Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Waqifi: So Who Washed Imam Musa Al Kazim A.s?


Recommended Posts

Peace be with you all,

 

I won't name the  old Shia-chat user who has authored this website, but it seems all the arguments against twelver shi'ism, and the opinion that Imam Ali Ridha a.s was a lier in declaring his Imamah are posted there now. I personally want a few answers myself: I am not trying to promote waqifism. I merely want to evaluate their position - as i've done and already done with sunni Islam, and other schools of belief.

 

Could anyone help and refute this?: http://www.*******.org/articles/the-claim-of-ali-b-musa-ar-rida-to-the-imamate

 

 

Abstract: Giving the ghusl of a deceased Imam; Ar-Rida and the Twelfth Imam; The Bazanti Narrations in Qurb al-Isnad;

 

Giving the ghusl of a deceased Imam

 

Manaqib Aal Talib quoted in Bihar – Abu Basir said: as-Sadiq عليه السلام said: In what my father عليه السلام bequeathed me was that he said: O my son, when I am dead then no one is to give me ghusl other than you, for the none but an Imam gives ghusl to the Imam.

 

Evidently, after the apparent death of al-Kazhim عليه السلام this belief was a source of contention between the Waqifa and the Qat`iyya. Though the Waqifa didn’t believe al-Kazhim عليه السلام was actually dead, they used this point against the claim of ar-Rida by asking how he could be the Imam when he was in Medina while his father “died” in Baghdad, and so he was not present for his funeral and preparations. There is actually a chapter in al-Kafi about this topic, with three hadiths in it and all narrated from ar-Rida, responding to the charge. Basically, they say he did perform the ghusl, but the implication from them is that it was miraculously carried out (i.e. by divine miracle he appeared in Baghdad, did the ghusl, then miraculously went back to Medina). Now, whether one accepts that story or not, it goes to show that the response to this charge was not to deny the necessity of it (i.e. by saying that the belief that only an Imam does the ghusl of an Imam is simply incorrect), rather they felt it necessary to provide an out of the ordinary explanation to counter it.

The problem here, though, arises after the death of ar-Rida. That is, when ar-Rida himself died in Tus, Muhammad al-Jawad (still a child) was himself in Medina, and it is evident from `Uyun al-Akhbar that it was al-Ma’mun who organized the burial preparations, including the ghusl (we have not seen any claim that al-Jawad likewise performed some miraculous, secret appearance to take care of it all). When al-Jawad himself died, `Ali al-Hadi was also still a child and it is unclear from Imami sources whether he performed it or not. What is interesting, though, about the latter was that in al-Jawad’s will, he specified someone else to have charge over his inheritance property until `Ali would come of age. This would raise the important question, though, does it make sense that `Ali would be the Imam over all the Umma, yet not be able to have charge over his own property?

Nevertheless, when al-Hasan al-`Askari died, in Tusi’s Ghayba he specifically names `Uthman b. Sa`id al-`Umari to carry out his ghusl and burial. Remember, the latter was the first of the four safirs, so Tusi mentioning this is with establishing his esteemed position and trustworthiness (and to establish the truth of his claims about representing the hidden Imam). But, it raises an even more serious question in why a companion was the one doing all this? Why not al-`Askari’s supposed son if he was the Imam after him?

 

Sunni's have also challenged us on this: https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/tag/waqifi/

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I wonder if there is any evidence that Imam al-Kadhim (as) performed the ghusl of as-Sadiq (as), or if this was ever used as an argument for his Imamate against those of his brothers.

Isn't it also the case that martyrs don't receive ghusl? Perhaps that only applies to those on the battlefield, but if you are cut off from being able to receive ghusl from an appropriate person then maybe this still applies.

To be honest, this seems like a slightly suspicious doctrine to me, although the point about how al-Rida (as) apparently accepted the doctrine would still need to be examined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I wonder if there is any evidence that Imam al-Kadhim (as) performed the ghusl of as-Sadiq (as), or if this was ever used as an argument for his Imamate against those of his brothers.

Isn't it also the case that martyrs don't receive ghusl? Perhaps that only applies to those on the battlefield, but if you are cut off from being able to receive ghusl from an appropriate person then maybe this still applies.

To be honest, this seems like a slightly suspicious doctrine to me, although the point about how al-Rida (as) apparently accepted the doctrine would still need to be examined.

It was about physical impossibility to be present in Baghdad to attend the burial . Imam ridha was in madina. Imam Sadiq is buried in madina.

http://www.al-islam.org/nafasul-mahmum-relating-heart-rending-tragedy-karbala-shaykh-abbas-qummi/relating-burial-our-master

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234978404-whod-buried-salman-al-farisi-ra/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It was about physical impossibility to be present in Baghdad to attend the burial . Imam ridha was in madina. Imam Sadiq is buried in madina. http://www.al-islam.org/nafasul-mahmum-relating-heart-rending-tragedy-karbala-shaykh-abbas-qummi/relating-burial-our-masterhttp://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234978404-whod-buried-salman-al-farisi-ra/

I know what it was about, but what does that have to do with my post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if there is any evidence that Imam al-Kadhim (as) performed the ghusl of as-Sadiq (as), or if this was ever used as an argument for his Imamate against those of his brothers.

Isn't it also the case that martyrs don't receive ghusl? Perhaps that only applies to those on the battlefield, but if you are cut off from being able to receive ghusl from an appropriate person then maybe this still applies.

To be honest, this seems like a slightly suspicious doctrine to me, although the point about how al-Rida (as) apparently accepted the doctrine would still need to be examined.

yes, the last line is what bothers me. Did he even give his father ghusl and if so , who gave the 11th imam a.s ghusl? According to Mac, a companion did, so why the inconsistency?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I know what it was about, but what does that have to do with my post?

I know what it was about, but what does that have to do with my post?

Sorry if I miss read your post, I understood that you were asking about the authenticity of the belief that an infallible shouldn't be washed after death except by another infallible . As per our classical hadith books, it is correct belief.

The first link was about imam Hussain . Although he was martyred , Shia believe that imam sajjad came to bury him. History books maintain that a tribe of Arabs buried all the bodies but Shia say imam sajjad who was in captivity and chained buried his father somehow.

Also the second link. It talks about Salman who is described as hawari of Isa or from ahlulbayt. He was one step from perfect faith. Shia believe that imam Ali buried him although imam was in madinah while Salman was in mada'in.

I apologize if I misread your post.

http://www.sayyid-shouhadaa-center.com/2012/07/15/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8-2-%D8%A3%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%8A%D8%BA%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%88-%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%81%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A5%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B6-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85/?mobile=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam.

The first link was about imam Hussain . Although he was martyred , Shia believe that imam sajjad came to bury him. History books maintain that a tribe of Arabs buried all the bodies but Shia say imam sajjad who was in captivity and chained buried his father somehow.

That came to my mind, too, after reading this. I have read and heard this on several occasions, that (according to Shia) Imam Sajjad (as) came to bury his father (as), though not sure if ghusl was performed. Similarly, I once read (it has been a while) that Imam Ridha (as) was in the dungeon after his father (as) had died, seen by the guard there who couldn't understand how the Imam (as) managed to enter, in the first place. Though, I think he didn't attend the formal burial, probably due to the danger of ar-Rashid? And I don't think it's that surprising that there are scarcely any reports about that, to be honest. I'd have to look up where I read this, though, it was a book...

About Imam Hasan al-Askari (as) - again, I'm not sure about the ghusl-part, but Imam Mahdi ajf lead his janaza prayers as far as I know, just before the minor occultation. I think he said, when his uncle Jafar was about to lead the prayer, that only an Imam could do that for another Imam. Since tha caliph and his men were searching for Imam Mahdi ajf it's understandable that he wasn't able to do much more for his father.

Sayed Ammar Nakshawani has a lectur-serial about all the Imams including our 12th Imam ajf. Though, as far as I remember, he didn't mention whether Imam Ridha (as) was there after his father (as) had been poisoned. But it wouldn't be that absurd, would it? I mean, Chaotic Muslem brought two examples where something similar happened (according to us). And Imam al-Taqi (as) was there after his father (as) died, although he (as) died in Khorasan and the Imam (as) himself was in Medina (?) - do correct me if I'm wrong here ;) So, it wouldn't be impossible- Allah swt makes possible what he wills to.

Wa salam!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

وعن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: كتب أبي في وصيته إليّ أن أكفنه في ثلاثة أثواب: رداء له حبرة، كان يصلي فيه يوم الجمعه1.

فقد رُوي أنَّ الإمام الكاظم عليه السلام كفّن أباه الإمام الصادق عليه السلام بثوبٍ كان يحرم فيه، فعنه عليه السلام : إني كفنت أبي في ثوبين شطويين كان يحرم فيهما، وفي قميصٍ من قمصه

http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-3/was3001.html

Imam khadhim was infallible and he shouldn't be washed except by infallible or by angels like the case of Mosa bin Imran . Some great companions of the prophet got the honor of angels carrying their dead bodies to grave.

This is one of the hadiths in question, which was narrated in Fii Nusrat al-Waqifa. Its outward implication, as understood by Waqifis, is that no one will wash al-Kadhim, because he will not die, because he is the Mahdi. This narration comes through `Ali b. Abi Hamza, the charlatan founder of Waqifism, and it can be understood in other ways too:

 

قال: وحدثني جعفر بن سليمان (3)، عن داود الصرمي (4)، عن علي بن أبي حمزة قال: قال [ لي ] (5) أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: من جاءك فقال لك: أنه مرض إبني هذا، وأغمضه وغسله ووضعه في لحده، ونفض يده من تراب قبره، فلا تصدقه (6).

 

He said: And Ja`far b. Sulayman narrated from Dawud as-Sarami from `Ali b. Abi Hamza.

He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: Whoever comes to you and says to you that he treated this son of mine, closed his eyes, washed him, placed him into his tomb, and shook off his hands from the dirt of his grave, then do not believe him.

 

Tusi comments on this hadith with the following:

 

 

فهذا الخبر: رواه ابن أبي حمزة وهو مطعون عليه وهو واقفي وسنذكر (7) ما دعاه إلى القول بالوقف. على أنه لا يمتنع أن يكون المراد به الرد على من ربما يدعي أنه تولى تمريضه وغسله ويكون في ذلك كاذبا، لانه مرض في الحبس، ولم يصل إليه من يفعل ذلك وتولى بعض مواليه - على ما قدمناه - غسله، وعند قوم من أصحابنا تولاه إبنه. فيكون قصد (8) البيان عن بطلان قول من يدعي ذلك.

 

As for this report: It was narrated by ibn Abi Hamza, and he is condemned, and he is a Waqifi – and we will mention what he called to with regards to the claims of waqf. It is not impossible that the meaning [of this report] aims to refute one who perhaps claims that he had treated him and washed him, as he would be a liar in that, because he became ill in prison, and one did not reach him to do that, and his followers could not perform those rites – as we have stated previously – and wash him. And a group from our companions believe that his son performed his funeral rites. So, this would expose the falsehood of such a claim.

 

In another part of Tusi's book, he comments further on this precedent: that an Imam is only washed by a succeeding Imam:

 

لم يتول أمره إلا إبنه عند قوم أو مولاه على المشهور.

 

No one performs these rites except his son according to one community, or more prominently, his slave.

 

The significance of the funeral rites is the precedent that a succeeding Imam must wash and pray upon his predecessor. However, Tusi here gives room to doubt this precedent altogether, saying that the mashhoor opinion is that the slave of al-Kadhim (as) washed him, or perhaps the prison guards themselves. This would mean that this precedent is not an authentic one. There are narrations which say that ar-Rida (as) miraculously traversed the distance and washed his father's body, but in my opinion, this precedent could not have been a prominent one in that time period anyway. Otherwise, there would've never been doubt in al-Kadhim's Imamate. If al-Kadhim did indeed wash and pray upon Ja`far as-Sadiq, and if this precedent were mashhoor among the Shi`a, then they would have never went to `Abdullah al-Aftah or Isma`il b. Ja`far. On the contrary, we don't find clear mutawatir evidence on who washed each of the Imams, nor was this necessarily used as an indicator of identifying the Imam. Even the story of the 12th Imam praying upon his father is dubious, but we do not see that used anywhere as a reason for his rejection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Still I'd say at-Tusi wasted his time by trying to come up with other interpretation for the most of the narrations in Fi Nusrat al-Waqifah who are not found outside this book.

For these type of narrations, it would be better for him to reject them as fabricated. The da`if narrators there, including al-Bata`ini, did have the vested interest to create such ahadith to prove the truthfulness of their sect.

 

Now, if there are ahadith in Fi Nusrat which are found elsewhere with sound sanad and they could be interpreted as pro-Waqifah (I don't know whether such ahadith exist or not in Fi Nusrat), then of course he needs to explain this ahadith.

 

This is one of the hadiths in question, which was narrated in Fii Nusrat al-Waqifa. Its outward implication, as understood by Waqifis, is that no one will wash al-Kadhim, because he will not die, because he is the Mahdi. This narration comes through `Ali b. Abi Hamza, the charlatan founder of Waqifism, and it can be understood in other ways too:

 


قال: وحدثني جعفر بن سليمان (3)، عن داود الصرمي (4)، عن علي بن أبي حمزة قال: قال [ لي ] (5) أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: من جاءك فقال لك: أنه مرض إبني هذا، وأغمضه وغسله ووضعه في لحده، ونفض يده من تراب قبره، فلا تصدقه (6).

 

He said: And Ja`far b. Sulayman narrated from Dawud as-Sarami from `Ali b. Abi Hamza.

He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: Whoever comes to you and says to you that he treated this son of mine, closed his eyes, washed him, placed him into his tomb, and shook off his hands from the dirt of his grave, then do not believe him.


 

Tusi comments on this hadith with the following:

 

 

فهذا الخبر: رواه ابن أبي حمزة وهو مطعون عليه وهو واقفي وسنذكر (7) ما دعاه إلى القول بالوقف. على أنه لا يمتنع أن يكون المراد به الرد على من ربما يدعي أنه تولى تمريضه وغسله ويكون في ذلك كاذبا، لانه مرض في الحبس، ولم يصل إليه من يفعل ذلك وتولى بعض مواليه - على ما قدمناه - غسله، وعند قوم من أصحابنا تولاه إبنه. فيكون قصد (8) البيان عن بطلان قول من يدعي ذلك.

 

As for this report: It was narrated by ibn Abi Hamza, and he is condemned, and he is a Waqifi – and we will mention what he called to with regards to the claims of waqf. It is not impossible that the meaning [of this report] aims to refute one who perhaps claims that he had treated him and washed him, as he would be a liar in that, because he became ill in prison, and one did not reach him to do that, and his followers could not perform those rites – as we have stated previously – and wash him. And a group from our companions believe that his son performed his funeral rites. So, this would expose the falsehood of such a claim.

 

In another part of Tusi's book, he comments further on this precedent: that an Imam is only washed by a succeeding Imam:

 

لم يتول أمره إلا إبنه عند قوم أو مولاه على المشهور.

 

No one performs these rites except his son according to one community, or more prominently, his slave.

 

The significance of the funeral rites is the precedent that a succeeding Imam must wash and pray upon his predecessor. However, Tusi here gives room to doubt this precedent altogether, saying that the mashhoor opinion is that the slave of al-Kadhim (as) washed him, or perhaps the prison guards themselves. This would mean that this precedent is not an authentic one. There are narrations which say that ar-Rida (as) miraculously traversed the distance and washed his father's body, but in my opinion, this precedent could not have been a prominent one in that time period anyway. Otherwise, there would've never been doubt in al-Kadhim's Imamate. If al-Kadhim did indeed wash and pray upon Ja`far as-Sadiq, and if this precedent were mashhoor among the Shi`a, then they would have never went to `Abdullah al-Aftah or Isma`il b. Ja`far. On the contrary, we don't find clear mutawatir evidence on who washed each of the Imams, nor was this necessarily used as an indicator of identifying the Imam. Even the story of the 12th Imam praying upon his father is dubious, but we do not see that used anywhere as a reason for his rejection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

 

Still I'd say at-Tusi wasted his time by trying to come up with other interpretation for the most of the narrations in Fi Nusrat al-Waqifah who are not found outside this book.

For these type of narrations, it would be better for him to reject them as fabricated. The da`if narrators there, including al-Bata`ini, did have the vested interest to create such ahadith to prove the truthfulness of their sect.

 

Now, if there are ahadith in Fi Nusrat which are found elsewhere with sound sanad and they could be interpreted as pro-Waqifah (I don't know whether such ahadith exist or not in Fi Nusrat), then of course he needs to explain this ahadith.

 

I believe otherwise. Shaykh al-Ta'ifa رضي الله عنه definitely did not waste his time giving alternative explanations. First, part of his main argument prior to these secondary explanations is that the narrators of these hadith and the author of this book are unknown and/or suspect. That being said, simply because some people are sufficed by simply weakening an isnad and calling it fabricated, it does not solve the quandary for others who think more broadly. Discussion and investigation over the signification of the narration's meaning is extremely important and perhaps more important than the isnad; especially when one of the main factors of narrator criticism is to inductively judge them based on the content of what they narrated.

 

Also, if the few Waqifis who were left during al-Shaykh era were to read his study of the narrations and were only to find narrator criticism, it would certainly be insufficient in convincing them. For they can simply say that you accuse al-Bata'ini of lying while we declare him trustworthy, for example.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Abu Tufayl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Question to Neo Waqifis: How did Imam Ali ibn al-Hussein (as) wash his father (as)? - In the same way Imam al-Redha (as) washed his father (as). :excl:

Isn't the one was killed in jihad doesn't need to be washed?

Note: I'm not a Waqifi.

(bismillah)

 

 

I believe otherwise. Shaykh al-Ta'ifa رضي الله عنه definitely did not waste his time giving alternative explanations. First, part of his main argument prior to these secondary explanations is that the narrators of these hadith and the author of this book are unknown and/or suspect. That being said, simply because some people are sufficed by simply weakening an isnad and calling it fabricated, it does not solve the quandary for others who think more broadly. Discussion and investigation over the signification of the narration's meaning is extremely important and perhaps more important than the isnad; especially when one of the main factors of narrator criticism is to inductively judge them based on the content of what they narrated.

 

Also, if the few Waqifis who were left during al-Shaykh era were to read his study of the narrations and were only to find narrator criticism, it would certainly be insufficient in convincing them. For they can simply say that you accuse al-Bata'ini of lying while we declare him trustworthy, for example.

 

في أمان الله

Akhi, thank you for your insights and I think that most probably that's what Shaykh at-Tusi thought when he wrote that.

But then again, I think he also understood that this just would bring the debate into the debate of interpretations, when they interpreted it as A and we interpreted it as B. Furthermore, if the narrations in Fi Nusrat had specifically been created to prove Waqifiyyah, it would have put his positions and arguments into a weak position.

And I'm not sure about its effectiveness either, since a Waqifi would have just asked for the nass for Imam ar-Rida (as) anyway which according to them, there was none or narrated by individuals who were not known or proved to be a close circle of Imam al-Kazim (as). I think this is where the crucial point of the debate is.

Edited by rotten_coconut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

 

Isn't the one was killed in jihad doesn't need to be washed?
Note: I'm not a Waqifi.
Akhi, thank you for your insights and I think that most probably that's what Shaykh at-Tusi thought when he wrote that.
But then again, I think he also understood that this just would bring the debate into the debate of interpretations, when they interpreted it as A and we interpreted it as B. Furthermore, if the narrations in Fi Nusrat had specifically been created to prove Waqifiyyah, it would have put his positions and arguments into a weak position.
And I'm not sure about its effectiveness either, since a Waqifi would have just asked for the nass for Imam ar-Rida (as) anyway which according to them, there was none or narrated by individuals who were not known or proved to be a close circle of Imam al-Kazim (as). I think this is where the crucial point of the debate is.

 

The point isn't to believe Sh. Tusi's secondary interpretations, per se, but to show that opposing factions that their understanding and interpretation of the hadith is not necessary which would weakens their stance.

 

The Waqifa soon died afterwards, so they were convinced of Imams عليهم السلام after al-Kazhim عليه السلام, which would probably have been due to such nass (perhaps via tawatur).

 

في أمان الله

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam.

That came to my mind, too, after reading this. I have read and heard this on several occasions, that (according to Shia) Imam Sajjad (as) came to bury his father (as), though not sure if ghusl was performed. Similarly, I once read (it has been a while) that Imam Ridha (as) was in the dungeon after his father (as) had died, seen by the guard there who couldn't understand how the Imam (as) managed to enter, in the first place. Though, I think he didn't attend the formal burial, probably due to the danger of ar-Rashid? And I don't think it's that surprising that there are scarcely any reports about that, to be honest. I'd have to look up where I read this, though, it was a book...

About Imam Hasan al-Askari (as) - again, I'm not sure about the ghusl-part, but Imam Mahdi ajf lead his janaza prayers as far as I know, just before the minor occultation. I think he said, when his uncle Jafar was about to lead the prayer, that only an Imam could do that for another Imam. Since tha caliph and his men were searching for Imam Mahdi ajf it's understandable that he wasn't able to do much more for his father.

Sayed Ammar Nakshawani has a lectur-serial about all the Imams including our 12th Imam ajf. Though, as far as I remember, he didn't mention whether Imam Ridha (as) was there after his father (as) had been poisoned. But it wouldn't be that absurd, would it? I mean, Chaotic Muslem brought two examples where something similar happened (according to us). And Imam al-Taqi (as) was there after his father (as) died, although he (as) died in Khorasan and the Imam (as) himself was in Medina (?) - do correct me if I'm wrong here ;) So, it wouldn't be impossible- Allah swt makes possible what he wills to.

Wa salam!

This makes no sense to me. I mean the part about Imam Mahdi telling Jafar to step aside because only he, as the Imam, could lead the prayers. We know that Jafar claimed the Imamate for himself. Clearly none of us accept his claim but that does not mean he did not make it and it is for this very reason that 12ers call him Jafar the Liar.He also had a following of people who did believe his claim. So I find the ides that he told aside for a child less than credible. Especially sine Jafar claimed that Askari (as) had no son Edited by IQRA07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This makes no sense to me. I mean the part about Imam Mahdi telling Jafar to step aside because only he, as the Imam, could lead the prayers. We know that Jafar claimed the Imamate for himself. Clearly none of us accept his claim but that does not mean he did not make it and it is for this very reason that 12ers call him Jafar the Liar.He also had a following of people who did believe his claim. So I find the ides that he told aside for a child less than credible. Especially sine Jafar claimed that Askari (as) had no son

I know that Jafar claimed to be the next Imam, he did it when Imam al-Askari (as) died and wanted to lead the prayer. The reason why he stepped aside for a "child" might have been that he was shocked since he had no idea that his brother did have a son (as far as I know, the Imam didn't even tell his closest family, only when his son was about to be born did he tell his aunt, for example. And Jafar wasn't trust worthy, so why tell him?). And as far as I remember, he left the house to alert the 'authorities' of Imam Mahdi's ajf presence (though, the Imam had vanished when the soldiers came). I don't know whether the child-argument is strong, he wasn't the first "child" Imam, after all, and therefore, not the first as such to do this for his father- and if there were any other people in the house, they probably wouldn't have cared that much, after all it was only Jafar who claimed a right to lead the prayer, the rest just wanted to mourn. As for the the people who followed Jafar- you always find these kind of people. Just take the Ismaelis, for example, they had the next Imam right in front of them and still, decided to follow someone else. And it's logical that Jafer (even after seeing Imam Mahdi) claimed that there was no son - it would have weakened his stance.

But we can't be sure, today, can we? I doubt that there are many accounts of this incident (if it happened), especially since many even claim that there is no Mahdi, to begin with. Some people benefit from this, claiming that there's no 12th Imam, so even if there had been many witnesses or people had written this incident down, those in power would have done a lot to erase any indication of Imam Mahdi's ajf existence.

There's been too much playing around with Hadiths and historical facts, that today we can't claim anything with 100% assurance, anymore. The Imam might tell us himself once he comes ;)

And just to make sure, I'm not claiming anything :P This is simply a theory/explanation some people came to through few narrations, I guess - probably one of a few, I don't know. But I do understand your doubts^^

Wa salam.

Edited by Noor al-Batul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just to be clear my doubts here were not about the existence of a son but rather about the willingness of Jafar to step aside for him especially given that he was claiming Imamate for himself.

But this does lead into interesting questions perhaps best addressed in another thread such as how Jafar could claim Imamate if na e of 12th Imam was known?

I find Shiism to be confusing. I have been to *******.org and read a few articles.

To be honest the arguments there against 12er Islam are better than the arguments FOR Waqifiyah Islam. The brother seems like he could not accept Ithna Ashari doctrine so he wwent to a doctrine that allowed him to still be Imami Shia without holding belief in 12 Imams. I could be wrong though and Allah knows best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well, maybe we should open another thread for such a discussion (maybe then, brothers and sisters with more knowledge could answer you^^).

Though, about Jafar's willingness to step aside- obviously, he himself knew that he was no Imam. And as I mentioned above, according to the narration, he left the house to alert the authorities - they have been anxious for the Mahdi's birth, apparently knowing what Shia thought him to be (Qaim). And since Jafar wasn't trust worthy, Imam Askari (as) hid the existence of his son from him. It would make sense that Jafar would try to make the government aware of Imam Mahdi instead of starting an argument then and there- running to the soldiers was more beneficial for him (money).

I don't know if the people in Samarra were even Shia? Or whether they simply respected the Imam (as)? And even if they had witnessed that episode of Imam Mahdi, it doesn't mean that they believed what the Imam said or that they had to accept him - the Zaidis rejected Imam Baqir (as) and the Ismaelis Imam al-Kazim (as) even though they both didn't even 'hid' from the world but were right there in front of everyone.

What do you mean 'being an Imami Shia without believing in 12 Imams'? That they reject some Imams and accept others? Well, they arw Muslims, either way. But we have several hadiths and narrations (even in Sunni books) in which the prophet (saaw) talks about 12 Imams after him. So, how can an Imami Shia reject some of the 12? I don't get that one.

Wa salam.

Edited by Noor al-Batul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The Zaydiyah don't reject Baqir (as) they regard him as Imam of Knowledge. Waqifiyah accept Imamate but not the 12 Khalifas hadith. *******.org has pretty detailed explanation of their view . It is too long for me to go into here.

I call them Imami because like 12ers they regard all of their Imams as Masom. Zaydiyah only see the first 3 as Masom .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

To be honest the arguments there against 12er Islam are better than the arguments FOR Waqifiyah Islam. The brother seems like he could not accept Ithna Ashari doctrine so he wwent to a doctrine that allowed him to still be Imami Shia without holding belief in 12 Imams. I could be wrong though and Allah knows best

 

I think this pretty much sums it up, although along the way I think he also realised that he could make it fit in nicely with his former Christian beliefs, whose influence can be very clearly seen in his version of Waqifi Shi'ism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The man does not seem to want to debate . I both respect and dislike that. I understand not needing to validate ones beliefs by winning arguments. On the other hand if one has tbs truth them surely there is an obligation which comes with that. The obligation to share this truth with others. One cannot do.so whilst avoiding debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The Zaydiyah don't reject Baqir (as) they regard him as Imam of Knowledge. Waqifiyah accept Imamate but not the 12 Khalifas hadith. *******.org has pretty detailed explanation of their view . It is too long for me to go into here.

I call them Imami because like 12ers they regard all of their Imams as Masom. Zaydiyah only see the first 3 as Masom .

Ah, thanks for the clarification :) I always thought Zaidis (so, you are one?) reject Imam al-Baqir (as) because they chose a path which Imam Baqir (as) (and Imam al-Sadiq (as)) warned them of and told them not to take. But you do not accept him as an Imam such as our first three Aimmah (as), if I understood correctly? Because you mention that Zaidiyah regard all their Imams as infallible, e.g. the first three. Maybe that explains a bit why you were doubtful of Jafar stepping aside for a child who claimed to be Imam? I mean, as Imam Jawad (as) and Imam Naqi (as) were 'children', too, when they became Imams (8 and 6) it's not that surprising with Imam al-Mahdi ajf for us.

Can you divide Khalifat and Imamat, though? If I remember correctly, the Hadiths mostly mention 'successors' of our prophet (saaw).

But that's really off-topic, now, sorry :P

Wa salam.

Edited by Noor al-Batul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Are the ahadith about Ja`far b. `Ali stepped aside reliable?

I don't know, to be honest. As I mentioned before, this is what I gathered from a lecture about Imam al-Mahdi ajf, it doesn't have to be necessarily true. Today, we can just speculate what exactly happened on this particular day from the few sources we have...

Sorry that I can't help you with that :(

Wa salam.

Edited by Noor al-Batul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...