Shi’a And The Despotic Rulers

Sub Title: 

This text offers a detailed examination of the historical persecution of the Shi’a community by oppressive rulers, highlighting the political, social, and religious causes of these injustices.

It addresses the early development of Shi’ism, divisions among Muslims, and the steadfastness of Shi’a leaders against tyrannical regimes.

Key events, figures, and movements that shaped the Shi’a faith are examined, offering insights into their struggles, resilience, and contributions to Islamic thought.

Additionally, it presents Shi’i scholasticism and the views of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘A) on essential theological principles through historical accounts and religious analysis.

Get PDF [4] Get EPUB [5] Get MOBI [6]

Miscellaneous information: 

Shi’a And The Despotic Rulers Allamah Muhammad Jawad Mughniyyah Translated by: Syed Athar Husayn S. H. Rizvi Islamic Seminary, India Post Box No.: 5007 Mumbai-400009 ISBN: 81-88389-05-6 Printed by: BOOK CIRCLE M.: 9212143747,9212611547

Dedication

To the best of the people, who sincerely believe in the rights, justice, equality, and freedom mentioned in the proclamation of the “Messenger of Mercy”.

Translator's Foreword

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Praise be to Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, and we invoke Salawaat on the Messenger of Allah (S) and his Ahl Al-Bayt (household members), who were specially chosen to assist Allah's Messenger in propagating his message, and after him bear the responsibility of guarding the message and the laws brought by the last prophet of God.

In 1962 Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Jawwad Mughniyah of Lebanon had written a very important book, As-Shi’a wa al-Hakimoon, in Arabic, which highlighted the plight suffered by Shi’as at the hands of the tyrannical rulers, whom some ignorant persons think to be the 'shadow of God on the earth '!

This book was subsequently translated into many languages. The present English translation is prepared from the Urdu version, entitled: Shi’a Aur Jabir Hukumran, translated by Ridha’ Husayn Rizwani, who has also added scholarly footnotes to enhance its relevance in this present age. (It has been nearly 45 years since the book was first published).

Alhamdulillah, the English translation was completed on the 13th Rajab al-Murajjab, the day celebrated by Shi’as as the birthday of their first Imam, Ali ibn Abi Talib (‘a), through whom began the chain of infallible leaders that would continue till the end of the world.

Wassalam

Syed Athar Husayn S. H. Rizvi

Al-Qalam Translators & Writers Bureau

Email: sayedathat@hotmail.com [13]

Dated: 13 Rajab al-Murajjab 1429 A.H./ 17th July 2008

Foreword

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Bismillaa-hir Rah-maa-nir-Raheem

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

For a ruler - no matter how qualified and experienced he may be - it is impossible to rule with justice and equity, except that:

He takes counsel from people, takes them into confidence, respects their aspirations and keeps them with him in matters of national interests. Or

He is aware of the fine points of the Shari’ah and is cognizant of the intricacies of worldly matters; he fully understands national exigencies and acts according to them. Also, he should have dedicated himself to the path of God, and service to the community.

He should take all the qualities to the level of perfection that the Shi’a school of thought considers necessary for a religious and a worldly leader. He should be the best among the people and must possess divine attributes, so that he can fulfil the duties of a divine representative on the earth. To say that disobedience of a ruler tantamount to disobedience of God is applicable to only this type of ruler.

But if a ruler is bereft of these two conditions, he would naturally try to rule the society through force and compulsion, which would inevitably create oppression, extremism, constraints and injustice in the kingdom.

Indeed, the Shi’a point of view regarding the ruler is absolutely correct from the academic aspect. However, even if you search the whole world, you will not be able to find such a ruler today. Therefore, it is necessary that the ruler of today should fulfil the functions of government without hurting national sentiments and without compromising national interests.

Tussles between rulers and people are basically due to the conglomeration of all powers in a single despotic and tyrant ruler. Because of this, there is an increase in oppression, aggression, and corruption. Although under an authoritarian rule, aggression and oppression are heaped on people indiscriminately, regardless of religion and faith, this book is only concerned with the oppression of the Shi’as throughout the ages.

The reason for this is that from the point of view of Shi’a belief, one can become eligible for religious and political leadership only if he is immune from mistakes or is a person who fulfils the criteria of an infallible, based on his eligibility and personal merits. If he is not such, he has no right to rule in the name of religion. Yes! If the people trust that leader, and he fulfils the expectations of the community, he is eligible to rule in the name of the society and serve the community.1

On the contrary, other schools of thoughts do not lay such conditions for a ruler. According to them, it is unlawful to revolt or rise against the ruler who rules in the name of religion, even though he may be a tyrant and a sinner. We have fully explained this subject in this book.

Since the beginning of Muslim history, the rulers ruled in the name of Islam. According to the Shi’a faith, these rulers did not fulfil the criteria of rulership. This the Shi’as considered them usurpers and used to oppose them. As Shi’ism spread and gained wide acceptance among the people, the tyrant rulers began to have sleepless nights. Hence the Shi’as had to bear different types of persecutions at their hands.

Obviously, no ruler, especially an autocratic one can ever tolerate opposition from any section of the society. That is why, historically, Shi’as became targets of cruelties of the tyrant rulers, and those rulers pushed them to the wall. They tried to crush the Shi’as completely so that none remains to voice opposition against their rule.

The book in your hand exposes the severe and ghastly behaviour that the tyrannical regimes employed with the Shi’as. This book discusses this shameful conduct of these people that resulted in the weakening of Islam and the Islamic unity, and which created - among the Muslims masses - hatred and animosity against Shi’a Muslims. And this continued to exist for many centuries.

Also, in this book, we have described the tyrannies of those rulers who killed national aspirations and violated the rights of the real legitimate rulers, illegally occupying the seats of power. This work is also concerned with the sacrifices of those who dared to oppose the tyrants and who laid down their lives and sacrificed their close and dear ones on the altar of justice. At last, their sacrifices bore fruits, resulting in regimes being overthrown, rulership and autocracies declining and tyrant rulers getting eliminated one after another and their power vanishing.

The Shi’as accord great importance to the qualities necessary for a religious ruler. They have recorded these points in their books of jurisprudence and faith. Shi’a scholars impart the same teachings to their students in the religious seminaries. They disseminate the same concepts to people at religious gatherings and during sermons. Shi’a sources say that a ruler who rules in the name of religion, but fails to fulfil one of the above conditions, is an enemy of God, His angels, and His prophets.

ln this matter the Shi’as do not differentiate between Shi’a and Sunni rulers. Rather, in their view, the crime of a Shi’a ruler who does not rule properly is more serious because he is acting against the principles of his faith. In this matter, Shi’ism does not consider that mere knowledge and justice of the ruler is sufficient. And according to Shi’a faith, it is even unlawful to give precedence to an inferior person in presence of a superior one.2

Thus, if inferior persons occupy the seats of power - despite there being eligible persons superior to them - they shall be deemed usurpers. So, we can say with certainty that according to the Shi’a beliefs, the Buwayhid, Fatimid, Hamadanid and Safavid governments3 were not Islamic rulership. The merely political rulership. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs were also 'political’ and not ‘religious’ rulers.

It will not be out of place to mention here that from the religious point of view, the Shi’as are not opposed to a government established through consensus, which protects human rights, defends the national boundaries, and administers the country in a competent manner. However, such governments have no right to interfere in religious matters.

Therefore, the use of word 'rulers' in the title of this book ‘Shi’as and the Despotic Rulers’ does not imply only Sunni rulers; it includes all oppressive and tyrant rulers. It must also be mentioned that the hardships to which the Sunni rulers subjected the Shi’as were due to political reasons and it had no connection with religious matters.

In short, the aim of writing this book is so that the reader should have freedom in his beliefs, expression of opinion and action, and he may thus act according to his conscience. For him achieve this aim, if the need arises, he must be prepared to lay down his life and sacrifice even something more than that.

If this book achieves the goal that I aspire, I will know that my labours are not wasted. If it does not, I would consider that it is due to my shortcomings. A deep research of history has led me to conclude that if the rulers had not been authoritarian and oppressive, Islam would have spread in such a manner that today you will not find a single non-Muslim in the whole world.

The final point is that when people reach the corridors of power, they undergo such a transformation that they lose all the good qualities. Look at those politicians, who before coming to power, were considered reliable by the people and who were looked upon to be such that they would not break the high moral principles. Once they attain power they start talking about diplomacy and exigency. The only exceptions to this rule are those whom Allah protects against deviation. But such personages are only a handful.

I pray to the Almighty Allah that for the sake of Muhammad and Aale-Muhammad (‘a), He bestows upon us the good sense to acquire fine qualities and moral virtues.

Muhammad Jawad Mughniya

Beirut, 1962

1. This highlights the difference between ‘People’s Republic’ and ‘Islamic Republic’.

2. In the view of Shi’as, an inferior person can never have precedence over a superior one. They base their contention on the Qur’anic verse:
“…. 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).
The follower of Zaid, the Martyr, used to consider Ali (‘a) to be superior. But, in their opinion it was allowed to give precedence to the inferior. According to the belief of Zaidiyyah, anyone from the progeny of Fatimah (‘a) who stages an uprising for the sake of truth can become an Imam, provided he is learned, pious, brave, and generous.

3. Despite their being Shi’as [Note of al-Islam.org].

Differences Among Muslims

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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

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

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:

Lack of Support

To safeguard Islam

He’s not keen on gaining political power

Existence of internal enemies

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.

Submission To Unjust Regimes

In their books on jurisprudence and faith, Sunni scholars have raised the question: Is it obligatory to obey a sinf ul-and tyrant ruler?

Shaykh Abu Zahra writes in al-Mazahib al-Islamiyyah: Ibn Hanbal, Shafei and Malik say: “One should be patient in facing the injustice of rulers.”

At the end of Qazi Abdur Rahman Eiji's1Al-Mawaqif, Part Eight and Sayyid Sharif Jurjani's2Sharh Mawaqif it is stated:

“The Murji’ah3 believe that if a person has perfect faith, his sins cannot cause any harm to him and if he is a disbeliever, his good deeds would bring him no profit. Another group believes that faith means belief in Allah, humility before Him and sincere love for Him. Whoever possesses these qualities, is a believer; and disobedience toward Allah and sins would not cause any harm to him.

On the basis of this belief, in their view, it is not allowed to rise against a tyrant ruler, who makes light of the religion of Allah and oppresses the people. This is because it would result in disunity among Muslims and destroy peace and security of the society. After that, the book quotes a tradition from Abu Bakr that the Holy Prophet said:

“When mischief has spread, it will be better to sit down than to walk, and it will be better to walk than to run here and there, and running here and there will be better than getting involved in mischief.”

“When mischief had spread (you must disperse); he that owns camels or sheep should go out to graze them in the forest, and one who has agricultural land should get busy in farming.”

Someone asked: “O Messenger of Allah (S), what should one do, if one does not have camels, sheep or land?” The Prophet replied: “He should whack his sword on a rock and break it.”4

Such narrations are indeed fabrications by the past and present scholars who support the tyrant rulers, just as they have interpreted the Qur’an to please the rulers and to protect their interests.

Shaykh Abu Zahra has quoted such a fabricated tradition,5 from Sahih Bukhari, that the Holy Prophet said:

“If a person obtains power and disobeys Allah; one who observes his sins should hate them but should not raise his hand to fight against him.”

In addition to these fabricated tradition reports, Asha‘iras believe that the actions of man in this world are bound by destiny and whatever he does is according to the Divine decree.6

Whatever is mentioned above is the belief of Ahl Sunnah. However, Shi’as believe that man is free in his actions and Allah has not compelled him to transgress. Man is answerable for his own deeds. Caliphate is a Divine right vested in Ali (‘a), descendants of Ali (‘a) and their representatives. Shi’as have been indulgent to just rulers and have cooperated with them. They say that a just infidel ruler is better than a Muslim ruler who commits injustice.

It is a well-known statement of Sayyid Ibn Tawus that: “A just disbeliever is better than an unjust Muslim.” Allamah Baqjr Majlisi has also mentioned in Bihar ul-Anwar: “The State can survive with infidelity but not with injustice.”

Sharif Razi, the compiler of Nahj ul-Balagha, has said about Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz: “If it is agreed that people should weep for Bani Umayyah, 1 would shed tears for you.”7

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a) says: ''One who obeys the sinners is faithless.”

Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) says: “One who causes Allah's annoyance for the sake of pleasing an unjust ruler, stands expelled from Allah's religion.” ·

Imam Ali (‘a) has said: “It is not allowed to disobey the Creator for the sake of obeying the creatures.”

Cooperation With Unjust Regimes

Shi’a scholars believe that actions amounting to cooperation with oppressors are unlawful and are considered as greater sins.

During the reign of Haroon ar-Rashid, a man named Safwan owned some camels that he used to rent out, and this was his occupation. Haroon had hired some of his camels to go for Hajj. One day Safwan called to meet Imam Musa al-Kazim (‘a), and the following conversation ensued:

Imam: All your actions are good, except one.

Safwan: What is it, Maula?

Imam: Renting camels to Haroon.

Safwan: (I swear) By Allah, I have not hired out the camels to him that he might oppress or go hunting and undertake pleasure trips. I hired them to him for Hajj. Also, my servants hold the charge of those camels, not me.

Imam: Does Haroon owe you the rental charge?

Safwan: Yes sir.

Imam: Do you wish that he may live and pay you the rentals?

Safwan: Yes.

Imam: One who wishes for such persons to live is reckoned to be one of them and one who is of them would go to Hell.

Hearing this Safwan went to the market and sold all his camels. When Haroon heard about it, he summoned Safwan and said: I heard that you have sold all your camels?

Safwan: Yes, I have sold away my camels.

Haroon: Why have you done this?

Safwan: I have become old and cannot remain with the camels, and my servants also cannot look after them properly.

Haroon: No, it is not so. I know whose hint you followed in doing this. Musa Ibn Ja'far must have advised you to dispose the camels.

Safwan: What have I to do with Musa Ibn Ja'far?

Haroon said: Leave it! But for the good friendship between us, I would have killed you.

Letter By Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq To Mansur

Mansur wrote to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq: Why you don 't come and see me like other people?

Imam (‘a) wrote in reply: I do not possess anything about which I fear that you will take it away, and you don't have anything that can be of use to me in the Hereafter. Also, you are not blessed with anything for which I may congratulate you and neither are you in such a suffering that I should offer you condolence.”

Mansur then wrote: Come and advise me.

Imam (‘a) replied: One who desires the world will not advise you and one who seeks the hereafter will not befriend you.

Mansur said: By Allah! Abu Abdillah has clarified the position of the people to me and told me about the difference between the seekers of the world and seekers of the hereafter.

Numerous events like this are found in history, which show why the Shi’a religious authorities of Najaf al-Ashraf, Qom and other cities do not interfere in governmental affairs and why they remain aloof from politicians. Their style also shows that they have inherited this line of action from the purified imams (‘a).

Participation In Governmental Affairs

Some Shi’a scholars have ruled that it is unlawful to participate in governmental affairs. It is only allowed to take part in matters that are in the interest of the believers, and those that are intended to save them from injustice. Apart from these, it is unlawful to participate in any affair of the government, even though it may only be partial.

In fact, the Shi’a jurists have also expressed views regarding the conduct of tyrant rulers. For example, they have laid down ‘justice’ as the condition for qualification as leader of Friday and congregational prayers while most rulers of Islamic states have led these prayers. And it is essential if the people are aware that the person leading the prayer is a sinner and oppressor, their prayers behind him would be invalid. This condition of ‘justice’ shows that the criteria for absolute leadership are not confined to merely honesty and sincerity. It is also necessary for the leader to be just.

Shi’a jurists have also ruled that singing and dancing, playing musical instruments, sportive hunting and revelries are unlawful even though the rulers themselves have indulged in these acts and provided facilities for people. These were clearly opposed to the verdict of jurists and proves the sinfulness of the rulers.

It shows that the origin of Shi’a faith is based on opposition against corruption and injustice. Hence if a ruler takes steps to destroy the Shi’as, it is not something new. All despotic regimes have acted in this way.

Oppressive And Pseudo-Religious Regimes

Oppressive and tyrannical regimes plunder the property of the people, persecute free people, and play with their lives. In this atmosphere of injustice, they select unscrupulous Mullahs (clerics) who legitimize their crimes and give them a religious hue.

Mu’awiyyah had chosen Abu Huraira Doosi8 and Samra Ibn Jundab9 to fabricate traditions that were designed for character assassination directed at Imam Ali (‘a); and attribute these sayings to the Holy Prophet (S) so that his profligate son, Yazid, is shown to be so religious that he could dare say: “Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather!”

An Imam of Ahl Sunnah, Hasan al-Basri10 said: “Howsoever oppressive the kings of Bani Umayyah may be, it is obligatory to obey them ...I swear by Allah that their merits are more than their defects.”

As the Urdu poet says: The faqih (jurist) is lamenting the situation of the town. God and Muhammad and Prayer Niche and Pulpit.

The Abbasid rulers also had a large number of such sycophants in their service. In contrast to the attitude of these sycophants, Shi’a imams, intellectuals and poets have taken a stand against despotic regimes. They have not cooperated with the oppressors because according to the Shi’a belief, to confront falsehood in a resolute way and to sacrifice one's life in the path of Allah is the true success.11

Doubtlessly, tyrant regimes have not forgotten this belief of the Shi’as. They killed the Shi’as, subjected them to various kinds of hardships and exiled them from the country. They also ‘purchased’ the faith of some pseudo-religious men and declared that those believers who sincerely believe in Allah, His prophet, and his purified imams (‘a) should be eliminated. This happened while their pseudo religious sycophants who have sold out their faith approved these wanton killings and extend legitimacy to them.

Oppression Of Shi’as By Means Of Religious Literature

It is not a matter of surprise that pseudo-religious persons - after selling their faith to the Satan - raise the slogan that Shi’as are heretics and issued verdicts of killing them. Just as in the present age we have yellow journalism that writes in favour of the capitalists and imperialists, in the past there also existed writers who wrote to please the tyrannical regimes.

It is nothing new. What is new is that we trust, without investigation, statements of the writers attached to the regimes and consider their books to be heavenly scriptures. So, we should make an unbiased survey of history books and purify them of fabricated materials, especially those books that introduce different sects, because the writers in the past also used to accept bribes and wrote what pleased the regimes. It is like journalism of our time, which repeats lies so frequently that people think it is true.

When a writer intends to discuss an Islamic sect, he should refer to the authentic books of that same sect and understand it with the help of its own representative literature.

Shi’as In The View Of Ahmad Amin

As we mentioned, the Murji’ah, the Ahl Al-Sunna in general - and the imams of Ahl Al-Sunna, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafei, Imam Ahmad and Imam Hasan al-Basri - all consider that obedience to oppressive regimes is necessary. According to them, persecutions by the regimes should be accepted as decrees of fate, and one must not rise in revolt against the rulers. However, the Shi’a population consider revolt against tyrant rulers as necessary.

On this point, Shi’a belief is exactly opposite to the Sunni view. In the view of many followers of Ahl Al-Sunna, fighting against tyrant regimes is like fighting against Islam. Meanwhile, Shi’as say that one of the fundamentals of religion is the campaign against mischief and corruption. In light of this principle, we can understand the statement of Ahmad Amin (an Egyptian author), and other Ahl Al-Sunna who say: “A Shi’a can be one who wants to destroy Islam!”

This is the view of Ahmad Amin and his predecessors who had views like him, because in their view Islam is embodied in the person of a ruler, whether he be just or oppressive, and whoever fights against such a ruler, revolts against Islam.

However, according to Shi’as, a tyrant ruler destroys the laws of Islam and tramples upon Islamic teachings. Thus, one who fights against such tyrant rulers supports the faith and acts according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. We are therefore not surprised if Ahmad Amin says that Shi’a are 'destroyers', because they are in fact those who destroy the foundations of corruption, injustice, and ignorance.

We quote below from the book titled Ali wa al-Qaumiyat ul-Arabiya by a Christian intellectual, George Jordac, wherein the author says under the heading “Maa'ath-Thaireen.”

“Followers of Ali (‘a) represent those who campaign against the despotic regimes of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. They took up confrontation with these despotic regimes in order to uproot injustice and despotism.”

“With this goal, Shi’as undertook to defend the rights of the oppressed and helpless people. In the history of Shi’as, we find many courageous personalities loyal to the goal of eradicating various types of injustice, who fought against oppression and acquired the honour fulfilling the wishes of Ali (‘a).''

“Shi’a interpretation of religion does not strengthen the interests of traitors; it benefits common people. It is for this reason that the oppressed Arabs, slaves and Zimmis12 supported those leaders who were descendants of Ali (‘a).''

“Despite having been through the various phases during different ages, there is no change in the revolutionary ideology of Shi’as, and the vicissitude of time has not brought any change to it. This school still conforms to the aspirations of the oppressed and the deprived, and aspirations of Ali (‘a).”

''If we undertake a survey of those revolutionary movements during the reigns by Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas that took place in Hijaz, Iraq, Syria. Iran and Africa etc. - against oppression and despotism - we would find that the leader of the oppressed was Ali (‘a). If we scrutinize the aim of those revolutionaries, who shook the East for centuries, we will find that the aim of all of them was the establishment of social justice for which Ali (‘a) fought, to which Ali (‘a) invited the people, and in the path of which Ali (‘a) was martyred.

In the same way, we see that many sacrifices were made in the path of friendship with Ali (‘a). To all the Muslims, Christians, Westerns, slaves and those who were persecuted and whose rights were usurped, Ali is their standard bearer, and his teachings are guidelines for them.”

“The name of Imam Ali is chanted by the oppressed and seekers of justice and only he is their sanctuary. Whoever rises against a tyrant considers himself under the protection of Ali (‘a) and it was him who campaigned against corruption, mischief, and injustice. Therefore, their revolution is a fulfilment of Ali’s aspiration. Ali’s name is associated with their reforms that people crave for, and only his name is associated with good deeds that people who are placed in oppressive environments are hopeful for.”

“Thus, Shi’a faith is the refuge for the oppressed and deprived classes of the society and is the standard bearer for the defenders of those whose rights are usurped. These statements expose the erroneous attitude of Ahmad Amin that the Shi’a faith is responsible for the destruction of Islam and discord between Arabs.” (End of quotation from the book by George Jordac).

Thus, there is no doubt that the foundation of Islam was destroyed by those who made truth deviate from its path and having diverted it from its source (the family of the Holy Prophet) and exposed it to the avarice of illegitimately born and ‘freed captives’.13 The foundation of Islam was destroyed by those who made the ‘mother of the faithful’14 mount a camel and roam the rough cities and deserts. The foundation of Islam was destroyed by those who initially instigated people to kill Uthman - and then on the pretext of retaliation - waged war against the rightful successor of the prophet and fought him at Basra and Siffin. The split in Islam and amongst the Arabs was created by those who poisoned Imam Hasan (‘a) and martyred Imam Husayn (‘a).

It was Mu’awiyyah, Yazid, Talha and Zubair and their associates who destroyed the foundation of Islam and Arab brotherhood. It has no connection with the Shi’as.

Imam Ali (‘A) And The Quraish

The Almighty Allah had bestowed significant wealth on His prophet and his family from surrendered property (fayy) and confiscated war booty (ghanimah): Fayy is obtained without the effort of anyone or without a battle, while khums (literally meaning a part equivalent to a fifth) of ghanimah is as specified by Qur’an:

“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer…” (8:41).

Whatever used to be the share of the Holy Prophet (S) from war booty like swords, horses, and clothes etc. he used to distribute among the people. His daughter, Lady Fatimah az-Zahra and his grandsons Hasan and Husayn and his cousin and son-in-law, Ali used to starve for days at end. Their house consisted of mud wall and thatched roof.

Lady Fatimah worked the handmill so much that her hands became rough and carried water skins so frequently to her house that her neck had scars.

One day Lady Fatimah came to her venerable father and requested him for a maidservant. His Eminence said: “Fear Allah, recite obligatory prayers, look after your household work and when you go to bed recite: 'Subhaana Allah ' 33 times, 'Al-hamdu li-Lla ' 33 times and 'Allahu Akbar' 34 times. It is better for you than getting a maidservant.”

When once Lady Fatimah became indisposed and was confined to bed, the Holy Prophet visited her. He asked about her health and well-being. She replied: “Dear father, my ailment becomes more severe in the absence of food.” The prophet of Allah began to weep and said: “Do you not want to be the chief of the ladies of the world?” Such was the private life of the guide of Muslims and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet, Ali (‘a).

Imam Ali (‘A) During The Period Of The Holy Prophet

During the lifetime of prophet, despite so many difficulties, Ali crushed the heroes of the Quraish in battles. He always acted as a bodyguard of the Holy Prophet (S) and protected him and stood shoulder to shoulder with the prophet in every situation while others ran away from the battlefield or continued enjoying all amenities of life.

After his appointment as prophet, the Messenger of Allah (S) spent thirteen years in Mecca suffering persecution by the Quraish. During this period Imam Ali (‘a) also bore all hardships with determination. Bani Hashim remained confined in Sheb-e-Abu Talib for three years. The Quraish severed all connections with them and didn't even supply rations to them.

Obviously, it was a time of severe hardships and scarcity, but the Quraish took no pity on them. Throughout these three years, Imam Ali (‘a), his brothers and his father remained with the Holy Prophet like a shadow. When the prophet came out of the valley, thousands of hardships awaited him. He was ridiculed and called a magician and a lunatic.

Umm Jamil, the wife of Abu Lahab and paternal aunt of Mu’awiyyah, used to scatter thorns on his path. One day the Holy Prophet (S) was performing prayer and while he was in prostration (sajdah), the wicked Uqbah Ibn Abi Muit placed his foot on his neck and pressed it so hard that the prophet thought his eyes would pop out. On another occasion, when the prophet was also in prostration, Uqbah threw sheep gut on his head. Still at another time, when the prophet was circling the holy Kaaba, Uqbah put his turban around the neck of prophet and dragged him out of the House of Kaaba.15

Imam Ali's Loyalty

Whenever the polytheists of Mecca saw the prophet in the street, they instigated children to pelt stones at him. However, Imam Ali (‘a) who used to accompany him would drive them away. During the time of the persecution by the Quraish and the polytheists, His Eminence Abu Talib supported the prophet with complete steadfastness and till the end of his life, he continued to protect and support the prophet.

After the passing of His Eminence Abu Talib, the Quraish devised a plot to eliminate the prophet while he was asleep. On learning about this plot, Imam Ali (‘a) asked the Holy Prophet (S): ''O, Messenger of Allah (S), would your life be saved if I sleep in your bed?” The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Yes.” Imam Ali (‘a) said: If you are safe, I don’t care about death.” So, covering himself with a green sheet, he slept peacefully in the prophet's bed during the night of migration.

As a specimen of the hardships that the Muslims and the prophet had to endure at the hands of polytheists, it is sufficient to note that the treatment they meted out to Bilal, Khabbab, Ammar, Ammar’s father, Yasir, and Ammar’s mother, Sumayya (r.a). The polytheists handed over Bilal to children and mentally unsound people, who tied him up with a rope and dragged him around. They told him: We would not release you till you utter the names of Laat and Uzza.16 Bilal, however, only said “Ahad, Ahad!”17

They placed heavy boulders on the chests of Yasir and Sumayya and attacked them with spears saying: Give up the worship of Allah and obeying Muhammad. They suffered so much that eventually Sumayya breathed her last as a result of the wounds inflicted by Abu Jahl with his spear. She became the first martyr of Islam. Khabbab Ibn Arat was made to wear a coat of mail and was exposed to the scorching heat which made him suffer severely.

If His Eminence, Abu Talib had not endured those hardships, Islam would have been nipped in the bud and would not have illuminated the world with its light. However, when he breathed his last, the prophet had not yet firmly established himself. The polytheists thought that after the death of Abu Talib, they would be able to eliminate the prophet. So, they hatched a plot to kill him. But Imam Ali (‘a) defended him like his father had done.

Imam Ali After The Prophet's Passing

Whatever has been said about the self-sacrifice of Imam Ali in battles and people's grudges against him is related to the time of the Holy Prophet. After the prophet, allegiance was given to Abu Bakr at Saqifah Bani Sa’adah without consulting Imam Ali (‘a) and without the participation of the Bani Hashim clan and the supporters of Imam A li (‘a).18 He had not yet recovered from the shock of the prophet's demise when another calamity befell him.19

Yes! The caliphate (rulership) was usurped. Two tragic events affected his heart very quickly and at the same time. Yet, for the sake of Islam's advancement, he did not say anything to Abu Bakr on this matter. He maintained this attitude despite some distinguished companions - having met him openly and in secret - urging him to rise and regain his right.

They assured him that they were prepared to lay down their lives for his sake. But Imam Ali did not accept their advice and said: “Be patient in order to avoid bloodshed and preserve public interests.” When the opponents realized that Ali would not take up the sword to defend his right, they compelled him to either fight or pay allegiance.

Imam Ali had no choice but to remain patient and ignore his right. Therefore, he left Abu Bakr and Umar to themselves and did not speak to them about his right to caliphate. But they did not leave Imam Ali (‘a) alone. They confiscated the Fadak orchard, which the Holy Prophet (S) had gifted to Lady Fatimah, and they did not accept the arguments advanced by Imam Ali (‘a).

They rejected the claim of Lady Fatimah, the honourable daughter of the Messenger of God, whose infallibility is certified in the ‘Verse of Purification’ and whom the prophet has taken along with himself in accordance with Allah's command at the time of imprecation duel20 with the Christians of Najran. The participation of Lady Fatimah is described in the Qur’an in the following way:

“But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61).

The power elites were so severe with Imam Ali that they stormed his house. They wanted to set ablaze the blessed house, in which Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Husayn (‘a) and some other members of Bani Hashim were present.21 ' Imam Ali ignored even this offence of theirs so that they might not commit a still greater crime. Later they came and apologized to Imam Ali (‘a).

They behaved in such an offensive way towards Ali about whom the Holy Prophet had said these:

“Ali is from me and I am from Ali.”

“Glancing at Ali's face is an act of worship.”

“Whoever hurts Ali, hurts me.”

Was Imam Ali guilty of any offence other than his excellence, knowledge, wisdom, faith, and precedence in embracing Islam? Had he any choice except remaining patient in the face of the crimes of those people?

Imam Ali (‘A) And Umar’s Shura Council

Umar took over the caliphate after Abu Bakr's death. He used to consult Imam Ali (‘a) on various matters and acted on his advice. None except Imam Ali (‘a) was aware of this.

Umar acknowledged Ali's superiority and often used to say:

“If Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished.”

“If Ali had occupied the seat of the caliphate, he would have guided you to the straight path.''

When people heard so much praise for Imam Ali, they thought Umar would appoint Imam Ali as caliph after him and thus the right would be restored to its owner. But when Umar’s death approached, he forgot all previous achievements of Imam Ali (‘a) and made him an equal to those persons who had no good antecedents.

Umar placed five persons22 at par with Imam Ali (‘a) and said:

“If Ali and Uthman reach an agreement with each other, their view would be correct. And if these six persons are divided into two groups, the view of the group of which Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf is a member should be taken as correct.”

He took this decision as he knew that Imam Ali and Uthman would not agree with each other and since Abdur Rahman was Uthman's brother-in-law, his vote shall go to Uthman. Then he ordered his son, Abdullah, that if these three do not carry out his wishes he should behead all six of them.

It is mentioned in Tarikh Tabari23 that when Umar selected the members of Shura Committee, he also remarked about the qualities of each of them. Addressing Talha he said:

“You are the one who said: When the Messenger of Allah (S) passes away, we shall marry his widows. Muhammad is not worthier than we are for our cousins. For this the Almighty Allah revealed this verse:

“And it does not behove you that you should give trouble to the Apostle of Allah, nor that you should marry his wives after him ever; surely this is grievous in the sight of Allah” (33:53).

Then he told Zubair: “I swear by Allah; your heart is not kind and merciful for a day and night. One day your heart is harsh and mean, and on another day, it becomes pious and obedient. Again, on another day you become faithless and hot tempered. In short, you are a Satan one day and kind the next.”

Then he addressed Uthman: “The dung of animals is better than you. If you become a caliph, you will make the descendants of Abi Muit dominate the people and if you do so you shall be killed.”

Then he told Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf: “You are a weak person. You would love your people so as to employ them.”

Then he said to Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas: “You possess the spirit of bias, intrigue, and bloodshed. Even if the strap of a water bag is given to you, you cannot take care of it.”

Then Umar said to Imam Ali (‘a): “If your faith is compared with the faith of all people of the world, your faith will be heavier:'“

Many contradictions are seen in the Shura committee formed by Umar. He said: “When the Holy Prophet departed from the world, he was pleased with these six persons.” Despite this, Umar disparaged all except one of them. This disparagement does not conform to his claim that they gained the pleasure of the Holy Prophet and their competence for rulership. Despite this, he nominated all of them for caliphate and at the same time he also considered killing them lawful.

It astonishes someone that if these persons were fit for caliphate and the prophet was pleased with them in his last days, how can Umar permit their murder? And if it was lawful to kill them, how can he select them for the caliphate?

On what basis did the group of three - that included Abdur Rahman - enjoy preference over the other group that included Imam Ali (‘a)? And why was the requisite authority not given to Abdur Rahman at the very outset? Why did Umar ignore the principle that the affairs of Muslims should be left to public vote? Why did he not select, from the members of the Shura Committee, the man he considered to be the best, as Abu Bakr did earlier?

These are questions that need satisfactory answers.

In his book, Al-Iqd ul-Farid,24 Ibn Abd Rabb has narrated the following conversation between Mu’awiyyah and Ibn Haseen:

Mu’awiyyah: What was the cause for differences and deviation among Muslims?

Ibn Haseen: Uthman's murder.

Mu’awiyyah: You said nothing new.

Ibn Haseen: Ali's confrontation with you.

Mu’awiyyah: It is not correct.

Ibn Haseen: Ali's confrontation with Talha, Zubair and Ayesha.

Mu’awiyyah: It is nothing new.

Ibn Haseen: I do not know more than what I have said.

Mu’awiyyah: Differences appeared among the Muslims as a result of the Shura committee instituted by Umar. This committee consisted of six persons, each of whom was a candidate for caliphate. Their kinsmen also wanted that caliphate should reach their man so he may hold a high post. So, differences cropped up amongst Muslims. If Umar had nominated one person to be his successor as Abu Bakr had done, the differences would not have developed.

Indeed, Mu’awiyyah and others like him who occupied the seats of authority acknowledged the invalidity of Uthman's right.

Imam Ali (‘A) And Uthman's Caliphate

Anyhow, pledge of allegiance Uthman's took place (and the result of the illegal Shura became manifest). Imam Ali (‘a) had no alternative but to remain patient as he had done at the time of the assumption of caliphate by Abu Bakr and Umar.

Not many days passed when some of those who had given allegiance to Uthman as well as others, came to Imam Ali (‘a) and requested him to depose Uthman from the caliphate. They placed their hands in the hand of Imam Ali (‘a) and said: We are ready to support you till our last breath. Imam Ali (‘a) did not heed their words and left Uthman and the Muslims to themselves so that Muslims may themselves judge their actions.

The reason for the restlessness and revolt of the Muslims was that the governors (appointed by Uthman) were changing the ways of the Holy Prophet. Uthman recalled to Medina a person who had been expelled by the Holy Prophet.25

Uthman used monies from the public treasury for largesse on his relatives. He had also allocated large amounts from the public treasury to himself. He exiled the distinguished companion of the prophet, Abu Dharr. He thrashed - with his stick - Abdullah Ibn Masood26, who was a righteous companion. He cancelled divine commands and did not punish Ubaidullah Ibn Umar, who murdered a Muslim man named Hurmuzan. Such acts of Uthman cause the public to revolt against him.27

After the assassination of Uthman, people gathered around Imam Ali (‘a). It is mentioned in Nahj ul-Balagha that: “The rush of the public terrified me. They were coming from all sides and Hasan and Husayn were almost trampled upon, and both the ends of my cloak were torn.”

They were shouting: “Only Ali is fit for caliphate.” Imam Ali (‘a) told them: “Leave me alone and make someone else the caliph.” They replied: “We shall not accept anyone else.” In short, they paid allegiance to Imam Ali (‘a) and thus placed him into a new difficulty.

Uthman had left behind many problems for the new government. He had appointed incapable governors who treated forbidden things as lawful. Uthman’s tax officers sucked people's blood and misappropriated their property in every part of the country. The behaviour of Uthman's tax collectors,28 and his preferential treatment of friends and relatives caused the rebels to entertain desire for rulership. As opposed to this thinking, some envious and inimical individuals were keen to take revenge and to retaliate. What could Imam Ali have done in such situations?

Imam Ali (‘a) could not lend support to the unjust and corrupt persons. He could not accept bribes from incompetent persons and appoint them to important positions. When he began to clean up the administration, some selfish individuals pressured him to retain them in their respective positions or extend their service.

When they saw the reality that Imam Ali (‘a) was not acting according to their dictates, they disassociated themselves from his government and joined Ayesha. This led to the Battle of the Camel. Some sycophants who were opposed to truth and justice gathered around Ayesha. They staged an uprising in association with Talha29, Zubayr30 and Bani Umayyah.

When Uthman was being besieged in his palace, Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn were the ones who defended him whereas Ayesha, Talha and Zubair instigated the people to finish him. However, when Uthman was killed, these same individuals demanded retaliation for Uthman's blood.

Imam Ali (‘A) And The Battles Of The Camel And Siffin

Regarding the people of Jamal, Imam Ali (‘a) faced two difficulties:

If he remained quiet and allowed the rebels a free hand, it would have laid a wrong example and they would have made life miserable for the nation.

If he fought them, it would lead to bloodshed.

To solve these two difficulties, he resorted to giving counsel and advice. He requested Ayesha to return to her house. He also advised those who had broken the oath of allegiance to remain on the covenant. However, his recommendations did not have any positive effect. So, he was obliged to subdue the rebels and remove the mischief. Eventually the battle took place resulting in defeat of the rebels.

However, Imam Ali's difficulties did not end with this battle. Mu’awiyyah, son of Hind, was a sworn enemy of Allah, His messenger, Imam Ali, and the Muslims. The Holy Prophet (S) had freed Mu’awiyyah along with his father on the day of the conquest of Mecca. Mu’awiyyah had not helped Uthman in any way. But when he came to know that Imam Ali (‘a) had dismissed him from the governorship of Syria, he rose against the latter on the pretext of avenging Uthman's murder.

In the battle of Siffin when he was on the verge of defeat, he sought the advice of Amr Ibn Aas who told him to ask the ignorant people around him to raise the Qur’an on their spears and say: This will judge between you and me.

This deception created discord in the army of Imam Ali (‘a). They told Imam Ali (‘a) to accept Mu’awiyyah's proposal. The Imam tried by all means to explain to the people of Iraq that it was only a deception and that they must take the fighting to its logical end. Though they did not have anything to do with Qur’an or the shari’ah of the prophet, they did not obey him. One of them said to the other: “If Ali does not submit to the Qur’an, we shall kill him like Uthman or hand him over to Mu’awiyyah to treat him as he likes.”

Imam Ali realized that if he continued fighting, he himself and his sons would be killed, and the progeny of the Holy Prophet would become extinct. So, he accepted the proposal for arbitration. All the proceedings took place at Domat ul-Jundal. Imam Ali (‘a) decided to select Malik al-Ashtar or Ibn Abbas as his representative to forestall the deceit of Amr Ibn Aas. Again, there was discord in his army. They said: ''You will have to nominate Abu Musa Ashari as your representative.”

Imam Ali (‘a) was compelled to agree in the face of their persistence, as a result of which the arbitration ended in favour of Mu’awiyyah. When Imam Ali's army was defeated on account of their disobedience to Imam Ali (‘a) and the judgment was against them, they said to Imam Ali (‘a): “You should not have agreed with us in our mistake.” So, they rebelled against Imam Ali (‘a) and thus the Khawarij group was born.

What The Khawarij Said

The Khawarij said very strange things. Imam Ali (‘a) gave them proper advice and he was not prepared to nominate Abu Musa Ashari as his representative, but they did not accept what he said. And when he appointed Abu Musa as his representative and the decision went against him, the Khawarij said: “You must confess that you have ceased to be a Muslim, or we shall kill you.” It was because he had accepted their demand and appointed Abu Musa as his representative that the outcome went against them.

Now when he had accepted their demands, they still wanted to fight against him and kill him. Even if he had not accepted their demands and not nominated Abu Musa, they would still have fought against him. Would it not have been a shameful thing that after years of having fought for the advancement of Islam, Imam Ali (‘a) should have declared that he had become an infidel, while he is the pivot of religion, a personification of faith and a perfect specimen of truth. In the words of the Urdu poet, Ghalib:

Expression of divine bounties, the beloved of the last prophet, qibla of the progeny of the prophet, Kaaba of the invention of certainty.

Imam Ali's right was usurped but he remained patient. They made him waver between fighting and allegiance, but he did not mention it to them. In the Shura Committee, he was placed at par with unworthy people, but he ignored the matter. And when he remained patient with the attitude of Khawarij, they took up arms against him.

I don't think that any of the prophets and saints of Allah had faced so many difficulties and problems as Imam Ali (‘a) had. I swear by God, that, in a way, Karbala is not as tragic as Nahrawan. In Karbala, Imam Husayn fought against his enemy whereas Imam Ali (‘a) had to fight against those who had been in his army till the previous day. These people were those on whose foreheads were signs of excessive prostrations, and who fasted during daytime and offered midnight prayers and recited the Qur’an. But they considered shedding Imam Ali's blood lawful and were fighting against Allah and His prophet.31

Doubtlessly, difficulties experienced by Imam Ali (‘a) were due to the Quraish’s lack of regard for one of their own sons. They had joined hands to trample upon his rights and told him in a practical way that: Either put up patiently or die of grief. Imam Ali (‘a) continued to remain patient while his heart was consumed by grief, and he was facing a dilemma.

1. Died 786 A.H.

2. Died 816 A.H.

3. A group of scholastic theologians is called Murji’ah. By the grace of Allah, it has now become extinct. Their belief was that if the faith is perfect, no action has any adverse effect. Actually, there was a political motive for promoting this belief. These people existed during the period of Bani Umayyah and they were supported by the Umayyads. The Murji’ah wanted to legitimise the acts of the Umayyad rulers. I don't say this on my own, it is what history says.
They used to say: Sir, if your faith is all right, deeds are not important. If you like, you can perform good deeds and if you don't like, you don't have to do anything: deeds are not at all important. When the Umayyad rule declined, the Abbasids, due to the enmity they bore against the Murji’ah, began to persecute the latter. But the pity is that the Murji’ah thinking has found root in Shi’a thinking. However, the incident that I will narrate will prove beyond any doubt that the true Shi’a faith is absolutely against this thinking.
Ahmad Amin has quoted a report from Abu al-Faraj Isfahani's Aghani in his book, Dhuha al-Islam. Ahmad Amin is himself opposed to the Shi’as, but despite that, he has mentioned this narration.
A person, whose name he had also mentioned, he used to say that a Shi’a and a Murji’ah were having a debate among themselves regarding their respective beliefs. One used to say that the principles of Murji’ah are more correct and the other said that the principles of Shi’as are truer.
The Murji’ah was saying that deeds are not important. Faith is of paramount significance, whereas the Shi’a was saying that deeds are necessary. Just then a singer passed by (I am saying that he was a singer as the narration is from Aghani, which means song). The two said: let us ask him, because this man looks intelligent. So, they decided to ask him whether the Shi’as or the Murji’ah was right. At last, they went to him and asked what his faith was, and whether the Shi’as, or the Murji’ah were right. He replied: My upper portion is Shi’a and the lower one is Murji’ah. Meaning that I am a Shi’a by faith, but with regard to deeds, I am a Murji’ah. Though I believe in the Shi’a faith, I do not act accordingly.
Now, we have to agree that we have become a community that is like the Murji’ah in thinking as well as behaviour and deeds. It can be said that our religious thinking is dead. And when our thinking has become like Murji’ah, our consequences will also be like them. When one thinks that deeds are not important, what will remain of the world? And what of the Hereafter? Can we command any respect? Can we remain the foremost? No, never.
Our thinking must be reformed because our way of thinking about religion is wrong. I can dare say that except for some secondary matters related to acts of worship acts and transactions, our thinking is absolutely misplaced. Neither do we mention the right things in religious gatherings and sermons, nor do we write about them in our books and magazines. We also do not think along the right lines. Before we think of converting other people to Islam, we should consider our own position. Before we light the Masjid lamps, we should first illuminate our homes.
Religion is life, it is movement, it is awakening. But which religion? The religion brought by the Holy Prophet (S)! At the same time religion is the opium of the masses. But which religion? The concoction that we have ourselves prepared. There is the famous tradition: “If innovation spreads among the people, it is the duty of the re1igious scholar to display his knowledge, otherwise he would become eligible for the curse of Allah.” (Ustad Murtaza Mutahhari, Sayings)

4. So that there is no chance of fighting against the rulers.

5. Al-Mazahib ul-Islamiyyah, Pg. 158.

6. Thus, destiny has compelled the rulers to oppress, and we should be patient with their oppression.

7. Because he was equitable and a well-wisher of the community.

8. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. Vol. 3. Pg. 166, Published by Dar ul-Ishaat. Karachi that:
When Abu Huraira narrated a tradition, those who were present there asked him if he had himself heard it from the Holy Prophet (S), he replied: No, I have taken out this tradition from my pocket.
It is mentioned in Murujuz Zahab, Vol. 3, Pg. 454, published Dar ul-Andulus that Abu Huraira fabricated more than 5,300 traditions attributed to the Holy Prophet (S)
Abu Huraira has said about himself:
I have many registers of knowledge with me that I have not opened yet, and I had obtained two vessels of knowledge from the Holy Prophet (S). I have opened one and if I reveal the second, I shall be killed. And if I tell you all I know, people will say Abu Huraira has gone mad. (As-Sunnah Qobl at-Tadween. Pg. 426, quoted from Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Fath ul-Bari and Hulyat ul-Awliya)

9. Ahl Sunnah consider Samra Ibn Jundab also as a righteous companion. The compilers of canonical books have also taken traditions from Samra. Relating the incident of Samra, the teacher of Ibn Abil Hadid, Ja'far Iskafi, says:
“Mu’awiyyah sent a hundred thousand dirhams to Samra that he may fabricate a tradition from the Prophet that the verse of:
“And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries” (2:204).
was revealed about Ali (‘a) and according to the Holy Prophet, he is the enemy of the religion of Allah and that the verse:
“And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is Affectionate to the servants” (2:207).
was revealed about Abdur Rahman Ibn Muljam. When Samra did not accept that amount, Mu’awiyyah sent him two hundred thousand, and when he again did not accept. he sent four hundred thousand. This time Samra accepted the money and narrated the above fabricated tradition.” (Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Vol. I, Pg.358, old edition)
This fabricated tradition had a very negative effect on the Islamic society, so much so that the Khawarij began to be called as ‘sellers' or those who have sold their lives to Allah because in this false tradition, Ibn Muljam is supposed to be the subject of that verse. That was the first negative effect of the fabricated tradition by Samra.”

10. The patronymic (Kunniyat) of Hasan al-Basri was Abu Saeed. His father was a freed slave of Zaid Ibn Thabit. Hasan was born in the eighth year of Umar's caliphate. He lived in Basra all his life and died in 110 A.H. He was an eloquent speaker and a respected person in the eyes of the public and government officials. He was the Imam of Sunnis in Basra. According to the report of Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Hasan Basri believed in predestination, and he considered it unlawful even to campaign against a cruel and murderous creature like Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf.

11. The following statements by Imam Husayn (‘a) are an illuminated torch to create fervour among the Shi’as of every period:
“O people, can you not see that truth is not being followed and evil is not being forbidden? In fact, it is only this which prepares one to meet the Almighty Allah. In my view, death is the only path to success and living with the oppressors is nothing but disgrace.”

12. Jews and Christians, who live under Muslim’s protection.

13. This phrase most probably refers to the Umayyads who were formerly the enemies of the Holy Prophet and were later defeated when the Muslims overpowered Mecca. They were technically prisoners and captives but the Holy Prophet forgave them and let them free. [Note of al-Islam]

14. Referring to the Holy Prophet’s wife, Aisha and the Battle of the Camel [Note of Al-Islam.org]

15. Uqbah Ibn Muit belonged to Bani Umayyah. The same Uqbah who was one of the captives of Badr, and Nazr Ibn Harith who tortured the Muslims and blasphemed the name of Qur’an were killed by the Holy Prophet.

16. The names of their idols [note of Al-Islam.org]

17. Meaning “God is one”.

18. According to the authors of Mawaqif and Sharh Mawaqif, consensus is not necessary for an oath of allegiance, and it is sufficient if one or two persons take it. The consensus of all Muslims is not essential. The consensus of the people of Medina is also not necessary and till now the position has been that an oath taken by one or two is considered sufficient. The conclusion that can be drawn from the above statement is that one vote enjoys preference over the votes of the whole nation, and it is essential for the people to submit to it.
Hence the oath taken by Mu’awiyyah for Yazid was lawful and the same is the case of inherited rulership. If a non-Muslim becomes aware of this statement, he will naturally say: “What has happened to the freedom and democracy of Islam?'' (Author).

19. The body of' the Holy Prophet had not yet been buried when others started taking allegiance. This activity continued for three days, and the body of the Holy Prophet remained unburied during these days. This so happened because if Imam Ali (‘a) had buried the prophet’s body, the others who had not offered funeral prayers, would have exhumed the body. And if Imam Ali (‘a) had participated in the activities of Saqifah, the Holy Prophet's body would have remained unburied. Thus, the change of the course of the caliphate on one hand and body of the Holy Prophet remaining unburied on the other distressed him much. (Shaykh Abbas Qummi, Bait ul-Ahzan, Pg. 30)

20. In Islamic history, this event was known as Mubahalah [Note of Al-Islam.org]

21. Kanz ul-Ummal by Ali Muttaqi Hindi; Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha by Ibn Abil Hadid Muntazali; as-Siyasah wa al-Imamah by Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari.

22. They were Talha, Zubair, Uthman, Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf and Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas.

23. Vol. 4. Pg.227, published by Dar ul-Ma'rif, Egypt

24. Vol. 5, Pg. 31, published by Dar ul-Fikr, Beirut.

25. The Holy Prophet (S) had exiled Hakam Ibn ‘Aas from Medina and ordered him to live in Taif. It is mentioned in Al-Isti’ab of Ibn Abd Rabb that he used to mimic the prophet and one day the prophet saw him doing that. At that time Hakam's son, Marwan, was seven or eight years old and he lived with his father in Taif. Abu Bakr and Umar, during their respective reigns did not permit Hakam to return to Medina. But during his caliphate, Uthman not only recalled Hakam, but he also hired Marwan as his secretary. (Khilafat-O- Mulookiyat, Maulana Maudoodi, Pg. 110)

26. Walid, the son of Uqbah Ibn Muit, one of those who had carried out persecution against the Holy Prophet (S) took an amount of a hundred thousand dirhams from Abdullah Ibn Masood, the treasurer of public treasury, saying that he would return it. When he did not return that amount, Ibn Masood wrote to Uthman reporting the matter. Uthman replied: You are our treasurer. We can take whatever amount we may want from the public treasury; you have no right to say anything. When Ibn Masood read this letter from Uthman, he said publicly in the Kufa Masjid: “O people, I was under the impression that I was the treasurer of your public treasury, but now I have learnt that I am actually the treasurer of Bani Umayyah”.
Then he threw the keys of the public treasury and said: “I cannot remain the treasurer of Bani Umayyah”. So, Walid sent him to Medina. When he came to Medina, Uthman ordered his servant, Yahmoom to punish Ibn Masood. On the instructions of Uthman, Yahmoom threw Ibn Masood on the ground, crippling him. He reminded bed-ridden for two years and then passed away. During these two years, Uthman kept his government allowance suspended. (AnsaAbu al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 36, Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 147, Mustadrak Hakim, Vol. 3, Pg. 13)

27. Those familiar with the sources on early Islam know Ali Ibn Husayn Masoodi Shafei (died 345 A.H.) very well. Masoodi is a very reliable and honest Islamic historian and geographer who is relied upon by all the schools of thought. He has written a very interesting, excellent, and authentic four-volume book on history, entitled Murujuz Zahab. Therein it is mentioned that when Uthman was assassinated, he left behind 150,000 gold dinars and a million silver dirhams. Also, his properties in Wadi al-Qura and Hunain were worth a hundred thousand gold dinars. He also left an unspecified number of horses and camels. (Vol. 2, Pg. 341)

28. Yaala Ibn Umayyah (who is also called Yaala Ibn Munia because his mother's name was Munia) was a revenue officer during the rule of Uthman. When he died, he left behind five hundred thousand gold dinars. In addition to this, people owed him a huge sum of money that he had lent them. The value of his property and other things that he left came to three hundred dinars.

29. Masoodi writes that Talha Ibn Ubaidillah had constructed a magnificent palace in Kufa. Talha’s income from his properties in Iraq alone reached one thousand gold dinars. The income from the Sharrah area was more than this. In Medina, Talha had built his house with baked bricks, mortar and expensive wood. Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas also had constructed a huge magnificent palace.

30. Masoodi writes that Zubayr Ibn Awwam had a palace constructed in Basra. He owned properties in Alexandria and Basra. He died leaving behind fifty thousand dinars, one thousand horses, one thousand male and female slaves and unspecified properties in various cities.
Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf Zuhri had constructed a palatial mansion. There were a thousand horses in his stables. He owned a thousand camels and ten thousand goats and sheep. He was survived by four widows, each of whom inherited eighty-four thousand gold dinars.
Zaid Ibn Thabit died leaving such a huge quantity of gold that hammers were called to break up the pieces for distribution. His movable and unmovable property was worth one hundred thousand dinars.

31. If Imam Ali (‘a) had not suppressed the Khawarij, all the pious and religious Muslims would have gradually adopted the Khariji dogma. And if people had become Kharijis, neither Shi’a Islam would have survived till today nor would Sunni Islam. That is why, after the Battle of Nahrawan, the Imam said in one of his sermons, which is also mentioned in Nahj ul-Balagha that: “O people, I have smashed the eye of mischief and corruption and no one else could have dared to do this.”
Persons who recited prolonged ritual prayers, without spirituality and without understanding of the divine reality (Marifat), sanctimonious and apparently very devoted people, they were such that it was only Imam Ali (‘a) who could eliminate them. Even Imam Hasan (‘a) and Imam Husayn (‘a) could not have accomplished this task. Through this operation, Imam Ali (‘a) saved the dying Islam and showed to the world that apart from the Islam of Quraish and Islam of Khawarij, there was another Islam. (Role of the Imams in Revival of Religion, Vol. 2, Allamah Sayyid Murtaza Askari)

Bani Umayyah

Regarding the following verse of the Qur’an, it is said that it denotes the Bani Umayyah:

“And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men; and We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well; and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great inordinacy” (17:60).

One day when Mu’awiyyah was dragging the bridle of the camel of Yazid1 while the latter was following behind, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Allah's curse be upon the holder of bridle and the one who follows.”2

Abdullah Ibn Umar narrates that, “The Holy Prophet said: ‘A man is coming, who will not die as a Muslim’. And we saw that Mu’awiyyah had come.”

Because he had got Ammar killed, Mu’awiyyah could be identified as the head of rebels as the Holy Prophet had foretold Ammar that a rebellious group would kill him.3

Mu’awiyyah was the son of Abu Sufyan and that Hind who had chewed the liver of Hamza in the Battle of Uhud. Abu Sufyan was the chief of the Meccan army which had fought the Messenger of Allah (S) .

It is mentioned in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal that Muawiyah used to drink (wine) and ruled in the name of Islam.4

Mu’awiyyah revived the pre-Islamic5 practice and declared that Ziyad Ibn Sumayya was his brother and made him his family member (though the Holy Prophet had clearly stated that the child belongs to the bed on which it is born, and the adulterer has to be stoned to death).

Mu’awiyyah used poisoned honey6 to eliminate righteous persons and used to boast: “Allah has battalions of honey.”

Mu’awiyyah had armed a number of bandits to plunder, to kill women and children, and to set houses on fire.

Mu’awiyyah was an expert fraudster and liar.

Muawiyah hated those who demanded their rights and sought justice.

Mu’awiyyah ordered that the righteous believers be cursed.

The caliphate that should be based on democracy and consultation was transformed into hereditary rulership by Mu’awiyyah. His past had nothing worthy of mention and he had nothing that could entitle him to caliphate. Regarding him, the Holy Prophet said: “May Allah not fill his belly.”7

On the pretext of retaliation for Uthman 's murder, Mu’awiyyah raised Uthman's blood-smeared shirt and displayed the severed fingers of Uthman's wife, Naila, on the pulpit and instigated the people to revolt against Imam Ali (‘a).

Mu’awiyyah managed to become the ruler of Muslims due to Ayesha and her camel, because of Qattam and Ibn Muljam the Khawarij, because of the ignorance of the Syrians and Iraqis, the worldliness of the people and their attitude and the steadfastness of Imam Ali’s faith.

Among the factors that Mu’awiyyah used to his advantage, the most important was the display of Uthman's blood-smeared shirt.

The famous German orientalist, Wellhaussen, writes in his book, Tarikh ad-Daulat ul-Arabiya, 1958:8

“Claim for the blood of Uthman was the basis on which Mu’awiyyah founded his goal so that he might take possession of the caliphate. However, how the demand for Uthman's blood became a cause of Mu’awiyyah's success and why Mu’awiyyah put forward such a claim is a different matter. What is undeniable is that in order to achieve his objective, he joined hands with Amr Ibn Aas, who was Uthman's arch enemy. It is also a fact that piety and goodness towards Uthman or his survivors were not behind Mu’awiyyah's revolt.”

Imam Ali defended Uthman, whereas Talha, Zubair, Ayesha, Mu’awiyyah and Ibn Aas instigated people to kill him (Uthman). When Uthman 'was killed, they rebelled against Imam Ali and demanded retaliation for Uthman's murder. Talha and Zubair were killed in the Battle of Jamal. The legs of Ayesha's camel were cut off and the defeated Ayesha was returned to Medina in a respectful manner.

In the Battle of Siffin, Mu’awiyyah and Amr Ibn Aas escaped by raising the holy Qur’an on spears. If they had not resorted to this deception, they would have also met the fate of the people of Jamal. Mu’awiyyah returned from Siffin determined to make life difficult for Ali and his Shi’as.

Surprise Night Attacks, Massacres And Plunder

All Islamic territories except Syria were under the rule of Imam Ali. Iraq, Hijaz, Yemen, Egypt, Iran and others were under the control of the central Islamic government and acknowledged the authority of Imam Ali. But Mu’awiyyah, whom the Imam had dismissed from the governorship of Syria had declared himself to be the de facto ruler at Damascus.

After forming a state within a state, he armed thieves and robbers like Nu’man Ibn Bashir, Yazid Ibn Shajarah, Muslim Ibn Uqbah, Zahhak Ibn Qays Fahri, Abdur Rahman Ibn Qayath, Zuhair Ibn Makhul, Sufyan Ibn Awf Ghamidi, Busr Ibn Abi Artat and told them to plunder and destroy properties in the territories under the control of Imam Ali (‘a).

Below are a few specimens of the activities of those persons commissioned by Mu’awiyyah.

Sufyan Bin Awf Ghamidi

Muawiyah told Sufyan Ghamidi:

“Take this army and march towards Euphrates and return to Syria after passing through Hayt, Anbar and Madayn. Wherever you find an army, fight against it but take care not to enter Kufa, because if your army enters Anbar and Madayn, Kufa will automatically come under your control. This will make them helpless and cause happiness to our friends and the timid people will come across to us. During this mission, wherever you find a supporter of Ali you should kill him.

Destroy their villages and seize their property, because plundering causes more grief, and it is more effective than killing.”9

Sufyan Ghamidi obeyed his master's orders, taking the army and rushed to Anbar. He undertook killings on a large scale and returned to Syria after collecting as much wealth as he could. When he reported to Mu’awiyyah he said, inter alia: “O Chief, by Allah, no battle gave me more happiness than this. By Allah, I terrified the hearts of the people.” Mu’awiyyah said: “You have done according to my expectations.”

Imam Ali (‘a) ordered the people of Kufa to get ready to defend themselves against their enemy, but they did not pay heed. So, he decided to fight alone. The Kufians came to him and said: “Don't go alone, we shall fight the battle.” Imam Ali (‘a) said: “You are not truly valiant and courageous at the time of fighting.” They, however, persisted and made Imam Ali (‘a) return home.

When he returned home, he was very angry. At that time, he delivered a sermon which is recorded in Nahj ul-Balagha. Its translation is as follows:

“Beware! I called you (insistently) to fight these people night and day, secretly and openly, and exhorted you to attack them before they attacked you, because by Allah, no people have been attacked in the hearts of their houses, but they suffered disgrace; but you put it off to others and forsook it till destruction befell you and your cities were occupied. The horsemen of Banu Ghamid have reached al-Anbar and killed Hasan Ibn Hasan al-Bakri. They have removed your horsemen from the garrison. I have come to know that every one of them entered upon Muslim women and other women under the protection of Islam, and took away ornaments from their legs, arms, necks and ears and no woman could resist it except by pronouncing the verse:

“We are from Allah and to Him we shall return” (2:156)

Then they got back laden with wealth without any wound or loss of life. If any Muslim dies of grief after all this, he is not to be blamed but rather there is justification for him before me. How strange! How strange! By Allah, my heart sinks to see the unity of these people in their falsehood and your disunity in your truth. Woe and grief befall you. You have become the target at which arrows are shot. You are being killed and you do not fight. You are being assaulted but you do not attack. Allah is being disobeyed and you remain agreeable to it. When I ask you to move against them in summer, you say it is hot weather. Spare us till the heat subsides. When I order you to march in winter, you say it is severely cold; give us time till the cold weather clears. These are just excuses for evading heat and cold because if you run away from heat and cold, you would be, by Allah, running away (in a greater degree) from the sword (war).

O you semblance of men, not men, your intelligence is that of children and your wit is that of the occupants of the curtained canopies (women kept in seclusion from the outside world). I wish I had not seen you or known you. By A1lah, this acquaintance has brought about shame and resulted in repentance. May Allah fight you! You have filled my heart with pus and loaded my bosom with rage. You made me drink mouthfuls of grief one after the other. You shattered my counsel by disobeying.”

Imam Ali had to deal with a cunning enemy like Mu’awiyyah, but the people of Kufa were busy in fighting and trying to humiliate one another. The enemy fought with them on their threshold, but they disgracefully asked for refuge, ran away, and did not return.

Zahhak Bin Qays Fahri

When Imam Ali came to know about the matter, he mounted the pulpit and scolded the people of Kufa in these words: “If you are interested in turning your enemies out of your land, get up to fight against them.” However, he did not receive a positive response. Imam Ali then summoned Hujr Ibn ‘Adi al-Kindi and sent him as the commander of a 4,000 strong army to pursue Zahhak.

Hujr's army overtook Zahhak in the region of Tadmar and a battle ensued. Nineteen men from Zahhak’s side were killed and two from Hujr's army were martyred. When night fell, Zahhak ran away to Syria taking advantage of the darkness.

Mercenaries sent by Mu’awiyyah attacked the supporters of Imam Ali (‘a) and indulged in killing, looting and arson, but when they came face to face with Imam Ali's army they used to flee.

Nu’man Bin Bashir

Nu’man and his father Bashir Ibn Saad were amongst earliest Ansars who gave allegiance to Abu Bakr at Saqifah Bani Saadah. Other Ansar’s followed them in giving allegiance. Nu’man was a friend of Uthman and a favourite of Mu’awiyyah and Yazid. He remained alive till the time of Marwan. When allegiance was given to Marwan, Nu’man was the governor of Hums.

In the year 65 A.H. he suggested to the people of Hums to pay allegiance to Abdullah Ibn Zubair, but the people rebelled against him and put him to death.

It was Nu’man who had brought Uthman's shirt and the severed fingers of Naila10 to Muawiyah in Damascus. Mu’awiyyah had the shirt hung and placed the fingers on display to incite the people.

After some time, Nu’man left Mu’awiyyah and went over to Imam Ali (‘a), but he did not like the pure atmosphere and once again returned to Syria. No doubt these are the ways of dirt eaters. They shy away from the fragrance of flowers and prefer to live in stables.

Mu’awiyyah sent Nu’man to Aynut Tamr in Iraq with 2,000 soldiers and told him to launch a sudden attack and the flee quickly like thieves. Nu’man attacked Aynut Tamr whose governor, Malik Ibn Ka’ab, had only 200 soldiers. Seeing a 2,000 men army, he told his men:

''Do not leave the vicinity, and fight with your backs to the wall. You should know that Allah grants victory to ten persons over a hundred persons, and makes a hundred persons defeat a thousand·”

Some Shi’as of Imam Ali who resided near Aynut Tamr rushed to assist Malik and they all together drove Nu’man and his men to Syria.

After Imam Ali 's martyrdom, Mu’awiyyah appointed Nu’man as the governor of Kufa. Later, Yazid also allowed him to continue for some time till he was replaced with the vicious Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad. Ibn Ziyad arrived in Kufa when Muslim Ibn Aqeel was taking allegiance.11

Shield Of Cowards

During the Battle of Siffin, one day Iman Ali (‘a) called out to Mu’awiyyah from an elevated spot, and the latter replied. Imam Ali (‘a) said: “Why should the blood of people be shed? Let us fight a duel and see who comes out victorious.”

Amr Ibn Aas said to Mu’awiyyah: “It is a good suggestion.” Mu’awiyyah laughed and said: “It appears that you covet the caliphate and want me killed!” Amr said: “You have no choice but to fight with Ali. “Mu’awiyyah said: “We should go together to fight.” Amr said: “By Allah, even if I die a thousand times, I will fight Ali.” Amr came out to fight with Imam Ali (‘a) but when he realized that he was going to be killed, he exposed his genitals. Imam Ali (‘a) turned his face away. Amr took the opportunity and ran away.

There was a warrior named Abu Dawood in Mu’awiyyah's army. He said: If Mu’awiyyah is afraid of fighting with Ali, I will fight with him. Coming to the middle of the battlefield he said, “I am Abu Dawood. Let Ali come and fight with me”. As Imam Ali (‘a) went forth, his followers said: “Better leave this dog alone. It does not befit you to fight such a man”. Ali did not pay heed to them and attacked Abu Dawood with such force that he cut him into two with one stroke. One part fell on the right and the other on left. Both armies were stunned by the fight of Yadullah.12

Abu Dawood also had a cousin in Mu’awiyyah's army. When he saw that Abu Dawood is dead, he said: ''Woe to me! It’s no use living after Abu Dawood!” Then he rushed forward to fight with Imam Ali, but his fate was no different from that of Abu Dawood’s.

Mu’awiyyah was watching the scene from a high location. He said: “Curse be on my army. Is there no warrior to combat with Ali? Is there no one who may kill Ali by trickery when he is surrounded by the army? Is there no one who may eliminate Ali when the field is engulfed in dust?”

Walid said: “You are the foremost trickster, so you should go and fight AIi.”

Mu’awiyyah said: “Ali challenged me but I am ashamed before Quraish that I did not respond to his challenge.” Then he turned to Busr Ibn Artat, and said: “Are you prepared to fight Ali?''

Busr replied: “No one is more suitable for the combat than yourself, but as you have ordered me, I shall comply with it and go to fight.”

Busr's cousin who was betrothed to Busr's daughter and who had come from Hijaz said: “Beware, do not fight with Ali. Why did you accept this task?”

Busr said: “I gave my word to Mu’awiyyah, which I have to keep. I am ashamed to go back on it.” His cousin laughed and recited some couplets, two of which are translated below:

“O Busr! It appears that you are not aware of Ali's prowess or pretend to be ignorant.

When you meet him, your death will be nailed to the edge of sword and the point of his spear.”

Busr said: “Is there anything more than death?” Then he put on his helmet and proceeded to fight, shouting: “Abu al-Hasan should come out and fight with me.” Imam Ali (‘a) immediately went to face him and struck a spear felling him. Busr saw death before him and like Amr Ibn Aas exposed his nakedness. Imam Ali (‘a) turned away and returned.

Malik al-Ashtar asked: “Why did you leave alive your enemy and Allah's enemy?”

Imam Ali (‘a) replied: “Leave him alone. Allah may curse him! Should I have tolerated his becoming naked?”

A poet has composed couplets about Amr Ibn Aas and Busr Ibn Artat, which are quoted by Ibn Abil Hadid:

“Do you send a rider for fighting every day whose genitals become manifest in the desert sand cloud?”

His genitals defend him from Ali's spear and Mu’awiyyah laughs in private at this.” 13

Busr Bin Artat

Ibn Abil Hadid writes:

Busr was an extremely stone hearted person who had no pity or kindness. Mu’awiyyah sent him to Medina with an army of thirty thousand and said: “Plunder the houses of the supporters of Ali. When you enter Medina, you announce that you have come to play with their lives and don't accept any excuse of friendship or hatred for Ali.”

When Muawiyah dispatched his trouble-mongering squads, he gave same instructions. He had told Sufyan Ghamidi: “Kill any supporter of Ali you may find. Destroy the villages and plunder the property.” He gave similar instructions to Zahhak and other mercenaries.

To comply with the order of their leader, Mu’awiyyah's agents didn't even flinch from killing people. Thus, when Busr reached Medina, he abused the people very much and burned a large number of houses. Houses burnt by him included those of Zurarah Ibn Harwan, Amr Ibn Awf, Rafa'a Ibn Rafe' Razqi,14 and Abu Ayyub Ansari, who hosted the Holy Prophet.15

It is mentioned in Masoodi's Murujuz Zahab:

Busr killed a large number of Khuza people and inhabitants of Sanaa in Medina and between the two Masjids. When the Imam came to know about it, he dispatched Jariya Ibn Qadama and Wahhab Ibn Masood each with an army of two thousand to pursue Busr. When Busr received the news about Jariya, he fled.

Mu’awiyyah's bandits used to launch ruthless attacks, killing and plundering people, and then fleeing like cowards. Imam Ali (‘a) therefore, had to take defensive measures in communication and logistics.

Before leaving Medina for Mecca, Busr appointed Abu Huraira as the Governor. Abu Huraira had himself observed the heresies and bloodshed by Busr in Medina (but did not consider him heretic). Compilers of Sihah Sitta16 consider Abu Huraira reliable. They have narrated a large number of traditions from him.

Probably they consider him reliable because he has fabricated a tradition of the prophet that says: Every Prophet has a Haram (home) and my Haram is Medina. Whoever commits excess in it deserves the wrath of Allah, the angels, and all humans. And I (Abu Huraira) testify that Ali has committed excesses in it (that is he introduced heresies and created mischief).

According to Abu Huraira, Imam Ali (‘a) was a mischief maker, but Mu’awiyyah - who in the view of Ibn Umar was not a Muslim - was a defender of Medina. And as per the statement of Abu Huraira and the testimony of Busr, Mu’awiyyah was the one that eliminated heresies and mischief. From Medina, Busr moved to Mecca. On the way killed a large number of people.

When the news of his attack reached Mecca, most people fled from the city, fearing his persecution. Busr passed by the Christians of Najran (Yemen), killing a number of them and then stood up to give a speech in which he said: “O Christians! O brothers of monkeys! If I come to know that you have disobeyed me, I shall return and shall make your generations extinct. I shall ruin your farms and demolish your houses.”17

On way to Sanaa, he killed Abi Karb, chief of the Shi’a tribes of Hamadan. In Sanaa also he created an atmosphere of murder and plunder. People of the Maarib tribe appealed to him for mercy, but he killed their chiefs and didn't even spare two small children of Ubaidullah Ibn Abbas. The children's mother pulled her hair in distress and recited a mournf ul-dirge.

In a letter, Mughaira Ibn Shu’ba congratulated Busr on such ruthlessness: “May Allah make you and me of those who order good, attend to Allah and remember Him much.”

It is rightly said that people are brethren to each other on account of their morals because when we see carefully, we find that fraudsters and deceitful persons like Busr and Mughaira are present even in this age. They utter the name of God (and even lead prayers but have religious people killed in the mosques too).

It was mentioned earlier that Imam Ali (‘a) sent Jariya Ibn Qadamah to subdue Busr. Jariya pursued Busr and drove him out of the territories under the Imam's control. However, before that Busr managed to pull down houses, destroy farms, and kill many people.

When Busr returned to Syria, he reported to Mu’awiyyah: “I have routed and annihilated your enemies during the outward journey as well as on the way back.” Mu’awiyyah said: “It was Allah and not you who killed them.”

Yazid had also said to Imam Sajjad (‘a) “Praise be to Allah who has killed your father.” Imam Sajjad (‘a) said: “Curse of Allah be on him who has killed my father.”

Ibn Abil Hadid says:

“During this exercise, Busr Ibn Artat killed 30,000 people and burnt many alive. Like Busr, Muslim Ibn Uqbah al-Marri18 also became Yazid's agent. He followed Busr's policy in the incident of Harrah, and in Hijaz and Yemen. But Yazid's conduct was not more surprising than that of his father.

Massacres and murders in the sanctuaries of Mecca and Medina, killing of innocent children and robbing ornaments off women by Mu’awiyyah and his agents prompted some people to say: “Mu’awiyyah was a better politician than Imam Ali (‘a).”

Of course, Imam Ali (‘a) and those like him were not experts in creating mischief and resorting to killings and plunder. It was Mu’awiyyah who possessed greatness in the matter of such politics and was indeed a great politician in the view of those who think like him.

Amr Bin Al-Aas

ln Zarnakhshari's Rabi ul-Abrar, it is mentioned that the mother of Amr Ibn al-Aas, Nabigha, was a woman of loose morals and she had illegal relations with Abu Lahab, Umayyah Ibn Khalaf, Hisham Ibn Mughaira and Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb. But when Amr was born, she said that his father was al-Aas Ibn Wael and thus absolved the said four persons from sin.

When Nabigha was asked why she selected al-Aas as Amr's father, she replied: “Because as compared to others he spends more on me and my children. But it is said that Amr resembled Abu Sufyan more than the other four.”

Exegists have unanimously stated that Amr's father, al-Aas Ibn Wael said: “I hate Muhammad, the Abtar.19 Thereupon Allah revealed the verse:

“Surely your enemy is the one who shall be without posterity” (108:3).

Amr Ibn al-Aas was of those who were inimical to the Holy Prophet and called him a liar and troublemaker. He fought against the Holy Prophet with the army of polytheists and composed a seventy-line satire poem. The prophet invoked Allah: “My Lord! I do not write poetry, so You curse him a thousand times for every letter of his poem.”

On the basis of this, Amr Ibn al-Aas is accursed in the view of Allah and His Messenger.20

At the time of the migration of the Muslims to Ethiopia, Ibn al-Aas went to see King Negus to petition him to deport the Muslims to Mecca.21

Towards the end of Uthman’s reign, Amr instigated people to rise against him. However, after the murder of the latter, he joined hands with others to demand retaliation and opposed Imam Ali (‘a). Amr said to Ayesha: I wish you had been killed in the Battle of Jamal. Ayesha said: May your father die! Why should I have been killed? Amr replied: It would have been a great blemish on Ali's reputation ...22

During the time of Umar, Amr Ibn al-Aas was the Governor of Egypt. While holding the post, he was guilty of excesses and embezzlement. So, Umar confiscated his property. Amr had sold his faith to Mu’awiyyah on the condition that Mu’awiyyah would appoint him as governor of Egypt and not inquire into other matters.

Regarding Amr, his slave has said: ''He fought against Imam Ali (‘a) because he was a man of Hereafter and defended Mu’awiyyah because he was the slave of this world.”

According to Maqrizi in Al-Khutat and Ibn Athir in Kamil Fit-Tarikh, Mu’awiyyah appointed Amr Ibn al-Aas as governor of Egypt because the people there were Shi’a. Shaykh Abu Zahra writes in Al-Mazahib ul-Islamiyyah: “People of Egypt embraced Shi’ism during the time of Uthman.”23

Amir Al-Mu’minin Imam Ali (‘a) had appointed Qays Ibn Saad al-Ansari as the Governor of Egypt and after him, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr was appointed in his place. Mu’awiyyah dispatched an army of 4,000 to Egypt under the command of Amr. This army included Muawivyah Ibn Khadij, Abi Awar Salmi and Abdur Rahman Ibn Abi Bakr.

Amr’s army scattered the forces of Muhammad, and Muhammad took refuge in a ruin. When Amr’s soldiers captured Muhammad and brought him out of the ruins, he was about to die of thirst. When he asked for water, Ibn Khadij said: “If I give you water, may Allah never quench my thirst.” According to another report, Muhammad was stuffed in a donkey hide and burned alive.”24

The Shock Of Muhammad Bin Abi Bakr's Death

When the news of the murder of Muhammad reached Imam Ali (‘a), he said: “I have never been grieved so much during these battles as I have been today on the death of Muhammad.” Those present said: ·'You grieve for him too much.” Imam Ali (‘a) replied: “Why shouldn’t I? Muhammad was the son of my wife and brother of my children, and I am his father.”25

Imam Ali (‘a) dispatched Malik al-Ashtar with a huge force to recover Egypt. When Mu’awiyyah came to know about it, he summoned a landowner of Areesh and said to him: “If you can poison Malik to death, I will not take land revenue from you for twenty years.” When Malik reached Areesh, the landowner served him poisoned honey sherbet. Malik passed away immediately, and Muawiyah's soldiers killed the landowner. When His Eminence, Ali (‘a) received this shocking news, he said: “Liddeen-e-wal ghamme”. These words are uttered at a time when one is helpless and cannot do anything.

When the news of Malik's death reached Mu’awiyyah, he said: “Allah has some armies; one of which is honey.” When Mu’awiyyah had given poisoned honey to the farmer to kill Malik, he told the people to curse Malik. So, the people cursed him.

And when the news of Malik's death was brought to him, he said to the people: “See how soon your prayer is granted!” It drives one mad to think that through deceit, pious servants of Allah are killed with poison, and all these heinous acts are attributed to Allah, and it is further taken as an outcome of prayers to Him! Doubtlessly, Mu’awiyyah wanted to say that it was not he that committed these crimes!

Muarri rebukes his son in the words of Prophet Adam and says: “You lie to Allah, to your father Adam, to your mother Eve and to one another. And not being contented with this, you deceive yourselves and lie to yourselves.26

Mu’awiyyah was not content with just his army. He also dispatched equipped detachments of expert mercenaries who destroyed, plundered, and killed the people. He deputed such detachments under the command of Yazid Ibn Shajara, Abdur Rahman Ibn Qays, Zuhair Ibn Makhul, Muslim Ibn Uqbah and Abdullah Ibn Masada. He himself also assumed the command of some of such detachments and marched up to the Tigris to wreak havoc.27

Prof. Abbas Mahmood Aqqad writes: “Mu’awiyyah's agents were trained experts in their fields. They were cunning hounds that hunted excessively.'·

The Christian Lebanese writer George Jordac writes: Supporters of Bani Umayyah consisted of two groups: First were those whose conscience could be purchased through bribes, and second, those who had low morals and were enemies of the righteous people.

Muawviyah's soldiers were always in search of human blood. They were especially fond of killing the elderly, women, and children. To create terror and flee quickly was their usual practice. As against the methods adopted by Mu’awiyyah's army, the soldiers of Imam Ali were extremely sluggish. He was so much distressed with their attitude that he prayed: '“O Lord! Give me better people than these.”

One day he said to his companions: 'Woe be to you! You set out with me to fight and then run away from the battlefield. By Allah, I wish to die with the truth of my goal and faith, because a great comfort is hidden in it. In this way, I shall be relieved of conversing with you and bearing hardships. “I don 't know why that evil man is delaying his arrival?” Imam Ali was eager that Ibn Muljim might relieve him of the mischief of the Iraqis as early as possible. How strange! Imam Ali used to wish for his death. He didn't want to legitimize the forbidden acts and to achieve his object by employing diplomacy of deceit and fraud.

Since Imam Ali (‘a) craved for death, he called the people of Iraq to accompany him for jihad; then wished they may leave him alone in the battlefield and flee as they habitually did so that he might be martyred, and his sacrifice be accepted by Allah.

Despite this, people ask: “Why did Imam Hasan (‘a) make peace with Mu’awiyyah when the Iraqi army was available?” Were the Iraqis faithful to Imam Hasan's father that he could have relied on them? Thus, it is not correct to say that Imam Hasan (‘a) made peace with Mu’awiyyah to avoid bloodshed, to maintain Muslim unity and end the war. The son of Allah's Messenger made peace because he had too few supporters to fight a war. The men who were apparently with him were, in reality, against him.

1. Yazid was the elder brother of Mu’awiyyah. He embraced Islam at the time of the conquest of Mecca and was present at the Battle of Hunain. The Meccan infidels who embraced Islam were given some gifts by the Holy Prophet (S) in order to make them more loyal to Islam. So, the Prophet gave forty camels and forty ounces of silver to Yazid. Abu Bakr made Yazid commander of the army and sent him to Syria. He escorted him on foot. Umar first appointed him the governor of Palestine and later governor of Sham (Syria). Upon his death, Umar appointed Mu’awiyyah as the governor of Syria and he ruled Syria till the time of his death. (Usud ul-Ghaba, Vol. 5, Pg. 112)

2. One day Abu Sufyan was riding a camel. His sons, Yazid and Mu’awiyyah were walking by his side. Seeing them the Holy Prophet (S) remarked: “Curse of Allah be on the one who is ahead, one who is behind and the one who is mounted.”

3. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, Pg. 69, Published Dar ul-Ishaat Karachi that at the time of the construction of the Masjid, the Holy Prophet (S) cleared dust from the head of Ammar saying: “Alas! A rebellious group will murder Ammar. Ammar would be calling them to Allah, and they would be calling them to Hell.”

4. Allamah Shaykh Hasan Muzaffar, Dalailus Sidq, Vol. 3, Pg. 213.

5. The jahiliyya (ignorance) practice, referring to the pre-Islamic era [note of Al-Islam.org].

6. In order to make Yazid the caliph, Mu’awiyyah had Walid’s son Abdur Rahman also eliminated because his father was a popular leader, and he was himself a claimant to leadership. In the same way Mu’awiyyah also removed from his path some individuals from his own clan who were vying for caliphate. (Ustad Murtaza Mutahhari, Maqtal Mutahhar, Pg 106.)

7. People of Damascus asked Imam Nasai to recount the virtues of Mu’awiyyah. He said: “Wasn't Mu’awiyyah satisfied with being equal to the caliphs that he should need his virtues being recounted? Then he said: I Have not heard any tradition about Mu’awiyyah better than this: 'May Allah not fill his belly.' Upon this the Syrians beat him up so much that he died.
Once the Holy Prophet sent Ibn Abbas to summon Mu’awiyyah. Ibn Abbas returned and informed the Holy Prophet that Mu’awiyyah was having his meals. The prophet summoned him again, but he was told once again that he was taking his meals. When this happened the third time, the Prophet said: “May Allah not fill his belly.” (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, Pg. 27; Tarikh Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, Pg. 119; Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Pg. 532) Mention is made about “May Allah not fill his belly” in Nahj ul-Balagha also. Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) said: “Soon after me there would be put on you a man with a broad mouth and a big belly. He would swallow whatever he gets and would crave for what he does not get. You should kill him but (I know) you would not kill him. He would command you to abuse me and to renounce me. As for abusing, you do abuse me because that would mean purification for me and salvation for you. As regards renunciation, you should not renounce me because I have been born on the natural religion (Islam) and was foremost in accepting it as well as in Hijrah (migrating from Mecca to Medina).”

8. The author was probably referring to a translated version of a book by Wellhaussen. He wrote a book, Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz, which, in its time, was the standard modern account of the Umayyad history (1902). The English translation, The Arab Kingdom and its Fall, was published in 1927. [Note by Al-Islam.org]

9. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. I, Pg. 44, old edition.

10. Naila was Uthman’s wife. [Note of al-Islam.org]

11. Nu’man Ibn Bashir was not as cruel as Ibn Ziyad, which is why he was dismissed from the governorship of Kufa. It was this same Nu’man Ibn Bashir who escorted the Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) to Medina after they were released from the prison of Syria. He behaved in amicable manner to the Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a).

12. Literally meaning, ‘Hand of Allah’.

13. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg 301

14. In Usud ul-Ghabah, Vol. 2. Pg. 178, his name is mentioned as “Zarqi”.

15. Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Vol. I

16. The six books of ahadith collection considered authentic by Ahl al-Sunna

17. Ahl al-Sunna consider Busr Ibn Abi Artat also as a jurist (Mujtahid). In their view, a companion of the prophet is excused irrespective of whatever sin he may commit. We ask Ahl al-Sunna brothers, the same thing that the Almighty Allah asks:
“What! Shall We then make (i.e. treat) those who submit (same) as the guilty?” (68:35).

18. Just as the Almighty Allah had saved Imam Sajjad (‘a) from the cruelty of Ibn Saad in Karbala, in the same way He kept the Imam in His refuge from the brutality of Muslim Ibn Uqbah al-Marri during the plunder of Medina.

19. A person who does not have a male child to succeed him is called abtar by the Arabs. As al-Aas Ibn Wael ridiculed the prophet on this account, Allah comforted His prophet through revelation and told him: “We have given you Kauthar (i.e. Fatimah), whose posterity will exist till the Day of Judgment, and the progeny of one who called you abtar will become extinct.” (Tafsir Majma ul-Bayan, Vol. 10, Pg. 549; Tafsir Minhajus Sadiqeen, Vol. 10, Pg. 340 and Abu al-Futuh, Vol. 10, Pg. 371).
Hajjaj ordered Qutaibah Ibn Muslim, the governor of Khorasan to send the jurist (faqih) of Khorasan, Yahya Ibn Yamir, to him.
Imam Shobi says that at that time he was in the company of Hajjaj and reported that Hajjaj said: “O Yahya, I have heard that you say that Hasan and Husayn are the sons of the daughter of the prophet, then how could they be sons of the Prophet from their maternal side?”. Yahya replied: Yes, it is correct, O Hajjaj.”
Imam Shobi says that he was astonished at the audacity of Yahya that he said ‘O Hajjaj' instead of O Chief!” He further reported that Hajjaj said: “You will be forgiven if you can provide a verse (ayat) other than that of ‘call our sons and your sons’ (3:61). Otherwise, I will cut you into pieces.” Yahya said: “I will indeed mention another verse: And We gave to him Ishaq and Yaqoub; each did We guide, and Nuh did We guide before, and of his descendants, Dawood and Sulaiman and Ayub and Yusuf and Haroun; and thus, do We reward those who do good (to others)” (6:84).”And Zakariya and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas; each one was of the good”(6:85). In these verses, Allah, the Mighty and Sublime has included Prophet Isa (‘a) among the descendants of Prophet Ibrahim (‘a) although he was not his father. Also, there was a long gap between the two, unlike between the Holy Prophet (S) and Hasan and Husayn.” Hajjaj said: “You have indeed presented a very good argument. By Allah, I recited the Holy Qur’an very much but never paid attention to this verse. It is an astonishing deduction.” (Damiri, Hayat ul-Haiwan, Urdu, Pg. 334).

20. At the time of the martyrdom of Hamza, the Holy Prophet saw Amr Ibn al-Aas intoxicated and cursed him. (Safinat ul-Bihar, Vol. 2, Pg. 261)

21. Amr Ibn al-Aas was a friend of the Abyssinian king, Asmah Najjashi. The Quraish used Amr's influence to get the Muslims who had undertaken the First Hijrah deported back to Mecca. They sent Amr with Ammara Ibn Walid to Abyssinia but they did not succeed in their goal and after the impartial Najjashi knew the stand of the Muslims, he rejected Amr's request.

22. Safinat ul-Bihar, Vol. 1, Pg. 261

23. Shaykh Abu Zahra says in his book, Al-Imam as-Sadiq, Pg. 47:
“When Salahuddin al-Ayyubi brought down the Fatimid government in Egypt, the Shi’as were also persecuted and killed, and those who remained were forced to leave their land. They moved from city to city and finally settled in Aswan. The Shi’as remaining in Egypt were eliminated during the Ayyubid period. At present (in 1962) there is no Shi’a in that city.” (Author)

24. Masoodi, Murujuz Zahab, Vol. 2.

25. Asma Ibnt Umais was first married to Ja’far at-Tayyar, the elder brother of Imam Ali (‘a). After Ja'far's martyrdom, she married Abu Bakr and gave birth to a righteous and loyal person like Muhammad Ibn Abu Bar. After the death of Abu Bakr, Imam Ali (‘a) married Asma. Therefore, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr began to be called as the son of Imam Ali (‘a). He was brought up under the care of Imam Ali (‘a). Therefore, he was greatly devoted to the Holy Imam (‘a) and he had nothing to do with his father, Abu Bakr.
When the news of the martyrdom of Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr reached Medina, Mu’awiyyah's sister, Umm ul-Mu’minin, Habeeba, sent a roasted sheep to Ayesha with the message: “Your brother was also roasted like this. (Safinat ul-Bihar, Vol. I, Pg. 313).

26. Mu’awiyyah actually deceives himself when he says: 'Allah has killed Malik'.

27. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir.

Imam Hasan Al-Mujtaba (‘A)

It was the 3rd year of the Hijra and 15th night of the month of Ramadan when Imam Hasan (‘a) was born in Medina. There were celebrations in the celestial world as the first flower had blossomed in the orchard of the prophet and the garden of Ali and Batool1 had seen the first spring.

When he was born, the Holy Prophet recited Azaan in his right ear and Iqamah in his left and named him Hasan. Before Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, no one had been given these names.

On the seventh day of his birth, the prophet performed his Aqiqa ceremony and sacrificed two sheep in the Name of Allah, had Hasan's head shaved, perfumed it and gave silver in alms equivalent to the weight of the child's hair.

Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (‘a) remained under the training of the prophet for seven years. His Eminence (S) could not tolerate separation from Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (‘a). The two brothers constantly remained with him like light remains with the sun and left him only at the time of prayers and descent of divine revelation. When divine revelations arrived, Imam Hasan (‘a) memorized it and recounted the same to his mother upon his return home. When Imam Ali (‘a) came home, he used to find that Lady Fatimah was already aware of the revelations. When he inquired how she learnt it, she told him that his son, Hasan had recounted to her.

One day, while the Holy Prophet was performing prostration (Sajdah), Imam Hasan mounted his blessed back. The prophet prolonged his Sajdah, but Imam Hasan (‘a) did not come down. After raising his head, the Holy Prophet took his grandson down and lay him on the floor very tenderly. On another occasion, while the prophet was performing Ruku (bowing), Imam Hasan (‘a) came and passed through his legs. Those present said: “You treat Hasan in a manner different from others.” He replied: “Hasan is my blooming branch.”

One day the Holy Prophet had placed Imam Hasan on his right shoulder and Husayn on his left and was walking on the street. Abu Bakr saw His Eminence and addressing Hasan and Husayn, he said: “What a nice mount!”

The Prophet said: “These two are very dear to me. You should have said ‘what fine riders!’ The two are flowery branch of my world.”

The Holy Prophet used to tell Imam Hasan (‘a): “Your manners and disposition resemble mine.” Many traditions have been narrated from the Holy Prophet in both Sunni and Shi’a books, according to which he said:

“Hasan and Husayn are the chiefs of the youths of Paradise.”

“I love them. You should love them too. Whoever loves them loves me, and whoever bears grudge against them, bears grudge against me.”

“I, Fatimah, Ali, Hasan and Husayn would be the first to enter Paradise.”

“Hasan and Husayn are Imams, whether they sit or stand.”

In Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal it has been quoted from Mu’awiyyah that one day the Holy Prophet was kissing the tongue or lips of Imam Hasan (‘a), saying: “Allah will not punish the tongue and lips kissed by Allah's Messenger.”

Numerous traditions were recorded about the excellence (and infallibility) of Imam Hasan (‘a).2 However, the single tradition that is sufficient to prove his greatness is that he was chosen by the Holy Prophet to go for the occasion of mubahalah with the Christians of Najran.

Personality And Excellence Of Imam Hasan (‘A)

Imam Hasan (‘a) had a very commanding personality. Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Tabari Shafei writes:

Imam Hasan's complexion was reddish white. His eyes were deep black, and his face was not so fleshy. He had soft hair on his chest. His beard was luxuriant. The hair of his head came up to his ear lobes.

Another Shafei scholar, Mohib Tabari writes in Zakhair ul-Uqbah that Imam Hasan's neck was tall and slender like that of a silver ewer, and he had strong bones. He had broad shoulders, medium stature, handsome face, curly hair, and a well-shaped body. It would not be incorrect to say that he was a replica of prophet. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari that one day Abu Bakr saw Imam Hasan (‘a) playing among the children. He picked him up, placed him on his neck and laughingly said: May I be sacrificed for you. You resemble the prophet more than (you resemble) your father.

Morals, Manners, And Habits Of Imam Hasan (‘A)

Imam Hasan (‘a) was the most devout and pious person of his time. When he performed ablution for prayer, his face paled and his body trembled with the fear of the Almighty. When he reached the mosque, he used to say: “O Lord! A sinner has come at Your door. Excuse whatever of my shortcomings which You know.”

Whenever death, grave, Judgment Day or the Sirat Bridge were mentioned to him, he cried. He performed twenty-five Hajjs on foot and his mounts used to move ahead of him.

He distributed his wealth thrice in the way of Allah and twice he distributed all his property in charity. When a man asked him for monetary assistance, he gave him 50,000 dirhams and 500 dinars.

When a Bedouin requested for help, he directed his secretary: Give him all I have in my treasury.

Another person came for aid and Imam Hasan gave him 150,000 dirhams.

People were highly impressed by his personality. Mu’awiyyah says: Whenever I see him, I remember his position and fear that he might recount my defects.

Marwan Ibn Hakam used to say: “Imam Hasan (‘a) is a heavy mountain of forbearance.” His hospitality was such that one day he saw some poor persons sitting by the roadside eating pieces of bread. They invited him to share the meal. He dismounted and said: “Allah does not like the arrogant ones.” Then he ate with them and thereafter invited them home and gave them food and clothes.

If Imam Hasan (‘a) was like his father in eloquence and bravery, it was not surprising because he was brought up in the nursery of the Qur’an and the school of divine revelation. He learned the Qur’an by heart at the age of seven, and he also acted on its commands. He had heard discourses from his grandfather, which were incomparable in all Arabia. He had also heard the speeches of his father who had laid the foundation of eloquence among the Quraish.

It is mentioned in Sawaiq ul-Muhriqa that one day Imam Hasan (‘a) saw Abu Bakr on the pulpit of his grandfather and at once shouted: “Get down from my father's place.”

It is mentioned in Maqatilut Talibiyyin that when Mu’awiyyah mounted the pulpit after taking allegiance and began slandering Imam Ali and Imam Hasan (‘a), Imam Husayn (‘a) rose to restrain him. But Imam Hasan asked him to sit and he himself stood up and addressing Mu’awiyyah, saying:

Since you spoke ill of Ali (‘a), listen to me. I am Hasan the son of Ali. You are Muawiyah and your father was Sakhar. I am the son of Fatimah, and your mother was Hind. My grandmother was Khadija, and your grandmother was Qatila. My grandfather was the Messenger of Allah (S) and your grandfather was Harb. Curse of Allah be on one who is inferior by birth, whose nobility is insignificant, whose mischief is great, and who has a worse past record of infidelity and hypocrisy.

Those present in the gathering said 'Ameen' and whoever has heard this tradition till today has said ’Ameen '. We also say 'Ameen'.

No reply could be more solid than this, because Mu’awiyyah wanted to slander Imam Ali (‘a), but Imam Hasan (‘a) made him realize that only those who cursed that deserved the curse. And they were Mu’awiyyah and his father, who were the worst enemies of Allah and His Messenger. Mu’awiyyah's mother was Hind who had chewed the liver of His Eminence Hamza, the prophet's uncle. And his grandmother was Qatila, who advertised her profession as prostitute by hoisting a flag atop her house.

People testified the correctness of the reply and acknowledged the nobleness and greatness of Imam Hasan (‘a) as well as the family tree of Mu’awiyyah. Along with the son of the messenger, they uttered the curse which is still repeated in our society and will continue to be repeated till even one person uttering it (the curse) remains on the earth.

Reasons For The Peace Treaty

First, the slackness of Iraqis - and their lack of regard for His Eminence, Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) - was the most important cause of this treaty. When Mu’awiyyah attacked their territories and killed the men and plundered the women, they did not take any steps against him. Imam Ali (‘a) continued to exhort them to be ashamed of this through his speeches. But they did not show any reaction except fickleness. So much so that as mentioned above, Imam Ali (‘a) used to pray for his early martyrdom so that he may be relieved of those people.

When the Iraqis have behaved with Imam Ali (‘a) in this manner, they would certainly not have paid any regard to his son as well. When fighting was required, they shirked from it and when war flames flared up, they left Imam Hasan (‘a) alone. As opposed to this lazy and timid army, the soldiers of Mu’awiyyah were extremely obedient. They carried out the orders of their Amir without hesitation or excuse, and if one of them failed to perform his duty, he was taken to task by Mu’awiyyah.

Second, the chiefs of tribes who paid allegiance to Imam Hasan (‘a) were very greedy to acquire wealth and position. If they got a share in power they were pleased, but when no such benefit accrued, they got annoyed. They had behaved somewhat like this with his venerable father who had in view nothing except justice, brotherhood, and public well-being.

As far as the enforcement of justice is concerned, the tribal chiefs did not like to see themselves at par with the common people. That is why Najjashi, Masqala Ibn Habira, Qaqaa Ibn Shor etc. left the Imam and joined Mu’awiyyah. The Iraqis’ breaking of oath of allegiance to the Imam and their treason was because they preferred worldly gains to the Hereafter. They left the Imam because he had not sold his faith to anyone. They rushed to Mu’awiyyah, who was prepared to commit every crime to achieve his aims.

Third, many hypocrites were also among those who had paid allegiance to Imam Hasan (‘a). Outwardly they supported him, but they were always trying to cause harm. Some of them wrote to Mu’awiyyah, who responded to them and sent them money. Amr Ibn Huraith, Ammara Ibn Walid, Hujr Ibn Amr, Amr Ibn Saad, Abu Burda Ibn Abu Musa Ashari, Ismail Ibn Talha and Ishaq, were all hopeful that Mu’awiyyah would appoint them as governors.

Shaykh Razi Aale Yasin writes in Sulh al-Hasan3:

“The hypocrites wrote to Mu’awiyyah that they were obedient to him and asked him to come over to them as soon as possible. They decided to hand over Imam Hasan (‘a) to Mu’awiyyah or kill him. Mu’awiyyah wrote to Amr Ibn Huraith, Ashath Ibn Qays, Hajar Ibn Abjar and Shabth Ibn Rabi that if they killed Hasan Ibn Ali, they would be given 100,000 dirhams, command of a Syrian regiment, and one of his daughters in marriage.

As soon as the Imam came to know about the plot, he began to take precautions and started wearing a coat of mail under his dress. He also wore a coat of mail in congregational prayers. One of those persons shot an arrow at him while he was performing prayer, but it caused no harm.

By way of political bribe, Mu’awiyyah told Shabth Ibn Rabi, Amr Ibn Huraith, and Hajar Ibn Abjar that he would give his daughters in marriage to them. If the Imam had not made peace, he would have been killed like Imam Husayn (‘a), because most of those who shed the blood of Imam Husayn, his children, and his companions, were in Imam Hasan's army before the peace treaty. For example, Shimr Ibn Zil Jaushan, the killer of Imam Husayn (‘a) was one of them.

Fourth, Imam Hasan (‘a) appointed his cousin, Mughaira Ibn Nawfal, as his agent in Kufa and left to fight Mu’awiyyah. Upon reaching Nukhayla, he halted there for ten days to mobilize an army. However, many people who had promised to assist him remained aloof. Only 4,000 men reported in the cantonment of Nakhayla. So, the Imam returned to Kufa and asked the people to accompany him for jihad. He chided them and said that they were deceiving him, as they had deceived his venerable father.

Imam Hasan (‘a) sent Ubaidullah Ibn Abbas4 at the head of a 12,000 men army to guard the frontiers of Iraq and to fight jihad against Mu’awiyyah. But Mu’awiyyah resorted to intrigue and offered Ubaidullah a million dirhams if he changed side. Ubaidullah accepted the offer and went over to Mu’awiyyah overnight and Mu’awiyyah sent him a million dirhams. As a result of this great victory of Mu’awiyyah, the army chiefs of Imam Hasan's army openly disobeyed the imam, rebelled against him, and went over to Syria one after another.

Fifth, Mu’awiyyah sent to Imam Hasan (‘a) the letters of the imam's companions in which they had written that they would either kill the Imam or hand him over to Mu’awiyyah. Mughaira Ibn Shu’ba, Abdullah Ibn Aamir and Abdur Rahman Ibn Hakam brought these letters to the Imam. The Imam carried our investigations, and it became clear that his own men were traitors. It is clear that Mu’awiyyah wanted to demoralize the Imam's army and scatter it.

These were the five causes of Imam Hasan's peace treaty. It is clear from the above that the Imam did not make peace with Mu’awiyyah to avoid bloodshed and to maintain unity among Muslims, as Iqbal the poet has said:

He was a candle of the sanctuary.

Protector of society well-wisher of community.

In order that fire of hatred should not flare up.

He disregarded the crown and signet ring.

The Imam made peace because he lacked sincere supporters. Most of his military officers were Mu’awiyyah's spies awaiting an opportunity to commit treachery. These hypocrites were more dangerous than those who opposed the Imam openly. As for the alleged tradition of the Holy Prophet saying: “This son of mine is a chief. Allah will make peace between two Muslim armies through him”5, it was fabricated by liars like Abu Huraira and Samra Ibn Jundab who were bribed by Mu’awiyyah to fabricate traditions of the Prophet.

When it became clear that peace was going to be made between Imam Hasan (‘a) and Mu’awiyyah, the Kufians and spies of Mu’awiyyah rebelled against the imam, plundered his property, and wounded him in his thigh. When he decided to fight, they did not obey but when he was compelled to make peace, they revolted against him.

They had compelled his father also to accept the arbitration and when the arbitration ended in loss, they began to blame him. And when he refrained from fighting and observed patience; they waged war against him on account of his patience. In the same way, they obliged Imam Hasan (‘a) to sign the peace treaty and later criticized him for having done so.

In such circumstances, if Imam Hasan (‘a) had not made peace, what else could he do? What alternative did he have when the enemy was transgressing the religion, acting deceitfully and offering his daughters as bribe? And when the soldiers were not obeying the Imam and deserting him to enter the ranks of Mu’awiyyah?

Critics who question Imam Hasan’s peace treaty with Mu’awiyyah ignore the difficulties he was facing on every side. They judge from a distance and are not aware of the causes and results of the events of the world. Causes and circumstances have a lot to do with daily happenings and it is impossible for one to achieve one's objects without adapting to the prevailing conditions.

Hence, it is necessary for the critics of Imam Hasan's treaty to first study the immediate and distant events, and all other related matters, and then derive a conclusion. They should not judge based on mere imagination or probability. In fact, those who blame Imam Hasan (‘a) are like those who criticize individuals, but do not condemn the society that has influenced them.

Causes Of Imam Hasan's Peace Treaty And Martyrdom Of Imam Husayn (‘a)

It is often asked why Imam Hasan (‘a) preferred peace and Imam Husayn (‘a) preferred martyrdom? And how their respective actions can be explained? Many replies have been given to this question. We present below the replies obtained through research, discussions, and experience:

Vengefulness Of Bani Umayyah

Bani Umayyah harboured a grudge against Allah and His Messenger (S). This grudge against the prophet and his descendants could not go away by peaceful efforts on the part of Imam Hasan (‘a). This hatred could be redressed only by shedding of blood. The flame of this rancour could be cooled only by beheading and mutilating the body.

They had killed Hamza, but Hind was not satisfied till she chewed Hamza's liver and wore a necklace made of his nose and ears that she had cut off from his dead body.

They killed Imam Husayn (‘a) but were not satisfied till they trampled on his body, cut off his head and hit his lips and teeth with a cane.

They killed Zaid Ibn Ali, but were not satisfied till they exhumed his corpse, cut off his head and impaled his body.

Couldn’t Mu’awiyyah be content with the imam's peace agreement? Couldn’t he be content with anything lesser than Imam Hasan's killing?

If the real object of Mu’awiyyah was only power, why was it that after securing the power, he cursed Imam Ali (‘a) even though he had already become an absolute ruler? It is a clear mistake to think that Mu’awiyyah and Yazid wanted peace with Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn and only wanted allegiance from them. The actual aim of the father and son was to take revenge from the religion of Allah and His Messenger, and they took this revenge by eliminating Hasan and Husayn, the two roses of the prophet's garden.

Security Of Islam

Mu’awiyyah wanted to murder Imam Hasan (‘a) but he did not wish to take the blame for it. He didn't wish to give a weapon in the hands of his enemies. So, to implement his plan, Mu’awiyyah bribed some companions of the Imam to persuade him to wage war, and after he comes to the battle to kill him there.

The imam, being aware of this, made peace with Mu’awiyyah and frustrated his plan, because if he had entered the battle, he himself, the members of his family and his true supporters would have been killed at the hands of his own army. And with that Mu’awiyyah's object would have been achieved. The official Islam would have survived, and the true Islam would have perished.

Not To Provide Excuse

If Imam Hasan (‘a) had been killed at the hands of the traitors in his own army, Mu’awiyyah would not be held responsible and Yazid's character too would not have come out to be so despicable. If Imam Hasan (‘a) had been killed by his own army, Mu’awiyyah would have come forward to take revenge for his murder - as he did in the case of Uthman - and would have got his murderer killed. And as he would have (apparently) avenged the murder of the prophet's grandson, he would have acquired a great deal of support. It would have been just as he instigated the murder of Uthman, then rose to avenge it.

Same Result

Although Mu’awiyyah made peace with the imam, it was not his object to conclude peace or obtain allegiance, because just as his mother had Hamza's liver as her target, Mu’awiyyah's target was Imam Hasan's liver. Mu’awiyyah's aim was bloodshed of the prophet's descendants so that he might satisfy himself by taking revenge from Islam and the Prophet of Islam. If Muawiyah's target had not been the Imam's liver, why did he cheat the latter after the peace treaty?

It is an undeniable fact that the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (‘a) was due to the poison Mu’awiyyah had got administered for him. On the one hand, history has recorded Mu’awiyyah's intrigues and crimes and on the other hand, it mentions the imam’s greatness, devotion to Islam and kindness to the Muslim ummah. Doubtlessly, Imam Hasan's peace treaty was a blessing for him, for his father, and followers of the prophet (S), while for Mu’awiyyah it was an eternal curse.

Just as Mu’awiyyah was determined to kill Hasan (‘a), Yazid was also bent on killing Husayn (‘a) even if the latter had given allegiance to him or made peace with him. The evidence for this is that after Imam Husayn (‘a) was martyred, his body was trampled over, and his belongings were plundered. His ailing son was put in chains, the heads of martyrs were severed and raised on spear points, and the dead bodies were abandoned under the desert sun.

The bereaved ladies were made to pass by the dead bodies of their dear ones, and they were taken around the country. Sacrilege was committed with the blessed head of Imam Husayn (‘a). Such crimes of Yazid show that the real issue was not confined to rulership, and the real matter was not about paying allegiance. It was something more complex. The actual matter was about satisfying the hearts full of vengefulness, which had been greatly pained by the religion of Allah and His Messenger. Yazid earned eternal damnation by killing Imam Husayn (‘a) just as Mu’awiyyah had earned eternal curse by murdering Imam Hasan (‘a).

This was the very aim of Ahl Al-Bayt (be it the attitude of Ali, or the methods of Hasan and Husayn). Their common goal was to expose the hypocrites, who in the name of Islam were busy destroying it secretly. If this object could be achieved by making peace, they made peace, and if it required martyrdom, they willingly embraced martyrdom. And whenever their being killed

was in the interest of the truth and caused disgrace to falsehood they did not fear death.

Different Approaches

When we glance at the various events, we do not find any difference in the status of Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (‘a), because both carried out jihad for the sake of Allah, both were martyred, and both proved their truthfulness against the Allah's enemies. The only difference was the approach each adopted.

Imam Husayn (‘a) was martyred with a sword and Imam Hasan (‘a) was poisoned. Possibly the course adopted by Imam Hasan (‘a) is a clearer reason for the condemnation of Mu’awiyyah, because Imam Hasan (‘a) concluded a peace treaty with Mu’awiyyah and one of its terms was that the Imam's life would remain secure. Yet, despite that he was martyred by intrigue.

Hence, it is meaningless to ask why Imam Husayn (‘a) took up arms and Imam Hasan (‘a) made peace. In fact, both were martyred in the path of Allah, and both condemned the enemies of Allah and His Messenger to eternal disgrace.

It would be better to end the discussion about Imam Hasan (‘a) by quoting an event narrated by Ibn Abd Rabb in AlIqd ul-Farid. He writes:

Mu’awiyyah asked his associates: Who is the most honourable person from the point of view of his parents, grandparents, paternal uncle, paternal aunt, maternal uncle, and maternal aunt? His associates said: You know better. Mu’awiyyah held Imam Hasan's hand and said: His father is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and his mother is Fatimah Zahra, daughter of the prophet. His maternal grandfather is the Messenger of Allah (S) and his maternal grandmother is Khadijat ul-Kubra. His paternal uncle is Ja'far and his paternal aunt is Hala, daughter of Abu Talib. His maternal uncle is Qasim and his maternal aunt is Zainab, daughter of the Prophet.

This noble pedigree was the crime of Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (‘a). It is on account of this crime that Mu’awiyyah and Yazid eliminated them.

1. A title of Fatimah (‘a).

2. Other similar traditions are available in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Zakhair ul-Uqbah by Mohib Tabari Shafei, Al-Ibana by Ibn Battah, Al-Isabah by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Tarikh Bagdad by Khatib Baghdadi, Murujuz Zahab by Masoodi, Al-Iqd ul-Farid by Ibn Abd Rabb Al-Andalusi, Hulyat ul-Awliya by Abu Naeem Isfahani, and Bihar ul-Anwar by Allamah Majlisi etc.

3. Pg. 57, Published in 1953.

4. Ubaidullah Ibn Abbas was the younger brother of (Abdullah) Ibn Abbas. During the caliphate of Imam Ali (‘a), he was the Amir of Yemen and from 36 to 38 A.H. he was the Amir of Hajj.

5. In Sahih Bukhari, Part 5, Pg. 56, Tr. No. J 30, published by Matbua Aalam al-Kutub, this tradition is narrated through the following chain of narrators: I heard from Abdullah Ibn Muhammad from Yahya Ibn Adam from Husayn al-Jofi from Abi Musa from al-Hasan from Abi Bakra.

Muawiyah And The Shi’as

When Imam Ali (‘a) was martyred and Imam Hasan (‘a) became secluded, was it all right for Mu’awiyyah to oppress the weak and terrify them? Or should it be that he acted like other dictators, who, when they have gained control over their enemies and achieve their ends, gives assurances of clemency to those who were opposed to their policies, and ignore the past?

Needless to say, forgiving an enemy is one of the qualities of magnanimous persons and the prophets; and Mu’awiyyah did not belong to this group. Imam Ali (‘a) forgave Ayesha and Marwan Ibn Hakam in the Battle of Jamal. He also spared the lives of Amr Ibn Aas and Busr Ibn Artat in the Battle of Siffin and allowed Mu’awiyyah and his army free access to water. He did so because he was a magnanimous and kind person.

In return for the generosity of Imam Ali (‘a), Mu’awiyyah had him cursed from the pulpit1 after his martyrdom and subjected his followers to the worst atrocities.

Mu’awiyyah was not only a mean person; he was also completely bereft of good morals. He used to satisfy his urge for revenge by attacking righteous people. Mu’awiyyah often dispatched Busr Ibn Artat, Muslim Ibn Uqbah, Zahhak Ibn Qays etc. to the Imam's territories to kill people, plunder their properties, and then flee.

Mu’awiyyah thought that by creating all these hardships for Imam Ali (‘a), his descendants, and Shi’as, he would be able to achieve his object. As a result of the martyrdom of Imam Ali (‘a) and the treaty of Imam Hasan (‘a), Mu’awiyyah gained rulership over the people. But what excuse can he give for the massacres and plundering perpetrated by him against righteous people? Has he any excuse except enmity against truth and its followers, and against justice and its supporters?

According to tradition: “Giving thanks for every blessing is that you abstain from whatever Allah has prohibited, and a bounty which is not appreciated is like an unforgiven sin.”

When Mu’awiyyah entered Kufa, he mounted the pulpit and thanked Allah for his victory. Then, he addressed the people: “By Allah, I didn't fight you to make you pray, keep the fast, perform Hajj and pay Zakat, because you already perform these duties. If you think it is so, you are mistaken. 1was fighting you in order to rule over you and God gave me the power which you detest. You should know that I trample under my feet the promises that 1 made with Hasan Ibn Ali in the peace treaty. I am not bound to fulfil any of its conditions.”2

It is mentioned in traditions that a Muslim must not violate his oath, but Mu’awiyyah said: “I trample under my feet he promises I made with Hasan Ibn Ali.”

The following were the conditions of peace treaty proposed by Imam Hasan (‘a):

(1) Mu’awiyyah would act according to Qur’an and Sunnah.

(2) Mu’awiyyah would not give caliphate to anyone but leave it at the choice of the ummah.

(3) The life, property and honour of the people would remain secure.

(4) Cursing of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) would be stopped.

Mu’awiyyah had accepted all these conditions. But later on he practically trampled upon this treaty.

Cursing Of Imam Ali (‘A)

It is narrated that one day, Abu Sufyan was riding on a red camel. Utbah was walking ahead of him and Muawlyyah was driving the camel from the rear. When the Holy Prophet (S) saw them, he said: “May Allah curse the rider, the one going ahead and the one driving it.” Mu’awiyyah remembered this curse, and he was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the prophet.'3

He could not directly curse the Holy Prophet; so, when he became an absolute ruler, by having Imam Ali (‘a) cursed, he actually meant to curse the Holy Prophet, because the prophet had said:

“Whoever cursed Ali, cursed me and whoever cursed me, cursed Allah. And one who cursed Allah shall be thrown headlong into the Fire (of Hell) by Him.” 4

Muawiyah used to have Imam Ali (‘a) cursed. He wrote to his governors that Imam Ali (‘a) must be cursed from every pulpit during Friday sermons. Government preachers cursed Imam Ali (‘a) from the pulpits in all cities, expressed hatred against him and abused his family.5

For ninety years, imprecation of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) remained a part of the law of the country no one dared to question. Rituals could be missed, but no one ever missed the 'worship'. For a period of one hundred years, His Eminence, Ali's name was not even included in the list of caliphs. When the tradition of “It is obligatory for you to follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs' was fabricated”, Imam Ali (‘a) was made the fourth caliph.

While Imam Ali (‘a) was still alive, Mu’awiyyah was fearful and he resorted to deceit and treachery, transgression, oppression, killing and plundering. If someone asked as to why he was doing all those, he used to present the excuse that he was doing it to consolidate his rule. But what reply could he give after he had consolidated his rule?

Mu’awiyyah was once told: “You have achieved your object. It is, therefore, only proper that you cease cursing Ali (‘a).” He replied: “It is not possible. I wish that he should be cursed so much that even infants get habituated to it and they grow old with this habit.”

Mu’awiyyah wrote to his agents (governors) to let that practice continue as part of the act of worship. He cursed Imam Ali (‘a) in the presence of his children and relatives. He invited descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) to his house where his friends spoke ill of Imam Ali (‘a) in his (Mu’awiyyah’s) presence.

We have heard about a man who travelled with his enemy, and they slept on the same floor. He eventually committed treachery and killed his enemy. However, we have not heard of a man, who is invited as a guest and then treachery is committed against him. Such conduct is peculiar to Mu’awiyyah.

Imam Hasan (‘A) At The Residence Of Mu’awiyyah

At the time of the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet (S) announced: “Whoever takes refuge in the house of Abu Sufyan shall be safe.” Mu’awiyyah wanted to recompense this kindness of the prophet. He invited Imam Hasan (‘a) to his house and the Imam accepted the invitation. When he entered, Amr Ibn Aas, Walid Ibn Utbah, Utbah Ibn Abu Sufyan and Mughaira Ibn Shu’ba were sitting there. Immediately on seeing him, they began to recite curses on him.

Imam Hasan (‘a) said:

“Mu’awiyyah! What they are uttering is in fact from you. It was you that began this, and this practice originated from your vain thinking and impure morality. Doubtlessly all these activities are because you people are inimical to the prophet and the Ahl Al-Bayt of the prophet.

Since you are abusing my father, tell me, did my father not pray facing two Qiblas while your father did not believe in either? He considered prayers to be a means of deviation, and on account of his ignorance, worshipped Laat and Uzza. Are you not aware that my father took two oaths of allegiance viz. the ‘Oath of Victory' and ‘Oath of 'Rizwan', whereas you did not believe in one of them and did not remain faithful to the other? Don't you know that my father was the first to believe in the prophet while you and your father were Muslims only by appearance and received a share from the funds reserved for ‘those who were to be consoled’?

Don't you know that the man you abused was the standard-bearer of the Holy Prophet in the Battle of Badr, whereas the standard of polytheists was in the hands of you and your father? And the position was the same in the Battles of Uhud and Khandaq. Are you not aware that the Holy Prophet cursed Abu Sufyan seven times?

First, when the Holy Prophet was proceeding to Taif, and Abu Sufyan abused and threatened him.

Second, during the Battle of Badr.

Third, in the Battle of Uhud when Abu Sufyan raised the slogan of: Long Live Hubal! The prophet cursed both Abu Sufyan and Hubal.

Fourth, in the Battle of the Ditch.

Fifth, at the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.

Sixth, at event of the Allegiance of Aqaba.

Seventh, the day Abu Sufyan rode a red camel.''

The statements of Imam Hasan (‘a) support our point of view. Mu’awiyyah’s object was not restricted to the acquisition of power. His final goal was to use this power to take revenge against the truth and the followers of truth.

Abdullah Bin Ja'far And Muawiyah

One day Abdullah Ibn Ja'far visited Muawiyah, and Amr Ibn Aas was sitting there. Abdullah had not yet taken his seat when Amr Ibn Aas started abusing Imam Ali (‘a). Both Abdullah and Mu’awiyyah heard what he said. Abdullah was infuriated and he began to tremble with rage. He got ready to fight and having pulled up his sleeves, said to Mu’awiyyah:

“How long should we get enraged at your hands? May Allah destroy you! Have you forgotten your dirty role in killing Muslims? Have you forgotten that you were fighting against the Commander of the Faithful?

You have been perverted for too long. Now you must return to truth. You are caught in the mire of injustice and sin and must be guided to the right path. If you do not change your ways, we shall publicize your evil deeds. You must refrain from this abusive language in our presence. When you are alone, you can do what you like. The Almighty Allah will punish you for that.”

Muawiyah wanted to extinguish the Divine light by cursing and vilification, but the light of Allah cannot be extinguished. It shines even though the polytheists may despise it. After Imam Ali's martyrdom, Mu’awiyyah did not discontinue cursing him. Times changed, and people placed the Imam in the category of prophets and saints. And some people like the Ghulat even raised him to the level of divinity, while the name of Mu’awiyyah was included among the murderous and barbaric persons of the world.

An Imam of Ahl Al-Sunna, Hasan Basri said:

“Mu’awiyyah committed four such acts that even one of them is sufficient to make him damned. First, he grabbed the caliphate without consultation even though the companions of the prophet were present at the time. Second, he made his son Yazid, his successor. Third, although the prophet has clearly stated that the child belongs to the husband of its mother, he made Ziyad his brother. And fourth, He killed Hujr6 and his companions. Woe be to him regarding Hujr and his companions.”

Imam Shafi’i says:

“Friends of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) concealed his virtues on account of fear, and his enemies conceal them because of envy and grudge. Despite this, his virtues have become so famous that they have enveloped the East and the West.”

Day by day Mu’awiyyah became aware of his own defects and realized that he did not possess any good quality. Hence, he adopted this policy that whenever one mentioned the virtues of Bani Hashim, he used to say: “Uthman was killed unjustly.”

One day Mu’awiyyah passed by a group of Quraish. All except Ibn Abbas stood up before him. Mu’awiyyah said: “O Ibn Abbas! Uthman was killed unjustly.” Ibn Abbas said: “Umar Ibn Khattab, too, was killed unjustly.” Mu’awiyyah said: “Umar was killed by a disbeliever.” Ibn Abbas asked: “Who killed Uthman?” Mu’awiyyah replied: “The Muslims.” Ibn Abbas said: “So your words carry no weight.”7

Persecution And Bloodshed

Faith is defined as follows: It is the certainty in the heart, acknowledgment with the tongue, and action with the limbs. Mu’awiyyah's enmity against the Holy Prophet and his family was also the same. Because his heart was filled with avarice, he cursed with his tongue and said: “Infants should grow up and the grown-ups should become old, cursing.” And as regards his actions, he did not even refrain from persecuting and shedding the blood of the family of the prophet.

Mu’awiyyah appointed Ziyad Ibn Sumayya as the Governor of Iraq. As Ziyad was previously a Shi’a,8 he knew all Shi’as. He, therefore, conducted a thorough search, and after having seized them from their hiding places, terrorized them, amputated their limbs, blinded them, and hanged them on date-palm branches, exiled them, and killed them. Eventually the distinguished Shi’as of Iraq were eliminated.

Mu’awiyyah wrote to his governors: “Do not accept the evidence given by a Shi’a and choose your representatives from amongst the supporters of Uthman. Attend the gatherings of those who narrate Uthman's virtues; communicate their narrations to me along with the names of the narrators and their fathers.

Mu’awiyyah spent a large sum of money on those narrators. Since it was a good means of earning money, fabricated narrations regarding Uthman's virtues became rampant. The narrators competed with one another in fabricating traditions to get more rewards.

Mu’awiyyah's Circular

Mu’awiyyah wrote to his governors:

“Traditions in praise of Uthman have spread in all cities. When you receive this letter, you should order people to discuss the companions of the prophet and the rulers. It should be ensured that against every tradition about the virtues of Ali, a similar tradition should be coined for the caliphs, because only such acts will make me happy.”

Mu’awiyyah killed the people, plundered their wealth and belongings, and destroyed their property; and attributed false things to Allah and His Messenger. For Mu’awiyyah, these things were better than enforcement of justice and being faithful to Allah and His prophet. There were two reasons for this policy of Mu’awiyyah:

First, he loved sin for the sake of sin, and liked falsehood because of its being falsehood.

Second, he harboured enmity towards the prophet on account of his prophethood, and he behaved in the worst manner with his purified progeny.

Disregarding the law, Mu’awiyyah issued circulars that advised murders, imprisonment, pillage, destruction of houses, and disgracing the people, directed at the followers of Imam Ali (‘a). Were these not just because these people (the Shi’as) were in possession of the wealth of faith?

Mu’awiyyah used to tell the supporters of Imam Ali (‘a): “You must announce aloofness from Ali and invoke curse upon him, and express devotion to Uthman.” Anyone who did so saved his life and those who continued to express their loyalty to the Imam were eliminated.9

Was Mu’awiyyah not aware that the faith of Ali (‘a) was the same as that of his cousin, His Eminence, Muhammad (S)? Why, then, did he persecute and kill these people? It was only because they loved the family of the prophethood. Among the people that Mu’awiyyah killed were Hujr Ibn Adi and his companions, Amr Ibn Himaq Khuzai, Rushaid Hujri etc. The number of those killed tells the truth.

Non-aligned countries of the East and West, which are members of the United Nations are united against apartheid America and South Africa.10 They claim that racial discrimination is incompatible with the freedom of man, although this discrimination is in respect of only a few minor matters such as the ban of marriage between blacks and whites, and restrictions of the blacks from entering assemblies, universities, clubs, and other public places.

Hujr Bin Adi

Hujr Ibn Adi was among the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (S) and a companion of Imam Ali and Imam Hasan (‘a). Hujr was a pious and religious person. The author of Mustadrak has written: Hujr was the monk among companions of Muhammad.11

Hujr was a brave warrior and a member of armies that conquered Syria and Qadasia and fought from the side of Imam Ali (‘a) in the Battles of Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan. His only offence was that he was not prepared to abuse Imam Ali (‘a) or to curse him from the pulpit. All types of tortures were inflicted on Hujr and his companions.

The best six persons among them were killed. Some of them had their limbs cut off and were blinded. Many were buried alive. Saifi Ibn Faseel was one of the companions of Hujr. He was brought before Ziyad, and the following conversation took place between them:

Ziyad: “O enemy of Allah! What do you say about Abu Turab?”

Saifi: “I don't know who Abu Turab is.”

Ziyad: “To what extent do you know him?”

Saifi: “I don't know him at all.''

Ziyad: “Don't you know Ali Ibn Abi Talib?”

Saifi: “Why not?”

Ziyad: “The same Ali is Abu Turab.”

Saifi: “What you have said is incorrect. He is Abu al-Hasan and Abu al-Husayn (Father of Hasan and Husayn).”

Ziyad ordered his cane to be brought. Then he turned to Saifi and said: “What did you say?”

Saifi said: “What I said about a believing servant of God are the best words.”

Ziyad ordered him to be beaten so much that he should drop and not be able to get up again. After thrashing him continuously, Ziyad asked: What do you say about Ali?

Saifi replied: “By Allah, even though you skin me alive you shall not hear anything else from me.”

Ziyad said: “You must curse Ali, or I shall kill you.”

Saifi replied: “Kill me as early as possible, for I am not going to abuse Ali (‘a)”12

Dr. Taha Husayn writes:

Hujr was a righteous Muslim. He and his brother Hani joined a caravan that was coming to the prophet, and they had the honour of meeting the Messenger of Allah (S). Hujr participated in the Battle of Syria and suffered many hardships. It appears that he was in the vanguard of the army which entered Marj Azra, near Damascus. (Later he was killed in the same area by the order of Mu’awiyyah and was buried there.)

From this war expedition he went to Iraq, where he took part in the battles of Iran and suffered great hardships. In Kufa, he held a very high official post. Hujr was a kind person and completely sincere in religious matters. He enjoined people to do good and forbade them from evil. He liked just rulers and was displeased with oppressive ones. He criticized Bani Umayyah severely on account of their cursing Imam Ali (‘a) and did not easily bear this abominable act of theirs.

Ziyad Ibn Sumayya arrested him and sent him to Muawiyah along with his thirteen companions. Mu’awiyyah ordered them to be held at Marj Azra, near Damascus. When Hujr came to know that the village in which they were being kept was Marj, he said: By Allah, I was the first Muslim the dogs of this village barked at, and I was the first Muslim who pronounced takbeer 13 at this place. Hujr meant to say that he was the first Islamic warrior who arrived in that area and fought against the enemies of Islam.

Mu’awiyyah issued the following orders about Hujr and his associates: “They should dissociate themselves from Ali and curse him, and express regards for Uthman. Whoever does so should be set free, and whoever declines should be killed.”

Some individuals interceded with Mu’awiyyah on behalf of these men. When he accepted their intercession, they were eight in all, who were told to express aloofness from Imam Ali (‘a). Six of them refused to accept this condition, and the remaining two asked that they should be taken before Mu’awiyyah so that they may express their true attitude. Their request was granted.

As regards the said six persons, they were put to death and formed the first group that was tortured and killed. The remaining two persons were taken before Mu’awiyyah. One of them expressed dissociation from Imam Ali (‘a), but the other refused to do so. In the very presence of Mu’awiyyah, he said about him and Uthman whatever he wanted to say. Mu’awiyyah sent him back to Ziyad and directed him to kill him in the worst possible manner. Ziyad buried him alive.14

How distressing that the ruler of Muslims should shed the blood of those whose blood Allah has secured, and should order their execution without hearing what they have to say in their defence, or allowing them to justify their attitude?

There were many who wrote to Mu’awiyyah saying that they were faithful to his government and had no intention to betray him. What they said was, however, of no use.

The killing of Hujr had a deep impact on the people. When Rabi Ibn Ziyad heard the story of Hujr, he died of shock.

Abu Ishaq Sabi-i was asked: When were the people humiliated? He replied: When Imam Hasan (‘a) passed away, when Ziyad became Mu’awiyyah's brother and when Hujr Ibn Adi was killed.

Mu’awiyyah Ibn Khadij said: Don't you see that we fight for Quraish and sacrifice our lives to defend their kingdom, while they attack our cousins and kill them?

Ayesha said:

I heard the Holy Prophet said: Some persons will be killed in Azra, as a result of which Allah and the celestial beings will become angry. So, on account of the murder of Hujr, initially I decided to revolt, but was afraid lest the event of the Battle of Jamal should be repeated.

Dr.Taha Husayn says:

The murder of Hujr is the greatest tragic event of history. Contemporaries of Mu’awiyyah believed that he (Mu’awiyyah) was a headache for Islam. Mu’awiyyah himself knew it and used to feel proud of it.

Amr Bin Himaq Khuzai

Amr Ibn Himaq was a companion of the prophet, who embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca. He was a close associate of the Holy Prophet. The Prophet prayed for him that he might enjoy his youth. Hence, even when he was eighty years of age his hair had not become grey. Amir Al-Mu’minin Imam Ali (‘a) prayed for him: “O Lord! Illuminate the heart of Amr on account of his piety and guide him to the right path.”

When Ziyad became the governor of Kufa, he summoned Amr, but Amr went into hiding. He was pursued and his wife, Amina Bint Shareed, was arrested. Eventually, the officials of Ziyad arrested Amr and beheaded him. For the first time in Islam, Ziyad exhibited Amr’s severed head at various places and sent it to Mu’awiyyah.

Mu’awiyyah displayed 'generosity' and 'sympathy' by sending Amr's head to his imprisoned wife and it was thrown in her lap. Amina placed her hand on the forehead of Amr, kissed his lips and said: “For quite a long time, you had kept him hidden from me and now you have brought his body to me as a present. Blessed be Amr who came to me as a present. He neither made me furious nor ever became furious because of me.”

There is no doubt that Yazid was like his father, Mu’awiyyah. Yazid cut off the head of Imam Husayn (‘a) and exhibited it in various cities before the very eyes of the Iman's wife and children so that it might be more painful for them. Mu’awiyyah sent the head of Amr to different cities, and then had it thrown into the lap of his imprisoned wife so that she might be further distressed.

Rushaid Hujri

Rushaid was a worthy disciple of Imam Ali (‘a). Ziyad told him to express dissociation from Imam Ali (‘a) and curse him. Upon his refusal, Ziyad cut off his limbs and crucified him.

Juwiriyah Bin Musahhar Abdi

Ziyad arrested Juwiriyah, cut off his limbs, and hanged him on the branch of a date palm till he finally died. These were a few examples of the atrocities and murders committed by Mu’awiyyah so that people know that all that the official narrators write is not correct.

Captives And Prisons

In addition to killing the Shi’a’s, cutting off their limbs, hanging them and burying them alive, Mu’awiyyah imprisoned so many Shi’a men and women that the prisons became full. He even used to meet these prisoners so that the fire of his grudge might extinguish, but the Shi’a prisoners said things that only added fuel to the fire of his wrath.

Masoodi writes:

“Mu’awiyyah had imprisoned Sa'sa Ibn Suhan, Abdullah Ibn Kawa, and some supporters of Imam Ali (‘a) as well as some elders of Quraish. One day he entered the prison and asked the prisoners: “What sort of caliph am I?” Ibn Kawa replied: “Your material world is vast but your hereafter is hard. You have changed darkness into light and light into darkness. What sort of a caliph would be he who rules over the people by force and becomes low in the eyes of the people owing to his pride, and gains domination over them by means of falsehood and deceit? By Allah, you were present on the battlefield at the Battle of Badr. You and your father were among the enemies of the prophet who were in the caravan and who ran away. Your grandfather and father were set free by the Holy Prophet. Is such a person fit for caliphate?”15

Muawiyah imprisoned the righteous servants of Allah, killed them, exiled them, amputated their limbs, and burnt them alive. He meted out this treatment to the friends of Imam Ali (‘a) after they had accepted his rulership. Despite this, there are people who say that Mu’awiyyah had a tender heart and was kind. George Jordac has replied to this remark in his book Al-Imam Ali, in the chapter of 'Mu’awiyyah and His Successors'. We reproduce below a portion of that book:

“On one hand Mu’awiyyah was so kind that he granted Egypt and its inhabitants to Amr Ibn Aas and on the other hand he was cruel that he even took away the right of Egypt and the Egyptians to live. If this could be called kindness, then every murder is kindness.

When a person studies Mu’awiyyah's policies carefully, he will be stunned to find what means he employed to persecute the people. Murder, plunder, and terrorism formed his basic policy, and making attractive promises and administering threats were also parts of it. It also includes the murder of good and innocent persons, holding rogues and criminals in esteem, false propaganda and seeking assistance from people of bad character.

Abu Sufyan's nature had a great influence on the character of Mu’awiyyah. In the same way his disposition had deep imprints of his mother, Hind. Thus, both played an important role in moulding his nature and habits.

Mu’awiyyah's Services To The Shi’a Faith

Building their arguments with Qur’anic verses and numerous sayings of the prophet, Shi’as believe that love and obedience to Ahl Al-Bayt of the prophet is obligatory and it is necessary to dissociate from their enemies. Shi’a scholars have written countless books about the virtues of this family. But the Qur’an, the traditions, and the books written for the propagation of Shi’a faith are not as effective as the policies of Mu’awiyyah, which became the cause of publicity and strengthening of Shi’a faith.

The crimes of Bani Umayyah were more effective than the thousands of books and proved more effective in proving the rightfulness of Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) than thousands of arguments.

In proving the facts, rational and scholarly writings are not as effective as historical events. It is because historical events are like experiments, whose results are undeniable. During the time of Mu’awiyyah, many events took place which proved he was a worldly-minded person while Imam Ali (‘a) was a religious personality. There is an old proverb saying that good can be better perceived by comparing it with evil.

Mu’awiyyah said: “I fought in order to rule over Kufa and to take over their wealth and it was not for prayer and fasting.” Compare this with the statement of Imam Ali (‘a) to see the manifest reality. The Imam once pointed to his shoe and told Ibn Abbas: “In my view, this shoe is better than rulership except that I should protect a right, deliver it to one who deserves it, and should restrain from falsehood.”

Mu’awiyyah decided to erase the name of Imam Ali (‘a) and his descendants from the minds of the people, and to invite them towards attachment to Uthman and alliance with Bani Umayyah. To achieve this, he killed and persecuted them and considered it to be his political acumen and expertise. However, this policy produced a result that was opposed to what he desired, and that era had passed. Today, the name of Bani Umayyah has become a symbol of injustice, corruption, treachery, murder, and pillage, whereas the name of Imam Ali (‘a) is the icon of guidance, truth, and protection of the oppressed.

Abdullah Ibn Urwah Ibn Zubair told his son: “Pay attention to faith, for whatever the world constructs is destroyed by faith, but when faith is made the foundation, the world cannot destroy it. Just look at Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a). Whatever Bani Umayyah said to vilify him caused him to become more popular.”

By Allah, the weeping of Bani Umayyah for their dead and the reciting of elegies by poets were nothing but mourning for decayed corpse.

Dr. Taha Husayn writes in Ali wa Banuhi:

“Nothing promotes the views of the opponents of despotism and prompts people to embrace their thinking as despotism itself does, because despotism automatically makes the people incline to the oppressed and makes them take up their cause. Views attract the people profoundly to themselves and acquire greater strength as against the crimes of the despots. (And in the end, the views come out victorious).”

In light of the above discussion, during the ten years of Mu’awiyyah's rule, Shi’as spread their religious beliefs all over the Islamic territories. When Mu’awiyyah died, all the inhabitants of Iraq and the majority of Muslims in general were inimical to Bani Umayyah and loyal to Ali and his descendants. Of course, the Shi’a faith consists of support for Ahl Al-Bayt and enmity against Bani Umayyah and its foundation was laid by Mu’awiyyah.

By employing means to annihilate the Shi’a faith, Mu’awiyyah himself helped the spread of the Shi’a faith all over the country. Mu’awiyyah left the world, but the Shi’a faith and family of Ali (‘a) continued to exist and inshaAllah will exist forever. If thankfulness for injustice were allowed, we would have been thankful for those crimes by Mu’awiyyah Ibn Hind that became the means of advancement of the Shi’a faith.

Who Is Responsible For Disunity Among Muslims?

Keeping in mind the policy of Muawiyah regarding the Shi’as, we ask: Who is responsible for disunity among Muslims? Who caused the Muslims to be divided into Shi’a and Sunni? Was it the Shi’as, or distinguished persons of Ahlul-Sunnah, or the unjust rulers, who suppressed the freedom of people, considered their bloodshed lawful and laid the foundation of oppression – for the despotic rulers coming after them – against the Ahl Al-Bayt and their followers?

Who started the cursing and slandering of the companions of the Holy Prophet from the pulpits? Whose policy was it that - being in power - prescribed the cursing of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) till the children grew up and till grown-ups became old? Who gave abundant rewards and wealth to those who used abusive language and curses? Who killed or exiled those who refused to curse? Who filled every portion of the earth with terror and fear? Did Shi’as commit all these crimes?

“...And let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety ...” (5:8).

It can be innocently said: We should not get involved in these conflicts and these discussions. Why should we discuss the deeds of the dead when even their bones have been reduced to dust? We discuss those who are alive and cooperate with one another.

We say in reply: True, we should let the dead remain buried and should become united and cooperate with one another. But the problem is that the traces of the crimes of the decayed bones is still present in the hearts of some people and manifest their effects, and arguments are adduced from what they said.

It is strange that those who follow these decayed bones talk about unity, cooperation, and brotherhood, only when they have no argument to put forward. However, when they get a chance to attack the Shi’as, they forget unity and cooperation. Cooperation and unity mean that people should work for the benefit of one another. However, if the intention is to safeguard one’s personal interests, it is not unity and cooperation; it is enmity and short-sightedness.

Yazid’s Actions

If Mu’awiyyah were alive during the three years of Yazid's rule, he would have praised his son’s achievements. During the first year, he killed Imam Husayn (‘a), the grandson of the Holy Prophet (S), severed the heads of his children and friends, and made his women prisoners.

During the second year, he permitted his soldiers to do in Medina whatever they liked. As a result, more than a thousand virgins were defiled and a thousand persons killed, including seven hundred companions of the prophet.

In the third year, he attacked the Kaaba with catapults. If Mu’awiyyah had been alive and seen these crimes of his son, he would have kissed his forehead and said: You are really my son.

Yazid did not stop at these crimes in Karbala, Medina, and Mecca.16 He appointed Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad as Governor of Kufa so that he might repeat the atrocities committed by his father in respect of the Shi’as. Ibn Ziyad imprisoned, exiled, killed and hanged the people, or cut off their limbs. He said to Mitham, a disciple and friend of Imam Ali: “You must express hatred against Ali. If you don't, I shall cut off your hands and feet and crucify you. In reply to this threat, Mitham praised Imam Ali (‘a) and cursed Ibn Ziyad and Bani Umayyah. Ibn Ziyad cut off his hands, feet and tongue and hanged him to death.

What crime could be greater than that of Ibn Ziyad’s? He wrote to Ibn Saad in connection with the Battle of Karbala:

“Besiege Husayn so that you may kill him and his companions and cut up his body into pieces because he deserves to be killed. When you have killed Husayn, make the horses trample his body, because he is an oppressive person. I know that to make horses trample the body of a person after his death is of no use. However, I have vowed that if I kill him, I will treat him thus. If you carry out my orders you should know that I reward those who are obedient to me and if you cannot, hand over the command to Shimr Ibn Zil Jaushan. I have given him the necessary instructions.”

The instructions given by him to Shimr Ibn Zil Jaushan, included - in addition to killing Imam Husayn (‘a) - eliminating all his children, whether young or suckling. so that the progeny of Imam Ali (‘a) becomes extinct.

There was close similarity between Yazid and his father, Mu’awiyyah, and between Ibn Ziyad and Ziyad, because the source of their crimes was only one, and that was enmity against Allah and the Holy Prophet. Each of them expressed this enmity according to his capacity. These persons differed from one another only in their respective names. As regards their deeds, they were alike.

Yazid ruled for 3 years 7 months and 22 days. History has recorded such crimes and persecutions perpetrated by him, that his rule will remain a stigma on the history of the Muslims till the Day of Judgment.

Can we forget the blood of Husayn? Is it possible to forget the blood that boils and remains fresh during all ages? In the words of Shaykh Ubaydi, the Mufti of Mosul: “Husayn's martyrdom has joined up with the root of Islam and become unforgettable.”

Mughaira Ibn Shu’ba has suggested to Mu’awiyyah to take allegiance from the people for Yazid and make him his successor. Then he said: “I have placed the foot of Muawiyah in a stirrup which is harmful for Muslims, and I have created such a split between Muslims that can never be cured.”

Muawiyah II

Before his death, Yazid made people give allegiance to his son, Mu’awiyyah, and appointed him as heir apparent. But after his father's death, Mu’awiyyah Ibn Yazid renounced the caliphate.

Abu Mahasin writes in An-Nujoom Az-Zahira:17

Muawiyah Ibn Yazid mounted the pulpit and said, after praise and glorification of Allah: “O people! My grandfather fought with the people who were worthy of rulership on account of their proximity to the prophet, and usurped the right of Ali (‘a). As long as he lived, he did what you know till he left the world alone taking with him the burden of deeds. After my grandfather, my father usurped the caliphate though he was not fit for it. All his life he indulged in sensual desires till death overtook him and he was also buried in the grave alone with the burden of his sins.”

After that, he wept greatly and then said:

“My greatest difficulty is that 1 know that my father's end is bad. He killed the descendants of the Holy Prophet, made lawful for his soldiers to do in Medina what they liked, and damaged the Kaaba. I do not have the courage to do such indecent things. I transfer the authority to you. You may choose anyone you like as the caliph.”

His mother said: “I wish I had miscarried you.”18. Muawiyah II replied: “I wish I had been such, because being miscarried is better than being associated with Yazid, Mu’awiyyah and Abu Sufyan.”

After that, Muawiyah II did not live for long. Some say that since he did not carry out the bloodshed and persecution of the descendants and followers of Ali (‘a) like his father and other leaders of Bani Umayyah, he was poisoned to death.19

The grandson of Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan says: My grandfather fought with one who was the closest in kin to the Sun of Prophethood, the foremost Muslim, the respected one among the greatest of Muhajirs, owner of knowledge and excellence, cousin of the prophet and his son-in-law. Despite that, lackeys of Bani Umayyah call this rebellion a mistake of jurisprudence20.

In the words of Mirza Ghalib:

It is a queer jurisprudence that an enemy of religion comes to fight Ali (‘a) and they call it a mistake.

1. Maulana Shibli Nomani, in his book, Sirat an-Nabi (Vol. 1, Pg. 69, Lahore writes: The compilation of traditions took place during the period of Bani Umayyah, who carried out the vilification of the progeny Fatimah and cursed His Eminence, Ali (‘a) from the pulpits for ninety years, in Jami’ Masjids from Sind to Asia Minor and Andalusia. The Umayyads had hundreds of traditions fabricated about the virtues of Mu’awiyyah etc.

2. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Vol. 4.

3. Masoodi says that Matraf Ibn Mughaira said: “My father and I were Mu’awiyyah's guests in Syria. My father used to visit Mu’awiyyah often. One night when he returned from meeting Mu’awiyyah, he was very much disturbed. When I asked him why he was so much distressed, he said: Mu’awiyyah is very bad, he is the vilest person in the world. I asked: What happened? My father replied: I told him: You have reached an age when it would have been better if you had acted justly and nicely, and looked at your brothers (i.e. Bani Hashim) with kindness and improved relations with them. By Allah! Today they have nothing that you may fear. Mu’awiyyah said: Alas! Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman managed the caliphate and behaved nicely with the people, but their names are now forgotten but the name of Bani Hashim's brother (the prophet) is called out five times a day in the world of Islam: ‘I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.’ Now after this, what remains except that the name of Muhammad should also be destroyed?”
Masoodi has quoted this incident from Al- Maufiqyaat of Zubair Ibn Bukkar, which is a reliable primary source.

4. Dalailus Sidq, Vol. 3, Pg. 231, quoting from Mustadrak ul-Hakim; Noor ul-Absaar, Shablanji. Pg. 100, published by Saeediya; Yanabi ul-Mawaddah, Sulairnan Qunduzi Hanafi, Pg. 205, published in Istanbul.

5. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Ibne Abi ‘l-Hadid, Vol. 3, Pg. 15.

6. Hujr Ibn ‘Adi was a companion of the Holy Prophet. He was sentenced to death for his objections against the Umayyad policy and practice of cursing Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (‘a). A brief history of him is given in this book. [Note of al-Islam]

7. As Muslims considered the killing Uthman permissible (whereas the killing of Umar was not), Uthman's killing was thus of lesser importance than Umar's.

8. In the beginning, Ziyad Ibn Sumayya was in support of Imam Ali (‘a). So was Busr Ibn Abi Artat, for some time. The Khawarij, who accused Imam Ali (‘a) of infidelity and that he was liable for execution, were also in the army of Imam Ali (‘a).
When Ziyad Ibn Sumayya wanted to eliminate Saeed Ibn Sarah, the latter took refuge with Imam Hasan (‘a). Ziyad pulled down Saeed’s house, confiscated his belongings, and took his wife and brother in custody. Imam Hasan (‘a) wrote the following letter to Ziyad:
“So, to say: You are in pursuit of the life of a Muslim. He has the same rights as others do, and enmity towards him is the same as enmity towards others. You pulled down his house, confiscated his belongings, and took his wife into custody. As soon as you receive my letter, rebuild his house, and return his belongings and his wife. He asked me to petition on his behalf and I have given him refuge.”
Ziyad replied:
“From Ziyad Ibn Abu Sufyan to Hasan Ibn Fatimah (‘a): So, to say: Received your letter. You began the letter with your name, while you are the supplicant. I am the ruler, and you are a subject. You ordered me like a king ordered his subject. You have accorded refuge to a transgressor and then wrote a letter to me. He made you do a wrong thing, and you did it readily. By Allah. you cannot save him from my hands, even though he might enter between your skin and your flesh.
The flesh I would like to eat most would be your flesh. Therefore, surrender him to his neighbour, who is more eligible than you to keep him. Know that, even if I forgive his crime, it would not be because of your request, and if I kill him, it would be because of his devotion to your transgressor father.” (God forbid)

9. This policy was pursued despite that freedom of belief is a fundamental human right.

10. This book was written in 1962 when the racists were ruling South Africa and the African Americans were also deprived of many rights of citizenship due to racism.

11. Sulh al-Hasan, Shaykh Aale Yasin, Pg. 324.

12. Zakhahir ul-Darayayn, Page 30.

13. Expression meaning Allah is the Greatest.

14. Ziyad was the one who arrested Shi’as in Kufa and Basra, cut off their limbs, thrust iron rods into their eyes and hung them from doorways. (Abu Futuh, Vol. 4, Pg. 320; Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 11, Pg. 144) This wicked man initiated the practice of executing people after tying up their hands and legs and according to Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Athir, he buried alive Abdur Rahman Ibn Hisan due to his loyalty to Imam Ali (‘a). (Shifa as-Sudoor, Pg.315).

15. Murujuz Zahab, Vol. 3 (Pg.49, 1948 Edition).

16. After Karbala, the most tragic event was the attack on Medina, which occurred in 63 A.H. during the last days of Yazid. A brief account of this event is that the people of Medina rebelled against Yazid, as they considered him a transgressor, a sinner, and an oppressor. They expelled Yazid 's governor from the city and appointed Abdullah Ibn Hanzala as their leader. When Yazid was informed of this, he sent Muslim Ibn Uqbah al-Marri (whom the Muslim elders used to refer to as Musraf Ibn Uqbah) with a force of 12,000 men to attack Medina and ordered him to give the people of the city three days to surrender.
If they were to disagree, they should be attacked and after they are defeated, the city of Medina should be left free for the soldiers to do whatever they liked. The army set out with these orders. A battle took place. Medina was conquered, and after that according to the directions of Yazid, the soldiers were permitted to do whatever they liked in Medina for three days.
There were plunder and killings all over the city during these three days. The citizens were subjected to a massacre, in which according to the report of Imam Zuhri, 700 nobles and 10,000 commoners were killed, and the shameful fact is that soldiers entered the houses forcibly and defiled the women. (Khilafat-O-Mulookiyat, by Maulana Maudoodi, Pg. 182).
Despite these atrocities, in a program on Peace TV (2nd December 2007), Dr. Zakir Naik was not ashamed to mention Yazid as Rahmatullah alaihi (Meaning: May Allah be merciful on him)!
In the same way, the Egyptian, Shaykh Khaazri writes on page 517 of his book: Ummat ul-Islamiyyah:
“Indeed, by rising in revolt against Yazid, Imam Husayn (‘a) committed a great mistake. He shook up the foundations of national unity, as a result of which the Ummah fell into such discord and differences that it has not been able to come out of them till today.”
That is why this statement of Allamah Mughniya is not inappropriate when he says that the signs of the crimes of the decayed bones are still present in the hearts, and they display their effects and inform us who is in Husayn's camp and who is in the party of Yazid.
There still remain some garlands of curse
To be placed around the necks of all the Yazids.
There would never be reconciliation between us and them
Yazid is dead but his relatives are still there.
(Urdu verses).

17. First Edition 1929.

18. This means that she wished that she had not have given birth to him.

19. After that, his tutor was also buried alive because the Umayyads thought that Muawiyah II had done all that under the influence of his tutor. Though his tutor must have also influenced him, it seems that a conversation of two maids was more the effective factor for this. Mu’awiyyah heard a maid remarked: “The rulers of the world are attracted by beauty. Since I am beautiful, I rule upon them.” Another maid replied: “What is the use of rulership? If the ruler is aggrieved by the condition of his subjects, he cannot remain happy even for a day, and he cannot even eat to his fill. If he is uncaring about his subjects, and is fully immersed in enjoyment, he would go to Hell. Thus, rulers either pay attention to the material world or exercise care about the Hereafter.” This statement so affected Mu’awiyyah that he announced his abdication. (Tatmat ul-Muntaha. Vol. I, Pg. 72).

20. The author most probably refers to the popular opinion among the Ahl As-Sunna ulama, who justify the actions of rebelling against Imam Ali, as simply wrong ijtihad, or a mistake in making decision related to jurisprudence (fiqh). [Note of al-Islam].

Bani Marwan

After the death of Yazid, the Islamic government was transferred from the descendants of Abu Sufyan to Marwan, who ruled for nine months. During these nine months, he had to fight on the one hand with Abu Sufyanis, and on the other with Ibn Zubair. Thus, he could not find an opportunity to persecute the Shi’as. Yet, during this short period he continued to pursue the policy of Mu’awiyyah and Yazid.

He continued the practice of cursing Imam Ali (‘a) from the pulpits. He gave refuge to wicked individuals like Ibn Ziyad, Haseen Ibn Numair and Sharjeel Ibn Zil Kalaa and equipped them with weapons to fight the ‘Penitents’1 who included distinguished Shi’a leaders like Sulaiman Ibn Surd Khuzai, Musayyab Ibn Najba Fazari, Abdullah Azdi etc. The Penitents numbered five thousand and were the first group that rose to avenge the murder of Imam Husayn (‘a), although most of them were either killed or captured.

Marwan's son, Abd ul-Malik succeeded him. Abd ul-Malik became the ruler of Syria whereas Abdullah Ibn Zubair occupied the seat of Hijaz. They fought bloody battles against each other to gain control of Iraq. However, as regards the killing and persecution of Imam Ali's followers, both of them continued the previous policy. Abd ul-Malik and his father Marwan assisted Ibn Ziyad to eliminate the Penitents, and Ibn Zubair put Mukhtar and his followers to death.

Abdullah Ibn Zubair

Masoodi writes in Murujuz Zahab: “Mus’ab Ibn Zubair slew Mukhtar2 and his followers numbering seven thousand.” They were claiming to avenge the murder of Imam Husayn (‘a).

Mus’ab Ibn Zubair killed Mukhtar and having captured his womenfolk, said to them: “You must announce dissociation from Mukhtar.” Except for two, all announced dissociation from him. The two said: “We shall not announce disgust against Mukhtar because he believed in Allah, fasted and offered the Midnight Prayer. After eliminating the killers of Husayn (‘a), he shed his blood in the path of Allah and the prophet and thus pleased all.”

Mus’ab wrote a letter to his brother, Abdullah Ibn Zubair and mentioned the stand taken by those women. Abdullah replied that if they abandoned their stand, they should be set free, otherwise they should be killed. Mus’ab took a sword and went to meet them. One of them expressed disgust against Mukhtar but the other refused and said: “Martyrdom is acceptable to me but I will stick to my stand.”

“I know that I shall be killed, and would go to Paradise, into the presence of the Holy Prophet and his Ahl Al-Bayt. By Allah, I cannot accept the son of Hind and forsake Ali (‘a). O my God! Bear witness that I am the follower (Shi’a) of your Messenger, the son of his daughter and the Ahl Al-Bayt.”

Mus’ab Ibn Zubair killed her, making her among the martyrs. Ibn Zubair was an enemy of Bani Umayyah, but his enmity was for the sake of worldly gains. He fought bloody wars with this very object, resulting in ten thousand persons killed. As far as beliefs were concerned, they were alike. Bani Umayyah cursed Ali (‘a) from the pulpits and Ibn Zubair also recited this curse.

One day, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyyah learnt that Ibn Zubair was defaming Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) from the pulpit. Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyyah went to the masjid and interrupted him saying: “O Arabs, woe be unto you. Ali (‘a) is being reviled and you sit quiet? Ali (‘a) was the Hand of Allah, against His enemies. Ali (‘a) was the pulverizing lightning of the Subduer Almighty. Since Ali (‘a) killed them for their infidelity, they harbour malice towards him and take out spite on him.”

For forty Friday sermons, Ibn Zubair did not invoke blessings on the Holy Prophet of Islam. When asked for the reason, he said: “Members of the prophet's family are unworthy persons. If I utter his name, their courage will increase and they will become happy, and I don't want them to be happy.”

Imam Ali (‘a) said: Zubair was my friend, but he ceased to be friendly when his inauspicious son, Abdullah was born.

If Bani Umayyah killed the men and women on account of their being Shi’a, Ibn Zubair also did the same. It is true that the mentality of people who existed thousands of years ago exists even today, because we see that the behaviour Ibn Zubair and Bani Umayyah had towards the Shi’as, the same attitude colonial countries are having towards the weak nations.

The colonial powers have differences with one another in matters relating to the acquisition of oil and gold-producing countries and markets. However, as regards oppressing independence-seeking people (and the nationalists) their policy is one and the same. They have concluded pacts against the weak nations that want to live a healthy life of independence and take control of their resources.

Although the colonial powers differ with one another, they have a single point agenda against the colonized countries. This policy of the modern world is not different from that of Ibn Zubair and Bani Umayyah. They fought each other to expand their territories but agreed with each other in the matter of persecuting free men, especially the Shi’as of Imam Ali (‘a).

Abd ul-Malik

The war between Abd ul-Malik and Ibn Zubair culminated in the victory of Abd ul-Malik and elimination of Ibn Zubair. Abd ul-Malik adopted a new policy in respect of the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a). He wrote to Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf, his governor: “Avoid shedding the blood of Bani Abd ul-Muttalib because I have seen that when the descendants of Abu Sufyan smeared their hands with their blood, their regime fell.” Abd ul-Malik instructed Hajjaj to avoid shedding the blood of Bani Abd ul-Muttalib. But he did not do so on account of his love for the Holy Prophet or fear of Allah. Instead, it was because he was afraid lest his throne, sceptre, and crown be taken away.

Abd ul-Malik pronounced these words when he had taken a lesson from the life of the descendants of Abu Sufyan and had seen their fate with his own eyes. That is why he ordered Hajjaj not to shed the blood of the children of Abd ul-Muttalib. But, whenever the true believers and followers of Ahl Al-Bayt posed any danger to his throne, it was considered necessary to shed their blood. Abd ul-Malik forgot that sooner or later the despotic systems would be cut at the very root of their regime. He forgot that the blood of the magnanimous Quraish and non-Quraish provides nourishment to the tree of freedom.

Abd ul-Malik prohibited Hajjaj from shedding the blood of Abd ul-Muttalib's descendants, but at the same time ordered him to besiege Mecca and demolish the Kaaba. He gave him control of Hijaz and Iraq and allowed him a free hand to kill and persecute the people in the worst possible manner.

Hajjaj Bin Yusuf

Haijaj was by nature, murderous. To quench his thirst for blood, he killed the old as well as the young. Being accused of Shi’ism was sufficient justification for him to kill that person. In the days of Haijaj, it was better to be called an infidel than to be called a Shi’a.

Ibn Abil Hadid writes in Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha:3

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “In whichever city they got hold of our Shi’as, they killed them. Those suspected of being Shi’a had their hands and feet amputated. A person whose devotion to us became known was imprisoned, his property was seized, and his house demolished. These hardships increased till the time of Ibn Ziyad, who killed Imam Husayn (‘a). Then came Hajjaj, who killed or imprisoned people on mere suspicion of being Shi’a.”

Shi’as were in such a critical and dangerous situation that a person preferred being called an infidel than being called a Shi’a of Imam Ali (‘a). Two supporters of Imam Ali (‘a) were brought before Hajjaj. One of them was told to express hatred against Imam Ali (‘a). He asked: “What has Ali done that I should express malice against him?” Hajjaj said: “May Allah kill me if I don't kill you. Now tell me, should I cut off your hands or your feet?” The man said: “Subject me to the torture, which you would like yourself to be subjected to on the Judgment Day, because on that day Allah will give me a right to take revenge on you.”

Hajjaj mockingly said: “Where is your Allah?” The man replied: “He is lying in ambush for the oppressors.” Hajjaj ordered that his hands and feet be cut off, and then he was hanged. Then he asked the second man: “What do you say?” He replied: “My reply is the same as that of my friend, whom you have just crucified.” Hajjaj ordered that he should also be beheaded and then hanged.

Qambar

In the eyes of the people, Qambar was the slave of Ali (‘a). But having gained the benefits of faith from Imam Ali (‘a), he had scaled the heights of spirituality. One day the blood-thirsty Hajjaj, said to his officials: “Today I want to kill a companion of Ali.” They replied: “Qambar would be best to serve your purpose.”

Hajjaj summoned him and asked: “Are you Qambar?” When he replied in the affirmative, Hajjaj asked: ''What did you do for Ali?”

Qambar said: “I used to bring water for my master to perform ablution.”

Hajjaj asked: “What did he do after performing the ablution?”

Qambar said: “He recited the verse:

“So, when they neglected what they had been reminded of, We delivered those who forbade evil and We overtook those who were unjust with an evil chastisement because they transgressed” (7:165).

“Therefore, when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden from, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated” (7:166).

“And when your Lord announced that He would certainly send against them to the day of resurrection those who would subject them to severe torment; most surely your Lord is quick to requite (evil) and most surely He is Forgiving, Merciful” (7:167).

Hajjaj said: “I think he applied this verse to us.” “Yes,” said Qambar with perfect courage. Hajjaj asked: “What if I kill you?”

Qambar said: “I would be fortunate, and you shall be damned.”

Hajjaj said: “Renounce the religion of Ali.”

Qambar replied: “Bring for me a better religion before I forsake Ali's religion.”

Hajjaj said: “I am going to kill you. Tell me how you want to be killed.”

Qambar said: “Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) told me that I would be slaughtered like sheep without any offence on my part.”

Hajjaj ordered him to be slaughtered.

Kumayl

Kumayl Ibn Ziyad was a very close confidant of Imam Ali (‘a). Hajjaj summoned him, but he went into hiding. Hajjaj stopped the stipends of Kumayl’s tribe. Kumayl thought to himself: “I have grown old, and my life is about to end. It is not appropriate that my tribe should be deprived of its rights.” He, therefore, surrendered to Hajjaj.

When Hajjaj saw him, he said: “I wanted to arrest you.”

Kumayl said: “Do not be so arrogant and don't threaten me. By Allah, whatever of my life is left, is just like a bubble. Do whatever you want. We shall meet each other in before Allah and there would be accounting of the deeds after being killed. Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) had informed me that I shall be killed at your hands.”

Hajjaj said: “Hence, the argument is against you.”

Kumayl replied: “If the decision is in your hands what you say is correct.”

Hajjaj ordered him to be beheaded.

Saeed Bin Jubair

Saeed Ibn Jubair was one of the Tabi’in.4 At that time, individuals of his level were very few in the world of Islam. He was well-known on account of his knowledge, piety, and devotion, and he was also a famous exegist. He used to pray behind Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a).

Khalid Ibn Walid Ashari arrested him and sent him to Hajjaj.

On seeing him, Hajjaj said: “Are you Shaqi Ibn Kaseer?”5

Being unafraid of Hajjaj, Saeed Ibn Jubair courageously replied: “My mother knows better what my name is.”

Hajjaj: Tell me whether Abu Bakr and Umar are in Paradise or Hell?

Saeed: You can know if you can see into Paradise or Hell.

Hajjaj: What do you say about the caliphs?

Saeed: I am not their defence counsel.

Hajjaj: Whom do you like most?

Saeed: One, who has pleased Allah more.

Hajjaj: Who has pleased Allah more?

Saeed: Allah knows better, for He is the knower of the seen and the unseen.

Hajjaj: Don't you want to confirm what I say?

Saeed: I do not want to refute you.

Hajjaj ordered him to be killed.

Saeed recited the verse:

“I have turned to the One who has originated the heavens and the earth, and I adopted an upright and I am not one of the polytheists” (6:79).

Hajjaj: Kill him facing a direction other than that of Kaaba.

Saeed recited the verse:

“To whichever place you turn your face Allah is there” (2:115).

Hajjaj: Make him lie face down on the ground.

Saeed then recited this verse:

“From it (earth) We created you and We shall make you return to it and we will take you out of it once again” (20:55).

While Saeed lay in this position, his neck was severed.

Ibn Athir says: “When Saeed's head fell on the ground it said thrice, “There is no god but Allah”, once loudly and twice in an inarticulate manner.”

After killing Saeed, Hajjaj lost his senses. He used to constantly scream: “Untie our chains!” And when he went to sleep, he saw Saeed in his dreams holding his (Hajjaj’s) collar and saying: “O enemy of Allah! For what crime did you kill me?”6

Hajjaj's Courtier

Masoodi writes:

“Abdullah Ibn Hani was a favourite of Hajjaj. Abdullah had a very ugly and pockmarked face and had a bump on his head. His mouth was twisted and his eyes, crooked.”

Hajjaj arranged for Abdullah two wives, at the point of spear: the daughter of Asma Kharija, chief of Bani Fuzara tribe and the daughter of Saeed Ibn Qays Hamadani, the chief of Yamaniya.

One day Hajjaj said to Abdullah: “Do you know that you were not worthy of the daughters of the chiefs of Fuzara and Yamaniya, but I procured them for you?”

Abdullah said: ''What you have said is not appropriate because I possess virtues that no Arab has.''

Hajjaj: What are your virtues?

Abdullah: Uthman has never been criticized in my gathering.

Hajjaj: Yes, that's right.

Abdullah: Seventy men of my tribe were killed in the Battle of Siffin serving in Muawiyah's army. But only one of my tribesmen was killed serving in the army of Abu Turab, and that was also not a good man.

Hajjaj: This is also a distinction.

Abdullah: None of our men has ever married a woman devoted to Ali.

Hajjaj: By Allah, this is also a virtue.

Abdullah: Our women had vowed that if Husayn was killed, they would sacrifice ten camels.

Hajjaj: By Allah, this is also a virtue.

Abdullah: If anyone from our family hears Ali being cursed, he also curses him and curses Hasan, Husayn, and their mother as well.

Hajjaj: By Allah, this is also a virtue.7

According to Ibn Athir, after gaining victory over Ibn Zubair, Hajjaj came to Medina and abused the inhabitants and insulted many of them. In order to insult them, he put handcuffs on them (or branded their hands).8

Ibn Athir further writes: Hajjaj followed the system of dividing the army into different categories. This innovation started in his time, continues till this day and the resultant sin is recorded in Hajjaj's scroll of deeds.9

Hajjaj's Prison

Masoodi writes in Murujuz Zahab: Apart from those killed in battles, the number of people Hajjaj eliminated was 120,000. When he died, 50,000 innocent men and 30,000 women were rotting in his prison without any case being filed against them. Among them 16,000 were naked. Hajjaj's prison had no roof to shelter the prisoners from heat during summer and from cold during winter, or from rain. Other means of torture were also employed in this prison.

It is mentioned in Tarikh Ibn Jauzi that Hajjaj's prison consisted of only a boundary wall, and it had no roof. When the prisoners sat in the shade of this wall to escape the Sun, the guards pelted stones at them. Hajjaj fed them with bread prepared with barley mixed with ashes and salt, which caused the prisoners' complexion to become like that of Negroes.

A man was put into this prison. After a few days, his mother came to inquire about him. But she could not recognize him, as his complexion had become completely dark. She said: “He is not my son. He is a Negro.” However, when she was convinced that it was her son, she screamed in shock and instantly died.

These are only some specimens of the horrible crimes of Hajjaj that many historians have recorded. Throughout my study of history, I have not come across anyone like Hajjaj in matters of oppression except for Nero, who set Rome on fire, and played flute in merriment while watching the flames consuming children, women, and the elderly.

Hajjaj was simply the enemy of Allah and mankind, and harboured malice against the Holy Prophet and his descendants.

If we don't take the tragedy of Karbala into account, we find that Hajjaj's era was more painful for Shi’as than that of Mu’awiyyah and Yazid. When we see that in Hajjaj's time it was better to be called an infidel than a Shi’a, we can realize to what extent he committed atrocities against Shi’as.

Hajjaj himself admitted this fact many times. One day he said to the people of Kufa: “I am going to perform Hajj and have appointed my son Muhammad as my deputy. I have instructed him not to accept what righteous persons say and not to spare your sinners.”10

It is a fact that even though not all Kufians were supporters of Imam Ali (‘a), most of them loved him. Hence, what Hajjaj said was on this very account. Such dreadful policies regarding Shi’as continued from the time of Mu’awiyyah and Ziyad, to the era of Yazid, Ibn Ziyad, Abd ul-Malik and Hajjaj, and continued even after that. In other words, the despot of every age dealt with the Shi’as with an iron hand.

Abd ul-Malik had appointed a murderous neurotic like Hajjaj to tighten his control over Iraq and Hijaz. Hajjaj massacred people in groups and did not consider them better than worms or insects. He was so much obsessed with murder, that he killed even those who agreed to obey him along with children, women, and elderly men.

By committing these atrocities, which made all shudder, Hajjaj became Abd ul-Malik's favourite. He made him a partner in his rule and gave him control over Iraq, Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Khorasan, Oman, and Yemen. All his life, he took particular care of Hajjaj and at the time of his death, he made a will in Hajjaj’s favour.

Ibn Athir says: When Abd ul-Malik realized that he was about to die, he said to his heirs: I instruct you to fear Allah and honour Hajjaj, because it was Hajjaj who strengthened our rule, defeated the enemies, and suppressed our opponents.

This bequest reflects the mentality these people were ruling with. What an absurd logic! On one hand, he told his children to fear Allah, and on the other, to honour Hajjaj! It is just like saying that darkness is light, falsehood is truth and justice is oppression.

In every age, justice and piety - in the view of the despotic regimes - have always been killing, plundering, imprisoning, and impaling the people. To protect their throne, they starve the people and plunder them so that the people may obey them without any protest. And if anyone objects, he is killed in the name of Allah and according to the command and of Allah; and that is called piety and virtue!

Ibn Abdur Rabb says that one day Abd ul-Malik delivered an address from the pulpit and said:

I am not timid like Uthman, an intriguer like Muawiyah, or a weak-minded caliph like Yazid. I cut off with my sword the head of anyone who raises it as a sign of opposition to me.” After this, he came down from the pulpit.

Abd ul-Malik had used the words of Yazid Ibn Muqanna Azri who had pointed to Mu’awiyyah and said: “If Mu’awiyyah is killed, this Yazid will occupy his place.” Then he pointed to Yazid and said: “There is sword for one who opposes this man.” Saying this, he pointed to his sword.

The despotic regime of Bani Umayyah was based on force and coercion, and it continued till their rule was overthrown and the demon of corruption was destroyed.

The savagery of Hajjaj has created some strange stories:

Hajjaj's father, Yusuf Thaqafi approached Hajjaj's mother and wanted to share her bed. She, however, told him that he had already had intercourse with her a few minutes earlier while actually he had not done so. He, therefore, went to a pious person and narrated the incident. That man replied: “Satan came to your wife in your form and had sex with her, as a result of which, she has become pregnant. You should not have sex with her till she delivers.” Yusuf, therefore, remained aloof from his wife till Hajjaj was born.

When Hajjaj was born, he did not have an anal opening.

It is mentioned in Allamah Damiri's Hayat ul-Haiwan: Some historians state that Satan came in the shape of Harth Ibn Kalda and asked the people why they were distressed. They said: This is the child of Yusuf born from Faria, but it is not taking suck. So, the Satan directed them to first slaughter a black goat then to make the newborn lick its blood; and then to slaughter another goat and immerse the child in its blood. Then the child's face should be massaged with this blood for three days. He will start sucking from the fourth day. The people followed the instructions, and he started taking suck. Hajjaj was very much fond of bloodshed. He used to boast that he enjoyed bloodshed and doing something that no one else could do.11

Whether these accounts are true or false, they definitely show how a wicked a person Hajjaj was.

Champion Of Villainy

When Hajjaj reached the age of 54, he suffered from a stomach illness which continued for fifteen days. During this period, he became sure that he was going to die. The physician examined him and then tied a piece of meat to a thread and sent it down his throat. When the string was pulled out, a large number of worms were stuck to the piece of meat.

During this time, Hajjaj suffered from shivering and coldness. Big fires were lighted around him and brought so close him that his skin could get burned, but he did not feel the heat.

When Hajjaj mentioned his ailment to Hasan Basri, the latter said: “I told you not to harass the righteous servants of Allah, but you did worse than that.”

Hajjaj said: “I didn't ask you to pray for my health. I want you to do something so that I may die soon.”

When he died, Hasan Basri performed the Sajdah of thankfulness said: “O Lord! Just as you have taken him away, put an end to his indecent policies as well.”

Hajjaj died in 95 A.H. during the reign of Walid in the city of Wasit and he was buried there. His grave was hidden, and water turned on it. Walid arranged a meeting to mourn his death.

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz said: “If every nation sends its villain to compete for the selection of the 'Champion of villainy and we send out Hajjaj alone, we can win this contest.”

Walid Bin Abd ul-Malik

After ruling for 21 years and 45 days, Abd ul-Malik Ibn Marwan died and was succeeded by Walid.

Masoodi says that Walid was a cruel man. His father had advised him to honour Hajjaj, to stand up wearing leopard skin and kill anyone that opposes him. Following his father's recommendations, Walid continued Hajjaj's yoke on the people. Hajjaj killed a pious personality like Saeed Ibn Jubair during the period of Walid.

Ibn Athir has recorded an incident that shows how Walid honoured Hajjaj. He writes:

Walid became unconscious, and it was thought that he was dead. When the news reached Hajjaj, he tied his hand to a pillar and said: “O Lord! Long ago I prayed that You give me death before Walid.” When Walid regained consciousness, he said: “I do not find anyone more pleased on my recovery than Hajjaj.”

During Walid's reign, Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz was the governor of Medina. He was the refuge for the oppressed and fugitives. Those who fled from the persecution of Hajjaj took refuge with Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz. Umar wrote to Walid complaining against Hajjaj's oppression of the people of Iraq. Walid dismissed him from the Governorship of Medina to please Hajjaj. He wrote to Hajjaj authorizing him to appoint a man of his choice as Governor of Hijaz. Hajjaj replied that Khalid Ibn Abdullah Qasri was most suitable for that post, and Walid appointed him accordingly.12

In connection with the events of 89 A.H. Ibn Athir writes:

When Khalid Qasri became the Governor of Mecca he said in a public address: O people! Which of the two is better, the caliphate of Walid or the imamate of Prophet Ibrahim? By Allah you are not aware of the position of the caliph. When Prophet Ibrahim prayed to Allah for water, He gave him bitter and brackish water, but when Walid asked for water from Allah, He gave him sweet water.” By 'bitter' water Khalid meant Zamzam water and by ‘sweet’ water he meant the water of the well Walid had dug. Khalid transferred the water of the well dug by Walid in a tank constructed near the well of Zamzam so that the people might come to know the superiority of Walid's well. As a result of this, Walid's well dried up.

Khalid Ibn Abdullah Qasri called Zamzam water 'source of impurities'. One day he mockingly said from the pulpit: How our falsehood dominates your truth! Has the time not yet arrived that Allah should become angry for your sake and destroy us? If the Commander of the Faithful, Walid, orders me to demolish the Kaaba and transfer its stones to Syria l shall do so. I swear that Walid is more honourable in the eyes of Allah than the prophets.13

Abu al-Faraj Isfahani further says:

“Khalid was an infidel and his mother was a Christian. He made the Christians and fire worshippers dominate over the Muslims so that they may persecute the Muslims. He allowed Christians to purchase Muslim slave-girls and marry them.”

The German orientalist, Wellhaussen writes:

On becoming the Governor of Kufa, Khalid constructed a chapel for his mother behind the Qibla of the masjid. It is also said that during his youth, Khalid was a homosexual and a pimp. He used to insult the Kaaba, the Holy Prophet, Ahl Al-Bayt and the Qur’an. He used to say: A sensible person does not memorize the Qur’an.14

The policy of Bani Umayyah was to reward and give political posts to those who were irreligious like themselves. In short, the best proof of Walid's deviation is his confidence in Hajjaj and the approval of his father Abd ul-Malik's conduct. Sulaiman Ibn Abd ul-Malik enquired Yazid Ibn Muslim as to where Hajjaj would be on the Day of Judgment. Yazid said: “On the Day of Judgment your father, Abd ul-Malik will come from the right, and your brother from the left. Now you may fix Hajjaj's place wherever you like between the two.”

Sulaiman Bin Abd ul-Malik

Walid ruled for nine years and one month. On his death in the year 96 A.H., he was succeeded by his brother, Sulaiman. Sulaiman was a glutton and was very fond of women. In the words of Masoodi: “Sulaiman had a huge belly and he ate too much. As soon as the cook brought a frying pan containing roasted chicken, he attacked it at once.”

One day he came out of the bathroom feeling hungry. So, twenty kids15 were brought to him, and he finished them with forty loaves of bread. As soon as food was served, he began eating along with his friends as if he had not eaten anything. He kept halwa16 dishes around his bed at night, and when he was awake, he ate the remaining dishes.

Sulaiman Ibn Abd ul-Malik ruled for two years and a few months. If he had lived longer, his end would not have been different from that of his ancestors. However. he did not remove Khalid Ibn Abdullah Qasri - the cruelest man after Hajjaj - from the governorship. Ibn Abd Rabb says: “Khalid was the Governor of Mecca during Sulaiman's reign. One Friday, he went on the pulpit and praised Hajjaj.”17

Sulaiman killed the great Arab conqueror, Musa Ibn Naseer who had conquered many African towns, Spain, Portugal and others. It was because Musa did not retain with himself the spoils of war till Sulaiman became the ruler while he sent them to Walid before that. He also killed Qutaibah Ibn Muslim, who had conquered territories from Fars to China because he had supported Walid's opinion regarding removal of Sulaiman from the post of crown prince.

In other word, Sulaiman did not pursue a policy that was different from that of his predecessors. The only difference was that he did not get enough time to accomplish all that he wanted to. The best proof of the correctness of what we have stated is that once when Mu’awiyyah's name was mentioned in his presence, he invoked blessings on Mu’awiyyah and his ancestors, saying: “By Allah, none has been seen like Mu’awiyyah!” Sulaiman prayed for Mu’awiyyah because he had not seen anyone as deceitful and as treacherous. He had not come across anyone bolder than Mu’awiyyah in cruelty and crimes. This was the actual nature of Bani Umayyah.

Umar Bin Abd ul-Aziz

Masoodi writes: Sulaiman died on Friday, 20th Safar 99 A.H. and on the same day Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz was made the Caliph. Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz lived for 39 years and expired on Friday, 25th Rajab 101 A.H. at Dayr Samoan, a dependency of Hums, and was buried there. His caliphate lasted 2 years 5 months and 10 days.

Unlike with the case of other Umayyads, the grave of Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz was not dug up after his burial and his corpse was not exhumed. No wonder that people curse Bani Umayyah, exhume their bodies, and burned them. But they invoke blessings for Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz, honour him, visit his grave, and believe that it is blessed, because all these things are due to the good deeds of Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz.

As mentioned earlier, Mu’awiyyah initiated the cursing of Imam Ali (‘a) and this practice continued during the time of Yazid, Marwan and Bani Marwan. When Walid pronounced the curse of Ali (‘a) he used to mispronounce the Arabic phrase resulting in the wrong meaning that: “Ali was a thief and son of a thief.” People were astonished at his wrong diction and said: “We never heard that Ali committed theft.”

Khalid Qasri said from the pulpit in Mecca:

Allah's curse be on Ali who was the son-in-law of prophet, and father of Hasan and Husayn. Then he jokingly said: “I haven't mentioned Ali.” Then he began abusing Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (‘a).

Ubaidullah Sahmi interrupted Khalid and recited the following couplets:

“May Allah curse one who curses Ali and Husayn and the Imam before him (Hasan). Are you cursing those, whose grandfather, uncle, and kinsmen, had a noble lineage? The pigeons and other birds are safe in Mecca, but the prophet's descendants are insecure. I pay tribute to the memory of the purified Ahl Al-Bayt of the Prophet. May unlimited blessings of Allah descend on them till the Judgment Day.”18

End Of The Innovation Of Cursing

The cursing of the Ahl Al-Bayt of the prophet continued till the time of Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz. In his own words, the reason for abrogation of this custom was:

“I used to learn Qur’an from a descendant of Atba Ibn Mas’ood. One day when I was playing with the children and was cursing Ali, my teacher passed by me and went to the masjid. I also left the children and went to the masjid to take lessons in Qur’an. My teacher prolonged his prayers, ignoring me. I asked him why he was displeased. He asked: “Is it you who have been cursing Ali for some days?” I replied in the affirmative. He said: “How did you come to know that Allah became angry with Ali? Has Allah ever been angry with those who fought in the Battle of Badr and took the oath of Rizwan?'' I asked: “Is Ali a participant of Badr?” He said: “The glory of Badr was for none except Ali.” I said: “I shall never curse Ali again.” My teacher asked me to promise that I would not do such a shameful thing in future, and I promised.”

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz further says:

“On Fridays, my father delivered a flowing sermon from the pulpit in Medina. However, when he reached the stage of cursing Ali, he used to stammer and found it difficult to speak on this subject. I used to wonder at this. One day I said to my father: You are an eloquent speaker, but when you begin cursing Ali, why do you find it difficult to speak? My father asked: Have you noticed this? I said: Yes. My father said: If the Syrians and others come to know about the virtues of Ali, they will not obey us and will cross over to the descendants of Ali.”

I remember the words of my father and my teacher, and promised Almighty Allah that if I attained caliphate, I would stop the innovation of cursing Ali.

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz fulfilled his promise and prohibited cursing and ordered that the following verse should be recited instead:

“Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion; He admonishes you that you may be mindful” (16:90).

He sent instructions to this effect to all cities of the Islamic world. This action was adopted as an obligation and became firmly rooted in the society. Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz has been highly praised for this.19

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz was born and brought up in the Bani Umayyah family, but his teacher Ubaidullah Ibn Abd Ibn Atba Ibn Mas’ood was devoted to Imam Ali (‘a) and Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a). He had concealed his devotion for Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) because of fear for his life. During Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz's childhood, Ubaidullah availed himself of the opportunity and explained the greatness of Imam Ali to him.

Later Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz observed that his father stammered in his sermon while cursing Imam Ali (‘a) and the remarks of his teacher were confirmed. His father also spoke the truth and the facts became clear to him. Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz realized that Imam Ali (‘a) was superior and truthful, and that the Bani Umayyah were misguided. His heart responded to the call of truth, and he fulfilled the promise he had made to Allah.

It was an action that became manifest as the result of logical reasoning. It expanded and developed, and when a suitable opportunity appeared - due to right thinking - a good action was performed. Most worthy of credit is the teacher of Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz, who showed him the right path.

As we stated above, Mu’awiyyah Ibn Yazid (Mu’awiyyah II) renounced the caliphate and criticized his father and grandfather for their sins. It was so because he had received instructions from a true believer, who had concealed his faith. Bani Umayyah buried that teacher alive on account of the abdication of Mu’awiyyah II, and for his invoking blessings on Imam Ali (‘a).

It was Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz who returned the Fadak orchards to the descendants of Lady Fatimah. He handed it over to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a). Some Quraish and Syrians objected to this action saying that it amounted to criticizing the decision of Abu Bakr and Umar. It means they had deprived Lady Fatimah of her right, and were therefore, usurpers and oppressors.

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz said: The claim of Lady Fatimah was reasonable, and the orchard was in her possession. Being the chief of the women of Paradise, she could not attribute a false thing to the Holy Prophet regarding the gift bestowed by him. By this act, I seek proximity to Allah and His messenger, and hope for intercession by Lady Fatimah, Imam Hasan, and Imam Husayn. If I had been in the place of Abu Bakr, 1 would have accepted the word of Lady Fatimah, and not ascribed falsehood to her.''20

Imam Ali (‘A) Is Superior To All Muslims

Ibn Abil Hadid writes21:

'Our co-religionists, the Mu’tazilites, have said that Imam Ali will have a very high position on Judgment Day. He is the most eminent person on account of his morals, virtues, and talents. Whoever is inimical to him is the enemy of Allah and will remain in Hell forever along with infidels and hypocrites. However, if an enemy of Imam Ali (‘a) repents before leaving the world, Allah will forgive him.

As regards those who assumed the office of caliphate before him, if Ali (‘a) had opposed them or had been angry with them, they were objects of Divine wrath. However, as he was not angry and did not draw his sword against them to recover the caliphate, we can say that he was satisfied with them. The Holy Prophet has said:

“Fighting against Ali is fighting against me and making peace with Ali is making peace with me.”

“O Lord! Be friend of him who is friend of Ali and be enemy of him, who is Ali's enemy.”

“Ali's friends are true believers and Ali’s enemies are hypocrites.”

Since Imam Ali was satisfied with their caliphate, paid allegiance to them, offered prayers behind them, gave the hands of his daughters to them, and utilized their wealth, we cannot go beyond his line of conduct and cannot ignore what have been associated with him.”22

As Imam Ali (‘a) expressed disgust for Mu’awiyyah and cursed him, we also express disgust for him and curse him. When he adjudged the Syrians to be deviated notwithstanding the fact that some companions like Amr Ibn Aas, and his son were also present among them, we also adjudge them to be deviated. It is our belief that except for prophethood, there is no difference between the Holy Prophet and Imam Ali (‘a).”

As regards the distinguished companions whom Imam Ali (‘a) did not criticize, we too, do not condemn them. We deal with them exactly in the same manner in which Imam Ali dealt with them.”

Most companions of the prophet and their followers have expressed belief in the superiority of Imam Ali over other companions. This belief was held by a group of companions including Amrnar Ibn Yasir, Miqdad Ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farsi, Buraidah, Huzaifa, Ubayy Ibn Kaab, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Suhail Ibn Hunayf, Uthman Ibn Hunayf, Abu al-Haytham Ibn Taihan, Khuzayma Ibn Thabit, Abu Tufayl Aamir Ibn Wathila, Abbas Ibn Abd ul-Muttalib, his sons and all of Bani Hashim, and some others.

Allamah Iqbal says, expressing his belief:

There is some Shi’aism in his nature also

I heard belief of Ali 's superiority from him.

Among the Bani Umayyah, persons like Khalid Ibn Saeed Ibn al-As and Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz also believed in the superiority of Imam Ali (‘a).

Judgment Of Aqeel's Descendants

Ibn Kalbi writes:

One day Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz was in his court when his chamberlain entered with two men and a handsome girl of wheat complexion. They delivered to him a letter from Maymun Ibn Mehran. He opened the letter, which read as follows:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. May Allah bless Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz. A problem has arisen among us, which we have refrained from tackling. We therefore refer it to you in accordance with the command of Allah:

“And when there comes to them a matter… and if they had referred it to the apostle, and to those in authority among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it” (4:83).

So that you may inform what the divine command is on that matter.

The problem is that the father of this woman says: “My son in-law vowed that if Ali (‘a) is not the most superior among Muslims and the nearest kinsmen of the prophet, his wife stands divorced. Now as Ali is not the most superior among Muslims, my daughter has been divorced and now her husband has no right to approach her.”

The woman's husband, however, says: 'What I claim is correct and my vow is in order because Ali is the most superior among Muslims. Although my father-in-law is annoyed, my wife has not been divorced (and she is still my wife).”

The husband swears that he would not leave his wife, while his father-in-law swears that he would take his daughter home. We have presented the dispute to you, and we await your decision. May Allah bless and guide you.''

Ibn Abd ul-Aziz called together Bani Hashim, Bani Umayyah, and other Quraish. Then he asked the woman's father: “What have you to say? The father repeated his claim (that Ali is not the most superior). Then the caliph asked the woman's husband: “What do you say?” He also reiterated his stand (that Ali is the most superior).

On hearing the husband's statement there was a furore in the gathering, and Bani Umayyah began looking upon him angrily. However, no one spoke, and all eyes were on the caliph. The caliph reflected on this for some time, moving his finger on the ground. Then he asked those present: What do you say about this vow? All of them kept quiet. The caliph said: Say whatever you like because the statement that does not suppress falsehood is true.

A person from amongst Bani Umayyah said: ''We do not want to say anything about it.”

The caliph asked a descendant of Aqeel Ibn Abu Talib: “What do you say in the matter?” That man said: “l would like to speak if my word is accepted and acted upon. If, however, no value is attached to what I say, it will be better to keep quiet and this will be more effective for maintaining friendship.”

The caliph said: “Your word will be accepted.” Thereupon Bani Umayyah said to the caliph: “You have not been just, because you have left the decision to one who does not belong to Bani Umayyah.”

The caliph said: ''Now keep quiet, because just now I asked you as to who was prepared to give a judgment, and you kept quiet, due to reproach or helplessness. Do you know whom you resemble?” “No,” they replied. The caliph said: “The descendant of Aqeel knows it.” Then he asked him: “Whom do they resemble?” He replied: “The couplet of a poet applies to them. He says: You were invited to judge a matter. When you were vanquished, another person who was not vanquished spoke up. When you saw this, you regretted; but regret provides no refuge.”

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz said: “You are right. Now give reply to my question.” Aqeel's descendant said: “The woman has not been divorced.”

Then he said to Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz:

“I swear by Allah that the Holy Prophet went to see Lady Fatimah to inquire about her health. She said that she was unwell. The Holy Prophet asked her if she desired to eat something. She replied: ‘Father, I feel like eating grapes, but I know this is not the season for grapes.’ The Prophet said: ‘Allah has the power to send it for us.’ Then he prayed: ‘O Lord! Send grapes for us along with the best man of my ummah.’ Immediately after that, Imam Ali entered the house.

The Holy Prophet asked Imam Ali (‘a): ‘What have you got with you?’ Imam Ali (‘a) replied: ‘These are grapes, which I have brought for Fatimah’. The Holy Prophet said: ‘Allah is Great! Allah is Great! O Lord! Just as You have especially granted my prayer for Ali, grant health to my daughter by means of those grapes’. Then he said to Lady Fatimah: ‘Eat the grapes in the Name of Allah’. She ate the grapes and recovered from her illness before the Holy Prophet left her house.”

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz said: Your decision regarding the divorce being ineffective is correct. I have heard your judgment and shall enforce it. Then he said to the woman's husband: “Take the hand of your wife and go. If her father prevents you from taking her away, strike his nose against the ground.”

Then he said to Bani Abd ul-Manaf: “By Allah, we are not unaware of what others know and are not blind to our religious matters. However, the following couplets apply to us:

“The world hunts men by means of its snare.so they do not understand goodness and pursue evil. Obsession for wealth makes people blind and deaf, and they do not get anything except loss and sin.”

When Umar Ibn Abdullah Aziz recited these verses, Bani Umayyah were struck dumb, and the husband took his wife and went away.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Honesty

This policy of Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz resulted in him being poisoned by Bani Umayyah, as they did away with Mu’awiyyah II, since they could not tolerate honesty. They wished that people should not become aware of the virtues of descendants of Ali (‘a) - which Bani Umayyah themselves knew - and people may not become closer to Ali (‘a). It was just as Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz had acknowledged that when his father cursed Imam Ali (‘a) he used to stammer.

Bani Umayyah feared the truth because they dreaded that the truth would topple their throne. However, the more they tried to hide the truth the more apparent it became and exposed their infamy.

A narrator says: “Umar Ibn Abdu l Aziz was an ordinary man. His greatness lay in the fact that he was able to see the matter, but he placed it among the blind (Bani Umayyah), Mansur says: “When Ibn Abd ul-Aziz assumed the caliphate, some people had made changes in the religion. Never was so much injustice done to the people and indifference shown to Islam as was done before he became caliph. It is sufficient to say that Imam Ali (‘a) was cursed from the pulpits and when Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz prohibited it, he was considered a righteous person, rather falling under the category of Orthodox caliphs (Khulafa ar-Rashideen). This is proved by a couplet of Kathir who says:

“If only you had not abused Ali (‘a), and had not frightened the innocent people, and had not obeyed the sinners.”

In short, Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz acquired his good conduct from the evil conduct of others.

History shows that there were many persons, who were brought up in pious families and spent their lives learning Islamic knowledge but deviated from the right path. They could not stand firm against temptations and surrendered to the pleasures of the worldly life. However, Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz abandoned his family’s conduct and habits, and did not yield to the intoxication of rulership. Instead, he guarded himself.

The greatness of Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz becomes clear from the fact that he criticized his ancestors and proved that they had deviated from the right path. We respect Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz because his mind was awake, and he hated falsehood. Faith and jihad were ingrained in his nature. May Allah bless him because his policy exposed the evil doings of Bani Umayyah. It is a virtue having no equal and it is an honour equivalent to performing jihad in the company of the prophet.

Concern, respect and loyalty and the attitude of faith

It is humanity and being a human being.

Yazid Bin Abd ul-Malik

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz departed from the world when he was eligible for Allah's pleasure, and he was succeeded by Yazid Ibn Abd ul-Malik. As soon as Yazid occupied the throne, he wrote to his governors: “Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz was deceived and you and your associates deceived him. I have read the letters you sent him regarding the reduction of taxes and other charges. When you receive my letter, you should summon all your former associates and friends and make the people return to their former condition. They must pay taxes by any means, whether they are alive or dead. And peace be upon you.”23

Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz had returned Fadak to Fatimah's descendants. Yazid, however, took it back from them once again. Like Yazid Ibn Mu’awiyyah, Yazid Ibn Abd ul-Malik was also fond of luxuries, crimes, drinking and sensuality. Yazid Ibn Mu’awiyyah was his maternal grandfather. It appears that there is a peculiarity about this name, which makes its holder a personification of corruption and crime!

Two singing slave-girls named Salamat ul-Qis and Hubabah had great influence on Yazid. One of them served him wine, while the other sang for him. One day when he was intoxicated in the company of these girls, he said: I want to fly away. Hubabah said: “We are depending on you!” Yazid said: “By Allah, I am going to fly away.” Hubabah asked: “To whom are you entrusting the kingdom?” Yazid kissed her hand and said: “By Allah, I am going to hand it to you.”

Once, Hubabah accompanied Yazid to Jordan on a recreational visit. Yazid placed a grape in her mouth,24 but it got stuck in her throat and she choked to death. Yazid kissed her face, looked at her and wept; and he did not allow her to be buried for three days.25

Ibn Abd Rabb writes that Abu Hamza has described Yazid as follows: He used to make Hubabah sit on his right and Salamah on his left. Then he asked Hubabah to sing for him and Salamah to pour the wine. When he was totally intoxicated, he tore up his clothes and said: “I want to fly. Fly away to Hell which is the abode of criminals.”26

One day when Yazid was busy praising Abu Lahab, he was told that Abu Lahab was a disbeliever who was always trying to harm the Holy Prophet. Yazid said: I know it. But I still like him, as he had a good voice.

Hisham Bin Abd ul-Malik

Yazid Ibn Abd ul-Malik died in 101 A.H. at the age of 37 after ruling for four years, one month, and two days. He was succeeded by Hisham Ibn Abd ul-Malik. An impending revolution could be perceived. The Bani Umayyah was enveloped by crimes and was cursed and condemned from all sides. Their regime was in danger and the threat was not from the side of the Shi’as alone.

Hisham did not take any step to improve the conditions of the people and reform the defects. He supported the blunders of Bani Umayyah and encouraged their crimes. He wrote to his governors: “Be harsh with the Shi’as and put them behind bars.” He ordered them to get rid of the Shi’as, to shed their blood, and deprive them of all their rights.

He ordered the demolition of the house of Kumayt, the poet of Ahl Al-Bayt. He also directed the son of Umar Thaqafi, Governor of Kufa, to cut off Kumayt's tongue for eulogizing the family of the prophet. He also wrote to Khalid Ibn Abd ul-Malik, the Governor of Medina, to imprison Bani Hashim and to include their names in the exit control list.27 As ordered by Hisham, Khalid behaved harshly with Bani Hashim and said things to Zaid, son of Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin, which caused him distress.

Zaid went to Damascus to convey his grievances before Hisham Ibn Abd ul-Malik, but he did not allow him to enter his court. Zaid sent a letter to Hisham and sought entry. Hisham wrote at the bottom of the letter: “Return to Medina.'' Zaid said: “I swear by Allah that I shall not return to Khalid.” After some days, Hisham allowed him into his court.

Before Zaid's arrival in the court, Hisham told his courtiers not to leave any space for him so that he may not come near him. When Zaid entered, he did not find any place where he could sit. He realized that it was done deliberately.

He, therefore, turned to Hisham and said: “Fear Allah.” Hisham said: “Is one like you asking me to be pious and to fear Allah?”

Zaid replied: “There is no question of high and low amongst the Allah's servants in the matter of counsel. I have given you a piece of advice and you ought to be pious.”

Ibn Abil Hadid writes: Hisham said to Zaid: “I have learnt that you are inclined to acquire a kingdom. However, as you are the son of a slave-girl you are not fit for it.”

Zaid replied: “None is superior to Allah and His Messenger. Ismail, the son of Ibrahim was the son of a slave girl, but Allah made him a prophet, and Muhammad son of Abdullah (S) was his descendant.”

Hisham asked: “What does your brother Baqarah do?”

Zaid was infuriated on hearing this (because Baqarah means a cow) and said angrily: “O Hisham! The Holy Prophet gave him the name of Baqir, whereas you are calling him Baqarah. Your action is far removed from the action of the Holy Prophet and on the Judgment Day also you will be at an equivalent distance. He (Imam Baqir) will go to Paradise, and you will go to Hell.”

“Hold the hand of this fool and turn him out,” roared Hisham. Hisham's servants turned Zaid out of the royal palace and from that day he turned his attention to Kufa.

Zaid’s Campaigns

Abu al-Faraj Isfahani writes:

“Fifteen thousand Shi’as of Kufa had given allegiance to Zaid and this number did not include his supporters in Madayan, Wasit, Mosul, Khorasan, Rayy and Jurjan. Zaid's followers included scholars. and other distinguished persons. Fighting started between Zaid and Yusuf Ibn Umar Thaqafi, the Governor of Basra and Kufa, and Zaid's companions ran away. Only a small number of them who were in the rear held on and the condition of both the parties became critical.” 28

Shaykh Abu Zahra Misri writes in his book Al-Imam Zaid:

“Zaid, the grandson of Ali and descendant of the Holy Prophet entered the battlefield, with an army consisting of about three hundred men. The opposing army was much larger, and reinforcements were also arriving regularly. Zaid fought along with his small but brave army and defeated the enemy. When Bani Umayyah lost about 70 men, they could not withstand the onslaught of these steadfast warriors, so they began shooting arrows and thus overpowered Zaid's forces.

An arrow struck Zaid's forehead and when it was pulled out, he passed away. When Bani Umayyah found themselves vanquished, they used the same method in the case of Zaid, which they had used to overpower his grandfather, Imam Husayn, because no one could defeat the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) in hand-to-hand combat.

Hisham behaved towards the body of Zaid in the same way as Yazid and Ibn Ziyad had done to that of Imam Husayn.

Yahya Ibn Zaid buried his father's body secretly in a brook, sprinkled grass and straw to hide its traces so that no one may find it. However, a man who knew it informed the Umayyad officers and added another blemish to their indelible shame. They exhumed the body, cut off its ears and nose and as ordered by Hisham, hanged it near the refuse dump at Kufa.”

Bani Umayyah And Lady Fatimah (‘A)

This battle was very dreadful and all that is sacred from the point of view of religion had no value in the eyes of Bani Umayyah. It is reported that a soldier of Bani Umayyah, who was mounted on a beautiful horse began to abuse Lady Fatimah. Observing this, Zaid wept so much that his beard became wet.

Then he said: Is there no one whose anger may be roused for the sake of Fatimah, daughter of the messenger? Is there no one who gets provoked for the sake of Allah's messenger? One of the devotees of Zaid disappeared, and approaching the rider from behind, attacked and killed him and made him fall on the ground.

He then rode that man's horse and returned. Bani Umayyah attacked him, but the companions of Zaid saved him from the enemies. Zaid was very happy. He kissed that man's forehead and said: You have helped me and have acquired the greatness and blessings of this world and the Hereafter.

Bani Umayyah were not content with killing Zaid. They exhumed his body, cut off his ears and nose, severed his head, and crucified him. For five years the body was hung naked. When Walid Ibn Yazid became the Caliph, he wrote to the Governor of Kufa to burn Zaid's body along with the crucifix and scatter the ashes in the air. The governor did accordingly and scattered the ashes in the air on the banks of Euphrates.

Ibn Taimiyyah writes in Minhaj us-Sunnah:

When Zaid's body was crucified, some residents of Kufa arrived and offered prayers there. Hisham sent Zaid's severed head to Medina where it remained installed near the grave of the Prophet for a day and a night. During those days, the Governor of Medina was Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Hisham Makhzumi.

People of Medina requested him to bring down the head, but he did not agree. The people cried in the same way as they had cried on receiving the news of Imam Husayn's martyrdom. The governor called the people and ordered his servants to curse Ali, Husayn. Zaid and their followers. This continued for seven days.

Then he sent the severed head to Egypt where it was installed near Jame Misr. The Egyptians stole the head and buried it near Jame Ibn Tolun. It is possible that the masjid in Egypt, known as Masjid al-Husayn, is the burial place of the head of Imam Husayn's grandson, namely Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn.

Abusing Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn (‘a), killing and torturing the descendants of Prophet and taking their severed heads around from one town to another were the methods adopted by all the rulers of Bani Umayyah.

The offence of the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) was that they could not tolerate that anyone should take liberty with the religion of their grandfather, Muhammad al-Mustafa, play with the destiny of people and usurp their rights. It was for this reason that people cursed Bani Umayyah and honoured and respected Imam Ali (‘a) and his descendants. It is an undeniable fact that Bani Umayyah had a great share in the expansion and strengthening of Shi’a faith.

Fragrance Of The Prophet's Conduct And Imam Ali's Magnanimity

It will be appropriate to quote here a few words from Prof. Muhammad Abu Zahra:

“Zaid was killed in the battle. He was a brave and righteous person and was a defender of truth. He could not bear to see his religion being tampered with, and falsehood occupying a dominant position. He could not tolerate the violation of human rights, or the neglect of Allah’s commands, and the introduction of heresies into the religion, which would lead to the collapse of the foundation of Islam and flourishing of oppression and crimes. He was not willing to see the despotic rulers creating hardship for the people. He courted an honourable death for the sake of religion and attained the position meant especially for the truthful and martyrs.

The Holy Prophet had said: The chief of martyrs is my uncle, Hamza Ibn Abd ul-Muttalib and a person who speaks the truth in the face of an unjust ruler.

Allah has mentioned the examples of the martyrs so that they may be followed, and one should be guided through their light, because they laid down their noble lives in the path of Islam. It is only appropriate that every believer should know what the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) desired and should propagate truth everywhere. And it is sufficient that as a result of speaking the truth, he should get the spiritual reward equivalent to that of their martyrdom.

Benefits Of This Campaign

Sometimes it is said: “Of what use were the true words uttered by the martyrs? They would have been beneficial if they had been victorious and had ruled, but they could not achieve this end.”

We reply: “The true words which the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) have uttered and for which they laid down their lives have benefited truth and enlightened the believers. It is sufficient to know that Imam Husayn's martyrdom toppled the Abu Sufyani regime and Zaid's killing wiped out the Marwanid rule.

The Almighty Allah says:

“… We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witness from among you; and Allah does not love the unjust” (3:140).

The learned have unanimously acknowledged that Zaid was a scholar of high merit. He was fully conversant with the beliefs of the jurists of Hijaz and Iraq. Scholars have not appreciated the learning and ability of any person as much as that of Zaid. Shi’as, Sunnis, Murji’ah and Mu’tazila, all agree that Zaid was the most eminent person of his time in the matter of knowledge and wisdom and was especially skilled in Islamic jurisprudence. The scholars consider the uprising of Zaid as the uprising of the learned and pious persons against injustice.

Some historians have written that Zaid's army consisted of jurists and reciters of Qur’an. Abu Hanifa who studied various subjects under Zaid for two years says: “I did not see anyone as learned during the time of Zaid as he was, and I also did not see anyone as witty as he was. Zaid was definitely matchless.” Then he says: “If I had known that people would not desert him and would not betray him like they betrayed his father, I would have fought on his side, because he is a true leader. However, I sent him 10,000 dirhams as assistance and apologized to him.”

The campaign of the jurists, the reciters of Qur’an, the traditionists, and the pious people are managed in this manner (no one comes to assist them from beyond the frontiers and even if such assistance is proposed they do not accept it).

It can be said that characteristics of knowledge and high morals are a legacy that the descendants of the prophet inherit from their ancestors. It seems that the Holy Prophet's conduct permeates their souls, and his sanctified blood circulates in their veins. Every quality of the imams of Ahl Al-Bayt carries a deep impression of the magnanimous spirit of the prophet and Imam Ali (‘a).

It was due to this that their contemporaries respected them, and even today Shi’as and non-Shi’as honour them and admit that the high conduct inherent in them is not seen in others. Sunni imam, Abu Hanifa says that he saw nothing in the personality of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) except knowledge and high morals and did not find anyone equal to him and his father, Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a). Another Sunni imam, Malik honoured Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) very much and used to say that there was no one in Medina equal to him.

All the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a), especially Zaid and his brothers in the first and second century possessed family nobility, dignity, and the best of morals, because they were brought up under Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a). whose morals, greatness and knowledge need no mention. The best example among them was Zaid who possessed high qualities and greatness, and who sacrificed his precious life in the path of Allah.

Walid Bin Yazid Bin Abd ul-Malik

Hisham died after ruling for nineteen years and a few months and was succeeded by Walid Ibn Yazid. His mother's name was Umm ul-Hajjaj. She was the daughter of Muhmmad Ibn Yusuf Thaqafi and the niece of Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf. Historians are unanimous that Walid lived a life of pleasure-seeking, wine, and women.

He was the first monarch to order professional singers. He performed extremely indecent acts.29 One of his verses is translated as follows:

“The goblet of wine is a fresh spring. I can't live if I don't taste it.”

Regarding the Syrian singer, Abu Kamil, Walid said: “tell Abu Kamil on my behalf that until

he comes to me I shall remain irresolute like a woman whose son is dead.”

Masoodi writes: When Ibn Ayesha sang a song for Walid, he was enraptured with joy and remarked: O Commander of my army, you sang very well. I beseech you in the name of Abd Shams, sing it again. Ibn Ayesha repeated the song.

Walid said: I entreat you in the name of Umayyah, sing it again. Ibn Ayesha sang again. Thereupon Walid stood up from his place and fell on the singer and kissed his entire body. He wanted to kiss his sexual organ also, but Ibn Ayesha clamped his thighs. Walid said: By Allah! I shall not let you go until l have kissed it. Finally, he kissed his member also, then gave him 1,000 dinars, mounted him on a mule and said: “Ride on the royal carpets.”

Walid constructed a wine pool in his garden, and when he was intoxicated, he used to jump into it and bathe with the prostitutes. He drank so much that its consequences became apparent when one day he transgressed upon his daughter and said: “Whoever is worried about what the people would say, dies of worry.”30

Making The Holy Qur’an Archery Target Board

Masoodi writes that one day Walid opened the holy Qur’an and came across this verse:

“And they asked for judgement, and every insolent opposer was disappointed” (14:15).

“Hell is before him, and he shall be given to drink of festering water” (14:16).

Walid shot arrows at the Holy Qur’an and said: “Do you threaten the arrogant and rebellious with torture? I am arrogant and rebellious. When you go before your Lord on the Judgment Day, tell Him: O Lord! Walid tore me to pieces.”

These were the Umayyad rulers who drank, committed adultery, indulged in sportive hunting, played with monkeys, kissed the private parts of singers, abused the Holy Prophet, Imam Ali, Lady Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn (‘a), killed the pious people, pulled down the houses on the heads of their residents, cut off the limbs of people, and exhumed dead bodies and hanged them!

Adultery, wine, life of pleasure, music and other indecent affairs did not distract Walid from committing injustice and he did not change his crooked stand against the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a). He ordered that the body of Zaid along with the gallows should be burnt and the ashes be scattered in the air.

In the days of Walid, Yahya Ibn Zaid revolted in Jawzjan, a dependency of Khorasan, against the oppression and persecution to which the people were subjected. The governor of Khorasan, Muslim Ibn Ahwaz was directed to kill Yahya. An arrow struck Yahya's temple resulting in his death. He was beheaded and his severed head was sent to Walid and his body was hanged in Jawzjan.

It is mentioned in Murujuz Zahab that his body was still on the scaffold when Abu Muslim Khorasani revolted. Abu Muslim killed Muslim Ibn Ahwaz, brought down the body of Yahya, offered funeral prayers for him, and buried him there. The people of Khorasan mourned Yahya's death in all the cities for seven days, and gave the name of Yahya or Zaid to every child born

during that year. In present day, his grave is a well-known place of ziarat (visitation).

These are historical facts about Bani Umayyah and their policies, ways, and manners as recorded by historians.

Services Of Kumayt Asadi

As a result of the atrocities of Bani Umayyah against mankind and Islam, many rebellions took place, some of which left very important marks, like the following uprisings:

The uprising of Imam Husayn (Enjoining good and forbidding evil).

The uprising of the Penitents (Tawwabin) who rose under the leadership of Sulaiman Ibn Surd Khuzai to avenge the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (‘a).

The uprising of Mukhtar to avenge the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (‘a).

The uprising of Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn.

The uprising of Yahya Ibn Zaid.

The uprising of Abdullah Ibn Muawiyah Ibn Abdullah. This was the uprising against Bani Umayyah.

The descendants of Ali and Fatimah laid down their lives to advance justice, freedom, and equality of people. They courted martyrdom one after another so that they might achieve this great object by sacrificing their sacred lives.

This bloodshed and uprisings produced a poet who till date has no parallel in the world. He was matchless for his honesty, sincerity, and courage. He defended truth and exposed falsehood. He did not expect wealth, fame, or position in return. The only object of this revolutionary poet was to support the family of the prophet. He encouraged the people to voice protests at a time when the truth had been strangled to death and people even dreaded to breathe loudly, lest they might be imprisoned without committing an offence.

He wanted to destroy the citadels of oppression, erase the traces of oppressors, and release the people from chains and shackles of captivity. This poet was Kumayt Ibn Zaid Asadi. Masoodi writes:

When he completed his composition, he proceeded to Basra and met the renowned poet, Farazdaq. He said to him: “O Abi Faras, I am your nephew”. Farazdaq asked him to introduce bis father to him. He did so. Farazdaq said: “You are right. Now let me know what you want”. Kumayt said: “I have composed some verses. You possess vast knowledge about the Mudhir clan, and you are their poet. I wish that you go through what I have composed and advise me whether I should publish or hide them.”

Farazdaq heard Kumayt's composition, which was replete with love for the Holy Prophet and his noble family and said: “You have composed well and done a very fine job, because you have ignored those of low lineage and paid homage to the family of infallibility, which is a commendable act. You are on the right course and what you have said cannot be refuted.” Farazdaq said to him twice: “Make your verses public and disgrace the enemies of Islam. By Allah, you are the greatest of the past and the present poets.”

Kumayt then returned to Medina and read his verses before Imam Muhammad Baqir (‘a). When he recited a part of his 'Qasida Maymiyyah ' the following verse made the Holy Imam weep:

“When the sword was cutting the throat of the pride of Hashemites (Imam Husayn), the unjust people were happily raising slogans of victory.”

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a) said: If I had wealth, I would have rewarded you. However, I pray for you just as the prophet prayed for the poet Hasan Ibn Thabit: “May Allah help you as long as you support and defend us.”

Kumayt also went to see Abdullah Ibn Hasan and recited his verses before him. Abdullah said:

“O Abu Mustahil! I had purchased a property for 4,000 dinars and this is the sale deed. I call some persons to witness to the transfer of this property to you.” Kumayt said: “May my parents be your ransom! I compose verses for others for the sake of money and about you for the sake of Allah and I don't accept money for that which I compose for the sake of Allah. When Abdullah insisted much, Kumayt accepted the sale deed it and went away.

But he returned after a few days and said: “O son of Allah's messenger! May my parents be your ransom! I have a need.” Abdullah replied: “Whatever you ask will be given.” Kumayt presented the sale deed of the aforesaid property and said: “Please accept this.” Abdullah picked up the document and accepted it.”

Abdullah Ibn Mu’awiyyah Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ja'far told the people of Bani Hashim: “Kumayt has composed verses in your praise and during these days when people have ceased praising you, he has endangered his life to expose the tyrannies of Bani Umayyah. You should appreciate his work, encourage him, and help him as much as you can.”

Abdullah collected money for Kumayt. Even the women donated their ornaments for him. The value of what was collected came to about 100,000 dirhams. When it was presented to Kumayt he said: “I have composed these verses to please Allah and His Prophet, and I am not going to accept money for that.” Although Abdullah insisted much, Kumayt did not agree. It was, therefore, returned to all those who had contributed.

Kumayt has condemned the evil deeds of Bani Umayyah in his verses. He made it known to the people that Bani Umayyah had been cursed by the Holy Prophet, and that they descended from those set free by the prophet. In his verses, he stated that Imam Ali (‘a) is the medium of salvation in the religion and the worldly life. The well-being in this world is dependent upon obedience to him, and that the success on the Day of Judgment is meant for those who are his friends in this world and who are attached to his wilayat (guardianship).

Kumayt performed this feat when Imam Ali (‘a) was cursed from the pulpits and when it was more dangerous to be labelled a Shi’a than to be called a kafir. He composed these verses at a time when singing Ali's praise was an unpardonable crime and its punishment was meted out in the form of amputation of limbs, hanging and being buried alive.

Kumayt criticized Bani Umayyah and accused them of persecution. He narrated their cruelties which were hated even by the dacoits and the pirates and mentioned their wicked ways and crimes in all gatherings and assemblies. He told Bani Umayyah: “O tyrants! You have become fat sucking our blood. You are leading lives of luxury, whereas we are subjected to indigence and affliction.”

Indeed, Kumayt attacked class distinctions and instead divided the people into two groups. The first group consists of those who are gluttonous, who live in pleasure, commit crimes, and shed blood. And the other group comprises those who are thrown onto the streets like trash to die a gradual death.

It is that very object which is manifested in the poetry of the Shi’a poets, and their forerunner is Kumayt Ibn Zaid Asadi.

George Jordac says in Al-Qawmiyat ul-Arabiyya: 31

“The poetical revolution of the Shi’a against the despotic rulers, who did not distinguish between man and beast, was initiated by Kumayt.”

Kumayt says: “The imams are politicians, but their politics is not that they should range the servants of the nation with the shepherds. Their policies are not like the policies of Abd ul-Malik, Walid, Sulaiman and Hisham.”

Regarding Hisham and Bani Marwan, Kumayt said: “Sitting on the pulpit they talk of goodness and truth, but when they descend from it, they commit thousands of crimes. They say: ‘Our words are as effective as the words of prophets and guides, but our character and manners are those of the Age of Ignorance’.”

Bani Umayyah imprisoned Kumayt and tortured him but this devotee of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) was undeterred. A verse of Kumayt says:

''I don't worry nor fear Bani Umayyah, because not withstanding their power, they are base. If I die, I shall not die in the state of doubt, suspicion, hypocrisy and ignorance.”

When Bani Umayyah32 threatened to kill Kumayt, the valiant man replied:

“O Yazid! Shout! Show off! Roar like thunder! And threaten me. These threats of yours will not affect me.”

Another specimen of the audacity of Shi’a poets towards the corrupt organization of Bani Umayyah was Farazdaq, who said about Hisham Ibn Abd ul-Malik:

“His head is not worthy of leadership and the defect of his squinted eyes is quite apparent.”

The poetry of Kumayt shows that he desired that the descendants of 1mam Ali (‘a) gain rulership because this family would establish justice, bring blessings for the citizens, and attract the people to themselves. Indeed, they shall become the cause of deliverance from the hardships of the Day of Judgment and the wrath of Allah. To achieve his goal, Kumayt did not refrain from any sacrifice.33

Kumayt supported his claim with Qur’anic verses, traditions of the prophet and logical reasoning, which he quoted in his verses. Jahiz says that Kumayt opened the door of reasoning for the benefit of Shi’as. Kumayt says:

“If caliphate is suitable for those few persons, the nearest relatives (of the Holy Prophet) are more worthy of it. If the caliphate had been hereditary, your claim would have been correct. I say: If the caliphate is hereditary, Bukayl and Arjab tribes must also have a share in it.”

Kumayt says about the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a):

“Ali's descendants are nearest to good deeds and far from bad ones. Bani Hashim are most kind to pay the rights of the people. And they are the best of all in the matter of wisdom.”

“They open the hand of generosity and do not oppress or harm anyone. When the means of dispensing with Islam are brought, they display firm resolve in its preservation. They are the best creatures whether alive or dead. Their love rules my heart and only they deserve it. I do not follow anyone besides the infallible family. Who can I follow besides them? I don 't follow but the true religion.”

Allamah Iqbal says:

O pivot of the praise of the tongues

O Yusuf of the caravan of lives

O gate of the city of Love

O Nuh of the Ark of Love

O moon of the eraser of my false impressions

O victor of the Khyber of my heart.

When we ponder on the compositions of Kumayt, we observe sincerity at every stage. As his difficulties increased, his faith became more robust and firmer. Kumayt's collection of 536 verses in praise of Ali (‘a) and the descendants of Imam titled Al-Hashmiyat, was first printed in Europe and then in Egypt. Arabic scholars, literary men, and orientalists have also written commentaries on it.

While Kumayt was present in the court of the Umayyad Governor, Yusuf Ibn Umar Thaqafi, eight guards attacked him with swords, and left him only when they thought that he was dead. During the last moments of his life, he opened his eyes and said: “O Allah! Aale Muhammad; O Allah! Aale Muhammad; O Allah! Aale Muhammad.”

Reciting benedictions on Muhammad and Aale Muhammad, Kumayt departed from the world but the faith for which he sacrificed his life is the faith of millions of people residing in the East and the West. This faith will continue to exist along with Islam and the holy Qur’an forever.

The message of Kumayt, his political ideology and faith make one object manifest, and that is sincere love for the descendants of Ali (‘a) and reliance on them in matters connected with this world and the hereafter. It was so because they were the best specimens of truth, justice, and equality. It was the reason Kumayt performed jihad for the sake of his object and achieved the lofty station of martyrdom.

1. This term refers to the Tawwabin movement of a group based in Kufa, who fought the Umayyads to atone for their failure to defend Imam Husayn (‘a). [Note of al-Islam].

2. After the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (‘a), Mukhtar rose to avenge his blood. The Ahl al-Sunna scholars were busy in his character assassination till this time. Ibn Taiymiyah has even labelled Mukhtar an apostate. (Fatawi Ibn Taymmiyah, Baab al-Bagha, tr.No. 27).

3. Vol. 3, Pg. 15.

4. Tabi’in is the term in reference to the generation of Muslims who did not see the Prophet (S) but they saw the companions of the prophet [Note of al-Islam.org].

5. Meaning “a wicked, broken-down person”.

6. Atrocities and oppression had reached such a level that once during the period of Walid Ibn Abd ul-Malik, Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz screamed: “Hajjaj in Iraq, Walid in Syria, Qurra Ibn Shareek in Egypt, Uthman Ibn Hayyan in Medina, Khalid Ibn Abdullah Qasri in Mecca. O Allah! Your world is full of oppression. Now please give some relief to the people.” In addition to political persecution, these people also deviated in religious matters to a great extent. They unduly delayed prayers. They delivered the first Friday sermon in sitting position. On Eids, the system of reading the sermon before the prayers was started by Marwan, and for his descendants, this became a practice. (Khilafat-O-Mulookiyat, Pg. 187, Published by Idara Tarjuman ul-Qur’an, Lahore).

7. Murujuz Zahab, Vol. 3, Pg. 152.

8. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir. Vol. 4, Pg. 26.

9. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir. Vol. 4, Pg. 84.

10. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Ibn Abil-Hadid, Vol. I, Pg. 114.

11. Hayat ul-Haiwan, Vol. I, Pg. 411, Published by Dar ul-Ishaat Karachi.

12. Abu Hanifah says that when Abd ul-Malik Ibn Marwan was dying, he called his son, Walid, and advised him: O Walid, I don't like my dead body to be laid in the grave and that you may roam about like distressed people. You should instead wear a shirt and get ready. You should stand wearing a cheetah skin. If anyone refuses to give you allegiance, you must punish him ruthlessly and eliminate him. (Hayat ul-Haiwan, Urdu, Pg. 205, quoted from Akhbar at-Tiwal).

13. Al-Aghani, by Abul-Faraj al-Isfahani, Vol. 19, Pg. 59.

14. Tarikh ad-Daulat ul-Arabiyya, Pg. 3 l9.

15. Baby goats.

16. Sweet preparations.

17. Al-lqd ul-Farid, Vol. 4, Pg. 191, published 1953.

18. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 1, Pg. 366 and Vol. 3, Pg. 476.

19. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir, Events of 99 A.H. and Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 1, Pg. 356).

20. Safinat ul-Bihar, Vol. 2, Pg.272.

21. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Vol. 4. Pg., 520; Old Edition.

22. Please note that it is the opinion of Ibn Abil Hadid; otherwise, Imam Ali's Shiqshiqya sermon of Nahj ul-Balagha makes the facts evident.

23. Al-lqd ul-Farid, Vol. 5, Pg. 176.

24. Yazid Ibn Abd ul-Malik was living a life of pleasure. One day Hubabah was eating pomegranate seeds when she suddenly laughed out. The seed stuck inside her throat, and she was choked to death. As a result of Hubabah 's death Yazid's life became miserable. He lost his senses and was absolutely devastated. He was so much shocked that he did not allow the burial of Hubabah for some days. He used to kiss and fondle the corpse till it began to give out a foul odour. Then he ordered its burial. Again, he ordered them to exhume the corpse. After that, Yazid did not live for more than 15 days. (Allamah Damiri, Hayat ul-Haiwan, Urdu translation, Pg. 217, published Dar ul-lshaat, Karachi).

25. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir - Events of the year 105 A.H.

26. Al-Jqd ul-Farid, Vol. 4, Pg. 202.

27. That means to prevent them from leaving the city.

28. Maqatilut Talibiyyin, Pg. 135

29. Let us see the following extract of an article entitled: “Muhammad Shah Rangeela” by the famous columnist, Javed Chaudhury, in 7 December 2007 issue of Express Karachi. Though in this column, the writer has written about many colourful personalities (profligates) of the ancient and the modem world, he has not mentioned anything about the profligacy of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas rulers. Probably the writer considers them to be the shadows of God on the earth. Anyway, Chaudhury writes:
“The real name of the prince was Raushan Akhtar. He was the son of Shahjahan Hujjat Akhtar and the grandson of Shah Alam Bahadur Shah I. When the Sayyid brothers released him from jail, he occupied the throne on 17th September 1719. He selected for himself the title of Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah, but he became known in history as Muhammad Shah Rangeela. Muhammad Shah Rangeela was an unnaturally imbalanced profligate. Day and night he used to remain drunk and all the time busy with music and dance. He had a strange obsession of making laws and breaking them. He was such a ridiculous man that one moment he awarded anyone the highest post in the country, and whenever he liked he sent the Prime Minister to jail.
He often arrived at the court nude, and the courtiers in compliance with his idiosyncrasy, took off their clothes. Many a time he used to be so intoxicated with power that he urinated openly in the court and all the high-ranking officials, scholars, and nobles of Delhi applauded his antics. He simply issued orders that the next day all the courtiers should come dressed in ladies’ garments and such and such minister shall put on tinkling ankles. None could dare oppose him. He used to arrive in the court and order that all the prisoners be released from the prison, and then ordered that an equal number of new prisoners be arrested.
On the orders of the King, sepoys used to go out and arrest whoever they found on the street and cast them into the jail. Muhammad Shah Rangeela was very fond of awarding posts and honours. Every day he appointed five new ministers and awarded honours to hundreds of people. And the next day he withdrew these ministries and honours. He came to the court accompanied by prostitutes and rested on their legs, arms, and bellies, and controlled the government.
He forced the Qadi of the city to perform ablution (wuzu) with wine. He had proclaimed that every beautiful woman of Hindustan was his trust and whoever cheated him in this matter would be put to death. During his rule, he gave the status of a minister to his favourite horse. Wearing the royal insignia, the horse used to occupy a place in the court along with the other courtiers. Due to excessive drinking. Muhammad Shah Rangeela died on 26 April 1748. Even today when one sees his name in history, one laughs out involuntarily. Muhammad Shah Rangeela was not a unique sample of this type. The history of the world is full of such creatures”.

30. Murujuz Zahab.

31. Vol. 5, Pg. 190.

32. Regarding Bani Umayyah, Imam Ali (‘a) says:
Beware that the worst mischief for you in my view is the mischief of Bani Umayyah because it is blind, and it also creates darkness. Its sway is general, but its ill effects are for particular people. He who remains clear-sighted in it would be affected by distress, and he who remains blind in it would avoid the distress.
By Allah, you will find Bani Umayyah after me the worst people for yourselves, like the old unruly she-camel who bites with its mouth, beats with its forelegs, kicks with its hind legs, and refuses to be milked.
They would remain over you till they would leave among you only those who benefit them, or those who do not harm them. Their calamity would continue till your seeking help from them would become like the seeking of help by the slave from his master or by a follower from his leader. Their mischief would come to you like evil-eyed fear and preIslamic fragments, wherein there would be no minaret of guidance nor any sign (of salvation) to be seen.
This world cannot appear sweet to you in its pleasures, and you cannot secure milk from its udders except after having met it when its nose rein was trailing, and its leather girth was loose. For certain people, its unlawful items were like bent branches (laden with fruit) while its lawful items were far away and are not available. By Allah, you would find it like a long shade up to a fixed rime. So, the earth is with you without let or hindrance and your hands in it are extended while the hands of the leaders are held away from you. Your swords are banging over them while their swords are held away from you.
I swear by Allah, O' Bani Umayyah, shortly you will see it (i.e. your possession) in the hands of others and in the house of your enemy (Bani Abbas).
Flags of this mischief are actually standards of misguidance, fixed in its centre and spread (all around) through its offshoots. It weighs you with its weights and confuses you with its measures. Its leader is an out-cast from the community. He persists on misguidance.
At that time there will remain no house or tent, but oppressors would inflict it with grief and inject sickness in it. On that day, no one in the heaven will listen to their excuse and no one on the earth will come to their help.
You selected for governance (caliphate) one who is not fit for it, and you raised him to a position which was not meant for him. Shortly Allah will take revenge from everyone who has oppressed, food for food and drink for drink, namely (they will be given) colocynth for food, myrrh and aloes for drinks, and fear for an inner and the sword for an outer covering. They are nothing but carrier-beasts laden with sins and camels laden with evil deeds. (Nahj ul-Balagha)
I swear and again swear that the Umayyads will have to spit out the caliphate as phlegm is spat and thereafter, they will never taste it nor relish its flavour, so long as day and night rotate. (Nahj ul-Balagha)

33. The slogans of human rights, freedom, independence, and equality that are being raised today have the blood of the bold and revolutionary poets like Farazdaq, Kumayt and Dibil etc.

Bani Abbas

From time to time, there were revolts against Bani Umayyah. In the beginning of the Umayyad regime, these revolts were quickly suppressed as they were not widespread. But the revolt which Bani Umayyah were unable to quell was the one that took place during the days of Marwan Himar, the last Umayyad monarch.

On this occasion, people from various backgrounds rose against him. The army and the police force also disobeyed his orders, and even his friends deserted him. Eventually, Marwan's position became completely weak, and bribes and promises of government offices to various persons also failed to serve any purpose.

A large segment of the army rebelled against Marwan, and he was compelled to flee from one town to another. As and when he entered a town, the people behaved in the worst manner towards him. When he reached Mosul, the inhabitants raised slogans against him and closed the doors of the city. Then he went to Qansarin, and the people attacked his forces.

When he went to Hamat there was a great furore against him. Thus, he returned to Syria but was turned away from there as well. Then he proceeded to Palestine, but the Palestinians also became aloof from him. In short, this monarch could not find refuge in any city.

In all these cities, the army of Bani Abbas pursued Marwan Himar and he fled from one place to another, until he was eventually killed at the end of 132 A.H. in the city of Busir in Egypt. With his death, the caliphate of Bani Umayyah ended.

“So, the roots of the people who were unjust were cut off; and all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds” (6:45).

A Thousand Month Rule

Masoodi says: “The total duration of Umayyad rule, till the time when allegiance was taken for Abu al-Abbas Saffah, was a thousand months, because they ruled for ninety years, eleven months, and thirteen days.”

It is narrated in Tafsir ar-Razi that Qasim Ibn Fazl quotes Imam Hasan (‘a) as saying that the Holy Prophet saw in a dream that the Umayyads were jumping on his pulpit like monkeys. This made him very uneasy, so Allah revealed Surah al-Qadr and told His beloved prophet that this one night of Qadr (glory) is better than 1,000-month rule of Bani Umayyah. Qasim says: When we calculate, we find that Bani Umayyah rule lasted one thousand months.1

Bani Abbas Exploits The Situation

At that time, the world of Islam was in the grip of a general conflagration and discontent. All the people were fed up with Umayyad rule and their intellect and hearts were drawn towards the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a).

1. Revolt against Bani Umayyah took place under the name of religion and preservation of Islam. Descendants of the Prophet were the trustees of faith and the defenders of Islam. If they assumed the reins of government, they would act according to the sunnah of the prophet -establishing justice and protecting the rights of the people.

2. The Shi’as and the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) were the first group that campaigned against the crimes and despotism of Bani Umayyah. They sacrificed their lives and wealth to achieve this object, and further demanded that whoever had suffered a loss must be compensated for it.

3. The descendants of Ali (‘a) and Shi’as of Ali (‘a) were a strong opposition group who campaigned against the rule of Bani Umayyah secretly and sacrificed their lives and property in this regard. And like the Holy Imams the noble- minded Shi'ah, too, faced out being killed or tortured. The best confirmation of our claim is provided by the following extract from Tarikh Kamil of Ibn Athir:

“The last day of the Umayyad rule was celebrated by the people as a day of thanksgiving. They were under the impression that now the descendants of the Holy Prophet will replace Bani Umayyah. Bani Abbas had risen in the name of martyrdom of Husayn, Zaid, and his son Yahya! Bani Abbas exploited the anger of the nation against Bani Umayyah and took maximum advantage of the dispute between the Shi’as and the Umayyad regime. But who could have known that they had a dagger up their sleeve?

In the beginning, Bani Abbas used to say: Our goal is to topple the Umayyad regime and save the people from oppression. When Umayyads are defeated, we shall reach a consensus and select a chief from amongst the descendants of the prophet. At the beginning of the campaign, Bani Abbas did not nominate anyone from among themselves or others as the chief. They mentioned only their first object viz the defeat of Bani Umayyah.

It was just like France and Britain saying - while they were at war with Turkey – that they were fighting to free the Arabs from cruelty and oppression and would - after achieving victory – free the Arabs, and hand over the government to them. But they betrayed the Arabs, and when Turkey was defeated, France occupied Syria and Lebanon, and Britain brought Iraq and Jordan under her control, and gifted Palestine to Israel.2

The famous orientalist Wellhaussen writes:

The famous orientalist Wellhaussen writes:

“Bani Abbas kept secret their intention to deprive Bani Fatimah of the government. To deceive the people, they used to say that they were fighting for the benefit of Bani Fatimah. ln Khorasan and other places, they said that they would avenge the blood of all martyrs from the children of Fatimah. On this basis, they wanted to benefit from the support of Shi’as and reach to the throne stepping on their shoulders. When the Shi’as mentioned about power sharing, they said: We would solve this matter through consensus. Bani Abbas acquired ascendancy in the name of the Alawis, who were carrying desperate campaigns against the Umayyad rule. However, when they obtained power, they paid no attention to the Alawis and manifested their hard-heartedness and cruelty.”

Before the crimes of Bani Abbas are recounted, it is necessary to understand their general position.

Who Were Bani Abbas?

In the matter of oppression, cruelty and licentiousness, Bani Abbas were the same as Bani Umayyah. There was no difference between the two in committing sins openly and expressing infidelity. It was so because they had no regard for religion or divinity. All that mattered to them was worldly riches; their carnal desires had no bounds. They beheaded people, put them

on gallows and demolished houses on those who were still alive inside.

Ibrahim3 and his brother Saffah were like Mu’awiyyah; Mansur and Haroon were like Hisham; and Mutawakkil was another form of Yazid Ibn Mu’awiyyah.

As far as we know, most rulers resort to bloodshed to safeguard their throne. Or, according to their own claims, create insecurity to ensure the survival of their rule. However, what has been mentioned about Bani Umayyah - and will be described later about Bani Abbas - shows that they did not kill to strengthen their government or to ensure security. Their only object was treachery and bloodshed.

Towards the end of the Umayyad rule, due to their evil character and because of their murderous ways, the revolt spread everywhere. Ibrahim, the brother of Saffah, sent Abu Muslim Khorasani to Khorasan and said to him: “Listen to my advice carefully. Take interest in the Yemeni group, honour them and associate with them, because Allah completes the caliphate through them. Defame the Rabiya tribe and say that the end of the Mudhir tribe is near. Kill those whom you suspect and liquidate the Arabs from Khorasan, if possible. Accuse every boy who is about one meter tall and kill him.

Ahmad Ibn Ali Maqrizi, after quoting the above incident in his book, An-Niza Wat-Takhasum Fi baina Bani Urnayyah wa Bani Hashim says:

“May Allah hold you dear! What connection has this recommendation with the recommendations made by the orthodox caliphs to their governors? By Allah, even if Abu Muslim had been dispatched to fight against the polytheists, such recommendation would not have been lawful, whereas in this case he was being sent to an Islamic territory to kill the children of the Muhajir’s, the Ansar’s - rather all the Arabs - to take away from them lands they had taken from the enemies and received from their ancestors. The Abbasids wanted to occupy the lands, enjoy the funds from public treasury and enslave the servants of Allah.

Abu Muslim acted according to the instructions of Ibrahim. Now the question is, what is the difference between the remark of Ibrahim who said: “Kill those you suspect” and that of Mu’awiyyah who wrote to his commanders: “Punish in the worst way every person that is accused of being a Shi’a of Ali and pull down his house”?

Abu al-Abbas Saffah appointed Muhammad Ibn Sa ul-as Governor of Mosul. The people of Mos ul-did not obey him, and he wrote to Saffah to send another governor in his place. Saffah sent his own brother. Yahya with an army of twelve thousand. Seeing such a huge army, the people of Mos ul-became afraid and sought amnesty. After granting them amnesty, Yahya resorted to unprecedented bloodshed, so much so that blood began to flow in the streets and one's feet are immersed in it while walking.

When night fell and Yahya heard the women wailing for their men who had been killed, he ordered that the women and children also be killed. This massacre continued for three days.”4

When we compare this incident with the recommendation of Ibrahim (to Abu Muslim), we conclude that when it involved persecution, the Abbasids were much ahead of the Umayyads. If we had held the belief in transmigration of soul, we might have said that the spirits of Mu’awiyyah and Hajjaj entered the bodies of Ibrahim and Yahya respectively.

Saffah, The Abbasid

Saffah's name was Abdullah, and his patronymic was Abu al-Abbas. He was the first ruler of Bani Abbas. He received pledge of allegiance in the year 132 A.H. and he died in 136 A.H. after having ruled for a little more than four years. The Abbasids had come to put an end to the persecution by Bani Umayyah. However, after securing power they left even the Umayyads behind. They searched and pursued every member of the Umayyad clan and put them to death in the most horrid manner.

So long as Saffah felt that there was the last breath of life in the body of Bani Umayyah he did not sit still. He went a step further and annihilated all those persons whose loyalty he doubted or from whom there was danger to the Abbasid regime, as he did in the case of Abi Salamah Khilal. His brother, Yahya in Mosul, his uncle in the Hijaz, his second uncle, Sulaiman in Basra, and Abu Muslim in Khorasan also took similar steps.

Shareek Ibn Shaykh Mahri quarrelled with Abu Muslim in Bukhara and said: You must act according to justice. We did not give allegiance to Bani Abbas so that they might resort to bloodshed.” Abu Muslim killed him and subjected his 30,000 followers to punishments.

Saffah was given this title (which mean shedder of blood) because he shed blood excessively. It is said that he invited 80 individuals of the Umayyad family to receive prizes and have dinner. When they arrived, he ordered them to be killed. Carpets were then spread on their half-dead bodies and Saffah began taking his meals. When the meals were over, he said: “I had never before had such delicious meal.”

Bani Umayyah deserved to be killed. However, to invite them to a feast and then to kill them, and to later take meal sitting on their bodies was such a meanness which even Bani Umayyah were not endowed with. Many persons, especially the poets, instigated Bani Abbas to shed the blood of Umayyads. It was only the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) who forbade Bani Abbas from shedding Umayyad blood recklessly and found excuses for the safety of those of them who were alive.

Although the descendants of Ali (‘a) were the target of most of the crimes of Bani Umayyah, the former did not think in terms of revenge. It was so because they were the descendants of the one who spared Amr Ibn Aas in the Battle of Siffin, forgave Marwan in the Battle of Camel, and permitted water to Mu’awiyyah and his army after gaining control over it,5 and who said: “When you are victorious over your enemy, make forgiveness the thanksgiving for your victory.”

There was nothing new in the conduct of the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a) because they were the members of the family of justice and piety. Ibn Athir writes:

Dawood Ibn Urwah, a Governor of Bani Abbas decided to eliminate Bani Umayyah from Mecca and Medina. Abdullah Ibn Hasan Ibn Hasan said to him: If you kill Bani Umayyah, before whom will you display your strength? Is it not a sufficient torment for them that all the time they see you on the throne of authority and find themselves abject and humble? However, Dawood Ibn Urwah did not accept his advice and killed all of them.6

It was expected that Saffah would accord preferential treatment to the descendants and followers of Imam Ali (‘a), because the Alawis, Shi’as and Abbasids had jointly struggled to annihilate the Umayyads. Bani Abbas made use of the Alawis. Their political slogan was: 'We are supporters of AIi's descendants; because they knew that the people accorded more respect to the Alawis in comparison to the Abbasids, and that the people were more devoted to the former.

Poets And The Abbasids

Intoxication of power showed its evil; as soon as they secured the kingdom, the Abbasids became aloof from the Alawis and the Shi’as. Muhammad Ahmad Burraq writes on page 48 of his book, Abu al-Abbas Saffah:

“The foundation of the revolution was actually laid by the descendants of Ali because most of the people of Khorasan7 were devoted to the Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a)8 and were not interested in Bani Abbas. It was for this reason that Saffah and the later caliphs kept watchf ul-eyes on Khorasan so that the Shi’as there may not become organized against them.”

Bani Abbas commissioned the poets to versify their praises and rewarded them well for this. Hence the poets criticized the descendants of Ali (‘a) and declared them to be unworthy of caliphate, saying: Bani Fatimah are related to the Prophet through their mother, whereas Bani Abbas are related to him through their father.

Besides buying over the poets, Bani Abbas abandoned the religion of Ahl Al-Bayt and adopted the Ahl Sunnah faith. They did this to prevent the spread of Shi’a faith, and that rulership may not shift to the descendants of Ali after them. In this way, Bani Abbas continued the policy and objective of Bani Umayyah and became like them in their belief, policies, and actions.

Saffah did not kill any Shi’a and did not persecute any Shi’a like the later Abbasid Caliphs. But that was only because his attention was focused on eliminating the Umayyads and towards consolidating his power. Also, it was because Saffah and the Shi’as had until recently fought jointly against Bani Umayyah, and the Shi’as had assisted him in securing power. In addition to this, Saffah's seat of power was Kufa, where the residents were followers of Imam Ali (‘a) and he did not possess enough strength to fight them.

Whatever the situation might have been, during the last days of Bani Umayyah and the initial period of the Abbasids, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) had a good opportunity to expound and spread the teachings of Ahl Al-Bayt. It is as a consequence of their efforts that Islamic libraries today are replete with books on traditions and various subjects like jurisprudence, philosophy, exegesis, ethics etc.

Mansur, The Abbasid

The second Abbasid caliph was called Abdullah, his patronymic was Abu Ja'far, and Mansur was his title. He was the son of Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas. Abbas Ibn Abd ul-Muttalib was the paternal half-brother of Abdullah, the honourable father of the Holy Prophet. Oath of allegiance for Mansur was taken in 136 A.H. and he died in 158 A.H. after ruling for 22 years.

Historians write:

“Apparently Saffah, brother of Mansur, was the first Abbasid caliph. But the real founder of the Abbasid dynasty was Mansur. Saffah's rule lasted for only four years, and it was Mansur who gave stability and grandeur to the regime. Mansur's nature was a mixture of good and evil. He understood people and their temperaments. He developed contacts with the people and selected a group of influential religious scholars who might sincerely support and protect the government of Bani Abbas. He capitalized on their influence and contacts for its preservation. Mansur was the first person who created a rift between Bani Abbas and the descendants of Ali (‘a), whereas before that both formed a single group.”

The claims of the historians are correct, except for the part stating that his personality was a mi of good and evil. It is inaccurate to say that Mansur’s morals were composed of good and evil because he was intrinsically an evil-minded person. When he noticed the people’s attachment to religion and realized that religion had an influence on their nature, he adopted an approach using religion. He constituted a body of religious scholars who might introduce him to the people, and also paid homage to him.

Mansur made a show of piety, but at the same time committed oppression and sin. If it is said that he combined good and evil, it means that he had combined intrigue with piety and sanctity, and it was on this account that he was reckoned to be a specimen of good and evil. However, not even one proof can be put forward to show that Mansur liked goodness only on account of its being goodness, because whatever good he did, it was hypocrisy and deceit.

State Preacher

Ibn Abd Rabb Al-Andalusi has written9 in that one day a state preacher was sitting with Mansur when Mansur told his sepoys to summon a few people and behead them. When too much blood was shed and his own dress was stained with it, he turned to the preacher and said: “Please preach to me.” When the preacher reminded him of Allah, Mansur cast down his head like one very much aggrieved. He then ordered the sepoys to once again bring some people and behead them. Again, when too much blood was shed, he turned to the preacher and said: “Preach to me.”

Mansur's asking the preacher to give him counsel was to ridicule religion and the Qur’an, because the holy Qur’an is emphatic against shedding of innocent blood. It is also possible that he asked for counsel because the people had lost the power of reasoning and had become so stupid that he failed to distinguish between bad and good.

And the conditions were so uncertain that some modern authors have written that Mansur had a split personality. They say, as he was a true believer as he attended sermons, but he had to resort to bloodshed to keep his rule safe. However, it is an impure nature which is manifested in two ways, at times in the form of oppression and crime: and at times in the form of show-off, hypocrisy, and fraud.

When Mansur learnt that he was being called a God-fearing caliph and that people were pleased, and that their fondness for hearing sermons increased, he summoned preachers, heard their words, and gave them rewards so that they might propagate among the people that the caliph was not oblivious of Allah. Whenever the Judgment Day was mentioned, he would begin to weep. These preachers were not unaware of Mansur's aim. Hence, those who were pious and sincere left him, whereas those who had considered religion a source of income flocked around him.

Mansur also wrote to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) and invited him to attend his assembly, but the Imam did not agree to go there.

Mansur wrote in one of his letters: “Why don't you come to me like others do?” The Imam replied: “I have no material wealth on account of which I may fear you, and you have nothing in the hereafter that I may seek from you.”

One day Mansur saw Sufyan Thawri and said to him: “Give me some good counsel.” Sufyan said: “You have not acted on that which you know, and now you want me to tell you what you do not know.”

Mansur said: Why don't you come to my place?

Sufyan replied: I do not come to your residence in obedience of divine command. Allah says:

“…. And be not inordinate (O men!), surely, He sees what you do” (11:112).

“And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touches you….” (11:113).

Mansur said: “Tell me what you want.”

Sufyan replied: “Do not invite me to your assembly and don't give me any money till I ask for it.”

Mansur said: “I have hunted many religious scholars by means of wealth and captured them, but Sufyan has escaped; he tires me off.”

In this way Mansur has disclosed his aim in associating with ulama and revealed the fact that he has made religion a tool of hunting and made money a means of capturing the ulama.

Mansur And The Mysterious Preacher

It is said that one night, while Mansur was performing circumambulation of the Kaaba, he saw a stranger who was saying: “O God! Injustice and corruption have appeared, and separation is created between truth and its followers. And I complain to You regarding this and seek Your assistance in the matter.”

Mansur summoned the stranger and asked: What were you saying?

The stranger said: Do you vouchsafe for me safety if I say something?

Mansur assured him that he would remain safe.

The stranger said: You are the ruler of Muslims but have raised a wall between yourself and the people and do not permit people to contact you and tell you of their grievances. Your ministers and advisors are unjust, and your workers are pleasure-loving and sinful. They say: Mansur is deceiving the people and Allah, and we therefore have no alternative but to be deceptive with him. In this way the entire country has drowned in oppression and injustice. However, you believe in Allah, you are the son of the Prophet’s uncle, and you are very kind to the Muslims.

Mansur said: O Lord! Grant me tawfeeq (divine opportunity) to act upon what this man says.

This is actually a fabricated story that historians and scholars of ethics and preachers narrated from the pulpits. No one has objected to this story, and all consider it authentic. But in my view, it is merely a fiction. If it were not fabricated, the counsel-giver would not have been a stranger.

If it was Prophet Khizr, why did he appear for Mansur only and not preach to other tyrants too? It seems that through this story Mansur wanted to tell the people that he was made caliph as per Divine will, that he had faith in Allah, he was the son of the prophet's uncle and was kind to the people. He accomplished this plan by claiming that he met Prophet Khizr and thereby proved that Allah had shown kindness to him through Prophet Khizr.

Masoodi writes that one day Mansur entered his room and saw the following couplets written on the wall:

“O Abu Ja'far! Your death has drawn near. The Divine decree must come to pass. O Abu Ja’far! Fortune tellers and astrologers cannot ward off death. Don't be foolish.”

“Mansur summoned his minister, Fazl Ibn Rabi and said: Did 1 not order you to assure that none should enter the house and write on the walls?”

Fazl said: “What was written?”

Mansur replied: “Can't you see these verses?''

Fazl said: By Allah, there is nothing on the wall.”

This event resembles the activities of the agents of colonialism who condemn colonialism publicly, but secretly work in the interest of the colonialists.

In the above paragraphs we wanted to prove the falsehood of Mansur and expose his deceitful tactics. Our real object in discussing Mansur's beliefs was to throw light on his policy in relation to the descendants and Shi’as of Ali (‘a).

Mansur And Imam Ali's Descendants

Apart from Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the family of Bani Abbas was an obscure and unknown family. If not for their relationship with the prophet, they would not have been mentioned at all in history. On the contrary, Imam Ali's family, Bani Hashim, possessed perfect knowledge and faith in every age, and the hearts of the people were inclined towards them. All of them, from Imam Ali (‘a) all the way to Mahdi (‘a) possessed unparalleled greatness and virtue.

In order to acquire dignity, Bani Abbas thus linked themselves with Imam Ali (‘a), his descendants, and the Holy Prophet. They attended the assemblies of Imam Ali's descendants with great respect and acquired knowledge from them. When Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hasan mounted a horse, Mansur held the stirrup and brushed his dress when he was seated on the horseback.

When the Umayyads were on the verge of defeat, the descendants of Ali (‘a) and Bani Abbas rallied around Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hasan and gave allegiance to him. Ibrahim, Saffah and Mansur were among them, but Mansur showed greater zeal for allegiance to Muhammad. Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) was also invited to this gathering and on his arrival, was asked to accept allegiance. He tapped Saffah's back and said: “This man will become the caliph.” Then he pointed to Mansur and said: “After him, the caliphate will come to this man.” Thereafter, turning to Abdullah Ibn Hasan, he said: “Your two sons, Muhammad and Ibrahim, will be killed at the hands of Mansur. Having said this, the Imam departed.” 10

After Saffah, when Mansur became the caliph, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah went into hiding. Mansur demanded him from his father and decided to eliminate him on account of the pledge of allegiance Muhammad ‘owed’ him to relieve himself of anxiety. He, therefore, engaged detectives to arrest Muhammad and his brother Ibrahim.

Eventually the two brothers felt that they had no alternative but to surrender to Mansur or wage a war against him. Hence Muhammad raised the standard of revolt in Medina and Ibrahim, in Basra. They fought, but they were finally killed along with a large number of descendants of Ansars and Muhajirs and the children of Ja'far Ibn Abu Talib and also the children of Imam Husayn (‘a). Husayn and Ali, two sons of Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn al-Husayn were also killed in the company of Muhammad, known as 'Nafs Zakiyyah'.

Masoodi writes that Mansur had a sweetmeat made of kernel and sugar prepared for him and ate it. He liked it very much. He remarked: “Ibrahim wished to prevent me from taking this and other similar foods!” It was as if it was nothing serious for Mansur and he killed the descendants of the prophet only for the sake of tasty foods!

Atrocities Of Mansur

It is mentioned in Murujuz Zahab11 and an-Niza wat Takhasum12 that Mansur gathered Imam Hasan's descendants and ordered them to be put into chains and iron-collars. They were made to mount litters without saddles and sent to pitch-dark dungeons, as was done by Yazid in the case of Imam Husayn’s family.

In such a situation they divided the Qur’an into five parts and before each daily prayer they recited one part of Qur’an. The prison they were kept in did not have toilets and they were obliged to empty their bowels at the place they resided. As a result, its foul odour caused their bodies to swell. This swelling commenced from their feet and reached their hearts. They departed from the world on account of serious illness, hunger, and thirst.

Maqrizi has quoted from Tarikh Kamil in an-Niza wat Takhasum, that Mansur summoned Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Uthman, a brother of Imam Hasan's descendants from their mother's side and ordered his dress to be torn till his private parts were visible. In that condition he was given 150 lashes. Once the whip struck his face and he said: 'Woe betide you! Spare my face at least.' Mansur ordered them to strike his head. Thirty lashes were, therefore, given on his head. One of those lashes struck his eyeball which came out and fell on his face. At last, he was put to death.

Ibn Athir writes that Mansur also summoned Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Hasan. Muhammad had such a delicate built that he was nicknamed 'brocade'. When he arrived Mansur asked him: So, you are the yellow brocade? I swear by Allah that I shall kill you in a manner none has been killed. Then by his order, Muhammad was buried alive in a pit and a pillar was constructed over his body.

Mu’awiyyah used to bury the people alive without allowing them to say anything, but Mansur buried them alive and built pillars on them. Thus was the difference between the Syrian regime and Iraqi kingdom, and this very policy distinguished Bani Umayyah from Bani Abbas.

We have not seen during the Umayyad rule that one of their governors imprisoned some individuals in a dungeon where all of them died one after the other under unbearably odious surroundings. Hence, a poet says:

“By Allah, the crimes of Bani Umayyah were not even one tenth of those of Bani Abbas.”

It is mentioned in an-Niza wat Takhasum13 that Qasim Ibn Ibrahim Tabatabai had an estate in Medina which was called Ar-Rass. When Mansur summoned him also, he left Medina and ran away with the intention of going to Sind. In his verses, Qasim says about Bani Abbas:

“Shedding our blood has not satiated Mansur and he is still pursuing us.”

“The fire of their malice can be extinguished only when none of the descendants of the Prophet’s daughter is left on earth.”

Qasim walked barefoot and his feet bled as he fled from one city to another. He says in a couplet:

“It is hoped that the bone-joiner will set the broken bones. 14 I have not lost hope in Allah. He will indeed help those who suffer hardships.”

It is mentioned in An-Niza wat Takhasum15:

Mansur entrusted a room to the wife of his son, Mahdi, and administered an oath that so long as he was alive, she would not open the room. When Mansur died, Mahdi opened the room and he saw that dead bodies of descendants of Abu Talib were lying in it. Their parentage was written on pieces of paper hanging from their ears and some children could also be seen amongst them.

Maqrizi writes:

What connection such crimes have with justice, with the religion of Muhammad and with the conduct of religious leaders? What link has this hard-heartedness with the kinship of the ‘mercy of the worlds’? By Allah, these actions have nothing to do with religion and faith.

On the other hand, these indecent actions are mentioned in Qur’an as follows:

“(O hypocrites!) But if you held command, you were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship!” (47:22).

“Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes” (47:23).

Is this the conduct of one who claims that he has faith in Allah, the Judgment Day and the Qu’ran, and that he is the caliph of Allah and son of the uncle of Allah's messenger?

Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq And Mansur

Mansur gave the title of ‘as-Sadiq’ to the sixth Imam, because Imam Ja’far had earlier correctly predicted Mansur's rulership. He had also predicted that Muhammad and Ibrahim, the two sons of Abdullah Ibn Hasan, would be killed by Mansur.16

During Mansur's reign, Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) advised his followers:

“You should obey and remain silent,17 because you are under the reign of a king whose deceit caused even the mountains to tumble down.”

However, Mansur was not satisfied with the silence of the Holy Imam and the obedience of his followers so long as the people considered Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (‘a) to be the Imam and superior to Mansur and others.

Muhammad Asqanturi says: I went see Mansur and found him absorbed in deep thoughts. I enquired him why he was in such a pensive mood.

Mansur said: I have killed more than a thousand descendants of Fatimah, but I have not killed their leader so far.

I asked: Who is that?

Mansur replied: I know you consider him your Imam and believe that he is my imam, your Imam and Imam of the entire world.18 However, I shall decide about him now.

This narration shows that the Shi’a faith has flourished so much at that time that it even influenced Mansur's associates. It is said that even Rabi, Mansur's minister, was a Shi’a. Ibn Abd Rabb has writes:19

“When Mansur halted in Medina on his way to Mecca, he said to Rabi: 'Summon Ja'far Ibn Muhammad before me. May Allah kill me if I do not kill him.' Rabi delayed summoning the Imam but eventually called him up on Mansur's insistence. When Imam Ja’far (‘a) arrived in the court, his lips were moving slowly. He approached Mansur and greeted him. Mansur said: O enemy of Allah! May Allah destroy you! You are creating trouble in my territories. May Allah kill me if I don't kill you.”

“Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq said: Prophet Sulaiman got the Kingdom and thanked Allah. Prophet Ayyub bore much hardship, but with fortitude. Prophet Yusuf was oppressed, and he forgave the oppressor. You are their successor, and it is only proper that you follow their example.”

“Mansur lowered his head, then raised it again and said: Of all the tribes, you are closer to us and nearest in kin. He then embraced the imam, made him sit on his own seat, and began conversing with him. Thereafter he said: Bring the gift and dress for as-Sadiq immediately and see him off with honour.”

When the Holy Imam came out, Rabi followed him and said: “I have been defending you since the past three days and doing all I could to save you. When you approached Mansur, I saw that your lips were moving in a silent prayer and consequently he could not harm you. As I am a servant of the ruler, I stand in need of this supplication. Please teach it to me.”

The prayer that Imam Ja’far taught him is translated as follows:

“O Lord! Protect me with Your eye which never sleeps; guard me with Your Power which never becomes the target of calamity, so that I may not perish, for it is You on whom all my hopes are fixed. O Lord! Forgive me, for You have granted me abundant gifts for which I could not thank You. Even then You did not withdraw those gifts from me, and there were many misfortunes to which I was subjected by You, and I showed lack of patience. O Lord! Let me remain safe from his mischief with Your support and Power of defence and I seek Your refuge from his evil.”

Mualla Ibn Khunais was amongst the closest Shi’as of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a). He administered secretarial and financial affairs of the Holy Imam. Mansur wrote to Da'wood Ibn Urwah, the Governor of Medina, to kill Mualla.

Dawood summoned Mualla and said: Write down the names of Shi’as or I will behead you.

Mualla said: ''Do you threaten me with death? I swear by Allah that even if the name of one Shi’a is under my foot, I shall not lift it.”

Dawood cut off Mualla's head and hanged him on the scaffold. When Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) received the news of Mualla's martyrdom he was extremely disturbed, and he cursed Dawood. His curse had not yet come to an end when the news of Dawood's death arrived.20

Abu Faraas has writes21 that Mansur wrote to his governor to set the house of Imam Sadiq (‘a) on fire and to poison him. Consequently, he was poisoned to death.22

As admitted by Mansur himself, he killed more than one thousand descendants of Fatimah. As regards the Shi’as killed by him, their number is unknown. Mansur invented new types of torture and enjoyed killing people in different ways. He whipped people on the eyes, blinding them. He pulled down houses on the heads of the inhabitants and placed them alive in the walls. He poisoned them etc. However, some ignorant persons say that Mansur had faith in Allah, was the representative of Allah on earth, and was related to the Holy Prophet.

A close study of the history of Muslim rulers leads us to conclude that if Mansur and those like him had not been there, Islam, with its sublime morals and teachings, would have spread in the East and West. Mankind would have professed Islam without being invited to it, and not a single non-Muslim would have been left.

Mahdi, The Abbasid

After Mansur, his son Mahdi,23 ruled from 158 A.H. to 169 A.H. Under the pretence of doing good and kindness, he removed all barriers to his reign and unleashed such murders and persecution that none of the descendants of Imam Ali was spared.

Only the following two persons escaped the rule of Mansur:

Ali Ibn Abbas Ibn Hasan Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Mahdi captured and imprisoned him, and later poisoned him. As a result, his body swelled, and his limbs disintegrated.

Isa Ibn Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn Ibn Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Abu al-Faraj writes in Maqatilut Talibiyyin:

As regards faith, knowledge and piety, Isa was the most eminent among the descendants of Ali (‘a) and as to his indigence, he was the most helpless. As regards insight into general matters and his faith, he was the wisest of all, and in the narration of traditions and their research, he was most outstanding among Bani Hashim.

Fearing Mahdi, Isa fled and hid himself in the house of Ali Ibn Salih, a Shi’a of Ahl Al-Bayt. In order that he might not be a burden to anyone, he found himself obliged to do some work.

The people of Kufa brought water for their use from the Euphrates loading it on camels etc. Isa made an agreement with the owner of a camel that he would bring water by loading it on the camel, pay its charges and take the balance. Isa remained engaged in this work for a long time and none identified him. He married a girl belonging to a poor family and she and her people also did not know who he was.

Isa had a brother named Husayn and that brother had a son named Yahya. One day Yahya said to his father: O father, I am desirous of meeting my uncle because I have never seen him. Husayn said: Son, I fear this might put your uncle into trouble. Yahya insisted till his father agreed and said to him:

“Go to Kufa and inquire about the Bani Hayy locality. There is a street there with this name and a house with this sign. Sit down near that house.

In the evening you will see a tall old man coming, the marks of prostration are visible on his forehead. You will find him wearing woollen clothes and loading water on the back of a camel. He remembers Allah on every step and tears flow from his eyes. You should then stand up and salute him and put your arms around his neck. In the beginning, he will be afraid of you.

So, you should introduce yourself at once. That man is your uncle. He will narrate his own affairs and inquire about ours. Do not stay there for long, but take leave of him and return, because it is possible that you may not see him again. Carry out whatever instructions he gives you, because if you go to see him again, he will get afraid of you and will change his residence.

Yahya says:

I went to Kufa and acted according to the directions given by my father. When I tried to embrace my uncle, he became afraid of me just as wild animals fear human beings and run away. I told him that I was his nephew, Yahya. Thereupon he embraced me and wept. He made his camel sit, and himself sat down by the side of the road and began talking. He inquired about every member of the family, and I informed him in detail, and he wept.

Then he said:

Dear nephew! I bring water loading it on the back of this camel, pay the hiring charges and spend the rest of my earnings on my own needs. When I cannot bring water, I go to the desert and procure my food in the form of vegetables, which people throw away. O my nephew! I have married a woman who does not know who I am. Allah gave me a daughter and she did not know my position. Her mother said to me: Give your daughter in marriage to the son of such and such water carrier who is one of our neighbours because he is suitable for us and has asked for her hand. She insisted for a reply, but I could not tell her that her daughter is a descendant of the prophet. I, therefore, sought a remedy from Allah and He caused the girl to die. Although her death was hard for me it was not hard for me from another point of view, because she departed from the world and did not know her relationship with the Holy Prophet.

Yahya says: My uncle requested me in the Name of Allah to return and not to see him again. I, therefore, bade him farewell and returned.

The life history of people like Isa makes the conduct of the despotic rulers clear. Under their rule, the learned and the righteous suffered different kinds of hardships, whereas the mean ones lived in pleasure and enjoyed all amenities.

The pious scholar and faithful traditionist, Isa Ibn Zaid Ibn Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin, who was a descendant of Imam Ali and Lady Fatimah could not introduce himself in a city of Muslims although the ruler of the city was the chief of the Muslims. He did not make himself known and earned his livelihood through hard labour.

Isa was spending his time away from his home secretly in a state of exile and was suffering all these hardships because he was a learned and pious man, and knew what truth is, and acted accordingly. However, as for licentious men, loose women, and those who were immersed in crimes lived in luxury, they had all the luxuries of life. Masoodi says that the huge amount of tax that Mansur had collected from the people was distributed by his son, Mahdi, to his favourites.

A professor of Philosophy in Cairo University said to me: “Shi’as believe in Taqiyyah (dissimulation).”

I said:

“Professor, may Allah curse those who forced the Shi’as to observe Taqiyyah. Prophet Musa left Egypt secretly and said: “O Lord! Deliver me from the unjust people” (28:21). And our Holy Prophet said: “It is a matter of shame for a nation in which a true believer is obliged to perform his duties in Taqiyyah.”

You people are vociferous about the freedom of opinion and faith. However, when you see an oppressed person deprived of his right and not saying anything for fear of despotic rulers, you criticize him for observing Taqiyyah; but you ignore the crimes of the oppressors.”

Hadi, The Abbasid

Upon Mahdi's death, people gave allegiance to his son Musa, who assumed the title of Hadi.

Masoodi writes in Murujuz Zahab:

“Mahdi ruled for 15 months. He was a cruel and bad-mannered person.” During Hadi’s rule, the Governor of Medina was Abd ul-Aziz, a descendant of Umar. He used to persecute the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a). In today's terminology, he had put all of them on the exit control list. He had told them: You must report to the police station every day. Abd ul-Aziz used to accuse the descendants of Ali (‘a) of drinking wine; he lashed them and paraded them in the bazaars.

One day Abd ul-Aziz summoned Husayn Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn, used abusive language, threatened him with death, and spoke in such an unbecoming manner that Husayn was compelled to revolt against him. Abd ul-Aziz killed Husayn and some other descendants of Imam Ali who were with him at a place called Fakh, situated six miles from Mecca. For three days their dead bodies remained under the sky and wild animals and birds ate their flesh. Those who were captured were also tortured and then killed.”24

Although Hadi lived for a short time, he performed such dastardly acts and that his name entered the register of the murderers of Ali's descendants.

Abu al-Faraj Isfahani writes in Maqatilut Talibiyyin:

The mother of Husayn (Martyr of Fakh) was Zainab Ibnt Abdullah Ibn Hasan Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Mansur killed her father, brother, and uncle, as well as her husband, Ali Ibn Husayn. Mansur's grandson, Hadi killed her son, Husayn. Due to extreme grief, Zainab used to wear a dress made of hair, which was tight on her body. She passed away from the world in this condition.

Haroon Ar-Rashid, The Abbasid

Haroon ar-Rashid, the Abbasid25

After the death of his brother Hadi, Rashid occupied the seat of caliphate in 170 A.H. and passed away in 193 A.H. No one else from amongst Bani Abbas enjoyed the fame that fell to the share of Rashid and Ma’mun. Haroon became famous on account of his monarchy, greatness and advancement of learning, art, and culture during his regime. The stories of Arabian Nights played a prominent role in making Haroon famous in different ways.

Haroon's fame was due to his administration of state affairs. The construction of masjids, colleges, hospitals, houses, bridges, roads, and canals displayed the skill of the Barmecids, who managed important affairs of the state for seventeen years. But these very merits became the cause of their fall and destruction at the hands of Haroon ar-Rashid. Although the story of the love affair of Abbasa and Ja'far Barmaki, and Abbasa's becoming pregnant as a consequence of their secret meetings is also well-known, it has been invented only to serve as a cover for the crime of Haroon and to justify oppression and persecution by him.

Many historians have written that Haroon could not tolerate separation from his sister, Abbasa. He, therefore, married her to Ja'far, subject to the condition that they would not have sexual relations with each other and would meet only in Haroon's presence. However, Abbasa loved Ja'far, and they came together. As a result, she gave birth to a son. When Haroon came to know about it, he destroyed the Barmecids.

One who has forged this story has forgotten to add that Rashid was foolish and did not understand the consequences of this marriage!

Abu Faraas, author of Shafiya, quotes from Thamarat ul-Awraq thus: Rashid was the first caliph to play polo, backgammon, and chess.

Haroon's policy towards the descendants of Ali (‘a) was that not a single descendant of Imam Ali (‘a) should remain alive as will become clear from the examples below:

Sixty Martyrs

It is mentioned in Uyun ul-Akhbar ar-Ridha’ 26 that Hamid Ibn Qahtaba Tai Tusi said:

One night, Haroon summoned me; gave me a sword, and pointing to a servant said: “Act according to the instructions of this servant.” The servant brought me to a house that was closed. He opened the gate. There were three rooms and a well in that house. Each room contained 20 prisoners who were chained in the legs. He opened the first room and brought out 20 men with long and woven hair. This group included young persons as well as old. Haroon's servant said: “Kill these people. They are descendants of Ali and Fatimah.”

I killed them one after the other and the servant threw their bodies into the well (like agencies eliminate people today). Then he opened the second room. This room also contained 20 sadaat, and they were also dealt with in the same way. Thereafter the third room was opened, where there were also 20 sayyids who were put to death. In the end only an old man remained, who said to me:

“O wicked man! May Allah destroy you! What excuse will you put to our grandfather, the prophet, on Judgment Day?” My hands trembled and I felt nervous. However, the servant looked at me angrily and threatened me. I, therefore, killed the old man too, and the servant threw his body into the well.

Amidst The Pillars

Abu al-Faraj Isfahani quotes from Ibrahim Ibn Riyah in Maqatilut Talibiyyin that when Rashid captured Yahya Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hasan Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali Ibn Abu Talib, he got a pillar constructed on him while he was still alive. He had inherited this practice from his grandfather, Mansur. When Mansur was laying the foundation of Baghdad, he used to arrest the descendants of Ali (‘a) and placed them in the walls built of bricks and plaster.

One day Mansur caught a handsome young man with black hair from among the descendants of Imam Hasan (‘a) and ordered the mason to place him in the midst of a wall. He also appointed a watchman over the mason to ensure that he does not disobey the orders. When the mason was putting the young man in the wall, he felt pity for him and thus left a hole in the wall from which air could enter and told the man that he would free him at night.

At night, the mason took him out from the wall and said to him: “Do something so that my blood as well as that of my workers would not be shed. I brought you out so that on the Judgment Day I may not be answerable to your grandfather. You must go into hiding immediately.” The young man said: “I shall do so. However, you send a message to my mother that I have escaped death, but l cannot meet her.''

The mason says: I went to the address given by him, met his mother, related the entire story to her and delivered to her the hair that her son had given me for identification.

Yahya And Haroon Ar-Rashid

When persecution of Ali's descendants at the hands of Haroon ar-Rashid became severe, Yahya Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hasan revolted against him in Dailam.27

According to historians, Yahya remained in hiding for a long time and moved from one city to another for refuge till he reached Dailam. There, he disclosed his identity and became very popular. People from different cities took refuge with him. Haroon ar-Rashid sent Fazal Ibn Yahya with a strong army of 50,000 to confront Yahya.

Fazal wrote to Yahya suggesting a peace treaty. When Yahya saw that his companions had betrayed him and ran away, he agreed to conclude peace. However, he wrote to Fazal: “I shall make peace only when Haroon writes with his own hand a deed guaranteeing my safety, and the judges, jurists, and the elders of Bani Hashim attest it.” Haroon Rashid wrote a deed as desired by Yahya and the witnesses affixed their signatures on it. He prepared two copies of the deed, retained one and sent the other to Yahya.

When Yahya met Haroon, the latter honoured him and presented him 200,000 dinars, many robes, and other articles of gift to him. Despite this, grudge remained in Haroon's heart. One day, he asked Yahya: Which one of us is more closely related to the Holy Prophet? Yahya said: Please excuse me from answering this question. Haroon said: You must give a reply, I won't leave you. Then the following conversation took place between them:

Yahya: Supposing the prophet comes to life and seeks the hand of your daughter, will you give it?

Haroon: By Allah, I shall.

Yahya: Supposing the prophet comes to life and wants to marry my daughter, will that be permissible for me to give my daughter to him in marriage?

Haroon: No. It will not be permissible.

Yahya: This answers your question28

Haroon was very angry for his defeat and walked out of the gathering.29

Pseudo-Ulama

Haroon ar-Rashid decided to betray Yahya and nullify the deed of amnesty (that he had written with his own hand). However, he had no justification for this and therefore continued to tolerate the situation. At last, however, he lost patience and contacted Wahhab Ibn Wahhab Abu al-Bakhtari. Haroon knew that this scholar was corrupt. Abu al-Bakhtari tore up the amnesty deed and issued a fatwa that the document was void and it was lawful to shed Yahya's blood. In lieu of this service, Haroon paid him a huge amount and appointed him as a judge.30

On the basis of this fatwa, Haroon ordered Yahya to be given a hundred lashes. Yahya reminded him of his kinship with the prophet, but without any effect. Then he sent Yahya to prison. On the following day, he summoned Yahya again and gave 100 lashes. Thereafter Haroon imprisoned him and stopped food and water to him. As a result of this, Yahya passed away. According to another version he died in prison due to heart trouble. Whatever the circumstances may have been, it was a clear case of murder by strangulation.

Persons like Abu al-Bakhtari existed before Haroon, existed after him, and still continue to exist. Ibn Athir writes that forty pseudo ulamas issued verdict for Yazid Ibn Abu al-Malik that the caliphs are exonerated from accounting and punishment in the Hereafter.31

I am. aware of many such pseudo ulama who are lackeys of despots like Haroon and Yazid, who support their transgression and sinfulness, and issue statements against sincere religious scholars.

Haroon's Learning

A lady wrote to Haroon: May Allah accomplish your work, make you happy with what He has given you and grant you a high position.

Haroon said to his courtiers: “This woman has cursed me under the cover of du’a. When she says: May Allah accomplish your work, she refers to the words of a poet who says: When it is said that your work is accomplished, it means that you should await your annihilation. And when she says: May Allah make you happy with what He has given you, she refers to the words of Allah viz.:

“When they are happy with what they possess we take it away suddenly” (6:44).

And her saying that Allah may grant me high position has a reference to the words of a poet who says: “The fall of every bird is according to the proportion of the height it flies.”

Descendants Of Abu Talib

Abu al-Faraj Isfahani writes in Maqatilut Talibiyyin:

“Haroon regularly inquired from his agents about the circumstances in which Ali's descendants were living. He was informed that one of them named Abdullah Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali was residing at a particular place. He summoned Abdullah, who said to Haroon that he didn't have any connection with the revolutionaries of Bani Hashim. “I roam about in the wilderness and earn my livelihood by hunting. Fear Allah and don't shed my blood.” Haroon imprisoned Abdullah and later had one of his ministers put him to death. He also imprisoned Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hasan Ibn Hasan, who breathed his last in the prison.

He flogged Husayn Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ismail Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ja'far Ibn Abi Talib so much that he died. Ishaq Ibn Husayn Ibn Zaid Ibn Hasan also passed away in Haroon's prison.

When Abbas Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn came before Haroon, the latter said: Son of loose woman!

Abbas retorted: She must be your mother.

Haroon was infuriated and ordered to split his head. Thus, he was struck with an iron rod and died.

Imam Musa Al-Kazim And Haroon Ar-Rashid

The Qur’an speaks of two categories of leaders, viz the leaders of truth and leaders of falsehood and deviation. Almighty Allah says:

“We appointed them as leaders to guide the people through our command and sent them revelation to strive for good deeds, worship their Lord, and pay Zakat” (21:73)

These attributes are especially found in Imam Ali (‘a) and the purified imams from his descendants. On another occasion Allah says:

“We made them imams (leaders) who would invite people to the fire and who would receive no help on the Judgment Day” (28:41).

These qualities were peculiar to Haroon ar-Rashid, Bani Umayyah, Bani Abbas, and those with the same thinking.

Keeping these facts in view, the dispute between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Haroon ar-Rashid was natural and a real conflict. One Imam invited people to Allah and paradise, and another invited them to Satan and hell. Is it possible for the two opposites to unite?32 If apparently there is nonchalance, smile and quiet, it is like a spark hidden under the ashes and so long as the heart is filled with enmity and hatred, this flame continues to remain alive.

The following event explains the implication of these remarks:

It is mentioned in Uyun ul-Akhbar 33 that Ma’mun said:

I always loved the Ahl Al-Bayt but displayed enmity against them, in order to win Haroon's favour. I accompanied him to Mecca once. On the way, when we halted in Medina, and Imam Musa al-Kazim came to see Haroon. Haroon accorded him great respect, embraced him, and inquired about the well-being of his family members. When the Imam was ready to leave, Haroon ar-Rashid stood up and bade him farewell respectfully.

When the Imam went away, I asked my father: Who was this man to whom you showed so much respect? My father said: He is Musa Ibn Ja'far, the inheritor of prophetic sciences. If you wish to acquire true knowledge, you can acquire it from him.

Haroon embraced the imam, honoured, and respected him and acknowledged that he had inherited the knowledge of the prophets. However, this acknowledgement and conferring of respect to the Imam could be of no use to Haroon because the Imam invited the people to Paradise whereas Haroon invited them to Hell.

When Haroon saw that people loved the Imam and had faith in him, he could not control his grudge. Even though he knew that the Imam was the inheritor of prophetic knowledge, he got innumerable descendants of the Holy Prophet killed.

When people love knowledge and those who possessed knowledge, and were interested in truth and its supporters, was that the fault of Imam Musa al-Kazim? Should he have become ignorant, and committed unlawful acts openly so that Haroon gets to be pleased with him, in the same way he was pleased with Makharaq and others like him? If one has an enemy who can be satisfied only with his death, should he commit suicide to please his enemy?

Imam Kazim (‘a) had not rebelled against the regime. He had not invited anyone to give allegiance to him. He had not instigated anyone against Haroon. His only fault was that he had inherited the knowledge of Prophets and was the Imam of truth and guidance.

Falsehood is hypocritical whereas the truth is without a partner Never accept a moderate partnership of truth and falsehood.

Imam In Detention

Haroon ar-Rashid sent his sepoys to Imam Musa al-Kazim. He was then performing prayers near the blessed grave of his grandfather. The sepoys arrested and handcuffed him and dispatched him to Basra. Isa Ibn Ja'far Ibn Mansur was the Governor of Basra at that time. He kept the Imam in prison for one year and then wrote to Haroon: If you do not remove Musa Ibn Ja'far from my custody, I shall release him because I have tried my best to find some evidence against him but could not get any.

Haroon imprisoned Imam Musa al-Kazim in Baghdad under the care of Fazl Ibn Rabi, and then transferred him to the prison of Yahya, and later to that of Sindi Ibn Shahik. Eventually Sindi poisoned him to death. According to another narration, he was wrapped in a carpet and the servants sat on him and he died of suffocation.

While discussing the persecutions by Bani Umayyah, it was mentioned that all these evils and crimes were due to grudge and inherent cruelty. However, when discussing the personality of Haroon ar-Rashid it came to my mind that after attaining rulership, the nature and morals of the ruler changed. When they saw that their position was established, they assessed everything from the perspective of the security of their position and strength. Faith, knowledge, and conscience were of no value to them.

If we do not consider rulership to be the cause of the change in mentality, how can we explain the behaviour of the weak persons, who become stone-hearted and bloodthirsty when they acquire a position? What I mean by position is not confined to governmental offices. It also includes even religious positions. It is so because a religious leader is also like a government leader. Both leaders protect their respective positions.

The only difference is that a religious leader considers his position holy and considers its protection to be an article of faith. He considers its protection necessary like other holy things and religious rites, and there is no doubt that interest in religious position entails greater danger and more harm. Only the people of the Holy Prophet's household and a few of their followers are immune from this danger.34

What has been stated above is a reality. Ayatullah Mohsin al-Hakim says in his book Mustamsak ul-Urwah 35:

“Truly speaking, it is difficult for a jurist to maintain righteousness, because change in righteousness takes place for everyone in every age. And when a person in a high position is no more righteous, he does not exercise much precaution, and does not call himself to account, quickly leading to the elimination of his righteousness. Being a Marja is to be in a dangerous position where even big personalities stumble.”

Imam Ridha’ And Haroon

Sayyid Mohsin Amin writes:36

“After the demise of Imam Musa al-Kazim (‘a), Haroon sent his Commander, Jaludi to Medina and ordered him to attack the houses of Abu Talib 's descendants and plunder all the clothes of their women, leaving only one dress for each. When Jaludi approached the house of Imam Ridha’ (‘a) the Imam gathered all the ladies in a room and sat down on the threshold. Jaludi said: “I must enter the house and take the women's clothes.” The Imam swore to Jaludi that he would bring the clothes and ornaments of the women, provided that he (Jaludi) remained outside the house. Owing to the kindness of the imam, he agreed to this. Imam Ridha’ entered the room, collected the ornaments, clothes and other belongings and handed these over to Jaludi. The latter took them away and presented them to Haroon.

When Ma’moon ascended the throne, he expressed his indignation against Jaludi and wanted to kill him. Imam Ridha’ (‘a) was also present in this gathering. He recommended to Ma’moon to forgive Jaludi. Jaludi remembered having wronged the imam, and he thought that the Imam was speaking against him.

He, therefore, turned to Ma’mun and said: “I ask you in the Name of Allah not to accept the words of this man about me.” Ma’moon said: “I swear by Allah that I am not going to accept what he says.” He then ordered Jaludi to be beheaded.

Haroon committed many atrocities on the descendants and followers of Imam Ali (‘a), but for the sake of brevity, we refrain from presenting a detailed account. What has been said above is sufficient to show Haroon's character and throws ample light on his nature and policies.

Amin, The Abbasid

Haroon ruled for more than 23 years and died in Tus in the year 193 A.H. after taking allegiance for his son, Amin. The period of the caliphate of Amin was a little more than four years. Abu al-Faraj Isfahani writes in Maqatilut Talibiyyin:

“The attitude of Amin towards Abu Talib's descendants was different from that of his predecessors. It was because he had spent his life in pleasure and luxuries. After that, a war ensued between him and Ma’moon in which Amin was eventually killed. During the reigns of Amin and Ma’moon, no incident of persecution of Abu Talib's descendants was recorded.

Ma’mun Ar-Rashid, The Abbasid

Ma’mun killed his brother Amin and ascended the throne. During the time of Haroon and Ma’mun, the Shi’a faith became firmly rooted and its impact appeared in the court of Ma’mun also. Ma’mun's vizier, Fazl Ibn Sahl Zur-Riyasatayn, was a Shi’a and so was Tahir Ibn al-Husayn Khuzai, the Commander of Ma’mun's army who conquered Baghdad for him and killed his brother Amin.

In short, there were many Shi’as in Ma’mun's administration and that was the reason he began to fear Fazl and Tahir. He, therefore, killed Fazl and dismissed Tahir from commandership of the army, and appointed him as the governor of Herat. Ibn Athir writes in Tarikh Kamil, in connection with the events of the year 250, that the entire tribe of Tahir was Shi’a.

It is an undeniable fact that the persecutions, murders, and tyrannies of despotic rulers on the Shi’as became the cause of further expansion of the Shi’a faith. The more injustice they committed the more people rallied around Ahl Al-Bayt and for every single person who was killed, thousands embraced the Shi’a faith. The following event will clarify this matter:

When Sindi Ibn Shahik poisoned Imam Musa al-Kazim, he took 80 desk scholars and community elders to his body and said: you can see that he was not tortured and has died a natural death. He invited the people to see that there was no wound, bruises or any other sign on his body which might show that he had been murdered.

Haroon did this because people suspected that he had died of poisoning and this suspicion was sufficient to cause the people to revolt against him. Then the imam's bier was placed on the Baghdad Bridge, as most Shi’as lived in that area. They made announcements: “Musa Ibn Ja'far has passed away: Come and see him for the last time.”

The Shi’as got agitated, but before a disturbance could develop, Sulaiman Ibn Ja'far, Haroon's uncle took the funeral bier from the custody of police and carried it barefooted along with a large crowd. He pretended that he was escorting the funeral procession as a mark of love for the Imam or for the sake of his kinship to him. However, the fact was that he was afraid of a revolt against his nephew, Haroon and thus wanted to calm down public sentiments.

Ma’mun came to know that a large number of Shi’as were inclined to Imam Ridha’ (‘a) and that they were displeased with his father, Haroon. Rather, they hated the former Abbasid rulers. He thus declared hypocritically and deceitfully that he was a Shi’a to win their sympathies and attract public opinion towards him. He began defending the caliphate of Imam Ali, affirmed his truthfulness, and acknowledged that he was superior to Abu Bakr and Umar.

In reality, he did all this to safeguard and strengthen his rule. It is surprising that most Shi’as also could not perceive the designs of Ma’mun and held a favourable opinion of him.

The fact is that Haroon and Ma’mun acted for an identical purpose, and that was to strengthen their regime. Their ways differed, but their real goal was same. Haroon poisoned Imam Kazim (‘a) and Ma’mun poisoned Imam Ridha’ (‘a). The only difference was that Ma’mun realized from Haroon’s mistakes that an open persecution of Ali's descendants would be equal to political suicide.

Imam Ridha’ (‘A) And Ma’mun

Imam Ali Ibn Musa ar-Ridha’ (‘a) was the best human being of his age and enjoyed the highest position in the view of Allah and the people. Historians say that when he passed through Nishapur,37 thousands flocked on the roads to welcome him. The scholars held the reins of the imam's mount and wanted to benefit from his knowledge and to hear from his blessed tongue the tradition of his ancestors.

Imam Ridha’s Eid Prayer And Ma’mun

Ma’mun requested Imam Ridha’ (‘a) to lead the Eid prayer. But the Imam (‘a) excused himself according to the terms agreed at the time of his appointment as heir apparent. When Ma’mun insisted further, the Imam agreed to his request, but said that he would go out to lead the prayer in the manner of the Holy Prophet (S). Ma’mun agreed to the terms of the imam.

People were waiting to see Imam Ridha’ (‘a) coming out with the same pomp and glory as the caliphs and rulers did. But all were shocked when they saw that him came out of his house bare foot, reciting takbir38 and walked towards the ground for Eid prayer. Government officials and members of the royalty came down from their horses and they also took off their shoes; and followed the Imam weeping and chanting.

The Imam (‘a) recited the takbir thrice at every step. It is mentioned in books that Fazl Ibn Sahl said to Ma’mun: “If Imam Ridha’ arrives to lead prayers in this condition, he will enchant the people. It is, therefore, my suggestion that you call him back.” Ma’mun sent someone to ask the Holy Imam to return and the Imam called for his shoes, put them on, mounted his horse and returned home.

Ma’mun decided to lower the prestige of the Imam in the view of people and to tell them that if the Imam hated the world, it was because he could not lay his hands on it, and if he could acquire rulership, he would accept it very gladly. He, therefore said to Imam Ali ar-Ridha’: “Son of Allah's Messenger, I want to abdicate and to hand over the rulership to you.” Thereupon the following conversation took place between them:

Imam Ridha’: If the caliphate is your right and Allah has specified it for you, you cannot forsake it and hand it over to someone else; and if it is not your right, you cannot lawfully present it to someone else.

Ma’mun: You must accept the caliphate.

Imam Ridha’: I take pride to be a servant of Allah, and by means of piety, I want to keep away from evils. By avoiding unlawful things and by means of meekness, I hope to acquire proximity to Allah.

Ma’mun: If you don't accept the crown, you must become my heir apparent.

Imam Ridha’: Allah knows that I am not pleased to accept this.

Ma’mun: Do You want to tell the people that you are an ascetic?

Imam Ridha’: By Allah, I have not told a lie throughout my life and never abandoned the truth for the sake of the world, and I know what your object is.

Ma’mun: What is my object?

Imam Ridha’: You want to tell the people that Imam Ridha’ is not inclined to material wealth because it is beyond his reach. As soon as he had an opportunity, he agreed to become the heir apparent.

Ma’mun became angry and said: By Allah, if you do not agree to become my heir apparent, I shall kill you.

Imam Ridha’ replied: “If it is such, I agree to it because Allah has forbidden me to put my life in danger. 1 will accept the heir apparent position on the condition that I shall not interfere in State

affairs, nor shall I appoint or dismiss anyone, or give any order, or give any judgment, or bring about change in any matter. I will only advise from a distance.”

Ma’mun accepted these conditions. The intention of Ma’mun was to tell the people that as a result of becoming the heir apparent, Imam Ridha’ had also become interested in the material world. However, the course adopted by the Holy Imam increased his dignity and honour. When Ma’mun got tired as the tricks adopted by him were not successful, he poisoned the Imam to death.

Ma’mun behaved towards Imam Ridha’ in the same manner as his father Haroon had behaved towards Imam Musa al-Kazim, and as Mansur had behaved towards Imam Ja'far Sadiq. He employed deceit in the same way as Mu’awiyyah Ibn Abu Sufyan had done in the case of Imam Hasan (‘a).

To protect their regimes, the despotic rulers did not exercise any restraint in shedding the blood of the saints of Allah. However, this sacrifice-giving attitude was natural in the view of noble

men and reformists in the path of truth. It is on this account that we love the reformers and despise the despotic rulers and do not accord them any religious standing.

Mu’tasim, The Abbasid

In the year 210 A.H. after the death of Ma’mun, allegiance was given to Mu’tasim. He ruled for a little more than 8 years. He was succeeded by Wathiq who ruled for 5 years.

Abu al-Faraj Isfahani, author of Maqatilut Talibiyyin writes:

Muhammad Ibn Qasim Ibn Umar Ibn Ali Ibn Abu Talib rebelled during the reign of Mu’tasim. He was defeated and imprisoned, but later he escaped. Abdullah Ibn Husayn Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ismail Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ja'far Ibn Abu Talib refrained from wearing a black dress (which was the colour adopted by Bani Abbas). Mu’tasim kept him imprisoned till he died.

Mutasim imprisoned Imam Muhammad Taqi (‘a). Later he released him and asked Umm ul-Fazl, the daughter of Ma’mun - who was the wife of Imam Taqi (‘a) - to poison him. She acted on the instructions of Mu’tasim and administered poison to the Holy Imam (‘a).

Sayyid Mohsin al-Amin writes: “Wathiq honoured Ali's descendants, behaved kindly towards them and also gave them wealth.”

Mutawakkil, The Abbasid

After Wathiq's death, his brother Mutawakkil became the caliph. He ruled for 14 years. Mutawakkil became notorious for his free living, immodesty, and alcoholism. Masoodi writes: “Mutawakkil was the first Abbasid caliph to participate in fun parties and merriment.”

Justice Sayyid Amir Ali writes:39

“During the time of Mutawakil there had appeared signs of disintegration of the Islamic empire. Corruption had found roots in all departments of the State, and orders were given that others should also imitate the evils. In the time of Mutawakkil, the broad-minded persons were deprived of their rights and as a result of this nonchalance, the Turks dominated the government and assumed charge of the affairs of the State.”

It is mentioned in Maqatilut Talibiyyin that Mutawakkil made severe attacks on Abu Talib's descendants and subjected them to great hardships. He bore them grudge and levelled various charges against them because he was suspicious of them.

Mutawakkil appointed Umar Ibn Faraj Rakhji as the Governor of Medina and Mecca. This ill-natured governor stopped the people from meeting Abu Talib's descendants and did not allow anyone to help them. Whoever rendered them the least assistance was punished severely and fined heavily. The economic condition of Abu Talib's descendants became so bad that one shirt circulated among a number of sayyid women to offer prayer one after another. When the shirt was worn out it was patched.

Mutawakkil desired that the womenfolk of Abu Talib's descendants should stay in their houses and a number of them should offer prayers using one patched shirt, whereas the loose women associated with the court displayed their gold ornaments and silken dresses!

Once, Haroon ar-Rashid had also sent Jaludi to take away the clothes of sayyid women leaving only one dress for each, but Mutawakkil persecuted them so much that they were obliged to live without clothes. That is how the ways and manners of Quraish - the children of the chiefs of Arabia - changed with the passage of time. Abu Talib's descendants got scattered during the time of Mutawakkil.

According to some historians, if Mutawakkil is called the Nero40 of the Arabs, it will not be wrong because many descendants of Abu Talib went away to unknown destinations and those like Ahmad Ibn Isa al-Husayni and Abdullah Ibn Musa al-Husayni died in hiding, whereas some others like Muhammad Ibn Salih and Muhammad Ibn Ja'far revolted against Mutawakkil on account of his oppression.

Mutawakkil did not content himself with persecution of the living. He even showed disrespect to the graves of the dead. He demolished the tomb of Imam Husayn and buildings around it and banned people from performing Ziyarat. His announced that if any person went to perform Ziyarat of Imam Husayn's tomb and was arrested he would be put into prison.41

A poet says about Mutawakkil:

“By Allah, if Bani Umayyah mercilessly killed the son of their prophet's daughter, Bani Abbas also acted in a similar way and demolished his grave. They regretted not participating in his murder, but after death when the bones had decayed, they went in their search.”

Ibn Abil Hadid has written42 that Mutawakkil had good relations with Ali Ibn Jaham because he also bore malice towards Imam Ali (‘a). He suffered from the habit of abusing the departed ones. One day Abu al-Ayna saw him abusing Imam Ali (‘a) and said to him: Do you abuse Ali because he killed both the active as well the passive partner of sodomy and you are also a passive homosexual?

Steadfastness Of Ibn Sikkit

Ibn Sikkit was a distinguished scholar and a literary personality of his time. Mutawakkil appointed him as the tutor for his son, Mu'taz.

One day Mutawakkil asked Ibn Sikkit: Whom do you think are better, Mu'taz and Mu'ayyad or Hasan and Husayn?

Ibn Sikkit looked in disdain and replied: By Allah, I consider Qambar, Imam Ali’s slave, to be better than you and your sons.

Mutawakkil ordered the Turk slaves to pull out his tongue from the back of his head. When his tongue was pulled out in this manner, Ibn Sikkit died and met the fate he had feared for in his following verses he says:

“A brave youth is killed owing to the slip of his tongue, but a man does not die if he hits the ground.”

Owing to this slip in his speech, the brave youth lost his head. But if the foot of a man stumbles, it gets healed in a few days.”

Mutawakkil had kept a court jester named Ubadah. He used to tie a pillow onto his belly and he danced before Mutawakkil while the singers sang: “The big-bellied caliph of the Muslims has arrived.” It was meant to ridicule Imam Ali (‘a). Mutawakkil enjoyed this scene, drank wine and laughed.

One day this scene was performed before Mutawakkil's son, Muntasir, who said to his father: “The person whom this clown is ridiculing and thus making the people laugh, was your cousin and a distinguished person of your family, and you should feel proud of him. In case you want to ridicule him, you should do so in solitude and should not leave this task to such dogs.” Mutawakkil then asked the singers to sing a very obscene verse that we dare not to translate.

Through this, Muntasir came to know that Mutawakkil even abused Lady Fatimah az-Zahra. He approached one of the ulama to give a decree on this matter. The scholar said: It is necessary to kill him, but the life of one who kills his father is shortened.

Muntasir said: If I kill him in obedience to the command of Allah, I do not worry if my life is shortened. He, therefore, killed his father and lived after him for only seven months.

Allah has made the love for the Ahl Al-Bayt obligatory in the holy Qur’an and treated it as the reward for the labour taken by the prophet to convey the divine message to the people. However, those who ruled over the people in the name of religion and considered themselves to be his near ones, shed the blood of his descendants and subjected them to countless persecutions and hardships.

Those who deny the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (S) did not cost Islam dearly. What is harmful for Islam is that persons like Mutawakkil should declare themselves to be Muslims but should oppose Islam and campaign against it like infidels and enemies of Islam. The incidents related to Bani Abbas, as narrated above, are sufficient evidence to form an idea about their ugly nature and inauspicious conduct.

Ibn Rumi

One of the principles of Shi’a faith is that the world can never remain without the righteous persons and divine guides, who invited people to good and restrain them from doing evil. Shi’a doctrines have always been preached from pulpits and through books, and the crimes of the mean persons have been rendered null by logical reasoning and proofs.

They do not forsake patience and steadfastness in the path of truth on account of persecutions and hardships, and campaign with great valour against evil and the forces of falsehood and perversion. Shi’as also believe that in every age there should be some followers of truth to fight, in the capacity of jurists, poets etc.

During the period of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas, there were some sincere believers who stood firmly against falsehood. They defended and supported truth and exposed themselves to danger. Among those fighters we can see many scholars, jurists, poets, and others.

History has recorded the names of many such poets. However, some of them did not disclose their names for fear of the despotic rulers, or the cancellation of their stipends, and did not reveal their Shi’a faith. Among those whose names historians have recorded is the poet Ibn Rumi. In his panegyric known as 'Qasida Jimiyah' he speaks about the misfortunes of Yahya Ibn Umar Ibn Husayn Ibn Zaid:

“O Bani Abbas! You continue to commit crimes due to your inherent meanness and by your miserliness go on hoarding wealth in the public treasury. Wait for the day when the right reaches the rightful ones, and you also suffer affliction like Abu Talib's descendants. It is possible that the revolutionary leader behind the curtain of occultation may arrive, and the dark night may turn into a bright day. Is it proper that Abu Talib's descendants remain deprived of rations whereas the bellies of your associates bulge out? And you proceed to your palaces proudly shaking your hips? And is it proper that the bones of Imam Ali’s descendants should become apparent owing to hunger, whereas the bones of your children become fat owing to the country air and their arms and legs should grow plump?”

Professor Mahmood Aqqad says in his book, Ibn Rumi: The poet composed these verses without any selfish interest. In fact, by composing these verses he exposed himself to danger.

Abu Faraas Hamadani

Abu Faraas wrote an elegy describing the virtues of Ali's descendants and the crimes of Bani Abbas. Some of his verses are quoted below:

“Truth has broken up and religion has been torn to pieces and the legacy of the prophet (caliphate) has been tarnished. O People of the world! Does Allah not help the people against the mischief of the oppressors and does Allah's religion not have an avenger? Imam Ali's descendants are indigent in their own land whereas the affairs of the State are in the hands of women and slaves. The heart of the prophet is offended on account of the lashes. Then why don't you respect the family of the Messenger? Despite spite their great crimes, the descendants of Abu Sufyan committed minor crimes as compared with yours. How much breach of trust you have committed with the religion and how much blood of the prophet's descendants you have shed! If a judgment is given in light of justice, Haroon is not like Imam Kazim and Ma’mun is not like Imam Ridha’. Write to Bani Abbas not to talk about the government, because the government is in the hands of ‘Ajam. 43

Pride is especially meant for scholarly persons wise enough to solve all questions and remove all the difficulties of the people. You should not pride yourselves. When they are angry, it is not for the sake of anyone other than Allah and when they give a judgment, they do not ignore Allah's rights. Qur’an is recited constantly in the house of Imam Ali's descendants whereas in your houses there are music and songs. None of them manufactures wine in their houses. Their houses are not a refuge for crimes. There are no pretty children in their houses with whom they may live in pleasure, and they do not have any monkey that so many servants need to be employed for. The Rukn, the Ka’aba, Astaar, Zamzam, Safaa, Masjid ul-Khif and Haram are their halting places. May Allah's blessings be on them till the leaves of the trees touch one another as they are the refuge for the nation.”

These verses of Abu Faraas manifest the greatness of Ahl Al-Bayt and prove that they are entitled to the caliphate, and their right has been usurped.

These verses refer to the rule of Bani Abbas in the name of religion and it has been affirmed that they were the worst enemies of religion. In their lofty palaces there were wine, adultery and music, although Ali's descendants had to face oppression and persecution while in their houses Qur’an was recited, Allah was remembered and worshipped.

Such regimes wish to portray themselves as religious, but they shall be considered deviated and perverted so long as they are headed by the likes of Mansur, Rashid, Ma’mun and Mutawakkil. That is why Shi’as believe that a just and religious regime can be established only when the ruler is an infallible imam, or the administration is in the hands of a righteous religious scholar who seeks the pleasure of Allah and His prophet. If it is not so, the regime will be not religious and divine. Like contemporary regimes, it would be worldly.

All the persecutions that the Ahl Al-Bayt and Shi’as had to suffer were perpetrated by rulers who ruled in the name of religion, but they were far away from religion. For their deficiencies, the rulers took revenge on the learned and accomplished persons. They wanted to show that their acts were exactly according to religion. They, therefore, endeavoured to find out fake ulamas who might legitimize their acts.

It is mentioned in An-Niza wat Takhasum:44

Pride ruled the minds of Bani Abbas, and they became egoistic. They respected the views of non-Arabs and accorded them precedence over the orders of the prophet. They wrote new chapters of their hardheartedness and cruelty.

In the 'religious government' of Bani Abbas, the monarchs trampled upon the commands of the prophet and followed the polytheists.

Di’bil Khuza’i

Di’bil Khuza’i was the most courageous among the poets known to history. He suffered extreme hardships in connection with his campaign against falsehood and defence of truth. Among those he condemned were Haroon, Ma’mun, Mu’tasim, Wathiq, commanders of the army, ministers, and the sons of the caliphs.

He criticized them without any fear or anxiety. When Mu’tasim entrusted the command of the army to the Turks and gave them discretion over the lives, property, and honour of the people, Di’bil said:

“The Kingdom has slipped away from the hands of the people and fallen into the hands of boys and servants; and it is a great calamity.”

When Mu’tasim died and Wathiq succeeded him, Di’bil said:

“A Caliph died, who was not mourned by anyone, and another came in his place with whom no one is pleased, because he that has come is the leader of injustice and deviation, and the chief of hypocrisy and perversion like his predecessor, as the Qur’an says:

“Each group on entering Hell will curse the other dwellers until all of them are brought together therein” (7:38).

Di’bil described the dictatorship and despotism of Bani Abbas and their acts of killing, imprisoning, plundering, and exiling the people in the following verses:

“When I think about the crimes of Bani Abbas my hairs stand on their ends and my heart bursts with anger. They insulted the people and resorted to threats, murders plunder, arson, imprisonment, torture, and exile. If you happen to go to Tus, kiss the purified grave of the Imam and ask whatever you want from that honoured saint of Allah. There are two graves near to each other in Tus. One belongs to the one who is the best of creatures and the other of one who is the worst. It is edifying. Can that impure one derive any benefit from that purified one? Can the reputation of the pure one be affected by the filth of that impure one? Never! Neither Imam Ridha’ (‘a) suffers owing to the proximity with Haroon nor Rashid gains anything by being near him.”

Di’bil excuses Bani Umayyah for their crimes. He says:

“As soon as Bani Umayyah assumed the control of government, they openly declared their enmity and said that they were opposed to Ali and his descendants. However, while fighting against Bani Umayyah, Bani Abbas formed a common front with their cousins and their slogan was the restoration of the rights of the prophet's progeny. However, when the government fell into their hands, they became dictators.''

Di’bil further says:

“If it had been decided that time should laugh, we would have prayed that Allah might not give it the strength to laugh because the prophet's descendants have been subjected to cruelty and persecution. The prophet's descendants have been sent into exile from their homes and cities as if they had committed an unpardonable crime.”

The elegy of Di’bil known as ‘Qasida Taiya'45 is a verbal proof of the crimes of Bani Abbas. Qasida Taiya is a historical document which will last forever. This elegy depicts the dreadful killings by Bani Abbas.

We are not aware of anyone among the poets, revolutionaries, and elegy reciters who may have expressed enmity and hatred against the rulers in the manner done by Di’bil. His poetic verses were memorized by young and old and all recited and preserved them. They were so popular that even dacoits sang them. When Di’bil read Qasida Taiya before Imam Ridha’, the latter rewarded him with a large sum of money.

Di’bil said: Master, I want a piece of your garment which may serve as my shroud”. The Imam gave him a woollen shirt. Di’bil travelled from Merv to Baghdad with a caravan. On the way the robbers looted the woollen shirt and other property of the caravan and began to divide it among themselves. In the meantime, one of the robbers recited this verse.

“Their inheritance is distributed among other people, but their own hands are empty of their inheritance.”

Di’bil asked the robber: Whose verse is this?

He replied: It is the verse of Di’bil, the poet of Ahl Al-Bayt.

Di’bil said: I am Di’bil.

The robber was frightened and said: Are you Di’bil?

Dibil replied: Yes.

Thereupon the robbers returned everything they had looted.

When the people of Qom learned about this event, they offered to purchase the shirt from Di’bil, but he declined to sell it. The people, however, insisted and took it from him giving him in return a thousand dinars. When he lost all hope of retaining it, he requested them to give him only a piece of it. The people of Qom agreed to this.

Imam Ridha’ (‘A) Wept

When Imam Ridha’ heard the verses of Di’bil, his eyes filled with tears, and the women and children began to weep. Even today Shi’as recite these verses from the pulpits and weep. In this elegy, Di’bil talks of human rights, which should be defended. It is reflected in these verses that for the achievement of this, it is appropriate to lay down one's life.

These verses were composed more than 1,100 years ago they but enjoy more value and fame as compared with the verses of modern poets whose poetical works have filled libraries. The secret of the popularity of these verses is that they lay bare the hardships of the afflicted persons who are oppressed and persecuted and are involved in difficulties during all ages.

From the day these verses were published, the decline of Bani Abbas commenced. According to Bihar there are 80 verses of Di’bil about Imam Ridha’. Some of these verses are about Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. A few of them are quoted below:

“Curse Bani Abbas from the core of your heart, as the affairs of the religion became topsy-turvy because of them. Rule without a true Imam is unlawful. Giving a verdict without consultation is not permissible. Calamities fell on Islam owing to these ignoble tyrants. They distorted the religion and the law and let loose atrocities on the faithful. They made the world narrow in our eyes and made the horizon dark and gloomy. They made sweet water bitter like colocynth in the palate of the deprived and indigent nation. The source of this policy and this deceit was the bay’at of Abu Bakr. The foundation of injustice was strengthened by him, and the structure of the religion collapsed at that time. If that fraud and deceit had not been committed, the world would have acquired nothing but honour. The administration would have been in the hands of the Holy Prophet’s household and every place would have been replete with justice and kindness. I love the Aale Muhammad. My love for them knows no bounds. I shall not dissociate my heart from this family even though the enemy may make me the target of his arrows.

They are my life, my hope, my ambition, and my aspirations. I shall place my head on the dust of their street and shall not raise my head from their threshold. For that is the abode of kindness and piety and that is the place of love, hope and ambition. From there the sun of faith and morality throws its rays. From there blows the zephyr of justice and kindness which makes the garden of the so ul-beautiful and fresh. O Lord! Increase my fervour and fill my heart with love for them. How sad it is that instead of all their dignity and grandeur they got nothing from the mean people except treachery. These people snatched away their right unjustly from them. They plundered their property like thieves. How sad that those generous hands should be empty of riches and wealth. The rights of the holy family were destroyed, and they were subjected to much oppression. So long as the sun rises and the moon appears, my task is to weep and sigh for this grief.”

In his opposition to the Bani Abbas regime, Di’bil had no political motives, and he did not compose these verses for position or wealth. He recited these verses only on account of his religion and faith. He had put his life in danger for the sake of the prophet's progeny. Di’bil used to repeat the following words very often: “I have been carrying my gallows on my shoulder for the last 50 years.” Di’bil meant that he composed such verses for 50 years, and that any time he could have been executed for that.

Eventually a devilish person sat in ambush and attacked him with a poisoned stick after the Maghribain.46 He passed away because of the injury. These two great poets, Di’bil and Kumayt, who conducted similar campaigns to support Aale Muhammad, were martyred in a similar manner.

Providence had decreed both to be martyred in the same way.

Saadi, if you fall in love in adolescence.

The love of Muhammad and Aale Muhammad is sufficient.

Shi’a Literature

It will be appropriate to end this chapter with extracts from Sayyid Muhammad Gilani’s book Al-Jannat ul-Nashru Jamieen47

“The Shi’a literature reached its zenith when the Alawis were subjected to hardships. After Ali's martyrdom, his descendants were humiliated. They were arrested in groups. They were exiled and suffered hardships. They were killed after having been deprived of public rights and they spent their lives in a state of fear because their lives as well as the lives of their supporters were not safe. Supporters of Ali were killed in every city. They were often severely punished. Their hands and feet were cut off. Whoever uttered the name of Ali was imprisoned, his property was confiscated, his house was demolished ...”

“The lovers of Ahl Al-Bayt were buried alive, hanged, burned, and imprisoned; these were common treatments meted out to them, till they died of thirst and hunger.”

“The followers of Ali (‘a) were hanged on the gallows and were not removed from there till their bodies decomposed. They were then burned, and their ashes were scattered in the air. The people were prohibited from naming their sons Ali, Hasan, or Husayn.”

“The Bani Abbas regime was more inimical towards the descendants of Ali (‘a) than Bani Umayyah regime was. Hence, instances of killings and burning by them were also more frequent than those by the Bani Umayyah regime. They subjected Ali's descendants to unlimited persecution and torture.”

“Mansur ordered that Imam Ali's descendants be chained and brought before him from Medina. When they came to him, he ordered them to be imprisoned in a dark cell. In case any of them died, his dead body was not removed from there. Eventually, Mansur ordered the prison to be demolished on their heads. A Shi’a poet says in this regard: “By Allah, Bani Umayyah did not commit even one-tenth of the atrocities against Ali's descendants, as those committed by Bani Abbas.”

Abu Faraas says: “Though descendants of Harb committed serious crimes, they were less as compared with Bani Abbas.”

Sharif Razi says:

“Although the first group (Bani Umayyah) committed many crimes they were not as many, compared with those by the second group (Bani Abbas).”

“Haroon ar-Rashid did not fall short in putting the descendants of Imam Ali to torture. However, when the caliphate of Bani Abbas began to weaken and the government fell into the hands of the Turks, the Dailamis and Bani Hamadan, their fury decreased.”

All these crimes had a profound effect on the Shi’ite prose and poetry.

Factors For The Survival Of Shi’ism

The following question arises in the minds of the readers of this book: How did the Shi’as survive - despite such persecutions - whereas these bloody campaigns against them by their enemies commenced in the first century and continue till today? Shi’as survived even after crossing the river of blood and today millions of Shi’as live all over the world, although normally, in view of the hardships suffered by them, no trace of theirs should have been left in the world!

The Shi’as had no support - other than their faith - to face those difficulties. During hundreds of years of their campaigns they did not get to rule the state, and no one defended them.

Whenever Shi’as rebelled, they were defeated and had to flee.

To sum up, when the history of the Shi’as is about them being subjected to continuous persecutions and failed uprisings, what is the secret behind the resilience of Shi’ism?

Despite all the hardships and difficulties, the Shi’as not only survived, but their population also kept increasing. The secret of the survival of Shi’ism is love for Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) and the greatness of the teachings of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a). If not for the excellence of their teachings, there would have been no trace of Shi’as today. Only the name of Shi’a faith would have been found in the books like those of various fabricated and man-made religions.

There is no doubt that the teachings of Ahl Al-Bayt consist of the explanation of the realities of Islam, the commands of the holy Qur’an and the objects of the Holy Prophet of Islam. These are in fact a set of rules and principles to distinguish between good and evil, and between truth and falsehood.

In the view of Ahl Al-Bayt, the truth possesses a reality that is independent in the minds and intellect of the people, and that the beliefs and opinions, likes and dislikes do not have any effect on it. If all or most of the people agree about a matter being false while it is actually true, or they all agree that a false thing as true, it will not change its nature.

In short, in the view of the Ahl Al-Bayt, truth does not depend on a large number of supporters. On other hand, according to them, individuals are recognized by means of truth. It is just as the Imam has said and the holy Qur’an has clarified:

“We brought you the truth but most of you disliked it” (43:78).

“….In fact, he (Muhammad) has brought to you the truth but most of you dislike it” (23:70).

The Holy Prophet (S) has said: “Ali is with Truth and Truth is with Ali.”48

It means that if all the people were on one side and Ali is on the other side, all others will be mistaken but Ali will not have erred in his belief, because what the Holy Prophet has said is affirmed by the words of Imam Ali, and the Holy Prophet does not say anything on account of his personal desire. Hence the words of the prophet are a conclusive proof for all, and none is permitted to argue against him.

On the other hand, experience has shown that truth is independent by itself and does not depend upon the thoughts and words of the people. For example, we may see that the Legislative Assembly enacts a law with a majority of the votes or unanimously. But, after its enforcement, it is found that the law is erroneous, and the necessity of its amendment or cancellation arises.

It is for this reason that the Twelver Shi’as believe that truth can be deduced from the Book and the Sunnah. Under the influence of people's opinion, or opinion of the majority, truth cannot be dispensed with, because opinions are expressed under the influence of personal motives. Truth cannot be recognized through opinion because if opinion is according to reality, it confirms the truth and if it is against reality, it errs.

Opinions are expressed under the influence of personal motives, nature, and training, and are at times put forward owing to one’s being impressed by the discourses of the philosophers and the thinking of the theologians. On some occasions those who express their opinions are ignorant and what they say is not based on learning, reason, or education. Hazrat Ali (‘a) said that Jama-at means a gathering of righteous ones, however few they might be. It does not denote a gathering of people of falsehood, however numerous they might be. That is why to recognize the truth, the Shi’as rely on divine revelation, and not on the statement of the majority, as we have seen in the verse of Surah Zukhruf.49

Second, favouring of the majority and the support given to it by the government means wastage and suppression of the rights of the minority, because the minority is deprived of governmental power. There is no one who may enforce its beliefs or may have liaison with the government that does not - according to its belief - recognize it officially. It is on this account that Shi’as believe that Allah has expressed laws on every subject and that the means of knowing these laws are two great authorities: the Book of Allah and Ahl Al-Bayt of the prophet.

The secret of the surviving devotion to Ahl Al-Bayt becomes evident from what has been stated. In other word, its secret lies in the survival of the Qur’an and ahadith (traditions), because the

holy Qur’an and the traditions are the first and last sources of Shi’a faith. As a result of the opposition by polytheists, the prophet had to face such hardships that were not faced by other prophets and the Shi’as were subjected to such persecutions as every righteous person is.

Hence, the holy Qur’an survives owing to its genuineness and truthfulness of the prophet, and Shi’ism which is a branch of the same root has survived for his Ahl Al-Bayt. The Shi’a faith, therefore, continues to exist along with Islam and the holy Qur’an.

Just as some distinguished Muhajirs and Ansars had dedicated their lives to the defence of the prophethood of the prophet, some chosen men and scholars trained in the school of Shi’ism; like Shaykh Mufid, Sayyid Murtaza Alam ul-Huda, Allamah Karachki and Allamah Majlisi etc. fought valiantly for the cause of Shi’a faith. They wrote detailed books to defend the Shi’a faith and refuted the false charges brought against the Shi’as, establishing their reasonings based on the Qur’an and Sunnah.

What is surprising is that although we are now living in the information age, there are still some people who repeat the calumnies of the early days of Islam word for word and say the same things that were said 1,400 years ago. They thus compel the Shi’as to quote the exact words of Ali Ibn Husayn Sayyid Murtaza Alam ul-Huda, Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Noman Shaykh Mufid, Allamah Majlisi, and Shamsuddin Muhammad Ibn Makki, Shaheed Awwal, in reply to these calumnies to defend the Shi’a faith.

It will suffice if we allude to two specimens of calumnies resorted to in modern times. One of them is from the magazine Akhirus Saa-a (The Last Hour) and the other is from the book Athar at-Tashayyo fil Adabil Arabi (Effects of Shi’a faith on Arabic Literature). l came across the second book recently in a library while I was collecting materials for writing the present book (Shi’as and the Despotic Rulers).

The Magazine Akhirus Saa-A

In the magazine Akhirus Saa-a Vol. XV Azar 1961, Tabaie has rejected the statement by Bintush Shati published in Al-Ahram magazine of Egypt.

Bintush Shati has said:

“As stated in Tafsir Zamakhshari and Tafsir Nishapuri, the Surah Hal-Ata50 and the verse “Wa Yut’imunat ta’am” (76:8) were revealed in respect of Imam Ali and Lady Fatimah.”

Tabaie writes about this remark in Akhirus Saa-a:

“This statement is not correct, and the commentaries of Zamakhshari and Nishapuri are collections of imaginary things. This statement is taken from books that are based on fantasy and falsehoods.”

The association of the Surah 'Hal Ata' with Imam Ali (‘a) and members of his family is not confined to Zamakhshari and Nishapuri, but other Sunni writers including al-Baidhawi, al-Baghawi, ath-Tha’labi, and Abu as-Sadat, who have also explained it in the same way. Suyuti has also written in al-Dhurrr al-Mansur that this Surah has been revealed about Imam Ali and Lady Fatimah. Fakhruddin ar-Razi has written that Wahidi, an Asha’ira scholar, has said in his book Al-Baseet, that the blessed Surah ad-Dahr was revealed about Imam Ali (‘a).

Despite all that these commentators have said, is it proper that we should say that they have told lies, and the surah has not been revealed in praise of Imam Ali (‘a) who fought battles on the side of the Holy Prophet against the polytheists and infidels for the pleasure of Allah? And to say that it was revealed about Mu’awiyyah, his mother Hind and his father Abu Sufyan who fought against Allah and His prophet in the battles of Badr, Uhud and Ahzab would be a correct explanation! Does Tabaie not know that it is not possible to spit at the moon?

The Book Of Atharut Tashayyo Fil Adabil Arabi

Saeed Gilani of Egypt has written in the above book that Shi’as have falsely imputed these lines to Yazid:

“Bani Hashim (the prophet and his family) has played a game to obtain temporal power. The fact is that neither an angel came to them, nor any revelation descended.

And I won't be eligible to be called the descendant of the fighters of the Ditch (Khandaq) if I had failed to take revenge from Muhammad and his relatives.”

Yes sir! If these two verses are false and have been forged by the Shi’as, is it also untrue that the Holy Prophet's grandson was killed? Is it also a lie that the daughters of Muhammad were carried on camels? Is it also a lie that the lips of the chief of the youth of Paradise were struck with a cane? Is it also untrue that the Battle of Mecca took place, and the Kaaba was attacked by means of catapults? Is it also wrong to say that the soldiers of Yazid were allowed to treat the people of Medina in any manner they liked? And is the story of Harrah also a concocted one?

What Tabaie and Gilani and others like them have written could only be due to their enmity towards Allah and His messenger; or because they want to create dissension and split among the Muslims.51

1. The tenure of Bani Umayyah rule was l,091 months and according to the list mentioned by Masoodi in Murujuz Zahab (Pg. 156) it comes to 1,325 months and 24 days. After deducting the period of Imam Hasan (‘a) and Ibn Zubair, which was 99 months and 13 days, it comes to 1,226 months and 13 days. Thus, there is difference of opinion among the scholars with regard to the rule of Bani Umayyah. So, the thousandmonth rule of Bani Umayyah is not a historical reality that it should be taken as the only connotation of ‘Alfa-shahrin’ (thousand months) of Surah al-Qadr.

2. Morals are either absolute or relative. Regarding this, Ustad Murtaza Mutahhari says in his book Glimpse into the Life of the Prophet:
“From the Holy Prophet to Imam Hasan al-Askari (‘a), all the religious leaders refuted the principles of false ethics because such principles have to be refuted under all circumstances.
Those who say that ethics are relative, what is the value of ethics of deception for them? Practically all the politicians of the world resort to deception. For some politicians, all their politics is based on deception and fraud, whereas some politicians employ deception once in a while. They say that in politics, ethics are meaningless. A politician makes a promise or takes an oath, but he does not fulfil his promise or oath till there is some personal benefit for him. As soon as his goal is achieved, he breaks his promise. According to them, what is a promise, if it is fulfilled?
I have seen some extracts from the book by Churchill, in which he has written about his views after the Second World War, and which were published in Iranian newspapers in parts. In that book, after the mention of the Allies’ attack on Iran, Churchill says, ‘We had made a promise to the Iranians, and according to that promise, we should not have done like this.’ Then he himself says:
“These promises and their fulfilment are nice on a small scale. When two persons promise something to each other, they must fulfil this promise. But in politics, when it is the question of the interests of a nation, ethics are useless. From this aspect, I cannot ignore the interests of Great Britain and say that breaking a promise made to a country is against ethics. Such things are not right in a broader view.”
This same deception is seen in the politics of Mu’awiyyah. The peculiarity that distinguishes Imam Ali (‘a) from other politicians is that he never resorted to deception even if he had to sacrifice the kingdom. Imam Ali (‘a) was faithful to the highest principles of morality. He used to say, “The aim of my government is to safeguard those principles.
Safeguarding truth, trust, fulfilment of promises etc. and I have become a caliph for this only. How can I break those principles?”

3. Marwan Himar put Ibrahim in the prison. He was killed in this prison or poisoned to death.

4. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir, Vol. 4, Pg.340.

5. Previously, when Muawiyah had gained control over the access to water, he had stopped the supply to Imam's forces.

6. Tarikh Kamil, Vol. 1, Pg.34

7. Khorasan is a word of Pahlavi language. It means the land of the East or the land where the Sun rises. In the ancient times, it was known as greater Khorasan. The boundaries of greater Khorasan included the modern Iranian cities of Nishapur, Tus, Mashad and the Afghan cities of Herat, Balkh, KAbu al-and Ghazni; cities of Merv and Sanjan, which are at present in Turkmenistan; Samarqand and Bukhara, which are presently in Uzbekistan; Khujand and Panjakent, which are presently in Tajikistan; and Iranian, Afghani and Pakistani Baluchistan.
There were two small towns at the location of present Mashad Muqaddas. One was Sinbad, where Imam Ridha’ (‘a) is buried, and the other town was Nawghan which is still known as the locality of Nawghan and it is situated at the end of Mashad highway.

8. In the book Baluchi Hasab Nasab ki Nazm, which is the oldest source of Baluchi history, Justice Meer Khuda Bakhsh Marri says: “We are followers of Ali. Our religion and faith are safe and strong. We have come from Aleppo. We have always fought against the followers of Yazid. After the tragedy of Karbala, we migrated to Bampoor, Seestan and present Baluchistan.” (Justice Meer Khuda Bakhsh Marri, page 93, published by Nisad Traders, Quetta).
Commenting on the above book, Aga Mir Nasir Ahmed Zai says: “These verses were written by the fifteen century Baluchi poets referring to the martyrdom of Imam Husayn. These verses prove that the Baluchis are followers of Ali and his descendants. (Tarikh-e-Baluch aur Baluchistan. Pg. 76-77)
Khan of Qullat, Mir Ahmed Yaar Khan writes:
“The original home of the Baluch was Aleppo in Syria. Due to their support for the Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) in the battle of Karbala, the Baluch people became the target of hatred and enmity of the Umayyad rulers.” (Mir Ahmed Yaar Khan, Mukhtasir Tarikh-e-Baluch, published by Iwan-e-Qullat, Quetta).

9. Al-Iqd ul-Farid, Vol. I, Pg. 41.

10. Maqatilut Talibiyyin, Abu al-Faraj Ifsfahani, Pg. 206.

11. Vol. 3, Pg. 31 .

12. Pg. 74.

13. Pg. 74.

14. In Du’a Jaushan Kabeer Allah is called the ‘joiner of bones’.

15. Pg. 76.

16. Imam Ali Ibn Musa (‘a) was given the title of 'ar-Ridha' by Ma’moon when the former agreed to become the heir apparent. Even the Holy Prophet (S) was given the titles of 'Sadiq' and 'Ameen ' by the polytheists of Mecca.

17. As a result of the directives that Imam (‘a) had given to his Shi’as to remain quiet and not rebel against Bani Abbas like they had avoided revolting against Bani Umayyah, Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) had the opportunity to propagate the Shi’a faith. All those traditions came to public view, whose chain of narrators goes thus: I relate this tradition from my father Muhammad Ibn Ali (‘a) from his father, Ali Ibn alHusayn (‘a) from his father Husayn Ibn Ali (‘a) from his father Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) from the Messenger of Allah (S) from Jibraeel (‘a) who narrated it from Allah the Mighty and Sublime. Due to these efforts of Imam Ja'far Sadiq (‘a), the Shi’a faith became known as Ja'fari faith.

18. Abi Faraas, Sharh Shafiya, Pg. 171, (Excellences of the family of the Prophet and the defects of Bani Abbas).

19. Al-Iqd ul-Farid, Vol. 5, Pg. 159, 1953 Edition.

20. Bihar ul-Anwar, Vol. 11.

21. Sharh Shafiya, Pg. 559.

22. Tarikh-ush Shi’a, Pg. 46, quoted from Sawaiq ul-Muhriqa, Ibn Hajar al-Makki, Noor ul-Absaar and Isafur Raghibin of Shablanji.

23. Mahdi told Imam Musa al-Kazim (‘a) that the people say that wine is not prohibited by the Holy Qur’an. The Imam said that wine is declared to be an ithim (sin) in the following verse:
“They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin …..” (2:219).
And sin is prohibited in the following verse:
“Say: My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice….” (7:33).
(Author)

24. Mirrujuz Zahab, Vol. 3, Pg. 336

25. Just as America is oppressing the brave Muslims today, while at the same time working in the fields of science and research, in the same way during the time of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas, there were advances in cultural, scientific, and architectural fields. Since the present book is regarding the oppression on the Shi’as at the hands of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas, the venerable author has not mentioned the above subject (scientific and literary advancement). For the interest of the readers, we present below an extract from the book of Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati, The Encyclopaedia of Islam and Iran: Dynamics of Culture and the Living Civilization:
“After the period of conquests and victories when the Islamic government became stable and Muslims completed the collection of Islamic sciences to a great extent, some Abbasid caliphs patronized various arts and sciences. Under their patronage, the Islamic society became gradually inclined to those sciences and arts which were practiced by non-Muslim civilizations. The source of this attention was Qur’an and traditions which encourage people to learn the different arts and sciences.
The greatest impetus for this movement was that the Muslims had annexed the countries practicing these arts and sciences like Iran and Rome. These countries were already having their ancient civilizations. But since Alexander the Great had attacked these places one thousand years earlier, there was influence of Greek culture also upon them.
Along with other civilizations, the experience of cultural exchange with the Greek civilization was a completely new experience. As a result of this cultural exchange, there was such an increase of interest in translation of books by the Muslim rulers and intellectuals that this period came to be known as ‘the age of translation'. Though translation began in the period of Bani Umayyah, its fruits were obtained in the period of Bani Abbas. During the Umayyad period, most of the translations were of books on military, politics, and economics.
These translations served as a bridge of communication between the rulers and non-Arabs. The movement, which left behind a large number of translated books on history, sociology, and science, began in the Abbasid period.
This intellectual movement continued for two hundred years. Especially in the period of Mansur, translations were made in two styles, literal and idiomatic. In the beginning, translation was carried out from Persian to Arabic. The translators of these books were Zoroastrians who had recently embraced Islam. Some books of literature like Kalila wa Dimna were translated by the Iranian writer, Abdullah Ibn Muqaffa (Ibn Muqaffa, died in 141 A.H.)
In the later period, Muslim translators developed this skill to a high level. Based on their experience in this field, they also translated Greek and Syriac books into Arabic. During this period, the first great translator was the Nestorian physician, Hunain Ibn Ishaq who was an expert of Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Pahlavi languages. He was known as the Shaykh of translators. He constituted a group under which translation was carried out in a systematic and organized manner. His son, Ishaq and his nephew, Habish Ibn Asim were also present. Hunain compared the translations from the originals and made corrections etc.
Depending on the interest of respective Abbasid caliphs and other factors there were variations in the number of translators and subject of translation from time to time, especially during the period of Haroon ar-Rashid, when the movement of translation could be summed up as follows:
A. Period of Haroon ar-Rashid: all the translations of this period were centred on scientific books. Yahya Ibn Khalid Barmiki made special efforts to recruit competent translators. During the period of Haroon, whichever city was conquered by the Muslims, its whole library was transferred to Baghdad, for example, books on philosophy and experimental sciences of Greek. The book of Euclid, Al-Majest and books of Indian medicine were all translated into Arabic in this period.
B. Period of Mamoon Rashid: during the period of Mamoon, on the basis of different interpretations of the Qur’an, debates and discussions on scholastic theology were at their zenith. During this period, many books of philosophy were translated into Arabic and published
C. Period after Mamoon: during the period of Mutawakkil, the work of translation continued. For example, Hunain Ibn Ishaq remained busy in translation. But when Mu’tasim transferred his capital from Baghdad to Samarrah, there was a change on translation activities. The main reason for this change was the decrease in the importance of Bait ul-Hikmah, which at that time was the most important intellectual organization.
D. End of the translation movement: after being successful for two hundred years, the translation movement of Baghdad began to decline. And in the beginning of the new Gregorian millennium, it ended completely. Although the end of the movement does not mean that people lost interest in the sciences that had already been translated or that there were less translators
To some extent, the end of this movement was because of the lack of subjects in source languages. In other words, this movement had lost its social importance. Lack of subjects does not mean that other non-religious Greek books were not available, but it meant that there were no more books which were of interest to the intellectuals of this movement. Because most of the arts and sciences have already been dealt in the books which have already been published and they were better than the books of Greek.
The translators who had founded this movement of translation, now instead of supervising the work of translation, began the work of compilation. Due to the stability of the Islamic government and the intellectual advancement of the Islamic society, there were established scientific societies. These societies performed an important role in the dissemination of sciences and arts. The first intellectual organization of this type was Bait ul-Hikmah in Baghdad. It was established under the patronage of the government and operated on the grant fixed by the government. It was the centre for researchers and translators; especially competent translators who can translate books of Greek philosophy into Arabic.
Bait ul-Hikmah which was the first library of Muslims, was established by Haroon although the work of translation had begun in the age of Mansur.”
During the Abbasid period, when the books of Greek philosophy were translated into Arabic, the world of Islamic beliefs fell into turmoil. Then to oppose those beliefs, scholastic theology was developed due to which the Islamic beliefs did not retain their original simplicity. Tawheed now was just a problem of scholastic theology, and also due to the interference in religion by people with political interest, the view proclaiming that “all the companions were just” came to the fore and if a defect or mistake of a companion was seen, it was justified to be a mistake of jurisprudence. (Al-Awasim minal Qawasim)
In a letter dated 27 May 1937, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his daughter, Indira Gandhi (These letters were published in book form under the title of Glimpses of World History):
“The Abbasids were terrific lawmakers. According to common standards, their kingdom was very vast. Where was that old fervour of faith and practical enthusiasm that conquered the mountains and spread like Jungle fire to burn up everything? Neither simplicity survived nor that democratic system of governance, and the caliph was not much different from the Iranian emperors whom the Arabs had defeated earlier, or the kings of Constantinople. The Arabs of the period of the prophet possessed that strange power and life that even the armies of the kings could not face. During the world of their time, they were dignified and always ready to offer sacrifices. And when they rose like a storm and moved forward like hurricane, even the huge armies of the kings fled from their way.
The common people were fed up with those rulers whereas the Arabs brought the message of social reform and public well-being, so they were welcome in every country they conquered. Now such circumstances existed no more. Now the dwellers of the desert enjoyed the luxuries of palace life and fed on the most delicious foods. When their life was a bed of roses why should they worry about social revolution and reform? They tried to excel the ancient kingdoms in opulence and extravagance. In this process they also became addicted to some of their bad habits. One of their such customs was to confine women to the homes.
Now the capital was shifted from Damascus to Iraq. This change of the seat of government was in itself an important factor because Baghdad was the resting place of the Iranian kings. In addition to this, it was in comparison to Damascus more distant from Europe. As if the Abbasids were more attentive to Asia than they were to Europe. There remained the great struggle for Constantinople and many wars with the European nations. But all these wars were generally of defensive nature. The age of the conquests was not over. Therefore, the Abbasid caliphs desired to strengthen and firm up all that remained of their dominions. Also, without Spain and Africa, it was already a huge kingdom.
You must have remembered well the name of Baghdad. That same Baghdad of Haroon ar-Rashid and Scheherazade, whose amazing stories are mentioned in Arabian Nights. The city that gained prominence during the Abbasid rule was this same city of Arabian Nights, Baghdad. It was a huge city consisting of palaces, government offices, schools and colleges, big malls, gardens, and parks etc. The traders of Baghdad carried out extensive trade with the countries of the east and the west. A large number of government officials kept a close watch on the happenings in even far off places.
The system of governance was becoming more complex, and it comprised of many departments. There was a perfect postal system in practice which connected every comer of the kingdom to the seat of government. There were a large number of hospitals. People from all over the world visited Baghdad. It was especially of interest to scholars, students of various sciences and artisans because it was well known that the caliph accorded great importance to every intellectual and expert artist.
The caliph himself led a life of luxury and opulence. A crowd of slaves surrounded him, and his harem was always full of women. From the aspect of apparent opulence and wealth, the Abbasid kingdom was at the peak during the rule of Haroon ar-Rashid from 786 to 809 A.D. Ambassadors from the Emperor of China and King Charles of the West, visited the court of Haroon ar-Rashid. In other words, Baghdad and the Abbasid kingdom was much ahead of all the countries of Europe in the art of governance, commerce, and intellectual advancement, except for Spain, which was also ruled by Arabs (Bani Umayyah).
We are especially interested in the Abbasid period because it created a new awareness for scientific development. You know that in the modem world, science is a very important. We are too much in need of it and we are indebted to it to a great extent. Science does not sit idle and pray for the arrival of inventions. It is concerned with the investigation to find how these things have come into existence. It conducts experiment after experiments. It makes repeated efforts. Sometimes it fails and sometimes it is successful.
In this way it goes on expanding the knowledge of man. This present age of ours is very much different from the ancient or the Medieval Age. All this happened because of science. In fact, the modern world is a creation of science.
In the ancient age, science was not pursued so much, neither in Egypt nor in China or India. However, it was discussed to some extent in ancient Greece. After that not even its traces are found in Rome. But the spirit of investigation and experimentation was present in the Arabs. Therefore, it is very much true when we say that they were pioneers of modern science. In some subjects like medicine and mathematics, they learnt many things from India. A large number of Indian medics and mathematicians had reached Baghdad and many Arab students came to study in the Takshila University, which was still a great institution at that time, and was particularly famous for medical education.
Sanskrit texts on medicine and other subjects were specially translated into Arabic. The Arabs learnt many techniques from China, like that of paper making. And they developed and perfected the techniques they learnt from others. They also invented many gadgets for the first time like the telescope and the magnetic compass etc. The Arab doctors were renowned in the whole Europe for their expertise in medical field.
There is no doubt that Baghdad was the centre of all those intellectual movements. Another centre was Cordova, the capital of Arab Spain in the West. In addition to this, there were many other universities in the Arab world where the lamp of knowledge was alight; like Cairo, Basra, Kufa etc. But Baghdad was paramount among them regarding which an Arab historian writes that it was the capital of Islam, the favourite of Iraq, the seat of the government, a centre of beauty and elegance, civilization and culture, and the fine arts. It had a population of more than 2 million; that is almost twice that of our present Calcutta or Bombay.
You will be surprised to know that the rulers of Baghdad were the first to start wearing socks. 'Moza' the Indian term for socks is derived from Arabic. In the same way, the French 'Shamees' is derived from Arabic 'Qamees' (shirt). Shirt and socks reached Constantinople from Arabia, and from there they were taken to Europe.
The Arabs had always been great seamen. They always undertook long journeys by sea, and they established their colonies on the coasts of Africa, India, Malaysia and even China. One of their famous sea travellers was Al-Biruni, who visited India also. Like Huein Tsang, he wrote about his travels.
The Arabs were also historians, and our books and histories inform us a great deal about them. We all know that they wrote very interesting novels and stories. (The novel of Ibn Saba is a creation of this period). Thousands of people must not even have heard the name of the Abbasid caliphs and their kingdom, but they must be knowing about Baghdad, the romantic city of the Arabian Nights. The world of fiction is more real and lasting than the world of real happenings.
After the death of Haroon ar-Rashid, the Arab kingdom fell into trouble. There was discord and confusion everywhere. Many provinces became independent, and the provincial governors became autocrats. The caliph became weak day by day and a time arrived when the caliph had power only in the city of Baghdad and the surrounding villages. One caliph was even dragged out from the palace and killed by his sepoys.”

26. Pg. 109.

27. A mountainous region to the west of the City of Qazwin in the Gilan province of Iran.

28. Indirectly he was saying: That is because I am a descendant of the prophet, whereas you are not. Hence I am more closely related to him.

29. Tarikh Kamil, Ibn Athir, Vol. 5, Pg. 90; Maqatilut Talibiyyin, Abu al-Faraj Isfahani, Pg. 465

30. Such pseudo scholars are prepared to sell away even the holy relics.

31. Tarikh Kamil, Printed in 1357 A.H., Vol. 4, Pg. 191

32. It is mentioned in the circumstances of revelation of Surah Kafiroon that the Quraish represented by Walid Ibn Mughaira, Aas Ibn Wael, Aswad Ibn Matlab and Umayyah Ibn Khalaf approached the Messenger of Allah (S) and suggested that the Meccan infidels and Muslims may live on friendly terms by sharing each other's method of worship. They proposed that Muslims worship their god one year and the infidels worship God of the Muslims another year. However, the Holy Prophet (S) refused their proposal.

33. Pg. 93.

34. This belief of ours is certified by the Holy Qur’an through the following verse:
“It is not meet for a mortal that Allah all should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah’s” (3:79).
The next verse says that it is possible that because of his (perceived) power a person can claim divinity. Only those persons who are blessed with faith and piety can keep themselves safe from this deviation. (Author).

35. In the footnote to the 22nd Problem: “Ijtihaad and Taqlid”.

36. Ayan ash-Shi’a, Vol. 1. Pg. 60.

37. This event, which occurred in Nishapur, clearly indicates how much the general public - and especially the Iranian public - were devoted to the purified imams. Despite the activities of the Abbasid caliphs to reduce the respect for the imams, they could not succeed in weaning the people away from devotion to the imams. Although they had taken Imam Ridha’ with a great respect – just to gain public support – Mamoon issued secret orders that they must bring the Imam through the route that passes through the cities where no Shi’a population was present. Therefore, he was taken through the route that did not have Shi’a population and even such places where the people did not even know who he was.
It is noteworthy that though Mamoon showed respect to Imam Ridha’ outwardly, he was always trying to undermine the status of the imam. That is why Imam Ridha’ was not taken through Qom, which was the centre of Shi’as. Also, he was not taken via Baghdad, which was the seat of caliphate and was not populated by only one sect. It was possible to bring Imam from there but there was danger that an atmosphere could have developed against Mamoon's caliphate.
That is why he was not brought through Baghdad. In the same way, he was not taken through Kufa. They brought him through unknown routes and finally reached Nishapur. The caliph was not expecting such a reception for the Imam in a city like Nishapur and that people would leave their homes and come out to greet the imam. When the imam's caravan reached Nishapur, people surged out to welcome him. All the men and women, young and old were waiting to accord a grand welcome to Imam Ridha’. The scholars of that city also came out to extend a sincere welcome. The chief scholar of this place begged the Imam to allow him to hold the rein of the imam's camel and this honour was granted.
The people requested the Imam to give them something which would remain as a memento so that after he goes away, it would remain with them forever and that memento could be nothing but a tradition, which they can write down from him directly. It is well-known that at that time, twelve thousand gold pen stands came out to note what the Imam was going to say. To say that this hadith is called chain of gold (Silsilat adh-Dhahab) because of this, is wrong. It is called chain of gold because all the narrators of this hadith are infallible imams. Since Nishapur was the centre of people who were attached to traditions, they requested the Imam to narrate a hadith to them.
It is written that when Imam Ridha’ looked out from the camel saddle, the people saw his countenance and remarked: “Your face and appearance is just like that of the messenger of Allah.” Thus, there was increase in the excitement of the people. After that, the Imam addressed them and said: “I heard from my respected father who heard from his respected father... from Holy Prophet from Jibraeel from the Almighty Allah that He said, “The statement of 'there is no god except Allah is my fort.' Whoever enters this fort is safe from My chastisement.” (Ustad Shahid Mutahhari, Maqtal-e-Mutahhar, Matbua Jame Talimaat-e-Islami, Pakistan)

38. Saying ‘Allaahu Akbar’ meaning ‘God is the Greatest’.

39. In his book, A Story History of the Saracens.

40. Nero was the emperor of Rome in 54 A.D. His name is synonymous with brutality, viciousness and hedonism. He was very fond of poetry and jokes. He also sang and acted on the stage. In 64 A.D. he subjected Rome to arson and blamed the Christians for it. He either burned those Christians to death or threw them into lion cages as a public sport. It is said that when Rome was burning, he was playing the lute. In 67 A.D. after a military coup when the Senate sentenced him, Nero committed suicide.

41. Saddam had also imposed restriction on the ziarat of Imam Husayn (‘a). Now that Saddam is dead, it was seen that on Chehlum (Arba’in) (40th) Day on 2nd February 2008 the surging crowd of more than 7 million visitors were chanting: “O Zahra! We have not forgotten your Husayn.” The power that rules over the hearts of the people can never be destroyed. Indeed, love for Imam Husayn (‘a) is concealed in the hearts of the believers.

42. Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha Vol. 1, Pg. 363.

43. ‘Ajam means non-Arabs. During the time the State affairs were run by the Barmecids.

44. Pg. 73.

45. A contemporary man of letters has also referred to it as Qasida Zaia (well-known) and Naiha (mournful).

46. The evening and night prayers.

47. Pg 22.

48. Tirmidhi; Hakim; Ibn Hajar; Ibn Abil Hadid and Kanz ul-Ummal (quoted in Dalailus Sidq, Vol. 2, Pg. 303, 1953 Edition). Also, Tarikh Baghdad, Khatib Baghdadi, Vol. 14, Pg. 321, published by Sadat, Egypt; Tarikh Damishq, Ibn Asakir, Vol. 3, Pg. 119, Beirut; Al lmamah was Siyasah, Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari, Vol. 1, Pg. 73, published by Mustafa Muhammad, Egypt; Arjah ul-Matalib, Ubaidullah Hanafi, Pg. 598, Lahore.

49. The verse 43:78 quoted earlier.

50. Also known as Surah al-Insan or Surah ad-Dahr (surah no. 76) [Note by al-Islam.org].

51. Complicity between pseudo-ulama and imperialism is a part of history. It cannot be denied. The pseudo-ulama always issued verdicts favouring the rulers that only harmed Islam and Muslims. The rulers always resorted to the verdicts of such pseudo-ulama to restrict the views of Aale Muhammad.
Abu Bakr Ibn Ibn Arabi's book, Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, was written with only this aim. In this book the rulers are advised to forbid discussions on the objectionable deeds of the companions and one who criticizes a companion should be punished harshly. The Buwayhid rulers had persecuted Asha’ira but after their decline, the Seljuk’s patronized them in order to weaken the kingdom of Palestinians in Egypt. When the battle of religious beliefs ensued between the Abbasids and Palestinians, the pseudo-ulama supported Bani Abbas. Salahuddin al-Ayyubi also supported the Asha’ira.

Post-Abbaside Era

The Abbasid regime began to decline after Mutawakkil, and after other states came into being in the Islamic world. Among them the Buwayhid, the Hamdanids and Fatimids were at the forefront. Due to this the Shi’as were allowed to breathe in peace for short while.

However, with the extinction of the Seljuk kingdom, the condition of the Shi’as underwent a change, and they had to suffer hardships once again as they had suffered during the periods of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. Especially during the reigns of the Ayyubi rulers, the Shi’as became victims of worst atrocities. Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (1169-1193) who is famous in connection with the conquest of Jerusalem in the third war of Crusades and who is famous as Salahuddin al-Ayyubi was extremely blood-thirsty and ruthless.

Abu Abdillah Shi'i

The real name of the well-known scholar, Abu Abdillah Shi’i, was Hasan Ibn Ahmad Ibn Zakariya Shi'i. He came from Sana’a (Yemen). He left for Mecca with the intention of proceeding to Africa. There, he came into contact with the people of Africa, and heard them recounting the virtues of Ahl Al-Bayt. Abu Abdillah also spoke to them on the subject, and they were attracted to him.

As the Shi’a faith had already penetrated Africa, those people began to like him and requested him to accompany them. Abu Abdillah Shi'i accepted their invitation. According to Maqrizi, African Shi’as welcomed Abu Abdillah and accorded him great respect. This happened in the year 288 A.H. When trust-based relations were established between them, he asked the people to fight against Ibrahim Ibn al-Aghlab, and to depose him from the caliphate. The Africans accepted this suggestion and removed him from his office. Thus, by the efforts of Abu Abdillah Ubaidullah, Mahdi became the first Fatimid caliph.1

The Fatimid kingdom extended up to Egypt and Syria. The number of their caliphs was fourteen and they ruled from 296 to 567 A.H. During the period of the Fatimids, the Shi’a faith expanded so much in the West that a Palestinian said:

“If I have ten arrows, I shall shoot nine of them towards west, because there are many Shi’as there and I will shoot the remaining one towards Europe.”

Shi’as were present in Egypt during the time of Imam Ali (‘a) and gradually their number increased, and they also established themselves in Palestine and Jordan. As a result of that, the people of Tabriyya, half of Nablus, Quds, and a large part of Oman were Shi’as as Adam Mitz has mentioned in Al-Hazarat ul-Islamiyyah.2

It is mentioned in Khutat3 of Maqrizi and Ayan ash-Shi’a that Shi’a faith survived in Africa till the rule of Mu'iz Ibn Badis Sanhaji. However, Mu'iz killed or burned the Shi’as so that they became helpless and were scattered.4

Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Muzaffar writes in Tarikh Shi’a:5

A large population of Shi’as in African6 cities in the 20th century shows that despite all the tragic events, the spirit of Shi’aism has survived there: It is possible that after the policy of elimination of Shi’as by Muiz Ibn Baidis, they once again found their way to Africa. Whatever the case might have been millions of Persian Shi’as now live in Africa. The reason for their being in such large number is that the scholars of Najaf go at times to Zanzibar, and they (the Africans) come in large numbers every year for ziarat at Karbala. They are also seen at the time of Hajj.

Al-Azhar University

The establishment of Al-Azhar University brought into action an extensive program for the Shi’as. Jawharus Saiqali, the Commander of Fatimid army, founded it in 359 A.H. At the time of its establishment, only the Fatimid jurisprudence, Shi’a faith and philosophy were taught, and verdicts and teachings in Egypt conformed with the religion of Ahl Al-Bayt.

The first book taught in al-Azhar7 was al-Iqtisad Fee Fiqh Aale Rasool and thereafter Daim ul-Islam was taught. It contained the rules and regulations of Ahl Al-Bayt regarding the lawful and unlawful things.8

Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi

Salahuddin was a Kurd by origin. His father Ayyub and his uncle Asaduddin (Shir Koh) grew up in Azerbaijan and then migrated to Baghdad. From Baghdad they went to Aleppo. In Aleppo, Shir Koh joined Nooruddin Mahmood Ibn Zangi. When Nooruddin Zangi ascended the throne, he gave a position to Shir Koh and his brother Yusuf.

When Europe was fighting against Cairo, the Fatimid Caliph Azid9 sought help from Nooruddin as his government had been firmly established in Aleppo and Damascus. Nooruddin sent a large army (in which Salahuddin was also present) under the command of Shir Koh to assist Azid, the last Fatimid caliph. After gaining victory, Shir Koh became the minister of Azid. He, however, died after two months and was succeeded as minister by his nephew, Salahuddin.

Instead of being thankful to Azid for his kindness, Salahuddin began plotting against him and seized the kingdom. He confiscated Azid’s entire property and even his horse. As Maqrizi says in al-Khutat, Salahuddin imprisoned Azid after some time. He called his brothers, sisters, and kinsfolk from Syria and gave them the houses and property confiscated from the courtiers of the Fatimid caliph.

Salahuddin dismissed the Shi’a judges and replaced them by Shafei judges. He eliminated the words “Hayya ‘alaa Khairil Amal” 10 from the call to prayers, and invited the people to Maliki and Shafei sects. Thus, the Shi’a faith became dormant and was gradually forgotten by the people of Egypt.

Salahuddin forced the people to adopt the Sunni and Ash’ira faith and killed those who refused to do so. His order was: The evidence of only that person, who believes in the four sects will be accepted, and a person is not entitled to deliver a speech or to teach unless he follows one of the four sects.

Khafaji writes in his book, Al-Azhar Fi Alf Aam:

“The Ayyubis completely destroyed Shi’a writings.”

“The Ayyubis uprooted the family of Fatimid rulers and destroyed them in the worst possible manner. They put the latter to great miseries and afflictions. He dismissed the Fatimid Government officers and governors and replaced them overnight with his own kins. This resulted in heart-rending cries in every house.”

Salahuddin imprisoned the remaining descendants of Imam Ali in Egypt and separated the men from the women so that the progeny of Ali might become extinct.

Bani Umayyah and Hajjaj used to celebrate the Ashura day11 as Eid (festival day), but later this practice was discontinued. Salahuddin again declared it to be an Eid. The mischief by Salahuddin was not limited to killing, plundering, and exiling women and children. He went a step further and oppose knowledge and wisdom, and the traces and objects of glory of Islam.

The Fatimid Caliphs had paid special attention to the setting up of big libraries. In a Fatimid palace there was a comprehensive library. The historians have written a good deal about the grandeur of this library and the valuable books that it housed. There were about 200,000 books in it on various subjects like jurisprudence, hadith (tradition), lexicography, history, literature, medicine, chemistry, astronomy etc. It is said that no other library was as big as this in all the Islamic territories.

In Dar ul-Hikmah there was another library which had replaced the famous library of Alexandria. And in the al-Azhar University there was a special library allocated to the university. Salahuddin al-Ayyubi destroyed all these libraries.12

Salahuddin Ai-Ayyubi In The View Of Shi’as

We do not deny the fight put up by Salahuddin in the crusades and do not want to ignore the courage and bravery displayed by him while confronting colonialists. Those who criticized him say: Salahuddin had concluded a pact with Europe that they would not attack each other for three and a half years and that the Christians would continue to occupy part of Palestine consisting of Yafa, Akka, Sur, Tripoli and Antioch13 but, despite this pact, he fought against them.

We, however, object to the crimes committed by him against children and women. When we discuss his crimes and cruelty against the Fatimids - who were his benefactors - it is possible that we may see some reasons for that. But how can we explain his crimes in relation to the libraries and the scientific and technical monuments, which are so important from the political and social points of view?

Salahuddin's treatment of Shi’as was not based on anything except pure fanaticism, for there is no difference between the Shafeis, Malikis, Hanafis, Hanbalis and Shi’as, as all of them believe in Qur’an and Sunnah. Sunni scholars also have this view and those like Shaykh Abu Zahra, Shaykh Mahmood Shaltut,14 Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Baquri have also confirmed this reality.

Indeed, if Salahuddin was really a follower of Shafei sect, then we ask his this: Has Shafei considered the people of Qibla to be non-believers, and has he declared shedding their blood permissible?

Salahuddin was indeed brave and a heroic person, nevertheless he was a fanatical bigot. This proves that it is not necessary that a person who fights does so only against falsehood and evils. It cannot be said that if a person fights the enemy, his other actions should not be objected to, or that his family and educational background should not be criticized. During the Age of Ignorance, did not brave people like Antarah15 defend their honour and property? They also fought to defend their people against the enemy, but at the same time they bore grudge against truth.

We also see that some people believe in superstitions, as the author of Al-Iqd ul-Farid 16 has written:

Jahiz said that an ill-mannered person with a big belly was with him in a boat. As and when he heard the word Shi’a, he got annoyed and infuriated. When Jahiz asked him the cause of his annoyance he replied: I dislike the 'Shin’ (Arabic letter of ‘Sh’) of 'Shi’a ' because the first letter of 'Shi’a' is the first letter of many other nouns that are bad, for example: Shaitan (Satan), Sharr (evil), Shum (inauspicious), Shiqa (reproach), Shatm (vilification), Shinar (the worst defect), Shayn (reproach), Showk (thorn), Shikwa (Pain), Sha (stinginess). Upon hearing this nonsense, Jahiz said: “After this, it is necessary that Shi’a faith should be uprooted.”

What is surprising is that after narrating this incident Jahiz himself also adopted the path of fanaticism, and if most of our sch1ars are like this they will fill the world with madness, because from the point of view of speech and food they are ahead of everyone else. In that event the Shi’as can also uproot the Sunni religion with their tongue and say that ‘Seen’, the first letter of the word ‘sunni' is also the first letter of many words carrying bad meanings for example Sartaan (cancer), Sil (tuberculosis), Surm (pain in the rear) and Salh (excreta of the animals), Salas (insane), Su'al (pain in the chest), Sabb (to abuse), Syphilis, Safak (bloodshed), Salb (pillage), Soo’ (bad), Sam (poison), Suqut (fall) Sakhaf (weakness) etc.17

1. Mahdi was indebted to Abu Abdullah Shi’i for his help. Due to his favours, he had gone from rags to riches. But he got Abu Abdullah killed. The craze for power does not allow one to remain ethical as Allamah Mughniya has stated in the Foreword that: When people reach the corridors of power, they undergo such a transformation that they lose all the good qualities. The Lord of men has truly said that when the man is weak, he is kind and obedient but when he becomes powerful, he forgets the Almighty.

2. Vol. l, Chapter 5.

3. Vol. 2, Chapter of Abu Abdullah Shi'i.

4. During the reigns of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas, those who were connected to the family of the prophet or who were devoted to Ahl Al-Bayt were eliminated in any possible way, but this system never came to an end.

5. Pg. 269.

6. Muammar Ghaddafi, the President of Libya, addressed the tribal chiefs of Niger. and the speech can be referred to at www en.wikiquote.org/wiki. The gist of his address is as follows:
“The Islamic government of Iran is not the first Shi’a government of the world. Before Iran, the Fatimid rule was established in Egypt with its capital in Cairo. To say that Iranians are Shi’as and Arabs are Muslims is a false propaganda of the colonialists and a conspiracy to create discord between the Sunnis and Shi’as. North Africa is Arab and Shi’a. Shi’a culture is found in all of North Africa. The people here commemorate Ashura and Muharram. From Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean, there is not a single person named Muawiyah. They are all named Ali, Fatimah, Khadija, Hasan, Husayn, etc.
When the descendants of Ali and Fatimah gained the caliphate, they named their kingdom after the name of their mother 'Fatimah '. The Al-Azhar University was also established by them. The name of Al-Azhar is also derived from Zahra, the title of Fatimah. The Fatimid kingdom was established in the 10th century, and for 260 years under its patronage, there were no tribal and political differences or groupism in North Africa.
We direct a renewed call to all the forces in the first Fatimid state to revive [it in] a modern, second Fatimid state - on the condition that it be free of all of the sectarian conflicts and (the debate about) the imamate and (religious) rule (hakimiyya) and the sophistry of old...
We are not interested anymore (whether) Ja'far as-Sadiq delegated the imamate to Musa al-Kazim or to Ismail... This matters (only) to Ja'far al-Sadiq and Ismail and Musa al-Kazim, and they are gone, may Allah have mercy on them. (And we are not interested anymore) in who holds more right to the caliphate, Ali or Muawiyah. The caliphate has nothing to do with religion, and this is a worldly struggle for rule. If they decided after the prophet who would be the ruler, it was because the prophet was not a ruler. He was a prophet.
(Ghaddafi meant to say that politics is separate from religion. That is, religion is separate from social affairs and worldly problems of people, and that it has nothing to say about these matters.)

7. It is mentioned on page 374 of Tarikh Daulat ul-Fatimia by Sayyid Raees Ahmad Ja'fari Nadwi's:
“Imam Uzair designated this mosque as Masjid Jame and constructed Dar ul-Jamaat adjacent to it for the religious jurisprudents, in which they used to congregate after the Noon Prayers and held intellectual discussions till the Asr Prayer. By the order of Imam Uzair, the Vizier, Syedna Yaqoob Ibn Kalas fixed stipends, and founded trusts for the scholars, and good salaries were fixed for them. Assemblies were held on jurisprudence, ethics and morality, which were attended by a large number of students from distant places. Students gathered around the scholars to learn various sciences. The missionaries also taught women separately the interpretation of religion. ln this Masjid, Qadi Abd ul-Aziz Ibn Muhammad Ibn Noman taught his grandfather, Syedna Qadi Noman's book, lkhtilaaf Usool al-Madhahib.”

8. Al-Azhar fi Alf Aam by Muhammad Abd ul-Munim Khafaji. In this book, His Eminence Allamah Jawad Mughniya has used the word ‘Shi’a’ in broad sense, and he did not differentiate between the different branches of Shi’ism. We present below some extracts from the book of Shi’a in Islam, by Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i so that there is no misunderstanding in this regard:
There is a great difference between the different branches of Shi’ism, like Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, and Zaidiyyah. The Ithna Ashariya constitutes the majority of the Shi’as, and all the sub-sects are derived from this main sect. According to Shi’as, the Islamic caliphate – of which spiritual leadership is a part - is the right of the purified imams from the descendants of Imam Ali (‘a). According to their beliefs, the Holy Prophet (S) had clearly declared that the imams shall be twelve. The Ithna Asharis also believe that with regard to Islamic law, the apparent meanings of the holy Qur’an - which encompasses the whole spiritual life of man - are worth acting upon in every age and cannot be changed till Judgment Day. Also, it is necessary to learn about the Islamic law from the Holy Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a).
However, the Zaidiyyah do not agree that imamate is the restricted only to Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a). They also do not limit the number of imams to twelve, and do not act on the Jurisprudence of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a).
The Ismaili Shi’as also do not believe the number of imams to be twelve. In the lsmaili sub-sect, the imamate circles the mystic figure of seven. Also, the Batini lsmailis believe in the hidden interpretation of the Qur’an and they allow changes to the Islamic law.” (Urdu Translation, Pasdaran-e-Islam, Matbua Jame Talimaat-e-Islami.
Dr. Farhad Daftary writes in The Ismailis:
“Till the recent age, the general non-Ismaili circles did not know that Ismailis also have had an independent school of Islamic law. The lsmaili jurisprudence is based on Qadi Noman's Daim ul-Islam. The first volume of Daim ul-Islam deals with the acts of worship, like faith and religious duties, which according to the Ismaili view is based on seven Islamic pillars, like Wilayat, purity, Salaat, Zakat, Fasting, Hajj and Jihad: The second volume deals with laws regarding non-worship practical laws, like those of eating, drinking, dressing, wills, inheritance, marriage, and divorce etc.”

9. After the Fatimid caliph, Mustansir, there was a fight regarding imamate between his two sons, Mustali and Nizar. Mustali came out victorious and Nizar, after his defeat, was taken captive and lodged in a prison where he eventually died. In short, the Ismaili Shi’as became divided into Mustali and Nizari sects. Today they are more famous as the Bohra and Agakhanis respectively.

10. Meaning ‘Come to the good act’.

11. 10th of Muharram.

12. Details about Salahuddin are based on Khutat Maqrizi. Vol. 2 & 3; Al-Azhar fi Alf Am, Part 1; Tarikh Kamil, Vol. 9; Ayan ash-Shi’a Vol. 1, and Tarikhush Shi’a. The authors of Ayan ash-Shi’a have relied on Sunni authors.

13. Maqrizi, al-Khutat, Vol. 3, Pg. 170.

14. He, in the capacity of the Rector of Al-Azhar, issued a fatwa that like the four Sunni schools, the Ja'fari School is also an IsIamic school of thought, and it is correct to follow it.

15. The author most probably was referring to Antarah ibn Shaddad (525-608 AD), a pre-Islamic warrior and poet. [Note of al-Islam.org].

16. Vol. 2, Pg. 224.

17. Please see the following extract from the article by Dr. Aamir Liaqat Husayn, which was published in the 21 March 2008 issue of the newspaper, Jung Karachi:
O the 'Meem' (Arabic letter M) of Muhammad, you are present in 'Mu’min' also and in ‘Muslim’ too. You are found in 'Eimaan ' (faith), and also in 'Islam '. You are seen in 'Masjid', in 'Minar', as well as in 'Mimbar' (pulpit), in 'Mihrab' (prayer niche in a mosque). It can be seen in 'Mashriq' and 'Maghrib' (East and West) and is also there in 'Namaz' (prayer). From the 'Mahfil' (celebration) of 'Milad' (birth) to 'Salaam’ (peace). 'Meem' is there in 'Kaleem' (one who is spoken to), and also in 'Kalam' (discourse). It is found from the beginning of Prophet Adam and to the 'Khatam' (the last Prophet). This 'Meem' has given us 'Qismat' (destiny), 'Hikmat' (wisdom) and the 'Amanat' (trust) of the 'Ghulami' (slavery) of the government. This 'Meem' has increased the status of 'Me’raj' (Ascension) and showed my master, Muhammad (s) the 'Arsh-e-Moalla' (the high heavens) and this same 'Meem' joined the inheritors with 'Maal' (wealth). This 'Meem' has explained the meaning of 'mamta ' (motherly feelings).
We searched for it in the world and found it in the 'Moheet' (surroundings) it is sad, with 'Ma’soomiyat' (infallibility) it is imbued and very less in 'Ma’siyat' (disobedience). The 'Meem' of 'Malik' (God/King) makes 'Makhlooq' (cretures) from 'Mitti ' (clay/dust) and if it goes into 'Maut (death), it carries out the 'Mayyit' (corpse). If the 'Meem ' of 'Aman' (peace) is found in 'Muskaan' (smile), the 'Meem' of 'Makeen' (resident) is found but ('magar ') in 'makaan' (house). It came out from the tongue of the 'Muezzin' and is found in 'Iqamat'. The ‘meem ' came out of ‘Salamat' (safe) and was found in ‘Qiyamat'. The ‘Ma’bood' (God) is ‘Maujood' (present) and in both there is 'Meem'. It rotates around the 'Shams' (Sun) and the 'Qamar' (Moon). The 'Meem' of 'Himayat' (support) made many 'Hamis' (supporters) and it went into 'naam' (name) and earned fame (naam). 'Mudabbir' destiny-maker), 'Mufakkir' (thinker), 'Muballigh' (preacher) are all in need of this 'Meem'. In the ‘mahal’ (palace) the 'Hakim' (rulers) rule with this ‘Meem’. But it is a pity that all those who benefit from the 'Meem' of Muhammad, are not having anything to do with him!
We say with all respect to the doctor that in religious matters nothing is proved by the presence of any alphabet. One can claim that if 'Meem' is present in 'Muslim' it is there in 'Mujrim' (criminal). It is also there in words like 'mauhad' (guilty), 'Mulhid' (apostate), 'Mushrik' (polytheist) etc. If it is present in 'Masjid ' it is also there in 'Mandir' (temple). If it is there in 'Mubarak' (blessed) and 'Mas’ood' (successful), it is also present in 'Mal’oon' (cursed) and 'Manahoos' (unfortunate). 'Meem' is found in 'Zalim' (oppressor) as well as in 'mazloom' (victim). It is there in both 'Mu’min' (believer) and 'Munafiq' (hypocrite). It is there in all the names of Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah. Amr Ibn Aas, Amr Ibn Abd Wudd, Marwan, Haman, Mutawakkil, Ma’moon, Shimr and Ibn Muljim. It also occurs in the names of Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin who have spoken ill of the Prophet. But 'Meem' is not present in words like Allah, Rasool, Qur’an, Ka’aba, Ali, Zahra, Hasan, Husayn, Jannat (Paradise) and Jahannam (Hell). We should know that play of words cannot be used to influence the minds of people and truth cannot be distorted.

The Ottoman Empire

In the 16th century, most Arab countries were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Salim, the 9th sultan of the Ottoman Empire, annexed Hijaz and Egypt, and thereafter Sultan Sulaiman Qanuni conquered the remaining Arab cities. During this period, three big Islamic states were established:

The Ottoman State, being Constantinople as the capital.

The Safavid State, with Tabriz as the capital.

The Mamluk kingdom, whose capital was Cairo.

Shah Ismail Safawi was a Shi’a and Sultan Salim the Ottoman was a Sunni by faith. He obtained a fatwa from some pseudo-ulama that Shi’as were beyond the pale of Islam and should be killed necessarily. On this basis, he exterminated the Shi’as.1

It is written in the first part of Ayan ash-Shi’a: Sultan Salim killed forty to seventy thousand persons in Anaz ul-on account of their being Shi’a. Ibn Sabbagh Maliki writes in Fusul ul-Muhimma:

“Shaykh Nuh Hanafi gave a fatwa that Shi’as were infidels, and it was obligatory to kill them. In pursuance of this fatwa, thousands of Shi’as were killed in Aleppo and those who survived, fled. Consequently, not even a single Shi’a person was left in Aleppo, although since the commencement of Hamadani rule the Shi’a faith had been firmly rooted in Aleppo. Aleppo was at that time the seat of great scholars of jurisprudence like Abu Zahra, Aale Abi Jaradah and others whose names are recorded in the book entitled Amal ul-Amal.

During the Ottoman period the great Shi’a scholar, Muhammad Ibn Makki was martyred. He is more famous as the 'Second Martyr'. His books are still taught in the religious universities of Najaf and Qom.2 Jazzar, the Governor of Akka (near Jebel Amil) repeated the evils of Hajjaj. After killing Shaykh Nasif Nassar, the chief of the cities of Amil, he also arrested and put to death a number of ulama and chiefs including the great scholar Sayyid Hibatuddin Musa, Sayyid Muhammad Ale Shukr, Shaykh Muhammad Usayli, Shaykh Aale Khatun and other jurists and doctors.

It is mentioned in Ayan ash-Shi’a3 that Shaykh Khatun was a great scholar and was well-versed in the science of ancient medicine. Shaykh Khatun was a contemporary of Shaykh Nasif Nassar Waili, the head of the ulama of Jebel Amil. Ahmad Pasha arrested Shaykh Khatun along with the ulama and notables of Jebel Amil, imprisoned them in Akka, subjected him to severe torture, and killed him by pouring molten iron on his head.

Jazzar ransacked the libraries of Jebel Amil. There were five thousand books in the library of Aale Khatun, and for a whole week the public baths of Akka were heated by burning these books. Only those who fled could escape the tyranny of Jazzar. During Jazzar's time, many scholars of Jebel Amil fled away. One of them was a poet named Shaykh Ibrahim Yahya who took refuge in Damascus. He was always distressed on this account and narrated the atrocities of Jazzar. Since he had been an eyewitness to the incidents, he gave a graphic account of those hardships, and his elegies really infuriate those who hear them. One of those elegies, a lengthy one, begins as follows:

“The time that passes consists of joy and sorrow and when a brave man has to suffer loss, it is better for him to be patient. How distressing it is for us to see our city as a place chosen for the revelries of Fir’aun. They have no contact with the organization of justice and there is a large army in their house to commit oppression. Revolution of time intruded upon our affairs and destroyed all splendour of life contrary to expectations. Wherever you cast a glance you see the murdered, the fugitives, the plundered ones, and chained prisoners. Alas! We find so many scholars wounded in different cities by the vicissitudes of time, and the wounds sustained by them are incurable. These scholars have been imprisoned and subjected to great inconvenience and it is a very serious matter that a scholar is not respected. Alas! There are many respectable persons who when it was morning, the oppressors put chains around their necks.”

Talking about such tragic circumstances, Shibli Nomani has said:

Scholars of religion are being made to wear chains

These ornaments are from the inheritance of Sayyid Sajjad. 4

“After witnessing this carnage, the wise became senseless. People became so confused that they lost their reason. Each of their wound is still bleeding. When I saw that oppression had been rampant and there were no prosperous people, I left the land where I was vexed, because it seldom happens that a person should live at a place and remain happy while his neighbour is like a serpent ready to bite. Rulership is for Allah only, but it has fallen into the hands of a criminal who does not distinguish between lawful acts from the unlawful ones. There is a criminal and adulterer, who says that he is a virtuous person. But it is to be regretted that it is not possible to deceive Allah, because He recognizes the criminals, and He is in ambush for such people.”

These verses are a historical proof of the crimes of Jazzar and are beyond any doubt or suspicion. They narrate things, which make one shiver.

The atrocities of the Ottomans were not limited to the Arab cities and to the Shi’as. They ousted Shi’as from all small and large government departments. They restrained the Shi’as from performing their special religious duties and did not allow them to perform their religious acts in Syria and the localities in which their number was small. These hardships continued for four hundred years (1516 -1918 A.D.)

1. Khazri, Al-Bilad ul-Arabiya Wad-Dawlat ul-Uthmaniyah, Pg.400, 1960 Edition.

2. The 'First Martyr' was killed in 786 A.H. during the period of Barquq, the first king of Jaraksah. Burhanuddin Maliki and Ibn Ubbad Ibn Jamaat Shafei had alleged that the Martyr considered lawful the things declared by religion to be unlawful (e.g. drinking of wine). So, he must be executed. He remained imprisoned in the fort of Damascus for a year and was then put to sword and thereafter his body was impaled and burned. (Author)
The magnum opus of the First Martyr is Luma. The Second Martyr, Zainuddin Ibn Nooruddin has written a gloss on Luma called Sharh Luma, which is included the syllabi of all the Shi’a seminaries today.
According to the author of Lau Lau, during the Ottoman rule, the Second Martyr was arrested right opposite the Great Mosque of Mecca, and he was kept as a prisoner in a house in Mecca for forty days. Then he was transferred to Constantinople and put to death. His body lied unburied for three days, and after that it was picked up and cast into the river.
Qadi Noorullah Shushtari, who is known as the Third Martyr, was the chief justice of the kingdom during the Mughal period. Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid Alf Thani) and other fanatical Sunni scholars issued a verdict against the Third Martyr. Among his writings, Majalis ul-Mu’minin and Ahqaq ul-Haqq have earned international renown. Due to his writing, the book of Ahqaq ul-Haqq, approximately forty Sunni ulama issued the fatwa that Qadi Noorullah should be given a hundred lashes, made to drink molten lead, his tongue should be pulled out from behind his head and then he should be beheaded. When he was lashed, he passed away only on the fifteenth strike, and the remaining lashes were delivered to his corpse. After that, a hole was drilled behind his head and his tongue was pulled out. Molten lead was poured on his head due to which the head was burnt, and the brain came out. Later his corpse was thrown on the garbage heap on the outskirts of Agra.

3. Vol. 1, Pg. 4.

4. Referring to Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin.

The Saudi Government And Shi’as

Now we are in the 20th century, the century of democracy. Hajjaj and Jazzar are no longer in power. Today we can convey our opinions to the media, we praise humanitarian groups and condemn those who are not. We are free to adhere to our beliefs. We live in the world of telecommunication and information. Man is undertaking expeditions in space and attaching ladders to the Moon.

Scientists are making their utmost efforts to ensure health and comfort for man so that he may lead his entire life comfortably with regard to his food, his clothing, his shelter and his movement. But the Saudi Government still wishes that the people should lead a nomadic life.

It is interesting to note that the Saudis - like the present-day nomads - rode camels and drank their milk, prepared their clothes from their wool/hair, and made their shoes out of their skins. They sat on the ground in their tents and were faced with thousands of hardships. The Saudis married only their cousins and other girls of their tribe.

Now their life has changed and taken the present shape. Their wealth increased after the petroleum boom. The Saudi elites now live in magnificent Arabian Night palaces, enjoy all sorts of luxuries and travel by huge, air-conditioned cars and aircraft. Every day is a festival for them. In short, a revolution has taken place in the lives of the Saudis. But all these are temporal.

They have not yet forsaken the mentality of nomadism and ignorance. Their intellect and morals, civility, and social intercourse with different tribes and races are the same. There is no change in their outlook. There is a lack of broad-mindedness among them. They are still not having cordial relations with other communities and tribes. And they remain stuck to their ancient attitude.

This statement makes one thing clear and that is the lack of order between the materialism and the spirituality of the Saudi State. There should either be the desert and the camels or civilized life and thinking because separating intellectual civilization from temporal civilization amounts to contradiction. It becomes clear from the following proofs that although the bodies of the Saudis are in Wall Street,1 their thoughts are centred in Rub’al Khali.2

A well-informed friend narrated to me the following surprising facts about Saudi Arabia:

If a Shi’a is the plaintiff, his evidence is not accepted but the evidence given by anybody against a Shi’a is accepted. Thus, a Shi’a has to pay damages but does not receive compensation if his rights are violated. Indeed, the hardship would have been lesser if both the evidence against him and in his favour had not been accepted totally. What is surprising is that they think that Shi’as are liars, and the evidence given by the Shi’as is inadmissible. They make it a condition that the witness should be righteous and when his righteousness is proved, his evidence is also proved, although a nomad may give evidence against a townsman, whereas the Hanbalis say: “The evidence of a nomad against a townsman is not acceptable except when the nomad is a Najdi and the townsman is a non-Najdi.”3 While it is mentioned in traditions that: “Allah has declared that in the organization of the unjust, the evidence of his friends should not be accepted on any account.”

In Saudi Arabia a government Sunni judge is provided, like other judges with a courtroom, salary, carpet and writing materials. However, a Shi’a judge does not get any of these. He retains only the title of 'judge', although in Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and Lebanon, the Sunni and Shi’a judges enjoy equal privileges. This Saudi attitude can only be attributed to bigotry and nomadic thinking.

The best work Saudi Arabia performs is in respect to masjid’s and graveyards and their repairs and maintenance, on which the State spends large amounts of money. However, this is only for Sunni masjid’s. The masjid’s and graveyards of Shi’as do not get any such monetary benefit, although masjid’s and graveyards are undoubtedly for Allah, the Qur’an, and Islam. Would that the Saudi government had not rendered assistance, but at the same time not destroy the graveyards of Ahsa and the al-Matira Masjid?

The Shi’as had obtained a formal permission from the governor of Ibn Jaludi district and from the municipal committee to construct the masjid and constructed it on their own expense. But the Saudi Authority cancelled the permission, and after the masjid was constructed, they announced: “Allah will build a palace in Paradise for one who removes a single brick of the masjid!” Hearing this, the over-zealous 'believers' arrived with spades and shovels and razed the masjid in a just few moments.

(4) The Saudi Government does not allow import of books written by Shi’as although they deal with religious, historical, literary, philosophical, and other similar subjects, and do not have the least connection with Saudi politics. Also, the Shi’a authors of Saudi Arabia are given vile treatment by the government. Their only offence is that they love the descendants of the prophet of Allah, and that they do so in compliance with the command of Allah.

There is no denying the fact that restraining a nation from acquiring education results in the restriction of its spiritual life. It is for this reason that most governments and universities publish books in various languages and attach special importance to this task. They also sponsor students and send them to distant places to acquire knowledge. It is shameful that the Israeli Hadasa Printing Press publishes these books in Arabic, whereas the Saudi Government prohibits it.

The Holy Prophet said: “Acquire knowledge even if it is found in China.”

Imam Ali (‘a) says: “The most learned person is he who increases the knowledge of others with his own knowledge.”

The Jews and others like them act upon this Islamic and human reality whereas the people who say that knowledge is restricted to the desert of Najd and especially to the Wahhabis - and more specifically - to their fanatic chiefs, consider all others to be infidels and only themselves to be true believers. This matter becomes clear by the incident of Ibrahim Pasha and the Wahhabi chiefs at the time of their entry into the city of Darayyah. This incident will be narrated soon.

Even if we suppose that knowledge is restricted to the desert areas and especially to the desert of Najd, why should religious books - dealing with Islam - be banned, while the entry of the books published by the colonialists be permitted? Why should obscene books be available behind the Saudi shop windows, whereas the books and periodicals of mujtahids be banned?

Why are those books that teach the people anarchy, mischief, and infidelity - preventing them from understanding the needs of life and from achieving perfection – be allowed entry into Saudi Arabia? The Saudi Government granted complete freedom to the magazine Rayat ul-Islam to abuse the imams of Muslims and descendants of the Holy Prophet. Why has it published a verdict that shedding blood of Shi’as is permissible? Why do they instigate people to oppress Shi’a Muslims, while they believe in Allah, His Prophet, and the Judgment Day?

On the other hand, why does the Saudi Government ban the entry of Al-Irfan magazine, which has been campaigning against colonialism and corruption for the last 50 years4, when it has done great service to the nation, the Muslims, and the Arabic language? This magazine has remained neutral between East and West, and its contents and policies have always been based on reason. Al-Irfan supports the independence of Palestine and Algeria.5 It rekindled the spirit of freedom amongst the people. It is widely circulated in Cuba, Congo, Laos, and Angola, but its entry into Saudi Arabia is prohibited.

Is it not a matter of shame that the Shi’as of Bahrain are treated by the British there a thousand times better than Shi’as of Ahsa and Qatif are by Saudis? Is not a shame for Islam that the Shi’as of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia should be treated differently? Are the Shi’as of Ahsa and Qatif not entitled to demand that they may also be granted the freedom to perform their religious duties like the Shi’as of Bahrain are?

Is it not a matter of shame that Shi’as are not be entitled to construct their masjids and graveyards and should not be allowed to read the books and periodicals of their choice? I have said this and cursed the colonial rulers of the East and the West and their agents. I also curse those who have obliged me to say these things.

The descendants of Saud rule in the name of Islam6 and they have written: La ilaha illa Allah Muhammadun Rasulullah7 on their national flag in bold letters. However, their behaviour towards the Shi’as contradicts Islamic teachings.8

Though the Shi’as of Lebanon, Iraq, Iran etc are aware of the matter, they have chosen to feign ignorance and they think that there are no Shi’as at all in Saudi Arabia. Of course, we should bring these to the attention of the people of the East and West and tell them how the Saudi regime has adopted discriminative policies against our brothers in faith.

What has astonished us more is that the Wahhabis follow Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and the sayings of Muhammad Ibn Abd ul-Wahhab, and the latter says that the pillars of Islam are five: First, to acknowledge that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His Messenger. Second, prayers. Third, fasting in Ramadan. Fourth, hajj and fifth, zakat.

These pillars are the same which Shi’as believe. The Imamiyah scholars also say that: one who abandons the performance any of these five - while believing that it is allowed to omit them - is an infidel and one who neglects - or lazy about these things - is a sinner. And one who persists in this attitude and does not repent is liable for execution.

The author of Al-Mughni9 writes:

One of the beliefs of the Khawarij is that they consider many companions of the prophet and companions of companions to be infidels. They consider killing them and usurping their property to be lawful and believe that as a result of killing them they acquire proximity to Allah. Despite these beliefs of theirs, jurists do not consider them to be infidels, because it is argued that they performed ijtihad in what they say. On this basis, they are like those who consider Shi’as to be infidels and similar to the Khawarij who consider some companions and companions of companions to be infidels and hold that their killing is lawful for the pleasure of Allah, and that though they are not infidels, they have certainly erred.

Muhammad Ibn Abd ul-Wahhab and Ibn Taimmiyyah were also accused of heresy. Ibn Taimmiyyah was imprisoned on account of his beliefs, and he died in prison.

Ahl Al-Sunna have said before, and they still say that the Wahhabi cult is heretical and has no connection with Islam.

The views of Ibn Taimiyyah are contrary to those of the scholars of the salaf,10 the pre-khalaf 11 and post-khalaf after the fifth century, although he claimed himself to be the trustee of the Salaf-e-Saliheen. The ulama of Ahlus-Sunnh had rebutted the views of Ibn Taimiyyah and pronounced him to be an infidel. Wahhabism is based on the views of Ibn Taimiyyah and its followers are busy only in propagating his ideas.

In the present age, the Saudi Government is in the forefront in spreading the ideology of Ibn Taimiyyah and spends millions of Riyals every year for this goal.

Ibrahim Pasha

Like Shi’as, Wahhabis have also suffered persecutions because of their beliefs. They have also been killed. Pierre Kirbitis writes in his book, Ibrahim Pasha12:

When Ibrahim Pasha defeated the Saudis, conquered their cities, and arrived in their capital Dariyah, all Saudi commanders surrendered to him. He summoned the Wahhabi ulama - about 500 of them - and said to them: A delegation from among you will accompany me to Cairo and hold discussions with Sunni scholars to clarify the differences between your beliefs and those of the Sunnis.

As ordered by Ibrahim, representatives of the two groups held discussions for three days and brought to light the differences between the two schools. During these three days, Ibrahim sat quietly and did not even go to sleep.

On the fourth day he brought the discussion to an end and asked the head of the Wahhabis: Do you believe that Allah is One and the true faith is one and that your faith is the only true one?

The Shaykh replied in the affirmative.

Pasha said: You swine! What is your belief about Paradise and its breadth?

The Shaykh replied: It is like the breadth of the sky and the earth, and it has been made ready for the virtuous.

Ibrahim said: If Paradise is so spacious, you and your followers will stay under the shade of one tree, then what is the remaining area for, and why has Allah created such a big Paradise?

The Shaykh and his followers cast down their heads in defeat. Ibrahim Pasha ordered his soldiers to cut off their heads.

Followers of different religions pursue their religious obligations every time and in every place till an impediment emerges, and they have a special entity in the governmental organization. However, such a position does not exist in the Saudi Government because contrary to the expectations of Shi’as - who do not interfere with the affairs of the people and the policies of the State - they are prohibited from performing many of their religious rites.

We all know that the policy of hatred, intrigue, and bloodshed is about to end, and the Sun of freedom of opinion and faith is about to rise. Indeed, only that government, which is anxious for the well-being, security, and comfort of all the citizens of the State will survive.

Someone has truly said that a illegitimate government is temporary whereas a true government lasts forever.

1. In New York.

2. The Rub’al Khali is the sand desert encompassing most of the southern third of the Arabian Peninsula. The desert covers an area of some 650,000 square kilometers. [Note of al-Islam.org]

3. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal says: I am afraid of the fact that the testimony of a Bedouin should not be accepted against a villager. (Mizan Ash-Sherani, Chapter of Witnessing, Al-Mughni, Vol. 9, Pg. 67. Al-Mughni is a reliable book of the Hanbalis).

4. It is now a hundred years.

5. It was during the war of Algerian independence. After the Algerian independence from France in 1962, Ahmed Ben Bella became the first Prime Minister of Algeria. Alas, Palestine has still not gained independence from the clutches of the Jews, and it is attacked everyday by Israel. But the Intifada movement of brave Palestinians still continues.

6. In order to propagate Wahhabism, they are sending millions of Riyals as donation and free Wahhabi literature to various Islamic organizations, mosques and madrasa’s all over the world.

7. Meaning: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.

8. Ridha’ Aslan, the author of No God but God writes in the chapter of ''An Awakening in the East”:
The facts of the alliance between Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab have given way to legend. The two men first met as Abd al-Wahhab and his disciples were tearing through the Arabian Peninsula, demolishing tombs, cutting down sacred trees, and massacring any Muslim who did not accept their uncompromising, puritanical vision of Islam. They were expelled from an oasis where they had received shelter. The horrified villagers demanded that Abd alWahhab leave after he publicly stoned a woman to death. They later made their way towards the oasis of Dariyah. Its Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Saud, who was more than happy to give Abd al-Wahhab and his ‘holy warriors’ his unconditional protection.
“This oasis is yours,” Ibn Saud promised; “do not fear your enemies.”
Abd al-Wahhab replied with an unusual demand. “I want you to grant me an oath,” he said, “that you will perform jihad against the unbelievers (non-Wahhabi Muslims). In return you will be the leader of the Muslim community, and I will be the leader in religious matters.”
Ibn Saud agreed. And an alliance was formed that would not only alter the course of the Islamic history but would also change the geopolitical balance of the world. Abd al-Wahhab's ‘holy warriors’ burst into the Hijaz, conquering Mecca and Medina, and expelling the Sharif. Once established in the holy cities, they set about destroying the tombs of the prophet and his companions, including those pilgrimage sites that marked the birthplace of Muhammad and his family. They sacked the treasury of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina and set fire to every book they could find, save the Qur’an. They banned music and flowers from the sacred cities and outlawed tobacco smoking and drinking of coffee. With death penalty, they forced the men to grow beards and the women to be veiled and secluded.
The Wahhabis deliberately connected their movement with the first extremists in the Muslim world, the Kharijites, and like their fanatical predecessors, they focused their wrath inward against what they considered to be the failings of the Muslim community. Thus, with Hijaz firmly under their control, they marched north to spread the message to the Sufi and Shi’ite ‘infidels’. In 1802, on the holy day of ‘Ashura, they scaled the walls of Karbala and massacred two thousand Shi’ite worshippers as the latter were commemorating Muharram. In an uncontrolled rage, they smashed the tombs of Ali, Husayn, and the imams, giving particular vent to their anger at the tomb of the prophet's daughter, Fatimah. With Karbala sacked, the Wahhabis turned north toward Mesopotamia and the heart of the Ottoman Empire. Only then did they get the attention of the Caliph.
In 1818, the Egyptian Khedive, Muhammad Ali (1769-1849), at the behest of the Ottoman Caliph, sent a massive contingent of heavily armed soldiers into the Peninsula. The Egyptian army easily overwhelmed the ill-equipped and poorly trained Wahhabis. Mecca and Medina were once again placed under the care of the Sharif and the Wahhabis were forcefully sent back into the Najd. By the time the Egyptian troops withdrew, the Saudis had learned a valuable lesson: they could not take on the Ottoman Empire on their own. They needed a far stronger alliance than the one they had with the Wahhabis.
The opportunity to form just such an alliance presented itself with the Anglo-Saudi Treaty in 1915. The British, who were eager to control the Persian Gulf, encouraged the Saudis to recapture the Arabian Peninsula from Ottoman control. To assist them in their rebellion, the British provided regular shipments of weapons and money. Under the command of Ibn Saud's heir, Abd al-Aziz (1880-1953), the plan worked.
At the close of the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire had been dismantled and the caliphate abolished, Ibn Saud reconquered Mecca and Medina and once again expelled the Sharif. After publicly executing forty thousand men and reimposing Wahhabism over the entire population, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud renamed the Arabian Peninsula “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”. The primitive tribe of the Najd and their fundamentalist allies had become the ‘Wardens of the Sanctuary, the Keepers of the Keys’.
Almost immediately, the sacred land where Muhammad had received the gift of revelation miraculously burst forth with another gift from God. With abundant petroleum reserves, the tiny Saudi clan suddenly gained dominion over the world economy. They now felt it was up to them to respond to this blessing from God by spreading their puritanical doctrine to the rest of the world and purging the Muslim faith once and for all of its religious and ethnic diversity.
The Muslim Brothers arrived in Saudi Arabia at an opportune time. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remained the sole Muslim country in which the ulama had not lost their grip over the society. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia was both an utterly totalitarian an uncompromisingly Wahhabist state. Here there was no debate whatsoever between the modernists and the Islamists. Nationalism, Pan-Arabism Pan-Islamism, Islamic socialism - none of these vibrant and influential movements in the Muslim world had a significant voice in the Saudi kingdom. The only doctrine that was tolerated was the Wahhabi doctrine; the only ideology is Islamic fundamentalism. Any deviation was violently suppressed.
Hoping to curb Nasser's growing influence in the Muslim world, the Saudi monarchy opened its arms to the radicalized Muslim Brotherhood, not just to those who had been exiled from Egypt, but also those from other secular Arab states like Syria and Iraq. The Saudis offered all the money, support, and security that the group needed to fight back against secular nationalism in their home countries. But the Muslim Brothers discovered more than mere shelter in Saudi Arabia. They discovered Wahhabism; and they were not alone. Hundreds of thousands of poor workers from all over the Muslim world began pouring into Saudi Arabia to work the oil fields. By the time they returned to their homes, they were fully indoctrinated in Saudi religiosity.
In the fall of 1996, a group of ethnic Pashtun religious students from the poorest, most conservative, and the least literate provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan rolled uncontested into Kabul, hoisting their trademark white flag representing purity. The students stormed the United Nations compound where the Afghanistan's president was hiding, dragged him into the streets, pummelled him to death, and, at dawn, hung his bloated body from a lamp post. In this way, the Taliban made its fearsome presence known to the world.
The Taliban first entered the global stage, along with a massive contingent of Muslim militants - known as the Mujahidin (or ‘those who wage jihad’) from the Middle East, Far East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa, and East Africa, who, from 1982 to 1992 were recruited and armed by the CIA to take part in a jihadist insurrection against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. With Saudi funding, the Mujahidin were sent to Pakistan, where, with the assistance of Zia alHaq's fundamentalist regime, they were trained in terror tactics and indoctrinated with a militant combination of Shah Waliyyullah's religiopolitical ideology and Wahhabism’s radical puritanism, all under the supervision of the then CIA chief William Casey.
The United States had long considered Wahhabism to be an important ally in the 'great game” being played out against ‘godless communism’. In fact, to solidify Saudi support, the United States encouraged wealthy Saudis with intimate ties to the government and royal family, like Osama Ibn Laden, to finance and oversee the insurrection in Afghanistan. Called ‘freedom fighters’ by the CIA, and compared to America's founding fathers by President Ronald Reagan, the combined force of the foreign Mujahidin fighters and the Afghani and Pakistani religious students forced the Soviet army to pull out of Afghanistan. They also ushered in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
Their mission in Afghanistan accomplished, the triumphant Mujahidin took their Pakistani training, their Saudi fundamentalism, and their American weapons back to their home countries in order to launch their own jihad in places like Palestine, Chechnya, Morocco, and Indonesia. The Taliban returned to their homes in the Pashtun regions near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to continue their religious education. And Afghanistan, abandoned by a United States flushed with victory in the Cold War, was left in the hands of lawless warlords who ran the country like competing Mafia gangs -killing, torturing, and raping indiscriminately in their quest for control.
In 1992, when the Taliban decided to reunite under the leadership of their spiritual teacher, Mullah Omar, and retake Afghanistan, this time from the hands of the feuding warlords, they were again supported by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. With the assistance of Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence Agency), the Taliban secured their home region of Kandahar in 1993. Two years later, they captured the Shi'ite city of Herat, and by 1996 they controlled the capital city of Kabul. With more than three fourths of the country under their control, they then began a now infamous Wahhabization process throughout Afghanistan. All religious sites – Muslims’ and non-Muslims’ alike - were destroyed (like the Bamiyan and Mazar Sharif etc.). Tobacco and coffee were outlawed. Men were compelled to grow beards and women were forced into seclusion. The country's substantial Shi'ite and Sufi populations were massacred.

9. Vol. 8, Pg. 132.

10. The term ‘Salaf’ refers to the earliest few generations of the Muslims [note of al-Islam.org].

11. Khalaf refers to the later generations that continued with the practices [note of al-Islam.org].

12. Pg. 40, 1937 Edition.

Shi’as And Colonialism

We always ask one another: Why do Islamic countries lag behind other nations in the race for progress? What is the secret for advancement of America and Europe in the field of science and technology? We also ask why is it that among all the Arab countries, Saudi Arabia lags behind in science and knowledge?

We wonder all the more at its backwardness when we see that this country achieved independence earlier than other countries in this region and enjoys large number of Hajj pilgrim visitors every year. We cannot believe when we hear the Hajj pilgrims narrate that hungry and naked persons pursue them at every step.

Why should we believe them? What happened to the oil wells that overflow in Dahran, Fawaz, Safainah and Rub’al Khali? Where goes the large wealth gained from Hajj pilgrims from all over the world? However, when we go through the 5th issue of Rayat ul-Islam, dated 15th Rabi’ ul-Awwal, 1380 A.H. we cease to wonder because if you know the cause of something, you are not surprised about it anymore. This magazine, published in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia has made the cause clear.

Indeed, some religious persons and journalists, who are the worst animals in the eye of Allah, can be seen in Saudi Arabia. Instead of improving the pitiable conditions of the millions of people living in a state of ignorance, poor health, and hunger, and instead of meeting the needs of the helpless inhabitants of Najd and Hijaz - who are exposed to the rigours of summer and winter - they make a show of the wealth of Saudi Arabs, who construct, amidst the nomadic huts of the nation, skyscrapers resembling those in Versailles and Kremlin.

In this issue of Rayat ul-Islam, an article by Ibrahim Jabhan was published. In that article, he has pronounced Islamic sects to be heretical. He also attacked the leaders of religious sects and Mujahideen.1 But he did not take the trouble to ask the government where the billions of dollars earned from black gold (oil) have gone to. Why do the Rockefeller brothers exercise so much influence in Saudi Arabia? Why are all the profits of oil deposited in the accounts of Wall Street, while the poor of the country are in greater need?

Jabhan has severely condemned the Rector of al-Azhar University, Shaykh Mahmood Shaltut, and mentioned unbecoming words about the religious leaders of Muslims. We reproduce below some of his slanderous remarks and propose to refute them.

Jabhan says: The difference between us and the Shi’as is about the principles of faith and this difference is the root of all differences.

Thus, the writer formally admits that he does not believe in Allah, the prophet and the Judgment Day, because these are fundamentals of Shi’a faith: i.e. Tawhid (monotheism), Risalat (prophethood) and Qiyamat (Judgment Day). These principles have been published in thousands of Shi’a books and this belief is announced from the top of the minarets of Shi’a masjids by saying: “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger”.

It is no wonder that Jabhan is disgusted with this belief because his predecessors who thought like him hated Imam Ali (‘a) and condemned his beliefs, although his beliefs and religion were the same as those of his cousin, Muhammad, the seal of the prophets. Shi’as are real Muslims and believe Allah the Mighty and Sublime to be free from every defect.

They do not subscribe to certain beliefs held by some sects of Muslims whom the Wahhabis consider to be the leaders of the Muslims. For instance, Shi’as do not say any of these:

“None of the acts of Allah is indecent (not even injustice) and He can throw the prophets into Hell and send the polytheists to Paradise.”

“The length of Allah is equal to seven spans of His own.”

“Allah is made of flesh and blood.”

“Allah wept so much on account of Nuh's Deluge that His eyes were injured, and the angels went to inquire about His health.”

“Allah is like a handsome child. On Friday nights He mounts a donkey and arrives on Earth and shouts from above the rooftops: Is there anyone who wants to repent?”2

Shi’as also do not ascribe things to the Holy Prophet which are against contrary to the position and greatness of his prophethood. For example, that he continued to sleep till the time for his prayers lapsed, and that he made mistakes while offering prayers, or watched some Bedouins dancing, or listened to songs.3

Jabhan writes: “The Islam which Shi’as profess is nothing but an initiation of the deceptive Jews.”4

Yes! In Jabhan's view, Shi’as are bad because they have not surrendered the lands to America, the real master of Israel and which brought it into existence. He dislikes the Shi’as because they do not provide funds and weapons to the Jews to massacre Muslims and oppress Palestine.5 Shi’as do not give their land under the control of America so that they may establish a secret military base to support Israel. Shi’as did not fight against Algeria in collaboration with France.

Jabhan writes: If we stand in need for political unity so that we may overthrow political colonialism, this aim does not necessitate that we place ourselves in the strait of religious colonialism and consider religion to be the means of unification, because the gaps can be filled in only when there are people by our side who share our objects and afflictions and persevere.

The only object of Jabhan is to obey the orders of the Aramco Oil Company and he wishes that all Muslim nations from the east to the west should obey this company. Anyone who does not obey the orders of this company is expelled from the pale of Islam. If the object of the writer is not submission to Aramco, on what account has he accused the Shi’as of being infidels and heretics?

Did not the Shi’as fight against the colonial British in Iraq in 1920, and were not thousands of them killed? Did they not campaign against the French in Lebanon and consequently their houses were transformed into ruins? Did they not rise as one man against the attack on Port Said in 1956, and were not a number of them belonging to Najaf Ashraf etc. killed?6

History bears witness to the fact that the Shi’as have always fought against crime, injustice, and despotism, and their literature and verses are replete with instances of campaigns against colonialism and despotism. Their books on jurisprudence and principles of faith have declared campaigns against the tyrants and the despotic rulers to be obligatory.

Of course, the Shi’as do not hold the same belief as that held by Jabhan and those in charge of Rayat ul-Islam magazine, who say: No matter how unjust the governors and the rulers may be, it is not permissible to rebel against them.7

Jabhan addresses Shaykh Shaltut, the Rector of al-Azhar University saying: Fear Allah and do not expose yourself and the Islamic countries to danger...for falsehood cannot be fought against with falsehood, and that religious hypocrisy cannot be eliminated by means of political hypocrisy.

According to Jabhan, Shaykh Shaltut is a liar and a hypocrite. His offence is that he has initiated the nation to fraternity and unity, so that Muslims may form a united front against colonial powers and manipulative businesses and protect their economy. Yet, he himself is a true believer while his goal is to destroy the strength and divide the Muslims so that the ground may be prepared for the expansion of Marxism or Zionism and that they will bring the Arab (and Muslim) countries under their sway.

The object of Shaykh Shaltut is to bring Muslims closer to one another, and to achieve this end he had included the study of Shi’a jurisprudence in the syllabus of the AlAzhar University. He did not do this for the sake of the Shi’as or to propagate the Shi’a faith. Nor did he do this to attract the attention of Najaf or to develop friendship with the ulamas there. He did this for al-Azhar, Islam, and the Muslims.

Shaykh Shaltut took this decision because he possessed religious zeal and was sincere to the Muslims. However, Jabhan has spoken for the sake of Dollars and to sell the Islamic countries (and has cunningly adopted the method of creating religious differences). May Allah curse the hypocrites!

Jabhan writes: ''A man like Sadiq, the liar of the Shi’as, and one who follows his methods and pays attention to him or considers to be correct all or some of the foolish narrations ascribed to Sadiq, the liar of the Shi’as, becomes an infidel and it is obligatory to curse and persecute him.

O Lord! Subject to Your curses and wrath the infidels who have become so impudent as to take liberties with Your saints and the supporters of the religion and progeny of Your Prophet and ascribe falsehood to them.

O Lord! Subject to Your wrath the Aramco Company, the Zionist group, the colonial rulers and their supporters.

If Jabhan calls Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq a liar (God forbid) there is nothing surprising about it, because previously the great prophet of Islam was also accused falsely.

The Holy Prophet used to ask the people of Mecca: “Say: There is no god but Allah, so that you may achieve salvation.” Abu Lahab however threw stones at him and said: “Do not give ear to his words; he is a liar.”

Our time is like the time of the Holy Prophet, and Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq is like his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S), and Jabhan is like Abu Lahab. Of course, the Almighty Allah has announced in the holy Qur’an:

“(O Prophet!) And if they reject you, so indeed were rejected before you messengers who came with clear arguments and scriptures and the illuminating book” (3:184).

Imam Ja'far Sadiq disseminated the interpretations of the holy Qur’an and the traditions of his grandfather with logical reasoning and proof. However, those who are the enemies of Allah and the holy Qur’an say about him the same things, which they said about his grandfather.

Ibn Hajar writes in As-Sawaiq ul-Muhriqa:

The people quoted so many doctrinal matters from Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq that the caravan of knowledge carried them from place to place and these branches of learning became well-known in all the cities.

Shahristani writes in his book, Al-Milal wan Nihal: Imam Ja'far Sadiq possessed vast knowledge in the fields of religion, literature, philosophy and piety.

Abu Hanifa was asked: Who is the greatest jurist? He replied: Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a).

Traditions quoted about the excellence, greatness and knowledge of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq and the services rendered by him are too many to be counted. His only offence in the eyes of the enemies of Allah and His prophet is that his knowledge was based on the holy Qur’an, and he always discussed matters relating to Islam. Hence, attacking him means attacking the holy Qur’an and refuting him amounts to refuting Islam.

At the end of his article, Jabhan writes: ''The Wahhabi Ulama should know that they can perform the Islamic mission only when they have removed the traits which bring them near to Islam.”

These lines inform us the secret intention of this dangerous writer. He wishes that the small number of Shi’as who have survived in Hijaz and Qatif should be eliminated. Hence, it is incumbent upon every Muslim, especially upon the Shi’a Ulama, especially upon the honourable scholars of Najaf and Iran, to express their serious objections against this article, by whatever means possible, and protest against the management of the magazine and those who have allowed them to publish this article.

They should call them to account as to why they allowed the publication of such venomous material. They should thus forestall the virulence of colonial Zionism and the plots of Marxism and Aramco, which are spreading falsehood and dissensions in the name of faith and Islam.

I wrote to the scholars of Najaf and Qom and apprised them of the position and they, no doubt, realized its significance and performed their duty.

The ulama of Jebel Amil, in turn, wrote letters of protest to King Saud and also visited the Saudi Embassy in Beirut and expressed their resentment in the dailies and religious meetings.

This expression of aversion should continue till the respective Saudi authorities restrain the hands of the transgressors and take necessary steps to prevent the evil consequences of such acts. However, there is no denying the fact that Allah is with the righteous.

1. Fighters in holy wars.

2. A Wahhabi scholar asked me as to wherefrom I had quoted these words. When I informed him as to the source he said: “Although the writer of this book is a Sunni, he is not a Wahhabi and a Hanbali, we do not rely on him.” I was, therefore, obliged to find out some other evidence. I then saw the above sentences in the book Risalat ul-Aqidat ul-Wasatiyah by Ibn Taymiyyah who is considered by the Wahhabis to be worthy of attention. He writes:
“Every night, when a part of it has passed, Our Lord comes and says: “Is there anyone who may make a request to Me so that I may grant his request? Is there anyone who may ask Me a question so that I may give him a reply? Is there anyone who may seek forgiveness so that l may forgive him.” Then Ibn Taymiyah writes: “This has, been agreed to unanimously.”
In the same book he also writes:
“People will be thrown into Hell continuously and Hell will say: “This is not sufficient. Throw more.” Then Allah will put His leg into the Hell and the Hell will say: “That will do. That will do.” Then he writes: “This has been agreed to unanimously.” (Author)

3. The position of the Messenger of Allah (S) is far higher than what we see in the most authentic history and hadith books of Ahl al-Sunna. These same calumnies are arrows in the quiver of the enemies of Islam that they continue to throw every now and then and keep on insulting Islam and the prophet. Some examples of calumnies are as follows:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The prophet led us in the Zuhr prayer, offering only two raka’ats and then (ended it) with taslim, and went to a piece of wood in front of the mosque and placed his hand over it. Abu Bakr and Umar were also present among the people on that day but dared not talk to him (about his incomplete prayer). And the hasty people went away, wondering whether the prayer has been shortened. Among the people, there was a man whom the prophet used to call Dhul-Yadain (the long-armed). He said, “O Allah's Prophet! Have you forgotten or has the prayer been shortened?” The Prophet said, “Neither have I forgotten, nor has it been shortened.” They (the people) said, “Surely, you have forgotten, O Allah 's Apostle!” The Prophet said, “Dhul-Yadain has told the truth.”
Narrated Hisham: The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur’an in the mosque and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such and such verses of such surah, which I missed (modifying the verses).
(Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Fadhail al-Qur’an, Chap 33, Vol. 2, Pg. 193, published Bulaq, Egypt; Sahih Muslim, Kitab Salat ul-Musafireen, Baab al-Amr bi-Tahud ul-Qur’an)
It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, KitAbu al-Idain and Sahih Muslim, Kitab Salat ul-Idain that Aisha says: It was the day of Eid, and the black people were playing with shields and spears; so, either I requested the Prophet (S), or he asked me whether I would like to watch the show. I replied in the affirmative. Then the Prophet (S) made me stand behind him and my cheek was touching his cheek and he was saying, “Carry on! O Bani Arfida,” till I got tired. The Prophet (S) asked me, “Are you satisfied (is that sufficient for you)?” I replied in the affirmative and he told me to leave.
Narrated Ar-Rabi the daughter of Muawwidh Ibn Afra: After the consummation of my marriage, the Prophet came and sat on my bed as far from me as you are sitting now, and our little girls started beating the tambourines and reciting elegiac verses mourning my father who had been killed in the battle of Badr. One of them said, “Among us is a prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow.” On that the prophet said: “Leave this (saying) and keep on saying the verses which you had been saying before.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Kitabun Nikah, Baab Zarab Daff)
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: One day when Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail passed by the Holy Prophet (S) and Zaid Ibn Haritha, the two of them were eating food. They invited Zaid also. Zaid said: O nephew, I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah’s name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering.” Saeed says that after that the Holy Prophet (S) was never seen eating from that which had been sacrificed for the idols. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. I, Tr. No. 1648; Majma az-Zawaid, Vol. 9, Pg. 417; Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Az-Zabahe, Baab Maa Zibha Alan Nasab was Asnaam, Vol. 3)
Previously scholars used to read such calumnies, but now these things have come out from the pages of Sahih Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Majma az-Zawaid, Seerah Ibn Hisham and Seerah Ibn Ishaq and presented in Ridha’ Aslan's book, No God but God, which is published in various languages and circulated all over the world and even laymen are reading such things:
It was, the chroniclers say, “one of the hot days of Mecca” when Muhammad and his childhood friend Ibn Haritha were returning from Taif, Muhammad accepted this explanation without comment and opened his bag of sacrificed meat. “Eat some of this food, O my uncle'', he said. But Zayd reacted with disgust, “Nephew, this is a part of those sacrifices of yours which you offer to your idols, is it not?” Muhammad answered that it was. Zayd became indignant. “I never eat of this sacrificial meat and I want nothing to do with them,” he cried: “I am not one to eat anything slaughtered for a deity other than God.”
The notion that a young pagan Muhammad could have been scolded for his idolatry by a hanif flies in the face of traditional Muslim views regarding the Prophet's perpetual monotheistic integrity'. (Page 16).

4. Shaykh Abd ul-Qadir Gilani (470-561 A.H.), the follower of Shaykh Junaid Baghdadi in Gnosticism and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in jurisprudence, is also knovm as Ghaus ul-Aazam and Peeraane-e-Peer. He writes in his book, Ghaniyyatut Talibeen:
“Shobi says that whoever loved Rawafid (Shi’as) loved the Jews because the Jews believe that imamate is restricted only to the Progeny of Dawood and the Rawafid say that imamate is peculiar only to the descendants of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a). The Jews believe that jihad is prohibited till the advent of Masih Dajjal and the Rawafid also say that jihad is prohibited till there is a call from the sky announcing the advent of Mahdi.”

5. Because in 2007, Shi’as under the leadership of Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah inflicted a stunning defeat to Israel and won over the masses in the Islamic world and made them fearless of America and its ward, Israel, and gave confidence to the Palestinians?

6. Did not the Shi’a scholars and public participate in the campaign against the British and in the formation of India and Pakistan?

7. Al-Mazahab al-Islamiyyah from Abu Hurairah, Pg 155, 1st Edition.

The Sufyani Book

Cairo - more than 30,000 scholars and students of theology discuss and memorize the holy Qur’an and the traditions of the Holy Prophet at the Al-Azhar University. From there, its scholars go to other countries and cities and invite people to the truth, the advancement of Islam and the unity of Muslims.

In Cairo, the scholars have protected the people from devilish acts against the religion and the country, and make efforts for their unity and close relationship, and call upon them to be honest and obedient to the government.

Cairo is the centre of the Arab population and considers itself to be the guardian of the Arabs and the Arab cities, and endeavours to ensure that every Arab should benefit from the spiritual and material strength of those speaking the same language.

In Cairo, Asian and African nations hold meetings against military bases and aggressive pacts and take pains to eliminate racial differences and tribal prejudices. In Cairo they meet to find out ways and means to fight against what is opposed to freedom and the freedom movements in Islamic countries.

ln this very Cairo, a book entitled, Abu Sufyan Shaykh alUmwiyyin was published after the occupation of Palestine by Israel and the invasion of Port Said.

Orientalists And Colonial Ambitions

The colonial rulers were not content with looting wealth and provisions, sucking the blood of the nations, monopolizing markets, killing nationalist sentiment, and destroying the willpower to defend national heritage. They have attacked all that is sacred in Islam, obstructed our faith and beliefs, and presented our history and culture as defective.

The path was trodden by those treacherous persons who received training in the school of cunning and deceit and undertook numerous efforts in drawing plans, plots and designs against various nations.

The imperial powers have decided that before doing anything else they should stigmatize Islam and its history. They have decided to cast aspersions on the Qur’an, the Holy Prophet, and the imams who are the fortress of the independence, freedom, and greatness of the Muslims.

The first step they have taken in this regard is that they sent to the East certain individuals called 'orientalists' and allocate special funds to them. They are sent ostensibly to study the language, history, and culture of the Arabs. In fact, these titles are meant to lull the nation to sleep, and their real object was to criticize and denounce Islam and to place the nations in disagreement with each other by creating hatred through their inauspicious and inhuman plans.

Orientalists have carried out this great mission with a sincerity of purpose. They published hundreds of voluminous books and commented on the holy Qur’an. They explained the verses of the holy Qur’an claiming that what they have said was based on scientific research and free discussions. These orientalists have expressed their views on all aspects of the holy Qur’an and have gone so far as to explain Huroof Muqattaaat.1

They are of the view that Huroof Muqattaaat are codes to the names of some companions of the prophet who had the holy Qur’an with them. For example, ‘meem’ (M) in the phrase ‘Alif Lam Meem’ refer to Mughaira Ibn Sho’ba and the letter ‘seen’ (S) in the phrase ‘Yaa Seen’ (S) refers to Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas and the letter ‘Ha’ (H) in the phrase ‘Kaaf Ha Ya Ain Saad’ refers to (Abu) Huraira and the letter ‘Noon’ (N) in Surah Noon refers to Uthman and these persons had learnt the holy Qur’an by heart.

The orientalists say that the Holy Prophet used to compel the people to accept Islam,2 as mentioned in Surah Yunus:

“…will you then force men till they become believers?” (10:99).

They say that the Holy Prophet forcibly acquired Zainab Ibnt Jahash, the wife of his slave, Zaid!

They also say (God forbid) that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was misguided because Allah says in the holy Qur’an:

“Did He not find thee wandering and direct (thee)?” (93:7).

In this verse the orientalists have translated the word 'Dhallan' as being misled, although it actually means 'being astonished’.

In short, the orientalists have imputed these absurd meanings to Islam and unsuccessfully tried to defame it.3 How ridiculous that the enemies of Islam (and of the Holy Prophet) who are ignorant of our religion and proud of themselves, should conduct research in our religious matters, and tell us all that is sacred for us, inform us about our history and teach us our culture!4

After this what will be the position of the companions of the prophet and of what use will the Islamic jurists and historians be? What will be the value of what the philosophers and scholars have said? Should we forget all of them and learn matters relating to our religion and civilization from the orientalists?

The orientalists are so evil-minded that they say: “Muhammad acquired his teachings from Christians and Jews.”

They also say that: “Muhammad worshipped idols with the polytheists.”

They further say: “When the Holy Prophet was helpless, he considered his religion to be the religion of mercy and did not resort to bloodshed and pillage. However, when he saw some Muhajirs and Ansars around him, and had acquired wealth and strength, he forgot his prophetic mission and indulged in bloodshed and plunder.” (We seek the refuge with Allah).

These are the accusations made by orientalists. However, Islam and the Holy Prophet of Islam possess so much strength that even if all jinns and human beings, the orientalists and colonial powers join hands, they cannot succeed in their mission.

Colonialism And Hafnavi

Since all Muslims have understood their plot, the orientalists did not succeed. They, therefore, decided to achieve their object by other means and were on the lookout for agents who should apparently be Muslims and Arabs, and should be ready to sell the religion and the Arabs for the money provided by Satan. When the colonial ruler saw that Hafnavi was 'for sale', they were glad to secure his services for tampering with Islam.

They instructed him to abuse the leaders of Islam and prescribed to him the lines along which this was to be done. Hafnavi published these plans of the colonial power in his book entitled: Abu Sufyan Shayku1 al-Umawiyyin. These days the colonial powers, through its agents, are spending a huge amount to weaken the defence line of the Shi’as, that is the institution of Marja’iyat (the point of reference in religious law) because they have seen that it can become the source of a great revolution.

Therefore, these agents have created such an atmosphere that the common people are straight away being affected by their propaganda. Shaykh Murtaza Ansari had already buried the Akhbari ideology spread by Mulla Amin Astarabadi, but efforts are being made to revive it. I am surprised at the one who cannot understand the basic point that during their respective times, the Holy Prophet (S) and the Holy Imams (‘a) were sole points of reference (Maraja’) and the matter of taqleed (following) is only related to the period of the ‘major occultation’ of the Imam of the Age (a.t.f.s.).

This view is like the lamps of one's vision

For some they are alight and for some, extinguished

(An Urdu Couplet)

Colonialists arc also trying to create a sect among Shi’as that believes in the divinity of Ali (‘a) as the British agent, Humphrey has admitted in his book, Ideal Colonialism.

Vilification Of Imam Ali (‘A)

Hafnavi speaks ill of Imam Ali (‘a) though he was the first person to accept the invitation of Islam and sacrificed his life for its progress. It was he who cheerfully suffered hardships for supporting Islam. It was he who kept company with the prophet from the advent of Islam and helped him with his sword and his tongue from the very first moment of revelation.

It was he who stood firm like a mountain in the Battle of Uhud, and drove away those who attacked the Holy Prophet, whereas some prominent companions had fled. In the Battle of Ahzab, all Muslims were trembling with fear of Amr Ibn Abd Wudd but Imam Ali's heart was stronger than steel. His strike at Amr Ibn Abd Wudd was so valuable that the Holy Prophet said: “Ali’s strike on the day of Khandaq5is superior to all the acts of worship of men and Jinns.”

When Khaybar could not be conquered by others, the Holy Prophet gave the standard to Imam Ali (‘a), the friend of Allah and His prophet, who won the battle for Allah and the Muslims. Imam Ali (‘a) also fought against the polytheists, and the Battles of Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan. Imam Ali (‘a) fought for the revelation of Qur’an and its interpretation and about whom the Holy Prophet Muhammad said: “Ali is complete faith.”

Despite of all battles Imam Ali (‘a) fought and the jihad he performed, Hafnavi says that Ali did not profit much by jihad, because true jihad is related with prudence and tongue and that Ali’s jihad was worthless as compared with the tongue of Umar and the prudence of Abu Bakr.6

If we suppose that what Hafnavi says were correct, then what reply will be given to this question: When the polytheists who were well-equipped decided to kill the Holy Prophet and his supporters with swords and spears, and came to fight in the Battles of Badr, Uhud and Ahzab under the leadership of Abu Sufyan to achieve their end, was the Holy Prophet protected by the Umar’s speech and Abu Bakr’s prudence, or was he defended by Ali’s sword and strength? Is Islam helped by occupying the seat of government and expressing opinions, or does it need fighting and perseverance and strong and fearless fighters?

The Holy Prophet prayed in favour of Imam Ali (‘a): “O Lord! Love him who loves Ali and be the enemy of one who is the enemy of Ali. Help him who helps Ali and degrade one who betrays Ali.” Traditions of prophet clearly prove that evidence remains out of the sight of Hafnavi. (Because he is the enemy of Allah and does not perceive clear-cut matters).

If mere oratory and opinion had been useful, Palestine would not have been lost, and if mere speech and expression of belief had been efficacious, the Arabs would not have lagged for centuries despite Hafnavi and others like him.

Criticism Of Islamic Sources

The colonial masters ordered Hafnavi to subject the Islamic sources - especially the history books - to severe criticism. The old books of history are most authentic and usef ul-for understanding facts and realities about Islam. They deal with the sacrifices of Muslims by whose conducts, faith and teachings Islam spread far and wide, and various nations were freed from slavery. As the colonial masters and their agents are not brave enough to combat the great strength of Islam, they have directed their wanton attacks, through Hafnavi, at the history books.

Hafnavi says: “Most old and new history books are not correct. Most of the past historians have borrowed from earlier Romans, the history of the Arabs, which is not authentic.”

The historians deserve no respect in Hafnavi's view even though they lived at a time close to the advent of Islam and recorded the historic events hearing them from eyewitnesses. Yet, of course, if the former or latter historians condemn Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) they are truthful. And others who do not interfere with them and are not prepared to criticize them are liars!

If we dispense with old and new Islamic sources, nothing meaningful will be left with the Muslims and this is what the colonial masters desires, for they wish that all Islamic sources should be eliminated. However, Hafnavi had discovered a reliable source, which he used against the Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a). That reliable source is the books by the orientalists containing the statements of the enemies of our faith and our homeland. Hafnavi mostly cites the statements of a German orientalist named Carl Brockelmann. For example, Brockelmann writes:

“The Islamic nations are keen to show their prophet to be great. However, we do not have any evidence that may be reliable and may deal with the condition of the Holy Prophet before his appointment to the prophetic mission except one verse of the Qur’an, which reads as follows:

“Were you not orphan and We protected you?” (93:6).

“And you were lost, and we guided you?” (93:7).

Brockelmann has not been able to lay hands on anything other than this verse and if the word 'zallan' which he translates as 'being misled' had not been there he would have had no evidence about the biography of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

He (Brockelmann) says:

“The Prophet of Allah made use of commercial methods and examples in his discourse.” (For example, the Holy Prophet says that the reward of such and such good deed is seventy-fold).

What he means to say is that the thinking of the Holy Prophet was business-like, similar to that of Rockefeller and Ford. He also says: “It has been narrated that he had contacts with Jews and Christians.”

Also:

“Muhammad ended his nights with prayers and supplications like Christian monks and there is no doubt about the fact that the prophet's knowledge about the Torah was superficial and he has erred in certain matters.

The Prophet learnt from Christians the ‘Child 's Gospel’ and stories of the people of the Cave and Alexander (Dhulqarnain) etc., but he altered them”

The remarks of this orientalist that the Holy Prophet betrayed the Jews and the Christians - by deriving the holy Qur’an and Surah al-Kahf, and stories about Alexander etc from Christians and later modifying them - is a conclusive proof for Hafnavi, whereas the Islamic sources and Muslim history books do not contain true history.

Brockelmann who has been constantly relied upon by Hafnavi says:

“During the early years of his appointment to the prophetic mission, Muhammad believed in the trinity of the Kaaba”.7

Brockelmann means to say that Prophet Muhammad believed in Lat, Manat and Uzza, and that he obtained the holy Qur’an from Christians.

Keeping this remark in view, what is left with the Muslims? Despite all this vilification, Hafnavi relies on Brockemann's statement. He does not, however, rely on Muslim historians, because it is what the colonial masters want. What a pity that there is no Muslim who may restrain Hafnavi's propaganda.

Promotion Of Infidelity And Oppression

The colonial masters commissioned Hafnavi to promote crime, infidelity, injustice, and intrigue, and applaud these. But he did so in the form of praises for Bani Umayyah i.e. the admiration of those who were the embodiments of infidelity, corruption, grudge, envy, enmity, living the life of pleasure, falsehood, deceit, calumny etc. The promotion of these vices should be in the persons of those, who should have been criminal after criminal, pedigreeless after pedigreeless and adulterer after adulterer.

For being further enlightened on this subject refer to: Mahmûd 'Aqqåd, Abush Shuhada;

Maqrizi writes in An-Niza Wat Takhasum: 8

“Umayyah, the progenitor of the Umayyad clan had married his wife during his own lifetime to his son Abi Umar. The son used have sex with his mother and Umayyah witnessed it.” 9

Can You Believe This

The colonial masters ordered Hafnavi Sufyani to speak ill of Imam Ali, to criticize Islamic sources and to praise infidelity and atheism. Hafnavi agreed to carry out these orders and published his abominable and mischievous book. However, there is no doubt that whoever reads this book would not confirm its contents.

Can anyone believe, in Cairo, a person saying: “Abu Sufyan is great and respectable because he stood against the holy Qur’an and Islam?”

When the Holy Prophet was attacked in the battles of Uhud and Ahzab, Abu Sufyan was the chief of the polytheists. Abu Sufyan was the head of the army and two of his sons were engaged in fighting against the Holy Prophet. One of them was killed and the other was taken as a prisoner of war. Abu Sufyan was among those who received a share from the public treasury of Muslims so that their hearts might soften, and they might be inclined to Islam. We are not aware of any defect in Abu Sufyan except that he did not know what cunning methods to use in the Battle of Uhud to destroy the Muslims.

Is it possible that someone should say this in Cairo:

“The Holy Prophet preferred Abu Sufyan to Abu Bakr and Umar and used to consult Mu’awiyyah and ordered that Abu Bakr and Umar should approach Mu’awiyyah in connection with various matters, rather he ordered them (Umar and Abu Bakr) to give allegiance to Mu’awiyyah after the departure of the prophet because of Mu’awiyyah's honesty.”

Will anyone believe if a person says this in Cairo that:

“Hind, who instigated the people to rise against the Holy Prophet and chewed the liver of his uncle, was a good-natured and righteous woman?''

“Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf was a pious and just person and a great reformer. And Abu Musa Ashari removed Imam Ali (‘a) from the caliphate as the latter was not fit for caliphate. Imam Ali (‘a) caused bloodshed of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and did not kill any infidel.”10

Hafnavi writes:

Yazid's action in the Battle of Harrah and his setting the Kaaba on fire was one of his best deeds, because it was necessary for him to do more than that to protect himself, but as he was kind and forbearing, and he contented himself with these.

Of course, none would believe that in Egypt - which is the centre of the support for Islam and capital of the Muslims - that a person should say such blasphemous things and remain alive even for a moment. However, Hafnavi wrote these things and is still alive.

We do not even consider Hafnavi's nonsense worth refuting. He says: “Ziyad Ibn Sumayya was the true and real son of Abu Sufyan, and this has been proved from the literal and religious points of view.”

About a criminal he says that he was a pious person. About a true believer he says that he was an infidel and criminal, and about righteous person he says that he was unjust and sinful.

What we mean to say is that there are individuals amongst Muslims who introduce themselves as Muslims and Arabs, but they are secretly working against Islam. They feel sorry that Abu Sufyan did not gain victory over his enemy (the Holy Prophet) and that he did not act with him in the same manner that his grandson did with Imam Husayn (‘a) and his children in Karbala.

The teachers of Al-Azhar and other writers have maintained silence on this calumny of Hafnavi because in their view he is a self-professed Muslim.

Sufyani Book And Al-Azbar

Those who go through the Sufyani book - for which a professor of theology at al-Azhar University has written a foreword - acknowledge one reality, and it is that the aim of Hafnavi and the black crows who have supported him is to stigmatize Islam (and all that is sacred in it), to promote infidelity and atheism, and to support the goals of Christian missionaries. The objective of Hafnavi becomes clear when we compare his remarks with those of the Christian orientalists.

Brockelmann writes in the first volume of his book Tarikhush Shaub ul-Islamiyyah: The Meccans could not achieve any result in the Battle of Uhud. And Hafnavi writes on page 37 of

his book: In the Battle of Uhud, Abu Sufyan did not understand how to destroy the Muslims.

On page 154 of his book Brockelmann says: Husayn did not surrender to Umar Ibn Saad because he thought that being the grandson of the prophet, he enjoyed security of life; but his estimation was wrong. Hafnavi had quoted these exact words on page 138 of his book.

From these introductory remarks, it becomes clear that the book Abu Sufyan Shaiykh ul-Umawiyyin has been compiled from the remarks of the Christian missionaries and the orientalists. In fact, it originates - from its beginning to the end - from the Western land of the colonial masters, Christianity and enmity with Islam and the Muslims.

Now the reason for their attacks on the old and new sources of history, exegesis, hadith and biography of the Muslims becomes quite clear. It has also become clear that as Imam Ali (‘a) and his descendants have been praised and Bani Umayyah and their followers have been reproached in the books of history and exegesis and other Islamic books, the same have been subjected to criticism by Hafnavi, and he considers them inauthentic.

From what has been stated above it also becomes known as to what extent Hafnavi speaks the truth. On page 4 of his book, he writes: “My motto is to unveil the facts and I cannot imitate others, because those who have condemned Bani Umayyah have blindly followed the Shi’as.”

Indeed, Hafnavi does not believe in the holy Qur’an because the Qur’an has declared Bani Umayyah to be “the accursed tree”.

Hafnavi also does not believe the traditions that say that Imam Ali (‘a) and his descendants are inseparable partners of Qur’an and those who separate truth from falsehood. In his speech and thinking, Hafnavi has reposed faith in the enemies of Allah and His prophet because his thinking is influenced by the colonialists

I do not intend to discuss in this book what the scholars of traditions, history, and exegesis have written about the virtues of Imam Ali (‘a) and his descendants. These matters have already been discussed in my books: Ahl Al-Bayt, Ali wa al-Qur’an and Al-Majalis ul-Husayniyyah.

Here I would just like to reproduce a brief statement by Shaykh Habib Muhammad al-Ubaydi, the mufti of Mosul, and a distinguished Sunni scholar of Iraq. He quotes on page 190 of his book, An-Nawaat fee Haqq ul-Hayat, the following tradition in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Zaid Ibn Arqam that on his return journey from the last Hajj, the Holy Prophet (S) halted at Ghadir Khumm, between Mecca and Medina and delivered a sermon in which after the praise and glorification of the Almighty, and after giving general counsel and exhortations he said:

“O people, I am a human being. Very soon I may be summoned by the Lord and I will have to harken to the call of my Lord. I leave among you two precious things. The first of them is the Book of Allah which possesses light and guidance. Hold the Book of Allah firmly and pay attention to it. Then he said: The second thing is my Ahl Bayt. You should remember Allah's command in regard to my Ahl Al-Bayt. And he said again: Remember Allah's command in regard to my Ahl Al-Bayt. And he said again: Remember Allah’s command in regard to my Ahl Al-Bayt.”11

This tradition is quoted in Sahih Tirmidhi as follows: The Holy Prophet said: ‘I am leaving two such things among you that, if you hold them on, you will not be misled after me. One is as important as the other. They are the Book of Allah, which is a rope stretching from the sky to the earth, and my Ahl Al-Bayt. These two things will not be separated from each other until they meet me at the Pool of Kauthar. Be caref ul-as to how you behave towards them after me.”12

Perhaps the emphatic recommendation made by the prophet in this tradition about Ahl Al-Bayt was an allusion to the events that they had to face after his departure, which stigmatized the Muslims and harmed Islam.

Indeed, Muslims have acquired their beliefs, religion and morals from correct sources viz. the Book of Allah and traditions of the prophet, and other reliable Islamic books, and they hate books written by the orientalists like Lammens,13 Goldzeheir, Feizmarr and Brockelmann etc. because they are Christian missionaries and infidels.

We have no apprehension that the Shi’a faith will become extinct and our connection with Ahl Al-Bayt will be lost owing to the machinations of people like Hafnavi, and the German and American orientalists, because others also had fought against the Shi’a faith for years. But the result was only the strengthening and propagation of the Shi’a faith. The greatness and expansion of the Shi’a faith has increased by the Grace of Allah day after day, like the holy Qur’an which is the original source of this faith. (Because it is Allah and not us that is spreading His light in a perfect manner).

As against this greatness of Shi’a faith, the story of Bani Umayyah ends in loss and disgrace because they fought against the holy Qur’an and the prophet. Allah the Mighty and the High has very correctly said:

“…The foam disappears but what is profitable to man remain in the earth….” (13:17).

Hafnavi Rejects Allah's Words

Hafnavi has mentioned two basic conditions for the authenticity of history and the action thereon:

“First is that the writer should be unbiased. Second, he should not be a Shi’a and a follower of Ahl Al-Bayt of the prophet, because love for them amounts to heresy.”

It is possible, you may say that Allah has addressed the Prophet:

“(O Muhammad) Say: I do not ask you for any reward for my preaching to you except the love of my kindred” (42:23).

Hence, love for Ahl Al-Bayt becomes obligatory. In reply to this, I say that love and devotion to Ahl Al-Bayt has been ordered by Allah, but this verse was revealed for the whole of Quraish and the person nearest to the Holy Prophet from amongst Quraish was Abu Sufyan.”

What Hafnavi means is that Abu Sufyan was nearer to the Holy Prophet of Islam than Imam Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn (‘a).

Is it really impossible for Hafnavi to control his pen and tongue? Is he not motivated by monetary considerations? Does he not intend to appease the colonial masters?

Of course, the colonial boss orders and Hafnavi writes. He lies, behaves like a criminal and publishes whatever he wants.

Who Is The Liar

The respected readers will certainly laugh over this logic. However, when it is Hafnavi's logic what can be done?

Just see what Hafnavi says: He writes on page 9 and page 16 of his book:

Shi’as are liars and whoever is inclined to them is also a liar. Rather every Sunni whose words conform to those of the Shi’as is a liar and unreliable.

According to this remark, Masoodi was a heretic and a deceitful person because the Shi’as consider him to be one of them. On the other hand, Yazid Ibn Mu’awiyyah was a pious and devout person, and the decree of Marwan Ibn Hakam should be acted upon. And as believed by Hafnavi, the judgments of Abd ul-Malik should be enforced.

On page 17 of an-Niza wat Takhasum, Maqrizi writes:

Abd ul-Malik said from the pulpit: l am not a timid, careless or wavering caliph.” By 'timid' Abd ul-Malik meant Uthman, by 'careless', Mu’awiyyah and by 'wavering', Yazid.

If, according to the belief of Hafnavi, we accept the 'decrees' of Marwan, we must also act on the verdict of Abd ul-Malik, in whose view all the three persons mentioned were accursed. However, Hafnavi loves all of them and has faith in one who curses as well as in one who is accursed!

However, according to the belief of Hafnavi, Ibn Qutaibah, Abu al-Faraj Isfahani, Jahiz, Ibn Abd Rabb and others like them have not written their books for the sake of history but only to deceive and to fabricate facts. And since Brockelmann has not confirmed, the writings of Waqidi and Tabari, too, are unreliable and worthless.

These are some of the contents of the book, Abu Sufyan Shaykh al-Umawiyyin:

If Yazid - who killed Imam Husayn (‘a), burnt the Kaaba, left Medina to the mercy of his army, drank wine, abandoned prayers and, according to Abdullah Ibn Hanzala had sex with his mother, sister and daughter - was 'pious', it is necessary that all the saints of Allah and the martyrs and righteous persons should be infidels and libertines; and infidelity and debauchery should not be confined to Shi’as and their friends.

A liar is one who considers the true and authentic tradition to be false, and the false and forged ones to be true. The Holy Prophet said: “Allah considers three persons to be trustworthy viz. Jibraeel, myself and Mu’awiyyah.”

Hafnavi says: ‘Jibraeel asked the Holy Prophet to convey greetings to Mu’awiyyah and the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah to bless Mu’awiyyah's mother!”

A liar is one who considers the true leaders and the reliable narrators of traditions and historians to be liars.

A liar is one who upholds the relationship of Ziyad Ibn Sumayya with Abu Sufyan.

A liar is one who says: “Imam Ali (‘a) did not kill any infidel and if Mu’awiyyah had not been there, Islam would have become extinct, and the Arabs would have reverted to their (era of) ignorance.”

A liar is one who says: “The Holy Prophet sought refuge in Abu Sufyan's house to escape the polytheists.”

A liar is one who says: “The verse of Mawaddat14 applies to Abu Sufyan, as he was a nearest relative of prophet.”

Anyway, it is not for the first time that we heard false and slanderous things imputed to Shi’as, because on account of their enmity and impure nature, some hired writers, agents of the colonial rulers and the Wahhabis have habituated us to hearing such calumnies and falsehood about the Shi’as constantly. However, these fabrications do not do any harm to Shi’as. The disturbing part is that fabrications are imputed to Allah and His Holy Prophet openly and the (interpretation of the) verses of the holy Qur’an and traditions are being tampered with.

Why Are The Scholars Of Al-Azhar Silent

Undoubtedly, the silence of the scholars of al-Azhar and other Muslims and their inaction and silence with regard to Jabhan, Mohibuddin al Khatib, the magazine at-Tamaddun al-Islam and other similar ones - who write and publish articles attacking Shi’as and their association with the progeny of the Prophet - is serious and significant. It is because of their silence that those falsehood and slanders are being imputed to Allah, verses of the Qur’an, the Holy Prophet, his Ahl Al-Bayt, Islam and its adherents.

While we appreciate the efforts taken by eminent scholars like Shaykh Shaltut and Shaykh Madani to forge Muslim unity, we ask: What can two or three speakers do as compared to the silence of thousands?

We Shall Not Be Silent

We observe these verbal attacks being made on Shi’as and say:

This type of thinking will change with the passage of time. However, as time passes by, the area of their attack is widening. In these circumstances, should we be reproached if we lose confidence in Ahl Al-Sunna? If we defend ourselves against the colonial agents, should we be blamed? Is it not a matter of shame that we, the followers of one religion, should attack one another and all should play into the hands of colonialists and disregard our usurped rights, our economic and social ailments, and difficulties?15

We do not attack any religion or nation, and we do not criticize any individual. In these circumstances, however, we also do not wish that anyone should attack us, because if anyone attacks us, we lie in ambush for him.

We end this chapter with the words of the Holy Prophet who said: “O Ali! Only the true believers are your friends, and the hypocrites are your enemies.”16

In light of this tradition, hypocrisy is the cause of enmity with Imam Ali (‘a) and faith is the means of love and friendship with him. And it is impossible that hypocrisy and faith should be combined in one place, except that a hypocrite may become a believer, or a believer may become a hypocrite.

We Shi’as will not forsake faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet and in the true conduct on account of its being true. This faith will never change, and it is for this reason that the agents of colonialism have not left us alone. And the promise made by Allah is true when He says:

“They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil; and if they fight with you, they shall turn (their) backs to you, then shall they not be helped” (3:111).

“Shame is pitched over them (Like a tent) wherever they are found, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah and from men…” (3:112).

‘Eid (Festival) Of Ghadir

When people want to speak about Imam Ali (‘a), his greatness perplexes their intellect and makes their tongues stammer. His eminence is based not on wealth and office, but on knowledge and uprightness. It does not arise from pedigree and race, but on sincerity and sacrifice in the path of Allah. The logic of this greatness is guidance and light, and the weapon of this greatness is jihad (struggle) against disorder, mischief, and hypocrisy.

It is this greatness that has hoisted the flags for Islam and eliminated the calamities and misgivings with regard to Islam. It is this greatness that has removed the hardships and difficulties of the Holy Prophet. It is this greatness has been acknowledged and certified by Allah, the Holy Prophet, the companions of the Holy Prophet, the followers of companions,17 and people belonging to every religion and nation.

If a person musters up his courage and wants to speak about Iman Ali, what should he say about him? About which greatness of Ali should he speak? For he is a man with uncountable merits.

When a man speaks about Imam Ali (‘a) from one angle he places himself in utmost difficulty, because he is like a person who is walking on a bridge narrower than a hair and sharper than a sword.

Nizam says: “It is difficult for a narrator to narrate the attributes of Imam Ali (‘a), because if he does justice to him, he sounds as exaggerating, and if he fails to state his rights, he will commit a crime. And it is very difficult to pursue the middle path.”

There is no doubt that the difficulties encountered in pursuing this path have not prevented people from speaking about the excellence of Imam Ali (‘a). On the other hand, these very things have made them believe in Imam Ali (‘a) and they consider him a spiritual figure and a statesman.

Difficulties involved in narrating the policies of Imam Ali (‘a), as summarized by Shobi in one sentence: “If we befriend Ali (‘a), we become impoverished and if we are in inimical towards him, we become infidels.”

By poverty, Shobi means the persecution by despotic rulers of the friends and followers of Imam Ali (‘a).

The difficulties involved in speaking about Imam Ali (‘a) have been mentioned by the Imam himself when he says:

“Very soon two groups will be ruined on my account: A friend who exaggerates his friendship, and this friendship takes him away from truth; and one who is an enemy and takes an extreme course in enmity, and this enmity becomes the cause of keeping him away from truth. The best persons are those who adopt the middle course about me.”

This introduction tells us that the greatness of Imam Ali (‘a) is not like general excellence in the view of people, because there is no question of shortcoming or excess in the matter of general excellence. Hence the greatness of the Imam is different from usual greatness and is higher. But it does not equal to the greatness of Allah.18 This is the very greatness whose difficulty and hardship to describe has been alluded to in the statement of Nizam.

In order not to get involved in treading the dangerous path of exaggerating or understating the merits of Imam Ali (‘a), we pursue the discussion of his excellence in light of his traditions and remarks, which are the just and real criteria of judging his merits. Then, naturally we shall gauge the depth of his knowledge.

On Hometown

Imam Ali (‘a) says about the limitation of hometown: “No city is more suitable for you than another. The best of the cities is one in which you pass your life.”

According to this remark, all cities are your home, and you should take steps to enhance the honour of and establish justice in those cities. The best city is not that in which you were born and in which your parents and kinsfolk live, but it is one that ensures your means of livelihood, security, freedom, and dignity. The correctness of this remark is proved beyond doubt in respect of immigrants whose means of livelihood are assured in places where they have settled.

On Relationships

Imam Ali (‘a) describes the relatives thus: “That person who possesses good morals is near to one.”

It means that affinity and relationship do not depend on kinship, because all human beings are descendants of Adam, and Adam was created from dust. On the other hand, true relationship is sympathy, loyalty, friendship, sincerity, kindness, and truthfulness. Hence one who deceives and ignores you is more distant from you than any other person, and even if a person is distant from you and is sincere to you and makes sacrifices to promote your interests, he is closer to you than others.

Imam Ali (‘a) means the same thing when he says: “There are many near ones who are more remote than the strangers and there are many distant ones who are closer than the nearest.”

Good Morals And Manners

Imam Ali (‘a) defines good morals thus: “Good morals mean refraining from the unlawful things and seeking lawful things.”

The Imam has connected the morals of an individual with their social values and general order and assessed the worth of individuals in light of their social worth because as long as an individual depends on the society, we cannot take into account his individual personality and ignore his social personality.

To call a man good-natured if he behaves well with his guest or to call a man 'truthful' if at times he speaks the truth, or to call a man prompt payer of debt if he repays one of his debts, would certainly be a mistaken judgment.

It is necessary that before judging an individual, we should study his actions in relation to the society. If he has wronged a person and is apparently happy and expresses sincerity and faith in him, he should not be called a human being. And if a person wrongs someone and we consider him to be endowed with good morals, we have wronged ourselves as well as humanity, wisdom, faith, and morals.

Social Document

In his letter addressed to Malik al-Ashtar, Imam Ali (‘a) gave him instructions which are very constructive for the governments that are desirous of achieving the continuity of their political life and well-being of the people. Imam Ali (‘a) instructed Malik al-Ashtar in these terms:

“Develop lands and take care of the traders, the workers and the industrialists, because these people are the source of profit and amenities for the people.”

These instructions given by Imam Ali are nowadays called 'Development Plans'. The governments have started five-year and seven-year plans and ten-year plans to obtain good results from land by selling it to individuals on instalments and to grant ability to purchase to everyone.

Event Of Ghadir

After these introductory remarks, we propose to write briefly about the event of Ghadir and the appointment of Imam Ali (‘a) to the caliphate. We believe that whether the Holy Prophet had specified it or not, caliphate was the natural right of Imam Ali (‘a) because people should be recognized by the right, and not that a right should be recognized by the presence of the individuals. There is no doubt that people were aware of the merits of Imam Ali (‘a). It was these virtues and qualities on account of which Eid of Ghadir came into being. If he had not possessed those merits, Ghadir and its Eid would not have been known at all.

Which day could be better than this festival when Allah perfected His religion and completed His favours to the Muslims by means of the wilayat (guardianship) of Imam Ali (‘a)? Which day could be better than that about which Allah says:

“On this day I have perfected your religion, completed My favours to you and have chosen Islam as your religion” (5:3).

This verse, regarding the perfecting of religion and completion of divine favours, was revealed on the day of Ghadir. All traditionists agree that on his return from the Farewell Hajj, the Holy Prophet stood before the Muslims on the 18th of Zulhijjah, raised the arm of Imam Ali (‘a) and said:

Ali is the master of whomever I am the master. O Lord! Befriend him who is the friend of Ali and be the enemy of him who is the enemy of Ali. Make those persons who love Ali honoured and vanquish those who are inimical towards him. Help those who help Ali and ignore those who ignore Ali and make truth turn wherever Ali turns. O people, those who are present here must convey my words to those who are not.”

Before the people dispersed, Jibraeel the trustworthy angel descended and brought this verse:

“Today, the unbelievers have lost hope about your religion. Do not be afraid of them but fear Me. On this day I have perfected your religion, completed My favours to you and have chosen Islam as your religion” (5:3).

Then the Holy Prophet said: “Great is Allah Who has perfected the religion and completed His favours and has been satisfied with my prophethood and is pleased with the wilayat of Ali after me.”

After the Holy Prophet concluded his discourse, the companions approached Imam Ali (‘a) in groups and congratulated him. The foremost amongst those who offered congratulations to him were Abu Bakr and Umar. All were saying: “O Ali! Congratulations! Now you have become our master and the master of every believing man and woman.”

Sometimes it is said that what is meant by the verse relating to 'perfection' is the perfection of the religion of Islam. As all orders relating to acts of worship, personal lives, punishment for sins, contractual obligations and lawful and unlawful things had been conveyed, it was no longer necessary to enact any further laws.

The reply to this is:

Other verses related to orders (verses related to inheritance and usury) were revealed after the Festival of Ghadir. As stated in Sahih Bukhari the last verse revealed to the Holy Prophet was that related to usury.

The perfecting of a religion and political State can take place when the authority to enact laws and to enforce them is secure. Having the power only to enact laws, without the power to enforce them is ineffectual. In the present case, the power to enforce the laws was with the Holy Prophet. The infidels thought that after the Holy Prophet, the power of enforcement would vanish and consequently Islam would cease to exist. The Holy Prophet nominated Imam Ali (‘a) in his own place so that the religion of Islam might remain safe after him and Imam Ali (‘a) might administer the affairs in a good way and lead the people. He also introduced Imam Ali (‘a) to the people with a view to inform them that just as Zulfiqar was a blessing for the believers, it was a curse for the evil doers.

By nominating Imam Ali (‘a) to the caliphate, the Holy Prophet made the infidels lose all hope for the defeat of Islam, and with the delivery of the power of enforcement after the delivery of the power of enactment of laws, none could hope for the extinction and weakness of Islam. Indeed, by putting words into action and transferring power into the hands of a just and a wise man, all hopes for the extinction and weakening of Islam were frustrated.

Sunni and Shi’a traditionists agree on the veracity of the tradition of Imam Ali's mastership because as many as 110 companions of the Holy Prophet and 84 disciples of the companions (tabi’in) have quoted this tradition.

Those who were not able to raise issues concerning the narration of this tradition turned their criticism to its text, saying: ''By ‘wilayat’ the Holy Prophet meant friendship and love and he asked the people to be friendly towards Imam Ali (‘a). It has no bearing on caliphate and imamate”

In reply, we can quote the Holy Prophet's saying:

“I have more right on the believers than they do on themselves'' and “Ali is the master of him who considers me to be his master”

It proves that the spiritual and political authority of the Holy Prophet over the believers was specially meant for Imam Ali (‘a) and was turned over to him without any variation.

Even if Ahl Al-Sunna find a thousand and one literal meanings of the word ‘mawla’ - in addition to the twenty already collected by some of them - it becomes clear from the context of the tradition and the beginning and the end of the event that the reference was to caliphate.

Did Abu Bakr, Umar and others congratulate Imam Ali for the sake of friendship and love, or in connection with rulership and the caliphate? There is no denying the fact that no sensible person congratulates another on account of friendship. Shi’a ulama have discussed this and other traditions in detail and can cite numerous narrations which clearly point out to the caliphate of Imam Ali (‘a) immediately after the Holy Prophet.

Shi’a scholars have compiled many books on this subject. Some of them are as follows: Ihtijaj (Shaykh Mufid), Ash-Shafi (Sayyid Murtaza), Ayan ash-Shi’a (Sayyid Mohsin Amin), Al-Murajaat (Shaykh Sharafuddin) and Al-Ghadir (Allamah Mohsin Amini). The book Al-Ghadir consists of twelve bulky volumes.

The Shi’as love Imam Ali (‘a) according to their religion and faith and believe that he was more suited for wilayat than anyone else, because he did not want the caliphate to benefit from it or to rule over the people. He did not want it for the worldly purposes. The spiritual strength of Imam Ali (‘a) was much higher than any ambition for position or authority and sovereignty, for in his eyes the world was just like dust which is carried by the whirlwinds hither and thither.

Ibn Abbas says:

When Imam Ali (‘a) has become the caliph, I went to see him and saw him busy mending his shoe. I said: “O Ali! What are you doing? Leave this task.”

Ali did not speak to me till he had mended the shoe. Then he turned to me and said: “What is the monetary value of these shoes?” I said: “They have no value.” He said: “Assess their value, however small it may be.” I said: “They are worth a dirham or so.” Thereupon he said: “l swear by Allah that this pair of shoes is better in my eyes than ruling over you except that I should defend a right or eliminate a falsehood by means of the authority vested in me.”

How much deserving of caliphate would be the person in whose eyes rulership and the world are not worth as much as the lace of his shoe! Rather it will be very appropriate if the entire world is his shoe, and he rules over it.

What Imam Ali (‘a) said did not consist of only words and opinions. In fact, these views came out from the depths of his great heart, and he grappled with them and kept them alive. Imam Ali preserved this faith during all the difficulties and hardships.

In brief, Imam Ali (‘a) is not a man whose leadership may be confined to Muslims alone. He is not a man of the East or the West. He is an international hero and a perfect specimen of humanity. If we hold a celebration in connection with ‘Ali Day’ we celebrate this festival for the excellence of humanity and for the greatest specimen of the world; we celebrate it for the grandeur of religion and knowledge; we celebrate it for the magnificence of sincerity and sacrifice. We celebrate it for the greatness of valour and bravery; we celebrate it for the perfection of religion and completion of blessings; and we celebrate it for spreading Islam in the East and the West.

The End

Muhammad Jawad Mughniya

1. Alphabets of allegorical significance at the beginning of some chapters.

2. I have written an article on this topic in Al-Irfan, Issue no. 1, Year 1959. (Author).

3. Those who are fond of purchasing foreign-printed books expect to hear about the luminous realities of Islam from others. Since the orientalists have not forgotten their personal motives, they depicted Islam in distorted manner, and misled some people.

4. The Dutch filmmaker, Greet Wilders has committed this same foolishness by making a film on the Qur’an called ‘Fitna’.

5. Referring to the Battle of Khandaq (Ditch).

6. Abu Sufyan Shayku1 al-Umawiyyin, Pg. 190.

7. Pg 37.

8. Pg. 22.

9. For more details refer to: Mahmood Aqqad, Abush Shuhada; George Jordac, The Voice of Human Just ice, and AnNasaih ash-Shatiyah liman Yatawalla Mu’awiyyah.
And for what we have written about Shi’as and Mu’awiyyah, refer to our other books like Al-Majalis al-Husayniyyah and Sulh al-Hasan wa Istishad ul-Husayn. Also refer to As-Sirah baynal Amwiyyun wa abadi ' ul-Islam by Noori Ja'far.

10. Hafnavi has written this on page 143, but on page 70 he writes:
Ali killed Umar Ibn Abd Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq. This makes clear what Allah said about the infidels in Surah Hajj, verse no. 46: For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts. (This shows that Hafnavi has said contradictory things). (Author).

11. Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 2408, Kitab al-Fadail, Chapter of Min Fadail Ali Ibn Abi Talib (r.a.)

12. Sahih Tirmidhi, Tradition no. 3876

13. Henri Lammens was a Belgian orientalist. In order to cause harm to Islam and Muslims he has also written a book in praise of Mu’awiyyah and Yazid. (Author)

14. Reference to Qur’an 42:23.

15. Imam Khomeini has said that Muslims argue whether one should pray with hands open or clasped, while the enemy is thinking about cutting off their hands!

16. Fadl Ibn Ruzbahan wrote a book, Ibtal ul-Batil to counter Allamah Hilli's Nahj ul-Haqq. Therein he says: “Doubtlessly, this tradition is correct.” (Author)

17. This refers to a group of Muslims called the ‘Tabi’un’. They are those among the generation that have seen the companions of the Holy Prophet. [Note by Al-Islam.org]

18. Like it is said about the prophet that only he is great after the Almighty”, in the same way it can be said about Amir Al-Mu’minin that he is the greatest after the Holy Prophet - the specimen of ‘perfect man’, according to Ibn Arabi is a1so the honourable being of Amir Al-Mu’minin.

Appendix 1 - Sermon Of Imam Ali (‘A) Regarding Ghadir

During the caliphate and rulership of His Eminence Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) once, the Eid of Ghadir fell on a Friday. He delivered a very eloquent sermon that revealed the greatness and grandeur of the Eid of Ghadir.

“Thanks be to Allah Who does not need the thanks of the thanks-givers, but He has made it a means that through it, people may confess to His Lordship. I testify that there is no god except Allah, the One without a partner and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger.

On the first day of creation, Allah chose His Eminence, Muhammad (S) with His knowledge among all His creations and gave him a lofty status among the prophets also, so that he may, on behalf of Allah, order the people to perform certain things and restrain them from certain acts. Allah appointed him as His representative for recognizing His laws because Allah is not visible to the eyes and does not permeate into the intricate layers of the minds, thoughts, and assumptions. Indeed, Allah is none but an absolute king.

The Almighty Allah attached the testimony of the prophethood of His Eminence, Muhammad (S) with the confession in His divinity and bestowed such a distinction that no one else can obtain. His Eminence, Muhammad (S) was indeed deserving of this distinction and bestowal because he dedicated himself completely to Allah and he was the beloved (servant) of Allah.

Without any doubt, one who changes his attitude every now and then, cannot receive this distinction and the mind that becomes the prey of every assumption cannot reach the level of Allah's love. Allah has commanded us that we must invoke blessings and greetings upon him so that his honour may increase and that this act may also become the reason for the acceptance of the prayer of the supplicant.

The Almighty Allah Himself also blesses him and grants more and more honour and dignity and He increases his greatness, till there is no limit to his greatness and honour and it will remain forever....

Then after His Eminence, Muhammad (S), the Almighty Allah made some personalities as His special servants. He granted them a high status on account of the greatness of His Eminence Muhammad (S) and entrusted them the responsibilities of His Eminence, Muhammad (S) so that, in the capacity of true callers towards Allah, they may invite the people towards the Almighty Allah and impart to them the lessons about understanding of the divine reality. Such a person is present in every age and time. The Almighty Allah created them at the very first moment of creation. They spoke up to mention His praise and gratitude for Him which occupied a place in their hearts while they were yet in the form of Noor (effulgence). Then He made them Hujjat (proof) for all those who testify to His Lordship and confess to his servitude ...

Despite these, they are His servants, and they are such that they do not do anything without His leave. They always act according to His orders. The Almighty Allah is Himself well aware of their circumstances and conditions. They do not seek forgiveness for anyone except those who are liked by the Almighty. Their hearts are never devoid of the fear of Allah.

They comply with all His orders, and they follow the divine practice. They do not transgress the limits set by God and they conduct themselves in conformity with His commands.

Also, the Almighty Allah did not keep His servants blind and deaf, gave them intellect which is intertwined in their beings and fixed firmly to their souls. He made the power of senses subservient to intellect and placed it in the inner portion of the ears, eyes, and the body. In this way, he exhausted His proof on everyone and showed them an illuminated path.

Through his power, He gave to the people a tongue that speaks so that they may speak about all that they perceive through the senses and through contemplation and reflection.

O congregation of believers! After this I want to tell you that today, Allah the Mighty and Sublime, has brought you two eid’s. They are such that one could not have been established without the other. He did this in order to complete the goodness for you and that He may make you aware of the straight path and that He may take you behind those with enlightened hearts, who have obtained light from the brilliance of His guidance and that He may make you walk on the path of His manifest religion and bestow you with His uncountable favours.

On the basis of this, He made the day of Friday as the day of congregation and directed everyone to participate in it. So that whatever you have done during the week may be clarified. And whatever defects and shortcomings you have made in your work may be corrected and organized every Friday. It is on this day that believers remember each other. It is on this day that the pious display piety. It is on this day that the Almighty Allah rewards the deeds of the righteous many times the rewards for other days. However, the matter does not end at this. Rather it is necessary that you comply with His commands and that you shun that which He has prohibited and put in more effort to do that which He has emphasized.

Now, you know that faith in the oneness of God is not acceptable till one acknowledges the messengership of His Eminence Muhammad (S), and no faith or act is accepted till one accepts the wilayat 1 of the one whom Allah has appointed as the wali.2

And the obedience of Allah is not performed in the proper manner except that you may receive the mercy and support of Allah, and the guidance of those who are eligible for mastership. That is, those about whom He sent the ayat (verse) on the day of Ghadir and informed about His intention regarding His special and chosen servants. And He directed the holy messenger to convey the revealed message to the people, that he must not worry about the deviant ones and the hypocrites. And He himself guaranteed to protect him against their evil.

By issuing guarantee of protection to the Holy Prophet (S) against the evil of those people with ill intent, the Almighty Allah exposed the real attitude of those who were in doubt, and He unveiled the inner feeling of those who trod the path towards apostasy. That was the time when the believers as well as the hypocrites came to know whatever they were supposed to know. After that, one who was careless turned away from the truth, and one who was steadfast and firm in his attitude remained determined to accept the truth.

It was the time when there was increase in the ignorance of hypocrites and the audacity of the disobedient ones. They clenched their teeth and thrashed their limbs (in helplessness). One of them made a statement and another came screaming, and one who had made disobedience his habit remained persistent in his defiance.

Some of them even confessed but this confession was not sincere or driven on faith, while another group confessed with the tongue as well as with absolute sincerity and faith.

In this way Allah completed His religion, and by perfecting His religion, delighted the Holy Prophet (S), the believers and their followers. And it was that event of Ghadir that some of you were there in person, and some of you had learned about it from others and through this event the promise Allah had made to the ‘patient ones’ was fulfilled, and He destroyed Fir’awn, Haman and Qaroon, their lackeys, their armies, and their citadels.

However, one group was left, which does leave any stone unturned in ruining the situation. Now the Almighty Allah will control them in their respective places and destroy their remnants and obliterate their signs and after that make them remorseful and distressed and include them in a group whose hands He has kept open and made their bodies strong and gave them strength (till they misuse their discretion and divine bounties). They have distorted the religion of Allah and made His laws topsy curvy and very soon, but at a proper time, Allah will be victorious over His enemies and Allah is Kind and AllAware.

(It was not necessary for me to have said all this because) even a shorter discourse would have sufficed to inform. O, people! may Allah have mercy on You. Ponder upon that towards which Allah has called you and emphasized on and pay attention to His religion and tread His path. Do not choose crooked paths so you may not fall behind the path of Allah.

Indeed, today is a very important day.

It was today that prosperity arrived; today the grades of the deserving people were raised, and the divine proof became clear.

Today is the day of illuminating the truth and the day of speaking openly about the holy position3 and on the basis of Nass. 4

Today is the day of the completion of religion.

Today is the day of renewal of the oath.

Today is the day of testimony and witnesses.

Today is the day of exposing the reality of hypocrisy.

Today is the day of talking about the reality of faith.

Today is the day of defeating the Satan.

Today is the day of that promised to be the day of decision of truth.

Today is the day that those who are inclined to loftiness have forgotten.

Today is the day of showing the path and guidance.

Today is the day of testing the people.

Today is the day of guiding towards the guides.

Today is the day of revealing the hidden goals, making of plans and preparations of others.

Today is the day of clearly mentioning the names of leaders.

(The Imam also mentioned further points with regard to this day, and then he said):

Now you must be mindf ul-towards Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, as regards your deeds and be caref ul-of Him and do not unfaithful to Him. By having faith in the oneness of Allah and by obeying the One who has ordered you to obey Him, try to gain divine proximity. Leave off the path of misguidance and do not follow those who have deviated and those who also have misled others. The Almighty Allah has condemned a group in His book and stated:

“And they shall say: O our Lord! Surely, we obeyed our leaders and our great men, so they led us astray from the path” (33:67).

“O our Lord! Give them a double punishment and curse them with a great curse” (33:68).

And the Almighty Allah also said:

“And when they shall contend one with one another in the fire, the weak shall say to those who were proud: Surely we were your followers; will you then avert from us a portion of the fire?” (40:47).

And:

“And they shall all come forth before Allah, then the weak shall say to those who were proud: Surely, we were your followers, can you therefore avert from us any part of the chastisement of Allah?” (14:21).

Do you know what 'Istikbar' is? ‘Istikbar’ means leaving off the obedience of an Imam whose obedience Allah has commanded and to stand proudly before one about whom the Almighty Allah desires that people should obey him. Many tales are narrated in the holy Qur’an regarding such arrogant people, and if one ponders upon these verses, they keep him from the evil path and they are edifying.

“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall” (61:4).

Do you know what the meaning “in His way” is? And who is “path of Allah” and “way of Allah”? I am the “path of Allah”. One who does not walk on it5 falls into the pit of misguidance. I am the “path of Allah” that Allah has appointed after the prophet and identified it.

I am the distributor of Paradise and Hell.

I am the Proof of Allah on all the humanity.

Now you wake up from the sleep of unawareness and perform good deeds before the arrival of death and compete with each other for achieving divine forgiveness before (it is Judgment Day) and a wall is raised behind which would be Paradise and outside, Hell.

At that time, you will call out, but no one will hear your voice. And you shall plead but no one will pay any heed to it. (Come to your senses) before that you begin to call for help and no one comes to help you. Make haste to follow the obedience before you lose the opportunity6 and take it as if the ‘destroyer of pleasures’7 has just reached you. And there is nowhere one can flee to, to escape it.

This congregation is about to come to an end and each of you will return to your homes. May Allah have mercy on you and that may you become generous to your family members. May you do good to your brothers. Thank Allah for the bounties He has given you. Become united so that Allah may help you. Be kind to others so that Allah may firm up your friendship. Send gifts to each other from the favours the Almighty Allah has given you. On this ‘Eid, the Almighty Allah gives manifold rewards in comparison with other ‘Eids. Such a reward will not be available to you on any other Eid except Eid of Ghadir.

Performing good deeds on this day increases your wealth and prolongs your lifespan and being nice to one’s relatives becomes the cause of Divine mercy. Give as much as you can on this day from the wealth Allah has given you, to your brothers and the members of your family. Always keep a cheerful face. Express your happiness when you meet each other and fulfil the thanks for the Divine bounties.

Go and do good as much as possible to those who have expectations from you. Be equitable between yourself and those who are under you with regard to the matter of eating and drinking, and as much as possible put this equitability into practice because on this day a dirham spent on charity is rewarded with an equivalent of a hundred thousand dirhams and the bounty is under the control of Allah.

On this day, the Almighty Allah has made fasting a recommended act and fixed a very great reward for it, but on this day if one fulfils the needs of his brothers-in-faith without their asking for it, and does good to them willingly and with inclination, its reward is equal to the one who fasts on this day and prays the whole night till the break of dawn. And on this day, one who offers victuals to a person in order that he may break his fast of this day, his action is the same as if he has sponsored the breaking of fasts of many groups of such people …

When you meet each other, along with greeting each other, shake hands and congratulate each other for the favour you have received on this day.

Those present here are obliged to convey all that they hear to those who are not present. And the rich should search out the needy and that the strong may seek out the weak8 The Holy Prophet (S) has ordered us to do all these.9

In this sermon, His Eminence Ali (‘a) has clearly mentioned that the Almighty Allah has Himself appointed the leader and revealed the Qur’anic verse about it. This is in clear refutation of those who claim that no specific person was appointed as an Imam or caliph in Islam, and that nothing is mentioned about it in the Holy Qur’an. ln this way they present Islam as a religion devoid of a political philosophy.

Now the question is that who is more knowledgeable about Qur’an, Islam, interpretation of Qur’anic verses and the circumstances of revelation? Imam Ali (‘a), or a scholastic theologian, or a qadi attached to the court of a caliph, or a Jewish orientalist, or some professor of history and literature, or a doctor of human rights, or a so-called colonial researcher who is ignorant of Islam?

In fact, from the Holy Prophet (S) to Imam Mahdi (‘a) - and whatever that has been narrated about his revolution, the future of the Muslim world, the belief in the establishment of the just rule of Imam Mahdi (‘a); all these denote giving a practical shape to the 'City of Ghadir'. It is always the duty of true Muslims - and those who believe in the Qur’anic government - to endeavour to build this city for every generation in every age. And whatever Imam Mahdi (‘a) has to establish, is own task, which he shall carry out during the period of his reappearance.

The Almighty Allah says:

“And whoever trusts in Allah, He is sufficient for him, and Allah is Powerful over His affair.” (65:3)

In fact, the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S) for prophethood, Ghadir, Ashura10 and the

Mahdi are four real sides of the edifice of Islam that shall surround the whole world during the period of Imam Mahdi (‘a).

It is mentioned in Mafatih al-Jinan that it is recommended to recite Du’a Nudbah on Friday and the Day of Ghadir.

1. Guardianship.

2. Guardian.

3. The position of an infallible leader.

4. Divine text.

5. This refers to one who does not obey him.

6. This means that do not think that the day of reward and punishment is distant.

7. This phrase refers to death.

8. It means that the rich and powerful people should help the poor and the weak.

9. The above passage is quoted from Mustadrak Nahj ul-Balagha, Allamah Hadi Kashif al-Ghita, Najafi.

10. The 10th of Muharram.

Appendix 2 – The Robustness Of The Views Of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘A) In Islamic Thoughts

Appendix 2 – The Robustness Of The Views Of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘A) In Islamic Thoughts (Shaykh Abbas Ali Burraqi)

Muslims have always discussed and researched Islamic beliefs and they will continue to do so. Along with the efforts made in this search there arose differences of belief, and many sects came into being. But all the sects are unanimous in the belief that the source of Islam is the Qur’an and traditions. In spite of being united in the source of religion, there are many reasons for these differences, among which the following bear great importance:

Difference in the method of debate and derivation of Islamic laws (ijtihad).

Innovations and erroneous interpretations.

Ignorance and unawareness of religious texts.

Tribal differences and political aspirations.

Fabrications of traditions by Muslim scholars of Jewish and Christian origin to distort Islam.

We have no hesitation to confess that many different religious views and opinions arose during the very lifetime of the Holy Prophet (S), but those differences did not reach the extent that it could have taken the shape of a religion because the Holy Prophet (S) was there, and he used to put a stop to such views so that they may not spread further.

Due to his wise statesmanship, the Muslim society had become such a cradle of love and brotherhood that its equal could not be found anywhere else in history. In the lifetime of the prophet, there were differing views among the children of the companions as regards the matter of pre-destination and freewill, and it had gone to a level that debates used to be held on this topic.

When the Holy Prophet (S) heard this, he came out of his house and restrained them from it. This is mentioned in books of traditions. For example, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal has narrated from Amr Ibn Shuaib from his father from his father that one day the Messenger of Allah (S) came out to find people (in the masjid) discussing pre-destination. The narrator says that when the Holy Prophet (S) heard them, his face became red like pomegranate seeds, and he asked what was wrong with them and why they were countering one verse against another. He said: “Nations preceding you were also destroyed because of this.”1

The fundamentals of Islamic beliefs are mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions. However, after the departure of the Messenger of Allah (S), some questions arose whose answers were not present clearly in the Qur’an and traditions. It was therefore felt that there was a need for derivation and deduction. And the right of ijtihaad in the shari’ah and matters of beliefs was entrusted to the scholars of religion (fuqaha). That is the reason we find differences of opinion among the companions, as regards some matters of the religious belief.

There is a great dissimilarity between the differences during the prophet's lifetime and those after his departure. During his lifetime, when a difference arose, he used to issue his verdict about it and resolved the matter.2 However this did not continue after he departed. The ruler used to favour certain companions.

Therefore, the difference did not end because the views of these companions did not tally with the opinions of other companions. As examples, may consider these instances:

The matter of successorship of the Holy Prophet (S) and imamate.3

The issue of killing the apostates and those who refused to pay Zakat.

Thus, these problems led to the creation of various schools of scholastic theology and beliefs, and the views used to prove beliefs that were responsible for the creation of these different schools are as follows:

Deduction based only on religious texts: Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was an Imam of this line of thinking, and today this approach is adopted by the Ahl ul-Hadith who consider that their sole responsibility is guarding the heritage of traditions. They are not concerned with the depth of the meanings of narrations and whether they are authentic or not. In the present age these people are called Salafi. The Hanbalis followed this method in deriving Islamic practical laws also. According to their view, it was not allowed to contemplate and ponder upon religious problems and to question them is heresy. It is heretical to have discussions on these matters. They considered discourses of traditions necessary for themselves, but as far as discussions on them was concerned, it was absolutely forbidden. They considered only their method to be the correct obedience, and all types of contemplation and pondering to be heretical. All their efforts were aimed at only collection and compilation of all the traditions that have come on the matters of beliefs etc. They also explained the meanings of their words and compiled the chains the narrators of traditions. Anything beyond this was neither necessary nor permissible. Thus, the same approach is adopted in the books of Bukhari, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Khuzayma Baihaqi and Ibn Qutaibah. The level of radicalism of these people is evident from the way they have prohibited scholasticism and logical thinking in matters of belief. Ibn Qutaibah even compiled a treatise 'Prohibition of opinion in scholasticism.’

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal used to say that one who practices scholasticism can never get salvation and such a person is always having hypocrisy. He has severely condemned scholasticism, and the level of his extremism can be gauged from the fact that he broke off relations with Harith Muhasibi, although the latter was a pious and a religious person.

The reason for this conflict was that Harith had a written book against heretics. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, while criticizing this book said:

“It is regrettable that in your book you have first described the heretics and then you have refuted them. In the process, you gave people the chance to read about the views of heretics and urged them to think upon them, which makes the people inclined to have discussions about it and to express their views.”

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was such a radical that he used to say: “Scholastic theologians are irreligious.”

Zafran says that Imam Shafei has given the verdict that:

“Scholastic theologians should be whipped and then they should be taken around and exhibited in the tribes so that people come to know that this is the punishment of those who abandon the Qur’an and traditions and follow scholasticism.”

The Salafis have followed this same idea right from their inception. They have always claimed that the companions were more aware of the facts in comparison to other people as regard religious matters. And that they were also more knowledgeable about the arrangement of the words. Despite this, they have maintained silence on various matters because they knew that those matters would give rise to evils and the Holy Prophet (S) had also said: “Those who argue are destroyed, those who argue much are destroyed. Those who argue much are destroyed.”4

The Salafis believe in corporeality and comparison in relation to Allah. According to them, pre-destination means that man does not have any freewill, and that he is absolutely helpless in every way.5 This group allows imitation (taqleed) in matters of faith and considers the contemplation and deliberation of rules to be unlawful.

Dr. Ahmad Mahmood Sabihi writes that neither is imitation possible in matters of faith, nor is it allowed, whereas Ubaidullah Ibn Hasan Amberi in Hashuya and Taleema,6 and also Razi7 in Al-Mahsil has opposed this, while the majority of the scholars believe that imitation is unlawful in matters of faith.

In Sharh Tarteeb, Ustad Abu Ishaq writes that the scholars of truth are unanimous that imitation is not allowed in matters of faith. Imam al-Harmain has written in his book Ash-Shamil that except for the Hanbalis, no one believes in the lawfulness of imitation in principles of faith. But Imam Shaukafi, differing from the majority, has stated that to learn about the principles of belief through proofs and arguments is so difficult that not everyone is capable of resorting to.

After that, Shaukafi has refuted the arguments of scholars who do not accept imitation in matters of faith. We are astonished at this essay of Shaukafi. He says that to believe in the fundamentals of religion on the basis of logic and reasoning is an injustice on this ummah. It is a responsibility beyond their capacity. Since many companions did not reach the level of legal deduction (ijtihaad), they adopted imitation (taqleed) in the matter of beliefs also. For the majority of the people of the ummah, it is unlawful to employ logical reasoning in the matter of principles of belief, and it will lead to ignorance and deviation.8

Those having this view consider the study and teaching of logic unlawful, and do not think that it will lead one to gain divine recognition, while the science of logic is a science of proofs and reasoning, and it contains the method of arrangement of evidence. The basic principles of this science were mentioned by Aristotle in his book, Organon, and he named them ‘criteria’.

Among the experts of logic and philosophy in the Islamic world were Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ghazali, Ibn Majah, Ibn Tufayl and Ibn Rushd. To refute the science of logic, the group of the followers of tradition (ahl ul-hadith) argued that if the science of logic had helped these logicians and philosophers to reach a correct conclusion, there would not have been differences among them. Since there were wide differences in their views and opinions, it cannot be taken as a criterion of truth and falsehood.

This group had such a belief during the stage of its inception, and it severely condemned scholasticism and the science of logic. However, later it was compelled to concede its stand to some extent. For example, when we look at a later follower of this school, Ibn Taimiyyah, we see that he is somewhat inclined to scholasticism. He did not consider scholasticism as absolutely unlawful. He says that scholasticism becomes lawful in certain situations. And he himself took the help of scholasticism to refute the views of atheists and apostates.9

Though Ibn Taimiyyah agreed to scholasticism, he continued his opposition to the science of logic. He also wrote a book Refutation of Logicians.

Followers of Ibn Taimiyyah say that the French philosopher Descartes (1596 - 1650), instead of accepting the logic of Aristotle, formulated some principles of recognizing the right and wrong. He had claimed that one who followed these principles shall be safe from contemplative mistakes and shall reach certainty. But see what happened? Like the logic of Aristotle, the principles of Descartes also could not save one from committing mistakes in mental deductions, and even today man still needs maturity of thought like he was hundreds of years ago.10

Many Islamic thinkers disliked the logical method. Thus, Imam al-Ghazali, in Tahafat ul-Falasafa refuted the views of philosophers through arguments. The basic premise of Ghazali's book is that one cannot rely wholly on reason, because just as reason is constructive it can also cause destruction. Imam Ghazali proves that in the matters of divinity and ethics, the most that reason can do is to provide a conjecture, but it cannot create certainty.

Ibn Rushd al-Al-Andalusi (died 595 A.H.) wrote Tahafatu Tahafa in refutation of Ghazali, in which he rebutted the views of Ghazali and said that there is no contradiction between correct reasoning and authentic texts. He explained his contention further in his book, Fasl ul-Maqaal Feema Bainal Hukma wash Shariah Minal Ittesaal.

It may be called force of circumstances or a good coincidence that the view presented by Ibn Rushd was the same as that which Ibn Taimiyyah mentioned in his book Mawafia Sarih al-Maqool Le Sahih al-Manaqool.

We are surprised how Ibn Taimiyyah adopted two contradictory stands. In every manner, whether it is the Ahl ul-Hadith from Ahl Sunnah or the Akhbaris11 from the Shi’as, they all follow the apparent meanings of the traditions, and try their utmost to avoid inferences and analogy (Rai and Qiyas).12

These days the Salafi and Ahl ul-Hadith ideology is widespread in Saudi Arabia (Najd). Some of their groups are also present in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt.13

Deduction based only on logical reasoning: Reason and logic is given utmost importance in the Mu’tazali faith. People of this school were known in history as the people of 'Rai' and people of monotheism and divine justice. The founders of this school of thought were Wasil Ibn Ata (80 - 131 A.H.) and Amr Ibn Ubaid Misri (81- 144 A.H). At that time Mansur Dawaniqi was the reigning caliph. After Wasil and Amr, this school was led by Ahmad Ibn Abi Dawood, the vizier of Ma’moon Rashid. Qadi Abd ul-Jabbar Ibn Ahmad Hamadani (died 415 A.H.) also played an important role in spreading this ideology. Nazzam, Abu al-Hindeel, Allaaf, Jahiz Jabayaan also held a special position in Mu’tazila sect.

Because the Mu’tazilites accorded utmost importance to reason, they relied on logical reasoning for the interpretation and understanding of the divine reality, attributes of Allah and the Shari’ah. And they were certain that it is impossible to understand and derive religious concepts without the use of logica1 reasoning.

Mu’tazila has become extinct since a long time, but we can see the traces of Mu’tazila views in the Zaidiyyah and Ibadi sects. These two sects are influenced by Mu’tazilite views in several matters of faith. Mu’tazila had many common points with the Shi’a school of thought also. The Ahl ul-Hadith used to refer to the Mu’tazila as Qadariyya, because the latter believed in absolute freewill man.

The important book of this sect is Qadi Abd ul-Jabbar's Sharh Usool al-Khamsa, and they also accord significance to Risala Adl wat Tauheed, which was compiled by the well-known Mu’tazili scholars, Hasan Basri, Qasim ar-Rasi and Abd ul-Jabbar Ibn Ahmad.

The Mu’tazila used to interpret (in a new way) the verses that were against their beliefs, therefore they were considered among ‘the people of interpretation (ta’wil)’. Mu’tazila have rendered a great service to Islam. The Mu’tazila confronted with absolute determination the intellectual storm that arose against Islam due to the popularity of Greek philosophy during the early period of the Abbasid reign. Even the cruel and tyrannical kings like Ma’moon and Mu’tasim could not remain without being influenced by Mu’tazila.

However, during the reign of Mutawakkil, the Mu’tazila School began to decline because the rulers had turned against them, and the Ahl ul-Hadith were laying verdicts of infidelity, deviation and transgression against them. Therefore, this school gradually became extinct. It is also incorrect to call the Mu’tazila innocent or suppressed because they also had severely persecuted their opponents during their period of dominance.

After that, whatever happened can be called fruits of deeds. For those who like to know about further details, they can refer to books on this subject.14

Mu’tazila had five fundaments of faith:

Tawhid: It means that Allah is purified of the qualities of the creatures, and it is impossible to see Him with one’s eyes.

‘Adl: It means that the Almighty Allah is not unjust on the people, and He does not compel them to disobey Him.

Al-Manzila Bainal Manzilatain: It means that one who commits a greater sin (kabeera) is neither a believer nor an infidel; he is a transgressor (fasiq).

Waad O Waeed: It means that it is necessary that Allah should fulfil His promise of Paradise to the believers and the promise of Hell to the disbelievers.

Amr bil Ma’roof and Nahi ‘Anil Munkar: It means that when tyrannical rulers do not give up oppression, it becomes necessary to campaign against them.

Beliefs Of Ash’ari And Maturudi

The Ash’ari faith, which is represented by the Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jamaah today, is a moderate school of thought between the Mu’tazila and Ahl ul-Hadith.15 The founder of this school, Abu al-Hasan Ash’ari (died 324 A .H.), was Mu’tazali in the beginning. He had followed Mu’tazale beliefs for forty years. But in the year 300 A.H. in the Basra Jame Masjid, he repented for being a Mu’tazili and adopted the faith of Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jamaah.

He chose a path between Ahl ul-Hadith and Mu’tazila. Although he practically imparted strength to the Ahl ul-Hadith, for this purpose he employed the logical method of Mu’tazila. Due to this style of his, the Mu’tazila opposed him whereas the Ahl ul-Hadith also did not support him. They are not prepared to forgive him even to this day. They accuse him of deviating from the basic principles and many Ahl ul-Hadith with extremist stand have issued the verdict of infidelity against him.

During the time of Ash’ari, Abu Mansur Maturudi Samarqandi (died 333 A.H.) also was acting on these lines. Maturudi is also considered an Imam of Ahl Sunnah in the matters of belief. Although both Ash’ari and Maturudi were imams of Ahl Sunnah in the matter of belief, their opinion is not the same in some matters.

Some people have mentioned that there are eleven points of differences between their views.16 Ash’ari is very particular to avoid interpretation of the apparent meanings of the words of Qur’an and Hadith. He used to fall into the debasement of simile and corporeality without any hesitation and in the issue of predestination, he used to take the cover of “bil Kasab” (by acquiring) whereas other sects used to consider it a failure on his part to understand the problems of faith and thoughts.

In any case, Ash’ari remained adamant against the faith of Ahl ul-Hadith, and gradually the mischief spread all over the Islamic world.17

3. Gnostic and Neo-Platonist way of reasoning: Among the Islamic schools, there was a school that subjected the problems of scholastic theology on the criterion of research and then chose the view that were in consonance with the gnostic way of thinking. This school was completely different from the philosophical and scholastic sects based on logical reasoning. The founder of this school was Hallaj.18

Imam al-Ghazali holds a very important position in this school. He has written in Al-Jame al-Uloom ‘An llm ul-Kalaam that it is the method of “Khassa” (special). Apart from this, they have “Aamma” (common) style of thinking. The “Aamma” and their followers know evidence, but they are deprived of logical deduction.19

Dr. Sulaiman Dina has written a book entitled, Al-Haqiqah fee Nazar al-Ghazali. on Ghazali and other Sufi schools of thought. Criticizing the view of Ghazali, Dr. Ahmad Mahmood Sabihi has written that Ghazali issued a verdict regarding the reality of being of the Almighty that it is unlawful for the public to contemplate on this matter.

Though we have nothing against this verdict of Ghazali, the extremism of Ghazali is such that he included even the litterateurs, grammarians, traditionists, jurisprudents and scholastic theologians among the ‘public’, and issued the verdict that ‘the firmly rooted in knowledge' are only those gnostics who are fully immersed in divine recognition, who keep away from carnal desires. This statement of Ghazali is the proof for those who claim that Ghazali had a completely different view regarding Illuminism and profusion, and as a result of having this view, Abu Hamid Ghazali is called Hujjat ul-Islam.

After that Dr. Sabihi questions the justifiability of keeping out the jurisprudents, exegetes, and scholastic theologians from the ranks of ‘the firmly-rooted in knowledge’ and regarding only the Sufis as being in that rank. Does it not increase the scope of profane talks of mystics? While the fact is that the principles of illuminism and gnosticism are as harmful to Islamic beliefs as the self-made problems of the scholastic theologians.20 Despite this, the Sufi school of thought has left a considerable heritage regarding Islamic beliefs.21

4. Perceptive and experimental deduction: It was an absolutely new type of thinking with regard to Islamic beliefs and it is mostly followed by scholars and intellectuals who are more influenced by the western world. These scholars and intellectuals come from Egypt, India, Iraq, and those countries that had been British, American, French and Japanese colonies.

People who follow this style of thinking have a special opinion regarding the means of human recognition and they rely more on perceptive and experimental deductions. In their view, the ancient method of thinking and the logic of Aristotle does not have any importance. They have tried to subject metaphysics and divine recognition to scientific and experimentative criterion.22

The scholars of this school interpret divine miracle in material terms and say that prophethood is nothing but human perfection. Some researchers have compiled whole books on this style of thought.23 For example the writings of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan.24

Sir Sayyid has proved himself a fan of the western world in his Tafsir of Qur’an. His Tafsir is more in consonance with modem scientific discoveries. Though Sir Sayyid cannot be called the main standard bearer of this school of thought, it must be mentioned that he has adopted an apologetic attitude with regard to the Qur’an and has gone to great lengths to prove that the holy Qur’an is in complete support of modern science. Tough no particular boundary can be fixed for this school of thought, it is perfectly reflected in different religious issues and modem scientific essays.25

5. Conventional Reasoning: The basic elements of conventional reasoning are present in the teachings of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), without which it is not possible to understand the Islamic beliefs correctly. This method of reasoning is based on the Qur’an and Sunnah as the Holy Qur’an says:

“...The nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know” (30:30).

It is announced in this verse that the best way to obtain the understanding of divine realities (Ma’rifah)26 is through the nature of man. And the first condition for nature is that it should not have been changed by adverse social conditioning and poor upbringing, and not contaminated by succumbing to selfish desires, and useless debates and discussions. The majority of people cannot realize this fact because their nature has become clouded by prejudice and their obstinacy is a hurdle in understanding realities.

Traditions have also explained the significance of a perfect nature. The Holy Prophet (S) says: Every child is born on human nature. Then its parents make it a Jew, Christian or Magian.27

The conventional method includes all, logical, religious texts, intuition, illuminism and scientific methods. The specialty of this school is that it does not rely on only one method. Rather in keeping with divine guidance it used any method that is required.

The tawfeeq (good sense) of guidance is from the Almighty Allah as He mentions in the Qur’an:

“They think that they lay you under an obligation by becoming Muslims. Say: lay me not under obligation by your Islam: rather Allah lays you under an obligation by guiding you to the faith if you are truthful” (49:17).

Another verse reads:

“…And were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have ever been pure…” (24:21).

A special characteristic of this school of thought is that its followers avoid debates of scholastic theology and doubts and uncertainties. They narrate traditions from the imams of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) in which they have prohibited useless debates regarding religion, and they know that their opponents, despite having the same religion, are having differences in hundreds of issues.28 In the traditions of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) 'nature' is sometimes referred to as 'teenat' (essence) and sometimes 'aql-e-Matboo' (agreeable intellect). For more information, please study collection of traditions.29

Method Of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘A) In Understanding The Principles Of Faith

In the debates on matters related to faith, the sources are of great importance. Previously we had stated that the sources of Islamic beliefs are the Qur’an and traditions. The main difference between the school of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) and other schools is that the former under no circumstances leaves aside Qur’an and traditions and solves every problem through the guidance of the Qur’an and traditions.

It is not prepared to accord preference to any personal desire or prejudice over the Qur’an and traditions. In the matter of deriving the practical laws also this school considers the Qur’an and traditions to be the fundamental sources. That is the reason for these:

The depth of the views of this school of thought can be gauged from the fact that its followers never accord priority to personal deduction (ijtihad) over authentic texts (nass), and they exercise care to see that the nass should be without contradiction, or if it is present, it should not negate the meaning of the text. Other sects are not very particular about texts. There are even some schools that are seen to resort to weak reasonings in trying to free themselves from the obligation of following texts.

His Eminence, Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) said to Harith Ibn Hout: ...Indeed you have not yet recognized the truth, then how can you recognize the people of truth, and you have not yet recognized falsehood then how can you recognize the people of falsehood?30

In the school of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) nothing is accorded priority over nass, subject to the condition that the nass should be absolute and is related by a large number of narrators (mutawatir). This is the fundamental requirement for Islamic beliefs because conjectures and possibilities cannot establish fundamental principles of faith. Keeping in view the style of the followers of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), the Salafi group must also reform their attitude, because they rely on weak or solitary traditions with regard to their beliefs, and they are very fanatical about their school of thought. Based on some weak narrations, they accuse some Muslims to be infidels. They should not be merely fond of traditions but must also distinguish the traditions by evaluating their respective authenticity, generality, particularity, and ambiguity. They should also research the antecedents of the narrators.

The Islamic beliefs can be divided into two types: “Essential” and “Academic”. ‘Essentials’ are those that if one denies any of them, one goes out of the pale of Islam. For example, belief in monotheism (tawheed), prophethood (nubuwwah) and Judgment Day (qiyamat); they are called Dhururiyaat-e-Deen (essentials of religion). The ‘academic’ beliefs mean those in which there may be need for research and evidence, and in which there is difference of opinion among the leaders of different sects. Thus, those who deny the 'essentials' are infidels, whereas one who denies ‘academic’ principles of faith is not.

Analogy and personal discretion are not allowed in matters of beliefs.

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) also believes that the demands of intellect are according to authentic texts, subject to the condition that both of them should be considered in an objective manner, and that a mere possibility should not be presented as a certainty. Clear logic should not be replaced with weak text, and authentic and widely related narrations should not be given the same weightage as a solitary report.

All such inferences and deductions are unlawful, and they aim to spread heresies.

Based on absolute proofs, the school of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) considers all the prophets and the twelve imams (‘a) to be infallible, and when something is proved to be from them, it is obligatory to believe in it. A jurisprudent (mujtahid) can reach a correct decision on jurisprudence, but it is also possible for him to err, even though if errs in doing so – while he has fulfilled all the requirements for research in jurisprudence, - he is excused.

Traditionists are present among the ummah. But so are those who are inspired divinely, and those who have true dreams. Through these channels they perceive realities, but all these matters need proofs. In matters of faith and practice they also have a position, but conditions are prescribed for that.

If a debate - held with piety, good manner and decorum - is intended to spread enlightenment, recognition of truth and to promote beliefs, it is worthy of praise. But to hold a debate only to show off one’s knowledgeableness is despicable. During a debate one should never say anything that one is not certain of.

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) dislikes heresies and anything that is an innovation (bid’ah) that is promoted in the name of religion, while it is not from religion. Some people consider certain things to be bid’ah and some other things to be recommended (sunnat), but when the matter is investigated it does not tum out to be bid’ah or sunnat. Therefore, it is necessary to first investigate the matter first, and only then should one issue a fatwa.31

Utmost care and contemplation are required before calling anyone as a kafir (disbeliever). As long as a person does not himself admit his infidelity or there is irrefutable testimony against him, one cannot issue a verdict of kufr (disbelief) because associating disbelief (takfeer) with anyone makes him liable for penalty, and for religious penalty it is necessary that the matter should be beyond all doubts. It is a very serious sin to call someone an infidel. However, if someone really becomes infidel, there is no problem in calling him as such.32

In the event of differences, it is obligatory to refer to the holy Qur’an, sunnat and itrah (progeny of the prophet). The holy Qur’an says:

“And if they have referred it to the apostle and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the shaitan save a few” (4:83).

Regarding the divine qualities, it is the belief of the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) that the divine qualities are the actual being of the Almighty. He is alive himself and not due to life. He is himself Powerful and Himself Knowing. The Almighty Allah is not imbued with qualities as the person – who is making the comparison - makes him out to be. The worst view that Abu Hashim Jabai has presented regarding divine qualities, for which he left the pale of Islam, such views are refuted by the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a). As regards the qualities of the Almighty Allah, the composite sum of the Imamiyah and Mu’tazila belief is the same, though Mu’tazila differ in some of them as we indicated in the above discussion. Apart from the Imamiyah and Mu’tazila, the Zaidiyyah, most of the Murji’ah, and the Ahl ul-Hadith either follow the Ahl ul-Asbaat' (affirmative) of the 'Ahl Tateel' (denying all qualities).33

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) considers that something is good or bad on the basis of reason, and this school believes that intellect immediately senses the virtue or defect of certain things.

Views Regarding Belief In The Unity Of Godhead (Tawhid)

In the matter of tawheed, the school of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) believes in absolute Tanziyah (absolution from similarity) because the Almighty Allah says:

“...nothing is like Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (42:11).

In addition to this, the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) believes that it is impossible to see Allah with the physical eyes because the Almighty Allah says:

“Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision” (6:103).

It is not correct to associate the Almighty Allah with the qualities of the creatures because the divine statement is:

“Glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him)” (6:100).

And:

“Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of power, from what they describe” (43:82).

Views Regarding Divine Justice (‘Adl)

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) considers the Almighty Allah to be Just and they deny that He can ever be unjust. Allah, the Mighty and the High says:

“Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom…” (4:40).

And:

“Surely Allah does not do any injustice to men, but men are unjust to themselves” (10:44).

Views Regarding Prophethood (Nubuwwat)

The message of the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) regarding prophethood is that the prophets were absolutely infallible as the Almighty Allah says:

“And it is not attributable to a prophet that he should act unfaithfully; and he who acts unfaithfully shall bring that in respect of which he has acted unfaithfully on the day of resurrection…” (3:161).

And:

“Say: Surely, I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day” (6:15).

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) considers the prophets infallible in recognizing divine revelation too. The Almighty Allah says:

“And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings” (69:44).

“We would certainly have seized him by the right hand” (69:45).

“Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta” ( 69:46).

This school also regards the angels to be infallible:

“… They do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded” (66:6).

Views Regarding Belief In Imamate (Succession To The Prophet)

According to the view of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), imamate is a divine office and a fallible cannot be an imam. The condition of infallibility is necessary for the greater imamate, and the greater imamate denotes the successorship of the Holy Prophet (S) in all material and spiritual matters (worldly and those of the Hereafter).

This Shi’a view is based on the following 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).

In other words, based on confirmed text, we have reached the conclusion that the dreams of the prophets and the imams are also true, and the Almighty Allah has protected them from the mistake of dream also.34

The Value Of Logical Reasoning In The School Of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘A)

In between the extreme stands adopted by the Mu’tazila and Asha’ira, the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) accords a special position to intellect. As Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) writes:

If someone says that widely related traditions are not available regarding the imams of the Imamate faith and only solitary narrations exist about them, it will have no effect on our faith because along with solitary reports we also have with us logical proofs that prove the necessity of the existence of the imams of guidance. And, God forbid, if these narrational reports had been invalid, as the opponents say, the necessary conclusion is that those logical proofs, that make the imamate of the imams necessary, would also have become invalid.35

The Shaykh further writes:

Through divine opportunity (taufeeq) and will of the Almighty Allah, in this book, I shall explain the difference between the faith of Shi’as and that of Mu’tazila. Along with this, I shall contrast the belief of Shi’as regarding divine justice with the belief of Mu’tazila.36

Shaykh Saduq Muhammad Ibn Babawahy (died 381 A.H.) says:

The practice of the Almighty Allah is that first He imbues the intellect with a vision of the reality of something. After that He invites towards that thing. Because if there is no prior imagination of this thing, calling to it will not serve any purpose. Things create a picture of themselves in the intellect, and also inform about their opposites. If the denial of prophets had been there in intellect from the beginning, the Almighty Allah would never have sent any prophet.37

Shaykh Saduq further writes:

The most correct statement regarding this matter is that we have recognized Allah through Allah Himself, because if we had recognized Allah through our intellect, this intellect is also given by Allah and if we have recognized Allah through the prophets and imams, they had also been sent by the Almighty Allah, and it is He that appointed them as His proof. And if we have recognized Allah on our own, we ourselves also are creations of Allah. Therefore, whatever may be the medium of understanding the divine reality (ma’rifat), its final conclusion would only be that we have recognized Allah through Allah Himself.38

This attitude towards the intellect - that is to consider it at par with the prophets and the imams of guidance - is the special distinction of the Imamiyah faith, and other than the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), intellect is not accorded such a position.

Regarding Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a), there is a tradition that: If Allah had not been there, we would not have been recognized and if we had not been there, Allah would not have been recognized.39

In the explanation of this tradition, Shaykh Saduq writes that it means that if the divine proofs (Hujjat) had not been there, Allah would not have been recognized completely and if Allah had not been there, no one would have recognized the Proofs.40

View Of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘A) On Scholastic Debates

There are two types of opinions regarding such debate. In the view of Ahl ul-Hadith, to have any discussion on issues related to scholastic theology is absolutely unlawful and is prohibited, whereas the Mu’tazila have solely relied on discussions of scholastic theology. Both these views are extreme. The view of the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) is between the two extremes and it has a moderate opinion regarding debates.

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), in light of the Holy Qur’an, says that debates are of two types,

good debates and the bad or undesirable ones.

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way” (16:125).

Interpreting the views of the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) regarding debates, Shaykh Mufid writes:

The ‘congregation of the truthful ones’ has ordered a group from among its followers that they must not debate with opponents and ordered another group that they should debate with opponents and call them to truth. Keeping in view the conditions of both groups, the imams (‘a) have issued different commands to each of them. They have ordered only that group that is capable to prove the truth and falsify falsehood to have debates.41

In that statement by Shaykh Mufid, 'congregation of the truthful ones' denotes the infallible imams from the purified progeny (of the prophet) whose infallibility is announced by the Almighty Allah and whom Allah has kept purified from all impurities, as He says:

“ ….Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.” (33:33)

That 'congregation of the truthful ones' comprises those infallible personalities regarding whom the Almighty Allah has said:

“O, you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the true ones” (9:119).

The 'congregation of the truthful' comprises imams of guidance whose imamate is mentioned in the traditions of the Holy Prophet (S), and every Imam issued statement regarding the next Imam till their number was complete. Announcements regarding the imams of guidance are present in traditions in various wordings, and their number is also mentioned in the traditions of the prophet. And clear text (nass) is also present on the first of these imams. Those who wish to study this subject in detail can refer to the respective books.42

The Necessary Of Contemplation Towards Understanding Of Divine Reality (Ma’rifat)

In the school of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), intellect (‘aql) and shari’ah are not considered as opponents of each other. They are considered as allies. As-Shaykh Saduq has written that Prophet Ibrahim (‘a) first looked at the Venus, then the Moon and then the Sun, and when he found all of them transitory, he said:

“O my people! Surely, I am clear of what you set up (with Allah)”(6:78).

His Eminence Prophet Ibrahim (‘a) had been guided by the Almighty Allah. Despite that, he could not prove the oneness of Allah without God-given arguments. The Almighty Allah has called Prophet Ibrahim's argument as divinely inspired proof:

“And this was Our argument which we gave to Ibrahim against his people” (6:83).

For recognizing monotheism, no one can be needless of the teachings of the Almighty Allah because Allah has said to His prophet: Then know that there is no god except Allah.43

Shaykh Saduq means to say that intellect is not capable of reaching full understanding of divine reality without the help of divine revelation. But it does not mean that intellect is of no use and the conclusions derived through reason are worthless.

Shaykh Mufid writes that “intellect is in need of divine revelation for its preliminaries and conclusions”44 At the same time he also emphasizes the use of intellect in understanding the principles of faith and says that the prohibition of speaking about Allah means that He should not be compared with the creatures and that the orders of creatures should not be applied on Him.45

Shaykh Mufid used to ridicule his opponents for not using the intellect and called them as being ‘weak in opinion’. He has written: Abandoning thinking and contemplation and adopting blind following indeed deserve condemnation.46

The Position Of Emulation In The School Of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘A) And The Character Of Man

As we have stated previously, although intellect has an important role in the understanding of religion, but until the time intellect is not accompanied with the effulgence of divine revelation, it cannot succeed in finding the right path. All the Islamic sects and scholastic schools are unanimous on this point.

If there is difference of opinion, it is regarding the limits of traditions. Some traditions are narrated widely, through so many channels that one is assured that the prophet or imams or the companions have indeed stated such words. But sometimes a tradition is not so widely related, and its validity is viewed as weak or just as a strong possibility. It also happens sometimes that a solitary report reaches us. If it is only a solitary report, we view that it is possibly doubtful.

In the teaching of the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a), until the time such tradition is accompanied with a method that can prove its authenticity, it is not right to rely solely on the report.

Solitary Report Is Insufficient For Principles Of Faith

The school of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) prescribes extreme caution for any tradition that is related to principles of faith. Weak argument and scanty evidence cannot be used to derive matters of faith. In the present age, more precaution is required because there is a vast gap of 1,400 years between us and the period of the Holy Prophet (S) .

Therefore, we must avoid conjectures and accept only confirmed traditions so that we may be safe from misguidance. When we adopt certainties, we will be saved from the disputes that proved dangerous for Islam and its teachings.

Regarding this, Shaykh Mufid says:

And I say that it is not obligatory to act upon the solitary reports. It is not lawful for anyone to decide something based on a solitary report till the time the truthfulness of this narrator is proven from some other method. And this is the same view of all Shi’as, many Mu’tazila and thinkers and a group of Murji’ah. But the Sunni jurisprudence and those who believe in 'Rai' (personal opinion) do not agree with this.47

The above statements show that followers of Aale Muhammad used to exercise utmost precaution in the matter of faith. This precaution was also prescribed to them by the imams of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a). The imams of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) ordered their followers:

Your religion is your brother, so be careful with your religion.

The most pious is one who restrains himself from doubtful things.

Conclusion

On the aspect of Islamic beliefs, the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) is the best school of thought and this school makes use of all the available sources of knowledge and the understanding of divine reality. But it does not allow the interference of these sources in understanding divinity and attributes of the Almighty Allah because the issues of divinity are beyond the limits of man's intellect.

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) does not rely on only one source, like the Ahl ul-Hadith - who only rely on texts - or like the Gnostics, who only follow intuition. Apart from this, another merit of the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) is that it does not assign more importance to any source of knowledge than its actual worth.

For example, though it accords appropriate position to intellect, it is not prepared to accord it an independent value. In matters beyond the limits of perception and those related to the details of the Judgment Day, it does not accept even the least guidance from intellect. Despite that, this School also does not devalue intellect. The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) has clearly announced that without the luminosity of the intellect, it is difficult to understand divine revelation.

The School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) is a school that favours prudence. Therefore, it does not rely on every type of tradition, Sunnah, and text, unless there is certainty that it is mentioned by the Holy Prophet (S) or the companions or the Holy Imams (‘a). And unless a solitary report is supported by other texts and the Book of Allah, it cannot be relied upon. And it is necessary to know the general and the specific, the abrogator and the abrogated, the ambiguous and the clear, and the literal and metaphorical aspects of narrations.

All these can be summed up in the term 'ijtihad', which means absolute effort to derive a religious connotation.

In the School of Ahl Al-Bayt (‘a) a debate is not supposed to open the avenue of discord. It is actually for calling the people to the Lord of the Worlds, and if it is held in a congenial manner, there is no harm in it. During a debate, one should always keep in mind the principles of wisdom and counsel. However, if it is to exalt oneself and humiliate others, or to create dissension, such a debate is condemned by Allah.

We conclude our discussion with the following verse of the Qur’an and the statement of the Almighty Allah:

“And (as for) those who believe and do good We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability-- they are the dwellers of the garden; in it they shall abide” (7:42).

“And We will remove whatever of ill-feeling is in their breasts; the rivers shall flow beneath them and they shall say: All praise is due to Allah Who guided us to this, and we would not have found the way had it not been that Allah had guided us; certainly the messengers of our Lord brought the truth; and it shall be cried out to them that this is the garden of which you are made heirs for what you did” (7:43).

1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 3, Pg. 128.

2. Seerah Ibn Hisham, Vol I, Pg. 341-342; Majmuat ul-Wasaiq asSiyasah, Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, Vol. I, Pg. 7.

3. - Maqalaat ul-Islamiyyin wa Ikhtilaaf ul-Muslimeen, Ashari, Vol. I, Pg. 34-39; Al-Fasl fil Milal wa al-Ahwaa wan-Nihal, Ibn Hazm, Vol. 2, Pg. 111; Fajr ul-Islam, Ahmad Amin Misri

4. At-Tauheed ul-Khaalis Awil Islam wa al-Aql, Dr. Abd ul-Haleem Mahmood, Pg. 4-20.

5. Risala Aqeedat ul-Salawa AshaAbu al-Hadith (Fi Rasail ul-Muneera), Sabuni Abu Uthman Ismail.

6. Al-Ahkaam fee Usoolil Ahkaam, Aamadi, Vol. 4, Pg.300.

7. Irshaad ul-Fahool, Shaukani, Pg. 366-367.

8. Al-Irshaad Ilaa Qawaati ul-Adilla, Imam Juwaini, Pg. 25; Al-Jaam ul-Awaam An Ilm ul-Kalaam, Imam Ghazali, Pg. 66-67 and Ilm ul-Kalaam, Dr. Ahmad Mahmood Sabihi, Vol. l.

9. Majmaa al-Fatwa, Ibn Taimiyyah. Vol. 3, Pg. 306-307.

10. At-Tauheed ul-Khaalis, Dr. Abd ul-Haleem Mahmood, Pg. 5-20.

11. Al-Awail ul-Maqaalaat, Shaykh Mufid.

12. Saun ul-Mantiq wa al-Kalaam ‘An Ilmi al-Mantiq wa al-Kalaam, Suyuti, Pg. 252; Irshaad ul-Fahool. Shaukani, Pg. 202; Minhaj ul-Bahas Inda Mufakkiri ul-Islam. Ali Saami Al-Nishaar, Pg. 194; Al- Fikrus Salafi Indal lthna Asharia, Ali Husayn Al-Jabiri. Pg. 154, 204, 439.

13. Tarikh ul-Jahmiyya wa al-Mu’tazaliyya, Al-Qasmi, Pg. 56.

14. Al-Mu’tazila, Zohdi Hasan Jarullah, Second Edition, Beirut, Daar ul-Ahliya Lin Nashr wat Tauzeeh, 1974

15. Ahl ul-Hadith are also called Salafis. Among the former, they follow Muhammad Ibn Abd ul-Wahhab Najdi and among the latter they follow the beliefs and views of Abd ul-Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baaz.

16. Tarikh ul-Mazahib ul-Islamiyyah, Muhammad Abu Zahra, Qism ul-Asha’ira wa al-Maturud1yya; Al-Milal wan Nihal, Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani, Pg. 1-3; Al-Farq ul-Islamiyyah Fish Shumalil Afriqi, Pg. 118; Ilm ul-Kalaam, Ahmad Mahmood Sabihi, Vol. I.

17. Tabaqatush Shafiya, Sabaki, Vol. 3, Pg.391; Miraat ul-Jinaan, Yafai, Vol.3, Pg. 343; Al-Bidaya Wan Nihaya, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 14, Pg. 76.

18. It refers to the Sufi, Mansur Hallaj. Actually, Mansur was the name of his father, while his name was Husayn. In 309 A.H. he was executed for uttering the words: I am God. Afterwards his corpse was burnt up and the ashes thrown in the Tigris.

19. Al-Jaam ul-Awaam An Ilm ul-Kalaam, Imam Ghazali, Pg. 66.

20. llm ul-Kalaanm, Dr. Ahmad Mahmood Sabihi, Vol. 2, Pg. 604.

21. Al-Yuwaaqeetu wa al-Jawaahir Fee Bayan Aqaid ul-Akaabir, Sherani Abd ul-Wahhab Ibn Ahmad.

22. Al-Tawheed ul-Khaalis Awil Islanm wa al-’Aql, Dr. Abd ul-Haleem Mahmood.

23. Al-Muslimoon wa al-Ilm ul-Hadith, Dr. Abdur Razzaq Naufal; Al-Islam Fee Asr ul-‘Ilm, Fareed Wajidi.

24. Tarjuma Tafsir ul-Qur’an, Vol. I, Pg. 6-25.

25. Shaykh Mahmood Shaltut, Tafsir ul-Qur’an, Pg. 11-13 in the Tafsir of the first ten parts of the Qur’an; Ahya al-Fikr Ad-Deeni Fil Islam Dr Allamah lqbaI, Persian translation by Ahmad Aaraam Pg 147-15; Al-Urwat ul-Wuthqa, Sayyid Jamaluddin Afghani, Vol 7, Pg 383, Published in Italy.

26. This word refers to the understanding of divine reality [note of al-Islam].

27. Sahih Bukhari, Kitabu al-Janaiz Wa Kitabut Tafsir, 3; Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Qadr Hadith 22-23-24; Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 2, Pg. 233 - 481: Vol 3, Pg. 353; Siraat ul-Haqq, Asif Mohsini Khandahari.

28. Kashf ul-MuhAjja Li Thamaratil Muhajja, Ali Ibn Tawoos, Pg. 11-20, Maktabud Dawari, Qom.

29. Usool al-Kafi . Vol. I, 310, Baab al-Hidaya, Vol. 2-3. Baab Teenat al Mu’minin wa al-Kafir. Fourth Edition, Maktaba Islamiyyah, Teheran 1392 A H.

30. Nahj ul-Balagha Saying no 262.

31. Rasail Ash- Sharif al-Murtaza, Risalat ul-Huddod wa al-Haqaiq Sharif Murtaza Ali Ibn Husayn Musawi, died 436 A.H.

32. Considering those who say that Allah has qualities - and He was imbued with those qualities and who in order to prove this, cross the limits of comparison - as infidels (Tashbih).

33. Shaykh Mufid, Al-Awail ul-Maqaalaat, Pg. 18

34. Shaykh Mufid, Al-Awail ul-Maqaalaat.

35. Shaykh Mufid, Al-Masaila ul-Jaaroodiyaa.

36. Shaykh Mufid, Al-Awail ul-Maqaalaat.

37. Shaykh Saduq, Ikmaluddin wa Itmaamun Nima.

38. Shaykh Saduq, Kitab at-Tawhid, Pg. 290.

39. Shaykh Saduq, Kitab at-Tawhid. Pg. 290.

40. Shaykh Saduq, Kitab at-Tawhid, Pg. 290.

41. Shaykh Mufid, Tasih ul-Itiqaadaat, Pg.66.

42. Refer to Ibn Ayyash Jauhari, Muqtazib ul-Athar Fin Nasse Alaa Adad ul-Aaimmat ul-Ithna Ashar; Ibn Tulun Damishqi, Al-Shazaraat ul-Zahabiyya Fee Aaimmat ul-Ithna Asharia; Shaykh Mufid, AlMasaila ul-Jaarodiyaa; Shaykh Hurr Amili Muhammad Ibn Hasan, Athbat ul-Huda Bin Nusoos wa al-Mu’jizat.

43. Shaykh Saduq, Kitab at-Tawhid, Pg. 292.

44. Awail ul-Maqaalaat, Pg. 11- 12.

45. Tashih Itiqaadaat bi ThawaAbu al-Intiqaad (1370), was published with Awail ul-Maqaalaat in Tabriz.

46. Tashih Itiqaadaat bi ThawaAbu al-Intiqaad (1370), was published with Awail ul-Maqaalaat in Tabriz.

47. Awail ul-Maqaalaat, Pg. 100, Published Tabriz, Iran.

Topic Tags:

Shi'a [8]

Early Islamic History [9]

Oppression [10]

Taghut (Oppressor) [11]

Ahl al-Bayt [12]

Author(s):

Muhammad Jawad Mughniyya [2]

Translator(s):

Sayyid Athar Husayn S.H. Rizvi [7]

Publisher(s):

Islamic Seminary Publications [3]

Source URL: https://www.al-islam.org/shia-and-despotic-rulers-muhammad-jawad-mughniyya

Links
[1] https://www.addtoany.com/share
[2] https://www.al-islam.org/person/muhammad-jawad-mughniyya
[3] https://www.al-islam.org/organization/islamic-seminary-publications
[4] https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/188483
[5] https://www.al-islam.org/printepub/book/export/html/188483
[6] https://www.al-islam.org/printmobi/book/export/html/188483
[7] https://www.al-islam.org/person/sayyid-athar-husayn-sh-rizvi
[8] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/shia
[9] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/early-islamic-history
[10] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/oppression
[11] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/taghut
[12] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/ahl-al-bayt
[13] mailto:sayedathat@hotmail.com