Were the Shaykhayn like angels or were they evil?

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 11/1/2024 at 3:02 AM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Sorry, but this is typical Wahhabi propaganda against Zaydi Shi'a of Yemen in order to make Sunnis hate them and in order to justify their sectarian war against them. 

I would suggest to read what the Zaydiyya themselves think about this issue:

Al-Bayan al-Shafi li 'Ilaqat Zaydiyyat al-Yaman bil Jarudiyya

As you see their understanding of Jarudiyya may not be even the same as yours or that of Sunnis. 

 

And simple Tawaqquf would make the issue so much simpler instead of going overboard like Sunnis (by overly praising all companions) or Imamiyya (by acting as if most companions were apostates and hypocrites). Allah ta'ala is the Best of Judges and the Most Just. 

 

 

You completely missed the point. I was talking about the Houthi family, and not necessarily the entire zaydi scholarship of Yemen, so this point is a strawman. I also clarified in the very post that you have quoted that some Zaydi polemicists passionately hate the Bayt al-Houthiyeen because of their 'rafidi' outlook on the early caliphates and blame them for diluting the traditional, post-Shawkani B(EDITED)i consensus just for cosying up to Iran and the Twelvers. 

The fact remains that the Aqeedah of the Houthi leadership, atleast that of Sayyid Hussain and Sayyid Abdul Malik (May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) preserve him) is more similar to that of the Jarudiyyah, who represented Zaydism in its classical Kufan phase and were hardcore Rawafid. No amount of mental gymnastics by the neo-Zaydi polemicist whitewash campaign can change this because the videos are out there for everyone to see. 

Whatever this is, it surely isn't tawakkuf. I'd say that even mainstream Twelver scholars would hesitate to be this blunt on the minbar and in public. Sayyid Hussain minces no words about what he thinks of the early caliphs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11 by AbdusSibtayn

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 11/3/2024 at 10:20 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Imam Ali (peace be upon him) helped Genghis Khan consolidate his iron fisted power...Roger that...are you guys hearing yourselves?

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never ever helped any of the three consolidate their power, but vocally and not -so -vocally registered his opposition whenever and wherever he could (such as in the shura preceding Uthman's election). 

Consolidation and improvement of the Muslim government and administration, on the other hand, would have led to the overall betterment of all Muslims. Here he cooperated with the powers that be, and asked his followers to do the same. 

Let's not confuse and conflate the people with the institutions, the offices with the office holders. 

One can be committed to the former while opposing the latter. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 11/6/2024 at 12:13 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

accepted an official advisory and administrative post in Abu Bakr's government..

Only that the Imam (عليه السلام) did not serve in any administrative position, either civil or military, under the three. 

Randomly responding to requests for help and consultation is not the same as holding an office. That would mean the Imam's subordination to, and approval of, their rule. 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

Would you please mention a single  hadith for the imams of Zaidis naming them as Imams chosen after Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) from shia or sunni sources?

OR even simple hadith mentioning the name of Zaid bin Ali as Imam after the Imam Ali bin Hussain from the progeny of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is necessary to just verification of your claims for spreading the false zaidis assumptions in this thread.

wasallam

There are only authentic Nusus regarding three persons:

1) Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) 

2) Imam al-Hassan (peace be upon him) 

3) Imam al-Hussayn (peace be upon him) 

Thereafter any person from the progeny of al-Hassan wal Hussayn (peace be upon them), who is just, pious and knowledgeable can be an Imam, if he stands up and draws the sword against the oppressors and tyrants. Examples would be Imam al-Zayd bin 'Ali and Imam al-Nafs al-Zakiyya. 

As for others from the Ahl al-Bayt, who have been blessed with knowledge, then they're Imams of knowledge. Examples would be Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq. 

May peace be upon them all. 

According to the Zaydiyya, these Imams had all the same creed. 

Edited November 11 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

45 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

You completely missed the point. I was talking about the Houthi family, and not necessarily the entire zaydi scholarship of Yemen, so this point is a strawman. I also clarified in the very post that you have quoted that some Zaydi polemicists passionately hate the Bayt al-Houthiyeen because of their 'rafidi' outlook on the early caliphates and blame them for diluting the traditional, post-Shawkani B(EDITED)i consensus just for cosying up to Iran and the Twelvers. 

The fact remains that the Aqeedah of the Houthi leadership, atleast that of Sayyid Hussain and Sayyid Abdul Malik (May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) preserve him) is more similar to that of the Jarudiyyah, who represented Zaydism in its classical Kufan phase and were hardcore Rawafid. No amount of mental gymnastics by the neo-Zaydi polemicist whitewash campaign can change this because the videos are out there for everyone to see. 

Whatever this is, it surely isn't tawakkuf. I'd say that even mainstream Twelver scholars would hesitate to be this blunt on the minbar and in public. Sayyid Hussain minces no words about what he thinks of the early caliphs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A person doesn't cease to be a Zaydi just because he criticized or even praised the Shaykhayn. But the Asl is still Tawaqquf.

Remember that according to Zaydi understanding what is important is what the Ahl al-Bayt themselves taught and agreed upon. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

6 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

A person doesn't cease to be a Zaydi just because he criticized or even praised the Shaykhayn. But the Asl is still Tawaqquf.

Remember that according to Zaydi understanding what is important is what the Ahl al-Bayt themselves taught and agreed upon. 

We are going around in circles now. 

It was never my case that the family are no longer Zaydis. 

My case was that the family's view of the 3 is closer to what would be called 'rafd' in mainstream Sunnism and post-Shawkani modern Zaydism. 

I couldn't care less about what the majority Zaydi position is, because that doesn't concern my argument here. 

Wassalam

Edited November 12 by AbdusSibtayn

[Muslim2010]

22 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

 Examples would be Imam al-Zayd bin 'Ali and Imam al-Nafs al-Zakiyya. 

Thanks for confirming the 12vers view that there is no hadith ever mentioning the Zaid bin Ali an Imam. 

wasallam

Edited November 12 by Muslim2010

[StrangerInThisWorld]

16 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

We are going around in circles now. 

It was never my case that the family are no longer Zaydis. 

My case was that the family's view of the 3 is closer to what would be called 'rafd' in mainstream Sunnism and post-Shawkani modern Zaydism. 

I couldn't care less about what the majority Zaydi position is, because that doesn't concern my argument here. 

Wassalam

Okay, I got you. But how is this relevant here? 

Then: If the issue is fair criticism in order to learn from past mistakes, then it should not be a problem. The issue is when one takes it a step further by cursing and making Takfir, because the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) were not known for this. 

And why is it relevant that mainstream Sunnis would regard them as closer to what they claim to be "Rafd"? Mainstream Sunnis also teach that obedience to an oppressive ruler is necessary and that dying upon major sins and crimes without Tawba still leads ultimately to salvation. Both these issues are in direct opposition to the understanding of the Ahl al-Bayt. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

23 minutes ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Okay, I got you. But how is this relevant here? 

Then: If the issue is fair criticism in order to learn from past mistakes, then it should not be a problem. The issue is when one takes it a step further by cursing and making Takfir, because the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) were not known for this. 

And why is it relevant that mainstream Sunnis would regard them as closer to what they claim to be "Rafd"? Mainstream Sunnis also teach that obedience to an oppressive ruler is necessary and that dying upon major sins and crimes without Tawba still leads ultimately to salvation. Both these issues are in direct opposition to the understanding of the Ahl al-Bayt. 

My apologies, but you have a penchant for non-sequiturs and red herrings. 

Bye. 

Edited November 12 by AbdusSibtayn

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Thanks for confirming the 12vers view that there is no hadith ever mentioning the Zaid bin Ali an Imam. 

wasallam

FYI: I don't believe that one group alone has all truth. In my understanding the Zaydiyya and the Mu'tazila are the closest to truth, while it is possible that others have a better understanding of some issues. 

Then: In the Zaydi understanding the Imams are not limited to 12 and the designation in the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is a general one for the Ahl al-Bayt. 

They don't even regard the Ahadith regarding 12 Khulafa (which is not even in your favour) to be correct in the first place. There is good reason to believe that these Ahadith were invented by Bani al-'Abbas and their men. Early Imamis had no idea of these Ahadith and it only became a famous issue after the development of the idea of occultation (which in itself was an apologetic attempt to explain why there were no Imams anymore). Incidentally the 'Abbasis had a much greater dislike for Zaydis (because they were a threat on their throne) than for Imamis (who were not really a threat). 

In addition to that there is no reason to trust people like Zurara, Burayd, Mumin al-Taq and their likes regarding what they claimed of narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt. This is similar to trusting Abu Hurayra regarding Prophetic Ahadith. Likewise there is no reason to trust anthropomorphists like Hisham bin al-Hakam and Hisham bin Salim. These are the people upon whom 12er thought depends. So think about this first. 

Edited November 12 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

In addition to that there is no reason to trust people like Zurara, Burayd, Mumin al-Taq and their likes regarding what they claimed of narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt. This is similar to trusting Abu Hurayra regarding Prophetic Ahadith. Likewise there is no reason to trust anthropomorphists like Hisham bin al-Hakam and Hisham bin Salim. These are the people upon whom 12er thought depends. So think about this first. 

Salam this is pure comparing apples with oranges which there is countless proves about people like "Zurara, Burayd, Mumin al-Taq and their likes"  which everyone is  familiar with baseless Wahabi accusations about them which parroted by anyone who has claimed that is Zaydi or favors Zaydism while that person only has repeated baseless Wahabi accusations against Shia narrators which these accusations have been rejected countless times which you can check similar debates with @Zaydism who has had  totally similar to you about spreading false information  against Shia narrators likewise "Zurara, Burayd, Mumin al-Taq and their likes" based on baseless Wahabi accusations against them  ;  in similar fashion there is many refutations about Abu Hurayra which he has has mixed few truth with great amount of falsehood which Shias can derive truth from falsehood in his narrated narrations which in similar fashion we don't trust  narrations from any anthropomorphists  although we can derive truth from their falsehood in similar fashion of Abu Huraira .

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Then: If the issue is fair criticism in order to learn from past mistakes, then it should not be a problem. The issue is when one takes it a step further by cursing and making Takfir, because the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) were not known for this. 

Salam clearly your understanding from shia Islam comes from infamous Shirazi grouplet & bunch of wahabi nonsense about showing  weired  Shirazi grouplet as representative of Shia muslims while you have purposely have ignored mainstream Shias who are following wellknown shia Marjas likewise grand Ayatollah sistani & Imam Khamenei which based on Zaydi doctrine he has all conditions of a so called Zaydi Imam which clearly Zaydis from Houthies of Yemen  are following him as their Imam .

13 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

They don't even regard the Ahadith regarding 12 Khulafa (which is not even in your favour) to be correct in the first place. There is good reason to believe that these Ahadith were invented by Bani al-'Abbas and their men.

lol This has been refuted countless times in debates with @Zaydism which he has claimed such nonsense while still now he couldn't provide a reliable or rational evidence or document fro his baseless accusations which you are following similar procedure by repeating similar nonsense without having a reliable or rational evidence or document for your nonsense ; while in opposition to your claim "12 Khulafa" is on our favour which it has been proved countless times that "12 Khulafa"  have been  exactly 12 infallible Imams which first of them has been Amir al-Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  so then rest of them have been from progeny of Imam hussain (as0 which last of "12 Khulafa"  is Imam Mahdi (aj) as 12th infallible Shia Imam which in similar fashion of other infallible Imams it has been proved countless times. 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 11/11/2024 at 1:36 PM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Only that the Imam (عليه السلام) did not serve in any administrative position, either civil or military, under the three. 

Randomly responding to requests for help and consultation is not the same as holding an office. That would mean the Imam's subordination to, and approval of, their rule. 

"Ali's serious disagreements with the policies of Umar in both political and religious matters will be discussed below in connection with the selection of Uthman. Here it may be pointed out in passing that during the most active and eventful ten years of Umar's caliphate, in which the most spectacular conquests of Persian and Byzantine provinces took place and in which all the prominent companions of the Prophet took active part, Ali remained uninvolved. NOR DID ALI HOLD ANY OFFICE UNDER UMAR, AS HAD BEEN THE CASE UNDER ABU BAKR AND WOULD CONTINUE LATER UNDER UTHMAN. The only exception was his being in charge of Medina during Umar's journey to Palestine..." The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam p.65

Edited November 14 by Eddie Mecca
Adding

[Eddie Mecca]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:14 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Three sunni shaykahyn have been  conquerors likewise Genghis Khan & Alexander & Hitler

They weren't like Hitler, Genghis Khan etc....Jafri says on p. 67..."On the whole, the caliphate of Umar, as that of his predecessor Abu Bakr, characterizes a period in which Islamic ideals of simplicity, justice, equality, devotion to the cause, zeal for the faith, and a socio-economic equilibrium according to their understanding of these, were best represented." The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam 

Edited November 14 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

@StrangerInThisWorld, why did the Shaykhayn actively oppose and marginalize Bani Hashim? Is it because the people didn't want the prophethood and caliphate/imamate intertwined into the same household or clan? Who were these people that wanted the Bani Hashim to remain ostracized? Did they constitute a majority or a sizeable minority?

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

They weren't like Hitler, Genghis Khan etc....Jafri says on p. 67..."On the whole, the caliphate of Umar, as that of his predecessor Abu Bakr, characterizes a period in which Islamic ideals of simplicity, justice, equality, devotion to the cause, zeal for the faith, and a socio-economic equilibrium according to their understanding of these, were best represented." The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam

Salam maybe Umar & Abubakr have had apparent simplicity, justice, equality, devotion to the cause, zeal for the faith but on the other hand ther has not been a socio-economic equilibrium which Umar clearly has been anti Iranian due to his racist mindset which outcome of their leadership has been corruption of Sahabas likewise Talha & Zubair due to unbalanced socio-economics  of three Sunni shaykahyn which only Amir alMumin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has tried to back the socio-economic equilibrium which due to that Companions/Sahaba likewise Talha & Zubair & cursed Umayyads have uprised against him in battle of Jamal in order to revive unbalanced socio-economics  of three Sunni shaykahyn . 

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ashvazdanghe, you're not allowed to disagree w/ Syed Husain M. Jafry...he's a Shi'i scholar of global repute...he has traditional hawza training as well as a background in Western academia...he synthesized the two approaches into one unique style...here are his credentials... "of Dr. Syed Husain Mohammad Jafri on January 20, 2019 in Karachi at the age of 84, Pakistan has lost a scholar of international repute. There are not many historians in Pakistan who obtained two doctoral degrees in history. His first Ph.D. was from the University of Lucknow (India), and the other from the University of London. He Joined Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi, as a founding director in 1983, from where he retired in 1998. He was the first Co-editor of the Hamdard Islamicus. He remained till his last moments, a distinguished member of the Advisory Board of the Hamdard Islamicus. Prof. Dr. Jafri was a trend setter in the field of the sectarian history of Islam. He started his career as a teacher at the University of Malaya (Kuala Lumpur) in 1962. He also served the American University of Beirut as the Shaykh Zayed Chair of Islamic Studies and the Australian National University, (Canberra). Subsequently he joined the Aga Khan University, Karachi as a full professor, where he held for a decade, the founding Chair of Islamic and Pakistan Studies."

Edited November 14 by Eddie Mecca

[AbdusSibtayn]

2 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

"Ali's serious disagreements with the policies of Umar in both political and religious matters will be discussed below in connection with the selection of Uthman. Here it may be pointed out in passing that during the most active and eventful ten years of Umar's caliphate, in which the most spectacular conquests of Persian and Byzantine provinces took place and in which all the prominent companions of the Prophet took active part, Ali remained uninvolved. NOR DID ALI HOLD ANY OFFICE UNDER UMAR, AS HAD BEEN THE CASE UNDER ABU BAKR AND WOULD CONTINUE LATER UNDER UTHMAN. The only exception was his being in charge of Medina during Umar's journey to Palestine..." The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam p.65

Agreed. 

He made very clear what he thought of the two on the eve of Uthman's 'election' (which was a rigged election, with dissenting opinions forbidden on the pain of death, and Uthman's own brother in law Abdur Rahman ibn Awf made the head of the collegium, a clear conflict of interests). The condition put before Ali (عليه السلام) was that he should follow the 'Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Messenger (S) , and the Sunnah of the Two Sheikhs'. Ali (عليه السلام) flatly refused, saying that he'll be bound by nothing other than the Book and the Prophetic tradition (thereby implicitly saying that the two were not upon the way of the Prophet). Uthman accepted the condition, and was 'elected' caliph. 

On the other hand, proto-Sunnis, the partisans of the first 3, continued to view Ali negatively as a trouble-maker, a disruptor of the 'consensus' between the companions, and a stubborn, self-righteous egotist (astaghfirullah) whose high-handed caliphate was a period of strife and civil wars (as if the reigns of the previous two were free from any instance of conflict, violent or otherwise), and excluded him from the list of 'Rashidun' caliphs until Ahmad b. Hanbal would argue for his inclusion, centuries later. But this is another discussion. 

The stance of Ali and his progeny vis a vis the first two was not merely that of lukewarm disagreement, but opposition and quiet protest (the famous narration of al-Hussain (عليه السلام) asking Umar to 'step down from his father's pulpit' in the masjid al-nabawi is a case in point). 

 

Attempts to 'sweeten' things and erase these instances of opposition (which have survived clear attempts at censorship) is pathetic revisionism by obfuscationists. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@StrangerInThisWorld, why did the Shaykhayn actively oppose and marginalize Bani Hashim? Is it because the people didn't want the prophethood and caliphate/imamate intertwined into the same household or clan? Who were these people that wanted the Bani Hashim to remain ostracized? Did they constitute a majority or a sizeable minority?

I'd say that the majority was apathetic. They merely didn't want to get involved the clash between the powerful and bellicose Saqifa group and the hapless and beleaguered Ali-Fatima duo, simply minding their own homes and hearths. Their thought process was something like 'yes, we heard what the Prophet (S) said at the feast of Dhul Ashira, Khaybar, before departing for the battle of Tabouk, and at ghadeer, but I'm not going to mess with those guys with swords and clubs camping in downtown Madinah who might raze my home and carry away my belongings at the slightest hint of opposition'. 

Among the groups who actively opposed Ali and wanted to keep Bani Hashim ostracized were-

1. Architects of the Saqifa coup. Needs no explanation why. 

2. Bani Umayya, again self-explanatory (although Abu Sufyan had earlier offered support to Ali, hoping that he'd take up arms and the conflict would cause the nascent Muslim community to implode; when snubbed by Ali, he shifted loyalties and joined the Saqifa camp, realizing that keeping the Hashemites out of power would now be his best bet). 

3. The vast majority of the 'tulaqa' (new Muslim converts who had accepted  Islam under the pain of death or exile after Makkah's conquest) from Mecca, who were still seething from the wounds inflicted by Ali's sword in numerous battles, and grieving over relatives slain by him. Even if they were (nominally and formally) Muslim now, the ties of kinship, ever so strong in 7th century Arabia, would emotionally overpower any sense of loyalty to Islam, the Prophet or his family. 

No wonder Ali found himself alone and beleaguered. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

39 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

His first Ph.D. was from the University of Lucknow (India), and the other from the University of London.

 

39 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

He also served the American University of Beirut as the Shaykh Zayed Chair of Islamic Studies and the Australian National University, (Canberra). Subsequently he joined the Aga Khan University, Karachi as a full professor, where he held for a decade, the founding Chair of Islamic and Pakistan Studies."

Salam all of these universities are spreading so called globalist liberal American Islam  under guise  of unity while their policy is justifying atrocities of three Shaykhayn which even a shia scholar likewise w/ Syed Husain M. Jafry...he's a Shi'i scholar of global repute maybe has been affected with liberal policy of American Islam in similar fashion of globalist liberal Shia scholars in Iran likewise Mr.Rafsanjani & rohani & Khatami who have been presidents of Iran in order to apply globalist liberal American Islam which you can find globalist liberal values in three Shaykhayn . 

Edited November 14 by Ashvazdanghe

[AbdusSibtayn]

38 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ashvazdanghe, you're not allowed to disagree w/ Syed Husain M. Jafry...he's a Shi'i scholar of global repute...he has traditional hawza training as well as a background in Western academia...he synthesized the two approaches into into one unique style...here are his credentials... "of Dr. Syed Husain Mohammad Jafri on January 20, 2019 in Karachi at the age of 84, Pakistan has lost a scholar of international repute. There are not many historians in Pakistan who obtained two doctoral degrees in history. His first Ph.D. was from the University of Lucknow (India), and the other from the University of London. He Joined Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi, as a founding director in 1983, from where he retired in 1998. He was the first Co-editor of the Hamdard Islamicus. He remained till his last moments, a distinguished member of the Advisory Board of the Hamdard Islamicus. Prof. Dr. Jafri was a trend setter in the field of the sectarian history of Islam. He started his career as a teacher at the University of Malaya (Kuala Lumpur) in 1962. He also served the American University of Beirut as the Shaykh Zayed Chair of Islamic Studies and the Australian National University, (Canberra). Subsequently he joined the Aga Khan University, Karachi as a full professor, where he held for a decade, the founding Chair of Islamic and Pakistan Studies."

1. We can agree or disagree with any scholarly opinion, this is how academia operates. 

Yes, Jafari is a great scholar, but even great minds get things wrong sometimes. To say otherwise is to endorse an appeal-to-authority fallacy. 

2. We must keep in mind that these authors are almost always writing for an academic, non-Muslim audience, so their methodology and conclusion inevitably follow the standards of the secular academia, especially the historical -critical method. 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 11/13/2024 at 7:47 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this is pure comparing apples with oranges which there is countless proves about people like "Zurara, Burayd, Mumin al-Taq and their likes"  which everyone is  familiar with baseless Wahabi accusations about them which parroted by anyone who has claimed that is Zaydi or favors Zaydism while that person only has repeated baseless Wahabi accusations against Shia narrators which these accusations have been rejected countless times which you can check similar debates with @Zaydism who has had  totally similar to you about spreading false information  against Shia narrators likewise "Zurara, Burayd, Mumin al-Taq and their likes" based on baseless Wahabi accusations against them  ;  in similar fashion there is many refutations about Abu Hurayra which he has has mixed few truth with great amount of falsehood which Shias can derive truth from falsehood in his narrated narrations which in similar fashion we don't trust  narrations from any anthropomorphists  although we can derive truth from their falsehood in similar fashion of Abu Huraira .

 

 

On 11/13/2024 at 8:00 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam clearly your understanding from shia Islam comes from infamous Shirazi grouplet & bunch of wahabi nonsense about showing  weired  Shirazi grouplet as representative of Shia muslims while you have purposely have ignored mainstream Shias who are following wellknown shia Marjas likewise grand Ayatollah sistani & Imam Khamenei which based on Zaydi doctrine he has all conditions of a so called Zaydi Imam which clearly Zaydis from Houthies of Yemen  are following him as their Imam .

lol This has been refuted countless times in debates with @Zaydism which he has claimed such nonsense while still now he couldn't provide a reliable or rational evidence or document fro his baseless accusations which you are following similar procedure by repeating similar nonsense without having a reliable or rational evidence or document for your nonsense ; while in opposition to your claim "12 Khulafa" is on our favour which it has been proved countless times that "12 Khulafa"  have been  exactly 12 infallible Imams which first of them has been Amir al-Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  so then rest of them have been from progeny of Imam hussain (as0 which last of "12 Khulafa"  is Imam Mahdi (aj) as 12th infallible Shia Imam which in similar fashion of other infallible Imams it has been proved countless times. 

 

11 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

Salam all of these universities are spreading so called globalist liberal American Islam  under guise  of unity while their policy is justifying atrocities of three Shaykhayn which even a shia scholar likewise w/ Syed Husain M. Jafry...he's a Shi'i scholar of global repute maybe has been affected with liberal policy of American Islam in similar fashion of globalist liberal Shia scholars in Iran likewise Mr.Rafsanjani & rohani & Khatami who have been presidents of Iran in order to apply globalist liberal American Islam which you can find globalist liberal values in three Shaykhayn . 

Brother, you have a weird way of connecting everything to the Wahhabiyya or the West. 

Reminds me of speaking to the Wahhabiyya, because they do similar to this by connecting everything to the "Rafida" and "Quburi" Sufis and the West of course. 

Not saying that the Wahhabiyya or the West are innocent (which they clearly are not), but one should not exaggerate and also not deny our own mistakes. 

 

And thank you for mentioning your discussions with the brother Zaydism. I read some of them and he made some really strong points and I didn't see a similar strong response to be honest. 

 

As for my point regarding relying on Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), then I find it hard to reject it, especially knowing the Hadith of Thaqalayn. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) left the Quran and left the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as a guide for us. 

Why not take the religion from the collective knowledge of the sons of al-Hassan wal Hussayn (peace be upon them) instead of trusting the claims of non-Ahl-al-Bayt?! 

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

13 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@StrangerInThisWorld, why did the Shaykhayn actively oppose and marginalize Bani Hashim? Is it because the people didn't want the prophethood and caliphate/imamate intertwined into the same household or clan? Who were these people that wanted the Bani Hashim to remain ostracized? Did they constitute a majority or a sizeable minority?

The Tulaqa were opposed to Bani Hashim and I'm sure that the Shaykhayn knew this. 

As for the Shaykhayn preceding Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) in Khilafa, then it depends what their intentions and aims were. If they preceded him due to love of power, then this is a major issue with them. And if they preceded him with a genuine intention or excuse, then they were still mistaken, but at least it would not be as serious as in the first case. Allah ta'ala knows best regarding their reason and state. 

Coming back to the Tulaqa: They were large in number and their leaders were in positions of power in the pre-Islamic times and they wanted to continue from there on. 

That's why later on most Tulaqa sided with Mu'awiya (because he favoured them), while most Muhajrin and Ansar sided with Imam 'Ali.

[StrangerInThisWorld]

12 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Agreed. 

He made very clear what he thought of the two on the eve of Uthman's 'election' (which was a rigged election, with dissenting opinions forbidden on the pain of death, and Uthman's own brother in law Abdur Rahman ibn Awf made the head of the collegium, a clear conflict of interests). The condition put before Ali (عليه السلام) was that he should follow the 'Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Messenger (S) , and the Sunnah of the Two Sheikhs'. Ali (عليه السلام) flatly refused, saying that he'll be bound by nothing other than the Book and the Prophetic tradition (thereby implicitly saying that the two were not upon the way of the Prophet). Uthman accepted the condition, and was 'elected' caliph. 

The ironic thing is that Sunnis will talk about Shura day and night and this while their scholars allowed to the leaders to disregard Shura and thereafter they still obligated obedience to these leaders. 

 

Another ironic thing is that Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was the first to be actually given Bay'a from the beginning on by proper Shura of Muhajirin and Ansar and not just the opinion of a small group as in the case of the Khulafa preceding him. 

Edited November 14 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

Coming back to the issue of the Nass  being khafi or jali: The difference is in reality a technical one and at the end all Shi'a in their right mind agreed that the leadership of Imam 'Ali (peace be  upon him) was announced in a clear manner by the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu' alayhi wa alihi wa sallam).

Saying otherwise would be an accusation against the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) in not clarifying the religion and this was not the case. 

This means that the religion was complete - as explicitly stated in the Quran - and that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had proclaimed all important issues to the people. 

This is also why the claim of Nass AFTER Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) is very problematic, because it entails an indirect accusations that he (peace be upon him) did not clarify such an important issue and left most people ignorant regarding it.

[StrangerInThisWorld]

51 minutes ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

 And thank you for mentioning your discussions with the brother Zaydism. I read some of them and he made some really strong points and I didn't see a similar strong response to be honest. 

Here is an example:

_____

Regarding (1): The Zaydī view in terms of the Ahl al-Bayt, and the Imāma is twofold: (i) the progeny of the Prophet are seen as preservers of the Sunnah in the consensus of their community, the early sons of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn and (ii)the Imāma is a means to an end, the end is establishing the Shariah and ruling by the tradition of al-Imam Ali, al-Imam al-Ḥasan, and al-Imam al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace). 

It isn’t that Zaydīs hold there to be some strange intrinsic quality that every Fāṭimī possess and therefore we are to adhere to them because they’re descendants of the Prophet ﷺ. Indeed, this is not the Zaydī understanding regarding the progeny. Rather, the significance of the collective Ḥasanī, and Ḥusaynī progeny is that they serve as a valuable epistemic principle. Meaning the views of Ahl al-Kisāʾ which mirror the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ are effectively preserved by the early sons of the Prophet, from al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn. This is similar to how Allāh favored the sons of Israel to preserve, and teach the Torah. 

What Zaydīs are saying is that the collective early progeny serve a a valuable epistemic purpose in preserving the Sunnah that was distorted by individuals like Muʿāwiyah, the Ghulāt, and other pro-government/anti-Shīʿī campaigns. 

The matter is that Amīr al-Muʾminīn was set as a banner which one can differentiate truth, and falsehood. Guidance, and misguidance. He’s a mercy to the Ummah, he’s the most reliable source and when the Ummah betrayed him. The Prophet still gave them another chance, he emphasized his love for al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn, he showcased their position in paradise, that they will be masters in paradise and he who is a master in paradise is surely a master in this world. 
After Amīr al-Muʾminīn they were the best source to take the Sunnah from. Why? Because they were the nearest to Amīr al-Muʾminīn who was nearest to the Prophet. 

Then, after they were murdered, and betrayed by the Ummah what was left? The Prophet then gave us the last resort to preserving the Sunnah. For, if Amīr al-Muʾminīn led we wouldn’t be in this dilemma, by Allāh. If Ḥasanayn led we wouldn’t be in this dilemma, why? Because they would have preserved the Sunnah and we wouldn’t need to worry about guidance. However, that didn’t happen, and the Prophet wouldn’t leave us all at the mercy of sects, and schisms. 

So, he said: I leave behind the two weighty things the Book of Allāh, and my progeny. I remind you of my progeny, I remind you of my progeny. 

Why? Because they’re the gateway to the views of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn who are Masters of paradise. Meaning, they don’t engage in major sins. Meaning, they don’t lie. Meaning, when they say the Messenger said X, or taught Y. Then, this is the Sunnah. 

1. Imām ʿAlī is the authority in religion, and in political affairs after the Messenger and the station of the Messenger is his rightful seat. For, he is most deserving of it and the Qurʾān advances those who are most deserving ahead of others. 

2. Likewise, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn. 

3. Then, the consensus of the family is an epistemic authority in light of 1, and 2. 

Why? Is it just some sectarian theological position that bears no fruit, or does it succeed in providing you with some substance? 
The significance of the consensus is that it allows you to reach absolute historical, and religious certainty. 

How? 

Consider this: Imām Ḥasan b. Ḥasan who married Imām Ḥusayn’s daughter had Imām ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan. Imām ʿAbdullāh taught his sons Imām Muḥammad, ʾIbrāhīm, Yaḥyā, Idrīs, and Mūsā the teachings of his father al-Ḥasan, and his uncle al-Ḥusayn (likewise the mother of Imām ʿAbdullāh Fāṭima bnt. Ḥusayn of course narrated to her son as well). Then, we have Imām Ḥusayn’s son, ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn also teaching his sons such as Imām Zayd, ʿUmar, Ḥusayn. 

Then, those from the Ḥasanī line, and those from the Ḥusaynī line all intermingled such as:

Imām Zayd, Imām Nafs Zakiyya, Imām ʿAbdullāh, Imām Ṣādiq, Imām Bāqir, Imām Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar, Imām Kāẓim, Imām Ḥusayn b. Zayd. 
Then, you had  al-Imām al-Qāsim who by testimony of Najāshī took from al-Kāẓim, and al-Ṣādiq and was in the physical presence of Imām Kāẓim. Meaning al-Imām al-Qāsim took his knowledge from al-Kāẓim who was not only the student of al-Ṣādiq, he was also aware of the views of al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakīyya who in turn was a student of al-Imām Zayd, and al-Imām ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan. Likewise, you also have Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd, Imām Aḥmad b. Mūsā al-Kāẓim, Zayd b. Mūsā al-Kāẓim, ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā, Muḥammad b. ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan, Yaḥyā b. Ḥusayn b. Zayd b. ʿAlī, et al. 

This generation is the generation that preserved the views of the members of the cloak, because you only had 1, or 2 family members (their father, uncle, cousin) as direct intermediaries between them and Imām Ṣādiq, Zayd, ʿAbdullāh. Ḥasan b. Ḥasan, etc. 

Take this for instance, not only did you have Imām Qāsim take from Imām Kāẓim personally. The father of Imām al-Nāṣir al-Uṭrūsh took from the son of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq who is ʿAlī al-ʿUrayḍī. So, you have between Imām Nāṣir to Imām Ṣādiq only one intermediary, and between Imām Qāsim and Imām Ṣādiq only one intermediary both being the very righteous sons of al-Imām Ṣādiq. One of them is a Ḥasanī, and the other is a Ḥusaynī. Now, let’s take this a step further: 
Imām Hādī a Ḥasanī Imām never met with Imām Nāṣir, and Imām Nāṣir a Ḥusaynī never met with Imām Hādī. 

Yet, Imām Hādī in Yemen, and Imām Nāṣir in Tabristan both transmitted the same exact creed just by narrating from their forefathers and kindred who were all drawing from the same Fāṭimī pond 1-2 intermediaries away.

Here’s another example, these early members of the Ahl al-Bayt didn’t only have 1-2 intermediaries with their fathers, they also had it with their wives, mothers, aunts, and sisters. 

More Ḥasanī, and Ḥusaynī intermingling and the same creed…

The wife of Imām al-Qāsim al-Rassī

Sayyida Fāṭima bnt. ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan b. ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan b. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 

The wife of ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī 

Sayyida ʿAbda bnt. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 

The wife of Imām Nafs Zakīyya 

Sayyida Umm Salama bnt. Muḥammad b. Ḥasan b. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 

The wife of ʿAbdullāh al-Afṭaṣ

Sayyida Zaynab bnt. Mūsā b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 

The wife of Imām Ṣādiq 

Fāṭima bnt. Husyan b. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 

The wife of ʿAlī b. Jaʿfar al-ʿUrayḍī

Sayyida Fāṭima bnt. Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib

Many more examples can be given. 

As for (2): The narration that he who dies not knowing the Imām of his time will die a death of ignorance. The answer to that question is found with al-Imām ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib:

al-Imām al-Nāṣir ʾilā al-Ḥaqq  

al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, upon him be peace narrated from Ibrahim b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, upon them be peace, when he was asked regarding this report. So, he, upon him be peace, said: ((He, upon him be peace, intended that he who dies without knowing the Imām of his time to be just, so as to follow him, or unjust, so as to avoid him dies a death of ignorance)).

Perceive the accuracy, and consistency in this understanding, see the applicability of this reading which the Ahl al-Bayt, upon them be peace, have preserved. Indeed, if one does not know whether they are submitting to good, or evil. Then, truly their affair is of the most ignorant of affairs equated with that of the people of ignorance! Otherwise, any other reading will strip this Prophetic ḥadīth from its value, and apply to it a pro-sectarian understanding which has no pragmatic applicability, nor is it tangible. 

Furthermore, al-Imām al-Hādī Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn b. al-Imām al-Qāsim al-Rassī, upon them be peace, the Ḥasanid  contemporary of al-Imām al-Nāṣir al-Ḥusayni answers a further inquiry in his Majmu’ which asks: What if there is no (just) Imām, who is the Imām? al-Imām al-Hādī, upon him be peace, states that the Imām is the Qurʾān, and the honorable example of al-Imām ʿAlī, al-Imām al-Ḥasan, and al-Imām al-Ḥusayn, upon them be peace. 

Once again, another clear, and applicable understanding to this sacred Prophetic ḥadīth which highlights a magnificent synchronicity between the Messenger of Allāh, and his progeny in his teachings, and in their elucidations. 

Finally, it chimes brilliantly with the Qurʾān which states: 

{We made them Imāms inviting ˹others˺ to the Fire} 

And 

{We made them into Imāms to guide people in accordance with Our command}. 

_____

[AbdusSibtayn]

10 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

The ironic thing is that Sunnis will talk about Shura day and night and this while their scholars allowed to the leaders to disregard Shura and thereafter they still obligated obedience to these leaders. 

 

Another ironic thing is that Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was the first to be actually given Bay'a from the beginning on by proper Shura of Muhajirin and Ansar and not just the opinion of a small group as in the case of the Khulafa preceding him. 

They were all rigged elections, none of them was a proper shura or collegium. 

 

They practically forced Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to accept the caliphate; he was not at all willing to take charge and wanted to leave the slugfest to its fate. He only ever agreed to take charge under his own, clear conditions, and needles to say, none of those conditions were honoured. 

[Muslim2010]

19 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

1. Imām ʿAlī is the authority in religion, and in political affairs after the Messenger and the station of the Messenger is his rightful seat. For, he is most deserving of it and the Qurʾān advances those who are most deserving ahead of others. 

2. Likewise, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn. 

3. Then, the consensus of the family is an epistemic authority in light of 1, and 2. 

There is no 3rd option that lies in Quran. This is only the extension of those who follow the Saqeefa pick and choose principle.

Hadith of 12 imams and their confirmation in today's world by Quran is a definite principle and its further established details / verification can be seen at the given link:

wasalam

Edited November 15 by Muslim2010

[StrangerInThisWorld]

11 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

They were all rigged elections, none of them was a proper shura or collegium. 

 

They practically forced Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to accept the caliphate; he was not at all willing to take charge and wanted to leave the slugfest to its fate. He only ever agreed to take charge under his own, clear conditions, and needles to say, none of those conditions were honoured. 

If Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) would not have taken charge, Mu'awiya would have come to power much earlier and he would have changed major issues of the religion even more than he already did. 

In addition to that the later generations would have been completely ignorant of real Islam even more than they are today. 

Anthropomorphism, determinism, obligation to obey unjust rulers and the major sinner / criminal / oppressor attaining salvation without Tawba or remorse are all ideas that Bani Umayya injected into the religion. These ideas have influenced both Sunnis and Shi'a and some of these ideas have even become mainstream and accepted. 

Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) accepted Khilafa in order to reform as much towards good as possible. He was not someone to run away from responsibility, so please be aware that your dislike towards others doesn't lead you to present him with a false image.  

I would like to know what clear conditions you're intending here? 

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

3 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

There is no 3rd option that lies in Quran. This is only the extension of those who follow the Saqeefa pick and choose principle.

Hadith of 12 imams and their confirmation in today's world by Quran is a definite principle and its further established details / verification can be seen at the given link:

wasalam

Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) stated to hold on to the Quran, the Book of Allah ta'ala, and to his family, the blessed Ahl al-Bayt. 

Relying on non-Ahl-al-Bayt is what lead to deviation.

Then: Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) had clarified all major issues of the religion and the religion was complete. This is established according to the Quran al-karım. 

Any claim of Nass AFTER him is falsehood and the blessed Ahl al-Bayt did never claim this. And any claim of Nass that basically nobody knew about is likewise falsehood, because it entails an accusation against the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him and his noble family) of not clarifying the religion. 

Then: Logically speaking it's more likely for Imam al-Sadiq, Imam al-Kazim, Imam al-Qasim and Imam al-Nasir (peace be upon them all) to have the same creed, especially when they share the same blessed ancestry and took their knowledge from the same sources than dubious personalities, who were non-Ahl-al-Bayt and would make up claims to justify their sectarian views. 

If we were to rely on non-Ahl-al-Bayt, then what's the point of Hadith al-Thaqalayn?! How then can we differentiate between guidance and deviance?  

Edited November 15 by StrangerInThisWorld

[AbdusSibtayn]

8 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) accepted Khilafa in order to reform as much towards good as possible. He was not someone to run away from responsibility, so please be aware that your dislike towards others doesn't lead you to present him with a false image.  

I would like to know what clear conditions you're intending here? 

I'm not saying he (عليه السلام) was running away from his responsibility, he was reluctant to accept the caliphate because he knew that the very people who were persuading him to accept it would renege on their allegiance, abandon him and rebel against him, as they did in Jamal, and later in Siffin. There's literally sermon after sermon on this in the Nahj al-Balaghah, him urging his army to go on and fight alongside him, while they kept making excuses. The same thing happened during Imam Hasan (as)'s caliphate too. 

By 'clear conditions' I mean that he'd rule with absolute justice. All differential treatment to the contemporary elites would stop (eg. How Talha and Zubair once came to him demanding government posts but returned disappointed) and those who had embezzled and amassed wealth under the previous government would have to disgorge their ill-gotten gains (eg Muawiyah, or Ash'ath ibn Qais, who was governor of Azerbaijan under Uthman, and as per some reports, had come to own 1/3rd of all the real estate in downtown Kufa as his personal property). 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 11/14/2024 at 10:31 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

So, he said: I leave behind the two weighty things the Book of Allāh, and my progeny. I remind you of my progeny, I remind you of my progeny. 

Why? Because they’re the gateway to the views of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn who are Masters of paradise. Meaning, they don’t engage in major sins. Meaning, they don’t lie. Meaning, when they say the Messenger said X, or taught Y. Then, this is the Sunnah. 

1. Imām ʿAlī is the authority in religion, and in political affairs after the Messenger and the station of the Messenger is his rightful seat. For, he is most deserving of it and the Qurʾān advances those who are most deserving ahead of others. 

2. Likewise, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn. 

3. Then, the consensus of the family is an epistemic authority in light of 1, and 2. 

Why? Is it just some sectarian theological position that bears no fruit, or does it succeed in providing you with some substance? 
The significance of the consensus is that it allows you to reach absolute historical, and religious certainty. 

How? 

Salam you are trying to justify your falsehood with mixing it with truth in order to prove your nonsense under guise of pseudo logical conclusion while according to Shia viewpoint blood relation & marriage doesn't make someone infallible Imam (عليه السلام) which obeying him will be obligatory because infallible Imam (عليه السلام) from lineage of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) possess inheriting divine knowledge & infallibility & justice & other qualifications for being just infallible Imam of all people (عليه السلام) while your so called Zaydi Imams have not all required conditions for being the just Imam which they have made many mistakes & injustice & in same time at least two of them have claimed themselves as Imams which has caused bloody wars between their followers which leads to forging a ruling for Zaydis to accept ruling of two Zaydi Imams at same time while when Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) has been Imam so then Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has been his Shia follower which this Zaydi doctrine is against teachings of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) 

On 11/14/2024 at 10:31 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

The wife of Imām Ṣādiq 

Fāṭima bnt. Husyan b. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 

This proves that twelvers follow both of sons of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) which we follow Imam Musa Kadhim (عليه السلام) as their son from mixing two branches although it's not only reason for following him because all conditions of Imamate  as his infallibility & inheriting divine knowledge & being just & ordering by divine command as one of 12 caliphs  & rest  of all conditions about being just infallible Imam & leader have been proven about him in comparison with all so called your Zaydi Imams while your so called Zaydi Imams at least have one problem or more about being unjust so then being unqualified for being just infallible Imam from progeny of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which according to clear verse of holy Quran unjust people can't be Imams even if they have been from progeny of prophet Ibrahim (عليه السلام) 7 in similar fashion from progeny of prophet Muhammad (pbu)  & Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) &Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) which justice & infallibility even mixing two branches of sons of imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) since Imam Kadhim (عليه السلام) to 12th Imam Mahdi (aj) has been proven while in opposition to infallible Imams your so called Zaydi Imams just have blood relation while they have not other qualifications for being just Imam based on holy Quran. 

note : arguing about being unjust in duas of infallible Imams has no point which it's totally dfferent matter from qualification of infallible Imam which talking about "doing justice" or being "unjust to themselves" is about feeling of shortcoming because all people have not accepted them as their leadrs in all aspects of their life in similar fashion which they have neglected Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) until killing of Uthman . 

Quote

When his Lord tested Abraham with certain words and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘I am making you the Imam of mankind.’ Said he, ‘And from among my descendants?’ He said, ‘My pledge does not extend to the unjust.’ (124)

۞ وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا ۖ قَالَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ ‎﴿١٢٤﴾‏ 

https://tanzil.net/#2:124

Quote

Hadith n. 209
209. Amir al-mu'minin, peace be upon him said: The world will bend towards us after having been refractory as the biting she-camel bends towards its young. Then Amir al-mu'minin recited the verse:

And intend We to bestow (Our) favour upon those who were considered weak in the land, and to make them the Imams (guides in faith), and to make them the heirs. (Qur'an, 28:5) 48

209. وقال عليه السلام : لَتَعْطِفَنَّ الدُّنْيَا عَلَيْنَا بَعْدَ شِمَاسِهَا عَطْفَ الضَّرُوسِ عَلَى وَلَدِهَا. وَ تَلَا عَقِيبَ ذَلِكَ: (وَ نُرِيدُ أَنْ نَمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِى الْأَرْضِ وَ نَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَ نَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوارِثِينَ) .

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/selections-sayings-and-preaching-amir-al-muminin-ali#hadith-n-209

Quote

You have certainly known that I am the most rightful of all others for the Caliphate. By Allah, so long as the affairs of Muslims remain intact and there is no oppression in it save on myself I shall keep quiet seeking reward for it (from Allah) and keeping aloof from its attractions and allurements for which you aspire.

لَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ أَنَّي أَحَقُّ بِهَا مِنْ غَيْرِي، وَوَاللهِ لاَسْلِمَنَّ مَاسَلِمَتْ أُمُورُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِا جَوْرٌ إِلاَّ عَلَيَّ خَاصَّةً، الْتمَاساً لاِجْرِ ذلِكَ وَفَضْلِهِ، وَزُهْداً فِيَما تَنافَسْتُمُوهُ مِنْ زُخْرُفِهِ 

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-74-you-have-certainly-known

The third & 47th sermon of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) about usurping his right by three sunni caliphs in similar fashion matches with condition of rest of infallible Imam  which even so called Zaydi Imams have done injustice toward just infallible Imams of their times in similar fashion of injustice of the three Shaykhayn about Amir al Muminin imam Ali (عليه السلام) .

Quote

(5). Document of wise speech: Khatib (may Allah have mercy on him) says in the book of the sources of this wise speech: This speech is one of the unseen news of His Holiness, and it was narrated from him frequently, and for this reason, each group interprets it according to their religion. have done; The Imamiyyah consider it to be a reference to the coming of the Qaim, the Mu'tazila interpret it differently, and the Zaydiyyah interpret it differently. If this saying was not famous and frequent, there was no need for these interpretations, they would draw a line on it and pass it by.

https://ahlolbait.com/content/17941/ترجمه-و-شرح-حکمت-209-نهج-البلاغه-دنیا-به-ما-رو-خواهد-کرد

 

"It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation."

these critization also applies on so called Zaydi Imams due to opposing just infallible Imams of their times in similar fashion of the three Sahykhayn just by misleading peole by just relying on their blood relation & tribal matters & inhering through marriage while they have been unjust descendants of prophet Muhammad (pbu). 

Quote

Proposes Patience in Absence of Supporters

ترجيح الصبرعلى فقد الاعوان

I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A’sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.3

فَرَأَيْتُ أَنَّ الصَّبْرَ عَلَى هَاتَا أَحْجَى، فَصَبَرتُ وَفي الْعَيْنِ قَذىً، وَفي الحَلْقِ شَجاً، أرى تُرَاثي نَهْباً، حَتَّى مَضَى الاْوَّلُ لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَأَدْلَى بِهَا إِلَى ابْنِ الْخَطّابِ بَعْدَهُ. ( ثم تمثل بقول الاعشى):

شَتّانَ ما يَومي عَاى كُوْرِها * و يَوْمُ حَيَّانَ أخي جابِرِ

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

Edited November 16 by Ashvazdanghe

[Ashvazdanghe]

Addendum (issue of Fadak referes to matter of proving of Imamate which commiting injustice about three Shaykhayn which in similar fashion so called Zaydi Imams have followed their injustice toward infallible imams of their times)

In order to get the answer to your question, one fact that should be paid attention to is that the imam’s first and foremost priority always, was to preserve Islam itself, despite all of his objections to those in power before him, and that is why he would cooperate with them and help them in internal affairs and governing the Muslim nation[6], as he himself beautifully put it: “We [the progeny of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))] have a right [which was to be the true successors to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))] in which if we are allowed to exercise, then all the better, and if not, we prefer to be the second person sitting in the back of the camel [behind the person guiding it, instead of completely getting off]”.[7]

 

2- Sacrificing personal benefits for higher and universal goals

Ibn Ibrahim Karakhi says: “I asked Imam Sadiq (as) about why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) didn’t return Fadak after becoming khalifah. He answered: “When the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) conquered Mekkah, he was asked if he would return to his homeland.  He said: Aqil has sold my house. The people asked: Why don’t you take it back? He answered: We belong to a household that doesn’t take back what has been wrongfully taken from them; Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did the same in order to have followed the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) [in not taking back what rightfully belonged to him].[11]

A person asked Imam Kadhim (عليه السلام) the same question; the imam answered: “Our household [the progeny of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))] whose guardian is Allah ((سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)); He is the one who makes sure what belongs to us comes back to us, and we are the guardians of the people and make sure what belongs to them returns to them, but we don’t take back what belongs to us.”[12]

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa4214

[StrangerInThisWorld]

5 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I'm not saying he (عليه السلام) was running away from his responsibility, he was reluctant to accept the caliphate because he knew that the very people who were persuading him to accept it would renege on their allegiance, abandon him and rebel against him, as they did in Jamal, and later in Siffin. There's literally sermon after sermon on this in the Nahj al-Balaghah, him urging his army to go on and fight alongside him, while they kept making excuses. The same thing happened during Imam Hasan (as)'s caliphate too. 

By 'clear conditions' I mean that he'd rule with absolute justice. All differential treatment to the contemporary elites would stop (eg. How Talha and Zubair once came to him demanding government posts but returned disappointed) and those who had embezzled and amassed wealth under the previous government would have to disgorge their ill-gotten gains (eg Muawiyah, or Ash'ath ibn Qais, who was governor of Azerbaijan under Uthman, and as per some reports, had come to own 1/3rd of all the real estate in downtown Kufa as his personal property). 

Barakallahu fik for the clarification. 

Just one thing to add here: Many of those who fought at Jamal or at Siffin against Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) had not given him the pledge of allegiance, because they were not interested in justice in the first place. 

 

To connect the issue back with today's world: I'm from a country, where you will find many Shi'a and Sunnis and unfortunately it's one of the most corrupt countries in the world. The people - whether Sunni or Shi'a - love to claim that it's the fault of those who govern them (which funny enough they brought to these positions in the first place), but I'm sure that the majority or at least a very great portion of them do NOT want justice, because they would lose their jobs / positions / haram money, if there would be justice. 

This is why following the truth is not just a claim, but rather one which is proven through actions. This is why Allah ta'ala says that it's not enough to claim belief and that He ta'ala will test us to make our truthfulness or the lack of it evident. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam you are trying to justify your falsehood with mixing it with truth in order to prove your nonsense under guise of pseudo logical conclusion while according to Shia viewpoint blood relation & marriage doesn't make someone infallible Imam (عليه السلام) which obeying him will be obligatory because infallible Imam (عليه السلام) from lineage of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) possess inheriting divine knowledge & infallibility & justice & other qualifications for being just infallible Imam of all people (عليه السلام) while your so called Zaydi Imams have not all required conditions for being the just Imam which they have made many mistakes & injustice & in same time at least two of them have claimed themselves as Imams which has caused bloody wars between their followers which leads to forging a ruling for Zaydis to accept ruling of two Zaydi Imams at same time while when Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) has been Imam so then Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has been his Shia follower which this Zaydi doctrine is against teachings of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) 

Wa 'alaykum al-Salam, 

brother you don't really understand the Zaydi point of view, because the Zaydiyya have not claimed that the Imams AFTER Amir al-Muminin and al-Hassan wal Hussayn (peace be upon them all) were infallible in the first place. 

You want me to have a set of beliefs, which the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him) has not called the people towards nor clarified. Can you claim otherwise and this with certainity? 

The set of beliefs that you propagate came later and it was not even the scholars of Ahl al-Bayt that introduced these ideas, rather non-Ahl-al-Bayt. You're free to believe otherwise. I will not argue any further. 

One thing for you to consider however is that we're all tested and that a Zaydi, an Imami and even the Sunni have all the possibility to attain salvation and their misunderstandings to be forgiven, if they are truthful and have proven this through their actions. 

 

4:123
لَّيْسَ بِأَمَانِيِّكُمْ وَلَآ أَمَانِىِّ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ ۗ مَن يَعْمَلْ سُوٓءًۭا يُجْزَ بِهِۦ وَلَا يَجِدْ لَهُۥ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَلِيًّۭا وَلَا نَصِيرًۭا ١٢٣

It [i.e., Paradise] is not [obtained] by your wishful thinking nor by that of the People of the Scripture. Whoever does a wrong will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides Allāh a protector or a helper.

4:124
وَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِنَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ مِن ذَكَرٍ أَوْ أُنثَىٰ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌۭ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ يَدْخُلُونَ ٱلْجَنَّةَ وَلَا يُظْلَمُونَ نَقِيرًۭا ١٢٤

And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer - those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed.

___