Did Zayd b. Ali Not Know of His Father’s Imamah? | A Zaydi Response!

[Zaidism]

A recent article published by Iqraonline regarding al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace) was written in an attempt to address a painstaking question that the Imāmīyah are posed with, and it is the fact that the sons of the Imāms, and their kindred did not accept the claim of divine Imāmah after al-Imām al-Ḥusayn. For, it isn’t necessarily that they weren’t aware of claims being circulated regarding certain members of the Ahl al-Bayt being Imāms. Instead, it is that the Ahl al-Bayt rejected such claims, not only by virtue of there being no evidence for their Imāmah, but also by virtue of them being their own kindred. As the saying goes, the people of the house are most aware of what goes on in the house.
To be more precise, the issue, and the topic at hand isn’t whether al-Imām Zayd knew that his father, brother, or nephew were claimed to be Imāms. Rather, it is whether he subscribed to, and supported such a claim. 

You see, dear reader, that it is not a sect, scholar, nor group, whomever they may be, or wherever their agendas may lie that can overshadow the personage of al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace). 

To point the finger in accusation towards the faithfulness of al-Imām Zayd is to point three fingers back at oneself. Know that this was the case with the Imāmīyah early on, for we saw how al-Barqī in his Rijaal sought to vindicate one of his men from participating in the revolt of al-Imām Zayd! Adding that he repented afterwards. [1]. However, as the Imāmīyah realized, and as al-Khūʾī is quoted in saying, it is inconceivable that someone like al-Imām Zayd denied the Imām of his time. 

We will (briefly) highlight that the issue isn’t simply with al-Imām Zayd alone, the issue is with the community of the Ahl al-Bayt in general. Although, the Imāmīyah were pressed in seeking to find justifications as to how the son of al-Imām al-Sajjād could possibly revolt ahead of the Imām of his time, they certainly succumbed to the reality that there is no possibility in apologetically explaining the opposition of the community of the progeny of the Prophet to them. 

In the commentary that sought to summarize the explanation of al-Sayyid al-Khūʾī there are certain critical assertions that are made which do not coincide with the narration at hand. The article maintains that al-Imām Zayd (upon him be peace) responded rhetorically to Shayṭān al-Ṭāq, as opposed to him negating the claim that there was an Imām whose obedience was obligatory. However, in consideration of the aforementioned, and known position of al-Ṭāq (in the Imāmī view), and al-Imām Zayd - for what reason would al-Imām Zayd need to speak in innuendos, or lean towards Taqīyyah? Considering that they were alone, and the matter that they were discussing ends the possibility of Taqīyyah being the case, as al-Imām Zayd invited al-Ṭāq to participate in a revolt, hence ceasing any further need for Taqīyyah, as his intentions were conspicuous. 

Moreover, as the Ḥadīth continues we find that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq (upon him be peace) commends al-Ṭāq, not for sticking to his creed. Rather, for defending it against al-Imām Zayd! This is evident from the saying attributed to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq by al-Ṭāq wherein he states: ‘‘You took him from in front and from behind, from the right and from the left, from above his head and from below his legs and did not leave him any way to take’’.

Had the case been as the article sought to indicate, that al-Imām Zayd was maintaining through broad hints that he indeed has permission from al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, then, to be consistent the narrative would have had al-Imām al-Ṣādiq:

(a) commending al-Ṭāq for his loyalty 

(b) Mentioning that al-Imām Zayd was indeed calling to him.

However, the context which is given at the end of the Ḥadīth, and in consideration of the unnecessary innuendos used by al-Imām Zayd to the point where he is essentially being needlessly evasive entails what al-Imām Zayd is clearly saying: ‘‘How could it be that he informed you about the religion and did not inform me about it!’’.

Moreover, al-Imām Zayd was being so unclear that al-Ṭāq persisted after each response to continue in arguing that his revolt is not legitimate, and how his father concealed his Imāmah from him, because he could have possibly been envious! So, what do we essentially arrive at? 

(a) al-Imām Zayd is unequivocally calling towards a revolt in a concealed environment where it is only him, and al-Ṭāq. Therefore, there is no need for Taqīyyah whatsoever. 

(b) - He only answers - as the article claims - with hints.

(c)  -  al-Ṭāq does not understand these hints, rather he understands them as al-Imām Zayd saying that his claim of there being an Imām whose obedience is obligatory is fallacious, because he was not informed such by the Imāms who he claims to follow. 

(d) - Upon seeing that  al-Ṭāq interprets the matter to be such, al-Imām Zayd persists in giving the broadest of hints!

(e) - When  al-Ṭāq returns to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, he commends him for defending his misunderstanding! 

I believe that the absurdity of such a proposition has been made clear, and the reader is left to judge. 

The case my dear reader is not so convoluted, the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt were Imāms of clarity, and guidance! They wouldn’t confuse their Shīʿa, nor - as the article claims - go on to argue so strangely for a matter that leaves the interlocutor more confused, when the matter could have been settled with a simple sentence. 

al-Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (Guide to the truth) 

Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn b. al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm b. ʾismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥasan b. Ḥasan b. ‘Alī ع said:

Indeed, those who sought to separate between Zayd and Jaʿfar were a group of people who gave allegiance to Zayd b. ʿAlī. When the ruler of Kufa sought those who pledged allegiance to Zayd and promised to chastise them, they feared for their lives and broke their allegiance to Zayd, and rejected him, out of fear from the ruler. 

They did not know what to use as a legitimate excuse in the face of those who rebuked them, and mocked them for their retreat [from the Bayʿah of Zayd] so they concocted the belief of designation, they said: The designation was from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn to his son Muḥammad, and from Muḥammad it went to Jaʿfar. They did so in order to divert the people, and in doing so they deviated, and caused many others to deviate, and they all deviated from the rightly way. 

They followed the vain desires of themselves, choosing this world ahead of the hereafter, and those who preferred to stay back, and did not like fighting in the way of Allah followed suit in what they claimed. 

Thereafter, a group came and found words inscribed in books, and manuscripts, and they took what they found without comparison, and they moved ahead of their intellects, and they attributed these acts to the most righteous of them, of the sons of the Prophet  (upon him and them be peace) as the Ḥashawīyyah attributed what they narrated of falsity, and fabricated lies to the Prophet (upon him and his progeny be peace) so as to ground their errancy on those who they made servants, and slaves for them. [2]

The difficulty in squaring the circle that is al-Imām Zayd is clear, what then shall one say regarding:

al-Imām ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām al-Ḥusayn b. Zayd b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq?

al-Imām Jaʿfar al-Zakī b. Muḥammad al-Naqī? 

And much more from the community of the Prophet who lived with the Imāms, learned from them, and were raised by them? Keep in mind, we are not seeking to emphasize a case with the progeny of the Prophet similar to the issue of the absolute uprightness of the companions. Rather, all these Noble men mentioned, and more from the Ahl al-Bayt have testimony from the Sunnis, and the Twelvers regarding their uprightness. To the extent that we find al-Khūʾī stating that although much of the virtue of Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq has been recorded, his reliability cannot be established! [3] Certainly not, how can it be established when the son of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is also a Zaydī, by the testimony of your works.

We find that the ones who are preferred instead are the killers of the progeny of the Prophet, and the supporters of the tyrants themselves! For instance, Yaqṭīn b. Mūsā, and his father ʿAlī b. Yaqṭīn b. Mūsā. The one who participated in the butchering of al-Imām al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī! [4] What does al-Tusi say regarding him?! That he was amongst the reliable Rijaal of the Imāmīyah who occupied great status. [5] His brother ʿUbayd b.Yaqṭīn b. Mūsā was the killer of  Sulaimān b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī. 
They say no one wants to speak of Karbala! We say come and see the dozens of Karbalas after Abā Abdillāh!

In the face of the Zaidiyyah, one is either going to continue reforming themselves out of the Twelver school. Or, they will revert to their true Rāfiḍhīsm. The Rāfiḍhīsm of supporting tyrants, and of rejecting the greats of the Ahl al-Bayt. May Allah protect us from such, and may He guide us all to the straight path. 

Written by: Muḥammad al-Sharīfī 

Sources:

[1] سُليمان بن خالد البَجلي الأقطَع، كُوفيّ، كَان خَرجَ مَعَ زَيد بن عَلي فَأفلَتَ، وفِي كِتاب سَعد: أنّه خَرَج مَع زَيد فَأفلتَ، فَمَنَّ الله عَليه وتَابَ ورجَعَ بَعدَه)) [رجال البَرقي:32] .

[2] Majmūʿ Kutb wā-rasāʾil al-Imām al-Hādī, Kitāb Maʿrifat Allāh 

[3] قال السيد الخوئي يتكلّم عن الإمام محمد بن جَعفَر (ع) : ((فإنه لم يثبت إيمان هذا الرجل، فضلاً عن وثاقته، ولم يرد فيه مدح غير ما ذكره المفيد – قدس سره- من أنه كان سخياً شجاعاً، ولا أثر لهذا المدح فيما نحن بصدده)) [معجم رجال الحديث:16/176]

[4] أخبار فخ

[5] الفهرست: 154

 

Edited May 28 by Mahdavist
Insults removed

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Zayd b. ʿAlī

He never claimed  that he is an Imam which some people  after his martyrdom called him an Imam without any solid proof or document  in similar fashion which Ismailits has called Ismail (رضي الله عنه) son on Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) as their Imam which if you call martyr Zaid(رضي الله عنه) an Imam then you must accept  Ismail (رضي الله عنه) as your Imam too then join to Ismailism.

[Zaidism]

6 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

He never claimed  that he is an Imam which some people  after his martyrdom called him an Imam without any solid proof or document  in similar fashion which Ismailits has called Ismail (رضي الله عنه) son on Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) as their Imam which if you call martyr Zaid(رضي الله عنه) an Imam then you must accept  Ismail (رضي الله عنه) as your Imam too then join to Ismailism.

Correct, he never claimed to be an Imam designated by Allah, or the Messenger. As such is non-existent after the first three Imams (upon them be peace).

[ShiaChat Mod]

Calling another person Shaytan is not allowed. Please stop doing that. Warnings can be issued and suspensions to ShiaChat can also be given. 

[Zaidism]

3 hours ago, ShiaChat Mod said:

Calling another person Shaytan is not allowed. Please stop doing that. Warnings can be issued and suspensions to ShiaChat can also be given. 

JazakAllah Khayr for giving me a heads up before issuing a warning/suspension. The reason that he was addressed as such is because that is actually the historical title which he had, for instance he is also referred to as al-Ahwal (the cross-eyed) in the Twelver corpus. [1] I chose to use his other name, because I believe it is not only more apt, but less offensive to those with the disability. Whereas being a Shaytan is something anyone can earn, may Allah guide us all.

 

[1] - He had received these epithets since he had an exchange shop in "Taq al-Mahamil", a neighborhood in Kufa. And since he was an expert in his job and detected fake money, he came to be called "Shaytan al-Taq". 

Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 132; Najāshī, Rijāl al-Najāshī, p. 325; Kashshī, Ikhtīyār maʿrifat al-rijāl, vol. 2, p. 422.

 

Edited May 25 by Zaidism
Citation added.

[Ashvazdanghe]

6 hours ago, Zaidism said:

[1] - He had received these epithets since he had an exchange shop in "Taq al-Mahamil", a neighborhood in Kufa. And since he was an expert in his job and detected fake money, he came to be called "Shaytan al-Taq". 

Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 132; Najāshī, Rijāl al-Najāshī, p. 325; Kashshī, Ikhtīyār maʿrifat al-rijāl, vol. 2, p. 422

Salam you always censor important part which Nasibis &agents of Abbasids have labled him "Shaytan al-Taq".  because he has lables as"Mumin al-Taq" by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) & shias which besides that he has been an expert in detecting fake money in similar fashion he has been expert in debate with enemies of Shias which none of them could defeat him in any debate.

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Correct, he never claimed to be an Imam designated by Allah, or the Messenger. As such is non-existent after the first three Imams (upon them be peace).

Martyr Zayd(رضي الله عنه) asked for permision of initiating his revolt from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) which he knew him as infallible Imam of his time which Imam Sadiq(عليه السلام) has allowed it in de facto state as infallible Imam of martyr Zayd(رضي الله عنه) from descendants of third Imam , Imam Hussain(عليه السلام)  so this is a proof about existance of infallible Imams from descendants of Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) which previously in losing battle you have tried to show that infallible Imam Kadhim (عليه السلام) has made allegiance with martyr of Fakh .

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Uprising_of_Fakhkh

https://www.erfan.ir/english/89953.html

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

Lol, the author hasn't responded to ANYTHING in this article!  This is a classic case of circular reasoning- making a claim and citing another claim as its premise without substantiating either. His claim rests on the premise, and the premise upon the claim,and neither are objectively demonstrable. His rejection of Sayyid al-Khu'i (rh) 's ta'weel is also similarly fallacious, being based not on any naqli or even aqli evidence,but only on his own dogmatic assumptions about privacy and taqiyyah. His entire argument is built upon these two colossal fallacies. I'll dig up the references and post a detailed rebuttal later inshallah. 

Edited May 28 by Mahdavist
Personal comments removed

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:05 PM, Zaidism said:

A recent article published by Iqraonline regarding al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace) was written in an attempt to address a painstaking question that the Imāmīyah are posed with, and it is the fact that the sons of the Imāms, and their kindred did not accept the claim of divine Imāmah after al-Imām al-Ḥusayn. For, it isn’t necessarily that they weren’t aware of claims being circulated regarding certain members of the Ahl al-Bayt being Imāms. Instead, it is that the Ahl al-Bayt rejected such claims, not only by virtue of there being no evidence for their Imāmah, but also by virtue of them being their own kindred. As the saying goes, the people of the house are most aware of what goes on in the house.
To be more precise, the issue, and the topic at hand isn’t whether al-Imām Zayd knew that his father, brother, or nephew were claimed to be Imāms. Rather, it is whether he subscribed to, and supported such a claim. 

You see, dear reader, that it is not a sect, scholar, nor group, whomever they may be, or wherever their agendas may lie that can overshadow the personage of al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace). 

To point the finger in accusation towards the faithfulness of al-Imām Zayd is to point three fingers back at oneself. Know that this was the case with the Imāmīyah early on, for we saw how al-Barqī in his Rijaal sought to vindicate one of his men from participating in the revolt of al-Imām Zayd! Adding that he repented afterwards. [1]. However, as the Imāmīyah realized, and as al-Khūʾī is quoted in saying, it is inconceivable that someone like al-Imām Zayd denied the Imām of his time. 

We will (briefly) highlight that the issue isn’t simply with al-Imām Zayd alone, the issue is with the community of the Ahl al-Bayt in general. Although, the Imāmīyah were pressed in seeking to find justifications as to how the son of al-Imām al-Sajjād could possibly revolt ahead of the Imām of his time, they certainly succumbed to the reality that there is no possibility in apologetically explaining the opposition of the community of the progeny of the Prophet to them. 

In the commentary that sought to summarize the explanation of al-Sayyid al-Khūʾī there are certain critical assertions that are made which do not coincide with the narration at hand. The article maintains that al-Imām Zayd (upon him be peace) responded rhetorically to Shayṭān al-Ṭāq, as opposed to him negating the claim that there was an Imām whose obedience was obligatory. However, in consideration of the aforementioned, and known position of Shayṭān al-Ṭāq (in the Imāmī view), and al-Imām Zayd - for what reason would al-Imām Zayd need to speak in innuendos, or lean towards Taqīyyah? Considering that they were alone, and the matter that they were discussing ends the possibility of Taqīyyah being the case, as al-Imām Zayd invited Shayṭān al-Ṭāq to participate in a revolt, hence ceasing any further need for Taqīyyah, as his intentions were conspicuous. 

Moreover, as the Ḥadīth continues we find that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq (upon him be peace) commends Shayṭān al-Ṭāq, not for sticking to his creed. Rather, for defending it against al-Imām Zayd! This is evident from the saying attributed to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq by Shayṭān al-Ṭāq wherein he states: ‘‘You took him from in front and from behind, from the right and from the left, from above his head and from below his legs and did not leave him any way to take’’.

Had the case been as the article sought to indicate, that al-Imām Zayd was maintaining through broad hints that he indeed has permission from al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, then, to be consistent the narrative would have had al-Imām al-Ṣādiq:

(a) commending Shayṭān al-Ṭāq for his loyalty 

(b) Mentioning that al-Imām Zayd was indeed calling to him.

However, the context which is given at the end of the Ḥadīth, and in consideration of the unnecessary innuendos used by al-Imām Zayd to the point where he is essentially being needlessly evasive entails what al-Imām Zayd is clearly saying: ‘‘How could it be that he informed you about the religion and did not inform me about it!’’.

Moreover, al-Imām Zayd was being so unclear that Shayṭān al-Ṭāq persisted after each response to continue in arguing that his revolt is not legitimate, and how his father concealed his Imāmah from him, because he could have possibly been envious! So, what do we essentially arrive at? 

(a) al-Imām Zayd is unequivocally calling towards a revolt in a concealed environment where it is only him, and Shayṭān al-Ṭāq. Therefore, there is no need for Taqīyyah whatsoever. 

(b) - He only answers - as the article claims - with hints.

(c)  - Shayṭān al-Ṭāq does not understand these hints, rather he understands them as al-Imām Zayd saying that his claim of there being an Imām whose obedience is obligatory is fallacious, because he was not informed such by the Imāms who he claims to follow. 

(d) - Upon seeing that Shayṭān al-Ṭāq interprets the matter to be such, al-Imām Zayd persists in giving the broadest of hints!

(e) - When Shayṭān al-Ṭāq returns to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, he commends him for defending his misunderstanding! 

I believe that the absurdity of such a proposition has been made clear, and the reader is left to judge. 

The case my dear reader is not so convoluted, the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt were Imāms of clarity, and guidance! They wouldn’t confuse their Shīʿa, nor - as the article claims - go on to argue so strangely for a matter that leaves the interlocutor more confused, when the matter could have been settled with a simple sentence. 

al-Imām al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (Guide to the truth) 

Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn b. al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm b. ʾismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥasan b. Ḥasan b. ‘Alī ع said:

Indeed, those who sought to separate between Zayd and Jaʿfar were a group of people who gave allegiance to Zayd b. ʿAlī. When the ruler of Kufa sought those who pledged allegiance to Zayd and promised to chastise them, they feared for their lives and broke their allegiance to Zayd, and rejected him, out of fear from the ruler. 

They did not know what to use as a legitimate excuse in the face of those who rebuked them, and mocked them for their retreat [from the Bayʿah of Zayd] so they concocted the belief of designation, they said: The designation was from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn to his son Muḥammad, and from Muḥammad it went to Jaʿfar. They did so in order to divert the people, and in doing so they deviated, and caused many others to deviate, and they all deviated from the rightly way. 

They followed the vain desires of themselves, choosing this world ahead of the hereafter, and those who preferred to stay back, and did not like fighting in the way of Allah followed suit in what they claimed. 

Thereafter, a group came and found words inscribed in books, and manuscripts, and they took what they found without comparison, and they moved ahead of their intellects, and they attributed these acts to the most righteous of them, of the sons of the Prophet  (upon him and them be peace) as the Ḥashawīyyah attributed what they narrated of falsity, and fabricated lies to the Prophet (upon him and his progeny be peace) so as to ground their errancy on those who they made servants, and slaves for them. [2]

The difficulty in squaring the circle that is al-Imām Zayd is clear, what then shall one say regarding:

al-Imām ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām al-Ḥusayn b. Zayd b. ʿAlī?

al-Imām Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq?

al-Imām Jaʿfar al-Zakī b. Muḥammad al-Naqī? 

And much more from the community of the Prophet who lived with the Imāms, learned from them, and were raised by them? Keep in mind, we are not seeking to emphasize a case with the progeny of the Prophet similar to the issue of the absolute uprightness of the companions. Rather, all these Noble men mentioned, and more from the Ahl al-Bayt have testimony from the Sunnis, and the Twelvers regarding their uprightness. To the extent that we find al-Khūʾī stating that although much of the virtue of Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq has been recorded, his reliability cannot be established! [3] Certainly not, how can it be established when the son of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is also a Zaydī, by the testimony of your works.

We find that the ones who are preferred instead are the killers of the progeny of the Prophet, and the supporters of the tyrants themselves! For instance, Yaqṭīn b. Mūsā, and his father ʿAlī b. Yaqṭīn b. Mūsā. The one who participated in the butchering of al-Imām al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī! [4] What does al-Tusi say regarding him?! That he was amongst the reliable Rijaal of the Imāmīyah who occupied great status. [5] His brother ʿUbayd b.Yaqṭīn b. Mūsā was the killer of  Sulaimān b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī. 
They say no one wants to speak of Karbala! We say come and see the dozens of Karbalas after Abā Abdillāh!

In the face of the Zaidiyyah, one is either going to continue reforming themselves out of the Twelver school. Or, they will revert to their true Rāfiḍhīsm. The Rāfiḍhīsm of supporting tyrants, and of rejecting the greats of the Ahl al-Bayt. May Allah protect us from such, and may He guide us all to the straight path. 

Written by: Muḥammad al-Sharīfī 

Sources:

[1] سُليمان بن خالد البَجلي الأقطَع، كُوفيّ، كَان خَرجَ مَعَ زَيد بن عَلي فَأفلَتَ، وفِي كِتاب سَعد: أنّه خَرَج مَع زَيد فَأفلتَ، فَمَنَّ الله عَليه وتَابَ ورجَعَ بَعدَه)) [رجال البَرقي:32] .

[2] Majmūʿ Kutb wā-rasāʾil al-Imām al-Hādī, Kitāb Maʿrifat Allāh 

[3] قال السيد الخوئي يتكلّم عن الإمام محمد بن جَعفَر (ع) : ((فإنه لم يثبت إيمان هذا الرجل، فضلاً عن وثاقته، ولم يرد فيه مدح غير ما ذكره المفيد – قدس سره- من أنه كان سخياً شجاعاً، ولا أثر لهذا المدح فيما نحن بصدده)) [معجم رجال الحديث:16/176]

[4] أخبار فخ

[5] الفهرست: 154

[Edit: Link to Telegram account was removed.]

Surah Baqarah reveals traits of Divinely sent leaders, it says that those who are divinely appointed are most knowledgeable and courageous. Hazrat Zaid has been found in the history to be disciple of Imams mentioned by twelver shias not only this but those Abbasi Caliphs also sought the help of Imams mentioned by twelver shias when they faced difficult problems but Zaidiyah sect lacked this capacity.

[Muslim2010]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:05 PM, Zaidism said:

To be more precise, the issue, and the topic at hand isn’t whether al-Imām Zayd knew that his father, brother, or nephew were claimed to be Imāms. Rather, it is whether he subscribed to, and supported such a claim. 

Our response to Zaydis remains the same as given below:

Please quote a verse of quran (as first  source of religion) to define the principle that people can choose imams for their guidance instead  Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) selected and appointed imams /caliphs.

From the second source of guidance in religion please quote us a hadith that Zaidiya imams particularly Zaid bin Ali after Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), have been chosen / selected as mentioned by the hadith of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

As the religion islam is based on quran and hadith of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for all  sects then the above evidences are vital for confirmation  of zaidiya claims.

And so far as today Zaydis are failed to provide the evidence of their conjectures and false claims.

 

wasalam

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 5/27/2022 at 1:19 PM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Zaidiyah sect lacked this capacity.

Not just this, they hated the later imams (ams) as much as, if not more, than the most rabid among the nawasib. Just like Malik al-Ashtar (rh) and al-Mukhtar (rh) were subjected to character assassination by the nawasib, these batriyyah attacked the most loyal companions of the imams. Since they didn't have the courage to attack the imams personally. As you can see the [removed] above calling Mu'min at-Taaq (rh), Imam al-Sadiq(عليه السلام) 's envoy at Basra 'shaytan at-taaq', and glorifying Ja'far bin Ali, who denied al-Qa'im (aj) 's birth, tried to claim the imamate, and dragged his aged mother to the Abbasid court in a botched up lawsuit, as 'al-Zaki'. Many of the ancestors of these batriyyah publicly declared their love for those who usurped the Ahlul Bayt(ams) 's rights, and vilified and reviled Imam al-Baqir (عليه السلام) in a manner that even the Umayyads would have cringed from, calling him a coward a pretender, a weakling and a pleasure-loving youth who likes to sit in the comfort of his home and do nothing. The Imam (عليه السلام) has cursed them, calling them canines who like to lick from dirty puddles while a river of fresh water flows by them, and said that he doesn't want to exchange his knowledge and morals for their ignorance and immorality. Their whole aqeeda is similarly a love-child between political ambition and ideological incoherence. They kept adding patches to their incoherent creed as and when political exigencies arose. They express love for the enemies of the household (ams) , and have had little role in history except for serving as fifth columnists within tashayyu, and useful idiots for our enemies. 

Edited June 1 by Mahdavist
Personal attack

[Zaidism]

23 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Lol, the author hasn't responded to ANYTHING in this article!  This is a classic case of circular reasoning- making a claim and citing another claim as its premise without substantiating either. His claim rests on the premise, and the premise upon the claim,and neither are objectively demonstrable. His rejection of Sayyid al-Khu'i (rh) 's ta'weel is also similarly fallacious, being based not on any naqli or even aqli evidence,but only on his own dogmatic assumptions about privacy and taqiyyah. His entire argument is built upon these two colossal fallacies. I'll dig up the references and post a detailed rebuttal later inshallah. 

To the brothers above- don't bother. Just laugh away to your heart's content at this sorry and laughable piece. 

Can you demonstrate what is fallacious? It is quite ironic that you are displaying what you are supposedly critiquing.

8 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Surah Baqarah reveals traits of Divinely sent leaders, it says that those who are divinely appointed are most knowledgeable and courageous. Hazrat Zaid has been found in the history to be disciple of Imams mentioned by twelver shias not only this but those Abbasi Caliphs also sought the help of Imams mentioned by twelver shias when they faced difficult problems but Zaidiyah sect lacked this capacity.

lead·er
[ˈlēdər]
NOUN
the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country:

You have been leaderless for 1188 years, and counting. Did Surah al-Baqarah reveal traits that we may fantasize about, or perhaps they are more pragmatic examples?
 

2 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

From the second source of guidance in religion please quote us a hadith that Zaidiya imams particularly Zaid bin Ali after Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), have been chosen / selected as mentioned by the hadith of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

This is a loaded question. We don't believe in any specific appointment after Imam al-Husayn. The religion was complete after the Prophet departed, wasn't it? As for Hadith al-Thaqalayn it is to be read alongside this verse {Then We caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants;1 and among them is he who wrongs himself [i.e., sins], and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds by permission of Allāh. That [inheritance] is what is the great bounty} [35:32]. 

Can you, or the Ismailis indicate to us how Hadith al-Thaqalayn limits Imamah to the sons of Imam al-Husayn exclusively? As the progeny of the Prophet stem from the sons of Lady Fatema (upon her be peace), and her sons are al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. 

49 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

denied al-Qa'im (aj) 's birth

Do you have historical evidence for your 'Qa'ims' birth? 

I have historical evidence to the contrary of his birth.

You are willing to vilify the sons of your own Imams in order to defend these charlatans? I wonder, was al-Imam al-Naqi unable to convey his divine message to his own virtuous son, or perhaps he threatened the obfuscations of those whom you praise? 

Two empirical testimonies which point to the errancy of there being a birth, or existence for the son of al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, as well as the ignorance of his Ahl al-Bayt regarding his existence. This also helps to indicate the non-existence of any Naṣṣ (Ḥadīth) that designates Twelve in that - pre occultation - era:

 

 The First Testimony is by the Predecessor of the ʿitrah (progeny of the Prophet) al-Nāṣir lil-Ḥaqq (The Supporter of the Truth) al-Uṭrūsh al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (upon them be peace) (230-304 AH). The renowned Imām of the Zaidīyyah, and what has been transmitted from him - regarding this - is abundant, and known by the Zaydīs. He was among the companions of his cousin al-Imām al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (upon him be peace) (d. 260 AH). Between them was camaraderie, and [sharing of] knowledge.

The Second Testimony is by the Sheikh of the Muʿtazilah of his time Abī ʿAlī Muḥammad b. ʿAbdul-Wahāb al-Juba’ī (235-303 AH), in the book of al-Maqālāt which is attributed to him. He is one who is known to have met with the Ḥusaynī progeny in the varying nations, and they had no knowledge of that matter [al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī having a son]. 

We will share his quote, and therein will be beneficial indicators for the researcher, and they are: 

- The non-existence of a Naṣṣ for the Twelve
- The absence of the belief in an occultation among the sons of al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace). 
- Otherwise, they would have shared those reports, and they would have appeared among them. 
- It is also notable that the concoction, and spread of the reports of the Twelve had not yet begun in the era of Abī ʿAlī al-Juba’ī.

 Abu ʿAlī al-Juba’ī al-Muʿtazilī said:
(and what is between brackets is an addition from us for clarity)

The request for an Imām from them has been mentioned [after listing the provinces, and places which indicates their lack of knowledge of that Imām]: As for the province of al-Maghrib (Morocco) by my life within it are the men of the Ahl al-Bayt, however, they are from the sons of Idrīs. Idrīs is from the sons of al-Ḥasan, and you do not permit the Imāmah except for the sons of al-Ḥusayn. However, there are many in al-Ḥijāz who are from the sons of al-Ḥusayn, and in al-Iraq in the village of Baghdad, Samaraa, al-Kufa, and the land of Khorasan.

- We have entered upon them, and we have inquired regarding the description of this Imām, and we did not find a single one of them who knew him, claimed to believe in him, nor claimed to know him! 

Therefore, if you do not know him [because there were those among him who did not permit naming him,] nor do you know his time, in what land he is in, nor do his own Ahl al-Bayt (family) - which you claim he is from - know him; then this Imām is non-existent. We have heard you describe him with a description of great knowledge, and virtue which cannot be concealed from its person. This is because the people of knowledge are from the people themselves, and they are known in all nations… There is no nation, or city in which a man is mentioned to be knowledgeable in any of the arts, except that he is known in all nations; such as Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Mubrad [d. 286 AH,] and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā - who is known as Thaʿlab in Baghdad [d. 291 AH]! How can this Imām be hidden, and only a few particulars know him, as opposed to the general public? 

 If they say: He fears for his life.

We say to them: How can he fear for himself - if he appears - while he has knowledge of the unseen, as you claim? He who has knowledge of the unseen has nothing to fear from his enemies, for Allāh (Blessed is He) says when mentioning His Prophet: {And if I knew the unseen, I could have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me} [7:188]. 

 How can he fear for himself if whenever his enemy advances towards a matter, he would know it?

Therefore, we say to them: You do not know the Imām who you are claiming, nor do you know the time of his appearance. Neither do we know him, nor do his own Ahl al-Bayt know him, or the time of his appearance, so from where are you vindicating your claims?! 

 [al-Maqalat li-Abi ʿAlī al-Juba’i, pg. 108-110].

I would also add that the researcher will not find any mention of a report - that one can confidently establish - which designates a Twelfth Imām in any pre-occultation work in the works of the Twelvers, and all that came after was concocted in the post-occultation period.

I also add that any reports in the Twelver corpus which mentions some of the ‘Alids, or Ḥusaynīs testifying that there exists a son for al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī is not befitting of an objection, because it stems from those who exclusively hold to that claim. 

We know that in their books of Ḥadīth they not only narrate it from them, but also from al-Imām Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, his father, his son, and others from the greats from the sons of al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace). To claim that matter is established is farthest that can be, due to the exclusivity of such a grand claim from the entirety of the Ummah (Islamic Nation) of there being a Naṣṣ on Twelve. It is a dark corpus which cannot be relied on - in its exclusive claims - in any manner, except for those who take their religion by doing Taqlīd (emulation) of mere narrations irrespective of how they were, or how they coincide! 

The narrations of the Twelvers do not serve neither in objection, nor testimony. They will seek to allude to the individual that these Twelver narrations of Naṣṣ were matters which are unanimously accepted, and that even the Naṣibīs, Zaydīs, and Faṭḥīs knew of them, and that they were Mutawatir (mass-transmitted)! 

This is nothing but a lie, how can it not be so? When their own Salaf (predecessors) who were the Khawāṣ (close confidants) of the Imāms were the most ignorant of the people of [there being a Naṣṣ which designates Twelve Imāms]. 

 O Allāh, bless Muḥammad, and the Ahl al-Bayt of Muḥammad. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 5/27/2022 at 9:24 PM, Zaidism said:

Can you demonstrate what is fallacious? It is quite ironic that you are displaying what you are supposedly critiquing.

The article you are gloating about makes a claim, and then proceeds to interpret a whole incident based on that claim without substantiating the claim itself. His two foundational claims are (a) Ahlul Bayt Imams (عليه السلام) were unaware of their own divinely designated imamate (b) taqiyyah cannot happen in private conversations. Both of his claims have not been substantiated, and his entire argument has been built around that premise. 

On 5/27/2022 at 9:24 PM, Zaidism said:

Do you have historical evidence for your 'Qa'ims' birth? 

You know what? I am not going to re-invent the wheel . All of these booby-traps and red-herrings have been responded to by minds much more cultivated than mine thousands of years ago. So not going to go down that quagmire. 

Besides, using Zaidi and Mu'tazili sources as hujaj upon twelvers is not merely ignorant, nor ridiculous, but ridonkulous and asinine. Since you are that persons emissary here, ask him to get educated in the basics of argumentation and substantiating. Maybe a freshman's course in informal logic would help. 

The point is not to prove the Qa'im (عليه السلام) 's birth, or to clarify the questions of the conduct of some of the Imams' (ams) children or disciples post their demise, or even the other thorny questions of history. I -being a trained historian and  currently being a doctoral candidate in history myself (alhamdulillah)- have more than enough evidence that cuts the ice for me, and that's the reason why I am a twelver today: there are non-Shi'a, and even nawasib who have admitted to meeting and seeing him. Objective minds who don't necessarily share my theological worldview have admitted several of the relevant premisal propositions.To prove my convictions to creedal and clinical scoundrels and perverse intellects is not my intention; the point remains that the person who wrote the article failed in his express aim- to refute, using twelver sources, the twelver ta'weel of a historical incident. 

 Each of the points you have brought up in the second copy-paste are worthy of a debate individually, but I am, after al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) 's example, going to let the rabid curs drink from the stinking drain, while the mighty river flows by them. 

The challenge remains open- prove the point using twelver sources, just as we use sunni sources while arguing with them, or the scriptures of the non-muslims while arguing with them. 

 

Edited June 1 by Mahdavist
Personal attacks

[Zaidism]

24 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

(a) Ahlul Bayt Imams (عليه السلام) were unaware of their own divinely designated imamate

Their sons, and kindred. Not the ones being lied upon. As well as the Ghulat themselves being confused who the next Imam is after each Imam, for instance Zurarah, Abi Baseer, Shaytan al-Taq, Hisham b. Salim, and the list goes on...

24 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

(b) taqiyyah cannot happen in private conversations.

What's next the Imam doing Taqiyyah against his own self? 

If you entertain Taqiyyah in private circles, then you have effectively made everything which you deem reliable questionable. For, one can say that X Mu'tabar Hadith could have been done under Taqiyyah. It is a catch-22 scenario. 

27 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

responded to by minds much more cultivated than mine thousands of years ago. So not going to go down that quagmire.

Appeal to authority fallacy, I assure you no matter how astute the mind is, it cannot justify a contradiction.

29 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Besides, using Zaidi and Mu'tazili sources as hujaj upon twelvers is not merely ignorant, nor ridiculous, but ridonkulous and asinine. Since you are that batri deceiver's emissary here, ask him to get educated in the basics of argumentation and substantiating. Maybe a freshman's course in informal logic would help. 

These are historical records.

29 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The point is not to prove the Qa'im (عليه السلام) 's birth

Because you cannot, and this is where your creed collapses, and this is why you had 'Asr al-Hayrah, the era of confusion. 

31 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

a trained historian and  currently being a doctoral candidate in history myself

Fallacy of authority

32 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

there are non-Shi'a, and even nawasib who have admitted to meeting and seeing him.

Bandwagon fallacy

35 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Your temerity, after having been humiliated and having slime rubbed all over your face in two full threads (and having fled each time), is beyond amusing. 

ad hominem fallacy

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

Their sons, and kindred. Not the ones being lied upon.

There was no such lack of knowledge. 

 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

As well as the Ghulat themselves being confused who the next Imam is after each Imam, for instance Zurarah, Abi Baseer, Shaytan al-Taq, Hisham b. Salim, and the list goes on...

1. Flawed inference. Close companions being unaware =\= information not existing. 

2.People disobeying the nass, however close to they be to the Imam (عليه السلام) =\= nass not existing. Also, that there was confusion after each imam is also a claim that needs to be substantiated. 

This logic is convoluted. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

What's next the Imam doing Taqiyyah against his own self? 

Slippery slope fallacy. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

f you entertain Taqiyyah in private circles, then you have effectively made everything which you deem reliable questionable. For, one can say that X Mu'tabar Hadith could have been done under Taqiyyah. It is a catch-22 scenario

There are usool of grading and authentication regarding narrations said under taqiyyah, and solitude is never a condition regarding that. These are the nuances of ilm ul hadith, but that's a non-sequitur. Two good examples are the taqiyyah of the Imams in their private assemblies regarding al-Mukhtar and  the taqiyyah of Ibn al-Hanafiyya (عليه السلام) in his private correspondence with al-Mukhtar, and the Taqiyyah of al-Kadhim (عليه السلام) in his private correspondence with Ibn Yaqteen (rh) ; you may not believe in these people, but that's besides the point. The point is that these incidents themselves are historical realities. Taqiyyah did occur in privacy of solitude. Muhadditheen have discussed at length why an imam may resort to taqiyyah and withhold vital information from companions under duress even in private exchanges. Read up. I am not in the mood to spoon feed people. 

 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

Appeal to authority fallacy, I assure you no matter how astute the mind is, it cannot justify a contradiction.

I am not claiming those arguments to be proofs, but responses, repeating which would be redundant, and which I am not inclined to do either. 

It is palpable that you are itching to use that manual for debates you just read, but atleast use it correctly. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

These are historical records

There is nothing even remotely 'historical' records. You don't even know what 'historical' or 'records' mean, and you have no idea regarding what you are going on raving about. These are anecdotal narrations of two individuals ('I went', 'I saw', 'I talked') , and that too polemical and tendentious ones. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

Because you cannot, and this is where your creed collapses, and this is why you had 'Asr al-Hayrah, the era of confusion. 

Lol, we already have, and creedal scoundrels not admitting to it doesn't affect it one bit. 

'Asr al-Hayrah' is a term given by the opponents of the twelvers. So much for 'objectivity'. You're talking about 'confusion'; want me to give a flash of how your convoluted joke of a creed operated in the post -Jarudiyyah period, like four mad horses pulling a cart in four different directions in everything ranging from fiqh to aqeedah to politics, and how you ran that sham 'imamate' in Yemen? When you are inviting us to your tent, had you better not ensured that it's not a circus? 

Heck, even the Sunnis are more consistent than that in their beliefs and practices. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

Fallacy of authority

I am saying what works for me, and many others from the secular academia, not necessarily what may or may not work for head-in-the-sand ostriches. How is that an appeal to authority? 

Instead of mugging up debate manuals, atleast learn to apply reasoning correctly. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

Bandwagon fallacy

Nope. That's called corroborative proof from hostile sources, which is considered a very strong and valuable proof of veracity in research methodology. Get yourself, and that batri dajjal of whom you are the padawan , educated in the rudiments of historical methods. 

Again, do better than mugging up debating manuals. 

On 5/27/2022 at 10:37 PM, Zaidism said:

hominem fallacy

People must be responded to as per their temperaments and histories. Spare yourself the embarrassment, be a man, and make a case for your half-truths and deceptions on the other threads first. Don't merely copy-paste from blogs or cram debating manuals. By the looks of it you still have a long way to go. 

Lakum deenukum waliayadeen. 

Edited June 1 by Mahdavist

[Zaidism]

6 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

There was no such lack of knowledge. 

Evident in the OP, and elsewhere. I translated a whole book on it too:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zPoApUbI0T00idopArVg6uxpIKkl5RKX/view?usp=sharing

7 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

1. Flawed inference. Close companions being unaware =\= information not existing. 

This is an oxymoronic statement, as being among the Khawas entails knowing who the Imam is. The point is the confusion of these 'Khawas' after the death of each Imam.

8 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

2.People disobeying the nass, however close to they be to the Imam (عليه السلام) =\= nass not existing. Also, that there was confusion after each imam is also a claim that needs to be substantiated. 

First substantiation: 

Translation: And what is mind boggling, the likes of Zurarah did not know who the vicegerent of Imam Sadiq was after his death, and he remained confused, so what then do you think of Hisham b. Salim and his likes.

Source: Mashra'at Bihar Al-Anwar V.1 pg. 412, by Sheikh Asif Muhsini

As you can see the closest and most reliable companions (who attributed all these sayings to the imams) did not know where to go after Imam Sadiq, so what 'Nass' are you talking about?

Second substantiation:

In his book Kitab Ma'rfat Al-Hadith (The book of knowing Hadith) the Rijaali scholar Sheikh Muhammad Baqir Al-Bahbahudi says:

The Hadiths which are known as those which designate the Imams from the Hadith of the tablet (he's referring to the Hadith of Jabir b. 'Abdullah Al-Ansari when he was given a tablet by Sayyida Fatema with the names of the twelve imams) are all fabrications during the time of the occultation, for if these Hadiths had existed with the Imammi Shi'as they wouldn't have had an issue knowing who the imams were, and they wouldn't have differed so exceedingly. 

Third substantiation:

Why are Al-Taq and Hisham confused as to who the next Imam is? Wasn't he teaching Imam Zayd a moment ago who the Imams were, where did this sudden ignorance come from?!

حمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن أبي يحيى الواسطي، عن هشام بن سالم قال: كنا بالمدينة بعد وفات أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنا وصاحب الطاق والناس مجتمعون على عبد الله بن جعفر انه صاحب الامر بعد أبيه، فدخلنا عليه أنا وصاحب الطاق والناس عنده وذلك أنهم رووا عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنه قال: إن الامر في الكبير ما لم تكن به عاهة، فدخلنا عليه نسأله عما كنا نسأل عنه أباه، فسألناه عن الزكاة في كم تجب؟ فقال: في مائتين خمسة، فقلنا: ففي مائة؟ فقال: درهمان ونصف فقلنا: والله ما تقول المرجئة هذا، قال: فرفع يده إلى السماء فقال: والله ما أدري ما تقول المرجئة، قال: فخرجنا من عنده ضلالا لا ندري إلى أين نتوجه أنا وأبو جعفر الأحول، فقعدنا في بعض أزقة المدينة باكين حيارى لا ندري إلى أين نتوجه ولا من نقصد؟ ونقول: إلى المرجئة؟ إلى القدرية؟ إلى الزيدية؟ إلى المعتزلة؟

Source: http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_399
 

The Hadith goes as follows: We were in Madina (Hashim bin Salem is narrating this) I, and Al-Taq. The people were gathered over Abdullah son Ja'far, as he was presumed to be the Imam after his father, I and Al-Taq entered upon him and the people were testing him...  so we entered upon him asking him what we were asking his father about, so we asked him about how much zakat is due? He said: In two hundred, five. We said: In a hundred? He said: Two and a half dirhams. We said: By God, what do the Murji’ah say? He said: So he raised his hand to the sky and said: By God, I do not know what the Murji’ah says. He said: So we left him and were astray, not knowing where to go, I and Al-Taq, so we sat in some of the alleys of Madinah crying and bewildered. We do not know where to head, or who to refer to and we sat questioning: (do we go) To the Murji’ah? to the Qadriyyah? To the Zaydiyyah? To the Mu'tazila? [Al-Kafi: 1/399]

What one can infer from this Hadith that fundamentally destroys this fake narrative you're painting of 12 Imams being designated and everyone knowing them:

• Hisham bin Salem and Al-Taq claimed to be the most reliable companions of Imam Al-Sadiq by twelvers do not know who the Imam is after Imam Sadiq
• Al-Taq was teaching Imam Zayd who the Imam was, but now he is confused?!
• The people that were gathered weren't ordinary individuals, they were reputable scholars, and jurists of the Imammiyah
• Al-Taq and Hisham professed that they were misguided after the death of Imam Al-Sadiq, this entails that no sane person would come and say the Imams were designated by name, and number, especially by name. 
• Hisham and Al-Taq did test him, so they entertained the possibility of him being the Imam

[Zaidism]

19 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Slippery slope fallacy. 

Not quite, as this is pointing to an errancy in methodology. 

23 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

. These are anecdotal narrations of two individuals ('I went', 'I saw', 'I talked')

They are better than:

2 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

the reason why I am a twelver today: there are non-Shi'a, and even nawasib who have admitted to meeting and seeing him

The onus is on you to prove his existence, otherwise, everyone can claim this belief. As a historian you must be aware of the dozens of occultations before, again one would ask why they were blind of that magical Nass twelvers refer to, but also the fact that the arguments they bring in support of their occult personages are equal to yours. They, nor you can support the existence of your 'leader'. To even say one is an Imam, and hidden is in and of itself a contradiction. This is why you find irfani rhetoric trying to explain that the Imam controls the cosmos, and guides behind the clouds. The duty of an Imam is to guide in matters of Halal, and Haram, and to administer the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. All which the occultation serves in contrast of. 

33 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

That's called corroborative proof from hostile sources

You mean a couple of fringe Sufis in the 4/5th century AH, or history works quoting this as your belief?

34 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Lakum deenukum waliayadeen. 

Alhamdulilah

وَمَن لَّمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِن نُّورٍ

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Zaidism said:

This is a loaded question. We don't believe in any specific appointment after Imam al-Husayn. The religion was complete after the Prophet departed, wasn't it? As for Hadith al-Thaqalayn it is to be read alongside this verse {Then We caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants;1 and among them is he who wrongs himself [i.e., sins], and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds by permission of Allāh. That [inheritance] is what is the great bounty} [35:32].

Salam this is in similar fashion of rhetoric of wahabists for rejection of concept of Imamate with misinterpreting it they claim that after demise of prophet Muhammad(pbu) they don't need infallible guide & Imam which Umar said Quran is sufficient for us"  which your rhetoric also denies Imamate of Amir al Muminin Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & Imam Hasan(عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) because according to you religion has been completed also Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) Imamate doesn't fit with definition of Zaydis from Imamate but on the other hand Twelvers belive in completing religion after event of Qadir & demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) but in opposition to rest of Islamic sects likewise Zaydis we belive that all of people have not learnt Islam completly  until demise of prophet until now which teaching & explaining it & facing with new conditions needs an infallible Imam which in all aspects except prophethood is similar to prophet Muhammad which clearly you can't find any similar person to prophet Muhammad (pbu) between all Zaydi Imams .

10 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Their sons, and kindred. Not the ones being lied upon. As well as the Ghulat themselves being confused who the next Imam is after each Imam, for instance Zurarah, Abi Baseer, Shaytan al-Taq, Hisham b. Salim, and the list goes on...

On 5/25/2022 at 11:11 PM, ShiaChat Mod said:

Calling another person Shaytan is not allowed. Please stop doing that. Warnings can be issued and suspensions to ShiaChat can also be given. 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

17 hours ago, Zaidism said:

You have been leaderless for 1188 years, and counting. Did Surah al-Baqarah reveal traits that we may fantasize about, or perhaps they are more pragmatic examples?

We are not leaderless since 1188 years as we are under the leadership of Imam-e-Zamana who is under occultation but helps and guide us like sun behind the clouds but it is you who are leaderless . And our leaders have left us a path to follow during the time when we cannot meet them and that path is to refer to Quran, hadith and those who know hadith. So brother, they have not left anything unexplained.

Edited May 28 by Mahdavist

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Zaidism said:

The Hadith goes as follows: We were in Madina (Hashim bin Salem is narrating this) I, and Al-Taq. The people were gathered over Abdullah son Ja'far, as he was presumed to be the Imam after his father, I and Al-Taq entered upon him and the people were testing him...  so we entered upon him asking him what we were asking his father about, so we asked him about how much zakat is due? He said: In two hundred, five. We said: In a hundred? He said: Two and a half dirhams. We said: By God, what do the Murji’ah say? He said: So he raised his hand to the sky and said: By God, I do not know what the Murji’ah says. He said: So we left him and were astray, not knowing where to go, I and Al-Taq, so we sat in some of the alleys of Madinah crying and bewildered. We do not know where to head, or who to refer to and we sat questioning: (do we go) To the Murji’ah? to the Qadriyyah? To the Zaydiyyah? To the Mu'tazila? [Al-Kafi: 1/399]

What one can infer from this Hadith that fundamentally destroys this fake narrative you're painting of 12 Imams being designated and everyone knowing them:

• Hisham bin Salem and Al-Taq claimed to be the most reliable companions of Imam Al-Sadiq by twelvers do not know who the Imam is after Imam Sadiq
• Al-Taq was teaching Imam Zayd who the Imam was, but now he is confused?!
• The people that were gathered weren't ordinary individuals, they were reputable scholars, and jurists of the Imammiyah
• Al-Taq and Hisham professed that they were misguided after the death of Imam Al-Sadiq, this entails that no sane person would come and say the Imams were designated by name, and number, especially by name. 
• Hisham and Al-Taq did test him, so they entertained the possibility of him being the Imam

This is totally wrong conclusion by you because both of Mumin Al-Taq & Hisham ibn Salim (رضي الله عنه) have been certain about Imamate of Imam Kadhim(عليه السلام) which by pretending to confusion & misguidance they gathered all confused & misguided people due to propaganda of Abbasids around themselve s which by testing "Abdullah son Ja'far" they have shown to all of people that he was not Imam so then by refuting him they have confirmed Imamate of Imam Kadhim (عليه السلام) for all people which Imam Musa Kadhim (عليه السلام) has confirmed loyality & being in tru path of Mumin al-Taq (رضي الله عنه) despite of all propaganda of Abbasids & Nasibis against him.

[Mahdavist]

The unnecessary insults from both sides in this debate are making this thread a nightmare to edit.

We will try and clean it up, after that any personal remarks will result in a warning 

[Mahdavist]

The thread is being reopened, we will be strict against personal attacks and insults so please read your post with a cool mind before submitting it. Jazakumallah. 

[Zaidism]

Thank you brother @Mahdavist, if the brothers/sisters are following through with the discussion br. Ali responded here: 

https://www.iqraonline.net/answering-objections-zayd-and-imamah/

[Zaidism]

The response to his response:

This is a continuation of the dialogue that I have had with the respected seminary student, brother ʿAlī al-Ṣafdarī. I would not like to refer to this as a “rebuttal,” or to necessarily view the matter as a polemical exchange. The reason is because once we begin to delve into these matters with such a mindset, it will undoubtedly poison whatever goodness that may stem from this pursuit which is the intention of arriving at the truth, or seeking to edge closer to it.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the brother for his expression of delight - as is mutual with us - regarding the progression of cordial intellectual exchange, and his suggestion to me personally in exercising better etiquette when referring to controversial personalities. For, those who are endeared by one end, and criticized or shunned by another should indeed be met with neutrality. Lest we be of those who contribute to the stagnation of such dialogues, and exchanges. 

Therefore, I would like to thank the brother for his valued suggestion, and will with the grace of Allāh carry his advice with me, and pray that the dear reader may learn from my mistakes in drawing hasty emotional characterizations which may be null under the epistemology of the interlocutor. 

Although, the intention was not to offend, nor directly disrespect the esteemed brother in particular, and the followers of the Imāmī  tradition in general, I would like to clarify that my choice of referring to al-Ṭāq as ‘‘Shayṭān al-Ṭāq’’ is by reason of this name being recorded as a sobriquet of his which does not necessarily carry a demeaning connotation. For instance, there are reports which mention that he earned this title due to a sense of shrewdness he displayed by identifying fake coins. [1] We find this terminology used to this day in Iraq, for example one may say that there is no way someone can find a way out of this quagmire, while another would respond don’t worry, I know someone he’s a real Shayṭān, and he can figure it out!  

Now, this doesn’t entail that the person is insulting the one who he is referring to as the solution bearer, rather he is indicating in a non-formal way the shrewdness of his companion. Likewise, the sobriquet given to al-Ṭāq, due to his shrewdness in identifying counterfeit coins. So, I saw that it was more fit to choose this title when referring to al-Ṭāq, as opposed to the one which is utilized by the brother, or the Hadith, respectively. The reason is because ‘‘al-Ahwal’’ which means someone who is cross-eyed can come off as a bit offensive for those who have the disability, and I will give another live example from the Iraqi dialectical context. As mentioned when referring to someone as a Shayṭān, it doesn’t necessarily entail that they are devils in the metaphysical sense, rather it can also carry a praiseful undertone, or in other words it is a euphemism for shrewdness. 

Unlike the title that the Hadith, or the respected brother utilize which is ‘‘al-Ahwal,’’ this title does not carry any such praise giving undertone in the context of the Iraqis in particular, or in the context of the Arabic word in general. For instance, if an Iraqi were to refer to someone as ‘‘al-Ahwal’’ they would either say that as a derogatory classification of someone who is actually cross-eyed, or they would say it as a means to highlight the foolishness, or incompetence of said individual. 
Therefore, by virtue of seeing the variety of titles I could have chosen for al-Ṭāq, such as: Shayṭān al-Ṭāq, al-Ahwal al-Ṭāq, and Mu’min al-Ṭāq I found it more apt, especially in contrast to the title given in the Hadith to choose ‘‘Shayṭān al-Ṭāq’’. For, it carries in a sense the hermeneutical capacity to be understood by the Imāmī  as al-Ṭāq ‘‘the shrewd one’’ in a praiseful sense, and for the Zaydi al-Ṭāq ‘‘the Satan’’ in a condemning sense. 

Moreover, this title is more apt, not only by virtue of giving this interpretive reservoir, it is also a title which is earned, as opposed to the aforementioned title of al-Ahwal which is garnered by birth, or at the very least earned by foolishness. However, I understand that this context may not have been present in mind with the reader, and it is apparently disliked nonetheless to refer to al-Ṭāq as such, I will hitherto refer to him in the response without a title as simply ‘‘al-Ṭāq’’. However, I maintain that if one were to choose a title, ‘‘Shayṭān al-Ṭāq’’ would be most apt, due to the reasons mentioned. 

Now, to touch on the perspective given by the brother, he kindly provides a summary of the explanations for the context of the report which are  al-Imām Zayd was engaging in Taqiyyah from al-Ṭāq, hence the ambiguity, and the tension that transpired between them. This explanation held by al-Sayyid al-Khūʾī necessitates Taqiyyah, because it is bound by the premise that al-Imām Zayd has permission from al-Imām al-Ṣādiq. 

Whereas, explanation (b), which the brother kindly shared from al-ʿAllāmah Shaʾrānī takes a different route, and instead holds that al-Imām Zayd acted out of his own accord to rise against the tyrant Hishām, and in doing so he hoped that he would be able to place the rulership in the hands of the rightful heir of the Prophet (p), al-Imām al-Ṣādiq. Both understandings seek to preserve one particular point, and that is the belief of al-Imām Zayd regarding the Imāmah of his nephew al-Imām al-Ṣādiq . Otherwise, there would be no need for Taqiyyah, and or permission. 

Regarding explanation (a) al-Ṣafdarī shifts the argument, and maintains that the issue is not with Taqiyyah, but it is instead with the legitimacy of the revolt of al-Imām Zayd, as such he concedes to the point that the argument presented in the OP (explanation a) is not feasible. This is because, the moment we lift the barrier of Taqiyyah, and take the dialogue at face value it highlights that al-Imām Zayd either disagrees with the claim of al-Ṭāq that his father, brother, and nephew are divinely designated Imāms, or that he did not have permission to revolt. 

Brother ʿAlī is defending against our position which is that al-Imām Zayd does not hold to the claims of al-Ṭāq regarding the divine Imāmah of his father, brother, and nephew, so he is left with defending the perspective given by al-ʿAllāmah Shaʾrānī. 

Moreover, as highlighted in our recent post, the argument capitulated when al-Ṭāq informed al-Imām al-Ṣādiq  regarding the revolt of al-Imām Zayd, and he said [as al-Ṭāq claims] ‘‘You took him from in front and from behind, from the right and from the left, from above his head and from below his legs and did not leave him any way to take’’. If al-Imām Zayd had permission from the Imām, the Imām wouldn’t - as mentioned - commend al-Ṭāq’s misunderstanding of al-Imām Zayd’s supposed innuendoes, but rather inform him that al-Imām Zayd was indeed calling to him. Rather, al-Imām Zayd would have emphasized that in response to al-Ṭāq’s contention.

The reason is because, whatever danger that is being proposed for al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, that he may potentially face by reason of the revolt being traced back to his name is lifted, because al-Ṭāq is (as the Imāmī yah claim) is already aware that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq claims to have this station of divine Imāmah - which is concealed from the laity, masses, and even his kin - and was made aware of the intention of al-Imām Zayd to revolt. 

By this particular reason, there was no need for al-Imām al-Ṣādiq to commend the misunderstanding of al-Ṭāq, that  holds al-Imām Zayd rising without permission, and (b) denying his divine Imāmah; considering that al-Ṭāq already believes in what al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is hiding from the masses which is his Imāmah. 

The essence of the purpose of Taqiyyah is to hide his Imāmah, so, it can unequivocally be said that the one who has knowledge of the Imāmah of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is amongst the most trusted, and therefore to have him knowing that al-Imām Zayd was leading a revolt in his name is not a matter which would add to the already dangerous situation they placed themselves in (as the Imāmī yah claim) of revealing their Imāmah, since that is the crux, and the purpose of the Taqiyyah of the Imāms. Moreover, al-Ṭāq entertains the possibility of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq himself leading a revolt, because he says if the revolt was under his banner he would not mind participating in it. So, the point about not telling al-Ṭāq that al-Imām Zayd had his permission, or al-Imām Zayd himself saying he had permission is absolutely unjustified, hence al-Ṣafdarī forsaking the argument of Taqiyyah, respectively.

 As for explanation (b) which holds that al-Imām Zayd did not have permission, the argument which we are defending is essentially conceded in our favor before it starts. The reason is because, al-Ṭāq is someone who the Imāmī yah can confidently say has a correct grasp on Imāmology, not only by reason of him being among the Khawāṣ (close confidants who are aware of the Imāmah of the Imāms), but also by extension of him being one who engages in debates in defense of the Imāmī  creed! So, taking him as reliable barometer of Imāmology under the Imāmī  lens, we find that the argument al-Ṭāq entertains can be formulated in this syllogistic form: 

P(1) - Imām al-Baqir, and al-Sajjad are divinely appointed Imāms
P(2) - Their obedience is obligatory
P(3) - A legitimate revolt can only be under their banners 
P(4) - A revolt which is not done in their names is not one that a person has to support
C - al-Imām Zayd, and his revolt does not fit this criteria. 

al-Imām Zayd responds to P(1), because the validity of the conclusion, as well as the premises introduced, rest on it. If P(1) is challenged, and refuted the rest of the premises are therefore invalidated. 

He says in response to P(1): ‘‘How could it be that he informed you the truth about the religion [the presence of the Hujja] and did not inform me about it!’’. 
al-Ṭāq counters the response of al-Imām Zayd to P(1) by saying: ‘‘May I be made your ransom – it is only because of his fear of hell-fire for you that he did not inform you! he feared for you that you would reject it and enter the fire, but he informed me [not caring either way] so if I accept I am saved and he was not bothered that I enter the fire [if I reject].’’

Now, if we pause here we can clearly see that the discussion isn’t revolving around al-Imām Zayd asking for permission, or having permission. Rather, it is around the crux of the Imāmī  belief at the time, and the essence of the objection of al-Ṭāq which is that he isn’t a divinely appointed Imām.

Moreover, al-Imām Zayd strengthens this by referring to a narration that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq narrates which addresses the martyrdom of al-Imām Zayd, this narration of course is not something which stems from the knowledge of the unseen - as some have asserted - rather, it is from the prophecies of the Prophet Muḥammad regarding certain members of his household, and what would befall his nation. We read in Nahjul Balāgha when Imām ʿAlī relates the occurrence of a futuristic event that one of his companions questions whether this is knowledge of the unseen, in which al-Imām ʿAlī responds in the negative, but rather what he records is from what he learned from the noble Messenger. [2]

So, essentially we find that explanation B necessarily concedes that al-Imām Zayd is disagreeing on the Imāmah of al-Sajjad, because it is conceded that he is  not engaging in Taqiyyah, and (b) he even tells al-Ṭāq to go to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq himself, and verify the matter of his prophesied martyrdom. So, he is not concerned about al-Imām al-Ṣādiq knowing that he is leading a revolt. 

Furthermore, this reading is not only inconsistent with the complete context of the report itself, it also seeks to inadvertently say that al-Imām Zayd is engaging in a hasty decision, he does not care for the opinion of the Imām of his time, and instead favors his emotions ahead of the will of the Imām, and he was even willing to put the Imām, and the Shīʿa in danger! As one can see, it is a reading which is not fit with the personage of al-Imām Zayd, it is not fit with someone who was raised under the tutelage of al-Imām al-Sajjad, and it is something that we couldn’t imagine a regular lover of the Ahl al-Bayt doing. After all the purpose is the content of Allāh, and under an Imāmī  lens this can only be ascertained through proper observance of the authority placed above oneself. 

al-Ṣafdarī then entertains the primacy of the understanding we have presented regarding this report, and in doing so he maintains that there are other authentic traditions which speak of al-Imām Zayd receiving praise, and being commended by the Imāms. Therefore, by virtue of such, al-Ṣafdarī maintains it is within the capacity of the Imāmī  school to choose a favorable position regarding al-Imām Zayd.

However, the contention here is not whether the position is favorable, or not towards al-Imām Zayd in the same manner that the contention is not whether al-Imām Zayd knew that claims of divine Imāmah were being purported regarding his father, brother, and nephew. Rather, it is to highlight a very critical point which we hope to advance in future dialogues, and it is that we find not only al-Imām Zayd being unaware of the Imāmah of his father, brother, and nephew, but we also find this to be the case with the Khawāṣ themselves in the Imāmī corpus! 

For instance, al-Shaykh ʿAṣif Muḥsinī states: ‘‘And what is mind boggling, the likes of Zurārah did not know who the vicegerent of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq was after his death, and he remained perplexed regarding that matter [i.e who the next Imām is]. Therefore, what is one to make of Hishām b. Sālim, and his likes? [3]
Moreover, perceive the case of al-Ṭāq himself! The one who stood in such staunch opposition to al-Imām Zayd, and claimed that he knew who the Imāms were. 
al-Kulaynī records in al-Kāfī:

[Hishām b. Sālim is the one narrating]: We were in al-Madinah after the death of Abī ʿAbdullāh , I, and Ṣāḥib al-Ṭāq, and the people were gathered around ʿAbdullāh b. Jaʿfar presuming that he is the companion of the matter after his father [i.e presuming he was the next Imām]. So, we entered upon him, I, and Ṣāḥib al-Ṭāq, and the people were among him. For, they have narrated from Abī ʿAbdullāh that the matter is in the eldest, as long as he is sound. We entered upon him seeking to inquire of him that which we inquired from his father, so we asked him regarding al-Zakāt, in what amount is it obligated? He said in two-hundred, five. So, we said, how about in one-hundred? He said, two dirhams, and a half. Thereafter, we said by Allāh, what do the Murji’ah say regarding this? He said: He lifted his arms up to the sky, and said: By Allāh, I don’t know what the Murji’ah say.

He said: We left his vicinity misguided, not knowing where to go, I, and {Abū Jaʿfar al-Ahwal}. So, we sat in one of the alleyways of al-Madinah weeping, and confused, not knowing where to go, and who to go to, saying do we go to the Murji’ah, the Qadariyyah, or the Zaidiyyah? [4]

What can be deduced from this report?

Not only is al-Imām Zayd unaware of his father, brother, and nephew claiming divine Imāmah, rather the very ones who are supporting this claim against him are left confused - by the testimony of their own tongues!

al-Ṭāq argues against al-Imām Zayd, and he confidently states that the Imāms are clearly X, Y, and Z. Yet, after al-Imām al-Ṣādiq he is bewildered, and does not know where to go?! And this is the case with the Imāmī yah after each, and every Imām? Where are the golden chains that seem to be present today that clearly narrate the designation of one Imām after the other? Even the claim that only the number is revealed is not substantiated as among those jurists who gathered among ʿAbdullāh al-Aftah became Waqifites, and they were among the reliable jurists of the Imāmī yah, and their narrations are still accepted. 

Was al-Imām al-Ṣādiq concerned that his companions would be envious of his successor so he concealed it from them in the same manner that he concealed it from al-Imām Zayd? This is consistent with the argument of al-Ṭāq, yet reasonably unconvincing. 

Regarding the early Alids:

When mentioning the Ḥasanī, and Ḥusaynī Imāms from the Zaydi school, those who lived during the time of the Zaydi school. The purpose is to highlight that there is no need for them to be unaware regarding the Imāmah of their kin, especially when Allāh (the Exalted) says: 

{And warn your nearest relations} [26:214].

{Believers, guard yourselves and your kindred against a Fire whose fuel is human beings and stones} [66:66]

{Indeed, Allāh commands justice, grace, as well as aid to close relatives} [16:90].

What greater warning, guardianship, and aid can come from the Imām besides him revealing that he is an Imām to al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, al-Imām al-Nafs ar-Raḍīyyah, and the other Alids who are testified to be of nobility, and Godliness, as highlighted in the original response.

Now al-Ṣafdarī makes a few problematic claims, saying that ‘‘Imām al-Ṣādiq did not give allegiance to Muḥammad nor officially/publicly support his uprising’’. Moreover, he states ‘‘perhaps the strongest deterrent for Imām al-Ṣādiq and his followers was the introduction of this individual as the Mahdī’’.

We ask, what more does one want as a showcase of support then to send your very own sons into battle with al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and to openly pledge allegiance?! We assume that al-Ṣafdarī has not come across the statement of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq in al-Maqatil which is also recorded in al-Irshād by al-Mufīd: 
‘‘By Allāh, we will not leave you alone in this matter - and you are our Shaykh - and we will pledge allegiance to your son [Muḥammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah]’’. [5]

 How much more explicit does al-Imām al-Ṣādiq need to be, and how unfortunate would it be for one to subscribe to the narrative of those who oppose grand Imāms like al-Imām Zayd, and then sit in alleyways weeping? I think that it is conducive to say that the Zaydi Imāms who are the kin of the Imāms of the Imāmī yah are more reliable in their claims, especially when the actions of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq are in support of them. What about the sons of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq who al-Shaykh al-Ḥasan al-Amīn says regarding them in astonishment! 

‘‘And what is mind boggling! Two of the sons of al-Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq moved towards the Zaydiyyah, and they are: Muḥammad and ʿAbdullāh’’. [6]
Respected Shaykh, I do not see the matter as mind boggling, rather what is mind boggling is that Imām al-Ṣādiq would have his sons deviate as Zaydis, noble men from the Alids deviate as Zaydis, give Bayʿah to the Imām of the Zaydis, and choose to only guide al-Ṭāq, and co. In secrecy.

Our response to the one who holds this is the very response of our beloved Imām Zayd:
‘’Woe to you! Do you not fear Allāh (the Exalted)? You claim that the Imām guides in secrecy, and causes others to deviate in the open?! By Allāh, I would not be pleased if I caused one individual from the creation of Allāh (the Exalted) to deviate while having the entire nation guided by me except for that one individual which I caused to deviate. []

You must in the word of al-Imām al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan ‘‘Be wary! That you claim your Imām guides in secrecy, and causes others to deviate in the open. By Allāh, I would not be pleased if I had whatever the sun rises, and sets upon, yet be the cause for a single soul to deviate. []

Otherwise, to what extent are we going to entertain this Taqiyyah narrative, the religion of Allāh, and His Messenger is not a game. 
As for the claim that al-Imām ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan (who al-Imām al-Ṣādiq referred to as his Shaykh) promoted the belief that al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah is the Mahdī, and that al-Imām al-Ṣādiq is envious of him - this is nothing short of a lie, and slander upon the grandson of both al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn!
The Rijaal in the Sanad in Maqatil which mention al-Imām ʿAbdullāh saying this have Imāmī s in them, so this verbiage in the text can clearly be understood as an interpolation, and nonetheless the Bayʿah of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq to al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and his reverence to al-Imām ʿAbdullāh within that very report overshadow such a narrative. 

Furthermore, al-Mufīd in al-Irshād mentions Imām Ṣādiq referring to al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and he makes a very critical statement. He does not say his uncle al-Imām ʿAbdullāh believes his son is the Mahdī, he says {some people} have been circulating a rumor that he is the Mahdī - due to his name, birthmark, etc. Imām Ṣādiq states that the people are saying he is the Mahdī. 

Now to conclude, I will present the Zaydi narrative

It has been narrated from Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥasanī with his reliable chain to a man from the companions of al-Imām ʿAbdullāh al-Maḥḍh, he said: We came to him - Imām ʿAbdullāh al-Maḥḍh - and he was being carried by Abū Jaʿfar (in the palanquin), we said to him: O Son of the Messenger of Allāh, your son Muḥammad is the Mahdī? He said: Muḥammad will rise from here, and he pointed to al-Madinah, his nose will be like that of the charging bull until he is killed. Afterwards, ʾIbrāhīm (b. ʿAbdullāh) will rise from here, his nose will be like that of the charging bull until he is killed. However, when you hear that the promised one has risen from Khurāsān, he shall be the one you inquire of. 

ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, was asked regarding his brother Muḥammad ((عليه السلام)), and whether he was the Mahdī that was mentioned?
He said: The Mahdī is a promise from Allāh to His Prophet (p), He promised that He would make from his family a Mahdī. He did not state who he was in particular, nor did He specify his time. My brother has risen with his obligation towards enjoining good, and forbidding evil, if Allāh wishes to make him the promised Mahdī that was mentioned, then such is a blessing from Allāh whom He places on whom He pleases of His creation. If he is not, then he did not forsake his obligation towards Allāh by waiting for a coming that he was not ordered [by Allāh] to wait for.

It has been narrated from Sufyān b. Khālid al-Aʿshah, he said: A group of people from Kūfa entered upon Zayd b. ʿAlī when he reached al-Kūfa, they said: O Son of the Messenger of Allāh, are you the Mahdī who has been narrated to us as the one who will fill the world with justice? He said: No, they said: Then we fear that you may be a means to our oppression, he said: Be wary! What do you mean by that? They said: Our homes will be destroyed, our children will be forsaken, and we will be killed under every stone. He said: Be wary! Do you not know that there is not a century that passes where Allāh (the Exalted and Mighty) does not send a man from us, or a man from us rises as an authority over the people, those of knowledge will know him, and those of ignorance will be ignorant of him. 

What honorable men indeed! Within these great narrations there is a clear indication of the sincerity, and virtue of these great Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt. For, if they were as some mischievous hands have written, and ignorant mouths have espoused - those who seek rulership as an end, instead of justice why did they not take this matter towards their advantage? The people not only presumed that al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah was the promised Mahdī, they yearned for that to be the case. I ask, how much more successful would their campaign be had they advertised themselves as the promised Mahdī, the father of the promised Mahdī, and his brother? 

And I end with the supplication of our dear Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘‘May Allāh have mercy upon the sons of Hind, they were of great benevolence, and generosity. By Allāh! They have departed us, and not a single blemish has stricken them’’. [9]

I invite you, dear reader, to reflect sincerely, to judge fairly, and to rise for the call of supporting our beloved Prophet, and his noble progeny. 

Written by: Muḥammad al-Sharīfī

https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool

Sources:

[1] -  He had received these epithets since he had an exchange shop in "Ṭāq al-Maḥāmil", a neighborhood in Kūfa. And since he was an expert in his job and detected fake money, he came to be called "Shayṭān al-Ṭāq". 
Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 132; Najāshī, Rijāl al-Najāshī, p. 325; Kashshī, Ikhtīyār maʿrifat al-rijāl, vol. 2, p. 422.
[2] - https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul.../sermon-128-o-ahnaf
[3] - Mashraʿt Biḥār al-Anwār: v.1, pg. 412.
[4] - al-Kāfī v.1, pg. 351.
 مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ أَبِي يَحْيَى اَلْوَاسِطِيِّ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ قَالَ: كُنَّا بِالْمَدِينَةِ بَعْدَ وَفَاةِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ أَنَا وَ صَاحِبُ اَلطَّاقِ وَ اَلنَّاسُ مُجْتَمِعُونَ عَلَى عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ أَنَّهُ صَاحِبُ اَلْأَمْرِ بَعْدَ أَبِيهِ فَدَخَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ أَنَا وَ صَاحِبُ اَلطَّاقِ وَ اَلنَّاسُ عِنْدَهُ وَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُمْ رَوَوْا عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ إِنَّ اَلْأَمْرَ فِي اَلْكَبِيرِ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ بِهِ عَاهَةٌ فَدَخَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ نَسْأَلُهُ عَمَّا كُنَّا نَسْأَلُ عَنْهُ أَبَاهُ فَسَأَلْنَاهُ عَنِ اَلزَّكَاةِ فِي كَمْ تَجِبُ فَقَالَ فِي مِائَتَيْنِ خَمْسَةٌ فَقُلْنَا فَفِي مِائَةٍ فَقَالَ دِرْهَمَانِ وَ نِصْفٌ فَقُلْنَا وَ اَللَّهِ مَا تَقُولُ اَلْمُرْجِئَةُ هَذَا قَالَ فَرَفَعَ يَدَهُ إِلَى اَلسَّمَاءِ فَقَالَ وَ اَللَّهِ مَا أَدْرِي مَا تَقُولُ اَلْمُرْجِئَةُ قَالَ فَخَرَجْنَا مِنْ عِنْدِهِ ضُلاَّلاً لاَ نَدْرِي إِلَى أَيْنَ نَتَوَجَّهُ أَنَا وَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ اَلْأَحْوَلُ فَقَعَدْنَا فِي بَعْضِ أَزِقَّةِ اَلْمَدِينَةِ بَاكِينَ حَيَارَى لاَ نَدْرِي إِلَى أَيْنَ نَتَوَجَّهُ وَ لاَ مَنْ نَقْصِدُ وَ نَقُولُ إِلَى اَلْمُرْجِئَةِ إِلَى اَلْقَدَرِيَّةِ إِلَى اَلزَّيْدِيَّةِ
[5] - al-Irshād v.2, pg. 192. | Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn: pg. 197.
[6] - Mustadrak ʾAyān al-Shīʿa, v.1, pg. 71.
[7] - Manāqib al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī.
[8] - al-ʿAqd al-Thamīn fī Aḥkām al-Aʾimmah al-Hādīn: pg, 306-307.
[9] - Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn: pg. 222.

 

[Muslim2010]

On 5/27/2022 at 10:08 PM, Muslim2010 said:

Our response to Zaydis remains the same as given below:

Please quote a verse of quran (as first  source of religion) to define the principle that people can choose imams for their guidance instead  Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) selected and appointed imams /caliphs.

From the second source of guidance in religion please quote us a hadith that Zaidiya imams particularly Zaid bin Ali after Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), have been chosen / selected as mentioned by the hadith of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

As the religion islam is based on quran and hadith of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for all  sects then the above evidences are vital for confirmation  of zaidiya claims.

And so far as today Zaydis are failed to provide the evidence of their conjectures and false claims.

wasalam

The Zadiya response on these questions comes as:

"There is no such Hadith brother"

The following is conclusion on this matter from our side:

1.    Zaid bin Ali was not an Imam of the Ahl alabayt  like Imam Ali (عليه السلام)., Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). He was selected by the people (mostly after his death) as so called Imam / leader like first three caliphs of sunnis.

2.    There is no hadith from the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or first three divinely appointed Imams as mentioned above, that so called Imams / leaders of Zadiya after Zaid bin Ali were Imāms of Ahl albayt  instead they were selected pseudo  Imams / leaders by the people like three caliphs of sunnis.

3.    There is no evidence by authentic hadith to justify the so called  Zaidis claims about their concept of pseudo imams / leaders including Zaid bin Ali and those after him (before a thought like that of weight of an atom can be given to such Zaidy claims).

4.     Thus the concept of  Immamah as presented by Zaidiya for the pseudo Zaydi Imams including Zaid bin and those afterwards stands clearly rejected.

 

wasalam

Edited June 5 by Muslim2010