17 replies to this topic

[mehdi soldier]

the thread title says it all.why did Zaid refuse to curse the oppressors of his grandparents?what were the circumstances and context for his refusal?

thanks.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Did he? Why would he?

[.K.A.R.R.A.R.]

pardon my ignorance but who is Zaid ?

[heartbroken]

whats the reference to which he would believe that?

i personally believe its all a lie

[iamsyed]

the thread title says it all.why did Zaid refuse to curse the oppressors of his grandparents?what were the circumstances and context for his refusal?

thanks.

i am also investigating this matter; i have already started a thread on this forum on this issue. i have asked there was ahwal(momin-ut-taq) responsible for zaid's revolt failure?; because sunnis blame him for that by quoting a hadith from usool al-kaafi; a member on this forum suggested me to read a book on zaid's life by a shia author. in that book i found those narrations that portray the hatred between zaid and ahlwal are fake. then i got the chance to look that hadith in usool al-kaafi; i too find something is wrong with the chain of that hadith, i think it has some majhool; unknown narrators. But the book i have been suggested by a shia member of this forum has something strange; the book's name is "swanh hazrath zaid shaheed" it's in urdu language; and the author is a shia; and his name is irtaza bin raza nawazpuri; but still he has written that the people who betrayed zaid were those who asked him to curse abu bakr and umar, but zaid refused; so those people left him; as a result he got martyred. if this is true; Really here question arises why did zaid refused to curse shaykein?
you can get that book from here http://www.ziyaraat....ZaidShaheed.pdf ; and refer it's page no 153 and 154.
so can some one tell me why did zaid refused to curse abubakr and umar?

[mehdi soldier]

pardon my ignorance but who is Zaid ?

Zaid is the son of Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain,al-Sajjad,Zainul-abideen.so Zaid is the grandson of Imam Hussain .

[Vigilare]

There are two versions:

1. Zaid did not respond when asked about Abu Bakr and Umar. This was taken to be a positive sign on that he had nothing bad to say about them. Realistically, if this was the case then it makes sense as otherwise some people may not have supported him. He was also living in a dangerous environment and going against everyone isn't generally a good idea.

2. Zaid did not have anything bad to say about them hence he did not curse them.

The first or similar is the shia view obviously. Can't remember sources right now.

[mehdi soldier]

thanks bro/sis Vigilare!Jazakallah Khair!!!

can someone please post the full hadith(s),so that we exactly see and understand the words of Hadrat Zaid himself? what were his words? was he just mute to their demand to curse (which can be interpreted in more ways than one) or was he vehemently opposing cursing the shaykhain with his own words and thus he openly spoke against cursing them (and for what reasons could that be)?

so please someone should post the hadith(s) and the different versions if they exist.

Jazakallah Khair in advance!!!

Edited by mehdi soldier, 07 February 2011 - 06:20 AM.

[Vigilare]

No problem, i'll have a look when i get a chance.

It's bro btw

[Abdaal]

Look at this paragraph.


However, Zavd's special emphasis on accepting the caliphates of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and his popularity on this ground among moderate circles show, on the one hand, that the question of the caliphates of the first two caliphs had already been under serious discussion in some Shi'i circles at that time, and on the other hand, that Zayd's success by adopting this stand created an embarrassing and complicated situation for Al-Baqir. Zayn al-'Abidin himself never spoke against the first two caliphs, but during Al-Baqir's lifetime some of the extremists who sided themselves with him started asking this question among the legitimist section of the Shi'a. Al-Baqir was thus asked time and again what he thought of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, but he did not publicly discredit them and rather confirmed that they were caliphs.60 Yet certain Shi'is of Kufa asserted that he disavowed the first two caliphs and only concealed his real opinion by resorting to the principle of dissimulation.61 This propaganda on the part of some of the Kufan followers of Al-Baqir no doubt earned him the sympathy of many extremist and semi-extremist circles, but on the other hand it discouraged those who wanted an active and more practical movement to bring the Ahl al-Bayt to power, and were already disappointed with Al-Baqir's quiescent policy. These moderates therefore preferred to range themselves on the side of Zayd,62 who in order to secure certain advantages became more emphatic in his acceptance of the first two caliphs, at the same time rejecting the principle of Taqiya. Al-Baqir was infuriated by the attitude of these Kufan Shi'is and said, "Even if the Butrites formed one battle-line from east to west, God would not grant glory to the world through them."63

http://www.al-shia.o...ia-islam/25.htm

[Vigilare]

^ I was beginning to wonder where you were...

[mehdi soldier]

Look at this paragraph.


However, Zavd's special emphasis on accepting the caliphates of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and his popularity on this ground among moderate circles show, on the one hand, that the question of the caliphates of the first two caliphs had already been under serious discussion in some Shi'i circles at that time, and on the other hand, that Zayd's success by adopting this stand created an embarrassing and complicated situation for Al-Baqir. Zayn al-'Abidin himself never spoke against the first two caliphs, but during Al-Baqir's lifetime some of the extremists who sided themselves with him started asking this question among the legitimist section of the Shi'a. Al-Baqir was thus asked time and again what he thought of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, but he did not publicly discredit them and rather confirmed that they were caliphs.60 Yet certain Shi'is of Kufa asserted that he disavowed the first two caliphs and only concealed his real opinion by resorting to the principle of dissimulation.61 This propaganda on the part of some of the Kufan followers of Al-Baqir no doubt earned him the sympathy of many extremist and semi-extremist circles, but on the other hand it discouraged those who wanted an active and more practical movement to bring the Ahl al-Bayt to power, and were already disappointed with Al-Baqir's quiescent policy. These moderates therefore preferred to range themselves on the side of Zayd,62 who in order to secure certain advantages became more emphatic in his acceptance of the first two caliphs, at the same time rejecting the principle of Taqiya. Al-Baqir was infuriated by the attitude of these Kufan Shi'is and said, "Even if the Butrites formed one battle-line from east to west, God would not grant glory to the world through them."63

http://www.al-shia.o...ia-islam/25.htm

thanks for the ill-intended contribution but that was neither called for nor requested by me.you can save that for the more gullible sunnis to feel happy about while reading your contribution and the link you provided.

after reading what you contributed and going through the link you presented to a large extent,i can simply discredit your link by describing the statements made therein as over simplified assumptions intended to discredit the imamate in itself.in other words you are diverting the topic.as a sunni,you have more to worry about whether or not Imam Ali was truly appointed by the Prophet (with the volumes of evidence that exist to support that) and you are refusing to accept the truth of a divine and prophetic matter.

whatever may have happened in the lives of the imams cannot be be used to discredit the imamate as a divine institution commissioned by the Prophet himself,whom you claim to obey.the site you presented (with many assumptions it present and using the term “shia” to deceive the unsuspecting) seem to coin or using words like "legitimist" instead of using "legitimate" (which is more often used) and with a sweet flow of english with a persuasive tone.if at all,all the narrations with a sweet flow of english trying to discredit imamate as a religious institution only enforced the idea and the reality that indeed in the times of the imams,people did recognize the presence of an Ahlul-Bayt leadership.that recognition is not bore out of simple sympathy towards the Household but tangible facts and knowledge they knew of.this sunni approach (hypothesizing to discredit a fact) reminds me of the christians who present so many ideas to counter the validity of the Quran as a divinely inspired book.they pile up so many ideas (from copying to borrowing to satanic inspiration to denying the Prophet was unlettered) to the extent that at the end of the day you are only left to be amazed by how wonderful the Quran is as a book that is attracting so much attention and so many ideas to be speculated.sunnis usually deny us the connection to our imams and make it look that our imams are innocent of our beliefs and practices.in contrast the link you presented,mostly tries to discredit the imamate of Imam Al-Baqer .

to cut things short,no matter what happened and that is altogether for a separate discussion (and you can start a topic on that in the shia/sunni section on imamate),i am not discussing here the issue of imamate as a reality or the legitimacy of the imams or their sucession.i am discussing an issue that can be clarified on why Zaid alleged refused to curse the "shaykhain".for my part i know from observation that Zaid never claimed imamate for himself.he did led an uprising which was brutally supressed.but he never claimed imamate.that is evident enough from the zaidi doctrine which simply accepts any Alawi who leads an uprising to be an imam.that is far from the reality of divine appointment which was started by the Prophet .

Edited by mehdi soldier, 07 February 2011 - 08:04 PM.

[Abdaal]

^ I was beginning to wonder where you were...

There is something else we need to look at when we study Imam Zayd ibn Ali . This is his strong friendship with Wasil ibn Ata .
Also on top of that when the Mongols attacked Baghdad, Shaykh Tusi saved Shaykh Ibn Abil Hadid and his brother. With these things in mind can Sunnis and Shias really develop a close relationship ?

[mehdi soldier]

There is something else we need to look at when we study Imam Zayd ibn Ali . This is his strong friendship with Wasil ibn Ata .
Also on top of that when the Mongols attacked Baghdad, Shaykh Tusi saved Shaykh Ibn Abil Hadid and his brother. With these things in mind can Sunnis and Shias really develop a close relationship ?

i have a christian friend who is very close to me and if an invasion of any kind takes place i would save with my life.that doesnt mean we share a religious ideology or i approve of his religious ideas.

[Abdaal]

What about Sunnis ? Do you have any Sunni friends ?

thanks for the ill-intended contribution but that was neither called for nor requested by me.you can save that for the more gullible sunnis to feel happy about while reading your contribution and the link you provided.

after reading what you contributed and going through the link you presented to a large extent,i can simply discredit your link by describing the statements made therein as over simplified assumptions intended to discredit the imamate in itself.in other words you are diverting the topic.as a sunni,you have more to worry about whether or not Imam Ali was truly appointed by the Prophet (with the volumes of evidence that exist to support that) and you are refusing to accept the truth of a divine and prophetic matter.

whatever may have happened in the lives of the imams cannot be be used to discredit the imamate as a divine institution commissioned by the Prophet himself,whom you claim to obey.the site you presented (with many assumptions it present and using the term “shia” to deceive the unsuspecting) seem to coin or using words like "legitimist" instead of using "legitimate" (which is more often used) and with a sweet flow of english with a persuasive tone.if at all,all the narrations with a sweet flow of english trying to discredit imamate as a religious institution only enforced the idea and the reality that indeed in the times of the imams,people did recognize the presence of an Ahlul-Bayt leadership.that recognition is not bore out of simple sympathy towards the Household but tangible facts and knowledge they knew of.this sunni approach (hypothesizing to discredit a fact) reminds me of the christians who present so many ideas to counter the validity of the Quran as a divinely inspired book.they pile up so many ideas (from copying to borrowing to satanic inspiration to denying the Prophet was unlettered) to the extent that at the end of the day you are only left to be amazed by how wonderful the Quran is as a book that is attracting so much attention and so many ideas to be speculated.sunnis usually deny us the connection to our imams and make it look that our imams are innocent of our beliefs and practices.in contrast the link you presented,mostly tries to discredit the imamate of Imam Al-Baqer .

to cut things short,no matter what happened and that is altogether for a separate discussion (and you can start a topic on that in the shia/sunni section on imamate),i am not discussing here the issue of imamate as a reality or the legitimacy of the imams or their sucession.i am discussing an issue that can be clarified on why Zaid alleged refused to curse the "shaykhain".for my part i know from observation that Zaid never claimed imamate for himself.he did led an uprising which was brutally supressed.but he never claimed imamate.that is evident enough from the zaidi doctrine which simply accepts any Alawi who leads an uprising to be an imam.that is far from the reality of divine appointment which was started by the Prophet .

Funny I wanted to reply to this before, but you edited it. Now you posted back the same paragraph.

Anyway I never posted that paragraph for the issue of imamate. Read my post again. Its about Ahlul Bayt's view on cursing the 2.

Also, if you want to debate on imamate let's take it Sunni/Shia section. I will show you how I don't have to worry about it, by using your own references.

Edited by Abdaal, 07 February 2011 - 09:48 PM.

[Vigilare]

Don't know if you saw this thread - it might help?

http://www.shiachat....691-zaidi-shia/

Again, I'll have to look for the source material, but those who followed Hz. Zaid had different opinions on the status of the two Caliphs, ranging from them having made an error but not sin to beoming kafirs (i think).

[mehdi soldier]

What about Sunnis ? Do you have any Sunni friends ?

yes i do.

Funny I wanted to reply to this before, but you edited it. Now you posted back the same paragraph.

Anyway I never posted that paragraph for the issue of imamate. Read my post again. Its about Ahlul Bayt's view on cursing the 2.

what you posted was talking about the imamate of our imams and that is not the topic of the thread.

the topic is not even about the Ahlul-Bayt's view on cursing the 2.it is discussing what was reported particularly about Zaid which has being misunderstood in different ways.i simply want to know the context of what Zaid did and what actually were his words and response and why.an explanation has already being given and i still look forward for a closer examination of the relevant hadith(s) and more analysis.

Also, if you want to debate on imamate let's take it Sunni/Shia section. I will show you how I don't have to worry about it, by using your own references.

suit yourself but i think you have alot to worry about.denying the least truth is monsterous.
but anyways i have had enough debates on that subject over here and i didnt ask for that.you can leave this thread alone and find someone else to engage in the other section.this thread was intended for shias to respond and discuss what they know on the subject.i will rather discuss the issue of imamate in a sunni forum where many more misguided people like yourself are present.

Edited by mehdi soldier, 08 February 2011 - 06:27 PM.

[Abdaal]

Ok fine let's cut out imamate from this. In fact I never wanted to discuss it here. I don't know what made you believe I wanted to bring it up here. The article I bolded showed that even 4th and 5th imam never cursed the first 2 calipahs. To me it shows that Imam Zayd's view doesn't conflict with the madhab of ahlul bayt.

Anyway, aside from that when I gave you examples of Imam Zayd ibn Ali and Wasil ibn Ata friendship you immediately replied by saying that you had a christian friend.
Are you trying to suggest that friendship with a non-12r is the same as a friendship with a non-muslim ?