Imam Yahya on the first Rafidah

[Hani]

Salam,

As we all know, the first of the Imamiyyah are the Saba'iyyah followed by the Kaysanites (Kaysani Shia). However, when did other Shia adopt similar Imami beliefs and for what purpose?

Here are the words of one of the top Imams of Ahlul-Bayt on how the Ja`farites (Ja`fari Shia) came to be and when they adopted the beliefs of the Imamiyyah.

Yahya bin Husayn bin Qasim bin Ibrahim bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali bin abi Talib says:

[Those who caused division when it came to Zayd and (his nephew) Ja`far are a group (of Shia) who had previously given Zayd their pledge of allegiance. When they heard that the authorities in Kufah are arresting and punishing all those who aligned themselves with Zayd, they feared for themselves and rejected (Rafd) him. Having no idea how to avoid the blame and reproach directed towards them, they began professing their belief in Wasiyyah (passing of will from one leader to the next) at that point. They said: "The Wasiyyah was given by `Ali bin Husayn to his son Muhammad and then Muhammad transmitted it to Ja`far." Thus fooling the people with this diversion and so they fell into misguidance while misguiding others by following their desires and exchanging the after-life for their worldly-life. These men (Shia leaders) were followed by folks who clung to life and detested Jihad. Afterwards, people came and found their writings in books and letters so they believed in it without distinguishing truth or seeking evidence. Rather, they arrogantly began attributing these actions to the best creations from the children of the Messenger (saw) (...until he said...) When they did what they did, Zayd labeled them al-Rawafid (rejecters), he raised his hands towards the sky saying: "O God, make your curse and the curse of my fathers and mine upon those who rejected me and deserted the same way the people of Harura' rejected `Ali bin abi Talib (as) until they fought him."]

Source: al-Majmu` Rasa'il al-Imam al-Hadi pg.62

Above we find that it was clearly -as expected- for political reasons as is the habit with the Shia of every-age, allowing politics to shape their theology.

In fact, we know other details of the story and how they deserted him on the battlefield of all places and used the Shaykhayn as excuse.

[Abu Muhammad]

Thank you brother for that finding. I believe it is very much related to the famous story that we've often heard with regard to Zayd ibn Ali and Shi'a of Kufa as below:

"When Zaid wanted to revolt, a group of people approached him and said we would join you if you renounce Abu Bakr and Umar. He replied that he would not do so. So, they replied in turn: Then we would reject you. Zaid then said: Go away as you are the rejectionists. And the group that stayed with him was known as the Zaidies” (Musnad Zaid Ibn Ali, page 11)

Now, the story makes much more sense by knowing the real motives behind their rejection.

Two thumbs up!

Don't you think that would be worth a short article in Twelvershia.net?

[Rationalist]

Here are some important points.


An interesting point is that the only one participating in Zayd's uprising from among the companions of Imam al-Baqir was Sulayman Ibn Khalid. Najashi had said about him,

كان قارئا فقيها وجهاً روي عن أبي عبد الله وأبي جعفر عليهما السلام، خرج مع زيد ولم يخرج معه في اصحاب ابي جعفر عليه السلام غيره، فقطعت يده وكان الذي قطعها يوسف بن عمر بنفسه

“Being a Qur'an reader, jurisprudent and an eminent figure among Imam al-Baqir and as-Sadiq's companions, he narrated what they had been saying. He joined Zayd while there was no one from Imam al-Baqir's companions to do so but him. His hands were cut by Yusuf Ibn 'Umar.” (Rijal al-Najashi, p. 130; see, Tanqih al-Maqal, vol. II, p. 57)


Sheykh Tusi also had stressed that no one from the companions of Imam al-Baqir (a) had participated in Zayd's uprising but him. Rijal al-Tusi, p. 207; Rijal al-’Allama Hilli, p. 77, ‘Allama Hilli brought a quotation form Sa‘d’s book saying, “He had joined Zayd, but was saved” فمن الله عليه وتاب ورجع عن ذلك “ When God faored him, he repented and avoided doing that” so in the view of some of the Shi‘ites scholars, his participation in that uprising was not right because of the word “repentance” in this quotation)

[Optimus Prime]

Salam,

As we all know, the first of the Imamiyyah are the Saba'iyyah followed by the Kaysanites (Kaysani Shia). However, when did other Shia adopt similar Imami beliefs and for what purpose?

Here are the words of one of the top Imams of Ahlul-Bayt on how the Ja`farites (Ja`fari Shia) came to be and when they adopted the beliefs of the Imamiyyah.

Yahya bin Husayn bin Qasim bin Ibrahim bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali bin abi Talib says:

[Those who caused division when it came to Zayd and (his nephew) Ja`far are a group (of Shia) who had previously given Zayd their pledge of allegiance. When they heard that the authorities in Kufah are arresting and punishing all those who aligned themselves with Zayd, they feared for themselves and rejected (Rafd) him. Having no idea how to avoid the blame and reproach directed towards them, they began professing their belief in Wasiyyah (passing of will from one leader to the next) at that point. They said: "The Wasiyyah was given by `Ali bin Husayn to his son Muhammad and then Muhammad transmitted it to Ja`far." Thus fooling the people with this diversion and so they fell into misguidance while misguiding others by following their desires and exchanging the after-life for their worldly-life. These men (Shia leaders) were followed by folks who clung to life and detested Jihad. Afterwards, people came and found their writings in books and letters so they believed in it without distinguishing truth or seeking evidence. Rather, they arrogantly began attributing these actions to the best creations from the children of the Messenger (saw) (...until he said...) When they did what they did, Zayd labeled them al-Rawafid (rejecters), he raised his hands towards the sky saying: "O God, make your curse and the curse of my fathers and mine upon those who rejected me and deserted the same way the people of Harura' rejected `Ali bin abi Talib (as) until they fought him."]

Source: al-Majmu` Rasa'il al-Imam al-Hadi pg.62

Above we find that it was clearly -as expected- for political reasons as is the habit with the Shia of every-age, allowing politics to shape their theology.

In fact, we know other details of the story and how they deserted him on the battlefield of all places and used the Shaykhayn as excuse.

Is this from a Shia source?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Thank you brother for that finding. I believe it is very much related to the famous story that we've often heard with regard to Zayd ibn Ali and Shi'a of Kufa as below:

"When Zaid wanted to revolt, a group of people approached him and said we would join you if you renounce Abu Bakr and Umar. He replied that he would not do so. So, they replied in turn: Then we would reject you. Zaid then said: Go away as you are the rejectionists. And the group that stayed with him was known as the Zaidies” (Musnad Zaid Ibn Ali, page 11)

Now, the story makes much more sense by knowing the real motives behind their rejection.

Two thumbs up!

Don't you think that would be worth a short article in Twelvershia.net?

A well know zaydi website online denies the above incident is recorded in any known zaydi source.

Can anyone confirm its presence in musnad Zayd ibn Ali or any other reliable zaydi sources?

[Hani]

A well know zaydi website online denies the above incident is recorded in any known zaydi source.

Can anyone confirm its presence in musnad Zayd ibn Ali or any other reliable zaydi sources?

It wouldn't be in Musnad Zayd because that book is limited to Zayd'd own reports and he wasn't able to report during that battle because he was killed. It must have been reported by a few of his soldiers or those who witnessed pre-battle events. We have a few chains for it in Tarikh Dimashq, al-Tabari reports ti from Hisham bin Muhammad from abi Mikhnaf and Baladhuri probably reports it.

Take note though that it pretty much is the same story as above for the most part but with more detail.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

It wouldn't be in Musnad Zayd because that book is limited to Zayd'd own reports and he wasn't able to report during that battle because he was killed. It must have been reported by a few of his soldiers or those who witnessed pre-battle events. We have a few chains for it in Tarikh Dimashq, al-Tabari reports ti from Hisham bin Muhammad from abi Mikhnaf and Baladhuri probably reports it.

Take note though that it pretty much is the same story as above for the most part but with more detail.

So the above attribution to musnad Zayd is incorrect?

[Hani]

I don't know, seeing as though it is on page 11, I'd assume this is the introduction of the researcher and maybe not part of the book?