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
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
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
¯
ı
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
¯
ı
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
¯
ı
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
¯
ı
243