Khutoot Al Areedah
An Exposition and Refutation of the Sources of Shi’ism
Table of Contents
With the advent of Islam in Arabia, the polytheists, Jews and Christians had to retreat as they could not withstand the challenge thrown by Islam to accept the reality of monotheism. These forces particularly the Jews were most vociferous in their opposition to Islam. As they were not in a position to challenge Islam openly, they resorted to strike from within. It was Abdullah bin Saba, a Jew, who pretending to be a Muslim coined and propagated the Divine right of Ali Bin Abi Talib, May Allah be pleased with him, to the Caliphate as the successor to the prophet Muhammad (Sall Allahu alaihi wa sallim), by virtue of his position as the son in law of the prophet(SALL ALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLIM). By and by the idea was turned in to a doctrine and those professing it called themselves as Shi’ites. This doctrine was based upon the contempt and animosity towards the pious caliphs particularly Abu Bakr and Umar (May Allah be pleased with them). Since its very inception this break away group has been playing a negative role in the Muslim World and has brought untold miseries to the Ummah. The annals, of the Islamic history bear testimony to the above fact. The assassin movement of Hasan bin Sabbah and the role played by Ibn-e-Alqami in the devastation of Baghdad by Holagu are some of the instances of the past Islamic history. The upsurge of Khomenieism in Iran is also the part of the old game of the Shi’ite history. Khomenieism has assumed a new and most dangerous dimension which has surpassed all the previous dangers. The uncompromising attitude in the ruinous war with Iraq, the turmoil at Mecca during the last year Haj pilgrimage, the mischievous move to internationalize the control of the holy cities of Islam and the sinister propaganda against the government of Saudi Arabia has exposed the Khomeini regime.
This book Al-Khutoot Al-Areedah gives a vivid picture of the Shi’ite belief and faith. The reader will come across with some painful truths and horrible facts.
Abul Kalam Azad Islamic Awakening Centre, New Delhi is indebted to brother Mahmood Murad, translator of the book, who very kindly granted pe mission to publish it, when the undersigned had the privilege to meet him at the International Conference of the Sacred Cities of Islam, held on 1st & 2nd
April 1988 at California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.
Unfortunately both the illustrious author of this book Muhibbuddeen Khateeb and his son Oussay expired recently. May Allah, the most merciful forgive their sins and admit them to the paradise.
Abul Kalam Azad Islamic Awakening Centre has a promising program to bring out books on various Islamic subjects to facilitate the Muslims to understand the pristine teachings of Islam. May Allah help us in our efforts.
Abdul Hameed Rahmani President Abul Kalam Azad Islamic Awakening Centre
In the name of Allah. the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise is due to the Almighty God, Allah. We praise Him and seek His help and forgiveness. And we seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our own selves and from our wicked deeds. Whosoever has been guided by Allah, there is none to misguide him. And whosoever has been misguided by Allah, none can guide him. And I bear witness that there is no other god except Allah, alone, without partner or associate. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger. May Allah the Exalted bestow His peace and blessings on the Prophet Muhammad, upon his good and pure family as well as upon all of the noble Companions and upon those who followed them in righteousness until the Day of Judgment.
It is intended through this translation of Al-Khutoot Al-‘Areedah to present to readers of English, both Muslims and non-Muslims accurate information about the faith and tenets of the Shi’ite sect known asthe Twelve Imamers or Ja’faris.
It is essential for the Sunni Muslim to know the fact of the Shi’ite deviation from the straight path of Islam taught by the Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allahu alaihi wa sallim) and his noble Companions (r.a.a.). Al-Khutoot Al-‘Areedah clearly and briefly presents the actual teachings of the Shi’ites in general, and the Twelve Imamers in particular. The reader will derive from the text an unequivocal understanding of the Shi’ite sect and will distance himself from them and their beliefs. He will realize that there can be no reconciliation nor reunification of the Sunnis and the schismatic Shi’ites until and unless the latter renounce their perverse tenets. They must return to the pure unadulterated teachings of Islam held and maintained by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-lama’ah (the Sunnis).
Unfortunately, it is a common view in the West that the Irani Shi’ites and their so-called Islamic” revolution with all its attendant turmoil, injustice and barbarism, are representatives of Islam. It is hoped that the non-Muslim reader of this work will come to perceive the abyss which separates the Shi’ites from the Muslim majority, and that he will no longer condemn all Muslims for the activities of one de- iant sect.
The existence of numerous sects, the majority of which are de- viant, is a predetermined fact referred to in the Glorious Qur’an:
And if your Lord [Allah] had so willed, He could have made mankind a single unified community, but they will not cease to dispute and differ; except those upon whom your Lord has bestowed His mercy. And for this did He create them, and the word of your Lord will be fulfilled: l will fill Hell with jinns and men altogether. (11-118, 119)
Furthermore, Allah’s Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi waSallim) had said: “Verily this nation [of Muslims] will divide into seventy-three sects”, and in another narration: “All of them [these sects] will be in the Fire except one.’ When asked which it was, the Prophet replied: “The one which adheres to my Sunnah (way of life) and the Sunnah of my Companions.’(1)
Thus, it was incumbent upon us to bring to light the stark differences among the sects so that it may be perfectly clear what each sect believes in and adheres to that Allah s proof against His slaves may be established:
But that Allah might accomplish a matter already ordained [in His knowledge]; so that those who were destroyed [by rejecting faith] might be destroyed after a clear sign [had been. given] and those who live [i.e. believers] might live after a clear sign [had been given]. And surely Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower. (8:42)
Shi’ism originated in the first century of Islam as an exaggerated affection for and partisanship of Ahlul-Bait (the family and descendants of the Prophet Muhammad [Sall Allahu alaihi waSallim]). Later on, it developed into a set of misbeliefs and erroneous concepts which ultimately constituted a new religion; a religion other than that which was taught by the Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allahu alaihi waSallim), and by his Companions after him.
The Shi’ites claim to have a Qur’an other than the one which is unanimously recognized by all Muslims throughout the history of Islam. Furthermore, they reject the authentic compilations of the sacred traditions, such as those of the two great imams Al-Bukhari and Muslim. They consider all but a few-of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad to be apostates, while they elevate their Imams to a position comparable o that of the gods of ancient mythology
Unfortunately, some naive or simple-minded Muslims are inclined to believe that the Shi’ites of today have abandoned their de- viant tenets and have reverted to the right path. Grounds for such a belief are yet to be found.
A detailed exposition of the Shi’ite distortions and misconceptions will follow in this treatise, but at this point I will briefly touch on some of the views of the contemporary Shi’ite religious elite; the ayatullahs and mullahs whose commands are obeyed and slavishly adhered to by the ordinary Shi’ite.
In a treatise entitled Tuhfatul-Awaam Maqbool, published recent- ly, there appeared an invocation (2) endorsed by six of the most respected contemporary Shi’ite imams including Khomeini and Shariat-Madari. In that invocation, Abu Bakr and `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, are accused of altering the Qur’an. Those two illustrious caliphs, along with their two daughters, who were the noble and pure wives of the Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi waSallim) were cursed and reviled by the Shi’ites of today.
Khomeini, in his book Al-Hukoomatul-lslamiyyah (the Islamic government), claims that the Twelve Imams are infallible, and he raises them to a level above the heavenly angels and the commissioned prophets of Allah; he stresses: “Certainly, the Imam commands a noble station and lofty position; a creative vicegerency to who’s rule and power submit the very atoms of all creation[!] And an essential tenet of our Shi’ite sect is that the Imams have a position which is reached neither by the angels [in the highest heaven] nor by any commissioned messenger of God (3).” He further stated: “The teachings and directives of the Imams are just like those of the Qur’an, it is compulsory on one to follow them and carry them out.”(4)
In short, Khomeini and his fellow clergymen adhere to all of the perverse tenets of the Shi’ite faith as laid out in detail in Al-Kaafi. Khomeini clearly admits this in his book Al-Huloomatul-islamiah: “Do you think that it is enough for us, with respect to-our religion, to collect its rulings and directives in Al-Kaafi, then put it on a shelf and neglect it?”
Al-Khutoot Al-‘Areedah, provides some details from Al-Kaafi, a foundation stone of the Shi’ite religion, so that the naive good-hearted Muslims may have a second thought before cherishing the idea that the Shi’ites of today are different from those of the past.
Abu Bilal Mustafa Al-Kanadi, Mecca and Vancouver Ramadan-Dhul-Qa’dah 1403 A.H. /1983 C.E.
Bringing Muslims closer to each other in their thoughts, convictions and aims is one of the greatest objectives of Islam, and a most vital means of achieving Muslim unity, power, revival and reconstruction. When the call to such a purpose is free from ulterior motives and is likely to yield more benefit than harm, then it becomes incumbent on all Muslims to respond to it and to co-operate with each other to make it a success.
Discussion of this call had increased in recent years, and had such a pronounced effect that it attracted the attention of Al-Azhar University, one of the greatest religious institutions of those who adhere to the four schools of jurisprudence of Ahlus-Sunnahs (Sunni Muslims). Al- Azhar fully adopted the idea of bringing Muslim groups together and pursued it beyond the limits of its authority which had been established in the time of Salahuddin and maintained up until the present. Al- Azhar overstepped its bounds in its desire to explore and to accommodate various schools of thought, the foremost of which is the school of the Shi’ite Twelve lmamers.(5)
Al-Azhar is, at this point, in the early stages of this mission.(6) Therefore, this topic is timely and worthy of research, study and ex- position by every Muslim who has knowledge of the issue, in all its details and with all its ramifications. Since religious issues tend to be controversial in nature, they should be handled with wisdom, insight and straightforwardness. The researcher must also be enlightened by Allah’s guidance and be impartial in his judgment in order that his research may achieve its claimed objectives and yield satisfactory results, if it be so willed by Allah.
It may be remarked that with any contentious issue involving more than one party, chances for its successful resolution are cor- related-to the responsiveness of the parties involved. With respect to the question of bringing Ahlus-Sunnah and the Shi’ites closer to each other, it has been noticed that a centre was established for this purpose in Egypt, financed by the government of a Shi’ite country. This open-handed Shi’ite government has honored us with its generosity while it deprived itself and the adherents of its own school of thought of its governmental bounty It has also been noticed that it did not build such a lavish establishment for the call to “reconciliation” in Tehran, Qum, Najaf, Jabal `Aamil, or any other centre known for its propagation of the Shi’ite school of thought.’
These Shi’ite propaganda centres published during the past years books that make one’s skin crawl and one’s body tremble from the shock of what is written therein. Reading them utterly destroys any idea we may have entertained of developing mutual understanding and closeness with their Shi’ite authors and the like of them. Among these publications is a book entitled Az-Zahraa, by Shi’ite scholars of Najaf, in which they alleged that Amirul Mu’mineen `Umar ibnu Khattaab, the second caliph, was plagued with a disease curable only by the water of men (i.e., semen)! This filthy slander was noted by the scholar Al-Basheer Al-lbrahimi, the Sheikh of the Algerian `ulamaa, during his first visit to Iraq. A filthy soul which produces such wickedness is in a greater need of the call to understanding and reconciliation than we are.
The fundamental difference between them and us is rooted in their claim that they are more loyal to AhlulBait, and in the fact that they hide from us their malice towards and grudge against the Companions of the Prophet, on whose shoulders Islam was established. Their hatred reached such a point that they can utter the filthy words against `Umar ibnul-Khattaab that were noted above.
Is it not fair to say that they should have restrained their malice and hatred against the first Imams of Islam. and that they should have appreciated the noble stand of ahlus-Sunnah toward ahlulBait, that stand which never fell short in offering due homage and reverence to the family of the Prophet? Or do they consider us to be remiss in not taking the family of the Prophet as gods to be worshipped along with Allah, as they do?
Without a doubt, responsiveness to each other is essential if two parties are to achieve a mutual “coming together”, reconciliation and understanding. This mutual responsiveness can only come about if there are sincere efforts on both sides to achieve it.
As stated above, there is a “reconciliation” centre in Egypt, a Sunni country; there are also propaganda offices which wage hostile campaigns against those who do not favour such centres. One might well question the absence of such centres or their like in any Shi’ite country. One also may question why Al-Azhar University has included instruction in the Shi’ite school of thought, while the Sunni schools of thought are still locked out of the Shi’ite educational institutions. If the call to reconciliation is restricted to one of the concerned parties alone, then the efforts spent on such a call will be futile.
Finally, one may question the value of beginning the process of reconciliation by attending to differences of a minor or secondary nature, while fundamental differences have not yet been addressed.(7)
The jurisprudence of the Sunnis differs from that of the Shi’ites even in the fundamentals upon which the law is based. Yet unless and until the fundamentals are understood and endorsed by both parties, and until there is a favorable response to this from the religious institutions of both sides, it would be useless to waste time dealing with issues of a minor or secondary nature.
In fact, it is not merely in the fundamentals of jurisprudence that there are differences, but also, and more importantly, in the fun- damental articles of faith of each party, even in their deepest roots and origins. 6 THE QUESTION OF TAQIYYAH
One of the main obstacle to their receiving a positive response from us is their tenet of taqiyyah (deception), by the application of which, they reveal to us other than what they have in their hearts. The simple-minded Sunni is deceived by their pretentious display of `the desire to overcome our differences and reach a common under- standing between us and them. In fact, they neither want such a thing nor approve of it. They do not strive for it, but rather leave it to the other party to come the full distance to their position, without exerting an effort to make any move from their side. Even if those Shi’ites who practice taqiyyah were to convince us that they have moved a few steps in our direction, then the multitude of Shi’ites, be they ordinary people or the scholarly elite, would stand apart from those who adopted the ruse of objectivity towards us, and they would not recognize them as their representatives; this because their actual belief does not permit them to reconcile themselves with us.
The Qur’an should be the comprehensive reference for both Sunnis and Shi’ites, and a means of bringing about unity and mutual understanding, but it has been misinterpreted by the Shi’ites and given a meaning other than that which was understood by the noble Com- panions who received it directly from the Prophet, and other than that which was understood by the Imams of Islam who received it from the very generation amongst whom the Qur’an descended by way of Divine Revelation.
One of the most famous and respected Shi’ite scholars, from Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi, wrote in 1292 A.H. the book faslul-Khitaab fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab Rabbil-Arbaab (The Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of Lords). In this book he compiled hundreds of texts written by Shi’ite scholars in different eras alleging that the Qur’an has been tampered with, that there have been both additions to it and omissions from it.
At-Tabarsi’s book was printed in Iran, in 1298 A.H., and its appearance attracted much attention, frustrating the intention of cer- tain Shi’ites that their doubts about the authenticity of the Qur’an should be restricted to the elite of religious scholars and personalities. They preferred that these allegations not be brought together in a single volume, and widely disseminated, as it could be used as a proof against them by their opponents. When the scholars made public their criticism, At-Tabarsi responded with another book entitled Raddu ba’dush-Shubahaati `an Faslil-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaabi Rabbil-Arbaab (Refutation of Some Specious Arguments Regarding the Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of the Lords). He wrote this defense of his original book two years before his death. In order to show their appreciation of his contribution to the at- tempt to prove that the Qur’an had been altered, the Shi’ites buried him in one of their most prominent religious shrines, at Najaf.
Among the proofs offered by At-Tabarsi in his attempt to show that the Qur’an had been altered, was a quotation from what the Shi’ites consider to be a missing part of the Qur’an, called by them Suratul-Wilaayah (see below). It mentions the granting of wilaayah (sovereignty) to `Ali(8) as follows: “O believers, believe in the Prophet and the wali, the two whom We sent to guide you to the straight path…”[suratul-Wilayyah]
Photocopy of the so-called Suratul-wilaaya h which the Shi’ites accuse the Sunni Muslims of deleting it along with other suras from the original text of the Holy Qur’an. It reads:
O’ you who believe, believe in the prophet and the wali, the two whom we sent to guide you to the straight path. A prophet and wali who are of each other. and celebrate the praise of your Lord, and Ali is among the witnesses.
[fatwa against companions]
Photocopy of the original fatwa (religious verdict) encouraging the Shi’ite masses to curse the two Caliphs Abu Bakr and `Umar. signed by six of the con- temporary Shi’ite scholars and clergy among them Khomeini and Shariat Madari The trustworthy scholar Muhammad `Ali Sa’oodi, chief consultant to the Egyptian Ministry of Justice, and one of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh’s special students, managed to examine an Iranian manuscript copy of the Qur’an owned by the orientalist Brown. He was able to make a photocopy of Surat-ul-Wilaayah with its Persian translation. Its existence was affirmed by At-Tabarsi in his book faslul-Khitaab, and by Muhsin Faani Al-ashmeeri in his book Dabisan Madhaahib. This book, written in Persian, was printed several times in Iran. The chapter (Surat)-ul-Wilaayah) which is falsely attributed to Allah’s revelation, was also quoted by the famous orientalist Noeldeke in his book History of the Copies of the Qur’an(9). It also appeared in the Asian-French Newspaper in 1842 C.E.
At-Tabarsi also quoted a tradition from Al-Kaafi, which is to the Shi’ites what Sahih-ul-Bukhari is to the Sunni Muslims. It reads:
A number of our associates narrated by way of Sahl bin Ziyaad through Muhammad bin Sulaiman that some of his friends reported Abul-Hasan Ath-Thaani `Ali bin Mioosa Ar-Rida as saying `May I be your ransom! We hear verses of the Qur’an different from those we have with us and we are not capable of reading them according to your reading which has reached us. Do we commit a sin thereby He replied, “No, read the Qur’an as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you.
Without a doubt, this conversation is fabricated by the Shi’ites and is falsely attributed to the Imam `Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida; however, the statement is taken by the Shi’ites as a legal ruling in this matter. Its implication is that while one of them commits no sin by reciting the Qur’an the way Muslims have learned according to `Uthman’s unanimously accepted text, the privileged class of Shi’ite clergy and scholars will teach each other a version other than the accepted one, a version which they claim came to their Imams from AhlulBait.
It was the urge to strike a comparison between the Shi’ite “Qur’an” (which they secretly confide to one another, while hiding it from the general public as an act of taqiyyah”) and the known and officially accepted `Uthmani Edition of the Qur’an, which motivated At-Tabarsi to write his book faslul-Khitaab.
Although the Shi’ites pretended to disown At-Tabarsi’s book, as an act of taqiyyah, the glar- ing fact that it-includes hundreds of quotations from the recognized works of their scholars clearly confirms their adherence to the tenet of alteration of the Qur’an. Of course, they do not want a clamor to be raised over this perverse article of faith of theirs
The intended result of their claim is to leave us with the impres- sion that there are two Qur’ans: one, the `Uthmani version accepted by the Sunni Muslims; the other, the allegedly hidden version of the Shi’ites, part of which is Surat-ul-Wilaayah. They are well aware that they fabricated the statement they attributed to the Imam `Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida: “… read [the Qur’an] as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you.” The Shi’ites also claim that a verse was deleted from the Qur’an from Surat-ul-lnshiraah. The alleged deletion is “and we made `Ali your son-in-law.” Have they no shame in making such an allegation, when it is a well-known fact that this particular surah was revealed in Mecca at a time when `Ali was not yet the son-in-law of the Prophet, Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him. His only son-in-law a that time was Al-‘Ass Ibnur-Rabee’al-Ummawi. As for the fact that `Ali was a son-in-law of the Prophet, it should be pointed out that Allah also made `Uthman bin `Affaan the son-in-law of the Prophet through his marriage to two of the Prophet’s daughters. Upon the death of the second of `Uthman’s wives (the second of the two daughters), the Prophet said to him, “If we had a third one, we would have given her to you in marriage.”
Another of the Shi’ite scholars, Abu Mansoor Ahmad bin `Ali At- Tabarsi, in his book Al-lhtijaaj `ala Ahlil-Lajaaj (Argumentation with the Contentious Folk) claimed that `Ali said to one of the zanaadiqah,(10)whose name At-Tabarsi neglected to mention, “As for your belligerent disagreement with me(11), it shows your feigned ignorance of Allah’s statement, `And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry of the women who seem good to you…”‘ At- Tabarsi then went on to say, by way of explanation as to why this verse was quoted by `Ali in his argumentation with his opponents:
Now doing justice to orphans does not resemble the marrying of women, and not all women are
orphans; thus, this verse is an exam- ple of what I have presented earlier in the book Al-Ihtijaaj; regarding the deletion of parts of the Qur’an by the hypocrites’,(12) that deletion being between the statement about justice to orphans, and that which follows it, about the marrying of women. This deletion consists of addresses and stories, and amounts to more than a third of the Qur’an,
The foregoing is an example of the Shi’ite lies which were at- tributed `Ali may Allah be pleased with him). That it is A slanderous fabrication is proven by the fact that `Ali never declared, during the whole period of his caliphate, that a third of the Qur’an was missing from the section mentioned above. He did not command the Muslims to record this “missing” portion, nor to seek guidance from it, nor to apply jurisprudential rulings derived from it.
Upon the publication of the book Faslul-Khitaab over eighty years ago, there was great rejoicing amongst the enemies of Islam, in par- ticular, the missionaries and orientalists. They liked the book so much that they decided to translate it into their own languages. It is no wonder, since it contained hundreds of lies such as those mentioned above, along with slanderous fabrications against Allah and the choicest of His creation, the Holy Prophet of Islam (upon whom be peace), and against the venerable Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all).(13)
There are two clear texts from Al-Kaafi of Al-Kulaini, which elucidate the Shi’ites’ perverse position regarding the Qur’an. The first reads:
I heard Abu Jafar (upon whom be peace) say: “None of the people has claimed that he collected the Quran completely as it was reveal- ed except a liar. No one collected and memorized the Qur’an as it was revealed except `Ali bin Abi Taalib and the Imams after him.(14)
Every Shi’ite is required to believe in this text from Al-Kaafi as an article of their faith. As for us, Ahlus-Sunnah, we say that in fact the Shi’ites have false- ly attributed the above text to Al-Baaqir Abu Ja’far. The proof of our position is that `Ali, during the period of his caliphate in Kufah, never resorted to or applied any version of the Qur’an other than that with which Allah had favored the Caliph `Uthman by the distinction of its collection, publication and popularization and by its legal application in all Islamic lands for all time up to the Day of Judgment. If it were true that `Ali had a different version of the Qur’an he surely would have ap- plied it in making legal rulings, and he would have commanded the Muslims to abide by its injunctions and guidance. Clearly, since he was the supreme ruler, none would have challenged his authority to do this.
Furthermore, if indeed `Ali had a different version of the Qur’an and concealed it from the Muslims, then he would have betrayed Allah, His Messenger and the religion of Islam by so doing. As for Jaabir Al-Ju’fi who claims that he heard that blasphemous conversation from the Imam Abi la’far Muhammad Al-Baaqir, it must be noted that although the Shi’ites consider him a trustworthy narrator of traditions, the fact is that he is well known in the Sunni schools of theology as a liar and forger of traditions. Abu Yahya Al-Hammani reported that he heard the Imam Abu Hanifa saying, “Ataa’ is the best i.e., the most truthful and precise in reporting from amongst those I have come across in the field of transmitting traditions, while Jaabir Al-Ju’fi is the greatest liar I have come across amongst them.”(15)
The second of the two texts from Al-Kaafi mentioned above, is attributed to the son of Ja’far
As-Saadiq. It reads:
It is related that Abu Baser said: “I entered upon Abu `Abdullah [Ja’far As-Sadiq]… [Who] said `Verily we have with us the Qur’an of Fatimah (upon whom be peace).’ I said: `What is the Qur’an of Fatimah?’ He replied: `It contains three times as much as this Qur’an of yours. By Allah, it does not contain one single letter of your Qur’an’ .(16)
These fabricated Shi’ite texts which are falsely attributed to the Imams of Ahlul-Bait are of fairly early date. They were recorded by Muhammed bin Ya’qoob Al-Kulaini Ar-Razi in the book Al-Kaafi over a thousand years ago, and they are from before his time, because they were narrated on the authority of his ancestors, the master engineers of the false foundations of Shi’ism. During the time when Spain was under the reign of Arab Muslims, the Imam Abu Muhammad bin Hazam used to debate with Spain’s priests regarding the texts of their sacred books. He used to bring forth proofs which established their having been tampered with, and altered so much that their authentic origins had been lost. Those priests used to argue with Ibn Hazam that the Shi’ites had asserted that the Qur’an also had been altered. Ibn Hazam refuted their argument by replying that the allegation of the Shi’ites is not a proof against the Qur’an, nor against the Muslims, because Shi’ites are not Muslims.(17) 10 SHI’ITE VIEWS ON THE MUSLIM RULERS
The attention of the governments of all Muslim nations must be drawn to the dangerous and distorted views of the (So-called) Shi’ite Twelve Imams, or Ja’fari sect. It is their view that all governments from the death of the Prophet-until now are illegitimate, except for that of `Ali bin Abi Taalib. It is therefore not permissible for any Shi’ite to be loyal to- those governments or sincere in dealing with them. Indeed, they must engage in flattery and hypocrisy, in accordance with their tenet of taqiyyah. They consider all past, present, and future governments in the Muslim world to be established by forcible seizure, and therefore illegal. According to them, the only legitimate rulers are the Twelve Imams, whether they ruled directly or indirectly, and all other rulers, from the time of Abu Bakr and `Umar until the present time, are con- sidered usurpers, and oppressors of the people. The Shi’ites tenaciously hold this perverse view of the Muslim rulers regardless of the great services they have rendered to the noble cause of Islam, and to humanity in general.
The Shi’ites curse Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them), along with all the rulers of the Islamic Nation, with the exception of `Ali. They fabricated a lie and attributed it to the Imam Abul Hasan `Ali bin Muhammad bin `Ali bin Moosa, claiming that he approved of his followers calling Abu Bakr and `Umar “Al-jibt wat- Taaghoot”.(18) This claim was made in one of their most extensive works on the science of the ascertation of the veracity and competence of the narrators of Prophetic Traditions, Tanqeehul-Maqaal fee Ahwaalir- Rijaal, by a sheikh of the Ja’fari sect Allama Ath-Thani Ayatullah Al- Mamqaani.’(19)
Al-Mamqaani referred to the scholar Ash-Sheikh Muhammad bin Idrees Al-Hilli’s book As-Saraa’ir, in which Al-Hilli cited the work Massaa’ilur-aijaal wa Mukaatabaatihim ila Mowlaana Abil-Hasan `Ali bin Muhammad bin `Ali bin Moosa, the subject of which is questions and letters directed to Abil Hasan `Ali bin Muhammad. Among them is a question from Muhammad bin `Ali, who is quoted as saying:
I wrote to him asking about ar-naasib [one who is hostile to Ahlil-Bait]. I asked him whether I needed proof of his hostility towards Ahlil-Bait other than his recognition of Al-jibt wat-Taaghoot i.e. Abu Bakr and `Umar] as the rightful holders of the office of imam [leader of the Muslim community].
His reply was that anyone whose condition was like that just described, was adequately shown to be a naasib.
Thus, any person would be counted as an enemy of the Prophet’s family merely by his giving precedence of rank to Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq and `Umar Al-Farooq, and by his acknowledging their positions as imams. The expression “Al-Jibt wat-Taaghoot” is used by the Shi’ites in the prayer of imprecation which they call “Du’aa Sanamay Quraish” (imprecation against the two idols of the Quraish). They mean by these expressions, the two caliphs Abu Bakr and `Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This vicious Shi’ite prayer of imprecation is mentioned in their book Miftahul-Jinaan; it reads: “O Allah, bestow Your blessings upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad and upon his family, and curse the two idols of the Quraish, their Al-Jibt wat-Taaghoot, as well as their two daughters…” They are referring to the two Mothers of the Believers, Aa’ishah and Hafsah, the pure and noble wives of the Pro- phet (may Allah be pleased with them).
The hatred the Shi’ites have for the Caliph `Umar reached such a pitch that they gave his murderer Abu Lu’lu’ah Al-Majoosi the title `’Baba Shujaa’ud-Din” (the one who is brave in the cause of religion).
`Ali bin Mathahir, a Shi’ite narrator of traditions, reported that Ahmad bin Ishaq Al-Qummi Al-Ahwas, a sheikh of the Shi’ites, said: “Verily the day ` Umar was murdered- is the greatest day of celebration, the day of pride and honour, the day of the great purification and the day of blessing and consolation.”
In the history of Islam there have been many great personalities, men like the two Caliphs Abu Bakr and `Umar and the great warrior Salahuddin Al-Ayyoobi, who ruled for the sake of Islam, and who
conquered various lands and peoples and brought them into the fold of Islam. Yet these great men, and indeed all of the great rulers of Islam, past and present, are believed by the Shi’ites to be overpowering tyrants and illegal rulers and consequently, are considered to be in habitants of Hell-Fire. Among the Shi’ites’ most important tenets is the belief that when their Twelfth Imam, the awaited Mahdi, rises and comes forth after his long absence of over eleven hundred years, and brings his revolution, then Allah will resurrect for him and for his forefathers, the past and present Muslim rulers, including the two noble Caliphs Abu Bakr and `Umar. Those Muslim rulers will then be tried for having illegally seized the reins of government from the Mahdi and his ancestors, the first eleven Imams of the Shi’ite religion. This, as they believe, is because government is the God-given right of the Shi’ites alone, from the time of the Prophet Muhammad’ death until the Final Hour!
After the trial of those “tyrannous usurpers”, this awaited Mahdi will awaken himself by ordering their execution. Five hundred of them at a time will be killed until their number reaches three thousand. this; being the total of all who ruled during the various eras of the history of Islam!
All of this is supposed to occur just before the final revival of mankind on the Day of Resurrection! It is a prelude, as it were, to that final great gathering and resurrection, the result of which is either Paradise or Hell-Fire; Paradise for Ahlul-Bait and the Shi’ites, and the Fire for everyone who is not a Shi’ite!
The Shi’ites call this resurrection of the Muslim rulers, and the subsequent trial and execution, “Ar-Raj’ah” (the return). This belief is one of the fundamental tenets of their faith, which no common Shi’ite doubts at all. I have met a number of naive and simple-minded people who claim that the Shi’ites have departed from such tenets as these in recent times; however, this is a gross error on their part as is evident from the actual state of affairs. 13 DESIRE FOR REVENGE AND DESTRUCTION
In Al-lrshaad fee Taarikhi Hujajillahi `alal-‘lbaad (Instruction in the History of God’s Proofs Against His Slaves), Abu `Abdullah Muham- mad An-Nu’man, known to the Shi’ites by the title `’Ash-Sheikhul- Mufeed”, quoted several of their “traditions” about “Ar-Raj’ah”: Al Fadl bin Sha’thaan reported that Muhammad bin `Ali Al-Koofi related that Wahab bin Hafs narrated through Abi Baseer that Abu `Abdullah [Ja’far As-Saadiq] said: “The Mahdi will be called upon on the Twenty-third night by the name `The Risen One’ . He will arise, and that rising up will be on the day of `ashooraa.(20)It is as if I am there with him on that tenth day of the month of Muharram. He is standing between the comer of the Ka’bah containing the black stone, and the maqaam [place of prayer] of the Prophet Abraham. The Angle Gabriel is standing to his right calling out, `The pledge of allegiance to the Mahdi] is for the sake d Allah!’ Then the Shi’ites will march towards the Mahdi to give him the pledge, from all corners of the earth. that having been made easy for them to achieve. There has come lo us the report that the Mahdi will ravel from Macca until he arrives al Koota and settles in our [Shi’ite] holy city of Najaf. Then he will dispatch armies from there to the various lands.”
It was also reported, by Al-Hajjaal from Thlaha via Abu Bakr Al- Hadrami that Abu Ja’far [Muhammad Al-Baaqir] said: “It-is as if I am with the Risen One at the city of Najaf, in Al-Koofa
which he had marched to from Mecca, in the company of five thousand angels, with Gabriel on his right side, and Michael on his left, and the believers in front of him, while he dispatches armies to the various countries.”
So too, it is narrated that `Abdul-Kareem Al-Ju’fi reported: “I said to Abu `Abdullah [Ja’far As-Saadiq]: `How long will the Risen One’s reign last?’ ;Seven years,’ he replied. He elaborated: `The days will grow longer, till a year of his reign equals ten of your years. His reign will last for seventy years of your reckoning.’ Upon this, Abu Baseer said to him [i.e., to Ja’far As-Saadiq]: `May I be your ransom! How will Allah make the years longer?’ The reply was: `Allah will command the celestial spheres to decrease in their speed of movement, and the days and years will consequently become longer. When the time of his rising up arrives, rain will fall during the last month of Jumada and for ten days of Rajab, a rain which the world has never seen before. Allah shall cause the flesh of believers and their bodies to come to life in their graves. It is as if I am seeing the resurrected ones coming for- ward, shaking the soil out of their hair.”
`Abdullah bin Al-Mugheera narrated that Abu `Abdullah [Ja’far As- Saadiq] said: “If the awaited Mahdi from the family of Muhammad rises, he will cause to be raised up five hundred members of Quraish, and their necks would be struck by the sword. They would be follow- ed by another set of five hundred, and yet another, until that recurred six times.” “Would they reach that great number?” I asked. [His astonishment upon hearing that great number was due to the fact that the rightly-guided Caliphs, the Umayyad rulers and those of the Ab- basi era, along with all the Muslim rulers up until the time of Ja’far As- Saadiq do not amount to a hundredth of that number.] Ja’far As- Saadiq replied: “Yes; it includes the rulers and their supporters.”
And in another narration: “Verily, our state is the last of the states. There would be no dynasty but that which has had its turn before us, so that there may be none to witness our reign and say: If we were to rule we would follow their path.”
Jaabir Al-Ju’fi reported that Abu `Abdullah [Ja’far As-Saadiq] said: “When the risen Mahdi from the family of Muhammad comes forth he will pitch pavilions to teach therein the Qur’an just as it was revealed.(21)
It will be most difficult then for the one who has memoriz- ed [that which is memorized] today.” [i.e., it would be difficult for the one who memorized the official `Uthmani edition which was extant at the time of Ja’far As-Saadiq, because it would differ from the version which the Mahdi supposedly will bring.] Al-Mufaddal bin `Umar narrated that Abu `Abdullah said: Along ,with the Risen One shall come twenty-seven men from the people of the Prophet Moses, seven from the people of the cave, and Joshua, Solomon Abu Dujaanal Al-Ansaari, Al-Miqdaad and Maalik Al-Ashtar. These will be in the company of the Mahdi as helpers and judges in his service.”
These fabricated “traditions” from the book of “Ash-Sheikhul- Mufeed”, have been quoted meticulously, complete with their con- cocted chains of transmission. They have been falsely attributed to the family of the Prophet, whose greatest misfortune is to have such liars pretending to be their only partisans.
Of course, since the belief in Ar-Raj’ah and the trial of the Muslim rulers is an important part of Shi’ite doctrine, it is commonly mention- ed in the works of Shi’ite scholars and clergy. One example is AI-Masail An-Naasiriya, by As-Sawid Al-Murtadaa, in which is to be found the following: “Verily Abu Bakr and `Umar shall be crucified upon a tree in the time of Al-Mahdi… That tree would be green and tender before the crucifixion and would turn parched after the crucifixion.”
The Shi’ite scholars and clergy throughout the span of Islamic history have taken a disgraceful stand against the two Companions and appointed ministers of Allah’s Prophet, Abu Bakr and `Umar, and against other great Islamic personalities such as the Caliphs, governors, generals, and warriors in the sacred cause of Islam. Now we have heard their propagandist, who was responsible for Darut-Taqreeb (the centre for the promotion of “reconciliation” and a “coming together” of Sunnis and Shi’ites), claiming before those who were unable to critically study these issues themselves, that these beliefs were held in the old days, and that the situation now is different. This claim is plainly false and misleading, because the books which are taught in all of their educational institutions contain all of these tenets and hold them as essential and rudimentary elements of their faith. Furthermore, the books presently being published by the scholars of Iran, Najaf and Mount `Aamil are even more evil than the older Shi’ite publications, and more detrimental to the cause of reconciliation and mutual understanding.
To further clarify this we mention as an example one person amongst them who never ceases announcing day and night that he is a proponent of unity and reconciliation, Muhammad bin Muhammad Mahdi Al-Khaalisi. He is known to have many friends in Egypt and elsewhere who broadcast the same call for taqreeb, and who work for it among the Ahlus-Sunnah. This supposed advocate of “unity and understanding” goes so far as to deny that Abu Bakr and `Umar possessed the grace of Iman (faith). In his book Ihyaa’ush-Sharia fee Madhhabish-Shi’ah (Revival of the Law in the Shi’ite School of Thought), he says:
Even if they [Sunnis] argue that Abu Bakr and `Umar were among the people of Bai’atur- Ridwan(22) with whom Allah was pleased, as shown by the reference made to them in the Qur’an: “Verily Allah was pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you (Muhammad) beneath the tree”,(23) we say that if Allah had said: “Verily Allah was pleased with those who swore allegiance to you beneath the tree”, then the verse would indicate that Allah’s pleasure included everyone who made the pledge of allegiance. Since the verse says: “Verily Allah was pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance.. . “, there is therefore no proof in this verse that Allah is pleased with anyone except those who have acquired pure iman.
Al-Khaalisi is insinuating by this that Abu Bakr and `Umar were of those who had not acquired iman-and were excluded from the pleasure of Allah.(24)
Al-Murtadaa and Al-Khaalisi are modern Shi’ite scholars who boldly claim to belong to the echelon of those who are zealous in struggling for the sake of Islam and Muslims, and who have the keenest interest in upholding the rights of Muslims and maintaining their well- being. Having seen, however, what they have written about Abu Bakr and `Umar, who are among the best of Muslims next to the Prophet, ordinary people like ourselves must wonder what hope there can be of our reaching a common understanding and reconciliation with people such as them.
While on the one hand the Shi’ites shamelessly defame the Com-panions of the Messenger of Allah, and those who followed them in piety, and succeeded them as rulers, on the other hand we find them ascribing to their Imams attributes of such extravagant description, that the Imams themselves would wish to declare their innocence of them.
Al-Kulaini recorded in his book Al-Kaafi attributes and descrip- tions of the Twelve Imams such as would imply their elevation from the human level to that of the gods of the ancient Greek pagans. To quote all such fables from Al-Kaafi and other books would require a large volume. By way of illustration, it will suffice to list some of the chapter headings from Al-Kaafi:
* “The Imams possess all the knowledge granted to angels, prophets and messengers”(25) * “The Imams know when they will die, and they do not die except by their own choice”(26) * “The Imams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in the future, and nothing is concealed from them”(27) * The Imams have knowledge of all the revealed books, regardless of the languages in which they were revealed”(28) * “No one compiled the Qur’an completely except the Imams, and they encompass all of its knowledge’(29) * “Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams”(30) * “When the Imams’ time comes, they will rule in accordance with the ruling of the Prophet David and his dynasty. These Imams will not need to ask for presentation of evidence before passing their judgments”(31) * “There is not a single truth possessed by a people save that which originated with the Imams, and everything which did not proceed from them is false” 35 * “All of the earth belongs to the Imams”(32) 16 THE SHI’ITES PLACE THEIR IMAMS ABOVE THE MESSENGER
While the Shi’ites claim for the Twelve Imams the superhuman power of knowledge that encompasses the realm of the unseen, they deny the Prophet’s knowledge of unseen things granted him by Allah, things such as the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the description of Paradise and Hell-Fire.
This blasphemy was stated in the magazine Risalatul-lslam (The Message of. Islam), published by Darut-Taqreeb. In an article entitled Min Ijtihaadati Shi’a Al-lmamia (Some Independent Shi’ite Opinions), the head of the Shi’ite supreme court in Lebanon quoted the Mujtahid scholar Muhammad Hasan Al-lshtiyani: If the Prophet made a stipulation regarding the divine legal rulings on what invalidates ablution, or the rulings pertaining to menstruation and post-natal bleeding, it is imperative to believe him, and the application of these rulings is binding upon us. But if the Prophet made a statement regarding the unseen, for example on the creation of the heavens and earth, or the virgins of Paradise and its palaces, then it is not incumbent or binding upon one, even when it is known of a surety that the statement has proceeded from the Prophet.
How strange, that they should falsely attribute to their Imams knowledge of the unseen, and that they should adhere to that falsehood although they have not a single proof to establish its verity.
Meanwhile they consider that they are not bound to accept the revela- tions of the unseen mentioned in verses of the Qur’an and authentic traditions, and thereby conclusively proven. Add to all this that everything which has been verified to issue from the Prophet is nothing other than “revelation revealed” to him; and truly the Prophet does not speak from his own desires.
He who makes a comparison between what the Shi’ites ascribe to their Imams and what is authentically attributed to the Prophet regar- ding matters of the unseen comes to the conclusion that what can be verified to issue from the Prophet regarding the unseen, as mentioned in the Qur’an and the authentic, authoritative traditions does not even constitute a fraction of the multitude of fabricated reports of knowledge of the unseen which are attributed to the Twelve Imams; and this in spite of the indisputable fact that divine revelation had totally ceased upon the death of the Prophet.
As for those who attributed this knowledge of the unseen to the Twelve Imams, it suffices to say that they are well known to the Sunni scholars of hadith (prophetic traditions) as liars, and forgers of hadeth literature. The Shi’ite partisans of those narrators are indifferent to this, however, and blindly accept the accounts of the unseen which are im- puted to their Imams. They also gladly accept the claim that acceptance of what had been authentically attributed to the Prophet with regard to the unseen is not binding upon them. In fact, it pleases them to limit the scope of the mission of the Messenger of Allah to matters of a secondary juristical nature, such as those mentioned by Al-lshtiyani (see above).
Since they elevate the status of their Imams, in regard to knowledge of the unseen, above that of the Messenger of Allah (even though it was he who received the revelation; their Imams did not claim it for themselves), we do not know how there could develop, after such blasphemy, any reconciliation between us and them.
The stance of most Shi’ites, scholars and laymen alike, towards the Islamic governments throughout history has been, if the govern- ment was powerful and well-established, to honour its leaders in con- sonance with their tenet of taqiyah, for the purpose of material gain. If, however, the government is weak, or is under attack by enemies, they side with its enemies against it. This is precisely what they did during the last days of the Umayyad dynasty when the Abbasids revolted, under the instigation of the Shi’ites of that era. ln a later time, they took the same criminal stand against the Abbasids who were threatened by the raids of Hulago and his pagan Mongol followers against the Caliphate of Islam and its glorious capital of science and civilization . An example of this is seen in the behavior of the Shi’ite philosopher and scholar An-Naseer At-Toosi. He composed poetry in praise of Al-Musta’sim, the Abbasid Caliph, then in 65 A.H. executed a complete turn about, instigating revolution against his patron, thereby hastening the catastrophe which befell Islam in Baghdad, where he headed the butcher Hulago’s blood-letting procession. In fact he personally supervised the slaughter of Muslims, sparing none, not even women, children, or the aged. This same At-Toosi also approved of wholesale dumping of valuable texts of Islamic literature in the Tigris River; its waters ran black for days from the ink of the innumerable manuscripts. Thus vanished a great treasure of the Islamic heritage consisting of works in history, literature, language and poetry, not to mention those in the Islamic religious sciences, which had been pass- ed down from the pious of the first generation of Muslims, and which could be found in abundance until that time when they were destroyed in a cultural holocaust the like of which had never been seen before.
This sheikh of the Shi’ites, An-Naseer At-Toosi, was assisted in this great treachery by two of his cohorts, Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-‘AI- qami, a Shi’ite minister of state, and `Abdul-Hameed bin Abil-Hadeed, a Mu’tazilite author and extremist Shi’ite.(33) He was Al-‘Alqami’s right- hand man and proved to be a bitter enemy of the Companions of he Messenger of Allah, as is evident from his malicious commentary on the book Nahjul-Balaaha, which he filled with lies in order to distort Islamic history.
Unfortunately, a number of our distinguished figures and authors continue to be deceived by such lies due to their ignorance of the essential facts of Islamic history. Al-‘Alqami responded to Caliph Al-Musta’sim’s kindness and generosity in making him his minister, with deception and treachery. Shi’ites to this day maliciously rejoice at Hulago’s vicious campaign of slaughter and destruction, out of sheer animosity towards Islam. Anyone who wishes can read about the life of An-Naseer At-Toosi in any Shi’ite book of biographies, the latest of which is Rowdaatul- lannaat by Al-Khuwansari. It is full of praise for the treacherous murderers, and reflects the Shi’ites’ malicious rejoicing al that disastrous massacre of Muslim men, women and children. It was a monstrous act which even the worst of enemies and the most hard- hearted beasts would be ashamed to show pleasure in.
The exposition has become somewhat lengthy although great care has been taken to restrict the subject matter wholly to quotations selected from the Shi’ites’ most authentic and dependable publications. We would like to conclude with a quotation pertaining to the subject of at-taqreeb (reconciliation of the followers of the various schools and sects), in order to clarify for every Muslim what the actual possibilities for success are regarding such an endeavor, especially in regard to the Shi’ites who have expressed their own frank acknowledgment of the impossibility of such an attempt at reconciliation.
In his book Rowdaat lannaat, the Shi’ite historian Al- Khuwansari wrote of the “elegant and truthful utterances” of An- Naseer At-Toosi, “this source of truth and verification”, and quoted his statement identifying the one and only sect of the seventy-three Muslim sects(34) that, according to prophecy, would achieve salvation:
I have considered all the sects and scrutinized them closely, only to find that all, save the Imamers, subscribe to the same general condi- tions of iman, while they differ only on some related issues. I discovered that the Imamer sect differs from and is opposed to all the others. If any sect other than the Imamers is considered “saved” then they all must be so considered. This indicates to me that the one sect which is to achieve salvation is none other than the Imamers.
Al-Khuwansari also related that As-Sayyid Ni’matullah Al- Moosawi said:
All of the sects unanimously agree that bearing witness to one’s faith by recitation of the two articles of faith is the only way to salvation, as proved by the statement of Allah’s Messenger: `Whoever bears witness that there is no God but Allah enters Paradise.” But as for the Imamer sect they unanimously agree that salvation is attained only by granting allegiance and entrusting the government to Ahlil-Bait, the last of whom is the Twelve Imam, and by disowning their enemies [ie., Abu Bakr, `Umar and all non-Shi’ites, whether they were rulers or subjects]. Thereby Shi’ites differ entirely from all the other sects with regards to the nature and prerequisites of iman, upon which the issue of salvation devolves.
At-Toosi, Al-Moosa and Al-Khuwansari have both told the truth, and lied. They have told the truth in saying that all the Muslim sects are close to each other in fundamentals while they differ on secondary issues. Thus mutual understanding and a “coming together” are possible among those sects which are fundamentally akin to each other. On the other hand it is impossible to achieve such a mutual understanding with the Shi’ite Imamers because they are in opposition to the fundamentals of all other Muslims. They will never be pleased with the Muslims unless they curse “Al-jibt wat-Taaghoot” (Abu Bakr and `Umar), and those who came after them up until the present time.
Another condition they would impose on Muslims is that they disown all non-Shi’ites, and even those members of the family of the Prophet who were given in marriage to them, such as the two daughters of the Prophet who married the Caliph `Uthman bin `Affaan. They further stipulate that Muslims must also disown the Imam Zaid, son of `Ali Zain-ul `Abideen (the son of Al-Husain, son of `Ali bin Abi Taalib) along with the rest of the family of the Prophet who did not enter the ranks under the banner of the Rafidites(35) , and who did not accept their deviated tenets. Amongst these perverse tenets is their claim that the Qur’an has been tampered with, a doctrine fanatically adhere-l to by all classes of the Shi’ite society throughout the ages, as their own astute scholar At-Tabirsi has so boldly recorded in his book hslul-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab Rabbil-Arbaab.
The Shi’ites would like to force upon us as a precondition to reaching a mutual understanding with them, and to please them, for the purpose of “coming closer” to them, that we curse along with them the Companions of Allah’s Messenger, and that we disown everyone who does not adhere to the doctrines of the Shi’ite faith. They even expect us to disown the daughters of Allah’s Messenger, and his blessed descendants, the foremost of whom is Zaid bin Zain-ul `Abideen, along with anyone who followed in his footsteps in rejecting the abominations of the Rafidites.
The above is the truthful part of what the Shi’ite spokesmen said, and no Shi’ite would deny it, whether he openly practiced taqiyyah, or concealed it.
As for the false part of what they say, it is that non-Shi’ite Muslims agree that upon simple utterance of the two Shahaadas(36)‘ rests the issue of salvation in the Hereafter. If the Shi’ites had the slightest sense or knowledge they would have known that the two Shahaadas are to Sun ni Muslims the mere sign of entry into Islam. If one uttered these two Shahaadas, even if he were in the ranks of the enemy battling against Muslims, his life and wealth would become inviolable. As for salvation in the Hereafter, it is attained only by coupling the utterance of testification with iman, and iman, according to the great and pious caliph `Umar bin Abdul-‘Azeez, consists of obligatory duties, and religious rites, ordinances and practices. He who fulfills these com- pletes the prerequisites of iman, and whosoever does not fulfill them does not complete his iman. As for the Shi’ite belief in the existence of their Twelfth Imam, it is not in any way a prerequisite of iman. In fact, this Twelfth Imam is an imaginary character falsely identified as the son of Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari (who died without offspring). His brother la’far settled and distributed the inheritance left by Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari on the basis that he left no children to inherit.
The truth of the matter is that when the Shi’ites came to know that Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari died leaving no male successor, and saw that this meant the end of the chain of Imamer succession, they realized that their sectarian school would cease to exist with the death of Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari. They would no longer be Imamers because there was no Imam to succeed al-‘Askari to the Imamate.
Upon this, one of them, Muhammad bin Nusair, a protege of the tribe of Numair, invented the idea that Al-Hasan had a son who was hidden in the tunnels of his father’s residence. The impetus for such a fabrication came from his desire, and that of his accomplices, to deceive the Shi’ite public, especially the affluent among them, to collect zakaah(37) from them in the name of an existing Imam. They also wished to continue claiming that they were sincere Imamers. This Muhammad bin Nusair wanted himself to be the “door” to the imaginary tunnel between the invented Imam and his followers, in order to take charge of all zakaah funds. His accomplices disagreed with him in this plot and insisted on appointing as the “door” a grocer whose shop was adjacent to the entrance of Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari’s house. Hasan’s father and family used to purchase from this grocer their household needs.
After this, Muhammad Nusair broke away from his former com- rades and established the Nusairiyyah sect, which takes its name and impetus from him(38). In the meantime, his former accomplices were. devising a stratagem whereby they could bring forth their supposed Imam; they wanted him to marry and have sons who would succeed him to the office of the Imamate. This in turn would ensure that their Imamer sect would live on.
It became evident, however, that his appearance would be denied by the heads of the Alawi clans as well as their followers and their cousins, the Abbasid rulers and royalty. They therefore alleged that the Twelfth.lmam remained in the tunnel; that his minor absence was followed by a major one; and so carried on with such fables as were never heard before, even among the ancient Greeks. They expect all Muslims, whom Allah blessed with the grace of sound reason, to believe in such blatant lies in order that there may be a reconciliation between them and the Shi’ites. This preposterous idea could only be realized if the whole Islamic world were to turn into a Lunatic asylum. Praise be to Allah for the gift of reason, for indeed it is the faculty upon which the responsibility for one’s actions depends. It is the most precious and sublime of graces after that of sound iman .
Muslims entrust the position of leadership and the government to any mu’min (believer) with correct iman.–Thus they would pledge allegiance to all pious members of Ahlil-Bait, without any restriction as to their number or persons. Amongst the foremost of the believers to whom they would entrust the reins of leadership were the ten Compa- nions who were given the glad tidings of their abode in Paradise. If there were no other factor by reason of which the Shi’ites acquired the designation of kaafirs (disbelievers), then their contradiction and denial of the Prophet’s designation of those ten Companions as inhabitants of Paradise would have sufficed.(39)
The Muslims also would entrust the rest of the Companions with leadership, and would grant them full support and allegiance, for it was these noble personages upon whose shoulders was erected Islam and the Islamic world, and truth and goodness sprang forth from the soil of the Islamic nation which had been nourished by their precious blood. These are the Companions whom the Shi’ites claimed were enemies of `Ali and his sons, while actually they lived with `Ali as loving, cooperative brothers and died as such. What could be greater proof of this than the description Allah gives of them in Suratul Fath, from His book which falsehood cannot approach from before or behind He, the Almighty, said regarding the Companions, that they are “severe with the disbelievers, merciful amongst themselves.” Allah also says about them, in Suratul Hadeed, “Unto Allah belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth. Those of your companions] who spent [For the sake of Allah] and fought [in His cause] before the Victory are not on the same level [as the rest of you. Such are greater in rank than those who spent and fought afterwards. Unto each Allah has promised good.”
And does Allah ever break His promise? In Suratu Aali-lmraan Allah the Exalted referred to the Companions as `the best of peoples raised up for mankind”, i.e., as an example to be followed.
Due to the love and respect which the commander of the Faithful Ali bin Abi Taalib held for his three brethren caliphs, he named three of his sons after them. He also gave his eldest daughter Umm Kulthoom in marriage to `Umar IbnulKhattaab. In addition, we se that `Abdullah bin la’hr bin Abi Taalib ,’ Ali’s nephew) named one of his sons Abu Bakr, and the other one Mu’aawiyah. Mu’aawiyah bin `Abdullah named his son after Yazeed bin Mu’aawiyah bin Abu Sufyaan, who was considered to be of good repute, according to the testimony of Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah bin `Ali bin Abu Taalib.
If the repudiation and denunciation which Shi’ites are now asking of us, as the price for reconciliation between us and them, includes those whom they have demanded it include (Abu Bakr, `Umar, etc.) then he whom they consider to be their first Imam, `Ali bin Abi Taalib, should be considered blameworthy by them, by virtue of his naming his sons after Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman, and by his giving his daughters in marriage to `Umar and `Uthman. Furthermore, they must consider Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah a liar when he testified to the good character of Yazeed, if they accept the claim of `Abdullah bin Mutee, a supporter of Ibnuz-Zubair, that Yazeed drank liquor and neglected prayer, and exceeded the bounds established by Allah’s Book. Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah defended Yazeed, saying have not witnessed what you mention. I visited him and stayed with him. He was regular in observing prayers and in performing good deeds, seeking religious knowledge and adhering to the sunnah.” Ibn Mutee and those accompanying him replied that Yazeed’s behavior was out of pretense in his presence. Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah re- joined: “What was it that he feared or hoped from me that he should appear before me in such a state of piety and humility?” He continued, “Did he confide in you that which you mention regarding his drinking of wine If he did so then you are his accomplices. And if he did not, then it is unlawful for you to bear witness to that of which you have no knowledge.” They replied that although they did not see him drinking, yet “we believe that to be the truth.” Muhammad’s reply to them was that Allah rejects this kind of testimony from Muslims, for He says in His Book: “… except those who bear witness to the truth and with full knowledge.”(40) Muhammad concluded, “Therefore, I have nothing to do with this affair…”(41)
Since the foregoing is what the son of `Ali bin Abi Taalib has testified to in favor of Yazeed bin Mu’aawiyah, then where does his fit in relation to the position the Shi’ites want us to adopt with them against Yazeed’s father, Mu’aawiyah, and against those who are better than him and better than the whole creation(42), that is, Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, Talha, Az-Zubair, Amr ubn ul-‘Aws, along with the rest of the great Companions who memorized and preserved for us Allah’s Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and who were the architects of the Islamic world.
The price demanded of us by the Shi’ites for a reconciliation with them is exorbitant. We lose everything by agreeing to it, while we gain nothing in return. It is only a fool who would deal with someone whom he knows would expect him to accept a losing bargain! The two concepts of walaayah (granting of allegiance) and baraa (repudiation and denunciation) upon which the Shi’ite religion is based, according to what has been affirmed by An-Naseer At-Toosi and confirmed by Ni’matullah Al-Moosawi and Al-Khuwansari, mean nothing except a complete alteration of the religion of Islam. This complete change would require of us enmity towards those upon whose shoulders was erected the very structure of Islam.
The Shi’ites have lied when they said that their sect is the only one to be granted salvation, the one whose condition and state differs from all of the rest, by virtue of which they alone would be saved.
The fact is that the impossibility of reconciliation between the Sunni sects on one side and Shi’ites on the other is due to the latter’s disagreement with and contradiction of the rest of the Muslims in the very fundamentals of faith, as we have seen from the declarations of the Shi’ite scholars, and as can be seen from the beliefs and practices of every Shi’ite. This was the state of affairs in the past, and it is the state of affairs at the present time.
Without any doubt the Shi’ite Imamers themselves do not want taqreeb, which is why they have made many sacrifices and suffered great pains in propagating the call for reconciliation and elimination of differences in our Sunni countries, while forbidding that such a call be raised, or allowed to proceed at all, in the Shi’ite countries. Nor do we see a hint of the influence of such a call on their educational institutions. In other words, the call to reconciliation has been restricted to one side, and as a result, every effort towards this cause will be futile, and a mere frivolous mockery, unless and until the Shi’ites categorically refrain from cursing and abusing Abu Bakr and `Umar; unless they cease repudiation and denunciation of anyone who was not, or is no presently, a Shi’ite partisan; and unless they rid themselves totally of their perverse concept of raising the pious Imams of the Prophet’s family from the level of human beings to that of the gods of the pagan Greeks.
All of this is no less than an outrageous injustice against Islam and a diversion of it from the path and the goal to which it was directed by the Prophet to whom was entrusted the Islamic shari’ah (divinely revealed law), and by his noble Companions amongst whom were `Ali bin Abi Taalib and his offspring. If the Shi’ites do not totally abandon such an outrage against Islam and its articles of faith, and its history, then they are doomed to remain isolated from and rejected by all of the Muslims(43)
The upheaval of Baabism and its offshoot, Bahaism, struck Iran over a hundred years ago.Muhammad `Ali Ash-Shiraazi had begun by claiming that he was the Baab (precursor) to the awaited Mahdi. He later claimed that he himself was the Mahdi, and in time he gained a sizable group of followers. The Iranian government chose to exile him to Azerbaijan, the home of Sunnis of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Being strict Sunnis, they were considered immune to the influence of such fabulous nonsense. It was, however, only logical to fear that Shi’ites would respond to Ash-Shiraazi’s call, since his invention was derived from Shi’ism. For that reason, he was not exiled to a Shi’ite area, whose inhabitants would be only too willing to accept such fables. In spite of such precautions, a large number of shi’ites became Ash-Shiraazi’s followers, and thus there developed and ever-widening circle of commotion and disorder.
Just as the Shi’ite fables and myths were a factor in the appearance and spread of Babism andBahaism in the past century. So now they can be seen to be a cause of the rejection of Shi’ism by some of the educated Shi’ite youth, in favour of communism. They have awakened to the realization that many Shi’ite beliefs are too ridiculous to he credible, and as a result they have utterly rejected them. Many were drawn to various communist organizations, with their energetic propagandists, books in various languages, and efficiently run centres. These young people were an easy prey, and fell readily into the trap. Had they known the religion of Islam in its original pure state, and acquired a proper knowledge of it, they would have been protected from such a fate. Instead, we find that communism has thrived, especially in lran and in the Shi’ite areas of Iraq. More communists are to be found in those communities than can be found in any other Muslim community.
This concludes what circumstances have allowed me to present by way of fulfilling the covenant which Allah has taken from the Muslims, by which we pledge to give good counsel and a word of caution to all Muslims, solely for the sake of Allah.
Allah protects and preserves His religion, His nation of believers, and our great Islamic identity and existence.
4. What Khomeini means here, is that he not only affirms and believes all that is in the Shi’ite book Al-Kaafi, but he also sees it as obligatory to adhere to it and put its rulings and directives into effect in the Shi’ite state.
5. The two terms `’Ahlus-Sunnah (Sunnis) and `’Shi’ah” (Shi’ites) need to be defined at this point. Ahlus-Sunnah means literally “people of the established way or path”. It refers to the majority of Muslims, who follow the sunnah (way) of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, the Almighty. The term Shi’ah is from the phrase shi’atul `Ali (adherents to or company of `Ali), by which this sect is known for reason of its attachment to the idea of the pre-eminence of `Ali ibni Abi Taalib and his descendants.
6. The author’s reference to Azhar University’s being in the beginning stage of its “mission” requires some comment, as this treatise was written over thirty years ago. Since that time, Al-Azhar has incorporated the study of the Shi’ite “Twelve Imamers” school as a required pan of its curriculum in Islamic Studies. This, along with its call for reconciliation of the various sects and schools of thought, might create the impression of acceptance of the misguided sects such as the Shi’ite Twelve Imamers and the Ismailis. In fact, the only legitimate reason for studying such sects and movements is the hope that such a study will bring to light their real natures, and that consequently, their false doc- trines and perverse ideology may be refuted by reference to the authentic sources of Islam, the Holy Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah, and the example of the Companions of the Prophet (Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him).
7. This kind of “favoritism” has been repeated throughout different eras. It was due to the sending of propagandists claiming such lofty goals of reconciliation that Iraq was converted from a Sunni country containing a Shi’ite minority to a state which is predominantly Shi’ite.
8. “Wali” has several meanings, the relevant ones in this context being “the closest friend and associate” and “the one upon whom has been conferred legal authority to rule; vicegerent”. The person intended by this term in the quoted passage is ob- viously `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet’s cousin and the fourth caliph. By forging such a verse the Shi’ite are attempting to give credence to their perverse view that the only legal caliph was `Ali and that the right to the caliphate belongs to Ahlil-Bait (the members of the Prophet’s family) alone. This they tried to do by claiming divine revelation as a source of this belief of theirs, so it was expedient to forge a Qur’anic verse, in order to support their false position.
10. Zanaadiq is the plural of zindeeq. a Persian word meaning one who speaks heresy, or who has deviated from the truth. It is also applied to disbelievers or atheists or free-thinkers. (cf., Lisanul-Arab Vol. 10. p. 147).
11. The meaning of this statement, allegedly made by ‘Ali in the course of an argument with an unnamed zindeeq. is obscure, to say the least. We may surmise from the context that a discussion or dispute had been taking place between them, ‘Ali having been attacked in repudiation of his supposed insistence that he possessed that missing one third of the Qur’an, which according to Shi’ite belief was deleted by the Companions of the Prophet. This is a concoction of the Shi’ites, falsely attributed to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), in order to bolster their attempt to prove the alteration of the Qur’an. As for the verse cited as proof of deletion from the Qur’an, there is unanimous agreement among the Sunni commentators on the Qur’an that, after a careful analysis of the structure of the verse and its context, it may be paraphrased as follows: “If any of you has an orphan girl under his guardianship and he fears that he may not do her justice by granting her an appropriate dowry if he were to marry her, then let him marry other women of his choice.” For further details see Ibn Katheer Tafseerul Qur’an al-‘Adheem. Vol. 1, p. 449.
12. By the ‘hypocrites”, Abu Mansoor At-Tabarsi means the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him), for it was they who collected the Qur’an, the ‘Uthmani version which was adhered to and applied by ‘Ali during the period of his caliphate. If the statement attributed to ‘Ali in At-Tabarsi’s Al-lhtijaaj had really come from him, it would have been treachery against Islam on his part, to possess and conceal some missing portion of the Qur’an and not make it public, nor apply its principles, nor, circulate it amongst his subjects during the period of his caliphate. Clearly At-Tabarsi has insulted and defamed ‘Ali, since what he has written actually implies treachery and deception on ‘Ali’s part.
20. The day of ‘Ashooraa is the tenth day of Muharram of the Muslim lunar calendar. and it has Great significance for the Shi’ites. It is the culmination of long days of bitter grieving and vicious self-inflicted pain which they observe annually in commemoration of he death of Hadhrat Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet Sall Allahu alaihi wasallim. who was martyred at Karbala in Iraq.
21. One naturally questions here why his grandfather Hadhrat ‘Ali bin Abi Taalib did not do just that during the period of his rule. Is his twelfth generation descendant more sincere than Hadhrat ‘Ali in his service of the Qur’an and Islam?
22. Bai’at ur-Ridwaan is the pledge of allegiance and support by the Companions to the Prophet, with which Allah was well pleased, as is clearly indicated by the verse revealed regarding it. The pledge was given to the Prophet by a group of approximately fourteen hundred Companions (amongst them Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) who had headed out with him towards the Holy City of Mecca, unarmed and intending to perform the rites of the minor pilgrimage to Allah’s sacred house, the Ka’bah, in the sixth year of the Hijrah (emigration of the Prophet and his Companions from Mecca to Medina). When they arrived at Hudaibia, a small village near Mecca, the tribe of Quraish forbade them entrance to the city and news spread that they had slain the emissary the Holy Prophet had sent to them. Upon this the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) took the pledge of allegiance to his cause and for the defense of Islam against the disbelievers in case war should have to be resorted to. See t-Tabari’s Tareekhur-Rasul wal-Mulook, Vol.
24. Al-Khaalisi has somehow reasoned that by using the word “believers” in this verse, Allah is implying that some of those who swore allegiance were not believers. Al- Khaalisi concludes from this that the Sunnis are mistaken in using this verse to prove that all those who gave the pledge were believers, and that Allah was pleased with them. In fact, the only way Al-Khaalisi’s interpretation would be credible is if the text read: “… Allah was pleased with the believers among them, when they swore allegiance to you…”
34. The concept of the Muslim nation separating into seventy-three sects, is taken from authentic traditions such as the following related by Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him): “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The Jews separated into seventy-one sects, and the Christians into seventy-two, and my nation will divide into seventy-three sects.” This was recorded in the compilations of Abi-Dawood, Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and others, with an authentic chain of transmitters. There is also narrated, in the compilations of Abi Dawood, Ad-Darimi, Ahmad and others the statement: “Seventy-two [of the seventy-three sects of the Muslim nation] will be in the fire, and one only will be in Paradise; it is the Jama’ah [i.e. Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama’ah].” In yet another narration the, final statement is: “All of these [sects] will be in the fire except one; it is the Jama’ah.” Finally, there is another narration which states: “The Companions asked: ‘Which sect will triumph [i.e., achieve salvation]?’ The Prophet replied: ‘The sect which adheres to that [set of beliefs and practices] which I and my Companions adhere to.”‘ It should be clear from these traditions that the one sect, out of the seventy-three, which is to gain salvation, is the Ahlus-Sunnah, the only segment of the Muslim community which strictly adheres to that which the Holy Prophet and his noble Companions adhered to.
35. The name “Rawaafid” (Rafidites) is applied generally, to all the various sects of the Shi’ites, the first of which appeared during ‘Ali’s time. Among them are the A-Saba’eeah who told ‘Ali that he was God, as a result of which he ordered them to be burned to death. Others followed, amongst them the Zaidiah, the Imamiah, and the Keesaaniah. They differ from each other greatly and often we find one denying the iman of the other. The term rawaafid means literally rejectors, and was first used when the followers of Zaid son of ‘Ali Zain-ul-‘Abideen, the son of Al-Husain son of ‘Ali bin Abi Taalib, demanded that he disown the two caliphs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Upon hearing their demand Zaid said: “They were both ministers of my grandfather of the ProphetMuhammad], therefore I will not disown them.” Hearing this, the followers of Zaid rejected him and parted from him, hence the name Rawaafid (rejectors). It later came todenote all the Shi’ah, who claimed to be partisans of the family of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him).
38. The Nusairis (also known as ‘Alawis) are a Shi’ite sect that has a particularly fanatic devotion to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). They hold that Allah appears in the form of certain persons on the earth, and since there were no persons after the Prophet of Allah better than ‘Ali and his sons, Allah manifested Himself in them and spoke with their tongues.
39. Abdul Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi states the Sunni position in Al-Farqu bainal-Firaq: “They unanimously agreed that the ruling of disbelief must be made regarding a person who has called a kaafir any of the ten Companions whom the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him) testified would be among the inhabitants of Paradise.” He also said that it is waajib (compulsory) to give a verdict of kufr (heretical disbelief) in the case of anyone who considers any of the Companions to be disbelievers.
43. It is a Shi’ite tradition that Taqiyyah is my faith and the faith of my forefathers. They also say that whosoever does not practice taqiyyah. he has no faith. ‘ Further. it is mentioned in Al-lslamu Sabeelus-sa’aadah was-salaam that “If a person expected harm to befall him or his wealth in the general public order. it is incumbent upon him to abandon the order of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. This ruling is one of the peculiarities specific to the Shi’ites, and is called at-taqiyyah.” Clearly. if this were to be followed to the letter, even jihad (holy war for the sake of Allah) could be abandoned. and this would be definitely in contradiction to the command of Allah the Exalted.