Q] In Zaydiyya is Wilayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) considered part of Usul Al Deen? If it is, does this mean someone is not mu'min and does not go to heaven without believing in it?
A] wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!
Thank you for your question! This one is a bit more difficult to answer. The earliest Zaydi imams held to the belief in the wilaya as a precondition of belief. Imam al-Haadi (as) said in his Ahkaam very explicitly that the term 'belief' cannot be applied to one who doesn't accept the wilaya.Imam ar-Rassi (as) has a whole treatise on the obligation to believe in the wilaya. We also have statements from Imam Ja'far as-Saadiq (as) in which he was asked if rejecting the wilaya makes one a disbeliever and he replied in the affirmative.
However, the difficulty arises in the actual application of this. No imam or scholar explicitly says that such person would go to the Hellfire, nor are any of the Islamic laws waived from such person, such as adaala in testimony or leading the prayer, etc. So it would seem that the precondition of the wilaayais moreso theoretical than practical. However, what that means, I don't know.
And Allah knows best!
Q] Is it possible that "Wilayah" in these narrations means only the authority and imamah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام)? Or does it necessarily mean that he is the successor to the Prophet (صل الله عليه وآله وسلم)? This is because Ahl al Sunnah believe in the authority and imamah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), but not that he is the direct successor to the Prophet (صل الله عليه وآله وسلم).
Also, what is the Zaydi view on Twelver Shi'as?
A] wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!
Thank you for your questions! As for the intended meaning of wilaya, it refers the Ali's authority after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. The references I mentioned above explicitly says "...after the Prophet." For example, Imam ar-Rassi(as) says: "The imam obligatory to obey after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, was Ali." So, this leaves no room for the '4th caliph' belief.
As for the Zaydi view on the 12ers, that question is a bit tricky. I guess it would depend on whether you want the traditional view or the modern view. In general, the Zaydis see the 12er and Ismaili Shiism as a gross misrepresentation of the doctrines of the imams of Ahl al-Bayt (as)--and that is just putting it nicely. The Imami doctrine was said to be the product of Abbassid forgery in order to dissuade those loyal to Ahl al-Bayt from revolting with a more revolutionary Zaydi imam. Traditionally, Zaydis lumped the 12ers and Ismailis together under the name 'Raafida' and some of our principle imams attributed kufr to them due to some of their beliefs at the time---one of which was tajseem. However, nowadays, due to some political alliances as well as the overall solidarity regarding wilaya of Ahl al-Bayt, many of our modern scholars have become more lenient with 12ers.
And Allah knows best!
Q] What is the zaydi view on the existence of kalam nafsi, does it exist, or is all of the kalam of Allah (swt) created? Also, how do zaydis view the attributes of Allah (swt), are they considered as their own independent entities or just as descriptions of the unitary essence of Allah (swt), or is it considered impermissible to describe Allah (swt) using attributes like some of the mu'tazila said?
A] Wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!
Thank you for your question! As for the concept of kalaam an-nafsi or kalaam adh-dhaat, we say that it is a Sunni concept developed by their theologians to justify their claim of the uncreatedness of the Qur'an. We find the term completely problematic and contradictory because if kalaam an-nafsirefers to the uncreated speech of Allah that is a part of His Eternal Essence and it doesn't consist of letters and words, this can hardly be considered the same as the Qur'an which was revealed to the heart of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. The Sunnis have thus created a quagmire by this term as with other theological concepts they've fashioned. We address the concept of kalaam an-nafsi in detail in our book .
As for the attributes of Allah, they are simply descriptions. We avoid attributing to Allah anything that He hasn't attributed to Himself through revelation. Imam al-Hasan b. Ali (as) said something similar.
And Allah knows best!
Q] Thank you for the answer to the question! I also had one other question about the attributes of Allah, is Allah's action considered to be an eternal attribute of him? Also, is the zaydi position that an uncreated speech exists that is part of the essence of Allah, or is all of the kalam of Allah created?
A] wa alaykum as salaam wa rahma!
Thank you for your question! I just wanted to clarify something. According to the standard Zaydi theology text Al-Assaas by Imam al-Qaasim b. Muhammad (as), we say that Allah's attributes are His essence. That is, they are not separate from Him in any way. This is in contrast to His actions. It doesn't make sense to say that the doer is his action.
As for the kalaam of Allah, it must be specified as to what you mean by such. As we mentioned, the concept of kalaam an-nafsi is Sunni in origin. So, it would be rather futile for a non-Sunni to apply it. The Qur'an presents no idea of an 'uncreated speech' that exudes from Allah. The only kalaamof Allah referred to in the Qur'an is His revelation. See Q. 2:75, 9:6, 48:18.
And Allah knows best!
Q] What is the Zaydi opinion on the doctrine of Wahdat al Wujud?
A] Wa alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!
Thank you for your question! I couldn't find any statements in the writings of the imams addressing Wahdat al-Wujood. But I guess the answer would depend on what you mean by Wahdat al-Wujood. Certain concepts and ideas need explanation and clarification of meaning. If you mean by such that Allah's Divine Essence is diffused and distributed in His creation, then Zaydis would find such unacceptable. However, if you mean that Allah's Oneness and Uniqueness are demonstrated by His creation, then there would be no problem.
And Allah knows best!
Q] I hear that the Zaydi madhab at times is under threat from Salafism and that some Zaydis are opposing the 'traditional (Hadawi) school'? At times it seems a vew is being created that the 'Hadawi' wing of Zaydism is the minority group within 'Zaydis'.
A] Yes, the Zaydis of the Yemen do feel a sense of threat from the Salafiya there. Prior to the spread of Salafi thought and ideas in the Yemen, the Zaydis and Shafi'is lived in harmony and peace without much disturbance to each other. However, with the preponderance of Salafis as well as the persecution of Zaydi ulema, Zaydis have felt the pressure of this spread. Even in traditionally Hadawi-dominated areas such as Sa'dah, Salafi madrassas and masaajid have been erected and maintained. Traditionally, the Zaydiya have been tolerant of other schools of thought and typically posit a quietist attitude even towards the salafiya. For example, I used to sometimes pray at a masjid with a Zaydi muezzin and Salafi/Sunni imam. However, this attitude is quickly shifting with the emergence of more militant and forthright Salafis delving into the political landscape of the Yemen.
The separation of the Hadawiya and Zaydiya is pretty recent as the two terms have been used interchangeably for a long time. This is primarily because of a movement in Yemen to 'reapproach' Zaydi thought excluding the perspective of Imam al-Haadi (as). That is to say that some scholars, such as Sheikh al-Imrani, feel that since the views of al-Haadi and the subsequent imams from his line have always had a monopoly on what Zaydism is, some of the apparent conflicts between al-Haadi's views and the Musnad Imam Zayd, for example, have been casually overlooked or just plainly disregarded. Even to this day, some of most staunch Hadawi scholars would never say that a narration in Musnad Imam Zayd is weak although it clearly conflicts with the madhhab of al-Haadi (as).
The response has always been that the Zaydi madhhab embraces a wide span of different views when it comes to fiqh. So, although a person may not follow a view as narrated from Imam Zayd (as), his methodology would still be considered 'Zaydi' because of the adherence to Zaydi usuul. This is not unlike other madhaahib in which one may not adopt the founder's position though one is an adherent to the founder's school.
Hopefully, I answered your questions! And Allah knows best!
Q] Now i wanted to know in Zaydism do the Imams (AS) have :
1. Ilm Al Ghayb
2. Are they Masoom
3.Are they created from light and before all humanity
A] According to Zaydi thought, our imams do not possess knowledge of the unseen (ilm al-Ghayb). Such quality is not necessary or required for the imams to rule and govern. Even in situations where imams such as Ali (as) predicted future events, we say that this was told to him from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny.
As for infallibility ('isma), the only personages with infallibility outside of the Prophet are the Companions of the Cloak, upon them be peace. This can be proven from the Book and Sunnah.
As far as them being created from light, I don't know of any narration from our imams that support this. The Qur'an says that human beings were created from dust so the concept of them being created from light seemingly contradicts the explicit text of the Qur'an. Even if a narration existed that said that they were created from light, such narration would no doubt be solitary (khabr al-waahid) and therefore subject to scrutiny.
Q]….Please explain this issue of taqiyya… ?
A] ….In some capacity, taqiyya is permissible. One of our scholars wrote this:
السؤال الأول: عن التقية
والجواب: أن التقية جائزة عندنا بشرط الإكراه؛ فيجوز للمؤمن أن ينطق بكلمة الكفر إذا أُكره كما قال الله تعالى: ?إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ?[النحل:106]، ومع خوف الضرر كما قال الله تعالىا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ?[آل عمران:28] وهو قريب من الأول.
It basically says that taqiyya is permissible in circumstances where the person is forced. A believer can speak a word of kufr if he is forced or fears harm. The reference is from Jawaab al-Kaashif.
And Allah knows best!
Q]….can you tell me that how many imams we had in the past ?
A] Thank you for your question! As for the number of the imams, according to the text Tuhfa Sharh Zalaf, the number from Amir al-Mumineen (as) to Imam Yahya Hamideen is about 110. Then, there was Imam Ahmed and after him, the last Imam Muhammad al-Badr. So that takes the number to 112.
And Allah knows best!
Q] What is the Zaydi position regarding Ayesha ?
She was Ummal Mu'mineen but clearly she was fasiq because she rebelled against Ali (as). So are we supposed to curse her ? Or do we simply leave that judgement up to Allah ? And what do we do about hadith which are narrated by her ?
A] As for the Zaydi position on Umm al-Mumineen, Aisha, we say that she violated the trust given to her by Allah by leaving her house to wage war against Imam Ali (as). Allah commands the wives in Surah Al-Ahzab: {Stay in your houses...} (Q. 33:33) She also violated the commands of her husband when he warned her against coming out against Ali (as). The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, said that when one of his wives hears the dogs of Haw'ab bark at her, she will know that she is in the wrong. This hadith was fulfilled when she went out against 'Ali (as) at the Battle of Jamal.
It is said that she was the one who prevented the burial of Imam al-Hasan (as) next to Allah's Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. However, it is also said that it was the Bani Ummayya who prevented this and not her.
Some of our imams, such as al-Mansur Billah al-Qasim b. Muhammad (as) and others narrated that it is established that she repented from what she did.
She is to not be cursed because we have nothing from Imam Ali (as) that suggests that he used to curse her as he openly cursed others. That withstanding, we leave her affair for Allah to judge.
Some of our imams narrated ahadith from her. It is also related in the biography of Imam al-Hadi ila al-Haqq Yahya bin al-Hussein (as) that he had a man punished who accused her of adultery.
And Allah knows best!
Q] salam aleykum, my question is, what's the zaidiyya view regarding the 7 letters of quira'at and ahruf?
Thanks in advance Salam aleykum
A] Wa alaykum as salaam wa rham!
Thank you for your question! According to texts such as Kitaab al-Assaasby Imam al-Qaasim b. Muhammad (as), we believe in the seven qiraa'at of the Qur'an. The most relied upon by the Ahl al-Bayt is the qiraa'at of Medina also known as the qiraa'at of Naafi'.
Q] I'd like to ask also about the compilation of the Quran within the zaidiyya literature.
A] As for the compilation of the Qur'an, we say that it was compiled and arranged during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. The Qur'an compilation of Uthman was due to the preponderance of copies of the Qur'an which included various tafsir which was written in the text of the Qu'ran. What Uthman did was bring together the Qur'an as a master copy without the various tafsir included. [Ref. Kitaab al-Idaah]
Q] Salamu alaykum,
I was just wondering if you would be able to check some of our tafsirs and tell me if any of our Imams have ever commented on the words "qul hu Allahu ahad" by pointing out that the word "ahad" is a sifa mushabbiha which is used to denote a fixed and essential attribute (tamakkun al-wasf). In other words, clarifying that it is linguistically impossible for Allah's essence to be subject to division or parts - contrary to the Corporalists who have given Allah literal parts. If any comments can be found to a similar effect that would assist me.
Barakallahu feek!
A]wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi!
Thank you for your question and patience! As for your inquiry, our imams--specifically ar-Rassi, al-Haadi, and al-Mansur Abdullah b. Hamza, upon all of them be peace--said something to the effect that the attribute ahad in itself negates plurality because of its denotation of exclusivity and uniqueness. I've never read any of them use the term siffat mushabbiha though; however, the concept you mentioned can be implied from their statements.
Even if the Corporealists say that it means the number one, we say that it does not denote parts. Imam ar-Rassi (as) makes an interesting analogy in one of his treatises. He says:
One of the meanings of ‘one’ is the first the singular. That is regarding calculating and numbering, which is clear, since there can be no enumerating of something without it. If you were to say “One and two,” the second number is only by means of the first. because of the first being before two, two could not be before the first. More numbers could not be enumerated unless the number one is counted, for it is the means by which all other numbers are counted and enumerated. It is increased and it is the means of increasing. Had it not been for one, there would be no increase. Everything that is increased in number is due to the number one increasing it.
The number one makes singular (identifies) what is other than it. It precedes any other number that it increases. Many numbers are increased and decreased by means of it. Therefore, the number one is that by which all else is increased and decreased. By means of it, numbering is increased. it remains for its abundance. and by it there is decrement. Accounting is set, the little is rendered a lot and a lot is rendered a little because of it. It differentiates a little from a lot.
Likewise, one can say that Allah is One—meaning the First of all things. By means of Him, all else exists. He is the One that causes all else to be, He arranges it Himself without any other. He is not altered by increasing it, decreasing it, or nullifying it . He does not change due to anything that changes. He—Glorified be He—is the one that creates it. He does not change nor do any changes encompass Him. Rather, change occurs to that which He created.
Hopefully this helps! And Allah knows best!
IRS
Q]Salamu alaykum,
Have Zaydi scholars written on why shirk is considered to be the worst sin that anyone could ever do? At first I thought it must be because shirk is a crime against Allah as opposed to a crime against a human being - which by default makes it a more serious offence. However, after looking at the following ayah I've come to arrive at a slightly different answer:
"Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire" (Surat al-Jathiyah 45:23)
The above ayah seems to suggest that it is impossible for one to engage in major sins such as rape or murder without first engaging in shirk, i.e. by taking ones own desires as a god besides Allah. In other words, this type of shirk appears to be the root cause of the most evil things we can imagine. Are any Zaydi commentators in agreement with this?
A] wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi!
Thank you for your question! As for the relation to the verse you quoted from Jaathiya and the designation of shirk, I know not of any connection between this verse and shirk according to our imams or scholars. A person who commits open sins is not considered a disbeliever (kaafir) or idolater (mushrik) in a shari' sense. Therefore, it is permissible to marry such Muslim and bury him/her according to our rites.
The context of the verse in Jaathiya as well as its parallel verse in Furqan:43 seems to refer to the disbelievers anyway. Please refer to the previous and subsequent verses of both passages to get a sense of the address.
As for why shirk is considered the gravest offense, we have explicit text (nass) that states such. The explicit statements of the Qur'an, Prophet and imams are sufficient proof and evidence that shirk is the gravest of sins.
And Allah knows best!