Sunnism versus cults and sects



Download 0.58 Mb.
Page5/12
Date conversion04.02.2017
Size0.58 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

 The Mujaddid of the Fourteenth Century, Imam Ahmed Rida Khan al Qadiri answered in a question posed to him about central leadership in sainthood (ghawthiat al kubra), that the position of the ghawth transferred from the first caliph, to the second caliph, to the third and then the fourth, and then passed through each of the Imams of the Prophetic family until Imam Hasan al Askari, after which it went to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani, from whom it would eventually go to al Mahdi at the end of time, who he predicted to appear at 1800 Hijri. If this is a belief he inherited from his teachers, then it would establish how the scholars of Islam venerated the Imams from the Prophetic Family through history. Shaykh Ahmed Sirhindi, Imam ar Rabbani has also mentioned himself in his maktubat that all sainthood originates with the Prophetic family, and the post of ghawthia al kubra was held by each of the above mentioned Imams. The true teachings of Islamicihsan, as opposed to syncretist, elitist, esotericism that is being misrepresented today as 'Sufism', as manifested in the main lines of tariqa are presided over by members of the Prophetic family. The holders of the rank of qutb and ghawth in these orders, such as Khwaja Bahauddin Naqshband Bukhari, Sayyid Ahmed Rifai, Hasan Mu'inuddin Chishti, Sayyid Abu'l Hasan Shadhili, Sayyid Makhdum Ali Ghaznawi (Data Ganj Baksh) and Sayyid Ghawth ul Azam Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani all are from the Prophetic lineage. 

The hadith indicated that there was a specific sequence in which governance was meant to take place within the Islamic nation


The Holy Prophet did not intend for the ahlulbayt, i.e. descendants of Ismail to hold spiritual and political authority eternally, the Prophetic Family have taken the role of teachers of the Islamic religion and guides to sainthood in history, as detailed in various ahadith about them, such as "The example of the Prophetic Household among you is like the Ark of Prophet Noah, who rides it is saved, and whoever conflicts with it, is drowned." Another reported by Hadrat Abdullah b. Mas'ud said, "Once we were with the Messenger of Allah, when a group of youths from the Banu Hashim approached. When the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam saw them, his eyes filled with tears and his colour changed. I said: "We see in your face something that worries us". So he said, "We, the Ahl al Bayt, are a people for whom Allah has chosen the hereafter over this world. And my household after me will face trials, banishment and pursuit, until a people from the east come with banners, and they will ask for what is due, but not be given it. So they will fight and be victorious, and be given what they asked for. But they will not accept it from them until they hand it over to a man from my household, who will fill the earth with equity, as they had filled it with tyranny. So whoever among you reaches that time, then let him go to them, even if he must crawl over ice, for he is the Mahdi" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, Nu'aym Ibn Hammad in al Fitan and Ibn Majah from Ibn Mas'ud, recorded by Jalaluddin Suyuti in al 'arf al wardi fi akhbar al mahdi).

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF SHIITE CRITIQUE OF SUNNI SCHOLARSHIP:


These are the main points around which Shiism bases its critique, or around which someone wishing to make the Sunni tradition of scholarship appear rigid would base their arguments on.
1. Sunni scholarship is based not on preserving the intellectual integrity of Islam, but on pleasing the caliphs and accepting their rule, avoiding disrupting the environment, i.e. they are saying Sunni conservatism and quietism is a sign of their 'Yazidism', cowardice and weak faith, whereas they would exhibit more vivacity if they followed the prophetic bloodline. 
This is very accurately describing the mentality that many people of Shiite faith hold towards Sunnism.
A citation from a pseudo Shiite, presenting himself as a spiritual director, 'Sufi MN Alam' highlights the nature of Shia propaganda:
"The so called Ulema that al Mamun captured and appointed them as teachers at the major Islamic law schools became Yazidi Islam (present day) as a religion of legalism from the point of view of al Mamun". ('The Ahlulbayt: The Assassination of Eleven Imams: The Collapse of the Caliphate: Rise of Tyranny and Oppression in Islam',  p.166, Published: Millenium Trade Link USA, 2012).
This contention presents the view that the Sunni intellectual tradition is something al Mamun made up, and that this tradition was taught periodically until recent times, and it is this tradition that led to Wahhabism, and nothing could be further from the truth, and those who have read about the tribal origins of Wahabism will know this is the truth.
2. Sunnite scholarship is based on pleasing the caliphs and disobeying/ignoring the Alid Imams, especially contributing to this is Al Mamum, who initiated an inquistion to force his own views on Islam,who employed al Bukhari to legitimise his views as opposed to all others, and who then poisoned Imam ar Rida. Much emotion underlies this particular view, but a more accurate understanding would be: a) al Mamun wanted control over how Islam was understood, and patronised the rational thought of the Mutazila over that of the staunch hadith followers, led by Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, thus he initiated an inquisition to affirm loyalty of the scholars to his opinions. However, there should be no Shiite criticism of this move as Shiite theology later adopted Mutazilite thought into its own system when Shiite thought began to be fully developed after the occultation. Also, Bukhari's collection is considered the most authentic not because of its meaning but because of the technical detail that Bukhari's criterion for authentification was the most stringent and tight among the hadith collectors. Equally so, the entirety of Sunni thought is not just based on Bukhari's hadith but there is a much more prominent oral tradition of wisdom passed from student to teacher which is presented by Sufism that actually possesses the dominant narrative in Islamic thought.
3. Sunnite scholarship is the representation of the philosophy of the Banu Umayya, who had a blood feud with Muhammad's clan (peace be upon him) before Islam, and continued this blood feud into Islam, purposefully trying to distort the real message of Islam, and it was this vendetta that led to the Battle of Siffin and the event of Karbala, as well as subsequent persecution of Alid Imams, perpetuated by the Umayyads.
This doesnt need much explanation, but is simply another aspect of Shiite propaganda that people should be aware of.
An example of viewing Sunnism as the emergence of Pro- Banu Umayya tendencies in Islamic thought:
"It is very painful to state that the prophet muhammad the founder of islam, when he started his new religion in the city of makka by the order of almighty god, god of abraham, moses, jesus, as well as the god of the devils, Prophet's family members, cousin brothers, and close relatives like Umayya, Abu Zahel, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan, Hinda, Mughira Ibn HIsham, Muawiya ibn abu sufyan, yazid ibn muawiya as true follower of devil by the influence of fanatic jews and christians had been trying to destroy the back bone of new religion "islam". (Note: grammatical errors not inserted, but actually exist within text) (p.169)
4. Other examples: Bukhari's erudition is a fabrication to justify al Mamun's authority. etc. etc. Or that Muslim Nisapuri rejected Bukhari's compilation and thus started compiling his own in order to refute the Sahih, he "did not succeed to write a single page, he was killed by the Abbassiyyya Ruler Al Mamun. Please note that currently, the Muslim Sharif was not written compiled by Imam Muslim. All of the Prophet's discendents escaped from Madina and Makka towards Indonesia, Malaysia, Syria, India, Pakistan, Burma, Sudan, China, Afghanistan, Shemarkand, Bukhara, Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Turkey, Iraq and other Muslim territories." (172)
(Note: the assertion about the hadith compilers is to be considered propaganda, and the subsequent passage about Sayyid migration is seen to be an unrelated fact, which nevertheless happened and it is no secret that members of the prophetic bloodline were considered a threat to established governments, and different caliphs had different reactions towards them.)
Further examples of conspiracy narrative:
Chapter Heading Entitled: 'The Conspiracies Against Islam & Great Prophet Muhammad and his Direct Descendants':
(Note: this text attempts to portray a Jewish conspiracy against Islam, i.e. to inflitrate it and corrupt its pure message. This narrative is supposed to convince an individual of the Judaic nature of Sunnism and the truth of Shiite sectarianism)
- Because of the change of the direction of prayer to Makka, the Jews got angry and this is where the 'consipracy' started, he writes: "It should also be noted that, from that very night those immoral Jewish inhabitants of Madina had started their first conspiracy, chaos and complexities against the great Prophet through Muslim community of Madina" (p;.226)
-This conspiracy narrative links in Abu Sufyan and his family as the co-conspirators with the Jews against Islam:
"Great enemy of Islam Abu Sufian, greatest leader of the rival group of Quraysh also near and dearest family member of Prophet Muhammad accompanied by those fanatic Jews from Madina made several conspiracies to kill the Greatest Prophet and his associates step by step to destroy the newborn faith towards Almighty Allah of Islam
Finally those Jaheli Jewish inhabitants of Madinah had joined with Hazrat Muhammad's greatest enemy and Prophets nearest familyrelative Abu Jahel, Abu Lahab, Umaiyya, Abu Sufian and others who had the motive to kill Prophet Muhammad and destroy his new message of Islam from Allah
These fanatic Jews lost their only homeland Madina. So those inhabitants of Madina compelled to migrate to European Countries especially Germany and Russia. Its a good point to be noted that, those fanatic Jews for their own characteristics, their close relative Christian leader Adolf Hitler had an extreme theme to eliminate them all from this planet Earth. Adolf Hitler had killed over more than 100 000 innocent Jewish residents of Hamburg, Germany during the time of Second World War II. (p.226-227, MN Alam, 2012)
ETC ETC ETC
This is the narrative used to substantiate further Shiite propaganda.
It is true there were fanatic Jews at the time who opposed Prophet Muhammad their saviour, however, this is not to say that all the other things mentioned about various companions playing the role of Jewish spies is accurate, and certainly there was no such infiltration of the Sunni intellectual tradition by Jewish ethos, etc.
(Note: being corrupt before Islam does not make an individual eternally damned)
(Note: Killing of leaders from prophetic bloodline does not kill their message, it amplifies it)
More prop:
"The Great Enemy of Islam Abu Sufiyan the great leader of Quraysh tribe and his bastard son Moabia  and Yazid by force broken several treaties from the time of Fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn, and Imam Zayn ul Abideen, as well as their descendants were killed one by one during the Era of Moabia so-called Muslim leader, and they also had continued with their same ill motive to destroy the backbone of Islam also to kill Prophet Mohammads family by the active cooperation of fanatic Jews and fanatic Christians of that present time. They have killed all eleven Imams and the leaders of the Mazhabs, Abu Hanifa, Ahmed, Malik and Shafii. (p.227)
(Note: How is such a collaboration physically possible?)
"Please note that Islam's so called proclaimed Khalifa, bastard son of Abu Sufian, Moabia Ibn Henda (Son of bitch) accompanied with fanatic Jews as well as the fanatic Christians had formed into two groups Umaiyyad dynasty and Abbasiya Dynasty." (227)
Shiite Narrative:
0. Imamate was declared explicitly for the Prophetic bloodline:
The specific ideology of Imamate has been made into a pillar of religion by the Shiite scholars such as Shaykh Saduq, "Our belief is that whoever denies the Imamah of Amirul-Mu'mineen Ali bin Abi Talib and the Imams after him is equal to the denial the Prophethood of all the Prophets. We further believe that whoever recognizes (the Imamah of) Amirul-Mu'mineen but denies one of the Imams, is like one who admits and recognizes all the Prophets but denies the Prophethood of Muhammad [pbuh]. (Al-I'tiqadaat: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, p. 103, from: 'Aqeedat al-Imamah, Dr. Ali As-Saloos, p. 28 ). For this reason, the group known as the Shia have throughout history cast aspersions on the earliest Muslims for not accepting the caliphate of the divinely appointed Imam of their time, and declared them and all those who respect them to be outside of Islam. Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (died 381AH), the author of one of the four canonical hadith collections of the Shi‘ah, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, states in the treatise in which he expounds the creed of the Shi‘ah:

"It is our belief about one who rejects the Imamah of Amir al-Mu’minin (Sayyiduna ‘Ali) and the Imams after him that he is the same as one who rejects the Nubuwwah of the Ambiya’.

It is our belief concerning a person who accepts (the Imamah of) Amir al-Mu’minin but rejects any one of the Imams after him, that he is similar to one who believes in all the Ambiya’ but rejects theNubuwwah of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: "The Imams after me are twelve. The first is Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last is the Qa’im (the Mahdi). Obedience to them is obedience to me, and disobedience to them is disobedience to me. Thus, whoever rejects one of them has rejected me."

Whoever wrongfully claims the Imamah is an accursed oppressor. Whoever places the Imamah in anyone besides its rightful repositories is an accursed oppressor. The Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: "Whoever shall deny ‘Ali his Imamah after me has denied my Nubuwwah, and whoever denies me my Nubuwwah has denied Allah His divinity." His student Shaykh Mufid (died 413AH) writes:

There is consensus amongst the Imamiyyah (the Ithna ‘Ashari or Ja‘fari Shi‘ah) that whoever denies the Imamah of anyone of the Imams, and denies the duty of obedience to them that Allah has decreed, that such a person is a kafir, misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in Hell.4 Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi, called Shaykh at-Ta’ifah, (died 460AH), who is the author of two of the four canonical hadith collections, has the following to say:

Rejection of Imamah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr 5 . One of the leading Shii scholars during the Safavid era is Mulla Baqir Majlisi, his book 'Bihar al Anwar' is popular among the Shiites. In it he defines the nature of Imamate:

1. The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya’ (13 narrations)11

2. The Imams are superior to the Ambiya’ and the entire creation. The Covenant of the Imams was taken from them (the Ambiya’), the Mala’ikah and the entire creation. The (major prophets called)ulul-‘Azm (Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and ‘Isa ) attained the status of ulul-‘Azm on account of loving the Imams. (88 narrations)12

3. The du‘as of the Ambiya’ were answered because they invoked the wasilah of the Imams. (16 narrations)13
 This doctrine is attempted to be establihsed using Quranic verses and hadith, but the method is only conjectural in the same way as the Christians attempt to prove the divinity of Jesus for their cult, the Shiites do the same. The same argument can be used for each of the proofs brought in this manner, since they are all equally weak proofs, requiring an emotional mindframe as well as prior adherence to the Shiite cult in order to justify the belief:
And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (Hud : 17)

And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (al-Ahqaf : 12)

Verily, we will restore the dead to life, and we write that which they sent forth, and that which they left behind; and of everything we have taken account in a Clear Book. (Yasin : 12) . Unfortunately, all of these verses do not have a legal nature and so any ruling pertaining to Imamate will not be able to be established in these verses. The word Imam has been used to denote the meaning of a road: And verily, the two (cities) lie next to a clear road. (alHijr : 79) . It has been used to refer to the leaders of 'kufr', as in those who exemplify 'kufr': Fight the leaders of kufr. (at-Tawbah : 12)
Designation of Ali:
There are various incidents from the biography of the Prophet which are used to substantiate a leadership claim for Ali, however, their usage as proof is again ambiguous, similar to the Quranic examples.
Perhaps the doctrine is still present in the ahadith. Some scholars quote the hadith of the da'watul 'ashirah to denote caliphate of Imam Ali and his sons. It portrays Imam Ali at a young age, during the beginning of the Prophet's call to Islam. This occasion was the first time the Prophet was commanded to call people to Islam, and here he gathered his clan the Banu Hashim and asked them "who will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother, my successor and my caliph?" and nobody replied in the affirmative except for Imam Ali. Shiite scholars argue that this implies explicit appointment, and so Sunni scholars have sometimes left out the words 'caliph' and 'successor' so that it could not be used as a proof for Shiite debators. However, in my view, this is not even necessary, even if we take it as an explicit appointment, the order of the caliphate is not established in this hadith, which should not upset any Alid supporters as it does not detract whatsoever from the high qualities of Imam Ali,  whereas the hadith:

 

Al-Hakim narrated - declaring it sound - and also al-Bayhaqi, from Safina radyAllahu `anh who said: "When the Prophet built the Mosque Abu Bakr brought a stone and put it down; then `Umar brought a stone and put it down; then `Uthman brought a stone and put it down. Whereupon the Prophet said, 'These are the ones that shall govern after me.'" Is much more explicit and also contains an order.


Ibn Asakir transmitted (4:166) that al-Hasan al-Muthanna b. al-Hasan b. Ali was asked whether or not the Prophet (upon whom be peace) said “If I am the master of anyone, Ali is his master” to which Imam Hasan al Muthanna replied, “Yes, but the Prophet (upon whom be peace) did not mean the Amirate and the Sultanate by that. If he had meant that, he would have stated it more clearly. If he had meant that, he would have stated it more clearly. The messenger peace be upon him was the most eloquent of the Muslims. If the business had been as you have stated, he would have said, ‘Oh people, this one is to rule you and be in charge of you after me, so hear and obey him’. If Ali was chosen to be in command and was put in charge of the muslims after him and then Ali had not followed the command, Ali would have been the first to abandon the Divine Command” .
To conclude, not only the two above hadiths, but Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal has stated that the merits narrated about Imam Ali have not been narrated about any companion. For example, Ali was one of the ten promised paradise, it was said to him by the Prophet: "You are my brother in the world and the Hereafter"; "He who loves you is a believer, he who dislikes you is a hypocrite"; "I am the city of knowledge.Ali is the gate."; "it is worship to look at Ali, a person who has hurt Ali has hurt me; "Affection towards me is affection towards Ali"; "The first symptom of belief is love of Ali". Such was his exceptional level amongst the companions, despite this however none of these hadiths necessitate that he be the first caliph to the exclusion of all others, and that whoever denies is a non-believer. A hadith in Ibn Asakir's collection narrated by Imam Hasan indicates that Imam Ali did not consider himself to be divinely appointed to any position; "I was the first to affirm him (the Prophet), I will not be the first to attribute a lie to him", and he recalls the insistence of the Prophet on Abu Bakr Siddiq to lead the prayers during his illness as an indication to his caliphate. Also, there are hadiths which are much clearer and explicit in expression, for example, "The Two Masters [al-Bukhari and Muslim] narrated from `A'isha radyAllahu `anha that the Prophet said to her: "Call your father and brother [`Abd al-Rahman] here so I will put something down in writing, for truly I fear lest someone forward a claim or form some ambition, and Allah and the believers refuse anyone other than Abu Bakr." Or this report: Ibn Majah and al-Hakim narrated from Hudhayfa radyAllahu `anh that the Prophet said, "Take for your leaders the two who come after me: Abu Bakr and `Umar." This hadith if we observe, does not express either political or spiritual for the meaning of "your leaders after me", so if one wanted to argue, it could be said that this indicate Imamate for the first two caliphs and their families in the same way it was meant for the later Imams of Ahlulbayt e.g. that they were also divinely appointed, which would escalate further as internal problems; thus the ideology of Shiite's doctrine did noy exist in the Quran, Hadith nor among the ahlulbayt's Imams.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 205/Ali said:“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it.” 

1. After the Passing of the Prophet, the 'two elders', conspired to seize the caliphate for themselves:


This element of Shiite propaganda is to be rejected, and the main attitude towards it should be that it originated as cult propaganda as part of the activities of the Sabaites during the reign of the third caliph Uthman.
The rational basis for the rejection of this propaganda, not that it is needed, is that Ali was not the sort of person to allow such an important affair be mishandled, and neither were the other companions, least of all the two implicated by this particular point of propaganda.
Historical rejection/ethical/moral rejection is deduced through analysis of the reports of the actual activities of the two caliphs in question, and the difficulty that was faced by them in upholding the leadership of the Islamic community, due to the difficulty they faced, it is absurd to claim that they enjoyed prestige by stealing the caliphate, just in the same way there was no prestige enjoyed by those who were given the title of 'Imam' instead of those who belonged to the prophetic bloodline. These are hefty tasks that no individual wishes upon himself but which are thrust upon him by his environment and divine decree, there is no glamour or prestige involved, there is no wisdom in taking these jobs voluntarily, and this is the basis upon which this element of propaganda is to be refused.
Textual evidence is presented in Tarikh al Khulafa and other sources:
Imam Ali's opinion regarding the Khilafah of Shaykhayn is in Tarikhul Khulafa p.195 and 197.

  Ibn Asakir narrated that Al-Hasan said:"When Ali came to Basra, Ibn al Kawwa and Qais ibn Abbad stood before him and said to him, 'Will you not inform us about this course which you are set upon, taking charge of the ummah, so that some of them are striking others, is there a covenant which the Messenger made with you?". The reply of the Imam dispels all notion of a divinely mandated Imamate given to him, he said : "As for my having a covenant about that from the Prophet, then no. If I was the first to affirm him, I will not be the first to attribute a lie to him. If I had a covenant from the Prophet, I would never have allowed the brother of Taym b. Murrah (Abu Bakr) and Umar ibn al Khattab to stand on this mimbar, I would have fought them with my own hand, even if I could find nothing but this garment of mine."

In at-Tuyuriyyat with its isnad from Jafar b. Muhd that his father said: "A man said to Ali radiallahu anhu, "We hear you saying in the khutbah, "O Allah, set us right with that which you set right the Khulafaa ar Rashideen al Mahdiyyeen, so who are they?" His eyes filled with tears and he said, "They are my two beloveds, Abu Bakr and Umar, the two imams of guidance, the two shaykhs of Islam, the two men of Quraysh, who are to be taken as exemplars after the Messenger. Whoever takes them as exemplars will be protected from error, and whoever follows their footsteps will be guided on the straight path, and whoever clings to them is from the party of Allah."
The same argument is used for the caliphate of Umar.
The following hadiths are seen as significant in context of Umar:
Al Hakim narrated that Ibn Abbas related that the Prophet said, "O Allah, strengthen Islam by Umar b. Khattab especially".
Al-Hakim narrated - declaring it sound - and also al-Bayhaqi, from Safina radyAllahu `anh who

said: "When the Prophet built the Mosque Abu Bakr brought a stone and put it down; then

`Umar brought a stone and put it down; then `Uthman brought a stone and put it down.

Whereupon the Prophet said, 'These are the ones that shall govern after me.'


Persian Political Agendas: The Basis of Shiite Propaganda:
During his caliphate Islam spread far and wide and the Byzantine and Christian Empires were crushed.  Those who once subjugated the Arab tribes were brought to their knees by the same people, united under Islam. Those whose empires were crushed by Islamic conquests and strong monotheism were jealous and nursed grudges, the main target for this was Sayyiduna Umar, the caliph through whom all conquests were achieved. Those who were affected were Zoroastrian Persian Sassanids, Jewish Madinans and Christian Byzantines.

Harmuzan was the defeated Persian commander brought before Sayyiduna Umar as a prisoner of war.

Sayyiduna Umar asked him, "Harmuzan, we Arabs are the are the desert-dwellers you considered too lowly for even fighting with. We used to get licked by small columns of your troops. Now you see your King’s throne and crown lying at our feet while he is running about places to save his life. How did that happen?”

Harmuzan replied:

 

    “Sir, then it used to be a war between the Persians and the Arabs. Now you have your God with you.”



 

In another narration, Harmuzan declared that before it was merely the Arab forces against the Persian forces, and the Persian forces were stronger. But now, it was the Arab forces and Allah, and it was impossible to defeat both at the same time. It was thus that Harmuzan and his Persian confederates realized that the power of the Republic of Medinah lay in its religious beliefs. To destroy the religious beliefs of the Muslims would be to destroy the Muslims.

Harmuzan was going to be exexuted for war crimes but tricked himself out of being executed, Sayyiduna Umar allowed him to escape. He moved to Madinah and plotted to avenge Sayyiduna Umar for the downfall of the Persian Empire. He became close with an embittered Christian named Jufayna al Khalil who was a pawn of the Roman ruler. They met a Jew named Saba b. Shamoon who hated the Muslims for destroying the Jewish monopoly over the Arabs. They hired Feroz Abu Lulu to assasinate the Caliph.

In the History of Tabari (5:42) [REFERENCE FROM 'DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER'. p. 83-84.

Ubaydullah b. Umar ra avenged his father, Sayyiduna Uthman was lenient towards him in his court trial, but Sayyiduna Ali had a more strict ijtihad, for this reason they developed a liking for Sayyiduna Ali, when Abdullah b. Saba continued the mission, he used Ali to create the schism within the community, claiming he was a God and that he should have been the Caliph.
The plotting of Ibn Saba is explained in the next chapter.

 
 


Al-Bazzâr, al-Tabarânî and Abû Nu`aym narrated from `Uthmân ibn Maz`ûn - Allâh be wellpleased

with him - who said: "I heard the Messenger of Allâh say of `Umar: 'This is the bolt of

dissension (ghalqu al-fitna). There shall not cease to stand between you and

dissension a strongly shut gate as long as this man lives among you.'"


After the passing of Umar, it became possible for the conspirators to begin their plans. Uthman's nature was soft and forgiving, and he decided to deal with people patiently and mercifully, which allowed the Sabaite group and those who followed them to plan a rebellion and to create fitna within the community.

The Martyrdom of Caliph Uthman was predicted by the Messenger, it would be the final test for Uthman, allowing him to attain the highest ranks of martyrdom, like Imam Husayn, he was also informed by the Prophet that he would be involved in a fitna and should be patient in it.

Ibn `Adî and Ibn `Asâkir narrated from Anas who said: "The Messenger of Allâh said: 'O

`Uthmân! You shall be given the caliphate after me but the hypocrites will want you

to renounce it Do not renounce it but fast on that day so that you will break your fast

with me.'"

Al-Hâkim - declaring it sound - and Ibn Mâjah narrated from Murra ibn Ka`b who said: "I heard the

Messenger of Allâh mention a trial, at which time a man cloaked in his garment passed by. He

said: 'This man, at that time, shall follow right guidance.' I went to see him and it was

`Uthmân."

He also informed him not to fight during the conflict:

Ibn Mâjah, al- Hâkim - declaring it sound-, al-Bayhaqî, and Abû Nu`aym narrated from `A'isha -

Allâh be well-pleased with her: "The Messenger of Allâh summoned `Uthmân and then spoke

to him confidentially, whereupon the face of the latter changed. The Day of the House [= when he

was besieged] we told him, `Will you not put up a fight?' He said, `No! The Messenger of Allâh

took a covenant from me [not to fight at the time of my martyrdom] and I shall fulfill it"

 
ON CONSPIRACY NARRATIVES:
Shiite polemicists claim that the growth of Sunni thought was as a result of a Jewish conspiracy, and the collaboration of various Muslim converts, who tried to inflitrate and corrupt Islam's true message. We find no basis in this claim, rather there is more credibility in the concept of Shiism emerging as a result of Jewish conspiracies, and there is more evidence to suggest this premise as true. On a psychological note, it is historically typical of the hypocrites within Islam to attack the real Muslims using arguments that are actually more applicable to themselves. In this case, the irony is in Shiism considering Sunnism as a result of Jewish conspiracy. Another example could be Wahhabism attacking Sunnism for being polytheistic and innovators, another example on top of this could be Deoband attacking Ahmed Rida Khan for being a colonialist collaborator, it is clear to see that these accusations are very easily traced back to their true origins, i.e. the sects who propagate these accusations themselves.
2. Sunni scholars created the myth of Abdullah Ibn Saba to hide people from the truth of Shiism.
The fact is that the events starting from the murder of the third caliph all the way to the event of Karbala can be quite accurately linked together by affirmation of the Sabaite conspiracy and as a result of Persian political endeavours.

3. The Sahaba and Tabiin all contributed to the killing of Uthman and agreed with it.


Ibn Saba encouraged people influenced by their personal desires to rebel and instigate trials against the Caliph during the latter part of his Caliphate, none of the Sahaba or any of the Tabiin were involved whatsoever in his martyrdom, it was purely the new converts to Islam who were influenced by Ibn Saba.
He took advantage of ignorant bedouins of Kufa and Iraq who were previously pagan and preached to them a doctrine which appealed to their pagan religions, that the Imamate was invested in an all powerful divine king, who could only be from Banu Hashim. Medieval Christians also believed in a 'Divine Right of Kings' type monarchy, and the way Uthman was elected by a council who took part in Shura was incomprehensible to them.Abdullah b. Saba entertained their pagan notions and said that every Prophet left behind a successor and only he was the rightful caliph, this, combined with social unrest due to the unfair distribution of wealth that was misused by the Umayyad family, was the key to create the insurrection. He found a great following in Egypt and set up secret societies in important Muslim cities, and circulated letters which were used to create a general ill feeling towards Uthman, the son in law of the Prophet. They posed as pious people and created complaints againt him and his officers, often attributing them to Imam Ali and various companions, before the rebellion, Imam Ali encountered two groups of the rebels and they showed him some letters claiming that he had invited them to this but he categorically denied any involvement. Anger was cultivated and directed against those seen to be acting hypocritically or endulging in worldly pleasures. The constant pressure built by members of the Sabaite groups and the scrutiny with which they judged the governors led to the dismissal and appointment of many different judges which led to the main instability of the time. The complaints and unrest escalated until the caliph became aware of it. They attempted to depose the governor in Egypt in 34 AH and they were forced to repent, various governors and sahabas tried to make them see reason. They pretended to repent. The next year they planned a bigger rebellion and requested the caliph to leave, they pretended to go on a Hajj pilgrimage in 35AH with four large groups of about 2000 men altogether, and they sieged the caliph in his home and martyred him in the city of the Prophet.

Textual evidence for the existence of Ibn Saba:


 

    "Abdullah bin Saba', was one of those who slandered Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and the Companions and disowned them. He claimed that it was Ali [as] who enjoined this on him. Ali arrested him, and upon interrogation, admitted to the charge, and (Ali) ordered him to be executed. The People cried 'O Chief of Believers ! Do you execute a man calling to your love, Ahlul-Bayt, to your allegiance, and disowning your enemies?' He (Ali) then exiled him to al-Mada'in (Capital of Iran back then). Some of the knowledgeable companions of Ali [as] narrated that Abdullah bin Saba' was a Jew who embraced Islam and sided with Ali [as]. That he was of the opinion, at the time when he was a Jew, claiming that Yousha' bin Noon is after Moses. After his submission to Islam, after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh], he claimed the same for Ali [as]. He was the first to publicly mandate the Imamah of Ali [as], disowning his enemies, and debated his opponents. From thence, those who oppose Shi'ism say: The origin of Shi'ism is rooted in Judaism. When Abdullah bin Saba' heard of the demise of Ali while in (his exile at) al-Mada'in, he said to the announcer of the news: 'You are a liar, if you are to bring his head in seventy bags, and brought seventy witnesses testifying to his death, we'll insist that he did not die nor murdered, and (he) shall not die till he rules the globe' ".  (Firaq al-Shi'a: Nubakhti, pp. 43,44)


More details are found in Sean Anthony's 'The Caliph and the Heretic', which is about the corpus of Sayf Ibn Umar's narrations which are considered the only source of evidence for Ibn Saba's existence. The truth is that there are far more sources for the affirmation of this historical fact.
Abdullah ibn Saba, the Jew gradually introduced paganism to his followers at successive levels, and at the highest level, he taught that Ali was god incarnate. This appealed to the pagan customs of the Persians.Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the Ahlel Bayt (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could exceed the Ahlel Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that Ali was the most superior person after the Prophet. When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that Ali was in reality the appointed successor of the Prophet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this right from him. Ibn Saba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the Sahabah, and he is the first to start the practice of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.

The Zoroastrians believed that God’s spirit was in their Chosroes (king), and that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendants. Ibn Saba declared that the divinity of Imamah also moved from one Imam to another through the descendants of Ali. Many of the exaggerations in Shi’ism in regards to the powers of Imams take their inspiration from the Chosroes.

 

 
Al-Hâkim narrated from Ibn `Abbâs - Allâh be well-pleased with both of them - who said that the



Prophet told them that drops from the blood of `Uthmân shall fall on the verse (and Allah will

suffice thee (for defense) against them( (2:137); and this is what took place.

The hadîth Master al-Silafî narrated from Hudhayfa who said: "The beginning of dissensions is

the murder of `Uthmân and the last of them is the coming out of the Anti-Christ: By the One

in Whose Hand is my soul! None shall die with a mustard seed's worth of love for

the killers of `Uthmân except he shall follow the Anti-Christ if the latter comes in

his lifetime and, if not, he shall believe in him in his grave." It is evident that Hudhayfa

heard this from the Prophet for it is not something that can be said on the basis of opinion.

3. Ali wanted the martyrdom of Uthman.
This is rejected as an element of propaganda. The narrations clearly show that he sent his own sons to go and defend the caliph, and it cannot be said he was doing this purely for the sake of appearances.
Ali knew the necessity of gaining revenge for Uthman, as did many of the companions display similar anger.
Propaganda claims that a) People wanted Uthman's death and b) the claim to avenge him by other companions was a false pretense.
Both of these contentions are part of the Shiite narrative for this period of history and must be rejected.
4. The incident known as 'Battle of the Camel' was part of Aisha, Talha and Zubayr's plot to steal the caliphate from Imam Ali, they used the martyrdom of Uthman as a pretense.
This must also be rejected as a valid historical claim.
Rather, it should be understood that these companions rallied supporters to achieve justice for the death of Uthman, not to give political opposition to Ali or to seize his caliphate, and then met for consultation. At the event of Jamal, reconciliation had been reached, and then fighting between the two parties was purposefully triggered by the Sabaites in Ali's camp, who simply wanted to escape punishment. Thus it cannot be said this was a 'civil war' but rather it was a conspired event brought about through subterfuge.
It could be said  Aisha is portrayed by the Shiite propagandists as a military combatant, they warp history to cover their trails, and they blame the Sahaba for evil that they perpetrated themselves. This is a common trait of hypocrites.
Ali was found stricken seeing Talhas body on the battlefield, also he escorted Aisha back to her house after the Battle, showing that there was no hostility in this incident, or that he was aware this was an instigated event.

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif 5. Muawiya wanted caliphate for himself and his clan, and used Uthmans killing as a pretense to make warfare with Ali and deny his authority. Muawiya had hatred for the prophetic bloodline.
These contentions should be disregarded as propaganda and are inaccurate historical claims.
Muawiya was commended as a righteous individual by the Prophet, there are traditions in this regard, e.g:
After the Fath of Makkah, he was made a scribe for the Prophet. Rasulallah said, "O Allah make him a guide who is rightly guided and guide others by him! Guide him! (Tirmidhi)

"O Allah teach him the Book and reckoning and guard him from punishment"(Ahmed)



"O Allah endow him with knowledge of the Quran and grant him leadership of the lands." (at Tabarani)
A more accurate historical understanding for enmity towards Muawiya would be that Persian political aims/ revolutionary activity of those groups motivated to kill the third caliph were blocked off by Muawiya's administration, and that he was an easy target for Sabaite attack on account of his opposition to Ali's authority based on his desire for justice for Uthman's killers. As a result, he became an object of their propaganda. By portraying Muawiya in a certain, despotic/corrupt way, Shiite propagandists achieve glamorisation of their cause and succeed in depicting Sunnism as a corruption/usurpation of Islam and a vehicle for pro-Umayyad ideological aims. For this reason, there is stigma attached with praising Muawiya, and the individual in question is depicted as being anti-Alid, this stigma is also attached with praising the early caliphs. This narrative/propaganda should be erased by properly understanding this early period and that there was an effort to depict the Alids as victims of established authorities, whereas in reality, there was no real animosity despite certain genuine differences/arguments that take place within all communities, and nobody should try and aim for any higher/ more religious view than that.
Another element to the enmity towards Muawiya was the historical context in which the original proto-Shia selected Ali as their leader. These Persian converts had a particular conception of religion/authority, i.e the cult of Mithras/Divine kingship, due to which they simply chose Ali as their official cult leader. He had no knowledge of the nature of their attachment to them, and just considered them as excessively devoted. What had happened was that they were simply going through a standard cultural process, that of choosing a divine king/ cult leader, but this was foreign to Arab culture, especially post-Islamic Arab culture. When they made the declaration "we are the friends of the one who befriends you and the enemies of the one who you make your enemy", he did not know that this constituted an act of obsessive allegiance. It was like one of those films where foreign visitors come to some indigenous tribe and all of a sudden the tribe begins to worship them as deities because of some shiny necklace they happen to be wearing.
In this context, the Persian converts who titled themselves shiatu ali, sought two things a) a leader to absolutely deify and b) an opponent to absolutely villify. The leader they found was Ali and the opponent they located was Muawiya. Being devoid of any form of Islamic training, they could not appreciate the subtleties of the nature of Ali and Muawiya's disagreement, i.e. the classical Sunni argument that their conflict was as a result of ijtihad, i.e. was based on legal judgement and not out of animosity. Appreciation of subtleties and having mature arguments based on truth are aspects of Islam, a person who does not possess these virtues is devoid of Islam, and this certainly described the proto-Shia. One can identify that they possess a specifically obsessive/literalistic approach to god/leadership, so much that the enemy of their god/leader is considered unholy, and when their leader makes a mistake/sins, they consider him unholy and obligatory to kill (i.e. the Khawarij, an offshoot of these early proto-Shia)
The essence of their attitude was 'love for Ali and hatred for his enemies', something that they pursued out of brainwashed passion, and after a while, this turned simply into an ideology of negative thought, i.e. 'hatred for his enemies'. Whereas in the early period this 'hatred' was channelled purely towards Muawiya, because of all the ways his administration countered the political aims of the proto-Shia, in later times this hatred was channelled by default towards members of the Sunni community and their leaders. Even today, we can easily locate individuals who adhere to Shiism as a cult of hatred, i.e. towards Sunnis and other groups who do not share their particular branch of pro-Alidism. This makes them dangerous to society just in the same way that Satanists or neo-Nazis are dangerous to society, i.e. they have potential criminality, but there more pertinent danger is in their aggravation of bloodthirsty tendencies in their counterparts, i.e. the Khawarij/ Wahhabis, and it can be understood through writings of Middle East politics post-Khomeini, that his 'Islamic Revolution' led to a Salafi/Shia militant arms race which led to the Iran/Iraq war. Due to this, the whole world considers the conflict to be a purely religious war that has ensued for centuries, but it is a very recent phenomenon, and does not dismiss the necessity/validity of Sunni arguments against Shiite thought/practice.
The cult tendencies of the proto-Shia prevented them from coming to terms with Ali's reconciliation attempt with Muawiya, it was an act of compromise/subtlety, and these things do not exist in cults where people operate with pre-programmed absolute norms devoid of context. When he attempted reconciliation with Muawiya, a group of the Shia disassociated with him regarding him as an unbeliever.
In this context, it is useful to pause and reflect on the underlying characteristics of Shiite beliefs, i.e. 1) Pagan beliefs/ deification of Ali and b) persistent desire to make war with the Syrians (i.e. non-Shiites/cultists).
If these two aspects are removed, nobody would find Shiism a problematic sect/cult or criticise them for praying in a certain way etc, etc, however, usually it is the case that a person adopting a unique style of prayer is attempting to purposefully distinguish himself from others due to his inherent superiority in being a follower of Ali/Mahdi, and this element can also be corrected by following the Hanafi/Zaydi method of prayer, which is equally abhorrent to Wahhabi/Salafi groups, in reality it is the Hanafi group which is at the centre of controversy, as it comes under fire from both Shiism and Wahhabism.
Even in context of the principle of alliance/hatred towards Ali/Enemies, this trend is as inconsistent as the selection of Imams by the proto-Imamis, as we can see, the Sabaites showed enmity towards Hasan for not advancing their war mongering tactics, so really, it is questionable whether they possessed any real devotion to the prophetic bloodline in the first place.
It is seen that the Mawali/proto-Shia/Sabaites were using the prophetic bloodline in order to distinguish/establish themselves as a) outsiders to the general Islamic community/ b) a spiritual elite, characterised by gnosis achieved through companionship with the Husayni Imams, a pretense/smokescreen allowing them to replicate some of the independence they experienced during the Sassanid empire but which had vanished under Islam. This theory is especially feasible upon observation of the Shiite policy after the death of Hasan Askari. The adoption of the Occultation theory by the Shiite community seems to fit the agenda described above, constituting an effective pretense allowing them to continue their pursuit of pre-Islamic Persian political agendas. Its that whole mentality of "When they are told to keep belief in the same way that the majority of people believe, their reaction is, "Shall we believe as the foolish believe?".
Thus, the contentions that modern Shiites may have as a result of this narrative should be eradicated. Referring to the concept that modern Shiites are somehow part of a historic trend of brave individuals going out of their way to exhibit friendship and loyalty towards the prophetic bloodline and protecting them from their enemies without compromise, since the passing of the prophet's era up until the arrival of the Mahdi. Such a narrative never existed that it could be followed/adopted as a religious attitude. The most common historical usage of this narrative would most likely be Khomeini who needed to foster these sentiments in order to substantiate his pseudo-Revolution in Iran, and it is likely that these sentiments were repeated by Shiite ideologues without actual awareness that they were part of Khomeini's operation, much in the same way many people in history were not aware that their beliefs were just a part of the original conspiracy of the Sabaites, same goes for Wahhabism. Sunnism/Sufism are largely free of beliefs perpetuated for a particular political agenda, but they should still be aware of implementing Sufi statements/ legal verdicts out of context in a way that is damaging to current environments, that is the extent to which cult thought can seep into Sunnism, which is not as bad as the other deviant sects, and is easily eradicated through proper application of Sufi meditation.
An important note about Siffin was that it was an instigated battle the same way as Jamal, and so if people have not yet learned to abandon any notion that it was a genuine conflict, when will they? It should be abandoned that this was part of Muawiya's quest for Umayyad political supremacy. Any notion that this predicament was as a result of political agendas will be identified as originating in the early proto-Shiite mindset to regain Persian/Sassanid political power. This narrative glamorises political power more than its worth.
Ali said: Regarding Siffin: “In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.”

 

For the early mawali schismatics, the pretext of ‘love for the Imam’ was expedient as long as it could be used to ignite conflict with the Syrians, but when the infallible Imam commands them to ‘reconcile’, they feign ignorance. Both Imam Ali and Imam Hasan wanted reconcilation with the Syrians, but the purpose of the proto Shia was simply to generate discord and instability, to the extent that if the Imam slowed this progress, he would be assaulted and killed, as was Imam Hasan.


Furthermore, the claim is that after Imam Ali, then next to whom the Caliphate was due was Al-Hasan. There is great emphasis in the works of Shiite historians that the main reason why Imam Hasan was not given the caliphate was due to Amir Muawiya, and so they accuse him in this regard. The reality is however that Imam Hasan abdicated his right to caliphate, not out of extortion, but simply from his own will and desire
Muawiya was convinced that without elimination of the rebels, there could not be peace in the country, this was his legal decision and he had to stick to it. Ali on the other hand believed that he could not bring the rebels to justice unless he had the support of the Syrians, his opinion is believed to be the correct one and Muawiya's is viewed as faulty, and there is no debate with this issue.
It was incumbent on Muawiya to follow this course of action 

even more so after the failure of the Jamal event, the perpetrators were continuing their activity unchecked, also it was obvious that the caliph could not deal with them.



The Siffin Event:
It should be known that the confrontation at Siffin would not have taken place if Ali had not moved to Kufa, since this was an offensive move, and even Imam Hasan did not agree with his moving there. Muawiyah felt that if the murderers were handed to him, he would be in a position of power to deal with them, and he wanted Ali to recognise his governorship only, he did not want caliphate. He did not feel the caliph had the administrative power to deal with the rebels. Ali was surrounded by problems, the sabaites had the country in a chaotic state of anarchy, also a deviant cult was growing around Ali inspired by the Sabaites, that he was a deity, without the support of the Syrians he was immobilised. 
6. The Battle of Siffin was a battle between truth and falsehood, distinguishing the real believers, Shia, from hypocrites and Jewish sympathisers, e.g. Sunnis.
This type of attitude should be rejected as an element of cult propaganda. The battle was instigated and the only real fighting happened over three days. The sermon of Ali indicates that both sides considered each other as believers and the only contention was about the killing of Uthman. 
Shiite propagandists attempt to use this event as a gauge/litmus test, asking an individual to affirm his allegiance with questions such as: "Which side would you have fought on during Siffin?", etc. This is all childishness and foolishness. If a person wants to play games, another game could be "Which side would you have fought on at Karbala?", and the Shiites would lose that one as it is known they were the perpetrators of that event. But this is not our aim, our aim is to make a statement on a basic attitude/understanding that non sectarian individuals should have towards these events so that they do not get swept up in propaganda and are able to stand their ground and discuss these issues maturely. Equally it is offered as an alternative understanding to those who wish to operate under a united Islamic nation but are unsure about whether it is right to side with their enemies (Sunnis/nawasib). 
By explaining the events with accurate analysis of basic facts, people should achieve a more balanced approach to faith, and cease to see these events as black and white, as these events are not considered to be the basis of faith, and for that reason do not constitute valid justifications for division/sectarianism.
7. The arbitration was a scheme deployed to stop ali from fighting and winning the battle for his caliphate.
The correct attitude towards this is to reject the sensationalist element of the narrative and to explain the event as a consequence of a circumstance, i.e. one thing led to another, and to basically dismiss elements of the narrative that depict it as a genuine struggle for political supremacy, as that understanding has been forced onto history from a specifically proto-Shia political philosophy, you can tell that these conspiracy narratives emerge from their subconscious minds.
One should also mention how neither side wanted to fight and that they were all somehow linked socially and emotionally due to the recent events in the Arab world, i.e. the Islamic movement and the rise of the Arab nation as a unified empire.
Through this study, a person should begin to realise that maintaining any sort of conspiracy narrative is an extremely difficult mental strain and is not conducive to any sort of spiritual gain/ enjoyment of life that accepting the truth is supposed to bring, real faith is not based on conspiracy narratives.
When the two parties met on the Euphrates, neither side was keen to fight, approximately ninety small skirmishes took place over the period of 3 Months, not exactly what one would call an all out battle of blood. The only real fighting that took place was again at the instigation of the rebels on the 11th Safar 37AH, where Iraqis under command of al Ashtar, who had their own seperate camp started the real battle which lasted for three days, called the Night of Yelping. Unable to witnesss this, a Syrian named Ibn Lahiya is reported to have initiated an arbitration based on the Quran and people on both sides agreed that they would rather call for a peaceful settlement. Muhazim makes an account of Ash'ath bin Qays, one of Ali's supporters and the Kufans stood up and announced: "If we fight tomorrow, it will be the annihilation of the Arabs and the loss of what is sacred. I fear for the women and children tomorrow if we are annihilated." Then the Syrians lloked to their leader who said, "If we meet tomorrow, the Byzantines will attack our women and children and the people of Persia will attack the women and children of Iraq." The Syrians began to raise the Qurans on the ends of their spears. According to Ibn Muhazim, it was the initiative of al Ash'ath bin Qays not Amr bin Al 'As and it is also reported that a Syrian, named Ibn Lahiya who was unable to bear the speactacle, rode out with a copy of the holy scripture on the ears of his horse, suddenly many people on both sides called for arbitration. 
When the two parties met on the Euphrates, neither side was keen to fight, approximately ninety small skirmishes took place over the period of 3 Months, not exactly what one would call an all out battle of blood. The only real fighting that took place was again at the instigation of the rebels on the 11th Safar 37AH, where Iraqis under command of al Ashtar, who had their own seperate camp started the real battle which lasted for three days, called the Night of Yelping. Unable to witnesss this, a Syrian named Ibn Lahiya is reported to have initiated an arbitration based on the Quran and people on both sides agreed that they would rather call for a peaceful settlement. Muhazim makes an account of Ash'ath bin Qays, one of Ali's supporters and the Kufans stood up and announced: "If we fight tomorrow, it will be the annihilation of the Arabs and the loss of what is sacred. I fear for the women and children tomorrow if we are annihilated." Then the Syrians lloked to their leader who said, "If we meet tomorrow, the Byzantines will attack our women and children and the people of Persia will attack the women and children of Iraq." The Syrians began to raise the Qurans on the ends of their spears. According to Ibn Muhazim, it was the initiative of al Ash'ath bin Qays not Amr bin Al 'As and it is also reported that a Syrian, named Ibn Lahiya who was unable to bear the speactacle, rode out with a copy of the holy scripture on the ears of his horse, suddenly many people on both sides called for arbitration. 
It should also be argued that the arbitration did not actually lead to Muawiya achieving caliphate, it rather led to him returning to the post of governor of Syria. Ali returned to Kufa to deal with themawali infestation that had taken root in his city, was killed by one of the defected shia, Al Hasan took over, suffered persecution at the hands of his supposed followers, and handed over the caliphate to Muawiya who undertook the duty after a long period of steady governance in Syria and due to the anarchist/disruptive tendencies of the Kufans.
There should be a clear distinction here between a skilled political administrator, an oppressed religious leader (Hasan, oppressed by his own supposed followers) and a group of ex Sassanid soldiers with lust for power and conflict.
One should then realise that a political/ideological narrative has been constructed in history in order to interpret it in favour of this one particular group and to denounce those who held authority instead of them as corrupt/unworthy.
That is the essence of the Shiite narrative on the entirety of Islamic history, if one were to construct one, although most people's perspective on historical events varies between a mainstream/sectarian narrative. The supposed oppression of the Hashemites, one will realise, only stands for a metaphorical depiction of the suppression of the proto Shia and their quest for authority, other than that, all subsequent Shiite propaganda is based on exaggerating events that depict injustice inflicted on the Hashemites.

More key points on Shiite narrative which are to be dismissed by members of Sunni creed as propaganda and exaggeration, this is a summary:


1. Caliphate is a divine station and has to be implemented by God and not man, i.e. through election.
This sentiment opens the door for the idea "the Ahl al bayt are the successors of the prophet", and Sunni caliphate ideas stops them from fulfilling their role.
To substantiate this exaggerated notion, many hadiths and verses are brought up to prove the merits of Ahl al Bayt.
The answer is:
The caliphate has never been a divinely ordained institution, and has always been done on the basis of general political process, whether that process was consistent or not, and general expediency. It has never happened this way and never will. The Shiite narrative carries this fantasy that history would have turned out differently if twelve divinely appointed Imams were appointed in sequence. It is nothing more than a fantasy, and nothing could have changed about our past that was inevitable, and know that this is the reason why the argument is made: in desire for what could have been.
The Shiite narrative, in relation to the second point, is that the caliphate was the role of the Prophet, and his progeny are successors to that bloodline by divine edict. The answer is:
The Prophet's role was for moral and spiritual rejuvenation and intellectual rebirth, he adopted roles like military leader, caliph, leader of a tribe, etc, out of necessity of the time and out of expediency, the same way all the other four caliphs came into power. So, if you want to talk about successors to the Prophet, the four that preceded him were elected in the same way, showing continuity and that they were suited for leadership.
Since the Prophet accepted political leadership out of circumstance and need, it cannot be said that to be political leader was his only role, and that this role had to be passed on to his progeny, since what this does is that it gears them up for a task they may not be suited for, because they have an ideological belief that it belongs to them on account of their lineage. It may be that they have a role that could better be played in another area, so why force them into something they are less suited for? The Imams of the prophetic bloodline were true successors of the Prophet, whether they took political leadership or not, to say the opposite is a criticism of them and makes them look weak.
The fact that there are prophetic statements and verses in praise of the prophetic bloodline does not indicate any such obligation to elect them into positions of political power, and since we know that this sentiment was used historically by a notorious group of political anarchists, intelligent individuals will not be interested in continuing the debate along the lines of "caliphate should have been with the prophetic bloodline because a certain hadith commends their knowledge/virtue", this is a weak line of argument that only ignoramuses pursue in vain, history is history.
Transmission of knowledge is entirely opposite due to this fabricated and forced Imamate concept.
To Sunnis, knowledge can be taken from any of the prominent sources, i.e. scholars who produced research, as well as individual reflection, since it is the will and effort of the individual that leads him to truth and understanding, i.e. ijtihad. To the Shiites/Ismailis/other Sectarians, knowledge is not communal or general, but it comes from only one special source, which distinguishes them as superior to all those who do not take knowledge from that source. Furthermore, the one who took his knowledge of philosophy and law from that one infallible source is himself divinely protected from error, despite no individual effort, whereas the one who took his knowledge by individual effort and from a variety of sources is not respected. Therefore, I could devise theories that describe every aspect of knowledge perfectly, after much reflection and individual effort, but it will not be considered as valid since I did not show indication that I took knowledge from a special 'infallible' source, whereas there could be another person who did not personal effort, but who cited some infallible source to prove something wrong, and he will be commended for his work. One way of knowledge is common to Islam and Sunnism, this is ijtihad, and it is the distinguishing factor of Sunnism and its thought, and the other way of knowledge is specific to cults and elitist groups, and this is ta'lim, dictation/authoritative instruction on absolute truth by an infallible leader to his chosen disciples.
Through studying this, people should thus distinguish between general and widely available knowledge, i.e. Islam, and some sort of specific propaganda. i.e. the cult (of Satan).
8. The Mahdi is in Occultation, we should wait for him.
This is false, there is no Mahdi in occultation, why wait for him? This belief was indoctrinated in order to maintain ideological control over those who had come to be known as shia towards the death of Hasan al Askari.
During the lifetimes of the later Imams after Imam al Rida, many of the Shiites did not find the qualities of Imamate they required in the 9th Imam, leading to the formation of further schisms, and the community came under control of a distinct class of scholarly personalities, who maintained a theological system that would allow them to operate as a seperate religious community, without the existence of the Imam by whom they were distinguished in the first place. Their charisma as the Shiah was established by their sacred link with the Imam, but now that they were not satisfied with the later Imams as much as they were with their predecessors, they had to find a way to retain their 'walayah', i.e, their special elevated status above the rest of the community- without actually having an Imam. Again, chiliastic, millenarian tendencies within the mawali population was given an opportunity to resurface during the period of the latter Imams, and the Shia became preachers of the faith, attracting the mawali converts to their faith through exaggerated emphasis on the idea of aqaim or mahdi who would return to re-instate justice. Legions of Iranians were attracted to Islam during this period, and this period also saw a marked growth in Ismailism in Iran, these ideologies provided a tremendous outlet for the expression of neo-Mazdakite chiliasm among the mawali populations. The concept of the qaim during this period was heavily exploited, and many traditions emerged advertising his near appearance, this period also saw for the first time in history, hadiths stating the appearance of Eleven Imams, the last of whom would be the Qaim. A distinct ideology of the 'Hidden Imam' was formulated here, for the first time, after the death of the 11th Imam, which would go on to shape the history of Iran and inspire violent revolution well into the modern era. Abu Sahl Nawbakhti, whose family had taken over leadership of the Imami community, in order to consolidate his power, devised the idea of the Hidden Imam, in order to prevent the emergence of further claims to Imamate and others who claimed to be the eleventh Imam returned from occultation or otherwise simply one of his representatives. The expression of mawali chiliasm which had created this distinct image of the 'Imam' was now incorporated into the religion formed by Abu Sahl Nawbakhti and made orthodox, in order for him to retain his power as the sole representative of the Imam. He developed an ideology which nobody had devised before him, that the Imam had a son who lived in occultation, and that his sons would live in occultation right until the end of time when he would finally emerge as the awaited Rightly Guided Leader.
Obligations are established on that which is present and not that which is hidden.
9. Scholars should be obeyed categorically, they are representatives of the Hidden Imam, and are divine.
This is a cult perception of leadership, which is also echoed in the writing of Deoband's propagandists, i.e. the statement of Qasim Nanotvi "We are Gods walking down your streets". Therefore modern scholarship should be wary that they do not fall into the same trap of deifying themselves and remain within the boundaries of Sunnism.

The attitude an individual needs to have to successfully diffuse Shiite propaganda should now be clear, their propaganda is based on emotion, exaggeration and transmitted beliefs as opposed to sound research and experience. Since it was never really implemented as they have said it should be, then they can never bring any experiential proof that it works, other than scripture, which is mostly fabricated by them. Overall, this document should give the average reader enough intellectual force so that the propaganda stays in its corner and so that clear thought is dominant in his mind. Any books that a person picks up arguing for a Shiite sectarian view in mind can be refuted if this set of answers is used as a lie detector, i.e. all the possible arguments they may bring can be dismissed using the key basic points that are described here, and you will see that the arguments here are more substantial and strong than the conjecture they bring, even though they are concise and without unnecessary elaborate detail.

This should teach an individual that to fight evil, the only way to win is to not give energy to your opponent, to not consider his argument as real, to consider it an illusion.
This should teach you that victory does not come from a lot of complex devices and intricate efforts to outdo your opponent, because he will keep coming back, he is addicted to the energy you are giving him. As soon as you stop giving him attention and simply make the intention not to argue about something, it is impossible for either a) you to be caught up in some useless debate or b) for him to repeatedly return, since he will know there is nobody there to listen to him.
Evil is thus diffused when we stop giving it substance, "Indeed the machinations of the devil are weak", this is designed to totally reverse the norm, i.e. considering the devil as great, he should not exist in a person's mind, only Allah should exist in a person's mind as the entity that is 'Necessarily Existent', the devil is only 'circumstantially existent'.

There are various incidents in history brought forward in order to prove the Shiite narrative that has been described in this work. One such incident is that of 'Fadak', when Abu Bakr denied inheritance of the plot of land called 'Fadak' to Fatima. She was angered by it, and did not talk to the caliph for a long period of time, near to her death she dropped her grudge. This whole incident has been blown out of proportion over the centuries by Shiite propagandists, who depict the situation as if the caliph was antagonistic to Fatima, daughter of the Prophet. It is used to fuel the propaganda that the prophetic bloodline were categorically oppressed, and it is used to attack the first Caliph. It breeds animosity and misunderstanding on both sides. It needs to be diffused.


A person who wishes to be free from tension and sectarianism with regards to this subterfuge needs to align himself with the opinion of Abu Bakr in this regard, and to consider it as the wiser and more mature/sober attitude. When he gave his explanation to Ali, Fatima, and Al Abbas when they came to him demanding inheritance, you should accept his explanation as the one closer to the truth, and you must reject their claims, despite that they were also eminent personalities. The same way that you side with Ali's opinion to not take action against the satanic group in the Siffin issue, and you reject Muawiya's opinion to punish them before his giving of allegiance, despite that he was also an eminent personality, the same is to be done in this instance. Ali is to Siffin, what Uthman was to the Sabaites, and what Abu Bakr was to Fatima in this issue. The common factor in this ratio is that in Siffin, Ali was the one being patient and demanding leadership to be acknowledged, and Muawiya was challenging this demanding something extra (i.e. action against the Sabaites); in Uthman's siege, he was the one being patient and demanding leadership to be acknowledged, and the Sabaites were challenging this demanding a whole lot more extra than was valid to be requested. People know Ali was right to demand allegiance first, despite the urgency of the request of his opposition, because they understand he was powerless to do anything without a united force. People accept his reluctance as valid and consider him a good leader, even though Muawiya's opinion seemed completely justifiable and something that was Q.E.D, yes, Ali could have eliminated the Sabaites just by recognising and seperating them. People know Uthman was right not to take any military action against the Sabaites even though he had an entire host of the best warriors at his command, because something genuine prevented him. In his mind was the idea "I will not be the first leader to turn his sword against the Muslims", and this was his opinion that had to be respected due to his leadership, even though the Sabaites were not Muslims but simply hypocrites. So when Abu Bakr denied inheritance to Fatima, it was equally right on his behalf to quote the verses he recited and to deny the claim, their demands were extreme, and simply did not fall under the category of their rights, closer inspection shows that it was actually beyond their rights to demand, and he was correct to reject the demand, it should show that everybody is equal under the divine law. He had a similar idea in his mind that prevented him from giving the inheritance to that which prevented Ali from taking action, and that which prevented Uthman from taking action, which was that "Prophets do not leave inheritance". He did not misunderstand this statement, or interpret it literally, as people suggest. He used it as the proof for an opinion which he recognised in his heart to be true, since he was wiser, he could intuitively understand that in this situation, the requests were made out of desire and were not genuine rights of the people who asked for it, so he denied out of sobriety that which was requested out of ecstasy, and furnished certain hadith and verses to substantiate it. He was challenged to his view by his subordinates, Ali and Fatima, but he remained passive and they knew he was correct. Later sectarians used this incident and exaggerated and magnified its importance to serve their own aims, and created an entire historical narrative to justify their sectarian agenda, one that has confused many people and created much animosity between large groups of people for over a thousand years.
Now let us analyse some basic texts with regard to this issue and be done with it.
In the important early biographical work of Ibn Sad, at Tabaqat (The Book of Islamic Social Classes), the event is described thus:
Fatima came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al Abbas came to him and demanded his share in inheritance. Ali came with them. Then Abu Bakr said: "The Apostle said, "We leave no inheritance (i.e. prophets), what we leave behind us is charity." I shall make provisions only for those whom the Prophet made them." 
To most reasonable thinkers, his answer was valid and devoid of malice, to Shiites this statement of his is taken as a huge insult.
On this, Ali attempted to debate and cited the verse, "And Solomon inherited David [27:16] (i.e. politically), and Zakariya said, 'May he be my heir and the heir of the children of Jacob' (About John the Baptist)". (19:6)
Abu Bakr disregarded the analogy made by this verse. He said, "This is as this is (i.e. the verse). By God, you know it as I know it." He did not deny the meaning of the verse, but remained with his original verdict and that this verse did not prove the cause that the other two were striving for.
Thereupon Ali said, "This is the Book of God that speaks". Then they became quiet and retired. (Tabaqat of Ibn Sad, v.2. p. 393.)
Connected with the same incident, a narration describes:
Fatima asked Abu Bakr, "When you die who will inherit you?" (she asked this by way of challenge, to suggest that Abu Bakr was being hypocritical, allowing his children and relatives to inherit his property but forbidding Fatima to inherit the Prophet's orchard, i.e. Fadak, and the question was not balanced or out of curiosity but out of challenge and with prior intention)
He replied, "My children and relatives".
She said, "What is the justification of your becoming inheritor of the Prophet, keeping us (his progeny) away?" (i.e. she insinuated that he was deliberately attempting to sideline the prophetic bloodline and restrict them from some sort of monetary/political gain)
Obviously this was not his intention, he did not deny their merit (i.e. the prophetic bloodline, nor was his plan to keep from them something that was rightfully theirs, as later Shiite propagandists would insist.
Also, Abu Bakr did not inherit from the Prophet that which Fatima insisted he had deprived them of, i.e. money/property, he only inherited the burden of authority, leadership and governance from the Prophet, which was no easy task.
He replied, "O daughter of the Apostle of God! I did not inherit your father's land, gold, silver, slave, or property".
Which confirms the above mentioned thesis.
She said, "The share of God (i.e. khums, a payment of one-fifth of revenue through tax to the prophet's descendants, made necessary at one point but later abrogated, demanded by Fatima in this case, continued by Shiites, but discontinued by Sunnis) which He has allotted to us and which is only our share, is in your hands."
Thus, she incorrectly persisted upon arguing for some right which was beyond her allotted share, and projected animosity towards the caliph for supposedly depriving her.
Abu Bakr correctly denied her concept of a special tax for the prophetic bloodline, and insisted upon the more Islamic concept of distributing questionable resources among the general population. The specific things left behind by the Prophet, i.e. the orchard of Fadak, or the payment of 'Khums' were questionable things regarding which, it would be more just to leave them as a public endowment rather than a genealogical privilege, and this was more in line with the legal philosophy of Islam.
He proceeded, according to this account, to cite a prophetic statement justifying his stance:
Thereupon he replied, "I heard the Apostle of God saying, 'It is the food that God provides me with, when I die it will be distributed among the Muslims".
Another report contains the statement by Abu Bakr:
"Verily, the Apostle of God said, 'We do not leave inheritance, what we leave goes into charity.' Verily, the members of Muhammad's family will get provision from this money. By God! I will not change the distribution of the charity of the Apostle of God from what it was in his time. I shall continue to spend in the same way the Apostle was spending".
(Tabaqat, v.2. p.392)
And it is said, that after his conclusive statements, Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr and did not talk with him until the time of her death, as was recorded in 'The Revival of Religious Sciences'.
Another report from Tabari's Chronicles should be read in order to enhance understanding of this incident so that you may make a decision with regards to it.
Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it.
(Tabari, 'History of Prophets and Kings', v.9. p. 196-7. Trans. State University of New York. 1993).
There was no bias towards the direct descendants in this instance, i.e. Fatima and Ali, the same verdict was given to the wives of the Prophet.
A narration attributed to Aisha reports: "When the Messenger died, his wives decided to send Uthman Ibn Affan as their spokesmen to Abu Bakr to demand from him their share from the legacy of the Prophet. At this, 'Aisha said to them: Has not the Messenger said: "We Prophets do not have any heirs (in material property), what we leave behind is to be given in charity". (Sahih Muslim, 19:4351)
Hammad b. Sulayman narrates from Ibrahim an Nakha'i that Abu Bakr lead the funeral prayer of Fatima. (Tabaqat of Ibn Sad, v.8. p.16)
Al Khatib narrated from Al Baqir:
"When Fatima died, Abu Bakr and Umar came, Abu Bakr asked Ali to lead the prayer, he declined and said, "how can I in the presence of the khalifa of Rasulallah". (Muttaqi al Hindi, Kanz al Ummal, v.6. p.318).
There are details for further reading in a short book written by Allama Syed Mahmud Ahmed Ridwi, 'Bagh e Fidak: Mas'ala Fidak Ki Tahqiq'. He writes in the preface:
"The compilation of this book is not for the purpose of debate and argument, but simply for a clear statement of our position and creed and for the defence of those personalities who are wrongfully accused and slandered. The request from the Muslim brothers is that they receive these words with coolness of heart and mind, and whatsoever reaches them from the truth in this work, they accept it willingly." - Sayyid Mahmud Ahmed Ridwi. December. 1952.

Nobody should have any second thoughts after this summary, by looking at the positions of both individuals in this exchange, it is clear to see who had the more mature perspective on what justice and law is comprised of, in law, and in the objective of law, i.e. justice, there can be no favoritism, there can be optional preferential treatment for some on account of their being oppressed, there can be optional preferential treatment for those who are upstanding members, but nothing can be obligated on this basis, obligation is only based on universally applicable standards.


Those who have a clear conception of justice will find these explanations easy to digest, but those who have a partial and exaggerated/extremist notion of justice will find themselves unable to do anything except to embrace the sectarian/anarchist conception of justice.
The Shiite conspiracy narrative in this regard makes it look entirely as if all the Hashemites wanted was political and monetary benefit, and considers as infidel whoever denies this baseless propaganda, in the sense that if you deny leadership, political authority and monetary benefit for them in those situations where it was naturally barred to them, you are seen as an individual inimical to them, this is all propaganda and a smokescreen for the political ambitions of a disgruntled minority of ex-Sassanid military turned slaves of the new Arab empire.
Other Issues:
The Myth of Shaykhayn Attacking Fatima:
This is a particularly famous piece of Shiite propaganda describing Umar attacking Fatima physically after the election of Abu Bakr (by stealing it, as they say), and killing the unborn youth she was carrying. It is used as propaganda/cult fuel for a Shiite sectarian agenda.
This attitude needs to be rejected as propaganda, together with all the other factors mentioned above, if an individual wishes to achieve mental clarity.
Some points:
-It is strange that an unborn child has a name before he was born and that his parents even knew its gender. Even though some may argue that it is recommended to name a child before it is born in case of miscarriage and for burial rites, this does not explain the prior knowledge of the child's gender. Again, if it is recommended to name the child, why was there not a male and female name stipulated, i.e. muhsin/muhsina, why only was a name selected in case of birth of a boy? There was no unborn child named Muhsin, but there was a child born during the life of the Prophet named by him as muhassan, and it died at a young age, before the election of Abu Bakr and possibly before the death of the Prophet. Other than that, there is no need to waste time refuting every last individual piece of propaganda as the narrative itself is flawed and is linked with a clearly identifiable historical conspiracy.
- The report in which this third child is mentioned is authentic, however, the way in which the Shiite propagandists of the past have used it is not.
- The report shows that the child was born during the prophetic era, and died in a young age, whereas in the fabricated story mentions that Fatima was still pregnant with him after the election of Abu Bakr, after the passing of the Prophet, and this is clearly false since the authentic report upon which it is based shows that there was a third child alive during the lifetime of the Prophet. Also, the hadith shows that Fatima was to be the first to join the Prophet after his passing, and she died 6 months after the Messenger, but the propaganda claims Muhsin died first, in the womb of his mother, and if it were true, Muhsin would have been named as the first member of his family to join the Prophet and not Fatima.
The report:
عليبنأبيطالبرضياللهعنهقال :لمَّاولدالحسنجـاءرسولاللهصلىاللهعليهوسلمفقال : أرونيابنيماسميتموه؟قلت :سمّيتهحرباً،قال : بلهـوحسن،فلماولدالحسينقال : أرونيابنيماسميتموه؟قلتسميتهحرباً،قال :بلهوحسين . فلماولدالثالثجاءالنبيصلىاللهعليهوسلمفقال :أرونيابنيماسميتموه؟قلتحرباً،قال :بلهومحسَّنثمقال : إنيسمّيتهمبأسماءولدهارونشبّروشُبَيْرومشبّر
Ali bin Abi talib RA said: When al Hassan was born the Prophet PBUh came and said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: I called him Harb, he said: Nay He is Hassan, When al Hussein was born the Prophet PBUH said: show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, he said: Nay he is Hussein, and when the third was born the Prophet PBUH came then said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, He said: Nay he is Muhassan, then He said: I have named them after the names of the children of Haroun(Aaron) they are Shibr, Shubeir, Mushabbar.
source: مسندأحمد (1/98) إسنادهصحيح .
Musnad Ahmad 1/98, Isnad is SAHIH.

Of course al Muhassan bin Ali RA died as little baby.


source:التبيينفيأنسابالقرشيينلابنقدامةالمقدسي 133
Al Tabyeen fi ansab al Qurashiyeen for Ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi p133.

http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/did-sheikeinabubakr-umar-ever-attack-ahlebayt/

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page