I have some questions on the Zaydiyya

May Allah azza wa jall be a witness indeed.

You are not sincere and you have show that you cannot handle if someone is disproving your points. You did not even talk about what Imam Mansur billah -alayhi as-salam- said but went straight to accuse me of attacking the brother al-Kazim al-Zaydi, may Allah protect him.

It seems that you haven’t even understood al-Kazim’s statement in the first place.

You are clearly unable to have a proper discussion.

May Allah heal you and guide you to the truth. ameen.

wa salam

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

What on earth are you saying now?

I found this on the student of knowledge Muhammad Sharifi's telegram channel under the title (included in my quotation) "istighatha is impermissible" and it explicitly says things like "Ya Ali" are haram.

Now you are insinuating I have gravely misunderstood the post???

And what is its true tafsir?

So far as this matter of the Imam's statement, I am well aware of similar statements by our Imams, Imam Al-Hadi Illa Al-Haqq عليه السلام clarified to us that whoever denies the Imamate of 'Ali is a kafir and that includes the kafir Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan. But to take this as we should carry out the apostasy punishment of all these kuffar is not appropriate and this is known even to the Zaydi-Hadawis and is not my innovation.

Now retract your slander of the sayyid, whose view I quoted and you undeniably called this view delusional, or swear by Allah you did not call his view "delusional."

And the same dua upon you, amin.
 

 As-salamu alaikum,There’s no need to get so emotional.

It seems the brother shared an excerpt from a longer answer by al-Kazim al-Zaydi (may Allah protect him), which may have led to your misunderstanding.But this again highlights that people who lack sufficient knowledge should not speak boldly on matters beyond their level.

First of all, the excerpt you cited is actually about ghuluw (exaggeration regarding Ahl al-Bayt), which is widespread among the Imamiyya. The questioner wanted to know whether the Zaydiyya also endorse this kind of ghuluw, and what the Zaydiyya’s position is on the matter.The Brother al-Kazim answered:

Answer:

That exaggeration which the questioner refers to among the Shia by which he probably means our brothers the Imamis (Twelvers) does not exist among the Zaydis. The principle on which Zaydism bases its loyalty to the Prophet’s family is not one of wailing rituals, but rather of pure following and observing their manners in belief and practice.

Our visits to the graves of the Imams, peace be upon them, are supplications and seeking forgiveness. Seeking intercession through the righteous from among the Imams of the Prophet’s family is permissible, as is seeking blessing, but without exaggeration, affectation, or directing any act of worship to anyone other than Allah, exalted is He. Supplication is sought from Allah alone.

The question does not need lengthy detail only a description of the reality: what some of our Shia brothers practice is not found in Yemen. Even if extremist opponents exaggerate about the Zaydis in Yemen and label them as “grave-worshippers,” seeing is not like hearing. Whoever sees the Zaydis’ condition witnesses their sound creed and conduct. And if someone ignorant falls into error, the scholars correct him and guide him to proper actions.

We do not know of any group among the Zaydis that adopts doctrinal extremism like what is found in some sects. Praise be to Allah.

If it is said: How do you interpret some people’s use of phrases like “O Ali” or “O Husayn”? And do the Zaydis permit seeking help from other than Allah, especially the dead?

We say: These expressions (“O Ali,” “O Husayn”) are rejected according to the principles of Zaydism. If what is meant by them is supplication other than to Allah, seeking help, seeking rescue, or reliance, then that is shirk by consensus.

As for the Imamis, they consider it a form of tawassul, with the actual supplication directed to Allah but through these Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). This is a doubtful practice, an accusation against the sound foundations of the Prophet’s family, and undoubtedly among the manifestations of exaggeration and affectation.

Indeed! The Zaydis absolutely do not permit seeking help from anyone other than Allah whether living or dead. “It is You we worship, and You we seek help from.” (Qur’an 1:5)

May Allah grant you success.

Answered by: Ustadh al-Kazim al-Zaydi, may Allah preserve him.

As you can see, the fatwa is specifically addressing the Imamiyya and their practice of performing tawassul through such statements.

As I explained and I will add this here so that any reader may understand it properly istighātha itself simply means calling for help.

It is not inherently an act of worship, nor is it inherently shirk. For example, if someone calls upon a living friend who is standing nearby to help him out of a hole, that would also be istighātha, and it would be completely permissible.

In short:

• There are forms of istighātha that are permissible.
• There are forms that are forbidden.
• And there are forms that are clear-cut shirk and kufr.

Reminder:
When a scholar answers a question, he does not always anticipate how every listener or reader will understand it. It is therefore quite normal that some people may misunderstand, since people differ in their levels of comprehension.

And finally here an statement of one of our great scholars Imam Badr al-Din ibn Amir al-Din al-Huthi -alayhi as-salam who addressed this matter and said: "Know that Du‘a and Istighatha are not Shirk by virtue of being Du‘a or Istighatha in and of themselves."

wa salam
 

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

Wa Alaikum As-Salam Wa Rahmatullahi.

You speak about my knowledge. Let me tell you about my knowledge. I am a layperson extremely well acquainted with the teachings of Qadi Ash-Shawkani رحمه الله and some of those who came before him in his same scholarly mission, i.e. promoting the Qur'an Sunnan and Itrah and seeking them directly. Due to the fact that you are doing nothing but asking me very basic questions which touch on the absolute fundamentals of creed and law, this has up until now perfectly empowered me to sufficiently answer every question, suspicion, and confusion you have had with no difficulty, without the need to claim any kind of erudition, or similar, just as the somewhat educated person of any sect can answer extremely basic questions. Thus I have described to you a variety of matters sufficiently which I won't recount in their entirety. And do you know what strikes me as strange the entire time? Your attitude as if there must be something very wrong with me if, in truth, I believe and affirm what I have read from these scholars. You seem to throughout this discussion have suggested I sometimes use rhetorical tricks! Well this sort of behavior, saying I am delusional, saying these scholars are culturally appropriating the Zaydiyya (when really if you use logic, since they "left" the Zaydism of their native Yemen to add some Sunni beliefs according to you, wouldn't they be culturally appropriating the non-Yemenis?), asking me not to even speak about the scholars of the Zaydiyya (Qadi Ash-Shawkani and Imam Ibn al-Wazir رحمهما الله referenced them constantly!), this is not an appropriate way to approach any of this, and I am not expressing annoyance or anger at you, it is more of a hope that this conversation might go smoother in the future if we keep this in mind.

I swear by Allah (Ta'ala) that whatever question you ask of me on this forum as to the school of these Imams (i.e. Qadi Ash-Shawkani and his creedal and legal predecessors), as long as it, as has every question so far, pertains to the fundamentals of subjects such as creed, law, hadith science, the role of the Ahlulbayt عليهم السلام, i.e. essentially everything a Zaydi-Hadawi might find controversial about it, I will answer the question within a reasonable time of seeing it, and if it is beyond my ability to answer immediately, I will try to research the books of these scholars to find an answer.

So you were talking about me as if I were 'running' from your question earlier because I was upset that when I quoted the sayyid's view, your reply called what I had said "delusional", I was not running from anything and I was already aware what the Imams of Ahlulbayt عليهم السلام said about apostasy, I simply am sensitive about the ulema (Rahimahum Allah). It is very often I find them insulted in conversations I am in.

I will now try to make a short and exhaustive list of clarifications so that nothing remains unaddressed:

1. You keep referencing what 'the brother' was asking about. The brother (Zulfiqar313) was talking/complaining about a conversation he had had with me, and I know best that when he said "they criticized me for saying Ya Ali", he had been defending the practice of istighatha as tawassul to the dead, I was there. Even if I hadn't been present in this conversation, the reason Muhammad Sharifi titled that post "istighatha is impermissible" is obvious, as the most famous thing called "istighatha" in the context of the shariah is not is literal Arabic meaning of "asking", but it is the specific practice of tawassul. Wallahi it seems to me you have tried to convey in your messages that I have made the "mistake" of thinking istighatha in its literal form, i.e. asking for things, is haram! If that is the case, all I can say is, especially in reply to a message where I virtually said nothing except quoting Muhammad Sharifi's quotation titled "istighatha is haram", where did that come from?

2. You note my statement of identification is the statement of most Muslims. Sometimes a good thing becomes widespread. As you mentioned the Itrah part is unique. You mentioned correctly a lot of groups claim this, however, to be extremely specific, the "Itrah" as I intend it is simply the first three generations of the Prophetic House عليهم السلام and their descendants who piously preserved their teachings, i.e. essentially what the Zaydiyya affirm inshallah.

3. You said "As long as you have not reached the level of ijtihād, you are not following the proofs." This is a true statement but misses epistemological subtlety. It is true I can only follow my own conjectures as a result of my research which I lack the skills to refine at the level of the scholar. The proponents of what is known as 'partial ijtihad' are well aware that such a person who does this, weighing the evidences of the ulema رحمهم الله until a preponderant conjecture (ghalib al-dhann) is reached, is not equipped to issue fatawa to other people or the like. Many of the "Salafis" as you said try to do absolute ijtihad without even seeking out the scholars and I reject this entirely as do all people of sanity and clear vision. The reality of what we say is simply that accepting a fatwa without asking about its proofs is a forbidden kind of blind following because: (1) it is obligatory in the deen to seek knowledge, and (2) it is obligatory to obey the Prophet ﷺ وآله. So the one who accepted a fatwa without asking about its proofs didn't seek knowledge, and the one who gets the knowledge of Qur'an and Sunnah by reading what the ulema رحمهم الله of various sects argued on an issue and has reached a preponderant conjecture as to which fatwa is closest to the Prophet's ﷺ وآله order, and does not follow it, has basically come to a conclusion that the Prophet ﷺ وآله ordered something then refused to do it, which is forbidden. So the practice of partial ijtihad is not an attempt to catapult ourselves to the status of fatwa-issuing ulema, Yemeni scholars to my knowledge never endorsed such depravity as became popular among the Salafis, at least until some converted to Salafism. Rather it is just what we believe the religion asks of us. We believe the religion asks of us to try our hardest to make sure our actions conform to what the Prophet ﷺ وآله asked.

I am not aware of anything I have left unaddressed.

and Allah knows best.

As-salāmu ʿalaykum,

I thought long and hard about whether and how I should answer you, but in the end, I do not see much benefit in explaining further. I do not think that you are actually open to recognizing the wrong in your ways.

So I will keep my response short and concise:

If you are a layman, you should know your place. You are appropriating al-Amīr al-Ṣanʿānī and al-Qāḍī al-Shawkānī, but in reality, you are misusing their works.

Al-Amīr al-Ṣanʿānī and al-Qāḍī al-Shawkānī did not truly care about the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿalayhim as-salām). Anyone who knows their minhāj understands this. When they referenced the ʿItrah (ʿalayhim as-salām), it was only because they lived in the lands of the Zaydiyya. Had they lived among Ahl al-Sunnah, they would not have even bothered to quote the ʿItrah.

So, do not speak about our scholars if you are not a Zaydī. That is a simple request, and if you are truthful, it should not bother you. Our A’immah (ʿalayhim as-salām) would not approve of you, nor of your favorites like al-Amīr or al-Qāḍī.

The discussion about being delusional was entirely about you. If Muḥammad al-Sharīfī gave the heading “Istighāthah is not permissible,” he likely assumed that people would understand the context from the reference. Outside of that context, however, such a statement would be wrong because, as I said, the matter is more nuanced.

As for partial ijtihād, that is a false concept, and it is saddening that people are spreading such nonsense. There is only ijtihād or taqlīd there is no such thing as partial ijtihād. What does exist is tarjīḥ (preferring between existing opinions based on proofs). This is the next level after taqlīd.

To practice tarjīḥ, one must have a strong foundation in the Islamic sciences and study a madhhab of fiqh at a very deep level. Only after that can one engage in tarjīḥ.

As for your claim of following the Qur’ān, Sunnah, and ʿItrah (ʿalayhim as-salām) while also following Ibn al-Wazīr (raḥimahu’Llāh), al-Amīr al-Ṣanʿānī, and al-Qāḍī al-Shawkānī this is a contradiction.

Beside what i said on Ibn al-Wazir rahimahullah, Al-Amīr al-Ṣanʿānī clearly leaned toward a more Sunni methodology in his understanding of fiqh and ḥadīth.

As for al-Qāḍī al-Shawkānī, even novices know his uṣūl is Zahiritic in nature. He does not see ijmāʿ as a real proof (because it is practically not achievable), nor qiyās (for it is ray without any foundation in his opinion), nor even the opinions of the Ahl al-Bayt. For him, the ijmāʿ of the Ahl carries no weight whatsoever. Thus, he himself did not follow the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿalayhim as-salām).
He only quoted them. Quoting someone is no proof of following them.

He said in Irshad al-Fuhul on the question of the Ijmaa of the Itrah (ʿalayhim as-salām):

"And with very many narrations that include an increase in their honor and great merit, but they contain no indication of the binding authority of their statements. Whoever inferred from them such authority has gone far (from the truth). And we have already explained to you, regarding the binding authority of the consensus of the people of the Ummah, what is correct. Applying that to the authority of some of their statements is even more appropriate"

In short: I am astonished at how you claim to follow the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿalayhim as-salām) while simultaneously following figures like al-Amīr al-Ṣanʿānī and al-Qāḍī al-Shawkānī men who clearly departed from the path of the Ahl and were counted by the scholars of the Zaydiyya from the itrah-hating Nasibis.

But again, this shows the weakness in your knowledge, take that as a nasihah.

I will not lengthen my response further. This will be my last message on this thread. I only wanted to clarify these points for the readers.

Wa-salām.

In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

Wa alaikum as-salam

Allah knows the truth of my oath, that I would have quoted to you from the sources of these scholars that I am not misappropriating them, were you to ask me to prove they said this claim or that claim, and I made that oath here in public, and you treat it as if it were nothing, invalid.

So say I misrepresent them. The people saw my oath, and Allah is witness to its sincerity, so whatever challenges would have been met inshallah.

So far as this final message of yours, I swear by Allah I do not find much of any challenge to reply to at all in it. You clarify that there is only ijtihad and taqlid, which is true, and in the sense you mean we are muqaleeds not mujtahids, in that strict binary. When we speak of taqleed we mean something different than what you mean when you say taqleed, I said explicitly what we mean is accepting a fatwa without asking for its proofs. We allow accepting a fatwa with asking for its proofs and this resembles what you call taqleed far more than what you call ijtihad and you are just making a confusion of these technical terms.

You say "As for al-Qāḍī al-Shawkānī, even novices know his uṣūl is Zahiritic in nature.", as if I did not know this, when I often teach this to people, which also shows in addition to my oath to Allah (Ta'ala), you have taken my claim of familiarity with the works of the Qadi رحمه الله as void. I very much appreciate and embrace those aspects of his thought.

What you quoted from him on ijma is true, which is why in my original post I said when I say itrah I mean their salaf and those who preserved the teachings of the salaf, I do not seek out any "ijma" after the ahlulbayt عليهم السلام became spread out into every corner of the earth and became a part of every madhab and their consensus is impossible to ascertain. I apologize for whatever confusion that was caused by me saying it was similar to how the Zaydiyya thought of the itrah, what I meant is it was the same Salaf and the same people preserving the teachings of that Salaf, not that I interacted with them in the same way.

Your last message like every other combined ignoring me, strawmanning me, and a strangely hostile tone. I swear by Allah (Ta'ala) the attitude of the ahlulbayt عليهم السلام is not this kind of idle sectarianism.

I swear by Allah (Subhanahu) I was initially troubled by your messages, as if I worried I would fail to defend this school, until I saw all you had was excess hostility and verbal tricks, and then the anxieties which were as deep as the ocean evaporated to nothing, and Allah (Ta'ala) granted me a peace about it, a peace I direly needed, as so few people are there to defend this school, and I am constantly fearful I am not up to the task.

To whoever else besides you has any questions, let them ask them, any criticisms, let them make them, and all I would hope for is that they would take your request to me, to "think well of your brothers and sisters", to heart, and not be as you were, telling me I am insincere for even trying to base myself on these scholars, the precise opposite attitude.

and Allah knows best.

Edit on 9/13/2025:

In The Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

From "the creed of Ibn al-Wazir" by Kadhim Al-Zaydi:

> Ibn al-Wazīr, raḥimahu Allāh, stated that many accused him of adhering to the apparent meaning (ẓāhir) merely because he disliked interpretation (ta'wīl). He felt the need to justify his position, saying: "Then, I absolved myself of this accusation - of adhering strictly to the apparent meaning. From this perspective, many of the ignorant attributed to me the stance of holding onto the ẓāhir. For, as I see it," said he, raḥimahu Allāh, "because I humbled myself and refrained from speaking in areas where I lack knowledge, being fully aware that I am not among the firmly-grounded scholars, and that I am still within the ranks of the learners, I believe that the apparent meaning that opposes the doctrine of the Itrah is neither intended nor desired. However, I withhold judgment regarding its interpretation and avoid providing justification for it. But should there be a confirmed consensus (ijmā) from the `Itrah on a specific interpretation, I wouldn't hesitate to firmly adhere to this consensus, turning to the 'ships of salvation'. If there is no confirmed consensus from them, the stance remains to withhold on interpretation and to affirm the revelation (tanazzul). This is because our guidance on practical, juristic issues (al-masā'il al-'amaliyyah al-furū'iyyah) is legislated for us, not in doctrinal issues."

I have come here to post this quote as I consider it the most correct view. So far as Qadi Ash-Shawkani's رحمه الله view, insofar as it is different from this it is an error.