Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Who are Zaydis? What is their belief ?


Recommended Posts

Guest Azhar

السلام على من التبع الهداً

I need to know, Who are Zaydis and what is their belief and why do Sunnis consider them as Muslims and consider all other sects as rejectors "raafidah". And I need to know, which sect among Shia are considered to be on truth - guidance. My question is for only educational purposes. Please provide evidences from authentic Shia Sources. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaamun alaikum,

I am Zaydi and there is no quick way to answer this question. Traditional Zaydis believe that Imam 'Ali (عليه السلام) and his sons Hasan (عليه السلام) and Husayn (عليه السلام) were explictly designated as imams to lead the Muslim community. After then they argue it should be for the most pious, just and learned member of the descendents of ahl al-Bayt. This is the real imam according to them.

Trying to understand Zaydism from Sunnis will cause you difficulties and they will often quote rare opinions or texts which make Zaydis seem like Sunnis. I recommend you visit salvationark which is run by a Zaydi brother who has access to the sources http://www.salvationark.com/salvationark1/index.php/forum/index

For Zaydis the term rafidah has nothing to do with the caliphs and the incident with Zayd ibn 'Ali (عليه السلام) refusing to curse the caliphs does not appear in their sources. Instead we find a group of Kufan Shia refusing to help Zayd and making the excuse that Imam Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir (عليه السلام) is only the rightful imam. There is a famous narration in al-Kafi about this where Zayd refutes them saying to the effect of: My brother would put food in my mouth as a child, do you really think that he would do that and not tell me that he is the rightful imam/hide this fact from me?

Zaid ibn ‘Ali summoned Muhammad al Ahwal and asked him: “I have heard that you are claiming that among the family of Muhammad, there is an Imam to whom obedience is obligatory.”Muhammad al Ahwal replied, “Yes, your father, ‘Ali ibn Hussain, was one of them.”Zaid said, “How can that be, when he would take a mouthful of food, and if it was hot, he would cool it with his hand and then put it in my mouth? Do you think that he would protect me from the heat of this mouthful and not protect me from the fire of hell (by not informing me of this)?”Al Ahwal answered, “He did not want to tell you lest you reject it and thus become a disbeliever, then he would not be able to intercede for you.”[11]

Rijal al Kashshi pg. 186

Therefore Zayd called them rafidah because they rejected uprising (khuruj) with himself - a prophetic descendent. You will notice that some Twelver sources shun the Zaydi imams who were uprising against the corrupt Umayyads and Abbasids. They say they that some were desceived and claimed imamah/mahdi wrongly and some others merely fought to instruct the good and forbid the evil. Still today there are Twelver scholars who reject this and say there should be no activity until the Mahdi "reappears" - this is what is meant by rafdh in a Zaydi context.

A Mahdi simply meant an upriser in those times and the imam for the Zaydis is the one who calls to himself openly (like Muhammad (عليه السلام) called the people to 'Ali at Ghadir and asked them to pass the message on at). Of course most Zaydis do believe there will be an Imam al-Mahdi near the end of time but it is more in-line with the Sunni notion, it won't be some miraciously reappearance after 1000+ years etc.. Zaydis consider other imams like Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir (عليه السلام) as imams of knowledge and they are respected and the same with all the pious and knowledgeable imams of the prophetic descendents. Zaydis do not believe that was any dispute between the imams nor was there any tablet containing a list of 12 imams etc. They beleive this was a concoction of some of the corrupt followers of those imams, not the imams themselves.

Regarding the caliphs you will find varying attitudes as the sources themselves are varied. Some Zaydis seem more "Sunni" whereas others are more traditionalist Shia, with everything else in between. The mainstream view seems to the attitude of stopping 'tawaqquf' where Zaydis neither curse nor praise the caliphs after mentioning their names. You will notice Zaydis sources are fairly silent on the merits of the sheikhs and they are skeptical of books like "Sahih" al-Bukhari etc. More traditionalist Zaydi scholars also have no problem pointing out the infamous incidents which led to the usurption of the caliphate of Imam 'Ali like the house burning and Fadak - they consider Nahjul al-Balagha as fairly authentic as I understand it - as long as it can be proven from multiple sources it can be relied upon.

Zaydism seems to be a wide school accomodating different views probably because it is so old. It is not surprising if we find that even descendents of Hasan (عليه السلام) and Husayn (عليه السلام) held varying views on certain topics because after all they are human beings like us and depend on the news that has been passed down. However regarding Muawiyah and Amr ibn Al As there seems to be a consensus that they can be openly cursed for their actions.

 



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Members
On 8/3/2020 at 4:28 AM, gharib570 said:

Salaamun alaikum,

I am Zaydi and there is no quick way to answer this question. Traditional Zaydis believe that Imam 'Ali (عليه السلام) and his sons Hasan (عليه السلام) and Husayn (عليه السلام) were explictly designated as imams to lead the Muslim community. After then they argue it should be for the most pious, just and learned member of the descendents of ahl al-Bayt. This is the real imam according to them.

Trying to understand Zaydism from Sunnis will cause you difficulties and they will often quote rare opinions or texts which make Zaydis seem like Sunnis. I recommend you visit salvationark which is run by a Zaydi brother who has access to the sources http://www.salvationark.com/salvationark1/index.php/forum/index

For Zaydis the term rafidah has nothing to do with the caliphs and the incident with Zayd ibn 'Ali (عليه السلام) refusing to curse the caliphs does not appear in their sources. Instead we find a group of Kufan Shia refusing to help Zayd and making the excuse that Imam Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir (عليه السلام) is only the rightful imam. There is a famous narration in al-Kafi about this where Zayd refutes them saying to the effect of: My brother would put food in my mouth as a child, do you really think that he would do that and not tell me that he is the rightful imam/hide this fact from me?

Zaid ibn ‘Ali summoned Muhammad al Ahwal and asked him: “I have heard that you are claiming that among the family of Muhammad, there is an Imam to whom obedience is obligatory.”Muhammad al Ahwal replied, “Yes, your father, ‘Ali ibn Hussain, was one of them.”Zaid said, “How can that be, when he would take a mouthful of food, and if it was hot, he would cool it with his hand and then put it in my mouth? Do you think that he would protect me from the heat of this mouthful and not protect me from the fire of hell (by not informing me of this)?”Al Ahwal answered, “He did not want to tell you lest you reject it and thus become a disbeliever, then he would not be able to intercede for you.”[11]

Rijal al Kashshi pg. 186

Therefore Zayd called them rafidah because they rejected uprising (khuruj) with himself - a prophetic descendent. You will notice that some Twelver sources shun the Zaydi imams who were uprising against the corrupt Umayyads and Abbasids. They say they that some were desceived and claimed imamah/mahdi wrongly and some others merely fought to instruct the good and forbid the evil. Still today there are Twelver scholars who reject this and say there should be no activity until the Mahdi "reappears" - this is what is meant by rafdh in a Zaydi context.

A Mahdi simply meant an upriser in those times and the imam for the Zaydis is the one who calls to himself openly (like Muhammad (عليه السلام) called the people to 'Ali at Ghadir and asked them to pass the message on at). Of course most Zaydis do believe there will be an Imam al-Mahdi near the end of time but it is more in-line with the Sunni notion, it won't be some miraciously reappearance after 1000+ years etc.. Zaydis consider other imams like Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir (عليه السلام) as imams of knowledge and they are respected and the same with all the pious and knowledgeable imams of the prophetic descendents. Zaydis do not believe that was any dispute between the imams nor was there any tablet containing a list of 12 imams etc. They beleive this was a concoction of some of the corrupt followers of those imams, not the imams themselves.

Regarding the caliphs you will find varying attitudes as the sources themselves are varied. Some Zaydis seem more "Sunni" whereas others are more traditionalist Shia, with everything else in between. The mainstream view seems to the attitude of stopping 'tawaqquf' where Zaydis neither curse nor praise the caliphs after mentioning their names. You will notice Zaydis sources are fairly silent on the merits of the sheikhs and they are skeptical of books like "Sahih" al-Bukhari etc. More traditionalist Zaydi scholars also have no problem pointing out the infamous incidents which led to the usurption of the caliphate of Imam 'Ali like the house burning and Fadak - they consider Nahjul al-Balagha as fairly authentic as I understand it - as long as it can be proven from multiple sources it can be relied upon.

Zaydism seems to be a wide school accomodating different views probably because it is so old. It is not surprising if we find that even descendents of Hasan (عليه السلام) and Husayn (عليه السلام) held varying views on certain topics because after all they are human beings like us and depend on the news that has been passed down. However regarding Muawiyah and Amr ibn Al As there seems to be a consensus that they can be openly cursed for their actions.
 

May I ask what kind of Zaydi you are? Jarudi, Sulaymani or Batri?

As I understand it, a faction of the Jarudis believe sayyidina Muhammad Nafs az-Zakiyah عليه السلام is the Mahdi and the Qa'im, and they say he is not dead but alive and in Ghaybah. They believe he is secluded at Mount Hajir somewhere in central Arabia if I'm not mistaken. What is your opinion of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/3/2020 at 9:28 PM, gharib570 said:

Salaamun alaikum,

I am Zaydi and there is no quick way to answer this question. Traditional Zaydis believe that Imam 'Ali (عليه السلام) and his sons Hasan (عليه السلام) and Husayn (عليه السلام) were explictly designated as imams to lead the Muslim community. After then they argue it should be for the most pious, just and learned member of the descendents of ahl al-Bayt. This is the real imam according to them.
 

What does Zaydi Tawheed look like? Do you guys believe that Allah is a body? Do you believe Allah has parts? What about causality - do Zaydis believe in occasionalism? What Zayd creed books discusses these issues?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Ithna Asharis are also close to the Mu'tazilah in terms of theology and on the mas'alah of Qadr.

Didn't the mu'tazilah believe in tafwid, that God delegated power to humans and thus God does not cause the actions of humans?

Isn't this explicitly condemned by the Imams when they said "not jabr (compulsion), nor tafweed, but a matter between these two matters".

Yes, I do think there were Shi'a scholars however, like Shaykh al-Mufid and Allamah Hilli, who basically agreed with this mutazilah position on tafwid. 

I have done a thread related to this:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/13/2020 at 6:08 AM, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

What does Zaydi Tawheed look like? Do you guys believe that Allah is a body? Do you believe Allah has parts? What about causality - do Zaydis believe in occasionalism? What Zayd creed books discusses these issues?

Zaydi Tawhid is the same as normal tawhid. Allah is unlike anything else - he has no arms or body. There is no power but God but of course human beings have free will. You could say they are more "Mutazili" and verses of the throne are interpreted symbolically unlike some others who believe Allah literally sits on a throne (but without knowing how).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2020 at 4:37 AM, Cherub786 said:

May I ask what kind of Zaydi you are? Jarudi, Sulaymani or Batri?

As I understand it, a faction of the Jarudis believe sayyidina Muhammad Nafs az-Zakiyah عليه السلام is the Mahdi and the Qa'im, and they say he is not dead but alive and in Ghaybah. They believe he is secluded at Mount Hajir somewhere in central Arabia if I'm not mistaken. What is your opinion of this?

Probably more Jarudi you could say.

As regards to ghaybah in the Twelver sense, no mainstream Zaydi would ever believe in this, only unless it was an imam going into hiding for a limited amount of time before an uprising. Our imams are humans and do not possess anything such as esoteric knowledge, extended age or knowledge of all languages etc

Yes, al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah was a Mahdi/Qa'im as he rose up to the tyrants, although back then these terms were simply assigned to a member of the household who rose up. Even al-Husayn was called al-Mahdi and could be considered a Qa'im. In fact, if you look to history it was the Zaydi imams who were busy uprising against the Abbasids which is why they were so feared. It was only later on this concept became mystical when the Tweltfh imam never showed up and his "deputies" took the role on... Indeed they still take the khumms from the people and act as his representatives to this day.

Much of the messianic literature is from the Abbasid era and Abbasi-Shia (Hashimiyyah, Rizamiyyah) sects formed from the earlier Kaysanites who had these ghulati ideas. This is why they circulate similar hadiths like the Abbasids who said they would rule and a pass the rule onto Isa (a). The Abbasids also claimed Ibn Abbas had esoteric knowledge (like the Twelvers said about Imam Ali) and that the Abbasids had books of the length of rules of kings (like the Twelvers often say to explain why they didnt join the Zaydis in uprisings). The Twelvers today even wear black which was the trademark of the Abbasids. Some Zaydi scholars have commented that Twelverism is in fact an Abbasid implant, and that the more ghulati followers of the Imams ascribed corrupted doctrines to them - such as infallibility outside of the ahl al-Kisa, secret knowledge and only having 12 imams via the line of al-Husayn. In fact this is actually limiting the wilayat of the ahl al-Bayt which is why some Twelvers rationally had to derive wilayat al-faqih to open the leadership back up.

Most Zaydis do believe a Mahdi will come near the end of time but it won't be a reppearance as we do not believe in the occultation and view it very suspicously. How can Allah ask us to follow an imam which cannot be seen or contacted? I understand the idea may bring comfort to peoples hearts and give them hope, but for all practical purposes like running a state it is absolutely unfeasible to have an occulted leader, much like it would be having an occulted manager in the workplace.

It is rather interesting that most modern-day Usuli Twelvers are practically following a Zaydi model by having a just and educated Hasani/Husayni Sayyid as their imam.

Edited by gharib570
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
4 minutes ago, gharib570 said:

Probably more Jarudi you could say.

As regards to ghaybah in the Twelver sense, no mainstream Zaydi would ever believe in this

The heresiographer, Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, mentions a faction of the Jarudiya Zaydiya who “awaited Muhammad ibn-‘Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-‘Ali ibn-abi-Talib. They would not believe that he had been slain, or that he died, but claimed that he was the expected Mahdi who would come to reign over the world. This group joined with the Muhammadiyah from the Imamiyah in looking for Muhammad ibn-‘Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-‘Ali as the expected Imam.” (Moslem Schisms and Sects p.44)

So historically there were a faction of Jarudiyah who believed in a supernatural occultation for Imam Nafs az-Zakiyah عليه السلام

Apparently, you don't belong to this faction. But are you aware if there are Jarudi Zaydis around today who have this belief?

This is interesting to me because we have examples of Shi'ite sects believing in a supernatural occultation for various Imams before the Twelver doctrine of ghaybat al-kubra for their Twelfth Imam.

For example, the Karibiyah Kaysaniyah believe in the supernatural occultation of sayyidina Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyah رضى الله عنه on Mount Radwa, and I've already described a faction of Shi'ites that believed in the supernatural occultation of sayyidina Nafs az-Zakiyah on Mount Hajir.

And as you might be aware, there were certain Shi'ite sects that believed other Imams did not die, like the Baqiriyah believed Imam al-Baqir is still alive, the Nawusiyah believed Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq is still alive, the Waqifah believed Imam Musa al-Kadim is still alive, the Isma'iliyah al-Khalisah believed Isma'il bin Ja'far is still alive and didn't die, the Qaramitah believed Muhammad bin Isma'il didn't die but went into occultation, and the Isma'iliyah Tayibiyah (who survive today as the Bohras) believe that their 21st Imam, Tayib, did not die but went into occultation, and they await his return.

And this is not something surprising with certain religious groups that refuse to believe in the death of a charismatic figure, saying he has gone into occultation and will return. There is a group of people that believes Elvis Presley is still alive. Another group of people don't believe Tupac Shakur died, they say he went into occultation in Mexico and will one day return.

Quote

Yes, al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah was a Mahdi/Qa'im as he rose up to the tyrants, although back then these terms were simply assigned to a member of the household who rose up. Even al-Husayn was called al-Mahdi and could be considered a Qa'im. In fact, if you look to history it was the Zaydi imams who were busy uprising against the Abbasids which is why they were so feared. It was only later on this concept became mystical when the Tweltfh imam never showed up and his "deputies" took the role on...

Do you consider the government of any non-Alid or non-Fatimid illegitimate, and that it is necessary or allowed for any Alid or Fatimid charismatic figure to rise up and start an armed revolt against such a government?

Please explain a bit your political theory and concept of government

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

There may have been those who believed in these doctrines but no mainstream Zaydi scholar past or present believed in these things - for example Imam al-Hadi ila al-Haqq (a), Imam Qasim al-Rassi (a) or even Imam al-Zayd (a) himself. These occultation doctrines are the work of corrupt followers of the imams which may have corrupted certain Zaydis at times. I suggest you try take from Zaydi sources for an authentic understanding.

Traditionally it has to be a Fatimi who is just and knowledgable who is allowed to be the true Imam of the Muslims. There are some modern day Zaydi imams which have stated this is no longer a requirement in the modern era, and that justice and knowledge is most important.

Regarding imamate, there are imams of knowledge and imams of uprising. So for example imam al-Baqir (a) is considered an imam of knowledge and imam Zayd ibn Ali (a) was an Imam of Uprising. These two qualities can come together like Imam Ali (a). An imam is obligated to give a call to their leadership, just like Imam Ali (a) asked those at Ghadir to pass the message on to those who were not present. It is incumbent for the imam to be just, educated, calm, not oppressed, financially stable to lead. Zaydis of course believe in uprising against a tyrant (fasiq) Muslim imam even if he declares the shahada. Uprising (khuruj) is not a central tenent but it just so happens Zayd (a), who the madhab is named after, did this against the Umayyads, and his descendents to the Abbasids who they considered unjust and unfit to rule.

This is just exactly the same principle which Imam al-Hasan (a) and Imam al-Husayn (a) followed against Muawiyah/Yazid (la).

Both Twelvers and Sunnis share hadiths saying that when people choose a leader when there is one more qualified amongst them, then the affair (al-amr) matter which descend to that point/that person which they were originally trying to avoid.

Other versions simply state they have betrayed the Muslims but you will get the idea. The most guided is the most entitled to leader and this was the mistake in the beginning by the two sheikhs...

So is He who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed or he who guides not unless he is guided? Then what is [wrong] with you - how do you judge? Quran 10:35

Clearly history testifies that the ahl al-Bayt and Fatimis argued for their right and at times fought for it with words and physically when the time demanded it. Therefore it makes sense to assume that they regarded it as their right to be the imams.

 

Edited by gharib570
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
7 hours ago, gharib570 said:

Traditionally it has to be a Fatimi who is just and knowledgable who is allowed to be the true Imam of the Muslims. There are some modern day Zaydi imams which have stated this is no longer a requirement in the modern era, and that justice and knowledge is most important.

And what is your personal view, as a Zaydi?

As for me, though I think it is ideal that a righteous Fatimi be the leader of the Muslim Ummah, I do not believe that this is mandated, or that the government of a non-Fatimi is illegitimate, or that the government of a wicked tyrant is illegitimate, or that the government of a non-Muslim colonizer is illegitimate either.

In my understanding of Islam, there is no such imperative in Islam to establish a state, government, caliphate, imamate, emirate, etc.

Quote

 Zaydis of course believe in uprising against a tyrant (fasiq) Muslim imam even if he declares the shahada. Uprising (khuruj) is not a central tenent but it just so happens Zayd (a), who the madhab is named after, did this against the Umayyads, and his descendents to the Abbasids who they considered unjust and unfit to rule.

Clearly history testifies that the ahl al-Bayt and Fatimis argued for their right and at times fought for it with words and physically when the time demanded it. Therefore it makes sense to assume that they regarded it as their right to be the imams.

I don't agree that they considered it their "right" to be the Imam. If it was their inherent right, they would have risen up continuously, but as you acknowledged, history also bears witness that there were times when they did not rise up against the government (in fact, most of the time they were not engaged in uprisings). So, I think it is more logical to conclude that these great Fatimi Imams rose up due to particular circumstances when the Ahl al-Bayt were being oppressed (what motivated the uprising of Imam Zayd and Imam Nafs az-Zakiyah عليهما الرضوان), and because, perhaps, they considered it permissible (but not obligatory) to rise up against a corrupt, tyrannical and evil government.

Quote

Both Twelvers and Sunnis share hadiths saying that when people choose a leader when there is one more qualified amongst them, then the affair (al-amr) matter which descend to that point/that person which they were originally trying to avoid.

I'm not sure what Sunni Hadith you are referring to here.

Quote

The most guided is the most entitled to leader and this was the mistake in the beginning by the two sheikhs...

We believe the government of mafdul is perfectly legitimate. In all practicality, virtually every government in human history till this day is government of a mafdul, and vast majority of governments are governments of evil, tyrannical oppressors.

However, we believe that Shaykhain رضى الله عنهما were the best guided and most righteous of the Ummah, theirs was an example of the ideal Islamic government. I also believe that Allah willed for Sayyidina Siddiq Akbar رضى الله عنه to be the Prophet's First Successor, and that Allah guided the assembly of the Saqifa Bani Sa'idah to elect him and give him the Bay'ah, through the agency of the Holy Spirit and through sudden, mass-Ilham.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 7/31/2020 at 5:58 AM, Guest Azhar said:

السلام على من التبع الهداً

I need to know, Who are Zaydis and what is their belief and why do Sunnis consider them as Muslims and consider all other sects as rejectors "raafidah". And I need to know, which sect among Shia are considered to be on truth - guidance. My question is for only educational purposes. Please provide evidences from authentic Shia Sources. 

Look here and here for more details. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

And what is your personal view, as a Zaydi?

As for me, though I think it is ideal that a righteous Fatimi be the leader of the Muslim Ummah, I do not believe that this is mandated, or that the government of a non-Fatimi is illegitimate, or that the government of a wicked tyrant is illegitimate, or that the government of a non-Muslim colonizer is illegitimate either.

In my understanding of Islam, there is no such imperative in Islam to establish a state, government, caliphate, imamate, emirate, etc.

I don't agree that they considered it their "right" to be the Imam. If it was their inherent right, they would have risen up continuously, but as you acknowledged, history also bears witness that there were times when they did not rise up against the government (in fact, most of the time they were not engaged in uprisings). So, I think it is more logical to conclude that these great Fatimi Imams rose up due to particular circumstances when the Ahl al-Bayt were being oppressed (what motivated the uprising of Imam Zayd and Imam Nafs az-Zakiyah عليهما الرضوان), and because, perhaps, they considered it permissible (but not obligatory) to rise up against a corrupt, tyrannical and evil government.

I'm not sure what Sunni Hadith you are referring to here.

We believe the government of mafdul is perfectly legitimate. In all practicality, virtually every government in human history till this day is government of a mafdul, and vast majority of governments are governments of evil, tyrannical oppressors.

However, we believe that Shaykhain رضى الله عنهما were the best guided and most righteous of the Ummah, theirs was an example of the ideal Islamic government. I also believe that Allah willed for Sayyidina Siddiq Akbar رضى الله عنه to be the Prophet's First Successor, and that Allah guided the assembly of the Saqifa Bani Sa'idah to elect him and give him the Bay'ah, through the agency of the Holy Spirit and through sudden, mass-Ilham.

Fatimi Imams did rise up against the Umayyads and Abbasids quite frequently and did form their own imamates for example the Idrisi dynasty in Morocco or the imamate in Yemen. One has to ask were they rising up to bolster the existing caliphates? Many Zaydi imams like Imam al Hadi ila Haqq declared themselves as imams openly and their imamate lasted for over a thousand years. Many of them migrated to declare their imamate.

Take Imam al-Husayn (a), he rose up after the Kufans invited him to be their imam - read his letter to the Kufans and Basrans where he clearly explains what an imam is and how he accepted their invitation - it is a great shame he was betrayed. As regards to Imam 'Ali, he also stated his rights by refusing the allegience of Abu Bakr, it was only after threats to him were made that he pledged allegience. This has been recorded in numerous Sunni and Shia sources. Also what was Imam al-Hasan (a) fighting Muawiyah for? I understand Sunnis cannot accept that they were fighting for imamate as it implies that Muawiyah was a usurper! However more moderate Sunnis may be willing to concede the crimes of this man and use a bit of rationality.

The mafdul in the context of Imam Ali was most definitely illegal from our perspective. This is because the prophet of Islam (s) had indicated at Ghadir Khum that Imam 'Ali's status was closer to the believers than their own selves. In addition his virtues tell us that he was the most qualified to lead. They threatened to burn Imam 'Ali's house if he did not pledge allegience to them then Abu Bakr passed the caliphate straight to Umar. What sort of leadership is this? I would respectively disagree with your predestinationary view of the holy spirit guiding Saqifah through mass-ilham. It is more like Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah acted on their agreement to snatch the caliphate away from Imam 'Ali - even the Ansar said they would only choose Imam 'Ali. Umar narrates that he had prepared a speech but Abu Bakr spoke more eloquently. Then after Abu Bakr offered Umar and Abu Ubaydah to the Ansar, Umar then hinted for Abu Bakr to become caliph, then Abu Bakr gave it straight to Umar after his death.

Clearly they abandoned the principle of afdala and decided to pass it amongst themselves, it was only at Umar's death that the concept of a hand-picked Shura was invited, with the condition that the dissenting party should be beheaded - is this a Sunnah? They also introduced the Sunnahs of the sheikhayn as a condition for accepting the imamate which Imam 'Ali politely refused which is why 'Uthman then became caliph.

Rationally it can only be concluded that Imam 'Ali rejected their actions because they were not in line with either the Quran or Sunnah. Therefore, how do we judge the hadiths that reach us saying that if, all the world's knowledge was put one side of a scale, and another side had 'Umar's knowledge, then the side of Umar's knowledge would clearly tip the balance.

I would ask you, did the holy spirit and mass-ilham also inspire the threats to burn the house of Imam 'Ali? In fact, the hadith that the angel talks on the tongue of Umar and that he is inspired is also fabricated by Mu'awiyah and his friends. We would disagree that the sheikhayn were the best guided:

1.) By refuting the majority of their virtues such as being Siddiq Akbar by referring to history on how Mu'awiyah paid people to fabricate these hadiths (PM, if you are interested in seeing exampels of forgeries in the so-called Sahihayn). Also rationally how can Abu Bakr be the Siddiq al-Akbar when Imam Ali was praying before Abu Bakr even converted? To assert Abu Bakr is Siddiq al-Akbar is a clear distortion of historical facts.


2.) Their knowledge and virtues are clearly lacking as they often had to consult Imam 'Ali - seizing the caliphate in such a crude way also reflects poorly on their character.

At the end of the day, Imam 'Ali helped them for the sake of unity whilst at the same time asserting his rights from time to time. He refused their "Sunnah" around the time of the election of 'Uthman. So our atittude as Zaydis towards the sheikhs is a neutral one. We simply state the facts and leave the rest to Allah. The reality is that the Twelvers have exaggerated the incidents above so much and the Sunnis have many fabricated virtue traditions which they 'rely' upon to prove the 'superiority' of the sheikhs.

The Zaydi imams were very pragmatic and realistic and one has to deal with the situation at hand. However that does not mean that the sheikhs were right in what they did, as they virtually empowered the Umayyads. Allah will judge and the reckoning is with him alone. We are not like some Twelvers who believe they are automatically hellbound. One can state one's position and what they believe to be the facts without being hateful or crude.

For the electing the less qualified (mafdul) please see these hadiths:

Imam Ali quotes prophet Muhammad (s):

‘No community will handover any of its commands to any man when there is a more knowledgeable oneamong them, except that it will not cease going lower in its affairs, until they return towhat they had avoided’. [1]

On the authority of Ibn al-‘Abbās that Prophet Muhammad (s) said:

((Whoever appoints a person from amongst the Muslims while he knows that there exist amongst them one who is more qualified and the most knowledgeable regarding the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet—he has betrayed Allah, His Messenger, and all of the Muslims)).[2]

He also reported:

((Whoever becomes ruler of the Muslims and appoints for them a man while knowing that there exists another person who is more qualified and the most knowledgeable regarding the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet—he has betrayed Allah, His Messenger, and all of the believers)). [3]


[1] Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays Hadith 15 (Twelver source)

[2] Imam al-Bayhaqi – Al-Sunan (Sunni source)

[3] Imam al-Tabarani al-Mu’jam al-Kabir (Sunni source)


 

Edited by gharib570
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

And what is your personal view, as a Zaydi?

As for me, though I think it is ideal that a righteous Fatimi be the leader of the Muslim Ummah, I do not believe that this is mandated, or that the government of a non-Fatimi is illegitimate, or that the government of a wicked tyrant is illegitimate, or that the government of a non-Muslim colonizer is illegitimate either.

In my understanding of Islam, there is no such imperative in Islam to establish a state, government, caliphate, imamate, emirate, etc.

I don't agree that they considered it their "right" to be the Imam. If it was their inherent right, they would have risen up continuously, but as you acknowledged, history also bears witness that there were times when they did not rise up against the government (in fact, most of the time they were not engaged in uprisings). So, I think it is more logical to conclude that these great Fatimi Imams rose up due to particular circumstances when the Ahl al-Bayt were being oppressed (what motivated the uprising of Imam Zayd and Imam Nafs az-Zakiyah عليهما الرضوان), and because, perhaps, they considered it permissible (but not obligatory) to rise up against a corrupt, tyrannical and evil government.

I'm not sure what Sunni Hadith you are referring to here.

We believe the government of mafdul is perfectly legitimate. In all practicality, virtually every government in human history till this day is government of a mafdul, and vast majority of governments are governments of evil, tyrannical oppressors.

However, we believe that Shaykhain رضى الله عنهما were the best guided and most righteous of the Ummah, theirs was an example of the ideal Islamic government. I also believe that Allah willed for Sayyidina Siddiq Akbar رضى الله عنه to be the Prophet's First Successor, and that Allah guided the assembly of the Saqifa Bani Sa'idah to elect him and give him the Bay'ah, through the agency of the Holy Spirit and through sudden, mass-Ilham.

Imam Muhammad ibn ali-Baqir said commenting on the narration of Imam ‘Ali different types of narration appearing in his time:
 

And sometimes you will see a man who has been mentioned as being good – and he is pious and truthful – would narrate a great Hadith which would contain strange virtues of some of the past governors, although Allah never Created from it anything at all, and he would consider it to be the truth for he would have heard it numerous times from the ones who are not known to be liars, nor for lack of piety. And he would be narrating from Ali ugly things, and from al-Hassan and al-Husayn , what Allah Knows that they are narrating that which is invalid, and lies, and forgery.

 

 

I (Aban) said to him:
 

May Allah Keep you well, tell me some of those things’.

 

 

He said:

 

 

‘They report that the Chiefs of the elderly of the inhabitants of the Paradise are Abu Bakr and Umar[1], and that Umar is a inspired (Muhaddith), and that the Angel teaches him, and that the tranquillity is pronounced upon his tongue[2], and that the Angels are embarrassed by Usman[3], and that there is a Vizier for me from the inhabitants of the sky and a Vizier from the inhabitants of the earth, and that they are being managed from a remote distance from me[4] , and to remain firm, how can it not be a blessing for you when there is not upon you except for the Prophet (Nabi), and a truthful (Siddiq) and a witness (Shahid)[5]’ – to the extent that Abu Ja’far recounted more than one hundred such reports which were regarded as being the truth.

 

 

From these are clear forgeries and from these are distorted ones. As for the distorted, it is that:

 

 

“There is nothing upon you except for the Prophet (Nabi), and a truthful (Siddiq) and a Witness (Shahid)”

 

 

It (Siddiq and Shahid) means ‘Ali. So accept it. Similar to it is also “How can it considered to be a blessing for. You  And upon you is a Prophet, a truthful and a witness?, it means ‘Ali and the generalised corrupted version. It is a lie and a forgery and invalid.[6]

 

**** There are versions of this hadith in Bukhari and Muslim where the title Siddiq and Shahid were given away to others, they all take the form of a mountain shaking (sometimes Uhud and Hira) and sometimes even the 10 promised paradise appear on there. These are fabricated for political purpsoes. *****

https://sunnah.com/search?q=mountain+shake

 

 

Al-Siddiq and Shahid were originally two titles for Imam ‘Ali because he was the first male to submit to the message of Islam delivered by prophet (Nabi) Muhammad. The following verses were revealed in honour of Imam ‘Ali and are the true origins of these titles which were instead awarded by Mu’awiyah and his companions to Abu Bakr “al-Siddiq” and Uthman the “Shahid”.

 

 

Quran 39:33 (al-Siddiq)

 

 

And he {Muhammad} who brings the truth (jāa bil-ṣid'qi) and he (wa-ṣaddaqa bihi) {Ali} who ratifies it as the truth - these are they that fear God.

 

 

Quran 11:17 (al-Shahid)

 

 

Is he {Muhammad} then who has with him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness (shāhidun) {Ali} from him (minhu) recites it..

 

 

It was narrated that 'Abbad bin 'Abdullah[7] said:

 

 

"'Ali said: 'I am the slave of Allah and the brother of His Messenger. I am the greatest teller of the truth (Siddiq Akbar), and no one will say this after me except a liar. I prayed seven years before the people."[8]

 

In his book `Ta'rikh', b. `Arafa known as Naftawayh, who was a great traditionist, said :

 

"( A group of people) fabricated most traditions concerning the outstanding merits of the Companions (of the Prophet) during the days of the Umayyads to approach them. Through that they (i.e., the Umayyads) thought that they would defeat the Hashimites." 

 

Concerning the time of Mu'awiya, al-Mada'ini said:

 

"Many fabricated traditions appeared, and false accusations spread. The jurists, the judges, and the governors adopted that.""The most dangerous of all people in that were the hypocrite readers (of the Qur'an), and those, whom were deemed weak, who pretended piety, and asceticism. So they fabricated traditions to find favor with their governors, to approach their board, and to get money, country estates, and houses. Then those reports and traditions were transmitted to the religious persons who regarded lying and false accusations as illegal. So they accepted them and narrated them. They thought that they (i.e., the reports and the traditions) were true. If they had known that they were untrue, they would have not narrated them, nor would they have adopted them."

 

Ibn Abu al-Hadid said:

 

 "Our Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Iskafi mentioned that Mu'awiya had appointed a group from the Companions (of the Prophet) and a group from the later (Companions of the Prophet) to narrate obscene traditions concerning 'Ali, peace be on him, to defame him and to renounce him. Mu'awiya fixed wages for them to (achieve) that. So they fabricated what pleased him. Among them were Abu Hurayra, `Amr b. al-`As, and al-Mughira b. Shu'ba. Among the later (companions of the Prophet) was `Urwa b. al-Zubayr."

 

I ask you to consider if these people were so great and guided why did so many fabrications have to take place to prove their status? Why are you not allowed to be critical of certain sahaba like Muawiyah and Amr ibn Al As who were clearly concocting traditions in the name of the prophet (s)? Of course you can weaken all of these narrations and call these people Mutazilis and Shia, but that is simply avoiding the evidence and being irrational.

 


[1] Jami al-Tirmidhi - Chapters on Virtues (forged on the tongue of Imam ‘Ali)

[2] “Sahih” al-Bukhari – The Book on the Companions

[3] “Sahih” Muslim – The Book on the Merits of the Companions

[4] Jami al-Tirmidhi - Chapters on Virtues

[5] “Sahih” al-Bukhari – The Book on the Companions

[6] Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays Hadith 10

[7] Abbad ibn Abdillah is Sulaym ibn Qays who also narrates this tradition in his book

Edited by gharib570
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
33 minutes ago, gharib570 said:

As regards to Imam 'Ali, he also stated his rights by refusing the allegience of Abu Bakr, it was only after threats to him were made that he pledged allegience.

At least you admit he pledged allegiance. It seems most other Shi'ah are not even willing to admit this historical fact. Of course, I disagree with your claim that he pledged allegiance because he was being threatened. If he was being threatened, the Haydir al-Karrar كرم الله وجهه that I know of would never surrender or compromise what he believed to be true.

Quote

This has been recorded in numerous Sunni and Shia sources. Also what was Imam al-Hasan (a) fighting Muawiyah for? I understand Sunnis cannot accept that they were fighting for imamate as it implies that Muawiyah was a usurper!

Sayyidina Hasan al-Mujtaba رضى الله عنه was already the Imam and Khalifah, he was elected by the Muslims upon the martyrdom of his father كرم الله وجهه. It was not an uprising or a revolt, it was a civil war between two Muslim states, one based in Iraq and the other based in Syria. Of course, the fact that Sayyidina Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه surrendered his caliphate and pledged allegiance to Mu'awiyah nullifies your entire theory concerning the Imamate as a right, etc.

Quote

They threatened to burn Imam 'Ali's house if he did not pledge allegience to them then Abu Bakr passed the caliphate straight to Umar. What sort of leadership is this? I would respectively disagree with your predestinationary view of the holy spirit guiding Saqifah through mass-ilham. It is more like Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah acted on their agreement to snatch the caliphate away from Imam 'Ali - even the Ansar said they would only choose Imam 'Ali.

I have no clue where you're getting this narrative from. It's definitely not in our literature, and its definitely not authentic or historical.

Quote

((Whoever becomes ruler of the Muslims and appoints for them a man while knowing that there exists another person who is more qualified and the most knowledgeable regarding the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet—he has betrayed Allah, His Messenger, and all of the believers)).

You are referring to the following Hadith from Mu'jam al-Kabir:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَنْ أَعَانَ بِبَاطِلٍ لِيُدْحِضَ بِبَاطِلِهِ حَقًّا فَقَدْ بَرِئَ مِنْ ذِمَّةِ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةِ رَسُولِهِ ، وَمَنْ مَشَى إِلَى سُلْطَانِ اللَّهِ ليُذِلَّهُ أَذَلَّهُ اللَّهُ مَعَ مَا يَدَّخِرُ لَهُ مِنَ الْخِزْي يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ، سُلْطَانُ اللَّهِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةُ نَبِيِّهِ ، وَمَنْ تَوَلَّى مِنْ أُمَرَاءِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ شَيْئًا فَاسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ رَجُلًا وَهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّ فِيهِمْ مَنْ هُوَ أَوْلَى بِذَلِكَ وَأَعْلَمُ مِنْهُ بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ رَسُولِهِ ، فَقَدْ خَانَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَجَمِيعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

I will have to check its authenticity. However, the content of the Hadith does not confirm your theory. It's speaking about the Sultan appointing governors or deputies under his authority. It is not speaking about the top leadership itself, but about deputation of authority by the Ruler or central government. It is actually contrary to your thesis, because the Hadith says "whoever becomes Ruler of the Muslims", and it does not stipulate that the Ruler himself must be the most qualified in terms of knowledge.

The same is the case with the other version of this Hadith you quoted from Sunan al-Kabir of al-Bayhaqi:

عنِ ابنِ عَبَّاسٍ , رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا , عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَنِ اسْتَعْمَلَ عَامِلًا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّ فِيهِمْ أَوْلَى بِذَلِكَ مِنْهُ وَأَعْلَمُ بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ , فَقَدْ خَانَ اللَّهَ , وَرَسُولَهُ , وَجَمِيعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

Here again, the central Ruler is not being spoken of, but the act of appointing a deputy or governor by the central Ruler. Again, I have to check the authenticity of these narrations, nonetheless, it does not prove your thesis that the Ruler has to be the most qualified in terms of knowledge. You yourself admitted that Imam Zayd was not an Imam of knowledge, but that it was Imam Muhammad al-Baqir who was the Imam of knowledge in his time:

Quote

So for example imam al-Baqir (a) is considered an imam of knowledge and imam Zayd ibn Ali (a) was an Imam of Uprising. These two qualities can come together like Imam Ali (a).

So it doesn't make sense for you to quote these narrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

At least you admit he pledged allegiance. It seems most other Shi'ah are not even willing to admit this historical fact. Of course, I disagree with your claim that he pledged allegiance because he was being threatened. If he was being threatened, the Haydir al-Karrar كرم الله وجهه that I know of would never surrender or compromise what he believed to be true.

Sayyidina Hasan al-Mujtaba رضى الله عنه was already the Imam and Khalifah, he was elected by the Muslims upon the martyrdom of his father كرم الله وجهه. It was not an uprising or a revolt, it was a civil war between two Muslim states, one based in Iraq and the other based in Syria. Of course, the fact that Sayyidina Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه surrendered his caliphate and pledged allegiance to Mu'awiyah nullifies your entire theory concerning the Imamate as a right, etc.

I have no clue where you're getting this narrative from. It's definitely not in our literature, and its definitely not authentic or historical.

You are referring to the following Hadith from Mu'jam al-Kabir:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَنْ أَعَانَ بِبَاطِلٍ لِيُدْحِضَ بِبَاطِلِهِ حَقًّا فَقَدْ بَرِئَ مِنْ ذِمَّةِ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةِ رَسُولِهِ ، وَمَنْ مَشَى إِلَى سُلْطَانِ اللَّهِ ليُذِلَّهُ أَذَلَّهُ اللَّهُ مَعَ مَا يَدَّخِرُ لَهُ مِنَ الْخِزْي يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ، سُلْطَانُ اللَّهِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةُ نَبِيِّهِ ، وَمَنْ تَوَلَّى مِنْ أُمَرَاءِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ شَيْئًا فَاسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ رَجُلًا وَهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّ فِيهِمْ مَنْ هُوَ أَوْلَى بِذَلِكَ وَأَعْلَمُ مِنْهُ بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ رَسُولِهِ ، فَقَدْ خَانَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَجَمِيعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

I will have to check its authenticity. However, the content of the Hadith does not confirm your theory. It's speaking about the Sultan appointing governors or deputies under his authority. It is not speaking about the top leadership itself, but about deputation of authority by the Ruler or central government. It is actually contrary to your thesis, because the Hadith says "whoever becomes Ruler of the Muslims", and it does not stipulate that the Ruler himself must be the most qualified in terms of knowledge.

The same is the case with the other version of this Hadith you quoted from Sunan al-Kabir of al-Bayhaqi:

عنِ ابنِ عَبَّاسٍ , رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا , عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَنِ اسْتَعْمَلَ عَامِلًا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّ فِيهِمْ أَوْلَى بِذَلِكَ مِنْهُ وَأَعْلَمُ بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ , فَقَدْ خَانَ اللَّهَ , وَرَسُولَهُ , وَجَمِيعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

Here again, the central Ruler is not being spoken of, but the act of appointing a deputy or governor by the central Ruler. Again, I have to check the authenticity of these narrations, nonetheless, it does not prove your thesis that the Ruler has to be the most qualified in terms of knowledge. You yourself admitted that Imam Zayd was not an Imam of knowledge, but that it was Imam Muhammad al-Baqir who was the Imam of knowledge in his time:

So it doesn't make sense for you to quote these narrations.

You can find the house burning narrations by al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari clearly in Sunni books. Twelvers and Zaydis also have their own versions for this event to be considered widely reported. It is clearly stated in Shia sources that Imam 'Ali did react and show his muscle however decided that wisdom would be the better course of action in the end. He himself states that he feared further instability and apostasy. Many Imams (a) refused fighting when they were weakened like Imam al-Hasan (a).

• al-Baladhuri, reported from Sulaiman al-Taymi, from Abdullah bin Aon – who are believed to be Thuqat (trustworthy) by Sunnis “Abu Bakr asked Ali to support him, but Ali refused, then Umar went toward Ali's house with a burning torch. At the door he met Fatima who said to him: "Do you intend to burn the door of my house?" Umar said: "Yes”! (Ansab al-Ashraaf, by al-Baladhuri Ahmed bin Yahya bin Jaber al-Baghdadi, v1, p 586)

• al-Siyuti was among the ones who reported that Abu Bar regretted what he had done to Lady Fatima (peace be upon her) as he said: “I wish I had not searched for Fatima’s house, and had not sent men to harass her." (Musnad Fatima by al-Siyuti p 34, Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer by al-Tabarani v1 p 62, History of al-Tabari v3 p 430, al-Iqd al-Fareed, by Ibn Abd Rabbuh v2 p 254, and many more).

As regards to Imam al-Hasan (a) being the rightful imam, if you concede this then you have to conclude that Mu'awiyah was not an imam and a mere imposter. You say that it was a war between two Muslim states. Since when was Mu'awiyah the rightful imam and how did he attain his imamate and begin his Muslim state - through rebelling against al-Hasan's father? Was Muawiyah elected by the people? Of course not he used violence and scare tactics to impose his will upon the Ummah which started in the days of Imam 'Ali (a). His right-hand man Ziyad ibn Abihi became his adopted brother and most ruthless person who hunted down and killed the Shia of Imam 'Ali and Imam al-Hasan. He himself was an ex-follower of Imam 'Ali so he knew them well and was bribed by Mu'awiyah. His son Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad followed in his footsteps by being the chief architect of Karbala.

If you had read the history then you would know Mu'awiyah had overpowered Imam al-Hasan and that the Kharajites and his own followers had declared him murtad and stabbed him. At this point Hasan had absolutely no choice but to pledge allegience. So which one is it, does one simply become the rightful caliph through overpowering one's enemy? al-Husayn tried to set things straight but he was let down by the Kufans. You see this mentality lives onto this day where a minority believe that force is all that is required to declare imamate, and that the imam must be obeyed whether just or not - this is tyranny.

So according to your argument Imam 'Ali, al-Hasan and al-Husayn were simply fighting to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, whereas Mu'awiyah and Yazid were the rightful caliphs? Do you recognise Mu'awiyah and Yazid as legitimate caliphs?

As regards to Imam Zayd (a), our sources consider him the most knowledgeable and sound I was simply stating how one can differentiate him and his brother Imam al-Baqir (a). In other words, Zayd was in a position to uprise unlike Imam al-Baqir who lacked this quality. Both had knowledge which is a requirement, however this should be combined with the ability to claim imamate.

With regards to what is authentic and historical, I ask you re-read my previous post about Mu'awiyah's influence on history and hadith. It is impossible to view this man as a just imam and it baffles me to this day that some of our Sunni brothers are so adament in making out he was pious. It is probably because all Sunnis would become Tafdhili Shias if they discovered the reality - which in my mind are the original Shia and are more authentically Shia than the Twelvers. Those early sahaba (رضي الله عنه) who chose to refuse the allegience of Abu Bakr and stay inside the house of Imam 'Ali were all clearly tafdhili. Yet many tafdhilis today are humiliated for standing up for the truth and rights of Imam 'Ali.

The more you peel back the layers of history the more it becomes less about labels and simply Muslims interpretating the Quran and Sunnah! After all we are all Muslims and believe in these two sources. For the Shia the imam has to be learned in these two and the imamate is the inheritance of the prophetic's descendents. There is nothing unusual about this and Allah has done this many times with many prophets.

It could be argued however that in the modern age a complete overhall is required, I personally think Muslims are in need of this to make any serious progress in the modern world. I mean, we still have people believing the prophet (S) died three years after being poisoned. This is the society which produced some of the first textbooks on medicine and invented algebra.

Zaydism and Mutazilis are probably the most rational and reason based forms of Islam and unfortunately the most least known about. The Muslims "scholars" told people to abandon intellect a long time ago and now we have thousands of madrassas producing second-rate imams who simply parrot what is in a hadith book, because their teacher told them it was authentic. They cannot even objectively narrate our own history and refuse to look at each other's books to get a more mature and rounded understanding. You sometimes find more truth and honesty among non-Muslim academic scholars which is what Allah has warned about in the Quran - that is the previous people who took the Rabbis and Priests as their lords.

They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah,  Quran 9:31

The Prophet (s) said, "You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Messenger! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Whom else?" (Meaning, of course, the Jews and the Christians.)

[https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/123]

I recommend the book Sulh al-Hasan if you have time. There is not much difference between moderate Shia and Sunni Muslims and it is in reality just a different historical perspective and what qualities are required within a leader.

 

Edited by gharib570
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...