शीया मज़हब कब और कहाँ से आया?

कुरआने करीम में अल्लाह तआला फरमाता है:

जो तुमको रसूल दे दें उसे ले लो और जिस से मना करे उससे  बाज़ रहो। (सूरए हशर आयत 7)

जिसने रसूल की इताअत की तो उसने अल्लाह की इताअत की। (सूरए निसा आयत 80)

सन 10 हिजरी में रसूलअल्लाह (स.) ने इन्तेकाल फरमाया। जब आपका आखरी वक्त करीब था तो आपने फरमाया:

''हज़रत इन्बे अब्बास रजि. कहते हैं - जब नबी-ए-करीम (स.) के दर्द तेज हुआ तो आपने फर्माया, मेरे पास कागज़ लाओ ताकि मैं तुम को ऐसी तहरीर लिख दूँ जिस के बाद तुम गुमराह न हो, हज़रत उमर रजि. बोले हुज़ूर पर दर्द की ज़्यादती है और हमारे पास खुदा की किताब है जो हमारे लिए काफी है, इस पर लोगों में इख्तलाफ़ पैदा हो गया और खूब शोर मचा, आपने (यह देख कर) फ़र्माया मेरे पास से चले जाओ, मेरे पास झगड़ा मत करो।''

(सहीह बुखारी (तजरीद), हदीस नं. 90, हिन्दी एडीशन - ऑक्टोबर 2004, फरीद बुक डेपो, दिल्ली)

झगड़ा इस बात पर था कि रसूल-अल्लाह एक तहरीर लिखना चाहते थे जिससे उम्मत कभी गुमराह न होती, लेकिन उस वक्त उनकी बात नहीं मानी गयी। इस पर कुछ लोगोने कहा कि रसूल की इताअत अल्लाह की इताअत है, उनको वसीयत लिखने का मौका देना चाहिये था। बहरहाल अक्सर मुसलमानों के अकीदे के मुताबिक रसूलअल्लाह (स.) बगैर वसीयत किए इस दुनिया से चल बसे और तकरीबन सारे लोगों नें हज़रत अबुबकर की बैअत कर ली। हज़रत अबूबकर ने अपने बाद हज़रत उमर को खलीफा बनाया। हज़रत उमर ने आपने बाद खलीफा बनाने के लिए एक कमिटी बनाई जिसे शूरा कहते हैं और इस कमिटी ने हज़रत उस्मान को खलीफा चुना और हज़रत उस्मान के बाद हज़रत मुआविया का दौर आया और मुआविया के बाद उनके बेटे यज़ीद की बैअत अक्सर मुसलमानों ने कर ली थी।

वह गिरोह जो रसूलअल्लाह को कागज़ कलम न दिए जाने पर नाराज़ था उसने हज़रत अबूबकर की बैअत नहीं की। इन लोगों के नाम ''तारीखे याकूबी'' की जिल्द 2 के सफ्हा 114 पर कुछ इस तरह लिखे हैं: 1) अब्बास बिन अब्दुल मुत्तलिब 2) अल-फादी बिन अब्बास 3) अल-ज़ुहैर 3) खालिद बिन सईद 4) अल-मिकदाद 5) सलमान-ए-फारसी 6) अबूज़र-ए-गफ्फारी 7) अम्मार-ए-यासिर 8) अल-बराआ और 9) उबै बिन काब (मज़ीद तफसीलात के लिए देखिए:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sahabah_that_did_not_give_Bay%27ah_to_Abu_Bakr )

यहाँ शीया हज़रात का अक़ीदा है कि यह लोग हज़रत अली के साथ रहे, हज़रत अली के बाद यह थोडे से लोग इमाम हसन की बैअत में रहे और उनके बाद उनके छोटे भाई इमाम हुसैन की बैअत की और इनमें से 72 करबला में उनके साथ रहे और शहीद कर दिए गए।

करबला का वाकेआ क्या है?

रसूलअल्लाह (स.) के इन्तेकाल के 50 साल बाद, उम्मते मुस्लिमा (सहाबा - ताबेईन) ने रसूलअल्लाह के प्यारे नवासे इमाम हुसैन को 3 दिन का भूका-प्यासा शहीद कर दिया और शीयों पर इल्ज़ाम लगाया कि वे इमाम हुसैन की शहादत के ज़िम्मेदार हैं। जब कि इमाम हुसैन के चाहनेवाले (शीया यानि दोस्त, चाहनेवाले) उनके साथ शहीद हुए और आज वह उन्हे याद करके रोते हैं और यह तमन्ना करते हैं कि अगर यह लोग भी उनके साथ करबला में होते तो उन पर अपनी जान कुरबान कर देते। आशूरा (10 मोहर्रम) को ज़ालिम खलीफा यज़ीद और उसकी बैअत करनेवाले पूरे नाम निहाद मुसलमानों ने ईद मनाई और कहा कि खलीफा-ए-वक्त के सामने बगावत करनेवाला बागी (नऊज़ुबिल्लाह) मारा गया।

इस वाकए में शियों का क्या कुसूर है? क्या यज़ीद की फौज शिया थी या फिर यज़ीद खुद शिया था? इमाम हुसैन की शहादत से पहले शिया कभी भी गम नहीं मनाते थे और कभी भी यह ''ड्रामा'' नहीं करते थे।

क्या शीयों ने इमाम हुसैन को शहीद किया है?

जी नहीं। यज़ीद की फौज ने शहीद किया। यज़ीद ने इमाम हुसैन को अपनी बैअत करने का हुक्म दिया और बैअत न करने की सूरत में उनपर सख्ती करने का हुक्म दिया। कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि कूफे के शीयों ने आपको बुलवाया और फिर धोका दे दिया। कूफे में शीया नहीं रहते थे। कूफे के अक्सर लोग हज़रत अली की बैअत से पहले हज़रत उस्मान की बैअत में थे और खुलफा-ए-राशिदा को तस्लीम करते थे। शीया खिलाफते राशिदा को तस्लीम नहीं करते।

क्या इमाम हुसैन की याद मनाना बुरी बात है?

अगर इमाम हुसैन की याद मनाना बुरी बात है तो फिर रसूलअल्लाह (स.) क्यूँ इमाम हुसैन की शहादत को याद करके रोए? (इस बारे में मज़ीद मालूमात के लिए देखिये http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qd3UQMsHDs

अगर अपने मेहबूब (प्यारे) की याद में रोना बुरी बात है तो:

नबीअल्लाह हज़रत याकूब क्यूँ अपने बेटे नबी युसुफ की याद में रोए? (कुरआन करीम)

हज़रत रसूलअल्लाह क्यूँ अपने चचा हज़रत हमज़ा की याद में रोए? (तबकात इब्ने सआद)

हज़रत फातेमा ज़हरा क्यूँ अपने वालिद की याद में रोईं? (बुखारी शरीफ)

हज़रत आयशा क्यूँ अपने वालिद हज़रत अबूबकर की याद में रोईं? (सहीह तिरमीज़ी)

हज़रत उमर क्यूँ अपने दोस्त खालिद बिन वलीद की याद में रोए और मरसिया पढ़ा? (अत्तरीक इलल मदाएन, स. 366)

और ओसामा बिन लादेन के चाहने वाले क्यूँ उसकी याद में रोए? फोटो देखने यहाँ क्लिक करें:

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/05/04/1226050/115669-extremists-crying.jpg

अगर किसी की याद मनाना बुरी है तो क्यूँ हज़रत इब्राहीम और इस्माईल की याद में करोड़ों जानवरों की कुरबानीयाँ की जाती हैं, उनका खून बहाया जाता है? जबकि हज़रत इस्माईल जिब्हा भी नहीं हुए थे! अल्लाह ने उनकी कुरबानी कुबूल की और लोगों को हुक्म दिया की उनकी याद मनाई जाए। अल्लाह अपने बन्दों की कुरबानी को याद करने का हुक्म देता है। क्या इस्लाम की राह में इमाम हुसैन की कुरबानी कुबूल नहीं हुई? क्या उनकी कुरबानी को याद करने से अल्लाह नाराज़ होगा?

इमाम हुसैन कौन हैं?

•  हज़रत अली के बेटे हैं।
•  जन्नत के जावानों के सरदार हैं।
•  इनकी माँ का नाम फातेमा ज़हरा है।
•  इनकी माँ, रसूलअल्लाह की बेटी हैं और तमाम औरतों की सरदार हैं।
•  इन्होने इस्लाम बचाया है।

यज़ीद कौन था?
•  मुआविया बिन अबु सुफियान का बेटा था।
•  जहन्नमी है, यह फासिक और फाजिर था।
•  इसकी दादी का नाम हिन्दा था।
•  इसकी दादी जालिम थी।
•  इसकी दादी नें रसूलअल्लाह के चचा हज़रत हमज़ा का कलेजा खाने की कोशिश की थी।
•  इसने इस्लाम को नुकसान पहुँचाया है।

क्या यज़ीद के मानने वाले इस दुनिया में हैं?

जी हाँ। यज़ीद को खलीफा मानने वाले आज भी दुनिया में हैं और आज भी यह लोग इमाम हुसैन के चाहनेवालों पर जुल्म करते हैं और यज़ीद से हमदर्दी करते हैं और यज़ीद के लिए दुआ करते हैं।

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENShvM9XOAs

शीया कहाँ-कहाँ है और कौन इन पर जुल्म कर रहा है?

शीया पूरी दुनिया में हैं। हिन्दुस्तान, पाकिस्तान, अफगानिस्तान, ईरान, ईराक, बहरैन, लेबनान, सऊदी अरब, अरब इमारात, कूवैत, यमन, वगैरा वगैरा। इन बिचारों का 'यज़ीद के माननेवाले' हर रोज़ कल्ते आम कर रहे हैं। हर रोज़ 30 से 40 शीयों का कत्ल हो रहा है।

इनका कत्ल क्यूँ हो रहा है?

इस लिए कि कुछ मुसलमान इनके खिलाफ नफरत फैलाते हैं, इनके खिलाफ मनघडत बातें लोगों को बताते हैं और इनको कत्ल करने पर अल्लाह से जन्नत दिलाने का वादा करते हैं।

क्या शिया काफिर या काफिर से बदतर है?

क्यूँ? कुछ लोगों का कहना है कि यह लोग सहाबा को बुरा भला कहते हैं इस लिए काफिर हैं। यह बात बिलकुल झूठ है। अगर कुछ देर के लिए इसको सहीह मान भी लिया जाए तब भी तबलीगी जमाअत के आलिम मौलाना तारिक जमील के मुताबिक सहाबी को बुरा भला कहने से मुसलमान काफिर नहीं होता। अहले हदीस फिरके के मशहूर आलीम मौलाना इस्हाक का कहना भी यही है। और मशहूर सुन्नी आलिम डॉ. ताहिरुल कादरी भी शीयों को काफिर नहीं मानते।

शीयों के अकीदे क्या हैं?

1) अल्लाह एक है। 2) हज़रत मोहम्मद (स.) अल्लाह के आखरी नबी हैं। 3) हज़रत अली रसूलअल्लाह के पहले जानशीन और खलीफा हैं। 4) हज़रत अली की आल से 11 इमाम हैं जिनकी पैरवी शीया हज़रात करते है। शीयों ने अपना दीन रसूलेपाक से और इन 12 इमामों से लिया है। इमाम हुसैन के बाद के सभी इमाम, इमामे हुसैन का गम मनाते थे और उनकी याद में लोगों को पानी पिलाते थे और खाना खिलाते थे।

नफ़रत फैलाने वाले कौन है?

यह वह लोग हैं जिनके यहाँ हर कोई काफिर है। जो इनके ''खयालों'' को नहीं मानता वह काफिर हैं। इनको ''तकफीरी'' कहा जाता है। यह सब को काफिर होने के फतवे देते रहते हैं। इनके मुताबिक बरेलवी मुस्लिम, शिया मुस्लिम, बोहरी मुस्लिम, सूफी मुस्लिम यह सब काफिर हैं।

नफरत फैलाने वालों के लिए नसीहत:

किसी को बुरा-भला कहने से आप सहीह साबित नहीं होते। अगर आप रसूलअल्लाह के उम्मती हैं तो काफिरों की भी इज्ज़त कीजीए। कुरआन ने साफ लफ्जों में कहा है कि ''आप के लिए आपका दीन और हमारे लिए हमारा दीन''। अगर आपको किसी की कोई बात गले से नहीं उतरती तो मोहज्ज़ब (Civilized) तरीके से आप उसे समझने की कोशिश कर सकते हैं। किसी पर कीचड उछालने से आपके ही कपड़े गंदे होंगे। रसूलअल्लाह की सुन्नत उनका हुस्ने सुलूक है, उनके अखलाक हैं। सिर्फ उनके जैसे कपड़े पहन लेने से आप उनके सच्चे उम्मती नहीं हो सकते। एक दूसरे की इज़्ज़त और अहतेराम मुसलमान होने की निशानी है। रसूलअल्लाह ने काफिरों से भी हुस्ने सुलूक किया है। (याद करिए उस बुढिया का वाकेआ जो रसूलअल्लाह पर कचरा फेंकती थी।)

जिस मदरसे ने शीयों के बारे में Sangli ( Maharashtra)  पर्चा बाँटा है उसके लिए सलाह:

नाज़िम साहब, हम आपसे मुअद्दबाना गुज़ारिश करते हैं कि आप अपने मदरसे की खैर और उसकी तरक्की के लिए काम करें। नफ़रत फ़ैलाना और लोगों को उक्साना कानूनन जुर्म है। कानून से न खेलें। अपने मदरसे के बच्चों को अच्छा इन्सान बनने की तरबीयत दीजीए ताकि वे अपने मुल्क के लिए और इन्सानीयत के लिए अच्छे काम कर सकें। प्यार, मोहब्बत और भाईचारा खुसूसन दूसरों की इज्ज़त करना और दूसरों को समझना सिखाइये, तो आपकी महरबानी होगी।

अल्लाह आपको और हमको हिदायत दे। आमीन।

नोट: यह जवाब एक तालिब-ए-इल्म की तरफ से पेश किया जा रहा है। अगर किसी भी मौज़ू पर मज़ीद तफ़सीलात चाहते हैं तो बराए महेरबानी शीया ओलमा से राबता करें। आप अपने इलाके की शीया मस्जिद में जाकर शीयों के बारे सहीह मालूमात उनसे हासिल कर सकते है।

अगर इस परचे के बारे में कोई भी सवालात हो या आप शीयों के बारे में मज़ीद मालूमात हासिल करना चाहते हों तो बराए महेरबानी इस ईमेल पर अपना कलाम लिखें।

habibabdulqodir@gmail.com

Shia Matam Qyun Karte Hain

Why Do We Cry on Imam Hussain (AS) ??

By the Grace of the Almighty, the month of Muharram has come upon us again; the month of mourning for our beloved Imam Hussain and his family and friends (peace be upon them all). A question that is often asked each year is: why should we cry over something that happened over 1400 years ago? We are also faced with claims that crying for the beloved grandson of the Holy Prophet of Islam is bid'a (innovation). However, numerous hadith clearly show us that there is in fact nothing wrong in crying for Imam Hussain, which are narrated in the very books of those who claim it to be bid'a. (Sahih Tirmidhi; Mishkat al Masabih, hadith no. 6157)
Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrated, "One day at midday I saw in a dream the Prophet dishevelled and dusty, with a bottle containing blood in his hand. I asked, 'You for whom I would give my father and my mother as ransom, what is this?' The Prophet of Allah replied, 'This is the blood of al-Hussain and his companions which I have been collecting today.' Ibn Abbas said he had been reckoning at that time and discovered that it was then that Hussain had been killed.'" (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal; Mishkat ul Masabih, hadith no. 6172)

Both of these narrations have been told from dreams, and some might object that perhaps it means they are not as reliable, but as narrated by Anas in Sahih Bukhari (v. 9, p. 104, hadith no. 122), "The Prophet said, whoever has seen me in a dream, then no doubt that he has seen me, for Satan cannot imitate my shape." In both of these narrations, our Holy Prophet seems very upset, and his own wife wept as the first hadith states. Therefore we can see that there is no wrong in crying for our Holy Prophet's beloved grandson.
Not only mankind was affected by the tragedy of Karbala, but we see in numerous hadith in both the Ahle Sunnah and Shi'a sources that the heavens and the earth also wept over Imam Hussain, and that the Jinns too mourned his death (Majma al-Zawaid, v. 9, p. 199, hadith no. 15179). Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his Tafsir Tabari (v. 22, p. 33) and Wahabi scholar Nawab Molvi Siddiq Hasan Khan Bhophali in Tafseer Fatah ul-Bayan (v. 8, p. 326) stated, "Al-Seddi said 'When Hussain bin Ali was killed, the sky started weeping for him; the weeping of the sky was by turning red.'"
Even with proof, some wonder why it is necessary to cry, and wonder how it will help us.Tears for the sake of Allah are known for softening the heart and purifying it form hypocrisy. Crying because we feel the pain of our Prophet and how he must have felt at the sight of his beloved grandson being killed can only increase our love for him and our love for Allah, while intensifying our hatred towards injustice and the need to fight against it with our pens, tongues and through our actions.
Our beloved Prophet has also said, "Hussain is from me, and I am from Hussain." (Narrated in numerous sources including Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v. 4, p. 172; Al Tabarani, v. 3, p. 21; Mishkat al Masabih, hadith no. 6160.) So if Hussain is from our Prophet and he is from Hussain, then whose blood did the oppressors spill on the battlefield of Karbala? And if it was the blood of our Prophet running through the veins of al-Hussain, should we not cry for his tragedy?
The Holy Prophet himself has affirmed the reward for those who weep for Imam Hussain: "Whoever on the day of Ashura weeps for my son Hussain, Allah will place that person in Paradise alongside the Ulul Azm Prophets." (Isaba, v. 1, p. 226)

آ دیکھ میرے غازیؑ , اونچا ہے علم تیرا

آ دیکھ میرے غازیؑ , اونچا ہے علم تیرا
دل سینے میں جب تک ہے , بھولے گا نہ غم تیرا

زینبؑ کی دعا بن کر , ایک وقت وہ آئے گا
ہر گھر پہ سجا ہو گا , عبّاسؑ علم تیرا

آ جاتی ہیں زہراؑ بھی , زینبؑ بھی زیارت کو
جب آٹھ محرّم کو , اٹھتا ہے علم تیرا

تابوت جب اٹھتا ہے , شبیرؑ کا اے غازیؑ
تابوت کے آگے بھی , چلتا ہے علم تیرا

وہ کون سے صدمے تھے , شہ ٹوٹ گئے جس سے
اک درد تھا زینبؑ کا , اور دوسرا غم تیرا

پرچم کا پھریرا تھا , یا آس تھی زینبؑ کی
زینبؑ کے کلیجے سے , غم کیسے ہو کم تیرا

بازار میں زنداں میں , دربار میں ہر لمحہ
زینبؑ کی تو سانسوں پہ , تھا نام رقم تیرا

جب بہہ گیا سب پانی , تب سانس تیری ٹوٹی
تھا سینے کے اندر یا , مشکیزے میں دم تیرا

آواز تیری سرور , شبّیرؑ سے وابستہ
عبّاسؑ سے وابستہ , ریحان قلم تیرا

Qatilan e Imam Hussain (A.S.) ka Mazhab - Urdu Books

Qatilan e hussain ka Mazhab.pdf

IMAM HUSSAIN a.s k Qatil Kon??? by Qaswer Abbas

Rivalry of Ommayyads v/s Hashmites and Karbala

Battle of Karbala was one battle in the age old war between Ommayyads and Hashmite clans. Even before Prophet Mohammed was born Ommayyads practised rivalry with Hashmites.

Makkan society was based on clans. Two prominent clans were Banu Hashim (Hashmite) and Banu Ommayya (Ommayyad). Makka was spiritual capital of Arabs.

Both political and spiritual leadership belonged to Hashmite. Prophet Mohammed was Hashmite by birth, when Prophet Mohammed declared Islam, Ommayyads who were already rival of Hashmite percieved Islam as another blow on their status and turned into most hostile enemies of Islam.

Hashmites and Ommayyads are named after Hashim and Ommayya respectively. Hashim was son of Abd Munaf. Hashim was also father of Abdul Mutallib, who was grandfather of Prophet Mohammed. Ommayya was adopted son of Abd Munaf. Legacy of Abd Munaf went to Hashim and became cause of rivalry.

On the eve of Prophet's birth Hashmite chief was Abdul Mutallib, Prophet's grandfather. Ommayyads oppossed Abdul Mutallib on various occassions but were unsuccessful. Abdullah father of Prophet Mohammed died before his birth so he came under care of grandfather.

After Abdul Mutallib's death, uncle of Prophet, Abu Talib father of Ali took Prophet under his care, Abu Talib also became chief of Hashmite. On Ommayyad side Utba grandson of Ommayya and his nephew and son in law Abu Sufyan (grandfather of Yazid) were Ommayyad chiefs.

When Prophet Mohammed declared Islam, Banu Ommayya turned into enemies of Islam. Prophet had influence of Abu Talib to protect him, till the time Abu Talib was alive Prophet's life was safe.

Sorrows of Orphan Baby Sakina, Imam Husain's daughter

After Karbala, from Kufa to Damascus Imam Husain's left out family was captured and imprisoned, among them was one 4 years old baby Sakina (as), she too went through sorrows, among those a few:

4 yrs old thirsty, slapped, beaten up, orphan, bleeding, exhausted, handcuffed, chained, tired princess baby Sakina (as) conversing with her ailing, chained brother Imam Zainul Abideen (as):

Baby Sakina (as): What happens when thirst reaches it's utmost limit?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): My baby what makes you ask this question? Dear don't ask these questions......
Baby Sakina (as): No! I want to know tell me what happens?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): One feels as if thorns have appeared on tongue, dear!
Baby Sakina (as): What if thirst is still not quenched, still further?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): One feels as if blood in body is boiling...
Baby Sakina (as): What if thirst is still not quenched, still further?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): Stop dear, I can't answer!
Baby Sakina (as): No! I want to know tell me what happens?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): Dear, one feels as if bones have started to melt....
Baby Sakina (as): Then brother, Sakina (as) is going through this stage, I feel as if my bones are melting....

Later in Prison:


4 yrs old thirsty, slapped, beaten up, orphan, bleeding, exhausted, handcuffed, chained, tired princess prisoner baby Sakina (as) used to cry loudly in prison, accursed Yazid got disturbed in nearby palace, he ordered his guards thus:

Guards: Ali [Imam Zainul Abideen (as)] take this baby along with us, its an order.
Chained and handcuffed Imam Zainul Abideen (as) some how picks up Sakina (as) in arms and started to walk behind the guards.
Guards kept walking in cellar, and stopped at a dark underground barrack there.
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): Why you bought us here?
Guard: Wait!
Guard opens the door, and gets aside swiftly, Imam Zainul Abideen (as) feels a hot air blow from the underground barrack as if not opened since years.
Guard: Yazid ordered us to put Baby Sakina (as) alone in this barrack, because she had disturbed his sleep.
Imam Zainul Abideen (as) grabs Sakina (as) tightly on his chest, Sakina (as) also grabbed him tightly when she heard the order.
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): No, she is a baby of 4 years, she can't stay alone, forget about dark cellar, Oh God!
Guards forcibly opened the arms of Imam Zainul Abideen (as), snatched Baby Sakina (as) and threw her in the cellar, she kept shouting, Imam Zainul Abideen (as) was forcibly bought in the upper barrack. Slowly slowly Sakina (as) became silent day by day. Few days later when she was bought back in main barrack.
All imprisoned ladies hugged her but she kept silent, she looked at her father's cut head on spear and said:
Sakina (as): Oh father have you ever seen an old lady of my age, if not then see.....
Sakina (as) began to show grey hair of her to her father's head on spear. She later passed away in prison. Her grave lies in what was prison of Damascus, Syria during accursed Yazid's illegitimate caliphate.

Did Shias Kill Imam Hussain(a.s) ?

It has being part and parcel of postmodern nasibi propaganda to insist that the ancestors of the shi’a were a treacherous people that consistently abandoned imam ali^(a.s), imam hassan^(a.s), imam hussain and the remainder ahl-ul-bait imams^(a.s) and in some cases killed them. They seek to corroborate their claims by citing unknown texts by unknown authors as a mechanism for duping ordinary unsuspecting muslims that do not possess a strong background on islamic history. The shameless people lack the capability to direct these foolish allegations to us, the shi’a of ahl-ul-bait^(a.s) directly because as they are fully aware that the definition of the term shi’a did not carry same meaning back then as it does today.

This was an all-encompassing term that referred to everyone including those who are called sunnis today. The reality is the term shi’a was not a homogenous term, and essentially incorporated the affiliates of ali^(a.s) with differing political and religious views.

We have therefore from this point on sought to distinguish the key groupings as follows:

The minority shi’a that believed that ali^(a.s) had a divine mandate to rule as he had been appointed as caliph by the prophet^(s.a.w.w)—(shi’a al-khasa)

The majority shi’a that believed that ali^(a.s) had the legal mandate to rule as he had been appointed as fourth caliph by the ummah, like the earlier caliphs—(aama)

.

With this fact in mind, the real question that should be addressed is:

Which segment of what made up the generic term shi’a perpetrated these heinous actions that today’s nawasib attribute to today’s shi’a imami (twelver) sect?

.

The famous anti-shi’a writer muhaddith shah abdul aziz dehalvi substantiates our claim by conceding that in the early days the term shi’a was a generic one that incorporated everyone:

“it should be known that the first shi’as [who are the sunnis and the tafdiliyyah] were known in the old days as shi’as. When the ghulat and the rawafid zaydiyyah and ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, sunnis and tafdiliyyah did not like this name for them and so hence adopted the name of ahlu’s-sunnah wa’l jamaah.”

Tauhfa athna ashari…urdu…page 16…published in karachi

.

The twelver imami shi’a were called rafidhi[rejectors] back in those days. The term shi’a means ‘a group’ or ‘helpers’ or ‘followers’. Since the people of kufa supported imam ali^(a.s) during the battle of jamal and siffeen, their political affiliation placed them in the grouping of the shi’as[followers] of ali^(a.s). It was again, a political term used for the helpers of ali^(a.s) or group of ali^(a.s). Similarly the opposing army i.e; the army of muawiyah(l) was called the shi’as of muawiyah(l) or shi’as of uthman(l).

.

The word shi’a was used for these two groups for pure political reasons and the same term also referred to those that adhered to the teachings of ahl-ul-bait^(a.s) and attested to their status as the rightful imams that succeeded the holy prophet^(s.a.w.w). It was these religiously affiliated shi’as that are known as imamia or twelvers or imami shi’a today.

.

The twelver shi’a never accepted the caliphate of abu bakr(l), umar(l) and uthman(l) unlike the political shi’a mentioned above who upheld their caliphs as rightful, it was this group that emerged into what is termed in this day and age ahl-e-sunnah or sunnis.

.

The term shi’a was used for:

• Everyone that joined imam ali^(a.s)’s forces against muawiyah(l) at siffeen.
• Those that considered imam ali^(a.s) to be on the right path in this dispute.

These same individuals deemed the caliphate of the shaykhain to be legitimate whilst the imami or twelvers were called rafidhi by their opponents.

.

The nawasib unlike the twelver shi’as refuse to accept the existence of political shi’as during that era. Their stubbornness is curious, especially since the existence of political shi’as is an established fact. Their refusal to acknowledge the existence of political shi’as during that era is because to do so would debase their false claims and propaganda wherein they have insisted that the shi’as killed imam hussain^(a.s).

.

This admission would unhinge centuries of efforts, motivated by their hatred of acknowledging historical facts they deem it imperative to hide this reality.

.

We will now prove that the political shi’as existence at the embryonic stage can be dated to the era of imam ali^(a.s) and continued its life during the immediate centuries that followed.

.

Al muhaddith shah abdul aziz dehalvi states as follows:

“the title shi’a was first given to those muhajireen and ansar who gave allegiance [bay'ah] to ali^(a.s). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his caliphate. They remained close to him; they always fought his enemies, and kept on following ali^(a.s)‘s commands and prohibitions. The true shi’a are these who came in 37 hijri”

Tauhfa athna ashari…urdu…page 27…published in karachi

(37 hijri -the year imam ali^(a.s) fought muawiyah(l) at siffin)

.

The ahle sunnah scholars have acknowledged the existence of political shi’as over several centuries whilst today’s nawasib continue to peddle the same lie that the kufis were imamis or twever shi’as, the scholars of ahle sunnah have made it abundantly clear in their writings that the term shi’a back did not carry the same connotation that it does today.

.

Mizan al-eitidal… imam al-dhahabi…vol. 3…page 552

‘yes, most of the syrian populations from the days of [battle of] siffeen rejected the caliphate of amir-al-momineen ali^(a.s) and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The kufans likewise deviated from uthman(l) and loved ali^(a.s) over him because their ancestors were the shi’as and helpers whilst we [the ahl-e-sunnah] love all four of the caliphs. There was also a third group of shi’as in iraq who loved both ali^(a.s) and uthman(l) but still preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l) and had an extreme dislike of those that fought ali^(a.s) at the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought ali^(a.s). This was a softer version of shi’a.’

.

Tahdeeb al-tahdeeb… imam ibn hajar asqalani…vol. 1…page 82

“according to the early scholars, shi’a meant to have faith on ali^(a.s) having preference over uthman(l)….although they preferred the shaykhayn over them [uthman(l) and ali^(a.s)].”

.

Thus, if we summarise the above writings of al-dhahabi and ibn hajar we learn that:

1). The shi’as of kufa accepted the caliphate of the shaykhayn [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)].

2). There were a group of kufan shi’as that rejected the caliphate of uthman(l) bin affan in the same manner that the people of syria rejected the caliphate of ali^(a.s).

3). Another group of kufan shi’a had a soft heart towards uthman(l) bin affan but still preferred ali^(a.s) over him. This particular group of kufan shi’as not only believed in the caliphate of the first three caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against ali^(a.s) such as ayesha, talha, zubair, muawiyah(l) etc.

.

These were therefore the beliefs of the politicized kufan shi’a and this reality completely debases the propaganda of the nawasib. It is fascinating that today’s sunnis and nawasib follow those ulema that fell under the ambit of political shi’a and rely on their works, but despite their political leanings they are categorised as ahl-e-sunnah.

.

The only difference is during their lifetimes they preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l).

.

Among such scholars is the famed scholar of tafsir imam sufyan thawri (d. 161 h). Writing about him allamah imtiaz ali al-arishi writes:  

“back in those days the term shi’a was exclusively used for those who preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l) and we cannot rule out the possibility that thawri preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l).”

.

Up until now we only discussed the ordinary shi’as political groups that were thought to have different opinions about the four caliphs but what is interesting is that apart from ordinary shi’as, al-dhahabi also mentioned that those who were called ghulat shi’a [extremist shi’as] had beliefs that differed to the ghulat of later times. He mentions in his book mizan al-eitidal…vol. 1…page 6:

“in those days [the early centuries of islam] ghulat shi’a were those that identified faults and abuses uthman(l), talha, zubair, muawiyah(l) and all those that fought against ali^(a.s). They did not hold a good opinion about them. But nowadays ghulat are those that issue takfeer against the above high ranking personalities and disassociate themselves from the shaykhayn.”

.

Having cited the above facts, what evidence does ibn al hashimi have to describe the aaama shi’as of kufa as the imami or twelver or khasa shi’as and then blame them for the crimes committed by the aaama?

.

Whilst allah^(s.w.t) has commanded us in his glorious book not to commit injustice due to enmity of a certain nation such commands are for muslims and it is down to these cyber takfeeris to decide if they wish to be counted as such.

.

Before we can take a detailed look at imam hussain^(a.s) and the role of the political shi’as in kufa during his era, it is important that we also look at the political kufan shi’a from the era of his father^(a.s).

.

After the murder of umar(l), the people of medina presented the caliphate to imam ali^(a.s) on the caveat that he rules according to the qur’an, the sunnah of the prophet^(s.a.w.w) and the path of the shaykhain [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)].

Sharh fiqh akbar…page 66

.

Ali^(a.s) bin abi-talib^(a.s) refused to accept the requirement that he adhere to the path of the shaykhain and hence the caliphate was given to uthman(l) bin affan as he agreed to it. When uthman(l) bin affan started to appoint wicked, opportunistic secular umawi governors over iraq the iraqis rebelled and from the same city of kufa, an army of men gathered to murder uthman(l) bin affan because he was not following the sunnah of shaykhain [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)]. That evidences that the kufans in these ranks attested to the caliphate of the shaykhain that justified their rising against him. Like the kufans large opposition also came from egypt and basra to murder uthman(l) for the very same reason.

.

Those sahaba and tabi’een that took the oath of allegiance for ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s)’s caliphate, also believed in the caliphate of the shaykhain. These were the same sahaba and tabi’een from medina that fought under the banner of ali^(a.s) in the battle of jamal and subsequently moved to kufa so that they could fight against muawiyah(l). These sahaba and tab’een were called the shi’as of ali^(a.s) throughout that era.

.

The battle of siffin occurred following the oath of allegiance to ali^(a.s). The army of ali^(a.s) was also defined within the political terminology of shi’as of ali^(a.s). When this was an era of intense fitnah, war and upheaval how could imam ali^(a.s)successfully convert all these political shi’as into twelver imami shi’as?

.

It were these same political shi’as [believers in shaykhain] that turned against imam ali^(a.s) when he was about to achieve victory over muawiyah(l) and forced him to call back malik ashtar [a staunch believer in ali^(a.s)’s cause] from the battle or else they would murder ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s) themselves.

.

Another group from amongst the same political shi’as [believers in the shaykhain]-turned totally against imam ali^(a.s) at tahkeem and displayed a willingness to fight him.

.

Recounting the betrayal of same political shi’as, imam ali^(a.s) mentions in one of his sermons in nahajul balagah :

“till yesterday i was giving orders but today i am being given orders, and till yesterday i was dissuading people [from wrong acts] but today i am being dissuaded.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 208

.

Addressing the same kufans imam ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s) says :

“o’ group of people who do not obey when i order and do not respond when i call you.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 180

.

At another instance imam ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s) tells the kufans:

I was sitting when sleep overtook me. I saw the prophet^(s.a.w.w) appear before me, and i said: “o’ prophet of allah ! What crookedness and enmity i had to face from the people.” The prophet^(s.a.w.w) said: “invoke (allah) evil upon them.” But i said, “allah may change them for me with better ones and change me for them with a worse one.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 70

.

Ali^(a.s) mentions in another sermon:

“by allah^(s.w.t)! I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances. I have come to know that you say ali^(a.s) speaks lie. May allah^(s.w.t) fight you! Against whom do i speak lie?” Nahajul balagah…sermon 71

.

So this was a short history of the political shi’as of kufa who previously believed in the caliphates of the shaykhain during the reign of imam ali^(a.s). The real problem is that today’s deceitful nawasib want to distort the real history of islam and present those political shi’as as being the ancestors of the twelver imami shi’as and wish to apportion blame to them for the actions of these political shias.

.

The truth is during that era of upheaval a group of shi’as were loyal to imam ali^(a.s) unconditionally. They included personalities such as ammar yasir^(r.a), malik ashtar nakahi^(r.a) and meesam tammar^(r.a) etc. This group believed that the caliphate of ali^(a.s) was a divine designation.

.

We for example see that after swearing allegiance to imam ali^(a.s) khuzaymah ibn thabit is reported to have said:

“we have elected someone who was chosen for us by the messenger^(s.a.w.w) of allah^(s.w.t).”

Al-mi’yar wa al-muwazanah…abu jaffar al-iskafi [d. 240 h]…page 51

.

This view was also pointed out by ibn abbas^(a.s) to umar(l) who refuted his argument that the quraysh deciding caliphate after abu bakr(l) was legally sound with these words:

“if quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as god did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied”

The history of tabari…vol. 14…english translation…g. Rex smith…page 137-138

.

Darimiyyah hujuniyyah, while describing for mu’awiyah(l) the reasons for favouring maula ali^(a.s) stated:

“i favour ali^(a.s) for his love of the poor, his generosity towards strangers, his religious learning, his sacrificing character and for his having been designated for wilayah by the messenger^(s.a.w.w) of allah^(s.w.t).”

At- wafidat min al-nisa ala muawiyah…abbas bin bakar…page 41

In the history of tabari…vol. 17…page 117 the following incident following the battle of siffin is written:

“when the khawarij had left al-kufah, the companions and supporters [shi’a] of ali^(a.s) came to him and gave him the oath of allegiance. They said ‘we are the friends of those whom you befriend and the enemies of those to whom you show enmity’.”

.

“the common people swore allegiance to ali^(a.s) on the basis of the book and the sunnah and the shi’a of ali^(a.s) on the basis of friendship of his friends and enmity of his enemies.”

Al-mi’yar wa al-muwazanah…abu jaffar al-iskafi…page 194

.

The stress on such an allegiance as a second allegiance in addition to the first one as well as its content points to the beliefs of the shi’a al-khasa who deemed the duty to follow ali^(a.s) a religious obligation as he had the divine mandate to be followed.

.

We showed the different groups of shi’as that resided in kufa at the time of ali^(a.s). Same groups existed at the time of imam hussain^(a.s) and the shi’a al-khasa of kufa helped imam hussain^(a.s) in every way they were able to do so. It were the aaama of kufa who betrayed imam hussain^(a.s) and  fought him. And in the end at the time of zaid^(a.s) ibn ali^(a.s) ibn hussain^(a.s) they changed their name to ahl-e-sunnah. And now some groups among them including nasibis, deobandis, salafis and wahabis are attacking shi’a al-khasa of the crime they committed.

Saddam's execution exposes double-standards of Muslim World

This year (2007), on the day of the Islamic Feast of Sacrifice - Eid al-Adha - the Fatah and the Hamas factions of the Palestinians fought each other, in which several people were killed. On the same day, 20 Muslim extremists were killed in Tunisia and the clashes in Bangladesh continued over election procedure. In Somalia violence between the party of Islamic Courts and the government forces claimed the life of many fighters. All of them were Muslims and they wrangled with each other in the name of Islam. Each of the disputant party had politicians and clerics, supporting either side, none of whom bothered to appeal for the cessation of killings as this was supposed to be a sacred day in the Islamic calendar. But as soon as the news of the execution of Saddam hit the news-wires, there was an upheaval in the Arab media and in the political circles. Overnight, one of the most brutal mass-murderer of the century was turned into a "martyr" and "hero of the Arab world". No stone remained unturned in the Arab media, especially, that run by the Pan Arab nationalists (racists), to protest against�the execution of Saddam on the day sacred to all Muslims. Even if he had been executed on some other day, those who had objected to his trial in the first place and had considered the court to be illegal under occupation, would have had a million excuses to react with dismay at his execution.

Under the full glare of history, Saddam neither respected the sanctity of human life nor the sanctity of any religion. He killed his own sons-in-law in the Islamic sacred month of Ramadan. He invaded Kuwait and caused misery to the entire nation on the sacred day of Ashura. He killed his victims and tortured political prisoners and their families, including women and children throughout the sacred months, sacred days and sacred nights, without any trials. Ironically, the same media, politicians and clerics raised no question about the sanctity of the sacred days, as if Saddam was above all sanctities. This explains that the media furore over his execution was politically and not religiously motivated. For centuries, the ruthless dictators accustomed at looting their own nations escaped justice with the conspiracy of the court-clerics (or Ulama al-Su' - the wicked clergy). One of the historic achievements of the present Iraqi government, like it or not, is to subject a tyrant like Saddam to the rule of law; to stand trial in an open court according to the Iraqi and not American jurisdiction, and to grant him a fair chance of being heard. This was the first time in history that, an absolute dictator in the Muslim world, had to face justice for his crimes against humanity, which neither he nor the dictators like him in the region, would have ever imagined. But the poor Muslim populace has been trained throughout history by the court-clerics to glorify the tyrants and autocrats. Such a mind-set cannot and will not be changed overnight.

When the leader of the military junta grabs power through the barrel of the gun, his first task is to wipe out any sign of opposition. This process, in the case of Saddam, continued since the Ba'th Arab Socialist party assumed power in Iraq 35 years ago. The figure of the dictator is then magnified as the "father of the nation", and this is how, the man in the street starts corrupting his mind with mental pictures that portray the tyrants as heroes. In the schools, the children are taught to sing hymns and hail the dictator as soon as his name is mentioned. The cinema-goers are expected to clap and shout praises when the dictator appears on the screen. There is a history of more than a thousand years behind this tragic process, in which the lackeys of the regime who stand to gain most by way of position and wealth, together with the officially controlled media, are the co-conspirators in corrupting the mind of ordinary people. In the main news-bulletins on the TVs, a good half-an-hour is often spent (or wasted) showing the officials and tribal leaders shaking hands and kissing the cheeks and rubbing the noses with the tyrant, with no commentary but only background music. This is happening in this twenty-first century - the century of enlightenment and awareness.

The execution of Saddam exposed with a stroke, the rotten mind-set which has manoeuvred the sentiments and emotions of the Muslim people for centuries and is directly responsible for the backwardness of this community. The autocrats had to sympathise with him because they see their own image on the gallows if their people become aware and conscious of the great theft of national resources committed by the ruling elites and the members of their tribe. The Palestinians are bound to mourn Saddam's execution because their suicide bombers were given a cheque of US$ 25000 for each suicide attack, not from his personal wealth, but from the wealth he had robbed from the treasury of his nation. The malice of the Pan Arab nationalists turned his execution into "Jihad" in order to vent their hatred against the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South, who have emerged as the main contestants for power that was monopolised as God-given right of the minority for more than a thousand years. The radicals had to turn his execution into "martyrdom" because the only criterion through which the doors of heavens open for people like them is to emulate al-Qaeda and the Saddami terrorists. Among the Arab rulers, nobody could understand the position of Saddam more than Gaddafi, who is engaged in grooming his son as his heir-apparent, after 37-years of dictatorship, precisely as Saddam was planning to leave his Presidency for his sons.

The reaction of the Palestinians against the execution of Saddam was double-faced. The question they should have asked themselves before offending the feelings of millions of Iraqis whose lives he had�traumatised forever is, can they ever forget and forgive a number of massacres that they hold the Israelis of committing, including the Sabra and Shatila? If not, then they should have known that Saddam had carried out massacres and genocide a hundred times worse against his own citizens. At least, Sharon will take a credit that he never killed any Jew. But Saddam will be remembered as a butcher whose main victims were his own people.

In the aftermath of the execution of Saddam, history is being boldly distorted in broad day-light and the Arab world is pretending as if there was nothing called the campaign of Anfal - the genocide of the Kurds in Halabjah, and the massacres and mass-graves in the South. There is a consensus among the secular Arabs, the extremist Islamists and the Arab political leaders, who are turning a blind-eye towards crimes against humanity committed by Saddam, including the torture-chambers in Abu Ghuraib which continued throughout his reign. The racists are only interested in Abu Ghuraib to highlight the American excesses against the political prisoners. With this type of crippled sense of justice, no wonder the other day, a Saddami declared on al-Jazeera TV that his followers will perform Hajj (pilgrimage) to the burial site of Saddam, who is now the "Amir (leader) of the martyrs"!

In the wake of the execution of Barazan al-Takriti and Awad al-Bandar, both of whom were found guilty for crimes against humanity in an open trial which continued for more than a year, Tariq al-Hashemi, the Vice-President of Iraq said that their execution is a set-back for political reconciliation (reported by al-Jazeera on 15 Jan. 2007). The political reconciliation process announced by al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq was heavily qualified from the inception that it will never include the terrorists and the Saddamis whose hands are dipped in the blood of innocent Iraqi people. But the position that the Vice-President adopted was obviously motivated by the sectarian affiliation, and not by national interest. Otherwise, full documentary evidences were presented in the open court against the high profile ciminals like Barazan and Bandar. Hence, to link their execution with the political process was equivalent to making a mockery of the Iraqi court and the Iraqi laws.

  Conclusion : Saddam was no less than Yazid ( may Allah curse him )