? Does anyone here have the biography of Imam Zayd bin Ali (as) in English
P.S please do not give anything from wikpedia cause some parts are fabricated by the 12rs.
(Biography of Imam Zayd bin Ali (as
ISLAMIC OPPOSITION OF AL-IMAM Imam Zaid (A.S)
With Allahs assistance; understanding His disclosed word and learning from
His Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), we will press on with uncovering and
reconstructing facts that have been damaged by time and distorted by worldly
powers. You are aware that in this sequence of khutbahs, we have been trying
our best to highlight the issue of Islamic legitimate opposition and dissent.
There is a vocabulary in the Qur'an to which these events belong. The ayaat in
the Qur'an that have the words qiyaam, khuruj, jihad, qitaal and their
derivatives are eye-openers concerning Ad-Dhalimun, yadhlimun and Alladhina
Dhalamu- all of these ayaat, and we are speaking about dozens of ayaat in the
Qur'an if not hundreds of them that catch the flavor of Islamic legitimate
political and military opposition to illegitimate rulers and autocratic
monarchs. It is in this context and with these scores of ayaat pertaining to
Ad-Dhalimin and the responsibility of jihad that we try to present the
facts that have been run down and run away from out common thoughts. Along
this historical path that was 1st blazen by Allahs Prophet, we pick up another
chapter of this glorious but un-mentioned history.
Today, we pick up around the year 122 after the hijrah, when there was an
active and a death defying opposition to the Umawi dynastic rulers. We spoke
previously about a trend and a movement known as Al-Khawarij; the last time we
spoke about Al-Imam Al-Husein (radi Allahu anhu) and Karbala and we spoke about
other brave and selfless movements and personalities. We add on to them the courageous opposition to the Umawi deviation of governance that was represented by Al-Imam Zaid (as) ibn Ali ibn Husein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). For those of us whose memories are not very clear on who Imam Zaid (as) is- he is the grandson of Al-Imam Al-Husein (as)- Imam Zaid (as) the son of Ali the son of Husein the son of Ali (as). Imam Zaid (as) also happened to be geographically located in the Southern part of Iraq when he began to consolidate an underground movement against the Umawi kingdom. This is something Muslims need to think about with all the juices in their minds- when Imam Zaid (as), just like Husein and Ali were operating in that particular area of the world, within that particular population, the sympathy and identification of these people with these leaders on the surface was very solid. There were thousands and tens of thousands of people who said "We will support you. Our swords are with you. You have tens of thousands of fighters on your side." These were the continuous messages that these people received from the people within the population. Imam Zaid (as), with the experience of his grandfather and his great grandfather began to put together a military force that would fight against the military force that this dynasty represented whatever the consequences were going to be. Even when Muslims of today review this literature, they disconnect from the fervency of this issue because this was an opposition that was willing to go the full length even if that meant perishing for the course. Its easy for academic or theoretical Muslims to take an issue like this and then reproduce it in its historical chronology- that's one thing, but to assimilate the lessons of this and to gain the fervency of this lesson is something else- and that doesn't come easily to todays Muslims because of the mental barriers and physical obstacles that are placed in the way of reproducing that spirit in todays Muslims.
What do we have? We have Imam Zaid (as) dealing with the same people that were sending him messages telling him that "We are with you. You have 12,000 or 15,000 warriors at your command." But then, when he began putting together this
opposition force. The bai'ah that was given to him can be summarized in the
following.Muslims who were ready to go with Imam Zaid (as) into this military stand against the Umawi dynasty said "We will abide by the book of Allah and the
Sunnah of His Messenger; we will be responsible for a jihad against
Ad-Dhalimin; we will be responsible for supporting Al-Mustadafin; we will
provide for Al-Mahrumin, those who are denied; we will se to it that the
revenue of the Islamic treasury is evenly distributed among the Muslims and we
will support the position of the Ahl Al-Bayt opposition." Remember- at that
time, Ahl Al-Bayt- those who opposed them, beginning with Ali- from the
manabir, was a curse word in the circles of officialdom or the public
governmental sponsorship.This (bai'ah) was the type of initiation of those who were on the side of Imam Zaid (as) were expressing when they entered into this mithaaq or covenant of responsibility with Imam Zaid (as).
During this time, there were many scholars, Muhaddithin, Ulema,and Fuqaha who
were supportive of Imam Zaid (as). For those of us who don't know much about this uprising against the Umawis at that time- Imam Zaid (as), or what later became known as Az-Imam Zaidiyah is identified very closely and they are almost synonymous with Al-Mu'tazilah. On the major issues of Usul Ad-Din, they are counterparts of each other. They agreed on so many things that- on the issues of Adl, At-Tawheed, As-Sifaat, Al-Wa'd, Al-Wa'id- (all of these issues at that time that were part of the scholarly atmosphere)- that it is very difficult to
distinguish between these two contexts. Az-Imam Zaid iyah and Al-Mu'tazilah were almost synonymous, so obviously Waasal ibn Ata' and Ubaid ibn Amr, who are the main figures of the Mu'tazilah were almost the natural supporters of Imam Zaid (as), but is not very much known, and this is what is kept out of our attention area is that Al-Imam Abu Hanifa gave his bai'ah to Imam Zaid (as). In addition to that, he contributed 10,000 dirhams in support of the force that Imam Zaid (as) had, and Abu Hanifas words, he described "the revolt of Imam Zaid (as) against the Umawis as similar to the military campaign of Rasulillah at Badr." This is an established historical fact. We're not being sectarian or partial in presenting this
information in the course of these khutbahs, we try as much as possible to
present the information that is common knowledge across the Islamic spectrum.
Now, if this is one of the pieces of information that is common knowledge
across the Islamic madhhabi spectrum, then why is it that the average Muslim
does not know this as a matter of fact? Once again- because the average Muslim
has been drained mentally throughout these years to omit this type of vital
information from his or her thinking mind. With all of this support, Imam Zaid (as) is approaching the zero hour, the point of military contact with the usurpers of
legitimate power. What happened in this Kufi atmosphere is once again
another tragedy that we Muslims having all of this time to learn from it have
not done so. What happens is the nobility or the noblemen of Al-Kufa gave Imam Zaid (as) guarantees that they will support him with their finances, numbers, they even told him that there is "100,000 who will be on your side." Part of this is the guilt that they felt for the way they treated Ali and Husein. Also, in those two
episodes, they said "We will support you. There are tens of thousands of people
on your side." But, when the time came, there was no-one around. So, being
followed by these feelings of guilt, here they are once again, expressing to
Imam Zaid (as) that "we will be on your side". Governments, just as they are everywhere- they have a way of picking up inside information. The Umawi regime at that time had its informers inside Kufa and they knew that Imam Zaid (as) was planning to clash with them on a certain day, so they accelerated that time by a week. In other words, they wanted this clash to happen one week before Imam Zaid (as) had planned this confrontation to take place. In addition to Al-Kufa, he hadcommuniqués of support from the rest of the areas. Al-Hejaz was on his side,
Al-Madaa'in, Al-Basrah, Al-Mosul, Ar-Rai, Khurasan- all of these areas were
communicating to him that "we are in support of you". But obviously these are
far away areas and when the clash occurs, it is going to be in Al-Kufa. He was
physically in Al-Kufa with the internal support of the people of Southern Iraq
and the extended support from the outlying areas all around. He was also
advised, just like his predecessors were advised, "Don't rely on these people."
But he said to them in the spirit of the Qur'an and the Prophet "That the
excesses and the injustices of Bani Umayah have become so much that we cannot
stop here any longer." So, at that time, when the real issue was that you had
12,000 Umawi troops or soldiers under arms in Kufa preempting the date for
which all of this is planned, he looks around and says "How many do we have?"
He counts the people around him and he finds that there are only 218. Remember, from all of these assurances that he was given- in the
tens of thousands- but when the swords were drawn, there was only 218
individuals with him. Still, we have not managed to learn from this. This is a
social law of sorts. You get all of these well wishes and expressions of
support from your sympathizers and so called supporters, and then when the time
comes, Imam Zaid (as) said, these are his words, "Where is everyone?!" There's no one around.
That 1st day, the followers of Imam Zaid (as) fought gallantly and they had the upper hand during that 1st day. Before we get to the 2nd and 3rd days of this,
because its a three day battle, it is necessary also to understand the
wise/uniting type of idea that Imam Zaid (as) managed to defeat Umawi propaganda, because the Umawi rulers were thriving on the divisions among the Muslims. One of the dividing and separating issues that still exists concerns the successors to Allahs Prophet- Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (radi Allahu anhum). One side said that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman usurped the right of Ali and the other side countered that with their own argument that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman at that time, deserved to be in those positions more than Ali, and this issue went way down from that time to the simple or average people everywhere and because of this schism, the Umawis felt comfortable. They could play sides against each other even though they were facing popular agitation and revolts. The revolts that were to come after Imam Zaid (as) that were along the course
of Imam Zaid (as) were 24 revolts, not to speak about the Khawarij and others. In the middle of this schismatic division, Imam Zaid (as) came and said "Imam Ali was more qualified to be the 1st leader of the Muslims after the Prophet, but because leading the Muslims is contingent upon the consensus of the Muslims, and being that the Muslims expressed a consensus towards Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, then what's the problem?! All Muslims together should not have any problem." That idea is that is at least 1,300 years ahead of its time is still not studied and understood by todays Muslims. He tried, having support, at least from
Al-Mu'tazilah and what is called Ahl As-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaa'h at the time and
from the followers of Ahl Al-Bayt according to a revolutionary course, because
here's the other problem the Imam Zaid (as) had to deal with..
.Remember, Imam Zaid (as) is Imam Baqirs (as) half brother, who's the uncle of Imam Jaafar As-Sadiq (as). Imam Zaid (as) would not condemn Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, so now he had an issue with the Kufi supporters. They were divided,
as they still are today, within three categories...one of them that says "Abu
Bakr, Umar and Uthman were usurpers of power", and then others said that "they
were Faasiqin" and yet others said, these are the extremists, that "they are
kaafir". We still have this today- look brothers and sisters, Muslims- we still
haven't learned. Whichever experience our forefathers gave us then, after all
of this time, we still haven't learned from it. These Kufi supporter came to Imam Zaid (as) and said "No! We will not support you if you don't condemn Abu
Bakr, Umar and Uthman." He would not condemn them, because he knew, as we
should today, the difference between a form of governance called Al-Khilafah
and a form of governance called Al-Mulk. So, because he didn't condemn them,
they said "we're not going to support you." So, here he was in the atmosphere of Kufa. On the 2nd day, he was joined by about 300 other warriors, so from 218, there was about 500 on his side. The way the battle was unfolding, it was to the benefit of these who were in the opposition. On the 3rd day, which happened to be a Friday, the Umawi forces brought in their sentry or in todays language, their sharp shooters with their arrows. Imam Zaid (as), was told "You have on your side thousands of people, but they are holed up in a Masjid". He said, "That's not an excuse. For those who gave us bai'ah in their thousands to say that they are locked up in a Masjid is not an excuse". So, he went to try to break this hold of the Umawis in the main Masjid in Al-Kufa in which there were thousands, at least, of his verbal supporters. When that siege was broken, these supporters would not come out to fight on his side. Then, what happens is one of these sharp shooters lodges an arrow in the left side of Imam Zaid (as)s forehead. This was at the end of the day,when night had fallen. So, his supporters say, "What are we going to do now?" Among his supporters, there were different opinions and they took him out from that Masjid area to a residence of one of his supporters, and they brought a
person, in todays language, a physician to look at it. This physician said that
"If the arrow is going to be taken out of your skull, you are going to die." He
said that "Dying is better than the state that I am in now." They tried to take
the arrow out, which they did and he died- he became a Shaheed. Now, what are
they going to do with his body, because if the word gets around that Imam Zaid (as) is dead, then that is going to cause a public reaction in which the Kufis are once again going to feel that they didn't support the person that they said they
were going to support and some of their hypocritical nature is going to appear.
Remember, it should be recalled that during this time, the Umawi ruler, his name is Hishaam ibn Abdul Malik, was communicating with the noble people or the upper classes of Kufa and telling them about finances, trade, profits and all of this worldly talk we hear around us today. Anyway, the followers of Imam Zaid (as) decided to take his body and bury it in a certain place and have a stream of water run over it so that no-one will know where he is buried. As fate would have it, there was a person who saw all of this happening and he conveyed all the information to the authorities. Listen to this brothers and sisters, we try as much as possible to bring you the type of information that is not tainted by extremism or emotionalism- they came and they dug him out of his grave and then they put him on a cross and he stayed on this cross for years until his son Yahya began a revolt against the following ruler that came after Hishaam ibn Abdul Malik, Waleed ibn Yazid. During this revolt, this Umawi ruler says, imagine after about four years of a body being placed in public- this is one of the reasons
why many Muslims don't want to bring up this issue, because it will cause our
emotionalism to take over and not our rationalism or our minds... We are
talking to you with the confidence that our mind can take over and we can take
a look at this with straight thoughts out of the Qur'an and out of the Prophets
Sunnah. They put a person like that, the great-great-grandson of Allahs Prophet
for four years on a crucifix and then when they were fed up of his son who was
also revolting against the Umawi kingdom in Arabia you say "bring his body
down, we're going to burn it". They brought his body down and at that time, it
was exposed, there was no clothes on his body- whoever you are, tell as that
that type of government is an Islamic government?! If you hear these words,
tell us that that government that does such a thing is a khilafah on the model
of Allahs Prophets rule! Brutalities are involved in this history- Imam Zaid (as) had women supporters- one of these women is known in Islamic history as Umm Khalid, the government of the time brought her out and cut her
arm off to try to sow fear into the hearts of the you and me Muslims. They
brought down that body and they torched or burnt it and they threw the ashes
into the Euphrates river. This regime is the same one that came to Medinah
under Muslim ibn Uqbah, the Umawi commander who came to Al-Medinah and laid it to waste in three days. He desecrated the Masaajid; the troops killed numerous
innocent people; they physically and sexually abused Muslim women. Remember,
Medinah is a place where Allahs Prophets 1st success was expressed. They didn't
have enough decency in them to lay their hands off of that place and even now,
we don't have the rational courage to look at what they did. For any one who
studies and understands closely Allahs Prophets struggle was to have the
Islamic capital in Makkah. He was not able to do that because of the population
in Makkah and its resistance towards him for 23 years almost. So, he kept it in Medinah. When these rulers, in the images of kings and royal highnesses came, they moved it from Medinah to Damascus, and then from Damascus to Baghdad and then, from there-on it made its rounds- never to return to Makkah, because as rulers, they were never interested in what Allahs Prophet was trying to do. Since that time, take a look at the world around us- who's interested in having Makkah the decision making capital and the decision making city!? Because we never learn. These revolts continued and they still continue until this very day. We don't have enough accurate understanding of the Qur'an and the Prophet to regroup this effort and consolidate it to turn this historical page of despotism, oppression, deviation and resume the straight forward course, As-Siraat Al-Mustaqim.
Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…
As we scrutinize these events/issues that have been buried under a tonnage of
ignorance or that have been side-tracked by a fury of emotionalism, we begin to
realize that we ourselves have, especially in the past, fallen into two categories or descriptions of people that do not belong to us. Those of us who have made a rallying cry around the book of Allah or the revealed words of Allah have fallen into nationalism that began in those days. If you are a student of the Prophet and you are committed to Allah, you can love Allahs book, read Allahs words, memorize Allahs ayaat and understand Allahs Surahs without being a nationalist- do you hear that?! Then, the others who have fallen into sectarianism by saying that they love Allahs Prophet, his family, offspring and progeny- you can do that without being sectarian and eccentric about it. Why have we suffered a history in which nationalism took us in one direction, deviating from As-Siraat Al-Mustaqim and sectarianism took us in another direction, deviating from As-Siraat Al-Mustaqim. These are not mutually exclusive- you'll find elements of sectarianism on the opposite side and elements of nationalism on the other opposite side. Why can't we be the committed Muslims described by Allahs words?
Indeed, committed Muslims are brethren of each other (Surah Al-Ambiyaa verse
92)
Where is this in real life? You go into these temples of worship- take your
pick- if you are in the mould of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, you can sense
either nationalism or sectarianism or both of them in these types of Masaajid.
Imam Zaid (as) had a statement that he said "Muslims are not brothers when they accuse each other and when they kill each other." We are not brothers when we point fingers of accusation at our ownselves. Those who are in power are not from
within our ownselves. They have broken away from us, but look at our ownselves
at this level- we're supposed to be together, but look at how they divide us
and then they turn around and say that we are the ones that are dividing the
Muslims! We don't divide anyone when we are with Allah- understanding His book
is inclusive and understanding His Prophet is also inclusive.
With Allahs assistance; understanding His disclosed word and learning from
His Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), we will press on with uncovering and
reconstructing facts that have been damaged by time and distorted by worldly
powers. You are aware that in this sequence of khutbahs, we have been trying
our best to highlight the issue of Islamic legitimate opposition and dissent.
There is a vocabulary in the Qur'an to which these events belong. The ayaat in
the Qur'an that have the words qiyaam, khuruj, jihad, qitaal and their
derivatives are eye-openers concerning Ad-Dhalimun, yadhlimun and Alladhina
Dhalamu- all of these ayaat, and we are speaking about dozens of ayaat in the
Qur'an if not hundreds of them that catch the flavor of Islamic legitimate
political and military opposition to illegitimate rulers and autocratic
monarchs. It is in this context and with these scores of ayaat pertaining to
Ad-Dhalimin and the responsibility of jihad that we try to present the
facts that have been run down and run away from out common thoughts. Along
this historical path that was 1st blazen by Allahs Prophet, we pick up another
chapter of this glorious but un-mentioned history.
Today, we pick up around the year 122 after the hijrah, when there was an
active and a death defying opposition to the Umawi dynastic rulers. We spoke
previously about a trend and a movement known as Al-Khawarij; the last time we
spoke about Al-Imam Al-Husein (radi Allahu anhu) and Karbala and we spoke about
other brave and selfless movements and personalities. We add on to them the courageous opposition to the Umawi deviation of governance that was represented by Al-Imam Zaid (as) ibn Ali ibn Husein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). For those of us whose memories are not very clear on who Imam Zaid (as) is- he is the grandson of Al-Imam Al-Husein (as)- Imam Zaid (as) the son of Ali the son of Husein the son of Ali (as). Imam Zaid (as) also happened to be geographically located in the Southern part of Iraq when he began to consolidate an underground movement against the Umawi kingdom. This is something Muslims need to think about with all the juices in their minds- when Imam Zaid (as), just like Husein and Ali were operating in that particular area of the world, within that particular population, the sympathy and identification of these people with these leaders on the surface was very solid. There were thousands and tens of thousands of people who said "We will support you. Our swords are with you. You have tens of thousands of fighters on your side." These were the continuous messages that these people received from the people within the population. Imam Zaid (as), with the experience of his grandfather and his great grandfather began to put together a military force that would fight against the military force that this dynasty represented whatever the consequences were going to be. Even when Muslims of today review this literature, they disconnect from the fervency of this issue because this was an opposition that was willing to go the full length even if that meant perishing for the course. Its easy for academic or theoretical Muslims to take an issue like this and then reproduce it in its historical chronology- that's one thing, but to assimilate the lessons of this and to gain the fervency of this lesson is something else- and that doesn't come easily to todays Muslims because of the mental barriers and physical obstacles that are placed in the way of reproducing that spirit in todays Muslims.
What do we have? We have Imam Zaid (as) dealing with the same people that were sending him messages telling him that "We are with you. You have 12,000 or 15,000 warriors at your command." But then, when he began putting together this
opposition force. The bai'ah that was given to him can be summarized in the
following.Muslims who were ready to go with Imam Zaid (as) into this military stand against the Umawi dynasty said "We will abide by the book of Allah and the
Sunnah of His Messenger; we will be responsible for a jihad against
Ad-Dhalimin; we will be responsible for supporting Al-Mustadafin; we will
provide for Al-Mahrumin, those who are denied; we will se to it that the
revenue of the Islamic treasury is evenly distributed among the Muslims and we
will support the position of the Ahl Al-Bayt opposition." Remember- at that
time, Ahl Al-Bayt- those who opposed them, beginning with Ali- from the
manabir, was a curse word in the circles of officialdom or the public
governmental sponsorship.This (bai'ah) was the type of initiation of those who were on the side of Imam Zaid (as) were expressing when they entered into this mithaaq or covenant of responsibility with Imam Zaid (as).
During this time, there were many scholars, Muhaddithin, Ulema,and Fuqaha who
were supportive of Imam Zaid (as). For those of us who don't know much about this uprising against the Umawis at that time- Imam Zaid (as), or what later became known as Az-Imam Zaidiyah is identified very closely and they are almost synonymous with Al-Mu'tazilah. On the major issues of Usul Ad-Din, they are counterparts of each other. They agreed on so many things that- on the issues of Adl, At-Tawheed, As-Sifaat, Al-Wa'd, Al-Wa'id- (all of these issues at that time that were part of the scholarly atmosphere)- that it is very difficult to
distinguish between these two contexts. Az-Imam Zaid iyah and Al-Mu'tazilah were almost synonymous, so obviously Waasal ibn Ata' and Ubaid ibn Amr, who are the main figures of the Mu'tazilah were almost the natural supporters of Imam Zaid (as), but is not very much known, and this is what is kept out of our attention area is that Al-Imam Abu Hanifa gave his bai'ah to Imam Zaid (as). In addition to that, he contributed 10,000 dirhams in support of the force that Imam Zaid (as) had, and Abu Hanifas words, he described "the revolt of Imam Zaid (as) against the Umawis as similar to the military campaign of Rasulillah at Badr." This is an established historical fact. We're not being sectarian or partial in presenting this
information in the course of these khutbahs, we try as much as possible to
present the information that is common knowledge across the Islamic spectrum.
Now, if this is one of the pieces of information that is common knowledge
across the Islamic madhhabi spectrum, then why is it that the average Muslim
does not know this as a matter of fact? Once again- because the average Muslim
has been drained mentally throughout these years to omit this type of vital
information from his or her thinking mind. With all of this support, Imam Zaid (as) is approaching the zero hour, the point of military contact with the usurpers of
legitimate power. What happened in this Kufi atmosphere is once again
another tragedy that we Muslims having all of this time to learn from it have
not done so. What happens is the nobility or the noblemen of Al-Kufa gave Imam Zaid (as) guarantees that they will support him with their finances, numbers, they even told him that there is "100,000 who will be on your side." Part of this is the guilt that they felt for the way they treated Ali and Husein. Also, in those two
episodes, they said "We will support you. There are tens of thousands of people
on your side." But, when the time came, there was no-one around. So, being
followed by these feelings of guilt, here they are once again, expressing to
Imam Zaid (as) that "we will be on your side". Governments, just as they are everywhere- they have a way of picking up inside information. The Umawi regime at that time had its informers inside Kufa and they knew that Imam Zaid (as) was planning to clash with them on a certain day, so they accelerated that time by a week. In other words, they wanted this clash to happen one week before Imam Zaid (as) had planned this confrontation to take place. In addition to Al-Kufa, he hadcommuniqués of support from the rest of the areas. Al-Hejaz was on his side,
Al-Madaa'in, Al-Basrah, Al-Mosul, Ar-Rai, Khurasan- all of these areas were
communicating to him that "we are in support of you". But obviously these are
far away areas and when the clash occurs, it is going to be in Al-Kufa. He was
physically in Al-Kufa with the internal support of the people of Southern Iraq
and the extended support from the outlying areas all around. He was also
advised, just like his predecessors were advised, "Don't rely on these people."
But he said to them in the spirit of the Qur'an and the Prophet "That the
excesses and the injustices of Bani Umayah have become so much that we cannot
stop here any longer." So, at that time, when the real issue was that you had
12,000 Umawi troops or soldiers under arms in Kufa preempting the date for
which all of this is planned, he looks around and says "How many do we have?"
He counts the people around him and he finds that there are only 218. Remember, from all of these assurances that he was given- in the
tens of thousands- but when the swords were drawn, there was only 218
individuals with him. Still, we have not managed to learn from this. This is a
social law of sorts. You get all of these well wishes and expressions of
support from your sympathizers and so called supporters, and then when the time
comes, Imam Zaid (as) said, these are his words, "Where is everyone?!" There's no one around.
That 1st day, the followers of Imam Zaid (as) fought gallantly and they had the upper hand during that 1st day. Before we get to the 2nd and 3rd days of this,
because its a three day battle, it is necessary also to understand the
wise/uniting type of idea that Imam Zaid (as) managed to defeat Umawi propaganda, because the Umawi rulers were thriving on the divisions among the Muslims. One of the dividing and separating issues that still exists concerns the successors to Allahs Prophet- Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (radi Allahu anhum). One side said that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman usurped the right of Ali and the other side countered that with their own argument that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman at that time, deserved to be in those positions more than Ali, and this issue went way down from that time to the simple or average people everywhere and because of this schism, the Umawis felt comfortable. They could play sides against each other even though they were facing popular agitation and revolts. The revolts that were to come after Imam Zaid (as) that were along the course
of Imam Zaid (as) were 24 revolts, not to speak about the Khawarij and others. In the middle of this schismatic division, Imam Zaid (as) came and said "Imam Ali was more qualified to be the 1st leader of the Muslims after the Prophet, but because leading the Muslims is contingent upon the consensus of the Muslims, and being that the Muslims expressed a consensus towards Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, then what's the problem?! All Muslims together should not have any problem." That idea is that is at least 1,300 years ahead of its time is still not studied and understood by todays Muslims. He tried, having support, at least from
Al-Mu'tazilah and what is called Ahl As-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaa'h at the time and
from the followers of Ahl Al-Bayt according to a revolutionary course, because
here's the other problem the Imam Zaid (as) had to deal with..
.Remember, Imam Zaid (as) is Imam Baqirs (as) half brother, who's the uncle of Imam Jaafar As-Sadiq (as). Imam Zaid (as) would not condemn Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, so now he had an issue with the Kufi supporters. They were divided,
as they still are today, within three categories...one of them that says "Abu
Bakr, Umar and Uthman were usurpers of power", and then others said that "they
were Faasiqin" and yet others said, these are the extremists, that "they are
kaafir". We still have this today- look brothers and sisters, Muslims- we still
haven't learned. Whichever experience our forefathers gave us then, after all
of this time, we still haven't learned from it. These Kufi supporter came to Imam Zaid (as) and said "No! We will not support you if you don't condemn Abu
Bakr, Umar and Uthman." He would not condemn them, because he knew, as we
should today, the difference between a form of governance called Al-Khilafah
and a form of governance called Al-Mulk. So, because he didn't condemn them,
they said "we're not going to support you." So, here he was in the atmosphere of Kufa. On the 2nd day, he was joined by about 300 other warriors, so from 218, there was about 500 on his side. The way the battle was unfolding, it was to the benefit of these who were in the opposition. On the 3rd day, which happened to be a Friday, the Umawi forces brought in their sentry or in todays language, their sharp shooters with their arrows. Imam Zaid (as), was told "You have on your side thousands of people, but they are holed up in a Masjid". He said, "That's not an excuse. For those who gave us bai'ah in their thousands to say that they are locked up in a Masjid is not an excuse". So, he went to try to break this hold of the Umawis in the main Masjid in Al-Kufa in which there were thousands, at least, of his verbal supporters. When that siege was broken, these supporters would not come out to fight on his side. Then, what happens is one of these sharp shooters lodges an arrow in the left side of Imam Zaid (as)s forehead. This was at the end of the day,when night had fallen. So, his supporters say, "What are we going to do now?" Among his supporters, there were different opinions and they took him out from that Masjid area to a residence of one of his supporters, and they brought a
person, in todays language, a physician to look at it. This physician said that
"If the arrow is going to be taken out of your skull, you are going to die." He
said that "Dying is better than the state that I am in now." They tried to take
the arrow out, which they did and he died- he became a Shaheed. Now, what are
they going to do with his body, because if the word gets around that Imam Zaid (as) is dead, then that is going to cause a public reaction in which the Kufis are once again going to feel that they didn't support the person that they said they
were going to support and some of their hypocritical nature is going to appear.
Remember, it should be recalled that during this time, the Umawi ruler, his name is Hishaam ibn Abdul Malik, was communicating with the noble people or the upper classes of Kufa and telling them about finances, trade, profits and all of this worldly talk we hear around us today. Anyway, the followers of Imam Zaid (as) decided to take his body and bury it in a certain place and have a stream of water run over it so that no-one will know where he is buried. As fate would have it, there was a person who saw all of this happening and he conveyed all the information to the authorities. Listen to this brothers and sisters, we try as much as possible to bring you the type of information that is not tainted by extremism or emotionalism- they came and they dug him out of his grave and then they put him on a cross and he stayed on this cross for years until his son Yahya began a revolt against the following ruler that came after Hishaam ibn Abdul Malik, Waleed ibn Yazid. During this revolt, this Umawi ruler says, imagine after about four years of a body being placed in public- this is one of the reasons
why many Muslims don't want to bring up this issue, because it will cause our
emotionalism to take over and not our rationalism or our minds... We are
talking to you with the confidence that our mind can take over and we can take
a look at this with straight thoughts out of the Qur'an and out of the Prophets
Sunnah. They put a person like that, the great-great-grandson of Allahs Prophet
for four years on a crucifix and then when they were fed up of his son who was
also revolting against the Umawi kingdom in Arabia you say "bring his body
down, we're going to burn it". They brought his body down and at that time, it
was exposed, there was no clothes on his body- whoever you are, tell as that
that type of government is an Islamic government?! If you hear these words,
tell us that that government that does such a thing is a khilafah on the model
of Allahs Prophets rule! Brutalities are involved in this history- Imam Zaid (as) had women supporters- one of these women is known in Islamic history as Umm Khalid, the government of the time brought her out and cut her
arm off to try to sow fear into the hearts of the you and me Muslims. They
brought down that body and they torched or burnt it and they threw the ashes
into the Euphrates river. This regime is the same one that came to Medinah
under Muslim ibn Uqbah, the Umawi commander who came to Al-Medinah and laid it to waste in three days. He desecrated the Masaajid; the troops killed numerous
innocent people; they physically and sexually abused Muslim women. Remember,
Medinah is a place where Allahs Prophets 1st success was expressed. They didn't
have enough decency in them to lay their hands off of that place and even now,
we don't have the rational courage to look at what they did. For any one who
studies and understands closely Allahs Prophets struggle was to have the
Islamic capital in Makkah. He was not able to do that because of the population
in Makkah and its resistance towards him for 23 years almost. So, he kept it in Medinah. When these rulers, in the images of kings and royal highnesses came, they moved it from Medinah to Damascus, and then from Damascus to Baghdad and then, from there-on it made its rounds- never to return to Makkah, because as rulers, they were never interested in what Allahs Prophet was trying to do. Since that time, take a look at the world around us- who's interested in having Makkah the decision making capital and the decision making city!? Because we never learn. These revolts continued and they still continue until this very day. We don't have enough accurate understanding of the Qur'an and the Prophet to regroup this effort and consolidate it to turn this historical page of despotism, oppression, deviation and resume the straight forward course, As-Siraat Al-Mustaqim.
Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…
As we scrutinize these events/issues that have been buried under a tonnage of
ignorance or that have been side-tracked by a fury of emotionalism, we begin to
realize that we ourselves have, especially in the past, fallen into two categories or descriptions of people that do not belong to us. Those of us who have made a rallying cry around the book of Allah or the revealed words of Allah have fallen into nationalism that began in those days. If you are a student of the Prophet and you are committed to Allah, you can love Allahs book, read Allahs words, memorize Allahs ayaat and understand Allahs Surahs without being a nationalist- do you hear that?! Then, the others who have fallen into sectarianism by saying that they love Allahs Prophet, his family, offspring and progeny- you can do that without being sectarian and eccentric about it. Why have we suffered a history in which nationalism took us in one direction, deviating from As-Siraat Al-Mustaqim and sectarianism took us in another direction, deviating from As-Siraat Al-Mustaqim. These are not mutually exclusive- you'll find elements of sectarianism on the opposite side and elements of nationalism on the other opposite side. Why can't we be the committed Muslims described by Allahs words?
Indeed, committed Muslims are brethren of each other (Surah Al-Ambiyaa verse
92)
Where is this in real life? You go into these temples of worship- take your
pick- if you are in the mould of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, you can sense
either nationalism or sectarianism or both of them in these types of Masaajid.
Imam Zaid (as) had a statement that he said "Muslims are not brothers when they accuse each other and when they kill each other." We are not brothers when we point fingers of accusation at our ownselves. Those who are in power are not from
within our ownselves. They have broken away from us, but look at our ownselves
at this level- we're supposed to be together, but look at how they divide us
and then they turn around and say that we are the ones that are dividing the
Muslims! We don't divide anyone when we are with Allah- understanding His book
is inclusive and understanding His Prophet is also inclusive.