His Eminence, the Messenger of Allah (S) was the founder of Islam. During his lifetime, all the Muslims were united and there were no sects. It was such because the prophet was the sole point of reference who was consulted with regarding the Holy Qur’an and religious matters. If any difference arose among the Muslims regarding some matter, the Prophet was present there in person to remove it.

No one had the right to object to any decision of the Prophet, or express his own opinion because the Almighty Allah had declared:

“…then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the apostle…” (4:59)

Hence, during the tenure of the Prophet, all Muslims used to present to him their problems and the issue of differing opinions never arose.

After the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), all Muslims were unanimous on six points of religious belief:

l. God is one

2. His Eminence, Muhammad (S) is the messenger of God.

3. The Holy Qur’an is revealed by God.

4. On the Judgment Day all those who are dead would be raised to life again.

5. Accounting of deeds will take place on Judgment Day.

6. Paradise and Hell are real.

These six points are related to fundamentals of the Islamic faith. As far as religious rituals are concerned - like prayers, fasting, the Hajj pilgrimage and the Zakat tax - the messenger of Allah (S) himself demonstrated their methods. Nevertheless, there arose differences among the Muslims on issues, in which ijtihad1 can be practised.

These issues were related to the details of beliefs and matters of Islamic jurisprudence. However, such differences did not change the basis of one’s being a Muslim, and did not remove one from the pale of Islam because:

1. The difference pertained not to the oneness of being but to the oneness of qualities. That is, whether the qualities of Allah are inherent in His own being or in addition to His being.

2. The difference is not about the messengership of His Eminence, the Holy Prophet (S) but about his infallibility, that is whether he was infallible before his appointment as Prophet, or his infallibility began only when he was appointed as a divine messenger.

3. Difference didn't arise regarding the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an, but about its being created or eternal.

4. Differences didn't crop up about the occurrence of Resurrection. It is about whether human beings will be resurrected with their original bodies, or only their souls shall be made to account for their deeds.

Also, there was no difference about the prayers being obligatory. The difference arose over whether the chapter of Qur’an (surah) is a part of the prayers, or otherwise. So, difference over such matters do not become the cause of one being expelled from Islam. Neither can it be said that he is not a follower of the Holy Prophet (S).

Major Muslim Sects

After the departure of the Holy Prophet (S), differences developed among the Muslims over some principles of Islam that refer to faith and spiritual matters. Differences also developed over secondary matters that refer to articles of acts being obligatory, unlawful, or permissible. The Mu’tazila and Asha’ira sects came into existence due to differences over the fundamentals of faith. But these differences were not about jurisprudence that are related to deeds.

Meanwhile, the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali schools came about because of differences over matters related to jurisprudence.2 In the matter of principles of faith, all these sects follow the Asha’ira school, referring to Abu al-Hasan Asha’ari Baghdadi.3

Shi’a scholars agree with other Muslims on the principles of faith but differ with them about many problems of jurisprudence. In this way, the difference in principles of faith is not the cause of agreement in secondary matters of religion, and difference in secondary matters of religion is not the cause of agreement in principles of faith.

Some scholars have carried the number of Islamic sects to 73 to make it in conformity with a tradition quoted from the Holy Prophet (S), in which he is reported to have said: “The Jews were divided into 71 sects (after Musa) and Christians got divided into 72 sects (after Isa). (After me) My followers will be divided into 73 sects.”

We present below a brief account of the Islamic sects. The following are four major groups viz:

1. Shi’a

2. Khawarij

3. Mu’tazila

4. Asha’ira.

Shi’a

According to the Shi’a belief, the appointment of an Imam (leader) is the duty of the Holy Prophet of Islam. This matter was not delegated to the ummah. The Shi’as believe that the Holy Prophet has clearly specified Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) as his successor and Imam of the ummah,4and that it is necessary for the Imam to be superior to the companions of the Prophet

The Shi’as also believe that it is necessary for the Imam to be immune from committing mistakes.

Khawarij

Khawarij is distinct from other Islamic sects. They believe that it is not necessary for the caliph to be from the Quraish or Arabs. Arabs and non-Arabs are equal in the matter of Islamic rulership.

The Khawarij believe that one who commits a major sin becomes an infidel. They also believe that it is sinf ul-to have an opinion against the opinion of Khawarij sect, and to perform Ijtihaad. Although the Khawarij knew that Imam Ali didn’t take any steps in connection with the arbitration (in the Battle of Siffin), they considered him infidel because he had agreed to it.

A group of Khawarij, called Azariqa, believes that whoever opposes the Khawarij is a polytheist and that it is necessary to fight and eliminate him.

Mu’tazila

There are five principles that distinguish Mu’tazila from other sects.

1. Unity in the sense that Allah is One and that His attributes are inherent in Him.

2. Justice in the sense that the affairs of a man’s life is determined by himself.

3. Belief in ‘a stage between two stages', which means that a person who commits a major sin neither remains a believer, nor does he become a disbeliever (he is however a transgressor). He does not remain a believer because he has not perfected his good qualities and he is not a disbeliever because he testifies to the oneness of God and Prophethood (of Muhammad). After death, he shall remain in Hell forever, because in the Hereafter there is either Paradise or Hell. Nevertheless, in Hell his punishment will not be severe, and he can be called a Muslim.

4. Belief in ‘promise’ and ‘threat’: It means that when Allah promises spiritual reward or threatens punishment, His promise or threat cannot change and a person whom He has promised punishment will not be forgiven.

5. Enjoining (others) to do good and restraining them from evil are obligatory from the standpoint of reason and not from that of Shari’ah.

Asha’ira

Asha’ira and Mu’tazila agree on two points, but Asha’ira differs from Mu’tazila in following five points. The Asha’ira say:

1. Allah 's attributes are not inherent in His being; they are in addition to it.

2. Man does not have a free will. He is helpless against destiny.

3. It is not obligatory on Allah to fulfil promises of reward and punishment (nothing is incumbent on Allah). He can punish doers of good deeds and reward the sinners, because Allah's deeds are not obligations that must be fulfilled by Him, and Allah does not perform any indecent act.5

4. One who commits a major sin is not at a stage between faith and disbelief, and he will not remain in Hell forever.

5. Enjoining good and forbidding evil is obligatory from the religious point of view and not from the viewpoint of reason.

Shi’as agree with Mu’tazila regarding the unity of godhead and divine justice.6. But the Shi’as do not agree with them on the remaining three points.

Regarding major sins and enjoining good and forbidding evil, they agree with Asha’ira. On the question of promises and threats, Shi’as do not agree with either Asha’ira or Mu’tazila. They maintain that Allah honours the promises He has made regarding rewards, but it is not necessary that He carries out the threats He has given regarding punishment. The mercy of Allah is vast. Hence, He can forgive the sinners. It is not appropriate from the viewpoint of reason that He should not reward those who do good deeds.

The Shi’a Faith

Shi’a literally means a follower and a supporter. But, in general parlance, Shi’a is one who follows the twelve imams of the family of the Prophet. The first of among them is Ali (‘a) and the last being the promised Mahdi. The Qur’an says:

“And most surely Ibrahim was his (Nuh’s) Shi’a” (37:83).

According to historians and theologians, Shi’a is the sect that has love and devotion for Imam Ali and his descendants, and we mentioned earlier that Shi’as believe that it is obligatory to specify the Imam and that the Prophet specifically stated that Ali would be his successor.

Beginning Of Shi’ism

Some people say that Shi’ism began as a consequence of a political issue that has no relation with Islam. This is completely wrong. The origin of Shi’a faith was due to a religious matter that had not the least connection with politics. The sources of Shi’a faith are sayings and practice of the Prophet.

The Holy Prophet (S) chose Imam Ali for co­operation and brotherhood. He had taken care and nurtured him since childhood, trained and educated him. All his life he had never criticize Imam Ali, nor did he ever call him to account on anything. Imam Ali represented the Prophet at some important occasions and in difficult situations.

It was only Imam Ali, who communicated the beginning verses of Surah Bara’at to the polytheists on the occasion of Hajj. The Holy Prophet (S) chose Imam Ali to kill Amr Ibn Abd Wudd in the Battle of the Ditch and to kill Marhab during the Battle of Khaibar. He took with himself Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn at the event of imprecation (Mubahila) against the Christians of Najran (Yemen). It was Imam Ali who mounted the shoulders of the Holy Prophet (S) and destroyed the idols in the holy Kaaba on the day of the conquest of Mecca. It was Imam Ali who was along with the Holy Prophet (S) under his cloak.

Indeed, innumerable excellences of this kind are peculiar to Imam Ali and if any other companion of the Holy Prophet (S) had possessed even one of them, he would have considered it to be a unique honour. As regard the remarks of the Holy Prophet (S) about Imam Ali, it must be remembered that on many occasions he specifically mentioned the virtues of Imam Ali and announced him to be his caliph after him.

The first declaration by the Holy Prophet (S) about caliphate was made at the time of the revelation of the ‘verse of warning’ and he had invited thirty men of his clan to dinner. After the dinner, the Prophet placed his hand on the shoulders of Ali (‘a) and said: ''This is my brother, executor of my will and my assistant. After me he will be my caliph; so, you must listen to him and obey him.7

The last declaration made by the Prophet about the caliphate of Imam Ali was at the time of returning from the Farewell Hajj at Ghadir Khumm. During his sermon he raised the hand of Imam Ali and said: “Of whomsoever I am the master, Ali, too, is his master.” In between his first and last declarations the Prophet had spoken about the successorship of Ali a number of times.

The Holy Prophet (S) said to Imam Ali: “O Ali, are you not pleased that you are to me as Haroon was to Musa, except that there is no prophet after me?8 He also said: “Ali is with truth and truth is with Ali.” There is also the tradition of Thaqalayn (two important things) and many other traditions quoted by Sunni scholars. There traditions have been collected by Shi’a scholars in books like Naqz ash-Shi’a, Ayan ash-Shi’a, Al­Muraja’at and Dalailus Sidq etc.

I have not seen any Sunni scholar who has not quoted traditions about the wilayat (mastership) and successorship of Imam Ali. But they have taken pains to prove that wilayat - which actually and literally denotes rulership and sovereignty – is to be understood as friendship and sincerity. They have written that the job of the successor is limited to shrouding and burial (of the Prophet). Sunni scholars have inconclusively tried to interpret these narrations in their own way and undertook great pains to derive such far-fetched meanings that in no way conform to the text of the traditions.

There is no doubt that if such a tradition had existed about any other companion, it would have been written in golden letters. If the Shi’as consider love for Imam Ali to be the treasure of faith and consider him infallible, it is all in obedience to the Prophet of Allah.

In the presence of such traditions – based on which the Shi’as express love for Imam Ali - no scope remains to doubt the guardianship of Ali (‘a) and it could not be called emotions, bigotry, and blind following of the forefathers. Based on this argument, the source of the Shi’a faith is purely religious, and it is based on the obedience to the sayings of the Holy Prophet. It has no relation to politics or political exigencies.9

Origin Of The Shi’a Faith

Egyptian writer, Shaykh Abu Zahra writes in al-Mazahib ul-Islamiya that Shi’ism is the oldest political school of Islam. This political school came into existence during the period of Uthman and was completed during the caliphate of Ali. As much he became familiar with the people, the more he acquainted them with the with the greatness of Shi’ism, the firmness of religion, and his own knowledge.

Some people say that Shi’ism came into existence in the Battle of the Camel and others say that it appeared with the birth of the Khawarij.

In his book, Ali wa Banuhu, Dr. Taha Husayn writes: “Shi’ism became an organized political group during the time of Imam Hasan.”

However, the fact is that Shi’ism came into existence simultaneously with the explicit declaration by the Prophet of the imamate of Ali, and with the belief of some companions of the Prophet in the virtues of Imam Ali. According to the statement of Ibn Abil Hadid, Ammar Ibn Yasir, Miqdad Ibn Aswad, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Buraidah, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Ubayy Ibn Ka’ab, Huzaifah Ibn Yaman, Sahl Ibn Hunayf, Uthman Ibn Hunayf, Abu al-Haytham Ibn Taihan, Abi Tufayl and all the Hashemites were Shi’as (followers) of Ali (‘a).

Allamah Shaykh Muhamrnad Hasan Muzaffar, in his book Tarikh Shi’a, quotes from Muhammad Kurd Ali's Khutatush Sham,10 that among the prominent companions of the Prophet who supported Imam Ali during the time of Prophet was Salman al-Farsi. He used to say: “We took oath of allegiance to the Prophet, who was a well-wisher of Muslims, and we were among the Shi’as of Ali.”

Abu Said Khudri is reported to have said, “The Holy Prophet ordered the people five things. They acted on four and abandoned the fifth.” On being inquired about the four things, Abu Saeed said, “They are Prayers, Zakat, Fasting and Hajj.” Then he was asked, “Which is the fifth thing that was abandoned?” He replied, “Wilayat of Ali.” He was asked, “Is the Wilayat of Ali of the same rank as the four obligatory acts?” He replied, “Yes, the Wilayat of Ali is of the same rank as these four obligatory acts.”

The Shi’as And Abdullah Bin Saba’

Some people believe that the Shi’a faith is an innovation by Abdullah Ibn Saba’,11 even though this view is absurd, and it is held on account of the lack of information about the Shi’a faith. It is so because those who are aware of the aversion expressed by Shi’as for his words and conduct, and the manner in which he has been condemned by the Shi’a scholars, the Shi’a faith cannot be attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba. Muhammad Kurd Ali is neither a Shi’a nor a supporter of Shi’as. However, he honestly mentioned the facts and has not mixed it with personal motives.

All this shows that the meaning of the Shi’a faith is the belief in imamate of Imam Ali (‘a) as confirmed by the Holy Prophet. Hence, it is natural that the birth of the Shi’a faith took place when the Prophet issued a statement about the wilayat (mastership) of Imam Ali. The first such statement was made by the Holy Prophet when he preached his religion for the first time.

The origin of Shi’a faith was, therefore, concurrent with the advent of Islam and the appointment of the Prophet to Prophethood.

Why Imam Ali (‘A) Remained Silent

It is often asked why, if Imam Ali had been nominated for the caliphate by the Holy Prophet, why did he keep quiet when Abu Bakr assumed the caliphate, and why did he not raise any objection? This question has been repeatedly asked since the time of Imam Ali to the present day, and it was put to him also.

Below is a gist of Imam Ali's view in light of what we have gathered from historical accounts:

1. Lack of Support

2. To safeguard Islam

3. He’s not keen on gaining political power

4. Existence of internal enemies

5. Existence of envious people

Lack Of Support

In reply to this question, Imam Ali said: “My silence in the matter of caliphate was not because I feared death, but it was because the Holy Prophet (S) had said to me: People will betray you and will not honour the covenant that they made to me, and your relationship to me is same as that of Haroon’s to Musa.”

Imam Ali (‘a) says: “I asked the Holy Prophet: What will be my duty when the people betray me? He replied: If there is some to support you, fight the people and acquire your right. And if you have no supporter, ignore them and protect your life so that you may leave the world as a victim.”

Imam Ali (‘a) added: “I follow the example of seven past prophets.

First, Prophet Nuh (‘a) when he said to his Lord:

“(O Lord!) ‘I am one overpowered, do Thou then help (me)!’” (54:10).

Second, Prophet Ibrahim (‘a) who said:

“And I will withdraw from you and what you call on besides Allah” (19:48).

Third, Prophet Lut (‘a) who said:

“Would that I had power to suppress you or that I could betake myself to some Powerful support” (11:80).

Fourth, Prophet Yusuf (‘a) who said:

“My Lord! the prison house is dearer to me than that to which they invite me” (12:33).

Fifth, Prophet Musa (‘a), who said:

“So I fled from you when I feared you” (26:21).

Sixth, Prophet Haroon (‘a), who said:

“… Son of my mother! surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me…” (7:150).

Seventh, Prophet Muhammad (S), when he escaped from the polytheists and took refuge in the cave.

In light of these examples, Imam Ali observed a goodly patience in the face of hardships, and after attaining caliphate, he explained his views in the Shiqshiqya sermon in these words:12

“…But I was forced to bear this usurpation and turn my face away from the calamity. I was at crossroads. There were two alternatives before me: either to fight for my rights without supporters, or patiently endure the usurpation; the endurance was going to be so sad and of such a long duration that during this period young men would become old, the old would lose their powers and the sincere people would leave the world unsuccessfully trying to improve the situation. After thoughtf ul-consideration, I arrived at the conclusion that the wisest course for me was to face the disaster with patience and courage. I, therefore, bore it all patiently.”13

Imam Ali Ridha’ was asked: “Why did Imam Ali (‘a) lead a life of seclusion for 25 years after the Holy Prophet, but waged wars after attaining caliphate?” Imam replied. “In doing so, Imam Ali (‘a) followed the example of the Holy Prophet who allowed respite to the polytheists of Mecca for 14 years and 7 months (13 years in Mecca and 19 months in Medina) and did not fight them. The reason the Holy Prophet did not fight during this period was the lack of support. In the same way Imam Ali (‘a) had to face lack of supporters to fight a war.”

When we study the holy Qur’an, we find two types of verses. The first type recommends to the Holy Prophet to remain patient in the face of inconveniences that he had to suffer at the hands of the polytheists. For example, the holy Qur’an says:

“…. But if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient” (16:126).

“And be patient and your patience is not but by (the assistance of Allah…” (16:127).

“And bear patiently what they say…” (73:10).

“Therefore, bear up patiently as did the apostles endowed with constancy bear up with patience…” (46:35).

“So, wait patiently for the judgement of your Lord…” (68:48).

There are also other similar verses in which the Holy Prophet has been asked to observe patience in face of the offensive words of the polytheists.

Another set of verses speaks of waging war.

“Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people” (9:14).

“So, when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners...” (47:4).

“And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught” (47:35).

The verses in which patience is recommended were revealed at a time when the Prophet had few supporters and did not possess any army or weapons. There is no doubt that at such a time he should have remained patient because when one is weak, fighting brings about results that are the opposite of one's goal and only encourages the enemy to proceed with confrontation and bloodshed. But when the Holy Prophet has acquired an army and strength, he was ordered to destroy the polytheists and purify the earth from their impurity.

A close scrutiny of the above verses shows that patience in the face of the enemy is good at times, and undesirable at another. Furthermore, the error of the famous orientalist, Ignaz Goldziher also becomes clear. In his book Al-Aqeeda wa ash-Shariah,14 (Arabic translation 1946) he writes:

“When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was spending his days in helplessness and patience, but when he reached Medina, he became the head of a military State.

From the time Muhammad left Mecca, the circumstances changed, and it was no longer necessary to be lenient with the polytheists ...After Muhammad had been thinking of the hereafter, he suddenly became inclined to worldly desires...This historical policy of Islam shows that Islam is a war-like religion which does not conform to its early stages.”

This analysis of Goldziher is erroneous. The prophethood of His Eminence, Muhammad (S) acquired perfection at all stages without any contradiction because when he was ordered to observe patience, it was because he did not possess strength and support and could not fight against the oppressors. But, when he gained strength, he waged an all-out war on them.

This is neither surprising nor illogical because if a person is in need of something and does not possess enough money to purchase it, he will wait till he saves the required amount. But, if even after accumulating that amount, he still does not purchase that item, it shows that he is miserly and prefers to keep himself in discomfort.

The same is the case with the conduct of the Holy Prophet. When he was in Mecca, he did not fight against the polytheists because he did not have adequate army and arms. But when he gained power in Medina, he decided to face the polytheists and put a stop to their oppressions.15

Safeguarding Islam

The new converts to Islam - in the beginning - were still shaky in their faith. And from the aspect of organization, they did not possess enough strength to face external attacks especially when apostates16 had revolted in different parts of Arabia. On one side the prophet organized an army under Usamah Ibn Zaid to fight the Romans before he breathed his last. On the other side, the Romans and Persians were waiting for an opportunity to attack the new Islamic state and destroy Islam. In such a delicate situation, if Imam Ali had fought against Abu Bakr to acquire the caliphate, the newly constructed edifice of Islam would have crumbled.

In that event, the greatness of Islam would have vanished, and the standard of Islam would have fallen. Is it possible that a person who had fought for advancement of the religion of Allah and who secured dignity for Islam should himself take such steps by which the foundation of Islam is wrecked?

Indeed, Imam Ali remained quiet to safeguard Islam and did not bring about a civil war. Such conduct was quite reasonable. Supposing someone owes you money but refuses to repay, and you know that if you force him for payment bloodshed would ensue, so you refrain from raising a dispute for the sake of peace.

Imam Ali Was Not Keen On Acquiring Political Power

The Egyptian author, Prof. Mahmood Abbas Aqqad, in his book, Fatimahtuz Zahra17 writes:

“Ali was sure that he was entitled to caliphate, but he could not have revolted against the regime. It was for the society to rise up and demand for his right.”

This view of Aqqad is consistent with the pious conduct of Imam Ali (‘a).

He (Ali) has himself said: “In my view, the value of your world is not more than the sneezing of a goat.”

A Gnostic has praised Imam Ali's piety in these words:

“In his view the world was inferior to ashes placed before a gust of wind, and death was more welcome to him than drinking water at the time of intense thirst.”

When the value of the world before Imam Ali was such, the nature of his government becomes evident.

Internal Enemies

Imam Ali (‘a) had many enemies amongst the Muslims whose fathers, brothers and relatives had been killed by his sword in various battles. If he had risen to recover his rights, they would have falsely accused him of creating disunity among Muslims and would have fought against him under the pretext of religion. So, he did not want to provide an opportunity to the internal enemies. Imam Ali says: “One who provides an excuse to his enemy to destroy his flesh, skin, bones and blood, commits a major sin and is an incapable person.”

Envious People

Among the enemies of Imam Ali (‘a) there were many who were envious of him. Khalil Ibn Ahmad was asked: When the companions of the Holy Prophet were like brothers of one another, why was Ali like one who had no brother?

Khalil replied: “As Imam Ali had embraced Islam earlier than all others and was superior to them in nobility, wisdom, knowledge, forbearance and righteousness, they were envious of him, because people are inclined to those who are of the same kind as they are.”

When Musailaima Ibn Numayl was asked as to why they forsook Imam Ali although he was the best of them, he replied: “Because their eyes were not strong enough to see the brilliance of the sun of imamate.”

Abu al-Haytham Ibn Taihan, a prominent companion, said to Imam Ali (‘a):

“The Quraish envy you for two reasons. Those who are good among them aspire to become your equals in the matter of honour and excellence, and those who are evil; their jealousy is because of their hardheartedness and bad deeds. They observe that they are deprived of the greatness that is bestowed on you, so they are not prepared to support you. They wish to excel over you. I swear by Allah, their aim is a long one. When they were unable to compete with you, they did with you what you have seen. By Allah, you are most deserving to be thanked by Quraish, because it was you that supported the Holy Prophet during his lifetime, and when he breathed his last you executed his will and repaid his debts. 1 swear by Allah that the Quraish have been unjust to Allah and have broken their covenant with Him. Allah will take revenge on them. We, Ansar, support you with our hands and tongues. We will fight with our hands those enemies of yours who are present, and with our tongues those who are absent.”

When Muslims harboured enmity towards Imam Ali (‘a), with whose support could he fight and upon whom could he depend? On the contrary, the supporters of Abu Bakr displayed their strength to obtain oath of allegiance for him.

Ibn Abil Hadid writes in his Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha:

The group of Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaidah Ibn al-Jarrah and other companions approached every person and without caring whether he was inclined to do allegiance to Abu Bakr or not, they grabbed his hand and put it on the hand of Abu Bakr.

Ali Abdur Razzaq writes in Al-Islam wa al-Usool al-Hukm:

Allegiance to Abu Bakr was obtained by force like modern governments obtain power by coercion. Since the government of Abu Bakr - like all governments of the world - depended on force and they were sure that Imam Ali would not fight against them, they compelled him to accept either of the two extremes (fight or take the oath of allegiance). As Islam was likely to suffer less by his taking oath of allegiance, he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Development Of The Shi’a Faith

As we said before, the Shi’a faith came into existence at the time of the Holy Prophet, and some of the companions believed that Imam Ali was more deserving of caliphate than others. Therefore, Ali and his associates didn’t give allegiance to Abu Bakr in the early stage. What mattered most to Imam Ali (‘a) was the safety of Islam and the well-being of the people; that is why he behaved with his opponents in a tolerant manner.

Without any doubt, public finance was administered in a transparent manner during the reigns of Abu Bakr and Umar, and they did not accord preference to any relative of theirs in government affairs. There was thus no occasion for engineering a revolution. However, when Uthman, Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas rulers deviated from the right path - and caliphate became rulership18 - it became necessary for Shi’as to fight and protest against the respective rulers and to confront them.

Those who revolt against governments to gain political control do not say that they are fighting for the throne; they only claim that their struggle is for the reformation of society and protection of rights that these tyrant rulers have violated.

From this aspect, during the rule of Abu Bakr and Umar, evils had not appeared so prominently, and rights had not been violated such that fighting might have become necessary. Hence during their time, campaign and criticism of Shi’as had no visible effect. But the evils of Uthman's rule finally led to his assassination. ln short, the more the regimes of Bani Umayyah, Bani Abbas and others oppressed the people and encroached upon their rights, the louder was the voice of Shi’a protest. And they clamoured more for justice and for the transfer of the political power to the family of Ali.

Who Can Lead The Muslims

Shi’as believe that Imam Ali was specified by the Holy Prophet (S) to be chosen for imamate. Therefore, his special qualities became the standard for Muslim rulers.

All his life, Imam Ali never prostrated before idols and never associated anyone with Allah. During his entire life, he did not do anything wrong intentionally or otherwise. Hence, it is necessary that a leader of Muslims and a successor of the prophet should be infallible like the prophets. Regarding the necessity of infallibility for a leader of Muslims, Shi’as say:

“Like the prophets, the leaders of Muslims are defenders of Islam and enforcers of its laws. If it be permissible for them to oppose the laws of Islam, they can neither defend Islam nor promote the laws which they themselves violate.”

To prove this point, Shi’as quote the verse:

“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely, I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He” (2:124).

According to this verse, oppressors and sinners who have disobeyed Allah even once in their lifetime, are not eligible for the imamate and leadership of Muslims.

Just as Imam Ali (‘a) was superior to all other companions of the prophet, it is necessary that a leader of the Muslims should be superior to all people of his time in respect of all good qualities, because according to the dictates of reason and religion, a person who is superior from the point of view of wisdom and piety cannot obey those who are inferior to him in this regard. Allah says in the Qur’an:

“Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?” (10:35).

These qualities, which the Shi’a consider necessary for a leader of Muslims and for their imam, were not seen in any of the rulers and are peculiar only to Imam Ali (‘a) and his purified descendants (imams). The first among them was appointed by the Holy Prophet, and each subsequent Imam was nominated by his predecessor.

In light of this, Shi’as do not formally recognize rulers who are not descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) and consider them usurpers of the rights of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) because this position had been specifically granted by the Almighty to the pure descendants of Imam Ali (‘a). Shi’as have always opposed such usurping rulers and have campaigned against them.

If the Shi’as have been silent at some times, it does not mean that they acknowledged those rulers as legitimate. They have always maintained that usurpers have no right to rule. They have also always campaigned against rulers who did not fulfil the conditions of rulership (viz. specific nomination for rulership, infallibility and superiority).

This clearly shows for what crime the Shi’as were killed, deprived and persecuted in every period of history. It also shows that the Shi’a campaign against the rulers was based on nothing but religion and faith.

• 1. The reasoning process in deriving Islamic laws.
• 2. Contemporary intellectuals who have accepted the Shi’a faith like the author of Tajjalli, the respected Muhammad Tejani Samawi Tunisi, the author of Fareh, Salih al-Wurdani Misri and the author of Haqeeqat Ghumshuda, Shaykh Motasim Sayyid Ahmad Sudani have presented detailed discussions of this matter. Urdu translations of all these books were published by Majma Ilmi Islami.
• 3. d. 875 A.H.
• 4. This clarification is present in the books of Ahl al-Sunna. Comprehensive discussions of this matter can be found in these books: Shafi’i by Alam ul-Huda Sayyid Murtaza, Dalailus Sidq by Syaikh Muhammad Hasan Muzaffar, Al-Murajaat by Sayyid Sharafuddin Musawi, Al-Ghadir by Allamah Abu al-Husayn Amini and Ayan ash-Shi’a by Sayyid Mohsin Amin.
• 5. There were some scholars among Muslims who denied the principle of divine justice. According to them, the Almighty Allah is higher than these principles in His natural and legislative system. His acts and laws can never be restricted by any rule and no law is fixed for them. Whatever Allah does is right and just, and not that He does only that which is rightful and just. In the same way, His laws are themselves justice and not that his laws are made to follow justice. From this theory, those scholars concluded that there is nothing in the system that can prevent a righteous and good person from being punished in the hereafter or prevent a terrible sinner - despite his mortal sins – from being rewarded with Paradise.
  In the same way, there is nothing that prevents some people from being bestowed with all the bounties in this world while some others remain deprived, because Justice and Injustice are not real and rational concepts. They are only dependent on the Shariah. Whatever the Shariah commands is itself justice. Since the apparent aspect of this mode of thinking is that Shariah is not under the dictates of reason and law, people considered it to be a acknowledgement of the greatness and importance of Shariah, and since this way of thinking was favoured by the people, very soon it gained acceptance and created a great wave in the Islamic world. (Ustad Martyr Murtaza Mutahari, Sayings, Pg. 382.)
• 6. There is a very old saying:
  “Divine Justice and unity of godhead are principles of the Alawites and fixed destiny and making comparison (qiyas) are principles of the Umayyads”
• 7. Tabari in his Tafsir and Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, have replaced the word ‘brother, successor and caliph' by 'so and so'. Ibn Hisham also has written in his preface to his Sirah: I have omitted in this book of mine sentences of Sirah Ibn Ishaq that people do not like.” In the same way, the Egyptian scholar Muhammad Husayn Haikal had quoted this tradition in full in the first edition of his book Hayat Muhammad on page 104, but in the second edition in 1325 A.H., this quotation was deleted.
• 8. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Pg. 408
• 9. Some orientalists and western writers are of the opinion that Shi’ism came into being after the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (‘a). According to them, the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (‘a) created a revolution in the thinking and views of the Shi’as as a result of which they organized themselves and Shi’ism appeared as a systematic faith. Prior to this, there was no organization among the Shi’as. Before the great martyrdom of Imam Husayn (‘a), the position of Shi’ism was of a political group and the particular views of Shi’ism were not entrenched in the minds of the people and mixed in their blood. When Imam Husayn (‘a) was martyred, Shi’ism began to run in the veins of the people and appeared as a straightforward faith, as the American scholar of Iranian descent, Ridha’ Aslan, writes in his book No god but God (published by Random House Paperbacks, New York, on page 178):
  Put simply, the memory of Karbala was slowly transforming the Shi’ism of Ali from a political faction with the aim of restoring the leadership of the community to the family of the Prophet, into an utterly distinct religious sect in Islam. Shi’ism, a religion founded on the ideal of the righteous believer who - following in the footsteps of the martyrs at Karbala - willingly sacrifices himself in the struggle for justice against oppression.
  The author of Lawrence of Arabia and Arab scholar, Anthony Nulling in his book, The Arabs, (published by Mentor Books, New York, 1964) under the heading of Shi’a Revolt and Abbasid Decline on page 155, writes:
  “The Shi’a movement had begun in Arabia at the time of the prophet's death as a political party dedicated to placing Ali on the caliphate throne. From then until the death of Ali's son, Husayn, it was purely an Arab movement. But as the Omayyads' rigid class structure embittered the mawali converts to Islam in the Persian east, the Shi’a saw their opportunity to broaden the base of their movement and to expand their numbers. Thus, the original partisans of Ali grew into an international movement, bent not only on restoring the Alids to the caliphate but also on staging a social revolution on behalf of the oppressed classes everywhere within the empire.”
• 10. Vol. 5, Pg. 251.
• 11. The gist of the fiction of Saif Ibn Umar is that Abdullah Ibn Saba’ was about a Yemenite Jew who made a show of converting to Islam during the period of Uthman while in fact he continued to conspire against Islam secretly. He roamed through Islamic centres like Syria, Kufa, Basra and Egypt and spread the propaganda that like Prophet Jesus (‘a), Prophet Muhammad would also return. He also used to claim that every prophet had a successor, and the successor of Muhammad was Ali, and just as Prophet Muhammad was the seal of the prophets, Ali (‘a) is the seal of the successors. Also, that as Uthman had oppressed Ali and usurped his right, the people should rise and restore the rights to its owner. Under the influence of this propaganda, some Muslims rebelled and reached Medina, laid siege to Uthman's palace, and finally assassinated him. All this took place under the supervision of Sabains. And also, that leaders of the two parties in Battle of Camel didn't want hostilities to take place but the Sabains concocted such a plot during the night that battle ensued, and it never became clear who had started the battle.
  Dr. Taha Husayn has denied the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba in his book, Al-Fitnat ul-Kubra. The contemporary research scholar, Allamah Sayyid Murtaza Askari in his book, Abdullah Ibn Saba has investigated and evaluated the subject thoroughly, but it is a matter of regret that the agents of imperialism and proponents of the restoration of caliphate continue to repeat the same old story of Abdullah Ibn Saba.
  Dr. Israr Ahmad in his column in the Jang Daily of Karachi (dated 12 Rabi’ul-awwal 1429 A.H.) writes under the heading “Azmat-e-Musrafa; Maghrib ka Gusrakhana Rawaiyya”:
  “In this conspiracy, the Jews head the list, and their enmity was because the Holy Prophet (S) was not from Bani Israel while the Jews believed that prophethood was restricted to Bani Israel. After migration to Medina, the people of Medina removed Abdullah Ibn Ubayy who had the support of the Jews and made the Holy Prophet (S) their leader. This struck like a bolt of lightning on the Jews. From that day, they made the personality of the Holy Prophet (S) as the target of their conspiracies. After his departure, another Jew in the garb of Islam played a very important role in dividing the Islamic community.”
  For the kind information of Dr. Israr Ahmad, it was not the fictional Abdullah Ibn Saba who caused harm to Islam, it was the so-called scholars who connived with imperialism to deliver an effective strike on Islam. It is a saying of the Holy Prophet (S) that three types of people are disasters for religion: A sinf ul-scholar, an ignorant and foolish worshipper, and an oppressive ruler.
  The historical fact is that Saif Ibn Umar fabricated the fictional figure of Abdullah Ibn Saba’ in the second half of the second century of Hijra. And exactly 120 years after that, it began to be propagated that Abdullah Ibn Saba’ was the founder of Shi’ism. Apart from Saif Ibn Umar, no one else has mentioned this baseless story and in every age, the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba’ has remained a question mark. May Dr. Israr Ahmad please explain to us why such an influential character of Abdullah Ibn Saba who effectively divided the Ummah and caused chaos and destruction was not mentioned by any of the earliest historians of Islam? Why have scholars like Ibn Shahab Zuhri, Urwah Ibn Zubair, Aban Ibn Uthman, Abu Bakr Ibn Hazm, Musa Ibn Uqbah and Waqidi not said anything about such an important figure? These were the same people who compiled history and traditions in the final period of Umayyads. If Abdullah Ibn Saba’ had really existed, the greatest enemy of Imam Ali (‘a) - Mu’awiyyah and his party men - would have definitely mentioned it because Mu’awiyyah never missed any opportunity to defame Ali (‘a) and his supporters. How did this figure remain concealed from the people till the last period of the second century? Saif Ibn Umar was the first writer to present this fictional figure along with his exploits in the second half of the second century. Regarding Saif Ibn Umar, all scholars agree that he was a blatant liar, and in order to flatter the Abbasids he concocted many fictional stories. Thus, when he saw that the Alawites were becoming a challenge for Bani Abbas, he devised the imaginary tale of Abdullah Ibn Saba’ to discredit the former.
• 12. Nahj ul-Balagha, Sermon No. 7.
• 13. Fulfilling the bequest of the Messenger of Allah (S) Imam Ali (‘a) observed patience in every oppression; even when the agents of the regime dragged him forcefully from his house and took him to the mosque. Although the Imam was enraged, he remained faithful to the advice of his mentor and didn't pull out the sword, because he was neither weak nor cowardly. (Just as the world once more witnessed the exploits of the Zulfiqar (his sword) 25 years later in the battles of Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan). At that time controlling his anger and sentiments was more difficult than facing Amr Ibn Ab Wadd. (Allamah Sayyid Murtaza Askari, Role of Imams in the Revival of Re1igion, Vol. 2)
• 14. Most probably the author was referring to Golziher’s book Vorlesungen über den Islam. It’s English translation: Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, by Andras and Ruth Hamori. Was published by Princeton University Press, 1981. [Note of al-Islam.org]
• 15. Greet Wilders of Holland also, like Goldziher considers Islam to be a warring faith. The Dutch legislator, who cannot differentiate between the general and conditional commands of the Qur’an, has equated the Qur’an with Mein Kampf by Hitler; he has also demanded a ban on its publication. He has also produced a film, Fitna, on this subject, in which he wants to portray Islam as a religion that incites violence and undemocratic behaviour. This is absolutely false as it is based on erroneous understanding of Qur’an. The holy Qur’an itself says that it is cure and mercy for human beings.
• 16. Imam Ali (‘a) was compelled to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr to remove the evil because at this time some individuals outside Medina had made false claims to prophethood. For example, Musailaima al-Kazzab, during the last days of the Holy Prophet (S) had claimed prophethood. After the passing away of the prophet, there had been considerable increase in his notoriety. Ridiculing the Holy Qur’an, he had also composed some Arabic couplets and declared that there would be a prophet from his tribe and another from the Quraish. That is why his community and tribe had accepted him as a prophet.
  Gradually he gained such influence that an army consisting of 40,000 mercenaries gathered around him. They could have launched an attack on Medina any time and destroyed the whole city. If, God forbid, they had succeeded in their dirty plan, they would have first of all martyred Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (‘a) and erased even the signs of the blessed grave of the Holy Prophet (S). At that time not men made false claims of prophethood. Even a woman (of Bani Tameem tribe), named Sajjah, also claimed that she was a prophet. She had also gathered people around her by taking allegiance from them. In addition to these claimants to prophethood, many Arab tribes had turned apostates. Noman Ibn Mundhir Sawi of Bani Tameem had crowned himself in Bahrain. Also, Laqeet Ibn Malik of Bani Najiya had declared his kingship in Oman and people gave him the title of ‘the crowned one’. When the whole of Arabia was ravaged by the winds of apostasy, Uthman came to His Eminence, Ali (‘a) and said, “Cousin, you are aware of the turmoil in the community. If you don't give allegiance, Islam might be destroyed completely.” (For details see: Allamah Murtaza Askari 's Role of the Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 2, Pg. 424)
• 17. Pg. 56, Published by Dar ul-Hilal.
• 18. The late Maulana Maudoodi, in the fifth chapter of his book, Khilafat ­ O - Mulukiyat, published by Idara Tarjuman ul-Qur’an, Lahore writes that due to the entry of imperialism in Islam:
  The method of appointment of caliph was changed.
  The lifestyle of the caliphs was changed.
  The position of Public Treasury changed.
  Freedom of expression ended.
  Freedom of judiciary was over.
  The rule of consensus ended.
  Dynastic and tribal bigotry appeared.
  The supremacy of law was destroyed.
  Khwaja Hasan Nizami on page 98 of his book Yazeed Nama, published by Maktab-e-Kazimiyya, Lahore, under the topic “Political Crimes of Amir Mu’awiyyah” writes:
  “This fourteenth and twentieth centuries are the centuries of politics. In this age, even laymen are competent to discuss politics. It is a time when autocratic and dictatorial regimes are destroyed, and democracy is established in every corner of the world. Principles of equality and universal co-operation, which are taken as basis for this mission or through which demands are raised, are taken originally from Islamic republic... this same democracy was found in the period of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the four righteous caliphs.
  But Amir Muawiyah demolished this. Through the use of force and diplomacy, he violated all the powers of democracy and tried to portray himself as a Caesar and Chosroe of the Arabs. He created discrimination between the rich and the poor. His regime reinvented the racial and religious bigotry which the Holy Prophet (S) had condemned and effectively curbed. He erased the equality and commonality of people and replaced it with discrimination of individuals, as a result of which the concept of brotherhood was nowhere to be seen.
  Opposing opinions were put to death by the force of the swords. So much so, Mu’awiyyah created discrimination between people even in the matter of worship. He reserved a special place in the mosque for the king, when in Islam the beggar and king stand side by side in worship of God.
  Had Mu’awiyyah not come to power, the democratic law of the world would have been subservient to Islamic democracy. Mu’awiyyah concealed with clouds of selfishness the political progress of Muslims that had shone on the horizon of the world with the light of equality. If Mu’awiyyah had been alive today the Bengalis of India would have fired at him, and the socialists of Europe would have attempted to eliminate him. He may not be alive today, but his acts and deeds are alive in the annals of history, which the devotees of democracy and supporters of freedom will recount with malice and repugnance.