According to Zaydīs, Mutʿah is categorically ḥarām

[Zaydism]

According to Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq Mutʿah is categorically ḥarām for Zaydīs

Zaydī sources:

Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aṣbahānī, he said: I asked Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad regarding Mutʿah, he said: Describe it to me. I said: A man finds a woman, and says: I will marry you with this Dirham for enjoyment. He said: That is Zinā (fornication).

— Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī (d. 247)

Sunnī sources: 

al-Bayhaqī narrated with his chain from Bassām al-Ṣayrafī, he said: I asked Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad regarding Mutʿah, and I described it. He said to me: That is Zinā (fornication). 

— Sunnan al-Bayhaqī (the chain is reliable)

Ismāʿīlī sources:

al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān al-Maghribī said: And from Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, peace be upon him, a man asked him regarding Mutʿah. He said: Describe it to me, he said: A man encounters a woman, and says: I will marry you with this Dirham, or these two Dirhams for an encounter that will last a day, or two. He said: That is Zinā (fornication), and only a fājir (wicked evil-doer) would do that. 

— Daʿāʾm al-Islām

Twelver sources: 

From al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, peace be upon him, he said when describing Mutʿah: Only a fājir (wicked evil-doer) would do it. 

— Biḥār al-Anwār

The Twelver al-Majlisī also reported: From ʿAbdullāh b. Sinān, he said: I asked Abā ʿAbdullāh, peace be upon him, regarding Mutʿah. So, he said: Do not dirty yourself with it. 

— Biḥār al-Anwār

al-Imām al-Ḥasan b. Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn b. Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 247 AH) said regarding Mutʿah:

The Progeny of the Prophet ﷺ have reached a consensus regarding its despicable practice and the impermissibility to partake in it. They (the Ahl al-Bayt) said: it was permissible during a particular time [of migration, and war] and the Prophet ﷺ then deemed it impermissible, and ended its practice. It was abrogated by the waiting period, and inheritance. They have also reached a consensus that there cannot be a marriage with the absence of the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two witnesses.

— al-Jāmʿ al-Kāfī 

 https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool

Edited June 7, 2025 by Hameedeh
change in title name

[Qa'im]

These are from non-Twelver sources:

قَالَ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ: وَأَخْبَرَنِي مَنْ أُصَدِّقُ، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا، قَالَ بِالْكُوفَةِ: " §لَوْلَا مَا سَبَقَ مِنْ رَأْيِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - أَوْ قَالَ: مِنْ رَأْيِ ابْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - لَأَمَرْتُ بِالْمُتْعَةِ، ثُمَّ مَا زَنَا إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ "

Ibn Jurayj said: One that I trust (man usaddiq) informed me that `Ali said in Kufa: Had it not been for the said opinion of `Umar b. al-Khattab – or he said: opinion of Ibn al-Khattab – I would have prescribed mut`a. Then, none would fornicate except a wretched person.

http://islamport.com/l/mtn/1187/15216.htm#

 

ولم يرخص في نكاح المتعة إلاّ عمران بن الحصين وعبد الله بن عباس وبعض أصحابه وطائفة من أهل البيت

None permitted mut`a marriage except `Imran b. al-Hussayn, `Abdullah b. `Abbas and some of his companions, and a group from the Ahl al-Bayt.

https://quran-tafsir.net/taalaby/sura4-aya24.html

 

عبد الرزاق ، عن ابن جريج قال : أخبرني عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس ، يراها الآن حلالا ، وأخبرني أنه كان يقرأ : " فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل فآتوهن أجورهن " .

`Abd al-Razzaq from Ibn Jurayj. He said: `Ata’ informed me that he heard Ibn `Abbas saw it (mut’a) as halal right now. He informed me that he would recite: “If you do mut’a with one of them for a time period then give them their due dower.” (Quran 4:24)

قال: وقال ابن عباس فى حرف أبى: إلى أجل مسمى. قال أبو عمر: وقرأها أيضا – هكذا إلى أجل مسمى – على بن حسين، وابنه أبو جعفر محمد بن على، وابنه جعفر بن محمد

He said: Ibn `Abbas said: In the codex of Ubay: “ila ajalin musamma”.

Abu `Umar said: `Ali b. Husayn, his son Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. `Ali, and his son Ja`far b. Muhammad would also read it like this: “ila ajalin musamma”.

https://islamweb.net/ar/library/index.php?page=bookcontents&ID=13382&flag=1&bk_no=73

https://ia600203.us.archive.org/15/items/waq2076/tmheed10.pdf

[Zaydism]

 

20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

These are from non-Twelver sources:

Narrated `Ali:

I said to Ibn `Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

— Sahih al-Bukhari

al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace) narrates from his forefathers, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace), he said: ((The Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) forbade Mutʿah during the year of Khaybar)).

 — Musnad al-Imām Zayd

'Ali b. Abi Talib reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited on the Day of Khaibar the contracting of temporary marriage with women and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

— Sahih Muslim

Malik narrated this hadith on the authority of the same chain of trans- witters that 'Ali b. Abil Talib said to a person:

You are a person led astray; Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade us (to do Mut'a), as is stated In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya b. Malik.

— Sahih Muslim

Muhammad b. 'Ali narrated on the authority of his father 'Ali that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.

— Sahih Muslim

Muḥammad b. Mansūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain from al-Ḥasan, and ʿAbdullāh the sons of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīyya from their father, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace): He said to Ibn ʿAbbās when he was giving Fatwas (legal verdicts) on Mutʿah: Desist, for the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade it on the day of Khaybar, as well as the meat of the domesticated donkey.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

al-Imām al-Hārūnī narrated with his chain to al-Ḥasan, and ʿAbdullāh from their father Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (Allāh is pleased with him) that he heard his father ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (upon him be peace) say when he encountered Ibn ʿAbbās, and it reached him that he was permitting Mutʿah with women, he (upon him be peace):

You are a lost man! The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade it, as well as eating the meat of the domesticated donkey.

— Amālī al-Imām Abī Ṭālib

al-Imām Aḥmad b. Sulaimān narrated from ʿAbdullāh al-Maḥḍh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, from his father, from his grandfather, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace), he said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade Mutʿah with women on the day of Khaybar, he said: If I find anyone practicing it, I will have him lashed.

 — Uṣūl al-Aḥkām

The jurist from the sons of ʿAlī Abū al-Ṭāhir Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. ʿAbdullāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib narrated to us saying: My father narrated to me, from his father, from Zayd b. ʿAlī: He was asked regarding Mutʿah, he said: It is like [consuming] dead animals, blood, and the flesh of swine.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace) was asked regarding Mutʿah, he said: It was a form of leeway that came from the Qurʾān, and then the Qurʾān abrogated it when the waiting period [for women], and inheritance was revealed, and this is the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace).

It was said: O Son of the Messenger of Allāh, what abrogated it? He said: The saying of Allāh, the Exalted: {And those who guard their private privates} [al-Muʾminūn]. Allāh, the Exalted, only permitted the wife, and the concubine.

— Majmūʿ kutb wā Rasāʾil al-Imām Zayd

The ascetic of the Ahl al-Bayt ʿAbdullāh b. Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (upon them be peace), narrates from his father, from ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan that he said to a man who would marry through Mutʿah: Be wary of Allāh, and desist from what you are doing.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain from Miskīn al-Samān, he said: I asked Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah (The Pure Soul) regarding Mutʿah, he said: Do not engage in it.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aṣbahānī, he said: I asked Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad regarding Mutʿah, he said: Describe it to me. I said: A man finds a woman, and says: I will marry you with this Dirham for enjoyment. He said: That is Zinā (fornication).

— Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

[Zaydism]

20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

One that I trust (man usaddiq)

The person is Majhul, if we accept this methodology, then you would have to accept the narration in Sunnan from Bayhaqi since all the rijal are Thiqat, with exception to Abu Muhammad who although is Majhul has reliable Shuyukh. 

20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

None permitted mut`a marriage except `Imran b. al-Hussayn, `Abdullah b. `Abbas and some of his companions, and a group from the Ahl al-Bayt.

Right, then he was corrected by Imam Ali. Ibn Abbas is not an authority that trumps the decree of Imam Ali for us, as Imam Ali clarified that the position of Ibn Abbas was mistaken. 

[Qa'im]

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Muhammad b. 'Ali narrated on the authority of his father 'Ali that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.

— Sahih Muslim

Muḥammad b. Mansūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain from al-Ḥasan, and ʿAbdullāh the sons of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīyya from their father, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace): He said to Ibn ʿAbbās when he was giving Fatwas (legal verdicts) on Mutʿah: Desist, for the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade it on the day of Khaybar, as well as the meat of the domesticated donkey.

Narrated `Ali:

I said to Ibn `Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

— Sahih al-Bukhari

al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace) narrates from his forefathers, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace), he said: ((The Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) forbade Mutʿah during the year of Khaybar)).

 — Musnad al-Imām Zayd

'Ali b. Abi Talib reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited on the Day of Khaibar the contracting of temporary marriage with women and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

Even though the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) allegedly banned mut`a at Khaybar, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) allowed it again after Khaybar at the Conquest of Mecca. From Sahih Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ بْنِ مَعْبَدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي رَبِيعَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، سَبْرَةَ بْنِ مَعْبَدٍ أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَامَ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ أَمَرَ أَصْحَابَهُ بِالتَّمَتُّعِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ – قَالَ – فَخَرَجْتُ أَنَا وَصَاحِبٌ لِي مِنْ بَنِي سُلَيْمٍ حَتَّى وَجَدْنَا جَارِيَةً مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ كَأَنَّهَا بَكْرَةٌ عَيْطَاءُ فَخَطَبْنَاهَا إِلَى نَفْسِهَا وَعَرَضْنَا عَلَيْهَا بُرْدَيْنَا فَجَعَلَتْ تَنْظُرُ فَتَرَانِي أَجْمَلَ مِنْ صَاحِبِي وَتَرَى بُرْدَ صَاحِبِي أَحْسَنَ مِنْ بُرْدِي فَآمَرَتْ نَفْسَهَا سَاعَةً ثُمَّ اخْتَارَتْنِي عَلَى صَاحِبِي فَكُنَّ مَعَنَا ثَلاَثًا ثُمَّ أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِفِرَاقِهِنَّ ‏.‏

Sabra b. Ma’bad reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) permitted his Companions to contract temporary marriage with women in the Year of Victory. So I and a friend of mine from Banu Sulaim went out, until we found a young woman of Banu Amir who was like a young she-camel having a long neck. We proposed to her for contracting temporary marriage with us, and presented to her our cloaks (as dower). She began to look and found me more handsome than my friend, but found the cloak of my friend more beautiful than my cloak. She thought in her mind for a while, but then preferred me to my friend. So I remained with her for three (nights), and then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us to part with them (such women).

The sahaba themselves disagreed on this subject, with even Asma' bint Abi Bakr, Jabir b. `Abdullah al-Ansari, Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Mu`awiya, `Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Salama b. Umayya b. Khalaf believing in mut`a after the passing of the Messenger ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Then there is the very interesting fiqh issue of donkey meat, which is banned alongside mut`a in the Khaybar hadith, yet it is considered halal by some.

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

The person is Majhul, if we accept this methodology, then you would have to accept the narration in Sunnan from Bayhaqi since all the rijal are Thiqat, with exception to Abu Muhammad who although is Majhul has reliable Shuyukh. 

It is interesting that you say this, as there is a possibility that من أصدق is الصادق عليه السلام himself, the namesake of this thread. There are others that also quoted this from `Ali (عليه السلام) as well.

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Right, then he was corrected by Imam Ali. Ibn Abbas is not an authority that trumps the decree of Imam Ali for us, as Imam Ali clarified that the position of Ibn Abbas was mistaken. 

The fact that there were "a group (ta'ifa) of the Ahl al-Bayt" that believed in the validity of mut`a shows (1) there was no ijma` on this issue among the `Itra, and (2) it is plausible that the Imami line are the ones that preached its validity. The narrations of al-Sadiq that permit mut`a in our books are countless, as were the number of students of his that allowed it - with its respective rules. To deny all this tawatur would be a massive oversight, and it would be a bit like saying "Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil was actually an Imami, despite what all his students said."

This is, ultimately, a khilaf issue in furu` al-din - how much you want to invest into arguing this topic is really up to you, as there are bigger and more serious differences between us.

[Diaz]

1 hour ago, Qa'im said:

So I and a friend of mine from Banu Sulaim went out, until we found a young woman of Banu Amir who was like a young she-camel having a long neck. We proposed to her for contracting temporary marriage with us, and presented to her our cloaks (as dower). She began to look and found me more handsome than my friend, but found the cloak of my friend more beautiful than my cloak. She thought in her mind for a while, but then preferred me to my friend. So I remained with her for three (nights), and then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us to part with them (such women).

This is how men use to make mutah before? Now if we try this to any women, al fatiha will be read to us. 

[Zaydism]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:51 AM, Zaydism said:

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aṣbahānī

For the sake of honesty, and sincerity in the eyes of Allāh. There is discussion on al-Aṣbahānī, as he could be Majhūl since we can’t - decisively - say that he is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh al-Aṣbahānī, and the attempts to indicate that are speculative. 

Additionally, 

On 5/9/2024 at 11:51 AM, Zaydism said:

al-Bayhaqī narrated with his chain

All the narrators in the chain are reliable, with exception to Abū Muḥammad who is Majhūl. Thus, this narration as well cannot be considered decisive evidence. May Allāh forgive, and guide us all! 

 

Edited May 11, 2024 by Zaydism

[Zaydism]

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

there are bigger and more serious differences between us.

Thank you, I would love to discuss this with you.

I find the orthodox Zaydī understanding to be the most viable view when it comes to fiqh and creed, due to the Zaydiyya as a tradition being the most practical, and decisive in preserving the views of the 5 members of the cloak. 

Namely, in so far as one is concerned, if there is a sense of authority and inherent superiority of the views of Imām ʿAlī and Ḥasanayn, then we are to seek the most confident and decisive means of transmission which may allow us to reach certainty that X was the view of Amīr al-Muʾminīn al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, and this is why orthodox Zaydīs emphasize the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt. 

Now, there are clear assumptions in what I say. Therefore, these assumptions will be mentioned and clarified.

The first assumption: the members of the cloak are authorities, and their views are objectively binding. Namely, if we find Imām ʿAlī saying view X and Ibn ʿAbbās saying view Y, we would - objectively - take the view of Imām ʿAlī only insofar as he is inherently an authority.

This is in contrast to say us seeing Ibn ʿAbbās saying view X, and Ibn Masʿūd saying view Y, in which we would have to do further investigation as one cannot de-facto say that view X is superior to view Y, while with Imām ʿAlī we can de-facto say his view is superior and binding without further investigation.

Defense of first assumption: The members of the cloak are inherently authorities because they are specified as those whom impurity was removed from in the established Sunnah, where these 5 are singled out. The impurity removed from them cannot be a physical impurity, such as blood, sweat, etc; thus what remains in this proposition if it is not a physical impurity is a spiritual impurity. Since spiritual impurity is negated from them, this means they - by logical necessity - cannot be said to be subject to major sin. 

In so far as they’re not subject to major sin, they would never lie against the Prophet ﷺ. For, to attribute a lie to him is a major sin that necessitates hellfire, but they - out of binding proof - are foremost in paradise and thus can never commit a major sin. 

Further support: love is obligated for those 5, in Ṣūrah Ash-Shūrā it is established that love for them is obligated, and some Sunnīs define Thaqalayn as being love for them too. I will accept that understanding of the Thaqalayn, and even based upon that unfair understanding it establishes that allegiance to them is objectively binding in matters of fiqh and creed, why? 

Because Allāh says  {You will not find a people who believe in Allāh and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allāh and His Messenger} [al-Mujādila: 22]. Since affection is necessitates for them, then necessarily they won’t oppose Allāh and His messenger ﷺ. 

Allāh also says: {O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies} [al-Mumtaḥina: 1]. Since love is necessitated for them, being an ally to them is. Now, if we take the unfair Sunni understanding of Ghadīr, we can also understand that Imām ʿAlī will never be an enemy of Allāh, because being an ally/friend to an enemy of Allāh is categorically ḥarām. Thus, they are objectively the friends of Allāh, and thus they will never exit from the mercy and support of Allāh. This means that those who cling unto them will also be encompassed in this mercy, and will be accepted by Allāh. So, they are the strongest handhold.

Allāh says: {O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allāh does not guide the wrongdoing people} [al-Māʾidah: 51].

When Allāh commanded to express love for them, it serves as a testimony that they are not adversaries to Allāh and His Messenger, and they are not enemies to Allāh or the believers. Thus, they are necessarily - always - upon the truth, and always upon guidance. Otherwise, it would entail that Allāh commanded us to love them while possibly in instance X they committed a major sin, or exited his mercy and therefore implicating us in loving them while they were showcasing opposition to Allāh! Far be it from them, and far be it from Allāh’s immaculate perfection and wisdom to cause us to fall into this.  

Now, in so far as their authority is established - objectively - by using the most uncharitable Sunni reading, what remains is defending assumption 2.

Assumption two: The Zaydīyya as a school in its orthodox formulation is the best means to ascertaining what the views of the members of the cloak are, since their authority is binding, we just need the best epistemological foundation to ascertain their views and the Zaydīs provide the best foundation for that.

Defense two: The Zaydīs emphasize familial transmission from both lines, the Ḥasanī and Ḥusaynī lines because it is not sound to say that what is mass-transmitted as an understanding and teaching between the early Ahl al-Bayt, and those who followed them in preserving their views is not a teaching of Imām ʿAlī. For, rationally speaking, the closest to the members of the cloak are their sons, and the best to preserve their views are the *scholars* from among *their progeny* who attribute their view to them. There is no greater route of transmission than this, and to challenge a claimed consensus is not to challenge the concept of the consensus. If some were to - fallaciously - argue that some Zaydīs claimed X was a consensus, and it turns out it wasn’t, this doesn’t disprove Zaydiyya and the epistemological basis of the Zaydiyya in the same manner that when someone shows that a claimed Ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth turns out to be weak. This doesn’t therefore render other claims of ḥadīths being Ṣaḥīḥ, or the epistemological basis of jarḥ and Taʿdīl as not being one which is robust, and reliable. 

Henceforth, to be an orthodox Zaydī, we must merely say that we adhere to the members of the cloak and the consensus from among the transmission of their sons. 

Suppose someone says that Zaydīs held to X, and Imām ʿAlī held to Y. Well, if it is established - decisively - that Imām ʿAlī held to Y, then it would in fact be the Zaydī view and the ones who claim to be Zaydīs and hold to X are not Zaydīs because they are henceforth contradicting their own axioms. 

So, to conclude anyone who is interested in the views of the 5 members of the cloak and who cares about adhering to them will follow a Zaydī epistemology. Sunnism is not interested in transmitting the views of the progeny, so they have cut the link which is the progeny. Twelvers are not interested in the views of the progeny, because they (i) don’t consider the consensus of the scholars, and (ii) take from the transmission of other than the progeny. The singular authority of 1 member of the progeny is trumped by the collective authority of the community of the progeny, because when you have 1 Ḥusaynī saying view X, and say 10 Ḥasanīs, and Ḥusaynī saying view Y. Then, necessarily anybody would take the consensus. However, to do so is to enter a Zaydī understanding.

We believe that what represents the views of the Ahl al-Bayt is the consensus of their Salaf, because the consensus represents what ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn held. Therefore, it is not following particular Fāṭimīs, but clinging onto the consensus of the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt who preserved the views of their forefathers from among their Salaf, from the sons of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.Hence, we hold as creed what was held in agreement between ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿAbidīn, al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī, Zayd b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir, Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, and ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan. 

‎al-Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī, al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakīyya, al-Imām al-Nafs al-Radhīyya, and al-Imām al-Qāsim al-Rassī lived during the first 200 years and were all upon agreement in creed. These honorable men preserved the views of the prior generations such as Ḥasan b. Ḥasan, Muḥammad al-Bāqir, ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan, ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿAbidīn who in turn preserved the views of the members of the cloak. They were all upon one Manhaj. We took our creed from them because the Prophet ﷺ told us to cling unto the Qurʾān and his Ahl al-Bayt and he didn’t limit them to a number "12," or restrict the line of Imām Ḥasan through ḥadīth Thaqalayn.

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

"Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil was actually an Imami, despite what all his students said."

I don't accept this understanding, with all due respect, and if we were to take it. Then, I would just point to how both the sons of the Imāms and their kindred were themselves upon the Zaydī creed, and that they would say - contrary - to those students that "our uncle, father, brother, nephew did not preach this divine Imāma." Also, there perhaps is an assumption that all the students of Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq were a monolith, whereas there many shades. In fact, among the Imāmis themselves there were those claimed they were demi-gods, and we see these heretics today as they argue for this understanding through Neoplatonic philosophy, wherein the Imāms are the the intellects that emanated from the One. So, in reality this doesn't lead us anywhere, other than giving credence to the Zaydī conception in so far as we have their sons, brethern, and nephews negating these attributions of divine Imāma. 

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

The narrations of al-Sadiq that permit mut`a in our books are countless, as were the number of students of his that allowed it - with its respective rules.

I am glad you mention this, as we also have to define what we mean by "Mutʿah" here, my critique against Mutʿah is the one which says no wali, and no witnesses whichis permitted by Sistani if the girl isn't a virgin. I believe that this is completely anti-Quranic, and illogical, in addition to the Zaydi transmission of the progeny, and their consensus on the necessity of the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two witnesses for a marriage contract to be accurate. I will share the argument from Imām Hādī (d.298) which was against this form of Mutʿah advocated by scholars like Sistani: 

al-Imām al-Hādī ilā l-Ḥaq Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn said: Mutʿah for us is enjoying copulation with women through a marriage contract that has the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two just witnesses. 

Regarding that is what Allāh (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: {So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation}. 

What is meant is whatever one enjoys of them in the marriage through the approval of their guardian, and giving them their compensation which is the dowry.

As for the people of heinousness who seek to find reasons to vindicate what is impermissible by maintaining that the woman can contract her own marriage solely between her, and her husband without the permission of the guardian, we do not give any regard to their saying, nor is it reliable.

This is because Allāh (Glorious is He) nullified such statements, and that is through what He made clear of His decree that the marriage is consummated after the approval of the guardians, and He made clear its prohibition for women without their approval. 

He (Glorious is He) said: {Marry off the ˹free˺ singles among you, as well as the righteous of your bondmen and bondwomen}. And He (Glorious is He) said: {Do not prevent them from remarrying their ex-husbands}. And He (Glorious is He) said: {So marry them with the permission of their families}.

In all of that, Allāh (Glorious is He) orders that the marriage contract is in the hands of the guardians, and not like the falsifiers who lie against Allāh by interpreting it to mean that the matter is in the hands of women. Allāh prohibited them from that, in the same manner he ordered it for their guardians. 

Allāh is Ever-Kind, Merciful, Omnipotent, and of generous benevolence. How can He permit such a matter, or decree it for them, and He says: {Allāh does not command to obscenities. Are you saying about Allāh what you know not?}. What obscenity is greater than he who permits women to marry themselves off without [the presence of] men. Women would leave the hands of their guardians, and go against what Allāh had ordered them of their Ḥijāb
 
If a Fājir (open-sinner) was found with a Fājira he, and she would both claim that they were married. This would cause what Allāh had ordered of penalty regarding them to be inapplicable [in society]. 

If they claimed to be married while witnesses testified against them, then the testimony of any witness would be arbitrary, and none would receive a punishment after their testimony. The Fāsiqīn (sinners) who advance towards Fusūq (wicked deeds) would certainly advance towards lying.

They would say whatever would free them from the punishment, and if such was permissible for the Muslims to do then nothing would be established from the rule of the Lord of the Worlds when it comes to those who commit Zina (fornication) from the Fāsiqīn (sinners).

Every Fājir (open-sinner) would dare against Allāh [Glorious is He], if such was the case - free is Allāh (Exalted is He) from permitting such - There would be no meaning for His saying (Glorious is He): {As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in ˹enforcing˺ the law of Allāh}.

Because whenever a fornicator is caught he would claim that they were married, and she would support him in his claim out of fear for both of them receiving the punishment - if what they claim is true - Nay! Allāh is greatest in estimation, and wisdom, so as to permit what the fabricators impossibly claim.

 [Kitāb al-Aḥkām, by al-Imām al-Hādī].

As you can see, this is a well known methodology of the progeny, which is negating anything that contradicts the Quran. Therefore, we see how the Imām attacks this not on the basis of narrations, but on the basis of it explicitly conflicting with the Quran. Then, the further buttressing would be added via the narrations of the progeny, and their infallible consensus.  

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

The sahaba themselves disagreed on this subject, with even Asma' bint Abi Bakr, Jabir b. `Abdullah al-Ansari, Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Mu`awiya, `Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Salama b. Umayya b. Khalaf believing in mut`a after the passing of the Messenger ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

I am not a Sunni, and mentioning Mu`awiya as one of its advocates actually makes more confident in rejecting this (lol). In reality, all the companions could have done Mut`a, I would equally consider them misguided in as much as they are going against our Master Imām ʿAlī. For, he is the criterion for us, and if all the companions held a view, and Imām ʿAlī held a view - stating it is of the Sunnah - then, we would take the view of Imām ʿAlī with pride, and certainty.

[Qa'im]

5 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Thank you, I would love to discuss this with you.

I find the orthodox Zaydī understanding to be the most viable view when it comes to fiqh and creed, due to the Zaydiyya as a tradition being the most practical, and decisive in preserving the views of the 5 members of the cloak. 

Namely, in so far as one is concerned, if there is a sense of authority and inherent superiority of the views of Imām ʿAlī and Ḥasanayn, then we are to seek the most confident and decisive means of transmission which may allow us to reach certainty that X was the view of Amīr al-Muʾminīn al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, and this is why orthodox Zaydīs emphasize the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt. 

People disagree over the view of Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام). Everybody but the Ibadis claim him, and even most of the Sufi turuq claim to get their teachings from him. The reality is that Amir al-Mu'minin could not teach much to the masses due to the political circumstances of his time. The same can be argued with al-Hasan and al-Husayn, which is why every group must (at some point) look to the `Itra, or the sahaba and tabi`in, etc. Imamah is our mechanism for determining what truly belongs to Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام) and what does not. So to prove or disprove a furu` issue to Imamis, ijtihad must be done from an Imami framework - and just randomly quoting narrations from different sects in your first two posts won't cut it. There are many hadiths I can quote back to you, but ultimately you won't accept them either, because of what Sunni rijal says about this narrator, or what your mashayikh said about that verse, or what someone's aql said about an issue, or whichever tool you choose to use to bring you back to your original conclusion.

[Zaydism]

25 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

Imamah is our mechanism for determining what truly belongs to Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام) and what does not.

It is a logical, and consistent framework. I don’t think Imāmism as a concept is irrational, in fact it is brilliant and lovely. However, we are all bound by Naṣ from the messenger ‎ﷺ. There is no evidence for any Naṣ from Allāh and His messenger ‎ﷺ regarding any Imām after Imām Ḥusayn صلوات الله عليه, and while the Salaf of the Ahl al-Bayt are undisputed in loftiness, I don’t see why one would accept the transmission of Imām ʿAskarī over Imām al-Uṭrūsh, or that of Imām Kāẓim over Imām Qāsim Rassī, or that of Imām Naqī over Imām Hādī ilā l-Ḥaq عليهم جميعا سلام الله. Not only do we see the nonexistence of a Naṣ, we see the progeny attacking it - say for instance the notorious Imām Zayd report which you’re well aware of that I shared when I was first having doubts, as well as the Ṣaḥīḥ report in Ṭabaqāt, the Sīra of the Salaf of the ʿitra who are known to be upright and virtuous, like Imām Nafs Zakīyya, Imām Ḥusayn al-Fakhkhī, Imām Ḥusayn b. Zayd, Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā, Imām Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh, Imām ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan! And many luminaries from the Prophetic progeny. In the words of Imām Qāsim Rassī عليه السلام, he would say the Prophet ‎ﷺ didn’t hide his Prophethood from Abū Jahal, and Abū Lahab, so why are the Imāmīs claiming our own family members are hiding this supposed divine Imāma from us? In reality, Imāma is a powerful pillar, but we can only follow the Nuṣūṣ to where they may lead us. I am very firm on the Naṣ for my master Imām ʿAlī, and Ḥasanayn صلوات الله عليهما and that is precisely based upon the inferences from the Qurʾān, and the established Sunnah through mass-transmitted reports such as Ghadīr, Manzila, Thaqalayn, al-Kisā, et al; as well as deductive inferences from the Qurʾān that - necessarily - entail the infallibility of the members of the cloak. Now, when it comes to other than the 5 members of the cloak, for internal and external critiques there just isn’t any evidence at all for anyone after them - all one can  reasonably argue, so as to preserve the مصداق of Thaqalayn is to indicate that the consensus is واجب لغيره, and that the members of the cloak are لذاتهم. Such that, the infallibility of the consensus is one which is derivative from that of the members of the cloak, in as much as the consensus - in principle - mirrors the views of the members of cloak. Thus, we are to look at the *scholars* of the progeny, and their consensus in each *طبقة* such that if a consensus is established in generation 2, then if someone from the 3rd generation would negate a consensus of the 2nd generation. Then, لا يعتد بقوله. Why? Because this is an epistemic principle, and robust epistemological means, in addition to the evidence of ʿAql, Qurʾān, and mass-transmitted Sunnah. This is actually the point, what the Zaydīyya are saying is the the evidence of deduction from ʿAql, inference from the محكمات of the Qurʾān, and the mass-transmitted Sunnah cannot ever conflict with each other. Such that, a proper deduction from ʿAql, a proper inference from Qurʾān, and a meaning derived from the established Sunnah would not conflict, but compliment each other - the saying "all roads lead to Rome," is very applicable here. Also, I am not - humbly - speaking from assumption, I have also sought to challenge this through tackling the metaphysics of the Zaydīyya, and I saw how reason leads to divine simplicity, I saw how if one reads the محكمات of the Qurʾān, one cannot hold as the Imāmīs and Sunnīs do of intercession for unrepentant major-sinners, and exiting the hellfire after entering it. I saw how the Sunnah itself cannot be left in the hands of those who are enemies to the Ahl al-Bayt, who seek any excuse to attenuate the Shīʿa of the Āl, I saw how we also cannot leave it in the hands of a turāth which part of it negates the other part of it, where its supposed greats are cursed, and at times opponents to the most righteous from among the Salaf of the Ahl al-Bayt. Yes, one can conveniently say Taqīyya, but this patchwork will bring forth greater problems than it solves and above all it is contra the Sīra of the Prophets, and the reality of the Qurʾān. Allāh is far more merciful, and far exalted above leaving us at the mercy of Ahl al-Ḥadīth, or at the mercy of manuscripts, and dubious rijāl. Rather, what we need to establish the Dīn of Allāh is unfalsifiable, deductive, and ecumenical proofs. Yet, to rely on such is to precisely be led to the Madhab of the Ahl al-Bayt as preserved, and articulated by the Zaydīyya. 

[Abu_Zahra]

On 5/11/2024 at 3:03 PM, Zaydism said:

I am glad you mention this, as we also have to define what we mean by "Mutʿah" here, my critique against Mutʿah is the one which says no wali, and no witnesses whichis permitted by Sistani if the girl isn't a virgin. I believe that this is completely anti-Quranic, and illogical, in addition to the Zaydi transmission of the progeny, and their consensus on the necessity of the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two witnesses for a marriage contract to be accurate. I will share the argument from Imām Hādī (d.298) which was against this form of Mutʿah advocated by scholars like Sistani: 

al-Imām al-Hādī ilā l-Ḥaq Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn said: Mutʿah for us is enjoying copulation with women through a marriage contract that has the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two just witnesses. 

As salamu alaikum brother

If this is the case, then the discussion is no longer about the validity of permissibility of mut'ah, rather the conditions of it. 

If your position is that mut'ah is permissible,  but with witnesses and the approval of a guardian, then the title of the thread 'mut'ah is categorically haram ' is inaccurate. 

[Zaydism]

On 5/11/2024 at 11:31 PM, Abu_Zahra said:

As salamu alaikum brother

If this is the case, then the discussion is no longer about the validity of permissibility of mut'ah, rather the conditions of it. 

If your position is that mut'ah is permissible,  but with witnesses and the approval of a guardian, then the title of the thread 'mut'ah is categorically haram ' is inaccurate. 

Walaykom al-Salām, if one defines Mutʿah like Sistani, then the response would be that of Imām Hādī صلوات الله عليه via the Qurʾān and ʿAql, in showcasing how such a conception is anti-Qurʾānic. If, however, the definition then becomes a Mutʿah with the approval of the guardian, and two just witnesses. Then, the discussion would be on whether it is lawful to marry with the intention of divorce. The thread is not inaccurate since this is ultimately the Zaydī view from Imām Ṣādiq عليه السلام, whom we claim to be a Zaydī and sharing these reports are supplements. Now, the reports shared by Qaʾim were not ones that indicated any marriage with the presence of a walī + 2 witnesses, and I am more than happy to discuss that if it is conceded that Mutʿah without the approval of the guardian, and 2 witnesses is fornication. So, I don’t think it’s genuine to just conveniently shift the goal post from the Sistani form or Mutʿah so as to evade the Qurʾānic argument, this conception itself is Awlā in refutation, then we can move on to the other conceptions. 

[Abu_Zahra]

14 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Walaykom al-Salām, if one defines Mutʿah like Sistani, then the response would be that of Imām Hādī صلوات الله عليه via the Qurʾān and ʿAql, in showcasing how such a conception is anti-Qurʾānic. If, however, the definition then becomes a Mutʿah with the approval of the guardian, and two just witnesses. Then, the discussion would be on whether it is lawful to marry with the intention of divorce. The thread is not inaccurate since this is ultimately the Zaydī view from Imām Ṣādiq عليه السلام, whom we claim to be a Zaydī and sharing these reports are supplements. Now, the reports shared by Qaʾim were not ones that indicated any marriage with the presence of a walī + 2 witnesses, and I am more than happy to discuss that if it is conceded that Mutʿah without the approval of the guardian, and 2 witnesses is fornication. So, I don’t think it’s genuine to just conveniently shift the goal post from the Sistani form or Mutʿah so as to evade the Qurʾānic argument, this conception itself is Awlā in refutation, then we can move on to the other conceptions. 

 

Mut'ah has existed a lot longer than Sistani or any other contemporary scholar. Again, you seem to be confusing two different discussions here, the first being mut'ah and it's permissibility and the second being the conditions (permission and witnesses). 

As a side note, most fuqaha do require permission of the guardian, so essentially the only point of contention here seems to be the requirement of witnesses. 

[Guest Imām Zayd al-Shahīd]

Salam alaykum

Sadly, history shows that a lot of Ghuluw & Anti-Shari'a and Tahrif al-Qur'an positions were attributed to imam Ja'far al-Sadiq ع

With mut'a, it was attributed to him that a man can contract any number of women, because they are 'hired girls'

Whereas it was narrated from 'Ali b. Musa al-Rida ع that if anyone did contract mut'a, she would be one of his four

The position of Ahl al-Bayt ع is a consensus that it is something to be strongly avoided, like the eating of carrion, which was/is made permissible only in a situation that seems to be leading to a great haram like fornication

Any authentic transmissions from them about the regulations of mut'a do not imply that they considered it proper, but they were explaining the regulations of mut'a which the Prophet had laid down at the time of permission

And they were issuing this to people who practiced mut'a. But the Ahl al-Bayt ع did not practice mut'a and cautioned their followers from soiling their reputations with it

Because the Prophet prohibited it after Khaybar, it became clear that this type of marriage was an exception for exceptional times; and because the verse was revealed giving a wife inheritance, it was argued that this abrogated a contract which excluded inheritance, such as mut'a

 

I advise honourable women not to contract mut'a, but to enter into a proper marriage, and to do so at a reasonable mahr (something that a man can provide with a year or two's savings from a basic national wage). And I advise honourable men to seek marriage with honourable women rather than go cheap or seek temporary relief from Christians or nominal Christians who do not take religion seriously. 

 

Marriage is a very special bond, where attachments are formed and families are united and children are expected and the future Umma is nurtured. Do not build a castle on a ground that is temporary, shaky, and cheap. Not everything that some narrators attribute to al-Sadiq ع is from al-Sadiq. Don't treat women, especially believing women, as hired girls

Marry them properly, with their Wali's permission, with a mahr that shows you care for her - may Allah bless you

[ServantOfMahdi]

Batrism, which is counting its last breaths in Yemen, is being revived elsewhere in the name of "Zaydism". Brother, poor it is to not consider the harsh and brutal times the Itrah lived in, the side-effects of generations of taqiyya on some of their branches, the vast communication gaps among them over vast periods of time owing to the cruel political realities of the time, and most importantly, ignorance of the Batri pollution of the Zaydi movement and the resulting factionalism. The popularity of the Shia Revival in Yemen has been and is being misused by many to propagate that pseudo-Zaydism which for centuries has faced resistance from several Zaydi factions, that pseudo-Zaydism which Shaykh an-Nawaasib Ibn Taymiyyah praised in his notorious Minhaaj as-Sunnah, that which is to some extent a shia version of salafism. Strange it is for those duped by the Batri da'wa in modern times to be ignorant of the fact that the leadership and the mainstream of that very movement in Yemen that  inspires them, are tracing the Imami roots of original Zaydism, which at its inception was never a sect or a madhhab distinct from Imamism, rather was what we have today as Wilayat al-Faqih, i.e. revolutionary Shiism.

The real Zaydis:

houthis.pdf

[Diaz]

On 1/22/2025 at 3:22 PM, Guest Imām Zayd al-Shahīd said:

But the Ahl al-Bayt ع did not practice mut'a and cautioned their followers from soiling their reputations with it

And how did you know this? You didn’t even post à Hadith or something.

[StrangerInThisWorld]

9 hours ago, Zaydi Shiapard said:

Batrism, which is counting its last breaths in Yemen, is being revived elsewhere in the name of "Zaydism". Brother, poor it is to not consider the harsh and brutal times the Itrah lived in, the side-effects of generations of taqiyya on some of their branches, the vast communication gaps among them over vast periods of time owing to the cruel political realities of the time, and most importantly, ignorance of the Batri pollution of the Zaydi movement and the resulting factionalism. The popularity of the Shia Revival in Yemen has been and is being misused by many to propagate that pseudo-Zaydism which for centuries has faced resistance from several Zaydi factions, that pseudo-Zaydism which Shaykh an-Nawaasib Ibn Taymiyyah praised in his notorious Minhaaj as-Sunnah, that which is to some extent a shia version of salafism. Strange it is for those duped by the Batri da'wa in modern times to be ignorant of the fact that the leadership and the mainstream of that very movement in Yemen that  inspires them, are tracing the Imami roots of original Zaydism, which at its inception was never a sect or a madhhab distinct from Imamism, rather was what we have today as Wilayat al-Faqih, i.e. revolutionary Shiism.

I don't think it's fair to take some extreme views (no matter in which direction) and to criticize a school of thought based upon it. 

Neither that which you called as Batrism nor that what you called as Jarudism is what represents classical Zaydi thought properly, which first and foremost is defined by the position of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and this especially when an agreement among them is known regarding an issue.

It's as if someone attacks Sunnis for having some Mujassima in their ranks or attacks Imami Shi'a due to the same issue. 

It also weird when one tries to define a Madhhab based upon ones own Madhhab like for example some so called "Salafis", who claim that the Zaydi, who does not accept the Khilafa of the Shaykhayn (and classical Zaydi thought does NOT accept anyone preceding Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) in Khilafa!), is not a Zaydi. How is the opponent supposed to define what another Madhhab is or is not and impose his own views upon others? 

Edited June 5, 2025 by StrangerInThisWorld

[ServantOfMahdi]

11 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

I don't think it's fair to take some extreme views (no matter in which direction) and to criticize a school of thought based upon it. 

Neither that which you called as Batrism nor that what you called as Jarudism is what represents classical Zaydi thought properly, which first and foremost is defined by the position of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and this especially when an agreement among them is known regarding an issue.

It's as if someone attacks Sunnis for having some Mujassima in their ranks or attacks Imami Shi'a due to the same issue. 

It also weird when one tries to define a Madhhab based upon ones own Madhhab like for example some so called "Salafis", who claim that the Zaydi, who does not accept the Khilafa of the Shaykhayn (and classical Zaydi thought does NOT accept anyone preceding Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) in Khilafa!), is not a Zaydi. How is the opponent supposed to define what another Madhhab is or is not and impose his own views upon others? 

When Batrism (pseudo-Zaydism) is propagated with criticisms of Imamism as some sort of ghulaat version of Shiism based on lies that developed in the centuries after the Major Occultation began, it is claimed by the proponents as a fair criticism and objective review, but when Batrism comes under scrutiny in that very same manner, it is an extreme and unfair criticism? 

I don't know whether you went through the quoted comments above, if not, should do so for clarity, but what we see as unfair is when the legacy of Imam al-Mujahideen Zayd ibn Ali (عليه السلام) and the movement he founded is being hijacked to propagate what he and his confidants never preached, at least in our view. My concern is not that what or who represents the so-called "classical Zaydi thought", rather to remind that this da'wa in the name of Zaydism includes concepts and doctrines alien to the call of Imam Zayd (عليه السلام) and the earliest Zaydis like Imam Zayd's aides Abul-Jarud (the eponym of Jarudism) and Fudayl ibn Marzuq (known Imamis in Rijaal science), Imam an-Nafs az-Zakiyyah (عليه السلام) etc., none of them ever held Mu'tazili doctrines (a requisite for the so-called "Zaydi" Imam).

One cannot do away with Jarudism when it comes to Zaydism, especially when it comes to the legacy of Imam Zayd's movement. And I'm not imposing anything on anyone, everyone is free to agree and disagree, to criticise and be criticised within the limits of Sharia, and to explore truths or keep oneself deluded as long as he remains Muslim. Forgive me for offences if any.

Edited June 6, 2025 by Zaydi Shiapard

[ServantOfMahdi]

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

12 hours ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

When Batrism (pseudo-Zaydism) is propagated with criticisms of Imamism as some sort of ghulaat version of Shiism based on lies that developed in the centuries after the Major Occultation began, it is claimed by the proponents as a fair criticism and objective review, but when Batrism comes under scrutiny in that very same manner, it is an extreme and unfair criticism? 

I don't know whether you went through the quoted comments above, if not, should do so for clarity, but what we see as unfair is when the legacy of Imam al-Mujahideen Zayd ibn Ali (عليه السلام) and the movement he founded is being hijacked to propagate what he and his confidants never preached, at least in our view. My concern is not that what or who represents the so-called "classical Zaydi thought", rather to remind that this da'wa in the name of Zaydism includes concepts and doctrines alien to the call of Imam Zayd (عليه السلام) and the earliest Zaydis like Imam Zayd's aides Abul-Jarud (the eponym of Jarudism) and Fudayl ibn Marzuq (known Imamis in Rijaal science), Imam an-Nafs az-Zakiyyah (عليه السلام) etc., none of them ever held Mu'tazili doctrines (a requisite for the so-called "Zaydi" Imam).

One cannot do away with Jarudism when it comes to Zaydism, especially when it comes to the legacy of Imam Zayd's movement. And I'm not imposing anything on anyone, everyone is free to agree and disagree, to criticise and be criticised within the limits of Sharia, and to explore truths or keep oneself deluded as long as he remains Muslim. Forgive me for offences if any.

Respectful criticism by both sides is not wrong, but what is wrong is to accuse the other side of something that they do not believe and to start name-calling the other side.

If a Zaydi criticizes an Imami position, then this doesn't make him a proponent of Batrism. From what I understand Batrism accepts the Khilafa of the Shaykhayn as legitimate, so what if the one criticizing you (let's say someone like al-Kazim al-Zaydi) doesn't even believe that anyone can precede Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon) in Khilafa?! Is it allowed to accuse such a person of Batrism? 

As for your attack on "Mu'tazili doctrine", then it's a little bit strange, because Zaydis and Imamis are quite near to Mu'tazili doctrine anyways (some of the Mu'tazila would attend the learning circles of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)). Obviously both Zaydis and Imamis do not agree with the Mu'tazila concerning Imama (but all three reject obedience to unjust rulers), but their creed on many other issues is quite near to each other. And if your concern is regarding the unrepentant major sinner and his damnation in the hereafter, then it's established in the Book of Allah ta'ala that such people will enter hellfire and not exit it and this by many decisive Ayat. Those who claim that a major criminal, who neither repented nor even has any intention to return to Allah ta'ala, will still ultimately attain salvation are in reality following a position invented by oppressors like Bani Umayya.

Edited June 6, 2025 by StrangerInThisWorld

[ServantOfMahdi]

If their exemplar al-Qasim ar-Rassi is justified in name-calling us Rafida in a derogatory manner, then we too deserve the right to call those followers of his Batriyya who refuse to disassociate from them whom we know to be enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), whose likes were named as such by Imam Zayd (عليه السلام).

11 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Those who claim that a major criminal, who neither repented nor even has any intention to return to Allah ta'ala, will still ultimately attain salvation are in reality following a position invented by oppressors like Bani Umayya.

We don't believe that haters and enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Ahl al-Bayt will ever attain salvation, for their being munafiqoon who will be in the lowest depths of hellfire (an-Nisa: 145). As for the eternal punishment of hellfire, leave aside whom you call major criminals, what about other sinning believers whose sins outweigh their good deeds and they enter hellfire, do they too will abide therein forever or will be punished in proportion to their sins and then be delivered and rewarded for their belief and good deeds? 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

49 minutes ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

If their exemplar al-Qasim ar-Rassi is justified in name-calling us Rafida in a derogatory manner, then we too deserve the right to call those followers of his Batriyya who refuse to disassociate from them whom we know to be enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), whose likes were named as such by Imam Zayd (عليه السلام).

We don't believe that haters and enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Ahl al-Bayt will ever attain salvation, for their being munafiqoon who will be in the lowest depths of hellfire (an-Nisa: 145). As for the eternal punishment of hellfire, leave aside whom you call major criminals, what about other sinning believers whose sins outweigh their good deeds and they enter hellfire, do they too will abide therein forever or will be punished in proportion to their sins and then be delivered and rewarded for their belief and good deeds? 

The term Rafida applies to those who rejected struggling for the sake of Allah ta'ala together with Imam Zayd (peace be upon him). It also applies to those who think that we shouldn't struggle for the sake of Allah ta'ala against the oppressors and wait until Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) appears. 

Applying this term indiscriminately is likewise wrong.

As for the Sunni application of this term, then it's complete falsehood, because rejection of the Khilafa of the Shaykhayn is not a crime. Even according to their own sources Amir al-Muminin 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) did not give Bay'a to Abu Bakr for at least 6 months (later on he also did not give Bay'a, but he shifted from open opposition to silent one due to the situation and the danger upon Islam itself). 

As for the enemies and haters of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), then they obviously will not attain salvation. 

As for sinners and entering hellfire: It depends upon the graveness of their sins and upon whether they repented or at least felt remorse and tried to better themselves. 

I personally don't believe that anyone who enters hellfire can exit it. This idea is literally absent in the Quran and is ascribed to the Ahl al-Kitab. 

Edited June 7, 2025 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

what about other sinning believers whose sins outweigh their good deeds and they enter hellfire, do they too will abide therein forever or will be punished in proportion to their sins and then be delivered and rewarded for their belief and good deeds? 

Salam surly they will be punished in proportion to their sins which inshaAllah will be delivered and rewarded for their belief and good deeds by intercession of intercessors although at least they can be saved from hell .

According to Imami and Ash'ari theologians, Muslim wrong-doers will enter the Hell if they are not forgiven by God and will be punished in accordance with their sins and will then go to the Heaven until no monotheist remains in the Hell.^[192] They take "khulud" in the Qur'an to mean a long, rather than an eternal, stay in the Hell.^[193] 

[192] Shahristānī, al-Milal wa l-nihal, vol. 1, p. 92; Ibn ʿAsākir, Tabyīn kidhb al-muftarī, p. 306; Ibn Maytham al-Baḥrānī, Qawāʿid al-marām, p. 165.

[193] See: Sayyid al-Murtaḍā, Rasāʾil, p. 270; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, vol. 4, p. 189; ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, al-Mawāqif, vol. 3, p. 491.

Quote

Some of the Mu'tazila have the same view, adding that it does not fit the divine justice for monotheist wrong-doers to stay in the Hell forever.^[194] Some Imami theologians deny that such wrong-doers will go to the Heaven, although they do believe that they will finally go out of the Hell.^[195] He identified such an intermediate position between the Hell and the Heaven with what is called "A'raf" or "Barzakh" in the Qur'an.

[194]Shahristānī, al-Milal wa l-nihal, vol. 1, p. 82, 128.
 [195]ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Kashf al-murād, p. 424.

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

The Prophet Muhammad has also mentioned to the people in regards to his own intercession:

I will be interceding on the Day of Judgment for whoever has faith in his heart.1

Each prophet before me asked Allah for something which he was granted, and I saved my request until the Day of Judgment for intercession on behalf of my nation.2

My intercession will be for the people who committed the cardinal sins (al-kaba’ir) except Shirk and dhulm (polytheism and oppression).3

https://al-islam.org/inquiries-about-shia-islam-sayyid-moustafa-al-qazwini/intercession-shafaah

https://en.al-shia.org/intercession-shafaah-in-the-quran-and-hadith/

1 hour ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

I personally don't believe that anyone who enters hellfire can exit it. This idea is literally absent in the Quran and is ascribed to the Ahl al-Kitab.

The Intercessors are five: the Qur’an, one’s near relatives, trusts (amanah), your Prophet, and the family of your Prophet (the Ahl Al-Bayt).4

Shafa'a has been clearly stated in the Qur'an in 24 verses many of which negates the pagans' belief in the intercession of idols.

"They worship besides Allah that which neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit, and they say, These are our intercessors with Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you inform Allah about something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?’ Immaculate is He and exalted above [having] any partners that they ascribe [to Him]!" (Qur'an 10:18)

Although the Qur'an denies the intercession of the idols, it has acknowledged the intercession of some figures such as the Prophet (s) with some conditions. 

Quote

In the Qur'an we read,

“	To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that may intercede with Him except with His permission?	”
— Qur'an, 2:255

Shafa'a in legislation means that God, out of His mercy, has sent laws for people which guide them and in fact intercede them to enter the paradise. All religious rulings are of this type.

Obstacles of Shafa'a

From the Qur'an, it can be understood that some issues are obstacles for benefiting from Shafa'a. Some groups who are deprived of Shafa'a are as follows:

• Disbelievers and polytheists
• Traitors
• Hypocrites
• Oppressors
• Enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) (Nasibis)
• Deniers of the Wilaya of Imam 'Ali (a) and other Imams (a)
• Those who harassed the progeny and children of the Prophet (s)
• Deniers of Shafa'a
• Those who do not take prayer seriously
• Those who abandon prayer^[20]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Shafa'a#:~:text=Shafāʿa (Arabic: الشفاعة, intercession) is a religious act,,hellfire or cause the promotion of some people.

 

Do Shia Muslims not go to Hell?

question

I have read in a hadith from the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ((عليه السلام).) that Shias do not go to Hell. I have also read in a book that the first floor of Hell is for sinful Muslims (Ummah of the Prophet)! Which hadith is true?

..............

Quote

As for the narrations which say that the first floor of Hell is reserved exclusively for sinful Muslims, we must say that the criterion for going to Paradise and Hell, according to the Quran, are a person’s deeds.

A person’s individual profile shall not be taken into consideration because there must be a difference between one who is wholeheartedly believing in Islam and one who is just accepting it. God, the Exalted, says to those who claim to be believing Muslims: “Say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts.”[15] Reciting the Two Testimonies (Shahadatayn) makes a person Muslim; he enters the pale of Islam by reciting them. That is to say,  the two testimonies have something to do with the aspects of his worldly, legal and social life. One who converts to Islam enjoys certain rights which a non-Muslim does not. However, being entitled to Paradise is something beyond this. That is to say, in order for a person to enter Paradise, not only submission to God is necessary but hearty belief and good deeds are also required. That is to say practical backing is essential for gaining divine reward. Conclusively, if a person is not up to the standards and criteria for going to Paradise as mentioned in the Quran, mere qualification by the term Shia or Islam would not save him from divine punishment or entering Hell.

Second: Who are the Shias who have been promised Paradise in the narrations?

There are some traditions from the Prophet (S) and the Infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).) as per which the Shias enter Paradise. The emphasis on the quality of being “Shia” makes us present a clear and tangible definition of the term “Shia” so as to better understand the narrations in this connection. Then we would be able to deal with the various understandings from such narrations....................

Quote

The Meaning of “Shia” According to Infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).)

What is understood from the narrations of the imams is that being a Shia doesn't simply mean being affiliated with a denomination out of all other denominations, rather, being a Shia (follower) of the Ahlul-Bayt entails chastity and struggle in the way of Allah; such a person will be a true Shia. For this reason, on different occasion did the Imams deal seriously with those people who regarded themselves as Shia to justify their deeds. We will mention a few narrations from the Infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).) to clarify their point about a true Shia.

There are narrations from the Infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).) in which the qualities of a true Shia have been mentioned. Additionally, they denounce the idea that whoever is called as Shia is immune to divine punishment describing them as liars.

A man says that he said to Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).): “Some of your followers commit sins and say ‘we are hopeful’. The Imam replied: They are lying. They are not our friends. They are people driven here and there by their desires. Whoever has a hope of something endeavors to get it and whoever is afraid of anything, he escapes from it.”[8]

 

 

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): “He is not from our Shia who accepts us by only his tongue and is against our actions and our legacy. Our Shia is he whose heart and tongue favor us and who is a follower of us in practice. They are our Shias.”[9]

 

In conclusion, we must say that man’s deeds have been considered to be the criterion for entering Paradise. Nominal Shi’ism or Islamic identifications do not save a person from Hell fire. Hence, based on Quranic verses and sayings from the Infallible Imams, peace be upon them, Muslims and Shias who do not act upon God’s injunctions and who do not stay away from prohibitions and have not fulfilled His commands will be deprived of divine mercy and blessings and will be subjected to punishment in Hell. When it comes to whether the punishments are eternal or not or what the nature of the rewards and punishments is and how intercession works, all of these should be discussed in their appropriate place.

At the end, it should be noted that our answer to the question does not mean that being Shia has no role in one’s entering the Paradise and that whoever does good deeds, be he a non-Shia, will be entitled to Paradise. Because we believe that thought and good deeds are both important and they are like two wings with which an individual flies to eternal felicity and happiness.

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa8628

 

 

Quote

Considering the above points, it should be said that if a Shia has committed a sin and has not repented, and there is no basis for him to be interceded for, he may enter Hell and remain there for a while and be purified, but if he has preserved the principle of monotheism until the last moment and adhered to the conditions of Shiism (Tawheed Saduq, Qom: Jamia Mudrasin, p. 19, Hadith 6, 7, 13, and 17). However, even if he has committed sins, he may suffer some punishments in the world of Barzakh, but on the Day of Judgment, the intercession of the Ahl al-Bayt will save him and he will not enter Hell.

Allamah Hilli has provided two reasons for saving believers from Hell:

1. A person who has both faith and righteous deeds and sins is worthy of reward because of his faith and deeds and is worthy of punishment because of his sins. Consequently, if he first enters Paradise to receive the reward for his deeds and then goes to Hell, it is not correct (as stated in the third introduction). According to the consensus of Muslims, no one will be expelled from Paradise in the Hereafter. If the opposite happens, if he first goes to Hell [if his intercession does not save him] and after a while he enters Paradise, this is not a problem and is what we are looking for. The third case is that punishment and reward are together, which is not possible and impossible. The only way is the second way.

2. The second reason is that it is unlike for Allah to keep His servant in Hell forever for one or more sins he has committed, even though he has faith and righteous deeds, and to torment him together with someone who has been a polytheist and an infidel all his life, and such a hateful and ugly thing is impossible for God and is not issued by Him. (Kashf al-Murad, ibid., p. 414).

As a result, it is possible that if a Shia does not repent of his sin and does not intercede and save him, he will remain in Hell for a while and will be saved after being purified.

https://www.porseman.com/article/آخرت-شيعيان-شيعيان-و-بهشت-شيعيان-گناه-كار/4175

Quote

There are many narrations that speak of some of the people of Hell entering Paradise, some of which are as follows: Abu Basir said: We heard Imam Baqir ((عليه السلام).) say: “Some people will come out of the Fire and enter Paradise.” Anas said: The Messenger of Allah((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) said: Some people will come out of the Fire. (Tafsir al-Mizan, vol. 11, p. 39)

In the eighth volume of the book Bihar al-Anwar, it is stated: “The sinful believers will one day come out of Hell,” but if the sin has affected him in such a way that it has brought him to the point of disbelief, he will never enter Paradise.

Some narrations indicate that the friends of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) and his family will not be in eternal torment, and their enemies will not be saved from eternal torment.

The Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said: “Verily, the guardianship of Ali (عليه السلام) is that goodness and blessing that no sin, no matter how great, can harm, and it is purified due to some of the punishments of the hereafter, so that they can be completely saved from sins through the intercession of the good and pure masters. And verily, the friendship and acceptance of the leadership and enemies of Ali (عليه السلام) and opposition to him is a sin that nothing can benefit from, and the only benefit that they will receive in this world due to their obedience is that they will enjoy external blessings and prosperity, health, and expansion of life. But when they enter the scene of the hereafter, eternal punishment will be for them.” (Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 8, p. 352)

https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/6475450/چه-کسانی-از-جهنم-به-بهشت-می‌روند

Quote

It is not clear to us how long the purification period is, but the general formula is that the degree of concentration of filth and impurity resulting from sins on the one hand and the weakness of faith on the other hand play a fundamental role in the duration of purification. Perhaps a sin that we consider small will torment its owner for years until it is purified. But regarding the nature of life, it must be said that life is certainly hard and painful. Burning in fire, a fire that we, prisoners of the natural world, cannot even imagine clearly, is obvious!! And of course, death, with all its bitterness, is much better than such a life, as evidenced by the fact that the people of Hell ask God for death, but death itself is dead forever and will not happen again. [5]

The result is that the end of the Shia, who is the believer (so-called the Holy Quran), is salvation, either by righteous deeds, or by mercy and forgiveness, or by intercession, or by fiery purification.

https://aghigh.ir/fa/news/120275/شیعه-ای-که-وارد-جهنم-می-شود-چه-مقدار-در-آنجا-می-ماند

https://www.hawzahnews.com/news/982737/شیعه-ای-که-وارد-جهنم-می-شود-چه-مقدار-در-آنجا-می-ماند

Quote

So, considering the above, the final answer is:

Just claiming to be a Shiite does not save a person, but faith and commitment to the beliefs of the true religion (Shiism) are necessary, and in practice one must be obedient. Now, if a Shiite is found who believes in God, the Messenger, and the infallible Imams in faith and belief in his heart, and in practice he is not indifferent to the divine commands, but is involved in many moral vices, as long as these unpleasant traits do not remove him from his faith and belief in his heart and he dies with faith, he will be able to receive the intercession of the saints of the religion on the Day of Judgment, because through the essence of faith in his heart, he has the ability to be interceded for, even if he has committed many sins.

So, if someone claims to be a Twelver Shiite but considers the matter of prayer to be trivial, even if he apparently has love for the Ahl al-Bayt in his heart, and dies in this state, such a person is not eligible for intercession because one of the conditions for being eligible for intercession is that a person believes in God and the Prophet and everything that has been revealed to him and does not consider prayer to be trivial, and the assumption is that such a person has neglected the matter of prayer and has considered this important matter to be trivial.

As a result, the meaning of the narration of Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) will be as follows.

No Shiite will go to hell with the definition of Shiite that has been given. Shiites are divided into two groups: Shiites whose deeds make them paradise-worthy, and Shiites whose deeds are not sufficient to make them paradise-worthy, and they become paradise-worthy by including intercession. So, whether the Shiites are from the first group or the second group, they will not go to Hell, but the punishment and torment  for the Shiite sinners in the afterlife is certain (of course, if they are not cleansed of their sins in this world or at the time of death) because the Imams have not given us the promise and promise of intercession in the Barzakh , and have left it to us and God.

https://www.balagh.ir/content/16885

 

https://en.al-shia.org/intercession-shafaah-in-the-quran-and-hadith/

https://en.al-shia.org/islam/islam-beliefs/intercession/

Edited June 7, 2025 by Ashvazdanghe

[ServantOfMahdi]

The most relied upon Imami narration about Imam Zayd's uprising endorses his jihad and calls those killed alongside him paradise-bound martyrs, while condemning his deserters as hell-bound traitors. So classing those traitors and the quietist Imamis who condemn them under the same label doesn't reflect justice. Though this very narration and prophetic narrations about the Qom Da'i, the Khorasani, the Yamani etc. were clear proofs supporting the Imamis of Abul-Jarud's ilk, quietism gradually became the mainstream Imami ideology, in whose support Anti-Revolution fabrications came up. In this aspect, the Jarudis indeed had stronger proofs for their stance, including Imami hadiths. Their opponents rejected them as non-Imamis and Zaydis, and Zaydis they indeed were and are (like the current Jarudi Huthi leadership) in the real sense, but it widened the gap between them and the mainstream Imamis.

1 hour ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

As for sinners and entering hellfire: It depends upon the graveness of their sins and upon whether they repented or at least felt remorse and tried to better themselves. 

I personally don't believe that anyone who enters hellfire can exit it. This idea is literally absent in the Quran and is ascribed to the Ahl al-Kitab. 

Then how will this ayah be understood? Do only kuffar and munafiqoon enter hellfire?

Surah An-Nisa (4:48)

> إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا

Translation:
Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And whoever associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin.

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

1 hour ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

The most relied upon Imami narration about Imam Zayd's uprising endorses his jihad and calls those killed alongside him paradise-bound martyrs, while condemning his deserters as hell-bound traitors. So classing those traitors and the quietist Imamis who condemn them under the same label doesn't reflect justice. Though this very narration and prophetic narrations about the Qom Da'i, the Khorasani, the Yamani etc. were clear proofs supporting the Imamis of Abul-Jarud's ilk, quietism gradually became the mainstream Imami ideology, in whose support Anti-Revolution fabrications came up. In this aspect, the Jarudis indeed had stronger proofs for their stance, including Imami hadiths. Their opponents rejected them as non-Imamis and Zaydis, and Zaydis they indeed were and are (like the current Jarudi Huthi leadership) in the real sense, but it widened the gap between them and the mainstream Imamis.

Then how will this ayah be understood? Do only kuffar and munafiqoon enter hellfire?

Surah An-Nisa (4:48)

> إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا

Translation:
Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And whoever associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin.

 

I agree, it's unjust to indiscriminately claim Imamis to be Rafida. But quietism itself is very problematic, because it means not to implement Amr bil Ma'ruf and Nahi 'an al-Munkar. Obviously this also is connected to one's ability to do and to which degree. 

 

As for the understanding of the Aya you mentioned, then the statement of Allah ta'ala "لِمَن يَشَاءُ" (for whom He wills) should not be forgotten here. ALLAH jalla jalaluhu has informed us whom He has willed to forgive and whom not. As such all Ayat should be accepted and not just a part of them. 

 

25:68 وَٱلَّذِينَ لاَ يَدْعُونَ مَعَ ٱللَّهِ إِلَـٰهًا آخَرَ وَلاَ يَقْتُلُونَ ٱلنَّفْسَ ٱلَّتِي حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ إِلاَّ بِٱلْحَقِّ وَلاَ يَزْنُونَ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذٰلِكَ يَلْقَ أَثَاماً ٦٨

And those who do not invoke with Allāh another deity or kill the soul which Allāh has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.

25:69 يُضَاعَفْ لَهُ ٱلْعَذَابُ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيامَةِ وَيَخْلُدْ فِيهِ مُهَاناً ٦٩

Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -

25:70 إِلاَّ مَن تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلاً صَالِحاً فَأُوْلَـٰئِكَ يُبَدِّلُ ٱللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ حَسَنَاتٍ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُوراً رَّحِيماً ٧٠

Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allāh will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allāh Forgiving and Merciful.

25:71 وَمَن تَابَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَإِنَّهُ يَتُوبُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ مَتاباً ٧١

And he who repents and does righteousness does indeed turn to Allāh with [accepted] repentance. 

___

Here we see that some sins will not be forgiven except if Tawba has been done. 

 

4:17 إِنَّمَا ٱلتَّوْبَةُ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ لِلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ ٱلسُّوۤءَ بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ يَتُوبُونَ مِن قَرِيبٍ فَأُوْلَـٰئِكَ يَتُوبُ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً ١٧

The repentance accepted by Allāh is only for those who do wrong in ignorance [or carelessness] and then repent soon [after]. It is those to whom Allāh will turn in forgiveness, and Allāh is ever Knowing and Wise.

4:18 وَلَيْسَتِ ٱلتَّوْبَةُ لِلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ ٱلسَّيِّئَاتِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَهُمُ ٱلْمَوْتُ قَالَ إِنِّي تُبْتُ ٱلآنَ وَلاَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمُوتُونَ وَهُمْ كُفَّارٌ أُوْلَـٰئِكَ أَعْتَدْنَا لَهُمْ عَذَاباً أَلِيماً ١٨

But repentance is not [accepted] of those who [continue to] do evil deeds up until, when death comes to one of them, he says, "Indeed, I have repented now," or of those who die while they are disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful punishment. 

___

This means that those people who continue to do evil and then want to repent in the last moment will enter hellfire together with the disbelievers and there is no forgiveness for them.

The reason could be that their actions turn their claim of belief into a lie. 

 

29:2 أَحَسِبَ ٱلنَّاسُ أَن يُتْرَكُوۤاْ أَن يَقُولُوۤاْ آمَنَّا وَهُمْ لاَ يُفْتَنُونَ ٢

Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried?

29:3 وَلَقَدْ فَتَنَّا ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَلَيَعْلَمَنَّ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ صَدَقُواْ وَلَيَعْلَمَنَّ ٱلْكَاذِبِينَ ٣

But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allāh will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.

29:4 أَمْ حَسِبَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ ٱلسَّيِّئَاتِ أَن يَسْبِقُونَا سَآءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ ٤

Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun [i.e., escape] Us? Evil is what they judge. 

___

Edited June 7, 2025 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Qa'im]

Here is an interesting narration on this topic from the Musnad of al-Ruwyani (b. 210 AH, d. 307 AH): https://shamela.ws/book/13161/1323

نَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، نَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ هَارُونَ , حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ ⦗٢٦٠⦘ إِسْحَاقَ، نَا عُبَادَةُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ عُبَادَةَ الصَّامِتِ وَكَانَ مِنْ خِيَارِ الْأَنْصَارِ، وَفِي بُيُوتِهِمُ الصَّالِحَةِ، أَنَّ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ قَالَ: إِنَّ أَهْلَ بَيْتِي قَدْ أَبَوْا عَلَيَّ إِلَّا هَذِهِ الْمُتْعَةَ: حَلَالٌ , وَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ أَذِنَ فِيهَا، وَقَدْ خَالَفْتُهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ فَاذْهَبْ بِنَا إِلَى سَلَمَةَ بْنِ الْأَكْوَعِ فَلْنَسْأَلْهُ عَنْهَا؛ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ صَالِحِ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْقُدُمِ، قَالَ: فَخَرَجْنَا نُرِيدُهُ، فَلَقِينَاهُ بِالْبَلَاطِ عِنْدَ دَارِ مَرْوَانَ يَقُودُهُ قَائِدُهُ، وَكَانَ قَدْ كُفَّ بَصَرُهُ، فَقَالَ الْحَسَنُ: قِفْ حَتَّى أَسْأَلَكَ أَنَا وَصَاحِبِي هَذَا عَنْ بَعْضِ الْحَدِيثِ، قَالَ لَهُ سَلَمَةُ: وَمَنْ أَنْتَ؟ . قَالَ: أَنَا ابْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، قَالَ: ابْنُ أَخِي، هَا إِذَنْ، قَالَ: وَمَنْ مَعَكْ؟، قَالَ: فَمَا الَّذِي تَسَلَانِي عَنْهُ؟، قَالَ لَهُ الْحَسَنُ: مُتْعَةُ النِّسَاءِ، قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: أَيِ ابْنَ أَخِي، اكْتُمَا عَنِّي حَدِيثِي مَا عِشْتُ، فَإِذَا مُتُّ فَحَدِّثَا، فَإِنْ شَاءُوا بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أَنْ يَرْجُمُوا قَبْرِي فَلْيَرْجُمُوهُ: أَمَرَ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَعَمِلْنَا بِهَا حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ، مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهَا مِنْ تَحْرِيمٍ، وَلَا كَانَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِلَيْنَا فِيهَا مِنْ نَهْيٍ

It suggests that Hasan b. Muhammad al-Hanafiyya was debating his family ("ahla bayti", the early Alids) on the validity of mut`a. The family was saying that mut`a was halal and that the Messenger (s) allowed it. So Hasan b. Muhammad al-Hanafiyya went and asked Salama b. al-Akwa` (d. 74 AH), an old sahabi from bay`at ridwan. Salama said that the Messenger (s) commanded mut`a, that the sahaba practiced mut`a until the Messenger passed away, and that Allah and His Messenger never prohibited it. Salama also said "conceal my statement during my lifetime. When I die, you may narrate it. If they wish to stone my grave after that, then let them stone it."

So, at least according to this report - which is not an Imami book, but a Sunni one from a prominent Shafi`i scholar, praised by Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar - the Ahl al-Bayt (and at least some sahaba) still believed in mut`a in the first Islamic century. Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام) was martyred in 40 AH, and this Salama b. al-Akwa` died in 74 AH, so this story would've taken place less than 34 years after Amir al-Mu'minin.

In any case, the Zaydis cannot claim any ijma` to their favour on this issue.

On 5/10/2024 at 8:27 PM, Qa'im said:

It is interesting that you say this, as there is a possibility that من أصدق is الصادق عليه السلام himself, the namesake of this thread. There are others that also quoted this from `Ali (عليه السلام) as well.

Last year, I wrote an article that established that this person was likely Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) or his father https://bliis.org/research/ibn-jurayj-jaʿfar-al-ṣadiq-and-meccan-fiqh/

[ServantOfMahdi]

45 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

the Zaydis cannot claim any ijma` to their favour on this issue.

The way they claim Ijma' of 'Itrah on several non-Imami rulings made me take their claims not so seriously.