Scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah from Ahlul-Bayt (Part 1)
March 2, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
3 Votes
“Mukhtaṣar A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt”
Scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah from Ahlul-Bayt (Part 1)
In this thread In-shā’-Allāh, I shall post my translation and abridgment of the book “A`lām alḤanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt” by Muḥammad Wā’il al-Ḥanbalī.
Objective of the book:
This book is a research done in some books of history and biographies in which the author gathers
the names of all famous and iconic men who have two things in common:
1- They belong to the Ḥanafī Madhab.
2- They are from the progeny of Ahl-ul-Bayt.
What the original Arabic book contains that my summary does not contain:
1- Short introduction to the Ḥanafī Madhab and its most important figures.
2- Brief overview of the historical ties between the Ḥanafī Madhab and Ahl-ul-Bayt and which of the
Ḥanafī scholars wrote books about Ahl-ul-Bayt.
3- Much more detail about each scholar discussed, such as their teachers and students and books
and where they traveled and more…
4- Useful footnotes with sources and comments and opinions by the author.
5- List of books used for this research.
6- Comprehensive index.
NOTES:
-This thread shall only contain names of scholars of Ahl-ul-Bayt who belong to the “Ḥanafī”
Madhab, not the average people or the laypeople from that Madhab.
-We shall list those we came across and we cannot claim that we managed to gather all of the
Ḥanafī scholars of prophetic descent.
-We have only gathered the names of those who are authentically proven to be from Ahl-ul-Bayt,
not those who are said to be from them, or those who claim it without solid proofs from proper
sources.
-The Ḥanafī Madhab spread in areas such as Bukhara and Persia and it is known that there was no
presence for Ahl-ul-Bayt in those areas in the first couple of centuries.
Who are Ahl-ul-Bayt according to the Ḥanafī Madhab?
They are the children of: `Alī, al-`Abbās, Ja`far, `Aqīl, al-Ḥārith the children of abī Ṭālib. All the
rulings of Ahl-ul-Bayt are applicable to their children except the children of abū Lahab.
Example of how each man shall be presented in the list:
- Name (Date of birth – Date of death) Famous for:
Long Name and Lineage.
ex:
- abū Ḥanīfah (b.80 – d.150 AH) Imām al-Madhab al-Ḥanafī, Faqīh, `Ābid, Amīn:
al-Nu`mān ibn Thābit ibn Zūṭā ibn Marzubān, al-Farisī, al-Taymī.
Glossary of some terms in the research:
Faqīh = Jurist.
Muḥaddith = Scholar of Hadith.
Naqīb al-Ashrāf = Head of the order of the prophetic progeny.
Mudarris = Teacher.
Mu’arrikh = Historian.
Qādi = Judge.
Qādi al-Qudat = Head of judges.
Wālī = Governor.
Wajīh = Reputed.
Muftī = Legislator.
`Allāmah = High ranking scholar.
`Ālim = Scholar.
Zāhid = Ascetic/Pious.
Nassābah = Genealogist.
Lughawī = Linguist.
Musnid = Reference in Hadith.
Amīn = Faithful.
Adīb = Writer.
Fāḍil = Virtuous.
Mufassir = Interpreter of Qur’anic text.
Shā`ir = Poet.
Faraḍī = Knowledgeable in matters of inheritance.
Khaṭṭāṭ = Calligrapher.
Khatīb = Speaker.
Naḥawī = Knowledgeable in Arabic grammar.
Raḥḥālah = Traveler.
Transliteration help for special characters:
‫=ا‬ā
‫=و‬ū
‫=ح‬ḥ
‫=ط‬ṭ
‫=ي‬ī
‫=ص‬ṣ
‫=ض‬ḍ
‫=ظ‬ẓ
‫ = غ‬gh
‫ = آ‬aa
‫‘=ء‬
‫ = ث‬th
‫ = خ‬kh
‫ = ذ‬dh
‫`=ع‬
————————————————————————————————————–
================================================
In the name of Allāh, most merciful, the list is as follows:
-5th century Hijrī- abū al-Faḍl al-Ḥasanī (d.448 AH) / Faqīh, Muḥaddith:
abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Dāwūd bin `Alī bin ` Īsā ibn Muḥammad bin alQāsim bin al-Ḥasan bin Zayd bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib.
- Ṭirād al-Zaynabī (b.398 – d.491 AH) / Muḥaddith, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
abū al-Fawāris, Ṭirād bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Zaynabī, al-Hāshimī,
al-`Abbāsī, al-Baghdādī.
- al-Sayyid abū Shujā`(b. beginning of fifth century – d. middle of fifth century AH) / Faqīh, Imām:
Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥusayn bin al-Qāsim bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin
`Ubaydullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib.
- abū al-Waḍḍāḥ al-`Alawī (b.438 – d.491 AH) / Faqīh, Mudarris:
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥusayn bin al-Qāsim bin Ḥamzah bin alḤasan bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-Ḥasan bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib.
-6th century Hijrī- Aḥmad bin Ṭāhir bin Ḥaydarah (b.501 – d.566 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Mu’arrikh:
abū al-`Abbās, Aḥmad bin Ṭāhir bin Ḥaydarah bin Ibrāhīm bin al-`Abbās bin al-Ḥasan bin al-`Abbās
bin al-Ḥasan bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin
Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib, al-Maṣrī, alDimashqī.
- Nūr al-Hudā al-Zaynabī (b.420 – d.512 AH) / Qādi, Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
abū Ṭālib Nūr al-Hudā, al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin `AbdulWahhāb bin Sulaymān bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Imām bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin
`Abdullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Abdul-Muṭalib, al-Hāshimī, al-Zaynabī.
- al-Akmal al-Zaynabī (b.477 – d.543 AH) / Qādi al-Quḍāt:
abū al-Qāsim, `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Hāshimī,
al-`Abbāsī, al-Zaynabī, al-Baghdādī.
- ibn Nāṣir al-Ḥusaynī (b.515 – d.599 AH ) / Mudarris, Faqīh:
abū al-Majd, `Alī bin `Alī bin Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ja`far bin alḤasan, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Baghdādī.
- al-Amīr al-Sayyid (b.521 – d.588 AH) / Faqīh, Wajīh:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin al-Murtaḍā bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin al-Dā`ī bin Zayd ibn Ḥamzah bin `Alī
bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-Saylaqī bin al-Ḥasan bin Ja`far bin al-Ḥasan bin alḤasan bin `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Aṣbahānī, al-Baghdādī.
- Aqḍā al-Quḍāt al-Zaynabī (b.529 – d.563 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi:
al-Qāsim bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin`Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Hāshimī, al`Abbāsī, al-Zaynabī, al-Baghdādī.
- Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d.556 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Nāṣir al-Dīn, abū al-Qāsim, Muḥammad bin Yūsuf bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad ibn `Alī,
al-`Alawī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Samarqandī.
-7th century Hijrī- Burhān-ul-Dīn al-Ḥanafī (d.689 AH) / al-`Allāmah al-Muftī, al-Zāhid:
Burhān-ul-Dīn, Aḥmad bin Nāṣir bin Ṭāhir, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.
- `Imād-ul-Dīn al-Mūṣilī (b. around 562 – d.648AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Imād-ul-Dīn, abū Naṣr, Aḥmad bin Yūsuf bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Mūṣilī.
- abū Ṭālib `Azīz-ul-Dīn (b.572 – d.614 AH) / Mu’arrikh, Nassābah, Lughawī:
`Azīz-ul-Dīn, abū Ṭālib, Ismā`īl bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin
Muḥammad bin `Azīz bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Muḥammad
bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abi
Ṭālib.
- Iftikhār-ul-Dīn al-Hāshimī (b.539 – d.616 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Abdul-Muṭalib bin al-Faḍl bin `Abdul-Muṭalib bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn ibn
Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Abdul-Malik bin Ṣāliḥ bin `Alī bin `Abdullāh bin
al-`Abbās, al-Hāshimī, al-Ḥalabī.
- Niẓām-ul-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī (d.691 AH) / Amīn, Wajīh:
Niẓām-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Manāqib bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin
Aḥmad bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-Munqidhī ibn
Ja`far al-Ṣādiq, al-Ḥusaynī.
- al-Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb al-Shurūṭī (d.635 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid, Wajīh:
al-Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Manāqib bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī bin
Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-Munqidhī ibn Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad alBāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abū Ṭālib.
-8th century Hijrī- Aḥmad al-Sijazī (b.673 – d.762 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Imām al-Hanafiyyah bi-Makkah:
Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Yūsuf bin Abū Bakr bin abī al-Fatḥ bin `Alī, al-Sijazī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad al-Haytī (d.784 AH) / Lughawī, Adīb:
Muḥammad bin `Arab, al-Haytī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Irāqī, al-Ḥamawī.
- Mūsā al-Mūsawī (b.628 – d.715 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid:
Mūsā bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib bin abū `Abdullāh bin abū al-Barakāt, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥusaynī, alDimashqī.
-9th century Hijrī- `Abdul-Salām al-Baghdādī (b.776 – d.859 AH) / Fāḍil, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Abdul-Salām bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Mun`im bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Kaydūm ibn `Umar bin
abū al-Khayr Sa`īd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qāhirī, al-Ḥanafī.
- `Abdul-Kabīr bin abī al-Sa`ādāt (lived at the end of the ninth century Hijri) / Faqīh, Khaṭṭāṭ:
`Abdul-Kabīr bin abī al-Sa`ādāt bin Maḥmūd bin `Ādil, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Madanī.
- `Alī ibn al-Naqīb (b.852 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh, Lughawī, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Alī bin Muḥammad bin Abū Bakr bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alī bin `Adnān bin Ja`far bin Muḥammad
bin `Adnān bin Nāṣir al-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.
- Muḥammad bin abī al-Ṣafā (died in the end of of the ninth century Hijri) / Faqīh, Lughawī:
Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn, abū Yūsuf, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Irāqī, alQāhirī.
-10th century Hijrī-
- `Abdullāh bin abī al-Sa`ādāt (b.853 – d. tenth century AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Abdullāh bin abī al-Sa`ādāt, Muḥammad bin Maḥmūd bin `Ādil bin Mas`ūd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Madanī,
al-Ḥanafī.
-11th century Hijrī- Aḥmad al-Ḥamawī (d.1098 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, abū al-`Abbās, Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Makkī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥamawī, al-Maṣrī.
-Ṣabghatullāh al-Barwajī (d.1015 AH) / Faqīh, Murabbi:
Ṣabghatullāh bin Rūḥullāh bin Jamālullāh, al-Barwajī, al-Madanī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- `Abdullāh Qaḍīb al-Bān (b. beginning of eleventh century – d.1096 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Adīb:
`Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Ḥijāzī bin `Abdulqādir bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥalabī.
- Muḥammad al-Kawākibī (b.1018 – d.1096 AH) / Mufassir, Faqīh, Muftī, Adīb, Shā`ir:
Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.
- Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn ibn Ḥamzah (b.1024 – d.1085 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh:
Muḥammad bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin
Muḥammad bin Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.
-12th century Hijrī- Ibrāhīm al-Murādī (b.1118 – d.1142 AH) / Faqīh, Mudarris:
Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Mūsā bin
Ṣāliḥ al-Qādī bin Muḥammad bin `Umar bin Shu`ayb bin Hūd bin `Alī al-Hādī bin Muḥammad alJawād bin `Alī al-Riḍā bin Mūsā al-Kāẓim bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn
al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abū Ṭālib.
- Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥamzah (b.1054 – d.1120 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Muḥaddith, Naḥawī:
Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Shams-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin Badr-ul-Dīn Ḥusayn bin
Ḥāfiẓ al-Muḥaddith bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin `Iz-ul-Dīn Ḥamzah bin abī al-`Abbās Aḥmad bin
`Alā’-ul-Dīn `Alī bin al-Ḥāfiẓ Shams-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah bin
Muḥammad bin Nāṣir al-Dīn bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Ismā`īl al-Ḥarrānī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad
bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-’A`raj bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq.
- Aḥmad bin abī al-Su`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1130 – d.1197 AH) / Muftī, Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Shā`ir:
Aḥmad bin abī al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad
bin Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad al-Kawākibī bin Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn Ibrāhīm bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Alī bin Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn
Mūsā bin Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn Isḥāq bin Amīn-ul-Dīn Jibrīl bin Ṣāliḥ bin Quṭb-ul-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Ṣalāḥ-ulDīn Rashīd bin Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ bin `Awḍ al-Khawwaṣ bin Fayrūz-Shāh al-Bukhārī bin Mahdī bin
Badr-ul-Dīn Ḥasan bin abī al-Qāsim Muḥammad bin Thābit bin Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin al-Amīr Dāwūd
bin `Alī bin Mūsā al-Thānī bin Ibrāhīm al-Murtaḍā bin Mūsā al-Kāẓim bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq.
- Aḥmad al-Sa`īd al-Murādī (b.1150 – d.1170 AH) / Faqīh, Adīb:
abū al-Majd, Aḥmad al-Sa`īd bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Aḥmad al-Kawākibī (b.1054 – d.1124 AH) / `Allāmah, Muftī, Adīb:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.
- Ḥusayn al-Murādī al-Kabīr (b.1138 – d.1188 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Adīb:
Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Ṣāliḥ, alḤusaynī, al-Dimashqī, al-Murādī, al-Ḥanafī.
- Sa`dī ibn Ḥamzah (b.1075 – d.1132 AH) / Faraḍī, Muḥaddith, Muhandis:
Sa`dī bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.
- abū al-Su`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1090 – d.1137 AH) / Mufassir, Faqīh, Muftī:
abū al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan, al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.
- `Abdul-Rahmān al-Sulaymānī (d. 1165 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Ṭabīb:
`Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad Aslam bin `Abdul-Rahmān, al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī, al-Sulaymānī, alMakkī.
- `Abdul-Karīm ibn Ḥamzah (b.1051 – d.1118 AH) / Naqīb lil-Ashrāf, `Allāmah, Adīb:
`Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad Kamāl-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī.
- `Abdullāh Bāshā al-Jitjī (b.1115 – d.1174 AH) / Faqīh, Wālī, `Ālim, Mushārik:
`Abdullāh Bāshā bin Ibrāhīm, al-Jitjī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Jarmakī.
- `Abdul-Mun`im ibn al-Ashraf (d.1160 AH) / Muftī, Muhandis:
`Abdul-Mun`im bin Khiḍr bin Muṣṭafā bin Khiḍr bin Muṣṭafā bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥumṣī.
- `Alī al-`Ajlānī (b.1127 – d.1183 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Wajīh:
`Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.
- `Alīmullāh al-Hindī (d.1176 AH) / Murabbi, `Ālim, Mudarris:
`Alīmullāh bin `Abd-ul-Rashīd, al-`Abbāsī, al-Hindī.
- Muḥammad Amīn al-Mīrghanī (d.1161 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Zāhid:
Muḥammad Amīn bin hasan bin Muḥammad Ameeen bin `Alī, al-Mīrghanī,al-Ḥusaynī, al-Makkī.
- Muḥammad abī al-Su`ūd al-Ḥusaynī (d.1172 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Muḥammad abū al-Su`ūd bin `Alī bin `Alī bin abī al-Khayr Iskandar, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Maṣrī, al-Sayyid
al-Sharīf.
- Muḥammad al-Murādī (b.1094 – d.1169 AH) / `Ālim, Qādi, Faqīh, Zāhid:
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.
- Murād al-Murādī (b.1050 – d.1132 AH) / `Allāmah, Raḥḥālah, Mufassir, Muḥaddith:
Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Ṣāliḥ bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.
- Yūsuf al-Naqīb (b.1073 – d.1153 AH) / Muftī, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
abū al-Maḥāsin, Jamāl-il-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ḥusayn bin Darwīsh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.
-13th century Hijrī- `Ārif Hikmat (b.1201 – d.1275 AH) / Shaykh-ul-Islam, `Allāmah, Adīb, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm, Naqīb
al-Ashrāf:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, Aḥmad `Ārif bin Ibrāhīm `Iṣmatullāh bin abī al-Walīd Ismā`īl bin Ibrāhīm Bāshā, alḤusaynī, al-Istānbūlī.
- Aḥmad al-`Ajlānī (d.1277 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Aḥmad bin Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, ibn `Ajlān.
- Ismā`īl Ḥamzah (b.1183 – d.1222 AH) / Amīn al-Fatwā:
Ismā`īl bin Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf
Muhamamd al-Ḥusaynī, ibn Ḥamzah.
- Amīn al-Jundī al-Muftī (b.1229 – d.1295 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Adīb, Khatīb, Shā`ir:
Amīn bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Isḥāq bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad,
al-Jundī, al-Mu`arrī, al-Dimashqī, al-`Abbāsī.
- Ḥasan Taqī-ul-Dīn (d.1264 AH) / Muftī Dimashq, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Ḥasan bin Taqī-ul-Dīn bin Ḥasan bin Muṣṭafā bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Ismā`īl bin Muhibb-ul-Dīn bin
Shams-ul-Dīn bin Zayn-ul-Dīn bin Ḍiyā’-ul-Dīn Humaydah bin Zayn-ul-Dīn `Umayrah, al-Būṣilī, alBalqawī, al-Ḥuṣnī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Ḥusayn al-Murādī (b.1200 – d.1267 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Faqīh:
Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Murād, al-Naqshabandī, al-Bukhārī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Ḥusayn Ḥamzah (b.1161 – d.1203 AH) / `Ālim, Shā`ir, min Ṣuḍūr Dimashq:
Badr-ul-Dīn abū al-Luṭf Ḥusayn bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm bin
Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Ḥamzah al-`Ajlānī (d.1228 AH) / Muftī Dimashq:
Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.
- Ḥamzah Ḥamzah (b.1142 – d.1217 AH) / Naqīb Ashrāf Dimashq, min Ṣuḍūr Dimashq:
Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin hasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Muḥammad, al-Hamzawī, alḤanafī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Darwīsh al-`Ajlānī (b.1228 – d.1297 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Ālim, Faraḍī:
Darwīsh bin Ḥusayn bin `Umar bin Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn, al-`Ajlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Darwīsh Ḥamzah (b.1200 – d.1249 AH) / Faqīh, Khaṭṭāṭ:
Darwīsh bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Rāghib al-`Ajlānī (b.1236 – d.1263 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Rāghib bin Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-`Ajlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Sa`īd al-Ḥalabī (b.1188 – d.1259 AH) / Shaykh al-Hanafiyyah, Marji` Bilād al-Shām:
Sa`īd bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Ḥalabī, al-Dimashqī.
- `Abdul-Rahmān al-Murādī (d.1218 AH) / Muftī:
`Abdul-Rahmān bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Murādī.
- `Abdulqādir Ḥamzah (b.1235 – d.1279 AH) / `Ālim Mushārik, Amīn lil-Fatwā:
`Abdulqādir bin Darwīsh bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm alḤusaynī.
- `Abdullāh al-Maḥjūb (d.1207 AH) / Faqīh, Adīb, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Afīf-ul-Dīn, abū al-Siyādah `Abdullāh bin Ibrāhīm bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad Amīn ibn `Alī Mīrghanī
bin Ḥasan bin Mīrkhūrd bin Ḥaydar bin Ḥasan bin `Abdullāh ibn `Alī bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin `Alī
bin Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin `Īsā bin Abū Bakr bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl bin Mīrkhūrd alBukhārī bin `Umar ibn `Alī bin `Uthmān bin `Alī al-Muttaqī bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī al-Hādī bin
Muḥammad al-Jawād bin `Alī al-Riḍā, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Makki, al-Ṭā’ifī, al-Ḥanafī, al-Maḥjūb.
- `Abdullāh al-Murādī (b.1160 – d.1212 AH) / Muftī Dimashq:
`Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Ṭāhir bin `Abdullāh bin Muṣṭafā bin Muhamamd Murād, al-Murādī, alḤusaynī.
- `Abdul-Muḥsin al-`Ajlānī (d.1263 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
`Abdul-Muḥsin bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.
- Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn al-Bukhārī (b.1154 – d.1200 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Faḍl, Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Khayrullāh, al-Atharī, alḤusaynī, al-Bukhārī.
- Muḥammad Kamāl Ḥamzah (d.1258 AH) / `Ālim, Faqīh, Wajīh:
Muḥammad Kamāl bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad Nasīb Ḥamzah (b.1201 – d.1257 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh, Adīb, Zāhid:
Muḥammad Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad Sa`īd al-`Ajlānī (b.1170 – d.1250 AH) / Muftī Dimashq, `Ālim, Niḥrīr:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī, al`Ajlānī.
- Muḥammad Tillū (d.1282 AH) / `Ālim Jalīl, Faqīh:
abū al-`Irfān, `Alam-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin `Abdullāh bin `Umar bin Muṣṭafā, ibn Tillū, alDimashqī, al-`Abbāsī.
- Muḥammad Khalīl al-Murādī (b.1173 – d.1206 AH) / Mu’arrikh, Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Allāmah, Adīb:
Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn, abū al-Faḍl, Muḥammad Khalīl bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād ibn `Alī
bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.
- Muhamamd Amīn `Ābidīn (b.1198 – d.1252 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, `Allāmah Muḥaqqiq, Marji` alHanafiyyah fīl-Shām:
Muḥammad Amīn bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ulDīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabaydī (b.1145 – d.1205 AH) / `Allāmah Mushārik, Muḥaddith, Mu’arrikh,
Lughawī, Imām, Nassābah:
abū al-Fayḍ, Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Razzāq bin `Abdul-Ghaffār bin
Tāj-ul-Dīn bin Ḥusayn bin Jamāl-ul-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad bin abī al-`Izz
bin abī al-Faraj bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Nāṣir al-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm
ibn Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin `Īsā bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn, al-Murtaḍā, alZabaydī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Shihāb-ul-Dīn al-Aalūsī (b.1217 – d.1270 AH) / Mufassir, Muḥaddith, `Allāmah:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, abū al-Thanā’, Maḥmūd bin `Abdullāh al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī, al-Baghdādī.
- Yūsuf al-Maghribī al-Ḥasanī (d.1279 AH) / Raḥḥālah, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Makārim, Sayf-ul-Dīn Yūsuf bin badr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin
`Abdullāh bin `Abdul-Malik bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad bin
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad
bin al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin `Umar bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin `Abdul-`Azīz al-Tabbā`
bin Hārūn bin Junūn bin `Allūsh bin Mindīl ibn `Alī bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Īsā bin Aḥmad bin
Muḥammad bin `Īsā bin Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar, al-Ḥasanī, al-Marākishī, al-Maghribī, alDimashqī.
-14th century Hijrī- Aḥmad Shākir al-Kabīr (d.1315 AH) / `Allāmah Mushārik, Dā`iyah:
Aḥmad Shākir bin Khalīl, al-Za`farānbūlī, al-Jūlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Aḥmad `Ābidīn (b.1239 – d.1307 AH) / Amīn lil-Fatwā, Zāhid:
Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad
Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn ibn Najm-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Kamāl ibn Taqī al-Dīn bin Muṣṭafā bin Ḥusayn bin
Raḥmatullāh bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin `Izz-ul-Dīn `Abdullāh bin Qāsim bin
Ḥasan bin Ismā`īl ibn Ḥusayn al-Mantūf(Maftūn) ibn Aḥmad bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl
al-A`raj bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Aḥmad al-Ḥalabī (b.1252 – d.1304 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, Wajīh:
Aḥmad bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Aḥmad al-Ḥasībī (d.1357 AH) Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Wajīh:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad abī al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad Ḥasīb bin Muḥammad, al`Aṭṭār, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥasībī.
- Aḥmad Rāfi` al-Ṭahṭāwī (b.1275 – d.1355 AH) / `Allāmah, Faqīh, Mufassir:
Aḥmad Rāfi` bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Rāfi`, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qāsimī, al-Ṭahṭāwī.
- abū al-Ashbāl Aḥmad Shākir (b.1309 – d.1377 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, `Allāmah, Muḥaddith:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Shākir bin `Abdulqādir, Shams-ul-A’immah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Maṣrī.
- Ḥusayn al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1300 – d.1395 AH) / `Ālim, Faraḍī:
Ḥusayn bin `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Salīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Nasīb bin Ḥasan bin Yaḥyā
bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin
Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Riḍā al-Ḥalabī (b.1279 – d.1329 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, `Allāmah, Mushārik, Faqīh:
Riḍā bin Aḥmad bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Sa`īd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.
- Shākir al-Ḥamzāwī (d.1328 AH) / Qādi, Wajīh:
Shākir bin As`ad bin Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm, ibn
Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Ṭāhir Ḥamzah (d.1335 AH) / Amīn al-Fatwā, Faqīh:
Ṭāhir bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.
- `Abdul-Ḥamīd al-Aalūsī (b.1232 – d.1324 AH) / `Ālim:
`Abdul-Ḥamīd bin Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī.
- `Abdul-Ḥamīd al-Ḥawāṣilī (b.1311 – d.1389 AH) / Ṣāliḥ, Zāhid:
`Abdul-Ḥamīd bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥawāṣilī, al-Ḥusaynī.
- `Abdul-Muḥsin al-Murādī (d.1332 AH) / Mudarris, Amīn al-Fatwā:
`Abdul-Muḥsin bin Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Murādī.
- `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Ābidīn (b.1244 – d.1306 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, `Allāmah Mushārik:
`Alā’-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Amīn bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin
Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.
- `Alī al-`Aṭṭār al-Ḥasībī (d.1341 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Ālim:
`Alī bin abī Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad bin `Alī, al-`Aṭṭār, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥasībī.
- Muḥammad abū al-Khayr `Ābidīn (b.1269 – d.1344 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, `Allāmah, Faqīh:
Muḥammad abū al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad ibn
`Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad Mas`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1281 – d.1348 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Su`ūd, Muḥammad Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad Bahā’ī bin Muḥammad Su`ūd al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥalabī,
al-`Alawī.
- Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (b.1248 – d.1307 AH) / Amīr, `Allāmah, Nābighah:
abū al-Ṭayyib, Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Khān bin Ḥasan bin `Alī bin Luṭfullāh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī, alQinnawjī.
- Muḥammad Khalīl al-Qāwiqjī (b.1224 – d.1305 AH) / Faqīh, Mufassir, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Maḥāsin, Muhamamd bin Khalīl bin Ibrāhīm, al-Ḥasanī.
- Muḥammad Sa`īd al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1313 – d.1398 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Ra’īs Jam`iyat al-Hidāyah
al-Islāmiyyah:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Darwīsh Aal-Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad Sa`īd al-Bānī (b.1294 – d.1351 AH) / Faqīh, Mufakkir:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad, al-Mūṣilī, al-Ḥasanī.
- Muḥammad `Ārif al-Jūyjātī (b.1317 – d.1395 AH) / Faqīh, Lughawī:
Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.
- Maḥmūd al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1236 – d.1305 AH) / `Allāmat-ul-Shām, Muftī-ul-Shām:
Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm,
ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Nu`mān Khayr-ul-Dīn al-Aalūsī (b.1252 – d.1317 AH) / `Allāmah, Wā`iẓ:
abū al-Barakāt, Nu`mān bin Maḥmūd bin `Abdullāh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī, al-`Irāqī.
- Yāsīn al-Jūyjātī (b.1301 – d.1384 AH) / `Ālim, Faqīh, Qāri’:
Yāsīn bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.
-15th century Hijrī- Ibrāhīm al-Ya`qūbī (b.1343 – d.1406 AH) / `Allāmah, Muḥaddith, Faqīh Mālikī, Faqīh Ḥanafī:
Ibrāhīm bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad al-Ṣiddīq bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-`Arabī bin
Aḥmad bin BāBā Ḥabīy bin al-Khiḍr bin `Abdulqādir bin Mizyān bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn
Muḥammad al-Ṣaghīr ibn Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin Aḥmad bin Ṣāliḥ bin Idrīs ibn abī Ya`qūb bin
Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin al-Jūdī bin Aḥmad bin `Abdulqādir bin `Arabī bin Ṣāliḥ bin Sa`īd bin
`Umar bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin Ḥusayn bin `Alī ibn Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar bin
`Abdullāh al-Maḥḍ bin al-Ḥasan al-Muthannā bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Ya`qūbī, alḤasanī, al-Dimashqī.
- abū al-Ḥasan al-Nadwī (b.1333 – d.1420 AH) / Dā`iyah `Ālamī, Mufakkir Kabīr, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin `Abdulḥay bin Fakhr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-`Alī bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Nadwī.
- Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn al-Qudsī (b.1321 – d.1400 AH) / Kutubiyy, Nāshir:
Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Shafīq bin Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī,
al-Qudsī.
- Muḥammad abū al-Yusr `Ābidīn (b.1307 – d.1401 AH) / Ṭabīb, `Allāmah Mushārik, Muftī:
Muḥammad abū al-Yusr bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin
`Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muḥammad Murshid `Ābidīn (b.1327 – d.1428 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, Mu`ammar:
Muḥammad Murshid bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar ibn `Abdul`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.
- Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī al-Jūyjātī (b.1315 – d.1411 AH) / Faqīh, Muṣliḥ, `Allāmah Mushārik, Qāri’ Mutqin:
Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.
————————————————————————————————————–
================================================
Praise be to Allāh, this book was finished in ’2011′ by the original author from “‫ ”مبرة اآلل واألصحاب‬.
The abrigement was written in English in ’2013′ by Hānī al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭarābulsī al-Shāfi`ī.
Shaykh Walid Al-Rashoudi: Iran Is a Paper Tiger; The Shia Only Work
with Blood
February 2, 2012 at 2:33 am | Posted in History, News, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment
1 Votes
The following are excerpts from an interview with Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi, Head
of Islamic Studies at Riyadh Teachers’ College, which aired on Iqra TV on January
8-14, 2010.
Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: We would like to draw the viewers’ attention to the
attempt to hijack the Arabian Peninsula – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Yemen
– and to incorporate them in the false Persian state, desired by Khomeini’s Safavid
Persion followers.
[...]
It may come as a surprise – if not to you, to your viewers – that the American-Iranian
alliance is one of the strongest alliances in the world. It is one of the strongest
alliances in the world. Did this sink in, or is it too much of a shock?
Interviewer: I got it, but on the face of it, things look different.
Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: That’s why I’d like to explain…
Interviewer: Will you give me some time for it to sink in?
Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: I will.
[...]
Take, for example, the case of the hostages in Tehran. Iran turned into such a
“great” power just because it took hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. Right? It
ended up in nothing. The hostages were released on the day of Regan’s
inauguration.
The US embassy in Iran has never been locked down, despite America’s claims of
multiple threats and its fear of Iran. Never have we heard that the US embassy in
Iran closed its gates. Even in the days of the election riots, the US embassy was not
closed. Even during the Gaza affair, when US embassies were kicked out of many
Arab capitals, the US embassy in Iran was not closed.
Why did the US close its embassy in Yemen five days ago as a precaution – and in
order to destabilize the security of Yemen – and issue a warning to its citizens? How
come they never issued a warning to US citizens about Iran? It is because of the
American-Iranian alliance.
Didn’t Iran claim the credit for the toppling of the Saddam regime? Didn’t Iran declare
that it served as a bridge used by the US to topple the so-called Taliban state? This
is how Rice’s idea of forming a Greater Middle East came into existence – a Middle
East that includes Iran, Afghanistan, and so on. This way, the Persians’ prey would
be great, and they could control the resources of the Arab nation, and try to destroy
it.
[...]
When the religious party gained hegemony in America, it was led to believe that the
Resurrection of Christ would not take place unless Greater Israel was established,
and the Greater Israel could only be established through the establishment of the
Persian state. These two states have become interconnected – like two links in a
chain pulling in opposite direction.
[...]
Iran gives the Houthis money and supplies them with weapons via boats. Iran helps
them by means of drug trafficking, and you heard that Yemen sentenced several
Iranian drug smugglers to death. Even Saudi Arabia was not spared the smuggling
of Iranian drugs.
[...]
After the Iraqi regime was toppled, there was no need for US forces to remain in the
region. The US felt it had no choice but to withdraw, so it raised the issue of the
Iranian nuclear dossier.
[...]
How come Israel did not use negotiations and confidence-building measures with
regard to the Iraqi nuclear plant, while today, with regard to the Iranian nuclear plant,
it uses confidence-building measures and adheres to UN resolutions?
Interviewer: Let me ask the following question: Is there a direct connection between
the Houthis and the US?
Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: Undoubtedly. I told you this right from the start.
Interviewer: With the Houthis, not with Iran?
Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: Yes, the Houthis. The US consul in Yemen used to
buy weapons, under the pretext of demilitarizing the region, but later, the same
weapons were found with the Houthis. He bought $100 million worth of weapons
from the tribes.
[...]
[Ahmadinejad] serves his cause, and acts for the sake of his nation and for the
benefit of his country. This man is a very gifted orator, and he manages to persuade
the masses better than most people do. But since we want justice to be served, I
must say that the man is a very gifted liar, a master of deception, who distorts the
facts.
[...]
He said that if Saudi Arabia had directed the weapons it used against the Houthis
towards Israel during the Gaza war, it would have annihilated the Zionist entity. We
direct this great falsehood back to Ahmadinejad: What bombs, bullets, or even
stones did you use against the Jews in the Gaza war? Moreover, where are the
riyals and dollars that you sent to Gaza?
[...]
Ahmadinejad curses Israel, but let me tell you something you don’t know – he uses
an Israeli-made car to protect himself. He bought this car at an exhibition in China,
and it is one of 20,000 such cars around the world.
[...]
The Iranian regime, which curses Israel, is the number one collaborator with Israel.
The greatest economic exchange in 2008-2009 was the pistachio deal. Did you know
that Iran sold Israel $20 million worth of pistachios? The competitor of the Iranian
pistachio is the American pistachio. So the US got mad. This is all about interests.
Israel is not afraid of Iran any more than it is afraid that I would pelt it with a stone.
[...]
Iran is defeated by its own greatness. It is crumbling from within. The opposition to
Ahmadinejad’s government is still active, day and night. Their slogan is: Reform is
impossible without blood. This is the faith of the Shia. They only work with blood. The
Iranian regime is merely a cat that pretends to be a lion. If the Arabs had known the
truth about this paper tiger, they would have realized it is ridiculous and that it would
collapse in no time.
Zuhair ibn Qayn was Uthmani…
January 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Posted in History | 1 Comment
Rate This
Zuhair ibn Qayn was known soldier of Husayn, which as it was reported was martyred along with
Husayn (radi Allahu anhu) in Karbala.
Let us see what history book (p 5) says about him
Translation:
“Zuhayr believed that Uthman ibn Affan was killed wrongly, and due to that it is known that he
was inclined toward (being) Uthmani and (his) desire”
Ahlalbayt members and Imamate
January 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Posted in History, Invented myths and legends, Refuting shia doubts, Take a few minutes
to think on this | 1 Comment
1 Votes
We would like to present two members of Ahlalbayt, which obviously didn’t agree with 12-th
theory.
First one, is Muhammad al-Dibaj bin Ja’afar al-Sadiq. He was son of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq.
Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Dawud al-Hasani, known as Ibn ‘Anabah (d. 828/1425) in his book ‘Umdat alTalib page 245 wrote:
‫وأما محمد الديباج بن جعفر الصادق ” ع ” لقب بذلك لحسن وجهة ويلقب أيضا المأمون وأمه أم ولد وكان قد خرج داعيا إلى‬
‫محمد بن إبراهيم طباطبا الحسنى فلما مات محمد بن إبراهيم دعا محمد الديباج إلى نفسه وبويع له بمكة ثم أخذ وجيئ به المأمون‬
‫فعفا عنه ومات بجرجان وقبره بها وله عقب كثير متفرق إال أنهم أقل من عقب أخويه على وإسماعيل فأعقب من ثالثة رجال‬
‫ على الخارصي والقاسم والحسين‬.
“…As for Muhammad al-Dibaj bin Ja’afar al-Sadiq (as) he was given this title for his beautiful face
and he was also called al-Maamoun and his mother was Umm Walad, he came out and called for
Muhammad bin Ibrahim Taba-Taba al-Hasani, when ibn Ibrahim died al-Dibaj started calling for
himself and he received Baya’ah(Allegiance) in Mecca but he was caught and they took him to alMaamoun who forgave him and released him, he died in Jarajan and his grave is there and he has
lots of scattered descendants but they are less than those of his brothers ‘Ali and Ismail…”
The bio of ibn ‘Anabah:
Biography:
‫ «سيد جليل عالمة نسابة… كان من علماء اإلمامية بل هو من‬:‫قال الشيخ عباس القمي(قدس سره) في الكنى واأللقاب‬
‫»عظمائها‬.
Sheikh ‘Abbas al-Qummi said in al-Kuna wal-Alqab: “Great knowledgeable Sayyed in Ansab … He
was from the greatest scholars of Imami Shia”
And second one, is ’Abdullah b. Al-Hasan b. Al-Hasan b. Ali. .
71 – ‫ كنت جالسا عند أبي عبد‬: ‫ محمد بن الحسين عن البزنطي عن حماد بن عثمان عن علي بن سعيد قال‬: ‫بصائر الدرجات‬
‫هللا ع وعنده محمد بن عبد هللا بن علي إلى جنبه جالسا وفي المجلس عبد الملك بن أعين ومحمد الطيار وشهاب بن عبد ربه فقال‬
‫ أما‬: ‫ فقال أبو عبد هللا ع بعد كالم‬. ‫ لنا في هذا اآلمر ما ليس لغيرنا‬: ‫ جعلت فداك إن عبد هللا بن الحسن يقول‬: ‫رجل من أصحابنا‬
‫ إنه ليس عندنا علم وصدق وهللا ما عنده علم ولكن وهللا – وأهوى‬: ‫تعجبون من عبد هللا يزعم أن أباه علي من لم يكن إماما ويقول‬
‫ – إن عندنا سالح رسول هللا ( صلى هللا عليه وآله ) وسيفه ودرعه وعندنا وهللا مصحف فاطمة ما فيه آية من‬: ‫بيده إلى صدره‬
. ‫كتاب هللا وإنه إلمالء رسول هللا ( صلى هللا عليه وآله ) وخطه علي ع بيده والجفر وما يدرون ما هو ؟ مسك شاة أو مسك بعير‬
‫ أبشروا أما ترضون أنكم تجيئون يوم القيامة آخذين بحجزة علي وعلى آخذ بحجزة رسول هللا ( صلى هللا عليه‬: ‫ثم أقبل إلينا وقال‬
‫وآله ) ؟‬
‘Ali bin Sa’eed said: I was sitting with abi ‘Abdullah (as) and besides him was Muhammad bin
‘Abdullah bin ‘Ali, in the Majlis was also ‘Abdul-Malik bin A’yyun and Muhammad al-Tayyar and
Shihab bin ‘Abd-Rabbuh, so a man from our companions said: My I be a sacrifice for you, ‘Abdullah
bin al-Hasan says: “We are more worthy for this affair than anyone else.” abu ‘Abdullah (as) said:
“Do’t you find it strange that ‘Abdullah claims that his father ‘Ali was not an Imam? and he says
that we have no knowledge and honesty? By Allah it is he who has no knowledge but by Allah – he
pointed to his chest – : We have the weapon of Rassul-Allah SAWS and his sword and armor and by
Allah we have the Mushaf of Fatima and it does not contain a single verse from the book of Allah, it
was dictated by the Prophet SAWS and ‘Ali (as) wrote it , we also have al-Jafr and they do not know
what it is…”
Sources: Bihar al-Anwar, Majlisi, 26/40. Basaer al-Darajat, al-Saffar, pg173.
al-Khoei comments:
‫ هذه الرواية تدل على أن عبد هللا بن الحسن كان قد نصب نفسه لإلمامة وكان يفتي بغير ما أنزل هللا ويأتي في ترجمة عبد‬: ‫أقول‬
‫ هللا بن النجاشي ( أبي بجير ) عن الكشي أن عبد هللا بن الحسن كان مرجعا للزيدية وكان يتصدى للفتيا‬.
“I say: this narration shows that ‘Abdullah bin al-Hasan had placed himself as an Imam and that he
gave Fatwas that contradict Allah’s message, we see in the Tarjamah of ‘Abdullah al-Najashi (abi
bujayr) from al-Kashshi that ‘Abdullah bin al-Hasan was a scholar that the Zaydiyyah followed and
he used to give Fatwas.
Source: Mu’ujam Rijal al-Hadith 11/173.
Shi’ah Are the Facilitators for the Qaraamitah
August 4, 2011 at 10:42 am | Posted in History | Leave a comment
1 Votes
The Rafidah Shi’ah have historically been the facilitators for other subversive factions, as Ibn
Taymiyyah mentions (Majmoo’ 13/209-210), that:
‫لكن الخوارج دينهم المعظم مفارقة جماعة المسلمين واستحالل دمائهم وأموالهم والشيعة تختار هذا لكنهم عاجزون والزيدية‬
‫تفعل هذا واإلمامية تارة تفعله وتارة يقولون ال نقتل إال تحت راية إمام معصوم والشيعة استتبعوا أعداء الملة من المالحدة‬
‫والباطنية وغيرهم ولهذا أوصت المالحدة – مثل القرامطة الذين كانوا في البحرين وهم من أكفر الخلق ومثل قرامطة‬
‫المغرب ومصر وهم كانوا يستترون بالتشيع – أوصوا بأن يدخل على المسلمين من باب التشيع فإنهم يفتحون الباب لكل‬
‫عدو لإلسالم من المشركين وأهل الكتاب والمنافقين‬
However, the kharijites, their venerated deen is to separate from the jamaa’ah of the Muslims
and to make permissible [the shedding] of their blood and wealth. The Shi’ah also choose this
[course of action], but they are unable [practically], and the Zaidiyyah do this, and the Imaamiyyah
sometimes do this, but sometimes they say “We will not fight except under the banner of an
infallible Imaam”, and the Shi’ah entice the enemies of the religion, amongst the atheists,
the Baatiniyyah and others besides them. For this reason they counsel the atheists – such as
the Qaraamitah who used to be in Bahrain, and they are the most disbelieving of the creation, and
the likes of the Qaraamitah of the Maghreb and Egypt, and they used to conceal themselves behind
Tashayyu’ (beliefs of the Shi’ah) – they counseled them to enter upon the Muslims from the door of
Shi’ism, for they (the Shi’ites) open up the door to every enemy of Islaam, amongst the Mushriks,
the people of the Book, and the Hypocrites
The Qaraamitah, Baatiniyyah believe that religion is just a veil and is for the common folk, whilsit
the higher esoteric truths are known through gnosticism and philosophy. So to deceive the Muslims,
they wore the veil of Shi’ism to gain proximity to the Muslims and to call them to their disbelief.
The Main Motive of Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi
May 1, 2011 at 4:12 am | Posted in History | 3 Comments
1 Votes
The Main Motive of Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi in the eyes of Murtada Al-Askari by brother Farid.
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
I write this post after making a discovery that I haven’t seen brought up before by anyone that
attempted to refute the works of Murtada Al-Askari. As some of you may be aware, he is the author
of the books like Abdullah bin Saba’, Al-Ustoorah Al-Saba’iyah (The Sabayan Legend), and
Khamsoon wa Mi’a Sahabi Mukhtalaq (A Hundred and Fifty Fake Companions).
To keep things simple, he wrote two volumes for each of these works, so in total, six volumes that
revolve around a specific idea. Now, that certain idea is that Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi is a liar and
that he fabricated narrations, events, places, and people. Murtada Al-Askari then went as far as to
list out hundreds of people that he believed did not exist outside the narrations of Saif, like for
example, Al-Qa’qa’a bin Amr Al-Tameemi the warrior, Abdullah bin Saba’a the Jew, and
Mohammed bin Nuwaira one of Saif’s imaginary shaikhs.
Whoever, the question that everyone asks is, why?! Why would someone go so far as to fabricate so
much in the name of religion? Truly, there needs to be an answer, and Murtada Al-Askari, himself,
provided his theories and we will get to that shortly.
In any case, not too long after publishing these works, the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah stood their
ground and responded with great publications in which these ideas were exposed as incompetent
and uncreative. Incompetent because these are weak assumptions and uncreative because these
are ideas that he borrowed from certain Orientalists.
A really good book that I suggest that everyone with knowledge in Arabic should read is Abdullah
bin Saba’ by Sulaiman bin Hamad Al-Ouda. (Not to be confused with Salman Al-Ouda.) He breaks
down the events that surrounded the death of Othman and the fitna, and pretty much everything
that had to do with Ibn Saba’a, in a very thorough way. In short, he leaves no reason for anyone to
assume that Ibn Saba’a is a figment of Saif’s imagination. One of the ways he does this is by
collecting sources in which Ibn Saba’a can be found in, without the inclusion of Saif in the chain of
narrators. So, I definitely suggest it for those that have the ability to get a copy.
Without going too off topic, I’d like to point out one of the most important flaws that Murtada AlAskari made in his books. He assumed that Saif bin Omar’s sheikh, Mohammed bin Nuwaira, was a
figment of his imagination and that Saif chose to attribute his hadiths to his imaginary sheikh in
order to confuse the hadithists.
Murtada Al-Askari went on to say things like:
‫ انه من مختلقاته من الرواة‬:‫ ابن نويره وسبق قولنا فيه‬،‫ومحمد بن عبد اّلل تخيله سيف‬
Rough translation: Mohammed bin Abdullah was imagined by Saif. Ibn Nuwairah, and we have said
before: He is an imaginary narrator.
It is important to know, that this shaikh is the one that Saif narrates from the most, which is why I
chose to speak about him instead of going into any of Saif’s other shaikhs.
However, the response is just as simple as the accusation, hadith #3417 from Mu’ajam Al-Kabeer by
Al-Tabarani:
‫ عن‬، ‫ حدثنا أبو حماد الحنفي‬، ‫ حدثنا إسماعيل بن أبان‬، ‫ حدثنا زكريا بن يحيى الكسائي‬، ‫ عن محمد بن نويرة حدثنا محمد بن عثمان بن أبي شيبة‬،
‫ فقبلها صلى هللا‬، ‫ ” أهدى المقوقس ملك القبط إلى النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم هدية وبغلة شهباء‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫ عن حنظلة بن الربيع الكاتب‬، ‫أبي عثمان‬
‫“ عليه وسلم‬.
There is no Saif bin Omar in this hadith, which means that Mohammed bin Nuwaira did exist.
Now, back to the original issue of Saif bin Omar’s motive for fabrication narrations and people.
Murtada Al-Askari writes from page 55 to page 68 (Dar Al-Zahra, 7th edition) about the history of the
tribes of the Arabs, and the feudal nature of these tribes, and how their tribal pride caused them
to go against moral codes. After, setting this up, he states the following:
‫ فاختلق لهم سيف من غير قبائل مضر حاشية‬،‫وكان هؤالء القادة الفاتحون من أبطال أساطيره بحاجة إلى جنود وأتباع في معاركهم االسطورية‬
‫ فدخل في التاريخ االسالمي من هذا النوع حشد كبير في عداد الصحابة‬،‫ ونسب إليهم أدوار ثانوية في تلك المعارك والحروب االسطورية‬،‫ورعايا‬
ً ‫ ولم يكن له وجود بتاتا‬،ً‫ وكان هذا النوع من الوضع عند سيف اختالقا ً محضا‬،‫ ورواة الحديث إلى طبقات أخرى‬،‫والتابعين‬.
،‫ وذلك كالفتوح التي كانت لغير مضر‬،‫ ونسبها إلى غير أصحابها‬،‫حرف فيها وقائع صحيحة‬
َّ ‫ من االساطير‬،‫وهناك نوع آخر مما وضعه سيف‬
‫ أو لمن اختلقهم ونسبهم إلى مضر لينسب تلك الفتوح إليهم‬،‫ ممن كان لهم وجود تاريخي محقق‬،‫فرواها سيف وعزاها لقادة من مضر‬.
Rough translation: And those that led the armies that fought in his (Saif’s) legends needed soldiers
for their legendary battles, so Saif created them from tribes other than Madhar (Saif’s genealogy
goes back to Madhar), and gave them secondary roles, and by that, there was a new group of
people that entered the categories of Sahaba and Tabi’een in Islamic history. He even created
hadith narrators, and these weren’t in existence before Saif at all.
‫ فإن سيفا ً قد عزاها لغيرهم سواء أكان غير‬،‫ومن هذا النوع من التحريف عند سيف ما كان من شأن مؤاخذات كان يالم عليها بعض سادة مضر‬
‫ ومن هذا النوع أيضا ً ما كان بين سادة مضر أنفسهم مما كانوا‬،‫ أو اختلقه ليلصق به ما عيب عليه المضري‬،‫المضري هذا له وجود تاريخي‬
‫حرف ما روي في ذلك كما فعل في ما وقع بين عائشة وطلحة والزبير وعثمان من خصومة حتى واقعة الدار ومقتل‬
َّ ‫ فان سيفا ً قد‬،‫يؤاخذون عليه‬
‫ فانه عالج كل ذلك بما اختلق من أسطورة عبداّلل بن سبأ الذي زعم أنه جاء من صنعاء اليمن‬.‫ وما وقع بينهم وبين علي حتى واقعة الجمل‬،‫عثمان‬
‫وألقى الفتن في البالد وبين العباد‬.
And one of the types of fabrication that Saif used to delve into was that he’d find the flaws that
were in the people of Madhar, and shift them to someone else that was from another tribe, or to
someone that never existed at all. For example, Saif took what was once issues between Aisha,
Talha, Zubair, and Othman, and the death of Othman, and what happened between them and Ali in
the battle of Jamal, and created Abdullah bin Saba’a, a Yemeni, from Sana’a, and said that he was
the cause of the trouble.
‫وبرأ أولئك السادة من مضر من‬
َّ ‫ وإلى من تخيلهم من جماعته وسماهم بالسبئية تلك القضايا كلَّها‬، ‫نسب سيف إلى من تخيله عبداّلل بن سبأ‬
‫ اختلق عبداّلل بن سبأ هذا ونسبه إلى سبأ نفسه ليكون ألصق باليمانية وأجلى نسبة إلى القحطانية‬.‫…أوضارها‬
Saif took these things and attributed them to Abdullah bin Saba’a, and created a group called the
Saba’iyah, and by this declared all of those from Madhar as innocent. He created Abdullah bin
Saba’a and made Ibn Saba’a a Yemeni from Qahtaan (another tribe).
End of translation.
Murtada Al-Askari, also quoted poetry by some of the Tameemis like Al-Qa’qaa’ bin Amr AlTameemi, Rabee’ bin Matar, and Naf’i bin Al-Aswad Al-Tameemi, and the poetry that he quoted
were in praise of the people of Tameem.
It should also be noted that Murtada Al-Askari also mentions another motive, which is that Saif
wanted to detroy Islam from within, but didn’t really give any real reasons for this other than
mentioning the names of liars and their roles in Islamic history.
Therefore, it is safe to say Murtada Al-Askari believed that Saif Al-Tameemi’s main motive for
concocting these fabrications was because of his zeal for his tribe.
Now, onto the simple refutation.
Omair bin Dhabi’ Al-Barjami Al-Tameemi, was one of those that Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi
mentioned in his historical writings. In Tareekh Al-Tabari (784, Maktabatul Hilal, 1st Edition), we
find him causing trouble in the court of Sa’eed bin Al-Aas and finally being exiled out of Kufa by the
order of Uthman bin Affan.
Then, Saif in Tareekh Al-Tabari (816) narrates a tradition in which Uthman imprisoned Dhabi’, the
father of Omair, and then died in prison. Due to this, his son became a Saba’ee. Then, Kumail bin
Ziyad and Omair bin Dhabi’, agreed to go on ahead to Madinah in order to kill Uthman. However,
Omair became frightened and turned away.
In another narration (820), Al-Waqidi narrates that Omair eventually made to Uthman before he
was buried and broke his ribs.
Now, if we were to take what Murtada Al-Askari has concluded as true, why do we have this many
negative reports about Omair bin Dhabi’ Al-Tameemi? Why didn’t Saif attempt to hide these facts?
Or at least attribute you it to the people of Qahtaan? Surely, one that has fabricated hundreds of
historical figures should be able to at least hide a few narrations that hurt the Tameemi tribe.
On the contrary, Saif, goes against his tribal values, and states that one of his forefathers was a
follower of Abdullah bin Saba’a… and just like that, Saif bin Omar has been cleared of having a
motive to fabricate narrations in the name of his tribe.
I do not intend to make this longer than I have to and I believe that the picture is clear. Inshallah I
will add some more thoughts on the status of Saif bin Omar in the eyes of the scholars of Ahlul
Sunnah later on.
Imam ar-Rida and Caliph al-Mamun
March 29, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
‫‪Rate This‬‬
‫‪Saduq reported in his Uyun akhbarul Riza (1/157):‬‬
‫حدثنا الحاكم أبو علي الحسين بن أحمد البيهقي قال‪ :‬حدثني محمد بن يحيى الصولي قال‪ :‬حدثنا أحمد بن القاسم بن – ‪15‬‬
‫إسماعيل قال‪ :‬سمعت إبراهيم بن العباس يقول‪ :‬لما عقد المأمون البيعة لعلي بن موسى الرضا عليهما السالم‪ ،‬قال له الرضا عليه‬
‫السالم‪ :‬يا أمير المؤمنين إن النصح لك واجب والغش ال ينبغي لمؤمن‪ ،‬أن العامة تكره ما فعلت بي والخاصه تكره ما فعلت‬
‫‪.‬بالفضل بن سهل والرأي لك أن تبعدنا عنك حتى يصلح لك أمرك قال إبراهيم‪ :‬فكان وهللا قوله هذا السبب في الذي آل االمر إليه‬
‫‪Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Hussein ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli‬‬
‫‪quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Al-Qasim ibn Isma’il that he had heard Ibrahim ibn Al-Abbas‬‬
‫‪say, “When Al-Ma’mun pledged allegiance to Ali ibn Musa Al-Reza (alaihi salam), the Imam (alaihi‬‬
‫‪salam) told him, ‘O Commander of the Faithful! It is obligatory to be sincere with you. It is not‬‬
‫‪proper for a believer to be tricky. The masses of the people do not like what you did to me.‬‬
‫‪Especially, the elites do not like what you did with Al-Fadhl ibn Sahl. Now it is best for you to send‬‬
‫‪both of us away from yourself until you can manage your own affairs.’” Ibrahim said, “By God! It‬‬
‫”‪was these words which resulted in what happened to him (death).‬‬
‫‪And in same book you can read:‬‬
‫حدثنا الحاكم أبو علي الحسين بن أحمد البيهقي قال حدثني محمد بن يحيى الصولي قال ‪ :‬حدثني أحمد بن محمد بن إسحاق – ‪17‬‬
‫قال ‪ :‬حدثنا أبي قال ‪ :‬لما بويع الرضا ع بالعهد اجتمع الناس إليه يهنئونه فأومى إليهم فأنصتوا ثم قال بعد أن استمع كالمهم ‪ :‬بسم‬
‫هللا الرحمن الرحيم الحمد هلل الفعال لما يشاء ال معقب لحكمه وال راد لقضائه (يعلم خائنة األعين وما تخفي الصدور) وصلى هللا‬
‫على محمد في األولين واآلخرين وعلى آله الطيبين الطاهرين أقول وأنا علي بن موسى بن جعفر ع ‪ :‬إن أمير المؤمنين عضده‬
‫هللا بالسداد ووفقه للرشاد عرف من حقنا ما جهله غيره فوصل أرحاما قطعت وآمن نفوسا فزعت بل أحياها وقد تلفت وأغناها إذا‬
‫افتقرت مبتغيا رضا رب العالمين ال يريد جزاء إال من عنده (وسيجزي هللا الشاكرين وال يضيع أجر المحسنين ) وأنه جعل إلي‬
‫عهده واإلمرة الكبرى إن بقيت بعده فمن حل عقدة أمر هللا تعالى بشدها وقصم عروة أحب هللا إيثاقها فقد أباح حريمه وأحل‬
‫محرمه إذا كان بذلك زاريا على اإلمام منتهكا حرمة اإلسالم بذلك جرى السالف فصبر منه على الفلتات ولم يعترض بعدها على‬
‫الغرمات خوفا على شتات الدين واضطراب حبل المسلمين ولقرب أمر الجاهلية ورصد المنافقين فرصة تنتهز وبائقة تبتدر وما‬
‫أدري ما يفعل بي وال بكم ؟ أن الحكم إال هلل يقضي الحق‬
‫‪Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Hussein ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli‬‬
‫‪quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq, on the authority of his father, “When‬‬
‫‪they pledged allegiance to Al-Reza (alaihi salam), the people gathered around him and‬‬
‫‪congratulated him. He made a gesture to them to become silent and after hearing their words, he‬‬
‫‪said, ‘In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Praise be to God who does whatever He‬‬
‫‪wills. No one can object to His Decrees. No one can reject His Destiny. He knows whatever treason‬‬
that lies in one’s heart from the sight and whatever is hidden in the hearts. May God’s Blessings be
upon Muhammad, upon the first and the last creatures, upon his good and pure Household.’ He then
added, ‘I am Ali ibn Musa ibn Ja’far. Indeed the Commander of the Faithful (Al-Ma’mun) – may
God assist him in righteousness and make him successful in being rational – has recognized one
of our rights which others were ignorant about. He has established ties of kinship which others
have broken. He has granted security to people who lived in fear. He even revived them and
rescued them from destruction. He enriched them when they were in need. He was seeking the
pleasure of the Lord of the Two Worlds in doing all this. He did not ask anyone but Him to reward
him. God will reward the ones who are grateful. He will not let the reward of the good-doers be
forgotten. He turned over the succession to the throne to me. He has entrusted his great rule to me
after him. And whoever breaks a contract that God has ordered to be safeguarded, and loosens ties
which God likes to be tightened has indeed underestimated God’s Bounds, and has allowed what
God has forbidden. In this way, he has denied the leader of his right and has disobeyed his orders.
He has thus disrespected Islam as was done in the past. The Trustee (Ali ibn Abi Talib (alaihi
salam)) put up with all the instances of breaching of the covenants, and did not even object to
those later when he was in power, fearing dispersion in the religion and turmoil in the ties which
held the Muslims together. This was because the ideas of the Age of Ignorance were still in their
minds and the hypocrites were on the watch to get a chance to create havoc. Now I do not know
what is going to happen to me and you. Indeed there is no arbitrator but God. He is the only One
who clarifies the truth. He is the best Separator.”
Abu Bakr the only one possible leader
February 25, 2011 at 12:08 am | Posted in History, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Rate This
Imam Bukhari narrated in his “Saheeh” in Kitab al-Manaqib:
From Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Allah’s Apostle addressed the people saying, “Allah has given option to a slave to choose this world
or what is with Him. The slave has chosen what is with Allah.” Abu Bakr wept, and we were
astonished at his weeping caused by what the Prophet mentioned as to a Slave ( of Allah) who had
been offered a choice, (we learned later on) that Allah’s Apostle himself was the person who was
given the choice, and that Abu Bakr knew best of all of us. Allah’s Apostle added, “The person who
has favored me most of all both with his company and wealth, is Abu Bakr. If I were to take a
Khalil other than my Lord, I would have taken Abu Bakr as such, but (what relates us) is the
Islamic brotherhood and friendliness. All the gates of the Mosque should be closed except the
gate of Abu Bakr.”
Al-Husain ibn Masood al-Baghawi in “al-Anwar fi shamail Nabi al-Mukhtar” (chapter 96, hadith 1186)
narrated marked part from ibn Abbas. But there is very interesting addition. Ibn Abbas said:
“Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) went out during the illness that was a reason of
this death….” till the end of hadith where above mentioned words were said.
That’s mean prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) ordered to close all gates to Mosque
except the gate of Abu Bakr very short before his death.
Also it should be noted that Imam Muslim narrated in his “Saheeh”, Kitab al-Manaqib, and Baqawi in
“al-Anwar” hadith 1188 (quoted from Muslim):
Book 031, Number 5879:
A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) in his (last) illness asked me to call
Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that
someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: I have better
claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu
Bakr.
It’s also known that almost all companions consider Abu Bakr as a best one amongst them.
Bukhari narrated from Jabir, that Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Abu Bakr our master”. (Suyuti “Tareeh
al-khulafa” p 77, darul qalamul arabi)
And it was narrated in “al-Awsat” from Abu Juhayf that Ali said: “Best of people after messenger
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) are Abu Bakr and Umar, love of me and their hate couldn’t
gather in soul of believer”. (Ibid p 78)
As we already proved words that Abu Bakr and Umar were the best, narrated from Ali in mutawatir
form.
Tirmizi and ibn Hibban narrated in Saheeh from Abu Sayeed al-Khudri that (when there
was uncertainty regarding caliphate) Abu Bakr said: I am not most deserve man for this? Meaning
for caliphate, I am not first one to accept Islam? I am not owner of such and such (status)? I am
not an owner of such (and such status)?”. (Ibid p 57)
Ibn Asakir narrated from al-Harith, that Ali said: “Abu Bakr was first one amongst men who
accepted Islam”. (Ibid p 57)
Ibn Abu Khaythama narrated with authentic chain that Zayd ibn Arqam said: “The first one who
prayed with messenger was Abu Bakr”. (ibid p 57)
Ibn Sad narrated from Abi Arwi ad-Dawsari companion may Allah be pleased with him: “Abu Bakr
first one who accepted Islam”. (ibid p 58)
Shia sheikh ar-Radhy – Abu Lulu was zoroastrian
February 24, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Fatwa from official board of that shia sheikh:
‫بعض الروايات التي تقول بأن أبي لؤلؤة مسلم وأنه أفضل الشيعة على اإلطالق فهل هي صحيحة نص السؤال‬
‫؟‬
‫جواب مساحته‬
‫ الثابت تاريخيا ً أن أبا لؤلؤة مجوسيا ً وليس له من اإلسالم شيئا ً والتشيع بريء منه‬.
http://www.alradhy.com/as/hst.htm
Question: Some narrations say that Abu Lu’lu’ was a Muslim and that he was absolutely the best
Shi`a, so is this sahih?
Answer: What is established historically is that Abu Lu’lu was a Majus (Zoroastrian) and had nothing
to do with Islam, and Shi`ism is free of him.
Comment: Nice to see that some shia scholars are using their brains, instead of leading masses to
absolute destruction in hate.
Poetic Justice – Ibn Taymiyyah and Minhāj As-Sunnah
February 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm | Posted in History, On books and authors | Leave a comment
1 Votes
By Ejaz Taj
All Praise is to Allāh, Lord of all that exists. Sustainer of the heavens, the earth, and all that exists
within them. Most High and Exalted is He who sent messengers to many communities calling their
people back to the worship of the One True God, Allāh, alone, without any partners, and to
abandon the worship of people, stars, planets, idols, rocks, graves, trees and anything else, which
itself has been created similar to the one worshipping it. It is only out of His Mercy and Compassion
that He sends down the guidance as a criterion, a carrier of glad tidings and a stern warning to
those who reject the message; those who continue to futilely wander across the land in darkness
and delusion carried by the winds of desire and worldly gain.
Worthy of All Praise is He, who supported His last and final Messenger, Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh alQuraishī, the most truthful and the most trustworthy, with His Divine Help. Most Wise is He who
gathered around the seal of the prophets, men and women whose hearts, purified by the lofty
ideals and heavenly scripture, he propagated and freed from the shackles of ancient traditions and
idol worshipping, became the impenetrable fortress of Islamic propagation and eminent, exemplary
examples for generations to come.
“Men whom neither trade nor sale diverts them from the Remembrance of Allāh, nor from
performing Salāh (prayer) nor from giving the Zakāh. They fear a Day when the hearts and eyes
will be overturned.” [1]
Thus, any individual who is blessed and tried with the heavy responsibility of prophethood, will
have many who will be his most vehement rejecters and many will become his strongest and most
ardent supporters. Many may once have been his fiercest opponents, however when the light of
Allāh finally penetrated their constricted hearts, they experienced an equivocal freedom. They
dedicated their lives to propagating the faith so that others may also taste the sweetness of it,
based upon truth and far removed from mere conjecture.
Looking back in history, at the struggles of the previous prophets before the advent of Muḥammad
(ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam), we see that many of the greatest amongst them were fortified with
a group of students and companions who would shadow his every step, memorise his every word
and live by every one of his teachings. Musā (`alayhis-salām) was sent on his mission accompanied
by his brother Hārūn (`alayhis-salām), and they were later accompanied in their mission by a
number of righteous companions from the Children of Israel, who had not forgotten the meaning of
gratitude. The Word of Allāh, ‘Īsā b. Maryam (`alayhis-salām) (Jesus the son of Mary) was given the
companionship of his Hawāriyyūn (disciples). Similarly was our Messenger, Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu
`alayhi wa-sallam) blessed with a people, his Saḥābah (Companions), who lived with him, learned
from him, were expelled from their lands with him, migrated with him, fought alongside him,
sacrificed with and for him and tasted every hardship and rejection that their most beloved faced.
Such was his love for these men and women of intense loyalty and unshakeable faith that he
declared,
“Do not curse the Saḥābah, for by the One in Whose hand is my soul, if any one of you were to
spend the equivalent of Mount Uhud in gold, he would not attain the level of any one of them, or
even come half way.”[2]
Despite this, Satan, may he be cursed, was forever relentless; dispatching his soldiers to the east
and the west in order to steal souls who would otherwise be next to the Creator’s Messenger
(ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam) on the Day of Reckoning; defiling their beliefs and corrupting their
actions until their blackened hearts would send them headfirst into the Fire of Hell, doomed to an
accursed companionship with the desolate one himself. Preying upon the weaknesses of humans, a
person’s unceasing quest for fame, status and a heart that is constantly ablaze with the fires of
pride, envy and jealousy, he sought the formation of an evil, new creed. A creed whose origins
sprung forth in part from the blackened actions of a person named ‘Abd Allāh b. Sabā; a creed that
would sweep across all corners of the Muslim world. A creed that was in actuality nothing but a
conduit directly leading to the everlasting abode of torment, burning fiercely for those who fall
into it, and disregarding clear signs and warnings away from it. It burns to this day, sucking the
unwary and indiligent as well as the downright stubborn who are intent on fanning its flames, right
before they too are consumed by it.
This sordid creed is none other than that of the Path of Rejectionism (or rafḍ in Arabic), its
adherents are known as the Rāfidah or the Twelver Imāmiyyah Shi’a. It is in this creed that the
mandatory love, respect and honour for those whom the Prophet (ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam)
himself declared his love for, is purposely defaced and disrespected. They sought to curse, to
insult, to slander, to cast doubts upon the honour and righteousness of these individuals. [They]
accuse them of thievery, cheating, bad manners, dishonesty, immoral behaviour, corruption, and
injustice; worst of all they place the charge of disbelief upon the vast majority of them, while
raising their own Imāms to a level above that of even the prophets; attributing to them infallibility
in all matters. They plan and Allāh too Plans and Allāh is the Best of Planners. How can one ever
drink from a mirage when the truth of what is in front of you has already been made abundantly
clear?
The spread of this ideology would be constantly refuted and kept in check by the established
Muslim scholarship of every generation, and this still continues to this day. It was in 661 ah that the
Almighty gave life to an individual, a reviver of the religion whose scholarship, works and selfless
service would ensure that his legacy would remain alive for generations to come. He was a towering
intellect with a wealth of knowledge in every Islamic science, dedicating his life to propagating and
clarifying the true and pure Islamic creed, while refuting the various deviant ideologies. A man
whose name would echo throughout history and send waves throughout Islamic scholarship for
centuries to come, Aḥmad b. ‘Abd Al-Ḥalīm b. ‘Abd As-Salām b. Taymiyyah Al-Harrānī, better
known as Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah.
Amongst the most prevalent deviant ideologies of his time was this creed of Rejectionism.
Sometimes between 704 ah and 709 ah, it was brought to Ibn Taymiyyah’s attention that a Shi’ī
scholar by the name of Muttahhir Al-Hillī [3] had authored a treatise in defence of the Rafidite
concept of Imamate. The book was written specifically for the Mongolian ruler of Persia of that
time named Oljaitu, he was also called Khudā-bandā (Man of God) by his people, and it was also
being widely distributed to the many sub-rulers and laypeople who had little to no firm grounding
in their religion. Oljaitu was born a Christian, even being baptised, but later in life he accepted
Islam along with his brother. Later on he had another change of heart and develop an affinity for
Shiaism, partly due to a marital incident that occurred in his life but mainly due to the influence of
Mutahhir Al-Hillī, with whom he had developed a close relationship. Al-Hillī wrote for Oljaitu a work
entitled, Minhāj Al-Karāmah fī Ma’rifat al-Imāmah (The Blessed Pathways in Recognition of
Imamate). In it he extolled the virtues of the core Shi’ite belief of Imamate (as opposed to the core
tenets of Islam laid down in the Qur’ān and authenticSunnah) in an attempt to sway his belief away
from mainstream Sunni Islam to that of Rejectionism; he was fully aware how easily influenced
Oljaitu was in religious affairs due to his lack of having a firm grounding in this area of study. He
eventually succumbed and adopted Shiaism around 709-710 AH as well as announcing it as the
official state religion of the time, even necessitating the mention of the 12 Imāms from then
onwards in the Friday sermon.
The book itself was distributed far and wide and when it was brought to the attention of Ibn
Taymiyyah by the sincere ones from among Ahl us-Sunnah, he was urged by them to answer and
refute the misconceptions and outright falsehoods found within it. Ibn Taymiyyah being felt bound
by the heavenly covenant taken by those blessed with knowledge and entrusted with the
inheritance of the prophets, mentions at this juncture:
“When those (who brought Minhāj Al-Karāmah to my attention and) kept pushing me for a
refutation to this clear misguidance, they mentioned that not doing so would be a disgrace to the
believers and that the people of transgression (from whom these ideologies originated) would begin
to think that we are unable to provide answers in the face of these slanders. So I wrote, what Allāh
made easy for me, in answering them and by way of fulfilling the promise that He has taken from
the people of knowledge amongst the believers; they stand up for justice and in bearing witness to
Him. As Allāh says, “You who believe, stand firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allāh, even though
it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allāh is a Better
Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice,
and if you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, verily, Allāh is Ever Well-Acquainted with
what you do. ” [4]
Thus distorting [al-Layyu from wa lā talwū in the āyah] is changing one’s testimony and refusing to
give it, is in actuality, to conceal it. For Allāh the Most Exalted has ordained truthfulness and
speaking it, while He has forbidden lying and concealment of it in as much as what is needed to
make it known and for it to be understood.” [5]
This short translated extract is taken from the very beginning of what would be Shaykh al-Islām’s
monumental nine volume work called: Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah Fī Naqd Kalam ash-Shī’ah
Wal Qadariyyah (The Methodologies of the Prophetic Sunnah in Refutation of the Sayings of the
Shi’a and the Qadariyyah). It stands till this day as a standard work of reference and an academic
discourse, debate and thorough refutation of every doubt and issue raised by Al-Hillī in Minhāj AlKarāmah as well as the beliefs of Ahl ar-Rafḍ in general. Sheikh Muḥammad Ayman ash-Shabrawī in
the introduction to his edition of Minhāj as-Sunnah states:
“This book, Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah, of Ibn Taymiyyah was written with the intended
purpose of serving as a thorough reply and refutation to what was said in (Al-Hillī’s) Minhāj AlKarāmah. You will find in it a comprehensive refutation of deviant groups, specifically the Twelver
Imāmiyyah Shi’a who are identified by their extremism in their beliefs regarding theirImāms.
Namely their raising them to a level above even that of the angels and the messengers. They are
also known by their belief that the Qur’ān has been distorted (taḥrīf al-Qur’ān), and of course their
outright cursing of the honourable and upright Companions of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu
`alayhi wa-sallam). The very companions, who strove with their lives and their wealth in the
propagation of the True Religion and in raising the Word of Monotheism (Kalimat At-Tawḥīd)
throughout the regions of the earth.”
The book itself is a marvel to behold. The sheer depth of Ibn Taymiyyah’s knowledge of
history,fiqh, ḥadīth, tafṣīr, language, philosophy, human psychology, logic and knowledge of the
internal workings of the various sects and religions is in and of itself breathtaking. Many of his other
works will generally focus on a specific area yet in Minhāj As-Sunnah you will see him draw upon
every science and every angle to answer hundreds of issues in defence of the pure creed of Ahl usSunnah.
It is a work that I would highly recommend to everyone, however because of its length and the lack
of any translation efforts for it, it still remains in Arabic. This would definitely be another reason to
learn the Arabic language and then study it, devoting both time and seriousness (apart from of
course understanding the Qur’ān and aḥādīth).
In keeping with the core purpose of this book, Ibn Taymiyyah, in one of my favourite chapters,
composes an extremely beautiful poem in refutation of a poem written by Al-Hillī through which he
encourages the disavowal of Islamic scholarship in favour of Shi’ī narrations; their narrations are in
reality full of unknown and untraceable narrators, huge gaps in their chains and many have no
chain. Regardless, Ibn Taymiyyah composes this poem as a beautiful reminder of the characteristics
of the ‘Straight Path’ made clear for one who possesses a pure heart and an unswerving sincerity in
seeking the truth. This poem, with its simple but timeless message, is the intended purpose of the
writing of this short article. From it we derive the very methodology by which we live our lives and
view this blessed religion of ours.
‫] – تـنا ُل به الزلفى وتنجو من النار‬6[ً ‫إذا شئتَ أن ترضى لنفسك مذهبا‬
When you wish to content yourself with a creed –
Receiving by which, a closeness (to Allāh) and deliverance from the Fire
‫فـدن بكـتاب الـلـه والسـنة التي – أتت عن رسول هللا من نقل أخيار‬
Then profess (a creed) made from the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah which
Has reached us by way of the Messenger of Allāh and was conveyed by the very best (of people)!
‫ع التي – يـقودك داعـيها إلى النار والعار‬
َ ‫] والبـد‬7[‫ودع عنك ديـنَ الرفض‬
Abandon innovation and the religion of Rejectionism which –
Would only serve to lead you, the caller to it, to the Fire of Hell and a shameful disgrace
‫وسـر خلف أصحاب الرسول فإنهم – نجوم هدى في ضوئها يهتدي السارى‬
Rather follow behind the Companions of the Messenger (in their path) for indeed they are
The stars of guidance, the very light which guides those traversing the Path
]9[‫] عن طريق الرفض فهو مـؤسَّس – على الكفر تأسيسا ً على ُج ُرفٍ هار‬8[‫وعج‬
So depart in droves from the Way of Rejectionism for it is an establishment
Upon disbelief, its foundations laid on a crumbling precipice
]10[‫ إمـا هدى وسعادة – وإمـا شـقاء مـع ضاللـة كفار‬: ‫هـما خـطـتا‬
Thus they are two separate courses (leading to) either guidance and blissOr (leading to) a miserable existence sharing the same delusions as the disbelievers
‫ وأهدى سبيالً عندما يحكم البارى‬.. ‫فأي فريقينا أحق بأمنه‬
So which of these two groups has the greatest right to His (Allāh’s) Protection –
And guidance to the right path when the Creator passes His Judgement!
]11[‫أمن سب أصحاب الرسول وخالف ال – كـتاب ولـم يعـبا بـثابت أخبار‬
(Will it be) the one who curses the Messenger’s Companions and opposes the Book of Allāh
And has not a care for affirming the reports (i.e., the aḥādīth)
]12[‫أم المقتدي بالوحي يسـلك مـنهج ال – صحـابة مـع حب القرابة األطهار‬
(Or will it be) the one who firmly takes the Revelation as his example and traverses the
methodology of
The Companions while encompassed by love for the blessed, pure kinfolk of Muhammad [ṣallallāhu
`alayhi wa-sallam] (i.e., the Ahl ul-Bayt)
“The first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār and those who followed
them with good conduct – Allāh is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has
prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the
supreme success!” [Surah at-Tawbah:100]
End Notes
[1] Surah An-Nūr 24:37
[2] Narrated by Sa’īd Al-Khudrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī (No.3673), also narrated by Abū Hurayrah, Ṣaḥīḥ
Muslim (No. 2540)
[3] He is Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū-Manṣūr al-Ḥasan b. Yūsuf b. ‘Alī b. al-Mutahhir Al-Hillī, a Shi’ī scholar
born in 648 AH and died two years before Ibn Taymiyyah in 726 AH. He moved from his native Iraq
to Persia and was quite influential in the court of Oljaitu Khudā bandā.
[4] Surah An-Nisā [4:135]
[5] Minhāj As-Sunnah, Volume 1, Chapter: “The necessity of the scholars to convey the knowledge
and to clarify the misguidance of the Rawāfiḍ.
[6] Its important to note how the meaning and connotations of a word can change depending on its
context, even more so within the framework of Islamic sciences. A single word may have a separate
literal meaning yet its definition changes when that word is used say within the sciences
of ḥadīth, fiqh, ‘aqīdah, etc. For example, the word madhab used here will be associated by most
people to a fiqh school of jurisprudence from amongst the four Sunni orthodox established schools
of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, Ash-Shāfi’ī or Aḥmad b. Hambal, May Allāh have mercy upon them all,
however linguistically the word is derived from its root dha ha ba which means to go. The specific
form pattern in which the word madhab appears is known in grammatical terminology as an ism
makān, i.e. the place where the action of the root verb is carried out. For example the root verb sa
ja da means to prostrate, when placed into the ism makān its form pattern results in the
wordmasjid, i.e. the place where the sajdah is performed by people. Thus the word madhab
literally means a path or a methodology that is traversed. In the context of this poem, it refers to a
set of beliefs, one’s creed or ‘aqīdah that they follow if they want to gain success of what is
mentioned in the following lines. This is proven by the second part of the first line, “Receiving by
which a closeness to Allāh and deliverance from the Fire.” This obviously cannot be in reference to
a fiqhmadhab since differences within jurisprudence and derived rulings on issues not related to
belief have been ongoing since the time of the Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them all.
Differences amongst the scholars on fiqh are not causes for disbelief nor is it possible then for
there to be only one single (fiqh) madhab that would deliver one from the Fire of Hell. Thus the
verse clearly is in reference to a Creed that one professes; a madhab of Belief that is eloquently
described in the verses that follow it.
[7] The Religion of Rejectionism, i.e. Twelver Imāmiyyah Shi’aism
[8] The verb ’ajja as used here to refer to a swarming mass, something that is absolutely teeming
with the subject of the verb. In this verse it is used in the imperative form (amr), an order even,
for the masses who have a sincere care for their Hereafter. It literally means to run away in droves
from such a destructive, evil path. Imagine the scene one sees when a natural disaster occurs, how
large masses of people all flee in one direction. This is the kind of imagery Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to
portray in this line, since what the people are running away from is far more dangerous than any
worldly and physical danger from which a mass of people may flee.
[9] A beautiful yet threatening similitude is made here between the establishment of this sordid
creed and that of Masjid ‘Ḍirār’ which Allāh mentions in Surah Tawbah [9:107-110]. Masjid Dirār
was a place of worship built in the outskirts of Madinah by the hypocrites at the time of the
Prophet (ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam) with a secret, hidden intention, serving as an outpost for
the launch of attacks against the Muslim. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam) received
revelation informing him of the true nature of this masjid and the real intentions of those who built
it. Within these āyāt Allāh mentions: “Then is one who laid the foundation of his building on
righteousness [with fear] from Allāh and [seeking] His approval better or one who laid the
foundation of his building on the edge of a bank about to collapse (‘alā shafā jurufin hār), so it
collapsed with him into the fire of Hell?” So how fitting is it then that a methodology that claims
Islam for itself, yet curses those very same noble men and women who sincerely strove for it and
were responsible for its preservation and propagation, is now compared to Masjid Dirār? A place
built by a group of men with the same kind of diseased hearts who claimed Islam openly yet
secretly conspired against it and its tenets. Without a doubt Ibn Taymiyyah was right, this creed too
is built on a crumbling precipice by those claiming Islam, inevitably to crumble without a trace into
the pits of the Fire along with the hypocrites who built it!
[10] This is in reference to those that profess the creed of Rejectionism. They themselves claim
Islam and the title of a Muslim, however the reality of their status is completely different. Thus
they may see themselves as Muslims, separating themselves by name but they are one and the same
and thus in effect “sharing the same delusions” and ultimately the same end as those they claim to
be different from.
[11] This is a lengthy topic within itself but this line in essence refers to complete lack of critique
and science, even when it comes to ḥadīth narrations and authentications. They reject established
books of ḥadīth, seeking to attack the narrators within them, however their own books are full of
untraceable fabrications, no concept of authentication, huge gaps often generations in size within
their chains of narration, complete lack of a chain of narration, as well as the mention of numerous
unknown narrators who cannot be traced nor have any records attesting to their character or lives.
This is all in stark contrast to the science of ḥadīth within Ahl us-Sunnah in which everything is
meticulously checked, verified and documented; It is the opposite of what is mentioned in this
verse, Ithbāt al-Akhbār.
[12] As Ibn Taymiyyah states in his Aqīdah Al-Wasitīyyah, “They (i.e., the Sunnis) love the people of
the household of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam); they regard them with love
and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu `alayhi wa-sallam)
concerning them…but they reject the way of the Rāfidah [the Shia] who hate the Saḥābah and
slander them, and they reject the way of the Nāsībīs who insult Ahl al-Bayt in words and actions.”
Thus it is incumbent upon us to love and respect both and it is from the way of the people of
Rejectionism to go to extremes by cursing one and venerating the other, creating an imaginary
divide and rift between the two when there isn’t one.
When division took place in the imamiyah?
February 6, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Book: Lulu al-Bahrayn p 113.
Author: Sheikh Yusuf al-Bahrani.
In the bio of Muhammad Amin Sharif al-Istirabade he said:
“He was the first one who opened the door of mocking upon mujtahidsm and divided saved sect
(meaning shia) into akhbari and mujtahid(s)”.
A little bit after Bahrani wrote that this man died in 1032 h. As far as I understood here under
mujtahids he mean usuli shias. So seems to me we have as a version, approximate date when
imamiya-isnaashariya divided into akhbaris and usulis. Allah knows best.
Did the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) appoint
Twelve Imams?
February 1, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Posted in History, Invented myths and legends, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
8 Votes
By brother Tripoly sunni, arranged by gift2shias team:
Firstly let us introduce the shia historian and expert on the different shia sects as we will be relying
on his history book to find out whether the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
appointed the twelve imams of the shia or if the shia just picked their own imams based on their
desires without a religious text.
The ancient shiite historian Abu Muhammad, Al-Hassan bin Musa bin Al Hassan al-Nawbakhti who
was born in the 3rd century Hijri, writes in his book called “Firaq al Shia” about the various shiite
teams and sects and tribes during the life of the 11 imams.
But let us first introduce this shia scholar.
Here is what the shia scholars say about him:
The well known Shi’ite “Who’s Who” critic, al-Najashi in his al-Fihrist, wrote:
“al-Hasan bin Musa: Abu Muhammad al-Nubakhti, the well versed in dialectism, who surpassed the
peers of his time prior and after the 300 (hijra)”
al-Fihrist: al-Najashi, p.47; From Ash-Shi’a was-Sunnah, p.22
Another “Who’s Who” critic, At-Tusi, in his al-Fihrist wrote:
“Abu Muhammad, dialectist and philosopher, was an Imami (shi’ite), an upright in faith,
trustworthy (thiqah)….and he is one of the scholars’ landmarks”
al-Fihrist: At-Tusi, p.98; From Ash-Shi’a Was-Sunnah, p.22Nurallah at-Tasturi, in his “Majaalis alMu’mineen” wrote:
“al-Hasan bin Musa, one of the celebrity of this sect and its scholars. He was a dialectist, a
philosopher, an Imami in faith”
Majaalis al-Mu’mineen: Nurallah At-Tasturi, p.177; from Ash-Shi’a was-Sunnah, p.22The Twelver
Shia sect claims That the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) told us that Allah divinely
appointed twelve infallible Imams and that we must follow them and that he who denies even one
of them will be amongst the misguided on the day of judgment. And they claim that he said: “He
who does not know the Imam of his time will die a death of ignorance (Jahiliyyah)” thus ending up
in hellfire if he denies even one of the twelve according to the shia. They attributed several
narrations to their Imams and to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) directly and I
state just a few samples:
Number #1
‫ على ما بعثتم؟‬:‫س ْل من أرسلنا من قبلك من رسلنا على ما بعثوا؟ قلت‬
َ ‫إلي أن‬
َّ ‫ليلة أسري بي إلى السماء أوحى هللا‬
،‫ فالتفت فإذا علي‬،‫ي أن التفت عن يمين العرش‬
َّ ‫ ثم أوحى إل‬،‫ واألئمة منكما‬،‫ ووالية علي بن أبي طالب‬،‫ على نبوتك‬:‫قالوا‬
‫ ومحمد بن‬،‫ وعلي بن موسى‬،‫ وموسى بن جعفر‬،‫ وجعفر بن محمد‬،‫ ومحمد بن علي‬،‫ وعلي بن الحسين‬،‫ والحسين‬،‫والحسن‬
‫ والمهدي في ضحضاح من نور يصلون‬،‫ والحسن بن علي‬،‫ وعلي بن محمد‬،‫علي‬
Shiites claim that the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: On the night when I was
raised to the sky, Allah sent his revelation to me that I must ask those who came before me
(previous prophets) for what purpose they were sent? They (the prophets) replied to me: (We were
send) upon your Prophet-hood and of the Wilayah (leadership) of Ali bin abi Talib and the Imams
from you. Then revelation came to me that I must look to the left of the Throne. So I looked and
saw Ali and Hassan and Hussein and Ali bin al Hussein and Muhammad bin Ali and Ja’afar bin
Muhammad and Musa bin Ja’afar and Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ali and Ali bin Muhammad and
al Hassan bin Ali and the Mahdi in a glowing light as they pray.
Shia sources: Ithbat al Hudat (1/652) by Muhammad bin al Hassan al Hurr al Amili, Muntakhab al
Athar page 112 by Lutfullah al Safi, Bihar al Anwar (15/247) (18/297) (26/301) (27/200) (36/216) by
Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi.
Number #2
‫ وال أظللته تحت‬،‫ ثم أتاني جاحدا ً لواليتهم ما أسكنته جنتي‬،‫ لو أن عبدا ً عبدني حتى ينقطع ويصير كالشن البالي‬،‫يا محمد‬
‫عرشي‬.
،‫ والحسن‬،‫ وفاطمة‬،‫ فإذا أنوار علي‬،‫ فرفعت رأسي‬،‫ ارفع رأسك‬:‫ فقال عز وجل‬،‫ نعم يا رب‬:‫ أتحب أن تراهم؟ قال‬،‫يا محمد‬
،‫ ومحمد بن علي‬،‫ وعلي بن موسى‬،‫ وموسى بن جعفر‬،‫ وجعفر بن محمد‬،‫ ومحمد بن الحسين‬،‫ وعلي بن الحسين‬،‫والحسين‬
:‫ من هؤالء؟ فقال‬،‫ يا رب‬:‫ فقلت‬،‫ ومحمد بن الحسن القائم في وسطهم كأنه كوكب دري‬،‫ والحسن بن علي‬،‫وعلي بن محمد‬
‫ وهذا القائم الذي يشفي قلوب شيعتك من الظالمين والجاحدين والكافرين‬،‫هؤالء األئمة‬
The Shia claim in this narration that Allah is speaking to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi
wa sallam): O Muhammad if one of my servants worshiped me so much exhausting himself until he
became old and then on the day of judgment came to me after denying the Wilayah (Leadership) of
the Imams, I would not let him into my heaven, nor would I shade him under my throne.
The Lord said: O Muhammad would you like to see them? I said: Yes O lord, Then the Almighty said:
Raise your head, so I raised my head only to see the lights of Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussein
and Ali bin al Hussein and Muhammad bin Ali and Ja’afar bin Muhammad and Musa bin Ja’afar and
Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ali and Ali bin Muhammad and al Hassan bin Ali and in the middle
of them was Muhammad bin al Hassan al Qa’em(Mahdi) as if he was a shining planet, I said: O Lord,
who are they? He said: These are the Imams and this is al Qa’em who shall cure the hearts of your
Shia from the oppressors and the deniers and the kouffar.
Shia sources: ‘Uyoun Akhbar al Reda 1/61 by Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussein bin Babaweih al
Qummi al Saduq, Kamal al Deen page 240 by Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussein bin Babaweih al Qummi
al Saduq, Ghaybat al Tusi page 103 by Sheikh of the shia sect Muhammad bin Ja’afar al Tusi, Ithbat
al hudat (1/476,549,579), Bihar al Anwar (36/216,245,262,280), Ghaybat al Nu’umani page 45 by
Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Ja’afar al Nu’umani, Muntakhab al Athar pages 104,110,119.
Narration #3.
َّ ‫ ((يَا أَيُّ َها الَّذينَ آ َمنُوا أَطيعُوا‬:‫ لما أنزل هللا على نبيه صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬:‫وعن جابر بن عبدهللا األنصاري رضي هللا عنه قال‬
َ‫اّلل‬
‫ فمن أولوا األمر الذين قرن هللا‬،‫ عرفنا هللا ورسوله‬،‫ يا رسول هللا‬:‫] فقلت‬59:‫سو َل َوأ ُ ْولي األ َ ْمر م ْن ُك ْم)) [النساء‬
ُ ‫الر‬
َّ ‫َوأَطيعُوا‬
‫طاعتهم بطاعتك؟‬
‫ ثم محمد‬،‫ ثم علي بن الحسين‬،‫ ثم الحسين‬،‫ ثم الحسن‬،‫ علي بن أبي طالب‬:‫ أولهم‬،‫ أئمة المسلمين بعدي‬،‫ هم خلفائي يا جابر‬:‫قال‬
‫ ثم موسى‬،‫ ثم الصادق جعفر بن محمد‬،‫ فإذا أدركته فأقرئه مني السالم‬،‫ وستدركه يا جابر‬،‫بن علي المعروف في التوراة بالباقر‬
،‫ ثم سميي وكنيتي حجة هللا على أرضه‬،‫ ثم الحسن بن علي‬،‫ ثم علي بن محمد‬،‫ ثم محمد بن علي‬،‫ ثم علي بن موسى‬،‫بن جعفر‬
‫ ابن الحسن بن علي‬،‫وبقيته في عباده‬
From Jabir bin Abdullah al Ansari said: When Allah revealed these verses “O you who believe Obey
Allah and Obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority” [Nisa’a:59] I said: O Apostle
of Allah we know Allah and we know his messenger so who are those of us who are in authority?
He (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: They are my successors, O Jabir and the Imams of
the Muslims after me. The first among them is Ali bin abi Talib then al Hassan then al Hussein then
Ali bin al Hussein then Muhammad bin Ali then Ja’afar bin Muhammad then Musa bin Ja’afar then
Ali bin Musa then Muhammad bin Ali then Ali bin Muhammad then al Hassan bin Ali then he who is
named after me and his Kuniyah is like mine the Hujjah of Allah on his earth and the rest of Allah in
his slaves the Son of Hassan bin Ali.
Shia sources: Kamal al Deen page 241, Ithbat al hudat (1/501)(665), Muntakhab al Athar page 101,
Bihar al Anwar (23/289) (36/250), Manaqib Alu Abi Talib (1/282) by Muhammad bin Ali bin ShahrAshoub al Mazandarani, Tafseer Noor al Thaqalayn (1/499) by Abd Ali al Huwayzi.
Narration #4.
‫ إن جبرئيل أخبره أن األمة تقتل الحسين وينتقم هللا منهم‬:‫ عن النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال‬،‫وعن عائشة رضي هللا عنها‬
‫ كذا أخبرني ربي أنه سيخلق من صلب‬،‫ هو التاسع من ولد الحسين‬:‫ ومن قائمنا أهل البيت؟ فقال‬:‫ فقال‬،‫بقائمكم أهل البيت‬
‫ ثم يخرج من صلب محمد ابنه وسماه عنده‬،ً‫ وسماه عنده محمدا‬،‫ ثم يخرج من صلب علي ابنه‬،ً‫الحسين ولدا ً وسماه عنده عليا‬
‫ ويخرج من صلبه ابنه وسماه‬،ً‫ ويخرج من صلبه ابنه وسمَّاه عنده عليا‬،‫ ثم يخرج من صلبه ابنه وسمَّاه عنده موسى‬،ً‫جعفرا‬
‫ ويخرج من صلبه كلمة‬،‫ ثم يخرج من صلبه ابنه وسماه عنده الحسن‬،ً‫ ويخرج من صلبه ابنه وسماه عنده عليا‬،ً‫عنده محمدا‬
‫ وحجة هللا على بريته‬،‫ ومظهر الحق‬،‫ ولسان الصدق‬،‫الحق‬
They narrated from Aisha (RA) that the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) told her:
Gabriel told me that the nation will kill Hussein and Allah will extract revenge on the nation by the
Qa’em(Mahdi) of Ahlul-bayt. She said: Who is our Qa’em of Ahlul-bayt? The Prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam) replied: He is the ninth from the children of Hussein, My Lord told me that
he will bring from Hussein a boy whom he called Ali, then he brings a boy from Ali whom he called
Muhammad, then brings from him a boy whom he calls Ja’afar, then he brings from him a boy
whom he calls Musa, then he brings from him a boy whom he calls Ali, then he brings from him a
boy whom he calls Muhammad, then he brings from him a boy whom he calls Ali, then he brings
from him a boy whom he calls Hassan, then he brings from Hassan a word of truth and an honest
tongue and the Hujjah of Allah on his creations.
Shia Sources: Kifayat al Athar ‘ala al Aimmah al ithna Ashar page 25 by Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali al
Razi al Qummi, Ithbat al hudat 1/596, Bihar al Anwar 36/348, Muntakhab al Athar page 106.
Narration #5.
‫ ما هذا النور؟ فقيل‬،‫ يا رب‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ فرأى نورا ً إلى جنب العرش‬،‫ إن هللا لما خلق إبراهيم كشف لـه عن بصره‬:‫وعن الباقر قال‬
‫ هذا نور فاطمة وولديها‬:‫ وما هذه األنوار؟ فقال‬،‫ إلهي‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ ورأى إلى جنبه ثالثة أنوار‬،‫ هذا نور علي بن أبي طالب‬:‫له‬
‫ فقال‬،‫ هؤالء األئمة من ولد علي وفاطمة‬،‫ يا إبراهيم‬:‫ قيل‬،‫ وأرى تسعة أنوار قد حفوا بهم‬،‫ إلهي‬:‫ فقال‬،‫الحسن والحسين‬
،‫ وابنه جعفر‬،‫ وابنه محمد‬،‫ علي بن الحسين‬:‫ أولهم‬،‫ يا إبراهيم‬:‫ بحق هؤالء الخمسة من هؤالء التسعة؟ فقيل‬،‫ إلهي‬:‫إبراهيم‬
‫ والحجة القائم ابنه‬،‫ وابنه الحسن‬،‫ وابنه علي‬،‫ وابنه محمد‬،‫ وابنه علي‬،‫وابنه موسى‬
From Imam al Baqir said: When Allah created Ibrahim he unveiled his vision so he saw a light next
to the throne then said: O Lord what is this light? It was said to him: This is the light of Ali bin abi
Talib, then he saw three other lights next to it so he asked: O my God what are these three lights?
He said: This is the light of Fatima and next to her are her children Hassan and Hussein. Then after
spotting nine other lights he asked: O my God I see nine others, He said to him: O Ibrahim these are
the Imams from the progeny of Ali and Fatima, Ibrahim said: O my God by the truth of those five
who are these other nine? It was said to him: O Ibrahim the first is Ali bin al Hussein and his son
Muhammad and his son Ja’afar and his son Musa and his son Ali and his son Muhammad and his son
Ali and his son Hassan and his son the Hujjah al Qa’em.
Shia sources: Taaweel al Ayat al Zahira 2/496 by Sharaf al Deen Ali al Husseini al Istrabadi al
Najafi, Al Rawdah page 33, al Fadael page 166, Ithbat al hudat (1/646,523), Bihar al Anwar
(36/151,213) (85/80), Muntakhab al Athar pages 116,138, Al Burhan fi tafseer al Quran 4/20 by
Hashim al Bahrani, al Mustadrak 4/187.
Narration #6.
: ‫ ورأيت اثني‬،‫ أيدته بعلي ونصرته به‬،‫ ال إله إال هللا محمد رسول هللا‬:ً‫لما عرج بي إلى السماء رأيت على ساق العرش مكتوبا‬
‫ ومحمد‬،‫ عليا ً عليا ً عليا ً ثالث مرات‬:‫ وبعدهما تسعة أسامي‬،‫ علي بن أبي طالب وسبطاي‬:‫ فيهم‬،‫عشر اسما ً مكتوبا ً بالنور‬
:‫ أسامي من هؤالء؟ فناداني ربي جل جالله‬،‫ يا رب‬:‫ فقلت‬،‫ والحجة يتألأل من بينهم‬،‫ والحسن‬،‫ وموسى‬،‫ وجعفر‬،‫محمد مرتين‬
‫ بهم أثيب وبهم أعاقب‬،‫ هم األوصياء من ذريتك‬،‫يا محمد‬
They also attributed to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam): When Allah raised me
to the sky I saw on the foot of the throne was written: “No God but Allah and Muhammad is his
messenger I aided and supported him by Ali”. Then I saw twelve names written in light: Ali bin Abi
Talib and my two Sabtyan (Hassan & Hussein) then after them were nine names: Ali Ali Ali three
times and Muhammad Muhammad twice and Ja’afar and Musa and al Hujjah was flickering between
them. I said: O Lord whose names are these? Then Allah called to me: O Muhammad these are the
Awsiya (Successors) from your progeny, by them I reward and by them I punish.
Shia sources: Kifayat al Athar pages 10,14,18, Ithbat al Hudat
(1/580,584,586,588,590,595,598,601) Bihar al Anwar (36/310,321,325,332,390), Manaqib Alu Abi
Talib 1/210, Muntakhab al Athar pages 104,106,107,122.
And many other similar narrations which need volumes to cover and they attributed it all to the
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and the Imams. The point of this article is to show
the truth of this matter, did the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) really appoint
these twelve whom the Twelver Shia of today believe in? OR were all of these lies falsely attributed
to the pious Imams of ahlul-bayt? History will show.
I have selected critical periods in the history of the Shia sects, mainly when their Imams die then
briefly translated them for you to read from sources considered extremely trustworthy by Shia
scholars themselves.
NOTE: article would not discuss:
1- The first Imams whom the Shia followed such as al-Hussein and Muhammad Ibn al Hanafiyah and
Ali Zain al Abideen and Zaid bin Ali bin al-Hussein…
2- Shia sects such as the Zaidiyyah or Ismailiyyah and Alawiyyah/Nusayri and Alevis and Mufawwidah
ect…
3- Different teams within the Twelvers like Usooli and Akhbari and Sheikhiyyah.
4- Al Mahdi.
1- The Shia after the death of Imam Abu Ja’afar Muhammad al Baqir
(died 114 hijri):
The Shia of Imam Muhammad bin Ali were divided:
NOTE: (I will quote almost word for word from early shia sources).
When Abu Ja’afar passed away his Shia split into two major groups, a group believed in the Imamah
of Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al Hassan bin al Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib who had rebelled in
Madinah against the rulers and was killed as a result, they claimed he was al Qa’em al Mahdi and
that he was not killed. They said: “He is alive not dead and he lives in a mountain called al
‘Alamiyah” (This is the mountain on the road of Mecca and Najd al Hijaz on the left of the road as
you go to Mecca). It is the big mountain and he lives in it until his time to rise comes because the
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: Al Qa’em al Mahdi his name is like mine and
his father’s name is like my father’s name. His brother Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin al Hassan bi al
Hassan bin Ali bin abi Talib had came out in the city of al-Basarah calling the people to give his
brother Baya’ah (Allegiance) so that he may become their Caliph. After he received much support
and grew in strength so the caliph of that time “Al Mansour” had sent the riders to fight him and
they killed him after many wars. From those shia who adopted this opinion was al Mugheera bin
Sa’eed after the death of al Baqir so the shia of Abu Abdullah Ja’afar bin Muhammad rejected him
and disaffiliated themselves from him, as a result he labeled them as Rafidha (rejectionists) and
claimed that he was the one who gave them this name. The companions of Mugheera appointed him
as their Imam and claimed that al-Hussein bin Ali had pointed to his Imamah then Ali bin al Hussein
pointed to his Imamah and finally Muhammad bin Ali pointed to his Imamah so he is the Imam until
the Mahdi rises. They denied the Imamah of Abu Abdullah Ja’afar bin Muhammad and said: There
shall be no Imam in the children of Ali bin abi Talib after Abu Ja’afar Muhammad al Baqir and that
the Imam is al Mugheera until the Mahdi Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al Hassan bin al Hassan bin Ali
returns from his occultation. This shia group was called al Mugheeriyyah after al Mugheera bin
Sa’eed the Mawla (servant) of Khalid bin Abdullah al Qassri. In the end he started claiming that he
was a Prophet and that he receives revelation from Gabriel. Al Qassiri later asked him about this
and he confessed then al Qassri told him to repent but he didn’t thus he was killed and crucified.
He also used to claim he is capable of raising the dead and he believed in “Tanasukh” and so did his
followers until this day.
As for the other group from al Baqir’s companions they said in the Imamah of Ja’afar bin
Muhammad al Sadiq. But only a minor group from the companions of Ja’afar remained on this belief
during his life because when Ja’afar bin Muhammad pointed to the Imamah of his son Ismael who
died during his father’s life then they stopped believing in his Imamah while saying: “He lied to us
and he wasn’t an Imam; because the Imam does not lie and say things that will not come true” .
And they blamed Ja’afar after attributing to him the saying: “Allah had Badaa in the Imamah of
Ismael” (Badaa is a Shia belief meaning it appeared to Allah that Ismael was the Imam but he
wasn’t). So they denied the belief in Badaa which they claimed Ja’afar attributed to Allah and said:
“This saying is Batil and impermissible”. They leaned towards the opinion of the group called the
Batriyyah and the sayings of Suleiman bin Jarir who told his companions: “The Sheikhs/scholars of
the Rafidha(Shia) placed two sayings for their followers(Shia) which would never make them appear
as liars if they attribute anything to the Imams, they are:
1- The saying of Badaa: (for example they attribute to an Imam the saying: “the Imam al Mahdi
shall appear in 50 years” and when it does not happen they tell their followers that it had appeared
to Allah as so but He changed his decision because the people were too evil. If what they say does
indeed happen then they boast about their knowledge).
2- The saying of Taqqiyah: (for example the shia scholars tell their followers that the Imams hate
the companions and when the shia meet this Imam and ask him he praises the companions so the
scholars tell the followers he did so out of taqqiyah. This is because the Shia ask their scholars
many questions over the years and they wrote down what they answered but the scholars forget
what their answer was so they give different answers to the same question and they use the
Taqqiyah of the Imams as an excuse).
So when can it be known that these shia scholars are lying? And how can truth be distinguished from
falsehood?
Source: Firaq al Shia 62-66.
This reminds us of what the big shia scholar said regarding taqqiyah:
‫ فلم يعلم من أحكام الدين على اليقين إال القليل؛ المتزاج أخباره بأخبار التقية‬:‫صاحب الحدائق في التقية حيث ذكر‬
Translation: “Not much was known for sure from the rulings of the religion because their narrations
were mixed with the narrations of Taqqiyah”.In another place he also said:
‫ فإن ُج َّل االختالف في أخبارنا بل كله عند التأمل والتحقيق إنما نشأ من التقية‬:‫قال‬
Translation: “The majority of contradictions in our narrations after observation and research or
even all of the contradictions originate from Taqqiyah.”
Source: al-Hadaeq al Nadirah by Yusuf al Bahrani 1/5,8.
The biggest scholar of the Shia sect “Shaykh al taefa” at-Tusi says:
‫ إلى أن ذكر أنه وبسبب ذلك ترك الكثير من‬..‫ وال يسلم حديث إال وفي مقابله ما ينافيه‬،‫ال يكاد يتفق خبر إال وبإزائه ما يضاده‬
‫الشيعة مذهبهم‬
Translation: “There is no information that we agree on which doesn’t have another that
contradicts it, and no narration is safe from another which denies it …(until he said)… and this is
why many of the shia left the Madhab.”
Source: Tahtheeb al Ahkam 1/8 by sheikh of the sect al Tusi.
2- The Shia after the death of Imam Abu Abdullah Ja’afar al-Sadiq
(died 148 hijri):
The Shia of Imam Ja’afar bin Muhammad split to various groups: A group said: Ja’afar bin
Muhammad is alive he does not die until the one responsible for the affairs of the people appears,
they said that he was al Mahdi. They also narrated from him that he said: “If you see my head roll
from atop a mountain then do not believe this for I am the ONE”, and that he said to them: “If one
comes to you saying that he stood by me in my illness then washed me then put a shroud (Kafan)
over my body then do not believe him, because I am your companion (Mahdi) the possessor of the
sword.” This team was called al-Nawoosiyah. A group said that the Imam after Ja’afar bin
Muhammad is his son Ismael bin Ja’afar, they denied the death of Ismael in the life of his father,
they said: “His father did this just to confuse the enemies, he feared from them so he hid his son in
occultation”. They said that Ismael will not die until he rules the earth and the affairs of the
people and that he is al Qa’em; because his father has pointed to him as the succeeding Imam and
told them that he was their companion. They argued that Imam can only say the truth and when his
death came we knew that he was truthful and that he was al Qa’em and that he never died. This
team is called al-Ismailiyah. A group said that the Imam after al Sadiq was Muhammad bin Ismael
bin Ja’afar, they said: The matter (Of Imamah) was given to Ismael in the life of his father but
when he died before his father al Sadiq made this affair with his son Muhammad bin Ismael. The
right was his and it is impremissible for anyone else to claim it; because the Imamah cannot be
transferred from one brother to the other after al Hassan and al Hussein and it must be in the
progeny. His two brothers Abdullah and Musa have no right to it just like Muhammad Ibn al
Hanafiyah had no right in the time of Ali Zain al Abideen bin al Hussein. This team was called alMubarakiyah. A group said: “The Imam after al Sadiq is Muhammad bin Ja’afar” and they were
called al-Sumtiyyah. A group said: The Imamah after Ja’afar was in his son Abdullah ibn Ja’afar who
was known as “Al Aftah”, this was because he was the eldest son after the death of al Sadiq and he
used to always sit in the Majlis (gatherings) of his father and because he claimed this matter as it
was in the will of his father. This team was called al-Fathiyyah. The majority of the Sheikhs and
scholars of jurisprudence of the Shia were of the opinion of this team and they never doubted that
the Imamah was given to Abdullah bin Ja’afar until he died and didn’t leave a son to succeed
him. So the majority of the Fathiyyah turned back from the belief that he was the Imam. A group
said that the Imamah belonged to Musa after his father and they denied the Imamah of Abdullah.
They found fault in him for sitting in the Majlis of his father and his claim of the Imamah…As well as
other teams and then these teams split into other teams as well.
Sources: look for details of each team in the book “Firaq al Shia” Pages 66-79 by Al Hassan bin
Musa Abu Muhammad al Nawbakhti, also in the books al Fusoul al Mukhtarah Pages 247-253 by
Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al Nu’uman known as al Mufid, Bihar al Anwar 47/258 by Muhammad
Baqir al Majlisi.
3- The Shia after the death of Imam Musa bin Ja’afar al-Kathim (died
183 hijri):
The Shia of Imam Musa bin Ja’afar split to various groups: A group said that he passed away in the
prison of al Sindhi bin Hashik. They said Yahya bin Khaled al Barmaki has poisoned him by some
dates and grapes which he sent to him, and that the Imam after him is Ali al Reda. This team is
called al Qat’iyah because they passed his death to the Imamah of al Reda. A group said that Musa
al Kathim did not die and that he is alive, and will never die until he rules the east of this earth and
its west, and fill it with justice like it was filled with oppression and that he is al Qa’em al
Mahdi. They claimed that he left the prison and no one saw him on that day neither did they know
about him. They said that the sultan and his comrades only claimed his death as a diversion and
they lied to the people. They said he was occluded from the people and he disappeared and they
narrate narrations about this from his father al Sadiq that he said: “He (Musa) is al Qa’em al Mahdi
and if his head fell down from atop a mountain do not believe this as he is al Qa’em.” Some of
those said: He is al Qa’em and he died, The Imamah is for no one other than him until his return
then they claimed that he returned after his death but he has disappeared and is in occultation in
some land and he is alive and that his companions (emissaries) meet up with him and see
him. They used narrations from his father to prove this such as: “Al Qa’em is called a Qa’em
because he makes Qiyam after he dies” (Qiyam meaning he rises after his death). Others amongst
them said: He has died and he is al Qa’em and he is like the prophet of Allah Isa bin Mariam (alaihi
salam). He will not return until his time when he shall fill the earth with justice as it was filled with
oppression. They claimed that Allah said: “He has a likeness to Isa bin Mariam and he will die by the
hands of the children of bani al-Abbas”. When he died and some of them denied his death by
saying: “He died and Allah raised him to himself and he shall return him in the time of his Qiyam”.
All of these teams were called al-Waqifah because they made Wuquf (meaning they stopped) at
Musa bin Ja’afar and claimed that he was the Mahdi. They never took an Imam after him and never
passed from his Imamah to the others after him. Some of those who had claimed that he was alive
said: “Al Reda and those who raised after him are not Imams but they are Caliphs one after the
other until the time when He (Musa) shall rise again.” A group said: We do not know whether he is
alive or dead because we narrated a lot of narrations that state that he was al Qa’em al Mahdi and
it is impermissible to say they were lies. We have also received the news of the death of his father
and grandfathers before him and it is also impermissible to reject these famous clear narrations,
death is truth and Allah does what he wills so we stopped from rejecting his death and confirming
his life. They said: We are still following his Imamah and we will not accept another Imam until we
verify the truthfulness of what he claims – they mean Ali bin Musa al Reda. They said: “If we find
truth in his Imamah, like the Imamah of his father before him with the proofs and the signs of the
Imam in which he confirms it for himself and confirms his father’s death and not from news and
narrations coming from those who claim to be his companions, then we will submit to him and
believe him”. A group said: Musa bin Ja’afar did not die nor was he imprisoned, he is alive but in
occultation(Ghaybah), he is al Mahdi and during his time in occultation he appointed Muhammad
bin Basheer making him his Wasi (Successor) and gave him his ring and knowledge and everything
his followers need. When he died he made his son Sami’i bin Muhamad bin Basheer the successor
and he in turn will name his successor until the rising of al Kathim.
Sources: Firaq al Shia pages 79-85, al Fusoul al Mukhtarah page 254 and after it.
A group said: The Imam is Ahmad bin Musa al Kathim and that al Kathim made a Wasiyah (Will) to
him and to al Reda and they made it permissible in two brothers. His father made him the
Wasi(Successor) after Ali bin Musa.
Sources: Firaq al Shia (85,87) & Bihar al Anwar (48/279) in footnotes (308).
And so did Ibrahim bin al Kathim who came out in Yemen and called the people to give Baya’ah (
allegiance) to Muhammad bin Ibrahim TabaTaba. Then after this he called the people again to give
him the Baya’ah.
Sources: Bihar al Anwar (48/307).
This Ibrahim was from amongst those who denied the death of his father as the shia narrate from
Bakr bin Saleh that he said: I said to Ibrahim bin abu al Hassan Musa bin Ja’afar: What say you
about your father? He replied: He is alive. I said: what say you about your brother abu al Hassan? He
said: trustworthy and honest. I said: But he says your father has passed away? He replied: He knows
best what he says. I repeated what I said so he repeated his answer. Then I asked: Did your father
make Wasiyah (Appointing a successor)? He said: Yes, I said: to whom? He said: to the five of us but
made Ali above all of us.
Sources: Uyoun Akhbar al Reda (1/46) by Muhammad bin Ali bin Babaweih al Qummi, Ithbat al
Hudat (3/239) by Muhammad bin al Hassan al Hurr al Amili, Bihar al Anwar (48/282)(49/22).
As for this Imamah it was narrated by the Shia from Yazid bin Sulayt al Zaidi that he said:
:‫ فقال‬:‫ قال‬،‫ أخبرني عن اإلمام بعدك بمثل ما أخبر به أبوك‬:‫ فقلت‬،‫ لقيت موسى بن جعفر‬:‫ أنه قال‬،‫عن يزيد بن سليط الزيدي‬
‫كان أبي في زمن ليس هذا مثله‬.
‫ أخبرك يا أبا عمارة أني خرجت من منزلي فأوصيت‬:‫ ثم قال‬،‫ فضحك‬:‫ قال‬،‫ من يرضى منك بهذا فعليه لعنة هللا‬:‫ فقلت‬:‫قال يزيد‬
‫ ولو كان األمر إلي لجعلته في القاسم ابني لحبي إياه‬،‫ وأفردته بوصيتي في الباطن‬،‫ وأشركتهم مع علي ابني‬،‫في الظاهر إلى ابني‬
‫ وقد جاءني بخبره رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم وجدي علي حيث‬،‫ ولكن ذلك إلى هللا عز وجل يجعله حيث يشاء‬،‫ورأفتي عليه‬
‫ ما رأيت من األئمة أحدا ً أجزع على‬:‫ أرنيه أيهم هو؟ فقال رسول هللا‬،‫ يا رسول هللا‬:‫ فقلت‬،‫ األمر قد خرج منك إلى غيرك‬:‫قال لي‬
‫ ولكن من هللا‬،‫ ولو كانت اإلمامة بالمحبة لكان إسماعيل أحب إلى أبيك منك‬،‫فراق هذا األمر منك‬
He said: I met Musa bin Ja’afar and told him: Tell me about the Imam after you like your father
did. al Kathim said: My father’s time is unlike my time. I said: If anyone accepts this (answer) from
you then may the curse of Allah befall them. al Kathim laughed and said: I tell you O Abu Amarah
that I left home today after making Wasiyah apparently to my sons making them partners in this
with my son Ali. I had given secretly only him the Wasiyah and if this were up to me I would have
appointed my son al Qassim because of my extreme love for him. But this is for Allah to decide. It
had come to me with the news of the Prophet PBUH and my grandfather Ali bin abi talib who told
me: this matter(Imamah) had been taken away from you and transferred to someone else, I asked:
O prophet of Allah show me him? Which one of them(his sons) is he? The Prophet (sallalahu alaihi
wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: I never saw anyone who was more fearful from leaving this matter
than you, if it were a matter of love then your father would have appointed Ismael instead of you
but this is from Allah.
Sources: Uyoun Akhbar al Reda (1/34), al Kafi (1/313) by Muhammad bin Ya’aqoub al Kulayni,
I’ilam al Wara p306 by al Fadl bin al Hassan al Tabrasi, Bihar al Anwar (11/49)(48/310), Ithbat al
Hudat (3/230).
4- The Shia after the death of Imam Ali bin Musa al Reda (died 203
hijri):
The Shia of Ali bin Musa split to a couple of groups among them: A group believed in his Imamah
and the Imamah and death of his father Musa. But after al Reda died they went back to Waqf
(meaning they went back to believing that Musa bin Ja’afar did not die and he is the Mahdi). This
group is al Muallafah (‫)المؤلفة‬. A group was called al-Muhdathah (‫ كانوا من أهل اإلرجاء من أصحاب الحديث‬،‫)المحدثة‬
from the people of Irjaa of the people of Hadith (Murjiaah) and they entered in the belief of
Imamah of Musa bin Ja’afar and Ali bin Musa after him and they became shia for worldly gains but
when al Reda died they left and went back to what they were before. A group was amongst the
strongest and most influential of the Zaidi Shia had accepted the Imamah of al Reda when they saw
that he had really strong relations with the Abbasi Caliph al Maamoun. They joined only for worldly
gains then left after the death of al Reda.A group had accepted Ahmad bin Musa bin Ja’afar as their
Imam.
Source: Firaq al Shia page 86 and after it, al Fusoul al Mukhtara page 256.
5- The shia after the death of Imam Muhammad bin Ali al Jawad (died
220 hijri):
Some of his shia disagreed on their next Imam: His companions who stuck with him until the end
followed his son and successor Muhammad bin Ali. Some of them left him to say that his brother
Musa bin Muhammad is the Imam and after a short time they rejected the Imamah of Musa and
went back to the Imamah of his brother Ali who died shortly after.
Source: Firaq al Shia page 91.
6- The Shia after the death of Imam Ali al Hadi al Askari (died 254
hijri):
Some of the shia of Ali bin Muhammad disagreed on who succeeds him: A group of his companions
believed in the Imamah of his son Muhammad who had died in his father’s life in “Sirr man Ra’ā”
(The name of the Mahdi’s Sirdab) they claimed that he was alive and did not die. The proof was
that they said his father had pointed to his Imamah and that the Imam is forbidden from lying and
badaa is impermissible. So even if it appeared that he died but in reality he did not die. Just his
father feared for him so he sent him to occultation and he is al Qa’em al Mahdi. They said about
him the same things which were said regarding Ismael bin Ja’afar, and the majority of Ali bin
Muhammad’s companions went to the Imamah of his son Hassan bin Ali. They proved the Imamah
for him by his father’s will, he was called Abu Muhammad as his Kuniyah. A small group had leaned
towards his brother Ja’afar bin Ali and they said: “His father appointed him by will after the
passing of Muhammad and he showed that he must be obeyed and clarified his position”. They
denied the Imamah of his brother Muhammad saying: “His father did this to protect him and the
Imam in reality was Ja’afar bin Ali”.
Source: Firaq al Shia page 94.
7- The Shia after the death of Imam al-Hassan bin Ali al-Askari (died
260 hijri):
The shia of Imam al Hassan bin Ali split to more than ten groups:n A group said that Al Hassan bin
Ali al Askari did not die but he is in occultation and he is al Qa’em (Mahdi), and it is haram to say
he is dead. Because the earth will perish without an Imam, he also never had any children to
succeed him. A group said that he died and then came back to life and he is al Qa’em al Mahdi. He
is the Qa’em because he died and was resurrected and he has no children and if he did have a child
then he wouldn’t have been resurrected because the Imamah would have been transmitted to his
child. He didn’t give wasiyah to anyone thus he is surely the Qa’em .A group said Al Hassan bin Ali
died and his successor is his brother Ja’afar whom he gave the wasiyah thus he is the Imam and his
children after him. A group said that Ja’afar was the Imam but his brother Hassan wasn’t an Imam
nor was his bother Muhammad. Because Muhammad died during the life of his father and al Hassan
died without a son and he was a liar who claimed Imamah. The proof for them was that an Imam
never passes away until he gives wasiyah to his successor thus al Hassan never had any children so
his Imamah wasn’t correct. Also al Hassan & Ja’afar couldn’t be Imams at the same time because
Abu Abdullah said “No two brothers shall become imams at the same time after Hassan &
Hussein”. So Ja’afar took the wasiyah from his father not his brother. A group said the Imamah
goes to Muhamad Bin Ali who died in the time of his father and that Hassan and Ja’afar claimed
what isn’t rightfully theirs, and that their father never appointed or assigned any of them as
Imams. And especially Ja’afar who has extremely negative qualities which make him unfit to
receive it. As for Hassan he died without a son and that is unacceptable in an Imam. We now know
that Muhammad is the Imam and his father pointed to him clearly.A group said that Al Hassan had a
son who was born eight months after his death and all those who claimed he had a son during his
life are liars because if he did then he wouldn’t hide this nor would his family. And companions
hide it nor would that be acceptable of an imam. His father in his wasiyah ordered to call him
Muhammad and the proof of this is a narration from Abu al Hassan al Redah. A group said there is
no son for Hassan because we searched for this and asked for it but never found anything to point
to his son. We cannot claim that he had a hidden son because then we could claim this for every
dead Imam or we could even say that the prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) had
another son who was a prophet but is hidden. Also we could say Abdullah bin Ja’afar had a hidden
son and that Abu al Hassan al Redah had three sons other thanAbu Ja’afar and one of them was the
Imam. Because the news of al Hassan’s death without a son is like that of the prophet (sallalahu
alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) dying without a son from his own blood. Or Abdullah bin Ja’afar
having a son or Abu al Hassan having four sons. A group said the death of Al Hassan’s father and
grandfather is true thus the news of his death. It is also true and there is no Imam after him and
there is possibility that the Imamah will end at some point as we hear in the narration from the two
Sadiqs that the earth will never be without an imam unless Allah is angry at the people because of
their sins. So the Hujjah will be lifted for some time and Allah does what he wants and this does
not mean that the concept of Imamah is incorrect in any way. This had also happened in the time
between Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and Jesus (alaihi salam). In that period
there was no Imam or prophet for 300 or 200 years, and al Sadiq said: The Period is the time when
the earth will be without an Imam or a prophet. The earth today is without an Imam until Allah
sends one from the progeny of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). A group said:
Abu Ja’afar “Muhammad bin Ali” who died in his father’s life is the Imam by the order of his father
who clearly mentioned his name. A group said when asked “Is Ja’afar or his brothers the Imams?”,
they replied: We do not know if he is from Al Hassan’s brothers or from his progeny. Al Hassan was
the Imam and he is now dead and the earth will never be without a hujjah. So we can’t say
anything until this matter becomes clearer. A group said Al Hassan bin Ali was the Imam and he is
dead so the Imamah goes to Ja’afar bin Ali, just like Musa bin Ja’afar was an Imam after Abdullah
bin Ja’afar, because it was narrated that after an Imam passes away then the Imamah will be for
the elder son. What Al Sadiq said “There will be no two brother Imams after Hassan and Hussein”
this is true, but if the first one didn’t have a son then it must necessarily go to his brother As for
the narration which states that “An Imam will be washed only by another Imam”, they said this is
true and claimed that Ja’afar bin Muhammad was washed by Musa. They also claimed that
Abdullah ordered this because he was the Imam after him but it’s ok that Musa did it because he is
a silent Imam in the presence of Abdullah. This team is the Fathiyah who allow the Imamah of two
brothers after Hassan and Hussein, if the first never had a son and according to this their Imam was
Ja’afar bin Ali. A group said the Imam after al Hassan is his son Muhammad and he is al Hujjah but
he is currently dead and when he is resurrected he will carry the sword and fill the world with
justice and love after it was filled with hatred and oppression. A group said that all the others were
wrong and that Al Hassan did have a son during his life called Muhammad and he is al Qa’em and he
is alive and he has two Ghaybas (occultations) a minor one when his father dies and a major one
after the death of Abu al Hassan ali bin Muhammad al Samiri the final emissary, and this has been
going since that time.
Sources: look for details of each team in the book “Firaq al Shia” Page 96 by Al Hassan bin Musa
Abu Muhammad al Nawbakhti, also in the books “Al Fusool al mukhtara” page 261 & “Bihar al
Anwar” (37/20) and (50/336).
I leave you to draw your own conclusions… Just quick note, if anyone in the time of first imam
would have the clear text from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), where all imams
would be mentioned by name, then shias wouldn’t break to pieces after death of each from their
imams. This contradiction in the surroundings of shias in itself a good fact that no one, even those
mentioned imams didn’t have any list with 12 names on their hands.
{But those who are unjust follow their [own] desires without
knowledge. Then who can guide one whom Allah has sent astray? And
for them there are no helpers.}[Holy Qur’an - 30:29]
‫و صلى هللا علىسيدنا و حبيبنا محمد و على آله و صحبه و سلم‬
Khomeini was an agent for the West?
January 5, 2011 at 12:23 am | Posted in History | 3 Comments
5 Votes
Khomeini’s Background & His British Father
With all bets off, the Iranian reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are
insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr, some 25-years ago,
during a visit to Libya. The Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia, Imam Musa Sadr, was revered
and respected above all others in the Shia world. He refused to accept Khomeini as an Ayatollah.
With the influence Imam Musa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s
political plans, and of those who supported the overthrow of the Shah and needed a despot like
Khomeini to be their cat’s paw.
Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya – his body was never foundopened the way for Khomeini to invade Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreigner
like Khomeini taking over a country in which he (Khomeini) was neither born nor had any Persian
blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.
While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a great man, similar to
Hitler, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan the Mongol scourge.
The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Revolution of Iran was Ayatollah Khomeini and the
structure which he put in place. However, there is compelling evidence that Khomeini was never an
Iranian in the first place and had no right to impose his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his
elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent
his being hanged for treason in 1964. Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence
of any record of either Khomeini’s non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of
Ayatollah.
One of the first actions which Khomeini took, within hours of his return to Iran after the Shah left,
was to execute two prominent men who were living proof of his origin and also of his false
Ayatollah status. One of these was Gen. Hassan Pakravan, Head of SAVAK, the Imperial Iranian
national intelligence and security organization.
Furthermore he immediately tried to assassinate the highly-respected Ayatollah Shariatmadari,
who, with Ayatollah Golpayegani, had in 1964 granted Khomeini the false title. They had agreed to
allow Khomeini, then literally awaiting death on charges of treason, to be called an Ayatollah to
save his life: it was forbidden to execute an Ayatollah. This took place in 1964 at the urging of the
British Ambassador to Iran and Gen. Pakravan, when a face-saving legal reason had to be found not
to hang Khomeini for treason. It is known that Pakravan had fought hard to avoid Khomeinis
execution at that time.
Later, when the 1979 assassination attempt failed against Shariatmadari, Shariatmadari, far higher
in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini, was placed, incommunicado and under house arrest,
without the right to preach or receive visitors other than a handful of close relatives, whose antiKhomeini statements could be easily impugned as biased.
Few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian, but even fewer Iranians or otherwise
know his fathers origins or his real name. The late Iranian Senator Moussavi, who represented
Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran, at the time of the monarchy, knew Khomeini’s father and his
four sons well, looked after their needs, used his influence to obtain their Iranian identity cards
with fictitious dates and places of birth to avoid military service. Sen. Moussavi died for this help,
on Khomeini’s personal orders, immediately on Khomaini return from France after the 1979 coup.
SAVAK chief Gen. Pakravan, the man who saved Khomeini’s life in 1964, was taken that same night
onto the roof of his house and shot to death for having compiled a complete background file on
Khomeini. The SAVAK background file still exists, as a senior SAVAK official, who defected and
joined SAVAMA (the clerics equivalent of the SAVAK) took possession of it. This same man was
reportedly head of SAVAMA in the US for quite some time, and sources indicate that he has kept the
file for a rainy day.
Why did Khomeini return to Iran with such a bloodthirsty mind set? It seems clear that it was to
exact the revenge which he said he would have. Prior to his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini openly
stated that he would kill as many Iranians. He considered everyone in Iran guilty in advance as
there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in a car accident, but in his mind killed by Iranian
authorities.
Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link
his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father
(also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with
similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an
Indian father.
Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British
parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of
the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (later known as British Petroleum- BP), who worked with and met
the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie
Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the
subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.
The then-78-year old Chisholm stated: I knew Haji [as Williamson was later known] well; he worked
for me. He certainly went native but whether he is Khomeini’s father I could not say. Would not an
outright, ridiculing denial have been the natural response, were there no truth to the British
paternity? From someone who knew Haji [and thus the truth] well?
Chisholm obviously wished to avoid a statement leading to political controversy or possible personal
retribution in the very year Khomeini took over in Iran. Nor as a former, experienced political
officer himself would he be willing to drag Britain into the new Middle East conflict. But neither
was he prepared to provide an outright lie instead of his no comment.
How it all happened:
A stocky, handsome, dark-haired Bristol boy, Richard Williamson ran away to sea at the age of 13 as
a cabin boy, on a ship bound for Australia. However, he jumped ship before he got there. Little is
known about him until he showed up, at the age of 20, in Aden at the Southern end of the Arabian
Peninsula in South Yemen, where he joined the local police force.
His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force
to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Yousef Ibrahim, a relative of the AlSabah family, which rules Kuwait today.
A few points should be remembered about the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula area at that
time. Regional countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth did not exist as
sovereign entities and were artificially created about 70 years ago by the British and French
governments when they partitioned the area. Iran, or Persia as it was called, was soon to be
controlled by Russian Cossacks in the North and the British Army in the South, although technically
it remained an independent monarchy under the largely absentee Qajar dynasty.
British military presence in Iran was under Lt.-Col. Sykes (later Sir Percy Sykes), based in Shiraz,
but politically controlled by Sir Arnold Wilson in Khorramshahr (then called Mohammareh) with
assistance from E. Elkington in Masjid-Suleiman and Dr. Young, based in Ahwaz. All three were
cities in Khuzestan Province, which was later represented by Senator Moussavi. Col. T.E. Lawrence,
who gained fame as Lawrence of Arabia, operated out of Basra in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and
Khorramshahr during this same period.
Oilfields, far beyond the technological capability of the Arab tribes (or Persia) to develop or
appreciate as a valuable commodity, were being discovered and exploited by the British, including
via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formed to siphon off oil from Khuzestan Province in Southern
Iran.
Kuwait, on the other side of the Persian Gulf was still not a country at the time. As the major
player in the Middle East oil industry, Britain had to exert influence and control through its political
and oil personnel. Haji Abdullah Williamson became one of these in 1924 when he joined British
Petroleum as political officer. He retired under that same name in 1937, at the age of 65. Earlier,
in what is now Kuwait, Richard Williamson had very quickly converted to Islam and adopted the
first name of Abdullah. Family names were still unusual and son of the son of or son of a type of
worker or craftsman was still commonly used to identify people. For 14 years he had lived among
the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and in 1895 and 1898 he went on pilgrimages to Mecca,
took on the rightful title of Haji and took on his first benefactors name of Fazl, adding Zobeiri to it
as a distinguisher. Thus, William Richard Williamson became known as Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri.
During his service with British Petroleum in the Persian Gulf, Haji Abdullah took his vacations in
Indian Kashmir, to rest from the relentless Gulf heat and in this timeframe married at least seven
times to Arab and Indian women each under Muslim marriage rituals. He had 13 children of whom
seven were boys and the rest girls with most of the children dying in early childhood. His repeated
Kashmir excursions and Indian wives and use of the name Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri probably give rise to
the Kashmir Indian father misconception.
With dark-haired Haji Abdullah a fanatically devout Muslim, a characteristic he imposed on his
children, this fervent religious attitude and Arab nomenclature would not normally be an expected
combination for a foreigner, especially an Englishman. He insisted his four surviving sons attend
religious school in Najaf (in Iraq) under the tutelage of Ayatollahs Yazdi (meaning of the city of
Yazd) and Shirazi (of the city of Shiraz). Two of them, Hindizadeh (meaning Indian born) and
Passandideh (meaning pleasing or approved) studied well and eventually became ayatollahs in their
own right.
The third boy, a troublesome young man, failed to make his mark in Najaf and went to the Iranian
holy city of Qom, where he studied under Ayatollah Boroujerdi. When family names became a
requirement by law under His Majesty Reza Shah, the young man chose the city of his residence,
Khomein, as the designator and took on the name Khomeini (meaning: “from Khomein city”).
The fourth son hated theology and went across the Persian Gulf to Kuwait and opened up two gas
(petrol) stations using the paternal family name of Haji Ali Williamson, though it is unclear if he
ever performed the Haj pilgrimage. This in itself links Khomeini through that brother with Haji
Williamson. Why, otherwise, would Rouhallah Khomeinis undisputed brother use the Williamson
family name? The patriarch of this brood, Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri (aka Haji Abdullah Williamson
in BP), was thrown out of Iran by Reza Shah along with three other British political officers for antiIranian activity and joined his son in Kuwait. Here he took on the duties of Oil Distribution for the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
With his longstanding contacts in the Arab world and his Muslim religion, he forced a 50/50
agreement between US oil interests in Kuwait and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as well as in 1932
pursuing the exclusive exploration rights for British Petroleum in Abu Dhabi.
His lack of a formal education forced British Petroleum to send out Archie H. T. Chisholm (see
above), a senior executive, to conclude the Abu Dhabi contract and together with Haji Abdullah’s
political influence they overcame competition from Major Frank Holmes, Sheikh Hussein and
Mohammad Yateen to successfully land the exclusive contract. Chisholm, as he said, got to know
Khomeini’s father well. Back in Iran again in 1960, Khomeini saw an opportunity to exact revenge
for his father having been thrown out of Iran and to impose his Islamic fundamentalist philosophy
onto an Iran struggling with budget problems, caused mostly by its oil being in the control of
foreign oil companies, which decided not Iran how much oil the country was allowed to produce
and at what price it had to be sold.
With his own and his family’s theological background, Khomeni began to foment an anti-monarchy
revolt through the mosques, which by 1964 resulted in imposition of martial law and finally with his
arrest and his being sentenced to death by hanging. And consequently he was given the life-saving
Ayatollah title which he had not earned.
After formally being exiled to Turkey, Khomeini ended up in Iraq where he wrote some
philosophical and social behavior dissertations which were so bizarre by religious standards that,
where possible, the tracts were bought up and destroyed by the Iranian Government when he took
over in 1979. The most damning were in Arabic language versions and then later, cleaner versions
appeared as edited translations in Farsi.
Some linguists, who studied his public speeches in 1979 and 1980, concluded his Farsi vocabulary to
be less than 200 words, so not only did he not have Persian blood, he did not even speak the
language. With the number of Iranians who have died because of him and his successors over the
past 25 years going into the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million if the death toll from
the eight-year Iran-Iraq war is included, this Anglo-Indian may have had no love or compassion for
Iranians either.
In the Iran Air aircraft flying Khomeini back from France to Tehran in early 1979, with cameras
rolling, a journalist asked: What do you feel about returning to Iran? He replied: Nothing! The
question was repeated, and again he replied: Nothing!
Summary of Khomeini’s Background
1. In 1964 Ayatollah Shariatmadari and Ayatollah Golpayegani gave Khomeini the title of Ayatollah.
Reportedly, they had done this to save Khomeini’s life, as Khomeini was facing a charge of treason
against the Shah. And reportedly it was the UK ambassador who had urged that Khomeini be saved.
2. Shariatmadari was higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini. In 1979, after Khomeini took
over Iran, he placed Shariatmadari under house arrest.
3. Reportedly, Khomeini was not Iranian. He “was neither born (in Iran) nor had any Persian blood
in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.” Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian. Reportedly,
a story was invented that Khomeini had a Kashmiri Indian father with Iranian origins. The Iranian
Senator Moussavi knew Khomeini’s real father. Reportedly Khomeini had Moussavi killed.
4. Reportedly, Khomeini’s real father, was William Richard Williamson, born in Bristol, England, in
1872 of British parents and lineage. A witness to this was a former Iranian employee of the AngloIranian Oil Company (later BP), who knew the Khomeini family. In 1979, when Col. Archie Chisholm,
a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, was asked about this, he neither
confirmed nor denied the story.
William Richard Williamson’s biography was written in the early 1950s, by Stanton Hope, a British
Journalist and writer who had met Williamson in his home near Basra in the late 1940s. The book
title is: Arabian Adventurer: the Story of Haji Williamson
5. Reportedly, Richard Williamson, at the age of 20, was working in South Yemen in the local police
force.
“His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force
to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Yousef Ibrahim, a relative of the AlSabah family, which rules Kuwait today.”
6. In Iran at this time, the British were exploiting the oilfields. Williamson, now a Muslim, joined
British Petroleum as political officer. He called himself Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri.
7. Williamson took holidays in Kashmir and married at least seven times to Arab and Indian women.
His sons attended religious schools. Reportedly, one son went to the Iranian holy city of Qom and
took the name Khomeini.
8. In the early 1960s, Khomeini began to plot against the Shah. In 1964 Khomeini was sentenced to
death. By becoming an Ayatollah, his life was saved.
9. Reportedly, in 1979, Khomeini was flown from France to Iran, with the help of the British
Intelligence Service, MI6. He took over Iran.
In 1979, Imam (Ayatollah) Mussa Sadr disappeared during a visit to Libya. Imam Mussa Sadr was the
Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia and he “was revered and respected above all others in the
Shia world.”
Why was the Shah of Iran toppled by the CIA and MI6?
The mainstream media would like us to believe that the Shah was overthrown by People Power and
that the CIA and MI6 were taken by surprise. However, there is evidence that the CIA and MI6
toppled the Shah because he had become too much of a nationalist, like Egypt’s President Jamal
Abdul-Naser, and was not following instructions on oil or even opium.
The CIA did not want left-wing democrats taking over from the Shah as they might not be easy to
control. So, reportedly, the CIA allowed the Ayatollahs to take over.
Radio Free Iran claimed that while at Qom, the Ayatollah Khomeini received a “monthly stipend
from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British.”
On 19 January 1980, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Shah had said, two years
before he was overthrown, that he had heard from two different sources connected with oil
companies that the regime in Iran would change.
‘We believe that there was a plan to ensure less oil was offered to the world markets in order to
bring down the price (of oil). One country was to be chosen for the sacrifice… It seems that the
country chosen to drop its oil production was mine’ said the Shah.
According to the Guardian: “Shah- Oil Companies Helped to Oust Him”
The Shah’s nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more
independent and more powerful. This worried the CIA and MI6.
1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown’s own land, sold it back
cheaply to tenant farmers. Over one and a half million people became land owners, thus ending the
old feudal system.
2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.
3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.
4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.
5. He began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British
influence.
Former intelligence officer, Dr John Coleman, considers opium to be of prime importance in the
toppling of the Shah (Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 – 6). Dr Coleman
is sometimes described as being a conspiracy theorist.
Coleman believes that the U.S. government toppled the Shah of Iran. He writes:
Why was the Shah deposed…?
In a word, because of DRUGS. The Shah had clamped down and virtually put an end to the
immensely lucrative opium trade being conducted out of Iran by the British. At the time that the
Shah took over in Iran, there were already one million opium/heroin addicts.
This the British would not tolerate, so they sent the United States to do their dirty work for them in
terms of the “special relationship” between the two countries.
When Khomeini took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, arms sales by the United States, which had
begun with the Shah, were not discontinued…
After 1984, Khomeini’s liberal attitude toward opium had increased the number of addicts to 2
million, according to United Nations and World Health Organization statistics.
Both President Carter and his successor, Ronald Reagan, willingly and with full knowledge of what
was at stake, went on supplying arms to Iran even while American hostages languished in captivity…
The arms trade with Iran was sealed at a meeting between Cyrus Vance… and Dr. Hashemi, which
resulted in the U.S. Air Force beginning an immediate airlift of arms to Iran, carried on even at the
height of the hostage crisis the arms came from U.S. Army stockpiles in Germany and some were
even flown directly from the United States with re-fuelling stops at the Azores.
This is The Real Story of Khomaini which the Iranian Regime hides from whole world.
Muawiyah to al-Hasan
December 8, 2010 at 8:36 pm | Posted in History | 1 Comment
Rate This
Ibn Asakir in his history narrated a very interesting story, it begins with such words:
‫أضاق الحسن بن علي وكان عطاؤه في كل سنة مئة ألف فحبسها عنه معاوية في إحدى السنين‬
(Once) Al-Hasan ibn Ali was in difficult financial position, and his salary each ear was equal to 100
000 dirhams, and in one year Muawiyah didn’t pay it (in time).
After story tell us that al-Hasan (radi Allahu anhu) wanted to write to Muawiyah (radi Allahu
anhu) regarding that, then he changed his mind. In his dream he seen prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa
ala alihi wa sallam) and he teached him a long duah. Then story continues by words of Hasan:
‫ حتى بعث إلى معاوية بألف ألف وخمسمائة ألف‬, ً ‫قال فوهللا ما ألححت به أسبوعا‬
By Allah didn’t pass the week after I prayed, and Muawiyah send me 1 500 000.
Source: Mukhtasar Tarih Madinatul Dimashk 1/895
Marriages of Hasan ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhum)
October 25, 2010 at 5:25 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Shias talked a lot regarding this part of history, and they accused some islamic scholars in nasb or
ignorance, when they mentioned this in their books and works.
First we would start with shia texts.
Kulayni narrated in “Kafi” (5/56) via his own chain, and MAJLISI SAID IT’S MUWATHAQ.
َّ ‫عبْد‬
َّ ‫سى َع ْن َعبْد‬
‫اّلل ( عليه السالم‬
َ ‫ع ْن أَبي‬
َ ‫َان‬
َ َ‫عة‬
َ ‫س َما‬
َ ‫ُح َم ْيد ُ بْنُ زيَا ٍد‬
َ ‫ع ْن ُم َح َّمد بْن زيَاد بْن عي‬
َ ‫سن بْن ُم َح َّمد بْن‬
َ ‫عن ْال َح‬
ٍ ‫اّلل بْن سن‬
ْ
ْ
ْ
َ
ُ
ْ
َّ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ٌ
َ
ُ‫اّلل لَنُزَ و َجنَّهُ َو ه َُو ابْن‬
َّ ‫ام َر ُج ٌل م ْن ه َْمدَانَ فَقَا َل بَلَى َو‬
ٌ
ُ
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫ق‬
‫ال‬
‫ط‬
‫م‬
‫ل‬
‫ج‬
‫ر‬
‫ه‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫ف‬
‫س‬
‫ح‬
‫ال‬
‫وا‬
‫ج‬
‫و‬
َ‫ز‬
‫ت‬
‫ال‬
‫ر‬
‫ب‬
‫ن‬
‫م‬
‫ال‬
‫ى‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ُو‬
‫ه‬
‫و‬
‫ل‬
َ‫ن‬
َ
ُ
ُ
َ
َ
َ ‫) قَا َل إ َّن‬
َ
َ
َ
َ َ ‫عليا ً قَا‬
َ
ْ
َ
َ
َ ‫سكَ َو إ ْن شَا َء‬
ْ
َ
ُ‫ْن‬
َّ
ْ‫ؤ‬
‫م‬
‫أ‬
‫ء‬
‫َا‬
‫ش‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫ف‬
)
‫السالم‬
‫عليه‬
(
‫ن‬
‫م‬
‫م‬
‫ال‬
‫ير‬
‫م‬
‫أ‬
‫ب‬
‫ا‬
‫و‬
)
‫وآله‬
‫عليه‬
‫هللا‬
‫صلى‬
(
‫اّلل‬
‫ول‬
‫س‬
‫ر‬
.
َ‫طلَّق‬
َ‫ين‬
ُ
ْ
ُ
َ َ
َ
َ
From Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) which said: Ali (alaihi salam) said, and he was on the minbar: do
not give in marriage, your daughters to Hasan for he divorces very soon.’ a man from the hamdân
clan said: ‘by Allâh, we shall give our daughters to him in marriage. those he likes, let him keep;
and those he dislikes, divorce.
And he narrated in the same place:
‫عبْد‬
ْ َ ‫عدَّة ٌ م ْن أ‬
َ ‫ع ْن أَبي‬
َ ‫ع ْن يَحْ يَى بْن أَبي ْالعَ َالء‬
َ ‫ع ْن َج ْعفَر بْن بَشي ٍر‬
َ ‫يع‬
َ ‫ع ْن أَحْ َمدَ بْن ُم َح َّم ٍد‬
َ ‫ص َحابنَا‬
ٍ ‫ع ْن ُم َح َّمد بْن إ ْس َماعي َل بْن بَز‬
ْ
َّ
َ
َ
َ
َ
َ
ً
َّ
َّ
‫ي ( عليه السالم ) ب ْال ُكوفَة فَقَا َل يَا َمعَاش َر‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ام‬
‫ق‬
‫ف‬
‫ة‬
‫أ‬
‫ر‬
‫ام‬
‫س‬
‫َم‬
‫خ‬
‫ل‬
‫ط‬
)
‫السالم‬
‫عليه‬
(
‫ي‬
‫ل‬
‫ع‬
‫ب‬
‫س‬
‫ح‬
‫ال‬
‫ن‬
‫إ‬
‫ل‬
‫ا‬
‫ق‬
)
‫السالم‬
‫اّلل ( عليه‬
َ
َ ْ َ‫قَ ْ ين‬
ٍ َ َ‫َ َنَ ْن‬
ٌّ َ َ
ْ
ْ
ْ
َ
َ
َ
َّ ‫سول‬
َّ ‫ام إليْه َر ُج ٌل فَقَا َل بَلى َو‬
) ‫اّلل ( صلى هللا عليه وآله‬
ُ ‫اّلل لنُ ْنك َحنَّهُ فَإنَّهُ ابْنُ َر‬
َ ‫أ َ ْهل ال ُكوفَة َال ت ُ ْنك ُحوا ال َح‬
َ َ‫سنَ فَإنَّهُ َر ُج ٌل مط َال ٌق فَق‬
ََّ‫طلق‬
َ
َ
َ َ‫سكَ َو إ ْن كَره‬
َ ‫ َو ابْنُ فَاط َمةَ ( عليها السالم ) فَإ ْن أ ْع َجبَتْهُ أ ْم‬.
From Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam): Hasan ibn Ali (alaihi salam) divorced 50 women, and Ali (alaihi
salam) stand in Kufa and said…. (something similar to previous hadith).
Majlisi said hadith is majhool. However first hadith from main shia book on ahadeth is enough for
us.
Suyuti in his “Tareeh al-khulafa” said:
‫ قال علي يا أهل الكوفة ال تزوجوا الحسن فإنه رجل مطالق فقال رجل من‬:‫وأخرج ابن سعد عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه قال‬
‫همدان وهللا لنزوجنه فما رضي أمسك وما كره طلق‬.
1) Ibn Sa`ad reports from Ja`afar ibn Muhammad from his father, said he: `Ali said : ‘o the people
of kûfâ; do not give in marriage, your daughters to Hasan for he divorces very soon.’ a man from
the hamdân clan said: ‘by Allâh, we shall give our daughters to him in marriage. those he likes, let
him keep; and those he dislikes, divorce.’
‫ كان حسن رجال كثير نكاح النساء وكن قلما ً يحظين عنده وكان قل امرأة تزوجها إال‬:‫وأخرج ابن سعد عن عبد هللا بن حسن قال‬
‫أحبته وصبت إليه‬.
2) Ibn Sa`ad reports from `AbdAllâh ibn Hasan, said he: ‘Hasan married many women. not many
women dwelt with him for long. yet, none of the women he married [and divorced] loved him any
less.
‫ قال كان الحسن مطالقا ً للنساء وكان ال يفارق امرأة إال وهي تحبه وأحصن تسعين امرأة‬:‫وأخرج ابن سعد عن علي بن الحسين‬.
3) Ibn Sa`ad reports from `Ali ibn al-Husayn, said he: Hasan would divorce his wives after a short
marriage. inspite of that, the women kept loving him even after divorce. He married ninety
women.
‫ كان الحسن يتزوج ويطلق حتى خشيت أن يورثنا عداوة في القبائل‬:‫وأخرج ابن سعد عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه قال‬.
4) Ibn Sa`ad reports from Ja`afar ibn Muhammad from his father, said he: Hasan would marry and
divorce soon after. i feared that this would harbor enmity amongst the clans.
First report was narrated by ibn Abi Shaiba in “Musannaf”, without mention man from hamadan.
19195 – ‫حدثنا أبو بكر قال نا حاتم بن إسماعيل عن جعفر عن أبيه قال قال علي يا أهل العراق أو يا أهل الكوفة ال تزوجوا‬
‫حسنا فإنه رجل مطالق‬
As far as I see chain contains only upright narrators. Abu Bakr, that ibn Abu Shaiba himself. Hatam
ibn Ismail was thiqat, Nasai said he’s not strong, but that words of Nasai doesn’t shows his great
weakness, as I was explained recently. However Muhammad ibn Ali didn’t met Ali ibn Abu Talib. So
we can say that chain contains upright narrators till Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain.
Report #4 was also narrated by ibn Abu Shaiba.
19196 – ‫حدثنا أبو بكر قال نا حاتم عن جعفر عن ابيه قال قال علي ما زال الحسن يتزوج ويطلق حتى حسبت أن يكون عداوة‬
‫في القبائل‬
My humble verdict same, chain contains upright narrators. And this report end upon Ali, obviously
not ibn Hussain, but ibn Abu Talib. Just al-Baqir narrates from him. Muhammad ibn Ali didn’t met
Ali ibn Abu Talib. So we can say that chain contains upright narrators till Muhammad ibn Ali ibn
Hussain.
It was narrated by ibn Abu Shaiba in “Musannaf” (16396), Tabarani in “al-Kabir”, Ibn Asakir in
history, Abu Nuaym in “Hilliyah”, Thalabi in “Kashful bayan”, Haraiti in “Makarimul ahlaq” from
Muhammad ibn Sirin (arabic text from Hilliya 2/38):
‫حدثنا سليمان بن أحمد ثنا الحسين بن إسحاق ثنا عثمان بن أبي شيبة ثنا عبد األعلى هشام بن حسان عن ابن سيرين قال تزوج‬
‫الحسن بن علي إمرأة فأرسل إليها بمائة جارية مع كل جارية ألف درهم‬
that he said: al-Hasan married woman, and send to her 100 slave-girls, and with each of them 1000
dirhams.
al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (7503) said: narrated Tabarani and narrators are people of
saheeh.
That’s mean he send 100 000 dirhams in one marriage. So don’t be deceive by shia propaganda that
aimma were poor people.
“Shiraz” Before and After Safavid
October 21, 2010 at 2:17 am | Posted in History | 1 Comment
2 Votes
“Shiraz” (‫ )شيراز‬was one of the most
important centers of knowledge (E’lm), as well as cradle of jurisprudence (Fiqh)
and poetry in the history of Iran. Shiraz glimmered like a bright star in the sky of
civilization by providing the nation geniuses scholars and experts in both art and
knowledge (E’lm). Shiraz flourished a prosperous generation in the past; then it
was becoming failure only in Islamic knowledge (elm) after the time when it was
haven of the students as they used to com from different parts of the world.
The city of “Shiraz”, the provincial capital of “Fars” located in the southernwestern Iran, its area is 340 km, one of the three biggest cities of Iran in terms of
area, and it comes in its place after “Tehran” and “Mashhad”. Shiraz ends to
“Isfahan” in the north, in eastern side it is surrounded by “Yazd” and “Kerman”
and in the south it is closest to “Hormozgan” province, as it ends in western side
to “Bushehr”. Its population is more than 1,722,331 inhabitants; Shiraz is the
fourth largest city on the map of Iran in terms of population.
According to the historical books “Shiraz” is one of the cities which had arisen and
flourished after the Islamic conquest in the arms of the timeless Islamic
civilization, and then it became the capital of Persia due to its geographical
location and strategically status. Shiraz was the capital of Persia and it is still to
this day.
According to the book “Rawd-ul-Me’taar Fi khabar-e-Aqtaar” Shiraz is a city on the
Persian land which is its biggest town and capital of Persia. Their rulers and
workers were inflicted, it is a Muslim city built by “Muhammad bin Qasim bin Abi
Aqil, cousin of Hajjaj.”
The word “Shiraz” means “cave of lion”; because it was absorbing productions
from the rest of the country and nothing was exporting from Shiraz at all. When
the army of Muslims arrived to Persia they encamped and established a military
camp here till they conquered “Estakhr” city and the entire region; declaring the
place sanctity the Muslims built “Shiraz” on that place. It is a city with great
magnitude, in good ways, the length of about three miles, which is related to
construction, not fences it or not building markets, a deep armies and the first war
and government offices, levies, and people drink from wells. End of quote.
According to “Ma’jam-ul-Buldaan” (Dictionary of the countries) Shiraz is the best
example of Islamic architecture. It was said that Shiraz took architecture for first
time by “Mohammad bin Qasim ibn Aqeel, cousin of Hajjaj bin Yousuf”.
So surely Shiraz was the proud place and the city which was the hub of high Islamic
Sciences (Uloom) and a center for the patrons in the first centuries of the history
of the Islamic nation; as it became a breeding ground for Islamic ideas and
different Islamic schools of thought, why not?! It was a city which was built by a
Muslim prince and Muslims’ army encamped here. It was the status of the all
territories which held by Muslims in the early times. The person who pays attention
towards the history of this city -and its history depends on flourish and degenerate
of Muslims in Persia- he/she would come to know the people of Shiraz were the
lovers of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we can observe this love in
their poems and books, it is also appeared that they had bias to the doctrine of
Ahl-e-Hadeeth for a period of time.
The historians in their histories and the owners of classifications of countries have
mentioned “Shiraz” a lot and spoke on many aspects, mentioning the kings and
stories of the civilizations that arose from “Shiraz” or came to it. They noted
scientists, scholars, jurisprudents (Fuqahaa) and judges (Qudaat). Some of the
authors singled out the scholars poets and Muhadditheen in specified categories
where any reader would be surprised saying by the current language: The truthful
Prophet said truth that if Eeman goes to the chandelier surely it would be
addressed by some men of Persia.
It was Shiraz where students of different kinds of science and subject were coming
to get knowledge from the best known and most famous scholars; it was the centre
of Islamic cultures and civilization. We will talk about the causes of degradation of
Shiraz after the tenth century H.Q. Shiraz is “Shiraz”, the place has not altered
not the soil changed?
Some great personalities of Shiraz:
Shaikh Abu Eshaq Shirazi:
He was a great scholar, jurisprudent (faqeeh) and scholar (A’lim) of fundaments of Fiqh and
historian, the Imam of his time in knowledge and piety. He got knowledge from many great
personalities of his era like Abu Tayyib al-Tahir ibn Abdullah al-Tabari, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin
Abdullah Al-Baidhawi and Abu Hatim Qazwini and others, Shaikh Abu Eshaq Shirazi instructed more
than thirty years and issued fatwas about fifty years. He passed away in Baghdad in Jamad-ut-Thani
476 H.Q.
Hassan Bin Othman Abu Hassan Shirazi Ziadi:
He was a senior Muhaddeth (who collects and narrates the sayings of the holy prophet Muhammad
BUHM); he was brilliant scholar and Thiqah (trustable for hadeeth). The Shaikh was appointed judge
(Qadhi) in Sharqiya by Mutawakkel. He wrote about history. He had some students who narrated or
heard from him such as Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, Ismaeel bin Aliyya, Wakee bin Jarrah. A
group of muhaddetheen narrated from him. Shaikh Ziadi departed from this world in 272, according
al-Tabari.
Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Khafeef Shirazi:
The Shaikh of ascetics in Persia and pivot of Tasawwof in his time. He was known the elder of
scholars. Accompanied Ruim, Abu Abbas ibn Ataa and Tahir al-Maqdesi, and became their best so
long. He passed away in Shiraz in 371 H.Q when he was 104 years old; Muslims, Jews and Christians
participated in his funeral procession.
Ahmed bin Abdul Rahman Hafiz Abu Bakr Shirazi:
He was one of the top Huffaz-ul-Hadeeth who narrated from Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ibrahim alIsmailee, Abu Sahl Ahmed Asfra’ini and Abu Ahmad Muhammad Hafiz and other religious leaders
from the Khorasan, Jabal (Montenegro) and Iraq. Abu Tahir bin Salmah, Abu al-Fadl ibn Abu Bakr
Ghillan, Abu Bakr Zanjani and others. He was very eager to memorize the sayings of the holy
prophet Muhammad ‫ صلی هللا عليه وسلم‬very nicely. He lived in “Hamadan” for years, then came out to
“Shiraz” in 404 H.Q and left this world to the Hereafter in 411 H.Q. This great Shaikh had a book in
titles of people, as Ceroyh said.
Ahmed Bin Mansour Hafiz Shirazi:
He traveled a lot for getting knowledge and narrated lots of ahadeeth. Ha’kem says: He was an
ascetic and traveled a lot for collecting Aha’deeth, we received him in Naishabour in 338 H.Q
where he stayed some years with us. I saw many books with him about Shoyoukh and Abwab
(chapters); I saw Shu’bah and Thawri at that time. He made many trips to Iraq and the Levant
(Shaam) and left to his own city “Shiraz” and became in their acceptance as an exemplary. He
passed away there Sha’ban of 382 H.Q.
The list of names of such great personalities in “Shiraz” is too long; only in the seventh century of
the Islamic history we can see many names like Sayyid Qutb-ud-Din Muhammad al-Hassani, Hasan
bin Ahmed al-Farsi, a Literator and grammarians of Arabic language; and poets associate to this city
are more than one hundred, Moslehuddin Saadi Shirazi whose two books are well-known in Persian
“Bustan” and “Golestan”, lived in this century as well.
Abu Al-Hassan ibn Muhammad Shirazi, Abu Bashir, Amr ibn Uthman ibn Qanbar Al-Basri (Seebwaih),
Hasan ibn al-Khateer known Abu Ali al-Farsi and dozens more scholars, Fuqaha, Muhaddetheen,
poets, historians, literators and Sufis belonged to Shiraz.
Thus series of appearance of scholars and elite poets on the ground continued till “Shiraz” was
occupied by the Safavid dynasty in 909 of the Hijri lunar. Like other Iranian cities Shiraz did not
remain safe from storms of Safavid’s dark destruction which rooted out the high rank civilization of
Shiraz- after getting roots for centuries- in a few years, “Shiraz” became a breeding ground for
refusal (Refdh), ignorance and academic backwardness after being a beacon of knowledge and
guidance for many centuries.
Yes, because the first thing which targeted by the Safavids in the Sunnis’ cities whether “Isfahan”,
“Shiraz” or “Tabriz”, was E’lm (knowledge), so they assassinated scholars and blocked the
academic centers to enable themselves disseminate heresies and false myths and to proselytize
Sunni Muslims.
So there was not any fruit of the efforts of the kings who came after them such as Zandism,
Afshariya and Qajariyeh who wanted to redress all these losses which made “Shiraz” wiped off the
civilization as a whole and exchange people’s religion to the heresies and superstitions and
decorated with flowery, but many great ulema and literators left Shiraz and traveled to distant
lands, as Ameer Moeenuddin Husseini Shirazi al-Hanafi “, departed to the Uthmanic Caliphate and
the famous poet Arfi Shirazi to India; ulema left the city and knowledge disappeared, the Sunnis
traveled and sunna went with them, leaving only ignorance, bad traditions and innovations, where
Appeared in recent centuries one of the largest movements hostile to Islam and supported by the
European colonialism in the present era of this city, a movement Baabism/Bahaism, beyond from
the pale of Islam because of the heretical teachings in their faith and worship.
In fact the existence of this dangerous movement (Bahaism) was the result of Safavids’ barbaric
actions which affected such cities like thunderbolt, the genocide of the Sunnis and division
between Ummah and its past by false claims and false doctrines were the only consequence of
Safavid movement in Iran.
[Inna Lellah e wa Inna Ilaihe Raaje’oun]
By: Abu Abdullah Baluch
SunniOnline.us
Expose Rafidism & share it:
o
Facebook
o
Twitter
o
Email
o
Print
o
Like this:
Like 1 COMMENT
»
RSS feed for comments on this post.
1.
An EXAMPLE of Safavid crimes and massacre of Sunni Persian Scholars and influential figures:
It was, however, nothing less than a reign of terror that inaugurated the new dispensation. On
capturing Tabriz in 907/1501, a city two-thirds Sunnite in population, Shah Esmāʿil threatened
with death all who might resist the adoption of Shiʿite prayer ritual in the main congregational
mosque, and he had Qezelbāš soldiers patrol the congregation to ensure that none raise his
voice against the cursing of the first three caliphs, viewed as enemies of the Prophet’s family.
In Tabriz and elsewhere, gangs of professional execrators known as the tabarrāʾiān would
accost the townsfolk at random, forcing them to curse the objectionable personages on pain of
death. Selective killings of prominent Sunnites occurred in a large number of places, notably
Qazvin and Isfahan, and in Shiraz and Yazd, outright massacres took place. Sunnite mosques
were desecrated, and the tombs of eminent Sunnite scholars destroyed (Aubin, 1970, pp. 23738; idem, 1988, pp. 94-101).
http://www.cultureofiran.com/islam_safavid_era.html
Comment by Khorasani— February 7, 2011 #
The murders of Husayn
August 11, 2010 at 1:13 am | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Sheikh al-Mufeed in his book Al-Irshaad (vol. 2, pp 110-111) quotes al-Hussain [ra] with the
following Du’aa:
“Al-Hussain [as] then lefted up his hands and said: O Allah,Should you give them a time to live for,
then disperse them into sevral sects, and place them onto divergent paths, and never let (men of)
authorities be satisfied with them, for they have called on us to support us, but instead they turned
against us and murdered us”
Ameen Ameen Ya Rabbal-Aalameen.
—————————————————————————–
From “Ayanu shia” by Sayd Husayn Amini:
“20,000 (twenty thousand) amongst people of Iraq given pledge to Hussein (ra), they betrayed him
and deserted him and the pledge was still on their necks”.
——————————————————————————
Imam Husain gathered his companions and disclosed to them about the bad news, and said, “Our
Shi’a have deserted us….”
—————————————————————————
After the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, the Shi’a of Karbala realized their mistake and were
determined to do something to avenge the death of the Imam and ask forgiveness for their
wrongdoings.
——————————————————————–
Yazeed in the light of Islamic books
August 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm | Posted in History | 4 Comments
4 Votes
Salam alaikum, I am sure that majority of shias think that we – ahle-sunna wal jamaat – loving Yazid
ibn Muawiya. However that’s not true. I am aware about scholars who tried to defend him as a
personality. But in my humble opinion, he’s is a person who could be hated, and n0 one
should blame anyone who would feel deep hate towards him in his heart. I’d like to post some
quotes from classics of Islam regarding Yazid as a person.
1) First, I’d like to quote shaykhul-Islaam in hadith, ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimuhullah). In his
book “al-Imta bil al-Arba’in al-Matbainatus Samah”, he said:
‫وأما المحبة فيه والرفع من شأنه فال تقع إال من مبتدع فاسد االعتقاد فإنه كان فيه من الصفات ما يقتضي سلب اإليمان عمن يحبه‬
‫ألن الحب في هللا والبغض في هللا من اإليمان وهللا المستعان‬
Loving and glorifying him (Yazid) is not done except by innovator who has void belief because he
(Yazid) had such characteristics that his lover deserves to be faithless, because to love and hate
just for the sake of God is a sign of faith.
Source: “al-Imta bil al-Arba’in al-Matbainatus Samah” p 96.
2) Ibn Kathir wrote in his “Bidaya wa nihaya”:
.‫ فإنا هلل وإنا إليه راجعون‬،‫ يا هؤالء قتل أصحابكم‬:‫فقال ابن الزبير‬
‫ مع ما انضم إلى ذلك من‬،‫ وهذا خطأ كبير فاحش‬،‫وقد أخطأ يزيد خطأ ً فاحشا ً في قوله لمسلم بن عقبة أن يبيح المدينة ثالثة أيام‬
.‫ وقد تقدم أنه قتل الحسين وأصحابه على يدي عبيد هللا بن زياد‬،‫قتل خلق من الصحابة وأبنائهم‬
‫ وقد‬،‫ مما ال يعلمه إال هللا عز وجل‬،‫وقد وقع في هذه الثالثة أيام من المفاسد العظيمة في المدينة النبوية ما ال يحد وال يوصف‬
‫ وحال بينه وبين ما‬،‫ فعاقبه هللا بنقيض قصده‬،‫ ودوام أيامه من غير منازع‬،‫أراد بإرسال مسلم بن عقبة توطيد سلطانه وملكه‬
‫ وكذلك أخذ ربك إذا أخذ القرى وهي ظالمة إن أخذه أليم شديد‬،‫ وأخذه أخذً عزيز مقتدر‬،‫ فقصمه هللا قاصم الجبابرة‬،‫يشتهيه‬
Ibn Zubayr said: O people your companions have been killed – Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Rajiun
“Yazeed committed a mistake and that too a disgusting one by saying to Muslim bin Uqba that
Medina become permitted for three days. This was the biggest blunder. Many Sahaba and their
children were slaughtered. As it has been mentioned before that Yazid killed Husayn and his
companions by hands of Ubeydullah ibn Ziyad, and in those three days huge heinous crimes
happened in Madina about which nobody knows except Allah. Yazeed wanted to secure his
governance by sending Muslim bin Uqbah but Allah did against his wishes and punished him. Verily
Allah killed him likewise Allah made grip over the oppressing towns, no doubt His grip is painful and
strict.
Source: On-Line reference.
Imam Ahmed narrated from Sa’ib bin Khalad (RA) that The Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him)
said: Whosoever spreads injustice and frightened the people of Madina, then Curse (Lanah) of
Allah, his Angels and all the people is upon such a person.
[Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal as narrated by Imam Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah Vol 8 Page No.
274]
3) Ibn Kathir also said:
‫ مسرف بن عقبة – قبحه هللا من شيخ سوء ما أجهله – المدينة ثالثة أيام كما أمره‬:‫ الذي يقول فيه السلف‬،‫ثم أباح مسلم بن عقبة‬
‫شر عظيم وفساد عريض على ما‬
ُّ ‫ ووقع‬،‫ وانتهب أمواالً كثيرة منها‬،‫ وقتل خيرا ً خلقا ً من أشرافها وقرائها‬،ً‫ ال جزاه هللا خيرا‬،‫يزيد‬
.‫ذكره غير واحد‬
‫ فنقم عليه بسببه‬،ً‫ ولكن أسمعه في يزيد كالما ً غليظا‬،‫ وقد كان صديقه قبل ذلك‬،‫فكان ممن قتل بين يديه صبرا ً معقل بن سنان‬
And he Muslim bin Uqba, about whom salaf said: Musraf bin Uqba, May Allah not do well to this
leader of evil and ignorance, he made Madina legal for 3 days on the order of Yazid. May Allah also
not grant Jaza and khayr to him(i.e. Yazid), he got many righteous killed and also looted the
amwaal in Madina in great numbers, this has been multiply narrated that he created a lot of Shar
and Fasad. And he was the one in front of whom was killed Muaqil bin Sinan. He was his friend
before but later heard his strong words about Yazid and became angry with him
Source: Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8, Page No 280
4) Imam Aloose said in his “Ruhul maane”:
‫واستدل بها أيضا على جواز لعن يزيد عليه من هللا تعالى ما يستحق نقل البرزنجي في األشاعة والهيثمي في الصواعق إن اإلمام‬
‫أحمد لما سأله ولده عبد هللا عن لعن يزيد قال كيف ال يلعن من لعنه هللا تعالى في كتابه فقال عبد هللا قد قرأت كتاب هللا عز و جل‬
‫ فهم عسيتم إن توليتم أن تفسدوا في األرض وتقطعوا أرحامكم أولئك الذين‬: ‫فلم أجد فيه لعن يزيد فقال اإلمام أن هللا تعالى يقول‬
‫لعنهم هللا اآلية وأي فساد وقطيعة أشد مما فعله يزيد انتهى‬
The Proof of sending Lanah upon Yazid is derived from this (ayah), as was mentioned by Al-Barzanji
(rah) in his Al-Ashaat and Imam Haythami in As-Sawaiq from Imam Ahmed that his son Abdullah
asked him about sending Lanah on Yazid, (Imam Ahmed) said: Why cannot Lanah be sent on him
when Allah has sent Lanah on him in Quran, Abdullah said: I read book of Allah, and didn’t see
there curse upon Yazeed, Imam Ahmad mentioned these verses: Would ye then, if ye were given
the command, work corruption in the land and sever your ties of kinship? Such are the men whom
Allah has cursed…(47:22-23) Hence could there be a bigger Strife than what Yazid did?
Source: “Ruh ul Ma’ani” by Imam Al-Alusi, Volume 9 Under Surah Muhammad 22-23.
5) Ibn Muflih Hanbali in “Adabu sharia” (1/336 shamela version):
‫ إن أقواما‬: ‫ ال وال كرامة أو ليس هو فعل بأهل المدينة ما فعل ؟ وقيل له‬: ‫ ألحمد ابن حنبل أيؤخذ الحديث عن يزيد فقال‬: ‫قيل‬
‫ متى رأيت أباك يلعن‬: ‫ أو ال تلعنه ؟ فقال‬: ‫ وهل يحب يزيد من يؤمن باهلل واليوم اآلخر ؟ فقيل له‬: ‫ إنا نحب يزيد فقال‬: ‫يقولون‬
‫أحدا‬
“It was said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked: Would you take narrations from Yazeed?” He said: “No,
and no karamah (honour?) for him, was that not him who done to people of Madina what he has
done?”. It was said to him: “Group says that they love Yazeed”. He asked: Does anyone love Yazeed
who believes in Allaah and the Last Day?” It was said to him: Would you curse him?”. Imam
answered: When did you ever see your father curse anybody?.
6) Ibn Hajar al-Haythami said:
‫ فأجازه قوم منهم ابن الجوزي ونقله عن أحمد وغيره‬،‫وبعد اتفاقهم على فسقه اختلفوا في جواز لعنه بخصوص اسمه‬
“And after (they) agreed in his (Yazeed) fisq, they differed in permissibility of cursing him by name.
And group allowed that, from them ibn Jawzi, and was reported from Ahmad and others”.
Source: “Sawaiq al muhriqa” p 309-310.
And he said:
‫روى ابن الجوزي عن القاضي أبي يعلى الفراء أنه روى في كتابه المعتمد في األصول بإسناده إلى صالح بن أحمد بن حنبل قال‬
‫قلت ألبي إن قوما ينسبوننا إلى تولي يزيد‬
‫فقال يا بني وهل يتولى يزيد أحد يؤمن باهلل ولم ال يلعن من لعنه هللا في كتابه فقلت وأين لعن هللا يزيد في كتابه فقال في قوله‬
‫تعالى فهل عسيتم إن توليتم أن تفسدوا في األرض وتقطعوا أرحامكم أولئك الذين لعنهم هللا فأصمهم وأعمى أبصارهم فهل يكون‬
‫فساد أعظم من القتل وفي رواية فقال يا بني ما أقول في رجل لعنه هللا في كتابه فذكره‬
“Ibn Jawzi narrated from qadi Abu Yala al-Fara that he reported in his book “Mutamad fi usul” with
chain till Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Abdullah which said: I said to my father: “Group of people attribute
love of Yazeed to us”. He said: “O My son, does anyone who believes in Allah would love (tawale)
Yazeed, and why not to curse the one whom Allah cursed in his book”. I asked: “And where Allah
cursed Yazeed in His book?”. He replied: In saying of Taala: ” (47:22) But if you held command, you
were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship! (47:23)Those it is whom
Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes”. And is there mischief great
that murder?”. And in (other) report he said: “O my son, what to say about man who was cursed by
Allah in his book?”.
Source: “Sawaiq al muhriqa” p 310.
Interesting quote that was missed by Ibn Jawzi, Qadi after citing this opinion from imam Ahmad
said:
‫ وهذه الرواية إن صحت فهي صريحة في معنى لعن يزيد‬: ‫قال القاضي‬
“And this riwayat, IF IT’S SAHIH then it’s clear in meaning regarding curse of Yazeed”.
So obviously Qadi himself was doubting this riwayat, or at least he wasn’t sure regarding it. And in
the answer of shaykh Munajid, you would see other narration from imam Ahmad, which is seems
much much more authentic. And you have already seen it in the quote from ibn Muflih.
7) Qazzali said in “Ihya” (3/125, darul marifat Beirut):
‫فإن قيل هل يجوز لعن يزيد ألنه قاتل الحسين أو آمر به قلنا هذا لم يثبت أصال فال يجوز أن يقال إنه قتله أو أمر به‬
“And if it would be said: Is it permitted to curse Yazeed because he killed Hussain or ordered to?
We would say: It’s not established, and it’s not permitted to say that he killed him or ordered to
kill him”.
8.) Muhammad Salih Munajid said:
Praise be to Allaah. His name was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah alUmawi al-Dimashqi. Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign
against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was
appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age
of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years. Yazeed is one of those whom we
neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states
(Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were
some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was
came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive
such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his
grandfather. His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle
of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many
revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of
Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr. (Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, part 4, p. 38)
Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said: The people
differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two
extreme and one moderate . One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq,
that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah,
his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who
were killed by the companions of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To
have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it
is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir. The second extreme group think that he was a
righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of
the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu
Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one
who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest
Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the
Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience. The third view is that he was
one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the
caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn
happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one
of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge
and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him,
one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported
from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others
among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love
Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I
said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father
curse anybody? Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to
what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our
grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his
good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion. (Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh alIslam, part 4, p. 481-484)
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
9) Shia writer Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi in his book “The life of Imam Husain” at page 840 (internet
version) wrote:
Regret of the Oppressor, Yazid
After the Muslims began to condemn that tyrant with regard to the killing of the beloved grandson
of the Messenger of Allah (s) he became regretful and tried to transfer the blame of that crime to
Ibn Marjana and he always said: “What would have happened to me if I had borne the pain and
lodged him (His Eminence, Husain) with me in my house and fulfilled his demands and made him
the ruler even though this would have brought me condemnation and my power would have
weakened; due to having respected the honor of the Messenger of Allah (s) and fulfillment of his
rights. May Allah curse Ibn Marjana; because by killing him (Husain) he has made me hateful to
Muslims, and sowed their hearts with malice to me. Such that both the righteous and sinful
ones have started disliking me for the seriousness of the killing of Husain. What do I have to do
with Ibn Marjana? May Allah curse him and be furious upon him!”
Author: Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi
Translator: Sayyid Athar Husain S.H. Rizvi
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications
First Edition 2007-1386-1428
Quds Press
10) Shaykh of shias Abbas Qummi in his book “Nafasul mahmoom” (p393, internet version) wrote:
It is related in Kamil (of Ibne Aseer), that when the head of Imam Husain (a.s) reached Yazeed, he
was pleased with Ibne Ziyad. His confidence in him increased and he bestowed numerous gifts upon
him and was pleased with his work. Within a short time, he was informed that people hated, cursed
and vilified him, thus he (falsely) regretted the murder of Imam Husain (a.s), and said, ”What
would have mattered if I had taken his injury upon myself and would have brought Husain to
my home, and could have handed him over whatever he intended, although it would result in a
split in my kingship. I could have honoured the sanctity of the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s) and
could have observed his right and considered his family. May Allah curse the son of Marjanah!
When Husain had requested him that he would place his hand in my hand and go away to
another place and live until Allah gives him death. But he did not yield to him and killed him,
and by doing so he made me detestable in the eyes of the Muslims. And he ignited my enmity
into their hearts, while now the virtuous, as well as the evil ones, bear enmity towards me due
to the gruesome massacre of Husain. What relation did I have with the son of Marjanah! May
Allah curse him and keep enmity with him”.
Author: Haj Shaikh Abbas Qummi
Translator: Aejaz Ali Bhujwala (Al-Husainee)
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
First Edition 1425 -1383 – 2005
Thamin Al-a’immah Press
I would leave alone comments from “Kamil ziyarat” that Yazid was pleased. Because justice of
shias something mythical.
Just pay attention directly to direct speech of Yazeed.
Conclusion:
In the end I’d like to share again with readers with my view. Just reminding, I am not a scholar, and
neither talibul-ilm. So that’s only my view.
Yazeed can’t be loved, he deserve to be hated. Someone can say that his drinking wine, and others
examples of fisq and lacks of morality isn’t proven. But for sure the least thing that can be said
about him, that he is responsible for butchery in Madina, and with the connivance of him, was
killed sayidina Hussain (radi Allahu anh). These two things are facts.
And Allah knows best, wa sallalahu ala sayidina Muhammad, wa ala alihi wa ashabihi ajmayin.
Abu Abdullah Jafar as-Sadiq on companions
July 13, 2010 at 8:17 pm | Posted in History, Invented myths and legends | Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Sheikh Saduq in his “Khisal” narrated:
‫كان أصحاب رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله اثنى عشر ألف رجل‬
28-5 ‫ عن محمد بن أبي‬،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫ حدثنا علي ابن إبراهيم بن هاشم‬:‫حدثنا أحمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني رضي هللا عنه قال‬
‫ كان أصحاب رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله اثني عشر ألفا ثمانية‬:‫ عن أبي عبد هللا عليه السالم قال‬،‫ عن هشام بن سالم‬،‫عمير‬
‫ وال صحاب‬،‫ ولم ير فيهم قدري وال مرجي وال حروري وال معتزلي‬،‫ وألفان من الطلقاء‬،‫ وألفان من مكة‬،‫آالف من المدينة‬
‫ اقبض أرواحنا من قبل أن نأكل خبز الخمير‬:‫ كانوا يبكون الليل والنهار ويقولون‬،‫رأي‬.
THERE WERE TWELVE THOUSAND COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET
28-5 Ahmad ibn Zyad ibn Ja’far al-Hamedany – may God be pleased with him – narrated that Ali ibn
Ibrahim ibn Hashim quoted his father, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr, on the
authority of Hisham ibn Salim that Aba Abdullah as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) said, “There were twelvethousand companions for God’s Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). Eight-thousand of them were from
Medina, two-thousand of them were from Mecca and another two-thousand of them were the free
atheist who had become Muslims. There were no Qadarites, Marajites, Kharajites, Mo’tazelites, nor
any who act according to their own opinions. They cried day and night and said, ‘O God! Please
take away our souls before we eat barley bread”.
Interesting point to mention, where all those 100 000 companions which as shias say present at
gadir-hum gone?
Ayatullah Abu Alfathel Alburqai
July 13, 2010 at 7:13 pm | Posted in History | 4 Comments
4 Votes
Salam alaikum.
His full name is: Abulfadhal the son of Al-Hasan the son of Hijjat Al-Islam Al-Sayyid Ahmed the son
of Ridha Al-Deen the son of Al-Sayyid Yahya the son of Mirza Meeran the son of Yahya the son of
Meer Muhsin the son of Meer Ridha Al-Deen the son of Al-Sayyid Muhamed the son of Meer Fakhr AlDeen the son of Meer Hussain the son of Badshah the son of Meer Abu Al-Qasim the son of Meerah
the son of Abu Al-Fadhal the son of Bindaar the son of Isa the son of Abi Jaffar Muhamed the son of
Abu Al-Qasim the son of Ali the son of Ali Muhamed the son of Ahmed the son of Muhamed the lame
the son of Al-Sayyid Ahmed the son of Mousa Al-Mubarqi’e the son of Al-Imam Muhamed Al-Taqi the
son of Al-Imam Ali bin Mousa Al-Ridha the son of Al-Imam Mousa bin Jaffar Al-Khadhim the son of
Al-Imam Jaffar bin Muhamed Al-Saddiq the son of Al-Imam Muhamed bin Ali Al-Baqir the son of AlImam Ali bin Al-Hussain Zaynul A’abideen the son of Al-Imam Al-Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Talib the son
of Al-Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased at them all.
He was nicknamed Al-Burqu’ei in relation to his grandfather Al-Sayyid Mousa Al-Mubarqa’a.
His Quest for Knowledge:
Ayatullah Al-Uthma Abu Al-Fadhl Al-Barqa’ei sought knowledge from the following scholars:
- Al-Sheikh Abdul Kareem Al-Ha’eiri Al-Yazdi,
- Ayatullah Hujjat Koh Kamrah,
- Ayatullah Al-Sayyid Abul Hassan Al-Esfihani,
- Al-Haaj Al-Sheikh Muhamed Ali Al-Qummi,
- Mirza Muhamed Al-Samera’ei,
- Al-Haaj Al-Shiekh Abdul Nabi Al-A’araki,
- Al-Qassim Al-Kabeer Al-Qummi,
- Ayatullah Shah A’abadi, and many other scholars
The Phenomenon of Ayatullah Al-Barqa’ei:
In matter of fact, Al-Barqa’ei, may Allah have mercy on his soul, was part of a phenomenon that we
need to understand and try to spread and adopt. This phenomenon that we are talking about is the
guidance of some Shia scholars to Islam and their realization of the falsehood of their previous sect.
Al-Barqa’ei mentioned in his book “The Destruction of the Idol” or “Kasr Al-Sanam” that he was
influenced by Mustafa Tabteba’ei. Tabteba’ei had graduated from the Shia schools in Qumm, the
holy Shia city, reached the degree of Ijtihad – the right to deduce fatwas from Sharia – , and then
left Shiasim. Other prominent Shias who left Shiasim include but not limited to the following:
- Dr. Ali Muthfarian who was a surgeon and left Shiasim to become the prayer Imam for Ahl AlSunnah mosque in Shiraz,
- Mousa Al-Mosavi who resolved on correcting the path of Shiasim and in the process wrote many
books including: Shiasim and Correction (Al-Shia wa Al-Tasheeh), O’ Shia of the World, Wake up (Ya
Shiat Al-A’alam, Estayqathou), The Miserable Revolution (Al-Thawrah Al-Ba’eisah), and many other
books.
- Ahmed Kasravi: a prominent Shia judge and writer, who left Shiasim to be later assassinated by
extremist Shias, and wrote a book named Shiasim and Shia (Al-Tashayu’a wa Al-Shia), and
- Ahmed Al-Katib, a Shia who rejected the hypothesis of the birth of the Awaited One Muhamed bin
Al-Hasan Al-Haskari aka Lord of All Ages and invalidated all of the historical Shia stories regarding
this matter, story after story.
His Suffering, May Allah Have Mercy on His Soul:
After ordering him to fear Allah, to establish regular prayer, enjoin what is just, and forbid what is
wrong, Luqman said to his son, “and bear with patient constancy whatever betide thee,” because
every reformer who calls for reforms suffers from pain and is always surrounded by rumors.
At the time of the Shah, and through the instigation of Ayatullah Shari’timdari, the leader of Shias
at that time, Al-Burqa’ei was imprisoned, tortured, and then exiled. Ayatullah Shari’timdari
managed to gather six thousand signatures, and that resulted in expelling Al-Burqa’ei from the
mosque that he was its leader. The mosque is located in Tehran. Since the Shah’s government was
secular in nature, he showed indifference towards what Al-Barqa’ei was doing i.e. refuting the
beliefs of Shiasim. However, the increased instigation and hatred from Shia scholars lead to cast
some suffering on Al-Barqa’ei.
However, the true suffering and the greatest agony started after the Iranian Revolution. The Shia
scholars tormented him, and encouraged the ignorant people to attack him. As a result, his house
was attacked many times. And when the regime noticed that he is not refraining from telling the
truth with great courage and that he is continuing in his activities, though in a small scale, then the
regime instructed one of its followers to assassin him as they tried to do the same thing with
Haydar Ali Qalamdaran, may Allah have mercy on his soul, who left Shiasim long time ago. The
person who tried to assassin Haydar Ali was one of the scholars of Qumm who visited Haydar Ali in
the beginning days of the revolution to kill him with a knife. However, Haydar Ali managed to flee
away, and lived for many years afterwards.
However, the Shia regime was much annoyed by the works and books of Al-Barqa’ei, which he used
to type on the typing machine and distribute it to people.
As we said earlier, the regime had sent one of its followers to assassin Al-Barqa’ei by gun at his
house. And while Al-Barqa’ei was praying, some bullets had been fired on him, and a bullet
managed to enter his left cheek to leave from the right cheek. Al-Barqa’ei, may Allah have mercy
on his soul, at that time aged 80 years and was transported to the hospital for treatment. However,
the doctors were ordered by the regime not to treat him. After that, a doctor advised Al-Barqa’ei
to leave the hospital and seek treatment at his house.
And all of that did not break the iron will of Al-Barqa’ei, and he continued in his doings until the
regime imprisoned him. Prison was no stranger to Al-Barqa’ei; however, this time it was the
notorious prison Evin, which is considered to be the most infamous political prisons in Iran. He
stayed a year in that prison, then he was exiled to Yazd, a very far away city from Tehran, his
dwelling city.
However, after 5 days of his exile, he was again lead to prison to be exiled again to the same city
later on. Then he passed away, and no one knows for sure whether he was murdered or not, may
Allah have mercy on his soul.
Al-Barqa’ei passed away in the year 1993 and advised his friends and family not to be buried in a
Shia cemetery or to write any poems on his grave, even though he wrote some wonderful poems for
such an occasion before his guidance, but he preferred not to have them in the end.
His Works:
Al-Barqa’ei wrote many books, some of them as follows:
- An Index to the Beliefs of Shiekhism and its Contradiction to Islam (Fahras Aqa’eid Al-Sheikhiyah
wa Mukhalafatha lil Islam)
- A Study in the Supplication of Al-Nadab (Dirasat Du’oa Al-Nadab)
- Supplication of Al-Nadab and its Contradictory Nature to Quran (Du’oa Al-Nadab wa Mukhalaft
Ebaratuh lil Quran)
- The Many Superstitions in Visiting the Grave (Al-Khurafat Al-Katheerah fi Ziyarat Al-Quboor)
- The Prohibition of Temporary Marriage in Islam (Yahreem Al-Mut’ah in Al-Islam)
- The Destruction of the Idol – A Study in the Hadeeths of Al-Kafi (Kasr Al-Sanam)
- A Scientific Study in the Hadeeths of Al-Mahdi (Dirasah Eilmiyah li Ahadeeth Al-Mahdi)
- The Contradiction of ‘The Keys to Heavens’ to the Verses of the Quran (Mukhalafat Mafateeh AlJinan li Ayat Al-Quran)
And he also translated into Persian the book “Al-Muntaqa” by Al-Thahabi, which is a summary of
“Minhaj Al-Sunnah Al-Nabawiya” by Ibn Taymiyah.
Dr. Ali Muzafaryan and Redha Zanganah:
Their Biography is in Farsi. I wonder if any qualified person can translate it to us.
Group of Shia scholars converted after the long munazara:
Reported by Syed Abdullah Ib Al-Hussain Al-Suwaidi Al-Abbasi to occur after a Munazara in Najaf in
the year (1156) in the presence of Nadir Shah.
Muhib Al-Deen Al-Khadimi:
Author of ” Siyaha Fee Alam Al-Tashaiu” (A Journey in the world of Shiasm).
Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk:
Popular name for the history of Struggling in Pakistan, an Ex-SHIA scholar, who converted to SUNNI
More:
-Alama: Ismail Al-Ishaq Al-Khoeini
- Hyder Ali Qalamdaran
- Dr. Musa Al-Musawi
- Hussain Al-Musawi
- Muhammad Iskandar Al-Yasiri
If any brothers has more names to share with us please do not hesitate
Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz Dahlawi on ibn Sabah
July 4, 2010 at 8:49 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Written by brother Saad:
Assalam o alaykum,
Imam Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz Dahlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) has discussed the schemes of
‘Abdullah ibn Saba in great detail in his magnum opus, Tuhfa Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. Son of Imam Sayyid
Alusi has translated and abridged it into Arabic.
He writes that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jew from Yemen and he divided his activates into three
different levels depending on the people he was dealing with; hence three different groups
emerged through his efforts.
1. At first he claimed the love for Ahl al-Bayt and this was his ploy to gain the sympathies of
Muslims. Once he was successful in this he started to claim that Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be
pleased with him) was the most superior after the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace). At this point he had attracted a good number of followers. He also forged many narrations
in the virtues of Sayyiduna ‘Ali.
Now this is what present day Zaydis hold to. So it is perfectly fine to say that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba
was also the founder of Zaydi Shias. These are also known as Tafdilis.
2. Once he was successful in this, he chose a certain number of his followers, those close to him,
and started to brainwash them that Sayyiduna ‘Ali was the first Caliph appointed by the Holy
Prophet. He told them that it was the Companions (Sahabah) who after the demise of Holy Prophet
went against his instructions and usurped the right of Sayyinduna ‘Ali. He was the first one to
misinterpret the incident that happened over Fadak and used that as a proof to spread hatred of
the Companions. He also made sure to tell his followers that never to ascribe these teachings to
him if asked; disassociate from him in public because his purpose is to inform the truth and not
fame or power.
Present day Itha ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) belong to this second group. They are also known
asSabbiyah or Tabarriyah.
3. After this ploy was also successful, he went a step further and selected a certain number of his
very close associates and told that that I am about to tell a very sensitive secret. He made them
promise that this information will be kept secret. He started off by telling karamat of Sayyiduna
‘Ali and through this he convinced them of Uluhiyyat of Sayyiduna ‘Ali; that Sayyiduna ‘Ali is in fact
God but has come in the form of a human.
I believe present day Alawis fall under this category. These are known as Ghullat.
Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz concludes that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba is indeed the founder of above mentioned
three groups of Shias. Every single Shia group will fall under one of the above three categories.
As far as the Shia Awla, those were actually Ahl al-Sunnah. They were known as Shia Awla because
they sided with Sayyiduna ‘Ali during the differences that arose among various Companions due to
the schemes of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba. They had all the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah like affirming the
superiority of Shaykhayn (may Allah be pleased with them) over Sayyiduna Ali. So it obvious that
when it is said, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba is the founder of Shiaism’, Shia Awla are not being referred to.
In our time, Shia Awla are referred to as Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamah and this title is not used
anymore for any given group.
Abdullah ibn Saba
July 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm | Posted in History | 2 Comments
3 Votes
Written by brother Saad:
Assalam o alaykum,
Existence of Abdullah ibn Saba is both accepted by Sunnis, Shias and the Westener historians. Today
some Shias try their best to even deny his existence, let alone the role he played in the foundation
of Shiaism. He is to Shiaism, what Saint Paul is to Christianity.
1. It says in Anwar-ul-Na’umania, a Shia book,
Abdullah Ibn-i-Saba was the first who declared the faith in Imamat and that Hadhrat Ali (may Allah
be pleased with him) is the true God [Na’uzubillah].
[Anwar-ul-Na'umania, Vol 2, Pg 234 - Published Iran]
http://www.kr-hcy.com/references/shia/070.shtml
2. The name of Abdullah bin Saba figures in the most reliable book of Shias on Isma ur-Rijal,
entitledRijal-i-Kashshi and it is related in it from Imam Jafar Sadiq (may Allah have mercy on him)
that Ibne Saba believed in the divinity of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and,
ultimately, he was burnt alive at his command. About Abdullah bin Saba, Rijal-e-Kashshi says,
“Many knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam
and showed great devotion for Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). As a Jew, he used to
exaggerated the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, and the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a
Muslim he began to exalt the personality of Hadhrat Ali much beyond the due limit, and he was the
first person to declare that it was obligatory to believe in the Imamate of Hadhrat Ali, and
completely dissociated himself form his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them
as infidels”.
[Rijal-i-Kashi, page.71].
3. The earliest historian Tabri has sketched out the details in these words,
“Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew and lived in Sana. His mother was called Sauda. He embraced Islam
during the period of Hadhrat Uthman. he roamed through the Muslim cities and tried to seduce the
Muslims from the straight path. He launched his diabolical campaign from Hijaz and then visited
Basra, Kufa and Syria. None of the Syrians cooperated with him. On the contrary, they drove him
out of Syria. Thus he moved over to Egypt and settled down there permanently. He started
drumming into the minds of the Egyptians that it was strange they believed in the return of Christ
and denied the return of Hadhrat Muhammad [peace be upon him]. God himself had declared.
Therefore he has a better claim to return to the world in comparison with Christ. He fabricated the
concept of the ‘return’ or resurrection and the Egyptians turned in into a hot debating issue.”
4. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) and Hafiz Ibn Athir (may Allah have mercy on
him) have commented on it on similar lines and Allama Ibn Khaldun (may Allah have mercy on him)
has also written about it,
“Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country
during the tenure of Hadhrat Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart.
When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee – line for Syria. The
Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Hadhrat Uthman (may
Allah have mercy on him) the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to
institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bait. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he
spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had
come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid
bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by
Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded Ammar not to return to Madina. Ammar was one of
those people who had openly lambasted Hadhrat Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) for first
turning Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) out of Syria into Madina and then for
pushing him out of Madina towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of Hadhrat
Uthman was justified. Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him), out of the intensity of his
piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the
hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a day’s ration. He
also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to
instigate Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) against Hadhrat Muawiyah by stressing
that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have
mercy on him) started condemning Hadhrat Muawiyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Hadhrat
Muawiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) coaxed him a little and told him : I’ll also harp on the
same turn that all goods belong to Allah.”
5. Hafiz ibn Hajr (may Allah have mercy on him) has related on the authority of Tarikh Abi Asakir,
“He belonged to Yemen. He was a Jew, but he had donned the guise of Islam and roamed through
the Muslim cities to lead the Muslims astray and dissuade them from the obedience of their Imams
and to sow dissension among them. He also visited Damascus with this end in view”.
[Tarikh Damishq, 7:430]
6. Allama Asfaraini (may Allah have mercy on him) has also commented on it in a similar vein,
“Ibn Sauda was a Jew who had donned the gown of Islam to addle the faith of the Muslims”.
7. Abu Muhammad Hassan bin Musa has unraveled these secrets. He is the earliest Shia historian
who has given an account of the Shia sects. He is one of the most famous Shias of the third century
A.H. He writes,
“Sabais are the companions of Abdullah bin Saba. Abdullah bin Saba made faces at Hadhrat Abu
Bakr, Umar, Uthman and other companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet (peace
be upon him) and disaffiliated himself from them and he imputed his acts to the command of
Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). When Hadhrat Ali caught hold of him and asked him
about it, he confessed to it. After his confession, he ordered him to be executed. On hearing the
order, [quite a few people] made a humble submission to Hadhrat Ali : O Amir-ul-Momineen ! You
have ordered the execution of a person who professes your friendship and the love of your Ahl-iBait. Hadhrat Ali complied with the submission and exiled him to Madain.”
8. The famous Shia biographer Istrabadi says,
“Abdullah bin Saba claimed that Hadhrat Ali is Allah and he is his Prophet. When the news reached
the Amir-ul-Momineen, he sent for him and asked him about it. He owned it and insisted that he is
really the one [who is the referee of his claim]. The Amir-ul-Momineen said : The devil has seduced
you. Therefore you should repent at once. But he refused to repent and he put him behind the bars
for three days. When he did not repent even after three days, he burned him alive”.
9. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) says,
“The followers of Abdullah bin Saba are called Sabains. Ibn Saba relied on exaggeration about the
status of Hadhrat Ali and claimed that he was a prophet. Then, relying on further exaggeration he
claimed that he [Hadhrat Ali] was God and he invited a party of the Kufi rebels to adopt these
beliefs. When the news reached Hadhrat Ali, he had some of these people thrown into two pits of
fire, as has been hinted at by a poet .”
10. All the Shia scholars have given an account of Ibn Saba, his views and beliefs and his party ;
Sayyid Qummi [who died in 301 A.H.], Sheikh Taifah Tusi, Tastri in Qamus-ur-Rijal, Abbas Qummi
inTohfat-ul-Ahbab, Khu Ansari in Raudhat-ul-Jannat, Sabhani in Nasikh-ut-Tawarikh and the author
ofRaudhat-us-Safa, have all mentioned him and his party”.
11. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes under the heading of Sabaism,
“Sabais are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba who had told Hadhrat Ali [r.a]: you are you i.e., you
are God, but he had extradited him to Madain The historians suggest that he was actually a Jew,
but he had tacked on to himself the label of Islam. During the Jewish phase, he used to claim that
Hadhrat Y’osha bin Nun was the executor of Moses [a.h].”
12. Ibn Asakar has cited a tradition of Hadhrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) in his history,
“When the oath of allegiance was taken at the hand of Hadhrat Ali and he delivered his address,
Abdullah bin Saba stood up and said: you are “Dabat-ul-Ardh”
[Tarikh Damishq]
13. Allamah Baghdadi has touched the issue in his book Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq. Similarly, Isfaraini in
his book Kitab ut-Tabsir and Ibn Hazam in Al-Fasl have also mentioned ibn Saba.
14. Famous Shia scholar Nau Bakhti writes,
“It is known as the Sabai sect because Abdullah bin Saba was its ring leader. “
[Khandan-i-Nau-Bakhti, page 275]
15. Historian Professor P.K Hitti writes,
“The enigmatic Abdullah ibn Saba who was convertered into Islam…embarrased Ali with his
excessive venertion…”
[History of the Arabs, p.248 - London]
16. Famous historian Dweight M. Donaldon writes,
“Abdullah ibn Saba had travelled widely throughout the Empire, as Tabari says, “seeking to lead
the Moslems into error…Another of his teachings that was more immediately, influential was that
every Prophet has a wasi and that Ali was the wasi of Muhammed…”
[The Sheit Religion of Islam, Part. 6 p.41]
17. Historian Dr. J. N. Hollister writes,
“[Abdullah ibn Saba] He was the native of San’s in Yemen…He opened a campaign of behalf of Ali
suggesting that Abu Bakar, Umar, and Usman were usurpers…”
[Shias of Hind p.15]
18. Famous historian Dr. Walter C. Klein writes,
“Abdullah ibn Saba had hailed Ali with the words, “Thou art Thou.”…
[Al-Ibanah alUsul al-Diyanah, p.7-8]
19 Historian Professor Nicholson writes,
“Now the Shi’ite theory of Divine Right certainly harmonised with Persian ideas, …Abdullah ibn
Saba…went from place to place, seeking to lead Moslems into error…”
[The History of the Arabs, p.215]
20. Famous historian and former governer of U.P, India, William Moore writes,
“…ibn Saba, a Jew from the South of Arabia…he became the setter forth of strange and startling
doctrines…Ali was his legate, Usmsn was a usurper…”
[Al-Khilafat, Us ka Urooj, Inhetit aur Zawaal, p.217]
21. The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says,
ABDALLAH IBN SABA
By : Hartwig Hirschfeld
Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having
adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he
went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On
account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as
every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had
therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the
califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of
Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine
honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to
Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and
had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he
would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain
hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on
that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine
honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in
the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” [The Most High].
Bibliography: Shahrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201); Weil,
Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.
22. And it is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him),
“Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jewish and he [supposedly] accepted Islam during the time of Hazrat
Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he urged the people of Egypt to kill Hadhrat Usman (may
Allah have mercy on him) and he would show musch love for Hadhrat Ali (may Allah have mercy on
him). He was a khabis from inside and his only mission was to create fitna among the Muslims.”
‫عبد اّلل بن سبا كان يهوديا فاسلم ايام عثمان وهوالذى حمل اهل مصر على قتل عثمان واظهر‬
‫الميل الى على وكان خبيث الباطن غرض الفساد بين المسلمين‬
[Musnad Imam-i-Azam, p.158]
23. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani (may Allah have mercy on him) says,
“Sabain sect are attributed towards Abdullah ibn Saba and they said Hadhrat Ali is alive and will
come back before Qiyamat.”
[Ghunyat al-Talibin]
Scan:
24. Famous Shia scholar Allamah Kashi narrates in his book from one of the Shia Imam Abu Abdullah
(may Allah have mercy on him),
“May Allah curse Abdullah ibn Saba, he said that Hadhrat Ali is God. But Hazrat Ali was a servant of
Allah.”
[Rijal-i-Kashi, p.100]
[Qamus al-Rijal, 5:46]
25. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
“Abdullah ibn Saba…was the first person who said that Imamat of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah have
mercy on him) is proven from nas.”
[Al-Milal wa al-Nahal, 1:174]
26. Saad Bin Abdullah Al Ash’ari Alqummi said:
“Sabians are companions of Abdullah Ibn saba, …… Abdullah bin Saba’, was the first who slandered
Abu Bakr [r.a], Omar [r.a], Othman [r.a] and the Companions and disowned them.”
[Al-Maqalat wal-Firaq, p.20]
27. Hadhrat Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written in details about ibn
Saba in his book Izalat al-Khafa.
First shia scholar ibn Saba
June 1, 2010 at 2:19 am | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
Allama Hasan Musa Naubahti in his book “Firag ush shia” wrote:
“Some people of knowledge from companions of Ali said that: “Abdulla ibn Saba was yahudi who
accepted islam. He was supporter of Ali . While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerative notion that
Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Prophet Musa, after accepting islam, he adopted a
similar stance with regard to `Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet (after his death). He (ibn Saba)
was the first man who told that believe in imamat of Ali is obligatory, and he openly vitriolated his
enemies (i.e. the first three Caliphs) and branded them as infidels. That is why those who opposses
to shia say:”The origin of Rafd is thus based on Judaism”"
A time line of Shiite/Raafidah treasons to Islam and crimes
against Muslims
May 3, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
The following is a brief history of the turmoils and grand events that occurred within a millennium
between the Grand Fitnah against Othman Bin Affan in the first century of Hijrah and the Grand
Conspiracy against the Ottomans in the 14th century of Hijrah. In this, we shall demonstrate the
role of the Hypocrite Jews and their Supporters in all ages in plotting against Islam and Muslims .
(1) Early in the 1st Century (h), The second Khalifah was assasinated, as well as the third and the
forth consecutively. The seeds for civil and sectarian wars were planted and the creation of the
first reverted cryptic group took place, under the cover of the love of Ahl al-Bayt and the defense
of their rights to government. This was accomplished due to the efforts of the hypocrite Jew
Abdullah Bin Sabaa’ who claimed afterwards the Divinity of Ali, thus was the creation of the early
Shiiat groups known as Saba’ism. These groups have played a dangerouse role in changing one reign
with another and and forcing their creed on the people. They have pulled the carpet from under
the Umayyads and stabed the Abbasites in the back and sat on the thrones of Allepo, Damascuss,
Cairo and other Muslim cities and countries.
(2) In the 4th century (h), among them were numerouse grand consultants and secretaries. One of
the foremost criminals was Abu Faraj Yaacob Bin Yousef Bin Killes (Jew), who had unlimited control
over the people and the land during the reign of the Fatimis, al-Aziz Billah (365-385 h). This lasted
until the people were fed up with the Jews’ & Christians’ control of the highest offices in the state,
not to mention the intentional loss of battles with the Crusaders on the Mediterranean coasts. In
fact, the governor of Askalan, who was one of them, gave up the city to the enemies with no
justification, which resulted in his death when the soldiers and people revolted. This is exactly like
when Syria gave up the Golan Hights to the Jews, with no justification either, in 1967. In 386 (h),
al-Hakim Bi-Amrillah became the Khalifa over the Fatimis Khilafa and was extremely prejudiced to
his Shii’sm and oppressive to people. His reign lasted until the year 411 (h) when he declared his
divinity with the support of the jew Mustakeen al-Durzi, a group of Muslims then abducted and
killed him. Durzi escaped and founded the sect Lebanon & Syria that bears his name now. The jews
had and still have good relations with the Druze, and the Druze continued to offer the Israelis their
services even now.
(3) In the 5th century (h), Iraq was ruled by a Shiia government known as the Buwaihi State which
also governed Persia. During their reign, the jews attained the highest positions whereby they
controlled the financial revenues and the political affairs, which resulted in the revolt of the
people against the authorities in Iraq and the burning of the Jews’ & Shiias’ houses in 422 (h). It is a
historical fact that the Buwaihis supported the Kurmutis movement with finance and weapons, and
the Jews played a significant role in distributing aid and assistance to the revolutionist Kurmutis
due to their position in the state.
(4) In the 7th century (h), The Shiia played a significant role in the fall of Baghdad to Holaco king of
Tatars, due to to the betrayal of the Ibn al-Alkami to his Master al-Musta’sim Billah, the last Khalifa
of the A bbasites. Indeed, the Fall of Baghdad is far greater in tragedy than any illustration or
description. Many Muslims back then thought the Judgement Day was at hand, about 2 millions
muslims were killed.
(5) In the 8th century (h), some of the Tatar Kings converted to Islam and some embraced the Shiia
Religion. Among those who embraced Shiia Religion was Ghyiathuddin Khuda Muhammad who was
far harsher in treatment to Muslims than his ancestors. He allied himself with the Jews and the
Crusaders against the Muslims, and during his reign the Jews assumed the highest positions in
Baghdad, al-Moosel and Ibn Amr Island. In that they had all the authority to oppress the Muslims in
any shape or manner. Furthermore, he (Ghyathuddin) allied himself with the Pope and Kings of
England and France to fight the Muslims of Ahlul Sunnah. However when his son Abu Sa’eed Bahader
Khan 716 (h) (who was following Ahlul Sunnah wal-Jamaa’a unlike his father) came to power he cut
all relations with the Crusaders and removed all Jews from their positions and forced all Ahl-eKitaab to wear a special uniform to distinguish them from Muslims. Muslims were finally at ease;
their joy did not last long due to the assasination of Abu Sa’eed by the Jews in 736 (h) may Allah
bestow His mercy upon him.
(6) In the 10th century (h), the Shiias had a state known as the Safawi State. Again, the Jews had
attained the highest ranking positions and took a good advantage of it by instigating the Safawis to
declare war on the Sunni Ottoman State. They arranged a treaty with the Portuguese who at the
time were controlling the Arabian ( Persian ) Gulf and colonized Hormuz Island for use as a base for
their fleet during the reign of Ismael the 1st, in the year 930 (h). Under the reign of his successor
Tamasif, the relations between the Safawis and the Portuguese became even stronger and he went
further into negotiations with Rome and Queen Elizabeth of England (962 h.) to enter into a
‘defense alliance’ between the Safawis and the British to declare war against the Ottomans. During
his reign Ismael the 1st (995 h.) brought British experts to train his army and sought assistance of
the British Fleet to conquer Bahrain, a battle that ended with the victory of the Ottomans. At the
end of the Battle, the Commander of the Ottoman forces wrote to the Khalifa a report in which he
said in describing the battle and the Shiia : “They are a group of hideous idiots, athiests
KUZULBASH.” Kuzulbash means that they wore a distinctive red turban which differentiated them
from Ahlul Sunnah. The turban was made of 12 rounds in symbolism of their sect of 12 Imams. As to
the red color, it was to symolise the bloody hatred they had in their chests towards the Sunnis.
(7) In the 14th century (h), a catastrophe befell the Khilafa System, and Muslims reverted to Kufr in
groups, and continue to do so until today. This is but a drop in the ocean of what the Jews and
Shiia have done against Islam & Muslims throughout a 1000 year, disguising themselves falsely as
Muslims when they are indeed servants to falsehood, Kufr and Athiesm. Their mission is to spread
corruption and mischief in the land so the Jews can have the control over the land and its
inhabitants. And the so-called Islamic sects continue to present at all times the stabs one after the
other to Islam and Muslims, to this hour. Therefore, the Jews and their allies were behind the first
assasination of Khalifa in Islam as well as to the fall of the last Khalifa of Islam. The Jews and their
allies were behind the first political revert (riddah) in Islam as well as behind the greatest crime
against Islam, when they conspired to abolish the Ottoman Khilafa in the early 20th century. The
Jews were always in leadership of all groups breaking away from Islam as well as behind the
religions falsely attributed to Islam. One indeed stands amazed before the history pages due to the
numerouse turmoils and conspiracies sewed by the Jews and their allies of the IslaJudaic or
IslaJoosism (Majoos) groups. Specially at the distruction befell the land on the hands of the evil
Kurmutis , the fitan of Khurramiya, the zung revolution, the Tatar barbarism, the Isma’ilis
assasinations, the Nusairis betrayals, or the Shiiat alliance with the Christians and their espinage for
the Crusaders. To apoint , that the Muslim Ulama’ gave a fatwa declaring him a kafir who use any
member of these groups in the defense forces, not even as watchmen. These groups at one time
have caused the death of thousands of pilgrims, and removed the Black Stone from its place in
Ka’bah to Bahrain. They have also caused the destruction of Basrah and its fire with other Iraqi
cities. It was these groups who aided the Crusaders to colonize the Mediterranean Coasts and led
them to the gates of Jerusalem. They are the ones who caused the Fall of Baghdad and the
destruction of an Islamic Civilization took Muslims centuries to establish…The fire consumed all
structures and the river consumed all the books that contained valuable knowledge, dead corps
were all over, and the throne of Khilafa became vacant. The historians then, considered the lose of
Khilafa much more greater than that of all lost materially. It was the first time in Muslims history
since the death of the Prophet [pbuh] that the Grand position of Khilafa or Imam which is a Fard
and a Must, becomes vacant. The situation remained as such for three and a hlaf years, as Ibn
Kathir mentioned in his History. As for Ibn al-Alkami, Holaco rewarded him by leaving him in his
position as Wazeer(minister), and after his death, appointed his son Al-Fadl Abu Izzideen bin
Muhammad bin al-Alkami who was even much more worse than his father on Muslims than the
Tatar. Although the lose in the Fall of Baghdad was severe and painful, yet it is compared light to
the lose of the Khilafa in the early 20th century. For the Muslims in the former catastrophy, were
able to stand on there feet within few years, while in the later…a century almost passed by and
they are not up yet. The body of the Ottoman Empire was cut into pieces, and each piece into
many other pieces. And Muslims became nations and countries AGREED NEVER TO AGREE AMONG
ITSELVES ON ANYTHING. Their situation is going from bad to worse, from Lebanon to Golan Hights,
and from Bosnia to Chechenya, to the Surrender Peace in Palestine. But the danger in the near
future lies when the sides of the triangle meets in Palestine, Iran and Ethiopia. And the green light
is given to the Imam Muntazar (the 12th Shiiat Imam) or the Messiah to appear. Then the black gold
will turn into fire consuming everything, and the sky shall be covered by dark clouds and the land is
filled by the probagation of the pupits “This is the Muntazar(awaited one), O winds of the invisible
power strike, O grandsons of al-Alkami and students of IbnuSawdaa’…O Kurmutis of the 20th
century and all children of the serpent….ARISE..this is your promised day” Then, and only then, the
sleeping Muslims will awake to find the State of Israel is stretched from Euphrates to Nile and to
find out that the Muntazar has exchanged the Shariah of Muhammad with that of David a s
mentioned in Usool al-Kaafi. On that day the Jaws of the pliers can close up on Muslims…the
grandsons of the Majoos in the east, and the children of the serpent, west, to have the Serpent of
Moses bite them a bite never arise after it unless Allah wills it. On that day “Jehova will cease
crying…and will accept no excuse of any nation who did not aid the Jews except of IRAN and
Ethiopia” as mentioned in the Talmud. But what really thrills the heart, is that Allah [SWT] is
watchful and nothing is hidden from Him. For in the same year Baghdad fell (656 h), Othman
Artogrul, founder of the Ottoman Khilafa, was born, which lasted for more than 6 centuries and
took revenge for the honor of Islam and Muslims, and have carried the Banner of Islam to East and
West, and broke the banners of the crusaders and the Shiia…all by the planning of All Wise the
Exalted in Might. But the Da’wah, despite all the grave lost, and the convoys of martyrs, continued
and the light of Islam shone in many parts of the world, and new young faces surfacing up among
the new Islamic generation making covenant with Allah to go forward on the path of martyrdom
until victory. Allah says in Quran :”Do those who practice evil think that they will outstrip us? Evil is
their Judgment” “Allah has decreed : It is I and My messengers who must prevail, for Allah is
Strong, Mighty” .
Origins of Shia
April 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
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 AlHussein 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 AlMa’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 AlQummi, 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
The Story of Houthis
April 27, 2010 at 1:36 am | Posted in History, Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Rate This
The story of Houthis is widely circulated in mass media during the last five years. It is a confusing
story regarding which there are many conflicting analyses and variant explanations. Actually, the
truth is lost between proponents and opponents, advocates and critics. Who are Houthis? When did
they rise? What do they target? Why are they fought against by the Yemenite government?
To what extent does the influence of universal external powers affect the course of events there?
Answer to these question will be the focus of our article which I hope to clear up the mystery of
such a complicated story. In the previous article, “The Story of Yemen”, I dealt briefly with the
history of rule in Yemen. Through the article, we could know that Zaidi Shiites had authority for as
very long period as many centuries and that they remained in authority till 1962 when the Yemen
Revolution was staged. We highlighted the difference between Zaidi Shiism widespread in Yemen
and Twelver Shiism widespread in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. (We have dealt with it at length in many
previous articles such as “Origins of Shia”, “Shia’s Dominance”, “Shia’s Peril” and “Our Attitude
Toward Shia”.) Moreover, we spot light in the previous article on the fact that Zaidi Shiites have
more in common with Sunnis than with Twelver Shiites. Furthermore, Twelver Shiites do not at all
recognize the Imamate of Zaid bin Ali, the founder of Zaidism. On the other hand, Zaidis do not
recognize the tremendous theological deviations of Twelver Shiites and do not consent to naming
specified twelve Imams. Moreover, they do not agree with them on the claim that Imams are
infallible or on their beliefs regarding Taqiyyah (according to Shia, a dispensation allowing Shiites
to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion), Raj’ah (refers to the Shia
doctrine that certain people will return back to life before thene th Day of Judgement), Bada’ah
(the belief that sometimes Almighty Allah gives a command and then finds that it is not
appropriate, and he then regrets giving this command), insulting Companions and all other Bid’ahs.
We also stated that Twelver Shiites had no existence along the history of Yemen, a situation which
only changed during the last few years, which has a direct impact on the story of Houthis. Roots of
the story The story began in Sa’dah governorate (240 km northern Sana‘a), where most Zaidi
population settle. In 1986, Ittihad Al-Shabab, was formed with the aim of teaching the Zaidi school
of thought to its adherents. Badreddin Al-Houthi was a teacher in such an authority. In 1990,
Yemen was united and the door was wide open before partisan pluralism. Therefore, Ittihad AlShabab turned into Hizbul-Haq (Party of Truth) representing the Zaidi sect in Yemen. Hussein bin
Badreddin Al-Houthi rose to be a prominent political leader in the party, who was elected as a
parliament member in 1993 and in 1997 AD. Badreddin Al-Houthi These events concurred with the
rise of a great disagreement between Badreddin Al-Houthi and other Zaidi scholars in Yemen in
view of a historic fatwa approved of by Yemenite Zaidi scholars, foremost of whom is the authority
Majd Al-Din Al-Mu’ayyidi. The fatwa was to the effect that it should be no more stipulated for the
Imam to be a Hashimite descendant, for such a condition was based on certain historical
circumstances. The fatwa also provided that people can choose the ruler they deem fit who does
not have to be a descendant of Al-Hassan or Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with both of them).
Badreddin Al-Houthi strongly opposed to the fatwa, bearing in mind that he belongs to the
Jarudiyyah sect (a Zaidi branch which held beliefs close to those of Twelver Shiites). The situation
aggravated when Badreddin Al-Houthi started to publicly propagate the Twlever Shiite thought. In
this regard, he composed a book called “Zaidis in Yemen”, in which he highlighted points of
resemblance between Zaidi and Twelver Shiites. Strongly opposed because of his thought that is
absolutely deviated from Zaidism, he had to immigrate to Tehran where he lived for a number of
years. Although Badreddin Al-Houthi left the Yemenite arena, his Twelver-oriented thoughts began
to spread especially in the region of Sa’dah and surrounding areas by the end of the 1990s and
definitely since 1997 AD. Meanwhile, his son Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi dissented from Hizbul-Haq
to form his own group, which at the beginning took the form of a cultural, religious and intellectual
group. Moreover, the group also cooperated with the government in resisting the Sunni Islamic
current represented in the Yemeni Gathering for Reform party. However, it did not take long
before the group has joined the opposition since 2002 AD. Yemenite president: Ali Abdullah Salih
Meanwhile, some Yemenite scholars mediated to have Yemenite president Ali Abdullah Salih allow
Badreddin Al-Houthi back to Yemen. Al-Houthi returned to Yemen to re-propagate his ideas among
his students and disciples. It seems that the Yemenite government underestimated the danger of
the newly formed group and the contingent problems it might cause. Fierce Houthis demonstrations
marking the beginning of war In 2004, a serious development took place; Houthis led by Hussein
Badreddin Al-Houthi staged huge demonstrations in the streets of Yemen opposing the American
occupation of Iraq. The government reacted violently to these demonstrations on the pretext that
Al-Houthi claims to be an Imam, Al-Mahdi and even to be a prophet. This was followed by an open
war launched by the government against Shiite Houthis, during which 30,000 Yemenite soldiers
were employed in addition to warplanes and artillery. Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi The confront
ended up with the group leader Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi killed and a good number of Houthis
arrested. The situation ultimately then aggravated. After the death of Hussein, Houthis were led by
his father Badreddin Al-Houthi. It came obviously to be known that the Shiite group had long ago
been well-armed, bearing in mind that it could stand war against the Yemenite army for years.
Thereafter, the Qatari government mediated between Houthis and the Yemenite government in
2008 by virtue of which a peace treaty was convened to the effect of moving Yahia Al-Houthi and
Abdul-Karim Al-Houthis, Hussein’s brothers, to Qatar after they surrender their weapons to the
Yemenite government. Soon after, the treaty was breached to announce a fresh beginning of war.
It even happened that Houthis could expand their dominance to Sa’dah’s neighboring governorates
and even try to dominate a seaport which can guarantee a safe reception of reinforcements from
abroad. Actually, they now practice their mission and declare confront openly. In fact, it is more a
threat to the whole Yemenite regime than an attempt to establish a separate Shiite state. Yemen
map Why are Houthis powerful? The question that should arise is: how could such a newly formed
group confront the Yemenite government for such so long period? The answer is more urgent
bearing in mind that it propagates a Twelver-Shiite thought, which is not prevalent in Yemen in
general and thus its adherents constitute, supposedly, a minority. Actually, there are many answers
that enlighten our understanding of the issue, including the following: First: It is incomprehensible
that a minority group in a Yemenite governorate remains steadfast for such a long period without a
constant external help. Analyzing the situation, we can find out that the only country that benefits
from the increasing power of the Houthi rebellion is Iran. In fact, it is a Shiite-oriented state which
does its best to spread its thought. It will be a glorious victory for Iran if she can help Houthis take
power in Yemen, bearing in mind that, by doing so, she will be surrounding one of its archenemies,
i.e. KSA. Were this to happen, KSA would be besieged by Houthis in Yemen Iraqi Shia to the north,
Shia of the Eastern Region, Kuwait and Bahrain to the east and Shia of Yemen to the south, which
will give Iran innumerable pressure points whether in her relation with the Sunni Muslim world or
with the US. Actually, this is a more realistic evidence-based than merely a theoretical supposition.
An evidence is the amazing conversion of Badreddin Al-Houthi from the moderate Zaidi thought to
the deviated Twelver thought although the Yemenite atmosphere has never been influenced by the
Twelver thought along the history of Yemen. Moreover, Iran nursed him very passionately and
hosted him in Tehran for a number of years. Badreddin Al-Houthi found the doctrine of
Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists a KSA besieged by Shia from all directions suitable means to
assume power although he is not a descendant of Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), a
prerequisite of a ruler stipulated by the Zaidi thought. Moreover, Iran is a powerful state which is
capable of giving political and economical help to rebels. An evidence of Iran’s support of Houthis is
the fact that Iranian Shiite mass media, including such satellite channels of theirs as Al-’Alam, AlKawthar and others, adopt the Houthi cause. Moreover, Houthis themselves asked before for the
mediation of the Shiite authority Ali Husaini Sistani the Grand Ayatollah in Iraq. Although he is a
Twelver Shiite who may be thought of as a stranger by Yemenites, rebels did so to make clear their
school-of-thought adherence. In addition, the Yemenite government announced confiscation of
many Houthi Iran-made weapons. Furthermore, the Yemenite government constantly give implicit,
not explicit, reference to Iran’s support of Houthis. Of course, Iran in turn denied such a support,
an easily-grasped political device, especially in the light of the Twelver-based doctrine of Taqiyyah
(dispensation allowing Shiites to limitlessly lie). Iran arms Houthis Second: Another factor that gave
Houthis the power to remain steadfast is the public sympathy relatively shown by the inhabitants of
the region toward rebels, although locals do not tend to believe in their deviated thought. This is
due to the very bad economic and social circumstances the locals suffer from. Although Yemen in
general has a very poor infrastructure and most Yemenites suffer from extreme poverty, these
regions suffer more than other regions and are paid much less attention than other greater
Yemenite cities. An indication of this is the fact that the peace treaty concluded between the
Yemenite government and Houthis under a Qatari mediation in 2008 provided that the Yemenite
government is to undertake a reconstruction plan of Sa’dah, which will be funded by Qatar.
However, all reconstruction plans were halted due to the war. What I want to infer is that
marginalized and neglected peoples are likely to rise and rebel even in partnership with people
form whom they are radically and doctrinally different. Yemenite tribes Third: Rebellion also
continued because of the tribal system dominating Yemen. In fact, Yemen consists of tribes and
clans which imposes certain important balances of power between different tribes. Many
information sources say Houthis receive support from tribes opposing the ruling regime against a
background of problems between them and the government that have nothing to do with religion or
school of thought. Fourth: Another factor is the mountainous nature of Yemen making it difficult
for regular armies to take control. This is because of difficulty of movement among mountains in
addition to the multiplicity of caves and grottos and the unavailability of scientific research
regarding the roads among such mountains. Moreover, there are no scientific equipments or
satellites to observe accurately movement among mountains. Mountainous nature difficult for
regular armies Fifth: The problem continued to exist also because the Yemenite government is busy
dealing with the call of separating southern Yemen from northern Yemen. Many demonstrations
demanded separation which was also demanded by Ali Salim Al-Beidh the former President of South
Yemen, who, in a televised speech from Germany, called for a return of South Yemen. Actually,
such a situation distracted the Yemenite government, army and intelligence, which had the effect
of weakening their grasp over Houthis. Sixth: Some analytics explain the continuation of rebellion
in the context that the Yemenite government itself wants it to continue. This is because it
considers the existence of rebellion Demonstrations demanding South Yemen separation a pressure
point that it can use to achieve international gains, most important of which is cooperation with
the US in the so-called war on terrorism. In fact, the US alludes to a relationship between Houthis
and Al-Qaedah organization. However, I view this supposition very unlikely as the school of thought
adhered to by Al-Qaedah organization is entirely different from that of Twelver Shiites.
Nevertheless, the US wants to poke its nose in all the regions of the Muslim world based on a
variety of justifications in order to achieve her objectives. On the other hand, Yemen likes to make
use of such a relationship in order to gain political and economical support or at least have the US
overlook human rights, dictatorship and other files Westerners want to open. Apart from the
benefits awaited from the Yemen’s relationship with the US, other benefits are still to be reaped
from the KSA. In fact, the KSA considers supporting Yemen politically and economically in order to
resist the Shiite agenda of Houthis. In this regard, continuation of the problem provides a constant
source of support for Yemen, not only from the KSA but also from such other countries as Qatar and
UAE. Ali Salim Al-Beidh Regardless of what reasons are, the problem is still in effect, which
represents, in my opinion, a serious situation. Accordingly, Yemen has to adopt a serious stance
toward the events and to spread the sound Islamic thought in order to face such deviated thoughts.
She has also to pay a special attention to and care for the inhabitants of such regions so that their
loyalty might be guaranteed in a natural manner to Yemen and its government. Moreover, the
Muslim world has to help Yemen get out of such a crisis. Otherwise, the Shiite agenda will
encompass the Muslim world from all directions. More importantly, the Yemenite people have to
reconsider the whole matte taking into account the interest of Yemen, which entails unity, sound
thought and rallying around the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Only by doing so, we will find ways out of
our crises and work out solutions for our problems. I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims. Dr.
Ragheb ElSergany
Story of Hezbollat
March 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Hezbollah is one of the most impressive examples to Muslims in the past few years. Likewise, its
leader Hassan Nasrallah is, according to the US Newsweek, the most charismatic character in the
Muslim world and the most impressive to all Muslim masses.
However, Muslim scholars and intellectuals differ on a great sclae on estimating Hezbollah as well
as its leader Nasrallah. Some of them overestimate him to the extent of regarding him as the caliph
of Muslims. On the other extreme, there are others who judge them to be disbelievers. However,
there are many other opinions between the two extremes.
Where is the truth about this issue? Is it permissible for us to be that impressed with Hezbollah’s
achievements? Which is proper; to consider it a symbol that is
to be highlighted or a danger that is to be warned against? Is it
permissible to keep silent as observed by many Muslims who
view it is better not tackle such an issue at the present?
Actually, keeping silent is meaningless in view of the
continuous succession of events and aggravation of problems.
In this regard, you certainly know that to refrain from saying
the truth is satanic.
As we stressed in our previous articles, to understand the truth about something, we have to
explore its very roots. Thus, we should understand the story from the beginning, i.e. how and in
what surrounding circumstances Hezbollah rose. Moreover, we should understand the story of its
founders, their beliefs, ideology, ambitions, objectives and means. By doing so, many ambiguous
facts will become clear and we will be able to use our mental ability to control our emotions, for
emotions speak so differently from reason.
The rise of Hezbollah
Hezbollah rose in Lebanon, a country of a unique nature that is totally different from all world
countries. It is an amazingly sectarian country consisting of 18 acknowledged cults. Maybe its
mountainous nature made it a resort of outlawed sects. Therefore, Christians of different sects,
Shia, Druze and other sects found refuge therein. It is conventionally acknowledged among the
Lebanese that Sunnis, Shiites belonging to the Twelver (Ithna ‘Ashriyyah) or Imami Shiism and
Christian Maronites are the largest three sects in Lebanon. Next to them, but very less in number,
are Druze, who are conventionally recognized as Muslims although not really so.
French colonizers, who invaded Lebanon in 1920 A.D., were keen to reinforce sectarianism by
conferring authority on their Maronite allies. Anyway, after gaining independence in 1943, the
Lebanese constitution was formed providing that the president be a Maronite, the premier be a
Sunni and the parliament speaker be a Shiite. Furthermore, such a constitution provision was only
put into practice in 1959, before which all positions of power were assumed by Maonites.
On account of such sensible sectarianism, the Lebanese entirely overlooked conducting an
overwhelming census so as to state accurately the ratio of each sect. However, most trustworthy
analyses state that Sunnis constitute 26%, Shia constitute 26%, Maronites constitute 22% and Druze
constitute 5.6% of the total population.
As a matter of fact, each sect sought to centralize in a certain
place so as to constitute an influential power. Thus, Shia
centralize in the South Lebanon and in Al-Biqa valley, Sunnis
centralize in the North and Middle Lebanon and in coastal cities
such as Beirut, Tripoli and Sidon (Saida), while Maronites
centralize in Jabal Lubnan and Eastern Beirut.
Shia’s locating in the south explains to us their conflict with Jews during the last decades. Actually,
it was not that creed-based conflict that is for the sake of Allah or for liberating Palestine; rather,
it took place as they wanted to defend principal regions they control and, therefore, had to resist.
Otherwise, their whole existence would be exposed to danger. Moreover, we should know that they
would not certainly move a hairbreadth to resist in case Sunni areas were attacked.
Musa Al-Sadr and the roots of the story
Let us go back to the roots of our story. Sunnis and Shiites were marginalized to a great extent if
compared to Maronites who were supported by France and the international community. However,
Sunnis and Shiites started Self-actualization and proving existence especially in the late fifties of
the past century. Meanwhile, there was no one to support the Sunni Cause or adopt its project
bearing in mind the spread of nationalist Communism all over the Arab world at that time. In the
same time, Shia found it opportune to rise and grow. Thus, an influential Shiite who left his imprint
on Lebanon’s map, Musa Al-Sadr settled in Lebanon in 1959. Al-Sadr was born in Iran’s holy city of
Qom in 1928, where he studied the Twelver School of thought. He was then appointed as a lecturer
in the University of Qom where he taught Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and Logic. He then moved to
the Iraqi city of Najaf, where he studied under great Shiite authorities such as Ayatullah Muhsin AlHakim and Abul-Qasim Khu’i. He then moved to Lebanon where he settled for the rest of his life.
Al-Sadr came to Lebanon for two major missions:
First: The Shiite religious plan to establish a Shiite-based state
in Lebanon, a state that is to be based on the Twelver ideology
including all its deviated beliefs and tenets and abhorred
Bid`ahs (innovations in religion). For more information on
Shia’s origins and beliefs, refer to my article Origins of Shia.
Moreover, be informed that Lebanese Shiites at that time were
not religious. Although having born the title Shiites, they knew
nothing about the nature and beliefs of their sect.
Second: He had very great funds to facilitate achieving his plan. It is well-known that Shiite
authorities all over the world are very wealthy as they receive one fifth (20%) of the income of
Shiites as they are believed in to belong to the Prophet’s Household. In fact, such money is their
purely owned property and thus have full right to dispose of it as they like. As such, they constitute
a huge economic power and thus have full authority.
Shia fight against Sunni rule
Shiite sects were basically revolutionary movements against ruling regimes who aim at assuming
power and authority at the expense of and in conflict with Sunni regimes. Actually, Shia managed
to rule a wide range of Muslim territories during different stages of history. (For knowledge about
negative abominable effects of their rule over a given place, refer to the article “Shia’s
Dominance“.) By the decline of the Safavid Dynasty in the middle of the eighteenth century A.D.,
they had no more rule over any place in the world and their plan faded away for a long period.
However, their authoritative thought started to revive at the outset of the fifties of the past
century. By then, they had a relentless ambition to establish a state to spread their Twelver-based
deviated thought through the influence of authority and armament. The aspired for state was
supposed to be established in no more than three countries, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, where there
exists good numbers of Shiites, which might enable them to establish their state.
The Shiite lobby planned to establish a state in one of, or in all, those three countries. Therefore,
men of mission were distributed to those regions. Thus, Khomeini was entrusted with staging a coup
d’etat in Iran, others were entrusted with doing the same in Iraq, an issue which we will tackle in a
later article if Allah so wills, and Musa Al-Sadr was entrusted with doing the job in Lebanon.
Actually, it was an interlaced, complicated and deliberate mission. Actually, the time factor was of
no significance to them that they deemed it unimportant to reach their goals even after decades.
The same method was applied to establish ancient Shiite states such as Buwayhid, Ubaidi, falsely
called Fatimid, and other Shiite states. (See the article “Shia’s Dominance” for more information.)
Usually, Shiite organizations practice their mission on the proletariat and poor classes. They preach
in those people revolutionary spirit, inherently implanted in Shiites, against the rich and
inhabitants of palaces hoping, via doing so, that a coup d’etat may result in establishing the Shiite
state.
The same method applied along history was applied in Iran (we might perhaps have time to discuss
the Shia revolution there). The plan is making its way now through Lebanon and Iraq. If the plan is
to succeed in the latter two countries, expansion will be extended later to include Syria, Kuwait,
Bahrain and the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, I found it inevitable to write this
article so that Muslims might understand surrounding events.
A plan to establish a Shiite state
Let us go back to the story of Lebanon.
Musa Al-Sadr was delegated to Lebanon to plan for the establishment of a Shiite state. Being an
ethnic Lebanese and having a good command of Arabic as well as Persian, Al-Sadr was thus elected
for the mission. There was a continuous political coordination between him and Al-Khomeini and
even more stronger ties. Al-Khomeini’s son Ahmad Al-Khomeini was married to Al-Sadr’s nephew.
Moreover, Al-Sadr’s son was married to Al-Khomeini’s granddaughter. Besides, Mustafa Al-Khomeini
was an intimate friend of Musa Al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr headed directly for South Lebanon where the Shia population density live. He started to
work on the social level showing no clear religious tendency. He
established many service institutions to help the poor and the needy.
However, his Shiite tendency started to emerge gradually. He
established Ja’fari courts, which issue verdicts among Shiites subject
to the Twelver school of thought, having been enabled by the
sectarian nature of Lebanon to do so taking into consideration the
very weak state of Lebanese government and army. Al- Sadr was
known for working both sides of the street and thus was ready for
cooperating with anyone in order to achieve his goals. Knowing that
Mornite Christians represent the strongest current in Lebanon at that
time, although competed by the Sunni current, he strengthened ties with the former. Actually,
Shiism in its very essence stands for a revolution against Sunni Islamic ideology and rejection of the
story of Islam beginning with Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and Umar bin Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased
with them) as well as all Sunni Muslim states along the history of our Ummah. Please, bear in mind
that roughly all Sunnis at that time were not firmly committed to principles of their religion and
adopted nationalist, socialist and secularist ideologies. Undoubtedly, Shia’s main idea is conflict
with Sunnis. Accordingly, Al-Sadr strengthened ties with Charles Helou the Maronite president of
Lebanon at that time rather than cooperating with Sunnis in order to join Muslim forces.
Actually, he was viewed by Helou to be the right ally in face of the
Sunni front and thus showed favor to and encouraged him. By the
same token, Helou consented in 1967 to the establishment of the
Supreme Shiite Islamic Council to represent the Shia of Lebanon.
Moreover, he passed the law No. 72/76 providing that the Shiite
Council might refer to greatest Shiite authorities in the world (Iran,
Iraq and others) regarding fatwa, rulings and laws and not
necessarily to Lebanese rules. The Council has already been
established in 1969 headed, of course, by Musa Al-Sadr and was recognized by the government in
1970, which further decided to give a 10-million-dollar aid to the Shiite south.
Furthermore, Musa Al-Sadr did not forget to curry favor with the USA. In a meeting with the US
ambassador, Al-Sadr stated that he resists the Nassirite Socialist expansion among the Shiite youths.
His relations with the Americans got so disclosed that Al-Khomeini’s escort accused him of it,
bearing in mind that Al-Khomeini, at that stage, considered the USA to be a contingent peril as it
strongly supported the Shah. Contrary to all Al-Sadr’s expectations, a serious development took
place when Palestinian refugees in Jordan suffered from the Black September massacre which
lasted with the expulsion of the Palestinian fighters led by Fatah to Lebanon. Unwelcoming
expulsion of “Sunni” Palestinians to the south Lebanon (near Palestine), Shiites thought it might be
a stumbling rock in the way of the Shiite state plan, bearing in mind that Fatah at that time had
socialist secularist tendency and was far away from Islamic teachings.
Nevertheless, Musa Al-Sadr benefited from Fatah making good relations with them in the hope of
having Fatah give Shiites military training and thus help establish Shiite militias that will have
serious influence in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Fatah sought another ally besides communists, which
produced an interest-based relationship between them.
In 1971, Hafiz Al-Asad came to power in Syria. He belonged to the Alawis, also known as Nusayris, a
sect, although judged to have dissented from Islam, is still considered within the political scope of
Islam. They claim Ali to be a god (High indeed be Allah exalted above that they say!). However,
Musa Al-Sadr issued a famous fatwa judging Alawis to be Shiites and thus considering Hafiz Al-Asad
a Muslim!
This led to a close rapprochement with Syria and its ruling
regime and to Musa Al-Sadr becoming a vehicle for on-going
contact between Hafiz Al-Asad and Iranian Revolution leaders.
Actually, Al-Asad strongly supported rising against the Shah and
backed Iran in its war against Iraq, for he was at bitter enmity
with Saddam Hussein.
This way, Musa Al-Sadr was laying the foundation of his new
Shiite state supported by the greatest Shiite authorities in the world especially Al-Khomeini,
Lebanese Christians, the USA and Syria as well as Fatah the so-called Sunni group.
In 1974, he founded the Movement of the Disinherited to press for better economic and social
conditions for the poor. At the beginning, many Christians in the south, thinking it a national
movement aiming at improving the status of the poor in Lebanon, joined the movement in large
numbers. Discovering the clear Shiite orientation of the Movement, they decided to withdraw. Soon
after, Al-Sadr, held an agreement with Yassir Arafat, Fatah leader, to the effect of Fatah giving
military training to the Movement of the Disinherited, which was well-known to the weak Lebanese
government. In 1975, Al-Sadr declared the formation of the militia, Afwaj al-Muqawama alLubnaniya (the Lebanese Resistance Detachments) better known by the acronym AMAL (which also
means “hope”) to be the military wing of the Movement of the Disinherited and was headed, of
course, by him. Soon after, Al-Sadr snubbed Palestinians and started to strongly demand the
expulsion of Sunni Palestinians from the Shiite south. Later, we will come to know that the AMAL
movement fought against Palestinians in the well-known War of the Camps from 1985 to 1988.
The Lebanese civil war broke out in 1975, a multifaceted civil war involved in which are many
internal and external parties. However, we have to single it out with special analyses so that we
might have a clearer understanding of it.
Musa Al-Sadr: Multiple Enmities
Having founded the Supreme Shiite Council and the AMAL Movement, Musa Al-Sadr turned into a
significant power center, which aroused the anger of many parties. In fact, Musa would publicly
boast of feeling powerful and would in many conferences threat of prompting his supporters to
attack palaces of the rich in case their demands are not fulfilled. He would further criticize some
behaviors of Al-Khomeini and would deal with some universal powers without consulting Shiite
authorities who sent him to Lebanon. Things got even worse when he paid a visit to Iran to hold a
meeting with the Shah himself to ask him to pardon twelve Shiite religious leaders whom the Shah
had decided to execute. Al-Khomeini considered such a visit a violation of the universal Shiite
coordination and dealing with the Shah who is the enemy of revolutionists. The situation
aggravated in 1978 on a breakup of relations between Syria and Al-Sadr. Being under pressure of
surrounding countries as well as the US after the visit paid by Al-Sadat to the Zionist entity in 1977,
Syria wanted a strong support from Lebanon as the Syrian army was in Lebanon at that time and
wanted Al-Sadr to ally with no other than Syria. Feeling powerful in face of the Syrian awkward
situation, Al-Sadr wanted to strengthen ties with Arab countries and thus did not heed Syrian
warnings. Thus, he visited Kuwait and then Algeria and then headed for Libya in August 1978 to give
rise to a great surprise. Libya declared that Al-Sadr left in August 25, 1979; however, he has never
been seen in any place all over the world since then.
It is something really astonishing. Actually, Musa Al-Sadr is not that young boy as may lose way in
the airport and is not that insignificant figure whose destination might be ignored by the hosting
country. Evidently, he was detained and then assassinated.
At that time, Musa Al-Sadr was lurked by many enemies many of whom are accused of killing him.
Foremost are the leader of the would-be Iranian revolution that is to take place one year later who
do not want charismatic figures having many relations and thus could compete with Al-Khomeini for
the leadership of the would-be Shiite state. Moreover, arousing the anger of the Syrian regime
could have one ultimate result, i.e. being assassinated, bearing in mind the well-known cruel
manner in which the Syrian regime would deal with its opponents.
Furthermore, Libya itself had relations with the leadership of the
Iranian revolution and thus will support it later in the war against
Iraq. Taking into consideration that the Lebanese civil war was at
its utmost heat, we can infer that many internal Lebanese forces
were interested in toppling Musa Al-Sadr.
In fact, disappearance of Musa AL-Sadr represented a confusing
puzzle, many competing scenarios for which were suggested by
politicians but were all in vain. Either way, Musa Al-Sadr left behind
a fierce conflict and the armed AMAL Movement undertaking his plans. Moreover, his post at the
head of the Shiite Supreme Council remained vacant. One year later, the Iranian Revolution will be
staged to oust the Shah. Four years later, Zionist forces will invade the south Lebanon.
Actually, all such complicated events gave rise to Hezbollah which is to complete Al-Sadr’s plans
but with a purely Iranian orientation. How could this happen? What is the fate of AMAL? What is the
attitude of Shiites toward Palestinians in the south? How could Hezbollah steal the limelight? Who is
Hassan Nasrallah? What are his beliefs and ideas?
The answer to these questions will be dealt with in length in our coming article, if Allah so wills. I
ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Story of Hezbollat 2
March 3, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Many Muslims give their emotions free reign to judge things and to evaluate men, organizations and
states. They do not bother themselves discover what is behind the scenes or what is done sub-rosa
or to search for roots and origins of issues. Thus thinking, they will be greatly misled and will be
driven into a great misconception of consequences. I think they will regain consciousness only when
stricken by a disaster and when it is too late.
In the previous article “The Story of Hezbollah 1/3“, we gave account of the deep roots that
paved the way for the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon. In this article, I will go on my way knowing that
I am treading a tightrope. I also know that while trying to provide Muslims with a wider vision I will
be confronted with a sweeping wave of refusal and insults from those Muslims who sympathize with
any successful example during this sensitive period of the Ummah’s history regardless of whether
such an example is a corrupt Shiite who thinks that criticizing, slandering and objecting to the
opinions and situations of Companions is a kind of practicing freedom of opinion. I am also certain
that I will be confronted with a fierce resistance of Shia themselves.
They back Sunni writers who call to closing and not to deal with this file
and to pay attention only to the danger of the USA and the Zionist
entity. Meanwhile, they will be taking large strides towards achieving
their plans and Muslims will be surprised by the existence of a Shiite
state as large as the Buwayhid state or even larger!
AMAL divided after Musa Al-Sadr
After coming from the Iranian city of Qom to Lebanon having lived for a while in Najaf, Musa AlSadr sought to unite Shiites in one integrated entity that is apt to be the future state. He
concerned himself with the sectarian characteristic of the entity and thus established the Supreme
Shiite Council in 1969 A.D. He also paid attention to the military aspect and thus founded the
AMAL, acronym for Afwaj al-Muqawama al-Lubnaniyya (Lebanese Resistance Detachments),
Movement. He established strong ties with Maronite Christians as well as the USA, Syria and those
who dispatched him to Lebanon foremost among whom is Al-Khomeini who lived in Iraq at that time
With the increasing power of Al-Sadr, a conflict of interests started
to take place and a dispute rose between him and the leaders of the
would-be Iranian Revolution as well as between him and the Alawi
Syrian president Hafiz Al-Asad who was one of his strongest
supporters. These disputes ended up with the surprise of Al-Sadr’s disappearance in Libya while
paying an official visit in 1978.
Actually, Musa Al-Sadr left behind a great vacancy to be filled.
Shia tried to reorganize themselves and appointed Al-Sadr’s deputy Abdul-Amir Qabalan as the head
of the Supreme Shiite Council while still named the deputy president and thus leaving the
president’s post vacant till now. Moreover, the spiritual authority was given to one of their sheikhs,
Muhammad Hussein Fadl-Allah.
However, the situation in the Shiite military wing, known as the AMAL Movement, worsened and its
members were divided into two parties.
The first party consists of secular Shiites who want to manage things without reference to the
Twelver (Ithna ‘Ashriyyah) rulings, do not like to be attached to religious authorities outside
Lebanon and, rather, adopt a nationalist thought. This party is headed by the well-known Lebanese
leader Nabih Berri. The second party consists of those who want to
go on following the steps of Musa Al-Sadr and thus establish a
sectarian Shiite-based state applying the deviated beliefs of Shia by
force of armament. Such a state is to expand its authority to as
many areas as it can and is to be attached to the revolution
leadership planning for a coup d’etat in Iran. However, the latter
party lacked a leader to be led by.
During this awkward period, two Shiite figures who studied the Shiite creed in Najaf, Iraq, came
back to Lebanon. These two figures were Abbas Al-Musawi and Hassan Nasrallah, who will have
great impact on preserving Musa Al-Sadr’s sectarian religious line.
The two men could quickly permeate into the AMAL Movement and occupy leading positions therein
although Hassan Nasrallah was only eighteen at that time.
In 1979, the Iranian Revolution took place, the Shah was ousted and Al-Khomeini returned from
Paris (having been exiled there by Iraq in 1978) to Tehran to assume leadership and make the
necessary arrangements. He then got rid of his competitors and snubbed those belonging to other
Iranian currents who helped him. Actually, he could
absolutely secure a foothold. However, he did not head for
the holy city of Qom as was expected but remained in the capital Tehran.
Firmly settled in Iran, Al-Khomeini began to put Lebanon and Iraq into consideration as they contain
the largest population of Shia and, at the same time, represent the integral part of the Shiite plan
to establish a great state in the region.
The situation in Iraq aggravated as Saddam Hussein ruled it with an iron hand, which was
experienced by Al-Khomeini himself who stayed in Iraq for fourteen full years before being expelled
to Paris. Therefore, Al-Khomeini perceived that the Shia organization in Iraq cannot topple Saddam
Hussein’s ruling regime. Hence, Al-Khomeini chose the military option and immediately waged a
comprehensive war against the Iraqi regime in 1980 – less than one year after the Iranian
Revolution. The purpose of waging the war was to topple the regime and hand over authority to the
Shia of Iraq and consequently annex it to Al-Khomeini’s long-dreamt-of great Shiite state.
As for far multi-sects Lebanon, it needs a long way preparation requiring men of complete loyalty
to Al-Khomeini. Therefore, Al-Khomeini contacted the two men believing in the Twelver thought
and the principle of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists which helped Al-Khomeini come to power.
These two men were Abbas Al-Musawi and Hassan Nasrallah. Since then, Iranian direct support of
them started. However, the AMAL Movement is still led by the secular-oriented Nabih Berri.
In 1981, the AMAL Movement held its fourth conference to put an end to internal disputes between
conflicting parties within the movement each aspiring laying control on the Shiite south. The
conference came up with a decision to the effect of the continuation of Nabih Berri at the head of
AMAL making Abbas Al-Musawi his deputy, which is an important step to control southern Lebanon.
Zionist invasion: The Shiite situation
In June 6, 1980, an event took place that changed the arrangements of all parties. To the surprise
of everyone, Zionists invaded southern Lebanon as a whole and even imposed a siege on Beirut
demanding the expulsion of Yassir Arafat, the leaders of Fatah and other armed Palestinian militias
from southern Lebanon. It was so obvious that the Zionist army agreed with the Christian Maronites
to exclude Palestinians who constituted a pressing force in the Lebanese society. In this regard,
many massacres were committed against Palestinians most prominent of which is Sabra and Shatila
massacre during which three thousand Palestinians were killed. Anyway, Zionists together with
Christian Maronites managed to expel most Palestinians from southern Lebanon and from Beirut.
Actually, such events coincided with the desires of Shiites who long ago demanded the expulsion of
Palestinians from the south in order to pave the way for them to establish their state there.
However, the Zionist occupation did not withdraw after expelling Palestinians. Rather, it perched
in Lebanon occupying the whole south Lebanon.
This development had the effect of destroying Shia’s hopes of establishing their state, especially as
they are divided into secularists and religious. Thus, the religious among them decided to
disaffiliate from the AMAL Movement and contact Iran leaders to gain their support. They have
already formed a nine-member committee which traveled to Tehran. On meeting Al-Khomeini, they
declared their belief in the principle of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. Accordingly, AlKhomeini will be the Islamic Jurist under whose guardianship Lebanese Shiites will be subject. AlKhomeini authorized the committee who returned to Lebanon to actually disaffiliate from the AMAL
Movement and form what was known at that time as Islamic Amal Movement which was headed by
Abbas Al-Musawi.
Iran strongly backed the newly-formed entity and further sent to Al-Biqa valley in Lebanon through
Syria 1500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to give a military training to Islamic Amal Movement and to
provide it with necessary financial and military capacities. Thus, the nascent movement gained the
support of two big countries in the region, i.e. Iran and Syria. However, Syria continued to support
the nationalist AMAL Movement at the same time.
Foundation of Hezbollah and dominating the south
The Lebanese Civil War continued flaring up and the power of the Islamic Amal Movement
continued to grow till Abbas Al-Musawi declared in February 1985, the foundation of Hezbollah as
an alternative of the Islamic Amal Movement. Three months later, namely in May 1985, the AMAL
Movement headed by Nabih Berri committed a heinous
massacre against Palestinians killing hundreds of them to give
the finishing stroke to those of them who survived in southern
Lebanon.
The AMAL Movement competed with Hezbollah for leadership
in southern Lebanon and Al-Biqa valley, where Shia population centralize. Hence, conflict between
them got so fierce and ended up with a violent battle during which Hezbollah crushed the AMAL
Movement in 1988. Later on, more than 90% of the members of AMAL joined Hezbollah that is
subordinated to Iran according to the system of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists and supported
by Syria. Consequently, AMAL gave up the military arena and turned into no more than a political
group.
Although Hezbollah became the sole competitor in the arena,
its main source of power, i.e. southern Lebanon, was still
occupied by Jews. This caused it to dominate some areas in
Beirut making them a jumping-off point. Actually, Hezbollah
did not seek to attack eastern Beirut where the Christian
population live. Rather, it attacked western and specially
southern Beirut and started to occupy it by military force bearing in mind that these are areas
where the Sunni population reside. Hezbollah would sometimes construct its edifices in public
places and sometimes on Sunni-owned lands, an act that was well-known by the Lebanese
government, which moved no hairbreadth in this regard. Eventually, the southern suburban of
Beirut turned into a purely Shiite region under the complete control of Hezbollah.
Al-Khomeini died in 1989 to be succeeded in the post of the Revolution Guide by Ali Khamenei.
However, nothing changed as to Hezbollah’s subordination to the guardian Islamic jurist Ali
Khamenei. In the same year, Lebanese conflicting parties met in Taif through a Saudi
intermediation to sign the Taif Agreement which ended the Lebanese civil war. In the same year,
the greatest Sunni figure in Lebanon, Sheikh Hassan Khalid (may
Allah show mercy to him), was assassinated and thus Sunnis lost
their leadership which gave way for Hezbollah to rise as the Islamic
symbol in Lebanon.
Fighting against Jews and snubbing Sunnis
Hezbollah started preparation to fight against Jews in order to free
their previously-owned lands, on which they aspire for establishing the Shiite state. Fabulous funds
from Iran flowed on Hezbollah plus Syrian support. This caused trouble to Jews who assassinated
Abbas Al-Musawi the secretary-general of Hezbollah to be succeeded in leadership by Hassan
Nasrallah.
In the same year, a new Sunni symbol, Rafik Al-Hariri, came to light around whom Lebanese Sunnis
rallied. Al-Hariri assumed the post of prime minister from 1992 to 1996. He started the
reconstruction of Lebanon and could gain popularity.
In 1996, Zionists launched a savage aggression against Lebanon which
they called Operation Grapes of Wrath. Patriotic zeal motivated the
Lebanese people to get rid of the Zionist occupation. Hezbollah
declared the formation of Lebanese brigades for resisting the Zionist
enemy. Different sects of the Lebanese people joined the brigades, which consisted mostly of
Sunnis who constituted 38% thereof, while Shiites constituted 25%, Druze constituted 20% and
Christians constituted 17%.
Attacks launched by the brigades caused Zionists to withdraw from most areas of southern Lebanon
in 2000 with the exception of Shebaa farms region. Thereafter, Hezbollah occupied all freed
territories refusing the deployment of the Lebanese army forces in such places. By doing so,
Hezbollah snubbed joint efforts exerted to liberate Lebanon. Moreover, it encroached upon the
Sunni-owned lands in southern Lebanon and in Jabal Lubnan; it even encroached upon some
mosques including Al-Nabi Yunus Mosque along with Waqfs (endowments) dedicated to it in AlHayyah region.
Rafik Al-Hariri and the Shiite expansion
Once again, Rafik Al-Hariri assumed the post of prime minister in the same year of Zionists
withdrawal. He thus came to light again along with his family to become a celebrated Sunni symbol
that represented a real challenge to the Shiite expansion ambitions in Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s power was increasingly growing and was waiting for an opportunity to establish the
Iran-Syria-Supported Shiite state. However, the rise of Rafik Al-Hariri added some balance to the
situation in the eyes of the Lebanese people. In 2004, Rafik Al-Hariri resigned his post as a prime
minister in view of difference with Syrians whose military existence in Lebanon was so condensed.
Later on, a great surprise happened on February 14, 2005, when Rafik Al-Hariri was assassinated as
his motorcade drove in Beirut and thus Sunnis lost one unique symbol. It is to be borne in mind that
many world intelligence systems, including American, French, Syrian, Iranian and Lebanese
intelligence, were working on the Lebanese arena.
Lebanon was tremendously shocked by the assassination of Rafik AlHariri. International community pointed the finger at Syria and thus
demanded Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. However, Hezbollah
arranged a great demonstration on March 8, 2005 supporting the
Syrian existence in Lebanon and refusing Syria’s withdrawal. This
was confronted by the Future Movement, the movement to which Al-Hariri’s family belongs led by
Saad Al-Hariri, supported by Democratic Gathering Bloc led by Walid Jumblatt and the Maronite
Lebanese Forces party led by Samir Geagea.
They arranged a great demonstration on March 14, 2005 demanding the Syrian withdrawal from
Lebanon. Thus, this coalition was called March 14 Alliance. Later,
Syria already withdrew from Lebanon in the same month.
Hezbollah’s dilemma and 2006 Lebanon War
After the withdrawal of Syria, Hezbollah found out that it is facing
a dilemma in Lebanon, especially after sectarian tone started to strongly beat the drum. Therefore,
Hezbollah decided to participate in a significant political work with other powers. Thus, Hezbollah
ran Lebanese parliamentary elections allying with three other factions, namely the Sunni Future
Movement, the Druze current of Walid Jumblat – in spite of its enmity to both parties – and the
AMAL Movement, which was called Quadruple Coalition. The coalition together won 72 seats out of
total 128 seats in the parliament to constitute the majority and thus formed the government of
Lebanon headed by Fouad Siniora.
Compelled under circumstances, Hezbollah participated with
Sunnis despite its difference with them hoping to appear as a
patriotic participant. Nevertheless, Hassan Nasrallah did not
attend government’s meetings or public conferences and would
only send a delegate. Moreover, he would deal with everyone
arrogantly as if giving indication of future dominance over them
all.
Actually, this point of view is strongly substantiated by the fact that Hezbollah launched a military
operation against Zionists killing eight and capturing two soldiers without any consultation
whatsoever with the state of which they are joint-rulers or with their allies through whose help
they were elected to the parliament. The military operation caused the whole country, not only
Hezbollah, to engage in war with the Zionist entity.
The well-known war was launched in July 2006. The 33-day Zionist massive airstrikes and artillery
fire targeted damaging Lebanese civilian infrastructure. Hezbollah responded firing rockets.
Actually, many Lebanese people were killed during the war. However, Jews failed to stop
Hezbollah’s rockets which was considered a victory for Hezbollah on account of airstrikes having
failed to stop Hezbollah’s rocket force or to restore the two captured soldiers.
The destructive war came to an end leaving the Lebanese
society face a huge scene of destruction that prevailed all over
the country and face a hugely increasing Shiite influence represented in Hezbollah which still owns
Iranian developed weapons and is still strongly supported by Syria. Since then, everyone started to
feel that the country is about to be purely dominated by Shia, which is inspired by the general
notion of Islamic sympathy with Hezbollah during its war against Jews.
What happened in Lebanon thereafter? What steps did the Shiite plan take forward? How did Hassan
Nasrallah expressed his vision of the future of Lebanon? Why did Hezbollah lost the late
parliamentary elections in spite of its increasing power? What is the duty of the Muslim Ummah
masses regarding this situation?
The answer to these questions will be dealt with in length in our coming article, if Allah so wills. I
ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Story of Hezbollat 3
March 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
Rate This
In two previous articles, “The Story of Hezbollah 1/3” and “The Story of Hezbollah 2/3“, I dealt
with the rise of Hezbollah, its founders, its deep-rooted relations with Iran and its plans to
establish a Shiite state in Lebanon. In the previous article, I
finished discussion of 2006 Lebanon War which ended up with
the failure of Zionists to destroy Hezbollah’s forces and to
assassinate its leaders. This produced a state of
overwhelming joy in the Islamic street and caused Muslims to
be fascinated taking into account that Muslims did not
witness a real victory over Jews in a military struggle since
1973 A.D., i.e. for more than thirty years. Hezbollah as well as its leader won widespread praise.
This was so exaggerated that some people expected Hassan Nasrallah to be the spiritual leader of
the whole Ummah, heedless of his Twelver (Ithna ‘Ashriyyah) background which obliges him to be
permanently, whether publicly or secretly, hostile to Sunnis.
Hezbollah’s coup against the government
Hoping to make use of the great event of July War in the best manner, Hezbollah immediately
decided to stage a coup against the government in which it is a co-founder.
On December 30, 2006, it staged a big sit-in around the headquarters of the government pitching
more than 600 tent to lengthen the term of the sit-in. The sit-in demanded the deposition of Fuad
Saniora, the head of the cabinet. Although the Lebanese constitution provides that the successor of
Saniora be also a Sunni, this demand of Hezbollah was
designated for no more than showing off its ability to change
the situation as it likes and to declare that the successor has
to listen and obey the commands of the would-be leadership
of Lebanon represented in Hassan Nasrallah. However, the
government did not yield to Nasarallah’s commands, which
caused the sit-in to last for 18 consecutive months. The situation worsened by Hezbollah launching
a criminal military operation. On May 9, 2008, Hezbollah’s armed forces laid a siege on western
Beirut completely where Sunnis live threatening to invade or not to lift the siege unless the
government is deposed.
It is no more conjectures! It was an actual fact. Militant militias moved to control the axes of
Beirut. This draws our attention to the facts disclosed by Walid Jumblatt six days before the siege
on May 3, 2008. He declared in a press conference that he
could find correspondences between Elias Murr, the
Lebanese Defense Minister, and the Lebanese army
intelligence to the effect of discovering monitoring
cameras fixed by Hezbollah in the surroundings of the
airport. Jumblatt added that while armament is banned in
Lebanon, weapons are heaped by Iran on Hezbollah.
Jumblatt further expected that after only a short period Hezbollah will be the sole armed entity
whose armament will be even much better than that of the Lebanese army.
Doha Agreement and the slip of Nasrallah
The siege laid on western Beirut lasted for 13 days until an agreement was held in Doha to end the
war and the sit-in.
However, the Quadruple coalition consisting of the Sunni Future Movement, the Shiite Hezbollah,
the Shiite AMAL Movement and the Democratic Gathering Bloc was also dissolved. With this in mind,
everyone came to the conclusion that continuance of such alliance is unfeasible and that there has
to be inevitably a conflict of interests between Sunnis and Shiites. Therefore, both parties began to
exchange accusations and a binary competition. On the one hand, the Future Movement or March
14 Alliance came to realistically perceive the possibility of
Shia laying control over the whole Lebanon. On the other
hand, Hezbollah accused the Future Movement of loyalty to
the USA in an attempt to decrease its credibility in the eyes
of the Lebanese people and nationalist currents. Reciprocal
accusations continued with even a higher tone of escalation
with the passage of time and as June 2009 parliamentary elections approached. In this concern,
March 14 Alliance ran elections led by Saad Al-Hariri against Hezbolah led by Hassan Nasrallah. Each
party began to propagate its advantages and capabilities and, at the same time, vilify the other
party. Meanwhile, Hassan Nasrallah made a great a slip that would have never been made by such a
veteran politician unless Allah had wanted to reveal the truth.
He declared in the speech he delivered just before elections on May 29, 2009 – see the official
website of Hezbollah for the text of the speech – that he
will import weapons from Lebanon and Syria in case he
wins elections. He was speaking in a so Shiite-colored tone
that he stated, “According to my knowledge, the Islamic
Republic of Iran, especially His Eminence leader Imam
Khamenei (may Allah bless his life), will not scrimp on
providing Lebanon with any thing.” Apparently, he tells
the Lebanese people frankly that only Shiites can provide them with funds necessary for their
security and dignity. Thus said, he applied the carrot and stick approach trying to draw attention to
the power and relations of Hezbollah. The Lebanese people got the message, however, in contrary
to Hassan Nasrallah’s expectations. The Lebanese became aware of the Shiite peril and realized
that Hezbollah’s assuming power means more armament to Hezbollah not to Lebanon and that the
establishment of a Shiite state loyal to Iran and Syria is more likely. The Lebanese people felt
worried about this trend, a feeling that reflected on polls and motivated them to vote for March 14
Alliance.
Although Saad Al-Hariri is not as politically influential as the late Rafik Al-Hariri, the Lebanese
people behaved in proportion with their realization of the awkward situation. To those who argue
that election result was affected by the US pressure, we say
that the election process was fair whose transparency was
contested by no one. Actually, March 14 Alliance won the
elections with a difference of 14 seats, which is relatively a
big number as to Lebanese elections, which means that the
vision got so clear.
Our attitude toward Hezbollah
After citing the aforementioned lengthy story, I would like to have a discussion with dear readers
giving some comments that might answer many confusing questions that cross Muslims minds while
considering events. Readers might agree or disagree with me. However, I tell everyone that we
have to put our emotions aside while citing our comments. In fact, we have to issue reasoned
judgments. Moreover, we have to take into consideration roots and origins, refer to old and modern
history, make a connection between events, know what is on the backstage and perceive the
objectives, backgrounds and beliefs of each party if we are to make a sound analysis. By doing so,
we can change many views we used to think to be true, attack what we used to defend or defend
what we used to attack.
First: It is very likely and perhaps potentially soon that a Shiite state in Lebanon be established.
Actually, Hezbollah possesses capacities not only as simple as of a party or a sect but also of a
state.
Moreover, Iran and Syria strongly support the
establishment of a Shiite state that is to be loyal to
them. The desired state includes southern Lebanon in
addition to Al-Biqa region to the north-east of Lebanon
and might extend to include the Sunni region of northern
Beirut. Moreover, such a state is to dominate western
and southern Beirut. As for Christian-dominated regions,
they are an object of difference of opinion. However, we do not exclude the possibility that
Hezbollah accepts the existence of two Shiite and Christian states on the Lebanese lands. One
thousand years ago, Ismailis (members of a Shiite branch of Islam) made a proposition to Crusaders
on attacking Levant to the effect of dividing Sunni lands among them, Crusaders taking over Syria
and Lebanon and Shiites taking over Palestine and Jordan. The proposition was rejected by
crusaders who wanted to dominate Levant unshared.
Anyway, it is not easy for Sunnis to accept the existence of a Shiite state in Lebanon. Please, refer
to the story of Sunnis in Iran and in Iraq and to the attitude adopted by the AMAL Movement and
later by Hezbollah toward Sunnis in Lebanon. Refer also to the story of the Buwayhid, Hamdanid,
Ubaidi (falsely called Fatimid) and Safavid states. Kindly, refer to such stages of history to know
that the establishment of a powerful Shiite state means dominance over Sunnis in the first place.
Actually, it is a matter of creed as supported by factual evidence.
A conflict of interests
Second: Hezbollah’s war against Jews was urged by a conflict of interests rather than defense of
creed. To clarify, Jews invaded southern Lebanon in 1982, the region designed to be the awaited
for Shiite state. Therefore, it was inevitable for them to resist in order to survive. Thus, it was an
ordinary war like any other war in the world. War was not waged in order that the Word of Allah
becomes the uppermost, for Shiites hold distorted and false beliefs about the Word of Allah
claiming their Imams to be infallible and of a higher esteem than prophets. I wonder what good can
be done by those who believe as such!
Suppose that Shiites centralize in northern Lebanon and Sunnis centralize in the south. If such was
the case, do you think that Shiites would defend the Sunni-inhabited region? I certainly say it is
impossible. I further think that if such is the case they would perhaps coordinate with Jews to
divide the Lebanese lands among them at peace. Believe me, these are not unsubstantiated
suppositions. Actually, Shia have lived in Lebanon for tens of years and, nevertheless, did not move
a hairbreadth to fight against Jews in Palestine although they recognize in their literature the
Jewish occupation of Palestine.
During the 1948 War, great scholar Dr. Mustafa Al-Siba’i (may Allah show mercy to him), the Muslim
Brotherhood general supervisor in Syria, tried to reconcile Sunnis and
Shiites and to urge Shiites to participate with Sunnis in liberating
Palestine. To the disappointment of Dr. Mustafa Al-Siba’i, they
refused and hesitated.
In his book “Introduction to The Sunnah and Its Position in the Islamic
Law”, Dr. Mustafa Al-Siba’i stated that it is unfeasible to reconcile
Sunnis and Shia as the latter understand such reconciliation to mean
Sunnis conversion to Shiism rather than trying to find a common ground. Furthermore, when the
Six-Day War of 1967 broke out, Shiites adjacent to north Palestine did not move a muscle. Even
worse, Musa Al-Sadr announced his famous slogan “Weapons are the ornament of men” in March
1973. Nevertheless, when the October War of 1973 broke out six months after this slogan was
announced, no Shiite participated in fighting against Jews in Palestine. Besides, I think we all
witnessed the late Gaza War in 2009 and can perceive to what extent Hezbollah’s rockets could
have kept Zionists from the intense bombardment. Actually, they launched not even one rocket in
order to distract the Zionist enemy and were only shouting; much ado about nothing. Hence, the
Zionist enemy realizes that Hezbollah’s power is limited to its own lands and that Palestine is a
coveted object for neither Hezbollah nor Iran at the present. Likewise, the USA knows that Iran’s
negative propaganda against it is not realistic and is no more than a showy attempt to influence
Muslim feelings. The fact that the Shiite agenda in Iraq is purely
sponsored by the USA is the ultimate evidence. In addition, the USA
does not oppose to the establishment of a great Shiite state
comprising Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The USA hopes that such a
state might cause a balance of powers in the Islamic region and might
automatically stand as a stumbling rock in the way of Sunni expansion
represented in the Islamic awakening in most countries of the region,
especially Egypt, KSA and Jordan. On the other hand, the USA seeks to politically, militarily or
economically weaken these three countries.
Victory and sound belief
Third: Achieving victory does not necessarily indicate sound belief and being afflicted with
distresses does not necessarily indicate sincerity. Actually, many victorious people along history
were Mubtadi’s (innovating in religion). For example, Shiite Qarmatians assumed authority for
about hundred years although they killed Hajjis and taken out the Black Stone from its place and
caused mischief. To the same effect, Persians, Romans, Tatar, the English and Americans assumed
power in spite of holding corrupted beliefs. Furthermore, many dictator and tyrant Muslim rulers
had dominance over their peoples for tens of years although they are deviated from sound Islamic
beliefs.
In other words, Muslims should not suppose that victory and assuming power necessarily denote
sound creed. They should consider whether sayings and acts of persons are in accordance with
Quran and Sunnah. In fact, many persons defied death boldly and showed heroic resistance and will
be, nevertheless, admitted to Hellfire as they did not devote such acts for Allah’s sake. During the
lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him), a man was thought by Muslims to be greatly
rewarded for showing bravery while fighting against polytheists. However, the Prophet (peace be
upon him) told them that the man is one of the inhabitants of Hellfire. Astonished by the Prophet’s
statement, they went to the man who while suffering the agony of death told them that he was
fighting with the purpose of only defending his people. Thus, he did not fight for Allah’s sake.
Rather, he fought only for worldly interests and fought for a false cause. Thus said, I would like to
stress the fact that I do not intend to fathom Hezbollah’s intentions that is known only by Allah. I
only speak of their publicized creed and openly-committed Bid’ahs (innovations in religion). See the
article “Shia’s Dominance” for more information about Shia’s victories and dominance. However,
such victories were indicators more of deviation from the right path than defense of principles.
Attitude of Sunnis
Fourth: By stating that Hezbollah’s conflict with Jews is a conflict of interests, we do not mean
that Sunnis should adopt no attitude. In this respect, I differ with many of my Da’wah (call to Allah)
and knowledge teachers who view it is proper to adopt no attitude in this regard and remain
neutral for both parties of conflict are erroneous. Actually, a Muslim has to play a positive role and
can estimate both evils and benefits. We are speaking about a war between the Zionist entity,
which already occupies Palestinian lands, and Hezbollah, which lives in a land partially occupied by
Zionists. With this in mind, weakening Zionists is a goal in itself, bearing in mind that the Zionist
aggression is unarguable. Accordingly, it is a priority to liberate the Lebanese lands. Thereafter,
Muslims may manage their affairs in such a manner as may safeguard their rights against being
taken over by Jews and Hezbollah.
I have already highly appreciated Lebanese Sunnis attitude in 1997 when they joined in huge
numbers the Lebanese resistance brigades, which strived to expel Jews from Lebanon. Although the
brigades were under Hezbollah’s leadership and although Hezbollah later denied their contribution
and snubbed them, Sunnis had a clear vision. In this regard, the Prophet (peace be upon him)
supported a polytheist man’s right to claim his money stolen by Abu Jahl. Doing so, the Prophet
(peace be upon him) did not hesitate on the pretext that the man will make use of his stolen money
in worshipping such idols of theirs as Allat and Al-’Uzza. The Prophet just supported the man and
that is all. Thereafter, the Prophet (peace be upon him) called the man to Allah in another
situation.
We, Muslims, never mix up things. Although we are aware of the peril of Hezbollah’s Shiite agenda
in the region, we are also, at the same time, aware of the Zionist agenda in the same region.
Fifth: Hassan Nasrallah is of a charismatic personality, in the sense that he has a personal quality
enabling him to affect others and arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
Moreover, he is a first-class politician and an intelligent
quick-witted person. I do not object to being charmed by his
political and administrative skills. I am not also worried
about admiring his talent in the art of public speaking or his
ability to fathom political balances. In brief, I do not object
if Muslims feel as such or even imitate him in certain
aspects. However, it is objectionable to be charmed by him as an Islamic leader practicing Jihad as
enjoined by Allah. A leader to be admired of as such has to be of a sound creed and performance of
acts of worship, a devoted follower of the Prophet’s Sunnah and persistent enforcer of Allah’s
commandments.
Hassan Nasrallah’s beliefs
Hassan Nasrallah embraces the Twelver (Ithna `Ashriyyah) thought, which means he holds all the
beliefs of this sect.
To clarify, he believes that all Companions usurped Ali’s
right to Caliphate and gave it to Abu Bakr, to ‘Umar and
then to ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them all). He
also believes that the Prophet (peace be upon him)
assigned caliphate to their twelve Imams, whom he
believes to be infallible, by name. Furthermore, he
believes that the twelfth Imam is currently alive, is hidden
by Allah (referred to as the Occultation) and will later emerge. Moreover, he believes that the
concept of Taqiyyah (a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat,
persecution or compulsion) constitutes nine-tenths of religion. In addition, he believes that Sunnis
show enmity to the Prophet’s Household, although Sunnis actually show more reverence, according
to Allah’s Messenger’s way, to the Prophet’s Household than Shia do. Besides, he believes that
great imams are rightful of one-fifth of a Shiite’s income. He further believes that Mut’ah
(temporary marriage) is lawful. Accordingly, he views it permissible that a young man marries his
girlfriend or any other girl for only one day or an hour to gratify sexual desire and then divorces
her. He also believes in the theory of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist and it is thus prohibited for
him to violate the commands of Ali Khamenei the Supreme Guide of the Iranian Revolution in any
respect and so on.
It is beyond the scope of doubt that Hassan Nasarallah
has a firm belief in the abovementioned dogmas. It is
meaningless then to say we never heard him insulting
Companions or defame mothers of the believers. To such
naive people I say it is not a prerequisite that you hear
him say so in order to be certain that he says so, for, in
fact, saying so is a fundamental of the Twelver faith. For
example, although you might not hear your Muslim
neighbor say “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is
the Messenger of Alllah”, you are sure he, as a Muslim, believes in it. By the same token, a Twelver
Shiite has to hold all the abovementioned beliefs; otherwise, he may be an adherent of another
faith. Granted that Hassan Nasrallah reveres Companions, he would never be able to substantiate
the authority of the Twelver sect’s fundamentals, including the Imamate of Ali bin Abu Talib, AlHassan, Al-Hussain and any other Imam of theirs.
Indeed, a personality that holds such false beliefs and Bid’ahs may never be fascinated by of or set
as a perfect example of a Muslim leader. However, as I said before, we may benefit from certain
aspects of his personality, like any other personality, not as Islamic but as human endowed with
talents and capacities.
In a certain stage of Islamic history, crusaders occupied Levant and Palestine in the existence of a
neighboring powerful Shiite state, the ‘Ubaidi state, that ruled Egypt at that time. Nevertheless,
faithful Muslims of the time did not take as an example the leaders of such a corrupt state despite
their high political, administrative and military standard. Rather, Muslims made their own examples
and this is why Imad Al-Din Atabeg Zengi, Nur Ad-Din Mahmud and Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyubi (Saladin)
came to light.
This is what should concern us much now. Viewing the Shiite agenda matures and succeeds in Iran,
Iraq and Lebanon, where then is the Sunni agenda that is to stand on equal footing with, and later
exceed, the Shiite?!
I adjure one of our many rulers to adopt the great Sunni agenda that is based on the Qur’an and
Sunnah and guided by the way followed by our righteous predecessors. It is an agenda whose
priorities are defending Muslim rights everywhere, supporting oppressed Sunnis in Iran, Iraq,
Lebanon and Syria and powerfully and bravely confronting Zionist and imperial agendas in our
Muslim countries.
However, if there is not even one ruler to undertake responsibility, let our peoples reexamine their
approaches, stop for awhile for self-accountability and return out of fear and hope to their Lord.
Actually, Allah deprives the Ummah of being led by a sincere leader only when it is neglectful. No
doubt, “Your rulers will be as good or bad as you are” and Allah wrongs not even of the weight of
an atom. So be with Allah in order that He be with you, support His Cause in order that He supports
you and repent to Him so that He might accept you repentance, pardon you and guide you to His
straight path.
I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Dr. Ragheb ElSergany