Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Zaidism

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    1,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Zaidism last won the day on March 10 2021

Zaidism had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    Secluded
  • Religion
    Islam
  • Mood
    سُبْحَانَ اللهِ، وَالحَمْدُ لِلهِ، وَلَا إِلهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَاللهُ أَكْبَرُ
  • Favorite Subjects
    كتَابَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَ أَهْلَ البَيتِ

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,675 profile views

Zaidism's Achievements

  1. A Sunni caliphate is unlike a Zaydī Imāmah, since the conditions of a Zaydī Imāmah are - in a nutshell - the absolute uprightness of the Imām. Whereas, Sunnis don’t necessitate the same stringent conditions that Zaydīs maintain. You didn’t answer the question, I understand that our views in Imāmah differ. Yours serves nothing, and this is an objective fact that even your scholars attest to. As for “in principle” what exactly is that principle you’re referring to, because if one were to peruse all your works of Uṣūl they would find that Imāmah is fundamentally for the sake of guidance. With the occultation you have failed on guidance, and you have failed in leadership. The only reason anyone is a Shīʿī to begin with is because they think being a Shīʿa is being Pro-ʿAlid, and advancing Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. With your Imāmah you are sitting on straws, and that is putting it lightly. History is against you, the Qurʾān is against you, reason is against you, pragmatism is against you, Ḥadīth is against you. You have no leg to stand on.
  2. Imāmah is necessary to establish the Sharīʿa, to rule by the Book of Allāh, and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. Twelvers are unable to fulfill the purpose of Imāmah, so they have reengineered it to be a matter which is mystical, and messianic.
  3. Make sure you aren't doing anything unlawful; it isn't a good idea for non-Mahram's to meet, especially if you're alone. Two weeks is an insignificant amount of time to go and meet a complete stranger, not to mention whether such action is permissible, or not. Moreover, I would say that someone who is serious about their religion, and about building a future with you would do things the right way, of course this goes both ways. There are many issues with the context you've provided, and there also need to be emphasis on taking matters seriously and operating - at all times - with respect to what is permissible.
  4. @Abu Nur, @Cool Since everyone seems to desperately hold onto straws, and not address the kernel of the arguments being presented - which is understandable since these aren't typical Sunni defense, or Hasan Shimrani type arguments. Rather, they are the arguments of the family of the Prophet, I will be as explicit as one can be regarding this point. The Imam is obligated to guide everyone who seeks his guidance, unlike the Twelver narrative which says the Imam can hide himself, and not seek to guide nor guide those who are in his presence as was the case with the living Imams. For example, the narration where some Zaydis went to Imam al-Baqir (and we absolve Imam Baqir from doing this of course), and he told them he wasn't an Imam. This is unacceptable because the Imam is obligated to guide everyone who seeks his guidance. Now, if you want to open the door of knowledge of the unseen, and say he knows what is in their hearts therefore, he concealed the matter from them, it is answered already in the OP, as well as here:
  5. This is evidence for the Zaydi nature of al-Imam al-Sadiq (p), as opposed to the cowardly Taqiyyah image that is painted regarding him, as well as al-Imam Kadhim (p) in other instances within the Twelver corpus. For instance, the well known narration - unjustly - attributed to al-Imam al-Kadhim wherein he says to obey the Sultan, and give him ease. Here we see the rebelliousness of al-Imam al-Sadiq (p), and his zeal for the religion in enjoining good, and forbidding evil. Unlike how the Twelvers seek to depict, and slander al-Imam al-Sadiq as someone who quivers in the face of tyrants - God forbid - and one who conceals the religion, lies in matters which not only pertain to jurisprudence, but fundamental points of according, such as his Imam. I ask, what even is the point of this nonsensical Taqiyyah? The Zaydi Imams did Jihad one Imam after the other, and they were persecuted in the lands. Why is it that our Fiqh crystallized better than yours, and why is it that you don't even have a unified methodology? Moreover, why is it that throughout history we see that even your Usul are not unified! You all need to wake up from your fantasies, and wishful thinking. It is also very tragic to see reverts who love Imam Ali, and the Ahl al-Bayt be deceived by this sect which claims to represent them, but is farthest from them! In the words of one of our Noble scholars al-Sayyid al-ʿAllāmah Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥoūthī: As for the Shi’a, and those who are intended are the Imāmīyah. Their deviance from the Ahl al-Bayt, save the Twelve is apparent, and cannot be denied... They do not mention anyone other than the Twelve [he intends that they do not rely on anyone from the noble men from the sons of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn save their Twelve Imāms] in their works. They do not even look at their narrations, or history except for seldom mentioning their revolutions. As for the reliance on al-Bāqir, al-Ṣādiq, al-Riḍhā, and al-Kāẓim (upon them be peace) it is venturing to a mirage. This is because they only narrate from them through intermediaries from their Salaf (predecessors), and not a single one of them is from the sons of the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). In reality, their reliance is on Hishām b. al-Ḥakam, Hishām b. Sālim, al-Ṭāq, al-Ṭabrisī, al-Ṭūsī, al-Kulaynī, and al-Mufīd. They are the ark of Nuh (Noah) for them, they turn wherever they turn, and the sons of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn are disregarded. [al-Jawāb al-Kāshif lil-Ibtīlās ‘An Masā’il al-Afrīqī Ilyās, wā al-Jawāb al-Rāqī ‘An Masā’il al-ʿIrāqī, by al-Sayyid al-’Allāmah Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥouthi]. You have two lines that claim your Imams, one line claims: The Imam conceals the religion The Imam does not inform his family, and the general body of Muslims regarding his Imamah When the Imam denies the attribution of points 1 & 2, it is considered Taqiyyah, and you ought to trust them. None of those attributing these matters to your 12 Imams are even related to them by blood, hence you have Imam al-Qasim (who is related to them by blood!) saying: ''They are more knowledgeable of their Ahl al-Bayt than you! They know each other more than you, and you O Claimant who alleges falsehood, do you want us to accept your perjury without clear proof, and evidence and have us deem the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) as liars?! Is it not incumbent upon your companion to follow the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace), and follow in accordance with his actions?! If he was a Ḥujjah, as you claim. And Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted) said: {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allāh you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allāh and the Last Day} [33:21]. Is it not necessary for your companion to extend his admonishment to the Ahl al-Bayt of his Prophet, before the ʿAwām (laity)? As Allāh (the Exalted) ordered, by saying: {And warn ˹all, starting with˺ your closest relatives} [26:214]''. The second line claims: The Imam does not conceal the religion. The Imam openly declares his Imamah, and informs the Muslims, as well as his family. The Imam does not do Taqiyyah in matters which pertain to salvation, or that which relates to the Islamic nation. Those making these claims are from the flesh, and blood of your own Twelve Imams! !مَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ {What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge?} [al-Qalam: 36]. Seriously, read the OP before responding. If they claim that their companion conceals in the same manner that the believer concealed. It is said to them: Do you not claim that your companion is a Ḥujjah? Is it for the believer to clarify what the Ḥujjaj have already clarified? It is fitting for the believer to conceal, and it is not fitting for the Ḥujjah to conceal! Moreover, the believer from the family of Pharaoh concealed his faith before Allāh made it apparent for the creation, after Allāh made it apparent for the creation it was not in his capacity to conceal faith after clarity, while also considering he was amongst idol worshipers, and the home of he who claims Lordship besides Allāh, and denies the Lord of the Worlds. Whereas, your companion resides in the home of acknowledgement, knowledge, and attestation to the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). So, if they were ignorant toward that which pertains to religious rulings, and the Shari'ah, then it is not for anyone to conceal knowledge from its seeker after the clarification of the Prophets; a Ḥujjah is not a Ḥujjah until they show that they are so to the creation of Allāh, and did not make the religion of Allāh conflicting. If they claim that the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) concealed his faith when he first appeared. It is said to them: When did the Messenger of Allāh (upon him be peace) conceal his faith? Did not Allāh say to His Prophet: {O you covered up ˹in your clothes˺! [1] Arise and warn ˹all˺} [74:1-2]. And the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) said while he was leaning on the Kaʿba, and the people at the time were ignorant, and polytheists, he said: {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O humanity! I am Allāh’s Messenger to you all} [7:158]. He did not conceal his faith from anyone from his creation, he withstood tribulation, was afflicted for the cause of Allāh, and rose for His sake. He presented proofs for the creation of Allāh, and was patient over what befell him until he (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) informed the listener, and the disobedient, the private, and the public, the black, and the white. In one instance they strike his legs, in another they stone him, and the people gathered secretly to plot for his killing, and his Ḥujjah was established over the creation. Therefore, if you claim the Imāms stand in the position of the Prophets, then it is incumbent upon them to withstand affliction, as did the Prophets. A Ḥujjah cannot be anyone else besides one who calls to Allāh with foreknowledge, ascetic towards what is in your hands, knowledgeable regarding that which pertains to the Ḥalāl, and Ḥarām of Allāh. The most upright from the creation of Allāh, and the most insightful regarding His religion. The most kind towards the people, and the most supportive of His religion; the viceroy of Allāh on earth, detached from this world, and longing for the meeting of Allāh.
  6. {Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam as your religion} [5:3] The religion, and guidance has already been conveyed, and completed in terms of revelation. Whoever denies this has disbelieved in the Quran, and exited the fold of Islam by consensus. The point about the guidance of the Mahdi is in terms of hat has already been established of the religion, if he does not guide the Shia in matters of Halal, and Haram, then your Imamah is pointless. It is mere sophistry, and wordplay! Moreover, Allah says: {Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers} [2:159}.
  7. It is fundamental, and your evading the question concedes the point of its pointlessness. Everyone who sought the guidance of the Prophet, or reached him obligated the Prophet to present guidance to them. The case with the Mahdi is he does not guide anyone, those who seek him are not guided, as well as the other Imams - people asked Imam Sadiq if he was an Imam, and according to Sahih Hadiths he denied being an Imam, but you simply say it is Taqiyyah. I pray the points are clear.
  8. Again, you can’t get past point 1, The Mahdi does not guide.
  9. This verse is referring to Prophets, and them guiding by the أَمْرِ of Allah, which is guiding towards His cause, the Exalted. {And We made them leaders guiding by Our command. And We inspired to them the doing of good deeds, establishment of prayer, and giving of zakāh; and they were worshippers of Us} [21:73]. No leadership, or guidance whatsoever from the Mahdi. No demonstrable good deeds. No Friday prayer commenced. No giving, or taking of Zakah. This verse alone refutes your belief in Imamah, as it is pointless, respectively.
  10. Salam Abu Hadi, I am glad you have taken the time to share your valued thoughts, and hope that you have also taken the time to read what Imam al-Qasim (p) has said. Regarding your points about the Imam acting in accordance to the order of Allah, we say that Allah (the Glorious) is just by necessity. Therefore, any obligation from the Most Just cannot be that which the servant is unable to fulfill. It is unjust to say that we are obligated to believe in the Imamah of Imams that (a) have no historical evidence for the existence of the 12th Imam, nor evidence from the Quran, and Sunnah. As, you would agree it is an unjustified leap to say that since there will be a Mahdi in the end times, it is the Mahdi of the Twelvers. Especially since there were others who claimed their Mahdi to be such a Mahdi, such as the Kaysanites, Waqifites, and many more. One would ask where was this Hadith of the 12 if so many Shias in history including the so called companions of the Imams who later deviated, yet narrated from the Imams took such a grand shift in creed? And (b) it is unjust to believe in Imams that say they are not Imams! Can you imagine? How unfair, and egregious is this, to say you are a Hujjah of Allah to a closed circle, and to the Muslims, nay to your own family you say that you are not an Imam! Imam al-Qasim is from the flesh, and blood of the Messenger of Allah, and his virtue and piety is uncontested. His argument is very succinct, he says to those who have lied upon the Imams such as al-Sadiq, al-Kadhim, al-Rida (upon them be peace) that if they were to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger of Allah, and the Quran, then why do they conceal this matter from him? Why is it that the Imams did not tell their own cousin, that they are Imams? Did not the Messenger of Allah reveal the matter to Quraysh, and they were the most severe in opposition to him. I invite you to kindly read, and sincerely reflect on the words of the Star of the Ahl al-Bayt, and I invite you to the path of the Prophet, and his progeny, not the path of those who were not from the Ahl al-Bayt. Are you sincerely willing to say it is in accordance to the will of Allah that Imam Sadiq hides his Imamah from his own son, the Zaydi Imam Muhammad b. Ja'far? This is in accordance to the will of injustice, not the will of Allah (the Exalted). You mention that the companions of the cave went into hiding, yet we ask did Allah make them a point of salvation while in their hiding? Your belief - and this is the consensus of your school - that any Muslim who denies any of the Imams is a Kafir in the hereafter, you obligate belief in Imams that say they are not Imams, or are hidden from the Muslims. Allah did not tie salvation to anyone when they were in hiding, so such a Qiyas is not valid, respectively. Moreover, you mention Hadiths about occultation, we say where were these Hadiths from the Shia when they were left confused after each Imam? And they weren't ordinary Shias, rather they were the jurists of the Imamiyah at the time. All these Hadiths of occultation which you mention are post-occultation fabrications, and a prime example is that according to al-Nawbakhti, one who you claim to be a companion of the 11th Imam, he mentions in his work on Shia sects that after the death of al-Hasan al-Askari the Shia split into 14 sects, some claiming that the 11th Imam is the Mahdi. Again, reflect on the inconsistency, and reflect on the narrative you mention. There is no wisdom, nor benefit from occultation, and it is mere conjecture, and baseless irfani rhetoric, respectively. If an Imam does not guide in matters of Halal, and Haram, and establishes the Shariah, then what purpose is there of the Imam, mysticism?! The Quran calls us to administer the Hudud, gather the Zakat, and to enjoin good, and forbid evil. Are you telling me that Allah emphasized these matters in the Quran only to hide the very means to establishing such (according to Twelvers) for over 1,187+ years?! Until Sayyid Khomeini came after over a millennium to alter the course, and emulate his Zaydi ancestors from the Ahl al-Bayt? After all, is Wilayat Faqih anything other than a proto-type Zaydi system of governance? How unwise is it to call people to guidance, and establish the Shariah, and then hide the guide, and the means to fulfilling such. For, your prominent scholar ʿAsif Muḥsinī mentions that there is no benefit gained for the believers by the Twelfth Imām in matters of Furūʿ al-Dīn, and Usūl al-Dīn for as long as the occultation lasts, even if it were to remain for millions of years. Maintaining that benefit is only gained from jurists who exercise independent legal reasoning through apparent reports, and states that those who claim that there is benefit gained from al-Imām al-Mahdī in those matters - of Usūl al-Dīn, and Furūʿ al-Dīn - as toying, and playing with their minds, and that only the one whom Allāh has taken their intellect away claims that there is any religious benefit gained from him. al-Shaykh ʿAsif Muḥsinī addresses the report that the world cannot be left without an Imām, otherwise it would be lost. He then addressed the position of fayḍh, and takwīn as it being a possible role for the Mahdī, thereafter, he said: If one proposes matters of Tashrīʿ (legislation), and clarification of knowledge and rulings then it is necessary to go towards the independent jurists who are able to derive rulings from the apparent reports; so that the narrations during the time of occultation which has lasted more than a thousand years are not forsaken; and perhaps the occultation my last for a couple thousand, or million years. For, the believers have not benefited, and will not benefit from their occult Imām (may Allāh hasten his reappearance) in matters of Usūl, and Furūʿ. Whomsoever says otherwise is merely fantasizing, deluding, and playing with the minds. Source - Mashraʿt Biḥār al-Anwār: 1/407-408. And ʿAsif Muḥsinī said in another statement: It cannot be said that we benefit from him (upon him be peace) during the period of occultation in matters of religion, only one who Allāh has taken their mind [would utter such a claim]. Source - Mashraʿt Biḥār al-Anwār: 2/223. - Therefore, the exegesis of {Ask the people of Remembrance if you do not know} [16:43] has been nullified, O people, and the will [of the Messenger] ((If you hold onto them after me you will not go astray)) has been nullified, and inactive for the entirety of those twelve centuries, and perhaps for thousands, or millions of more years. - What remains is holding onto men from the Shīʿa, and not the ʿitra (progeny of the Prophet)! There is no Naṣṣ, there is no infallibility, and there is no ʿitra for the Twelvers! Furthermore, here are two empirical testimonies which point to the errancy of there being a birth, or existence for the son of al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, as well as the ignorance of his Ahl al-Bayt regarding his existence. This also helps to indicate the non-existence of any Naṣṣ (Ḥadīth) that designates Twelve in that - pre occultation - era: The First Testimony is by the Predecessor of the ʿitrah (progeny of the Prophet) al-Nāṣir lil-Ḥaqq (The Supporter of the Truth) al-Uṭrūsh al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (upon them be peace) (230-304 AH). The renowned Imām of the Zaidīyyah, and what has been transmitted from him - regarding this - is abundant, and known by the Zaydīs. He was among the companions of his cousin al-Imām al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (upon him be peace) (d. 260 AH). Between them was camaraderie, and [sharing of] knowledge. The Second Testimony is by the Sheikh of the Muʿtazilah of his time Abī ʿAlī Muḥammad b. ʿAbdul-Wahāb al-Juba’ī (235-303 AH), in the book of al-Maqālāt which is attributed to him. He is one who is known to have met with the Ḥusaynī progeny in the varying nations, and they had no knowledge of that matter [al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī having a son]. We will share his quote, and therein will be beneficial indicators for the researcher, and they are: - The non-existence of a Naṣṣ for the Twelve Imams - The absence of the belief in an occultation among the sons of al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace). - Otherwise, they would have shared those reports, and they would have appeared among them. - It is also notable that the concoction, and spread of the reports of the Twelve had not yet begun in the era of Abī ʿAlī al-Juba’ī. Abu ʿAlī al-Juba’ī al-Muʿtazilī said: (and what is between brackets is an addition from us for clarity) The request for an Imām from them has been mentioned [after listing the provinces, and places which indicates their lack of knowledge of that Imām]: As for the province of al-Maghrib (Morocco) by my life within it are the men of the Ahl al-Bayt, however, they are from the sons of Idrīs. Idrīs is from the sons of al-Ḥasan, and you do not permit the Imāmah except for the sons of al-Ḥusayn. However, there are many in al-Ḥijāz who are from the sons of al-Ḥusayn, and in al-Iraq in the village of Baghdad, Samaraa, al-Kufa, and the land of Khorasan. We have entered upon them, and we have inquired regarding the description of this Imām, and we did not find a single one of them who knew him, claimed to believe in him, nor claimed to know him! Therefore, if you do not know him [because there were those among him who did not permit naming him,] nor do you know his time, in what land he is in, nor do his own Ahl al-Bayt (family) - which you claim he is from - know him; then this Imām is non-existent. We have heard you describe him with a description of great knowledge, and virtue which cannot be concealed from its person. This is because the people of knowledge are from the people themselves, and they are known in all nations… There is no nation, or city in which a man is mentioned to be knowledgeable in any of the arts, except that he is known in all nations; such as Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Mubrad [d. 286 AH,] and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā - who is known as Thaʿlab in Baghdad [d. 291 AH]! How can this Imām be hidden, and only a few particulars know him, as opposed to the general public? If they say: He fears for his life. [Like the claim of @-Rejector-] We say to them: How can he fear for himself - if he appears - while he has knowledge of the unseen, as you claim? He who has knowledge of the unseen has nothing to fear from his enemies, for Allāh (Blessed is He) says when mentioning His Prophet: {And if I knew the unseen, I could have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me} [7:188]. How can he fear for himself if whenever his enemy advances towards a matter, he would know it? Therefore, we say to them: You do not know the Imām who you are claiming, nor do you know the time of his appearance. Neither do we know him, nor do his own Ahl al-Bayt know him, or the time of his appearance, so from where are you vindicating your claims?! Source - [al-Maqalat li-Abi ʿAlī al-Juba’i, pg. 108-110]. I would also add that the researcher will not find any mention of a report - that one can confidently establish - which designates a Twelfth Imām in any pre-occultation work in the works of the Twelvers, and all that came after was concocted in the post-occultation period. I also add that any reports in the Twelver corpus which mentions some of the ‘Alids, or Ḥusaynīs testifying that there exists a son for al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī is not befitting of an objection, because it stems from those who exclusively hold to that claim. We know that in their books of Ḥadīth they not only narrate it from them, but also from al-Imām Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, his father, his son, and others from the greats from the sons of al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace). To claim that matter is established is farthest that can be, due to the exclusivity of such a grand claim from the entirety of the Ummah (Islamic Nation) of there being a Naṣṣ on Twelve. It is a dark corpus which cannot be relied on - in its exclusive claims - in any manner, except for those who take their religion by doing Taqlīd (emulation) of mere narrations irrespective of how they were, or how they coincide! The narrations of the Twelvers do not serve neither in objection, nor testimony. They will seek to allude to the individual that these Twelver narrations of Naṣṣ were matters which are unanimously accepted, and that even the Naṣibīs, Zaydīs, and Faṭḥīs knew of them, and that they were Mutawatir (mass-transmitted)! This is nothing but a lie, how can it not be so? When their own Salaf (predecessors) who were the Khawāṣ (close confidants) of the Imāms were the most ignorant of the people of [there being a Naṣṣ which designates Twelve Imāms]. In the image is a report for the people of knowledge from the treatise of al-Imām al-Nāṣir al-Kabīr in which he denies there being a son, may Allāh grant you success. There is much more that can be shared, and said, so I look forward to progressing the discussion @Abu Hadi.
  11. The reason for their hiding was due to their persecution, him not doing Taqiyyah is what resulted in this, and his Hijrah is a clear example of this. Why didn't any of the Imams - if they were upon the state which you claim of concealing their Imamah from the Muslims, family, etc - do Hijrah towards the lands which had abundant supporters, especially those of their cousins like al-Imam al-Qasim Himself? Or, Imam Yahya b. Abdullah b. Hasan b. Hasan, and Imam Idris b. Abdullah b. Hasan b. Hasan? You presuppose that he did Taqiyyah, yet those actions which you mention are the essence of the Ahl al-Bayt. Him not coming out and saying I am a divinely designated Imam, or him not cursing the Shaykhayn Abu Bakr, and Umar is clear that is the position of the Ahl la-Bayt. Allah does not deal with His creation through puzzles, riddles, and what is more confusing, and conflicting - Taqiyyah. To conceal the religion of Allah in matters which pertain to their salvation absolutely impermissible. Also, this is addressed extensively if you would take the time to kindly read before responding to the post. It has been narrated in al-Muḥīt bil-Imāmah from al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan (upon them be peace), he said: Taqīyyah is a permission, not a virtue. Taqīyyah is when one fears for their life and is weak in the face of the cause of Allāh. Virtue is rising for the cause of Allāh, and calling to Him. Be wary! That you claim your Imam guides in secrecy and causes others to deviate in the open. By Allāh, I would not be pleased if I had whatever the sun rises, and sets upon, yet be the cause for a single soul to deviate. This is because I have heard Allāh (Glorious and Exalted is He) say: {Whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity}. The repentant sorcerers (may Allāh have mercy on them) in the time of Pharaoh (may Allāh curse him) chose death over Taqiyyah, and Allāh praised them, and sent His graceful salutations upon them which remain until the day of recompense. Likewise, the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace), he sent two men to Musaylima. He afflicted one of them, causing him to yield to his affliction through precaution, whereas the other remained steadfast upon faith, and patience until he was killed. The Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) said: ((He is my neighbor in paradise)), and because many from the Imams of guidance openly defied the enemies of Allāh (Exalted is He) and stood in clear opposition to them in many instances; and because Allāh praised whoever does not fear the coming of death, and this is in contrast to the decree regarding Taqiyyah. We have made it clear that Taqīyyah is not permitted in changing rulings or issuing rulings which are in opposition to the religion, or leading to any form of deviance, as we have mentioned. This is because that is what causes great corruption in religion, and Allāh (Exalted is He) promised those who cause great corruption on earth with death. Therefore, how can one push death away with what is deserving of death? Source: al-ʿAqd al-Thamīn fī Aḥkām al-A’immah al-Hādīn: pg, 306-307. This is invalid, Shias were in positions of power all throughout history, and today there is Iran. The purpose of the Imam is to guide in matters of Halal, and Haram. So, if he is hidden from fulfilling his purpose which is to guide in these matters of Shariah, as that is what the purpose of an Imam is effectively. Then, the matter is simply sophistry, and mystery. Moreover, you need to establish that he exists, which you cannot. This is incorrect, Imam al-Husayn did not have a pledge of allegiance to anyone.
  12. You haven't taken the time to read it, yet you concluded that it is nonsense? Also, have some respect for an actual Imam from the Ahl al-Bayt, this Imam actually served the Muslims and did not forsake them for over a millennium. Although, it is understandable for such to be seen in a non-existent personality. Moreover, you believe the Imams actively hid their Imamah, hence the refutation of a true Imam from the Ahl al-Bayt, wherein he states: ''Is it not incumbent upon your companion to follow the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace), and follow in accordance with his actions?! If he was a Ḥujjah, as you claim. And Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted) said: {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allāh you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allāh and the Last Day} [33:21]. Is it not necessary for your companion to extend his admonishment to the Ahl al-Bayt of his Prophet, before the ʿAwām (laity)? As Allāh (the Exalted) ordered, by saying: {And warn ˹all, starting with˺ your closest relatives} [26:214]''. He was contemporary to the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Imams. Do you know of his history, and the sacrifices he made for the religion of his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah? Do you know that divine Twelver Imamah serves his worldly interests more - as you claim this is what he seeks, yet his life is a complete refutation of such a claim - he wouldn't of have had to go through enjoining good, forbidding evil by placing his life under danger constantly persecuted, and sought by the Abbasids. He could have enjoyed the luxury that some charlatans enjoyed, and he could have easily left the matter in the hands of the 'Imam' which is to leave the matter in the hands of those fraudsters who infiltrated the Ahl al-Bayt. Rather, he met them with an iron fist, and responded to their forgeries with a light so gleaming it has left you unable to read what he says out of fear of leaving the falsity of the darkness which you are in. Be vary careful when it comes to the judgments you pass, and the words you say. This is al-Imam al-Qasim ar-Rassi, the Star of the Ahl al-Bayt, so formulate your words with respect, and accordance to the personage of this Noble Imam.
  13. The Star of the Ahl al-Bayt | نجم آل الرسول al-Imām al-Qāsim b. ʾIbrāhīm b. ʾIsmāʿīl b. ʾIbrāhīm b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace) (169-246 AH) said: If you claim that he [the Imam] is a Ḥujjah (proof) upon everyone, then it is incumbent upon him to guide everyone, show them the right way, cause them to perceive, and inform them regarding himself. How can he be a guide, and conceal himself from the creation, and not make matters clear for them?! Do you not see that when they stand under the judgment of Allāh, what will he present as proof against them? Did he call them to himself, and they disobeyed him? Did he make matters clear for them, and they opposed him? Did he present himself as a proof, and they denied him? How can he substantiate a proof against them when his proofs did not reach them, his name they did not know, and he did not make himself known. If you claim that it is permitted for him to conceal such, because Allāh said in the decisive verse of His Book: {A believing man from Pharaoh’s people, who was hiding his faith} [40:28]. [it is said to them] He said {A believing man} and that man was not a Ḥujjah, because the Ḥujjaj (proofs) which passed were the Prophets, and the vicegerents of Prophets. This man is a believer who Allāh commended, he wasn't a Prophet, nor was he a Ḥujjah. If they claim that their companion conceals in the same manner that the believer concealed. It is said to them: Do you not claim that your companion is a Ḥujjah? Is it for the believer to clarify what the Ḥujjaj have already clarified? It is fitting for the believer to conceal, and it is not fitting for the Ḥujjah to conceal! Moreover, the believer from the family of Pharaoh concealed his faith before Allāh made it apparent for the creation, after Allāh made it apparent for the creation it was not in his capacity to conceal faith after clarity, while also considering he was amongst idol worshipers, and the home of he who claims Lordship besides Allāh, and denies the Lord of the Worlds. Whereas, your companion resides in the home of acknowledgement, knowledge, and attestation to the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). So, if they were ignorant toward that which pertains to religious rulings, and the Shari'ah, then it is not for anyone to conceal knowledge from its seeker after the clarification of the Prophets; a Ḥujjah is not a Ḥujjah until they show that they are so to the creation of Allāh, and did not make the religion of Allāh conflicting. If they claim that the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) concealed his faith when he first appeared. It is said to them: When did the Messenger of Allāh (upon him be peace) conceal his faith? Did not Allāh say to His Prophet: {O you covered up ˹in your clothes˺! [1] Arise and warn ˹all˺} [74:1-2]. And the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) said while he was leaning on the Kaʿba, and the people at the time were ignorant, and polytheists, he said: {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O humanity! I am Allāh’s Messenger to you all} [7:158]. He did not conceal his faith from anyone from his creation, he withstood tribulation, was afflicted for the cause of Allāh, and rose for His sake. He presented proofs for the creation of Allāh, and was patient over what befell him until he (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) informed the listener, and the disobedient, the private, and the public, the black, and the white. In one instance they strike his legs, in another they stone him, and the people gathered secretly to plot for his killing, and his Ḥujjah was established over the creation. Therefore, if you claim the Imāms stand in the position of the Prophets, then it is incumbent upon them to withstand affliction, as did the Prophets. A Ḥujjah cannot be anyone else besides one who calls to Allāh with foreknowledge, ascetic towards what is in your hands, knowledgeable regarding that which pertains to the Ḥalāl, and Ḥarām of Allāh. The most upright from the creation of Allāh, and the most insightful regarding His religion. The most kind towards the people, and the most supportive of His religion; the viceroy of Allāh on earth, detached from this world, and longing for the meeting of Allāh. If they claim: That these qualities are found in their companion. It is said to them: Is not the utilization of Taqiyyah, a means to save himself from death, and a form of longing to remain in the world, that he may be left unharmed within it; that he may be unknown so that he is killed. This is not asceticism, nor longing. For, he has displayed that which is in opposition to the truth that he knows. So, Glory be to Allāh! How clear is the falsity of your claims! How false are your claims! How incoherent is that which you are in! For, we see among you those who are poor, disadvantaged, and needy. From a feeble Shaykh, to a feeble widow From an orphaned child, or an indebted one that is sorrowful. A stranger who is in need of marriage, or a destitute person that is in need, yet without ability, nor shelter. You claim that he knows your places, sees your deeds, and is aware of your situation. Is it not incumbent upon him to change your situation, to lift your burdens, and pay your debts?! For, you claim that he is in the station of the Prophets. And Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted) has said: {For He is ever Merciful to the believers} [33:43]. So, he (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) would give to the disadvantaged from among his nation, to the extent that he would place them ahead of himself, and his family, and Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted) said regarding his Ahl al-Bayt (upon him and them be peace) {And they give food—despite their desire for it—to the poor, the orphan, and the captive} [76:8]. They did not withhold their food from the hostage, while he was a Kāfir, placing them ahead of themselves. Therefore, how is it that your companion does not give ahead of himself from [his wealth] to the disadvantaged from among his companions? And Allāh (the Glorious) has said regarding the Ahl al-Bayt of His Prophet (upon him and them be peace): {And whoever is saved from the selfishness of their own souls, it is they who are ˹truly˺ successful} [59:9]. And He has said regarding the believers: {Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh. And those with him are firm with the disbelievers and compassionate with one another} [48:29]. He has described the believers as showcasing mercy to one another. So, how is it possible for the Ḥujjah of Allāh, if he was a Ḥujjah over what you described, to take advantage of the thousands, and take the Khums of your wealth - leaving emmissiaries in every city to gather the wealth. Yet, he does not relieve anyone from among the creation of Allāh, and he does not distribute it among the poor, and destitute?! Note: Imam Qāsim is addressing the community of the Shia (which were many varying sects) who claim divine Imāmah after the 6th Imām (for varying personages), so this also includes the Imāms of the Ismailis as well. Moreover, to cite instances of charity here, and there (done by Twelver Imāms) does not invalidate the empirical testimony of al-Imām al-Qāsim. This is because those cases sighted are from the noble men of the Ahl al-Bayt who have been lied upon from the 4th to the 11th Imāms of the Imāmīyah, their nobility, generosity, and alms-giving goes without saying. The problem is with the Kufans, and the many charlatans at the time that would gather Khums claiming it is in the name of those noble men from the Ahl al-Bayt. We pray that this is present in the mind of the reader, so as to properly conceive of the significance of this live historical testimony from the Imām, as well as not reading the matter through varying unjustifiable presuppositions. For instance, it is like someone who gathers wealth in the name of person X (without the knowledge/approval of person X). Thereafter, this person, person Y who gathers such wealth is questioned in lieu of what he deems to be the traits of person X, such as the aforementioned qualities of nobility, generosity, and almsgiving. This questioning does not undermine person X (as he is not complicit), but instead holds person Y (the culprit) to the claimed example of person X, and concedes to the narrative of person Y (that this is actually being gathered in the name of person X) for the sake of a more conclusive dialectical approach. For instance, you claim that the Khums is reaching him, well if it has we do not see X, Y, and Z. Not that, he is necessarily guilty of not fulfilling X, Y, and Z. Cont. The example of the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) within him was not seen, for Allāh (the Glorious) has said: {And ever is He, to the believers, Merciful} [33:43]. {Gracious and merciful to the believers} [9:128]. And the example of the believers from the companions of the Prophet (upon him be peace) was not seen within him, for Allāh has said regarding them: {Compassionate with one another. You see them bowing and prostrating ˹in prayer˺, seeking Allāh’s bounty and pleasure} [48:29]. {Supporting [the cause of] Allāh and His Messenger} [59:8]. It is not seen within him that he relieves anyone from among the believers if they were to be oppressed, or killed. Nor was it seen from him the opposition to the enemies of Allāh, nor did he tread on the path that garners the anger of the enemies. Rather, he was only seen taking wealth without distributing it amongst the disadvantaged! So, how is it permitted for us to say regarding him: He is a Ḥujjah, yet the example of a Ḥujjah is not seen with him?! As for your saying: He is aware of what we do, and is aware of our innermost secrets. …We see among you those who drink intoxicants, and we see among you fornication, sodomy, wrongfully taking the wealth of others, oppressing the creation, as well as severing the ties, and miserliness; treading on other than what Allāh ordered - and murdering! You claim that he is aware of you carrying these attributes, for you say that he sees the acts of the servants; and he accepts your companionship while you carry these attributes. If he were to accept your companionship while you are upon such, then he is by Allāh upon nothing, by the saying of Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted): {And do not incline toward those who do wrong, lest you be touched by the Fire} [11:113}. And His saying: {So turn away ˹O Prophet˺ from whoever has shunned Our Reminder, only seeking the ˹fleeting˺ life of this world} [53:29]. And His saying: {You will never find a people who ˹truly˺ believe in Allāh and the Last Day loyal to those who defy Allāh and His Messenger} [58:22]. And He (the Blessed, and Exalted) said: {O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them} [66:9]. And He said to His Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace): {And patiently stick with those who call upon their Lord morning and evening, seeking His pleasure. Do not let your eyes look beyond them, desiring the luxuries of this worldly life} [18:28]. Allāh (the Glorious) ordered him to not hold to the companionship of those who cling to this world, and be patient towards those who aspire for the hereafter. We did not see from your companion anything save seeking the world, striving for increase, even if what you describe of the qualities are not present with him! You claim that he sees the acts, and deeds of the creation, and he is a witness over them, and such is not present with him, that he sees the acts of the creation! …If he saw your actions it is not permitted for him to keep your companionship, nor take any matter from you which pertains to the worldly life. If he does not possess what you describe of him having, then you have disbelieved, and worshiped him besides Allāh. For, is this anything but the attribute of the Lord of the Worlds?! Does he see what has been concealed from him, and hear without the need to listen, and know what is within your hearts, without being informed?! Far exalted is Allāh, the Lord of the Worlds above what they say. How great is your lie against Allāh, for you have associated with His act a member from His creation, and how can such a claim which you make be possible?! While He says {˹He is the˺ Knower of the unseen} and He then said: {Disclosing none of it to anyone [26] Except messengers of His choice. Then He appoints angel-guards before and behind them} [72:26-27]. He (the Glorious) intends: Through revelation. By His saying: {He appoints angel-guards before and behind them}. For, He informed that none save Allāh possess knowledge of the unseen, and a Messenger whom He accepts. He informs him through revelation of what He wants, and when the Messenger of Allāh departs the informing, and revelation is ceased, and from the creation matters of revelation are lifted, as well as knowledge of future occurrences save what the Prophets came with, and by the knowledge of the Prophets they testify. So, how can one have knowledge of the unseen without revelation from Allāh (the Mighty, and Exalted)? That he may arrive at a saying, or achieve it. If you claim that today on earth there are those who receive revelation, then you have claimed that they are Prophets. This is because revelation is only for a Prophet, for he was referred to as a Prophet, because he receives prophecy from Allāh. Therefore, he who receives a prophecy from Allāh is a Prophet. So be wary! When did you believe in Allāh when you falsified the Book of Allāh?! By His saying: {The seal of the prophets} [33:40]. How is it that Muḥammad is the seal of the Prophets when you have placed Prophets after him in his place?! And it is said to al-Rawāfiḍh: Inform us regarding the desert bedouins, the disadvantaged, and the ones who don't know the name, nor lineage of your companion; does he have a Ḥujjah over them? If they say: Yes. It is said to them: Has the Ḥujjah from him reached them, so that he may be considered a Ḥujjah over them? And it is said to al-Rawāfiḍh: Is it incumbent upon your companion to tread in the footsteps of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) that he is a follower of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him be peace), not one who opposes him? If they say: Yes, he follows the example of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). It is said to them: Have you seen with him what you have seen with the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) of piety, and otherwise? If they say: Yes. It is said to them: Have we seen him relieve the situation of any of you, or changed his? And we have surely seen from him acts which cannot be from any Prophet, nor believer, and we are shy to mention them here in our treatise. And it is said to the Rawāfiḍh: Can a Ḥujjah for Allāh be anything but mature? in the same manner that Allāh did not send Muḥammad until he reached the age of maturity! How can a Ḥujjah of Allāh be a child, when Allāh said: {Ḥujjah Baligha} So, how can it be a child of three, or four years of age?! And we are from the nation of Muḥammad, and our Sunnah is the Sunnah of Islam, and Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted) said: {To each of you We prescribed a law and a method} [5:48]. And from the tradition of Muḥammad is that a child is not prayed behind, his testimony is not accepted, his slaughterings are not eaten, he cannot be bought, or sold, and he cannot be married. So, how is it that a small child can be placed as an Imām for the Muslims?! If they claim that he is the companion of the matter during his childhood, and when he reaches maturity he is the Ḥujjah. It is said to them: Do you not then consider that for a period of time the earth has been left without a Ḥujjah, and if it was permitted for the earth to be free from a Ḥujjah for even the length of the twinkling of the eye, then it is permitted for the earth to be free from a Ḥujjah for a thousand years!!! Let it be said to the Rawāfiḍh: Inform us regarding the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger (upon him and them be peace), are they polytheists, disbelievers, or Muslims?! If you claim that they are Muslims, it is said: The Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and them be peace), and the scholars of their school have reached a consensus that you are not upon the creed of Islam [i.e the correct Islamic way]. If they claim that the Ahl al-Bayt know the truth, yet deny it out of envy, it is said to them: We have seen that if anyone from among them carries the conspicuous characteristics of virtue, and piety they all rally among him; they testify towards his virtue, and reside under his wisdom. Therefore, how can you claim that they are envious of your companion, while they didn’t show envy towards the other one?! If it is as you describe, that they do not testify due to envy, then they wouldn’t have testified to anyone! Each one of them would have simply pulled to themselves, and would not adhere to the virtue of other than him. However, you have slandered them, and we have seen that their sayings are vindicated by the book of Allāh, and your sayings are reprimanded by the book of Allāh! They are more credible in truthfulness than you, and we find among them of piety what we have not seen by others. They are more knowledgeable of their Ahl al-Bayt than you! They know each other more than you, and you O Claimant who alleges falsehood, do you want us to accept your perjury without clear proof, and evidence and have us deem the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) as liars?! Is it not incumbent upon your companion to follow the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace), and follow in accordance with his actions?! If he was a Ḥujjah, as you claim. And Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted) said: {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allāh you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allāh and the Last Day} [33:21]. Is it not necessary for your companion to extend his admonishment to the Ahl al-Bayt of his Prophet, before the ʿAwām (laity)? As Allāh (the Exalted) ordered, by saying: {And warn ˹all, starting with˺ your closest relatives} [26:214]. The Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) gathered forty men from the sons of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, ʿAbd Munāf, and men from Banī Makhzūm, among them being Abū Jahl b. Hishām, and al-Walīd b. al-Mughīrah. Among the people was Abū Bakr, and from Banī Umayyah was ʿUthmān, and Sakhr b. Ḥarb Abū Sufyān. He warned them with the knowledge that was revealed to him, and he informed them of what Allāh revealed to him. He extended his advice to them, called them to support him, and he who answered him, answered, and he who opposed him, opposed. He did not fear that they may deem him to be a liar, deny him, or plot against him. He was a Ḥujjah for all those who followed him, and Ḥujjah against those who went against him. Is it not necessary for your companion to clarify for his Ahl al-Bayt, as the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) clarified for his kin. If they say: He fears that they do not accept the matter from him, and that they may deem him a liar, and envy him. It is said to them: Be wary! How grand is your slander against the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). Do you see them as more treacherous than those who we described from Quraysh, who the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) informed?! Do you claim that the most noble, and pious from the family of Muḥammad such as Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, ʿAlī b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn [al-Asghar], Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Ḥasan, al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan who the nation has narrated from him what they have narrated, and [al-Bāqir] Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn said [regarding him]: He will be the most noble from the people of his time, he will be killed by the most ignoble of the people of his time, upon his killer is a third of the chastisement of the people of hellfire. His killer will die before entering al-Ḥaram. When Abū Jaʿfar rose ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAlī said: Have you heard what my nephew narrated, by Allāh his killer is none other than him. And the likes of al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, and ʿAlī Sayyid al-'Ibad (the Master of the Worshipers) b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, and [his son] al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī [al-Fakhī], and Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Nafs al-Zakīyyah who the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) said regarding him, and Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad narrated it from him, he said: ((And al-Nafs al-Zakīyyah, he will be killed in al-Thanīyah in al-Madīnah, his blood will reach Ahjar al-Zayt)). And the likes of ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan, and Yaḥyā, Idrīs, Sulaimān, Jaʿfar, and Mūsā the sons of ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan. And the likes of Yaḥyā b. Zayd, ʿĪsā b. Zayd, and Muḥammad b. Zayd the sons of Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. And the likes of Ahmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd, and ʿAbdullāh b. Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh the companion of al-Suwayaqah. And the likes of al-Qāsim b. ʾIbrāhīm [ar-Rassī,] Muḥammad b. ʾIbrāhīm, al-Ḥasan b. ʾIbrāhīm, Ahmad b. ʾIbrāhīm, ʿAlī b. ʾIbrāhīm, and Jaʿfar b. ʿAbdullāh. If i were to describe them to you our stay would be lengthy, those who were among the most pious, and most knowledgeable from among the creation, and they were aids to the disadvantaged from among the servants of Allāh. Those whose faces resembled pure silver; grown dreary, and weary from the fear of Allāh. Their faces yellow from sleepless nights, their backs bent from their [extensive] worship, their eyes [constantly] weeping out of fear from Allāh, and the torment of Allāh. They did not deem permissible what other than them deemed permissible of plundering the wealth of the people, [they did] not desire what is in the hands of the Muslims, like those who are other than them did. If one of them were to reach a believer they would present him with a hundred thousand, and it's like from the heart of their wealth. They exited the allurements of their wealth out of asceticism towards the world, longing for what is with Allāh. Do you consider that all of them, and their families were the most ignorant regarding truth, the most envious, and staunchest of enemies? Reaching a state of denial that is greater than Abī Jahl b. Hashim, al-Walīd b. al-Mughīrah, Abī Lahab, Abī Sufyān, and Mūʿāwīyah b. Abī Sufyān, as well as those from Quraysh who the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) gathered, and warned. Providing them with his admonishment as Allāh (the Glorious, and Exalted) ordered him to do so for his nearkin! Isn’t it incumbent upon your companion to admonish his Ahl al-Bayt while they are noble Muslims?! In the same manner that the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) admonished Banī ʿAbd Munāf, a group from Banī Makhzūm, and Zahrʾa' because they were his uncles. Do you consider those who we have named in our book, and other than them from the Ahl al-Bayt to be far greater in denial than Quraysh? Those who the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) gathered that we have mentioned which the nation does not deny. The Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) admonished them before anyone else from the creation. So, how can you claim that your companion reveals the truth to you, and conceals it from his Ahl al-Bayt (family)! How grand is your slander against the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace)?! The description you give to the actions of your companion is contrary to the Book of Allāh, and the example of His Messenger. He who goes against the example of the Messenger of Allāh has exited the dominion of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace), by the saying of Allāh (the Blessed, and Exalted): {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allāh you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allāh and the Last Day} [33:21]. And His saying (the Blessed, and Exalted): {And be mindful of Allāh—in Whose Name you appeal to one another—and ˹honor˺ family ties. Surely Allāh is ever Watchful over you} [4:1]. Allāh ordered to keep ties with one's kin, and prohibited severing them, do you say that your companion kept ties with you, and severed his ties with his kin?! What severing is greater than concealing the religion of Allāh? The truth which one needs to get closer to Allāh, and the religion which Allāh is worshiped through. He has concealed the matter from his kin, and they are doomed to chastisement, as you claim, by deserving the hellfire for forsaking the truth. What greater severing is this, and Allāh has ordered for it to be kept?! However, you have lied, altered, and promoted falsity. When the Ahl al-Bayt of your Prophet denied this from you, you narrated of them what you have narrated of lies, and slanders, and what is contrary to the Book of Allāh, so that your falsehood may be accepted in our era. If you claim that he clarifies for you, and conceals from other than you, because he knows that you will not forsake his secret, of that which Allāh has given him of knowledge of the unseen; interpreting the Book of Allāh against its true interpretation, claiming that they are the discerners, by His saying (the Glorious): {Indeed in that are signs for those who discern} [15:75]. That your companion knows of you sincerity which he has not seen with other than you, and that he informed you with what you need to know, and informed us of himself after knowing sincerity, and silence regarding him from you; that you will not lose his secret, and he has concealed the matter from us, because he has come to know from us what is contrary to what he has come to know from you. It is said to them: Have you not contradicted yourselves, and deemed your companion to be ignorant?! For, you claim that he has known from you that you will not make his secret known. Have you not openly announced, and informed the people, and disputed those who differed with you by describing for him what he has not claimed to have, such as knowledge of the unseen, and such as your saying, that he sees us in every nation, and he sees our situation, deeds, and acts. That he hears our words, and informs us that they will return to this world after their death, and what is similar to this from what we have described. Had we sought to list them, the matter would be extensive. So, Glory be to Allāh! Is what we described not sufficient for the one who Allāh has granted semblance of understanding, and has residing within him a slither of faith, to perceive the contradictions of your claims, the falsity of your call, and the inconsistencies of what you hold to of falsehood. However, Allāh guides to His religion whom He wills. You claim that he informs you, due to knowing what is in your hearts, and he conceals from other than you, due to knowing that they will deny. So, Glory be to Allāh how clear is it that such action is contrary to the action of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). For, you claim that your companions stand in the station of the Messenger of Allāh? [Claiming] that he guides with the guidance of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him be peace), and acts in accordance with the deeds of the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). Is this how the Messenger of Allāh (upon him be peace) conducted himself? That he would conceal the matter from some, and inform some?! Or, did he inform everyone? He who accepted him, accepted him, he who disobeyed him, disobeyed him. If you claim that he informed some, and concealed the matter from some, then truly grand is your lie against the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). For, you claim that he did not advise the entirety of the creation, by advising some, and not advising others. And you have claimed that he did not convey the messages of Allāh to one nation, ahead of another. Be wary, how can it be such, when Allāh informed His Prophet to inform the entirety of the people by His saying: {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O humanity! I am Allah’s Messenger to you all} [7:158]. And by His saying (the Blessed, and Exalted): {O Messenger! Convey everything revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not delivered His message. Allah will ˹certainly˺ protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the people who disbelieve} [5:67]. He promised that He would preserve the Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) from what he was cautious of. So, he informed both the Jinns, and the humans, the disbelievers, and the believers. He who accepted, accepted, and he who disobeyed, disobeyed. He was a Ḥujjah over the ones who accepted, and a Ḥujjah upon the one who disobeyed, and likewise his family. And this is sufficient for the believer. Full treatise here: [Mod Note: Link to another site was removed.]
  14. The response to his response: This is a continuation of the dialogue that I have had with the respected seminary student, brother ʿAlī al-Ṣafdarī. I would not like to refer to this as a “rebuttal,” or to necessarily view the matter as a polemical exchange. The reason is because once we begin to delve into these matters with such a mindset, it will undoubtedly poison whatever goodness that may stem from this pursuit which is the intention of arriving at the truth, or seeking to edge closer to it. Before I begin, I would like to thank the brother for his expression of delight - as is mutual with us - regarding the progression of cordial intellectual exchange, and his suggestion to me personally in exercising better etiquette when referring to controversial personalities. For, those who are endeared by one end, and criticized or shunned by another should indeed be met with neutrality. Lest we be of those who contribute to the stagnation of such dialogues, and exchanges. Therefore, I would like to thank the brother for his valued suggestion, and will with the grace of Allāh carry his advice with me, and pray that the dear reader may learn from my mistakes in drawing hasty emotional characterizations which may be null under the epistemology of the interlocutor. Although, the intention was not to offend, nor directly disrespect the esteemed brother in particular, and the followers of the Imāmī tradition in general, I would like to clarify that my choice of referring to al-Ṭāq as ‘‘Shayṭān al-Ṭāq’’ is by reason of this name being recorded as a sobriquet of his which does not necessarily carry a demeaning connotation. For instance, there are reports which mention that he earned this title due to a sense of shrewdness he displayed by identifying fake coins. [1] We find this terminology used to this day in Iraq, for example one may say that there is no way someone can find a way out of this quagmire, while another would respond don’t worry, I know someone he’s a real Shayṭān, and he can figure it out! Now, this doesn’t entail that the person is insulting the one who he is referring to as the solution bearer, rather he is indicating in a non-formal way the shrewdness of his companion. Likewise, the sobriquet given to al-Ṭāq, due to his shrewdness in identifying counterfeit coins. So, I saw that it was more fit to choose this title when referring to al-Ṭāq, as opposed to the one which is utilized by the brother, or the Hadith, respectively. The reason is because ‘‘al-Ahwal’’ which means someone who is cross-eyed can come off as a bit offensive for those who have the disability, and I will give another live example from the Iraqi dialectical context. As mentioned when referring to someone as a Shayṭān, it doesn’t necessarily entail that they are devils in the metaphysical sense, rather it can also carry a praiseful undertone, or in other words it is a euphemism for shrewdness. Unlike the title that the Hadith, or the respected brother utilize which is ‘‘al-Ahwal,’’ this title does not carry any such praise giving undertone in the context of the Iraqis in particular, or in the context of the Arabic word in general. For instance, if an Iraqi were to refer to someone as ‘‘al-Ahwal’’ they would either say that as a derogatory classification of someone who is actually cross-eyed, or they would say it as a means to highlight the foolishness, or incompetence of said individual. Therefore, by virtue of seeing the variety of titles I could have chosen for al-Ṭāq, such as: Shayṭān al-Ṭāq, al-Ahwal al-Ṭāq, and Mu’min al-Ṭāq I found it more apt, especially in contrast to the title given in the Hadith to choose ‘‘Shayṭān al-Ṭāq’’. For, it carries in a sense the hermeneutical capacity to be understood by the Imāmī as al-Ṭāq ‘‘the shrewd one’’ in a praiseful sense, and for the Zaydi al-Ṭāq ‘‘the Satan’’ in a condemning sense. Moreover, this title is more apt, not only by virtue of giving this interpretive reservoir, it is also a title which is earned, as opposed to the aforementioned title of al-Ahwal which is garnered by birth, or at the very least earned by foolishness. However, I understand that this context may not have been present in mind with the reader, and it is apparently disliked nonetheless to refer to al-Ṭāq as such, I will hitherto refer to him in the response without a title as simply ‘‘al-Ṭāq’’. However, I maintain that if one were to choose a title, ‘‘Shayṭān al-Ṭāq’’ would be most apt, due to the reasons mentioned. Now, to touch on the perspective given by the brother, he kindly provides a summary of the explanations for the context of the report which are al-Imām Zayd was engaging in Taqiyyah from al-Ṭāq, hence the ambiguity, and the tension that transpired between them. This explanation held by al-Sayyid al-Khūʾī necessitates Taqiyyah, because it is bound by the premise that al-Imām Zayd has permission from al-Imām al-Ṣādiq. Whereas, explanation (b), which the brother kindly shared from al-ʿAllāmah Shaʾrānī takes a different route, and instead holds that al-Imām Zayd acted out of his own accord to rise against the tyrant Hishām, and in doing so he hoped that he would be able to place the rulership in the hands of the rightful heir of the Prophet (p), al-Imām al-Ṣādiq. Both understandings seek to preserve one particular point, and that is the belief of al-Imām Zayd regarding the Imāmah of his nephew al-Imām al-Ṣādiq . Otherwise, there would be no need for Taqiyyah, and or permission. Regarding explanation (a) al-Ṣafdarī shifts the argument, and maintains that the issue is not with Taqiyyah, but it is instead with the legitimacy of the revolt of al-Imām Zayd, as such he concedes to the point that the argument presented in the OP (explanation a) is not feasible. This is because, the moment we lift the barrier of Taqiyyah, and take the dialogue at face value it highlights that al-Imām Zayd either disagrees with the claim of al-Ṭāq that his father, brother, and nephew are divinely designated Imāms, or that he did not have permission to revolt. Brother ʿAlī is defending against our position which is that al-Imām Zayd does not hold to the claims of al-Ṭāq regarding the divine Imāmah of his father, brother, and nephew, so he is left with defending the perspective given by al-ʿAllāmah Shaʾrānī. Moreover, as highlighted in our recent post, the argument capitulated when al-Ṭāq informed al-Imām al-Ṣādiq regarding the revolt of al-Imām Zayd, and he said [as al-Ṭāq claims] ‘‘You took him from in front and from behind, from the right and from the left, from above his head and from below his legs and did not leave him any way to take’’. If al-Imām Zayd had permission from the Imām, the Imām wouldn’t - as mentioned - commend al-Ṭāq’s misunderstanding of al-Imām Zayd’s supposed innuendoes, but rather inform him that al-Imām Zayd was indeed calling to him. Rather, al-Imām Zayd would have emphasized that in response to al-Ṭāq’s contention. The reason is because, whatever danger that is being proposed for al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, that he may potentially face by reason of the revolt being traced back to his name is lifted, because al-Ṭāq is (as the Imāmī yah claim) is already aware that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq claims to have this station of divine Imāmah - which is concealed from the laity, masses, and even his kin - and was made aware of the intention of al-Imām Zayd to revolt. By this particular reason, there was no need for al-Imām al-Ṣādiq to commend the misunderstanding of al-Ṭāq, that holds al-Imām Zayd rising without permission, and (b) denying his divine Imāmah; considering that al-Ṭāq already believes in what al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is hiding from the masses which is his Imāmah. The essence of the purpose of Taqiyyah is to hide his Imāmah, so, it can unequivocally be said that the one who has knowledge of the Imāmah of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is amongst the most trusted, and therefore to have him knowing that al-Imām Zayd was leading a revolt in his name is not a matter which would add to the already dangerous situation they placed themselves in (as the Imāmī yah claim) of revealing their Imāmah, since that is the crux, and the purpose of the Taqiyyah of the Imāms. Moreover, al-Ṭāq entertains the possibility of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq himself leading a revolt, because he says if the revolt was under his banner he would not mind participating in it. So, the point about not telling al-Ṭāq that al-Imām Zayd had his permission, or al-Imām Zayd himself saying he had permission is absolutely unjustified, hence al-Ṣafdarī forsaking the argument of Taqiyyah, respectively. As for explanation (b) which holds that al-Imām Zayd did not have permission, the argument which we are defending is essentially conceded in our favor before it starts. The reason is because, al-Ṭāq is someone who the Imāmī yah can confidently say has a correct grasp on Imāmology, not only by reason of him being among the Khawāṣ (close confidants who are aware of the Imāmah of the Imāms), but also by extension of him being one who engages in debates in defense of the Imāmī creed! So, taking him as reliable barometer of Imāmology under the Imāmī lens, we find that the argument al-Ṭāq entertains can be formulated in this syllogistic form: P(1) - Imām al-Baqir, and al-Sajjad are divinely appointed Imāms P(2) - Their obedience is obligatory P(3) - A legitimate revolt can only be under their banners P(4) - A revolt which is not done in their names is not one that a person has to support C - al-Imām Zayd, and his revolt does not fit this criteria. al-Imām Zayd responds to P(1), because the validity of the conclusion, as well as the premises introduced, rest on it. If P(1) is challenged, and refuted the rest of the premises are therefore invalidated. He says in response to P(1): ‘‘How could it be that he informed you the truth about the religion [the presence of the Hujja] and did not inform me about it!’’. al-Ṭāq counters the response of al-Imām Zayd to P(1) by saying: ‘‘May I be made your ransom – it is only because of his fear of hell-fire for you that he did not inform you! he feared for you that you would reject it and enter the fire, but he informed me [not caring either way] so if I accept I am saved and he was not bothered that I enter the fire [if I reject].’’ Now, if we pause here we can clearly see that the discussion isn’t revolving around al-Imām Zayd asking for permission, or having permission. Rather, it is around the crux of the Imāmī belief at the time, and the essence of the objection of al-Ṭāq which is that he isn’t a divinely appointed Imām. Moreover, al-Imām Zayd strengthens this by referring to a narration that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq narrates which addresses the martyrdom of al-Imām Zayd, this narration of course is not something which stems from the knowledge of the unseen - as some have asserted - rather, it is from the prophecies of the Prophet Muḥammad regarding certain members of his household, and what would befall his nation. We read in Nahjul Balāgha when Imām ʿAlī relates the occurrence of a futuristic event that one of his companions questions whether this is knowledge of the unseen, in which al-Imām ʿAlī responds in the negative, but rather what he records is from what he learned from the noble Messenger. [2] So, essentially we find that explanation B necessarily concedes that al-Imām Zayd is disagreeing on the Imāmah of al-Sajjad, because it is conceded that he is not engaging in Taqiyyah, and (b) he even tells al-Ṭāq to go to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq himself, and verify the matter of his prophesied martyrdom. So, he is not concerned about al-Imām al-Ṣādiq knowing that he is leading a revolt. Furthermore, this reading is not only inconsistent with the complete context of the report itself, it also seeks to inadvertently say that al-Imām Zayd is engaging in a hasty decision, he does not care for the opinion of the Imām of his time, and instead favors his emotions ahead of the will of the Imām, and he was even willing to put the Imām, and the Shīʿa in danger! As one can see, it is a reading which is not fit with the personage of al-Imām Zayd, it is not fit with someone who was raised under the tutelage of al-Imām al-Sajjad, and it is something that we couldn’t imagine a regular lover of the Ahl al-Bayt doing. After all the purpose is the content of Allāh, and under an Imāmī lens this can only be ascertained through proper observance of the authority placed above oneself. al-Ṣafdarī then entertains the primacy of the understanding we have presented regarding this report, and in doing so he maintains that there are other authentic traditions which speak of al-Imām Zayd receiving praise, and being commended by the Imāms. Therefore, by virtue of such, al-Ṣafdarī maintains it is within the capacity of the Imāmī school to choose a favorable position regarding al-Imām Zayd. However, the contention here is not whether the position is favorable, or not towards al-Imām Zayd in the same manner that the contention is not whether al-Imām Zayd knew that claims of divine Imāmah were being purported regarding his father, brother, and nephew. Rather, it is to highlight a very critical point which we hope to advance in future dialogues, and it is that we find not only al-Imām Zayd being unaware of the Imāmah of his father, brother, and nephew, but we also find this to be the case with the Khawāṣ themselves in the Imāmī corpus! For instance, al-Shaykh ʿAṣif Muḥsinī states: ‘‘And what is mind boggling, the likes of Zurārah did not know who the vicegerent of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq was after his death, and he remained perplexed regarding that matter [i.e who the next Imām is]. Therefore, what is one to make of Hishām b. Sālim, and his likes? [3] Moreover, perceive the case of al-Ṭāq himself! The one who stood in such staunch opposition to al-Imām Zayd, and claimed that he knew who the Imāms were. al-Kulaynī records in al-Kāfī: [Hishām b. Sālim is the one narrating]: We were in al-Madinah after the death of Abī ʿAbdullāh , I, and Ṣāḥib al-Ṭāq, and the people were gathered around ʿAbdullāh b. Jaʿfar presuming that he is the companion of the matter after his father [i.e presuming he was the next Imām]. So, we entered upon him, I, and Ṣāḥib al-Ṭāq, and the people were among him. For, they have narrated from Abī ʿAbdullāh that the matter is in the eldest, as long as he is sound. We entered upon him seeking to inquire of him that which we inquired from his father, so we asked him regarding al-Zakāt, in what amount is it obligated? He said in two-hundred, five. So, we said, how about in one-hundred? He said, two dirhams, and a half. Thereafter, we said by Allāh, what do the Murji’ah say regarding this? He said: He lifted his arms up to the sky, and said: By Allāh, I don’t know what the Murji’ah say. He said: We left his vicinity misguided, not knowing where to go, I, and {Abū Jaʿfar al-Ahwal}. So, we sat in one of the alleyways of al-Madinah weeping, and confused, not knowing where to go, and who to go to, saying do we go to the Murji’ah, the Qadariyyah, or the Zaidiyyah? [4] What can be deduced from this report? Not only is al-Imām Zayd unaware of his father, brother, and nephew claiming divine Imāmah, rather the very ones who are supporting this claim against him are left confused - by the testimony of their own tongues! al-Ṭāq argues against al-Imām Zayd, and he confidently states that the Imāms are clearly X, Y, and Z. Yet, after al-Imām al-Ṣādiq he is bewildered, and does not know where to go?! And this is the case with the Imāmī yah after each, and every Imām? Where are the golden chains that seem to be present today that clearly narrate the designation of one Imām after the other? Even the claim that only the number is revealed is not substantiated as among those jurists who gathered among ʿAbdullāh al-Aftah became Waqifites, and they were among the reliable jurists of the Imāmī yah, and their narrations are still accepted. Was al-Imām al-Ṣādiq concerned that his companions would be envious of his successor so he concealed it from them in the same manner that he concealed it from al-Imām Zayd? This is consistent with the argument of al-Ṭāq, yet reasonably unconvincing. Regarding the early Alids: When mentioning the Ḥasanī, and Ḥusaynī Imāms from the Zaydi school, those who lived during the time of the Zaydi school. The purpose is to highlight that there is no need for them to be unaware regarding the Imāmah of their kin, especially when Allāh (the Exalted) says: {And warn your nearest relations} [26:214]. {Believers, guard yourselves and your kindred against a Fire whose fuel is human beings and stones} [66:66] {Indeed, Allāh commands justice, grace, as well as aid to close relatives} [16:90]. What greater warning, guardianship, and aid can come from the Imām besides him revealing that he is an Imām to al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, al-Imām al-Nafs ar-Raḍīyyah, and the other Alids who are testified to be of nobility, and Godliness, as highlighted in the original response. Now al-Ṣafdarī makes a few problematic claims, saying that ‘‘Imām al-Ṣādiq did not give allegiance to Muḥammad nor officially/publicly support his uprising’’. Moreover, he states ‘‘perhaps the strongest deterrent for Imām al-Ṣādiq and his followers was the introduction of this individual as the Mahdī’’. We ask, what more does one want as a showcase of support then to send your very own sons into battle with al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and to openly pledge allegiance?! We assume that al-Ṣafdarī has not come across the statement of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq in al-Maqatil which is also recorded in al-Irshād by al-Mufīd: ‘‘By Allāh, we will not leave you alone in this matter - and you are our Shaykh - and we will pledge allegiance to your son [Muḥammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah]’’. [5] How much more explicit does al-Imām al-Ṣādiq need to be, and how unfortunate would it be for one to subscribe to the narrative of those who oppose grand Imāms like al-Imām Zayd, and then sit in alleyways weeping? I think that it is conducive to say that the Zaydi Imāms who are the kin of the Imāms of the Imāmī yah are more reliable in their claims, especially when the actions of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq are in support of them. What about the sons of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq who al-Shaykh al-Ḥasan al-Amīn says regarding them in astonishment! ‘‘And what is mind boggling! Two of the sons of al-Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq moved towards the Zaydiyyah, and they are: Muḥammad and ʿAbdullāh’’. [6] Respected Shaykh, I do not see the matter as mind boggling, rather what is mind boggling is that Imām al-Ṣādiq would have his sons deviate as Zaydis, noble men from the Alids deviate as Zaydis, give Bayʿah to the Imām of the Zaydis, and choose to only guide al-Ṭāq, and co. In secrecy. Our response to the one who holds this is the very response of our beloved Imām Zayd: ‘’Woe to you! Do you not fear Allāh (the Exalted)? You claim that the Imām guides in secrecy, and causes others to deviate in the open?! By Allāh, I would not be pleased if I caused one individual from the creation of Allāh (the Exalted) to deviate while having the entire nation guided by me except for that one individual which I caused to deviate. [] You must in the word of al-Imām al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan ‘‘Be wary! That you claim your Imām guides in secrecy, and causes others to deviate in the open. By Allāh, I would not be pleased if I had whatever the sun rises, and sets upon, yet be the cause for a single soul to deviate. [] Otherwise, to what extent are we going to entertain this Taqiyyah narrative, the religion of Allāh, and His Messenger is not a game. As for the claim that al-Imām ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan (who al-Imām al-Ṣādiq referred to as his Shaykh) promoted the belief that al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah is the Mahdī, and that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is envious of him - this is nothing short of a lie, and slander upon the grandson of both al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn! The Rijaal in the Sanad in Maqatil which mention al-Imām ʿAbdullāh saying this have Imāmī s in them, so this verbiage in the text can clearly be understood as an interpolation, and nonetheless the Bayʿah of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq to al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and his reverence to al-Imām ʿAbdullāh within that very report overshadow such a narrative. Furthermore, al-Mufīd in al-Irshād mentions Imām Ṣādiq referring to al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and he makes a very critical statement. He does not say his uncle al-Imām ʿAbdullāh believes his son is the Mahdī, he says {some people} have been circulating a rumor that he is the Mahdī - due to his name, birthmark, etc. Imām Ṣādiq states that the people are saying he is the Mahdī. Now to conclude, I will present the Zaydi narrative It has been narrated from Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥasanī with his reliable chain to a man from the companions of al-Imām ʿAbdullāh al-Maḥḍh, he said: We came to him - Imām ʿAbdullāh al-Maḥḍh - and he was being carried by Abū Jaʿfar (in the palanquin), we said to him: O Son of the Messenger of Allāh, your son Muḥammad is the Mahdī? He said: Muḥammad will rise from here, and he pointed to al-Madinah, his nose will be like that of the charging bull until he is killed. Afterwards, ʾIbrāhīm (b. ʿAbdullāh) will rise from here, his nose will be like that of the charging bull until he is killed. However, when you hear that the promised one has risen from Khurāsān, he shall be the one you inquire of. ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, was asked regarding his brother Muḥammad ((عليه السلام)), and whether he was the Mahdī that was mentioned? He said: The Mahdī is a promise from Allāh to His Prophet (p), He promised that He would make from his family a Mahdī. He did not state who he was in particular, nor did He specify his time. My brother has risen with his obligation towards enjoining good, and forbidding evil, if Allāh wishes to make him the promised Mahdī that was mentioned, then such is a blessing from Allāh whom He places on whom He pleases of His creation. If he is not, then he did not forsake his obligation towards Allāh by waiting for a coming that he was not ordered [by Allāh] to wait for. It has been narrated from Sufyān b. Khālid al-Aʿshah, he said: A group of people from Kūfa entered upon Zayd b. ʿAlī when he reached al-Kūfa, they said: O Son of the Messenger of Allāh, are you the Mahdī who has been narrated to us as the one who will fill the world with justice? He said: No, they said: Then we fear that you may be a means to our oppression, he said: Be wary! What do you mean by that? They said: Our homes will be destroyed, our children will be forsaken, and we will be killed under every stone. He said: Be wary! Do you not know that there is not a century that passes where Allāh (the Exalted and Mighty) does not send a man from us, or a man from us rises as an authority over the people, those of knowledge will know him, and those of ignorance will be ignorant of him. What honorable men indeed! Within these great narrations there is a clear indication of the sincerity, and virtue of these great Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt. For, if they were as some mischievous hands have written, and ignorant mouths have espoused - those who seek rulership as an end, instead of justice why did they not take this matter towards their advantage? The people not only presumed that al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah was the promised Mahdī, they yearned for that to be the case. I ask, how much more successful would their campaign be had they advertised themselves as the promised Mahdī, the father of the promised Mahdī, and his brother? And I end with the supplication of our dear Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘‘May Allāh have mercy upon the sons of Hind, they were of great benevolence, and generosity. By Allāh! They have departed us, and not a single blemish has stricken them’’. [9] I invite you, dear reader, to reflect sincerely, to judge fairly, and to rise for the call of supporting our beloved Prophet, and his noble progeny. Written by: Muḥammad al-Sharīfī https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool Sources: [1] - He had received these epithets since he had an exchange shop in "Ṭāq al-Maḥāmil", a neighborhood in Kūfa. And since he was an expert in his job and detected fake money, he came to be called "Shayṭān al-Ṭāq". Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 132; Najāshī, Rijāl al-Najāshī, p. 325; Kashshī, Ikhtīyār maʿrifat al-rijāl, vol. 2, p. 422. [2] - https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul.../sermon-128-o-ahnaf [3] - Mashraʿt Biḥār al-Anwār: v.1, pg. 412. [4] - al-Kāfī v.1, pg. 351. مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ أَبِي يَحْيَى اَلْوَاسِطِيِّ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ قَالَ: كُنَّا بِالْمَدِينَةِ بَعْدَ وَفَاةِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ أَنَا وَ صَاحِبُ اَلطَّاقِ وَ اَلنَّاسُ مُجْتَمِعُونَ عَلَى عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ أَنَّهُ صَاحِبُ اَلْأَمْرِ بَعْدَ أَبِيهِ فَدَخَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ أَنَا وَ صَاحِبُ اَلطَّاقِ وَ اَلنَّاسُ عِنْدَهُ وَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُمْ رَوَوْا عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ إِنَّ اَلْأَمْرَ فِي اَلْكَبِيرِ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ بِهِ عَاهَةٌ فَدَخَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ نَسْأَلُهُ عَمَّا كُنَّا نَسْأَلُ عَنْهُ أَبَاهُ فَسَأَلْنَاهُ عَنِ اَلزَّكَاةِ فِي كَمْ تَجِبُ فَقَالَ فِي مِائَتَيْنِ خَمْسَةٌ فَقُلْنَا فَفِي مِائَةٍ فَقَالَ دِرْهَمَانِ وَ نِصْفٌ فَقُلْنَا وَ اَللَّهِ مَا تَقُولُ اَلْمُرْجِئَةُ هَذَا قَالَ فَرَفَعَ يَدَهُ إِلَى اَلسَّمَاءِ فَقَالَ وَ اَللَّهِ مَا أَدْرِي مَا تَقُولُ اَلْمُرْجِئَةُ قَالَ فَخَرَجْنَا مِنْ عِنْدِهِ ضُلاَّلاً لاَ نَدْرِي إِلَى أَيْنَ نَتَوَجَّهُ أَنَا وَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ اَلْأَحْوَلُ فَقَعَدْنَا فِي بَعْضِ أَزِقَّةِ اَلْمَدِينَةِ بَاكِينَ حَيَارَى لاَ نَدْرِي إِلَى أَيْنَ نَتَوَجَّهُ وَ لاَ مَنْ نَقْصِدُ وَ نَقُولُ إِلَى اَلْمُرْجِئَةِ إِلَى اَلْقَدَرِيَّةِ إِلَى اَلزَّيْدِيَّةِ [5] - al-Irshād v.2, pg. 192. | Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn: pg. 197. [6] - Mustadrak ʾAyān al-Shīʿa, v.1, pg. 71. [7] - Manāqib al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī. [8] - al-ʿAqd al-Thamīn fī Aḥkām al-Aʾimmah al-Hādīn: pg, 306-307. [9] - Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn: pg. 222.
  15. Thank you brother @Mahdavist, if the brothers/sisters are following through with the discussion br. Ali responded here: https://www.iqraonline.net/answering-objections-zayd-and-imamah/
×
×
  • Create New...