I have some questions on the Zaydiyya

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

--a short addendum--

1. The scholars رحمه الله called them Nawasib? Kadhim Al-Zaydi (may Allah lengthen his life and protect him from evil) wrote a defense of Ibn al-'Amir عليه السلام, and both of them wrote in praise of the Zaydi Imams (something Sunnis do not do mostly) and yet you say the scholars رحمه الله called them "haters of ahlulbayt" just like the kharijites? What trash is this slander of the Zaydi-Hadawi scholars? The arrogance that you consider me some kind of appropriator of your school when I make no claim to it, while you do make a claim to it while desecrating it with lies, is absurd. You also lied against the Imams of Ahlulbayt عليهم السلام when you told Zulfiqar313 it is permissible in their school to despise Abu Bakr and 'Umar رضي الله عنهما but not to curse them. Their position is tawaqquf or praise, and the one who tries to argue they practiced tawaqquf and hatred simultaneously is ignorant of the meaning of both!

2. You call Badr Ad-Deen Al-Houthi an "Imam" and invoke peace upon his name when the traditional Zaydi ulema largely condemned him from tossing aside the traditional methods of selecting an Imam both in practice and ideologically in favor of his own version of Khomeinism.

3. Qadi Ash-Shawkani, Imam Ibn al-'Amir and Imam Ibn al-Wazir رحمهم الله all disagreed with each other on certain matters depending on their ijtihad and I do not claim they all agree in every matter. You act as if if any one of them made an error I become an idiot for having any appreciation of him, when it is obvious this is just assuming your own vile sectarianism, I believe we should praise all righteous Muslim scholars even if they made mistakes in ijtihad. I also think well of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal رحمه الله even though he made more mistakes than all three of them! When I said I did not follow any of those three scholars you ignored this and then you found a statement of the Qadi رحمه الله which contradicted Imam Ibn al-Wazir عليه السلام and treated this like the greatest proof in the world of my error. I kept my oath to Allah (Ta'ala) and read the relevant section of the text and I do agree it contradicts the sounder position of Imam Ibn al-Wazir عليه السلام, but what of it? Is being a Dhahiri your definition of nasb? Then you stretch it as wide as the extremist rafidha misuse that term!

--a statement which myself and those with me would affirm to clear ourselves of all doubts of those who would conjecture--

Imam 'Ali is al-Wasi of the Messenger of Allah in all matters specified in revelation including succeeding him in rulership, and is the best of the ummah after him, and the ahlulbayt عليهم السلام do not agree on misguidance and are preferred as leaders among the Quraysh, and the Imam obligatory to obey is anyone who commands good, forbids evil, establishes the judgements of Allah (Ta'ala), rises up against the tyrant, guards himself against kufr (i.e. major sins), strives to purify and better himself, and protects the weak from the strong and the Islamic ummah generally, and Abu Bakr and 'Umar رضي الله عنه fulfilled that office despite their inferiority to Imam 'Ali عليه السلام and lower qualification than Imam 'Ali عليه السلام who, had the Prophet ﷺ وآله not advised him to patience, would have fought them until they acknowledged his right to Imamate from Allah (Ta'ala), and no human can make it permissible to turn away from the leadership of ahlulbayt عليهم السلام. Allah (Ta'ala) is just and does not create evil or disbelief and He does not have even one single similarity with the creation, and the unrepentant major sinners enter the hellfire.

--a final quote in reply to some pedantry at the start--

al-ʿAllāma al-Faqīh al-Muḥadith ʿAlī b. Bilāl al-Āmulī said in al-Maṣābīḥ:

Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Ḥasanī narrated to us with his chain from al-Mufaẓẓal al-Ẓabī, he said: The Zaydīs would chant under the banner of Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan b. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, upon him be peace, saying: We are the Zaydīs, and the sons of the Zaydīs!

He said: I heard Ibrāhīm, upon him be peace, say to them: May Allāh be merciful towards you, is there a name better than that of al-Islām?! Verily, you must say: We are the Muslims, and the sons of the Muslims. 

— al-Maṣābīḥ 

As-salamu ‘alaykum,

It seems that you have not truly learned anything. I do not know where you get your knowledge, but it appears very limited and confused.

Brother al-Kadhim al-Zaydi defended Ibn al-Wazir only because, in the end, Ibn al-Wazir’s ‘aqidah was more Zaydi than Sunni nothing more and nothing less. If you had actually read al-Kadhim’s explanations regarding Ibn al-Wazir, you would see that he did not defend him entirely, for he had his mistakes.

Based on your performance in this discussion so far, I doubt that you can access these works in their original Arabic.

Regarding the praises of Ibn al-Amir and al-Shawkani for the Zaydi Imams, that is taqiyya. Many Sunnis practiced taqiyya in Rafidhi, Zaydi, or Ibadi lands they only display strength when the mujrimeen sultans are on their side.

How is my claim that scholars of the Zaydiyya counted them among the Nasibis in direct contradiction to what Brother al-Kadhim said? You do not even know which madhhab the Brother follows. It seems you assume he is some Sunni-Zaydi hybrid. Sorry to burst your illusion, but he is not.

As for who labeled them Nasibis, that is homework for you: read in the original Arabic what the great mujtahid Shahid Ibn Hariwah (radiyallahu anh) wrote.

Regarding the tawaqquf position, you are the one who has misunderstood it. Read the books of the Itrah ‘Alayhim as-Salam before attempting to discuss such topics online.

Now I suspect you may actually be a crypto-Wahhabi attempting to undermine the Zaydiyya. Do you even know whom you are discussing? Or his standing among the traditional Zaydis in Yemen? He was on the level of Imam Majd al-Din al-Muayyadi (alayhima as-salam).

If al-Kadhim heard your claims, he would not approve you can be certain of that. Kadhim himself called him a Wali of Allah, saying:

الولي السيد بدر الدين بن أمير الدين حفظه الله

As for the propaganda about him being Imami or Khomeinist, that is pure fabrication by the Talafiyya Wahhabis, intended to discredit him because he opposed their madhhab. The Talafis in Yemen are notorious for their hatred of the Zaydiyya. They even call our Imams, like Imam al-Hadi (alayhi as-salam), tyrants.

I have not verbally insulted you, only shown what you are, but I do think you are aware of your own intellectual limits, though unfortunately, you seem to live in open denial.

I do not care to debate minor disagreements; Ahmad ibn Hanbal was certainly superior to many of his followers, and I do not dispute that. I praise any scholar as long as their stance does not involve bidaa or opposition to Ahl al-Bayt.

Qadi al-Shawkanis Nasb has many more causes beyond his Dhahiri stance. Being Dhahiri only indicates that he is not a Zaydi, nothing more. I am not a Rafidhi, but you, frankly, seem to be an ḥashawī (حشوِي).

Regarding your reliance on a single hadith to defend not calling yourself Zaydi, you have clearly misunderstood something. Our din is not based on solitary riwayaat. No one claims that identifying yourself with someone is inherently wrong. If you insist on taking a solitary narration as the foundation of your faith, I can easily demonstrate how quickly it crumbles. 

وروينا عن جعفر بن إبراهيم الجعفري قال: كان إبراهيم بن عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن  يقاتل الطغاة (بباخمرا) فسمع رجلا من الزيدية - وقد ضرب رجلا من القوم على رأسه، وقال: خذها إليك وأنا الغلام الحداد، فقال له إبراهيم : لم قلت: أنا الغلام الحداد؟ قل: أنا الغلام العلوي، فإن [نبي الله] إبراهيم  يقول: {فَمَنْ تَبِعَنِي فَإِنَّهُ مِنِّي}⁣[إبراهيم: ٣٦]، فأنتم منا ونحن منكم، لكم ما لنا وعليكم ما علينا⁣ .And we have narrated from Ja‘far ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ja‘farī who said: Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan (peace be upon him) was fighting the tyrants at Bākhmarā. He heard a man from among the Zaydīs who had struck one of the enemy on the head, saying: “Take that from me, for I am the blacksmith’s young servant.” So Imam Ibrāhīm alayhi as-salam said to him: “Why did you say: ‘I am the blacksmith’s young servant? Say instead: ‘I am the ‘Alid young servant’ For verily the Prophet of Allah, Ibrāhīm alayhi salam, says: {So whoever follows me, indeed he is of me} [Qur’ān 14:36]. So you are of us and we are of you; what is ours is yours, and what is upon us is upon you.”
And this is actually from the Amali Abu Talib alayhim as-salam.

We can do that all day long but unfortunately you will not find much athar or ahadith which would strengthen your position, while we have many many more riwayaat from the Itrah alayhim as-salam.

Give up and go forth, study arabic!

wa salam

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

Wa alaikum assalam

Another reply in which I find extraordinarily little to reply to, you have a penchant for evocative language over substance. First I said Kadhim Al-Zayd (may Allah lengthen his life and protect him from evil) defended IBN AL-'AMIR (who you called a NASIBI), not IBN AL-WAZIR, so you just misread that. I don't blame you for misreading it, but you might want to take another shot at replying to my message now that you realize what I actually said.

>  Based on your performance in this discussion so far, I doubt that you can access these works in their original Arabic.

I quoted "the creed of Ibn al-Wazir" which is an untranslated work. What is doubt in the face of evidence except insanity?

> How is my claim that scholars of the Zaydiyya counted them among the Nasibis in direct contradiction to what Brother al-Kadhim said?

I didn't say that. I said THEY NEVER SAID IT.

> As for the propaganda about him being Imami or Khomeinist

I don't call him an Imami Khomeinist nor do I say people should take up arms against the Ansarallah, rather they should take up arms with the Ansarallah against the wretched Saudi state, so what is this nonsense about me being a crypto-Wahhabi? What I said about him having his own version of Khomeinism is something he admits himself and is not controversial to anyone who knows what he taught. He found the Khomeinist model in Iran of a populist islamist revolutionary government as what was most suited to the conditions of Yemen at the time and called for that. I don't claim he literally does taqleed of Khomeini.

> but you, frankly, seem to be an ḥashawī=1.2em (حشوِي).

Saying this after I disavowed that explicitly makes you a slanderer in the most literal and true sense, as I said: "He does not have even one single similarity with the creation".

> If you insist on taking a solitary narration as the foundation of your faith, I can easily demonstrate how quickly it crumbles.

Calling or not calling myself Zaydi isn't even a point of Aqidah at all. The fact that you treat it as one is laughable. You are acting like you have many many narrations from ahlulbayt عليهم السلام of them fanatically saying "you have to call yourself the name Zaydi", as if you have all of this in your back pocket, no they said you had to affirm what they reached a consensus on or you are a kafir etc. etc., they said many strong statements, but not on such trivial matters as this inshallah. They are well aware "Zaydi" in its most core sense is just a name to show their support for the Imamate and mission of Zayd, and the teachings of ahlulbayt, and wallahi I support the Imamate and mission of Zayd and the teachings of ahlulbayt, so do you really think these Imams would chastise me when I make that clear and do not create ambiguity in this matter?

and Allah knows best.

As-salāmu ʿalaykum,

It is unfortunate that you are unable to answer and instead choose to dismiss what I wrote, as though I had said nothing of substance. That is not only unfair but also intellectually dishonest.

At first, I thought you had simply written incorrectly, because as far as I know, he explicitly defended Ibn al-Wazīr raḥimahu Allāh. I was not aware that he also defended Ibn al-Amīr. Thank you for correcting me but could you please show me the exact Arabic passage where he defends him?

You still have not quoted Ibn al-Wazir or Kadhim in Arabic. And in fact, you have not disproved my judgment of your performance; on the contrary, I am now even more certain that you cannot actually read Arabic.

So, according to you, the mujtahid scholar Ibn Ḥarīwah raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu is not a Zaydī scholar? I gave him as an example.

If you claim that someone has “his own version of Khomeinism,” then you are, by that very statement, calling him a Khomeinist. Why do you deny this? Are you perhaps unwell? Is your health okay? Could you show me, in exact Arabic, where he himself admits to having his “own version” of Khomeinism?

And I must correct you: when I used the word ḥashawī, I was using it in its literal sense. You are illiterate.

Also, where did I ever say that calling oneself “Zaydī” is a matter of ʿaqīdah? It is a matter of wilayah. Something you seemed to not have understood. I never treated it as aqidaa as such.
But you used that riwāyah against us Zaydīs, by citing it in the context of tasmiyah self-identification. While all the scholars of the Itrah alayhim as-salam would disagree with you.

If you truly support the Ahl al-Bayt ʿalayhim al-salām, then that is praiseworthy. But if that is the case, you should abandon the mistaken path of adopting the views of Ibn al-Amīr or al-Shawkānī, and instead return to the school of the ʿIṭrah ʿalayhim al-salām. Call yourself Zaydī, and follow the way of traditional Zaydism.

And here a gift to you from me:

Al-Kadhim al-Zaydi may Allah protect him said:

Indeed, I once asked my master, the erudite scholar and ḥujjah, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥusayn Shāʾim (ṣallawāt Allāh ʿalayhi wa-ʿalāh), “What breaks consensus?”
He replied: “Only another consensus.” But how could that be, when the truth is one? For Allah has guaranteed that the ʿItrah will remain alongside the Book as one inseparable line, and their truth is not overturned by falsehood intervening between them. Thus it is a continuous path and thought of ʿAlī, generation after generation.

Therefore, it is not correct that a student should take from al-Shawkānī anything whose basis is the replacement of the thought of the ʿItrah with a methodology contrary to the foundation of the ʿItrah.
In my view, such influence from al-Shawkānī or others who opposed Ahl al-Bayt is nothing but imitation (taqlīd), not evidence (dalīl). For if a researcher were to truly be certain of evidence, he would find it contrary to the methodology of the ʿItrah especially in those matters of religion which are of great importance and danger.

Yes! And here in the middle comes a clarification and reminder: do we forbid reading al-Shawkānī, or Ibn al-Amīr, or al-Maqbilī, or others who in one way or another diverged in small or great matters of thought? That is not correct. But the student must be cautious and aware: how he reads, how he weighs. For man is free to read whom he wishes but if he ends up believing in falsehood, then he has set himself on a path other than the Book, the Sunnah, and the ʿItrah. And the responsibility of the believer is nothing other than correct creed, fairness, and sincerity.

May Allah grant you success.

Answered by: al-Ustadh al-Kāẓim al-Zaydī, may Allah grant him success.

wa salam

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

Wa alaikum as-salam

You may read what Kadhim Al-Zaydi (may Allah lengthen his life and protect him from evil) said about Imam Ibn al-'Amir عليه السلام here:

al-majalis.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2431

> You still have not quoted Ibn al-Wazir or Kadhim in Arabic.

Go back to page 5 of this thread, I made an edit to the last post on that page including a quote from his book "the creed of Ibn al-Wazir" which is untranslated, i.e. I had to find the quote in the Arabic and post it here.

>  So, according to you, the mujtahid scholar Ibn Ḥarīwah raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu is not a Zaydī scholar? I gave him as an example.

Do you recall how I was in doubt about what you claimed about one of our Imams claiming a consensus on the apostasy of Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه, and then you brought the quote, and it mentioned kufr, not apostasy? This is similar to that. I am sure Ibn Hariwah hated Qadi Ash-Shawkani رحمه الله so I do not doubt you are describing in some vague sense a real hostility that occurred, that he said something about Qadi Ash-Shawkani رحمه الله which was, in some sense, "you have abandoned the ahlulbayt", but like in the case about the quote regarding Mu'awiya رضي الله عنه, I am in doubt you are narrating from Ibn Hariwah his precise wording. I am in doubt Ibn Hariwah said "You, Qadi, are a nasibi". Although, this may have happened, I have looked into their affair and it seems like there was a lot of hatred. Basically I am saying, bring the specific quote or at least reference a page number in his response to As-Sayl Al-Jarrār or whatever book he said these things in so I can read it. Also preferably a link to the text as I can't really find Ibn Hariwah books online.

> Also, where did I ever say that calling oneself “Zaydī” is a matter of ʿaqīdah?

If you insist on taking a solitary narration as the foundation of your faith, I can easily demonstrate how quickly it crumbles.

So basically, the narration you were talking about here was on whether we should call ourselves Muslim or Zaydi, right? And you referred to this narration as something I insisted on taking as the "foundation of my faith", necessitating that according to you this issue is, at least for me, if not for all Muslims, an issue of the "foundations of faith."

> But you used that riwāyah against us Zaydīs, by citing it in the context of tasmiyah self-identification.

This issue of what we call ourselves is not something I make into a polemic that I beat Zaydis over the head with. This is pure projection on your part as you yourself have been offended that I do not call myself Zaydi, it has never been the other way around, that I acted offended that you do call yourself Zaydi. I am a sunni, a zaydi, and a shi'i, all in their original pure senses, not in the later meanings pertaining to blind-following of schools, and it is not haram for me to say this. It is not forbidden for me to say "I am a follower of Sunnah" or "I am a supporter of Zayd" or "I am a shi'i of 'Ali". I must insist that of the two of us you are the only one of us particularly obsessed with what we call ourselves, so do not talk as if I am offended that Zaydis call themselves "Zaydis", that is nonsense, of all the issues I disagree with the Zaydi-Hadawis on, this is maybe the most trivial and most superficial of them all and I would never make a huge point of condemning them over it. I mentioned that narration only because you were so focused on the name issue and I wanted to point out not all of the Imams عليهم السلام shared your obsession.

So far as what you quoted from Al-Kadhim Al-Zaydi (may Allah lengthen his life and protect him from evil), I swear by Allah it is really a gift to me even if you did not, in truth, intend it as such, so thank you, what he said is true.

> If you claim that someone has “his own version of Khomeinism,” then you are, by that very statement, calling him a Khomeinist. Why do you deny this? Are you perhaps unwell? Is your health okay? Could you show me, in exact Arabic, where he himself admits to having his “own version” of Khomeinism?

I regard this as a famous aspect of the Ansarallah's ideology, that they support a khomeinist-style grassroots people's movement to establish an islamic state, he explicitly said the Iranian revolution was a major inspiration for him, I have no issue finding the quotes from him eventually inshallah as I did go out of my way to make this point but that will take me a day or two as I don't exactly have my own Badr Ad-Din Al-Houthi library with me. I am honestly surprised you find what I am saying so controversial. Do you have any idea how the Zaydiyya normally choose Imams? It is this somewhat intense process of shura to find the best of the ummah. Do you find it so hard to believe that Badr Ad-Din Al-Houthi did not go through this process, when the whole world who have any knowledge of his situation are aware of that, when it is known by necessity when one opens the pages of history and glances at the information surrounding his life? I will find some relevant info either from his own mouth or from the Zaydi ulema رحمهم الله who condemned his rushing to power inshallah, so just be patient, but if you live in some kind of fantasy world where the ascent of Badr Ad-Deen Al-Houthi to power was a purely traditional selection of a Zaydi Imam, this is far from the reality. I don't have the bigoted hatred of the Ansarallah that the Wahhabis have and I am not fanatically opposed to them, but their political methods are novel and many Zaydi scholars noted their deviation from the most established practices.

As-salamu alaikum,

I know al-majalis.org, but I never saw that discussion on Ibn al-Amir, so thank you for the link.

It seems that you have misunderstood what Brother Kazim is doing here. His defense of Ibn al-Amir is not a defense of his teachings. Rather, it is a defense in the sense that he tries to show that Ibn al-Amir is not a Salafi, nor from Ahl al-Sunnah (because the Sunnis are claiming him as one of theirs). Denying his "Sunnism" is simply to rescue him from their claims. That is not a true defense of his ʿaqīdah or methodology; rather, it is only an argument against the Talafiyya.

Brother al-Kazim said this:

“May Allah bless you, my brother… Before beginning to comment on your words above, you must understand, sir, that what primarily concerns me in this discussion is not to present Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Amīr as a Zaydī, or a Sunnī, or an Ashʿarī, or otherwise. Rather, we are striving (together with you) to bring forth and clarify the man’s creed as he himself intended it through what he authored in his books and volumes.”

I saw the translation of Ibn al-Wazir’s (rahimahullah) creed, but I thought that you got it from an existing translation. If you translated it yourself, then respect to you and to your effort.

You can be sure that the excerpts I cite from the Imams and Shuyukh are always translated as precisely as possible. So yes, there is an ijmāʿ by the statements of several Aimmah (alayhim as-salam) about the takfīr of Muʿāwiyah.
Unfortunately, you tried to shift the discussion toward the punishment for irtidād, but the aforementioned excerpt is not about that. It is clearly about takfīr and a claim of ijmāʿ.
As I understand it, you do not want to accept this because you think it contradicts their statements about tawwaquf or tarḍiya on the Aṣḥāb. But that is due to your lack of understanding. You are misinterpreting their words. There is no contradiction, because according to the Zaydī definition of a ṣaḥābī, someone who becomes a kāfir loses his status as a companion.

As for Shaykh Ibn Hariwah (raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu), he criticized al-Shawkānī many times and openly said that al-Shawkānī was a nāsibī. Your problem with this seems to come from a different definition of nasb than the Zaydis have so that is your problem, not mine.
I will not change my minhāj the minhāj of the Zaydiyya based on whatever some unknown ḥashawī on the internet claims.

The narration I posted was in response to your narration. I do not make a big deal about the masʾalah al-tasmiyya except when someone tries to appropriate our Imams, claiming their knowledge and reasoning, while denying them the wilāyah they deserve by not admitting to being Zaydī. And you are doing this. That is why I said to you: do not speak about our Aimmah.If you claim our Imams if you come onto this forum and try to spread your own fatwās or teachings you will face opposition from us Zaydis. Be aware: jahālah will not be tolerated.

It seems that you mix things up. You take something from our Aimmah (alayhim as-salam), some things from our scholars, some from Ibn al-Wazir (rahimahullah), Ibn al-Amir al-Sanʿānī, and al-Qadi al-Shawkānī. You have made your own madhhab.
And Brother Zulfiqar is quite right in calling you “Waziris,” for that is what your madhhab looks like.

As for my gift: please read it carefully and try to understand it properly. If you have any genuine love for knowledge, you should see that he is actually criticizing al-Shawkānī for opposing Ahl al-Bayt:

“In my view, such influence from al-Shawkānī or others who opposed Ahl al-Bayt…”

Naṣīḥah:
If you read excerpts from different sources, do not try to insert your own understanding into them.

Try to understand them as the authors intended.

About Imām Badr al-Dīn Ibn Amīr al-Dīn (ʿalayhi as-salām):
He was truly a walī, and the barking of dogs like you will not lessen his standing in the field of knowledge and activism. He is counted along with Imām Majd al-Dīn al-Muʾayyadī (ʿalayhi as-salām) as one of the revivers and greatest scholars of his time. That you hold such a bad opinion of him and of Ansar Allah only shows how warped your understanding is. For that, you are a nāsibī: revering non-Sayyids while showing enmity to the Sayyids of the Zaydiyya is pure nasb.

About Ansar Allah:
It seems that you somehow think the Zaydis are democrats, and that an Imamate is established by shūrā. Once again, you prove how ignorant you are. You actually know nothing about Zaydism. And why do you even care about their understanding of Imamate if you do not claim to be Zaydī yourself?

Conclusion:
For me, you are an ignorant, illiterate nāsibī.

I hereby ask the admins to close this thread.

Wa-salām.