Zaidism

[Fink]

17 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

The fact you are accepting that Imam Ali was an appointed successor after the pophet saww and people left him after knowing he is true sucesor.

Similarly it is proof for us that the people left other out of 12 Imams ie  successors of the Imam Ali like they left Imam Ali after the Prophet saww. 

People turn away from the truth if it might be absolutely clear and reject a matter even if it is explained in detail. Such as the people move from belief in monotheism to apostasy and inspite of Allah’s statement that: “There is nothing like Him”, they start believing in comparison" 

That is no argument at all. That's ظن aka assumption. Just because people rejected Imam Ali as doesnt prove God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) appointed 11 other Imams, the last of which was born a mysterious birth and subsequently communicated via 4 messengers who were kind enough to be concerned mostly about khums.

[Ashvazdanghe]

3 hours ago, 786:) said:

So for example:

Imam Zayd's (عليه السلام) opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a just caliph. Have not heard bad things about him from Ahlul-Bayt.

Imam Sadiq's (عليه السلام) first opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a just caliph. I have blood of Abu Bakr from my mother's side.

Imam Sadiq's (عليه السلام) second opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a tyrant and kafir. He will burn in hell.

Do you see how this can raise an eyebrow?

Salam ,people were saying words instead of them in many situation ,the original saying of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) was about that Shias don’t insult first caliph but they misuse it to justify Abubakr only ‘I have blood of Abu Bakr from my mother's side.’ Part is true because from mother side he inherited Abubakr blood but by son that raised by Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) not by relatives of any of 3 caliphs  but first part of it added by Other people to justify first caliph 

secondly there is no original talk from Zayd Ibn Ali(رضي الله عنه) except his short conversation with Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) rest of his speeches changed by people that were trying to make an alternative from him against Shia Imams like as they made 4 major alternative Sunni Imams as founders of 4 school of taughts by separation of Sunnis to 4 groups every Abbasid caliph could make a balance between people by favoring one of them to other each time or cause wars between these 4 groups like as now they can’t reach to a simple conclusion about place of folded hands that they don’t know what position is the best that they tried it parallel to this by creating Zaidism & Ismailis but by true decision of our Imams we don’t rise against each other when 4 Sunni madhab were busy attacking  each other in that era that at last caused weakening of Abbasids against Mughol invaders but they like as other times accuse Shias for betrayal althought Shias with defensive strategy of great Shia scholars like as sheikh aTusi (رضي الله عنه)  saved many lives of Muslims that Sunnis have great debt to Shias for this .

Edited February 11, 2019 by Ashvazdanghe

[Ali bin Hussein]

Salaam I follow the Zaidi Madhab. It's definition is not as strict as other Shia.

Basics principles are much the same as other schools of tght. So I'll skip to differences between 12er And zaidi

Imam Ali designation has been argued for as both explicit and implicit.

Zaidi that believe in explicit designation do not accept the caliphate of the first three but leave it at that and keep silent on matters Imam Ali kept silent on

Those that believe in implicit designation accept caliphate of Abu Bakar and Umar

They believe in infallibility of only 5. Who have evidence from Qur'an and sunnah. Prophet Muhammad, Bibi Fatima, Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, and Imam Hussein.

There after an Imam is anyone from the line of Hassan and Hussein that have the qualities of a righteous Muslim both in knowledge and action and rise up against an oppressor and call people openly to follow them. Eg Imam Zaid and Imam Ali Rezza 

The second type of Imam is one who has all the mentioned qualities but does not call people openly to follow them in action eg Imam jaffer Sadiq, Imam Muhammed bakir.

As they are not infallible any Imam does not have to be followed if they go against what is deemed to be Islam 

At no point has zaidi ever believed in or suggested alteration on Qur'an.

This is just a summary and I'm not a scholar so there maybe errors.

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Warilla

[Jaane Rabb]

Coincidentally, I was reading "The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam" by Sayyid Husayn Muhammad Ja'fari [is he a 12er?] today. I jumped straight into Chapter 9 to read about the struggles with Imamate and schisms post Karbala. Here's some juicy extracts about the al-Baqir and Zayd schism:

Quote

Though Muhammad al-Baqir inherited his father's following, he had to face many more serious problems than did his father. Zayn al-'Abidin had only to counteract the propaganda of Mukhtar for the Imamate of Ibn al-Hanafiya, which he could easily do on the grounds that he was the descendant of the Prophet as well as of 'Ali. After the death of Zayn al- 'Abidin many descendants of Fatima too, either motivated by ambitions or discontented with the idea of the Imam being merely a spiritual guide, as adopted by Zayn al-'Abidin, raised their own claims to the heritage of the Prophet.

Thus the immediate problem facing Al-Baqir was not from outside, but from within the family circle. The movements of his two most potential rivals, 'Abd Allah al-Mahdi, who worked for his son Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya, and Al-Baqir's half brother Zayd b. 'Ali Zayn al-'Abidin, will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. Here it would suffice to point out in passing that Zayd b. Zayn al-'Abidin's energies appealed to many Shi'is and were a serious challenge to the Imamate of Al-Baqir. In these rivalries, however, Al-Baqir and his followers were markedly overshadowed by Zayd and led the former to put increasing emphasis on legitimism within the Shi'I movement.

Quote

the popularity of the movement of Zayd b. Zayn Al-Abidin overshadowed Al-Baqir's efforts to establish the legitimist Imamate, yet Al-Baqir restricted himself to attacking only the friends and followers of Zayd. Nevertheless, when an opportunity presented itself, he did not hesitate to contest Zayd's rights quite sharply. Thus when Sa'id b. al-Mansur, one of the leaders of the Zaydiya circle, asked him:

“What is your opinion about nabidh, for I have seen Zayd drinking it?” Al-Baqir replied: “I do not believe that Zayd would drink it, but even if he did, he is neither a Prophet nor a Trustee of a Prophet, only an ordinary person from the Family of Muhammad, and he is sometimes right and sometimes may commit an error.” [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, p.232]. This was both an open denial of Zayd's rights to the Imamate, and an indirect assertion of his own position as the Prophetic Wasi Muhammad al-Baqir was the son of Fatima, the daughter of Al-Hasan, [Ref: Ibn Sa'd, V, pp.211, 320, 325 f.] and so, being the descendant of the Prophet and of 'Ali on both sides, he had a great advantage over Zayd, whose mother was a slave-woman from Sind, [Ref: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, p.127; Ibn Sa'd, V, pp.211, 325 f.] but the former never showed any inclination to organize an active movement and maintained the Pacific policy of his father.

On the other hand, Zayd, a close associate of Wasil b. 'Ata', the Mu'tazilite, was strongly impressed by the latter's ideas and laid emphasis on the principle of “ordering good and prohibiting evil”, if necessary, by force. Accordingly, he believed that if an Imam wanted to be recognized, he had to claim his right, sword in hand. [Ref: Shahrastani, Milal, I, pp. 154 f.] Al-Baqir and Zayd quarrelled over this point, for when the latter asserted that an Imam must rise against the oppressors, the former remarked: “So you deny that your own father was an Imam, for he never contested the issue.” [Ref: ibid.]
 
When Abu Bakr b. Muhammad al-Hadrami and his brother 'Alqama, two Kufan Shi'is, asked Zayd whether 'Ali was an Imam before he resorted to the sword, he refused to answer the question, which made them break their allegiance with Zayd and go over to Al-Baqir. [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, pp.416 f.]

Quote

A crucial question was that of the rights of Abu-Bakr and 'Umar. Zayd, agreeing with the Mu'tazilites, held that the first two caliphs had been legally elected Imams, though 'Ali was the preferable candidate, and this greatly impressed the traditionist circles. At the same time he rejected the Mu'tazilite doctrine of the “intermediate state”, but did not object to the opinion of Wasil, that in the conflict between ”'Ali and his adversaries” one of the opposing sides was certainly wrong though Wasil was not sure which, [Ref: Shahrastani, Milal, I, p.49] whereas Zayd regarded the virtues of 'Ali as of such a high order that the idea of his not being in the right was inadmissible.
 
However, Zayd's special emphasis on accepting the caliphates of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and his popularity on this ground among moderate circles show, on the one hand, that the question of the caliphates of the first two caliphs had already been under serious discussion in some Shi'I circles at that time, and on the other hand, that Zayd's success by adopting this stand created an embarrassing and complicated situation for Al-Baqir. Zayn al-'Abidin himself never spoke against the first two caliphs, but during Al-Baqir's lifetime some of the extremists who sided themselves with him started asking this question among the legitimist section of the Shi'a. Al-Baqir was thus asked time and again what he thought of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, but he did not publicly discredit them and rather confirmed that they were caliphs. [Ref: Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, IX, p.311; Dhahabi, Ta'rikh, IV, p.300; Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifat as-Safwa, II, p. 61; Abu Nu'aym, Hilya, III, p. 185]

Yet certain Shi'is of Kufa asserted that he disavowed the first two caliphs and only concealed his real opinion by resorting to the principle of dissimulation. [Ref: Traditions referring to the poet Kumayt quote Al-Baqir as very violently disavowing Abu Bakr and 'Umar; see Kashshl, Rijal, pp.205 f. On the other hand Kumayt did not express himself openly against the first two caliphs; see his verse in Hashimyat, p. 155]. This propaganda on the part of some of the Kufan followers of Al-Baqir no doubt earned him the sympathy of many extremist and semi-extremist circles, but on the other hand it discouraged those who wanted an active and more practical movement to bring the Ahl al-Bayt to power, and were already disappointed with Al-Baqir's quiescent policy. These moderates therefore preferred to range themselves on the side of Zayd, [Ref: Nawbakhti, Firaq, pp.52 ff.; Kashshl, Rijal, p.229] who in order to secure certain advantages became more emphatic in his acceptance of the first two caliphs, at the same time rejecting the principle of Taqiya. Al-Baqir was infuriated by the attitude of these Kufan Shi'is and said, “Even if the Butrites formed one battle-line from east to west, God would not grant glory to the world through them.” [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, p.232. The Butrlya were those who drew no distinction between the claimants from the house of 'Ali and supported any 'Alid claimant who revolted, sword in hand.]

Quote

The question of the first two caliphs at this stage draws our attention to another problem: that of religious practices. Al-Baqir adhered to the traditions derived from 'Ali and his supporters. There were, however, certain disagreements even among the Ahl al-Bayt, for Zayd was inclined to accept the practice of the Ashab al-Hadith of Kufa, mainly based on the rulings of 'Umar. Thus it was Al-Baqir who established the beginnings of the madhhab (legal school) of the Ahl al-Bayt Kashshi records for us a very important tradition which says:
 
“Before the Imamate of Muhammad al-Baqir the Shi'is did not know what was lawful and what was unlawful, except what they learned from the [other] people; until Abu Ja'far [Al-Baqir] became the Imam, and he taught them and explained to them the knowledge [of law], and they began to teach other people from whom they were previously learning.” [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, p. 289]
 
This tradition clearly indicates that until the time of Al-Baqir there were hardly any differences in legal practices among the Shi'is and Ashab al-Hadith of Medina, Kufa, and elsewhere. Even later the differences in the sphere of legal matters (furu') were in reality few, [Ref: Schacht, Origins, pp. 262 ff] such as while Al-Baqir absolutely forbade all intoxicants, including nabidh  (fermented drinks) [Ref: Kulayni, Furu' al-Kafi, II, p.193. Also see Dhahabl, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, I, p. 160; Qadi Nu'man, Sharh Al-Akhbar, fol. 36a] the Kufan jurists allowed nabidh. Another problem was that of mut'a (temporary marriage), over which the Shi'I and Kufan jurists differed, the former allowing it on the authority of 'Ali, the latter forbidding it, referring to the decision of 'Umar. [Ref: Schacht, Origins, pp. 266 ff; Malik b. Anas, Muwatta, III, p.23; Murtada b. Dai', Tadhkirat al-'Awamm, pp. 270-271]. The argument was that if 'Umar could revoke a permission granted by the Prophet, then 'Ali could revoke a ruling of 'Umar.

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Jaane Ya Ali

[786:)]

39 minutes ago, Warilla said:

Salaam I follow the Zaidi Madhab. It's definition is not as strict as other Shia.

Basics principles are much the same as other schools of tght. So I'll skip to differences between 12er And zaidi

Imam Ali designation has been argued for as both explicit and implicit.

Zaidi that believe in explicit designation do not accept the caliphate of the first three but leave it at that and keep silent on matters Imam Ali kept silent on

Those that believe in implicit designation accept caliphate of Abu Bakar and Umar

They believe in infallibility of only 5. Who have evidence from Qur'an and sunnah. Prophet Muhammad, Bibi Fatima, Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, and Imam Hussein.

There after an Imam is anyone from the line of Hassan and Hussein that have the qualities of a righteous Muslim both in knowledge and action and rise up against an oppressor and call people openly to follow them. Eg Imam Zaid and Imam Ali Rezza 

The second type of Imam is one who has all the mentioned qualities but does not call people openly to follow them in action eg Imam jaffer Sadiq, Imam Muhammed bakir.

As they are not infallible any Imam does not have to be followed if they go against what is deemed to be Islam 

At no point has zaidi ever believed in or suggested alteration on Qur'an.

This is just a summary and I'm not a scholar so there maybe errors.

 

 

 

Sign me up! Lol I think the fact that they were the original Shias is highly overlooked.

[Ali bin Hussein]

3 hours ago, 786:) said:

Sign me up! Lol I think the fact that they were the original Shias is highly overlooked.

And the best part is Sunnis can't say zaidi are not a valid Madhab and 12er can't say we are not Shia. It's the most simple, pure and rational interpretation of Islam.

[786:)]

8 minutes ago, Warilla said:

And the best part is Sunnis can't say zaidi are not a valid Madhab and 12er can't say we are not Shia. It's the most simple, pure and rational interpretation of Islam.

I’m not sure the latter is true. Most 12ers don’t even consider Ismaili to be Muslim—much less Shia. 

[Panzerwaffe]

Question is if zaydis are closest to the original Shias why did imami Shias or rafidah if you may and 12er Shias become majority?

What were the factors that caused this?

Also the proto Sunnis of Iraq who preferred Ali and hated Uthman yet considered first 2 caliphs legitimate and pious what happened to them?

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

From what you understand, who is the Imam of your time @Warilla ?

Don't they have a continuous line of imamate to this day, like Ismailis? I read there was an actual imamate in Yemen uo until the 60s.

What do Zaidis say or believe about the Mahdi? 

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Question is if zaydis are closest to the original Shias why did imami Shias or rafidah if you may and 12er Shias become majority?

What were the factors that caused this?

Also the proto Sunnis of Iraq who preferred Ali and hated Uthman yet considered first 2 caliphs legitimate and pious what happened to them?

I think that a multifaceted reason dependant on geography, military action, politics  etc beyond my knowledge and capabilities. An answer would require some who is well versed in history to research it. The answer would also vary depending on intitial bias.

[Ali bin Hussein]

57 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

From what you understand, who is the Imam of your time @Warilla ?

Much the same as Sunnis there isn't one. 

I think ismalis are the only group to have a current and openly present Imam.

As for Imam Mahdi my understanding that he will be from the Ahlul Bayt and among the first to enter paradise. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Warilla

[Ali bin Hussein]

6 hours ago, 786:) said:

I’m not sure the latter is true. Most 12ers don’t even consider Ismaili to be Muslim—much less Shia. 

Ismaili are very different to Sunni,zaidi and 12er. I'm not sure if they are excepted by Muslims as Muslim. I did a quick Google search and found this. 

https://ask.ismailignosis.com/article/45-why-do-ismailis-pray-dua-instead-of-namaz-like-many-other-Muslims

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Don't they have a continuous line of imamate to this day, like Ismailis? I read there was an actual imamate in Yemen uo until the 60s

The last accepted Imam was from 250 AH 

There have been Yemeni rulers till 1960s but they have not been accepted unanimously as Imam.

 zaidis only have a concept of divinely appointed infallible Imam only up to Imam Hussein. Any Imam after that is not infallible and therefore complete obedience is not required.

I treat the early zaidi Imams as sources of knowledge eg fiqh and transmitters of hadith from the infallible.

Other than that I'm not to concerned. If a leader from Ahlul Bayt arises in my lifetime I will use my aql and opinion from the masses and scholars on deciding if I need to follow or not. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Warilla

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

9 minutes ago, Warilla said:

Much the same as Sunnis there isn't one. 

I think ismalis are the only group to have a current and openly present Imam.

Would it not concern you based on the shared Sunni/Shii narration of one dying without recognising Imam of the time?

The ambiguity of the Imam being anyone as long as they are from the Hasnain line means there is room for further sub divisions within Zaidism surely?

As I mentioned to you in another thread I have found it quite difficult to come across Zaidi literature or websites. Like I don't know of any organisations or mosques, at least in the West.

I know a lot is due to ignorance on my part, but they seem steeped in secrecy and mystery like Yazidis lol. I just about found out how they prayed due to that link you sent me.

Like where are their Azhar, Qom and Najaf equivalents? Main ahadith books or who are their main contemporary ulema?

Sorry for all the questions but you're our resident Zaidi 

[Ali bin Hussein]

2 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Would it not concern you based on the shared Sunni/Shii narration of one dying without recognising Imam of the time?

A) As far as I know zaidi don't accept this as authentic.

Also even if it was then Imam has a general an specific meaning, so I'm sure there are varied interpretations

On a personal note, belief in any ONE thing that can determine if you enter paradise or not must be usool din and therefore I would require clear and unquestionably evidence to accept it.

I'm comfortable in knowing if I follow my fundamentals enjoy good and refrain from haram there will be mercy on my short comings. insha'Allah

2 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

The ambiguity of the Imam being anyone as long as they are from the Hasnain line means there is room for further sub divisions within Zaidism surely ?

Sure but the fundamentals of zaidi Madhab can't be altered regardless of disputes as the Imam is not infallible. Any division/opinions would be accepted (agree to disagree) just as they have been in the past.

2 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

I don't know of any organisations or mosques, at least in the West.

but they seem steeped in secrecy and mystery like Yazidis lol.  

You won't find any most likely as zaidi don't have specific centers eg imambargah and since they fit easily with Sunni going to Sunni run mosques is the norm. We don't seperate ourselves from the ummah.

The mystery is due to being a small number, geography and the fact that we are so similar to Sunni we assimilate into the general population.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Warilla

[Ali bin Hussein]

2 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Like where are their Azhar, Qom and Najaf equivalents? Main ahadith books or who are their main contemporary ulema?

I'll get back to you on this one. Will require I bit of research on my part.

[Faruk]

On 9/4/2018 at 10:05 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam in general about first  three Imam (عليه السلام) we have same opinion but about forth Imam (عليه السلام) Zaidis say that Imam must be from their progeny but he must rise against tyrant ruler without Taqiya with sword or any weapon & they follow Shafii school of taught for applying rules.

The Zaidi Shi'ites have their own fiqh and their own traditions and ahaadith sources, all claimed to be from the Itra (عليه السلام).

I guess the idea that they are following Shafi'I fiqh is because Yemen consists 65% procent of Shafi'I Sunnites and because their fiqh has many simmilarities with the 4 Sunni madahib.

Another thing is that Zaidi's believe that after the three Imams (عليه السلام) every descendant of BOTH Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) AND Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) can become the Imam according to fixed conditions ofcourse. 

There is also no belief in a fixed number of Imams like Twelvers have.

However they also believe in Imam al-Mahdi not being born yet but reject the belief in the second coming of Isa (عليه السلام) which is an Isra'iliyyat tradition according to them.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Faruk

[Faruk]

What is also very typical is that they are allowed to pray behind Sunni's as long they do not have antropomorphic beliefs or wiped their socks instead of the feet.

They do believe the tradition of wiping (leather) socks was abrogated by Qur'an 5:6.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Faruk

[Muslim2010]

19 hours ago, 786:) said:

So you want to prove from 12er books about Zayd's imamate? I am not that well versed in hadith literature to be quite honest with you. However, I do not see the purpose of this request as its a lose-lose scenario for me:

1) No hadith exists to support that in 12er literature
2) Hadith exists-->you claim no 12er hadith book is 100% sahih therefore you dismiss the hadith

Thanks for acceptance

1. No verse in Qur'an supporting the man made caliphs., Imam or. successor of the Prophet or Imam. They are all chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone.

2. No haidht as  evidence from Shia sources that Zayd bin Ali claimed Immamat

3. I have provided the hadith for acceptance of Imam Sadiq AS as Imam of Zayd bin Ali. These are sufficient to reject the claim of Zaidis for immamt  of Zayd bin Ali.

wasalam

Edited February 12, 2019 by skyweb1987

[Ali bin Hussein]

On 2/12/2019 at 9:59 AM, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Like where are their Azhar, Qom and Najaf equivalents? Main ahadith books or who are their main contemporary ulema?

These are early hadith literature :

Musnad Imam Zaid 
Amalia Ahmed bin Isa

I have PDFS in Arabic

http://www.*******.org/ part translation at this link. Strangely the early Sunni Hadith have been removed.

As for contemporary scholars they are based in Yemen and I think there is a hawza in Saudi 

I don't have any names of specific contemporary scholars.

As I'm following the Madhab through classic literature and asking questions to zaidi foundations based in the US.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Warilla

[Jaane Rabb]

23 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

2. No haidht as  evidence from Shia sources that Zayd bin Ali claimed Immamat

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235010893-did-zayd-ibn-Ali-claim-imamate/?do=findComment&comment=2822050

[786:)]

^He is going to say not all hadith in our books are authentic.

[Faruk]

1 hour ago, 786:) said:

^He is going to say not all hadith in our books are authentic.

Are you a Zaidi and if not what exactly?

Just curious.

[Muslim2010]

25 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Are you a Zaidi and if not what exactly?

Just curious.

How do you doubt about it? Are All his posts not defending the Zaidys thought?

 

[Muslim2010]

2 hours ago, 786:) said:

^He is going to say not all hadith in our books are authentic.

His all claims have been refuted in the other thread.

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235059322-refuting-from-imāmiyya-to-ithnā-ashariyya/?do=findComment&comment=3198137

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235059322-refuting-from-imāmiyya-to-ithnā-ashariyya/?do=findComment&comment=3198140

 

[Faruk]

27 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

How do you doubt about it? Are All his posts not defending the Zaidys thought?

 

I believe both Twelvers and Zaidi's are 100% procent Muslims.

We should look for Haqq, forget about the labels.

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Faruk

[786:)]

1 hour ago, Faruk said:

Are you a Zaidi and if not what exactly?

Just curious.

To be honest, I just consider myself a Muslim. I consider Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to be the righful successor. I do not totally subscribe to one sect or subsect as that can lead to bias. I look for ideas that most closely reflect the words of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). I believe imamate at its early stages was the equivalent to what the marjah system is today. This is evident by the number of Shia subsects that formed—very similar to what taqleed is today.

[Muslim2010]

45 minutes ago, Faruk said:

I believe both Twelvers and Zaidi's are 100% procent Muslims.

We should look for Haqq, forget about the labels.

Nice to see your posts after a  long time,  Ali is with Haq and Haq is with Ali AS.

Edited February 13, 2019 by skyweb1987

[Faruk]

10 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I believe imamate at its early stages was the equivalent to what the marjah system is today. This is evident by the number of Shia subsects that formed—very similar to what taqleed is today.

Which imamate or Imams do you mean?

The Shia subsects only appeared AFTER the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام).

[Faruk]

4 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

Nice to see your posts after a  long time,  Haq is with Ali and Ali is with Haq. 

Nice to see you again too.

As sincere as ever. 

Aliyun Waliullah

Edited February 13, 2019 by Faruk

[786:)]

26 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Which imamate or Imams do you mean?

The Shia subsects only appeared AFTER the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام).

Right, there was an ijma up until Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). Then it became scattered like the marjah system. This is why I have a hard time accepting the 12 were chosen from the start narrative. I've brought this up in past post, but it is just odd that Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) son would dispute imamate. Then later Imam Zainul Abideen's children dispute it. So on so forth. The dispute amongst the Ahlul Bayt is just a puzzling piece which keeps me from accepting the 12 chosen from the start narrative.

[Faruk]

20 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Right, there was an ijma up until Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). Then it became scattered like the marjah system. This is why I have a hard time accepting the 12 were chosen from the start narrative. I've brought this up in past post, but it is just odd that Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) son would dispute imamate. Then later Imam Zainul Abideen's children dispute it. So on so forth. The dispute amongst the Ahlul Bayt is just a puzzling piece which keeps me from accepting the 12 chosen from the start narrative.

I believe it depends on how you define imamate.

Imamare is not synonymous with caliphate. That is where most confusion starts.

[Leibniz]

1 hour ago, 786:) said:

To be honest, I just consider myself a Muslim. I consider Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to be the righful successor. I do not totally subscribe to one sect or subsect as that can lead to bias. I look for ideas that most closely reflect the words of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). I believe imamate at its early stages was the equivalent to what the marjah system is today. This is evident by the number of Shia subsects that formed—very similar to what taqleed is today.

The early Imamah was more of a political thing than a theological one. Right since the times of Abu Bakr , Hashmites were a political faction claiming their right to Imamah (Caliphate). Once after Uthman the Hashmites got some what of an upper hand , they diverged into Alids, Abbasid , Jaffarites. That's where you see strains of splits with in the Hashmites due to internal power struggle and that's how it goes once a political party attains power. There are rifts and there is choas. Even the Alids split among themselves for the same reason. Generally , for most of the Shias (who were mainly political Shias) Imam was the Hashmite who had unsleeved the sword and was politically active. It was for this reasons that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah and Zaid  dominated the Imamat theater compared to Zain ul abideen or Baqir. The "12 Imams" is a later day theological invention which is in a sharp contradiction with history.

[Ali bin Hussein]

22 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

.The "12 Imams" is a later day theological invention which is in a sharp contradiction with history.

I agree but 12er will point to "early" scripture like the Book of Sulaym ibn Qays

[Ashvazdanghe]

26 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Baqir. The "12 Imams" is a later day theological invention which is in a sharp contradiction with history.

It’s a divine leadership that comes by Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from beginning of world