I have some questions on the Zaydiyya

Oh, I forgot to mention, they view Ibn al Wazir as an Imam and they say RA to Muawiyah

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

May Allah bless those who maintain this website and provide beneficial information on this website. It is out of gratitude to Allah (Subhanahu) for this site and gratitude towards those who maintain it and provide knowledge which is of benefit on it that I posted this three years ago:

salvationark.com/salvationark1/index.php...ociety-salvation-ark

My desire to donate to this noble effort was out of seeing the sad neglect of this ummah of the study of the Imams of Ahlulbayt عليهم السلام and being delighted that such a website such as this would exist to promote such knowledge. While I do not consider myself in the school of Imam Qasim Ar-Rassi and Imam Al-Hadi Illa Al-Haqq عليهما السلام, this does not prevent me from being in awe of their legacy of scholarship and the legacy of scholarship of those who followed them who became known as the Zaydi-Hadawis, and the monumental effort of all of those scholars cannot be discounted nor dismissed by the fair person and I hope to see this knowledge spread more.

In this thread it was said:

> A group of Zaydis online call themselves Waziris, apparently they are followers of a man called Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Wazīr,. They believe I am a fake Zaydi trying to Twelverise Zaydism because I say Labayk Ya Husayn, Ya Ali, and view Abu Bakr, Umar, Muawiyah, etc, negatively.

1. We do not call ourselves Waziris and this would be strange as we believe Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Wazir عليه السلام did not found a madhab of either creed or law. If we call ourselves anything it is "Muslims" or "Believers" as this is in line with what Imam Ibn al-'Amir As-Sana'ani عليه السلام taught. To call oneself a "Waziri" may even be sinful. If we were said to be close to any scholar it would be most appropriate to say we are close to Qadi Ash-Shawkani رحمه الله

2. "Labayk ya husayn" is fine.

3. "Ya Ali" is making dua to Allah (Ta'ala) in a way which is absent from the Qur'an and Sunnan and which arbitrarily resembles the polytheists and should be completely avoided because of this in favor of the sunnah methods of tawassul, which are something like "Allahumma innee asaluka bihaqqi Muhammad ..."

4. The Imams of Ahlulbayt عليهم السلام either withheld an opinion (tawaqquf) or praised the first three caliphs رضي الله عنهم and we simply take the second opinion. So far as Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه, he engaged in a power-hungry war which was belligerent against the best and most intelligent of the ummah after its Prophet, Imam 'Ali عليه السلام and our good opinion of him is simply that: Hasnul-dhann, it is taking into account the many virtues narrated about him, and also historical facts such as some of the Imams of ahlulbayt عليهم السلام narrating from him and also Imam Al-Hassan عليه السلام asking him for a gift during his war with 'Ali عليه السلام. We do not know of any compelling opinion to abandon the position of hasnul-dhann about Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه despite his egregious behavior in some respects, and I hope people can respect that we affirm the doctrine of hasnul-dhann (especially with regards to the first generation of the ummah) without attempting to "whitewash" the grim reality that it was true Islam being fought against by those who had abandoned some crucial parts of it, as Prophet Muhammad ﷺ وآله said in the authentic hadith, he was calling them to hellfire. So far as this person mentioning our criticism of him regarding his speech about Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه, he was making outright declarations of apostasy, and according to the strict islamic standards of apostasy as well as the statements of Imam 'Ali عليه السلام and other Imams عليهم السلام, it does not seem like the true ruling of ahlulbayt عليهم السلام is that Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه is an apostate. Some Zaydis will argue Imam 'Ali عليه السلام did taqiyya about his declaration of apostasy of Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه but hinted at it through the practice of lanat/ ritual cursing. We would ask why didn't the Prophet ﷺ وآله execute Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه after cursing him, if the one cursed by a Prophet or Imam 'Ali عليه السلام is definitely an apostate? This is not a principle we recognize in the shariah for declaration of apostasy.

> The Talafiyya count him as a Talafi Scholar but that is disputed by Zaydis.

1. The "Salafis" adorn themselves with our scholars such as Qadi Ash-Shawkani, Imam Ibn al-'Amir and Imam Ibn al-Wazir رحمهم الله due to the vacancy and shallowness of their own intellectual tradition, even though this leads to countless contradictions, the least of which is the explicit condemnation by Imam Ibn al-'Amir and Qadi Ash-Shawkani رحمها الله of their vile contemporary Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab

> Oh, I forgot to mention, they view Ibn al Wazir as an Imam and they say RA to Muawiyah

1. If you read the biographies of Imam Ibn al-Wazir عليه السلام it should leave little doubt that he was a sayyid who reached a very high level of independent ijtihad (in my opinion an absolute ijtihad rivaling the 4 sunni Imams) and thus we consider him an Imam of knowledge, however he was loyal to the two Imams of his time, gave bayah to them, studied under them, and wrote in the defense of their Imamates, and he did not rise to any political office to my knowledge. He was not an Imam of obedience.

2. This is a dua to Allah (Ta'ala) to reward Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه for all his good deeds which he certainly needs due to all his sins, and it is the dua we make for Muslims from the first generation of Muslims generally as long as they are not absolute fussaq or absolute kuffar, as in, as long as we hold their kufr and fisq is the result of mistaken ijtihad, we see it as appropriate inshallah to make this dua.

This is my attempt to set the record straight on a number of matters. I could have said more in describing what we believe but I did not feel like this was the appropriate forum. May Allah guide us, amin.

As-salamu alaikum,

As Muslims, we greet our Muslim brothers with salam. That is part of our din and of our adab.

And why are you mentioning that you wanted to donate? It has nothing to do with the thread or with the questions posed. It seems that you want to show your sincerity, but that is more riya than sincerity.What do you mean that you don’t consider yourself a follower of the school of Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim (ʿalayhi as-salām) or Imam al-Hadi ila al-Haqq (ʿalayhi as-salām)?

In these times, that is like saying: “I am no Zaydi.”What are you then?All sects of Islam call themselves Muslims or Muʾminūn.

Ibn al-Amir al-Sanʿani left the Zaydi school, as did al-Shawkani. Only Sunni-inclined Zaydis would count them among Zaydis, but in the end they were no Zaydis anymore and neither of them claimed that.As for the development of the school: they played no part in it and are not important in any way for the classical Zaydi education.So why are you preferring these three Ibn al-Wazir (raḥimahu Allah), Ibn al-Amir al-Sanʿani, and al-Shawkani? If you prefer them, that means you align with their positions. If you do, you are clearly not following Zaydi thought, or you are mixing it up with theirs.

I mentioned to the brother that labbayk and ya ʿAli are not from the practices of the ʿItrah (ʿalayhim as-salām).
This was because the statements themselves are not a problem. The problem arises when they are used outside their allowed context, which the ghulāt did and do.You said that this resembles the practices of the polytheists. That is not true except if you mean by that the ghulāt. Nevertheless, even if the ghulāt used it in a wrong way, the statements themselves would not be kufr, except if kufr is involved in it.
So I am a little astonished that you compared it to the practices of the polytheists.

You are right on the tawaqquf of the majority of the ʿItrah regarding the Shaykhayn and ʿUthman, but you are wrong on Muʿawiya.The madhhab of the ʿItrah is not ḥusn al-dhann regarding him. If you do that, you are clearly not a Zaydi. There is ijmāʿ on his kufr among the early Zaydis.Imam al-Mansur bi-llah ʿAbd Allah ibn Hamza (ʿalayhi as-salām) who, by the way, was an Imam of obedience and knowledge, the greatest mujtahid of his time, and the mujaddid of his ʿaṣr stated clearly that there is no ikhtilāf about Muʿawiya.

I will not write much on Ibn al-Wazir (raḥimahu Allah). Everyone who knows him, knows that his standing among the Zaydiyyah is a little bit ambivalent. He was a great scholar, but he was too much inclined to the Ahl al-Sunnah books.

Your attempt to “set the record straight” was in vain, because you actually raised more suspicion about your group than dispersed it.I actually debated one of you, and it was clear that you lack proper knowledge of the Islamic sciences in general, and the Zaydi madhhab specifically  and that you actually mix Zaydism with Sunnism.This was not to start a debate with you, but after experiencing how you people are, I cannot let you state freely such nonsense.

Wa-s-salam.

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

> As-salamu alaikum,

Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi.

> As Muslims, we greet our Muslim brothers with salam. That is part of our din and of our adab.

When I am addressing the general public I do not typically use a greeting of *salam*, this is just how I write. My goal was to clarify matters to anyone who read this thread. I am not ignorant of the use of "salam", and I didn't specifically address this message to any particular person on this forum, rather, it was to anyone who might read it. I will note that many Muslims consider it a sunnah to write the *bismillah* at the beginning of any document or letter, and I did this, and you did not.

> It seems that you want to show your sincerity, but that is more riya than sincerity.

I desired a substantial evidence of my passion for the scholarship of ahlulbayt for rhetorical reasons as I anticipated someone might attack me for the lack of it, I also did not want it to seem like I had made a new account just to engage in this discourse.

> What do you mean that you don’t consider yourself a follower of the school of Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim (ʿalayhi as-salām) or Imam al-Hadi ila al-Haqq (ʿalayhi as-salām)?

I simply do not follow them.

> In these times, that is like saying: “I am no Zaydi.”

I did not come here to say I was Zaydi, nor have I said "I am Zaydi", but someone here mentioned us and so I came here to post a concise explanation of some mistakes that were made.

> What are you then?

A Muslim upon the Qur'an, Sunnan and Itrah.

> So why are you preferring these three Ibn al-Wazir (raḥimahu Allah), Ibn al-Amir al-Sanʿani, and al-Shawkani?

You need to understand I don't follow them either. In fact I think Imam Al-Hadi Illa Al-Haqq عليه السلام and his grandfather عليه السلام are both greater than all of them and I find immense value in studying their works. What we find these three scholars you referenced mentioning is that we should accept views based on the evidences, not because some famous and educated person said them. When there is evidence that the Qur'an, Sunnan and Itrah point to something, I am the first to affirm it inshallah.

> So I am a little astonished that you compared it to the practices of the polytheists.

> Istigatha Is Not Permissible

"Supplication is not "O Ḥaydar," "O ʿAlī," or "Madad Yā ʿAlī." Rather, the correct supplication is to say "O Allāh by the right of our Master the Messenger of Allāh," or "O Allāh by the right of ʿAlī" may the blessings of Allāh be upon them, and their household.

Seeking aid, and istighātha is direct only to Allāh, and seeking nearness to Allāh is by the virtue of the family of Muḥammad [i.e by mentioning them to Allāh, not praying to them].

If a person places himself in a position of suspicion, let him not object to the one who thinks bad of him."

~ al-Sayyid al-ʿAllāma al-Kāẓim al-Zaydī

"If a person places himself in a position of suspicion, let him not object to the one who thinks bad of him." I.e., the one who calls out to the creation in public, let him not object to those who suspect that say, if he was calling out to Isa Ibn Maryam عليها السلام, that Isa عليه السلام is his Lord.

> Imam al-Mansur bi-llah ʿAbd Allah ibn Hamza (ʿalayhi as-salām) who, by the way, was an Imam of obedience and knowledge, the greatest mujtahid of his time, and the mujaddid of his ʿaṣr stated clearly that there is no ikhtilāf about Muʿawiya.

I am in some doubt about this quote attributed to him, but bring him saying that there is a consensus of the ahlulbayt عليهم السلام on the apostasy of Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه. As I mentioned some Imams of ahlulbayt narrated from Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه and I can provide references for this inshallah if it is asked for. I also mentioned direct interactions between the Imams of Ahlulbayt عليهم السلام and Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه. Did Imam Al-Hassan عليه السلام ask an apostate for a gift? This always happens when you project the exaggerated sectarianism of later eras onto early eras. It results in strange inconsistencies as the noble people of the earliest eras do not act like the fanatical ideologues we would so hope them to be. Rather Imam Al-Hassan عليه السلام treated Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه as a Muslim just like Imam 'Ali عليه السلام explicitly said he was when he was asked about whether the people they were fighting were Muslims.

> He was a great scholar, but he was too much inclined to the Ahl al-Sunnah books.

This is what I would consider an anti-intellectual position. Too much inclined to the books of Ahl As-Sunnah? What does the entrance to this site say? It is an oath claiming we shall seek knowledge unto the ends of the earth. I suppose he forgot to make an exception for Imam Bukhari رحمه الله.

> Your attempt to “set the record straight” was in vain, because you actually raised more suspicion about your group than dispersed it.

Your only suspicion was repeating that we don't seem 'Zaydi' to you over and over, when we do not claim to be. This is barely even a suspicion. It is just noting a fact about us.

> This was not to start a debate with you, but after experiencing how you people are, I cannot let you state freely such nonsense.

Bring whatever evidence you wish inshallah, and the people will be educated. I purposefully did not make my post a long articulation of my beliefs nor did I try to defend my beliefs because I did not regard this as the appropriate forum. There was simply some factual errors made which disturbed me, particularly the name 'Waziri' etc..

and Allah knows best.

Is this now a competition of who did what?

If I point out a mistake of yours, does your nafs compel you to point out a mistake of mine? And while mine is not even a mistake in the first place?You came to an Islamic forum, where most of the readers are Muslims, and yet you could not even bother to give one simple salām. Instead, you tried to defend that this does not show sincerity.

Do not assume things, and think well of your brothers and sisters. No attack happened, so why be so cautious? Even if an attack were to happen, you could answer it then. And why are you so concerned about how you appear to people? Who cares if people think you made an account only to discuss? Subḥānallāh, you are a walking impersonation of wahm (delusion).

Okay, I understand that you do not follow “them,” nor the three mentioned scholars either. Are you a mujtahid? Because you are speaking like the Talafiyya about “following the evidences.”Sorry to burst your “bubble,” but all sects of Islam claim to follow the evidences. All Madhāhib of Fiqh say this. So your statement:

“When there is evidence that the Qur’ān, Sunnah, and Itrah point to something, I am the first to affirm it in shā’ Allāh.”

is basically the same statement made by most Muslims except for the part about the Itrah (sunnis and khawarij would not consider them as proofs).

As long as you have not reached the level of ijtihād, you are not following the proofs. You are following your nafs and delusions. People who believe that just because they read an āyah, a ḥadīth, a tafsīr, or a sharḥ, they are now “following the proofs” these people are the malady of our times. You are no different from the Talafiyya.

As for your mention of the Itrah (ʿalayhim as-salām), how do you actually follow them? You would need to access their books, which are transmitted through different sects. It is easy to claim to be a follower of the Itrah (ʿalayhim as-salām), but that does not mean you truly are. The ghulāt, the Imāmiyya, and the Bāṭiniyya all make the same claim. If you follow them by reading the books of the zaydiyya, why are you not calling yourself zaydis? And dont argue "We are simply Muslims", that argument is so old and it doesnt reflect reality.

If, in your “great understanding,” you have concluded that istighātha is not permissible, that is only your delusion. Actually, it is allowed as long as it is within the boundaries set by the Sharīʿa. So you are wrong.Istighātha is allowed with anyone, so long as it is something within their actual power to do. For example, if someone calls his uncle to help him out of a hole that is fine. But not asking Imām al-Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi as-salām), who has passed away, to come and solve one’s problems.

The brother who asked the question did not ask about istighātha per se, but about certain statements. As I said, those statements are allowed, and only in specific contexts would they be ḥarām. It is not his fault they you seem to understand this statements in another context. If the brother asked about Istigatha with saying "Ya Ali" then you would have been right.

Imām al-Manṣūr bi-llāh ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥamza (ʿalayhi as-salām) stated in his Majmūʿ, page 187:

“The speech on this is as follows: Muʿāwiya is indeed a kāfir according to us, the Ahl al-Bayt, and no disagreement among us is known regarding this from our pious Salaf. The proof of his kufr is his rejection of that which is known by necessity from the dīn of the Prophet ﷺ. And whoever rejects something from the religion that is known by necessity is a kāfir, by consensus of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Ummah.”

The mention of this in the entrance of this forum is not an argument against my statement that Ibn al-Wazīr (raḥimahullāh) inclined toward the books of Ahl al-Sunnah.If you believe that we Zaydis give the same importance to the books of Ahl al-Sunnah as do some of the Imāmiyya, then you are misinformed. We accept only what is proven according to the standards upon which the Itrah (ʿalayhim as-salām) agreed.

Anti-Intellectualism? Now your talking like this western influenced mubtadia.The books of other sects may contain truths and valid riwāyāt, but they are mixed with much falsehood. To discern truth from falsehood requires knowledge, which you clearly do not have. Ibn al-Wazīr had the knowledge, but it seems he allowed himself to be too much influenced by them.

If you sit among snakes, you will be bitten sooner or later.

So, you state clearly that you are not Zaydi.
Then please, do not speak about our scholars, and let this cultural appropriation come to an end.

Wa-salām.

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

I ask Allah (Ta'ala) to bear witness to this discussion between us and judge between us about it on the day of judgement. Something you said has filled me with disgust and makes me no longer wish to discuss with you until it is resolved.

I quoted the honorable sayyid Al-Kadhim Al-Zaydi, may Allah lengthen his life and protect him from evil, who is, compared to both of us, far our superior, and you have had the audacity to call what he said regarding istighatha a "delusion."

In fact it is his work on the creed of Ibn al-Wazir which is the precious text which helped guide us to this way of thinking, and I recommend people seek that work out, it is a gem, so believe me when I say we cherish this student of knowledge who you have now called "delusional."

I am willing to talk to people who throw insults at my own person but until you retract this statement against the sayyid our discussion is finalized, let the people read what we have both said and come to their own conclusions.

And Allah knows best.