Refuting Shaykh al-Mufid's Arguments for the Occultation

[Zaydism]

This is a response to an article published by iqraaonline, titled: Occultation and Mahdawiyyat in the Writings of Shaykh al-Mufid (Part 1)

I will be assessing each epistle, and presenting my contentions, this is by no means a comprehensive treatment. Rather, an abstract which seeks to cover the gist of the implications, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies found within each epistle.

The prelude to the writings of Shaykh al-Mufid provides a promising introduction maintaining that it is a treatise which is essentially ‘‘dealing with all the major questions surrounding the issue [of occultation] quite comprehensively,’’ adding that it ‘‘represents one of the most holistic and comprehensive treatments regarding the ghaybah’’. 

Now, it is correct to say the Imamiya have been subject (unfortunately) to being mocked for holding such a theological position, indeed mockery has no place in sincere discourse that seeks to arrive at truth. Therefore, I assure the respected reader there will be no such mockery, and the arguments provided by the respected Shaykh will be addressed head on, by the will of Allah, the Exalted.

The Traditionist Style Based on Narrations

Continuing with the prelude, the writer mentions that the traditionist approach is able to present texts which affirm the occultation, and its necessity via mass-transmitted reports, be it from the Shi’i (Imami) corpus, or the Sunni corpus. To expeditiously address this point, I would like to touch on the claims made regarding the Imami, and the Sunni corpus, respectively. 

With respect to the Imami corpus, the claim that there will be a series of Imams, one succeeding the other, and finally concluding at the seal of the Imams, the Twelfth Imam. We find that upon examination this is a claim which does not corroborate under historical, and internal textual criticism. Namely, the fact that the companions of the Imams themselves, and the mainstream body of the Imami Shia (let alone the remainder of the Muslims) were unaware who each Imam is after each Imam, to the extent that the close confidants of the Imams such as Zurara, Hisham b. Salim, Hisham b. al-Hakam, al-Taq, et al. were unaware of who the Imam is after each Imam. 

Now, one may retort for instance regarding the point on Zurara, and claim that the reason Zurara said that he does not know who his Imam is, and sent his son to find the matter out, is because he did not receive permission to let the Muslims, or the Shia know who the Imam is. In support of this appeal to Taqiyya, the Twelver interlocutor would cite a narration from our beloved Imam, al-Imam Ali b. Musa al-Rida, and therein he would excuse Zurara. 

Depending on the methodology that one seeks to follow in hadith scrutiny, if one holds to that of al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini, or the present methodology (not the latter) of al-Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari, they will deduce that this narration is not reliable and henceforth Zurara died without knowing the Imam of his time. Hence, you find such an explicit statement mentioned in Mishr’at bihar al-Anwar by al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini. 

However, the intent here is to be as decisive, and as all-encompassing as one can be. So, I will cite another tradition which is essentially back-breaking, and it leaves no excuse for Taqiyya whatsoever. Thus shattering the claim of there being any such hadith that designates twelve Imams by name, thereafter, I will address within my another inaccuracy mentioned, not by the writer of the introduction, rather by al-Shaykh al-Mufid himself when mentioning that two occultations were alluded to by the noble Imams. 

As for the narration which essentially highlights, alongside the point regarding Zurara, we find that al-Taq himself is unaware who his Imam is after al-Sadiq as well! The translated hadith is courtesy of the Thaqalayn hadith library, I will be commenting on particular sections of the hadith by denoting the words ‘I say’ to indicate that this is not part of the hadith, rather it is my commentary:

[2/280] Irshad al-Mufid: Ibn Qulawayh from al-Kulayni from Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Abi Yahya al-Wasiti from Hisham b. Salim who said: Muhammad b. al-Nu’man Sahib al-Taq and I were in Madina after the death of Abi Abdillah عليه السلام and the people had gathered around Abdallah b. Ja’far - considering him to be the Master of the Affair after his father.

I say: These people are Imami Shia, some of them were even jurists of the Imamiya, and they clearly did not know who the Imam was after al-Sadiq. Otherwise, what are they all doing gathered around Abdullah al-Aftah? Explicitly, it is because they are unaware of this purported mass-transmitted hadith. Moreover, them considering him to be the Master of the Affair after his father is an indication that al-Sadiq (we expunge this attribution to our beloved Imam al-Sadiq, which unfortunately our Imami brothers support) seemed to have concealed a matter of salvation from the Muslims, while the Messenger himself, nor any Prophet before him was permitted to conceal any matter of salvation from the Muslims, let alone their close confidants. 

Indeed, our Imami brothers boast about how al-Imam al-Sadiq had thousands of students from the generality, yet seem to ignore the fact that these students were all (far be it from al-Imam al-Sadiq) ill-informed by the Imam regarding a matter which pertains to their salvation, as he went on to touch rather pedantic matters of jurisprudence? Moreover, to retort that the Imam only told those few in number who would have believed, is to go against the example of the Prophets, and the Sunnah of Allah which does not alter, in matters of salvation (see Q. 35:43). The message was universal: {And say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “˹This is˺ the truth from your Lord. Whoever wills let them believe, and whoever wills let them disbelieve.”} [al-Kahf: 29]. 

Furthermore, let us forget the community of the Muslims, the Shia of the Ahl al-Bayt, and even these acclaimed close confidants of the Imams. Why were their families unaware, the righteous from among them, that is. Indeed, in Epistle Two, the respected Shaykh scoffs at this question, yet it is indeed a question of striking significance in lieu of the Glorious Quran. For, the Imams who are to follow the example of the Messenger of Allah, and the Quran must heed the words of His Majesty to our beloved Messenger, wherein He, the Glorious, states: {Warn your nearest kinsfolk} [26:214]. 

So, our Prophet, upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace, went on to warn the community of his kinsfolk, before the Muslims, informing Abu Jahl, and Abu Lahab regarding his Prophethood. Indeed, matters of salvation can never be concealed, and interestingly in Epistle Four, the respected Shaykh says: ‘‘It may also be said that for the previous Imāms, if they were to pass away there would be another Imām who would take their place’’. 

If his eminence finds no fault in maintaining such a position, then we can rightfully object in addition to the Quran, and the example of every single Prophet, and every single instance that salvation was tied to a matter that the matter had to be professed to the people. Otherwise, this is pure injustice; al-Imam al-Sadiq could have informed those thousands of Muslims, hundreds of Shias, and his own family that he was an Imam, and although he may be subject to death, this would be a clear benefit to the Islamic nation in its entirety. 

However, we also ask those who believe that the Imams have knowledge of the, did not the Prophet say: {Say, “I have no power to benefit or protect myself, except by the Will of Allah. If I had known the unknown, I would have benefited myself enormously, and no harm would have ever touched me. I am only a warner and deliverer of good news for those who believe.”}. 

Truly, if the Imam had knowledge of the unseen, he can never be touched by harm, for he would know from where it is coming, when it is coming, and from who it is coming, and he would know where to avoid it, when to avoid it, and who to avoid. I can list the infinite ways that a person who possesses knowledge of the unseen could dominate the world, and do so without ever committing a sin.

Now, if one would retort that Allah does not permit the Imam to utilize his knowledge of the unseen, save through particular instances - which clearly make no difference whatever example one may give - then, such a person is maintaining that Allah has given a quality to the Imam which is simply arbitrary, and Allah does not do arbitrary things. So, be wary of His Majesty.

Finally, it is critical to note that Allah also says: {O believers! Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones}. The beginning of this, is to inform them that belief in your Imama amounts to salvation, if one says - like al-Taq - that the Imams did not inform them, due to knowing that they would not believe, then they would capitulate via the aforementioned contentions given with regards to the example of the Prophet, and the incoherence of having knowledge of the unseen. 

The hadith continued:

We entered in to meet him while the people were with him. We asked him about the Zakat - at what amount is it to be levied? He said: five silver coins for every two hundred. We said: what about in a hundred silver coins? He said: two and a half silver coins. We said: by Allah this is what the Murjia say! he said: by Allah I do not even know what the Murjia say! He [Hisham] said: So I and Abu Ja’far al-Ahwal came out feeling lost not knowing where to go. We sat down in one of the streets of Madina, with our heads lowered, not knowing where to head or whom to seek. We kept saying to ourselves: Should we join the Murjia, or the Qadariyya, or the Mu’tazila or the Zaydiyya? We were still mulling over this when I saw an old man whom I did not recognize gesturing at me with his hand [to follow him]. I feared that he would turn out to be one of the spies of Abi Ja’far al-Mansur, for he [the Abbasid Caliph] had spies in Madina ready to inform him the identity of the one around whom the people unite after Ja’far so that he [the successor] can be taken and killed. I feared that this was one such spy. I therefore said to al-Ahwal: Depart [from this place] for I fear for both of us, but he only wants me not you, so get away from me to save your life and escape death. He [al-Ahwal] withdrew far away while I followed the old man. I did this because I felt that I could not escape him. I kept following him having readied myself to meet death. He led me until we reached the door of Abi al-Hasan Musa عليه السلام whereupon he left me and departed. Suddenly a servant appeared at the door and said to me: Enter may Allah have mercy on you. 

I say: Here is the critical point: 

I entered and found Abu al-Hasan Musa عليه السلام who said to me without being prompted: To me! To me! Not to the Murjia, nor the Qadariyya, nor the Mu’tazila, nor the Zaydiyya or the Khawarij. I said: May I be made your ransom - has your father passed on? He said: Yes. I said: passed away in death? He said: Yes. I said: Who do we have after him? He said: If Allah the Elevated wishes to guide you He will. I said: May I be made your ransom - your brother Abdallah claims to be the Imam after his father. He said: Abdallah wishes that Allah not be worshipped.

I said: May I be made your ransom - who is for us after him [your father]? He said: If Allah wishes to guide you He will. I said: May I be your ransom - is it you? 

I say: There is no room for Taqiyya here, so why is he unaware that al-Kazim is the Imam? 

He said: I do not say that. He [Hisham] said: I said to myself [in my heart]: I am not putting the question appropriately. Then I said to him: May I be made your ransom - is there an Imam over you? 

He said: No. There entered me a feeling of awe and reverence towards him which no one knows about except Allah. Then I said to him: May I be made your ransom - can I ask you the way I used to ask your father? He said: Ask and you will be informed but do not publicize it for if you do that then it will be slaughter. [Hisham says:] I asked him and found him to be an ocean [of knowledge] which does not dry up [is not exhausted].

I said: May I be made your ransom - the Shia of your father are lost should I avail them of this matter and call them to accept you [as the Imam] for you have binded me to secrecy? He said: The one in whom you detect signs of receptivity to guidance then inform him of this and bind him to secrecy for if he publicizes it then it will be slaughter - and he pointed with his hand to his throat. He [Hisham] said: I left his presence and met Aba Ja’far al-Ahwal. He said to me: What is behind you? I said: Guidance! and relayed to him the whole story. Then we encountered Zurara and Aba Basir who both entered in to see him [al-Kadim] and heard his talk and asked him and believed in him. 

I say: Glory be to Allah, so the Imam here just left the matter in their hands? They are the ones who would detect who is deserving of guidance, or not? They would choose who to inform? Again, the point on Zurara is established here where those closest to al-Sadiq are now enlightened as to who the next Imam is. Therefore, the charge that even the close-confidants were unaware of the Imama of each Imam after each Imam by even the elites is established. 

Hadith continued:

Then we met the people in droves, whoever enters in to meet him [al-Kadhim] believes in him, except for the group led by Ammar al-Sabati [who were Fathis], and the people abandoned Abdallah and no one entered in to see him except very few. Concluded. 

So, to say this is something which ‘mass-transmitted’ even if one is referring to the Imamiya exclusively, is either said out of deceit, or it is said out of ignorance, and we hope that the respected brothers are not seeking to deceive the laity. We have noticed that there seems to be an interesting surge of quotes that are shared by Twelver institutes, such as al-Mizan, and others that seem to promote this idea that the Prophet designated all twelve imams. Again, are these institutions willfully deceiving the laity? If not, then those who take part in these institutions, or promote them should not allow them to deceive the people, for the sake of their afterlife. Indeed, to lie upon the Prophet, and to lie to the people is something quite dangerous. Nonetheless, I digress. 

Moreover, the second claim, which is that the matter is mass-transmitted in respect to the Sunnis ought to be addressed as well. Firstly, the writer should be clear in mentioning that what is meant by Sunnis is mainstream Sunnis, otherwise, not all those who fall under the classification of Sunni necessarily hold to the narrations regarding the Mahdi to be mass-transmitted. This is from an angle, from another angle, mentioning the point on the Sunnis is mere fluff, respectively, it proves nothing at all whatsoever, and it is non-sequitur at best. 

The Prophet simply states that the Mahdi will be born in the end times, so what point is the writer seeking to make here? In what way is this even remotely substantive? Furthermore, there are those, for instance Ibn Taymiyya who maintain that the Mahdi, from the sons of the Prophet will be from the lineage of al-Imam al-Hasan. Thus supporting the Zaydi conception which rightfully limits the Imama to the sons of al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, as there is no evidence to limit the Imama to the sons of al-Husayn exclusively, let alone only nine from the sons of al-Husayn, upon them be peace. 

Now, we will delve into the Epistles themselves, as we have sought to expeditiously touch on the aspect of tradition - which much more can be explicated in its regard - after addressing each epistle, the reader will find that anyone who departs from the Ahl al-Bayt, upon them be peace, and chooses to follow those who are not from the Ahl al-Bayt: {is like that of the spider who takes a home. And indeed, the weakest of homes is the home of the spider} [29:41]. 

The preamble begins by mentioning the ontological necessity of an Imam, namely the Imam has to be infallible, and perfect so as to be able to guide in matters of religion. Now, let us apply S5 modal logic to this claim of necessity, I will concede the point on infallible guidance - the Zaydis also claim such guidance, and it can also be grasped, and tested. However, more on this elsewhere - the point on ontological necessity, like the point on Sunni traditions mentioning the Mahdi are essentially the same, they are once again non-sequitur. 

How so, well I have conceded that in all possible worlds there needs to be a source of infallible guidance. However, this does not maintain the Twelver view, as it is not contradictory, nor does the argument of Shaykh al-Mufid apply here, since in another possible world the Imams could have been 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,etc.

Therefore, the claim of ontological necessity is negated on grounds of it begging the question. Furthermore, the argument collapses via modus tollens, since there is no guidance to begin with, and guidance is placed in the hands of the Shia of the Twelfth Imam who painfully differ between themselves, so much so - as will be highlighted - that they held beliefs of determinism, and anthropomorphism. 

So, seeing that ‘‘This paradigm is employed by al-Mufīd in all his other treatises, and Sharīf al-Murtaḍā adopts and expands on this same methodology in his book “Al-Muqni’ fī al-Ghaybah,” according to the writer. I have addressed how the methodology is explicitly flawed. 

Now, we arrive at the First Epistle: 

Here, al-Shaykh al-Mufid is addressing the question on how it can be claimed that the eleventh Imam, upon him be peace, hid the birth of his son from all of his other relatives. The Shaykh goes on to provide examples of how some individuals hid the birth of their sons, and then this birth was established, and accepted via testimony by two upright Muslims. He also goes on to mention how these examples indicate that hiding a birth (when justified) is justified by virtue of it being contingent on a greater good. Then, the Shaykh concludes by mentioning that a wide range of pious, and trustworthy companions testified to the existence of the twelfth Imam.

In response to the Shaykh, I will begin by mentioning that just because some individuals hid the birth of their sons, this does not mean that the same conditions are viable for the Imam. For example, someone who is tasked with guiding has a greater duty towards guidance, and although person X may be permitted to go on about his life living a pious, and virtuous life, the Imam is not excused to do the same, because the Imam is tasked with actively guiding. 

The reader is invited to reflect on how the Shaykh, may Allah forgive him, chose to cite kings, and historical figures, as opposed to the Quran, or any Prophet. The reason is because, as I mentioned, they are tasked with guidance, and therefore cannot hide, or conceal said guidance, nor said personages who are linked to guidance. Especially from their righteous kindred, who are righteous by consensus. The only way to avoid this quagmire is to say that salvation is not tied to the Twelfth Imam, of course this wouldn’t solve the implications of Imami theology, however, it would exhibit the expected decorum.

In terms of the Shaykh mentioning righteous personages, those who have claimed to have seen the Imam, their case is not like that of the aforementioned case(s) where someone’s lineage would be established by two Muslims, because nobody denied the testimony of those two Muslims. However, in this extraordinary case, you have the kindred of the Imam himself telling these foreigners that what they claim is something which is unfound, and the kindred of the Imam who are negating what these foreigners say are themselves upright, and known for their truthfulness, righteousness, and sacrifice for the religion of Allah. 

Indeed, our respected scholar al-Kazim al-Zaydi makes a wonderful point, he mentions that the Zaydi Imams in particular would be the most joyous, and felicitous if there was a Twelfth Imam, or Twelve designated Imams. This is because they wouldn’t have to face bloodshed, and persecution. Instead, they could sit in the comfort of their homes, and say the matter is in the hands of the Imam. So, it also cannot be said that they rejected this claim out of worldly desire, god forbid, and may one be wary for the sake of their afterlife in charging the greats from among the Ahl al-Bayt with this. 

We thank Allah that the works of the Imams such as the Star of the Ahl al-Bayt al-Imam al-Qasim al-Rassi, or al-Imam al-Nasir al-Utrush are extant. The reader is invited to peruse their writings and see the worldly detachment, and absolute fear of Allah which emanates from their noble works. Therein, one can examine such a matter through a psychological lens. 

The Second Epistle: 

I find that the Shaykh seems to be attacking a strawman here, as the argument is not expressed in its proper form. The point that is being made, unlike the claims of the Imamiya, is that Ja’far al-Naqi is someone who is righteous, and he is closely related to the eleventh Imam. So, why was he not informed, since he explicitly maintains that the father of the twelfth Imam did not have a son. If the Shaykh does not accept Ja’far al-Naqi, he can easily be substituted by a plethora of righteous personages, namely al-Imam Zayd himself who denied the fundamental theological claims of the Imamiya. 

The Third Epistle: 

Yes, if he mentioned that he had a son it would go against the Taqiyya narrative. However, Allah guards, and defends those who carry His message. The message of Allah is never promulgated via occult means, if one, as the Shaykh will mention, seeks to say that there are cases where Prophets, or Imams delegated certain personages this still does not address the contention. The reason is because the Prophet, or Imam being the source of delegation is explicit, it is not something which is dubious. Moreover, never once did Allah link a matter of salvation with occultation. 

The Fourth Epistle: 

The Shaykh mentions that the reason for the forefathers Imam being apparent, and not occult is namely, due to (a) they were engaged in Taqiyya, and (b) they did not place themselves under suspicion. In response to the Shaykh, what he is doing is that he is presupposing the matter, and then providing justification. This does not answer the contention, as the Imam could have engaged in Taqiyya as well, and he could also avoid matters which would place him under questioning. 

Now, one can say that they were after him, as the Shaykh maintains. However, as explicitly demonstrated, and as the Imamiya maintain, only a select few knew of his existence to begin with. So, how can it be said that the Abbasids were hellbent on finding him, and killing him when his only family was perplexed regarding his existence? 

The only answer to this is that the Abbasids were aware of this to begin with, as they are notorious for their ploys, and tactics of deceit which would make one’s skin crawl after taking some time to look into their deeds. Moreover, if one were to consult al-Fihrist for al-Shaykh al-Tusi, they will find that a wide range of those who the Imamis deem reliable worked in very critical positions in relation to the Abbasids - not to mention the Nawbakhat family. 

Furthermore, point (b) is simply incorrect, because al-Kazim, upon him be peace, participated in the rebellion of al-Imam al-Nafs al-Zakiyya, upon him be peace, and even when he pardoned them we find that al-Imam al-Sadiq insisted that he, and his brother Abdullah participate. 
The Fifth Epistle:

In this epistle, the Shaykh makes a grand blunder, it is not his circular reasoning for the reliability of the companions of the eleventh Imam which has been addressed already. Rather, it is his saying regarding the deputies of the Imam ‘‘these same individuals were the intermediaries between him and his Shī’ah. Religious teachings and communications were transmitted from him through these individuals. These individuals also became his representatives in collecting the religious tithes of the Shī’ah’’. I will obstruct this claim by mentioning a severe implication that pertains to the deputies.

During the time of the deputies, the Qomi school was known for its problematic positions, which today are scoffed at, and rightfully so by our Imami brothers. Namely, it is holding to the belief in Tashbih, and Jabr. In the Rasa’il of Shareef al-Murtadha, he notes that all the scholars of Qom with exception to al-Shaykh al-Saduq were upon this creed of Jabr, and Tashbih. Now, if these deputies, those who were supposedly in communication with the Imam, and also knowledgeable as the Shaykh claims, had sent letters to the scholars in Qom so that they may check their Aqeedah for them, what does this say to you? 

Does it support that they were in communication with the Imam? Clearly not, forget guiding the Muslims, or even the Shia, the Imam didn’t guide his own deputies away from anthropomorphism, and determinism! Are these really individuals one is to feel safe in accepting their claims with regards to creed?

Indeed, al-Shaykh al-Tusi has narrated that Abi al-Qasim al-Husayn b. Ruh sent a book to the scholars of Qom, and he wrote to some of its jurists saying: ((Look into this book, and inform me, is there anything in it that you oppose?)). Then, they wrote back to him, saying: It is all correct, and there is nothing within it which opposes us [in creed]. [Ghaybat al-Tusi: 390, also see Tarikh al-Ghayba: v.1, 513]. Furthermore, Muhammad Hadi al-Yusufi said: ((When al-Shalmaghani wrote Kitab al-Ta’dib, al-Shaykh al-Nawbakhti sent it to Qom)) [Mawsu’at al-Tarikh al-Islami: v.8, 583].

Finally, al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini explicitly negates the claim of al-Shaykh al-Mufid, in terms of the deputies being knowledgeable - although, one would at least expect the representatives of the Imams to have their creed in tact, or instead of asking Qomi scholars who clearly needed guidance themselves, to ask the Mahid to guide them. Rather, if it is too much for the Mahdi to guide them, at the very least he could point his deputy to the Baghdadi school instead. Interestingly, the Qomi school can be revived, seeing that the one who would want to take their problematic positions in creed could easily cite the very own deputy of the Imam! 

The Shaykh writes: ((The delegation of the deputies is not due to their superior knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis. Rather, it is due to other reasons. This is why al-Husayn b. Ruh was compelled to send a book to the jurists of Qom. For, he himself was able to differentiate, he would have looked into it himself, as usual)). [Mu’jam al-Ahadith al-Mu’tabara: v.2, 354]. What more does one need to say, and how much more does one need to demonstrate when it comes to the incoherence of such a theology? 

Although Shaykh Asif would also hold oal-Shaykh al-Mufid in question regarding his claim that ‘‘Religious teachings and communications were transmitted from him through these individuals’’. I would also like the reader to note that the excuse al-Shaykh Asif gives is unacceptable as well, when states that: ((The delegation of the deputies is not due to their superior knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis. Rather, it is due to other reasons)).

We have to know those reasons, otherwise, why are we being held to accept the claims of representatives of an infallible Imam who have no superior knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis. Yet, have a superior standing among the Abbasids, and SubhanAllah comfortably collect the Khums while the Abbasids are just sitting there and watching this unfold. For, shouldn’t they be panicking? Aren’t they collecting khums so that the Imam can use it to fight against these tyrants, wasn’t this the mainstream early Imami conception - as Sayyid Kamal notes, the Shia would sleep with their swords under their pillows thinking the Imam is going to rise at any moment. Honestly, it is beyond hysteria at this point, and it is unacceptable that one even takes this seriously. 

The disaster is one can keep on relating contradiction after contradiction, travesty after travesty, the Twelver creed is a creed which fails drastically in light of the Quran, the Sunnah, history, and in light of their own corpus. Keep in mind during the time of Shaykh al-Mufid, the Shia were having problems with an Imam being absent for more than a century. Can you imagine the look on their faces when informed that the Imam is absent for 1189 years, and counting?!

Again, the respected Shaykh strawmans this question as well, because the point isn’t that its not conceivable that the Imam can be absent for over a hundred years, I don’t have an issue - and neither do the ones who raise this contention - that the Imam could be occult for a million years. The problem is the absence of the Imam entails the absence of the implementation of the Shariah of Allah, hence Wilayat al-Faqih after a thousand years of waiting. The creed of occultation is disrespectful to Allah, to His Messengers, to the Prophet, and to the Ahl al-Bayt. It is truly heartbreaking to see the name of the Ahl al-Bayt be pillaged in this manner. 

The Shaykh concludes the fifth epistle by engaging in Qiyas (paradoxically, the Imamis are staunchly against Qiyas, yet seem to use it the most in their theology), he mentions the companions of the cave, al-Khidr, etc, the response to this is that salvation wasn’t tied to them during their absence. 

Epistle Six: 

As mentioned, this is a strawman, as the point isn’t to do with the longevity of the Imams age, it is the longevity of the Shariah not being established. For, Allah informs us to implement the Hudud, to lash the fornicators, administer the Zakat, etc. However, the Imami claim is that only the Imam can establish the Shariah, therefore, the objection to his age is an objection to how long the Quran has been set aside, and leeway is given to tyrants, and secularists to rule the Muslims while everyone is to just sit back and read Dua al-Nudba. 

Epistle Seven:

There were dozens who claimed to represent the Imam, to this day we have the followers of Ahmad b. al-Hasan al-Yamani who support their view from a hadith in al-Kafi which mentions two Mahdis after the Twelver. Again, the Shaykh is begging the question, as he is not providing a means to validate who is representing the Imam, since there were false claimants to his deputyship, such as al-Hallaj, and a dozen others. Finally, this argument is inapplicable to this era, since there is nobody who can claim to represent the Imam, and be taken seriously. 

Therefore, the contention raised by the question that the Shaykh sought to answer in this epistle, which is: There is No Need for a Hidden Imām Because His Existence is Like Non-Existence: No One Is Able to Meet with Him and He Cannot Establish God’s Laws. He Cannot Guide Anyone, Enjoin Good/Forbid Evil, or Call Towards Jihād.
 
Is a contention that is binding, and unanswered. 

As for the second point which the Shaykh mentions in the epistle, that the Imam fears for his life, and therefore matters of the Shariah not being implemented will be the fault of the oppressors is an answer which needs to be read in the context of the Shaykh. It hasn’t been two hundred years since the purported occultation, not over a thousand years where there were dozens upon dozens of just Islamic governments, as well as Twelver dense communities, and to this day we have Iran, which would give the Imam his seat and sacrifice beyond imagination for his sake.

The Eighth Epistle:

The Shaykh says that the Waqifites, and others cannot claim their occult personages, because they were perceived to be dead. However, this does not suffice, because they too can take out of context verses, tag them with Qiyas, and say: {And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them} [4:157]. 

The Ninth Epistle:

The Shaykh does not answer the question, and instead appeals to mystery. 

The Tenth Epistle: 

There is no significance in raising this as a contention against the occultation.

With that, I conclude the rebuttal to the ten epistles, and I invite our dear brothers, and sisters to reflect. 

~ Muhammad al-Sharifi
 

[Zaydism]

@Abu Nur @Abu Hadi @Cool @Mahdavist @Eddie Mecca @Haji 2003 @notme @Muhammed Ali

 

[Cool]

26 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

This is a response to an article published by iqraaonline, titled: Occultation and Mahdawiyyat in the Writings of Shaykh al-Mufid (Part 1)

Salam!!

I haven't seen the article you are trying to refute here. I think a good place for your this "alleged refutation" would be the comment box which I think must be provided by Iqraonline. In that way, you would get a direct response from the writer of that article. 

I will, however, examine your argument and will submit my feed back when free.

wassalam!!

[Cool]

As for your very first claim that Zurarah was unaware of his Imam, I would like to present few ahadith for you to examine them:

 حدثنا احمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني قال: حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمداني قال: قلت للرضا (عليه السلام) يا ابن رسول الله اخبرني عن زرارة هل كان يعرف حق أبيك فقال: نعم، فقلت له: فلم بعث ابنه عبيداً ليتعرف الخبر إلى من أوصى الصادق جعفر بن محمد (عليهما السلام)؟
فقال (عليه السلام): ان زرارة كان يعرف أمر أبي ونص أبيه عليه وإنما بعث ابنه ليتعرف من أبي هل يجوز له ان يرفع التقية في إظهار أمره ونص أبيه عليه وانه لما أبطأ عنه ابنه طولب بإظهار قول في أبي فلم يحب ان يقدم على ذلك دون أمره فرفع المصحف وقال: اللهم ان إمامي من اثبت هذا المصحف إمامته من ولد جعفر بن محمد (عليهما السلام).

The report that the Zaydis argued does not include that Zurara did not know the Imamate of Musa bin Jaafar (peace be upon them), but rather that he sent his son as slaves to ask about the report.

حدثنا أبي قال: حدثنا محمد بن يحيى العطار، عن محمد بن احمد بن يحيى بن عمران الأشعري، عن احمد بن هلال، عن محمد بن عبد الله بن زرارة، عن أبيه قال: لما بعث زرارة عبيدا ابنه إلى المدينة ليسأل عن الخبر بعد مضي أبي عبد الله فلما اشتد به الأمر اخذ المصحف وقال من اثبت إمامته هذا المصحف فهو إمامي.

This narration does not necessitate that he was not known. Another point is the fact that Ahmed bin Hilal in this report, is not trustworthy according to our Sheikhs of ilm ul-rijaal. 

روى الصدوق أيضاً عن محمد بن الحسن بن احمد بن الوليد 2 قال سمعت سعد بن عبد الله 3 يقول ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن التشيع إلى النصب إلا احمد بن هلال وكانوا يقولون ما تفرد بروايته احمد بن هلال فلا يجوز استعماله».

So I think the very first point which I have considered as a foundation of your alleged refutation, is dismantled. 

Now allow me some time, I will try to get back to your 2nd point In-Sha Allah.

Wassalam!! 

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Again, the respected Shaykh strawmans this question as well, because the point isn’t that its not conceivable that the Imam can be absent for over a hundred years, I don’t have an issue - and neither do the ones who raise this contention - that the Imam could be occult for a million years. The problem is the absence of the Imam entails the absence of the implementation of the Shariah of Allah, hence Wilayat al-Faqih after a thousand years of waiting. The creed of occultation is disrespectful to Allah, to His Messengers, to the Prophet, and to the Ahl al-Bayt. It is truly heartbreaking to see the name of the Ahl al-Bayt be pillaged in this manner. 

Salam whole of your post just a blunder of repeating your false claims against Zurara (رضي الله عنه) & mumin al-Taq (رضي الله عنه) wirth you common wahabi slandering of "Wilayat al-Faqih" through using abusive words without having any solid proof for your accusations which in conclusion of whole of your nonsens I have not found anything new which previously all of your nonsens has been refuted & answered by logic & solid evidences which again you have reapeated your nonsense  .

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Epistle Seven:

There were dozens who claimed to represent the Imam, to this day we have the followers of Ahmad b. al-Hasan al-Yamani who support their view from a hadith in al-Kafi which mentions two Mahdis after the Twelver. Again, the Shaykh is begging the question, as he is not providing a means to validate who is representing the Imam, since there were false claimants to his deputyship, such as al-Hallaj, and a dozen others. Finally, this argument is inapplicable to this era, since there is nobody who can claim to represent the Imam, and be taken seriously. 

We don't accept him as a muslims in similar fashion he has no relation to shia Islam which in similar fashion false claims of Hallaj has been refuted by great shia scholars which they have exposed his false beliefs even thrown out him from city.

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Is a contention that is binding, and unanswered. 

As for the second point which the Shaykh mentions in the epistle, that the Imam fears for his life, and therefore matters of the Shariah not being implemented will be the fault of the oppressors is an answer which needs to be read in the context of the Shaykh. It hasn’t been two hundred years since the purported occultation, not over a thousand years where there were dozens upon dozens of just Islamic governments, as well as Twelver dense communities, and to this day we have Iran, which would give the Imam his seat and sacrifice beyond imagination for his sake.

The Eighth Epistle:

The Shaykh says that the Waqifites, and others cannot claim their occult personages, because they were perceived to be dead. However, this does not suffice, because they too can take out of context verses, tag them with Qiyas, and say: {And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them} [4:157]. 

this is your false calims because according to Shias Sharia has been established by deputies of Imam Mahdi (aj) under his superviosion during occultain until now anyway  It has mentioned that Imam mahdi (aj) will bring back Islam to it's core values at time of prophet Muhammad (pbu0 without innovations which have made by Sunnis & your so called Zaydi Imams.

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Depending on the methodology that one seeks to follow in hadith scrutiny, if one holds to that of al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini, or the present methodology (not the latter) of al-Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari, they will deduce that this narration is not reliable and henceforth Zurara died without knowing the Imam of his time. Hence, you find such an explicit statement mentioned in Mishr’at bihar al-Anwar by al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini. 

your false calim about al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini has been refuted too many times although you repeat your false accusation again & again  which in Mishr’at bihar al-Anwar by al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini occutation & existance of Imam Mahdi (aj) has been proved by Sahkh Asif Muhsini .

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

wasn’t this the mainstream early Imami conception - as Sayyid Kamal notes, the Shia would sleep with their swords under their pillows thinking the Imam is going to rise at any moment. Honestly, it is beyond hysteria at this point, and it is unacceptable that one even takes this seriously. 

it's a historicall matter which in times of too much pressure on Shias & oppression of them by tyrants they would  wish presence of Imam Mahdi (aj) more than any time which being ready for his reappearance in most hysterical moments for shias is completly logical .

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

The Eighth Epistle:

The Shaykh says that the Waqifites, and others cannot claim their occult personages, because they were perceived to be dead. However, this does not suffice, because they too can take out of context verses, tag them with Qiyas, and say: {And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them} [4:157]. 

Qiyas is one of tools of Shaitan/satan for distorting facts which Qiyas in religion & giving fatwa has been forbidden by Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which Abuhanifah has been first person who has used Qiyas for establishing his creed which he has been called as Shaitan by Sunni scholras of his era which also Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) has shown  his grave mistakes in Qiyas by logical refutation which now in similar fashion of Abuhanifa you have used Qiyas for fighting ah lwith caliph of Allah Imam Mahdi (aj) which your false Qiyas about prophet Isa (عليه السلام) & Waqifia previously has been refuted about refutation of Kaysaniah .

[Ashvazdanghe]

Bahlool's Conversation with Abu Hanifa

One day Abu Hanifa was teaching at the college. Bahlool was sitting in a corner, listening to Abu Hanifa's lesson. In the middle of his lesson, Abu Hanifa said that, “Imam Jafar Sadiq says three things that I don't agree with. These are: Firstly, he says Shaitan will be punished in the Hell-fire. Since Shaitan is made of fire, then how is it possible that fire can hurt him? One kind of thing can't get hurt from the same kind of thing. Secondly, he says that we can't see Allah; but something that is present must also be able to be seen. Therefore, Allah can be seen by our eyes. Thirdly, he says that whoever does something is himself responsible for it; and will be questioned about it because he did it himself; but evidence is against this. Meaning, whatever a person does is done by Allah and the person has no control over what he does.”

As soon as Abu Hanifa said this, Bahlool picked up a clod of earth and threw it at him. It hit his forehead and gave him severe pain. Then Bahlool ran away. Abu Hanifa's students ran after Bahlool and caught him. Since Bahlool was related to the Khalifa, they took him to the Khalifa and narrated the whole incident.

Bahlool said, “Call Abu Hanifa so that I can give him my answer.”

Abu Hanifa was called and Bahlool said to him, “What wrong have I done to you?”

“You hit my forehead with a clod of earth. My forehead and head are in severe pain.”

“Can you show me your pain?”

“Can pain be seen?”

Bahlool replied, “You yourself say that every present thing can be seen and you criticize Imam Jafar Sadiq by saying how is it possible that Allah is present, but invisible. Secondly, you wrongly claim that the clod of earth pains your head; because the clod of earth is made of mud and you were also created from mud. Then how can one kind of thing hurt the same type of substance? Thirdly, you yourself said that all acts are done by Allah. Then how can you say that I am guilty, present me to the Khalifa, complain about me, and demand punishment for me!”

Abu Hanifa listened to Bahlool's intelligent answers and shamefully left Haroun's court.

https://www.al-islam.org/stories-bahlool/bahlools-conversation-abu-hanifa

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234964002-imam-abu-hanifa-and-bahlul/

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/3691-imam-abu-hanifa/

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, Zaidism said:

false claimants to his deputyship, such as al-Hallaj, and a dozen others. Finally, this argument is inapplicable to this era, since there is nobody who can claim to represent the Imam, and be taken seriously. 

Pretenders of the Position of Special Deputy

Al-Husayn b. Mansur al-Hallaj

Main article: Husayn b. Mansur al-Hallaj

Al-Husayn b. Mansur al-Hallaj was a well-known Sufi in the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries. His conflicts with the Abbasid Caliphate and his execution on the basis of a fatwa by Sunni jurists imply that he was an Imami or, at least, he had Shiite tendencies.^[16] He tried to gather the Shi'as around himself and, to some extent, he succeeded to gather a number of Shi'as who had Sufi tendencies,^[17] but Imami scholars in Qom and Baghdad strongly rejected his invitations.^[18]

Al-Hallaj's claim to be the special deputy of Imam al-Mahdi (a) and a letter he sent to people of Qom to follow him led Abu l-Hasan 'Ali b. al-Husayn b. Babawayh, the father of al-Shaykh al-Saduq and the authority of the Shi'as in Qom in the 4th/10th century, to tear the letter apart and strongly reproach al-Hallaj. He finally deported al-Hallaj from Qom.^[19]

Al-Hallaj also sent a letter to Abu Sahl al-Nawbakhti, the leader of the Shi'as in Baghdad, in which he claimed to be the special deputy of the Twelfth Imam (a) and invited the Shi'as of Baghdad to follow him. Abu Sahl opposed al-Hallaj's invitation. Al-Hallaj was eventually disgraced after he failed to meet al-Nawbakhti's request to show a miracle by turning the latter's white hair into black.^[20]

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

A reflection on Muslim Jurists’ differents views on Hallaj’s Thoghts

 

Document Type : Biannual Journal

Authors

• jamshid jalali sheyhani
• ali delshad nadaf

Abstract
Hossein Ibn Mansur Hallaj (244-309 Hijri) is one of the prominent figures in mysticism and Islamic Sufism, who his life, thought and especially the way of his Death has continuously been the subject of different and even contradictory views in the mystic history. In his speech and writings the thoughts of Oneness Of Being, more than all other themes, is appeared with coded and ecstatic expressions filled with ecstasy and drunkenness, up to the extent that his ‘I am God’ can be counted and considered as his most expressive thought of Oneness of Being. Hallaj was always denied by jurists and always was in conflic with them, due to the lack of his belief in superficial science and his believing in its un-adequacy to attaing the God. Hallaj’s thought was essentially different from the views of greatest scholars of religion; ‘the Oneness of Being’ was most major difference. This article seeks to review the influence of Hallaj opinions and ideas on the works of jurists and the jurists’ stances toward Hallaj. We also compare the views of advocators and opponents of Hallaj and then analyze the written subscription (Togih) issued by Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) for Hussein bin Nobakhti.

https://wisdom.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2457.html?lang=en

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, Zaidism said:

The Prophet simply states that the Mahdi will be born in the end times, so what point is the writer seeking to make here? In what way is this even remotely substantive? Furthermore, there are those, for instance Ibn Taymiyya who maintain that the Mahdi, from the sons of the Prophet will be from the lineage of al-Imam al-Hasan. Thus supporting the Zaydi conception which rightfully limits the Imama to the sons of al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, as there is no evidence to limit the Imama to the sons of al-Husayn exclusively, let alone only nine from the sons of al-Husayn, upon them be peace. 

Birth of a savior has been came from Zoroastrianism about Soshiant wich it has affected Jews so then through their Israʼiliyyat it has  affected Sunni sources which for claiming birth of the Mahdi in end times at first you must now when our world will be ended so then you can calculate time of his birth in endtimes which according to holy this is impossible because only Allah knows when our world will be ended so then thre will be judgment day so threfore your claim is against holy Quran .

[Zaydism]

4 hours ago, Cool said:

As for your very first claim that Zurarah was unaware of his Imam, I would like to present few ahadith for you to examine them:

 حدثنا احمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني قال: حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمداني قال: قلت للرضا (عليه السلام) يا ابن رسول الله اخبرني عن زرارة هل كان يعرف حق أبيك فقال: نعم، فقلت له: فلم بعث ابنه عبيداً ليتعرف الخبر إلى من أوصى الصادق جعفر بن محمد (عليهما السلام)؟
فقال (عليه السلام): ان زرارة كان يعرف أمر أبي ونص أبيه عليه وإنما بعث ابنه ليتعرف من أبي هل يجوز له ان يرفع التقية في إظهار أمره ونص أبيه عليه وانه لما أبطأ عنه ابنه طولب بإظهار قول في أبي فلم يحب ان يقدم على ذلك دون أمره فرفع المصحف وقال: اللهم ان إمامي من اثبت هذا المصحف إمامته من ولد جعفر بن محمد (عليهما السلام).

The report that the Zaydis argued does not include that Zurara did not know the Imamate of Musa bin Jaafar (peace be upon them), but rather that he sent his son as slaves to ask about the report.

حدثنا أبي قال: حدثنا محمد بن يحيى العطار، عن محمد بن احمد بن يحيى بن عمران الأشعري، عن احمد بن هلال، عن محمد بن عبد الله بن زرارة، عن أبيه قال: لما بعث زرارة عبيدا ابنه إلى المدينة ليسأل عن الخبر بعد مضي أبي عبد الله فلما اشتد به الأمر اخذ المصحف وقال من اثبت إمامته هذا المصحف فهو إمامي.

This narration does not necessitate that he was not known. Another point is the fact that Ahmed bin Hilal in this report, is not trustworthy according to our Sheikhs of ilm ul-rijaal. 

روى الصدوق أيضاً عن محمد بن الحسن بن احمد بن الوليد 2 قال سمعت سعد بن عبد الله 3 يقول ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن التشيع إلى النصب إلا احمد بن هلال وكانوا يقولون ما تفرد بروايته احمد بن هلال فلا يجوز استعماله».

So I think the very first point which I have considered as a foundation of your alleged refutation, is dismantled. 

Now allow me some time, I will try to get back to your 2nd point In-Sha Allah.

Wassalam!! 

Brother, did you read the article in full? It says what a twelver would respond therein in terms of Zurara. Hence, the more explicit case with Hisham, and al-Taq which can’t be brushed off as Taqiyya. You didn’t address that point. 

[Zaydism]

4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam whole of your post just a blunder of repeating your false claims against Zurara (رضي الله عنه) & mumin al-Taq (رضي الله عنه) wirth you common wahabi slandering of "Wilayat al-Faqih" through using abusive words without having any solid proof for your accusations which in conclusion of whole of your nonsens I have not found anything new which previously all of your nonsens has been refuted & answered by logic & solid evidences which again you have reapeated your nonsense  .

Slandering Wilayat al-Faqih? I actually think WF is great, so I am unsure where you got slandering from. As for the point on Zurara, and al-Taq all I can say is at least read what is said. 
 

4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Qiyas is one of tools of Shaitan/satan for distorting facts which Qiyas in religion & giving fatwa has been forbidden by Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which Abuhanifah has been first person who has used Qiyas for establishing his creed which he has been called as Shaitan by Sunni scholras of his era which also Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) has shown  his grave mistakes in Qiyas by logical refutation which now in similar fashion of Abuhanifa you have used Qiyas for fighting ah lwith caliph of Allah Imam Mahdi (aj) which your false Qiyas about prophet Isa (عليه السلام) & Waqifia previously has been refuted about refutation of Kaysaniah .

Okay, so why do you do it to substantiate your theological beliefs? 

[Zaydism]

5 hours ago, Cool said:

Salam!!

I haven't seen the article you are trying to refute here. I think a good place for your this "alleged refutation" would be the comment box which I think must be provided by Iqraonline. In that way, you would get a direct response from the writer of that article. 

I will, however, examine your argument and will submit my feed back when free.

wassalam!!

Wa Alaykum al-Salam! Thank you for this, I am going to try to comment it now. I was unaware that I could do that. 
 

Edit: there doesn’t seem to be a comment box.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Zaidism

[Muslim2010]

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"

 

Do Imams have knowledge of the unseen, and are they born knowledgeable?

June 4

@Muslim2010 There is no such Hadith brother, we don't believe that Imam Zayd is designated by Allah, or His Messenger. There isno proof for any such designation after the first three Imams, as the religion was complete when the Prophet departed. 

 

The following is conclusion on this matter from our / twlever 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

9:19 : and Allah does not guide people "Az Zalimeen".

Edited November 7, 2022 by Muslim2010

[Zaydism]

41 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

wasalam

This is off topic, even if the Zaydis are wrong, it doesn't make the occultation correct. Also, you are straw manning the Zaydi position, and your attempts at deflection can be returned to you one hundred-fold. However, I would not like to derail the thread. You are free to start a new thread, and we can discuss how your arguments don't hold, respectively.  

[Zaydism]

My twelver brothers must attack each point raised head on in response to al-Shaykh al-Mufid, every epistle that the Shaykh noted was addressed, and the same is expected from any interlocutor.

[VoidVortex]

9 hours ago, Zaidism said:

 

Now, it is correct to say the Imamiya have been subject (unfortunately) to being mocked for holding such a theological position, indeed mockery has no place in sincere discourse that seeks to arrive at truth. Therefore, I assure the respected reader there will be no such mockery, and the arguments provided by the respected Shaykh will be addressed head on, by the will of Allah, the Exalted.

thank you. Its good to have sincere discussions without mockery between different sects even if we disagree.

Edited November 7, 2022 by VoidVortex

[Zaydism]

2 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

thank you. Its good to have sincere discussions without mockery between different sects even if we disagree.

The aspiration is to discuss on purely sincere, and intellectual grounds. Thank you for acknowledging this mutual desire, may Allah bless you. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Slandering Wilayat al-Faqih? I actually think WF is great, so I am unsure where you got slandering from. As for the point on Zurara, and al-Taq all I can say is at least read what is said. 
 

Okay, so why do you do it to substantiate your theological beliefs? 

Salam you have shown too much times your enmity with Wilayat al-Faqih & slandering at Zurara (رضي الله عنه) & Mumin al _Taq (رضي الله عنه) which your double face about WF has shown your enmity with it .

Qiyas in religious matters has been banned & condemned by all of infallible Imams from Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to 12th Imam (aj) which Imam Sadiq has shown falshood of Abuhanifa due to use of Qiyas by him .

Quote

Qīyās (Arabic: قیاس) or analogy is a term in usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) which means the application of the jurisprudential ruling of an issue to another analogous issue on which there is no ruling in religious texts.

 

Quote

Shiite scholars rely on hadiths from the Imams (a) and believe that it is invalid, but Sunni scholars take it to be valid. The first person who made an extensive use of qiyas in fiqh (jurisprudence) was Abu Hanifa. The majority of Shiite scholars take qiyas with explicitly mentioned cause, a fortiori qiyas and the isolation of the criterion to be valid.

 

Quote

there is a hadith from Imam 'Ali (a) cited in Tuhaf al-'uqul: "do not make qiyas (analogy) in the religion, because the religion cannot be measured by qiyas".^[9] There is also a hadith from Imam al-Sadiq (a) according to which if qiyas is made in the religion, then the religion will be wiped out.^[10] But Sunni scholars maintain that qiyas is valid. The first person who made an extensive use of qiyas in fiqh was Abu Hanifa. However, it is said that the use of qiyas had precedents prior to Abu Hanifa. For example, the first, the second, and the third caliphs employed qiyas in issues on which there was no explicit ruling.^[11]

 

Quote

Imam al-Sadiq's (a) Debate over the Qiyas

In his book, al-Ikhtisas, al-Shaykh al-Mufid reported a debate between Abu Hanifa and Imam al-Sadiq (a) over the validity of qiyas. Imam al-Sadiq's (a) arguments against qiyas are as follows: Imam al-Sadiq (a) said, "O Abu Hanifa! Which one do you think is more significant; adultery or murder?" He said, of course, murder. The Imam said, "so why did God rule that the testimony of two men suffices in the case of murder, while for adultery the testimony of four men is required? How can this be justified in terms of qiyas? O Abu Hanifa! Which one is worse, the abandoning of the fast or the abandoning of the prayer?" He said, of course, the abandoning of the prayer. The Imam said, "so, why should a woman perform the qada' of her fasts during her menstrual periods, but it is not obligatory for her to perform the qada' of her prayers? How can this be justified in terms of qiyas? Woe to you, Abu Hanifa! Are women weaker in business or men?" He said, of course, women. The Imam said, "so, why did God allocate two shares of heritage to men and only one share for women? How can this be justified in terms of qiyas? O Abu Hanifa! Is one's feces dirtier or his semen?" He said, of course, feces. The Imam said, "so, why did God rule that it is sufficient to wash the affected area to clean the feces, but for the semen, He required ghusl? How can this be justified in terms of qiyas?"^[14]

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

[Cool]

15 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Brother, did you read the article in full?

Not yet read your full post. I have taken out some points and trying to address them as per my convinence.

15 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Hence, the more explicit case with Hisham, and al-Taq which can’t be brushed off as Taqiyya. You didn’t address that point. 

I hope that you must be aware of the history. If you don't know then here is a report:

روى الشيخ الكليني والطوسي وابن شهر آشوب (واللفظ للكليني) عن أبي أيوب النّحوي أنّه قال: بعث إليّ أبو جعفر المنصور في جوف الليل، فأتيته فدخلت عليه وهو جالسٌ على كرسيّ وبين يديه شمعةٌ وفي يده كتاب، قال: فلمّا سلّمت عليه رمى بالكتاب إليّ وهو يبكي.

فقال لي: هذا كتاب محمد بن سليمان يُخبرنا أنّ جعفر بن محمد قد مات، فإنّا لله وإنّا إليه راجعون –ثلاثاً-، وأين مثل جعفر؟ ثم قال لي: اكتب، قال: فكتبت صدر الكتاب، ثم قال: أكتب إنْ كان أوصى إلى رجلٍ واحدٍ بعينه فقدّمه واضرب عنقه.

قال: فرجع إليه الجواب أنّه قد أوصى إلى خمسةٍ وأحدهم أبو جعفر المنصور ومحمد بن سليمان وعبدالله وموسى وحميدة.

By knowing that Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) recommended to five people after him, you know that the imamate of Musa al-Kazim (peace be upon him) was shrouded in complete secrecy; The governor of the city was looking for the guardian after the Imam (عليه السلام) to kill him.

And the same was mentioned by Allamah Majlisi a.r:

كان الإمام(عليه السلام) يعلم بعلم الإمامة أنّ المنصور سيقتل وصيّه، فأشرك هؤلاء النفر ظاهراً، فكتب اسأنّم المنصور أوّلاً، لكنّ الإمام موسى بن جعفر(عليه السلام) هو الذي كان مخصوصاً بالوصية دونهم، وكان أهل العلم يعرفون ذلك كما مضى في رواية أبي حمزة الثمالي

The narration you have shared proves that how Hisham bin Salim & al-Taq reached to the truth by questioning about Zakat from al-Aftah . And Allamah Majlisi has narrated the case of Abu Hamza:

فقد روي: ولمّا سمع ذلك علماء الشيعة مثل أبي حمزة الثمالي, قال ما معناه: أمّا الأوّلان فكانا للتقية, والأفطح كان ناقصاً إذ كان أفطحاً, والإمام لا يكون ناقصاً، وهو مع ذلك كان جاهلاً بأحكام الشريعة, والمرأة ليست بإمام, فتعيّنت الإمامة بموسى الكاظم, وهو معنى كلام أبي حمزة عندما سمع خبر الوصية: الحمد لله الذي هدانا إلى الهدى وبيّن لنا عيوب الكبير, ودلّنا على الصغير, وأخفى عن أمر عظيم.

So I think a more appropriate thing to begin with, is to investigate that why Imam al-Sadiq nominated 5 people as his successor? And why he placed Mansoor at the first place and even nominated a lady as Imam?

I hope the matter would become clear to you.

Wassalam!!

[Cool]

15 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Wa Alaykum al-Salam! Thank you for this, I am going to try to comment it now. I was unaware that I could do that. 
 

Edit: there doesn’t seem to be a comment box.

Salam, 

There is a "contact us" tab on that site. You can send them your message from there. I hope you will get a detailed answer.

Wassalam!

[Zaydism]

14 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Qiyas in religious matters has been banned & condemned by all of infallible Imams from Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to 12th Imam (aj) which Imam Sadiq has shown falshood of Abuhanifa due to use of Qiyas by him .

Then why do you do it to prove the occultation? 

[Zaydism]

14 hours ago, Cool said:

Not yet read your full post. I have taken out some points and trying to address them as per my convinence

Take your time brother, I look forward to your response(s). 

14 hours ago, Cool said:

The narration you have shared proves that how Hisham bin Salim & al-Taq reached to the truth by questioning about Zakat from al-Aftah . And Allamah Majlisi has narrated the case of Abu Hamza:

It highlights that they didn’t know de-facto who the Imam is after Imam Sadiq (upon him be peace). Likewise, the cases with the family of Imam Sadiq, at the forefront imam Zayd. You are aware of the Mu’tabar hadith in al-Kafi where imam Zayd explicitly states his father, and brother never claimed to be Imams, here is a Zaydi hadith as well: 

https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool/394

I would also like to emphasize brother, that the crux of the discussion isn’t regarding this point - it is regarding the arguments of Shaykh al-Mufid when it comes to the occultation. So far, my rebuttal to the arguments of the Shaykh have been untouched, and this is indicative of their veracity, and the clear implications that his arguments possess. 

The occultation is like kryptonite to our Twelver brothers, and I firmly believe that it is indefensible. I think that the discussion is finally being advanced, and we are hitting at some key points. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Zaidism

[Zaydism]

@dragonxx @Soldiers and Saffron @The Green Knight @Allah Seeker @.InshAllah. @Diaz@AkhiraisReal @313_Waiter @Reza @starlight @Ayuoobi @SoRoUsH @Lion of Shia @Sumerian @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @realizm @-Rejector- @root @Marbles @wolverine @guest 2025 

[Muslim2010]

On 11/7/2022 at 10:00 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"

 

Do Imams have knowledge of the unseen, and are they born knowledgeable?

June 4

@Muslim2010 There is no such Hadith brother, we don't believe that Imam Zayd is designated by Allah, or His Messenger. There isno proof for any such designation after the first three Imams, as the religion was complete when the Prophet departed. 

 

The following is conclusion on this matter from our / twlever 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

9:19 : and Allah does not guide people "Az Zalimeen".

9:19 : and Allah does not guide people "Az Zalimeen".

[Ashvazdanghe]

9 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Then why do you do it to prove the occultation? 

Salam I don't remeber such thing which only i know that you have use Qiyas for denying existance of Imam Mahdi (aj) but on the other hand me & rest of user have provided many evidences from joly Quran & reliable & authentic narrations from both Sunni & Shia sources about existance of Imam Mahdi (aj) & occultation .

[root]

6 hours ago, Zaidism said:

@dragonxx @Soldiers and Saffron @The Green Knight @Allah Seeker @.InshAllah. @Diaz@AkhiraisReal @313_Waiter @Reza @starlight @Ayuoobi @SoRoUsH @Lion of Shia @Sumerian @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @realizm @-Rejector- @root @Marbles @wolverine @guest 2025 

Why was I tagged in this? I'm confused.....

[Hameedeh]

1 hour ago, root said:

Why was I tagged in this? I'm confused.....

The OP is a Zaidi. He wants Twelver Shias to read his posts and leave it to join Zaidism. 

[Cool]

12 hours ago, Zaidism said:

highlights that they didn’t know de-facto who the Imam is after Imam Sadiq (upon him be peace).

It highlights that they were testing the nominated ones, as mentioned in the hadith:

On 11/8/2022 at 11:10 AM, Cool said:

الجواب أنّه قد أوصى إلى خمسةٍ وأحدهم أبو جعفر المنصور ومحمد بن سليمان وعبدالله وموسى وحميدة.

They tested al-Aftah and he failed, lady Hameedah cannot be the Imam, so the only left was Imam al-Kazim (عليه السلام). 

It is not necessary that their testing was due to their ignorance of Imam. It can be the case that these two scholars showed people (who gathered around al-Aftah) by questioning al-Aftah that he is not the correct candidate of Imamate. 

12 hours ago, Zaidism said:

where imam Zayd explicitly states his father, and brother never claimed to be Imams,

You must know that it is not the principle in our school of thought that an Imam must claim to be Imam. 

You may read the ahadith in al-kafi & bihar to find the نص for the Imamate of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) and Imam Baqar (عليه السلام).

Further more, even you have accepted Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) as your Imam (of knowledge) in our discussions somewhere in your previous threads. 

13 hours ago, Zaidism said:

it is regarding the arguments of Shaykh al-Mufid when it comes to the occultation. So far, my rebuttal to the arguments of the Shaykh have been untouched, and this is indicative of their veracity, and the clear implications that his arguments possess. 

Since I am unaware of the article you are referring here, I cannot express my opinion. What I can explain is the fact that this earth would cease to exist if there is no hujjah of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) on Earth. 

To refute the concept of 12 Imams, you need to refute all the ahadith having sahih chain of narrators and matn in the books of Ahlul Sunnah and Shias. And I am sure it is beyond your capacity to refute them. 

The problem in your school of thought is that you cannot even provide the nass for the Imamate of Zayd Shaheed. Neither Imam Sajjad a s nor Imam al-Baqar nor Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) ever mentioned him as Imam. So what you believe your Imams of knowledge, you have nothing from them in support of your creed. 

Furthermore, there exists tons of contradictions in your books and we have discussed them in your previous threads, I don't want to repeat them here.

Wassalam!!

[Zaydism]

8 hours ago, Hameedeh said:

The OP is a Zaidi. He wants Twelver Shias to read his posts and leave it to join Zaidism. 

Although I think the sect of the Ahl al-Bayt, upon them be peace, is a more coherent reading to follow than the sect of al-Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Saduq, al-Murtada, and al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on them, and forgive them, my main intention is not this. 

I, and many others have been deceived unfortunately by the Twelver school. You find many reverts joining presuming Twelverism is just this belief that Imam Ali is designated, we should love the Ahl al-Bayt, and Sunni conceptions of the uprightness of all the companions - in the way they define companions - their love for a tyrant like Muawiyah, etc, are inconsistent readings. 

Although these readings are correct, this isn’t even what it means to be a Twelver. If these are the main reasons you might as well be a pro-Alid sunni like Shaykh Hasan Farhan, Shaykh Adaab, Shaykh Hasan Saqqaf, etc.

I know I may upset some people, and I clearly have in my critiques of the Twelver theology. However, I am merely seeking to advance the discussion, you are all tired of pathetic Sunni tropes, disrespectful arguments, and takfiri rhetoric. So, I am seeking to raise the dialogue, and simultaneously I am also seeking to inform Twelvers that this is what you’re actually subscribing to, along with a plethora of other things. 

I understand, when someone exerts so much time, and effort into said creed they may want to bat a blind eye, and just continue living their life comfortably - those people are not who I intend to reach, I value and respect the Islam of every single Muslim, and you are all dear to me even if I find you to be painfully mistaken, and I see for you a more beautiful tradition a tradition which is from the Ahl al-Bayt, by the Ahl al-Bayt, and for the Ahl al-Bayt. 

We are all able to accomplish great things together if we can bring our love for the family of the Prophet and channel it in support of them, in reality, I am not seeking to compete with anyone, nor am I seeking to convey a sect. Rather, I am seeking to hurl truth against falsehood - I don’t know claim to have all the answers, but I do know that these heavy claims against the Prophet, and his Ahl al-Bayt are clear fabrications against the Prophet, and his family. 

Think for yourself, what exactly do I have to gain from this? I have chosen to follow the creed of the most oppressed people, and nation during our contemporary time. Yemen itself is in need of support, and they don’t have access to life’s basic necessities, so can one say to me that I am seeking the adornments of this world by defending and raising the honorable banner of the Ahl al-Bayt in a time where their supporters are weakened, silenced, starved, and butchered?

Do you really think @Hameedeh I am just trying to call others in a cult like manner? If I cared about these things I would have remained as a Twelver, and my life would have been so much better, and so prosperous. I would be able to translate book after book, and I could sell said books to benefit financially, and I could get in touch with Twelver organizations, and the options are endless. My standing within my own community would be elevated to the stars, I was already building good relations. Yet, I could care less for all that, I could care less what my community thinks, what would benefit my pocket, and general social standing.

This world itself is nothing to me, I consider myself to already be a dead man. I write as if I am in my grave, and the book of my deeds is already closed - so I seek to etch what would please His Majesty, everything else is truly insignificant. 

Moreover, I don’t write, or translate in hopes that someone will be convinced, or will seek to “join my sect”. With all honesty, I write as if already succeeded, there is nobody to convince, and there is no competition.

You see me writing for today, but in reality I write for the future, I write for those beautiful minds, and sincere hearts who will come together and combine a devastating consciousness, and together they will fight the true battle between the Party of Allah, and the Party of Shaytan. This is just the beginning, and the stage is being set, and I believe that there are great miracles which will come if we have faith, sincerity, and dedication. 

[Zaydism]

6 hours ago, Cool said:

It highlights that they were testing the nominated ones, as mentioned in the hadith:

It doesn’t, since they were in a non-taqiyya scenario. There is literally nobody in the room, save the nearest of the Khawas, and the Imam. 
 

6 hours ago, Cool said:

You must know that it is not the principle in our school of thought that an Imam must claim to be Imam. 

Yet, he who doesn't accept any of the imams is a kafir by consensus. Is this just in your eyes? 
 

6 hours ago, Cool said:

Further more, even you have accepted Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) as your Imam (of knowledge) in our discussions somewhere in your previous threads. 

The post is there is no Nass, these great imams are to be followed as leaders of the community, and to not claim for them what the Prophet, Allah, and they themselves did not claim and then build a theology out of it. 
 

6 hours ago, Cool said:

this earth would cease to exist if there is no hujjah of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) on Earth. 

Appeal to mystery when challenged on this, you cannot demonstrate what exactly we will lose if the Mahdi is non-existent. For instance, there is no controversy in saying he does not guide, moreover he does not administer any Hudud. Therefore, his existence amounts to non-existence, and your point is simply an appeal to the unknown, and thus begging the question. If you are adamant on the wording that the world needs a Hujjah, or else it will perish, then I will accept this wording and say that like the interpretation of dying a death of ignorance the intent was referring to the Quran itself as the Hujjah (proof), and the Imam (leader) since everything is subordinate to it. 
 

6 hours ago, Cool said:

To refute the concept of 12 Imams, you need to refute all the ahadith having sahih chain of narrators and matn in the books of Ahlul Sunnah and Shias. And I am sure it is beyond your capacity to refute them. 

I have addressed this here: 

https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool/373
 

And here:

https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool/363

Namely, the hadith of the 12 is 

- Entirely solitary in transmission 

- Narrated by an Umayyad 

- Never once even pointed to throughout history, or referenced until after the Twelver creed is crystallized

- The chain is exclusively narrated by Nawasib 

- He was six, or seven when narrating this hadith 

- Solitary reports are speculative, and can never be used to prove matters of Usul 

- None of the Imami polemicists pre-occultation ever referenced this hadith, yet it would have offered no trouble to the Imams if they did

- None of those who wrote refutations against the Imamiyah mentioned this hadith pre-occultation period

It is an Umayyad fabrication, and the wording is quite clear as it says the world will be in goodness as long as these twelve remain, yet the twelve are still here and the world has been going through immense oppression, particularly the Shia. It is clearly fabricated to intend that since there has been a spark in revolts, the Umayyads are trying to say that see when you left these Umayyad caliphs in rule the Ummah was in prosperity, and now that you are revolting against them i.e during the time of Imam Zayd, and Imam yahya they’re saying see the prophecy of the Prophet came true. 

After the crystallization of the twlever creed hundreds of years after, the twelvers copy and pasted this hadith and tried to use it as proof for their own creed. 

Also, if you want to talk about denying mass-transmitted hadiths and chains, then why don’t you believe the quran is incomplete like Majlisi, and kulayni? What makes you reject those mass-transmitted reports which say that there are thousands of verses missing? The very own compiler of the supposed traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt, and the one who the Imam is claimed to have prayed for believed the quran is corrupted. 
 

6 hours ago, Cool said:

you cannot even provide the nass for the Imamate of Zayd Shaheed. Neither Imam Sajjad a s nor Imam al-Baqar nor Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) ever mentioned him as Imam

I obviously can’t because there is no such hadith that’s the point, the members of the cloak are the authorities over us - everyone else falls under their authority and has no binding authority alone. You’re actually highlighting the consistency of the Zaydiyya. 
 

6 hours ago, Cool said:

Furthermore, there exists tons of contradictions in your books and we have discussed them in your previous threads, I don't want to repeat them here.

As a twelver, I think you’re the last to speak or contradictions. I don’t follow the Zaydī school as a hadith school, we follow an epistemology which places the Quran, the members of the cloak, the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt, and reason at its forefront.

 

[Zaydism]

On 11/7/2022 at 2:22 AM, Zaidism said:

The preamble begins by mentioning the ontological necessity of an Imam, namely the Imam has to be infallible, and perfect so as to be able to guide in matters of religion. Now, let us apply S5 modal logic to this claim of necessity, I will concede the point on infallible guidance - the Zaydis also claim such guidance, and it can also be grasped, and tested. However, more on this elsewhere - the point on ontological necessity, like the point on Sunni traditions mentioning the Mahdi are essentially the same, they are once again non-sequitur. 

How so, well I have conceded that in all possible worlds there needs to be a source of infallible guidance. However, this does not maintain the Twelver view, as it is not contradictory, nor does the argument of Shaykh al-Mufid apply here, since in another possible world the Imams could have been 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,etc.

Therefore, the claim of ontological necessity is negated on grounds of it begging the question. Furthermore, the argument collapses via modus tollens, since there is no guidance to begin with, and guidance is placed in the hands of the Shia of the Twelfth Imam who painfully differ between themselves, so much so - as will be highlighted - that they held beliefs of determinism, and anthropomorphism. 

So, seeing that ‘‘This paradigm is employed by al-Mufīd in all his other treatises, and Sharīf al-Murtaḍā adopts and expands on this same methodology in his book “Al-Muqni’ fī al-Ghaybah,” according to the writer. I have addressed how the methodology is explicitly flawed. 

Now, we arrive at the First Epistle: 

Here, al-Shaykh al-Mufid is addressing the question on how it can be claimed that the eleventh Imam, upon him be peace, hid the birth of his son from all of his other relatives. The Shaykh goes on to provide examples of how some individuals hid the birth of their sons, and then this birth was established, and accepted via testimony by two upright Muslims. He also goes on to mention how these examples indicate that hiding a birth (when justified) is justified by virtue of it being contingent on a greater good. Then, the Shaykh concludes by mentioning that a wide range of pious, and trustworthy companions testified to the existence of the twelfth Imam.

In response to the Shaykh, I will begin by mentioning that just because some individuals hid the birth of their sons, this does not mean that the same conditions are viable for the Imam. For example, someone who is tasked with guiding has a greater duty towards guidance, and although person X may be permitted to go on about his life living a pious, and virtuous life, the Imam is not excused to do the same, because the Imam is tasked with actively guiding. 

The reader is invited to reflect on how the Shaykh, may Allah forgive him, chose to cite kings, and historical figures, as opposed to the Quran, or any Prophet. The reason is because, as I mentioned, they are tasked with guidance, and therefore cannot hide, or conceal said guidance, nor said personages who are linked to guidance. Especially from their righteous kindred, who are righteous by consensus. The only way to avoid this quagmire is to say that salvation is not tied to the Twelfth Imam, of course this wouldn’t solve the implications of Imami theology, however, it would exhibit the expected decorum.

In terms of the Shaykh mentioning righteous personages, those who have claimed to have seen the Imam, their case is not like that of the aforementioned case(s) where someone’s lineage would be established by two Muslims, because nobody denied the testimony of those two Muslims. However, in this extraordinary case, you have the kindred of the Imam himself telling these foreigners that what they claim is something which is unfound, and the kindred of the Imam who are negating what these foreigners say are themselves upright, and known for their truthfulness, righteousness, and sacrifice for the religion of Allah. 

Indeed, our respected scholar al-Kazim al-Zaydi makes a wonderful point, he mentions that the Zaydi Imams in particular would be the most joyous, and felicitous if there was a Twelfth Imam, or Twelve designated Imams. This is because they wouldn’t have to face bloodshed, and persecution. Instead, they could sit in the comfort of their homes, and say the matter is in the hands of the Imam. So, it also cannot be said that they rejected this claim out of worldly desire, god forbid, and may one be wary for the sake of their afterlife in charging the greats from among the Ahl al-Bayt with this. 

We thank Allah that the works of the Imams such as the Star of the Ahl al-Bayt al-Imam al-Qasim al-Rassi, or al-Imam al-Nasir al-Utrush are extant. The reader is invited to peruse their writings and see the worldly detachment, and absolute fear of Allah which emanates from their noble works. Therein, one can examine such a matter through a psychological lens. 

The Second Epistle: 

I find that the Shaykh seems to be attacking a strawman here, as the argument is not expressed in its proper form. The point that is being made, unlike the claims of the Imamiya, is that Ja’far al-Naqi is someone who is righteous, and he is closely related to the eleventh Imam. So, why was he not informed, since he explicitly maintains that the father of the twelfth Imam did not have a son. If the Shaykh does not accept Ja’far al-Naqi, he can easily be substituted by a plethora of righteous personages, namely al-Imam Zayd himself who denied the fundamental theological claims of the Imamiya. 

The Third Epistle: 

Yes, if he mentioned that he had a son it would go against the Taqiyya narrative. However, Allah guards, and defends those who carry His message. The message of Allah is never promulgated via occult means, if one, as the Shaykh will mention, seeks to say that there are cases where Prophets, or Imams delegated certain personages this still does not address the contention. The reason is because the Prophet, or Imam being the source of delegation is explicit, it is not something which is dubious. Moreover, never once did Allah link a matter of salvation with occultation. 

The Fourth Epistle: 

The Shaykh mentions that the reason for the forefathers Imam being apparent, and not occult is namely, due to (a) they were engaged in Taqiyya, and (b) they did not place themselves under suspicion. In response to the Shaykh, what he is doing is that he is presupposing the matter, and then providing justification. This does not answer the contention, as the Imam could have engaged in Taqiyya as well, and he could also avoid matters which would place him under questioning. 

Now, one can say that they were after him, as the Shaykh maintains. However, as explicitly demonstrated, and as the Imamiya maintain, only a select few knew of his existence to begin with. So, how can it be said that the Abbasids were hellbent on finding him, and killing him when his only family was perplexed regarding his existence? 

The only answer to this is that the Abbasids were aware of this to begin with, as they are notorious for their ploys, and tactics of deceit which would make one’s skin crawl after taking some time to look into their deeds. Moreover, if one were to consult al-Fihrist for al-Shaykh al-Tusi, they will find that a wide range of those who the Imamis deem reliable worked in very critical positions in relation to the Abbasids - not to mention the Nawbakhat family. 

Furthermore, point (b) is simply incorrect, because al-Kazim, upon him be peace, participated in the rebellion of al-Imam al-Nafs al-Zakiyya, upon him be peace, and even when he pardoned them we find that al-Imam al-Sadiq insisted that he, and his brother Abdullah participate. 
The Fifth Epistle:

In this epistle, the Shaykh makes a grand blunder, it is not his circular reasoning for the reliability of the companions of the eleventh Imam which has been addressed already. Rather, it is his saying regarding the deputies of the Imam ‘‘these same individuals were the intermediaries between him and his Shī’ah. Religious teachings and communications were transmitted from him through these individuals. These individuals also became his representatives in collecting the religious tithes of the Shī’ah’’. I will obstruct this claim by mentioning a severe implication that pertains to the deputies.

During the time of the deputies, the Qomi school was known for its problematic positions, which today are scoffed at, and rightfully so by our Imami brothers. Namely, it is holding to the belief in Tashbih, and Jabr. In the Rasa’il of Shareef al-Murtadha, he notes that all the scholars of Qom with exception to al-Shaykh al-Saduq were upon this creed of Jabr, and Tashbih. Now, if these deputies, those who were supposedly in communication with the Imam, and also knowledgeable as the Shaykh claims, had sent letters to the scholars in Qom so that they may check their Aqeedah for them, what does this say to you? 

Does it support that they were in communication with the Imam? Clearly not, forget guiding the Muslims, or even the Shia, the Imam didn’t guide his own deputies away from anthropomorphism, and determinism! Are these really individuals one is to feel safe in accepting their claims with regards to creed?

Indeed, al-Shaykh al-Tusi has narrated that Abi al-Qasim al-Husayn b. Ruh sent a book to the scholars of Qom, and he wrote to some of its jurists saying: ((Look into this book, and inform me, is there anything in it that you oppose?)). Then, they wrote back to him, saying: It is all correct, and there is nothing within it which opposes us [in creed]. [Ghaybat al-Tusi: 390, also see Tarikh al-Ghayba: v.1, 513]. Furthermore, Muhammad Hadi al-Yusufi said: ((When al-Shalmaghani wrote Kitab al-Ta’dib, al-Shaykh al-Nawbakhti sent it to Qom)) [Mawsu’at al-Tarikh al-Islami: v.8, 583].

Finally, al-Shaykh Asif Muhsini explicitly negates the claim of al-Shaykh al-Mufid, in terms of the deputies being knowledgeable - although, one would at least expect the representatives of the Imams to have their creed in tact, or instead of asking Qomi scholars who clearly needed guidance themselves, to ask the Mahid to guide them. Rather, if it is too much for the Mahdi to guide them, at the very least he could point his deputy to the Baghdadi school instead. Interestingly, the Qomi school can be revived, seeing that the one who would want to take their problematic positions in creed could easily cite the very own deputy of the Imam! 

The Shaykh writes: ((The delegation of the deputies is not due to their superior knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis. Rather, it is due to other reasons. This is why al-Husayn b. Ruh was compelled to send a book to the jurists of Qom. For, he himself was able to differentiate, he would have looked into it himself, as usual)). [Mu’jam al-Ahadith al-Mu’tabara: v.2, 354]. What more does one need to say, and how much more does one need to demonstrate when it comes to the incoherence of such a theology? 

Although Shaykh Asif would also hold oal-Shaykh al-Mufid in question regarding his claim that ‘‘Religious teachings and communications were transmitted from him through these individuals’’. I would also like the reader to note that the excuse al-Shaykh Asif gives is unacceptable as well, when states that: ((The delegation of the deputies is not due to their superior knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis. Rather, it is due to other reasons)).

We have to know those reasons, otherwise, why are we being held to accept the claims of representatives of an infallible Imam who have no superior knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis. Yet, have a superior standing among the Abbasids, and SubhanAllah comfortably collect the Khums while the Abbasids are just sitting there and watching this unfold. For, shouldn’t they be panicking? Aren’t they collecting khums so that the Imam can use it to fight against these tyrants, wasn’t this the mainstream early Imami conception - as Sayyid Kamal notes, the Shia would sleep with their swords under their pillows thinking the Imam is going to rise at any moment. Honestly, it is beyond hysteria at this point, and it is unacceptable that one even takes this seriously. 

The disaster is one can keep on relating contradiction after contradiction, travesty after travesty, the Twelver creed is a creed which fails drastically in light of the Quran, the Sunnah, history, and in light of their own corpus. Keep in mind during the time of Shaykh al-Mufid, the Shia were having problems with an Imam being absent for more than a century. Can you imagine the look on their faces when informed that the Imam is absent for 1189 years, and counting?!

Again, the respected Shaykh strawmans this question as well, because the point isn’t that its not conceivable that the Imam can be absent for over a hundred years, I don’t have an issue - and neither do the ones who raise this contention - that the Imam could be occult for a million years. The problem is the absence of the Imam entails the absence of the implementation of the Shariah of Allah, hence Wilayat al-Faqih after a thousand years of waiting. The creed of occultation is disrespectful to Allah, to His Messengers, to the Prophet, and to the Ahl al-Bayt. It is truly heartbreaking to see the name of the Ahl al-Bayt be pillaged in this manner. 

The Shaykh concludes the fifth epistle by engaging in Qiyas (paradoxically, the Imamis are staunchly against Qiyas, yet seem to use it the most in their theology), he mentions the companions of the cave, al-Khidr, etc, the response to this is that salvation wasn’t tied to them during their absence. 

Epistle Six: 

As mentioned, this is a strawman, as the point isn’t to do with the longevity of the Imams age, it is the longevity of the Shariah not being established. For, Allah informs us to implement the Hudud, to lash the fornicators, administer the Zakat, etc. However, the Imami claim is that only the Imam can establish the Shariah, therefore, the objection to his age is an objection to how long the Quran has been set aside, and leeway is given to tyrants, and secularists to rule the Muslims while everyone is to just sit back and read Dua al-Nudba. 

Epistle Seven:

There were dozens who claimed to represent the Imam, to this day we have the followers of Ahmad b. al-Hasan al-Yamani who support their view from a hadith in al-Kafi which mentions two Mahdis after the Twelver. Again, the Shaykh is begging the question, as he is not providing a means to validate who is representing the Imam, since there were false claimants to his deputyship, such as al-Hallaj, and a dozen others. Finally, this argument is inapplicable to this era, since there is nobody who can claim to represent the Imam, and be taken seriously. 

Therefore, the contention raised by the question that the Shaykh sought to answer in this epistle, which is: There is No Need for a Hidden Imām Because His Existence is Like Non-Existence: No One Is Able to Meet with Him and He Cannot Establish God’s Laws. He Cannot Guide Anyone, Enjoin Good/Forbid Evil, or Call Towards Jihād.
 
Is a contention that is binding, and unanswered. 

As for the second point which the Shaykh mentions in the epistle, that the Imam fears for his life, and therefore matters of the Shariah not being implemented will be the fault of the oppressors is an answer which needs to be read in the context of the Shaykh. It hasn’t been two hundred years since the purported occultation, not over a thousand years where there were dozens upon dozens of just Islamic governments, as well as Twelver dense communities, and to this day we have Iran, which would give the Imam his seat and sacrifice beyond imagination for his sake.

The Eighth Epistle:

The Shaykh says that the Waqifites, and others cannot claim their occult personages, because they were perceived to be dead. However, this does not suffice, because they too can take out of context verses, tag them with Qiyas, and say: {And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them} [4:157]. 

The Ninth Epistle:

The Shaykh does not answer the question, and instead appeals to mystery. 

The Tenth Epistle: 

There is no significance in raising this as a contention against the occultation.

With that, I conclude the rebuttal to the ten epistles, and I invite our dear brothers, and sisters to reflect. 

~ Muhammad al-Sharifi

@Cool respond to these arguments brother, they are still untouched, and they are what is fundamentally relevant to the thread. 

[Hameedeh]

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

You see me writing for today, but in reality I write for the future, I write for those beautiful minds, and sincere hearts who will come together and combine a devastating consciousness, and together they will fight the true battle between the Party of Allah, and the Party of Shaytan. This is just the beginning, and the stage is being set, and I believe that there are great miracles which will come if we have faith, sincerity, and dedication. 

Members who are not Twelvers (including Sunnis, Zaidis, Hindus, Atheists, etc.) are not allowed to proselytize their religion: 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/12120-shiachatcom-rules-and-policy/?do=findComment&comment=3355710

[Zaydism]

15 minutes ago, Hameedeh said:

Members who are not Twelvers (including Sunnis, Zaidis, Hindus, Atheists, etc.) are not allowed to proselytize their religion: 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/12120-shiachatcom-rules-and-policy/?do=findComment&comment=3355710

I agree, and understand these respective rules. Hence, I am seeking to honor them, however, to mention what one's intent is, is not tantamount go on with said intent (here). Nonetheless, if such wording is offensive, or troubling I won't phrase my sentences in that matter out of respect for you . 

[Cool]

43 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

There is literally nobody in the room, save the nearest of the Khawas, and the Imam. 

The hadith I am pointing to, is this one:

 محمد 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؟

You can find the complete hadith here:

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

In the same chapter, you will also find the hadith mentioning a dialogue between Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) and Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah a.r:

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_396#top

54 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

Yet, he who doesn't accept any of the imams is a kafir by consensus. Is this just in your eyes? 

The principles we have with us are very clear. The nass for Imamate is not the one that anyone who claim to be an Imam, becomes an Imam. 

Anyone who rise up with sword becomes an Imam. 

I hope you know very well how we identify Imam of our time. 

Furthermore, the necessity of existence of Imam is very well established and their numbers as well. So there is no question of how many Imams there will be and what would be their traits. 

59 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

The post is there is no Nass,

Every Imam has infact mentioned the Imam after him. The knowledge itself is a criteria, the proof or even miracle like Imam Sajjad's argument against Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah, calling to hajr e aswad etc are there.

I can even quote sahih, hassan & mowwathiq narrations for the Imamate of Imam al-Kazim (عليه السلام)

So we have the nass with us for every Imam including Imam Mehdi ajtf which specially is reaching to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Namely, the hadith of the 12 is 

- Entirely solitary in transmission 

I can prove you wrong right away by quoting 

عن مسروق قال: ((كنا جلوساً عند عبد الله (بن مسعود) وهو يقرئنا القرآن فقال رجل: يا أبا عبد الرحمن هل سألتم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): كم يملك هذه الامة من خليفة؟ فقال عبد الله: ما سألني عنها أحد مذ قدمت العراق قبلك! ثم قال: نعم ولقد سألنا رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، فقال: (إثنا عشر كعدة نقباء بني إسرائيل)))، قال الهيثمي في (مجمع الزوائد 5/190): رواه أحمد وأبو يعلى والبزار وفيه مجالد بن سعيد وثقه النسائي وضعفه الجمهور وبقية رجاله ثقات. ورواه الحاكم في مستدركه أيضاً في (4/501) وكذا ابن حجر في (فتح الباري 13/183) وحسنه .

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

obviously can’t

Then you have no right to discuss Imamate of Zayd al-Shaheed. 

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

I don’t follow the Zaydī school as a hadith school, we follow an epistemology which places the Quran, the members of the cloak, the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt, and reason at its forefront

Well I am not interested in what you have selected for yourself. For us, there is no such thing as "consensus of Ahlul Bayt". For us, only an Imam can nominate his successor, there is no nass of consensus like thing with us. 

 

[Zaydism]

15 minutes ago, Cool said:

The hadith I am pointing to, is this one:

 

Exactly, the same hadith negates your claim, as he literally says to the Imam in a room which there is no one save the Khawas, and the Imam:

On 11/7/2022 at 2:22 AM, Zaidism said:

I entered and found Abu al-Hasan Musa عليه السلام who said to me without being prompted: To me! To me! Not to the Murjia, nor the Qadariyya, nor the Mu’tazila, nor the Zaydiyya or the Khawarij. I said: May I be made your ransom - has your father passed on? He said: Yes. I said: passed away in death? He said: Yes. I said: Who do we have after him? He said: If Allah the Elevated wishes to guide you He will. I said: May I be made your ransom - your brother Abdallah claims to be the Imam after his father. He said: Abdallah wishes that Allah not be worshipped.

I said: May I be made your ransom - who is for us after him [your father]? He said: If Allah wishes to guide you He will. I said: May I be your ransom - is it you? 

How much more explicit can it get? And SubhanAllah, this is the same person who was trying to teach Imam Zayd who the Imam is! Now, he is lost, not knowing who the Imam is after al-Sadiq, yet he is staring him straight in the face in a confined room with no room for taqiyya.

Furthermore, the hadith says:

On 11/7/2022 at 2:22 AM, Zaidism said:

I said: May I be made your ransom - the Shia of your father are lost should I avail them of this matter and call them to accept you [as the Imam] for you have binded me to secrecy? He said: The one in whom you detect signs of receptivity to guidance then inform him of this and bind him to secrecy for if he publicizes it then it will be slaughter - and he pointed with his hand to his throat. He [Hisham] said: I left his presence and met Aba Ja’far al-Ahwal. He said to me: What is behind you? I said: Guidance! and relayed to him the whole story. Then we encountered Zurara and Aba Basir who both entered in to see him [al-Kadim] and heard his talk and asked him and believed in him. 

Everyone was lost! Where is this hadith of the tablet? Why were al-Taq, Zurara, Hisham, and Abu Basir needing to enter into this closed room - i.e taqiyya is off bounds - and then they had to inquire (in this taqiyya free room with Khawas only) in order to finally believe in him. 

On 11/7/2022 at 2:22 AM, Zaidism said:

whoever enters in to meet him [al-Kadhim] believes in him

This ties the case to the Khawas in terms of believing, i.e they did not know he was the Imam until they entered on him. Now, according to the twelvers the 7th Imam, upon him be peace, wouldn't publicly inform the Muslims he was a designated Imam. Hence, his own Zaydi kindred being unaware. Thus those who believed in him were only among the Khawas. There is no escaping this reality, this is quite explicit.

15 minutes ago, Cool said:

I can prove you wrong right away by quoting 

My brother, if there were a million sub-narrators, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is solitary. 

Can you focus on the actual responses I give to Shaykh al-Mufid, the occultation is another thorn in your theology. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Zaidism