Imamate and Genealogical Legitimacy: Imāmīyyah, Zaidīyyah and Mu'tazilah Controversy

The following article is a continuation of another article about genealogical legitimacy and its effect on the theory of Imamate.  While in the previous article, the inconsistencies between the pre-Islamic genealogical culture of the Arabs and the issue of the transfer of the Imamate of Ali and his descendants were investigated, in this article, the difference between the Imāmīyyah and the Zaidīyyah in the genealogical explanation of the Imamate in the period of the third to fifth century A.H. will be analyzed. It shows that those two groups, in an attempt to explain the chain of imams with a coherent theory, put forward different understandings of the genealogical legitimacy, and based on it, when interpreting the important texts of the Ḥadith of Ṯhaqlayn and the verse of Taṭhīr, as well as the story of Mubāhilah, presented various definitions of the genealogical terms Ahl al-Bayt and 'Itrat". Regarding the mixing of Mu'tazila with Shiites and their participation in these discussions, the opinion of Qāzī 'Abdul Jabbār Mu'tazilī has also been examined. Finally, it can be said that while in the general attitude of Zaidīyyah, the mechanism of inheritance was accepted based on the concept of Zurrīyyah as the basis of genealogical legitimacy, Imāmīyyah In order to explain the chain of imams, which usually but not always followed the paternal mechanism, also use the criteria of virtue and Naṣṣ.