The Imam Rassi Society has recently translated an important Zaydi / Zaydi work into English, being Imam Rassi's response to 180 questions ranging from matters of Fiqh to Theology in Zaydism / Zaidism. This work gives us insight into the types of questions which were being debated in Islamic circles at the time. Imam Rassi's full name is Imam al-Qāsim bin Ibrāhīm bin Isma„īl bin Ibrāhīm bin al-Hasan al-Muthanna bin al-Hasan bin Fātima bint Muhammad, the Chosen Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. He was born around the 8th century. He was based in Medina and raised under the tutelage of the imams and scholars of the Prophet‟s Descendants.
Imam Rassi Society writes about him:
"He mastered all of the religious sciences and quickly rose to the status of universal recognition in the City of his ancestor, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Insomuch that he was given the nickname by his contemporaries, the Star of the Progeny of the Messenger (an-Najm Al ar-Rasūl), peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny.
Although he authored a myriad of works, he is most known to engage in discussions and debates with various religions, sects, and philosophies. His works demonstrate his encompassing knowledge concerning various differences in belief and practice. He also demonstrates an artistic flair to his works because the majority of his works are written in rhyming prose.
He was also sought out by both scholars and lay people to answer the many inquiries that plagued them. The 180 questions and answers just translated are examples of the various questions that were prevalent in Medina during that time."
Imam Rassi Society has managed to translate the text, which is in the form of rhyimg prose in the Arabic version, in such a way that the rhyme and rhythm has been preserved as much as possible for English readers.
To read the full translation, go to our sister blog, which is www.zaydiyyah.wordpress.com
There is another work by the same author at the same blog, which is a list of Zaydi / Zaidi credal statements.
The form of Zaydism presented from Brother IRS seems as extreme as 12r Shia sect. Here is reference which declares takfir against non-shias.
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
However, his adherence to the school of Ahl al-Bayt is evident by his insistence upon the imamate of Amīr al-Muminīn, „Ali bin Abi Ťālib, upon him be peace. That withstanding, he unabashedly stated in one of his replies:
Whoever doesn‟t believe that after the Prophet, the imamate was „Ali‟s;
Allah won‟t accept his/her prayer, fast, alms, pilgrimage, or any other deeds.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
salaamz!
ReplyDeleteI know that it has been a while since I posted! This is due to increased responsibilities on my part. However, I saw fit to respond to Bro proAhlulBayt.
With all due respect, this is not a "form of Zaydism" that I am presenting, I am simply translating the views of our Imams, upon them be peace. It may seem extreme but I think that one should consider the factors that contributed to the imam stating that.
This is in no way takfir! He does not say that those that deny the imamate of Amir al-Mumineen are kuffar! However, a hallmark belief of our imams is that those who are presented the intellectual and textual proofs of the imamate of Imam Ali in a clear way and acknowledge his pre-eminence but still deny it, this person has denied a clear aspect of religious belief. If this is the case, what good will his prayers, fasting, etc will be for him on the Day of Judgment?!
May Allah help us! And Allah knows best!
Brother if Imam Ali's(as) imamate was was so important why did he initially refuse to become calipah when the sahaba gave him bayah after Uthmaan (ra) passed away ?
ReplyDeleteRefer to Sermon 92.
Also why does Imam Ali (as) says I will fight against those who are misled in Sermon 33 ?
Also you claimed that Imam Ali (as) told the sahabis to give him bayah through waliyah when he became calipah. If this is so why does he compare his ruling position to his shoe when it was on the basis of Ghadir ?
Salaamz!
ReplyDeleteJust to reemphasize my last posting, I wanted to clarify that the position and statement of Imam ar-Rassi, alayhi as salaam, is not a different "form of Zaydism" from that of Imam Zayd, alayhi as salaam. In the Majmu of Imam Zayd, Imam Zayd related on the authority of his father--his grandfather--Ali: "I heard the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, say: ((Whoever at the time of death says: “I am pleased with Allah as my Lord; Islam as my religion; Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, as my Prophet; and Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt as my guardians” will be shaded from the Fire and he will be with us like this)) and he held his two fingers together.”
Such explicit statement shows that the Imamate of Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is a central core of belief. This has been the position of the first of Ahl al-Bayt to the last of them. Therefore, there was and is no different “form of Zaydism” between Imam Zayd, Imam ar-Rassi, Imam al-Hadi, etc, upon all of them be peace.
Regarding your questions, Amir al-Mumineen, upon him be peace, denied the caliphate, not the imamate. These are two different things. The imamate is something that was bestowed upon him by the authority of the Prophet whereas the caliphate was what other people did with this authority. This is why in his other sermons he mentions it as being worth an old sandal or the sneeze of a goat. It is not that he saw the imamate as such, as he testifies in his other sermons. If you read all of the Nahj al-Balagha and not just piecemeal sermons, you will be able to get more of a broader and clearer perspective of Imam’s view of the caliphate and imamate.
Regarding your reference to sermon 33, I don’t know to what you are referring.
First of all, if it is established that Imam Ali reminded the Sahaba of Ghadir and made them testify regarding it, this shows that he was forcing them to acknowledge something that they otherwise suppressed. If this is the case, this shows that he (and they) saw Ghadir as testifying to the authority invested in him by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Otherwise, why would they have suppressed it for 25 years?! This also counters the absurd views that the declaration of Ghadir was the Prophet appointing Imam Ali as a “Sufi sheikh” or that it was about some incident in Yemen years ago!
And Allah knows best!
IRS
Again I still don't see how that's an explicit statement. All Muslims have to love Imam Ali (as) and his family. However, we all don't take any of that love to be explicit proof for Calipate. What your proving is actually are implicit statements. From your works we are Nawasib since we don't agree with you.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the sahaba were misled when they stepped back, and didn't make Imam Ali (as) the calipah. However, let me show what Imam Ali (as) says in his sermon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What (cause of conflict) is there between me and the Quraysh? By Allah, I have fought them when they were unbelievers and I shall fight them when they have been misled. I shall be the same for them today as I was for them yesterday.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In the above khutbah he says I will fight the people who are misled. In your view the sahabis who didn't appoint Imam Ali (as) as the first calipah were misled. So what happened here ?
Also you state that he made the sahaba testify his appointment of Ghadir. So why did he call his ruling position less worthy of a shoe ?
Also in the Quran when Talut (as) was appointed as a leader the majority of the Yahood stepped back. Why didn't he step back like Imam Ali (as) ? Why didn't he say appoint someone else. I will support him. Why did he fight against those who rejected his calipate ?
Again there are not much works from the Zaydis online. However, so far your views are no difference from the 12rs. On the contrary, you don't have taqiyyah in your aqeeda, so I know you will honest in your replies.
Since I see your views to be parallel with the 12rs on the first 3 imams, I will post some of their material and if you agree with them then help me interpret the sources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why Didn't 'Ali Use These Arguments?
Did Imam 'Ali not use the arguments of Da'wat dhi 'l-'Ashira or Ghadír soon after the Prophet's death because they were just implicit statements? The learned Shí'a scholar wrote: "It is also because of this absence of explicit statement on these occasions that Imam 'Ali never used any of these occasions, including al-Ghadir, to put forward his candidacy as the only rightful successor of the Prophet."[70] This is indeed a novel way of looking at the conflict of caliphate. The Sunni opponent would just extend this view a little bit further and say that 'Ali did not use these arguments because there was no argument at all.
http://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/5.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also you may call the Sufi proof weak, but Ibn Abil Hadid (ra) rational reasoning on the al-Khutbat al-Shiqshiqiyyah said the 3 calipahs were legitimate rulers.
Also what this clip where the 12r Shia scholar says Imam Ali (as) was forced to give bayah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmzwsDuq7CY
Even the wahabis managed to corner your belief here.
Can you also give your views on Yahya b.
Muhammad Ibn Humayd ? Do you consider him a misguided Zaydi Scholar ?
Also I've read that Imam al-Hadi Yahya b. al-Husayn did takfir against Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra). Is this true ?
Refer to this footnote 28 from this article.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/fantastic/Zaydi_Views.pdf
Also when I questioned you on the arbitration between Imam Ali (as) and Muawiyah you blamed the Khawarij for causing Imam Ali (as) to fail. Can you tell me who Imam Ali (as) is talking in this sermon 97 ?
ReplyDeleteRemember the Khawarij were only a minority who formed a sect after.
Salaams, I just want to remind people that the sunni versus shia debate regarding the Imamate of Ali is alrady given plenty of coverage on other sites like Shiachat, and that I think we should focus here on debates between 12ers and Zaidis, or Sunnis and Zaidis, e.g. to 12ers: Why limit the Imams to only 12? Our translations of Zaidi Imams like Imam Rassi prove that there were more than 12 great Imams among the ahlul bait! To Sunnis: If you love and respect ahlul bait as you say you do, why do you not protest about the war that sunni leaders are waging against the Hashemites in Yemen, and why have you ignored the works of Zaidi Imams, giving preference to scholars who are not from ahlul bait?
ReplyDeleteYes, on shiachat I've seen the coverage done by the 12rs. However, most of the time they use taqiyyah to justify the stance of Ahlul Bayt (as). Zaydis on the contrary, do not have a concept of Taqiyyah when it comes to the decisions of the Ahlul Bayt.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of Zaydism is based on the works of Yahya b. Muhammad Ibn Humayd. On the contrary, the brother IRS says the main imams of Imam Rassi and Imam Hadi. He also states that their opinions did not differ from Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) himself. Therefore, I posted a journal where it states Imam Hadi did takfir against the Sunni calipahs.
These are big issues. I think brother IRS needs to explain the background of these views. Lately Dr.Essam Ali El-Emad converted from a Zaydi to a 12r. He is not defending the 12r shias against non-12rs.
As for the incidents in Sana, I am sure you are aware that the whole Muslim world is in trouble. They are filled with rulers who are tyrants. Also I see how you always calling the Saudi government Sunni. Well what do you have to say to Yemeni President who is actually a Zaydi ? Does his Zaydi madhab stop him from injustice ? Why not ? I thought Zaydism is the answer to all our problems.
SALAAMZ! I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IN ALL CAPS, INSHA-ALLAH; NOT BECAUSE I AM YELLING BUT RATHER TO DIFFERENTIATE YOUR TEXT FROM MINE. AND SUCCESS IS FROM ALLAH.
ReplyDeleteAgain I still don't see how that's an explicit statement. All Muslims have to love Imam Ali (as) and his family. However, we all don't take any of that love to be explicit proof for Calipate. What your proving is actually are implicit statements. From your works we are Nawasib since we don't agree with you.
--IF YOU DON’T SEE THAT AS AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAN I WOULD URGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENT IN LIGHT OF CONTEXT AND LOGIC. MUSLIMS ARE NOT JUST COMMANDED TO LOVE IMAM ALI AND HIS FAMILY! THE WORDS OF THE HADITH ARE VERY CLEAR. THE HADITH SAYS THAT IMAM ALI AND THE AHL AL-BAYT ARE TO BE TAKEN AS “GUARDIANS.” INTERESINGLY ENOUGH, WHEN THE QUR’AN USES THE SAME TERM TO REFER TO THE RELATIONSHIP THAT BELIEVERS ARE TO NOT HAVE WITH THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS (DO NOT TAKE THEM AS GUARDIANS IN DEFERENCE TO THE BELIEVERS) THE MEANING IS NOT LOVE. SINCE THE BELIEVERS ARE TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER ANYWAY, WHY EMPHASIZE THE WILAYAT OF ALI AND AHL UL-BAYT PARTICULARLY? IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A MOOT POINT TO JUST TELL MUSLIMS TO LOVE THEM.
I HAVE NEVER CALLED ANYONE A NAASIBI! AND ONCE AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT MY WORKS, THEY ARE TRANSLATIONS OF OUR IMAMS’ WORKS!
You claim that the sahaba were misled … So what happened here ?
--ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE EVER VIGILANT AT TAKING THINGS OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT AND QUOTING BITS AND PIECES OF TEXT WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS BEING ADDRESSED! THE SERMON THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO ADDRESSES THE CONFLICTS WITH THE QURAYSHI HYPOCRITES, NOT THE SAHABA IN GENERAL.
THE SAME SERMON GOES ON TO SAY: “BY ALLAH, THE QURAYSH ONLY TAKE REVENGE AGAINST US BECAUSE ALLAH HAS GIVEN US (I.E. THE PROPHET AND AHL-AL-BAYT) PREFERENCE OVER THEM.” OBVIOUSLY THE SAHABA ARE NOT COLLECTIVELY MEANT THEREFORE ONE CANNOT APPLY THIS TO MEAN THEM. ALSO, THIS ALSO PROVES THAT IMAM ALI SAW HIMSELF AND THE AHL UL-BAYT AS PREFERRED OVER OTHER QURAYSH.
Also you state that he made the sahaba testify his appointment of Ghadir. So why did he call his ruling position less worthy of a shoe ?
ReplyDelete--AS WE KEEP EMPHASIZING, THESE ARE NOT OUR STATEMENTS. THESE ARE NARRATIONS REPORTED IN THE BOOKS OF HISTORY AND HADITH. WE PAINSTAKENLY TRANSLATED THESE BOKS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY READ THEM. PLEASE REFER TO THE SECTION DEALING WITH THE MUNASHSHADA IN THE BOOK BY SAYYID AL-HOUTHI “SUBLIME ANSWERS…” (JAWAB AR-RAQI). YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS COLLECTIVE ADJURATION DID TAKE PLACE.
HE DID NOT CALL HIS RULING POSITION LESS WORTHY OF A SHOE! PEASE GO BACK AND READ THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE SERMON AND YOU WILL SEE. WHAT HE SAID WAS: “IT (THE SHOE) WOULD BE MORE DEAR TO ME THAN THIS RULE OVER YOU IF I CANNOT ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND FIGHT INJUSTICE.” SO WHAT HE WAS ACTUALLY SAYING WAS THAT THE RULE WOULD BE NOTHING TO HIM UNDER THE CONDITION THAT HE IS ABLE TO COMMAND THE GOOD AND PROHIBIT THE BAD. ONCE AGAIN, CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT!
Also in the Quran when Talut (as) was appointed as a leader the majority of the Yahood stepped back. Why didn't he step back like Imam Ali (as) ? Why didn't he say appoint someone else. I will support him. Why did he fight against those who rejected his calipate ?
--ONCE AGAIN, I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE RULE OF IMAM ALI! THESE ARE TWO UNRELATED ACCOUNTS!
Again there are not much works from the Zaydis online. However, so far your views are no difference from the 12rs.
--THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US AND THE TWELVERS. PLEASE REFER TO THE AFOREMENTIONED “SUBLIME ANSWERS…” WE DIFFER WITH THEM IN ISSUES OF THE IMAMATE OF THE TWELVE, AS SISTER NADIA MENTIONED. ALSO, LIKE THE ASHA’IRA, THEY BELIEVE IN THE EVENTUAL RELAESE OF THE MAJOR SINNERS FROM THE FIRE. BUT WE, THE IBADIS, AND MU’TAZILA REJECT THIS.
Also you may call the Sufi proof weak, but Ibn Abil Hadid (ra) rational reasoning on the al-Khutbat al-Shiqshiqiyyah said the 3 calipahs were legitimate rulers.
--WHAT DOES IBN ABUL-HADEED’S OPINION HAVE TO DO WITH ZAYDIS? HE WAS A SUNNI. THEREFORE, HE DEFENDED THE CALIPHATE OF THE FIRST THREE.
THE SUFI PROOF IS WEAK BECAUSE IT IS NONSENSICAL AND ABSURD! IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE SUFI PROOF THEN YOU WOULD ASSERT THAT THE PROPHET, PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM AND HIS PROGENY, APPOINTED IMAM ALI AS THE PIR SAAHIB OR SHAYKH AL-MURABBI OR SUFI MASTER SHEIKH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AS A RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION UPON THE UMMAH. HOWEVER, ALL SUFI SCHOLARS SAY THAT FOLLOWING A SHEIKH IS NOT RELIGIOUSLY OBLIGATORY. THERE MAY BE THE OCCASSIONAL CRACKPOT THAT SAYS OTHERWISE BUT THERE IS NO PROOF FOR THEM! IF THE GHADIR DECLARATION WAS A DECLARATION OF THE SPIRITUAL WILAYAT OF AMIR AL-MUMINEEN, WHY DID HE REMIND THE SAHABA OF IT 25 YEARS LATER AT RAHBA WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH? WHY DID HE REMIND TALHA OF IT ON THE BATTLEFIELD OF AL-JAMAL? IN THESE SITUATIONS, DID PEOPLE QUESTION HIS SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP?!
Also what this clip where the 12r Shia scholar says Imam Ali (as) was forced to give bayah.
ReplyDelete--IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT MOST OF OUR IMAMS REJECT THE VIEW THAT IMAM ALI GAVE THE BAYAH TO ANY OF THE 3 CALIPHS BEFORE HIM. EVEN IF HE DID, IT IS INTERPRETED AS TAKING PLACE UNDER DURESS AND FORCE., THEREFORE, IT IS AN INVALID BAYAH.
Can you also give your views on Yahya b. Muhammad Ibn Humayd ? Do you consider him a misguided Zaydi Scholar ?
--IM NOT TO FAMILIAR WITH HIM. IF YOU KNOW ANY OF HIS WORKS, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
Also I've read that Imam al-Hadi Yahya b. al-Husayn did takfir against Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra). Is this true ?
--THIS IS NOT TRUE. OUT OF ALL OF THE WORKS THAT I READ BY IMAM AL-HADI, ALAYHI AS SALAAM, I HAVE NEVER HEARD HIM CURSE OR MAKE TAKFIR OF ABU BAKR OR UMAR.
THERE IS A BOOK ATTRIBUTED TO IMAM AL-HADI, ALAYHI AS SALAAM, CALLED “TAHTBIT AL-IMAMA” (NOT THE ONE WE TRANSLATED). HOWEVER SOME OF THE SCHOLARS SAY THAT IT WAS FABRICATED BY AN ISMA’ILI QARMATIAN AND IMAM AL-HADI DIDN’T WRITE IT. ANYWAYS, IN THIS BOOK, THERE ARE SOME UNFLATTERING THINGS ABOUT THE FIRST TWO CALIPHS. MAYBE THIS ACADEMIC BELIEVED THAT AL-HADI WROTE IT. EVEN SO, I READ THE BOOK AND IT DOESN’T EXPLICITLY MAKE TAKFIR OF THEM.
Also when I questioned you on the arbitration between Imam Ali (as) and Muawiyah you blamed the Khawarij for causing Imam Ali (as) to fail. Can you tell me who Imam Ali (as) is talking in this sermon 97 ? Remember the Khawarij were only a minority who formed a sect after.
--HE IS ADDRESSING HIS SOLDIERS WHO WERE A VAREITY OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE (THIS INCLUDES HIS SHIA, SOME PRE-KHARIJITES, SYRIAN-HATING KUFANS, ETC.) PLEASE REFER TO OUR EARLIER REPLY TO YOUR SIMILAR QUESTION.
REGARDING THE KHAWARIJ BEING BEHND THE FORCED ARBITRATION, PLEASE REFER TO ANY BOOK OF HISTORY, SUCH AS TARIKH AT-TABARI (WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH). IN THESE BOOKS, THE GROUP IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS THOSE WHO WILL BECOME KHAWARIJ.
REGARDING YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE PEOPLE WHO FORCED THE ARBITRATION WERE SHIA, YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVIDED PROOF FOR YOUR CLAIM.
Brother the journal says Yahya b. Mubammad ibn Humayd has a book called Nuzlut al-absur. Refer to footnote 10.
ReplyDeletehttp://individual.utoronto.ca/fantastic/Zaydi_Views.pdf
As for the Sufi beliefs on imamate it is similar to the 12rs. Therefore, these imams were mujtahid imams and the most exalted saints in spirituality. The Sufi saints other than them are not imams of their status. Also not all Sufi saints are scholars or mujtahid imams.
Shaykh Moin Uddin Arabi (ra) says the Mahdi is the Imam Hassan al Askari's (as) son. He will present his knowledge through the silsila of 11 imams.
Again not all Sufis agree, but the sufis who believe in the imamate of 12 imams have this belief.
Jazakallah for explaining everything to me. Can you explain what Imam Ali (as) meant when he says follow the majority. The 12r Shia tafseer of sermon 97 says the majority of Imam Ali (as) followers accepted him as the 4th calipah.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
However, there was one group who was swearing allegiance to him as a religious obligation regarding his Caliphate as determined by Allah. Otherwise, the majority regarded him a ruler like the other Caliphs, and as regards precedence, on the fourth position, or at the level of the common men after the three caliphs.
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Also I don't know why you called ibn Abil Hadid (ra) a Sunni. In order to be a Sunni the ijma of the sahaba is binding. Whereas as the Mutazillis do not hold this important pillar of the Sunni aqeeda. I used his reference not because I believed he is a Zaydi. The main reason is because the concept of aql can differ within the Muslims Ummah.
Maybe this isn't the best place for it, but I had a question. Do the Zaidi's use some of the same supplications as the twelve-Imam Shia? For example, do they use al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyyah which is from an Imam that is shared by these two branches of Shi'ism? Or something like dua kumayl? Or do they have their own books of supplications that do not share with other Shia? Seeing that other than the Sufis most of the Sunnis have hardly any supplicatory material, is it safe to say that the Zaidi's don't share much with the Sunnis in this regard?
ReplyDeleteSalaam Devin and welcome back!
ReplyDeleteI do know that a' Sahifa al Sajjadiyyah is very important to Zaydis. In the last days of Ramadan, Imam Rassi Society was urging me to use it for supplications. To be fair to the sunnis, there is a chapter of supplications in "Riyaadu ssaaliheen." However, the Sunni's ignoring of Zainul Adideen's beautiful book of supplications (I had never heard of it until a met a Shi-ite convert) is very disappointing. Their "scholars" do not dispute its authenticity, they just don't bother printing copies or making them available to the sunni masses (for fear of being branded as Shi-ites, I suppose).
I personally believe Nagh al Balagha should be adopted by the Sunnis too. Ibn Abil Al Hadid's commentary is the best commentary in the world. Then again I am still dreaming.
ReplyDeleteAs for Sunni supplication refer to this link.
It is a book store of Sunni supplications.
http://fadakbooks.com/sus.html
Qur'at al-Imam al-Sadiq is Sunni dua book of Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as).
Remember 75-80% of Imam Sadiq's (as) students were Sunni.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCX7Ww-BFUI
Also, have the Zaydi's engaged themselves in philosophy, like the twelve-Imam Shia, or ta'wil like Sufis and most other Shia, although particularly the Ismailis? From glancing through these questions and answers what struck me was how profoundly exoteric they are whereas Sufis and other Shia have delved deeply into more esoteric matters. Whether that appeals to you or repulsed you I guess depends on a persons inclinations, but I personally feel that Islam is about a lot more than doing x, y, and z so that one day we might go to heaven. I'm not saying that isn't the case at sone level, but if that is the point of life its pretty damn sad in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSalaam Brother Devin
ReplyDeleteThere is a personality by the name of Imam Ahmed bin Isa (as). He is from the family of Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as), and he is a big figure in Sufism and Zaydism.
Through him there were a lot of contributions made toward Irfan/Tasawuuf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShwDiiAbQM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLdWKrpDIvo
Here is a short biography on him from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_al-Muhajir
Salaamz to all!
ReplyDeleteTo ProAhlalbayt: I don't recall Imam Ali (as) telling anyone to follow the majority. Maybe you can cite the reference.
Regarding Ibn Abl-Hadeed, remember that the Sunnis were divided between the Ashaira/Maturidi and Mu'tazila. The mutazilites were considered Sunnis at some point before being considered heterodoxical. The criteria of determining who is a Sunni and who isn't has changed so many times that it would be difficult to say who was and who wasn't. However, since he did not manifest any doctrines of the other sects of his time and since he justified the caliphates of the first three, there is no reason to assume that he wasnt a Sunni.
To Bro Devin: As Sis Nadia said, we have Sahifa Sajjadiya which is identical to the 12ers' as well as Dua Kumayl bin Ziyad (ra). These are mostly recited but many of our imams and scholars have composed supplications and qasidas as well.
There are philosophical and esoteric discussions on various matters. However, I would say that they are a lot more "sober" than that of Ismailis and Sufis. Imam ar-Rassi (as) is just one star of the many constellations of Ahl al-Bayt! He, in particular, has a multitude of philosophical works (written in poetry form of course). We have attempted to translate some of them but admitingly, they are very difficult and dense.
Both Sufis and Zaydis claim exclusive ownership of Imam Ahmed bin Isa (as); however, since none of his works survive no one group can justify their claim. One thing that both agree n is that he was originally Zaidi. But as to why and how this changed is a matter of dispute amongst them.
And Allah knows best!
To IRS:
ReplyDeleteThe Mutazillas did adopt the Hanafi fiqh, but again as I have stated before they are missing one principal which is the belief that the consensus of the Sahaba is binding. The Mutazillah say its not binding. This is main reason they are outside the fold of Ahle Sunnah. I hope I don't have to type the above in caps.
As for the belief of 3 calipahs, the Mutazillah also said the Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as) and Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) were Mutazilla.
Also remember it was Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) who came down to their school, and became their teacher. Whereas in Yemen Zaydism was handed down through Imam Rassi. I do recall Imam Yahya ibn Zayd (as) coming down, but how many of his direct works survive ?
The Mutazilli had the direct teachings of Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as).
Remember Wasil ibn Ata (ra) was in the main circle with Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as),Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) and Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah (as). This shows that at the time there was no polarization at the time.
As for soberness, refer to Shaykh Junayd al Baghdadi (ra). He is among the sober sufis.
Also brother what is the Zaydi belief on Imam Moulay Idris bin Abdullah al-Hađ (as). The sufis have a silsila connecting through him in Morocco.
Brother IRS
ReplyDeleteHere is the sermon.
Sermon 126 Nahjul Balaghah
"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf."
Imam Rassi,
ReplyDeleteI understand that philosophical works would be hard to translate, but could I entreat you to translate even a little bit of some more esoteric work, even a commentary on the Qur'an or something of that nature? I have never seen Zaydi works of this sort and would be greatly interested.
InshaAllah, I will address each of your points using all-caps. Again, this does not mean that I am yelling or being rude. It's just that the blog doesnt allow me to type in another colour or change the font style. So please don’t take offense.
ReplyDeleteTo ProAhlalBayt:
The Mutazillas did adopt the Hanafi fiqh, but again as I have stated before they are missing one principal which is the belief that the consensus of the Sahaba is binding. The Mutazillah say its not binding. This is main reason they are outside the fold of Ahle Sunnah. I hope I don't have to type the above in caps.
--AS WE ALSO MENTIONED, WHATEVER PRINCIPLE MAKES A SUNNI A SUNNI HASN’T ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENT. THIS SUPPOSED PRINCIPLE OF BELIEF HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE AND IT IS PRETTY NONSENSICAL BECAUSE WHAT ISSUE DID THE SAHABA EVER HAD A CONSENSUS ON?! SOME (FOR EXAMPLE, DR UMAR ABDULLAH, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR) HAVE ALSO POSITED THAT THE ADALAT (COMPLETE RELIABLITY) OF THE COMPANIONS IS THE HALLMARK BELIEF OF SUNNIS. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE ONES WHO PROMOTE THE BELIEF OF THE CONSENSUS OF SAHABA ARE THE IKHWANI AL-MUSLIMEEN AND THEIR OFFSHOOTS.
As for the belief of 3 calipahs, the Mutazillah also said the Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as) and Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) were Mutazilla.
--THERE IS NO PROOF FOR THIS STATEMENT OF THE MU’TAZILA. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN SHAHRASTANI’S BOOK AL-MIHAL, HE SAYS THAT THE MU’TAZILA FOLLOWED THE IMAMS OF AHL AL-BAYT IN SOME THEOLOGICAL ISSUES, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE PEOPLE BEGAN ABANDONING THE AHL AL-BAYT AND FOLLOWING THE MU’TAZILA. ALSO, A BELIEF OF THE AHL AL-BAYT (AND NOT THE MU’TAZILA) IS THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF AHL AL-BAYT. THE VIEWS OF THE TWO AFOREMENTIONED IMAMS REGARDING THIS ISSUE IS WELL-KNOWN AND BEYOND DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE IDEA THAT IMAM ZAYD (AS) AND AS-SADIQ (AS) WERE MU’TAZILITES IS ABSURD.
Also remember it was Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) who came down to their school, and became their teacher. Whereas in Yemen Zaydism was handed down through Imam Rassi. I do recall Imam Yahya ibn Zayd (as) coming down, but how many of his direct works survive ? The Mutazilli had the direct teachings of Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as).
--JUST BECAUSE IMAM ZAYD (AS) WAS THEIR TEACHER DOESN’T MEAN THAT HE WAS ONE OF THEM.
ZAYDISM WAS PASSED ON TO YEMEN THROUGH IMAM AL-HADI (AS) NOT IMAM AR-RASSI (AS). REMEMBER THAT IMAM AR-RASSI WAS BASED IN MEDINA NOT YEMEN.
I DON’T KNOW IF ANY WORKS OF IMAM YAHYA BIN ZAYD (AS) HAVE SURVIVED.
Remember Wasil ibn Ata (ra) was in the main circle with Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as),Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) and Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah (as). This shows that at the time there was no polarization at the time.
ReplyDelete--THE EXISTENCE OF STUDY CIRCLES DOESN’T MEAN THE LACK OF POLARIZATION. IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY WERE MORE ADVANCED THAN WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE THEY VALUED KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SECTARIANISM. WHEREAS IN THESE DAYS, WE VALUE SECTARIANISM AND NOT KNOWLEDGE. MAY ALLAH FORGIVE US!
As for soberness, refer to Shaykh Junayd al Baghdadi (ra). He is among the sober sufis.
--YEAH. HE WAS A SOBER SUFI. HOWEVER IN REGARDS TO DEVINS QUESTION, IT WAS ABOUT QURANIC EXEGESIS AND PHILOSOPHY. I DON’T THINK THAT IMAM AL-JUNAYD WROTE ANY BOOKS ON TAFSIR AND SUCH. MAYBE HE DID. I ONLY KNOW OF SUFI TAFISRS SUCH AS THAT OF IBN AL-ARABI.
Also brother what is the Zaydi belief on Imam Moulay Idris bin Abdullah al-Hađ (as). The sufis have a silsila connecting through him in Morocco.
--IMAM MOULAY IDRIS (AS) IS CONSIDERED A ZAYDI IMAM IN ALL RESPECTS. WE DON’T HAVE ANY BOOKS FROM HIM BUT WE DO HAVE SOME LETTERS FROM HIM. BOTH HE AND HIS SON (AS) ARE CREDITED WITH ESTABLISHING THE ZAYDI IMAMATE IN NORTH AFRICA. I READ THAT SOME 12ERS TRY TO CLAIM THAT HE WAS A 12ER. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NO PROOF. HE IS THE PATRON SAINT OF MOROCCO AND MANY SUFIS CLAIM TO BE CONNECTED THROUGH HIM. LONG AGO, I READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT MOULAY IDRIS (AS) FROM A SUNNI/SUFI PERSPECTIVE http://www.dar-sirr.com/idrissism.html I BELIEVE THAT THE TWO LETTERS OF HIS FEATURED ON THIS SITE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE IN OUR BOOKS.
FROM WHAT I KNOW, THERE IS A MOROCCAN ZAYDI BROTHER. I PRAY THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO RESURRECT THE ZAYDI TRADITION THERE!
Sermon 126 Nahjul Balaghah
"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf."
--IF YOU REFER TO THE WHOLE SERMON, YOU WOULD NOTICE THAT HE (AS) IS ADDRESSING THE KHAWARIJ. THE NAME OF THE SERMON IS “ABOUT THE KHAWARIJ” ALSO, IN THE KHUTBA, AMIR AL-MUMINEEN (AS) MADE REFERENCES TO THINGS THAT APPLIES TO THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID: “If you do not stop believing that I have gone wrong and been misled…” HE CONTINUES BY REFUTING THE KHARIJITE DOCTRINE THAT THE MAJOR SINNER BECOMES UNBELIEVERS BY SAYING: “You know that the Prophet (PBUH) stoned the protected (married) adulterer, then he also said his burial prayer and allowed his successors to inherit from him. He killed the murderer and allowed his successors to inherit from him. He amputated (the hand of) the thief and whipped the unprotected (unmarried) adulterer, but thereafter allowed their shares from the booty, and they married Muslim women. Thus the Prophet (PBUH) took them to ask for their sins and also abided by Allah's commands about them, but did not disallow them their rights created by Islam, nor did he remove their names from its followers.”
THEREFORE, WHEN HE SAID THAT THEY SHOULD ADHERE TO THE MAJORITY, HE IS REFERRING TO THE MAIN BODY OF MUSLIMS THAT FOLLOWED HIM AS THEIR IMAM. THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS FOLLOWED ALI (AS) WHILE THE KHRIJITES WERE A SPLINTER GROUP. THIS IS IN NO WAY A DEFENSE OF SUNNISM OR JUSTIFICATION FOR WHAT HAPPENED AT SAQIFA. ONCE AGAIN, CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT!
To Bro. Devin, we will post a portion of a philosophical text by Imam ar-Rassi (as) concerning the existence of God. It is only the beginning of a draft which we doubt that we will finish. The original Arabic is, of course, in poetry form but we didnt translate it in English rhyming prose like our previous text. Enjoy and please forgive any mistakes!
ReplyDeleteIRS
----------------------
Ad-Dalîl al-Kabîr
The Major Proof
By
Imam al-Qâsim bin Ibrâhîm ar-Rassi
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful the Most Gracious…
All praise is due to Allah and it is He that we seek assistance. May His prayers and peace be upon the best of all of His creation, our Master, Muhammad and his Purified Household.
My dear son, you ask regarding noble issues of the inquirers,
And regarding that which the ancients perished regarding the ignorance thereof.
They stumbled because of it, among them the illiterate, who groped aimlessly.
By means of their ignorance, the excessive exceeded the limits,
By denying that there is proof and evidence, they posit their objections in denial.
There is no absence of clear proof by which they perish by from its confusion,
Except what they follow the delusion of the caprice of their souls.
They go astray by their blind adherence to their ancestors, lured by jinn and men.
The proof of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, is against them by knowledge of clear principles,
And the witnesses of His Gnosis from all who differ by their objections or overwhelming confusion.
So, all praise is due to Allah the Possessor of Victory and Overwhelming authority.
The gnosis of and knowledge of Him is by proof and evidence manifest.
The Proof of Wisdom and Precision---
ReplyDeleteThe proof of the Knowledge, my dear son, is by Allah and the limbs of His motives.
Closer to what He made is the knowledge thereof which is the entrance of the gates.
What He manifests in things are the traces of Wisdom and Precision;
All of which cannot be unless there be a One Wise and Precise.
What is demonstrated in these things by one who witnesses and contemplates, is Excellence and Wisdom.
All of which cannot be unless there be a One that is Wise and Excellent.
As the Exalted says: {That is the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, the Mighty and Most Gracious. He is the One that has perfected everything which He created and began man’s creation from clay. Then He made his offspring out of a liquid detested. Then He formed him and breathed into him from His Soul and made for you hearing, vision, and intellect. Little are you grateful for!} (Q. 32:6-9).
Everything that the Glorified mentioned is made and it is necessary that there be a Maker.
Something that is done can never be, unless there is a Doer.
One can never find an original Maker or Doer except Allah, the Possessor of the Great Names.
He is the One that is free from the likeness of the makers and doers in every meaning.
By reasons of knowledge of it and the presentation of proofs,
After that which is demonstrated by the traces of a Maker, by the contemplative,
The reasons are bounded by the binds,
By that which is instinctual to the one with intellect.
This is from knowledge that is resolute,
And certainty which is established.
The one who is not afflicted by doubt of its reality nor suspicion,
There is no argument from one’s perception regarding what He made, nor suspicion,
Nor from everything that has senses and intellect.
This is derived from the creative effects of the Glorified and what He made.
Creation is by certainty known.
Sensory perception does not reach Him, neither does imagination.
One reasons and knows things and gnosis by means of differences of comprehension.
One differs from it and it differs from one by other than what differs in itself.
These two summarized foundations,
Of gnosis of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, are established.
They are the two witnesses of Justice,
As well as the sign by which Allah demonstrates.
The Different Means of Gnosis---
ReplyDeleteThere is no breaching the knowledge of Allah,
And the arrival to gnosis of Allah.
That which can be perceived is from the following: 1.) that which is a direct feeling, like that of the senses,
2.) that which is directly from the soul, like some of the soul’s perceptions.
One should know that this writing of ours mentioned the soul’s perception. The Roman philosophers claim:
“The soul’s perception is not by sensory perception or the imaginative perception.”
According to them, there is no aspect of the soul if it is removed from bodies,
And liberated from the vessels of body cavities.
3.) that which is from the imagination,
Like the thoughts of the one that wonders.
4.) that which perceives His Glory by opinion,
Like that of the ones who hold assumptions,
That is afflicted by contradictory assumptions and mistakes.
The assumer hastens in his assumptions and delays.
5.) that which is by means of clear proof.
It is the proven in which there is nothing that removes its certitude.
6.) that which perceives His Glory in one state outside of other states,
Or by what is possible to join to Him by what all of our descriptions are based upon.
7.) that which is by the joining of our statements and determinations,
As well as our descriptions of all matters and our numbers.
8.) that which perceives His Glory by differing from all sensory things and its reasonable,
Regarding all of what is perceived from the branches and roots of things.
This door is from the differentiating the Glorified from all things,
ReplyDeleteIn what one perceives from the branches of all things and their roots.
One will never find anything except that it be between things and Him,
And He can never be described by them [i.e. things] contrary to His Glory.
It is a description that does not apply to Him, the Powerful and Majestic, in that He is associated.
It does not have dominion over Him as a king.
All things can not escape consisting of differences.
Reality can not be, except between essences and descriptions.
All are from it and if it differs from other than it in attributes and agree with it in other attributes,
Whether it be from what one thinks, what one touches, and what one sees.
Two sensory perceptions could be different in their colour or taste,
But they could agree in what both possess in corporeal boundaries.
Two understandings could be different in their deeds or purposes,
But they could agree in what is understood from their foundation in the imagination.
For example, angels, humans, and devils are the same in sharing psychological makeup,
But they differ in their thoughts and deeds.
The thoughts of the angels are good actions and glorification.
The thoughts of the devils are bad actions and obscenities.
The inner soul of humans differs and fluctuates between the two;
In that which is temperate and that which is excessive.
He can act upon the good at a time and attain righteousness,
Or he can act upon disobedience another time and attain wickedness.
Every creature, whether angel, human, or devil, was made by Allah with the attribute of self-compliment.
This is because some of them are from others and Allah made each of them in a special category.
It is for them and between them and they possess differences.
Everything exists by it and Allah made from it categories.
Some of them are distinct from the others,
Like the difference between the heavens and the earth.
It’s not beyond what we said regarding the attainment of Gnosis and access to Knowledge of Allah,
----------------
Here ends our translation.
IRS
Regarding an "esoteric" translation of the Qur'an, I recommend Muhammad Asad's translation. He has used the tafsirs of Zamakhshari and arRazi, who are known to be "mu'tazili". He devotes an appendix to the discussion of allegorical interpretation, and he is critical of literal interpretations of commentators like Ibn Kathir. I don't think there's anything in his translation that a Zaydi would object to. His footnotes are full of references to the Zamahkshari and Razi interpretations of each verse. His translation of the Qur'anic text is already available online at the "online qur'an project" website, but they haven't finished putting the footnotes online yet, so you'd need a hard copy to appreciate this great work.
ReplyDeleteTo Imam Rassi Society, Thanks for this excellent translation! I would like to know which arabic word has been translated as "gnosis"?
ReplyDeleteBrother IRS
ReplyDeleteIt seems that when you have no answers you purposely change the points made, and then try to answer it. Let's try to avoid this in the future. On the other hand, if you doing this to avoid confusion for the laymen Muslims then I have no problem with this.
Anyway, I never said the 2 imams were Mutazillah, but what I said is the Mutazillah claimed they were part of them. Just like how the 12rs claim the 12 imams are part of them. Now I don't need a detailed reply from you telling me that the 12 imams were not 12rs. I already know that.
You dispute the consensus of Sahaba, well if you read history the Ahlul Bayt (as) had disagreements among themselves. Recall history where they disagreed on who the current leader of Ahlul Bayt (as) is. Imam Abdullah ibn Hassan (as) claimed that his lineage has more right on it then the Hussayani lineage. What do you have to say to this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJuYV8teFkw
Refer 2:40
The details of this is found in Al-Kamel fi al-Tarikh, by Ibn al-Athir, Vol. V, p 85.
Sister Zaida
ReplyDeleteImam Fakhr al-Din Razi was not a Mutazilli. He was a Sunni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakhr_al-Din_al-Razi
In fact he wrote an entire book in comparison of the Mutazilla and Ahle Sunnah view.
Salaamz to all!
ReplyDeleteTo Sis Zaida: Thank you for your compliments! Regarding the translation of Muhammad Asad, he does have some insightful points. However, he does have views that are at variance with the Zaydi madhhab. For example, not only does he ascribe to the belief of the release of major sinners from Hell, he also believes that Hell itself will come to an end. This was also the view of Ibn Taymiyya.
Regarding our translation of "gnosis" it is from the Arabic word ma'rifat.
To Bro ProAhulBayt: You said, "It seems that when you have no answers..." I dont understand what you mean. Maybe you can cite an example where I purposely avoided answering a question. There could be a variety of possibilities, maybe the lack of understanding is on your part or maybe I wasn't clear enough in my replies! Please cite an example where I did what you accuse me of and I will try to clarify, inshaAllah.
Regarding the consensus of the Companions, my dispute with it has to deal with the fact that there is very little (if anything) that they agreed upon. Therefore to use it as a jurisprudential or creedal principle would be nonsensical.
The consensus of Ahl al-Bayt (as) is an entirely different issue. There are both creedal and jurisprudential principles that the Ahl al-Bayt agreed upon. For example, the belief in the exclusive right of Imam Ali (as) as leader after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, is a matter of collective consensus of Ahl al-Bayt. An example of a jurisprudential consensus is the recitation of "Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem" in al-Fatiha. Even Imam al-Bayhaqi said that the basmala aloud is a matter of consensus amongst the Prophet's descendants. Therefore, the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt is a stronger and more established principle than the consensus of the Companions.
There were disagreements amongst the Ahl al-Bayt as well. Our imams and scholars have highlighted those matters of agreement and disagreement. Their disagreements regarding who the imam is in no way contradict the principle of consensus of Ahl al-Bayt (as). This is an issue in which disagreement is allowed because the stipulations of the imam are clearly ennumerated in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
And Allah knows best!
IRS
The Mu`tazila and Imam Jafar As Sadiq (as)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7FlYLDULo
To Pro alul bait, I know that arRazi was not a Shi-ite or a Zaidi, and may have differed with the Mu'tazili scholars of his day on certain issues, but mainstream sunnis these days consider his Qur'an commentary to be "mu'tazili" because it is not literal, instead it uses metaphorical interpretation and rational speculation. I was warned off reading Asad's translation by many "sunnis"; the sunnis I know insist that only a literal translation of Qur'anic verses is permissible. This attitude goes back to the "Laa kaif" principle often cited in sunni theology. The "sunnis" in Australia recommended to me the Saudi/wahhabi Qur'an translations distributed by the Saudis. I wonder if you could define what a "sunni" is in your opinion, because, as Imam Rassi Society has pointed out, "sunni" can mean a lot of different things. If we could agree on a definition of "sunni" for the purpose of this blog, it would make discussion a lot easier.
ReplyDeleteSalaam Sister
ReplyDeleteMutazilla cannot be Sunni because a lot of their opinions are not substantiated by ahadith. In fact, if you listen to my clip above the Mutazillah represented the Ahlul Bayt's view on theology. However, in the early period, most Hanafis Sunnis welcomed the Mutazilla views, while the Hanbali rejected it. What caused the Ashari to be part of the Ahle Sunnah was because Abu Hasan al Ashari backed his opinions through ahadith.
As for Sunnis or wahabis who cannot tolerate the Mutazilla view, they are Nasibis in reality.
Anyway, I prefer you to use the term Salafi or Wahabi instead of Sunni. These people you come across actually recognize themselves as Salafi more than Sunni.
As for my own view, even though Mutazillah are not Sunnis, I have to admit they were correct in most areas.
I am glad Sunni scholar like Imam Al Asi points this out.
Imam Zayd ibn Ali & Mutazilla
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aad8O40j-Mg
I have a Question Regarding the Beleif of Zaydis in Accepting Those A'immah(a.s)Who Call the People to themselves ,and Removing the Despotic ruler(Fasiq).
ReplyDeleteThe Fatimi Dynasty of Qayrawan had Removed The Oprressive Ruler,the Rustamiya and also theAghlabiya,Who Were Khawarij(l.a)and Vassal state of the Abassids.
Now they also Instituted Islamic Law Based on the statements of Wasi Al-RasoolAllah Ali(a.s),The Imams(a.s)Hasan,Husayn,Baqir and Al-Sadiq Aswell As citing the Views of Zayd(A.S)In Medecine.Found within Zaydi and Ithna Ashari books.
they Also Called People Thru a Dawah Wich Was Very Orginized to their Imamah,and they Fought a Good and Well jihad for the Sake of allah Conquering Qayrawan,Sham(syria),Masr(egypt)hijaz,and Yemen(PArticurlarly Under the Da'i Al-Mansur al-Yaman(R.A))
and they not only conquered Yemen once but Twice (Later under the Da'i ali al-sulayhi(R.A))
and they did indeed Call the Zaydis to the Imamate Of the Fatimi Imams(a.s)
So what Kept the Zaydis From Reconizing The Fatimi Imams(a.s)?
they Were Saadat and Fulfilled all the Requirements of the Zaydi imamate.
Salaam, good question! I'll make a new post : "Ask a Zaidi, October edition" and post it there where more people will see it...
ReplyDelete