Did Imam al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm Criticize his paternal cousins from among the Imami Shiʿi Imams, such as Imam al-Jawād Muḥammad and his son al-Hādī ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Mūsā?
The question:
Did Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him) criticize his paternal cousins from among the Imami Shiʿi Imams, such as Imam al-Jawād Muḥammad and his son al-Hādī ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Mūsā (peace be upon them)?!
The answer:
We approach this through several premises, each following from the other, for people of research, fairness, and reflection.
First premise:
The Noble Qurʾān contains ambiguous verses alongside decisive ones. Whoever isolates the ambiguous verses to establish doctrines or views apart from the decisive verses will not arrive at the correct understanding of the Qurʾān’s meanings. Ambiguous verses admit multiple, differing interpretations, whereas those firmly grounded in knowledge return to the totality of the Qurʾānic verses so that the Qurʾān explains itself—likewise the Prophetic Sunnah, which is part of divine revelation. Yes—and we say the same regarding the statements of the Imams of the Prophet’s Household: the rule is that whatever appears ambiguous in their words obliges the responsible believer to return to the foundational statements of those same Imams—the statements of that Imam in other contexts. Otherwise, his statement would not contradict the collective position of his predecessors among the noble descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, especially since he explicitly declares that he follows them.
Second premise:
It has neither been soundly established nor proven—according to the Imams of the Household from among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, as we have detailed with evidence and sources in our book al-Rāfiḍa, and our book al-Shāmil fī Tārīkh wa Madlūl Khabar al-Ithnā ʿAshar, and others—that any of the eleven Imami Shiʿi Imams held the Imami doctrine of explicit designation (naṣṣ) of the twelve. Rather, this doctrine was later attributed to them and introduced from the views of a group among the Shiʿa. Otherwise, the belief of Imam al-Bāqir, al-Ṣādiq, al-Kāẓim, al-Riḍā, al-Jawād, al-Hādī, and the others among the eleven was the same belief as that of their paternal cousins, fathers, and forebears from the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn—such as the Imams Zayd ibn ʿAlī, his son Yaḥyā, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan, and his sons al-Nafs al-Zakiyya Muḥammad, al-Nafs al-Raḍiyya Ibrāhīm, Yaḥyā, Idrīs, Mūsā al-Jawn, Sulaymān, and many others, including Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and his brother al-ʿUrayḍī ʿAlī ibn Jaʿfar, without limit. All of these held a single creed. To the extent that Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) (169–246 AH) said:
“I met the elders of the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, and there was no disagreement among them.”
In this context, we also cite the statement of the scholar Muḥammad Bāqir al-Bahbūdī—an Imami researcher in the science of rijāl—when speaking about the report of the Twelve:
“The hadiths transmitted concerning the explicit designation of the Imams as a whole—from the report of the Tablet and others—are all fabricated during the period of occultation and confusion, or shortly before it. Had these abundant designatory texts been present among the Imami Shiʿa, they would not have differed so scandalously in recognizing the pure Imams, nor would confusion have befallen the pillars of the school and the foundations of hadith for many years. They would have had no need to rush to author books to prove the Occultation and to remove confusion from the hearts of the community in such great numbers.”
(Maʿrifat al-Ḥadīth, p. 172).
Third premise:
Here we present selected excerpts from the statements of the Imams of the Prophet’s Household and leading Zaydi scholars regarding the Imami Shiʿi Imams, so that it may be known that there is no disparagement of them. Rather, they are among the distinguished figures and luminaries of the Household, even though the Zaydis do not hold the doctrines of explicit designation (naṣṣ) or infallibility. Among their statements are the following:
1) Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (peace be upon him) absolves the leading figures among the descendants of al-Ḥusayn and attributes what is narrated against them to the Rāfiḍa. He describes the Imams from the descendants of al-Ḥusayn as righteous—indeed, he describes them (peace be upon them) as chosen—based on his principle that the entirety of the progeny of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn are chosen, not that he singles them out uniquely for chosenness. He said (peace be upon him):
“It was only that a group who had pledged allegiance to Zayd ibn ʿAlī differentiated between Zayd and Jaʿfar. When they learned that the governor of Kūfa was seeking those who had pledged to Zayd and punishing them, they feared for themselves, withdrew from Zayd’s pledge, and rejected him out of fear of that authority. Then they did not know what argument to offer against those who blamed and reproached them for their action, so at that point they claimed a testamentary designation. They said: the designation was from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn to his son Muḥammad, and from Muḥammad to Jaʿfar, in order to deceive people thereby. Thus they went astray and led many astray, deviating from the straight path; they followed their own desires, preferred this world over the Hereafter, and those who loved remaining behind and disliked striving in the path of God followed them in their claim. Then a people came after them and found writings inscribed in books and notebooks, so they adopted them without discernment or proof; rather, they defied their own reason and attributed this action to the righteous among them from the progeny of the Messenger of God—upon him and upon them be peace—just as the Ḥashwiyya attributed what they narrated of falsehoods and forged sayings to the Messenger of God (God bless him and his family), in order to establish their falsehood against those whom they took as a means of gain and made servants and dependents. As God, Mighty and Exalted, said regarding their likes:
‘Then there came after them successors who inherited the Book, taking the fleeting gains of this lower world and saying, “We shall be forgiven”; and if similar gain comes to them, they take it. Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them that they would not say about God except the truth, and they studied what is in it?’
Likewise are those who rejected Zayd ibn ʿAlī and abandoned him; then they were not satisfied with committing grave sins until they attributed that to the chosen ones from the family of the Messenger. When their action was as we have described, Zayd then called them Rāfiḍa, raised his hands, and said: ‘O God, place Your curse, the curse of my fathers and forefathers, and my curse upon those who rejected me and withdrew from my pledge, just as the people of Ḥarūrāʾ rejected ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) until they fought him.’”
[Collected Books and Epistles of Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn]
Comment: By my life, had there been established testimony from Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him) disparaging those mentioned by the questioning brother, Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (peace be upon him) would not have spoken thus concerning them.
2) Imam al-Manṣūr bi-llāh ʿAbdallāh ibn Ḥamza (peace be upon him) (d. 614 AH) counts the Imami Imams among the virtuous according to the Zaydis—those who were harmed just as the leading figures of the Household from the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn were harmed—upon the same method and message, contrary to the Imami claim, for whoever reflects and considers the full context of his words. He said (peace be upon him):
“We say: their virtue was a grace in their destruction, and the wrongdoing of tyrants against them did not deter the tyrants by their awe; rather, they oppressed them along with those they oppressed, because what the virtuous of the People of the House (peace be upon them) were subjected to by the armies of the oppressors and their evils was only due to their virtue, perfection, and distinction over others—just as was done to Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar and to ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā, and others besides them (peace be upon them). And al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-ʿAskarī (peace be upon him) was with them under the ruling of imprisonment, detention, chains, and shackles; this is known to those who know their circumstances. Likewise were his forefathers up to ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them).”
[al-ʿIqd al-Thamīn fī Tabyīn Aḥkām al-Aʾimma al-Hādīn]
3) The scholar Ibn Abī al-Rijāl said:
“The noble Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā, Abū Jaʿfar the Second, known as al-Jawād … was at the utmost degree of excellence and the pinnacle of nobility.”
[Maṭlaʿ al-Budūr]
4) The judge and eminent scholar Ibn al-Mahlāʾ al-Ḥusayn ibn Nāṣir al-Sharafī compiled biographies of the eleven Imams, in which he mentioned selections from their reports and characteristics. See his book Muṭmaḥ al-Āmāl.
5) The scholar Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Jandarī said, regarding the events of the year 260 AH:
“Imam al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-ʿAskarī, the father of the one awaited by the Imamis, was virtuous and learned.”
[al-Jāmiʿ al-Wajīz fī Wafayāt al-ʿUlamāʾ Uwlī al-Tabrīz]
6) Moreover, one does not find any Zaydi mentioning any of the leading figures from the descendants of al-Ḥusayn and then appending the phrase “peace be upon him” to him—had they not been acceptable in method nor regarded as predecessors by the Zaydis, this would not have been permissible nor their statement sound.
Yes—this suffices. Indeed, it would have been enough for the researcher to examine Zaydi books and find no disparagement of the Imami Imams among the leading figures of the descendants of al-Ḥusayn. Rather, they consider them predecessors, luminaries, and among the foremost of the Muḥammadan Household, alongside the rest of the leading figures and Imams from the noble descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, without distinction—unlike the Imamis, who distinguished among the Household and diminished their rank openly and by consensus, to the extent that this is not hidden even from the least of researchers, let alone the greatest of them. God is the One sought for help, and we shall return to this in a forthcoming premise with some citations.
Fourth premise:
Here we address the manner of Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm’s (peace be upon him) speech in his epistle al-Radd ʿalā al-Rāfiḍa (“Refutation of the Rāfiḍa”), explaining it in detail, and then summarize it with a decisive clarification of his intended meaning. The point is that the Imam (peace be upon him) was addressing the Rāfiḍa—the followers of the Imams—not speaking about the noble descendants of al-Ḥusayn themselves. At times he addresses the Rāfiḍa directly, and at other times he addresses their Imams in accordance with the belief that they (the Rāfiḍa) hold concerning them. Thus, the basis of the address is: you, O Rāfiḍa, according to what you believe—not according to the actual belief or condition of those Imams themselves from the descendants of al-Ḥusayn. The reader and researcher should be attentive to this.
This is because, in Arabic itself, there is a rhetorical device known as iltifāt (shift in address), which is a form of eloquence. It means transferring speech from one perspective to another: from the first-person speaker to the addressee, from the addressee to the absent third person, and vice versa. This is an eloquent Qurʾānic style. Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm—may God’s blessings be upon him and his family—used this style, which is what caused confusion and misunderstanding for you, my brother questioner. You will find him directing speech using the second-person pronoun and then shifting to the third-person pronoun, so you imagine that there is a difference in the subject, whereas the subject is in fact one and the same: namely, you, O Shiʿa—or the image that you portray of those Imams.
I will clarify this with Qurʾānic grounding:
1) God the Exalted says in Sūrat ʿAbasa—and setting aside who the one who frowned was, whether the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family) or someone else, as that is a separate discussion—we focus only on the point of evidence. God says:
“He frowned and turned away”
Here the address is to an absent third person.
“Because the blind man came to him”
Again, the address is to an absent third person.
Then a shift (iltifāt) occurs, whereby the address turns to the present addressee:
“And what makes you know? Perhaps he would purify himself.”
2) God the Exalted says:
“He is the One who causes you to travel on land and sea, until when you are in the ships and they sail with them by a good wind …”
Here, His Exaltedness addresses the addressee: “causes you to travel”, “you are”. Then a shift occurs with His saying “with them”, referring to the absent. Yet the subject is one: the absent is the very same as the addressee. It is not that there are two subjects—one absent and one present. Likewise, in Imam al-Qāsim’s speech (peace be upon him), sometimes he shifts the address—this is iltifāt—from speaking to the Shiʿa as addressees, and at other times he shifts to the absent third person, while the intended subject remains one: you, or the necessary implication of your statements and beliefs by which you depict those eminent figures. Understand this carefully, for it is subtle. Thus, when he says that he sees “from them” certain deeds, this is a shift away from saying “from you” deeds that you attribute to them—deeds we are ashamed to mention in a book.
Example of iltifāt from within the epistle Refutation of the Rāfiḍa directed against extremists:
Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) says:
“You argue against us with the argument of the prophets, and you equate your companions with the prophets.”
Here the style addresses the addressee. Then Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) shifts to the absent and says:
“And we see their actions to be contrary to the actions of the prophets, for they took dissimulation (taqiyya) from created beings as a religion.”
The implicit meaning of the speech is: your actions—for the subject is one, namely the Shiʿa who are addressed and who are also intended by the third-person pronoun. Yes, the intended sense is: the actions that you narrate about them are contrary to the actions of the prophets. You attribute to them dissimulation and the permissibility of temporary marriage. Because of the shift in address, one might imagine that the addressee is a different subject from the absent, whereas in reality the addressee (the Rāfiḍa) is the very same as the absent. Reflect carefully on this.
3) God the Exalted says:
“And whatever zakāt you give, seeking the Face of God—those are the ones who will have it multiplied.”
Here the style begins with the addressee: “you give”, then shifts to the absent: “those”. Yet those are the very same givers themselves; they are the ones whose reward is multiplied. One does not say that the givers are the present addressees, while those refers to other absent people. Reflect on this well, for this is precisely the manner of Imam al-Qāsim’s (peace be upon him) speech—moving between the addressee (the Rāfiḍa Shiʿa) and the absent (the same Rāfiḍa Shiʿa).
Yes—thus the entirety of Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm’s (peace be upon him) speech follows this stylistic pattern. Some therefore suppose that he is addressing Imam al-Jawād or Imam al-Hādī ʿAlī, whereas in truth he is addressing the Imami followers—their adherents, not the Imams themselves.
Fifth premise:
In it we mention selected passages from the epistle of Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl (the Star of the Prophet’s House), al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm, in al-Radd ʿalā al-Rāfiḍa (“Refutation of the Rāfiḍa”), which indicate that he is directing his address to the Rāfiḍa rather than to their Imams. And if he shifts the address toward their Imams, that is only due to the rhetorical style we explained to you earlier—namely, speaking in terms of what you are committed to, and what you accept and relate about those righteous figures, in ways that conflict with the principles of Islam—far be it from them (the Imams) to be ascribed such things. Among what the researcher may recall from the Imam al-Qāsim’s own words—directed to the Rāfiḍa rather than truly aimed at their Imams—are the following:
1) Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) addresses the Rāfiḍa, not Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him):
“Everyone among the Rāfiḍa who affirms Jaʿfar claims that the Imam is created knowledgeable, that knowledge is his nature, and that knowledge is innate within him. They claim that the Imam knows the unseen, and knows what lies in the farthest reaches of the seven lower earths and the seven higher heavens, and what is on land and sea, and that night and day run equally for him. Glory be to God!! These are nothing but the attributes of the Lord of the worlds.”
2) Then Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) again addresses the Rāfiḍa and alludes critically to the one about whom they hold such beliefs—without meaning that he is addressing Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) or anyone else among his descendants according to their own correct belief. He says:
“If it were as the Rāfiḍa say—that the Imams are knowledgeable without having learned, and that ignorance is not permissible at any time for any of the Imams—then glory be to God: have you not likened him to the Lord of the worlds, since your leader neither was ignorant nor learned? Or have you not likened him to God by your saying, since you claim he knows the unseen and knows the deeds of the servants (their places, every man by name and lineage, what you utter, and what is in the hearts of the servants)? Glory be to God above what they say! Are these not the attributes of the Lord of the worlds?!”
3) Then Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him) addresses the Rāfiḍa and argues on the basis of their claim and belief—not on the basis of the righteous descendants of al-Ḥusayn and their creed, which is independent of the Rāfiḍa’s creed:
“If one of those whom the Rāfiḍa describe—of the prophets and the Imams—were to see [such a thing] without being told, they would not die by poison, nor would they eat poison and thus assist in killing themselves. God, blessed and exalted, has said: ‘Do not kill yourselves’ [al-Nisāʾ 4:30]. Is it not the case that whoever eats something poisonous while knowing that it contains his death has assisted in killing himself? If they claim he ate the poison out of fear, it is said to them: fear of what? If they claim he feared being killed, then say to them: is it not better for him—if his killing is by poison—not to eat until he is killed wrongfully, than to kill himself while aiding in it?”
4) Then Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) addresses the Rāfiḍa with what their own premise would entail about the condition of their Imams—namely, that by this their Imams would become blameworthy under the Qurʾān, which would stand against them as a proof and an argument. Some suppose this to be a veiled attack by Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) on the righteous descendants of al-Ḥusayn themselves—God is the One whose help is sought. He says, in the context of claiming that knowledge is the very nature of the Imams and that they do not need reflection:
“Say to them: then why do people learn the Book of God if they do not reflect upon it? How so, when God has falsified your claim by His saying: ‘Do they not reflect upon the Qurʾān, or are there locks upon their hearts?’ [Muḥammad 47:24]. Do you think this is God’s statement to the Imams?! If they say: yes—then say: do you not see that God has reproached your Imams for abandoning reflection on God’s Book, and reproached them by saying: ‘or are there locks upon their hearts?’ If they say: this is not about the Imams, but only about the common people… etc.”
5) In more than one place in his book, Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) addresses the Rāfiḍa and attributes the beliefs to them:
“Then the Rāfiḍa said: the Imamate is an inheritance, a son inheriting from his father … etc.”
And he said:
“If the matter is as the Rāfiḍa have described…”
Here observe that he did not attribute those beliefs to the righteous descendants of al-Ḥusayn. Then, after defeating them with proof, Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) says:
“It is said to them: your claim regarding your leader has been invalidated.”
He did not attribute the claim to “their leader” himself—namely Imam ʿAlī al-Hādī (peace be upon him)—for he (al-Hādī) did not claim for himself what they claimed for him of a designated Imamate.
6) Then Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) argues against the Rāfiḍa that what is known of their leader—Imam al-Hādī ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon him)—is contrary to the Rāfiḍa’s doctrines; people transmitted from him views contrary to what the Rāfiḍa attribute. This shows that Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) is not condemning Imam al-Hādī’s own creed. Rather, he argues: if the Rāfiḍa are truthful, they should follow their Imam’s belief, words, and narrations, not relate things that contradict his belief and then attribute his disagreement with them to “taqiyya.” He says:
“If you claim that he is upon the truth, yet people have seen from him contrary to what you say, and narrated from him contrary to what you attribute, and heard from him contrary to what you claim—then follow him, since you claim he is an Imam whose obedience is obligatory! Is it not obligatory upon people to obey him in what he commands and refrain from what he forbids? Yet you burden people to follow your own statement and abandon his—so then it is you whose obedience God has made obligatory, and you are the truthful ones, not him!”
Yes—by my life, this is sufficient to distinguish the direction of the rebuke: the one intended by the criticism is the Rāfiḍa, not Imam ʿAlī al-Hādī himself. In the preceding context, Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) reports that Imam al-Hādī’s words, beliefs, and legal opinions contradict what his Imami-Rāfiḍī followers say, and he uses their own claim (that people must follow him) as an argument against them—so they are more obliged than anyone else to follow him in what he says, even when it contradicts their own doctrine. He says:
“Then you claimed that he is an Imam whose obedience is obligatory. So is he not—according to your doctrine—an Imam of guidance and an Imam of misguidance, since he guided you and misled others, when he gave you a legal opinion with the truth and gave others a legal opinion with falsehood; he taught you God’s ruling and taught others contrary to God’s ruling? Yet God, blessed and exalted, has said: ‘Whoever does not judge by what God has sent down—those are the disbelievers’ [al-Māʾidah 5:44]. Do you think both rulings are equal: the ruling he told you, and the ruling he told others? Are they both from God’s ruling when they are two opposing rulings?”
7) Then Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) directs speech toward Imam al-Hādī ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon him), but not according to what Imam al-Hādī himself believes—rather according to what the Rāfiḍa believe about him. For that reason, you see him begin by addressing the Rāfiḍa, then shift to addressing Imam al-Hādī—yet the intended target in both addresses is the Rāfiḍa and their belief about him; and he (al-Hādī) does not claim such things for himself, as you will see. Then Imam al-Qāsim returns to addressing the Rāfiḍa, saying:
“If you claim that he is a proof over all, then it is obligatory upon him to guide them all, to direct them, give them insight, and make himself known to them. How can he be a proof when he veils himself from people and does not make things clear to them?! Suppose they stand before God—by what will He argue against them? By what he called them to and they disobeyed? Or by what he clarified to them and they opposed? Or by the fact that he withheld himself from them and so they were ignorant of him? How can a proof be established against them when his proofs did not reach them, they did not know his name, and he did not make himself known? If you claim that he is permitted to conceal…”
8) Then Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) states with a clear, explicit text that Imam ʿAlī al-Hādī is innocent of holding the Rāfiḍa’s doctrine of Imamate, and he distinguishes between al-Hādī’s position and theirs. He says:
“It is said to them: have you not falsified your own claim and declared your leader ignorant?! For you claim he knew from you that you would not divulge his secret. Have you not asserted, told people, argued against those who oppose you, and described him with what he himself never claimed—such as knowledge of the unseen; such as your claim that he sees us in every land and sees our condition, deeds, and actions, hears our speech, tells us we will return to the world after our death, and the like—things which, if we were to describe them, would be many and lengthy?!”
Reflect on Imam al-Qāsim’s words: “and you described him with what he himself never claimed.” Then see how he argues that these actions are contrary to the Sharīʿa and to the guidance of the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family), based on what the Rāfiḍa narrate about the righteous descendants of al-Ḥusayn—not that this is actually the state of those righteous figures themselves; for in Imam al-Qāsim’s view they are far above such things. He says:
“You claim he informs you because he knows you will accept, and conceals from others because he knows they will reject. Glory be to God—how clear it is that this action is opposed to the action of the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family). For you claim your leader stands in the place of the Messenger of God, guides by his guidance, and performs the Messenger’s actions—was it the Messenger’s practice to conceal from some and inform others? Or did he inform all? Whoever accepted accepted, and whoever disobeyed disobeyed.”
And observe how Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) shifts in address (iltifāt) while holding that Imam ʿAlī al-Hādī (peace be upon him) is innocent of the Rāfiḍa’s creed, and that the foundations of their beliefs depict those righteous figures with actions that conflict with the Sharīʿa—Qurʾān and Sunnah. In another place, Imam al-Qāsim says:
“Great is your slander against the Household of the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family), and you have described the action of your leader as opposed to God’s Book and the action of His Messenger. Whoever opposes the Messenger has departed from the sphere of the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family).”
Yes—through this quotation the attentive reader should consider the decisive part of Imam al-Qāsim’s words: “and you described him with what he himself never claimed.” This is in relation to Imam ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Hādī (peace be upon him). With this I conclude this premise.
And in the third premise you saw the statement of Imam al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq (peace be upon him) Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn—grandson of Imam al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm—whose words about the righteous descendants of al-Ḥusayn and his praise of them scarcely differs from his grandfather’s. Had those eminent figures held corrupt beliefs, Imam al-Hādī and other Imams of the Household would not have spoken of them in such a manner. Far exalted are they all from anything that impugns doctrine—and praise be to God.
Sixth premise:
We have found that some ignorant people, upon investigation, want to deny that Imam Najm Āl al-Rasūl (peace be upon him) was Zaydi, because they found it unlikely that he would criticize Imam ʿAlī al-Hādī (peace be upon him). So they want to deny that the epistle is his, and they speak ignorantly, claiming that Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) was Imami, not Zaydi. By my life, this is among the most ignorant and most repulsive of statements. The one who says this is as though saying that Shaykh al-Ṣadūq was Zaydi, or that Ibn Taymiyya was Imami. Such a claim blocks the paths of knowledge and opens the doors of ignorance. Indeed, would that this astonished person—who wants to exonerate Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) from that claim (whose root is his own poor understanding)—did not then go on to declare the epistle, whose attribution to him is established, to be a fabrication inserted against him.
Where is he, then, from the Imami books that are filled with disparagement—on the tongues of their own Imams—against the leading figures among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, the Imams’ brothers, their sons, and their paternal cousins—beginning with al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī, the greatest of their compilations? God is the One whose help is sought.
Here we mention some quotations from Imami authorities, perhaps that will awaken the fairness of the proponent of that view—so that he may then reject his own books and writings, many of which have no basis or soundness upon investigation, by the Imamis’ own admission before anyone else.
First: regarding Imam Abū Ṭālib Yaḥyā ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him)
1) Shaykh al-Ṭurayḥī said:
“As for others—meaning Zayd ibn ʿAlī—among the People of the House who rose with the sword, such as Yaḥyā ibn Zayd and Muḥammad and Ibrāhīm, the apparent state of their matter is opposition to the Imams. And what issued from them of grief and weeping does not indicate their goodness, since it may be compassion for them due to their misguidance, or due to the violation of the sanctity of the People of the House.”
[Mustadrakāt Aʿyān al-Shīʿa, 1/70]
Comment: So is Imam Yaḥyā ibn Zayd (peace be upon him) your misguided predecessor, O fair-minded one?! And why did the absent Mahdī not clarify this to his Shiʿa, when he is the one responsible for proof and explanation—or is he content with it? Or is there no occultation at all?!
2) In Fahāris Riyāḍ al-Sālikīn, by Ibn al-Muẓaffar, it states:
“Yaḥyā ibn Zayd the martyr claimed that God supported His religion through them, and claimed that knowledge and the sword belong to them, while knowledge alone belongs to the Imams.”
[Fahāris Riyāḍ al-Sālikīn, 1/686]
And in it as well:
“Yaḥyā ibn Zayd the martyr behaved with bad manners toward the two Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq.”
[Fahāris Riyāḍ al-Sālikīn, 1/688]
Comment: So is Imam Yaḥyā ibn Zayd (peace be upon him) your ill-mannered predecessor, O fair-minded one?! And why did the absent Mahdī not clarify this to his Shiʿa…? Or is he content? Or is there no occultation? And how will you be fair when ambiguous speech from Imam al-Qāsim troubles you, while you find these explicit statements—even in narrations attributed to the Imami Imams, though far be it from their Imams [to say such things].
Second: regarding Imam ʿĪsā ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him)
3) ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Shabistarī said:
“Abū Yaḥyā ʿĪsā ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī al-Sajjād ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Shahīd ibn Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib; the Hāshimī, ʿAlawī, Kūfan, known as Muʾtamm al-Ashbāl and al-Saqqāʾ, his mother was Ṣawn. One of the revolutionaries of Banū Hāshim who rose against the ʿAbbāsid authority. And due to his bad fortune he was among those hostile to the Imam (peace be upon him), and among those bold and overreaching against him. He was a transmitter of hadith with good hadith, but he was blameworthy in method, known for malice and lack of uprightness.”
[al-Fāʾiq fī Aṣḥāb wa Ruwāt al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, 2/529]
Comment: So is Imam ʿĪsā ibn Zayd (peace be upon him) your predecessor—blameworthy in method, malicious, not upright—God is the One whose help is sought?! And why did the absent Mahdī not clarify this…?
4) Shaykh ʿAlī al-Kūrānī al-ʿĀmilī said:
“And this ʿĪsā was a fierce enemy of Imam al-Ṣādiq; he is the one who brought him to compel him to pledge allegiance to the Mahdī of the Ḥasanids, and said to him: ‘Submit and you will be safe!’ and threatened and harmed him.”
[Jawāhir al-Tārīkh, 5/307]
Comment: So is Imam ʿĪsā ibn Zayd (peace be upon him) your fierce enemy of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), O fair-minded one?! And why did the absent Mahdī not clarify this…?
Third: regarding Imam ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan, his son Imam al-Nafs al-Zakiyya Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and the rest of the Imams of Banū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him)
5) Shaykh ʿAlī al-Kūrānī (contemporary) says:
“Note that the Imams (peace be upon them) deliberately, on many occasions, informed the Banū al-ʿAbbās that they would rule. The Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) told Ibn ʿAbbās that his child ʿAlī would be the father of the ʿAbbāsid kings! Imam al-Bāqir told al-Manṣūr that he would rule and called him a tyrant; then Imam al-Ṣādiq confirmed that to him; and he informed his Ḥasanid cousins that they would not reach rule, and that the ʿAbbāsids would rule and kill them! This was an intended act, achieving several aims in service of Islam and its community: on one hand, it establishes that the Imams have exclusive knowledge of some unseen matters as a miracle from God and His Messenger. On the other hand, it strengthens the ʿAbbāsids to act against the Umayyads, and also encourages them against the Ḥasanids! It is as if God Most High did not will for the Ḥasanids to rule the community because they are worse than the ʿAbbāsids in their envy of the Imams of the People of the House and their Shiʿa; they might adopt a policy of total extermination against them! So God—Mighty and Exalted—wanted to keep the harm of their rule away from the name of Imam al-Ḥasan and from the Ḥusaynid Imams, so that people would not compare them with them. Something similar is the rule of the Ḥusaynids other than the Imams—such as the revolt of Zayd and his son Yaḥyā—may God have mercy on him—and of the ʿAlawīs, as in the revolt of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muʿāwiya ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar. The elements of success were available to them, but chance—or rather the divine will—overturned their efforts.”
[Jawāhir al-Tārīkh, 5/274]
And al-Kūrānī also said:
“As for the Imams, they used to see that the Ḥasanids are like the ʿAbbāsids, if not worse than them!”
[Jawāhir al-Tārīkh, 5/279]
And he also said:
“It appears that the Ḥasanids pushed these jurists—meaning the jurists of Baṣra—to convince Imam al-Ṣādiq to join them in the revolt of Imam al-Nafs al-Zakiyya. The Imam debated them and proved to them that the Ḥasanid project does not differ from the project of Banū Umayya, because it is not based on ruling the community by knowledge and jurisprudence, but by coercion, conjecture, and whim.”
[Jawāhir al-Tārīkh, 5/280]
Yes—and with these premises the answer to the question has been completed. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.
O God, send prayers and peace upon Muḥammad and upon the family of Muḥammad
Translation of Ustadh Kadhim Al Zaydi (May Allah reward him)