Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
One of the most perplexing scenarios to non-Muslims and new Muslims alike is the division they may see between Shiites and Sunni Muslims. Some tend to become confused when they see that each group claims to be following the true Islam.
Many times, people see this division to be a major one, while the fact remains that Shiites only make up a mere 8 percent of the Muslim population, reaching even this figure after taking hold of certain important political regions in history. Not a division, one can confidently say that the Shiites are but one of the various splinter groups which left the pure teachings of traditional Islam. Sunnis, on the other hand, are not a splinter group, but merely name themselves as such to differentiate themselves from the Shiites and other deviant sects.
Many times, people see this division to be a major one, while the fact remains that Shiites only make up a mere 8 percent of the Muslim population, reaching even this figure after taking hold of certain important political regions in history. Not a division, one can confidently say that the Shiites are but one of the various splinter groups which left the pure teachings of traditional Islam. Sunnis, on the other hand, are not a splinter group, but merely name themselves as such to differentiate themselves from the Shiites and other deviant sects.
Shia's Peril
Many Muslims view it is very difficult and confusing to adopt a certain attitude towards Shiites. Difficulty is actually due to many reasons.
Lack of information is one of such reasons. In fact, Shia as for many Muslims is something ambiguous. They know neither their entity nor their origin. Moreover, they neither have a historical look at their past nor can expect their future. Consequently, a good number of Muslims thinks that Shia is no more than an Islamic school of thought and thus similar to Shafi'i, Maliki or other Schools of thought. Thus thinking, they do not grasp the fact that difference between Sunnis and Shiites does not relate only to subsidiary matters but also to some fundamentals as well.
The fact that many Muslims are not realistic or practical is another reason for difficulty. Actually, some Muslims have unsubstantiated rosy dreams. Thinking they are reasonable, they think there is no reason for conflict and wonder why do not we sit together overlooking our disputes, a Sunni shaking hands with a Shiite and take one way since both parties believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day. It seems they forgot it is a far more complicated issue. For example, we judge to be a disbeliever a person who, although believing in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day, deems drinking wine and adultery lawful. Deeming them lawful means denying their being prohibited by the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we apply the same criterion here, we will find out that the issue of Shia is so dangerous that it requires Shari'ah (Islamic Law) scholars to adopt decisive situations as far as the Islamic ruling on enormous Shiite Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) is concerned. Another reason leading to difficulty is multiplicity of deep wounds that hit many Muslim countries and multiplicity of enemies such as Jews, Crusaders, Communists, Hindus and others. In this regard, some of those claiming to be reasonable view that we should not open a new bloc for conflict.
This might be true in case we are trying to open such a bloc when it is already closed. However, being wide-open and of constant harm, ignoring it is a vice. Furthermore, it is useless to pose the repeatedly asked question: Who is more dangerous, Jews or Shiites? In fact, asking such a question aims at squelching those who try to awaken the Ummah and to put in awkward situation those who strive to protect and safeguard the Ummah. In refutation of such an argument, I say that there is no problem to face two contingent perils at a time. I would like also to ask them: Is it Sunnis who search for a justification to attack Shiites? I think the actual fact substantiated by bulk of evidence tells us that it is Shiites who harm Sunnis.
In the two previous articles, Origins of Shia and Shia's Dominance, I gave an outline of the Shia history. Through these articles, we could see tremendous aggressions committed by Shiites against the Muslim Ummah. However, I do not think that our present fact differs from the past. Rather, I certify that history repeats itself and that sons have inherited fathers' and grandfathers' rancor. Besides, no good is expected from those who claim the Companions generation was corrupt except for a very few number of them, which stands for explicitly belying the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), «The best people are those living in my generation» This Hadith (Prophetic tradition) is related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim as well as other compilations of authentic Hadith.
Undoubtedly, present Shias truth -just as their truth in the past- is very heinous.
Let us revise important matters to help us have a clearer vision and thus help us understand the ideal attitude we should adopt toward Shiites in order to know which is better, speaking or remaining silent.
First: Everyone knows the Shias attitude toward the Prophet' Companions ranging from Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (the very truthful), `Umar Al-Faruq (one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood) and `Uthman Dhon-Norain (one who married two of the Prophet's daughters) to mothers of the believers, headed by `A'ishah the mother of the believers and ending with the whole great generation. Actually, Shias books and references, as well as even their creed and belief essentials, claim that this generation as a whole is profligate or even disbeliever and that the majority of which has gone astray and accuse them of hiding and interpolating the religion.
Regarding this, should we observe and remain silent in order to avoid Fitnah (disorder) as they calim?
I wonder what Fitnah can be more than accusing this generation of corruption and lying!
I would like that you try to comprehend the following statement said be the reverend Companion Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with both of them), «When later generations of this Ummah curse earlier generations, let those who have knowledge unfold it, for one who conceals such knowledge is as if concealing what is revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him)» [The Hadith as reported in a Marfu' (traceable back to the Prophet) form is Da'if (unreliable). However, it is more authentically reported to be the words of Jabir bin Abdullah the Prophet's Companion].
Could you comprehend what depth this statement has?
Actually, defaming the Companion's generation does not stand for merely defaming some people who have passed away and thus, as claimed by some people, will not be harmed by such defamation being in Paradise in defiance of Shiites. More seriously, defaming Companions actually implies direct accusation of the authenticity of the whole religion. In fact, we received this religion through only Companions. Therefore, if doubt is cast on their morals, intentions and actions, how should we then follow this religion? Given this, the religion will be lost and the Prophet's Hadith and orders will be of no authority. On the contrary, we ask Shiites, what Qur'an do you recite? Is not it the Companions in mass, whom you defame, who transmitted the Qur'an?, Is not it Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), whom you claim to have assumed caliphate through fraud, who collected the Qur'an? Based on your claims, why did not he interpolate the Qur'an if it is true that he interpolated the Sunnah?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, «Follow my Sunnah (manner of conduct) as well as that of my rightly-guided Caliphs» [Related by Al-Tirmidhi, Book on Knowledge Taken from Allah's Messenger (2676), Ibn majah (42) and Ahmad (17184)], Thus, the Sunnah of the four rightly-guided Caliphs is an indispensable part of the religion of Islam. Moreover, rulings and decisions issued by Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman and `Ali are binding for all Muslims everywhere and at any time till the Day of Judgment. How can then defaming them be acceptable?
To this effect, our great scholars would tremble on hearing someone affronting the Prophet's Companions. For example, Ahmed bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) would say, "If you hear someone saying bad words about the Prophet's Companions, know that his being a Muslim is an object of doubt." Moreover, Judge Abu Ya`la said, "Scholars are unanimous on judging one who insults Companions while deeming it permissible to be a disbeliever and one who does so while not deeming it permissible to be a profligate."
To the same effect, Abu Zar`ah Al-Razy said, "If you see someone underestimating the Prophet's Companions, know that he is a heretic."
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah said, "One who claims that all Companions - except for a few number not exceeding twenty - forsook Islam after the Prophet's death is undoubtedly disbeliever."
Actually, such strict judgments regarding those who underestimate Companions is justified by the fact that it is Companions who transmitted the religion to us. Accordingly, underestimating them implies casting doubts on the religion itself. In addition, this great generation was praised in innumerable occurrences in Qur'anic verses and Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, defaming them indicates belying Allah and His Messenger.
Some people might argue that we did never hears so-and-so - a Shiite - insulting Companions. I would like to draw the attention of such people to three points:
The first point: The main point of Imamiyyah (a Shiite sect believing in the twelve Imams descending from `Ali) is that Companions conspired against `Ali bin Abu Talib, all the Prophet's Household and the Imams they believe in. Therefore, all adherents of Imamiyyah (found in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon) believe in the corruption of Companions. Should they admit the goodness of Companions, the Shiite main idea would be refuted. Therefore, it is acknowledged that all Shiites, were they leaders or followers, do neither respect or show reverence to Companions nor learn religion from them in the least.
The second point: Shiite leaders are always illusive in situations where their dislike of Companions is disclosed, although it is apparent in some of their expressions or situations as stated by Allah (may He be Exalted), "but surely you will know them by the tone of their speech" [Muhammad: 30], Transliteration: Wa Lata`rifannahum Fī Laĥni Al-Qawli, {وَلَتَعْرِفَنَّهُمْ فِي لَحْنِ الْقَوْلِ}. In this regard, we perhaps watched the debate held between Dr. Al-Qaradawi (may Allah safeguard him) and Rafsanjani on Al-Jazeera TV.
We could see how Rafsanjani was illusive regarding attempts made by Dr. Al-Qaradawi to make him say something good about Companions or Mothers of the believers. By the same token, Khamenei – the current leader of the Iranian Revolution - gave the following indecisive reply to a question about the ruling on insulting Companions that gave no definite answer regarding permissibility or otherwise, "Any saying leading to sowing discord among Muslims is absolutely impermissible." According to him, insulting Companions is not prohibited on its own, but it is only prohibited on account of its sowing discord among Muslims. This was published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on November 23, 2006.
The third point: A special care should be given to the Taqiyyah creed which constitutes nine-tenths of religion according to them. Tiqiyyah refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. However, when they come to power, they openly disclose it. Throughout the Shia's history we referred to, we could know that when they dominate Sunni countries, such as Abbasid Caliphate in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco and other countries, they would publicly insult Companions considering it one of the essentials of their faith.
Through this point, we come to the conclusion that it is necessary to speak in order to clarify the truth regarding honorable Companions, for indeed refraining from telling' the truth is satanic. Moreover, keeping silent will result in loss of religion itself.
Second: Danger of the spread of Shiite faith in the Muslim world. Undoubtedly, propagating the Shiite faith is making its way rapidly throughout the Muslim world. It is extending beyond the borders of countries where it used to be such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Rather, it is now spreading on a wide range in Bahrain, UAE, Syria, Jordan, KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. More dangerously, many people have held the Shiite ideas and principles while thinking they are not Shiites. To this effect, after our articles in this regard have been published, we received a great bulk of messages whose senders claim to be Sunnis while their messages are overflowing with Shiite ideas and methodologies. We all know about fierce campaigns launched against Companions in newspapers and satellite channels in Sunni countries. Most famous are the campaign launched recently by an Egyptian newspaper against `A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the campaign launched by another newspaper against Al-Bukhari (may Allah show mercy to him) and satellite programs presented by a famous journalist defaming Companions in all episodes.
What adds to the difficulty of the situation and the improbability of remaining silent thereon is the close relationship between Shiite and Sufi methodologies on the pretext that both of them love the Prophet's Household. As we know, Sufism is widespread in many Muslim countries when it is famous for committing many Bid'ahs and abhorred sins and shares Shia in that both sanctify the graves of the Prophet's Household. As a result, Shiism is expected to spread so long as Sufi sects are widespread in Muslim countries.
Third: The situation in Iraq is very dangerous.
It became a usual scene that Sunni Muslims are killed after glancing at their identity cards. Scholar Harith Al-Dary, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, stated that more than 100000 Sunnis were killed by Shiites from 2003 to 2006 only. This is in addition to constant displacements of Sunnis so that Shiites might easily have authority in such regions. Furthermore, most of those displaced outside Iraq are Sunnis, which might lead to serious change of the population structure which will result in evil consequences. The question that arises is: Is the Fitnah resulting from discussing the issue of Shia more dangerous than that of killing such a great number of Sunnis? Till when should we remain silent in this regard, when everyone knows that Iran fully supports killing Sunnis according to identity cards?
Fourth: Iran has its clear, or even explicitly publicized, coveted objects in Iraq. Previously, there was an eight-year-old war between the two countries. However, their way to it is now paved, bearing in mind that Iraq represents an ultimate Shiite religious importance. In Iraq there are the holy shrines and the graves of six Shiite Imams, including the grave of `Ali bin Abu Talib in Najaf, the grave of Al-Hussein in Karbala, the grave of Musa Al-Kazim and that of Muhammad Al-Jawad in Kazimiya, and the grave of Muhammad Al-Hadi and that of AL-Hassan Al-`Askary in Samarra. This is in addition to false graves of such prophets as Adam, Noah, Hud and Salih – all located in Najaf – whose names are well-known to be falsely attributed them.
Moreover, the dangers of Iran's ambitions in Iraq is reinforced by the fact that US backs and supports such ambitions. We can all see the American-backed and sponsored Shiite government. Furthermore, reciprocal unreal accusations between the US and Iran should make no sense. Actually, USA never thinks of launching war against Iran – refer to our article "A demon under control". However, worrying is not only ambitions in Iraq's oil or wealth, or even the expansion of Shiite-dominated land, but also the fact that brutality and criminality is part and parcel of their belief in religion. They consider Companions and other Sunni Muslims who followed them to have showed enmity to the Prophet's Household. They, therefore, call us Nawasib (understood by the Shiite to mean those who declared hostility against the Household of the Prophet), although we show more respect to the Prophet's Household than them. Based on accusing us as such, they issue very dangerous judgments. For Example, Khomeini said, "It is strongly substantiated to apply the same rulings of Ahlul-Harb (people otherwise at war with Muslims) to Nawasib. This means that it will be lawful to take booties from them and divide one-fifth of it among warriors. It is even strongly substantiated that it is lawful to take up their property wherever they may be and with any how. In such a case, one-fifth is to be singled out." Asked about the ruling on one who denies the Imamate of the twelve Imams, the Shiite Imam Muhammad Sadiq Al-Rawhani said the following amazing statement, "Imamate is higher in rank than prophethood. Moreover, perfecting the religion took place through appointing Imam `Ali (peace be upon him) as the Commander of the Faithful. In this regard, Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor on you" [Al-Ma'idah 3], Transliteration: Al-Yawma 'Akmaltu Lakum Dīnakum, {الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ}. Accordingly, he who does not believe in the Imamate of the twelve Imams dies as a disbeliever."
In the article (Origins of Shia), we stated that Khomeini in his book "Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Government)" stated that Imams offer much Prayers to a degree never reached by a high-ranked angel or a prophet and thus disbelieving in them is more harmful than disbelieving in the Prophet (peace be upon him). I think this notion explains their judging others to be disbelievers, which results in deeming killing Sunnis in Iraq and everywhere to be lawful. Moreover, in this context we can understand also the inevitability of holding sway over Iraq for the Shiite sanctuaries there that is dominated by those whom they judge to be disbelievers.
Fifth: Their direct threat is not limited to Iraq only.
Rather, their ambitions extends to all the countries of the region. They consider Bahrain to be a part of Iran, which is explicitly stated by Ali Akbar Natiq Nouri, the head of the investigation section, in the Revolution leader's office while celebrating the Iranian Revolution thirtieth anniversary. He said, "Bahrain was in the past the 14th governorate of Iran and was represented by an MP in the Iranian National Consultative Assembly." Besides, it is well-known that Iran occupies three important UAE islands in the Arabian Gulf.
Moreover,they are growing so largely in number in the UEA that they now constitute 15% of the whole population. In addition, they control trade centers especially in Dubai.
The situation in KSA is also not stable. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, turmoil took place frequently in KSA. It even took place immediately after the Iranian Revolution. At that time, Shiite demonstrations were organized in Al-Qatif and Saihat, the severest of which took place on November 19, 1979. The situation got worse to the extent that they demonstrated in and tried to destroy Allah's Sacred House, which happened during Hajj seasons in 1987 and 1989. Furthermore, 450 Shiite personalities submitted a request to the crown prince at that time Prince Abdullah to assume supreme positions in the Cabinet, diplomatic corps, military and security systems and to raise their representation ratio in the Shoura Council.
In the same regard, Ali Shamkhani, the top military counselor of the Supreme Guide of the Iranian Revolution, stated that in case USA strikes Iran's nuclear institutions, Iran will not strike only US interests in the Gulf, but will also use ballistic missiles to hit strategic targets in the Gulf as well as oil pumps and energy stations in the Arabian Gulf.
This statement was published by the British Times on Sunday June 10, 2007.
Is this everything?
No, there are much more things of which we gave no mention.
In this article, we have so far discussed only five points highlighting the danger and importance of the issue of Shia. However, there remains other very important five points which I prefer not to discuss them here in brief so that I may give them their due detail. Therefore, I will put them off – if Allah wills – till the next article, after which I will speak about the ideal way to deal with such serious circumstances.
Undoubtedly, the issue of Shi`ah is not that marginal issue within the story of Islam that is to be neglected or postponed. Rather, it is one of the priorities of the Muslim Ummah. Everyone could perceive that Palestine's liberation by Salahud-Din followed only from saving Egypt from the `Abidy Shiite reign. At that time, Salahud-Din did not suppose that war against crusaders should be given priority over discussing the Shiite rule in Egypt. This is because Muslims gain victory only when they have a sound creed and sincere soldiers. Actually, Salahud-Din would never use the Egyptian people to fight with him such a fatal battle unless he relieved them of the `Abidy innovative rule. The same should apply to the Iraqi case now, as well as all countries threatened by Shiites. In fact, we have to take lessons from history.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Dr. Ragheb ElSergany
islamstory website
Lack of information is one of such reasons. In fact, Shia as for many Muslims is something ambiguous. They know neither their entity nor their origin. Moreover, they neither have a historical look at their past nor can expect their future. Consequently, a good number of Muslims thinks that Shia is no more than an Islamic school of thought and thus similar to Shafi'i, Maliki or other Schools of thought. Thus thinking, they do not grasp the fact that difference between Sunnis and Shiites does not relate only to subsidiary matters but also to some fundamentals as well.
The fact that many Muslims are not realistic or practical is another reason for difficulty. Actually, some Muslims have unsubstantiated rosy dreams. Thinking they are reasonable, they think there is no reason for conflict and wonder why do not we sit together overlooking our disputes, a Sunni shaking hands with a Shiite and take one way since both parties believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day. It seems they forgot it is a far more complicated issue. For example, we judge to be a disbeliever a person who, although believing in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day, deems drinking wine and adultery lawful. Deeming them lawful means denying their being prohibited by the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we apply the same criterion here, we will find out that the issue of Shia is so dangerous that it requires Shari'ah (Islamic Law) scholars to adopt decisive situations as far as the Islamic ruling on enormous Shiite Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) is concerned. Another reason leading to difficulty is multiplicity of deep wounds that hit many Muslim countries and multiplicity of enemies such as Jews, Crusaders, Communists, Hindus and others. In this regard, some of those claiming to be reasonable view that we should not open a new bloc for conflict.
This might be true in case we are trying to open such a bloc when it is already closed. However, being wide-open and of constant harm, ignoring it is a vice. Furthermore, it is useless to pose the repeatedly asked question: Who is more dangerous, Jews or Shiites? In fact, asking such a question aims at squelching those who try to awaken the Ummah and to put in awkward situation those who strive to protect and safeguard the Ummah. In refutation of such an argument, I say that there is no problem to face two contingent perils at a time. I would like also to ask them: Is it Sunnis who search for a justification to attack Shiites? I think the actual fact substantiated by bulk of evidence tells us that it is Shiites who harm Sunnis.
In the two previous articles, Origins of Shia and Shia's Dominance, I gave an outline of the Shia history. Through these articles, we could see tremendous aggressions committed by Shiites against the Muslim Ummah. However, I do not think that our present fact differs from the past. Rather, I certify that history repeats itself and that sons have inherited fathers' and grandfathers' rancor. Besides, no good is expected from those who claim the Companions generation was corrupt except for a very few number of them, which stands for explicitly belying the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), «The best people are those living in my generation» This Hadith (Prophetic tradition) is related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim as well as other compilations of authentic Hadith.
Undoubtedly, present Shias truth -just as their truth in the past- is very heinous.
Let us revise important matters to help us have a clearer vision and thus help us understand the ideal attitude we should adopt toward Shiites in order to know which is better, speaking or remaining silent.
First: Everyone knows the Shias attitude toward the Prophet' Companions ranging from Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (the very truthful), `Umar Al-Faruq (one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood) and `Uthman Dhon-Norain (one who married two of the Prophet's daughters) to mothers of the believers, headed by `A'ishah the mother of the believers and ending with the whole great generation. Actually, Shias books and references, as well as even their creed and belief essentials, claim that this generation as a whole is profligate or even disbeliever and that the majority of which has gone astray and accuse them of hiding and interpolating the religion.
Regarding this, should we observe and remain silent in order to avoid Fitnah (disorder) as they calim?
I wonder what Fitnah can be more than accusing this generation of corruption and lying!
I would like that you try to comprehend the following statement said be the reverend Companion Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with both of them), «When later generations of this Ummah curse earlier generations, let those who have knowledge unfold it, for one who conceals such knowledge is as if concealing what is revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him)» [The Hadith as reported in a Marfu' (traceable back to the Prophet) form is Da'if (unreliable). However, it is more authentically reported to be the words of Jabir bin Abdullah the Prophet's Companion].
Could you comprehend what depth this statement has?
Actually, defaming the Companion's generation does not stand for merely defaming some people who have passed away and thus, as claimed by some people, will not be harmed by such defamation being in Paradise in defiance of Shiites. More seriously, defaming Companions actually implies direct accusation of the authenticity of the whole religion. In fact, we received this religion through only Companions. Therefore, if doubt is cast on their morals, intentions and actions, how should we then follow this religion? Given this, the religion will be lost and the Prophet's Hadith and orders will be of no authority. On the contrary, we ask Shiites, what Qur'an do you recite? Is not it the Companions in mass, whom you defame, who transmitted the Qur'an?, Is not it Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), whom you claim to have assumed caliphate through fraud, who collected the Qur'an? Based on your claims, why did not he interpolate the Qur'an if it is true that he interpolated the Sunnah?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, «Follow my Sunnah (manner of conduct) as well as that of my rightly-guided Caliphs» [Related by Al-Tirmidhi, Book on Knowledge Taken from Allah's Messenger (2676), Ibn majah (42) and Ahmad (17184)], Thus, the Sunnah of the four rightly-guided Caliphs is an indispensable part of the religion of Islam. Moreover, rulings and decisions issued by Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman and `Ali are binding for all Muslims everywhere and at any time till the Day of Judgment. How can then defaming them be acceptable?
To this effect, our great scholars would tremble on hearing someone affronting the Prophet's Companions. For example, Ahmed bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) would say, "If you hear someone saying bad words about the Prophet's Companions, know that his being a Muslim is an object of doubt." Moreover, Judge Abu Ya`la said, "Scholars are unanimous on judging one who insults Companions while deeming it permissible to be a disbeliever and one who does so while not deeming it permissible to be a profligate."
To the same effect, Abu Zar`ah Al-Razy said, "If you see someone underestimating the Prophet's Companions, know that he is a heretic."
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah said, "One who claims that all Companions - except for a few number not exceeding twenty - forsook Islam after the Prophet's death is undoubtedly disbeliever."
Actually, such strict judgments regarding those who underestimate Companions is justified by the fact that it is Companions who transmitted the religion to us. Accordingly, underestimating them implies casting doubts on the religion itself. In addition, this great generation was praised in innumerable occurrences in Qur'anic verses and Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, defaming them indicates belying Allah and His Messenger.
Some people might argue that we did never hears so-and-so - a Shiite - insulting Companions. I would like to draw the attention of such people to three points:
The first point: The main point of Imamiyyah (a Shiite sect believing in the twelve Imams descending from `Ali) is that Companions conspired against `Ali bin Abu Talib, all the Prophet's Household and the Imams they believe in. Therefore, all adherents of Imamiyyah (found in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon) believe in the corruption of Companions. Should they admit the goodness of Companions, the Shiite main idea would be refuted. Therefore, it is acknowledged that all Shiites, were they leaders or followers, do neither respect or show reverence to Companions nor learn religion from them in the least.
The second point: Shiite leaders are always illusive in situations where their dislike of Companions is disclosed, although it is apparent in some of their expressions or situations as stated by Allah (may He be Exalted), "but surely you will know them by the tone of their speech" [Muhammad: 30], Transliteration: Wa Lata`rifannahum Fī Laĥni Al-Qawli, {وَلَتَعْرِفَنَّهُمْ فِي لَحْنِ الْقَوْلِ}. In this regard, we perhaps watched the debate held between Dr. Al-Qaradawi (may Allah safeguard him) and Rafsanjani on Al-Jazeera TV.
We could see how Rafsanjani was illusive regarding attempts made by Dr. Al-Qaradawi to make him say something good about Companions or Mothers of the believers. By the same token, Khamenei – the current leader of the Iranian Revolution - gave the following indecisive reply to a question about the ruling on insulting Companions that gave no definite answer regarding permissibility or otherwise, "Any saying leading to sowing discord among Muslims is absolutely impermissible." According to him, insulting Companions is not prohibited on its own, but it is only prohibited on account of its sowing discord among Muslims. This was published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on November 23, 2006.
The third point: A special care should be given to the Taqiyyah creed which constitutes nine-tenths of religion according to them. Tiqiyyah refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. However, when they come to power, they openly disclose it. Throughout the Shia's history we referred to, we could know that when they dominate Sunni countries, such as Abbasid Caliphate in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco and other countries, they would publicly insult Companions considering it one of the essentials of their faith.
Through this point, we come to the conclusion that it is necessary to speak in order to clarify the truth regarding honorable Companions, for indeed refraining from telling' the truth is satanic. Moreover, keeping silent will result in loss of religion itself.
Second: Danger of the spread of Shiite faith in the Muslim world. Undoubtedly, propagating the Shiite faith is making its way rapidly throughout the Muslim world. It is extending beyond the borders of countries where it used to be such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Rather, it is now spreading on a wide range in Bahrain, UAE, Syria, Jordan, KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. More dangerously, many people have held the Shiite ideas and principles while thinking they are not Shiites. To this effect, after our articles in this regard have been published, we received a great bulk of messages whose senders claim to be Sunnis while their messages are overflowing with Shiite ideas and methodologies. We all know about fierce campaigns launched against Companions in newspapers and satellite channels in Sunni countries. Most famous are the campaign launched recently by an Egyptian newspaper against `A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the campaign launched by another newspaper against Al-Bukhari (may Allah show mercy to him) and satellite programs presented by a famous journalist defaming Companions in all episodes.
What adds to the difficulty of the situation and the improbability of remaining silent thereon is the close relationship between Shiite and Sufi methodologies on the pretext that both of them love the Prophet's Household. As we know, Sufism is widespread in many Muslim countries when it is famous for committing many Bid'ahs and abhorred sins and shares Shia in that both sanctify the graves of the Prophet's Household. As a result, Shiism is expected to spread so long as Sufi sects are widespread in Muslim countries.
Third: The situation in Iraq is very dangerous.
It became a usual scene that Sunni Muslims are killed after glancing at their identity cards. Scholar Harith Al-Dary, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, stated that more than 100000 Sunnis were killed by Shiites from 2003 to 2006 only. This is in addition to constant displacements of Sunnis so that Shiites might easily have authority in such regions. Furthermore, most of those displaced outside Iraq are Sunnis, which might lead to serious change of the population structure which will result in evil consequences. The question that arises is: Is the Fitnah resulting from discussing the issue of Shia more dangerous than that of killing such a great number of Sunnis? Till when should we remain silent in this regard, when everyone knows that Iran fully supports killing Sunnis according to identity cards?
Fourth: Iran has its clear, or even explicitly publicized, coveted objects in Iraq. Previously, there was an eight-year-old war between the two countries. However, their way to it is now paved, bearing in mind that Iraq represents an ultimate Shiite religious importance. In Iraq there are the holy shrines and the graves of six Shiite Imams, including the grave of `Ali bin Abu Talib in Najaf, the grave of Al-Hussein in Karbala, the grave of Musa Al-Kazim and that of Muhammad Al-Jawad in Kazimiya, and the grave of Muhammad Al-Hadi and that of AL-Hassan Al-`Askary in Samarra. This is in addition to false graves of such prophets as Adam, Noah, Hud and Salih – all located in Najaf – whose names are well-known to be falsely attributed them.
Moreover, the dangers of Iran's ambitions in Iraq is reinforced by the fact that US backs and supports such ambitions. We can all see the American-backed and sponsored Shiite government. Furthermore, reciprocal unreal accusations between the US and Iran should make no sense. Actually, USA never thinks of launching war against Iran – refer to our article "A demon under control". However, worrying is not only ambitions in Iraq's oil or wealth, or even the expansion of Shiite-dominated land, but also the fact that brutality and criminality is part and parcel of their belief in religion. They consider Companions and other Sunni Muslims who followed them to have showed enmity to the Prophet's Household. They, therefore, call us Nawasib (understood by the Shiite to mean those who declared hostility against the Household of the Prophet), although we show more respect to the Prophet's Household than them. Based on accusing us as such, they issue very dangerous judgments. For Example, Khomeini said, "It is strongly substantiated to apply the same rulings of Ahlul-Harb (people otherwise at war with Muslims) to Nawasib. This means that it will be lawful to take booties from them and divide one-fifth of it among warriors. It is even strongly substantiated that it is lawful to take up their property wherever they may be and with any how. In such a case, one-fifth is to be singled out." Asked about the ruling on one who denies the Imamate of the twelve Imams, the Shiite Imam Muhammad Sadiq Al-Rawhani said the following amazing statement, "Imamate is higher in rank than prophethood. Moreover, perfecting the religion took place through appointing Imam `Ali (peace be upon him) as the Commander of the Faithful. In this regard, Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor on you" [Al-Ma'idah 3], Transliteration: Al-Yawma 'Akmaltu Lakum Dīnakum, {الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ}. Accordingly, he who does not believe in the Imamate of the twelve Imams dies as a disbeliever."
In the article (Origins of Shia), we stated that Khomeini in his book "Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Government)" stated that Imams offer much Prayers to a degree never reached by a high-ranked angel or a prophet and thus disbelieving in them is more harmful than disbelieving in the Prophet (peace be upon him). I think this notion explains their judging others to be disbelievers, which results in deeming killing Sunnis in Iraq and everywhere to be lawful. Moreover, in this context we can understand also the inevitability of holding sway over Iraq for the Shiite sanctuaries there that is dominated by those whom they judge to be disbelievers.
Fifth: Their direct threat is not limited to Iraq only.
Rather, their ambitions extends to all the countries of the region. They consider Bahrain to be a part of Iran, which is explicitly stated by Ali Akbar Natiq Nouri, the head of the investigation section, in the Revolution leader's office while celebrating the Iranian Revolution thirtieth anniversary. He said, "Bahrain was in the past the 14th governorate of Iran and was represented by an MP in the Iranian National Consultative Assembly." Besides, it is well-known that Iran occupies three important UAE islands in the Arabian Gulf.
Moreover,they are growing so largely in number in the UEA that they now constitute 15% of the whole population. In addition, they control trade centers especially in Dubai.
The situation in KSA is also not stable. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, turmoil took place frequently in KSA. It even took place immediately after the Iranian Revolution. At that time, Shiite demonstrations were organized in Al-Qatif and Saihat, the severest of which took place on November 19, 1979. The situation got worse to the extent that they demonstrated in and tried to destroy Allah's Sacred House, which happened during Hajj seasons in 1987 and 1989. Furthermore, 450 Shiite personalities submitted a request to the crown prince at that time Prince Abdullah to assume supreme positions in the Cabinet, diplomatic corps, military and security systems and to raise their representation ratio in the Shoura Council.
In the same regard, Ali Shamkhani, the top military counselor of the Supreme Guide of the Iranian Revolution, stated that in case USA strikes Iran's nuclear institutions, Iran will not strike only US interests in the Gulf, but will also use ballistic missiles to hit strategic targets in the Gulf as well as oil pumps and energy stations in the Arabian Gulf.
This statement was published by the British Times on Sunday June 10, 2007.
Is this everything?
No, there are much more things of which we gave no mention.
In this article, we have so far discussed only five points highlighting the danger and importance of the issue of Shia. However, there remains other very important five points which I prefer not to discuss them here in brief so that I may give them their due detail. Therefore, I will put them off – if Allah wills – till the next article, after which I will speak about the ideal way to deal with such serious circumstances.
Undoubtedly, the issue of Shi`ah is not that marginal issue within the story of Islam that is to be neglected or postponed. Rather, it is one of the priorities of the Muslim Ummah. Everyone could perceive that Palestine's liberation by Salahud-Din followed only from saving Egypt from the `Abidy Shiite reign. At that time, Salahud-Din did not suppose that war against crusaders should be given priority over discussing the Shiite rule in Egypt. This is because Muslims gain victory only when they have a sound creed and sincere soldiers. Actually, Salahud-Din would never use the Egyptian people to fight with him such a fatal battle unless he relieved them of the `Abidy innovative rule. The same should apply to the Iraqi case now, as well as all countries threatened by Shiites. In fact, we have to take lessons from history.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Dr. Ragheb ElSergany
islamstory website
Shia's Dominance
Many readers - as noticed from their comments - have surely been shocked by the history of the rise of Shia. Certainly, we do not record historical facts merely to know what had happened in various stages of history. Rather, we aim at taking lessons wherefrom so that we might be able to tackle our crises in a better and a clearer way. Therefore, ignoring such history stands for committing a crime against modern generations. By doing so, we deprive ourselves of light if we overlook studying the roots of the issue, otherwise. Moreover, first of all, the Qur'an enjoins us to study the stories of ancient nations so as to apply its lessons to our actual fact. In this regard, Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "So relate the stories, perhaps they may reflect." [Al-A`raf, 176], {فَاقْصُصِ الْقَصَصَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ} Transliteration: Fāqşuşi Al-Qaşaşa La`allahum Yatafakkarūna, Accordingly, it is not enough to merely tell stories. Rather, we have to reflect on stories and derive wherefrom practical methods to help us understand our actual fact and thus be enlightened about our future.
I would like to start the article with two important notes:
First: To understand and benefit from this article, readers should first read my previous article "Origins of Shia", as I highlighted there their origins and referred to some doctrines of Shia, which will help understand the developments.
Second: Until the moment I only narrate events and report authentic narrations. However, I have not yet highlighted our attitude toward Shia and the nature of relations that should be between us and them. Anyway, I will single out my next article for this topic. Thus, it will be useful to me to receive your impressions on how should we deal with them, especially while bearing in mind the historical and religious backgrounds we dealt with in detail.
Now back to the story of Shia:
After the death of Al-Hassan Al-`Askary (whom they consider their twelfth Imam), Shia passed by what was known in the history as the period of "Shia's Bewilderment", during which they were divided into many sects, each formulating its religion beliefs according to their whims in such a manner as to have better political gains. The most famous of such sects was Ithna `Ashriyyah (who believe in, study and prepare for the advent of the Imam Al-Mahdi, the twelfth descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is believed to be still alive and waiting for the world to prepare for his emergence from occultation and just leadership), which we dealt with in the previous article. However, it was not the sole sect on the arena. Rather, another but more dangerous sect rose which had the worst impact on the Muslim Ummah, namely, Isma`iliyyah (a major branch of the Shia with numerous subdivisions. It branched off from the Imamiyyah by tracing the imamate through Imam Ja`far Al-Sadiq's son Isma`il, after whom it is named). It is one of the most erroneous sects whose followers are judged by most Muslim scholars to be out of the scope of Islam. A cunning plan by a Jew, called Maymun Al-Qaddah, who sought to plot against the Muslim Ummah, was behind the foundation of such a sect. This man pretended to be a Muslim and curried favor with Mohammed bin Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq, making closer ties with him.
Mohammed bin Isma`il belongs to the Prophet's Household and is the grandson of Ja`far Al-Sadiq (the sixth Imam according to Ithna `Ashriyyah). His father Isma`il is the brother of Musa Al-Kazim, the seventh Imam according to Ithna `Ashriyyah. Maymun Al-Qaddah perpetrated an act showing his great rancor to the Muslim Ummah, which motivated him to plan to undermine it even if several decades after his death! Maymun Al-Qaddah named his son bin Mohammed and bequeathed him to give his sons and grandsons the same names of Muhammad bin Isma`il's sons and grandsons. His plan was that with the passage of time, those Jews would claim affiliation to the Household of the Prophet (peace be upon him) being the descendants of Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq! This is not everything. They are to claim that the right to the grand Imamate that is to dominate the entire Muslim Ummah is exclusive to the descendants of Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq rather than those of Musa Al-Kazim as claimed by Ithna `Ashriyyah. Maymun's dreams came true and the Isma`iliyyah sect came into existence. Later on, Maymun Al-Qaddah's grandsons started to fabricate tenets and beliefs totally running counter to Islam. One of the most offensive of their tenets is that they believe in Incarnation (their Imam is Allah incarnate). They also believe in transmigration (the passing of the soul, especially those of their Iamams, at death into another mortal body). Moreover, they also believe that their Imams will return to life after death. Furthermore, they are extremely licentious and indecent and publicly slander Companions and insult the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself although they claim affiliation to him. Besides, their great concern was to assassinate Sunni leaders in the Muslim world. However, they will have a very serious potential with which I will deal later in this article.
Preaching Isma`iliyyah's destructive ideas then started to spread vividly among the ignorant. Making use of people' s love of the Prophet's Household, they persuaded a group of people that they were the grandchildren of Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him). Many Persians who pretended outwardly to be Muslims while were inwardly Magi, embraced this call. One of them was Hussein Al-Ahwazy, who was one of the most devoted propagators and prominent founders of Isma`iliyyah. He practiced his mission in Basra where he happened to know a very virulent character in the history of Islam, Hamdan bin Al-Ash`ath. The latter's ethnicity is controversial. Some scholars say he was a Persian Magi, while others say he was one of Bahrain Jews. However, Hamdan bin Al-Ash`ath was nicknamed "Qurmut". With the passage of time, he formed his own sect which was named Al-Qaramitah after his name. It is a branch of Al-Isma`iliyyah sect but is even more dangerous. This sect holds the idea of common ownership of money and women. Its adherents deem all prohibited acts such as murder, adultery and theft to be lawful. Furthermore, they make living on pillage and highway robbery. Concomitantly, all thieves and outlaws joined it and thus it became one of the most dangerous sects in the history of the Muslim Ummah.
All these and other countless developments took place during the second half of the third century A.H., which resulted in the rise of three major sects, Ithna `Ashriyyah, Isma`iliyyah and Qaramitah, each claiming to be on the right. Moreover, they differ in all respects including doctrines, principles and rulings. However, there were conflicts between them and Sunnis as well as among each other, as each of them denied the truth of the other. Actually, they were motivated by whims and innovation in religion.
Until this stage of history, such sects were no more than movements that staged disorder and turmoil within the Muslin Ummah. However, they had not yet assumed power or had sovereignty. By the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., great developments took place that led to serious repercussions.
The first sect to assume power was Al-Qaramitah, because it was the most virulent and violent sect. One of its propagators, Rustum bin Al-Hussein, reached Yemen where he established an Al-Qaramitah-based state and started to correspond with people everywhere – they corresponded with even Morocco - propagating their
doctrine. However, this state did not last long.
Anyway, another Al-Qaramitah-based state was established on the Arabian Peninsula especially in Bahrain. (It is not today's Bahrain but the area to the east of Arabia.) The Qaramitah state in such an area represented so great threat to the safety of Muslims that they murdered Hajjis. Perhaps the most heinous crime they committed was attacking Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the Sacred Mousque) on the Day of Tarwiyah (the eighth day of the month of Dhul‑Hijjah) in 317 A.H., during which they killed all Hajjis in the Haram (Sacred Mosque) and stole the Black Stone from the Ka`bah after having broken it! They took the Black Stone to their capital in Hajar, to the east of the Arabian Peninsula keeping possession of it for twenty two years. However, it was returned to the Ka`bah in 399 A.H.
Concerning Isma`iliyyah, they found the land of Morocco a fertile soil for their call. The ideas of Rustum bin Al-Hussein the Qaramitah-based ruler of Yemen spread in Morocco through a man called Abu Abdullah the Shiite. We know that both sects, Isma`iliyyah and Qaramitah, claim the Imamate of Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq.
Therefore, one of the grandsons of Maymun Al-Qaddah, `Ubaidul-Lah bin Al-Hussein bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Maymun Al-Qaddah, found it opportune to establish a state in Morocco. Thus, he headed for there and, along with some of his followers, declared the Isma`iliyyah-based state nicknaming himself Al-Mahdi. He claimed to be the Imam of the Isma`iliyyah mission and to be a grandson of Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq and that the previous Imams, i.e. his forefathers ending up in lineage with Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq were concealed. Seeking to attract the hearts of masses, he called his state the Fatimide state falsely after the name of Fatimah the daughter of Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) although he was of a Jewish origin. His call mushroomed among people on account of their ignorance and passion. It started to extend until it took control of North Africa, spreading such Bid`ahs and evils as judging Companions to be disbelievers, incarnation, transmigration of souls and other false beliefs. Expansion of such a state reached Egypt, which was invaded in 359 A.H. by one of their army commanders, Jawhar Al-Saqalli Al-Isma`ili during the reign of Al-Mu`iz Lidinil-Lah Al-`Ubaidi. (More accurately, he should be better called Al-`Ubaidi, after the name of `Ubaidul-Lah Al-Mahdi, than called the Fatimide.)
Al-Mu`iz Lidinil-Lah Al-`Ubaidi invaded Egypt and established Cairo and Al- Azhar Mosque with the aim of spreading the Isma`iliyyah Shiite sects therein. He also killed Sunni scholars and publicized cursing Companions. The same was also followed by subsequent rulers. Some of them got so mad that they claimed godhood, the most famous among whom was Al-Hakim bi'-Amril-Lah. They have built many mosques to spread their thought. Their rule over Egypt, Levant and Hijaz lasted for about two centuries until Salahud-Din wiped out their evil and librated Egypt in 567 A.H. from the Isma`ilite occupation. As for the third sect, Ithna `Ashriyyah, although believing in many Bid`ahs, it caused less harm than the abovementioned two sects. Adherents of this sect believe in Allah (may He be Exalted), His Messenger (peace be upon him) and Resurrection after death. However, they introduced into religion tremendous and heinous Bid`ahs (innovations in religion) and acts. Moreover, its propagators influenced the major tribes in Persia and Iraq, which resulted in their assuming power in some areas.
For example, they influenced the Saman tribe, a tribe of a Persian descent, which led to its adhering Shiism. The tribe had sovereignty over large parts of Persia (present day Iran) from 261 to 389 A.H. Nevertheless, Shiism could make its way through such a state only by nearly the beginning of the fourth century A.H.
They also influenced the Banu Hamdan tribe, a tribe of an Arab descent affiliated back to the Taghlib tribe. They ruled Mosul in Iraq from 317 to 369 A.H. Their authority extended to Aleppo from 333 to 392 AH.
The most dangerous tribe they influenced was the Banu Buwaih tribe, a tribe from a Persian descent. They established a state in Persia and extended their authority so much as to the Abbasid caliphate in 334 A.H. maintaining a puppet Abbasid caliph for fear that Sunnis might rise against them.
They continued to take control of the Abbasid caliphate for over one hundred successive years (from 334 to 447 A.H.) until the rise of the Sunni Seljuk state that saved Iraq from the Shiite domination. Throughout such years, Shia showed bitter enmity against Sunni scholars and caliph. Furthermore, they wrote phrases at the doors of mosques insulting Companions. They would even insult Abu Bakr and `Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) in Friday sermons. Undoubtedly, it was a very gloomy period in our Islamic history.
So far, we could see that the fourth century A.H. was a purely Shia-dominated period; the Shiite Buwaihids having had authority over parts of Iran and the entire Iraq, the Samanis having had authority over the east of Iran, parts of Afghanistan and the east of the Muslim world, and the Hamadaniyyun having had authority over parts of Mosul and Aleppo. This is in addition to the Qaramitah's dominance over the east of Arabia and sometimes over Hijaz and even Damascus and Yemen. As to the `Ubaidi (the so-called Fatimide) state, it was so vast that it occupied all African Muslim countries in addition to Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.
By the end of the fourth century A.H., the Qaramitah-based state came to an end, while the Banu Buwayh's state was put down by the middle of the fifth century A.H. (447 A.H.). As to the `Ubaidi Isma`ilites, they continued to rule till the middle of the sixth century A.H. (567 A.H.).
Thereafter, the Muslim world was once again Sunni-ruled in all regions even though the Ithna `Ashriyyah sect continued to exist in regions of Persia and parts of Iraq although without assuming power.
The state of affairs continued this way until 907 A.H. (the outset of the tenth century A.H.) when Isma`il the Safavid established the Shiite Ithna `Ashriyyah Safavid state in Iran (named after their grandfather Safiyyul-Din Al-Ardabili, of a Persian descent, who died in 729 A.H.). This state expanded making Tabriz its capital. Engaging into a fierce conflict with the neighboring Sunni Ottoman empire, the Safavids allied with the Portuguese in order to defeat Ottomans. They occupied parts of Ottoman-subordinate Iraq, where they started to spread their Shiite ideology. However, Sultan Selim I fought against them in a well-known decisive battle called in history Chaldrian in 920 A.H., in which he had great victory over them and could expel them from Iraq. Time passed and the conflict continued between Safavids and Ottomans, Iraq being the focus of such a conflict. The Safavid state remained in authority over Iran for over two centuries from 907 A.H. to 1148 A.H., the year when it fell apart, (the Safavids state fell apart in the mid 18th century A.D.), which resulted in the division of Iran into a number of regions that were objects of conflict among Ottomans, Russians, Afghans and the army commanders of Abbas, III the last Safavid sultan.
When the Ottoman empire entered into the crumbling phase and was increasingly clawed by Europeans and Russians, its clutch on the areas to the west of Iran, consequently, got less tight. The Iranian region was thereafter ruled alternatively by many rulers whose loyalty was to Western, British, French or Russians, leaders.
In 1193 A.H./ 1779 A.D., a person called Agha Muhammad Qajar, a Shiite of a Persian descent, assumed authority. However, having secular tendencies, he neither propagated nor ruled according to Ithna `Ashriyyah's doctrines. He and his sons subsequently ruled Iran successively experiencing ups and downs. The ruler in such a dynasty used to be given the title "Shah".
This dynasty's rule was toppled by Reda Bahlavi, who, helped by the British, rebelled against it in 1343 A.H./1925 A.D. appointing himself as the Shah of Iran. However, the British got dissatisfied with him, in 1941 A.D. on account of disagreements that arose between them and thus ousted him and crowned his son Muhammad Reda Bahlavi. The latter continued to rule Iran under the secular system until 1399 A.H./1979 A.D. when the Shiite Ithna `Ashriyyah Revolution headed by Khomeini rose to restore the Shiite system of rule once again in Persia (Iran).
This was the story of the Shiite rule over the Muslim world since the rise of Shia till the present. Throughout such a story, we could find out clearly that Shiite movements only rose as rebellious movements against the Sunni rule hiding under the guise of the religious people who love or are affiliated to the Prophet's Household. During all these stages, we noticed no clashes between any of such sects and such enemies of the Muslim Ummah as Crusaders, Russians, the British, the French or the Portuguese. Moreover, they engaged in no conflict with Tatars or other enemies. On the contrary, we could notice that they repeatedly cooperated with enemies in all stages of history.
Although we do not tend to hold descendants responsible for the faults of ancestors, we aimed at discussing the abstract, ideology and methodology which completely goes in line with that of ancestors, which is the core point and the root of the problem.
So long as there is a belief in the supposition that Imamate is to be assumed by a particular dynasty, that their Imams are infallible, and they defame Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman as well as other Companions and Mothers of the Believers, good faith should never be supposed. Rather, we have to suppose that the descendants have followed the steps of ancestors.
What do you think our attitude toward Shia should be? How should we deal with them? Is it better to discuss their issue or keep silent ? Is it better to be ignorant or knowledgeable about them? This is what we will deal with in our next article, if Allah so wills.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.
By: Dr. Ragheb ElSergani
islamstory website
I would like to start the article with two important notes:
First: To understand and benefit from this article, readers should first read my previous article "Origins of Shia", as I highlighted there their origins and referred to some doctrines of Shia, which will help understand the developments.
Second: Until the moment I only narrate events and report authentic narrations. However, I have not yet highlighted our attitude toward Shia and the nature of relations that should be between us and them. Anyway, I will single out my next article for this topic. Thus, it will be useful to me to receive your impressions on how should we deal with them, especially while bearing in mind the historical and religious backgrounds we dealt with in detail.
Now back to the story of Shia:
After the death of Al-Hassan Al-`Askary (whom they consider their twelfth Imam), Shia passed by what was known in the history as the period of "Shia's Bewilderment", during which they were divided into many sects, each formulating its religion beliefs according to their whims in such a manner as to have better political gains. The most famous of such sects was Ithna `Ashriyyah (who believe in, study and prepare for the advent of the Imam Al-Mahdi, the twelfth descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is believed to be still alive and waiting for the world to prepare for his emergence from occultation and just leadership), which we dealt with in the previous article. However, it was not the sole sect on the arena. Rather, another but more dangerous sect rose which had the worst impact on the Muslim Ummah, namely, Isma`iliyyah (a major branch of the Shia with numerous subdivisions. It branched off from the Imamiyyah by tracing the imamate through Imam Ja`far Al-Sadiq's son Isma`il, after whom it is named). It is one of the most erroneous sects whose followers are judged by most Muslim scholars to be out of the scope of Islam. A cunning plan by a Jew, called Maymun Al-Qaddah, who sought to plot against the Muslim Ummah, was behind the foundation of such a sect. This man pretended to be a Muslim and curried favor with Mohammed bin Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq, making closer ties with him.
Mohammed bin Isma`il belongs to the Prophet's Household and is the grandson of Ja`far Al-Sadiq (the sixth Imam according to Ithna `Ashriyyah). His father Isma`il is the brother of Musa Al-Kazim, the seventh Imam according to Ithna `Ashriyyah. Maymun Al-Qaddah perpetrated an act showing his great rancor to the Muslim Ummah, which motivated him to plan to undermine it even if several decades after his death! Maymun Al-Qaddah named his son bin Mohammed and bequeathed him to give his sons and grandsons the same names of Muhammad bin Isma`il's sons and grandsons. His plan was that with the passage of time, those Jews would claim affiliation to the Household of the Prophet (peace be upon him) being the descendants of Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq! This is not everything. They are to claim that the right to the grand Imamate that is to dominate the entire Muslim Ummah is exclusive to the descendants of Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq rather than those of Musa Al-Kazim as claimed by Ithna `Ashriyyah. Maymun's dreams came true and the Isma`iliyyah sect came into existence. Later on, Maymun Al-Qaddah's grandsons started to fabricate tenets and beliefs totally running counter to Islam. One of the most offensive of their tenets is that they believe in Incarnation (their Imam is Allah incarnate). They also believe in transmigration (the passing of the soul, especially those of their Iamams, at death into another mortal body). Moreover, they also believe that their Imams will return to life after death. Furthermore, they are extremely licentious and indecent and publicly slander Companions and insult the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself although they claim affiliation to him. Besides, their great concern was to assassinate Sunni leaders in the Muslim world. However, they will have a very serious potential with which I will deal later in this article.
Preaching Isma`iliyyah's destructive ideas then started to spread vividly among the ignorant. Making use of people' s love of the Prophet's Household, they persuaded a group of people that they were the grandchildren of Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him). Many Persians who pretended outwardly to be Muslims while were inwardly Magi, embraced this call. One of them was Hussein Al-Ahwazy, who was one of the most devoted propagators and prominent founders of Isma`iliyyah. He practiced his mission in Basra where he happened to know a very virulent character in the history of Islam, Hamdan bin Al-Ash`ath. The latter's ethnicity is controversial. Some scholars say he was a Persian Magi, while others say he was one of Bahrain Jews. However, Hamdan bin Al-Ash`ath was nicknamed "Qurmut". With the passage of time, he formed his own sect which was named Al-Qaramitah after his name. It is a branch of Al-Isma`iliyyah sect but is even more dangerous. This sect holds the idea of common ownership of money and women. Its adherents deem all prohibited acts such as murder, adultery and theft to be lawful. Furthermore, they make living on pillage and highway robbery. Concomitantly, all thieves and outlaws joined it and thus it became one of the most dangerous sects in the history of the Muslim Ummah.
All these and other countless developments took place during the second half of the third century A.H., which resulted in the rise of three major sects, Ithna `Ashriyyah, Isma`iliyyah and Qaramitah, each claiming to be on the right. Moreover, they differ in all respects including doctrines, principles and rulings. However, there were conflicts between them and Sunnis as well as among each other, as each of them denied the truth of the other. Actually, they were motivated by whims and innovation in religion.
Until this stage of history, such sects were no more than movements that staged disorder and turmoil within the Muslin Ummah. However, they had not yet assumed power or had sovereignty. By the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., great developments took place that led to serious repercussions.
The first sect to assume power was Al-Qaramitah, because it was the most virulent and violent sect. One of its propagators, Rustum bin Al-Hussein, reached Yemen where he established an Al-Qaramitah-based state and started to correspond with people everywhere – they corresponded with even Morocco - propagating their
doctrine. However, this state did not last long.
Anyway, another Al-Qaramitah-based state was established on the Arabian Peninsula especially in Bahrain. (It is not today's Bahrain but the area to the east of Arabia.) The Qaramitah state in such an area represented so great threat to the safety of Muslims that they murdered Hajjis. Perhaps the most heinous crime they committed was attacking Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the Sacred Mousque) on the Day of Tarwiyah (the eighth day of the month of Dhul‑Hijjah) in 317 A.H., during which they killed all Hajjis in the Haram (Sacred Mosque) and stole the Black Stone from the Ka`bah after having broken it! They took the Black Stone to their capital in Hajar, to the east of the Arabian Peninsula keeping possession of it for twenty two years. However, it was returned to the Ka`bah in 399 A.H.
Concerning Isma`iliyyah, they found the land of Morocco a fertile soil for their call. The ideas of Rustum bin Al-Hussein the Qaramitah-based ruler of Yemen spread in Morocco through a man called Abu Abdullah the Shiite. We know that both sects, Isma`iliyyah and Qaramitah, claim the Imamate of Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq.
Therefore, one of the grandsons of Maymun Al-Qaddah, `Ubaidul-Lah bin Al-Hussein bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Maymun Al-Qaddah, found it opportune to establish a state in Morocco. Thus, he headed for there and, along with some of his followers, declared the Isma`iliyyah-based state nicknaming himself Al-Mahdi. He claimed to be the Imam of the Isma`iliyyah mission and to be a grandson of Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq and that the previous Imams, i.e. his forefathers ending up in lineage with Isma`il bin Ja`far Al-Sadiq were concealed. Seeking to attract the hearts of masses, he called his state the Fatimide state falsely after the name of Fatimah the daughter of Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) although he was of a Jewish origin. His call mushroomed among people on account of their ignorance and passion. It started to extend until it took control of North Africa, spreading such Bid`ahs and evils as judging Companions to be disbelievers, incarnation, transmigration of souls and other false beliefs. Expansion of such a state reached Egypt, which was invaded in 359 A.H. by one of their army commanders, Jawhar Al-Saqalli Al-Isma`ili during the reign of Al-Mu`iz Lidinil-Lah Al-`Ubaidi. (More accurately, he should be better called Al-`Ubaidi, after the name of `Ubaidul-Lah Al-Mahdi, than called the Fatimide.)
Al-Mu`iz Lidinil-Lah Al-`Ubaidi invaded Egypt and established Cairo and Al- Azhar Mosque with the aim of spreading the Isma`iliyyah Shiite sects therein. He also killed Sunni scholars and publicized cursing Companions. The same was also followed by subsequent rulers. Some of them got so mad that they claimed godhood, the most famous among whom was Al-Hakim bi'-Amril-Lah. They have built many mosques to spread their thought. Their rule over Egypt, Levant and Hijaz lasted for about two centuries until Salahud-Din wiped out their evil and librated Egypt in 567 A.H. from the Isma`ilite occupation. As for the third sect, Ithna `Ashriyyah, although believing in many Bid`ahs, it caused less harm than the abovementioned two sects. Adherents of this sect believe in Allah (may He be Exalted), His Messenger (peace be upon him) and Resurrection after death. However, they introduced into religion tremendous and heinous Bid`ahs (innovations in religion) and acts. Moreover, its propagators influenced the major tribes in Persia and Iraq, which resulted in their assuming power in some areas.
For example, they influenced the Saman tribe, a tribe of a Persian descent, which led to its adhering Shiism. The tribe had sovereignty over large parts of Persia (present day Iran) from 261 to 389 A.H. Nevertheless, Shiism could make its way through such a state only by nearly the beginning of the fourth century A.H.
They also influenced the Banu Hamdan tribe, a tribe of an Arab descent affiliated back to the Taghlib tribe. They ruled Mosul in Iraq from 317 to 369 A.H. Their authority extended to Aleppo from 333 to 392 AH.
The most dangerous tribe they influenced was the Banu Buwaih tribe, a tribe from a Persian descent. They established a state in Persia and extended their authority so much as to the Abbasid caliphate in 334 A.H. maintaining a puppet Abbasid caliph for fear that Sunnis might rise against them.
They continued to take control of the Abbasid caliphate for over one hundred successive years (from 334 to 447 A.H.) until the rise of the Sunni Seljuk state that saved Iraq from the Shiite domination. Throughout such years, Shia showed bitter enmity against Sunni scholars and caliph. Furthermore, they wrote phrases at the doors of mosques insulting Companions. They would even insult Abu Bakr and `Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) in Friday sermons. Undoubtedly, it was a very gloomy period in our Islamic history.
So far, we could see that the fourth century A.H. was a purely Shia-dominated period; the Shiite Buwaihids having had authority over parts of Iran and the entire Iraq, the Samanis having had authority over the east of Iran, parts of Afghanistan and the east of the Muslim world, and the Hamadaniyyun having had authority over parts of Mosul and Aleppo. This is in addition to the Qaramitah's dominance over the east of Arabia and sometimes over Hijaz and even Damascus and Yemen. As to the `Ubaidi (the so-called Fatimide) state, it was so vast that it occupied all African Muslim countries in addition to Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.
By the end of the fourth century A.H., the Qaramitah-based state came to an end, while the Banu Buwayh's state was put down by the middle of the fifth century A.H. (447 A.H.). As to the `Ubaidi Isma`ilites, they continued to rule till the middle of the sixth century A.H. (567 A.H.).
Thereafter, the Muslim world was once again Sunni-ruled in all regions even though the Ithna `Ashriyyah sect continued to exist in regions of Persia and parts of Iraq although without assuming power.
The state of affairs continued this way until 907 A.H. (the outset of the tenth century A.H.) when Isma`il the Safavid established the Shiite Ithna `Ashriyyah Safavid state in Iran (named after their grandfather Safiyyul-Din Al-Ardabili, of a Persian descent, who died in 729 A.H.). This state expanded making Tabriz its capital. Engaging into a fierce conflict with the neighboring Sunni Ottoman empire, the Safavids allied with the Portuguese in order to defeat Ottomans. They occupied parts of Ottoman-subordinate Iraq, where they started to spread their Shiite ideology. However, Sultan Selim I fought against them in a well-known decisive battle called in history Chaldrian in 920 A.H., in which he had great victory over them and could expel them from Iraq. Time passed and the conflict continued between Safavids and Ottomans, Iraq being the focus of such a conflict. The Safavid state remained in authority over Iran for over two centuries from 907 A.H. to 1148 A.H., the year when it fell apart, (the Safavids state fell apart in the mid 18th century A.D.), which resulted in the division of Iran into a number of regions that were objects of conflict among Ottomans, Russians, Afghans and the army commanders of Abbas, III the last Safavid sultan.
When the Ottoman empire entered into the crumbling phase and was increasingly clawed by Europeans and Russians, its clutch on the areas to the west of Iran, consequently, got less tight. The Iranian region was thereafter ruled alternatively by many rulers whose loyalty was to Western, British, French or Russians, leaders.
In 1193 A.H./ 1779 A.D., a person called Agha Muhammad Qajar, a Shiite of a Persian descent, assumed authority. However, having secular tendencies, he neither propagated nor ruled according to Ithna `Ashriyyah's doctrines. He and his sons subsequently ruled Iran successively experiencing ups and downs. The ruler in such a dynasty used to be given the title "Shah".
This dynasty's rule was toppled by Reda Bahlavi, who, helped by the British, rebelled against it in 1343 A.H./1925 A.D. appointing himself as the Shah of Iran. However, the British got dissatisfied with him, in 1941 A.D. on account of disagreements that arose between them and thus ousted him and crowned his son Muhammad Reda Bahlavi. The latter continued to rule Iran under the secular system until 1399 A.H./1979 A.D. when the Shiite Ithna `Ashriyyah Revolution headed by Khomeini rose to restore the Shiite system of rule once again in Persia (Iran).
This was the story of the Shiite rule over the Muslim world since the rise of Shia till the present. Throughout such a story, we could find out clearly that Shiite movements only rose as rebellious movements against the Sunni rule hiding under the guise of the religious people who love or are affiliated to the Prophet's Household. During all these stages, we noticed no clashes between any of such sects and such enemies of the Muslim Ummah as Crusaders, Russians, the British, the French or the Portuguese. Moreover, they engaged in no conflict with Tatars or other enemies. On the contrary, we could notice that they repeatedly cooperated with enemies in all stages of history.
Although we do not tend to hold descendants responsible for the faults of ancestors, we aimed at discussing the abstract, ideology and methodology which completely goes in line with that of ancestors, which is the core point and the root of the problem.
So long as there is a belief in the supposition that Imamate is to be assumed by a particular dynasty, that their Imams are infallible, and they defame Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman as well as other Companions and Mothers of the Believers, good faith should never be supposed. Rather, we have to suppose that the descendants have followed the steps of ancestors.
What do you think our attitude toward Shia should be? How should we deal with them? Is it better to discuss their issue or keep silent ? Is it better to be ignorant or knowledgeable about them? This is what we will deal with in our next article, if Allah so wills.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.
By: Dr. Ragheb ElSergani
islamstory website
Origins of Shia
Scholars of Usul Al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) stated the following rule, "One cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it". Based on this rule, it is meaningless to pass a judgment on Shia unless you have good knowledge about them. It is also meaningless to express one's opinion on reconciling the views of Sunnis and Shiites without recognizing the nature of both sects. Likewise, it is of no real sense to accept or reject talking about Shia without knowing the reality of the issue, to what extent it is dangerous, its rank as to our priorities and its relation to the multiple variables the Ummah is facing.
In short, before we proceed to criticize opponents or proponents of Shia, we should first understand who Shia are, what their origins are, what their theological and Fiqhi (Jurisprudential) backgrounds are, what their history is about, what their reality is an what their goals and ambitions are. Only after doing this, we can express our view foresightedly, especially when we know how many people changed their long-believed views and give up their ideas after they had been provided with sound information and clear vision.
Who are Shia?
The issue is not merely that of certain people living in a certain country who have some disputes with neighboring countries. Rather, it is an issue of theological, historical and Fiqhi backgrounds that have to be referred to.
Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shia.
What is commonly believed by the masses is that Shia are those people who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib during the caliphate of Mu`awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, (may Allah be pleased with him). Accordingly, this means that those who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib are Shia while those who supported Mu`awiyah are Sunnis. Such a notion has never been accepted by anyone. Moreover, Sunnis believe with regard to the dispute that arose between the two honorable Companions that `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the right, while Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised Ijtihad (independent judgment) but did not reach the truth. Thus, Sunnis thought is clearly siding with `Ali. Moreover, tenets, doctrines and ideologies held by Shia are entirely different from those held by `Ali bin Abu Talib absolutely. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the rise of Shia was at that era.
Some historians say that the rise of Shia was after Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred. This opinion sounds to be more logical. Actually, Al-Hussein rebelled against the rule of Yazid bin Mu`aweiyah and, therefore, headed for Iraq after his followers there had promised to back him. However, they let him down at the critical time, which led to the martyrdom of Al-Hussein at Karbala. The group of people who invited him and failed to support him regretted doing so and decided to expiate their sin through rebelling against the Umayyad state. They actually did so and a large number of them were killed and thus were called Shia. This might explain why we notice that Shia are more attached to Al-Hussein bin `Ali than to `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) himself. They also, as we can see, mark the anniversary of Al-Hussein's martyrdom while don not mark that of `Ali bin Abu Talib.
However, this sect only rose as a political one opposing the rule of the Umayyad dynasty and backed any attempts to rebel against it. Until that time, they did not hold theological or jurisprudential principles different from those of Sunnis. We will even come to know that earlier leaders whom Shiites claim to be their earlier Shia Imams were only Sunni men adopting doctrines and principles of Sunnis.
The situation continued to be stable for months after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him). At this period lived `Ali Zainul-`Abdin bin Al- Hussein who was one of the most righteous personalities and great ascetic scholars. He has never been reported to have any beliefs or ideologies different from those held by Companions and later generations.
`Ali Zainul-`Abdin had two sons of a high level of piety and purity, namely, Mohammed Al-Baqir and Zaid, both of whom completely believed in beliefs held by Sunni scholars including Companions and Successors. However, Zaid bin `Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) differed in viewing that `Ali bin Abu Talib was worthier of assuming caliphate than Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Although this opinion conflicts with the Ummah's consensus and contradicts many Hadith that explicitly held Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, `Umar and `Uthman in a higher rank than `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), this difference of opinion, however, does not relate to doctrinal issues. While he viewed that `Ali was the best, he, however, admitted the high rank of the first three caliphs. He also believed in the permissibility of one less in rank assuming imamate despite the existence of those higher in rank. Accordingly, he did not deny the imamate of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). Apart from this view, he concurred with Sunnis in theology, principles and Fiqh.
Repeating the attempt of his grandfather Al-Hussein bin `Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both), Zaid bin `Ali rebelled against the Umayyad caliph Hisham bin Abdul-Malik, which ended up with his being killed in 122 A.H. His followers then founded a sect based on his ideas, known in history as Zaydiyyah, named after Zaid bin `Ali. Though considered to be a Shia-based sect, Zaydiyyah agrees with Sunnis in everything except in holding `Ali in a higher position than the first three Caliphs. The followers of this sect are mainly in Yemen and they are the nearest Shia sects to Sunnis - even one can hardly distinguish them from Sunnis in most respects.
It is worth mentioning that a group of the followers of Zaid bin `Ali asked him about his opinion on Abu Bakr and `Umar. In reply, he supplicated Allah to show mercy to both of them, but those who asked him refused to do the same and seceded from his sect. Therefore, they were known in the history as Rafidah (lit. dissenters) because they rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr and `Umar on one hand, and rejected Zaid's opinion on the other. Subsequent generations of such a group founded a sect which was later known as Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah) to turn into Shia's largest sect.
Mohammed Al-Baqir, Zaid bin `Ali's brother, died eight years before his brother (in 114 A.H.) leaving behind a son who became the reverend scholar Ja`far Al-Sadiq. The latter was a prominent scholar and a proficient Faqih (Jurisprudent), who held the same theology believed in by Companions, Successors and Muslim scholars in general.
Late at the era of the Umayyad caliphate, the Abbasid movement started activities aiming at rallying people against the Umayyad caliphate. The movement collaborated with the groups which seceded from Zeid bin `Ali and both toppled the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H. The Abbasid caliphate came to power headed by the founder Abul-`Abbas Al-Saffah and his successor Abu Ja`far Al-Mansur. Those who collaborated with this movement felt disappointed as they sought to establish a caliphate ruled by one of `Ali bin Abu Talib's grandchildren. Therefore, those people formed a group called Al-Talibiyyun (lit. proponents of `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) compared to Abbasids who are named after Al-`Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib) with the aim of staging a coup against the Abbasid caliphate.
Until this era, there were no essential theological or jurisprudential violations except that of the criticism of Abu Bakr and `Umar; actually, some of them who seceded from Zaid bin `Ali rejected them and would even curse them in public.
Ja`far Al-Sadik died in 148 A.H. leaving behind a son called Musa Al-Kazim, who was also a scholar but less in rank than his father. He died in 183 A.H. leaving behind some sons including `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida.
It happened that the Abbasid caliph al Ma'mun sought to contain the rebellion of Al-Talibiyyun who claimed the caliphate for the descendants of `Ali bin Abu Talib rather than those of Al-`Abbas. Thus, he nominated `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida as the crown prince, which fueled a fierce controversy among Abbasids. However, `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida suddenly died in 203 A.H., but Al-Talibiyyun accused Al-Ma'mun of killing him and once again staged successive revolutions against Abbasids just as they did with Umayyads.
Anyway, passage of years gave room for revolutions to relatively calm down. Until that time, Shia had not yet adopted an independent religious school of thought to be called Shia. Rather, there were only political movements aiming at assuming power and opposing rulers due to many reasons which did not include such theological reasons as those held by Shia now.
Strikingly, such dissenting calls found support on a large scale in the Persian region (currently Iran). Actually, many inhabitants of such a region felt sorry for the fall of the huge Persian empire and its fusion into the Islamic state. They, Persians, considered themselves of a higher race, a better ethnicity and a greater history than Muslims. This feeling led to the rise of Persophilia – an ideology which means giving priority to their race and ethnicity over anything even Islam. Some of them even showed deep adherence to their Persian roots, lock, stock and barrel, even the fire which they once worshiped.
As they were not powerful enough to rebel against the Islamic state, and being Muslims for decades, they found the Al-Talibiyyun's revolutions a way through which they would seek to topple the Islamic caliphate which toppled their Persian state before. In the same time, they did not want to forsake Islam which they embraced for many years. They, however, decided to interpolate it through injecting into it the heritage of the Persian state so as to secure instability within the Muslim Ummah. They kept a low profile, while Al-Talibiyyu maintained the high profile. Bearing in mind that Al-Talibiyyun are affiliated to `Ali bin Abu Talib, are a part of the Prophet's Household and thus held in a high esteem by people, such people secured continuation of there mission.
Thus, attempts of Persophils united with those of Al-Talibiyyun belonging to the Prophet's Household to form a new independent, not only political but also religious, entity.
Back to Al-Talibiyyun, we can see that after the death of `Ali Al-Rida whom Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun nominated as the crown prince, he was succeeded by his son Mohammed Al-Jawad who died in 220 A.H. The latter was also succeeded by his son `Ali bin Mohammed Al-Hadi who died in 254 A.H. Finally, the latter was succeeded by Al-Hassan bin `Ali called Al-`Askary who also died suddenly in 260 A.H. leaving behind a young 5-year-old son, Mohammed.
Throughout previous years, separatist movements, which consisted of some of the Prophet's Household and Persophils, would swear allegiance to the elder son of Al-Talibiyyun's leader, starting with `Ali Al-Rida and ending with Al-Hassan Al-`Askary. Concerning the ascendants of `Ali Al-Rida, such as his father Musa Al-Kazim or his grandfather Ja`far Al-Sadik or his grandfather's father Mohammed Al-Baqir, they did not assume the revolutionary leadership against Umayyad or Abbasid rule.
However, after Al-Hassan Al-`Askary had died in 260 A.H., revolutionists got totally confused as to who is to assume leadership when Al-Hassan Al-`Askary left behind a young son. They even got more confused after the sudden death of that young son. This resulted in dividing such revolutionary groups into many sects each different from the other in terms of principles and ideas as well as even in laws and beliefs.
The most famous among such sects is Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah), now prevailing in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. It is the biggest Shiite sect at present.
The leaders of this sect started to add to Islam ideas that would work best for situations they are exposed to currently and that may ensure the continuation of their sect despite the absence of their leader.
They added many serious Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) to the religion of Islam, claiming them to be part and parcel of Islam. Thus, such Bid'ahs, with the passage of time, became a key component of their ideology and thought. Some of such Bid'ahs relate to Imamate (caliphate). Seeking a justification for the lack of a current imam, they argued that Imams are twelve only, arranging them in the following order: 1- `Ali bin Abu Talib, 2- Al-Hassan bin `Ali, 3- Al-Hussein bin `Ali, 4- `Ali Zainul-`Abidin bin Al-Hussein, 5- Mohammed Al-Baqir bin Zainul-`Abidin, 6- Ja`far Al-Sadik bin Mohammed Al-Baqir, 7- Musa Al-Kazim, 8- `Ali Al-Rida, 9- Mohammed Al-Jawad, 10- `Ali Al-Hadi, 11- Mohammed Al-Mahdi and 12- Al-Hassan Al-`Askary.
That is why this sect is called Ithna `Ashriyyah. Seeking to justify why the Imam succession came to an end, they claimed that the young child Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-`Askary has not died yet, and that, according to them, he has disappeared in a mountain cave and that he is still alive (over one thousand years now). They further claim that he will be back one day to rule the world. They also believe him to be the Awaited Mahdi (Righteous Imam). They also claimed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) bequeathed Imamate to those twelve names but Companions withheld such information. This is why they judge Companions in general to be disbelievers (however, some of them judge Companions to be only profligate) as they concealed such a bequeath. Influenced by the Persian system of rule, they introduced the inevitability of the monarchical system believing that the Imam must be the elder son of `Ali bin Abu Talib and likewise all succeeding Imams. As known to all, this notion is not Islamic at all. Even Sunni Islamic states based on a monarchical system, such as Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Ayyubi and Ottoman caliphates, never considered the monarchical system to be a part of religion or that ruling must be on a dynasty basis. Influenced also by Persia, they introduced sanctification of the ruling dynasty. Accordingly, they believed in the infallibility of the aforementioned Imams and thus considered their sayings to be as holy as the Qur'an and Prophetic Hadith. Moreover, most of their Fiqhi (jurisprudential) rules are even derived from the sayings of Imams, regardless of whether these sayings are authentically or falsely attributed to them. Furthermore, in his book "Islamic Government", Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, stated, "One of the fundamentals of our ideology is that our Imams are higher in rank than devoted angels and prophets." Hence, this explains their bitter hostility to all Companions (except for a few of them who do not exceed thirteen). They also show hostility to even some of the Prophet's Household, such as Al-`Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Allah's Messenger's uncle, and his son Abdullah bin `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the great scholar of the Ummah. Unarguably, hostility to these two figures and judging them to be disbelievers is due to the historical conflict between Ithna `Ashriyyah and Abbasid caliphate.
Among their Bid`ahs also is that they consider most Muslim countries to be Darul-Kufr (House of disbelief). They also judge the people of Medina, Mecca, Egypt and Levant to be disbelievers, falsely reporting the Messenger of Allah to have said something in this regard and thus believe it to be a part of their religion.
You can refer to such ideas in their original resources, such as Al-Kafy, Bihar Al-Anwar and Tafsir Al-Qummi, Tafsir Al-`Ayyashi, Al-Burhan and other books.
Consequently, they do not acknowledge any Sunni scholars and all the authentic Hadith books, such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa'i. They also deny the authority of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ibn Hanbal. They also do not admit the excellence of Khalid bin Al-Walid or Sa`d bin Abu Waqqas, `Umar bin Abdul-`Aziz,, Musa bin Nusair, Nourul-Din Mahmoud, Salahud-Din, Qutuz and Muhammad Al-Fatih.
As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur'an), they depended largely on sayings attributed to their Imams through very weak chains of narrators. Consequently, many abhorred Bid'ahs took place regarding their doctrines, acts of worship, transactions and other wakes of life. In this article, I do not intend to give a list of their Bid'ahs; actually, such a goal requires composing many books. I only refer here to the origin of the problem so that we may understand its consequences. However, it requires a lengthy talk to speak about such Bid'ahs as Taqiyyah (a dispensation allowing Shiites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion) and Raj'a (the second coming or the return to life of their Imams after death), viewing that the Qur'an was interpolated, misbelieving in Allah, Bid'ahs committed at the shrines, building such shrines in mosques, abhorred Bid'ahs committed on the anniversary of Al-Hussein's Martyrdom and thousands of other Bid'ahs that became key pillars in religion according to Ithna `Ashriyyah.
All that I have mentioned so far is only a part of the ideology of Ithna `Ashriyyah. However, there are several other sects that rose during the same period in history, especially during the period known in history as the period of "Shia Bewilderment", which started as early as the middle of the third century A.H. following the death of Al-Hassan Al-`Askary (the twelfth and last Imam according to them).
From this period on, literature and books that plant their ideology and doctrines were composed. Their methodologies spread widely in the Persian region in particular and in the Muslim world in general. However, till then no state was established to officially adopt such ideologies. Anyway, by the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., serious developments took place that led to Shia assuming power in some areas, which had serious repercussions on the entire Muslim Ummah. This is what I will deal with in the next article, if Allah so wills.
However, I have to repeat the rule that "one cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it". Thus, if we are to take a decision regarding a specific matter or issue, we have to have knowledge about it first. In other words, we can judge something to be right or wrong or say that it is better to do so-and-so only when authentic information is available. Undoubtedly, judgments based of passions and on no study leads certainly to evil consequences.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.
By: Dr. Ragheb El Sergani
islamstory website
In short, before we proceed to criticize opponents or proponents of Shia, we should first understand who Shia are, what their origins are, what their theological and Fiqhi (Jurisprudential) backgrounds are, what their history is about, what their reality is an what their goals and ambitions are. Only after doing this, we can express our view foresightedly, especially when we know how many people changed their long-believed views and give up their ideas after they had been provided with sound information and clear vision.
Who are Shia?
The issue is not merely that of certain people living in a certain country who have some disputes with neighboring countries. Rather, it is an issue of theological, historical and Fiqhi backgrounds that have to be referred to.
Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shia.
What is commonly believed by the masses is that Shia are those people who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib during the caliphate of Mu`awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, (may Allah be pleased with him). Accordingly, this means that those who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib are Shia while those who supported Mu`awiyah are Sunnis. Such a notion has never been accepted by anyone. Moreover, Sunnis believe with regard to the dispute that arose between the two honorable Companions that `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the right, while Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised Ijtihad (independent judgment) but did not reach the truth. Thus, Sunnis thought is clearly siding with `Ali. Moreover, tenets, doctrines and ideologies held by Shia are entirely different from those held by `Ali bin Abu Talib absolutely. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the rise of Shia was at that era.
Some historians say that the rise of Shia was after Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred. This opinion sounds to be more logical. Actually, Al-Hussein rebelled against the rule of Yazid bin Mu`aweiyah and, therefore, headed for Iraq after his followers there had promised to back him. However, they let him down at the critical time, which led to the martyrdom of Al-Hussein at Karbala. The group of people who invited him and failed to support him regretted doing so and decided to expiate their sin through rebelling against the Umayyad state. They actually did so and a large number of them were killed and thus were called Shia. This might explain why we notice that Shia are more attached to Al-Hussein bin `Ali than to `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) himself. They also, as we can see, mark the anniversary of Al-Hussein's martyrdom while don not mark that of `Ali bin Abu Talib.
However, this sect only rose as a political one opposing the rule of the Umayyad dynasty and backed any attempts to rebel against it. Until that time, they did not hold theological or jurisprudential principles different from those of Sunnis. We will even come to know that earlier leaders whom Shiites claim to be their earlier Shia Imams were only Sunni men adopting doctrines and principles of Sunnis.
The situation continued to be stable for months after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him). At this period lived `Ali Zainul-`Abdin bin Al- Hussein who was one of the most righteous personalities and great ascetic scholars. He has never been reported to have any beliefs or ideologies different from those held by Companions and later generations.
`Ali Zainul-`Abdin had two sons of a high level of piety and purity, namely, Mohammed Al-Baqir and Zaid, both of whom completely believed in beliefs held by Sunni scholars including Companions and Successors. However, Zaid bin `Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) differed in viewing that `Ali bin Abu Talib was worthier of assuming caliphate than Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Although this opinion conflicts with the Ummah's consensus and contradicts many Hadith that explicitly held Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, `Umar and `Uthman in a higher rank than `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), this difference of opinion, however, does not relate to doctrinal issues. While he viewed that `Ali was the best, he, however, admitted the high rank of the first three caliphs. He also believed in the permissibility of one less in rank assuming imamate despite the existence of those higher in rank. Accordingly, he did not deny the imamate of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). Apart from this view, he concurred with Sunnis in theology, principles and Fiqh.
Repeating the attempt of his grandfather Al-Hussein bin `Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both), Zaid bin `Ali rebelled against the Umayyad caliph Hisham bin Abdul-Malik, which ended up with his being killed in 122 A.H. His followers then founded a sect based on his ideas, known in history as Zaydiyyah, named after Zaid bin `Ali. Though considered to be a Shia-based sect, Zaydiyyah agrees with Sunnis in everything except in holding `Ali in a higher position than the first three Caliphs. The followers of this sect are mainly in Yemen and they are the nearest Shia sects to Sunnis - even one can hardly distinguish them from Sunnis in most respects.
It is worth mentioning that a group of the followers of Zaid bin `Ali asked him about his opinion on Abu Bakr and `Umar. In reply, he supplicated Allah to show mercy to both of them, but those who asked him refused to do the same and seceded from his sect. Therefore, they were known in the history as Rafidah (lit. dissenters) because they rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr and `Umar on one hand, and rejected Zaid's opinion on the other. Subsequent generations of such a group founded a sect which was later known as Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah) to turn into Shia's largest sect.
Mohammed Al-Baqir, Zaid bin `Ali's brother, died eight years before his brother (in 114 A.H.) leaving behind a son who became the reverend scholar Ja`far Al-Sadiq. The latter was a prominent scholar and a proficient Faqih (Jurisprudent), who held the same theology believed in by Companions, Successors and Muslim scholars in general.
Late at the era of the Umayyad caliphate, the Abbasid movement started activities aiming at rallying people against the Umayyad caliphate. The movement collaborated with the groups which seceded from Zeid bin `Ali and both toppled the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H. The Abbasid caliphate came to power headed by the founder Abul-`Abbas Al-Saffah and his successor Abu Ja`far Al-Mansur. Those who collaborated with this movement felt disappointed as they sought to establish a caliphate ruled by one of `Ali bin Abu Talib's grandchildren. Therefore, those people formed a group called Al-Talibiyyun (lit. proponents of `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) compared to Abbasids who are named after Al-`Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib) with the aim of staging a coup against the Abbasid caliphate.
Until this era, there were no essential theological or jurisprudential violations except that of the criticism of Abu Bakr and `Umar; actually, some of them who seceded from Zaid bin `Ali rejected them and would even curse them in public.
Ja`far Al-Sadik died in 148 A.H. leaving behind a son called Musa Al-Kazim, who was also a scholar but less in rank than his father. He died in 183 A.H. leaving behind some sons including `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida.
It happened that the Abbasid caliph al Ma'mun sought to contain the rebellion of Al-Talibiyyun who claimed the caliphate for the descendants of `Ali bin Abu Talib rather than those of Al-`Abbas. Thus, he nominated `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida as the crown prince, which fueled a fierce controversy among Abbasids. However, `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida suddenly died in 203 A.H., but Al-Talibiyyun accused Al-Ma'mun of killing him and once again staged successive revolutions against Abbasids just as they did with Umayyads.
Anyway, passage of years gave room for revolutions to relatively calm down. Until that time, Shia had not yet adopted an independent religious school of thought to be called Shia. Rather, there were only political movements aiming at assuming power and opposing rulers due to many reasons which did not include such theological reasons as those held by Shia now.
Strikingly, such dissenting calls found support on a large scale in the Persian region (currently Iran). Actually, many inhabitants of such a region felt sorry for the fall of the huge Persian empire and its fusion into the Islamic state. They, Persians, considered themselves of a higher race, a better ethnicity and a greater history than Muslims. This feeling led to the rise of Persophilia – an ideology which means giving priority to their race and ethnicity over anything even Islam. Some of them even showed deep adherence to their Persian roots, lock, stock and barrel, even the fire which they once worshiped.
As they were not powerful enough to rebel against the Islamic state, and being Muslims for decades, they found the Al-Talibiyyun's revolutions a way through which they would seek to topple the Islamic caliphate which toppled their Persian state before. In the same time, they did not want to forsake Islam which they embraced for many years. They, however, decided to interpolate it through injecting into it the heritage of the Persian state so as to secure instability within the Muslim Ummah. They kept a low profile, while Al-Talibiyyu maintained the high profile. Bearing in mind that Al-Talibiyyun are affiliated to `Ali bin Abu Talib, are a part of the Prophet's Household and thus held in a high esteem by people, such people secured continuation of there mission.
Thus, attempts of Persophils united with those of Al-Talibiyyun belonging to the Prophet's Household to form a new independent, not only political but also religious, entity.
Back to Al-Talibiyyun, we can see that after the death of `Ali Al-Rida whom Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun nominated as the crown prince, he was succeeded by his son Mohammed Al-Jawad who died in 220 A.H. The latter was also succeeded by his son `Ali bin Mohammed Al-Hadi who died in 254 A.H. Finally, the latter was succeeded by Al-Hassan bin `Ali called Al-`Askary who also died suddenly in 260 A.H. leaving behind a young 5-year-old son, Mohammed.
Throughout previous years, separatist movements, which consisted of some of the Prophet's Household and Persophils, would swear allegiance to the elder son of Al-Talibiyyun's leader, starting with `Ali Al-Rida and ending with Al-Hassan Al-`Askary. Concerning the ascendants of `Ali Al-Rida, such as his father Musa Al-Kazim or his grandfather Ja`far Al-Sadik or his grandfather's father Mohammed Al-Baqir, they did not assume the revolutionary leadership against Umayyad or Abbasid rule.
However, after Al-Hassan Al-`Askary had died in 260 A.H., revolutionists got totally confused as to who is to assume leadership when Al-Hassan Al-`Askary left behind a young son. They even got more confused after the sudden death of that young son. This resulted in dividing such revolutionary groups into many sects each different from the other in terms of principles and ideas as well as even in laws and beliefs.
The most famous among such sects is Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah), now prevailing in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. It is the biggest Shiite sect at present.
The leaders of this sect started to add to Islam ideas that would work best for situations they are exposed to currently and that may ensure the continuation of their sect despite the absence of their leader.
They added many serious Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) to the religion of Islam, claiming them to be part and parcel of Islam. Thus, such Bid'ahs, with the passage of time, became a key component of their ideology and thought. Some of such Bid'ahs relate to Imamate (caliphate). Seeking a justification for the lack of a current imam, they argued that Imams are twelve only, arranging them in the following order: 1- `Ali bin Abu Talib, 2- Al-Hassan bin `Ali, 3- Al-Hussein bin `Ali, 4- `Ali Zainul-`Abidin bin Al-Hussein, 5- Mohammed Al-Baqir bin Zainul-`Abidin, 6- Ja`far Al-Sadik bin Mohammed Al-Baqir, 7- Musa Al-Kazim, 8- `Ali Al-Rida, 9- Mohammed Al-Jawad, 10- `Ali Al-Hadi, 11- Mohammed Al-Mahdi and 12- Al-Hassan Al-`Askary.
That is why this sect is called Ithna `Ashriyyah. Seeking to justify why the Imam succession came to an end, they claimed that the young child Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-`Askary has not died yet, and that, according to them, he has disappeared in a mountain cave and that he is still alive (over one thousand years now). They further claim that he will be back one day to rule the world. They also believe him to be the Awaited Mahdi (Righteous Imam). They also claimed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) bequeathed Imamate to those twelve names but Companions withheld such information. This is why they judge Companions in general to be disbelievers (however, some of them judge Companions to be only profligate) as they concealed such a bequeath. Influenced by the Persian system of rule, they introduced the inevitability of the monarchical system believing that the Imam must be the elder son of `Ali bin Abu Talib and likewise all succeeding Imams. As known to all, this notion is not Islamic at all. Even Sunni Islamic states based on a monarchical system, such as Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Ayyubi and Ottoman caliphates, never considered the monarchical system to be a part of religion or that ruling must be on a dynasty basis. Influenced also by Persia, they introduced sanctification of the ruling dynasty. Accordingly, they believed in the infallibility of the aforementioned Imams and thus considered their sayings to be as holy as the Qur'an and Prophetic Hadith. Moreover, most of their Fiqhi (jurisprudential) rules are even derived from the sayings of Imams, regardless of whether these sayings are authentically or falsely attributed to them. Furthermore, in his book "Islamic Government", Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, stated, "One of the fundamentals of our ideology is that our Imams are higher in rank than devoted angels and prophets." Hence, this explains their bitter hostility to all Companions (except for a few of them who do not exceed thirteen). They also show hostility to even some of the Prophet's Household, such as Al-`Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Allah's Messenger's uncle, and his son Abdullah bin `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the great scholar of the Ummah. Unarguably, hostility to these two figures and judging them to be disbelievers is due to the historical conflict between Ithna `Ashriyyah and Abbasid caliphate.
Among their Bid`ahs also is that they consider most Muslim countries to be Darul-Kufr (House of disbelief). They also judge the people of Medina, Mecca, Egypt and Levant to be disbelievers, falsely reporting the Messenger of Allah to have said something in this regard and thus believe it to be a part of their religion.
You can refer to such ideas in their original resources, such as Al-Kafy, Bihar Al-Anwar and Tafsir Al-Qummi, Tafsir Al-`Ayyashi, Al-Burhan and other books.
Consequently, they do not acknowledge any Sunni scholars and all the authentic Hadith books, such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa'i. They also deny the authority of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ibn Hanbal. They also do not admit the excellence of Khalid bin Al-Walid or Sa`d bin Abu Waqqas, `Umar bin Abdul-`Aziz,, Musa bin Nusair, Nourul-Din Mahmoud, Salahud-Din, Qutuz and Muhammad Al-Fatih.
As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur'an), they depended largely on sayings attributed to their Imams through very weak chains of narrators. Consequently, many abhorred Bid'ahs took place regarding their doctrines, acts of worship, transactions and other wakes of life. In this article, I do not intend to give a list of their Bid'ahs; actually, such a goal requires composing many books. I only refer here to the origin of the problem so that we may understand its consequences. However, it requires a lengthy talk to speak about such Bid'ahs as Taqiyyah (a dispensation allowing Shiites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion) and Raj'a (the second coming or the return to life of their Imams after death), viewing that the Qur'an was interpolated, misbelieving in Allah, Bid'ahs committed at the shrines, building such shrines in mosques, abhorred Bid'ahs committed on the anniversary of Al-Hussein's Martyrdom and thousands of other Bid'ahs that became key pillars in religion according to Ithna `Ashriyyah.
All that I have mentioned so far is only a part of the ideology of Ithna `Ashriyyah. However, there are several other sects that rose during the same period in history, especially during the period known in history as the period of "Shia Bewilderment", which started as early as the middle of the third century A.H. following the death of Al-Hassan Al-`Askary (the twelfth and last Imam according to them).
From this period on, literature and books that plant their ideology and doctrines were composed. Their methodologies spread widely in the Persian region in particular and in the Muslim world in general. However, till then no state was established to officially adopt such ideologies. Anyway, by the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., serious developments took place that led to Shia assuming power in some areas, which had serious repercussions on the entire Muslim Ummah. This is what I will deal with in the next article, if Allah so wills.
However, I have to repeat the rule that "one cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it". Thus, if we are to take a decision regarding a specific matter or issue, we have to have knowledge about it first. In other words, we can judge something to be right or wrong or say that it is better to do so-and-so only when authentic information is available. Undoubtedly, judgments based of passions and on no study leads certainly to evil consequences.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.
By: Dr. Ragheb El Sergani
islamstory website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)