Zaydi view of the Sahaba/Companions

Reposted

---

Salam,

The three main groups of Zaydi Muslims included the Jarudiyya. Were these the earliest of the Zaidi Muslims who said bad things about the Sahaba (ra)? What is the official stance of the Sahaba of the Zaidi Madhab?

---

Regarding the Companions, let me first preface by saying that they have the honour and prestige afforded to none but them: they were in the presence of the Seal of the Messengers, peace and blessings be upon him and his Progeny. This is a virtue in that they were able to take from the Messenger directly in terms of deen. They were able to see his actions, hear his words, and benefit from his blessed state; whereas the rest of us who do not have that honour are forced to rely on books and handed down traditions to learn our deen. There were those who benefited greatly from this ni'ma but there were others who were ungrateful. This brings us to the Companions.

We say that among them were the righteous and wicked, as Allah says:{O thou who believe! If there comes to thee a disobedient one with news, verify it to be true, lest thou afflict a people unknowingly and then repent for what thou hast done} (Q. 49:6). We don't place all of them on equal footing, as Allah says: {Is the believer the same as the disobedient one?! They are not equal!} (Q. 32:18). Therefore, our view of the Companions is the same as Allah's view.

We also say that those Companions who held on to faith and did not change will be awarded the Paradise but those who violated the oath of faith and altered the religion after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his Progeny, will be confined to Hell, as the Messenger said: ((Some of my companions will come to me at my Basin, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, “My companions!” Then it will be said: “You do not that they innovated in the religion after you.") Therefore, our view of the Companions is the same as that of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his Progeny.

We say that they were neither angels nor were they devils, rather they were human beings. By that, we mean that we don’t say that the Companions were perfect and free from criticism, nor do we say that they were all hypocrites bent on the destruction of Islam from within. Instead, they were men and women who had strengths and weaknesses. That withstanding, Allah’s threats of punishment and promises of reward apply to them just as it applies to other than them. Our opinion of the Companions can be said to be the opinion that the Companions had about each other.

When it comes to judging specific Companions, we say that Imam 'Ali (as) was the barometer in judging them. Those Companions who he praised and approved, we praise and approve. Those Companions who he dispraised, we dispraise. Those Companions he was silent about, we are silent about. This is based upon the words of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his Progeny, uttered in Ghadir: ((O Allah, assist those who assist him and oppose those who opposes him!))

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Repost

---

tell me about the fazail (good virtues) of sahaba specially those sahabas about whom there is disagreement among twelvers and sunnis. what is your opinion about those. i want to know this ans plz

---

We pray that all is well with you and your family!

Regarding individual Companions, our position to them is based on Imam Ali's position to them--as he was appointed as the prophet's heir. We do not deny certain virtues that they had. However, the most important thing is not how they lived during the Prophet's time, but what they did after him, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. For even Allah will not judge us on how we lived but rather on what state we die upon. And we ask Allah for success!

Regarding Abu Bakr and Umar, the majority of Zaydis have reservation (tawaqquf). This means that we do not say Radhiya allahu anhu ("May Allah be pleased with him") for them nor do we say Lana't Allah alayhu ("May Allah curse them") for them. This is because although they were close followers of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, they nevertheless disobeyed his order, knowingly rejected 'Ali (as) as the rightful successor, as well as threatened and angered Fatima (as). We therefore reserve their judgment for Allah. There are also Zaydis that have no problem saying "May Allah be pleased with them."

Regarding Uthman, because of his innovations and appointing known disobedient people and hypocrites in positions of power, we have a problem with him.

Regarding Talha, az-Zubayr, and A'isha, we take a similar position as that of the first two caliphs. They fought against the rightful imam and therefore committed a grave sin. But, it is said that they repented. And Allah knows best.

Regarding Mu'awiya, Amr ibn al-As, Walid bin Uqba, and others, we say that they were disobedient rebels. They did not manifest any type of open repentance for their actions. This is evident from the fact that Ali used to regularly curse them in his supplications. Mu'awiya even continued his aggressions against Ali and his family by instituting the cursing of Ali after the latter died. For this reason, we even deny the Islam of Mu'awiya and Yazid (la).

Regarding other Companions such as Abdullah bin Umar who did not manifest open hostility against 'Ali but did not support him either, we say nothing of them.

As we said earlier, a good way to determine the Zaydi position towards certain Companions, look to see what was Ali's opinion. Our opinion is Ali's opinion.

Hopefully, we answered your question.

IRS

Reposted

---

As-salamu 'alaykum!

May this message reach you in goodness and firm Iman.

I have the following question related to Zaydi theology in regards to their view of the Companions (Sahaba) - in particular, towards Abu Bakr and 'Umar.

According to an authentic narration readily approved and accepted by the Zaydi's, Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) accepted the invitation of the people of Kufa; and upon his arrival he was questioned by their leaders as follows:

"A group of their leaders assembled in his (Zayd's presence) and said: "May God have mercy on you! What do you have to say on the matter of Abu Bakr and Umar?" Zayd said, "I have not heard anyone in my family renouncing either of them, nor saying anything but good about them. When they were entrusted with government (Khilafah) they behaved justly with the people and acted according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah" (History of at-Tabari)

As such, I find it quite difficult and rather illogical that both Abu Bakr and 'Umar can be regarded as "good" and "just" in one breath - but yet, also be viewed as "usurpers" of the divine rights of Ahlul-Bayt (as), in another breath. If it is clear that these two individuals were the leading conspirators at Saqeefah - a tragic event which continues to cause the ongoing division and sectarian discord among Muslims to this very day, how then can we consider them as pious, God-fearing, Muslim leaders who "acted according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah?"

Reason and critical observance demands that they were either:

1. Good Muslims who were legitimate in their rule as Caliphs, and deserving of allegiance (bay'ah), or

2. Malicious charlatans who purposely acted against the wishes of the Holy Prophet (saw) for their own personal gains.

And so, I'm not understanding how both views can be rationally accepted at one and the same time. Especially when we consider that if one were to accept view #1 above, then it would mean that their Caliphates were completely legitimate and "divinely approved" (i.e. supported by Allah's decree). In turn, that would also mean that anyone who openly refused their allegiance would be regarded as "wrongdoers" - including, Amirul-Mu'mineen (as), himself! As he and many others along with him withheld their bay'ah for a given length of time. These events are well-recorded in the books of history (tareekh).

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience, and may Allah (swt) continue to be with you and your family in the meanwhile, insha-Allah. I thank you in advance for your time and sincere efforts.

And if possible, please answer my inquiry "directly" here on this website - rather than simply giving me a link or book title to review.

Shukran!

Salaam!

I just finished reading "The Beneficial Summary" related to the Fundamentals of Religion. And surprisingly, under the sub-heading "Imamate (Al-Imāma)" it says:

"It is religiously obligatory for one to know that the Guardianship (al-wilāya) of Amīr al-Mu`minīn ‘Ali bin Abi Ťalib, uhbp, is religiously obligatory upon all Muslims. It is a religious injunction from Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. One cannot obtain salvation nor can the name “belief” (īmān) be applied to one unless they believe such."

So once again, this reinforces the question which I posed in my previous message:

How can both Abu Bakr and 'Umar be viewed as "good" and "just," or those who "acted in accord to the Qur'an and the Sunnah," when they deliberately violated their religious obligations of failing to adhere to the Wilaya (Guardianship) of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as)?

Thanks again, and I'm eagerly looking forward to your response.

Ma'asalaamah!

---

As salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!

We pray that all is well with you and your family!

Thank you for your inquiry! It actually has come at an opportune moment with these days being the dawn of Eid al-Ghadeer. It also demonstrates the need of writing an in-depth article about the Zaydi view of the “sheikhayn.” It’s something that we considered but never got to due to our other projects. Oh well. To address your question:

We have not found the narration you cited in any of our books, nor do we know of any imam or scholar that verified it. Perhaps you can provide the Zaydi reference or cite the original Arabic text so we can better search for it. That withstanding, it is not uncommon to find statements like this attributed to our imams, especially the early imams. However, in many cases, these narrations are the interpolations of the Mu’tazilites. There are many false attributions to Imam Zayd (as).

What must be recognised and firmly established is Imam Zayd’s attitude towards the Imamate of Amir al-Mumineen (as). If it is proven that the imam recognised the Wilaya and Imama of Imam Ali (as) in unequivocal terms, then it firmly establishes that he didn’t recognise the authority of other than him. In one of our earlier posts, we cited the statements of Imam Zayd (as) from Zaydi sources. However, it bears repetition here.

It is narrated by Hāfiz Muhammad bin Suleiman al-Kufi with a complete chain of narrators that Imam Zayd (as) was asked the intended meaning of the hadith: ((Whoever I have authority over, Ali has authority over)). He replied: "He, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, appointed (nasaba) him in a known way so that it can be recognised who is the Party of Allah in the case of separation (furqa)."

Imam Zayd (as) was also reported to have said in his Tathbīt al-Wasīya: "‘Ali (as) had more right to Allah and His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, than the people. He was their imam after their Prophet."

Imam Zayd (as) was also reported to have said regarding the hadith: ((Ali’s position to mine is like that of Aaron’s position to Moses except that there will be no Prophet after me)): "He \[i.e. the Prophet] likened him to Aaron in position. Therefore, it is necessary that position be known to us and not unknown. Aaron does not have position except in three things: position of brotherhood, position of partnership \[i.e. in Prophethood] and position of successorship (khilāfa). The intellect excludes the position of brotherhood due to lineage. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, excluded the position of Prophethood due to his exception. Nothing remains except Imamate."

Such clear statements prevent one from denying the attitude of Imam Zayd (as) regarding the Imamate of Ali (as). If Imam Zayd (as) affirmed the Imamate of Ali (as) that means he denied the Imamate/Caliphate of those before him. So, issues of whether they were ‘good and just’ and ‘acted according to the Qur’an and Sunnah’ are a moot point. Legitimacy and caliphal authority is the main issue.

As for your assertion that the first two caliphs swing between the two extremes of either righteous, legitimate caliphs or vicious hypocrites hell bent on the destruction of Islam from within, we say that our scholars and imams don’t hold to either. This is because there has not been ample evidence to prove either extreme.

What our scholars debate about is the degree of their disobedience (fisq). Do their acts of disobedience merit an outright cursing and disavowal? Does their status as prominent Companions merit their praise? You will find that the vast majority of Zaydis adopt an attitude of reservation (tawaqqaf). Even the most critical of our scholars reserve the judgment of their actions to Allah.

Also, observe the attitude of Imam Ali (as) himself towards the first two caliphs. He harshly criticised and rebuked their actions but he did not—at least, in Zaydi sources—ascribe hypocrisy (nifaaq) to them. Neither did he institute their cursing in his supplication, as he used to curse Mu’awiya, Amr bin al-As, Abu Muslim al-Ashari, and others.

As-salamu 'alaykum!

I thank you for your timely response, as well as, the depth of thought within your message.

May Allah (swt) reward you generously for your sincere efforts, insha-Allah.

And yes, you could very well be correct regarding the hadith which I cited above in my original message - taken from the "History of at-Tabari." From other sources which I had researched regarding this subject, I was under the clear impression that this particular tradition was universally accepted within the Zaydi school of thought. But as you say, you do not know of any Imam or scholar who has verified it. As such, going forward, I will definitely be much more diligent in keeping my discourse ONLY to approved Zaydi sources, insha-Allah. I thank you for this very beneficial reminder - As Allah (swt) says:

"And remind! For the reminder benefits the Believers." (Surah adh-Dhariyat, 51:55)

In response, I would like to focus my reply on the final part of your previous message which states:

As for your assertion that the first two caliphs swing between the two extremes of either righteous, legitimate caliphs or vicious hypocrites hell bent on the destruction of Islam from within, we say that our scholars and imams don’t hold to either. This is because there has not been ample evidence to prove either extreme.

From the historical sources it has been authenticated that, during his final days of illness, the Holy Prophet (sawa) asked the people gathered around him in his residence to collect writing materials so that he may write something for them which would ensure their salvation (guidance) after his departure. Inside the residence were prominent members of Bani Hashem, as well as, the "Sheikhayn." It has been unanimously agreed upon by Muslim scholars of Qur'anic exegesis, that the Holy Prophet (sawa) intended to write his final will and testament (al-wasiya) in accordance with the statement of Allah, the Most-High:

"It is prescribed for you, when death approaches any of you, if he leaves wealth, that he makes a bequest to parents and next of kin, according to reasonable manners. (This is) a duty upon al-muttaqoon (the pious)" (Surah Baqarah, 2:180)

This event has become widely popularized in Islamic history as the "Calamity of Thursday" (رزية يوم الخميس). In the Sahih of Muslim, Sa'id ibn Jubair reports from Ibn 'Abbas that he said:

"Thursday, and what about Thursday? Then tears began to flow until I saw them on his cheeks as if they were the strings of pearls. He (the narrator) said that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and ink-pot), so that I may write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray. They said: Allah's Messenger (may peace upon him) is in a state of unconsciousness." (Sahih Muslim)

This event was so tragic and emotionally overwhelming that it actually brought the narrator, Ibn 'Abbas, to tears as he was relating it!

And most importantly, keep in mind the actual text (matn) of the hadith which says:

"...so that I may write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray."


Therefore, this particular tradition is quite similar in both its apparent meaning and context as several other notable traditions; such as, "The Two Weighty Things," "The Salvation Ark," etc - in that, the Holy Prophet (sawa) was literally guaranteeing the ongoing guidance for those who kept themselves to his instructions:

"So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is surely strict in Punishment." (Surah Hashr, 59:7)

However, according to the Sahih of Al-Bukahri, we find that a very peculiar incident took place in the room after the Holy Prophet (sawa) had asked for writing materials. Bukhari records the details as follows:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

"When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarreled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as 'Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."

The Holy Prophet (sawa) was so distraught with the Companions who differed and quarreled with one another, that he actually kicked them out of the room in order to remove them from his presence - including, the main "ringleader," 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. Not only so, but authentic sources confirm that it's possible that this may have been the very last physical encounter which 'Umar ever had with the Holy Prophet (sawa) - meaning, that the Prophet passed away while being angry with 'Umar, having never spoken to him again!

But even so, should this event itself be of any serious import concerning the status of the "Sheikhayn?" In other words, if your statement is correct that there has "...not been ample evidence to prove either extreme," then I sincerely caution you with the words of Allah, the Most-High; wherein He says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَرْفَعُوا أَصْوَاتَكُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِيِّ وَلَا تَجْهَرُوا لَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ كَجَهْرِ بَعْضِكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ أَنْ تَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالُكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تَشْعُرُونَ

"O Believers! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak unbecomingly to him (in his presence) as you may speak towards one another - lest your deeds shall become null while you perceive not!" (Surah Hujarat, 49:2)

This is a very explicit command from Allah (swt) beckoning the Believers (i.e. the Companions) to exercise caution and seemly conduct when dealing with His Messenger (sawa). Most importantly, pay close attention to the final portion of the verse which states:

"...lest your deeds shall become null while you perceive not."

Here, Allah (swt) gives fair warning to the Companions that if they're not careful to observe fair manners in the presence of the Holy Prophet (sawa), then they run the potential risk of having all of their good deeds (a'maal) completely nullified and devoid of goodness. Similaryly, Allah (swt) also says:

"Say: Shall We tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds? It is certainly those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works." (Surah Kahf, 18:103-104)

And so, I beg to differ that this is a "moot point" as stated in your previous message.

As such, my humble question to you now is, whether or not these particular verses are applicable to the "Sheikhayn" or not? And if not, where is your proof or justification which states otherwise?

I thank you once again for your time, and I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience, insha-Allah.

With Peace!

---

as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu!

Thank you for your response and inquiry!

As for the points you raised, you will not find any contradiction in the Zaidi sources. Much of our literature reflects that which you mentioned. We have no difficulty in connecting the aforementioned verses to the "sheikhain." This verse is also cited as a proof against the narration that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, supposedly stated that because the Companions fought in Badr, they are free to do whatever they want and not be counted as a sin.

I do not want you to think that the Zaidis exculpate the sheikhain from what they did. Our early imams and scholars are clear in their condemnation of the two for what they did. However, as I stated, we do not say that their depriving Imam Ali (as) and Fatima az-Zahraa (as) of their respective rights indicates that they are munafiqun (kuffar pretending to be Muslims). Such irtidaad (apostasy) would have to be demonstrated by clear and unambiguous terms.

Their fisq (disobedience) can easily be demonstrated, as you did above. However, we say that this does not indicate their kufr.

Hopefully, this clears up matters.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Reposted

---

As-salamu 'alaykum!

I thank you once again for sharing your sincere thoughts, and also for providing me with a much better perspective of Zaidi theology.

I don't have much more to add to the discussion other than, I do in fact agree with your last post (above) in terms of the "fisq" (disobedience) of the Sheikhayn not necessarily being an open declaration of their "kufr" (disbelief). I believe that this matter is the sole prerogative of Allah (swt) - as He says:

أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِأَحْكَمِ الْحَاكِمِينَ

"Is Allah not the very best of judges?" (Surah Tin, 95:

However, I will leave with the following:

وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَدْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ ۖ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ

"And remember when Moses said to his people: 'O my people! why do you persecute and insult me, although you all know of a certainty that I am the messenger of Allah (sent) unto you?' (Thereafter), when they deliberately went astray, Allah allowed their hearts to go astray (also). For surely, Allah guides not those who are al-fasiqoon (rebellious transgressors)."
(Surah as-Saff, 61:5)

With Peace!