The case studies in Chapters 3 through 5 offer us a substantive basis for evaluating the validity of the sectarian narratives identified in Chapter 1. Recall that the classical view of the origins of Shī‘ī identity which is largely drawn from the heresiographical sources (1) assumes the emergence of an Imāmī identity in the early 2nd/8th century and (2) asserts that Zaydism resulted from the union of two strains of Kūfan Shī‘ism (Batrism and Jārūdism) around the 122/740 revolt of Zayd b. ‘Alī.

A Broad Assessment

The results of all three of our comparisons support the first claim, as the Imāmīs exhibit a notable independence with respect to authorities, transmitters, and narrative forms. In the limited instances where they share a transmitter with one of the other sects (e.g., Ḥabīb b. Qays cited by both the Imāmīs and the Sunnīs), each group utilizes the given transmitter in considerably different chains of transmission. Even in cases where the Imāmīs hold views similar to those of the Sunnīs and Zaydīs (e.g., the general prohibition of khamr), they still quote their own authorities through distinct transmitters in unique narrative styles. If an Imāmīidentity only crystallized in the mid- or late 2nd/8th century, we would expect the group’s literature to include a substantial number of early overlaps with other groups. This is not the case.