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

Zaydi - Twelver (Debate Challenge)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 6/23/2021 at 9:21 PM, Cool said:

At the moment, you are caught in a big problem. You need to point out as to why Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has choosen 3 Imams and purified them (made them معصوم) and left the selection of rest of the Imams on consultation. 

In fact, as per them, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has chosen 4 Imams, first 3 & the last one known as al-Mehdi (ajtf). In between, is a matter of consultation. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has established for them two ends of the rope (urwatul wuthqa/hablillah) and still they claim that they are responsible for making/creating middle part of the rope. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Guest Urwatul Wuthqa said:

In fact, as per them, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has chosen 4 Imams, first 3 & the last one known as al-Mehdi (ajtf). In between, is a matter of consultation. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has established for them two ends of the rope (urwatul wuthqa/hablillah) and still they claim that they are responsible for making/creating middle part of the rope. 

 

Incorrect, are you making assumptions. If I am wrong please provide the source of your statement.

The only Imams designated specifically are Imam Ali, Hassan and Hussain.

Beyond that it's a general designation with requirements as per Qur'an and Mutawatir hadith.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Guest Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has established for them two ends of the rope (urwatul wuthqa/hablillah) and still they claim that they are responsible for making/creating middle part of the rope. 

Very good point. Thanks

1 hour ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

The only Imams designated specifically are Imam Ali, Hassan and Hussain.

Who is al-Mehdi then? From where you got this name? And who made him your Imam even well before his birth? Your consultation theory gets flop at Imam Mehdi.

Furthermore, here is the complete history of Zaidiyyah, if anyone interested to know their complete history in short form:

Quote

The Zaydiyya was initially formed by the merger of two currents in Kufan Shi‘ism, the Jarudiyya and the Batriyya. The Jarudiyya were named after Abu ’l-Jarud Ziyad b. Mundhir, a former companion of Zayd’s brother Muhammad al-Baqir, who backed Zayd’s revolt when he was deserted by most of al-Baqir’s followers. They brought some of the radical elements of al-Baqir’s teaching into theZaydiyya. Thus they rejected the imamate of the three caliphs preceding ‘Ali, holding that ‘Ali had been appointed by the Prophet as his legatee (wasi) and implicitly as his successor. Condemning the majority of the Companions and the Muslim community for their desertion of the rightful imam, they repudiated the legal tradition transmitted by the Sunni traditionists and upheld the transmission of the religious law by the Family of the Prophet as solely legitimate. In contrast to the Imamiyya, however, they did not confine legal teaching authority to their imams but accepted in principle the teaching of any member of the ahl al-bayt qualified by religious learning. The Batriyya were at first a group of moderate Shi‘is who were critical of some of al-Baqir’s teaching and failed to accept him as their imam. While considering‘Ali as the most excellent of Muslims after the Prophet, they generally admitted the imamate of his predecessors since he had pledged allegiance to them. They did not concede any superior knowledge to the Family of the Prophet, but recognised the religious knowledge handed down in the Muslim community as valid and allowed the use of individual reasoning (ijtihad, qiyas) in establishing the law. The Batriyya were part of the general Kufan traditionalist movement. As Kufan traditionalism became absorbed by the Sunnis during the 3rd/9th century, the views of the Jarudiyya came to prevail among the Zaydiyya.

The legitimate imamate was at first not confined to the descendants of ‘Ali. Before the fall of the Umayyad caliphate, Kufan Zaydis backed ‘Abd Allah b. Mu‘awiya, a descendant of ‘Ali’s brother Ja‘far. In the 4th/10th century there was still a group of Zaydis known as Talibiyya who recognised all descendants of ‘Ali’s father Abu Talib as eligible for the imamate. The majority, however, considered only descendants of al-Hasan and al-Husayn as legitimate claimants. According to common Zaydi doctrine, the first three imams, ‘Ali, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, were imams by designation (nass) of the Prophet. After al-Husayn, the imamate became legally established through armed rising (khuruj) and a formal summons (da‘wa) to allegiance by a qualified candidate. Among the qualifications, religious knowledge was emphasised. Many Zaydi imams throughout the centuries have been highly educated religious scholars and authors. They were, however, generally not considered as immune from error and sin (ma‘sum), although some late Zaydis conceded such immunity to the first three imams.

In theology, the Kufan Zaydiyya were determinist, strongly opposed to the Qadariyya and Mu‘tazila, though also admitting some responsibility of man for his acts. They were anti-anthropomorphist, but upheld the reality of the attributes of God against their reduction to descriptions of the divine essence by the Mu‘tazila. They rejected the doctrine of the created nature of the Qur’an, but did not insist on belief in its coeternity with God. Against Murji’i doctrine, they taught that works were part of faith (iman). Like the Ibadiyya, they classed the grave offender (fasiq) as an unbeliever by ingratitude (kafir ni‘ma), not by polytheism (shirk) or by denial of God (juhud). Land under Sunni domination was an abode of unbelief by ingratitude (dar kufr ni‘ma). As for the Ibadiyya, this justified their revolt against the established order while also allowing them to associate peacefully with other Muslims.

In religious law, the Zaydiyya relied at first on the teaching of various ‘Alid authorities, among them Muhammad Baqir, Ja‘far al-Sadiq, Zayd b. ‘Ali and Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya, and sometimes on the claim of a consensus of the Family of the Prophet. In the 3rd/9th century four legal schools emerged on the basis of the teaching of Ahmad b. ‘Isa b. Zayd, Qasim b. Ibrahim al-Rassi, al-Hasan b. Yahya b. al-Husayn b. Zayd and Muhammad b. Mansur Muradi. They are described by Abu ‘Abd Allah al-‘Alawi (d. 445/1053) in his Kitab al-Jami‘ al-kafi as authoritative among the Kufan Zaydiyya in his time.

Among the abortive revolts supported by Kufan Zaydis were those of Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya and his brother Ibrahim in 145/762-3, Husayn b. ‘Ali Sahib Fakhkh in 169/786, Yahyab. ‘Abd Allah in 176/792, Muhammad b. Ibrahim Tabataba in 199/814, Muhammad b. al-Qasim Sahib al-Talaqan in 219/834, and Yahya b. ‘Umar b. Yahya in 250/864. Thereafter, Zaydi activity successfully shifted to remote mountain regions south of the Caspian Sea and in Yemen, which tended to elude the control of the central government.

2. The Caspian Zaydiyya.

Zaydi Islam was first preached on a limited scale among the non-Muslim Daylamis by the ‘Alid rebel leader Yahya b. ‘Abd Allah and his Kufan supporters in 175/791-2. Much more effective was the missionary activity of some local followers of Qasim b. Ibrahim (d. 246/860) in western Tabaristan, the region of Ruyan, Kalar and Shalus. Al-Qasim’s teaching in theology represented a shift from early Kufan Zaydi doctrine to more anti-determinist and radically anti-anthropomorphist positions, dissociating God from evil acts and stressing the absolute dissimilarity of God to all creation. While distinct from contemporary Mu‘tazili doctrine, it paved the way for the adoption of Mu‘tazili theology among his later followers. His teaching in the religious law represented a Medinan moderate Shi‘i tradition relatively independent of Kufan Zaydi school doctrine. In 250/864 the people of Ruyan revolted and invited the Hasanid al-Hasan b. Zayd from Rayy to lead them. Al-Hasan established the first Zaydi state, with the capital in Amul. He officially supported Shi‘i ritual and law and Mu‘tazili theology, and is known to have written books on law and the imamate. However, neither he nor his brother Muhammad, who succeeded him and ruled until 287/900, was recognised as imam by the later Zaydis, and his teaching was ignored by the school tradition.

After the overthrow of Muhammad b. Zayd, the Husaynid Hasan b. ‘Ali al-Utrush al-Nasir li ’l-Haqq was active in Gilakjan and Hawsam, converting the Daylamis north of the mountain range and the Gilis east of the Safid Rud. In 301/914 he conquered Amul and restored Zaydi rule in Tabaristan, reigning until his death in 304/917. Al-Nasir left numerous writings on law and theology and was generally recognised as an imam. His teaching differed to some extent from that of Qasim b. Ibrahim. In its basic theses his theology was similar to al-Qasim’s, but also polemically anti-Mu‘tazili. In ritual and law he was closer than al-Qasim to the Kufan Zaydi tradition and often to Imami Shi‘i doctrine. Thus he adopted the Imami law of inheritance, repudiating the privileged position accorded to the agnates in Sunni law, and the Imami prohibition of the irrevocable triple repudiation of the wife (talaq al-bid‘a).

The Caspian Zaydiyya was thereafter divided into two rival schools and communities, the Qasimiyya prevailing in western Tabaristan, Ruyan and the adjoining Daylam, and the Nasiriyya among the eastern Gil and the interior Daylam. The Qasimiyya maintained close ties with the family of al-Qasim. His grandson Yahya b. al-Husayn al-Hadi ila ’l-Haqq came to Amul during the reign of Muhammad b. Zayd, but aroused the suspicion of the latter by being addressed by some of his followers as imam and had to leave quickly. After he established Zaydi rule in Yemen, he was joined by groups of Zaydi volunteers from Tabaristan and Kalar. Al-Hadi’s works on religious law were immediately adopted by the Qasimiyya and commented upon by Caspian ‘Alid scholars. The close relationship between the Qasimiyya and the Yemeni Zaydiyya was to continue for a long time. The Nasiriyya tended to look to the descendants of al-Nasir li ’l-Haqq for leadership. All of these were given the laqab al-Nasir, and al-Nasir li ’l-Haqq’s tomb in Amul remained for centuries a place of pilgrimage for the Nasiriyya. However, only one of his descendants, Husayn b. Ja‘far al-Nasir ruling in Hawsam (432-72/1040-80), gained recognition as a Zaydi imam. The antagonism between the two schools was initially intense until the Imam Abu ‘Abd Allah b. al-Da‘i al-Mahdi li-Din Allah (d. 360/970) actively promoted the thesis that both school doctrines were equally valid.

Conditions among the Caspian Zaydiyya, where often ‘Alids without the full qualifications for the imamate came to reign, or two or more ‘Alids contemporaneously gained local support, required recognition of a rank of legitimate ruler below that of imam. These were commonly called da‘is “summoners”, and themselves frequently adopted titles composed with this term. Al-Hasan b. Zayd, his brother Muhammad, and al-Hasan b. al-Qasim, who succeeded al-Nasir li ’l-Haqq, all took the title al-Da‘i li ’l-Haqq, while others claimed the title al-Da‘i ila ’l-Rida, al-rida referring to the expected imam of the Family of the Prophet. Other Zaydi ‘Alid rulers merely adopted the title amir.

In spite of their mutual recognition, the two Caspian Zaydi communities often backed different rulers. After the final fall of the Zaydi rule in Amul, Hawsam became the centre of learning of the Nasiriyya and the seat of an ‘Alid dynasty founded by Ja‘far b. Muhammad al-Tha’ir fi ’llah, grandson of a brother of al-Nasir li ’l-Haqq. Although their reign in Hawsam was often disputed by descendants of al-Nasir and others, they regularly regained control of the town. When Hawsam was replaced by Lahijan as the chief town of eastern Gilan in the 6th/12th century, descendants of al-Tha’ir came to rule there. Among the Qasimiyya, Langa, located between Hawsam and Shalus, became the seat of severalimamsduring the later 4th/10th and the 5th/11th centuries. Later, as much of the Zaydi territories in Ruyan and Daylaman came under the control of the Nizari Isma‘ilis, some Qasimiyya imams were active in eastern Gilan.

Religious scholarship among the Qasimiyya reached a peak in theimams Ahmad b. al-Husayn al-Mu’ayyad bi ’llah (d. 411/1020), and his brother Abu Talib al-Natiq bi ’l-Haqq (d.ca.424 AH/1033). Born in Amul, both studied for some time in Baghdad and then belonged to the circle of the Buyid vizier al-Sahib Ibn ‘Abbad, an active promoter of Mu‘tazili theology and Shi‘ism, and of the Mu‘tazili chief qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar in Rayy. Both wrote major legal works and commentaries in the Qasimiyya school tradition, though al-Mu’ayyad is sometimes considered the founder of a new school, the Mu’ayyadiyya. In theology they fully adopted the Basran Mu‘tazili school doctrine represented by ‘Abd al-Jabbar. The close ties between Zaydiyyaand Mu‘tazila at this time were reflected in the increasingly pro-‘Alid tendency in the Mu‘tazili doctrine on the imamate. Two Mu‘tazili scholars and authors of the school of ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Abu ’l-Qasim al-Busti and al-Muhsin b. Karama Hakim al-Jushami (d. 484/1101), became active Zaydis. The numerous works of the latter, in particular, became prestigious among theZaydiyya. Al-Mu’ayyad also wrote a treatise on Sufi devotion, Risalat Siyasat al-muridin, which remained influential in defining the Zaydi attitude to Sufism. It praises the early Sufis from Fudayl b. ‘lyad to al-Junayd, endorsing the ascetic, penitential and devotional aspects of their practice, but denounces the delusions of the Sufis that induce them to engage in practices contrary to the religious law, such as listening to chants and dancing.

In the course of the 6th/12th century, the CaspianZaydiyyadeclined substantially, partly because of the expansion of Isma‘ilism which confined it to eastern Gilan and partly because of quarrels between ‘Alid pretenders backed by different factions. Little is known about developments in the following century and a half. In 769/1367-8 Sayyid ‘Ali Kiya b. Amir Kiya, backed by Zaydi penitents (ta’iban), set out to conquer eastern Gilan. He gained recognition asimamby the Zaydi scholars of Ranikuh and Lahijan. His descendants ruled in Lahijan on the basis of dynastic succession as Zaydis until 933/1526-7, when Sultan Ahmad Khan, with most of his Zaydi subjects, converted to Imami Shi‘ism. The survival of a tradition of Zaydi learning in eastern Gilan until that date is attested by a number of manuscripts of Zaydi texts written there in the last phase before the conversion.

3. The Zaydiyya in Yemen.

The Zaydi imamate in Yemen was founded in 284/897 by Qasim b. Ibrahim’s grandson al-Hadi ila ’l-Haqq, who had been invited by local tribes in the hope that he would settle their feuds. Although Shi‘i sentiments had been manifest in parts of Yemen since the rise of Islam, there is little evidence of specifically Zaydi activity before his arrival. Al-Hadi established his capital in Sa‘da. He and his sons Muhammad al-Murtada (d. 310/922) and Ahmad al-Nasir li-Din Allah (d. 322/934), both of whom were consecutively recognised as imams, were buried in the congregational mosque there, and Sa‘da has ever remained the stronghold of Zaydi faith and learning in Yemen. Al-Hadi’s teaching in the religious law, laid down in his Kitab al-Ahkam and Kitab al-Muntakhab, was based on that of his grandfather al-Qasim, but adopted more Shi‘i positions, for instance in prescribing the hay‘ala, the Shi‘i formula of the call to prayer. It has remained basic for the Hadawiyya legal school, the only one authoritative among the Zaydiyya in Yemen. In theology, his doctrine was close to the contemporary Baghdad school of the Mu‘tazila, but he did not expressly state his agreement with it. Regarding the imamate, he upheld the Jarudi position, unambiguously condemning Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as usurpers.

After Ahmad al-Nasir, the descendants of al-Hadi quarrelled among themselves and none gained recognition as imam. The imamate was restored by al-Mansur bi ’llah al-Qasim al-‘Iyani (388-93/999-1003), a descendant of al-Hadi’s uncle Muhammad b. al-Qasim. Al-Mansur’s son al-Husayn al-Mahdi li-Din Allah (401-4/1010-13) was also recognised as imam. His qualification of religious knowledge, however, was soon questioned. He defended himself, making extravagant claims that he equalled the Prophet in rank and that he was the Expected Mahdi. When he was killed in battle, his followers and his family asserted that he had not died and would return. Thus a sect arose, called the Husayniyya. Led by descendants of al-Mahdi’s brother Ja‘far, the Husayniyya, having acquired and fortified the impregnable mountain stronghold of Shahara, became the main force of opposition to the Isma‘ili rule of the Sulayhids in northern Yemen during the 5th/11th century.

In the same period another Zaydi sect arose, the Mutarrifiyya, founded by Mutarrif b. Shihab (d. after 459/1067). Mutarrif explicitly based his religious teaching on the works of Qasim b. Ibrahim, al-Hadi, and the early Yemeniimams, as well as on some statements ascribed to ‘Ali. He interpreted them, however, in an arbitrary manner, developing a theology and cosmology that deviated substantially from Mu‘tazili doctrine. This brought him in conflict with the Basran Mu‘tazili teaching espoused by the Caspian Qasimiyya imams. The Mutarrifiyya also manifested distinct ascetic and pietist tendencies. On the basis of the doctrine of hijra, the obligation to emigrate from the land of injustice, that had been taught by Qasim b. Ibrahim and other Zaydi authorities, they founded “abodes of emigration” where they congregated to engage in worship, ritual purification, ascetic practices and teaching. These hijras, usually forming a protected enclave in tribal territory, became the prototype of the protected teaching centres called hijras common among the later Yemeni Zaydiyya in general.

At first, during the Sulayhid age, the Mutarrifiyya could spread without strong opposition from the mainstream Zaydiyya. After the restoration of the imamate by Ahmad b. Sulayman al-Mutawakkil ‘ala ’llah (532-66/1137-70), they came under increasing pressure. Al-Mutawwakkil favoured the unity of the Zaydiyya in and outside Yemen, equally recognising the Caspian and Yemeniimams. He acknowledged the pro-Shi‘i wing of the Mu‘tazila as close allies, asserting that the founder of the Mu‘tazila, Wasil b. ‘Ata’, had received his doctrine from the Family of the Prophet. He furthered the teaching of Caspian Zaydi scholars and of Yemeni scholars who had studied with Zaydi scholars in the Caspian region, Rayy and Kufa, and encouraged a massive transfer of Caspian Zaydi religious literature to Yemen. A leading part in this transfer and in spreading Caspian Zaydi and Mu‘tazili teaching was played by the qadi Ja‘far b. Abi Yahya Shams Din. Al-Mutawakkil severely criticised the Mutarrifiyya and the Husayniyya for splitting the unity of the Zaydiyya. The Imam al-Mansur bi ‘llah ‘Abd Allah b. Hamza (593-614/1197-1217), a strong supporter of Mu‘tazili theology, declared the Mutarrifiyya dangerous heretics, persecuted them, and destroyed their hijras. Both Husayniyya and Mutarrifiyya vanished during the 9th/15th century.

The domination of Mu‘tazili theology, as espoused by the school of qadi Ja‘far, did not, however, remain unchallenged. The Sayyid Humaydan b. Yahya (early 7th/13th century) demonstrated in several of his treatises that the early Zaydi authorities, in particular Qasim b. Ibrahim and al-Nasir li ’l-Haqq, had differed on many points with the Mu‘tazila, while accusing the latter of heretical innovations in numerous details of their teaching. He ignored the Caspian Qasimiyya imams and claimed, with tenuous arguments, that even al-Mansur ‘Abd Allah b. Hamza in reality did not support Mu‘tazili theology.

The teaching of the Imam al-Mu’ayyad bi ‘llah Yahya b. Hamza (719-47/1328-46), a prolific author, reflected a lack of sectarian zeal and openness to Sunni learning. He praised Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman as early Companions of Muhammad on a par with ‘Ali. He adopted the Mu‘tazili theology of the school of Abu ’l-Husayn al-Basri which, in contrast to the school of qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar, previously prevalent, recognised the reality of karamat, the miracles of Sufi saints. His book on religious ethics Tasfiyat al-qulub min daran al-awzar wa ’l-dhunub was patterned on al-Ghazali’s Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din andquoted widely from the sayings of the early Sufis. He sharply criticised al-Ghazali, however, for his approval of sama‘, listening to music and singing by the Sufis.

The spread of Sufi orders in the Sunni lowlands of Yemen during this period put pressure on the Zaydiyya to re-examine their attitude to Sufism. The militant anti-Shi‘i stand of these orders made it difficult to come to terms with them. A Zaydi school of Sufism was founded, however, by ‘Ali b. ‘Abd Allah b. Abi ’l-Khayr, an initiate of the Kurdish Sufi Shaykh al-Kurani, and his disciple Ibrahim al-Kayna‘i (d. 793/1391). Al-Kayna‘i was closely associated withthe Imam al-Nasir Salah al-Din Muhammad (783-93/1371-91), and was able to found Sufi communities and hijras throughout northern Yemen. The majority of the imams thereafter, however, were opposed to Sufism and denounced the Sufis for their unlawful practices and fanciful claims of inspiration.

The stigmatising of Sufism as heretical reached a peak under the Imam al-Mansur al-Qasim b. Muhammad (1006-29/1598-1620), the founder of the Qasimi dynasty of imams. Al-Mansur’s anti-Sufi polemics were partly provoked by the strong support of the Sufi orders for the Ottoman Turkish occupiers of Yemen, against whom he fought a relentless war. He likened the Sufis to the Isma‘ilis, who had long been the arch-enemies of theZaydiyya, describing them as Batiniyya whose basic thought was derived from Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism, and he singled out Ibn al-‘Arabi for particular condemnation, calling him the chief of the Sufi incarnationists (hululiyya).

Al-Mansur generally upheld the Shi‘i foundation of the Zaydiyya by re-affirming the Jarudi position on the imamate. Inspired by Humaydan’s views, he stressed the differences between the teaching of theZaydiyyaand the Mu‘tazila. While admitting that they agreed in their basic theological theses, he maintained that the early imams had confined their teaching to what could be safely established by reason, the unambiguous text of the Qur’an and the generally-accepted Sunna. They had not followed the Mu‘tazila in their abstruse speculation and absurd fantasies.

Descendants of al-Mansur reigned in Yemen until the fall of the imamate in 1382/1962. Whereas some of his early successors were learned men in the Zaydi tradition, the later imams, while still claiming the title of imam, in fact ruled on the basis of dynastic succession. As the Zaydi imams gained control of the more populous and prosperous lowlands of Yemen, they found it increasingly expedient to accommodate the religious views and sentiments of the majority of their subjects. Thus they came to favour the neo-Sunni school that first arose out of the teaching of the Sayyid Muhammad b. Ibrahim Wazir (d. 840/1436). Ibn Wazir, member of an ‘Alid family of distinguished Zaydi scholars, had accepted the Sunni canonical collections of hadith as unconditionally authoritative in religion. On this basis, he had systematically defended Sunni school doctrine and criticised the opposing Zaydi teaching in his voluminous al-‘Awasim wa ’l-qawasim fi ’l-dhabb ‘an sunnat Abi ’l-Qasim. He insisted, however, that he was not joining any Sunni school and was simply employing sound, independent ijtihad. Majorscholars and authors of his school were Salih b. Mahdi al-Maqbali (d. 1108/1696-7), Muhammad b. Isma‘il al-Amir (d. 1182/1768-9) and Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834). The latter, mufti and chief judge under severalimams, vigorously attacked traditional Zaydis in his writings and, in his official position, persecuted some of their intransigent leaders. He gained wide recognition in the Sunni world and is considered one of the founders of Islamic modernism. In the Republic of Yemen, Zaydi (Hadawi) law, as expounded in the Kitab al-Azhar fi fiqh al-a’imma al-athar and its Sharh by Muhammad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada (d. 840/1437), is officially recognised as valid next to Shafi‘i law. Official ideology, however, favours the neo-Sunni school and is putting the traditionalZaydiyyaon the defensive.

Bibliography

R. Strothmann, Das Staatsrecht der Zaiditen, Strassburg 1912.

idem, Kultus der Zaiditen, Strassburg 1912.

C. van Arendonk, De opkomst vanhet Zaidietische Imamaat in Yemen, Leiden 1919, tr. J. Ryckmans, Les débuts de l’Imamat Zaidite au Yemen, Leiden 1960.

W. Madelung, Der Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim und die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1965.

idem,‘Zaydi attitudes to Sufism’, Islamic Mysticism Contested, eds. De Jong and Bernd Radtke, Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Ahmad Husayni, Mu’allafat al-Zaydiyya, Qumm 1413/[1992-3].

The "consistency" of their ideology is impressive :D as mentioned in the above quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cool said:

Very good point. Thanks

Who is al-Mehdi then? From where you got this name? 

 

Good question. I'm putting together an article addressing the Mehdi, Inshallah I'll put it on my blog once it's finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Good question. I'm putting together an article addressing the Mehdi, Inshallah I'll put it on my blog once it's finished.

I hope that you will not ignore the ahadith of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in that matter and will try to come to any conclusion without the effects of any sectarian affiliation. 

Wish you best of luck brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Cool said:

I hope that you will not ignore the ahadith of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in that matter and will try to come to any conclusion without the effects of any sectarian affiliation. 

Wish you best of luck brother.

Brother I was Born 12er, and was happy with my sect but I did not allow my original sectarian affiliation to effect me then. Inshallah I won't now. I'm not someone who holds onto things unless I'm convinced about evidence. If I found something that was wrong with Zaidi aqeeda I would leave it as I did with 12er

But thanks for your words.

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Guest Urwatul Wuthqa said:

In fact, as per them, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has chosen 4 Imams, first 3 & the last one known as al-Mehdi (ajtf). In between, is a matter of consultation. 

The selection of represnetaives inclduing the prophet, imams, caliphs etc  for the guidance of the people is sole authority by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and the people cannot choose any one of them by consulation.

 Many verses in quran describe thses facts. The detail can be seen in the following link:

The selection of caliphs Abubakr, Umar, usman  is against  the principle  dsrcibed in verses of quran.

In the same way the Zaydi principle of imams chosen by consultation forms agaisnt the vesres of quran.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/24/2021 at 12:53 PM, Ali bin Hussein said:

I'm not sure about the houtis some say they are 12er.

Details beleifs ? as in the aqeeda, thing all agree upon or differences.

Salam majority of them are Jarudy zaidis which before Iran revolution the Jarudys were in edge of total extinction due to converting many of threm to Salafis/Wahabists  under pressure  of Yemen 's  government and heavy support & influence  of KSA which after succes of Iran revolution they have returend to Jarudyah Zaidism which even some of them have became  Twelvers because  Jarudyah Aqeeda likewise  Twelvers is based on supporting of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) as first caliph ,by the same token' Infallibility  of his two sons but in the other hand they don't  belive to Taqyia & abandoning  Muta in similar  fashion of other Zaidi groups which wahabists  & Salafists have claimed Jarudyah extinction due to invasion of KSA to Yemen & denying inspiration of Houthies  from revolution  of Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

 

The selection of caliphs Abubakr, Umar, usman  is against  the principle  dsrcibed in verses of quran.

wasalam

Salam,

I believe that selection of a person to have Divine Authority is the sole Authority of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  This is agreed upon.

The election of a person to lead a society by the people is still acceptable.  Provided, the election is done fairly and objectively.

In the case of electing of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, the people loss the opportunity to make Ali (عليه السلام) as their first elected leader after the Prophet.  Because of this substandard election, the Ummah suffered.

During the Caliphate of Ali (عليه السلام), most people accepted him as elected Caliph, not as Imam.  He ruled them as elected Caliphate (eventhough he was also an Imam). Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not opposed his election by the people to rule as Caliph.

The only reason Imam Ali (عليه السلام) disagreed with election of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman was because it was not done fairly and lots of personal interests involved.  The reasons that Abu Bakr and Umar used to made Abu Bakr as elected leader was manipulated.

Imamat cannot be put into vote and cannot rule based on vote.

While Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were telling the people that after him, the divinely appointed successor is Ali (عليه السلام), corrupted souls among the companions and others took different method to have their way to rule the ummah through election.  Even that they manipulated the outcomes.

To say that "The selection of caliphs Abubakr, Umar, usman  is against  the principle  desrcibed in verses of quran" is not totally accurate. 

If it was totally against Qur'an, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would use his sword.  And, if it is against Quran, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would not accepted when people elected him as Caliph.  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not said that he would rule the people as an Imam (عليه السلام).  He ruled the people under the banner of elected Caliph and will adhere to Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet. That was the reasons that he allowed people who opposed his leadership as a Caliph and to have their own way.  As long as they did not use  force.  He only told his Shias that he ruled them as an Imam.  They knew him and he knew them.

Wallahualam.

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, layman said:

 

1. brother have you read the reference link material including the verses of quran mentioned at the link given in my last post?

 

2. As the title / topic of the thread is immamat then only the following part of your post is agreed:

6 hours ago, layman said:

Salam,

I believe that selection of a person to have Divine Authority is the sole Authority of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  This is agreed upon.

Imamat cannot be put into vote and cannot rule based on vote.

While Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were telling the people that after him, the divinely appointed successor is Ali (عليه السلام), corrupted souls among the companions and others took different method to have their way to rule the ummah through election.  Even that they manipulated the outcomes.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, layman said:

To say that "The selection of caliphs Abubakr, Umar, usman  is against  the principle  desrcibed in verses of quran" is not totally accurate. 

So is it partially accurate? 

6 hours ago, layman said:

If it was totally against Qur'an, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would use his sword. 

Would Imam Ali a s allow someone to "partially" go against Quran? 

6 hours ago, layman said:

And, if it is against Quran, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would not accepted when people elected him as Caliph

Read shaqshaqiya sermon brother. 

Know that brother! Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is the Quran and people of that time abandoned him. 

وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ مَهْجُورًا

25:30

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Cool said:

So is it partially accurate? 

Would Imam Ali a s allow someone to "partially" go against Quran? 

Read shaqshaqiya sermon brother. 

Know that brother! Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is the Quran and people of that time abandoned him. 

وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ مَهْجُورًا

25:30

Brother,

If someone rejected the "Prophethood" of Muhammad(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), everyone will label him as non muslim.  We call Abu Jahl as a kafir.  

Followers of Islam during Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) believed that if someone rejected the Prophethood openly (after accepting Islam) after becoming a muslim,  the person is against Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), he  is basically a murtad. 

But, if someone is not accommodating to Prophet instructions (corrupted souls), but didn't rejected the Prophethood.  We knew who they were..from few great personalities to Abu Sufyan, Muawiya and the gangs... we call them with different categories. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) let them live on after fateh makkah. If anyone didn’t accept the Prophethood, but promise not to disturb the muslims they will allowed to live...the Jews and Christians.

As far as Imam Ali (عليه السلام), if any muslim during the Prophet time rejected his Maulaship (openly), these people are outright murtad because they were present during Ghadeer Khum. However, if they just rejected Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to lead the society after the death of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), they were unjust (zalim) to themselves and has to pay dearly in the hereafter because not appointed Ali (عليه السلام) as elected Leader, because Ali (عليه السلام) was the best candidate to lead.

Even during war of Camel, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did perform the funeral prayer for those who were killed from both sides.   The enemies were killed because they fought for duniawi gain and leadership.  However, if anyone was fighting against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) knowingly and under the pretext of against his Imamat, he is a murtad.  For example, if those who fought against Ali (عليه السلام) during war of camel clearly stated they were against Imamat of Ali (عليه السلام), then they were all murtad.  But, if they were fighting the Caliph due to not agreeing with Ali (عليه السلام) handling the state affairs, they were zalim. 

I didn't see the 3 Caliphs who were against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) under the pretext against the jurisdiction of Imamat.  They were against making Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as their duniawi leader for the group of Muslims.  For that reason  they were zalim  because they blocked the appointment of Ali (عليه السلام) who was the best candidate for leadership of the people.  Instead, they chosen themselves as replacement.

There were instances where a person denied the event of Ghadeer Khum (denied the Imamat (Maulaship of Ali), and a stone drop from the sky and killed him instantly.

Most Sunnis didn't deny the event at Ghadeer Khum, but changed the interpretation of the event.  So they were unjust.  But, if they rejected the event was for Ali (عليه السلام), they outright rejected the Prophet and Islam.

We know many muslims believe in Islam, but their actions are not aligned to what Islam want out of them.  They didn't rejected Islam but bring shame to Islam.  They can be categorized from hypocrites  fasiq and so on.

I believed that the first 3 Caliphs didn't reject the Maulaship of Ali (عليه السلام), but they have personal duniawi interests and for that they have to pay dearly to what happened to past, current Muslims and beyond.

If anyone have documentation that the first 3 Caliphs rejected Ghadeer Khum openly and they clearly stated they disagreed with the event, them please bring the document.  Rejecting the event of Ghadeer Khum and appointment of Ali (عليه السلام) as Maula is rejecting Prophethood and rejecting Quran.  

And as for us, we accepted Imamat of Ali (عليه السلام), reject it will make us non muslim because we rejected Ghadeer Khum declaration and Quran.  Meaning we must follow whatever directives from Imam Ali (عليه السلام)...everything .  If not, we can be zalim in this world...zalimtu nafsi...because of duniawi, our ignorance and many more... and we may abandon the teachings of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) unknowling. may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) forgive us due to our weaknesses.

At least, we did not abandoned Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as an Imam and also we believe that that Ali (عليه السلام) was the best person to lead the Muslims after the wafat of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).  

 

If I am wrong, pls correct me.

Wallahualam.

 

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
18 hours ago, Cool said:

Would Imam Ali a s allow someone to "partially" go against Quran? 

 

Salam Brother,

Guiding sincere followers (full compliance with Quran) and  guiding miserable followers (partial compliance) are not the same.

If all followers of Islam during life of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and after his wafat were like Salman(رضي الله عنه), Abu Zar (رضي الله عنه), Ammar (رضي الله عنه)..and few others, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would not have issues.

We saw in Uhud, we saw in many wars and there were not ready to absorb Islam to the fullest.  Even wifes of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were having problems.  All of them stuck to duniawi wishes.

Prophethood and Imamat are guidance for worldly and hereafter affairs.  Most of companions are for worldly interest.  Even Talha and Zubair showed true color and were deviated.  Aisyah had problem with her jealously that turned into hate.  Again, root causes are all duniawi.  What is for me in this world!

If majority of companions were duniawi oriented, they will take Islam partially. Those parts of Islam that suited them, they would absorb, and not suiting to them, they ignored.  Their heart was with Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but their sword was not with the Prophet.  They will put their sword for their personal interest eventhough they proclaimed that their heart was with Prophet.  The best duniawi for most rich Quraish tribe leaders were having position of power and wealth.

It is very difficult to manage people who were not real followers.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was busy with the Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) body, the rest of them were busy with grabbing arab leadership.  Totally disregard with belief in Hereafter, and zero respect to the Prophet and Prophethood.

This type of people not worthy to be with.  Even if Ail (عليه السلام) fight them with sword, they won't listen.

The best is to abandon them and stick to sincere followers who believe in Imamat and move on.  That what Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did.

But,if the first 2 Caliph rejected the Prophethood publicly (became Kafir), then the zufikar of Ali (عليه السلام) will finish them that very second.  The two just showed disregard... or be partially with Qur'an and partially ignoring it.  They were people of Uhud who abandoned the directive of Prophet to chase the wealth while in the state of Jihad. What type of corrupted souls they had!!!

We should remind ourselves not to be like them.  InsyaAllah...3x. We must learn from history and that that type of black history must not exist in our souls... imam Ali (عليه السلام) is our Caliph to our souls right after the wafat of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) eventhough those so-called companions took it physically the right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as elected Caliph.

Wallahualam...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

"Shall we discuss the concept of Imamate in general, or the twelfth Imam in particular?"

@Zaidism

Salam,

As far as Imamate, it is abundantly clear they were divinely appointed.  This is how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) selected Representatives on this earth.  No election by the people.  All selected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

What about the twelfth Imam that you having problem with.  I would like to known in detail.

I don't like debate, but i like to learn...

Wallahualam. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
26 minutes ago, layman said:

Salam,

 

Walaykom Al'Salam Akhi, I enjoyed reading your respective input. I was wondering if you are interested in moving the discussion privately - so as to avoid any heckling and unnecessary comments that'll take away from the goal of any worthwhile discussion. If not, we can start a new thread, however, I do prefer the former. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, layman said:

believed that the first 3 Caliphs didn't reject the Maulaship of Ali (عليه السلام), but they have personal duniawi interests and for that they have to pay dearly to what happened to past, current Muslims and beyond.

Salam, 

Brother problem is that we understand that Islam is a perfect religion, a complete & perfect way of life. Nothing has been left unanswered there. 

So when we talk about leadership, does Islam devoid of any such thing & this important matter is left on the Muslims? 

In principle, we have to follow what has been prescribed therein Islam regarding the issue of leadership. 

Here is a good article, please go through it:

https://www.al-islam.org/imamate-and-leadership-sayyid-mujtaba-musavi-lari/lesson-24-method-choosing-imam-or-leader

I can understand your point of view, but you have just ignored the very basic definition of leadership according to us. 

I will further elaborate my point of view after finishing the task I am busy in.

Wassalam!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Walaykom Al'Salam Akhi, I enjoyed reading your respective input. I was wondering if you are interested in moving the discussion privately - so as to avoid any heckling and unnecessary comments that'll take away from the goal of any worthwhile discussion. If not, we can start a new thread, however, I do prefer the former. 

Salam,

I am not interested on private discussion.  Let everyone see how the discussion goes.  And they also can participate.  

But, i believe we should be polite even though we disagreed.  This is a public forum.

After all the truth will prevail.  

Wallahualam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Cool said:

Salam, 

Brother problem is that we understand that Islam is a perfect religion, a complete & perfect way of life. Nothing has been left unanswered there. 

So when we talk about leadership, does Islam devoid of any such thing & this important matter is left on the Muslims? 

In principle, we have to follow what has been prescribed therein Islam regarding the issue of leadership. 

Here is a good article, please go through it:

https://www.al-islam.org/imamate-and-leadership-sayyid-mujtaba-musavi-lari/lesson-24-method-choosing-imam-or-leader

I can understand your point of view, but you have just ignored the very basic definition of leadership according to us. 

I will further elaborate my point of view after finishing the task I am busy in.

Wassalam!

Brother, alaikum Salam.

Pls take your time.  No pressure.  I know you can write much better if you are having sufficient time.  We can wait for your valuable input, which i always valued.

I read through the link. Not much different from what I wrote.  Imamate is divinely appointed.

We, the shias follow the Imamate because the evidences stated in Qur'an. And we have made up our mind.

But, we cannot impose our understanding to others. We can only tell and show the proof, and let them decide.  Even after Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) sent Prophets to humans, majorities were misguided. What else we can do if people don't accept.

The Zaidi followers don't accept the belief in 12 Imams. Our task is to tell the truth.  I hope they don't belittle the Imams that are not in their list. As long as they maintain the respect to all other Imams that are not in their list, we are ok.

If the Zaidi's hardcore followers still want to discuss on differences, well everyone must be truthful and not cherry picking. But again, even the conclusion is not reached, we already make our points.

What i really need to know from the Zaidi followers is their says on the 12th Imam. Why they are not accepting it?  It that because 12th Imam is not present for guidance?

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is not present physically too at this moment.  He is my source of guidance.  Even if i don't have access to all hadiths, he is still my source of guidance. Even if there is no hadiths with me  he is still my source of guidance.

Let hear what is their proof for not accepting the 12th Imam.

As far as believe in Imamate, the case is close. They must be divinely appointed to lead humans to absolute truth with no room for deviations.

 

To all, if i am writing nonsense...pls correct me.

Wallahualam.

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
16 minutes ago, layman said:

As far as believe in Imamate, the case is close. They must be divinely appointed to lead humans to absolute truth with no room for deviations.

Agreed :grin: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, layman said:

Salam,

I am not interested on private discussion.  Let everyone see how the discussion goes.  And they also can participate.  

But, i believe we should be polite even though we disagreed.  This is a public forum.

After all the truth will prevail.  

Wallahualam. 

Sure, let’s agree on a particular topic to discuss. Taking lessons from the debate hitherto we’ve seen that jumping from one topic to another will lead to nothing but confusion and chaos. You are free to choose any topic you want and we will agree to focus on that particular point of discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, layman said:

But, we cannot impose our understanding to others

Salam Brother!!

No we shouldn't impose our understanding to others. The point where I disagreed with you was that:

On 6/26/2021 at 5:01 PM, layman said:

To say that "The selection of caliphs Abubakr, Umar, usman  is against  the principle  desrcibed in verses of quran" is not totally accurate. 

It is infact against the principle described in the verses of Quran. 

 

We, the shias, principally disagree & condemn their selection/election/nomination. 

7 hours ago, layman said:

They were against making Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as their duniawi leader for the group of Muslims

Did they accepted Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as their Imam? No

Did they accepted the wilayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) they way Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) taught "man kunto mowla"? No

Although they were from those who congratulated Ali (عليه السلام) by saying "bakhun bakhun ya Ali", shake hands with him in the capacity of their mowla, yet they did what they did and that is preserved in the history books. I cannot imagine that a peron would tie a rope on the neck of a person whom which he accepts as mowla or even burn the door of his mowla's house. 

I don't want to discuss all that. 

8 hours ago, layman said:

I believed that the first 3 Caliphs didn't reject the Maulaship of Ali (عليه السلام),

If it is the case, they must be ignorant of the meaning of mowla. Or perhaps they have accepted the "mowlaship" of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the same manner. And I can cite its evidence in chapter 47

وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَتَعْسًا لَهُمْ وَأَضَلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَرِهُوا مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

47:8-9

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهِمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْهُدَى ۙ الشَّيْطَانُ سَوَّلَ لَهُمْ وَأَمْلَىٰ لَهُمْ

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لِلَّذِينَ كَرِهُوا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ سَنُطِيعُكُمْ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَمْرِ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِسْرَارَهُمْ

فَكَيْفَ إِذَا تَوَفَّتْهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ يَضْرِبُونَ وُجُوهَهُمْ وَأَدْبَارَهُمْ

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اتَّبَعُوا مَا أَسْخَطَ اللَّهَ وَكَرِهُوا رِضْوَانَهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

47:25-28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, layman said:

The Zaidi followers don't accept the belief in 12 Imams. Our task is to tell the truth.

Brother, I have just elaborated where I disagreed with you. I don't want to distract you any more from the mission of spreading the truth. 

Wish you best of luck, may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) increase your tufeeqat and increases you in knowledge & wisdom.

Wassalam!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Cool said:

Brother, I have just elaborated where I disagreed with you. I don't want to distract you any more from the mission of spreading the truth. 

Wish you best of luck, may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) increase your tufeeqat and increases you in knowledge & wisdom.

Wassalam!!

Salam Brother,

I fully understood what you trying to tell.  Those who didn't followed the directives of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) will have severe consequences.  We will know about it in the hereafter.  We are in agreement in this.  May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all.  

I didn't participated in this thread from the beginning because I wanted to understand what followers of Zaidi faith has in common and disagreement with the Shias who believe in 12 Imams.

I really want to know the exact reasons for them not to accept the 12 imam.  It is a matter of what?

Let them put their point of view.

 

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I wish someday there is a real challenge when someone makes a debate thread and shows us:

- Hey look. Our religion is more compliant with the Quran.

- It has better Imams and leader figures who made more contributions  for the human race.

- It makes more sense and connects more dots and is closer to Allah.

- It is more peaceful and more beautiful.

- It is more understandable, it has more hadiths and guidance, it is less confusing and contradicting. It has so many duas/supplications and material you can read and practice to get closer to Allah.

- And since it is so much better in all respects is why I as your brother/sister and well wisher in humanity am inviting you to it.

Expectation vs reality.

- We good u bad becoz herp derp brrrrrrt copypastalolx bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/28/2021 at 7:35 PM, The Green Knight said:

.Expectation vs reality.

- We good u bad becoz herp derp brrrrrrt copypastalolx bye.

Brother I'm more than happy to continue this thread. And to avoid your above point let's start a fresh and use an organised systematic approach.

1)We each use a classic scholar of our Madhab to define Imamat and compulsory belief regarding it.

2)Then we use Qur'an only without interpretation or tafsir. To lay the foundation.

3)Then we can move to Mutawatir hadith after agreeing on the standard. To aid in Tafseer.

then if we get to stage 3 without chaos we can decide on a step 4

What do you think ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
10 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

What do you think ?

Yes, let us. Why not.

You can start by illuminating your concept of Imamate.

 

/((P.S.: Last time we had a discussion you did not so I had to google. It was .. unsatisfactory for me since in Islam, since Ibrahim, Imams are chosen by Allah and not men. So, may be you can start there.))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

DEBATE 2

if you can use the above title so to help observers understand it's a new debate.

So I'll use the definition of Imam Hadi (241 AH) on Imamat and compulsory belief from his book on Usool.

We are religiously obligated to believe that Amīr al-Muminīn, ‘Ali bin Abi Ťālib,
Allah’s blessings be upon him, was the best of the Community after the Prophet, upon him be peace. He was obedient to his Lord, always willing to give his life, and always immensely engrossed in his obedience to Allah and His Messenger, upon him be peace. He was the closest in kinship to the Messenger of Mercy. He was foremost in knowledge concerning what Allah revealed in the Qur’ān and his asceticism in this world. The statements of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, concerning him are famous and wellknown; among them the Day of the Pond (Ghadīr) of Khumm: ((Whomever I
have authority over, ‘Ali has authority over. O Allah, help those that help him
and oppose those that oppose him! Assist those that assist him, and abandon those that abandon him!)); as well as his statement: ((‘Ali is to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there will be no prophet after me.)); and ((You are a jurist (qāďi) of religion and the fulfiller of my trusts)).
The Messenger, upon him be peace, specified him knowing the happen stances and controversies that would occur with his community. ‘Ali used to relate an account that he would be killed by a Murādi; and also, he was informed about the Transgressors (firqat al-Qāsiŧa), the Traitors (an-Nākitha), and the Rebels (al-Māriqa). It is the consensus of our community that when given the choice, they all chose him, with the exception of small splinter groups. In that, they agreed that he is foremost of the forerunners (as-sābiqīn), foremost of the scholars, foremost of the ascetics, and the foremost amongst those who were willing to sacrifice themselves. There is no disagreement that he possessed these traits more than others. His virtues were evident to all.
He was the cousin of Muhammad, upon him be peace; as well as the father of
the two Grandsons (as-Sibtayn): al-Hassan and al-Hussein. He was the husband of Fātima, blessings be upon them all.
There is mutual agreement that ‘Ali, Allah’s blessings be upon him, was suited
for the Caliphate the day that Allah took His Prophet, upon him be peace. They
disagreed concerning other than him. That withstanding, truth is with what all
agree on. Falsehood is with what all disagree on.

 

I have used the whole translation and not edited the text.

If you are happy please quote a classic 12er scholar without edit on your compulsory belief regarding Imamat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Brother I'm more than happy to continue this thread. And to avoid your above point let's start a fresh and use an organised systematic approach.

1)We each use a classic scholar of our Madhab to define Imamat and compulsory belief regarding it.

2)Then we use Qur'an only without interpretation or tafsir. To lay the foundation.

3)Then we can move to Mutawatir hadith after agreeing on the standard. To aid in Tafseer.

then if we get to stage 3 without chaos we can decide on a step 4

What do you think ?

 

Just for the observer this was my post in reply to @The Green Knight

Who kindly replied to the above post and agreed to the debate format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

@Ultimate truth

Salam we can discuss here.

So here is a link to our aqeeda as per Imam Hadi.

https://zaidiportal.com/fundamentals-of-islam

Please have a read through and ask any questions or makes any statements of refutation. Then we can continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 6/25/2021 at 7:36 PM, Muslim2010 said:

 

In the same way the Zaydi principle of imams chosen by consultation forms agaisnt the vesres of quran.

wasalam

I'm happy to define and discuss Zaidi Imamat Vs 12er.

If you agree we can proceed in a systematic manner as I have previously detailed. Or a better format if you have one. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
49 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

If you agree we can proceed in a systematic manner as I have previously detailed. Or a better format if you have one. ?

Salam bro sorry to interject but if you both wish to begin another debate will it be ok for you to start another thread? That way it’ll be easier to follow the arguments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, User 313 said:

another debate

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I'm happy to define and discuss Zaidi Imamat Vs 12er.

If you agree we can proceed in a systematic manner as I have previously detailed. Or a better format if you have one. ?

We have already disscussed the matter of Immamate in detail at SC by about three  threads.  Is it not enough for disscussion on same topic?

If not then may i ask please why it is required? 

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

We have already disscussed the matter of Immamate in detail at SC by about three  threads.  Is it not enough for disscussion on same topic?

If not then may i ask please why it is required? 

wasalam

Because it's the most important discussion.

And I believe we can have an improved debate learning lesson from previous threads which were difficult to follow.

Also you are an active member and continue to post your opinion regarding Zaidi concept of Imamat.

So what do you say should me and you debate. But with some preconditions to help keep it organised ?

Link to comment
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...