234 replies to this topic

[zaida]

macisaac, on 11 February 2008 - 09:56 PM, said:

I'm not aware of any books in English that are specifically about the Zaydiyya.  The material I have is in Arabic that I was able to find in Qum (and even there, there isn't much to be found in terms edited/published material unless you're in Yemen, I'd suppose).  Now, if you can read Arabic, Shaykh Ja`far Subhani has a series of works on different madhahib which are pretty in depth, with discussion on the Zaydiyya in the seventh volume of said work:

http://rafed.net/boo...al-7/index.html

As to the Mu`tazila, they are a largely extinct school of kalam (theology) that at one point were the "officially" promoted school of theology amongst the non-Shia (saying "Sunni" at this point isn't all that accurate as Sunnism didn't yet exist then in its current forms), and which received patronage by a number of the `Abbasid rulers.  Shahid Mutahhari goes over some of their beliefs (as well as those of the Asharites (dominant school of Sunni kalam) and of the Imami (Twelver) Shi`as) in this article:

http://www.muslimphi...om/ip/kalam.htm

Give it a read.  The Zaydis largely adopted the Mu`tazila positions in kalam, though in addition to their specific beliefs in Imama as they define it.

Anyhow akh, I think it's a good thing to want to be expanding your knowledge beyond the information you've been presented with so far in your contacts with Sunnis such as by learning of the different sects and schools that exist (or have existed).  I hope though, in sha Allah, you'll also go further in studying the beliefs of the Imamiyya, that is, of Twelver Shi`ism.  As someone who has himself studied a number of these sects (and being a convert myself) I can say the answers are in the path of the Ahl al-Bayt of our beloved Prophet , that of the Twelve Ma`sum Imams from `Ali b. Abi Talib to our living Imam of today, al-Mahdi al-Muntazar , may Allah hasten his reappearance.

macisaac, on 11 February 2008 - 09:56 PM, said:

I'm not aware of any books in English that are specifically about the Zaydiyya.  The material I have is in Arabic that I was able to find in Qum (and even there, there isn't much to be found in terms edited/published material unless you're in Yemen, I'd suppose).  Now, if you can read Arabic, Shaykh Ja`far Subhani has a series of works on different madhahib which are pretty in depth, with discussion on the Zaydiyya in the seventh volume of said work:

http://rafed.net/boo...al-7/index.html

As to the Mu`tazila, they are a largely extinct school of kalam (theology) that at one point were the "officially" promoted school of theology amongst the non-Shia (saying "Sunni" at this point isn't all that accurate as Sunnism didn't yet exist then in its current forms), and which received patronage by a number of the `Abbasid rulers.  Shahid Mutahhari goes over some of their beliefs (as well as those of the Asharites (dominant school of Sunni kalam) and of the Imami (Twelver) Shi`as) in this article:

http://www.muslimphi...om/ip/kalam.htm

Give it a read.  The Zaydis largely adopted the Mu`tazila positions in kalam, though in addition to their specific beliefs in Imama as they define it.

Anyhow akh, I think it's a good thing to want to be expanding your knowledge beyond the information you've been presented with so far in your contacts with Sunnis such as by learning of the different sects and schools that exist (or have existed).  I hope though, in sha Allah, you'll also go further in studying the beliefs of the Imamiyya, that is, of Twelver Shi`ism.  As someone who has himself studied a number of these sects (and being a convert myself) I can say the answers are in the path of the Ahl al-Bayt of our beloved Prophet , that of the Twelve Ma`sum Imams from `Ali b. Abi Talib to our living Imam of today, al-Mahdi al-Muntazar , may Allah hasten his reappearance.

Salaam Mc Isaac, I find it interesting that you prefer the 12 imamer version of Islam over the Zaidi one, which doesn't require you to believe in the rather far-fetched ideas of the Hidden Imam and the Infallible Imams.... I prefer the more moderate and logical Zaidi position, in any case, I would like you to visit my blog and put forward the 12 imamer case for the Zaidi audience there, so we can compare and contrast that with Zaidism, if you have time... at www.zaidism.blogspot.com    or if anyone else would like to put forward a convincing and logical argument in favour of  the hidden imam etc.. feel free... w/salaam

I'm inviting people from this page to visit my blog on Zaidism and present the 12-er view (i.e. about the infallible imams and the Hidden Imam) to the Zaidis who are visiting my blog and wanting to know the difference between Zaidism and 12 ism, there are also sunnis on there presenting their perspective, it is good to get a comparison and I don't want to misrepresent your views... w/salaam

[macisaac]

zaida, on 09 July 2010 - 07:34 PM, said:

Salaam Mc Isaac, I find it interesting that you prefer the 12 imamer version of Islam over the Zaidi one, which doesn't require you to believe in the rather far-fetched ideas of the Hidden Imam and the Infallible Imams.... I prefer the more moderate and logical Zaidi position, in any case, I would like you to visit my blog and put forward the 12 imamer case for the Zaidi audience there, so we can compare and contrast that with Zaidism, if you have time... at www.zaidism.blogspot.com    or if anyone else would like to put forward a convincing and logical argument in favour of  the hidden imam etc.. feel free... w/salaam

I'm inviting people from this page to visit my blog on Zaidism and present the 12-er view (i.e. about the infallible imams and the Hidden Imam) to the Zaidis who are visiting my blog and wanting to know the difference between Zaidism and 12 ism, there are also sunnis on there presenting their perspective, it is good to get a comparison and I don't want to misrepresent your views... w/salaam

Salam and welcome to our forum.

The reasons I personally reject the Zaydi madhhab (or more accurately, madhhabs as there have been several in their history) are many.  While I find them a topic of interest, as I find all “Shi`a” sects to be of at least some interest (even if I do not consider them to truly be Shi`a), and while I can understand how they do carry at least a surface layer of appeal, appearing the more rational and moderate in their approach, this breaks down upon further investigation.  Here’s a few quick points to consider.

As to being an Imami, a Twelver, then two clear reasons for adhering to this line to the exclusion of all others would be 1) the direct appointment of the preceding Imam to the next, culminating in the prophesied total of twelve Imams (as found in both Sunni and Shi`i hadiths), giving a continuous stream of divinely appointed authorities on Earth (as befits this especially being the final religion for how else would be it guarded and preserved, especially considering how much fitna, heresies and ikhtilaf we have seen in this umma) and 2) the unparalleled qualifications of each of these twelve, clearly distinguishing them from all their contemporaries, in their piety, their character,  their knowledge, and their miracles.  Even to the point where a Imam who inherited the Imamate as child _still_ carried on the knowledge of his fathers without interruption.
Neither of these two find a match in Zaydism (or Isma`ilism for that matter).  Instead we see the Zaydi dynasties produced little more than petty monarchies, often fighting themselves, even one “Imam” against the other.  For example, the most famous book of Zaydi fiqh is al-Azhar written by one of their Imams, Ahmad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada.  He composed it while he was imprisoned in the qal`a prison of the qasr of San`a.  Thing is, he’d been thrown in jail by another of their “Imams”…  What type of Imamate is that??

Centuries of Zaydi rule left Yemen about one of the most backward and impoverished nations in the Muslim world. Their supposed Imams would declare jihads against other Muslims, particularly the Isma`ilis, if they weren’t busy fighting amongst themselves.  When one studies the knowledge found amongst them, there’s very little of any apparent inheritance of knowledge as you would expect from the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå.  Take for instance their hadith literature.  Or rather, what little of hadiths they have.  You have the very early Amali of `Isa b. Ahmad and you have the Majmu` al-Fiqh attributed to Zayd.  The problem with the latter is that it’s almost certainly a forgery of Abu Khalid `Amr b. Khalid who attributed it to Zayd to give it more weight.  Other than sporadic minor collections, that’s really about it for Zaydi hadiths.  As such, you find they eventually became increasingly dependent on the Sunnis’ collections instead.  Now compare that to the wealth of knowledge as has come down to us through the twelve Imams, with volumes upon volumes filled with their transmitted knowledge on everything from beliefs, tafsir, shari`a, akhlaq and so on, and there’s really little comparison.

Another big problem with Zaydism is that it bears really very little resemblance to the earlier Zaydi madhhabs of yore.  Their current adoption of Mu`tazili kalam came relatively later in their history, being initially very resisted in some quarters.  While because of the Mu`tazili adoption they might appear to be more rationalist nowadays, the earlier Zaydis held onto some pretty weird doctrines that really stretch credulity.  For me what stands out as an example would be the Jarudi belief (and as you might know, for a time the Jarudis were the dominant sect of the Zaydis) that all of the descendants of `Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are equal in knowledge.  Literally.  That is, even a newborn baby contains within him the same amount of knowledge as an elderly `Alawid Shaykh, the knowledge having been transmitted through miraculous means to the entire progeny.  The `Alawid just had to be reminded of what he already knew, I think the theory went.  

The Zaydi fiqh demonstrates to me the weakness of this madhhab and its distance from the actual teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt.  Just to give two examples that set them apart from us Imamis, the Zaydis perform their wudu like the Sunnis, washing the feet.  Also, they consider mut`a to be haram.  Now I pick those two distinguishing examples because from what I believe, each of these are completely opposite what the Ahl al-Bayt in fact taught.  There’s zero doubt that for instance they regarded the practice of mut`a to be halal, as several hadiths with various chains reported from them clearly demonstrate.  And of course we could go into the Quranic proofs for each of these.  But anyhow, I pick these as examples to show the distance between what the Zaydis practice and what the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt actually were.

Doctrinally, numerous Zaydi tenets I find to be very dissatisfying.  For instance the doctrine of implicit nomination of Amir al-Mu’mineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã as opposed to explicit nomination from the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå makes neither intellectual nor traditional sense.  The doctrine of the unrepentant grave sinner, even if Muslim, going to Hell eternally with Allah not being able to ever forgive them is to me very much opposed to the belief in an all-powerful and merciful God.

Anyhow, that’s a few quick thoughts to get us started, in sha Allah ta`ala.

[zaida]

macisaac, on 09 July 2010 - 08:41 PM, said:

Salam and welcome to our forum.

The reasons I personally reject the Zaydi madhhab (or more accurately, madhhabs as there have been several in their history) are many.  While I find them a topic of interest, as I find all “Shi`a” sects to be of at least some interest (even if I do not consider them to truly be Shi`a), and while I can understand how they do carry at least a surface layer of appeal, appearing the more rational and moderate in their approach, this breaks down upon further investigation.  Here’s a few quick points to consider.

As to being an Imami, a Twelver, then two clear reasons for adhering to this line to the exclusion of all others would be 1) the direct appointment of the preceding Imam to the next, culminating in the prophesied total of twelve Imams (as found in both Sunni and Shi`i hadiths), giving a continuous stream of divinely appointed authorities on Earth (as befits this especially being the final religion for how else would be it guarded and preserved, especially considering how much fitna, heresies and ikhtilaf we have seen in this umma) and 2) the unparalleled qualifications of each of these twelve, clearly distinguishing them from all their contemporaries, in their piety, their character,  their knowledge, and their miracles.  Even to the point where a Imam who inherited the Imamate as child _still_ carried on the knowledge of his fathers without interruption.
Neither of these two find a match in Zaydism (or Isma`ilism for that matter).  Instead we see the Zaydi dynasties produced little more than petty monarchies, often fighting themselves, even one “Imam” against the other.  For example, the most famous book of Zaydi fiqh is al-Azhar written by one of their Imams, Ahmad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada.  He composed it while he was imprisoned in the qal`a prison of the qasr of San`a.  Thing is, he’d been thrown in jail by another of their “Imams”…  What type of Imamate is that??

Centuries of Zaydi rule left Yemen about one of the most backward and impoverished nations in the Muslim world. Their supposed Imams would declare jihads against other Muslims, particularly the Isma`ilis, if they weren’t busy fighting amongst themselves.  When one studies the knowledge found amongst them, there’s very little of any apparent inheritance of knowledge as you would expect from the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå.  Take for instance their hadith literature.  Or rather, what little of hadiths they have.  You have the very early Amali of `Isa b. Ahmad and you have the Majmu` al-Fiqh attributed to Zayd.  The problem with the latter is that it’s almost certainly a forgery of Abu Khalid `Amr b. Khalid who attributed it to Zayd to give it more weight.  Other than sporadic minor collections, that’s really about it for Zaydi hadiths.  As such, you find they eventually became increasingly dependent on the Sunnis’ collections instead.  Now compare that to the wealth of knowledge as has come down to us through the twelve Imams, with volumes upon volumes filled with their transmitted knowledge on everything from beliefs, tafsir, shari`a, akhlaq and so on, and there’s really little comparison.

Another big problem with Zaydism is that it bears really very little resemblance to the earlier Zaydi madhhabs of yore.  Their current adoption of Mu`tazili kalam came relatively later in their history, being initially very resisted in some quarters.  While because of the Mu`tazili adoption they might appear to be more rationalist nowadays, the earlier Zaydis held onto some pretty weird doctrines that really stretch credulity.  For me what stands out as an example would be the Jarudi belief (and as you might know, for a time the Jarudis were the dominant sect of the Zaydis) that all of the descendants of `Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are equal in knowledge.  Literally.  That is, even a newborn baby contains within him the same amount of knowledge as an elderly `Alawid Shaykh, the knowledge having been transmitted through miraculous means to the entire progeny.  The `Alawid just had to be reminded of what he already knew, I think the theory went.  

The Zaydi fiqh demonstrates to me the weakness of this madhhab and its distance from the actual teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt.  Just to give two examples that set them apart from us Imamis, the Zaydis perform their wudu like the Sunnis, washing the feet.  Also, they consider mut`a to be haram.  Now I pick those two distinguishing examples because from what I believe, each of these are completely opposite what the Ahl al-Bayt in fact taught.  There’s zero doubt that for instance they regarded the practice of mut`a to be halal, as several hadiths with various chains reported from them clearly demonstrate.  And of course we could go into the Quranic proofs for each of these.  But anyhow, I pick these as examples to show the distance between what the Zaydis practice and what the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt actually were.

Doctrinally, numerous Zaydi tenets I find to be very dissatisfying.  For instance the doctrine of implicit nomination of Amir al-Mu’mineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã as opposed to explicit nomination from the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå makes neither intellectual nor traditional sense.  The doctrine of the unrepentant grave sinner, even if Muslim, going to Hell eternally with Allah not being able to ever forgive them is to me very much opposed to the belief in an all-powerful and merciful God.

Anyhow, that’s a few quick thoughts to get us started, in sha Allah ta`ala.

Salaam McIsaac,
Thanks for your prompt reply. It is much more convincing than the arguments put forward so far by the salafi contingent. Is it ok with you if I copy this into my blog, under the heading, "a defnece 12-er version of Islam by a 12-er convert" or something similar?  Not that I agree with you, but this should provoke an interesting discussion on my blog.... w/salaam

[macisaac]

Salaam,

Sure, but it's really just some quick thoughts I threw together.  It isn't really a vigorous defense of our madhhab and rebuttal of the Zaydis.  That would require a much more thorough and detailed work.  That said, to me the best defense and argument really for the truth of Imamism is simply by looking at their lives and teachings.  Nothing in these other sects really compares or matches up to that.

[zaida]

macisaac, on 09 July 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:

Salaam,

Sure, but it's really just some quick thoughts I threw together.  It isn't really a vigorous defense of our madhhab and rebuttal of the Zaydis.  That would require a much more thorough and detailed work.  That said, to me the best defense and argument really for the truth of Imamism is simply by looking at their lives and teachings.  Nothing in these other sects really compares or matches up to that.

Salaam and thanks! I have just copied and pasted your article on my blog. I had attempted to provide a link to this page, but couldn't make the link work. Also, I am having trouble locating this discussion when I go to Shiachat homepage. I can't see it in the sunni/shia section. Where is it? You can read my response to what you wrote so far at my blog, (www.zaidism.blogspot.com) under the heading "Is Zaidism Successful?" w/salaam

[macisaac]

Salam,

In sha Allah, I'll attempt to respond to your responses :-)

Quote

1.He points out that Yemen, where Zaidism has flourished, is "backward" compare to other nations. But, according to this logic, all Muslims should convert to Christianity because the Muslim nations as a whole are backward compared to the Christian/Western ones.

Dunyawi success certainly is not something I'd consider a valid criterion of Imamate, however since the Imamate in Zaydism is little more than a political office, a monarchy, with religious undertones, it's success in terms of the effects of when it had been able to establish what it would consider the ideal form of governance is a valid question.  And again, looking at Zaydi history in the Yemen (and elsewhere for that matter), it isn't very appealing.  When I look at the beauty and grandeur of this religion, I can't imagine this is what was really intended.

Quote

2. He points out that 12-er Shi-ites have more books than Zaidis. But, isn't quality more important than quantity? The Shi-ite books I have read are mostly (a) about the superhuman qualites of their Imams, or the nayure of the hidden Imam on the green island or wherever he is, or ( philosophical treatises which you need to study shi_ism for 20 years before you can understand them or © harping on about the leadership struggle, whereas Zaidis say, get over it, it happened, let's move on.

Can you read Arabic?  I ask because your description of Imami literature is very off the mark here.  Admittedly the quality of a lot of the _English_ material can be lacking (though since there's almost nothing in English from the Zaydiyya I'm not sure even there's much comparison), but in terms of the Arabic literature again there's no real comparison.  I wasn't only speaking of scholarly output though, but rather the hadiths in particular as have come down through each sect.  In the case of Zaydism there's hardly any.  As I mentioned, there is the Amali and the likely forged Majmu` al-Fiqh.  But neither of these even were enough for the construction of a madhhab so Zaydis had to turn to Sunni methodologies and sources in order to fill the many gaps, both in terms of their fiqh and in terms of their kalam.  Where then is the inheritance of the House of Prophecy?

Even if we ignored all of the output of centuries of Imami scholarship (which is immense), and only kept to the hadiths that have come to us, we'd have more than enough to have a complete vision and understanding of the religion from all of it's angles.  Sadly very little of this has been translated into English, though some of us are trying to rectify this, in sha Allah (you might visit the site in my sig below, tashayyu.org, it's where I've been putting the translations I've been working on, primarily of hadiths, as well as work from some fellow believers.)

Quote

3. He says Zaidis have been busy fighting the Ismailis, but forgot that 12er Shi-ites were busy fighting the Zaidis too. Some say they wiped out an entire Zaidi autonomous nation in Northern Iran, forcing the Zaidis to become 12ers if they wanted to survive.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. How much have you actually studied about the Zaydi Imamates in Iran?  Here, give this a read if you haven't already:

http://www.iranica.c...laman-and-gilan

It's interesting stuff, but not at all what I'd consider role models of piety.  Rather it's a long history of internal fighting, Zaydi against Zaydi, each vying for power and conquering territories or towns, even family members conspiring against one another. Again, is this what you think the Imamate is meant to be about?

Quote

4. Zaidis may be backward compared to other nations, but at least they are not guilty of:
(a) colonising weaker countries and treating their indiginous residents as second class citizens or slaves
( plundering the environment to manufacture useless luxury items which people really don't need
© sending missionaries all over the world to force their views onto others

Again, I'm wondering how much you've actually studied about Zaydi history...  I think you might be very disappointed if you learned about how their imams often conducted themselves when in power or when fighting (even fighting each other) for it.

As to our end, I'm really not terribly interested in trying to justify what some supposedly Imami government has done at whatever points in our history (though for most of that history, there has be _no_ Imami government and we had to live under the regimes of others, including Zaydis).  They aren't my Imams so it's not my purpose to argue about them.  What I would strongly urge you to do is rather to learn about those ones who are my Imams.  You would not regret it.

[zaida]

macisaac, on 10 July 2010 - 11:48 PM, said:

Salam,

In sha Allah, I'll attempt to respond to your responses :-)



Dunyawi success certainly is not something I'd consider a valid criterion of Imamate, however since the Imamate in Zaydism is little more than a political office, a monarchy, with religious undertones, it's success in terms of the effects of when it had been able to establish what it would consider the ideal form of governance is a valid question.  And again, looking at Zaydi history in the Yemen (and elsewhere for that matter), it isn't very appealing.  When I look at the beauty and grandeur of this religion, I can't imagine this is what was really intended.



Can you read Arabic?  I ask because your description of Imami literature is very off the mark here.  Admittedly the quality of a lot of the _English_ material can be lacking (though since there's almost nothing in English from the Zaydiyya I'm not sure even there's much comparison), but in terms of the Arabic literature again there's no real comparison.  I wasn't only speaking of scholarly output though, but rather the hadiths in particular as have come down through each sect.  In the case of Zaydism there's hardly any.  As I mentioned, there is the Amali and the likely forged Majmu` al-Fiqh.  But neither of these even were enough for the construction of a madhhab so Zaydis had to turn to Sunni methodologies and sources in order to fill the many gaps, both in terms of their fiqh and in terms of their kalam.  Where then is the inheritance of the House of Prophecy?

Even if we ignored all of the output of centuries of Imami scholarship (which is immense), and only kept to the hadiths that have come to us, we'd have more than enough to have a complete vision and understanding of the religion from all of it's angles.  Sadly very little of this has been translated into English, though some of us are trying to rectify this, in sha Allah (you might visit the site in my sig below, tashayyu.org, it's where I've been putting the translations I've been working on, primarily of hadiths, as well as work from some fellow believers.)



I'm not sure what you are referring to. How much have you actually studied about the Zaydi Imamates in Iran?  Here, give this a read if you haven't already:

http://www.iranica.c...laman-and-gilan

It's interesting stuff, but not at all what I'd consider role models of piety.  Rather it's a long history of internal fighting, Zaydi against Zaydi, each vying for power and conquering territories or towns, even family members conspiring against one another. Again, is this what you think the Imamate is meant to be about?



Again, I'm wondering how much you've actually studied about Zaydi history...  I think you might be very disappointed if you learned about how their imams often conducted themselves when in power or when fighting (even fighting each other) for it.

As to our end, I'm really not terribly interested in trying to justify what some supposedly Imami government has done at whatever points in our history (though for most of that history, there has be _no_ Imami government and we had to live under the regimes of others, including Zaydis).  They aren't my Imams so it's not my purpose to argue about them.  What I would strongly urge you to do is rather to learn about those ones who are my Imams.  You would not regret it.

My Arabic is pretty basic and no I haven't studied much about Zaidi history. I think we don't know what's in store for the Zaidis; in the future they could develop into something great, maybe they are just slow starters. Zaidism has the potential to appeal to Western educated people, I don't think 12 imamerism does because of the hard - to- swallow mythical concepts. I think the reason for the sophisticated literature of the imamers is probably the more advanced culture the Persians had pre Islam, compared to the Arabs. It's not because the 12ers have the right Islamic view.  If it wasn't for the hidden Imam and infallible imam concept I may have chosen 12ers, but I also find the exclusive selection of Hussein's off-spring as Imams illogical, as Hassan was the older brother of the two. The logical next Imam after Hassan's death would have been Hassan's oldest son, etc. You won't be able to convert me, but I admit that the Zaidis have a long way to go. It's like I'm getting an old bomb of a car and I'm going to fix it, because it's the best make of car, and when it's fixed it will be better than your recent model car which is not the best brand. ... When I have time I'll cut and paste your comments here onto my blog.. it would have been easier if you'd typed them there...in the comments section.... never mind. Would you be able to check my descriptions of the 12 imamer views and see if corrections are needed, in the sections on" free will", "metaphorical interpretations," and "how to pray like a zaidi if u r a 12er." ?  I was using a lot of guess work. I do agree with you abouty the wiping of the feet and the mut-aa. I don't know what the Zaidi line is on these, haven't seen their books yet, what makes you think they've taken sunni line on these? w/salaam

[zaida]

zaida, on 11 July 2010 - 08:46 AM, said:

My Arabic is pretty basic and no I haven't studied much about Zaidi history. I think we don't know what's in store for the Zaidis; in the future they could develop into something great, maybe they are just slow starters. Zaidism has the potential to appeal to Western educated people, I don't think 12 imamerism does because of the hard - to- swallow mythical concepts. I think the reason for the sophisticated literature of the imamers is probably the more advanced culture the Persians had pre Islam, compared to the Arabs. It's not because the 12ers have the right Islamic view.  If it wasn't for the hidden Imam and infallible imam concept I may have chosen 12ers, but I also find the exclusive selection of Hussein's off-spring as Imams illogical, as Hassan was the older brother of the two. The logical next Imam after Hassan's death would have been Hassan's oldest son, etc. You won't be able to convert me, but I admit that the Zaidis have a long way to go. It's like I'm getting an old bomb of a car and I'm going to fix it, because it's the best make of car, and when it's fixed it will be better than your recent model car which is not the best brand. ... When I have time I'll cut and paste your comments here onto my blog.. it would have been easier if you'd typed them there...in the comments section.... never mind. Would you be able to check my descriptions of the 12 imamer views and see if corrections are needed, in the sections on" free will", "metaphorical interpretations," and "how to pray like a zaidi if u r a 12er." ?  I was using a lot of guess work. I do agree with you abouty the wiping of the feet and the mut-aa. I don't know what the Zaidi line is on these, haven't seen their books yet, what makes you think they've taken sunni line on these? w/salaam

salaam, oh I just noticed a zaidi scholar has responded to your article on my blog, and talked about the zaidi position of the wiping, mut'a etc among other things...you are right about them...they take the sunni line on those two...w/salaam

[macisaac]

zaida, on 11 July 2010 - 08:46 AM, said:

My Arabic is pretty basic and no I haven't studied much about Zaidi history. I think we don't know what's in store for the Zaidis; in the future they could develop into something great, maybe they are just slow starters.

To be honest I think their time has already past.  In former times they had a great deal more influence and back then, for a while, were real rivals to the Imamis and Isma`ilis (another fading sect) for dominance, but over time that has passed away.  Zaydism really belongs more to a time of tribal warlords, where a claimant will rally a tribe around him and try to conquer an area to establish his dominion.  That's basically how they're history panned out, one warlord or another fighting for dominance.  The imamate for them became a tribal thing, the dominance of one blood line over all others.  Again, I just don't see that as being what the universal religion of Islam was meant to be, some clan affair.  Even now in their last foothold in the world, Yemen, their sect is dying off with many Zaydis converting to Wahhabism and some to Imami Shi`ism.  It was an interesting experience for me discussing with some Yemeni converts when I was in Qum about the state of affairs amongst the Zaydis in Yemen.  For one there seems to be a serious intellectual stagnation built into it, where their scholars have fiercely been against intellectual pursuits.

Quote

Zaidism has the potential to appeal to Western educated people, I don't think 12 imamerism does because of the hard - to- swallow mythical concepts.

As a born and bred Westerner who has studied both, I'll beg to differ ;-)

As to hard to swallow mythical concepts, do you mean the occultation of the twelfth Imam ?  I'll admit, it is a matter of faith to accept, however that said, for a Muslim there really shouldn't be an objection to this.  Think of for instance how Allah tells us about believing in the ghayb in the Quran, or how in the stories of former prophets He tells us how long Nuh remained amongst his people.  So for those who believe in Allah's word there really isn't an excuse for not accepting that someone can live this long.  There's much more that could be said, how the concept of a Mahdi encompasses the hope of Islam, the fulfillment of Islam's victory across the world, the hope for a better world, the continuation of Allah's guidance on Earth, the preservation of the final religion and so forth.

Here, you might find this interesting.  On that site I linked to, we have a translation of an early (pre-occultation) small collection of hadiths, the Asl of Abu Sa`id `Ibad al-`Usfari.  The compiler was a Kufan Jarudi Zaydi scholar.  Give them a read, especial the first few hadiths and really consider what they are saying in regards to how many Imams there were going to be and what their role is:

http://www.tashayyu....ibad-al--usfari

Remember, this is compiled _prior_ to the occultation of the twelfth Imam and its compiler wasn't even an Imami but rather a Zaydi.  The import of this should not be understated.

Quote

I think the reason for the sophisticated literature of the imamers is probably the more advanced culture the Persians had pre Islam, compared to the Arabs.

I think that's neglecting to consider that Persia only became Imami relatively late in its history by which time most of our greatest scholarship had already been done and often in non-Iranian lands (i.e. Baghdad, Kufa, Jabal `Amul, Hilla).  

Quote

It's not because the 12ers have the right Islamic view.

Again, I invite you to read the actual hadiths of the Imams before making such a conclusion.

Quote

The logical next Imam after Hassan's death would have been Hassan's oldest son, etc.

That isn't Zaydi belief though as they say that Imam al-Husayn was the next Imam.  Also, they also believe that the first three Imams, as well as the Prophet and Fatima were ma`sum, that is sinless and infallible, so even in Zaydi belief you still have to believe in at least some infallible Imams.

[macisaac]

zaida, on 11 July 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

salaam, oh I just noticed a zaidi scholar has responded to your article on my blog, and talked about the zaidi position of the wiping, mut'a etc among other things...you are right about them...they take the sunni line on those two...w/salaam

Salaam,

Yeah, I was looking to find my copy of al-Azhar so I could lay out the Zaydi wudu for you, but looks like he beat me to the punch.  It is basically a Sunni wudu (washing the feet, washing three times, etc) which I believe is counter to both the teaching of the Ahl al-Bayt and of course the Book of Allah.  And with mut`a they, like Sunnis, consider it haram going on that narration that says the Prophet made it haram at Khaybar.  Again though, this is contrary to the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Quran.  And while those are two clear examples of their divergence, it doesn't end there.  Time and again I find the Zaydis ended up importing this or that other Sunni concept and practice, usually trying to justify by just declaring it's the "ijma` of the Ahl al-Bayt", which is pretty ridiculous as it's ignoring the many hadiths that have come down from them on these topics.  It also ignores the fact the Zaydi Imams couldn't themselves agree on many things, as witness the many differences of view between the Nasiri and the Hadawi lines.  an-Nasir for instance, with regards to the wudu, apparently said you had to both wash _and_ wipe the feet.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

To be honest I think their time has already past. In former times they had a great deal more influence and back then, for a while, were real rivals to the Imamis and Isma`ilis (another fading sect) for dominance, but over time that has passed away.

If I may interrupt, why do you think the Ismailis are a fading sect? Surely the presence of their Imam (despite his lack of superiority or even significance in any religious field) and that they have much wealth in some members of that sect means they still have some power/significance? Or are you basing it on the lack of an Ismaili state in today's world?

Quote

Here, you might find this interesting. On that site I linked to, we have a translation of an early (pre-occultation) small collection of hadiths, the Asl of Abu Sa`id `Ibad al-`Usfari. The compiler was a Kufan Jarudi Zaydi scholar. Give them a read, especial the first few hadiths and really consider what they are saying in regards to how many Imams there were going to be and what their role is:

How much earlier? During which Imam was the collection made?

Quote

Zaydism really belongs more to a time of tribal warlords, where a claimant will rally a tribe around him and try to conquer an area to establish his dominion. That's basically how they're history panned out, one warlord or another fighting for dominance. The imamate for them became a tribal thing, the dominance of one blood line over all others.

Exactly. I don't see how a rebellious leader against injustice inspires any confidence in any field except military prowess.

Peace.

Edited by Perseverance, 11 July 2010 - 01:11 PM.

[macisaac]

Perseverance, on 11 July 2010 - 12:23 PM, said:

If I may interrupt, why do you think the Ismailis are a fading sect? Surely the presence of their Imam (despite his lack of superiority or even significance in any religious field) and that they have much wealth in some members of that sect means they still have some power/significance? Or are you basing it on the lack of an Ismaili state in today's world?

They (and I would include both the Nizari and Musta`li branched in this) seem to have zero interest in becoming more than small ethnic sects.  Conversion to them may be "allowed" but it's hardly encouraged, even the opposite.  They've become almost like Jews, content with remaining their own little group that you pretty much need to be born into.  It's very different from the days of the Fatimid da`wat where they had very organized missionaries being sent out to different lands to spread their word.

Quote

How much earlier? During which Imam was the collection made?

I wouldn't be able to say the exact date it was composed, but it's compiler died in 250 AH so at the latest it would have been during the Imamate of  `Ali al-Hadi .

Quote

Exactly. I don't see how a rebellious leader against injustice inspires any confidence in any field except military prowess.

Quite, especially since the injustice they are rising up against might just be the "injustice" of them not being the one's in charge.  The Zaydi Imams spent much of their time in bloodshed and fighting, even conspiring against one another.  I mean, looking at that article above, let's see the type of behavior this ideology would inspire:

Quote

Ḥasan died in Āmol in 270/884, having named his brother Moḥammad al-Dāʿī ela’l-Ḥaqq in Gorgān as his successor. However, his brother-in-law, the ʿAlid Abu’l-Ḥosayn Aḥmad b. Moḥammad Qāʾem, usurped power in Āmol, and it took Moḥammad ten months to overthrow him. In 277/891 Rāfeʿ b. Harṯama, having taken possession of Khorasan, invaded Ṭabarestān and forced Moḥammad to seek refuge among the Daylamites and Gilites. In 279/892, however, as Rāfeʿ lost control of Khorasan to his rival ʿAmr b. Layṯ, who had gained the backing of the ʿAbbasid government, he decided to recognize the suzerainty of Moḥammad b. Zayd and returned Ṭabarestān to him while governing Gorgān in his name. In 283/896 he occupied Nīšāpūr in the name of the ʿAlid but was shortly expelled by ʿAmr and soon afterwards killed in Ḵᵛārazm. In 287/900 Moḥammad b. Zayd was killed near Gorgān in a battle with the Samanid army and buried in Gorgān. His Zayd, whom he had appointed as his successor, was carried off to Bokhara, and Ṭabarestān came under Samanid rule.

Quote

After their return to Gorgān several Daylamite and Gilite leaders of the defeated army plotted to kill Ḥasan Dāʿī, probably in favor of the sons of Nāṣer. Ḥasan, secretly informed, hurried to Gorgān and cunningly killed seven of them at a reception. This episode resulted in further disaffection and desertion of part of the Daylamite and Gilite army. In 311/923 Aḥmad Nāṣer again made common cause with his brother Jaʿfar, and Ḥasan was forced to flee from Āmol. Aḥmad ruled there for two months before he died and was succeeded by Jaʿfar, who repulsed an attack of Ḥasan. When Jaʿfar died in 312/925, a son of Aḥmad, Abū ʿAlī Moḥammad, was chosen as his successor by the army leaders in Āmol. Shortly afterwards, however, the Daylamite chief Mākān b. Kākī, in control of Gorgān, and his cousin, Ḥasan b. Fīrūzān, conspired in favor of Esmāʿīl, a minor son of Jaʿfar and half-brother of Ḥasan b. Fīrūzān by his mother. Abū ʿAlī was seized and carried to Gorgān, while Mākān put Esmāʿīl on the throne in Āmol. In Gorgān Abū ʿAlī forestalled an attempt on his life by a brother of Mākān by killing him and, with the aid of Mākān’s rival Asfār b. Šīrūya, regained the throne in Āmol. When he fell from his horse in the racecourse a few months later and died, he was succeeded by his brother Abū Jaʿfar Moḥammad, who soon lost the backing of Asfār; in 314/926 he was expelled from Āmol by Mākān, who restored Ḥasan Dāʿī to the rule. In 316/928 the two set out to conquer Ray and Qom. In their absence Asfār, who was governing Gorgān under Samanid suzerainty, invaded Ṭabarestān. Ḥasan returned there without Mākān and met Asfār outside Āmol. His army was defeated, and he was mortally wounded by Mardāvīǰ b. Zīār, who thus avenged the death of his uncle, who had been among the Daylamite and Gilite chiefs killed by Ḥasan in Gorgān.

Quote

In 502/1108-09 a great-grandson of Moʾayyad, Abū Ṭāleb Aḵīr Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad, rose claiming the imamate in Ḵānakǰā. Backed by a learned and highly respected descendant of Oṭrūš, Nāṣer Reżā, he quickly gained recognition in eastern Gīlān as far as Hawsam and in the regions of Daylamān not yet lost to the Ismaʿilis. Only Lāhīǰān under the Thaʾerid amir Solaymān b. Esmāʿīl, resisted him. Lāhīǰān had risen to replace Hawsam as the chief town of eastern Gīlān and had become the seat of Thaʾerid amirs who remained its traditional rulers at least until the early 7th/15th century. Abū Ṭāleb seized the town by force and burnt it. He engaged in bitter warfare with the Ismaʿilis and is said to have captured thirty-eight of their castles and to have laid siege to Alamūt. The ruler of ʿOmān, who was a Zaydī, corresponded with him and supported him. In 511/1117 he sent his call to allegiance (daʿwa) to the Yemen, and the amir Moḥsen b. Ḥasan, a descendant of Yaḥyā Hādī, recognized him as the Imam and became his deputy in Ṣaʿda. Abū Ṭāleb was challenged, however, by an ʿAlid from Gorgān, Ḥasan Jorǰānī, who conquered Hawsam and Lāhīǰān and pursued him as far as Ḵānakǰā. There a local Gilite lord aided Abū Ṭāleb against his rival and drove him out of Gīlān and Daylamān. But Abū Ṭāleb was forced to rely on confiscation and extortion, which provoked violent protests by the Zaydī ʿolamāʾ, and he withdrew to Tanheǰān in Daylamān. Though he returned repeatedly to Gīlān, he was unable to restore his control permanently. In contrast, the cause of the Ismaʿilis was greatly furthered by the quarrel of the ʿAlid rivals. After Abū Ṭāleb died in Tanheǰān in 520/1126, Ḥasan Jorǰānī came there in the hope of gaining support. He was seized by the people of Tanheǰān and, after consulation with the chiefs of the Gilites and Daylamites, put to death. In 526/1131-32 another Zaydī pretender, Abū Hāšem Kīā Jorǰānī, who may have been related to Ḥasan Jorǰānī, was captured and killed by the Ismaʿilis, who now took possession of the region.

These types of incidents are not much different from other petty monarchies of the world, where power is the ultimate goal and violence a preferred means of acquiring it.  Again, hardly what I would deem an inspirational model for us to look up to.

Contrast all this with the lives of the twelve chosen successors , and there's no comparison.  With them you see living examples of piety and holiness, lights amongst humanity.  Even with the severe oppression they had to live under, where a lesser sect would surely have been stamped out by now (as so many were) still, the example they set inspired generations to keep their words and lives close to them, even if it meant at their own lives' peril.  In its survival and even flourishing, I see the divine hand at work ensuring the final religion was preserved.

[doobybrother]

macisaac, on 09 July 2010 - 08:41 PM, said:

Salam and welcome to our forum.

The reasons I personally reject the Zaydi madhhab (or more accurately, madhhabs as there have been several in their history) are many.  While I find them a topic of interest, as I find all "Shi`a" sects to be of at least some interest (even if I do not consider them to truly be Shi`a), and while I can understand how they do carry at least a surface layer of appeal, appearing the more rational and moderate in their approach, this breaks down upon further investigation.  Here's a few quick points to consider.

As to being an Imami, a Twelver, then two clear reasons for adhering to this line to the exclusion of all others would be 1) the direct appointment of the preceding Imam to the next, culminating in the prophesied total of twelve Imams (as found in both Sunni and Shi`i hadiths), giving a continuous stream of divinely appointed authorities on Earth (as befits this especially being the final religion for how else would be it guarded and preserved, especially considering how much fitna, heresies and ikhtilaf we have seen in this umma) and 2) the unparalleled qualifications of each of these twelve, clearly distinguishing them from all their contemporaries, in their piety, their character,  their knowledge, and their miracles.  Even to the point where a Imam who inherited the Imamate as child _still_ carried on the knowledge of his fathers without interruption.
Neither of these two find a match in Zaydism (or Isma`ilism for that matter).  Instead we see the Zaydi dynasties produced little more than petty monarchies, often fighting themselves, even one "Imam" against the other.  For example, the most famous book of Zaydi fiqh is al-Azhar written by one of their Imams, Ahmad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada.  He composed it while he was imprisoned in the qal`a prison of the qasr of San`a.  Thing is, he'd been thrown in jail by another of their "Imams"…  What type of Imamate is that??

Centuries of Zaydi rule left Yemen about one of the most backward and impoverished nations in the Muslim world. Their supposed Imams would declare jihads against other Muslims, particularly the Isma`ilis, if they weren't busy fighting amongst themselves.  When one studies the knowledge found amongst them, there's very little of any apparent inheritance of knowledge as you would expect from the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå.  Take for instance their hadith literature.  Or rather, what little of hadiths they have.  You have the very early Amali of `Isa b. Ahmad and you have the Majmu` al-Fiqh attributed to Zayd.  The problem with the latter is that it's almost certainly a forgery of Abu Khalid `Amr b. Khalid who attributed it to Zayd to give it more weight.  Other than sporadic minor collections, that's really about it for Zaydi hadiths.  As such, you find they eventually became increasingly dependent on the Sunnis' collections instead.  Now compare that to the wealth of knowledge as has come down to us through the twelve Imams, with volumes upon volumes filled with their transmitted knowledge on everything from beliefs, tafsir, shari`a, akhlaq and so on, and there's really little comparison.

Another big problem with Zaydism is that it bears really very little resemblance to the earlier Zaydi madhhabs of yore.  Their current adoption of Mu`tazili kalam came relatively later in their history, being initially very resisted in some quarters.  While because of the Mu`tazili adoption they might appear to be more rationalist nowadays, the earlier Zaydis held onto some pretty weird doctrines that really stretch credulity.  For me what stands out as an example would be the Jarudi belief (and as you might know, for a time the Jarudis were the dominant sect of the Zaydis) that all of the descendants of `Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are equal in knowledge.  Literally.  That is, even a newborn baby contains within him the same amount of knowledge as an elderly `Alawid Shaykh, the knowledge having been transmitted through miraculous means to the entire progeny.  The `Alawid just had to be reminded of what he already knew, I think the theory went.  

The Zaydi fiqh demonstrates to me the weakness of this madhhab and its distance from the actual teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt.  Just to give two examples that set them apart from us Imamis, the Zaydis perform their wudu like the Sunnis, washing the feet.  Also, they consider mut`a to be haram.  Now I pick those two distinguishing examples because from what I believe, each of these are completely opposite what the Ahl al-Bayt in fact taught.  There's zero doubt that for instance they regarded the practice of mut`a to be halal, as several hadiths with various chains reported from them clearly demonstrate.  And of course we could go into the Quranic proofs for each of these.  But anyhow, I pick these as examples to show the distance between what the Zaydis practice and what the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt actually were.

Doctrinally, numerous Zaydi tenets I find to be very dissatisfying.  For instance the doctrine of implicit nomination of Amir al-Mu'mineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã as opposed to explicit nomination from the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå makes neither intellectual nor traditional sense.  The doctrine of the unrepentant grave sinner, even if Muslim, going to Hell eternally with Allah not being able to ever forgive them is to me very much opposed to the belief in an all-powerful and merciful God.

Anyhow, that's a few quick thoughts to get us started, in sha Allah ta`ala.

^That is one really nice post mashAllah.
Br macissac i would love to see more input from you in on this forum.

Reading all this few questions come to mind.
1. How do the zaidis justify the infighting amongst the "imams"?
2. If they do not believe in the issuance of nass, how are the successors of imams appointed?
3. How do you view the traditions in both sunni and shia books about the twelve amirs/successors?

[macisaac]

doobybrother, on 11 July 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

Quote

1. How do the zaidis justify the infighting amongst the "imams"?

By ignoring it ever happened.  That or trying to hush it aside by saying that they don't believe they're imams were ma`sum anyway so they could make mistakes.  Sounds an awful lot like the Sunni's dismissing of post-prophetic history in regards to the civil wars if you ask me...

Quote

2. If they do not believe in the issuance of nass, how are the successors of imams appointed?

They claim that after Imam al-Husayn , to be an Imam the candidate who would be any descendant from al-Hasan or al-Husayn has to rise up by the sword declaring his Imamate and fighting against injustice.  He must furthermore possess the qualities of piety, being learned, just, etc.

Well that's the theory anyway.  Eventually in Yemen it did become a hereditary monarchy.  Like the khawarij, the Zaydi "rising ups" and jihads often meant they were turning their swords against other sects and even rival Zaydi groups.

Quote

3. How do you view the traditions in both sunni and shia books about the twelve amirs/successors?

Even if not every single narration that mentions there being twelve successors were to be authentic (not that I'm saying none of them were), still the facts seem to be that there was a general expectation amongst many Muslim groups that the Prophet would have twelve successors following after him which to me points to the fact that this was in fact an authentic prophecy tracing back to the Prophet himself.  Out of the many groups that have come and gone, the only one that I can see which really fulfilled this is with the line of the twelve Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt .  Only they demonstrate a continuous succession, one after another, of a line of Imams who authentically represented the Sunna of our Prophet , whose lives were impeccable and above any reproach, who each carried the complete knowledge of the religion (even if they were a child when succeeding their father), who demonstrated all the qualities of being the true A'imma sent by Allah.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

They (and I would include both the Nizari and Musta`li branched in this) seem to have zero interest in becoming more than small ethnic sects. Conversion to them may be "allowed" but it's hardly encouraged, even the opposite. They've become almost like Jews, content with remaining their own little group that you pretty much need to be born into. It's very different from the days of the Fatimid da`wat where they had very organized missionaries being sent out to different lands to spread their word.

Indeed, that's true. But it's possible that a future Ismaili Imam (of that branch) is ambitious, starts the Ismaili dawa and engages in debates with other Muslim sects, and uses power and money to spread his influence. So they have faded for the time being; but they have the potential to make a comeback to at least a small degree. What do you think?

Quote

I wouldn't be able to say the exact date it was composed, but it's compiler died in 250 AH so at the latest it would have been during the Imamate of `Ali al-Hadi .

10th Imam, aleyhis salam? Wow, pretty good! That truly is significant, since it's before the 12th Imam's time, aleyhis salam. Also, how saheeh do the hadiths generally look?

My 100th post! Yay! I'm such a newbie lol.

Peace.

Edited by Perseverance, 11 July 2010 - 06:06 PM.

[macisaac]

Perseverance, on 11 July 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

Indeed, that's true. But it's possible that a future Ismaili Imam (of that branch) is ambitious, starts the Ismaili dawa and engages in debates with other Muslim sects, and uses power and money to spread his influence. So they have faded for the time being; but they have the potential to make a comeback to at least a small degree. What do you think?

I won't say it's impossible, but then it's also not impossible the Waqifis or the Kaysanis make a comeback too.  I just rather doubt it.  The Musta`li branches don't even know who their imam is now, believing their 21st imam went into ghayba and that since then the imamate has continued in his (unknown) descendants, meanwhile the da`i al-mutlaq having all but taken his place in their religion.  As to the Nizaris, I've been really curious what's going to happen once their current guy dies.  They've already become full fledged members of the European aristocracy in just about every way other than their attachment to what's now a fairly minor cult with only a nominal Islamic veneer.  Will there be a next Imam amongst them?  I really don't know, the last Agha Khan already had to skip over his son whose notorious playboy lifestyle just wouldn't do and I've not heard that any of the current ones children have been prepped for it.  At this point it's just amazing to me that any self respecting Muslim could actually believe these jokers are the "mazharAllah" so I doubt they have much potential for winning many converts.  Now, what they maybe could do would be to forget all about any real pretensions to being Muslims (which to me, they've pretty much already done anyway) and set themselves out to be some type of Baha'i-like new religion and go after converting western liberals.  There they might find some potential for conversion, but so far they haven't demonstrated any interest.

Quote

10th Imam, aleyhis salam? Wow, pretty good! That truly is significant, since it's before the 12th Imam's time, aleyhis salam. Also, how saheeh do the hadiths generally look?

Since the main compiler wasn't an Imami the rijal system wouldn't classify them as "sahih".  You might be familiar with my skepticism regarding this system though (which anyway, even it's adherents wouldn't largely be applying it here since these are aqaid hadiths, not fiqh).  Plus,  said compiler while he's not much known in our sources, as mentioned in the translation according to Sunni rijal books while they consider him a heretic Rafidi in his beliefs, still they note him to have been thiqa and saduq, with him even showing up in Bukhari's isnads.

[real0019]

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

It was an interesting experience for me discussing with some Yemeni converts when I was in Qum about the state of affairs amongst the Zaydis in Yemen.  For one there seems to be a serious intellectual stagnation built into it, where their scholars have fiercely been against intellectual pursuits.

Fascinating, it seems that many Zaydis are heading towards Imami Shi'ism, and not Wahhabism.

Q: "So we can say that the Houthis are Twelver Shi'ites?"

Al-'Imad: "Yes. You know why? I went to Sa'da [a province and Zaidi religious center in northern Yemen], that is, to the Houthi center. I traveled [from Qom] to Yemen to see for myself what was happening. [I saw that] all the books they had there were Ja'fari [i.e. Twelver Shi'ite]; not a single one was Zaidi. I myself was surprised.

"Before [becoming a Twelver Shi'ite], I was a Wahhabi [Muslim], and I had heard that [the Zaidis] had become Ja'fari. [When I came there,] I saw that they did not have a single Zaidi book. All the libraries - both the public [libraries] and private or family ones - held Ja'fari books. The Houthis read books printed in Qom, and that's the truth.

http://www.memri.org.../248/0/3757.htm

What do you think? Exaggeration?

[zaida]

doobybrother, on 11 July 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

^That is one really nice post mashAllah.
Br macissac i would love to see more input from you in on this forum.

Reading all this few questions come to mind.
1. How do the zaidis justify the infighting amongst the "imams"?
2. If they do not believe in the issuance of nass, how are the successors of imams appointed?
3. How do you view the traditions in both sunni and shia books about the twelve amirs/successors?

Salaam 12er brothers and sister
Here is Imam Rassi Society's reply to Mac Isaac's critique of Zaidism (posted at zaidism.blogspot):


1. Regarding his theory of nass 5appointment of the next imam by the previous--We say that the abundance of imams and Shiisms that occured during the formative perid would testify to the fact that there was no clarity regarding individual appointment. The fact the ismailis exist shows that there was no clear idea regading the so called "appointment" by Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, alayhi as salam! The 12ers come from a privelege position because out of all of the imami shiisms that existed they and the ismailis are the only surviving ones! There were hundreds of shiisms!
They say that the reason why these other shiisms emerged was because of the greed and avarice of pretenders amongst the imam's families, howeve, the fact that the imamis narrate that people would write to their imams asking who was the next, indicates that the issue wasnt as explicit as they make it out to be!
It is for this reason that we say that the imamate is a public affair that the imam must make known! Otherwise, people are not obligated to follow him! If he was some hidden personality, he would only be known to a selected few not everyone! Similarly, if the Prophet (pbuhahp) only relegated his risala to a selected few, it would not have been obligatory for other than these to follow him!

2. Regarding the qualities of the imams--One would not argue that many of these men were very knowledgeable and virtuous. Indeed, these are amongst the qualifications of an imam. However, another qualification is that the imam has the ability to call to himself and establish justice. If he is not able to do so, an important qualification is neglected. Therefore, his imamate would be invalid.
We respect Imams Zayn alAbideen, al-Baaqir, as-Saadiq, etc as imams of knowledge. We have hadiths from them as well as juristic decisions! However, we do not see them as imams in the total sense because they were not able to manifest an open rebellion against their oppressors. Also, they did not manifest their imamate to all! If this is not the case, then people are not obligated to follow them as imams.

3. Regarding Zaydi dynasties--they made mistakes however 'isma is not a qualification for imamate. If that was the case, then why wasnt Talut (Saul) infallible? Also, judging the Zaydi imamate as centuries of infighting and rebellion would be a gross misrepresentation of the imamate!

4. Regarding their knowledge--since this is a qualification of the imamate, it goes without saying that they possesed knowledge. As a matter of fact, one of our imams, Imam al-Qasim bin Ibrahim bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Hassan bin al-Hassan bin Ali, alayhim as salaam, produced immense literary output. In his works he dealt with theology, fiqh, liguistics, tafsir, purification of the soul, and refutations of atheists, qadarites, rafidites, etc; and the majority of which are all composed in rhyming poetry!

5. Regarding our hadith literature--We have the Musnad Zayd, Amali Ahmed bin Isa, Ahkam al-Halal wa Haram, Usul al-Ahkam, Jami al-Kafi, Sahifa of Ali bin Musa ar-Rida, and others just to name a few. Not to mention that many of our imams authored books of hadiths that they heard from their blessed anscestors!
We have some hadith books with Sunni narrations however, their purpose is to prove our position to Sunnis using their own sources! Remember, our imams ruled over the Sunnis in history.

6. Regarding the authenticity of Mujmu Zayd--Its authenticity is established by the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt. This is no less authentic to us than al-Bihar and such would be to the 12ers!

7. Regarding the similarity between the Mu'tazilites and the Zaydis--we are no more similar to them than the 12ers! Remember, the Mu'tazilites used to attend Zaydi study circles! They then rationalized much of the doctrines and formulated their own school.

8. Regarding fiqh issues--We wash our feet because of authentic narrations on the authority of Imam Zayd, alayhi as salaam. Therefore, our opinion is attributed to the Ahl alBayt. Similarly, we prohibit mu'ta marriage because of narrations on the authorities of Ahl alBayt!
It would be incorrect to assume that these doctrines are exclusively Sunnite. This is because, the Ismailis similarly prohibit mu'ta and early in their history they were divided whether to wash or wipe! Also a non-Sunni, non-Shiite group called the Ibadis wash the feet and prohibit mu'ta!

9. Regarding the nomination of Imam Ali, alayhi as salam--there are some who hold to the doctrine that it was implicit however, there are also those who hold to it being explicit. Therefore, one cannot limit the school to one view!

10. Regarding the eternality of the punishment of the major sinners--It isimmaterial whether you agree with it or not. This is explicit in the Quran and authentic hadiths of the Messenger, peace be upon him and his progeny. The issue is not that Allah is not ableto forgive them. It's that he won't. Because Allah's Mercy is reserved for those penitent sinners who make tauba before they die. However, once they die, their chance is over! This is why the Messenger, peace be upon him and his progeny, said: ((Repent to Allah before you die))!
If they do not repent, they will burn in hell forever. This is because of the explicit words of Allah and He does not abrogate His Own explicit statements!

And Allah knows best!

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 06:25 PM, said:

I won't say it's impossible, but then it's also not impossible the Waqifis or the Kaysanis make a comeback too.  I just rather doubt it.  The Musta`li branches don't even know who their imam is now, believing their 21st imam went into ghayba and that since then the imamate has continued in his (unknown) descendants, meanwhile the da`i al-mutlaq having all but taken his place in their religion.  As to the Nizaris, I've been really curious what's going to happen once their current guy dies.  They've already become full fledged members of the European aristocracy in just about every way other than their attachment to what's now a fairly minor cult with only a nominal Islamic veneer.  Will there be a next Imam amongst them?  I really don't know, the last Agha Khan already had to skip over his son whose notorious playboy lifestyle just wouldn't do and I've not heard that any of the current ones children have been prepped for it.  At this point it's just amazing to me that any self respecting Muslim could actually believe these jokers are the "mazharAllah" so I doubt they have much potential for winning many converts.  Now, what they maybe could do would be to forget all about any real pretensions to being Muslims (which to me, they've pretty much already done anyway) and set themselves out to be some type of Baha'i-like new religion and go after converting western liberals.  There they might find some potential for conversion, but so far they haven't demonstrated any interest.



Since the main compiler wasn't an Imami the rijal system wouldn't classify them as "sahih".  You might be familiar with my skepticism regarding this system though (which anyway, even it's adherents wouldn't largely be applying it here since these are aqaid hadiths, not fiqh).  Plus,  said compiler while he's not much known in our sources, as mentioned in the translation according to Sunni rijal books while they consider him a heretic Rafidi in his beliefs, still they note him to have been thiqa and saduq, with him even showing up in Bukhari's isnads.

Salaam Perseverance, I was wondering if you could outline the Ismaili's main objections to Zaidism so I can paste it onto my Zaidism blog... if you have time....I haven't got any Ismaili perspectives there yet... w/salaam

[macisaac]

real0019, on 11 July 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

What do you think? Exaggeration?

I wouldn't know for sure.  I do know that a number of them are though converting to Imami Shi`ism.  The Zaydis don't have an Imam now, and I'd imagine many if not most Yemenis wouldn't be wanting to go back to the bad old days of having a Zaydi monarchy ruling over them.  Even the Zaydis that are left keep protesting that they don't _really_ want to go back to setting up an Imamate in Yemen.  You might say that's just taqiyya, but then they say they don't believe in that.  Zaydism is really pretty much a relic of the past for most, so it makes sense that those who still feel the truth is in Shiism would turn to the line with the living Imam.  For those Zaydis who actually would have believed still in the idea of fighting for justice, I'd imagine they must have noticed how it's the Imamis nowadays who have been doing that while their own madhhab is in stagnation and decay.

[zaida]

doobybrother, on 11 July 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

^That is one really nice post mashAllah.
Br macissac i would love to see more input from you in on this forum.

Reading all this few questions come to mind.
1. How do the zaidis justify the infighting amongst the "imams"?
2. If they do not believe in the issuance of nass, how are the successors of imams appointed?
3. How do you view the traditions in both sunni and shia books about the twelve amirs/successors?

Salaam Mac Isaac, I just posted a Zaidi scholar"s reply to your critique of Zaidism on this page, but it went into Doobie's section instead of yours. Still trying to figure out how this page works.. sorry...

[Abdul Qaim]

Some excellent points, mac . The only really decent reply from the Zaydi scholar on sister Zayda's blog is that the Isma'ilis also forbid mut'ah. The fact that Ibadis do not wipe their feet or practice mut'ah is neither here nor there. They don't recite qunoot during salaat either, though I wouldn't be using that as a hujjah in any discussion on the matter.

I did find it interesting that a Zaydi would use a quasi-Khawaarij group in order to fortify his own argument, however ...

[macisaac]

Salaam,

Quote

1. Regarding his theory of nass 5appointment of the next imam by the previous--We say that the abundance of imams and Shiisms that occured during the formative perid would testify to the fact that there was no clarity regarding individual appointment. The fact the ismailis exist shows that there was no clear idea regading the so called "appointment" by Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, alayhi as salam! The 12ers come from a privelege position because out of all of the imami shiisms that existed they and the ismailis are the only surviving ones! There were hundreds of shiisms!
They say that the reason why these other shiisms emerged was because of the greed and avarice of pretenders amongst the imam's families, howeve, the fact that the imamis narrate that people would write to their imams asking who was the next, indicates that the issue wasnt as explicit as they make it out to be!

Strange argument for someone claiming to be a Shi`a to make.  It also demonstrate a pretty poor grasp on history.  The Isma`ilis don’t actually show up until rather later after the Imamate of Imam Sadiq عليه السلام. What seems probable is that in fact they were descended from the heretical Khattabiyya sect.  Yes, there were in fact disputes over the successors of the Imams at times, but by and large we find that those in dispute were opportunists on the peripheral, and not amongst those who in fact were the close followers of the Imams and had learned from them in person.  He’s making it out like it’s just some big accident of history that all of these other minor sects died out, when the reason they died out is because they were heretical offshoots from the mainstream line of Imamis, or had no connection to it in the first place.  Once their pretenders died off, their sects tended to die not long after them.  The same certainly cannot be said from the mainstream Imami line.

Quote

It is for this reason that we say that the imamate is a public affair that the imam must make known! Otherwise, people are not obligated to follow him! If he was some hidden personality, he would only be known to a selected few not everyone! Similarly, if the Prophet (pbuhahp) only relegated his risala to a selected few, it would not have been obligatory for other than these to follow him!

The nass to the next Imam though often did have to be kept a protected secret, revealed only to trusted people.  You have to realize though that had they done otherwise, and done like Zaydis loudly claiming to be Imams, then chances are they’d have ended up as killed as the leaders of many of those failed Zaydi rebellions were.  You might think the Zaydi way was somehow more courageous, but what’s better, to have the line be broken and all their knowledge lost, or to be tactful about it, preserving the teachings of the religion for generations to come.  The fact that there’s so little of the hadiths that the Zaydis have preserved in comparison to the Imamis should tell us which was the wiser approach.  Also keep in mind the Imams knew that the establishment of their governance was not going to happen then, but had to await the rising of their Qa’im عليه السلام.  So, each Imam did what was best for the time they lived in.  One’s jihad is not always about killing people…

Quote

2. Regarding the qualities of the imams--One would not argue that many of these men were very knowledgeable and virtuous. Indeed, these are amongst the qualifications of an imam. However, another qualification is that the imam has the ability to call to himself and establish justice. If he is not able to do so, an important qualification is neglected. Therefore, his imamate would be invalid.
We respect Imams Zayn alAbideen, al-Baaqir, as-Saadiq, etc as imams of knowledge. We have hadiths from them as well as juristic decisions! However, we do not see them as imams in the total sense because they were not able to manifest an open rebellion against their oppressors. Also, they did not manifest their imamate to all! If this is not the case, then people are not obligated to follow them as imams.

Again, this sounds an awful lot like what a Sunni would say.  “Your Imams weren’t really Imams since they didn’t rise up with the sword (i.e. kill and conquer a bunch of people) and establishing their rule.”  Our belief though is that religion is much more than only that.  Imamate isn’t all about power and politics, it’s the guarding and teaching of the pure religion of Islam, the continuing presence of divine guidance on Earth.

Quote

3. Regarding Zaydi dynasties--they made mistakes however 'isma is not a qualification for imamate. If that was the case, then why wasnt Talut (Saul) infallible? Also, judging the Zaydi imamate as centuries of infighting and rebellion would be a gross misrepresentation of the imamate!

Take a look at the quotes I mentioned about how the Zaydi claimants went about it in Iran…  

Quote

4. Regarding their knowledge--since this is a qualification of the imamate, it goes without saying that they possesed knowledge. As a matter of fact, one of our imams, Imam al-Qasim bin Ibrahim bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Hassan bin al-Hassan bin Ali, alayhim as salaam, produced immense literary output. In his works he dealt with theology, fiqh, liguistics, tafsir, purification of the soul, and refutations of atheists, qadarites, rafidites, etc; and the majority of which are all composed in rhyming poetry!

Yes, al-Qasim did have quite an extensive output.  But quantity certainly doesn’t mean quality as you know.  I was reading his refutation against the “Rawafid” (i.e. us) and I was struck by how much of a bitter jealous man he came across as and how petty his arguments seemed.  I was actually expecting he’d have made somewhat more “better” arguments than that.  One other point I'm curious about al-Qasim.  No doubt he was a Zaydi, but did he ever claim his own Imamate?  If not, why do they consider him an Imam?

Quote

5. Regarding our hadith literature--We have the Musnad Zayd, Amali Ahmed bin Isa, Ahkam al-Halal wa Haram, Usul al-Ahkam, Jami al-Kafi, Sahifa of Ali bin Musa ar-Rida, and others just to name a few. Not to mention that many of our imams authored books of hadiths that they heard from their blessed anscestors!

We have some hadith books with Sunni narrations however, their purpose is to prove our position to Sunnis using their own sources! Remember, our imams ruled over the Sunnis in history.

Heh, I find it ironic he cited them as having the Sahifa of `Ali b. Musa ar-Rida عليه السلام, since he’s our eighth Imam (whom they reject as such).  What they lack though is the extensive amount of other hadiths he spoke, such as those found in the `Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida عليه السلام.  And really what he listed doesn’t actually amount to a lot when you look at it, certainly not when you compare it to what has come down through the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt.

Quote

6. Regarding the authenticity of Mujmu Zayd--Its authenticity is established by the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt. This is no less authentic to us than al-Bihar and such would be to the 12ers!

He must mean the consensus of Zaydis… not the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt.  But even that is a strange claim as they themselves will go against the fiqh positions found in this book.  This book has only come down through a single narrator, Abu Khalid `Amr b. Khalid, who was considered to be fabricator and liar.  If Zayd really had narrated such a book, which would have been quite important indeed, why then would it have only come down through this single, highly questionable, source?  Internally also it demonstrates signs of its being a forgery.  I actually asked Wilferd Madelung about this (and you might know he’s about the foremost authority on Zaydism in western academia, having written the definitive work on al-Qasim b. Ibrahim ar-Rassi) and he confirmed to me that he thinks it to be a forgery from Abu Khalid.  He said it represents Kufan legal doctrine, and its hardly reasonable to assume Zayd himself did so.

As to comparing it to Bihar and saying "no less authentic to us than al-Bihar and such would be to the 12ers"... that just really demonstrates he doesn't know much about our sect and its literature.

Quote

7. Regarding the similarity between the Mu'tazilites and the Zaydis--we are no more similar to them than the 12ers! Remember, the Mu'tazilites used to attend Zaydi study circles! They then rationalized much of the doctrines and formulated their own school.

Quite the opposite, in fact it was the Zaydis studying in Baghdad under such Mu`tazili scholars as Qadi `Abd al-Jabbar who eventually imported its teachings into their madhhab, though initially there was some resistance to this in Yemen leading to a split between those who accepted it and those who didn’t.  To claim this is the same as the Imami situation is ridiculous.  I mean for goodness sake, the Zaydis went so far as adopting the Mu`tazili usool al-khamsa as being their own beliefs.  Mu`tazilism basically died out in the rest of the Muslim world, _except_ for amongst the Zaydis who preserved their works and continued to comment on them.  I even have a copy of one of their Imams books on this, Kitab Tabaqat al-Mu`tazila of Ahmad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada that lists the generations of Mu`tazili scholars.

Quote

8. Regarding fiqh issues--We wash our feet because of authentic narrations on the authority of Imam Zayd, alayhi as salaam. Therefore, our opinion is attributed to the Ahl alBayt. Similarly, we prohibit mu'ta marriage because of narrations on the authorities of Ahl alBayt!

It would be incorrect to assume that these doctrines are exclusively Sunnite. This is because, the Ismailis similarly prohibit mu'ta and early in their history they were divided whether to wash or wipe! Also a non-Sunni, non-Shiite group called the Ibadis wash the feet and prohibit mu'ta!

He’s relying on a narration from the above book that, like I said, is likely forged, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt both upheld the wiping of the feet and the legality of mut`a.  And again, there’s what Allah’s book says on these which should trump all his arguments.  As to the Ahl al-Bayt and mut`a, take a look at these hadiths for instance:

http://www.tashayyu....s/marriage/muta

And that’s not all of them.  But that many narrations coming from that many different chains clearly teaching its legality, I think someone would have to be willfully blind if they still maintained that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt were against it.

Quote

9. Regarding the nomination of Imam Ali, alayhi as salam--there are some who hold to the doctrine that it was implicit however, there are also those who hold to it being explicit. Therefore, one cannot limit the school to one view!

So he’s saying on such an important matter as this, they can’t make up their mind?  How is this a positive?

Quote

10. Regarding the eternality of the punishment of the major sinners--It isimmaterial whether you agree with it or not. This is explicit in the Quran and authentic hadiths of the Messenger, peace be upon him and his progeny. The issue is not that Allah is not ableto forgive them. It's that he won't. Because Allah's Mercy is reserved for those penitent sinners who make tauba before they die. However, once they die, their chance is over! This is why the Messenger, peace be upon him and his progeny, said: ((Repent to Allah before you die))!

If they do not repent, they will burn in hell forever. This is because of the explicit words of Allah and He does not abrogate His Own explicit statements!

Allah forgives whomever He wills, and He says He forgives all sins but shirk.  They on the other hand seem to claim His hand is tied, and in the name of justice cannot forgive unless one has repented.  Does this sound like a belief in a merciful and compassionate Lord to you?

It would be unjust for Allah to punish someone who didn’t deserve it, to punish them for what they were not responsible for that.  That’s divine justice.  But, to forgive is a grace, and also a good, so to believe that Allah may do that even for the unrepentant sinner is not denying His justice, it’s affirming His grace.

As to what Allah says in His book:

يَغْفِرُ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيُعَذِّبُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ
He forgives whoever He wants and He punishes whoever He wants (5:18)

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ

Verily Allah does not forgive that there should associated aught with Him, and He forgives what is apart from that to whoever He wants.  (4:48)

وَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَذُو مَغْفِرَةٍ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَىٰ ظُلْمِهِمْ

And verily your Lord is forgiving to mankind upon their wrongdoing  (13:6)

Also, there is the clear hadith from the Prophet that states his intercession is for the grave sinners of his Umma.  If they had repented before their death and were thus forgiven, what need for his intercession?

Anyhow, again the only reason they uphold this doctrine now is because they are Mu`tazilis in their creed, and this particular doctrine was a key one for them.

Abdul Qaim, on 11 July 2010 - 09:10 PM, said:

Some excellent points, mac . The only really decent reply from the Zaydi scholar on sister Zayda's blog is that the Isma'ilis also forbid mut'ah. The fact that Ibadis do not wipe their feet or practice mut'ah is neither here nor there. They don't recite qunoot during salaat either, though I wouldn't be using that as a hujjah in any discussion on the matter.

I did find it interesting that a Zaydi would use a quasi-Khawaarij group in order to fortify his own argument, however ...

The Isma`ilis, who were much more into "batini" pursuits than fiqh, had a very limited output in terms of hadiths and fiqh.  In fact, when Qadi Nu`man compiled his Da`a'im al-Islam, he had to use Zaydi and Imami books of hadith as his sources.  And by the way, the narration in Da`aim that states mut`a is haram, it comes from a Zaydi book...

[Abdul Qaim]

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

The Isma`ilis, who were much more into "batini" pursuits than fiqh, had a very limited output in terms of hadiths and fiqh. In fact, when Qadi Nu`man compiled his Da`a'im al-Islam, he had to use Zaydi and Imami books of hadith as his sources. And by the way, the narration in Da`aim that states mut`a is haram, it comes from a Zaydi book...

Yes, your observations are spot-on. I should've remembered myself, as I own ad-Da'aim, though it has been some time since I read it. IIRC, there were even some Maliki narrations mixed in, which wouldn't be surprising considering where the Da'aim was composed ...

[zaida]

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

Salaam,



Strange argument for someone claiming to be a Shi`a to make.  It also demonstrate a pretty poor grasp on history.  The Isma`ilis don’t actually show up until rather later after the Imamate of Imam Sadiq Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. What seems probable is that in fact they were descended from the heretical Khattabiyya sect.  Yes, there were in fact disputes over the successors of the Imams at times, but by and large we find that those in dispute were opportunists on the peripheral, and not amongst those who in fact were the close followers of the Imams and had learned from them in person.  He’s making it out like it’s just some big accident of history that all of these other minor sects died out, when the reason they died out is because they were heretical offshoots from the mainstream line of Imamis, or had no connection to it in the first place.  Once their pretenders died off, their sects tended to die not long after them.  The same certainly cannot be said from the mainstream Imami line.



The nass to the next Imam though often did have to be kept a protected secret, revealed only to trusted people.  You have to realize though that had they done otherwise, and done like Zaydis loudly claiming to be Imams, then chances are they’d have ended up as killed as the leaders of many of those failed Zaydi rebellions were.  You might think the Zaydi way was somehow more courageous, but what’s better, to have the line be broken and all their knowledge lost, or to be tactful about it, preserving the teachings of the religion for generations to come.  The fact that there’s so little of the hadiths that the Zaydis have preserved in comparison to the Imamis should tell us which was the wiser approach.  Also keep in mind the Imams knew that the establishment of their governance was not going to happen then, but had to await the rising of their Qa’im Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.  So, each Imam did what was best for the time they lived in.  One’s jihad is not always about killing people…



Again, this sounds an awful lot like what a Sunni would say.  “Your Imams weren’t really Imams since they didn’t rise up with the sword (i.e. kill and conquer a bunch of people) and establishing their rule.”  Our belief though is that religion is much more than only that.  Imamate isn’t all about power and politics, it’s the guarding and teaching of the pure religion of Islam, the continuing presence of divine guidance on Earth.



Take a look at the quotes I mentioned about how the Zaydi claimants went about it in Iran…  



Yes, al-Qasim did have quite an extensive output.  But quantity certainly doesn’t mean quality as you know.  I was reading his refutation against the “Rawafid” (i.e. us) and I was struck by how much of a bitter jealous man he came across as and how petty his arguments seemed.  I was actually expecting he’d have made somewhat more “better” arguments than that.  One other point I'm curious about al-Qasim.  No doubt he was a Zaydi, but did he ever claim his own Imamate?  If not, why do they consider him an Imam?



Heh, I find it ironic he cited them as having the Sahifa of `Ali b. Musa ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, since he’s our eighth Imam (whom they reject as such).  What they lack though is the extensive amount of other hadiths he spoke, such as those found in the `Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.  And really what he listed doesn’t actually amount to a lot when you look at it, certainly not when you compare it to what has come down through the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt.



He must mean the consensus of Zaydis… not the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt.  But even that is a strange claim as they themselves will go against the fiqh positions found in this book.  This book has only come down through a single narrator, Abu Khalid `Amr b. Khalid, who was considered to be fabricator and liar.  If Zayd really had narrated such a book, which would have been quite important indeed, why then would it have only come down through this single, highly questionable, source?  Internally also it demonstrates signs of its being a forgery.  I actually asked Wilferd Madelung about this (and you might know he’s about the foremost authority on Zaydism in western academia, having written the definitive work on al-Qasim b. Ibrahim ar-Rassi) and he confirmed to me that he thinks it to be a forgery from Abu Khalid.  He said it represents Kufan legal doctrine, and its hardly reasonable to assume Zayd himself did so.

As to comparing it to Bihar and saying "no less authentic to us than al-Bihar and such would be to the 12ers"... that just really demonstrates he doesn't know much about our sect and its literature.




Quite the opposite, in fact it was the Zaydis studying in Baghdad under such Mu`tazili scholars as Qadi `Abd al-Jabbar who eventually imported its teachings into their madhhab, though initially there was some resistance to this in Yemen leading to a split between those who accepted it and those who didn’t.  To claim this is the same as the Imami situation is ridiculous.  I mean for goodness sake, the Zaydis went so far as adopting the Mu`tazili usool al-khamsa as being their own beliefs.  Mu`tazilism basically died out in the rest of the Muslim world, _except_ for amongst the Zaydis who preserved their works and continued to comment on them.  I even have a copy of one of their Imams books on this, Kitab Tabaqat al-Mu`tazila of Ahmad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada that lists the generations of Mu`tazili scholars.



He’s relying on a narration from the above book that, like I said, is likely forged, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt both upheld the wiping of the feet and the legality of mut`a.  And again, there’s what Allah’s book says on these which should trump all his arguments.  As to the Ahl al-Bayt and mut`a, take a look at these hadiths for instance:

http://www.tashayyu....s/marriage/muta

And that’s not all of them.  But that many narrations coming from that many different chains clearly teaching its legality, I think someone would have to be willfully blind if they still maintained that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt were against it.



So he’s saying on such an important matter as this, they can’t make up their mind?  How is this a positive?



Allah forgives whomever He wills, and He says He forgives all sins but shirk.  They on the other hand seem to claim His hand is tied, and in the name of justice cannot forgive unless one has repented.  Does this sound like a belief in a merciful and compassionate Lord to you?

It would be unjust for Allah to punish someone who didn’t deserve it, to punish them for what they were not responsible for that.  That’s divine justice.  But, to forgive is a grace, and also a good, so to believe that Allah may do that even for the unrepentant sinner is not denying His justice, it’s affirming His grace.

As to what Allah says in His book:

íóÛúÝöÑõ áöãóäú íóÔóÇÁõ æóíõÚóÐöøÈõ ãóäú íóÔóÇÁõ
He forgives whoever He wants and He punishes whoever He wants (5:18)

Åöäóø Çááóøåó áóÇ íóÛúÝöÑõ Ãóäú íõÔúÑóßó Èöåö æóíóÛúÝöÑõ ãóÇ Ïõæäó Ðóٰáößó áöãóäú íóÔóÇÁõ

Verily Allah does not forgive that there should associated aught with Him, and He forgives what is apart from that to whoever He wants.  (4:48)

æóÅöäóø ÑóÈóøßó áóÐõæ ãóÛúÝöÑóÉò áöáäóøÇÓö Úóáóìٰ Ùõáúãöåöãú

And verily your Lord is forgiving to mankind upon their wrongdoing  (13:6)

Also, there is the clear hadith from the Prophet that states his intercession is for the grave sinners of his Umma.  If they had repented before their death and were thus forgiven, what need for his intercession?

Anyhow, again the only reason they uphold this doctrine now is because they are Mu`tazilis in their creed, and this particular doctrine was a key one for them.




The Isma`ilis, who were much more into "batini" pursuits than fiqh, had a very limited output in terms of hadiths and fiqh.  In fact, when Qadi Nu`man compiled his Da`a'im al-Islam, he had to use Zaydi and Imami books of hadith as his sources.  And by the way, the narration in Da`aim that states mut`a is haram, it comes from a Zaydi book...

Oh boy, I had no idea these issues were so complicated! Obviously I'm not as well informed on the history of Shi-ite ahadith collection as you are. People can argue for years about which so and so hundreds of years ago was truthful and which was reliable, we will never know. The reason I believe the Zaidi version of events is because (apart from the foot wiping, and I intend to keep wiping not washing) it is the closest to the Holy Qur'an. There is no mention of a Hidden Imam in the Qur'an, so I don't care how many reliable people hundreds of years ago attest to it, I won't believe it, and I won't trust anything the 12 imamers say until they admit it's a fantasy. I mean, if this far fetched  myth could have slipped through, how many other inaccuracies slipped through? It's a real pity imamers don't reform their stand so that it is not so far away from the Sunnis stand, and I say the same to the sunnis. If both sides could shift ground and meet in the middle, we would have a unified community which would be capable of solving the crippling problems faced by Muslim nations today (e.g. Palestine). I'm sure that's what Allah wants us to do, so I side with the centre unity position of the Zaidis for that reason. Anybody who doesn't want to join the Zaidis, as far as I am concerned, is guilty of causing division in the Muslim community. Unity is more important than the hidden Imam. w/salaam

[Yasoob Al Deen]

macisaac, on 11 July 2010 - 06:25 PM, said:

As to the Nizaris, I've been really curious what's going to happen once their current guy dies...Will there be a next Imam amongst them? I really don't know, the last Agha Khan already had to skip over his son whose notorious playboy lifestyle just wouldn't do and I've not heard that any of the current ones children have been prepped for it...

Interesting. If their current Imam didn't bother to pick out a son or picked someone who wasn't prepped for it, the results would be interesting indeed. Although, as you said, it's so much more like an ethnic group, it might not make a difference to them.

Quote

Since the main compiler wasn't an Imami the rijal system wouldn't classify them as "sahih". You might be familiar with my skepticism regarding this system though (which anyway, even it's adherents wouldn't largely be applying it here since these are aqaid hadiths, not fiqh)...

Er, no, I don't think I am familiar. If this is too off-topic, then you could clarify somewhere else another time.
------------

zaida, on 12 July 2010 - 02:20 AM, said:

Oh boy, I had no idea these issues were so complicated!

It's more about knowing the basics and understanding the implications of the basics, rather than it being an extremely complex issue that cannot be easily resolved. It's obvious that Imami Shia Islam is the right path.

Quote

Obviously I'm not as well informed on the history of Shi-ite ahadith collection as you are. People can argue for years about which so and so hundreds of years ago was truthful and which was reliable, we will never know.

Not at all. The 'rijal system' (as macisaac called it) is one method to identify how authentic a hadith is. It works very well. If all the narrators in a chain of narrators are trustworthy, then the hadith is very authentic. And even more so if there are plenty of hadith saying the same thing. Such as on muta, salat, etc. The Zaydis have beliefs/practices which go against Ahlulbayt's teachings, which are established through numerous saheeh hadiths.

Quote

The reason I believe the Zaidi version of events is because (apart from the foot wiping, and I intend to keep wiping not washing) it is the closest to the Holy Qur'an. There is no mention of a Hidden Imam in the Qur'an, so I don't care how many reliable people hundreds of years ago attest to it, I won't believe it, and I won't trust anything the 12 imamers say until they admit it's a fantasy.

What if it is Ahlulbayt and the companions who testify to the 12 Imams? Don't you trust their word? There are numerous saheeh hadiths which say there will be 12 Imams are found in Sunni, Imami, Zaydi, etc books of hadiths. Now tell me, which other sect has 12 Imams, let alone 12 Imams each of whom are the most knowledgable scholars of their own times?

Quote

I mean, if this far fetched myth could have slipped through, how many other inaccuracies slipped through?

On the contrary, look at how many right things there are in the Imami teachings. The only reason I seriously considered converting to the Imami teachings is because I looked at issues of contention beween Sunnis and the Shia (and sometimes the Sunnis even argued amongst themselves), and I saw that the Imamis were always right. They can't always be right unless they have the right teachers, the 12 Imams. And if they are always right on the small issues, why can't they be right on the big issues, such as Imamate which is more important than the small details.

Quote

...Unity is more important than the hidden Imam.

Is it? Unity can only be achieved through the hidden Imam. He is the one who, as the Hujja of Allah on Earth, will distinguish the truth from the falsehood and tell the Muslims the truth. Unity is important; but not when you're comprising truth. If what you say were true, then Ahlulbayt would have given up their God-given right to Leadership and joined with the majority, for the sake of unity; but nope, they uphold the truth of this matter, which was that from them had been appointed Imams who are the only true leaders of the Muslims.

There are plenty of books, some of which are online, which prove that the Imamate, significance, and importance of Ahlulbayt. You should read them, because they discuss Quranic verses which talk about Ahlulbayt. Such as 33:33.
And you saw macisaac's link to a translation of a Zaydi collection of hadith which said there would be 12 Imams; the collection was compiled at latest in the 10th Imam's time. Bukhari was also compiled before the 12th Imam's time, and it has traditions talking about 12 Imams. As I said before, there are numerous saheeh hadiths which say there will be 12 Imams are found in Sunni, Imami, Zaydi, etc books of hadiths. Now tell me, which other sect has 12 Imams, let alone 12 Imams each of whom are the most knowledgable scholars of their own times.


Peace.

Edited by Perseverance, 12 July 2010 - 08:07 AM.