Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

The Attitude of Ahlul Sunnah Towards the Shi`as

If we exclude some contemporary scholars who have written with fairness about the Shi`as as dictated to them by their Islamic norms of conduct, most others, in the past and the present, have been writing about the Shi`as in the mentality of hateful Umayyads.

Hence, you see them in every valley frantically going around saying what they do not do, taunting and cursing, piling false charges and calumnies against the innocent followers of Ahlul Bayt. They call them kafirs (apostates). They yell bad names at them, following in the footsteps of their “al-salaf al-salih,” so-called “good predecessors,” namely Mu`awiyah and his likes who took control of Islamic caliphate by force, oppression, cunning and conniving, treachery and hypocrisy.

Once they say that the Shi`as are a group founded by Abdullah ibn Saba', the Jew, and once they say that they descended from Zoroastrian origins, or that they are Rafidis, and that their danger against Islam is more than that of the Jews and the Christians.

They also write that they are hypocrites, that they follow the principle of taqiyya, that they are permissive folks who legitimize illegitimate marriages, permitting the mut`a which, in their view, is nothing but adultery... Some of them write saying that they have a Qur'an different from that of their own, that they worship Ali and the Imams among his offspring and hate Muhammad and Gabriel..., and that they do this and that, etc.

Hardly one year passes without the publication of a book or a group of books written by “scholars” who lead “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a,” as they call themselves, filled with charges of apostasy and insults towards the Shi`as. They have neither justification nor motive except pleasing their masters who have a vested interest in tearing the Islamic Ummah apart and shattering its unity_even its total annihilation.

Moreover, they have no proof nor argument except blind fanaticism, veiled hatred, contemptible ignorance, and the blind imitating of their predecessors without any discerning of facts, nor scholarly research, nor any evident argument. They are, hence, like parrots: They are ever repeating what they hear, copying what the Nasibis from the Umayyads' henchmen, and those who are still making a living praising and glorifying Yazid son of Mu`awiyah.1 So do not be surprised at those who glorify Yazid son of Mu`awiyah when you see them cursing the enemies of this Yazid, calling them kafirs.

Has the Prophetic Sunnah not stated that: “Each Muslim to another Muslim is like a strong building: each one strengthens the other,” and, “A Muslim relates to another Muslim like one body: if one part thereof agonizes, the rest of the body will responds with vigilance and fever”?

Has not the Prophet said, “Cursing a Muslim is a sin, and fighting him is kufr”? Had these writers who claim to be among “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” really come to know the Prophetic Sunnah, they would never have permitted themselves to throw the charge of kufr at anyone who testifies that: La ilaha illa-Allah, Muhammadun Rasool-Allah (There is no god except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and who uphold the prayers, pay the zakat, fast during the month of Ramadan, perform the pilgrimage to the Haram House, enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong.

But since they are in fact followers of the “sunnah” of the Umayyads and some leaders of Quraysh, they talk and write in the same mentality that prevailed during the period of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic period) when tribalism and racist arrogance prevailed. Whatever comes from its source surprises none, and every pot drips of its contents.

Has the Messenger of Allah not said just as the Holy Qur'an states:

“Say: O People of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you: that we shall not worship anyone except Allah and not associate aught with Him and that we shall not take others for lords besides Allah” (Holy Qur'an, 3:64)?

If they are true followers of the Sunnah, then they should invite their Shi`a brethren to a common agreement between them.

Since Islam calls upon its enemies among the Jews and Christians to come to a common agreement of understanding and brotherhood between them, what would you say about those who worship only one God, and whose Prophet is one and the same, and so is their Book, qibla, and destiny?! Why don't the scholars among Ahlul Sunnah invite their brethren Shi`a scholars and sit with them at the discussion table and argue with them in the best manner so that they may “mend” their beliefs which they claim to be “corrupt”?

Why don't they hold an Islamic conference of scholars from both sides where all disputed issues are discussed and heard and seen by all Muslims so that they may distinguish the truth from falsehood? We say so knowing that “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” comprise three-quarters of the Muslims of the world, and they have the financial potential and the political clout which make the achievement of the above easy, for they even own satellites...

“Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” do not attempt to do anything like this at all, nor do they desire any scholarly debate like the one called for in the Glorious Book of Allah in the verse saying,

“Say: Bring your proof if you tell the truth” (Holy Qur'an, 2:111),

and also in this one:

“Say: Do you have any knowledge with you so you should bring it forth to us? You only follow conjecture, and you only tell lies” (Holy Qur'an, 6:148).

For this reason, you see them resorting to cursing, taunting, lying and false charges, while they know fully well that the argument and the proof are with their Shi`a opponents! I think that they fear lest most Muslims should embrace Shi`ism if the facts are revealed as actually took place to some Egyptian scholars who graduated from al-Azhar and who permitted themselves to seek the truth. They did, indeed, find the truth. They did, indeed, see the light. And they did, indeed, abandon the beliefs they were nurtured by the “good predecessors.”

Scholars among “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” realize this danger which threatens their entity with dissolution. When they run out of tricks, therefore, some of them go as far as prohibiting their followers and imitators to be with the Shi`as, or to debate with them, or to marry their daughters, or to give their own daughters to them in marriage, or even to eat the meat of what they slaughter...

Such a stand is indicative of the fact that they are further from the Prophet's Sunnah than anything and closer to the “sunnah” of the Umayyads who exerted their efforts to mislead the nation of Muhammad at any cost because their hearts never really feared the mentioning of Allah's Name nor the truth which He revealed. Rather, they accepted Islam against their free will.

This is admitted by their “Imam” Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan who killed the best of sahaba only to become ruler; in the very first khutba which he delivered, he said, “I did not fight you so that you may pray, fast, or perform the pilgrimage; rather, I fought you in order to take charge of you, and Allah [?!] has granted it to me while you hate it.” Allah has surely spoken the truth when He said,

“Surely when the kings enter a town, they ruin it and make the most noble of its people the very lowest, and thus do they (always) do” (Holy Qur'an, 27:34).

Note

1. The Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia has published a book titled Haqaiq an Ameer al-Mumineen Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah (facts about the commander of the faithful Yazid son of Mu`awiyah) to be taught as a curriculum text book at its public schools.

Shi`as' Attitude Towards Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah

If we exclude some Shi`a fanatics who regard all “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” to be Nasibis, the vast majority of their scholars in the past and the present believe that their brethren “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” are the victims of Umayyad intrigues and cunning. This is so because they thought well of the “good predecessors,” emulating them without researching or verifying their conduct.

The latter, hence, misled them from discerning al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem (the Straight Path) and distanced them from al-Thaqalain, i.e. the Book of Allah and the Purified Progeny that safeguard whoever upholds them from misguidance and guarantee for him sure guidance.

For this reason, we find them defending themselves and informing others about their beliefs, calling for justice and equity and for unity with their brethren “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah.” Some Shi`a scholars even toured various countries looking for means to establish Islamic organizations and institutions to close the gap between the sects and to bring about unity. Others went to al-Azhar al-Shareef, the lighthouse of knowledge and scholarship for “Ahlul Sunnah,” and met with its scholars with whom they debated in the best manner, trying to remove the grudges.

One such scholar was Imam Sharafid-Din Sadr ad-Din al-Musawi who met Imam Saleem al-Din al-Bishri, and the outcome of that meeting and the correspondence between both great men was the birth of the precious book titled Al-Muraja`at, a book which has played a significant role in narrowing Muslims' ideological differences.

The efforts of those scholars were also crowned with success in Egypt where Imam Mahmud Shaltut, the then grand mufti of Egypt, issued his brave fatwa granting full legitimacy to adherence to the Shi`a Ja`fari sect, a sect the fiqh (jurisprudence) of which is now among the topics taught at al-Azhar al-Shareef.

Shi`as in general and Shi`a scholars in particular have been trying their best to introduce the Imams of the Purified Ahlul Bayt to others and to acquaint them with the Ja`fari sect which represents Islam in all what this word implies, writing volumes of books and articles, holding sessions, especially after the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran, conducting numerous conferences in Tehran under the banner of the Islamic unity and the bridging of the gap between the Islamic sects. All these are sincere calls for the renunciation of enmity and animosity, and to instill the spirit of Islamic brotherhood, so that Muslims may respect one another.

In every year, “Mutamar al-Wahdah al-Islamiyya” (Islamic Unity Conference) invites Shi`a and Sunni scholars and thinkers to live one week under the shade of a sincere fraternity, to eat and drink together, to pray, supplicate, and exchange views and ideas, to give and take.

Had the only achievement of these conferences been creating unity and narrowing the gaps between Muslims so that they may know one another and remove their grudges, their good would be great, and their benefit overwhelming. They will, by the Will of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, in the end bear the anticipated fruits.

If you enter the house of any ordinary Shi`a family, let alone the houses of their scholars and the educated among them, you will find in it a library containing, besides Shi`a works, a large number of books written by “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah,” contrary to the case with the latter who very seldom keep a Shi`a book.

They, therefore, remain ignorant about the facts relevant to these Shi`as, not knowing anything but the lies written by the enemies of Shi`as. Even any ordinary Shi`a individual is most often familiar with the Islamic history in all its stages, and he may even celebrate some of its occasions.

As for the Sunni scholar, you will find him very seldom expressing interest in history which he regards among the tragedies he does not wish to dig up in order to be familiar with them; rather, he is of the view that neglecting them and not looking into them is a must because they will undermine the good impression held about the “good predecessors.”

Since he has convinced, or misled, himself of the “justice” of all the sahaba and their integrity, he no longer accepts what history has recorded against them. For this reason, you find him unable to withstand any constructive discussion based on proof and argument. You will find him either running away from such a research due to his prior knowledge that he will be defeated, or he may overcome his feelings and emotions and force himself into researching; it is then that he rebels against all his beliefs, embracing, in the end, the faith of the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet.

Shi`as are, indeed, the adherents to the Prophetic Sunnah because their first Imam after the Prophet is Ali ibn Abu Talib who lived and breathed the Prophetic Sunnah. Look at him and see how he reacted when they came to him seeking to swear the oath of allegiance to him as the new caliph on the condition that he should rule according to the “sunnah” of the shaykhain (the two shaykhs, namely Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab), whereupon he said, “I shall not rule except according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.”

Ali had no need for the caliphate if it was at the expense of the Prophetic Sunnah, for he is the one who had said, “Your caliphate to me is like a goat's sneeze except when I uphold one of the commandments of Allah.” His son, Imam al-Husayn, has made his famous statement which is still ringing in the ears of history: “If Muhammad's faith is to be straightened only if I am killed, then O swords! Take me!”

For this reason, Shi`as look at their brethren from “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” with eyes of love and affection, desiring nothing for them except guidance and salvation. To them, the price of guidance is recorded by authentic traditions better than this life and everything in it.

The Messenger of Allah has said to Imam Ali upon sending him to conquer Khaybar, “Fight them till they testify that There is no god except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; so if they utter it, their lives and wealth will be protected against your might, and Allah will judge them. If Allah guides through you even one single person, it is better for you than everything on which the sun shines (or better than all red camels).”1

Ali's main concern was, after all, to guide people and to bring them back to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. For this reason, his Shi`as nowadays are mostly concerned about refuting all the charges and lies piled up against them, and about introducing to their brethren from “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'ah” the truth about Ahlul Bayt and, hence, guide them to the Straight Path.

Surely in the tales there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative that could be forged but a verification of what is before it and a distinct explanation of all things, and a guide and mercy to those who believe. (Holy Qur'an, 12:111)

Note

1. Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 7, p. 122 “Kitab al-Fadail” (Book of Virtues), the chapter dealing with the merits of Ali ibn Abu Talib .

Introducing the Imams of the Shi`as

Shi`as have confined their loyalty to the twelve Imams from Ahlul Bayt, peace be upon them, the first of whom is Ali ibn Abu Talib followed by his son al-Hasan then his son al-Husayn then the nine infallible ones among al-Husayn's offspring, peace and blessings of Allah be upon all of them.

The Messenger of Allah had named all these Imams in many of his statements either explicitly or implicitly, and he had mentioned them by name according to some traditions transmitted by the Shi`as and others transmitted by “Sunni” scholars.

Some of Ahlul Sunnah may object to these traditions, expressing astonishment at how the Messenger could have talked about issues related to the unknown which were enshrouded with non-existence. The Holy Qur'an states:

“Had I known the unseen, I would have had much of good and no evil would have touched me” (Holy Qur'an, 7:188).

To counter this argument, we say that this sacred verse does not exclude the Messenger from knowing the unseen at all; rather, it was revealed in response to some polytheists who asked him to inform them when the Hour would come, and the time of the Hour is the sole knowledge of Allah, Glory to Him, which He shares with nobody. The Holy Qur'an, on the other hand, clearly states:

“The One Who knows the unseen! So He does not reveal His secrets to anyone except to whomsoever He chooses (such) as an apostle” (Holy Qur'an, 72:26-27).

The exception to which this verse refers indicates that He, Glory to Him, acquaints His messengers whom He chooses with the knowledge of the unseen. For example, read what Joseph (Yusuf), peace be upon him, said to his prison inmates:

“No food shall come to you except that I will inform you of it before it reaches you; surely this is of what my Lord has taught me” (Holy Qur'an, 12:37).

Another example is this verse:

“Then they found one of Our servants whom We had granted mercy and whom We had taught knowledge from Us” (Holy Qur'an, 18:65).

This is a reference to the story of al-Khidr who met Moses and whom he taught of the knowledge of the unseen, the knowledge which he could not wait to know in time.

Muslims, be they Shi`as or Sunnis, did not dispute the fact that the Messenger of Allah used to know the unseen, and many incidents have been recorded in this regard such as his statement to Ammar: “O Ammar! The oppressive party shall kill you,” and his statement to Ali: “The worst wretch among the generations to come is a man who will strike you (with the sword) on your head, so he will drench your beard (with your blood).”

He had also said to Ali, “My son al-Hasan will be the one through whom Allah will bring peace between two large parties.” Another is his statement to Abu Dharr al-Ghifari in which he told him that he would die alone in banishment, and the list of such numerous incidents goes on and on. Among them is the famous tradition which al-Bukhari and Muslim and all those who succeeded them states: “The Imams after me are twelve: all of them will belong to Quraysh,” and according to another narration, “all of them will be the offspring of Hashim.”

In both our previous books With the Truthful [Ma`a al-Sadiqin] and Ask Those Who Know [Fas'aloo Ahlul Dhikr], we proved that Sunni scholars themselves have referred in their Sahih and Musnad books to the traditions relevant to the Imamate of the Twelve Imams, admitting their authenticity.

Someone may ask, “Why did they, then, set those traditions aside and followed the Imams of the four sects if they actually admitted the existence and the authenticity of those traditions?” The answer is: All the “good predecessors” were supporters of the three caliphs who reached caliphate through the saqeefa (the shed of Banu Sa`ida), namely Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, so it was only natural that they should turn away from Ahlul Bayt and become enemies of Imam Ali and his offspring.

They, therefore, tried very hard to obliterate the Prophetic Sunnah and substitute it with their own ijtihad, personal viewpoints. This caused the division of the nation into two groups immediately following the death of the Messenger of Allah. Those among the “good predecessors” and those who followed them and adopted their attitudes represented “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah,” who are the vast majority of the Muslim Ummah. A small minority which included Ali and his Shi`as boycotted the allegiance (to Abu Bakr) and rejected it, becoming the outcasts and the condemned. They were called Rafidis, rejectionists.

Due to the fact that “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” were the ones who controlled the destiny of the Ummah across the centuries, the rulers from Banu Umayyah as well as those from Banu al-Abbas were all supporters and followers of the school of caliphate founded by Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Mu`awiyah1 and Yazid.

When that caliphate failed, its dignity was lost, ending in the hands of the Mamlukes and non-Arabs, and there were those who were heard calling for the documenting of the Prophetic Sunnah..., it was only then that such traditions, which former generations tried very energetically to obliterate and hide but could not do so, in addition to those particular traditions persisted as puzzles mystifying them: they contradicted their beliefs at that time.

Some of them tried to reconcile those traditions with their beliefs, so they pretended to love Ahlul Bayt; therefore, whenever the name of Imam Ali is mentioned, they would say, “May Allah be pleased with him,” or “Allah glorified his countenance,” so that people might get the impression that they were not the enemies of the House of Prophethood.

None among the Muslims, not even the hypocrites among them, can demonstrate his enmity towards the Prophet's family because the enemies of Ahlul Bayt are the enemies of the Messenger of Allah, and such enmity will eject them from the Islamic fold altogether as is obvious.

What we can understand from all of this is that they, in reality, are, indeed, enemies of the Prophet's family, and by “they” we mean the “good predecessors” who adopted the label of, or who were labelled by their supporters as, “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a.” Another proof is that you can find all of them following the four sects which were created by the ruling authority (as we will soon prove), and they have nothing in their religious injunctions to which they can refer such as the fiqh of Ahlul Bayt, or of any of the Twelve Imams.

The truth mandates that Imamite Shi`as are actually the followers of the Sunnah of Muhammad because they upheld in all their juristic injunctions the teachings of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt who inherited the authentic Sunnah from their grandfather the Messenger of Allah without mixing it with their own personal views, opinions, or the statements of the caliphs.

Shi`as remained across the centuries upholding these texts and rejecting the concept of ijtihad in the presence of clear traditions, believing in the caliphate of Ali and his offspring because the Prophet had clearly indicated so.

They, therefore, call them the caliphs of the Messenger of Allah although only Ali had the chance to be the actual caliph. They reject and refuse to recognize the rulers who held the caliphate from the beginning to the end because such caliphate was [in the words of Umar ibn al-Khattab himself] based on “a grave mistake from the evil of which Allah protected us,” and because it came as a rejection and a renunciation of the texts stated by Allah and His Messenger. All those who came after that made such caliphate hereditary; each caliph ruled only because he was nominated by his predecessor or by fighting and winning the battle.2

Because of all this, “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” were obligated to say that obedience was obligatory to both a good and a bad Imam; they accepted the caliphate of all their rulers, including the sinners among them.

Imamite Shi`as are characterized by preaching the necessity of the infallibility of the Imam; so, no major Imamate nor the leadership of the nation can be right except to an infallible Imam, and there is no human being in this nation who is infallible except those from whom Allah removed all abomination and whom He purified with a perfect purification [according to verse 33, Chapter 33, of the Holy Qur'an].

Notes

1. We have deliberately made no reference to the caliphate of Ali ibn Abu Talib because “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” did not recognize it except during the time of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as we have already indicated above; so, refer to the chapter with the heading “Ahlul Sunnah Are Not Familiar with the Prophetic Sunnah” in this book.

2. The only exception is the caliphate of Ali ibn Abu Talib Only he was not appointed by his predecessor, nor did he achieve it by fighting others and subduing them. Rather, Muslims chose him out of their free will to be their caliph, and they insisted on it when they invited him to rule.

Imams of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a

“Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” have followed the four Imams after whom their sects are known, namely Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

These four Imams were never among the sahaba of the Messenger of Allah, nor did they know him, nor did he see them, nor did they ever see him. Their senior in age is Abu Hanifah whose time is separated from that of the Prophet by more than a hundred years: he was born in 80 A.H./699 A.D. and died in 160 A.H./777 A.D. Their youngest is Ahmad ibn Hanbal: he was born in 165 and died in 241 A.H. (782 - 855 A.D.). All this is in reference to the religion's branches (furoo` al-deen).

As for the roots of the creed (usool al-deen), “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” refer to Imam Abul-Hasan Ali ibn Isma`eel al-Ash`ari who was born in 270 A.H. and died in 335 A.H. (883 - 946 A.D.)

These are the Imams of “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” to whom the latter refer with regard to the roots and branches of their creed. Do you find any of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt among them? Or do you find among them anyone who was a companion of the Messenger of Allah, or about whom the Messenger of Allah said that he is the most wise person to lead the nation? Of course not! There is nothing like that at all.

If “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” claim that they uphold the Prophet's Sunnah, why did these sects appear so late in time after the Prophet's demise, and where were “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” before the existence of these sects, and what religion were they following, and to whom were they referring?!

Having asked these questions, let us add this one: “How can they be so dedicated to men who were neither contemporary to the Prophet nor did they ever know him but who were born after the dissension had already taken place, and after the companions fought and killed one another, charging one another with apostacy, and after the caliphs treated the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah according to their own ijtihad, their own personal views?”

Having taken control of the reins of government, Yazid violated the sanctity of sacred Medina, giving his army permission to wreak whatever havoc it desired in it, so the said army inflicted death and destruction in it, killing the best among the sahaba who refused to swear the oath of allegiance to him, raping chaste women to the extent that there were many who were born thus illegitimately.

How can any wise person place his trust in these imams who belong to such type of human beings who waded in the mud of dissension, who were colored by its various hues, who grew up mastering its cunning and cunniving, vesting upon themselves the false medals of knowledge and scholarship? Indeed, no scholar ever rose to distinction except one with whom the government was pleased and who was pleased with the government.1

How can anyone who claims to adhere to the Sunnah forsake Imam Ali, the gate of knowledge, or Imams al-Hasan and al-Husayn, masters of the youths of Paradise, or other purified Imams from the progeny of the Prophet who had inherited the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah, and prefer to follow “Imams” who were not knowledgeable of the Prophetic Sunnah but were the product of Umayyad politics?

How can “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” claim that they follow the Prophetic Sunnah while neglecting those who safeguard it? How can they abandon the recommendations and explicit orders of the Prophet to uphold the Purified Progeny then claim to be the ones who follow the Sunnah?!

Can any Muslim individual who is familiar with the Islamic history, the Holy Qur'an, and the Sunnah, doubt the fact that “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a” are followers of the Umayyads and Abbasides?

And can any Muslim who is familiar with the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, and who has come to know the Islamic history, deny the fact that the Shi`as who emulate and pay homage to the Progeny of the Prophet are, indeed, followers of the Prophetic Sunnah, whereas nobody else can claim to do so?

Have you seen, dear reader, how politics turns matters upside down, making right look wrong and vice versa?! Those who remained loyal to the Prophet and his Progeny came to be called Rafidis and people of innovations, while those who excelled in inventing innovations and renounced the Sunnah of the Prophet and his Progeny, following the ijtihad of their oppressive rulers, came to be called “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a”?! This is truly strange.

As for me, I firmly believe that Quraysh was behind this label, and it is one of its secrets and riddles.

We have already come to know that Quraysh was the one that prohibited Abdullah ibn Umar from writing the Prophetic Sunnah down in the pretext that the Prophet was not infallible. Quraysh, in fact, is comprised of specific individuals who weilded a great deal of influence, and who were known for their fanaticism and powerful influence over Arab tribes. Some historians call them “the most shrewd Arabs” due to their reputation in cunning and conniving and superiority in managing the affairs, whereas others call them “the people who tie and untie.”

Among them are: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Abu Sufyan and his son Mu`awiyah, Amr ibn al-As, al-Mugheerah ibn Shu`bah, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah, Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf, Abu Ubaydah Amir ibn al-Jarrah, and many others.2

These “shrewd men” used to meet to discuss and decide something upon which they would eventually agree, then they would make up their mind to propagate it among the people so that it might become thereafter a matter of fact and a followed reality, without most people kowing how it came to be.

One such scheme, which they plotted, was their claim that Muhammad was not infallible, and that he was as human as anyone else: he could err, they claimed, so they would belittle him and argue with him about the truth while fully knowing it. And among such schemes was their cursing Ali ibn Abu Talib and using a misnomer for him, calling him “Abu Turab” (father of dust), portraying him to people as the enemy of Allah and His Messenger.

Another is their taunting and cursing the highly respected sahabi Ammar ibn Yasir, using for him a borrowed name: “Abdullah ibn Saba'“ simply because Ammar opposed the caliphs and was calling people to the Imamate of Ali ibn Abu Talib.3

Another was their calling the Shi`as who were loyal to Ali “Rafidis” in order to mislead the public by giving them the impression that the latter had rejected Muhammad and followed Ali.

Another is calling themselves “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” in order to mislead sincere believers into thinking that only they are the ones who uphold the Prophet's Sunnah versus the Rafidis who reject it.

They, in fact, mean by their “Sunnah” the infamous innovation which they invented: the custom of cursing and condemning the Commander of the Faithful and the Prophet's Progeny from the pulpits in every mosque throughout the Muslim world and in all other lands, cities, and villages where Muslims lived. This innovation lasted for eighty years. Whenever one of their preachers descended from the pulpit before leading the prayers, he would curse Ali ibn Abu Talib, and if he did not, everyone at the mosque would yell at him: Tarakatal Sunnah! Tarakatal Sunnah! (“You left out the Sunnah!).

When caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wanted to change that “Sunnah” with the Qur'anic verse saying,

“Surely Allah enjoins the effecting of equity and of goodness (to others) and the giving (in charity) to the kindred” (Holy Quran, 16:90),

they plotted against him and killed him for killing their “Sunnah” and taking lightly the statements of his predecessors who had brought him to caliphate. They poisoned him when he was only thirty-eight years old, having ruled no more than two years. He became the victim of his reform because his cousins, the Umayyads, did not agree to his laying their “Sunnah” to rest and thus raising the status of “Abu Turab” and the Imams among his offspring.

After the fall of the Umayyad government, the Abbasides came and persecuted the Imams from Ahlul Bayt and their followers till the reign of Ja`far son of al-Mu`tasim, who was titled “al-Mutawakkil,” came, and he proved to be the most bitter enemy of Ali and his offspring. His hatred and animosity caused him to desecrate the grave of Imam Husayn in Karbala. He prohibited people from visiting it4 , and he never gave anything nor was he generous to anyone except to those who cursed Ali and his offspring.

The incident involving al-Mutawakkil and the famous scholar of linguistics `allama Ibn al-Sikkeet is well known; he killed him in the very worst manner, cutting his tongue off when he discovered that he was a follower of Ali and his Ahlul Bayt, although he was the tutor of both of his [al-Mutawakkil's] sons.

Al-Mutawakkil's animosity towards Ali and his adherence to Nasibism went as far as killing any new born named “Ali” because it was the most hateful name to him. When Ali ibn al-Jahm, the poet, met al-Mutawakkil, he said, “O commander of the faithful! My parents have done me a great deal of injustice.” Al-Mutawakkil asked him, “How so?” He said, “They named me Ali although I hate this name and anyone named by it.” Al-Mutawakkil laughed and ordered him to be richly rewarded.

One man used to live inside al-Mutawakkil's meeting house. He was an etertaining buffoon who used to mimick Ali ibn Abu Talib and thus make fun of him. Upon seeing him, people would

laugh and say, “Here comes the bald man, the man with the big stomach!” So he would be ridiculed by everyone meeting there to the delight and amusement of the caliph.

We must not forget in this regard to point out to the fact that this al-Mutawakkil, whose animosity towards Ali revealed his hypocrisy and promiscuity, was very much loved by the scholars of hadith who vested upon him the title of “Muhyyi al-Sunnah,” the one who revived the Sunnah. And since those scholars of hadith were themselves “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah,” it is proven by the evidence which has no room for any doubt that what they meant by the “Sunnah” was simply hating Ali ibn Abu Talib and cursing him and dissociating themselves from him; it is, in a word, Nasibism.

What makes this matter more clear is that al-Khawarizmi says the following on p. 135 of his book: “Even Haroun ibn al-Khayzaran and Ja`far al-Mutawakkil alal-shaitan (the one who relies on Satan), rather than on al-Rahman (the Merciful One), used not to give any money or wealth except to those who cursed the family of Abu Talib and who supported the sect of the Nasibis.”

Ibn Hajar has quoted Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal saying, “When Nasr ibn Ali ibn Sahban narrated a tradition saying that the Messenger of Allah took the hand of al-Hasan and al-Husayn and said, `Whoever loves me and loves both of these men and their parents will be in my level on the Day of Judgment,' al-Mutawakkil ordered him to be whipped one thousand lashes. He almost died had Ja`far ibn Abd al-Wahid not kept interceding on his behalf with al-Mutawakkil, saying to him, `O commander of the faithful! He is one of Ahlul Sunnah,' and he persisted in doing so till he (Nasr) was left alone.”5

Any wise person will understand the statement made by Ja`far ibn Abd al-Wahid to al-Mutawakkil that Nasr was among “Ahlul Sunnah,” in order to save his life, to be an additional testimony to the fact that Ahlul Sunnah are the enemies of Ahlul Bayt who are hated by al-Mutawakkil. The latter used to kill anyone who mentioned even one of their merits even if he was not a Shi`a.

Ibn Hajar indicates in the same book that Abdullah ibn Idris al-Azdi was a man of “al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah,” that he was very strict in upholding the “Sunnah,” pleasing others, and that he sympathized with Uthman.6

About Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri, the [same Sunni] author says: “He is held as reliable, and he used to be consistent in his worship, very firm in upholding the Sunnah, and in being tough against the people who invent innovations; Ibn Sa`d says that he was a supporter of Uthman.”7 He has also indicated that Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani used to follow the Hareezi sect (i.e. the sect founded by Hareez ibn Uthman al-Dimashqi), who was well known for adhering to the beliefs of the Nasibis, and Ibn Hayyan has said, “He was very zealous in adhering to the Sunnah.”8

All this makes us draw the conclusion that Nasibism and hatred towards Ali and his offspring, the cursing of the descendants of Abu Talib, the condemning of Ahlul Bayt..., is regarded by them as “zeal in adhering to the Sunnah.” We have also come to know so far that the supporters of Uthman are the ones who promoted Nasibism and hatred towards Ahlul Bayt, and they are the ones who were very tough with anyone who was loyal to Ali and his offspring.

The label of “innovators” was attached by them to the Shi`as who called for the Imamate of Ali because, to them, that was an innovation, since it disagreed with the policies of the “righteous caliphs” and the “good predecessors,” the policy of expelling the Imam and not recognizing his Imamate and Wisayat.

Historical facts supporting this statement are quite abundant, but what we have already stated here should suffice those who wish to research this issue further and investigate it on their own. We have, as has always been our habit, tried to be brief, and researchers have to keep in mind that they can find many times this much if they wish.

(As for) those who struggle hard for Us, We will most certainly guide them in Our ways, and Allah is most surely with the doers of good. (Holy Qur'an, 29:69)

Notes

1. In the coming researches, you will Insha-Allah come to find out that Umayyad and `Abbaside rulers were the very people who brought those sects to existence and forced people to follow them.

2. We have excluded from this list Imam Ali because he distinguished between shrewd judgment and good management, between the shrewdness of cunning, deception and hypocrisy. He has said more than once, “Had it not been for deception and hypocrisy, I would have been ranked the most shrewd person among the Arabs,” as stated in the Holy Qur'an: “They plan, and Allah plans, and surely Allah is the best of planners.” Allah's plans mean wisdom and good management. As for the polytheists' plans, they are nothing but deception, hypocrisy, swindling, forgery, and falsehood.

3. For more details, refer to Al-Sila bayn al-Tasawwuf wal Tashayyu` by Dr. Mustafa Kamil al-Shibeebi, an Egyptian author. By bringing ten strong arguments, al-Shibeebi proves that Abdullah ibn Saba', the Jew, or “Ibn al-Sawdaa'“ (son of the black woman) was a pseydonym and title maliciously given to Ammar ibn Yasir because he was a follower of Imam Ali.

4. If the caliph went that far in meanness and lowliness to the extent that he dug up the graves of the Imams from Ahlul Bayt , especially that of the master of the youths of Paradise, do not ask beyond that what they did to the Shi`as who used to seek Allah's blessings by visiting that grave. The Shi`as suffered the ultimate pain and tribulation.

5. This is quoted in Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, in his biography of Nasr ibn Ali ibn Sahban.

6. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vo. 5, p. 145. It is a well known fact that those who sympathized with Uthman used to curse Ali and accuse him of killing Uthman ibn Affan.

7. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 8, p. 348.

8. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 82.