[Catalogov]

As-salaamulaikum,
I was watching a lecture of Ahmed Deedat (rah) in which he had two Bibles based on different manuscripts. He mentioned that while one Bible was based on manuscripts 300-400 years after Christ (as), the other one was based on "most ancient" manuscripts which dated 200-300 years after Christ (as). He used this phrase, "closer to the source, the more authentic a document can be."

And I will make a generalized statement here for which I am ready to be rectified, if I say something wrong. We love and respect the Sahabas (ra) so much because they were so near to the one (saw) who connected us with Allah (swt), Prophet Muhammad (saw). And this is why we hold their testimonies, regarding matters of religion, in high regards. In other words, the Sahabas (ra) were constantly in touch with he who was our source through whom we received this beautiful deen.

Going to the Zaidis, and I wish I knew more about them, it is said that they disagreed with the rest of the Shias, or the rest of the Shias disagreed with them, at the position of the 5th Imam. They share the first four Imams, Ali (ra), Hassan (ra), Hussayn (ra) and Zain-ul Abideen (ra) but they claim that Zaid (ra) should have been the 5th Imam. The Ismailis differ at the 7th position. And it turns out that these two sub-sects have far more different beliefs than Ithna Asharis. I have been told that the Zaidi jurisprudence is 90% identical to Sunni jurisprudence. An imam that I know from our local masjid, while receiving his Islamic education, had books assigned, in his curriculum, which not only covered the four schools of thought, but also the Zaidi fiqh and aqeedah. I thought that was interesting and he said that they are really close to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal jamah!

So let us apply that "closer to the source, the more authentic the document" or person notion.

Historians are of the opinion that the original Shias were partisans of Ali (ra) but had no different methods of prayer etc. They were just like the mainstream Muslims but differed in matters of Caliphate. If this is true, then could it also be true that when Zaidis parted ways with Shias, they maintained most of the Shia identity, which was a lot like mainstream Islam, as is the case with Zaidis today, while for the Ithna Asharis, the mutations kept piling on taking them to where they are today with practices that cannot be justified from an Islamic standpoint?
After all, the Zaidis were three generations removed from Ali (ra) before they formed their own sub-sect. Could it be true that the fact that they are 90% like Sunnis could be because of that? And that Ithna Asharis are so far removed from mainstream Islam; could that be because they kept going on and on into nonsensical beliefs and finding ways to legitimize them?

Feedback is needed and will be appreciated

[Phlkxkbh]

i remember once my respected teacher advising us on the zaidys. he said that the mere fact they harbour doubts regarding the virtues of abu, umar and uthman radi allahu anhum is sufficient for their misguidance.

[PlayboyAtWork]

As-salaamulaikum,
I was watching a lecture of Ahmed Deedat (rah) in which he had two Bibles based on different manuscripts. He mentioned that while one Bible was based on manuscripts 300-400 years after Christ (as), the other one was based on "most ancient" manuscripts which dated 200-300 years after Christ (as). He used this phrase, "closer to the source, the more authentic a document can be."

And I will make a generalized statement here for which I am ready to be rectified, if I say something wrong. We love and respect the Sahabas (ra) so much because they were so near to the one (saw) who connected us with Allah (swt), Prophet Muhammad (saw). And this is why we hold their testimonies, regarding matters of religion, in high regards. In other words, the Sahabas (ra) were constantly in touch with he who was our source through whom we received this beautiful deen.

Going to the Zaidis, and I wish I knew more about them, it is said that they disagreed with the rest of the Shias, or the rest of the Shias disagreed with them, at the position of the 5th Imam. They share the first four Imams, Ali (ra), Hassan (ra), Hussayn (ra) and Zain-ul Abideen (ra) but they claim that Zaid (ra) should have been the 5th Imam. The Ismailis differ at the 7th position. And it turns out that these two sub-sects have far more different beliefs than Ithna Asharis. I have been told that the Zaidi jurisprudence is 90% identical to Sunni jurisprudence. An imam that I know from our local masjid, while receiving his Islamic education, had books assigned, in his curriculum, which not only covered the four schools of thought, but also the Zaidi fiqh and aqeedah. I thought that was interesting and he said that they are really close to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal jamah!

So let us apply that "closer to the source, the more authentic the document" or person notion.

Historians are of the opinion that the original Shias were partisans of Ali (ra) but had no different methods of prayer etc. They were just like the mainstream Muslims but differed in matters of Caliphate. If this is true, then could it also be true that when Zaidis parted ways with Shias, they maintained most of the Shia identity, which was a lot like mainstream Islam, as is the case with Zaidis today, while for the Ithna Asharis, the mutations kept piling on taking them to where they are today with practices that cannot be justified from an Islamic standpoint?
After all, the Zaidis were three generations removed from Ali (ra) before they formed their own sub-sect. Could it be true that the fact that they are 90% like Sunnis could be because of that? And that Ithna Asharis are so far removed from mainstream Islam; could that be because they kept going on and on into nonsensical beliefs and finding ways to legitimize them?

Feedback is needed and will be appreciated

We can hypothesize why things turned out one way or the other. What we do know, as Sunnis, is that Zaydis are closer to haq than the ithna-'ashariyah Shi'a. The ulama of the Zaydis are considered Ahlul-bid'ah but the ulama of the ithna-'ashariyah Shi'a are considered kaafir and the Shi'a laypeople are considered kaafir or Muslim based on what beliefs they personally hold (albeit they will be considered Ahlul-bid'ah). Isma'ilis, on the other hand, are considered kaafir, regardless of whether one is a scholar of Isma'ilism or a follower.

[Catalogov]

JazakAllah!

I had heard that while Zaidis believe that Ali (ra) was more worthy of being the first Caliph, they do not believe in his divine appointment. And that they do not curse Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra). On the contrary, I was told, that they see the first three Caliphs as pious Muslims who did a lot of service for Islam.

Now why are Ismailis considered kaafir irrespective of whether they are a scholar or follower?

[kucheravka]

Yah, Zaidis are comparatively less deviants (and still Muslim) in relation to other Shi'as.

If you wanna go even closer to the source and thus to authenticity, stick to Ahl as-Sunnah, the group following the Prophet through both the Sahabah and the Ahl al-Bayt !

[PlayboyAtWork]

Now why are Ismailis considered kaafir irrespective of whether they are a scholar or follower?

The reason is that Isma'ilis, whether a follower or a scholar, all believe in things that are kufr, whereas many Shi'a laymen do not. Isma'ili laymen and scholar alike say that there are 3 prayers. Both groups reject the salah in the way that it is performed amongst the Sunnis and even the Shi'a - their "prayer" is basically doing du'as three times a day. They reject many fundamentals of Islam and they are taught this from birth. When Muslims are kids, regardless of whether one is born to Shi'as or Sunnis, they know about the five prayers (the Shi'as permit combining Dhuhr and 'Asr calling it Dhuhrayn and Maghrib and 'Isha calling it Maghribayn), fasting in Ramadhan, etc. They also hold the Qur'an in high esteem. The Agha Khani Isma'ilis, for example, hold their Agha Khans to be higher in status than the Qur'an - though they may deny this when confronted.

[Slonopotam845]

As-salamu ´alaykum,

I don't think one can compare Biblical scholarship and history with Islamic. However, the earlier in recording must not always be more authentic, such as the Sahih of Imam Bukhari being more reliable than some of the earlier collections of hadith. But again, there are many details which differentiates them and comparisons may therefore be inadequate.

As for the Zaydiyya being the earliest group of Shi´a, this is not necessarily so, if we are to be unbiased. Rather different opinions and understandings came up and developed throughout early Islamic history, which later codified into more uniform schools. As for the Zaydiyya, historically there has been different sub-groups and understandings within their fold, and they have had slightly different views on certain things.

To simplify things, I would say that the Zaydiyya have three types of Imamate:

1) The one who does Jihad by the sword to establish justice (shari´ah), and is a Mujtahid Imam.
2) The one who is only a Mujtahid Imam.
3) The one who does Jihad by the sword to establish justice, but he is not a Mujtahid Imam or Scholar.

Imams Ali, al-Hasan and al-Husayn fall under the first category, Zayn al-Abidin under the second, Imam Zayd under the first and so on...
The Zaydiyya still accept Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and al-Sadiq as Imams of the second category, and quote them for substantiation of rulings pertaining to the Shari´ah.

Was Imam Ali (ra) appointed explicitly by the Prophet (salla'Llahu ´alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam)? Again, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Zaydiyya, as there is in regards to how they view the earlier Khulafa etc. But some of them have and continue to love and honor all the Khulafa al-Rashidin.

As for the "Zaydi Fiqh", well there has been different groups and Imams, and they have made their own Ijtihad. An important principle in their school has been the Ijma´of Ahl al-Bayt. Most of their opinions will be found within the Four Schools... Not necessarily as the mu´tamad, but within their boundaries. The Hadawiyya (and they are basically the only existant Zaydis today) are close to the Hanafis, differing on some issues, often agreeing with the Ithna ´Ashariyya.

I do believe that they represent closest the early Shi´i movement(s), and a major different between them and the Ithna ´Ashariyya is the fact that their entire madhhab was made up of Imams from the Household, while the Ithna ´Ashariyya was codified and built on non-Ahlul Bayt scholars, such as Kulayni, Ibn Babawayh, Tusi, Mufid etc.


wa'Llahu a'lam

[xtrslots]

If we're honest, sidi Rifai, wouldn't you agree that Zaydi fiqh has less to do with Imam Zayd than it has to do with Imam al-Hadi? The only link to Imam Zayd, perhaps, is his Musnad.

What is your opinion with regards to the authenticity of the Musnad al-Imam Zayd? Many have done Jarh on 'Amr b. Khalid al-Waisiti, the one who narrates all the ahadith in it. Of course, the Zaydis say that this was due to Nasibi-bias etc

The Zaydis are famous with the statement "li kulli mujtahidin nasib", hence Imam al-Hadi most likely made his own ijtihadaat.

How do they determine ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt? Many Ahl al-Bayt differed with each other on many issues, so how do you establish that they all agree on a certain issue? What are some of these masaa'il?

was-salam

[xtrslots]

As-salaamulaikum,
I was watching a lecture of Ahmed Deedat (rah) in which he had two Bibles based on different manuscripts. He mentioned that while one Bible was based on manuscripts 300-400 years after Christ (as), the other one was based on "most ancient" manuscripts which dated 200-300 years after Christ (as). He used this phrase, "closer to the source, the more authentic a document can be."

And I will make a generalized statement here for which I am ready to be rectified, if I say something wrong. We love and respect the Sahabas (ra) so much because they were so near to the one (saw) who connected us with Allah (swt), Prophet Muhammad (saw). And this is why we hold their testimonies, regarding matters of religion, in high regards. In other words, the Sahabas (ra) were constantly in touch with he who was our source through whom we received this beautiful deen.

Going to the Zaidis, and I wish I knew more about them, it is said that they disagreed with the rest of the Shias, or the rest of the Shias disagreed with them, at the position of the 5th Imam. They share the first four Imams, Ali (ra), Hassan (ra), Hussayn (ra) and Zain-ul Abideen (ra) but they claim that Zaid (ra) should have been the 5th Imam. The Ismailis differ at the 7th position. And it turns out that these two sub-sects have far more different beliefs than Ithna Asharis. I have been told that the Zaidi jurisprudence is 90% identical to Sunni jurisprudence. An imam that I know from our local masjid, while receiving his Islamic education, had books assigned, in his curriculum, which not only covered the four schools of thought, but also the Zaidi fiqh and aqeedah. I thought that was interesting and he said that they are really close to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal jamah!

So let us apply that "closer to the source, the more authentic the document" or person notion.

Historians are of the opinion that the original Shias were partisans of Ali (ra) but had no different methods of prayer etc. They were just like the mainstream Muslims but differed in matters of Caliphate. If this is true, then could it also be true that when Zaidis parted ways with Shias, they maintained most of the Shia identity, which was a lot like mainstream Islam, as is the case with Zaidis today, while for the Ithna Asharis, the mutations kept piling on taking them to where they are today with practices that cannot be justified from an Islamic standpoint?
After all, the Zaidis were three generations removed from Ali (ra) before they formed their own sub-sect. Could it be true that the fact that they are 90% like Sunnis could be because of that? And that Ithna Asharis are so far removed from mainstream Islam; could that be because they kept going on and on into nonsensical beliefs and finding ways to legitimize them?

Feedback is needed and will be appreciated

Your whole argument falls apart when you make mention of the Ismailis.

The truth is, the madha-hib weren't developed simply at the advent of the Imam they claim alleigance to. The Zaydi fiqhi madh-hab was only developed as a methodology as it is today much later, with Imam al-Hadi and his descendants. Simillarly, the Islamilis had centuries upon centuries of migrations and developments and taqiyyah and hiding for them to have got to where they are today (not belieivng in the shari'ah at all).

was-salam

[pageup85]

The Zaidis have many sub-sects, for example the Zaidi Jaroudiyyah sect is close to the Twelver Shia and just as bad.

[Slonopotam845]

suleimanibnsalim;679859]If we're honest, sidi Rifai, wouldn't you agree that Zaydi fiqh has less to do with Imam Zayd than it has to do with Imam al-Hadi? The only link to Imam Zayd, perhaps, is his Musnad. The Hadawi Fiqh is without a doubt based on the Ijtihad of Imam al-Hadi and his grandfather Imam Qasim al-Rassi. Ijtihad has always been encouraged, and this is something that the Ahl al-Bayt and Muhaddithin had in common historically. You will be hard pressed to find ´ulama of the Ahl al-Bayt before the 4th century who followed any of the Four Madhhabs, nor will you find them blindly following the opinion of Imam Zayd or others. Their opinions often go against Musnad Zayd, which to some may be an indication that they did not rely on it, and that it therefore isn't authentic.

What is your opinion with regards to the authenticity of the Musnad al-Imam Zayd? Many have done Jarh on 'Amr b. Khalid al-Waisiti, the one who narrates all the ahadith in it. Of course, the Zaydis say that this was due to Nasibi-bias etc He has been criticized, but so has many of the principles of the Hanafi school, and even Imam Abu Hanifa himself. The same goes for Imam al-Shafi'i. I cannot vouch for Abu Khalid in terms of the Sunni muhaddithin of the Salaf's judgement, but I struggle to vouch for Imam Abu Hanifa using the same standards. Yet, I believe that Imam Abu Hanifa was an upright Imam of the Sunnah, radiya'Llahu ´anh. History tells us that it was accepted by scholars of Ahl al-Bayt, which must surely count for something. If I am not mistaken there is a copy of the Musnad with a foreword by Imam al-Kawthari, which includes a defense of its authenticity.

Other than the Musnad of al-Imam Zayd, the Zaydis relied heavily on the Amali of Ahmad bin Isa.
I believe you have studied in Tarim? Have you read "Fiqh al-Aal"?

The Zaydis are famous with the statement "li kulli mujtahidin nasib", hence Imam al-Hadi most likely made his own ijtihadaat. There is no doubt that he made his own ijtihad many times.

How do they determine ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt? Many Ahl al-Bayt differed with each other on many issues, so how do you establish that they all agree on a certain issue? What are some of these masaa'il? How is ijma' generally determined? This is a problem amongst all groups, including Ahl al-Sunnah. I have found some of the Zaydis quote ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt, while their own books attesting to Imam al-Baqir and Imam al-Sadiq differing with them. Such an ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt becomes a problematic one to me, if you can exclude such major Imams and still claim a consensus. However, this is not to discredit their efforts as a whole.

Some of the masa'il where ijma' is claimed is the audible Basmala (also mentioned and attested to by al-Bayhaqi) and the abrogation of mas'h 'ala khuffayn. These are not only the opinions of the Hadawis, but of other Zaydi groups, the Ithna 'Ashariyyah, and what is found in the Musnad.

There is not, and never was, a uniform madhhab of the Ahl al-Bayt, rather this is a Twelver concept, developing from seeing the 4 Madhhabs reaching such uniformity. Rather, Imams of the Household would differ on minor things, as did other Mujtahid Imams.

wa'Llahu a'lam
wassalam

[xtrslots]

Sidi Rifa'i, you make good points, ma sha' Allah.

With regards to your comparison of al-Waisiti and Abu Hanifah, I believe this doesn't hold much water. You can't compare the jarh of Abu Khalif (Matruk, Rafidi, KADHHAB! etc agreed upon by everyone in ahl al-jarh wat-ta'dil including the lovers of the Aal like an-Nasa'i) to the jarh on Imam Abu Hanifah (not as strong, not by all and generally biased).

Yes, Imam al-Kawthari believed the entire Zaydi madh-hab was worthy of being followed. Imam al-Kawthari was not ma'sum, and he was pretty much alone in this. (Abu Zahra was sympathetic too).

Yes, the Hadawi fiqh contradicts the Musnad in a number of places, and the explanation you'll get from Zaidis is that they are commanded to do ijtihad.

Did anyone accept the aborgation of Mash fil Khuffayn from amongst the Sunnis?

Does history really tell us that the Musnad al-Imam Zayd was relied upon by the Ahl al-Bayt? The muta'akhirin?

I havn't studied anywhere, sadly. Who authored the Fiqh al-Aal? I'd like to read it in sha' Allah.

[Slonopotam845]

Sidi Suleiman,

If the Hadawi school can be proven to be based on sound Usul, using sound proofs, then it would be worthy of following by definition. I am not saying that it is, but it's obviously a lot more firmly rooted in sound knowledge than the methodology of the Ithna ´Ashariyyah.

I know the comparison with Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) may seem far-fetched to some, but harsh words were used for him too. This includes Bukhari and Muslim, but sure, even they were human and had the possibility of being wrong, or even biased at times(?). Obviously there has been more Sunni Muhaddithin strengthening Abu Hanifa than Abu Khalid, I was just making a point.

Did anyone accept the aborgation of Mash fil Khuffayn from amongst the Sunnis? I cannot recall anyone at the moment, but it is definitely worth looking up. It is substantiated with a narration from Sayyidina ´Ali (radiya'Llahu ´anhu), which is found in the Musannaf of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah with an authentic sanad: حدثنا حاتم بن إسماعيل عن جعفر عن أبيه قال قال علي سبق الكتاب الخفين

The Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah and that of ´Abd al-Razzaq contain quite a bit of narrations from Ahl al-Bayt, Imam al-Sadiq (radiya'Llahu ´anhu) in particular.

Who authored the Fiqh al-Aal? I cannot recall who authored it, but it is one of the students of Habib ´Umar. I have not had the opportunity to read it, I was informed of it by a friend in Tarim.

wassalam

[xtrslots]

Habib 'Umar gave a taqridh to the book Fada'il al-Aal fil Qur'an. The author then released Fada'il al-Aal fil Hadith. Maybe Fiqh al-Aal has been released now! That's great news!

Sidi Rifa'i, harsh words may have been used by some in relation to Abu Hanifah, but no where near those used against Abu Khalid. It seems there was almost ijma' of ahl al-jarh wat-ta'dil on the jrah of Abu Khalid.

Did the Ahl al-Bayt as a whole really rely on the Musnad?

was-salam

[xtrslots]

http://cb.rayaheen.net/showthread.ph...page=1#p179726

[xtrslots]

I'm reading the Fiqh al-Aal now, and the author is claiming that the Aal did indeed have their own uniform madh-hab. hmm...

[Slonopotam845]

I'm reading the Fiqh al-Aal now, and the author is claiming that the Aal did indeed have their own uniform madh-hab. hmm...

I guess it depends on what one means by the word madhhab. They obviously differed in minor issues, such as raf al-yadayn or no raf al-yadayn, Qunut before or after ruku' etc. However, the below points sums it up:

1. Qur'an
2. Sunnah
3. The opinions of Ahl al-Kisa (especially Sayyidina Ali)
4. After this those qualified to do Ijtihad did so, if they did not find anything in the above sources.

Wa'Llahu a'lam

I am in the middle of editing a book, which along with the rest of my responsibilities will not leave me much time to read the book at the moment. Please share any interesting points though, as I'm sure it's an exciting book.

wassalam

[xtrslots]

I shall do, ya Rifa'i!

Which book are you editting if you don't mind me asking?

Also, why did you choose the shafi'i madh-hab?

was-salam

[Slonopotam845]

I shall do, ya Rifa'i!

Which book are you editting if you don't mind me asking?

Also, why did you choose the shafi'i madh-hab?

was-salam

I am actually involved in editing a few projects, but the most time consuming is a book in tasawwuf based on the practices and teachings of the Khalwati tariqah. It will be released in the English language insha'Allah.

As for the Shafi´i school, I chose it after two wonderful shuyukh persuaded me

I shall wait for your updates, sidi.

wassalam

[Adfcvkdg]

The Hadawi Fiqh is without a doubt based on the Ijtihad of Imam al-Hadi and his grandfather Imam Qasim al-Rassi. Ijtihad has always been encouraged, and this is something that the Ahl al-Bayt and Muhaddithin had in common historically. You will be hard pressed to find ´ulama of the Ahl al-Bayt before the 4th century who followed any of the Four Madhhabs, nor will you find them blindly following the opinion of Imam Zayd or others. Their opinions often go against Musnad Zayd, which to some may be an indication that they did not rely on it, and that it therefore isn't authentic.

"You will be hard pressed to find ´ulama of the Ahl al-Bayt before the 4th century who followed any of the Four Madhhabs, nor will you find them blindly following the opinion of Imam Zayd or others."

I am not sure that before the 4th century the "following" of the madhhabs was in the manner we understand it today.