Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn, Or Zaid The Martyr

Ahlul Sunnat say that Zaid claimed Imamate and fought in the opposition of the Imam. Thus, according to the principles of Imamite faith, why he is not deserving of criticism? Apparently, it seems that Shias praise him, because he is a son of an Imam and is from the Sadaat. Then why do Shias blame the three Caliphs? They were also relatives of the Prophet. They are companions and emigrants too.

The reply to this is that the chain of the Imamate of Zaid the martyr, is not proved from any traditional report. According to reports of both the sects, it is learnt that he had a good faith. He took up Jihad to take the revenge of the blood of Husayn (a.s.) and to destroy the mischief of the enemies. It was same as the mission of Ibrahim and Mukhtar. This was not an illegal act. And neither Imam Muhammad Baqir nor Imam Sadiq (a.s.) had prohibited such a fight. Thus, he cannot be blamed for that. Which devotee of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) would not desire to revenge the blood of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?

What can be said of Zaid who was seeking the revenge for his own grandfather? Books say that Zaid fought the war by the permission of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq (a.s.) and they did not express any sort of disapproval. If they had not approved, they would not have expressed such sorrow and anguish on the killing of Zaid. The two Imams have always prayed for the well-being of Zaid. In the end, the writer wishes to state that the matter of Zaid has no connection with the matter of the three Caliphs. The above objection of Ahlul Sunnat is not worth countering.