days to get there (‘Abd al-Ḥamīd, n.d.). From this

hometown, he had the title of al-Kaḥlānī, thats was

attributed directly to the city.

In 1107/1696, at the age was eight years old (al-

Shawkānī, n.d.) or 1110/1689 in eleven years old

(‘Abd al-Ḥamīd, n.d.), al-Ṣan‘

ānī with his family

moved to the capital of Ṣan‘ā. In this city, he studied

from several Muslim scholars who lived there, such

as Zayd b. Muḥammad al-Ḥasan (d. 1123/1171),

Ṣalāḥ b. al-Ḥusayn al-Akhfash (d. 1142/1730), ‘Abd

Allāh b. ‘Alī al-Wazīr (d. 1147/1734), and ‘Alī b.

Muḥammad al-‘Unsī (d. 1139/1727). From that

Yemeni capital, he got the title al-Ṣan‘ānī after al-

Kaḥlānī. After studying in Yemen, al-Ṣan‘ānī

performed an intellectual traveling to Mecca and

Medina. In these two centers of Islamic science, he

examined the ḥadīth in the presence of the great

Muslim scholars who lived in Mecca and Medina

(al-Shawkānī, n.d.).

According to al-‘Ulaymī (1987), al-Ṣan‘ānī

traveled intellectually to Mecca and Medina for four

times. The first traveling took place in the year

1112/1700. At that time, he had settled in Medina

and studied from several Muslim scholars, such as

‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī al-Ghayth al-Khaṭīb who

became the preacher of the Masjīd al-Nabawī at that

time and Ṭāhir b. Ibrāhīm. The second

riḥla was

occurred in 1132/1720 and he studied to Abū al-

Are Sunn

ı and Sh

ı‘

ı always Clash?: An Examination of ad

ıth Studies in the Zayd

237

Ḥasan Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Sanadī

(d.1138/1726). The third traveling was done in

1134/1722 and successfully studied to Muḥammad

b. Aḥmad al-Asadī and wrote the work titled al-

‘Iddat al-‘Umda. The year 1139/1727 became his

last trip to Mecca. At the time, he was able to study

directly to Sālim b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Baṣrī (w.

1134/1722).

The Caliph al-Manṣūr, one of the Yemeni

government, gave a task to al-Ṣan‘ānī to be a

preacher at the Ṣan‘ā Grand mosque. Then, he

transferred his scholarship with teaching, giving

fatwā, and writing books. Al-Ṣan‘ānī was a

productive author in multi-discipline studies, not

only related to ḥadīth studies. Many works in

Islamic studies were written by him as

manifestations of his thoughts, for instance, Subul

al-Salām, Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār, al-Iṣābat fī Ḥaqīqat al-

Mujāba, Irshād al-Nuqād ilā Taysīr al-Ijtihād, al-

Iḥr

āz limā fī Asās al-Balāghat min Kināya wa al-

Majāz and the other books (Anonim, n.d.).

Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl al-Kaḥlānī al-Ṣan‘ānī died on

the 3rd Sya‘ban of 1182 /1769 with the age of 83

years or 123 years according to other riwāya.

4 AL-ṢAN‘ĀNĪ’S THOUGHT ON

ḤADĪTH

Speaking of the authenticity of prophetic ḥadīth in

the thought of al-Ṣan‘ānī, it should be restored to

Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār li Ma’ān Tankīḥ al-Anẓār. The

book was a commentary of Tankīḥ al-Anẓār, a book

of ḥadīth sciences written by Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm

al-Wazīr al-Yamānī (d. 840/1436), who also adhered

to the Zaydī school and originated from the Yemeni

country, as well as al-Ṣan‘ānī. In the meantime, to

explored how al-Ṣan‘ānī gives an interpretation to

ḥadīths, referred to the book of Subul al-Salām,

which was a commentary of Bulūgh al-Marām min

Adillat al-Aḥkām. Martin Van Bruinessen (1999)

stated that Bulūgh al-Marām was the most popular

ḥadīth book in the field of Indonesian pesantren.

In Taw

ḍīḥ al-Afkār, the definition of ḥadīth in

the view of al-Ṣan‘ānī was not different from the

Sunnī Muslim scholars. Based on Aṭā’ explanation

in Muṣṭalah Ahl al-Ḥadīth, al-Ṣan‘ānī explained that

the ḥadīth was a something derived from the

Prophet, or his companions, or subsequent

generations, in the form of speaking (qawlī), action

(fi‘lī), both of them (speaking and action), provision

(taqrīrī), and character (ṣifat). On the other hand,

there was another definition of ḥadīth as a something

that came from the Prophet, and khabar was sourced

from others (not from the Prophet) (al-Ṣan‘ānī,

n.db.). He also divided ḥadīth into three categories,

as the Sunnī categories: ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, and ḍa‘īf. The

understanding of al-Ṣan‘ānī was contrary to the

definition of

ḥadīth among Ithnā ‘Asharī, who

regarded the speakings, actions, and provisions of

the twelve imāms as a ḥadīth as well because they

were considered infallible (ma‘ṣūm) as the Prophet

Muhammad. Ithnā ‘Asharī also made one more

category besides the three categories of ḥadīth

(ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, ḍa‘īf), i.e. muwaththaq ḥadīth as a

strong ḥadīth but was narrated by informants from

another school (Suryadilaga, 2009).

4.1 al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thought on Isnād

In discussion of isnād problem, al-Ṣan‘ānī argued

that in ṣaḥīḥayn (al-Bukhārī and Muslim) there were

some informants whom received a negative opinion

(jarḥ). However, the list of criticizing informants, in

fact, were not criticized absolutely, but there were

reasons for the justification. For example, Ayyūb b.

Ā’idh in ṣaḥīḥayn was known as the Murji‘ī scholar

(al-Bukhārī, 2005; Mughlaṭāya, 2001; al-Bāḥī,

1986), Ḥarīz b. ‘Uthmān al-Ḥimṣī (d. 163 H) in

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī from the naṣb community (haters

‘Alī) (al-Bāḥī, 1986; al-Dhahabī, n.db.; al-Jurjānī,

1997), Khālid b. Makhlad al-Qaṭwānī (d. 213 H) in

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī was mentioned had a

tashayyu‘

character (lovers ‘Alī) (al-Baṣrī, 1968; al-Dhahabī,

n.da.; al-Dhahabī, n.db.), and Hishām b. ‘Abd Allāh

al-Dustuwā’ī (d.152 H) in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī which

was mentioned as a Qadarī scholar (al-Baṣrī, 1968;

al-Mizzī, 1980). According to al-Ṣan‘ānī, they were

still survivors of bid‘a in the category of justice

(‘adāla). Indeed, some of them called their bid‘a,

until Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (d. 628/1230) stated that some

rijāl in al-Bukhārī and Muslim were not known their

Islam. However, according to al-Ṣan‘ānī, the opinion

of Ibn al-Qaṭṭān was exaggerated (ghulūw), because

Ibn al-Qaṭṭān was the Islamic scholar who famous

did not narrate the ḥadīth from others than Imām

Muslim (al-Ṣan‘ānī, n.db.).

With the view above, al-Ṣ

an‘ānī sought to defend

ṣaḥīḥayn, especial Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī as the best

ḥadīth book in Sunnī, which incorporated some

debatable rijāl. According al-Ṣan‘ānī, the rijāl al-

ḥadīth still survived in the field of informant

integrity (‘adāla), despite having a bid‘a. To clarify

al-Ṣan‘ānī’s opinion, al-‘Ulaymī (1987) cited Ibn

Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī’s explanation (d. 852/1449) in

Hady al-Sārī (muqaddima of Faṭḥ al-Bārī).

According to Ibn Ḥajar, the bid‘a that could cause

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

238

an informant not to be accepted was an informant

who got the predicate of kāfir or fāsiq by agreement

of the Muslims in general based on established rules,

for example, the Shī‘a Ghulāt sect who viewed that

God dwelt in the body of ‘Alī. Ibn Ḥajar asserted

that none of the traditions of those scholars (Shī‘a

Ghulāt) which could be considered authentic (ṣaḥīḥ).

Sunnī Muslim scholars had different opinions about

the bid‘a of the Khawārij or moderate (not

exaggerated) Shī‘ī and other sects that violated the

meaning of the sunna and prefer to understand it in

an esoteric meaning (ta’wīl). Some of Sunnī Muslim

scholars argued that these informants could be used

in ḥadīth on qualifications that they should avoid the

lies and their attitude could damage the muru’a in

the field of religion and worship. Related to the

topic, al-Ṣan‘ānī also has a position in this way of

thinking.

In the study of the Companions of the Prophet,

al-Ṣan‘ānī criticized the view of Ibn Ḥajar which put

companions of the Prophet on the first level

defeating the informants were called the most thiqa

man (awthaq al-nās). Textually, this meant that the

capacity of Companions included thiqa ḥāfiẓ and it

had two principles: ‘adāla and ḍ

abṭ. However,

according to al-Ṣan‘ānī, the opinion as argued by Ibn

Ḥajar was not without problems, because actually

the existence or absence of ḥifẓ (memory) was the

character in human, including the Companions of

the Prophet. In fact, the Prophet himself had ever

forgotten the prayers according to a valid history.

How, then, could put a Companions higher than the

one called awthaq al-nās? Companions were human

beings who could not eliminate forgetfulness. ‘Umar

b. al-Khaṭṭāb were narrated by al-Bukhārī ever

forgot in the tayammum ritual (al-Ṣan‘ānī, n.db.).

The view of al-Ṣan‘ānī above did not wish to sue

the existence of the dictum among Sunnī, “kull al-

ṣaḥābat ‘udūl” (all of the Companions were ‘ādil) as

practiced by Ithnā ‘Asharī and put them down as the

informants ḥadīth in general (Suryadilaga, 2009;

Mahmud, 2014). In this context, he only put the

position of the Companions like an ordinary human

who did not escape the error. The aspect of ‘adāla in

the Companions personality had been fulfilled, but

the power of memory depended on the intellectual

capacity of each Companion and could not be

generalized, let alone to be considered better than

informant at the first level. If placing the position of

the Companions like Ibn Ḥajar argument, it was like

placing the Companions in a higher position than the

Prophet. The Zaydī community, as was described by

King (2012), had a position in the middle between

Sunnī and Ithnā ‘Asharī

theologically and

jurisprudently. In the matter of the Companions, the

doctrine of the Zaydī deemed Sunnī exaltation of the

Companions was excessive and ignored the

evidences of their some faults, whereas the Ithnā

‘Asharī doctrine was excessive in denouncing the

Companions and glorifying Ahl al-Bayt.

4.2 al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thought on

Interpretation of Ḥadīth

In the discourse of the interpretation of the prophetic

ḥadīth, al-Ṣan‘ānī did not bind himself to a particular

madhhab and was free to choose which he

considered superior (rājiḥ). One of his interpretation

could be seen from his explanation to the ḥadīth

concerning the minimum number of people who

pray in Friday prayers. The ḥadīth of this subject

was mentioned in Bulūgh al-Marām as follows, “‘an

Jābir raḍiya Allāh ‘anhu qāla: Maḍat al-sunnat

anna fī kulli arba‘īn faṣā‘idan jum‘at, rawāhu al-

Dārquṭnī bi isnād al-ḍa‘īf (From Jābir raḍiya Allāh

‘anhu said: it was already a sunna that every forty

people and more were obliged to pray Friday. This

ḥadīth was narrated by al-Dārquṭnī with a weak

isnād) (al-‘Asqalānī, n.d.; al-Dā

rquṭnī, n.d.; al-

Bayhaqī, 1344 H; al-Bayhaqī, 1991).

In his explanation of the ḥadīth, first, al-Ṣan'ānī

explained the full name of the first informant

(companion), i.e. Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh. Later, he also

provided identification on the weakness of the

ḥadīth. According to al-Ṣan‘ānī, the ḥadīth was weak

because it had an informant named ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b.

‘Abd al-Raḥmān, which received negative critics

from many Muslim scholars. For instance, Aḥmad b.

Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) said about his personality

“turned away from his ḥadīths, because he was a liar

informant and his ḥadīths were fabricated”, al-Nasā’ī

(d. 303/915) said “he was not thiqa informant”, al-

Dārquṭnī (d. 385/995) said “he was a munkar

informant”, and Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354/965) said “his

ḥadīths should not be used as ḥujja” (al-Ṣan‘ānī,

n.da.).

When the topic was examined, there were

different opinions among Muslim scholars of

Islamic jurisprudence on this issue. Al-Shāfi’ī and

Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal stated that the minimum number

was forty people as mentioned by the ḥadīth. Abū

Ḥanīfa said that the number was three people plus

imām (four persons), while Mālik said less than forty

people and was not obliged if only amounted to

three or four people (Pamungkas and Surahman,

2015). In Subul al-Salām, al-Ṣan‘ānī mentioned the

argument was used by Abū Ḥanīfa, the Qur’anic

verse “fas‘auw ilā dhikr Allāh” (al-Jum‘at [62]: 9).

Are Sunn

ı and Sh

ı‘

ı always Clash?: An Examination of ad

ıth Studies in the Zayd

239

According to him, the verse was addressed to a

group of people (jamā‘ah) and at least from the

plural (jama‘) was three people. Thus, the minimum

number of Friday prayers was three people plus

imām (four persons) and there was no argument that

required more requirements than that number (al-

Ṣan‘ānī, n.da.).

According to al-Ṣan‘ānī, the opinion of Abū

Ḥanīfa could not be received. The reason was not

necessarily that the verses addressed to a group of

people must be done in the congregation as well.

Another school of scholars, said al-Ṣan‘ānī, opposed

the necessity of a congregation in Friday prayers

based on the word of God “aqīmu al-ṣalāt wa ātū al-

zakāt” (established prayer and paid zakat). In this

context, the payment of zakat was understood not

obligatory in the congregation, although the verse

was addressed to the group of people with the word

plural, ie ātū. Therefore, the argument of Abū

Ḥanīfa in the view of al-Ṣan‘ānī was considered a

weak argument (al-Ṣan‘ānī, n.da.).

Imām al-Ṣan‘ānī asserted that there was no

special requirement concerning the minimum

number of jama‘at prayers in the Qur’an and the

sunna. The requirement of the Friday prayer was

merely a congregation based on the

ḥadīth of Abū

Mūsa which was narrated by Ibn Māja and Ibn ‘Adī,

and the ḥadīth of Abū Umāma narrated by Aḥmad

and al-Ṭabarānī (al-Shaybānī, 1998; al-Ṭabarānī,

n.d.). While in another ḥadīth mentioned that

congregation was already done when collected two

people, “al-ithnān jamā‘at” (al-Dārquṭnī, n.d.; al-

Bayhaqī, 1344 H; al-Qazwaynī, 2009). Therefore,

for al-Ṣan‘ānī, it was sufficient (legitimate) of the

Friday prayer with the amount according to the most

correct opinion. He acknowledged that in the study

of the minimum number of people in Friday Prayer

there were some ḥadīths, but these ḥadīths did not

have authentic sources (al-Ṣan‘ānī, n.da.).

Based on the explanation, it was seen that al-

Ṣan‘ānī took the law, not only on the opinions of

earlier Muslim scholars, but also analyzed and gave

prior identification to existing opinions. Then, from

the existing opinions, he decided which one was the

best opinion. In this case, al-Ṣan‘ānī was far from

taqlīd, and did not care about fiqhiyya opinions that

had no strong argument in his thought, although the

opinion derived from popular faqīh, such as Abū

Ḥanīfa, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal.

5 RELATION BETWEEN SUNNĪ

AND SHĪ‘Ī ACCORDING TO

THE ZAYDĪ

The ideology of al-Ṣan‘ānī as a Shī‘ī can be

explicitly seen, for example, in the book of Subul al-

Salām when he mentions the name ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib.

In this case, al-Ṣan‘ānī often gives the mention

‘alayh al-salām after ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib’s name, even

his descendants (Zayd b. ‘Alī and al-Hādī) also get

this mention, whereas other companions are only

written with raḍiya Allāh ‘anhu. Reference to such a

model is similar when al-Ṣan‘ānī tells the names of

the Prophets, such as Nūḥ, ‘Īsā, Ibrāhīm, Dāwud,

and Zakariyā. Sometimes, he substitutes the word in

the book of Bulūgh al-Marām, written with raḍiya

Allāh ‘anhu and replaced with alayh al-salām in

Subul al-Salām related to the name of ‘Al

ī b. Abī

Ṭālib (al-Ṣan‘ānī, 1960).

Al-Ṣan‘ānī is one of the most respected Muslim

scholars of Shī‘a Zaydiya. The mindset is “free” and

is not bound by certain madhhab opinions. In the

field of Islamic jurisprudence, Zaydī rejects the idea

that arises among medieval jurists, namely “the

closed door of ijtihād.” According to Zaydī, the door

of ijtihād remains open and never closed, both in the

matter of uṣūl (foundation) and furū‘ (branch) (Abū

Zahra, 2005), even Zaydī forbids taqlīd from the

problems that can be taken from the Qur’an and the

Prophetic sunna, and does not allow taqlīd in the

field of furū‘, except for people who are impossible

to do ijtihād (al-Faḍīl, 1985). In addition, Zaydī is

not being exclusive in the reference studies. In the

books of Zaydīs, the opinions of Sunnī and Shī‘ī

scholars are simultaneously and without sectarian

sensitivity. They have the view that the four Sunnī

imāms (Ḥanafī, M

ālikī, Shāfi‘ī, Ḥanbalī) have an

undeniable position (Abū Zahra, 2005).

Zaydī experienced a significant development in

the field of Islamic law. There are several logical

reasons for Zaydī madhhab to flourish in the study

of Islamic law. First, the understanding that the door

of ijtihād remains open and can not be closed in a

certain time. The meaning is that in constructing the

law, Zaydī does not influenced by the opinions

which arise in his own school. Zaydī also freely

choose the opinions of Muslim scholars who are

considered most appropriate and not necessarily

from his own school. Secondly, the spread of

various mujtahids in this school to various parts of

the country and encourage seeking traditions

(ḥadīths) wherever they get. Thus, Zaydī is not only

bound by the ḥadīths of the Ahl al-Bayt. According

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

240

to Zaydī, the ḥadīths which can be the object of

istidlāl are the ḥadīths that are also recorded in the

kutub al-sittah and others, so the material of his

istidlāl is also greatly developed (Abū Zahra, 2005;

al-‘Ulaymī, 1987).

It seems that the characteristics constitute al-

Ṣan‘ānī to be pluralist in the field of ḥadīth and

escape from certain schools of thought as discussed

in previous discussions, even from the formulations

of Zaydī’s law that developed in its time. Although

he is Zaydī, it does not necessarily impinge upon his

thinking. In the book of Subul al-Salām, al-Ṣan‘ānī

is seen explicitly disagree and criticize some of

Zaydī’s law products, which are his own madhhab,

for example, in the case of the duty of taḥlīl al-liḥya

(sifting beard), expelling Jews from Arab lands,

raising both hands at the time of takbīr, talking

accidentally during prayer, and so forth (al-‘Ulaymī,

1987). This explanation of al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thinking

means that he has relinquished the hegemony of

“ideological interpretation” which often invades the

interpretation of Qur’an and ḥadīth texts in medieval

times (Afwadzi, 2016). In the explanation of ḥadīth,

he emphasizes the basis of his argument on ḥ

adīth

by accommodating various opinions of the imāms of

the schools and not just relying on a particular

school. This kind of understanding arises from the

characteristics of al-Ṣan‘ānī as a Zaydī figure.

Al-Ṣan‘ānī lived in a period of separatism and

turmoil in various aspects, both political, social, and

economic. This problem happens almost in all

Islamic kingdoms, not least in Yemen. In fact, it can

be said that this turmoil occurred in all areas of life

(qad aṣāba kulla shay‘). In addition, in the era of

this reformist Muslim scholar, there was a factional

fanaticism that almost caused him to lose his life (al-

‘Ulaymī, 1987). At al-Ṣan‘ānī time, the Sunnī had

flourished in the Yemen region, and implicated the

intersection between Shī‘ī and Sunnī was very

strong. They competed in various fields, from

theology to politics (King, 2012). In Tawḍīḥ al-

Afkār, al-Ṣan‘ānī cites the opinions of Sunnī Muslim

scholars, for example, Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, Ibn

Ṣalāḥ, al-Khaṭṭābī, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Ḥibbān, and

al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī. Similarly, in Subul al-Salām,

he also cites various opinions from multi-

madhhab,

for instance Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi‘ī, Ḥanbalī,

Dhāhirī, and Hādawī.

Although noted as Shī‘ī figure, it is realized or

not, al-Ṣan‘ānī’s works are accepted and used as a

reference by Sunnī scholars, even in Indonesian

pesantren. One of his works which is often used by

pesantren scholars is Subul al-Salām to describe the

ḥadīths written by Ibn Ḥajar in Bulūgh al-Marām

(Bruinessen, 1999). Similarly, software al-Maktabat

al-Shāmila which is usually identical to the product

of Salafī or Wahhābī also contains his books, such

as Subul al-Salām and Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār.

The Zaydī is also called Hādawiya. In Subul al-

Salām, al-Ṣan‘ānī uses the term. The term is restored

to the founder of the first Zayd

ī dynasty in Yemen,

i.e. Yaḥya b. al-Ḥusayn which has the nickname al-

Hādī. Then, his followers are called Hādawī. In the

country of Yemen, post-al-Ṣan‘ānī, there is also

another prominent Muslim scholar from Zaydī. He is

Muḥammad b. ‘Alī al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834). He

writes Islamic text books, for example, Nayl al-

Auṭār (sharḥ al-ḥadīth), Faṭḥ al-Qadīr (tafsīr), and

Irshād al-Fuḥūl (uṣūl fiqh). These books are

received and widely studied in Indonesian

pesantren, as well as al-Ṣan‘ānī’s works. In the

context of thought, al-Shawkānī refuses the

acceptance of opinion from earlier scholars or taqlīd

to the authority of the religious streams in medieval

times, even he claims to be muṭlaq’s mujtahid.

The anti-taqlīd and unbinding of certain

madhhab

mindset in Zaydī’s thought is similar to the

understanding of Salafī or Wahhābī which is the

most violent of Shī‘ī, although among them there are

two different types of thinking. Hamdeh argues that

Muḥammad Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1420/1999) is

a Salafī figure that strongly rejects taqlīd and against

madhhab. While other figures, such as ‘Abd al-‘Azīz

Ibn Bāz (d. 1420/1999) and Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ al-

‘Uthaymīn (d. 1422/2001) is only anti-taqlīd but not

anti-madhhab, and both of them are Ḥanbalī. Similar

conceptions are also shared by figures who are

regarded as inspirations of the Salafist movement,

such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), Ibn Qayyim al-

Jawziya (d. 775/1350), and Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-

Wahhāb (d. 1206/1792) (Hamdeh, 2017). Imām al-

Ṣan‘ānī is more like the characters in the second

scholars typology.

The reality that Zaydīs works are studied in

Indonesia, especially pesantren and their thoughts

are similar to the Salafī or Wahhābī, who are the

strongest school against the Shī‘ī movement, should

be brought as a provision for reconciliation between

Sunnī and Shī‘

ī to be united and there will be no

prolonged conflict between them.

6 CONCLUSIONS

From the study of Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl al-Kaḥlānī

al-Ṣan‘ānī’s thought, it can be concluded that Zaydī,

which is the Shī‘ī madhhab closest to Sunnī, in

studying the ḥadīth is not bound by certain madhhab

Are Sunn

ı and Sh

ı‘

ı always Clash?: An Examination of ad

ıth Studies in the Zayd

241

and certain sect literature, Zaydī thinking is “free”

and against taqlīd. In accepting and understanding

the ḥadīth, Zaydī accepts only the ḥadīths that are

considered authentic (ṣaḥīḥ). The opinions of others

about isnād and matn of ḥadīth also examined by

Zaydī with own analysis without having

sectarianism, even against his madhhab. This way of

thinking is similar to the way of thinking that existed

among the Salafī or Wahhābī, when the school is the

strongest against the Shī‘ī movement. In addition,

Indonesian Muslim scholars, especially in pesantren

that dominated by Sunnī ideology, accept and study

the works of the Zaydī, such as Subul al-Salām and

Nayl al-Auṭār. The reality should be brought as a

provision for reconciliation between Sunnī and Shī‘ī

madhhab to be united and there will be no prolonged

conflict between them.

REFERENCES

‘Abd al-Ḥamīd, M.M., n.d. Tarjamah al-Ṣan‘ānī. In

M.b.I.A.Ḥ. al-Ṣan‘ānī. Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār li Ma‘ān

Tankīḥ al-Anẓār. Medīna: Maktabat Salafiya.

Abū Zahra, M., 2005. al-Imām Zayd: Ḥayātuhū wa

‘Aṣruhū - Arāuhū wa Fiqhuhū. Cairo: Dār Kutub al-

‘Arabī.

Afdillah, M., 2013. Dari Masjid ke Panggung Politik:

Studi Kasus Peran Pemuka Agama dan Politisi dalam

Konflik Kekerasan Agama antara Komunitas Sunni

dan Syiah di Sampang Jawa Timur. MA Theses.

Yogyakarta: Universitas Gajah Mada.

Afwadzi, B., 2014.

HYPERLINK

"javascript:void(0)"

Wasiat khilāfah pada Ali bin

Abi Thalib: Studi komparatif hadis Ghadīr Khum

dalam tradisi Sunni dan Syiah . Hermeneia: Jurnal

Kajian Islam Interdisipliner, 14(1), pp. 27-49.

Afwadzi, B., 2016.

HYPERLINK

"http://staialanwar.ac.id/jurnal/index.php/itqon/ar

ticle/view/13/0"

Nalar Ideologis Fiqih dalam Tafsir

al-Qur’an: Telaah Konstruksi Tafsir Pada Masa

Abbasiyah . Al-Itqan: Jurnal Studi Al-Qur'an, 2(1).

Aḥmad, ‘A.M.Ṣ., 2011. Kitāb Ijābat al-Sā’il Sharḥ

Bughyat al-Āmil Naẓm al-Kāfil: Dirāsat wa al-Taḥqīq.

MA Theses. Kuala Lumpur Malaysia: Malaya

University.

al-‘Asqalānī, I.Ḥ., n.d. Bulūgh al-Marām Min Adillat al-

Aḥkām. Singapore-Jadda-Indonesia: al-Ḥaramayn.

al-‘Ulaymī, A.M., 1987. al-Ṣan‘ānī wa Kitābuhū Tawdīḥ

al-Afkār. Beirūt and Dubai: Dār Kutub al-‘Ilmiya and

Dār al-Umma.

al-Baghdādī, A.M.‘A.Q.b.Ṭ.b.M., n.d. al-Farq bain al-

Firāq wa Bayān al-Firqat al-Nājiyat Minhum. Cairo:

Maktabat Ibn Sīnā.

al-Bāḥī, S.b.K.b.S.A.W., 1986. al-Ta‘dīl al-Tajrīḥ li Man

Kharraja al-Bukhārī fī Jamī‘ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Riyāḍ: Dār al-

Liwā’ li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī‘.

al-Baṣrī, M.b.S.A.‘A.A., 1968. al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā.

Beirūt: Dār Ṣādir.

al-Bayhaqī, A.B.A.b.Ḥ.b.‘A., 1344 H. al-Sunan al-Kubrā

wa fī dhaylihi al-Jawhar al-Nāqī. Hiederabat: Majlis

al-Dā’irat al-Ma‘ārif al-Niẓāmiyat al-Ka’inat fī al-

Hind bi Buldat Hiederabāt.

al-Bayhaqī, A.B.A.b.Ḥ.b.‘A., 1991. Ma‘rifat al-Sunan wa

al-Athār. Pakistan-Ḥalb-Damascus: Jāmi‘at al-

Dirāsiyat al-Islāmiyah-Dā

r al-Wa‘y-Dār al-Qutayba.

al-Bukhārī, M.b.I.A.‘A, 2005. Kitāb al-Ḍu‘afā’. Maktabat

Ibn ‘Abbās.

al-Dārquṭnī, ‘A.b.‘A., n.d. Sunan al-Dārquṭnī wa bi

Dhay’ihi al-Ta‘līq al-Mughnī ‘alā al-Dārquṭnī. Beirūt:

Mu’assasat al-Risāla.

al-Dhahabī, S.M.b.A., n.da. al-Mughnī fī al-Ḍu‘afā’.

Qatar: Idārat Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-Islāmī.

al-Dhahabī, S.M.b.A., n.db. Mizān al-I‘tidāl fī Naqd al-

Rijāl. Beirūt: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya.

al-Faḍīl, A.b.‘A.K., 1985. Zaydiyat Naẓariyat wa Taṭbīq.

Oman: Jam‘iyyat ‘Ummal al-Maṭābi‘ al-Ta‘āwuniya.

al-Jurjānī, ‘A.b.‘A.A.A., 1997. al-Kāmil fī Ḍu‘afā’ al-

Rijāl. Beirūt: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya.

al-Mizzī, Y.b.Z.‘A.A.Ḥ., 1980. Tahdhīb al-Kamāl Ma‘a

Ḥawāshīhi. Beirūt: Mu’assasat al-Risāla.

al-Qazwaynī, M.b.Y.A.‘A., 2009. Sunan Ibn Māja. Beirūt:

Dār al-Risālat al-‘Ālamiyya.

al-Qurasyī, Ḥ.b.‘A., 2008. Ibn al-Amīr al-Ṣan‘ānī wa

Juhūduhū fī al-Da‘wah wa al-Iḥtisāb. MA Theses.

Mecca: Jāmi‘at al-Imām Muḥammad b. Su‘ūd Saudi

Arabia.

al-Ṣan‘ānī, M.b.I.A.K., 1960. Subul al-Salām. Egypt:

Maktabat al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī.

al-Ṣan‘ānī, M.b.I.A.K., n.da. Subul al-Salām. Semarang:

Toha Putra.

al-Ṣan‘ānī, M.b.I.A.K., n.db. Tawḍīḥ al-Afkār li Ma‘ān

Tankīḥ al-Anẓār. Medina: Maktabat Salafiya.

al-Shawkānī, M.b.‘A., n.d. al-Badr al-Ṭāli‘ bi Maḥāsin

Man Ba‘da al-Qarn al-Sābi‘. Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-

Islāmiya.

al-Shaybānī, A.b.M.b.Ḥ.A.‘A., 1998. Musnad Aḥmad bin

Ḥanbal. Beirūt: ‘Ālam al-Kutub.

al-Siddieqy, H., 1973. Sejarah Perkembangan Hadis.

Jakarta: Bulan Bintang.

al-Ṭabar

ānī, S.b.A.A.Q., n.d. al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr. Cairo:

Maktabat Ibn Taymiya.

al-Wazir, S.Z., 2014. The Theory of Māl among Zaydīs. In

Daftary, & Miskinzoda, G. The Study of Shi‘i Islam:

History, Theology and Law. New York: I.B. Tauris

and Co. Ltd. pp.353-72.

Anonim, n.d. Tarjamah Muallif. In al-Ṣan‘ānī, M.b.I.A.K.

Subul al-Salām. Semarang: Toha Putra.

Anshori, D.S., 2014. Wacana Keagamaan Syiah-Sunni

dalam Majalah Tempo dan Suara Hidayatullah. Litera,

13(1), pp.14-28.

Bastari, A., 2016. Eksistensi Kitab Subul al-Salām sebagai

syarah Kitab Bulūgh al-Marām. Al-Dzikra, 10(1),

pp.65-88.

Bruinessen, M.V., 1999. Kitab Kuning, Pesantren, dan

Tarekat: Tradisi-Tradisi Islam di Indonesia. Jakarta:

Mizan.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

242

Burhanuddin, Y., 2016. Perang Suriah, Jangan Sampai

Salah Tanggap. [Online] Available at:

HYPERLINK "http://persis.or.id/perang-suriah-

jangan-sampai-salah-tanggap"

http://persis.or.id/perang-suriah-jangan-sampai-salah-

tanggap [Accessed 30 June 2018].

Dakake, M.M., 2000. Loyalty, Love, and Faith: Defining

the Boundaries of the Early Shi’ite Community. Ph.D

Dissertation. Princeton: Princeton University.

Ḥallāq, M.Ṣ.Ḥ., 1997. Muqaddimah Muḥaqqiq. In al-

Ṣan‘ānī, M.b.I.A.K. Subul al-Salām. Jadda: Dār Ibn

al-Jawzī.

Hamdeh, E., 2017. Qur’ān and Sunna or the Madhhabs?:

A Salafi Polemic Against Islamic Legal Tradition.

Islamic Law and Society, 24(3), pp.1-42.

Haq, N., 2017. Arab Saudi Berhasil Gagalkan Serangan

Rudal Dari Yaman. [Online] Available at:

HYPERLINK

"https://www.hidayatullah.com/berita/internasion

al/read/2017/11/06/127289/arab-saudi-berhasil-

gagalkan-serangan-rudal-dari-yaman.html"

https://www.hidayatullah.com/berita/internasional/rea

d/2017/11/06/127289/arab-saudi-berhasil-gagalkan-

serangan-rudal-dari-yaman.html [Accessed 30 June

2018].

Hidcom, A., 2016. Yang Perlu Diketahui: Apa Perang

Suriah, Rezim Bashar dan Keterlibatan Syiah.

[Online] Available at:

HYPERLINK

"https://www.hidayatullah.com/spesial/ragam/rea

d/2016/12/20/108058/yang-perlu-diketahui-apa-

perang-suriah-rezim-bashar-dan-keterlibatan-

syiah.html"

https://www.hidayatullah.com/spesial/ragam/read/201

6/12/20/108058/yang-perlu-diketahui-apa-perang-

suriah-rezim-bashar-dan-keterlibatan-syiah.html

[Accessed 30 June 2018].

BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 2057 Hilmy, M., 2015. The Political

Economy of Sunni-Shi'ah Conflict in Sampang

Madura. Al-Jami'ah: Journal of Islamic Studies, 53(1),

pp.27-51.

Himyari, M.R., 2014. Understanding ‘Aql in Readings of

Usūl al-Kāfi: Early Shī‘īte Hadith and its Later

Interpreters. MA Theses. University of Virginia.

Ishaq, T., 2018. Alumni Suriah Tegaskan Konflik di Suriah

Meruncing pada Sunni-Syiah. [Online] Available at:

HYPERLINK

"https://www.kiblat.net/2018/04/08/alumni-

suriah-tegaskan-konflik-di-suriah-meruncing-

pada-sunni-syiah/"

https://www.kiblat.net/2018/04/08/alumni-suriah-

tegaskan-konflik-di-suriah-meruncing-pada-sunni-

syiah/ [Accessed 30 June 2018].

Jurnal, 2017. Cegah Houthi Jadi Syiah Hizbullah,

Pangeran Arab: Perang di Yaman Akan Terus

Berlanjut. [Online] Available at:

HYPERLINK

"https://jurnalislam.com/cegah-houthi-jadi-syiah-

hizbullah-pangeran-arab-perang-di-yaman-akan-

terus-berlanjut/"

https://jurnalislam.com/cegah-

houthi-jadi-syiah-hizbullah-pangeran-arab-perang-di-

yaman-akan-terus-berlanjut/ [Accessed 30 June

2018].

King, J.R., 2012. Zaydī Revival in a Hostile Republic:

Competing Identities, Loyalties and Visions of State in

Republican Yemen. Arabica, 59, pp.404-45.

Mahmud, A., 2014. Adâlat al-Ṣaḥâbah dalam Perpektif

Sunnî dan Shî‘ah. Mutawâtir: Jurnal Keilmuan Tafsir

Hadis, 4(2), pp.324-41.

Mughlaṭāya, ‘A, 2001. Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl. Cairo: al-

Fārūq al-Ḥadīthat li al-Ṭibā‘at wa al-Nahsr.

Nurliana, Nurliana, 2006. Metode Istinbath Hukum

Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Shan’ani dalam Kitab

Subul al-Salam. Al-Fikra: Jurnal Ilmiah Keislaman,

5(2), pp.132-72.

Pamungkas, M.I., Surahman, M., 2015. Fiqih 4 Madzhab.

Jakarta: Al-Makmur.

Shihab, M.Q., 2014. Sunnah-Syiah Bergandengan

Tangan, Mungkinlah?: Kajian atas Konsep Ajaran

dan Pemikiran. Jakarta: Lentera Hati.

Smeer, Z.B., 2011. Kredibilitas Kritik Nashir al-Qifari

terhadap Hadis-Hadis Syi’ah Imamiyah. Jakarta: Arifa

Publising.

Suryadilaga, M.A., 2009. Konsep Ilmu dalam Kitab

Hadis: Studi atas Kitab al-Kafī Karya al-Kulaynī.

Yogyakarta: Teras.

Are Sunn

ı and Sh

ı‘

ı always Clash?: An Examination of ad

ıth Studies in the Zayd

243