The Shi’a and Its Followers -By Murtada Gusau

Filed under: Forgotten Dairies |

In the Name Of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all creation. May Allah extol the mention of the Prophet Muhammad in the highest company of Angels and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, his family, his Companions and all those who follow him exactly till the Day of Judgement.

Dear Brothers and Sisters! Scholars of Usul Al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) stated the following rule:

“One cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it.”

Based on this rule, it is meaningless to pass a judgment on Shi’as unless you have good knowledge about them. It is also meaningless to express one’s opinion on reconciling the views of Sunnis and Shi’ites without recognising the nature of both groups. Likewise, it is of no real sense to accept or reject talking about Shi’a without knowing the reality of the issue, to what extent it is dangerous, its rank as to our priorities and its relation to the multiple variables the Ummah is facing.

In short, before we proceed to criticise the opponents or the proponents of Shi’a, we should first understand who Shi’as are, what their origins are, what their theological and Fiqhi (jurisprudential) backgrounds are, what their history is about, what their reality is an what their goals and ambitions are. Only after doing this, we can express our view foresightedly, especially when we know how many people changed their long-believed views and give up their ideas after they had been provided with sound information and clear vision.

 

Now the question is who are Shi’as?

The issue is not merely that of certain people living in a certain country who have some disputes with neighbouring countries. Rather, it is an issue of theological, historical and Fiqhi backgrounds that have to be referred to.

Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shi’a.

What is commonly believed by the masses is that the Shi’a are those people who supported Ali Bin Abi Talib during the caliphate of Mu’awiyah Bin Abi Sufyan, (May Allah be pleased with them). Accordingly, this means that those who supported Ali Bin Abi Talib are Shi’a while those who supported Mu’awiyah are Sunnis. Such a notion has never been accepted by anyone. Moreover, Sunnis believe, with regard to the dispute that arose between the two honourable Companions, that Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) was on the right, while Mu’awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) exercised Ijtihad (independent judgment) but did not reach the truth. Thus, Sunni thought is clearly siding with Ali. Moreover, tenets, doctrines and ideologies held by Shi’a are entirely different from those held by Ali Bin Abi Talib absolutely. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the rise of Shi’a was during that era.

Some historians say that the rise of Shi’a was after Al-Husain (May Allah be pleased with him) was martyred. This opinion sounds to be more logical. Actually, Al-Husain rebelled against the rule of Yazid Bin Mu’awiyah and, therefore, headed for Iraq after his followers there had promised to back him. However, they let him down at the critical time, which led to the martyrdom of Al-Husain at Karbala. The group of people who invited him and failed to support him regretted doing so and decided to expiate their sin by rebelling against the Umayyad state. They actually did so and a large number of them were killed and thus were called Shi’a. This might explain why we notice that Shi’a are more attached to Al-Husain Bin Ali than to Ali Bin Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) himself. They also, as we can see, mark the anniversary of Al-Husain’s martyrdom, while they do not mark that of Ali Bin Abi Talib.

However, this sect only rose as a political one opposing the rule of the Umayyad dynasty and backed any attempt to rebel against it. Until that time, they did not hold theological or jurisprudential principles different from those of Sunnis. We will even come to know that earlier leaders, whom Shiites claim to be their earlier Shi’a Imams, were only Sunni men adopting doctrines and principles of Sunnis.

The situation continued to be stable for months after the martyrdom of Al-Husain (May Allah be pleased with him). At this period lived Ali Zainul-Abidin Bin Al-Husain who was one of the most righteous personalities and great ascetic scholars. He has never been reported to have any beliefs or ideologies different from those held by Companions and later generations.

Ali Zainul-Abidin had two sons of a high level of piety and purity, namely, Muhammad Al-Baqir and Zaid, both of whom completely believed in beliefs held by Sunni scholars including Companions and Successors. However, Zaid Bin Ali (May Allah have mercy on him) differed in viewing that Ali Bin Abi Talib was worthier of assuming caliphate than Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him). Although this opinion conflicts with the Ummah’s consensus (Ijma’) and contradicts many authentic Prophetic Hadiths that explicitly held Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, Umar and Uthman in a higher rank than Ali (May Allah be pleased with him), this difference of opinion, however, does not relate to doctrinal issues. While he viewed that Ali was the best, he, however, admitted the high rank of the first three caliphs. He also believed in the permissibility of one less in rank assuming imamate, despite the existence of those higher in rank. Accordingly, he did not deny the imamate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (May Allah be pleased with them). Apart from this view, he concurred with Sunnis in theology, principles and Fiqh.

Repeating the attempt of his grandfather Al-Husain Bin Ali (May Allah be pleased with them both), Zaid Bin Ali rebelled against the Umayyad caliph, Hisham Bin Abdul-Malik, which ended up with his being killed in 122 A.H. His followers then founded a sect based on his ideas, known in history as Zaidiyyah, named after Zaid Bin Ali. Though considered to be a Shi’a-based sect, Zaidiyyah agrees with the Sunnis in everything, except in holding Ali in a higher position than the first three Caliphs. The followers of this sect are mainly in Yemen and they are the nearest Shi’a sects to Sunnis – even one can hardly distinguish them from Sunnis in most respects.

It is worth mentioning that a group of the followers of Zaid Bin Ali asked him about his opinion on Abu Bakr and Umar. In reply, he supplicated Allah to show mercy to both of them, but those who asked him refused to do the same and seceded from his sect. Therefore, they were known in the history as Rafidah (lit. dissenters) because they rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar on one hand, and rejected Zaid’s opinion on the other. Subsequent generations of such a group founded a sect which was later known as Ithna-Ashriyyah (or Imamiyyah) to turn into the Shi’a’s largest sect.

Muhammad Al-Baqir, Zaid Bin Ali’s brother, died eight years before his brother (in 114 A.H.), leaving behind a son who became the reverend scholar, Ja’afar Al-Sadiq. The latter was a prominent scholar and a proficient Faqih (Jurisprudent), who held the same theology believed in by Companions, Successors and Muslim scholars in general.

Late at the era of the Umayyad caliphate, the Abbasid movement started activities aiming at rallying people against the Umayyad caliphate. The movement collaborated with the groups, which seceded from Zaid Bin Ali and both toppled the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H. The Abbasid caliphate came to power headed by the founder Abul-Abbas Al-Saffah and his successor Abu Ja’afar Al-Mansur. Those who collaborated with this movement felt disappointed as they sought to establish a caliphate ruled by one of Ali Bin Abi Talib’s grandchildren. Therefore, those people formed a group called Al-Talibiyyun (lit. proponents of Ali Bin Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) compared to Abbasids, who are named after Al-Abbas Bin Abdul-Muttalib) with the aim of staging a coup against the Abbasid caliphate.

Until this era, there were no essential theological or jurisprudential violations, except that of the criticism of Abu Bakr and Umar; actually, some of them who seceded from Zaid Bin Ali rejected them and would even curse them in public.

Ja’afar Al-Sadik died in 148 A.H. leaving behind a son called Musa Al-Kazim, who was also a scholar but less in rank than his father. He died in 183 A.H. leaving behind some sons including Ali Bin Musa Al-Ridah.

It happened that the Abbasid caliph al Ma’amun sought to contain the rebellion of Al-Talibiyyun who claimed the caliphate for the descendants of Ali Bin Abi Talib rather than those of Al-Abbas. Thus, he nominated Ali Bin Musa Al-Ridah as the crown prince, which fueled a fierce controversy among Abbasids. However, Ali Bin Musa Al-Ridah suddenly died in 203 A.H., but Al-Talibiyyun accused Al-Ma’amun of killing him and once again staged successive revolutions against Abbasids just as they did with Umayyads.

Anyway, passage of years gave room for revolutions to relatively calm down. Until that time, Shi’a had not yet adopted an independent religious school of thought to be called Shi’a. Rather, there were only political movements aiming at assuming power and opposing leaders due to many reasons which did not include such theological reasons as those held by Shi’a now.

Strikingly, such dissenting calls found support on a large scale in the Persian region (currently Iran). Actually, many inhabitants of such a region felt sorry for the fall of the huge Persian empire and its fusion into the Islamic state. They, Persians, considered themselves of a higher race, a better ethnicity and a greater history than Muslims. This feeling led to the rise of persophilia – an ideology which means giving priority to their race and ethnicity over anything even Islam. Some of them even showed deep adherence to their Persian roots, lock, stock and barrel, even the fire which they once worshiped.

As they were not powerful enough to rebel against the Islamic state, and being Muslims for decades, they found the Al-Talibiyyun’s revolutions a way through which they would seek to topple the Islamic caliphate, which toppled their Persian state before. In the same time, they did not want to forsake Islam, which they embraced for many years. They, however, decided to interpolate it through injecting into it the heritage of the Persian state so as to secure instability within the Muslim Ummah. They kept a low profile, while Al-Talibiyyun maintained the high profile. Bearing in mind that Al-Talibiyyun are affiliated to Ali Bin Abi Talib, and are a part of the Prophet’s Household and thus held in a high esteem by people, such people secured continuation of their mission.

Thus, attempts of Persophils united with those of Al-Talibiyyun belonging to the Prophet’s household to form a new independent, not only political but also religious, entity.

Back to Al-Talibiyyun, we can see that after the death of Ali Al-Ridah whom Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma’amun nominated as the crown prince, he was succeeded by his son Muhammad Al-Jawad who died in 220 A.H. The latter was also succeeded by his son Ali Bin Muhammad Al-Hadi who died in 254 A.H. Finally, the latter was succeeded by Al-Hasan Bin Ali called Al-Askari who also died suddenly in 260 A.H. leaving behind a young five-year-old son, Muhammad.

Throughout previous years, separatist movements, which consisted of some of the Prophet’s Household and Persophils, would swear allegiance to the elder son of Al-Talibiyyun’s leader, starting with Ali Al-Ridah and ending with Al-Hasan Al-Askari. Concerning the ascendants of Ali Al-Ridah, such as his father Musa Al-Kazim or his grandfather Ja’afar Al-Sadik or his grandfather’s father Muhammad Al-Baqir, they did not assume the revolutionary leadership against Umayyad or Abbasid rule.

However, after Al-Hasan Al-Askari had died in 260 A.H., revolutionists got totally confused on who was to assume leadership when Al-Hasan Al-Askari left behind a young son. They even got more confused after the sudden death of that young son. This resulted in dividing such revolutionary groups into many sects each different from the other in terms of principles and ideas as well as even in laws and beliefs.

The most famous among such sects is Ithna Ashriyyah (or Imamiyyah), now prevailing in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. It is the biggest Shiite sect at present.

The leaders of this sect started to add to Islam ideas that would work best for situations they are exposed to currently and that may ensure the continuation of their sect despite the absence of their leader.

They added many serious Bid’ahs (innovations in religion) to the religion of Islam, claiming them to be part and parcel of Islam. Thus, such Bid’ahs, with the passage of time, became a key component of their ideology and thought. Some of such Bid’ahs relate to Imamate (caliphate). Seeking a justification for the lack of a current Imam or leader, they argued that Imams are twelve only, arranging them in the following order:

1. Ali Bin Abi Talib

2. Al-Hasan Bin Ali

3. Al-Husain Bin Ali

4. Ali Zainul-Abidin Bin Al-Husain

5. Muhammad Al-Baqir Bin Zainul-Abidin

6. Ja’afar Al-Sadik Bin Muhammad Al-Baqir

7. Musa Al-Kazim

8. Ali Al-Ridah

9. Muhammad Al-Jawad

10. Ali Al-Hadi

11. Muhammad Al-Mahdi and

12. Al-Hassan Al-Askari.

That is why this sect is called Ithna Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah or The Twelvers). Seeking to justify why the Imam succession came to an end, they claimed that the young child Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Al-Askari has not died yet, and that, according to them, he disappeared in a mountain cave and is still alive (over one thousand years now). They further claim that he will be back one day to rule the world. They also believe him to be the Awaited Mahdi (Righteous Imam). They also claim that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) bequeathed Imamate to those twelve names but Companions withheld and hide such information. This is why they judge Companions in general to be disbelievers (however, some of them judge Companions to be only profligate) as they concealed such a bequeath. Influenced by the Persian system of rule, they introduced the inevitability of the monarchical system, believing that the Imam must be the elder son of Ali Bin Abi Talib and likewise all succeeding Imams. As known to all, this notion is not Islamic at all. Even Sunni Islamic states, based on a monarchical system, such as Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Ayyubi and Ottoman caliphates, never considered the monarchical system to be a part of religion or that ruling must be on a dynasty basis. Influenced also by Persia, they introduced sanctification of the ruling dynasty. Accordingly, they believed in the infallibility of the aforementioned Imams and thus considered their sayings to be as holy as the Qur’an and Prophetic Hadith. Moreover, most of their Fiqhi (jurisprudential) rules are even derived from the sayings of Imams, regardless of whether these sayings are authentically or falsely attributed to them. Furthermore, in his book “Islamic Government (Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyyah)”, Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, stated that:

“One of the fundamentals of our ideology is that our Imams are higher in rank than devoted angels and Prophets.”

Hence, this explains their bitter hostility to all Companions (except for a few of them who do not exceed thirteen). They also show hostility to even some of the Prophet’s Household, such as Al-Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him), Allah’s Messenger’s uncle, and his son Abdullah Bin Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him), the great scholar of the Ummah. Unarguably, hostility to these two figures and judging them to be disbelievers is due to the historical conflict between Ithna Ashriyyah and Abbasid caliphate.

Also among their Bid’ahs (innovations) is that they consider most Muslim countries to be Darul-Kufr (House of disbelief). They also judge the people of Madinah, Makkah, Egypt and Levant (Sham) to be disbelievers, falsely reporting the Messenger of Allah to have said something in this regard and thus believe it to be a part of their religion.

Wallahi, you can refer to such ideas in their original resources, such as Al-Kafi, Bihar Al-Anwar and Tafsir Al-Qummi, Tafsir Al-Ayyashi, Al-Burhan and other books.

Consequently, they do not acknowledge any Sunni scholars and all the authentic Hadith books, such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa’i. They also deny the authority of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ibn Hanbal. They also do not admit the excellence of Khalid Bin Al-Walid or Sa’ad Bin Abi Waqqas, Umar Bin Abdul-Aziz, Musa Bin Nusair, Nurul-Din Mahmud, Salahud-Din, Qutuz and Muhammad Al-Fatih.

As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur’an), they depended largely on sayings attributed to their Imams through very weak chains of narrators. Consequently, many abhorred Bid’ahs took place regarding their doctrines, acts of worship, transactions and other wakes of life. In this article, I do not intend to give a list of their Bid’ahs; actually, such a goal requires composing many books. I only refer here to the origin of the problem so that we may understand its consequences. However, it requires a lengthy talk to speak about such Bid’ahs as Taqiyyah (a dispensation allowing Shi’ites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion) and Raj’a (the second coming or the return to life of their Imams after death), viewing that the Qur’an was interpolated, misbelieving in Allah, Bid’ahs committed at the shrines, building such shrines in Mosques, abhorred Bid’ahs committed on the anniversary of Al-Husain’s Martyrdom and thousands of other Bid’ahs that became key pillars in religion according to Shi’a Ithna Ashriyyah.

Wallahi all that I have mentioned so far is only a part of the ideology of Ithna Ashriyyah. However, there are several other sects that rose during the same period in history, especially during the period known in history as the period of “Shi’a Bewilderment”, which started as early as the middle of the third century A.H. following the death of Al-Hasan Al-Askari (the twelfth and last Imam according to them).

From this period on, literature and books that plant their ideology and doctrines were composed. Their methodologies spread widely in the Persian region in particular and in the Muslim world in general. However, till then no state was established to officially adopt such ideologies. Anyway, by the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., serious developments took place that led to Shi’a assuming power in some areas, which had serious repercussions on the entire Muslim Ummah.

However, I have to repeat the rule that, “one cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it.” Thus, if we are to take a decision regarding a specific matter or issue, we have to have knowledge about it first. In other words, we can judge something to be right or wrong or say that it is better to do so-and-so only when authentic information is available. Undoubtedly, judgments based of passions and on no study leads, certainly, to evil consequences.

Respected Brothers and Sisters! Now what do you think our attitude toward Shi’as should be? How should we deal with them? Is it better to discuss their issue or keep silent? Is it better to be ignorant or knowledgeable about them? This is what I will deal with in my next Jumu’ah Sermon, In Shaa Allah.

Lastly, I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims. Ameen.

And all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds. May the peace, blessings and salutations of Allah be upon our Noble Messenger, Muhammad, and upon his family, his Companions and his true followers.

Your Brother:

Murtada Muhammad Gusau, from Okene, Kogi State, Nigeria: He can be reached via: [email protected] or +2348038289761.

 

Comments

comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.