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

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I've started to update my blog with various articles. I only gave 2 entered atm. But ill try add regular content 

Inshallah

Link to shiachat blog

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/blogs/blog/103-zaidia-the-middle-path/

Edited by Hameedeh
Link fixed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I've made a blog entry titled Zaidi translated works.

I've posted links for 3 hadith collections.

Musnad Zaid

Amali bin Isa

Sources of rulings by Imam Mutawakil

Just click the link and download

More to follow inshallah.

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'll keep updating my blog but from now on it will be supplimentory to my website Zaidi Portal. I want to spend time filling out the site to make my madhab more accessible. It's too time consuming to duplicate the content on both the site and Blog.

Please check out my site 

Zaidi Portal

https://zaidiportal.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

I've temporarily removed sources of Collected Rulings from the website due to some translational errors.

But I've uploaded holding fast to the rope if Allah which is also a hadith review regarding obligatory acts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest haider_haq

Many thanks for these resources! I myself am finishing a work on Zayd ibn 'Ali in Arabic sent by the brother at Salvationark. Here are some of the narrations concerning the alleged incident with the Sheikhayn which I have translated. I have chosen this topic as there is a lot of misconceptions with some people thinking that Imam Zayd (a) believed in the imamate of the Sheikhayn. The Zaydi path is indeed the middle and correct way but this is a common myth which needs correcting. Surely it is only fair to consult Zaydi sources about this issue, rather than the Sunni sources have been tampered by Bani Umayya and Bani Abbas - the very people the imams (a) opposed!

The ahl al-Sunna say that Zayd refused to curse the caliphs but it appears this is Bani Umayya propaganda (just like the many traditions of Imam 'Ali praising the Sheikhayn in the so-called Sahihayn). According to traditional Zaydi sources the rejectors (Rafida) stayed at home and it was the Mu'tazila who had asked these questions to Zayd (a). In those early days some the Mu'tazila were aligned with the Shia although differed theologically in some aspects such as imamate:

Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated: I was with Zayd ibn ‘Ali, peace be upon them and a man [Mu’tazili] asked him about the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), and he turned away from him. So they brought him and he said:

The two of them are my pushers, they are my killers. So, our blood is on their necks until the resurrection.[i]

And on the authority of Abu Al-Jarud [who joined the uprising of Imam Zayd against Hisham] that the Mu’tazila said to Zayd ibn ‘Ali:

Greetings to those (the Sheikhayn) who passed and we will support you.

Zayd said:

Every brigade held in Islam for others [than the household and their descendants] is a banner of misguidance.[ii]

This was narrated by Imam Imad al-Din Yahya ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Muayyad ibn al-Qasim ibn

Muhammad, peace be upon them, mentioned various paths for his son, Imam Yahya ibn Zayd, peace be upon them both, like the answer of his father, may God’s prayers and peace be upon them, he answered in the war. And he narrated in the pearls of al-Duriya in explaining the honorary verses, on the authority of Imam Yahya ibn Zaid ibn Ali, peace be upon them, that he asked about the two sheikhs, and he answered with the same answer of his father, peace be upon them.

Abu Jafar [Muhmmad ibn ‘Ali al-Baqir] said: It was authenticated on the authority of Zayd ibn Ali, peace be upon them both:

Every banner held is not for us and does not call for us, for it is a misguided banner.[iii]


[i] Sheikh Abu Jaafar Muhammad ibn Yaqoub Al Hosami Al-Nasiri, Fundamentals of Religions

[ii] Imam al-Hasan ibn Badr al-Din, Sharh Anwar al-Yaqin

[iii] Ibid

Interestingly al-Kafi has the following tradition from Fudayl ibn Zubayr (رضي الله عنه) who participated in the uprising (khuruj) with Imam Zayd.

 

Aban ibn ‘Uthman has narrated from Al-Fudayl ibn Al-Zubayr al-Kufi[i] who said: Farwat/Farwah [ibn Majashe] narrated to me from Abu Ja’far:

He said:

Remind me of something from the affairs of those two (Abu Bakr and Umar).


 

So he said:

 

They have hit you upon the blood of ‘Uthman for eighty years, and they very well know that he was an unjust one. O Farwat, so how would it be if I mention to you their two idols?![ii]


[i] He and his brother participated in the uprising with Imam Zayd ibn ‘Ali. He left behind a book on the casualties of Karbala entitled ‘Asmīya man qutil maʿa l-usayn ibn ʿAlī’. He is a follower of Abi al-Jarud. Many of those who participated with Zayd ibn ‘Ali were listed as Jarudi, whereas the Rafidah (rejectors of khuruj) did not attend the uprising. It is interesting that both Abi al-Jarud and Fudayl ibn Zubayr have been called Rafida and Jarudi in the books of Sunni rijal!

[ii] al-Kulayni, al-Kafi Volume 8

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Guest haider_haq said:

Many thanks for these resources! I myself am finishing a work on Zayd ibn 'Ali in Arabic sent by the brother at Salvationark.

 

Please have a look at zaidi Portal website.

I look forward to seeing the translated work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Guest haider_haq said:

Many thanks for these resources! I myself am finishing a work on Zayd ibn 'Ali in Arabic sent by the brother at Salvationark. Here are some of the narrations concerning the alleged incident with the Sheikhayn which I have translated. I have chosen this topic as there is a lot of misconceptions with some people thinking that Imam Zayd (a) believed in the imamate of the Sheikhayn. The Zaydi path is indeed the middle and correct way but this is a common myth which needs correcting. Surely it is only fair to consult Zaydi sources about this issue, rather than the Sunni sources have been tampered by Bani Umayya and Bani Abbas - the very people the imams (a) opposed!

The ahl al-Sunna say that Zayd refused to curse the caliphs but it appears this is Bani Umayya propaganda (just like the many traditions of Imam 'Ali praising the Sheikhayn in the so-called Sahihayn). According to traditional Zaydi sources the rejectors (Rafida) stayed at home and it was the Mu'tazila who had asked these questions to Zayd (a). In those early days some the Mu'tazila were aligned with the Shia although differed theologically in some aspects such as imamate:

Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated: I was with Zayd ibn ‘Ali, peace be upon them and a man [Mu’tazili] asked him about the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), and he turned away from him. So they brought him and he said:

 

 

The two of them are my pushers, they are my killers. So, our blood is on their necks until the resurrection.[i]

 

And on the authority of Abu Al-Jarud [who joined the uprising of Imam Zayd against Hisham] that the Mu’tazila said to Zayd ibn ‘Ali:

 

Greetings to those (the Sheikhayn) who passed and we will support you.

 

Zayd said:

 

Every brigade held in Islam for others [than the household and their descendants] is a banner of misguidance.[ii]

 

This was narrated by Imam Imad al-Din Yahya ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Muayyad ibn al-Qasim ibn

 

Muhammad, peace be upon them, mentioned various paths for his son, Imam Yahya ibn Zayd, peace be upon them both, like the answer of his father, may God’s prayers and peace be upon them, he answered in the war. And he narrated in the pearls of al-Duriya in explaining the honorary verses, on the authority of Imam Yahya ibn Zaid ibn Ali, peace be upon them, that he asked about the two sheikhs, and he answered with the same answer of his father, peace be upon them.

 

Abu Jafar [Muhmmad ibn ‘Ali al-Baqir] said: It was authenticated on the authority of Zayd ibn Ali, peace be upon them both:

 

 

Every banner held is not for us and does not call for us, for it is a misguided banner.[iii]

 


[i] Sheikh Abu Jaafar Muhammad ibn Yaqoub Al Hosami Al-Nasiri, Fundamentals of Religions

 

[ii] Imam al-Hasan ibn Badr al-Din, Sharh Anwar al-Yaqin

 

[iii] Ibid

 

 

Interestingly al-Kafi has the following tradition from Fudayl ibn Zubayr (رضي الله عنه) who participated in the uprising (khuruj) with Imam Zayd.

 

Aban ibn ‘Uthman has narrated from Al-Fudayl ibn Al-Zubayr al-Kufi[i] who said: Farwat/Farwah [ibn Majashe] narrated to me from Abu Ja’far:

 

 

He said:

 

Remind me of something from the affairs of those two (Abu Bakr and Umar).

 

 

 

So he said:

 

 

 

They have hit you upon the blood of ‘Uthman for eighty years, and they very well know that he was an unjust one. O Farwat, so how would it be if I mention to you their two idols?![ii]

 


[i] He and his brother participated in the uprising with Imam Zayd ibn ‘Ali. He left behind a book on the casualties of Karbala entitled ‘Asmīya man qutil maʿa l-usayn ibn ʿAlī’. He is a follower of Abi al-Jarud. Many of those who participated with Zayd ibn ‘Ali were listed as Jarudi, whereas the Rafidah (rejectors of khuruj) did not attend the uprising. It is interesting that both Abi al-Jarud and Fudayl ibn Zubayr have been called Rafida and Jarudi in the books of Sunni rijal!

 

 

[ii] al-Kulayni, al-Kafi Volume 8

 

 

 

I notice how the Sunni version has positive words towards the 1st two and the 12er version harsher words.

The middle path is with truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

In terms of Political/Economic/Social correct position Ah lus-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah( The Umbrella group of different Jurists and their Fiqh), Zaidi and Political / Nationalist "Shia".  You all have few things in common, proactively concerned about the "Revered Personalities", calling your Jurists and political leaders Imams. The icing is the middle position in terms of these Revered Personalities. 

So, I am going to bundle you ALL in a Umbrella group of "Political Muslims". Which leaves the Imami's to be outside your Domain of let's move forward with Political/Economic/Social Unity and prosper under a Political Leadership. 

If this was a tribal thing I would say go for it, what is the secular constitution except what they thought it was prudent at that time lets amend it, preserve the Tribe. Political leadership is a product of tribal mentality. Who cares about the Leader, as long as the Tribe is preserved. Same is the case with todays tribe(Country). 

It looks. sounds very appealing except for the fact that Political/Economic/Social empires come and go. The Religion is for Ever, and it needs to be preserved as it is, no Innovation/Bidah. Justice is a fundamental of Faith, and we need to build on this principle to be successful in the long term. 

The middle ground or the balance approach is very politically/economically/socially correct. Its very appealing except for the fact that it does not work where principles are at stake. Without principles there is nothing left. Might as well adopt a secular lifestyle. 

Remember Tragedy of Thursday, Saqifa, Fadaq, Attack on the Holy house, Battle of Jamal, Siffin, and Karbala. Blood was not given for us to leave the Truth for the things the Political Muslims in the past left it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

4 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

In terms of Political/Economic/Social correct position left it........

Politics play a part in all secterianism. Politics and Islam are inseparable.

 

But ultimately the Prophet commanded us to follow Ahlulbayt. And explicitly appointed Imam Ali as a succesor, some Sunni beleive it waxAbu bakar, 

 

But on a more fundamental level Tawheed is different between salafi, Sunni, Zaidi, and 12er.

 

So it goes beyond just politics. The Prophet told us to stick to the middle path. That includes theology, ahkam, politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Haider
7 hours ago, Warilla said:

I notice how the Sunni version has positive words towards the 1st two and the 12er version harsher words.

The middle path is with truth.

The first two are from Zaydi sources. I did not quote the Sunni/Umayyad version. Brother I would be careful about the fallacy of argument to moderation..  the truth doesn’t always exactly lie in the middle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

while the Zaydi path does shun the ghuluww of Twelverism there are similar views regarding the Sheikhayn..

Many of Imam Zaydi companions were marked for Rafd and called Jarudi for what they narrated. Zayd here clearly attributes the injustice of Hisham to the Sheikhayn.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

Religion ( a way of Life) which includes ALL aspects of Life( in modern terms of activities covered but not limited to will be , Politics/Governance, Economic, Social etc....). 

Non of these Aspects govern the Religion. 

Religion Governs Politics not the other way around. 

Some sects in Muslims are Driven by Politics of Governance / State building only. This is a secular mentality, Not Divinely ordained. 

The Middle path in which Context? There is no middle path Truth is separate from Falsehood. or you mean to say the same as they say Oppressor and oppressed we are cool with  both. That is hypocrisy and people will either leave such sects in droves and reject Religion or just stay in it a socially "religious" . We do have the Qur'an and the Mas'oom's and the example of the reaction to Fadak, and Saqifa and their actions are a guide to us. Imam Ali(عليه السلام) moved to remove the cancer at first opportunity and went to battle with Hypocrites, even in such trying times when the State was under Civil disturbance or was just coming out of it and the Outsiders were looking to weakness. Like always, a state goes in civil war foreign powers capitalize it was no different back then. With all this as the Religion is for Ever, things which would set a wrong precedence were not allowed. 

Threats of foreign powers or other things can't impact the Truth. 

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

The middle path means acting on evidence regardless of the direction it takes you.

The extremes always cherry pick or accept weak evidence or use biased "aql" to match there views.

When you follow evidence and keep a balanced and objective mind you will naturally fall between the extremes.

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest haider

Warilla, you might find this interesting on Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali (a):

http://www.zaidiah.com/sites/default/files/articles_files/_lzm_zyd_bn_ly_bn_lhsyn_bn_ly_-_lsyd_mhmd_bdlzym_lhwthy.pdf

 

The following pages I have bookmarked which have key points which are very misunderstood by the generality and even academics:

402,483 (definition of a Shia and those who believe in the virtues of Mu'awiya)

459-462 (twelver origin / abbasid propaganda)

464 - 467 (Zaydi position on the Mu'tazilia and Sheikhayn)

468,469 - (Zaydi imams and companions on the Sheikhayn)


474 - rafida definition
478 - Imam 'Ali's letter to muawiyah
479 - The sheikhayn and the door of afflictions

One must keep in mind there was and still is a huge effort to portray the Imams as loving the Sheikhayn, Bani Umayya and to make the Shia out to be dishonest followers of them. Therefore the narration of Imam Zayd (a) on the caliphs (as narrated by the ahl al-Sunna) is merely just part of the huge genre of Sunni propaganda literature created by Bani Umayya. If I believe it, then why don't go full steam ahead and accept the narrations of Imam 'Ali saying the best after me are Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. It's strange some take their primary understanding of Tashayyu from the sources of the Nawasib, yet in the same breath claim they are Shia and are against the Nawasib! In fact this is what created Sufism where people praise the helpers and enemies of 'Ali equally and believe they are all the same ...

The Sunni Mu’tazili scholar Ibn Abū al-Hadid stated:

Our teacher Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskafi mentioned that Mu’āwīya had appointed a group from the companions (sahaba) and a group from the later companions to narrate obscene traditions concerning ʿAlī, to defame him and to renounce him. Mu’āwīya fixed wages for them to (achieve) that. So they fabricated whatever pleased him. Among them were Abū Hurayra, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, and al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba. Among the later (companions of the Prophet) was ʿUrwa ibn al-Zubayr.[i]

The scholar and traditionalist al-Mada'ini stated:

Many fabricated traditions appeared, and false accusations spread. The jurists, the judges and the governors adopted this way. The most dangerous of all people in that time period were the hypocrite readers of the Qurʼān and those who feigned piety and asceticism. So, they fabricated traditions to find favour with their (Umayyad) governors, to earn money, country estates and extra benefits. Then those reports and traditions were transmitted to the innocent religious people who themselves regarded lying and false accusations as impermissible. So, they erroneously accepted them and narrated them. They thought that they (the fabricated traditions) were true. If they had known that they were false, they would have not narrated them, nor would they have adopted them (they were misled).

 

The scholar 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.[ii]


[i] Ibn Abū al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 3, pp. 15- 16

[ii] Al-Naftawayh, Tarikh ibn ‘Arafa

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare
17 hours ago, Warilla said:

The middle path means acting on evidence regardless of the direction it takes you.

The extremes always cherry pick or accept weak evidence or use biased "aql" to match there views.

When you follow evidence and keep a balanced and objective mind you will naturally fall between the extremes.

Above are very generic and general allegations. 

Where do we in your opinion among these Tragic Events which serve as a criterion to distinguish between the Truth and falsehood - Tragedy of Thursday, Saqifa, Fadak, Attack on the Holy House, Battle of Jamal, Siffin and Karbala take an biased or unbalanced or biased approach? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

Above are very generic and general allegations......

It's a big question to difficult to answer in short. 

But for all reading try this:

Let's say Imam Ali is the embodiment of the middle path Prophet Mohammed spoke of.

Take the Saqifa, Fadak, alleged attack on the house, Jamal, tragedy of Thursday 

Read Nahjul balagah see what Amir ul mominee said about the incidents and his general approach to the islamic community..

Next take all the speeches and a hadith of Imam Ali in theology.

Then take all hadith of the practices  of Imam Ali ? 

Who are closest to Imam Ali

Everyone judge for yourself.

 

 

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare
On 1/4/2021 at 7:38 PM, Warilla said:

I notice how the Sunni version has positive words towards the 1st two and the 12er version harsher words.

The middle path is with truth.

This really summarizes your outlook. Explains why we are on two different frequencies. 

Middle path in Reaction to the Events and Middle path in understanding the actual events two different things. 

The Reaction is based on understanding of the importance of the event, and the damage to Islam. 

If no importance is given and do not care about the impact - obviously the reaction will be minimal . Or it needs to be so to undermine the importance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Hey! Is Maqatil Al-Talibeen by Abi Al Farj Al Asfahani a zaidi source?

It's disputed some say he was Zaidi, some opinion mutazila, even Shafi.

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...