Legitimacy of the 3 califs

Peace be upon you, I have a sincere question regarding the Zaydi position on the legitimacy of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān, especially in light of Imam ʿAlī’s conduct. I have noticed that many responses on this website  affirm that the stance of the zaydi and ijmah of the ahlulbayt is to remain silent regarding the first three caliphs. However I would like clarification on whether the following understanding is considered valid within Zaydi doctrine regarding the legitimacy of their caliphate/rule itself:1. Imam ʿAlī believed the khilāfah was his right, yet:• He cooperated with the first three caliphs,• He ultimately gave bayʿah,• He advised and supported the state when needed,Does this not indicate that their rule was Islamically valid (even if not the most ideal)?Otherwise, it would imply that Imam ʿAlī knowingly supported illegitimate rulers and allowed the affairs of Islam to remain in their hands — which seems difficult to reconcile with his character and duty as Imam.2. I am also aware that in Zaydi doctrine the Imams do not practice taqiyya, and therefore we cannot explain Imam ʿAlī’s silence or cooperation as fear. This is further supported by his own words in Nahj al-Balāghah, Sermon 5:“If I speak out, they would say I am greedy for power, and if I keep quiet they would say I fear death. By Allah, the son of Abū Ṭālib is more familiar with death than an infant is with the breast of its mother. I possess hidden knowledge…” This strongly suggests that if Imam ʿAlī believed action was religiously necessary, he would have acted. Given this, how is his extended patience with the first three caliphs to be understood if their authority was truly illegitimate?3. If the Imamate is restricted to the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, then:• Why did Imam ʿAlī not publicly and explicitly designate Imam al-Ḥasan as a binding successor over the ummah?• Does this not suggest that public acceptance, capability, and outward rise (khurūj and qudrāh) play a validating role in leadership in Zaydi theory?4. Why did Imam ʿAlī participate in the Shūrā established by ʿUmar, if the entire process was religiously illegitimate to begin with?5. Historically, Imam ʿAlī later raised the sword when it became necessary during his own caliphate, and Imam al-Ḥusayn rose against Yazīd when he judged his rule illegitimate.Therefore my question is:If the first three caliphs were truly illegitimate usurpers, why did Imam ʿAlī not rise against them as he later fought in Jamal and Ṣiffīn, and as Imam al-Ḥusayn rose against Yazīd?6. Additionally, in Zaydi thought wilāyah of Imam ʿAlī is often described as obligatory. My question here is:How can wilāyah be considered obligatory in a binding political sense when Imam ʿAlī united with the ummah, cooperated with rulers under whom there was no such wilāyah, and remained silent about his own khilāfah for the sake of unity?If wilāyah were divinely mandatory in the Twelver sense, this course of action appears difficult to reconcile.7. Finally, regarding Ghadīr Khumm:• Is it a valid Zaydi interpretation that Ghadīr represents an implicit recommendation or affirmation of virtue (faḍīlah) for Imam ʿAlī,• Rather than a clear, binding political designation (naṣṣ) to the caliphate? Taking all of this together, is it a valid Zaydi conclusion that:  The caliphate of the first three was valid in legality (ṣaḥīḥ), though Imam ʿAlī was superior and more deserving — and that his patience, silence, and cooperation affirm their political legitimacy even if he held himself to be the most rightful?Also I would like to clarify, would I be right in saying that the zaydi thought does not believe that the first 3 imams (Imam Ali , imam Hassan, imam Hussein) are divinely appointed from god and divine proofs from god like in the twelver sense? As in they are appointed (explicitly or implicitly) from the prophet SAW based on their recommendations in their favour such as ghadeer , but are not hujat al allah?I would sincerely appreciate clarification based on early Zaydi authorities. May Allah reward you

As-salāmu ʿalaykum,
The questions you have raised have long been addressed in the writings of our Aʾimmah, alayhim as-salam.
You should understand that these discussions are not new; they have been repeated from the time of the rule of the Shaykhayn until today.

You are not the first to ask them.

The Family of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa ala alihi made their objection to the Imamate of the Shaykhayn and others known very early on, and this is something acknowledged by both Shīʿa and Sunnī scholars.

It is important to grasp the following:

Every firqah (school or sect) in Islam has its own methodology, reasoning, and inherited tradition. The Qurʾān is the one unifying foundation, while aḥādīth and historical accounts are open to interpretation and debate. What distinguishes each group is the sources through which they form their understanding.
• The Sunnīs base their view on the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, and the interpretations of select Ṣaḥābah and select people who followed them.
• The Imāmiyyah rely on the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, and the narrations of the Twelve Imams, and do not accept others as authoritative sources.
• The Zaydiyyah, by contrast, follow the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, and the full body of teachings from the Ahl al-Bayt, Hasanid or Husaynid, alayhim as-salam.

Each group thus develops its doctrinal understanding according to the methodology it upholds.

If you believe in the leadership and guidance of the general Ahl al-Bayt alayhim as-salam then Zaydism is the natural path to follow.

If you do not accept their leadership, then much of this discussion becomes meaningless for you, because the entire debate rests on the centrality of their authority and methodology in the first place.

Here an excerpt which gives the understanding of our Aimmah alayhim as-salam on these questions, it is from the Book al-Di3aamah fi al-Imamah by one of our great Imams, Abu Talib Yahya Ibn al-Hussain alayhi as-salam:

[The Reason the Commander of the Faithful Refrained From Fighting Those Who Disputed His Right]
Question:
They said: Why did he not demand his own right and fight to prevail over them, as he later did with the people of the Camel, the followers of Muʿāwiya, and the Khārijites?
Had he done so, the Banū Hāshim and many of Quraysh would have supported him. He is not someone who could be accused of weakness or negligence.

Answer:
It is said: He refrained from doing so for two reasons, each of which on its own would suffice as an excuse:
1. The scarcity of supporters and helpers.
2. Fear of a great turmoil that would harm Islam.

We know that what the Imams undertake falls under enjoining good and forbidding evil, and that this obligation depends on the presence of two conditions which, as we explained, were absent:
• One: actual ability and empowerment,
• Two: That one does not think it will lead to a greater corruption than the evil being addressed.

Reports indicate that both conditions were lacking in that circumstance.

When al-ʿAbbās came urging him to rise up and said:
“Extend your hand so I may pledge allegiance to you. If people hear that the uncle of the Messenger of Allah has pledged allegiance to his nephew, none will oppose you,”
he turned him away, saying:
“If only my uncle Ḥamza were alive, or my brother Jaʿfar remained…”
By mentioning them he indicated his need for the support of people like them, and that he did not trust that al-ʿAbbās alone was strong enough to stand with him if he rose.

And when Abū Sufyān came offering to pledge allegiance and urging him to seize the moment to oppose the others, he said:
“O Abū Sufyān, how long have you sought turmoil within Islam?”
indicating that Abū Sufyān’s intent was to stir up discord, not to sincerely support him.

As for those who opposed Abū Bakr such as Saʿd and the other Anṣār they were seeking authority for themselves, so how could he rely on them for victory?

If this is established, then it is also established that he acted only in ways justified for him, and that he considered in these matters what religion required not being driven by personal desires thus the objection falls away.

Question:
They said: Since he was not able to fight them, why did he not openly show separation and opposition? Why did he appear as part of their group accepting them and praying behind them?

Answer:
He did show opposition and disapproval, as much as was possible and appropriate at different times.
His first display of dissent was delaying his pledge of allegiance for a long period.
Although people disagree on how long, all agree it was a significant delay. It is well known that he was always the first to good deeds and never slow in them.

When ʿUmar was given the pledge, he also delayed until he was summoned, and reports on this are well known.
So in that situation he expressed his disagreement sometimes by delaying the pledge, sometimes by turning away because he could not do more at that time.

As for his objection to ʿUthmān:
His open disagreement when ʿUthmān exiled Abū Dharr and forbade anyone to escort him, and committed other actions the Muslims rejected is too well-known to require repeating.
He even went so far as to apply the ḥadd punishment on al-Walīd b. ʿUqba when ʿUthmān refused to apply it, saying:
“No limit set by Allah will be lost while I am present.”

What proves that he judged his opposition based on what was possible is that he adjusted the level of public objection according to circumstances.
When the rulers were stronger, people inclined toward them, and their followers were numerous, he limited his objection to delaying the pledge and showing disapproval.

But in ʿUthmān’s later days, when his authority weakened, his actions angered the Muslims, many companions parted from him, and prominent figures opposed him like Ibn Masʿūd and ʿAmmār, and even Ṭalḥa and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf then ʿAlī found an opportunity to speak up. He would confront ʿUthmān, reply to him, and rebuke him in ways that upset him.

At that time he would even vent what he held in his heart regarding the earlier leaders, saying:
“I have been wronged ever since the Messenger of Allah passed away.”
and:
“When did doubt ever arise concerning the first (in merit)?”
and similar remarks.

This all shows that he continuously rejected what the earlier ones had done, but he manifested his rejection in a way appropriate to the circumstances and his level of ability.

As for the question of why he accepted certain roles from them:
This is asked by someone unaware of what happened.
There is no disagreement that he never undertook any task under them that required accepting an official appointment, nor did they want that from him.
He only did what was personally required of him, actions of enjoining good and forbidding evil, such as guarding Medina at certain times, defending the sanctuary of the Prophet and protecting himself and his family.

As for the question about his praying behind them:
This has no bearing on the matter.
An Imām may pray behind someone else, especially if there is an excuse. Preceding or following in prayer does not prove or negate Imamate.
This question only becomes relevant in discussions about whether the previous rulers were sinful or misguided.

One might say: “The Ahl al-Bayt unanimously held that prayer behind a sinner is invalid; if he considered them sinners, he would not have prayed behind them.”
But this issue is separate from the topic of the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful.

Different Shīʿī groups address it according to their own principles.

[Why ʿAlī Entered the Council (Shūrā)]

Question:
Why did he act in a way that might suggest he was not divinely appointed such as entering among the group in the shūrā, or saying to Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr: “You pledged allegiance to me, then you broke it,” arguing with them using the pledge rather than the text (of designation), and why he did not respond to al-ʿAbbās when he said, “Extend your hand so I may pledge allegiance to you,” as if pledging would contradict a divine appointment?

Answer:

None of these things imply that he was not divinely designated.

As for entering the shūrā:
It was the means by which he could publicly present the texts designating him and the evidence for his Imamate and superiority before that large assembly.

Had he not entered, how could he present those proofs?
Thus entering the shūrā served to remove ambiguity, not create it.

Another reason:
He likely judged that through participation he might regain his right and be able to fully perform enjoining good and forbidding evil.
An Imām may pursue such ends by any means that is not blameworthy.

And if this act could be criticized only on grounds of “creating mistaken impressions,” we have explained that it actually achieved the opposite.

As for his arguing with Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr on the basis of their breaking the pledge rather than on the text of designation:
He wanted to hold them to something they could not deny.

They acknowledged the pledge; they did not acknowledge the text of designation.

So how could he argue with them on that basis?

He addressed them from the angle that left no room for dispute.

As for his saying to al-ʿAbbās “Extend your hand so I may pledge allegiance to you”:
This does not contradict designation.
It is common practice that the one appointed still receives a pledge of allegiance, which affirms his authority.

Do you not see that Abū Bakr’s designation of ʿUmar did not prevent people from pledging allegiance to him?

And because ʿAlī was designated, al-ʿAbbās began by saying “Extend your hand so I may pledge allegiance to you.”
He did not say, “Let a group from Banū Hāshim gather and choose you.”

Al-ʿAbbās was not someone ignorant of the nature of Imamate.

Had it been established through selection and contract, he would have mentioned consultation.

Thus he too was working from the premise of divine designation.

Question:
Why did he not nullify their rulings once he assumed authority?

Answer:
The simplest response that invalidates this question is:
It is not obligatory to nullify the rulings of everyone who is not an Imām.

This is only permissible under specific conditions.

The validity of a ruling does not prove the Imamate of the one who issued it.

This is sufficient to dismiss the objection, because it is irrelevant to the topic at hand and only relates to discussions about the previous rulers.

Furthermore, even if he wished to overturn some of their rulings, he could not.
Many of his supporters still inclined toward those previous rulers and believed in their merit.
He could not be sure that overturning their rulings would not cause turmoil and disorder in his own time.
When things are like this, the Imām is not obligated to nullify past acts.

His duty is to avoid actions that would lead to corruption in the present.

This is no different from the Prophet’s practice of winning over hearts, which Allah commanded by allocating portions of charity to certain individuals.
If this is understood, the invalidity of their objection becomes clear.

[End of Quote]

Regarding your third question:
The absence of a direct nass (designation) through Imam ʿAlī alayhi as-salam does not imply a lack of proof for the Imamate of al-Ḥasan or his brother al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them).

According to the Zaydī understanding of Imamate, a direct nass from the predecessor is possible but not obligatory.
As for your suggestion that public acceptance, capability, and outward action should serve as the validating criteria for leadership, I am not entirely sure what you intend by that. Certainly, all of these factors play a role, but they are not the sole determinants.

Regarding the nass for al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, it is established in our view through the Qurʾān and the Sunnah, providing clear evidence of their Imamate.

Excerpt from the same book:
Discussion on the Imamate of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn after the Commander of the Faithful alayhim as-salam in that order
If someone says: What proves their Imamate?

It is said to him: There are many proofs:

One of them is that what we have already established regarding the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful after the Messenger of Allah shows that whoever affirms the Imamate of ʿAlī in that circumstance must also affirm the Imamate of the two of them, in that order, after the Commander of the Faithful.

To deny their Imamate after affirming the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful after the Messenger of Allah is unanimously invalid.

Another proof:
The fundamental principles of Imamate regarding the lineage through which Imamate is established require universal agreement on their Imamate.

The reasons for this are as follows:
The basis of Imamate must be one of four things:
1. Explicit designation (naṣṣ),
2. Public invitation/claim (daʿwah),
3. Contract (ʿaqd),
4. Or something equivalent to it, such as the consent of the people of authority (ahl al-ḥall waʾl-ʿaqd), as our Muʿtazilī companions maintain.
Those who uphold designation do not differ regarding the Imamate of the two of them even if the evidence has shown that the form of designation claimed by the Imāmiyyah is invalid.

As for invitation (daʿwah): it was issued by both of them, and the following of the people of authority was valid, and their acceptance of them was manifest.

Thus, according to all these considerations, it becomes necessary that all parties agree on their Imamate alayhima as-salam.

[END OF QUOTE]

As for the Wilayah of Imam ʿAlī alayhi as-salam, it is firmly established through the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, and the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). In other words, the matter is settled, and there is no alternative except to accept it.

Your conclusion, however, does not reflect a valid Zaydī position; in fact, it resembles a Sunni perspective.

And the truth is the opposite: The Ahl al Bayt alayhim as-salam and their followers the Zaydis affirm the divine appointment of ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn alayhim as-salam through specific designations (nass), and after them, the Imamate is established through a general designation of all the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).

From al-Asas:
The entire Ahl al-Bayt alayhim as-salam and the Shīʿa: The Imām after the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam is, without interruption, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib alayhi as-salam then al-Ḥasan, then al-Ḥusayn alayhima as-salam.

[END OF QUOTE]

If the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam appoints someone as the leader of the Ummah, whether explicitly or implicitly, then this appointment is, by its very nature, a divinely sanctioned designation.

So, the validity of the Imamate of the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) and Uthman is not a valid zaydi position. The Zaydis do not deem their Imamate as valid. 

As for divine appointment, we believe in it.

Next time, please formate your text better.

Wa salam!

Wa ʿalaykum as-salām,

Thank you again for your previous response.

To claify, I belong to a twelver background. Recently, i have been researching different secs and overall history, as i have been questioning my own beleifs. I have been leaning to the zaydiya recently as the concept of immamah makes more sense espcially for after imam Hussein AS. However, I still have some question regarding the califs and the idea of the first 3 being divinely appointed.Therefore, I would like to narrow the discussion to a few central logical issues that remain unresolved for me. My intention is not to debate creed, but to understand how these positions are meant to cohere in practice and principle.

1. Why Did Imam ʿAlī Not Publicly Proclaim His Divine Ḥujjah to the Masses?

You explained earlier that Imam ʿAlī debated Ṭalḥah and al-Zubayr using their pledge (bayʿah) rather than his divine designation, because they denied the text.But this raises a deeper problem, we do find reports where Imam ʿAlī argued for his right to the khilāfah based on:

• His precedence in Islam,
• His merit,
• His close kinship to the Prophet SAW,

Yet we do not find him openly proclaiming a binding, divine political ḥujjah to the public masses in the way one would expect if Imamate were a core pillar like ṣalāh or tawḥīd.
So my question is:
If Imam ʿAlī possessed a binding divine political designation (ḥujjah), why did he not proclaim it openly and decisively to the entire Ummah as an obligation upon their faith, in a way which was undeniable and would leave no room for disagreement like the prophet SAW preached about tawheed— rather than consistently arguing through merit, kinship, or pledge?

If a divine ḥujjah is truly binding on the Ummah, then:
• It cannot remain restricted to elite debates,
• Nor be replaced by practical or contractual arguments.

2. Unity While a “Core Pillar of Faith” Is Allegedly Compromised

It is claimed that:
• Wilāyah is a core pillar of dīn, and
• That belief in it is obligatory upon the Ummah.

But at the same time, Imam ʿAlī:

• United with the Ummah under rulers without this wilāyah,
• Preserved their political and religious authority,
• And treated communal unity as the overriding priority.

This leads to an unavoidable contradiction:how can unity be prioritised over a core pillar of faith, if that pillar is truly on the level of ṣalāh, zakāh, or tawḥīd?

If ṣalāh were abolished publicly, Imam ʿAlī would not compromise for unity.
So the question becomes: is wilāyah truly a foundational pillar of dīn in the same sense — or is it a high-ranking virtue and right whose enforcement is politically conditional? Because Imam ʿAlī’s conduct clearly matches the second far more than the first.

Otherwise, we are left with the idea that the ummah lived upon an incomplete dīn for 25+ years, under the imams presence, yet this was still preserved and protected by the very Imam whose wilāyah was being denied — which seems theologically incoherent.

3. The Zaydī Critique of the Twelvers in the case of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq

Zaydīs often argue against the Twelvers that if Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq truly possessed a binding divine designation for a specific hidden successor, he would have been religiously obligated to proclaim it openly, because a divine ḥujjah cannot be concealed.

My question is: Why does this exact same principle not apply to Imam ʿAlī himself?
If:

• A divine ḥujjah must be openly proclaimed,
• And concealment invalidates binding authority,

Then:
Why is Imam ʿAlī’s long public silence about a binding political nāṣṣ not treated with the same logical standard applied to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq?

It seems logically inconsistent to:
• Reject Twelver hidden designation on these grounds,
• While maintaining divine political designation for Imam ʿAlī that was never enforced publicly as an article of faith upon the masses.

4. Why Is the Batrī Position Declared “Not a Valid Zaydī View”?

Finally, you stated that my conclusion is “not a valid Zaydī position and resembles a Sunni view”. However, historically the Batrī Zaydīs were among the earliest Zaydī tendencies, they held that:
• Imam ʿAlī was the most virtuous and most deserving,
• Yet the first caliphates were still politically valid, though non-ideal.

So my question is:
On what basis is the Batrī understanding declared “not a valid Zaydī view”?

• Is it being rejected because it is historically false?
• Or because it was later superseded by the Jarūdī school?

Because these are very different claims.

5. Seal of Prophethood

If Allah wanted to carry on sending divine appointees, what was the point of sealing prophethood? If its to be said that the divinely apoointed imams role was to protect and carry on the mesage of the prophet Muahmmad SAW, then when we look in history, it is clear that there were prophets that had the same role such as prophet Haroon, Ilyas, Al-Yasa, Dhul-Kifl, Zakariyya. So, it leads me to ask:

-  What is the purpose of the seal of prophethood
- What is the difference in the role of a divinely appointed imam and a prophet

Side question: I have never understood, even from the twelver side, if a sect, such as zaydi or twelver, beleives that wilayah of imam Ali AS is wajib upon a beleiver, how do the scholars call sunni muslims, permit marrying into them, praying behind them? As they dont accept wilayah, which is calimed to be a core pillar of faith, that would make their din incompelete and essencially  a kafir. So on what basis are we allowed to pray behind a sunni imam? 
 
Jazakallah, I appreciate your responses to help me better understand zaydiya.

Thank you again for your previous response.

You're welcome.

To claify, I belong to a twelver background. Recently, i have been researching different secs and overall history, as i have been questioning my own beleifs. I have been leaning to the zaydiya recently as the concept of immamah makes more sense espcially for after imam Hussein AS. However, I still have some question regarding the califs and the idea of the first 3 being divinely appointed.Therefore, I would like to narrow the discussion to a few central logical issues that remain unresolved for me. My intention is not to debate creed, but to understand how these positions are meant to cohere in practice and principle.

Thank you for clarifying your intention and your background. Guidance can only be attained when a person genuinely questions and examines their beliefs, and we Zaydīs actually require this process of inquiry and investigation in matters of ʿaqīdah in order for someone to become a true muʾmin. In this respect, we share common ground with our brothers from the Muʿtazila.Also keep in mind that many theological terms used within the Imāmiyya may carry different meanings or implications in other Islamic schools.

1. Why Did Imam ʿAlī Not Publicly Proclaim His Divine Ḥujjah to the Masses?
You explained earlier that Imam ʿAlī debated Ṭalḥah and al-Zubayr using their pledge (bayʿah) rather than his divine designation, because they denied the text.But this raises a deeper problem, we do find reports where Imam ʿAlī argued for his right to the khilāfah based on:
• His precedence in Islam,
• His merit,
• His close kinship to the Prophet SAW,
Yet we do not find him openly proclaiming a binding, divine political ḥujjah to the public masses in the way one would expect if Imamate were a core pillar like ṣalāh or tawḥīd.
So my question is:
If Imam ʿAlī possessed a binding divine political designation (ḥujjah), why did he not proclaim it openly and decisively to the entire Ummah as an obligation upon their faith, in a way which was undeniable and would leave no room for disagreement like the prophet SAW preached about tawheed— rather than consistently arguing through merit, kinship, or pledge?
If a divine ḥujjah is truly binding on the Ummah, then:
• It cannot remain restricted to elite debates,
• Nor be replaced by practical or contractual arguments.

No, that seems to be a misunderstanding.None of our Aʾimmah, ʿalayhim al-salām, ever proclaimed the wilāyah of Imām ʿAlī, ʿalayhi al-salām, as a condition (sharṭ) for being Muslim. It is a matter of creed (masʾalah ʿaqāʾidiyyah), one in which there is only one correct position and the truth is certain (qaṭʿī), if research is done properly. However, being mistaken in this matter does not expel someone from Islam, nor does it constitute fisq (sinfulness).Therefore, belonging to another madhhab and believing in the imamate of Abū Bakr or anyone else does not make a person a kāfir. Although the imamate of ʿAlī, ʿalayhi al-salām, is established through proof, it is not one of the pillars of the religion such that rejecting it would take someone out of Islam. This is precisely why the Imām did not need to declare it publicly to the masses.As for secondary reasons regarding why he may not have spoken about it more frequently, there could be many. But these are secondary considerations. Whether he proclaimed it or not does not change the evidences, Qur’ān, Sunnah, and the consensus of the ʿItra, ʿalayhim al-salām, which establish his imamate according to the Zaydiyya.To put it differently: you are questioning historical reports (which may not be accurate), while the foundational proofs for his imamate are based on scripture and transmitted principles.In summary:

• Wilāyah is not a pillar in Zaydī theology, unlike in Imāmī doctrine.
• It is a theological issue (masʾalah ʿaqāʾidiyyah).
• The concept of imamate itself is part of the uṣūl al-dīn.
• Your question is about historical events, which are secondary to the core theological principles.

 

2. Unity While a “Core Pillar of Faith” Is Allegedly Compromised
It is claimed that:
• Wilāyah is a core pillar of dīn, and
• That belief in it is obligatory upon the Ummah.
But at the same time, Imam ʿAlī:
• United with the Ummah under rulers without this wilāyah,
• Preserved their political and religious authority,
• And treated communal unity as the overriding priority.
This leads to an unavoidable contradiction:how can unity be prioritised over a core pillar of faith, if that pillar is truly on the level of ṣalāh, zakāh, or tawḥīd?
If ṣalāh were abolished publicly, Imam ʿAlī would not compromise for unity.
So the question becomes: is wilāyah truly a foundational pillar of dīn in the same sense — or is it a high-ranking virtue and right whose enforcement is politically conditional? Because Imam ʿAlī’s conduct clearly matches the second far more than the first.
Otherwise, we are left with the idea that the ummah lived upon an incomplete dīn for 25+ years, under the imams presence, yet this was still preserved and protected by the very Imam whose wilāyah was being denied — which seems theologically incoherent.

That is also addressed in my earlier response.

3. The Zaydī Critique of the Twelvers in the case of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq
Zaydīs often argue against the Twelvers that if Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq truly possessed a binding divine designation for a specific hidden successor, he would have been religiously obligated to proclaim it openly, because a divine ḥujjah cannot be concealed.
My question is: Why does this exact same principle not apply to Imam ʿAlī himself?
If:
• A divine ḥujjah must be openly proclaimed,
• And concealment invalidates binding authority,
Then:
Why is Imam ʿAlī’s long public silence about a binding political nāṣṣ not treated with the same logical standard applied to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq?
It seems logically inconsistent to:
• Reject Twelver hidden designation on these grounds,
• While maintaining divine political designation for Imam ʿAlī that was never enforced publicly as an article of faith upon the masses.

I am not familiar with these supposed Zaydī arguments against the Jaʿfarīs. Perhaps you have witnessed certain discussions, but I can clarify the following:The argument that “if Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq had a binding divine designation for a specific hidden successor, he would have been religiously obligated to announce it openly, since a divine ḥujjah cannot be concealed” does not reflect an authentic Zaydī position. If a Zaydī made this claim, then he made an error.First, according to the Zaydiyya, after the Ahl al-Kisā’ there is no divinely mandated designation (naṣṣ) for any specific individual. That is our established doctrine. Therefore, the very question, “If Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq had a divine designation…”, is itself invalid from a Zaydī standpoint.Where would such a designation come from?

• From the Qur’an? He is not mentioned there.
• From the Sunnah? He is not mentioned there either.
• From the ijmāʿ of the Ahl al-Bayt, ʿalayhim al-salām? There is no such ijmāʿ affirming him as the legitimate imam of his time.

If he had a designation from his father, then that would be a personal appointment, not a divine one.The entire concept of “divine designation” as understood within the Imāmiyya is built on the belief that the Imams are divinely appointed representatives of Allah, and that their appointment itself carries divine authority. We Zaydīs do not hold this belief. 

4. Why Is the Batrī Position Declared “Not a Valid Zaydī View”?
Finally, you stated that my conclusion is “not a valid Zaydī position and resembles a Sunni view”. However, historically the Batrī Zaydīs were among the earliest Zaydī tendencies, they held that:
• Imam ʿAlī was the most virtuous and most deserving,
• Yet the first caliphates were still politically valid, though non-ideal.
So my question is:
On what basis is the Batrī understanding declared “not a valid Zaydī view”?
• Is it being rejected because it is historically false?
• Or because it was later superseded by the Jarūdī school?

Because these are very different claims.

That is because, as I said, we do not follow al-Abtar. His views were his own and those of his followers, and we regard them as misguided.What defines a Zaydī is adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt, ʿalayhim as-salām. The Ahl al-Bayt themselves did not hold this opinion, nor are they followers of anyone, they are the ʿItrah, ʿalayhim as-salām. They lead, and we follow.While historical accounts are important, they are not ultimately decisive because they rely on transmission and can as such be full of error. The Prophet, ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihī wa sallam, commanded us to hold fast to his ʿItrah, ʿalayhim as-salām, and that is precisely what we as Zaydīs do by following the entire Ahl al-Bayt, whether Hasanid or Husaynid.Therefore, what al-Abtar said, or what Abū al-Jārūd, al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik, Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq, ʿAṭā’, ʿIkrimah, Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿUmar, or Abū Bakr said, does not determine our doctrine. We were commanded to hold fast to the Thaqalayn (the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt), and that is the foundation of our position.This is our stance. 

5. Seal of Prophethood
If Allah wanted to carry on sending divine appointees, what was the point of sealing prophethood? If its to be said that the divinely apoointed imams role was to protect and carry on the mesage of the prophet Muahmmad SAW, then when we look in history, it is clear that there were prophets that had the same role such as prophet Haroon, Ilyas, Al-Yasa, Dhul-Kifl, Zakariyya. So, it leads me to ask:
-  What is the purpose of the seal of prophethood
- What is the difference in the role of a divinely appointed imam and a prophet

The Imamate is an important institution because it is needed to implement the Sharīʿah and uphold justice. For this reason, all Islamic sects affirm the concept of imamate, differing only on who the rightful imam is.Except for the Ahl al-Kisā’, imams are not individually and explicitly designated through divine revelation. Rather, they are identified based on the conditions and criteria provided in the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the Ahl al-Bayt.An imam is not a lesser prophet, nor does he possess a prophetic form of divine connection, this is not his role. The religion has already been completed and perfected; the imam’s function is to lead the community in upholding truth, Sharīʿah, and justice. 

Side question: I have never understood, even from the twelver side, if a sect, such as zaydi or twelver, beleives that wilayah of imam Ali AS is wajib upon a beleiver, how do the scholars call sunni muslims, permit marrying into them, praying behind them? As they dont accept wilayah, which is calimed to be a core pillar of faith, that would make their din incompelete and essencially  a kafir. So on what basis are we allowed to pray behind a sunni imam? 

As I stated earlier, we do not consider this to be a pillar whose denial removes anyone from the fold of Islam.
Regarding the Imāmīs, if I had to guess, I would say that they distinguish between being a legal Muslim and being a muʾmin (a true believer).
In fact, this distinction is made, though in different ways, by all Islamic sects.

Jazakallah, I appreciate your responses to help me better understand zaydiya.

wa iyyak. I hope this clarified some misconceptions.

wa salam

Oh so to clarify, the imam Ali is not a proof from Allah in the same way a prophet is?
So rejecting his imamah is not the same as rejecting the prophet Muhammed who IS a proof from Allah?
The imams role is simply to guide the community and establish justice, but does not possess any divine knowledge to guide the community, as in they don’t act based on the divine knowledge Allah may have gave them but rather on their knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah received from their forefathers up to prophet Muhammed?
Jazakallah

wa iyyak brother,

exactly, you have understood the zaydi position.

wa salam