The revolutions of the `Alawites

[Hani]

al-Salamu `Aleykum,


First of all when I say `Alawites I don't mean the idiot sect (Nusayriyyah) but I mean `Ali's children.



SO, I was doing some historical reading on the relationships between the `Alawites and the Umayyads vs the relationships between the `Alawites and the `Abbasies.


I noticed that many `Alawites rebelled in the times of banu al-`Abbas and banu Umayyah. However, what is interesting, is that whenever a revolution would succeed, and the man would grab whatever authority he could, they never handed this authority to any of the "Twelve Imams" of the Ithna-`Ashari sect.


It appears to be almost a consensus among the children of `Ali, that the authority and leadership are NOT an exclusive right for the so called 12 infallible Imams, and that the only reason they rebelled was because they believed that they as `Alawites had a right to rule more than their `Umawi and `Abbasi cousins.


What do you guys think? Have you researched this? I'm thinking of writing a piece on it Insha-Allah.

[Husayn]

It is a common belief for the Ithna-'Asharis that Banu 'Abbas were worse than Banu Ummayah, because the oppression was worse in their time (oppression of the descendants of 'Ali).

The reason for this is easy to understand - Banu Ummayah claimed the right to rule through force and power, whereas Banu 'Abbas claimed the right to rule based on their lineage.

Ofcourse, the lineage of the descendants of 'Ali (ra) was the only real threat to their claim, so ofcourse they suffered more uprisings from the 'Alawis and consequently had to suppress them more than other claimants.

The point that you raise is interesting, and its obviously something that is a glaring, massive, all-consuming black-hole in their religion - namely that the 'Alawis did many uprisings, but none of them, as you said, did it on behalf of any of the Ithna 'Ashari Imams.

Take Zayd ibn 'Ali (ra) for example - have the Ithna 'Asharis reached any consensus as to his character?

I know some curse him as a wannabe usurper, but then others praise him and claim he was fighting for the Imamah of Ja'far ibn Muhammad.

Do you have any conclusive answers?

[Hani]

Regarding Zayd ibn `Ali, he wished to overthrow the Caliph of his time and rule instead of him as he thought that banu Hashim and especially `Ali's descendants had the right to rule because of their lineage and virtue (Which isn't correct) and that banu Umayyah usurped their right in acquiring authority.

Ja`far often praised his uncle Zayd and greatly respected him, he saw him as fit to rule. The Rafidah had different plans, after encouraging Zayd to revolt, they sensed that Zayd would not agree with their innovations and they feared the wrath of banu Umayyah if they were to lose, so they left him alone and he was destroyed.

What's ironic is that when Zayd went to the mosque in kufa to ask for their help, they refused, so he shouted at them: أفعلتموها حسينية!؟ "Have you turned this into (another) Husayniyyah!?"

He means that they called him then abandoned him.

Due to the popular praise from Ja`far to his uncle, and due to the known fact that Zayd was not calling for Ja`far's "Imamah", the Rafidah fabricated three types of reports:

A- Zayd was ignorant of the divine Imamah.

B- Zayd is an evil selfish traitor.

C- Zayd only did this to call for the Rida from Aal-Muhammad.

A and C can be reconciled so it's obvious they'll adopt it as the popular Madhab, although it's quite obvious all of these reports are lies. Anyone who reviews history books knows for a fact that not once did Zayd mention anything about an "infallible" who he plans to give authority to.

Even Zayd's children who were the Imams of the Zaydi Madhab back in those days, not one claimed that there was such a thing as 12 infallible men that must rule.

Heck even when the authority of banu Umayyah began to shake and crack, the people of Madinah hurried to give Bay`ah to one of Hashimites, but was it Ja`far? Nope, they all went and gave Bay`ah to al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, who assumed authority and ruled and rebelled.

I'll try to write something on this InshaAllah.

[Hani]

Look at this funny stuff in Sistani's research centre:
http://www.aqaed.com/faq/365/

This is from the narrations they attribute to Ja`far:
ولا تقولوا خرج زيد فان زيداً كان عالماً وكان صدوقا ً ولم يدعكم الى نفسه وانما دعاكم الى الرضا من آل محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) ولو ظفر لوفى بما دعاكم اليه

"Don't say Zayd rebelled, he was a truthful scholar, he never called for himself but he only called for the Rida of Aal-Muhammad, and if he had succeeded he would have fulfilled it."

Then this other similar one:
رحم الله عمي زيداّ, أنه دعا إلى الرضا من آل محمد ولو ظفر لوفى بما دعا إليه، وقد استشارني في خروجه فقلت له: يا عم إن رضيت أن تكون المقتول المصلوب بالكناسة فشأنك، فلما ولي قال جعفر بن محمد: ويل لمن سمع واعيته فلم يجبه

In this one Ja`far claims Zayd consulted with him, so he told him he would fail and be crucified but Zayd still went??? Ok hehe...

Then the Mufti tries to make excuses as to why didn't Ja`far help, so he says it's because he knew it was going to fail thus he never participated. Which never convinced the questioner because Husayn according to them also knew he was going to fail and that his women and children were going to get slaughtered yet he still rebelled.

The Mufti then replies that there are "TWO THEORIES"!!! He actually uses the word "Theory", as if the religion isn't clear and we need theories to explain why Shia beliefs are so damn self conflicting.

The first theory is that the roles of the Imams are pre-assigned by the prophet (saw) from before and what they do is from God's wisdom even if we do not comprehend it. (Meaning they don't know for sure why the heck this happened).

Second theory is that each Imam based on his infallibility fulfills his role by judging the situation as he sees fit. (Which isn't different from the first answer!!)

So that's Sistani's official research centre's answer to Zayd's revolution.

[adnan42]

Al-Hussein said in one of his invocations upon shia: “O Allah if you give them enjoyment for a while..then disintegrate them into groups…and divide their path…and never ever accept from them leadership…for verily they called us for help…then they transgress upon us and killed us.”(Al-Irshaad by Al-Mufid page 241)

[Hani]

Another thing I noticed is that while banu Umayyah and banu al-`Abbas were usually very kind to Banu `Ali if they were obedient and loyal to them. Yet Banu Umayyah would severely punish any `Alawite who rebels while Banu al-`Abbas would not be satisfied by punishing the rebel but they'd punish his parents and siblings and children even if they had nothing to do with the rebellion.

[Hadrami]

Another thing I noticed is that while banu Umayyah and banu al-`Abbas were usually very kind to Banu `Ali if they were obedient and loyal to them. Yet Banu Umayyah would severely punish any `Alawite who rebels while Banu al-`Abbas would not be satisfied by punishing the rebel but they'd punish his parents and siblings and children even if they had nothing to do with the rebellion.

many of them migrated with their family to Hadramaut (in now south yemen) back in Banu Abbas time. There they are called Ba Alawi. The oppression probably so bad back then.

True Alawi mind you aka Sunni

[Hani]

I found a LONG list of the `Alawites who rebelled in the history book Samt-ul-Nujoum by al-`Isami, I thought it was only the 8 or 10 popular `Alawites who rebelled, it seems the number of `Alawites who rebelled exceeds 100, both from Hasan and Husayn's progeny, NOT ONE OFFERED THE AUTHORITY TO ANY OF THE 12 INFALLIBLE SHIA IMAMS OR EVEN SPOKE OF THEIR RIGHT.

I hope I can translate this list in a summarized way, this is an amazing find!!

[Hadrami]

I found a LONG list of the `Alawites who rebelled in the history book Samt-ul-Nujoum by al-`Isami, I thought it was only the 8 or 10 popular `Alawites who rebelled, it seems the number of `Alawites who rebelled exceeds 100, both from Hasan and Husayn's progeny, NOT ONE OFFERED THE AUTHORITY TO ANY OF THE 12 INFALLIBLE SHIA IMAMS OR EVEN SPOKE OF THEIR RIGHT.

I hope I can translate this list in a summarized way, this is an amazing find!!

cant wait for that bro. By the way, the Ba Alawi tribes in hadramaut came mostly from Basra & from al husayn RA lineage. So even husayn progeny dont want to have anything to do with shias hocus pocus imamah.

[Hani]

currently downloading Zaydi Shia books from their early Imams, they're a wealth of knowledge, suddenly disproves Imamah.

[Hani]

I began writing on this, let's hope I finish soon InshaAllah.

[Hani]

here you go:
http://twelvershia.net/2015/03/18/history-of-the-alawite-revolutions-contradicts-imamah/

[Husayn]

Great stuff Hani.

As a former Rafidi, I can say that the impression one gets from reading their version of history is that from the period of the 1st Imam until the 12th, you are taught to believe that everything revolved around them, and the state had its eye fixed on them like it was the Eye of Sauron and they held the One Ring.

Whereas the case was totally different - history was vast, the lands of the Muslims vast, its population numerous and the events which unfolded are enough to fill hundreds of volumes.

And 99.9999999999999% of the events that occurred did not involve them at all.

[Rationalist]

Until Imam Jafar (as) the Imams were very popular. Then after Imam Rida (as) become popular through the appointment of Al Mamoon. However, the Imamate after that doesn't make sense. One of the Imams at the age of ten supposedly answers 33,000 questions in one sitting.

ي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه قال: أستأذن على أبي جعفر عليه السلام قوم من أهل النواحي من الشيعة، فأذن لهم فدخلوا فسألوه في مجلس واحد عن ثلاثين ألف مسألة فأجاب عليه السلام وله عشر سنين.



`Ali b. Ibrahim from his father.

He said: A community from the remote people of the Shi`a asked permission to meet Abu Ja`far [the Second] عليه السلام. He granted them permission, and so they entered. They asked him thirty thousand questions in one majlis, and he عليه السلام answered them all when he was ten years old. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 1304)

[Bolani Muslim]

My cousin told me that Abu Hanifa learned from Musa Kazim when he (Musa Kazim) was only 5 years old.

[Hani]

The five year old part gives it away... the fact that it's a made up story.

I'll make a story up right now, listen to this:

"Abu Hanifah learned from `Ali al-Rida while he was still just a sperm in Musa's body."

^ How's that? Shows how great they were.